http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080416a
Discuss.
Personally, not having Sorcerers really chaps my hide.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080416a
Discuss.
Personally, not having Sorcerers really chaps my hide.
But if they put all the fun classes in the 1st PH, how are they going to sell PH II, III and IV (and so on, up to about 8 or 10, depending on when they do 5th edition).
Seriously, thats the business plan. They will likely surface in later books. The best you can hope for is that they won't be stuff into a campaign setting you don't care about. Like the new 'swordmage' in the FR splatbook. 160 pages for a campaign setting thats been advanced a century, almost destroyed and built back up. Now thats comedy...
But seriously, this has been 99% certain and all but confirmed since roughly December. Why are you surprised now?
Well, we knew for a long time that druids, sorcerers and bards won't make it.
Although I'm a pro-4E, I'm somewhat bothered with that.
In one hand, I've found Worlds and Monster absolutely awesome - to make every monster special, to make a cosmology which doesn't revolve around alignments, was I everything I could want.
In the other hand, for Races and Classes... while I don't bear any hate for the dragonborn, tiefling, warlord and warlock, they seem to have been included more for their "badass" or "cool" factor than anything else. The tiefling warlock, for instance, is your typical Batman/Punisher/Spawn/V/etc. cursed anti-hero. Yeah, I know that players are perhaps more interested on playing badass-posing anti-heros than comic relief or easygoing heroes. But I personally think that a funny gnome bard can be as "cool" as Batman, I mean, the tiefling warlock.
The big deal is not that. I understand that many people want to play as Batmans in D&D, so let them. The real problem is that druids and bards are iconic on D&D. They exist since 1st edition. I know they will appear on PHB2, but to think they were left out in favor of the "badass" classes, is something that annoys me.
Sorcerers and barbarians? Don't care at all about them. They are conceptually weak, and it seems they appeared more to fit mechanics than to fit flavor (the same complaint against 4th edition warlord).
Monks? It would be nice if they appeared on an Oriental Adventures book, along other oriental classes (Ninja, Samurai, Wu Jen, Shugenja, Spirit Shaman, etc.)
Interesting. I don't see the warlock as batman at all. But then, I never read batman.
The 4e conception strikes me more as the Howard concept of a wizard (the evil ritualist that Conan stabs with a sword) that has pacts with strange and terrible beings. I like it, but I can easily understand why people are not happy its a PC class.
For the last time, there will be Sorcerers, Druids, Bards, Monks, and Barbarians in 4E. Just not the first PHB.
Is it really easier to invent new classes than to balance ones that have existed from the beginning?Anyone who thinks this whole "release new core books yearly" thing isn't a devious marketing ploy is deluding themselves.
They seem to be rushing this new product to market,cramming it down the throats of a very loyal,dedicated following.Who will probably swallow it,even if the taste is a bit funky....I don't want to have to buy multiple PHB just to get what i got in ONE 3.5 phb.But i probably will anyway.Then i will b~#!! and moan about it some more ha ha.
Is it really easier to invent new classes than to balance ones that have existed from the beginning?Anyone who thinks this whole "release new core books yearly" thing isn't a devious marketing ploy is deluding themselves.
They seem to be rushing this new product to market,cramming it down the throats of a very loyal,dedicated following.Who will probably swallow it,even if the taste is a bit funky....I don't want to have to buy multiple PHB just to get what i got in ONE 3.5 phb.But i probably will anyway.Then i will b&~## and moan about it some more ha ha.
*Sigh* I give up.
The 4e wizard has far more in common with the 3e sorceror than the 3e wizard.
A limited list of powers usable within combat which you cannot change once you have picked them is the sorceror model.
Though to be fair, the wizard gets a little bit of exception, since he can choose from a selection of daily powers when he rests.
But yes, small set of powers known, replacing them as you level up seems to be the general model, much like the sorcerer. Something I find vaguely amusing, given the sorcerer's short existence in the game.
I don't want to have to buy multiple PHB just to get what i got in ONE 3.5 phb.But i probably will anyway.Then i will b@!%! and moan about it some more ha ha.
How about having your wallet speak for you . . . nothing speaks louder to a company than either buying or not buying their product.
If you don't like something that the company is doing with their product (i.e. releasing multiple phb's . . . ), then don't purchase their books.
To state that you will buy the additional books, yet still complain seems rather hollow. Companies look att heir bottom line. The best way for you to complain, if it is what you actually wantto do is just not purchase the books.
For the last time, there will be Sorcerers, Druids, Bards, Monks, and Barbarians in 4E. Just not the first PHB.Would this be a fair statement?
There won't be Sorcerers, Druids, Bards, Monks, or Barbarians for the first year of 4e.
Probably depends on whether they get their act together with DDI, though I doubt paying $12 per month for the possibility that they might pop up, or whatever pay-to-see scheme is in place, is going to be any more satisfying than waiting for many people.
For the last time, there will be Sorcerers, Druids, Bards, Monks, and Barbarians in 4E. Just not the first PHB.Some people might feel a bit shortchanged to have to fork out for several splatbooks to get everything they wanted from 4e in the old PHB.
Its a new fawking edition. If they just kept all the old stuff and didn't put anything new in PHB that would be worse.
|
Maybe. Sounds more like and attempt to sell more splatbooks to me.
Call me cynical....
Frankly, it doesn't bother me overmuch as I have the funds to do so. But not everyone does. If you can't get the PCs you want from the core three books, that is a step away from the good old days. Of course, for WotC it was a frustration that you could play pretty much all you wanted by just buying three books and never spending anything on their products again, and this is presumably an attempt to ameliorate that. Sure, the bard, barbarian, druid and sorcerer have been in and out of the game depending on the edition, so it is not unprecedented to have them omitted. But it might have been nice to have them in anyway, since people have been happily playing them for years now.
Maybe. Sounds more like and attempt to sell more splatbooks to me.
Call me cynical....
Frankly, it doesn't bother me overmuch as I have the funds to do so. But not everyone does. If you can't get the PCs you want from the core three books, that is a step away from the good old days. Of course, for WotC it was a frustration that you could play pretty much all you wanted by just buying three books and never spending anything on their products again, and this is presumably an attempt to ameliorate that. Sure, the bard, barbarian, druid and sorcerer have been in and out of the game depending on the edition, so it is not unprecedented to have them omitted. But it might have been nice to have them in anyway, since people have been happily playing them for years now.
Eh understandable points, but WotC is a company and they do have to make money on this game. And hey, the longer it takes for those classes to come out the more balanced they'll be.
Really though the only omission from 3.5 I'm kind of steamed over is why they took the Half Orc out.
|
|
Actually, I agree with you on the half-orc thing - I really like them and am pained to see them removed (again). And I understand WotC motivation, though I question some of their decisions (and not particularly related to a new addition as such, but more how they relate to the mysteries of the GSL and the impact on the game as a whole).
The whole thing with the GSL, that blame can be placed on Hasbro and Legal.
So: It's just not D&D if it doesn't have sorcerers in it? I would think that the first 28 years of D&D's history suggest otherwise.
In seven years of 3e, I have played, uh, clerics, fighters, paladins, rogues, wizards, a ranger, and (for one session) a bard. Of those, only the bard will not be in the 4e PHB. As an alternative, Necromancer Games has promised (if the GSL allows it) to make, and quickly release, an 'Advanced Players Guide' that will include versions of those missing classes for those who cannot wait.
I would rather that WOTC build each class well, rather than necessarily make sure they are all in the PHBI.
If they just kept all the old stuff and didn't put anything new in PHB that would be worse.
Not really.
Many people want to continue to play D&D more or less the same way that they have in the past. That means different things to different people, of course, and to many that means being able to pick up the new edition rules and be able to convert their current campaigns without scrubbing it altogether.
For many, that simply isn't possible. If you wanted to play a bard or druid, that's just right out.
For now.
And honestly, core rule books are supposed to be be "core" for a reason. Anything not in them is not core D&D and never will be, regardless if the PHB II is called core rule book four or not, it simply is an add-on to the core rules.
So, my opinion on the matter is, keeping the old stuff while bringing in the new stuff would have been much better.
Why the hell is Core so important? If the stuff is balanced whether its "Core" or not should even matter.
Creative Director
|
Why the hell is Core so important? If the stuff is balanced whether its "Core" or not should even matter.
Having a core ruleset has been important in the past because that establishes a (relatively) inexpensive baseline. All the rules you need to play are in the core books, which means that entry into the game for a new gamer is relatively easy. He buys the core books and then gets to decide how to further spend his money. As a result, the core books become the best known and the most familiar. Again, they end up forming the baseline for the game experience.
When we were working on Dragon and Dungeon, a core ruleset had another importance. We could present adventures and articles assuming that our readers had access to the core rules, and therefore didn't have to reprint any of those rules. When we pulled in material from other books, we DID generally have to reprint the stat blocks or other pertinent information, since it was, in my opinion, unfair and irresponsible to assume that our readers had access to every book WotC had ever published.
Anyway... there's two pretty good reasons why having a core ruleset is a good thing and why it's important. Of course, that all presupposes a business model like 3rd edition had; 4th edition doesn't necessary have or need this same business model, in which case all bets are off.
Also... try to stay civil, everyone. Flame wars about editions are destructive and uncool.
When we were working on Dragon and Dungeon, a core ruleset had another importance. We could present adventures and articles assuming that our readers had access to the core rules, and therefore didn't have to reprint any of those rules. When we pulled in material from other books, we DID generally have to reprint the stat blocks or other pertinent information, since it was, in my opinion, unfair and irresponsible to assume that our readers had access to every book WotC had ever published.
James, this reminds me of something. Into the future, will Pathfinder products continue to refer back to the 3.5 Monster Manual? I'm assuming that after the release of PRPG, references to everything else will go back to your own books, rather than the DMG or PH.
James, this reminds me of something. Into the future, will Pathfinder products continue to refer back to the 3.5 Monster Manual? I'm assuming that after the release of PRPG, references to everything else will go back to your own books, rather than the DMG or PH.
When we were working on Dragon and Dungeon, a core ruleset had another importance. We could present adventures and articles assuming that our readers had access to the core rules, and therefore didn't have to reprint any of those rules. When we pulled in material from other books, we DID generally have to reprint the stat blocks or other pertinent information, since it was, in my opinion, unfair and irresponsible to assume that our readers had access to every book WotC had ever published.
Yeah I've been wondering that to.
Why the hell is Core so important? If the stuff is balanced whether its "Core" or not should even matter.
Core rules define the game. They are the predetermined norms upon which everything is established.
The core races and classes are what differetiates Ebberon from the Realms and Ravenloft.
"Balanced" is a term that mostly relates to game mechanics and funtions. You can have a balanced bard, a balanced half-orc, and a balanced druid. And there will be. Sometime.
But the fact that they are not in the core books suggests that they are not part of 4e D&D, just as warforged are not part of Forgotten Realms or that Kenders don't exist in Greyhawk.
Core rules, for the most part supercede and overlap across the game settings. That's what core rules do.
I don't particularly like the dragonborn. I think that having tieflings without aasimars is not right, and I don't like either of them as core races.
Being core races means that they are prevalent. In 4e, there are more tiefling adventurers than half-orcs, and theoritcally as many as there are human adventurers. And their counteparts are non-existant as a core race.
In the past, tieflings and dragonborn existed, but they didn't define D&D. Now they do. Playing 4e D&D without them will be like running an Eberron game without shifters or warforged. You can do it, but it won't really be Eberron.
You can play 4e without dragonborn or warlords, but it won't be 4e D&D, it would be some house-ruled variant. Not core.
Why the hell is Core so important? If the stuff is balanced whether its "Core" or not should even matter.Core rules define the game. They are the predetermined norms upon which everything is established.
The core races and classes are what differetiates Ebberon from the Realms and Ravenloft.
"Balanced" is a term that mostly relates to game mechanics and funtions. You can have a balanced bard, a balanced half-orc, and a balanced druid. And there will be. Sometime.
But the fact that they are not in the core books suggests that they are not part of 4e D&D, just as warforged are not part of Forgotten Realms or that Kenders don't exist in Greyhawk.
Core rules, for the most part supercede and overlap across the game settings. That's what core rules do.
I don't particularly like the dragonborn. I think that having tieflings without aasimars is not right, and I don't like either of them as core races.
Being a core races means that they are prevalent. In 4e, there are more tiefling adventurers than half-orcs, and theoritcally as many as there are human adventurers. And their counteparts are non-existant as a core race.
In the past, tieflings and dragonborn existed, but they didn't define D&D. Now they do. Playing 4e D&D without them will be like running an Eberron game without shifters or warforged. You can do it, but it won't really be Eberron.
You can play 4e without dragonborn or warlords, but it won't be 4e D&D, it would be some house-ruled variant. Not core.
Eh, I've never played any of the pre-existing worlds (Except for Eberron) so most of that does not apply to me. But I can see why some people might have beef with it.
|
Creative Director
|
James, this reminds me of something. Into the future, will Pathfinder products continue to refer back to the 3.5 Monster Manual? I'm assuming that after the release of PRPG, references to everything else will go back to your own books, rather than the DMG or PH.
Pathfinder products will continue referring back to the 3.5 Monster Manual up until the month we release a Pathfinder RPG replacement/reprint of the SRD monsters. A Pathfinder RPG monster book SEEMS like a no-brainer idea to me, and I'd be SHOCKED if we didn't do one soon after the Pathfinder RPG releases in August of 2009.
But until that happens, all things Pathfinder will continue to assume readers have access to the 3.5 PH, MM, and DMG.
And I mean no disrespect.
I suspect that 4e is going to be wildly popular and successful. I will pick up the core books and give it try.
I am currently trying to run a WWDDGD event here in Korea so we can bring 4e to our gaming community like they will in other places.
I'm just saying that by taking out races and classes from the initial releases and adding races and classes that were previously considered add-ons changes what D&D is at the fundamental level.
Out of all of the additions, I surprised they didn't make the Drow a core race. It has been one of the most popular choices for players, and a headache for many DMs. If they made Drow a core race, they could have balanced it out with the others, making it a more viable option.
Eh, I've never played any of the pre-existing worlds (Except for Eberron) so most of that does not apply to me. But I can see why some people might have beef with it.
I'm curious about how the new rules will affect Eberron, too.
Gnomes and half-orcs are members of dragon-marked houses.
Since they didn't get the full work-up as the other races, it's going to impact the world somehow.
For what it's worth, I always thought the biggest point of a Core set of rules is for future references in other products. That is, splats only assume you have the Core three. The upside is you don't have book prerequisites that you have to follow to understand your purchase. The downside is that if a really cool splat comes out, it very likely won't ever be updated/touched again. Towards the end of 3E they loosened up on the rule, but in 4E other books will be built assuming you have all of Core.
Also, modules can be produced assuming you have the other Core Monster Manuals, etc, etc.
Cheers! :)
Eh, I've never played any of the pre-existing worlds (Except for Eberron) so most of that does not apply to me. But I can see why some people might have beef with it.I'm curious about how the new rules will affect Eberron, too.
Gnomes and half-orcs are members of dragon-marked houses.
Since they didn't get the full work-up as the other races, it's going to impact the world somehow.
New Core books means new Races as well as Classes. Expect Gnomes (and maybe Half-Orcs) in the PHBII next year, right before Eberron comes out ...
Cheers! :)
For what it's worth, I always thought the biggest point of a Core set of rules is for future references in other products. That is, splats only assume you have the Core three. The upside is you don't have book prerequisites that you have to follow to understand your purchase. The downside is that if a really cool splat comes out, it very likely won't ever be updated/touched again. Towards the end of 3E they loosened up on the rule, but in 4E other books will be built assuming you have all of Core.
Also, modules can be produced assuming you have the other Core Monster Manuals, etc, etc.
Cheers! :)
I get what you mean David, but I think many of the posters above are assuming that only the initial release is Core, while the PHB2, MM2, etc aren't. My understanding was that all those series of releases, regardless of when they were published, would be considered Core.
Eh, I've never played any of the pre-existing worlds (Except for Eberron) so most of that does not apply to me. But I can see why some people might have beef with it.I'm curious about how the new rules will affect Eberron, too.
Gnomes and half-orcs are members of dragon-marked houses.
Since they didn't get the full work-up as the other races, it's going to impact the world somehow.
New Core books means new Races as well as Classes. Expect Gnomes (and maybe Half-Orcs) in the PHBII next year, right before Eberron comes out ...
Cheers! :)
Gnomes are going to a PC race and get a write up in the 4E Monster Manual. For once I actually wanna play the little losers.
I get what you mean David, but I think many of the posters above are assuming that only the initial release is Core, while the PHB2, MM2, etc aren't. My understanding was that all those series of releases, regardless of when they were published, would be considered Core.For what it's worth, I always thought the biggest point of a Core set of rules is for future references in other products. That is, splats only assume you have the Core three. The upside is you don't have book prerequisites that you have to follow to understand your purchase. The downside is that if a really cool splat comes out, it very likely won't ever be updated/touched again. Towards the end of 3E they loosened up on the rule, but in 4E other books will be built assuming you have all of Core.
Also, modules can be produced assuming you have the other Core Monster Manuals, etc, etc.
Cheers! :)
Exactly. To be clear: in 3E only the PHB, DMG, and MM were considered Core. Other products only ever assumed you owned those three (for the most part.) This had its advantages and its disadvantages.
In 4E all of the PHB X, DMG X, and MM X are going to be considered Core, meaning other products will assume you own them. This also has its advantages and its disadvantages (personally I think I'll like this better, but we'll see ...)
Cheers! :)
Gnomes are going to a PC race and get a write up in the 4E Monster Manual. For once I actually wanna play the little losers.
True, but they will be lacking many of the racial feats that the PHB Races will supposedly have access to. I believe the MM will also be setup to allow playing of something like 14 other races.
In fact, I think they said Gnoll was one of them, I bet Orc is as well.
Cheers! :)
Gnomes are going to a PC race and get a write up in the 4E Monster Manual. For once I actually wanna play the little losers.True, but they will be lacking many of the racial feats that the PHB Races will supposedly have access to. I believe the MM will also be setup to allow playing of something like 14 other races.
In fact, I think they said Gnoll was one of them, I bet Orc is as well.
Cheers! :)
I think some of them are Orc, Gnoll (YAY!), Bugbear (YAY!), Hobgoblin (YAY!), Goblin, Kobold (YAY!), Minotaur (YAY!), Shadar Kai (YAY!).
The first PHB covers arcane, divine, and martial characters. The classes mentioned in the OP will use different power sources IIRC. My understanding is that each PHB will cover another set of classes tied to a different set of power sources.
I think all the ones after the PHBII will follow that model.
Maybe we should bring back just "Fighting Man" "Magic User" and "Cleric"! :-)
We played without Druids, Sorcerers, and Bards for years. And we were fine! Honest! :-)
Of course, there was a bit of filling up the empty spots in the class lineup with elves and dwarves and all. ;)
When we were working on Dragon and Dungeon, a core ruleset had another importance. We could present adventures and articles assuming that our readers had access to the core rules, and therefore didn't have to reprint any of those rules.
From my understanding of the goal of streamlining powers & monsters in 4e, it should be possible to stick any kind of opponent into a module without needing to reference the core books, or any other books. Typical monsters will just need a stat block that describes their two or three special abilities.
Similarly - if they've achieved their stated goals - WOTC should be able to drop a Saurail Runebinder into an adventure, without the DM or players needing access to either the Saurail entry in PHB6, or the Written Word Power Source detailed in PHB 13. OTOH, to make a unique Saurail Runebinder - either PC or NPC - the appropriate PHB's would be required.
WOTC's previous efforts at this have been mixed. They have included self-contained stat blocks for monsters from obscure sourcebooks in 3.5e adventures, and they were in fact playable. Unfortunately, they often left out the key detail of including a picture, or even telling us what the heck the monster looks like, and how it tends to act outside of combat.
So we'll see if the multiple-PHB model works out for 4e. It looks like there will be a little less variety in possible character choices at the initial release of 4e that there was with 3e. However, IIRC, there were an awful lot of suboptimal choices in the 3e PHB, and everyone seemed to gravitate to a lot of the same things: chain shirts, longswords, and the power attack, archer, and mobility feat chains.
So we'll see if the multiple-PHB model works out for 4e. It looks like there will be a little less variety in possible character choices at the initial release of 4e that there was with 3e. However, IIRC, there were an awful lot of suboptimal choices in the 3e PHB, and everyone seemed to gravitate to a lot of the same things: chain shirts, longswords, and the power attack, archer, and mobility feat chains.
While 4E PHB may have fewer classes, I don't think this translates to less variety or choices. There will be 150 feats and 500 class powers on the first PHB. Even if there are only 8 classes, at least it's expected that each class would have excellent support (and nice options of customization and differentiation) using solely the core rules.
That was not true on 3E. The fighter was seriously underpowered if restricted to core rules. Other classes offered little choice of differentiation - without prestige classes, substitution levels, or racial feats, two characters of same class and level were probably very alike (with exception of wizards and rogues).
When I acquired the 3.5 core books, I was already thinking on acquiring Complete Warrior, Arcane, Divine, etc. because I knew the core rules wouldn't be enough for my taste. With 4th edition, I don't have interest on acquiring any other supplement until 2009. Why should I spend money on Martial Power if I will already have, perhaps, 150 martial powers in my core books?
I'd rather have 2 PHBs with plenty of options for 16 classes, than to have a single Player's Handbook with 16 classes but an entire case of supplements necessary to make all these classes viable.
I'd rather have 2 PHBs with plenty of options for 16 classes, than to have a single Player's Handbook with 16 classes but an entire case of supplements necessary to make all these classes viable.
You know, you make a really good point here.
While I would really like to have the Druid and Barbarian in the game right away, I would much prefer to have them get a really really complete write up in the PHB 2 then just get stuffed into the PHB 1 in a half finished state.
In fact, when you look at the classes which will be in the PHB2, it becomes a very attractive book. The Monk, Bard, Barbarian, and Druid are all going to be there, and probably the Sorcerer, Psion, and Mind Blade as well. That sounds like a very good book to me.
Add in eight new races, and you're looking at a book wortha lot more then the splat books used to be.
I have to agree, that does sound quite appealing.
In fact, when you look at the classes which will be in the PHB2, it becomes a very attractive book. The Monk, Bard, Barbarian, and Druid are all going to be there, and probably the Sorcerer, Psion, and Mind Blade as well. That sounds like a very good book to me.
Add in eight new races, and you're looking at a book wortha lot more then the splat books used to be.
One thing that I'm really hoping for would be that each power source has classes that cover most of the possible roles. (Primal controllers, Psion leaders, etc.)
It would then be very easy to make distinctively flavored worlds/campaigns by saying simply, "The power sources in this campaign are Martial, Primal, and Shadow."
If they've done their jobs right, campaigns in that world would get by just fine with nary a Cleric in sight.
Now that would be cool.
One thing that I'm really hoping for would be that each power source has classes that cover most of the possible roles. (Primal controllers, Psion leaders, etc.)
It would then be very easy to make distinctively flavored worlds/campaigns by saying simply, "The power sources in this campaign are Martial, Primal, and Shadow."
If they've done their jobs right, campaigns in that world would get by just fine with nary a Cleric in sight.
Now that would be cool.
Now that sounds like a fantastic idea! You would be able to easily sculpt the abilities and styles of characters available, and set up a world far different from the normal setting, and very intresting.
I really hope they do this.
Is it really easier to invent new classes than to balance ones that have existed from the beginning ?
In a general sense it isn't any easier to create new classes then to implement the traditional classes, but it also isn't any harder given the approach they're taking with 4e. They're basically starting from square one and implementing classes based on their conceptual underpinnings rather than revising existing game mechanics - creating the 4e wizard and the 4e warlord most likely took about the same amount of design work to complete.
On a more specific level implementing several 3e classes in 4e might be nontrivial.
- Barbarian: There isn't much to work with on a mechanical level here. The class has only one active ability and that ability depends on a feature that 4e no longer has (ability score boosts).
- Bard: The 3e bard doesn't really excel in any given area something that the 4e design team is actively trying to avoid. Of course, the bard is a special case - they have revealed that the bard was one of the first classes design work was finished on. I'm not quite sure why the included the warlord instead of the bard.
- Druid: One of a druid's main shticks (shape shifting)is an area that WotC's designers have had trouble getting right in the past. The druid is also too good at too many things. Is the druid an elementalist, a shapeshifting warrior, or a nature priest ?
- Monk: Like the bard, the monk didn't really excel in any area. There's also the issue of trying to find a way to make hand to hand combat not suck and finding a way to make a monk's mystical abilities into active abilities since 4e is attempting to minimize passive abilities. They also need to find ways to differentiate one monk from another.
- Sorcerer: Much like the warlock the sorcerer existed to fill a mechanical niche that has been invalidated due to 4e's resource management model. Before you can implement a sorcerer class you need to find a way to make the class feel different in play than a wizard.
So, expanding on the ideas above that they should create a class for each role based upon each of the power sources, and thinking a bit about what each of the classes which were left ouf ot he PHB 1, I've come up with this idea.
The Players Handbook 2 could include the following classes:
The Bard, an Arcane Leader
The Druid, a Primal Leader
The Monk, a Martial Controler
The Barbarian, a Primal Defender
The Favored Soul, a Divine Striker
The Shaman, a Divine Controler
The Spell Blade, an Arcane Defender
The Scout, a Primal Controler
They will also probably include the animal companion rules, giving the ranger a more Primal bent then they had before. That distribution would give four of each role, and four of each power source, assuming you consider the ranger in the primal category.
It would give you a very good balance of classes and options across the board. Then, in the third handbook you could do:
The Psion, a Psionic Controler
The Wilder, a Psionic Striker
The Mind Blade, a Psionic Defender
A New Class, a Psionc Leader
The Shugenja, a Divine Leader
The Ninja, a Martial Striker
The Wu Jen, a Primal Controller
The Samurai, a Martial Defender
Again, a nice cross section or power sources and roles, with a built in theme for the book of psionic and eastern based classes classes.
Opinions? Options? What do you think about this idea?
So, expanding on the ideas above that they should create a class for each role based upon each of the power sources, and thinking a bit about what each of the classes which were left ouf ot he PHB 1, I've come up with this idea.
The Players Handbook 2 could include the following classes:
The Bard, an Arcane Leader
The Druid, a Primal Leader
The Monk, a Martial Controler
The Barbarian, a Primal Defender
The Favored Soul, a Divine Striker
The Shaman, a Divine Controler
The Spell Blade, an Arcane Defender
The Scout, a Primal Controler
My two cents:
- It was mentioned that druids will be Primal Hybrids, and that sorcerers will be on PHB2- Spell blades don't seem necessary since we will have Swordmages on FRCS.
- Scouts are unlikely to appear since their original concept was too similar to the current ranger
- Illusionists and necromancers were mentioned to be classes, so I think they may also appear
So, I believe PHB2 will contain:
Bard - Arcane Leader
Druid - Primal Hybrid
Monk - Martial Hybrid
Barbarian - Primal Defender
Sorcerer - Primal Controller
Illusionist - Shadow Controller
Necromancer - Shadow Hybrid
??? - ??? ???
As for races, I believed they are going to be tied to class concepts, just like on PHB 1 (human clerics, dwarf fighters, hafling rogues, eladrin wizards, dragonborn warlords, tiefling warlorcks, elf rangers and half-elf palafdins)
So, we will have:
Orc (Barbarian)
Kobold (Sorcerer)
Gnome (Illusionist)
Shadar-kai (Necromancer)
Warforged (???)
New race? (Bard)
New race? (Druid)
New race? (Monk)
My two cents:
- It was mentioned that druids will be Primal Hybrids, and that sorcerers will be on PHB2
- Spell blades don't seem necessary since we will have Swordmages on FRCS.
- Scouts are unlikely to appear since their original concept was too similar to the current ranger
- Illusionists and necromancers were mentioned to be classes, so I think they may also appear
Hey Krauser,
It would be neat to see Druids and Monks as a hybrid like class, I don't think they will be doing that. From what I've seen there is significant wiggle room in the class roles already, so hybrid doesn't make too much sense.
Besides, the Druid makes sense as a Leader type. They are the organizers of nature, leading animals and natural aligned folk into battle. When nature fights back, a druid is almost always directing the charge. The druid's former powers also mimic the current leader classes. The leaders which already exist are basicly combat effective, with healing and party buffs. While the Druid would be very different in how it is combat effective then the Marshal and Cleric are, I bet they fill much the same position in a party. Just, hopefully, like the bard will.
Oops! They're calling them Swordmages huh? My bad. The Spell Blade entry in my list was intended as the arcane defender being debuted in the Forgotten Realms setting. Just got the name wrong. Sorry!
You are right, the Scout's original concept was much to close to what the ranger does now. That's why I put them into the control slot, because I envisioned them working very differently in 4E then they do now. The Scout's 4E concept would be to have a mobile, controling force at the back of the group, granting many more combat bonuses to the party then the ranger does, while controling the tactis of the enemy a lot more. Things like wounding shots that reduce movement, or coordinated movement of party members, that sort of thing. This would be at the expense of the sheer damage potentials of the ranger, and they would lack the close combat skills available to the ranger.
What do you think? I could be totally wrong and they could drop the Scout as a redundant class.
Which will be I fear the fate of the Sorcerrer. Yes, I know people like them a lot, they were a great addition to 3.5, but they have got to have a significalty different flavor from the wizard to be included.
That is why I also think the Illusionist and Necormancer won't be joining the ranks of full classes. They might instead make a debut as paragon paths for the wizard. In fact, we could see all the school of magic resurface in that form somewhere down the line.
As for races, your guesses are pretty good. I'd put all of those on that list, along with the Aasimar as the bard, and the shifter as the druid, to further support Ebberon when it comes out aroudn that time.