The 8 classes in the PHB...

[Irda Ranger]

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

Need? You can never have too many. Check out Iron Heroes. Seriously. One face-man, one spellcaster, and seven (?) fighters - all of them cool.

 

[Baby Samurai]

I really don't see the Warlock as a Striker too. The playtests seem very strongly Controllish.

And maybe a Divine one at that?

 

[Plane Sailing]

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).

I agree, I'd like to see rangers defined by their out of combat schtick (but I'm not holding my breath)

 

[Beregar]

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.

Hum, that's like saying wizard is a striker because he gets fireball (assuming wizards get fireball, of course ) and we know they are controllers. I agree on the latter part though, I doubt roles are that much set into stone, only that the class is guaranteed to fill the role it is given.

"We settled on crucial roles rather than on necessary roles. 4th Edition has mechanics that allow groups that want to function without a Leader, or without a member of the other three roles, to persevere."

"Unlike their 3e counterparts, every Leader class in the new edition is designed to provide their ally-benefits and healing powers without having to use so many of their own actions in the group-caretaker mode."

The purpose of a role seems to be "to provide its role's benefits without having to use so many of their own actions in doing that" . I.e. a cleric doesn't need to stop from attacking to provide healing and a warlord doesn't need to stop attacking to provide party buffs. So perhaps it's also safe to assume that a wizard is not penalized for controlling or a striker for striking?

It is entirely reasonable to think that warlocks might be strikers with some control tossed in or that they are controllers with some striking tossed in. Me, I personally like the idea of them being divine controllers. I think there has been some hints that classes can specialize in "paths" for greater diversity. I.e. cleric might have a martial path (melee), a path where they use holy words to strike (spellattack) and a path that focused on enhancing companions and weakening enemies (spellbuff/debuff).

"A cleric who wants to spend all their actions selflessly will eventually be able to accomplish that, but a cleric who wants to mix it up in melee or fight from the back rank with holy words and holy symbol attacks won’t constantly be forced to put aside their damage-dealing intentions."

My only concern is that regardless of what they said, I fear some classes are mandatory. I.e. if Rogue is the only class that can bypass traps and locked doors, then you want a rogue in party. For those of you who are saying "well, duh" think again: bypassing traps and locked doors is not role of a rogue in 4E - a rogue is striker, so they are supposed to be able to do lots of damage without anything interfering with it.

*All quotes in italics are from the design & development article: PC Roles

 

[Beregar]

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 also like the idea of nature being its own power source. However, I doubt they switch roles of existing classes to nature. Basically this means nature needs its own representatives for some roles, not necessarily all of them. It could look something like this.

Druid is nature's controller (able to control without being penalized)
Spirit Shaman is nature's leader (able to heal/buff without being penalized)
Beast Warrior is nature's striker (able to do high damage without being penalized)

Druid and Spirit Shaman base classes already exist. This split would basically mean that:

Druid controls nature and weather to hinder enemies while damaging them. He could follow paths of plant mastery (better control), weather mastery (better offense) or nature's remedies (better healing). Yes, I still left druid with some healing powers. It's just not automagic like it is for spirit shaman (he needs to spend actions to do it).

Spirit Shaman buffs and heals allies while debuffing and damaging enemies. He could follow paths of nature (buffs and movement), elements (damage) or shadows (debuffs and life taps).

Beast Warrior wildshapes into animal forms/hybrid forms and makes hit and run attacks (high DPS and mobility, low HP and AC). Beast Warriors might specialize in form mastery (more forms and noncombat benefits, i.e. scent), animal control (animal companion(s)) and nature's favors (spell-like abilities).

Above thingies are just examples what it might look like and don't necessarily even represent what I think they should be. I've no idea if there are actual paths in 4E or if you just "specialize" by making certain choices.

 

[RandomCitizenX]

One thing that people need to keep reminding themselves is that the role is the combat role. It defines what style of play the character will use in combat. Each class should still have their unique out of combat schticks as well. Rangers should still be the tracking wilderness guy, and the rogue should still be able to go crazy go nuts with skills.


As for the warlock. I think he will be Controller with some shades of Striker, just like someone with Warlord better be a Leader with some Defender in there.

 

[StarFyre]

mino?

How about a minotaur? Does anyone think, instead of it being a playable core race in dragonlance only, or something that you find wandering sigil, as a merc, etc..they may have added it to the PHB?

In one of the playtest or design diaries, it mentioned someone has a minotaur character, and that they should be happy to be able to 'convert' him into 4E? whether that is due to the minotaur being in the PHB or the MM with full playable stats, not sure...

I would only say that if something like that, shouldn't the barbarian be added back to the PHB? so that could prob be a good argument why that isn't the case

Sanjay

 

[CleverNickName]

Need? You can never have too many. Check out Iron Heroes. Seriously. One face-man, one spellcaster, and seven (?) fighters - all of them cool.

I would prefer one fighter class, with a hundred different talent trees to choose from. (shrug) Six of one, half a dozen of another, I suppose.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I would prefer one fighter class, with a hundred different talent trees to choose from. (shrug) Six of one, half a dozen of another, I suppose.

No, not really. The IH classes have different HD, BAB progressions, armor access, etc. They're very different.

 

[Rechan]

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.

Pretty sure that Eladrin are basically fey that live in the material, rather than the Feywild.