Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4456152" data-attributes="member: 710">I am not that certain that &quot;flavour first&quot; was really how D&amp;D began - D&amp;D has its roots in war-gaming, and the Wizard seems more inspired by artillery pieces as by magic as it appears in most fantasy or history. (Magic Missile, Fireball? Most magic in fairy tales for example is a lot more subtle...)Furthermore, I think you can't do the one without the other.The 4E classes seem to be based on flavor as much as on game. Ranger, Rogue and Warlock are all three just game elements called &quot;Strikers&quot;. Two of them also have the same power source. Yet they play and feel differently, thanks to their class features, powers and their skill selection. Sure, the roles are game elements, but did they really come first? Did the designers think &quot;We need a Arcane Striker, what do you come up with?&quot; As far as I see, it did definitely not start that way, they seemed more to believe the Warlock should be a (Arcane) Controller, and figured that it worked better as a Striker. Was the Warlord created from the idea &quot;Martial Leader, how do we do this?&quot; Or was it based on classes like the 3E Miniatures Handbook Marshall and wondered &quot;So, we want some guy that fights with weapons and usually in melee, and leads his guys in battle. Sounds like a Fighter focusing more on tactics then on sword tricks in combat. We're also using the &quot;Leader&quot; denotation to describe a role on the battlefield - we could have used the Fighter and just made it a possible fighter build, but with the Leader concept we make a new class...&quot;Of course, in some ways, classes still come from the question &quot;what do people play&quot;. Again, the Warlord - playing someone that focuses on tactics and aiding his allies is something people enjoy. I suppose even the Marshall himself was already based on this line of thinking. But the flavor of a tactical leader with some (para)military trappings can be concluded from the way such a character is played.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 4456152, member: 710"] I am not that certain that "flavour first" was really how D&D began - D&D has its roots in war-gaming, and the Wizard seems more inspired by artillery pieces as by magic as it appears in most fantasy or history. (Magic Missile, Fireball? Most magic in fairy tales for example is a lot more subtle...) Furthermore, I think you can't do the one without the other. The 4E classes seem to be based on flavor as much as on game. Ranger, Rogue and Warlock are all three just game elements called "Strikers". Two of them also have the same power source. Yet they play and feel differently, thanks to their class features, powers and their skill selection. Sure, the roles are game elements, but did they really come first? Did the designers think "We need a Arcane Striker, what do you come up with?" As far as I see, it did definitely not start that way, they seemed more to believe the Warlock should be a (Arcane) Controller, and figured that it worked better as a Striker. Was the Warlord created from the idea "Martial Leader, how do we do this?" Or was it based on classes like the 3E Miniatures Handbook Marshall and wondered "So, we want some guy that fights with weapons and usually in melee, and leads his guys in battle. Sounds like a Fighter focusing more on tactics then on sword tricks in combat. We're also using the "Leader" denotation to describe a role on the battlefield - we could have used the Fighter and just made it a possible fighter build, but with the Leader concept we make a new class..." Of course, in some ways, classes still come from the question "what do people play". Again, the Warlord - playing someone that focuses on tactics and aiding his allies is something people enjoy. I suppose even the Marshall himself was already based on this line of thinking. But the flavor of a tactical leader with some (para)military trappings can be concluded from the way such a character is played. [/QUOTE]

Verification