D&D 4E Hypothetical 4e Class List

[GlassJaw]

I doubt D&D will ever go to a classless system but I definitely would like something more generic. I really like the Grim Tales system (which is a beefed up version of d20 Modern). Going with 4 basic "templates" would work too (fighter/warrior, arcane caster, divine caster, skill-based/stealth guy).

 

[JoeGKushner]

I think a lot of it is going to depend on who 4th edition is aimed at.

If it's aimed at new players, I'd expect something like the sorcerer to replace the wizard. Gets rid of that whole memorize spells issues. Same thing with the favored soul and the cleric. Althought I wouldn't mind seeing the traditional cleric get the book and getting a priest who doesn't use arms and armor and have more divine grace about him.

heck, go with the three generic classes from Unearthed Arcana and call it a day.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing more leanings towards d20 modern with advanced classes and for the higher up characters, prestige classes.

 

[Estlor]

If there is a conscious effort made to reduce the number of base classed available to players in 4e, it's won't be at the expense of options. None of the current classes found in core will "go away," they'll just switch form. If we see a drop to the "base 4" method (or "base 5" if you want to include a woodsy person to build rangers, barbarians, and druids off of), you'll see a lot of classes change into prestige classes.

If you're picking and choosing, I'd rather go forward with the wizard than the sorcerer. The sorcerer, as a concept, works in its original purpose - making it easy to adjudicate monster spellcasting. But, frankly, it's a bit limited as a PC class by its one feature - limited spontaneous spellcasting. The spontaneous concept is good for the bard - it further defines and narrows its otherwise broad scope, giving it some sort of a niche - but as a whole I detest the inclusion of sorcerer and favored soul into the structure of the game. Now, maybe if you took away all prepared spellcasting and gave the wizard and cleric those spell progressions it might work itself out in the end, but something tells me that would warp D&D into a quasi-low magic game, something designers have never intended for the core ruleset. Perhaps a better way to handle this (IMHO) is make the basic spellcaster have to prepare spells, but design feats and/or prestige classes that allow them access to spontaneous casting of certain types of spells. Or, the same thing from a different angle, make every wizard prepare their spells ahead of time, but allow specialist wizards to trade prepared spells for spells of their school like clerics do cure and inflict spells, but restrict it to X number of spells from their school that they know well enough to do this, giving them more as they go up with slightly more flexibility than the domain system (since a specialist trades away spells for their specialty) but less than open season for an Invoker.

Well... this is kind of a tangent, so I'll stop. But seriously, the wizard/sorcerer shouldn't be left as-is when they move to 4e. Something needs to be done if both are expected to continue on as viable options.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I prefer more classes as opposed to fewer, it's harder to put on then it is to take off.

Plus, honestly, generic classes are silly. Who on earth ever goes out to create a character with no sense of corporate identity in a fantasy world? You've really got to think of your characters as totally unrelated to the world for that to be an attractive option. Not to mention totally without any need for differentiation or specialization.

Or at least that would be true in my wildly prejuidicial opinion.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Honestly,
I would like to see more of the Arcana Unearthed style of compartmental classes like the Witch, Champion, and Totem Warrior. Or even the Psion.
What else would I expect:
I would like to see a variety of odd culturally derived classes: Samurai - Oriental, Druid - Occidental, Sha'ir - Middle Eastern, Ironsmith - Africa, and Totem Warrior - New World perhaps?

Each of them should represent an individual and logical specialization, but they should also open up the possibility for exotic characters more/present the DM with more opportunity to expand flavor in any of those directions.

So: Samurai - social heavy fighter, Druid - shapechanger, Sha'ir - summoner and supernatural negotiator, Ironsmith - magical crafter and general bad ass, Totem Warrior - supernatural light fighter/aristocrat.

I think in terms of the more general archetypes, DnD is certainly lacking the armor-less social cleric that others have discussed and also something like the Arcana Unearthed Akashic as two-fisted scholar. Monk certainly needs to be improved, but is an absolutely necessary archetype as the hyper athletic and mobile unarmed fighter.

 

[TerraDave]

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.

Right: Even the Sorcerer isn't that new, you can consider the Wizard and Sorcerer to be splitting the Magic User.

The problem with cutting the marginal class is that it will really upset some people, and not make other people that much happier. The only one I could see being cut would be the monk, to be reinserted as a PrC or a core class in an Oriental book.

Hopefully they can make the core classes more flexible, so there is no need for classes like swashbuckler or mageblade. I guess along these lines they could merge Sorcerer and Wizard...but we will have to wait and see.

 

[pdkoning]

In my opionion all classes should stay. D&D == core classes, so generic classes or a classless system would not be appreciated by me. I think the current core classes cover almost anything you can think of. (maybe with a houserule or 2). The only class that WOTC should look at is the monk. He looks a bit out of place in most fantasy settings.

 

[Mad Mac]

*balefull stare* Ain't none of you taking my monk, see...so don't be getting any ideas, now.

But seriously, I don't see a tradition-laden system like D&D going classless or generic. I think Strange-Monkey is largely on the right track.

What we'll probably see is about the same base classes we have now, give or take one or two, but with a real attempt to broaden each class, making it more flexible and interesting. (So the Paladin, Monk, and Barbarian, rather than having abilities set in stone, might have a number of "paths" availible to them.)

I think the most questionable classes in terms of survivability is the Druid/Cleric split, and to a lesser extent, Sorcerer/Wizard. Eliminating either will irritate as many people as they please, though, unless the new class can roughly aproximate both.

Just my thought, but then, I don't expect 4th edition to be hugely revolutionary, either.

 

[Doctor Shaft]

Personally, I'd like to see a system where there would be "generic" classes, but then specialized classes that a person can tree off of. Of course, this would require more than 10 classes, and so the likelihood of it appearing is nil.

But it's a system that EQII uses from what I've read, and it's been used to good effect in games like Final Fantasy Tactics. While the game itself is a hack n' slash sessions with some story occasionally interupting, the system itself was pretty slick. It went so far as to even provide base classes that only certain races could take. I actually liked that, as it added a cultural and physical limitation to the classes.

So a human could be a fighter, an archer, etc., but he could not become something like a monk or a summoner. Granted, I don't think D&D should have as many crazy variants as Final Fantasy had, but I liked the idea that classes branched out from each other, and you could learn a variety of skills from them.

If I had envision a class system, it would have something where the archetype was set (I'm not a fan of "generalized" classes unless I'm doing a modern setting... a fantasy world where I can't readily identify what it is people do is kind of boring to me), but then there were several "paths" available to them.

So a fighter could either be a generalist and receive bonus feats every other level, or have access to a tree of simple variants that swap bonus feats for a progression in a single weapon (weapon master without being prestige class), or a code of honor (samurai).

A paladin that could either go primarily as a spell casting route, or a paladin that has no "spells" at all to cast besides lay on hands, but other kinds of bonuses instead.

A monk (no one destroys my favorite class! ) that is less dependent on its static abilities that people sometimes don't even like seeing, and instead a distinct tree of system or "schools", some representing cultures that aren't even necessarily asian. Priestly monks, warrior fighters, vagabonds.

But four classes and just a hodgepodge of skills. That's being done by other systems. I'm not sure D&D would really benefit its entire fan base going that route.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

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

Well from the way things have been going I'd say 2009. Second Edition came out in 1989, third in 1999. I'd say that 10 year intervals exist in between major revisions. However, I would be extremely happy if 4th Ed doesn't come out until at least 2014. Thats asking a lot. I do hope the D20 system will be there for all future revisions as it would make for easy updates of all previous D20 info. I'm also guessing that if D20 Future/Modern/Past has enogh success that there will be a revision to it as well.