PDA

View Full Version : Classes you'd like to see in 4ed D&D



ronpyatt
06-13-2008, 09:17 PM
Classes I'd like to see in future PDF or print (from WotC or 3rd party) for 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons:

Witch: A class that has never really been done in a playable way in any of the previous version.

Mentalist (or Psychic): Not a spell-caster in disguise but like the one from Green Ronin's Psychic Handbook. (not psionic)

Illusionist: 2nd Ed AD&D came so close on this one.

fmitchell
06-13-2008, 11:08 PM
I'd like to see the return of the Monk, but patterned more after the Defender class from Midnight: less Shaolin, more "guy who can kill you with his bare hands, or some handy implement for those really tough jobs". Think SAS training. (Admittedly, some options for the Rogue come close ... but not close enough.)

I'd also like to see all niches for all Power Sources filled, particularly the Martial power source. What a Martial Controller would look like, I don't know ... the Grenadier? The Flamethrower? The Warjack Pilot? Maybe some sort of steampunk engineer type.

I'll second a Mentalist class, especially over the way psionics has been done before, as an alternate magic system; the new Powers-based approach shows promise. I'd also like a clearer distinction between telepathy/esper/precog powers, metabolic powers, and telekinetic/metacreation powers; those might even be the basis for three new classes, in the Controller, Defender, and Striker categories respectively.

Valdar
06-14-2008, 12:25 AM
More Defenders. A balanced party is supposed to be defender-heavy, but they're not the most common role. I think the Forgotten Realms book will have an arcane defender in it- spellsword or such. My current game has (or, will have if everyone who's signed up can commit to it) eight players, one of each character class. It will be interesting if one of the defenders can't make it, and the other one will have to cover the whole party =)

There's been a lot of discussion of martial controllers on the main boards, and lots of reasons why they wouldn't be plausible, or wouldn't really be martial (Grenades aren't really martial, and don't really take a lot of skill to use, so everybody should be able to throw them).

I've heard rumor that Barbarian will be a controller (Primal instead of Martial though), in the sense that he'll be geared toward mowing down lots of minions at once, a la Whirlwind Attack.

Digital Arcanist
06-14-2008, 12:39 AM
I'd like to also see the Monk redone. They seem to give two options for building each class so I thin their should be the Eastern Monk and the Western Monk. The Eastern monk would be the martial kung-fu practitioner with his ideals of mind over matter. I think the Western Monk would be more like a font of knowledge and wisdom. Perhaps a secret keeper with a few subtle but powerful magics at his disposal.

I would also like to see a psychic class. I like the idea of knowing your opponent's next move by reading his mind or energy flow. I definitely don't want it have anything to do with magic like the psionic class. I don't think someone with psychic powers should be able to craft magic items.

I have kicking around the idea of the battlefield medic and physician as classes. The medic would have some martial training and some cool healing abilities. The physician would just have healing abilities. I was also thinking that their abilities would not be supernatural or extraordinary but rather more like abilities based on study of the physical world. I see them as knowing how to cure supernatural wounds without having to cast a spell.

Farcaster
06-14-2008, 12:39 PM
Monks, Bards, and Barbarians for sure. I know that lots of you like them, but I've never liked psionics in my games, so they can just toss that one as far as I am concerned.

Valdar
06-14-2008, 12:57 PM
There was some info leaked about PHB2, and it's not looking good for Monks and Bards being in a bound volume by next year (but they should certainly be DDI content before then- hopefully they won't be so daft as to do away with those fan favorites for two years!). PHB2 will almost certainly have Primal (Druid, Shaman, Barbarian) and Psionics as power sources, and possibly Shadow (Illusionist, Necromancer) or Elemental (Sorcerer).

Again, all speculation. I've told my players that if they want to play one of those eventually, to pick a rough equivalent now (Bard = Warlord or Cleric, Druid = Fey Warlock, Barbarian = Ranger or Fighter) and they can convert when the rules are available.

Farcaster
06-14-2008, 01:27 PM
I personally think these should have been included in the PHB 1. These are pretty much classical D&D classes. They shouldn't have been taken out and seperated into a whole new edition that comes a year later. I could have done with a few less stylized and space-eating bullets in the layout in exchange for a bit more content.

Maelstrom
06-14-2008, 07:03 PM
I'd like to see the Artificer in 4e, but I'm not sure what kind of incarnation they'll have with less of an emphasis on magical items.

Probably an arcane based leader, enhancing the weapons of others.

tesral
06-15-2008, 02:39 AM
I personally think these should have been included in the PHB 1. These are pretty much classical D&D classes. They shouldn't have been taken out and seperated into a whole new edition that comes a year later.

Gotta move the Dead Trees Farcaster. Lizards is a publishing company.




Classes I'd like to see in future PDF or print (from WotC or 3rd party) for 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons:

Witch: A class that has never really been done in a playable way in any of the previous version.

Mentalist (or Psychic): Not a spell-caster in disguise but like the one from Green Ronin's Psychic Handbook. (not psionic)

Illusionist: 2nd Ed AD&D came so close on this one.

Witch -- The Craft (http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/fantasy/craft/Craft.html): Presented here in the 2e version. the closer to 3e version can be forund in the Classes chapter (http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/fantasy/fantpdf/Manual_Cp04_Character_Classes.pdf). No 3e compatable spells as of yet on my site, but I'm working on it.

I have a very different version of Psionics. I'll have to get it posted.

Illusionists: I finally gave up on that one. Too little interest in my group.

Dimthar
06-15-2008, 02:20 PM
I personally think these should have been included in the PHB 1. These are pretty much classical D&D classes. They shouldn't have been taken out and seperated into a whole new edition that comes a year later. I could have done with a few less stylized and space-eating bullets in the layout in exchange for a bit more content.

Yesterday Ron and I met at the Half-Price Books (Dallas), we went through the Players handbook, looked at what was there and what was missing, for good or bad we already liked 4E, so there wasn't to much controversy.

Some of those "Missing Classes" or "Races" were substituted, so I wouldn’t say there is a lack of content. Personally I don’t like some of the substitutions, but that is just my personal taste, not necessarily proof of a poor decision making process from WotC.

.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
06-24-2008, 09:48 PM
Scout, infiltrator, assassin type. Something that encompasses all these abilities.

Thoth-Amon

TotemChakra
06-24-2008, 10:12 PM
Deep down in my heart, I want to see the binder come back from Tome of Magic. That is my favorite class out of anything in the world. It allowed me to for fill the need I wanted some of my characters to have - to have an ability not many mortals could gain. It seems like a challenge to remake the binder class into a 4e class, but if they do it, I will be happy and at least try to play it. Binders always gave me a new look on role-playing, not all combat within a game of D&D, or anything else. There's always some kind of drama going on in the background that maybe even scoundrels don't know of!
I would also like to see some of the truenamer, which I did have fun playing a bit. I also would like to see the sorcerer a lot as well. I hear some pretty good things about them so far. For now, I'll pretend my wizard is a sorcerer! XD

Engar
06-24-2008, 10:19 PM
I will say I liked that they fleshed out the sorcerer in 4e. I banned the 3.x class in my games I loathed it so much. Talk about a class with no soul. It was also nothing more than a rehashed psionicist which in turn was the same thing as a sorcerer using spell points.

Moritz
06-25-2008, 07:32 AM
Though I'll still play 3.5 till I die, I figure I should chime in on this thread cause I'm old school:

Wizard
Fighter
Thief
Cleric

hummmmm.

Maybe Paladin, but not so much. I'd rather just play a game where four players get together, pick a character <from the list above> and rely on one another doing their specific jobs. Even though I love the way D&D is now (3.5) with some pretty decent side classes (druid, paladin, monk, ranger), I'm not down with the thousands of prestige classes that came out which seem to cater to the power gamers. Guess that's why I outlaw most of those things in the games I run.

ryan973
06-25-2008, 10:03 AM
I actually like that all the books there gonna produce are still considered CORE. Its good for players it gives them options that they can utilize without asking for approval or worrying about game balance and such. As a business idea i think its one of the best decisions they have made. Alot of groups would pick and choose wich completes they would want and such but doing it this way means that if you dont buy them then you dont have all the core books and most GMs expecially want to be able to say they have all the core books.


Oh and i would like another beguiler like class.

wbrandel
06-25-2008, 02:10 PM
I would have to say that I am disappointed due to the lack of a monk and bard in the PHB. those two have always been my faves

Valdar
06-25-2008, 03:08 PM
I know the monk is an iconic class in D&D, but I never saw it as really fitting in with the rest of the Fantasy-Medieval setting- just kind of stuck in there to appeal to martial arts aficionados.

fmitchell
06-25-2008, 04:27 PM
I know the monk is an iconic class in D&D, but I never saw it as really fitting in with the rest of the Fantasy-Medieval setting- just kind of stuck in there to appeal to martial arts aficionados.

Again, you'd have to see the "Defender" class in Midnight. They take the idea back to its roots in ancient China, where peasants weren't allowed to own weapons so guerrilla fighters learned to fight bare-handed or with weapons improvised from agricultural tools. Granted, if your world requires only gold to purchase a weapon, and everyone has read "Heroing for Dummies", then such a peasant underclass won't exist.

Also, not everybody does pseudo-medieval-Europe. Some worlds are an amalgam of cultural influences, others pick a different basis like Greece, Arabia, Mesoamerica, Russia, India, and, yes, East Asia.

Valdar
06-26-2008, 11:25 AM
Also, not everybody does pseudo-medieval-Europe. Some worlds are an amalgam of cultural influences, others pick a different basis like Greece, Arabia, Mesoamerica, Russia, India, and, yes, East Asia.

Sure, but those should be done with a sourcebook, not core. I could see a "brawler" class that's primarily weaponless, but calling it a "monk" gives it an Asian flavor by default, and implies the existence of Shaolin-style monasteries in your game world, whether it be western-medieval, Greek, or Asian-themed.

Inquisitor Tremayne
06-26-2008, 11:47 AM
They (4e designers) have said that they will be releasing multiple Player's Handbooks. In fact I think it is even mentioned in the current 4e PHB that the next PHBs will have the Monk, Druid, Barbarian, and the Psion class in it. And like the tag line for the current 4e PHB, "For Arcane, Divine, and Martial Characters" The next one is something like For Divine, Savage, and Psion characters, or something like that.

So, I have a feeling that we will be seeing most of the classes that were created in 3.5 make an appearance in 4e at some point.

I'm all for it.

agoraderek
06-26-2008, 01:50 PM
Sure, but those should be done with a sourcebook, not core. I

the same could have been said about tieflings and dragonborn...

using the core RAW, i'd have to introduce three races and two classes that have never existed in the core rules until 4.0. so, i'd have to come up with a totally arbitrairy reason why, after thousands of years, these things suddenly popped up in the world...

at least monks have been part of the story since the blackmoor suppliment of OD&D in 75...

Inquisitor Tremayne
06-26-2008, 02:06 PM
the same could have been said about tieflings and dragonborn...

using the core RAW, i'd have to introduce three races and two classes that have never existed in the core rules until 4.0. so, i'd have to come up with a totally arbitrairy reason why, after thousands of years, these things suddenly popped up in the world...

at least monks have been part of the story since the blackmoor suppliment of OD&D in 75...

Assuming you are NOT using the background information provided in the PHB and DMG, then yes you would have to come up with some other "arbitrary" reason.

agoraderek
06-26-2008, 02:14 PM
Assuming you are NOT using the background information provided in the PHB and DMG, then yes you would have to come up with some other "arbitrary" reason.

im using my homebrew world as an example here. same goes for anyone running a greyhawk, ebberon, forgotten realms (if they dont want to take the 100 year jump, that is, tieflings are in FR, and i guess dragonborn will be explained as some form of saurial, like the paladin from azure bonds) or homebrew world. you could run a game from 1st ed to 3.5 without having to change much, class and race wise, but 4.0 almost requires a fresh start...

4.0 seems like a nice game for people just coming back to, or starting out in, D&D, but it doesnt lend itself to use in pre-existing campaigns without a LOT of work, it seems...

Inquisitor Tremayne
06-26-2008, 02:22 PM
4.0 seems like a nice game for people just coming back to, or starting out in, D&D, but it doesnt lend itself to use in pre-existing campaigns without a LOT of work, it seems...

I think that is the point. All along they have been saying to wrap up your existing 3.5 games and start fresh with 4e. They don't expect people to convert, they expect people to start anew.

Which is brash if you ask me.

Grimwell
06-27-2008, 01:12 AM
On the topic of classes we would like to see, I really think that 4.0 makes it easy to home brew classes. Not just to fill the missing gaps we have come to expect in "core" D&D, but also to add new ideas.

The classes really are standardized and streamlined in terms of their shared mechanics, so all you would have to do is select the role for the class, and create abilities that match the abilities from other classes in terms of relative power. The system behind the classes is quite simple, so it's very easy to use in new ways.

Or am I just crazy? I think I can build a workable 4.0 Druid class pretty easy at this point. It's the one I toss around in my head while I chew on the class system and structure. Fill in the blanks the right way, and voila! New class!

Valdar
06-27-2008, 04:22 PM
They (4e designers) have said that they will be releasing multiple Player's Handbooks. In fact I think it is even mentioned in the current 4e PHB that the next PHBs will have the Monk, Druid, Barbarian, and the Psion class in it. And like the tag line for the current 4e PHB, "For Arcane, Divine, and Martial Characters" The next one is something like For Divine, Savage, and Psion characters, or something like that.

So, I have a feeling that we will be seeing most of the classes that were created in 3.5 make an appearance in 4e at some point.

I'm all for it.

They just posted the 2009 product line- PHb2 is scheduled for release in March, with the tagline "Arcane, Divine, and Primal Heroes". So, good for Bard, Druid, and Barbarian, bad for Monk and Psi classes.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
06-28-2008, 03:02 AM
Classes I'd like to see in future PDF or print (from WotC or 3rd party) for 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons:

Witch: A class that has never really been done in a playable way in any of the previous version.

Mentalist (or Psychic): Not a spell-caster in disguise but like the one from Green Ronin's Psychic Handbook. (not psionic)

Illusionist: 2nd Ed AD&D came so close on this one.
I would love to see elementalists, witches, and illusionists become unique playable classes. I havent seen the mentalist from Green Ronin... however, that class does sound intriguing.

Thoth-Amon

Maelstrom
07-03-2008, 11:20 AM
Artificer is out! Pretty cool...

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080702

They are a leader with a healing power similar to the Cleric's healing word and warlord's word of inspiration. It's changed a bit though, allowing two different versions so a little more versatile. Looks pretty fun!

Valdar
07-03-2008, 12:36 PM
Artificer is out! Pretty cool...


Only a playtest version, but still very cool indeed.

If it were a full version, I'd wonder what they were thinking publishing Artificer as the first Arcane Leader before Bard...

Aidan
07-03-2008, 02:10 PM
So, if the new book is Arcane, Divine and Primal heroes, that would tend to indicate Druid and Barbarian for primal, but what other Arcane and Divine classes? Bard for Arcane?

Valdar
07-03-2008, 05:28 PM
So, if the new book is Arcane, Divine and Primal heroes, that would tend to indicate Druid and Barbarian for primal, but what other Arcane and Divine classes? Bard for Arcane?

Probably Bard for arcane leader and Sorcerer for arcane controller.

Druid and Barbarian most likely, no telling their roles, though a good guess so far has been Druid as Striker with some Controller ability, and Barbarian as Controller with some Defender ability.

Everything else will be new, according to some posts on the subject from Mearls.

Stormhound
07-03-2008, 06:15 PM
Chiming in with a lot of others, but...

Bards and Druids, definitely. Monks, probably. Didn't play 3.5, didn't even get the books, so I don't know if there's anything from there I'd want. Barbarians maybe, if they can make them different enough from normal warriors, but I still kind of like the "barbarian is a cultural framework, not a class" concept. At least one more controller option, preferably a non-magic one.

fmitchell
07-03-2008, 09:16 PM
Barbarians maybe, if they can make them different enough from normal warriors, but I still kind of like the "barbarian is a cultural framework, not a class" concept. At least one more controller option, preferably a non-magic one.

"Barbarian" really is more of a cultural concept than a "class"; the name comes from the ancient Greeks' parody of other cultures' speech. I think it would help if WotC renamed the class "Berserker" or something.

And one rumor I heard was that it would be a Controller class -- a "barbarian" would wade into the mass of foes, dealing damage to everyone in its path. Don't know if that's true, though.

Tamerath
07-05-2008, 11:59 AM
I am looking forward to psionic classes personally :)

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
07-05-2008, 11:03 PM
I am looking forward to psionic classes personally :)
I'm also a big psionics fan so anything psionics would be nice to see.

Thoth-Amon

tesral
07-06-2008, 12:01 AM
It would be nice to see psionics properly rolled into the rules rather than treated as an add on, yet again.

If you are going to do something do it right.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
07-06-2008, 01:14 AM
It would be nice to see psionics properly rolled into the rules rather than treated as an add on, yet again.

If you are going to do something do it right.
Seems reasonable.

Thoth-Amon

ronpyatt
07-06-2008, 11:41 PM
They have paved the way for psionic classes. There are hints of it in the current core books, along with many other fantasy classes that can fit into an active adventure role.
There will be psionic, elemental, ki, primal, and shadow power sources. Page 54, PHB.

There is currently damage type: psychic, which is already being used by the Cleric, the Warlock, and the Wizard; as well as a couple of feats (Dark Fury and Psychic Lock) that benefit psychic powers.

They'll have a much easier time fitting in psions. It is not going to go the way of the old patching them in like the previous versions. I just wonder if they're going to distinguish between a psionic and a psychic class, or if they're going to slop them together.