|
6 years ago ::
Aug 20, 2007 - 2:13PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2005
|
Speaking of 'Ranger kills Scout...'
I wonder if we will see an end to the dual-wielding Ranger option. If Ranger is getting Skirmish, it puts the focus firmly on ranged combat. Applying it to melee would horn in on the Rogues action, so I don't see that happening. And, although I have played TWFing Rangers in the past, it never made sense to me why they had the option in the first place.
Drizz't. That's really the only reason for TWFing rangers. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the books, and the character, but come on.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 20, 2007 - 2:17PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2005
|
Drizz't. That's really the only reason for TWFing rangers. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the books, and the character, but come on.
Aragorn going at Ringwraiths with sword and torch?
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 20, 2007 - 2:22PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2007
|
Speaking of 'Ranger kills Scout...'
I wonder if we will see an end to the dual-wielding Ranger option. If Ranger is getting Skirmish, it puts the focus firmly on ranged combat. Applying it to melee would horn in on the Rogues action, so I don't see that happening. And, although I have played TWFing Rangers in the past, it never made sense to me why they had the option in the first place.
Because Drizzt wields 2 scimitars. My guess is also that they gave Rangers in 3.x animal companions because of Drizzt's panther. The weird thing about the animal companion is that Drizzt's panther is a Figurine of Wondrous Power, not a bonded "companion" per se.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 20, 2007 - 2:23PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2005
|
Aragorn going at Ringwraiths with sword and torch?
You'll note, however, that Aragorn doesn't use this as his primary form. It was a one time occurance, and like any D&D character fighting with two-weapons, he probably wasn't terrific at it. In the film (which I use primarily for the visual it provides), Aragorn wasn't making precision strikes. He was flailing about mostly.
Drizz't, on the other hand, is a blazing whirlwind of bladed fury. He excels in dual-wielding.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 20, 2007 - 2:25PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2006
|
what worries me is that I haven't heard any talk of roleplaying at all. And that's really the most important part of choosing a class (or pretty much anything else in D&D).
Maybe because roleplaying doesn't require rules? I *very* rarely play things out of combat as requiring rolls, the exception being if I've got an NPC that I know will respond one way, and the PC wants him to respond another, I'll let him make rolls to try and "talk him down". If I'm on the fence as to what his POV would be given a certain thing, I'll just let the PC state his case and respond accordingly.
I really don't have an issue with the roleplaying rules being stripped: those tended to be the absolute worst rules in 3.x anyway.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 20, 2007 - 2:31PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
> In the film (which I use primarily for the visual it provides), Aragorn wasn't
> making precision strikes. He was flailing about mostly.
Because he was trying to hold off five opponents at once - you don't accomplish that by fighting conservatively.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 20, 2007 - 2:39PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2001
|
Just to cap off the irony of rangers' TWF, Drizzt didn't do that in the first place because he was a ranger, but because all drow in 1E got to be ambidextrous for free. {roll eyes}
I like the idea of grouping rogues (sneak attack) and rangers (favored enemy bonuses, possibly skirmish) as "strikers", for combat purposes. It fits them both.
Now, what I want to know is whether there are also "roles" that characters can fill outside of combat? Does the rogue shift from "striker" in combat to some other role out of combat -- "reconn", "face", etc -- depending on how that particular character is built?
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 20, 2007 - 2:51PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2006
|
Now, what I want to know is whether there are also "roles" that characters can fill outside of combat? Does the rogue shift from "striker" in combat to some other role out of combat -- "reconn", "face", etc -- depending on how that particular character is built?
Well, assuming it uses Saga's skill system (likely with certain things added, like Knowledge), its not hard to build a character that excells in, say, diplomacy; just devote a couple feats to it (training and focus). That basically accomplishes the equivalent of maxing that skill.
Likely out of combat roles will be handled with what skills a class has access to, and I would assume the rogue (as well as whatever ends up filling the Bards niche, if anything) will be first in line for social.
Also, Saga does have talent trees geared towards diplomacy, primarily attached to the jedi and noble classes, so they do exist even in Saga, so I'd imagine they will in 4e as well.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 20, 2007 - 2:51PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2007
|
I think some of you guys are misinterpreting what he was saying about classes and roles. I think what he's actually talking about would sound familiar to anyone who's played World of Warcraft above level 30 or so. The idea is that there are four basic roles in a group (healer, DPS ("striker"), tank ("defender"), and crowd control ("controller")). Each class basically needs to be able to fulfill one of those roles in order to be optimally useful in group combat. D&D 3e had issues because some classes, like bards and monks, really didn't seem to know what they were after. So WotC is trying to assure that each class has a definite role. To use his example, 4e Paladins aren't just hybrid fighters/clerics, they're DEFENDERS, and they're going to be standing right up at the front lines with warriors. Rangers aren't just grungy scouts with crappy druid spells, they're STRIKERS, which means they need to be able to put out a ton o' hurt, just like rogues.
The implications for spellcasting classes are even more interesting. The most common balance complaints against 3e/3.5e seems to be that spellcasters, especially clerics but ESPECIALLY druids, are wackily overpowered. So if druid is now a "healing" class, does that mean they can't just wildshape and outlast a fighter, or plop down quicksand or something to out-"control" a wizard? If wizards aren't "strikers," does that mean they won't be able to Disintegrate anything that stands in their way in a single round?
It kind of sounds like MMOification to me, which seems a bit ominous, but if handled intelligently it could be very nice. Plop down every class on the exam table and ask, "in combat, what is this guy FOR?"
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 20, 2007 - 3:01PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2001
|
Likely out of combat roles will be handled with what skills a class has access to, and I would assume the rogue (as well as whatever ends up filling the Bards niche, if anything) will be first in line for social.
I never doubted that people could build PCs to specialize in such out-of-combat niches. What I'm wondering is whether there will be recommended niches/roles/jobs for PCs out of combat, or merely during fights. If the out-of-combat niches that characters shift to between fights are defined in a comparable way, that might soothe fears that "roles" are an attempt to shoehorn the game into an MMO model.
|
|
|
