The 4th edition class list so far

[HP Dreadnought]

I will be disappointed if there is no barbarian. . . but understand if its handled by fighter class options.


I just would love to see a return to the Barbarians glory days of the (1E) Unearthed Arcana. The ones ever since just haven't lived up.

Of course, I'll generally play a dwarven fighter every time over a barbarian. . . but I still like 'em.

 

[Howndawg]

I will be disappointed if there is no barbarian. . . but understand if its handled by fighter class options.


I just would love to see a return to the Barbarians glory days of the (1E) Unearthed Arcana. The ones ever since just haven't lived up.

Of course, I'll generally play a dwarven fighter every time over a barbarian. . . but I still like 'em.

Sigh... If I had my choice of eight I'd nix the warlock and warlord and throw in the barbarian and druid. But alas, to quote The Rolling Stones, "You can't always get what you want".

Howndawg

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

I really like the idea of the barbarian as ranger talent tree; I never thought there was enough meat on it to be a full base class anyway. I also readily agree that 8 is far too few and 12 would be far superior, but I think to put 12 in the PHB I they'd need to fill the 3x4 grid, and martial controller is going to be hard. I'd settle for 10, being Green Knight's list plus a Divine Controller druid and that sweet, sweet swordmage.

 

[Khur]

I have to pop in and mention some things everyone seems forget or not know.

Player's Handbook I, released in 2008, is just the first in a series of Player's Handbooks. Just because something's not in PH1 doesn't mean it's somehow not core or not going to be released. Every PH will be core. The same is true of Monster Manuals and Dungeon Master's Guides.

D&D Insider will provide preview classes from future PHs, along with all sorts of other previews and exclusives. Heck, we might even release "betas" for community feedback. D&D Insider gives us and you a wide array of possibilities.

 

[Glyfair]

I have to pop in and mention some things everyone seems forget or not know.

Or ignore because it wasn't relevant to the original question

That being said, I lot who are pulling for specific classes don't want to wait a year for the PHB II to play their favorite class (say the "druid" which seems likely to not make the PHB I). Many of them don't want to or intend to subscribe to D&D Insider (maybe they have only Macs and don't feel like paying for features they can't use).

 

[Gloombunny]

I really like the idea of the barbarian as ranger talent tree; I never thought there was enough meat on it to be a full base class anyway.

Wait... ranger? Why not fighter?

Isn't a barbarian just a fighter with rage and fast movement instead of weapon specialization or other techniques/feats? And maybe some points in Survival?

 

[Felon]

Wait... ranger? Why not fighter?

Isn't a barbarian just a fighter with rage and fast movement instead of weapon specialization or other techniques/feats? And maybe some points in Survival?

Well, yes, I suppose you could say that a barbarian is just a fighter without all the stuff that makes the fighter a fighter.

Ranger works because because it's already associated with wilderness survival, a preference for light armor, and fast movement (a recent acquisition of killing the scout and taking its stuff). Rage would actually be the big difference (and that could be a trade off for favored enemy--he just hates everybody! )

 

[Gloombunny]

Well, yes, I suppose you could say that a barbarian is just a fighter without all the stuff that makes the fighter a fighter.

But there's no specific stuff that "makes the fighter a fighter". A fighter has many options to choose from. If the system can support it, there's no reason I can see for berserking not to be one of those options.

Seriously, the stuff that makes the fighter a fighter is that he's very good at combat. Barbarians do that too!

Ranger works because because it's already associated with wilderness survival, a preference for light armor, and fast movement (a recent acquisition of killing the scout and taking its stuff)

Rangers are also not associated with charging into combat in an unthinking frenzy, laying waste to enemies with their mighty strength, and shrugging off brutal injuries. Nor are barbarians associated with creeping silently through the woods to stalk their enemies. I would say that barbarians have more in common with fighters, and rangers with rogues, than either of them have with each other.

Plus, replacing the barbarian class with a berserk tree for fighters means you can use the rules for characters who don't hail from the frozen north or whatever, but have some other background that makes that fighting style suitable for them. (Not that you can't already do that with the 3e barbarian rules, but turning the class into a ranger tree would probably make it harder to use for a city-dwelling character.)

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Well, yes, I suppose you could say that a barbarian is just a fighter without all the stuff that makes the fighter a fighter.

Ranger works because because it's already associated with wilderness survival, a preference for light armor, and fast movement (a recent acquisition of killing the scout and taking its stuff). Rage would actually be the big difference (and that could be a trade off for favored enemy--he just hates everybody! )

What he said.

And as for Mr. Sims' point, I was firmly aware of it: I even said PHB I in my post. I know more classes are coming later, and using that as an excuse to produce the PHB lightest in classes since the game was published isn't necessarily a selling point. Even 2e had 9 if you count specialist as a separate class (and I think variable pre-reqs from wizard means it qualifies).

Conscious steps backwards in breadth of content are rarely a good idea for release unless everything else about the game is stronger than previous releases. I realize this example isn't perfect, but it took a long time for the bulk of the Sims-playing community to switch over to Sims 2. At least give us the druid for 9, guys. How do you release an edition without a druid?

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Conscious steps backwards in breadth of content are rarely a good idea for release unless everything else about the game is stronger than previous releases.

Yeah, and that makes me wonder why they're doing it.


It's possible they really don't care about previous campaigns: they want new players and markets. Well, FR fans would probably say they've got evidence of that. Wizards did start off by telling everyone they should start a new campaign, and they clearly aren't afraid of changing things that have been part of the game for a long time. If this is the case Wizards may think that the "core four" classes and races are enough that most grognards will accept it as D&D and come along, grudgingly or not.


It's also possible that they may not have enough space in the 4e PHB to add the rest of the classes. They have only 8 classes, compared with the 11 in 3.5, but each of the classes now needs 30 levels of both talents and feats to select from. If Wizards don't want to repeat the problem of the 3rd ed fighter, they'll be making sure every class has real high level options available. I think each of the classes may have at least two alternate builds through whatever talents/paths are, and maybe two at each of heroic, paragon and epic levels. Every class has to have lists of per encounter and per day powers to choose from, essentially taking up the space that the spells did in 3e. Mechanics and fluff to support the three power sources are needed - if Wizards added the classes from 3e, they might need at least one more power source. I think whatever the prestige classes have morphed into will be in the PHB as well. The races may be bigger mechanically, and magic items are now in the PHB in the equipment lists. All on top of the combat rules already in there.


Star Wars SAGA saga showed they could pack a lot into a similar size book with an odd square format, so I may be exaggerating a bit. But I think that the recent apparent increase in page count for the PHB is not Wizards adding new stuff in but realizing they didn't have enough space for what they'd already planned.