Warlock confirmed in PH1...

[GreatLemur]

This is a bit off-topic, but this thread reminds me how well 4e's roles map to the PC "archetypes" (classes) in City of Heroes. That MMORPG has controllers, defenders, blasters, scrappers, and tankers. Blasters and scrappers are both strikers. But CoH's tankers are D&D's defenders, while CoH's defenders perfectly fit D&D's leader role. I actually think "defender" is a much better term for the buffer/healer character classes than "leader"...

Id say summoning firmly lies within the realm of the controller. I mean, what better way to control the battlefield than to surround your foes with celestial dire weasels?

I think a case could be made for the defender role, though, since summoned critters tend to serve as meat shields. But then maybe defender-by-proxy just equals controller, anyway.

 

[alaric]

Did I miss a quote on the magic system somewhere?

In any event, regardless of the actual percentages of their arsenals thus split, I think that could be a decent way to differentiate the 3 classes.

It's been stated that when a wizard is out of his daily use spells he's at "80% power". I would also think that that forms near the low end of that metric, since they are generally moving away from heavy reliance on non-renewable powers.

 

[kerbarian]

This is a bit off-topic, but this thread reminds me how well 4e's roles map to the PC "archetypes" (classes) in City of Heroes. That MMORPG has controllers, defenders, blasters, scrappers, and tankers. Blasters and scrappers are both strikers. But CoH's tankers are D&D's defenders, while CoH's defenders perfectly fit D&D's leader role. I actually think "defender" is a much better term for the buffer/healer character classes than "leader"...

My guess is that WotC chose "leader" not because it's the most accurate name, but because it will make more people want to play that role. Most players (IME) don't prefer to play support roles in combat, and the 4e designers have talked about that issue as well. Part of what they're doing to fix that is to make the support role more active in combat, but I suspect they're throwing the name "leader" onto it as another ploy to get more people to want to play support roles.

 

[GreatLemur]

My guess is that WotC chose "leader" not because it's the most accurate name, but because it will make more people want to play that role. Most players (IME) don't prefer to play support roles in combat, and the 4e designers have talked about that issue as well. Part of what they're doing to fix that is to make the support role more active in combat, but I suspect they're throwing the name "leader" onto it as another ploy to get more people to want to play support roles.

You know, I think you've probably nailed it.

 

[Zamkaizer]

I think they're trying make everyone more active in combat. Clerics being viewed as chores is a legitimate issue, though.

Whose wonderful idea was it to include warlords, warlocks, and [speculation]warforged[/speculation] in the same book. I enjoy war as much as the next fellow, and I understand why they'd want to avoid martial/marshal-flavored Abbot & Costello episodes, but seriously, they should have called the warlord a captain, or the warlock a sorcerer, and avoided [speculation]coreforged[/speculation] in general. 'W' is a terrible letter and we hardly need more classes whose names begin with it, especially after ridiculous thesaurusly-challenged 3rd Ed. orgy composed of the wizard, wilder, warlock, warmage, and wu jen.

 

[TwoSix]

I think they're trying make everyone more active in combat. Clerics being viewed as chores is a legitimate issue, though.

Whose wonderful idea was it to include warlords, warlocks, and [speculation]warforged[/speculation] in the same book. I enjoy war as much as the next fellow, and I understand why they'd want to avoid martial/marshal-flavored Abbot & Costello episodes, but seriously, they should have called the warlord a captain, or the warlock a sorcerer, and avoided [speculation]coreforged[/speculation] in general. 'W' is a terrible letter and we hardly need more classes whose names begin with it, especially after ridiculous thesaurusly-challenged 3rd Ed. orgy composed of the wizard, wilder, warlock, warmage, and wu jen.

My personal favorite was Complete Arcane, where all 3 supplemental classes introduced in the book began with "W".

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I think they're trying make everyone more active in combat. Clerics being viewed as chores is a legitimate issue, though.

Whose wonderful idea was it to include warlords, warlocks, and [speculation]warforged[/speculation] in the same book. I enjoy war as much as the next fellow, and I understand why they'd want to avoid martial/marshal-flavored Abbot & Costello episodes, but seriously, they should have called the warlord a captain, or the warlock a sorcerer, and avoided [speculation]coreforged[/speculation] in general. 'W' is a terrible letter and we hardly need more classes whose names begin with it, especially after ridiculous thesaurusly-challenged 3rd Ed. orgy composed of the wizard, wilder, warlock, warmage, and wu jen.

This edition was brought to you by the numbers 3 and 4, and by the letter W.

 

[Merlion]

Except there's a quote floating around from one of the designers saying that although the power source/role grid is a good place to look to start coming up with new class ideas, some of the combinations are nonsensical and some are more interesting than others.

Which means, there may never BE a martial controller and there may be more than one arcane controller or more than one martial strikers.

I have a feeling that they are aiming for the end results of a class rather than some arbitrary number of filled slots on the grids. They want someone to be able to play a Ranger because people want Rangers, not because "we need a divine striker in the PHB".

I dearly hope thats how they are thinking. The roles need to be incidental, not the goal.

 

[Jhaelen]

But...I like cute symmetries! Hell, I even get annoyed when they're not there.

I find symmetries extremely pleasing, as well, but they don't actually make a good basis for games.

Games tend to work best if they're asymmetrical in some way. Otherwise choices become irrelevant; if everything is balanced by something else, there's no room for making a risky decision to gain a tactical advantage.
A slight imbalance keeps things interesting and makes for a rich metagame.

Trying to balance all classes might not be such a good thing at all. Imho, there should be class-choices that are high-risk/high-gain and others that are low-risk/low-gain. So far, we've had these choices.

To give a different example:
I think one of the reasons why we have a conflict between devils, demons and celestials is because even though the 'cosmic wheel' is symmetrical, having three factions, each opposing two others, allows for a lot more dynamism than having four factions that are diametrically opposed. It would be even better if an alliance between celestials and one of the two evil factions was actually conceivable.

On a different topic, I am also bothered by the W-triplet. I'd much prefer it if each of the initial classes started with a different letter:
Wizard -> Mage,
Warlock -> Sorcerer,
Ranger -> Hunter (or Rogue -> Thief)

 

[SSquirrel]

The wizard and the warlock killed the sorcerer and stared at his corpse.
Then they just went away, the sorcerer had nothing to be taken.

QFT. I hated the sorceror since 3E was released. If I wanted an arcane caster w/a limited selection of abilities, I would just play a Bard At least he can be useful in combat if his spells are gone.