What is the 2nd controler ?

[Aloïsius]

Warlock : striker
Rogue : striker
Ranger : striker
Paladin : defender
Fighter : defender
Cleric : leader
warlord : leader
wizard : controler.

XXX : controler

what will XXX be ? I hope we will have druid.

 

[Anthtriel]

Well, there is a problem.
Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue and Warlord along with their roles are confirmed. The Paladin as the second defender is also all but guaranteed.

That leaves us with two roles, one striker and one controller, along with three classes that have been talked about, Ranger, Druid and Warlock. The Ranger has been confirmed to be a Striker, and the Warlock has been confirmed to be in the book, so either we have only one controller (unlikely), or the Warlock is a striker and the Ranger is out (which seems unlikely, because the Ranger has been mentioned a lot and the Druid only in passing), or the Ranger is in and the Warlock is a controller.

The last case seems to be the most likely one, but if it is true, then either the two strikers and/or controllers have the same power source (martial and arcane respectively), or the ranger and the warlock are divine, leaving us with 3 martial, 4 divine and 1 arcane class for the PHB, which seems fairly odd.

Is it actually confirmed there are just 8 classes in the PHB?

 

[Masquerade]

I don't think the 4e warlock is a striker. Setting aside everything we know about the Complete Arcane warlock class and only looking at the 4e previews, it sounds a lot more like a controller class to me.

 

[Goken100]

Listen to the latest Podcast. Either the WotC fellow mispoke or the Warlock is a Striker. Not really sure which is the truth, but I tend to believe it's a Striker since we haven't heard any corrections.

 

[Intrope]

I'll venture that it won't be a Martial class; I'm just not seeing how the flavor of that would work. And it *is* possible that there will be just one controller class! But, it's no fun to speculate that there won't be one, so here I go

Beyond that, I don't think we even have a candidate--and I think that's deliberate. This one is probably intended to be a 'surprise!' moment later on. If so, then it's probably *not* an 'obvious' choice, like say druid (I'm going to guess that Nature Priest-type Druids are now clerics, and Druids in other modes will come later).

I'm also going to guess that Sorcerer won't show up as an Arcane Controller: with Wizards having lots of at-will and per-encounter powers, the 3.x Sorcerer's purpose evaporates. If we see a Sorc, it'll be noticeably different than the current one (my guess: Arcane Leader).

So what does that leave us? Specialist Wizard-like classes, like Illusionist, Conjurer or Necromancer would all work. Some form of Elemental Manipulator might work, but that sounds more like a fourth power source to me (and I think all the Oriental Adventures style characters, like Shugenga, will be in a later book). A Divine Herald, that summons up the servants of the gods? [Solar, I choose you! ]

Anyway, that's all I can think of...

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm hoping they put the druid in. I don't want to have to wait a year for a second PHB to get a class I consider to be one of the core historical classes.

 

[Henry]

If so, then it's probably *not* an 'obvious' choice, like say druid (I'm going to guess that Nature Priest-type Druids are now clerics, and Druids in other modes will come later).

Druid actually would be an ideal choice for controller -- in 3E, they were probably the next best battlefield controllers outside of wizards, especially if you threw in the stuff from Spell Compendium. They already had many wizardly powers, and Andy Collins years ago said the Druid "could serve the party like a second Wizard" with the 3.5 revision.

EDIT: Ah, I misread you. I thought you were saying the opposite -- my apologies.

 

[Alnag]

And are we sure, that ragner is striker after all. I mean - rogue is martial striker right. And if ranger would be made more into "archery-type" character controling battlefield with arrows he might very well be martial type of controler. Right?

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Actually several of the missing 'core' classes could make decent controllers.

Druids with summoning, entangle, and so forth.

Bards with charm, fascinate, and the right selection of arcane spells, though I think they may be more bound for the Leader role.

Illusionists, pretty natch there.

would be among the more traditional options, and several of the newer classes could do well.


In terms of what people have identified as the likely 8, there really doesn't seem to be another candidate. Maybe this means we will see 9 classes, but I have my doubts. Eight had seemed like a confirmed number, and certainly matched the number the confirmed number of races.

I'm sort of dissapointed.

One of the things I was looking forward to was the dissapearance of any one 'necessary' class for a party. And while they say that they've engineered it so that a party can function perfectly well without one role, I still think it's rather lame that we might not have a choice of controllers.


I would guess that if we don't get Ranger or Bard here that we get them in the FR campaign guide. Those classes just seem way too central to that setting to delay past the publication of the book.

 

[broghammerj]

One of the things I was looking forward to was the dissapearance of any one 'necessary' class for a party. And while they say that they've engineered it so that a party can function perfectly well without one role, I still think it's rather lame that we might not have a choice of controllers.

I think it's lame they even discuss party roles. Doesn't that just hold on to the "old" way of thinking that you must have class X to have a balanced party. To me the idea of roles is going to take up worthless pages of text better used for real material.

Also I think this system is ridiculous to assign these roles to specific class types. It's one thing to say you need a striker, defender, controller, and leader to balance your party. It's another to say each class is one of these roles. I am a bit baffled that I won't be able to customize my wizards to turn him into a striker or defender by good spell selection. Or alter my fighter into a leader by feat customization.