The fighter and the paladin pretty well ganged up on the knight & stole his stuff

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I like how the prospect of talent trees will get back to the d20 core class premise of flexibility rather than the need for dozens of new core classes to cover every concept.

Indeed. Most classes and prestige classes could easily be boiled down to a few feats. Give people a feat a level or something, and you remove much of the need to clutter the game with new classes. Feats take up part of a page. Classes take up several. Moroever, you dont need additional product support for a feat chain, but people get miffed if their fringe class isnt supported in future releases.

 

[DarkKestral]

I disagree. Both that nothing else could fill the "niches" a Cleric does...or that anything even needs too. I have personally never understood the supposed need for a heavy duty healer class. And concept wise, there is little basis for the "priest" concept as its own class...its more of a cultural role.

See, I dont really give a flying fig about role boundries. I hope that the "role" thing in 4e stays metagame jargon and doesnt take over the game...and I'm more interested in what the classes are as a whole than just their mechanical role in combat.
And thats a big part of why I want those classes to stay as classes. One of the 4 central classes could fill the mechanical role of pretty much any/all of them...but not their conceptual roles/archtypes.

I'm just looking at it from the idea of a mechanical hole. However, I agree that the cleric is kind of.. strange. The Cloistered Cleric seems like a better fit, but I think I like the AE magister a little better, as it combines the blasty and the healy into the same class.

 

[Merlion]

I'm just looking at it from the idea of a mechanical hole. However, I agree that the cleric is kind of.. strange. The Cloistered Cleric seems like a better fit, but I think I like the AE magister a little better, as it combines the blasty and the healy into the same class.

Yes. I think a true Mage class, a real master of *all* forms of magic, and one that you can play with whatever "origin" or "power source" you see fit, would really do D&D some good. But its unlikely to happen, because D&D will never remove the Cleric or the idea that "god magic=healing and Priest class=healer class."

 

[Merlion]

Indeed. Most classes and prestige classes could easily be boiled down to a few feats. Give people a feat a level or something, and you remove much of the need to clutter the game with new classes. Feats take up part of a page. Classes take up several. Moroever, you dont need additional product support for a feat chain, but people get miffed if their fringe class isnt supported in future releases.

But see, for many many people, a class...not just the mechanics of a class, but its archtype, concept, and mechanics, can NOT be boiled down to a few feats.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

But see, for many many people, a class...not just the mechanics of a class, but its archtype, concept, and mechanics, can NOT be boiled down to a few feats.

How so?

Lets take the barbarian for example, a class that I feel really deserves to get the axe (pun intended). On top of the fact that I dont like mixing culture and class (I think berserker would be more appropriate) lets look at what he is. He's a fighter who has spent his feats to rage (and the rage feat chain) and some piddling damage resistance. He swapped heavy armor use for fast movement. And thats about the only difference between a berserker from tribal culture x and a fighter from tribal culture x.

Or the wu-jen. You slap an elemental talent tree or two in the wizard/sorcerer, toss in a couple feats, and you're done. As a plus, its an elementalist rather than wu-jen, so it has more universal appeal.

Order of the Bow initiate? He's a fighter with some trick shot feats, including shooting while engaged in melee. Why did we need a new class for this? Everyone gets feats. Sure, some classes dont get enough, but they ahve already said they are addressing this in 4th edition.

I'd rather classes be more broad than narrow. Or are we just supposed to sit there with only 8 narrow archetypes when the players handbook is released, twiddling our thumbs until the "archer", "fire mage" or "ghost hunter" is finally released? Fewer classes, more options within those classes.

 

[Zurai]

The paladin will be a glowing beacon of holyness that also functions as a bull's eye to the evil and monstrous.

I can already tell you that this is completely incorrect.

How?

We've been told we can have paladins of Asmodeus. There'd be nothing holy about a paladin serving a greater devil-come-god.

 

[Zurai]

May I point out one, rather obvious to me, difference between WoW and D20?

D20 environment is designed and played by a living, flexible intelligence, capable of feats WoW mechanics and engine is not.

So, Taunt as a simple class specific binary special ability is a complete failure to me. While creatively insulting speech made by a player character, supported by successful skill check made versus relevant opponent's attribute, is fine.

The first case is an example of a character disintegrating into a jumble of assorted game mechanics. The second case, of a roleplaying action where the system is there only to determine a success.

Hopefully, 4e designers will take note of that distinction.

regards,
Ruemere

Well, since the PHB2 designers took note of that distinction, I'd say it's a lock.

Knight's Challenge Test of Mettle is a skill check vs relevant opponent's attribute; in this case, a charisma-based standard DC vs a Will save.

 

[DarkKestral]

I can already tell you that this is completely incorrect.

How?

We've been told we can have paladins of Asmodeus. There'd be nothing holy about a paladin serving a greater devil-come-god.

Yep. And he might even be NE!

Think about that. A tiefling paladin devoted purely to the cause of Evil, pain, and suffering in their purest forms. Not your typical holy roller.

 

[Zurai]

Yep. And he might even be NE!

Think about that. A tiefling paladin devoted purely to the cause of Evil, pain, and suffering in their purest forms. Not your typical holy roller.

And let me tell you, I'm looking forward to that immensely. I always hated that paladins were only goodie-two-shoes; in my mind, paladins are exemplars of a God. They're their deities' right-hand soldiers, who are called to service and further their deities' goals with every action.

Whether those goals are "Free the world from tyrranical oppressors" or "Enslave humanity to prove that elves are the master race" or "further the cause of magic and mysticism throughout the world" doesn't matter - they're all paladins.

IMO, of course.

 

[RigaMortus2]

No, it would be an original concept (if wow never existed) unlike what seems to be going into 4E.

Ah, actually, no it wouldn't. Hate to break it to you, but there have been other MMORPGS out BEFORE WoW. The Warrior Class from original EverQuest had it. I am sure they also borrowed the Taunt idea from text-based MUDs.

It seems like your 'issue' stems that they are borrowing ideas from WoW specifically, not MMORPGS in general. Kinda weird, I gotta say...