D&D 4E [Essentials] Heroes of the... ?

[Mengu]

I'd like to see the Shaman and Sorcerer redone. Both these classes have a lot of fiddly bits and I would like to see simpler versions of them. A version of Shaman without the spirit companion would be interesting to see, that thing is a bit of a pain. A version of Cosmic Sorcerer without all the moon phases to keep track of or the tedious bonuses a Wild Sorcerer gets based on random rolls could be a breath of fresh air.

I also wouldn't mind the Barbarian redone, for no other reason than the general public appeal for the class as a "simple to play" charge and bash things mentality. The current Barbarian builds are not near durable enough for that mentality of play. They need to be played more like a surgical missile, not a wrecking ball you throw in the middle of the field. A new wrecking ball design that can withstand less strategic thought would probably be beneficial.

 

[Rune]

These three sound great to me.

I don't like the auto-surrender mechanic per se, but it is innovative and creative. What if instead it were a bonus to Intimidate rolls to surrender?

The Shepherd should be able to do it with Diplomacy.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh, I think the way forward is less numbers of more general classes with more focused builds. More reuse of existing mechanical infrastructure. That to me is a lot of what Essentials is about. I'd like to see a few classes that represent genuinely unique concepts, but not many. I could see basically:

1) Bard - both classic and not really covered by what exists now.

2) Monk - seems unique enough to warrant a full class.

3) Warlord - probably, though it might be possible to subsume under the fighter.

4) Swordmage - a rather unique type of concept that just doesn't easily work as a build of something else.

I really don't see a strong argument for anything else. Most of the other classes are either pure fluff, just didn't really cover any unique ground, or can be done with a build easily enough.

1) Sorcerer - look at the existing sorcerer, the mage stole his stuff. Seriously, this class never really was that unique and WotC long ago put enough feat support into wizards to do its job better than it does. The fluff is nice, but it is pretty much just that fluff. Some 'innate magic' builds of wizard can handle this easily without the need of a whole other power list.

2) Barbarian - can you say slayer? Seriously, barbarian is all fluff.

3) Shaman - seems to me the new Essentials druid pretty much has this covered. For other somewhat similar variations Warlock can cover it.

4) Psionics - just let it die the death it has so richly deserved for 30 years. Why do we need 2 magic systems? Why did we ever? Monk can cover the "I enhance myself by the power of mind" kind of stuff that Battlemind is trying to do.

5) Invoker, Avenger - I just don't know why we need multiple classes that are almost a cleric but not quite. Make a cleric build that uses a big sword and has high accuracy and one that focuses on ranged attacks and control, fluff how you want.

Half of what ails 4e is the massive assortment of power lists necessitated by 28 classes when about 9 will do.

 

[Ryujin]

From my point of view the whole Essentials thing would be complete when they've managed to recreate the original AD&D classes:

clerics
druids
fighters
rangers
paladins
magic-users
illusionists
thieves
assassins
monks
barbarian
cavalier
thief-acrobat

... and perhaps the Bard, though I would have preferred it to be a form of Paragon Path equivalent.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

So far the formula has been the following:
1 Defender, 1 Leader, 2 Strikers, and 1 Controller. One class has two subclasses that are two different roles. Five or six races (one of which is always human).

I see two more books, at least. It could break the formula though, maybe two leaders or two controllers. I also don't see the Swordmage being in any of them, since it is more than likely what the Bladesinger will be.

Book 1:
Human, Gnome, Deva and two others

1. Defender: Warden (class name?) - make it have an animal companion similar to what the Druid does. Have them use nature aspects like the ranger.

2. Leader: Bard (Skald) - Weapon user with sustain minor buffs for allies.

3. Leader: Warlord (Marshal) - Weapon user, two builds. One Tactical Warlord analog that is ranged, the other that is Inspiring Warlord analog that is melee.

4. Striker: Bard (name...) - Implement user, hands out debuffs.

5. Controller: Invoker (Name...?) - Implement user, think stereotypical baptist preacher laying down the law.

Book 2:
Human, Genasi, Warforged, and two others. Warforged are kind of the odd ones out. They might be better for a Stormreach Campaign Guide (like the Neverwinter one, complete with an updated Artificer).

Not so sure on the classes here, I would like a Martial/Psionic Basic Attack Monk, a Basic Attack Sorcerer, a Defender Barbarian and Striker Barbarian, and a Power Point using Basic Attack Psion.

 

[Njall]

I'd love to see a slightly more complex melee martial class ( similar to the hunter, with both MBA augments and stances/aspects... I like the idea behind the essential martial builds but dislike the execution, while I like the hunter a lot, mechanically, but don't really care for the concept... give me a fighter that is both flavorful and interesting to play and I'm sold ) and a couple "simple" caster classes, as well as a psionic and martial monk variant.

 

[Korgoth]

Heroes of the Forgotten Lands would have:

Warlord (Leader)
Monk - Shaolin (Defender)
Monk - Wudang (Striker)
Bard (Controller)
Samurai (Striker)

Human
Gnome
Goliath
Half-Oni
Warforged
Shifter

 

[Ahrimon]

Heroes of the Forgotten Lands would have:

Warlord (Leader)
Monk - Shaolin (Defender)
Monk - Wudang (Striker)
Bard (Controller)
Samurai (Striker)

Human
Gnome
Goliath
Half-Oni
Warforged
Shifter

Oh.. I really like the idea of the lightly armored defender monk. The Samurai doesn't strike me as needing it's own class though. Samurai is fluff layer added onto other classes to me. Slayer and scout come to mind as good samurai bases. If there is something specific you'd like them to have, it could probably get atted as another option to those classes easily enough.

Like the race selection, but I'm not sure what you mean by Half-Oni. Oni was always a pretty generic term that I'm aware of. Closest I can think is half-ogre. Was there something more specific you were thinking about with that one?

 

[Ryujin]

Oh.. I really like the idea of the lightly armored defender monk. The Samurai doesn't strike me as needing it's own class though. Samurai is fluff layer added onto other classes to me. Slayer and scout come to mind as good samurai bases. If there is something specific you'd like them to have, it could probably get atted as another option to those classes easily enough.

Like the race selection, but I'm not sure what you mean by Half-Oni. Oni was always a pretty generic term that I'm aware of. Closest I can think is half-ogre. Was there something more specific you were thinking about with that one?

Oni could be either a reskinned Tiefling, reskinned Goliath, or an ogre depending upon your point of view.

 

[GreyLord]

The essentials still missed some essential classes from Older D&D along with at least one race.

I'd put in (as others have already suggested)

A Bard (possibly two builds)
Barbarian
Monk

and Possibly the

Sorcerer.

This would equal the four classes idea that the other two have, along with the core classes that have been symbolic in earlier versions of D&D but were not in essentials.

I'd also toss in the Gnome race
Humans

And then since you used Tieflings toss in Devas since Tieflings weren't in older core versions of D&D...if you toss in a dark race you probably should toss in a lighter race to counter it.

Addition: I also, since you'll be down at least a race or more (Perhaps only two races if you don't include the Deva) you could include another class, in which case I'd vote for the Warlord simply for the reasons people have given above already.