My thoughts on 'niche protection'

[Arlough]

Gonna jump in right here and stop ya sparky.

If you could just re-skin a class to make it whatever you want; why did 4e have dozens of classes that were just variants on the same 4 roles?

I mean, I could take a ranger, give him two katars, and call him a monk, so there is no need for the monk class right? Or make a rogue/cleric hybrid and call him an avenger. Or heck, a sorcerer or warlock could just be a wizard with an alternate origin story, so no need for those classes either, right?

Titles DO matter. There is a fine line between recoloring a fireball and changing its to ice damage and turning a ranger into a rogue. I would never let a PC roll up a dwarf and then say he looks/acts human just so he gets the dwarven racial benefits for the same reason. At some point, those names have to mean something or else they're needless filler.

No, actually, he's not. He's suggesting that a previous poster's suggestion that you could just re-skin a class to suit your concept was in error. That if you could re-skin a warlord as a bard, you could re-skin a ranger as a monk.

By pointing out that a ranger and a monk are functionally different classes, you are ergo supporting his argument without realizing it.

I should clarify then.
I learned back in 3e that when I wanted a ranger, what I really wanted was a great archer with some nature skills. And if I wanted to make a great archer from the PHB and nothing else, I was better served by making a fighter with archer feats and abilities than by using the ranger.

So I started looking at builds by what they do rather than what they are called. I could build for a certain way of doing things, and then flavor those things however I wanted, and the given class name was nothing more than a keyword that told you what feats and the such you were restricted to.

In fourth edition, they had a better understanding of what components had made up parties over the years, and announced it in roles. Problem was they were still tied to class names for tradition's sake. (as well as the problem of conflating buffing and healing as being the same function, thus resulting in the "leader" role for all your healing needs.)
So, under this system, all I had to do was decide what role or function in combat I wished to fill, and what kind of means I could use to do that.

As for the the statement that you could make a monk with two katars and call it a ranger, you could. But it would not be like the two blade ranger.

• Artificer = Arcane Leader (Enhancer)
• Avenger = Divine Striker (Lurker)
• Barbarian = Primal Striker (Brute)
• Bard = Arcane Leader (Enhancer/Debilitator)
• Cleric = Divine Leader (Healer)
• Druid = Primal Controller (Striker)
• Fighter = Martial Defender (Brute)
• Invoker = Divine Controller (Controler/Debilitator)
• Monk = Psionic Striker (Skirmisher)
• Paladin = Divine Defender (Healer)
• Ranger, Archer = Martial Striker (Artillery)
• Ranger, Two Weapon = Martial Striker (Brute)
• Rogue = Martial Striker (Lurker)
• Runepriest = Divine Leader (Enhancer/Soldier)
• Seeker = Primal Controler (Debilitator)
• Shaman = Primal Leader (Soldier?)
• Sorcerer = Arcane Striker (Artillery/Brute)
• Swordmage = Arcane Defender (Controler/Soldier)
• Warden = Primal Defender (Debilitator)
• Warlock, Fey = Arcane Striker (Debilitator)
• Warlock, Infernal = Arcane Striker (Artillery)
• Warlord = Martial Leader (Enhancer)
• Wizard = Arcane Controller (Striker)

They both are strikers, but one is all about big damage output at the cost of being very vulnerable to hits, while the other is about effects and movement with a large amount of battlefield control.

So, if you are looking for a class that darts in and out, making cuts and being hard to hit, then the Psionic Striker (Skirmisher) will serve you best, and you can take nature as a skill and call yourself a Ranger.
But, if you are looking for Drizzt, then you probably had best go with the Martial Striker (Brute) and a crapload of plot armor.

On the other hand, you may have a concept of a Monk that uses two tonfa and wants to hit harder at the expense of being easy to hit, then yes, you could build a Martial Striker (Brute), give him two Katars (I don't know why you would waste the feat, but whatever) and re-skin them to be millstone handles whenever you describe them, put the guy in a gi suit and call it a day.
It would not play the same at all as the class called "monk", but it would still be a perfectly acceptable build and there is nothing that says you have to look a certain way to be in a certain class.

Just because both ladders and stairs increase your elevation one step at a time does not mean that one obsoletes the other.

 

[Remathilis]

No, I'm not making his point. He's claiming that that because two classes are mechanically the same, you can easily switch one to the other. That's false. You can't just reskin a 4e monk as a 4e ranger. It doesn't work. Or at least not very well.

What you can do, however, is take a concept that is not tied to specific mechanics, like "guy that fights with two katars" and make him either a monk or a ranger. You could make a 3e monk with a ranger or a monk and he'd be pretty close either way.

However, the point I thought he was making was that all the classes are so close mechanically that they're all grey mush homogenous. That's not true.

So, no, you cannot reskin one class as another class, you most certainly can reskin one class as another concept.

"I wanna fighter with a bow!!!" goes the constant cry. Fine, play a rogue or a ranger. Done. "But.. but... but... he's not a fighter!" Who cares? It covers the concept you claim you want and does it very well. That it says ranger or rogue at the top doesn't change that one whit.

OTOH, I cannot reskin the fighter class as a ranger class and expect them to be the same. Class and character concept are not the same thing in 4e and it's a mistake to try to link them this way.

As pointed out; I was trying to imply that if you can just re-skin whatever you like, then you only need a generic structure since everything flavorful is just going to be skin anyway. Obviously, that's not the case in 4e, or any other edition of D&D so therefore we have to decide if the title "ranger" means anything more than "archer/dual-wielder in light armor" package or if there is a meaningful piece of fluff behind it.

Lets take another example as old as... well, 3e. Wizard vs. Sorcerer. In 4e parlance, we can break down both classes as such.

Wizard: Arcane Controller, focus on swapping spells, debuff powers, and implements.
Sorcerer: Arcane Striker, focus on massive damage effects and linked theme powers.

What's missing from those descriptions? Fluff. Why does a wizard swap spells? Well, they have a spellbook which keeps some (limited) choices open to them. Why doesn't a sorcerer swap spells? He gets his powers via bloodline and they are linked to who he is. Its the reason why they have what abilities they do. THAT is important fluff. Its not just "both are mages, but one has a spellbook and the other doesn't".

If I come into a game and want to play a caster who draws on power intuitively, I should pick a sorcerer because that class's fluff matches my concept and its mechanics emphasizes my fluff. I shouldn't go "well, I'd rather play a wizard, so I'll say my spellbook is really a talisman that can change my focus on powers. etc". That is akin to saying "I want to be X, but have the advantages of Y". Its really no different then my earlier example of "I want to play a human that has the mechanical advantages of a dwarf instead."

To finish my point, I'll throw in an example from my (limited) 4e days. My namesake PC, Remathilis, is an elf Thief/Rogue who started in 2nd edition and was played in a variety of forms through 3e, 3.5 and finally 4e. In every edition, his signature weapon was a shortbow and he was a fairly good sniper (due to dex, magic, feats, etc). However, when 4e came out (pre essentials) shortbow was no longer the pervue of rogues; that's a RANGER weapon. Suddenly, my rogue could no longer use his shortbow for anything other than basic attacks, making it worthless. The answer, you and others seem to tell me, is that if I wanted to make my rogue be good with a shortbow; I should have picked Ranger/Archer build and just said "I'm still a rogue; never mind my loss of sneak attack, tumble, weapon finesse, or bonuses to stealth. But I can use my shortbow!"

Rangers are rangers. Rogues are rogues. Mechanics back up archetype.

 

[Baron Von Mandrick]

I think it's important that the group have different roles. 4e classified the characters with a name for the role as well as the class. In AD&D the roles were defined by what the classes could or couldn't do well. A magic user would have low HP's and a weak AC. Fighters knew they had to protect them because of that.

Theives had few hit points, but special skills that caused them to work in certain ways. The same was true for all the classes.

In the end both systems are designed to have groups work together to maximize the strengths of each member and what they can do while minimizing the weaknesses and limitations of each character.

I think that dynamic is what is most important. If different classes can find different ways to work together within the group by selecting different or more non-traditional skill sets and feats, then that's fine if the players can find ways to work together in order to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses. That's really all that matters. With the right group, it can make role play more fun, and add challenges and new problem solving techniques that are part of the fun of D&D. In some groups it may only be frustrating, and infuriating.

I think like most things, it comes down to the DM and the group playing the game. To me it's all about working together and having different roles match their strengths and weaknesses. What those particular strengths and weaknesses are, won't be as important.

 

[Arlough]

Obviously, that's not the case in 4e, or any other edition of D&D so therefore we have to decide if the title "ranger" means anything more than "archer/dual-wielder in light armor" package or if there is a meaningful piece of fluff behind it.

To begin with, ranger didn't always mean "archer/dual-wielder in light armor", in fact it just meant archer. Many people cite Aragorn and Legolas as the models that made the ranger "archer/dual-wielder in light armor" and the archer=Legolas part I can see. But the Aragorn or Legolas=dual-wielder seems to fail here. I wonder where the dual-wielder even came from.

Nonetheless, why would we decide that ranger means "Dex guy who does ranged and melee in combat" rather than something really flavorful (fluffy) like "Naturalist who travels far and wide knowing the land and it's creatures" or "Warden of the wild who slays the dark beasts that would pray on civilization" or "Defender of nature against the assaults of civilization" or any other meaning. The mechanics of a fight should not tell me who I am any more than my race should tell me who I am.

Lets take another example as old as... well, 3e. Wizard vs. Sorcerer. In 4e parlance, we can break down both classes as such.

Wizard: Arcane Controller, focus on swapping spells, debuff powers, and implements.
Sorcerer: Arcane Striker, focus on massive damage effects and linked theme powers.

What's missing from those descriptions? Fluff. Why does a wizard swap spells? Well, they have a spellbook which keeps some (limited) choices open to them. Why doesn't a sorcerer swap spells? He gets his powers via bloodline and they are linked to who he is. Its the reason why they have what abilities they do. THAT is important fluff. Its not just "both are mages, but one has a spellbook and the other doesn't".

If I come into a game and want to play a caster who draws on power intuitively, I should pick a sorcerer because that class's fluff matches my concept and its mechanics emphasizes my fluff. I shouldn't go "well, I'd rather play a wizard, so I'll say my spellbook is really a talisman that can change my focus on powers. etc". That is akin to saying "I want to be X, but have the advantages of Y". Its really no different then my earlier example of "I want to play a human that has the mechanical advantages of a dwarf instead."

I don't see problems with either of these. The spellbook is a contrivance anyway. Did we ever see Gandalf walking around with a spellbook? What about Dallben (the Book of Three was not a spellbook mind you)? The Blue Adept? Allanon (listed as druid, but effectively a wizard, though if you don't accept that example I won't get all hurt)? Even Questor Thews pulls off some amazing (if ill performed) magic without a spellbook.

As for the human dwarf thing, is there any reason other than mechanics these should be different? So long as you limit your mechanical aspects to Dwarf, this shouldn't be an issue. Unless dwarves have additional advantages or disadvantages that do not come out in the mechanics. Would you be upset if I played a human who was short and stocky with a large nose, long beard, and (for reasons still yet unknown) a Scottish accent?

To finish my point, I'll throw in an example from my (limited) 4e days. My namesake PC, Remathilis, is an elf Thief/Rogue who started in 2nd edition and was played in a variety of forms through 3e, 3.5 and finally 4e. In every edition, his signature weapon was a shortbow and he was a fairly good sniper (due to dex, magic, feats, etc). However, when 4e came out (pre essentials) shortbow was no longer the pervue of rogues; that's a RANGER weapon. Suddenly, my rogue could no longer use his shortbow for anything other than basic attacks, making it worthless. The answer, you and others seem to tell me, is that if I wanted to make my rogue be good with a shortbow; I should have picked Ranger/Archer build and just said "I'm still a rogue; never mind my loss of sneak attack, tumble, weapon finesse, or bonuses to stealth. But I can use my shortbow!"

Rangers are rangers. Rogues are rogues. Mechanics back up archetype.

Two things:

1. You could have re-skinned a crossbow to look like a shortbow. 1d8 + Dexterity modifier damage plus sneak attack (2d6/3d6/5d6) damage once per round with combat advantage.
2. "I'm still a rogue;" yes fine
   "never mind my loss of sneak attack," Ranger Feature: Quarry Damage
   "tumble," Skill: Athletics (+5) Feat: Skill Focus [Athletics] (+3) Primary Stat [Dexterity] - now you are the best tumbler for your level in the game
   "weapon finesse," this was a flaw with the first ranger build breaking it into Dex (ranged) and Str (melee) It won't help you now, but Martial Power 2 corrected that and made a viable Dex (melee) ranger. We just houseruled this, but another choice would have been 16 Str and 17 Dex.
   "or bonuses to stealth." Skill: Stealth, another Feat: Skill Focus [Stealth], Primary Stat [Dexterity]
   "But I can use my shortbow!" Sure can, and you get to do 1d8 + Dexterity modifier damage plus quarry damage (1d6/2d6/3d6) once per round.

Now, since both the crossbow and shortbow are +2 prof and deal 1d8, the only difference is the crossbow requires a minor action to load. If you take option one, you do have to use a minor action to load your shortbow that is suspiciously like a crossbow (but what rogue is using their minor action most of the time). You would also get to deal additional damage of 2d6/3d6/5d6 through heroic/paragon/epic, but you could only do that when you have combat advantage, so at range probably 1 every 2 - 3 rounds through paragon, if the terrain favors you.
If you take option two, you load your shortbow that is mechanically a shortbow for free, but have to use your minor action to quarry a target, but only when choosing a new target. Then you deal 1d6 every round to the target of your quarry.

Since you are an imaginative fellow playing a game of pretend you can imagine that that minor action is you lining up the shot to hit your enemy's tender bits. Or you can imagine that you are making sure to hang in your enemy's blind spot so he is caught flat footed.

So now I have a question. If I built a street thug who comes up behind you with a pipe and beats the crap out of you to take your wallet, is that guy not a rogue? If I want to build a magic user who is very studious but unimaginative, so he always uses the same spells, am I stuck with a sorcerer? If I have a guy who is really good at fighting, but is also devout, is the only option to be a paladin?
Basically, do I get to choose my character, or is my character chosen for me?

I would rather 4e had not given names to each of the builds, but rather role and source. That way you could have chosen from one of the three martial strikers and not had the seemingly terrible experience you did.

 

[Remathilis]

To begin with, ranger didn't always mean "archer/dual-wielder in light armor", in fact it just meant archer. Many people cite Aragorn and Legolas as the models that made the ranger "archer/dual-wielder in light armor" and the archer=Legolas part I can see. But the Aragorn or Legolas=dual-wielder seems to fail here. I wonder where the dual-wielder even came from.

I'm not re-hashing the "rangers shouldn't dual-wield" argument. If you want to cite Drizzt (incorrectly) for that, go ahead. However, for 3 editions now rangers are the dual-wielding class.

Nonetheless, why would we decide that ranger means "Dex guy who does ranged and melee in combat" rather than something really flavorful (fluffy) like "Naturalist who travels far and wide knowing the land and it's creatures" or "Warden of the wild who slays the dark beasts that would pray on civilization" or "Defender of nature against the assaults of civilization" or any other meaning. The mechanics of a fight should not tell me who I am any more than my race should tell me who I am.

That is my point. Ranger should imply a helluva lot more than "light armor and a bow". Ranger should imply some measure of specialty in stealth, perception, tracking, animal handling (domestic and wild), hunting, and perhaps some mysticism and herbcraft beyond the ken of normal hunters.

There should be plenty of room in there for Aragon, Legolas, Orion, Katniss, Jack the Giant Killer, and Drizzt.

I don't see problems with either of these. The spellbook is a contrivance anyway. Did we ever see Gandalf walking around with a spellbook? What about Dallben (the Book of Three was not a spellbook mind you)? The Blue Adept? Allanon (listed as druid, but effectively a wizard, though if you don't accept that example I won't get all hurt)? Even Questor Thews pulls off some amazing (if ill performed) magic without a spellbook.

D&D never emulated fantasy magic except its own. That's fine. Some magical traditions use spellbooks, some don't. The wonderful thing is we have wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, druids, and bards (along with artificers and other mages) to emulate different takes on magic. We don't NEED to turn wizards into Gandalf; he's probably more akin to a sorcerer with celestial bloodline anyway...

As for the human dwarf thing, is there any reason other than mechanics these should be different? So long as you limit your mechanical aspects to Dwarf, this shouldn't be an issue. Unless dwarves have additional advantages or disadvantages that do not come out in the mechanics. Would you be upset if I played a human who was short and stocky with a large nose, long beard, and (for reasons still yet unknown) a Scottish accent?

I'm talking about a character who is mechanically a dwarf (all the normal racial traits of), but looks and acts human. I DO have a problem with this. Humanity has set traits, dwarves have set traits. If you're going to have both races, we don't need a human that has +2 Con/Wis, Healing Surge as a minor action, bonus to poison and magic saves, etc.

If you wouldn't allow a "human" to take the dwarven mechanical traits and still be a human, why would someone allow a rogue to take the ranger traits and still be a rogue?

Two things:

1. You could have re-skinned a crossbow to look like a shortbow. 1d8 + Dexterity modifier damage plus sneak attack (2d6/3d6/5d6) damage once per round with combat advantage.
2. "I'm still a rogue;" yes fine
   "never mind my loss of sneak attack," Ranger Feature: Quarry Damage
   "tumble," Skill: Athletics (+5) Feat: Skill Focus [Athletics] (+3) Primary Stat [Dexterity] - now you are the best tumbler for your level in the game
   "weapon finesse," this was a flaw with the first ranger build breaking it into Dex (ranged) and Str (melee) It won't help you now, but Martial Power 2 corrected that and made a viable Dex (melee) ranger. We just houseruled this, but another choice would have been 16 Str and 17 Dex.
   "or bonuses to stealth." Skill: Stealth, another Feat: Skill Focus [Stealth], Primary Stat [Dexterity]
   "But I can use my shortbow!" Sure can, and you get to do 1d8 + Dexterity modifier damage plus quarry damage (1d6/2d6/3d6) once per round.

Now, since both the crossbow and shortbow are +2 prof and deal 1d8, the only difference is the crossbow requires a minor action to load. If you take option one, you do have to use a minor action to load your shortbow that is suspiciously like a crossbow (but what rogue is using their minor action most of the time). You would also get to deal additional damage of 2d6/3d6/5d6 through heroic/paragon/epic, but you could only do that when you have combat advantage, so at range probably 1 every 2 - 3 rounds through paragon, if the terrain favors you.
If you take option two, you load your shortbow that is mechanically a shortbow for free, but have to use your minor action to quarry a target, but only when choosing a new target. Then you deal 1d6 every round to the target of your quarry.

This here contradicts EVERYTHING you said above. You've reduced the ranger to "dexy-archer class" by stripping away all its fluff (and restuffing it with the rogues fluff" or decided that the crossbow and shortbow are now the same weapon (which destroys whatever dumb "rogues use crossbows" flavor they were shooting for). Why not just have weapons be "small shooty thing", "large stabby thing" or "one-handed bludgeon thing" and let the PC decide if his bludgeon is a hammer, mace, or club?

I love this example because it shows how one change (I want my rogue to use a shortbow) requires 4e players to either re-write the rogue, re-fluff the ranger, or destroy any meaningful difference between bows and crossbows.

Since you are an imaginative fellow playing a game of pretend you can imagine that that minor action is you lining up the shot to hit your enemy's tender bits. Or you can imagine that you are making sure to hang in your enemy's blind spot so he is caught flat footed.

I can, and it has a mechanical expression; its called Sneak Attack.

So now I have a question. If I built a street thug who comes up behind you with a pipe and beats the crap out of you to take your wallet, is that guy not a rogue? If I want to build a magic user who is very studious but unimaginative, so he always uses the same spells, am I stuck with a sorcerer? If I have a guy who is really good at fighting, but is also devout, is the only option to be a paladin?

1.) No. Attacking a guy and taking his stuff doesn't make you a rogue; it makes you an adventurer. There is nothing inherently roguish about being a thug. Rogues are full of guile, agility, finesse and a dash of panache. What you described probably is a NE fighter or some sort, though a martial rogue could fit the bill. However, a tactic isn't a class; which is why I don't like all archers are rangers.
2.) Not at all. A wizard who only uses a dozen spells isn't acting to his full potential, but he has the ability to. I would be upset if he tried to trade away that potential though for some measure of sorcerer power though...
3.) No. Depending on your devoutness, you can be a fighter with the religion skill, a martial cleric, a ranger of a nature deity, etc. They shouldn't receive the same benefits of a paladin though.

Basically, do I get to choose my character, or is my character chosen for me?

Both. You pick the class that is closest to the archetype you want to emulate, but you also adhere to that class's fluff. Its the give-and-take of a class-based game.

I would rather 4e had not given names to each of the builds, but rather role and source. That way you could have chosen from one of the three martial strikers and not had the seemingly terrible experience you did.

I sometimes think that 4e went the Mutants and Mastermind's route and made everything "assemble as you like." I could take the martial source, the striker role, the archer sub-build and then grab powers like "sniper shot" or "double shot" to use with my medium missile weapon, and then add my own fluff. It would have cut-down tremendously on bloat as well.

 

[pemerton]

I could take a ranger, give him two katars, and call him a monk, so there is no need for the monk class right? Or make a rogue/cleric hybrid and call him an avenger. Or heck, a sorcerer or warlock could just be a wizard with an alternate origin story, so no need for those classes either, right?

Titles DO matter. There is a fine line between recoloring a fireball and changing its to ice damage and turning a ranger into a rogue. I would never let a PC roll up a dwarf and then say he looks/acts human just so he gets the dwarven racial benefits for the same reason. At some point, those names have to mean something or else they're needless filler.

Wizard: Arcane Controller, focus on swapping spells, debuff powers, and implements.
Sorcerer: Arcane Striker, focus on massive damage effects and linked theme powers.

What's missing from those descriptions? Fluff. Why does a wizard swap spells? Well, they have a spellbook which keeps some (limited) choices open to them. Why doesn't a sorcerer swap spells? He gets his powers via bloodline and they are linked to who he is. Its the reason why they have what abilities they do. THAT is important fluff. Its not just "both are mages, but one has a spellbook and the other doesn't".

If I come into a game and want to play a caster who draws on power intuitively, I should pick a sorcerer because that class's fluff matches my concept and its mechanics emphasizes my fluff. I shouldn't go "well, I'd rather play a wizard, so I'll say my spellbook is really a talisman that can change my focus on powers. etc". That is akin to saying "I want to be X, but have the advantages of Y". Its really no different then my earlier example of "I want to play a human that has the mechanical advantages of a dwarf instead."

I don't see problems with either of these. The spellbook is a contrivance anyway.

<snip>

As for the human dwarf thing, is there any reason other than mechanics these should be different?

<snip>

You could have re-skinned a crossbow to look like a shortbow.

<snip>

Now, since both the crossbow and shortbow are +2 prof and deal 1d8, the only difference is the crossbow requires a minor action to load. If you take option one, you do have to use a minor action to load your shortbow that is suspiciously like a crossbow (but what rogue is using their minor action most of the time).

<snip>

If you take option two, you load your shortbow that is mechanically a shortbow for free, but have to use your minor action to quarry a target, but only when choosing a new target.

I think "I want to be X, but have the advantages of Y" is an unhelpful way of analysing these examples. Because, as Arlough indicates, there is no mechanical advantage at stake.

WotC itself reflavours Goliaths as Half-Giants in Dark Sun.

Unless dwarves have additional advantages or disadvantages that do not come out in the mechanics. Would you be upset if I played a human who was short and stocky with a large nose, long beard, and (for reasons still yet unknown) a Scottish accent?

This brings out the key issue for me - it's about the relationship between mechanics and .

Is the purpose of the dwarf mechanics, or the wizard's spellbook, purely to create a viable and interesting mechanical subsystem? In which case reskinning doesn't matter. Or is the purpose of these rules also to create a certain setting? Say, one in which short tough Scottish-accented demihumans and muttering, bumbling, bookish wizards, are common occurences.

To be clear, I don't think there is a single correct answer to my question. Different players, and different groups, want different things from the rules.

What would be nice, however, is for the rulebooks to help make clear what mechanics are in place for reasons of balance, and what to reinforce setting. In AD&D, for example, the prohibition on halfling fighter progressing beyond 4th level is a setting issue, not a balance one (halfling fighters are weaker than dwarven fighters, for example, who are permitted to advance to 7th+). Whereas the prohibition on wizards using armour (and perhaps swords?) is a balance issue.

Here's an example, from the Burning Wheel Magic Burner (p 189), of a mechanic which is clearly written to indicate the relationships between system, balance and setting; it's a variant magic system (default BW magic is at will casting of any spell known, with a risk of fatigue associated with each casting):

The Arsenal Method limits the amount of spells a sorcerer can have on hand at any one time, but allows him to return to home base and change his current line-up . . . pells are supernatural creatures fighting for space in the wizard's consciousness. A wizard ony has so much room to work with before the spells just blot each other out and he can't remember anything. . .

If a wizard character possesses more spells than he can hold in his crowded memory at one time, the extra spells are kept writte in his precious, really-too-big-to-carry-around spell book or similar, campaign-appropriate edifice. . . The spell book is not designed to cut a mage off from the source of his power. It exists only to limit what he has acces to right now. Feel free to chaneg the spell book to some other campaign-appropriate format - a temple, a grove of trees, tattoos, a gaggle of imps, the spirit of your dead father.​

As a general rule, D&D books have not spoken so frankly about the role of mechanical features as story elements. I think this is, at least in part, because there is a tendency for the books to be written from an inworld persepctive ("You are a fighter, a peerless warrior of the realm;" "You a wizard, a master of magical tomes whose words reconfigure reality.")

Whereas, as soon as you start talking about campaign-appropriate edifices, you're givin away that this is a rules sytem to help you develop an imaginry setting for the purposes of play, rather than a description of how things are within some particular imaginary setting.

 

[Arlough]

Ugh. This ended up really long, so I will sblock it reduce its consumption of thead real estate.

I'm not re-hashing the "rangers shouldn't dual-wield" argument. If you want to cite Drizzt (incorrectly) for that, go ahead. However, for 3 editions now rangers are the dual-wielding class.

Let's just get this out of the way. I wouldn't know how to cite Drizzt correctly or incorrectly. Hell, I had to look up how to spell the name.
I used Drizzt a couple of posts prior to this one simply because many people know him as the guy who dual-weilds a pair of fruity sounding swords, and he appeared in the offline character builder as a ranger at some point.
Other than that, to me he is the D&D version of the Ed guy from Twilight.

[sblock]That is my point. Ranger should imply a helluva lot more than "light armor and a bow". Ranger should imply some measure of specialty in stealth, perception, tracking, animal handling (domestic and wild), hunting, and perhaps some mysticism and herbcraft beyond the ken of normal hunters.

There should be plenty of room in there for Aragon, Legolas, Orion, Katniss, Jack the Giant Killer, and Drizzt.

D&D never emulated fantasy magic except its own. That's fine. Some magical traditions use spellbooks, some don't. The wonderful thing is we have wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, druids, and bards (along with artificers and other mages) to emulate different takes on magic. We don't NEED to turn wizards into Gandalf; he's probably more akin to a sorcerer with celestial bloodline anyway...



I'm talking about a character who is mechanically a dwarf (all the normal racial traits of), but looks and acts human. I DO have a problem with this. Humanity has set traits, dwarves have set traits. If you're going to have both races, we don't need a human that has +2 Con/Wis, Healing Surge as a minor action, bonus to poison and magic saves, etc.

If you wouldn't allow a "human" to take the dwarven mechanical traits and still be a human, why would someone allow a rogue to take the ranger traits and still be a rogue?



This here contradicts EVERYTHING you said above. You've reduced the ranger to "dexy-archer class" by stripping away all its fluff (and restuffing it with the rogues fluff" or decided that the crossbow and shortbow are now the same weapon (which destroys whatever dumb "rogues use crossbows" flavor they were shooting for). Why not just have weapons be "small shooty thing", "large stabby thing" or "one-handed bludgeon thing" and let the PC decide if his bludgeon is a hammer, mace, or club?

I love this example because it shows how one change (I want my rogue to use a shortbow) requires 4e players to either re-write the rogue, re-fluff the ranger, or destroy any meaningful difference between bows and crossbows.

I can, and it has a mechanical expression; its called Sneak Attack.

1.) No. Attacking a guy and taking his stuff doesn't make you a rogue; it makes you an adventurer. There is nothing inherently roguish about being a thug. Rogues are full of guile, agility, finesse and a dash of panache. What you described probably is a NE fighter or some sort, though a martial rogue could fit the bill. However, a tactic isn't a class; which is why I don't like all archers are rangers.
2.) Not at all. A wizard who only uses a dozen spells isn't acting to his full potential, but he has the ability to. I would be upset if he tried to trade away that potential though for some measure of sorcerer power though...
3.) No. Depending on your devoutness, you can be a fighter with the religion skill, a martial cleric, a ranger of a nature deity, etc. They shouldn't receive the same benefits of a paladin though.

Both. You pick the class that is closest to the archetype you want to emulate, but you also adhere to that class's fluff. Its the give-and-take of a class-based game.

I sometimes think that 4e went the Mutants and Mastermind's route and made everything "assemble as you like." I could take the martial source, the striker role, the archer sub-build and then grab powers like "sniper shot" or "double shot" to use with my medium missile weapon, and then add my own fluff. It would have cut-down tremendously on bloat as well.[/sblock]

I think we may just have to agree to disagree, at this point.
[sblock]I firmly disbelieve that choosing the class ranger makes you a ranger anymore than wearing a Lions jersey makes you a member of the Lions. The class ranger, to me, is nothing more than a mechanic. Any attempts to reinforce an archtype are, to me, attempts to reinforce a stereotype, which I am disinterested in doing.[/sblock]
I look at the classes in the books like Dr. Frankenstein looked at the human body. A pile of mechanics waiting for me to breathe life into them.
You, it seems, disagree.
[sblock]You like the idea of classes being a mix of mechanics and flavor to recreate certain archtypes that have become the staples of fantasy stories the world over. You still find joy, it would seem, in playing to the classic tropes in traditional adventures of high derring-do.
Your classic world where the "spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri"* is no longer one I can engage in short of Munchkin.[/sblock]
And that is okay.

So it would seem that the next edition of D&D is doomed to disappoint at least one of us. But I still hold out hope that the designers over at WotC are more brilliant than that, and somehow manage to find a way for both of us to be completely satisfied.
Cheers

[sblock]I think "I want to be X, but have the advantages of Y" is an unhelpful way of analysing these examples. Because, as Arlough indicates, there is no mechanical advantage at stake.

WotC itself reflavours Goliaths as Half-Giants in Dark Sun.

This brings out the key issue for me - it's about the relationship between mechanics and .

Is the purpose of the dwarf mechanics, or the wizard's spellbook, purely to create a viable and interesting mechanical subsystem? In which case reskinning doesn't matter. Or is the purpose of these rules also to create a certain setting? Say, one in which short tough Scottish-accented demihumans and muttering, bumbling, bookish wizards, are common occurences.

To be clear, I don't think there is a single correct answer to my question. Different players, and different groups, want different things from the rules. [/sblock]

What would be nice, however, is for the rulebooks to help make clear what mechanics are in place for reasons of balance, and what to reinforce setting. In AD&D, for example, the prohibition on halfling fighter progressing beyond 4th level is a setting issue, not a balance one (halfling fighters are weaker than dwarven fighters, for example, who are permitted to advance to 7th+). Whereas the prohibition on wizards using armour (and perhaps swords?) is a balance issue.

[sblock]Here's an example, from the Burning Wheel Magic Burner (p 189), of a mechanic which is clearly written to indicate the relationships between system, balance and setting; it's a variant magic system (default BW magic is at will casting of any spell known, with a risk of fatigue associated with each casting):

The Arsenal Method limits the amount of spells a sorcerer can have on hand at any one time, but allows him to return to home base and change his current line-up . . . pells are supernatural creatures fighting for space in the wizard's consciousness. A wizard ony has so much room to work with before the spells just blot each other out and he can't remember anything. . .

If a wizard character possesses more spells than he can hold in his crowded memory at one time, the extra spells are kept writte in his precious, really-too-big-to-carry-around spell book or similar, campaign-appropriate edifice. . . The spell book is not designed to cut a mage off from the source of his power. It exists only to limit what he has acces to right now. Feel free to chaneg the spell book to some other campaign-appropriate format - a temple, a grove of trees, tattoos, a gaggle of imps, the spirit of your dead father.​

As a general rule, D&D books have not spoken so frankly about the role of mechanical features as story elements. I think this is, at least in part, because there is a tendency for the books to be written from an inworld persepctive ("You are a fighter, a peerless warrior of the realm;" "You a wizard, a master of magical tomes whose words reconfigure reality.")

Whereas, as soon as you start talking about campaign-appropriate edifices, you're givin away that this is a rules sytem to help you develop an imaginry setting for the purposes of play, rather than a description of how things are within some particular imaginary setting.[/sblock]

I would love to XP you for this, but it seems I have XP'd you too recently.
Nonetheless, you have my appreciation.

* to quote Douglas Adams

 

[Remathilis]

My point at the end of the day is that if a class has a mythological or legacy name attached to it, it needs to attempt to emulate that trope.

I think Arcana Evolved actually did something brilliant when it redesigned the classes, it gave them nonsense names (unfettered, oathsworn, greenbond) which are mildly descriptive but in no way handle the legacy baggage that paladin, druid, or ranger does. I sometimes lament that if 4e was going to be such a clean break from previous versions, they didn't go all the way with it. I get a real stick in my craw, for example, when people talk of "evil paladin of Asmodeus" because paladins are defined in the dictionary as "heroic champions". However, I'd probably never batted an eye at "evil oathsworn of Asmodeus" as being a knight who serves the whims of an evil deity.

Anyway, my hope is really that Next embraces more of the fluff and tropes in the classes as D&D did before. I think it was flavorful that most (if not all) thieves can from thieves guilds, all paladins were LG, druids were all members of one worldspanning Order, or rangers never settled down before 8th level. (Some, like druidic combat annoyed me, thank Pelor THAT'S not coming back). Likewise, I don't want to see classes completely mechanically perscriptive so that rogues can't use shortbows or fighters are melee-combatants only. There is a good balance to be found, I hope they find it.