TWF and you

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Totally agree that RP is about making any type of team concept work. However, when I can make a PC that does the fighter's job and the rogue's job and the ranger's job, what does that leave for the other 3-6 people at the table to do? Heal and cast sells. But other people like to melee. And melee is by far the most boring part of 3e. That is why Bo9S was so cool.

Melee is more boring than healing in 3e? I'm not seeing where TWF or multiclassing have anything to do with not having one character that does the perceived fighter/ranger/rogue job in 4e. A single classed fighter that uses a two-handed weapon does tanking and DPS straight out of the box. A couple feats (most likely) and he tracks and trapfinds.

Does he do whoopass damage with a greatsword or two longswords? Either way, whoopass damage is whoopass damage. But, if the player likes using two longswords better, why not let him have a way to do it? The powers system is supposed to make things easier to balance, so it makes sense to use that to make more options that are balanced specifically for a class.

There is too much overlap in 3e. I loved multiclassing in 3e and I can make swiss army characters. And all of us ended up stepping on each others toes in the earlier years. We are all friends and worked around it and loved playing 3e, but there are flaws in the rules. We just house ruled and avoided them.

Plenty of 3.x parties have two fighters, and I've played in a few games with two axe and shield dwarf fighters or three fighters. Nobody ever complains about those fighters stepping on each others toes. Why would two (or even three) characters that can deal damage, soak damage, track, and find/disable traps at varying degrees of ability step on each others toes more? If anything, they'd work really well together in combat, and the party would have redundancy and the flexibility of sometimes letting the character in the best position to work on a skill task in combat do that rather than always needing to make possibly disadvantageous movements to get the one person that can do something into place.

I'm old school, started AD&D when I was a kid and have been playing DnD ever since (but I still played some EQ, WoW, DAoC, AC, and other MMOs) and I don't think DnD should be a MMO, but it does need to learn from what works. And having strong classes is one thing that works. IMO Swiss Army characters are bad for co-op games. If you want to be Super Bad and do everything well, that is not "role" playing. Anyway, you can still gestalt with 4e.

Having also played Since AD&D, the last thing the game needs to take from MMOs is one of the biggest limitations of MMOs - lack of flexibility. MMOs have strong (using strong to mean extremely limited) classes to ease development (and remember an MMO has to code everything that is possible, which is more time/labor intensive), not because limited options for players is a great thing (see the original Star Wars Galaxies for an example of very flexible, but hard to maintain). IMO, having a party of well-rounded characters is great for co-op games. Wanting to be a one-dimensional toon isn't "role playing" either. And you can still avoid multiclassing or taking any feats that broaden your capabilities in 4e.

Yeah.
I agree with what someone said earlier, that it would be less confusing if they took away the class names. Leaving Ranger as it is makes it feel like it should be split into 3 different classes, at least...Archer, Swashbuckler and Hunter. Ranged martial Striker, melee martial Striker, and then Primalish tracker-dude.
Alas, if I want to actually make those classes I'll have to do more work than I want to.

Or, you could not make those 3 different classes and the single class could be modifiable via powers, feats and alternate class abilities. Taking a system that allows a class to be easily customizable via powers, feats and alternate class abilities and adding arbitrary restrictions to a bunch of limited classes rather than options for a flexible class makes for an unsatisfying character creation process.

Some Hunter will want to use two weapons in melee (Dagger/Hand Axe to simulate Bowie or Arkansas Toothpick and Tomahawk or hatchet), another Hunter is going to want a spear or longspear, another Hunter is going to want a 2-handed axe to simulate a Woodsman's axe, another is going to want a longsword because they think that's what a king's forester is likely to carry. A Hunter class that is limited to only one melee fighting style is going to leave people out.

So you either have one flexible class that can gain other fighting styles via feats, alternate class abilites and powers that allows people to play the character they want to play or you have three or four or more Hunter classes that are the same in almost every way but fighting style or have each of them have a couple abilities that would fit all the hunter classes that you don't share between them to protect the artificial niche you're imposing on them. The first option is going to make a lot more people completely satisfied and is going to make most of those that aren't completely satisfied able to get more of what they want than the second option.

Splitting strikers arbitrarily into ranged and melee also leaves a bunch of people out who would like to use a half their options for melee and half their options for ranged attacks rather than focusing solely on one or the other.

Whipping up 20 TWF powers for the rogue, 20 TWF powers for the fighter, 20 TWF powers for the paladin, etc. is a lot easier than making a class that does everything that a ranger does but in a different way that fights with a two-handed weapon or everything that a fighter does but in a different way that fights with two-weapons. You sell books with powers and feats just as well as class books, sell pre-made power cards whether there is one class or two, and a fighter-with-two-longswords mini sells just as well as a [arbitrary class that is really just a fighter with two longswords] mini. Considering it looks like you are stuck with the class you pick but can retrain powers and feats, powers and feats books may be much more attractive to a lot of people than class books.

Leaving out options like two-weapon fighting for non-rangers is like leaving money on the ground. There may be space limitations that keep that kind of stuff out of the PHB, but sooner rather than later, WotC should pick up that money. They're in a position with the time restrictions on the GSL to increase their dominance in the DND aftermarket (even moreso than in 3.x) and not taking advantage of that time to be the first to put out a supplement that is a "must-have" for a lot of players is not only wasting the opportunity to pick up that money, but not taking advantage of the opportunity to keep customers from starting a relationship with another company.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Oh, and I agree. I think my issue isn't so much with just the MMO comparisons, but moreso with the idea that a class has to be a tank. It's one of the least played classes in any MMO out there, and now we're supposed to transist that into tabletop? ;p

Melee is fun because you run in there and start cracking skulls, not because you're a wall that just stands there and takes damage. That's why I'm irritated at the idea of there being a straight out "defender" role; I don't think it's going to lead to happy players. A pen and paper game doesn't NEED MMORPG balance; so long as things don't get out of control like the dreaded CoDzilla, I think things are mostly doing ok.

Hell, there are people that swear that swashbucklers, paladins, and artificers are useless, and they're my three favorite classes

As has been mentioned before, Defender-role characters are NOT the same as the WoW tank role.

Defenders stand in melee combat, front line, dishing out damage and forcing the enemies to attack them. Their damage output is consistently high (although the striker should be able to exceed it if conditions are right).

I don't think there is going to be any problems with people not wanting to play them.

 

[Fanaelialae]

While I realize that this isn't the be all and end all of fighter TWF (and doesn't solve the problem for those who want to dual wield longswords) I thought I'd point out that we've already seen a fighter TWF power.

Tide of Iron
After each mighty swing you bring your shield to bear and use it to push your enemy back.

This would have effectively been a fighter TWF with sword and shield in 3.x (personally, I find the 4e implementation significantly more interesting than sticking a spike on my shield and making an extra attack with it every round that I haven't moved). I realize that it isn't dealing damage with both weapons, which seems to be what some people are looking for, but it is making a weapon attack followed by a shield slam. I doubt that they've written off fighter (or other martial class X) TWF as a whole, though I wouldn't be surprised if we have to wait for Martial Powers to see it implemented beyond the sword and board style.

I realize that having diminished options is a pretty big deal for some, but it's simply the reality of a (completely) new edition, IMO. In 3.x, fighting with two longswords was very impractical (an additional -2 penalty on all your attacks for an average +1 damage on one attack) before the Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting feat from Complete Adventurer (first printed January 2005, several years after 3rd editon was released). 4e will probably have its equivalent, sooner or later...

 

[jeffhartsell]

Whipping up 20 TWF powers for the rogue, 20 TWF powers for the fighter, 20 TWF powers for the paladin, etc. is a lot easier than making a class that does everything that a ranger does but in a different way that fights with a two-handed weapon or everything that a fighter does but in a different way that fights with two-weapons.

Agree. I would like to see source books that expand the stock roles and make different styles viable. 4e will grow just as much as 3e, so I'm pretty excited!!

But people will always find something to complain about... like if not all TWF powers are created equal. If a class purpose is to do whoopass damage and another's is to absorb whoopass damage (high HP and high AC comparetively) then the powers and abilities of the two should be different even if the style is similar.

IMO powers should balance within a role more so than across roles since this not a MMO. The striker attacks should be more damaging in the long run than a defender because the defender has better HP and AC. If a defender (over time) can do the same damage as a striker and get the same skills, why both with classes like a ranger or rogue if you can just make a version of them with the defender?

This gets into the debate of class vs. classless systems. I've played lots of HEROES and that system is way too easy to mangle and takes lots of GM work to make it play. It is a cool system because of the flexibility, but building the world from the ground up is lots of effort. I've tried! We had some fun. DnD ended up being more fun. No knock on HEROES, it is neat! Just more suited for superheroes IMO.

Anyway, the thing with 3x, making a high level rogue was a waste because all that sneak attack was wasted on many types of creatures. Why bother with a pure rogue when I can get most of the bang with a few levels? Same with ranger, 5-7 levels was plenty to get the bang from ranger. There are a few feats for fighter that make a high level fighter worth it. And the high level barbarian abilities were solid if you wanted em.

My point? Not sure any more!! Guess I just hope that there is a reason to enjoy the single classness of 4e.

I'm envisioning a dwarf rogue/ranger "bounty hunter" type Eberron character that has taken up adventuring. Would I like to TWF with this toon, sure!! Both are strikers so it makes some sense within the roles. Will it be possible, maybe and maybe not. But I'll work with what I'm given and complain later if the new system flops

I'm also thinking of a half-elf fighter/warlord. Which would be a remake of a dragonmarked storm sentry type character.

There's no way to remake my fighter/bard at the moment or than just a straight warlord, but that does not have the arcane-ness of the bard. Maybe the swordmage will do it.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Or, you could not make those 3 different classes and the single class could be modifiable via powers, feats and alternate class abilities. Taking a system that allows a class to be easily customizable via powers, feats and alternate class abilities and adding arbitrary restrictions to a bunch of limited classes rather than options for a flexible class makes for an unsatisfying character creation process.

I agree with everything you say in your response, I was only responding to problems people have with the name of the class, as some of my players will. If you wanted the class name to apply exactly to your perception of what your character does, calling the class something other than Ranger in any given situation might help you out.
Unfortunately, some of my players will be obstinate about their class name conforming so, but I think most people will understand this without it being stated explicitly. So I approve.

 

[Brom Blackforge]

But TWF was not implemented well in 3e. It looked fancy on paper but in practice the mechanics were clunky and it bogged the game down.

How so? What's there to be clunky? You take a penalty and make an extra attack. Are you saying that rolling an extra attack bogs the game down? I've never had a problem with TWF, so I found your remark surprising and would like to see you expand on it a bit.

 

[jeffhartsell]

How so? What's there to be clunky? You take a penalty and make an extra attack. Are you saying that rolling an extra attack bogs the game down? I've never had a problem with TWF, so I found your remark surprising and would like to see you expand on it a bit.

3.5 help by making it one feat instead of two. TWF should not have been a feat just like 1h and 2h fiighting was not a feat. And trying to balance the style with a penalty and then having the multiple additional feats to try to make it worthwhile ends up creating multiple attacks at the high-level that slow the game down.

The feat progression looked elegant on paper, but in practice it was not IMO.

The Bo9S maneuvers work much better for styles. I like the 4e shield, 2h, and TWF power structure... at least on paper What classes should get TWF is a different topic.

 

[small pumpkin man]

How so? What's there to be clunky? You take a penalty and make an extra attack. Are you saying that rolling an extra attack bogs the game down? I've never had a problem with TWF, so I found your remark surprising and would like to see you expand on it a bit.

The fact that each iterative on your off hand required an extra feat and absurdly large dex, and just weren't worth it. And yes, rolling 7 or often more attacks does take too long, and gets annoying and silly. It was also fairly substandard.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

IMO you should not be both a defender (MMO tank) and a striker (MMO dps) in the same character. If so, why play a team/cooperative game?

In WoW (yeah, I know, cue the scary music), Warriors can be defenders (Protection) or strikers (Fury/Arms). In fact, we even call the DPS warriors "Rogues in Plate" for a reason. They duel wield and pump out the damage.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

As far as defender/striker goes, I feel like it would be implausible to make a defender that has no chance of doing damage. Defending truly is generally a rather emasculating role; the upside is thinking that you could rip things up if you wanted to. Which may or may not be true.