So has there been any further discussion released about the paladin and the druid? They were both mentioned in the new magic item expansion as being required classes to be attuned to certain weapons, like the Holy Avenger and the Staff of Striking. I was just wondering if there was an ETA for some new classes.
they're not going to be in this month's new packet. the one coming out on monday (most likely) will have the core four from levels 1-10.
i'd say it's fair to assume that we'll have a paladin in the near future though, probably before the end of the year.
Ya, it seems they are focusing on the very, very core basics of the game's framework right now. They will include Druids, Paladins, Rangers, and probably Barbarians eventually (Heck, they are fiddling with the Warlock...kind of a lame class to focus on IMO so I doubt they'll ignore stables like this).
I'm guessing they want to test out each class' "unique" mechanic thouroughly and get it established and functional before working on something else. Right now they need to hammer out something solid for the Rogue, though I think the skill mastery route is a solid avenue for them with the ability to focus into a stealthy dude or a dirty fighter dude alla Scheme's.
Figher CS and expertise dice seem like one of their most winning successes in...ever...so I expect that to be set in stone, just working on ideas for more manuevers and how to dole them out (forced progression like now, or feat-buy like 3.5, etc)
Sorcerer's right now seem to be being tested out as battle-mages considering they only have access to one Sorcerous Origin that just makes them into a plate caster with a giant sword. Kinda cool, but I expect full-casting Origins and maybe some stealthy hybrid options?
Similar idea with Clerics and testing Domains as full play-style changers. Sun is kinda bleh at best, and War basiaclly turns you into a Paladin as my friend pointed out.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to more of the usual classes, and the 5th edition take on them. But until then I'm happy to iron out how each class works methodiaclly so we have tons of fun options.
I dunno, I don't mind warlock's at all. It just feels wierd that they are working on them instead of something like rangers, druids, paladins, or bards; all of which feel more...core? I suppose would be the word I could use, to the D&D.
I also find it odd that the first incarnation of the "Sorcerer" is essentially a spellblade? Sort of...cast magic till out then fight as well as/better than a fighter? Hrm..I like the idea, just another odd direction to me.
I didn't think they were ignoring rangers, paladins, etc; and I figured they were testing stuff with Sorcerer's/Warlocks but didn't know exactly why and It makes a ton of sense when you say it simply like that. Then again I view Vancian casting as core to D&D magic so it doesn't bother me at all, but I understand why people don't like it.
I'm glad to hear they will focus more on the "core" classes though. Figher, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. You can easily argue other classes as being "core" to the game, but really that represents everything: melee, magic (holy/arcane), stealthy, skills, forsight (meming spells), wrecklessness (figher charges in at whatever and hopes for the best), etc. It's a solid foundation that I hope they focus on heavily till it sits perfect with most players.
I'm curious what the idea of addressing magic on the system level would entail though? It seems that Rogues might be getting expertise dice, as fighters have, so that mechanic would work to unifie martial classes...they considering something similar for magic?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.