What 3 classes will be in the Arcane power book?

[MaelStorm]

True only if they are determined to keep it that way. (Personally (as stated above) it would be fine with me.) But... If you would assume they would not want to protect their classes niche. I am playing the devil's role, here.

We don't know about their true intentions. But if their intention would be only to make faster games mechanic and a 1-30 level sweet spot, they would still put on splatbooks with more classes, no? If they put on minis with classes like enchanter or illusionist, isn't it far fetched to think that those would not end up somewhere in a arcane book, maybe for the PHB2, maybe not.

But an enchanter is powered by what? Psionic? Primal? or Arcane?
Some could argue it is Psionic, yes they could inflence people.
Primal, maybe, yes they could manipulate the elements or something to craft magic items.
The prime archetype I know for enchanters are to use magic formula to transmute. It is not an alchemical transmutation, but a powerful arcanist in my book.

So what is in the pipeline in the future? A lot, I think. But for the time being, it is the time for speculation, and I say why not? Everything's possible. Nothing has been cast in stone. Until somebody from WotC throws more light in we are kept in the dark... So it is the perfect timing for all sorts of idea's. Time will tell.

 

[MaelStorm]

There doesn't have to be an arcane leader or defender, any more than there has to be a martial controller, or a divine controller or striker. The 4e design team has mentioned time and time again that they aren't interested in creating symetry for symetry's sake.

I think there will be, because they've mentioned over and over again that the bard is an arcane leader, and that the swordmage basically came out of a design experiment of 'what would an arcane defender look like'. But it's a virtual certainty that the grid won't get filled out for every power source, especially ones launched after PH1.

If they have said so, fine with me, case closed.

And I am very much happy they are taking those steps.

 

[Ipissimus]

Wouldn't it make more sense, both thematically and from a story standpoint, for Illusionist to be the Feywild controller? I mean, it's the classic bit isn't it? Faerie being guarded by powerful illusions that either repel or lure you to your doom.

Assuming that they'll keep the various 'shadow'-type illusion magic, wouldn't it be better to wrap those up into the Necromancer's bag 'o tricks? Give the class some much needed diversity?

 

[MaelStorm]

Wouldn't it make more sense, both thematically and from a story standpoint, for Illusionist to be the Feywild controller? I mean, it's the classic bit isn't it? Faerie being guarded by powerful illusions that either repel or lure you to your doom.

Assuming that they'll keep the various 'shadow'-type illusion magic, wouldn't it be better to wrap those up into the Necromancer's bag 'o tricks? Give the class some much needed diversity?

Of all their decisions for 4E the feywild is my favorite, the primal power source, nature magic.

Like the bards and druids. If they could exploit the good fairy side to the max with little pixies, elves, treeants, and nature magic. Like what they are doing about the fey bloodline and the eladrins. This, I am really excited. If they could release a Celtic Book I would be delighted as well.

And yes Illusionist should be a good primal leader, but the Barbarian is the best candidate, I think. If what they mentioned in Races & Classes stands true, the connection between Druids and Barbarians (possibly for PHB2) should be the same as the one between Clerics and Paladins in the PHB1. Illusionist could be more on the Psionic or Shadow side of thing (possibly for PHB2)

PS: Illusionist are not leaders but controllers, yes!