the "truth" about classes

RFisher

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

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)?

I'm not sure the monk confirmation means that it's a separate class. Based on the comments about the wizard & sorcerer being made even more different, I think the sorc is in the PHB1.

So, my guess would be:

  • Fighter
  • Paladin
  • Cleric
  • Warlord
  • Wizard
  • Sorcerer
  • Ranger
  • Rogue

With monk & barbarian each being a possible customization of one of those. That's what I'm expecting is in the current PHB1 draft. I also expect it's still tentative.

Or, at least, that's what I thought before the clarification.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Remathilis

Legend
Ok, let me get this straight...

CONFIRMED:

Defender: Fighter
Striker: Rogue
Controller: Wizard
Leader: Cleric

Possible:

Defender: Paladin
Leader: Warlord
Striker: Ranger
???: Druid
???: Monk
???: Sorcerer/Warlock
???: Barbarian

Beyond that, we know the Bard, Spellthief and Scout is R.I.P. Its safe to say you shouldn't expect the Favored Soul, Shugenja, Ninja, Samurai, Wu Jen, Warmage, Healer, Dread Necromancer, Archivist, Swashbuckler, Spirit Shaman, Factotum, Dragonfire Adept, Psion, Psychic Warrior, Wilder, Soulknife, Lurk, Adrent, Divine Mind, Erudite, Binder, Truenamer, Shadowcaster, Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, Beguiler or Knight in the PHB. The Marshal and the Dragon Shaman might end up somewhere absorbed into another class above.

Logan, can ya confirm or deny THAT much? ;)
 

SteveC

Doing the best imitation of myself
Dr. Awkward said:
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.
And that's my point. If you're designing an adventure, and want to use the 4E mechanics, you're not using gnomes unless they return as open content.

Sure you can use the name "gnome" but we're concerned about the mechanics, after all.

It has been suggested that this is some sort of bonanza for OGL publishers, who will be able to give their own take on those races and classes that get left out. I really don't think that's a good idea, because if given the choice between two gnomes, most of your customer base is going to go with the "official" one. That's what happens now.

Why do I care? Well, largely it's because third party companies do a better job of making adventures than WotC, especially if you put the guys from Paizo into the generic adventure camp rather than giving them the special rights they had with Dungeon. I want to see the best module support possible for the game, because that will give me something to run when I don't have time to invent a campaign myself, so I'm selfish and want companies like Paizo, Goodman Games, and Necromancer (wherever they end up) to have at least as much open content to work with in 4E.

So here's to hoping that we get more open content this time, or at least the same amount.

--Steve
 

outsider

First Post
Hrm, where are you getting the idea that they are trying to claim there'll be less classes? They've been openly admitting that they will be adding more classes as time goes on. About all they've actually said about having less classes is that there'll be less in the PHB, to the best of my knowledge. And they weren't exactly trying to make that sound like a fantastic thing.

Anybody got a link to anything WoTC has said that indicates they are planning on having a small number of classes?
 

New Playtest Report
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070824a
More evidence that Warlord is going to be a base class in the PHB, and possibly Warlock as well. Or that they were base classes in the version of the rules that were available at the time. I like the idea of a tactics based character in the core rules, but I doubt that Warlock will be in the final PHB. That will have too many arcane style classes taking up slots of the core 8 classes, assuming that we are correct in the number of classes.

Thursday Night, Wizards Conference Room (Wayne Manor).
Campaign Arc: Castle Smoulderthorn
DM: Dave Noonan
Players: Bruce Cordell, Richard Baker, Logan Bonner, and Toby Latin

I’ve been playing a chaos gnome warlock in Dave Noonan’s 3rd Edition Eberron game for a while now. When it came time to start playtesting the new edition with non-Wizards employees, Dave decided to convert the current campaign instead of beginning anew. We’re smack-dab in the middle of the floating fortress Castle Smoulderthorn, so it would have been unfortunate if we didn’t get a chance to untether its bound elemental and send the whole evil place floating off to Siberys.

I was playing with Rich Baker, Bruce Cordell, and Toby Latin-Stoermer (our resident non-WotC employee). Our characters were Karhun (originally a warblade/warmage played by Rich), Infandous (an elan psion played by Bruce), Hammer (a warforged paladin played by Toby), and Dessin (a chaos gnome warlock played by myself).

Conversion was far from 100% accurate. Not only have the classes changed, but we’re also using plenty of stuff that wasn’t in the playtest document. Several of us needed new races. Luckily, we had some versions kicking around. These hadn’t been developed yet, but we used them anyway. Rich’s character was tougher. He was playing a warblade/warmage in the 3rd Edition game, which didn’t really convert at all. Fortunately, he was able to pick a class that was focused on tactics, and he picked up some wizard powers to feel similar to the old character. We didn’t have a psion for Bruce, so he rolled up a wizard and tweaked some of the names to fit thematically.

The characters were pretty different now, but we all had some pretty interesting stuff to do. We were very curious what Toby would think since he wasn’t familiar with the system like the rest of us. Turns out he enjoyed himself (but we found out the warforged he was using was kinda broken).

We started off the session just after the encounter we had last week. Before we had time to heal up, we were attacked again. Our enemies crossed a snake theme with a fire theme, so they had a fire snake, a fire sorcerer who turned into a snake, and six azers who brought plenty of fire but forgot about the snake bit. Dessin, my warlock, mostly stayed at the back. He was just making enemies attack each other, firing some eldritch blasts, and concentrating fire on badly damaged foes (turns out that makes him do more damage). Most of the azers got taken down relatively quickly. The big surprise of the encounter was the sorcerer becoming a snake and grabbing our poor paladin. Turns out that even if you’re a snake, and even if you’re on fire, adventurers will still kill you.

After the battle, it was a little different than the procedure that follows a 3E battle. Turns out the enemies don’t need magic weapons to be effective (because the math doesn’t need them to), so we didn’t have a bunch of magic loot that we didn’t really need and would only end up selling. It was a bit of a disconnect, but nothing we’d miss in the long run. We got to cut out the middleman and grabbed some coins and XP (though later we did find some cool magic loot that we could actually use).
 

breschau

First Post
Kelvor Ravenstar said:
New Playtest Report
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070824a
More evidence that Warlord is going to be a base class in the PHB, and possibly Warlock as well. Or that they were base classes in the version of the rules that were available at the time. I like the idea of a tactics based character in the core rules, but I doubt that Warlock will be in the final PHB. That will have too many arcane style classes taking up slots of the core 8 classes, assuming that we are correct in the number of classes.

That article doesn't say a word about Warlords.
 

Graf

Explorer
Canis said:
Graf, I think you're being a tad unfair.
It strikes me as a little hypocritical to say, "Damn those business men for giving us exactly what we asked for and having the nerve to charge us for it!" :)
Suggest re-reading my original post again to figure out what I was saying and wasn't.
I'm talking about the uncritical repeating of the marketing spiel.
(the thread's exploded in other directions of course but...)

SteveC said:
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 hadn't actually thought this far ahead.
But it's a very good point.

I know a few people aren't following this argument (and posted against this on the thread), but I agree that OGL production was seriously constrained by what wizards kept out of the SRD.
I know I stopped buying OGL/d20 DnD books largely because they were so "dated" (i.e. only phb feats, no characters using new but appropriate PrCs/spells/etc.

That was one of the reasons why Dungeon could crush the competition, they had access to the widest variety of tools to make adventures.
 

breschau

First Post
Graf said:
That was one of the reasons why Dungeon could crush the competition, they had access to the widest variety of tools to make adventures.

That, and by it's very nature the OGL is essentially a one-way mirror. Anything WotC likes, it keeps no one else can use it. 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.

It's great for the small publisher and great for WotC. It's brilliant marketing. You get hundreds of other companies to do countless hours of research, playtesting, and work to build up games and new rules, with complete foreknowledge that WotC can cherrypick anything they want based on their license at whim.

Perfect.

OGL originators, I salute you.
 

breschau said:
That article doesn't say a word about Warlords.
Actually it does, just not explicitly.
Logan Bonner said:
Conversion was far from 100% accurate. Not only have the classes changed, but we’re also using plenty of stuff that wasn’t in the playtest document. Several of us needed new races. Luckily, we had some versions kicking around. These hadn’t been developed yet, but we used them anyway. Rich’s character was tougher. He was playing a warblade/warmage in the 3rd Edition game, which didn’t really convert at all. [STRONG]Fortunately, he was able to pick a class that was focused on tactics[/STRONG], and he picked up some wizard powers to feel similar to the old character. We didn’t have a psion for Bruce, so he rolled up a wizard and tweaked some of the names to fit thematically.

Emphasis mine.

We'd already predicted that Warlord would be a leader class that used tactics to aid its allies, and this unnamed class fits that description. I doubt they ment that a fighter was a tactics class, when all we've heard about the fighter so far is it has a variety of supported fighting styles and special abilities based on the weapon wielded.
 

MightyTev

First Post
Ugh, I hope they don't call the new leader class "Warlord". Marshal might be more appropriate?

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

I love this phrase.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top