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

[HeavenShallBurn]

Actually the roles are guidelines and can be very blurred and blended and the classes aren't confined to them in any way. That is in direct opposition to what mmo roles are. The only thing similar are the names and the basic premise.

O RLY?

Based on what we've seen so far the roles are more than guidelines. The classes are designed around the roles. Some have a few elements of another role but they were designed to fit a specific role rather than an archetype. The blurring would come from their new multi-classing mechanics that let you pull powers/feats/etc from other classes. It's exactly what MMOs do (with the exception of multi-classing which varies widely). The basic premise is the greatest difference with what's gone before and it changes everything built upon it. Whether or not we like that change is a matter of opinion, but the change is there and it does come from MMOs.

 

[ShadowX]

Ultima Online had it in 1998.

Yeah, well, my DM let me change my class to a kit in 97, so Ultima Online must have stolen from D&D!!!!

Really, the retraining rules were just a way to codify something DMs allowed their players to do all the time.

I don't really understand the furor about names, it's just a name. The thing that truly annoys me about anime names is not the actual name but the proclivity to yell it out.

 

[Rechan]

O RLY?

YA RLY.

Based on what we've seen so far the roles are more than guidelines. The classes are designed around the roles. Some have a few elements of another role but they were designed to fit a specific role rather than an archetype. The blurring would come from their new multi-classing mechanics that let you pull powers/feats/etc from other classes.

Except in cases of classes having multiple abilities that duplicate another's role. Like a Warlock who can throw down an acid bog, which is a very Controller thing to do.

It's exactly what MMOs do (with the exception of multi-classing which varies widely). The basic premise is the greatest difference with what's gone before and it changes everything built upon it. Whether or not we like that change is a matter of opinion, but the change is there and it does come from MMOs.

Except that it's exactly what they did previous to 4e, too.

 

[jdrakeh]

Really, the retraining rules were just a way to codify something DMs allowed their players to do all the time.

I agree -- but it's worth noting that such rules were never officially introduced to D&D in written rule books until after they appeared in video games. That said, yes, most of what people scream about being "videogamey" in D&D (e.g., resurrection magic, exponential growth, etc) has always been in D&D, and didn't come from video games at all.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

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.

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

It Was
*Warrior (good at Fighting, all fighting, can fight up close or not)
*Holy Man (can heal or buff or bring the divine wrath)
*Wizard (does magic all kinds of magic with great versatility)
*Thief (does skills, traps, and the stabbity)

Now Its
*Meatshield (does melee weapons, keeps people from attacking allies)
*Holy Man (still does most of the same things)
*Boomstick (looses a great deal of previous versatility)
*Assasin (does most of the same things as before only better)

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. Might I point out the lack of Necromancy? Or the nerfing of enchantment to make a place for Psionics?

 

[bonethug0108]

O RLY?

Based on what we've seen so far the roles are more than guidelines. The classes are designed around the roles. Some have a few elements of another role but they were designed to fit a specific role rather than an archetype. The blurring would come from their new multi-classing mechanics that let you pull powers/feats/etc from other classes. It's exactly what MMOs do (with the exception of multi-classing which varies widely). The basic premise is the greatest difference with what's gone before and it changes everything built upon it. Whether or not we like that change is a matter of opinion, but the change is there and it does come from MMOs.

I think you still misunderstand roles. They are not the only thing a class does. They are given stuff so they can do that role well with little effort, but the can stray FAR from that with feat and power choices without the need to multiclass.

And they have explicitly stated that the roles are guidelines for new players. But as I've said, they are not only guidelines. They inform some things, but they DO NOT dictate what the class is. They just dictate what the class gets for free.

 

[bonethug0108]

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

It Was
*Warrior (good at Fighting, all fighting, can fight up close or not)
*Holy Man (can heal or buff or bring the divine wrath)
*Wizard (does magic all kinds of magic with great versatility)
*Thief (does skills, traps, and the stabbity)

Now Its
*Meatshield (does melee weapons, keeps people from attacking allies)
*Holy Man (still does most of the same things)
*Boomstick (looses a great deal of previous versatility)
*Assasin (does most of the same things as before only better)

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. Might I point out the lack of Necromancy? Or the nerfing of enchantment to make a place for Psionics?

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.

 

[brislove]

I love anime, I have seen many different ones, and own quite a few.

I think the names are cool for the most part. "Five-Shadow creeping ice enervation strike" is fun to say.

I don't particularly mind these names, nor would I mind Robilar's Gambit, or mordenkain's disjunction. These things don't bother me.

That said I prefer "Mage's Disjunction" in my core books. I would like to avoid names based on individuals, or names with an obvious feel towards EITHER east or west. I like a couple "flowery" here and there on higher level maneuvers to set them apart from the norm.

I think these names should have the feel of their class. If you have a monk learning "serpent strike" thats ok, if you have a Knight learning "five-shadow Creeping Ice enervation Strike" thats messed up.

Onto Games:
Respec's: Ultima Online was a skill based game, if you wanted a different skill you ground it up. Dark age of camelot DID have respecs, and was out prior to Psychic reformation. Did they add this to D&D based on the video game, probably. Was the reason to be more like a video game, heck no.

I doubt I'm the only person that has ever wanted to play a different character, or try something different with one of their characters. I also doubt I'm the only DM who has watched a player roll up the same character with 2 feats different and a different name because a new splat book came out.

With the advent of these additional books (and the length of campagins) it is only natural that WOTC would create an in-game method to allow you to attain these new feats/powers ect. I think this would have happened even without respec'ing in video games prior to the 3.5 XPH.

Final Fantasy: Characters get "knocked out" when they die, they die. FFtactics advance is a good example of this. there were 2 places on the map that weren't protected with (effectively) subdual damage. if you died in those, you died. Also Raise dead was in D&D before it was anywhere else.

Talents are straight up from diablo and WoW, BUT THEY ARE GOOD! they allow you to customize your character to play the way you want to. Talents are ultimately just an advanced version of feats/skills.

D&D has pretty much always been "first" and then Games adapt the D&D principals and streamline them. D&D in turn uses that feed-back and streamlines these same basic ideas and polishes them more. It is a cycle, but D&D and TSR started it.

People tend to call things "stealing" from whatever source they found it in first. Ultimately anything that wotc "stole" is really just an update that some other company play-tested for them. Nearly All RPGs are based in D&D at the root, thats what being first does. I'm sure there were things before D&D, but D&D was the first really successful RPG.

WOTC is trying to do the best thing they can for D&D. Streamline the game, this is something that video games have always done with RPGs. no dice, no calculations, it tells you when you have to choose a feat/talent/skill/whatever. This is something that is good The easier the game is to pick-up and play, the more people will play it.

More people is a positive change. yes they cater to kids/animefans/video gamers a bit more, because thats how you attract a NEW market.

World of Warcraft shattered all the barriers, it's rarely considered dorky anymore. World of warcraft is a superior product, that catered to multiple markets. It's cartoony looking, this caters to kids, it uses warcraft backstory, this brings in Real time strategy players. It's easy to pick-up and play, leveling is quick an easy (as MMOs go) so anyone can play. The quests are fun, varied and challenging enough to be rewarding but also doable for those not in the top 100 guilds in the world. They attracted all these groups, not catering primarily to the hardcore MMOers. The reason is simple, Blizzard produced a superior game-system, talent system, and raid system. They listen to their players and added solid PVP, 5-man and smaller raid number content. They have the best product on the market game-play wise, so they didn't HAVE to appeal to everyone for looks/difficulty because the game itself is better.

If you want a link between wow and 4e it's this: They will provide "fluff" looks,names, ect. to attract new groups, and they will create a superior GAME to keep the players they have and the new ones who try it out.

4e art: it's pretty, colorful, obnoxious, but grabs attention. This will make people interested who weren't before. Those who don't like it and play now, will play for the rules.

4e system: It's streamlined, faster, and easier for everyone. A group of new players should be able to pick it up, read through a bit, and learn as they play. I expect pre-generated characters (completely) in the PHB. This will get those new players to actually PLAY instead of try, get frustrated and quit.

Is D&D following World of Warcraft? I hope so, I would like to play a superior product that has a ton of players. Ultimately a game is nothing without players, more players=more gaming.

 

[Hussar]

Nope. The problem wasn't "named fighting styles." It's "flamboyantly named fighting styles."

There is a world of difference, to my ears, between Lightning Panther Strike vs. Bonetti's Defense or Capa Ferro. I would absolutely love names like the latter two for martial manuevers. The first one sounds heinous.

I know I'm going back to the names thing, but, if we look a little further afield, we can see some pretty strange names crop up in lots of places:

Flea Flicker
Alley Oop
DDT
The Shotgun

Now the Class Roles, those are a direct port from MMOs. The MMOs originally stole the idea from D&D's classes, but the limits of computer games made changes necessary, limitations on more versatile concepts to fit the code. So the idea may have been swiped from D&D originally but the implementation was different and in porting it back they've created something different than the original concept.

I think you're partially right here. The roles have always existed in D&D. You stuck your fighter in the front for a reason. However, actually specifically pointing to the roles is something that is somewhat ported from MMO's. I know that back when I played EQ (sometime around 2000), lots of the help sites and hint books referred to different roles using shorthand like meatshield and whatnot.

D&D has never really specifically called these out. They've been there and I think the vast majority of people recognized them. After all, there's a reason that the balanced party had X Fighter types, 1 cleric, 1 wizard and 1 thief/rogue. It's because the classes did have expected roles to fill.

But, this is the first time the books have specifically called attention to these roles.

 

[Rechan]

Moving this onto page 4.