Thinking about the sub-classes

[salsb]

Both classes that we know enough of use this:

The Base attribute of the class: Rogue - Dex, Warlord - Str
Secondary attribute for build 1: Rogue - Str, Warlord - Int
Secondary attribute for build 2: Rogue - Cha, Warlord - Cha

These three attributes also cover the three defenses! I think that's important.
Most of the preview characters from XP also try to get a good score in one of each.

This is a key point; easier to balance different class/builds when their key attributes are defenses. Using this as a starting point, there are 8 different possible triads

Str, Dex, Cha
Str, Dex, Wis
Str, Int, Cha
Str, Int, Wis
Con, Dex, Cha
Con, Dex, Wis
Con, Int, Cha
Con, Int, Wis

Order matters of course, since 1 attribute is the primary attribute for a class, and the second is important for a particular build, there would be a total of 48 possible different build/class combos.

 

[Stalker0]

I think most of the discussion here is not on the build, but rather the class features that are linked to another ability score -- for the rogue, these were the two choices of Rogue Tactics, for the warlord, the two choices for Commanding Presence. There is a (good) assumption that the other classes have similar abilities, which specify your character's "style" and reliance on a secondary ability score.

I think builds are just suggestions on how to use those ability score-related class features to gain an advantage, by taking powers that benefit from that ability score/class feature, and skills that use that ability score or fit the theme.

EDIT: Cadfan has the right of it, and even includes relevant quotes. Beaten to the punch!

This is it in a nutshell. For example, a high strength rogue could take positioning strike, which would allow him to slide an opponent one square. That's still pretty useful, just not as useful as a 16 charisma rogue who would move the guy 3 squares. So while your not forced to take certain powers, most of the time you will probably want powers to take full advantage of your stats.

 

[Avatar_V]

there would be a total of 48 possible different build/class combos.

Actually, order doesn't matter for the second two - only for the first attribute. So, really there are 24 ways of having 1 primary and 2 secondaries such that the three defenses are covered.

Not sure how much this matters

 

[salsb]

Actually, order doesn't matter for the second two - only for the first attribute. So, really there are 24 ways of having 1 primary and 2 secondaries such that the three defenses are covered.

Not sure how much this matters

I'm not sure how much it matters either , but making sure all the defenses are covered is a nice design constraint.

Order does matter, BTW for builds. A brawny rogue cares about dex then str, then cha. while a trickster rogue cares about dex then cha then str.
But, again assuming this is a real design constraint and that repetition should be avoided, this would imply 24 different classes each with 2 builds, or some other combination of classes to builds to reach 48.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm thinking of 'Martial Cleric' (secondary Str) and cloistered cleric (secondary Int) as the two most 'obvious' branches of cleric.

I agree that Wizards differentiated by implement seems like a good choice, and Warlocks differentiated by pact seems rather obvious now it has been mentioned.

 

[Ktulu]

I'm thinking cleric will be:

Radiant

Necrotic

where the powers/abilities will be based off of either type of damage (and then there will be feats depending on what god you follow.

Paladins: - I could see paladins going by alignment, since they are the only class, so far to clearly have an alignment (both on the DDXp sheets, and from information gathered) Essentially, you've got a Good or Evil paladin. (this one is the biggest stretch, as that severely limits much in the way of choice on playing a character)

Ktulu

 

[Sojorn]

I'm thinking cleric will be:

Radiant

Necrotic

where the powers/abilities will be based off of either type of damage (and then there will be feats depending on what god you follow.

Paladins: - I could see paladins going by alignment, since they are the only class, so far to clearly have an alignment (both on the DDXp sheets, and from information gathered) Essentially, you've got a Good or Evil paladin. (this one is the biggest stretch, as that severely limits much in the way of choice on playing a character)

Ktulu

Wasn't the D&DXP ranger aligned Good?

 

[Cadfan]

Really, if your idea on what the subclasses might be doesn't include an option that makes the pregen of the relevant class possible, then its wrong.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I'm thinking cleric will be:
Radiant
Necrotic

PH Clerics all use Radiant Damage. A great variant (as per Mike Mearls) would be just to swap it for necrotic for evil dudes.

 

[Ktulu]

PH Clerics all use Radiant Damage. A great variant (as per Mike Mearls) would be just to swap it for necrotic for evil dudes.

That doesn't make much sense if you're playing a cleric of Bane, though. With Bane being pretty much the war god now, it should be possible to play one. I don't exactly see him granting radiant damage.

Cadfan

Really, if your idea on what the subclasses might be doesn't include an option that makes the pregen of the relevant class possible, then its wrong.

If this applies to me, I'd like to see where..

sojurn

Wasn't the D&DXP ranger aligned Good?

yes, he was. All characters will still have an alignment, be it unaligned, or lawful good. However, the Paladin was specifically mentioned as having the alignment of his god. Just speculation. I don't think it's correct, but it is possible, seeing how alignment has always palyed a strong part of the paladin in all editions.