New rule of 3 . Feb 21.

[n00bdragon]

So what the Warden, Paladin, Swordmage, and Battlemind didn't exist in 4E now or what? They all had their unique defender mechanics that made them distinct and still good. Or is this the part of 5E transition where we can't say 4E had nice things at all?

You have to take into account these articles are written by people who never played 4E for people who never played 4E.

Just accept that everything 4E did is a horrible affront to the house that Gygax built and never speak of it again.

 

[The Shadow]

Or is this the part of 5E transition where we can't say 4E had nice things at all?

I am trying very, very hard not to indulge in schadenfreude here. Because this was one of the most maddening things about the run-up to 4e - how suddenly 3e had nothing good about it at all, and never had.

In all fairness, while there is some of what you describe, it seems a good deal more muted this time around. Perhaps it just seems that way because I've never been that much of a 4e fan... But I don't think so. The devs seem to sincerely want to unite 4e as well as the other editions.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

This article really irked me. I'm trying hard to be open about 5E, but blasting EVERYTHING I liked about 4E isn't helping to sell me on playing the new edition.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

So what the Warden, Paladin, Swordmage, and Battlemind didn't exist in 4E now or what? They all had their unique defender mechanics that made them distinct and still good. Or is this the part of 5E transition where we can't say 4E had nice things at all?

What on earth are you talking about? The Warden, Paladin, etc, is exactly what he was talking about when he said defending mechanic shouldn't be the sole property of the fighter.

He meant that if that mechanic was all that defined the fighter, then the fighter would have nothing unique when compared to other classes that also had that mechanic.

He also heavily implied (or perhaps I just hope he did) that a combat role mechanic (like a defender mark, for example) would not likely be hard-coded into a class's features, and could be something chosen by many classes.

 

[GM Dave]

So what the Warden, Paladin, Swordmage, and Battlemind didn't exist in 4E now or what? They all had their unique defender mechanics that made them distinct and still good. Or is this the part of 5E transition where we can't say 4E had nice things at all?

The stated initial goal of 5e is to cover all the classes that have been printed in the initial core books of each game edition (with the exception of the race classes like Hobbit, Dwarf, and Elf ~ And yes, I know they are now called Halflings but that came after the Tolkein lawsuit).

That makes the Paladin in and Warden and Swordmage out.

Personally, the Warden is one of the best of the new classes to come along in a while and like the class but I know that I will likely have to wait for it to see it returned to the game.

The article was focused on fighters because of the original question was a follow up to a question from the DDXP seminar. That does not preclude interest in the other classes. It was just the focus of the answer as phrased by the initial question.

The article mentioned 4e powers as a module and the fighter 'aura' as a main schtick that other classes might like to have access to using.

This is actually pointing out things that the designers like of the 4e system but wondering on where to put these things.

Powers or Feats could be modules that add to a fighters abilities but in the lowest level of the game they won't be wanted. This leaves the need for 'something' to give the Fighter a unique flavour that attracts players.

Marking is seen as something that not only the Fighter but possibly the Paladin or Warlord might like to do (not sure which archetypes are being referred in the article as others liking to borrow this mechanic). Marking might also be broadened to have a connection with the Strikers or their new incarnation for things like the Warlock Curse.

It is still too soon to tell.

I did see a game report by roleplayingtips.com which discussed their playtest of the rules as sent to them.

Character creation took 1 hr.

The rules were described as still being bare bones and raw.

I think accusations can wait for more information to come out from playtests and to see how those playtests form the next round of the rules cycle of development.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am trying very, very hard not to indulge in schadenfreude here. Because this was one of the most maddening things about the run-up to 4e - how suddenly 3e had nothing good about it at all, and never had.

It wasn't /that/ sudden. Remember all the 'Fighter SUX' threads? 'CoDzilla' and '15 minute workday' and 'Oberoni' weren't coined after the announcement of 4e. The community had been aware of serious problems with 3.x for a long time. And, it seemed like the 4e bashing started with the anouncement of 4e, anyway - also nothing new.

There's always someone complaining. And, WotC has an imperative to push the next thing...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Another thing the 2nd answer implied is that the fighter is not going to have a lot of company in 'club martial.'

The fighter is characterized as a 'broad archetype,' yet they also intend for it to be heavily combat-focused /and/ simple /and/ do nothing but swing weapons. Yeah, I can see how they're having problems.

It's also interesting that they disavowed any 'classic feel' for the fighter.

In the 1st question, the Wizard's overpowered daily spells are given a lock, because 'Vancian' casting is part of the whole D&D mystique. In the 2nd, the fighter is cut loose: there's never been a defining characteristic of the high-hp, heavy-armor-wearing, any-weapon-using, best-attack-progression, multiple-attacking fighter. Maybe that means they'll come up with some new toys for the fighter? Or maybe it just means they feel free to take away anything he's ever had?

 

[Grydan]

What on earth are you talking about? The Warden, Paladin, etc, is exactly what he was talking about when he said defending mechanic shouldn't be the sole property of the fighter.

He meant that if that mechanic was all that defined the fighter, then the fighter would have nothing unique when compared to other classes that also had that mechanic.

He also heavily implied (or perhaps I just hope he did) that a combat role mechanic (like a defender mark, for example) would not likely be hard-coded into a class's features, and could be something chosen by many classes.

I think what he's getting at is that there's no such thing in 4E as another class that "also has that defender mechanic". The mark is only one part of the defender mechanic: it's what they do to creatures that violate the mark that sets each class apart from each other. Even if you stripped everything else away from them, and left them each with their current defender mechanics, they'd play differently from each other and be easy to distinguish from each other.

Without any at-will attacks (beyond those intrinsic to the class's defender mechanic, where appropriate), encounter attacks, daily attacks, or utility powers, each and every 4E defender has a different playstyle defined by their defender mechanic.

No two defender classes apply marks in exactly the same way.

No two defenders punish the violation of that mark in exactly the same way.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

I am trying very, very hard not to indulge in schadenfreude here. Because this was one of the most maddening things about the run-up to 4e - how suddenly 3e had nothing good about it at all, and never had.

In all fairness, while there is some of what you describe, it seems a good deal more muted this time around. Perhaps it just seems that way because I've never been that much of a 4e fan... But I don't think so. The devs seem to sincerely want to unite 4e as well as the other editions.

I'm one of the few people who enjoys a good game of 4E but doesn't seem to habitually light tables on fire when confronted with a game of 3.5. I went through the WotC bashing 3.5 thing and it wasn't pleasant and seeing them do a repeat of that to 4E is even less so.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think what he's getting at is that there's no such thing in 4E as another class that "also has that defender mechanic".

No two defender classes apply marks in exactly the same way.

No two defenders punish the violation of that mark in exactly the same way.

Yeah, I know how it works. I still think his point stands. If you take away the fighter's powers and all you're left with is his defender mechanic, you don't have enough to define his class. The fighter is more than a defender, is all he was trying to say, and all that I'm trying to explain. It's not a slight to defenders in general, nor is it a slight to 4e.

Re: Percieved 4e bashing:

Where is all this defensiveness coming from?

Just because they're admitting that 4e's not perfect and discussing ways in which to make it better? Heck, it's not even THAT - they aret discussing ways in which 4e does not meet their CURRENT design goals - it's rarely a judgement that 4e is BAD, just pointing out the ways in which it doesn't live up to the goals DDN has set for it.

If I was to say "I want to play a batter game than 4e." A bunch of you would read that as me "bashing" 4e.

But I'm not bashing it - I really LOVE 4e.

I'd still like to play a game that's even better. How great would that be?