PHB classes: fact or rumor

[devoblue]

It seems to me that the conventional wisdom here at ENWorld is that in the first PHB there will 8 classes, and that they are fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue, paladin, ranger, warlock, and warlord.

However, looking at the 4e page here at enworld, I'm struggling to see why that should be considered fact. Most of this conventional wisdom is based upon a James Wyatt interview in august, but susequent statements by Mike Mearls disagree on the number, and Logan Bonner played down the classes mentioned by James as not necessarily being in the first PHB.

The best I can come up with is that fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard are in, and that there are less than 11 classes.

What other evidence do we have that there are as many classes as we think, and that they are the 8 most commonly mentioned? Or more specifically, do we have any evidence that Druid and Barbarian are not in apart from that we struggle to fit them into the magic 8 number? Does anyone have a quote that I've missed that sheds further light on this?

As posted recently on slashdot:

Players won't need the Monster Manual to adjudicate shapechanging or summoning effects, because those effects will be self-contained within the classes or powers that grant them.

What classes in PHB1 get summoning or shapechanging effects?

 

[Snarls-at-Fleas]

What classes in PHB1 get summoning or shapechanging effects?

Hmm. Good point I guess. Maybe druids are in?

 

[FireLance]

I wouldn't be surprised if wizards get some minor shapechanging effects, and warlocks (and maybe wizards and clerics too) get some summoning effects. They just won't be as good shapechangers as druids or as good summoners as a specialized conjurer class.

 

[devoblue]

I wouldn't be surprised if wizards get some minor shapechanging effects...

I guess anythings possible, but if that happens, but me down as suprised.

 

[hong]

I guess anythings possible, but if that happens, but me down as suprised.

Why surprised? Wizards get that _now_ (change self, alter self, polymorph [self], polymorph any object, shapechange).

 

[Plane Sailing]

The best I can come up with is that fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard are in, and that there are less than 11 classes.

I'm surprised that you don't include Warlord in that list since that is the shiny new class;

Rangers, Paladins, Warlocks, Warlords are all mentioned in playtest reports.

Helpful for you?

 

[arscott]

We know that the 'core four' are in.

We were also told that Warlock was in, Sorcerer was out.

IIRC, we were told that Arcane, Divine, and Martial were the only power sources in the PHB. It was also strongly implied that Druids and Barbarians have 'Primal' as their power source, rather than any from the PHB.

Recently, Mearls said that you can play a no-magic game with the Fighter, Ranger, Warlord, and Rogue. I got the impression from his comments that these were all PHB classes.

I'm pretty sure that at some point, we were told that neither the Monk nor the Bard would be in the first PHB.

There was a preview that specifically showcased Paladin Smites. I find it unlikely that WotC would prominently feature a class that wasn't going to be in the PHB.

Swordmages were described as a new class for 4e, but we were told that they wouldn't be in the first PHB.


Which means:

In other words:
Cleric -- In
Fighter -- In
Paladin -- Probably in
Ranger -- Probably in
Rogue -- In
Warlock -- In
Warlord -- Probably in
Wizard -- In


Barbarian -- Probably out
Bard -- Out
Druid -- Probably out
Monk -- Out
Sorcerer -- Out
Swordmage -- Out

 

[Crashy75]

I don't have the book but I'm pretty sure somebody said it's in R&C that they have a 'primal' (or something like that) power source. I think we only have arcane, martial and divine in thePHB1.

 

[devoblue]

Why surprised? Wizards get that _now_ (change self, alter self, polymorph [self], polymorph any object, shapechange).

Why suprised? Probably absent mindedness. The statement that the effects of shapechanging being included with the shapechanging power didn't cause me to imediately conclude that they were refering to a wizard power. But if they do infact include all such effects for wizard powers then that would imply that they are dropping stat blocks in the middle of spell descriptions (which would be suprising), or radically changing how those spells are working.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

I still have hope for the Bard as an Arcane Leader

its power source is very similar and at the same time very different from warlock so it could be arcane

its powers are likely to be leaderish

so it would be a nice surprise to find it into the phb1

druid and barbarian should be Primal and so they are out
illusionist and necromancer are Shadow and so they are out
psionic/enchanter is Mind
monk? Mind or?
(all of them should make a comeback in PHB2)