Rule of 3. May 8th

[Shadeydm]

Love #2's implication of large amounts of customization including priest domains.

Wary about #3's implication that the ranger is supposed to be the best at archery.

Agreed on number 2 but number 3 didn't say the ranger would be the best at archery (we already know the fighter is the best archer in the realm) it said the ranger would be better than the cleric.

 

[Minigiant]

Agreed on number 2 but number 3 didn't say the ranger would be the best at archery (we already know the fighter is the best archer in the realm) it said the ranger would be better than the cleric.

Yes. It sounds like the rogue and ranger are better sneaks and archers than the cleric. But the fighter is the best archer.

Fighter > Ranger > Rogue > Cleric (Sharpshooter) > Everyone else in terms of archery

Rogue > Ranger = Monk = Assassin = Bard > Cleric (Shadow) > Everyone else in terms of sneakiness

Fighter= Monk > Ranger = Paladin = Barbarian > Cleric (Fist???) > Everyone else in terms of unarmed

You know, I think all the warrior classes have the same Base Attack but the fighter has +1 to make them better.

 

[Bluenose]

Agreed on number 2 but number 3 didn't say the ranger would be the best at archery (we already know the fighter is the best archer in the realm) it said the ranger would be better than the cleric.

Actually it said that the ranger and rogue would probably be better archers/sneaks. And that the cleric will be Very Good at those things. I think we've been this way before, where some classes get to jump into a niche, be a little inferior to the classes that specialise in that niche, and have a whole niche of their own which others don't get to play in.

 

[concjo]

The main problem I see with all these character build options is that there will a big effectiveness gap between a character with the mechanically best theme, background, domain, and other class options, and a character with the worst.

Agreed that there's a potential for that. However, I think there's a potential for it regardless of how they build the classes if they allow flexibility. You could take a paladin with a low dex and uses a bow with zero bow related skills/feats and he would suck at it compared to a ranger. BUT if you had a character in mind that wants to do that regardless of power level, it's still available. That part I like.

 

[Dausuul]

#1: Excellent. I hope this puts an end (fat chance, but a man can dream) to speculation that the playtest is going to be just a token gesture, or that Monte Cook left because they were rushing D&DN into production.

#2: Also excellent. The more I thought about it, the more I couldn't see any justification for a separate priest class. There's only so much design space in the middle of the spectrum between "melee warrior" and "divine caster." If priests were going to take the "divine caster" end, clerics and paladins would be left fighting over the scraps in the middle. Let the cleric be a divine caster with some melee options, leaving the paladin to be the main battle tank of God.

#3: Nothing interesting or unexpected here. It's the obvious answer. Whether it works out in practice remains to be seen.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The more I thought about it, the more I couldn't see any justification for a separate priest class. There's only so much design space in the middle of the spectrum between "melee warrior" and "divine caster." If priests were going to take the "divine caster" end, clerics and paladins would be left fighting over the scraps in the middle.

I am on your page, here. The game hasn't really felt the pressing need for a "priest" class for 30+ years, I don't think it's really something that the game needs to have. Laser Clerics fit snugly under the domain of "clerics."

 

[thecasualoblivion]

What are you doing to make sure that the cleric and other magic users don't step on the toes of the other classes? If a cleric can be sneaky and use a bow, what place does the ranger or rogue have?

It's important to remember when talking about competence in particular areas that there is a distinction between being good at something and being the best at something. We want to make sure that each character class shines in certain arenas, and as a result while you might build a cleric who can sneak and use a bow (to use your example), and your cleric might be very good at those things, the ranger or rogue will probably still be better. We want to give plenty of flexibility for people to be able to build the characters they want to build, that are good at the things they want them to be good at, while still providing ways for all the classes to have certain realms in which they are the best.

Taken at its word, this comment completely misses the point of CoDzilla and 3E's caster balance disaster. The problem wasn't necessarily that a spellcaster could be the best at something, its that they could get close to what a Fighter or Bow Ranger could do while simultaneously being a powerhouse spellcaster, the combination of which resulted in a ridiculously overpowered character. Simply being less good at Roguing or Rangering than a real Rogue or Ranger isn't enough.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I am on your page, here. The game hasn't really felt the pressing need for a "priest" class for 30+ years, I don't think it's really something that the game needs to have. Laser Clerics fit snugly under the domain of "clerics."

Yeah... it has sounded like some of the very initial ideas of character generation that were meant to replicate the original editions of D&D classes have fallen by the wayside a bit. Which is why they very early on said they were seeing if "race as class" options were worthwhile (which they eventually determined to be 'No'). And then they were seeing if having the old-style "basic cleric" (the mace wielding, armor wearing warrior priest) was worth having as the standard option, with all the specialty priests fall under the "Priest" class designation... which also seems they have decided against.

Based upon what we've seen from their advances in Backgrounds and Themes... it appears to me that the "Racial Class" and the "Basic Cleric Class" are now both in the game as specific Race/Class/Background/Theme builds (which they have said they will highlight to players, perhaps as one of the 'default' builds). But there's no reason to have either of them be "separate" classes from the other ones. I.E. if the "Elf" Basic D&D class turns out to be nothing more than a Elf Race / Fighter Class / Mystic Background / Sage Theme (forex)... just show off the build, rather than make it its own "Class" (since technically it isn't.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

Taken at its word, this comment completely misses the point of CoDzilla and 3E's caster balance disaster. The problem wasn't necessarily that a spellcaster could be the best at something, its that they could get close to what a Fighter or Bow Ranger could do while simultaneously being a powerhouse spellcaster, the combination of which resulted in a ridiculously overpowered character. Simply being less good at Roguing or Rangering than a real Rogue or Ranger isn't enough.

Except that taken at its word, it makes no indication that a Cleric WILL BE a "powerhouse spellcaster" (in addition to his sneak and bow skills). For all we know... the Cleric won't get all the additional stuff that 3E clerics got. There might very well be trade-offs in spell selection the cleric who wants to sneak has to make to be able to sneak. We don't know yet.

But this is definitely one thing that I'm pretty sure the playtesters will be all over, making sure whatever the Cleric eventually gets DOES NOT overpower it. All eyes will be on the Cleric from the very beginning.

 

[hemera]

I am interested in how domain choice will affect things like the clerics choice in armor and what not. Would say a Sun domain (their example) cleric wear robes or light armors, and a War domain (again their example) wear heavier armor granted by their domain?

Does that make domain sort of a package like they are going for with themes then? A mixture of feats/powers? I'm not against it by any means, I'm just quite curious as to the intent. I suppose we'll see quite soon. My hope anyway, I'm champing at the bit to see the open playtest materials