Nature Power Source

[Nahat Anoj]

Primal Power Source! Perfect Name.

Yes it is. In fact, there's a picture of a "Primal Blaster" in R&C ... I wonder if it will be the nature striker? Incidentally, I don't like the name primal blaster and hope it changes.

Given their ability to assume different shapes, druids may be the first multi-role character in 4e.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Given their ability to assume different shapes, druids may be the first multi-role character in 4e.

Druids taking everyone's jobs? it IS just like WOW

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Druids taking everyone's jobs? it IS just like WOW

lol! Too true, too true.

 

[Lackhand]

Where do we get the Bard and Sorcerer?

Isn't there an arcane book in one of the first releases? I'm remembering the Hebrew leak from right after the announcement.

 

[Gort]

Druids taking everyone's jobs? it IS just like WOW

Yeah, I can't quite pin down what the druid's going to be. With his spells, he could easily assume the leader role (after all, warlords can fight as well as lead, as can clerics). However, a wildshaped druid could be a good defender - a bear is a nasty opponent in hand to hand. By the same merit, he could be a good striker - a bear is a nasty opponent in hand to hand. Also with spells, he could be a good controller.

I think from what we've heard, the most likely choices are druid for the defender role, barbarian for the striker, and something else for the leader.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

p. 94: Picture of elf primal blaster. Probably a placeholder name for a nature based striker. As opposed to the ranger who uses speed and intuition to dart about the battlefield executing guerilla tactics, I imagine a guy who uses oneness with nature to camouflage himself and then charges arrows with elemental power to pepper his foes. He might even shoot arrows that transform into poisonous vipers or stinging bees. I would call him the Warden, but do we really need another war- class?

The primal blaster sounds more like a paragon path for the ranger than a class of its own. As it's own class, it's much too close to the ranger, and even if it has the flavor and powers that you described, that could (probably) be accomplished through a paragon path.

The barbarian could be either a defender or a striker, depending on how they focus it. I hypothesized that it would be a defender because barbarians tend to wade into the middle of battle and kill everything around them, while strikers are designed to attack single targets. They're also extremely durable, while strikers seem to be much more fragile.

 

[EricNoah]

I wonder if there couldn't be an "animal" NPC class that could be applied to a base animal to make it better, instead of using advancement rules?

 

[Rechan]

(Plus, having Shaman as a Nature Leader, just like having Warlock would put D&D on the quick path to having a WOW Campaign Setting, to make more cashbucks.)

The shaman is a far bigger fantasy archetype than just an MMO. C'mon now.

 

[glass]

Wait- does it explicitly state that the barbarian won't be in the PH1??

I was wondering that.

I like the idea of the shaman as nature-based leader; it makes sense. (And actually, the shaman in the 2.8 edition book Players Option: Spells and Powers made for a drastic change from the cleric.)

2.8? Is that a typo, or is there some reason for picking that particular decimal that I am unaware of? I only ask, because I loved Players Option at the time.


glass.

 

[frankthedm]

To rely on a hit point based defence, the barbarian needs a d20 or d30 for hit dice. At least.

Well, in 3E it seemed he was the one the non codzilla cleric was Healing each round.