What is verified about classes
The official Steam store states a count of four classes. That is the reliable current boundary used here. It does not justify filling a page with names, numerical attributes, complete ability trees, or universal matchups that the source does not establish. Early Access also means a detail observed in one build may change. The useful response is not silence; it is a planning method that remains honest about its evidence.
When evaluating an in-game option, read the current descriptions presented by the game and compare them with the needs of the planned group. Capture the build context if you take notes. A screenshot or memory from the demo is historical evidence, not automatic proof of the present Early Access implementation. This guide will expand only when current official material supports a genuinely useful update.
Translate choices into capabilities
Describe what a selection lets the player contribute in ordinary language. Can it help gather information, control a dangerous space, preserve movement, interact with the environment, support another player, or recover from a mistake? These questions avoid pretending that editorial categories are official class names. They also focus the squad on outcomes rather than identity: a role exists to solve run problems, not to lock somebody into one behavior.
A capability can be primary for one player and secondary for another. That overlap is useful when it creates a fallback, but wasteful when everybody assumes someone else owns the job. Ask each player to state a first responsibility and one backup. For solo play, list the situations the chosen option handles comfortably and those that require extra caution, resource reserve, or environmental help.
- Information: notice and communicate changes.
- Space: preserve lanes and retreat options.
- Environment: plan physical interactions and machinery use.
- Support: help the group maintain a shared plan.
- Recovery: restore control after an error or separation.
Check coverage before the run
Coverage is not a score. It is a conversation about likely pressure points. A one-player run cannot cover every responsibility simultaneously, so the plan should identify which problems receive a cautious response. A four-player group has more perspectives but also more coordination cost. Do not confuse headcount with preparedness. The official one-to-four-player scope makes both extremes valid, while the tactical process changes with team size.
Use the squad planner for strategy tags rather than fabricated game statistics. If the group lacks a clear recovery owner, decide how a retreat is called. If environmental actions are unclear, nominate the person who announces them. If information is scattered, decide who summarizes. These assignments can change during the run; the value comes from making responsibility explicit before urgency makes it ambiguous.
Let the bunker revise the role plan
Procedural bunkers can present a different mix of movement, visibility, interactions, and resource pressure. A pre-run choice should therefore create a starting plan rather than a rigid script. When the environment supplies a new option or removes an assumed one, restate responsibilities. The player with the most relevant information can lead the next decision without permanently becoming the leader of every situation.
Avoid judging a class from a single successful or failed room. The result also reflects layout, resources, timing, communication, and execution. Record what the choice enabled and what remained difficult. Multiple observations across a known build are more useful than a dramatic conclusion. Even then, label the conclusion as editorial experience if it is not an official claim; this site does not invent first-hand testing.
Connect role choices to spell economy
Classes, spells, FAITH, and FEAR should not be planned as isolated menus. Casting consumes FAITH, while lower FAITH increases exposure to FEAR according to the official description. A role that expects frequent spell use therefore needs a resource conversation: which situations justify the spend, what non-spell choices exist, and who can protect the opening created by the cast? The answer belongs to the squad plan, not a fictional build formula.
When two players expect to answer the same kind of problem with FAITH, decide how they sequence decisions. Simultaneous spending may be right, but it should be intentional. In solo play, decide which problems warrant resource use before pressure arrives. A simple threshold based on purpose, such as escape, information, control, or recovery, stays safer than unsupported numerical advice and survives balance changes better.
Recheck class guidance after updates
Early Access is expected to evolve. Re-read current in-game descriptions and official announcements after an update instead of assuming a guide page is timeless. This page’s verification stamp tells you when its source boundary was last reviewed. The absence of names and numbers is deliberate until official evidence supports them, protecting readers from a confident-looking catalog that may already be wrong.
If you share a useful composition, state the game version or date, party size, intended capability coverage, and what was directly observed. Do not promote it as a universal ordering. That context lets other players evaluate whether the plan fits their bunker and group. Continue to the builds guide for composition logic or the co-op briefing for responsibility handoffs.