Pax Prime seminar 2012 juicy news!

[tuxgeo]

If there is a spellpoint variant/option for the wizard that you could simply call the sorcerers of your world (thus removing the 'story' that WotC may/may not tie in to the class that they label as sorcerer given that the base wizard class won't have an assumed story built in to it), would that satisfy what you are looking for in a sorcerer class?

I'm not GX.Sigma but I want to comment on the above question anyway:

A "spellpoint variant/option" would not fulfill what I'm looking for in a Sorcerer.

For me, the Sorcerer needs humility even more than the Wizard does, because the Sorcerer lacks any exterior point of reference for what constitutes "reality." The Wizard has her spellbook and must refer back to that tome each day; the Warlock has his Patron and must refer back to that being every once in a while; the Druid has Nature and refers back to it constantly.

But the Sorcerer? The Sorcerer's source of power is internal, so if the Sorcerer perceives an outside situation that isn't to the Sorcerer's liking, "change it," and that removes any preferential dissonance. The Sorcerer has no fixed star to guide his or her journey, so the Sorcerer can easily go spiraling out of control, going crazy to the extent that he or she doesn't humbly keep touching base with the real world.

Sorcerers don't lose "Willpower" when they cast spells, they lose "Perspective," and that loss tempts them into making further bad choices. Instead of the alignment penalties that Paladins and Druids used to have, Sorcerers should either have to roll well or else have to role-play well in order to avoid getting penalties to Lore and Insight due to their gradual loss of touch with reality. (Not penalties to INT and WIS directly, but penalties to any ability rolls that involve knowing what's what, or who is intending what.)

(Yes, this is original with me; and no, I don't think WotC will go this way because it's so unlike what has come before -- but I can dream. . . .)

(And a spell list that is different from the Wizard's one wouldn't hurt.)

 

[gyor]

The sorceror will have a generic option called the Arcane origin.

Anyone excited about the news that playable races will be in the monster manuel with,focus,on setting material.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I don't mind fleshing out some of the classes with more story, but I think that certain things they're thinking about with Rangers such as Codes of Conduct and Orders go too far.

Ranger has always been one of the niche classes, but I never felt it had to need to add too much story about it's place in the world. Especially when I tend to think of many Rangers as being loners, it doesn't match the ideas about there being a lot of Ranger orders. I don't feel there's any need to go back to how the Ranger was before, as I remember how during the beginning of 3e, one of my friends was glad there was no alignment restriction in place for Rangers, because game mechanics wise (highlighting where 2e's mechanics got in the way of story) it meant that the villains would finally have a chance of tracking down the heroes.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't mind fleshing out some of the classes with more story, but I think that certain things they're thinking about with Rangers such as Codes of Conduct and Orders go too far.

Here's the big issue with all of this...

Why is a ranger a Ranger, and not a Fighter with a nature background?

It's the same query we have as to why is a druid a Druid and not a Cleric of a nature deity?

Why is a paladin a Paladin, and not a Fighter with the Priest background or a Cleric of a combat domain?

Why is an assassin an Assassin, and not a Rogue?

Why is a monk a Monk and not an unarmed Fighter?

Seems to me it's because all those classes are SPECIAL. And more rare. And different. There's something about those classes as specific classes that places them separate from the more generic/universal Fighters, Rogues, Clerics, and Wizards. Especially considering you can use the F/R/C/W to build "replicas" of all those classes with the use of the right backgrounds and specialties to a certain extent?

So why should the Ranger class have all these "story elements" like Code of Conduct and Ranger Organizations built in? For my money... it's specifically BECAUSE you can build a "generic ranger" using the Fighter and the right Background and Specialty. There NEEDS to be a differentiation between them. Otherwise, there's no reason for both to exist. And if the Fighter with specific B/S is the "generic" version... then the Ranger should be the one that is not generic. And adding all of these story elements that focus the class into something unique and different from your run-of-the-mill "DEX fighter with a map"... is a good thing.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

There's also going too far with certain things like those story elements where the class no longer feels like the class.

If Rangers had to for example all belong to an ascetic religious order, that used self-flagellation as an initiation, and were required to regularly eat the raw hearts of badgers or else the Giraffe Spirit which grants them their powers will eat their soul...

Well sure it's very different from a Fighter with a nature background and a two-weapon or archery specialization. But it no longer feels like a D&D Ranger anymore, and feels more like some half-baked, very specific interpretation of a Ranger that someone else has.

 

[Remathilis]

Its not like D&D isn't full of such ideas as X class having codes or Y class belonging to an order. Clerics, monks, and thieves have belonged to churches, monasteries, and guilds by definition in Basic. Wizards had a prohibition about sharing spells freely with one another(something I'm sure all PCs wizards ignored). AD&D rangers have limits on followers and how much they could own. Paladins and monks had limits on magic items owned. Druids, monks (and to an extent, assassins) all fought for higher level. Barbarians were illiterate uniquely among 3e classes. Nearly all classes pre-3e have requirements to fulfill before gaining followers (and limits as to what kind of structure and what kind of followers gained). Many classes had restrictions on alignment, denoting certain ethical and moral beliefs incompatible with that classes ability.

Each of these gave classes a certain feel. While not all of them need to return (especially fighting each other to gain levels. Yeesh), I hope to see more flavorful elements like this return.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Excellent voice analysis, btw.

This is yet-another-rejection of 4e and its design ideas. In the early days of 4e, people who wanted to be archers were told to be rangers, even if thematically they were closer to fighters (trained soldiers) or rogues (urban cutpurses). If you wanted to use a bow (or dual wield) you became a ranger and "refluffed" the class to your liking. This destroyed the unique place for these classes in the world. The term "ranger" was kinda pointless, except to explain "dual wielding or archery or pet-controller builds". When my elven rogue should really be an elven ranger because he wants to use a short bow (and I just rename everything to sound more roguish) than neither ranger nor rogue are meaningful terms anymore.

The problem here was that they actually gave the 4e fighter some flavour. The fighter was no longer Captain Cardboard (He fights! Just like every other PC! He has feats! Just like everyone else!) Instead in 4e being a fighter actually means something. It means someone who gets right up in the face of the enemy and is dangerous enough that no one dares turn their back on them. The 4e fighter has more flavour in one single mechanic than the 3.X fighter has in the entire class. So character concepts that relied on the fighter being a completely bland class no longer worked.

On the other hand the pre-Essentials ranger in 4e is a little blander than his 3.X counterpart - he doesn't have to have spells and doesn't have to have two weapons. And doesn't have to have training in nature; he can choose dungeoneering instead. So he's what you project a vanilla archer onto. (If you want to dual wield, you can happily play a fighter). I believe that there is a total of one PHB class where the 4e version is blander than the 3.X version, and that is the pre-Essentials Ranger. A case can be made for the wizard because 3.X wizards could do anything whereas 4e PHB wizards were evokers and very little else. (To be fair, there's also an argument that 3e bards have a very distinct flavour - so do 4e but it's a different flavour).

And the rogue not getting shortbow proficiency was a stupid design oversight in 4e. Fortunately fixed with the Essentials Thief (although they've never bothered to give the classic rogue the errata it needs to make the shortbow viable even if it now has proficiency with one).

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Maybe the focus on the ranger is misleading. Let's think of the paladin instead: should he be a generic Divine Gish, defined by his mix of divine magic and melee power, and it's up to the player to come up with a religion and organization and code for him (if any)? For my money, I'd rather see a more narrowly defined class, the good-guy knight in shining armor, with enough variants built in to cover the variations of that trope.

If I want to play a pious warlock or a devious paladin, I can work with the DM to make that happen; but the classes themselves should be built around the archetypes that spawned them.

 

[Remathilis]

The problem here was that they actually gave the 4e fighter some flavour. The fighter was no longer Captain Cardboard (He fights! Just like every other PC! He has feats! Just like everyone else!) Instead in 4e being a fighter actually means something. It means someone who gets right up in the face of the enemy and is dangerous enough that no one dares turn their back on them. The 4e fighter has more flavour in one single mechanic than the 3.X fighter has in the entire class. So character concepts that relied on the fighter being a completely bland class no longer worked.

I actually don't mind some of the ideas of 4e fighter (though I find the knight and slayer from essentials FAR superior than the PHB one). So far, I think CS is going to be a good addition to making the fighter interesting without giving him Fitan-Majik!

On the other hand the pre-Essentials ranger in 4e is a little blander than his 3.X counterpart - he doesn't have to have spells and doesn't have to have two weapons. And doesn't have to have training in nature; he can choose dungeoneering instead. So he's what you project a vanilla archer onto. (If you want to dual wield, you can happily play a fighter). I believe that there is a total of one PHB class where the 4e version is blander than the 3.X version, and that is the pre-Essentials Ranger. A case can be made for the wizard because 3.X wizards could do anything whereas 4e PHB wizards were evokers and very little else. (To be fair, there's also an argument that 3e bards have a very distinct flavour - so do 4e but it's a different flavour).

I can make a few cases. Clerics were very restricted (even moreso than 3e's domain clerics) so much than evil clerics in the PHB were pretty much a joke. Paladins were likewise nerfed: no courage, no warhorse, no save bonuses, no detect evil. A few smites and lay on hands was all that was left. And yes, Wizards were evokers; illusionists (true illusions), necromancers, conjurers, and enchanters all required additional books (Essentials, Heroes of Shadow, or Arcane Power) to even be doable, let alone viable.

And the rogue not getting shortbow proficiency was a stupid design oversight in 4e. Fortunately fixed with the Essentials Thief (although they've never bothered to give the classic rogue the errata it needs to make the shortbow viable even if it now has proficiency with one).

It goes along with a couple of other "design" ideas that were supposed to give the classes "distinction" but made little sense (fighters can't wear plate? WTF?).

I still feel like the 4e PHB was half-a-book and the other half was sold to me later in Martial/Arcane/Divine Power and PHB2.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

More tidbits:

The idea is to make the core 4 classes very customizable, but the other classes to be more heavily story-based. For example, they're thinking of making rangers more like an actual organization (or more than one) with its own code of conduct.

I like the part about the story-based classes quite a lot. Let's compare it to what we have now. Now there are a lot of generic (story-independent) classes so I can either use the class as generic or create some story elements. With the proposed Next approach I can either use the included story basis, ignore it and use the class generically, or ignore it and make up my own story-background. I see a gain and no loss in the proposed approach.

And a find story-based classes a lot more evocative and interesting than generic one. (Though I don't like the term "story-based." How about "fiction-based" instead)