Build Options

[Ktulu]

I've seen some discussion on the two build options for the rogue (both for and against). I haven't seen anyone speculating on other class build options, so I figured I'd see what everyone thinks:

Here are the ones we know/can easily assume:

Rogue: Brawny rogue, trickster rogue
Fighter: Two-handed fighter, sword & board fighter
Ranger: Two-weapon ranger, Archer Ranger


Speculations:

Wizard: Staff, wand, Orb. I get the feeling that the build options for the wizard may be more linked to the items than they're letting on. It makes sense, seeing how the aboves focus on different tools (primarily) for the class.

Warlock: Fey, Demonic, Outer planes. This, too, makes sense as the build type, as they've pretty much confirmed the three in another article.

I noticed that, taking this into consideration, arcane characters would have more than 2 build options. This would also make sense, figuring that there are a number of different weapons and options for martial characters to be different (swords/axes/bows/etc...), but wizards and warlocks will have a finite number of spells to choose from, so giving them a few more options is a good idea.

Total guesses:

Paladin: Undead fightin' paladin, Demon/devil fightin' paladin - This is only a guess, as the paladin and fighter are quite similar in role and weapons used, so they would likely want to make sure his builds were linked heavily towards his divine role.

Cleric: I don't really have a guess for this one, being a leader makes it tougher to figureout..which brings me to:

Warlord: This one's got me stumped. A friend suggested maybe a leadership VS warrior role, allowing him to choose a more up front fighter type vs the stands in the back and plans type. I'm stumped on this one.

Ktulu

 

[olshanski]

Warlord:

Tactician vs Strategist?
Tactician: front line person buffs allies up close, (enhanced flanking, tripping, distracting)
Strategist: rear-general who buffs allies at a distance (morale boost, healing, cause fear, intimidate)

 

[Connorsrpg]

As paladins can be of any 'alignment' I doubt that the two you have listed are in.

Perhaps there is the smiting paladin and the staying paladin (increased defences etc).

But that may be unlikely too given the smites were feats (weren't they)?

I am as stumped as you, but I would LOVE to see with divine characters is a build for every deity I am sure that is too much for the PHB, but it would be ideal. I hope ther is not like a 'healer' build, and a 'fighting' build for example, unless there is also build for characters that worship deities interested in neither (Wee Jas and many others).

 

[Lord Xtheth]

I don't know... it seems pretty restrictive to me.

Here's the only 2 types of Rogues you can play... ever

Whatever happened to the charisma rogue? the thinking rogue? or any of the other conceps there are for a character?

Nope, Str, or Dex, the end, sorry

 

[Badkarmaboy]

I don't know... it seems pretty restrictive to me.

Here's the only 2 types of Rogues you can play... ever

Whatever happened to the charisma rogue? the thinking rogue? or any of the other conceps there are for a character?

Nope, Str, or Dex, the end, sorry

I'd say we'll be seeing more build types for classes shortly. Seems like one way to fill out a martial classes book...

 

[Ktulu]

The charisma rogue is covered under the trickster. Most of his abilities are covered under charisma. The brutish rogue covered strength. I think they removed the thinking rogue because, when you think about it, rarely is the rogue represented as "smart" in myth and fantasy literature. He's often the guy who's willing to push the button or get into trouble. He may have a lot of tricks, but he's not usually the well eductated guy.

This is not the case in 3.x. A number of skills the rogue could use (disable divice, Search, knowledges) are all based off intelligence, along with bonus skill points lead you to build a highly intelligent rogue whenever possible.

Removing the heavy need on intelligence allows for the crafty, cunning, yet not overly-smart rogues.

I think we'll see more build options in other books, they're just starting with two for the PH.

Ktulu

 

[mach1.9pants]

I don't know... it seems pretty restrictive to me.

Here's the only 2 types of Rogues you can play... ever

Whatever happened to the charisma rogue? the thinking rogue? or any of the other conceps there are for a character?

Nope, Str, or Dex, the end, sorry

errm the artful dodger IS the charisma Rogue.
But remember BUILDS are optional. Just a set of suggested starting powers, skills, etc for n00bs to know what to do.
People seem to be getting mixed up with Rogue tactics, which is ONE class feature that, admitedly, ties in with the STR Rogue and the CHA Rogue builds. However your powers, the most important part of a Rogue apart from Sneak Attack from what I can see, are not decided by your build but by the player. Follow the build if you want otherwise mix and match to your hearts content.
ps: Builds are optional

 

[Patlin]

I'm thinking the breakdown will be more by attributes than by tool, with each class having a primary attribute and a choice of two secondary.

Rogue was clearly dex and either str or cha (Brawny or Trickster)

guesses:

Fighter: Str and either Con or Dex
Wizard: Int and either Cha or Wis (possibly Dex?)
Cleric: Wis and either Str or Con
Paladin: Cha and either Str or Wis
Ranger: Dex and either Str or Wis
Warlock: Probably Cha, but not sure. Dex or Int for secondaries?
Warlord: Probably Cha, but not sure. Str or Wis for secondaries?

 

[Ktulu]

Thing is, we already know from Races & Classes that the fighter's build is either sword + shield or two-handed weapon. That was clearly stated. Now, if they're going multi-stat, then I'd figure that strength is behind the two handed, and con is behind the sword + shield combo. However, I don't think they'll be setting it up like that, as the fighter will gain his power by the weapons he chooses to master.

 

[Patlin]

Yeah, I'm probably wrong, on further thought... at least mostly. I still think the attribute thing is part of what they're doing, though.