From R&C: Fighters & Armor

[HeavenShallBurn]

I'm not seeing it. Fighters are Defenders, and rangers are Strikers. ....If you do move the entire tree over to the fighters, then you don't have a Defender any more, you have a melee Defender class that can alternatively turn into a ranged Striker without any crosstraining costs.....Objecting that the fighter now is no longer the optimal choice for weapon mastery in any arbitrary weapon is a complaint about what a fighter does now, not a complaint that the fighter is poorly designed for its shtick. Default archer-centric concepts are rangers now. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Okay then that's what I'' complain about, I have a problem with the 4e class roles at an intrinsic level. I do not agree with the use of class roles in this manner. I play MMOs and I don't want to play the new edition if it's designed like that. I play MMOs for an entirely different reason than D&D and don't like this convergence.

 

[The_Gneech]

So, I'm not getting this. . . you wanted a warrior type that could do . . . . everything? If they had the option of the tank that could do boatloads of damage, t'would be a bit of a no-brainer, dont you think?

No, I wanted somebody who was a decent combatant in a variety of situations. The 3.X fighter can do precisely what I was trying to describe, which is what I was trying to get at. A sword-and-board melee guy can generally still use a bow effectively if his foes are flying for instance, and if he's high enough level he can do both pretty well. That doesn't mean I expect him to be as good an archer as the guy who put all his feats into Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, Shot In the Dark, and Shot Of Supreme Death.

I agree that D&D is not now and never has been a classless system; that's not in dispute. But even classed systems should be based on the individual character, and not on what type of cog they are in the party machine.

-The Gneech

 

[Remathilis]

Maybe I have an odd group, but my friends (all of whom started in 2e) had NO problems with Fighters focusing on large weapons (axes, swords, hammers) while the paladin focused on sword+board, the ranger on light twf and archery, and the rogue on light weapons. I never saw (except in the early days of 3.0, and none successfully) fighters who specialized in bows, daggers, or other weapons like that. Typically, they were sub-optimal choices for a fighter, who picked larger weapons to bring the bad-guys down faster. Mostly rogues and rangers went archery (esp in 3.5 with rangers). Heck, one guy who started as a fighter/archer in 3.0 went ranger a few games later (ret-conned) because a fighter wasn't fitting his concept and ranger was more like it.

 

[Remathilis]

No, I wanted somebody who was a decent combatant in a variety of situations. The 3.X fighter can do precisely what I was trying to describe, which is what I was trying to get at. A sword-and-board melee guy can generally still use a bow effectively if his foes are flying for instance, and if he's high enough level he can do both pretty well. That doesn't mean I expect him to be as good an archer as the guy who put all his feats into Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, Shot In the Dark, and Shot Of Supreme Death.

I agree that D&D is not now and never has been a classless system; that's not in dispute. But even classed systems should be based on the individual character, and not on what type of cog they are in the party machine.

-The Gneech

No one is breaking the fighter's bow in half and handling him a greatsword only. Fighters will still be awesome at archery. They can STILL take Point Blank and Precise Shot. However, a ranger will has unique talents that a fighter doesn't related to archery. So while the fighter may wish to drop his sword and pull out a bow against a flying foe, the ranger can fight the entire fight with his bow, doing things the fighter can't (like threatening AoO's with it, or ignoring cover and concealment with it.) Meanwhile, the fighter is doing awesome stunts with his sword that the ranger cannot do, etc.

 

[CardinalXimenes]

Okay then that's what I'' complain about, I have a problem with the 4e class roles at an intrinsic level. I do not agree with the use of class roles in this manner. I play MMOs and I don't want to play the new edition if it's designed like that. I play MMOs for an entirely different reason than D&D and don't like this convergence.

You've been soaking in it for thirty years.

For decades, somebody's been in front keeping the monsters off the squishies. Somebody's been the glass cannon who trades cosmic nuke power for being a wimp in a nightgown. Somebody's been the healer who's not much for hurting people. Some roles have had powers explicitly tailored for them, as with the ancient presumption that magic-users should have blasty damage spells and clerics should have healy-buffy spells. Other roles have not, such as the presumption that the fighter should just hope the monsters are too dumb to ignore him and kill the one in the dress. The lack of mental concision in imagining what each role should be doing in a fight has caused a lot of blur that these clear role definitions avoid.

Now, it's reasonable that you might want a character that combines multiple combat roles. You might want a beefshield who can buff, or an archer that can hold off a swarm. These roles will be available to you with cross-training feats and multiclassing- but you will not be as good a beefshield as a focused Fighter or as good a battlefield controller as a focused Wizard. If the end result isn't good enough to serve as a defender or a controller in the party without eclipsing specialists, then there's a problem, but it's an implementation problem rather than a design problem.

 

[Lorthanoth]

Not sure why people get so hung up on names. My characters have included one with the knight class who isn't actually a "knight" she's a swordfighter who has a peculiar code of honour. She certainly doesn't call herself a knight; as well as a bard who enters into mystic battle trances to aid his melee attacks (i.e. uses his bardic powers) but he doesn't introduce himself as a bard.

 

[Rechan]

Not sure why people get so hung up on names. My characters have included one with the knight class who isn't actually a "knight" she's a swordfighter who has a peculiar code of honour. She certainly doesn't call herself a knight; as well as a bard who enters into mystic battle trances to aid his melee attacks (i.e. uses his bardic powers) but he doesn't introduce himself as a bard.

Cough.

This is the 4e forums. We care about names.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Peoples have problems not mixing IC and OOC terminologies.

 

[Ahrimon]

Seriously? Was that characterization necessary?

In retrospect I should have said "some people" rather than "everyone". It wasn't meant as attack or to be insulting. It was nothing more than me vocalizing my annoyance at how people are taking what little information we have so far and being closed minded about it. Pointing out every percieved flaw and saying how the game will be ruined. Rather than having an open mind and letting the information fuel the fire of creativity.

But, if that rather bland statement offended you in any way, then I'll be the first to appologize.

 

[Counterspin]

I'll try it again. You can still make that rounded warrior, but he's going to have to be a ranger/fighter multiclass. Why are people still roaming around with a sack full of 3e presumptions? You aren't going to get all of your character abilities defined by your class anymore. There are going to be talent trees, so defender style fighters and two hander style fighters can both be fully realized aspects of the fighter class without there being any contradiction.