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

[Plane Sailing]

The playtesting notes do not say that psion is essentially a wizard. What they say is that the player had wanted a psion, but since there was no such class ready for playtesting, he was playing a wizard & just calling it a psion (for ingame flavor). Very different situation there.

This is exactly what is said, in case of any confusion:

In my case, I’ve thrown together a “psion.” It’s because prior to the shift to the new playtest rules, I was playing a psion elan named Infandous. You wonder, why the scare quotes? Well, just between you and me, updated-Infandous-the-psion is actually a wizard with the serial numbers filed off.

 

[Plane Sailing]

On gleemax I noticed Scott Rouse replied to someones query about lack of evil archetypes with the phrase

Tiefling Warlock

I wonder if this means that we might be seeing the warlock in the base class list for 4e?

 

[TarionzCousin]

If it's done like Star Wars, five clases only:

Cleric
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard
NPC

At first level and even levels you get a talent. Talents trees are class specific.

Barbarians are fighters with a mix of power attack and hunting / animal totem talents.

Monks are fighters with a mix of unarmed strike and celerity talents.

Rangers are multiclass fighters with TWF or ranged talents and clerics with nature talents.

However, I'd hate to see druids reduced to a cleric talent tree. That would also make rangers just another fighter / cleric.

This has the ring of TRUTH to it, or at least SIMPLIFICATION. Maybe that's why it seems the most likely result to me.

Makes sense to me. With 3.5 you have so many class level subs. No two wizards are alike, so you might as well make talent trees. It's great for optimizers and at the same time simple to introduce to new players.

Yeah. I think one of the things WotC wants to do is get a steady influx of new players. That's where the long-term money is.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Excellent report from ashockney, where amongst other things he reports from the seminar

Will the Wizard and Sorcerer merge? No. How many core classes? More than 3 less than 15, see the “pre-releases” at Wizards.com

“We had an expression from earlier discussions, the ranger kills the scout and takes his stuff…sorry Scout, you’re not going to make it. But now the Ranger’s going to be cooler because he’s taking all your stuff.”

Do you know why the sorcerer’s in the game (3.5)? 1/3 of the PH was supporting only one class, hence the sorcerer came about.

So it seems that we can be clear that

a) Sorcerer is still in
b) Ranger is still in (and gets more cool stuff by mugging the scout )

 

[Snapdragyn]

Revised predictions:

Barbarian: In (mentioned in some article somewhere, although as a point in an analogy & not a playtest blog).
Bard: Some features blended into Marshall to make the Warlord, but mostly gone (at least in the 'roguish minstrel jack-of-all-trades' conceptualization). This saddens me.
Cleric: In, duh.
Druid: Still no mention. I'm leaning toward gone & folded into cleric despite my earlier thoughts about the complexity of druid class features warranting a separate class. We'll see.
Fighter: Confirmed in from multiple sources.
Monk: I'm betting out, with an unarmed combatant tree for fighters.
Paladin: In (assuming the playtester running one is not speaking about a PrC, which doesn't seem to be the case).
Ranger: In from multiple sources, none of which appear to be referencing a PrC.
Rogue: In I assume.
Sorceror: In? At least not folded into Wizard according to one source.
Wizard: In from multiple sources.

New core classes:

Warlord: Seen on the laptop screen in one of the preview videos. My pure conjecture is that this is a marshall-type character with some bardy stuff added into the effects it can produce.
Warlock: One mention only. Seems odd to have Sorc & Warlock & Wiz. Perhaps Sorc is folded into Warlock (leaving the 'sorcs & wizards are not merged' comment true without revealing the true fate of the sorc).

With 2 new classes & the statement that the number of core classes is less than the current 11, a minimum of 3 have to be dropped. My bets are on monk, druid, & bard (*sob*), although other possibilities still exist: sorc folding into warlock, some named 'class' actually being a PrC, barbarian as a fighter tree (& the use of it in an analogy being a poor choice), or (extreme longshot) rogue as a tree of fighter or ranger.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I'd put my money on monk and/or bard being eliminated.

 

[Gargauth]

What exactly do we know about the nature of PrCs in 4e? I don't recall them being mentioned, but I haven't read every thread here about it. I wouldn't mind having all of those kinds of abilities be all the options they are talking about and doing away with PrCs completely.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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).

AMEN!

RE: Core Warlocks- fine, if they make the class better- I never really cared for it.

RE: Core Tieflings- fine, but I want some other planetouched or their equivalents...as well as some of the other cool races that have popped up over the years, like Half-Giants- the Powerful Build mechanic is a keeper!

 

[roguerouge]

There are classes that I believe should get a hit put on them and those that I think will get a hit put on them.

I think the paladin is a wonderful prestige class, because it requires a special campaign to accommodate them. Plus, a five level training period makes perfect sense for the class.

I think that bard is the most difficult class to roleplay well, and thus might get the axe. If its spells are going to be this narrow, however, I'd prefer that it either have a lore book and function like a wizard or have its spells work like a beguiler. I think that bardic music effects would work better as ritual spells rather than insist that this ability function well in combat. I think that the class would work better if we didn't have to pretend that a bardic "song" that last six seconds makes sense.

I think that a druid's might and general cool factor makes it perfect for a prestige class, especially since you can tweak clerics with particular domains to fill their niche. Plus, you postpone the inevitable polymorph headache.

I think that the warlock ate the sorcerer's niche. The sorcerer's now an inflexible wizard and a warlock without staying power. If you absolutely must retain the sorcerer, make it really different by making psionics its spell system

I also think that the scout ate the ranger's niche. Throw track over to the barbarian class.

The barbarian cannot be a prestige class, however, because the fluff mandates starting as one at level one. You can't really justify consistently across all campaigns a dip into that class or suddenly losing your civilized qualities.

The big four have to stay. I can't imagine the game without fighters, rogues, clerics, and wizards. (Well, I can remember basic DnD, but that's another story.)

The monk should stay under a new name, such as martial artist, but might very well get the boot unjustifiably as a class that seemingly doesn't fit under the western theme. (Of course, if you call it a martial artist, you're including the possibility of wrestlers and boxers....)

So: barbarian, fighter, scout, bard/beguiler, rogue, cleric, martial artist, warlock, wizard.

Prestige class: druid, paladin.

 

[TroyXavier]

Looks like Ranger will be more Scout-y. If I lose both Monks and Gnomes,I will definitely not be buying 4th edition.