J.E. Sawyer Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Not quite. I learnt on OD&D and 1st Edition and vanilla 3E is IMO the best iteration of the ruleset, before it got killed by splat-books. The Rogue idea isn't my cup of tea, as others have said the word 'Rogue' isn't evocative of 'Brute Fighter' but that's just me. The whole point of a rogue in my mind is a flexible class that allows you to use skills to forge the type of rogue you want to play (swashbuckling dandy through to traps / MacGuyver dude / Ninja stealth monkey) not the DPS tank Sawyer wants you to play. I do like the special move that allows you to swap places with an enemy... if the tactical engine works right that could be fun. Video killed the tabletop game and all that. The Ranger looks interesting, but as others have said archer-with-pet is slightly MMO and again the class concept is fixed. Where did my tank-ranger go? My stealth-ranger? As the other guy said, my lost-a-pet-now-I-use-a-musket ranger. People like messing around with classes and going against the grain. Where is the scope for that here? Again we are playing the class Sawyer wants us to play, the archetypes look too rigid. If I'm being unfair am happy to be corrected but I'm not seeing a load of class flexibility here. My favourite classes, melee fighters, are now mob-crushers. FWIW I am implacably hostile to 4E and MMO type systems. I didn't back a game based on the original infinity engine series to play one. Please dissuade me otherwise. I think your view of rangers as a class in A/D&D is skewed. In 1st edition core, rangers excelled at one thing in combat: killing giants. With UA, they could get weapon specialization and double specialization. Really, that and access to low-level druid spells (and wands, at higher levels) were the main things they had going for them (and outside of combat, tracking). In 2nd Ed. core, this changed. 2nd Ed. rangers no longer gained their +1 damage/level against giant-class creatures (replaced with a flat +4 attack bonus against a hated enemy). The ranger also gained two-weapon fighting but at the cost of wearing any seriously heavy armor. In 2nd Ed., being restricted to lighter armor was Not Good. Many of the benefits of advanced weapon specialization, (mastery, etc.) were restricted to single-class fighters. Unless the rangers were in their element fighting their hated enemies (and boy, you really hoped your DM made sure there were some in the campaign), they generally did not shine in combat. In 3E core, this changed again. You could pick favored enemies, dual-wield (or not) or use a bow (or not), and have an animal companion (as a standard class feature) but the characters generally were sub-par in fights that didn't include their favored enemies. Did you really play 3E tank rangers using core rules? They have d8 hit dice and combat paths that encourage you not to use a shield. That puts them in a better position for melee than a bard, but behind fighters and barbarians, certainly. In my (and Bobby's) experience, players who try to tank (or even off-tank) a core ranger get their faces pounded in. Your stealth ranger is still right here (it's one of their two automatic skill bonuses). Your ranger without a pet technically doesn't exist in core 3E above 3rd level because ranger pets are a standard 3E class feature. I guess you could not take a pet in core 3E, but you don't get anything in exchange for it. The classes I "want you to play" are ones that are good in combat and are distinctive from other classes. Core RAW rangers and rogues in 3E are distinctive, but they aren't great in combat. We've said from the beginning (or near the beginning) that we're not making "skill classes". The main difference between a PoE swashbuckling rogue and a core/RAW 3E swashbuckling rogue is that the PoE will be much more effective in combat (if about as fragile -- not sure where you got the idea that they tank). Sneak attack is at the core of the idea of rogues as vicious combatants, even in 3E. In Pathfinder, this goes further, with additional combat-oriented Talents opening up as they gain levels. I don't think expanding this concept makes rogues "not roguey", unless being bad in combat is essential to one's concept of what a rogue is. 26 twitter tyme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now