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

Here's a question. For the sake of argument, let's agree that the knight's abilities were cribbed from the WoW paladin's taunts. Now, assume that they work great, are easy to play, suit the flavour text well, don't slow things down, and don't otherwise negatively impact actual play. Why should we be upset that they were based on the WoW abilities?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sunderstone said:
Noted, I do allow the PH2 in my game despite the glaring WoW similarities (like Druids "Spontaneous Rejuvenation" for another example). At one point one of my players was thinking about trying the Knight in my current AoW campaign, but opted for a Barbarian instead. I was curious to see how well it would work in an actual game even if I dont like the WoW similarity personally.


This may sound stupid, but for people like me, who've never played WoW, what does it matter where the material comes from? If it's good stuff, it's good stuff. I'm not going to poo something just because I've seen it implemented somewhere before.

Heck, first time I saw Black Razor, I knew it was an homage to Stormbringer, especially based on the back cover of the old White Plume Mountaint. Didn't stop me from using it as an aspect of the Black Sword though.
 

Dr. Awkward said:
Here's a question. For the sake of argument, let's agree that the knight's abilities were cribbed from the WoW paladin's taunts. Now, assume that they work great, are easy to play, suit the flavour text well, don't slow things down, and don't otherwise negatively impact actual play. Why should we be upset that they were based on the WoW abilities?

Because it's "new" fantasy and isn't older than the players. As someone mentioned in this thread and my other thread, anything that is "current" is seen as bad even though the D&D game explicitly borrows from past influences...
 

I like this. Of course, I'd like to see the Paladin become a talent tree or prestige class for the fighter. I've been in favor of few base classes which are very flexible.
 

Gimby said:
Having run a prot warrior myself, no. Some of them are similar, but the implementation is very different. The comparison is about as valid as the feat-enhanced uses of Bardic music.

snipped from an older post of mine... some obvious WoW ideas that made it to the PH2...

The Knight Class- Can we say Tank and Hold Aggro here?
Knights Challenge Abilities (WoW Warrior equivalent)...


Fighting Challenge (Taunt)
Test of Mettle (Challenging Shout)
Call to Battle (Battle Shout Buff)
Daunting Challenge (Intimidating Shout-Fear effect)
Loyal Beyond Death (Last Stand, Prot spec warriors stand up and be recognized)

Thene there are feats like...
Sacred Purification (WoW Priest's Holy Nova)


How about alternative class features...
Druids Spontaneous Rejuvenation (HoTs - Wow Druid's Rejuvenation -Heal over Time)
Fighters Counterattack (WoW Warrior's Overpower or Hunters Mongoose Bite)

sigh



To the rest here, I dont mean to offend but my point is that 4E is heading too far away from the traditional D&D flavor for me. I enjoy both D&D (for about 26 years now) and WoW (since release). I just dont need one mixing in with the other. 4E should have some original concepts for the traditional tabletop rpg, not borrow just about everything (like unlimited casting, "per encounter" is akin to having a mana bar) from a video game.
 

AllisterH said:
Because it's "new" fantasy and isn't older than the players. As someone mentioned in this thread and my other thread, anything that is "current" is seen as bad even though the D&D game explicitly borrows from past influences...
Well, imagine that WoW never existed, and yet the designers of the knight class still managed to outfit it with the same abilities. Would that still be "new fantasy?" The knight's abilities are new. The class is new. The game mechanics are new. However, there is no MMORPG that resembles it. Is there still something objectionable for those people?
 

AllisterH said:
Because it's "new" fantasy and isn't older than the players. As someone mentioned in this thread and my other thread, anything that is "current" is seen as bad even though the D&D game explicitly borrows from past influences...

You are assuming too much here, or you are just trying to get in a dig at me for my opinion.

To be blunt..... D&D seems to be more for the next generation action video game junkies, than us RPG tabletop folks. It has nothing to do with "new fantasy" as you put it.
 

JoeGKushner said:
This may sound stupid, but for people like me, who've never played WoW, what does it matter where the material comes from? If it's good stuff, it's good stuff. I'm not going to poo something just because I've seen it implemented somewhere before.

Or, as the case may be, haven't seen it implemented before...but heard rumours on an internet message board that it was a total rip off of something from a--*shudder*--video game.
 

Sunderstone said:
You are assuming too much here, or you are just trying to get in a dig at me for my opinion.

To be blunt..... D&D seems to be more for the next generation action video game junkies, than us RPG tabletop folks. It has nothing to do with "new fantasy" as you put it.
So go ahead and enlighten us. Answer my question above. I'm an old tabletop RPG guy from back in the day. I've played every edition of D&D. I don't see anything wrong with cribbing notes from MMORPGs, as long as it makes a positive contribution to the game. Good ideas are good ideas. So why all the hate from my fellow old tabletop RPG folks?
 

Dr. Awkward said:
Well, imagine that WoW never existed, and yet the designers of the knight class still managed to outfit it with the same abilities. Would that still be "new fantasy?"
No, it would be an original concept (if wow never existed) unlike what seems to be going into 4E.

For that matter why not let the Core 3 books for 4E be written by Blizzard Entertainment?
 

Remove ads

Top