TWF and you

[Valiantheart]

This why they should have dumped classes altogether. Roles and Powers is all you would need in theory. What your character's background is, how they choose to fight, all that stuff, is a question of how you play (and roleplay) the character.

The only reason I can see for not dumping classes in favour of roles is balancing mechanics, and even then, I'm not sure I'm convinced.

Believe me i'm all ready for D&D to lose the class restrictions. Roles/Powers is the way to go.

 

[jeffhartsell]

You have over a hunderd posts and you've been here since 2002, so I'm not sure you did this intentionally, but that statement is exactly what fuels the fires of many people who dislike or are iffy about 4e. It's not an MMO, it shouldn't be an MMO, nor should it ever even be CLOSE to an MMO.

Being in a team isn't just about maximizing your party. And again, it should never be about that. I've had just as much fun with a four bard barbershop quartet party then I had with warrior/rogue/wizard/cleric. More fun, for that matter. Being in a team is about playing with other people. This isn't pokemon, you don't have to be the best there ever was

Totally agree that RP is about making any type of team concept work. However, when I can make a PC that does the fighter's job and the rogue's job and the ranger's job, what does that leave for the other 3-6 people at the table to do? Heal and cast sells. But other people like to melee. And melee is by far the most boring part of 3e. That is why Bo9S was so cool.

There is too much overlap in 3e. I loved multiclassing in 3e and I can make swiss army characters. And all of us ended up stepping on each others toes in the earlier years. We are all friends and worked around it and loved playing 3e, but there are flaws in the rules. We just house ruled and avoided them.

I'm old school, started AD&D when I was a kid and have been playing DnD ever since (but I still played some EQ, WoW, DAoC, AC, and other MMOs) and I don't think DnD should be a MMO, but it does need to learn from what works. And having strong classes is one thing that works. IMO Swiss Army characters are bad for co-op games. If you want to be Super Bad and do everything well, that is not "role" playing. Anyway, you can still gestalt with 4e.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Believe me i'm all ready for D&D to lose the class restrictions. Roles/Powers is the way to go.

Luckily, it is apparently going to be not that hard to tweak 4e to be classless. So hopefully we will get some good ideas on how do that when the books come out.

Come on DDI article! (I could also see future DMGs covering such things like alternative system-set ups).

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Totally agree that RP is about making any type of team concept work. However, when I can make a PC that does the fighter's job and the rogue's job and the ranger's job, what does that leave for the other 3-6 people at the table to do? Heal and cast sells. But other people like to melee. And melee is by far the most boring part of 3e. That is why Bo9S was so cool.

There is too much overlap in 3e. I loved multiclassing in 3e and I can make swiss army characters. And all of us ended up stepping on each others toes in the earlier years. We are all friends and worked around it and loved playing 3e, but there are flaws in the rules. We just house ruled and avoided them.

I'm old school, started AD&D when I was a kid and have been playing DnD ever since (but I still played some EQ, WoW, DAoC, AC, and other MMOs) and I don't think DnD should be a MMO, but it does need to learn from what works. And having strong classes is one thing that works. IMO Swiss Army characters are bad for co-op games. If you want to be Super Bad and do everything well, that is not "role" playing. Anyway, you can still gestalt with 4e.

Oh, and I agree. I think my issue isn't so much with just the MMO comparisons, but moreso with the idea that a class has to be a tank. It's one of the least played classes in any MMO out there, and now we're supposed to transist that into tabletop? ;p

Melee is fun because you run in there and start cracking skulls, not because you're a wall that just stands there and takes damage. That's why I'm irritated at the idea of there being a straight out "defender" role; I don't think it's going to lead to happy players. A pen and paper game doesn't NEED MMORPG balance; so long as things don't get out of control like the dreaded CoDzilla, I think things are mostly doing ok.

Hell, there are people that swear that swashbucklers, paladins, and artificers are useless, and they're my three favorite classes

 

[Gloombunny]

1) A two-weapon character doesn't need to be a striker. Two-weapon doesn't need to be about piling on extra attacks. Though I'm sure it will be.

2) "defender" doesn't mean "MMO-style tank who can't deal damage". Based on everything we've seen fighters deal plenty of damage if they build for damage-dealing. Yes, even compared to strikers. "striker" doesn't mean "MMO-style DPS guy" either.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Totally agree that RP is about making any type of team concept work. However, when I can make a PC that does the fighter's job and the rogue's job and the ranger's job, what does that leave for the other 3-6 people at the table to do? Heal and cast sells. But other people like to melee. And melee is by far the most boring part of 3e. That is why Bo9S was so cool.

There is too much overlap in 3e. I loved multiclassing in 3e and I can make swiss army characters. And all of us ended up stepping on each others toes in the earlier years. We are all friends and worked around it and loved playing 3e, but there are flaws in the rules. We just house ruled and avoided them.

The only problems I've ever seen with people "stepping on each others toes" is when one character can do something so much better than another character that the other character may as well never roll.

Combat has never been in that category (I suppose if you actually played something insane like a hulking hurler then it could have been...). There's no "running out of space" for melee characters.

Further - the class composition issue that you bring up "what is left for the others to do?" is more likely to be caused by strong class roles than weak ones.

If you NEED a cleric because noone steps on his toes, then someone must play one.

If no fighter can ever possibly 'step on the toes' of the cleric, then suddenly a party of fighters is not a viable choice. If you play WOW in small groups, then this should be blatantly obvious to you - certain selections of characters are significantly more powerful than others, to the point that not going with that particular grouping means you simply cannot take part in the game.

I don't want to have to force players to fill the healer, dps and tank roles if they don't want to. Maybe a game that is missing one of those roles should require a different playstyle, but I want the game to still be viable.

 

[jeffhartsell]

What I am expecting from 4e (yet to be seen if it will deliver) is that we won't have to have a cleric or wizard to play the game at the higher levels. That does not mean that it won't be tougher without them, but in 3e you need a cleric.

The warlord sounds like it will have methods to help other players recover. And it sounds like there will eventually be other classes that will have AE attacks and ways to slow/daze/stun foes.

I'd love for us to be able to run a viable group with a couple bards, a druid, a monk, a rogue, and a warlord. Just as an example where there is no dedicated front-line melee character. I enjoyed trying the bard in both 2e and 3e, but it never felt right to me.

If 4e forces groups to NEED a defender or NEED a controller or whatever, then I agree that is bad form. But it sounds like R&D is telling us, "No you don't need them, but a well rounded group is easier." Fine, that helps new players learn. But that also allows experienced players to try what they want and still function.

In 3e we had to use cohorts to fill gaps. No wizard, we have a wand monkey crafting cohort. No cleric, pocket healer cohort. We tried playing without a cleric at it was brutal, and it is not like we have a GM that is trying to gank us all of the time. It was just noticable the difference between previous campaigns and the one without a cleric PC.

 

[jeffhartsell]

Anyway, regarding the OP and TWF. Does it make be a bit sad that the rogue and fighter might not be able to TWF? Yes, a little bit. But TWF was not implemented well in 3e. It looked fancy on paper but in practice the mechanics were clunky and it bogged the game down.

When we first saw TWF and multiple attacks in 3e... Hell yez!! 3e was the coolest thing. Well, over time the cracks in 3e have gotten bigger.

Off topic, I could write a too long post IMO on how the crafting rules totally screw up the CR encounter system. Or how being an archer is the most boring class in 3e. I can... shot on the run!! Or ranged precision!! Or skirmish!! And? Maybe track. Fighter/ranger/OBI. Maybe some scout, maybe some rogue. But in general you sit around, roll lots of dice to hit. Rapid shot and improved rapid shot end up being way better than skirmish or ranged precision.

Weapon mastery ended up being a no-brainer feat for martial characters. Four levels of fighter were just awesome. Three free feats and you can now take spec + weapon mastery.

barbarian/rogue/fighter/dervish. This character is pretty much the Swiss Army character. You can get really wild with Use Magic Device. You've got evasion. You've got uber movement. Insane 2h slashing damage. Decent skills. Very good saves.

This become a nightmare for the GM dealing with player power creep. And encounters become super swingy.

And the 2h morphing reach weapon duskblade/warblade enlarged with combat reflexes, robilar's gambit, and mage slayer is.... well, all of those AOO just get over the top.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Yeah.
I agree with what someone said earlier, that it would be less confusing if they took away the class names. Leaving Ranger as it is makes it feel like it should be split into 3 different classes, at least...Archer, Swashbuckler and Hunter. Ranged martial Striker, melee martial Striker, and then Primalish tracker-dude.
Alas, if I want to actually make those classes I'll have to do more work than I want to.

 

[Mercule]

Not to argue for or against Rangers fighting with two-weapons, but I thought of a couple other rangers that did: Hawkeye from The Last of the Mohicans (the movie) and Edgtho from 13th Warrior (he was the Finn in black).

I don't think anyone is saying rangers should be prohibited from using TWF. It's just that giving them more affinity to TWF than fighter or rogue strikes a significant number of people as... odd.