The 4th edition class list so far

[Glyfair]

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.

Except their plan is to preview that in the Dec "early peek" books. They are hardly going to intentionally "scoop" their own books.

 

[Felon]

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 actually discussed both ways of looking at it. You snipped out the other way.

If you say "a barbarian shouldn't be a branch of ranger because they're not currently known for stealth", you are engaging in a form of circular reasoning. The rules don't currently provide a barbarian with stealth skills as part of their class skill list, so naturally stealth skills aren't associated with them. The mental association in that case is not the cause for the rules but the effect.

The counter is that once you make a barbarian a branch of the ranger class, they then will become know for stealth.

 

[Gloombunny]

But see, when I say "barbarian" I mean, more or less, "beefy warrior who runs fast, wears medium-weight armor, and can enter a berserker rage in combat". I'm not talking about, like, people from a barbarian culture, because that sort of thing shouldn't be represented by a class in the first place. I'm talking about the set of mechanics in D&D 3rd edition labelled "barbarian". And, the way I see it, that class mechanically has more in common with fighter than it does with ranger.

To me, at least, abilities like damage reduction, berserking, and medium armor fit very smoothly into a fighter class, but not so well into ranger. (Fast movement, of course, fits both.) That's all I'm really saying when I talk about barbarian being converted into a fighter option.

 

[Gloombunny]

If you say "a barbarian shouldn't be a branch of ranger because they're not currently known for stealth", you are engaging in a form of circular reasoning. The rules don't currently provide a barbarian with stealth skills as part of their class skill list, so naturally stealth skills aren't associated with them. The mental association in that case is not the cause for the rules but the effect.

The counter is that once you make a barbarian a branch of the ranger class, they then will become know for stealth.

Isn't your way just as circular? I mean, of course if you make barbarians a branch of a stealthy class they'll become known for stealth. And if you make them a branch of wizards they'll become known for spellcasting. Hypotheticals like that don't really have anything to do with what I'm talking about, which is that the rules for the barbarian class in 3rd ed ought to be absorbed into the rules for the fighter class in 4e.

 

[Driddle]

Bobby was never very stealthy; he was always waving that club around and yelling about his stupid unicorn. You're thinking of Sheila, with the cloak.

 

[Baby Samurai]

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

No, I'm with ya – love my monks, have done since 1st edition (Grandmaster of Flowers!).

I think I read a statement to the effect that all classes from 3.5 will eventually make it into 4th Ed. Can anyone verify this?

 

[grimslade]

No, I'm with ya – love my monks, have done since 1st edition (Grandmaster of Flowers!).

I think I read a statement to the effect that all classes from 3.5 will eventually make it into 4th Ed. Can anyone verify this?

I like the concept of a monk but it fits as a talent tree better than a class in its own right.
Unarmed Fighter, Temple Defender cleric, Battle Sorcerer or Street Brawler Rogue all seem to be monk-like to me without the weird pseudo-Shaolin. An oriental monk should be rebuilt with that asthetic in mind.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I will be *very* displeased if the Druid is not included.

 

[Talassa]

There will be 12 classes in PHB1:

The Paladin,
The Cleric,
The Druid,
The Ranger,
The Fighter,
The Warlord,
The Warlock,
The Rogue,
The Swordsinger,
The Bard,
The Wizard.
The Sorcerer?

A Barbarian can be a Fighter, or a Ranger, a Bard or a Rogue. So can a Civilized Man.

What do you think?

J.

 

[Howndawg]

There will be 12 classes in PHB1:

The Paladin,
The Cleric,
The Druid,
The Ranger,
The Fighter,
The Warlord,
The Warlock,
The Rogue,
The Swordsinger,
The Bard,
The Wizard.
The Sorcerer?

A Barbarian can be a Fighter, or a Ranger, a Bard or a Rogue. So can a Civilized Man.

What do you think?

J.

I'm pretty sure 8 is the confirmed number. By Swordsinger, are you referring to Swordmage? Ditch the barbarian? Never!

Howndawg