Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Green Knight" data-source="post: 3866493" data-attributes="member: 2723">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.    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.    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.    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?    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.</blockquote>

Verification