"Some" traditional classes to get the axe - Which ones do you reckon?

[JoeGKushner]

bard, druid, monk, rogue (in current forms.)

fighter to change to allow talent trees for paladin, ranger, and 'stealth' style characters.

 

[Li Shenron]

Thus, I'm not surprised that as the game has evolved, that some clearer thinking hasn't taken over to realise that PRC's, at the end of the day--really are not necessary at all.

Mmm... they were really necessary to sell loads of books tho, at least for a while.

 

[The Eternal GM]

Monk at a guess. I've never liked it mechanically or thematically, so I naturally assume it'll take the fall... Besides, it'll likely just become a fighter who specializes in unarmed combat.

Bards can probably just hide inside rogues or sorcerers too.

 

[Presto2112]

I can see the elimination of three classes:

1) Paladin. It will get relegated to whatever the 4E equivalent of a Prestige Class will be.

2) Sorcerer and Wizard. However, instead of disappearing, they will be merged into a single "Mage" class where at 1st level you choose which path of progression you want (prepared or spontaneous casting).

 

[an_idol_mind]

And psion may or may not be made core, though changed.

Based on the playtesting notes that mentioned psion as essentially a wizard, I'm thinking maybe it points not to a separate class but to the removal of spell components, which would allow players to decide how their PCs cast their spells (i.e., incantations, mental ability, etc.). At the end of the day, after all, psionics in 3rd edition was essentially just an alternate form of magic.

 

[Bagpuss]

I think there will be probably three classes ("Power Sources") at the start with Psion being an additional one later on.

Martial
Divine
Arcane

Each with get a bonus feat one level a talent the other. They will have access to per encounter abilities like the Force Training from Saga edition or the manuvers from Bo9S. For the martial class these will be more like Bo9S stuff for the Arcane and Divine classes these will be more like the spells we are use to.

You want to be a Rogue you are probably a Martial character that picks talents to suit sneak attack and the like and use your bonus feats on Skill Training to be better at a wider range of skills.

You want to be a Ranger or Paladin you multiclass Martial and Divine and pick talents that support your love of nature (Ranger) or hatred of evil (Paladin).

There maybe a few other classes/power sources but I think those three are almost certain.

Nature could possibly another Power Source/class seperated out from Divine. And you might find Arcane broken down into different Power Sources as well.

You could see a social class like the Noble from Saga.

No Rogue class I think has already been stated by Morrus on the front page.

and they pointed to the front cover for the 4e PHB where is referred to (if I recall correctly), where it says "Arcane, divine and martial characters". I asked about the Rogue, and was told that the Rogue is a "martial character".

 

[Baby Samurai]

I have a feeling they might ditch 1/2 BAB.

Does anyone else agree?

And I also think we will have 4 base classes (fighting boy, religious boy, magic boy and skill boy), and you garnish your character with talents.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Based on the playtesting notes

Where might I find these notes?

Can you link me?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

James Wyatt's GenCon blog mentions he's playing a ranger and paladin and having a lot more fun than the 3.5 version, which suggests both classes are still in in some form.

I'd be sad to see the bard go, but I'll admit the iconic minstrel could probably be done better by taking a fighter or rogue character and giving a talent tree that involved performing plus music/perform-based magical effects.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think there will be probably three classes ("Power Sources") at the start with Psion being an additional one later on.

Martial
Divine
Arcane

While such a class set would be totally viable, I think it will never be the basis for a D&D ruleset. Too much customization and generalization is not good to get new players into the game IMHO, and as such it will never be used in any edition of the main PHB (although it could the basis for a niche ruleset product).