Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 5866230" data-attributes="member: 21169">They're almost there, they just need to get rid of the cleric.I agree with True20 that there are only three major divisions in D&amp;D - fight guy, skill guy and magic guy. D&amp;D Next seems to agree that the rogue is the skill guy, and the fighter is the fight guy. The cleric then should just be a combo of fight guy and magic guy.I think a ranger is a fighter/rogue, in the sense of a fight guy/skill guy - tracking, animal handling/empathy, wilderness survival, etc. The paladin, to me, is mostly a fight guy, with some magic. So, yeah, he is a fighter/cleric. I don't know what they're thinking with druid as rogue/cleric though, skills have never been a major part of the class. The druid's just a different flavor of magic guy.The way I see it is that the base classes are very generic, with the combo, or derived, classes being a lot more specific.EDIT: To explain my system idea a bit more - the base, generic, classes and the specific classes would be equally powerful, but members of the generic classes choose from a lot more options. So a wizard and druid at 1st level would both have, say, three powers/spells, but the wizard would have chosen his three powers from a list of 30, while the druid chose from a list of 6. There would be notes for the GM that this does make the base classes slightly more potent, due to being able to cherrypick the best options, with a suggested houserule being to only allow specific classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Doug McCrae, post: 5866230, member: 21169"] They're almost there, they just need to get rid of the cleric. I agree with True20 that there are only three major divisions in D&D - fight guy, skill guy and magic guy. D&D Next seems to agree that the rogue is the skill guy, and the fighter is the fight guy. The cleric then should just be a combo of fight guy and magic guy. I think a ranger is a fighter/rogue, in the sense of a fight guy/skill guy - tracking, animal handling/empathy, wilderness survival, etc. The paladin, to me, is mostly a fight guy, with some magic. So, yeah, he is a fighter/cleric. I don't know what they're thinking with druid as rogue/cleric though, skills have never been a major part of the class. The druid's just a different flavor of magic guy. The way I see it is that the base classes are very generic, with the combo, or derived, classes being a lot more specific. EDIT: To explain my system idea a bit more - the base, generic, classes and the specific classes would be equally powerful, but members of the generic classes choose from a lot more options. So a wizard and druid at 1st level would both have, say, three powers/spells, but the wizard would have chosen his three powers from a list of 30, while the druid chose from a list of 6. There would be notes for the GM that this does make the base classes slightly more potent, due to being able to cherrypick the best options, with a suggested houserule being to only allow specific classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification