D&D 4E Hypothetical 4e Class List

[FireLance]

What I'd really like is for 4e to make absolutely clear that all classes use magic so that we can stop rehashing several old arguments over and over again. So, I propose that all classes have the word "wizard" in them somewhere. For example:

1. Fighting wizard: gets a +1 magic bonus to BAB every level, a +3 magic bonus to hit points every level, and the magical ability to learn a feat at 1st level, 2nd level, and every two levels after that.

2. Stealth wizard: gets a +3 magic bonus to BAB every 4 levels, a +1 magic bonus to hit points every level, a +6 magic bonus to skill points every level, the magical ability to detect traps which would be impossible for ordinary people using normal senses, the magical ability to evade damage on a successful Reflex save, the magical ability to uncannily dodge blows, etc.

3. Rage wizard: gets a +1 magic bonus to BAB every level, a +4 magic bonus to hit points every level, a +2 magic bonus to skill points every level, the magical ability to enter a state of rage a limited number of times per day, a +10 magic bonus to base land speed, the magical ability to uncannily dodge blows, etc.

4. Nature wizard: gets a +3 magic bonus to BAB every 4 levels, a +2 magic bonus to hit points every level, a +2 magic bonus to skill points every level, the magical ability to summon an animal companion, the ability to cast nature-related magic spells, the ability to change shape into natural creatures, etc.

5. Divine wizard: gets a +3 magic bonus to BAB every 4 levels, a +2 magic bonus to hit points every level, the magical ability to turn undead creatures, and the ability to cast divine-related magic spells.

6. Book wizard: gets a +1 magic bonus to BAB every 2 levels, the magical ability to summon a familar, the magical ability to scrible scrolls at 1st level, the magical ability to gain an item creation or metamagic feat every five levels, and the ability to cast magic spells.

7. Spontaneous wizard: gets a +1 magic bonus to BAB every 2 levels, the magical ability to summon a familar, and the ability to cast magic spells without preparation.

And so on. Neat idea, huh?

 

[Kaffis]

To be honest, if you're gonna strip ranger of spells, save yourself a lot of grief and omit it entirely in favor of the scout ala Complete Adventurer. The skirmishing is an interesting mechanic, and if you make favored enemies a feat, a spellless ranger can be duplicated easily with a fighter, scout, or rogue (or any combination of the 3) and the proper stat choices depending on how feat/tough vs. skill-based you want your ranger to be.

 

[woodelf]

I made a list of of fifteen classes that I think represent a majority of fantasy archetypes. Any glaring ommisions?

Well, looking at the list, a couple things come to mind:

• shaman/spirit-walker
• totemic warrior

Of course, with out descriptions/definitions, it's pretty hard to say. Frex, you list "barbarian". That's good--but if it's basically like the D&D3E barbarian (i.e., berserker by any reasonable definition), then i have to add a couple more archetypes that you've not really got anything to cover. Likewise, does your "rogue" make it possible to play a con-artist or catburglar (i.e., someone with no combat abilities or, given this is D&D, at least no better at combat than the wizard)? What about the skill-/knowledge-monkey (i.e., schtick is skill use and knowing things, but not necessarily detecting traps, sleight-of-hand, or sneakattacks)?

 

[yennico]

What I'd really like is for 4e to make absolutely clear that all classes use magic so that we can stop rehashing several old arguments over and over again.

Earthdawn had this idea before In Earthdawn every adept (adept is the name of a PC) uses "talents" of their discipline (discipline is their class) which are infused with magic. e.g. "Wood skin" for the warrior which made his skin tougher.

 

[Nazerel]

Classes in 4e? Hopefully for me it's none because the more and more I experiment with 3.5 classes, the more I see the inherent flaws and limitations of a class-based system. I realize that classes is one of the main sacred cows of D&D but I really think a skill and power based system along the lines of GURPS is a more flexible way to go. My game is currently experimenting with gestalt rules from Unearthed Arcana and they're pretty much as flexible as the class system is going to get with D&D.

 

[DispelAkimbo]

The 4e classes should be:
Warrior (man of arms)
Rogue (man of skill)
Mage (man of twig and root)
Priest (man of god)

Those are the archetypes. All the rest are cultural variants of these 4.
Power coming from a divine source is different than power coming from non-deific origin and so you can't merely throw the mages in with the priests.

I doubt we'll see this though. 3rd edition and moreso 3.5 has divebombed the completely other direction with hundreds of oxymorons (read: "prestige" classes).

If it was a case of voting, then this is the direction i'd cast my opinion towards.

The classes do all boil down to themed versions of the four core classes. Other 'Base Classes', wether we're talking Barbarian, Monk, Paladin, Hex thingy, Warlock, they are all themed/specialist versions of the base four, and could theoretically be done with a selection of feats, albiet ones that dont currently exist.

For me, 4e will have the four core classes, and a system to 'buy' the abilities you want, to allow you to build the character you envisage playing.

The core rule book could also offer a number of pre-generated configurations of these ability buys, for those that prefer that approach. They could even call these pre-generated types names such as 'Barbarian' or 'Monk' etc.

Want a ranger/paladin/bard without the spellcasting element? Drop those abilities and use the spare points to buy abilities you consider to be more in-theme with your character or campaign world.

This should also help ensure that there are fewer 'which class got the 4e shaft' debates

 

[DispelAkimbo]

For me, 4e will have the four core classes, and a system to 'buy' the abilities you want, to allow you to build the character you envisage playing.

I know, I know, quoting yourself is bad form.

However, having thought about this some more, I guess that what I would like to see is for 4e to offer character creation pretty much exactly how Mutants and Masterminds does it, only replacing the super-powers with appropriate fantasy abilities.

 

[Cam Banks]

I'm reasonably fond of EverQuest II RPG's twist on the d20 Modern approach, which is to have 4 base classes (fighter, scout, mage, priest) with talents and their own progressions of BAB and saves etc, with a host of advanced classes keyed to each one. You can multiclass freely but you can only ever take advanced classes keyed to one base class, so there's preservation of focus to some degree. You could have mage 4/priest 4/magey class X, but not mage 4/priest 4/magey class X/priesty class X. I like this for D&D a lot, as with talents you introduce some of the basic features that would rule out some of the less interesting prestige classes or base classes, and with advanced classes you aim for niche specialization.

Of course, if I had known EQ II didn't include spells or any advanced classes for the mage and priest (they're in the Spell Guide, not yet released) I might not have bought it so readily, but whatever.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Aust Diamondew]

The 4e classes should be:
Warrior (man of arms)
Rogue (man of skill)
Mage (man of twig and root)
Priest (man of god)

Those are the archetypes. All the rest are cultural variants of these 4.
Power coming from a divine source is different than power coming from non-deific origin and so you can't merely throw the mages in with the priests.

I doubt we'll see this though. 3rd edition and moreso 3.5 has divebombed the completely other direction with hundreds of oxymorons (read: "prestige" classes).
And done a pretty disgusting job of blurring the priest archetype to the point where it's pointless to play a wizard game mechanically.

The most important thing I think is getting different designers for 4e - I never want to see Andy Collin's name on the cover of a D&D rulebook again ever once 3.5 is buried.
Ignoring most of 3.5 and working from 3rd edition as a base would also be a great start.

I agree. The number of classes right now is ridiculous, we need to simplify. Which is why in my next game I'll probably be using Generic classes from unearthed arcana, just with a few more class feature based feats tossed in so people can fulfill their chosen archtypes.

Though some sort of classless system would be nice.

 

[Afrodyte]

I think a simple base with a variety of options would work best. That way, it's easier for players and DMs to adjust how complicated they want the game to be. I really like how Blue Rose does things. It's much simpler than D&D 3.X, and I can much more easily make the character I want whether as a player or DM. In any case, it'd be neat to have the three basic party classes (expert, magician/priest, warrior) and have feats and skills be the main differences between them.

I wouldn't be interested in a classless D&D or one where you buy your abilities because frankly there are other systems that do this better. D20 classes, however, are very tough to beat.