Originally posted by wesjr
Original RPG's really only had 4 classes - Fighter | Healer | Rogue | Mage

No dude original rpg is D&D andd d&d never had 4 classes

Originally posted by Zefire

Originally posted by wesjr
Original RPG's really only had 4 classes - Fighter | Healer | Rogue | Mage

No dude original rpg is D&D andd d&d never had 4 classes

Sort of true.The very first D&D (boxed set) had 3 classes - Fighter, Magic user and Cleric. Thief was added with Greyhawk along with Paladin, Ranger and Illusionist as subclasses. Ranger didn't become spearate class till 3rd edition however.  

Originally posted by Ezhae

Originally posted by Zefire

Originally posted by wesjr
Original RPG's really only had 4 classes - Fighter | Healer | Rogue | Mage

No dude original rpg is D&D andd d&d never had 4 classes

Sort of true.The very first D&D (boxed set) had 3 classes - Fighter, Magic user and Cleric. Thief was added with Greyhawk along with Paladin, Ranger and Illusionist as subclasses. Ranger didn't become spearate class till 3rd edition however.  

Ye but that was back 1970s or something now it's 2012 and it's rediculous for a game to have only 4 or 5 classes at the beggining.

Originally posted by Zefire

Originally posted by Ezhae

Originally posted by Zefire

Originally posted by wesjr
Original RPG's really only had 4 classes - Fighter | Healer | Rogue | Mage

No dude original rpg is D&D andd d&d never had 4 classes

Sort of true.The very first D&D (boxed set) had 3 classes - Fighter, Magic user and Cleric. Thief was added with Greyhawk along with Paladin, Ranger and Illusionist as subclasses. Ranger didn't become spearate class till 3rd edition however.  

Ye but that was back 1970s or something now it's 2012 and it's rediculous for a game to have only 4 or 5 classes at the beggining.

I'd rather have 4-5 classes that each is plays significantly different from another and all are well polished and abalanced against both eachother and the game challenges than 10 classes out of which 5 are redundant and pretty muchd o the same as the other 5 just with different colour and neither really is polished. 

All the primary roles are represented so I don't really see a problem. 

archer ranger and scourge warlock are the next classes to be released shortly after release...they said they are currently working on 5 additional classes as addition to the release 5...

2 of which are the ranger and the warlock, leaves 3 more for your imagination.... my assumption would be monk (unarmed, tanky?), either dualwield ranger or warrior (striker / dw) and druid (melee healer alternative?...bard would also be an option as a support character i think

besides, dont forget its a free to play game so you cant apply the same standards...

yet another derp thread by someone that hates the game because its F2P and is looking to try to attack it based on something else, something that everyone that cares a lick about the game already knows that they are going to be releasing more classes periodically after release.

Please try again, in another brand new "I need to protect P2P for some reason" threads.

Originally posted by Fusion
The game is in Alpha-state and not all features/races/classes have been revealed yet possibly?

well since the first BETA weekend past, i think we are in beta right now...

Originally posted by Alcuin
In blue box D&D, no ranger class existed. but i guess all you had to do was arm your thief with a bow and have him or her focus On sneaking around and climbing instead of stealing... There's your ranger.

Alternatively, you could give your "fighting men" high dexterity, leather armor and a bow.
Ranger!
 

i would prefer a more generic type of system with no or just archetype classes that lets you branch out a lot more...the only advantage i see in such a heavily divided class system is that it gives you "ideas" of "how to play"...

i think the seecret world solved that with decks pretty nicely