What is the 2nd controler ?

[M.L. Martin]

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

No; Mearls said 8 was about the 'middle range' of the number of classes that might be in the PH when I asked him about it yesterday, specifically mentioning that the Internet was taking 8 classes as confirmed.

 

[Anthtriel]

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.

The idea behind the role model is that there are certain functions that a party needs no matter how the design is ("need" as in, a party will perform a lot better if the function is present), so you might just as well acknowledge it in class design instead of having useless classes that are only good at stuff no one cares about (3E Monk and Bard).
If you give classes the chance to get better at those functions than the classes which traditionally fulfill them, you risk having classes that overshadow other classes (Codzilla).

Besides, for your specific examples: A fighter that fulfills a leader function would become a healer without mutliclassing into cleric. You could never do that and I don't see why you should now.
If you give a wizard the ability to make him a defender or a striker, then that means he can tank as well as a fighter or do as much damage as a rogue. I don't see why wizards should be allowed to do that. They could never outtank the fighter. They could outdamage the rogue, but then again, they made the rogue nearly useless in most editions of the game, which was obviously a flaw.

 

[ZappoHisbane]

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.

I believe I've read that the roles 'assigned' to each class are simply what that class is best at. I suspect that you'll be able to fill any role with any class, provided you build your character that way. It's also likely that trying to be all things at once will not be as effective as focusing on one or (at most) two roles.

One would hope anyway.

Edit: In fact, check out this thread.

 

[Intrope]

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?

I don't really see how a Ranger (or Monk, for that matter) would make a Controller. They really seem to me to be about 'Reaching out and touching someone' not 'shaping the battlespace'.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I don't really see how a Ranger (or Monk, for that matter) would make a Controller. They really seem to me to be about 'Reaching out and touching someone' not 'shaping the battlespace'.

I would love to see the monk as controller. A monk (or martial artist) could be a controller by using throws to move opponents around on the battlefield, halting passage with whirlwind attacks, or even using opponents as weapons against their own. He could have thrown weapons as immediate attacks if people approach and maybe cling to a big monster to hamper or steer it's move. The monk could intercept ranged attacks aimed at friends and be better than others when using battlefield features.

 

[Li Shenron]

This is the problem might arise from putting too much into "roles". The roles should help the developers but if they are taken too strictly they become a restriction, like deciding that the Warlock is a striker and as a consequence avoiding giving him anything that would make it decent in another role.

However I think the developers have not made such a mistake, and each class can still cover another role significantly well (even if they are best in one role only). So the Warlock could be both a striker and a controller, depending on which powers you choose.

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.

I hope that too so much... but lack of mention of the Druid is continuing and my hope is waning.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

And are we sure, that ranger 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?

The PHB2 Variant Ranger abilities allowed them to make someone they'd hit with a ranged attack effectively flanked for their allies. I could see a Ranger built around that effect as well as things like "arrow to the knee" slowing a creature's movement or "I said, Dance!" making the creature provoke an AoO.

-TRRW

 

[Stalker0]

Wasn't the sorcerer confirmed as a class a while back?

Though a second arcane controller wouldn't feel right either (and frankly with the wizard and warlock in the game I really hope they drop the sorcerer like a pair of a old shoes).

 

[Kunimatyu]

I'd really prefer not to see a core Druid in PHB1, regardless of "role". All the gunk associated with the 3.5 Druid (summoning, companion, battlefield control, shape-changing, elemental damage, etc, etc.) has really soured me on the whole concept, and I'd prefer to just have nature priests for a while, with "Druid" as a PrC-ish option for levels 20-30, much like Frenzied Berserker is supposed to be for Barbarian in 4e.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I think either the Druid or the Illusionist would make a good controller. My bet though, at this time, is Illusionist. WotC has deliberately said they holding back some "surprise!" moments. Although making the Druid the second controller would be welcome, it wouldn't have the same "Oh snap!, no they didn't!!" effect that bringing back the Illusionist as a separate class would.

A third possibility is that it's an entirely new class, but we've already got the Warlord and the Warlock. That's enough "new" in the class department; and much of the existing customer base is already trying to assimilate Eladrin and Tieflins as core. Another new Core class on top of that might be too much, while bringing back to the Illusionist would be a huge bone thrown to the grongard crowd.