Pax Prime seminar 2012 juicy news!

[Greg K]

Everyone wants CS dice for the other classes, and this is a way to do it.

No, everyone does not. There are several threads here, at WOTC's site and other sites in which people state their dislike for CS. There are also many people that do.

 

[Greg K]

Not only that, but half of 3.X prestige classes *were* organizations. It's just that most people ignored it, and run them as part of their own home campaign, just changing the fluff.

Prestige classes were also an *optional* rule under DM discretion (and most of were a waste of dead trees, in my opinion). On the positive side, being optional, they could be easily ignored unlike Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies which were built into the assumption of mid to high level 4e play.

 

[Greg K]

The names in 5e can be removed just as easy.

My issue is not with names. It is the designers building in mechanics to match that fluff or their specific idea of what the class should be and cut off alternative interpretations. I have, already, mentioned the Draconic Heritage sorcerer and, in 3e, the monk (among other things).

 

[triqui]

My issue is not with names. It is the designers building in mechanics to match that fluff or their specific idea of what the class should be and cut off alternative interpretations. I have, already, mentioned the Draconic Heritage sorcerer and, in 3e, the monk (among other things).

This is one of the problems D&D design team have. They have far too much heritage, and far too much mandates to please everybody. 13th age can go and make a RPG where Icons are part of the game. Pathfinder can center around Golarion, and make mechanics that fit it (like regional feats and backgrounds, or Red Mantis Prestige Class, or Witch Class). D&D can't. They have to both appease people who want the game being a Universal Generic Fantasy System with no fluff or flavor at all, and to those who demand not breaking any of the heritage backgrounds done before.

I truly pity them. What a good game they could do, if it wasn't labeled D&D

 

[gyor]

At the moment, I and the people that I know have no interest in buying it. In its current form, we don't even want to playtest it. It does not seem like the design team as learned much from the OGL or even some of their own more recent games. We are hoping that those things will appear in modules. Beyond that, the cleric, in our opinion, still sucks in comparison to the 2e Specialty Priest. We are, however, willing to give feedback on design decisons and aesthetics in hopes that the game will shape up into something we will want to buy and play.




The only TSR/ WOTC settings that I like are Al Qadim, Darksun (original boxed set), Ravenloft, early Greyhawk (gazeteer and boxed set) and the Forgotten Realms (1e boxed set with some of the 2e setting stuff), and Mystara (minus the tortles). I won't touch Planescape, Spelljammer, Eberron, 4e Forgotten Realms, or the 4e default setting



I am happy to tailor provided they make it easy to do. I don't want the hassle of having to fix their fluff when they start building default mechanical assumptions around it and it starts cutting off viable concepts, because the designers took the fluff and associated mechanics too far (I went that route with the first three editions and am done with it). The Draconic Heritage for the sorcerer is a great example, The designers decided it should be a gish and built into it additional training in armor all weapons and an additional +1 weapon bonus. By doing so, they have cut off the option for those that might draw inspiration from other fantasy sources and find a non-gish draconic heritage sorcerer to be an interesting concept. Essentially, the designers gave a big screw you to that player and many DMs by not providing an option to compensate the non-gish with something else more "sorcery" rebalance the heritage.

Edit: The Monk in 1e and 3e is another example of designer fluff and mechanics getting in the way. With 3e I saw the ability to customize the Fighter and thought it was a wonderful. Then, I flipped to the monk and was severely disappointed that we did not get the same ability to customize the monk (Unearthed Arcana in 3.5 gave some customization with fighting styles, but we were still stuck with a base class with too many prescribed abilities that did not fit various individuals version of a monk).

I believe in another thread that they plan on,giving guidelines and help for refluffing classes and the like.

 

[Sadrik]

Rather than go in and reply to everyone.
The ranger (and other classes) had better have a mechanical thing that makes them good and worth it the tacked on story does not matter, I see that as transient or worse getting in the way of the class potential (sorcerer and warlock are both this way). I also think like the example class someone posted of the ranger does not go far enough. Really so they get a bonus on a couple of skills and that is their big thing (perception and tracking)? And they are accustomed to being stuck in one environment or dealing with one creature type? No we need a broader base for this class if it is going to work.

If the designers are looking at making 4 broad customizable classes and 8-12 niche classes with already plugged in storyline. IDK, my acceptance will be in the pudding.

So without shooting down ideas and offering none of my own, the ranger can be the smart (INT based) warrior. Gobble up the warlord and the ranger and have a pretty good class that can stand on its own. Many roles need to be applied not just a guy from the forest in an organization that you may or may not like...

Themes I want to plug into the ranger:
Investigator (skilled warrior with a keen eye for details)
Bounty Hunter (tracker and lots of skills)
Military Tactician (understand environment and how to lead)
Dragon/Demon/Giant/Undead/Witch Hunter (knowledge of these beasts and how to slay them)
Assassin (Can fit here or elsewhere but a ranger would be a good one)
Van Helsing (Undead lore master with smarts and know how)
Captain of the city watch (leader who is sharp with lots of knowledge of the city and its environment)
Savage woodsman (hermit in a cabin way too far out, but knows how to survive)
Explorer (knowledge of different environments and maps and survival and how to address new cultures and their customs)
Sailor (knowledge of the sea and navigatining its waters and sea creatures and many other skills, perhaps a captain with leadership qualities)
Swashbuckler (being smart and witty never looked as good as being a ranger with a rapier and dagger)

 

[VinylTap]

No, everyone does not. There are several threads here, at WOTC's site and other sites in which people state their dislike for CS. There are also many people that do.

That's why a more robust version of the sub-classes are likely to appear in later supplements. I think you'll get what you want, just not quite as quickly as the four core.

 

[Sadrik]

This is one of the problems D&D design team have. They have far too much heritage, and far too much mandates to please everybody. 13th age can go and make a RPG where Icons are part of the game. Pathfinder can center around Golarion, and make mechanics that fit it (like regional feats and backgrounds, or Red Mantis Prestige Class, or Witch Class). D&D can't. They have to both appease people who want the game being a Universal Generic Fantasy System with no fluff or flavor at all, and to those who demand not breaking any of the heritage backgrounds done before.

I truly pity them. What a good game they could do, if it wasn't labeled D&D

It truly is not that hard. This is a have your cake and eat it too situation. They will publish settings. Settings can provide rules for specific settings. Or better options books. For the core books though I do not want to see setting specific material.

 

[GX.Sigma]

They never could and never will.

They need to figure out what the class' place in the world is, so they can design for it. Otherwise, as it has been said countless times in this thread already, a lightly armoured fighty guy with two swords and a bow can easily be a Fighter. You don't need a Ranger class if it can be mechanically entirely represented by something else.

The fact they're trying to find the Ranger an unique niche, an identity of your own does in no way determine your character's story.

I was only talking about the Sorcerer, which has always been represented mechanically and flavorfully differently from the Wizard. Sorcerers are already different from wizards, and there are plenty existing sorcerer characters who are different from wizards, and do not have a second soul or whatever.

I agree with the ranger, paladin, Druid, and bard; but I think the sorcerer shouldn't be as story-specific as them. It should be as generic as Wizard, because it can fit into basically any setting.

 

[fba827]

I was only talking about the Sorcerer, which has always been represented mechanically and flavorfully differently from the Wizard. Sorcerers are already different from wizards, and there are plenty existing sorcerer characters who are different from wizards, and do not have a second soul or whatever.

I agree with the ranger, paladin, Druid, and bard; but I think the sorcerer shouldn't be as story-specific as them. It should be as generic as Wizard, because it can fit into basically any setting.

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 socrerer class?