Full circle: D&D now being based on video games...

[Pale]

You mean like in 1 and 2e?

No, actually, I don't.

Sorry, but a fighter could choose to be a defensive character or a high-damage character. There was a choice and it depended on your equipment.

I find your attempt to negate my post unacceptable.

 

[Pale]

First place I encountered that was in AD&D 17 years ago.

If you encountered that 17 years ago, that was the 'fault' of the group you were playing with, not the game system telling you your fighter must be a defender, not a damage-dealing powerhouse.

Seriously, the Fighter, Cleric, Thief, and Mage have always been at the core of D&D. When thinking of a "proper" four man party, that's what one thinks of. And there's a reason for that. Because of each of those classes performed a specific function within the party. All MMO's did was identify WHY those four classes were a solid foundation for parties in D&D and made sure that the equivalent classes in them did those jobs well. And that's all 4E is doing. Identifying the four most important roles in the game, occupied by the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue, and ensuring that EVERY class can fill one of those roles. That way a group of players can take, say, a Paladin, Druid, Warlock, and Monk and not feel completely gimped.

Yes, you'll only be gimped if you don't follow the formula and pick one from each column. What if you want an all-fighter campaign? Should fighters be completely ineffectual and dishing out large damage and be incompetent boobs with a bow?

I say that they shouldn't.

All a party really needs is a way to lick their wounds, defensive and offensive abilities. Why should that be shoved into specific classes?

Now, I haven't seen the game yet. The design might allow for flexibility outsider of your character's role without necessitating multiclassing. I feel that would be fantastic.

 

[FourthBear]

Actually, it's only less like Western-style/PC/MMORPGs. In console/Japanese-style RPGs like the Final Fantasies, only the very highest level of gear is explicitly magical, if that, and the amount of gear characters carry overall is dramatically less than in any (published) version of D&D I'm familiar with (pretty much all of them since AD&D 1e). Some console RPGs, most famously Final Fantasy 8, essentially do away with equipment entirely.

Is that true? I've played Final Fantasy X and there were plenty of magical items around (and techno-items that might as well have been magical in effect). I've also played DragonQuest VIII, in which I recall plenty of magical items, including those you created yourself through alchemy. There were fewer "item slots", but many, many expendables. Most of the other console RPGs I've tried were D&D inspired and had roughly the same profusion of magic items. I always assumed that FFX and DQVIII were representative of the Japanese style console RPG market. I know that both were very popular inside and outside Japan.

 

[hong]

No, actually, I don't.

Sorry, but a fighter could choose to be a defensive character or a high-damage character. There was a choice and it depended on your equipment.

Exactly. Wouldn't it be cool if your character wasn't defined by his equipment?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Is that true? I've played Final Fantasy X and there were plenty of magical items around (and techno-items that might as well have been magical in effect). I've also played DragonQuest VIII, in which I recall plenty of magical items, including those you created yourself through alchemy. There were fewer "item slots", but many, many expendables. Most of the other console RPGs I've tried were D&D inspired and had roughly the same profusion of magic items. I always assumed that FFX and DQVIII were representative of the Japanese style console RPG market. I know that both were very popular inside and outside Japan.

Wow, it must have been a while since I played FFX. I seem to recall having one weapon slot and one accessory slot and that was IT, but I could be forgetting something. I also imagine we're disagreeing on what counts as 'magical' - certainly I don't think anything the non-casters wield short of their ultimate weapons qualifies.

FF12, FF9, FF6 and FF4 allowed for a weapon, a shield, a helmet, a suit of armor and an accessory, so considerably less than any edition of D&D, or something like Baldur's Gate or Diablo; also, in the FFs, only the very upper end gear appeared to be magical. In FF8, the *only* equipment you had was your weapon, and your weapon could only be upgraded - you couldn't buy a new one, and none of the weapons appeared to be magical. In FF7, most of the weapons didn't appear to be magical and you could equip a weapon, a bracer and an accessory (materia, which serve as the game's magic system, are common 'magic items,' but they serve a totally different role).

Shining Force allowed for four items per character, tops, regardless of type and including healing items, and most of the gear wasn't called out as magical. Wild ARMs 4 and Vandal Hearts only allowed weapons and armor. In Wild ARMs 3, it was just armor; weapons had to be upgraded. Suikoden games have almost no magical equipment aside from the runes, and even those are fairly rare. Most other console RPGs hew to 'five items of five different types' as an uppermost limit; I can't actually think of one that allowed a character to equip more than six.

Regarding Dragon Quest, I agree somethat - that series has always hewed closer to D&D. Even there, characters are limited to a smaller number of items than D&D or PC RPG characters, and fewer items are called out as magical (note that a lot of what gets made in the alchemy pot in DQ8 appears to be perfectly mundane, and is for sale in mundane storefronts).

 

[FourthBear]

Wow, it must have been a while since I played FFX. I seem to recall having one weapon slot and one accessory slot and that was IT, but I could be forgetting something. I also imagine we're disagreeing on what counts as 'magical' - certainly I don't think anything the non-casters wield short of their ultimate weapons qualifies.

I definitely noted that there were fewer item slots in both games. But there certainly were plenty of magic items to be found, looted, purchased or made. As I recall, in each game I tended to end up carrying 4-5 weapons and defensive items for each character. And frequently selling/throwing away items in the manner of "another +1 short sword? Toss it in the charity pile...." style complained about. So these RPGs did avoid the strict Christmas Tree effect, but definitely had the Santa Claus' Bag effect in full, IMO.

 

[Mad Mac]

Actually, it's only less like Western-style/PC/MMORPGs. In console/Japanese-style RPGs like the Final Fantasies, only the very highest level of gear is explicitly magical, if that, and the amount of gear characters carry overall is dramatically less than in any (published) version of D&D I'm familiar with (pretty much all of them since AD&D 1e). Some console RPGs, most famously Final Fantasy 8, essentially do away with equipment entirely.

Yeah...but FF8 sucked.

Console RPGs are generally very strict on equipable gear though. I think the usual array is weapon helmet armor accessory, with some RPGs including a sheild slot.

Agree that most of the stuff isn't magical, either. Typical console gear progression has you start out with a wooden sword (or pointy stick) and working your way very slowly up the chain, to where you don't get a weapon made out of good honest, not rusty, varnished, decript, crumbling, or bent steel until half way through the game.

 

[Green Knight]

If you encountered that 17 years ago, that was the 'fault' of the group you were playing with

No one was at 'fault', because it wasn't a problem. It was common sense. When marching down a narrow tunnel in single file, it wasn't the Mage who went up front. It was the Fighter. Why? Because if the party stumbled onto a party of Orcs, the Mage wouldn't be able to survive the initial onslaught. The Fighter, however, could. All they're doing is labelling the role which Fighters have played sinice D&D came out.

not the game system telling you your fighter must be a defender, not a damage-dealing powerhouse.

You're making the assumption that Fighters won't still be damage dealers. I very much doubt that Greatswords will be doing 1d2 damage in their hands in 4E. What they won't be doing, though, which they've never done, is Sneak Attack damage. Situational damage that the Thief/Rogue could inflict on an opponent and produce more damage then a Fighter in certain circumstances.

Yes, you'll only be gimped if you don't follow the formula and pick one from each column. What if you want an all-fighter campaign?

And that's different from prior editions how? If I ran into a trap infested dungeon with nothing but Fighters, that party would get screwed in no time. If a party of Wizards is jumped by a pack of Orcs in the woods, then they're screwed. If a party of Rogues is caught out in the open with no ability to flank an opponent, completely surrounded by heavily armored opponents, then they're screwed. This has been true in every edition of D&D.

This is D&D. The whole point of the game is to play a member of a party with different skills and abilities. If you want to play a bunch of near identical characters with similar abilities, then there're plenty of other options for that, like the Aliens RPG, for instance, where everyone is a Colonial Marine. Or the upcoming Warhammer 40k RPG, where everyone will be a Deathwatch Space Marine. But in D&D, the average party is assumed to be mixed. That's always been the case. And I can't fathom why you'd think otherwise.

Should fighters be completely ineffectual and dishing out large damage and be incompetent boobs with a bow?

I say that they shouldn't.

And I'm saying they should? You're making up Straw Men to rail against. There has been nothing to indicate that Fighters will suddenly suck when wielding a bow, or that they'll do mediocre damage. That's just your assumption. And a completely unfounded one at that, as we've gotten the opposite indication from the Design & Development articles and other sources.

Fighters are getting combat maneuvers from Tome of Battle. They're getting abilities related to their weapons, like a Longsword Fighter being able to attack twice. In everything they've said about Fighters, the indication has been that Fighters are getting majorly buffed up. So where do you get the idea that Fighters are suddenly gonna turn into limpwristed ninnies with the onset of 4E?

All a party really needs is a way to lick their wounds, defensive and offensive abilities. Why should that be shoved into specific classes?

Because that's the way it's always been. Sorry, but a Fighter is never gonna be able to inflict an attack that'll nail every opponent in a 20 ft. radius, unless he's using Whirlwind Attack and is some kind of Giant. A Fighter is never gonna be able to disarm a trap or pick a lock with any kind of an ability. Every class in D&D has ALWAYS had their niche. That's the whole point of classes. The difference between then and now is that before, there were classes which were effectively fifth wheels, and didn't really do anything well. With 4E, they're working to make every class a viable part of a party, rather then something you take only after you cover all the bases.

 

[PeterWeller]

No, actually, I don't.

Sorry, but a fighter could choose to be a defensive character or a high-damage character. There was a choice and it depended on your equipment.

I find your attempt to negate my post unacceptable.

Even when dealing high damage, a Fighter is still primarily a defensive character. Why? Because he'll be dealing high damage to engage foes and prevent them from engaging his allies.

I don't understand where you got this impression that Fighters are somehow going to become ineffectual bags of hit points. Fighters and their ilk have always tanked for the party, that's always been their job, but part of tanking is being able to take down foes before they can threaten the weaker members of your party. Where have you gotten the impression that this will change?

There was never a choice between being a defensive fighter and being able to deal damage in D&D. Both have always gone hand in hand. Also, even if there was a choice between the two, why should it depend on what equipment you decide to tote around instead of what skills and abilities you choose to learn?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Besides, I think the "martial" power source might allow for a fighter-type character that can deal buckets o' damage, manipulate the battlefield, heal their allies, and etc. It might not be inherent in the Fighter Class per se, but it'll be part of the game regardless.

Fighters don't need the burden of being everything to everyone in 4e, because the diversity of character options means that you don't have to be a fighter if you want to wear armor and swing a sword well.