D&D 4E My compiled list of 4E's WoWisms

[cignus_pfaccari]

Why not just rename the Fighter class Tank? What is the purpose to giving a name to the role when they already have a name for it... their class name!?

Because that allows for more than four classes, thus giving players variety. While you *can* go super-generic, that's not really the way a class-based game like D&D would go.

Why give a name for a role and then describe that role vs. just describing the role each class has?

It's a recognition that, in play, those four roles are typically what people do. Tanking and healing have been with us as long as there've been RPGs; otherwise, why were fighters referred to as meat shields? The differentiation between controller and striker is a bit more modern; I was only aware of mages as damage-dealers until a DM introduced the concept of battlefield control to me.

Classes can also potentially fulfill more than one role. Almost all of them can, for example, do decent damage to one other target, making them able to fill a striker/DPS role. Fighters can defend/tank as well as get out the two-handers and hit people real hard. A fighter will still probably be best at defending and not as good as dishing out damage as a rogue, but that doesn't mean they can't just be meat shields.

Knowing that these roles exist is key, I think, to providing a good mechanical base for the game. If nothing else, it means that the designers know how the game is supposed to work, which is nice.

Brad

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What about the original Neverwinter Nights on AOL, the first MMORPG, arguably, which was also D&D 1st edition?

You don't have to convince me, it's a large number of other folks who seem to have missed this stuff.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Do you want to defend your teammates, strike at the enemy leaders, control the enemies position on the battlefield or help others acheive their aims through teamwork. From there you can further narrow the field - do you want to strike the enemy at range or up close? Or do you want to lead your team efforts through healing and divine blessing or through martial skill and tactics?

We do this now, and we don't use any "Striker" or "Leader" terms. So why do we suddenly need terms for these roles?

In WoW, a Resto Druid is a healer. A feral Druid can be a Tank or DPS. So it makes sense to destinguish between them with these terms. If you are looking for a healer for your group, and you add a Druid to the group, they may not be the right kind of Druid you need.

Now... If 4E classes can fulfill multiple roles, I would see the purpose to this. Is your 4E Paladin built to taunt enemies and take damage, or is he built to deal massive amounts of holy wrath, or is he built to be the best combat medic he can be? So I could see a term like Striker Paladin or "What kind of Paladin are you?" "I am a Striker".

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

First off, I think there is a difference when a PLAYER calls something a "tank" or a "meat shield" and when a game designer uses a similiar term for a role.

Most game designers worth a damn were players first. There's nothing surprising about them using the same sort of terminology a player does.

Second, it is fine to describe a classes role, but I personally find it strange to give the role a different name than the class performing the role.

Not if you don't intend each role to only be filled by one class. You call the role "healer," not "cleric," because you want more than one class to be able to fill the role.

The term Tank, DPS, Healer, CC are all player created terms and you'd have to be 'in the know' to know what they mean.

I don't believe anyone has a hard time figuring out what "damage per second," "healing" or "crowd control" is. I have been playing WoW since November 2003 (human push of alpha) and have never seen anyone ask these questions.

NOTE: If anyone plays WoW and doesn't understand these terms, please play Horde in the Bloodlust battlegroup and please PvP. Thank you.

WotC's terms are a bit broader and less descriptive, which seems to be a conscious effort to not be too "video gamey."

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Now I have to define what I mean by "ism". Perhaps I am using the suffix incorrectly, but I take it to mean a sort of "trademark" or staple of that particular subject. In other words, if it exists within that subject (in this case, WoW) then it is an "ism" of it.

Others seem to think that it means that it was first introduced in that medium.

Since, of course, that's how it's used in English by the overwhelming majority of English speakers.

Perhaps I am using the term incorrectly, and that might be part of the confussion?

You are and it is.

So to say that Talent Trees is an ism of WoW, would that not be correct? Even though other games have such a thing, the mere fact it exisits in WoW makes it an ism of WoW, does it not?

No, it doesn't.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

We do this now, and we don't use any "Striker" or "Leader" terms. So why do we suddenly need terms for these roles?

Because they didn't want to use the terms "DPS" and "healer," but those are inarguably roles in D&D, and always have been. They want to balance each of the classes that fulfills a role against each other, so one healer/leader and one dps/striker is equally useful as any other class that fills that role.

This is not a WoWism, this is a you-not-understanding-what-WotC-is-doing-ism, mostly because WotC's terms aren't as clear as they ought to be. That doesn't make WotC right, and you wrong, but it's wrong to somehow turn this into a WoW thing.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

May I respectfully ask that if you are serious about this, you start your own thread on it and do no thread hijack or threadcrap this one?

I'm sorry if my list hit too close to home. I'll stay out of this thread from now on.

 

[IanB]

I think that just points to the fact that the big vocal gnome supporters on the development team were outnumbered by those who just weren't feeling them and wanted them shelved until that changed.

The Krynn/Mystara gnomish archetype works fine and could be made to work in even low-tech worlds by tweaking the premise. Or taking forest gnomes or some other subrace.

But there weren't enough of the people on the dev team who felt that way, so, exit stage left for now.

I suspect there's an unspoken antipathy towards the idea of tinker gnomes in at least some of the WotC designers as well. Certainly I know plenty of gamers who think that the Dragonlance tinker gnomes were the lamest/most annoying thing to be added to D&D since, well, gully dwarves.

It is a subject that in my experience feelings tend to run a bit high on, so it doesn't surprise me in the least to see that idea get discarded. WoW having already 'borrowed' the idea most likely just made the decision even easier.

 

[IanB]

Which MMO has that? EQ1, CoX and WoW don't have that, off the top of my head.

It is kinda sorta vaguely like a WoW paladin judging Seal of Light on something.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

To be honest, EverQuest did tinker gnomes a lot more extensively (and better) than WoW did. WoW gnomes have other fun stuff going on, though, particularly their racial rivalry/hatred for goblins and the stuff with being exiles from their own city and their problems with the troggs and leper gnomes.

When I think "tinker gnome," Ak'Anon springs to mind before Gnomeregan does.