The 8 classes in the PHB...

[Baby Samurai]

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

I thought it was the Elves that are Fey that live in the Material, and the Eladrin are Fey that spend more time in the Feywild?

 

[DreamChaser]

If Warlock = controller then they are as good as saying that the only controllers are arcane and that arcane only equals controllers (or defender once spellsword comes out).

Of course, even if this is true and warlocks are controllers, that still leaves us with 2-2-2-2 and there is no distortion on this. Saying that because a ranger CAN fighter means he is a front liner and "fighter type" is unfair as the same thing can be said about a cleric (how many people have played a cleric in a game, only to find out that they are in a party with a druid, sorcerer, and rogue and thus their healer ends up the "tank"? not terribly uncommon I would think).

DC

 

[Gloombunny]

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.

Well... no, it really isn't like that, unless you see any and all damage-dealing abilities as being part of the striker shtick. Area-effect damage in particular is actually more of a control thing - by threatening the enemy with AoE damage you force them to change their tactics, spreading out so they can't all be hit at once. That's control.

Now, the way I see it, the role of a striker isn't just to deal damage, but to deal damage to the most desirable targets. If you just want to cause damage and don't care to who, you can do that with a greatsword-wielding fighter. (The only alternative to this theory is that fighters will be MMO-style tanks with lots of defense and subpar offensive ability, and between Iron Heroes and Bo9S I can't see the D&D4 team failing to give us fighters who kick ass.) Strikers are about applying their damage where it does the most good - like tumbling past the orc warriors to hit their shaman, or doing a big "burst" of damage all at once to quickly finish off a wounded target. So that warlock thing fits right in.

 

[Rechan]

Now, the way I see it, the role of a striker isn't just to deal damage, but to deal damage to the most desirable targets. If you just want to cause damage and don't care to who, you can do that with a greatsword-wielding fighter. (The only alternative to this theory is that fighters will be MMO-style tanks with lots of defense and subpar offensive ability, and between Iron Heroes and Bo9S I can't see the D&D4 team failing to give us fighters who kick ass.) Strikers are about applying their damage where it does the most good - like tumbling past the orc warriors to hit their shaman, or doing a big "burst" of damage all at once to quickly finish off a wounded target. So that warlock thing fits right in.

The first design article about Fighters seemed to show that their abilities revolve around what weapon they choose and pretty much about laying the smack down on whoever stands in their way.

Wyatt, who plays paladins, has hinted at Paladins basically getting to smite a lot more often. So I'm willing to bet that Paladins can choose between "I lay the smack on evil monsters", or the more defensive abilities. Like the Knight, who makes his surrounding areas Difficult Terrain, or his "Hey you guys, attack me!" to prevent the wizard from being smushed.

 

[qstor]

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).

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.

Same here...

Mike

 

[Gloombunny]

Wyatt, who plays paladins, has hinted at Paladins basically getting to smite a lot more often. So I'm willing to bet that Paladins can choose between "I lay the smack on evil monsters", or the more defensive abilities. Like the Knight, who makes his surrounding areas Difficult Terrain, or his "Hey you guys, attack me!" to prevent the wizard from being smushed.

Yeah. I seem to recall him saying explicitly in that video interview that a paladin could be built to stay near the other PCs and shield them from attacks, or be out in front smiting the enemy with a greatsword, and would fill its defender role either way.

So I'm guessing there'll be options to play a pure-tank defender for players who want that, but also options for the more traditional monster-cleaving badass who doubles as a meatshield. Much like how Bo9S offered some extremely durable tanking crusader builds, but also high-damage warblades. Or how Iron Heroes has both the armiger and the other classes like berserker. Et cetera.

 

[fba827]

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).

Question -- was the "mystery" part revealed before or after Tieling was announced? If before, that may be the mystery reference. If _after_ (which I think it was) then the Eladrin part may be the mystery race since I think that race was only recently announced....

Just trying to place the announcements in a timeline as that may show the mystery was already (possibly) revealed.

 

[Deset Gled]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I miss my monk. The monk could easily be a melee controller. I think it would be nice each each of the four roles could be accomplished by either casting or non-casting classes. That doesn't seem to be the case, currently. My only other real complaint is that Warlord sounds too much like Warlock. From what I've seen so far, they should just call the Warlock a Sorcerer.

Other than that, the design concepts seem pretty solid.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Question -- was the "mystery" part revealed before or after Tieling was announced? If before, that may be the mystery reference. If _after_ (which I think it was) then the Eladrin part may be the mystery race since I think that race was only recently announced....

Just trying to place the announcements in a timeline as that may show the mystery was already (possibly) revealed.

I'm pretty sure it was after both Tiefling and Eladrin. In fact, since there were pictures of a tiefling and an eladrin wizard handed out at the Gencon announcement, it'd pretty much have to be.

 

[gothmaugCC]

Well from the Playtest Report: Prophecies of the PRiestess part 1, we get the following:

"The classes work well together, with Mal (the Warlord) lending aid to his allies in need, Kriv (The Rogue) taking advantage of his movement and flanking (not to mention getting a critical with a great axe), Wilbur (the FIghter) controlling the movement of his foes as well as himself, and Gerhart (the Mage) supporting them with the precision and consistency of his arcane powers."


Sounds to me like Warlord is one of the leader rolls with healing capability.

soo..based on this article, and what we know abou tthe core 4...

Defenders: Fighter
Strikers: Rogue
Leaders: Warlord, Cleric
Controlers: Wizard.

Going with the 2-2-2-2
My guess is paladins will be Defenders,

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.