Pax Prime seminar 2012 juicy news!

[slobster]

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.

Yes, but the designers won't be able to make a comprehensive list of every possible way that you could use a class in its description.

Giving a representative example of how to use a class, which is firmly rooted in fantasy tropes and D&D history, seems like a good compromise solution. GMs can and will come up with interesting things about classes that no game designer could anticipate, but that's the great thing about P&PRPGs. The rule book is a starting point, not a straitjacket.

 

[Scipio202]

In the panel they were very explicit that they are making no assumptions that anything beyond the 4 major classes and 4 major races would show up in the same way (or show up at all) in all D&D settings (and therefore they want the core 4 to be very flexible and encompassing). They talked about it mostly in the sense of wanting to think about how a class operates in the world, and that they are in the core creating a default starting point, but that they intend to give DMs advice and guidance about how to adapt any particular class to their setting.

 

[Greg K]

Fine, but none of them are going to have the training that the Assassin CLASS provides.

What does it provide? Stealth, deception (bluff and, maybe, disguise), knowing where to strike to kill, breaking in places and dealing with traps, and poison.
In one culture's legends, there were, supposedly, beautiful women (if I recall, correctly, they were noble women) trained in most if not all of these things. These women were sent to enemy generals as prizes of war and would assassinate the generals. Sounds like trained assassins without all the guild stuff.

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.

Actually, I have only house ruled one edition. I have not house ruled 4e, I refused to purchase or play it after borrowing some books and reading through it (Part of the reason was all of the house rules I would have had to implement). But yes, I would have house ruled the 4e barbarian starting with banning all of the elemental powers

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.

There is no reason that it has to be that

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

Nope, the designers should make it easy. Having a lightly armored warrior class trained with various weapons, stealth and armor, makes it easy to adapt to a number of concepts. If they create too much "story" and build mechanical features in to back it up then they risk creating too much work. And since 3e with their supplements, I tend not to like WOTC's fluff or mechanics built around it. Easier just not to buy another edition rather than trying to "fix" it.

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.

My concern as noted above is they risk building in too many mechanics to back up the fluff making it too specific (draconic heritage sorcerer as gishes and even sorcerer manifestation itself).
The only reason that I ended up running 3e was Unearthed Arcana and some of the third party products that helped me to tailor classes by providing examples or provided me with classes to fit missing niches in a manner that I liked. Without those supplements, I would have liked much of the core 3e core mechanics and changes, but never ran or played it.

 

[Greg K]

In the panel they were very explicit that they are making no assumptions that anything beyond the 4 major classes and 4 major races would show up in the same way (or show up at all) in all D&D settings (and therefore they want the core 4 to be very flexible and encompassing). They talked about it mostly in the sense of wanting to think about how a class operates in the world, and that they are in the core creating a default starting point, but that they intend to give DMs advice and guidance about how to adapt any particular class to their setting.

And my first thought went straight to the draconic sorcerer heritage at which point I rolled my eyes. I don't trust this design team at this point on their plans for the classes beyond the 4 major classes.

 

[Greg K]

Yes, but the designers won't be able to make a comprehensive list of every possible way that you could use a class in its description.

I agree. However, they can be careful about how far they go in the fluff and building in mechanical assumptions tso they don't cut off viable concepts or force people to squint carefully to make it work.

The first offender, in my opinion, is the draconic heritage sorcerer (and even the sorcerer manifestation, but we will wait to see the other options given).

 

[CM]

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

I understand where you are coming from, but I feel that class is the wrong tool for the job here. Theme, prestige class, background, ANYTHING else.

The only alternative I see is that we'll be have a plethora of classes again, like 4e (which I do not oppose).

 

[The Shadow]

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.

Giving a representative example of how to use a class, which is firmly rooted in fantasy tropes and D&D history, seems like a good compromise solution. GMs can and will come up with interesting things about classes that no game designer could anticipate, but that's the great thing about P&PRPGs. The rule book is a starting point, not a straitjacket.

I agree with both of you. The core four basically need no introduction; the fighter and the rogue are very generic concepts, and the cleric and wizard have become familiar to multiple generations of D&D players.

Classes beyond those need to have some sort of niche to indicate where to fit them in. Like Remathilis said, you can always change it... But if the ranger really has no role beyond 'lightly armored woodsy fighter', then it should just be a fighter. If it's to be a class, it needs a role of its own.

I think people are reading way too much into the draconic sorcerer, too. It's not like if you fluff your sorcerer as having dragon blood, that you have to say he has 'draconic bloodline' in the sense of the class we currently have. Just take a different sorcerous origin and fluff it as dragon blood. What's the problem?

Basically, the draconic bloodline sorcerer we have is one example of how to do it. They explicitly said they'd include advice and examples of how to build your own bloodlines, pacts, domains, and so on!

 

[GX.Sigma]

Re: Story specific non-core-4 classes

I agree with some of this. On the one hand, I've always seen "the druids" and "the paladins" as setting-specific classes that belonged in a Greyhawk supplement rather than the core (as they originally were). So it's good to see that they're embracing that specificity, rather than making them generic to the point where they're not druids and paladins. A DM can say there are no druids in his world, but you can still be a nature-domain cleric. A DM can say there are no rangers in his world, but you can still be a woodsy fighter.

On the other hand, I really don't want (e.g.) the sorcerer to be too narrow, because that's not a setting-specific thing, and I really don't want WotC to tell me what my character's story is.

 

[Phaezen]

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...

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.

What Iosue said, a single class ranger would represent someone who received all his training from the Night's watch, say for example someone who was sent to the wall for his crimes as a teenager. Someone Like Jon Snow would likely be a fighter/ranger reflecting his training he received before taking the black. Some of the Night's watch would have no levels in ranger at all.

SO single class ranger (paladin/druid/assassin/whatever) would be the most typical member of the organisation, but that does not preclude members from other classes joining it and being held to any alignment and code restrictions for being a member.

 

[Remathilis]

Nope, the designers should make it easy. Having a lightly armored warrior class trained with various weapons, stealth and armor, makes it easy to adapt to a number of concepts. If they create too much "story" and build mechanical features in to back it up then they risk creating too much work. And since 3e with their supplements, I tend not to like WOTC's fluff or mechanics built around it. Easier just not to buy another edition rather than trying to "fix" it.

I really hate going here, but don't buy it then. Apparently, you are fine with heavily modifying previous editions of D&D to suit your needs and playstyle, but draw the line at Next requiring house rules to make your campaign work? Maybe WotC should call you up and ask for all your house rules so they can print them in the book, too?

I've played D&D in a variety of settings. Generic. Ravenloft, Planescape, Eberron, etc. I've always tailored my selection of classes and their origins to the game and campaign. I enjoy doing it. I'd much rather have a "default" assumption to fix than a bland, flavorless build called ranger with no meaning or purpose. Cuthbert! If we're going to do that, then just make the damn game classless already. I'd rather point-buy a character than have 20 classes that amount to "rage dude, archer dude, singer dude, heally dude, etc"