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

[Atlatl Jones]

I think the druid is out because shape change is out (or very much different). The druids put all their eggs in the wrong basket.

If it's in, it'll work something like the shapechange alternate class ability in the PHB II. It's a LOT simpler, and much easier to keep balanced.

If the druid as its currently conceived is out, it would be because it doesn't fit any of the roles well. It's essentially 1/2 controller and 1/2 "leader", with a dabbling of striker.

 

[Simplicity]

Well, we know that mage and sorceror both still exist... I would assume they are both still core.

Although I have to admit, it would be awesome if the first level was a racial level and you picked your class at level 2. Too bad that'll never happen.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Like someone else said, I wonder if there will be a gish-role in the starting book? It's such a popular combination and they have obviously tried many times to do it in 3e and 3.5 (from as early as Sword and Fist with the PrC Spellsword all the way up till the Duskblade). It seems like their role would be striker, with a dash of controller as most gishes aren't built for tanking.

Only if they are restricted to race: githyanki.

-- Break --

Given their popularity, I have a really hard time seeing them drop druids for 4E ... a class that's been in every version of D&D (to include BECM D&D). They may have a few classes that overlap roles. A druid could be a leader, defender, or controller character depending on the specific mechanics. Personally, I'd go with druid ules that had an animal companion, a single fixed wildshape form, and perhaps a more limited set of spells and spell-like abilities.

 

[Frostmarrow]

If it's in, it'll work something like the shapechange alternate class ability in the PHB II. It's a LOT simpler, and much easier to keep balanced.

If the druid as its currently conceived is out, it would be because it doesn't fit any of the roles well. It's essentially 1/2 controller and 1/2 "leader", with a dabbling of striker.

Nah. They just don't want to be bothered making monsters balanced as PCs too, now that they are reshaping the monsters to be interesting adversaries for but 7 rounds.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

Personally, I'd go with druid rules that had an animal companion, a single fixed wildshape form, and perhaps a more limited set of spells and spell-like abilities.

I doubt that they're going to keep the animal companions. They take too much time away from other players, and are difficult to account for in many situations. In a recent D&D podcast, someone (I think Mearls) talked about drastically changing the familiar, changing it into a class ability rather than a independent, fully statted out critter.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

This is what I've picked up through tidbits:

Barbarian: Mentioned in an interview as being a barbarian, not a berserker. Berserker and bear warrior concepts come later in his career.

That's not exactly true. He mentioned that you could turn into something like a Frenzied Berzerker later, not that the barbarian isn't doing his rage shtick.

Actually, that raises a good question: are there going to be prestige classes at all? From the way it sounded in that quote, the barbarian could pick up Bear Warrior or Frenzied Berzerker abilities as part of advancing to become a high-level barbarian. Are we going to see prestige classes disappear in favour of a more modular selection of class features? In other words, instead of prestige classes in the splatbooks, will there simply be more barbarian abilities that you can choose at the levels you're supposed to choose abilities at?

Sorcerer: Mentioned as being distinct from wizard.
Wizard: See above comment with sorcerer. Name visible in promo video.

That's also not quite right. It was simply said that the sorcerer and wizard haven't merged. They never said that the sorcerer survived the edition change, and I haven't seen the sorcerer mentioned by name in any blog posts at all.

 

[Remathilis]

Given their popularity, I have a really hard time seeing them drop druids for 4E ... a class that's been in every version of D&D (to include BECM D&D). They may have a few classes that overlap roles. A druid could be a leader, defender, or controller character depending on the specific mechanics. Personally, I'd go with druid rules that had an animal companion, a single fixed wildshape form, and perhaps a more limited set of spells and spell-like abilities.

Druid might work as a prestige class, like it was BEMCI. However, what can a druid REALLY add as a base class*?

* Nature Priest: A cleric of Obad-Hai or Ehlonna can fill a similar role.
* Animal Companion: As stated above, I doubt animal allies will be in the game the way they are now, including warmounts, familiars, and companions.
* Wild Shape: Difficult to use, requires the player to dive into the MM constantly, and way easy to cheese out and break.
* Spell Selection: Druids excel at three things: healing (cleric), blaster (wizard), and nature/survival magic (they alone). That last category is highly specific and not entirely useful all the time. If the third category was divided between the cleric and wizard, you could easily ditch their spellcasting.
* Nature Sense, Resist Nature' Lure, 1,000 faces, Venom Immunity, Timeless Body: All flavor abilities, but none of these DEFINE a druid.
* Wild Empathy: A Ranger can do this job just as well.

The archetype of a nature/animist priest is a famous enough one though, so maybe something will come and replace the druid (My bet is on dragon shaman). However, in the core rules a druid REALLY doesn't add something a cleric or wizard can't already do.

* Ok, that line of logic can be used to justify the removal of ANY core class. True, but bear with me the idea that a ranger, barbarian, paladin, warlord, and sorcerer has a legitimate role in 4e that may be different than the one in 3.5.

 

[Pamela]

Right here, James Wyatt mentions two other classes: duskblade and swordsage.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13445143&postcount=4

I'm guessing that these are prestige classes/kits/subsets of two other classes. So it's possible that warlord isn't a separate cleric class after all. Agh, how many months again before we learn the truth?!

 

[Banshee16]

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.

In one of the posts over the weekend, I saw the Duskblade included in a quote....so it seems that this class might have made it to the core....

I'd be willing to bet that Warlock made it as well. Both of those classes have been added to the expansion pack for NWN 2.....which seems to speak towards their popularity.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

This is what I've picked up through tidbits:

Barbarian: Mentioned in an interview as being a barbarian, not a berserker. Berserker and bear warrior concepts come later in his career.
Bard: Not a peep.
Cleric: Mentioned quite frequently.
Druid: I didn't hear anything, but someone else on the boards said the druid was mentioned.
Fighter: Mentioned quite frequently.
Monk: Not a peep.
Paladin: Mentioned in an interview as being more fun to play.
Ranger: Mentioned as eating up scout. Name visible in promo video.
Rogue: Mentioned as being a martial class.
Sorcerer: Mentioned as being distinct from wizard.
Wizard: See above comment with sorcerer. Name visible in promo video.
Warlord: Name visible in promo video.


Howndawg

Given that it seems like Vancian spellcasting will be less prominent, and that all characters will have per day and per encounter type abilities, I'm wondering if perhaps the sorc is going to be differentiated from the wizard more....maybe make it mechanically more similar to the 3.5 Warlock?

Banshee