PC Roles (New Design and Development Article)

[hong]

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.

Cite please? I can see that they wanted there to be more options in combat. I don't see how that necessarily rules out a class for people who want to jump in and kill monsters with a minimum of fuss. Even Iron Heroes, which puts lots of emphasis on mixing up combat, has a berserker class which isn't that different to the D&D barbarian.

 

[szilard]

I responded to this in my blog this morning. In general, I am not entirely sure why they didn't get rid of buffing altogether.

-Stuart

 

[Mercule]

Cite please?

Don't remember where. It was toward the beginnings of 3E. Either way, I don't see the barbarian as being particularly archetypal. Nor should the barbarian being a beginner class mean that we can't combine two classes that have significant overlap.

Man, trying to discuss something with you is one pointless tangent after another.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Cite please? I can see that they wanted there to be more options in combat. I don't see how that necessarily rules out a class for people who want to jump in and kill monsters with a minimum of fuss. Even Iron Heroes, which puts lots of emphasis on mixing up combat, has a berserker class which isn't that different to the D&D barbarian.

Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not nearly as involved with Iron Heroes as I'd like - but isn't one of the Harrier, Weapon Master, or Man-At-Arms considered more of a noob class than the token-happy Berserker? This might be an old perception, of course, but I'm certain there`s been discussion to that effect.

 

[hong]

Don't remember where. It was toward the beginnings of 3E. Either way, I don't see the barbarian as being particularly archetypal. Nor should the barbarian being a beginner class mean that we can't combine two classes that have significant overlap.

Oh, you were talking about _3E_. Heck, I can't remember anything about the designers not wanting a newbie class then, either. Which is, in fact, close to what I said above: people ASSUMED a given class was a newbie class, in the absence of any statement from the designers one way or another. And whatever the designers may or may not have wanted or said, the _fact_ is that the barbarian is still the 3E class that's overall best suited for newbies.

Now whether they want to carry this over to 4E is something else, but it's still a point in favour of keeping the barb around as a distinct class.

Man, trying to discuss something with you is one pointless tangent after another.

And this is a bad thing because...?

 

[hong]

Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not nearly as involved with Iron Heroes as I'd like - but isn't one of the Harrier, Weapon Master, or Man-At-Arms considered more of a noob class than the token-happy Berserker? This might be an old perception, of course, but I'm certain there`s been discussion to that effect.

The weapon master is a gimped class. The big BAB looks good at first glance, but +5 over the course of 20 levels doesn't really compare to the lack of feats or standout abilities (weapon tokens have the disadvantage that by the time you've got enough to do anything fancy, your target is probably close to dead already).

The MAA is basically a fighter with even more feats, and the added complexity of feats that you choose at runtime (and have to meet the prereqs for). Although the simplified structure of IH feat chains does make it easier to use than the D&D fighter.

The harrier is probably one of the easier IH classes to play: no tokens to worry about, and it's awesomely powerful if given room to move. The idea of gaining bonuses by counting squares might be offputting to newbies, though.

 

[breschau]

New PC roles article: "Unlike their 3e counterparts, every Leader class in the new edition is designed to provide their ally-benefits and healing powers without having to use so many of their own actions in the group-caretaker mode. A cleric who wants to spend all their actions selflessly will eventually be able to accomplish that, but a cleric who wants to mix it up in melee or fight from the back rank with holy words and holy symbol attacks won’t constantly be forced to put aside their damage-dealing intentions. A certain amount of healing flows from the Leader classes even when they opt to focus on slaying their enemies directly."

According to the PC roles video, the Druid is just as good of a healer as the Cleric, making the Druid a leader, not a controller.

Druid (divine leader).
Bard (arcane leader).

But, there's still nothing to confirm either as being in PHB1.

We're still sitting on Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard for the four we know are in. I agree that they should put in two classes from each role.

Fighter (martial defender), Paladin (divine defender).
Cleric (divine leader), Warlord (martial leader).
Rogue (martial striker), Ranger (divine striker).
Wizard (arcane controller), ? (x controller).

However, I don't think that the other controller will be the Sorcerer as per the PC roles video, which stated that the Wizard's and Sorcerer's roles are different. Personally, I'm leaning for a Socerer that's an arcane striker, but, we still don't know.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

I personally think a better solution that keeping the barbarian around as a noob class (not to mention keeping the barbarian as a class at all - do we get a Greek Citizen class too? Roman plebe? Norman serf? Barbarian is a judgment, not a job) is to make all classes equally attractive and comprehensible to noobs in the low levels, while giving plenty of neat toys to play with going forward. You don't learn a game by dodging as many rules as possible.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

The weapon master is a gimped class. The big BAB looks good at first glance, but +5 over the course of 20 levels doesn't really compare to the lack of feats or standout abilities (weapon tokens have the disadvantage that by the time you've got enough to do anything fancy, your target is probably close to dead already).

The MAA is basically a fighter with even more feats, and the added complexity of feats that you choose at runtime (and have to meet the prereqs for). Although the simplified structure of IH feat chains does make it easier to use than the D&D fighter.

The harrier is probably one of the easier IH classes to play: no tokens to worry about, and it's awesomely powerful if given room to move. The idea of gaining bonuses by counting squares might be offputting to newbies, though.

Fair enough on all three counts, though isn't "lack of feats and standout abilities" exactly why the barbarian was considered a noob class? I know a lot of new players (who are going to turn into serious non-annoyance players, anyway) I've seen aren't worried about being the biggest bad-ass on the team, just getting the chance to learn the rules and play this cool game they discovered.

 

[szilard]

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.

I could easily see Rage turning into a set of Talent Tree options for a ranger-like class. Other options might include something like skirmish or combat styles.

-Stuart