FabioMilitoPagliara
First Post
on the Paizo thread started by Nicolas Logue chimed in Rodney Thompson and talked of Roles and how to simulate a gnome bard with the first core books and hint to the fact that the bard could be the Arcane Leader
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition/comingOutOfTheCloset
+++++++++++++
Rodney Thompson, 31 january 2008 h 6,30 (CET)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't tell anyone, but I've been doing development work on some of Nick's stuff over the last few weeks. All I can say is he's a man who knows his
.
That sounds odd.
Set wrote:
Citazione:
One thing I'm kinda struggling with accepting is that the roles and classes make it pretty clear that this is *not* going to be any sort of D&D I've played before.
People get really hung up on the roles, it seems. While role does speak to design, it already did in 3rd Edition. When I ran Shackled City, I had a very nonstandard party: gold dragon (monster class), a paladin, a weretiger, and a barbarian. It was a challenge not having a druid or a cleric for healing. This was pre-Spell Compendium, so the paladin was...OK, but not great at protecting his buddies. The gold dragon and the weretiger were just kind of all over the place, but those adventures really revolved around presenting an iconic D&D experience, and I really had to adjust to make it work without dedicated healing and a good, solid meat shield.
When I ran Age of Worms, however, my players did the fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard thing, and it worked out SO much better. You don't need those "Core Four" specifically, but you do need someone who can do what they can do.
So 4E doesn't really change that. Instead, what it does is it says, "What do these roles need to be able to do? OK, let's give them that by default. Now that they have that down, we can let players build all kinds of characters on top of that." For example, the fighter effectively gets his "defenderiness" for free, and then you build whatever kind of fighter you want on top of that. Some of the abilities speak to defenderiness, but, well, not all of them by any stretch.
Out of curiosity, what are the character concepts you don't think you'll be able to do?
Newbie McNewsome wrote:
Citazione:
Since you asked, a gnome bard. I'm not being hateful. I like playing small characters.
Well, of course the gnome will be in the MM as a playable race last I checked, so you're good there. Until the actual bard class comes out, I'd build him as a high-Dex warlord, put on some leather armor (or no armor, if that's your preference), and pick out a weapon that you like (I prefer rapiers with my bards, but YMMV). You'll want to make sure you're trained in Arcana or multiclass with the wizard or warlock if you want to go with the more traditional arcane bard, or you might consider some rogue multiclassing if you want to go with a purely non-magical bard (which is my preference, as I like to play my bards like Thom Merrilin from the Wheel of Time novels).
Of course, when the bard class comes out, you can use that. I know the above isn't a perfect solution, but since I'd say that the bard will probably be an arcane leader (I don't know that for sure, of course, but it's my suspicion) then you can play the warlord (also a leader) and shade it with multiclassing if you like.
Or, rather, that's how I'd do it. As always, YMMV.
+++++++++++++
and still I hope to see the Bard into the first PHB since it's arcane and there should be some surprise left
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition/comingOutOfTheCloset
+++++++++++++
Rodney Thompson, 31 january 2008 h 6,30 (CET)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't tell anyone, but I've been doing development work on some of Nick's stuff over the last few weeks. All I can say is he's a man who knows his
. That sounds odd.
Set wrote:
Citazione:
One thing I'm kinda struggling with accepting is that the roles and classes make it pretty clear that this is *not* going to be any sort of D&D I've played before.
People get really hung up on the roles, it seems. While role does speak to design, it already did in 3rd Edition. When I ran Shackled City, I had a very nonstandard party: gold dragon (monster class), a paladin, a weretiger, and a barbarian. It was a challenge not having a druid or a cleric for healing. This was pre-Spell Compendium, so the paladin was...OK, but not great at protecting his buddies. The gold dragon and the weretiger were just kind of all over the place, but those adventures really revolved around presenting an iconic D&D experience, and I really had to adjust to make it work without dedicated healing and a good, solid meat shield.
When I ran Age of Worms, however, my players did the fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard thing, and it worked out SO much better. You don't need those "Core Four" specifically, but you do need someone who can do what they can do.
So 4E doesn't really change that. Instead, what it does is it says, "What do these roles need to be able to do? OK, let's give them that by default. Now that they have that down, we can let players build all kinds of characters on top of that." For example, the fighter effectively gets his "defenderiness" for free, and then you build whatever kind of fighter you want on top of that. Some of the abilities speak to defenderiness, but, well, not all of them by any stretch.
Out of curiosity, what are the character concepts you don't think you'll be able to do?
Newbie McNewsome wrote:
Citazione:
Since you asked, a gnome bard. I'm not being hateful. I like playing small characters.
Well, of course the gnome will be in the MM as a playable race last I checked, so you're good there. Until the actual bard class comes out, I'd build him as a high-Dex warlord, put on some leather armor (or no armor, if that's your preference), and pick out a weapon that you like (I prefer rapiers with my bards, but YMMV). You'll want to make sure you're trained in Arcana or multiclass with the wizard or warlock if you want to go with the more traditional arcane bard, or you might consider some rogue multiclassing if you want to go with a purely non-magical bard (which is my preference, as I like to play my bards like Thom Merrilin from the Wheel of Time novels).
Of course, when the bard class comes out, you can use that. I know the above isn't a perfect solution, but since I'd say that the bard will probably be an arcane leader (I don't know that for sure, of course, but it's my suspicion) then you can play the warlord (also a leader) and shade it with multiclassing if you like.
Or, rather, that's how I'd do it. As always, YMMV.
+++++++++++++
and still I hope to see the Bard into the first PHB since it's arcane and there should be some surprise left
