Comments on: The Fighter as a Striker http://dungeonsmaster.com/2009/05/the-fighter-as-a-striker/ A Dungeons & Dragons Resource Blog For Dungeon Masters & Players Wed, 23 May 2012 15:03:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: The Essentials On D&D Essentials — Dungeon's Master http://dungeonsmaster.com/2009/05/the-fighter-as-a-striker/comment-page-1/#comment-25697 The Essentials On D&D Essentials — Dungeon's Master Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:33:05 +0000 http://dungeonsmaster.com/?p=1357#comment-25697 [...] on this was finally, as it’s something we wrote on well over a year ago in our article the Fighter as a Striker. It is also interesting to note that the two fighter builds receive different armour proficiencies. [...] [...] on this was finally, as it’s something we wrote on well over a year ago in our article the Fighter as a Striker. It is also interesting to note that the two fighter builds receive different armour proficiencies. [...]

]]> By: You’re a Striker, He’s a Defender… Big Deal: Looking at Roles — Dungeon's Master http://dungeonsmaster.com/2009/05/the-fighter-as-a-striker/comment-page-1/#comment-1035 You’re a Striker, He’s a Defender… Big Deal: Looking at Roles — Dungeon's Master Fri, 15 May 2009 11:02:46 +0000 http://dungeonsmaster.com/?p=1357#comment-1035 [...] at roles in 4e and their defining characteristics. We’ve already explored the idea of how to make the Fighter a striker and we pondered whether the roles could be redefined. But this is just the tip of the iceberg when [...] [...] at roles in 4e and their defining characteristics. We’ve already explored the idea of how to make the Fighter a striker and we pondered whether the roles could be redefined. But this is just the tip of the iceberg when [...]

]]> By: Ameron http://dungeonsmaster.com/2009/05/the-fighter-as-a-striker/comment-page-1/#comment-990 Ameron Mon, 11 May 2009 16:51:23 +0000 http://dungeonsmaster.com/?p=1357#comment-990 @Anarkeith You make a very good point about putting heavily armored characters where they'll do the most good: on the front lines. However, in campaigns that revolve around a small number of heroes, those armed with ranged weapons (or ranged spells for that matter) are just as likely to be subjected to monster attacks as the heavily armored defender. It's just the nature of the game mechanics. @kaeosdad I see a Fighter/Ranger hybrid kicking ass too, which is what inspired me to write this post in the first place. And I agree that the suggestions presented above seem to resolve my "problems." Thanks to everyone who's offered their 2 cents worth. I greatly appreciate it. @Anarkeith
You make a very good point about putting heavily armored characters where they’ll do the most good: on the front lines. However, in campaigns that revolve around a small number of heroes, those armed with ranged weapons (or ranged spells for that matter) are just as likely to be subjected to monster attacks as the heavily armored defender. It’s just the nature of the game mechanics.

@kaeosdad
I see a Fighter/Ranger hybrid kicking ass too, which is what inspired me to write this post in the first place. And I agree that the suggestions presented above seem to resolve my “problems.”

Thanks to everyone who’s offered their 2 cents worth. I greatly appreciate it.

]]> By: kaeosdad http://dungeonsmaster.com/2009/05/the-fighter-as-a-striker/comment-page-1/#comment-980 kaeosdad Fri, 08 May 2009 23:20:45 +0000 http://dungeonsmaster.com/?p=1357#comment-980 I like the new hybrid rules that Nick mentioned above. I think it completely solves this problem. Just make a hybrid fighter/ranger and fluff towards your concept and boom ranged fighter! A player in my group made a hybrid swordmage/wizard that rocked. He used his sword to cast fireballs and when the enemies closed in he switched to melee force damage attacks. I can totally see a fighter/ranger hybrid kicking ass from both close up and far away. Depending on feat/power selection you could focus more on one or another but at least this way you have the options! <abbr><em>kaeosdad’s last blog post..<a href="http://symptomsofmadness.blogspot.com/2009/05/let-me-tell-you-about-my-character.html" rel="nofollow">Let me tell you about my character...</a></abbr></em> I like the new hybrid rules that Nick mentioned above. I think it completely solves this problem. Just make a hybrid fighter/ranger and fluff towards your concept and boom ranged fighter! A player in my group made a hybrid swordmage/wizard that rocked. He used his sword to cast fireballs and when the enemies closed in he switched to melee force damage attacks.

I can totally see a fighter/ranger hybrid kicking ass from both close up and far away. Depending on feat/power selection you could focus more on one or another but at least this way you have the options!

kaeosdad’s last blog post..Let me tell you about my character…

]]> By: Anarkeith http://dungeonsmaster.com/2009/05/the-fighter-as-a-striker/comment-page-1/#comment-979 Anarkeith Fri, 08 May 2009 20:50:59 +0000 http://dungeonsmaster.com/?p=1357#comment-979 I suspect WoTC looked at how people built characters in 3e when they decided that roles would be the true divider in 4e. That said, your typical historical bowman wasn't heavily armored. Armor is expensive, and you have to put it where it does the most good: the front lines, defender territory. The build suggestions others have made above will mostly accomplish your stated goals, but it seems like you will have to change your philosophy a bit. Think of your character as a striker, rather than a ranger? I suspect WoTC looked at how people built characters in 3e when they decided that roles would be the true divider in 4e. That said, your typical historical bowman wasn’t heavily armored. Armor is expensive, and you have to put it where it does the most good: the front lines, defender territory.

The build suggestions others have made above will mostly accomplish your stated goals, but it seems like you will have to change your philosophy a bit. Think of your character as a striker, rather than a ranger?

]]> By: Ameron http://dungeonsmaster.com/2009/05/the-fighter-as-a-striker/comment-page-1/#comment-978 Ameron Fri, 08 May 2009 17:10:13 +0000 http://dungeonsmaster.com/?p=1357#comment-978 Time for me to weigh in on this discussion. @Mad Brew We're going to take a crack at presenting our own Role Templates in the coming weeks. We'll see how the gaming community feels about them and go from there. @Nick Thanks for the suggestions Nick. I think multi-classing is the way most people wil go when faced with this kind of dilemma. I'm looking forward to seeing the new rules in PHB3 next year. @Dungeon It seems that borrowing from the Ranger class is really the only way to get cool bow powers short of just making them up myself. Any power we make ourselves will just end up being clones of the Ranger powers anyway. @Rising Phoenix In the short-term I think you're absolutely right. The best and easiest way for me to play the archer as I've described him is to just make a Ranger, but role-play him as a Fighter (much as I suggested in the conclusion of my article). I don't think you sound like a jerk at all. I think you make a good argument. And my post was written partly to see how other gamers felt about roles in 4e. I do like the ranger class, I've played quite a few in my day, but I'm bothered by the lack of ranged powers offered martial characters. Would it kill Wizards of the Coats to throw a couple of Ranged attack options that do 3[W] damage in the mix for Fighters or Warlords? That's all I'm really looking for, some way to make a real difference with a ranged attack if I'm playing a Fighter or other defender. @Wimwick Thanks for jumping in. @Rising Phoenix Watch for our new Role Templates coming soon. I think this will (somewhat) address the problems we've been talking about. Especially with the Fighter. @Donny_the_DM Ranger with 1/2 a cup of Fighter. That's an excellent description of what I'm looking for. Great suggestion, thanks. Time for me to weigh in on this discussion.

@Mad Brew
We’re going to take a crack at presenting our own Role Templates in the coming weeks. We’ll see how the gaming community feels about them and go from there.

@Nick
Thanks for the suggestions Nick. I think multi-classing is the way most people wil go when faced with this kind of dilemma. I’m looking forward to seeing the new rules in PHB3 next year.

@Dungeon
It seems that borrowing from the Ranger class is really the only way to get cool bow powers short of just making them up myself. Any power we make ourselves will just end up being clones of the Ranger powers anyway.

@Rising Phoenix
In the short-term I think you’re absolutely right. The best and easiest way for me to play the archer as I’ve described him is to just make a Ranger, but role-play him as a Fighter (much as I suggested in the conclusion of my article).

I don’t think you sound like a jerk at all. I think you make a good argument. And my post was written partly to see how other gamers felt about roles in 4e. I do like the ranger class, I’ve played quite a few in my day, but I’m bothered by the lack of ranged powers offered martial characters. Would it kill Wizards of the Coats to throw a couple of Ranged attack options that do 3[W] damage in the mix for Fighters or Warlords? That’s all I’m really looking for, some way to make a real difference with a ranged attack if I’m playing a Fighter or other defender.

@Wimwick
Thanks for jumping in.

@Rising Phoenix
Watch for our new Role Templates coming soon. I think this will (somewhat) address the problems we’ve been talking about. Especially with the Fighter.

@Donny_the_DM
Ranger with 1/2 a cup of Fighter. That’s an excellent description of what I’m looking for. Great suggestion, thanks.

]]> By: Donny_the_DM http://dungeonsmaster.com/2009/05/the-fighter-as-a-striker/comment-page-1/#comment-977 Donny_the_DM Fri, 08 May 2009 16:31:55 +0000 http://dungeonsmaster.com/?p=1357#comment-977 The key is to remember that the classes are meaninless, it's the power sources and roles that are important now. Would you consider a demon worshipping cleric / warlock to be a striker? No? Laser beams and eldritch blasts coming from the defender? How about A wizard / sorceror a chaotic mind constantly battling bloodline power vs. educated implimentation? Is this character now a controller or striker? How about the other way around? I like the idea of stripping the classes completely from the system. A fighter is what I want it to be. Conan could be mighty sneaky when he needed to be, and most barbarians don't recieve a thorough education from exotic weapon masters. Just what class IS he? Who cares :) I just want to play that character! The key is to remember that the classes are meaninless, it’s the power sources and roles that are important now.

Would you consider a demon worshipping cleric / warlock to be a striker? No? Laser beams and eldritch blasts coming from the defender?

How about A wizard / sorceror a chaotic mind constantly battling bloodline power vs. educated implimentation? Is this character now a controller or striker? How about the other way around?

I like the idea of stripping the classes completely from the system. A fighter is what I want it to be. Conan could be mighty sneaky when he needed to be, and most barbarians don’t recieve a thorough education from exotic weapon masters. Just what class IS he? Who cares :) I just want to play that character!

]]> By: Donny_the_DM http://dungeonsmaster.com/2009/05/the-fighter-as-a-striker/comment-page-1/#comment-976 Donny_the_DM Fri, 08 May 2009 16:26:00 +0000 http://dungeonsmaster.com/?p=1357#comment-976 Fighter, multiclassed ranger as a first level feat. Now that you can mark AND have a quarry, Ask your DM to make the slight change to the wording of your powers allowing you to use "weapon - ranged" instead of "Weapon - melee". BAM! You have a bow fighter. Thing is, with most of your primary powers being defender powers, the bow is an odd and rather ugly fit. Personally, I would do the exact opposite of what I listed above. Go ranger and multiclass fighter. After all, you want everything the ranger has, except the flavor right? A 1/2 a cup of fighter could give you a dozen reasons why you aren't a granola-eating hippy ranger :) Make yourself a half-elf and snag another nice attack power to round things out. You can build ANYTHING with the right class/race/multiclass combination :) Paladin/rogue blackguard build is my current favorite. Fighter, multiclassed ranger as a first level feat. Now that you can mark AND have a quarry, Ask your DM to make the slight change to the wording of your powers allowing you to use “weapon – ranged” instead of “Weapon – melee”. BAM! You have a bow fighter.

Thing is, with most of your primary powers being defender powers, the bow is an odd and rather ugly fit. Personally, I would do the exact opposite of what I listed above. Go ranger and multiclass fighter. After all, you want everything the ranger has, except the flavor right? A 1/2 a cup of fighter could give you a dozen reasons why you aren’t a granola-eating hippy ranger :)

Make yourself a half-elf and snag another nice attack power to round things out. You can build ANYTHING with the right class/race/multiclass combination :) Paladin/rogue blackguard build is my current favorite.

]]> By: Rising Phoenix http://dungeonsmaster.com/2009/05/the-fighter-as-a-striker/comment-page-1/#comment-975 Rising Phoenix Fri, 08 May 2009 16:07:47 +0000 http://dungeonsmaster.com/?p=1357#comment-975 Ok, now I can see the limitation a little more distinctly. I definitely can see the issue where a fighter is such a broad term, but really it encompasses anyone who can fight whether it is ranged or melee. Perhaps they should have called the class, soldier or something else. A fighter should be able to have more versatility than any of the other martial classes. I agree with you. The fighter, traditionally, was a weapons master. He always had the ability to pick up any weapon and be extremely deadly with it (ranged or melee). I suppose in the new edition, in their attempt to streamline everything, it kind of eliminated that as a possibility for them. That is a shame. In the end though I just see it as this: If you want a more versatile (meaning melee or ranged) character, you have to go with Ranger (for now), or perhaps something from the multiclassing system. Just a thought: If all classes are mathematically balanced.... and therefor their powers must be balanced to some degree... why can't we play a sort of a class-less system where you just pick and choose your ability based on your power source? In other words... take ranger powers for a fighter. Is it optimized? hell no... but could it work mathmatically and be balanced? thoughts? Ok, now I can see the limitation a little more distinctly. I definitely can see the issue where a fighter is such a broad term, but really it encompasses anyone who can fight whether it is ranged or melee. Perhaps they should have called the class, soldier or something else. A fighter should be able to have more versatility than any of the other martial classes. I agree with you. The fighter, traditionally, was a weapons master. He always had the ability to pick up any weapon and be extremely deadly with it (ranged or melee). I suppose in the new edition, in their attempt to streamline everything, it kind of eliminated that as a possibility for them. That is a shame.

In the end though I just see it as this: If you want a more versatile (meaning melee or ranged) character, you have to go with Ranger (for now), or perhaps something from the multiclassing system.

Just a thought: If all classes are mathematically balanced…. and therefor their powers must be balanced to some degree… why can’t we play a sort of a class-less system where you just pick and choose your ability based on your power source? In other words… take ranger powers for a fighter. Is it optimized? hell no… but could it work mathmatically and be balanced?

thoughts?

]]> By: Wimwick http://dungeonsmaster.com/2009/05/the-fighter-as-a-striker/comment-page-1/#comment-974 Wimwick Fri, 08 May 2009 15:57:48 +0000 http://dungeonsmaster.com/?p=1357#comment-974 One of the fundamental short comings of fighters as they stand right now is that they have limited abilities to attack at range. If the party is fighting a dragon that is keeping its distance the fighter and all of his defender abilities become useless for the encounter. I feel this is a severe shortcoming of the role system, it doesn't allow any flexibility on how your character can attack, with the exception of the ranger who can select powers that have melee or ranged as the keywords. The arguement that Ameron has made is why can't the fighter do this in 4e? Can a fighter be a striker? Or reword his question, Fighter As Ranged Defender. Why not, why does a defenders abilities need to be dependant on melee? Is there room to expand the class? Is there room to redefine roles and how they work? I think the answer to both those questions is yes. One of the fundamental short comings of fighters as they stand right now is that they have limited abilities to attack at range. If the party is fighting a dragon that is keeping its distance the fighter and all of his defender abilities become useless for the encounter. I feel this is a severe shortcoming of the role system, it doesn’t allow any flexibility on how your character can attack, with the exception of the ranger who can select powers that have melee or ranged as the keywords.

The arguement that Ameron has made is why can’t the fighter do this in 4e? Can a fighter be a striker? Or reword his question, Fighter As Ranged Defender. Why not, why does a defenders abilities need to be dependant on melee? Is there room to expand the class? Is there room to redefine roles and how they work? I think the answer to both those questions is yes.

]]>