This is a pseudo-rant, being part rant and part confusion and part anticipation.  Please take that under advisement-- I'm looking for opinions, feedback, commentary, etc. on this so we can get a nice dialogue going.

Without further ado, ::Ahem::

Wizards of the Coast has just posted a preview of the upcoming PHB2 on their website.  I am simultaneously very excited and somewhat nervous, leaning towards excited.  For one thing, the glut of feats, particularly weapon style feats, mastery feats, and feats that enable difficult but fun combat styles (eg: the mobility fighter) seem like they may actually do the trick of making a Fighter 20 playable.  (Before I go further, I should confess that I am a firm believer in character optimization/minmaxing.  There is absolutely no reason why solid character mechanics and good roleplaying should not exist hand in hand.)

2.) the expanded classes look interesting.  I have DMed several games where  the players would never rage for fear of "needing it later" or overestimating the effects of fatigue.  The preview lists an alternative mechanic for these folks, more or less putting rage on "automatic."  I like it for the flavor, the mechanics seem well thought out, and on the whole it feels pretty solid.  Nice work there.  If only we had thought of something like this to instate for those players to differentiate them from fighters...

[Counterpoint: this is part of the reason for the title, the Massively Multiplayer Online RPG-ification of Pen N Paper DnD.  Mechanics that kick in automatically like that are fun in a console/computer game, as they are generally fairly powerful and you've got a lot of things to worry about.  On the flip side, automatic mechanics like this take a lot of player control away.  General effects aside, "proactive" mechanics like spellcasting, or the power attack feat are much more satisfying than "reactive" mechanics such as the endurance feat or the monk's still mind class feature.  Reactive or passive mechanics are nice to have, and they can add the icing on the cake to a class if the active mechanics are solid.  Making rage, the barbarian's only real active mechanic, into a passive or reactive mechanic, is taking options out of the player's hands and putting them at the mercy of chance.  Think about it this way--- if, through some streak of luck, your HP never falls below the "rage threshold," the Barbarian class turns into something more like "a fighter with slightly better hp and no bonus feats."]

3.) I appreciate the inclusion of the character classes from the various Complete supplements, especially the Hexblade, Spirit Shaman, Warlock, Ninja, and Scout.  New base classes are a good way to model archetypes that are difficult or awkward to model through existing mechanics.  For example, it is possible to model a "ninja" archetype through multiclassing between monk, rogue, and fighter (possibly ranger) but it can be sort of clumsy or hard to pull off.  You could model it with a straight rogue, ranger, or monk through feat selection, but having it as a variant is nice

There's an interesting argument to be made about the reciprocal effects that are occuring between MMO's and PNP, at this point.

In the beginning, MMO's were (and still are) PNP games where the math has been moved away from the players and purely into the DM's (in this case, normally a computer program) sphere. While D&D is becoming mechanically similar to these games, it also is divergent in that the d20 system is one designed to remove DM power and give it to the players.

[B]Player Power                         PNP                   DM Power
<------------------------------------------------------------------->
Rules Heavy                                                       Rules Light
[/B]so, if the above graph holds true, then the MMO axis, though based on this kind of setup, is actually reversed. Let's take the example of Second Life - it's not so much an MMO as it is a graphical MUSH/MUX. contrast that with Everquest or World of warcraft (which translate to MUDs), and you start seeing that the real power is in the creation of rules - so the system with fewer rules is more player dominated:

[B]
Player Power                         MMO                      "DM" power
<------------------------------------------------------------------->
Rules Light                                                       Rules Heavy
Player Programable                                         Player Static[/B]
In essence - I completely disagree that PNP is being MMO-ified, because every time more rules are released, it gives more power to the players.

P.S.

Get an Avatar, or be given one. :heh:

I ran out of time this morning but I was going to post this earlier.

The specific thing I was thinking about when I wrote the title was the Knight class with the very World of Warcraft style of "aggro" control.

It irritates me because the Knight is supposed to be based around battlefield control-- a tank, but not in the conventional sense.  Knights are (mechanically speaking) supposed to control the actions of their enemies through issuing challenges and seeking out the most worthy foes.  Sure, I get it, but I don't see the need for a whole class based around it.

We already have a feat, Goad, that does the same thing.  We already have Ki Shout which scares the little people, and Frightful Presence too.  We don't need a Knight class if that's all it does.

Wait, Radu, (I hear you ask) that's not all the Knight does.  You're right.  It also does all of these jobs badly and doesn't really hold up to what it thinks it is.  The knight is theoretically an honorable combatant tied up with all the romanticized chivalry nonsense --- sort of "Paladin lite."  Except the class, mechanically speaking, is much more of a sort of obsessive compulsive conflict seeker than a chivalrous warrior.

The feature that inspired the original post before I got sidetracked and ran out of time is the challenge feature.  World of Warcraft has the idea of aggro control--- let it stay there.  It works in the video game because it handles the mechanics for you and because it's a way to interact more meaningfully with the world.  In a tabletop game you already get that in that you literally have to interact in order to know about the world at all.  Rather than graphics, you have DM description and/or miniatures, but you still rely upon literal interaction to really immerse yourself.  You have to imagine things collaboratively, whereas WOW you simply stare at the screen.  Mechanics like aggro control work in WoW because even though its a cooperative (well, can be a cooperative) game it's still fundamentally a one player game.  Not so with dnd.

The challenge system irritates me because it takes all the strategy out of combat, or at least it abstracts it to an unneccesary level in my opinion.

You want to control the battlefield?  Play a trip fighter.  Play a mage with grease and wall spells.  Be a mobility fighter.  Control the terrain to limit movement options.  Strike at the flanks.  Dance naked and hope some of your enemies are distracted long enough for your companions to finish them off --- but do SOMETHING.  Some players have a firmer grasp of in game tactics than others, true, but what irritates me the most about the MMORPG style aggro control the Knight has is that it's not really an active ability at all, nor is it one that really involves any sort of tactical decision.  It's a saving throw, one your opponents make.  Wowee!  Given that same standard action, you could have moved up to one of them and engaged in melee combat with a partial charge-- hows that for a challenge?

That's really what the active/passive abilities was getting at.  Passive abilities (ones that work without your input or force reactions from enemies rather than affecting your character in a more direct manner) work in a MMORPG because the game handles the grunt work of calculations and you're interacting with it in a much different manner.  PNP games should make use of more active abilities (ones that directly affect your character or directly confront your enemies.  Abilities you actively choose to use.) because it's a way to suture your players into the game better.  A PNP game is wierd because the game exists solely in the minds of the players.  Therefore, anything that enhances their sense of connection, ability to contribute to, and control that game world is a good thing.

If the knight was less like the WOW Warrior class and more like a Knight, perhaps I'd feel differently about it.  As is, it irritates the hell out of me because the primary ability, really the mechanical core of the knight, is the taunt/challenge system.  It's a passive ability and sort of the lazy way out of battle control because though it works very well in WOW there's the rest of the party to consider in PNP games in a way that WOW doesn't match.  You can drop out of a WOW game at any point, leave the party, start a new character, whatever-- you can be as "party friendly" or "party hating" as you want to be and that's fine, because it's really a single player game in disguise.  Managing aggro is hard to do in Wow, and requires continual management.  The mechanical equivalent in PNP games does not.  True "aggro" control in dnd comes from tripping, obstructions, etc etc etc and is engaging in the same way.  A si