WOTC needs our help! (duh)

[Khaalis]

This is my post from the WotC thread.

The classes I feel that most need clarifications are:

Fighters
What does it mean to be a Fighter? A fighter is a warrior through and through. Whether an armor clad mercenary or a swashbuckler, the fighter is the master of melee combat, having dedicated themselves to the study of the Martial arts. They are a solid, up-front, wade-into-the-thick, direct melee combatant. They really on and utilize their battle tactics, and their skill at arms to win the day. While there can be various types of fighter, the one thing that remains true is that they are front line meleers. No other class should match the fighter’s basic skill at arms.

What’s cool that the Fighter does? They take a beating and keep on ticking. They are the party’s first line of defense when combat is engaged.

What should the Fighter do? They should be specialists in the art of martial combat, being able to best any other class at toe-to-toe melee combat. They should also be able to excel in any given melee combat style that they choose whether it is swashbuckling, sword and board, zwiehander, etc. The fighter is the party tank, able to wade into combat to aid and defend the party through their martial skill.


Clerics
What does it mean to be a Cleric? A cleric is a priest of a chosen deity or cause and are the embodiment of their faith and exemplify the virtues of their chosen deity or cause. They are devoted body, mind and soul as champions of their path, educators in their faith, and missionaries in search of new followers.

What’s cool that the Cleric does? A cleric is a healer, a leader, a teacher, and a champion. Their abilities should relate to their faith and their ability to inspire and sway others.

What should the Cleric do? The cleric should be the spiritual and morale compass of the group. They are dedicated to their faith or cause and it is their constant focus to bring others into seeing the world as they do. They are healers and spiritual leaders of the group. They should inspire the party and aid them to do what must be done, but all in the confines of their chosen faith.


Rangers
What does it mean to be a Ranger? A ranger is a trained survivalist, hunter, trackers and specially trained warriors. They are most at home in the wilderness and often ‘range’ over wide areas of the countryside. They are often defenders and keepers, as well as trained as a form of special forces warrior. Being a ranger is as much a way of life as it is a chosen profession.

What’s cool that the Ranger does? Rangers should be one with the wilds. They are master survivalists and trackers. They should be masters of their terrain as well as in combat that reflects their hunter nature such as archery, the spear, etc.

What should the Ranger do? Rangers should surpass other classes in their ability to survive in the wilds and in tracking. They should also be formidable warriors, but not as skilled in melee as a Fighter, specializing more in ranged combat and combat that uses their terrain as their primary advantage over their foes such as using terrain as cover, high ground, stealth, improved movement in harsh terrain, etc.


Sorcerers
What does it mean to be a Sorcerer? To be a sorcerer is to be the embodiment of innate magical power. They do not study magic nor do they formulize magic. They simply have the innate ability to generate magical effects. The sorcerer is the fantasy equivalent of a Super Hero. They do not rigorously learn spells to cast to accomplish tasks, they simply manifest magical spell-like abilities and learn to use these powers on the path of adventure.

What’s cool that the Sorcerer does? They manifest magical abilities without the need for hermetic practices. They are above the average ‘person’ in that they have innate power with no need for special training.

What should the Sorcerer do? The sorcerer should be able to fill a wide range of concepts, much like a Super. They should have a suite of powers that relate and compliment one another, as well as defining what the sorcerer can do and how they do it. Their powers should be more personal rather than mimicking ‘blasting’ spells. They should feel drastically different than a wizard, not simply the same as a wizard with a different way of casting spells.


Wizards
What does it mean to be a Wizard? A wizard is someone that has dedicated themselves to the hermetic study of magic. They learn to control magic through arcane rituals, focus items, complex spell formulas, and rituals. They are a scholarly group, always seeking to understand more and to learn more ways to control magic. They spend much time researching, dabbling and experimenting with new magic and new techniques. They are the intellectual of the group and should be well learned in various topics, most especially in all things relating to magic.

What’s cool that the Wizard does? The coolest aspect of the wizard is their ability to research and create new magical spells. They are masters at ritualizing and codifying magic, and being able to consistently reproduce the same magical effects time after time.

What should the Wizard do? Wizards should be scholarly. They should be able to research new spells and powers. They offer magical solutions to perplexing problems. Wizards should be more about utility than combat, but should be able to hold their own in combat, specializing in battlefield control, mass area spells, etc. A wizard shouldn’t be expected to fill the role of the striker. it is not the wizard’s job to slay all enemies with smiting magic.

 

[fuindordm]

How is a Ranger unlike a Rogue?

To get at the "essence" of a class, I think we need to look at a wide range of archetypes cultural settings to find the common points.

What is it about a ranger that crosses cultural boundaries and edition wars?

1. The ranger is self-sufficient. This is the class capable of surviving indefinitely in the most rugged wilderness, based on only their own resources. This capacity makes them useful scouts and explorers.

1a. As a corollary to point 1, the ranger is a consummate hunter. This means stealth and tracking at a minimum, and a ranged sneak attack would also be appropriate.

2. More than any other class, the ranger "goes his own way". The very independence of this class implies to me that there could be enormous differences between one ranger and the next. Some might learn a little magic, others might learn their territory by heart to gain an enormous "home advantage". Some will have animal companions, others will be the bane of all wild beasts. Their choice of weapons and combat abilities should be just as idiosyncratic as a fighter's.

3. When interacting with society, or an adventuring party, the ranger might be a bounty hunter or vigilante, or one who protects a "point of light" from the wilderness, without anyone ever knowing it. They might be explorers, military scouts, treasure hunters, or spies.

Where does that leave us?

Combat/skill roles: Good combat abilities, striking from ambush, superb stealth, and athletic skills. A higher base move would not be out of place. I woud suggest a class ability that lets them use skills to get an advantage in combat or give an advantage to their allies.

Other abilities: The Ranger should have a wide array of combat talents/maneuvers to choose from--"Favored Enemy" could be one of these, to supplment another source of bonus damage (akin to sneak attack). Spells could be another component of the class, but an optional one.

But I think the question we should really be asking is this:

WHAT DISTINGUISHES THE RANGER FROM THE ROGUE?

Aside from the wilderness/urban division, their skill sets are nearly identical. In 3E, the ranger gets favored enemies and the rogue gets sneak attack. There are other differences, but I really believe that almost all ranger abilities are compatible with the rogue archetype and vice versa. Almost all of the above discussion could have referred to the rogue as well--substitute "thieving" for "hunting", and you're good to go.

To set the two classes apart in 4th edition, perhaps one of the two could be made more of a "Jack of all Trades". The rogue seems particularly suited to this: in exchange for their (presumably) lower HD and BAB, the rogue gains access to an even wider range of talents/abilities. Perhaps a few times during their career, the rogue could even pillage some abliities associated with another power source--picking up a few spells, for example, or gaining specialized benefits from a weapon of choice.

Honestly, I would prefer if the Ranger were a purely mundane "fighting rogue", while the rogue were capable of casting minor spells if the player chooses that path.

 

[Patlin]

I'd agree that a Ranger is at heart a wilderness guy and a hunter. The archer ranger has always fulfilled this role better than the TWF ranger, but I think a TWF talent tree ought to be kept around for historical reasons.

Ranger/Druids might be more interesting if the Ranger also had a natural weapon talent tree, especially if multiclassing within a power source was more advantageous than multiclassing outside it... not enough data on how that will work.

I'm a little perplexed at how a Ranger will be portrayed as "Divine" as this seems to me to be less than a tenth of the Ranger's persona. I suppose they'll have to stress the "one with the land" aspect of the character, but the danger there is infringing on the Druid.

A ranger is different from a Druid in that he's a rugged survivalist, not a mystic. He adapts to and overcomes his environment, rather truly becoming one with it.

I like the idea of the Ranger taking over a lot of the scout, as the scout is a much more general character class. Quickly moving about the battle field and taking out select targets is a good in battle role, while discovering what challenges lie ahead without being seen is an important out of combat role. Only problem: a scout is even less divine than the ranger.

If the ranger is going to be a divine character, it'll be important to make his spellcasting abilities feel like less of a tacked on afterthought. More spells/abilities like Surefoot and Camoflage, maybe?

 

[mhensley]

Famous Rangers in History and Fantasy:
Aragorn
Halbarad
Legolas
Robin Hood
Daniel Boone
Colonel Bowie
Tarzan
Martin Longbow
Tanto

two you missed- Conan and Hakon from REH. Yes, Conan was most definitely a ranger in "Beyond the Black River".

 

[Andor]

What does it mean to be a Fighter?

This is a tough one, because there is no such thing as a fighter. Seriously. No one in the history of the world would ever have described themselves as a fighter. They might have been a Gladiator, a Knight, a Myrmideon, a Samurai, a professional Champion, a Sniper, a Legionaire, a Warrior, a Yamabushi, a Swashbuckler, a Pirate, a Musketeer or a Jannisary but not simply a 'fighter'. Conversely everyone is a fighter. Are you in a fight? Congrats, you're a fighter.

This is a problem that D&D has stuggled with in every edition. There has always been a base Fighter class, and even though it is inevitably described as covering all of the above roles, eventually it is realized that he does not and a slew of new classes, kits, prestiges classes and base classes pour forth to cover the Knight, the Swashbuckler, the Barbarian, etc...

So what is a Fighter? Above all he is someone who fights. He is the dedicated Martial Artist, who devotes his time to mastering the tools and strategems of War as defined by his climate, culture and available tech level.

Famous Fighters in History and Fantasy:
Conan
Henry the Black Prince
Roland
Charlemagne
Sir Lancelot
King Arthur
Miyamoto Musashi
Cyrano de Bergerac
d'Artagnan
Spartacus
Hercules

What's cool that the Fighter does?

The Fighter is the master of the battlefield. None can withstand his martial prowess nor pierce his clever strategems. He is the Master of weapons in general and likely has a prefered method of fighting that he excels at whether Rapier, Greatsword or even Wrestleing.

What should the Fighter do?

The Fighter should be the most flexible and malleable of the Archtypes. The Fighter class covers more men and more of history than any other class. The 3.x fighter was a good start, but still too limited, thus leading us to the endless proffusion of alternate fighter-type base classes like the Swashbuckler, the Samurai (both the excellent OA version and the excreable CW version), the Knight and the various variant rules in UA.

This can (and should) all be avoided by making the basic Fighter even more flexible. Let him choose which is his good save, be he stout Armsman, nimble Swashbuckler, or willfull Noble. Give him more skill points and above all a better skill list. It is ludicrous that Sense Motive is not on his list. Look at the example Fighters, they number famous Writers, Poets and Leaders amoungst their number. These are not uneducated louts, they never were. IMO the OA Samurai is a far superior class, even stripped of his Daisho and other cultural trappings.

So what does the Fighter do? He fights. He devotes much of his time to his martial prowess, whether to serve his country, defend his honor, or gain personal glory. (Or all 3)

 

[RigaMortus2]

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

<snip>

Regarding Druids, I think there should be three main types or themes, which can each have their own Talent tree to build. One should center on plants, one should center on animals, and one should center on weather.

JMHO

 

[RigaMortus2]

This is my post from the WotC thread.

The classes I feel that most need clarifications are:

Fighters
What does it mean to be a Fighter? A fighter is a warrior through and through. Whether an armor clad mercenary or a swashbuckler, the fighter is the master of melee combat, having dedicated themselves to the study of the Martial arts. They are a solid, up-front, wade-into-the-thick, direct melee combatant. They really on and utilize their battle tactics, and their skill at arms to win the day. While there can be various types of fighter, the one thing that remains true is that they are front line meleers. No other class should match the fighter’s basic skill at arms.

What’s cool that the Fighter does? They take a beating and keep on ticking. They are the party’s first line of defense when combat is engaged.

What should the Fighter do? They should be specialists in the art of martial combat, being able to best any other class at toe-to-toe melee combat. They should also be able to excel in any given melee combat style that they choose whether it is swashbuckling, sword and board, zwiehander, etc. The fighter is the party tank, able to wade into combat to aid and defend the party through their martial skill.

Weapon Specialization, which is an ability/feat that has been specific to Fighters and been carried over from version to version, should probably remain something specific to the Fighter. Perhaps part of a Fighter only talent tree.

My only comment to your post here is that I don't think the Fighter should just be melee masters. If you want to be a ranged fighter, that should be an option too. But I still think an archer-based Ranger should be better than an archer-based fighter IMHO.

 

[GreatLemur]

I love how you can cite Conan as an example of half the classes in the PHB, and be completely correct in all cases. Dude was multiclassed all over the place, and didn't have a single stat under 14.

Tanto

What Japanese knives have to with this, white man?

RE: the ranger. He should also be a martial character. Ditch the traditional divine spells please

Edit: Nevermind me, 6 nights with a baby that doesnt sleep made me miss the point of the OPs post.

Hell, you're still right. I can't help but notice that, in all these writeups of the Ranger, there's very little mention of their whole spellcasting angle. I think it's probably time to get rid of it completely. And their little dogs, too. I hate the pet-as-class-feature phenomenon that plagues the 3.x PHB. Stick the animal companion in a talent tree, sure, but don't force every Ranger to have one.

Speaking of the Ranger-and-Druid-as-divine-caster issue, though, I don't think we've heard the Druid mentioned in any 4e materials. I actually wouldn't be shocked if the Druid disappeared until PHB2, and ended up using a "nature" power source, rather than divine.

 

[CleverNickName]

Regarding Druids, I think there should be three main types or themes, which can each have their own Talent tree to build. One should center on plants, one should center on animals, and one should center on weather.

JMHO

I'd like to see druids with their own power source instead of lumping them into divine (perhaps they could be powered by gaia?) Move all of the animal handling, plant-controlling, weather-calling spells and abilities to druid-only talent trees, also...that way, they are more than just leather-clad clerics.

My two cents, anyway.

 

[mhensley]

I love how you can cite Conan as an example of half the classes in the PHB, and be completely correct in all cases. Dude was multiclassed all over the place, and didn't have a single stat under 14.

Yep, Conan FTW.

Hell, you're still right. I can't help but notice that, in all these writeups of the Ranger, there's very little mention of their whole spellcasting angle. I think it's probably time to get rid of it completely. And their little dogs, too. I hate the pet-as-class-feature phenomenon that plagues the 3.x PHB. Stick the animal companion in a talent tree, sure, but don't force every Ranger to have one.

I totally agree. If a ranger wants spellcasting, they should multiclass to druid (or whatever). The ranger in C&C is a better way to go.