Rule of Three - (2012 May 8th)

Rule-of-Three (2012 May 8th)
by Rodney Thompson

You've got questions—we've got answers! Here's how it works—each week, our Community Manager will be scouring all available sources to find whatever questions you're asking. We'll pick three of them for R&D to answer.

Talk about this news here.

 
I am quite happy with the answer to question number 3.  

The distinction of good vs. best is spot-on, and I appreciate that this distinction allows players to create their own characters that can compliment a unique character design or goal.  

Sure, some character designs might "step on the toes" of other characters and classes, but I would rather see an open design concept than a rigid, fixed system that impedes player creativity or unique character designs (and a stealthy, bow-wielding cleric certainly stands out as unique). 
I'm tempted to throw down hiakus but I'd best leave it to the master.
The essential theme song- Get a little bit a fluff da' fluff, get a little bit a fluff da' fluff! (ooh yeah) Repeat Unless noted otherwise every thing I post is my opinion, and probably should be taken as tongue in cheek any way.
I like that they're not kowtowing to niche protection.

Hyperbole: If a ranger can make melee attacks, this steps on the fighter's toes! If the cleric can cast spells, this steps on the wizard's toes! If anyone can climb anything, what place does the rogue have?

Niche protection is silly. If I want to play a class that does exactly what a fighter does, with one little difference - what do you care?

edit: The standard argument I recall for the 'niche protection' worriers is that if someone in the same party plays a class that fills your niche, you feel less important. So? What prevents them from playing your exact class? Nothing.  
One was a given.

Two... confounds me. Does this imply that Priests are no longer a character class? Or were they even a class to begin with?

Ryklu already gave my answer for Three. Quite nicely, I might add.
I also liked the answer in #3. I think that all classes should be capable of even good at just about any major trope but they have sort of a "thing" that they are the best at.

The only downside I see is "Part competitition" whereien 2 classes that could legitimately be the "best" at a given trope have to sort of share space with each other.

 The other problem is "only the best matters"

but with a intellegently designed mech's those are short hurdles to clear.
The essential theme song- Get a little bit a fluff da' fluff, get a little bit a fluff da' fluff! (ooh yeah) Repeat Unless noted otherwise every thing I post is my opinion, and probably should be taken as tongue in cheek any way.
Why can't I be a priest of the god of archers and be as good an archer as a ranger?... It would make sense to me. And the  ranger can still get animal companions, and/or track, and/or fight two handed. I could be a priest of the god of thieves and be a great thief.... But while I'm casting spells or rituals  to accomplish my goals... The true thief has these abilities at all Times... And is probably a better fighter and definitely  better at that good old back stab! And the priest of archers can still  pull a little healing out of his or her pocket ( of course, with healing surges! EVERYBODY gets to stomp on the priests toes!) 

 
Why can't I be a priest of the god of archers and be as good an archer as a ranger?... It would make sense to me. And the  ranger can still get animal companions, and/or track, and/or fight two handed. I could be a priest of the god of thieves and be a great thief.... But while I'm casting spells or rituals  to accomplish my goals... The true thief has these abilities at all Times... And is probably a better fighter and definitely  better at that good old back stab! And the priest of archers can still  pull a little healing out of his or her pocket ( of course, with healing surges! EVERYBODY gets to stomp on the priests toes!) 

 



Because you also have other spell casting capabilities and healing that the ranger doesn't? That said you're making alot of assumptions.


Also all Healing Surges do is not make healing locked away on the priest. Should a fighter be getting mad if you can deal damage? Should a wizard get mad if you hit more than 1 foe?
#1:  Hooray!  At least six months of open beta is a great way to go about 5E, provided we don't end up full of in-fighting and rampant factioning in the meantime.

#2:  'Mandatory' role for any given class is bad.  Multiple possible roles for any given class is good.

#3:  'Mandatory' classes for any given party is also bad.
I like that they're not kowtowing to niche protection.

Hyperbole: If a ranger can make melee attacks, this steps on the fighter's toes! If the cleric can cast spells, this steps on the wizard's toes! If anyone can climb anything, what place does the rogue have?

Niche protection is silly. If I want to play a class that does exactly what a fighter does, with one little difference - what do you care?

edit: The standard argument I recall for the 'niche protection' worriers is that if someone in the same party plays a class that fills your niche, you feel less important. So? What prevents them from playing your exact class? Nothing.  



Actually they are building a pretty strong niche protection here. Granted they aren't going so far to that extent which you lay out in your "hyperbole" (and really I haven't seen anyone suggest this here or elsewhere what you call hyperbole) They are going for what alot of 4vengers wanted, which is a limit on what classes can and can't do. Performance metrics I suppose if I had to give a word to it.
The essential theme song- Get a little bit a fluff da' fluff, get a little bit a fluff da' fluff! (ooh yeah) Repeat Unless noted otherwise every thing I post is my opinion, and probably should be taken as tongue in cheek any way.
Awesome answer to the cleric class.  That is how I have always envisioned the cleric.  I hope that pans out like they are planning and I hope the other classses feature that type of robustness and openness to how each class can be developed internally within the respective class.

Celebrate our differences.

Of course I'm making a lot of assumptions... I haven't been clued in on the designers  notes at all.... Just reading the (very) generalized answers here... 

But if,  say I want to be a priest of Apollo and one of his spheres of influence is archery.... I should be able (with a guilt bow as holy symbol or implement) to become one of the 'best' archers around ( and for that matter get a blazing/exploding bolt of sun loaded into one of those arrows every once in a while!) I don't see this approach to mastering archery any different from the Ranger's practice and hunting letting him have access to these abilities. Sure I might not be as good a healer as the priest of mercy over there, or be the most righteous crusador or avenger, or even able to turn undead as well as some.... And i wouldn't be the suvivalist or tracker that a ranger could be and I'd probably not know what on earth to do with a melee weapon. But I don't see any reason that my character concept should be unattainable if I'm willing to sacrifice other abilities (or the potency of those abilities) especially, if I've fashioned a good character concept, story, and background.

Just being a devil's advocate here. I think that character generation needs to be flexible enough to handle things like this. There should be several different ways to achieve a similar goal. Or does it mean that if I want to be one of the best archers in the land, I'll HAVE to min/max with everything available and select the elf 'race' (or species), the ranger 'class', the archer 'feat tree' etc... 
1. Oh Great Maker thank you! I would much rather wait for a finished product than get an incomplete product early which requires monthly patches to function.

2. In keeping with Iconic Classes modified by themes, I support this. I remember long ago when one had the generic front line Cleric, or could make a Priest of a Specific Mythos, who may or may not be front line, use blunt weapons, or even be able to heal or offer succor to other party members. To say I am a proponent of "domain", or whatever they care to call the priestly spheres of influence in the next edition, having an impact on the character far beyound their ability to call down miracles (spells) is an understatement.

3. I tend to approve of this with a caveat. As the aforementioned priest of a God of archery was brought up, if Priest is a theme, and can be added to multiple classes, I'm completely golden with this. It would indicate the majority of the Archer Divinity's Priests are actually members of a class that excells at archery. Even beyound that, refluffing a more iconic class to reflect divine inspiration rather than training to gain mastery of archery might be sufficient. YMMV

In combining/contrasting my answers to 2 and 3, Ideally an Archer God would have a domain (or two, dependent on the divinity) that would enhance his/her Priest's archery skills... mayhaps at the cost of some frontline durability or healing.  Failing that, Priest as a theme for a multitude of classes would be an excellent secondary fall back option.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
I'd much rather a Cleric player be able pick some domains and gimmicks, and make up a deity on the spot (or even ignore dieties entirely); than have to pick from a list of baked-in deities and be told what domains and gimmicks he's getting.
I'd much rather a Cleric player be able pick some domains and gimmicks, and make up a deity on the spot (or even ignore dieties entirely); than have to pick from a list of baked-in deities and be told what domains and gimmicks he's getting.


This I definitely agree with. 
Especially as Pantheon tends to shift so wildly from setting to setting.

I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
Ro3 Haiku time!

So... what's next for Next?
Lots of playtesting.  That's it.
No products this year.

So... laser clerics?
Clerics can be customized
By using domains

So... nonspellcasters?
They're the best at what they do
Casters at all else.
wow thanks so much for answer number 1, especially given there hasnt been a single person on the entire internet that expected a release this year

ps always hated domains
So... nonspellcasters?
They're the best at what they do
Casters at all else.


While I get that you're often not completely serious in these responses, this one caught my eye as being a little narrowly focused.  It's not just that a cleric can use a bow and be good at it because the cleric's a caster - other classes are likely going to be able to cross-role to a degree as well.  They mentioned things like fighters picking up a bit of magic on the side via other choices.  They'll never be as good at it as a wizard, but if you replaced "caster" with "martial" in your haiku I don't think it'd have the same emotional punch despite still being accurate.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So... nonspellcasters?
They're the best at what they do
Casters at all else.


While I get that you're often not completely serious in these responses, this one caught my eye as being a little narrowly focused.  It's not just that a cleric can use a bow and be good at it because the cleric's a caster - other classes are likely going to be able to cross-role to a degree as well.  They mentioned things like fighters picking up a bit of magic on the side via other choices.  They'll never be as good at it as a wizard, but if you replaced "caster" with "martial" in your haiku I don't think it'd have the same emotional punch despite still being accurate.


I personally would love it if cleric "spells" were completely reworked to feel different from magic spells entirely, i.e. expand on the 4E label of divine powers as "prayers," and in the process become a little narrower in focus/usefulness. For instance, if wizards (or other arcane spellcasters) get utility spells like Knock and Rope Trick, I don't see why divine classes necessarily need the same types of powers - perhaps a generic "+X to skill check Y" divine inspiration power to support dabbling, but not much more.
In terms of stepping on the toes of other classes, I think this is why it is important to make all classes multi-dimensional.  No class should be a one trick pony.  If "Being a good archer" is all the ranger is about, that really isn't enough to define a class.  Anyone can learn to use a bow, so the ranger needs much more than that.

Same with stealth and the rogue.  The rogue isn't just "The sneaky guy".  Anyone can be sneaky; the rogue needs more to define it.

So while it should be possible to make any class be able to do some things that other classes can do, the important thing is to ensure that no class can do EVERYTHING that another class can do.  There is nothing wrong with a cleric who can use a bow and sneak around like a ranger.  But if that cleric can also deal with animals and beasts like a ranger, do whatever else a ranger will be able to do, PLUS cast all the cleric spells, suddenly you have a problem.

I don't think this is what they plan to do at all, so I don't see any problem here.  Things like "Use a bow" and "Sneaky" aren't concepts that should be specific to any one class.  But the class package as a whole should make you feel unique.
So... nonspellcasters?
They're the best at what they do
Casters at all else.


While I get that you're often not completely serious in these responses, this one caught my eye as being a little narrowly focused.  It's not just that a cleric can use a bow and be good at it because the cleric's a caster - other classes are likely going to be able to cross-role to a degree as well.  They mentioned things like fighters picking up a bit of magic on the side via other choices.  They'll never be as good at it as a wizard, but if you replaced "caster" with "martial" in your haiku I don't think it'd have the same emotional punch despite still being accurate.


I'm pretty sure what you wrote is more than 17 syllables.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Sounds like they are going to give enough time for the ink to dry, this time.

How slow is development if Cleric/Priest is still a RoT topic?  Domains sound good though. 

I don't think they answered this question.  Sure the Ranger or Rogue can be best at sneaking and using a bow under the core systems until the Cleric and other magic users cast a subsystem spell that trumps them. 

"Despite the awesome spellcasting abilities of Clerics and other magic users, Rangers and Rogue will still be best and sneaking and using a bow." - that would have answered the question.
Sounds like they are going to give enough time for the ink to dry, this time.

How slow is development if Cleric/Priest is still a RoT topic?  Domains sound good though. 

I don't think they answered this question.  Sure the Ranger or Rogue can be best at sneaking and using a bow under the core systems until the Cleric and other magic users cast a subsystem spell that trumps them. 

"Despite the awesome spellcasting abilities of Clerics and other magic users, Rangers and Rogue will still be best and sneaking and using a bow." - that would have answered the question.



I'm pretty sure the devs had said several times that buff spells won't be nearly as powerful as they have been.  I think the days of buffs trumping natural abilities will be gone.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

How slow is development if Cleric/Priest is still a RoT topic?  Domains sound good though.

I expect things like this to crop up during the entirety of 5E's development.  It is most certainly not a gauge of the speed of its development.  I mean, if you want to attach that type of significance to it, feel free, but you will only continue to disappoint yourself.

FYI, it wasn't that long ago in the video where they announced that they were only 5-10% through with developing 5E.  You should not be surprised, anyhow. 

Celebrate our differences.

Really, Jim? 

What they said:  "while you might build a cleric who can sneak and use a bow (to use your example), and your cleric might be very good at those things, the ranger or rogue will probably still be better"

How did that not answer the question?  Oh, right, I forgot to include the cynical, sky-is-falling, casters-will-be-gods-even-though-the-developers-said-they-don't-want-to-do-that made-up hyperbole.

I mean, if you start by prejudging the outcome and assume any information contrary to that outcome is just a result of the developers lying to you, then I'm not entirely sure what you hope to accomplish either here or as a 5e player.


And before you go after that word "probably" - it's entirely possible to design a ranger or rogue to not be particularly sneaky or using a bow, such that a bow-focused cleric could do it better because the rogue and ranger focused their attention elsewhere, such as being a two-weapon user.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Anyone paying attention already knew this.

Nice to see options.  Options are good.

Nothing to see here.  This is as it should be.  Even a cleric of Apollo isn't a ranger of Apollo.  Their calling is a religious one, not a martial one. 

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Nothing to see here.  This is as it should be.  Even a cleric of Apollo isn't a ranger of Apollo.  Their calling is a religious one, not a martial one. 

Yet they could both be mechanically equivalent with use of the bow, and neither takes the shine from the other necessarily. As others have mentioned, there is more to a cleric or ranger than weapon training. Perhaps the difference is that clerics need to use prayers to buff themselves up to equal the ranger, or they lose some of their magical ability as a tradeoff. It's still early in development, so I can hope there is enough room for noteworthy bleedover between classes, without any class overshadowing others (in all or most areas they share).

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Nothing to see here.  This is as it should be.  Even a cleric of Apollo isn't a ranger of Apollo.  Their calling is a religious one, not a martial one. 

Yet they could both be mechanically equivalent with use of the bow, and neither takes the shine from the other necessarily. As others have mentioned, there is more to a cleric or ranger than weapon training. Perhaps the difference is that clerics need to use prayers to buff themselves up to equal the ranger, or they lose some of their magical ability as a tradeoff. It's still early in development, so I can hope there is enough room for noteworthy bleedover between classes, without any class overshadowing others (in all or most areas they share).



It might be the way to achieve this is multiclassing/hybriding/crossclassing/whatever-it-will-be-called-in-this-edition.

I would like the option of gaining the ability through spells, though, that sounds cool.

It seems to me that the class philosophy is "Everybody is the best at what they do, and some classes can build themselves to be second best."

Fighters are going to be the best at taking the fight to the enemy. 
Rogues are going to be the best at fighting advantageously.  They will also excel at those skills in whcih they specialize.
Clerics are going to be the best at subtle beneficial magic.
Wizards, I assume, will be the best at flashy offensive magic.

Other classes -- ranger, paladin, barbarian, warlock, etc. -- will have to be given something new that they surpass all other classes at.

So if the fighter specializes in the longsword, he will be the best in the party at it.  A cleric of Corellon can come close, but he won't be as good as the fighter.  If your fighter instead chooses crossbowmanship, then your Cleric of Corellon will be the best longswordsman in the party.

If the rogue specializes in wall-climbing, then nobody else can hope to surpass him.  The wizard might come close with things like spider climb, and the fighter can train in climb as well, but the rogue is consistently better.  If the rogue did not choose to specialize in wall climbing, then the wizard's spider climb or the fighter's training will make them the party's best climbers. 

That seems to me to be the goal and I approve, if I've read it correctly.
It seems to me that the class philosophy is "Everybody is the best at what they do, and some classes can build themselves to be second best."

Fighters are going to be the best at taking the fight to the enemy. 
Rogues are going to be the best at fighting advantageously.  They will also excel at those skills in whcih they specialize.
Clerics are going to be the best at subtle beneficial magic.
Wizards, I assume, will be the best at flashy offensive magic.

Other classes -- ranger, paladin, barbarian, warlock, etc. -- will have to be given something new that they surpass all other classes at.

So if the fighter specializes in the longsword, he will be the best in the party at it.  A cleric of Corellon can come close, but he won't be as good as the fighter.  If your fighter instead chooses crossbowmanship, then your Cleric of Corellon will be the best longswordsman in the party.

If the rogue specializes in wall-climbing, then nobody else can hope to surpass him.  The wizard might come close with things like spider climb, and the fighter can train in climb as well, but the rogue is consistently better.  If the rogue did not choose to specialize in wall climbing, then the wizard's spider climb or the fighter's training will make them the party's best climbers. 

That seems to me to be the goal and I approve, if I've read it correctly.




Agreed... as long as they find something unique for all classes.

I'm a bit unsure about that myself. If the wizard is the best at flashy offensive magic, what is the sorcerer best at? I sincerely hope the result is not like in 3.5 "the sorcerer is just like the wizard, but with different mechanics!" because that would make them basically the same class. Which is bad. You can't differentiate classes just with mechanics if the end result is that the do the same things.

But, there is enough design space to hope for something better. We'll see. 
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E
It seems to me that the class philosophy is "Everybody is the best at what they do, and some classes can build themselves to be second best."

Fighters are going to be the best at taking the fight to the enemy. 
Rogues are going to be the best at fighting advantageously.  They will also excel at those skills in whcih they specialize.
Clerics are going to be the best at subtle beneficial magic.
Wizards, I assume, will be the best at flashy offensive magic.

Other classes -- ranger, paladin, barbarian, warlock, etc. -- will have to be given something new that they surpass all other classes at.

So if the fighter specializes in the longsword, he will be the best in the party at it.  A cleric of Corellon can come close, but he won't be as good as the fighter.  If your fighter instead chooses crossbowmanship, then your Cleric of Corellon will be the best longswordsman in the party.

If the rogue specializes in wall-climbing, then nobody else can hope to surpass him.  The wizard might come close with things like spider climb, and the fighter can train in climb as well, but the rogue is consistently better.  If the rogue did not choose to specialize in wall climbing, then the wizard's spider climb or the fighter's training will make them the party's best climbers. 

That seems to me to be the goal and I approve, if I've read it correctly.



If that's the way it works, then I'm fine with that. It may be that some of the other classes might be really, really, really good at two things but not quite the best and I'd be okay with that as well.
There is a demand for a non-vancian caster, so I don't mind if the sorcerer is a wizard with different mechanics.
It seems to me that the class philosophy is "Everybody is the best at what they do, and some classes can build themselves to be second best."

Fighters are going to be the best at taking the fight to the enemy. 
Rogues are going to be the best at fighting advantageously.  They will also excel at those skills in whcih they specialize.
Clerics are going to be the best at subtle beneficial magic.
Wizards, I assume, will be the best at flashy offensive magic.

Other classes -- ranger, paladin, barbarian, warlock, etc. -- will have to be given something new that they surpass all other classes at.

So if the fighter specializes in the longsword, he will be the best in the party at it.  A cleric of Corellon can come close, but he won't be as good as the fighter.  If your fighter instead chooses crossbowmanship, then your Cleric of Corellon will be the best longswordsman in the party.

If the rogue specializes in wall-climbing, then nobody else can hope to surpass him.  The wizard might come close with things like spider climb, and the fighter can train in climb as well, but the rogue is consistently better.  If the rogue did not choose to specialize in wall climbing, then the wizard's spider climb or the fighter's training will make them the party's best climbers. 

That seems to me to be the goal and I approve, if I've read it correctly.

That's how I read it. Seems like a sensible goal. Not really far off from the way 3e and 4e were (I will assume) intended to work, and sometimes do work.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
In addition to wrecan's summary, I'd like to point out that it doesn't just have to be one thing that a class is good at, but rather that there could be a set of things that the class could be good at.  For example, the fighter, ranger, and rogue may all be able to be very, very good at using shortswords.  But the fighter could also choose to be good at using a greataxe instead of shortswords, whereas the rogue can't do the same.  But the rogue can choose to be good at sneaking, whereas the fighter can't do the same.  (N.B.:  I am not saying that the rogue should have to give up being good at shortswords to be good at sneaking - the question of what you trade for what is another discussion.)

I'd argue that the whole set of things that a class could be good at is the real thing that identifies and separates classes even though no individual character can be good at all of the things in the set at the same time.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
In addition to wrecan's summary, I'd like to point out that it doesn't just have to be one thing that a class is good at, but rather that there could be a set of things that the class could be good at.  For example, the fighter, ranger, and rogue may all be able to be very, very good at using shortswords.  But the fighter could also choose to be good at using a greataxe instead of shortswords, whereas the rogue can't do the same.  But the rogue can choose to be good at sneaking, whereas the fighter can't do the same.  (N.B.:  I am not saying that the rogue should have to give up being good at shortswords to be good at sneaking - the question of what you trade for what is another discussion.)

I'd argue that the whole set of things that a class could be good at is the real thing that identifies and separates classes even though no individual character can be good at all of the things in the set at the same time.



I think that's valid.

As an example, I think a Bard should be just as capable as the rogue at skills, but obviously his combat pillar looks a lot different than the rogues having buff/debuff spells and some healing and very little martial prowess in the base class (I could see a Bard that gives up his spells for 4e Skald like abilities and the ability to hit it with the sword better).
How slow is development if Cleric/Priest is still a RoT topic?  Domains sound good though.

I expect things like this to crop up during the entirety of 5E's development.  It is most certainly not a gauge of the speed of its development.  I mean, if you want to attach that type of significance to it, feel free, but you will only continue to disappoint yourself.

FYI, it wasn't that long ago in the video where they announced that they were only 5-10% through with developing 5E.  You should not be surprised, anyhow.

In the general sense, yeah I don't think the priest class/theme needs to be nailed down at this point.  But my concern is it's been discussed a lot already.  If this discussion is supported in the sample playtest material - if it's a bigger point than I consider it, then my concern is misplaced.  For how little there is to go by so far, I appreciate the clarity (and the direction the designers feel the discussion should fall) but I think I would rather have something new. 



I don't think they answered this question.  Sure the Ranger or Rogue can be best at sneaking and using a bow under the core systems until the Cleric and other magic users cast a subsystem spell that trumps them. 

"Despite the awesome spellcasting abilities of Clerics and other magic users, Rangers and Rogue will still be best and sneaking and using a bow." - that would have answered the question.



I'm pretty sure the devs had said several times that buff spells won't be nearly as powerful as they have been.  I think the days of buffs trumping natural abilities will be gone.

I hope so.

I'd like Next buffs to be party buffs.  Flying around as a wizard is fun, but I think it would be more fun if the whole party was flying around with you.

But I would still like to know how Spells interact with the core systems.  I realize this is a broad generalization, but in previous editions many Spells specifically circumnavigated the core systems of the game in addition to buffing casters within those systems.  Rangers or Rogue use some sort of sneaking Skills and bow Proficiencies with a BAB variant.  You could build a Cleric that is good if not best with Skills and Proficiencies - I get that.  But are you saying there won't be any sneaking Spells?  Or will the Shadow Domain provide Clerics with sneaking that is just not as good as the Ranger or Rogue's Skill sneaking?  I guess I just wanted a better answer to "What are you doing to make sure" Spells "don't step on the toes of other classes?" than "providing ways".

If spells allow a once per encounter boost to skills for performing certain tasks, it may be ok. That still runs the risk that a wizard can out-jump a fighter trained in athletics, for example, or out-stealth a rogue. Depends on how spells scale (or not), and if there is any kind of quadraticness to caster spells in general. If a caster can boost his/her skill multiple times per day (i.e.: pre-4e vancian), and get a better bonus than a trained martial class, we are back to the old wizards rule/fighters drool issue. I can see spells giving boosts to specific stat/skill checks for a very limited duration (one action).

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I don't think they answered this question.  Sure the Ranger or Rogue can be best at sneaking and using a bow under the core systems until the Cleric and other magic users cast a subsystem spell that trumps them. 

"Despite the awesome spellcasting abilities of Clerics and other magic users, Rangers and Rogue will still be best and sneaking and using a bow." - that would have answered the question.



I'm pretty sure the devs had said several times that buff spells won't be nearly as powerful as they have been.  I think the days of buffs trumping natural abilities will be gone.



I'd like Next buffs to be party buffs.  Flying around as a wizard is fun, but I think it would be more fun if the whole party was flying around with you.




My absolute favorite ritual in 4e is Phantom Steeds for just this very reason.
I'm very interested to see what they do with Rogue vs. Bard skill use. -- Will Bards always be better with Charisma-based skills? Will Rogues claim the physical skill niche? -- I would be disappointed if I couldn't build a superbly charismatic Rogue. I'd also be bummed out if I couldn't build a physically adept Bard.

Dividing Sorcerers and Wizards solely by "one's vancian and one's not" would be utterly lame, underwhelming and a terrible repeat of an attempt at definition we've already seen fail before. Sorcerers and Wizards BOTH should have the ability to choose whether or not they wish to be Vancian-like casters.

I'm still holding out hope that Bards are aura-based buffers.

Danny

Sign In to post comments