PC Roles (New Design and Development Article)

[GreatLemur]

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.

 

[Mercule]

A problem with the ranger has always been: how do you differentiate him from the fighter, barb and druid. In 3E the druid has shapeshifting and lots of spells, so that's not too hard. But a barb makes a handy lightly-armoured woodsman-warrior in a pinch, so a nonspellcasting ranger is likely to run into niche identification issues.

Then drop the barbarian. I don't see any reason to include both barbarian and ranger in the PHB. Swap out rage for either favored enemy or combat styles and trap sense/DR for a couple more skill points and you have the ranger archetype I'm looking for. (Oh, and ditch the illiteracy.)

Heck, make rage and favored enemy/environment just options in the combat style tree and you can handle the entire gamut of concepts. Seriously, that is what the ranger should be. It also opens up a niche that the scout fits into nicely.

If they make the ranger look any more like the scout, I hope they change the name, too.

 

[hong]

Eh, the barb is the perfect class for new/casual players who just want to jump in and kill monsters. No complex feat chains or bonus feats to optimise; no spells; no nothing. The only chargen decision is which big weapon to use, and the only tactical decision is which round to rage. Heck, it's even perfectly in-character a lot of the time.

 

[Mercule]

My wife, an experienced (if casual) gamer, is having a royal pain with her barbarian. The rage modifiers to strength, con, how to modify her hps and attack bonuses, etc. are annoying. She's found her 4th level barbarian more frustrating than her 12th level dwarven cleric (which she didn't have any problems with).

 

[hong]

My wife, an experienced (if casual) gamer, is having a royal pain with her barbarian. The rage modifiers to strength, con, how to modify her hps and attack bonuses, etc. are annoying. She's found her 4th level barbarian more frustrating than her 12th level dwarven cleric (which she didn't have any problems with).

Then your wife is an anomaly. Rage -> +2 to attack, +3 damage (with a 2-handed weapon), +2x level hp. Just write it down once, and apply as necessary.

 

[Mercule]

Then your wife is an anomaly. Rage -> +2 to attack, +3 damage (with a 2-handed weapon), +2x level hp. Just write it down once, and apply as necessary.

Fair enough. She probably is anomalous in a number of ways.

Still, I thought the point of giving the Fighter the "complex feat chains" was because to class was particularly supposed to be a newbie class. So, the reason to keep barbarian is to have a newbie class? That doesn't make sense.

If you want an easy to play class, ala barbarian, my suggestion still allows that. Just take the Rage combat style. Now, you have a barbarian. So, I don't get your objection.

 

[hong]

Still, I thought the point of giving the Fighter the "complex feat chains" was because to class was particularly supposed to be a newbie class. So, the reason to keep barbarian is to have a newbie class? That doesn't make sense.

I don't recall the designers ever saying that the (3E) fighter was supposed to be a newbie class. People just assumed that because it was the simplest class in 1/2E, that would carry over.

If you want an easy to play class, ala barbarian, my suggestion still allows that. Just take the Rage combat style. Now, you have a barbarian. So, I don't get your objection.

The barb, as a self-contained class, is much more easily identifiable _and_ addresses an important metagame issue. This can be contrasted with the ranger, for which you can get 21 nontrivially different versions if you ask 20 different D&D geeks. (Pity the 3E alt.ranger website is now dead, or I could actually point you to ~2 dozen alt.ranger classes collected in one place.)

 

[Henry]

I don't recall the designers ever saying that the (3E) fighter was supposed to be a newbie class. People just assumed that because it was the simplest class in 1/2E, that would carry over.

Very true, IMO. The fighter went from being the simplest class, to the maybe second or third-most complicated class to play. The optimal newbie choice used to be "Human Fighter". In 3E it became "half-orc barbarian."

 

[Mercule]

I don't recall the designers ever saying that the (3E) fighter was supposed to be a newbie class. People just assumed that because it was the simplest class in 1/2E, that would carry over.

Exactly. They said they didn't want there to be a default newbie class anymore.

Rereading my post, it looks like I left out a word or two. I blame the Internet.

 

[Wormwood]

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 wouldn't even dare to dream such a miracle.