From R&C: Fighters & Armor

[kennew142]

I think this is the biggest hurdle for me, so far.

After playing D&D for 20 years choosing class first, I'm trying to rewire my brain into "choose role, choose power source, and the rules will determine your class".

I think this is an issue for all of us. I'm also sure that we will get used to the new paradigm after designing a few characters.

 

[glass]

Though D&D (or any rpg) would really be better with the addition of chainswords!!!

I think that's something we can all agree on.


glass.

 

[Gort]

So did WoW steal it from Diablo II? Cos that's what I thought of when I read your bit up there - the three trees of skills in Diablo II.

I see that as a good thing. Certainly better than the only difference between Bob the cleric of Pelor and his twin brother Dave the other cleric of Pelor being their spell selection.

To be honest, I don't really mind where it originated. I just figured WoW was closer since two out of three of the warrior/fighter specialisations map directly onto each other.

 

[Mallus]

They are going to have to come up with some amazingly convoluted and stupid fluff to convince me that a fighter can't be amazing with a bow or a dagger.

Of course a fighter will be able to excel with a bow or dagger, it's just that his character class will be ranger or rogue. Really, this is just semantics.

Also, if you've never seen a classless RPG system that's "good at anything" (hint: both the Hero System and M&M are, at the very, very least, good for certain applications), perhaps you're expectations are set unrealistically high?

 

[glass]

This isn't a matter of fluff. This is the design team saying 'Fighters can't be awesome with bows, just because we said so. Neener, neener, neener!'

So? If you want a character that is great with melee weapons, you can make one. What earthly difference does it make whether the top of your character sheet says 'Fighter', or 'Ranger', or 'Rogue', or 'Mango Chutney'.


glass.

 

[glass]

... I'm trying to decide if this is intentionally insulting or just a random statement that isn't relevant to the matter at hand. It isn't about names on a character sheet. I don't care if you put Strong Guy or Bow Guy on the character sheet. It isn't the issue.

You keep saying that, but what else can it be about? Nothing we have seen suggest that there is any problem other than 'names on a character sheet'.


glass.

 

[The_Gneech]

Actually, I think the names do and should matter; the reports I'm hearing about 4E all sound incredibly metagamey in their application. The fighter's "role" is to keep enemies off the more fragile party members? Really? All the time?

A "fighter" is a person who fights -- regardless of their choice of weapon or armor. A "ranger" is somebody who "ranges" about the wilderness (not "somebody who fights at range", negative bonus points for people who thought that). A "rogue" is somebody who engages in shady activities. However you may feel about 3.X classes, the class names were at least applicable to what they did, rather than "what slot they filled in the encounter."

Let me use an example from Lord of the Rings Online, just because I'm familiar with it and it illustrates my thoughts. Going into that game, I wanted to play a warrior-type; I was thinking primarily of Haldir from the movie versions, switching between bows and swords as applicable. Instead I was presented with the option of playing "the ranged damage guy made of tissue paper" (Hunter), "the melee damage guy made of tissue paper" (Champion), or "the melee meatshield who can't hurt anybody" (Guardian). None of which were what I wanted! I wanted a flexible warrior who could adapt to the situation.

LOTRO is a MMO, of course, and as such is limited in scope -- thus, it's at least understandable that your character choices are "A, B, or C" with very little blending. Not desirable, mind you, but at least understandable. Computers are very limited.

The human imagination is not, however. The idea that a character should be designed around doing one particular thing (especially in combat) is going backwards in game design. Might as well return to the days when magic-users couldn't even so much as pick up a sword.

-The Gneech

 

[Rechan]

I, personally, care not of it's metagamey. I really don't see how a class-based system can't be.

But then, I've sat at tables where everyone refers to eachother as "The Dwarf" or "The Cleric". And then I've sat at tables where the beguiler parades around as a bard, because he's a spy and "Bard" is close enough to his abilities to hide them.

 

[Fifth Element]

Actually, I think the names do and should matter; the reports I'm hearing about 4E all sound incredibly metagamey in their application. The fighter's "role" is to keep enemies off the more fragile party members? Really? All the time?

No, not all the time. All it means is that the fighter class mechanics are designed so that the class fills that role the best. Protecting the squishy wizard has always been one of a fighter's "jobs" in-game. Now the rules are better designed to reflect that.

Besides that, of course the game rules are metagamey. By its very nature, anything that quantifies something that is not objectively quantifiable is metagamey. Having a static Strength score (and knowing what it is and what bonus it gives) is metagamey. Knowing how many hit points you have is metagamey. The entire game system is metagamey, because you cannot have a coherent game system without acknowledging that you are playing a game.

 

[Counterspin]

Yeah, I've got one thing to add to this conversation. Multiclass.