Class labels as a mechanical straightjacket in D&D.

[hogarth]

Gandalf is a dude with a magic sword and a fast horse and some eagle buddies that casts one or two extremely shitty magic spells. That makes him a shit wizard in my book.

Only because you dishonestly compare him to power standards of DnDverse, instead of his own. In DnD, being able to go toe to toe with a Huge creature that is also on fire is not a particularly big deal, in Middle Earth everyone in the party but Gandalf might just as well lie down and die when confronted with such foe.

And you're missing my point. He could have been "Gandalf the bad-ass swordsman who never casts spells at all" in that scene.

If you count "plot coupon" favors with magical creatures and a handy-dandy artifact as "his own abilities".

There is nothing plot couponish in the ability to summon things to wreck your enemies' shit, when you can do it reliably.

Bullshit. If saying "Help me, Arioch/Cat Lord/Water Elemental King" is spellcasting, then Jimmy Olsen is the Sorcerer Supreme.

Wizards > vanilla action heroes, whichever verse you take.

Nope.

I think we're talking about different things, though. I'll agree that Gandalf is a bad-ass by Lord of the Rings standards. But suppose you removed every scene in those books where he actually cast a spell. How much of the story would you have to rewrite? Practically none. Now he's just Gandalf the bad-ass guy with a magic sword and a cool horse who's friends with the animals.

EDIT: I pretty much agree with everything else you said, though.

[FatR]

So your definition of the Fighter, is someone who lacks and real important abilities?

Do you imply that it was I who invented the class that is not only supposed to do nothing else but stab things in the face (which is already really bad), but to do that in non-magical ways?

Actually that's a distressingly common definition of a D&D Fighter.

You know why it is distressingly common? Because it is the definition from actual rulebooks.

Now, it is possible to pile enough mechanical hacks on a Fighter to make him competitive in combat (unless players' suspension of disbelief snaps before that). This still will leave us with the problem of intristic inferiority of the guy who can only kill shit, compared to the guys who kill shit and also work miracles.

For whatever reason though, players want to play Fighter and they want to not suck, which becomes increasingly difficult in D&D. If anyone is going to retool D&D they should come along and change that to, you could call them 'Warblades' or whatever, but any new version of D&D should include a Fighter with fantastic abilities or we'll get another iteration of fail, where only 1/3rd of core classes are usable at higher levels.

"Being really good at fighting" shouldn't even be a distinctive PC role in a game like DnD at all. Something that everyone needs just to participate is not a viable sctick. This way lies either fighters being marginalized out of battle, or separation of the party into combat- and noncombat-monkeys, with some PCs being unable to really contribure whether the combat music playes or not (former if fighters are balanced against the rest in combat, latter if they are significantly overpowered).

Instead of "Fighters" we should have Ascendant Celestials, and Magitech Knights, and Shapeshifters, and whatever. The closest equivalents to Fighter allowed to remain in the system should be based on rogues and bards.

[icyshadowlord]

The Fighters never seem to catch a break, huh? First they're denied of all the fun stuff, and now people want them gone for good. But really? Magitech Knights sound like they wouldn't fit into all campaign settings, and Ascendant Celestials sound like a Digivolved (yes, I actually use this retarded raping of the word Evolved) Paladin.

I would rather agree with the people who say that Fighters should just get reasonable upgrades without seeming like a Wizard knockoff. Different people will go to different ways in doing just that, while others won't really bother and would rather let the Fighter rot or try (read "and fail") in balancing the game by heavily punishing spellcasters.

So, yeah. There's my two cents on the Fighter. As for the actual topic, I can imagine a Fighter being anything from a Mercenary or a Gladiator to a Bandit or a Pirate. Anything slightly brawnier than a Rogue seems to fit the Fighter label to me.

[Quantumboost]

and Ascendant Celestials sound like a Digivolved (yes, I actually use this retarded raping of the word Evolved) Paladin.

Pokevolved is more common around here. =P

[icyshadowlord]

and Ascendant Celestials sound like a Digivolved (yes, I actually use this retarded raping of the word Evolved) Paladin.

Pokevolved is more common around here. =P

I forgot about that, but I guess I could use that from now on. Thanks for the heads up.

[Winnah]

skills are every bit as important if you've got a decent GM, the exact same as previous editions. there are certainly fewer of them but I prefer it over the overly complex system of 3+level skill ranks in class skills, cross-class skills at (3+level)/2 and costing 2 points in per 1 point out, synergy bonuses, and so on.

I like the consdensed skills, such as Stealth or Perception. I take issue with the condensed list. Unfortunately it seems to be necessary in order to compensate for the trained/untrained bonus. One advantage of spending individual ranks in a skill is that a character could branch out if they so chose. In 4e or Saga, you require a feat in order to do this.

magic can sometimes enhance creativity. so there are rituals now, to prevent a caster from just immediately casting Fly, Passwall, Greater Invisibility and obviating everything unless the DM starts saying "uhhh it's warded, nope you don't know how, yeah I know this is the eighty-seventh warded dungeon. guess those things are cheap." but just casting spells != creative, as seen below.

Silent Image. Every time you cast it, it does something new, hence it encourages creativity as far as I'm concerned. While I like aspects of the ritual system in 4e, the time and cost involved is not always practical or efficient. Nerfing or removing utility magic that does things outside of combat might make some scenarios easier for some DM's to manage, but you can't honestly be saying that removing options is an improvement.

as for encouraging creativity, why do you keep bringing this up? creativity is not something the game itself has much to do with. it's pretty much entirely up to the players and their DM. always has been, because playing only by the rules is not creativity; you need people to suggest actions that lie on the boundaries of the rules, or even outside the rules, and then an arbitrator to yea or nay them.

Because while I enjoy tabletop wargames, I expect something different from tabletop RPGs. Namely, support for actions outside of the traditional wargaming mindset. Want an example?

[Ghostwheel]

Silent Image. Every time you cast it, it does something new, hence it encourages creativity as far as I'm concerned. While I like aspects of the ritual system in 4e, the time and cost involved is not always practical or efficient. Nerfing or removing utility magic that does things outside of combat might make some scenarios easier for some DM's to manage, but you can't honestly be saying that removing options is an improvement.

I've actually seen it used fairly often to create a "helmet" (sometimes multiple) which the caster concentrates on to effectively blind enemies. If the enemy tries to interact with it, the concentrating caster makes it bigger or makes it fly out of their reach, and so on. Basically becomes a save-less blind, potentially AoE-targeted, until the MC says, "no, you," and says you can't use it anymore. And then you try to find another way to make it be just as effective, and... yeah. Bad juju.

[Novembermike]

Only because you dishonestly compare him to power standards of DnDverse, instead of his own. In DnD, being able to go toe to toe with a Huge creature that is also on fire is not a particularly big deal, in Middle Earth everyone in the party but Gandalf might just as well lie down and die when confronted with such foe.

IIRC Gandalf was essentially an Angelic Being. That's where all of his power came from, and in DnD terms he'd be a fighter with race: Angel and enough int to get all the skills he needs.

There is nothing plot couponish in the ability to summon things to wreck your enemies' shit, when you can do it reliably.

IIRC he mainly fought with a magic sword or called up contracts his family had made with monsters. Elric is essentially just a fighter with some cool items.

Wizards > vanilla action heroes, whichever verse you take. Therefore the argument that VAHs need to be competitive with magic users is not supported by fantasy genre conventions. I don't know, why you seem to think that DnD wizards being considerably more badass than these magic users disproves my point, as opposed to supporting it.

This seems pretty poorly sourced. The classical wizard is either a being of godlike powers (literally) or someone with a minor talent like the ability to see the future, curse your crops or make potions. Your classical fighter might be a Knight of the Round Table, Conan the Barbarian or Hercules.

Hell, the monomyth description of a Wizard is a bearer of gifts, not a wielder of them. Merlin is responsible for getting the sword to Arthur, but he doesn't really do a ton himself (at least not in the sense of casting fireballs and killing dragons).

[Plebian]

I like the consdensed skills, such as Stealth or Perception. I take issue with the condensed list. Unfortunately it seems to be necessary in order to compensate for the trained/untrained bonus. One advantage of spending individual ranks in a skill is that a character could branch out if they so chose. In 4e or Saga, you require a feat in order to do this.

but with skill bloat it was still almost pointless; Rogues had Move Silently, Hide, Disable Device, Open Lock, Sleight of Hand, Search, and Tumble. Not to mention probably wanting Spot or Listen, Use Magic Device, Appraise, Use Rope, Escape Artist, Gather Information, and so on. there are not enough skillpoints for anyone to be good at even half of these, you have to pick and choose what you're going to be ignoring. so there's a slight advantage of some customization and a huge detriment of way, way too many skills.

Silent Image. Every time you cast it, it does something new, hence it encourages creativity as far as I'm concerned. While I like aspects of the ritual system in 4e, the time and cost involved is not always practical or efficient. Nerfing or removing utility magic that does things outside of combat might make some scenarios easier for some DM's to manage, but you can't honestly be saying that removing options is an improvement.

but spells like that still exist, they're just not the same You Lose buttons that Silent Image could be. creativity is only impacted if you let it be, and no these spells aren't just rituals. again, it's up to the players and DMs to do this, it always has been.

and it's not as simple as removing options, though for casters that is, largely, what happened. it's more of making them contribute roughly the same amount as other classes. is it perfect? of course not. is it better than previous editions where a properly made caster could render nearly any other class worthless? god, yes.

Because while I enjoy tabletop wargames, I expect something different from tabletop RPGs. Namely, support for actions outside of the traditional wargaming mindset. Want an example?

yeah, I'd love more made up examples of things you can't do in 4e because chances are I've done them. unless you're another one of those guys who's going to say "well can you cast this exact spell from 3e? hah, 4e sucks because it's not 3e"

[FatR]

And you're missing my point. He could have been "Gandalf the bad-ass swordsman who never casts spells at all" in that scene.

Except no. Because he boasts how his magical mojo is bigger than that of the balrog's there and shatters solid stone by tapping it with a staff.

Don't be deliberately obtuse. Having magic up the ass in no way prevents someone from being competent at hitting people or even using that as their main way to make their foes die. This is true for most wizards not directly inspired by DnD, and even for some that are. Rand al'Thor is a world-class swordsman. Half of the wizards from the Black Company settings are competent-to-superhuman physical combatants and the most powerful wizard of the age was so buff that unenhanced humans stood no chance even in an antimagic field. At least some of actual Vancian wizards were competent swashbucklers even without magic.

Now, on the other hand, "being a bad-ass swordsman" as the source of your competency by definition prevents you from working miracles. The only one real way around that is openly admitting that pure physical training gives people superpowers. Practically no author I know has enough balls to follow it all the way. Even in One Piece fighters just can't compete with users of high-end Devil Fruits, all other things being equal.
Of course, you can give your fighter a pity artifact or supernatural blood or whatever the fuck, to make him competitive on high-fantasy playing field. Which means that his actual power sourse changes from "sworsmanship" to the thing you've given him, and you should just be honest and stop calling him "Fighter", to avoid needless confusion.

Bullshit. If saying "Help me, Arioch/Cat Lord/Water Elemental King" is spellcasting, then Jimmy Olsen is the Sorcerer Supreme.

"Summoner" is a fully viable spellcaster archetype. And Elric compelled supernatural entities - likes of which explicitly demanded shit like the summoner's soul in return for help, when summoned by lesser sorcerers, who could only ask as you describe - with actual spells.

[FatR]

This seems pretty poorly sourced. The classical wizard is either a being of godlike powers (literally) or someone with a minor talent like the ability to see the future, curse your crops or make potions.

Your classical wizard does not actually exist.

Your classical fighter might be a Knight of the Round Table, Conan the Barbarian or Hercules.

Neither does your classical fighter. Conan is much closer to a rogue in DnD's definitions. Hercules' owes most of his power to the fact that Zeus decided to fuck his mother, not to his weapon training.

Hell, the monomyth description of a Wizard is a bearer of gifts, not a wielder of them. Merlin is responsible for getting the sword to Arthur, but he doesn't really do a ton himself (at least not in the sense of casting fireballs and killing dragons).

And Zhuge Liang took the leading position in the story after showing up. A single beaten-to-death example does not make a rule.

[Novembermike]

This seems pretty poorly sourced. The classical wizard is either a being of godlike powers (literally) or someone with a minor talent like the ability to see the future, curse your crops or make potions.

Your classical wizard does not actually exist.

Merlin, countless witches (Macbeth's for one), Obi Wan when it still followed the Monomyth, pretty much anyone with magical power from Middle Earth and many more I could use as examples if I wished. I could also get a bit more into mythologies and use Seers like the Oracle or the things attributed to witches in witch hunts (things like tainting crops, giving diseases to cattle or other relatively slow things).

Your classical fighter might be a Knight of the Round Table, Conan the Barbarian or Hercules.

Neither does your classical fighter. Conan is much closer to a rogue in DnD's definitions. Hercules' owes most of his power to the fact that Zeus decided to fuck his mother, not to his weapon training.

Conan's a competent adventurer, which is something I've never accused the fighter of being, but he primarily uses medium sized weapons and metal armor. Hercules gets some kind of a semidivine template but he's still a fighter.

I'm not necessarily talking about Fighter fighters, I'm more using it as a general term that describes barbarians, paladins, rangers, fighters and anyone else that's expected to mix it up on the front line.

Hell, the monomyth description of a Wizard is a bearer of gifts, not a wielder of them. Merlin is responsible for getting the sword to Arthur, but he doesn't really do a ton himself (at least not in the sense of casting fireballs and killing dragons).

And Zhuge Liang took the leading position in the story after showing up. A single beaten-to-death example does not make a rule.

You do understand what the monomyth is, right?

[Plebian]

FatR basically just really hates muscular dudes and has a hardon for skinny geeks in dresses who alter the fabric of reality because Gygax and Arneson set up a tradition of not knowing what the fuck balance was

[Username17]

You do understand what the monomyth is, right?

Yes. It's an anecdote. Some dude decided to correlate a bunch of comparable stuff in different stories and then contorted stuff to make things fit where they really didn't, and he 'distilled' a bunch of stories into one story. Or to put it another way: he read a bunch of legends and then he wrote a fantasy story with the director's commentary on. It's basically the same rubric that brought us Fomenko Time. Some manner some character is used in the monomyth is exactly as relevant as one anecdote of any actual myth. No more, no less.

-Username17

[Novembermike]

You do understand what the monomyth is, right?

Yes. It's an anecdote. Some dude decided to correlate a bunch of comparable stuff in different stories and then contorted stuff to make things fit where they really didn't, and he 'distilled' a bunch of stories into one story. Or to put it another way: he read a bunch of legends and then he wrote a fantasy story with the director's commentary on. It's basically the same rubric that brought us Fomenko Time. Some manner some character is used in the monomyth is exactly as relevant as one anecdote of any actual myth. No more, no less.

-Username17

Are you comparing pseudoscience to a tool for looking at literature?

[Winnah]

Because while I enjoy tabletop wargames, I expect something different from tabletop RPGs. Namely, support for actions outside of the traditional wargaming mindset. Want an example?

yeah, I'd love more made up examples of things you can't do in 4e because chances are I've done them. unless you're another one of those guys who's going to say "well can you cast this exact spell from 3e? hah, 4e sucks because it's not 3e"

Wait, I mention tabletop wargames and you jumped to a 4e vs. 3e statement. I don't understand. Are you comparing 4e to something like Necromunda or Warhammer? Or do you want examples of things that can be done in a TTRPG but can't be done in wargames and 4e?

I'll try and give an example. Raising an Undead army. Oops I fail. You can totally have an undead army in 40k.

[Username17]

Are you comparing pseudoscience to a tool for looking at literature?

Since I question the very validity of the monomyth and find most of the correlations laughably forced, yes. I think it is not only pseudoscience, but that it is exactly the same kind of fake scholarship as Fomenko's Chronology.

Humans can associate any two things. They can draw parallels between anything. But that doesn't mean there are actually any meaningful patterns. If you stare at static long enough you can see patterns, but that's just your brain trying to make sense of random data, there's nothing real that you've found.

Telling people that you've found a universal pattern is very compelling, because our minds are set up to expect things to work that way. But quite often an vent really is just a one-off event.

-Username17

[Caedrus]

The fundamental problem is that there is a large contingent of people who are a specific kind of retarded that causes them to think that the *name* of a thing actually *changes* the thing. They think in terms of oversimplified labels (a situationally useful cognitive tool) without actually recognizing that they're oversimplified labels.

This issue doesn't only apply to class names. People who think like that will tend to just move around where they place the silly labels.

That said, some labels may carry less (or, alternatively, more desirable) baggage than others for these people, and thus name changing can be effective at altering their perceptions.

[Plebian]

Because while I enjoy tabletop wargames, I expect something different from tabletop RPGs. Namely, support for actions outside of the traditional wargaming mindset. Want an example?

yeah, I'd love more made up examples of things you can't do in 4e because chances are I've done them. unless you're another one of those guys who's going to say "well can you cast this exact spell from 3e? hah, 4e sucks because it's not 3e"

Wait, I mention tabletop wargames and you jumped to a 4e vs. 3e statement. I don't understand. Are you comparing 4e to something like Necromunda or Warhammer? Or do you want examples of things that can be done in a TTRPG but can't be done in wargames and 4e?

I'll try and give an example. Raising an Undead army. Oops I fail. You can totally have an undead army in 40k.

what? are you serious?

okay here lemme get the quote you were posting about before this

as for encouraging creativity, why do you keep bringing this up? creativity is not something the game itself has much to do with. it's pretty much entirely up to the players and their DM. always has been, because playing only by the rules is not creativity; you need people to suggest actions that lie on the boundaries of the rules, or even outside the rules, and then an arbitrator to yea or nay them.

Because while I enjoy tabletop wargames, I expect something different from tabletop RPGs. Namely, support for actions outside of the traditional wargaming mindset. Want an example?

holy shit you mean it was part of your post about a 4e vs 3e argument? and it was you implying that 4e is 'just' a wargame (like any edition isn't) and that it precludes creativity? so it wasn't me 'jumping' to anything it was a continuation of an argument we were having? amazing!

in the future you might wanna actually remember what you post though

[TheFlatline]

Are you comparing pseudoscience to a tool for looking at literature?

Since I question the very validity of the monomyth and find most of the correlations laughably forced, yes. I think it is not only pseudoscience, but that it is exactly the same kind of fake scholarship as Fomenko's Chronology.

Humans can associate any two things. They can draw parallels between anything. But that doesn't mean there are actually any meaningful patterns. If you stare at static long enough you can see patterns, but that's just your brain trying to make sense of random data, there's nothing real that you've found.

Telling people that you've found a universal pattern is very compelling, because our minds are set up to expect things to work that way. But quite often an vent really is just a one-off event.

-Username17

While the monomyth's spiritual side got a little hard for me to swallow, and I clearly don't attribute *every* classic story to the monomyth (nor even most), it is an idea of some literary use. If it had no value whatsoever, Star Wars would have bombed entirely. Instead, it like "clicked" for an entire generation of people. Other factors contributed to that, but we attribute to Star Wars the same kind of reverence that we do towards the Greek Epics almost.

There are concepts that are innately pleasing to the brain. The yellow smiley face ala Watchmen for example came about because it's the most simple image scientists could find that makes babies smile. Red is a more pleasing/sexually appealing color to people than other colors on a subconscious level. It's not in the realm of pseduoscience to believe that there are stories, or story components, that humans as a species are programmed biologically to respond to better. I mean shit... look at the creation myths we as humans have believed in for thousands of years. Some of it is pretty out there, but for most of humanity, that kind of story, and believing in it, harbors a deeply satisfying contentment.

From what I've read of Campbell (Hero With a Thousand Faces etc), to me the Monomyth is not a single story that is reinterpreted, but the touchstones of innately satisfying story bits that feel compelling to us. I turn to it blatantly when I'm designing adventures, and so long as I don't stick slavishly to it, the elements that I crib from that concept usually tend to be satisfying for whatever gaming group I'm running with.

It's kind of like Jungian archetypes (which is linked to Campbell's work too, namely IIRC that the monomyth is comprised of archetypes). I don't believe in a shared, collective subconsciousness, where if I dive deep enough into my subconscious deep enough I'll come up in, say, Frank's, but the idea that on some level we're all "programmed" the same way, and thus share a same extremely basic machine language as it were, and that certain concepts arise as symptoms of the system, is an interesting thought, especially from a philosophical point of view.

[Winnah]

You were the one making a comparison between wargaming and D&D. I was saying that I want more from a rpg than a wargame. Dumbing things down to the level of the fighter limits creative actions and imposes a mechanical straightjacket on an entire system. Sound familiar?

I think that it's funny that you can have an army of undead in a wargame. You can have an army of undead in 3e. You can't however have an army of undead in 4e. Care to discuss this? No?

As for a 3e vs 4e debate, you are the one that continually brings this up. You like the system. I find it too limiting for my tastes. You're not interested in hearing about how diverse skills, spells or other magic improves my gaming experience more than simple hack & slash does, so what is there to talk about?

You like 4e, I get it. You probably have signed poster of Mike Mearls up on your bedroom ceiling. You enjoy spamming Twin Strike and killing 30 levels worth of nameless, cardboard cutout monsters. Good for you. I expect more from gaming. Feel free to jump back on your soapbox. I'm more than happy to keep stringing you along.

[Plebian]

You were the one making a comparison between wargaming and D&D. I was saying that I want more from a rpg than a wargame. Dumbing things down to the level of the fighter limits creative actions and imposes a mechanical straightjacket on an entire system. Sound familiar?

yeah, I'm just really glad 4e doesn't do that and instead increases the level of the Fighter and decrease the obscene power level of casters. of course there seem to be plenty of people who have been stockholmed into believing that anything on par with a dreaded Fighter must automatically be the worst thing ever because they hate the stupid jocks Fighters for no other reason than they were bad in previous editions

I bet you think Bards still suck too

I think that it's funny that you can have an army of undead in a wargame. You can have an army of undead in 3e. You can't however have an army of undead in 4e. Care to discuss this? No?

sure it does, there's just no need for players to have armies of undead in a tabletop because if you want to play with armies go play a system built to handle them, don't shoehorn them into a system that's build around small-scale skirmish battles like D&D. so armies of undead are reserved for plot, not battle stats. oh and I'd love to discuss it because 3e didn't have even the really bad army rules it now can handle for a long damn time, but you're attacking 4e for not having armies inside the first few years because 3.5 had it towards the end of its lifespan.

As for a 3e vs 4e debate, you are the one that continually brings this up. You like the system. I find it too limiting for my tastes. You're not interested in hearing about how diverse skills, spells or other magic improves my gaming experience more than simple hack & slash does, so what is there to talk about?

except the "it's too limited" argument always seems to come down to "I can't cast Wish" because that's the only real difference; casters don't win the game by existing anymore.

You like 4e, I get it. You probably have signed poster of Mike Mearls up on your bedroom ceiling. You enjoy spamming Twin Strike and killing 30 levels worth of nameless, cardboard cutout monsters. Good for you. I expect more from gaming. Feel free to jump back on your soapbox. I'm more than happy to keep stringing you along.

man because killing 30 gnolls in 3e? that shit was REAL, man, it wasn't just a bunch of nameless, faceless monsters put there by your DM so you could level up. that just never happened in 3e, it required every DM to be good. well, at least, your examples of 4e require 3e DMs to be good and 4e DMs to be bad. but make sure and gloss over that while you're trying to prove your points, it makes your points seem just the tiniest bit valid.

the thing is that 4e does nothing significantly differently from any other edition of D&D, it just presented itself differently and formatted itself nicely. but, oddly, it attracts the same arguments against it that 3e attracted when it was published and, I have from friends, AD&D attracted when it was published.

[Winnah]

man because killing 30 gnolls in 3e? that shit was REAL, man, it wasn't just a bunch of nameless, faceless monsters put there by your DM so you could level up.

DUDE! You know about the Gnolls! I knew that shit was badass, I didn't think the story had found it's way onto the internets.

For those of you that dont know.

My Druid was flying around in eagle form during some downtime. The cleric was setting up a temple in the area, the wizard was crafting some items and the Bard was ingratiating himself with the locals in the tavern. Small provincial keep, on the edge of civilisation, a decent base of operations for our group.

My character spots a Gnoll warprty all running single file, native American style to conceal their tracks. DM thinks I'm gonna head back to town to get the rest of the group. No way. Predator insticts have kicked in.

Fly down, drop a wall of thorns on the group. Due to their formation, they are easy to box in. Majority of the group is entangled and in pain, the few escapees make a feeble ranged retailiation. Next action, drop a Nature's Ally and summon some Yellow Musk Creepers. The fight is over, the DM still rolls for a couple of rounds, but it is pretty clear the Gnolls are done. Don't want to draw it out anyway, so as not to hog the spotlight.

DM is annoyed. Hints that 'one' warparty is down, the town may still be in trouble. So I fire off an Animal Messenger to the party Ranger, Wild Shape into a Tiger, then follow the scent trail back to the Gnoll camp.

Long story short. Cleric and Wizard didn't even change their plans. They let the Ranger, Swordsage and Bard protect the town while my Druid goes on a genocidal rampage for a couple of days. Lemme tell ya, the DM just MPT'ed the whole thing after he saw my spell list.

Not an adventure, nor an important part of the campaign. A random encounter during downtime that morphed into an event that would have lasting repercussions on the campaign world. Last time the DM threw Gnolls at the party.

the thing is that 4e does nothing significantly differently from any other edition of D&D, it just presented itself differently and formatted itself nicely. but, oddly, it attracts the same arguments against it that 3e attracted when it was published and, I have from friends, AD&D attracted when it was published.

Really? Read my anecdote from above and then try and tell me you can do anything like that in 4e.

[Maxus]

3.x does let you summon and throw down terrain if you're so inclined. Being able to whistle up a velociraptor has always been a fun part of being a druid (who, admittedly, get a lot of other fun things to do).

I don't believe anyone's ever mentioned summoning in 4e. I've heard of Cloud of Daggers and a couple of effects--but those are just a start compared to things like the Wall Spells.

[shadzar]

The fundamental problem is that there is a large contingent of people who are a specific kind of retarded that causes them to think that the *name* of a thing actually *changes* the thing. They think in terms of oversimplified labels (a situationally useful cognitive tool) without actually recognizing that they're oversimplified labels.

This issue doesn't only apply to class names. People who think like that will tend to just move around where they place the silly labels.

That said, some labels may carry less (or, alternatively, more desirable) baggage than others for these people, and thus name changing can be effective at altering their perceptions.

That is the entire purpose of language, to give a word meaning so that one person can understand what another is talking about.

A rose is a flower, but not al flowers are roses. A fighter is a warrior, but not all warriors are fighters.

The problem most occurs when someone tries to come along and change that name. Herein a glossary helps to define the word for everyone on how it was used in the context.