From R&C: Fighters & Armor

[Rechan]

I'm surprised no one has yelled "WoW" at "Heavy Clothes".

But with wizards casting in armor, why wear clothes when you can wear ARMOR?

 

[Sadrik]

I'm surprised no one has yelled "WoW" at "Heavy Clothes".

But with wizards casting in armor, why wear clothes when you can wear ARMOR?

You just did.

 

[Hairfoot]

it's been stated multiple times that fighters are not going to be arcane

But they may be loaded up with arcane gear! Perhaps I'm jumping the gun, but the themes seem to contain less of this, and more of this.

It makes sense to assume that 4e will accomodate players who like to restrict steaming, glowing swords to higher levels, but the tone of the pre-release material seems to have a strongly, well, MMO aesthetic and theme.

 

[Green Knight]

This I SOOOOO not like.

If I want a character who started as a bowman or crossbowman in the local City Watch, I'll have to choose between ranger or rogue? Not cool.

I very much doubt you can't use a bow. You just won't be a master with a bow the way a Ranger can be. Which is just as well, as we're talking about a City Watchman, here, not Robin Hood.

 

[Gort]

From what I'm gathering, the "specialisations" for classes like fighter (defense, two hander, "control") are very similar to WoW's talent specialisations. Don't jump on me just yet, I haven't decided if that's a good or bad thing yet. Anyway, my assumption is that the ranger will have three specialisations as well. These will be archery, two-weapon fighting, and "nature stuff". So, depending on what you specialise in, your ranger might not have to have any nature stuff at all, making your City Guardsman/Robin Hood cross eminently doable.

Likewise I assume rogues can specialise into assassin types who thrive on stealth and sneak attacks from hidden positions, or swashbuckler types who use acrobatics to get their "sneak attacks".

I kinda like it, it's like you get three classes for the price of one, even if it does smack of WoW.

 

[Dormammu]

This I SOOOOO not like.

If I want a character who started as a bowman or crossbowman in the local City Watch, I'll have to choose between ranger or rogue? Not cool.

And since when do city watches have dedicated artillery corps?

 

[Xethreau]

I'm surprised no one has yelled "WoW" at "Heavy Clothes".

But with wizards casting in armor, why wear clothes when you can wear ARMOR?

Improficency penalties applying to attack rolls for spells? -6 or so to hitting with Fireball, in 3e terms. Ouch.

 

[Voss]

I am a bit disappointed that, from the sound of it, they're sticking with the fake fantasy warhammer. You know, those big mallet things. Because really, a big heavy thing with a large surface area should use the same rules as a mace (being a heavy thing with a large surface area). Actual warhammers were somewhat lighter, but with a small surface area for punching through armor.

I also don't like the feeling I'm getting where you must be a certain class to get the most out of certain groups of weapons. I certainly would have been happier with rangers not being Magical Awesome Bowman (movie-)Legolas!

 

[Wormwood]

I also don't like the feeling I'm getting where you must be a certain class to get the most out of certain groups of weapons.

Just think of it as a special form of Weapon Specialization, then.

Fighters have *always* gotten more out of a weapon than any other class.

 

[kennew142]

But they may be loaded up with arcane gear! Perhaps I'm jumping the gun, but the themes seem to contain less of this, and more of this.

It makes sense to assume that 4e will accomodate players who like to restrict steaming, glowing swords to higher levels, but the tone of the pre-release material seems to have a strongly, well, MMO aesthetic and theme.

I wouldn't know an MMO from a hole in the ground, but I know that I like the latter imagery better than the first.