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

[Nyeshet]

I'm guessing that Barbarian and maybe the Ranger will be folded into Fighter, that Bard and Paladin will be PrCs (or whatever the equivalent is) or folded into Rogue / Fighter (respectively), that Monk will be overhauled or changed to a PrC or folded into fighter (as I think they will not have AL reqs for core classes), and that Warlock will replace the Sorcerer - and perhaps also folded into the Wizard. Oh, and that the Druid will be folded into the Cleric class. So that leaves . . .

Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard

Somehow I am not surprised, although I expect that class variations will exist for various levels (combat / talent trees, etc) that could make a Fighter into a Barbarian, Monk, or Paladin, for example. So it is a return to the original four, so to speak.

 

[mxyzplk]

Given what we've seen in the Book of Nine Swords and Star Wars Saga, I'd hope they'd just go for core classes with more customization. All you really need are

Fighter
Cleric
Rogue
Wizard

Barbarian and Ranger are trivial variants on fighter.
Sorcerer is a trivial variant on the wizard.
Druid is a trivial variant on the cleric.
Monk - I'd say fighter again. There's plenty of low-armor fighter variants (swashbuckler, etc) and you may as well just create a useful continuum.
Paladin - fighter/cleric.

 

[Glyfair]

WotC has a number of employee blogs up, James Wyatt's mentions that he is playing a ranger in one playtest game and a paladin in another. It doesn't read like those are prestige classes (or whatever takes thir place), so they are safe.

I'm playing a ranger in Bill Slavicsek's weekly game. I'm not sure I've played a ranger since the one who stood on top of a pile of gnoll bodies while my magic-user friend killed Yeenoghu in the early days of AD&D. I'm having a blast.

I'm playing a paladin in Andy Collins' monthly game. I love paladins—I seem to keep writing about them in my fiction. (Check out "Blade of the Flame" in the Tales of the Last War anthology for a concise example, or read my other novels!) But I've never liked playing a paladin. At one point during the design of this game, I made a paladin for a game where we were testing out Dungeon Tiles, and it made me so sad. I could smite evil once. Then I was done—down to swinging my sword once per round. I wasn't sad when I died. I love my new paladin.

 

[Jhaelen]

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

If they don't include psionics as a core mechanism from the very beginning, I'm going to be really upset. This is their one big chance to integrate it seamlessly along with the other systems. I really hope they don't botch this (again).

 

[Li Shenron]

If they don't include psionics as a core mechanism from the very beginning, I'm going to be really upset. This is their one big chance to integrate it seamlessly along with the other systems. I really hope they don't botch this (again).

Has psionics EVER be part of the core in any edition? I don't see much reasons to make it core now...

 

[Glyfair]

Has psionics EVER be part of the core in any edition? I don't see much reasons to make it core now...

In AD&D it was in the Core Book, but labeled optional. They have stated psionics will be optional in 4E, but no clue about whether it's in the core book (I doubt it).

 

[koxler]

Bard & Sorcerer. My guess is they change the spell casting rules and therefore don't have the difference between them and the wizard anymore. Besides I only played with a Bard character once in 3.0/3.5. I don't think they are very popular.

 

[mpenny]

In the material online about 4th Edition, I've seen mentions of 8 of the 11 core classes. Only Bard, Monk, and Druid are missing in action.

And realistically, those are the three classes you'd cut if you wanted more sharply defined roles within a party. Bards straddle several different roles, monks are easily rolled into the fighter class (or left for an Oriental Adventures supplement), and druids are basically specialist nature clerics.

I wouldn't be surprised to see two of these, or all three, go away.

 

[Baron Opal]

Monk goes, and an unarmed combat expert becomes viable as a path for the fighter.

Sorceror goes. The wizard, sorceror and warlock go into a room and later two spell casters come out. One is more forethought / magic per day and the other is more flexible / magic per encounter. They may be called "wizard" and "sorceror", but their mechanics are going to be fairly different. I do expect there to be an almost Ars Magica formulaic vs. spontainious magic style.

Gut check says paladin becomes a PrC. Ranger becomes a fighter path, much like the monk.

 

[Baron Opal]

Bard is most often the 'fifth wheel who does nothing well', and another tip somewhere talked about half-elves having a racial 'inspire' ability... which would take one of the only features unique to the bard

Oh, missed that. Add bard to the list then.

Monk and bard -> gone.

Wizard, sorceror, warlock -> revamped and blended into two classes.

Paladin -> gone, yet remains as a PrC.