Warlock confirmed in PH1...

[jasin]

So, let the speculation begin re: Sorcerer...

- Appearing in a later Arcane sourcebook?
or
- Killed by the Warlock and looted of his stuff?

IMO, the sorcerer is a cool concept, but the beguiler, dread necromancer and, to a lesser extent, warmage are the superior execution. Not sure what would be the best way to do this without one class/specialization, though. Perhaps heavier use of spell descriptors (possibly too fiddly) and associated talent trees (possibly too long a list)?

Warlock as it is in 3E is a decent splatbook class, but I think it's a bit too specific in concept for the PHB. I think "my fey bloodline giving me cool powers" cis just as valid a concept as "my fiendish bloodline giving me cool powers", and I'd rather see a class that could encompass both (which would be much the same thing as what I wrote in the previous paragraph).

In short, I'd like to see arcane casters differentiated as acquired/toolbox vs. innate/thematic rather than preparation vs. sponatneous.

 

[Branduil]

I could get behind that.

I'm just not sure about the role of the Warlock though. If they use a similar build to the 3.x version, that'd make him more of a striker than controller (less spells and more blasts). Also, with Warlock as a striker, that makes three of 'em in the first PHB (rogue and ranger being the others). That's excatly what I was hoping they'd avoid, loading up on one and/or short-changing another (that would leave only the Wizard as controller).

However, if they switch up the Warlock to be more of a controller (more regular spells and less blasts), that would effectively change the very thing most people liked about him.

And I for one hope they sacrifice reserve feats to whatever dark gods they worship. Really, with the changes we've heard about spells, there doesn't seem to be any reason to keep them. They seemed like a slap-on band-aid solution anyway.

That's a pickle.

Well, if they can get the Druid and Barbarian in there, that would help things a bit. Then you'd have 2 controllers, 2 leaders, 3 strikers, and 3 defenders, assuming the Druid is a controller and the Warlock is a striker.

 

[Khaalis]

My guess is that we will see the following (if not all in the PHB1), making the Warlock the Arcane Striker (since I assume they have already mentioned retaining the Eldritch Blast).

Arcane Controller: Wizard * (Arc/Ctr)
Arcane Defender: Swordmage * (Arc/Def)
Arcane Leader: Sorcerer (since already CHA based – maybe incorporating more party “aid” abilities; some think Bard but we haven’t heard a single peep about the bard in 4E)
Arcane Striker: Warlock

Divine Controller: Druid * (Div)
Divine Defender: Paladin *(Def)
Divine Leader: Cleric * (Div/Ldr)
Divine Striker: Ranger * (Stk)

Martial Controller: Barbarian (its been mentioned but no details)
Martial Defender: Fighter * (Mar/Def)
Martial Leader: Warlord * (Ldr)
Martial Striker: Rogue * (Mar/Stk)

* = Confirmed (which part)

That makes up 11 (from the quoted 8 to 11) of the 12 “grid” classes, and we’ve already been told not to expect the Swordmage in the PHB1.

 

[Darkwolf71]

I know it jacks with your grid, but I for one hope that Rangers lose their divine magic. I mean they are getting Scouts skirmish (in some form) and Ranger spells never really made sense IMO. Yeah, they were handy sometimes, but over all... meh. That would make them another martial striker.

Also, I think shoehorning Wizards into controlers is narrow of view. I know that they have been labled such, but there are a lot of spells that fill the striker position as well. Do Wizzys lose access to Rays? Orbs? The iconic Magic Missle? I find this unlikely, so while a Wizard may be specifically suited for Controller duty I can see them easily filling the Striker role as well. Much as Clerics can easily fill Controller role.

Short version: I can see room for casters (and maybe martials as well) to fill multiple roles, though perhaps some better than others.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Considering the more traditional connotations of what it means to be a warlock (an individual who worships and gets powers from demonic forces), why the base assumption that it's going to be an Arcane class? If they continue to get powers and abiliies from outside sources, wouldnt that be more along the lines of a 'divine' power source?

 

[Goken100]

Where will the other classes go?

Where will the classes that don't make it into the PH1 appear? I mean Bard, Barbarian, and Druid are not going to be released in magazines; WOTC will want them to be more prominent than that. Will there be a new PH2? Or perhaps alternate classes in the DMG?

 

[Klaus]

I hope there's a broader fluff to warlocks than fiendish pacts. One of my favorite concepts is the fey-powered CG warlock.

 

[Khaalis]

Where will the classes that don't make it into the PH1 appear? I mean Bard, Barbarian, and Druid are not going to be released in magazines; WOTC will want them to be more prominent than that. Will there be a new PH2? Or perhaps alternate classes in the DMG?

They have already stated that the current plan is to release new Core books on a yearly basis, so PHB2, MM2, etc. in 2009 then PHB3, MM3 etc. in 2010... etc. The assumption I also see going around is that we can also expect to see a few splat books each year along the lines of the Complete series likely something like Complete Arcane, Complete Divine, Complete Martial. It hasn't been confirmed but it seems to be a general assumption based on some of the WotC staff comments about future products.

 

[Gloombunny]

I know it jacks with your grid, but I for one hope that Rangers lose their divine magic. I mean they are getting Scouts skirmish (in some form) and Ranger spells never really made sense IMO. Yeah, they were handy sometimes, but over all... meh. That would make them another martial striker.

Oh man, I hope so. I'm not opposed to some forest-magic being available to rangers as like an optional talent tree, but it shouldn't be considered a major part of the class. (And it should be arcane, not divine, if you ask me...)

Also, I think shoehorning Wizards into controlers is narrow of view. I know that they have been labled such, but there are a lot of spells that fill the striker position as well. Do Wizzys lose access to Rays? Orbs? The iconic Magic Missle? I find this unlikely, so while a Wizard may be specifically suited for Controller duty I can see them easily filling the Striker role as well. Much as Clerics can easily fill Controller role.

Just because they're considered controllers doesn't mean they won't have any single-target damage. The roles aren't that strict. I mean, we know clerics and warlords will be leaders, but we also know they're going to have some ability to fight in melee. Heck, in that one playtest report, we saw a wizard use some kind of fire spell to finish off a wounded wolf. Wizards will continue to have striker-like damage spells, it's just that their strongest abilities will tend to be battlefield control and area-effect damage. Much like in 3E.

 

[Remathilis]

I think most peoples definitions of controller and striker are a bit off.

Most strikers seem keen on two things: stealth/ambush abilities, and massive damage to one specific target at a time. So a rogue striker is more likely to hide in shadows and sneak attack a specific target (usually the one the fighter is engaging as his role in defender). A ranger is most likely taking the scout's former role of "moving sniper" using his skirmish and ranged attacks to pick off weakened targets while constantly moving around the battlefield.

A controller is more keyed to three major focuses: area of effect damage (cones, bursts, lines), battlefield/terrain control (pushing foes back, creating walls, laying spelltraps) and creature control (charms, summons, necromancy). So while the fighter is beating on a foe and the rogue is sneak attacking to take it down quickly, the wizard is laying down cover fire (magic missiles), launching area attacks (fireball), keeping other foes from overwhelming the fighter (web, wall of ice) and/or directing magically controlled minions to aid in combat (charmed goblins, summoned celestial badgers, etc)

So then what might the differences be in wizard and warlock? A wizard seems the wizard might be focused on the "traditional" trappings of wizardry: summons, fire/ice/thunder magic, charms and illusions, etc. A warlock is much more the "dark, evil twisted" caster: they don't summon monsters, they summon undead minions. They don't use fireballs, they throw hellfire blasts. They don't toss out a web, they summon tendrils of shadow from the netherworld to hold fast their foes. They might have other differences: warlocks might excel at damage spells but wizards have an edge in divination and buffing spells. However, the two can sub for one another (much better than their 3.5 incarnations do) and are a lot more flavorful choice than book learning/spontaneous was...

Additionally: a warlock may gain no bonus out of the traditional wizard trappings (orb, staff, wand) or have no orders of their own (like the Emerald Frost) to join...

Of course, thats all wild speculation...