PHB2 = World of Warcraft D&D?

[Felon]

The problem with going with a few core features can be easily seen in the fighter class: too many dead levels. Each level that the class gets nothing makes multiclassing or PrCing much more attractive. So a bunch of minor features can really help keep people in the class. So I don't really see the weak specials the knight gets as being much different than the rogue or barbarian's advancement in Trap Sense and such.

The difference, while not earth-shattering, is distinct. It amounts to polished versus messy design, streamlined versus cluttered. As a DM, I'm much more fond of allowing a polished, streamlined class into a campaign, and I'm certainly going to get better use out of one as an NPC. The knight has 6 different uses of his fighting challenge, plus 3 progressive features (shield block, armor mastery, and shield ally), plus sporadic bonus feats, plus the 3 one-time specials bulwark of defense, vigilant defender, and impetuous endurance (these in particular seem totally gratuitous).

Not only does each new feature have its own little FAQ festering inside of it waiting to burst forth, it just gets to be overkill at some point, reminiscent of those 1e supplemental classes like barbarian, cavalier, and ninja. I don't think keeping the sheer quantity of class features within single digits is all that demanding.

The barbarian and rogue both provide good examples of how to avoid those dead levels without becoming a bloated kitchen-sink full of a dozen different class features.

 

[Vlad Le Démon]

It's pretty circular at this point. D&D begat Warhammer, Warhammer begat Warcraft, Warcraft begat World of Warcraft, WoW begat a lot of other stuff, including modern elements of Warhammer.

Look at pages 31 & 73 for example...the elves look like High Elves of Warhammer...I regret the time when each game have is OWN graphical universe.

 

[Agent Oracle]

Look at pages 31 & 73 for example...the elves look like High Elves of Warhammer...I regret the time when each game have is OWN graphical universe.

On page 31...

I just don't see it. I see pointy ears + long hair: but guess what? i go over and grab my old AD&D manual, and i see pretty much the same thing out of elves in that edition too.

On page 73: I REALLY don't see it, since there's no elf on page 73.

Now, if you want Warcraft: look at page 178 of the old AD&D PHB, and tell me that isn't a night elf!

 

[dagger]

Hey Jeremy, welcome back.

Yes, the MMO/WoW comparison's been made before. No, it's not entirely accurate, but whatever. (Besides, wouldn't the dragon shaman actually be closer to the paladin from diablo 2? )

That would be the Marshal....

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

You make a fantastic point. It all depends on what influences the individual making the observation has had. You and I seem to have read the same literature, so we see those influences, while those who play games like WoW or any number of others see computer and/or console game influences in D&D.

The thing that amuses me the most is that these people are complaining that they see the influence of video games in D&D. Those of us who are familiar with the "calling you out" archetype of fantasy literature recognize it in the knight, and appreciate it for approximating that element of the genre. Those who don't recognize it assume that it was never part of the genre, and so complain that it's "too video-gamey" just because it's something that they've only seen in WoW. Where do they think the WoW designers got the idea from?

"Leave them alone, villain! You fight me today! ...or am I being too video-gamey?"

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Sure, but having a specific, codified way of going about it rather than the "magic pencil" method is what I was referring to.

1st edition PHB: Dual Classed Characters

 

[Sejs]

That would be the Marshal....

The marshall has auras that heal their allies over time, damage enemies if they're hit, and can throw holy bolts? You don't say!

 

[Victim]

The difference, while not earth-shattering, is distinct. It amounts to polished versus messy design, streamlined versus cluttered. As a DM, I'm much more fond of allowing a polished, streamlined class into a campaign, and I'm certainly going to get better use out of one as an NPC. The knight has 6 different uses of his fighting challenge, plus 3 progressive features (shield block, armor mastery, and shield ally), plus sporadic bonus feats, plus the 3 one-time specials bulwark of defense, vigilant defender, and impetuous endurance (these in particular seem totally gratuitous).

Not only does each new feature have its own little FAQ festering inside of it waiting to burst forth, it just gets to be overkill at some point, reminiscent of those 1e supplemental classes like barbarian, cavalier, and ninja. I don't think keeping the sheer quantity of class features within single digits is all that demanding.

The barbarian and rogue both provide good examples of how to avoid those dead levels without becoming a bloated kitchen-sink full of a dozen different class features.

The Knight, according to my count, had 9 class features aside from its core Challenge ability and the Code restriction. The rogue has 8 aside from its core sneak attack (and that includes lumping together the two Uncanny Dodge traits), since its chose your special power ability offers 4 unrelated abilities. The barbarian, aside from its Rage/Greater/Mighty progression, has 6. The ranger has 8 aside from its favored enemy and combat styles. And spellcasting.

Many of the knight's abilities do seem to be related - there's Shield Ally and then Improved Shield Ally. Vigilant Defender seems like an upgrade of Bulwark of Defense.

So even without combinding the Knight's abilities that are upgrades, the Knight doesn't have too many more class features than other core classes. And I didn't even get into the monk.

 

[mmu1]

The thing that amuses me the most is that these people are complaining that they see the influence of video games in D&D. Those of us who are familiar with the "calling you out" archetype of fantasy literature recognize it in the knight, and appreciate it for approximating that element of the genre. Those who don't recognize it assume that it was never part of the genre, and so complain that it's "too video-gamey" just because it's something that they've only seen in WoW. Where do they think the WoW designers got the idea from?

Right... Because most of the people who disagree with you and dislike the Knight's challenges are so ignorant, they've never seen the concept of someone being called out to fight outside of a videogame. Talk about misplaced condescension...

I'm willing to bet that most people who dislike the challenges are quite aware of the literary precedents - and that, in fact, is the reason they dislike the PHB2 version. Because there's more to an epic challenge, or putting your honor on the line, than a special ability that you can turn on like a switch, so many times per day.

That might be a necessary way of simulating things in a computer game - where a mindless computer-controlled enemy won't be swayed by well chosen words or your force of personality - but around a gaming table, where you can - and should - role play the damn thing, it can easily be seen as a step backwards.

 

[Sejs]

... swayed by well chosen words or your force of personality - but around a gaming table, where you can - and should - role play the damn thing, it can easily be seen as a step backwards.

Well chosen words, which in D&D can be represented via social skills, and force of personality, which is to say, a decent charisma score...

There already are mechanical representations of those things. Even down to the point where we know what kind of action it takes to use them in combat, etc.

Saying that oh, you should roleplay it and that having a mechanic for such a thing is a step backwards is more than a bit off. Roleplaying and mechanics are not by necessity mutually exclusive, and sure, different groups may well tend to sway more to either end of the spectrum, but that's their option.