Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raduin711" data-source="post: 4011629" data-attributes="member: 15303">sample dragon fight: I wouldn't say this is borrowed from Onyxia.&nbsp; WoW and D&amp;D are simply trying to capture the classic fantasy trope of the group of heroes fighting the deadly dragon.&nbsp; By giving the dragon all different kinds of actions, he is able to provide a good challenge against a group of PC's.&nbsp; The same idea is being done with the beholder, as well.&nbsp; I would say they are both approaching this trope in different ways.Quest Cards: I have no idea about these.&nbsp; I assume these are an addition to D&amp;D miniatures and not 4e.&nbsp; If so, I know warhammer 40k has different scenarios as well.&nbsp; Table-top strategy games often make use of scenarios as a way of spicing the game up.Level Limits on Rings: Not sure.&nbsp; Could be.&nbsp; I would say that WoW is even more gear dependent than 3.5 D&amp;D, and that the level limit isn't on the ring, per se, but on the slot.&nbsp; You could also say that D&amp;D has always had level limits on some magical items, like scrolls, and that magic items have always been indirectly restricted by the amount of gp characters are able to aquire and by DM management.Tieflings: Again, tieflings have been around long before WoW.&nbsp; D&amp;D has had the concept of &quot;evil curious&quot; characters for a long time, stretching back to about the time Drow were introduced, possibly earlier, I don't know, I wasn't around then.&nbsp; They have just now put the Tiefling in the PHB, that is true.&nbsp; Is this the first time they have put an &quot;evil curious&quot; race in the PHB?&nbsp; Actually... no.&nbsp; They had half-orcs in 3.5.&nbsp; They decided to ditch that because of the implications of how those half-orcs were concieved.&nbsp; But was their choice of Tieflings being the new &quot;evil curious&quot; race because of the popularity of the Dranei, or because Tieflings were the next obvious choice?&nbsp; I don't know for sure.&nbsp; Maybe both.&nbsp; I tend to side with the latter, but that is just my personal opinion.Roles:&nbsp; D&amp;D has always had implied roles, from the very beginning.&nbsp; Encouraging teamwork has always been a goal of D&amp;D, and with different classes came different roles.&nbsp; They are just labeling these roles this time around.&nbsp; (also, if you look back to 2e, you can see that it had defined roles as well, so actually this isn't new to D&amp;D at all...)&nbsp; Defender vs Tank:&nbsp; D&amp;D has always had the armored fighter in the front lines to protect the wizard.&nbsp; Only difference is, this time around the defender will have more abilities to keep the enemies focused on him and not the rest of the party.DPS: D&amp;D used to have a DPS role in the form of the wizard.&nbsp; This time around it sounds like 4e is trying to spread out the damage dealing abilities to the whole party.Striker:&nbsp; The striker seems to be -kind of- the DPS role.&nbsp; However the Striker will rely on opportunistic tactics and evasive maneuvers, rather than standing back and lobbing damaging spells like in WoW.Healer vs Leader:&nbsp; An area where 4e seems to be taking the initiative over WoW.&nbsp; Rather than having the healer stand back and spam heals, the Leader helps with that, and much more.&nbsp; But again, this role was done by D&amp;D first.Controller vs. Crowd Control: This is one area where D&amp;D may be borrowing from WoW.&nbsp; The controller function seems to be somewhat new to D&amp;D.&nbsp; While the wizard has always had abilities to affect the battlefield, their main function was to dish out the damage where it was needed.But I think all in all, D&amp;D has been doing combat roles since its inception, which predates video games in general.&nbsp; If anything WoW is borrowing from concepts laid out by D&amp;D long ago.Elites:&nbsp; Again, there have always been big bad monsters in D&amp;D that were supposed to be thrown at a party by themselves and still be a challenge.&nbsp; This time around they are doing it better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raduin711, post: 4011629, member: 15303"] sample dragon fight: I wouldn't say this is borrowed from Onyxia. WoW and D&D are simply trying to capture the classic fantasy trope of the group of heroes fighting the deadly dragon. By giving the dragon all different kinds of actions, he is able to provide a good challenge against a group of PC's. The same idea is being done with the beholder, as well. I would say they are both approaching this trope in different ways. Quest Cards: I have no idea about these. I assume these are an addition to D&D miniatures and not 4e. If so, I know warhammer 40k has different scenarios as well. Table-top strategy games often make use of scenarios as a way of spicing the game up. Level Limits on Rings: Not sure. Could be. I would say that WoW is even more gear dependent than 3.5 D&D, and that the level limit isn't on the [I]ring[/I], per se, but on the slot. You could also say that D&D has always had level limits on some magical items, like scrolls, and that magic items have always been indirectly restricted by the amount of gp characters are able to aquire and by DM management. Tieflings: Again, tieflings have been around long before WoW. D&D has had the concept of "evil curious" characters for a long time, stretching back to about the time Drow were introduced, possibly earlier, I don't know, I wasn't around then. They have just now put the Tiefling in the PHB, that is true. Is this the first time they have put an "evil curious" race in the PHB? Actually... no. They had half-orcs in 3.5. They decided to ditch that because of the implications of how those half-orcs were concieved. But was their choice of Tieflings being the new "evil curious" race because of the popularity of the Dranei, or because Tieflings were the next obvious choice? I don't know for sure. Maybe both. I tend to side with the latter, but that is just my personal opinion. Roles: D&D has always had implied roles, from the very beginning. Encouraging teamwork has always been a goal of D&D, and with different classes came different roles. They are just labeling these roles this time around. (also, if you look back to 2e, you can see that it had defined roles as well, so actually this isn't new to D&D at all...) Defender vs Tank: D&D has always had the armored fighter in the front lines to protect the wizard. Only difference is, this time around the defender will have more abilities to keep the enemies focused on him and not the rest of the party. DPS: D&D used to have a DPS role in the form of the wizard. This time around it sounds like 4e is trying to spread out the damage dealing abilities to the whole party. Striker: The striker seems to be -kind of- the DPS role. However the Striker will rely on opportunistic tactics and evasive maneuvers, rather than standing back and lobbing damaging spells like in WoW. Healer vs Leader: An area where 4e seems to be taking the initiative over WoW. Rather than having the healer stand back and spam heals, the Leader helps with that, and much more. But again, this role was done by D&D first. Controller vs. Crowd Control: This is one area where D&D may be borrowing from WoW. The controller function seems to be somewhat new to D&D. While the wizard has always had abilities to affect the battlefield, their main function was to dish out the damage where it was needed. But I think all in all, D&D has been doing combat roles since its inception, which predates video games in general. If anything WoW is borrowing from concepts laid out by D&D long ago. Elites: Again, there have always been big bad monsters in D&D that were supposed to be thrown at a party by themselves and still be a challenge. This time around they are doing it better. [/QUOTE]

Verification