D&D 4E New Information on 4E Classes from Races & Classes Book

[Rechan]

If you want to be a divine striker, controller or defender then that should be a completely seperate class, rather then attempting to balance all of these roles in a single class.

Similar to what they're doing with the Druid. Rather than making it an 'everything and a bag of chips' class, with the potential to do it all, they split up the abilities to other classes.

 

[Cadfan]

I will miss the availability of a viable swashbuckler.

I've been missing it since... have we ever had a viable swashbuckler? Maybe the rogue will have options for making one?

 

[tenkar]

I thought Bard, Druid and Monk were not going to be in the Player's Handbook the first time around... did I miss something?

 

[Irda Ranger]

I thought Bard, Druid and Monk were not going to be in the Player's Handbook the first time around... did I miss something?

There are also essays on Gnomes and dark elves.

Races & Classes is about all of the races and classes considered and designed during 4E development; all of which will probably appear eventually, just not in PHB1.

 

[Bishmon]

Random thoughts:

Fighter - Traditionally my favorite class, and I generally like what I'm hearing. How much I like it will probably depend on the powers because there's a lot of maneuvers in in ToB that I loved but there also a lot that I hated.

Rogue - I would have liked to have seen a rogue option not involving sneak attack, but I suppose that's pretty tough. Oh well. Hopefully I can pull off a good fighter/rogue without having to dip into sneak attack.

Barbarian - I'm disappointed and thrilled. With the barbarian being more feral, I don't really see myself wanting to play one. And the barbarians in the wildneress communities in my campaigns will probably become fighters and rangers who like to yell a lot.

But I'm thrilled because I was thinking of making gnolls an increased presence in my campaign, and the thought of tribes of gnoll barbarians having feral powers that include biting people makes me happy. There's not much worse than having to fend off bite attacks from a wild creature that you know wants nothing more than to eat you alive.

Those tribes being led by warlocks who get their powers from feral fey spirits and/or demons (by virtue of Yeenoghu, no doubt), that's got a lot of potential.

Sorcerer - From the little we've heard about them, I'm really, really anticipating them. If the class is pulled off half as well as it sounds, with the lingering effects of barely-controllable magic and whatnot, that's gonna be phenomenal.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Not entirely. Immediate actions were introduced to allow more options and flexibility in the strictly turn-based initiative system, allowing reactions to others' actions other than by using a readied action.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. His suggestion seemed to be that the Warlord give the party some kind of generic Immediate Action. That doesn't work though, because Immediate Actions are by and large interrupts for specific situations -- you can't just say "Okay, here's an immediate action." Well, you can, but you're not going to get any meaningful results out of it.

 

[Rechan]

But I'm thrilled because I was thinking of making gnolls an increased presence in my campaign, and the thought of tribes of gnoll barbarians having feral powers that include biting people makes me happy. There's not much worse than having to fend off bite attacks from a wild creature that you know wants nothing more than to eat you alive.

Were Monsters using PC rules, I would so yoink this. And even if they can't take PC classes, I'll still adapt this.

It goes really well with the flavor mentioned here:

Gnolls are what happens when a hyena consumes the flesh, and along with it the soul, of a living human. Over a period of several days they change, gaining sapience and learning to walk upright. They can speak instinctively in whatever language their victim once spoke, as well as their own bestial tongue.

Even so, they remain animals. Cruel and sadistic animals, at that, who kill as much for pleasure as for food.

And it's not unknown for a burgeoning pack of gnolls to take living captives, solely for the purpose of feeding them to their still animalistic brethren.

4e is exciting me more about DMing, but dang if I want to play too.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

I will miss the availability of a viable swashbuckler.

I've been missing it since... have we ever had a viable swashbuckler? Maybe the rogue will have options for making one?

Warblades and Swordsages. I suspect/hope that the Fighter will have some swashbucklery-ness to it; it seems like one of the weapon styles would have to have that feel, even if it ends up being something like spears instead of rapiers.

 

[mmu1]

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. His suggestion seemed to be that the Warlord give the party some kind of generic Immediate Action. That doesn't work though, because Immediate Actions are by and large interrupts for specific situations -- you can't just say "Okay, here's an immediate action." Well, you can, but you're not going to get any meaningful results out of it.

No, my suggestion was that the Warlord would have a generic pool of immediate actions, and would then choose how to apply it and what kind of immediate action to grant to the party. (extra ranged attacks, extra melee attacks, extra movement, set up a flank, stand up from prone, whatever)

That way, you don't have a situation where you (assuming other such abilities even exist, but I'd be surprised if "Feather me yon..." was the only ability like this - that'd be really goofy) use up your per encounter allotment of "Everyone, charge!" but can still use "Everyone, shoot that guy!".

 

[Agamon]

I will miss the availability of a viable swashbuckler.

I've been missing it since... have we ever had a viable swashbuckler? Maybe the rogue will have options for making one?

The Swashbuckler in CAd wasn't a viable swashbuckler? I wouldn't know, never really saw one in play....