Only three core classes?

[No Name]

Just a rumor, but has anyone else heard it? The rumor being that there will be three core classes consisting of melee, arcane, and divine. It would certainly simplify things for beginning players - choose an archetype and expand from there.

I want to kill things with weapons -> melee archetype

I want to sneak around and stuff -> follow the rogue talent tree

etc.

 

[Arkhandus]

NO. One of the designers, I forget which, said it would be more than 3 but less than 15 (or was it 'more than 3 but no more than 15'?). I think it was Andy Collins or something, but I can't remember. I read that quote something like 2 days ago and can't remember which of the innumerable 4E posts (I think it was on RPGnet though) it was quoted in.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Sounds more like the three power sources, in the 4e core, that have been mentioned: Arcane, Divine and Martial.

3 base classes (with talent trees, etc.) sounds like my more recent house rules for 3e, however.

 

[Crymson]

The latest Design & Development column shows an example of play involving a fighter, cleric, wizard and rogue, so there won't be three classes

The three class idea works, such as in True20 or Unearthed Arcana (in which there is a Warrior, Expert and Spellcaster). I wouldn't have minded seeing it go that way, to be honest.

 

[charlesatan]

You can check the other threads but James Wyatt has already mentioned at least 7 classes: Fighter, Paladin, Warlord, Cleric, Ranger, Rogue, and Wizard.

 

[Aus_Snow]

You can check the other threads but James Wyatt has already mentioned at least 7 classes: Fighter, Paladin, Warlord, Cleric, Ranger, Rogue, and Wizard.

Barbarian was apparently mentioned, too. In what context, I'm not sure. Hey, maybe they weren't sure! Sorcerer is also (apparently) still there, but will be more different from the Wizard this time round - the gods be praised, AFAIC.

 

[Crymson]

So only the bard, druid and monk have not yet been mentioned?

 

[alaric]

So only the bard, druid and monk have not yet been mentioned?

Druid has been mentioned, specifically as having the same role as the cleric.

 

[trancejeremy]

For something like True 20, which is stand alone (basically), 3 core classes work. But if WOTC wants to keep selling rulebooks, they can either go with a many core class model like 3.5 or do the 2e method and go with kits. I'm guessing they will stick with the former.

And I hope that PHB2 will have the Illusionist base class (not a specialist wizard) to go along with the gnome. Probably wrong, but it would also fit the retro feel they are going for.

 

[charlesatan]

For something like True 20, which is stand alone (basically), 3 core classes work. But if WOTC wants to keep selling rulebooks, they can either go with a many core class model like 3.5 or do the 2e method and go with kits. I'm guessing they will stick with the former.

And I hope that PHB2 will have the Illusionist base class (not a specialist wizard) to go along with the gnome. Probably wrong, but it would also fit the retro feel they are going for.

Don't get me wrong, I like the True20 System. But I think D&D 4th Ed is something more focused ans specialized as opposed to something general. And in True20, feats were basically class/special abiities. In 4th Ed, the designers wanted feats to be feats, special attacks to be special attacks, etc.

The other disadvantage of limiting it to a few classes is that there'll be too many options. I mean yes, you could roll the Barbarian and the Paladin and perhaps the Monk into the Fighter class. I imagine he'll have class trees like d20 modern or Star Wars Saga edition. However, if that was the case, that's a lot of class trees! I expect the Fighter will have one tree for each weapon for example. What more if you add all the possible Paladin types, Barbarian types, etc.?