the "truth" about classes

[Graf]

WotC is trumpting (or appears to me, though I can not claim to have read everything) the "smaller number of base classes with more OPTIONS so you can specialize YOUR FIGHTER".
I understand that it's marketing spiel, and why WotC is disseminating it (you sell what you have) but I'm amazed that it's being uncritically repeated.

3e started off exactly the same way.
"We're going to have a small number of classes but we'll give you choices-at-every-level!" (i.e. feats, bonus feats, special abilities and eventually PrCs).
They held firm on adding new base classes for a little while...
When 3e first came out it was practically a credo:
"I wanna play a Samurai!" "Play a fighter!"
"How do I make a Knight?" "Play a fighter take mounted combat and ride!"

But eventually every new supplement and game source was adding more and more "base" classes until there are more than WotC published 30 "alternative base classes".

They will drop the bard, there will be much howling, a year later someone will hint that they're "reconsidering it", then there will be a new book with a new bard.
Wash, rinse, repeat for the literally (dozens) of possible character tracks.
Each campaign setting will probably get one or two special character classes to differentiate it (see: artificer for Eberron).

I'm not commenting on whether it's good or bad, but anybody who seriously thinks that 5 classes (or 7 or however many 4e launches with) is going to be the "default state" of the game is, IMHO, wrong.

 

[F4NBOY]

IIRC someone mentioned 8 base classes during some playtesting.
8 is a good number.
Fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, ranger, paladin, druid and barbarian would be just a nice list for me.

 

[FireLance]

I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility, but I also think that talent trees, if implemented, will allow much more customization within a single class "chassis" than was possible in previous editions. Variations to existing classes can then be done not by introducing new "base" classes, but by introducing new talent trees. So, instead of having separate Knight and Swashbuckler classes, you'd still be using the basic Fighter class, but with Knight and Swashbuckler talent trees.

 

[hong]

Eh, regardless of how many classes there are, us gearheads will soon be churning out new ones soon enough anyway.

 

[RFisher]

Haven't they been making it clear that they will be adding base classes beyond what's in core? (To paraphrase: Any 3e core class that isn't in the 4e core will be added later.)

Besides, who cares if they add 1000 classes in future products. You don't have to use them in your game. You don't even have to use all the classes that are in the core books if you don't want to.

 

[SteveC]

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

 

[DreamChaser]

IIRC someone mentioned 8 base classes during some playtesting.
8 is a good number.
Fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, ranger, paladin, druid and barbarian would be just a nice list for me.

Blech. Paladin is a prestige class and barbarian is a character concept.

This would be my wish list (with the related classes we could do away with listed below):

Cleric
-- Archivist – killed by the cleric to become a talent tree
-- Favored Soul – cleric talent tree? likely redundant with changes to magic system
-- Healer – killed by cleric to become a talent treee


Druid
-- Shugenja – some aspects could be a cleric or druid talent tree…likely obsolete
-- Spirit Shaman – killed by the druid to become a talent tree…possibly obsolete

Fighter
-- Barbarian – killed by fighter to become talent tree
-- Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade – sounds like they all form the new fighter foundation
-- Hexblade – killed by the fighter to become a talent tree (with multiclassing)
-- Knight – killed by the fighter to become a talent tree
-- Marshal – killed by the fighter to become a talent tree (maybe “warlord”)
-- Monk – killed by the fighter to become a talent tree
-- Samurai – how is this different from fighter again? Oh! No shield proficiency.
-- Swashbuckler – killed by the fighter to become a talent tree
-- Soulknife – killed by the fighter to become a talent tree

Ranger – may be useful now that it has killed the scout and eaten it.
-- Scout – killed by the ranger

Rogue
-- Ninja – killed by the rogue to become a talent tree
-- Spellthief – killed by the rogue to become a talent tree (with multiclassing)

Sorcerer
-- Beguiler – talent tree of sorcerer / multiclass w/ rogue
-- Dread Necromancer – talent tree of sorcerer (or a prestige class)
-- Warlock – killed by the sorcerer (and maybe wizard)
-- Warmage – talent tree of sorcerer / multiclass w/ fighter

Wizard
-- Wu Jen – how is this different from wizard? Watchful spirit could be a talent tree for wizard

And once the psionics rules come out (cause they certainly can't be core)

Erudite / Psion – really one class. I’m not sure which should stay
-- Ardent – not really distinct enough from psion IMHO

Wilder

Prestige Classes / Multiclasses / Advanced Classes

Bard – Created by multiclassing / prestige classing
Divine Mind – interesting cleric / psion multiclass w/ talent tree
Duskblade - Created by multiclassing / prestige classing
Lurk – multiclass psion / rogue
Paladin – prestige class (for goodness sake, every other type of holy warrior has been)
Psychic Warrior – multiclass fighter / psion

No need to repeat

Binder – interesting experiment…little more
Factotum – interesting experiment…little more
Shadowcaster – interesting experiment…little more
Truenamer – an interesting experiment, little more

 

[Greatwyrm]

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.

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.

Heck, if anything, WotC is giving 3rd party publishers something akin to the Oklahoma homestead land-grab. It seems unlikely gnomes will be in the PHB. Be the first to give us 4e stats for them. Same for monks, bards, and psionics. As we get more details of what is in and what isn't, lots of products like these should be ready on or close to the launch of 4e.

Remember when 3e came out? The day the PHB went on sale at GenCon, the only "monster manual" to be found was the Creature Collection from Swords and Sorcery Studios. Once people see what's going to get left out or pushed back, you'll see that kind of tactic in spades.

 

[jasin]

This would be my wish list (with the related classes we could do away with listed below):

Mostly a sensible list, but...

Cleric
-- Archivist – killed by the cleric to become a talent tree

Even though the archivist is a divine class, as long as you're going to modularize it by making it a talent tree, doesn't the ability to know about stuff make more sense for wizards? Or perhaps anyone with the right knowledges, like the Knowledge Devotion feat from Complete Champion?

Druid
-- Shugenja – some aspects could be a cleric or druid talent tree…likely obsolete

Shugenja is really not that much like a druid, except in the "hey, I like elements and elementals!" sense.

 

[jasin]

Eh, regardless of how many classes there are, us gearheads will soon be churning out new ones soon enough anyway.

A part of me is actually kind of hoping unarmored wuxia swordsman won't quite work in 4E, so we can go to work on martial artist 4E.