Well, what do you think?

[Peregrinus]

If I had to guess, they'll probably focus on the Players Handbook 1 classes first. Those were: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Warlord, Warlock, Wizard, Paladin and Cleric (I think that's all of them, I might have missed one). 4th Edition breaks classes apart by sharply delineated roles, at least in PHB1. They call these roles Defenders, Leaders, Controllers and Strikers.

Defenders are all about soaking damage, preventing enemies from getting to your teammates, and punishing enemies for not attacking you. Paladin and Fighters are Defenders.

Leaders are about buffing, healing, bonus movement and generally supporting the rest of the team. Clerics and Warlords are Leaders.

Controllers are about AoE, debuffing, and forced movement. The Wizard is the only controller from the PHB1 classes.

Strikers are about dealing damage to a single target. Rogues, Rangers and Warlocks are all Strikers.

Defenders, and the movement aspects of Leaders and Controllers will be difficult to translate from turn-based combat to real time, heck, anything pertaining to movement has always been difficult to translate from turn based to real time even in 3.5 (look at the confusion with Attacks of Opportunity... crank that up to 11 as Defenders are built around doing things AoOs.)

I'd also argue that while Dragon Age only had 3 Classes, each individual class had a hell of a lot more build flexibility than any individual class in 4th Edition.

That said, I'll hold off judgment, but I really have my doubt about being able to translate 4th Ed to any form of realtime...

[Alterity]

I'd also argue that while Dragon Age only had 3 Classes, each individual class had a hell of a lot more build flexibility than any individual class in 4th Edition.

That was my point. If they can make dragon age quite flexible with only 3 classes, then they should be able to make it quite flexible with 5.

[Peregrinus]

I'd also argue that while Dragon Age only had 3 Classes, each individual class had a hell of a lot more build flexibility than any individual class in 4th Edition.

That was my point. If they can make dragon age quite flexible with only 3 classes, then they should be able to make it quite flexible with 5.

Not if they're holding close to the way 4th Edition works, and especially not if they focus on just the PHB1 stuff (which is what I'd expect them to do for initial release), as character classes are effectively on rails and there's no multiclassing as we're used to it. In my opinion, even with 4th Editions's three Players Handbooks and five expansion books (of which I have all of with the exception of the newest expansion book), you still have more freedom and customization possibility with DnD 3.5's Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide.

[Ron]

Here is a link for anyone interested in DnD 4th Edition http://dnd4.com/phb.

[superpoweredchimp]

I'd also argue that while Dragon Age only had 3 Classes, each individual class had a hell of a lot more build flexibility than any individual class in 4th Edition.

That was my point. If they can make dragon age quite flexible with only 3 classes, then they should be able to make it quite flexible with 5.

Not if they're holding close to the way 4th Edition works, and especially not if they focus on just the PHB1 stuff (which is what I'd expect them to do for initial release), as character classes are effectively on rails and there's no multiclassing as we're used to it. In my opinion, even with 4th Editions's three Players Handbooks and five expansion books (of which I have all of with the exception of the newest expansion book), you still have more freedom and customization possibility with DnD 3.5's Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide.

Well... There's the Forgotten Realm's Players Guide, Martial Power, Arcane Power, Divine Power, Primal Power, Player's Handbook Races, Martial Power 2, Psionic Power, and a number of Dragon magazines (at least 10 of those). And the multiclassing is still pretty extensive. And not to mention the endless amount of feats, paragon paths and epic destinies (with varying prerequisites, not just class-specific like Dragon Age's secondary classes). That's... a lot. Moreso than DA, still.

[Peregrinus]

There's a lot of options, but all the classes in 4th Ed effectively have the same level of flexibility as Sorcerers in 3.5. This does mean than two of the same class can be very different, but at the same time, they're still more confined and are stuck generally along one development path.

And 4th Edition does not have Multiclassing, not as 3.5 has it. It has multiclass feats which give you just a little of the class' you take it from's flavor (like taking one level of Rogue), and later power swap feats (this would be like in 3.5 is a Sorcerer could take a feat and get a spell from the Cleric's spell list. Potentially powerful, but very limited). They recently introduced Dual-Classing in PHB3, but I doubt that will be put into this new game anytime soon (it's complicated, and the time spent trying to program it would likely be better spent in adding extra base classes). Dual-Classing also is only between two classes, and forces equal progression between the two, making it more limited. Still powerful though if you can find two classes that synergize well, but completely gimped if you don't.

[Vahene]

*sort of pouts*

No sorcerers?

-K

[Atharin]

I couldn't care less if it was 4th edition or not, if the gameplay was good -- But if you ask me, you're all off-course! My prediction:

The new Neverwinter game is not going to be modeled after the NWN series; it uses the name due to the power of franchise, a very popular form of PR in today's video game industry - speaking of today's video game industry, the term "co-op multiplayer" nowadays means something much closer to Gears of War. I would expect something along the lines of 4 players playing together at the same time, max - this is being ported to consoles, after all - I'd say that the "thousand players" bit refers to a matchmaking setup. If they're feeling wild, they'll try something similar to Demon's Souls (PS3), which was pretty neat for what it was - but I wouldn't hold my breath for it, given the shoddy development house in question. So I think it's likely going to resemble Dark Alliance/Demonstone. I wouldn't be surprised if they also abolish character building completely - instead going for premade characters ala Demonstone (ie Joe the Barbarian, Griselda the Warlock, etc). Look at the Homepage: I'd say that is a pretty definitive clue that there are 5 premade characters available: Human Cleric, Tiefling Warlock, Half-Orc Barbarian, Elf/Eladrin Rogue, Elf/Eladrin Ranger. They have corny quotes and everything.

Finally, the top reason I can't get excited over this game is the developer: Cryptic Studios (Star Trek MMO, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Champions Online). Since Cryptic hasn't had much experience outside of cheap MMOs, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they are going to stick to their formula. Even if MMOs are your cup of tea, MMO-like mechanics make for a very lousy single/small-scale multiplayer game, where the emphasis is on the destination and not on the journey.


... 'Course, I suppose there is always the chance that it is indeed going to be Yet Another Cryptic MMO that will last for a few months before phasing out. It always struck me that the big idea behind 4th edition was that WotC could make a WoW clone out of its ruleset and rake in some cash.

[Peregrinus]

*sort of pouts*

No sorcerers?

-K

DnD4 does in fact have Sorcerers, they came out in Player's Handbook 2. I'd expect that would be one of the first classes that would be added down the line.