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

[Gumby]

As for not adding anything constructive to this thread... I just had an opinion about comparing the topic to some elements of WoW.

Nice job derailing it, though. I also liked the part where you implied that everyone who's optimistic about 4E is just jumping on a bandwagon and refusing to listen to any contrary views. Really, if you're that negative about everyone here, you really should leave, and found your own site about how 4E is too much like WOW.

When 3E came out, did people compare it to Everquest and Ultima Online? I must have missed that.

 

[Rechan]

We did, three weeks ago, and it rocked

I'm glad you enjoyed yourself, but his style of game is not my tastes.

 

[Rechan]

The whole world of Azeroth in WoW was originally a D&D homebrew world run by, I believe, Chris Metzen...the head honcho on lore and such.

So, really, Warcraft owes everything to D&D. Nothing wrong with giving a little back.

Trivia: Warcraft was meant to be a Warhammer game, and Starcraft was meant to be a WH40K game. But, the individuals who owned Warhammer went "UH NO" and Blizzard went "Oh yeah? Well here, we'll change this stuff, so HA".

 

[Gimby]

Sunderstone,

I'm interested in why you think that the information released so far indicates that the game will become more like an MMO and how the rules will force the DM to run it like it is one.

As I see it, the massive advantage that a tabletop game has over an MMO or any other CRPG is the presence of the DM. Mechanics are entirely secondary to that. The DM means that the world can be dynamic and reactive, which is what I want to see out of any RPG. Unless the rules somehow force the DM to make the world static I don't see how it can be like an MMO at all.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Trivia: Warcraft was meant to be a Warhammer game, and Starcraft was meant to be a WH40K game. But, the individuals who owned Warhammer went "UH NO" and Blizzard went "Oh yeah? Well here, we'll change this stuff, so HA".

Indeed.

And both of those show through pretty clearly in both Warcraft and Starcraft games.

But that doesn't change the fact that D&D was still the initial influence.

 

[Reaper Steve]

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.

I've been playing D&D as long as you, so I don't consider myself a next-gen action video game junkie. However, I have been looking forward to D&D becoming what it is finally shaping up to be in 4e. IMO, whoever said 'D&D is 20 minutes of fun crammed into 4 hours' was spot on...and I really think that these types of changes will make 4e the 4 hrs of fun for 4 hours it needs to be.

No offense, and I certainly understand many players in our age group feel the same as you, but just realize that some of us welcome the changes.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Gentlemen - there's nothing wrong with discussing perceptions of the influence or lack thereof of computer games on the evolution of D&D...

... as long as that discussion is conducted in a civil fashion.

Please keep it polite, or intervention will be required.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[DarkKestral]

Personally, I love the idea that the Knight class's mechanics are getting taken by the pally and the fighter. I'm not sure where I'd want them split, but it seems like a great idea. Marshal -> Pally w/ some Fighter and Knight -> Fighter w/ some Pally seems like they would be great ways to take the classes. if paladins being more focused around buffing/smiting and fighters more tactics/enemy defense it would be an awesome combo.

I would be happiest if paladin was a 'prestige role' for the fighter and cleric classes. Actually, I'd not be unhappy if rangers, bards, barbarians, and paladins were all 'prestige roles', but ones with a low level requirement. I'd think that would make some annoyed though, so I'm not really in total love with the idea.

 

[Merlion]

Personally, I love the idea that the Knight class's mechanics are getting taken by the pally and the fighter. I'm not sure where I'd want them split, but it seems like a great idea. Marshal -> Pally w/ some Fighter and Knight -> Fighter w/ some Pally seems like they would be great ways to take the classes. if paladins being more focused around buffing/smiting and fighters more tactics/enemy defense it would be an awesome combo.

I would be happiest if paladin was a 'prestige role' for the fighter and cleric classes. Actually, I'd not be unhappy if rangers, bards, barbarians, and paladins were all 'prestige roles', but ones with a low level requirement. I'd think that would make some annoyed though, so I'm not really in total love with the idea.

It would annoy me a bit. I'd prefer if most or all of the long time base classes remained so (Ranger, Druid, Bard, Paladin in particular.) Barbarian however (or Berserker or whatever) seems like it would be better as simply a fighter or ranger focus or "build type" or what have you. But I feel the conceptual archtypes of most of the D&D base classes have strength enough and enough presence in fantasy literature mythology etc to stay on.

In fact, Rangers, Bards Paladins etc have probably more archtypal presence than Clerics.

 

[DarkKestral]

It would annoy me a bit. I'd prefer if most or all of the long time base classes remained so (Ranger, Druid, Bard, Paladin in particular.) Barbarian however (or Berserker or whatever) seems like it would be better as simply a fighter or ranger focus or "build type" or what have you. But I feel the conceptual archtypes of most of the D&D base classes have strength enough and enough presence in fantasy literature mythology etc to stay on.

In fact, Rangers, Bards Paladins etc have probably more archtypal presence than Clerics.

Oh, I get that bards, rangers, druids, and paladins are probably more archetypal than the D&D cleric. However, the cleric is what it is because nothing else can fit the niche. But I've always seen them as a bit of 'specialized roles within a more general specialty' type of deals. Part of it is that they cross 'role boundaries' a bit, so there is certainly reason for disagreement here. Paladins tank and heal. Druids in D&D can tank, heal, damage, or battlefield control. Rangers do skill-y stuff and can do the 'main fighter' role. Bards are battlefield controllers and skill specialists.

Ultimately, you have to make a stand on where to be on the classless->permanently single-role with pre-defined abilities spectrum as well as the level -> non-level spectrum. They both have their advantages. Heavily specific class systems with a level basis are great for pick up and play character design, but lack in the ability to always emulate a given character idea well. Classless, level-less systems are great for designing characters 'to spec' but are prone to being fiddly. (Roundedness or the lack thereof can be a problem for either type, so I don't consider that a valid concern for one group or another. All four types can exhibit a distinct lack of 'niche protection' or have a design which often breaks 'niche boundaries'. One is easier to break niches, but it suffers from a lack of character roundedness in a different fashion, in that characters are usually built to maximize effectiveness and can do it a lot more effectively.)