Upcoming Classes Speculation

Nymrohd

First Post
I could see Elemental being its own power source in the not so near future. . .
Sha'ir as Elemental Leader, Sorcerer (al'qadim one) as Elemental Controller and Elemental Mage (al'qadim one again) as Elemental Striker?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MaelStorm

First Post
cdrcjsn said:
I read that it's been confirmed that Bard has been finished, but I don't recall anyone saying that it's an Arcane leader. Don't get me wrong, it makes sense because of his role and the fact that he's been an arcane caster for the past two editions.

However, I can also see Bard as a primal caster, with the same power source as Druids and Barbarians. After all, in 1st edition they were ftr/rog/druid multiclass builds.

From a mythology standpoint, Bards fit well with Celtic druids and berserkers warriors.
I don't think D&D has any historical attachment to the concept of the celtic bard (but I would really like to see a Celtic supplement book).

Hypothetical power sources for the bard are Divine or Arcane, I did put bard in the arcane camp in my previous post, but in R&C it is mentioned:
Races and Classes said:
A bard draws magic from otherwordly patrons. ...snip... A bard is not a subservient worshiper like a cleric, nor does he bend forces to his will like a wizard.
So the power source could very well be from the Divine.

Races and Classes said:
A bard can be truly inspiring to the rest of his adventuring party and immensely aggravating to his enemies.
In my book this is the definition of a Leader.
 

Mal Malenkirk

First Post
My Two cents :

The Barbarian will be a controller.

A defender must be 'sticky' ; he must be able to hold a front. The 1st level dwarf fighter Kathra can do that : She has a threat range (as opposed to all five other PC), stops the movement of anyone she hits with AoO, she can mark a foe that would have -2 to his roll if he didn't attack her, and if someone tries to shift around her, she can push him back with her shield in order to control the battlefield. She looks like a great defender. The paladin doesn't look as good at this job though his marking ability is nastier ; unless bad guys love taking free 1D8 of damage, the Paladin will get the attention of anyone he challenges.

Allong with good AC and HP, these are what really makes a defender : People can't easily ignore them and rush the more fragile PC, they have to get them out of the way first.

I don't see the Barbarian having these kind of qualities and he probably won't be able to efficiently hold a front. In fact, it goes against his main power : Rage. You can't go berserk and then patiently hold the line.

A controller is supposed to be able to take on a large number of foes at the same time. Well, if the barbarian is very mobile and if he has great area effects (Whirlwind style of attacks, fear effects caused by his rage etc.) he could do just that. It would fly in the face of the traditional 'Artillery' method, but it would play the same role.

Of course, if your controller is personnally jumping into the fray, the defender is free to work more closely with the striker (In that configuration, I'd want a Warlock as striker) and not be as worried about protecting a weak mage.

Just a thought.
 
Last edited:

hong

WotC's bitch
Yeah, barbarian as striker doesn't work. Strikers are generally high-offense, low-defense; while this actually fits how the 3E barb works out in play (they need constant propping up due to low AC and being in the monsters' faces), I'm not sure that's what the archetype is meant to be. The barb should be the guy fighting from dawn to dusk, covered in blood and gore, not all of it his, yackety yack.
 

Fallen Seraph

First Post
Hmm... Yeah a Barbarian as a Controller would work quite well.

I can just imagine a "Sever Tendon" power, where the Barbarian can attack each opponent in each square around him. Causing them to trip for a round and be Slowed afterwards.
 

cdrcjsn said:
I read that it's been confirmed that Bard has been finished, but I don't recall anyone saying that it's an Arcane leader. Don't get me wrong, it makes sense because of his role and the fact that he's been an arcane caster for the past two editions.
I do recall someone saying it was an arcane leader. I don't remember where the reference is though.

But if the Bard is one of the first non-PHB1 classes completed, and they don't even have the primal power source even done yet. How could it possibly be a primal class?
 

cdrcjsn

First Post
MaelStorm said:
I don't think D&D has any historical attachment to the concept of the celtic bard (but I would really like to see a Celtic supplement book).

Hypothetical power sources for the bard are Divine or Arcane

Is there a specific source for thinking that it's Divine or Arcane? R&C hints that their effects are magical, but doesn't really specify either way, so it can be either or an entirely different power source.

The only reason people think of Bards as Arcane is because they were Arcane caster in 2nd and 3rd edition. In 1st edition, they used Druidic magic which is confirmed to be Primal in this edition.

Just looking at some 3E bardic classes (Seeker of the Song, Sublime Chord), I can see a case made for the Bard to be a Primal Leader or Controller, using music to invoke primal urges in those around them, buffing allies and enchanting/disorienting foes.
 

glass

(he, him)
Forgive me for quoting you (slightly) out of order...

Sitnaltax said:
Monk: Martial Controller. We know it's not Striker, and no class could be more martial.
According to R&C, the monk almost certainly will be a striker. And the monk has no controller like abilities. And they are probably going to be Ki- or Psionics-powered (which may or may not be the same thing).

Sitnaltax said:
Druid: Primal Controller. Shapeshifting, summoning, healing, and utility nature magic is way too much to be all given to one class. With iconic spells like Entangle, Stone Shape, and carefully chosen summonings, the Druid would make a great controller--and perfect for an underrepresented role. Healing and major combat shapeshifting would probably have to go to another class.
That would all make sense, except that they have said that the druid will focus on wildshaping, which makes them a striker or defender, probably the latter.

Sitnaltax said:
Barbarian: Primal Striker. Someone needs to be based off the same power source as Druids and Barbarians are a natural first choice.
Makes perfect sense, and fits the description in R&C, except the Druid seems likely to be a primal striker too.

Sitnaltax said:
Assassin: Never appearing as a core class. The lone figure who's deadly only when unseen doesn't fit into a party well at all. I can easily imagine a paragon/epic path
Haven't they already said that assassin will be a paragon path?




glass.
 

cdrcjsn

First Post
Kobold Avenger said:
But if the Bard is one of the first non-PHB1 classes completed, and they don't even have the primal power source even done yet. How could it possibly be a primal class?

Aren't they planning on releasing Druids and Barbarians in PHB2 (or at least most people assume). Just because the Bard is finished now, it doesn't mean it won't go in the same supplement as those two and both are assumed to have a Primal source. Who's to say that those two classes aren't already finished as well (or mostly finished)?
 

MaelStorm

First Post
cdrcjsn said:
Is there a specific source for thinking that it's Divine or Arcane? R&C hints that their effects are magical, but doesn't really specify either way, so it can be either or an entirely different power source.

The only reason people think of Bards as Arcane is because they were Arcane caster in 2nd and 3rd edition. In 1st edition, they used Druidic magic which is confirmed to be Primal in this edition.

Just looking at some 3E bardic classes (Seeker of the Song, Sublime Chord), I can see a case made for the Bard to be a Primal Leader or Controller, using music to invoke primal urges in those around them, buffing allies and enchanting/disorienting foes.
It could be Primal too. They were deliberately unclear. We'll see what they'll decide.
 

glass

(he, him)
Nymrohd said:
I could see Elemental being its own power source in the not so near future. . .
Sha'ir as Elemental Leader, Sorcerer (al'qadim one) as Elemental Controller and Elemental Mage (al'qadim one again) as Elemental Striker?
Ooh, that sounds interesting. Of course, they'd have to rename them...


glass.
 

Evanta

First Post
I distinctly remembered seeing somewhere that states that PHB II will have a heavy focus on primal and psionic power sources?
 

Sitnaltax said:
Thinking about what some of the classes we can expect to see in the months after 4E becomes available... This is all crazy speculation.

Fairly Confident

Bard: Arcane Leader. Seems pretty clear; Arcane is the closest power source fit unless you want to invent an entirely new music-based power source, and the Leader role seems pretty clear.
ok
Monk: Martial Controller. We know it's not Striker, and no class could be more martial. Give him lost of throws, grapples, stunning attacks, nerve strikes, trips, etc. and he's the guy in charge of who's doing what where on the battlefield.
who said is not going to be a striker? maybe a defender, he is not controlling anything, and also the Martial role is in doubt, maybe KI or Inner
Swordmage: Arcane Defender. I don't see how to make him a Striker without stepping all over the ranger and rogue. On the other hand, mixing magic in with melee prowess should make an excellent defender.
ok
Barbarian: Primal Striker. Someone needs to be based off the same power source as Druids and Barbarians are a natural first choice. I can see this class getting a ton of HP and some kind of shrug-off-status-effects ability to compensate for poor defenses.
maybe Primal defender
Minimally Confident

Druid: Primal Controller. Shapeshifting, summoning, healing, and utility nature magic is way too much to be all given to one class. With iconic spells like Entangle, Stone Shape, and carefully chosen summonings, the Druid would make a great controller--and perfect for an underrepresented role. Healing and major combat shapeshifting would probably have to go to another class.
no, I would go for primal defender or leader
Assassin: Never appearing as a core class. The lone figure who's deadly only when unseen doesn't fit into a party well at all. I can easily imagine a paragon/epic path granting shadowy hiddenness and massive bonuses on sneak attacks to rogues, though. If this ends up as a core class I would expect it to be based off of a new power source like "Shadow" or something.
could be the Shadow Striker
Psion: Psionic Controller. You could also develop the class as a striker but I suspect there will be plenty of strikers. There's also a chance on "leader"; I can imagine a psion telepathically coordinating the battle, giving orders, telling the cleric to duck just in time, etc.
ok
Psychic Warrior: Psionic Defender. The biggest problem will be differentiating it from the swordmage.
ok
Illusionist/Enchanter/Beguiler: Arcane Controller. The demand for illusionists is going to be high and the beguiler class worked pretty well. Oddly enough, despite the same power source/role as the Wizard, this should be very easy to differentiate. The abilities would be focused on charm/compulsion/misdirection, thwarting enemy attacks through deception and trickery rather than physical barriers like the wizard throws down.
no, it will be Shadow Controller
Wild Guesses


Necromancer: Arcane Defender? You gotta have necromancers, but you could design this class in any direction you wanted--zombies as meat shields (defender), soul slayer extraordinaire (striker), drain your enemies' power and give it to your friends (leader), grasping hands from underneath the earth (controller).
Shadow leader
 

Steely Dan

Banned
Banned
Here's my take:

-Barbarian = Primal Defender
-Druid = Primal Leader (or striker?)
-Elementalist = Primal Controller or Striker
-Sorcerer = Primal Controller or Striker


-Hexblade = Shadow Defender
-Illusionist = Shadow Controller
-Necromancer = Shadow Leader
-Assassin/Shadowcaster/Shadow Dancer = Shadow Striker


-Ardent = Psionic Leader
-Lurk/Soulknife = Psionic Striker
-Psion = Psionic Controller
-Psychic Warrior = Psionic Defender


-Monk = Ki Striker
-Shugenja = Ki Leader
-Sohei = Ki Defender
-Wu-Jen = Ki Controller
 

Steely Dan

Banned
Banned
FabioMilitoPagliara said:
okwho said is not going to be a striker?

Yeah, I thought I recall the designers saying that the monk would most definitely end up a Striker, though I have no idea what power source.

But that brings up the fact that the designers have stated that they are not obsessing about filling out the power source/role grid, so we may never see this Martial Controller.

…Which could be a good thing as every idea I have seen for one seems a tad contrived.
 

ppaladin123

Adventurer
I hope they can update the factotum, the true-namer, the binder, the archivist and all the other recent, innovative classes appearing in splat books recently.

I was really impressed with some of the experiments, even if they didn't quite work out in play (the true-namer for instance).

I also like the idea of a class that can emulate others and cobble together bits and pieces of other classes' powers. The binder and the factotum are both too good to leave behind.
 

Fallen Seraph

First Post
I would absolutely LOVE to see the Beguiler be remade, even if parts of it get eaten by the Bard. I loved it greatly, so much actual mechanical goodness (gotta love casting spells secretly during conversation) and tons of thematic goodness.
 

ppaladin123

Adventurer
Mal Malenkirk said:
My Two cents :

The Barbarian will be a controller.

A defender must be 'sticky' ; he must be able to hold a front. The 1st level dwarf fighter Kathra can do that : She has a threat range (as opposed to all five other PC), stops the movement of anyone she hits with AoO, she can mark a foe that would have -2 to his roll if he didn't attack her, and if someone tries to shift around her, she can push him back with her shield in order to control the battlefield. She looks like a great defender. The paladin doesn't look as good at this job though his marking ability is nastier ; unless bad guys love taking free 1D8 of damage, the Paladin will get the attention of anyone he challenges.

Allong with good AC and HP, these are what really makes a defender : People can't easily ignore them and rush the more fragile PC, they have to get them out of the way first.

I don't see the Barbarian having these kind of qualities and he probably won't be able to efficiently hold a front. In fact, it goes against his main power : Rage. You can't go berserk and then patiently hold the line.

A controller is supposed to be able to take on a large number of foes at the same time. Well, if the barbarian is very mobile and if he has great area effects (Whirlwind style of attacks, fear effects caused by his rage etc.) he could do just that. It would fly in the face of the traditional 'Artillery' method, but it would play the same role.

Of course, if your controller is personnally jumping into the fray, the defender is free to work more closely with the striker (In that configuration, I'd want a Warlock as striker) and not be as worried about protecting a weak mage.

Just a thought.


I like this idea. I could also see him (in later levels) tossing enemies across the battlefield, hammering the earth to create tremors that knock down multiple targets, bull rushing into enemies and "carrying" them into a collision with another opponent, letting out a primal scream that stuns/panicks/deafens enemies, etc. I think it is quite possible to create a non-arcane, non-divine controller with a little imagination.
 

Falling Icicle

Adventurer
I'm looking forward to the Necromancer, I just hope that it isn't stripped down to the bones (pun intended) because they're afraid of any class that has minions. Any Necromancer that doesn't have undead minions or the ability to put horrible inflictions on his enemies is no Necromancer at all. I want animate dead, vampiric touch, contagion and nasty afflictions!

What role do I think fits the Necro? Controller. Why? Because they do what controllers do, strike large numbers of enemies at once and control movement and such across the battlefield. A Necromancer himself doesn't strike many foes, at least not with most of his attacks, but he has minions to cause havoc across the battlefield and harass multiple opponents. "But minions are overpowered!" They don't have to be. For one thing, a Necro's skeletons or zombies could have nothing but basic attacks, which would make them alot weaker than any character.

Also, the fact that the Necro has minions could be balanced by most of his own offensive spells being touch range, forcing him to get into danger himself if he wants to do alot of damage. And let's say that the Necro gets something that does necrotic damage a few squares away but heals undead. Since his minions are going to be getting hit alot, he'll need to spend alot of his own actions healing them up. And really, how is having a few zombies hitting multiple people for a small amount of damage each really any worse than a Wizard tossing fireballs and walls of ice around? The Necromancer does the area effect damage gradually, while the Wizard does it in big blasts. I don't see the problem.

[Edit] P.S. Another thought. Some people may object to minion classes on the basis that they slow down play. I really don't think this has to be the case. The Necromancer may start with only one minion, and progressively get more as he goes up in level, up to 5 or so at a time. Yes, he'd be making 5 attacks a round (assuming all his minions were in position to attack), but then, look at alot of the Wizard spells which require multiple attack rolls becuase they hit many enemies at once. I think that the Necromancer could work just fine as long as they don't go overboard, and considering their reservations about summoning and the like, I doubt they will.
 
Last edited:

Nymrohd

First Post
On the psionic power source, I could easily see the psion being split in two classes.
The main archetypes of psionics are in Clairsentience, Telepathy and Psychokinesis in my opinion. Psychometabolism and psychoportation always felt too FX apart from some basic body control functions or astral forms. The problem is that there is enough room for a controller, who uses telepathy and telekinesis to control the enemy and the battlefield or a leader who uses telepathy, clairsentience and psychometabolism to give the party a hivemind, accelarate healing or using precognition to improve defense.
Merging these archetypes in one class would force the class to be developed in favor of one role over the other so it might be better to split the class in two, and make multiclassing between the two classes easier.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top