|
1 year ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 7:18PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Nov 24, 2010
|
I got to swing a big axe, I hurt stuff even when I missed, and I managed to stay almost entirely alive the whole time I played. My DM has always rewarded creativity and I was able to push some barrels and a table in front of a door to keep some goblins trapped with what turned out to be a very angry ogre (Str v Str contest was kind of intense). It was... dare I say it... fun.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 7:21PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2006
|
No, but really, aside from like to hit things, the Fighter itself didn't bring much to the table, which people have been complaining about for, like, two decades.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 7:46PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
I know some who would like a super simple fighter like this, but I have not play tested with any of them yet. A couple just like playing simple swing every round melee warriors. Others are more situational, in the Friday night game I run, a lot of the players are coming straight from work and the last thing they want to deal with is a character who needs it's own tactical guide book. Several of them have intentionally picked straightforward characters to play when they would go for something more complex most of the time.
Still, they are the minority. Few really like characters this super simple in the long run, and it is particularly bad here because of the comparison to the other characters. It was tolerable back in the old days because the other characters didn't have many options either. The arcane casters often did nothing between spell casting rounds, and the clerics where mostly about healing and being second line warriors.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 7:56PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2006
|
I was a big fan of the Martial Essential's classes, truth be told. While I think they needed a little pick extra to really drive the awesome home, there is a certain elegence to making the most of not many options. Your play quickens, your turns focus, and you can generally spend less time making a decision.
Of course, you DID get to make decisions.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 8:20PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2009
|
The problem with the Next fighter in the playtest is that it's the only fighter build we've seen so far. I like this build and honestly, if it were an orc/half-orc, it would be exactly the sort of character I'm trying to make for a game my friend's been saying he's going to run for several months. But a lot of people want to see the flexibility that the fighter class is capable of, especially if they're worried about the fighter class in general being "boring" again. "I roll to hit. I got a 14. I did 6 damage. Your turn."
Honestly, I think WotC could kill a lot of the complaints about the fighter class if they released another pregen build that offers more combat options. A fighter with the defender theme or especially a ranged fighter or duelist-style build would go a long way to easing the concerns of a lot of people that the Next fighters are going to be just as boring as their 1st/2nd Ed counterparts. One of the players in my Pathfinder game (who DMs two other weekly games) has already given up on Next because he sees the slayer build of the fighter as proof that Next is going to have boring fighters that are quickly outclassed by the caster classes like wizard or cleric. I've tried explaining to him that this build is meant to be damn near a barbarian, but he's already made up his mind and the best I was able to do was convince him to keep up with the playtest and keep an open mind.
So yes, you're not the only one who liked the very basic build. And I'd bet that a lot of the people who are complaining about the fighter would hate it less if they also had an example of a fighter that wasn't build specifically to be a damage dealer.
This of course doesn't apply to those who think the Reaper and Cleave abilities are overpowered or who think that the AC is too low or the damage output is too high or any of the other various mechanical problems some people see in the class. That's a different beast altogether.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 9:15PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Mar 25, 2005
|
Yes you are the only one who liked this fighter. I really hope WOTC has more than this to show up. If not i'm very worried about the fate of my favorite game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 10:14PM
#7
|
|
|
Yes you are the only one who liked this fighter. I really hope WOTC has more than this to show up. If not i'm very worried about the fate of my favorite game.
Disagree!
The Fighter is awesome and I would consider it to be the strongest character in the playtest (literally, yes, but in addition to having the best attack bonus and damage by a large margin, the Fighter also has some of the most useful skills yet revealed).
The player in my group that grabbed the fighter loved it, as well, and the spellcasters were jealous (the Rogue was also widely envied).
The silly notion that "all he does is attack" just doesn't match my experience. All he can do is anything the player thinks of and describes. Not having rules for something doesn't mean its off limits, it means that there's no set, specific way to handle it. My group's fighter did plenty of stuff other than just hit--he threw a barrel of ale at a group of goblins (the rogue, of course, added the torch), he pinned orcs behind a door, he wrestled a Medusa, shoved the Ogre down some stairs, herded some kobolds into their own traps, intimidated plenty of goblins to the point that they were throwing coins from around corners, begging the PCs to leave.
I do fear for the future when the full spell list is revealed and spellcasters gain progressively more powerful spells despite the fact that a design goal for the game is the removal of the progression treadmill--I hate quadratic wizards--but at the moment, it seems perfectly fine and we were very happy with the material presented.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 11:35PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2007
|
Yes you are the only one who liked this fighter. I really hope WOTC has more than this to show up. If not i'm very worried about the fate of my favorite game.
Disagree!
The Fighter is awesome and I would consider it to be the strongest character in the playtest (literally, yes, but in addition to having the best attack bonus and damage by a large margin, the Fighter also has some of the most useful skills yet revealed).
The player in my group that grabbed the fighter loved it, as well, and the spellcasters were jealous (the Rogue was also widely envied).
The silly notion that "all he does is attack" just doesn't match my experience. All he can do is anything the player thinks of and describes. Not having rules for something doesn't mean its off limits, it means that there's no set, specific way to handle it. My group's fighter did plenty of stuff other than just hit--he threw a barrel of ale at a group of goblins (the rogue, of course, added the torch), he pinned orcs behind a door, he wrestled a Medusa, shoved the Ogre down some stairs, herded some kobolds into their own traps, intimidated plenty of goblins to the point that they were throwing coins from around corners, begging the PCs to leave.
I do fear for the future when the full spell list is revealed and spellcasters gain progressively more powerful spells despite the fact that a design goal for the game is the removal of the progression treadmill--I hate quadratic wizards--but at the moment, it seems perfectly fine and we were very happy with the material presented.
Sounds like he had fun.
In spite of his simplicity. And I'm glad he didn't fall back on that auto damage.
This is the kind of DnD I like to play.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 3:15AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Nov 24, 2010
|
i'm trying to keep in mind that this fighter is 1st level. i was creative with my actions and was able to make the best of the dwarf fighter. i think that if all a player did was walk up and hit something, it would definitely get old fast. since i did more with my turn, i had fun. maybe that is the solution. the players needs to play the fighter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 5:25AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
If you Improv. well, then the Fighter is pretty good. If your looking for codified rules, then....not so much. But this has the potential to vary from DM to DM. Some might now allow an Improvisation to Bull Rush or Trip or Intimidate into submission. Others might be perfectly fine with these and have a great sub-system to allow it. Basically your imagination fuels the mechanics you want to try. But this is something that I'm not very good at and don't really see myself investing in. Were I to play the Fighter in another group with another DM, I would probably grab as many 4E powers I could and then attempt to use them ad-hoc. For example, "I want to draw their fire, make them focus on me. How do I do that?" and then hope for a Move-equivalent Charisma [Intimidate] vs. Wisdom check. They fail, they attack me. I fail, they laugh and ignore me. Same goes for attacking a foe and then grabbing him by the throat and tossing him into my allies. I hope for an attack and supplanting my Move action for a Str. vs. Str Contest to grap and pull the guy. If I want to push a guy 5 feet and occupy his square, I move 5-ft into his square and then make a Str vs. Str or Dex Contest. If I win, I can still attack. If I lose, I use my attack. I lose by 10 or more, and I fall prone or gain Disadvantage or something "Hazardous". And that's the way I'd hope it's run. Yet not necessarily what the DM might say, how he might handle it, or even if he'd allow it at all. Which is why I don't think it's unfair to call this a "DM, May I?" edition.
|
|
|
