WOTC needs our help! (duh)

[szilard]

I've been thinking a bit about the whole role thing (and blogging about it)... ultimately, I think part of the problem that he's having is that 'role' as Wizards is currently defining it appears to be just a combat role.

What if we said:

A character class has distinct important qualities.

a) It performs its combat role in combat.
b) It fits its power source.
c) It performs its non-combat role(s) outside of combat.


-Stuart

 

[RigaMortus2]

A character class matches its class.

What the heck does that mean?

A rock is a stone?

I take that to mean, the abilities of the class (or even the little nuances) match the class. When you hear "casts holy spells" and "prays to a deity" and "heals party members" you shouldn't be thinking Fighter...

At least, that is how I took it. Yeah, he worded that strangely...

 

[RigaMortus2]

As for the Ranger, I like how they did it with 3.5. Where you can choose between the typical D&D style two-weapon fighter or the archer. If there are Talents in 4E, then this would be a good idea. Have a TWF Talent Tree, an Archery Talent Tree, perhaps an Animal Companion (ie Beast Master Talent Tree)...

[tangent]
Actually, I was watching the Beast Master TV series (re-runs) this weekend, and I thought that would be a great idea. Have a Beast Master Talent Tree, and pick up abilities like "Hawk Eyes" (lets you see far away) or "Bear Claws" or "Chetta Speed" or somesuch. Talents which border on spell-like abilities.
[/tangent]

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Ok. Druids. I don't fully understand the questions so i will just ramble on.

Druids should be emissaries of nature. meaning they should talk to animals and plants and respect them. They don't need to be vegans, but they should respect the animals they kill and only kill when they need food or clothings.

They should never use their animal influencing magic to help aid them in a kill. They should have rules of the hunt in such cases, and follow the natural order.

They should get something like summon natures ally. and they should be able to influence animals and plants to come to their aid.

druids should be influence from druids themselves during the times of the romans, but also be like native Americans in a way.

The role of the druid should be a controller. they should use magic to entangle their foes and slow down enemies in battle. They should summon creatures to also control the battle field.

I think IF druids get a wildshape of some kind, it should be for utility and not so much for melee combat. They should cast cast spells in animal form, and different animals they can wildshape into should have a clear purpose. Such as a wolf to aid in tracking, or a flying creature for scouting and they should gain these animals senses.

I feel it was a mistake to make wildshape into a meelee combat only ability with the errata. I feel it should be the exact opposit and should nurture the tactical and utility that wildshape offered.

Druids should diverge more from clerics. their should be many things that clerics and wizards can do, that druids cannot, and vise versa.

I think druids should be able to shape elements such as stone and water and and wind, and possibly even fire. I don't think they should get spells like fireball though.

They should get ways to hinder their opponents by using elements. They could make pools of water by drawing the water from the ground, or change a direction of a river, or entrap someone in stone, or block arrows with wind.

If using talent trees it think one talent tree should make a druid like a buffer or a leader i guess? giving everyone elemental attacks or giving them a favor of nature power, like making the partys body as strong as wood or later on stone. While the other talent tree should be with shaping elements and summoning.

I think ether way a druid should be able to imbue themselves with the power to turn thier skin to wood ect...

I could come up with more concrete mechanics of need be.

 

[Aloïsius]

druids should be influence from druids themselves during the times of the romans,

This would make them philosophers and nobles. They were the savants of the Celts, and they held a lot of political power. There should be druidic schools, or things like that.

 

[Exen Trik]

There is not a single ideal answer for any of class, because classes need to fill multiple roles and concepts. You not only have the basic archetypes, but mixes of those archetypes, subversions of them, and stuff straight out of left field. Classes need to be able to fill all these roles equally, while still being clearly defined about what they are and (perhaps more importantly) what they are not.

For example, on the topic of druids: you have a number of different ideas on what they should be and represent. Gentle protectors of the green, the dealer of natures wrath, shape shifters, summoners, are all valid parts of the idea of a druid. Not only should all those things be options, but they should be optional, meaning you could focus on one to the exclusion of the others and not have to lose any potential for doing so. It would be like if the 3.5 druid had built in variants for expert shape shifters with no plant themed abilities, beast summoners who rely exclusively on their called companions, or cold themed tundra warriors that have an elemental bent to all druid abilities. And having all that without having to resort to one of several dozen classes across multiple splatbooks which may or may not be balanced against each other (or at all).

I'm not saying it's an easy thing, but the only way to have the "right" answer for this is be both inclusive and flexible with the concepts of classes.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

This would make them philosophers and nobles. They were the savants of the Celts, and they held a lot of political power. There should be druidic schools, or things like that.

In terms of that, i think they should have orders. Order of the Old Oak or Order of the Crescent Moon, or Order of the stick? ahahah just kidding. But you get the point. I think they should be philosophers but not so much nobles. I think that leaders or nobles should come to a the druids for luck or for advice or console. They should be secretive and reclusive.

i think flavor wise they should be considered worshipers of the old ways and possibly their power is starting to thin or at very least, thier influence. like Juroo in the temple of the elemental evil pc game.

I think its also very important that they worship no particular god. I know this goes at odds with real history, but i like that they worship nature directly. It makes them different from clerics in that respect.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

A character class matches its class.

What the heck does that mean?

A rock is a stone?

I interpret this to mean, you a class must fulfill 3 things. For instance, take a fighter:
a) it must be capable of defending the party from damage, thus fulfilling its role
b) it must accomplish it in a way that says "martial" rather than "arcane" or "divine" or anything else
c) it must do it in a way that was "fighter" and not "knight", "swashbuckler","paladin","samurai" or any other class that is similar in concept.

The first two points are fairly easy.

If you are a defender, you have abilities that increase your AC, absorb damage, redirect damage from your allies to you, give you temporary hitpoints, heal yourself, prevent damage directly to your allies, etc.

If you use "Martial" as a power source your abilities come from your skills and training. You do things like leap into the way of attacks, use the proper placed insults to make enemies want to attack you, hit the enemies in spots that hurt a lot and make them angry at you, etc.

However, assuming there are multiple martial defenders at some point, what makes a Fighter different from a Swashbuckler (or something else that might be a better example of a martial defender that I'm not thinking of right now). How can a Fighter accomplish his role in a Martial Defender way without being exactly the same as someone else who is a Martial Defender? What makes a Fighter like a Fighter?

When you really begin to think about, it's a really hard question to answer.

 

[GSHamster]

The essence of a paladin is sacrifice.

 

[Khaalis]

The essence of a paladin is sacrifice.

I think this only applies if the Paladin remains in concept as it is in 3E. However, they have stated that there will be some fundamental changes to the Paladin, especially in regards to alignment. I have a feeling that the UA Paladins (the champions of the 4 extreme alignments) will become more of the Core Paladin concept, rather than the singly LG paladin.

In my mind, assuming this is true, is that the paladin should be the champion and (dare I say it) the zealot of a cause. They should embody every ideal of the cause, seek to further that cause, and seek to conform others to that cause.

JMHO.