Pax Prime seminar 2012 juicy news!

[Greg K]

I really hope to see classes like Ranger, Assassin, Paladin, Druid, or Monk mean something again. It means unique training, specialized skills, and a certain assumed origin, outlook, or organization that binds them together. Those not interested in such things can still use Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard to build a wide range of "rangery" characters using backgrounds and specialties, but a Ranger (captial R) is something unique and special and should be treated as such.

Unique training and certain assumptions are easy to deal with- make training a requirement for multi-classing after the start.

Organizational ties, outlook and origin are setting issues. Personally, as a DM, I don't want the designers making assumptions on those things.

Furthermore, Fighter with background does not, necessarily, work for me as a Ranger when heavy armor (and even medium if a lot of people get their way and ring, chain, etc. go back to being medium armor) is built into the class. It might work for Aragorn and certain tales of Robin Hood in which he was a nobleman that served in the Crusades. However for other tales of Robin Hood and examples of a ranger, it does not work.

 

[Iosue]

Good point however it does not consider the 10-15 other classes. What if a fighter wants to join the nights watch? Is he barred from it? What about a cleric? organizations seem to make excellent backgrounds. Like the thief background. They are part of the theives guild or at least aware of it and interact with it. A priest, and a knight are also part of an organization too...

But thieves' guilds and churches are just the kind of organization Mearls is talking about. If you're a fighter or a magic-user, can you join the thieves guild? Sure! Does it make you a thief? Not necessarily. If you're a fighter or a thief, can you join a church? Of course! But it doesn't necessarily make you a cleric.

I mean, even the actual example of the Nights Watch. There's a world of difference between Qhorin Halfhand, Benjen Stark, or Yoren, and the riffraff that end up joining, or guys like Sam. Had Eddard Stark taken the black, he would not have suddenly been a Nights Watch ranger in the same sense that the guys who'd essentially grown up in that organization would be.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Furthermore, Fighter with background does not, necessarily, work for me as a Ranger when heavy armor (and even medium if a lot of people get their way and ring, chain, etc. go back to being medium armor) is built into the class. It might work for Aragorn and certain tales of Robin Hood in which he was a nobleman that served in the Crusades. However for other tales of Robin Hood and examples of a ranger, it does not work.

Why does that matter? A high dex makes light armor woek as well as heavy

 

[Remathilis]

So if you are a cleric and you want to join the nights watch you have to multiclass into ranger you are ok with that mechanically. I am not sure I am...

If a Cleric wants to gain the benefits of being part of a RANGER organization, I find it completely acceptable he be a RANGER first...

 

[Ellington]

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.

This could potentially be a dealbreaker for me if it's handled wrong. I'm really not liking the sound of it.

 

[Remathilis]

Unique training and certain assumptions are easy to deal with- make training a requirement for multi-classing after the start.

Organizational ties, outlook and origin are setting issues. Personally, as a DM, I don't want the designers making assumptions on those things.

While any cutthroat with a blade can be an assassin, an Asssassin is trained by a someone currently or formerly associated with the Assassin's Guild. No assassin willingly crosses the Guild without reason, and those that do are never heard from again...

All druids, whatever their race or geographic niche, view themselves as some member of the Druidic Order. The order is generally non-interventionist and most druids feel no particular call to serve the higher order, but when the Grand Druid utters a proclamation, all of them hear it...

Rangers view themselves as a loose fraternity of like minded individuals and tend to view each other as equals. When meeting another of the Fraternity, they tend to spend some time offering advice and news, swapping stories, or in times of need even giving material aid. Being individualists, the latter is rarely needed but if needed, a Ranger feels its his duty to pay the kindness back in some form...

For a Barbarian to experience the Rage, he must first go through a vision quest, usually with the aid of his tribes shaman. The details of such quests are vague, symbolic, and rarely fully understood even by the barbarian, but those who complete the quest find themselves blessed by the Primal Fury itself...

All Paladins, regardless of creed, view themselves as equals and allies. They will put aside religious differences to stop approaching evil, and a paladin knows he can always count on the charity and kindness of another paladin. The saddest day is when a paladin learns one his kind has fallen to darkness and must be destroyed...

Details like this make classes unique and interesting without radical changes to the DMs world.

 

[Vael]

I understand the problem with Rangers and Paladins, what separates them from the core 4? Is there more to being a Ranger than just being a fighter with a nature background a dual-wielding specialization?

So, I grok the problem, I'm just not sure I agree with the solution. Fortunately, it's still early going, and there's plenty of time to change it if it doesn't work.

 

[gyor]

While all fighters can use heavy armour, some fighting styles are designed not use it as default, including the ones best suited for "Rangers" like Archer, who gets leather armour as default equiptment and who will prefer dex over strength.

I wished he'd given an example of a Ranger oragization and mechanics so we have an idea of what he's talking about instead of people making assumptions.

 

[Greg K]

Details like this make classes unique and interesting without radical changes to the DMs world.

No, it depends on the setting and what is appropriate

I can come up with a dozen concepts of trained assassins that not cutthroats and don't involve an assassin's guild. Some of them might be tied an organizations, but others are not.

In my campaign setting, barbarian does not = rage. The raging barbarian as the basis for a class, officially, began in 3e. While, the raging barbarian is found in one or two cultures, I draw my inspiration from 1e in which rage was not a feature and the barbarian comes from one of several cultures that determined the remaining starting weapons and provided extra tertiary "skills" Additional, influence comes from the 2e Fighter kits in the Complete Fighter's and additional kits in the Complete barbarian's handbook .
In my 3e campaign, this translates, to the Unearhed Arcana Barbarian hunter variant with variant weapon styles based upon culture, cultural based weapon groups (see Unearthed Arcana Weapon Groups) and the Unearthed Arcana favored environment replacement for favored enemy.

And, while there are barbarians that rage, then there are the raging "barbarians" from more civilized lands. Urban Barbarians growing up in the back alleys and pubs of slum districts using rage and toughness (they trade out wilderness skills for urban based and lose trap sense in exchange for other features) as well as few nobles that fly into violent rages abandoning technique for fury

Rangers in my current campaign may or may not be organizationally based. Those that are organizationally based include warrior priests of a nature god (they get a bard's spell progression), Robin Hood like nobles leading peasants including 3e Unearthed Arcana wilderness rogues in revolt against a usurper (they get no spells, but rather bonus feats when they would get spells). The remainder are various wilderness types described by some of the kits in the 2e Complete Ranger's Handbook and don't cast spells. The one thing that they all have in common are being light armor warriors (using 3e armor categories), survival and stealth.

Paladins in my current campaign are organization based. They are an all male religious sect serving a single deity (the females are a variant of the OA Shaman).
In another campaign, they were not organization based. They were simply individual religiously devout good warriors good upholding ideals of virtue, purity and goodness and being rewarded by one of the good deities.

Next needs to give me the tools to duplicate all of these without assuming story elements or organizational ties. If it can't, it fails from perspective.

 

[Remathilis]

I can come up with a dozen concepts of trained assassins that not cutthroats and don't involve an assassin's guild. Some of them might be tied an organizations, but others are not.

Fine, but none of them are going to have the training that the Assassin CLASS provides. Some might be fighters or rogues with little regard for human life an a desire to make some coin. They are assassins (the term) but not Assassins (the class). Or perhaps they are; sometime people go rogue and take their training with them. Perhaps they start a rival guild, or train another protoge, or go legit and serves a king. However, everyone knows where that dark knowledge came from, and why every common thug isn't a first level assassin.

In my campaign setting, barbarian does not = rage. The raging barbarian as the basis for a class, officially, began in 3e. While, the raging barbarian is found in one or two cultures, I draw my inspiration from 1e in which rage was not a feature and the barbarian comes from one of several cultures that determined the remaining starting weapons and provided extra tertiary "skills" Additional, influence comes from the 2e Fighter kits in the Complete Fighter's and additional kits in the Complete barbarian's handbook .
In my 3e campaign, this translates, to the Unearhed Arcana Barbarian hunter variant with variant weapon styles based upon culture, cultural based weapon groups (see Unearthed Arcana Weapon Groups) and the Unearthed Arcana favored environment replacement for favored enemy.

And, while there are barbarians that rage, then there are the raging "barbarians" from more civilized lands. Urban Barbarians growing up in the back alleys and pubs of slum districts using rage and toughness (they trade out wilderness skills for urban based and lose trap sense in exchange for other features) as well as few nobles that fly into violent rages abandoning technique for fury

Well, since you've already house ruled and replaced the barbarian that has appeared in two editions of D&D so far, go for a third. I really doubt Barbarian =/= rage in Next.

So why does Barbarian (the class) get rage and not the dozens of people living in the barbarian culture? That's the spirit quest.

As for urban barbarians? Well, sometimes the barbarian seeks out the primal spirit of fury, and sometimes the fury chooses its champion...

Rangers in my current campaign may or may not be organizationally based. Those that are organizationally based include warrior priests of a nature god (they get a bard's spell progression), Robin Hood like nobles leading peasants including 3e Unearthed Arcana wilderness rogues in revolt against a usurper (they get no spells, but rather bonus feats when they would get spells). The remainder are various wilderness types described by some of the kits in the 2e Complete Ranger's Handbook and don't cast spells. The one thing that they all have in common are being light armor warriors (using 3e armor categories), survival and stealth.

Some of them are fighters, rogues, scouts, and such. A RANGER knows one of his his own vs. a common lightly armored warrior or hunter. A ranger is a mindset, an attitude, a common calling to protect and defend the land. He respects others who live by the bounty of the woods, but he knows those who live by the land and those who serve it.

Paladins in my current campaign are organization based. They are an all male religious sect serving a single deity (the females are a variant of the OA Shaman).
In another campaign, they were not organization based. They were simply individual religiously devout good warriors good upholding ideals of virtue, purity and goodness and being rewarded by one of the good deities.

Great, and when they learn of one another, they view each other immediately as friend barring any pressing issue that would change that. Even a paladin of Moradin and a paladin of Correlon respect one another, despite obvious ethical and racial divisions. They'll both team up to smite a demon.

Next needs to give me the tools to duplicate all of these without assuming story elements or organizational ties. If it can't, it fails from perspective.

Step 1: Ignore the fluff in the PHB.
Step 2: Insert your own.
Step 3: Create houserules to make it work (optional).

Done.

Just don't make the default presentation dull as dishwater so as to dilute the terms into having no meaning. I'd much rather change or adapt the notion of rangers as having a common bond or heritage than to have ranger simply be a "archer or dual weilder nature skills" build without point or reason. I'd rather have fluff to change than no fluff at all.