Rule of 3. May 8th

[am181d]

If 5e gives us class ability trees along the lines of late 3.5's alt class abilities, I'll be well satisfied.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

Really like #2's answer, looking forward to the customization possibilities.

 

[Wiseblood]

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.

I think you are correct. I have not liked the things Rodney Thompson has said about DDN. I hope that it's just the way he talks and the words he uses that rub me the wrong way. If not, his ideas (or are they comments) make me think OH NO not that.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Why? I'm just curious about the reasons behind this.

I'm just annoyed by the idea of the ranger being explicitly designed with specific weapons in mind. It reminds me of how in 4e and 3e (and 2e?), the ranger is basically forced to be Drizzt. I don't mind the ranger leaning towards light armor and weapons, but I want more options.

The "guy who is the best at archery" should be the fighter, because he is the guy who is the best at weapon combat.

 

[Kzach]

Number three gives me a lot of hope that they're going to use degrees of success and failure. If there's only a binary pass/fail system on skills, then number three is meaningless and can't be achieved. But if there are degrees of success and failure, then a cleric with sneak can be quite good at sneaking, but the rogue can be much better and that will actually MEAN something.

 

[erleni]

I'm just annoyed by the idea of the ranger being explicitly designed with specific weapons in mind. It reminds me of how in 4e and 3e (and 2e?), the ranger is basically forced to be Drizzt. I don't mind the ranger leaning towards light armor and weapons, but I want more options.

The "guy who is the best at archery" should be the fighter, because he is the guy who is the best at weapon combat.

Thanks for answering.

The funny thing is that the ranger is a two-weapon user because of Drizzt, but Drizzt's style comes from his training as a drow fighter and doesn't have anything to do with his later training as a ranger.

Anyway I feel that the ranger should be better at archery than a vanilla fighter, because hunting in the wild is central for the ranger and the bow is the main weapon in that case. I really don't buy the fighter being the best at combat with all weapons, even if this seems to be a design goal. It is far too encompassing.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I really don't buy the fighter being the best at combat with all weapons, even if this seems to be a design goal. It is far too encompassing.

That's why I'm in favor of bringing back the "sub-class" terminology. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "the paladin is a special kind of Fighter who has divine powers in exchange for a code of conduct" or "the assassin is a special kind of Rogue who specializes in death attacks" or "the druid is a special kind of Cleric who worships all of nature."

Doing them as all base classes just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think the trick with the ranger is that people are focusing way too much on the weapon a ranger uses and not nearly enough on why the ranger is good at combat. The way a ranger, a rogue, and a fighter use a bow (or any other weapon... ANY other weapon) should be fundamentally different. Just being "good" at using one weapon or another is wasteful.

 

[Hautamaki]

I didn't like his answer to #3.

I don't think classes should necessarily have that much 'niche protection'. I think that if you are a cleric of the God of sneakiness you should be just as good at sneaking around as a sneaky rogue. So what's the difference? Mechanically: Simple: you use your divine powers to sneak, while the rogue uses his amazing skills to sneak. Different routes, (and different mechanics) to a very similar end-result. In specific situations it will be better to be one or the other, but overall it should about average out. And more importantly, there's a big difference in the fluff. Your motivations are going to be different. The feel of your character RP-wise is going to be different.

 

[Mattachine]

I didn't like his answer to #3.

I don't think classes should necessarily have that much 'niche protection'. I think that if you are a cleric of the God of sneakiness you should be just as good at sneaking around as a sneaky rogue. So what's the difference? Mechanically: Simple: you use your divine powers to sneak, while the rogue uses his amazing skills to sneak. Different routes, (and different mechanics) to a very similar end-result. In specific situations it will be better to be one or the other, but overall it should about average out. And more importantly, there's a big difference in the fluff. Your motivations are going to be different. The feel of your character RP-wise is going to be different.

That approach works as long as the cleric doesn't ALSO get a pile of standard cleric spells and abilities.

Niche protection isn't necessarily about not allowing multiple ways to arrive at the same abilities. It's more about preventing one class from doing on type of job, and doing another class's job just as well.