Pudding On The Ritz

…yes, you are right to groan

So, in the D&D 4th Edition game, I’ll be playing a Human Fighter. Why? Well, for one thing, I enjoy playing fighters (and thieves). For another, since I do not own, or am ever likely to own, any D&D 4E material, I have no fucking idea what a Dragonborn or an Eladrin or any of those other things are. Human Fighter…that I know. Nice and simple. See enemy…hit with weapon…check to see if it lives…if living, hit again…if dead, take all of it’s stuff. Repeat as necessary.

Now, this does not mean I don’t want to roleplay…quite the opposite…but I have never been into the aspects of combat that 4E seems to offer. I prefer combats to go as quickly as possible so I can get on to the more fun stuff.

Fortunately, our GM, Pat, is very good at presenting lots of non-combat situations and has already given is background info that looks very meaty for roleplaying.


5 comments on “Pudding On The Ritz

  1. codrus says:

    You may find that the fighter isn’t the best starting character in 4e, compared to say 1e (or even 3e). Mostly, that’s because the fighter’s role changed in 4e. As a defender, his job is really to interpose himself so that the monsters are hitting him and not the wizard. While he definitely is a “hit things with the sword” character, he really needs to be pinning down monsters when he can.
    Mechanically, what this means is that you want to do a pretty deep read of the target marking rule in the fighter chapter. In play, you need to remember to say “and I mark the target” after every attack you make. When the GM takes his turn, you need to pay attention to what he does, since you can often get free attacks on marked targets.
    I would argue that the easiest character to play from the Player’s Handbook is probably a melee ranger. Move to target, quarry the target, attack the target with twin strike. Lather, rinse, repeat. The rogue is similar but you need to maneuver a bit more to get a flank with another PC. The barbarian from PHB2 is probably the easiest overall, since they just baked all his damage right into his powers. :)

    • Doc Cross says:

      Sweet fucking Jesus on a cracker! Maybe I ought to just play WOW and be done with it. I sure hope actual play is more fun than the clusterfuck they’ve turned D&D into.
      What the fuck kind of committee decided that a fighter can’t just fight? Oh, wait, it was the “we need D&D to be more of a minis wargame…or better yet, a tabletop MMO” corporate suits.

      • flwyd says:

        It does provide a good answer to the “Why don’t the bad guys just ignore the fighter and go attack the wizard?” question. And the fighter isn’t doing his job if he isn’t hitting people. It’s just a more tactical “Get in that guy’s face and hit him so he has to get through me before he can mess with my pals” hitting than the “Run to the nearest bad guy and do crazy amounts of damage.” The fighter can still do plenty of damage, but the truly insane damage is reserved for the barbarian and rogue.
        From a roleplaying perspective, it works well too. The soldier who joined the army to defend his country. The guy who works out and masters swordfighting so he can protect his friends and family.

      • codrus says:

        My take would be that they didn’t want to put in a class that was just a ‘teaching class’. Which is to say, a class you’d use to teach someone, but once they learned the game they’d avoid it because the class wasn’t interesting/powerful. The fighter was that way in 1e; they were simple, but also just didn’t scale, either in power or ‘coolness’. They just sat around while the wizard dished out fireballs. 4e definitely scales up the fighter and scales down the wizard.
        In general, I don’t mind the roles; even if they are very MMO-like, in play I’ve generally found it helpful. Really, the advantage to the roles is that the abilities you get from the role are really in addition to your fighting ability. Which is to say, even the cleric gets to attack things now, he’s not spending every round just healing people.
        As far as my opinion of 4e, I still think it is an improvement over 3e. You spend a hell of a lot less time buffing and recalculating stat blocks, and that is only a good thing. :) I’m definitely enjoying running and playing the game, but like 3e, there’s a lot of tactical minutiae in maneuvering around the battlefield.
        One thing I’ve talked about for a learning game is to run a 0-level game. Basically, start the players with one at-will power each plus their class skills, then gradually introduce the other powers. I’d only do that with a group of novice gamers though. But even when starting out, I’ve found that at first level, learning how to make your at-will powers work is very helpful.

    • casidhe36 says:

      I agree with this, I’m playing a twin blade ranger, cos I looked at the fighter and got scared off by the tactics. The ranger is exactly what I’d wanted, hitting things quite hard without having to think about things too much.

Comments are closed.