Sunday, July 17, 2011

The Fighter

Another class: the fighter.

The hope is that you can start to see how they'd multiclass together or how they could develop tactics to work as a team. Since it isn't anywhere else, the Glass Jaw condition makes a target act as Bloodied with regards to damage threshold (i.e. reduces damage threshold while the condition applies). The fighter applying Glass Jaw and the rogue following up with a sneak attack is a nifty combo.


  1. Some typo/questions/comments for you.

    Saw that coming- interesting that this has an AP cost. So basically to replicate a 3.5 style opportunity attack you have to be a fighter, spend the resource of the provoke (I assume you do not get the second edge using it in this power) and an AP? I guess it could be worth it with the powers later on but it seems kind of steep.

    Stalwart 2- so at this point I get two hp everytime my fighter mod increases? I think that is the intent just want to check.

    Cleave after the comma replace melee basic attack with basic melee strike.

    Distracting strike- capitalize Saw That Coming (?)

    Battle Standard- so this is a group edge that costs nothing for the party to add. I thought that was bard only/this would have a different cost?

    Footwork- neat power I like the idea of this for the system- gives the fighter something potentially damaging against people who focus on stances. From this I assume monsters will also make use of stances frequently?

    Grit- I think the last sentence should be "You are immune to future conditions (but not future ongoing damage)." But I am not sure.

    So from a build standpoint I see three sort of paths. There is the attack path, the provoke path, and the durability path. Obviously going to have some elements of all of them but those seem the major routes. I am curious why no mark or anything like a mark? I was expecting to see fighter have a power something like- a stance that causes enemies in their zone to provoke if they made an attack that did not include the fighter, but this seems to be back towards the fighter that you attack because he deals a lot of damage not because he makes you. Is that a correct read of this class?

  2. Blogger ate my comment. I'll paraphrase.

    On typos. This stuff is appreciated. I try to edit but eventually eyes glaze over.

    On capitalization. There is growing academic literature that says we over capitalize. This diminishes the value of capitalization in general and makes things harder to read. Hence, I only capitalize words that benefit from it (at this point abilities and conditions). These are words that would otherwise fade into the sentence because they seem like words more than terms (i.e. strength).

    On saw that coming. Attacks are worth much more in this game. If you look at cleave of second strike, it is hard to get attacks without a reduction in the overall modifier. Moreover, attacks deal more damage because level bonus is added into attributes. So an extra attack in a round is really valuable and well worth the AP.

    On stalwart. Yeap, they stack.

    On battle standard. Certain classes break the molds in things it is appropriate for them to break it in. Fighter giving damage is one such thing. Also, edges to damage are worth less than edges to attack (bard song). See my post on 'relationships in the math' to see why.

    On footwork. Monsters use stances and that is one way they distinguish from each other. Also, it is easier to use NPCs in this system and they use stances quite a bit.

    On builds. I think your read is correct. I shied away from the mark because it was a mechanism that a lot of people found very cumbersome in 4e and I felt this was a simple way to present an effective fighter. I also think the knight will fill some of the role you are hinting towards. Of course, because it is very easy to expand classes under this system, new paths could be added that present a formal mark mechanism.