Roles are so LIMITING!

Sojorn said:
Sorry, "refugee" was a poor word choice. Mostly because of the negative connotations.

Nearly all of my friends on WoW have some form of RP experience. Much like yourself, we all pretty much started quiting WoW when other things started seeming more interesting than raiding. WoW was our progression from tabletop/LARP/SP videogames. Now it's looking like there might be a shift among these friends back to 4th.

I can't speak for anyone that was drawn into WoW with no previous RP experience, as I'm not even sure if I knew anyone like that on WoW.

So all I meant was there seems to be a fair number of people I know that have gone "Silly raiding, forget this" and 4th edition is looking like an attractive alternative to these people for some reason. But this is the self-selecting group of people I talk to, so I can't rightly say how many of those players with limited tabletop experience will find 4th interesting.

Ah, I understand. I apologize if my response came off as unduely hostile, as well.

it's an interesting dichotomy to me, because (again, like yourself) I started playing WoW with a group of friends I knew through college and regularly tabletop gamed with. Yet, I would say 90% of the people I know as a result of the game have no experience with tabletop whatsoever. I imagine if I did this sort of informal mental polling 8 or so years ago when I was playing EQ on and off, I think I would have gotten a far larger number of the playerbase having had some sort of tabletop gaming experience.

Ultimately, with all the talk amongst folks about how 4E needs to pull in new players (with the understated implication that new players often = MMORPG fans), I was and am interested to see a case of this in action.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I stopped playing WoW and sold my account for $500.

It's a life-sucking, imagination draining exercise in frustration and futility.

Since quitting, I've done more writing in the last three months than I have in the last three years.

I missed my imagination. 4e > WoW.
 

I think you're underestimating the degree to which multiclassing and careful construction can enable a character to move into other roles.

To cite a couple well-known examples first. In the Living Greyhawk games I play, one of my friends has a barbarian 1/Cleric 14. The character is pretty much straightforward melee character. He has a reasonable armor class. He has decent hit points. In general when I'm playing my cleric in the party, he acts as a tank/DPS. If he needs to, he can drop a heal spell though and if he ends up as the party's cleric, he can do the standard buffing/healing. However, the best use of his actions is generally putting a hurt on things.

Likewise, I've DMed for or played with a couple druids who took nature's warrior levels (and maybe a barbarian level or two) and spend most of their time wild-shaped into a bear, eating the bad guys. When they do that, they're very effective at it.

That's not particular news. Ever since third edition started, melee clerics and druids have been the targets of the "they can do everything my fighter can do and more" complaints. (It's not quite true, but it's close enough).

My own first Living Greyhawk character was a fighter/wizard. By the time he made 18th level and retired, most of his levels were in Eldritch Knight, and he could fill in as the party's arcane caster in a pinch (in fact, he spent about half of his adventures as his party's primary arcane caster) but the way he would generally contribute would be through killing things with his sword, glaive, or later his guisarme. He might drop a quickened scorching ray before or after doing that. He might drop a wall of force in the surprise round instead of attacking, but he was primarily a melee character. (In 4th edition terms, he probably would be a controller/defender/hybrid who moved to more striker level damage in his higher levels).

To use a more exaggerated example, I have a friend whose mid level Living Greyhawk character is a barbarian druid who frequently wild shapes and charges. I've never seen the character summon an animal. If the party is relying on her for healing or support, they're in trouble. Unlike the other melee druids that I mentioned earlier, she is not a defender in 4th edition terms. She is pretty much a pure striker and plays like the most aggressive kind of barbarian (does a lot of damage and sucks up a lot of healing).

Another example of an unusual character is a friend's bard. Said bard has spent all his feats to be good at melee combat and is actually a pretty decent defender and can carve up the bad guys well enough even though everything in his class is focused towards the "leader" role. (And he does that as well as any other bard as well).

Likewise, a character as basic as a single classed fighter (not that you see many of them or that they are actually simple to build or play) can easily fill the defender (fullplate, shield, etc) or the striker (longbow, etc) role in a party.

It's hard for non-spellcasters to do more than dangle their feat in leader or controller roles, but in terms of filling in the defender and striker roles, 3e is pretty wide open.

Kishin said:
3E's 'role expansion' is mostly illusory. The build options are certainly hugely diverse, but they're still within a reasonable framework. Sure, you can move toward the edges of that framework, and even dangle your feet off the side into someone else's territory....But you'll never be as wholly effective at ti.

Example 1: Character in the campaign I currently DM: A Ranger with the wildshape Ranger variant rules, as well as the Feats instead of Spell progression. He's still a striker type character (Especially since the player built him using skill tricks from Complete Scroundrel, making him incredibly mobile.)

Example 2: A warlock using Eldritch Glaive. Character becomes a melee character, but lacks the resilience of a 'defender' due to HP and generally lower armor (until he discovers the magnificent hax of mithral breastplates). Character is forced to rely on other warlock powers for defense, most of which provide evasiveness. (Fell Flight, Spider Climb, etc.)
 

Elder-Basilisk said:
To cite a couple well-known examples first. In the Living Greyhawk games I play, one of my friends has a barbarian 1/Cleric 14. The character is pretty much straightforward melee character. He has a reasonable armor class. He has decent hit points. In general when I'm playing my cleric in the party, he acts as a tank/DPS. If he needs to, he can drop a heal spell though and if he ends up as the party's cleric, he can do the standard buffing/healing. However, the best use of his actions is generally putting a hurt on things.

Likewise, I've DMed for or played with a couple druids who took nature's warrior levels (and maybe a barbarian level or two) and spend most of their time wild-shaped into a bear, eating the bad guys. When they do that, they're very effective at it.

These aren't good examples of role switching to me at all, sorry. Clerics in 3.5E beat face very effectively, especially thanks to self-buffs like the ubiquitous Divine Power.

I don't see wildshaped meleeing druids as being a role departure, either, especially since the caster/melee roleswapping is built into the druid character class.

Elder-Basilisk said:
My own first Living Greyhawk character was a fighter/wizard. By the time he made 18th level and retired, most of his levels were in Eldritch Knight, and he could fill in as the party's arcane caster in a pinch (in fact, he spent about half of his adventures as his party's primary arcane caster) but the way he would generally contribute would be through killing things with his sword, glaive, or later his guisarme. He might drop a quickened scorching ray before or after doing that. He might drop a wall of force in the surprise round instead of attacking, but he was primarily a melee character. (In 4th edition terms, he probably would be a controller/defender/hybrid who moved to more striker level damage in his higher levels).

This is a better example, but a character like that is still shackled somewhat by his origins, and is still a dabbler, albeit a very jack of all trades one. This is the perfect '5th slot' character, a character who can really play the field and shore up his teammates weaknesses.

Elder-Basilisk said:
To use a more exaggerated example, I have a friend whose mid level Living Greyhawk character is a barbarian druid who frequently wild shapes and charges. I've never seen the character summon an animal. If the party is relying on her for healing or support, they're in trouble. Unlike the other melee druids that I mentioned earlier, she is not a defender in 4th edition terms. She is pretty much a pure striker and plays like the most aggressive kind of barbarian (does a lot of damage and sucks up a lot of healing).

Again, druids are overpowered role swapping hybrids. Its hard to deny this in 3.5E. I don't see them as 'moving into' other roles, so much as firmly occupying multiple roles to a degree that could be considered unbalanced.

Elder-Basilisk said:
That's not particular news. Ever since third edition started, melee clerics and druids have been the targets of the "they can do everything my fighter can do and more" complaints. (It's not quite true, but it's close enough).

It's incredibly true at higher levels. Druids and Clerics become virtual godbeings then, and can and will outperform Fighters in a wide variety of ways, especially Druids, thanks to wildshape.
 

Mirtek said:
If D&D should take anything from WoW with regard to class roles then it should be the option to completly break out of the role.

Many classes in WoW can be skilled to fullfill completly different roles.
That is because WoW characters suffer greater limitations, though.
First of all, there is no multiclassing, and only nine classes. Second, there is very limited customisation: for instance, no WoW priest can ever wear leather armour, period. Third, you're basically stuck to one character (with only rerolling as an alternative option, so far).
Last - though it should be first - there's only one way to play the game, and that is combat. The world is fixed, as you have no DM. Etcetera.

I think the concept of role is built in the concept of class. If you want to break free from roles, IMO you should also break free from classes altogether and move to a skill-based system.
 


Kzach said:
I missed my imagination.

"WoW made me unimaginative."

It's the new "cheeseburgers and milkshakes and french fries made me fat, and it wasn't my fault" argument.

Who needs personal responsibility when you can point fingers and avoid actually thinking about your own shortcomings?
 

Charwoman Gene said:
I'm not failing to see anything, I'm way smarterer than you and and you think you see it.

I see it and *gasp* I reject the conclusion as fallacious. *Scandalous*

So did I, almost 3 months ago, when I posted the -exact- same quote you made in this thread, even trimming it from the rest of the paragraph it resided in exactly the same way. Odd coincidence, that. It is a pretty witty arguement, perhaps I should be patting myself on the back and pointing out that I'm way smartererer than you for making it 3 months before you did.
 

Remove ads

Top