A whole year for new classes?

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
So am I the only one thats kind of dissapointed that we aren't going to be seeing any new classes for an entire year? I mean, a years a really long time, and it seems like 4e has a fairly balanced "class template," thats easy to fill out for each role. Maybe its just my wall of 3.5 source books staring at me, but I like to have options, and lots of em. And while I do love 4e and really like everything thats been done (exept maybe for paladins, blehk), having just 8 classes for an entire year, and only 1 controller!?, seems kind of.... stale.

Is it just me? Or does anyone else feel this way? Plus I'm a huge fan of monks and it looks like its going to be 2 years before we see hide or hair of them.
How long did it take for all those 3.5 books to come out? Plus there were alot of classes that were usable from 3.0.
Another thing, many of those classes and prestige classes were very poorly balanced or playtested, especially concidering the rampant cherry picking of features and abilities that occured.
Yes, the descision the hold back some classes for later PHB's was unfair to the players of those classes, espeially if the class was like the Bard which I believe was actually ready, but held back anyway.
In the mean time, try a new class or at least a differeent one for a while, it might be fun!

Bel
Originally Posted by WotC_RichBaker In related news, I'm afraid I'm going to have to confiscate your 3.5 rulebooks, and force you to convert to the new edition. Where do you live?
We're getting a basic Artificer class in a month.
We're getting the Swordmage in a few months.

Thats two already. The fact that the Swordmage is in a FR book really won't keep it, a Gish class, from being used in every damn setting.
I heard that we'd be getting the SM in a Dragon article as well, so the FR Player's book may not be necessary. Of course THAT is second-hand knowledge.
The Artificer is Eberron-specific, but that really doesn't mean that you can't use it in your campaign, if it fits the setting.
Plus, the PHB2 comes out in mid-March not June
Plus, the PHB2 comes out in mid-March not June

March, June, whatever. It's as close to a year as makes no odds really.

I don't like having to wait a year just to get basic classes like the Druid and Monk back in the game.

The Druid in particular, as the campaigns I run are very heavily wilderness/outdoors based.

Quexor
I kinda wish they'd kep the druid as it was, but I suppose I'll have to just enjoy them in 3.(7)5.
I don't like having to wait a year just to get basic classes like the Druid and Monk back in the game.

You will be waiting a lot longer for the Monk since they ain't in the PHB2
There is a very playable and very fun Druid class that has been fanmade.

And I think that's a big push for this product. A lot of this stuff is now going to be done by fans and can be tested a HECK of a lot easier.
You will be waiting a lot longer for the Monk since they ain't in the PHB2

Has this been confirmed? I was told it was in PHB2.
Show

IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/whatcolor_isblack.jpg)Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

I am Blue/Black
I am Blue/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic.
Adopt one today! Adopt one today! Adopt one today!
You will be waiting a lot longer for the Monk since they ain't in the PHB2

I'm actually hoping for an Oriental Adventures book in 2009. I have an Asian campaign that I would really like to start over in 4E (I was running it in 2nd ed)

Has this been confirmed? I was told it was in PHB2.

PH2 is going to be Arcane, Divine, and Primal. I expect Monks to have a Ki power source. I could be wrong, though.
You will be waiting a lot longer for the Monk since they ain't in the PHB2

Has this been confirmed? I was told it was in PHB2.

see the weird thing, in the PHB they implied or seemed to imply the monks would possibly be coming in the PHB2 ...

I still say this sucks though, I am really wanting to see if they improved on monks and made them closer to the wuxia flavor (with the 4e power system its quite possible to make some really awesome monks if done right) or if it will be a very near if not wide angle miss.
I don't like having to wait a year just to get basic classes like the Druid and Monk back in the game.

I agree with you on this one, Quexor...I think 4e might have been better received (not that it wasn't) had the "basic" classes of 3.5 been covered from the get-go. A lot of people felt like they were being left in the dust, so to speak, because their class wasn't included in the first run.

Now, on the other hand, what is "basic" in 3.5 is not what has been defined as "basic" in 4e. Furthermore, we could say that getting the classes right the first time rather than rushing them out the gate is worth the wait--I, personally, sit on the second argument.

I can't wait for the new sorcerer to come out (I'm thinking it'll be a controller...maybe not arcane, but we need another controller class). Also, I can't wait for the new Artificer, as one of my players is an artificer and he's dissatisfied with the hodge-podge wizard he's had to use for the past few weeks. I'm a little worried about the new druid...from what I've read it sounds like all this new guy does is change shape and not command animals and plants to do his bidding--which is what I always thought was classic druid.

But, back to the original point, I can't wait either. I have a whole campaign world with NPC's and others who need to be upgraded and not just "band-aided" for the time being.
I'm a little worried about the new druid...from what I've read it sounds like all this new guy does is change shape and not command animals and plants to do his bidding--which is what I always thought was classic druid.

I share your concern. This new druid they speak of sounds a lot like a World of Warcraft Druid and not a D&D Druid.

I guess time will tell. Too much time

Quexor
Much as I want them to wait until they get the class right (ie 3.0 bard and ranger getting fixed later for example) I am very disappointed that we have to wait a year or longer to get classes that have been around since 1st edition.

igotsmeakabob!! - How are we getting the Artificer in a month? I figured that was going to be in the Eberron book which isn't due out till next year.

Druid - What else do we know about it? I haven't seen much on it. I'm getting worried too. I'm still old school and no matter how popular WoW was/is it shouldn't continue to completely change DnD like it seems to be doing. WoW should simply be it's own world like FR or Eberron or what ever.

OA - I'd love to see an OA book soon. I've been wondering if they won't wait till then to give us the Monk
How can sorceror be anything except arcane?
Show

IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/whatcolor_isblack.jpg)Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

I am Blue/Black
I am Blue/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic.
Adopt one today! Adopt one today! Adopt one today!
I would naturally assume Sorcerer was Arcane. Once I wondered if they would be a primal controller or something weird like that because of how their powers come from "within" vs the wizard way of learning from books. I suppose "shadow" could be an option too. I'm not really making guesses to what I expect just trying to answer the question :P
I was kinda thinking the sorceror might actually use the elemental power source. The 'aura of fire' ability in the preview books would seem to support this possibility.
I think it is your wall of 3.5 books. There will be lots of options down the road.

Not to mention there's DDI to add more options. They've already "released" a playtest version of the Artificer- which isn't going to be out until AFTER next year.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080702
Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity.... In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
igotsmeakabob!! - How are we getting the Artificer in a month? I figured that was going to be in the Eberron book which isn't due out till next year.

In Dragon. Its actually out now. A "playtest" version of the one we're getting in the Eberron player's guide.
One thing that needs to be stressed every once in awhile is that the class or race may not resemble it's 3x incarnation, at all.

Bel
Originally Posted by WotC_RichBaker In related news, I'm afraid I'm going to have to confiscate your 3.5 rulebooks, and force you to convert to the new edition. Where do you live?
Also in the blurb of upcoming products for the FR Player's Guide:

1 new class (swordmage assuming it didn't get renamed since the preview)
1 new multi-class only class (for those with a spellscar)
new paragon paths
new epic destiny

regional benefits (backgrounds)
new racial feats
new races
new channel divinity powers (and therefor new gods, Cyric specically is mentioned in the CG book excerpt about Amn).

Date still shows March 2009 for PHB2, and May 2009 for MM2, no DMG2 mentioned yet.
I share your concern. This new druid they speak of sounds a lot like a World of Warcraft Druid and not a D&D Druid.

I guess time will tell. Too much time

Quexor

The problem as I have stated in another thread about this problem is that... Semantic. WHAT is a Druid, by example? What is the exact definition of this concept, the 'right' one?

Is any of those two concepts wrong, really?
The druid is a bard, keeper of lore, priest, magician, judge and storyteller.

The druid is a mage commanding the forces of nature such as weather and plants.

The druid is a wildshaper.

Any of those or all of them. Personally, I dislike wildshape. I am however very fond of the other two roles. If I would design the druid, it would be a primal controller with some striker in the mix. He would make lots of weird stuff happen on the battlefield, with living trees, weather, raging animals and earthquakes. And maybe some wildshapeing too.
I'm glad we only get a large number of new classes once per year; it makes our lives easier and reduces the number of junk classes.

Consider that while there were hundreds (thousands counting PrCs) in 3.x, there were a dozen or so actually worth playing.
On a related note, as I posted in another thread;

Why new classes for new concepts? Before making a new one, maybe we should wonder if this concept could be more served by an existing class, with feats new or old, and maybe multiclassing or paths.
On a related note, as I posted in another thread;

Why new classes for new concepts? Before making a new one, maybe we should wonder if this concept could be more served by an existing class, with feats new or old, and maybe multiclassing or paths.

Mostly its powers, class features, and paragon paths I look forward to with the release of new classes. Sure this and that class can do a similar power, but this class does something totally diffrerent when they hit with it. That kind of thing, ya know?
Mostly its powers, class features, and paragon paths I look forward to with the release of new classes. Sure this and that class can do a similar power, but this class does something totally diffrerent when they hit with it. That kind of thing, ya know?

True but in some cases a concept fits in an existing class but just needs a new build (set of powers) to make it work. Other concepts may not stand out fully as a class but fit better as a paragon path or epic destiny.

He's not saying there shouldn't be new classes but when you have a concept you should look at is it distinct enough to warrant 4-5 powers at each level that other classes get one, without overlapping heavily with another class.

Cocepts are divorced in some measure from classes and class names shouldn't pigeonhole the concept since 'in game' where concepts matter most won't be calling themselves a 'level X farmer' or 'level X fighter'. Even a cleric is more likely called a priest(ess) of God Y rather than a cleric.

Many PrCs in 3.x and even some classes fit better in 4e as a paragon path or a build of another class. Consider a build to have a few 'suggested' skills and feats for 1st level and roughly 1-2 powers for each level of powers. You can already see this with warlock pacts easily and in the ranger with some overlap between the two existing builds (powers that work with ranged and melee both rather than just one).
True but in some cases a concept fits in an existing class but just needs a new build (set of powers) to make it work. Other concepts may not stand out fully as a class but fit better as a paragon path or epic destiny.

He's not saying there shouldn't be new classes but when you have a concept you should look at is it distinct enough to warrant 4-5 powers at each level that other classes get one, without overlapping heavily with another class.

Cocepts are divorced in some measure from classes and class names shouldn't pigeonhole the concept since 'in game' where concepts matter most won't be calling themselves a 'level X farmer' or 'level X fighter'. Even a cleric is more likely called a priest(ess) of God Y rather than a cleric.

Many PrCs in 3.x and even some classes fit better in 4e as a paragon path or a build of another class. Consider a build to have a few 'suggested' skills and feats for 1st level and roughly 1-2 powers for each level of powers. You can already see this with warlock pacts easily and in the ranger with some overlap between the two existing builds (powers that work with ranged and melee both rather than just one).

Yeah I have no problem RPing my character outside his "class." It's just no matter how hard you try a fighter or a ranger will never be a monk, it's just not in the cards. But if I wanted to make a barbarian type char right now I'd pry just go fighter, take some multiclass in ranger, wear hide armor and take the fighter daily stance powers and just call them rages. I just like shiney new books.:D
An example could be perhaps the Al-Qadim Sha'ir, if the Sorcer is Elemental based perhaps. Or the current Wizard.
I'm a Druid player and I REALLY do not want to wait a whole years just to play my favorite class. Though I guess I can just tough it out with a Warforged Fighter or a Dragon born Paladin but I also want my barbarian class back. Hopefully the players will create some homebrew replacements until the official ones are released. Who knows, the player created ones might actually be better in the end anyway.
The problem as I have stated in another thread about this problem is that... Semantic. WHAT is a Druid, by example? What is the exact definition of this concept, the 'right' one?

Is any of those two concepts wrong, really?

Right or wrong isn't the issue for me. What *is* at issue, for me, is what they are doing to change the class. The D&D Druid, since it's inception, has never been that focused on shapeshifting. Sure, it's always been a *part* of it, but not the *focus* of it. It's starting to sound like the Druid they are going to give us is very like the druids from World of Warcraft, not from D&D.

If I want to play a P&P version of Warcraft I would just go buy it. I dont. I want to play D&D.

Quexor
Well it's not a whole year, it's slated for March 2009 and I'm sure if it's ready before that we'll see it earlier.

Also as proof of the higher level of playtesting today we got an article for July's Dragon that has a playtest version of the Artificer with half the usual powers (one build rather than two).
Well it's not a whole year, it's slated for March 2009 and I'm sure if it's ready before that we'll see it earlier.

Also as proof of the higher level of playtesting today we got an article for July's Dragon that has a playtest version of the Artificer with half the usual powers (one build rather than two).

Yes, I noticed that, maybe with some luck we'll see some more classes in there and be able to give them a whirl before they're done. That is a bright side I suppose, even if the power selection is limited at least they're giving us something while we wait.
Right or wrong isn't the issue for me. What *is* at issue, for me, is what they are doing to change the class. The D&D Druid, since it's inception, has never been that focused on shapeshifting. Sure, it's always been a *part* of it, but not the *focus* of it. It's starting to sound like the Druid they are going to give us is very like the druids from World of Warcraft, not from D&D.

If I want to play a P&P version of Warcraft I would just go buy it. I dont. I want to play D&D.

Quexor

This is, sorry to say, a bit hypocrital. Each editions had classes that changed. At times, a LOT. Look at the Bard, by example;

-AD&D1 - A weird Prestige class of sort - you had to be classed, fighter, rogue AND druid.

-AD&D2 - a class of it's own, a sort of Rogue/Wizard mix, arcane-based spells again.

-D&D3 - a remix of this Arcane Bard... now with HEALING spells. And Sonic ones quite.

You are of bad faith, there. It's not WoW. And you have simply a very straight definition of a Druid.

Change is not a bad thing in itself, open your mind a bit. They deemed that Druid have a problem, a certain reducdance with Clerics and balance issues. It's not wrong.

Again, don't use WoW as a strawman/boggyman/etc.
Well suppose druids polymorph. And then suppose WotC makes an entirely new class that does all the tree magic and stuff. Would that work for you?
We've had to delete some problematic posts, so please remember to keep your replies polite and constructive. Among other things, that means you should be making posts about this topic, not other patrons or more general edition vs. edition complaints.

Thanks in advance.
Well suppose druids polymorph. And then suppose WotC makes an entirely new class that does all the tree magic and stuff. Would that work for you?

It would be strange, especially if after making changes to the Driud, concentrating on the shapechange ability, for example, then they go and create the Shaman that does the weather and plant/animal stuff.

Bel
Originally Posted by WotC_RichBaker In related news, I'm afraid I'm going to have to confiscate your 3.5 rulebooks, and force you to convert to the new edition. Where do you live?
It would be strange, especially if after making changes to the Driud, concentrating on the shapechange ability, for example, then they go and create the Shaman that does the weather and plant/animal stuff.

Bel

I really think it would be fine, in fact I'd like it that way because personally for me it was all about the wildshape.
Sign In to post comments