Current Theories on Classes?

[Charwoman Gene]

This is rampant idle speculation.

PH1:
Martial

• Defender - Fighter
• Leader - Warlord
• Striker - Rogue

Divine

• Defender - Paladin
• Leader - Cleric

Arcane

• Controller - Wizard
• Striker - Sorceror

PH2 will be Psionics, Ki, and Nature Power Sources.
This will include the Monk, Ranger, and Druid.

Any other brilliant ideas?

 

[Szatany]

yes, change sorcerer to ranger and you're good.

 

[Doug McCrae]

What do you think 'controller' means? It seams to be derived from the WotC board term 'battlefield control' referring to a mostly arcane ability to hinder movement on the battlefield thru such spells as entangle, web, evard's black tentacles and wall of force. A fairly small part of what wizards and druids can do, though very important in fights.

However in the combat examples given so far, the wizard seems to be mostly a damage dealer, area effect or single target ie a striker.

I can see controller also referring to mind-affecting spells such as charms and illusions. 4e might be using the term to include area damage, transportation and utility spells, which doesn't fit the word 'controller' but does fit what a wizard can currently do.

The other thing is I think classes can fill more than one party role, depending on build. For instance a fighter doesn't have to be a defender, he could be a striker. Likewise maybe a wizard is not fixed as a controller, he could also be a striker.

 

[hong]

The other thing is I think classes can fill more than one party role, depending on build. For instance a fighter doesn't have to be a defender, he could be a striker. Likewise maybe a wizard is not fixed as a controller, he could also be a striker.

Right, there seems to be this assumption going on that just because class X has been mentioned in role Y, that means it can only fill that role. Depending on spell selection, I could easily see wizards, for example, being both controllers and strikers. It's not like these "roles" are fixed, rigid categories.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think the wizard strike ability is most telling so far about what controller is supposed to do: push people around. Also it gives all characters an incentive to move around, if only to get back to the previous position (only it might not be vacant anymore).

 

[breschau]

Right, there seems to be this assumption going on that just because class X has been mentioned in role Y, that means it can only fill that role. Depending on spell selection, I could easily see wizards, for example, being both controllers and strikers. It's not like these "roles" are fixed, rigid categories.

That's mostly because in the video that first detailed the roles, it was also explicitly stated that they were also "experimenting with classes the don't quite fit so neatly into party roles," (i.e. all the one's they'd worked on before fit neatly into party roles (i.e. the core classes fill one role, singular, quite nicely)).

 

[Dragonblade]

I suspect the PHB1 class list will look like this:

Arcane Controller: Wizard
Arcane Defender: ?
Arcane Leader: Bard
Arcane Striker: Sorcerer

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

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

 

[Irda Ranger]

I have to say, I am not enthralled with the "roles" idea. It assumes too many things about a group's playstyle. For instance, where's the "social skills" role? Lots of groups play a political intrigue style, but I don't see any "Fast Talker" classes. Some groups also prefer the "leading an expedition" feel, with hired muscle, guides, etc. Are the "Leaders" going to be useful for leading groups of any size - like hired men-at-arms? If no, it may feel gamist and arbitrary; if yes, they may be too powerful balanced against the assumed 5-member group...

It's probably not a bad idea to have advice like "This is what this class is good at; this is the style they are best suited for." etc. But i'd prefer two things:

1. That "basic and necessary" skills are spread around a large-ish number of classes, so that no one class is necessary. Monte's AU did this by making healing magic, arcane magic and certain key skills (i.e., Open Lock/Disable Device) more widely available. Certain classes were much better at them, but a party that lacked both Greenbond and Greenwitch was not without healing magic. Only the "pure martial" classes were without healing magic entirely.

2. That each class has it's own role. I want Core classes that are unique and interesting choices, not just different flavors of "Defender" and "Controller."

Of the two points, I think 4e will do a decent job of delivering on #2 - it's point #1 I'm more worried about.

 

[Dragonblade]

I think one of the core design philosophies of 4e was to give all characters something fun and exciting to do in combat without feeling like they have to give that up when trying to make a more social character.

I'm pretty sure that social characters will still be a part of the game, you just now don't have to accept having a combat-handicapped character to make one.

Too many RPGs use a "balance" mechanic that implies social effectiveness can only be attained with a tradeoff for combat effectiveness and that is a mistake. It results in groups where role-players feel frustrated because they made a social character that is constantly outshined by the powergamers. And powergamers feel frustrated because most of them, believe it or not, actually do like to role-play, but they just refuse to handicap their character over it. And DMs are frustrated because their powergamer characters don't have any social graces and the role-players with social characters may be overwhelmed in combats tailored to the powergamer PCs.

But in 4e, it seems like you can make a socially adept character that can also hold their own in combat. And that is fantastic!

 

[Cthulhudrew]

PH2 will be Psionics, Ki, and Nature Power Sources.
This will include the Monk, Ranger, and Druid.

They should have Ki and Psionics be the same sort of Power Source, and have the Ki-Powered Monk fill the role of the Psychic Warrior.

That said, I suspect that there will be enough non-weapon abilities in the Martial Power Source that you could build a non-supernaturally Ki powered monk type of character in the PHB.