Quote from: StuartI'll agree with this.  However things like emulating the roles in WoW: "Tank", "Striker" and "Controller" are *not* one of those good elements from a MMORPG that would make a tabletop game better.  Things like: Faster Character Creation, Minimal Rules Knowledge, and Very Quick Setup Times would be.

I was initially against this until someone pointed out that D&D has always had four roles: tank, trapmonkey, wizard, and Band-Aid.  By changing them to "tank," "striker," "controller," and "leader," it just makes them more versatile.  The only big issue that I have with it is that it is essentially telling the player how he ought to player his character:  "You're an arcane striker, so make with the damage!"

Quote from: B.T.I was initially against this until someone pointed out that D&D has always had four roles: tank, trapmonkey, wizard, and Band-Aid.  By changing them to "tank," "striker," "controller," and "leader," it just makes them more versatile.  The only big issue that I have with it is that it is essentially telling the player how he ought to player his character:  "You're an arcane striker, so make with the damage!"

The "Fighter" class wasn't the same thing as a "Tank".  That's something very specific to a certain genre of computer games, and doesn't really map to any historical or fictional stories I can think of.  A Knight in heavy armour didn't stand on the battlefield to absorb "damage" so that his allies could more freely attack the enemy.  The reason there are "Tanks" in WoW has to do with the game engine they're using, how combat works, how the AI work, and many of the limitations of their simulation of a fantasy world (characters can all walk through each other). It shifts the game from a simulation of a fantasy world, to a simulation of World of Warcraft.

Maybe an Archer is a "striker"... but an archer in D&D was usually a specialized fighter, or sometimes a Thief.  If a "Striker" doesn't mean strike at a distance, but rather 'deals the most damage' then that would be a fighter with some kind of heavy martial weapon.  Or a Wizard -- but a wizard could do a lot of different things in D&D.  They weren't usually so specialized.

Having a leader role could be a good idea -- but I could see any of the character classes doing that:  Arthur, Robin Hood, Gandalf... and uh, cleric-guy.

I can't see at all how mapping the roles ("tank," "striker," "controller," and "leader") from World of Warcraft onto a tabletop game... and especially D&D... would make the game better.

Quote from: StuartHaving a leader role could be a good idea -- but I could see any of the character classes doing that:  Arthur, Robin Hood, Gandalf... and uh, cleric-guy.

Joan of Arc...

Quote from: StuartThe "Fighter" class wasn't the same thing as a "Tank".  That's something very specific to a certain genre of computer games, and doesn't really map to any historical or fictional stories I can think of.  

SNIP

Absolutely. Those terms came as a collective response to the AI of those games. Players learned the best way to handle combat and then assigned names to those roles. This is not how anyone fights in real life and not at all a historic sim.

So, (and I'm nearly 99% neutral on 4E, whatever, whatever) this edition seems to be more a recreation of the MMORPG experience than a good RPG. (And why do all the dice rolling for 4E when I can log on to Guild Wars with my pals?)

In THAT way, I think the MMO influence is very bad.

Yeah, I get real tired of the whole "roles were always in D&D" too.

Most fighter characters I ever knew were focused on offense, not defense.  They were the ones who charged in and attacked.  I don't remember once being a fighter who sat back and babysat the wizard.

Thieves were certainly not "strikers".  Up until 3e, they were very non-combat focused.  In BD&D they were almost as weak as a magic-user.  They were supposed to be used as specialists.

In all of my games, magic-users/mages/wizards/whatever were expected to take care of themselves.  They were supposed to use their defensive spells to protect themselves, plus their offensive skills to attack.  And many of their spells were far more "striker" in nature than "controller".  They also had a ton of specialist spells that were no use whatsoever in combat.

Finally, I've never seen a cleric used as a walking heal-bot.  IME, clerics generally acted like fighters - rushing into close combat with melee weapons.  The heal stuff usually only happened once in a while during combat (if someone was really injured) or usually just after combat.  And while they had a few "buff" type spells, I'd say that specialist type spells or offensive spells were used far more often.

The only place I saw these "four roles" of MMOs used in the 80s was in the video game, Gauntlet.

Quote from: James J SkachJoan of Arc...

Yeah, I was thinking of Jane Wiedlin when I was writing that out... but I couldn't decide if she was more like a Fighter or a Cleric.

Quote from: StuartA Knight in heavy armour didn't stand on the battlefield to absorb "damage" so that his allies could more freely attack the enemy.

Really?

The men-at-arms in a medieval army shielded the archers and allowed the cavalry to maneuver freely.  Pikemen in a Renaissance army had the same function and the hollow squares of Napoleonic infantry and also be viewed in the same way

Even today, armor can take ground, but it needs infantry to hold and defend it

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonReally?

The men-at-arms in a medieval army shielded the archers and allowed the cavalry to maneuver freely.  Pikemen in a Renaissance army had the same function and the hollow squares of Napoleonic infantry and also be viewed in the same way

Even today, armor can take ground, but it needs infantry to hold and defend it

I'm not historically inclined (well, I love history, I just have too many other things to get into it as much as I'd like), but men-at-arms weren't Knights, were they? I mean, the Knights in heavy armor were up on horses taking the fight to the enemy, no?

If I'm right (and I'm sure someone with a better knowledge of these things than I will let me know), then this is perfect example of two types of fighters, and "Tank" as represented here (standing on the field to absorb attacks from the enemy to let others attack) doesn't describe either, really.

but I'm way out on a limb on this one...

Shouldn't the title of this thread be : D&D Podcast - You May Already Be Playing WoW...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonReally?

The men-at-arms in a medieval army shielded the archers and allowed the cavalry to maneuver freely.  Pikemen in a Renaissance army had the same function and the hollow squares of Napoleonic infantry and also be viewed in the same way

Even today, armor can take ground, but it needs infantry to hold and defend it

First -- keep in mind we're talking about the WoW definition of "Tank".  A real-world tank can take a lot of damage AND deal a lot.  It's the Tank AND the Striker.

As for Knights, you're thinking Strategic.  Think on the personal scale on the battlefield, with a group of a half-dozen or so combatants on either side.  A unit of Knights might act as a "tank", but an individual Knight does not function in same way as a  "tank" in WoW.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm not historically inclined (well, I love history, I just have too many other things to get into it as much as I'd like), but men-at-arms weren't Knights, were they? I mean, the Knights in heavy armor were up on horses taking the fight to the enemy, no?

Knight was actually more like a rank.  They had the best gear, which meant heavy horse, armour, and weapons.  

I'm using the laymans definition -- Man in heavy armour, helmet, shield, with big sword.  Which could have been a Knight, or a Man-at-Arms.

All I can say is "Yay!  Another reason not to buy 4th Edition!  I already own it!"

I like some of the stuff in 9 Sword, Complete Mage, and Star Wars Saga.  What I don't like is being told what to do with my guy because his class has been super-optimized for one role.  Sure, magic-users lob fireballs, but in my experience their number one role is to totally fuck up the villain's/DM's plan through smart use of non-blasty spells.  "Magic spells are the cheat codes to the universe" was how it was put in The Invisibles, IIRC.

Quote from: StuartYeah, I was thinking of Jane Wiedlin when I was writing that out... but I couldn't decide if she was more like a Fighter or a Cleric.

Leelee Sobieski did that role better.

 Much better written version of character too.


- Ed C.

WoW causes brain damage.