Roles, Power Sources, & PHB1 Classes

Ashrem Bayle · Sep 19, 2007

So apparently classes are being designed to fit into one of the following roles: Defender, Leader, Controller, & Striker

And apparently the PHB1 will deal with three "power sources" for characters; the arcane, divine, and martial.

So why not put a class of each role and source in the PHB? For example:

Martial:
Defender: Barbarian
Leader: Warlord
Controller: Fighter
Striker: Rogue

Divine:
Defender: Paladin
Leader: Cleric
Controller: Druid
Striker: Ranger

Arcane:
Defender: Swordmage
Leader: Bard
Controller: Wizard
Striker: Warlock

To me, this seems like a very elegant solution that lines up with the PHB1's function as the foundation of the game. It offers something for everyone right out of the gate.

RigaMortus2 · Sep 19, 2007

I was thinking of the same concept, though you categorized it better than I could have. I agree, something like your set up there would be good.

Patlin · Sep 19, 2007

While one of each would be one way to go, it seems certain that some spots will remain vacant and entirely possible that some spots will be filled twice. Swordmage will not be in the initial PHB, for example. I believe Fighter is confirmed as a Defender, and Barbarian (if more than a fighter talent tree) might duplicate that slot or might be left out. Wizard and Sorceror may very well both be Arcane Controllers.

Haven't they confirmed that there will be less than 11 base classes in the PHB? With Warlock nearly confirmed, that means at least 3 current PHB classes on the outs, and definitely at least two "slots" not filled.

Moon-Lancer · Sep 19, 2007

except i hear that phb1 will only have 8 classes, its a shame that the pb1 wont have such nice symmetry.

AdmundfortGeographer · Sep 19, 2007

Moon-Lancer said:
except i hear that phb1 will only have 8 classes, its a shame that the pb1 wont have such nice symmetry.

Compulsive symmetry is the bane of good design. Just because it fits a pleasing pattern doesn't mean it's wise to fill the pattern out.

Ashrem Bayle · Sep 19, 2007

Eric Anondson said:
Compulsive symmetry is the bane of good design. Just because it fits a pleasing pattern doesn't mean it's wise to fill the pattern out.

True enough, but this isn't just fitting the pleasing pattern, it offers more options for players who like certain types of characters but want a little variety to spice it up.

Nothing wrong with that.

Mercule · Sep 19, 2007

I'd ditch the barbarian, tag fighter as a defender, and make ranger a martial controller. A ranger's divine power is more a hobby than an actual focus -- ranger's definitely martial.

Ashrem Bayle · Sep 19, 2007

Mercule said:
I'd ditch the barbarian, tag fighter as a defender, and make ranger a martial controller. A ranger's divine power is more a hobby than an actual focus -- ranger's definitely martial.

WOTC has already tagged the Ranger as a Striker, so that leads me to believe they are reworking him for that purpose. Seems to be focussed more on archery now, which I don't really care for.

As far as the Fighter being a Controller...

Fighter get a lot of feats. That means they'll get access to better trips, grapples, disarms, charges, bull rushes, and other martial maneuvers that can change the battlefield without actually dealing damage. Thus, with the proper feats, they can control the battlefield better than the other martial guys.

Irda Ranger · Sep 19, 2007

What would a Martial Controller even look like? That doesn't make any sense. The "Controller" is about moving people and shaping the battlefield, and the examples given have been conjuring pools of acid, causing magical walls to pop up, using a quasi-Force Push, etc. The only thing I can think of would be a Martial character who specializes in Bull Rushes and Cleavey Trip attacks ... and that's really boring sounding.