D&D 4E Hypothetical 4e Class List

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I'd go with fighter, spell-user, and rogue, myself.

Yeah, personally I'd go with a Warrior, Expert, and Mystic class. I just don't see WotC going in that direction. :\

<<<hijacking in progress>>>

What arethe odds o a 4e coming out? What have you folks heard?

In the next couple of years? Not too likely. Eventually? 100%

 

[Crothian]

<<<hijacking in progress>>>

What are the odds of a 4e coming out? What have you folks heard?

100% it will come out. I'd wager not till about 2008, but it is really hard to say.

 

[johnsemlak]

D&D has had roughly the same 10 or so classes since 1e was introduced in 1979 (and even before that), give or take a class. Those classes are an integral part of the game.

I don't think 4e will change the class structure dramatically.

 

[A'koss]

I'm also for reducing the number of classes to Warrior / Rogue / Wizard / Cleric and the Commoner. Most archetypes can be boiled down to those four (five...) or combinations thereof. And while the idea of a class for every ability score (like Md20) is not bad, I'm not sure I'd go that route for D&D.

As far as the odds of 4e coming out - the powers that be have already said that there will be another edition someday but they intend to give us at least a year or two's notice before that happens.

Cheers!

 

[WayneLigon]

i'd say go with something like the Blue Rose idea; basic classes, then paths off those classes to customize them. I think Fighter/Spellcaster/Skills Person is the best breakdown, then have the immediate paths from those instead of Advanced Classes or PrC's. Either that, or go with the d20 modern method but have some other way of differenciating the classes (and gaining a spellcasting class) right away instead of having to wait for the Advanced Classes.

 

[DungeonMaster]

The 4e classes should be:
Warrior (man of arms)
Rogue (man of skill)
Mage (man of twig and root)
Priest (man of god)

Those are the archetypes. All the rest are cultural variants of these 4.
Power coming from a divine source is different than power coming from non-deific origin and so you can't merely throw the mages in with the priests.

I doubt we'll see this though. 3rd edition and moreso 3.5 has divebombed the completely other direction with hundreds of oxymorons (read: "prestige" classes).
And done a pretty disgusting job of blurring the priest archetype to the point where it's pointless to play a wizard game mechanically.

The most important thing I think is getting different designers for 4e - I never want to see Andy Collin's name on the cover of a D&D rulebook again ever once 3.5 is buried.
Ignoring most of 3.5 and working from 3rd edition as a base would also be a great start.

 

[Mark]

Mundane Classes
Barbarian
Fighter
Ranger (no spells)
Rogue
Swashbuckler

(...)

Occidental Classes
Bard
Druid
Paladin

By your system, shouldn't "Swashbuckler" be moved to the Occidental Classes? Isn't it meant to be a sort of Muskateer/Pirate hybrid?

<<<hijacking in progress>>>

Start your own thread.

...like you needed to be told...

 

[Mark]

(man of twig and root)

That's gonna need work...

 

[DungeonMaster]

That's gonna need work...

It's a reference to components, which is a common element of non-deific magic throughout all cultures.
Call it arcane if you want, the distinction is the same. Sorcery would be a better term.

 

[Ferrix]

I'd imagine it'd rest pretty closely to what we have now. Cutting it down to the three huge archetypes of warrior/magic-user/skill-user some people like, some people don't. Also, despite the modern system being an interesting change, I'd rather keep the core classes we have in 3.5 (maybe drop the monk and shift the fighter around to be able to fit the concept of a skill unarmed combatant or lightly-armored combatant).