New "which 8 classes are in PHB" speculation thread

[Glyfair]

well no fighter based but martial power source based... it is different. Besides the ranger can be a divine power source based class.

Regardless of the different approach of 4E design, I do not see them having half of the character classes tied to one pre-4E archetype.

 

[Simplicity]

We *know*:

Cleric
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard

We can assume:

Sorcerer (there are plenty of quotes about how a wizard and sorcerer are going to differ)
Druid (there's a quote about how a druid will be as effective a healer as a cleric)

Less certain:
I personally don't believe there's enough evidence to support Warlord as a base class.
I think there's a question as to whether a Paladin is going to be a prestige or a base class.
My guess is that Ranger and Barbarian fill out a list of 8 best.

 

[breschau]

I'm going with the roles break down as well.

Martial Defender - Fighter.
Divine Defender - Paladin.
Martial Leader - Warlord.
Divine Leader - Cleric.
Martial Striker - Rogue.
Divine Striker - Ranger.
Arcane Striker - Sorcerer.
Arcane Controller - Wizard.

The HP break down is fairly clear with these as well. Defender d10, Leader d8, Striker d6, Controller d4. I just don't know if I can swallow a d6 Ranger.

Also, three divine and three strikers makes for a bit of an imbalance, but I think that would make the most amount of people happy, i.e. include the most "standard" classes from editions past, while introducing new stuff as well.

 

[SWBaxter]

That would be a strong incentive to get people to sign up for D&DI early, but it would also create countless cries of "Why do I have to pay more money to get all the classes?! I didn't pay for an incomplete PHB!"

They're going to hear those cries anyway, by virtue of only having eight classes in the PHB - somebody's gotta get bumped, either to a dead tree supplement or D&DI. I'm guessing WOTC are aware of that, and are willing to live with the outcry.

 

[delericho]

They're going to hear those cries anyway...

Agreed. WotC have a tough choice: put some quality material in the DI, and be accused of "forcing people to sign up", or don't put quality material in the DI, and be accused of short-changing their customers.

However, I still think I would prefer larger and more expensive core rulebooks. Make them really big and full of stuff, and you minimise the amount of stuff I have to lug around to my weekly game. (I know that sounds backwards - but most supplements only have about 5% used at any time, which means carrying a lot of 'dead' weight. Bigger core rulebooks means, in theory, fewer supplements, which means, in theory, less weight in total.)

But hey, I know that's not actually going to happen. Maybe one day, instead of a 4.5, we might get an "Expanded PHB"? That would be nice, I think.

 

[breschau]

Agreed. WotC have a tough choice: put some quality material in the DI, and be accused of "forcing people to sign up", or don't put quality material in the DI, and be accused of short-changing their customers.

However, I still think I would prefer larger and more expensive core rulebooks. Make them really big and full of stuff, and you minimise the amount of stuff I have to lug around to my weekly game. (I know that sounds backwards - but most supplements only have about 5% used at any time, which means carrying a lot of 'dead' weight. Bigger core rulebooks means, in theory, fewer supplements, which means, in theory, less weight in total.)

But hey, I know that's not actually going to happen. Maybe one day, instead of a 4.5, we might get an "Expanded PHB"? That would be nice, I think.

Which is part of the point of the D&DI, you get ebooks out of the deal. And can take them with you wherever you go (with your internet access of course).

 

[Odysseus]

The HP break down is fairly clear with these as well. Defender d10, Leader d8, Striker d6, Controller d4. I just don't know if I can swallow a d6 Ranger.
.

If they follow the SW saga design. Then thats whats going to happen. With the four roles defining hit dice, BAB, saves and at will/per encounter/per day abilities. Then Talent trees for paladin , fighter , cleric etc.
I'm guessing they go with 2 talent trees per role. Plus with racial talents as well. That gives plently of variation. Plus they can easily add more classes/Talent trees in later books. And the d6 ranger, is probably going to be the scout class, called a ranger.

Defender Fighter,Plaladin
Leader Cleric, Warlord
Controller Wizard, Sorcerer
Striker Rogue, Ranger

With the monk, barbarian, druid all in PHB 2

 

[Howndawg]

One thing we don't know is whether any of the classes mentioned are slated for a release after the PHB. I would not be surprised to see one or two classes that are being bandied about cut from the PHB and popping up in a later supplement.

Howndawg

 

[Cadfan]

In all seriousness, if the ONLY classes in the PHB are Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric, that could be ok. If they've created enough diversity and depth and customization for each class.

Fighter looks like it will be expanding. Wizard and Cleric might be shrinking (if you count their spell sections). Rogue will probably expand much like the Fighter does.

 

[Mercule]

The HP break down is fairly clear with these as well. Defender d10, Leader d8, Striker d6, Controller d4. I just don't know if I can swallow a d6 Ranger.

I wouldn't be surprised to see HD skew a bit higher, with d12, d10, d8, and d6. Or even d10, d8, d8, d6 -- which is more to my liking.

I also hope some of your labels are off. I think calling ranger "divine" is dubious, at best. That's a pretty martial class, IMO. Unfortunately, since that would leave both rogue and ranger as "martial striker", I doubt I'll get my way. Or the d10 or d12 HD for rangers, either.

Actually, I'm hoping that it changes from "ranger killed scout and took his stuff" to "scout killed ranger and took his stuff". Anyone who can even consider ranger with a d6 HD has an inherently different definition than me. D8 is far enough removed for me to wonder. There are enough different concepts of what "ranger" means that I think it'd be best if the term was removed from the game.

If we leave the scout in the game (with ranger goodies), I could see it qualify as a "martial controller". Archery, tracking, and skirmish would be a different sort of control than used by casters, but it'd still fall into that mindset. Plus, we need more than one "controller".