The 4th edition class list so far

[Felon]

But there's no specific stuff that "makes the fighter a fighter".

Don't sell yourself short. You did a pretty good job of summing up fighter-specific abilities. And we've had some indications that 4e fighters won't just be amorphous blobs of feats, but rather have some weapon styles associated with them. Perhaps one of them will be a heavy-hitting two-handed weapon style. Ain't no law saying a barbarian has to have a rage ability.

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.

Sure they are. Favored enemy is often portrayed as a form of rage, and plenty of rangers charge. They have lower hit dice in 3.5e, so your part about "shrugging off injuries" is a case of circular reasoning. They're not cuurently known for stuff because they're currently not good at it. But back in the days when they got two hit dice at first level, they were some of the best shruggers around.

And outside of D&D, in fiction, there is definitely context for rangers being fierce melee combatants.

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.

OK, at this point I have to ask if you've ever read a Conan story. Our prototypical barbarian did not just brainlessly smash doors and slam mindlessly into every foe. He was a consummate stalker, quite capable of creeping up on guards at full attention. Stealthy thief and assassin were among his many careers.

If you're solely speaking of what barbarians are associated with in D&D, then again that's just an instance of circular reasoning, because they're only associated with things they're good at. Make them good at stalking foes, and they'll become good at it.

 

[Aloïsius]

OK, at this point I have to ask if you've ever read a Conan story. Our prototypical barbarian did not just brainlessly smash doors and slam mindlessly into every foe. He was a consummate stalker, quite capable of creeping up on guards at full attention. Stealthy thief and assassin were among his many careers.

If you're solely speaking of what barbarians are associated with in D&D, then again that's just an instance of circular reasoning, because they're only associated with things they're good at. Make them good at stalking foes, and they'll become good at it.

QFT
Barbarians are raiders. They don't march in legions or phalanxes against the ennemy. They make ambush or surprise raids. They don't play fair on the battle field : they are there to kill the ennemy. Think about the roman defeat of Varus, or the Basque onslaught upon Charlemagne army. So, yes, barbarian should be able to sneak and stalk their ennemy, before smashing them.

Why ? Because if they don't surprise the ennemy, they are usualy defeated by the superior equipment and organization of the soldiers they are fighting.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

IIRC, they said they were not happy with the idea of having 1/3 of the PHB for just one class (wizard). If 1/4 is used by another class (cleric), it will be somewhat unbalanced.

This is why I hope there will be more than those 8 classes. I want druids to be in the PHB, at least.

That's why they put the sorcerer in 3e. But they've taken the sorcerer OUT of 4e, so I think we can assume either they've trimmed down on the spell lists (which I fervently pray), or they're not worried about that issue anymore.

 

[Gloombunny]

Ain't no law saying a barbarian has to have a rage ability.

...

If you're solely speaking of what barbarians are associated with in D&D, then again that's just an instance of circular reasoning, because they're only associated with things they're good at. Make them good at stalking foes, and they'll become good at it.

I've snipped most of your post so I can get at what I think is the real difference of opinion here.

When I talk about the barbarian class, I'm talking about the rules, not the fluff. It seems like you're the other way around. I would suggest that the fluff is not a good one on which to base a class. Make the fighter and ranger classes well, and now one can make a PC from a "barbarian" culture using options provided in the more generic classes. A Viking berserker could be a fighter with a rage talent. A nomadic wilderness-dweller could be a ranger. And so forth.

From the fluff perspective, having a "barbarian" class is about as silly as having a "guy who lives in cities" class. It's only the mechanical implementation that gives the barbarian identity as a class at all.

And yes, I've read Conan stories. I wasn't saying that barbarian = dumb oaf.

 

[Andor]

Back before 3ed came out I played at a sneek peek game at a con with pregenned characters. We were a small tribe of barbarians having to deal with some threat to the tribe. And not all the barbarian tribesmen were of the barbarian class. I recall a fighter, a cleric, a barbarian and I forget what the 4th was. And coming from a 2e perspective it was nice to see them not trying to shoehorn an entire culture into one class. So oddly enough Barbarian ≠ Barbarian was there in 3ed from before the books even hit the shelves. Maybe now in 4th we can finally drop the Barbarian as a holdover from the musty days of the original Unearthed Arcana. Or maybe we'll get the Iron Heros berserker in the PHB II as a "Martial Combine Harvester".

 

[Cake Mage]

Is it seriosusly too much to ask for to give us just the flippin list of classes that are going into the players handbook?
I mean there is 6 months to go and they have already started playtesting.

 

[Deset Gled]

I miss my monk. Based on the discussions seen here, I'm one of the few that do.

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

The same statement was made about WoW having less classes than Everquest, but it succeeded wonderfully because sometimes less is more (and EQ had a problem with some classes totally overshadowing others). I'd rather have 8 classes that have tons of options to flesh them out than the 11 classes we had in 3rd (especially because I've always viewed Barbarian as a cultural thing rather than a class, and I don't like monks in my core), with less options per class.

 

[Gundark]

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

Agree with the Druid. However Barbarian could easily be handled by either the Ranger or Fighter.

However this may change when I see what the Warlord and Warlock are capible of doing.

 

[Gundark]

Is it seriosusly too much to ask for to give us just the flippin list of classes that are going into the players handbook?
I mean there is 6 months to go and they have already started playtesting.

QFT. I highly doubt they're gonna make significant changes to the class list this late in the game. They have a page count and the whatnot hammered out. So unless they have a system where they can pull one and replace it with another, I don't see the big deal of telling us.