D&D 4E Directly from a quote- 8 classes in 4e! (well, now subject to much debate)

[Jakar]

I really do not have a problem with all the classes in the game and sllow them all into my game.

I wonder if chopping them out for nothing more then "streamlining" is a good thing.

 

[Destil]

Personally, I think 8 classes is the exact right number. But I doubt I'll agree on their breakdown. Ideally I'd want to see

4 Basic, generic classes. Intended to cover most everything.

Fighter, Rogue, Priest, Mage

4 variants on these classes, showing examples of more unique options, with the intention that the DM would use this sort of class to customize their game.

Paladin, Bard, Monk, Psion

the other nice thing being that this breakdown can handle most pre 4E PCs pretty well *(druids being priests, rangers being rogue/fighters and barbarians being fighters)...

 

[Szatany]

So far, all classes except monk and bard were mentioned, so definitely not 8 classes in Pl4yer's H4ndbook.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

having a base class called warlord just kindof seems like a bad idea, It sounds like it would be a specialized class, were one would want a base class to be diverse. Also sounds like its just a evil paladin.

Its also possible its very different from what i'm thinking role and flavor wise, and its just a poor choice in names.

its also possible warlord doesen't or wont exist.

 

[BRP2]

In my opinion, rather than build classes based on archetypes(Paladin, Monk, Cleric), they should build them on very customizable mechanics where players(or DMs) can fit their own flavor...

like instead of PLD or even 4 types of PLD, I would rather have a class that represents anything I wish(may it be "good" or a "kingdom" or a "race" or so on), and get abilities(spells) based on that.

As you might imagine, I'm a big fan of Iron Heroes and Arcana Unearthed. I really hope SE pushes it in that direction, at least in the way I mention above.

 

[drothgery]

I think eight's too many; I'd've gone with six (cleric, fighter, mage, noble, ranger, rogue), analagous to the five SWSE classes (jedi -> cleric, soldier -> fighter, scout -> ranger, scoundrel -> rogue) and a new pure caster class (mage) for a role that doesn't exist much in Star Wars. But D&D's always been a bit more specialist-oriented than other games.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

So it's four tactical roles (defender, leader, controller, striker) and two classes for each role?

 

[KingCrab]

Eight? Hmmm.

Cleric
Druid
Fighter (includes Barbarian and Monk talent trees)
Ranger
Rogue (includes the Bard talent tree)
Mage
+2 new classes (Champion? Warlord? Battlemage?)

I thought they already spoke of Barbraian as a class at one point? They also said the sorcerer and wizard weren't going to merge (though they didn't specifically say they'd both be in the PHB at the start). Druid hasn't been mentioned at all as far as I know (which I'm sad about). I've heard them say something about the paladin. What do we know for sure in terms of classes?

My guess is (going only from what they've said so far and not what I would like):
Fighter
Barbarian
Paladin
Cleric
Rogue
Wizard
Sorcerer
+1 other my guess being ranger

 

[Cake Mage]

I remember somewhere someone saying something like:
Alot of people don't want Eastern (culture) in their western (culture) game.

To take a shot in the dark, I'm guessing Monk will be gone from core and probably introduced later with the oriental stuff.

I do keep seeing ranger pop up in the blogs and such.

 

[Virel]

Honestly, I think its better to have 8 core classes instead of the hundreds in 3.5

Without a doubt.

I hated the billion classes in the old 3/3.5 game. It was a turn off. Eight total classes is an excellent step in the correct direction. It will be good to see each archtype matter, again.