The 8 classes in the PHB...

[Glyfair]

But the warlock and Ranger? Up in the air. I've seen convinging arguments for both of them as strikers and both as Controlers. I'll just have to wait and see.

The most convincing argument for rangers being strikers is that WotC stated they were when they first introduced the roles in the GenCon interviews in YouTube. Why they are considered strikers is the debatable point.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

The most convincing argument for rangers being strikers is that WotC stated they were when they first introduced the roles in the GenCon interviews in YouTube. Why they are considered strikers is the debatable point.

I suspect Wizards wanted to fit them into one of the 4 combat roles. Irda Ranger's comment about how rangers are defined primarily about their out-of-combat skills points to the problem - what is the ranger's special in-combat ability? In 3.5 it was meant to be preferred enemy and a choice of archery or two weapon fighting, but none of them were very good. Preferred enemy didn't have any effect a lot of the time and fighters were a better choice if you wanted to go for either of the weapon styles.

In 4e they seem to have decided that archery striker sounded like a good role and that they could give it to rangers. My only problem with that is if that's all 4e rangers are. It's possible that there are other ranger combat builds we haven't heard about yet - there was a comment that warlords have two distinct ability trees, and I'd be surprised if they didn't try to do that with the other classes.

I'd really like Wizards to tell us more about about non-combat roles. Have they actually found something for fighters to do outside of combat?

 

[Irda Ranger]

I'd really like Wizards to tell us more about about non-combat roles.

Double-extra ditto.

The social encounter rules suggest that they're are giving non-combat (at least, non sword-wielding combat) some real thought. I am hopeful there will be useful non-combat roles for everyone too, even if they aren't as well developed as the combat roles.

Have they actually found something for fighters to do outside of combat?

Though, to be fair, they are fighters. IRL, fighters are either fighting, sleeping, sparring or gambling/drinking. Anything else that makes them unique individuals (playing the guitar, basket weaving, etc.) are the types of skills the 4E designers have already explicitly said are going to be pure DM fiat, not a part of any class.

I always like the Dark Sun Fighter. They had to make him a viable choice relative to the pure combat monster that was the Gladiator, so the Fighter was good at leading troops and building / operating siege engines. That type of class only lends itself to certain playstyles (if you aren't into leading troops to besieging a fortress, it's probably not for you), but it was cool nonetheless and a nice option to have. I would have played one if I'd gotten a second chance (my only chance at a PC in Dark Sun got the Preserver/Psion combo). But the "siege leader" and "leader of men" schtick did give the Fighter a third dimension and something to do that wasn't strictly "I hit it with my axe."

 

[Baby Samurai]

I think people might be focusing on the power source too much, instead of the role, so as of now I'm thinking the classes break down as (this of course could/will change):


-Cleric (divine leader, d8 hp, 3/4 BAB)

-Fighter (martial defender, d10 hp, full BAB)

-Paladin (divine defender, d10 hp, full BAB)

-Ranger (martial striker, d8 hp, 3/4 BAB)

-Rogue (martial striker, d8 hp, 3/4 BAB)

-Warlock (arcane/divine? controller, d6 hp, 3/4 BAB)

-Warlord (martial leader, d8 hp, 3/4 BAB)

-Wizard (arcane controller, d6 hp, 3/4 BAB)

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

I think people might be focusing on the power source too much, instead of the role, so as of now I'm thinking the classes break down as (this of course could/will change):


-Cleric (divine leader, d8 hp, 3/4 BAB)

-Fighter (martial defender, d10 hp, full BAB)

-Paladin (divine defender, d10 hp, full BAB)

-Ranger (martial striker, d8 hp, 3/4 BAB)

-Rogue (martial striker, d8 hp, 3/4 BAB)

-Warlock (arcane/divine? controller, d6 hp, 3/4 BAB)

-Warlord (martial leader, d8 hp, 3/4 BAB)

-Wizard (arcane controller, d6 hp, 3/4 BAB)

There are hints that hit dice no longer exist for monsters so I don't think they'll be there for PCs either. In fact we don't even know if there's a BAB anymore.

Apart from that the list looks about right. It's possible Rangers could be divine but one of the most common requests through the life of 3rd edition has been for a non-spellcasting Ranger, so I think martial is more likely.

 

[Baby Samurai]

-There are hints that hit dice no longer exist for monsters so I don't think they'll be there for PCs either.


-In fact we don't even know if there's a BAB anymore.

-I would love that, as I have long hated rolling for hp (and ability scores). And judging from the Spined Devil stats there is now only level (thank god) instead of the ECL/CR/LA cornucopia of madness.


-Who knows?

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

There are hints that hit dice no longer exist for monsters so I don't think they'll be there for PCs either. In fact we don't even know if there's a BAB anymore.

Apart from that the list looks about right. It's possible Rangers could be divine but one of the most common requests through the life of 3rd edition has been for a non-spellcasting Ranger, so I think martial is more likely.

Theoretically you could have a non-spellcasting divine character though couldn't you?

My pet Ranger build is one that has three talent trees one of which is martial and the other of which are divine with a heavy martial emphasis.

That way you get:

Archy Mc Scout for the I wanna get all painted up and strike fear in my enemies as a non-descript killer hedgerow.

Grizzly Loremasterson for the herbalist, bearfriend, tracker, and arch-anti-goblin bigot in us all.

and

Aeron Spellthrowerstein for the 'you got your skills in my divine magic' pure DnD semi-Druid set.

 

[Patlin]

We're not so sure about the races, though. What do we know?

• Tiefling in.
• Gnome probably out, although Bruce Cordell's comment was "wait and see".
• Elf in.
• Eladrin in.
• Half-elf in.
• Dwarf in.
• Human in.
• Halfling in.

No word on half-orc, drow (""Possibly but not confirmed."). Aasimars are not in, warforged looks exceedingly unlikely.

There's a "racial change which may raise some eyebrows", and we're getting some sense of a mystery race (a playtest character referred to as "mystery character - we're pretty sure about the eight classes, so the mysterious part looks likely to be a race).

Have I missed anything?

We know that some races will be playable out of the monster manual, probably including:

Gnomes
Shifters
Warforged
Aasimar

(Githyanki was also mentioned as a possibility if I recall correctly, but seems less likely to me.)

Hopefully this means they have been given the "full playable race treatment" including racial feats etc.

 

[Wepwawet]

It's too soon to be sure about the classes in 4E PHB.

One of the things we know is that there will be lots of options for every class (like talent trees) and better multiclassing.

So I think that with the 4 basic roles on any party you should be able to create your own character!

With Cleric, Fighter, Mage and Rogue and good customization options we could do anything!

Like, a Fighter with berserker talents would be a barbarian. A Fighter with a bit of Cleric multiclassing would be a Paladin. Maybe even a Fighter with leadership skills and aura talents would be the dreaded Warlord.
Same way, a Cleric dedicated to nature, with some wild shape talents would be a Druid. You could even create a Cleric of Pelor/Lathander, shooting light from his toes, with wild shape abilities.

In one word, specialization. Specializing a general archetype.
If all of this is solidly built giving many options for everyone, what for do we need 3.821 different classes?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

It's too soon to be sure about the classes in 4E PHB.

One of the things we know is that there will be lots of options for every class (like talent trees) and better multiclassing.

Except they've said that all the 3.5 classes will eventually come out as classes in 4th Ed. So there won't be a talent tree for fighters to make them barbarians as then barbarians won't have anything left for them when they come out.

I think the goal of 4th Ed appears to be more speciaization, not less. They want each class to do something the other classes can't so as to make that class valuable and unique.

You can see this in the later part of 3.5e design as well. Classes like Knight that is a fighter specializing in AC and defending the party. Beguiler, who can use a very specific set of spells and has abilities that make those spells work better than others who get them. And many others.

I don't see this design changing much in 4e.

This was discussed briefly in another thread, but the more customization allowed, the more the classes can leave their own archetypes and the more than characters step on each other's toes and make other members of the group feel redundant. However, you want enough customization to allow a class to vary from time to time you play it and be different enough to allow 2 players to play the same class and accomplish their thing in 2 different ways.

This avoids the circumstance where the wizard specializes in buffing himself and becomes a better fighter than the fighter.