Warlock confirmed in PH1...

[reanjr]

If they are clearly distinct from each other yeah!

And my question was "arcane casters" and not "arcane characters"

I really hope there are 3 arcane characters in PHB, but I don't want all of them to be the guy that stay in the back casting spells all the time.

I'm not too sure of what an arcane character without casting would be, unless you mean something like a bard where only part of his abilities are casting. Either way, WotC has been saying the distinction between Sorcerer and Wizard is bigger now.

 

[reanjr]

For the last three, my guess is warlord, paladin, and druid. I pick druid over ranger, ...

I thought warlord was confirmed. Am I mistaken?

 

[Cadfan]

Yeah, I could definitely live without a 4e Sorcerer for exactly these reasons. Still, they have been saying things like "there is still a distinction between the Wizard and Sorcerer" and "every 3e class will eventually be in 4e", so maybe they'll find some use for the class.

My prediction is that they'll find a use for the classes name, and maybe its dragon heritage theme, but that there won't be much else to connect it to 3.5. I base this prediction on the fact that sorceror hasn't got any distinctive traits to build on, so they'll have to create something new.

Heck, creating a 4e psion is going to be hard enough now that Vancian spellcasting has been cut off at the knees. And the psion at least had his own spell (power) list.

I wouldn't mind either of these classes existing. I just can't imagine how they'll resemble things we've previously known.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

They've confirmed 8 classes in the PHB1, so that's not enough for three with each power source.

Whoops, yeah. For some reason I was thinking 10.

Still keeping my fingers crossed though.

 

[F4NBOY]

I'm not too sure of what an arcane character without casting would be, unless you mean something like a bard where only part of his abilities are casting. Either way, WotC has been saying the distinction between Sorcerer and Wizard is bigger now.

Yeah, like a bard or a swordmage. The divine power source has paladins and clerics and maybe rangers. They are completelly different from each other. I hope the arcane source could be like that.
Even if they give a distinct role for wizards, sorceres and warlocks they are still all spellcasters.
If they really make the distinction bigger now, that you could see them on the battlefield and say, "That's is the wizard and that's the sorcerer, oh that guy over there, he is the warlock, see!" Than I could welcome the sorcerer

But the question remains, do we need 3 arcane spellcasters in PHB?
Because if we had them in the PHB, it would be wizard=controller, sorcerer=striker, warlock=striker? warlock=leader?

EDIT: It reminds me: "Logan’s warlock laid down a Mire of Minauros on one side of the room, dissolving a couple of vampires and creating a nice acidic bog to guard our right flank."
Maybe that's a Leader's characteristic. A power that helps the whole party by protecting them in combat.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

1 - Fighter
2 - Rogue
3 - Ranger
4 - Warlord
5 - Cleric
6 - Paladin
7 - Wizard
8 - Warlock

I don't think we've heard anything to suggest the Bard, Barbarian, Druid, or Monk are making the cut this time around, so this looks pretty likely, to me. Four martials, two divines, two arcanes. Yeah, that works for me.

That's my guess list too. This gives us two defenders (fighter & paladin), two leaders (cleric & warlord), and probably two strikers (ranger & rogue) and two controllers (warlock & wizard). Warlocks in 3.5 are more like strikers, but people try to play them as wizard substitutes, so my guess is that they'll be retooled to be controllers in 4e.

I'd really like to see Druids in the PH1, but we haven't heard anything about them yet so I doubt they're in.

 

[wgreen]

I'm not familiar with the legal conditions of the D20 and OGL licenses.....so manybe somebody can tell me....does it give WotC the ability to use ideas that companies using the D20 license came up with?

No. Ideas are free, yo.

-Will

 

[Jer]

That's my guess list too. This gives us two defenders (fighter & paladin), two leaders (cleric & warlord), and probably two strikers (ranger & rogue) and two controllers (warlock & wizard). Warlocks in 3.5 are more like strikers, but people try to play them as wizard substitutes, so my guess is that they'll be retooled to be controllers in 4e.

I'd really like to see Druids in the PH1, but we haven't heard anything about them yet so I doubt they're in.

That breakdown would leave us with two arcane controllers, though, which seems strange to me.

My uninformed guess is that warlocks will be strikers and look similar to how they look now (through a 4e lens) - apparently they're keeping their demonic heritage intact, given the blog entry. I have no idea where sorcerers are going to fit in - I was figuring that the warlock and the sorcerer were going to be combined into a "sorcerer" class (with their fluff being that their powers are bloodline derived - dragon, devil, demon, elemental - whatever it'd still be a "sorcerer"). That appears to not be the case, though.

 

[Mercule]

If we're lucky, they'll keep warlock and dump tieflings. Either that, or tiefling has as little to do with its 3e namesake as the eladrin.

Those are both good options.

 

[Irda Ranger]

That breakdown would leave us with two arcane controllers, though, which seems strange to me.

You got a non-arcane alternative for Controller? Druid could be re-tooled as a divine controller, maybe, but it doesn't look like we're getting that this time around.