the "truth" about classes

[Umbran]

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.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Good point, Umbran. /concedepoint

 

[Celebrim]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.