The 8 classes in the PHB...

[Lanefan]

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

So, 4 Fighter variants, 2 Wizard variants, 1 Cleric, and 1 Rogue. What does that tell us?

Well, for one thing it indicates the "middle" of the party is being largely downplayed in design in favour of working on the "front" (the warrior-types) and the back (wizard-types) for now; the cleric and rogue types are cut back to just their own-name classes.

Interesting to note that original 1e had 3-2-2-2 plus Monk as an oddball and Bard as a prestige class. Original 2e had 1-1-1-1. It's harder to pin down for original 3e (and not helping is that my 3e PH isn't here and I can't remember exactly what was original 3e and what came later) but I seem to recall it was a more even spread than the projected 4e.

Does 4e's 4-2-1-1 spread mean more in-game emphasis on physical combat and less on spell-work? Interesting...

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.

Are Eladrin the new Aasimars? Warforged would be an Eberron-only thing, and as Eberron is already known to be an "official" 4e setting I think we can assume they'll be in as a setting-specific variant.

I'm glad they (so far) seem to be staying away from the half-Ogres and half-Dragons and half-everything-else's...the only annoyance to me there is Tiefling, and that's easy enough to nuke destroy obliterate fix.

Lanefan

 

[DreamChaser]

So, 4 Fighter variants, 2 Wizard variants, 1 Cleric, and 1 Rogue. What does that tell us?

I don't believe that it is fair to categorize the Warlord as a fighter variant. We have no evidence of this and its role as a "leader" would make it more akin to cleric or (perhaps) rogue.

This idea of "fighter", "cleric", "wizard", and "rogue" types is a little off IMO anyway, based on the current paradigm. There are currently:

2 - defenders (fighter, paladin)
2 - leaders (cleric, warlord)
3 - strikers (ranger, rogue, warlock)
1 - controller (wizard)

what does this tell us? that the "middle" roles are getting pumped up (5 classes) compared to the front line (2) or rear (1).

Does 4e's 4-2-1-1 spread mean more in-game emphasis on physical combat and less on spell-work? Interesting...

Hopefully it means that they are going to stop dividing the exact same spell list up 80000 (essentially identical) ways and calling it different.

I would prefer 1 truly customizable class with a range of options and theoretical access to every spell of its type to the 2 core twins (sorcerer & wizard) combined with their hyperspecialized (warmage, beguiler, dread necromancer) or arbitrarily renamed / recultured (wu-jen) cousins.

DC

ps: 2e had 3-2-2-1: 3 (fighter, ranger, paladin), 2 (cleric, specialty priest), 2 (thief, bard), and 1 (wizard / specialty wizard), not 1-1-1-1

pps: part of me still holds out hope that the ranger is actually a martial controller, though I'm not sure how that would work and I think they have already told us that she is a striker.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't believe that it is fair to categorize the Warlord as a fighter variant. We have no evidence of this and its role as a "leader" would make it more akin to cleric or (perhaps) rogue.

The name "Warlord" suggest to me a military leader. Historically, most military leaders have also themselves been warriors. Hence, I lump them in with fighter-types.

This idea of "fighter", "cleric", "wizard", and "rogue" types is a little off IMO anyway, based on the current paradigm. There are currently:

2 - defenders (fighter, paladin)
2 - leaders (cleric, warlord)
3 - strikers (ranger, rogue, warlock)
1 - controller (wizard)

what does this tell us? that the "middle" roles are getting pumped up (5 classes) compared to the front line (2) or rear (1).

We won't know until we see the game played which of the new classes will end up in the front line, back line, etc., but it's their role on the team rather than their role in design that I'm looking at. Your group of "strikers" includes to me 1 front (Ranger), 1 middle (Rogue) and 1 rear (Warlock), unless the Ranger is design-forced into a pure archery middle role (I'd house-rule fix this in a heartbeat; my Rangers can fight).

ps: 2e had 3 (fighter, ranger, paladin), 2 (cleric, specialty priest), 2 (thief, bard), and 1 (wizard / specialty wizard), not 1-1-1-1

You're probably right, but I seem to recall when 2e first came out they'd beaten it down to only 4 classes, and everything else crept back in through quick expansions (much like Druid and Gnome will probably do in 4e). Even still, 3-1-2-2 (using the same order I started with - F-W-C-R) is quite a jump away from 4-2-1-1.

Lanefan

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

2 - defenders (fighter, paladin)
2 - leaders (cleric, warlord)
3 - strikers (ranger, rogue, warlock)
1 - controller (wizard)

Why do you label the Warlock a striker? The few descriptions of its powers we've seen sound like a controller:

Logan’s warlock laid down a Mire of Minauros on one side of the room, dissolving a couple of vampires and creating a nice acidic bog to guard our right flank.

Dessin, my warlock, mostly stayed at the back. He was just making enemies attack each other, firing some eldritch blasts, and concentrating fire on badly damaged foes (turns out that makes him do more damage).

Warlock + iron crown of madness = fun for the whole family.

These are from the Castle Smoulderthorn playtests and Dave Noonan's blog, and all describe the same warlock played by Logan Bonner. I'm thinking that "Iron Crown of Madness" might be the power that made enemies attack each other, but that's just a guess.

 

[Gloombunny]

Lanefan, they've told us flat-out that warlords are leaders and rangers are strikers.

(But "striker" doesn't imply that they aren't melee-based, just that they're better at mobility than at standing toe-to-toe with enemy warriors.)

 

[Gloombunny]

Why do you label the Warlock a striker? The few descriptions of its powers we've seen sound like a controller:

While some of those abilities are definitely controller-ish, doing extra damage to wounded enemies sounds more strikery. So they'll probably have elements of both roles regardless of which one they end up being more focused on.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

While some of those abilities are definitely controller-ish, doing extra damage to wounded enemies sounds more strikery. So they'll probably have elements of both roles regardless of which one they end up being more focused on.

Or they're meant to be a controller, which would give 2 classes in the PHB for each role. Just cause they do more damage to wounded (probably meaning "bloodied") enemies doesn't make them a striker, while area denial and confusion affects are solidly in the Controller role.

All IMO of course.

 

[Gloombunny]

I'm just saying, if they're a controller they'll be a controller with some strikery elements, and if they're a striker they'll be a striker with some controlly elements. And I think it's too early to say which of those will be the case.

 

[CleverNickName]

2 - defenders (fighter, paladin)
2 - leaders (cleric, warlord)
3 - strikers (ranger, rogue, warlock)
1 - controller (wizard)

The thing that would worry me the most:

Ranger = fighter + rogue
Paladin = fighter + cleric
Warlock = fighter + wizard
Warlord = fighter + fighter

This would put a "fighter" role in every class except cleric, rogue, and wizard.

I'm not saying this is how the character classes were developed; surely there is more to it than this. There has to be more to a paladin than a fighter with a divine talent tree, for example. I'll try to keep an open mind.

But seriously, how many flavors of fighter do we need?

 

[Irda Ranger]

I'm just saying, if they're a controller they'll be a controller with some strikery elements, and if they're a striker they'll be a striker with some controlly elements. And I think it's too early to say which of those will be the case.

I think it would be really weird if WotC went to the trouble to define 4 roles, and then made 8 classes, and the division was anything other than 2-2-2-2. You want to give people some choices; and not 'force' someone to play the Wizard.

With the Ranger (Chosen Enemy) and Rogue (Sneak Attack) as Strikers (light armor, high mobility, high DPS), I really don't see the Warlock as a Striker too. The playtests seem very strongly Controllish.