Compiled info on upcoming classes & races

comments

Friar Tuck in original legends is as good a swordsman as Robin hood.

With the mention of Ki its unlikely that monks will have any other source (pity, I liked Forgotten Realms tying monks strongly to churches)

Monsters: hoping they won't just be in MMs. I see Manual of the Planes as ideal for launching many creatures, not least including planar dragons. Shadow dragon in particular I would like to see.

Necromancer: would be nice if they appear in Open Grave. While PHs and campaign guides should contain most classes, this is one that deserves to come out earlier than PHIII.

There will be monsters in Manual of the Planes (MoP). If memory serves, and it was just yesterday, during the D&D Videocast a designer said he was working on a monster for MoP.

JohnSnow said:

No idea, about races, but here's my take on classes.

I agree with most people on some:

B and B are barbarian (primal) and bard (arcane).
D is clearly druid (primal).
The most likely W, I think, is "witch," a primal controller.
T is, I'm thinking, Theurge, as others have said: a divine controller.
I'd say one "S" is probably Sorcerer. It was mentioned in Races and Classes, and it's probably arcane.

My bet on the others:
"S" is Shadowcaster - a new take on Ari's work for Tome of Magic.
"I" is Illusionist.

Click to expand...

Making my own set of guesses:
- Barbarian: Constitution, Strength, (Dexterity), (Wisdom)
- Bard: Charisma, Dexterity, (Intelligence)
- Druid: Wisdom, Dexterity, (Strength)
- Shaman: Wisdom, Charisma, Constitution
- Theurge: Wisdom, Charisma, (Dexterity)
- Sorcerer: Charisma, Dexterity, Constitution

Stogoe said:

What exactly would a Friar Tuck monk bring to a party, besides cowering in a corner when the violence starts? Really, though, I'm having trouble imagining the archetype in an adventuring context.

Click to expand...

In tradition, both fictional and historical, the primary strength/power of religious folks is social influence. Even in some fiction where the devoutly religious also have mystical power, their social/political influence is often as or more significant. What Friar Tuck brought to the group was his ability to persuade, and bluff, and so on. Now, in his particular case, he also was pretty good with a staff and a sword, IIRC.

But, in the more general case, what the Western monk/priest/etc. archetype brings to the group is the sorts of abilities that D&D4E is mostly giving to 'leader' classes. That's if you don't mind them being a bit more militant than the actual source materials--which, for D&D4E, is probably appropriate.

Personally, i'd prefer to have someone whose role when the violence starts is *precisely* to cower in the corner--but who has sufficient other strengths to balance this weakness out. I have no interest in the combats (and don't mind mostly sitting out when they occur)--i like playing skillmonkeys, or information-gatherers, or social/influence characters. But i just don't see D&D4E having any classes that aren't combat-centric. Which is a large part of why i don't see myself ever playing it, beyond a couple sessions to get a feel for it and make sure i'm not misjudging.

Added a couple tidbits from James Wyatt to the first post:

Swordshock is a 17th level encounter power for Swordmages that sheathes their sword in lightning (source).

"By the time the Eberron Campaign Guide comes out next year, gnomes will be a fully-supported race." (source)

Martial Power won't have new classes but we'll get the swordmage in Forgotten Realms. How many other new classes do we think we'll get before Player's Handbook II comes out?

Mokona said:

Martial Power won't have new classes but we'll get the swordmage in Forgotten Realms. How many other new classes do we think we'll get before Player's Handbook II comes out?

Click to expand...

My guess is no other full, finalized classes, just previews in Dragon, like the Artificer and Barbarian.

Necromancer

Hoping that Open Grave will have necromancer as a class. Doubt it, but it would go a long way to making it a "must have" NPC class, NPC emplate, PC class. With good items and monsters as well, it could be very good.

Howevber, I fear that they may not go that way with Open Grave.

Without taking the time to read the entire thread, it seems no one suspects the PHB II of containing Psionic classes anymore. Any reason why?

I had been pegging T as Telepath, the location for all of the Wizard's "enchanter-y" powers.

Am I too far off base?

Caliber said:

Without taking the time to read the entire thread, it seems no one suspects the PHB II of containing Psionic classes anymore. Any reason why?

I had been pegging T as Telepath, the location for all of the Wizard's "enchanter-y" powers.

Am I too far off base?

Click to expand...

I'm actually hoping that it doesn't at this point, honestly. And that's coming from someone whose only major 3/3.5 purchases other than the core rulebooks and MotP was the Psionics books. (Although this time around if I'm able I'll probably be getting more, at least Tome of Treasures and all the power sourcebooks as well as MotP.)

There's limited space. We would get the merest hint of psionics with one or two classes.

We already know Barbarian, Druid, Shaman, and probably Bard and Sorcerer. That leaves room for three classes. But the PHB2 is supposed to round out the Divine power source as well, leaving room at most 2 psionic classes.

Further, one extra divine class doesn't really 'round out' the divine classes all that well. By PHB2, then, we'd have four martial classes and five arcane classes (Bard, Sorcerer, Swordmage, Warlock, Wizard). For the first three power sources, divine is falling behind. So it would be nice to see two divine classes in the PHB2. Theurge and Inquisitor sound good.

Leaving space for one class for a psionics class. Honestly, why bother? I'd rather they be introduced in a place where they can get a more complete treatment, even if that means waiting for the PHB3.

This also gets us 4 martial classes (fighter, ranger, rogue, warlord), five arcane classes (bard, wizard, warlock, sorcerer, and swordmage), four divine classes (paladin, cleric, theurge and inquisitor), and four primal classes (druid, barbarian, shaman, and 'W'.) And whatever the Artificer will be, shortly after that.

Which is a much better rounded lineup than having two or three each of divine and primal, and then two of psionic. It helps people that are creating campaigns with strong primal, divine, or arcane elements. It means not having to look up information for primal, divine and arcane characters between yet another PHB by waiting to 'complete' those power sources in PHB3 (already you're looking at the information being spread out between the PHB1, PHB2, campaign setting sourcebooks, and the power source sourcebook.)

It would just be better overall, I think, for all the different power sources if they held off on psionics, including being better for psionics. I'd rather have to reference just the PHB3 and the psionics sourcebook for psionics characters in the future than have to reference PHB2, PHB3, PHB4 and a psionics sourcebook, which is likely if they do it one or two classes at a time. Because in addition to classes, each one of those that features a class of a given power source is likely to also feature feats and additional rules that also apply to that power source in general. So you'd be looking at carrying a whole library around with you.

Other symmetry issues aside, PHB2 - Arcane, Divine and Primal Heroes and then PHB3 - Elemental, Psionic, Shadow heroes makes a lot more sense to me, for some reason, than PHB2 Arcane, Divine, Primal and Psionic Heroes and PHB3 Elemental, Psionic, Shadow, And Whatever Else We Didn't Get To Complete Yet Heroes. You might as well just drop the PHB subtitles at that point on the latter set.