D&D 4E Find the Anime/Video games in 4e

[HeavenShallBurn]

I think you still misunderstand roles.

You obviously haven't read much up on this and have only taken from hearsay. I suggest buying the r&c preview if you want to get up to speed quick without digging through posts, blogs, and articles, though that way is free if you prefer that.

I just love the internet no one can possibly understand and disagree with you.

I've been watching the forums here on 4e since the beginning. I may have come to different conclusion than you but not for lack of information nor competence. Which is understandable as none of us have seen enough to the game to say what it will really be like. There is a difference, beyond that it's a matter of opinion.

 

[Rechan]

Everything you've said is pretty wrong except for the necromancy and enchantment nerfing.

You obviously haven't read much up on this and have only taken from hearsay.

I suggest buying the r&c preview if you want to get up to speed quick without digging through posts, blogs, and articles, though that way is free if you prefer that.

Not to be rude, but I would prefer it if we avoid "You don't know what you're talking about".

If you believe that he is not as familiar with 4e previews as he should be to make those statements, then explain how he is wrong. Point out what is false in his statements.

It's much more effective to say "This is how you are wrong" then "You're wrong, go do your homework." Also doesn't get the mods involved.

 

[bonethug0108]

I just love the internet no one can possibly understand and disagree with you.

I've been watching the forums here on 4e since the beginning. I may have come to different conclusion than you but not for lack of information nor competence. Which is understandable as none of us have seen enough to the game to say what it will really be like. There is a difference, beyond that it's a matter of opinion.

Not really. From what the designers said, you are way off in your "opinion". Wrong facts don't make opinions. There is no different conclusion to come to unless you haven't read all of what I have. So I guess with missing information, your "opinion" may differ.

 

[bonethug0108]

Clarified

Not to be rude, but I would prefer it if we avoid "You don't know what you're talking about".

If you believe that he is not as familiar with 4e previews as he should be to make those statements, then explain how he is wrong. Point out what is false in his statements.

It's much more effective to say "This is how you are wrong" then "You're wrong, go do your homework." Also doesn't get the mods involved.

I've pointed out the wrong parts. He just chooses to ignore them.

Here's one I didn't mention, though. Where did you see that fighters can't use bows well? Just because fighters will be better at fighting in melee doesn't mean they can't be good at using bows.

That is the thing I'm talking about. Adding in info that isn't there at the same time missing the info that is.

 

[Rechan]

Yes but the classes have never been directly built on the roles. They've been built around broader cultural archetypes.

Before, the system depended on those classes because the game expects you to have Wizard/Fighter/Rogue/Cleric. So of course they were broader - because you had to take them.

Another thing you're overlooking is that the roles are combat only. A Rogue's role of "Killing things quickly" has nothing to do with what he's doing outside of combat. He could be a thief. He could be a charismatic guy. Or he could be an acrobat. And if he's an acrobat and has no skills slotted to traps, then he's not going to be doing any trap finding.

The wizard's versatility has been narrowed down in combat. He can still teleport. He can still go invisible. It's been narrowed what he can do in combat, but out of combat will be handled by Rituals. As for "Boom", it looks like Wand will have buffing/protection spells, and the Orb will have Wall, the various Cloud spells, etc.

The problem with the 3e wizard is that he could do everything just as good as the other classes (Except, unamusingly, Necromancy). I do not believe that the Wizard's Archetype should be "I can do anything you can do, anything You can do I can do better." Generalist implies that one can do anything, but they are weaker at it than the specialist, and the 3e specialists are a joke (one more of my school's spells and +2 to spellcraft? Wohoo). Instead, the Generalist wizard will likely be able to cast invisible, but the Illusionist will be able to do Greater Invisibliity; the Wizard will be able to Charm, the Psion will be able to Dominate and Modify Memory.

MMO classes only do one thing, while 4e classes went from doing 8 things to 5. Yes, it is A Narrowing, but not to the limited degree that is an MMO.

Some of the classes do what they always have but others have been narrowed significantly in scope. My personal disagreement is with how they're changing the Wizard but you can not deny that they've changed the available ability sets of several classes, limiting what were broader archetypes. For example the shtick of the fighter was that he was the best at fighting, now if you want an archer you need to go Ranger.

And you cannot deny that an Archetype cannot be accomplished by using another class. What does it matter if you have to use a ranger class to facilitate "Fighter who uses a bow"? What is the problem? You just write "Ranger" beside and can still call yourself an archer in the army. Is the issue because the Ranger isn't called "fighter"?

Might I point out the lack of Necromancy?

Might I point out that in 3e, Clerics make better Necromancers than Necromancers? Each class is being made so that no one steps on their toes and does their thing better.

Or the nerfing of enchantment to make a place for Psionics?

R&C says that the significant enchantments were taken out for other classes, not just Psionics. In fact, it says that Bards use both Enchantments and illusions for the most part.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

MMO classes only do one thing, while 4e classes went from doing 8 things to 5. Yes, it is A Narrowing, but not to the limited degree that is an MMO.

I never said it was to the same extent as an MMO but like them it is still a limitation and I'd prefer not to start putting limitations back in after 3e did such a good job of being versatile.

And you cannot deny that an Archetype cannot be accomplished by using another class. What does it matter if you have to use a ranger class to facilitate "Fighter who uses a bow"? What is the problem? You just write "Ranger" beside and can still call yourself an archer in the army. Is the issue because the Ranger isn't called "fighter"?

No it's because Ranger carries other flavor with it beyond the bow. It has the nature-boy stuff, differing armor proficiencies, (don't know about HP in the new edition). And they've specifically pointed out that "if you're playing an archer you're playing a ranger" the archery/ranged weapon powers are part of the Ranger power selection.

R&C says that the significant enchantments were taken out for other classes, not just Psionics. In fact, it says that Bards use both Enchantments and illusions for the most part.

The way I read it arcane magic would have it's Bard, but the best uses were all reserved for Psionics.

 

[TheArcane]

I'd say that mechanics for quests are very much influenced by videogames. Sure, videogames took the idea of having quests from D&D in the first place, however, the treatment of quests as independent, quantized missions with well defined rewards, terms and phases is strictly a videogame feature. Videogames have to do this strict format because they cannot improvise, and even the best, most non-linear RPGs still have this structure, although with varying degrees of options and player freedom of choise.
Has any edition treated quests like that in the past? I only started with 3E and it certainly didn't. It may be a useful tool for new DM's, it may be entirely my decision to use it or not, but it's definitely a videogame influence.

 

[Zweischneid]

This is false.

D&D has always had roles. The Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue has been key to party compesition. If a party lacks that, they're abnormal and it hurts.

Not really... I vividly remember 2e campaigns where we've been playing games where "everyone was a wizard's appreantice from candlekeep" or "everyone was a scouty-type working for the Harpers" and noone felt it "abnormal" or out of place.

Infact, finding a suitable story to include people as diverse in background as pious religious men, scoundrals, intellectual wizards and primitive tribal warriors usually tended to feel alot more artificial and abnormal. Also, few if any of the old novels featured anything close to a Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue set-up and (pre-internet) noone in my gaming group would have thought of that combination as particularly tempting, let along standard.

 

[Rechan]

I never said it was to the same extent as an MMO but like them it is still a limitation and I'd prefer not to start putting limitations back in after 3e did such a good job of being versatile.

Emphasis mine.

If limitations existed before, and they're being put back in, then they're not taking limitations from MMOs because limitations existed before.

2e thieves had serious limitations. Namely, they were useless in a fight. 2e Clerics had limitations, namely that they had to prepare those healing spells, and they really didn't do much else. That also sounds like narrowing the focus of classes, to me.

3e had limitations too.

No it's because Ranger carries other flavor with it beyond the bow. It has the nature-boy stuff, differing armor proficiencies, (don't know about HP in the new edition). And they've specifically pointed out that "if you're playing an archer you're playing a ranger" the archery/ranged weapon powers are part of the Ranger power selection.

1) We don't know if the Ranger is forced to take Forest Man skills/powers, or if the Woodsy stuff will be a talent tree or other option. You may have options like 'Be Survivalist Man, or be Deadeye Archer Man'.

2) I'm not sure about armor proficiencies. I mean, it kinda breaks versimilitude if the archer is standing there in full plate. Most archers, you know, want to move around and find cover, not stand out in the middle of the field like a Panzer. Mobility is important otherwise you get rushed, and someone takes AoOs on you for using a bow in melee.

3) Skills. If Fighters had to be just as good at archery, that means they need access to archery-related skills: Perception and Stealth, so they can Spot what they're shooting at from their distance, and either move in on it or hide so they can snipe. That doesn't sound very much like a fighter to me. And if the fighter got the Perception and the Stealth, and he was good with a bow and a sword... what's the point of being a ranger? So you can wield two weapons really good? Wait, what if the fighter wants to do that?

So if a fighter can be great at everything... what's left for the ranger?

The way I read it arcane magic would have it's Bard, but the best uses were all reserved for Psionics.

Eh? I don't understand "Arcane magic would have its bard".

The book says, and I quote:

With the skill to fool enemies with illusory magic and to influence them with mental trickery, a bard can make his foes work against themselves. A bard makes his enemies distrust their eyes, their ears, and even their allies. This is why he's truly dangerous.

Sounds like a bard's primary offensive abilities are illusions and enchantments.

 

[Rechan]

Not really... I vividly remember 2e campaigns where we've been playing games where "everyone was a wizard's appreantice from candlekeep" or "everyone was a scouty-type working for the Harpers" and noone felt it "abnormal" or out of place.

Sure, if the DM goes out of his way to set it up and has to bend over backwards to accomodate it.

If the DM threw an ogre at your Wizards Apprentices, what would've happened? Or a mind flayer at your scouty types?

Infact, finding a suitable story to include people as diverse in background as pious religious men, scoundrals, intellectual wizards and primitive tribal warriors usually tended to feel alot more artificial and abnormal. Also, few if any of the old novels featured anything close to a Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue set-up and (pre-internet) noone in my gaming group would have thought of that combination as particularly tempting, let along standard.

Story and the shortcomings of the system assuming you have the 4 Part Paradigm are unrelated.

Besides, the Cleric is pretty much a D&Dism. Outside of the Bible, you don't have many guys healing people, let alone trapsing around with a bunch of tomb raiding monster slayers.