PDA

View Full Version : 4th Ed: Races, Classes, UPDATED!



Person_Man
2007-11-26, 11:57 AM
UPDATED 11/28/07

There's a pretty solid rumor (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=957107) that the final 4th ed race will be Dragonborn (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060105b&page=1).

There's also the possibility of other classes beyond the Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Cleric, Warlord, Wizard, and Warlock. Specifically, "druids, barbarians, swordmages." I'm guessing the swordmage is a Duskblade. UPDATE: Swordmages are arcane defenders. See my post below for details if you're interested.

According to a Peter Schaefer (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13749628&postcount=8), "Each race works best with two or three classes, thanks to a stat bonus or other feature, and none suck at any class."

In addition, we have a lot more information from EN World (http://www.enworld.org/) via this thread on the WotC forum (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14438269#post14438269).

So our current line-up, based on mostly rumor and my best guesses, are:

Race: Homeland: Favored Class: Class Role: Class Power Source

Human: Plains: Anything
Dwarf: Mountains: Fighter: Defender: Martial
Eladrin: Feywild: Wizard: Controller: Arcane
Elf: Forests: Ranger: Striker: Martial/Divine
Dragonborn: Dessert: Warlord: Leader: Martial
Halfling: Rivers: Rogue: Striker: Martial
Tiefling: Shadowfell: Warlock: Striker: Arcane
?: ?: Cleric: Leader: Divine
?: ?: Paladin: Defender: Divine
?: ?: Swordmage: Defender: Arcane
?: ?: Barbarian: Striker: Martial
?: ?: Druid: Controller?: Divine
?: ?: Bard!: Controller/Leader?: Divine WTF?
?: ?: Monk!: Striker: Martial
?: ?: Sorcerer!: Striker: Arcane

Other non-core races that were mentioned are gnome, drow, celestial (aasimar) and warforged. They'll most likely be published as playable races in early supplements.

As I've posted before, its seems as if WotC has quickly abandoned any niche protection. 4th Ed seems to be transforming into a "best of 3.5, but newer" without any systematic effort to balance the classes.

Discuss.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-26, 12:02 PM
We can probably take humans out of the "Good at two or three classes" picture. Humans have always been good at everything, so I'd be VEEEEERY suprised if that changed. 'Sides, which classes would they be good for? Fighters? Nah, nothing remarkable there. Casters? Unremarkable. Leaders? Could be. Skillmonkeys? Could be. But none would be really set for a human.

puppyavenger
2007-11-26, 12:28 PM
I'd say elf for warlock bvecause they're being set up for a nature vibe and warlocks can apparently make pacts with "feral" creatures.

Morty
2007-11-26, 12:48 PM
I really hope those "dragonborn" are either false or on secondary race.

Inyssius Tor
2007-11-26, 12:51 PM
... we know they aren't "false." You've read Races of the Dragon, right?

EDIT: As for being a "secondary race": if they're in the PHB, how would that work?

Crow
2007-11-26, 12:56 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if it was core. Everything they're spewing out seems to be whatever happens to be in vogue on the gleemax forums.

When they release 4e we'll all be here talking about our Half-Dragon (or is that Dragonborn?) Warforged Warblades (oops, I mean Fighters), and how many maneuvers they can pull off in one round.

If the Swordmage is true, I am very disappointed. I always thought the Duskblade was a poor gish. True gish afficianados would scoff at just 6th level spells. Also, the loss of the sorcerer is a bummer to me. Hopefully the warlock got his stuff, without the lame fiendish pact thing.

Morty
2007-11-26, 01:04 PM
... we know they aren't "false." You've read Races of the Dragon, right?

No, I haven't read Races of the Dragon. As for they being "false", I meant that I hope the rumors about them being core race are false, not that I hope the race doesn't exist. It's just that if they aren't core, I'll have an easier time ignoring them.


EDIT: As for being a "secondary race": if they're in the PHB, how would that work?

Well, I hope they won't be in PHB.

Jayngfet
2007-11-26, 01:10 PM
not to sound stupid, but when does 4th ED happen?

Anon. and on
2007-11-26, 01:11 PM
My only reaction to this race is
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! FURRY! :smallwink:

But seriously, it looks convincing, alas. I mean, I'm fine with the new planetouched, but couldn't we have had a Zenthyr/Tulahadara/Chaond instead of something that's so limiting? It would mean more opportunities to explore alignment,

J.Gellert
2007-11-26, 01:12 PM
I'm generally against any new race (I happen to like the current line-up) but if a new one must be core, then at least let it be some kind of Lizard-man, Rat-man, or Cat/Lion-man, which I have at least grown accustomed to from other RPGs in recent years.

Humans are probably going to be good all-around, or at least moderate all-around.

I am also thinking Druids (or something similar) are a sure bet. Unless the new race is a kind of changeling or fey that can Wildshape. :smalltongue:

Indon
2007-11-26, 01:16 PM
Looks good.

I'd like it if they made the Humans the jack-of-all-classes-master-of-none that they were probably intended to be in 3'rd edition, before everyone realized how potent an extra feat and skill point per level was (making them a jack-of-all-classes-and-still-master-of-a-bunch-of-them).

And the more classes, and the more diverse they are, the better, in my opinion.

Artanis
2007-11-26, 01:20 PM
There's also the possibility of other classes beyond the Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Cleric, Warlord, Wizard, and Warlock. Specifically, "druids, barbarians, swordmages." I'm guessing the swordmage is a Duskblade.
Can you tell us where that quote comes from? Not that I'm doubting you or anything, I just want to know how solid of a "possibility" it is. I'd also like to know how solidly you're convinced that Swordmage = Duskblade...because just the quote you posted here indicates to me that it might be a Sorcerer or (more likely) Warmage.

Lord Zentei
2007-11-26, 01:34 PM
not to sound stupid, but when does 4th ED happen?

The Player's Handbook is set to be available in May 2008, IIRC.

Starbuck_II
2007-11-26, 01:39 PM
Swordmage was talked about a few months back.

It is a new class: while similar to Duskblade; it was not the same (or at least not hinted).
I think it will be a Swordsage with arcane adaptation variant in ToB. But, we won't know till it is done.

Person_Man
2007-11-26, 01:41 PM
Can you tell us where that quote comes from? Not that I'm doubting you or anything, I just want to know how solid of a "possibility" it is. I'd also like to know how solidly you're convinced that Swordmage = Duskblade...because just the quote you posted here indicates to me that it might be a Sorcerer or (more likely) Warmage.

If you follow my link through the WotC forum, you'll find that it was posted on EN World (http://www.enworld.org/), which does a much better job of organizing 4th ed information then the official WotC site.

Virtually every book written by Americans is printed overseas, because the cost of producing paper and running a factory is much cheaper in countries without environmental or labor laws. Once printed, they are then shipped directly to the book sellers across the world. It often gets to foreign countries (or on the shelves of local stores in the producing country) before it gets to the US because of proximity. And international booksellers often ignore official release dates, because they don't have a close relationship with American publishers, unlike Barnes and Noble et al. In this case, the Races & Classes preview was found by some gamer in Hungry, who glanced through the book and then posted about it on the boards.

Telonius
2007-11-26, 01:42 PM
My only reaction to this race is
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! FURRY! :smallwink:

But seriously, it looks convincing, alas. I mean, I'm fine with the new planetouched, but couldn't we have had a Zenthyr/Tulahadara/Chaond instead of something that's so limiting? It would mean more opportunities to explore alignment,

I think that would be more like ...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! SCALEY! :smallwink:

:smallbiggrin:

....
2007-11-26, 01:42 PM
I already miss gnomes. :smallfrown:

Dausuul
2007-11-26, 01:43 PM
The Player's Handbook is set to be available in May 2008, IIRC.

No, they changed their plans. Now all three core books are set for release in June '08.

RandomLogic
2007-11-26, 01:43 PM
So is Dragonborn taking the place of Half-Orc?

Also I would expect that Humans would still be the 'jack of all trades master of none' race for all the classes.

Artanis
2007-11-26, 01:52 PM
If you follow my link through the WotC forum, you'll find that it was posted on EN World (http://www.enworld.org/), which does a much better job of organizing 4th ed information then the official WotC site.

Virtually every book written by Americans is printed overseas, because the cost of producing paper and running a factory is much cheaper in countries without environmental or labor laws. Once printed, they are then shipped directly to the book sellers across the world. It often gets to foreign countries (or on the shelves of local stores in the producing country) before it gets to the US because of proximity. And international booksellers often ignore official release dates, because they don't have a close relationship with American publishers, unlike Barnes and Noble et al. In this case, the Races & Classes preview was found by some gamer in Hungry, who glanced through the book and then posted about it on the boards.
Oh. Right.


Sorry, brain is still fried from class :smalleek:

Lord Zentei
2007-11-26, 02:05 PM
No, they changed their plans. Now all three core books are set for release in June '08.

Ah. Well, it's only one more month to wait.


And as an aside, I concur with .... on gnomes.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-11-26, 02:07 PM
The Swordmage has been mentioned before; it's supposedly an Arcane Defender, and there weren't any plans (at the time) to try to cram it into the first PHB. That implies that it's not that similar to the Duskblade, as the Duskblade is about as Striker as you get.

YPU
2007-11-26, 02:24 PM
I already miss gnomes. :smallfrown:

Indeed, how in the world can they drop the gnome’s? HOW? Its not like we all know that the first homebrew thing we will see for 4E is the gnome, it will be annoying that there will be no standard place for gnomes in campaign settings now.

Anyhow, the rumor seems to be plausible but not rock solid. Dragonborn probably has the first place on my list of possible mystery races.

Draz74
2007-11-26, 02:35 PM
Indeed, how in the world can they drop the gnome’s? HOW? Its not like we all know that the first homebrew thing we will see for 4E is the gnome, it will be annoying that there will be no standard place for gnomes in campaign settings now.

Thing is, gnomes didn't really have a standard place in campaign settings anyway. That's why they're getting dropped. Their self-identity confusion (we're prankster illusionists! ... no, we're little peaceful burrowing folk who hang out with bunnies and sing songs! ... no, we're tinkerers who are geniuses at building all kinds of mechanical contraptions!) was at least as bad as the elves' (everything about us says we should have favored class Ranger, but somehow we're still all obsessed with being Wizards). But at least the elves were an integral part of most worlds' histories; gnomes rarely had any major kingdoms or even territories, or any major influence on the world. Their ecology didn't make sense ... they were rarely non-combatant NPCs ...

Vectner
2007-11-26, 03:02 PM
Thing is, gnomes didn't really have a standard place in campaign settings anyway. That's why they're getting dropped. Their self-identity confusion (we're prankster illusionists! ... no, we're little peaceful burrowing folk who hang out with bunnies and sing songs! ... no, we're tinkerers who are geniuses at building all kinds of mechanical contraptions!) was at least as bad as the elves' (everything about us says we should have favored class Ranger, but somehow we're still all obsessed with being Wizards). But at least the elves were an integral part of most worlds' histories; gnomes rarely had any major kingdoms or even territories, or any major influence on the world. Their ecology didn't make sense ... they were rarely non-combatant NPCs ...

So how can you justify dragonborn and tieflings then? I highly doubt there will be dragonboarn kingdoms or a unified identiy to the tiefling race.

Person_Man
2007-11-26, 03:02 PM
The Swordmage has been mentioned before; it's supposedly an Arcane Defender, and there weren't any plans (at the time) to try to cram it into the first PHB. That implies that it's not that similar to the Duskblade, as the Duskblade is about as Striker as you get.

Whoops. Right you are (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906386).

Money quote:

Good morning, everybody! Today, I can talk a little bit about the swordmage.

First, let me say a few words about the origin of the class. Some of you have already observed that the "grid" created by lining up power sources on one axis and character role on another axis is a natural first place to look for class ideas. We don't intend to meticulously fill in each possible combination, or even limit ourselves to one class per cubbyhole, but it's an interesting place to start. The swordmage appeared about 15 months ago when we asked ourselves, "Say, what would an arcane defender look like?"

We liked the idea well enough that at one point the swordmage was well on his way to being included in the Player's Handbook. But for various reasons we decided to go with a slightly different mix of character classes, and so the swordmage is going to wait for a while. It's a class we are going to design and publish someday, but it probably won't be in 2008... with one key exception: I'm featuring a swordmage named Geran Hulmaster as the protagonist in my upcoming Forgotten Realms trilogy, beginning with the aptly-titled novel "Swordmage." It'll be out in May.

Naturally, I needed to know a lot about how the class ticks in order to write about one. Since I don't have a mechanical design to base my Geran's abilities on, I've thought long and hard about what the swordmage class should do, how it looks, and how it feels. So here are a few things I know about the swordmage, based on what I've done for my novel:

* Swordmages aren't "gishes" or bladesingers. Someone over on EN World made an uncannily accurate prediction about the class, which I can confirm here: A swordmage is a warrior who uses magic to fight better.

* Swordmages use spells of armorning and protection instead of wearing heavy armor. At the most basic level, it's something along the lines of an always-on mage armor spell, renewed each morning. Since they're defenders, they need hit points and AC comparable to fighters, and swordmages get there by using persistent magic effects.I think there are other persistent wards in play too, spells that provide some energy resistance, mental defense, things of that sort.

* Swordmages have lots of room for fun, combat-focused "immediate" spells and "move" spells. For example, my character Geran makes use of a few short-range teleports and transpositions, as well as instant shield-like effects. The movement effects will work great for a defender--what better way to get the troll to stop beating on the wizard than to simply trade places with your unarmored friend?

* Swordmages have room for fun attack powers, too. For example, I have Geran make use of a short-duration, self-only strength spell, as well as another one that wreathes his sword in magical flames. There are a few others I touched on in my novel, but I don't want to give any more away 'cause I don't want to spoil things.

Anyway, there you go! Someday you'll be able to play a character like that if you've got the inclination to.

Rich said that it won't be in the core rules, but apparently its in the core rules preview. Maybe they liked it so much during playtesting it was included? Or they're previewing supplements? We'll have to wait and see.

Morty
2007-11-26, 03:09 PM
So how can you justify dragonborn and tieflings then? I highly doubt there will be dragonboarn kingdoms or a unified identiy to the tiefling race.

Well, tieflings are descendants of humans and otherworldly beings. They aren't the same kind of race as elves or humans. They aren't supposed to have political and cultural structures.

Crow
2007-11-26, 03:12 PM
* Swordmages aren't "gishes" or bladesingers. Someone over on EN World made an uncannily accurate prediction about the class, which I can confirm here: A swordmage is a warrior who uses magic to fight better.

* Swordmages use spells of armorning and protection instead of wearing heavy armor. At the most basic level, it's something along the lines of an always-on mage armor spell, renewed each morning. Since they're defenders, they need hit points and AC comparable to fighters, and swordmages get there by using persistent magic effects.I think there are other persistent wards in play too, spells that provide some energy resistance, mental defense, things of that sort.

* Swordmages have lots of room for fun, combat-focused "immediate" spells and "move" spells. For example, my character Geran makes use of a few short-range teleports and transpositions, as well as instant shield-like effects. The movement effects will work great for a defender--what better way to get the troll to stop beating on the wizard than to simply trade places with your unarmored friend?

* Swordmages have room for fun attack powers, too. For example, I have Geran make use of a short-duration, self-only strength spell, as well as another one that wreathes his sword in magical flames. There are a few others I touched on in my novel, but I don't want to give any more away 'cause I don't want to spoil things.Would somebody please enlighten me as to how in the F-ing hell that is not a gish?

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-26, 03:13 PM
And the dragonborn I know are members of another race who transformed into a sort of halfdragon following Bahamut. Though it could be used with just about any dragon god.

Ryuuk
2007-11-26, 03:40 PM
Would somebody please enlighten me as to how in the F-ing hell that is not a gish?

From the sound of it, just change the M to an S in Swordmage to get a good idea of what they'll be like.

Charity
2007-11-26, 03:49 PM
Dragon type lizards as a player race, unprecidented.
http://www.godsmonsters.com/library/graphics/games/Runequest.jpg

Draz74
2007-11-26, 04:05 PM
So how can you justify dragonborn and tieflings then? I highly doubt there will be dragonboarn kingdoms or a unified identiy to the tiefling race.

I wasn't trying to justify the inclusion of the dragonborn or tieflings. I was just justifying the lack of gnomes.:smalltongue:

Although I have heard a rumor that the "Points of Light" is supposed to reference back to a couple of huge fallen empires that were ruled by, yes, fiends (tiefling ancestors) and dragonborn.

Besides, they could be important in politics even if they don't have nations of their own. (Gnomes, however, generally weren't.) They could also have their ecology and their place in common society defined better than gnomes' ever were. It remains to be seen what kind of quality WotC will come out with for all of this stuff.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-11-26, 04:25 PM
Although I have heard a rumor that the "Points of Light" is supposed to reference back to a couple of huge fallen empires that were ruled by, yes, fiends (tiefling ancestors) and dragonborn.Points of Light doesn't refer to anything more than a loose framework. The points themselves might be a xenophobic human hamlet, an underground Dwarven trade city, an Elven treetop village, or a large multiracial metropolis. There's not much more to read into than that.

That having been said, one of the playtest reports mentioned an ancient empire of the tieflings, implying that mama tieflings and papa tieflings actually make baby tieflings, rather than populating the race entirely by the neglected children of horny demons.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-11-26, 04:31 PM
As I've posted before, its seems as if WotC has quickly abandoned any niche protection. 4th Ed seems to be transforming into a "best of 3.5, but newer" without any systematic effort to balance the classes.

Discuss.

Excuse me? How do you know what they are or aren't doing in regards to balance? We have yet to see any of the mechanics for these classes.

Vectner
2007-11-26, 04:39 PM
I wasn't trying to justify the inclusion of the dragonborn or tieflings. I was just justifying the lack of gnomes.:smalltongue:

Although I have heard a rumor that the "Points of Light" is supposed to reference back to a couple of huge fallen empires that were ruled by, yes, fiends (tiefling ancestors) and dragonborn.

Besides, they could be important in politics even if they don't have nations of their own. (Gnomes, however, generally weren't.) They could also have their ecology and their place in common society defined better than gnomes' ever were. It remains to be seen what kind of quality WotC will come out with for all of this stuff.

They could have just as easily writen a context to which gnomes have a "purpose". I am frustrated by them dictating flavor and emposing a setting.

The argument that gnomes didn't have a purpose so they were left out is flawed in that they could have what ever purpose you decided in your campaign.

I run a campaign in which elves are all slaves in the human empire after the demi-human wars. So elves are rare and half-elves are despised, but wouldn't suggest the PHB change to match my particular setting.

puppyavenger
2007-11-26, 05:06 PM
Well at least will get them when eboron comes out.

Stam
2007-11-26, 05:06 PM
Would somebody please enlighten me as to how in the F-ing hell that is not a gish?
They don't get access to the wowie-zowie-uberness of the wizard's can-do-everything spellcasting?

Sounds to me like all of their abilities are chained/channelled directly to defense and/or offense. Probably very little utility...think like the Warmage, but with less blastiness and more defenses and swordiness?

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-26, 05:15 PM
I assumed that gnomes were left out because so many people don't like them more than any other race. So, really it made since and I usually cut gnomes from my campaigns anyway with a few exceptions and I use Dragonlance gnomes for those.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-11-26, 05:25 PM
4th Ed ... without any systematic effort to balance the classes.


As the Rhine Maiden said, why do you think they won't at least make an effort?


In this case, the Races & Classes preview was found by some gamer in Hungry, ...

You meant "found by a hungry gamer" I assume, who then proceeded to digest the book? :smalltongue:

Kaelik
2007-11-26, 05:27 PM
That having been said, one of the playtest reports mentioned an ancient empire of the tieflings, implying that mama tieflings and papa tieflings actually make baby tieflings, rather than populating the race entirely by the neglected children of horny demons.

Unless the Tieflings in charge practiced magic, summoned up a bunch of demons and had them mate with human slaves all the time.

Overlard
2007-11-26, 05:40 PM
Unless the Tieflings in charge practiced magic, summoned up a bunch of demons and had them mate with human slaves all the time.
Are you seeing they're extra-planar voyeurs?

Kaelik
2007-11-26, 05:46 PM
Are you seeing they're extra-planar voyeurs?

Well it would be more for a continuation of the current power structure then for the voyeurism. They would probably adopt the offspring since they are all barren.

Person_Man
2007-11-26, 05:56 PM
Excuse me? How do you know what they are or aren't doing in regards to balance? We have yet to see any of the mechanics for these classes.

I just read the blogs and forums on a regular basis. When anyone posts something interesting, there's almost always a freakout on the 4th ed boards somewhere. The developers will often post on the 4th ed boards to answer criticism, usually by providing additional details.

For example, one of the playtesters posted on her blog that the Paladin had an ability called "Divine Challenge" that sounded very similar to the Knight's Test of Mettle ability. I posted about it (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14317368), criticizing the possibility of Aggro as a core rules mechanic. Mike Mearls saw the thread, and posted a clarification. This sort of back and forth goes on all the time between between WotC and the community. Although the specific rules are rarely spelled out (because they're still editing), people have a pretty good idea as to how the mechanics in general will work. There's a decent compilation of them on EN World (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e).

Specifically regarding niche protection and class balance, WotC has publically stated that there will be 4 party roles:

Leader (healing, party buffs)
Defender (meat shield)
Striker (damage dealer, skills)
Controller (battlefield control)

Shortly after explaining these, details about the classes started leaking out. It quickly became apparent that classes had powers that fell outside of their primary role. When people asked about it, they responded that they were doing this on purpose, because they wanted to add flexibility, and that roles are just a guideline for what each class theoretically does best.

So, I think its quite logical to conclude that we're going to see the Monk problem (sounds cool, but is really useless because its not specialized enough and the abilities aren't particularly potent) and the CoDzilla problem (Class A is better at role X then Class B, even though Class B was specifically designed to do role X).

....
2007-11-26, 05:57 PM
They could have just as easily writen a context to which gnomes have a "purpose". I am frustrated by them dictating flavor and emposing a setting.

The argument that gnomes didn't have a purpose so they were left out is flawed in that they could have what ever purpose you decided in your campaign.

Exactly.

This whole, 'well, gnomes never had a place' is crap. Dragonborn never had a place, tieflings and aasimars never had a place. Hell, it dosn't make sense for tieflings or aasimars to be able to reproduce, and even if they did how would they have more tieflings/aasimars? They'd breed out the demon/celestial blood eventually, unless every few hundered years they went up/down and banged an Outsider to keep it going.

It wouldn't be hard at all to use 4th edition to nail down gnomes once and for all. They did it in 3.0 with halflings, finally changing them from barefooted food-lover to...well... little elves. Couldn't they have done that same (if lazy) method and said gnomes are just skinny chaotic dwarves?

I don't know. Sometimes I get the impression that all WotC is trying to do is turn all the PC characters into 'supercoolawesomebadassuberman' people. It sounds more like Exalted than D&D, to me.

daggaz
2007-11-26, 06:06 PM
Great...freaking halfdragon paladins. Just what I need in my games. I'm also going to prophesies a TON of dwarven characters going for the LA free +4 con, with a small hit in dex and charisma. It is just screaming fighter or melee cleric.

Meh... Im thinking my new games are gonna be a half-orc red-headed bastard child of 3.5 and 4.0...

Crow
2007-11-26, 07:02 PM
I don't know. Sometimes I get the impression that all WotC is trying to do is turn all the PC characters into 'supercoolawesomebadassuberman' people. It sounds more like Exalted than D&D, to me.

I have gotten this feeling as well. I'm not sure why. It seems like they want every player to feel "badass". I have been getting the feeling that the game has been slowly moving more towards individual badassery, and the "team" concept, along with "roles" seem rather forced.

"We want you to rely upon your teammates." is the statement. But what we keep seeing is "We want you to be a badass standalone character."


Leader (healing, party buffs)
Defender (meat shield)
Striker (damage dealer, skills)
Controller (battlefield control)

I will bet money that the defenders will either be better at striking than the strikers, or the strikers will be so much more effective than the defenders as to render the defenders useless.

It partially comes down to the old "which is better?" argument about the best offense and best defense.

Wait and see.

Also, battlefield control will be brokenly amazing. There are only so many batlefield control abilities out there, and now they need enough to fill the entire new spell progressions. With that quantity, somethings going to be broken, and it will become worse at higher levels.

Don't give me the "3.x is already broken B-S either. If it is or isn't, it doesn't matter in regards to 4e. They're supposed to be fixing it.

brian c
2007-11-26, 07:12 PM
Great...freaking halfdragon paladins. Just what I need in my games. I'm also going to prophesies a TON of dwarven characters going for the LA free +4 con, with a small hit in dex and charisma. It is just screaming fighter or melee cleric.

Um... where is this "LA free +4 con" that you speak of?

Kaelik
2007-11-26, 07:26 PM
Um... where is this "LA free +4 con" that you speak of?

I'm pretty sure he's talking about Dwarven Dragonborn (in 3.5) that get +4 Con for 0 LA. And from there he is just foolishly assuming that 4ed will have the exact same mechanics as 3.5 both in terms of the abilities granted by each race and the way Dragonborn stack on top of other races. Even though I'd bet hundreds of dollars that he is wrong.

I was confused at where he was pulling actual numbers and mechanics from at first too, but then I realized that he just missed the whole 4th ed part of the thread (probably because he didn't read most of the thread.)

Daze
2007-11-26, 07:47 PM
It wouldn't be hard at all to use 4th edition to nail down gnomes once and for all. They did it in 3.0 with halflings, finally changing them from barefooted food-lover to...well... little elves. Couldn't they have done that same (if lazy) method and said gnomes are just skinny chaotic dwarves?

I don't know. Sometimes I get the impression that all WotC is trying to do is turn all the PC characters into 'supercoolawesomebadassuberman' people. It sounds more like Exalted than D&D, to me.

WOTC could have done that, but that would require actual creative work on their part. It's much easier just to bastardize WoW's mechanics and impose them on what was once the intelligent, thoughtful (if not overly-complicated) systems of D&D, AD&D, 2nd and some parts of 3rd Edition.

I never personally understood why Gnomes weren't popular. Some of my best character were those little guys. To say "they dont have an ecology" (previous poster) is ridiculous anyways. First of all we KNOW there's Gnomish women... as opposed to some other short-statured races I could name.
Lets see.... big noses, short stature, light hearted personalities, penchant for crafting and mining and jewels, but not the deep dwelling mountain xenophobes dwarves are. Hill people essentially. A bit chaotic... in fact the only race that was consistently CG.
They filled an important niche in the world (not to mention some comic relief!). Dragon people or demon bastards are NOT gonna fit neatly at all.... they were fine as DM allowable special races. Gnomes on the other hand feel very standard to any fantasy setting and a 4th edition DM would be wise to give them a homebrewed colony somewhere in their worlds.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-11-26, 08:08 PM
I've been steadily drinking ever since there was no word on either half- or full-orc. The fact that this silly, lame version of dragons got made a player race to sate the desires of those who wish to play dragons (who will not be sated, since Dragonborn are truly, chronically, inane) doesn't help or hurt matters.

Mr Pants
2007-11-26, 08:25 PM
This lack of gnomes in 4th ed. is more depressing than Arcanis gnomes, if you can even call those things gnomes.

I think WoTC just likes picking on the little guy.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-26, 08:30 PM
S'long as humans don't get the sack, we'll manage. When they do, though...

Orzel
2007-11-26, 09:00 PM
Specifically regarding niche protection and class balance, WotC has publically stated that there will be 4 party roles:

Leader (healing, party buffs)
Defender (meat shield)
Striker (damage dealer, skills)
Controller (battlefield control)

Shortly after explaining these, details about the classes started leaking out. It quickly became apparent that classes had powers that fell outside of their primary role. When people asked about it, they responded that they were doing this on purpose, because they wanted to add flexibility, and that roles are just a guideline for what each class theoretically does best.

So, I think its quite logical to conclude that we're going to see the Monk problem (sounds cool, but is really useless because its not specialized enough and the abilities aren't particularly potent) and the CoDzilla problem (Class A is better at role X then Class B, even though Class B was specifically designed to do role X).

I don't see that problem coming up much though. According to what I've read and inferred, each class will get 1 role by default. Then each class can specialize feats/powers/whatever to gain some of the powers of another role or strengthen the default role they already have. So your rogue starts as a striker. But after taking Improved Toughness 3 times and fill Opportunist talent tree, he's a half decent striker/defender. Really all they have to do is tighten the spell lists.

brian c
2007-11-26, 09:30 PM
I'm pretty sure he's talking about Dwarven Dragonborn (in 3.5) that get +4 Con for 0 LA. And from there he is just foolishly assuming that 4ed will have the exact same mechanics as 3.5 both in terms of the abilities granted by each race and the way Dragonborn stack on top of other races. Even though I'd bet hundreds of dollars that he is wrong.

I was confused at where he was pulling actual numbers and mechanics from at first too, but then I realized that he just missed the whole 4th ed part of the thread (probably because he didn't read most of the thread.)

That's what I figured he meant, wanted to ask anyway. Just because they're using the same name for the race doesn't mean it's the same mechanics, and with the way races seem to be working in 4e there might not be such thing as LA at all. Also, if Dragonborn are a core race, it seems like a safe assumption that it's not just a template added to another race.

Sequinox
2007-11-26, 09:37 PM
Okay. I already have a list of things to homebrew:

Druids.
Gnomes.
Sorcerers.

Who CARES about some stupid 'dragonborn' or 'warblade' character? Gnomes have been with us forever. Druids have been around since the beginning. :smallfurious: Sorcerers... Well, I just like playing sorcerers. :smallbiggrin:

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-26, 09:51 PM
Okay. I already have a list of things to homebrew:

Druids.
Gnomes.
Sorcerers.

Who CARES about some stupid 'dragonborn' or 'warblade' character? Gnomes have been with us forever. Druids have been around since the beginning. :smallfurious: Sorcerers... Well, I just like playing sorcerers. :smallbiggrin:

But how do you know what wizards will be like? Wizard's has said that "Vacian Casting is (mostly) gone", so the difference between sorcerer and wizard will be non-existent, though you can just change the name if you really want to.

Thinker
2007-11-26, 11:31 PM
You all know gnomes will be in the MM, right? Its in the info from that link Person_Man posted. With various classes having talent trees it wouldn't be surprising if one of the cleric trees made a druid-like character. Instead of focusing on the negative, try to focus on the facts and make inferences from there.

Draz74
2007-11-27, 11:28 AM
This whole, 'well, gnomes never had a place' is crap. Dragonborn never had a place, tieflings and aasimars never had a place. Hell, it dosn't make sense for tieflings or aasimars to be able to reproduce, and even if they did how would they have more tieflings/aasimars? They'd breed out the demon/celestial blood eventually, unless every few hundered years they went up/down and banged an Outsider to keep it going.

It wouldn't be hard at all to use 4th edition to nail down gnomes once and for all. They did it in 3.0 with halflings, finally changing them from barefooted food-lover to...well... little elves. Couldn't they have done that same (if lazy) method and said gnomes are just skinny chaotic dwarves?

I don't know. Sometimes I get the impression that all WotC is trying to do is turn all the PC characters into 'supercoolawesomebadassuberman' people. It sounds more like Exalted than D&D, to me.

Now, this stuff is fair criticism. It's true, they could have added an actual in-world role to Gnomes, the same way they're trying to do with Tieflings and Dragonborn. It might have even been easier, since Gnomes are a trifle less exotic.

But what I was saying in previous posts is that this doesn't make it "obviously better" to keep Gnomes and exclude these new exotic races in 4E. People are claiming that dropping Gnomes is a blasphemous crime against all that D&D stands for, which is nonsense because Gnomes weren't really well-integrated into most D&D settings anyway; and that adding exotic races is likewise destroying the foundations of D&D because these races don't have an established place in the world, which is also nonsense as long as they add these new races skillfully.

Yes, which races should be included is extremely setting-specific. Gnomes are a great race in a few settings, such as (I assume) Vectner's homebrew world, or even Rich Burlew's New World setting in the Gaming section. But WotC can't include every race in the PHB that is integral to some setting or another, people! 26 base PC races would not only make the book way too long, but would destroy the simplicity that is supposed to be a founding principle of 4E. So the only way WotC could make the PHB truly setting-neutral like some zealots are crying for, is to include only Humans as a PHB race. (Actually, I guess even then there are a couple strange settings that wouldn't fit.)

So they have to make a choice about which races they want to work to integrate into the "default setting." Gnomes are a valid candidate, but not a given just because they were Core in 3E; that's "sacred cow preservation." And what criteria are WotC using to decide which races make the cut? Why, what they think will sell better, of course. And apparently Gnomes don't make that cut. Quit whining about it and realize that it won't be too hard to import Gnomes from the MM to be a PC race in settings where they belong.

Now, apparently what does make the cut in marketability is races that go with the aforementioned "'supercoolawesomebadassuberman' people" genre. Lame? Kinda. But that's more a comment on all of gaming society than it is a valid criticism of WotC and their choices.

Indon
2007-11-27, 12:01 PM
Excuse me? How do you know what they are or aren't doing in regards to balance? We have yet to see any of the mechanics for these classes.

Well, unless they want to give all the classes with the same role the same mechanics with different names, the more classes they add, the weaker the niches.

Edit: Think of it like this: There are only so many unique roles. If you have more classes than there are unique roles, you're going to have duplication.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-11-27, 12:12 PM
Well, unless they want to give all the classes with the same role the same mechanics with different names, the more classes they add, the weaker the niches.

Edit: Think of it like this: There are only so many unique roles. If you have more classes than there are unique roles, you're going to have duplication.

I agree that niche protection is hard to maintain, but Person_Man also said that there would not be " any systematic effort to balance the classes", which is a more extreme statement.

Indon
2007-11-27, 01:04 PM
I agree that niche protection is hard to maintain, but Person_Man also said that there would not be " any systematic effort to balance the classes", which is a more extreme statement.

I view the two as the same thing.

If you have two classes which do the same thing in a different way, then chances are, one of them will be better than the other. It's just a matter of the degree to which one is superior.

Sure, you can design classes to all be about the same level of effectiveness, so that imbalance is minimal, but that's on a case-by-case basis; it's not built in the system.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-11-27, 01:17 PM
I view the two as the same thing.

They are of course correlated, but they are clearly not the same thing unless you use an unusual definition of balance.


If you have two classes which do the same thing in a different way, then chances are, one of them will be better than the other. It's just a matter of the degree to which one is superior.


Assuming that things will be perfectly balanced if you have more than one class and race is unrealistic.
If there are 4 roles, but more than 4 classes there will be some kind of overlap.


Sure, you can design classes to all be about the same level of effectiveness, so that imbalance is minimal, but that's on a case-by-case basis; it's not built in the system.

There will be more than 4 classes, so there will be some kind of imbalance, but that does not mean that they won't at least try to balance the roles and the classes that fill each role.

Fixer
2007-11-27, 01:35 PM
I think he's referring to the tendency of some classes to be better at another classes 'defined role' that the original. For example:

Meat Shield: Normally a Fighter, Paladin or Barbarian role but a Cleric can perform the part better than any of those classes with the proper selection of spells.
Skill Monkey: A batman wizard can perform virtually every Skill Monkey task better than the normal skill monkeys (Rogue, Bard, some Monk and Ranger) with the likelihood of autosuccess due to spell use.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-11-27, 01:56 PM
I think he's referring to the tendency of some classes to be better at another classes 'defined role' that the original.


Yes, that is also how I understood Person_Man. I think it is a very valid concern (that I also share) given the current state of 3.5. However I was more interested in knowing how you got from there to concluding that there won't be any systematic effort to try and balance classes/niches.

Niche protection is an important part of securing that every class contributes, but Indon seemed to be taking this even further by implying that there was a problem if even two classes shared the same niche. (Or maybe his post just assumed that I did not accept the premise of niche protection as being important. :smallsmile: )

shadowdemon_lord
2007-11-27, 02:28 PM
Class balance always has been, and I predict always will be a joke in D&D. Clerics/Druids have always been gishes with full casting, and wizards have always had nothing but full casting. Hence the arcane spells always had to be that much better then divine spells, and divine spells were already the best thing in the game. As long as the cleric and druid are gishes with full casting nothing is going to stand in their way of being better fighters then fighters through the application of spells eventually. As long as wizards have nothing but full casting, it's going to eventually become the most powerful thing ever (because it's gotta be better then their gish divine counterparts). Unless we either see full casting is nerfed to hell and back, or the other classes given abilities that look a hell of a lot like spells, were going to see casters rule the day. Even then the characters that are weakest physically are eventually going to rule the day, as they are the ones that are going to get the most powerful abilities.

Any way you slice it, the weenie that focuses on battle field control is eventually going to become batman because he's going to have the best control for lack of anything else. If they wanted to balance it they'd make the default wizard a gish like the cleric and druid.

Also, on an unrelated note: I like arcanis gnomes. I wanna see what happens to them when the Dwarves become celestial giants again.

Person_Man
2007-11-27, 04:10 PM
I agree that niche protection is hard to maintain, but Person_Man also said that there would not be " any systematic effort to balance the classes", which is a more extreme statement.

Actually, I don't think its that hard to maintain. Just create a chart like this:

{table="head"]Class| Role| Close Combat| Ranged Combat| Debuffing| Defense| Skills| Buffing| Healing| Summoning| Alter Terrain

Rogue |Striker |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
?

Ranger |Striker |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
?

Warlock |Striker |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
?

Barbarian |Striker|
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
?

Fighter |Defender |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
?

Paladin |Defender |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
?

Swordmage |Defender |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
?

Cleric |Leader |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
?

Warlord |Leader |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
?

Wizard |Controller |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
?

Druid |Controller |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
?
[/table]

If necessary, make the table headings/catagories more complex - damage per round, AC, Hit Points, Reflex, etc. Attach weights to each category. Fill in numerical per level values for each category for each class. Make sure that each class is the best at one thing, and very weak at one thing. Make sure that each class has roughly the same total value. And make sure that whenever you create a new class, it doesn't step on the formula or "the best at and worst at" of any pre-existing class, or exceed the value of the classes in general (stopping codex creep).

Viola. The fluff and ease of use of class based mechanics with the balance of a point buy system.

No doubt WotC is doing a great deal of play testing. And if Class X seems a lot weaker or more powerful then Class Y, they will try and improve or nerf its abilities.

But I've seen no evidence of a systematic balance between the classes. If anything, the process seems to be driven entirely by the fluffy ideas of the individual writers. For example, Rich Baker is writing a book called the Swordmage, so he creates a class that creates a lot of cool stuff he wants to do in his book.

I think a better approach would be to create balanced crunch first, and then layer on interesting fluff as it seems appropriate. It would also be nice if they made the process of how they create crunch more public, so that the millions of people who play D&D could have a larger role in developing the game we all love, and so that any math/balance issues are caught now, and not two years from now when they decide to do their first errata/online edits.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-11-27, 06:05 PM
Actually, I don't think its that hard to maintain. Just create a chart like this:

...

Viola. The fluff and ease of use of class based mechanics with the balance of a point buy system.


That would be an excellent approach.


No doubt WotC is doing a great deal of play testing. And if Class X seems a lot weaker or more powerful then Class Y, they will try and improve or nerf its abilities.

But I've seen no evidence of a systematic balance between the classes. If anything, the process seems to be driven entirely by the fluffy ideas of the individual writers. For example, Rich Baker is writing a book called the Swordmage, so he creates a class that creates a lot of cool stuff he wants to do in his book.


The problem today is that there is no balanced baseline to reference, so any new material is hard to balance, except within a very wide range.
Furthermore, there has been a power creep, at least when it comes to feats and spells.

WotC seems to be aware of the current imbalance and extensive play testing and a focus on class balance through party roles and usefulness will help balance the CORE with the added effect of establishing a baseline that future products can be compared against.

This certainly is nowhere near as structured or efficient as what you suggest, but it could still result in a better balanced game than the one we know.


I think a better approach would be to create balanced crunch first, and then layer on interesting fluff as it seems appropriate. It would also be nice if they made the process of how they create crunch more public, so that the millions of people who play D&D could have a larger role in developing the game we all love, and so that any math/balance issues are caught now, and not two years from now when they decide to do their first errata/online edits.

Again I fully agree, but I can also see why WotC might not.
I think they are satisfied if they create a fairly well-balanced game. Any glaringly obvious balance issues should be removed, but why care if a few people can break the game and win D&D if the majority is having fun and think they are playing a fair game?
Even now we have people coming to this very board claiming that the Monk rulez!!!!!!11111oneeleven

I am not sure how they will use their online platform, but if there are balance concerns they might introduce a patch-day where balance issues are fixed.
With the right feedback function they could have thousands of people working for them to correct errors from typos to errata for free.

Crow
2007-11-27, 07:01 PM
I agree that niche protection is hard to maintain, but Person_Man also said that there would not be " any systematic effort to balance the classes", which is a more extreme statement.

It's time to throw out "niche protection" and classes. I like them, but a point buy system is what needs to happen.

Good luck balancing classes in a game where some characters can change the cosmos and some can't. Though it would be absolutely awesome and might help if they added in something like the Dabbler feat in the Conan RPG.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-27, 07:11 PM
Heh, a Shadowrun-esque system could be nice. There are different styles, all strong, and you're not a spellcaster's whore.

Sequinox
2007-11-27, 08:05 PM
Lord Tartarus and whoever made the post about gnomes -- I am sorry. I should have read the whole thread first and then posted, rather than just read the first few.

But I'm surprised that people have a hard time putting gnomes into their worlds. Huh. They've always just fit naturally with me.

One last thing: I would have showed your post by quoting you, except that I have no idea how to quote.

Artanis
2007-11-27, 08:11 PM
One last thing: I would have showed your post by quoting you, except that I have no idea how to quote.
Click the "quote" button in the bottom-right corner of the post :smallwink:

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-27, 08:11 PM
One last thing: I would have showed your post by quoting you, except that I have no idea how to quote.

Just click the button:http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2928/qoutexg9.png

Edit: ninja'd!

Leon
2007-11-27, 11:55 PM
So how can you justify dragonborn and tieflings then? I highly doubt there will be dragonboarn kingdoms or a unified identiy to the tiefling race.

This is Dungeons and Dragons not Dungeons and Gnomes

Best thing ive seen in regard to 4th is the official demise of those pesky lil things

Blue_C.
2007-11-28, 12:54 AM
I have gotten this feeling as well. I'm not sure why. It seems like they want every player to feel "badass". I have been getting the feeling that the game has been slowly moving more towards individual badassery, and the "team" concept, along with "roles" seem rather forced.

"We want you to rely upon your teammates." is the statement. But what we keep seeing is "We want you to be a badass standalone character."

I would guess that part of this stems, like their "quest" ideas and a few other things they've been revealing, from the success of World of Warcraft and similar games. Most of the point of the game was to feel like a badass character, either stand-alone or in groups.

As far as the gnome thing goes...I never really liked them, myself, for reasons everyone else has already stated, and also because their mechanics we're a bit off the wall at times. Granted, I'm a bit surprised the WOW effect didn't preserve Gnomes for perpetuity, but Trolls haven't become a LA +0 race either (yet), so whatever.

Edit: The statement that I find Gnome Racial traits wonky is just my personal opinion, not meant to spark a debate.

Person_Man
2007-11-28, 02:56 PM
A lot more has been leaked (http://www.enworld.org/). I'm updating my main first post now.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-28, 03:24 PM
We can probably take humans out of the "Good at two or three classes" picture. Humans have always been good at everything,

Not really. In Third Edition, they were good at everything, but in earlier editions they were essentially good at nothing (but some races were made bad at some classes by forbidding the combination, or imposing a level limit).

I don't mind lizardmen but the name "dragonborn" sounds rather stupid, imho.

Indon
2007-11-28, 03:30 PM
Viola. The fluff and ease of use of class based mechanics with the balance of a point buy system.


If buffing is more expensive than combat stats, then a buffer/combatant will be inferior to a real combatant (The Bard). If buffing is equally or less expensive, then you get CoDzilla (The Cleric).

Ain't that easy. Even Mutants and Masterminds, a supposedly 'balanced' game that uses a point-buy system, warns against the massive abusability of buffing.

Crow
2007-11-28, 03:38 PM
I hope this doesn't mean humans are only allowed to come from "plains" communities now...where they are going with this...who knows...

clericwithnogod
2007-11-28, 04:00 PM
Anyone else notice that the little blurb which quotes Rich Baker saying that paladins would be the only holy warrior class and that by default only Lawful or Good paladins would be allowed for players? So, alignment restrictions are being removed, but not really...

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-28, 04:13 PM
They don't need to be LG anymore? HELL YEAH! *does the CONGA CONGA CONGA, CONGA CONGA CONGA!*

I never understood the stupid "to be devoted, you HAVE to be lawful" thing, moreso considering most well RP'ed paladins we're played to a NG fashion. Finally, NG paladins will be a reality without homebrews.

Artanis
2007-11-28, 04:19 PM
Anyone else notice that the little blurb which quotes Rich Baker saying that paladins would be the only holy warrior class and that by default only Lawful or Good paladins would be allowed for players? So, alignment restrictions are being removed, but not really...
FWIW, changing "Lawful and Good" into "Lawful or Good" multiplies the number of acceptable alignments by 5.

Crow
2007-11-28, 04:59 PM
I nobody else worried about the "homeland" thing?

SmartAlec
2007-11-28, 05:09 PM
Why would it be a worry?

RTGoodman
2007-11-28, 05:21 PM
I'm not worried about the "homeland" thing, but I did notice that they've apparently re-flavored halflings. Again.

First they were hobbits, then there were kender, then they were (supposedly) roaming, nomadic caravan-folk (at least, that's what it seems like the 3.x flavor was supposed to be). Now, they're homeland is "rivers."

Crow
2007-11-28, 05:22 PM
Why would it be a worry?

Mostly the imposing of fluff upon mechanics. It's hard to judge since we don't know much about it, but to assign an arbitrary "homeland" upon each of the races is worrying to me as I play in a homebrew world.

Why would halflings be more apt to live near rivers than any other race for example? It would seem logical that any race interested in agriculture or commerce would be apt to live near a river.

I am hoping this is nothing, but I am afraid when they show us more that I'll be disappointed. Just based on the other things they have shown us. If it is something like the background feats (courteous magocracy, militia, stuff like that) that are in some of the campaign settings, I could live with that. Like a new character getting to choose one "background" or "homeland" feat at character creation. If you have to pick something, but can only draw from the "plains" list because you're human, I don't think I would like that.

Like I said, it is difficult to say because we know so little. That is why it worries me.

averagejoe
2007-11-28, 05:44 PM
I've been steadily drinking ever since there was no word on either half- or full-orc. The fact that this silly, lame version of dragons got made a player race to sate the desires of those who wish to play dragons (who will not be sated, since Dragonborn are truly, chronically, inane) doesn't help or hurt matters.

Thank you! Orcs/goblins were always way better than gnomes anyways. I mean, I've been keeping an open mind in every other aspect of 4e, but it seems like Wizards has been packing some major goblinoid hate.

Freakin' daisy-eating elf-lovers.

SmartAlec
2007-11-28, 06:05 PM
Mostly the imposing of fluff upon mechanics. It's hard to judge since we don't know much about it, but to assign an arbitrary "homeland" upon each of the races is worrying to me as I play in a homebrew world.

Why would halflings be more apt to live near rivers than any other race for example? It would seem logical that any race interested in agriculture or commerce would be apt to live near a river.

I am hoping this is nothing, but I am afraid when they show us more that I'll be disappointed. Just based on the other things they have shown us. If it is something like the background feats (courteous magocracy, militia, stuff like that) that are in some of the campaign settings, I could live with that. Like a new character getting to choose one "background" or "homeland" feat at character creation. If you have to pick something, but can only draw from the "plains" list because you're human, I don't think I would like that.

Like I said, it is difficult to say because we know so little. That is why it worries me.

I got the impression that the idea of homelands was just an aspect of the 'Points of Light' philosophy of gameworlds that 4th Ed is drawing on, and the idea of an economy centred on isolated communities with settlements that have little contact with each other. Self-sufficiency would be the key, and I can imagine that in this world model, human societies tend to be agriculture-based and so would tend to be situated in areas of arable land.

I haven't read anything that suggests it actually has any application when it comes to game mechanics. I mean, if you can find me any article that suggests otherwise, then fair enough.

tyckspoon
2007-11-28, 07:04 PM
Mostly the imposing of fluff upon mechanics. It's hard to judge since we don't know much about it, but to assign an arbitrary "homeland" upon each of the races is worrying to me as I play in a homebrew world.

Why would halflings be more apt to live near rivers than any other race for example? It would seem logical that any race interested in agriculture or commerce would be apt to live near a river.


As a first reaction, I would guess halflings are river-folk now. Take the land-based caravans and switch them for barges and house-boats. This would probably make halflings the default trade link between otherwise separate communities, since people usually build near water and water travel is a relatively safe and fast way to travel through unpatrolled wilds.

clericwithnogod
2007-11-28, 07:39 PM
FWIW, changing "Lawful and Good" into "Lawful or Good" multiplies the number of acceptable alignments by 5.

The blurb reads...

http://www.enworld.org/

"Yes, the question was considered, but ultimately it boils down to this: We want one class in the job of "holy warrior", not nine.

Currently the text in the Player's Handbook says something to this effect: Paladins are almost always lawful or good. Chaotic or evil paladins do exist in the world, but they're almost never heroes; go see the DM if you want to play one."

So by default, you can play 4 alignments (maybe 5 as true neutrals aren't mentioned at all). If paladin is the only holy warrior class, it should be open to all alignments by default just like cleric or any other class...unless clerics are going to get the same restriction.

It goes against the information up to this point, which was that alignment restrictions were going away.

Artanis
2007-11-28, 10:57 PM
The blurb reads...

http://www.enworld.org/


*snip*
I was mostly going by where it says "Paladins are almost always lawful or good". *shrug*

Human Paragon 3
2007-11-28, 11:35 PM
Dragonborn: Dessert: Warlord: Leader: Martial


Yum Yum! Delicious Dragonborns!

thorgrim29
2007-11-28, 11:50 PM
Well, all I can say on the whole balance debate is that at least WOTC is tring to fix some problems, with a big revision of rules and a limitation in power creep (from what I've seen), Games Workshop are just digging their way to hell with inferior products at ever higher prices.... Grrrrrrr urge to murder people in Nottingham rising.....

Morty
2007-11-29, 09:20 AM
Thank you! Orcs/goblins were always way better than gnomes anyways. I mean, I've been keeping an open mind in every other aspect of 4e, but it seems like Wizards has been packing some major goblinoid hate.

Freakin' daisy-eating elf-lovers.

There's been no word on orcs and goblinoids so far, so I wouldn't be surprised if they don't get any stats, even in Monster Manual.

Artanis
2007-11-29, 10:53 AM
There's been no word on orcs and goblinoids so far, so I wouldn't be surprised if they don't get any stats, even in Monster Manual.
That's not technically true.

In the EN World compilation, Orcs are mentioned as an example as the sort of foes that you face in the "Heroic" (level 1-10) Tier. They're also mentioned again when talking about Fog of War (in the "monsters" section of the compilation). So it's pretty likely they'll be in as foes at the very least.

It seems likely to me - though I know of no confirmation one way or the other - that Orcs will be one of the monsters with a second write-up with stats to use for making an Orc PC.

Morty
2007-11-29, 10:55 AM
That's not technically true.

In the EN World compilation, Orcs are mentioned as an example as the sort of foes that you face in the "Heroic" (level 1-10) Tier. They're also mentioned again when talking about Fog of War (in the "monsters" section of the compilation). So it's pretty likely they'll be in as foes at the very least.

It seems likely to me - though I know of no confirmation one way or the other - that Orcs will be one of the monsters with a second write-up with stats to use for making an Orc PC.

By "stats" I meant "PC stats". I know it's 100% certain that they'll appear as monsters in MM, but I somehow doubt they'll get racial stats and progression as humans or dwarves.

Matthew
2007-11-29, 11:03 AM
I really hate the fact that the Paladin is now firmly in the camp of generic 'Holy Warrior'. Poor old Cleric.

HealthKit
2007-11-29, 12:51 PM
Does anyone else associate Half-dragons and the like* with munchkins?

*Edit

Green Bean
2007-11-29, 12:57 PM
Does anyone else associate Half-dragons and the like* with munchkins?

*Edit

Not really. Racial templates tend not to be as good as their equivalent in class levels.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-11-29, 01:46 PM
Perhaps wannabe munchkins.....

horseboy
2007-11-30, 02:24 AM
I don't mind lizardmen but the name "dragonborn" sounds rather stupid, imho.May as well call them t'skrang.

Seriously, which one of these guys used to work at FASA?

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-30, 03:37 AM
I really hate the fact that the Paladin is now firmly in the camp of generic 'Holy Warrior'. Poor old Cleric.
Nerf Clerical melee, and they might actually fulfill different niches, instead of clerics overshadowing Paladins in nearly every way...

Matthew
2007-11-30, 12:00 PM
Nerf Clerical melee, and they might actually fulfill different niches, instead of clerics overshadowing Paladins in nearly every way...

Nah, I like the Cleric aesthetic the way it is. It's the Paladins that are intruding on Clerics, not the other way around.

Crow
2007-11-30, 12:10 PM
May as well call them t'skrang.

Seriously, which one of these guys used to work at FASA?

Wow, I'm not alone. I was waiting for the terrible FanPro Shadowrun metaplot to reintroduce t'skrang. Never in my wildest dreams would I have expected them to re-emerge here!

SmartAlec
2007-11-30, 12:25 PM
Looking forward to the idea that a particular class might not be essential any more; parties won't necessarily have to have anything. Not that it still won't be a good idea to aim for a good spread of abilities, but if you've been looking to run that all-ranger campaign or everyone's bored with being the cleric, the game will actually support you instead of working against you.

Aximili
2007-11-30, 12:39 PM
Nah, I like the Cleric aesthetic the way it is. It's the Paladins that are intruding on Clerics, not the other way around.
The paladin is, by definition, a holy warrior. In 3e the cleric got to be more holy and more warrior than the paladin, while also being the priest and healer. How can the paladin be intruding on the cleric?

Matthew
2007-11-30, 12:47 PM
The paladin is, by definition, a holy warrior. In 3e the cleric got to be more holy and more warrior than the paladin, while also being the priest and healer. How can the paladin be intruding on the cleric?

Check your 3e PHB again. The place the Holy Warrior stuff turns up in is the splat books. The Cleric is a Warrior Priest in all editions, the Paladin is the ideal Secular Warrior. That's why they use Galahad, and Lancelot as examples in the 2e PHB.

TheThan
2007-11-30, 01:11 PM
Hmmm… this is sort of disturbing, yet at the same time it’s sort of encouraging. I would really like a core race that’s a wild man or beastman type race. To me at least, Orcs fit the bill quite nicely, while dragonborn are just extra stuff they don’t need to add, but are anyway.

Now as far as classes go, I like the idea of them making the paladin… well good. I also like the idea of them reining in the cleric to some degree. Such as taking away a lot of its melee potential and making it more priestly, sort of like a cloistered cleric. To me, a cleric should fill the role of “divine caster/healer” not the role of “Holy warrior”.
I’ve always imagined a DND church/religion set up with clerics as priests, they’re the ones that try to convert the masses, while the paladins act as bodyguards (for the priests), defenders of shrines and churches, and holy crusaders.

horseboy
2007-11-30, 01:42 PM
Wow, I'm not alone. I was waiting for the terrible FanPro Shadowrun metaplot to reintroduce t'skrang. Never in my wildest dreams would I have expected them to re-emerge here!
Yeah, I can't remember his name right now, but that guy that worked at both FASA and WW, it looks like his fingerprints. It looks like Earthdawn is to 4th edition what Shadowrun is to World of Darkness.

Dausuul
2007-11-30, 01:46 PM
Perhaps wannabe munchkins.....

Munchkindom is an attitude. Most munchkins are actually lousy optimizers. They just think they're good at it, and then they whine and moan when their supposedly perfect combos turn out not to work.

Somebloke
2007-11-30, 02:24 PM
The paladin is, by definition, a holy warrior. In 3e the cleric got to be more holy and more warrior than the paladin, while also being the priest and healer. How can the paladin be intruding on the cleric?
Damn good reason right there to nerf the cleric's fighter-esque abilities.

Matthew
2007-11-30, 02:27 PM
The Paladin and Cleric are not two sides of the same coin (except maybe in the Forgotten Realms). If you want to be a Fighter with a bunch of divine type special abilities and a Lawful Good outlook, you play a Paladin. If you want to play the ordained advocate and warlike defender of a particular religion who channels the power of the divinity for whom he is a priest, you play a Cleric.

Paladin = Roland
Cleric = Turpin

Person_Man
2007-11-30, 02:27 PM
Well, at least there was some encouraging news:

1) Its clear that everything that might be missed in core rules, gnomes, warforged, monks, psionics, etc., will be published in expansions. We all sorta knew this from the beginning anyway, since WotC will publish anything that might make them more money. So unless your DM is a fan of core only no homebrew no houserules games, "But what about X, playing X is why I play D&D!" really isn't a valid criticism.

2) As we've established in previous threads, aggro is out as a core mechanic. Instead, defenders will give penalties to their enemies who ignore them in combat.

3) The Ranger killed the Scout and took his abilities. Though I will miss my beloved Scout, this makes a lot of sense. If he has Skirmish and/or Favored Enemy, it also gives the Ranger a clear "ranged striker" role.

4) Sneak attack is much easier. You can qualify for Sneak Attack whenever you flank, and through certain spells/abilities/etc. Immunity to sneak attack is nearly gone. I've been advocating this for a long time. It kills the archer rogue (a job that's now handled more aptly by the Ranger), but makes the Sneak Attack mechanic a lot more simple and useful.

5) Gish is in core without multiclassing/PrCs. Although there's been some arguments about terminology, you'll be able to play a warrior-caster without being nerfed, and without having to play a Fighter W/Wizard X/Abjurant Champion Y/Whatever Z.

Matthew
2007-11-30, 02:29 PM
Mark my words, the Scout will be back...

SmartAlec
2007-11-30, 02:40 PM
Not so sure... or if he will be back, then we won't recognise him.

I get the feeling that the talent trees idea we're seeing will make an awful lot of other classes and prestige classes redundant.

Bear in mind that multiclassing is easier, mainly because when you multiclass you'll get to choose what feats to take, rather than - for example - a Fighter having to take 3 and exactly 3 levels in Rogue to get Uncanny Dodge. So, it would be very easy to build a Scout type character by playing Ranger/Rogue, as you could pick and choose Rogue abilities and Ranger abilities to match.

The flipside is, with that flexibility now in place, it makes sense to give those folks prepared to stick with single-class advancement a reason to do so.

Fighter wants to be a Weapon Master? Easy - he just takes feats in the 'Weapon Specialisation' talent tree, until he's taken them all. Hey presti, he's 4th Ed's equivalent of a Weapon Master.

Rogue wants to be an Assassin? Easy - he just all takes feats in the 'Assassination' talent tree. Wizard wants to be an Archmage? Max out the 'Metamagic' line. Wants to be a Red Wizard? Max out the 'Casting Speciality' line. Ranger to be a super archer in the mould of the Arcane Archer instead? Takes everything in the Marksmanship line.

And so on, and so on.

This way, the things that we considered 'prestige bonuses' in the past are now more like 'single-class advancement' bonuses.

It also means when we see the real Prestige classes arrive, they'll be really prestigious. Ooo.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-30, 02:51 PM
Check your 3e PHB again. The place the Holy Warrior stuff turns up in is the splat books. The Cleric is a Warrior Priest in all editions, the Paladin is the ideal Secular Warrior. That's why they use Galahad, and Lancelot as examples in the 2e PHB.
Okay, first, Clerics are divine-magic-casting plate-wearing melee powerhouses. "Holy Warrior" is the only obvious archetype there. In earlier additions, they were much less this, without the positively ludicrous melee power that 3e gives them. They were more of well-protected healers and casters with a bit more melee power than the glass-cannon Mages.

As for Paladins, I would call them holy warriors as well. They aren't implied to be clergy like Clerics are, and they can be spiritual rather than religious (except in Forgotten Realms), but there is and always has been a significant "divine" slant to their abilities. And this is quite appropriate to a class compared to Galahad, I would think. In earlier additions, they beat people up in the name of the gods and Lawful Goodness, while clerics cast spells in the name of the gods and whatever alignment. Nowadays, Clerics do both much better than the Paladin does, and paladins sit in the corner and cry for more Prestige Classes to give them a shot at being useful (I'm a fan of Fist of Raziel, despite it being from an otherwise annoying splatbook.)

tl;dr version: Nerf clerics.

Matthew
2007-11-30, 02:57 PM
Okay, first, Clerics are divine-magic-casting plate-wearing melee powerhouses. "Holy Warrior" is the only obvious archetype there. In earlier additions, they were much less this, without the positively ludicrous melee power that 3e gives them. They were more of well-protected healers and casters with a bit more melee power than the glass-cannon Mages.

Er, yeah, who said they weren't? Paladins are the ones who aren't.


As for Paladins, I would call them holy warriors as well. They aren't implied to be clergy like Clerics are, and they can be spiritual rather than religious (except in Forgotten Realms), but there is and always has been a significant "divine" slant to their abilities. And this is quite appropriate to a class compared to Galahad, I would think. In earlier additions, they beat people up in the name of the gods and Lawful Goodness, while clerics cast spells in the name of the gods and whatever alignment. Nowadays, Clerics do both much better than the Paladin does, and paladins sit in the corner and cry for more Prestige Classes to give them a shot at being useful (I'm a fan of Fist of Raziel, despite it being from an otherwise annoying splatbook.)

Up to you, but I strongly disagree. There's a world of difference between being an ordained Priest and being a very religious member of the Secular orders. A Fighter could be a Holy Warrior, if you really wanted him to be, or more obviously a Ranger could be characterised that way, since they have access to Divine Magic.


tl;dr version: Nerf clerics.

No thanks. Just remove a few of the worst abuses and leave them alone.

SmartAlec
2007-11-30, 02:59 PM
You want to make an omelette, you've got to break a few preconceptions.

Edit: It was a bizarre idea to have one class represent all Gods' spiritual representatives, anyhow. Why would, say, clerics of Ehlonna or Boccob or Ilmater or Sune or Olidammara (the list goes on) have Heavy Armour Proficiencies?

Seperating the clergy into 'Clergyman' and 'Templar' classes - which is the vibe I get from the new Paladin, and lthe new Cleric - would feel a little less forced.

Matthew
2007-11-30, 03:00 PM
Cuts both ways, I would think.

SmartAlec
2007-11-30, 03:18 PM
Not this time, baby.

After all, this isn't about fixing the Cleric. This is about fixing the Paladin, the Blackguard, and every other holy fighter class out there. And for that, the Cleric can't be left alone.

So instead of a fried egg, an egg salad and an uncooked egg, we've got an omelette. Sorry if you liked fried eggs, but at least this way everyone gets a hot meal - and it doesn't taste all that different; because under the new system, if you REALLY want a fighting cleric, you make a fighter/cleric.

Aximili
2007-11-30, 03:19 PM
Check your 3e PHB again. The place the Holy Warrior stuff turns up in is the splat books. The Cleric is a Warrior Priest in all editions, the Paladin is the ideal Secular Warrior. That's why they use Galahad, and Lancelot as examples in the 2e PHB.

That's interesting to know. But I think that paladin as a holy warrior is an improvement. Priest and holy warrior should be separate concepts (though, of course, a players should be able to combine them).
I mean, a priest (IMO) should have access to powerful high level spells, and it just isn't right if he can do both that AND be an elite combatant. The cleric has to be weaker in combat than he was in 3.5.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be front line material, just that he should be weaker in melee than all melee oriented classes.

So, if he is not gonna fill the role of greatsword-wielding holy knight in shining armor that leads and motivates the party through hell and beyond, why not give it to the paladin?:smallwink:

Matthew
2007-11-30, 03:25 PM
That's interesting to know. But I think that paladin as a holy warrior is an improvement. Priest and holy warrior should be separate concepts (though, of course, a players should be able to combine them).
I mean, a priest (IMO) should have access to powerful high level spells, and it just isn't right if he can do both that AND be an elite combatant. The cleric has to be weaker in combat than he was in 3.5.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be front line material, just that he should be weaker in melee than all melee oriented classes.

So, if he is not gonna fill the role of greatsword-wielding holy knight in shining armor that leads and motivates the party through hell and beyond, why not give it to the paladin?:smallwink:

Which is fair enough and common conception of the Paladin. I don't know why we need to use 'Paladin' though, seems like 'Holy Warrior' would do just as well, but maybe it's because it's two words. On the other hand, I don't see why a Cleric shouldn't be the guy with a Great Sword leading and motivating the party through hell and beyond.


Not this time, baby.

After all, this isn't about fixing the Cleric. This is about fixing the Paladin, the Blackguard, and every other holy fighter class out there. And for that, the Cleric can't be left alone.

So instead of a fried egg, an egg salad and an uncooked egg, we've got an omelette. Sorry if you liked fried eggs, but at least this way everyone gets a hot meal - and it doesn't taste all that different; because under the new system, if you REALLY want a fighting cleric, you make a fighter/cleric.
The aesthetic of the Cleric surely can be left alone to 'fix' Paladins. They weren't broken in previous editions, why not just go back to 'speciality priests' and leave the Cleric as Turpin and the Paladin as Roland. What's the need for Roland to usurp Turpin?

To be clear, a Templar doesn't need to use Divine Magic to be a Templar. A Paladin or a Fighter can be a Templar Knight, whilst the Cleric is the Templar Chaplin; that's pretty much the way it already is. The Cleric just has a bunch of over powerful Spells.

SmartAlec
2007-11-30, 03:39 PM
A Paladin or a Fighter can be a Templar Knight, whilst the Cleric is the Templar Chaplain

Are you sure? I've already mentioned some examples of Gods for whom fighting Chaplains seemed odd. It's fine for Tyr or St. Cuthbert or Hextor, but for Ehlonna, Ilmater, Sune, Olidammara, Fharlanghn and a number of others, it seems a little weird. Does every God's creed include learning to fight in plate armour? For everyone?

If you want to do that, train as a Fighter/Cleric. Or as a Cleric/Paladin. Those combinations actually mean something now.

They tried to use Domains to differentiate between Clerics, but that just heaped more abilities on the Clerics' heads, and still didn't do much.

Matthew
2007-11-30, 03:43 PM
I think you missed the 'speciality priests' comment. If you don't have a Templar like organisation, then there are other options. The Cloistered Cleric, for instance, presents an alternative for 3e, without rendering the Cleric aesthetic obsolete.

SmartAlec
2007-11-30, 03:48 PM
But that's part of the design brief for 4th Ed, or that's the impression I got; to clear away as many unnecessary side classes, alternative classes, prestige classes etc etc. Move that onto a more workable base where the core classes are able to represent as many of those as possible, either through judicious multiclassing or single-class specialisation.

Sorry an' all, but the Cleric can no longer be half preacher, half warrior. Same as the Bard can no longer be quarter fighter, quarter sorceror, quarter rogue and quarter musician. Because multiclassing is becoming much more flexible, those 'jack of all trades' classes no longer have a place. Anyone can be a jack of all trades by mixing and matching, now.

Like I said. Omelette.

Matthew
2007-11-30, 03:54 PM
Nah, they'll be bringing out all the extra Base Classes with 4.5 or whatever. I don't think they'll be able to resist and I haven't seen their design brief. It's more like they're trying to present a lot of broad initial options. So far, I haven't seen anything about the Classes that has made me think that there won't be more. If the Cleric isn't going to be a Cleric, but a Priest, then why not call him what he is? Same goes for the Paladin

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-30, 04:10 PM
Up to you, but I strongly disagree. There's a world of difference between being an ordained Priest and being a very religious member of the Secular orders. A Fighter could be a Holy Warrior, if you really wanted him to be, or more obviously a Ranger could be characterised that way, since they have access to Divine Magic.
"Secular Order" sounds like a technical term I don't know the exact historical definition of. Mind explaining?

No thanks. Just remove a few of the worst abuses and leave them alone.
That's what "nerf" means. Of course, I'd file a couple of core Cleric spells under "worst abuses" that you probably wouldn't...

EDIT: Heh, skipped a page.


Which is fair enough and common conception of the Paladin. I don't know why we need to use 'Paladin' though, seems like 'Holy Warrior' would do just as well, but maybe it's because it's two words. On the other hand, I don't see why a Cleric shouldn't be the guy with a Great Sword leading and motivating the party through hell and beyond.
In short: because that leaves the Paladin no role of his own. The (current) Cleric is better at the Paladin's job than the Paladin is. My ideal solution is give them different jobs. And tone down the Cleric's power/tone up the Paladins so that they're roughly equally useful.

SmartAlec
2007-11-30, 04:37 PM
"Secular Order" sounds like a technical term I don't know the exact historical definition of. Mind explaining?

Let's see if I get this right.

A Secular Order represents a Religious organisation that is dedicated to bringing a Faith to the world through charity, evangelism, and generally going out there and living in the world. The religious figures of a secular Order tend to be Deacons or Priests who do not take vows (unlike regular clergy, who take vows of poverty, chastity and the rest). They focus on enlightening others rather than enlightening themselves. It's possible to be a member of a Secular order without actually being a priest; such individuals are considered members, but their promises with their deity are secret and between themselves and their deity, rather than open.

They're contrasted by Cloistered Orders, who remove themselves from the world and strive to bring themselves closer to their deity through the aforementioned vows of chastity, poverty, etc etc.

This doesn't quite tell the whole story, though, as historically Paladins are just as likely (if not more so) to be members of a Military Order like the Templars or the Hospitallers rather than a Secular one. These Military orders try to combine soldiering with a faithful life, and are formed with the object of crusading for or defending a Faith.

Matthew
2007-11-30, 05:41 PM
"Secular Order" sounds like a technical term I don't know the exact historical definition of. Mind explaining?

SmartAlec is correct with his definition, but it wasn't the one I intended. I just meant it as an analogue to the tripartite division of medieval society and the three orders. Basically, alongside that division there was the division between religious and secular society. The Paladin is the example of how to live a perfect life as a secular warrior without actually becoming a member of the religious order. That does not prevent him moving into the religious if he so chooses, but it's not necessary for him to in order to be a Paladin.


That's what "nerf" means. Of course, I'd file a couple of core Cleric spells under "worst abuses" that you probably wouldn't...

Sure, but you said nerf Cleric Melee, which I took to mean access to Heavy Armour, BAB and Weapons. I would just be getting shot of Spells that turned him into a Fighter. If that's a result of a misunderstanding on my part, then fair enough.


In short: because that leaves the Paladin no role of his own. The (current) Cleric is better at the Paladin's job than the Paladin is. My ideal solution is give them different jobs. And tone down the Cleric's power/tone up the Paladins so that they're roughly equally useful.

Here's the thing. The Paladin has no role of his own because he's trying to steal both the Fighter and the Cleric's roles. He is a cross between these two Classes.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-30, 05:56 PM
SmartAlec is correct with his definition, but it wasn't the one I intended. I just meant it as an analogue to the tripartite division of medieval society and the three orders. Basically, alongside that division there was the division between religious and secular society. The Paladin is the example of how to live a perfect life as a secular warrior without actually becoming a member of the religious order. That does not prevent him moving into the religious if he so chooses, but it's not necessary for him to in order to be a Paladin.
Frankly, I've forgotten what we're disagreeing about on this topic, so I'm going to nod and drop it.


Sure, but you said nerf Cleric Melee, which I took to mean access to Heavy Armour, BAB and Weapons. I would just be getting shot of Spells that turned him into a Fighter. If that's a result of a misunderstanding on my part, then fair enough.
Yeah, this was an overstatement on my part, and a misunderstanding on yours. I meant "get rid of the spells that make him a better Fighter than a Fighter", not "get rid of the abilities that make him not die on the front lines".


Here's the thing. The Paladin has no role of his own because he's trying to steal both the Fighter and the Cleric's roles. He is a cross between these two Classes.
And the Cleric has four or five roles right now. Ditch the "Divine Magic-based frontline melee damage-dealer" and possibly "Divine Magic-based frontline damage absorber" and give them to the Paladin. WotC seems to be leading toward this with 4th Ed. I approve.

Aximili
2007-12-02, 04:10 PM
Which is fair enough and common conception of the Paladin. I don't know why we need to use 'Paladin' though, seems like 'Holy Warrior' would do just as well, but maybe it's because it's two words.
Holy warrior is a valid option. But paladin has been in the game for too long now, the name has to stay unless the class changes completely.


On the other hand, I don't see why a Cleric shouldn't be the guy with a Great Sword leading and motivating the party through hell and beyond.

He certainly could be, but then he couldn't be the priest. That's too much role and utility for the same class. I believe he's better as the priest, but that's just a matter of opinion.