Races & Classes details from the WotC boards

[HeavenShallBurn]

So you have to either nerf wildshape and give it to a spellcaster, or you have to nerf spellcasting and give it to a wildshaper, or you have to do both and create two classes.

Or just ratchet up the other classes a bit to match it

 

[Bishmon]

I think I was right on the druid earlier.

The druid had to get cut up a bit. Wildshape is cool enough to support an entire class. Druid spellcasting is cool enough to support an entire class. Giving them both to the same class is too much. So you have to either nerf wildshape and give it to a spellcaster, or you have to nerf spellcasting and give it to a wildshaper, or you have to do both and create two classes.

Or give them the option of having one or the other and letting that particular druid choose. I think that's better than dividing them into completely different classes called "druid" and "um, druid II".

 

[Doug McCrae]

There's always going to be some overlap among spellcasters. A druid's spellcasting, though, should encompass much more of nature than just producing a lightning bolt or using a spell that has fire.

I really like the look of the 4e druid because it focuses more on what is unique to the class - wildshape - rather than the spellcasting which currently has a lot of overlap with wizards and clerics.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

They're going to have a Barbarian class? But Barbarian isn't a class, it's a cultural slur!

You are aware, aren't you, that this is an oft-heard criticism of the barbarian class in 3E.

 

[Cadfan]

Or give them the option of having one or the other and letting that particular druid choose. I think that's better than dividing them into completely different classes called "druid" and "um, druid II".

I don't. A melee combatant who turns into animals and mauls people, and a spellcaster who summons other creatures and elements to fight for him, are different enough mechanically that they need separate classes to do them justice.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

So humans correspond to White, dwarves to Red, elves to Green.

Dragonborn may be a red/white mix, halflings sound blue/green and tieflings may be some sort of black?



...


: runs :

Yeah, that's what immediately sprang to my mindn too. I won't be at all surprised to see this sort of Magic/D&D combo appear in a future supplement/miniatures line/etc.

 

[Rechan]

You are aware, aren't you, that this is an oft-heard criticism of the barbarian class in 3E.

Yes, I am. But I've also never seen it spawn "WotC is pushing their setting on my game".

WotC all ready has. They put monks and barbarians and bards in your game. And elves, and dwarves, and the 3.5 PHB says elves live in forests.

 

[Rechan]

The Barbarian is legacy, which means it's hard to muster about a very fiery outrage, just sad exasperation.

Ah, so it's just been around long enough.

Does this mean that by 6e, Dragonborn and Tieflings will have enough legacy to be okay?

 

[pawsplay]

Ah, so it's just been around long enough.

Does this mean that by 6e, Dragonborn and Tieflings will have enough legacy to be okay?

No. As I stated, the 3.5 Barbarian is already not okay, it's just not new.

 

[fuindordm]

Thoughts on the new info:

The bard is a common archetype in many legends. I could live with fey or divine patrons for bards, but I would prefer it if they had their own unique power source. I'm disappointed that they're still going to be illusionists, however.

I don't think barbarian rage is enough to build a class around. It could easily be a (small) talent tree available to fighters or rangers.

I always thought that druid magic had a delicious flavor all its own. And do players really choose druid for the wildshape? It's a cool ability, but honestly I wouldn't miss it. It's just as cool to see the druid summon a giant eagle and ride it over the chasm, or summon the wolves to defend her home.