log in or register to remove this ad

 

the "truth" about classes

Lonely Tylenol

First Post
SteveC said:
You're spot on here.

My real problem with this comes from an open gaming standpoint. If we get a PHB with fewer classes than before, and the ones that are later introduced are not open content, this makes it harder for a company to make an OGL product that contains as much content as you see now.

And that would be a bad thing.

--Steve
You know, I wouldn't be surprised if the PHB/DMG/MM series is mostly open content, while the other splatbooks are closed. That way there will be a feedback effect since 3rd party publishers can make use of newer classes and rules, which will make it more important to buy the newer core books to use those 3rd party books (since it's a pretty safe bet that people won't just use the SRD, but will actually buy the books), which will open up a market for WotC supplements aimed at people with those books. Everyone wins, except poor people. :p
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Logan_Bonner

First Post
There are 8 classes in PH1, but more will come out later in other books and the magazines.

Think of it this way: There are many classes, but each will fit into one of the four roles. This way you have plenty of variability, but you can always be sure that the class is filling a basic function it's expected to.
 


Snapdragyn

Explorer
WotC_Logan said:
There are 8 classes in PH1, but more will come out later in other books and the magazines.

Wow. So we've already had confirmed in an interview with GamerZero the following classes:

Fighter
Paladin
Cleric
Warlord
Wizard
Ranger
Rogue

In another post here at EN World, WotC_Logan confirms:

Monk

There's our 8 classes in the PHB. I'm not entirely thrilled -- I can handle druid being folded into a cleric 'tree', & barbarian into a fighter (or ranger?) tree, but...

  • Why make the barbarian a tree but not the monk?
  • Whither the sorceror (or warlock)?
  • Why the apparently imbalanced allocation of classes for each role (i.e. unless they make monk a controller, there's only 1 controller & 3 of something else)?
  • I'm particularly displeased that a revamped bard isn't currently scheduled for the initial core books. As I've said elsewhere, no matter what WotC may say about each new PHB (PHB2 in '09, PHB3 in '10, etc.) being core, there is NO WAY they will get every DM to accept that 'core' means more than the 3 initial books -- & players lose out because of that. :(
 

fanboy2000

First Post
Graf said:
3e started off exactly the same way.
No, it didn't. 3e has 11 PC classes in the PHB. Two of them, Sorcerer and Barbarian were new to the core rule books. Antother one, Monk, had been dropped from the AD&D 2e PHB.
 
Last edited:

Knight Otu

First Post
Snapdragyn said:
I can handle druid being folded into a cleric 'tree', & barbarian into a fighter (or ranger?) tree, but...
I think it's best not to assume that this is the case. The 3.X druid is very much of a controller role rather than a leader role, and the 3.X barbarian is very much a striker role. While we are being constantly told not to rely on 3.Xisms when analyzing the new information, occupying those roles is very much traditional and in flavor for them.

Plus, we've been told that those classes that were dropped will resurface again. ;)

Snapdragyn said:
Why the apparently imbalanced allocation of classes for each role (i.e. unless they make monk a controller, there's only 1 controller & 3 of something else)?
Traditionally, I'd put monks as strikers. Probably Martial Controller, though, so that each role has two classes to fill it.
 

fanboy2000 said:
No, it didn't. 3e has 11 PC classes in the PHB. Two of them, Sorcerer and Barbarian were new to the core rule books. Antother one, Monk, had been dropped from the AD&D 2e PHB.

Actually, barbarians were from 1E as well. They were introduced in Unearthed Arcana.

Edit: D'oh! You said new to the core books. So I guess, technically, UA wouldn't count. :eek:
 

DonTadow

First Post
Snapdragyn said:
Wow. So we've already had confirmed in an interview with GamerZero the following classes:

Fighter
Paladin
Cleric
Warlord
Wizard
Ranger
Rogue

In another post here at EN World, WotC_Logan confirms:

Monk

There's our 8 classes in the PHB. I'm not entirely thrilled -- I can handle druid being folded into a cleric 'tree', & barbarian into a fighter (or ranger?) tree, but...

  • Why make the barbarian a tree but not the monk?
  • Whither the sorceror (or warlock)?
  • Why the apparently imbalanced allocation of classes for each role (i.e. unless they make monk a controller, there's only 1 controller & 3 of something else)?
  • I'm particularly displeased that a revamped bard isn't currently scheduled for the initial core books. As I've said elsewhere, no matter what WotC may say about each new PHB (PHB2 in '09, PHB3 in '10, etc.) being core, there is NO WAY they will get every DM to accept that 'core' means more than the 3 initial books -- & players lose out because of that. :(
My guess is that its
Fighter
Cleric
Rogue
Wizard
Sorceror
Ranger
Warlord
?????
Monk gets rolled into fighter as does barbarian, bard is rolled into ???? (which will be sometype of social/control class). Sorcerors with inate magic will be distintcly different from wizards (learned spell casters).
 

Umbra_Kaitou

First Post
If I might speculate on a couple things,

With Spell casting being fundamentally changed, this changes the one key difference of a wizard and a sorcerer, which was resource management.

now my guess is they don't want to drop sorcerer entirely, hence why they say it wasn't folded into wizard, yet it now needs to find a different role to just play than that, so they are postponing it long enough to revamp it and polish its new role, whatever they decide (my guess a more battle-wizardy type but who knows)

As for Druids, from my experience in 3.5, it seems they suffer from balance issues in most of their stages of life, and thus might be taking longer to smooth out in 4e than other classes. Also with polymorph/wild shape issues and errata and perhaps a change in summoning procedure they could have even more kinks to work out.
 

Snapdragyn

Explorer
Ugh, confusing use of terminology & ambiguous statements.

Designer: x is in 4e!
Designer posting later: It's in 4e, but I didn't say core! Even if I did, we're using the new definition of 'core' that doesn't match the definition used by many players & DMs, so you don't know if we mean old 'core' or new 'core'! Haha!

:/

WotC_Logan said:
Nobody has said which 8 classes are in or out of the PH1. We've talked about classes in seminars and on the boards, and we've mentioned way more than eight classes in them. All the classes in the 3.5 PH will appear at some point in the game's lifespan, but the only ones you can call "confirmed" in the PH1 are fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard.

So we have one designer in an interview discussing ranger, paladin, & warlord -- oh, but those might all be in later books. We have another designer talking about paladins being able to be other than LG -- but wait, that still might be for later books.

Personally, I wish they'd limit their comments to what's in (or at least planned for) the first 3 books for now; it'd be much less confusing.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Snapdragyn said:
Personally, I wish they'd limit their comments to what's in (or at least planned for) the first 3 books for now; it'd be much less confusing.

My guess, for what it is worth, is that they don't yet know - they haven't decided exactly which of the latter 4 will be in the PHB yet. Still tinkering, getting playtest feedback, and so on. I would rather they not commit, and then change their minds.
 


Celebrim

Legend
DreamChaser said:
Blech. Paladin is a prestige class and barbarian is a character concept.

Largely true. The way I see it, Paladin is a talent tree/character concept of a (currently non-existant) base class 'Champion'. The closest I've seen to a good implementation of this is Book of the Righteousness and the 'Holy Warrior' class, although even it had some problems do to limitations of the D&D magic system.

Likewise, 'Druid' is a talent tree/character concept of Shaman. Druid is a culture, not a class.

Barbarian is a talent tree/character concept of Fanatic, which possibly needs its own base class but could possibly be a generic talent tree added to just about any class. Barbarian is a culture, not a class.

Ranger is a talent tree/character concept of a multiclassed Hunter-Cleric or Hunter-Shaman or possibly even Hunter-Sorcerer (up to the player/character concept). Hunter can either be a base class or possibly a talent tree applied to fighters.

Monk is meaningless. It's a profession, not a class. Mystical martial artists are just fighters with maybe some multiclassing and feats/talent trees. Otherwise 'monk' could mean cleric, shaman, rogue, fanatic, expert, champion, etc. depending on the sort of monk we are talking about.

The area that I would like to see expanded is 'skilled non-rogue'. I suggest the need for a expert/scholar and an explorer base class. It's possible that this could be done with the right options for rogue and fighter though.
 

Odysseus

Explorer
I think there will only be four base classes. Defender, leader,controller and striker. Which will define hit dice, bab and the at will/per encounter/per day abilities.
Within thoses bases classes will be talent trees for fighter, paladin, druid etc.
So what you call a class now would be a talent tree. That format lends its self to adding lots of new talent trees in later books without upseting the rules balance much. Plus there could also be racial talent trees.
I think barbarian and monk would fit into the striker role, as they're mobile and do lots of damage, and don't really seem fit as defenders. Bard into the leader role.
 

SteveC

Adventurer
Greatwyrm said:
I don't understand how. WotC has made tons of alternate 20-level classes. None of them have seemed to restrain the production of OGL products or content.
My point is that if you wanted to make an adventure based around a gnome bard, something that you can do in 3x you can't do it in 4E unless they add that extra content to the SRD.

Now I don't know why you would want to build that evil gnome bard, but I expect that if we're losing four classes and two races, there has to be something people like that will no longer be open.

Given the nature of the OGL, I'm frankly unsure that you can actually do that (take something open and close it in a new edition :\ ...)

--Steve
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
SteveC said:
Given the nature of the OGL, I'm frankly unsure that you can actually do that (take something open and close it in a new edition :\ ...)

Sure you can. It is a new and separate work - the license does not apply to a new work unless they explicitly apply it.
 

fanboy2000

First Post
Mouseferatu said:
Actually, barbarians were from 1E as well. They were introduced in Unearthed Arcana.
It was in UA? I just learned something new.

Edit: D'oh! You said new to the core books. So I guess, technically, UA wouldn't count. :eek:
I'm not familiar with 1e AD&D, so I tried to restrict my comments to the 2e PHB, because that's what I know.

11 classes is a lot for the PHB. I liked it because it provided variety for new comers and old timers alike. I think that, part of the reason the original post said it was limited was because we were moving from kits. IIRC, kits were eventually modified base classes, like the variants found in the 3.5 UA. While PrCs eventually filled same role as kits at mid-to-high levels, it took some getting used. Also, 3.0 didn't have a lot base classes. Psionics handbook, and Oriental Adventures were the only ones. After the revision with 3.5, new base classes were showing up regularly. IIRC, the Miniatures Handbook was the first 3.5 book to have new base classes (the advertising copy advertised base classes as rare) and then base classes became a staple of the Complete *.

The 4e PHB 1 having only 8 classes causes me to knee-jerk into "WTF!?" reaction. But, if those 8 classes are flexible and allow a wide variety of play concepts, I'll like it.
 

Greatwyrm

Been here a while...
SteveC said:
My point is that if you wanted to make an adventure based around a gnome bard, something that you can do in 3x you can't do it in 4E unless they add that extra content to the SRD.

I'm not sure we're on the same page here. As soon as the 4eSRD and 4eOGL are out, we don't NEED WotC to add anything else. Under the OGL, you can make all that stuff yourself. Moving from the example I mentioned about the 3e release and SSS Creature Collection, if you think there's a big sales possibility for gnomish bards, stat up gnomes, stat up bards, and sell them yourself under the OGL. The whole idea of the OGL is that you and I have the opportunity to give people the content that WotC either won't or can't.

SteveC said:
Now I don't know why you would want to build that evil gnome bard, but I expect that if we're losing four classes and two races, there has to be something people like that will no longer be open.

Again, if you're making your own, original content, what WotC puts out as open content doesn't matter. Even if they give us a list of things that they insist are not open content - lets say bards, sorcerers, and barbarians - nothing stops any of us from making a Minstrel, Conjurer, or Berserker class and distributing it on our own.

Just look at psionics. As far as we know, which ain't much, they aren't in the PHB. Still, there are plenty of people that want them. I'd be willing to bet money (if I had any) that there will be a psionics supplement within six months of the 4eMM release. If WotC hasn't made one by then, another publisher or a fan will, whether it's a good faith attempt at porting the 3.5 psionics from the current SRD or a new system from scratch.

SteveC said:
Given the nature of the OGL, I'm frankly unsure that you can actually do that (take something open and close it in a new edition :\ ...)

For a new edition, I imagine they could try in some way, but I'm not a lawyer. On the other hand, why would they? The OGL is considered enough of a success that they've already said its coming for 4e as well. They have to know that basically trying to shut down anything that's already open is going to be met with a big backlash, at least amongst the OGL faithful. Plus, a move like that would seriously rattle the bigger third-party publishers that WotC is already trying to attract to the 4e market.
 

Lonely Tylenol

First Post
SteveC said:
My point is that if you wanted to make an adventure based around a gnome bard, something that you can do in 3x you can't do it in 4E unless they add that extra content to the SRD.

Now I don't know why you would want to build that evil gnome bard, but I expect that if we're losing four classes and two races, there has to be something people like that will no longer be open.

Given the nature of the OGL, I'm frankly unsure that you can actually do that (take something open and close it in a new edition :\ ...)

--Steve
Well, gnomes are still open, and bards are still open, and the 3.x game mechanics pertaining to gnomes and bards are still open. And if you wrote a "gnome" race and a "bard" class for the adventure you were publishing, and declared it open content, that would also be fine. However, if WotC eventually produces a gnome race and a bard class, the mechanics pertaining to those would be closed unless WotC declared them open. Not the names, just the mechanics.
 

breschau

First Post
Looking back over the Warlocks abilities and invocations, that class looks a lot like an Arcane Striker should, the HD, the combat oriented abilities, etc.

I think the Sorcerer killed the Warlock and took his stuff.
 

Presents for Goblins

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top