PDA

View Full Version : "Party Role" Article



Crow
2007-08-20, 07:31 PM
Eh, whatever. One passage got me quite worried though;


"The design for fighter maneuvers came down to looking at weapons, figuring out how a fighter could use one, and deciding on special effects that felt cool for the weapon and proved useful for the class."

I'm praying that when deciding "what a weapon could be used for", they weren't watching whatever they were watching before they designed Tome of Battle.

If I see video-game and hollywood movie-style manuevers that "feel cool", without any thought put into how the weapons were actually used, I'm finished.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-20, 07:38 PM
If I see video-game and hollywood movie-style manuevers that "feel cool", without any thought put into how the weapons were actually used, I'm finished.

I'm afraid I completely disagree with this sentiment. And it's not that I'm not interested in how historical weapons were used (I used to be a member of the SCA, and have lapsed due to time constraints, not a disillusionment in it).

The reason I disagree is because I play D&D to enjoy being a part of an epic fantasy story, and for me, the epic fantasy genre is chock full of people doing crazy, unrealistic things. I know that the swordfighting in movies isn't how it was done (heck, I used to be a fencer), but I enjoy them for what they are.

To me, D&D just isn't D&D without being a little over the top.

Neon Knight
2007-08-20, 07:41 PM
If I see video-game and hollywood movie-style manuevers that "feel cool", without any thought put into how the weapons were actually used, I'm finished.


DnD is not a reality simulator. It is high fantasy. Most probably, escapist high fantasy. I don't know about you, but I don't play DnD to limit myself to reality.

Crow
2007-08-20, 08:01 PM
I'm not looking for "D&D Total Realism". We're all a bunch of nerds playing a game about elves and magic for heaven's sake. I just don't want everything to seem like it came out of an anime flick.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-20, 08:13 PM
I'm not looking for "D&D Total Realism". We're all a bunch of nerds playing a game about elves and magic for heaven's sake. I just don't want everything to seem like it came out of an anime flick.

I'm not intending to be pissy about this, but why is everyone so down on anime?

I watch two, count'em, two anime shows that I quite enjoy. I wouldn't call myself an anime freak (though I apply my general nerdism to those two shows), and while the anime is a little larger (in the sense of the scale of combat), I don't find it at all repugnant. I find it somewhat, well, epic in scale.

Parts of it are a bit silly, like screaming the names for techniques and things...but don't wizards call out verbal components for spells?

I'm not going to get into an "Anime is awesome/sucks" argument, I just feel that anime is kind of getting the short end of the stick, at least on these boards. I understand that many of you feel differently. I'm just expressing my surprise at the knocks it takes here.

delguidance
2007-08-20, 08:18 PM
I think different people have different ideas about what "feels cool". Some of the stuff I thought was cool 10 years ago I don't think is cool now.

Weredwarf
2007-08-20, 08:41 PM
In most D&D campains magic, non-human races and being able to fight easily after being stabbed multiple times can exist, why not crazy sword techniques.

Whiplord
2007-08-20, 08:45 PM
I watch two, count'em, two anime shows that I quite enjoy. I wouldn't call myself an anime freak (though I apply my general nerdism to those two shows), and while the anime is a little larger (in the sense of the scale of combat), I don't find it at all repugnant. I find it somewhat, well, epic in scale.


Naruto and.... Bleach? Just guessing.

And I have to agree with the majority sentiment here. D&D is not and never will be about realism, in fighting or otherwise.

Heck, even some of the 3.5 core rules are unrealistic.

ByeLindgren
2007-08-20, 08:58 PM
Anime doesn't exactly have a monopoly on extraordinary nonmagical abilities. The Wuxia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuxia) genre might be closer to what you're thinking.

Let's not confuse our terms and call ToB "anime" just because it makes meleers more than just 'Thog smash.' I'd finally buy the thing if something wasn't coming out so soon.

dyslexicfaser
2007-08-20, 09:04 PM
Not to mention, its not like our swordsages are calling out things like "Lightning Throw!" or "Stone Bones!" or whatever. Its just the name of the abilities.

Well, I guess they COULD, if they wanted to...

psychoticbarber
2007-08-20, 09:16 PM
Naruto and.... Bleach? Just guessing.

That obvious? ...I'm not even following Bleach that carefully anymore...

Ivius
2007-08-20, 09:20 PM
Not to mention, its not like our swordsages are calling out things like "Lightning Throw!" or "Stone Bones!" or whatever. Its just the name of the abilities.

Well, I guess they COULD, if they wanted to...

I have to make a character based on that post.

Jayabalard
2007-08-20, 09:24 PM
To me, D&D just isn't D&D without being a little over the top.If I want to cast spells, I'll play a spell caster. Pure melee based classes on the other hand should remain pure melee based classes, not spell casters who cast spells by swinging their weapons.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-20, 09:27 PM
If I want to cast spells, I'll play a spell caster. Pure melee based classes on the other hand should remain pure melee based classes, not spell casters who cast spells by swinging their weapons.

You can do extremely impressive things in ToB-style that aren't really more than swinging a sword really hard, or fast, or skillfully... I feel that this argument is a bit of a red herring, as fluff can be changed to reflect melee or magic fairly well in many (not Desert Wind, of course) cases.

Dervag
2007-08-20, 09:45 PM
I have to make a character based on that post.What's his preferred attack, "Telegraph Punch?"

Krellen
2007-08-20, 09:49 PM
I just don't want everything to seem like it came out of an anime flick.
Most of this stuff isn't anime. I think some folk need to reacquaint themselves with some Classical mythology - such as Gilgamesh, or the Tasks of Heracles. Then tell me doing unworldly things with your sword (or your bare hands) is a thing of anime.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-20, 10:02 PM
I think some folk need to realize that classical mythology isn't what D&D is in any sense intended to re-create. Seriously, if you want to adapt D&D to resemble some set of myths, you probably can with enough effort, but that isn't where the fireball-tossing sword and sorcery comes from.

The deeds of HAL-9000 would only be slightly less relevant to D&D than the Tasks of Hercules.

Crow
2007-08-20, 10:02 PM
Most of this stuff isn't anime. I think some folk need to reacquaint themselves with some Classical mythology - such as Gilgamesh, or the Tasks of Heracles. Then tell me doing unworldly things with your sword (or your bare hands) is a thing of anime.

I understand not all anime is the same and your point was well taken.


If I want to cast spells, I'll play a spell caster. Pure melee based classes on the other hand should remain pure melee based classes, not spell casters who cast spells by swinging their weapons.

This is more what I was aiming for. Obviously not all will agree with this standpoint. Sometimes, I feel like playing the guy who wasn't blessed with "magic" abilities, or whatever fluff you want to label it as. Sometimes you want to be a hard-nosed fighter living by his skill and grit in a world of sorcerers and wizards. When everything starts to be magic, it just isn't special anymore. I don't want to have to ask; "What kind of wizard do I want to play?" Sorry if I liked the fighter.

I am pressed for time. Hopefully I can get back to this later and put together a more complete reply.

GryffonDurime
2007-08-20, 10:13 PM
Look at the stories of Welch tradition, especially Arthurian examples like Culhwch and Olwen--ages and ages before anime, there were knights and warriors who could do superhuman things by the sheer level of their awesomeness. Sir Cei (Kay to the modernized) was so warm of spirit that he could kindle a flame at a whim, and accounts of the Battle at Mount Badan have Arthur slaughtering as many as some four hundred soldiers.

I don't think it's anime for a swordsman to be powerful and skilled to a superhuman level. I don't even think it's anime if he attains supernatural abilities ala the Desert Wind style. If anything, it's simply epic.

Thinker
2007-08-20, 10:20 PM
I understand not all anime is the same and your point was well taken.



This is more what I was aiming for. Obviously not all will agree with this standpoint. Sometimes, I feel like playing the guy who wasn't blessed with "magic" abilities, or whatever fluff you want to label it as. Sometimes you want to be a hard-nosed fighter living by his skill and grit in a world of sorcerers and wizards. When everything starts to be magic, it just isn't special anymore. I don't want to have to ask; "What kind of wizard do I want to play?" Sorry if I liked the fighter.

I am pressed for time. Hopefully I can get back to this later and put together a more complete reply.
I don't know why you consider it magic. It is because of the skill of the hard-nosed fighter that he is able to stand up to the sorcerers and wizards. Most of those maneuvers don't seem particularly magical. I could understand not liking the per-encounter magic, even though that is the one I prefer. I cannot understand claiming using stances in combat and special maneuvers are anything but skill.

KillianHawkeye
2007-08-20, 10:22 PM
I agree that one of the things I really didn't like about ToB was how a lot of the techniques seemed to be borderline magical in nature. Personally, I like the idea of the feat-based Fighter, even if it's not as powerful as other classes.

If they're going to be going that way, I'd like to see some high-level abilities similar to some of the stuff from Rurouni Kenshin or other slightly-more-realistic anime, where you get a feeling that while most of it is utterly incredible, it may yet be physically possible.

RiOrius
2007-08-20, 10:28 PM
This is more what I was aiming for. Obviously not all will agree with this standpoint. Sometimes, I feel like playing the guy who wasn't blessed with "magic" abilities, or whatever fluff you want to label it as. Sometimes you want to be a hard-nosed fighter living by his skill and grit in a world of sorcerers and wizards. When everything starts to be magic, it just isn't special anymore. I don't want to have to ask; "What kind of wizard do I want to play?" Sorry if I liked the fighter.


I doubt you'll be disappointed, then. Not all that is superhuman is flaming swords and eighty-foot jumps. I doubt we'll see fighters using ToB, anime-style moves exclusively (maybe some as character options, though).

Consider instead some of the fight scenes from, say, Live Free or Die Hard (if you've seen it). Nobody does anything supernatural--it's just, well, extraordinary. I feel quite certain that "hard-nosed... living by his skill and grit" can be applied quite well to Officer MacLean, but that doesn't mean he does nothing but "Full attack... damage... done."

I short, I expect standard action movie fare, rather than the (admitedly often over-the-top) anime-style. Not that there's anything wrong with anime--I'm a huge fan, and think it has its place in D&D. I just agree that what you're looking for has its place as well, and highly doubt it will be usurped.

Lapak
2007-08-20, 10:58 PM
I understand not all anime is the same and your point was well taken.



This is more what I was aiming for. Obviously not all will agree with this standpoint. Sometimes, I feel like playing the guy who wasn't blessed with "magic" abilities, or whatever fluff you want to label it as. Sometimes you want to be a hard-nosed fighter living by his skill and grit in a world of sorcerers and wizards. When everything starts to be magic, it just isn't special anymore. I don't want to have to ask; "What kind of wizard do I want to play?" Sorry if I liked the fighter.

I am pressed for time. Hopefully I can get back to this later and put together a more complete reply.I find myself torn on this topic. On the one hand, there aren't all that many purely physical fighters in mythology or folk stories; almost all of them have some supernatural edge or another. And most of the well-written fantasy fiction I've read, which takes whatever rules magic follows into account and makes them consistent, pretty much makes it clear that the most skilled fighter in the world is going to get his head handed to him if he goes up against a magician. I'd be impressed if anyone can name a fantasy novel or story where that isn't true, other than the Conan stories. And most of the fantasy stories that follow the epic-fantasy feel that D&D goes for make it clear that the most potent individuals are skilled in both arenas, but that the magic half of that is the trump card.

On the other hand, I can see where you're coming from, and I feel the same way to some degree. So I don't know. I guess for consistency's sake if I was playing a hardbitten pure fighter I'd want to be doing so in a party that was mostly similar characters; that could work, but including a wizard would inevitably mean that what he was doing was more important than what we were doing, eventually.

Rockphed
2007-08-20, 11:04 PM
Judging from the article the OP's quote came from, I think it is safe to assume that fighters will be getting things that amount to better Weapon Specialization and Weapon Focus with their chosen weapons. Things that are specific to each weapon.

For instance, it was mentioned that Spears can bypass AC in the hands of fighters.

Edit: ^I am told that in the Shanara books, magic is not the trump card. I have not actually read them myself so I do not know.

Zeful
2007-08-20, 11:04 PM
Now while I haven't read the Book of Nine Swords, but it doesn't seem like they fit in to the wuxia manga like Naruto or Ranma 1/2, like making random duplicates, throwing hundreds of punches in a minute etc.

Kurobara
2007-08-21, 12:10 AM
I'm not intending to be pissy about this, but why is everyone so down on anime?

I watch two, count'em, two anime shows that I quite enjoy. I wouldn't call myself an anime freak (though I apply my general nerdism to those two shows), and while the anime is a little larger (in the sense of the scale of combat), I don't find it at all repugnant. I find it somewhat, well, epic in scale.

Also, anime and D&D aren't even necessarily representative of two different fantasy subgenres. As I recall, Record of Lodoss War started out as a manga artist doing a manga that basically was about his D&D game.

Renegade Paladin
2007-08-21, 12:45 AM
I'm not intending to be pissy about this, but why is everyone so down on anime?
Because it sucks?

PinkysBrain
2007-08-21, 12:59 AM
If I see video-game and hollywood movie-style manuevers that "feel cool", without any thought put into how the weapons were actually used, I'm finished.
There is only one other option I see, nerfing the damage output of casters (and thus safe or dies, since that is just damage output in disguise).

I don't see them getting rid of fireball or its effectiveness though, hell despite the huge problems they cause I have a hard time seeing safe or dies go.

kpenguin
2007-08-21, 01:02 AM
There is only one other option I see, nerfing the damage output of casters.

I don't see them getting rid of fireball or its effectiveness though.

Fireball and other damaging spells aren't the problem. They actually balance well with melee classes. It's all the other stuff in Batman's utility belt that's worrying.

PinkysBrain
2007-08-21, 01:07 AM
Fireball and other damaging spells aren't the problem. They actually balance well with melee classes. It's all the other stuff in Batman's utility belt that's worrying.
With more levels of spells flexibility is unlikely to go down, even if in the short it is lessened (which I think is unlikely) it will grow much faster with splatbooks than melee combat without a manoeuvre system.

For balance either melee combat needs more flexibility to set it on a more even keel or it needs a big edge in damage.

BardicDuelist
2007-08-21, 01:32 AM
What would bother me is the fact that I do study historical fighting styles, and I do fence, and I have trained for YEARS (whcih is not small feat for somone who is only 16) to understand weapons and their capabilities. Now while I understand that D&D should not be 100% realistic, I would also hate to see things that are simply not concurrent with how a weapon is used.

I would love for fighters to have more tactical options, more abilities and different attacks which do different things. I just want them to be at least FOUNDED on how a weapon should be used, and then taken to a level which is beyond reality, not just seem cool and have little incommon with how that weapon really works.

PinkysBrain
2007-08-21, 01:39 AM
Okay, concretely ... how would you expand on real life weapon techniques to give you a short range teleportation ability?

Damionte
2007-08-21, 01:41 AM
Okay, concretely ... how would you expand on real life weapon techniques to give you a short range teleportation ability?

Easy.... I'm batman !

Deepblue706
2007-08-21, 01:50 AM
I too have a strong distaste for the style of play which the OP so dreads. While D&D is a fantasy game, to me, that doesn't mean that everything about how physics works should go out the window. Consistency should also stick around for tea, too. I like verisimilitude.

Sure, barrels of gasoline don't quite explode when you shoot them, like in action movies, but there's always a chance that the fumes start a fire. While even that much I tend to dislike (I appreciate it when movies like The Bourne Identity have car crashes without explosions, etc), that kind of atmosphere is still acceptable in a RPG, for me.

I want to be fooled by the developers, into thinking something is almost possible. But I don't want to look in a book and immediately realize that it's all bullcrap. Sure, magic and dragons etc are all beyond our world, but I like to try to imagine that somehow the stuff I do like exists.

I like to believe swordfighting is a discipline that is hard to master. Those who do master it become very good warriors. But, I don't think being a good warrior is about making an arc of flame appear when you swing that sword. A Fighter who spends all his time practicing how to fight shouldn't suddenly have access to powers that shouldn't happen without magical aid. I also don't believe that a Wizard who spends all his time researching spells should ever be able to pick up a sword on whim, and start laying the smack down without some kind of spell to help out.

I guess it should be noted that I hate mythology. There's little tidbits I like, here and there, but mostly, I think of it as rubbish. When I think "hero", I think of an individual before their image is warped by history, and didn't accomplish something great because they were made of pure amazingness. Our real-life heroes might have great talents and abilities, but they get where they do because they also have help, and a bit of luck. I see mythological greatness as metaphor, not literal abilities that I want to emulate through a gaming medium. Let the sages and storytellers of the game world say my human fighter was 12 feet tall, wrestled a Tarrasque without using his arms, and can throw a sword and cut the moon in half. Let the other players know he's just Joe, Level 11 Fighter, who still has considerable weaknesses, still has HP, and can therefore still die rather easily.

But, I can accept that other people have different styles. However, I don't quite understand why people would want to make things go beyond the boundaries I set for my games, though. It sounds like those kind of people have a really depressing view on the world, and some would seem to think it's impossible to be a hero without superhuman powers.

I suppose I just have to accept I've been ignorant to that sort of view, as I never really had enough interest to fully think it out myself.

PinkysBrain
2007-08-21, 02:08 AM
Realistically melee combat sucks, don't bring a knife to a gun fight (or a fireball fight) ... realistically melee fighters should simply die out. I'd rather have balance than realism.

horseboy
2007-08-21, 02:13 AM
Realistically melee combat sucks, don't bring a knife to a gun fight (or a fireball fight) ... realistically melee fighters should simply die out. I'd rather have balance than realism.

Yes, realistically melee combat sucks. No it shouldn't simply die out. It works in other games. If me and my buddy pull out our Rolemaster characters, my fighter uses his superior broadsword skill to kill a troll in a hit. He uses his mage's stupid amount of power to firebolt the other one down. We both can contribute without me being relegated to his valet.

Bosh
2007-08-21, 02:30 AM
Deepblue706: I like the sort of campaign you're talking about, but D&D of any edition is just a horrible horrible system for doing that. There's simply too much magic oozing all over the place and attempting to shove D&D into a historical fiction box just gives everyone headaches. I would recommend d20 Conan, if you want to play a D&Dish game that fits at least a bit closer to what is real (especially with how I heavily houseruled it for my Norwegian Viking campaign).

That said D&D 4ed looks great, it keeps the high magic flavor that I don't always like but it seems like its taking out all of the mechanical representations of that flavor that I don't want. I'll probably alternate between 4ed for my more gamey games, d20 Conan for my more historical games, and Fate for my more drama-y games.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 02:32 AM
I find myself torn on this topic. On the one hand, there aren't all that many purely physical fighters in mythology or folk stories; almost all of them have some supernatural edge or another. And most of the well-written fantasy fiction I've read, which takes whatever rules magic follows into account and makes them consistent, pretty much makes it clear that the most skilled fighter in the world is going to get his head handed to him if he goes up against a magician. I'd be impressed if anyone can name a fantasy novel or story where that isn't true, other than the Conan stories. And most of the fantasy stories that follow the epic-fantasy feel that D&D goes for make it clear that the most potent individuals are skilled in both arenas, but that the magic half of that is the trump card.

Depends what you mean. There is a difference between possessing a magical item, having magical capable allies, sponsorship of a divine being and innate supernatural powers. I can think of a plethora of D&D Novels where many of the Heroes do not have access to innate supernatural powers. Similarly, more than one none D&D Novel springs to mind, but it's fair to say that they may have been influenced by D&D.

Deepblue706: I like the sort of campaign you're talking about, but D&D of any edition is just a horrible horrible system for doing that. There's simply too much magic oozing all over the place and attempting to shove D&D into a historical fiction box just gives everyone headaches. I would recommend d20 Conan, if you want to play a D&Dish game that fits at least a bit closer to what is real (especially with how I heavily houseruled it for my Norwegian Viking campaign).

That said D&D 4ed looks great, it keeps the high magic flavor that I don't always like but it seems like its taking out all of the mechanical representations of that flavor that I don't want. I'll probably alternate between 4ed for my more gamey games, d20 Conan for my more historical games, and Fate for my more drama-y games.
This varies from campaign to campaign. I have a feeling 3e is going to be branded in retrospect the 'Monty Haul Edition', whether fairly or unfairly. Certainly, all of my 2e experiences were fairly low magic affairs (even in the Forgotten Realms, if you can believe that!)

Tengu
2007-08-21, 02:35 AM
Because it sucks?

I felt that way about anime when I was young and stupid, but as I've grown and my tastes became better, I started to like it more and more.

Bosh
2007-08-21, 02:40 AM
This varies from campaign to campaign. I have a feeling 3e is going to be branded in retrospect the 'Monty Haul Edition', whether fairly or unfairly. Certainly, all of my 2e experiences were fairly low magic affairs (even in the Forgotten Realms, if you can believe that!)
Ya, and the Monty Hauling is built into the rules.
Making low-magic/historical D&D (at least in 3.5 ed) is a pain in the ass. If I nerf magic items then certain classes get too powerful while others get gimped, if I discourage flashy fireball-style casting then it just encourages casters to be more like batman and even more powerful, if I discourage insta-healing then I get parties that want to rest on their butts every time they're scratched, if you suck away too much magic combat gets to be even more of a "roll to hit, roll for damage" snooze-fest than normal. Just too much of a pain to be worth it. I don't really care if 4ed changes this, since I've got d20 Conan it I want low-magic fantasy and that works just fine (with a fairly simple set of house rules).

horseboy
2007-08-21, 02:44 AM
This varies from campaign to campaign. I have a feeling 3e is going to be branded in retrospect the 'Monty Haul Edition', whether fairly or unfairly. Certainly, all of my 2e experiences were fairly low magic affairs (even in the Forgotten Realms, if you can believe that!)

Retrospect? This was my initial impression.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 02:45 AM
Hey, there's a difference between our opinions and branding. By which I mean, I suspect Wizards will themselves brand it the 'Monty Haul Edition' once they no longer support it.

horseboy
2007-08-21, 02:50 AM
Ah, well, yeah, provided they've got a lick of sense. I can see it now: Somebody brings up 3rd, everybody laughs, somebody makes a "what were we smokin'" joke. And never goes into it. Yeah I can see that.

Starsinger
2007-08-21, 02:55 AM
Waah! I wanna be mundane! :smallyuk:

Now that I have that out of my system, noone said they're going to be ToB maneuvers so much as maybe something cool like, "Piercing Strike (ex): Once per encounter you can ignore the Armor bonus of an enemy you're flanking."

BardicDuelist
2007-08-21, 02:58 AM
Okay, concretely ... how would you expand on real life weapon techniques to give you a short range teleportation ability?

I wouldn't.

Also, since I feel it is worth adding (and repeating), I prefer it if my fighter/rogue/non-caster character has abilities that are not tied to magic. No supernatural, no spell like, nothing even remotely like that. Fighters should (IMHO) be the hit takers and damage dealers. Some mobility abilities and the like I would understand (footwork is fundemental to many fighting styles), and defensive abilities I would favor (since, historically, these were important weather you wore armor or not), but I feel that these should be mundane (yes, extraordinary and fantastic, but non-magical).

My reasoning for feeling that is that I don't think that every character should be a magic user and that there is actually a virtue to having a character who is not. While a wizard is unlocking the secrets of arcane knowledge and the cleric is being granted boons from his god, the fighter learns how to fight and accomplish extraordinary things, but he learns to do these things mundanely, otherwise why not just make everyone a caster and give them a spell selection that says "Melee" "Batman" "Blaster" etc.?

Matthew
2007-08-21, 03:00 AM
Waah! I wanna be mundane! :smallyuk:

Wait a second. Why shouldn't D&D cater for both desires? That doesn't strike me as an unreasonable request in a game that touts customisation and Player ability to be whatever they want. The problem is really, "I want you to be mundane", in which case it is a group preference thing.

PinkysBrain
2007-08-21, 03:37 AM
Yes, realistically melee combat sucks. No it shouldn't simply die out. It works in other games. If me and my buddy pull out our Rolemaster characters, my fighter uses his superior broadsword skill to kill a troll in a hit. He uses his mage's stupid amount of power to firebolt the other one down. We both can contribute without me being relegated to his valet.
Yes, you can both do damage ... that is not the problem.

Now from under the bridge their twice as large father and mother appear along with an extended family. Your only option is flight ... in isolation, do you both have as efficient means of escape? Course not, he controls the fundamental workings of the universe ... while you control your feet, and realistically large creatures run faster than you.

PS. unless you have a "monty haul" collection of magic items to give you options of course ... which I think is just as valid a way of solving the lack of flexibility in fighter types as ToB, especially books like MIC and complete scoundrel have done their best to include cheap items to expand tactical options. I think this approach will appeal to less people though.

PinkysBrain
2007-08-21, 03:44 AM
Also, since I feel it is worth adding (and repeating), I prefer it if my fighter/rogue/non-caster character has abilities that are not tied to magic. No supernatural, no spell like, nothing even remotely like that. Fighters should (IMHO) be the hit takers and damage dealers.
Sure, but then you are back to having to nerf the damage output of the casters ... and I just don't think that's going to happen in D&D.

Also without something like Knight's challenge there is no real way to guarantee you will be the hit taker in the general case and I don't think many D&D players would prefer MMORPG type crowd control to become the default.

Don't fear though, I think core will have the fighters remain mundane ... and in doing so make the promise of caster/melee balance an empty one.

Leon
2007-08-21, 04:13 AM
Because it sucks?

a rather narrowminded generalisation of a very broad topic

Kurald Galain
2007-08-21, 05:46 AM
Ah, well, yeah, provided they've got a lick of sense. I can see it now: Somebody brings up 3rd, everybody laughs, somebody makes a "what were we smokin'" joke. And never goes into it. Yeah I can see that.

Yep :smallbiggrin: and then some "oldbie" will show up and tell them to "stfu n00bs 3e roxxorz", and then the olderbies show up and tell him how 2e was so much better...

Rasumichin
2007-08-21, 07:23 AM
A martial character is much like a world class athlete. An Olympic sprinter doesn’t have any special muscles or super abilities. Through a mix of inborn talent and supreme dedication, she pushes herself to achieve speeds that no other human can match. In the same manner, a fighter achieves skill with weapons and armor that soar beyond a typical person’s abilities.


A skilled halberdier can hack a foe with his weapon’s blade and spin around to smash a second foe with the haft. A fighter with a longsword disarms her foe with a flick of her wrist, while a battle hungry axeman cleaves through shields, armor, and bone.

I fail to see where there's anything magical or wuxia-style hidden in this.
Could somebody please point it out to me?

lord_khaine
2007-08-21, 08:09 AM
and i fail to see what it is, people continuesly bitch about in ToB, if you dont want mystical maneuvers there are plenty of nonmagical ones, that still gives a melee guy additional options in combat.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 08:20 AM
That is probably because you quite like it. It is perfectly natural to be unable to perceive why people don't like something if you yourself like it.

Tormsskull
2007-08-21, 08:33 AM
When it comes to fighter getting more like ToB, it is important on a global sense. If 4e gives fighter non-magic "spells" but calls them manuevers and they can accomplish things that only magic used to be able accomplish per the Core rules, then they are settign a precedent that is going to upset a lot of people.

But if they do something more like Starsinger suggested with Piercing Strike, then I think most people will be receptive to it.


Just because fighters need to be more powerful doesn't mean they need to be able to teleport, or fly, or any of that magical stuff. If spellcasters are getting a boost where they can cast some spells, regardless of how weak, at-will, then you have to know that they are getting a deboost somewhere else.

I think all of the powerful spells need to have increased casting times and decreased durations. If you want to cast fly, fine, that takes 1 minute or something like that. And the purpose of Fly should be to get away from enemies, or bypass ravines, or something. Not to sit near the ceiling of a dungeon and be unattackable by melee.

You want to cast wind wall? Fine, it only takes a standard action, but you can't move the wind wall. Therefore, its still very powerful but not overpowered.

Being a spellcaster is supposed to be about being smart, selecting the right spells to use when they are going to be useful. Not about clicking on your "lasts all day and now I can't be touched" spells.

So, IMO, 4e should boost fighters and other martial types by giving them special (not magical) attacks, techniques. And also should make powerful spells more difficult to cast and not last very long.

spotmarkedx
2007-08-21, 08:35 AM
I'm with Matthew. I don't think we should change fighters to all-wuxia. Neither do I think we should exclude the wuxia-type abilities either. The class should be able to emulate both.

First of all, lets ditch the terminology of "fighter spells". Assuming ToB is taken as a whole and dumped into 4e, there are still a number of sword schools that have nothing to do with spell-like abilities. In fact, lets ignore the ToB abilities altogether for a moment. Its not like WotC has said "warblade will be the new fighter", or anything. They just said that they used ToB as a kind of test bed for a mechanic that will be in 4e.

If we look at it in this fashion, even if I want to play a grounded non-magical fighter, I'm pretty psyched. When it gets to my "turn" in the battle, I want to be able to do something other than "I full attack" or "I have spent my feat chain on tripping, so I use the same trip-attack kata that I did the last fifteen times my turn came up". Having a number of different cycling attack maneuvers makes not only my turn more interesting (as doing different things will tend to make me want to describe what I'm doing in a little more detail), but it makes my off-turn more interesting, as I figure out what I would like to do next.

And the recharge mechanics actually make sense to me from both a roleplaying and mechanical standpoint. The latter is simple, as it forces you to adapt and do at least a couple different things in the fight and makes your turns a bit more dynamic. But as for the roleplaying... if you are in a sword duel with someone, you would think you would vary your attack form, right? It makes perfect sense to me that you wouldn't perform the same maneuver twice in a row.

Rasumichin
2007-08-21, 08:42 AM
Just because fighters need to be more powerful doesn't mean they need to be able to teleport, or fly, or any of that magical stuff.

Once more:
Where does the text about party roles suggest that they will be able to do such a thing?

I guess it will really be much more like taking real world fighting moves and exaggerating them a bit, in an action movie kind of way.

And that's a great thing, not only because it makes fighters competetive on higher levels, but also more fun to play in general.

"I rush towards the enemy and hit him really hard" is kinda...boring when it is the only thing you're good at.
I appreciate anything that makes playing a fighter more interesting and adds options to this and other more down-to-earth classes.

Nobody is forced to play a fighter whose sword bursts into flames all of a sudden.

It is quite easy to create class features that enable a fighter to perform better than now, on par with a wizard and with a wider range of options to consider, without making him "a wizardy guy with a sword who jumps 80 ft high".

Save or die, in a completely mundane way?

Try a manouver with your greatsword that decapitates the enemy or one with your rapier that pierces a vital organ.


Save or suck, equally mundane?

What about strikes that target joints or important muscles, rendering the target immovable?


Regenerate HP on the fly, without bringing mystical powers into play?

Pull yourself together, ignoring the wounds you have suffered through your battle-hardened, iron will (remember HP are an abstract ressource, D&D is not a wound-based system), in a Die Hard way.


Above what average humans can do?
Certainly.
Magic-like?
No way.


The basic idea behind ToB is great, unless you actually want fighters to suck compared to wizards.

The flavour has proven to be controversial, and as the quoted excerpts show, 4E might have taken this to heart, making the wording of the powers more down to earth.

Solo
2007-08-21, 08:44 AM
Eh, whatever. One passage got me quite worried though;



I'm praying that when deciding "what a weapon could be used for", they weren't watching whatever they were watching before they designed Tome of Battle.

If I see video-game and hollywood movie-style manuevers that "feel cool", without any thought put into how the weapons were actually used, I'm finished.

You're playing a game where a guy in a dress gets to alter reality by speaking the right words.

DnD is not designed for realism

Tormsskull
2007-08-21, 09:17 AM
Once more:
Where does the text about party roles suggest that they will be able to do such a thing?


First, since you are newer, it is polite to attach a poster's name to their quoted text so other viewers don't have to try to figure out who/what post you are quoting.

To do this you type



(paste the quoted part)



As to your question, a lot of people point to a Wizard's ability to completely avoid a fighter as one of the several reasons that they are far overpowered when compared to a fighter. Wizards can dimension-door away from opponents, fly to a range fighters can't reach, become immune to arrows with wind wall, avoid several deadly attacks with contingency, etc.

So the part of my post that you quoted was in response to the fact that to counter that you don't have to make a non-magic magic fighter, you simply have to make those particular spells harder to cast/not last as long.

Here's a poster who's expressing a view in somewhat the same vein of what I was speaking about:



Okay, concretely ... how would you expand on real life weapon techniques to give you a short range teleportation ability?


I'm assuming that the intent behind this poster's post is "Game balance is important, and if you want to keep being really skilled in weapons mundane, how do you teleport in order to counter the power of the wizard, which is necessary in order to maintain some sort of balance."



The basic idea behind ToB is great, unless you actually want fighters to suck compared to wizards.


I disagree in whole, but agree that ToB works like caulk trying to patch a roof.

In whole, the idea behind ToB seems to be "Magic in 3.5 is so powerful that the only way to counter it is to make the non-magical guys somewhat magical."

That to me is a very poor way of handling the situation. I'd prefer to lower the power of the spellcasters rather than magic-up the melee. But, when you already have an edition out, publishing a new book that nerfs wizards, clerics, druids, and spells in general probably isn't going to sell too well, so as a business decision I'd say the ToB was great.

Now with 4e on the horizon, the designers can step back and replace the roof rather than trying to patch it, to finish that analogy.

Rasumichin
2007-08-21, 11:12 AM
First of all, sorry for the wrong quote format.
I was a bit in a hurry.


I agree with you that some degree of wizard-nerfing at higher levels might be a good fix for certain balancing problems (e.g., getting rid of spells without saving throws, timestop-forcecage-cloudkill and similar auto-win buttons).

However, i think it should also be combined with increasing the number of options for melee classes, since that would make the game more interesting.
I greatly apreciate manouver-based combat if it is done correctly, since it is more versatile and tactically challenging than the current aproach that, in my opinion, encourages one trick pony specialization.

This should be done without necessitating a magic-like flavour for fighters, by building manouvers that function without flaming swords and making 80 ft jumps, but, as has been pointed out, this is not only possible, but also most likely to be done in 4E.

In the end, closing the gap between casters and melee classes from both ends might be a better solution than just moving from one direction (which, of course, also holds true for ToB).

internerdj
2007-08-21, 12:05 PM
Okay, concretely ... how would you expand on real life weapon techniques to give you a short range teleportation ability?
More likely time stop is not out of the question. An truely experienced fighter will take several actions before say a university professor (or someone else who has spent their life in intellectual study) could take a single action. In cases of extreme stress, there have been officers who describe being unable to get a semi-auto pistol to fire as fast as they squeeze the trigger. There are plenty of other real life examples.

What I would like to see is different balanced flavored tiers for levels. Where maybe by 10 you are realistically doing things at the limit of believable human capability, by 20 you are firmly in fantasy territory, and by 30 you are stretching the imagination.

So if I'm wanting to play a believable campaign, I could do low level but still have incredible amounts of fun with it. You have deadeye archers, tough as nails fighters, clerics who can really just heal and provide a little bit of magical aid to the party, and wizards who do things like peer ahead into the dungeon and curse monsters.

If I want a bit more fantastic I'd go to the next tier. You have archers that are richocheting shots, fighters who move great distances before a wizard can blink his eye, clerics who raise the dead, and wizards who are flying and casting fireballs.

At the next tier you are talking about archers who imbue their arrows with spiritual or magical energy, fighters who jump well enough that they might as well be flying, clerics who call down the very essense of their gods, and wizards who stop time and disintigrate objects with a few arcane words.

To keep it fun you need the iconic monsters to be able to run the gamut of levels, which they've done with dragons for as long as I've played. It isn't too terrible. What you need to make sure of is that if a class can do the key ability of some other class, they don't do it better at any tier. The Wizard shouldn't be casting a chance free open door 12 times a day. The Cleric shouldn't get to wear all the armor of the fighter and get to buff himself and heal everyone and turn undead.

Deepblue706
2007-08-21, 12:18 PM
Deepblue706: I like the sort of campaign you're talking about, but D&D of any edition is just a horrible horrible system for doing that. There's simply too much magic oozing all over the place and attempting to shove D&D into a historical fiction box just gives everyone headaches. I would recommend d20 Conan, if you want to play a D&Dish game that fits at least a bit closer to what is real (especially with how I heavily houseruled it for my Norwegian Viking campaign).

That said D&D 4ed looks great, it keeps the high magic flavor that I don't always like but it seems like its taking out all of the mechanical representations of that flavor that I don't want. I'll probably alternate between 4ed for my more gamey games, d20 Conan for my more historical games, and Fate for my more drama-y games.

I've been interested in trying d20 Conan.

Also, I enjoy GURPS a lot more (while still theatrical, I think many agree it can have a touch more realism, etc). Unfortunately, getting a GURPS game together is rather difficult. Is Conan's popularity any better?

I'm still looking forward to D&D 4ed. I'm curious to see what "improvements" will be made.

Person_Man
2007-08-21, 12:35 PM
At the end of 2nd ed, TSR basically released the kitchen sink. Tons of poorly written and overpowered kits, magic items, spells, etc. It was clear that it was on the way out.

I think the recent splat books, Complete Champion in particular, will parallel that experience. WotC knows that 3.5 is going to die soon. So they're going to release every last idea they've ever had for it without play testing. The poor quality of the 3.5 supplements and the newness factor of 4.0 rules and technology will lead most players to switch over to 4.0, while hard core 3.5 enthusiasts will simply weed out the cruddy expansions and continue right along as if nothing had happened.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 12:40 PM
What do you have in mind, Person Man? I'm pretty sure all the really crazy ideas were pumped out in 1995, weren't they?

horseboy
2007-08-21, 01:22 PM
Yes, you can both do damage ... that is not the problem.

Now from under the bridge their twice as large father and mother appear along with an extended family. Your only option is flight ... in isolation, do you both have as efficient means of escape? Course not, he controls the fundamental workings of the universe ... while you control your feet, and realistically large creatures run faster than you.

PS. unless you have a "monty haul" collection of magic items to give you options of course ... which I think is just as valid a way of solving the lack of flexibility in fighter types as ToB, especially books like MIC and complete scoundrel have done their best to include cheap items to expand tactical options. I think this approach will appeal to less people though.

Well, if we're being railroaded into running. :smallwink:

*Warning Crash course on Rolemaster mechanics*
Well, in the example we're around 12th level. That means 'Moose is buying the 11-20 parts of Body Renewal and his class lists. I've never seen him use anything off of Lofty Bridge, but provided that he does have the 1-10 part. Since leaving requires a direct loe, you'd be better off going with flying. So he would use the fly 150' level 7 spell. My base movement is 60'. With a brisk walk, I can keep up with him. Since he can only climb 10' per round he can't shoot straight up. So we'd both be better off making a mad dash for our mearas and out ridding them.

But yeah, the two of us could take out the new trolls, not that hard.

PinkysBrain
2007-08-21, 04:29 PM
More likely time stop is not out of the question. An truely experienced fighter will take several actions before say a university professor (or someone else who has spent their life in intellectual study) could take a single action. In cases of extreme stress, there have been officers who describe being unable to get a semi-auto pistol to fire as fast as they squeeze the trigger. There are plenty of other real life examples.
I agree, but if I posit a "maneuver" for a fighter to cross 60 foot as a swift action it doesn't matter how I describe it ... I'm gonna get accused of offending realism and making the fighter too wuxia/anime/whatever.

BardicDuelist
2007-08-21, 05:03 PM
I should say that I don't care if a player describes his character's actions in a wuxia or anime fashion if that fits the game, but I don't want abilities which can only be described in that fashion, since that doesn't fit most of my games.

Bosh
2007-08-21, 07:48 PM
Also, I enjoy GURPS a lot more (while still theatrical, I think many agree it can have a touch more realism, etc). Unfortunately, getting a GURPS game together is rather difficult. Is Conan's popularity any better?
Well Conan is d20 and the rules are VERY D&Dish so its easy to get a group of D&Ders to go for it. A new edition just came out so I'll check out if it fixed the things I had to houserule for the old. If you ever do a d20 Conan campaign PM me for advice about houseruling, there's a few things (at least in the old edition) that badly need it despite the overall system being very very cool.

ImperiousLeader
2007-08-21, 10:23 PM
Interesting. By defining a class as a combination of Role and Power Source, you can create or slot the existing classes into 12 combinations.

You have 4 roles: Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader.

Three Sources: Arcane, Divine, Martial

So, you can have an Arcane Striker, a Martial Controller, a Divine Defender, etcera, etcera, etcera.

Now, I doubt the breakdown classes in the 4e PH will match this grid, it does give interesting places for new classes to go.

For example, assuming that the three Defenders are the Fighter, Barbarian and Paladin, we have two Martial Defenders and a Divine one. The next natural step in either PH2 or a splatbook would be the creation of an Arcane Defender. The closest 3.5 class to that would probably be the Hexblade (the Duskblade is what I'd identify as an Arcane Striker).

This also means, that by adding power sources, we slot the new classes into the existing Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller grid. If Incarnum were rebuilt for 4e, perhaps the Soulborn would be an Incarnum Defender, the Totemist a Striker, and the Incarnate a Leader.

Aximili
2007-08-21, 11:04 PM
I should say that I don't care if a player describes his character's actions in a wuxia or anime fashion if that fits the game, but I don't want abilities which can only be described in that fashion, since that doesn't fit most of my games.

From what I understand, there won't be.
Martial and skillful characters will be doing cool stuff at low levels and jaw-dropping stuff at medium levels (supposedly), the only difference being that they'll have many more options. Taking a shot at a possible example, I'd say the rogue will be performing skills at amazing speeds, which is far from superhuman (or from anime fashion), but still far from ordinary.

Only at high levels (again, from what I understand) will these classes break the barrier of realism. And it might seem like there's too much connection to Anime, but, honestly, what else could you possibly connect it to?
What other fantasy genres (other from stories about campaign settings specific to DnD) have characters that do stunts amazing enough to be assigned to a 17th level fighter?

Please don't get me wrong!
I'm not saying that the guys at wizards go looking through animes or wuxias in order to create high level stunts.
I'm saying that these stunts can be represented in whichever way our imagination sees fit, but, since anime is our main visual source for this kind of stuff, we automatically make the connection. Even though the poor innocent stunt doesn't even suggest such a connection at all.

Orzel
2007-08-22, 12:33 AM
I think the main thing they need to do is expand the "special attack" portion of the book.

Like Charge

Move action: Up to 1/2 speed. Light weapon fighters and Light build characters only
Standard action: Up to speed
Full Round action: Up to double speed

Level 1: +2
Level 10: + 4
Level 20: + 6
Level 30: + 8

Defender Classes: Double damage vs chargers
Attacker Classes: Skirmish damage
Sneaky Classes: Skirmish damage
Arcane Classes: No effect
Divine Classes: No effect

So a gnome ranger10 wielding a great axe can charge 10 feet as a move action and gain +4 to attack and 4d6 skirmish damage for being an a ranger (attacker/sneak/divine). A human dagger fighter can charge for 15 as a move when dagger wielding but only gets 2d6 skirmish for being a fighter (attacker/defender). A dwarf cleric gets only Double damage vs chargers since clerics are defender/divine

Roxlimn
2007-08-22, 12:03 PM
"Swordmove version 3" is a generic unflavored maneuver that you can use once per refresh that deals +4d6 damage and adds +10 on your critical confirmation rolls for the encounter on a failed Fortitude save.

Please indicate where the mechanics dictate a magical basis for this maneuver and how it's impossible to view it as an expression of extraordinary but nonmagical skill.

Many of ToBs maneuvers are decidedly nonmagical in label and mechanics. The names may be a bit outlandish, even for my tastes, and they're not even properly Wuxia for all that.

ToB allows you to make Wuxia-type and non-Wuxia type characters. Even if they import its mechanics hook, line and sinker, it'll be like that. Just because it's possible to build a weaker Wuxia character in ToB doesn't mean that you can't also make a slightly stronger thoroughly mundane (if superhuman) kind of warrior.

Tormsskull
2007-08-22, 12:23 PM
Please indicate where the mechanics dictate a magical basis for this maneuver and how it's impossible to view it as an expression of extraordinary but nonmagical skill.


But it won't be called "Swordmove version 3" and it won't be unflavored. That's the point, the flavor, the fluff description, makes all the difference to some of us that think fluff is important.

If 4e did something like Wheel of Time Blademasters (they get forms with interesting names such as "Parting the Silk") then I'd be ok with it, if it was explained well.

Here's a total made-up-on-the-spot example:

Parting the Silk
Utilizing a series of feign-strikes and parries, you maneuver your opponent's defensive tool (be it weapon, shield, or claw) off to the side, and follow up with a quick attack to the now undefended area.
Prerequisite: Fighter 5
Effect: -4 Opponent AC, +1 Critical threat range, +2 on Critical confirm rolls

It could be done like:

Parting the Silk
You embue your weapon with an unearthly edge, cutting through armor or weapons as if they were silk.
Prerequisite: Fighter 5
Effect: -4 Opponent AC, +1 Critical threat range, +2 on Critical confirm rolls

This is an example of a non-magic magical ability.

The fluff is important because it helps us visualize what is happening. In the first example I can easily visualize a fighter using his knowledge of martial combat, his ability at combat to set up a more precise attack. The second one I don't see that.

Roxlimn
2007-08-22, 01:26 PM
Tormsskull:

Generally speaking, the "fluff" in ToB is a bit of irrelevant italicized text that I don't bother to read anyway. Really, who does?

If you can reflavor a Fighter to be either a Knight or a Steppe Horse Archer, I don't see how you can't reflavor a move that only does damage and point effects to be totally nonmagical.

Many effects in ToB don't even need reflavoring to BE nonmagical. Improbable, maybe, but totally nonmagical. Some people would even say that most of ToB is like this, but that its detractors simply can't abide by having Wuxia elements in D&D at all, even though they're not bound to include them in their own games.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 01:37 PM
Hmmn. I'm not sure you reflavour a Fighter. Their flavour text just pretty much says they can be any type of Fighter.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-22, 01:51 PM
Tormsskull:

Generally speaking, the "fluff" in ToB is a bit of irrelevant italicized text that I don't bother to read anyway. Really, who does?

If you can reflavor a Fighter to be either a Knight or a Steppe Horse Archer, I don't see how you can't reflavor a move that only does damage and point effects to be totally nonmagical.

Many effects in ToB don't even need reflavoring to BE nonmagical. Improbable, maybe, but totally nonmagical. Some people would even say that most of ToB is like this, but that its detractors simply can't abide by having Wuxia elements in D&D at all, even though they're not bound to include them in their own games.

It seems to me that people are upset not because they CAN'T reflavor a particular ability, but because they don't want to have to go to the trouble of thinking up how to reflavor that ability. I suppose that is understandable, even if it seems to be asking a bit much of WotC.

That said, I think once the edition comes out most of these folks will have their fears put to rest. I mean... really... the strategy for selling more supplements has always been reserve the really flashy stuff for the later add on's. The core rules can have mundane character set ups pretty easily because people will buy them anyway for the game mechanics. If they want a flaming sword teleporting fighter of doom then WotC will also want to sell them "Warriors of the Arcane" or some such thing. They are a business after all and will be happy to take our money in the most effective way possible.

Roxlimn
2007-08-22, 01:51 PM
Matthew:

"A particular Fighter." Does that suit the sense more?

AKA_Bait:



It seems to me that people are upset not because they CAN'T reflavor a particular ability, but because they don't want to have to go to the trouble of thinking up how to reflavor that ability. I suppose that is understandable, even if it seems to be asking a bit much of WotC.


Now that just makes no sense to me. D&D is a game for the imagination! Most of the time, I'm trying to rein in all kinds of alternative reinterpretations my players are trying to layer on top of a mechanic just so the theme of my games doesn't end up somewhere on the other side of town.

If a Magic Missile can look anywhere from mini-missiles to energy rays to little dragons screaming bloody murder, I don't see why people would have a problem reflavoring a totally flexible mechanic (add damage!) into all sorts of things.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 01:54 PM
I'm not disagreeing with the general thrust of your argument, but some Classes are narrowly defined and some are broadly defined. Description and Mechanics interact, I have no problem changing either, but let's get our base assumptions right.

Roxlimn
2007-08-22, 01:57 PM
Matthew:

"A particular Fighter." Does that make more sense?

Matthew
2007-08-22, 02:09 PM
I think I'd probably be happier with "reflavouring a Knight as a Samurai" or something, in this context.

Roxlimn
2007-08-22, 02:15 PM
Or a Samurai as a Knight, I would say. The OA Samurai is certainly very near what I would consider a Knight, if a little lacking in brute force.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 02:21 PM
Yes, indeed. No argument from me.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-22, 02:27 PM
Now that just makes no sense to me. D&D is a game for the imagination! Most of the time, I'm trying to rein in all kinds of alternative reinterpretations my players are trying to layer on top of a mechanic just so the theme of my games doesn't end up somewhere on the other side of town.

If a Magic Missile can look anywhere from mini-missiles to energy rays to little dragons screaming bloody murder, I don't see why people would have a problem reflavoring a totally flexible mechanic (add damage!) into all sorts of things.


I don't personally disagree with you. Almost nothing avoids some reflavoring in my games, monsters, feats and PRC's included. However, some people want a product already tailored to exactly the game they want to play and others make the, in my view, mistake of thinking that the flavor is just as important and sacred as the mechanics (not that I don't tinker with the mechanics also). Some folks like that are even in my gaming group. It's their lives. ::shrug::

Person_Man
2007-08-22, 02:58 PM
Having read through everything available and having spoken to a couple people who were at Gen Con, I now feel somewhat confident making this statement:

D&D fluff + Star Wars D20 Saga Edition core mechanics + Tome of Battle-ish maneuvers + new online game support = 4th edition D&D

In regards to party role specifically, looking at Star Wars Saga Edition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Roleplaying_Game_(Wizards_of_the_Coast)) , it seems as if there are only 5 different base classes: Jedi, Noble, Scoundrel, Soldier, and Scout. I'm guessing that this translates into:

Cleric: Divine: Crusader/Healer
Wizard: Arcane: Ranged Blaster/Battlefield Control
Rogue: Skills: Swordsage/Toolbox
Fighter: Melee: Warblade/Close Combat
Ranger: Hybrid: Flexible 5th Man

Each class progresses along "character trees" similar to the d20 Modern system where characters are built with talents and feats. This gels with what they've said about race and weapons. They've also specifcally stated that Clerics are more about healing, Wizards are more about blasting things with magical energy, a Fighter's weapon focus is a big deal, and that Ranger's will be killing the 3.5 Scout class and robbing their abilities.

So theoretically everyone starts as one of the few base classes with a niche to play. And from there you can choose a specific branch, based on your race or weapon focus or spell choice, or whatever. There are also prestige classes, though they too can modularly fit into the tree/branch organization. And when they publish a new supplement, they don't have to re-write every race and class, they just have to create a new branch off the main trees.

It's just conjecture, but I think its a good one. Thoughts?

Matthew
2007-08-22, 03:01 PM
Apparently, according to James Wyatt, it looks like this:

Controller - Wizard, Unamed Class
Striker - Rogue, Ranger
Defender - Fighter, Paladin
Leader - Cleric, Warlord

Person_Man
2007-08-22, 03:09 PM
Apparently, according to James Wyatt, it looks like this:

Controller - Wizard, Unamed Class
Striker - Rogue, Ranger
Defender - Fighter, Paladin
Leader - Cleric, Warlord

OK, that would make even more sense then my schema. I'm guessing that it translates into:

Controller: Blasting spells and battlefield control spells.
Striker: Skills and ranged attacks.
Defender: Meat Shield and melee combat.
Leader: Party buff and healer.

Matthew
2007-08-22, 03:23 PM
Pretty much. I think the 'Striker' probably has a number of melee options now. Basically it's the four Archetypes: Wizard, Rogue, Warrior and Priest, renamed for no apparent reason. I'm getting a strong 2e vibe from 4e...

Tormsskull
2007-08-22, 03:39 PM
Tormsskull:
If you can reflavor a Fighter to be either a Knight or a Steppe Horse Archer, I don't see how you can't reflavor a move that only does damage and point effects to be totally nonmagical.


But you don't reflavor a fighter into a knight or a steppe horse archer, both knight and steppe horse archers are easily represented by the fighter class.

To me fluff is heavily intertwined with roleplaying, and the moment someone says that the fluff is not important, it leads me to believe that they don't think roleplaying is that important.

I'm not against anyone making up their own classes, their own abilities, or whatever. But a class (IMO anyhow) is a large part of what defines a character. If you are a fighter you will share a lot in common with other fighters.

One fighter might be the academy-trained professional soldier type, and another might be a mongolian-like mounted archer. That makes total sense to me, and is supported by both the fluff and the mechanics.

If a character's fluff doesn't fit inside that general concept, then that character should not be a fighter.

Roxlimn
2007-08-22, 03:48 PM
Tormsskull:

Even if all his character concept abilities are all about feats and he could otherwise be well represented by the mechanics of the Fighter?

I find the thought incredible. IF the mechanics work, then you can do the fluff however you want. In fact, I'm NOT saying that fluff is unimportant. I'm saying that fluff is so important that you shouldn't be beholden to abide by non-binding fluff you don't like.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-08-26, 11:30 AM
To the people worried about 4th Edition being anime-ized or wuxia-ed by the inclusion of ToB style "fighter spells", I would suggest taking a look at the Book of Iron Might (http://www.ptolus.com/mpress_BOIM.html), by Mike Mearls

It includes a maneouver system that is completely non-magical, but that is very helpful on closing down the gap between casters and meleers.

And since Mike Mearls is the "lead developer" of 4th ed., im pretty confident its going to be nicely done.

Matthew
2007-08-26, 11:43 AM
Uh, yeah, but as has been pointed out, he was also involved in the development of Tome of Battle. I can't say I was particularly impressed by his interview, but the proof will be in the pudding. I really like the idea of 'Weapon Specific Manoeuvres', we shall see what we shall see with regards to implementation.