Quote from: WarthurHe also does plenty of sneaking, trap-evading, and climbing. Check out The Tower of the Elephant if you don't believe me.

Well, in a skill based system, why can't a fighter be sneaky or climb stuff? I am certain that, leaving aside Conan for the moment, I could name half a dozen 'fighter archetypes' from a variety of commonly known fictive sources that did those things.

And, yes, I have read those old conan stories as well. My point is that Conan is, by every major conception of the term, a 'Fighter' in terms of his role. The fact that 'in setting' he also steals stuff (and by extension does things that let him steal stuff...like climbing towers and shit... somethign he does in the movie as well...) makes him a theif without sticking him in our cultural conception of 'theives'... or to use the D&D terminology 'Rogue'.

Now, as Howard didn't write to D&D tropes, we could argue for hours about wether or not he multiclassed, how sneaky one has to be and wether or not Conan's cunning pushes him over the line.  However, rather than do that I use the 'fifth grader' test.  As a fifth grader if Conan is a 'fighter or a theif' and every damn one of them will respond with 'fighter'.

Quote from: SpikeMe? If I don't have a VALID option to go 'I have a sword. I hit you with it. You fall down.'   but the rogue class IS reinvisioned as 'I have a dagger. I hit you with it. You fall down. Also, I have skills.'... then I will be seriously, and unmitigatedly, pissed the fuck off.

Okay, Spike, I officially just don't get where you're coming from any more.  Are we still talking about stuff you can determine from what's been said about 4ed?

If you're saying "Sucky implementations SUCK!" then ... yeah.  I can get on board with that.

But if you're saying that you have enough information, at this juncture, to know for sure that the 4ed implementation of these ideas is going to be sucky ... then ... uh .... linky?  Can we get some links?  Because that would indicate, I think, that you have a lot more information than is currently public knowledge, and I'd be excited about that.

Whereas, if you're just being afrighted by the shadows of sucky games of the past, I suggest you dredge up a little faith.  The WotC designers are a damn clever lot.  I suspect that they know better than to fall into the well-mapped pitfalls of past games.

Quote from: SpikeBut some dumb shit says 'Nah, fighters are defenders, yo. These weedy lockpickers, they are the 'strikers'.'

Fuck you, Wizards. Fuck you with the blizzard logo you cock sucking shitbags. Where, in all the history of literature, fantasy and movies.. all the things that inform our desires of play, does the weedy cowardly sneaky mother fucker get to whup ass while the bad ass with the sword, the ax, and the psychotic gleam in his eye have to stand there like a punch drunk ox?  Where the FUCK does this psycho shit come from?

Um, what information is this based on?

Has WotC said something that I missed?  I mean, I saw the class 'categories,' but where'd they say that a 'defender' fighter will lack in damage-dealing potential compared to a 'striker' rogue?

Or are you getting hung up on category names that may very well turn out to be either (a) meaningless, or (b) not meaning what you think they mean?

It seems like an awful amount of vitriol over something for which you have no evidence.  You're starting to sound like J Arcane here.

-O

Tony: I posted what my reaction might be if I read the OP's quote correctly.

Rogues are listed as 'strikers', which sounds suspiciously like the 'DPS'... particularly when paired with "Rangers'.  Fighters are listed as 'defenders'.. which is suspiciously like 'Tanks'.

I've played that game and it annoyed me no end when I finally figured out why my two weapon warrior of much smackyness couldn't compete with 'rogues' ten levels lower than him, even just wandering around the wilderness.  Why I had to respec to even have a prayer of getting the cool toys in the game.  Why I'm useless in larger raids unless I'm main tanking (cause sometimes you only have one... and the secondary tanks do diddly... stand there and watch everyone else do their schtick and hope the MT goes down in flames, so you maybe are able to take over for him... maybe).

Since it has been argued elsewhere that Mearls and co. are drawing from video game influences, that only reinforces the idea.

So, unless you can play a warrior who's schtick is to seriously jack a fool up in mellee... and I stress the Seriously and 'Jack a fool up' parts...  then I'm better off in the current and previous editions, where I may be overshadowed completley by the spell casters, but at least the shady fella with the dagger doesn't spit in my face (stab me in the kidneys? Sure, but not to the face...)

Being a punching bag is not my idea of a good time, and I prefer fighters to other classes.  

yeah, I am a selfish son of a bitch. Why?

Quote from: SpikeSince it has been argued elsewhere that Mearls and co. are drawing from video game influences, that only reinforces the idea.

For the record, from what I've read Mearls pretty much hates playing WoW.

-O

I've read a quote from one of the design team (sorry, can't remember where) that the role assignation of Defender in no way mitigates the combat prowess and damage dealing capabilities of the fighter. They're just as proactive a class as the strikers, apparently, with one of the best defensive stances being a full-frontal assault which gives the wizard and rogue the opportunity for spell preparation and sneak attack positioning.  It seems (and I'm guessing here) that roles merely determine the broad functional interactions the party has with one another in terms of tactical play.

Make of that what you will.

To avoid serious degeneration of this thread:

Looking back on my initial rant I see the point of confusion is mine. There is but one single word that expresses my intent. 'could'. Its small and easily missed.

The point isn't that my worst fears have come to pass. Its that, if they do follow this path, then I might as well become the next generation of Dragonsfoot grognard. Ironic since D&D is not my favorite game in any incarnation. (GURPS should hold that title nicely, if only I oculd find players for it...)

 IF defenders and strikers mean what I fear they mean.
IF a melee 'specce'd' Fighter must always play second fiddle to a melee specce'd rogue.
IF  this shit winds up playing out like WoW in this regard, why the fuck don't I just keep playing WoW then? And all the bile I have built up towards this, to me totally ass backwards interpretation of the noble heroes of auld, can be rightfully spewed in the direction of WoTC alongside WoW and... from the sounds of things, EQ and all those other moronic 'warriors are punching bags, dude' asshats.

Gilgamesh would feed them their fucking spleens.

Spike:  Gotcha.  You're worried.  That makes sense.

Me, I've got less to lose on the downside (if 4ed turns out not-so-hot), more to win on the upside (if it is the ultimate coolness), so I'm all hopeful and optimistic.

Oh god.  Why does it strike me as yet another blown-out-of proportion difference of opinion brought on by a misunderstanding of the terms in use - or perhaps by simple incorrect term to describe something.

Defender - Fighter / Striker - Rogue

I'm willing to bet that they really mean that the Fighter is the big dude right in the thick of things, taking hits AND dishing it out toe-to-toe with the enemy.  The "striker" is the precise hit and run sort of guy.  Stay mobile, don't get hit, because when you attack it better take the enemy down (or some such) because you won't survive long if they get a counter attack.

At this point it's all conjecture, but I wouldn't read too much into the labels.

edit: looks like I took too long to post this and everything I covered was covered prior to my post.  Should've hit preview instead of straight submitting.

Quote from: architect.zeroOh god.  Why does it strike me as yet another blown-out-of proportion difference of opinion brought on by a misunderstanding of the terms in use - or perhaps by simple incorrect term to describe something.

Defender - Fighter / Striker - Rogue

I'm willing to bet that they really mean that the Fighter is the big dude right in the thick of things, taking hits AND dishing it out toe-to-toe with the enemy.  The "striker" is the precise hit and run sort of guy.  Stay mobile, don't get hit, because when you attack it better take the enemy down (or some such) because you won't survive long if they get a counter attack.

At this point it's all conjecture, but I wouldn't read too much into the labels.

That's pretty much how I see it.

I would personally hate to see the 'defender' classes turn out to be the by now cliched roll of MMORPG 'tank,' but I don't think we'll see that. Most of the stuff we have on them so far talks about their offensive combative ability, and how they'll have more options for how to attack things, not less.

David Noonan (the other half of the D&D podcast with Mike Mearls) has this to say about WoW on his WotC blog:

Quote from: Dave NoonanWorld of Warcraft: In message board traffic, I see a lot of comparisons between D&D and WoW. It's a discussion that fascinates me. As a guy whose job it is to pay attention to how gamers think, I live for situations when people draw connections between two games like that. Especially because it says as much about the observer as it does about the two games.

Here's what I can add to the discussion: I can tell you who's actually playing WoW. Among the guys who are writing the D&D game right now--which is about a dozen of us, give or take--it's a sure bet that everyone has played World of Warcraft. Oh, wait, maybe not Rich Baker--but he's played a fair amount of City of Heroes. Some tried it, declared it a busman's holiday, and moved on. Others got up into the 50 or 60s.

But I'm the only one on the RPG side of the office with a level 70 character. And I'm also the guy around here that waves his RP freak flag the highest. I'm Mr. Social Challenge. I'm the guy who assigns his players backstory homework assignments. So anyone with preconceptions about WoW fans who play D&D...all I ask is that you adjust those preconceptions to include me.

I'm an unabashed fan of the game. If you told me two and a half years ago that I'd play one computer game to the almost total exclusion of all others for the next three years, I'd stop buying you beers and get you home before you threw up on something. Yet that's what happened, and I'm not quitting anytime soon.

I could talk about Warcraft's gameplay, story, and all that. (Executive summary: I think it's really good.) But part of the reason I've stuck with it is that when Warcraft arrived, I had a one-year-old kid. Now I've got two young kids, and while I have a fair amount of free time in my life, it's almost all in a quiet house after 9 p.m. Warcraft is a pretty good game, given that constraint. That's why I run a West Coast guild devoted to late-night raiding and PvP. It's when I'm available.

This "lifestyle constraint" is why you can bet that when we get a digital game table for D&D, I'm going to be dual-booting my trusty Mac late at night. The computer aspects of 4e aren't for everyone. But us late-night, stuck-at-home guys are going to appreciate it.

And for those of you with young kids of your own, it's fun to read "Goodnight Thoon" to your toddlers instead of "Goodnight Moon." Hmmm, I could see a whole line of D&D-themed board books. But Not The Displacer Beast, anyone?

Architect:

I could actually point out that its more than that.

A simple reading of most heroic literature traditionally the hero is a guy with a sword (spear, ax, club, whatever...) who often wears armor.  If we follow a campbellian path, he may start out as some frontline schlub who matures into a king (Conan became a king...).  If not, and the 'character' is already 'matured', as is so often the case, then he is probably ALSO a leader.

Now: In this D&D quote, I can see that you have a 'fighter' who is a defender, and a 'warlord' who is a 'leader', and then you have 'rangers' who are 'strikers'.  Lets leave the poor rogue alone for the moment, as I've already called him enough names for one day, and really, its not his fault we often sneer at weedy, sneaky motherfuckers. Chicks actually dig those guys according to biologists.

thus the traditional 'Alpha Male' model tends to follow this 'warrior' and 'leader' model simultaniously.  Previously, a fighter could become a decent leader, mostly due to handwavium rules (at tenth level he builds a keep and presto! he's a leader!), but as editions have marched on, the game has pushed leadership more and more onto the bard and sorcerer classes by default, and now we divide the 'class' more to create another division.

*Wizards, by the way, can be divided, artificially, between 'Guy that throws spells' and 'Guy that knows stuff'.  I.E. a sage.

So classes become more artificial, harder to grasp instinctively.


Lets look to one very common (but by no means exclusive) 'fictive source'. Lord of the Rings.

Strider/Aragorn hung out in the woods and shot shit with a bow.  he was a ranger. He had a bad ass magical sword and whooped some serious ass with it, he was a fighter (also, by extension with the whopping of ass he also protected people by killing the badguy fast enough to keep them off the weedy halfling civilians... sort of), oh, but he also led armies eventually. Oops! He's a warlord!

No!

Now, someone might say: Well, he CAN do all that by multiclassing.

Wrong: He can compromise any one thing to be ok in another field. He won't be a great leader, or a serious swordsman or a serious woodland ranger type. He'll be half assed (0r rather, third assed...) in all three.  The 'Fighter Role' traditionally isn't that limited, breaking it up into extra classes like this makes each role 'crippleware'.  The guy that started as a "Fighter' is gonna be stuck being a front line mook punching bag for the rest of his career, or can compromise his ability there to become a half assed leader? Not how it works anywhere BUT RPGs...

This has been my big complaint with fighters getting such things as 'half a skill list' and shit for points.

Sure, a fighter might not be able to toss a fireball, but he can not only whoop your  ass with a metal stick, but he can get his twenty buddies to do the same!

Missing, utterly missing.





Sure, not every leader needs to be a fighter, either. Plenty of examples of that too.  And leading isn't mandatory either. but it should be an integral option of the class.

Quote from: Dave NoonanI'm the guy who assigns his players backstory homework assignments.

That turns me off a zillion times more than any talk about online games or the digital initiative or any of that junk.

I always thought Robin Hood seemed more like a Rogue than a Fighter.  Then again all the D&D classes are really D&Disms and don't map well to folklore.  What was Friar Tuck?  A Cleric?