I'm going to jump on the Paladin/Warlock bandwagon, just because they make a lot of sense. Both are PHB1 classes, one is classic, and the other (relatively) new to the D&D universe, at least as a core class.
I would think that, yes, they need more non-strikers, but big damage-dealers are _always_ going to be popular. Also, the Paladin would likely be a defender with strong leader-like qualities, while the 'lock would likely be a striker with strong controller-like qualities.
If they have 3 classes, they might slip into PHB 2 and bring in Bard. And, without the risk of the 3.5 Red Dragon Disciple's cheesiness, we might see some interesting play mechanics with that class.
I'd have to say the first ones brought in should be to complete the Player's Handbook 1. So Paladin, Warlock, and Warlord. I know it gives another striker, but these are the 'classics' for 4th Edition. Also, as other mentioned, Swordmage should be added as it came with the Forgotten Realms book.
For a second round I would include the more iconic classes of Neverwinter. So Barbarian, Bard, Druid and Sorcerer. This would be a little heavy on the strikers and a little low on the controllers. I see players tend to gravitate toward the strikers in the games I've taken part in.
I know I've been out of the D&D loop for a while, but... what?
With the "Heroes of Shadow" book that came out a couple months back they put out another D&D Essentials version of Assassin (being now the 3rd version of the class in 4E and the 2nd 4E Essentials build), the Paladin/Blackguard build, the Warlock/Binder build and turned Vampire into a class (yeah, it is about as meh as it sounds).
I don't often regret gaming purchases but this is one case where the entire contents of the book would have been better off spread across a couple issues of Dragon magazine instead of sold as a hardcover gaming book.
Is there any hope for a Tarrasque class? :rolleyes:
I think that it doesn't sound so strange. Something like that 3E manual that allowed to play monstrous races as playable classes, dividing powers and such in different level caps.
I understand now that there are three player handbooks 1, 2, 3 for 4 e druid and barbarian in 2 which is cool ordered that handbook just five minutes ago:)
There are quite a few more classes than that, Adamantium. I listed them earlier in this thread. And Barbarians and Druids are on that list.
Looked at your list holy smoke is the cavalier back. How similar to first edition? Was my favorite all time character. Had so much fun role playing that character that the dm gave me bonus exp almost every sitting.
Looked at your list holy smoke is the cavalier back. How similar to first edition? Was my favorite all time character. Had so much fun role playing that character that the dm gave me bonus exp almost every sitting.
Cavalier in 4E is a variant of Paladin that showed up in one of the D&D Essentials books, "Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms".
All of the Essentials classes are basically alternate versions of the existing classes tweaked with a few more class features but with slightly fewer choices for powers (as some of your powers as you level up are based upon your feature choices/build choices).
Foremost among the Cavalier's features are the choice between which of two virtues your Cavalier embodies: either Sacrifice (which requires Lawful Good alignment) or Valor (which allows LG, G, or U alignments).
Of the two Sacrifice is a bit more tank'ish with more resists/healing in it, Valor is more DPS with more bonus radiant damage and such in the build.
It is over all still basically a Paladin, but just has a bit more 'flavor' built into the class design at the cost of a little less flexibility in the powers you choose.
Edit: On a side note, the Blackguard ("Heroes of Shadows" Paladin build) is similar to the Cavalier in theme/design in that it chooses between two Vices (Domination or Fury) as it's focus and flavor.
what are peoples fealings on shifters?
are they even playable in 4e?
Shifters as a race appear in PHB2 as two sub-races, Longtooth Shifters or Razorclaw Shifters. They are the descendents of lycanthropes who are not lycanthropes themselves and don't have the shapeshifting ability but still have that animal/bestial nature within them. Longtooth's being descended from werewolves and Razorclaws from werepanthers or some othere were-cat.
As for Druids, a good chunk of the Druid abilities (also in PHB2) are meant to be used while in animal form via their Wild Shape ability. Druids as per PHB2 are Controllers and basically have a choice between standing at range and casting controlling powers or shifting into beast form and getting into the melee mix to control the battlefield that way.
The Essentials build of the Druid in "Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdom" makes Druids into another type of Leader/Healer and doesn't include Wild Shape as an ability but instead gives Druids an Animal Companion based upon which season they choose to embody.
Will be interesting to see how Cryptic implements Druids when they get around to making them since I can't imagine that people playing druids all want the same animals to shapeshift into (which means someone is going to be unhappy with the range of choices allowed for) and I tend to feel that the Essentials version of the Druid with just the Animal Companion feels somewhat bland.
(Personally, I'd want to Wild Shape into a Dire Goose, because if you've ever been attacked by a goose you realize just how scary those flying menaces can be).
The Essentials build of the Druid in "Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdom" makes Druids into another type of Leader/Healer and doesn't include Wild Shape as an ability but instead gives Druids an Animal Companion based upon which season they choose to embody.
Will be interesting to see how Cryptic implements Druids when they get around to making them since I can't imagine that people playing druids all want the same animals to shapeshift into (which means someone is going to be unhappy with the range of choices allowed for) and I tend to feel that the Essentials version of the Druid with just the Animal Companion feels somewhat bland.
(Personally, I'd want to Wild Shape into a Dire Goose, because if you've ever been attacked by a goose you realize just how scary those flying menaces can be).
I actually like the idea of the non-shifting druid, I preferred to use my animal friends to nip at the bad guys ankles as I nuked em from a distance. I am glad they added animal companions again, was disappointed when 4e came out and the ranger lost his furry friend. Though I do agree with you about the Goose, as the only good Goose is a cooked Goose.
Paladin and Druid so they actually have the core classes in the game.
Core classes according to which edition? The core 4e classes (from the Player's Handbook) were Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord and Wizard.
I began playing D&D with 4e and am ignorant of most content of the previous editions.
Maybe just one striker, also they might have to do em in pairs is better that way they are more focused and polished. Just do it better than Turbine who is draggin their <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> big time on their PrCs. Been years since they started it and still a lot are not implemented, instead they are rehashing old content.
Druid seems to be a popular choice but I am not sure if I want the entire town running around shifting into dragons. But alas, thy will be done. Druids would be cool
Druid seems to be a popular choice but I am not sure if I want the entire town running around shifting into dragons. But alas, thy will be done. Druids would be cool
Paladins would also be cool.
Monks, I can live without.
Hmm I think the Sorc will definately be one of the ones to be first released. Basically because it's so similar to the Wizard, same mechanics just different in spell progression and feats. Course at least in 3.5e they were, not sure in 4e.
Hmm I think the Sorc will definately be one of the ones to be first released. Basically because it's so similar to the Wizard, same mechanics just different in spell progression and feats. Course at least in 3.5e they were, not sure in 4e.
Sorcerers really don't share as much with wizards in 4th edition as they did in 3.5.
I do hope they finish out the rest of PHB1 before adding in all the other handbooks for 4th. I think those core 4th classes are solid and cover a lot of options that everyone will like, even if they don't have monk, druid, bard and sorcerer.
Comments
I would think that, yes, they need more non-strikers, but big damage-dealers are _always_ going to be popular. Also, the Paladin would likely be a defender with strong leader-like qualities, while the 'lock would likely be a striker with strong controller-like qualities.
If they have 3 classes, they might slip into PHB 2 and bring in Bard. And, without the risk of the 3.5 Red Dragon Disciple's cheesiness, we might see some interesting play mechanics with that class.
For a second round I would include the more iconic classes of Neverwinter. So Barbarian, Bard, Druid and Sorcerer. This would be a little heavy on the strikers and a little low on the controllers. I see players tend to gravitate toward the strikers in the games I've taken part in.
With the "Heroes of Shadow" book that came out a couple months back they put out another D&D Essentials version of Assassin (being now the 3rd version of the class in 4E and the 2nd 4E Essentials build), the Paladin/Blackguard build, the Warlock/Binder build and turned Vampire into a class (yeah, it is about as meh as it sounds).
I don't often regret gaming purchases but this is one case where the entire contents of the book would have been better off spread across a couple issues of Dragon magazine instead of sold as a hardcover gaming book.
I think that it doesn't sound so strange. Something like that 3E manual that allowed to play monstrous races as playable classes, dividing powers and such in different level caps.
I believe that a dark, brooding, tormented Paladin is a Death Knight waiting to happen.
Hopefully we won't have to see that.:eek:
I do miss barbarians and druids from previous version but i am sure they cant use them because they dont have the rights.
What are you talking about? Druids have been in D&D since 1e and barbarians came with the unearthed arcana which was just before 2e.
Who has been able to copyright any of this stuff other than WotC?
There are quite a few more classes than that, Adamantium. I listed them earlier in this thread. And Barbarians and Druids are on that list.
Looked at your list holy smoke is the cavalier back. How similar to first edition? Was my favorite all time character. Had so much fun role playing that character that the dm gave me bonus exp almost every sitting.
Cavalier in 4E is a variant of Paladin that showed up in one of the D&D Essentials books, "Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms".
All of the Essentials classes are basically alternate versions of the existing classes tweaked with a few more class features but with slightly fewer choices for powers (as some of your powers as you level up are based upon your feature choices/build choices).
Foremost among the Cavalier's features are the choice between which of two virtues your Cavalier embodies: either Sacrifice (which requires Lawful Good alignment) or Valor (which allows LG, G, or U alignments).
Of the two Sacrifice is a bit more tank'ish with more resists/healing in it, Valor is more DPS with more bonus radiant damage and such in the build.
It is over all still basically a Paladin, but just has a bit more 'flavor' built into the class design at the cost of a little less flexibility in the powers you choose.
Edit: On a side note, the Blackguard ("Heroes of Shadows" Paladin build) is similar to the Cavalier in theme/design in that it chooses between two Vices (Domination or Fury) as it's focus and flavor.
i know its next to no chance of geting in. i guess ill have to be content with a durid....
what are peoples fealings on shifters?
are they even playable in 4e?
Shifters as a race appear in PHB2 as two sub-races, Longtooth Shifters or Razorclaw Shifters. They are the descendents of lycanthropes who are not lycanthropes themselves and don't have the shapeshifting ability but still have that animal/bestial nature within them. Longtooth's being descended from werewolves and Razorclaws from werepanthers or some othere were-cat.
As for Druids, a good chunk of the Druid abilities (also in PHB2) are meant to be used while in animal form via their Wild Shape ability. Druids as per PHB2 are Controllers and basically have a choice between standing at range and casting controlling powers or shifting into beast form and getting into the melee mix to control the battlefield that way.
The Essentials build of the Druid in "Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdom" makes Druids into another type of Leader/Healer and doesn't include Wild Shape as an ability but instead gives Druids an Animal Companion based upon which season they choose to embody.
Will be interesting to see how Cryptic implements Druids when they get around to making them since I can't imagine that people playing druids all want the same animals to shapeshift into (which means someone is going to be unhappy with the range of choices allowed for) and I tend to feel that the Essentials version of the Druid with just the Animal Companion feels somewhat bland.
(Personally, I'd want to Wild Shape into a Dire Goose, because if you've ever been attacked by a goose you realize just how scary those flying menaces can be).
I actually like the idea of the non-shifting druid, I preferred to use my animal friends to nip at the bad guys ankles as I nuked em from a distance. I am glad they added animal companions again, was disappointed when 4e came out and the ranger lost his furry friend. Though I do agree with you about the Goose, as the only good Goose is a cooked Goose.
after that
Monk and Barbarin, then you can start looking at assasins, stalkers and other more elaborate classes.
man I wish I had some type of faith in this game
Warlock
Bard
Druid
There the ones and in that order I would like to see next.
Core classes according to which edition? The core 4e classes (from the Player's Handbook) were Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord and Wizard.
I began playing D&D with 4e and am ignorant of most content of the previous editions.
Defenders: Fighter -> Paladin
Striker: Rogue -> Warlock
Ranger -> Monk
Leader: Cleric -> Bard
Controller: Wizard -> Druid
Maybe just one striker, also they might have to do em in pairs is better that way they are more focused and polished. Just do it better than Turbine who is draggin their <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> big time on their PrCs. Been years since they started it and still a lot are not implemented, instead they are rehashing old content.
Druid seems to be a popular choice but I am not sure if I want the entire town running around shifting into dragons. But alas, thy will be done. Druids would be cool
Paladins would also be cool.
Monks, I can live without.
Hmm I think the Sorc will definately be one of the ones to be first released. Basically because it's so similar to the Wizard, same mechanics just different in spell progression and feats. Course at least in 3.5e they were, not sure in 4e.
Sorcerers really don't share as much with wizards in 4th edition as they did in 3.5.
I do hope they finish out the rest of PHB1 before adding in all the other handbooks for 4th. I think those core 4th classes are solid and cover a lot of options that everyone will like, even if they don't have monk, druid, bard and sorcerer.