If only they had kept a special interest skill... such as a use for whatever you want Knowledge or an Occupation for crafts and professions, I wouldn't be nearly as upset about 4th edition.... sad as that sounds.
But oh well, if I'm required to play it for professional reasons I can assume...
That my ranger can automatically know how to gut out, butcher up, and taxiderm any reasonably "meaty" creature great and small because, hey, according to the new format such actions don't need to be dice rolled... that's all just background fluff. Likewise, the ranger will also be able to manage the sales of this meat... because, hey, that's just fluff.
When our ships and boats are damaged we will automatically be able to round up the appropriate wood and repair the ships because, hey, according to the new format again such actions do not need to be determined as success or failure... that's just fluff. Being shipwrecked is no longer a problem kids... you just work those automatically successful actions in the background.
When we come across broken swords and armor our fighter characters that once had to make blacksmith checks will automatically be able to fix these items back to normal because hey, that's not important as far as skill check rolls are concerned... its just a background thing. Automatically successful. No problem.
Juggling for the king? I'm sure performance is gone too... three balls in the air at once or 15 flaming torches... doesn't matter... consider it done... doesn't need a roll or check anymore.
Wanna supplement low rations with the recently killed carcass of a creature and the beast is not quite natural enough for a nature check? Automatic... no disease problems here.... its a given.
Need to make temporary shelter or build a house for yourself? No problem... automatic success. Same goes if you decide to grow some domestic crops too. Grow as much as you like for that matter.
Spot a large chunk of rare, red coral on the beach and want to make it worth several times its current value with a bit of polishing and cutting? Doesn't matter if your rogue has no actual stat for such a talent... you told the DM you were a master gem cutter all along didn't you? Just make that an automatic success as you sit on the ship deck while traveling back from the distant island.
For some reason, I'm seeing a problem starting to surface....
You are forgetting that in the new non-simulationist system you won't be able to get any money for cutting up rare red coral or hauling away the tiles from the opal bridge. Your GP total will go up at the end of the adventure according to the listed quest rewards regardless of what actions you take in the background.
Being shipwrecked is no longer something that you can build a raft to escape, you have to go through the adventure on the island and then find a raft. Unless the adventure starts with you building a raft and then being attacked by water monsters, in which case you will automatically build the raft.
-Frank
Wow... Even WoW has mechanics for these things (to a degree); call me old school or "out of the loop" but this is a serious hit against the possibility of my playing 4E. No sarcasm, I've avoided the vitriol on the 4E threads for awhile now and hadn't seen this bit of information.
You are forgetting that in the new non-simulationist system you won't be able to get any money for cutting up rare red coral or hauling away the tiles from the opal bridge. Your GP total will go up at the end of the adventure according to the listed quest rewards regardless of what actions you take in the background.
Being shipwrecked is no longer something that you can build a raft to escape, you have to go through the adventure on the island and then find a raft. Unless the adventure starts with you building a raft and then being attacked by water monsters, in which case you will automatically build the raft.
-Frank
Are you kidding? I mean, everything else I have heard about 4th so far has been awful but you automatically get a set amount of gold too???
What's the purpose of picking chests for traps then.... or the thieving score?(there's no point in thieving... I'll get the gold at the end of the adventure anyways)
This has got to be the dumbest thing about 4th edition I've heard yet.
Oh, and the have to find a raft sounds more like Choose Your Own Adventure book rather than a game like WoW... you have two options, if you choose option 1, read entry 496, if you choose option 2, read... wait, you have no option 2, please turn to 496 and deal with it.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If only they had kept a special interest skill... such as a use for whatever you want Knowledge or an Occupation for crafts and professions, I wouldn't be nearly as upset about 4th edition.... sad as that sounds.
But oh well, if I'm required to play it for professional reasons I can assume...
Wanna supplement low rations with the recently killed carcass of a creature and the beast is not quite natural enough for a nature check? Automatic... no disease problems here.... its a given.
Need to make temporary shelter or build a house for yourself? No problem... automatic success. Same goes if you decide to grow some domestic crops too. Grow as much as you like for that matter.
I'll add, AFAIK, all the above is speculation.
It did make me chuckle though. I thought. 'Wow, 3.x = Survivorman, 4.x = Man vs. Wild." :-)
Are you kidding? I mean, everything else I have heard about 4th so far has been awful but you automatically get a set amount of gold too???
What's the purpose of picking chests for traps then.... or the thieving score?
(there's no point in thieving... I'll get the gold at the end of the adventure anyways)This has got to be the dumbest thing about 4th edition I've heard yet.
It also happens to be completely untrue. Frank is simply living up to his name I'm afraid.
D&D 4E is still a role playing game, which means you'll still be able to do all the things mentioned in the original post. I don't know where Frank has gotten this non-simulationist idea from, but he's mentioned it in several threads as if the new rule set was actually going to forbid roleplaying.
Yes, there may not be a Profession skill anymore. Character classes suggests what kind of non-combat skills a person has. Rangers know how to hunt and clean deer. Wizards wouldn't.
I'm not going to miss Profession, but if you want to come back just give each player an extra skill that is their Profession skill. The skill system still exists in 4E, so there won't be any difficulty in adding a skill for Profession.
I've avoided the vitriol on the 4E threads for awhile now and hadn't seen this bit of information.I suspect it's misinformation.
Certainly it's speculation on our parts from what has been said. But they did say that they were cutting the Profession Skill and the Craft Skill. That could be misinformation, but I'm not sure why they would do that. Here are the skills that they have confirmed:
- Acrobatics
- Arcana *
- Athletics
- Bluff *
- Diplomacy *
- Dungeoneering *
- Endurance *
- Heal *
- History *
- Insight
- Intimidate *
- Nature *
- Perception
- Religion *
- Stealth
- Streetwise *
- Thievery *
*: These skills are speculated to be trained-only because they do not appear on all character sheets.
---
So while it is entirely possible for example, that skinning a bear is a "Nature" check, it is also a known quantity that they said that skills like Farming and Weaving have been removed altogether.
-Frank
Frank,
Thanks for the list... there's something in there that I really, really do not understand... for all of their "let's streamline the skills" it seems that they still have Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate as all being seperate skill checks.... uh, yeah, of course these are three different approaches to being persausive, but last that I checked they were all still Charisma checks and they were all still being persausive....
They ripped out our good ol' occupation checks but they can't seem to merge Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate into a singular Persuasion skill?
Since the skill system is only partially known, I'd say you're shooting WAY out there on conjecture. Profession/Craft are likely gone (but not 100% guaranteed) but that doesn't mean they aren't replaced by something.
Appraise/Perform are more than likely in, as well as many other skills, and again, I'm not sure where some of the ideas that you "get set amounts of gold/automatically can build (or not build rafts)" or any of the other pretty absurd ideas are coming from.
I generally try not to be too harsh, 'cause I think people who don't want to play 4E are welcome to their opinions, but you guys are just spreading misinformation here, and that's not really cool.
Profession/Craft are likely gone (but not 100% guaranteed) but that doesn't mean they aren't replaced by something.
Of course it's not 100% guaranteed. All we know is that Scott Rouse and Mike Mearls said that they were removing Craft and Profession. That doesn't mean that they haven't subsequently changed their mind or that they were telling the truth at the time.
But we do know 100% that they point blank told us that those skills were gone.
-Frank
I've avoided the vitriol on the 4E threads for awhile now and hadn't seen this bit of information.I suspect it's misinformation.Certainly it's speculation on our parts from what has been said. But they did say that they were cutting the Profession Skill and the Craft Skill. That could be misinformation, but I'm not sure why they would do that. Here are the skills that they have confirmed:
- Acrobatics
- Arcana *
- Athletics
- Bluff *
- Diplomacy *
- Dungeoneering *
- Endurance *
- Heal *
- History *
- Insight
- Intimidate *
- Nature *
- Perception
- Religion *
- Stealth
- Streetwise *
- Thievery **: These skills are speculated to be trained-only because they do not appear on all character sheets.
---
So while it is entirely possible for example, that skinning a bear is a "Nature" check, it is also a known quantity that they said that skills like Farming and Weaving have been removed altogether.
-Frank
Without going over the character sheets, why couldn't skills not appearing simply be defaulting to your ability modifier? Were any of the skills exactly the same as the (suspected) ability mod? Anyone care to check for me ('cause I'm lazy, and at work to boot)?
Profession/Craft are likely gone (but not 100% guaranteed) but that doesn't mean they aren't replaced by something.Of course it's not 100% guaranteed. All we know is that Scott Rouse and Mike Mearls said that they were removing Craft and Profession. That doesn't mean that they haven't subsequently changed their mind or that they were telling the truth at the time.
But we do know 100% that they point blank told us that those skills were gone.
-Frank
Frank,
Don't get me wrong. I don't doubt that Craft/Profession are gone as skills, and, seeing as it looks like the Saga skill system will be similar to what 4E will be using that makes sense. That doesn't mean some other system isn't being added to replace those skills (I'm not saying one is, but the possibility is there.) Still, I don't think either of those skills was ever used in any game at my table, other than perhaps to "flavor" a characer. Others experiences differ (obviously) and it sucks for those who really dug them.
Without going over the character sheets, why couldn't skills not appearing simply be defaulting to your ability modifier? Were any of the skills exactly the same as the (suspected) ability mod? Anyone care to check for me ('cause I'm lazy, and at work to boot)?
Many of the characters did in fact have basic attribute modifiers (including negative modifiers) to the unmarked skills. The Wizard, for example, has no bonus to Acrobatics, Athletics, Insight, and Perception. The Fighter has no bonus to Stealth. All the other skills either have a +5 bonus over the stat modifier or are not listed.
-Frank
Without going over the character sheets, why couldn't skills not appearing simply be defaulting to your ability modifier? Were any of the skills exactly the same as the (suspected) ability mod? Anyone care to check for me ('cause I'm lazy, and at work to boot)?Many of the characters did in fact have basic attribute modifiers (including negative modifiers) to the unmarked skills. The Wizard, for example, has no bonus to Acrobatics, Athletics, Insight, and Perception. The Fighter has no bonus to Stealth. All the other skills either have a +5 bonus over the stat modifier or are not listed.
-Frank
Innnnteresting. ::rubs goatee::
Thanks for the detective work!
I guess the reason that I'm so bitter is that 3rd edition (3.5...whatever) was the D&D that I always wanted... to me it was the shining example of what people like myself got into D&D for... shameless rainy afternoons of fun micromanagement... design your castles on the graph paper, lay out prospective lands, sit down and figure out exactly what your character looks like, right down to that last piece of bone and tooth jewelry you snatched off the last orc. With craft and profession our group actually doubled our treasure haul most of the time... in fact, in a way we were able to enjoy a few needed resources early on that we wouldn't have had otherwise... our DM did not complain because hey, we sacrificed the skill points for these skills that we could have otherwise put into more combat worthy skill checks (that we honestly did sometimes need later on). Finally, my characters were something a bit more useful than a mere adventurer... when I retired them it was easier to work them into the future story... they had acquired a long standing profession or worthy trade that made them high profile NPCs for more than just their adventuring exploits in the growing campaign world... rather than ex-swordhand "has beens" drinking away the last of their wealth in the taverns and inns of the realm... merely because they had little skills beyond that of a sword polisher.
|
Yes, there may not be a Profession skill anymore. Character classes suggests what kind of non-combat skills a person has. Rangers know how to hunt and clean deer. Wizards wouldn't.
Unless the Ranger is a nature-lover who doesn't eat meat.
Or the savage Wizard uses animal parts, bones, etc. as foci for his witch doctor-y rituals. (Or a Necromancer who likes to stitch together his own Flesh Golems.)
In which case, they can play another game, apparently, 'cause 4E isn't for them. All Rangers have exactly the same skills, at exactly the same skill ranks, based on their level. They might have a choice between wearing a green cloak or a brown cloak, 'though. See! Customization! You can play anything! Even a Ranger with a (gasp) *red* cloak! You're so novel!
Yes, there may not be a Profession skill anymore. Character classes suggests what kind of non-combat skills a person has. Rangers know how to hunt and clean deer. Wizards wouldn't.Unless the Ranger is a nature-lover who doesn't eat meat.
Or the savage Wizard uses animal parts, bones, etc. as foci for his witch doctor-y rituals.
In which case, they can play another game, apparently, 'cause 4E isn't for them. All Rangers have exactly the same skills, at exactly the same skill ranks, based on their level. They might have a choice between wearing a green cloak or a brown cloak, 'though. See! Customization! You can play anything! Even a Ranger with a (gasp) *red* cloak! You're so novel!
:rollseyes: I'm not sure why this is the official "spread misinformation" thread today, but nowhere has it been said that all characters of Class X will have the same skills. They'll have the same skill LISTS assuredly (and this is the same in 3E) and they might have some of the same skill picks (as the 4E Rogue preview tends to suggest) but to suggest they will have the same skills, and have to be RP'd the same way? My mind is boggled at the leap it took to get there.
|
|
All Rangers have exactly the same skills, at exactly the same skill ranks, based on their level.:rollseyes: I'm not sure why this is the official "spread misinformation" thread today, but nowhere has it been said that all characters of Class X will have the same skills. They'll have the same skill LISTS assuredly (and this is the same in 3E) and they might have some of the same skill picks (as the 4E Rogue preview tends to suggest) but to suggest they will have the same skills, and have to be RP'd the same way? My mind is boggled at the leap it took to get there.
The part I bolded up there? That's what the designers have said is the case. If you have a skill, you automatically have it at the same rank as any other character of that level. Nobody is better or worse trained or specialized at anything. They either have it maxed out for their level, or they don't have it at all.
Roll your eyes all you want. Maybe you are right and Mike Mearls was lying. But right now, I believe him over you.
In which case, they can play another game, apparently, 'cause 4E isn't for them. All Rangers have exactly the same skills, at exactly the same skill ranks, based on their level. They might have a choice between wearing a green cloak or a brown cloak, 'though. See! Customization! You can play anything! Even a Ranger with a (gasp) *red* cloak! You're so novel!But, I wanted a PLAID cloak.... snicker!
All Rangers have exactly the same skills, at exactly the same skill ranks, based on their level.:rollseyes: I'm not sure why this is the official "spread misinformation" thread today, but nowhere has it been said that all characters of Class X will have the same skills. They'll have the same skill LISTS assuredly (and this is the same in 3E) and they might have some of the same skill picks (as the 4E Rogue preview tends to suggest) but to suggest they will have the same skills, and have to be RP'd the same way? My mind is boggled at the leap it took to get there.The part I bolded up there? That's what the designers have said is the case. If you have a skill, you automatically have it at the same rank as any other character of that level. Nobody is better or worse trained or specialized at anything. They either have it maxed out for their level, or they don't have it at all.
Roll your eyes all you want. Maybe you are right and Mike Mearls was lying. But right now, I believe him over you.
If two characters choose the exact same skills for their trained skills, then yes they'll have the same skill ranks at the same skill level. This is no different from 3E. Nothing says they can't choose different skills (and, while speculation, Saga has ways to get more trained skills as well as focusing on skills beyond even skill training).
Your argument just doesn't hold up.
All Rangers have exactly the same skills, at exactly the same skill ranks, based on their level.
The part I bolded up there? That's what the designers have said is the case. If you have a skill, you automatically have it at the same rank as any other character of that level. Nobody is better or worse trained or specialized at anything. They either have it maxed out for their level, or they don't have it at all.
:rollseyes: I'm not sure why this is the official "spread misinformation" thread today, but nowhere has it been said that all characters of Class X will have the same skills. They'll have the same skill LISTS assuredly (and this is the same in 3E) and they might have some of the same skill picks (as the 4E Rogue preview tends to suggest) but to suggest they will have the same skills, and have to be RP'd the same way? My mind is boggled at the leap it took to get there.
Set and David are both partially correct here, from the info I've read.
If you have a skill, you have it. The bonus you receive is based on character level, and there aren't skill ranks like in 3rd edition.
But David is also correct, not every ranger or wizard will have the same set of skills. There are more skills on the class list to choose from then skills you get to choose. Not every Ranger will have Survival.
It is part of the simplification they are doing in 4E. Most people maxed out their skills ranks, and once they chose the skills they were focusing on, they didn't change them much other then to raise the skills to the new max rank when they leveled up. Not many people bought only a few ranks in a skill, except to get the synery bonuses. The new system removes a lot of the book keeping and such that went into the skill system of 3rd edition.
Is the new system perfect? I don't think so.
Is it simpler to use? Oh lord yes.
When I convert to 4E, will I be giving every character a Proffession skill, along the lines of what was available in 3rd.
Do I expect that to change anything in the game? No, it's just a RP tool, and I'm going to use to make my players expand their character by choosing a purely flavor ability .
Unless the Ranger is a nature-lover who doesn't eat meat.
Or the savage Wizard uses animal parts, bones, etc. as foci for his witch doctor-y rituals. (Or a Necromancer who likes to stitch together his own Flesh Golems.)
No rules govern this sort of thing, and that was an intentional design descision. It's also a very good thing!
The designers want you to be able to do anything like this you want to without the rules getting in the way. Want to play a ranger who can't clean a stag? Great! just do it. You don't need a skil system to tell you how to play your character outside of combat.
Stop treating the absence of a crunchy rule system for things like stiching wounds and knitting as a ban on good roleplaying.
|
|
If two characters choose the exact same skills for their trained skills, then yes they'll have the same skill ranks at the same skill level. This is no different from 3E.
My mistake. I thought you were familiar with the system.
In 3E you purchase skill ranks with skill points. A Ranger, for instance, gets six points (+Int mod, more if he's human) per level, and can spend them on different skills, up to a certain maximum rank.
A 3rd level Ranger could use one or more of those 6+ skill points to pick up a skill he's never known before, one that may have recently become important to the game, or that he's had a story reason to learn, or that he just plain forgot to pick up at 1st level.
So no, this is *quite* different from the 4e setup.
You can find the exact mechanic here. As you can see, the flexibility is significant compared to the 4E paradigm, where every Ranger who chooses to have the 'Perception' skill will have the exact same rank as every other Ranger of that level who chose 'Perception.' (Attribute or racial modifiers may add to that number, naturally.)
In 3E, one Ranger might have a few ranks of this skill, maxed out ranks of another, and only a single rank of a third, while a second Ranger has maxed out two of those same skills, and has half his level in ranks of the third. A third Ranger might have his skill ranks scattered out among a dozen skills, and be a 'Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of None.' This option does not seem to exist, in the 4th edition preview information I've seen, which suggest that every Ranger will have exactly six skills, and that these will be the only skills that he will ever know. If the campaign moves from one area to another, or if one of the skills he chose early on becomes less and less relevant as time goes on, it appears that he will not be able to just choose to spend skill points in skills of more value for his changing situation, but be locked into the skills that he chose at 1st level, barring some rules option that I have not seen yet.
Hopefully this clears up any misunderstanding.
You would have liked the Basic D&D rules. Despite the name, by the time you factored in the gazetteers, the supplements, Voyage of the Princess Ark, and the companion & masters set rules, it was easily the most complicated rules system around. You want to farm? There's rules for it. You want to build a castle 5' square by 5' square? There's rules for that. You want to specialize in one weapon? There's rules for that, too. You could even start your own shipping enterprise and there were rules AND 2 prestige classes for that.
If you're the kind of player that likes to get into the details of what your character...
Actually you're right... I both had and liked the Basic D&D rules... except for races being classes (the elf is a class thing)... Rules Cyclopedia is one of the books I miss the most and really, really kick myself for selling off.
Unless the Ranger is a nature-lover who doesn't eat meat.
Stop treating the absence of a crunchy rule system for things like stiching wounds and knitting as a ban on good roleplaying.
I can agree with you to a certain point, particularly on the very minor stuff, but have to disagree on others... I've had DMs that literally would not let you do much of anything beyond the scope of your character sheet and other DMs that would let you do almost anything...
aka, no, you are an adventurer, you know NOTHING outside of fighting/spellcasting to sure, you want to be skilled in eight different trades? I don't see why not....Knowledge, craft, and profession checks offered an anchor to certain things...
consider, for example, Profession: navigatorPlayer: I'm going to navigate the ship.
DM: You can navigate?
Player: Why yes, my character is a pirate ain't he?
DM: Well, your character is technically a rogue/fighter....
Player: Yeah, but he's a sailing, pirating rogue/fighter.
DM: You got any experience to back that up...
Player: Why yes, 8 ranks in Profession: navigate.
DM: Ahh... yeah, okay, we can use you on this one...
Actually you're right... I both had and liked the Basic D&D rules... except for races being classes (the elf is a class thing)... Rules Cyclopedia is one of the books I miss the most and really, really kick myself for selling off.
You can get copies on eBay and you can get PDF copies (at least, if not hardcover) from Paizo.
What you had described, the micromanagement of character details, was how my friends spent our summers before I went to college and discovered exotic girls from around the world.
Exactly! Hey, nifty... I married one of them there exotic girls.... actually she was one of the nurses I work with in the mental treatment facility. Part Jewish, part Polish. And mischievous as heck....
No, the misunderstanding isn't cleared up. I posted my response to this from you:
...All Rangers have exactly the same skills, at exactly the same skill ranks, based on their level...
And like I said, that is just blatantly untrue. You have the same skill lists, but you get to choose your skill trainings (and there may be other forms of customization, ala SW Saga).
Now we move to a different point, and yes, in this regard the 4E and 3E skill systems ARE different. A 3E character does have a more finely grained level of skill proficiency, but then in order to keep up with raising DCs with level, most characters simply chose a number of skills and kept them maxed out. I believe this is even a suggestion in the DMG (or maybe the PHB?) The odd one rank skill was (at least at my table) mostly reserved for "flavoring" a character or getting the ability to use trained-only skills.
So again, in 3E two Rangers who both choose to max the same skill will both have the exact same ability in it at the same level. Could one choose to be subpar to the other Ranger in exchange for placing the difference into another skill? Yes he could, but (IMO) this was a trade-off of little value.
In summary, there are indeed some very major differences in 4E and 3E skill systems, but the difference you are trying to call out (that 4E characters all have the same skills) isn't one of them.
Edit: Sorry if there is any offense felt on the other side of this disagrement. My morning has been crummy to say the least. But I still think you're wrong! :P
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Actually you're right... I both had and liked the Basic D&D rules... except for races being classes (the elf is a class thing)... Rules Cyclopedia is one of the books I miss the most and really, really kick myself for selling off.
*hugs his rules cyclopedia tightly*
I can agree with you to a certain point, particularly on the very minor stuff, but have to disagree on others... I've had DMs that literally would not let you do much of anything beyond the scope of your character sheet and other DMs that would let you do almost anything...
aka, no, you are an adventurer, you know NOTHING outside of fighting/spellcasting to sure, you want to be skilled in eight different trades? I don't see why not....
[snipped an example]
Well, I feel your pain. I've know DM's who were that way, and playing with them sucked.
I'm sorry to say, but the rules cannot prevent people from being idiots, rule lawyers, munchkins, or just generally a jerk. It is simply something that cannot be stopped in a roleplaying game.
Would a Profession skill help you deal with a jerk like the one you described? Sure, you gave a very good example of how it would help. But it will not solve the problem.
If your DM acts like this, no matter what game you are playing, then you should tell your DM to stop being so picky and allow you to role play your character.
Basicly my opinion is this. Rpairing a ship, making cheese, and a lot of the things that Profession and Crafting are based upon don't need a crunchy system to model them in game. They are purely roleplaying activities, and it shouldn't require a skill check.
Your DM should allow you to roleplay your character however you like. Being able to farm does not give you a combat bonus, and so it should not cost you a skill points to know how to plant carrots.
I think the skill difference (between 3.xE and 4E) that has been discussed before can be explained easily as this:
In 3.x your skills were limited by your level (set number of skill points) in 4E your skills are determined by your level. Now I know that in 4E you can specialize (or whatever it is called) and thus pick skills to be better at.
This means that there are fewer differences in skills then in 3.x. No piece by piece increases spread around as you feel are important but now either on or off.
Dial versus light switch. Both will turn your lights on or off. But saying they are the same is a half truth.
I think it important to note that every Ranger will have exactly the same skills. Like the Rogue, they will have two pre-selected skills and four skills selectable from a short list. So every single Ranger will have Nature and (probably) Perception. And they will all have the same ranks in those two skills. They will also have four more skills, but there is an awfully good chance that one of them will be Stealth, and there is a 0% chance that any of them will be Seamanship or Bureaucracy.
You literally can't make a Ranger character who isn't woodsy. Nature is a mandated skill. And you literally can't make an Archer character who isn't a Ranger. If your concept is an urban sniper or a pirate sharpshooter you have to hope it's covered in the PHB2 or write a new class yourself.
The game is very non-versatile. The roles are very rigidly defined for every class, and there are only eight classes. And this is not misinformation. This is an advertised feature of the new rules. Mike Mearls has said that they are defining the roles of classes much more narrowly by design, and that it's a good thing.
And for some people, it is a good thing. The ability to hear that someone is "A Ranger" and instantly know that they have the Nature skill at max and are a fragile character who hits really hard with a bow is valuable. It means that with just three words you can tell everyone at the table exactly what your character does, how they fight monsters, what magic items they would benefit from, what kinds of assistance they benefit from, and so on.
But it means that if we want characters that are not narrowly defined cookie cutter copies off a small pregenerated list, that this is not the game for us. We aren't spreading misinformation. We are telling the honest truth as it has been explained to us in glowing terms by the authors of the game itself. The fact that every Ranger is virtually completely interchangeable with every other Ranger is a widely touted feature of the new system.
So stop acting like we're spreading lies just because we don't like this feature. The feature is that I know what your Ranger Character is and does. But the feature I want is to be able to make a Ranger that is and does something unique and special. These features are not compatible, and Mike Mearls chose the feature that obviates the one I want.
-Frank