Spell-less Ranger confirmed by Mearls

[Umbran]

it'll be easy to play classless games, and it'll be easy to customize the base classes (eg. if you want a fighter who doesn't depend on heavy armor, just give him a flat AC bonus instead).

Um, I suggest you look again. He said, "You can also roll things back another step and do some crazy stuff with the structure of the classes. Since many of the elements of character progression are unified, you could run classless D&D by allowing players to select maneuvers and spells from any class they want, mingling the two together, or start everyone with access to all heroic abilities and grant access to divine and arcane via feats."

Nowhere in there does the word "easy" appear. Let us not set expectations by putting words in his mouth - he said that it was possible, but did not say it would be easy. It could still take some significant work to make it a reality.

 

[Desdichado]

That's the best news I've heard about 4e yet.

No, scratch that: "you could run classless D&D"

That's the best news I've heard about 4e yet.

 

[Mercule]

I never had a real issue with them, but it did feel like an after-thought. This is probably a good thing.

It's probably fair to say that I disagree with most of the changes made to the ranger since 1E. I don't want unbalanced, just different. It sounds like the way 4E is set up, I'll be able to tweak any remaining issues I have with the ranger -- or ignore them and let the framework sort them out.

In 1E, I took the spells to indicate rangers tended to cross-train, which is an arcanist trait. So, I assumed the druid spells were more based on study than faith. With 4E cross-training feats and/or multi-classing, it sounds like I'll be able to have by arcane-dabbling ranger without making him suck as a ranger.

Also, I've always seen rangers as being on par to slightly studier than a fighter. That's probably because that 2d8 at first level, plus the additional level or two of hit dice at name level universally, IME, ended up with rangers with more hps. The d8 in 3.5 always bothered me -- a lot. It sounds like 4E will be modular enough that, if WotC doesn't fix the problem themselves, I should be able to do a quick swap of something on the ranger to get it where I think it should be. Maybe exchanging something basic for the new Toughness feat, which sounds much improved.

 

[mearls]

The classless thing is pure noodling/theorizing/game tinkering on my part. It isn't something that the core game comes out and tells you how to do.

 

[AZRogue]

Um, I suggest you look again. He said, "You can also roll things back another step and do some crazy stuff with the structure of the classes. Since many of the elements of character progression are unified, you could run classless D&D by allowing players to select maneuvers and spells from any class they want, mingling the two together, or start everyone with access to all heroic abilities and grant access to divine and arcane via feats."

Nowhere in there does the word "easy" appear. Let us not set expectations by putting words in his mouth - he said that it was possible, but did not say it would be easy. It could still take some significant work to make it a reality.

You're right. It's easy to get carried away since a system that modular would be awesome. Still, it seems as though you could, after "rolling things back a step", play classless DnD. It will take some work, but it seems that it will be something you can do more easily because "many of the elements of character progression are unified."

Still great news, imo.

 

[delericho]

Poor Drizzt. Is there any aspect of his character that hasn't been changed?

Drow level adjustment? Changed.

Barbarian levels? Gone.

Ranger spellcasting? Gone.

As for my opinion: I like this change.

 

[AZRogue]

The classless thing is pure noodling/theorizing/game tinkering on my part. It isn't something that the core game comes out and tells you how to do.

Thanks, that clarifies things.

So, would you say that, because so many elements of character progression are unified, tinkering as you suggested would be more intuitive than, say, previous editions? In your opinion (not asking for concrete)?

 

[Darkwolf71]

The classless thing is pure noodling/theorizing/game tinkering on my part. It isn't something that the core game comes out and tells you how to do.

Haha, have to be careful what you imply (Intentionally or not) around here.

 

[pukunui]

Um, I suggest you look again. He said, "You can also roll things back another step and do some crazy stuff with the structure of the classes. Since many of the elements of character progression are unified, you could run classless D&D by allowing players to select maneuvers and spells from any class they want, mingling the two together, or start everyone with access to all heroic abilities and grant access to divine and arcane via feats."

Nowhere in there does the word "easy" appear. Let us not set expectations by putting words in his mouth - he said that it was possible, but did not say it would be easy. It could still take some significant work to make it a reality.

Fair enough.

The classless thing is pure noodling/theorizing/game tinkering on my part. It isn't something that the core game comes out and tells you how to do.

Ooh, Mearls posted in my thread! I think I'm going to faint.

Still, even if the game doesn't tell you how to do it, would you say it's "easy" to do? Or should I have read your comment about "doing crazy stuff" to mean that it's not easy and actually requires quite a lot of work?

 

[AZRogue]

He probably can't say at this point. He did say that many of the elements of character progression are unified. That right there is huge. If true, it shouldn't be very difficult to see what was done and "roll things back" as he put it.

They're just not going to be going into any such thing in the books, which I can understand.