WOTC needs our help! (duh)

RigaMortus2 said:
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.
I think it sounds like they're playing up the Fighter's weapon specialization angle more than ever before, in 4e. All that talk about Fighters who use different weapons being able to do completely different kinds of stuff suggests to me that we'll see a lot of Iron-Heroes-style weapon-specific feats (or talents), which Fighters will probably have the best access to.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

CleverNickName said:
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.

I agree with the reason but I would still leave the Green Magic talent tree open to rangers.

I see it a similar to how I want to see Unarmed Martial Arts fighting abilities seperated from Zen Inner Soul abilities. This combination works fine for Buddist Monk style builds but sometimes I want a Half-Orc who beats someone with his fists without comtemplating his inner self all the time.

They are valid combinations (Unarmed Fighter/Zen Soul as well as Ranger/Wilderness Guru) but it shouldn't be forced all the time.
 

I think that in a high magic setting, rangers having basic nature and healing magic makes sense. They're fundamentally survivalists. It makes sense for a survivalist to have an understanding of magical traps, snares, weather issues, and animal related magic.

I agree that it should be optional, and I agree that the Monk's supernatural abilities should be optional for exactly the same reason.

The Paladin, on the other hand, needs his magic. Otherwise he's just a fighter.
 

Fighter
1) His role is to fight. Whenever the answer to a problem is fighting, he goes in first, without hesitation, and never worries about whether he has the skills to engage the enemy. He stands at the toes of dragons, he wades into platoons of orcs, and he hurls an axe when a goblin sneak threatens the wizard. His mastery is managing the position of the enemy, ensuring they cannot atack his allies without becoming vulnerable, while causing them damage, round after round.
2) His power source is courage and training. Fighters do not fear to melee with an ogre, because they have confidence in their skills.
3) A fighter uses his mastery of the tools of war: armor, weapons, tactics. Some fighters are deadly with anything they put in their hand, others specialize and become the unquestioned master of a preferred weapon. Heavy armor is not mandatory, but if they aren't heavily armored, they choose some other type of defense that is also effective, such as a strong parry, unarmored grace, or indomitible toughness. Fighters are smart, but rarely academic or courtly; even King Arthur's knights were basically jocks.

Rogue
1) His role is scouting, detecting, acquisition, and ambush. Whether in a town, in a dungeon, or on an alien plane, the rogue takes point whenever a fight isn't going on, but there is a danger of one. In combat, he is active, but does not simply beat on the monsters; he maneuvers, harasses, and delivers sudden, surprise attacks. He might attack a monster to keep it off a weaker party member, but once he has its attention (if it isn't dead), he tricks it into losing situational advantages.
2) His power source is training and courage, with a little luck. Like fighters, rogues are not afraid to dive into what they've been trained to do.
3) Rogues are plucky, agile, and sneaky. They are always ready for action, sleeping with a dagger under the pillow, fighting effectively if ambushed in an alley in town, or filching something valuable they happen to see. They are effective talkers, not inspiring, but very convincing. A rogue should no incentive to put on heavier armor unless he is some kind of multiclass character.

Cleric
1) The cleric's role is to fortify the party, participating in battles, casting spells that help them overcome obstacles, and tending to the wounded and shaken. Some clerics, especially evil ones, instead weaken the enemy, performing deadly attacks and cursing foes. The cleric is always right behind someone else, aiding the fighter in melee, preparing a rogue with protective magic, or defending a wizard so he can cast a vital spell. The cleric is asked to display extraordinary courage and to wade in when other characters need to retreat. While a helper, they are not merely an assistant but a savior.
2) A cleric's power source is belief, fortified with divine power and magicla study.
3) Clerics are in the midst of trouble, always, and tend to wear heavier armor or at least use a shield or protective spell because of that. Unless they are some kind of multiclass character, their combat abilities are second-rate, but they are effective with a variety of weapons, typically more common ones or ones associated with their deity, culture, or philosophy; for instance, a nature cleric might use a bow, a war cleric might use a sword or spear, a deity of healing or mercy might use a mace rather than carry an overtly aggressive sword, and a secretive cultist uses a dagger, shortsword, or sickle. Clerics are at home in their culture, whether tending the woods and wild places, participating in a church hiearchy, or reporting to an order of divine crusaders. They have a serenity and gravity that lends itself to diplomacy, intimidation, and requests for aid. They embody moral forces of the universe, and have a strong connection to things that are evil or good, unnatural or natural, and so forth.

Wizard
1) The wizard's role is to create wonders. A wonder is something rare and special. The wizard can unleash a powerful spell, incinerating several foes that seemed almost unbeatable moments before. They can conjure things as needed, overcome obstacles, and create unusual solutions to problems. When confronted with a river to cross, a wizard might cause his companions to fly, turn them into ducks, turn the river into firm earth, or conjure a bridge, depending on his knowledge of spells. Other party members protect the wizard so his spells will be available when their potency is needed.
2) his power source is magic, controlled through training and will
3) Wizards, unless multiclassed, are not well-versed in combat. However, they have the skills of adventurers, and are often talened with a handful of weapons and special options, as befits anyone who has had a goblin try to skewer him more than once. Archetypally, they do not wear armor, instead depending on spells and prudence. Wizards are mysterious and knowledgeable. They do not treat magic frivalously. A wizard strives for power, saving his spells for when needed, seeking out new knowledge, and almost greedily seeking out new magic items. A wizards's demeanor sets him apart from ordinary people; perhaps he wears a special costume, but even if he does not, the tools of his trade and his sagely knowledge make him impressive. Mutliclassed wizards, although somewhat less potent, perform tasks in a wondrous way; wizard-rogues turn invisible, then practice impossible stealth, cleric-wizards can solve almost any problem with a spell or miracle if needed, fighter-wizards deliver amazing attacks or combinations of spells and ability.
 

fuindordm said:
WHAT DISTINGUISHES THE RANGER FROM THE ROGUE?
[Snip]
I can see where defining the class becomes difficult, since there are so many different ways to play a character. In terms of the difference between a Ranger and a Rogue I see a few possibilities:

The Rogue in melee is master of the quick strike. They hit, but don't wait around to be hit back. The Ranger can use the terrain and their mobility to their advantage, but in melee they will still be more likely to stand in. The Ranger sits in the middle between the Rogues elusive hits and the Fighters frontal assault.

Outside of combat, the scout/woodsman role of the Ranger makes them less social creatures. It isn't saying they won't work with others, but they are so used to being self-reliant that they do not feel a strong need to do so.

Rogues on the other hand are typically more social. For the con artist, social interaction is their bread and butter, but even the common bandit is more likely to work in a team or a gang and have an instinctive ability to understand the politics of turf and power, if not the ability to maniulate them.
 

GSHamster said:
The essence of a paladin is sacrifice.

I don't necessarily disagree, but to me the paladin is a zealous crusader, empowered by his god to go forth into the dark places of the world and shine the light of righteousness and justice upon them!

Per my good friend, SHARK's paladin code, the paladin is charged with bringing war and death to the forces of darkness! No mercy, no reprieve for evil!

I hate the image of the paladin as some sort of wildnerness sheriff, or as some sort of social worker. The modern reinterpretation of the paladin as some stifling goody two shoes subject to modern notions of jurisprudence drives me insane.

The paladin should be a holy warrior charged with the power of their god to smite evil and crush it beneath the iron hammer of righteousness!! The laws of mortal men and kings are not their concern. The paladin is judge, jury, and executioner, ordained by their holy church!

As such the paladin's role is to defend the faithful, or to lead a holy crusade against undead, orcs, demons, devils, and all other heretics and non-believers who would oppose them in their sacred mission.

Their power source is divine.

The paladin is a warrior, as such they should be able to charge their weapons and armor with divine power. They may not do as much damage as a Fighter against mortal foes, but against undead, and evil outsiders, the paladin's damage dealing should be second to none. The paladin's holy aura should also render them largely immune to the special attacks of undead and evil outsiders. They should also be able to inspire their allies (i.e. boost them) and also heal themselves and their allies when necessary.
 

Dragonblade said:
They may not do as much damage as a Fighter against mortal foes, but against undead, and evil outsiders, the paladin's damage dealing should be second to none.

Agreed.

Dragonblade said:
The paladin's holy aura should also render them largely immune to the special attacks of undead and evil outsiders.

Highly resistant, not largely immune.

I think immunities in DND should go the way of the Dodo except for basically non-living creatures like constructs.

Living creatures should typically have various defenses (or resistances) against various attacks, but not immunities.

Dragonblade said:
They should also be able to inspire their allies (i.e. boost them) and also heal themselves and their allies when necessary.

Agreed.
 

Andor said:
So let's kick this off with that most contentious and ill-defined of classes: the Ranger.

What does it mean to be a Ranger?

A Ranger is first and foremost a man of the wilds, a woodsman. Say the word and your mind fills with images of rangy, weatherbeaten men dressed in browns and greens. Aragorn of course is the Archetypal Ranger, but even in LotR he is obviously not the typical ranger. Halbarad would be much more typical. Faramir's men battling orcs and southrons in the woods above Minas Morghul have the same skills and would be the same class, even if in LotR the term Ranger only applied to the men of fallen Arnor.

Ranger is a broader term than just refering to Middle Earth. A English or Welsh yeoman archer, an Apache brave, a Yanomani hunter or a Gaulic scout are all Rangers.

Note that they are all outdoorsy, wear little or no armor, and tend to fight with ranged weapons. Allthough the iconic LotR Rangers are perfectly capable of putting on heavier armour and mixing it up in melee when it's called for.

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

You should probably add Bard the Bowman, from The Hobbit -- he may be an even more archetypal ranger than Aragorn. After all, he slew the dragon Smaug with a well-placed bowshot and the legendary Black Arrow.
 

GreatLemur said:
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.
indeed from what we have heard I think that the Ranger is going to use the martial power source (he will get beyond mortal ken by his dedition to skill and martial prowess for his special mix of both (survival, traking, ranged weapons, hiding, knives and so on)
 

Thornir Alekeg said:
The Rogue in melee is master of the quick strike. They hit, but don't wait around to be hit back. The Ranger can use the terrain and their mobility to their advantage, but in melee they will still be more likely to stand in. The Ranger sits in the middle between the Rogues elusive hits and the Fighters frontal assault.

Rogues on the other hand are typically more social. For the con artist, social interaction is their bread and butter, but even the common bandit is more likely to work in a team or a gang and have an instinctive ability to understand the politics of turf and power, if not the ability to maniulate them.

The problem with the ranger/rogue distinction is that both classes have enough flexibility to emulate each other, barring some largely artificial differences between their class skills and oddities like the ranger's spellcasting.

These two points are very good.

The scout's bonus damage is actually a better fit for the rogue class than the ranger--I really do see rogues relying heavily on movement in combat. Probably sneak attacks, the scout ability (I forget what it's called, don't have the book), and favored enemies should be equally available to both classes and perhaps some others besides.

The social distinction is also very useful; the rogue should access to class abliities and talent trees that emphasize social skills, while the ranger should not.

It's not impossible to make them feel distinct, far from it. But one has to be careful.
 

Remove ads

Top