PC Roles (New Design and Development Article)

[Rechan]

If the Ranger got Arcane spells, wouldn't that essentially make him a Gish with a decent hide and spot?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If the Ranger got Arcane spells, wouldn't that essentially make him a Gish with a decent hide and spot?

Only if he's a githyanki.

 

[Masquerade]

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.

I'm going to have to disagree on that one. In the fantasy setting implied by D&D, a hired killer without spells would have a very difficult time competing financially against one who could, say, turn invisible.

 

[fuindordm]

I find it hard to believe that they would have only one Arcane character class, and they have referred to the Sorcerer/warlock as distinct.

I would be really disappointed if they limited themselve to eight classes, though. The Druid has always been distinct from the cleric, and its unique talents should not be available to other clerics. You've got wild shape, elemental spells to rival a wizard's, unique animal-related abilities... it's not the same as a cleric with the Fire/Earth/Animal/Plant domains!

I agree with others that the Ranger is better served as a mundane (martial) class--but that's probably not going to happen since that would make four martials. Given:

Divine: Cleric (leader), Druid (controller), Paladin (defender)
Arcane: Bard (leader), Wizard (controller), Sorcerer (striker)
Martial: Warlord (leader), Fighter (defender), Rogue (striker)

I really don't know where the ranger fits. Or even if it should fit. Given that the classes seem to be defined more in terms of their combat role than their non-combat role, is the ranger really different enough from a rogue to justify being included? The scout's ambush damage, for example, works great as a rogue talent tree. Favored enemy could be a talent tree for almost anyone.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Is anybody else thinking that "holy words and holy symbol attacks" might mean that 4E Clerics don't exactly cast spells? I would love the hell out of that.

I'll take one of those please!

(Martial maneuvers, Arcane spells, Divine prayers. Or something like that.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

If the druid is not going to appear in PHB1, I'd like to see them hold off on the ranger as well. Let them both appear in a future PHB with a "nature/naturalistic/shamanistic" power source, similar to, but distinct from, the divine power source on which clerics and paladins draw.

And while I don't mind the druid being a good healer, I agree that I like them conceptually better as controllers than leaders.

 

[Irda Ranger]

If the Ranger got Arcane spells, wouldn't that essentially make him a Gish with a decent hide and spot?

Pretty much. That's the problem with some classes - they're really just mixes of the "pure examples." In this case the Ranger is being presented as a Fighter/Druid with a dash of Rogue.

If the Ranger's going to be a good Core class in 4e, he's going to need powers that are unique and "fun and fair" to play from levels 1-30. I actually think the best thing to happen to the Ranger is the Fighter gaining maneuvers from Bo9S. This allows the Ranger to be given some really cool stuff without out-shining the Fighter (as was the case in 2e).

Me, I was never really comfortable with the Ranger using Divine spells. I guess there are no secular/agnostic Rangers? That bothers me, for some reason. I'd rather that a Ranger that wants spells to be supported with solid Multi-class mechanics, and maybe a few "powers" he gains through his understanding of the natural world.

 

[grimslade]

Me, I was never really comfortable with the Ranger using Divine spells. I guess there are no secular/agnostic Rangers? That bothers me, for some reason. I'd rather that a Ranger that wants spells to be supported with solid Multi-class mechanics, and maybe a few "powers" he gains through his understanding of the natural world.

A secular or agnostic ranger is a fighter, barbarian or rogue with the right feat and skill choices. The scout was a pretty close representation but was too weak a combatant. I would have been comfortable with the ranger not being in the initial 4E PHB.

The ranger needs a better defined schtick. Archer is a one I suppose, but the toe to toe TWF is out of place. Hit and run tactics, ambushing, and stealth are all hallmarks of the rogue but fit the ranger too. Woodcraft is a solid trait but easily duplicated by feats and skills. Maybe they are masters of using the terrain/environment in a fight? I don't have any good answers.
The divine spells work for me over arcane. I always thought of rangers as shamanistic in their reverance for the land. No religion or deities just an attunement to the natural world. Arcane magic always seems invasive and manipulative to me.

 

[Mercule]

If the druid is not going to appear in PHB1, I'd like to see them hold off on the ranger as well. Let them both appear in a future PHB with a "nature/naturalistic/shamanistic" power source, similar to, but distinct from, the divine power source on which clerics and paladins draw.

I could buy into that idea, so long as the ranger's method of tapping into the "nature" source is differenciated from that of the druid. Rangers are definitely people able to effectively tap into the natural world -- I just think they tend to do so as a means, not an end in itself (which is what would get them in hot water with druids).

 

[Irda Ranger]

Hit and run tactics, ambushing, and stealth are all hallmarks of the rogue but fit the ranger too. Woodcraft is a solid trait but easily duplicated by feats and skills. Maybe they are masters of using the terrain/environment in a fight? I don't have any good answers.

Possibly. I was originally thinking of the Hunter from Iron Heroes, specifically a Hunter with maxed out specialization in the Beast Lore Feat Mastery chain. It's pretty rocking, and a solid character build - except that it's not a striker. It's a Leader / Controller type.

All the same, Mearls did write Iron Heroes, so I am looking at the Beast Lore feats for ideas of where he may take the Ranger. They're all good.

They should add in some Herbal Lore and minor healing though.

The divine spells work for me over arcane. I always thought of rangers as shamanistic in their reverance for the land. No religion or deities just an attunement to the natural world. Arcane magic always seems invasive and manipulative to me.

Shamanistic works for me - the problem is the flavor text, I guess. The books always seemed to push the Ranger as a "fighting priest of Sylvannus", or whoever, and not someone who simply know about the lifeforce of the world.