log in or register to remove this ad

 

the "truth" about classes

danbala

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

Fighter
Paladin
Cleric
Warlord
Wizard
Ranger
Rogue

I don't think there has been ANY confirmation that those were the core classes in PHB1. That list could include prestige classes from PHB1 and/or core classes from PHB2 (or 3, 4, etc). All we know is that these "classes" will "be included" in 4e.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

danbala

Explorer
Celebrim said:
A shaman in colloquial usage is a priest of an animistic nature religion. From what little we know of druidism, and that's almost nothing, druidism was an animistic nature relgion similar to those found in other stone age cultures the world over. Druidic worship almost certainly involved spirits, although to be frank, sense the Romans slaughtered every single Druid and all thier family members, we don't really know anything about thier worship that isn't conjectural. Most of what you may think you know about Druidism is the product of 15th and 16th century occult imagination, and historical revisionism by reinnasance scholars in Northern Europe. . . .

I find your arguments unpersuasive for the simple fact that D&D isn't a historical simulation and the classes have a D&D expression that is unique to D&D. In other words, D&D Druids are simply that -- they are not ancient earth druids.
 

robotron666

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
Agreed, but sadly I think things are going to go that way. I hope we see more open content in WOTC game books, but I suspect that we'll have even less open content in the 4e iteration of the Dungeons and Dragons rules. I could be proven wrong of course, I'm not a professional fortune teller, these are just assumptions based on my previous experience with publishers and games, rpg's especially.

The core classes should give us enough options that we can create and add new ones to ogl content. Not to hijack this and make it a d20 ogl topic.

On topic though...

I doubt we're going to see Monk in the first PHB, since it seems that has been hinted at in 4e news already. My bets rest with Barbarian, Druid, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlord (or Warlock if warlord is a typo).
 

Khaalis

Adventurer
From what little facts we have so far we know there 8 classes covering 4 roles, thus 2 classes per role. From the classes that have been mentioned...

Defender: Fighter, Paladin
Leader: Cleric, Warlord
Controller: Wizard, Sorcerer
Striker: Rogue, Ranger

Warlord has been spotted in the D&DInsider screenshots and in the GamerZer0's interview with Wyatt. it is likely the replacement for the Bard. However, I believe this may also have beaten up and taken on some of the Barbarian's shtick.

Sorcerers have specifically been said to still be around but that they will be different than Wizards. It has been stated that they will not be merged and that they will have bigger differences than simple resource management issues.

This is the PHB combination of classes I'd be betting my money on right now. However, I do not think that Paladin is going to be the class of old that people expect. It has already been stated that alignment is no longer restricted to LG. I believe this may indicate shades of the Unearthed Arcana "flavors" of champion paladins (LG, LE, CG, CE).

JMHO. YMMV.
 

Arkhandus

First Post
breschau said:
But, anything generated on the outside (under the OGL) that isn't product identity (unique place and character names, or different rules names, ex: power points in M&M) can be renamed and used by WotC.

Minor nitpick: The term 'power points' was first used in D20, AFAIK, in 2001 by Wizards of the Coast for the Psionics Handbook. Somewhere between a year or one-and-a-half years after 3.0 and the D20 System was first released. Mutants & Masterminds by Green Ronin (?) came later, AFAIK.

I've only seen a tiny bit of other publishers' OGC used by WotC; a few things in Unearthed Arcana were drawn from other OGC I think, and there were two monsters at the back of the Monster Manual II that were reprinted from one of the Creature Collection books by Sword & Sorcery Studios, with a sidebar mentioning their source and some stuff about the OGL. Kind of odd that none of WotC's own content in that book was OGC, though. :\
 

Driddle

First Post
breschau said:
I think the Sorcerer killed the Warlock and took his stuff.

I think they were put in the teleport chamber at the same time and ended up at their destination smushed together as one creature.
 


Miar

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

Um.. these classes/races from the 3.5 players book already are open content. 4e core at least the first books will be as well. I can see nothing stopping people from updating the old core 3.5 stuff to 4e. It maybe a bit different than Wizards versions when they get theirs out but people will still have OGL bards, gnomes .. and whatever else.
 

Theovis

Explorer
Celebrim said:
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.
I've always felt like Paladin was a bit redundant, that you should be able to have a Cleric build that felt like a Paladin, or a multiclass Cleric/Fighter.

I did like the Holy Warrior as an attempt to make Paladins more faith-specific (ditto for the Unholy Warrior, also from Green Ronin).

I've never liked that Fallen Paladins were so gimped (and levels of Blackguard didn't really seem to compensate), so I let a Paladin PC respec as an unholy warrior.
 

Howndawg

First Post
Graf said:
In principal:yeah.

In actually?
I remember OGL two monsters in the back of the MMII and that was it.
Does anybody know of anything WotC absorbed?
(Not "redid later" like how they released a Drow book after other companies but actually absorbed into the "official" rules)

Exotic armor prof first appeared in Hammer and Helm by Green Ronin. It later appeared in Races of Stone. Not surprising since Jesse Decker wrote H+H and contributed to RoS.

Howndawg
 

Graf

First Post
Howndawg said:
Exotic armor prof first appeared in Hammer and Helm by Green Ronin. It later appeared in Races of Stone. Not surprising since Jesse Decker wrote H+H and contributed to RoS.

Howndawg
Hammer and Helm was a great book. But one feat (and the weapons locker stuff) is really nothing.

So WotC doesn't use OGL stuff. And, recently, they've completely avoiding contributing to it (i.e. kept all the new toys in house).

Deviating wildly from thread topic...
 

Merlion

First Post
I'm not really sure what the issue is. Of course they will start out with less base classes and slowly add a lot more. We already know this. So what?

Remember as well that they are (somewhat foolishly) looking at core as "the game" and everything else as extra, forgetting that everything else will be heavily used. So the core will still consist of less classes.

Unless as seems to be being implied, they release multiple PHBs etc...AND make them ALL "core".

Personally, as I said in another thread, I hope they have more than 8 base classes pretty quick, cause I cant think of any combination of 8 that I would be totally happy with.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top