Grognard's First Take On 4e

[ExploderWizard]

The tank's job is bluffing opponents into thinking he is the biggest threat, so that they don't notice the strikers massacring them. That's why he gets the biggest, shiniest, most obvious armor, and ditto weapon...

I see what they are trying to achieve but the mechanics are not written as a bluff at all. The fighter does not have to taunt, or have his target understand him,and the target can be a machine without any emotion whatsoever. Can you bluff a programmed construct or mindless undead? The problem is that the mechanic is so artificial that there is no reasonable explanation for it. As a tabletop skirmish wargame rule it works just fine.

As for not noticing the strikers..............thats even harder to believe. Even the most dimwitted troll would realize the source of greatest harm. Otherwise none of them would have lived long enough to be encountered at all. I could understand an invisible striker driving a critter mad with pain that proceeds to attack the most accessible (visible) target it can though.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have run a bunch of test combats, the fighter wasn't a low damage punching bag in any of them. It might look like it, so I can see where you are coming from, but I really think you should try it out. I think you have the wrong impression of the defenders.

I fully intend to try it out. I withold my final judgement until games have been played with the full rules.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Quite aside from whether it makes the game feel MMO like, the "tank" classes were basically the worst idea anyone ever had in the history of MMORPGs, and it took ages for designers to catch on and finally do something about it. (And it still hasn't been enough - the whole tank/dps/crowd control/heal paradigm might have been OK for Everquest, but they've had a decade to think of something better, but they didn't, because it's easier to stick with the same old crap. Now, mind-bogglingly, the same "innovation" is finding its way into PnP games...)

Game after game, the same idiotic design: "Hi. We decided to make a class that's really good at getting hit so that other people can use their fun abilities and magic spells. And since you're already great at taking damage, we figured it's a bad idea to also let you do the most damage. Unbalancing, you know. We're going to make it someone else's job to do the huge damage."

If it's any help for you, it doesn't really look like the Defenders are bad at dealing damage. Strikers might deal more, but they have to run around the battlefield like crazy to get in the best position, or to avoid getting mauled. A Defender charges his foes, and hammers him down, forcing him not to run away*. That should be a satisfying play experience (at least for many players.)

If that doesn't help you: The Defender or Tank is, unfortunately, something that is an inherent property of combats. You need someone to take the hits. As the designers wrote in Races & Classe: "If you don't pick a defender for yourself, the monsters will." There is always someone that _has_ to take the hits. You might as well build a class concept around it and make someone good at this. Unless you want everyone to be equally able to take hits. That's possible, but how well does it serve it as a character build option or class profilation, or promote tactical play? (I am not saying everyone wants tactical play, but D&D at least since 3E supports it).

*) forcing in the sense of: "Sure, pick anyone else, but I hit you on your way out or when you're hitting him. Might as well stay with me, don't you think? Oh, and 11 points of damage from my Maul, sucker!"

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The tank's job is bluffing opponents into thinking he is the biggest threat, so that they don't notice the strikers massacring them. That's why he gets the biggest, shiniest, most obvious armor, and ditto weapon...

It's a Bluff in WoW, in D&D, it's real. He hits you if you ignore him.
Paladins channel divine energy to punish you for ignoring his challenge, Fighters strike at you if you move away or attack his comrades.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think the best way of dealing with that problem is to just get a different name for Defenders .

Honestly, just make them seem to be baseline fighters that can take hits, whereas rogues are baseline fighters that can't and have to do a little jig on the field to make sure they don't get squashed. I think the only BIG problem in this field so far is, from what reports we've heard, rangers do obscene damage at close range. Those buggers are the reason "threat" or "aggro" doesn't translate well in P&P. Rogues do their "you can't hit me!" dance, which is why they ideally won't be stepped on, but what do rangers do to avoid a giant sword through the skull?

Granted, keep in mind that I've always disliked rangers and their druid ilk

 

[ExploderWizard]

Granted, keep in mind that I've always disliked rangers and their druid ilk

Indeed!!! Strange folk those rangers, always wandering about in the wild

 

[Mirtek]

Part of my fears is that the rules require rather than allow for complex tactical combat. It seems that 4e relies on all players knowing how and when to use their powers in conjunction with everyone else. In 3.x there were classes and abilities that could be taken that allowed for players without strong tactical ability to play alongside those who did have that ability. Yes in both systems strong tactical players will do better in combat, but in 4e weak tactical players will be at a larger disadvantage.

This is my fear as well.

I think that this one is probably highly dependent on the group. From what I've seen, if a group has a very large disparity between the tactical abilities of players, it doesn't really matter what game they're playing: it's going to cause a huge power difference.

I don't mind other players being more powerfull than me, I am actually used to having the weakest char at the table (more often than not by deliberately making weak choices for other reasons). I am usually glad to have the players with the more powerfull characters handle the main part of the fight because that means I can more easily keep a low profile and stay where it's more safe for me (I guess in 4e I will be the one who only fights minions and stays as far away as he can from anyone with more than 2 hp)

I fear that 4e will much more require all players to participate close to the tactical optimum and that just a few tactically avid players won't be able to make up for what the less tatically avid players lack. So instead of just being on the battlemat and neither contributing much nor hurting the team effort, I will be a dangerous weak link in 4e that could lead the party to doom

I think what 4e does in comparison to 3.x is take a lot of the pre-play tactics out of the equation. A very tactically sound player is usually a fairly rules-savvy player as well, and can widen the gap to an extreme with a highly competent build. I obviously don't know to what extent 4e will fix this problem (if at all), but it seems to me from the information we have that it will really help narrow that gap.

I really hope that this gap can be just as extreme as in 3.x.

So I can build my weak fighter (because I deliberately take less Str/Con to take more Int/Cha because I just want a smart womenizer despite knowing that I will cripple my usefullness on the battlemat) and can just rely on the guys more into char-optimizing to be as effective as two ordinary chars (so they cover me being only 1/3 as effective as an ordinary char)

 

[hong]

I fear that 4e will much more require all players to participate close to the tactical optimum and that just a few tactically avid players won't be able to make up for what the less tatically avid players lack. So instead of just being on the battlemat and neither contributing much nor hurting the team effort, I will be a dangerous weak link in 4e that could lead the party to doom

1. Required tactical nous is a function of player intelligence and DM intelligence. If your DM tends to play monsters dumb, whether deliberately or inadvertently, then there is no great pressure to play PCs smart.

2. Part of being a DM is the responsibility of tailoring the threats to the group. That's (one reason) why you would play p&p as opposed to electronic. If your DM cannot do this, go play WoW because the DM will be no worse, and you'll have better special effects.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is my fear as well.

I don't mind other players being more powerfull than me, I am actually used to having the weakest char at the table (more often than not by deliberately making weak choices for other reasons). I am usually glad to have the players with the more powerfull characters handle the main part of the fight because that means I can more easily keep a low profile and stay where it's more safe for me (I guess in 4e I will be the one who only fights minions and stays as far away as he can from anyone with more than 2 hp)

I fear that 4e will much more require all players to participate close to the tactical optimum and that just a few tactically avid players won't be able to make up for what the less tatically avid players lack. So instead of just being on the battlemat and neither contributing much nor hurting the team effort, I will be a dangerous weak link in 4e that could lead the party to doom

I really hope that this gap can be just as extreme as in 3.x.

So I can build my weak fighter (because I deliberately take less Str/Con to take more Int/Cha because I just want a smart womenizer despite knowing that I will cripple my usefullness on the battlemat) and can just rely on the guys more into char-optimizing to be as effective as two ordinary chars (so they cover me being only 1/3 as effective as an ordinary char)

I think 4E tries to make suboptimal builds less likely, so your character build will not be as 1/3 as effective as an ordinary character. But your tactics might be. But this can be fixed - tell another player to play a Warlord (I bet any optimizer/tactician in your group will love that class anyway), and just tell him to roleplay his tactical expertise and tell your character what to do.

And who knows, maybe if you notice that your character is just as good as anyone else as he does, it will also be easier for you to see the tactical opportunities for your character? [/pipe dream]

 

[Blackeagle]

So I can build my weak fighter (because I deliberately take less Str/Con to take more Int/Cha because I just want a smart womenizer despite knowing that I will cripple my usefullness on the battlemat) and can just rely on the guys more into char-optimizing to be as effective as two ordinary chars (so they cover me being only 1/3 as effective as an ordinary char)

In 4e, it seems like an Int based fighter will be a workable build. So you can have your desired characterization and be effective on the battlefield.