I can definitely see the Barbarian being some sort of Martial Controller. However, if that is true, it will be interesting to see how they balance that with the Wizard who will definitely have a lower AC and fewer HP. I see little reason to play a Wizard already and if the Barbarian is a Controller as well, I can see there being even less reason. However, if one of the defining attributes of a Controller is the ability to create wall and cloud effects, I’d like to know how that would be possible for a Barbarian.

The Bard seems like a natural Arcane Leader to me as well. Good call on this one.

Like others pointed out, I can see them adding other sources such as Psionics, Nature, etc. For me personally, I don’t see the Druid really fitting into any of the current sources. I think it would be a shame to shoe-horn the Druid into Divine and I don’t see it fitting into Arcane or Martial at all. I think a Nature source is more appropriate and could lend itself to other classes such as a Shaman, Witch Doctor, Alchemist, or anything to do with animal charming/summoning/shapeshifting.

As for the muddy’ing of the classes, I agree a little bit but not entirely. It seems the foundation for the Defender is the ability to mark (taunt) and strong melee capabilities. I don’t think overlap is avoidable. I mean, anyone with an AE attack could be a Controller, but that would mean Rangers are as well.

I could see Ki and Divine being lumped together, but Psionic and Arcane are completely different things to me and I think 4E finally gives us a chance for a Psion that truly feels different (and isn’t insanely overpowered).

Martial Defender: Fighter*
Martial Striker: Rogue*, Ranger*
Martial Leader: Warlord*
Martial Controller: Barbarian (aggro draw, self-healing, close bursts)

Arcane Defender: Psionist (defense through telepathy; doesn’t mark/sticky enemies but gives allies bonus to hit or AC “Look out! I sense he is about to bite you!”)
Arcane Striker: Warlock*
Arcane Leader: Summoner (extra attacks via proxy summons, party buffs)
Arcane Controller: Wizard*

Divine Defender: Paladin*
Divine Striker: Monk (the classic kung fu guy)
Divine Leader: Cleric*
Divine Controller: Druid (plant/swarm area denial)

I mean, this ‘aggro’ theory makes sense when you consider 4E = WoW.

I definitely agree, they’ve certainly muddied up the roles in the sense that all dragonborn have a little bit of control ability, and Paladins are a defender leaning toward leader, while warlock is a striker that leans toward controller. I hadn’t thought of it in this sense, but when I hear people say a new class will be a hybrid I fear that they’ll stop having one primary role for each class and go towards something like a 50/50, which I think starts to break down the system.

In that case I could see a Barbarian being a striker / controller, but what would be really cool is if the class actually had 4 builds each that fit into a different role maybe then it’d work well. That’d be a lot of overhead for one class though.

As for Barbarian, that class doesn’t really seem to fit any mold. I could see them going with a defender Barbarian with damage reduction or regeneration. Its interesting that you mention the controller Barbarian. I guess that class would have lots of whirlwind attack type powers that hit both friendly and enemy units, and/or berserker type powers. I think it could work.

Of course, that’s a wild stab in the dark. I just suspect that the subtitle on the PHB implies that the existing PHB is going to be the sole source of Arcane, Divine, and Martial power using classes.

ScottM’s last post: Valedemar: Winds and Storm Trilogies