PC Roles (New Design and Development Article)

[Rechan]

I think that you will see most of the differentiation in their talents.
Rangers will have talents that increase tracking and survival as well as racial and terrain bonuses, the skirmish ability and so on. Whereas Rogues will have advantages in flanking and sneak attack damage, and so on..

Not to be rude, but since when has Survival and Tracking been that pivotal in more than one or two adventures?

I understand "We travel over there and over here", but around mid levels, parties are teleporting and such. Very rarely are they going to be in a position were a Survival tree is very Useful. This would have to encompass sneaking/stalking targets/hiding in the wilderness, essentially. Which would likely be handled in the Favored Terrain-type ability.

Sure the Ranger is supposed to be the l33t woodsman, but it's the same reason the Fighter getting a Smithing talent tree would be obsolete. Aside from a few situations and a few people who want to play Forager man, it's wasted paper.

 

[frankthedm]

The wizards have a Wizard Strike ability going on. It seems it can push people around on the battlefield. My guess Wizard Strike is an at will ability so that the wizard can control the battlefield.

My guess is wizards get that as a defensive ability to knock the foe away from them. Less 'control the field', more "Get it away from me!"

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

My guess is wizards get that as a defensive ability to knock the foe away from them. Less 'control the field', more "Get it away from me!"

Maybe it's how they avoid attacks of opportunity when casting.

 

[Mercule]

Why are folk so gung-ho about the Ranger being a divine striker? I thought one of the biggest gripes ABOUT the ranger is that they are divine-based in the first place.

Myself, I agree. I've always viewed rangers as either civilized people who choose the wilderness or tribal folk with a martial focus. Either way, they are lightly armored warriors who get tough by enduring the elements and are generally hard to kill because of it. They are also extremely resourceful, which explains the skills and the spells. They don't get spells because they like fluffy bunnies, though -- it's because they look for any advantage in their struggles. If 4E has effective multiclassing between casters and non-casters, I think the ranger's spells would be best left to multiclassing and the option of the player.

There seem to be a fair number of people who look at the ranger as either glorified scouts or the homocidal hippies, though.

Personally, I figure the best time to use a ranger as a scout is if you're explicitly planning on killing something. Otherwise lead it to the rogues. IMO, rangers are more likely to be at odds with a druid than be their buddies.

 

[Rechan]

Myself, I agree. I've always viewed rangers as either civilized people who choose the wilderness or tribal folk with a martial focus. Either way, they are lightly armored warriors who get tough by enduring the elements and are generally hard to kill because of it. They are also extremely resourceful, which explains the skills and the spells.

Given that they are divine spells, I would expect them to have some sort of connection with something beyond them. Just being "resourceful" doesn't cut it. It doesn't explain why Assassins get spells. Knowing how to murder someone real good doesn't translate to arcane power.

 

[Mercule]

Given that they are divine spells, I would expect them to have some sort of connection with something beyond them. Just being "resourceful" doesn't cut it. It doesn't explain why Assassins get spells. Knowing how to murder someone real good doesn't translate to arcane power.

And, that's why I think the wrong set of spells was dropped between 1E and 2E. They should have kept the magic-user spells and dumped the druid list.

The biggest issue with that was that, because they didn't have "ranger" spells and instead relied on lists from other classes, the ranger ended up associated with the only class that had spells that excelled in the wilds. It would have been great if 2E had said "rangers cast druid spells as arcane magic".

Assassins get spells because they study them. That's the same reason a "resourceful" ranger would have them -- he studied them.

As I said before, though, my preferrence would be to see rangers lose all their spells and have really solid multiclassing rules in 4E. That way, I can have my ranger, you can have yours, and the player in my group who loves rangers but hates spellcasters can have hers.

The spells aren't really what define the ranger, anyway. It's the fact that they are pretty darn good fighters.

 

[el-remmen]

Feat choice. Fighters are complicated to build, without gimping yourself.

Your character's potency really depends on what supplements you have available to you and how well you combo your feats.

So the non-core fighter in a game where optimization is the key to success can be complicated?

I don't think that makes the fighter class complicated.

 

[Jhaelen]

Not to be rude, but since when has Survival and Tracking been that pivotal in more than one or two adventures?

I understand "We travel over there and over here", but around mid levels, parties are teleporting and such. Very rarely are they going to be in a position were a Survival tree is very Useful.

Unless things are different in 4th.ed. Since one of their stated goals is to extend the sweet spot, I can easily see teleport-like powers being at the very end of the 30 level spectrum. At that point rangers might be able to use the survival skill to adapt to adverse planar traits, for example.

Since the Ranger kills the Scout and takes his stuff, I think chances are, they'll lose their spell-casting abilities in exchange.

It really would be cool if clerics were no longer spell-casters. Or maybe, more similar in style to the 3e warlock? It certainly would help to save some precious space in the PHB if it only contained arcane spells.

My guess for the missing 8th class is still the sorcerer (arcane controller).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Assassins get spells because they study them. That's the same reason a "resourceful" ranger would have them -- he studied them.

That's something that needs to go in 4E -- assassin spells. Bloody silly idea.

I'd like to see assassin become a viable rogue path with good feat/talent choices, rather than making it a core class or a prestige class.

Ranger spells: mixed feelings. The ranger had them in 1E, and I liked the flavor then, though I feel he is best served as a wilderness warrior with abilities that don't draw on spells. But if he has to keep spells, I'd prefer arcane spells that lack a spell failure chance rather tan divine spells, if only to distinguish the ranger from the paladin.

 

[Gundark]

So if limited to 8 PHB classes I'd vote:

Fighter (martial defender)
Cleric (divine leader)
Wizard (arcane controller)
Rogue (martial striker)
Paladin (divine defender)
Warlord (martial leader)
Druid (divine controller)
Ranger (divine striker)

.

I like this arangement