PHB II Classes

256 posts / 0 new
Last post
What are the arcane and divine classes that we should be expecting in the second player's handbook. I know we'll bee seeing the Druid and Barbarian, but what about the arcane and divine classes.

My guesses: Sorcerer and one other as arcane {i have no idea} and favored soul and one new one for divine.
I've gathered a lot from ENworld's contributes to the idea of the classes. Apparently, it's kinda like this:

Barbarian
Druid
Shaman
Primal Controller starting with a W (Witch/Witch-Doctor)
Bard
Sorcerer
A divine striker starting with an I (Inquisitor)
A divine controller starting with a T (Thurge)

Sadly, there are no psionics, so there's no wilder nor telepath. Sadder still is that after people read this post, there still going to insist that they're there. Don't worry, though, I'm sure it will come early next year, even if they plan on keeping it a bit of a secret
So here is what we know (based on the previews given to the stores for ordering)....

PHB II
The new classes in this book include some long-time favorites of D&D players, such as the barbarian, druid, and sorcerer.

Sorcerer is going to be primal controller (I think)

We also know...
Arcane Powers book
This book provides new archetypal builds for the wizard, warlock, sorcerer, bard, and swordmage classes, including new character powers, feats, paragon paths, and epic destinies.

So we know bards are coming sometime before APR09, however we don't know that it will be in the PHB II, or if it is coming from another source.

Besides that, it is all speculation. I like the idea mentioned on other posts of an Inquisitor being a divine striker, however that is not canon and I am not holding my breath for it.

Hope it helps...
You said sorcerer is going to be primal, then quoted something that confirmed sorcerer as arcane.
Resident Piggles Zombie piggy is eatin' your sigs om nom nom (>*o*)>
MTG Card
Front: PigKnight, One Line Poster (3W) Legendary Creature - Boar Knight Vigilance When this creature dies, return him to play and transform him. (2/3) >(5/3)< Back: (Black)ZombiePiggles, Eater of Tomato Sauce Legendary Creature - Boar Knight Zombie Trample, Intimidate B: Regenerate this creature. When this creature is the target of a white spell, transform this creature. (5/3)

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/15.jpg)

Sorcerer is going to be primal controller (I think)

Where'd you get this quote from?

Arcane Powers book
This book provides new archetypal builds for the wizard, warlock, sorcerer, bard, and swordmage classes, including new character powers, feats, paragon paths, and epic destinies.

Because that seems to indicate that the Sorcerer is Arcane, not Primal.
In China Meiville's book's Mages are called Thaumaturges. Looked that up in the dictionary: "Miracle Worker" Thurge or Thaumaturge sounds good for a Divine controller.
My current speculations/hopes:


-Barbarian = Primal Defender

-Bard = Arcane Leader

-Druid = Primal Striker (hybrid)

-Invoker/Inquisitor = Divine Striker

-Shaman = Primal Leader

-Sorcerer = Arcane Controller

-Theurge = Divine Controller

-Witch = Primal Controller
You said sorcerer is going to be primal, then quoted something that confirmed sorcerer as arcane.

Yeah, I noticed that, but a man can dream, huh! Anyway, my reasoning was that they said they want a tank, leader, striker, and controller for each power source. Since we already have the wizard and the illusionist (some can argue it is psionic and I wouldn't argue that, either) being arcane controllers a bit of different flare on the class.
My current speculations/hopes:


-Barbarian = Primal Defender

I'm hoping/betting (if I was a betting man) that barbatians are probably going to be a striker who uses 2-handed weapons since we really don't have one of those yet.
I'm hoping/betting (if I was a betting man) that barbatians are probably going to be a striker who uses 2-handed weapons since we really don't have one of those yet.

While that could be interesting, my money is on him being a Defender, they have always had the highest number of HP/HD since 1st Ed, among other reasons.
While that could be interesting, my money is on him being a Defender, they have always had the highest number of HP/HD since 1st Ed, among other reasons.

On the other hand, barbarians usually had poor AC in 3.5, and didn't have the sort of defender-like tricks that a fighter got with his plethora of feats, mostly involving tripping and disarming and extra attacks of opportunity. A barbarian was more about direct damage, and it would seem a little odd to me if they had some sort of marking ability. Of course by the same reasoning, Paladins shouldn't have been made defenders either, except they at least have the AC for the role.

So it really looks like either it will straight out be considered a hybrid role, or the writers will have redesign the barbarian somewhat to either fit as a striker or a defender.
On the other hand, barbarians usually had poor AC in 3.5, and didn't have the sort of defender-like tricks that a fighter got with his plethora of feats, mostly involving tripping and disarming and extra attacks of opportunity. A barbarian was more about direct damage, and it would seem a little odd to me if they had some sort of marking ability.

I can see where you're coming form – maybe he could be this lightly armoured Defender some people are clamouring for?
How do we know the I is a striker and T is the controller?
Yeah, I noticed that, but a man can dream, huh! Anyway, my reasoning was that they said they want a tank, leader, striker, and controller for each power source.

Actually, they've said the opposite. They aren't trying to fill the grid. Part of the mission statement is "no unnecessary symmetry". If a martial controller (for instance) isn't forthcoming, they aren't going to force one, and if two martial strikers (or arcane controllers) come together that are suitably different, then they aren't going to toss one out when both can work.
Famous campaign setting: www.sigilprep.com Unfamous web comic: www.department34.com
How do we know the I is a striker and T is the controller?

We don't. It is just where the speculation has ended up for a lot of people(although some people have come to the oppisite conclusion).
Still think the T is for Totemist (who summons animal spirits, Think it fits primal a lot better than Witch) and that the divine classes will be I and W.
the problem with the totemist is that there was a 3e totemist, and with the Shaman that would make only 2 new classes. However, we know there will be three new classes and 5 conversions. So if T is Totemist, Shaman has to go and be replaced with something else.

Also, edivence in the Witch's favor is a strange comment I can't seem to find right now on witches, wizards, and warlocks that seemed to suggest that despite similar meanings, all three could be viable classes. Not concrete, but since we have two of them it stands to reason the third might be on the way.
the problem with the totemist is that there was a 3e totemist, and with the Shaman that would make only 2 new classes. However, we know there will be three new classes and 5 conversions. So if T is Totemist, Shaman has to go and be replaced with something else.

Also, edivence in the Witch's favor is a strange comment I can't seem to find right now on witches, wizards, and warlocks that seemed to suggest that despite similar meanings, all three could be viable classes. Not concrete, but since we have two of them it stands to reason the third might be on the way.

Wasn't 3.5E's Totemist an Incarnum class? If so, doesn't that make it about as far as possible from Primal?

Correct me if I'm wrong. I read through MoI once, briefly, and that's my experience with it.
It was, but it still had a "primal" flavor. Even in the flavor hodgepodge that was Incarnum, it stood out as being something totally different. Still, it would be kinda cheating if they promised 3 new classes and gave two, plus one class with a reused name that is totally different now, we promise.
Since we already have the wizard and the illusionist (some can argue it is psionic and I wouldn't argue that, either) being arcane controllers a bit of different flare on the class.

I've seen mention that Illusionists will be Shadow power source, not Arcane, along with Necromancers.
the sword mage was a typo at enworld.

its in the frpg.

anyway my guess

barbarian
sohei
wu-jen
sorcerer
druid
bard
I
T
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
Sohei? Wu Jen? Sounds like it would be in 4e OA to me.
Resident Piggles Zombie piggy is eatin' your sigs om nom nom (>*o*)>
MTG Card
Front: PigKnight, One Line Poster (3W) Legendary Creature - Boar Knight Vigilance When this creature dies, return him to play and transform him. (2/3) >(5/3)< Back: (Black)ZombiePiggles, Eater of Tomato Sauce Legendary Creature - Boar Knight Zombie Trample, Intimidate B: Regenerate this creature. When this creature is the target of a white spell, transform this creature. (5/3)

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/15.jpg)

Sohei? Wu Jen? Sounds like it would be in 4e OA to me.

While I would love to see that, as long as all the classes don't have Ki as their power source, I doubt it.

I want Al-Qadim!
the sword mage was a typo at enworld.

its in the frpg.

anyway my guess

barbarian
sohei
wu-jen
sorcerer
druid
bard
I
T

I'm reasonably confident we'll see Sohei along with Ninja, Samurai, and Monk in the Ki power source, in a future PH -- as in, not PH2.

Wu Jen is a weird case, because it's strongly Primal flavoured, and yet also perhaps too "oriental" in flavour to match the other Primal classes. OTOH, Wu Jen would be a shoe-in for the Primal Controller role, if WotC is willing to give it a name that's not especially evocative to english-speaking D&D fans, especially newer fans who never experience the Wu Jen in previous editions.

Wu Jen could neatly replace "Witch" on the current presumptive list of PH2 classes. I'd personally prefer the Wu Jen, if only because I hate the class name, "Witch". "Witch" is way too generic, and yet it potentially shares a huge amount of flavour with the Wu Jen. Further, it wouldn't totally surprise me to see a Wu Jen that was substantially different from 3.5E's Wu Jen; like the Warlock, it's a relatively new class without a major fanbase to tie it down.
How do we know the I is a striker and T is the controller?

You know, your absolutely right. What would you put?
the problem with the totemist is that there was a 3e totemist, and with the Shaman that would make only 2 new classes. However, we know there will be three new classes and 5 conversions. So if T is Totemist, Shaman has to go and be replaced with something else.

Also, edivence in the Witch's favor is a strange comment I can't seem to find right now on witches, wizards, and warlocks that seemed to suggest that despite similar meanings, all three could be viable classes. Not concrete, but since we have two of them it stands to reason the third might be on the way.

Only familiar with 3e core, didn't know it already existed. Sill hope I'm right because Witch is a lame name for a class.
It might be witch doctor. If it is I would love to see some necromancy-ish powers (witch doctors are the original necros).
Resident Piggles Zombie piggy is eatin' your sigs om nom nom (>*o*)>
MTG Card
Front: PigKnight, One Line Poster (3W) Legendary Creature - Boar Knight Vigilance When this creature dies, return him to play and transform him. (2/3) >(5/3)< Back: (Black)ZombiePiggles, Eater of Tomato Sauce Legendary Creature - Boar Knight Zombie Trample, Intimidate B: Regenerate this creature. When this creature is the target of a white spell, transform this creature. (5/3)

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/15.jpg)

On the other hand, barbarians usually had poor AC in 3.5, and didn't have the sort of defender-like tricks that a fighter got with his plethora of feats, mostly involving tripping and disarming and extra attacks of opportunity. A barbarian was more about direct damage, and it would seem a little odd to me if they had some sort of marking ability. Of course by the same reasoning, Paladins shouldn't have been made defenders either, except they at least have the AC for the role.

So it really looks like either it will straight out be considered a hybrid role, or the writers will have redesign the barbarian somewhat to either fit as a striker or a defender.

Barbarian's AC in 3(.5) didn't have to be poor, unless player or DM insisted on it.
Mithral full plate worked miracles on barbarian's AC.

But barbarians traditionally had a lot of staying power in form of hit points. All previous incarnations of the class (1E, 2E, 3(.5)E) used d12 as their HD.

And the traditional perception of barbarian fighting style (shout a battle cry, charge, deal an obscene amount of damage) matches more with defender flavour than that of strikers.

I kind of expect the 4e barbarian to have at least some of the following class features:
  • more hp than fighter or paladin (say 17 + Con as starting hp, and 7 hp/level)
  • bonus to damage dealt with melee weapons (similar to how fighter gets attack roll bonuses) or maybe just with a smaller group of melee weapons (say, all simple weapons, plus greataxe, greatsword, and maul), probably +2, maybe +3 for a narrower list
  • dragonborn-like bonus to healing surges
  • per day amount of healing surges equal to that of paladin (10 + Con modifier)
  • armour proficiencies up to hide, perhaps with a swordmage-like bonus to AC if not wearing heavy armour


Personally, I'd like the PHII to have two barbarian builds, the savage warrior (direct damage, sort of defender/striker, if you will) and the "noble savage" (defender/leader).
"W"



whole new class name...Warper......Like transmuter but it's so new they can spin it any way they want.

Make it primal or arcane.....you twist reality to your will.

I like it.
Barbarian's AC in 3(.5) didn't have to be poor, unless player or DM insisted on it.
Mithral full plate worked miracles on barbarian's AC.

Anyone outside of mages could strap on mithral plate just as well to improve their AC. Barbarians are the only ones who got an AC penalty for using their class feature. So yeah, you could work around their handicap, but that doesn't change the fact that it was originally flavored to have poor AC along with their massive hp.


And the traditional perception of barbarian fighting style (shout a battle cry, charge, deal an obscene amount of damage) matches more with defender flavour than that of strikers.

Dealing an obscene amount of damage would indicate a striker role along with the weaker AC, and bonuses for mobile attacks such as a charges would also be very striker like. Battle cries could be interpreted different ways, in 3.5 it was just fluff, but I could see them doing so cool things with it, mostly in terms of intimidate.

I kind of expect the 4e barbarian to have at least some of the following class features:...
  • bonus to damage dealt with melee weapons (similar to how fighter gets attack roll bonuses) or maybe just with a smaller group of melee weapons (say, all simple weapons, plus greataxe, greatsword, and maul), probably +2, maybe +3 for a narrower list...
  • armour proficiencies up to hide, perhaps with a swordmage-like bonus to AC if not wearing heavy armour

I agree that there probably will be some sort of damage bonus for barbarians, possibly scaling damage for that matter. However, the reason the fighter has a to-hit bonus from his class is that he has minor striker abilities along with defender abilities. So the point is that the barbarian will either be a striker with minor defender abilities or a defender with minor striker abilities like the fighter.

Either way, I am almost certain that the barbarian will not get a class defense or AC bonus. In fact I expect alot of their powers to work like 'throw caution to the wind' storm warden power, and give defense penalties for more damage and/or chance to hit.

The rest of the list I agree with.

Personally, I'd like the PHII to have two barbarian builds, the savage warrior (direct damage, sort of defender/striker, if you will) and the "noble savage" (defender/leader).

I don't feel that the class will step too much into warlord like territory. I expect rather that build might instead be directed at intimidation powers and making opponents desire to move away from him. Almost antidefenderish in a way actually. This will be fine if it allows him to setup more charges for extra damage.
I don't feel that the class will step too much into warlord like territory. I expect rather that build might instead be directed at intimidation powers and making opponents desire to move away from him. Almost antidefenderish in a way actually. This will be fine if it allows him to setup more charges for extra damage.

You just gave me the coolest idea for what the barbarian should do.

Imagine this, a class that has lots of pushes, and for whom being near is very dangerous and staying close to puts you at risk, kind of as you said, opposite the defenders goal of keeping enemies close.

You end up with a very scarey brute, chasing/herding enemies around the battlefield away from the squishier members and towards the defenders, who then hold them in place while the barbarian and rogue tear them apart with the fighter help.

How better to capture the barbarian's flavor, than a scary brute no one wants to be near and tries to get away from that knocks people all over the battlefield. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's ideal and would be a really fun character to play.

Also keep in mind, you don't need to rely in intimidate, it's a big scarey dude with a huge weapon, foaming at the mouth and swinging wildly. Think of it this way.

The fighter hits you if you shift away from him, what if the barbarian's "marking" ability were to hit you if you start your turn next to him forcing you to either shift or take damage from the wildly swinging axe, ect? No need for intimidation, use the mechanics instead, same as fighter and paladins don't force others to attack them, they just strongly encourage it.

I also in this case like the idea of marking stacking. I'm just picturing the person peeing themselves as they try to maneuver around the fighter in a panic as this scary mofo keeps trying to murder them, screwed if they do, screwed if they don't. Fighter and Barbarian working in tandem.

Also I expect the barbarian to have high damage, high hit points, low ac and low to hit from taking unnecessary risks.

Really they're kind of a defender/striker/controller hybrid, that kinda do their own thing, and are almost a role unto themselves.
I'll try to avoid hijacking this thread too much, but I like the idea of a barbarian using battle cries to control mobs by using fear to send them running away. Not a controller in the sense of a wizard just destroying lots of little guys in a group, but a controller in the sense of 'get away from us you little creeps'.

Still, a barbarian with a 2-handed weapon should be feared in terms of damage. Maybe a striker/(weird) controller? I like the idea. Might be time to homebrew some things...
You just gave me the coolest idea for what the barbarian should do.

Imagine this, a class that has lots of pushes, and for whom being near is very dangerous and staying close to puts you at risk, kind of as you said, opposite the defenders goal of keeping enemies close.

You end up with a very scarey brute, chasing/herding enemies around the battlefield away from the squishier members and towards the defenders, who then hold them in place while the barbarian and rogue tear them apart with the fighter help.

How better to capture the barbarian's flavor, than a scary brute no one wants to be near and tries to get away from that knocks people all over the battlefield. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's ideal and would be a really fun character to play.

Also keep in mind, you don't need to rely in intimidate, it's a big scarey dude with a huge weapon, foaming at the mouth and swinging wildly. Think of it this way.

The fighter hits you if you shift away from him, what if the barbarian's "marking" ability were to hit you if you start your turn next to him forcing you to either shift or take damage from the wildly swinging axe, ect? No need for intimidation, use the mechanics instead, same as fighter and paladins don't force others to attack them, they just strongly encourage it.

I also in this case like the idea of marking stacking. I'm just picturing the person peeing themselves as they try to maneuver around the fighter in a panic as this scary mofo keeps trying to murder them, screwed if they do, screwed if they don't. Fighter and Barbarian working in tandem.

Also I expect the barbarian to have high damage, high hit points, low ac and low to hit from taking unnecessary risks.

Really they're kind of a defender/striker/controller hybrid, that kinda do their own thing, and are almost a role unto themselves.

It's the Sheepdog class!
Im looking forward to a divine caster limited to wearing cloth. Maybe here.
I was thinking on it, and considering alot of the flavor from 3e, the Sorcerer would very easily be an arcane striker as opposed to controller - especially if WoTC want to get away from the 3e "Sorcerers and Wizards are practically the same" thing they had problems with (Funnily enough I heard that they created the sorcerer simply because they didn't want so much of the PH dedicated to wizards, so they made another class using the same list :P )
I was thinking on it, and considering alot of the flavor from 3e, the Sorcerer woulc very easily be an arcane striker as opposed to controller

Too bad it was already stated that they are arcane controllers.:P

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1031661
Hmm, barbarians are already kind of in 4e, under the TWF Ranger - best base HP, light armour, lots of hitting, fast & manouverable....even Rage is there in the form of hunter's quarry.

Ah well, the more options the better
Im looking forward to a divine caster limited to wearing cloth. Maybe here.

IMAGE(http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/items/armorsets/images/tier6raid/priest/human-female.jpg)

Like that?
Well since, they put up some of the basic information about the swordmage, and it should work just as well for the Barbarian too. Everyone likes to keep saying how great the Barbarian is at damage but not defense in 3e. Thats really not true unless you went the route of Frenzied Berserker prestige class. They also had damage reduction in addition to their high hp, so even if they had lower ac than fighters they still took (especially at higher levels) a lot less damage than everyone else, especially with any feat or such that incresed damage reduction even more. For the 4e barb, we'll probably see some form of damage resist/powers that give temporary hp, probably provokes or war cries for pulling enemies, and WotC has already stated that there is going to be situational rages like the paladins situational smites.
personally, I am most interested in the Shaman and a divine striker sounds like a lot of fun to play
Like that?

lol

When I think of "Divine casters in cloth armor" I think white magic, Final Fantasy. And in my mind that's not a bad thing!