Community

Here I'd like to break the primary archetypal classes down into what makes them what they are, and make some suggestions concerning how they could be different from previous editions.  As with my suggested Warlord, I'm only tossing out food for thought.  With no further delay, let's get into this.

Fighter: A master of the martial, the Fighter specializes in whatever he damned well pleases, insofar as combat is concerned.  If he decides to take up unarmed combat, he can tangle with a monk and have a good chance of success.  If he chooses archery, he can castrate a flea at a hundred yards and leave the poor critter alive.  He's no mere thug, handing out pain and standing like a moron while people hit him.  That's for lesser warriors, not the master of his chosen domain.  In a setting where magic rules, this man has chosen to perfect his body instead of learning to wield magic, and by God, he's gonna show those finger-wigglers who's boss.  So, I suggest that he have the highest saving throws, to-hit chance, damage, and AC/Defense.  Whether he's got maneuvers or not, he needs to be one mean bastard, and almost impossible to defeat on any field of battle.

Cleric: The ultimate crusader.  This is no priest, to tend to a small flock of followers' needs in the day-to-day.  This is a chosen champion of the divine, trained in war and given the power and authority to guide his comrades towards the righteous path and just maybe save the cosmos on the way.  This warrior-monk needs to have strong will saves, medium AC, medium armor proficiency, medium attack, and some magical ability.  I posit that the cleric should get some channeling that he can alter in lieu of divine spellcasting.  A finite list of effects his channeling can accomplish, altered by the domains of his deity.  Perhaps have a full spellcaster in an NPC priest class, since they don't have to devote a large portion of their time to martial training.

Wizard: This occultist looks at things man was not meant to know, and uses them to change the multiverse to better suit his liking.  As a master of the arcane, he is empowered by his ever-growing knowledge of dark mysteries that mankind isn't ready for.  Mysteries that would break lesser minds.  The wizard's mastery of the arcane could apply metamagics to every spell they cast, as they don't master spells, they master the nature of magic itself.  Strong will, little attack, little armor, little AC.  They have no time for the physical silliness of those morons in steel, they have a universe to call to heel.

Rogue: Ah, the rogue.  A thief and a swashbuckler, he---You know what?
Thief: The ultimate skillomancer, this cunning trickster makes up for his lack of combat training with his mastery of traps, psychology, and stealth.    His wit is sharper than any knife, and he can talk a king out of his kingdom.  Give this rake the most skills, but the combat ability of the wizard.  This is the master of improvisation, and he'd much rather drop a chandelier on his opponent than go toe-to-toe with him.  He is separate from the
Assassin: This slippery bastard takes the combat abilities of the Rogue, and ends lives before they're aware of his existence.  Part sniper, part knife-fighter, this knife in the dark brings terror and death to his foes.  He's no less skilled than the fighter in combat, but his skills lie in ambushes, sneak attacks, and poisons.  Medium attack, high reflex saves, medium AC, massive damage from stealth and in surprise rounds.

What say you?

A pleasure to read those well-written descriptions 

Jul 24, 2012 -- 2:21PM, Mand12 wrote:

Am I the only one who finds them incredibly one-dimensional, old-fashioned, and against the stated goal of Next to provide everyone with meaningful contributions toward the three pillars of combat, exploration, and interaction?

I have to agree with Mand12. This feels like only one fo the ways these roles can be played. While these feel like some of the old , traditional roles these do not fill all the roles that D&D has given them over the various editions.

In addition to what's been said, while I love the Warlord in 4e, without the roles matrix, I'd really prefer it if the Fighter could just eat the Warlord and take his stuff.

don't care much about those description, but mainly becuse they don't do anything to draw me to the class in the first place.

The Fighter fights! He fights with swords! He fights with bows! He fights with fists! fightfightfight! the fact that D&D wants one class to be swordguy/bowguy/fistguy/axeguy/nunchuckguy/bowstaffguy/etc... means to me that there will be far less design space making those concepts interesting and simply having a lot of design space used to make him passibly competant or giving him so many static bonuses that the reason he's "good" with the weapons is that the weapon itself is meaningless. 

same with "classic" D&D wizard: it's a catch-all class that supposed to be every fantasy caster all at once, but mechanically fails to do so, instead giving us a kitchen sink. i would much prefer to see specialized illusionists, enchanters, evokers, transmuters, etc... with different styles (a shapeshifter transmuter, a terrain manipulation transmuter, an equipment enhancer transmuter, an enemy debuffer transmuter, etc...) rather then have it all under the umbrella of "wizard".