The fighter and the paladin pretty well ganged up on the knight & stole his stuff

[Plane Sailing]

From James Wyatts latest blog entry
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13649886&postcount=14

So Corwyn, our human knight, became a human fighter. His player said yesterday that the character was informed by some of the features of the knight class, but that as a 4e fighter he was a better expression of what he'd wanted the character to be. (The fighter and the paladin pretty well ganged up on the poor knight and divvied his stuff between them.)

I wonder which aspects of knight would go where?

 

[Sun Knight]

It sounds to me that they are cannibalizing 3.5e, making some basic game mechanic changes, then spewing it out as a new product.

 

[Wormwood]

It sounds to me that they are cannibalizing 3.5e, making some basic game mechanic changes, then spewing it out as a new product.

Really?

It looks more like they are keeping good ideas and dropping bad ones.

 

[Jer]

It sounds to me that they are cannibalizing 3.5e, making some basic game mechanic changes, then spewing it out as a new product.

That's actually a good way to describe how a new edition of a game SHOULD be created - take the best stuff that works from the current edition, scrap the cruft that was leftover from the previous edition as well as the stuff that hasn't worked in the current edition, and put out a new edition.

This whole "reinvent the game every edition" thing that D&D has gotten into is the anomaly - new editions should be coming about due to evolution, not revolution.

There's a lot of other hints in Wyatt's entry too - a very interesting read, actually.

 

[Sadrik]

There was some interesting stuff there! I think the roles are definitely not a hard cast attribute on each class instead I think they are a guideline that says you should try and fill these 4 roles for an optimum party.

 

[Andor]

I thought this was the most interesting bit:

Aash was my xeph swordsage. That wasn't a concept that would be easy to translate at this point in the game's design.

So inspite of how Bo9S informed 4e design, it's not possible (yet) to make a Swordsage-y character. That should calm some fears of the Fighter being too Wuxia-magical. Indeed, even with the Ranger being a Divine Striker (we assume) it's still not possible to warp that build into a special effectsy Martial/Magical Artist.

Of course the 'yet' may mean that some of the more out there talent trees just haven't been put together yet.

Or we may be waiting for the PHB2 when the Arcane Defender gets written up.

 

[Morrus]

It sounds to me that they are cannibalizing 3.5e, making some basic game mechanic changes, then spewing it out as a new product.

How does one make a new version of one's game without doing that? Isn't that exactly what "new edition" means?

 

[Sun Knight]

How does one make a new version of one's game without doing that? Isn't that exactly what "new edition" means?

Point. :\

 

[Stalker0]

From James Wyatts latest blog entry
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13649886&postcount=14



I wonder which aspects of knight would go where?

My guess is that the fighter may gain some of the AOO battlecontrol abilities of the knight (either as abilities, feats, talents, powers, or something) while the paladin would pick up those charisma based challenge abilities.

 

[AllisterH]

My guess is that the fighter may gain some of the AOO battlecontrol abilities of the knight (either as abilities, feats, talents, powers, or something) while the paladin would pick up those charisma based challenge abilities.

Agreed. The Knight's Challenge abilities probably get snapped up by the paladin and the AoO control abilities probably became a talent tree for the fighter while the "protect ally" ability might have been a talent tree shared by both the paladin AND the fighter.