D&D 3E/3.5 drothgery's thoughts on 4e and WotC 3.5 classes that aren't in PH1
- Thread starter drothgery
- Start date
3.5 Player's Handbook
Bard - these guys have always been fun from a roleplaying perspective, but from a combat mechanics perspective? Not so much. Recasting them as arcane leaders seems like emphasizing the strongest way to play them in 3.x, and can only be a Good Thing.
Barbarian - although the initial 4e defenders (fighter and paladin) are very much heavy armor / stand your ground types, I think there's definitely a bit of design space for a more mobile defender. And if hit points are by role (and it seems like they are), then I think they need to be slotted as defenders. So they're the primal defender (WotC's suggested 'temp barbarian' as a fighter further reinforces this). Class features have got to include rage; probably no armor profs beyond Hide, which means they're going to be STR primary/DEX secondary/WIS tertiary characters (yes, high-CON barbarians are traditional, they're not getting heavy armor, so they'll need DEX or INT for defense, snd INT's not stereotypical for barbarians either -- and they ought to need at least one mental stat).
Druid - WotC has said they're Primal Hybrid in class and role, focused on shapeshifting, and gave some vague hints they'd be able to stand in for a cleric. So while a 3.5 Druid could fill any 4e role, I'm going to guess the 4e is a hybrid Striker/Leader (and can't really do controller stuff or defender stuff well).
Monk - Seems very clear they'll be the Ki striker given a Ki power source and the suggested 'temporary' monk.
Sorcerer - Since these guys basically existed in 3.x to give a spontaneous caster, and someone else that used all of those wizard spells, it's no real surprise that the 4e version is getting a substantial reflavoring -- and at the end of the day mostly exists to give another controller option.
Bard - these guys have always been fun from a roleplaying perspective, but from a combat mechanics perspective? Not so much. Recasting them as arcane leaders seems like emphasizing the strongest way to play them in 3.x, and can only be a Good Thing.
Barbarian - although the initial 4e defenders (fighter and paladin) are very much heavy armor / stand your ground types, I think there's definitely a bit of design space for a more mobile defender. And if hit points are by role (and it seems like they are), then I think they need to be slotted as defenders. So they're the primal defender (WotC's suggested 'temp barbarian' as a fighter further reinforces this). Class features have got to include rage; probably no armor profs beyond Hide, which means they're going to be STR primary/DEX secondary/WIS tertiary characters (yes, high-CON barbarians are traditional, they're not getting heavy armor, so they'll need DEX or INT for defense, snd INT's not stereotypical for barbarians either -- and they ought to need at least one mental stat).
Druid - WotC has said they're Primal Hybrid in class and role, focused on shapeshifting, and gave some vague hints they'd be able to stand in for a cleric. So while a 3.5 Druid could fill any 4e role, I'm going to guess the 4e is a hybrid Striker/Leader (and can't really do controller stuff or defender stuff well).
Monk - Seems very clear they'll be the Ki striker given a Ki power source and the suggested 'temporary' monk.
Sorcerer - Since these guys basically existed in 3.x to give a spontaneous caster, and someone else that used all of those wizard spells, it's no real surprise that the 4e version is getting a substantial reflavoring -- and at the end of the day mostly exists to give another controller option.
Complete Adventurer
Ninja - well, despite what hong says, 4e rogues are not 100% ninjae. Only 90%. And WotC's conversion article seems to agree, which means they come down as a ki striker. Two ki strikers might be a bit redundant, but the monk and ninja are at least as differnt as the ranger and the rogue, if not more so.
Scout - The ranger largely killed the scout and took its stuff, so I'm not sure this class really has much design space for a 4e version. It's really hard to say what a dedicated scout class would do that a ranger or a rogue wouldn't.
Spellthief - the proposed build of a rogue with wizard multiclassing is pretty much saying that this is an arcane striker. And a very different one from the warlock, at that. I'm not quite sure how to model the spell stealing ability, though.
Ninja - well, despite what hong says, 4e rogues are not 100% ninjae. Only 90%. And WotC's conversion article seems to agree, which means they come down as a ki striker. Two ki strikers might be a bit redundant, but the monk and ninja are at least as differnt as the ranger and the rogue, if not more so.
Scout - The ranger largely killed the scout and took its stuff, so I'm not sure this class really has much design space for a 4e version. It's really hard to say what a dedicated scout class would do that a ranger or a rogue wouldn't.
Spellthief - the proposed build of a rogue with wizard multiclassing is pretty much saying that this is an arcane striker. And a very different one from the warlock, at that. I'm not quite sure how to model the spell stealing ability, though.
Complete Arcane
Warlock is in the 4e PH1.
Warmage - Similar to the scout, in a lot of ways the 4e wizard killed the warmage and took its stuff; especially if they're adding a sorcerer, a third arcane blaster seems kind of silly.
Wu Jen - This class was never all that different from the wizard, and a controller wizard build seems to cover this pretty well.
Warlock is in the 4e PH1.
Warmage - Similar to the scout, in a lot of ways the 4e wizard killed the warmage and took its stuff; especially if they're adding a sorcerer, a third arcane blaster seems kind of silly.
Wu Jen - This class was never all that different from the wizard, and a controller wizard build seems to cover this pretty well.
Complete Divine
Favored Soul - With the way powers work in 4e, it doesn't seem like the Favored Soul has a lot of design space. The Paladin and Cleric seem to cover everything this guy does.
Shujenga - These guys really seem like elemental controllers to me. They're not divine casters at all, I think, and with few healing and buffing spells, they don't seem a good fit for the leader role. I think I'd run one as a tweaked wizard for now, actually.
Spirit Shaman - This class also reads more controller-esque than leader-esque. Probably should be a primal controller. Again, I think I'd run one as a tweaked wizard.
Favored Soul - With the way powers work in 4e, it doesn't seem like the Favored Soul has a lot of design space. The Paladin and Cleric seem to cover everything this guy does.
Shujenga - These guys really seem like elemental controllers to me. They're not divine casters at all, I think, and with few healing and buffing spells, they don't seem a good fit for the leader role. I think I'd run one as a tweaked wizard for now, actually.
Spirit Shaman - This class also reads more controller-esque than leader-esque. Probably should be a primal controller. Again, I think I'd run one as a tweaked wizard.
Complete Warrior
Hexblade - Seems like the Shadow Defender if there is one, though a fighter or paladin with some warlock multiclassing would would be a reasonable fascimile.
Samurai - What's the difference between a samurai and a fighter again (this was a problem in 3e, too)? Still, probably gets a rework as the ki defender, hopefully losing the two-weapon schtick (well, making it optional, at least).
Swashbuckler - there's not a lot of design space for this right now; the Rogue and the two-weapon ranger cover just about everything. The only niche I can see for a dedicated swashbuckler class would be spin the light armor and a rapier or two as a defender instead of a striker, and/or to rely more on INT than CHA or DEX. Though like the barbarian, you'd have a highly mobile defender which could be something of a contradiction.
Hexblade - Seems like the Shadow Defender if there is one, though a fighter or paladin with some warlock multiclassing would would be a reasonable fascimile.
Samurai - What's the difference between a samurai and a fighter again (this was a problem in 3e, too)? Still, probably gets a rework as the ki defender, hopefully losing the two-weapon schtick (well, making it optional, at least).
Swashbuckler - there's not a lot of design space for this right now; the Rogue and the two-weapon ranger cover just about everything. The only niche I can see for a dedicated swashbuckler class would be spin the light armor and a rapier or two as a defender instead of a striker, and/or to rely more on INT than CHA or DEX. Though like the barbarian, you'd have a highly mobile defender which could be something of a contradiction.
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Psion - much like the 3.5 wizard, the psion covered a lot of ground, and its abilities should and likely will get broken up into different classes in 4e. It seems like mind-altering effects have been carved out as a psionic niche for telepaths, while the kineticist-style blasters would really be better as wizards. Controller role seems obvous for any of them, though.
Psychic Warrior - although something of a classic, this guy has a lot of overlap as a self-buffing warrior with the forthcoming swordmage class. I could see it not making 4e. For now, I'd play as paladin, I think.
Soulknife - easily the most evokative warrior type of the 3.5 psionic classes, and more a striker than a defender, I'd think. I'd play as a rogue and reflavor some class features for the mind blade.
Wilder - The 3.5 version was arguably the sorcerer to the psion's wizard, having fewer powers and slightly different special abilities. I'm not sure what you'd do to distinguish it, except give it a different focus than the 'main' psionic controller class.
Psion - much like the 3.5 wizard, the psion covered a lot of ground, and its abilities should and likely will get broken up into different classes in 4e. It seems like mind-altering effects have been carved out as a psionic niche for telepaths, while the kineticist-style blasters would really be better as wizards. Controller role seems obvous for any of them, though.
Psychic Warrior - although something of a classic, this guy has a lot of overlap as a self-buffing warrior with the forthcoming swordmage class. I could see it not making 4e. For now, I'd play as paladin, I think.
Soulknife - easily the most evokative warrior type of the 3.5 psionic classes, and more a striker than a defender, I'd think. I'd play as a rogue and reflavor some class features for the mind blade.
Wilder - The 3.5 version was arguably the sorcerer to the psion's wizard, having fewer powers and slightly different special abilities. I'm not sure what you'd do to distinguish it, except give it a different focus than the 'main' psionic controller class.
Player's Handbook II
Beguiller - If a dedicated Illusionist class comes along, I'm not quite sure how this guy fits in with it. Could be a spellcasting Shadow Striker (rather than a weapon-based Assassin or Shadowdancer), while Illusionist is a controller.
Dragon Shaman - Auras and healing ability put it in the leader role, and with a style different enough that it wouldn't hedge in on the warlord, bard, or cleric. Possibly another divine leader, though maybe primal or elemental depending on the backstory of dragons (I don't have my MM or DMG quite yet).
Knight - Except for the mounted combat bits, the fighter and paladin killed the knight and took its stuff. Could reappear as a mounted combat specialist defender, but might well stay gone.
Duskblade - I could see this as the striker companion to the swordmage, though three arcane strikers (with warlock and spellthief, above) would probably be a bit much.
Beguiller - If a dedicated Illusionist class comes along, I'm not quite sure how this guy fits in with it. Could be a spellcasting Shadow Striker (rather than a weapon-based Assassin or Shadowdancer), while Illusionist is a controller.
Dragon Shaman - Auras and healing ability put it in the leader role, and with a style different enough that it wouldn't hedge in on the warlord, bard, or cleric. Possibly another divine leader, though maybe primal or elemental depending on the backstory of dragons (I don't have my MM or DMG quite yet).
Knight - Except for the mounted combat bits, the fighter and paladin killed the knight and took its stuff. Could reappear as a mounted combat specialist defender, but might well stay gone.
Duskblade - I could see this as the striker companion to the swordmage, though three arcane strikers (with warlock and spellthief, above) would probably be a bit much.
Heroes of Horror
Archivist - I did a spin on this one as a cleric variant over in the house rules board, but as build from the ground up, I think they're a casting-based/int-based divine leader with Dark Knowledge as the class's special feature.
Dread Necromancer - Probably gets clipped to just Necromancer, and spun as a shadow leader. It seems like WotC is reserving undead manipulation for a necromancer class anyway.
Archivist - I did a spin on this one as a cleric variant over in the house rules board, but as build from the ground up, I think they're a casting-based/int-based divine leader with Dark Knowledge as the class's special feature.
Dread Necromancer - Probably gets clipped to just Necromancer, and spun as a shadow leader. It seems like WotC is reserving undead manipulation for a necromancer class anyway.
On Puget Sound
First Post
Book of Magic:
Binder : I never got a grasp on the binder's role in 3.5, though the mechanic was cool. Probably use the Spellbook mechanic, but with powers from widely varied disciplines in it. Binders might have no standard at-wills or encounter powers, instead pulling them from a spellbook each day also.
Shadowcaster : This is somewhere between warlock and illusionist, probably a Shadow Controller.
Truenamer : An Arcane Leader with no healing but extensive buffs and debuffs. Include an at-will that grants temporary HP to allow it to fill the role without healing.
Binder : I never got a grasp on the binder's role in 3.5, though the mechanic was cool. Probably use the Spellbook mechanic, but with powers from widely varied disciplines in it. Binders might have no standard at-wills or encounter powers, instead pulling them from a spellbook each day also.
Shadowcaster : This is somewhere between warlock and illusionist, probably a Shadow Controller.
Truenamer : An Arcane Leader with no healing but extensive buffs and debuffs. Include an at-will that grants temporary HP to allow it to fill the role without healing.
