The 8 classes in the PHB...

[Pale]

There's a "racial change which may raise some eyebrows"

My money is on Tieflings being a race rather than simply 'plane touched'. Basically a counterpart to the Eladrin.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, maybe the PHB1 ranger will be all-martial, and when the nature power source comes out there'll be a new ranger talent tree giving access to nature spells.

And/or maybe we'll see the totemist return as a nature striker. I'd like that.

I think this will be true. PHB1's ranger will probably have some wilderness survival skills, but no druid-y magic stuff.

So we've got Ki, Nature, and Psionics as likely early power sources...

I thought I heard somewhere that they were working on Sorcerers and making them different from Wizards...

....personally, I think we're getting more than 8 base classes, but that's only because I thought I heard the Sorc was in, too, and all the rest are definately there.

 

[Mostlyjoe]

Power Source Nature. Wow, now that would be different. For so many years it's all be divine magic. As a kid I sat there and thought...but God's don't seem right. Now a days, yes. But that's because I learned it that way.

 

[CoryWhiteland]

Power Source Nature? That'd be cool Split druid into 2 parts, a controller and a shaper (defender). That leaves striker, Ranger? But ranger seems to be phb1-material...

I've been thinking myself about what the 4 classes might be in a future release that detailed Nature as a power source. To me looks like Druid is a shoe-in for leader and Barbarian for striker... but who for controller and defender? Hmmm...

Druid could easily be adapted to fill the controller role. And we've had other classes, like the Spirit Shaman from CD and the Shaman from OA who are very naturey and could be used as a base for controllers or leaders.

It's the Nature-based defender that I think will need to be created from whole cloth. I mean, the Barbarian could be squeezed into that role, but then you'd need a new striker. And really I think ole' Barbie fits the latter role better than the former.

 

[Rechan]

Druid could easily be adapted to fill the controller role. And we've had other classes, like the Spirit Shaman from CD and the Shaman from OA who are very naturey and could be used as a base for controllers or leaders.

It's the Nature-based defender that I think will need to be created from whole cloth. I mean, the Barbarian could be squeezed into that role, but then you'd need a new striker. And really I think ole' Barbie fits the latter role better than the former.

Shaman is easy for a leader. Healing fits, as does bolstering allies with the aid of Spirits, tossing down hexes on the enemies, etc.

If a fighter isn't a striker, neither's a barb. But really, a character whose abilities revolve around Wildshape could handle the defending easily enough.

I envision a nature-based Striker to be the animal companion guy that uses his pet tiger to set up a flank

 

[CleverNickName]

So, I think we're all fairly sure what the eight classes in the PHB will be (no new news here - this is my guess):

• Fighter
• Ranger
• Paladin
• Cleric
• Wizard
• Warlock
• Rogue
• Warlord

Bummer...it looks like more half of them are just fighter variants. I was hoping for a little more imagination. And more roguey, clericy goodness.

On the other hand, maybe the differences between the fighter and the ranger or paladin will be a lot more pronounced in the new edition. They just might be awesome. (I'm trying really hard to be optimistic here. It's half full, Trav. Half full.)

 

[Rechan]

On the other hand, maybe the differences between the fighter and the ranger or paladin will be a lot more pronounced in the new edition. They just might be awesome. (I'm trying really hard to be optimistic here. It's half full, Trav. Half full.)

My money is on the Ranger basically being Archer Man. The rogue gets to play melee striker, while the ranger is "See that guy over there? HEADSHOT."

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I'm thinking there will be archer, ambusher, and divine variants of the ranger available.

 

[Irda Ranger]

My money is on the Ranger basically being Archer Man. The rogue gets to play melee striker, while the ranger is "See that guy over there? HEADSHOT."

I agree, though I find it disappointing. To me, Rangers have alway been defined by their out of combat skills: tracking, herbal lore, monster lore, etc. In-combat they should be pretty flexible as to their preferred fighting style, and not pigeon-holed into one fighting style (whether TWF, archery, whip & pistol, or whatever).

Actually, I think the best (non-magic) Ranger is the Iron Heroes Hunter with maxed out Beast Lore Feats. The Hunter needed some more playtesting and tweaking to get balanced at all levels of play, but the concept was awesome: he use his knowledge of terrain and monster lore to command the group and grant tactical buffs and bonuses to his allies. "Here's a free flank for you, and here's a +4 attack for you this round, and a why don't you just take cover behind that tree there ..." etc.

But that would be like a Martial Controller/Leader, and I expect the Warlord to have taken some of his stuff.

But we know the Ranger is a Striker, and all of the playtests have him using a bow to the exclusion of all else; so, "HEADSHOT."

What a waste of the best class concept. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[DreamChaser]

Bummer...it looks like more half of them are just fighter variants. I was hoping for a little more imagination. And more roguey, clericy goodness.

On the other hand, maybe the differences between the fighter and the ranger or paladin will be a lot more pronounced in the new edition. They just might be awesome. (I'm trying really hard to be optimistic here. It's half full, Trav. Half full.)

I actually think that it will be nice to have more reason to play a non-magical character. In the 3e PHB, 6 out of 10 classes are spellcasters (with about 60 to 80% overlap in the spells they can cast). Only 4 have no spells and only 3 (barbarian, fighter, rogue) have no truly supernatural abilities.

I am looking forward to the three / four "spell casters" to have better niches and more uniqueness as classes while still having the freedom to customize and specialize.

Cleric = divine leader which means she will probably have a range of buffs, restoratives, and a small range of "miracle" type powers that she must prepare and fewer of the common "spells" that he doesn't really need / use (she is a warrior type as well, after all).

Paladin = divine defender which I hope means no actual "spells" but rather divine powers that he gains from his devotion to a cause (which a hope will not have to be law and goodness).

Warlock = arcane striker which should mean directed "surgical" attacks and focused but broad in scope powers. a summoning power that allows him to keep a minion present indefinitely but not use anther "invocation" at the same time, for example.

Wizard = arcane controller and our only controller if I remember right. I imagine her using magical attacks, defenses, and cantrips (things like "light", "wizard mark", and "detect magic" that every wizard should just know) along with rote "spells" that allow her great versatility and power at the cost of great time, expense, and effort.

DC