List of DnD 4 Classes

sh4dowrunn3r · July 2013

NW is using DnD4 so this are the classes that are supposed to be added to the game over the course of years if game lives that long (they said 2 classes every 2 months after game goes live):

Already added.
Coming soon according to rumours, hints from developers.

Cleric Divine Leader
Fighter Martial Defender (split into 2 builds because of lack of ability to make meaningful customization of class ingame)
Paladin Divine Defender
Ranger Martial Striker
Rogue Martial Striker
Warlock Arcane Striker
Warlord Martial Leader
Wizard Arcane Controller
Avenger Divine Striker
Barbarian Primal Striker
Bard Arcane Leader
Druid Primal Controller
Invoker Divine Controller
Shaman Primal Leader
Sorcerer Arcane Striker
Warden Primal Defender
Ardent Psionic Leader
Battlemind Psionic Defender
Monk Psionic Striker
Psion Psionic Controller
Runepriest Divine Leader
Seeker Primal Controller
Artificer Arcane Leader
Swordmage Arcane Defender
Assassin Shadow Striker
Vampire Shadow Striker

kimberix · July 2013

(they said 2 classes every 2 months after game goes live):

Really? Where was that said?

johnfell · July 2013

kimberix wrote: »

(they said 2 classes every 2 months after game goes live):

Really? Where was that said?

I'd like to know this aswell. If so... imagine the rushed hack jobs in the months to come -.-

alaerick · July 2013

I do hope they can keep to this because I'd love to see some more class dynamics going on. I also hope they make some 10-20man content at the very least in the near future.

bstby · July 2013

What makes you think that Ranger will be Martial Striker and not Archer? There was an icon posted on the forums, extracted from game assets, with bow and arrows (can't find the thread, unfortunately).

lyfebane · July 2013

bstby wrote: »

What makes you think that Ranger will be Martial Striker and not Archer? There was an icon posted on the forums, extracted from game assets, with bow and arrows (can't find the thread, unfortunately).

I am sure some bows and arrows are counted as Martial. So martial striker could be an archer.

avidlurker · July 2013

bstby wrote: »

What makes you think that Ranger will be Martial Striker and not Archer? There was an icon posted on the forums, extracted from game assets, with bow and arrows (can't find the thread, unfortunately).

You misunderstand.
In 4e "striker" is the party role of damage dealer, concentrating on single targets.
It does not imply the guy goes up close and strikes the target with a close range weapon.

So the ranger, as anticipated by the players, will be a martial (training based using "normal" weapons) striker (DD concentrating on single targets) most likely ranged using a bow.

bstby · July 2013

@ lyfebane, avidlurker

Oh, I get it now. My bad guys, don't have much experience with 4th ed.

zebular · July 2013

. . . . . I made a post in the past that listed all the classes, categorized by the source books they are in. In which, it seems to suggest that they are first adding the classes found in the Players Handbook 1 (and races in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide and the Neverwinter Campaign Setting source book, the latter of which the Game itself is based upon - I say this about races because the FR races and PHB races have some variances between them). If I can find it sometime, I'll link to it. It's pretty old and would be a necro thread by now, I am sure.

Update, Oh no, it;s in the bard thread, here.
(also fixed my key typos in the quote)

zebular wrote: »

There are more classes in the 2nd 4e Player's Handbook, these are: Avenger, Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Invoker, Shaman, Sorcerer, and Warden. The only reason I didn't mention them is because so far everything that has been released has coincided with the first 4e PHB.

Consistency:

Classes:
4e PHB1: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin, Warlock, Warlord, and Wizard.
4e PHB2: Avenger, Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Invoker, Shaman, Sorcerer, and Warden.
4e NWCS: Swordmage, Warlock, and Spellscarred.

Races:
4e PHB1: Dragonborn, Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Half-Elf, Halfling, Human, and Tiefling.
4e PHB2: Deva, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, and Shifter.
4e FRPG: Drow, Genasi, Dragonborn, Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Half-Elf, Halfling, Human, and Tiefling.
4e NWCS: (Racial Variants) Dwarf, Eladrin, and Elf.

Key:
PHB1 = Player's Handbook: Arcane, Divine, and Martial Heroes
PHB2 = Player's Handbook 2, Primal, Arcane, and Divine Heroes
FRPG = Forgotten Realms Player's Guide
NWCS = Neverwinter Campaign Setting

This is also good info to remember:

zebular wrote: »

I remember them saying a while back that there really is no limit to the races and classes they can add to the game. However, I have a feeling that the first classes we'll see at or soon after launch will be just the core classes, represented by one or two builds, that we have in the core 4e PHB: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin, Warlock, Warlord, and Wizard.

So far, the builds of those above that are confirmed are Control Wizard, Guardian Fighter, and Trickster Rogue (also the Devoted Cleric which is listed on the China site).

. . . . . To add on the last quote, add Great Weapon Fighter, which we couldn't talk about at the time until it was announced.

tinkerstorm · July 2013

It's a tragedy that WoTC ever got the Dungeons and Dragons name. There isn't any actual AD&D in anything from WoTC (except the reprints of the original rule books) or in Neverwinter, and this thread proves that.

zebular · July 2013

tinkerstorm wrote: »

It's a tragedy that WoTC ever got the Dungeons and Dragons name. There isn't any actual AD&D in anything from WoTC (except the reprints of the original rule books) or in Neverwinter, and this thread proves that.

. . . . . I cannot fathom how you could claim this. There's been many supplements novels and source books beyond what I listed since WotC acquired TSR. Additionally, the Neverwinter Campaign Setting (which this game is based upon) is all WotC. Mystryl all-mighty, how the Realms have changed and changed (and will change again) since WotC aquired TSR.

. . . . . It's one thing to not like 4th edition (which I loathe personally) or to dislike WotC - but its another thing to say there is nothing that is AD&D left in it or they haven't provided any AD&D in thier material. There is still so much. Races, Weapons, Dice, Players, NPCs, Lore, DMs, PCs, Imagination, Fun. Rules are guidelines in D&D, the DM is the only true Rule. Here, Crytpic/PWE is the DM with WotC as their guide. I'm sorry, but if you play D&D for the rules, then you're missing out on what D&D is all about. The adventure and fun.

. . . . . If you are distraught over the 4e changes or what-not, don't worry, D&D Next will be coming next year (you can already beta test it) which will bring the "rules" back to what they were meant to be and puts the "power and control" firmly back in the DM's hands. As well, Next is not being designed by game developers, as 4th edition was. It is back in the hands of actual D&D Players and legendary figures like Ed Greenwood himself.

lltsnwn · July 2013

sh4dowrunn3r wrote: »

NW is using DnD4 so this are the classes that are supposed to be added to the game over the course of years if game lives that long (they said 2 classes every 2 months after game goes live):

Where did they say they would add 2 classes every 2 months after the game goes live? Quotes, links, etc please.

silveralucard · July 2013

still would love a paladin XD if they roll them out i will certanly create one XD full full tank build or maybe hybrid like GF XD will be even tough to kill

avidlurker · July 2013

And this I believe is the reason why we haven't seen the "coming soon" classes yet.

I still stand by my opinion that the original plan called for warlock to be released with launch. Yet then the GWF happened with it's balance mishaps.

It is pretty straight forward to create the models, animations and to a lesser degree the itemization.
The relative power compared to other classes and its scaling is something different altogether. Remember there are also at least 3 paragon feat trees to consider.

How do you make a ranged striker that brings something interesting to the table but doesn't displace all rogues?
How do you make a paladin that doesn't simply displace all GFs (or at least all tank builds) yet retains at least some vestiges of a unique feel?

At least in PUGs there is a very fine tipping point to be hit precisely if you want to add a class without replacing another.
Just a little too powerful and you get replacement, just a little to underwhelming and you get public shunning.

Just like it happened with GFs and GWFs.
Some where always doing fine in private groups. But adding classes for only private group use that are fine with them can hardly be the plan.

noroblad · July 2013

^^^ that.
A high single target dps mage/warlock/ranger is going to be > a rogue as it is easier to survive from a distance than at ground zero. So say the ranger and rogue were equal dps potentially. But the ranger can stay away and has a very low chance of being hurt.... so he builds 100% dps while the rogue has 10% invested in some defense (life steal, for example, or deflection). The ranger becomes the go-to class. All I can see is a combo ranger with some bow abilities and some melee capability, and like the rogue's dagger, "ammo" runs out after a "while" (more than the rogue's few shots, but less than infinity) so they have to get in melee range or kite doing nothing from time to time...

cgta1967 · July 2013

even if they do add all these classes, it will be boring running the same small content selection over and over ....

jaelithe · July 2013

>A high single target dps mage/warlock/ranger is going to be > a rogue as it is easier to survive from a distance than at ground zero.<

Sorry but this doesn't follow at all. You are making the wholly unlikely assumption that the new class will do the same damage as a rogue and will have the same other benefits to a party (debuffs etc).

In fact class X will do either lower damage than than the rogue and GWF or will do equal damage but add less other value. Precisely to offset for the advantage of being able to fight from a distance.

werealchemist · July 2013

jaelithe wrote: »

>A high single target dps mage/warlock/ranger is going to be > a rogue as it is easier to survive from a distance than at ground zero.<

Sorry but this doesn't follow at all. You are making the wholly unlikely assumption that the new class will do the same damage as a rogue and will have the same other benefits to a party (debuffs etc).

In fact class X will do either lower damage than than the rogue and GWF or will do equal damage but add less other value. Precisely to offset for the advantage of being able to fight from a distance.

defense/surviveability is generally the offset for range damage classes so look for that

List of DnD 4 Classes

Comments