4E Class Discussion

1262 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion classes in 4th Edition.
If we check www.dndinsider.com (also known as www.wizards.com/dnd)

We can confirm the folowing classes:
  • fighter
  • rouge
  • Wizards
  • Paladins
  • Clercs


You can read about it in:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070820a
If we check www.dndinsider.com (also known as www.wizards.com/dnd)

We can confirm the folowing classes:
  • fighter
  • rouge
  • Wizards
  • Paladins
  • Clercs


You can read about it in:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070820a

I hope Fighter and Paladin are only the same in name. I'd really like to see the fighter being more similar to the warblade and the Paladin closer to the Crusader.
Too much information over the last few days, but I'm sure I have seen reference to Barbarians, Sorcerers, and of course the nebulous 'Warlord' from the Insider preview vid.
From something Chris said in the Doomsday thread, I expect there to be warlocks too.
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated February 18, 2013)
There was mention of rangers also. I can't remember where, but they were saying that rangers and rogues would have similar combat roles (laying down massive attacks on one target) and will differ outside of combat. Hopefully this also means that rogues will have better combat abilities like rangers.
Watch this clip on Class Roles:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AAw490qUAjs

From that discussion, what it sounds like is that the Classes are things like Defender, Controller, Striker, and from each of those you can CREATE a fighter or paladin, rogue or ranger, etc.
So in one of the designer's Gen Con blogs, it mentions "wizards can cast 25th level spells". What's that all about?

(As I guess, I'd say spells have been redone such that there are as many spell levels as character levels (i.e. 1-30 instead of 1-9), but that's just a guess.)
Here is my question.

After the article Fighters and their weapons, will there be any option, any class build, that would allow for a character who uses Unarmed Combat?

And if there is, would he be more like the 3e Monk - the mystic who has magical powers due to his ascetic devotion, or would he be more like a boxer or greco-roman wrestler? Or will we be able to build either?

Because I love the 3e monk, the ascetic kung fu master who gains quasi-magical powers through the development of his body. However, I also want to play Hercules. Be the Big Buff Guy who walks up to the ogre and crushes its knee with his fist - he has no magical trappings like the monk, he is an Unarmed Fighter.
Watch this clip on Class Roles:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AAw490qUAjs

From that discussion, what it sounds like is that the Classes are things like Defender, Controller, Striker, and from each of those you can CREATE a fighter or paladin, rogue or ranger, etc.

Those aren't the classes, they're the roles that are filled in a party.
In this clip, James says there's a Warlord class.

What is the Warlord?
I hope Fighter and Paladin are only the same in name.

There has been mention that the Alignment system will be re-worked and it won't have any direct impact on the game rules. So... can we assume that the Paladin will no longer have to be LG?
Warlord isn't a class. It's one of the new roles, such as the striker, defender, etc...
I'm interested in how the character customization will work and how that will interface with the "Race Levels". The article about Fighters and their weapons has me cornered about the "all weapons expert." Specialized fighting styles are nice but also having track for generalist would go a long way.

I'm also interested how Multi-Classing will be addressed during development for balance and feasibility. Often Multi-classed characters are far weaker then their single classed counterparts at low levels. I imagine this will be helped with the new focus on abilities that can be used At Will, Per Encounter, and Per Day. What I am most concerned about is how any new Skill system will work with Multi-Classed characters. If there aren't ranks then how does say a Rogue/Wizard look for skill layout. Will it depend on which class the Player took first or will the best class be used. Will the individual level of each class have an impact?

Multi-classing was the way to get certain character concepts made and viable. I really hope there will still be good reasons to multi-class as well as play a single class 1-30.
Warlord isn't a class. It's one of the new roles, such as the striker, defender, etc...

No, there are four 'roles'. They are; Defender, Striker, Controller, and Healer.
(I think that's right)

Warlord is a class seen on the Character creation vid and specifically mentioned in in of the GRZ interviews.
Warlord isn't a class. It's one of the new roles, such as the striker, defender, etc...

No, warlord is definitely a class. It's a "leader", like the cleric or druid, apparently. Watch the video.
There was mention of rangers also. I can't remember where, but they were saying that rangers and rogues would have similar combat roles (laying down massive attacks on one target) and will differ outside of combat. Hopefully this also means that rogues will have better combat abilities like rangers.

I'm hoping there's the means of creating a Scout from Complete Adventurer. Goblin scouts in particular are both great characters to play and clever adversaries.
It's been mentioned that the ranger "killed the scout and took his stuff". Which is fine by me; the scout was never more than a ranger without magic flavorwise anyway.
What is the Warlord?

Probably the class that killed the marshal and took his stuff. Possibly the bard as well.
I have a feeling that the Warlord is an improved Marshal.
Probably the class that killed the marshal and took his stuff. Possibly the bard as well.

That would have to be a different bard than the 3.5 one that was killed to be called a "warlord."
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated February 18, 2013)
as long as we have a class that can use astral construct or a similar ability Ill be happy.

I wouldnt mind seeing the Mind's Eye psychic weapon master come back either
That would have to be a different bard than the 3.5 one that was killed to be called a "warlord."

It wouldn't have to take all the bard's stuff. Just the good things like inspire courage and inspire greatness. Very warlordy things.
Geh. Doesn't look like Paladins are a prestige class, then.

As mentioned in the Wish List thread, I'm also hoping Clerics and Druids get subsumed into a slightly more generic Priest class, with domains dictating the divine spells they have access to and what talent trees (which can be more balanced versions of their 3.5 abilities) they can pursue.

For example, selecting the Plant and Animal domains opens up Druidic talent trees, which contain things like Wild Shape (have it affected by CHA score, to make it MAD).
So in one of the designer's Gen Con blogs, it mentions "wizards can cast 25th level spells". What's that all about?

(As I guess, I'd say spells have been redone such that there are as many spell levels as character levels (i.e. 1-30 instead of 1-9), but that's just a guess.)

I hope so. I've been arguing for this for a while now. It's a much cleaner way of dealing with spells. I mean, there's this huge expenditure of time and energy up front, designing spells so that there are plenty of spells at every level, but, there can be scalable spells that makes this really easy in many cases.

It would be quite simple to deal with magic if a 14th level caster could cast 14th level spells. I mean, if a 14th level fighter has a +14 attack, there's something nice and simple about that.

Dave
The only classes at Gencon that were not brought up for 4th ed. That I heard were Monk and Bard. As for Bard the stuff that we have heard is that they are not sure if it will be in or not (As told by R&D Members) and that if it is fleshed out and balenced into its roll it will be in the PHB. If not it will likely be in one of the future PHB numbers (PHB 2 will be released in the year 4e+1and one each year there after)

Another talk revield that there will infact be no major alignment isuse for pallys. There alignment is based on there good and "Smite Evil" is like the Crusader "Smite" and hit anyone.

They also talked about how ToB and suplaments like it were ment as playtesting 4e ideas by the players in general. Fighters pick up Manuvers and other abilitys that will make them last into the higher levels. There will be no dead levels for the classes and there "Will be a reason to play 1-30"

Now for Wizards and sorcerers, they will have a much more pronounced split (alot of the ballance issues between the two classes is that Sorcerer was added just before playtesting because so much of the book just before printing was only usable by 1 class.

Wizards will have an at will attack spell(like?) much like the Warlocks Eldritch Blast. The spell slots will feature the iconic spells (fireball, lightning bolt, Metior Swarm) and low level spells will be able to get upgrades at higher slots so that they can stay usefull well into the game.

The last bit of it that we learned is that Ranger killed and canabulized the 3.5 Scout. (took all there coolness as an option for themselves) making them more playable.

There may be more but I am still lagged out abit so Ill have to put it up as I recall it.
So, did the Monk kill the Swordsage and take his stuff?
If the druid has been subsumed by the cleric than perhaps the cleric will ofer certain talent trees. If you go in one direction chosen at first level, you worship nature dieties and follow the path of the druid. Or you could choose to be specifically a "Priest" and follow the clerical path or others. That would be interesting. You could do the same with fighters - monk - swordsman - archer, etc.. Same with Wizard and different types of paladins, rogues and rangers. That could also fit into the "Roles" that classes fall into.
Well I heard in the class roles vid, that there where going to be druids, and warlocks too
I don't really see how I can discuss the 4e classes without knowing what they are, what their features are, and be able to compare examples of each to one another.

Rampant speculation can be fun, but it's kinda like trying to guess the meaning of phrases in a foreign language. I have nothing on which to base my guesses so they're not really "discussion" material.

I'll wait until I see hard facts and then I'll jump in.

Incidentally, I'm really looking forward to 4e and the new minis rules. I just hope the game doesn't drift too far away from fantasy and too close to a tabletop variant of World of Warcraft.

Dave
It sounds to me like the four roles(Tank,Striker,Healer,Controller), are in fact four core classes. And each role will have a multiply talent tree for what are presently called classes.
Tank= Fighter, Paladin
Striker= Rogue,Ranger, Barbarian
Controller= Wizard,Sorcerer
Healer= Cleric, Druid

I think the talent trees would have to be expanded compared to the SW saga talents. The other choice would be each class has a talent tree for each role. Which makes less sense IMO.
If the druid has been subsumed by the cleric than perhaps the cleric will ofer certain talent trees. If you go in one direction chosen at first level, you worship nature dieties and follow the path of the druid. Or you could choose to be specifically a "Priest" and follow the clerical path or others. That would be interesting.

My idea for that was to select your domains at 1st level (two, maybe three). Your domain choices would be limited to the domains possessed by your deity. If you're following a "cause" or "alignment" as it were, those default "causes" should have their own domain lists.

The choice of your domains would determine what talent trees you could select. Like I mentioned above, Plant and Animal (and perhaps one elemental domain) would qualify you for Druidic talent trees, which would take care of things like Wild Shape.

Or the Good domain would open you to pick talent trees that allow channeling positive energy, turn undead, etc. Sun domain, perhaps in conjunction with Good, would open up more advanced powers against undead. Evil domain makes you channel negative energy and allows you to boost or control undead. And so forth.

That will even make sure that not every Priest can deal so well with undead, for example. They could have other abilities like controlling elementals, or even just a little roguish trickery in place of all that.
Probably the class that killed the marshal and took his stuff. Possibly the bard as well.

Hmmm

Before we begin play, another player is giving Rich grief about one of Rich’s character’s abilities that grants the rest of us a blanket +2 to saves; it just ain’t sexy. Rich says something like, “I don’t know, I doubt I’ll use it that much, but who knows, maybe everyone in the party will get entangled.”

Sure enough, not 10 minutes later this fire-crazed flame priest has entangled half the party with fire snakes! Rich throws up his +2 to saves and, voila, at least two of us get free immediately. I guess that power isn’t so corner case after all.

It's possible this might be an ability from the Warlord.

It would be nice if the Bard's "Bardic Knowledge" or "Spellcasting" was kept, but I definitely like the option of having a character who have natural buffs without resorting to Spells or Singing.
THis role stuff is very alike City of Heroes :P
That is also a good option Darth Cyric. I like that one as well.
Yeah, I've been thinking the same thing.

It's making me a bit wary. City of Heroes already feels too restrictive to me, and that game is designed to be nothing but combat. Are they designing Fourth Edition D&D along similar lines?

Y'know what worries me is that I haven't heard any talk of roleplaying at all. And that's really the most important part of choosing a class (or pretty much anything else in D&D).
Y'know what worries me is that I haven't heard any talk of roleplaying at all. And that's really the most important part of choosing a class (or pretty much anything else in D&D).

This is where I'll diverge. Your class doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with your character's personality. Classes are ways to get abilities, your character's personality can influence those, but ultimately they're just set dressing.

Reflavoring class abilities to make, say Sneak Attack, a Divinely inspired confidence to strike true at the enemies of your faith is easy enough. Is Smite Evil channeling power directly from your deity or from your own sense of righteous indignation?

Make a concept, then worry about how to make that concept.

JEPHL
Y'know what worries me is that I haven't heard any talk of roleplaying at all. And that's really the most important part of choosing a class (or pretty much anything else in D&D).

Umm... since when has D&D rules not been combat focused?

Seriously. Try running a game focused on social stuff. You know, "You are all diplomats" or "You are all spies" and watch the game be just rolling Bluff vs Sense Motive, Gather Info and Diplomacy. :P
So, did the Monk kill the Swordsage and take his stuff?

More likely the otherway around. IMHO.
Speaking of 'Ranger kills Scout...'

I wonder if we will see an end to the dual-wielding Ranger option. If Ranger is getting Skirmish, it puts the focus firmly on ranged combat. Applying it to melee would horn in on the Rogues action, so I don't see that happening. And, although I have played TWFing Rangers in the past, it never made sense to me why they had the option in the first place.
Speaking of 'Ranger kills Scout...'

I wonder if we will see an end to the dual-wielding Ranger option. If Ranger is getting Skirmish, it puts the focus firmly on ranged combat. Applying it to melee would horn in on the Rogues action, so I don't see that happening. And, although I have played TWFing Rangers in the past, it never made sense to me why they had the option in the first place.

Drizz't. That's really the only reason for TWFing rangers. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the books, and the character, but come on.