|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 22, 2013 2:50:31 GMT -8
I read them, read them again and to be honest not impressed . . . To be really honest it was WTF!!! Both classes just seem tailor made to appeal to noisy munchkins clamouring over the WoTC feedback and forums. I love the ranger, the old ranger (0e, 1e, 2e, 3.xe) but really . . . Spell use at 1st level? . . . It just doesn't feel right. Spell use was always a thing for later . . . A reward for developing your character and gaining experience. As to the Paladins mount . . . Why does it have to be some sort of supra-natural being . . . It just comes across as totally OTT. I thought the development team would avoid power creep and the pitfalls of munchkin/power gaming. Now I think they may be bending to silence the loud minority. Rather than separate and distinct character archetypes the new paladin and ranger feel more like uncomfortably cobbled together multiclasses with caveats. The just don't feel 'balanced' or 'fair' . . . They feel, for want of a better description, very 'Palladium'. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by The Northman on Mar 22, 2013 7:20:11 GMT -8
I haven't had a chance to read them in-detail yet, but I can say that I've always been annoyed by the classes with casting abilities that kick in later. Granted I believe there needs to be a fairly high cost to offset those abilities being present from the jump, but I don't have any issues with the idea in concept.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2013 7:31:02 GMT -8
I haven't had a chance to read them in-detail yet, but I can say that I've always been annoyed by the classes with casting abilities that kick in later. Granted I believe there needs to be a fairly high cost to offset those abilities being present from the jump, but I don't have any issues with the idea in concept. I havent read the material yet either, but the ranger casting at first level makes me angry already... The best part about 5E for me is getting back to D&D's roots and that is NOT D&D's roots...are they gonna make the ranger into a friggin nerfed druid or something>?
|
|
|
Post by The Northman on Mar 22, 2013 9:16:30 GMT -8
I had a chance to read throught the Ranger at least. Especially with the spell list they've been given I don't see the ability to cast at 1 as being a huge power jump. I think it makes them a very versatile class, fighting somewhere near the dedicated warriors but able to pitch in on a variety of utility roles. I can see how it would be a negative coming from where you are and what you're expecting from 5e, Shoe, but like I said, I always thought the 5th level caster classes were kind of awkward.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 22, 2013 11:52:57 GMT -8
I agree with Shoe . . . Nerfed Druid is good way of putting what I find uncomfortable. Plus casting at 1st level is too much like being a multiclassed character without to drawbacks ie: slow levelling. I can already imagine the munchkins looking at multiclassing the ranger to create a über-character build that might balance out later but at first thru third levels would just dominate the tabletop. I liked the delayed casting because the spells were useful rather than dominating by virtue of being 1st level spells at a high level. No way could a Paladin or Ranger usurp a spell casting class . . . Because of the inherent power gap. They were more like reserve casters for mundane spells like cure light wounds to free up slots for the partys primary casters . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by greatwyrm on Mar 22, 2013 15:23:55 GMT -8
I'm looking at the ranger and paladin spell lists and I'm having a tough time seeing what I should be upset about. You mentioned you liked them (previously) being backup casters with a little healing and some utility spells and that's what it looks like to me.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 22, 2013 17:04:21 GMT -8
Not at 1st level though. Limited spell list doesn't change the fact that like Shoe I just don't like the feel. The archetypes blur later in levels not early on . . . The back up role is when PC's are at higher levels and the primary spell casters have access to significantly more potent magics. More over look at the Paladin . . . The first thing that set me on edge was the mount. Why does it have to be a supernatural 'thing' - if your campaign is high magic high fantasy great go for that but I like low magic gritty fantasy . . . An extraordinary warhorse is more than adequate . . . It's the issue of being core rules iterations. Really as core rules archetypes the classes should sail right down the middle of gritty vs high fantasy and low vs high magic with the ability to dial it in the direction desired. When the core rule biases this intention I fear that the promised scalability has been either abandoned or broken . . . Back to the ranger, like Shoe said, it feels more like a nerfed Druid rather than a distinct archetype. Aaron PS I'm fully in the camp that says the barbarian should be renamed berserker and a different archetype for the barbarian be developed. An idea mooted by Mr Merles himself because as he quite rightly identified most literary sources etc for barbarians don't fit this rage driven archetype than do . . . Still waiting for the survey to appear for that possibility.
|
|
|
Post by The Northman on Mar 23, 2013 8:20:12 GMT -8
If I were basing things on the same expectations/hopes as you are, I would be in 100% agreement. Making paladins and rangers true hybrids and granting them spells at character creation is a huge change from their classical iterations, and makes them feel very different. I just happen to be approaching from the opposite angle, where I love the idea of rangers and paladins as archetypical fantasy characters, but always felt that the previous D&D versions of those characters were lackluster in many ways. The last "ranger," I played led me to re-skin an Inquisitor with a nature diety because it played more like my own view of what that class should be.
Especially in 3.P, no one is capable of competing with full casters in regard to both power and usefulness. Giving 1st level rangers Goodberry isn't going to change that. I only see them as nerfed druids if magic is going to continue to vastly outpace martial, otherwise they're leaning more toward what I'd like to see them be - ultimate survivors and guides, capable of going into the deepest wilds and keeping themselves and their companions alive by whatever means necessary; lock him in a room with a plate-clad, great-weapon-wielding knight and he's probably screwed, but put that same knight in a party making its way through the woods and things become vastly different.
I absolutely understand the point you and Shoe are making, I'm just coming from a totally different place with my observations.
On Angel McSpacehorse being dumb, we can agree.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 23, 2013 8:45:37 GMT -8
"Angel McSpacehorse !!!" I so love that I'm going to borrow it hereafter Aaron PS: I was reading through the races, again, is it just me or do they discuss and list far more races than they detail? ie: half-elves and half-orcs are listed but no proper description yet?. I'm hoping they're developing them using some old homebrew rules I've seen in the past where the parentage and upbringing are mutable factors ie: if bought up 'human' less demi-human benefits etc plus no guarantee that no two characters of the same mixed parentage will inherit the same racial traits (don't hit me when I mention the early Sharnarra novels . . . but this was a pretty good story hook Terry Brooks employed to both empower and confound his protagonists . . . eg: one of his characters of diluted elven blood having to use the ;elf stones' and the effort practically giving him an aneurysm with resultant nosebleeds and a piss poor result)
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Mar 24, 2013 20:10:08 GMT -8
No need for any of that, though. If you've got a person who inherited more elf than human traits, then you make an elf and talk about how one of their parents was human. Make them human if they're inheriting more human than elf. Make them a half-elf if they got more of an equal measure of each.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 24, 2013 23:00:04 GMT -8
I was thinking more along the lines of things like whatever they call infravision now. Two siblings wouldn't necessarily both inherit this trait despite having the same parent mix. It was one of the better ideas in 2e's Skills & Powers Character Options Book (along with disads in D&D) Aaron
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Mar 24, 2013 23:38:15 GMT -8
Like I said.... Same thing. Brother is a Human, Sister is an Elf. Same parents. Crunch is just crunch. Call the fluff what you want.
I had a Blackguard in a 4e game who was rolled up as a Dragonborn, but we called him a human. He was patterned after the Agent from Serenity. I wanted the dragonfear power, to represent that he could be so intimidating that it would literally stop people in their tracks. GM gave me the go ahead, so we statted him up as a dragonborn, but played him as a human.
The skills and powers options were great. Don't get me wrong... But it would work much better (as I am understanding their philosophy) as a module, rather than a part of the core rules.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 25, 2013 2:46:26 GMT -8
The skills and powers options were great. Don't get me wrong... But it would work much better (as I am understanding their philosophy) as a module, rather than a part of the core rules. Thank God another fan, I'm always a bit trepidacious in voicing my support for this, frequently maligned and misunderstood, final evolution of 2e - I believe a lot of it's bad reception was more to do with it being the last gasp of TSR with respect to core rules ie: people confuse the rule set with the ill will fostered by LW's general management style in TSR's overall conduct at the time. Aaron
|
|