Ranger is a "legacy" class, I think it will stay.

Barbarian too, both because it has something of a long history (back to the 1e Unearthed Arcana) but also just because it's an archetype people still want to play, thanks to my man Conan.

I could see Bard and Sorcerer going though. Has anyone ever been truly happy with these classes in 3e?

Quote from: One Horse TownWell, Ranger is definitely in. Seen a screen shot of the DI character page with a Ranger on it as well as 2 Fighters.

Hmm, interesting. I suspect there'll still be overlap between the Fighters and Paladins and Rangers - especially in terms of the special fighting powers. The Wizards team seem to have a big emphasis on tightly defining each character type's role in the party, and characters like Paladins and Rangers combining aspects of fighters and clerics would seem to go against that.

My guess: Paladins and Rangers are going to be fighters first, clerics/druids second, and will be closely based on the fighter class. They'll be special options, with special picks on the various Fighter power lists (and perhaps some special lists just for them) rather than 100% distinct classes with completely distinct power lists. Similarly, Bards and Sorcerers will be special instances of magic-users and speciality priests will be special instances of clerics.

Then again, I'm not putting too much emphasis on the DI screenshots - with 9 months to go until the release there's still time for an awful lot of changes in the 4E rules.

Quote from: SosthenesSounds suspiciously like SWSE...

If by that you mean Star Wars Saga Edition, it should. They've said that Saga was one of the testing grounds for the rules in 4e.

QuoteI could see Bard and Sorcerer going though. Has anyone ever been truly happy with these classes in 3e?

Me, although I prefer the bard to the sorcerer.

Quote from: WarthurHmm, interesting. I suspect there'll still be overlap between the Fighters and Paladins and Rangers - especially in terms of the special fighting powers. The Wizards team seem to have a big emphasis on tightly defining each character type's role in the party, and characters like Paladins and Rangers combining aspects of fighters and clerics would seem to go against that.

My guess: Paladins and Rangers are going to be fighters first, clerics/druids second, and will be closely based on the fighter class. They'll be special options, with special picks on the various Fighter power lists (and perhaps some special lists just for them) rather than 100% distinct classes with completely distinct power lists. Similarly, Bards and Sorcerers will be special instances of magic-users and speciality priests will be special instances of clerics.

Then again, I'm not putting too much emphasis on the DI screenshots - with 9 months to go until the release there's still time for an awful lot of changes in the 4E rules.

Yeah, there's still plenty of time for things to change. Still, with wizards saying they are concentrating on roles within the party, i tend to think that if there are going to be Rangers, paladins, Monks etc, then there'll be as little overlap with fighters as possible. They'll be Rangers/Paladins/Monks 'turned up to 11'. Well, that's what i hope anyhow.

Edit: In fact, one radical change that could work IMO is to drop the cleric and have the Paladin take over the role. A true 'warrior priest' in the adventuring sense of the word. Have clerics as an NPC class and roll more stuff into the Adept.

Quote from: One Horse TownYeah, there's still plenty of time for things to change. Still, with wizards saying they are concentrating on roles within the party, i tend to think that if there are going to be Rangers, paladins, Monks etc, then they'll be as little overlap as possible. They'll be Rangers/Paladins/Monks 'turned up to 11'. Well, that's what i hope anyhow.

That's the thing, I'm not convinced that a Ranger or a Paladin or a Barbarian really fills a different niche in the party than a Fighter. The Barbarian especially - he's a hit-soaking combat tank, the fighter's a hit-soaking combat tank. The Paladin and Ranger are there mainly to fulfil the same function, but also to occasionally tread on the cleric/druid's niche.

Historically speaking, the Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin have always been subclasses of the Fighter. I think in 4E we'll be presented with the four basic classes, along with guidelines and optional rules for creating our favourite subclasses from them if we especially want to go that route. So in the PHB you'll see:

FIGHTER (Core Class)
(Details on Fighters go here, as well as references to the lists of powers that fighters can choose from as they level up.)

Paladin/Barbarian/Ranger (Subclass)
(Details on these guys go here, with guides on how to make them using the Fighter rules.)

Heck, "Paladin" or "Barbarian" or "Ranger" might end up being special quirks you take at first level, along the lines of the following:

PALADIN (Fighters only)
You are a Paladin, a special fighter sworn to uphold Lawful Good values. You may not take powers from Fighter lists A, B, and C, but may instead take powers from Cleric lists X, Y, and Z, as well as the Paladin-only lists 1, 2 and 3.

Quote from: WarthurHeck, "Paladin" or "Barbarian" or "Ranger" might end up being special quirks you take at first level, along the lines of the following:

PALADIN (Fighters only)
You are a Paladin, a special fighter sworn to uphold Lawful Good values. You may not take powers from Fighter lists A, B, and C, but may instead take powers from Cleric lists X, Y, and Z, as well as the Paladin-only lists 1, 2 and 3.

Yeah, if that route is taken, i'd prefer this kind of approach. I would still prefer distinct classes though. With all the splat books, there's got to be enough options out there (as well as new stuff) to put together distinct classes for these guys that highlight their roles more than being sub-classes.

I've never been quite happy with the sorcerer mechanically, but it fills an archetype that was sorely needed.  I hope, whether they keep the class or not, that they still have some means of playing a magic-y character that's not studystilskin.

Quote from: One Horse TownYeah, if that route is taken, i'd prefer this kind of approach. I would still prefer distinct classes though. With all the splat books, there's got to be enough options out there (as well as new stuff) to put together distinct classes for these guys that highlight their roles more than being sub-classes.

Maybe, but the PHB is going to be 288 pages, and that's got to cover character gen, combat and action resolution (presumably), all the spells and all the nifty race, class, and race-and-class-specific powers that PCs can pick up. Coming up with distinct skill and power lists for every single class and still fitting it in 288 pages would be one hell of a difficult task.

I think the sub-class approach for things like rangers and bards and so forth is entirely sensible if you want a game which emphasises niche protection, as they claim 4E is going to. You have your four basic classes covering the major niches, and then you introduce the sub-classes which blur the boundaries between them a little in case (for example) you're running with a three-player group and nobody wants to be the Cleric.

Quote from: BrantaiI've never been quite happy with the sorcerer mechanically, but it fills an archetype that was sorely needed.  I hope, whether they keep the class or not, that they still have some means of playing a magic-y character that's not studystilskin.

IF there's a distinction, I'd expect it would be Wizards vs. Warlocks for prepared/spontaneous casting.

I'm predicting, though, a cleaner spellcasting system where all casters have some per-encounter abilities, and also have per-day or per-character-level resources.

-O

Quote from: obrynIF there's a distinction, I'd expect it would be Wizards vs. Warlocks for prepared/spontaneous casting.

I'm predicting, though, a cleaner spellcasting system where all casters have some per-encounter abilities, and also have per-day or per-character-level resources.
-O

And it's about damn time to see that.  And as long as there's still spontaneous casting I'll be peachy.

Quote from: WarthurI think the sub-class approach for things like rangers and bards and so forth is entirely sensible if you want a game which emphasises niche protection, as they claim 4E is going to. You have your four basic classes covering the major niches, and then you introduce the sub-classes which blur the boundaries between them a little in case (for example) you're running with a three-player group and nobody wants to be the Cleric.

I hope that's where they're going with 4th ed, because a month or two ago, I was working on tweaking the game to do just that. Four basic classes backed up with plenty of Talent trees to give them variety.

High level 3e sorcerers are extremely effective characters IME.

Related news: according to Robin Laws' blog, the 4E design triad is composed of Mike Mearls, Rob Heinsoo, and James Wyatt.

Lord Hobie

If Book of 9 Swords is one of the products that sets the tone for 4e, I can't help but wonder if every class won't have some option for per day/per encounter/per session/etc. resources.

Quote from: jrientsIf Book of 9 Swords is one of the products that sets the tone for 4e, I can't help but wonder if every class won't have some option for per day/per encounter/per session/etc. resources.

I think the 'per encounter' model fits the D&D paradigm perfectly. Far better than the 'per day' approach, in fact.