D&D 4E 4e Classes

[DonTadow]

My hopes are that they only have 4 classes.
Thief
Warrior
Wizard
Cleric

I hope they always have only 4 classes and do something different and innovative like a tree system or, do away with classes and use "feats" to power up particular classes. This will give players more of a say so i how their characters develop as opposed to the multiclassed character.

The interview seems to mount up more that it will be a tree system with only 4 to 6 classes and they narrow down into other classes.
Fighter- Barbarian, Monk, Warlord
Rogue- Theif, (some type of social class), Bard
Magic User - Sorcerer, Wizard
Cleric - Paladin, Priest

Also it sounds like flavor will finally be left up to the game and not made apart of requirements.

 

[JVisgaitis]

What is the deal with the Leader archetype? They weird thing is that they states that each class has its own roles. So we have:

Defender: Fighter, Paladin - The guys that fight at the front lines and can take a ton of punishment.

Striker: Ranger, Rogue - The guys that can put a lot of damage onto one particular opponent.

Controller: Wizard - The guys that can affect a large portion of the battlefield. They never mentioned Sorcerer specifically, so I'm leaving him off of here though he is probably a Controller.

Leader: Cleric, Warlord - The guys that can, um, lead? What is that supposed to mean? Does that mean that these characters get social-based skills like the Bard? They were saying that you could have an alternative to a Cleric's healing that can heal just as good. So would that be a Warlord?

Personally, I have doubts that the Warlord is a core class, but I could be wrong. I just think its odd that the Warlord may be the class that gets healing abilities. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

 

[Thunderfoot]

If by warlock you mean something like a sorcerer but more differentiated from a wizard, then yes.

Otherwise, yes, that looks like a very likely list <edit> plus barbarian as a base class. Sorry, I don't like it either, but it's been mentioned a couple of times</edit>

And no, they're not going to add a Psion to the core rules. Psionics has always been non-core, and it'll always stay non-core. They've even said as much.

-Nate

Which is funny because one of the classes they used during the initial play test was a psion...
Barbarians are most assuredly a base class (see below for explanation), monks may or may not be in the initial release. As for PrCs, evidently they are going away as we know them, but a similar type of add-on package for each base class will pseudo-replicate them, though the title of the class will remain the same (the example given in the presentation was that a barbarian can pick-up the berserker package, but is still called a barbarian.)
There has been so little information released about these 'alternate power sources' for non-spell casters that I can't really think of trying to guess.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Which is funny because one of the classes they used during the initial play test was a psion...

Not correct. Bruce Cordell (I believe) was playing a Wizard, but they just called him a Psion.

Barbarians are most assuredly a base class (see below for explanation), monks may or may not be in the initial release.

I don't know. The only ones I would bet on are the ones mentioned in the podcast. I wouldn't mind seeing the barbarian go to the wayside.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Which is funny because one of the classes they used during the initial play test was a psion...

Wrong. What was said was that the player had had an idea for a psion, but that there was no psion class available to play when he came into the playtest. He therefore took the character concept & made it into a wizard, but still called it a psion for flavor -- not because it actually was one (it wasn't), or because wizards now use psionics (they don't), or because red is the new black.

Though it is.