D&D 4E What 4E class do you most want to try out?

What class will first 4e character be?

  • Cleric

    Votes: 16 6.3%
  • Fighter

    Votes: 40 15.6%
  • Paladin

    Votes: 14 5.5%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 19 7.4%
  • Rogue

    Votes: 14 5.5%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 47 18.4%
  • Warlord

    Votes: 43 16.8%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 63 24.6%

Zaruthustran said:
You mean the divine casting, animal companion thing? Yeah, I'd be happy if the 4E ranger was spell-less and more of a rugged survivalist guy. Nothing mystical; all training and rancid bear fat.

All of the above. I never saw rangers as being particularly spell-oriented, but didn't have any issue with the idea that they'd be open to studying a breadth of "last-ditch" tricks -- similar to how rogues get UMD. In that regard, I saw them being much more arcanist than divinist and figured that the druid spells they got in 1E were pretty much arcane, just cribbed from druids.

The increasing druidification of rangers really annoys me. Rangers don't revere nature. They make use of it.

Combat-wise, I also saw the ranger as being a bit physically tougher than the fighter. After all, it's the ranger who sleeps outside during hailstorms. He isn't quite as good with a weapon as the fighter (in 3E, this meant the same BAB, but the fighter got the feats) and wears lighter armor, but he can take more hits.

The 2E ranger was okay, despite the TWF and divine casting. The ranger was flavored more druid-like in 3e, though. Plus, the barbarian was added as homage to 1E, even though it only resembles the 1E barbarian superficially. Since there's a bit of overlap between the barbarian and the survivalist ranger, the ranger class got pushed increasingly toward a woodsy, rogue-like, tree-hugger.

I don't see that changing in 4E, which means my favorite archetype will be pretty difficult to make in the game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I voted rogue (I almost always play roguish types), but I'd really like to try warlock & warlord, too. I'll be interested in seeing how combinations of these would work for multiclassing.
 

All the awesome new stuff the Wizard is apparently getting looks pretty tantalizing, and I'm also really interested in what kind of new possibilities the post-ToB:Bo9S Fighter offers. But, if I've gotta pick just one, this new Warlord thing definitely requires investigation, and I think it's about time I played a support class.
 



I chose fighter, because the last fighter I played bored the crap out of me, because it all boiled down to "I Power Attack for 4. I set that guy as my dodge target. I attack. Miss. Hit. Hit. 18 damage, and 17 damage on the second. Done." for almost every round. It'll be nice to have cool stuff to bust out on an unsuspecting orc.

Also, I wanna see what they do to the paladin. I suspect it will be quite different from our current wanna-be spellcaster tacked onto a subpar fighter.
 

I'm normally a martial guy simply cuz I never really liked the purely Vanacian system. But I'm interested enough in the changes that I think my first char is gonna be a Wizard.
 

Well, I'll probably be DMing at first.

But, since my heart has always been with rangers, I voted Ranger. My first D&D Basic fighter was a ranger at heart, and one of my earliest AD&D characters was a ranger too. It's a class I've used in 2e, 3e, 3.5e, and even Castles & Crusades. I've played about 6 variant rangers in 3rd Edition, so I'm keen to see what the 4th Edition iteration of my favorite class looks like.

I'm hoping that, in addition to killing the scout and taking his stuff, the ranger has pilfered all of the barbarian's woodsy goodness, leaving only "rage" untouched. A ranger that's tough and maneuverable, but can lay down the skirmish smack is a class I WANT to see.

Aside from that, I'm intrigued by what I've heard about all the classes. The changes to the spellcasting system may even prompt me to make my first ever wizard character for long-term play. I'm thinking a medieval Harry Dresden here...
 


Remove ads

Top