Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The 4th edition class list so far
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 3808851" data-attributes="member: 5143"><p>From comments (about the Ranger killed the Scout and taking his stuff, and about the Warlock being in the PHB1), it sounds like early in development they had a conversation about which classes (out of all books in 3.5) they wanted in 4e. It was decided that Scout was too much like Ranger to be a separate class and Warlock was deemed so popular it needed to be in for sure (no comments have been made about the rest, so who knows what their status is).</p><p></p><p>It seems that they started development on ALL the 3.5e PHB classes, the Warlock, and developed at least one new one (Warlord). I'm guessing that at some point it was decided that no more than 8 classes would be in the PHB1. At that time, they probably took a look at how far development was along on all the classes and prioritized finishing them based on how much time they had left and the popularity of the classes.</p><p></p><p>My best guess is that:</p><p>-Bard didn't have an established niche(they are a leader, but their ability to do so is less powerful than a Cleric, or they are a striker who isn't as good at it as a fighter or rogue is), so was going to be harder to create powers for them in 4e(you'd have to replace almost all their abilities rather than convert over the old ones)</p><p>-Monk was considered to be without a truly established niche(are they a striker, a defender, or a controller?) and less popular than other classes</p><p>-Barbarian was considered so similar to Fighter that it needed an overhaul and new defining characteristics</p><p>-Druid was consider the class with too many things it could do and therefore hard to balance as well(they are a defender, striker, leader, AND controller) and needed a lot of thought and changes to balance them in the new system</p><p>-Sorcerer was likely found to be too close to Wizard and needed a way to tell them apart and therefore a major redesign of the Sorcerer.</p><p></p><p>I imagine that Cleric and Wizard posed similar problems to the Druid, but they were some of THE defining classes in D&D and had time specifically put aside to fix them.</p><p></p><p>The rest of the classes are fairly easy to come up with narrow, established roles for and that's why they got put into the PHB1.</p><p></p><p>The PHB isn't in its final draft until October 5th from what we've been told. I imagine that the reason there was a lot of last minute discussion about what classes would be in the PHB1 is that they have mostly finished versions of one or all of the Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer. So, if they wanted to, they could have replaced any of the classes that were in with any of those that were far enough along.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 3808851, member: 5143"] From comments (about the Ranger killed the Scout and taking his stuff, and about the Warlock being in the PHB1), it sounds like early in development they had a conversation about which classes (out of all books in 3.5) they wanted in 4e. It was decided that Scout was too much like Ranger to be a separate class and Warlock was deemed so popular it needed to be in for sure (no comments have been made about the rest, so who knows what their status is). It seems that they started development on ALL the 3.5e PHB classes, the Warlock, and developed at least one new one (Warlord). I'm guessing that at some point it was decided that no more than 8 classes would be in the PHB1. At that time, they probably took a look at how far development was along on all the classes and prioritized finishing them based on how much time they had left and the popularity of the classes. My best guess is that: -Bard didn't have an established niche(they are a leader, but their ability to do so is less powerful than a Cleric, or they are a striker who isn't as good at it as a fighter or rogue is), so was going to be harder to create powers for them in 4e(you'd have to replace almost all their abilities rather than convert over the old ones) -Monk was considered to be without a truly established niche(are they a striker, a defender, or a controller?) and less popular than other classes -Barbarian was considered so similar to Fighter that it needed an overhaul and new defining characteristics -Druid was consider the class with too many things it could do and therefore hard to balance as well(they are a defender, striker, leader, AND controller) and needed a lot of thought and changes to balance them in the new system -Sorcerer was likely found to be too close to Wizard and needed a way to tell them apart and therefore a major redesign of the Sorcerer. I imagine that Cleric and Wizard posed similar problems to the Druid, but they were some of THE defining classes in D&D and had time specifically put aside to fix them. The rest of the classes are fairly easy to come up with narrow, established roles for and that's why they got put into the PHB1. The PHB isn't in its final draft until October 5th from what we've been told. I imagine that the reason there was a lot of last minute discussion about what classes would be in the PHB1 is that they have mostly finished versions of one or all of the Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer. So, if they wanted to, they could have replaced any of the classes that were in with any of those that were far enough along. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The 4th edition class list so far
Top