|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 9:39AM
#981
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2010
|
The fighter was the "first in last out" type and because of that was a defender: creatures attacked him because he became the immediate (closest) threat.
The key there is threat. The fighter was the killer. The critters attacked him because they wanted to try and kill him before they killed them. There was no way for a fighter to create any form of defense other than to dial up the offense as best he could.
Why continue to feed the Trolls?
There are two kinds of gamers in D&D. Role players and Rule players.
A role player can roll up a fighter with plate armor, a sword, a shield and a horse and play a knight. Or he/she can roll up a fighter with a big two handed weapon and armor make from the hides of animals and play a barbarian. A role player can run boldly into battle striking at anything that moves and play a berserker. etc. etc.
A rule player can't do anything that isn't explicitly defined by the rules and cannot conceive of something that exists outside the wording of the rules. A rule player can't play a knight unless "knight" is an explicit lable within the rules. A rule player cannot "defend" people unless the rule sexplicitly define that function. To a rule player, "defenders" and "leaders" etc. did not exist prior to D&D 4th edition because they were never called such. Nothing can exist for them that isn't defined by the rules.
Rule players are not limited to players only. DMs can be rule players too. If there's noting in the rules that says mobs of enemies can't just run right through everyone and attack the softest target, then that's what they'll do. It doesn't matter if it would be plausible because plausibility doesn't exist for them: Only the rules exist.
It's worth mentioning that there are also people on forums called Trolls. they will twist things around, ignore facts, fabricate details, take things out of context, and otherwise do whatever they need to do to entertain themselves. Don't arguing with them is like arguing with a wall. The Trolls don't care about either side of the argument, they only care about being a Troll.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 10:12AM
#982
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Pardon mbeacom, but did you ever play 1e/2e ad&d?
Also you state im wrong but offer no reason as to why, care to elucidate as to why my assertions are flat-out wrong?
1. In 1e the classes available were magic-user, thief, cleric, fighter, dwarf, elf, and halfling (demi-humans, as they were called then, constituted classes with their own progression...they were like preset multiclass options w/o being called so explicitly). Later they added the druid and the mystic.
Incorrect.
2. The paladin and ranger were optional classes introduced in 2e, not every table had 'em.
Incorrect.
3. "Other classes could do more damage,"
Incorrect
I think you guys are just using the 'e's differently, here.
3e and 4e are pretty familiar, and 2e is the 2nd ed of AD&D.
1e gets funny, because there are still 3 versions of the game to account for, but 1e is usually used to mean 1e AD&D. The original game is sometimes called 0e or OD&D. The basic set is part of 'BECMI.' BECMI was more like OD&D, and was /called/ D&D rather than AD&D, so thinking of it as the 2nd ed of D&D is certainly understandible.
mbeacon and I both seem to get rather pedantic and hung up on definitions. Don't take it as condescenion. In my case, it's because I'm a geek who's been gaming for 30 years. 
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 10:15AM
#983
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2007
|
Hey Thunder,
I love you man. We should be playing D&D right now. Not arguing over trivial stuff. Lets be friends ok? Everyone on here should be friends in one giant rotation of D&D awesomeness.
I think I forgot that for a while.
I feel better now.
Can you forgive me?
Let's ride bikes!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 10:17AM
#984
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
Pardon mbeacom, but did you ever play 1e/2e ad&d?
Also you state im wrong but offer no reason as to why, care to elucidate as to why my assertions are flat-out wrong?
1. In 1e the classes available were magic-user, thief, cleric, fighter, dwarf, elf, and halfling (demi-humans, as they were called then, constituted classes with their own progression...they were like preset multiclass options w/o being called so explicitly). Later they added the druid and the mystic.
Incorrect.
2. The paladin and ranger were optional classes introduced in 2e, not every table had 'em.
Incorrect.
3. "Other classes could do more damage,"
Incorrect
I think you guys are just using the 'e's differently, here.
3e and 4e are pretty familiar, and 2e is the 2nd ed of AD&D.
1e gets funny, because there are still 3 versions of the game to account for, but 1e is usually used to mean 1e AD&D. The original game is sometimes called 0e or OD&D. The basic set is part of 'BECMI.' BECMI was more like OD&D, and was /called/ D&D rather than AD&D, so thinking of it as the 2nd ed of D&D is certainly understandible.
mbeacon and I both seem to get rather pedantic and hung up on definitions. Don't take it as condescenion. In my case, it's because I'm a geek who's been gaming for 30 years.
I've disengaged Tony, and apologize to those who I may have inadvertantly slighted.
I'll add you to that list. My apologies if I was condescending, dismissive, or overly pedantic towards you.
I love you and everyone on these boards. I want nothing so much as to be playing D&D right now.
Boards suck for this sort of thing and meanings arise where they were not intended.
I want to be your friend not your enemy. If you lived in Omaha NE, I'd buy you lunch.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 10:19AM
#985
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2001
|
Hey Thunder,
I love you man. We should be playing D&D right now. Not arguing over trivial stuff. Lets be friends ok? Everyone on here should be friends in one giant rotation of D&D awesomeness.
I think I forgot that for a while.
I feel better now.
Can you forgive me?
It's cool man. That line sounds like something one of my group would say. Nat?
I can't believe that a rant thread bout 4.5, turned into a debate on when and how certain books came out.
Sergent at arms of the house of trolls.
Est Solarus oth Mithas
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 10:22AM
#986
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2010
|
I think you guys are just using the 'e's differently, here.
3e and 4e are pretty familiar, and 2e is the 2nd ed of AD&D.
1e gets funny, because there are still 3 versions of the game to account for, but 1e is usually used to mean 1e AD&D. The original game is sometimes called 0e or OD&D. The basic set is part of 'BECMI.' BECMI was more like OD&D, and was /called/ D&D rather than AD&D, so thinking of it as the 2nd ed of D&D is certainly understandible.
mbeacon and I both seem to get rather pedantic and hung up on definitions. Don't take it as condescenion. In my case, it's because I'm a geek who's been gaming for 30 years.
SO 1e was the 4th edition to be released. It was folloed by BECMI and then 2e was the 6th edition. 2e was followed by 2e revised edition which would be 7th.
So by my count, if Essentials is a new edition (and I don't consider it such) it would be the 11th edition of Dungeons and Dragons to be released. (after 3e, 3.5 and 4e) It's all clear now. Clear as mud. hahaha
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 10:22AM
#987
|
|
|
Regarding wether the Fighter has been a Striker or a Defender in the past, if you go back to OD&D before the Thief was introduced, wouldn't he end up being both? There are two kinds of gamers in D&D. Role players and Rule players.
A role player can roll up a fighter with plate armor, a sword, a shield and a horse and play a knight. Or he/she can roll up a fighter with a big two handed weapon and armor make from the hides of animals and play a barbarian. A role player can run boldly into battle striking at anything that moves and play a berserker. etc. etc.
A rule player can't do anything that isn't explicitly defined by the rules and cannot conceive of something that exists outside the wording of the rules. A rule player can't play a knight unless "knight" is an explicit lable within the rules. A rule player cannot "defend" people unless the rule sexplicitly define that function. To a rule player, "defenders" and "leaders" etc. did not exist prior to D&D 4th edition because they were never called such. Nothing can exist for them that isn't defined by the rules.
Into which group does a player who starts with a concept in their head and wants to find the best options to create that character fall?
I don't think there's only two kinds of gamers. I think what you present are two ends of a spectrum.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 10:24AM
#988
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
I think you guys are just using the 'e's differently, here.
3e and 4e are pretty familiar, and 2e is the 2nd ed of AD&D.
1e gets funny, because there are still 3 versions of the game to account for, but 1e is usually used to mean 1e AD&D. The original game is sometimes called 0e or OD&D. The basic set is part of 'BECMI.' BECMI was more like OD&D, and was /called/ D&D rather than AD&D, so thinking of it as the 2nd ed of D&D is certainly understandible.
mbeacon and I both seem to get rather pedantic and hung up on definitions. Don't take it as condescenion. In my case, it's because I'm a geek who's been gaming for 30 years.
SO 1e was the 4th edition to be released. It was folloed by BECMI and then 2e was the 6th edition. 2e was followed by 2e revised edition which would be 7th.
So by my count, if Essentials is a new edition (and I don't consider it such) it would be the 11th edition of Dungeons and Dragons to be released. (after 3e, 3.5 and 4e) It's all clear now. Clear as mud. hahaha
It even confuses me and Im a history buff whose studdied everything from anchient history to thirty years war and modern history. But the different edditions yeah trying to keep them straight is as difficult as studying the politics of the holy roman empire in the 1600s.... ie really freaking confusing and headache inducing.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 10:30AM
#989
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2001
|
It even confuses me and Im a history buff whose studdied everything from anchient history to thirty years war and modern history. But the different edditions yeah trying to keep them straight is as difficult as studying the politics of the holy roman empire in the 1600s.... ie really freaking confusing and headache inducing.
Can't really argue that point. Hell this morning I couldn't remember when a book was published.
Sergent at arms of the house of trolls.
Est Solarus oth Mithas
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2010 - 10:52AM
#990
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2010
|
Regarding wether the Fighter has been a Striker or a Defender in the past, if you go back to OD&D before the Thief was introduced, wouldn't he end up being both?
There are two kinds of gamers in D&D. Role players and Rule players.
A role player can roll up a fighter with plate armor, a sword, a shield and a horse and play a knight. Or he/she can roll up a fighter with a big two handed weapon and armor make from the hides of animals and play a barbarian. A role player can run boldly into battle striking at anything that moves and play a berserker. etc. etc.
A rule player can't do anything that isn't explicitly defined by the rules and cannot conceive of something that exists outside the wording of the rules. A rule player can't play a knight unless "knight" is an explicit lable within the rules. A rule player cannot "defend" people unless the rule sexplicitly define that function. To a rule player, "defenders" and "leaders" etc. did not exist prior to D&D 4th edition because they were never called such. Nothing can exist for them that isn't defined by the rules.
Into which group does a player who starts with a concept in their head and wants to find the best options to create that character fall?
I don't think there's only two kinds of gamers. I think what you present are two ends of a spectrum.
1) It would depend on what they considered the "best" options. A Role player might cosider taking plate armor and heavy shield the best options for their Wizard in order to fit their concept the "best" option.
2) I think you came to the obvious conclusion about what I presented. Congratulations. Many people do not see/accknowledge the existence of spectrums.
|
|
|
