Ranger (Hunter) is a Martial and Primal Controller

[DracoSuave]

AND more interesting than any flavor of Seeker.

In fact, I could easily see respecing every Seeker power as a generic "ranger" power after this.

Speak for yourself. I see many players of Diablo 2 amazons loving the idea of firing arrows made of fire.

The class has merit... I just think people want the class to do things it's not designed to do, rather than embrace what it does.

The warlord went through the same growing pains, as did the sorcerer. 'But it doesn't heal as well as the cleric! But AoE is only a controller thing!' Yeah, yeah.

Seeker is good at what it does, I just wish people would stop thinking it should do some other non-Seeker thing.

Not that it would happen -- the mandate of course means people playing their Seekers get to still play their Seekers without a change.

This also strikes me as a good solve for the Battlemind problem: it's not a "Psionic Defender," it's a Fighter with the Martial and Psionic power sources!

What problem?

Or does every class that uses a weapon have to be Martial power? I like the idea of hybrid powersource classes when it makes sense. Martial power to me is like batman. Nothing in the Battlemind is batman like.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Speak for yourself. I see many players of Diablo 2 amazons loving the idea of firing arrows made of fire.

Why can't rangers (especially semimagical rangers) shoot arrows made of fire?

Seeker is good at what it does, I just wish people would stop thinking it should do some other non-Seeker thing.

My problem with the Seeker is not, even a little, about how it does what it does.

It's the same problem I have with the Battlemind.

Or does every class that uses a weapon have to be Martial power? I like the idea of hybrid powersource classes when it makes sense. Martial power to me is like batman. Nothing in the Battlemind is batman like.

Martial Power is as much superman or the Flash or Wuxia as Batman. And now that classes aren't so intimately tied to power sources, you can have a "superman", or a physical warrior who has a few magical tricks, without delving into the iffy multiclass or bloaty brand-new-class territory for your lazer vision. I can now have, say, a Fighter build that is Martial and, say, Solar, who gets a punch that can knock people over, and a utility that lets him leap tall buildings in a single bound, and can bust out an encounter power that blasts lazer beams from his eyes, too.

What problem?

The problem that both classes really (IMO) lack a reason to exist beyond mechanical tricks with power source and role. The Ardent has it to a lesser degree, too, but manages better.

Why can't my fighter be Martial And Psionic who gets to augment his fighter attacks with psionic tricks and is sticky because of a quick movement instead of a lock-down? Why can't my ranger be Martial And Primal who gets to light his arrows on fire and shoot bees at people? Why do I need multiclass or hybrid muckitty-muck to get to something that is clearly within the same broad archetype?

Those two classes especially struggle with the "no clear archetype" problem. This is a problem that neither fighters nor rangers have. They, to me, clearly fit under the sub-heading of "Fighters (who are psionic)" and "Rangers (who know magic)."

Why not just call a spade a spade?

This isn't so much the problem with the Warlord, whose "Scream At You A Bunch" is pretty distinct from the cleric's "Pray For You A Bunch." A leader who leads by voice and personality and combat ability is a pretty clear archetype. Though, for the record, I wouldn't have a problem with a "Champion" Fighter build that functioned as a Leader in the same way that the Slayer functions as a Striker. In fact, I think it'd be kind of fun.

 

[fuzzlewump]

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]

Yeah, at GenCon Mearls acknowledged that making classes just to fill a power-source and role slot is a bad thing, so I think you're on the money there.

As far as your point, well, I don't see it. You could keep bringing it back to say you should only choose Fighter or Mage. Or, hell, just "Adventurer," and have the bowslinger mage 'adventurer,' or the psionmagic swordmager 'adventurer.' They all fit under the same 'broad archetype' of adventurer.

If that doesn't fit your fancy, having 'mage' or 'fighter' should. Rangers are just fighters with bows. If they have magic, saying 'Fighter with magic and a bow' is no different then you preferring 'Ranger with magic' instead of 'Seeker.'

So I guess to be discussed is where to draw the line. Why draw the line at "Fighters" and "Rangers" being the broad archetypes (among other things of course, but given that's what's being discussed)? At what point does a dude with a sword using magic just become a mage, or in 4E case, become deserving of a different title than 'fighter' such as Battlemind? Conceptually and mechanically.

 

[I'm A Banana]

As far as your point, well, I don't see it. You could keep bringing it back to say you should only choose Fighter or Mage. Or, hell, just "Adventurer," and have the bowslinger mage 'adventurer,' or the psionmagic swordmager 'adventurer.' They all fit under the same 'broad archetype' of adventurer.

Reductio Ad Absurdium doesn't quite apply here. I'm not arguing that we pursue the very simplest possible class structure. I'm just saying that it seems to me that the Seeker and the Battlemind (and some other classes, to a lesser degree) don't appear to have a clear archetypal reason for existing.

On the other hand, I totally see the difference between, say, the Rogue and the Fighter. Or the Fighter and the Barbarian. Or the Fighter and the Paladin.

It's a grey area that's going to involve judgement calls that individuals may disagree with on exactly where the line falls. Some might say the Warlock should just be a Wizard build. I probably wouldn't, but I could certainly see a rational person making that case.

But, to me, it's worth examining why D&D has a class structure to begin with. It doesn't have to have one -- plenty of other games do just fine without one. But there's something about saying "I am a Druid" that gives the other people at the table a distinct mental impression that saying "I am a Seeker" does not. "I am a Wizard" gives people a different mental picture than "I am a Warlock", so that's a distinction worth keeping. Of course, that's going to vary from person to person, so I'd say we use the "lowest common denominator": if someone who wasn't a D&D player heard the words, would they (a) get an image of what the character was like, and (b) make a distinction between that character and a few semi-similar characters. If a complete D&D newbie wanted to choose a class, would the little description you gave them be different?

A class structure lets you hang your decisions on an archetype. A class is not just a bucket of related abilities, it is a certain kind of character, with certain typical qualities.

So if we're going to have D&D different classes, they should each represent a legitimately different kind of character.

For me, the Battlemind and the Seeker definately fail that test. Battleminds don't seem any different then fighters who run instead of lock-down. Seekers don't seem any different then rangers who shoot fire arrows instead of trick arrows.

It's not just about having a mechanical difference, either. A Knight and a Slayer and a Battlerager are all quite a bit different mechanically. Is the Seeker any more different from the Ranger than the Slayer is from the Brawler?

It's more about the image that word conjures up in your head as you play. Which is a subjective call.

Now, it's possible to make new archetypes. D&D does this a whole lot. I think (debatably) 4e has done it with the Warlord. But it takes more than another 50 combat powers to do it. It takes more than mechanical tricks and a power source/role niche. It takes a certain broad idea of what such a character embodies, in and out of combat.

Nothing is going to change the Seeker as it exists. People who like it for whatever reason can still like it and play it. But if the rules for the class were repackaged as Ranger abilities instead, I think I at least, and probably a lot of D&D newbies, would be more inclined to check it out. Because saying "I am a Seeker" is meaningless to anyone who isn't big into D&D. Saying "I am a Ranger" is much clearer, even if you're the kind of ranger who shoots flaming arrows instead of the kind of ranger who shoots trick arrows.

 

[occam]

Aspect of the Cunning Fox + Rapid Shot = Shift 2X number of monsters in the area you're attacking into.

I would rule this as stated under Effect in the Rules Compendium (p. 96):

Unless otherwise stated, an "Effect" entry is not repeated, even if the power attacks multiple targets.

Yes, aspect of the cunning fox is not actually part of the attack power, but I would still rule it as if it were, in a virtual sense. The RAW may be less than clear here.

 

[Klaus]

Reductio Ad Absurdium doesn't quite apply here. I'm not arguing that we pursue the very simplest possible class structure. I'm just saying that it seems to me that the Seeker and the Battlemind (and some other classes, to a lesser degree) don't appear to have a clear archetypal reason for existing.

On the other hand, I totally see the difference between, say, the Rogue and the Fighter. Or the Fighter and the Barbarian. Or the Fighter and the Paladin.

It's a grey area that's going to involve judgement calls that individuals may disagree with on exactly where the line falls. Some might say the Warlock should just be a Wizard build. I probably wouldn't, but I could certainly see a rational person making that case.

But, to me, it's worth examining why D&D has a class structure to begin with. It doesn't have to have one -- plenty of other games do just fine without one. But there's something about saying "I am a Druid" that gives the other people at the table a distinct mental impression that saying "I am a Seeker" does not. "I am a Wizard" gives people a different mental picture than "I am a Warlock", so that's a distinction worth keeping. Of course, that's going to vary from person to person, so I'd say we use the "lowest common denominator": if someone who wasn't a D&D player heard the words, would they (a) get an image of what the character was like, and (b) make a distinction between that character and a few semi-similar characters. If a complete D&D newbie wanted to choose a class, would the little description you gave them be different?

A class structure lets you hang your decisions on an archetype. A class is not just a bucket of related abilities, it is a certain kind of character, with certain typical qualities.

So if we're going to have D&D different classes, they should each represent a legitimately different kind of character.

For me, the Battlemind and the Seeker definately fail that test. Battleminds don't seem any different then fighters who run instead of lock-down. Seekers don't seem any different then rangers who shoot fire arrows instead of trick arrows.

It's not just about having a mechanical difference, either. A Knight and a Slayer and a Battlerager are all quite a bit different mechanically. Is the Seeker any more different from the Ranger than the Slayer is from the Brawler?

It's more about the image that word conjures up in your head as you play. Which is a subjective call.

Now, it's possible to make new archetypes. D&D does this a whole lot. I think (debatably) 4e has done it with the Warlord. But it takes more than another 50 combat powers to do it. It takes more than mechanical tricks and a power source/role niche. It takes a certain broad idea of what such a character embodies, in and out of combat.

Nothing is going to change the Seeker as it exists. People who like it for whatever reason can still like it and play it. But if the rules for the class were repackaged as Ranger abilities instead, I think I at least, and probably a lot of D&D newbies, would be more inclined to check it out. Because saying "I am a Seeker" is meaningless to anyone who isn't big into D&D. Saying "I am a Ranger" is much clearer, even if you're the kind of ranger who shoots flaming arrows instead of the kind of ranger who shoots trick arrows.

This reminds me of the concept of "half-classes". Like the Ranger is "Fighter/Druid" and the Paladin is "Fighter/Cleric" (and for most of 2e I've wanted to see a class that was "Fighter/Mage"), which is basically the 4e concept of Hybrids.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This reminds me of the concept of "half-classes". Like the Ranger is "Fighter/Druid" and the Paladin is "Fighter/Cleric" (and for most of 2e I've wanted to see a class that was "Fighter/Mage"), which is basically the 4e concept of Hybrids.

I think that was kind of true in 2e at least (and maybe in 1e, but by 3e a little but not so much), but I think the idea of the "Ranger," forex, goes beyond "Fighter/Druid" (though it probably includes that idea).

I could even conceive of an "arcane archer" Ranger build that uses Martial and Arcane. Alongside a "gish" Fighter build that also uses Martial and Arcane, but in a different way. Though perhaps they'd both be Strikers.

Basically, it's just that if a class can reach into new roles (Slayer, Hunter) and power sources (Hunter, Scout), then we'll need to divide classes on a broader level than 3e and 4e have been. But perhaps still with finer detail than 2e's "Change the name, leave everything else the same." I'm not particularly interested in returning to the "Barbarians are just Fighters with a different name!" philosophy, but I think that "Seekers and Rangers are entirely different!" also seems false.

It also means that multiclassing or hybriding get to finer character distinctions. If you can have a fighter build that also uses arcane as a power source and have some arcane spells, what's the difference, conceptually, between that and a hybrid fighter|wizard, or even a fighter who multiclasses into wizard? What's the difference between that fighter build and the Swordmage? And in which direction would you point a newbie who wanted a "gish" character? How would they sort between the options? Which ones would be effective, and which ones would be sub-par?

But I guess that latter problem comes into play whenever you've got a lot of options that look kind of the same on the surface, be it with this, or with feat choice, or with certain power choice, or whatever.

 

[boolean]

Am I the only one forseeing the confusion generated by Rapid Shot's poor wording?

Unless they really do mean that you get to attack every enemy in range, the wording should be something like:
"Effect: You make a ranged basic attack with a weapon against each creature in or adjacent to a single square within the attack’s range. You take a –2 penalty to the attack rolls."

 

[karolusb]

so I'd say we use the "lowest common denominator": if someone who wasn't a D&D player heard the words, would they (a) get an image of what the character was like, and (b) make a distinction between that character and a few semi-similar characters.

While I appreciate what you are going for here, as stated the vast majority of non D&D players would have a hard time distinguishing most of the things we actually consider distinct. Certainly Sorceror, Warlock, and Wizard would be cause for confusion.

I overall agree with you though, PHB3 had a lot of issues for me. The Runepriest also in my mind fails the test. I don't mind the battlemind as much, not that I think it is actually a good class, but at least it uses the "psionic" power structure, which gives it some distinct hook (Though it begs the question of why monks don't work like psionic characters). It is no worse than several generations of Psionic Warriors that came before it.

There is the practical problem that The runepriset and Seeker came out after thier power books, both duplicate role power combos, niether has gotten or likely will get much Dev love, and both seem to have problems (at least to my eye) really telling me what I am supposed to be getting from them.

They also have flavor problems, why do I care? In a different world where "rune" wielding races had some distinctive element (say a world where dwaves couldn't wield traditional magic, ala warhammer) maybe they would matter, but in a world where all races can belong to all classes the runepriest just brings nothing to the table I couldn't get from a cleric with a couple feats.

Essentials hasn't replaced PHB1-2 for me, but I suspect (since I have no love for the psionic power source, or crystal and plant people) that it will do away with PHB 3 entirely.

 

[Nikosandros]

Am I the only one forseeing the confusion generated by Rapid Shot's poor wording?

Unless they really do mean that you get to attack every enemy in range, the wording should be something like:
"Effect: You make a ranged basic attack with a weapon against each creature in or adjacent to a single square within the attack’s range. You take a –2 penalty to the attack rolls."

I agree that adding the word 'single' would make it even clearer, but I think that it is rather obvious that the ranger has to pick one square when using rapid shot.