Community

One big, major bone I will have to pick with Next if it doesn't get fixed: Fighters need more. They feel boring right now, they're almost perfect but they need something to make them stand out when placed next to wizards who can hurl bolts of flame, clerics with healy undead butt-kicking powers, and the skill virtuoso that is the Rogue. I'm assuming after level 3 they get bigger and better stuff, but as it stands the Fighter class has shown me very little to be excited about. The 4E Slayer was more interesting than this, and thats saying something because a class doesn't get any more basic than that one. 

So far I like what i'm seeing, but as it is everything I liked in the playtest, 4E does better. Keep going WotC. 

May 24, 2012 -- 7:55PM, dmgorgon wrote:

May 24, 2012 -- 7:44PM, SavevsDeath wrote:

One big, major bone I will have to pick with Next if it doesn't get fixed: Fighters need more. They feel boring right now, they're almost perfect but they need something to make them stand out when placed next to wizards who can hurl bolts of flame, clerics with healy undead butt-kicking powers, and the skill virtuoso that is the Rogue. I'm assuming after level 3 they get bigger and better stuff, but as it stands the Fighter class has shown me very little to be excited about. The 4E Slayer was more interesting than this, and thats saying something because a class doesn't get any more basic than that one. 

So far I like what i'm seeing, but as it is everything I liked in the playtest, 4E does better. Keep going WotC. 

I think the fighter is the basic and simple class that new players will feel comfortable with.   Old editions worked that way too.     I'm sure you'll be able to create more complex fighter types when the PHB is released. 

With that said, I like to play a simple fighter with multi-attacks per round.   Usually, I just make improvised actions every round.  The fun and excitement in this case comes during play and when you're not following a bunch of cookie cutter like powers.

Powers are only as cookie-cutter as you make them, much like basic attacks. The difference is basic attacks limit how I can describe them after a point - I hit for 2d6+3 damage can't suddenly become "I sweep my blade at his legs with a slow, easily anticipated attack and then when he goes to block with his axe I lash out with my shield and slam him back several paces."

That was a description I used for the 4E at-will Tide of Iron frequently. It was like my fighters signature move. I can't do that with a basic attack, because a basic attack doesn't move them anywhere or do anything but damage. Get what i'm saying? 

May 24, 2012 -- 8:20PM, dmgorgon wrote:

May 24, 2012 -- 8:13PM, SavevsDeath wrote:

May 24, 2012 -- 7:55PM, dmgorgon wrote:

May 24, 2012 -- 7:44PM, SavevsDeath wrote:

One big, major bone I will have to pick with Next if it doesn't get fixed: Fighters need more. They feel boring right now, they're almost perfect but they need something to make them stand out when placed next to wizards who can hurl bolts of flame, clerics with healy undead butt-kicking powers, and the skill virtuoso that is the Rogue. I'm assuming after level 3 they get bigger and better stuff, but as it stands the Fighter class has shown me very little to be excited about. The 4E Slayer was more interesting than this, and thats saying something because a class doesn't get any more basic than that one. 

So far I like what i'm seeing, but as it is everything I liked in the playtest, 4E does better. Keep going WotC. 

I think the fighter is the basic and simple class that new players will feel comfortable with.   Old editions worked that way too.     I'm sure you'll be able to create more complex fighter types when the PHB is released. 

With that said, I like to play a simple fighter with multi-attacks per round.   Usually, I just make improvised actions every round.  The fun and excitement in this case comes during play and when you're not following a bunch of cookie cutter like powers.

Powers are only as cookie-cutter as you make them, much like basic attacks. The difference is basic attacks limit how I can describe them after a point - I hit for 2d6+3 damage can't suddenly become "I sweep my blade at his legs with a slow, easily anticipated attack and then when he goes to block with his axe I lash out with my shield and slam him back several paces."

That was a description I used for the 4E at-will Tide of Iron frequently. It was like my fighters signature move. I can't do that with a basic attack, because a basic attack doesn't move them anywhere or do anything but damage. Get what i'm saying? 

Improvised actions were the key here.    We used them all the time.   in fact if you played a hit and miss game with basic attacks you were playing the game incorrectly.        With 2e my fighter could perform a disarm, trip, charge, or just about any other improvised action (like a push or a pull) at will.  I didn't need a power either.   On top of that I got several attacks per round.     I could effectively perform the tide of iron power every round if I wanted to.    And if I had 3 attacks per round i could do even more. 

The problem is that improvised actions come down to DM fiat every single time. How long before a DM decides that my fighters signature move is becoming too effective, and he starts finding ways to make them less so? I have played with DM's that did that kind of crap. DM's that HATE to see fighters do anything cool, and who lack the basic understanding that when you do something so much it becomes muscle memory, a maneuver that you can execute perfectly nearly every time, you generally don't fail without some very major factors working against you. 4E powers gave me that feel; my fighter had practiced his low sword high shield maneuver so many times that he did it right every single time (unless the attack missed). 

In other words, I don't trust every DM not to be a douchebag. Put it in the rules, so I don't have to improvise every single cool thing, just the cool things that my fighter isn't an expert at.

May 24, 2012 -- 1:47PM, MarielElessedil wrote:

May 24, 2012 -- 1:28PM, VacantPsalm wrote:

I have never played any version before 3.5, still very new to the table top RPG world. So this simplistic tone/feel is quite new to me, and I'm enjoying it. It's less like reading pseudocode for a video game and more like rules for human eyes. It's rather pleasing to read. :3

I think you would have liked the "old days" of D&D when rules have supported players. I totally agree - with 4th edition D&D seemed to become an MMORPG.
But with the playtest packet a new hope has returned to the lands of pen&paper adventurers...

I've actually gotten that impression several times here in the D&DN forums. Quite often I'll think a rule is awesome and someone will say, "that's just like in D&D [old]." Best example being how ability scores rule actions instead of a big ol' lists of skills.


As for 4e, I understand that "video game" feel. I think it's because a lot of it reads like pure math. But that's because the rules do everything they can to get out of the way. Once you understand just how far you can go with reflufing, it is actually a very powerful system for roleplaying. I look at the rules for wizard and see a knife thrower who NEVER misses ANYTHING she tosses. The problems is when the rules do come into play, they come down hard. Character creation, AoE rules, and familiars are what get me.

3.5 rules try to reach everything, the rules don't hit you nearly as hard because they're designed to always be there. But that pro is also it's con. If you can and are willing to work the rules, than you're doing good. If you want the rules out of your way, to do something outside of their reach, (like a knife thrower who always hits) than you're out of luck.

Personally, backing my character up with mechanics feels more rewarding to me than refluffing, I'm a simulationist like that. These D&DN rules feel super light to the point they almost leave. Can't say if they step back as much as they did in 4e until I see some character creation though. "DM can rule you don't have to roll," is not quite "4e gone" rules wise. Seeing the possibility for knife throwers in the wizard class with no work is "4e gone."