Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Olgar Shiverstone" data-source="post: 3744134" data-attributes="member: 5868">Yeah, but he'd still be redundant in the PHB.We have four roles: leader, defender, controller, striker.We know of three sources of power: arcane, divine, martial (I'm assuming "nature" powers are divine, for the moment -- if they aren't you could ditch all the nature classes like range, druid, and barbarian for a supplement).That implies at least 12 distinct character class possibilities to explore before you start overlapping roles & sources of power.  I'd rather see them all explored first.So if I were writing 4E, I wouldn't have the sorcerer and wizard both in the PHB if both were arcane controllers.  Convert the sorcerer to an arcane striker -- make him like the warlock with more HP, spells and abilities that are single target focused or affect the PC's own mobility and protection -- and then he's a worthy inclusion in the initial PHB.  But then, you only have one controller in the PHB, and I really think they should start with two classes of each role (and let the balance of sources of power be damned).So if limited to 8 PHB classes I'd vote:Fighter (martial defender)Cleric (divine leader)Wizard (arcane controller)Rogue (martial striker)Paladin (divine defender)Warlord (martial leader)Druid (divine controller)Ranger (divine striker)You could change the ranger up to make him arcane ... but I think not if the assumption nature = divine holds.  Frankly, I'd rather limit races and see all 12 class options of role/power mix in the PHB.</blockquote>

Verification