You don't like the new edition? Tell me about it!

[Rel]

There's getting to be way too much confrontation rather than friendly discourse in this thread. If I come in here in the morning and find that anybody has acted like a jackass, I'm banning them for a week. Post carefully.

 

[billd91]

People look at the combat role of a class, and complain it has no thematic elements. Why?

Ever looked at the power source? This introduces your _first_ real thematic element (though I'd argue that it's also a theme whether I "lead" people in combat or "control" the battle-field. But it's only the combat theme)

And then, have you looked at the actual classes?
There is the Ranger, there is the Rogue. Both are Martial Strikers.
If it's true that the classes of 4E do not offer any thematic elements, or are not designed around them, why do these different classes exist?
Did you look at all their powers? Especially the utility powers? Don't you see the thematic differences?

Again, it's more a question of putting the cart before the horse. The thematic elements of the classes in 4e are grafted on to the mechanical framework derived from the striker or defender role.

By contrast, in 1e, a character could choose his role in the party in a variety of ways because the mechanics of the class were derived from it's thematic elements and weren't tied to specific roles. Some roles presented themselves more strongly, but others were viable including heavily armored rangers and lightly armored skirmish fighters.

 

[pemerton]

Some roles presented themselves more strongly, but others were viable including heavily armored rangers and lightly armored skirmish fighters.

In my experience a lightly-armoured fighter was not at all viable in 1st ed AD&D - the chances of getting hit were just too great. This was particulary so at mid-to-high levels, where monsters to-hit chances started to grow more slowly with hit dice, and therefore increasing AC becomes quite important to avoid getting hit.

Against a 6 HD monster, for example, increasing AC from (for example) 5 (leather +1 and shield +1) to (for example) -1 (field plate +1 and shield +1) halves the chance to be hit (from 9+ needed on D20 to 15+ required).

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Not all encounters can be solved by combat and not all potential combat encounters need to be fought if the suitable application of a skill can suffice.

For sure, but this is also true in 4e, thus reinforcing my point.

 

[Imp]

In my experience a lightly-armoured fighter was not at all viable in 1st ed AD&D - the chances of getting hit were just too great.

Bracers AC whatever, your tool for increased roleplaying breadth in 1st ed. Advanced Dungeons And Dragons. Yup, that's how I played it.

No, you can't have them, Beardy McDelayedBlastFireball, I'm getting outta this sweaty ol' armor!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Again, it's more a question of putting the cart before the horse. The thematic elements of the classes in 4e are grafted on to the mechanical framework derived from the striker or defender role.

By contrast, in 1e, a character could choose his role in the party in a variety of ways because the mechanics of the class were derived from it's thematic elements and weren't tied to specific roles. Some roles presented themselves more strongly, but others were viable including heavily armored rangers and lightly armored skirmish fighters.

I am not sure I can agree with the cart & horse analogy. The question for me is only if the results meet the thematic goals of each class, and they do.

And I actually think that the description of the process is more like this:
"Okay, we have these archetype/class. What Role and what Power Source fit it best?"
"Hmm. Ranger. Typically fighting with bows. Could be control."
"Nah, bows are usually used against single targets, unless we're speaking about whole archery units. And what's with the two-weapon fighting Ranger. He's popular, and he's fun?"
"Hmm. Could be Defense. But it could also be concentrated firepower on a single target."
"Rangers are also good trackers, stealthy and mobile in the wild. I think that points out to skirmisher. I don't really see them as standing long against a single enemy, especially if you think of the 'lone ranger' archetype"
"Okay, I think then Striker fits best. But what power source? He casts spells in 3E. Should be divine?"
"Ranger spellcasting was never seen as his greatest feature. It felt a little tacked on. I am not sure a Ranger really has to have a strong relation to the gods."
"Rangers usually focus on weapons and skills. Looks very martial to me.
"I agree. So, we have it a Martial Striker. Okay, guys, it's time to design a few striker powers now. The attacks hould probably be related to archery and melee combat. Utility powers should have to do with stealth, movement and nature..."

And repeat this for every class.

 

[Nellisir]

I wasn't aware that "paladin" in 3E conveyed thematic elements, but "paladin" in 4E doesn't.

I haven't read the 4e paladin, but there's a reason why I stuck (and am sticking) to the 4 primary classes as examples and references. They have stronger/more frequent references outside of D&D, and there might be 4e classes with stronger thematic elements, like the fighter. I don't think it's mandatory in 4e; I think it was a choice by the designers. It'll probably mitigate to some degree with more splat books.

 

[Nellisir]

Again, it's more a question of putting the cart before the horse. The thematic elements of the classes in 4e are grafted on to the mechanical framework derived from the striker or defender role.

By contrast, in 1e, a character could choose his role in the party in a variety of ways because the mechanics of the class were derived from it's thematic elements and weren't tied to specific roles. Some roles presented themselves more strongly, but others were viable including heavily armored rangers and lightly armored skirmish fighters.

Yes.

And for the record (going back to my original post), I never said thematic elements were impossible: I said I thought they were more locked down or restricted (archer fighter? Nope. Spear-wielding ranger, or sword & shield ranger? nope.) and kludgier (I'm looking at you, multiclassing!)

 

[Ginnel]

Yes.

And for the record (going back to my original post), I never said thematic elements were impossible: I said I thought they were more locked down or restricted (archer fighter? Nope. Spear-wielding ranger, or sword & shield ranger? nope.) and kludgier (I'm looking at you, multiclassing!)

If you can make a character in armor who uses a bow from the ranger class why would you need to do it in the fighter class as well?

Same with the spear put it in the hands of a fighter put the fighter in light armor have dex quite high as well as strength all done, give the fighter skill training nature from a feat and also perception is you wish for that woodsman vibe. Sword and shield ranger yet again same as the spear guy although you could have heavy or light armor with this then again take a rogue and get him to have shield proficiency it all works.

I think I can quote this as a statement of fact, just because there is the word fighter in your class box does not mean you can't describe your character as a ranger.

 

[Storm Raven]

If you can make a character in armor who uses a bow from the ranger class why would you need to do it in the fighter class as well?

The question is not one of "need". We had an edition where this sort of flexibility was a given. This edition says that flexibility is "unfun" because we might make the "wrong" choices with it. So, now you can't make the character you want, but have to settle for something else, because if you could make what you wanted, you might make an "unfun" choice.

3e was all about choices and having multiple paths to similar ends. 4e is all about protecting you from making choices and giving you only one clear "fun" path to each end.