www.wizards.com/dnd/TOC.aspx?x=dnd/4new/...
Plus a cat hero on the cover of Dragon. Do we have our last race for phb3?
Plus a cat hero on the cover of Dragon. Do we have our last race for phb3?
I think that anthropomorphic tiger is being attacked by a familiar, so I believe it is supposed to be a monster.
I hope Battlemind was a previous name for the Psionic Defender dropped in favour of Ardent, but the Wilden Article missed the change like the ECS.
It would fall in line with the slipped race reveals (Warden with the Minotaur, Seeker with the Githzerai, etc).
In related news, the Wilden gets its Debut article now, a month late. Interesting.
I for one am hoping Battlemind = Ardent = same thing.
Me too, though I'd guess leader.
Despite much earlier suggestions that Empath would be a psionic leader, I'm not sure an empath would be particularly different than a psion: same basic motif of telepathy/telempathy. The 3.5 Ardent was more of a Cleric devoted to a philosophy, which make it conceptually very different. Ardents didn't get power from their minds per se, but rather from their beliefs.
Though, I'm afraid Battlemind doesn't evoke anything significantly different from Psion either. Maybe the powers will be different though, focusing on clairsentience like a prescient bard.
That being said, the name "Ardent" implied passion and zealous devotion, so if I had to take a guess, it would be Divine Striker, preferably a ranged implement-user as opposed to a melee weapon-user to keep is separate and distinct from the Avenger. It's a role that I wouldn't mind seeing represented in the Divine Power Source.
Also, just to pick on Bera, I hate the term "Clairsentience" as it has been used in D&D. While it is an existing term, it was always very misused when it came to D&D. "Clairsentience" is the "feel" counterpart of "clairvoyance" being "sight" and "clairaudience" being "hearing". Lesser known are "clairalience" as "smell" and "clairgustance" as "taste". "Clairvoyance" is often used as a blanket term for these, but I personally prefer "Extra-Sensory Perception", aka "ESP", even though that covers even more than these.
Furthermore, none of these necessarily have anything at all to do with perception of the future, and so that terminology is really just completely mistaken. More appropriate terminology for what you're looking for would be either "prescience" (what the Bard correctly used) or "precognition".
Ah yes. The Ardent used Psionic Mantles, and they are, in fact, powered by the Ardent's beliefs. He is pictured wearing scale armor, a large shield, and a mace (somewhat like a cleric), and holding out a glowing blue hand as if ready to channel its energy into an enemy.
The original (which is to say 3.5) version chose 2 mantles (more later on) and could only choose powers within that sphere. Obviously, that's unlikely in 4E, but I would postulate that "Spheres" will also be "Builds" for the Ardent. Or, at least, a sub-function of the builds themselves.
I imagine that the Ardent's class features will flow from these Mantles, just as a Sorcerer's Spell Source controls his class features. It is also possible that there is a longer list of class features (mantles) that you can choose 2 or three options from to form your core abilities (like passive At-Wills).
The reason this is likely is because the original Mantles were not mere "Schools." They were quite different, conferring passive abilities on the Ardent without requiring power points. This ranged from raising the level of a power, to increasing ability scores for a short period, to actual feats. In short, they were varied and the main ability that seperated this class from others.
He has a high Will Save, a mid-range attack progression, and slightly lower than mediocre hit points. In short (and I'm surprised to say this), I think this may be our Psionic Leader.
Certainly, the Ardent straddles the line between Divine and Psionic, but it seems unlikely that the class would make the jump considering the general lack of Psionic classes in the first place. Losing one to another power source seems weird. Possible, of course, but weird. Honestly, the name sounds more Divine than Psionic, but I thought the name "Seeker" was thoroughly more Divine too.
I'll be interested to see what he ends up as, but, for now, that's about all there is to know about the old Ardent.
What do you think?
Jared
Host of The Power Source
www.powersourcepodcast.com
Then again, it could be a Divine class with less focus on deities and more on pure Astral power and philosophical concepts. We won't know for sure until the article comes out. (Do we have an exact date for when to expect the article? Didn't see it on the calendar for December.)
But there are two Debut articles, so maybe they'll space them across the next three Tuesdays?
Actually, is it possible that we get two Psionic Leaders in this book, the Ardent/Battlemind and the Empath? The Ardent being more tactical, and the Empath being more healy and buffy? After all, the Martial power source started out with two Strikers (and has stayed that way so far), and Wizards has said several times that they're not interested in role symmetry for the sake of such. Not to mention that psychics are generally kind of sqishy and not very good at defending themselves.
In any case, cool and interesting that we're getting another Class Debut this soon. I hope we don't see all of them before PHB3 actually comes out, though. It'd be nice to have a surprise or two left.
Actually, is it possible that we get two Psionic Leaders in this book, the Ardent/Battlemind and the Empath? T
No. Because we're either getting six classes period, and two Psionic Leaders would mean no room for the Divine Class. Or we're gettnig eight classes, and there's no way WotC will break it down as 5/2/1 or 6/1/1.
Actually, is it possible that we get two Psionic Leaders in this book, the Ardent/Battlemind and the Empath? T
No. Because we're either getting six classes period, and two Psionic Leaders would mean no room for the Divine Class. Or we're gettnig eight classes, and there's no way WotC will break it down as 5/2/1 or 6/1/1.
I hardly find this to be impossible. In fact, with Divine and Primal already at 4 each, one or another Power Source presented in PH3 is going to end up with more than another presented therein. After all, Arcane is sitting pretty at 6 classes right now, why is it so odd to think that Psionics would get 5, while the other two get 2 and 1 classes? Or even 1 each?
I actually believe there is precident for an abundance of Psionic classes in PH3. Think about it: the Monk did not start out as Psionic, but we all knew that Psionics has been planned from the beginning (with most speculating it would appear in PH3, in fact). Can you imagine a situation where the role of Psionic Striker sat empty until the Monk showed up? Highly unlikely. Bordering on impossible, if you ask me.
Frankly, I think it is likely that we haven't seen the second Psionic Striker yet. Does this mean that there would be more than 4 Psionic classes in PH3? No. After all, two Martial Strikers in PH didn't mean more than 4 Martial classes. It is, however, far more likely that there will be more than 4 Psionic classes in PH3, than not.
Just my opinion, but we don't want to rule anything out just yet. If we do that, WotC may change something perfectly good just to surprise us. ;)
Jared
Host of The Power Source
www.powersourcepodcast.com
Allow me to explain. The entire article for the Playtest for Hybrid characters was 20 pages. We can assume that the rules in the PH3 will take up a similar length and space in the book (plus the new classes, which would add 6-8 additional pages, give or take).
Now let's look at the length of the PH2. If we were to remove 2 of the races presented there, we would have 4 left, which is the number of races to appear in PH3. Each race is 2 pages, so removing 2 races gives us 4 pages.
Now the Racial Paragon Paths. If we removed all except 4 of those (because each of the new races will have one, at least), we would have 12 less pages in the PH2. We're now to 16 less pages.
Then we could remove the Backgrounds section because those rules need not be reprinted. Leave one page, just in case you want to make new Backgrounds for the new races. Now we're to 21 pages out of the PH2, which is more than the original Hybrid rules article.
Then again, we could be talking about the Skill Powers. Let's do that too.
The Skill Powers article stretches across 10 pages in the debut article. We are told that this constitutes about half the amount in the PH3. Now, we could be lazy and say that we'll have 20 pages of it in the PH3, but then we would be missing something important.
Commentary. By removing commentary, we would remove about three pages (count the columns) worth of space in that article. This leaves us with 7. Also, when we put in the additional three powers (give or take) for each skill, also be aware that we don't need to reprint the name of the skills or paragraph about them. Top that with the lack of a need to reprint the first page of rules, and you're left with about 11 pages of skill powers (give or take).
I do want to point out that I'm assuming that New Rituals and Rules Updates will be included in PH3. This might not be so, but it's better to hedge my bets.
Now, what are we left with? Well, we start with more or less the same number of pages as the PH2. Now subtract 21 for Backgrounds and Racial Paragon Paths. Add about 11 pages back in from the Skill Powers. (10 pages less) Add in Hybrids at about 28 pages, and we now have about 18 more pages than we started with.
That's about the page length of a single class, not including feats, magic items, or special rituals.
In short, if the PH3 has only what we now know it will have and only 6 classes, the PH3 will be significantly shorter than those previous. That is, unless each class takes up a larger amount of pages than before (which isn't impossible either).
I guess what I'm saying is: 18 pages more ... 18 pages less ... it could be either. To me, it's a coin toss, not something set in stone.
LOL! Longest post ever! In my defense, I've been writing a class all day, and this class has forced me to think of nothing but math for hours.
Jared
Host of The Power Source
www.powersourcepodcast.com
4 races
4 racial PPs
6 classes, each with 4 PPs
Hybrid rules for a minimum of 24 classes, with at least 2 - 4 pages for rules, and 2+ pages per class
Skill Power rules
Masterwork Implement rules
Other new equipment, inclduing Ki Foci
unknown number of EDs, probably 3 - 6
Hybrid and/or Multiclass specific PPs, I'd guess 4 - 8
Backgrounds for the new races, classes, and likely for Hybrids
Racial Feats
Class Feats
Hybrid Feats, other than the one that gives you class features
Possibly generic feats (Focus Expertise or whatever, the one that applies to both Weapon and Implement, at minimum)
Rules Updates, aka Errata ala the Stealth Update
Fluff for the Psionics/Primal/Divine/Far Realms connections and war, which will take up a page or two at least
All of that combined easily takes up the same page count as PHB2 (PHB3 has the same page count), leaving little to no room for two more classes.
It's possible, but don't count on there being 8.
... The biggest of which is that there is no way on earth that Hybrids or Skill Powers make up for two classes to me. Sub-par combo-classes and less-than-amazing powers that anyone can take are a far cry from real and balanced classes, and WotC knows this. I don't think they'd risk putting Hybrids (which a lot of people dislike) and Psionics (which is still suffering from the stigma of earlier editions) into the same volume that has less than the standard number of classes. It would easily become the least selling PH of all.
I'm not saying I won't buy it. I love Psionics and Skill Powers are a cool idea, but I doubt WotC would take such a risk. It doesn't make a lot of buisness sense. At least, not to me.
Jared
Host of The Power Source
www.powersourcepodcast.com
Actually, is it possible that we get two Psionic Leaders in this book, the Ardent/Battlemind and the Empath? T
No. Because we're either getting six classes period, and two Psionic Leaders would mean no room for the Divine Class. Or we're gettnig eight classes, and there's no way WotC will break it down as 5/2/1 or 6/1/1.
Oh, guess I didn't make myself as clear as I thought. I meant that we would still only get 4 Psionic Classes, but that we would get 2 Leaders, a Striker, and a Controller instead of one of each role. All the stuff I said about not needing symmetry wasn't just rambling, you know!
I'm really not interested in another zealous Divine class, I want some Divine classes that are not hung up on dogma for a change.
... The biggest of which is that there is no way on earth that Hybrids or Skill Powers make up for two classes to me.
Maybe they don't make up for 2 less classes, but they do take up just as much space. Hybrid classes need 1 pager per class plus a 1-2 page intro (25-26 pages, assuming only 6 classes in PH3), and skill powers looks to take up around 8 pages (bringing the total to 33-34 pages). A typical class take up 16 pages between description, class features, powers, and paragon paths (so 2 classes equal about 32 pages). With these facts in mind it shouldn't take a math genius to figure out why it seems doubtful that PH3 will contain 8 classes.
I'm really not interested in another zealous Divine class, I want some Divine classes that are not hung up on dogma for a change.
Ah yes, the classic "apathetic holy warrior" archetype! ;)
I'm really not interested in another zealous Divine class, I want some Divine classes that are not hung up on dogma for a change.
This gets filed under 'easily mutable fluff'. You don't want your character to be hung up on dogma? Play him that way.
I'm really not interested in another zealous Divine class, I want some Divine classes that are not hung up on dogma for a change.
This gets filed under 'easily mutable fluff'. You don't want your character to be hung up on dogma? Play him that way.
OFT. You can have a pious character who isn't a zealot, just because they get powers doesn't mean they also go insane, unless you want them too.
This gets filed under 'easily mutable fluff'. You don't want your character to be hung up on dogma? Play him that way.
Usually I'm all for that mentality, but not when it comes to future releases.
Because then you are saying that you don't care about the quality of writing in the books you just want crunch, and if you really don't care about fluff then go play Mutants & Masterminds where there is no fluff and you get to make up all the crunch yourself.
It's one thing to say okay, what do I have to work with and how can make the most out of it, but it's another thing to have no standards and to accept a pile of dog**** with a smile on your face.
Because then you are saying that you don't care about the quality of writing in the books you just want crunch, and if you really don't care about fluff then go play Mutants & Masterminds where there is no fluff and you get to make up all the crunch yourself.
Actually, I play Dungeon and Dragons where you get to make up all the fluff yourself.
Actually, I play Dungeon and Dragons where you get to make up all the fluff yourself.
Ok, if you want to play that game...
The thing is, what is the point of making or wanting a new class if you don't care what the class is? If you take fluff out of the equation then what would a new class have to offer you?
Are you advocating that fluff be removed altogether??? Seriously, would you just prefer if the books were just cold hard mechanics that had no flavor or archetypes behind them?
Actually, I play Dungeon and Dragons where you get to make up all the fluff yourself.
Ok, if you want to play that game...
The thing is, what is the point of making or wanting a new class if you don't care what the class is? If you take fluff out of the equation then what would a new class have to offer you?
Are you advocating that fluff be removed altogether??? Seriously, would you just prefer if the books were just cold hard mechanics that had no flavor or archetypes behind them?
I wouldn't mind, no.
I wouldn't mind, no.
Let me ask you this; why do you need rules? You're a sensible person, you don't need to be refereed in order to have fun and tell a story.
Isn't the crunch getting in the way just as much as the fluff?
I wouldn't mind, no.
Let me ask you this; why do you need rules? You're a sensible person, you don't need to be refereed in order to have fun and tell a story.
Isn't the crunch getting in the way just as much as the fluff?
No, because the crunch ensures (or at least encourages, there are holes here and there) fair task resolution, something I don't believe I could do without rules guidance. Without the rules framework, it would all just be me spitting out arbitrary rulings without rhyme or reason.
I really can't see where you're coming from with this line of reasoning. I look at the fluff in the books as basically being there for beginners or people new to RP, so they have a place to start. Most dwarves act like this. A typical rogue acts like this. So on, so forth. There's absolutely nothing binding about it. If you want a non-gruff dwarf, or a non-stealing rogue, non-singing bard, or a non-hippie druid, that's 100% fine and more people need to realize this.
No, because the crunch ensures (or at least encourages, there are holes here and there) fair task resolution, something I don't believe I could do without rules guidance. Without the rules framework, it would all just be me spitting out arbitrary rulings without rhyme or reason.
I really can't see where you're coming from with this line of reasoning. I look at the fluff in the books as basically being there for beginners or people new to RP, so they have a place to start. Most dwarves act like this. A typical rogue acts like this. So on, so forth. There's absolutely nothing binding about it. If you want a non-gruff dwarf, or a non-stealing rogue, non-singing bard, or a non-hippie druid, that's 100% fine and more people need to realize this.
First of all I think thats a very inimprusting answer and I applaud you you for that, although some would take offense to that.
So you think that because fluff is not an absolute, it has no use. Fluff can be ignored there for it does not matter.
Interesting...
The Commanding Avenger is a good example of this - a more team-player build of the Avenger leaves itself to somewhat of a different feel than the other builds.
That's why classes are supposed to be broad, rather than just a build (hence why I was/a bit am skeptical about the Swasbuckler class you proposed). That broadness should includes thousands of different combinations of character, powers, feats, backgrounds, races, skills, etc. Your character is what you make of it. The class doesn't dictate it.
Yes, the fluff is mutable, and WotC have said this. But the fluff is also a great starting point, and I usually keep to the fluff for basic tropes of the classes and races and such. But I create my own setting too, so that means I'm immediately rendering some of the fluff obsolete (and in my case, more than just some). Think of it more as a toolbox (or sandbox) to work (or play) with. D&D should be primarily about you and your game, and what works for it. The fluff is great – that's why I continue to buy the books despite having Compendium access from DDi. But it doesn't always work for me, and I often find that it inspires me to do something variant on it – like this new Dusk Elves article in Dragon. I really like it, but some of the ideas don't mesh quite well with my setting. So I'm adapting them into my story of the Elven peoples, but doing it a bit differently, though using their fluff as a starting point. Similarly, my Haflings began with the normal river-boat fluff from the book, as I tried to escape Hobbiton-type fluff, and eventually became a race of swarthy, swashbuckling pirates and smugglers from swampy, marshy, sub-tropical coastlines. In my game, the Great Elder Spirits are older than the Gods and Primordials, and see both as interlopers towards the world, though the three races of great powers (along with Archfey and other great powers as well) have interwedded and gotten muddled.
I really don't think that you should get caught up over some people playing Avengers, Clerics, Invokers, and Paladins with zealotry. They don't need to. I know Clerics that are timid, some Invokers that are religious scholars that stay in their studies until they're forced into adventuring, and Avengers who's only real purpose in serving their deity is because they have a common enemy, and aren't all that reverent. And especially with the last one, there's established fluff to back it up.
So we don't need a non-Zealot class. That would be like the old 3.5e classes like the Healer that were really just aspects of an already established class, for the sake of trying to emphasise one small detail.
Again, I'm really hoping this Ardent turns out to be the Psionic Defender (but I wouldn't be TOO upset if the Empath was just renamed Ardent, since Ardent has fiery emotions by dictionary definition and would probably be Charisma-based - hopefully with a Wis secondary or Con secondary).
Fluff, on the other hand, is a less grave matter. I can declare that in my setting, Shifters are fuzzy, Devas are all Rakashas, Changelings are Kitsune, and that the civilized races are Shifters, Gnolls, Minotaurs, Dragonborn, Kobolds, Kenku, Bulwugs, Rakashas and Kitsune, and things will still play just as smoothly as if I was playing the book straight.
Preach on!
I want Divine classes whose fluff lacks polytheistic gods.
For those of you who want your Divine characters to worship the creatures of the Astral Sea, you are welcome to refluff your characters any way you want. But I want the official fluff to not.
Sure you can have a religious class unassociated with the Astral, but that wouldn't be Divine anymore.
I could see the 4e Ardent having something similiar to the auras given to the Divine Mind, especially if the Ardent is a Leader class. Maybe it'll be as a class ability or as an aspect of powers. And I could see them getting this regardless of what their power source might be.
Rather, the definition of the Divine source is, 'powers originate from the Astral Sea'.
The Astral Sea is a realm of Divine light. Divine classes can tap this Divine energy directly to use Divine powers. Immortal intermediaries are unnecessary. A Natural mortal can even become an Immortal emself, by tapping this Divine energy and transfiguring.
The polytheistic deities are superfluous.
< Ax: Isn't "Powers originate from Dieties" kinda the definition of the Divine source? >
Rather, the definition of the Divine source is, 'powers originate from the Astral Sea'.
The Astral Sea is a realm of Divine light. Divine classes can tap this Divine energy directly to use Divine powers. Immortal intermediaries are unnecessary. A Natural mortal can even become an Immortal emself, by tapping this Divine energy and transfiguring.
The polytheistic deities are superfluous.
Point to me where WotC says that Divine gods get all their power from the Astral Sea, and that that's what the Divine Power Source means.
If it was what you say, it would be the 'Astral' Power source.
The Divine Power source is inherently tied in with the gods; otherwise, it would not be Divine.
Infernal Warlocks aren't divine, Dark Warlocks aren't Shadow, Vestige Warlocks don't derive their power form the source of whatever is associated with their current Vestige, and Fey Warlocks aren't Primal, nor are Star Warlocks Psionic or Divine. Illusionists, Charm-users, Psychic-damage power users, etc aren't Psionic unless the same power says "Psionic" within it's keywords.
The Astral Sea is the natural home of Divinities, but Divine characters share a special relationship with the Gods, rather than with Angels or Devils or Maruts. I've argued that there shouldn't be an Angel pact simply because Angels are most often seen in service of the Gods, and that would blur the territory a bit too much for some people.
The point is that Power Sources have more to do with mindsets and relationships, and might have nothing to do with planes. Martial has to do with self-empowerment, as does Psionic, but in different ways – Martial empowers through matter over mind, Psionic mind over matter. Primal deals with a relationship with the Spirits and animals and nature. Arcane deals with the fundamental laws of the cosmos. Divine deals with the powers of the gods and of the user's own faith in them. Shadow... we don't have a precidence enough to say, though it seems that it might deal with bargaining away a part of the self to the Shadowfell itself to gain power, making it the FIRST power source that derives particularly from a single plane.
WotC said from the very beginning they didn't want Power Sources based off planes, because then they'd become less effective when you go travelling to other planes.
Important tandum, Warlocks are not the catch-all class, drawing from each power source per pact; they're a class that makes deals with non-divine, non-primal beings of great power that can manipulate some of the laws of the cosmos, fitting it neatly in with the other Arcane classes that manipulate the cosmic physics, such as with the Artificer's trasmutation of local materials for his/her spells, the Wizard's understanding of the physics to manipulate pretty much anything, the Bard's music striking at a cosmic aesthetic, the sorcerer understanding his/her own body and it's relation to power, and the swordmage fusing the cosmic-knowledge with swordplay.
Full self-disclosure: Both. .. There are genuine ambiguities within the official flavor/mechanics. Plus. Personally, I dislike 'worshiping' creatures who have power over me (or my character). I despise loss of power. I dislike the 'servile' classes, that must cowtow to a 'more-powerful' creature. Such a relationship is slavery, obsequiousness, dehumanization ... disgusting.
Personally, only *infinity* (including ones own infinite potential) is worthy of worship. Worshiping a finite creature - with its limitations and errors - disgusts me. The moment an 'object' of worship becomes finite, it repulses me. It isnt plausible for me (or my character) to worshiping a fallible creature. Its disgusting.
Im not the only one who feels this way. Many have voiced similar objections.
< Maran: Haldrik, you're oversimplifying it. >
To be fair, its difficult to express a complex point-of-view, in 100 words or less.
< Beings of the Astral Sea don't grant divine spells. >
That is exactly the official ambiguity Im talking about: the creatures of the Astral Sea, themselves, dont actually grant the Divine powers.
So, what grants the powers? I say, the energy of the plane itself, which the 'beings' tap.
< In fact, nobody grants divine spells – divine characters get their power from their faith. >
You say, subjectively, an individuals 'faith'. I say, objectively, the plane itself. Yes, your statement correctly expresses the 'worldview' of the D&D tradition.
However, the criticism of the D&D tradition is, 'faith-alone' can become absurd. The D&D webcomic, Order Of The Stick, parodied this tradition by having a Bard character multiclass, in order to worship the handpuppet, 'Banjo The Clown', to acquire Divine powers. Pure 'faith' isnt convincing enough.
Having the plane of the Astral Sea (not the individual) grant Divine powers, gives the DM a position of 'objectivity'. In reallife, what makes a religion a 'religion' is the ability of its archetypes to organize actual cultural 'reality' and behavior. While the archetypes of an individual are insanity (compare schitzophrenia!), the archetypes of a whole culture are 'truth' (what society takes for granted as true).
It can make sense to 'personify' such an archetype as if a person ... poetically. It even makes sense to have a finite creature 'represent' an archetype. (Eberron does this by having a finite human 'prophetess' speak on behalf of the infinite Silver Flame.) However, it is the archetype itself that matters, the way it abbreviates categories that the culture uses to function, not the creature itself.
Anyway, as far as the D&D game goes ...
Letting a characters 'faith' grant Divine powers invites too many obsurdities. By contrast, saying the Astral Sea itself grants Divine powers gives the DM a reasonable position to define what 'religious concepts' make sense or not, because the societies themselves - as the DM defines them - may perceive these ideals-or-nightmares as meaningful or not.
In sum, its better for both players and DMs to say the Astral Sea grants the Divine powers. For the players, their character concepts wont be limited to officially published gods. For the DMs, the Divine powers must cohere within the DMs campaign setting.
Usually I'm all for that mentality, but not when it comes to future releases.
Because then you are saying that you don't care about the quality of writing in the books you just want crunch, and if you really don't care about fluff then go play Mutants & Masterminds where there is no fluff and you get to make up all the crunch yourself.
It's one thing to say okay, what do I have to work with and how can make the most out of it, but it's another thing to have no standards and to accept a pile of dog**** with a smile on your face.
Having played both Mutants and Masterminds and D&D 4E, I can tell you how 4E, with an understanding of completely immutable fluff, would be much more preferable to Mutants and Masterminds, even though it has less fluff to ignore.
Points bloat.
Get high enough up in the levels and your character can have points spread out so wide that he is basically capable of everything and reliably capable and competant at nothing. Or you can have a character with his points sunk into so few things that he is unchallengeable at those tasks and completely incapable of anything else. Or you can have your character be anything else along that spectrum.
And if the other players and/or the GM aren't building their characters at the same point along that spectrum that you are, then you risk a very unfulfilling game experience.
Tying everyone down to pre-planned classes with a highly specific progression eliminates the vastness of the spectrum by a large degree and gets everyone closer to being on the same page.
And as for the question of why should there be fluff attached, loosely as it is, to the classes if all we need is the mechanical framework?
Because this is supposed to be a "new-player friendly" game. Having fluff there for if it's needed (if the new players in question can't think of anything on their own or in quite such eloquent terms), but also easily dismissed if the new players already do have something in mind instead, comes close to the best of both worlds.
It's like a springboard in gymnastics. Envision one if you will. The gymnast is running towards the bar, ready to vault over it with the assistance of the springboard and what happens? Does the gymnast plant her feet on the springboard, stick there, and not move (just swaying back and forth)? Hilarious (absurd, but something I'd still love to see on AFV). No, the springboard gets used for what it can provide and then it is good and rightly left behind.
In fact, nobody grants divine spells – divine characters get their power from their faith.
No, divine characters usually get their powers from a ritual.
Pages 61-62 of the Player's Handbook explains this for clerics.
Pages 90-91 for paladins.
Full self-disclosure: Both. .. There are genuine ambiguities within the official flavor/mechanics. Plus. Personally, I dislike 'worshiping' creatures who have power over me (or my character). I despise loss of power. I dislike the 'servile' classes, that must cowtow to a 'more-powerful' creature. Such a relationship is slavery, obsequiousness, dehumanization ... disgusting.Personally, only *infinity* (including ones own infinite potential) is worthy of worship. Worshiping a finite creature - with its limitations and errors - disgusts me. The moment an 'object' of worship becomes finite, it repulses me. It isnt plausible for me (or my character) to worshiping a fallible creature. Its disgusting.
Well this certainly speaks volumes for why your take such EXTREME exception to the default divine class. Viewed through this lens all of your spite makes much more sense. That said, and while what follow is hash it is not my intent to be insulting, the only thing I find disgusting is how needlessly narrow minded your opinion is.
You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of FAITH. Faith doesn't care whether the object of said faith is finite/infinite or perfect/imperfect. Faith only cares that one put TRUST in something beyond one's own personal abilities. Furthermore, faith in the gods of 4e is not so foolish as you make it out to be. Yes the gods are finite, they have limits, and they can even make mistakes, but compared to a typical mortal they might as well be infinite. They operate at a level of power and consciousness beyond what most mortals could ever hope to comprehend. The fact that only the greatest of heroes (high epic level) even come close matching their power speaks volumes, especially as no single hero comes close without the aid of equally powerful allies (fellow PCs).
Last, but certainly not least, you show a distinct lack of ability to separate yourself from your character. D&D is an RPG, and a very important part of that experience is taking on the ROLE of a persona that is not necessarily your own. Your real world beliefs should not interfere with your ability to play a fictional character.
Im not the only one who feels this way. Many have voiced similar objections.
You might not be the only person to take objection to the default presumptions of the divine power source, but you are certainly one of if not the most vocal protesters on these boards in that regard. Further more, your posts on the subject seem to do little to garner support for your ideas, instead seaming to mostly stir up animosity against you. This is at best non-productive, and may in fact be counterproductive to your desired goals. Especially as ,based on the general lack of complaints, most people are indeed satisfied with the current default divine presumptions of deific worship.
That is exactly the official ambiguity Im talking about: the creatures of the Astral Sea, themselves, dont actually grant the Divine powers.So, what grants the powers? I say, the energy of the plane itself, which the 'beings' tap.
I'm not sure that the idea that DIVINE=ASTRAL is entirely viable, seeing as not every god even resides within the Astral Sea, such as Lolth (The Abyss) or the Raven Queen (Shadowfel). Heck Vecna is not only resides in the NATURAL world, but he is also not of the Astral See to begin with, being instead an ascended mortal.
Anyway, I'm gonna bet that this class will be a divine class, either melee striker or defender. And I can guarantee you that if this is the case, I will be referring to the class as a Templar, because "Ardent" is a retarded name for a class.
I apologize if this is repetition, but Ardent is not a noun! How can you be an ardent?
The same way you can be a Reverend.
It's being used as an adjectival noun.
'Spite'. Your insult is noted.
I have no spite. I want freedom to define my characters with flavor that appeals to me.
I want to refluff my Cleric characters just as easily as I can refluff my Bard characters. Without these stupid gods.
< It is not my intent to be insulting, the only thing I find disgusting is how needlessly narrow minded your opinion is. >
Obviously you intend to be insulting.
'The only thing I find disgusting is how needlessly narrow minded your opinion is.' Why must you force your gods on my games? Why do you refuse other players their own Divine character concepts? Why do you seek to interfere with spiritual freedom? Let players choose whatever spiritual tradition appeals to them. Why must you force your religious opinions on everyone else? 'How needlessly narrow minded your opinion is'!
< You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of FAITH. >
You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of, different players have different TASTES.
Regarding Divine classes, the Divine power source needs to be accessable without intermediary creatures.
By the way, I hated the Warlock class for the same reason. Except, a recent Dragon article fixed the problem. Now, instead of groveling to some overlord master, the article opens the door to share the collective power of a community of equals. Instead of one big source - the Warlock can alternatively have many small sources. The player has more room to fluff whatever Warlock concept em wants.
Regarding Divine classes, the Divine power source needs to be accessable without intermediary creatures.
To you. but to most players the idea of a cleric is the idea of a priest given power from the gods. Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean most don't, there is a reason the cleric has stuck around so long. If you don't like it you are free to change it for your character, but don't expect the everyone else to be ok with it. I prefer the idea of divine character's who get power from faith alone, this was one thing I loved about Eberrron when it came out, is even the faithful couldn't prove the gods, it was truely faith. I love this idea, and other then one idea for an invoker/avenger i'm kicking around it's what i always use. This does not mean I think it should be the standard, because I know most players want the divine to get power directly from the gods.
As for warlocks, I made one whose pact wasn't his doing but rather, a deal made far down the line in his family. He saw it more as a curse, and tried to use it salvage his family name rather than walk the same path as his ancestors. Another friend of mine played another warlock who had been granted power at the hands of an orginization to fufill a prophecy, one he actively fought to prevent.
Fluff should inspire not limit. Change it as you need.
You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of, different players have different TASTES.
I'm only seeing one player interested in that particular flavor- You. Would you care to name (not handwave "plenty of people", I mean actually name) 5 other players (preferably at least 2 from here on the board) who feel the same way?
I have no spite. I want freedom to define my characters with flavor that appeals to me.
I want to refluff my Cleric characters just as easily as I can refluff my Bard characters. Without these stupid gods.
Why must you force your gods on my games? Why do you refuse other players their own Divine character concepts? Why do you seek to interfere with spiritual freedom? Let players choose whatever spiritual tradition appeals to them. Why must you force your religious opinions on everyone else? 'How needlessly narrow minded your opinion is'!
You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of, different players have different TASTES.
You are free to define your characters. No one is telling you not to, if you want, go right ahead.
You can refluff your clerics, hell, you could refluff bards to need gods if you saw fit, so stop complaining about it.
He isn't refusing other players :cough cough you cough cough: from their own Divine character concepts, thats you, you are the one who doesn't want spiritual freedom. Players are free to choose whatever they want, they can worship banjo the sock puppet if they want, even draw power from him. And that last bit about religious opinions sounds more like you think this is RealLife and not D&D. We are not forcing you to do ANYTHING AT ALL. So seriously, stop whining, grow up, and play. I'm tired of hearing this repeatedly, and if this is insulting, wonderful, maybe that will work.
Generally, Eberron does the Divine power source properly. It explicitly endorses spiritual diversity, and gives several examples of very different kinds of spiritual traditions that may interest players. Even if players dont want a listed tradition, there is room in the setting for players to personalize their own spiritual tradition, similar to how the Warlock can personalize their own unique pact. The Core rules should adopt a similar format as the default.
< This is a fanatasy game, and almost every fantasy setting has gods and religions, and many have characters who are given powers by them. >
Many fantasy stories have nothing to do with gods, even ones with mystics. Many fantasy stories who do have gods, dont have main characters that worship them. Compare almost every popular tv show that has gods. Charmed, Hercules, even Star Trek episodes. The gods exist but its unpopular to actually worship them.
< To change the set up of the devine in the way you want would destroy this trope. >
By the way, some sacred-cow tropes deserve to be destroyed. But this isnt one of those cases.
I have no problem with Immortal creatures who inhabit the plane of the Astral Sea. But its ludicrous for enlightened characters to worship them. The flavor of worshiping them is unappealing to me. I dont like it. I dont want it.
If other players want their characters to join cults to worship these Immortals, or Demons, or Unicorns, then thats what they want for *their* characters. Their foolishness makes interesting villains and amusing colleagues. But I dont want *my* Divine characters to take this silliness seriously. I want Divine characters who have nothing to do with these gods in the first place.
< I understand your point of view Haldrick, and hold a similar one myself, but this is a game about fantasy. >
For the record, I enjoy reallife polytheism, especially Norse mythology and Hinduism. These are languages of dreamlike archetypes and can be profound and important. I respect reallife philosophical polytheists.
My problem is my D&D characters being pressured to worship literal D&D monsters. Its stupid.
Besides that, I dislike the lack of spiritual diversity.
< If you have a problem with the fluff, don't play divine. >
I insist on playing Divine classes because I like mystical flavor, and I like healers. Clerics are the best healers. The Divine classes must allow players more room to build their own Divine character concepts.
< WotC has to please as many people possible with each aspect of the game. >
Exactly, but in this case, when it comes to the Divine power source, WotC refuses to please any players except those who want their characters to worship monsters. Surely, WotC can please more customers than monster-worshipers.
Everywhere else, WotC bends over backwards to accommodate customizations and personalizations. Entire worlds remain unmapped, so DMs can customize their own setting material there in that unknown space. Explicit official rules allow players to radically refluff the flavor texts of class powers, to personalize any imaginable concept. Bards can achieve their power thru any means, from naive innate magic to sophisticated scholarly immersion. Warlocks can invent vast cosmic powers to suit the needs of their single character. Races can individuate and even reskin. ...
But the moment, someone talks about the Divine power source, all of this freedom of creativity, customization, personalization, and refluffing vanishes. *LOL* Only on this topic, WotC becomes a fanatic tyrant: 'You must worship the gods!' *rolleyes*
Actually, the Players Handbook is telling me not to.
The Channel Divinty feats explicitly mechanically force Divine characters to worship gods.
Of those disputing. Half of you say my Divine characters dont need to worship gods, and I can refluff them (despite the Players Handbook saying this nowhere). Half of you say my Divine characters must worship gods, and I must resort to illegal homebrew if they dont worship gods. You yourselves seem unclear on what the rules are.
A Cleric can easily access the powers of the Astral Sea, whether in the Natural World, Shadowfell, or Elemental Sea. Creatures like Vecna, Lolth, and Raven Queen can do so just as easily.
What makes the Divine power source salient is its cultural archetypes. Archetypes dont necessarily take the form of a personification, in fact usually dont. The sea often serves as an archetypical symbol, for example. Likewise, a candle. It is the archetype with its semiotic cultural meaning that matters. The creatures are superfluous.
< Jedi: I would like to point you to the Blood of Vol from Eberron. >
Generally, Eberron does the Divine power source properly. It explicitly endorses spiritual diversity, and gives several examples of very different kinds of spiritual traditions that may interest players. Even if players dont want a listed tradition, there is room in the setting for players to personalize their own spiritual tradition, similar to how the Warlock can personalize their own unique pact. The Core rules should adopt a similar format as the default.
< This is a fanatasy game, and almost every fantasy setting has gods and religions, and many have characters who are given powers by them. >
Many fantasy stories have nothing to do with gods, even ones with mystics. Many fantasy stories who do have gods, dont have main characters that worship them. Compare almost every popular tv show that has gods. Charmed, Hercules, even Star Trek episodes. The gods exist but its unpopular to actually worship them.
< To change the set up of the devine in the way you want would destroy this trope. >
By the way, some sacred-cow tropes deserve to be destroyed. But this isnt one of those cases.
I have no problem with Immortal creatures who inhabit the plane of the Astral Sea. But its ludicrous for enlightened characters to worship them. The flavor of worshiping them is unappealing to me. I dont like it. I dont want it.
If other players want their characters to join cults to worship these Immortals, or Demons, or Unicorns, then thats what they want for *their* characters. Their foolishness makes interesting villains and amusing colleagues. But I dont want *my* Divine characters to take this silliness seriously. I want Divine characters who have nothing to do with these gods in the first place.
< I understand your point of view Haldrick, and hold a similar one myself, but this is a game about fantasy. >
For the record, I enjoy reallife polytheism, especially Norse mythology and Hinduism. These are languages of dreamlike archetypes and can be profound and important. I respect reallife philosophical polytheists.
My problem is my D&D characters being pressured to worship literal D&D monsters. Its stupid.
Besides that, I dislike the lack of spiritual diversity.
< If you have a problem with the fluff, don't play divine. >
I insist on playing Divine classes because I like mystical flavor, and I like healers. Clerics are the best healers. The Divine classes must allow players more room to build their own Divine character concepts.
< WotC has to please as many people possible with each aspect of the game. >
Exactly, but in this case, when it comes to the Divine power source, WotC refuses to please any players except those who want their characters to worship monsters. Surely, WotC can please more customers than monster-worshipers.
Everywhere else, WotC bends over backwards to accommodate customizations and personalizations. Entire worlds remain unmapped, so DMs can customize their own setting material there in that unknown space. Explicit official rules allow players to radically refluff the flavor texts of class powers, to personalize any imaginable concept. Bards can achieve their power thru any means, from naive innate magic to sophisticated scholarly immersion. Warlocks can invent vast cosmic powers to suit the needs of their single character. Races can individuate and even reskin. ...
But the moment, someone talks about the Divine power source, all of this freedom of creativity, customization, personalization, and refluffing vanishes. *LOL* Only on this topic, WotC becomes a fanatic tyrant: 'You must worship the gods!' *rolleyes*
Just wow...I dislike stated gods, I wish WotC would stop doing it, but you sir take this to an extreme.
And I kindly point out to you that the majority of fans prefer the "monster worshiper" take then yours. If they hadn't the cleric wouldn't have been around as long as it has in the form that it has. IIRC the PH says that you can worsip an idea as well, believe it's in a sidebar, but the majority worship the gods.
In hercules it was unpopular to worship the gods? Really? Yes God's were often the villians, but people worshiped them and paid respects to them. Chramed is of course not going to show gods as favorable, it's based on "pagan" beliefs and such. And star trek is in no way fantasy, it's science fiction. None of thos examples are traditional fantasy, such as the Illiad, Lord of the Rings, and any of the various medevial stories.
I would also like to say that I tend towards athiesm and I find your choice of words towards religious people insulting. Enlightend character can't have faith? Really? Thats rather narrow minded of you, in my oppinon.
The books, and everyone here, is telling you to change it if you don't like it. But most of us like it, as evidenced by you having yet to get anyone but yourself to support your arguements. I'm sorry but it's time you accept you are the minority, and the "monster worshipers" are the majority(or the cleric would have been retooled by now since it's been around so long). And WotC allows you to change what you need to to make it fit in your campaign, I'll see if i can find the quote along those lines about adjusting things as you need to. It is supported by the books since you only care about whats in the books. Thats a limitation you are putting on yourself, not WotC. This is a game, and if you can't let your imagination run, nor step away from your religous ideas, then it's time you find a new one. WotC isn't going to change divine just because one person can't have fun since the officially mutable fluff is getting in the way of their religious agenda. There are your options: Ignore the fluff or go to a new game.
Though i will agree, making the gods more like eberron's would have been nice.
I have no problem with Immortal creatures who inhabit the plane of the Astral Sea. But its ludicrous for enlightened characters to worship them. The flavor of worshiping them is unappealing to me. I dont like it. I dont want it.
If other players want their characters to join cults to worship these Immortals, or Demons, or Unicorns, then thats what they want for *their* characters. Their foolishness makes interesting villains and amusing colleagues. But I dont want *my* Divine characters to take this silliness seriously. I want Divine characters who have nothing to do with these gods in the first place.
LOL. You constantly whine that people are insulting you. But here you come off as a hardcore atheist that is insulting anyone who wants to have faith in a higher/godlike being. And I say that as an atheist myself.
And the important thing is that the background for Avengers/Paladins/Clerics is better for a general audience when it has nothing to do with the gods themselves granting power. Because you can play the older editions' ideal divine worshipper even if your powers don't get granted that way; just say that your character's religion taught him that the power he is given is granted by his god, and he must use it wisely or it is taken away. A lie? Depends, at some point someone must've lied, but perhaps everyone in the church believes it after long enough a time. But if your character believes it, he behaves accordingly.
The merit of the Astral Sea Divine power source is that it is more open and creates more options for a wider variety of players. There's no arguing that, because there are fewer restrictions now. By definition, there are more options when there are less restrictions. In a core D&D book, that's a good thing to have. Bring in the fluff restrictions if that's your thing. I generally prefer them to stay out of the hard rules. Failing that, I don't mind playing a character that reveres a deity. If I want their feats but don't like the deity, I just don't reference the deity. I ignore the fluff I don't like.
I have no problem with Immortal creatures who inhabit the plane of the Astral Sea. But its ludicrous for enlightened characters to worship them. The flavor of worshiping them is unappealing to me. I dont like it. I dont want it.
If other players want their characters to join cults to worship these Immortals, or Demons, or Unicorns, then thats what they want for *their* characters. Their foolishness makes interesting villains and amusing colleagues. But I dont want *my* Divine characters to take this silliness seriously. I want Divine characters who have nothing to do with these gods in the first place.
LOL. You constantly whine that people are insulting you. But here you come off as a hardcore atheist that is insulting anyone who wants to have faith in a higher/godlike being. And I say that as an atheist myself.
This. There's nothing wrong with having opinions, but displaying such judgement and animosity towards others who have differing opinions is clearly overkill. Perhaps you've been judged harshly by other people, but letting it fester into being spiteful toward them isn't the only option. ...And if none of that mumbojumbo floats your boat, how about just get back to the direct topic? It's been like three pages of arguing about this, and while it hasn't been too horribly vicious it doesn't seem very relevant.
Would anyone care to present in tandem what they think the Ardent might be if A) Psionic or B) Divine? I'm genuinely interested in reading some predictions about the class here.
Celtic is wrong. I am not an atheist.
Celtic is wrong. He fails to distinguish between reallife polytheism and fictitious polytheism. I respect reallife polytheism. I disrespect a gaming setting where spiritual characters are compelled to worship monsters. Its stupid.
Players need to create Divine character concepts that they want.
If the Ardent is divine, how might you describe it in a way that you like?? The thread is ripe for expressing that; it's kind of asking that question in general to everyone. And if it is psionic, what then?
My thoughts:
What with the Paladin and the Avenger, I'm not sure how much more ardent the divine power source can become. Maybe a universal truths-type character a bit like the invoker respecting all deities but with a more intellectual bent...?
As for a psionic Ardent....hmm...I kinda liked the name Empath for the leader. I didn't think it sounded so wheeny! A direct update of the 3.x Ardent with its divine mantles seems like it would be too close to the Cleric, though we've had similar worries about classes before. A renaming of the Battlemind as a psionic defender is more what I think I would prefer. Mantles could be like martial stances fluffed as states of mind. (Btw, do all stances have to be martial???)
Celtic is frequently wrong.
Celtic is wrong. I am not an atheist.
Celtic is wrong. He fails to distinguish between reallife polytheism and fictitious polytheism. I respect reallife polytheism. I disrespect a gaming setting where spiritual characters are compelled to worship monsters. Its stupid.
See, I'm actually not wrong. I actually provide proof that you refuse to accept, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
I didn't say you were an atheist. I said you were acting like one.
And I'm not failing to distinguish anything. See, your attitude towards the DnD's Divine setting reflects your real world attitudes, judging solely but what you say. Just because you are talking about fiction, does not mean your words have no bearing on the real world as well. You may not apply those beliefs to the real world, but the way you talk about the fictional setting implies that you feel the same way in the real world.
So really, you have no one to blame but yourself. As usual.
Everytime someone mentions Empath, I always think of Cousellor Obvious, otherwise known as Deanna Troi, who would always say, "I sense feelings of hostility" after watching someone on the view screen of the Enterprise angrily threaten to tear a new one into Picard.
Okay, well, I think I see your point(s) and I don't think you are totally wrong or anything like that. I just think it would be cool if we all turned toward Ardent predictions now....ardently.
If the Ardent is divine, how might you describe it in a way that you like?? The thread is ripe for expressing that; it's kind of asking that question in general to everyone. And if it is psionic, what then?
My thoughts:
What with the Paladin and the Avenger, I'm not sure how much more ardent the divine power source can become. Maybe a universal truths-type character a bit like the invoker respecting all deities but with a more intellectual bent...?
As for a psionic Ardent....hmm...I kinda liked the name Empath for the leader. I didn't think it sounded so wheeny! A direct update of the 3.x Ardent with its divine mantles seems like it would be too close to the Cleric, though we've had similar worries about classes before. A renaming of the Battlemind as a psionic defender is more what I think I would prefer. Mantles could be like martial stances fluffed as states of mind. (Btw, do all stances have to be martial???)
Monks have stances. Swordmages have stances. I THINK Wardens have stances (though their Polymorph effects are pretty similar in any case). So no, not all stances are Martial.
I felt Empath sounded really Wheeny, I know that's often used for psychic characters. But really how is someone who tries to get in touch with other's feelings something that's inspiring for a leader in combat.
Everytime someone mentions Empath, I always think of Cousellor Obvious, otherwise known as Deanna Troi, who would always say, "I sense feelings of hostility" after watching someone on the view screen of the Enterprise angrily threaten to tear a new one into Picard.
Rotflmao! Yeah, I guess there is that. I liked the 3.x Ardent, so I'm not really opposed to the name or concept. I just kinda thought Empath sounded nice too. Hehe...maybe too nice. (There goes my orange werebear-descended shifter empath with a heart on his tummy! Grrr!)
Monks have stances. Swordmages have stances. I THINK Wardens have stances (though their Polymorph effects are pretty similar in any case). So no, not all stances are Martial.
Then maybe mantles could be stances. Or similar to stances. Or maybe the encounter powers are stances and the dailies are mantles. Or maybe they rotate like the phases of the cosmic sorcerer or the wilden. Maybe the mantles could change based on how everyone is feeling what kinds of attacks the party is subjected to.
I have no problem with Immortal creatures who inhabit the plane of the Astral Sea. But its ludicrous for enlightened characters to worship them. The flavor of worshiping them is unappealing to me. I dont like it. I dont want it.
It seems to me that your entire premise boils down to "I don't like the default fluff, therefore I demand that the books contain options that are geared toward an alternate fluff that agrees 100% with my ideas".
This is....unrealistic.
If I want my cleric to worship the Rocking Bulette God of Awesomeness, he worships the RBGA. But I don't demand that WotC produce Bulettian Channel Divinity feats.
The reason I am ardent is, a few posters are trying to force their *unwanted religious opinions* on my characters.
Players need to create Divine character concepts that they want.
Unless, it seems, they want to make a character with the default fluff. Because that, according to you, makes them a monster worshiping fool.
See, you can create the cleric as easily as you wish. Channel Divinity feats are, currently, tailored to certain gods or religions, because that's how the default fluff is presented. If you are so attached to your idea, make a Channel Divinity; Nontheist feat that allows a cleric of a concept to use a new power. And you're done.
There is no persecution, there is no forced concepts. Some people wanted support for clerics of Bahamut. So they have a Bahamut-channeling feat. Others want a feat for Avandra. There's an Avandra feat. Some wanted support for Faerun gods, so there are feats for those gods in the Forgotten Realms guide. Some wanted support for Eberron faiths. It has those. You are acting like the options are chains, somehow forcing you to comply with their world view. This is not the case. This has never been the case. If you want a cleric of whatever philosophy you want, you play that. End of story. No problem, no foul, no error.
It's not that big a deal.
In hercules it was unpopular to worship the gods? Really? Yes God's were often the villians, but people worshiped them and paid respects to them. Chramed is of course not going to show gods as favorable, it's based on "pagan" beliefs and such. And star trek is in no way fantasy, it's science fiction. None of thos examples are traditional fantasy, such as the Illiad, Lord of the Rings, and any of the various medevial stories.
What exactly do you mean by the bolded statement?
You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of, different players have different TASTES.
I'm only seeing one player interested in that particular flavor- You. Would you care to name (not handwave "plenty of people", I mean actually name) 5 other players (preferably at least 2 from here on the board) who feel the same way?
Err... me, actually. But I refuse to get involved in another "Haldrik vs. The World" thread even though I (partly) agree with him on this issue.
In hercules it was unpopular to worship the gods? Really? Yes God's were often the villians, but people worshiped them and paid respects to them. Chramed is of course not going to show gods as favorable, it's based on "pagan" beliefs and such. And star trek is in no way fantasy, it's science fiction. None of thos examples are traditional fantasy, such as the Illiad, Lord of the Rings, and any of the various medevial stories.
What exactly do you mean by the bolded statement?
'Charmed' was a TV drama where the main characters' abilities were based loosely on wiccan and neo-pagan philosophies.
You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of, different players have different TASTES.
I'm only seeing one player interested in that particular flavor- You. Would you care to name (not handwave "plenty of people", I mean actually name) 5 other players (preferably at least 2 from here on the board) who feel the same way?
Err... me, actually. But I refuse to get involved in another "Haldrik vs. The World" thread even though I (partly) agree with him on this issue.
I'm more of a lurker (not having the Internet at my house means I have to be), so I'm less vocal. But I also agree.
Class =/= Concept. Especially not in a setting-neutral conflict resolution system.
< Caeric: [Along with Haldrik] I prefer the system of the Astral Sea providing the divine power source as well. It seems more sensible to me. The background for Avengers/Paladins/Clerics is better for a general audience, when it has nothing to do with the gods themselves. The merit of the Astral Sea Divine power source is, it is more open and creates more options for a wider variety of players. There's no arguing that. In a core D&D book, that's a good thing to have. >
< Duskweaver: I (partly) agree with [Haldrik] on this issue. >
< Tectorman: I'm less vocal. But I also agree. >
< Marius4: Haldrik, I see your point(s), and I don't think you are totally wrong or anything like that. >
I appreciate your support on this issue.
Dragoncat, its more like: I dont like the default fluff, therefore I demand to be able to refluff it.
4e makes anything and everything refluffable - except - the Divine power source.
4e developers bend over backwards to ensure customizability and personalization. Entire worlds remain unmapped so DMs can build their own settings in the uncharted areas. Core rules explicitly permit players to refluff the flavor text of class powers, to express any character concept the player wishes. Players can invent vast cosmic powers, just for the sake of their single Warlock character concept. Bards can achieve their powers variously from naive innate magic to scholarly immersion.
I demand to be able to personalize my Divine character concepts just as easily as any other aspect of D&D 4e.
I should decide for myself what kind of spiritual tradition my Cleric advocates, just as easily as I decide for myself what kind of pact my Warlock makes.
The Divine power source is too much of a straightjacket. The designers need to stop railroading Divine player characters. Enough with the gods, already! There needs to be more freedom for players to decide who their own characters will be.
Im not asking for anything except for what the Eberron setting is *already* doing! It isnt 'impossible'. In fact, its being done well. Eberron explicitly supports spiritual diversity. It lists examples of very different kinds of spiritual traditions that may interest the player of a Divine character, ranging from the transcendent Silver Flame to the ancestral Elven Court. Even if the player doesnt want a popular tradition within the setting, the player can easily customize their own spiritual tradition for their Divine character concept.
The official Core rules must formulate a similar format for spiritual diversity for the default setting.
The player should decide the fluff for the character concept.
Dragoncat, its more like: I dont like the default fluff, therefore I demand to be able to refluff it.
4e makes anything and everything refluffable - except - the Divine power source.
PHB Page 61 under the heading Cerics and dieties:
Usually this faith is the worship of a specific diety-(snip dieties). Sometimes clerics are devoted to churches that venerate groups of dieties or even philosophies.
Not even in a side bar. There you go the books say you can do it. Happy now? See you were never unable to refluff, you just apparently hadn't read partof the book. From step one divine was allowed flezibility. If you want more diversity then keep in eberron or add it to your own campaign. If this stuff bother you you need to stay away from the campaigns where the gods actually interfere in the main world. The only one forcing anything on you is you.
@Mrpopstar: What Salla said.
Dragoncat, its more like: I dont like the default fluff, therefore I demand to be able to refluff it.
4e makes anything and everything refluffable - except - the Divine power source.
4e developers bend over backwards to ensure customizability and personalization. Entire worlds remain unmapped so DMs can build their own settings in the uncharted areas. Core rules explicitly permit players to refluff the flavor text of class powers, to express any character concept the player wishes. Players can invent vast cosmic powers, just for the sake of their single Warlock character concept. Bards can achieve their powers variously from naive innate magic to scholarly immersion.
I demand to be able to personalize my Divine character concepts just as easily as any other aspect of D&D 4e.
I should decide for myself what kind of spiritual tradition my Cleric advocates, just as easily as I decide for myself what kind of pact my Warlock makes.
The Divine power source is too much of a straightjacket. The designers need to stop railroading Divine player characters. Enough with the gods, already! There needs to be more freedom for players to decide who their own characters will be.
Im not asking for anything except for what the Eberron setting is *already* doing! It isnt 'impossible'. In fact, its being done well. Eberron explicitly supports spiritual diversity. It lists examples of very different kinds of spiritual traditions that may interest the player of a Divine character, ranging from the transcendent Silver Flame to the ancestral Elven Court. Even if the player doesnt want a popular tradition within the setting, the player can easily customize their own spiritual tradition for their Divine character concept.
The official Core rules must formulate a similar format for spiritual diversity for the default setting.
The player should decide the fluff for the character concept.
They aren't keeping you from refluffing, they are just producing things with gods more. Because thats what they choose to do, they like that better.
Remember, Eberron is CORE, so if you want, you can use a concept like that in any campaign. And therefore, you can get your spiritual diversity. But, you have to realize, WotC might not want to produce more stuff about it. Then again, some time they might say, hey, I have this really cool idea for divine characters to worship, then they will make it. Then you can use it. OR You could take it upon yourself to make it, hell, you could submit it to them, or put it on a wiki thing, that way others could use it to. But DON'T keep bringing it up. This isn't the approach for something like that. It gets everyone angry at each other, and separates us as a group of people who enjoy D&D.
As for the ardent I am still trying to guess at what the archtype for it will be. As that is where most character classes get their starts. The seeker being an exception in my opinion as a backwards design. "Let's have another bow using class," now we need fluff and a role.
The things is, if your Divine character doesn't worship a deity, it's not really Divine anymore.
I'm going to disagree, simply because I wouldn't say that the relation between a character an a divine entity needs to always come down to "worship". I think that other possible relationships should allow for Divine characters as well.
An easy example is when a deity decides to grant a character divine powers for the deity's own reasons, likely personal interests unrelated to whether the character in question worships the deity or even knows that the deity exists. Such a character may have no idea why it has been granted divine power, and it may actually accidentally worship another deity. Such a character might not even realize its abilities are divine in nature.
It's like going to church, and having your pastor/priest being an athiest.
I don't think it's like that at all.
I am willing to refluff anything, to any extent I wish; If I want something to be different, thats not WotC's problem, it's mine because it's about changing the concepts of the setting. But if I want something to be good, interesting, to make sense within the concepts of the default setting, than it's WotC's responsibility not mine because it's more about them being consistent.
I don't expect WotC to make their products tailored to making my setting better, thats up to me. I do expect WotC to make their products tailored to making their setting better though, because thats just making a better product which is just good business.
As to the need of fluff, you may remember I used the word "inimprusting" earlier, and you have no idea what it means; I made it up, it has a meaning, I made that up too, but I didn't have to make up word to say what I meant because there are already words that everybody knows that would have worked just fine, but I also have the right to not use those words if I don't like them.
I think that fluff has more power on the players and the game than the crunch does; D&D is a game where a group of people tell a story together, you say what the rules do is provide structure and consistency (which is said to be why they're more necessary than the fluff) to the storytellers, the flavor is what allows the group to share the story with one another so that it's not just one person's story. The fluff is the language of the game, It's a game of sharing images and phrases and collaborating to build a story; and when I want you see what I see, for you and I to have one consistent story between us we need that lingo and terminology to have conventional concepts that we both understand. So yeah, you can come up with new words like "inimprusting" if you like it better than other words, because if you don't like a word then you don't have to use it, right? D&D is not about telling your own story, it's about communication's power to shape a reality; and we need our Fluff to provide structure and consistency to how the story is shared just like we need rules to provide structure and consistency to how that story is built.
So that's why I think fluff is something that can be ignored, but should never be taken for granted. And this may sound crazy, but I think WotC has a responsibility to provide interesting and consistent fluff that inspires players in new ways.
The things is, if your Divine character doesn't worship a deity, it's not really Divine anymore. A Paladin that doesn't revere any particular god, that's called a Fighter. It's like going to church, and having your pastor/priest being an athiest. It just doesn't work that way.
The Blood of Vol is not a deity. The Silver Flame is not a deity. Just as in 3.5, you can have a Divine character that worships a concept, rather than a deity. That's what domain feats are for, so you don't have to go to the trouble of balancing Channel Divinity powers for whatever concept your character venerates.
The focus on specific deities and the powers which lack a variety or maleability in terms of damage, e.g. you can't worship the Raven Queen and have your powers do cold damage, does make things difficult.
Divine classes are annoying to work with (and I'd love a Heretic or Zealot class that subverts deities), but they're not unworkable.
The things is, if your Divine character doesn't worship a deity, it's not really Divine anymore. A Paladin that doesn't revere any particular god, that's called a Fighter. It's like going to church, and having your pastor/priest being an athiest. It just doesn't work that way.
Not even close to accurate. The fluff and rules and settings all say that the classes can follow philosophies instead of deities. For example, Deva Invokers don't have to follow a deity - they can simply be tappingg into their old angelic nature. The Invoker entry itself flat out says that. Hell, there's even a video game series that is loosely based on DnD that features a Paladin class that is pretty much a Paladin that folows the philosophies of Bahamut, but isn't devoted to any god.
The Blood of Vol is not a deity. The Silver Flame is not a deity. Just as in 3.5, you can have a Divine character that worships a concept, rather than a deity. That's what domain feats are for, so you don't have to go to the trouble of balancing Channel Divinity powers for whatever concept your character venerates.
Don't forget the Path of Light!
Don't forget the Path of Light!
...Well, bugger, I knew I missed something.
However, I always felt that the two Elf Religions were too much of hold-overs from 3.5e Divine, and should have been Primal. Spirits of the Past – Ancestor Worship? That's what Primal Does. Eberron goes a bit far in the opposite direction of providing alternate faith-patterns, some of which would have been better suited for primal characters. And that would have fit more in with Elven primal themes, which are notably lacking in Eberron as Elves are horse-riding, Persian/Turkic-like peoples (from the artwork at least).
But we should really, really, really start a new thread or move all these Divine argument posts over to a new discussion, because this should be about the Ardent, not about the nature of Divine classes.
Ardents should be cool. I was hoping they'd come back. Maybe we'll see the Erudite or the Lurk as well. Though I was hoping the Erudite would kill the Psion and take its stuff like the Assassin did to the Ninja, but it didn't. Lurk might be PP-using Psionic Striker, if there is one.
I'd prefer Ardent to be a primary Defender, secondary-leader. The 3.5e Ardent was somewhere inbetween the two roles, which weren't really defined. It was sort of like a Psionic Paladin, in many regards.
EDIT: Ardent debuts on the 15th. I wonder if Wilden will debut the same day? They didn't say.
1) Is divine.
2) Takes the name, and the rest of the 3.5 class dies a horrible, horrible death. Like the Divine Mind, the original Ardent was a terrible example of PsionX, the tendancy to make things in the psionic field "Like X, but psi!" The Ardent was a cleric. The psionic part was just tacked on to a cleric frame; it had heavy armor, got power from devotion, and had healing and protection. Likewise, the Divine Mind was a paladin, plate-totin', faith-wieldin', sword-swingin', heal-and-protect castin' paladin with the name scrubbed out and Psionic written somewhere on the sheet.
The psionic classes need to start, end, and all throughout be psionic. No "cleric but with powerpoints" or "like a sorcerer, but with their minds!" Each class needs to have a solid foundation in psionic, mental, or enlightened themes, as well as a mechanical distinctions to make it unique and interesting. Hopefully, the days of PsionicX are over.
PHB Page 61 under the heading Cerics and dieties:
Usually this faith is the worship of a specific diety-(snip dieties). Sometimes clerics are devoted to churches that venerate groups of dieties or even philosophies.
Not even in a side bar. There you go the books say you can do it. Happy now? See you were never unable to refluff, you just apparently hadn't read partof the book. From step one divine was allowed flezibility.
so is this over now?
PHB Page 61 under the heading Cerics and dieties:
Usually this faith is the worship of a specific diety-(snip dieties). Sometimes clerics are devoted to churches that venerate groups of dieties or even philosophies.
Not even in a side bar. There you go the books say you can do it. Happy now? See you were never unable to refluff, you just apparently hadn't read partof the book. From step one divine was allowed flezibility.
so is this over now?
Doubtful. That exact text has been quoted in response to Haldrik before. It didn't convince him then, and I doubt he'll respond any differently this time. Best if we just ignore the issue and get back to the topic of the Ardent.
I think I'll throw my hat in with folks saying it'll be divine. The class may have been psionic in 3e, but it had strong divine overtones. Also, we already have two other divine classes that use the "ardent" to describe a build, so the term already has a divine connection in 4e.
Other than that, I really don't know what to expect. Though as it was psionic in 3e I think it might be cool if it used the power point mechanics instead of typical encounter power, however, if it is a divine class I don't expect it to do so. Everything I've read in previews so far suggests that the power point system was developed specifically for the psionic classes. While we might see non-psionic classes that use power points in the future, I don't expect to see such in PH3.
I'm hoping it's psionic, myself, though it's primarily for selfish reasons. Divine stuff doesn't interest me, so if it's psionic, it means I might actually play it.
If you want it to be Psionic just reflavor it, FLUFF ISSSS MEEEUTABLE....
Just kidding, I would never say that, because I know you know that, and you might feel disrespected if you assumed you were some sort of flavor slaver.
You hurt me.... and now you know how it feels
First Question: Will the Ardent bring some of its "feel" from 3.5 to 4th?
Comment: This is a very delicate decision IMO, 'cause the ardent could be to much like the cleric, so becoming the major "Class failure" of 4th. I believe that the mantles will appear in the 4e reincarnation. As channel divinities or domain feats? I don't know.
Second Question (and the best one): Which power source?
Comment: Could be any, psionic or divine. I'm sure that the ardent was one of the classes that the developers said would be dual power source, like the assassin was originally meant to be (martial/arcane as they said), but I don't think this will happen in the PHB3. Let's not forget that the devs said the PHB3 is the book of "versatile" options or something like that (maybe talking only about the hybrid options). I think that exist equal chances that the ardent will be psi or divine. In 3e they have the "principal" class features that define the two power source in 4th: the power points; and the "domain like" mantles. I wouldn't bet my money on the chosen power source.
Third Question: Is Ardent a rename for Battlemind?
Comment: Could be... Because in the 3e Complete Psionic book the ardent is treated as being Wisdom primary with Constitution and Intelligence secondary stats. Wisdom/Constitution build is confirmed for the Battlemind. If wisdom is primary the class is not psionic (vide the famous "Githzerai rule"), but an "original" Battlemind being divine is hard to imagine. Let's be frank, the battlemind name leak was somewhat elaborated just to see this "eccentric" class name repercussion, which in case was a REALLY bad one.
Fourth Question: How the devs will make this class unique?
Comment: As I commented before, the chances of the ardent feeling like other divine classes are high. Keep in mind that I'm only considering the 3e ardent in this approach, because the 4e one could be entirely different. The class "uniqueness" will depend a lot on the role. Denfender - easy if it is psionic, ultra hard if is divine; Striker - always easy, there is a thousand ways of dealing lots of damage inside the devs desks; leader - just a few ones that I will talk about in the next lines; controller - It'll will not be a controller. What I think? For this class to be "truly" unique and satisfy the majority - I repeat, the majority of the Dnd fans - should be divine, letting the Battlemind (or his probable renamed version) be the Psi defender and the awaited Empath, which seems to be approved as a name for the psi leader class, so no need for a rename here. The Ardent would satisfy the (amazingly vocal) mass of "divine but no-divine" class fans. The class could be a leader with the mantles working as auras. Other than this I can't imagine a unique feel for the Ardent, but I'm sure you guys will. I believe the "Aura Leader" is one of the most acclaimed concepts on these forums, and probably will appear in PHB3. Somewhere in the past Ardent and Empath are fighting to be the "Aura Leader".
“Faith without Prayer” classes; “True Hero doesn’t have Patrons” classes; “Mortal Rulez” classes; “Deities are Monsters” classes; “Hero of the Easy Path” classes; “Divine ‘cause the DM will let me be a God at level 30” classes; “The Mob Says it is Divine” classes; “Divine ‘cause I’m Wise” classes; “Divine ‘cause I wear Heavy Armor and mommy calls me Champion” classes; “Divine ‘cause I Kill Things and there is this Sexy Goddess of Death…” classes.
More nominations for the “divine but no-divine” neo-revolutionary classes:“Faith without Prayer” classes; “True Hero doesn’t have Patrons” classes; “Mortal Rulez” classes; “Deities are Monsters” classes; “Hero of the Easy Path” classes; “Divine ‘cause the DM will let me be a God at level 30” classes; “The Mob Says it is Divine” classes; “Divine ‘cause I’m Wise” classes; “Divine ‘cause I wear Heavy Armor and mommy calls me Champion” classes; “Divine ‘cause I Kill Things and there is this Sexy Goddess of Death…” classes.
Aren't those just ways of playing the classes already established? None of those seem to be new material that is mechanically and flavourfully different from the established 4 Divine classes (and possibly even fitting into other power sources as well), save that "we don't worship deities in the same way."
I don't know why we'd need classes for that purpose. Classes should fill a niche (and its sub-niches) that hasn't been explored as of yet, not doing old classes over again with slightly different fluff. The mommy calls me a Champion is easily a Paladin (or even a Battle Cleric, for that matter). 'cause I kill things is easily an Avenger of the Raven Queen.
These aren't classes, they're characters – individual concepts that should scour what's been written already to find what classes, builds, skills, weapons, implements, armour, items, feats, PPaths, EDests fit them the best to create such a character. Sounds more like these belong either in a Divine Backgrounds article, fleshed out more of course, or else in a Player's mental toolbox of reasons why they might play Divine without playing it completely straight, thus subverting the assumptions and even, possibly making an interesting character.
The Ardent, if it's a Psionic class, is most likely a revamp of the "empath" concept (if it's a Leader) or a rename of the "battlemind" to a more elegant-sounding name (if it's a Defender). As a divine class, it'd be harder to place, but could fit as a lightly-armored Leader or Defender class (since they'd have to work harder to make a more heavily-armored class sufficiently different from the Cleric or Paladin, who already share some thematic overlap) which uses divine auras to assist their allies.
An "aura" ability might work similarly to the Barbarian's rage ability: daily powers that grant an extended buff to the ardent's allies for the duration of the encounter.
I think it might be the psionic defender but going off 3.5 odds are pretty good it will be the leader.
...Soulknife striker and the psychic warrior the defender...
The Monk is the Psionic Striker, and you don't seem to have accounted for the Battlemind at all, likely the new Psionic Defender taking the place of the Psychic Warrior.
Aren't those just ways of playing the classes already established? None of those seem to be new material that is mechanically and flavourfully different from the established 4 Divine classes (and possibly even fitting into other power sources as well), save that "we don't worship deities in the same way."
I don't know why we'd need classes for that purpose. Classes should fill a niche (and its sub-niches) that hasn't been explored as of yet, not doing old classes over again with slightly different fluff. The mommy calls me a Champion is easily a Paladin (or even a Battle Cleric, for that matter). 'cause I kill things is easily an Avenger of the Raven Queen.
These aren't classes, they're characters – individual concepts that should scour what's been written already to find what classes, builds, skills, weapons, implements, armour, items, feats, PPaths, EDests fit them the best to create such a character. Sounds more like these belong either in a Divine Backgrounds article, fleshed out more of course, or else in a Player's mental toolbox of reasons why they might play Divine without playing it completely straight, thus subverting the assumptions and even, possibly making an interesting character.
Oh, RLY?
I can't believe this!! You're participating in these forums for so long and still counter-attack "totally sarcasm filled comments" with reasoning. Good news for you, you don't need to worry anymore, save your reason for the world outside these forums, because I'm just making fun of Haldrik's "I-want-divine-classes-that-doesn't-need-gods-to-exist" fluff cause. You're so enlightened that you could be a concept for a divine class yourself, like a true champion that brings righteousness to these Forums.
Long live for the Sarcasm and the Fluff Mutability Mentality
...Soulknife striker and the psychic warrior the defender...
The Monk is the Psionic Striker, and you don't seem to have accounted for the Battlemind at all, likely the new Psionic Defender taking the place of the Psychic Warrior.
I still think battlemind sounds like a taclord.
There's no reason their can't be more then one of each role, or even a role that doesn't show up (unlikely, but possible)....Soulknife striker and the psychic warrior the defender...
The Monk is the Psionic Striker, and you don't seem to have accounted for the Battlemind at all, likely the new Psionic Defender taking the place of the Psychic Warrior.
I still think battlemind sounds like a taclord.
If that's the case, then wouldn't the Ardent being a Psionic Leader, like so many in this thread are suggesting, leave the Psionic power source with two Leaders and no Defenders? I can hear the completely justified cries of foul and "Where's my Psychic Warrior!?" already... Ironically, the only role that I could see them reasonably leaving out of the Psionic power source would actually be the Leader role.
The monk is melee based while the soulknife would give the option of a ranger/rogue type striker IE it can do well in melee or ranged.
And I would suggest looking up the very roots and origins of the concepts that led to Psionics, since they have themes that have huge overlap with Wuxia.
The fluff in the debut articles emphasise the mystical elements in the Psion and the Monk.
And I hate it.
4e has mystified Psionics, making it fit more into a traditional understanding of psychic powers
. . . What? No, mystifying Psionics does the oppose of making it fit into the traditional understanding of psychic powers, at least innate psychic powers. Innate psychic powers such as psionics are the realm of pseudoscience. Psychic powers that aren't innate are already covered by Arcane and Divine.
a thematic group that works with medieval/renaissance/industrial revolution fantasy, rather than sci-fi. Psionics in D&D shouldn't be a Sci-Fi aside, it should mesh well.
I honestly don't care. I think that people who have trouble integrating pseudoscience properly into their medieval/renaissance/industrial revolution fantasy are heavily lacking in imagination to begin with. It literally takes zero work, because the pseudoscience of psionics isn't inherently sci-fi in nature. Further, it the idea of innate psychic powers really bothers somebody for some irrational reason, then re-fluffing such that the powers aren't innate but Arcane or Divine takes next to zero effort.
And I would suggest looking up the very roots and origins of the concepts that led to Psionics, since they have themes that have huge overlap with Wuxia.
. . . Sure, in the same way that the concepts that led to Martial, Divine, Arcane, and Primal overlap with Wuxia in significant ways. All that it's overlapping with Wuxia does is make Wuxia less mystical, not the other way around.
EDIT: Really, I do apologize because I know that I'm very opinionated and condescending about this topic, but this is the sort of thing that I have an actual interest in outside of D&D, and so it bothers me a lot when people talk about it like they know what they're talking about when they actually don't, and it bothers me even more that people who don't know what they're talking about are designing a D&D system for it under so many misconceptions. At best, I hope that I can do what I did back in 3.5: Ignore all the loads of crap that don't fit and cherry-pick from the unfortunately fewer things that do. On the bright side, it looks the the Psion class actually isn't that horrible this edition for the most part, so I am still optimistic.
Ki was killed mostly to destroy the oriental ghetto, but many ki concepts worked their way into Psionic. The contemplatives in their hidden mountain monasteries that take few disciples and put them through vigorous, trickster mentoring; heck, the very basis of Psionics is about sharpening the mind and body with discipline, breathing, and meditation. While these concepts have been expanded so that they can encompass the entire world, there are siginificant elements of eastern mysticism and meditative practice in them.
Arcane Psychic powers are more along the lines of what you're talking about, really. Arcane feels a LOT more pseudoscientific, since it deals with manipulating the physics of the world. Illusionist and Charms Wizards, Feylocks, Darklocks, Starlocks, Cosmic Sorcerers, and Bards all utilise psychic powers to effect the mind through their logic, reasoning, and understanding of certain sciences and arts. Psionic has a definite different feel.
Past Psionics were Arcane pretending to be Pseudoscience, and then a couple other Power sources jumping on the bandwagon. Well now Arcane has situated itself into Pseudoscience itself, the science of the Renaissance, the science that feels distinctly fantastical, and Psionics can be free to take on more mystical aspects.
EDIT: I understand your sensitivity on this topic, but hold fast that 4e Psionics is actually drawing on earlier concepts of psychic powers than those that have been expanded in sci-fi, fantasy, and other genres in more recent years, and that if you want Pseudoscience, 4e Arcane fits this purpose a lot more nicely. Magitechnology, much?
While these concepts have been expanded so that they can encompass the entire world, there are siginificant elements of eastern mysticism and meditative practice in them.
I think that you have this completely backwards. It's not that Psionics draw from or are elements of Easterm Mysticism and Wuxia. It's that Eastern Mysticism and Wuxia are examples of Psionics. Psionics are a pseudoscientific explanation for them and many other things.
In this way, Psions relates to Eastern Mysticism and Wuxia in the exact same way that at least Martial and Divine do. It's not that Martial or Divine draw from or are elements of Easterm Mysticism and Wuxia. It's that Eastern Mysticism and Wuxia are examples of Martial and Divine.
Arcane Psychic powers are more along the lines of what you're talking about, really. Arcane feels a LOT more pseudoscientific, since it deals with manipulating the physics of the world. Illusionist and Charms Wizards, Feylocks, Darklocks, Starlocks, Cosmic Sorcerers, and Bards all utilise psychic powers to effect the mind through their logic, reasoning, and understanding of certain sciences and arts. Psionic has a definite different feel.
Again, I think you've got this totally backwards, and if you think that Arcane is what I'm referring to when I speak of innate psychic abilities, then you're just flat out wrong. While Arcane does deal with formulas and physics, there' nothing at all innate about Arcane power, and there's certainly nothing exclusively psychic about them. It's an unfortunately common misconception about Psionics that they must directly deal with hard sciences such as physics and psychology in order to work. That's not the case. The whole point of Psionics as opposed to Arcane is that Psionics are innate psychic powers, and so the actual practitioner needs not understand a damn thing about the science of what they're doing. You can think of Sorcerers as bridging the gap between Arcane and Psionic, but because a Sorcerer's innate powers are powers that aren't innate to everybody and are powers that are far more diverse than just psychic in nature (not to mention that the arcane forces manipulated are external in nature as opposed to the internal nature of psionics), they continue to fall under Arcane.
Past Psionics were Arcane pretending to be Pseudoscience, and then a couple other Power sources jumping on the bandwagon.
Yes, that was the problem.
Well now Arcane has situated itself into Pseudoscience itself, the science of the Renaissance, the science that feels distinctly fantastical, and Psionics can be free to take on more mystical aspects.
Again, there's nothing pseuscientific about Arcane, and if you think that there is, then I don't know what else to say except that I don't know what's wrong with you. Having formulas and being studied doesn't make something pseudoscientific, and something doesn't need to be studied or have formulas as far as its practitioner knows in order to be pseudoscientific.
4e Psionics is actually drawing on earlier concepts of psychic powers than those that have been expanded in sci-fi, fantasy, and other genres in more recent years...
I disagree. Those earlier concepts you refer to weren't pseudoscientific at all (and therefore couldn't possibly be psionic). Those concepts were that psychic abilities such as precognition were mysical, arcane, or divine in nature. That has already been covered. It's exactly the innate, pseudoscientific aspect that has yet to be covered, and it's exactly what D&D Psionics should be covering.
Take a deep breath, bro!
Take a deep breath, bro!
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER!!!!
>_>
<_<
>_<
^_^;
I promise that I'm not taking this as seriously as it seems like I'm taking it. The Psion preview has already shown that there will be plenty of powers for me to pick from with my correct view of what psionics should be that it'll be relatively easy to ignore any crap that they end up putting in, and this is exactly what I did last edition, so I promise I'll be fine. ^_~
Imagine, if you will, that Arcane was going to debut. And we were seeing a preview of the Sorcerer.
It would talk all about natural ability and bloodlines, about the spark of magic born within a being, about heritage and gifts and pure instinct guiding the arcane forces. Does that mean the scholastic wizard is dead, that the study and quantification of magic is null and void, that they have destroyed the legacy of the Arcane as a wizardly source forevermore?
No. Because sources are broad.
The Psion could approach from a psuedoscientific mindset, the monk with a mystical background, yet both can tackle the same source from different angles. Power sources are broad for a reason, because there are multiple paths to similar concepts within a single one of them.
There's nothing to say that just because the Monk is mystical, that Psionics is all mysticism, all the time.
Imagine, if you will, that Arcane was going to debut. And we were seeing a preview of the Sorcerer.
It would talk all about natural ability and bloodlines, about the spark of magic born within a being, about heritage and gifts and pure instinct guiding the arcane forces. Does that mean the scholastic wizard is dead, that the study and quantification of magic is null and void, that they have destroyed the legacy of the Arcane as a wizardly source forevermore?
No. Because sources are broad.
The Psion could approach from a psuedoscientific mindset, the monk with a mystical background, yet both can tackle the same source from different angles. Power sources are broad for a reason, because there are multiple paths to similar concepts within a single one of them.
That is an acceptable viewpoint, and as long as the mechanics are able to adequately reflect this (and I'm sure that they will), then it's likely that everybody will win, and I suppose that that's a good thing...
While these concepts have been expanded so that they can encompass the entire world, there are siginificant elements of eastern mysticism and meditative practice in them.
I think that you have this completely backwards. It's not that Psionics draw from or are elements of Easterm Mysticism and Wuxia. It's that Eastern Mysticism and Wuxia are examples of Psionics. Psionics are a pseudoscientific explanation for them and many other things.
In this way, Psions relates to Eastern Mysticism and Wuxia in the exact same way that at least Martial and Divine do. It's not that Martial or Divine draw from or are elements of Easterm Mysticism and Wuxia. It's that Eastern Mysticism and Wuxia are examples of Martial and Divine.
I don't want to debate the OTHER power source of this thread (Psionic), but I'll applaud the point above and the broader game perspective it illustrates, IMHO. Conceptions as divergent as the knight and the samurai can spring from a single class (say, fighter) just as the town guard and his clone the village militiaman can.
The main things being changed are the assumptions of the game and peoples' perspectives. Where previously "Psionics" and "Eastern Mind Mastery" may have been boxed separately, the game's assumed perspective has taken a step back to more clearly view the bigger picture.
The true core of the Psionic power source is simply *inner mental power arising in humanoids* (loosely). Moving from that, the devs are more free than ever to capture associated real-life heroes and myths in-game without excessive or hackneyed rules additions, as well as find entirely new manifestations. /end
A Psionic Leader class may gain abilities inspired by empathic abilities, Clairsentience, and certain forms of Psychometabolism (certain parts, such as the claw and bite powers, may be more appropriate for a primal class and might not make the cut). For instance, an empathic healing power may let the leader transfer the injuries of his ally to himself, represented by having him spend one of his own healing surges in place of the ally's.
Perhaps the Psionic Leader (which might be the Ardent but I hope is the Empath) is given more healing surges than usual to compensate for such healing powers. On second thought, though, instead of healing surges they'd probably want to have Power Points step in as the central mechanic. I'd move the surge idea to powers instead of features.
Regardless of role, the Ardent a la 3e definitely leans divine; it was just some gloss on top that made it psionic, really. So I guess my predictions are............
Psionic Ardent: If it ends up psionic, they'll probably just take the name and the mantles. Or, really, in order to take the divine out of the Ardent, it might have to become the new Wilder. Ardent as a passionate healer sounds SO much like the Cleric. Ardent as an emotional psi-emitter could capture more of the Psionic feel.
Divine Ardent: It may end up being an intellectual divine character that emphasizes the philosophies and ideals aspects of the divine power source that are usually ignored.
I hope its a Psionic something, going by the dictionary - it'll be the Empath, or tragically: some lovey dovey saint w*****.
going by the dictionary - it'll be the Empath, or tragically: some lovey dovey saint w*****.
What are you talking about? The word Ardent means intensely passionate or zealously devoted. It has nothing to do with Empathy. In fact, it could very easly result in the opposite of Empathy... Really, if you're just going by the definition of the word Ardent, it's much more likely that the class will be Divine than that it will be Psionic.
So I doubt we'll have racial ED's in the PHB3. On the other hand, you could've said the same thing about racial PPs in the PHB2 and look how that turned out.
What makes you think that there's a possibility of racial Epic Destinies?
Because it is possible to do mechanically.
No real reason to think it will happen, but with all this discussion about page count and page space for classes and such I thought the possibility needed to be mentioned.
Cool, but probably not going to be included.
I'm hoping the Ardent is the new Empath, because Empath is kinda a bland name and Ardent sounds like a really redundant Divine class
I'm seeing the Battlemind as Con/Wis and hoping for a Con/Str build, to give Goliaths, Minotaurs, and Warforged an optimal Psionic class.
If there is a Con/Str build, I would expect that would be final proof that Goliaths are replacing the Half-Giants of Athas, since they're optimal with a Psionic class too.
Half-Giants were only mentioned once in 4e, in a book that said Templar instead of Avenger, and both Avenger and Goliaths came out in the same book. Probably missed by the same editing sweep.
I'm now thinking that Empath got turned into a build of the Ardent, as a Cha/Wis build. I'm hoping the other build will be Cha/Con.
I'm seeing the Battlemind as Con/Wis and hoping for a Con/Str build, to give Goliaths, Minotaurs, and Warforged an optimal Psionic class.
If there is a Con/Str build, I would expect that would be final proof that Goliaths are replacing the Half-Giants of Athas, since they're optimal with a Psionic class too.
Half-Giants were only mentioned once in 4e, in a book that said Templar instead of Avenger, and both Avenger and Goliaths came out in the same book. Probably missed by the same editing sweep.
That book being Eberron Player's guide. The creator says he uses Goliaths as a different race (an ogre hybrid) that likely won't updated to 4e, so unless they have plans they didn't tell him about (a possibility) I think it unlikely. THat and there is really no reason to believe this substitution other then they both had the large flavor, otherwise their story and concept is very very different.
That book being Eberron Player's guide. The creator says he uses Goliaths as a different race (an ogre hybrid) that likely won't updated to 4e, so unless they have plans they didn't tell him about (a possibility) I think it unlikely. THat and there is really no reason to believe this substitution other then they both had the large flavor, otherwise their story and concept is very very different.
Considering how WILDLY different Dark Sun's halflings, elves, and dwarves are compared to their generic setting kin I don't see a problem with generic setting goliaths = Dark Sun half-giants. The mechanics seem to fit well enough, the rest is just setting specific fluff.
I really don't see a problem with it.
Look at how Dragonborn and Halflings appear in Athas – the generic material isn't any status for what the material should be in the setting fluff.
That said, I feel the mechanics of the Goliath work better with Half-Giants than the mechanics of Elves do with Eberron elves. Eberron elves seem more like they would prefer classes the Eladrin and Half-Elf are better than in terms of culture.
That book being Eberron Player's guide. The creator says he uses Goliaths as a different race (an ogre hybrid) that likely won't updated to 4e, so unless they have plans they didn't tell him about (a possibility) I think it unlikely. THat and there is really no reason to believe this substitution other then they both had the large flavor, otherwise their story and concept is very very different.
Considering how WILDLY different Dark Sun's halflings, elves, and dwarves are compared to their generic setting kin I don't see a problem with generic setting goliaths = Dark Sun half-giants. The mechanics seem to fit well enough, the rest is just setting specific fluff.
It would be the first case of them doing something like that. I'm hoping for a distinct half-giant flavor, but I like the race so it's more a preference (I can deal with reflavoring until one comes)
That said, I feel the mechanics of the Goliath work better with Half-Giants than the mechanics of Elves do with Eberron elves. Eberron elves seem more like they would prefer classes the Eladrin and Half-Elf are better than in terms of culture.
Not to spoil our agreement fest, but I disagree. Ranger is the archetypal class for Valenar Elves, and Shaman is another ideal class given the cultural reverence of ancestral SPIRITS. As for Aerenal Elves, while they certainly do have some affinity for the arcane arts, they are far more likely to be drawn to the divine classes (Clerics, Invokers, and Avengers), given how the Undying Court is a tangible source of divine power.
That said, I feel the mechanics of the Goliath work better with Half-Giants than the mechanics of Elves do with Eberron elves. Eberron elves seem more like they would prefer classes the Eladrin and Half-Elf are better than in terms of culture.
Not to spoil our agreement fest, but I disagree. Ranger is the archetypal class for Valenar Elves, and Shaman is another ideal class given the cultural reverence of ancestral SPIRITS. As for Aerenal Elves, while they certainly do have some affinity for the arcane arts, they are far more likely to be drawn to the divine classes (Clerics, Invokers, and Avengers), given how the Undying Court is a tangible source of divine power.
Well put, the valenar also have a history of druidism, slightly.
Well put, the valenar also have a history of druidism, slightly.
A little, but orcs are the major druid race of Eberron. Shaman is the better fit for Valenar seeking to be primal mystics.
Ancestor Worship is a Primal concept. I don't know WHY they get divine power from that.
Also, the Dragonmarked Elf houses are what I was referring to – they favour Assassin, Rogue, Bard; these are classes the Elf does less well, but the Eladrin and Half-Elves are a bit better with.
The problem with the Valenar Elves, as I see it, is that the Ancestors grant Divine Power.
Ancestor Worship is a Primal concept. I don't know WHY they get divine power from that.
Also, the Dragonmarked Elf houses are what I was referring to – they favour Assassin, Rogue, Bard; these are classes the Elf does less well, but the Eladrin and Half-Elves are a bit better with.
Worship is worship is worship. I don't see any reason it can't be either, depending on how the player wants to fluff it.
Isn't Primal stuff 'nature spirit' worship, which seems like a different entity from ancestor worship, anyway?
Well put, the valenar also have a history of druidism, slightly.
A little, but orcs are the major druid race of Eberron. Shaman is the better fit for Valenar seeking to be primal mystics.
Yes they are, doesn't mean the other races don't have anything. In 3.5 the Valenar had druidic sect of their own, minor as it may be. But shamans are a perfect fit for valenar i will give you that.
And then WHat Salla said.
The problem with the Valenar Elves, as I see it, is that the Ancestors grant Divine Power.
Ancestor Worship is a Primal concept. I don't know WHY they get divine power from that.
Also, the Dragonmarked Elf houses are what I was referring to – they favour Assassin, Rogue, Bard; these are classes the Elf does less well, but the Eladrin and Half-Elves are a bit better with.
Worship is worship is worship. I don't see any reason it can't be either, depending on how the player wants to fluff it.
Isn't Primal stuff 'nature spirit' worship, which seems like a different entity from ancestor worship, anyway?
Ancestor Worship is a distinct part of The Spirit Way. I suggest reading up on your Primal Power fluff.
Also, Ancestor Spirits abound in Primal classes. They don't in Divine. The Worship of the Ancestors shouldn't have been a religion, they should have recognised this as a faith concept that shouldn't be tied to divine but to Primal. But that ship has sailed.
The problem with the Valenar Elves, as I see it, is that the Ancestors grant Divine Power.
Ancestor Worship is a Primal concept. I don't know WHY they get divine power from that.
Also, the Dragonmarked Elf houses are what I was referring to – they favour Assassin, Rogue, Bard; these are classes the Elf does less well, but the Eladrin and Half-Elves are a bit better with.
Worship is worship is worship. I don't see any reason it can't be either, depending on how the player wants to fluff it.
Isn't Primal stuff 'nature spirit' worship, which seems like a different entity from ancestor worship, anyway?
QFT.
Divine power is the product of faith or worship. Primal power comes from a connection to the spirits of the land.
The problem with the Valenar Elves, as I see it, is that the Ancestors grant Divine Power.
Ancestor Worship is a Primal concept. I don't know WHY they get divine power from that.
Also, the Dragonmarked Elf houses are what I was referring to – they favour Assassin, Rogue, Bard; these are classes the Elf does less well, but the Eladrin and Half-Elves are a bit better with.
Worship is worship is worship. I don't see any reason it can't be either, depending on how the player wants to fluff it.
Isn't Primal stuff 'nature spirit' worship, which seems like a different entity from ancestor worship, anyway?
Ancestor Worship is a distinct part of The Spirit Way. I suggest reading up on your Primal Power fluff.
Also, Ancestor Spirits abound in Primal classes. They don't in Divine. The Worship of the Ancestors shouldn't have been a religion, they should have recognised this as a faith concept that shouldn't be tied to divine but to Primal. But that ship has sailed.
Comuning with ancestral spirits is primal, worship is divine. In Eberron specifically divine is based off of faith alone. So i see no reason leting a Valenar be devine or primal in their connection to their ancestor, likely based on what the ancestor was.
Basically, it deals with Animism, which was a mixture of worship of place (this rock or tree is worthy of my devotion), worship of natural cycles and elements (the land, sea, sky, etc), and worship of the ancestors (which often as not were animals or people and animal admixtures).
Primal Power comes from nature spirits, ancestor spirits, Great Elder Spirits; it comes from Primal Spirits, and Ancestor Spirits are a variety of Primal Spirit.
Basically, it deals with Animism, which was a mixture of worship of place (this rock or tree is worthy of my devotion), worship of natural cycles and elements (the land, sea, sky, etc), and worship of the ancestors (which often as not were animals or people and animal admixtures).
And divine power comes from worship, atleast in the world we are talking about. I think your being to strict in your interpretation, and disregarding the setting's given fluff.
So, if worship is divine, and ancestor spirits is primal, then obviously worshipping ancestor spirits can be either (or both, if you want to multi-/hybrid class), depending on how the player wants to play it.
Now theres someone with a thinking cap on.
The problem with the Valenar Elves, as I see it, is that the Ancestors grant Divine Power.
Ancestor Worship is a Primal concept. I don't know WHY they get divine power from that.
You seem to have your details off. Valenar Elves favor martial and primal classes, a Valenar elf that derives mystical abilities from their ancestors is most likely a Shaman. Aerenal Elves Favor arcane and divine classes, and Aerenal Elves derive divine power from their "ancestors" because the Undying Court is composed of ascended living (or rather unliving) demi-gods.
Also, the Dragonmarked Elf houses are what I was referring to – they favour Assassin, Rogue, Bard; these are classes the Elf does less well, but the Eladrin and Half-Elves are a bit better with.
Elves make excellent rogues and assassins, certainly Eladrin aren't particularly better (both have prime, but not secondary stats).
The problem with the Valenar Elves, as I see it, is that the Ancestors grant Divine Power.
Ancestor Worship is a Primal concept. I don't know WHY they get divine power from that.
You seem to have your details off. Valenar Elves favor martial and primal classes, a Valenar elf that derives mystical abilities from their ancestors is most likely a Shaman. Aerenal Elves Favor arcane and divine classes, and Aerenal Elves derive divine power from their "ancestors" because the Undying Court is composed of ascended living (or rather unliving) demi-gods.Also, the Dragonmarked Elf houses are what I was referring to – they favour Assassin, Rogue, Bard; these are classes the Elf does less well, but the Eladrin and Half-Elves are a bit better with.
Elves make excellent rogues and assassins, certainly Eladrin aren't particularly better (both have prime, but not secondary stats).
Actually...
The Valenar and Aerenal Elves who practice the old elven traditions revere the Undying Court and their past warriors or ancestors as components of the same faith, and wield Divine power. This is supported both mechanically (there are associated Domains for both the Undying Court-- Fate, Knowledge, Undeath... and Spirits of the Past-- Protection, Vengance, War) and with fluff-- note repeated indications that Divine power in Eberron doesn't come from an external source, instead being seated in the power of Faith itself. See: Path of Light and Blood of Vol for two other prominent Faiths whose followers wield Divine power with no deity to 'grant' it.
The Valenar and Aerenal Elves who practice the old elven traditions revere the Undying Court and their past warriors or ancestors as components of the same faith, and wield Divine power. This is supported both mechanically (there are associated Domains for both the Undying Court-- Fate, Knowledge, Undeath... and Spirits of the Past-- Protection, Vengance, War) and with fluff-- note repeated indications that Divine power in Eberron doesn't come from an external source, instead being seated in the power of Faith itself. See: Path of Light and Blood of Vol for two other prominent Faiths whose followers wield Divine power with no deity to 'grant' it.
True enough, though the spirits of the past "religion" is less about worshiping the actual elven ancestors, instead being more about revering their historical accomplishments and keeping their memory alive through imitation. That keeps it sufficiently different from the primal version of spirit "worship", which was my main point.
The Valenar and Aerenal Elves who practice the old elven traditions revere the Undying Court and their past warriors or ancestors as components of the same faith, and wield Divine power. This is supported both mechanically (there are associated Domains for both the Undying Court-- Fate, Knowledge, Undeath... and Spirits of the Past-- Protection, Vengance, War) and with fluff-- note repeated indications that Divine power in Eberron doesn't come from an external source, instead being seated in the power of Faith itself. See: Path of Light and Blood of Vol for two other prominent Faiths whose followers wield Divine power with no deity to 'grant' it.
True enough, though the spirits of the past "religion" is less about worshiping the actual elven ancestors, instead being more about revering their historical accomplishments and keeping their memory alive through imitation. That keeps it sufficiently different from the primal version of spirit "worship", which was my main point.
Which isn't a divine concept, but rather the entire concept of the Bard. o_0
The Valenar and Aerenal Elves who practice the old elven traditions revere the Undying Court and their past warriors or ancestors as components of the same faith, and wield Divine power. This is supported both mechanically (there are associated Domains for both the Undying Court-- Fate, Knowledge, Undeath... and Spirits of the Past-- Protection, Vengance, War) and with fluff-- note repeated indications that Divine power in Eberron doesn't come from an external source, instead being seated in the power of Faith itself. See: Path of Light and Blood of Vol for two other prominent Faiths whose followers wield Divine power with no deity to 'grant' it.
True enough, though the spirits of the past "religion" is less about worshiping the actual elven ancestors, instead being more about revering their historical accomplishments and keeping their memory alive through imitation. That keeps it sufficiently different from the primal version of spirit "worship", which was my main point.
Which isn't a divine concept, but rather the entire concept of the Bard. o_0
It's divine if the player wants it to be divine. There's a lot of flexibility here, and there's no reason to force 'this must be source/class X'.
The Valenar and Aerenal Elves who practice the old elven traditions revere the Undying Court and their past warriors or ancestors as components of the same faith, and wield Divine power. This is supported both mechanically (there are associated Domains for both the Undying Court-- Fate, Knowledge, Undeath... and Spirits of the Past-- Protection, Vengance, War) and with fluff-- note repeated indications that Divine power in Eberron doesn't come from an external source, instead being seated in the power of Faith itself. See: Path of Light and Blood of Vol for two other prominent Faiths whose followers wield Divine power with no deity to 'grant' it.
True enough, though the spirits of the past "religion" is less about worshiping the actual elven ancestors, instead being more about revering their historical accomplishments and keeping their memory alive through imitation. That keeps it sufficiently different from the primal version of spirit "worship", which was my main point.
Which isn't a divine concept, but rather the entire concept of the Bard. o_0
Mar, Eberron divine works differently. No one is granting power here, hence the path of light and blood of vol having powered members of the church. It's about faith in Eberron, and thats enough, weather that be in the undead living among you, yourself, some mystical fire, or any of the other varied religions.
True enough, though the spirits of the past "religion" is less about worshiping the actual elven ancestors, instead being more about revering their historical accomplishments and keeping their memory alive through imitation. That keeps it sufficiently different from the primal version of spirit "worship", which was my main point.
Which isn't a divine concept, but rather the entire concept of the Bard. o_0
Maybe the historical bard, but not the bard as it exists in D&D. D&D bards aren't merely keepers of epic hymns and heroic legends, but rather arcane savants who weave the magic of the cosmos into an artistic tapestry.
True enough, though the spirits of the past "religion" is less about worshiping the actual elven ancestors, instead being more about revering their historical accomplishments and keeping their memory alive through imitation. That keeps it sufficiently different from the primal version of spirit "worship", which was my main point.
Which isn't a divine concept, but rather the entire concept of the Bard. o_0
Maybe the historical bard, but not the bard as it exists in D&D. D&D bards aren't merely keepers of epic hymns and heroic legends, but rather arcane savants who weave the magic of the cosmos into an artistic tapestry.
You seem to misunderstand the core fluff of the Bard, or at least are limiting yourself to how they relate to the Arcane Power Source rather than how they stand on their own as a class. The Bard draws on figures of the past worthy of emulation, heroes whose virtues become defining factors in how a Bard leads their lives. They draw on inspirational lives. That's the whole point of the Bardic Virtue. Cunning Bards draw on Heroes who used their keen intellect and their ability to decieve and trick and slip out of danger and survive. Valorous Bards draw on Heroes whose courage and indomitable will overcame all adversity. Presecient Bards draw on Heroes whose minds pierced luck and fate and were able to see truths beyond mere reality.
Bards are primarily keepers of stories, heroic legends, and epic hymns in D&D. It's in these stories that they get their class features, and that drives them. Their arte comes from weaving the magic of cosmos, and is exactly how they fit into the Arcane Power source (their knowledge of Aesthetic drives their understanding of the cosmos and the laws that make up it – Magic A is Magic A, though seen through different lenses; in this case, that of aesthetics). But it's not what defines a Bard; Bards are defined by the virtues they draw on. That's what gives their aesthetic power – that they're some meaning to the arte; that they're using it as a teaching mechanism and to inspire that belief system in their allies as well, making them more cunning, courageous, and prescient.
Either way, that being fluff, it's up to the player if he wants to follow it, so it's pretty irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant, because what we're debating is fluff to begin with. If we just say, it's fluff, so you're argument is invalid, the entirety of Power Sources, Eberron religions, etc is all invalid as well. Or rather, you're saying it's all valid, because fluff is mutable. However, by saying everything is valid, nothing is valid because there's no canon.
Yes, D&D is a game where fluff is mutable. However, there's established fluff canon, and official settings, while straying from some of it, adhere to quite a bit of it.
I feel that the way Eberron was converted to 4e strayed from the canon too far. Changing races and cultures is fine, but when something that is clearly one power source is forced into a different power source simply because of tradition, that's where things become not okay.
Because fluff is mutable, divine characters who revered ancestors in the past should be refluffed in 4e as Primal character, since it fits the theme of the Power Source. What Eberron's religions are doing is undermining the fluff differenciation between Psionic, Primal, Arcane, and Divine, by categorising things that fall under those Power Sources in the core fluff into Divine. THAT is my buff with Eberron.
Either way, that being fluff, it's up to the player if he wants to follow it, so it's pretty irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant, because what we're debating is fluff to begin with. If we just say, it's fluff, so you're argument is invalid, the entirety of Power Sources, Eberron religions, etc is all invalid as well. Or rather, you're saying it's all valid, because fluff is mutable. However, by saying everything is valid, nothing is valid because there's no canon.
Yes, D&D is a game where fluff is mutable. However, there's established fluff canon, and official settings, while straying from some of it, adhere to quite a bit of it.
I feel that the way Eberron was converted to 4e strayed from the canon too far. Changing races and cultures is fine, but when something that is clearly one power source is forced into a different power source simply because of tradition, that's where things become not okay.
Because fluff is mutable, divine characters who revered ancestors in the past should be refluffed in 4e as Primal character, since it fits the theme of the Power Source. What Eberron's religions are doing is undermining the fluff differenciation between Psionic, Primal, Arcane, and Divine, by categorising things that fall under those Power Sources in the core fluff into Divine. THAT is my buff with Eberron.
Eberron lost enough in 4e, it doesn't need to give up one of it's defining characteristics(and an original selling point). How do you feel about Dark Sun, with characters gaining divine power from elements and powerful mortals? Following fluff is good but your being strangled by it. WotC obviously supports varience in the divine power source (2 settings, and reread the cleric entry in PHB under Clerics and Dieties, it says not all clerics get powers from gods).
Blood of Vol even has aspects that could be considered divine in my book.
However, Khyber Cults granting divine seems a mockery of the entire Divine Source, and taking one of the fundamental defining characteristics of Primal and putting it in Divine is entirely rediculous.
This wasn't a problem in 3.5e Eberron, when Divine and Primal were the same thing. But now that they've been separated, ancestor-worshipping should have been moved with all the rest of the ancestor worship – into Primal, where it belongs.
In my opinion, which I know is probably not the same as other people's, Power Sources should not be refluffed from setting to setting. Power Sources are the core immutable fluff of 4e, what groups classes, defines powers, and lo, the entire structure of the 4e D&D Cosmology, the World Axis and the Powers that Be within it.
Because Power Sources exist and operate in separate areas, the classes evoke archetypal forms that can align with character concepts. Power Sources served to provide order to the mess of classes that existed before 4e, by playing to themes. It's great to play up similar concepts within those themes – such as the Battlerager Fighter and the Rageblood Barbarian, the Two-Blade Ranger and the Whirling Barbarian, the Archer Ranger and the Vengeful Seeker, the Virtuous Paladin and the Life Warden; but when the fundamental factors that separate these concepts into different classes are torn down, these builds might as well be the exact same thing.
Why is a Battlerager NOT a Barbarian? Because it has no connection to the Primal Spirits. Why are Paladins and Wardens different? Because Paladins revere the gods or an inner philosophy, and Wardens evoke the spirits of nature, the tribe, animals, and their ancestors.
Sure, alternate character interpretation could move them from one of these concepts to another, but that doesn't mean that you're refluffing the entire thing to fit into a new, archetypal setting. Classes are an admixture of role, power-source, and build option concept (which might spread across multiple classes that have similar build option archetypes, like the ones I mentioned above). When you remove one of those elements, you start to have a less clearly defined build that could just as well be one thing or the next. That's not a good idea for making a class build, which should be as focused as possible, while giving plenty of power choices for many characters to be the same build, but different power choices (the reason why the x Power series books are very much appreciated, though they're also for the fluff).
There's nothing stopping a paladin's object of worship being a nature spirit, and no reason Wardens have to give a flying fig about spirits. There's no reason a battlerager can't call himself a barbarian. That's just fluff.
It may be 'core fluff', but that doesn't make it binding, and more importantly, there's no reason for it to be binding in the first place. Flexible fluff is one of 4e's greatest strengths, and it should be embraced and not feared.
I don't know about 'most other people', but I definitely disagree with you. Power source is pure fluff to me, and wide open to interpretation and how the player chooses to play it. For example, I would have no problem with someone playing a druid who doesn't revere nature spirits; he instead simply commands the forces of nature without a care about spirits or even caring about nature. I have no problems with someone playing a sorcerer who learned his spells carefully in an academic environment. I have no problem with someone playing a bard who doesn't sing.
There's nothing stopping a paladin's object of worship being a nature spirit, and no reason Wardens have to give a flying fig about spirits. There's no reason a battlerager can't call himself a barbarian. That's just fluff.
It may be 'core fluff', but that doesn't make it binding, and more importantly, there's no reason for it to be binding in the first place. Flexible fluff is one of 4e's greatest strengths, and it should be embraced and not feared.
Your eamples are of playing classes in ways that they aren't usually played. There are actual mechanics for Bards that don't sing (the Performer's Blade implement and the entire Daring Blade PPath is dedicated to the concept). Similarly, it is said that Cosmic Sorcerers are usually a good deal more academic than other Sorcererers, and the Celestial Scholar PPath is the paragon of that sort of academia. These aren't overturning the Power Sources, they're challenging the most common form of the classes, which makes for great character concepts, WITHOUT undermining the source material. That's not refluffing, it's finding really interesting concepts within the fluff.
Saying suddenly that ancestor worship is Divine is refluffing that threatens the Primal Power Source from being able to stand on its own two feet as a separate entity from the Divine Power Source.
So, when you play an Eberron ancestor-worshipping character, be Primal, and let the guy across the table playing an ancestor-worshipping character be primal or divine or arcane or whatever he wants to be. There is no problem here
Aside from it making power sources a completely pointless aspect of the game. Fluff is mutable, but cosmology is not.
IMO if one person was playing a Primal version and the other guy was playing a Divine version, it would undermine the whole concept of ancestor worship for both of em and to a lesser extent the whole cosmology looses some integrity.
One of the things I like most about playing in a setting like Eberron, is that I can have some understanding of how things work; I don't have to ask the DM about what there is to do in the city or what the factions are like, It gives me a sense that my character is a part of the setting and not some outsider stumbling through everything.
If I was playing a Divine character who worshiped a god, and met somebody who got their Divine power from worshiping their ancestors, it would call into question how I thought my character's powers work, and I would no longer feel the same amount of understanding for the setting.
Divine ancestor worship, as actual canon, is confusing to both players and a DMs.
And It's not up to the players to choose how a setting works, thats the right of the DM; A player can't just say "I get my Divine powers from worshiping far-realm entities" how divine power functions in the cosmology is not his call to make, If he want's to reflavor a divine class into something that does fit according to the DM, that's fine.
IMO if one person was playing a Primal version and the other guy was playing a Divine version, it would undermine the whole concept of ancestor worship for both of em and to a lesser extent the whole cosmology looses some integrity.
Actually, I could see this working out.
Take, for example, a Shaman and a Cleric.
The Shaman incarnates a single ancestor spirit into an ethereal form. It has vague facial features, and looks slightly similar to the shaman himself, and when the shaman prays, he hears the ancestor's voice. It does its healing and guiding thing as normal.
The Cleric follows the will of the ancestors in a more general sense, their traditions, their values, their beliefs. When he prays, he hears the chorus of the ancestors, a flood of whispers, vage and ephemeral. He does his usual cleric power.
The Shaman is more direct and focused on a single ancestral spirit, the Cleric follows the entire bloodline. Likewise, their powers manifest differently, a spirit companion or larger area effects and vague light.
Imho the easiest way to rule eberron religion is to remember that all but one of the divine classes get thier powers Via Ritual.
So Valenar Clerics aren't necessarily getting thier powers from thier ancestors, they're weilding a weapon crafted by them.
Cultists of the Dragon Below might be using a set of corrupted ritals stolen from one of the other churches, making an entire religion of Ur-Priests.
The Cleric follows the will of the ancestors in a more general sense, their traditions, their values, their beliefs. When he prays, he hears the chorus of the ancestors, a flood of whispers, vage and ephemeral. He does his usual cleric power.
To that's still a Shaman, maybe a Cleric reflavored as a Shaman, but still a Shaman. It's not hard to make fluff work how you want it to as a player, but as a player you do not have the power to say the cosmology works differently, and if the cosmology say ancestral power is Primal power then you can't be a Divine Cleric who worships ancestors.
This is not an issue of fluff, fluff by definition has no effect on the integrity of the game; this is an issue of two aspects of the cosmology of Eberron being contradictory.
Saying suddenly that ancestor worship is Divine is refluffing that threatens the Primal Power Source from being able to stand on its own two feet as a separate entity from the Divine Power Source.
Except that's not what WotC is doing. The Spirits of the Past "religion", as practiced by the Valenar, is different than the kind of ancestor "worship" practiced by primal classes. The best way I can think to express that is by comparing it to the trinity status of life in 4e.
In 4e, every living person is made up of body, soul, and anima (or life essence). Upon death these three elements come apart. The body rots, the soul passes into the shadowfel before moving onto what ever (if any) afterlife awaits it, and the anima disperses throughout the natural world until born into a new life.
The difference between divine and primal ancestor worship is what part of the ancestor is being worshiped. Divine religions care about the soul, the center of thought and consciousness. Primal practices instead care about the anima, which only caries an echo of its former persona. The Valenar believe that they must act as living vessels for the souls of their ancestors, lest those souls truly perish forever. A primal character might see that belief as foolishness, since all souls ultimately pass beyond mortal influence, and that the only thing which truly endures eternal is the essence of life itself, the anima. This is why the Valenar focus more on the concept preserving the memory of specific individuals, while the primal concept is more about honoring the memory of all their ancestors as a collective whole.
Saying suddenly that ancestor worship is Divine is refluffing that threatens the Primal Power Source from being able to stand on its own two feet as a separate entity from the Divine Power Source.
Except that's not what WotC is doing. The Spirits of the Past "religion", as practiced by the Valenar, is different than the kind of ancestor "worship" practiced by primal classes. The best way I can think to express that is by comparing it to the trinity status of life in 4e.
In 4e, every living person is made up of body, soul, and anima (or life essence). Upon death these three elements come apart. The body rots, the soul passes into the shadowfel before moving onto what ever (if any) afterlife awaits it, and the anima disperses throughout the natural world until born into a new life.
The difference between divine and primal ancestor worship is what part of the ancestor is being worshiped. Divine religions care about the soul, the center of thought and consciousness. Primal practices instead care about the anima, which only caries an echo of its former persona. The Valenar believe that they must act as living vessels for the souls of their ancestors, lest those souls truly perish forever. A primal character might see that belief as foolishness, since all souls ultimately pass beyond mortal influence, and that the only thing which truly endures eternal is the essence of life itself, the anima. This is why the Valenar focus more on the concept preserving the memory of specific individuals, while the primal concept is more about honoring the memory of all their ancestors as a collective whole.
QFT, very good!
Except that's not what WotC is doing. The Spirits of the Past "religion", as practiced by the Valenar, is different than the kind of ancestor "worship" practiced by primal classes. The best way I can think to express that is by comparing it to the trinity status of life in 4e.
In 4e, every living person is made up of body, soul, and anima (or life essence). Upon death these three elements come apart. The body rots, the soul passes into the shadowfel before moving onto what ever (if any) afterlife awaits it, and the anima disperses throughout the natural world until born into a new life.
The difference between divine and primal ancestor worship is what part of the ancestor is being worshiped. Divine religions care about the soul, the center of thought and consciousness. Primal practices instead care about the anima, which only caries an echo of its former persona. The Valenar believe that they must act as living vessels for the souls of their ancestors, lest those souls truly perish forever. A primal character might see that belief as foolishness, since all souls ultimately pass beyond mortal influence, and that the only thing which truly endures eternal is the essence of life itself, the anima. This is why the Valenar focus more on the concept preserving the memory of specific individuals, while the primal concept is more about honoring the memory of all their ancestors as a collective whole.
That's all well and good, If that's the way the cosmology works according to the DM and the players understand it as working that way.
I don't know about 'most other people', but I definitely disagree with you. Power source is pure fluff to me, and wide open to interpretation and how the player chooses to play it. For example, I would have no problem with someone playing a druid who doesn't revere nature spirits; he instead simply commands the forces of nature without a care about spirits or even caring about nature. I have no problems with someone playing a sorcerer who learned his spells carefully in an academic environment. I have no problem with someone playing a bard who doesn't sing.
There's nothing stopping a paladin's object of worship being a nature spirit, and no reason Wardens have to give a flying fig about spirits. There's no reason a battlerager can't call himself a barbarian. That's just fluff.
It may be 'core fluff', but that doesn't make it binding, and more importantly, there's no reason for it to be binding in the first place. Flexible fluff is one of 4e's greatest strengths, and it should be embraced and not feared.
Your eamples are of playing classes in ways that they aren't usually played. There are actual mechanics for Bards that don't sing (the Performer's Blade implement and the entire Daring Blade PPath is dedicated to the concept). Similarly, it is said that Cosmic Sorcerers are usually a good deal more academic than other Sorcererers, and the Celestial Scholar PPath is the paragon of that sort of academia. These aren't overturning the Power Sources, they're challenging the most common form of the classes, which makes for great character concepts, WITHOUT undermining the source material. That's not refluffing, it's finding really interesting concepts within the fluff.
Saying suddenly that ancestor worship is Divine is refluffing that threatens the Primal Power Source from being able to stand on its own two feet as a separate entity from the Divine Power Source.
Suffice it to say, I disagree completely and think you're overreacting to the point of comedy.
I'm always amazed at what gets a bug up someone's butt around here. If 'ancestor spirit worship is divine' somehow invalidates the primal power source, it was a pretty weak power source to begin with.
Divine ancestor worship, as actual canon, is confusing to both players and a DMs.
Never confused me, at all. Namely since in Eberron it is the belief that grants powers, not any god or what have you. THe Undying haven't reached godhood, they are merely venerated to the point that people gain power from their belief in the court.
Next I don't play Primal as worshiping anything, never got the vibe that they groveled and preyed. They pay their respects and commune with the spirits, great and small. Yes the Great Spirits deserve more respect, but not necessarily worship. The Valenar Shaman is guided by the spirit of his ancestor. THe Valenar Cleric looks to the tenets his ancestor followed, and his belief in the ancestor translates to his actions in life. It's not worship for the SHaman, it's communication. This is a distinction.
And I refuse to be tied down by anything. A Kalashtar Shaman, manifesting his Quori spirit and using it's power isn't primal, but it's a good mechanic to use.
A trickster archer weilding special arrows isn't primal, but the seeker class is the best option unless I want to jump through the hoops to make the arcane archer build from that dragon article.
What about a shifter taping into his inner power to change from one form to another, and master the beast with in by tapping into it. What class do I take? The druid, atleast to me. But by the strict level of the source this is an invalid interpetation of the character.
I don't see how Eberron is breaking the cosmology, since it's cosmos was broken to mash it into the 4e standard.
There are several options, yes it should be aproved by the dm. BUt the DM should be open to ideas. I see no reason to impose the strict limits and boundries you guys do. It tends to lead to a lot of wasted ideas. This is of course not to say every idea is a good one.
Psionic Leader. Surprised, thought that the Empath was still in.
Shhh. Don't spoil it for the kids. But ya, he's a monster. I think he'll be my favorite class.
EDIT: Nevermind, got it.
Is it available somewhere, or are we being punked?I mean, not that it won't be available in a half dozen hours or so anyway.
I suspect Dragon 382 Debut: The Ardent is somewhat related to the above question.
I don't see that posted on the front page right now. Or when I try clicking through the site (e.g. to the Dragon 382 Issue archive). Is it posted and I'm just not seeing it somewhere? Or is it posted somewhere else? That is my question.
I suspect Dragon 382 Debut: The Ardent is somewhat related to the above question.
Mmhmm. Lucky, they they typically upload the articles a day + early and then edit the links day of. If you grok the naming structure of the articles...
Look I would tell you straight out If I was sure it wasn't prohibited. But I'll tell you how to do it, look at the Web Adress for the monk and change the issue number and the word monk for Ardent
Thank you!
I like how it's an Empath, but with 3.5e Ardent terminology.
This class ate the Empath. Which leaves up with the Battlemind for the Defender.
- Damn, this class seems to be quite potent as far as non-healing Leader powers go, and still fairly good in the healing department.
- The Mantle thing seems really cool (and maybe a little OP, but its hard to say without firsthand experience), especially with the feats that improve it and add more to it. I love the idea of a super-beefed up Leader Aura that's always on.
- Isn't it weird that the supposedly-sub-defender build uses Wisdom, and the one that *isn't* a defender uses Constitution? That seems backwards to me.
- I am saddened to see that this class was not called the Empath, if for no other reason than that it means the Battlemind has not neccesarily been renamed Ardent and still might be called Battlemind (which, if WotC is listening, is the most retarded name for a class ever).
- Okay, it had slipped out of my mind with the Psion out for so long, but this reminds me: What the hell is up with the single power point at level 13? Why isn't it 2? It doesn't make any sense (Again, if WotC is listening, please fix this. It is a problem to get effectively less encounter powers after level 13 than every other class).
- Glad to see Kalashtar get a Psionic Class.
- The Augmentable Powers still have a few problems, namely that Human Psions and Ardents don't get to update their bonus At-will at level 21, when it would normally improve on its own. It isn't a major problem, I know, but it does detract from the usefulness of humans as a long-term race choice for these Psionic classes (Once more, WotC, if you're listening, get on it).
- I really like the powers, but really? They made a power called "Hope's Audacity?" Really?
- A Paragon path for immobolization for a class with no immobolization seems silly. The Action Point feature is restrained, not immobolized (I understand that it also counts as the target being immobolized, but it does nothing for the Constant Jailer feature), and the encounter power doesn't have "(save ends)". This seems like it could have been cool, but got horribly botched along the way.
- Finally, I like the recent trend in Leader Healing Class Features. With the Artificer and now the Ardent, we've seen Healing Class features affected by choice of build, which I certainly like (The Ardent doesn't come anywhere close to the uniqueness of the Artificer Class Feature, however, but that's alright. It leaves the Artificer feeling special).
Other Thoughts?
Have to agree, love the class, (although I wonder about it's balance, even thoug it probably is balanced). What irks me however is that many of it's augmented powers create burst zones but they don't tell you around what the burst is centered (is it a burts 1 zone centered on the empath or the target?) Other than those two thing, excelent.
The zones are centered on the target in the target text earlier in the power. Give it a re-read. I didn't get confused as to the origin. They use to spell it out more, but I think they've gotten most folks use to reading the Target text that they've stopped adding it to the mechanic fluff later on.
Beside that they have prototype names. 4E was called Orcus. A LOT of Bard spells were named after classic songs and got 'fixed' for copy right reasons. The Empath was preview fluff, and they eventually fix it. No big deal.
Level 13 Power: Hope's Audacity. HAH!
I am saddened to see that this class was not called the Empath, if for no other reason than that it means the Battlemind has not neccesarily been renamed Ardent and still might be called Battlemind (which, if WotC is listening, is the most retarded name for a class ever).
I still don't see why people can't get over this. In the context of everything else in D&D, "Battlemind" fits just fine. And if you don't think it's that great, it is really worth getting this upset over? Please, it's honestly not that big of a deal.
Just to be clear, this isn't just directed towards you. Quite a number of people seem to be getting really overly dramatic about it...
Level 13 Power: Hope's Audacity. HAH!
Yeah, I caught that one too. Heheh.
I'm thinking the more "strikery" one should be interesting... Maybe, instead of granting a bonus against OAs, it grants a bonus to the PCs OAs? Doesn't seem quite as useful, but who knows...
I am saddened to see that this class was not called the Empath, if for no other reason than that it means the Battlemind has not neccesarily been renamed Ardent and still might be called Battlemind (which, if WotC is listening, is the most retarded name for a class ever).
I still don't see why people can't get over this. In the context of everything else in D&D, "Battlemind" fits just fine. And if you don't think it's that great, it is really worth getting this upset over? Please, it's honestly not that big of a deal.
It's just... it's not that it's that big of a deal, exactly.
It's just so easy to change the name, and it would make the class sound so much more proffessional. There are plenty of options (Sentinel; Vanguard; Hell, even Warmind flows better). Battlemind just sounds like a stupid placeholder, and I expect more from WotC.
As for the lack of another level 13 power. This is a preview. We're not gonna see the 'other' one till the full class is shown.
What lack of a level 13 Power? There's two of them. It looks fine to me.
I'm upset about the missing Power Point at level 13.
Have to agree, love the class, (although I wonder about it's balance, even thoug it probably is balanced). What irks me however is that many of it's augmented powers create burst zones but they don't tell you around what the burst is centered (is it a burts 1 zone centered on the empath or the target?) Other than those two thing, excelent.
Close Burst Zones are generally centered on te creator, unless the power specifies the contrary.
About balancing issues, I don´t know... I still don´t like the fact that you can keep all your Heroic at-wills until lvl 30 and thus have like 10 encounter powers per battle, just like with the Psion. Nevertheless, this seems much better now, since higher-level powers are so obviously better than lower-level ones. I don't think I can say the same for the psion class.
Anyway, anybody knows how much Power Points cost the major augmentations for epic-level Psion powers? I could swear it was 4, but I don't think they would have made it so much different this time. I´m too lazy to look it up, though =P
Other than that, amazing class. Very distinct flavor and concept, and I´m dying to see the mechanics of the Mantles in-game. This class sold me te Psionic Power Source in a way that the Psion never did (and no, I am not counting te Monk).
A little P.S.: They finally resolved the problems with the way that Human Extra At-Will Powers and Psionic Classes' Augmented At-Wills interact.
Congratulations on this one, Wizards.
Now, anybody knows where is my Wilden?
Not that it ruins the class in any way, I think i'm in love with the class, just that it makes for badly written powers, and I hope they fix it if the book hasn't been sent to the printers yet.
It's just so easy to change the name...
I get that it's easy, but there's not really a good reason to do it. Battlemind doesn't sound any less professional than Psychic Warrior or Warmind, and Sentinel and Vanguard, while they could possibly work, are just too general and don't adequately describe the class very well at all. Then when you consider that too many classes start with "War" already and Psychic Warrior is sort of long, Battlemind seems like a perfectly fine compromise.
Anyway, anybody knows how much Power Points cost the major augmentations for epic-level Psion powers? I could swear it was 4, but I don't think they would have made it so much different this time. I´m too lazy to look it up, though =P
Major Augmentations are 2 in Heroic, 4 in Paragon, and 6 in Epic. Minor Augmentations are 1 in Heroic, 1 in Paragon, and 2 in Epic.
Other than that, amazing class. Very distinct flavor and concept, and I´m dying to see the mechanics of the Mantles in-game. This class sold me te Psionic Power Source in a way that the Psion never did (and no, I am not counting te Monk).
I have to agree. Not that I didn't like the Psion, but... this class is just so cool.
A little P.S.: They finally resolved the problems with the way that Human Extra At-Will Powers and Psionic Classes' Augmented At-Wills interact.
They didn't. Human Bonus at-wills still don't either improve or get replaced like they're supposed to at 21.
It's just so easy to change the name...
I get that it's easy, but there's not really a good reason to do it. Battlemind doesn't sound any less professional than Psychic Warrior or Warmind, and Sentinel and Vanguard, while they could possibly work, are just too general and don't adequately describe the class very well at all. Then when you consider that too many classes start with "War" already and Psychic Warrior is sort of long, Battlemind seems like a perfectly fine compromise.
Sentinel and Vanguard work fantasticly. If you look at the 4e fluff for Psionic, you'll find that a Sentinel or Vanguard watching over the world against the Far Realm fits quite well. Not to mention that Sentinel carries very strong connotations of Timelessness, Clarity, Calmness, Discipline (Hell, that's even what Psionic Powers are called), etc. (all good Psionic themes).
On the other hand, Battlemind doesn't flow off the tongue well, carries no strong connotations (because its a made up word), and doesn't really remind anyone of any archtypes (like a real word would) other than "Psionic Defender" (and even then, Battlemind has nothing neccesariy to do with defending, only fighting, which all of the 4e classes do. Sentinel or Vanguard both fit better in that regard, too). You may not think it doesn't sound proffessional, but clearly a lot of people really, really do.
Anyway, anybody knows how much Power Points cost the major augmentations for epic-level Psion powers? I could swear it was 4, but I don't think they would have made it so much different this time. I´m too lazy to look it up, though =P
Major Augmentations are 2 in Heroic, 4 in Paragon, and 6 in Epic. Minor Augmentations are 1 in Heroic, 1 in Paragon, and 2 in Epic.
Ah, ok. So the Psion is worst than I tought. Really, is it worth changing those powers?
A little P.S.: They finally resolved the problems with the way that Human Extra At-Will Powers and Psionic Classes' Augmented At-Wills interact.
They didn't. Human Bonus at-wills still don't either improve or get replaced like they're supposed to at 21.
Well, you can always retrain them for a Epic one, can't you? Pretty sure they are better than the Heroic ones, even if you consider them unaugmented.
EDIT: I WANTZ MY WILDEN ARTICLE! Specially if it comes with feats and/or explains what the hell the "2nd level" notation in CharBuilder means.
A little P.S.: They finally resolved the problems with the way that Human Extra At-Will Powers and Psionic Classes' Augmented At-Wills interact.
They didn't. Human Bonus at-wills still don't either improve or get replaced like they're supposed to at 21.
Well, you can always retrain them for a Epic one, can't you? Pretty sure they are better than the Heroic ones, even if you consider them unaugmented.
The Epic ones are certainly better even if you don't count the augmentations. And no, you can't:
"At 7th, 13th, 17th, 23rd, and 27th level, you can replace one of your augmentable ardent atwill attack powers with another one of your level or lower. The power you replace must be augmentable."
And then...
"When a racial trait grants you an at-will attack power of your choice and you choose an
augmentable at-will attack power, the power loses both the augmentable keyword and its augmentations."
Not to mention that the newly errata'd wording for humans lists the bonus at-will power as a "1st-level power". So no, there is absolutely no way for it to scale like it does for every other power source.
I agree with BurningRose here. That's a far cleaner fix for the Human/Half-Elf issue.
What? It's not a fix at all! It doesn't fix the problem! It just makes the problem less ambiguously worded!
If you look at the 4e fluff for Psionic...
I don't care, and I would gather that neither do quite a lot of people. That should be kept in mind as well that many people couldn't care less about the default story fluff for anything at all.
On the other hand, Battlemind doesn't flow off the tongue well...
Oh come on. We both know that, while this is a perfectly reasonable opinion, it isn't at all a reasonable argument.
...carries no strong connotations (because its a made up word)...
It's two words, and should probably be hyphenated. Battle-Mind. One that does battle with their mind. It's exactly as descriptive as Fighter is.
...and doesn't really remind anyone of any archtypes (like a real word would) other than "Psionic Defender"...
Neither do "Sentinel" or "Vanguard". They don't bring to mind anything like the "Battle-Mind" at all. I think the real issue here is that the concept of the Psionic Defender itself doesn't remind of any specific archetypes. It's the same problem that the Psychic Warrior used to have and that the Warmind would have.
You may not think it doesn't sound proffessional, but clearly a lot of people really, really do.
I agree with BurningRose here. That's a far cleaner fix for the Human/Half-Elf issue.
What? It's not a fix at all! It doesn't fix the problem! It just makes the problem less ambiguously worded!
For me its a fix. It prevents a Human or Half-Elf from effectively having an extra Encounter power. With augments that's basically what you would hand them right at level 1. It keeps advantage of having an extra at-will at hand but prevents it from being dialed up for balance reasons.
The Epic ones are certainly better even if you don't count the augmentations. And no, you can't:
"At 7th, 13th, 17th, 23rd, and 27th level, you can replace one of your augmentable ardent atwill attack powers with another one of your level or lower. The power you replace must be augmentable."
And then...
"When a racial trait grants you an at-will attack power of your choice and you choose an
augmentable at-will attack power, the power loses both the augmentable keyword and its augmentations."
Uh, no, this means nothing. It´s talking about how you retrain you class powers into those of higher levels, and does not account for the Human not being able to change them in different ways.
Not to mention that the newly errata'd wording for humans lists the bonus at-will power as a "1st-level power". So no, there is absolutely no way for it to scale like it does for every other power source.
Now, THIS is the problem. If not for this, them it would be perfectly acceptable.
Damn WotC and their wordings, to which we abide without so much as a second thought
I agree with BurningRose here. That's a far cleaner fix for the Human/Half-Elf issue.
What? It's not a fix at all! It doesn't fix the problem! It just makes the problem less ambiguously worded!
For me its a fix. It prevents a Human or Half-Elf from effectively having an extra Encounter power. With augments that's basically what you would hand them right at level 1. It keeps advantage of having an extra at-will at hand but prevents it from being dialed up for balance reasons.
Except they wouldn't really have an extra encounter power. A psionic class's At-Will Powers only become the equivlent of an Encounter Power when augmented, and having more powers doesn't grant extra Power Points. If the bonus power of humans and half-elves retained the augmentation options it would only create more versatility in how the power points were spent.
If you look at the 4e fluff for Psionic...
I don't care, and I would gather that neither do quite a lot of people. That should be kept in mind as well that many people couldn't care less about the default story fluff for anything at all.On the other hand, Battlemind doesn't flow off the tongue well...
Oh come on. We both know that, while this is a perfectly reasonable opinion, it isn't at all a reasonable argument....carries no strong connotations (because its a made up word)...
It's two words, and should probably be hyphenated. Battle-Mind. One that does battle with their mind. It's exactly as descriptive as Fighter is....and doesn't really remind anyone of any archtypes (like a real word would) other than "Psionic Defender"...
Neither do "Sentinel" or "Vanguard". They don't bring to mind anything like the "Battle-Mind" at all. I think the real issue here is that the concept of the Psionic Defender itself doesn't remind of any specific archetypes. It's the same problem that the Psychic Warrior used to have and that the Warmind would have.You may not think it doesn't sound proffessional, but clearly a lot of people really, really do.
- And yet, the fluff still impacts naming. You can reflavor a cleric as whatever the hell you want, but its called a cleric because the default fluff says it's divine and gets its powers from a god/gods.
- It's an opinion that the majority of people on this board share, as far as I can tell.
- Fighter isn't neccesarily a good class name either. If it were a new name for a class, it would suck. But instead, because its a class from day 1 of DnD, it actually means something now. Battlemind still doesn't.
- But they do. When I think "sentinel", I think of ancient guardians of something sacred. It brings to mind images of lone watchers, defenders that are sound in mind and in body. It makes me think of the Night Elves from Warcraft, keeping a vigil over the world for millenia, and it makes me think of Stone Keepers who guard ancient secrets with an unbroken mind and strong fists for eternity. Sure, it may not immediately conjure images of Psionic characters, but does the name "Warden" immediately conjure images of Primal Characters? No. And yet, its just as fitting a name. If they had called the Warden the Wartree, I would have found it just as retarded.
- Well, its not your job to give a damn. It's WotC's, because they're the ones who sell us things. That's my point.
Why must human bonus at-wills improve at 21st level? Yes, that's been a feature of other classes's at-wills, but it's not a requirement. Heck, neither the Psion or the Ardent's epic at-wills have a base 2[w] or 2 damage dice, and none of their at-wills gain damage at epic tier. It's weakness of the Psionic power source, but given the power and flexibility of augmentation, it seems balanced.
But they're stronger than the Heroic tier ones, even unaugmented. They don't improve because they don't need to. But in the case of the human, they do. Its not the same thing. It just makes Humans worse at Psionic classes than at every other power source, and given the versatility theme behind humans, that seems awfully dumb to me.
Psionic Leader. Surprised, thought that the Empath was still in.
No, it is the Empath. Just with a much worse name.
I think it's funny how people talk as though this supposed "Empath" ever existed in the first place. Wasn't it just a name suggestion that somebody randomly threw out once? Not even somebody from WotC?
Nope. It was used, by WotC, in a book. Either the Races and Classes book, or PHB1.
It's an opinion that the majority of people on this board share, as far as I can tell.
You really think that? I can't agree. I think it's an opinion that a few people on this board are really vocal about and the rest just don't care, because they think that it's not really a big deal one way or the other.
That said, the Empath seems to have eaten both the Ardent and the Wilder and took the Ardent's ID.
Very good feel for teleporting, intercepting, and coordinating through supernatural means. But most interestingly? Quite a few awesome dailies that don't involve attacking at all. For all the people who love the empath concept, it looks quite possible to rework the at-wills, or at least provide a build in the future, that has a more squishy, castery feel, moving with allies in a bubble of empathic glory to urge them onwards, but not actually partaking in the fight.
I think it's funny how people talk as though this supposed "Empath" ever existed in the first place. Wasn't it just a name suggestion that somebody randomly threw out once? Not even somebody from WotC?
Rich Baker doesn't work for WotC?
????
o_O
Btw, I also would prefer Sentinel over Battlemind, but I don't really care either way.
I just hope it's a heavy armor class, because as it stands, scale and plate are really getting the short end of the stick as far as class proficiencies go.
So people who really, really liked the ki theme of ancient monasteries within waterfall grottos high up in the mountains where a 500-year old master Monk/Ardent/Psion/Battlemind will teach you the discipline needed to hone your mental power, that's here. That was labled Ki in the past, but it really is a Psionic theme, and the classes and powers reflect that. But there's also the wild manifestation of Psionics that was labeled Psionics in the past, what were Psions/Wilders/Psychic Warriors/Soulknives/Ardents/Erudites/Lurks etc in past editions, and these had a less Wuxia/Ki/Jidai Geki feel to them, and more of a pseudo-scientific feel. Well, we're avoiding Pseudo-science, but some of the tropes of Psionic sci-fi series work fabulously, and it seems they've fused the two concepts together quite smoothly.
That said, I think I'm finally approaching enough of the right sort of classes to pull off an Oriental Adventures setting. Psionic will be a corner-stone, of course, but Primal and Divine are important as well, and Martial essential. Assassins are key too – Ninjas.
Arcane is one of the things that fits less, but it still works. Sorcerers, Illusionist Wizards, Bards, Warlocks all work. Swordmages and Artificers will be a bit harder to fit in, but if I call the Artificers master smiths and craftsman, and things like that, it should work out. Swordmages could be a specific type of Swordsman... but the spells are a bit of an odd fit. I'll need to think about that. But Psionics are really shaping up to fit that setting well.
I'm happy with everything they're giving us.
Though I really wish they had called Battlemind the Sentinel or something else as flavourful... but I'm afraid it's too late now, since Ardent wasn't a new name for Battlemind. Frankly, I'm happy that Ardent is the Empath under a new name with Wilder elements as well, but I still feel... odd, about the Battlemind. It just doesn't seem to fit in both an ancient Psionic flavour as well as a newfangled Psionic flavour. It MIGHT work as a new-manifest one, and they might draw parallel with it to the Warden, whihc is supposedly a recent reaction to the Far Realms invasion, but I still think they could have been more inventive with the name and thus not limited the fluff so much by it.
The people who are vocal are the ones that matter in terms of members of these boards, because they're the ones that are active enough to vocalise their concerns and thoughts. So a statement like "many of the people of these boards share these sentiments" is the exact same thing as "many of the vocal people of these boards share these sentiments." It's just that the total number decreases somewhat.
That said, the Empath seems to have eaten both the Ardent and the Wilder and took the Ardent's ID.
"Exact same thing? Really? Is it?" Shakes head, "okay, everyone whose post count per day is less than 2-3, sorry, your opinion stopped mattering..."
"I'll accept, however, that you did not imply that the opinions of people who are not on these boards (or vocal on these boards) may be separate, which is rare with the overly whiny members (not to say that you are included in that, only that they are among the most vocal) of this board. The thing is, WotC seems to realize that the people on these forums do not represent their customer base, they only represent themselves, a small portion of the total customer base. I am happy with much of what they do."
"This is not all aimed at you (the one quoted) by any means. For those of you who don't like the name, call it an empath if you want and be done with it. It's a game, a VERY CUSTOMIZABLE game, just play it, enjoy it, and stop whining about it..."
Yeah, the article's description of the Ardent as a "Psionic Warlord" seems pretty damn accurate. A number of points:
- Isn't it weird that the supposedly-sub-defender build uses Wisdom, and the one that *isn't* a defender uses Constitution? That seems backwards to me.
There are some classes that use con for the Striker sub-build, the Invoker being one of them.
- I am saddened to see that this class was not called the Empath, if for no other reason than that it means the Battlemind has not neccesarily been renamed Ardent and still might be called Battlemind (which, if WotC is listening, is the most retarded name for a class ever).
Other Thoughts?
I'm glad it isn't called Empath. The word Empath makes me think of Counsellor Deanna Troi.
The people who are vocal are the ones that matter in terms of members of these boards, because they're the ones that are active enough to vocalise their concerns and thoughts. So a statement like "many of the people of these boards share these sentiments" is the exact same thing as "many of the vocal people of these boards share these sentiments." It's just that the total number decreases somewhat.
That said, the Empath seems to have eaten both the Ardent and the Wilder and took the Ardent's ID.
"Exact same thing? Really? Is it?" Shakes head, "okay, everyone whose post count per day is less than 2-3, sorry, your opinion stopped mattering..."
"I'll accept, however, that you did not imply that the opinions of people who are not on these boards (or vocal on these boards) may be separate, which is rare with the overly whiny members (not to say that you are included in that, only that they are among the most vocal) of this board. The thing is, WotC seems to realize that the people on these forums do not represent their customer base, they only represent themselves, a small portion of the total customer base. I am happy with much of what they do."
"This is not all aimed at you (the one quoted) by any means. For those of you who don't like the name, call it an empath if you want and be done with it. It's a game, a VERY CUSTOMIZABLE game, just play it, enjoy it, and stop whining about it..."
That's not quite what I meant, and I knew somebody was going to be confused and mistake my comment for meaning that the less vocal fans don't matter. I don't mean that in the slightest. What I mean is that when we're taking a census of the people on this board, the people who actual post on the board are the people who the census is about, not the lurkers who MIGHT post, but don't.
That said, it's not a full representation of the fanbase, but unless you vocalise your opinions, your opinions aren't cared about by the system because the system can only take in what is given to it.
Therefore, if you want to have dissent, you need to give dissent, rather than just lurk around muttering about how bad it is and not doing anything about it. The BEST way to get WotC to publish the material you want (short of making it yourself and submitting it to Dragon or Dungeon magazines) is to voice your opinions on these boards (and other boards that WotC developers frequent.
Everyone's opinions matter, but only as far as each individual actually expresses them. This world is built on communication, you know. We can't make anything better if everyone's tight-lipped about what they think should change.
I'd gladly hear dissent. Including dissent from my dissent. But right now most of what I'm hearing is people like Crimson saying there's lots of dissent, but they just aren't talking. Well that's NOT DISSENT, that's being satisfied with the Status Quo, and with the people who MIGHT CHANGE IT WITHOUT THEIR IMPUT.
You only have a democracy as far as people are willing to talk. If those people are fine with the way things are, so be it. But then they should also be fine if things change because of Dissent, and we don't need anybody saying "No, you shouldn't be dissenting because 90% of players aren't dissenting, and you have no right to change what they're fine with." We really don't need a "spokesman" for the people who don't want to talk. That's being very high-and-mighty and full of oneself, thinking that he or she could represent a whole group of people who really don't care if they're being represented or not or if their material that they're getting isn't going to be the same as what was promised two months ago, which they likely didn't even hear the promise in the first place because they're fine with just buying the print products and not talking about what's to come, save a post here or there of "Where's The Monk!" which have now been answered in FAQs like TheLoneCleric's.
/rant
My first impression was wow this is a powerful class, until I see one in action I am leaning that way. They seem a lot better than most other leaders. I need more time to read and digest and play around with the mechanics but I do like what I see. Is this the final version that will appear in PHB3 or is it a playtest?
Final version. By now the PHB3 is probably in the last phases of typesetting, so they really can't make any major revisions.
My first impression was wow this is a powerful class, until I see one in action I am leaning that way. They seem a lot better than most other leaders. I need more time to read and digest and play around with the mechanics but I do like what I see. Is this the final version that will appear in PHB3 or is it a playtest?
PHB3 playtestes are over, this is the final version, well, atleast reasonably final, the response to the Psion did get Augmentable keyword cleared up a bit in time it seems.
The people who are vocal are the ones that matter in terms of members of these boards, because they're the ones that are active enough to vocalise their concerns and thoughts. So a statement like "many of the people of these boards share these sentiments" is the exact same thing as "many of the vocal people of these boards share these sentiments." It's just that the total number decreases somewhat.
While I agree that it's difficult to poll the lurkers, that's not at all what I'm talking about. What I meant really was that, out of the more vocal members of these forums, I don't think most of them have given an opinion, because most of them don't care. You can be a vocal person around here and still not care one way or another about some subjects, and people are much more likely to start threads about something that they don't like than something that they do, because that's just how people are.
I'd gladly hear dissent. Including dissent from my dissent. But right now most of what I'm hearing is people like Crimson saying there's lots of dissent, but they just aren't talking. Well that's NOT DISSENT, that's being satisfied with the Status Quo, and with the people who MIGHT CHANGE IT WITHOUT THEIR IMPUT.
Doesn't "dissent" imply that you disagree with the majority? So no, what I'm saying is exactly that there isn't a lot of dissent and that the people who do voice dissent are in the minority.
The people who are vocal are the ones that matter in terms of members of these boards, because they're the ones that are active enough to vocalise their concerns and thoughts. So a statement like "many of the people of these boards share these sentiments" is the exact same thing as "many of the vocal people of these boards share these sentiments." It's just that the total number decreases somewhat.
While I agree that it's difficult to poll the lurkers, that's not at all what I'm talking about. What I meant really was that, out of the more vocal members of these forums, I don't think most of them have given an opinion, because most of them don't care. You can be a vocal person around here and still not care one way or another about some subjects, and people are much more likely to start threads about something that they don't like than something that they do, because that's just how people are.
Okay. Fine by me. But if they don't care, they don't care if the people vocal about this topic petition to have it changed to Sentinel, because they wouldn't care either way.
That said, I doubt a petition at this point in time would have any effect, since the name Battlemind was revealed to us this late, but that doesn't change the theory behind it.
I'd gladly hear dissent. Including dissent from my dissent. But right now most of what I'm hearing is people like Crimson saying there's lots of dissent, but they just aren't talking. Well that's NOT DISSENT, that's being satisfied with the Status Quo, and with the people who MIGHT CHANGE IT WITHOUT THEIR IMPUT.
Doesn't "dissent" imply that you disagree with the majority? So no, what I'm saying is exactly that there isn't a lot of dissent and that the people who do voice dissent are in the minority.
It does imply it, if this was strict democracy. But it's not. Because WotC (and to an extent, Hasbro) decides in the end what goes and what doesn't, dissent could easily be used to object to what the established regime has done. That regime is trying to best adhere to the majority, but creates names like Battlemind which previously had nothing to base themselves on for whether the fanbase likes it or not (there wasn't ever a poll asking if we wanted a class name like Battlemind).
It does imply it, if this was strict democracy. But it's not. Because WotC (and to an extent, Hasbro) decides in the end what goes and what doesn't, dissent could easily be used to object to what the established regime has done. That regime is trying to best adhere to the majority, but creates names like Battlemind which previously had nothing to base themselves on for whether the fanbase likes it or not (there wasn't ever a poll asking if we wanted a class name like Battlemind).
Mind you, I agree with sentiments you have about the squeaky wheel getting the grease (to use a bad cliche). But something about this last post throws up a slight warning flag.
First off, you're using the term "regime"? Maybe it's time to back off and take a breather, because you seem to be taking this very seriously, as if they were some semi-oppressive government. This isn't an unusual outrage. No business is really required to create a "strict democracy" unless they felt it would increase sales of their product by a non-negligible margin.
I'm new to the community, so can you please enlighten me: has Wizards ever polled the fanbase on class names in any significant fashion? That's what most interests me. Perhaps that's why people might get the idea that only a vocal minority really cares -- because they don't expect to be polled.
Thanks for your help.
EDIT: Nevermind, I just updated mine. Hmm... It could be, but I think it's much more likely that it's just generic magical floating runes. That would be somewhat out of place on a psionic class, I guess, but then again, the woman in the picture appears to have hair, and I've been under the impression that Illumian are all bald.
It does imply it, if this was strict democracy. But it's not. Because WotC (and to an extent, Hasbro) decides in the end what goes and what doesn't, dissent could easily be used to object to what the established regime has done. That regime is trying to best adhere to the majority, but creates names like Battlemind which previously had nothing to base themselves on for whether the fanbase likes it or not (there wasn't ever a poll asking if we wanted a class name like Battlemind).
Mind you, I agree with sentiments you have about the squeaky wheel getting the grease (to use a bad cliche). But something about this last post throws up a slight warning flag.
First off, you're using the term "regime"? Maybe it's time to back off and take a breather, because you seem to be taking this very seriously, as if they were some semi-oppressive government. This isn't an unusual outrage. No business is really required to create a "strict democracy" unless they felt it would increase sales of their product by a non-negligible margin.
I'm new to the community, so can you please enlighten me: has Wizards ever polled the fanbase on class names in any significant fashion? That's what most interests me. Perhaps that's why people might get the idea that only a vocal minority really cares -- because they don't expect to be polled.
Thanks for your help.
Wizards has polled other things, and they've taken fan-reaction into consideration in the past beyond just the playtests.
However, I meant no harm or offence with regime. It probably wasn't the exact right word, but I meant the decision-making body, and I wanted to evoke an authoritarian feel to it, since it is somewhat of an oligarchy – though limited because they're trying to please a fanbase.
I don't need a breather, though I thank you for goading me to clarify my statement, because I did feel regime might have been a little too strong a term.
Sorry about that.
Do i see an Illumnian in the CB for the Ardent pic?
As much as I'd like to agree, (I rather like Illumians, and think they'd work as an INT/CON race), I'm pretty sure that the Ardent in the class picture is a half-elf.
With the psion article, I was perfectly happy saying it was a human manifesting a psionic power, but then that wizard article came, but that could still be a human with some kind of magical headgear, since the halo looks kind of different, so I don't know.
There was a humanish looking woman with a halo and nice robes in the psion article, and a humanish looking man with a halo in nice robes in a recent article for wizards. I've thought the fourth race could be illumians for a while now, but haven't said anything since I seemed to be the only person that thought so.
The Tiefling in the Ardent Debut article ALSO had a halo though. Presumably, the Halo is a Psionic thing, not an Illumian thing.
There was a humanish looking woman with a halo and nice robes in the psion article, and a humanish looking man with a halo in nice robes in a recent article for wizards. I've thought the fourth race could be illumians for a while now, but haven't said anything since I seemed to be the only person that thought so.
The Tiefling in the Ardent Debut article ALSO had a halo though. Presumably, the Halo is a Psionic thing, not an Illumian thing.
Yeah, I agree, it's tenuous, and there's plenty of arguments against, but, like I said, the wizard article makes it an interesting question, at least. This is pretty much why I've been just waiting and seeing.
There was a humanish looking woman with a halo and nice robes in the psion article, and a humanish looking man with a halo in nice robes in a recent article for wizards. I've thought the fourth race could be illumians for a while now, but haven't said anything since I seemed to be the only person that thought so.
The Tiefling in the Ardent Debut article ALSO had a halo though. Presumably, the Halo is a Psionic thing, not an Illumian thing.
Yeah, I agree, it's tenuous, and there's plenty of arguments against, but, like I said, the wizard article makes it an interesting question, at least. This is pretty much why I've been just waiting and seeing.
You mean Wizard Essentials – Secrets of the Spiral Tower, right?
If you look at the picture again, you might notice something different in it from the other "Halos." That being the thing at the front. It looks like some sort of magical circlet, rather than a Halo.
EDIT: The Illumian is difficult, because it's more versatile with ability scores than the Human. In 3.5e terms, it could choose ability scores to get bonuses to. This makes it crazy versatile, being able to choose whatever two abilities. Also, it was the best Multiclasser of 3.5e, and in 4e, that's the Half-Elves' schtick. If there was someway for Illumians to be REALLY good at Hybridclassing, I would go that route. Not sure how they'd do that, though.
Also, it was the best Multiclasser of 3.5e, and in 4e, that's the Half-Elves' schtick. If there was someway for Illumians to be REALLY good at Hybridclassing, I would go that route. Not sure how they'd do that, though.
Well nothing says there can only ever be one race that is best at something. Several races share the same ability bonuses making them equally best at specific class builds, barring synergies based on other racial traits. Anyway, while multiclassing is certainly a theme for half-elves, I don't think they are the ultimate example of a race that is best at it. Their fixed CON/CHA boosts limit the number of combinations they are able to be best at, though one of those combination being Bard helps. A race that is truly BEST at multiclassing would likely need flexible ability score boosts, like a human, or at least some way of substituting their attack stat, like the Bard's Combat Virtuoso feat.
As for being the best hybrid classer, that could make a lot of sense, seeing as the old Illumian racial traits not only encouraged multiclassing but tried to encourage balanced multiclassing between two classes instead of the more typical splash multiclassing of several classes. If that was carried over to 4e, that might be the strongest support for their inclusion in PH3. With the introduction of hybrid rules it would seem quite appropriate to include a race that favors that new option.
Hmmm.... +1 to every stat... Could work.
No, it couldn't. That could never work.
Hmmm.... +1 to every stat... Could work.
No, it couldn't. That could never work.
My thought exactly. Although I think may have meant it as a joke.
Hmmm.... +1 to every stat... Could work.
No, it couldn't. That could never work.
Not that I think it would be a good idea, but NEVER seems a bit harsh. It might be at least worth playtesting before dismissing the idea.
Not that I think it would be a good idea, but NEVER seems a bit harsh. It might be at least worth playtesting before dismissing the idea.
Really? Because that's the sort of thing that doesn't even need a playtest for me to be able to tell you that it's totally broken and a terrible idea. Odd ability score boosts just don't work. They didn't work last edition, and they certainly don't work this edition.
Really? Because that's the sort of thing that doesn't even need a playtest for me to be able to tell you that it's totally broken and a terrible idea. Odd ability score boosts just don't work. They didn't work last edition, and they certainly don't work this edition.
How about if instead of a +1 to all you get a normal +2 to one and two +1 to spread around as you will amonst the other ability scores?
How about if instead of a +1 to all you get a normal +2 to one and two +1 to spread around as you will amonst the other ability scores?
No, I don't think you understood. Odd ability score boosts don't work. Ever. Because of the way that the ability score modifier system works in D&D, an odd ability score boost could come out effectively meaningless, which is bad, but much more likely, it could be manipulated to increase an ability score modifier, becoming the equivalent of an even ability score boost. For example, with your proposition, that could either end up as only a single +2 ability score boost on one end or as three +2 ability score boosts on the other.
Really? Because that's the sort of thing that doesn't even need a playtest for me to be able to tell you that it's totally broken and a terrible idea. Odd ability score boosts just don't work. They didn't work last edition, and they certainly don't work this edition.
Why exactly don't they work? Sure paying for 16 or 18 with you point buy and getting a 17 or 19 might not be all that exciting, but paying for a 13 or 17 and getting a 14 or 18 seems desirable to me. Also getting bumped from a 12 to a 13 can help with quite a few prerequisites.
Seems to me that dismissing odd ability boosts out of hand is little different than complaining that their shouldn't be odd ability scores in the first place. Maybe the game would be better without the intermediate step between modifiers, but that's not the way the system was built, and we might as well take advantage of it.
Why exactly don't they work?
Because the don't accomplish what you want them to accomplish. You want them to accomplish an intermediate step between one ability score modifier and another ability score mofier, but they don't do that. What they do is end up effectively as either a +0 bonus or as a +2 bonus, and any semi-intelligent player will manipulate it towards the latter.
Sure paying for 16 or 18 with you point buy and getting a 17 or 19 might not be all that exciting, but paying for a 13 or 17 and getting a 14 or 18 seems desirable to me.
^^^ THAT.
Wizards has polled other things, and they've taken fan-reaction into consideration in the past beyond just the playtests.
However, I meant no harm or offence with regime. It probably wasn't the exact right word, but I meant the decision-making body, and I wanted to evoke an authoritarian feel to it, since it is somewhat of an oligarchy – though limited because they're trying to please a fanbase.
I don't need a breather, though I thank you for goading me to clarify my statement, because I did feel regime might have been a little too strong a term.
Sorry about that.
No sweat, I wasn't offended or anything, just a little thrown off. It felt kinda strong is all.
Being new, I was unaware of feedback beyond the playtest stuff, at least in terms of class names and fluff and whatnot.
Also with point buy, it's easy enough to round out things to even numbers.
Why exactly don't they work?
What they do is end up effectively as either a +0 bonus or as a +2 bonus, and any semi-intelligent player will manipulate it towards the latter.
Maybe so, but it still seems like it would be worth at least a test drive.
Maybe so, but it still seems like it would be worth at least a test drive.
But what you're not getting is that this isn't a new idea. It has been tried and tested before. When I started playing back in 3E, it already wasn't a new idea. And even back in 3E and 3.5, when things were much less balanced than they are now, it was realized that it wasn't a good idea because of how easily manipulated it was. Now, in 4E, with the increased emphasis on balance, but while still using the same ability score and ability score modifier system, I fail to see why odd ability score boosts should somehow be considered acceptible all of a sudden.
Maybe so, but it still seems like it would be worth at least a test drive.
But what you're not getting is that this isn't a new idea. It has been tried and tested before. When I started playing back in 3E, it already wasn't a new idea. And even back in 3E and 3.5, when things were much less balanced than they are now, it was realized that it wasn't a good idea because of how easily manipulated it was. Now, in 4E, with the increased emphasis on balance, but while still using the same ability score and ability score modifier system, I fail to see why odd ability score boosts should somehow be considered acceptible all of a sudden.
This may be one of the few times I have to agree with Crimson. Because of the way Point Buy works, it makes it a LOT easier to pay for points in multiple scores, and makes MAD builds a LOT easier to deal with. Look at the difference between 16, 17, and 18, for example. 16 requires 9 points, 17 requires 12 points, while 18 requires 16. With no bonus to it, you need to put 16 points into it to be max if that's your key ability (assuming you want to start with +4 bonus). that leaves you with 6 points left over, which you could put into 12s (assuming your supporting ability scores are to the other two), giving you 2 14s and 2 points left over to help whatever defence is lacking or some other ability score. That's 18-16-16-10-10-8.
If you had a bonus in the max ability score, you pay 9 for that, leaving 13 points to spend – on 2 14s with 3 points left over for another thing, though you probably have a +2 to one of those 14s, so 16, 14. In this case, you probably want to spend 2 of those left over points to make a 14 a 15, and put an 11 in something else. That's 18-16-15-11-10-8.
If you had a +1 bonus to two ability scores, and a +2 to another, it becomes more complicated here – 17 in the max +1 = 18 for 12 points, leaving 10 points left and a +2 and a +1 left over to spend. you then pay 5 for a 14 and get a +2 to it, and have 5 points left over, which you pay into another 14 for a 15. That's 18-16-14-10-10-8.
Notice how that's worse than the +2 in each of the supporting and nothing in the max?
If you put the +2 in the max, however, it's the same as if you had a bonus in the max normally – 18-16-15-11-10-8.
So it becomes unbalancing for some classes, and just as good for others. Note that the more +1s you spread around, the more unbalanced it'll get, and the more likely for either weaksause or abuse.
This may be one of the few times I have to agree with Crimson.
Yay! Does this mean that we're friends now? ^_^
This may be one of the few times I have to agree with Crimson.
Yay! Does this mean that we're friends now? ^_^
Well, I admire your thinking a lot. I just find myself at odds with it often.
Sure, if you'd like.
How about if instead of a +1 to all you get a normal +2 to one and two +1 to spread around as you will amonst the other ability scores?
No, I don't think you understood. Odd ability score boosts don't work. Ever. Because of the way that the ability score modifier system works in D&D, an odd ability score boost could come out effectively meaningless, which is bad, but much more likely, it could be manipulated to increase an ability score modifier, becoming the equivalent of an even ability score boost. For example, with your proposition, that could either end up as only a single +2 ability score boost on one end or as three +2 ability score boosts on the other.
True.
Maybe so, but it still seems like it would be worth at least a test drive.
But what you're not getting is that this isn't a new idea. It has been tried and tested before. When I started playing back in 3E, it already wasn't a new idea. And even back in 3E and 3.5, when things were much less balanced than they are now, it was realized that it wasn't a good idea because of how easily manipulated it was. Now, in 4E, with the increased emphasis on balance, but while still using the same ability score and ability score modifier system, I fail to see why odd ability score boosts should somehow be considered acceptible all of a sudden.
Maybe so, but 4e is a new system and as such its something of an unknown how the interaction would play out in practice. The +2 to two stats of most 4e races would have been considered unbalanced in previous editions. The idea +1 to all six seems intriguing enough to at least explore before dismissing it as impossible.
Regardless this isn't the right thread to continue this discussion. Might be worth letting the CharOp boards have a crack at it, though it might be to much of a hypothetical for that part of the community. Still, short of actual playtesting, that's probably the best place to figure out whether it's overpowers, underpowered, or balanced. That is if people can set aside what was true of past editions and just go about testing the idea against various 4e character builds.
Maybe so, but 4e is a new system and as such its something of an unknown how the interaction would play out in practice.
That's just not true. 4E uses the same ability score, ability score modifier, and racial ability score boost system as 3E and 3.5 did. That part of the system is not new. It works exactly the same way that it used to. That's why there's been no change to how we react to odd racial ability score modifiers.
The +2 to two stats of most 4e races would have been considered unbalanced in previous editions.
Not if that had been the standard that all races followed.
The idea +1 to all six seems intriguing enough to at least explore before dismissing it as impossible.
I agree. That's why it's already been explored (odd ability score boosts in general, not that specific array). That's why it was explored a long time ago. Your intentions are more than reasonable, but you don't seem to understand that the idea has been explored in previous editions using the same ability score system, and it was even explored in this edition with early homebrew races. It just doesn't work well.
Now that +2/+2 is standard (with only Humans breaking it, and they get the NADs to make it worthwhile), races are a lot easier to balance with ability scores. However, a break from that would render it unbalanced again. It also would screw with the race-class preferences.
The idea +1 to all six seems intriguing enough to at least explore before dismissing it as impossible.
I agree. That's why it's already been explored (odd ability score boosts in general, not that specific array). That's why it was explored a long time ago. Your intentions are more than reasonable, but you don't seem to understand that the idea has been explored in previous editions using the same ability score system, and it was even explored in this edition with early homebrew races. It just doesn't work well.
"If at first you don't succeed try, try again."
Where would be today if people gave up because something seemed imposible? How many modern inventions wouldn't exist?
+1 to all is definately a problem, but +1 to three stats might be resonable.
+1 to three stats would be blatantly weaker than +2 two stats, a total of only +3 compared to +4. Even +1 to four stats would be undeniably weaker, the same way +4 to one stat would be undeniably stronger. Multiple small bonuses just aren't worth as much as fewer big bonuses. That why a base 18 costs more than 4 base 12s.
+1 to all is definately a problem, but +1 to three stats might be resonable.
No, that can still easily end up effectively identical to +2 in three stats.
Where would be today if people gave up because something seemed imposible? How many modern inventions wouldn't exist?
We don't know all of the rules to the real world. We do know all of the rules to D&D. There is a difference.
+1 to three stats would be blatantly weaker than +2 two stats, a total of only +3 compared to +4. Even +1 to four stats would be undeniably weaker
This right here shows that you don't get it. It's trivially easy to make +1 to three stats effectively identical to +2 to three stats and +1 to four state effectively identical to +2 to four stats as far as the impact on your modifiers goes.
Now, if you really want to experiment with odd racial ability score boosts, then I can actually give you an example that could theoretically work:
Ability Scores: +1 to two ability scores of your choice or +2 to one ability score of your choice
With this, you can decide whether to be on the power curve or below it and how. Unfortunately, this leaves you with NAD problems, but if you think that you can figure out how to fix it well, then go for it...
Where would be today if people gave up because something seemed imposible? How many modern inventions wouldn't exist?
We don't know all of the rules to the real world. We do know all of the rules to D&D. There is a difference.
Maybe, but the rules of reality are immutable, so far as we know. D&D is only a game and the rules can be modified and tinkered with to accommodate change.
If you're so adamant that +1 to all six stats would be BROKEN, prove it. Show me three builds using such an array that are blatantly superior to an optimal pair of +2s. (Edit: but do it in a diffrent thread, it's off topic here). Oh, and before anyone tries to say I should prove that it isn't broken first, remember that is NOT my position. I only said that it might be worth a playtest.
Oh, and before anyone tries to say I should prove that it isn't broken first, remember that is NOT my position. I only said that it might be worth a playtest.
You're the one who thinks that it's worth a playtest, so you can playtest it. I'm not going to waste my time proving something to you that's already been proven.
Show
With 3 +1 bonuses, it is impossible to get two 18s
you can get an 18, 16, and 14, but you have 0 points remaining (as oppoesd to a +2/+2 race, which either gets 3,2, or -1 points, depending onwhich stats are boosted.
You can get 16 in three stats, with 1 point remaining. (as opposed to a +2/+2 race, which will have 3 points remaining
You can get two 16s and two 14, with no points remaining. (a +2/+2 race would have 2, 1, or 0 points remaining)
Lastly, it can get five 14s and an 11, or four 14 and two 13. this is exactly the same as a +2/+2 race)
you can get an 18, 16, and 14, but you have 0 points remaining (as oppoesd to a +2/+2 race, which either gets 3,2, or -1 points, depending onwhich stats are boosted.
You can get 16 in three stats, with 1 point remaining. (as opposed to a +2/+2 race, which will have 3 points remaining
You can get two 16s and two 14, with no points remaining. (a +2/+2 race would have 2, 1, or 0 points remaining)
Lastly, it can get five 14s and an 11, or four 14 and two 13. this is exactly the same as a +2/+2 race)
Far from being overpowered, it turns out a racial +1/+1/+1 is underpowered compared to a +2/+2ShowWith 3 +1 bonuses, it is impossible to get two 18s
you can get an 18, 16, and 14, but you have 0 points remaining (as oppoesd to a +2/+2 race, which either gets 3,2, or -1 points, depending onwhich stats are boosted.
You can get 16 in three stats, with 1 point remaining. (as opposed to a +2/+2 race, which will have 3 points remaining
You can get two 16s and two 14, with no points remaining. (a +2/+2 race would have 2, 1, or 0 points remaining)
Lastly, it can get five 14s and an 11, or four 14 and two 13. this is exactly the same as a +2/+2 race)
How about an illumian racial feature that gives them an effective +X to stats for determining feat prerequisites, or have them automatically count as another extra class for feats & PPs.
It'd give them a feeling of "I mix classes and sources together" opposed to the HElf's "I'm a member of another class"
Why does this class require a weapon?
Don't get me wrong, I get the idea of striking with a weapon and delivering supernatural attacks. I just don't see why the ardent is connected with melee. Implanted Suggestion: I use my mind powers to cause an enemy to constantly make mistakes, opening himself up for attacks by my allies. But first I have to hit his AC. Enlightened Pulse sends out an aura of zeal that grants allies recovery.....oh, and I get to hit someone with a stick. You wrap you foe in a psionic net upon which your allies can feed in a Feast of Plenty, but first you have to whack him over the head.
The class has some nifty stuff, but it feels like being handed the Strength Cleric without the laser friend. It's incredibly annoying to have some tantilizing non-weapon powers, such as Corona of Battle and Violent Spark, yet have to return to the "Whack Things With Stick To Unleash Mind Powers" role. And when I see the return of Intellect Bomb, I can't help but stare at the "Charisma vs AC, melee weapon" label as a nervous twitch ticks across my face.
It feels like someone crammed the sorcerer into their Blade Channeling as the basic mechanics of the class, or made the Sehanine Dedicate the normal cleric build. I get the idea of an empathic warrior, and it's a really cool one....but making it the only method present for delivering powers feels ridiculously straightjacketed. Like the aforementioned SBC, it feels like the kind of flavor best left to paragon paths, feats, or potential class builds, yet as the only method of manifesting powers, non-melee psychics need not apply, everything about the Melee tag on nearly every power seems forced.
Don't get me wrong, I get the idea of striking with a weapon and delivering supernatural attacks. I just don't see why the ardent is connected with melee. Implanted Suggestion: I use my mind powers to cause an enemy to constantly make mistakes, opening himself up for attacks by my allies. But first I have to hit his AC. Enlightened Pulse sends out an aura of zeal that grants allies recovery.....oh, and I get to hit someone with a stick. You wrap you foe in a psionic net upon which your allies can feed in a Feast of Plenty, but first you have to whack him over the head.
If it helps, try thinking of the ardent's psionic powers as being less overt and potent than the psion. The ardent can't just **** his opponents mind at-will, he first has to distract them by making them focus on dodging his physical attacks. Likewise he can't inspire allies unless he first performs an action worthy of inspiration. The ardent can't create emotions in others, only augment emotions that are already their.
Don't get me wrong, I get the idea of striking with a weapon and delivering supernatural attacks. I just don't see why the ardent is connected with melee. Implanted Suggestion: I use my mind powers to cause an enemy to constantly make mistakes, opening himself up for attacks by my allies. But first I have to hit his AC. Enlightened Pulse sends out an aura of zeal that grants allies recovery.....oh, and I get to hit someone with a stick. You wrap you foe in a psionic net upon which your allies can feed in a Feast of Plenty, but first you have to whack him over the head.
QFT
If it helps, try thinking of the ardent's psionic powers as being less overt and potent than the psion. The ardent can't just **** his opponents mind at-will, he first has to distract them by making them focus on dodging his physical attacks. Likewise he can't inspire allies unless he first performs an action worthy of inspiration. The ardent can't create emotions in others, only augment emotions that are already their.
It does not help
If it helps, try thinking of the ardent's psionic powers as being less overt and potent than the psion.
Aye, I want it to help, but it doesn't.
I keep hearing the words "Intellect Bomb", and what comes to mind is always the same; someone putting their fingers to their forehead and concentrating really hard, and the guy on the other side of the room's head explodes.
"Cut past his guard, jab him with your spear, and then active your Intellect Bomb" is, in my thought process, the equivalent of "To cast fireball, the wizard must first succeed at an attack versus AC with his staff to prod the target in the chest." Yes, I can see a cool variant like Sorcerous Blade Channeling, especially if they did it with Soulknives. But having the default, mainstream, and only option for empathic psionic attacks be melee weaponry training? If it were the bard, with implement and melee powers, that would work. If it had ranged, melee, and mixed abilities to encompass a broad variety of effects, perhaps. But the emotionally-driven, empathic, precognitive psychic bolstering her allies.......cannot even manage to fulfill the shoes of the Mystic Helper Without A Weapon trope?
The class reads like someone said "Let's take a warlord, and make it psionic". Not "Let's make a psionic class, and make it an awesome leader." It almost harkens back to the horror that was PsionicX; it feels like they took the melee cleric or warlord and made it psychic, rather than allow the natural ideas of precognition and empathy to flow outward into a class. Some of the powers are nifty. Seeing the future for interrupts, the psychic fervor driving allies, the emotional ebb and flow, they can be quite cool.
But they are constrained, not enhanced, by the reliance upon melee weaponry for all its effects.
And that makes brain moles sad, because it's a damn shame.
I keep hearing the words "Intellect Bomb", and what comes to mind is always the same; someone putting their fingers to their forehead and concentrating really hard, and the guy on the other side of the room's head explodes.
Then maybe you should stop focusing on the name of a single power. Besides there is already a class for melting enemy brains purely through force of will, it's called the psion. The ardent is likely a weapon class not because someone was trying to copy/paste the warlord, but to distinguish it from the psion.
If the theory that the Battlemind is based off of the Soulknife (replacing the name with the similarly themed d20 modern class) turns out to be true, then it may turn out that the Ardent is heir of the weapon wielding Psychic Warrior.
That said, I feel your pain (empath joke unintended), but the way I see it we can either waste time complaining that the class isn't what we expected or we can try and find creative ways to work with what we've been given.
That said, I feel your pain (empath joke unintended), but the way I see it we can either waste time complaining that the class isn't what we expected or we can try and find creative ways to work with what we've been given.
I'm going to do both.
And I don't think it's a waste of time. If nobody is going to speak up and let WotC know they dropped the ball, then we're just going to keep getting sub-par material from them. It's not like it's a birthday present, it's something we pay money for, so if we pretend like it's what we always wanted then it's only going to get worse.
I would be very interested to know just how the class "isn't what we expected" from your point of view.
If it helps, try thinking of the ardent's psionic powers as being less overt and potent than the psion.
Aye, I want it to help, but it doesn't.
I keep hearing the words "Intellect Bomb", and what comes to mind is always the same; someone putting their fingers to their forehead and concentrating really hard, and the guy on the other side of the room's head explodes.
"Cut past his guard, jab him with your spear, and then active your Intellect Bomb" is, in my thought process, the equivalent of "To cast fireball, the wizard must first succeed at an attack versus AC with his staff to prod the target in the chest." Yes, I can see a cool variant like Sorcerous Blade Channeling, especially if they did it with Soulknives. But having the default, mainstream, and only option for empathic psionic attacks be melee weaponry training? If it were the bard, with implement and melee powers, that would work. If it had ranged, melee, and mixed abilities to encompass a broad variety of effects, perhaps. But the emotionally-driven, empathic, precognitive psychic bolstering her allies.......cannot even manage to fulfill the shoes of the Mystic Helper Without A Weapon trope?
The class reads like someone said "Let's take a warlord, and make it psionic". Not "Let's make a psionic class, and make it an awesome leader." It almost harkens back to the horror that was PsionicX; it feels like they took the melee cleric or warlord and made it psychic, rather than allow the natural ideas of precognition and empathy to flow outward into a class. Some of the powers are nifty. Seeing the future for interrupts, the psychic fervor driving allies, the emotional ebb and flow, they can be quite cool.
But they are constrained, not enhanced, by the reliance upon melee weaponry for all its effects.
And that makes brain moles sad, because it's a damn shame.
Isn't there a build of cleric that allows you to never make an attack? Theres the MHWoAW in my eyes,
I view the ardent's weapon attacks like this: He is emotionally based, he isn't practiced and disciplined like the psion. His powers come from emotions, and he gets into that state of mind by taking part in the melee. THe attacks are just a focus for him to channel his power. His healing powers come from attacks intended to support his allies, while his offensive damage his is anger and passion focusing his ability to manipulate his opponent.
If it helps, try thinking of the ardent's psionic powers as being less overt and potent than the psion.
Aye, I want it to help, but it doesn't.
I keep hearing the words "Intellect Bomb", and what comes to mind is always the same; someone putting their fingers to their forehead and concentrating really hard, and the guy on the other side of the room's head explodes.
"Cut past his guard, jab him with your spear, and then active your Intellect Bomb" is, in my thought process, the equivalent of "To cast fireball, the wizard must first succeed at an attack versus AC with his staff to prod the target in the chest." Yes, I can see a cool variant like Sorcerous Blade Channeling, especially if they did it with Soulknives. But having the default, mainstream, and only option for empathic psionic attacks be melee weaponry training? If it were the bard, with implement and melee powers, that would work. If it had ranged, melee, and mixed abilities to encompass a broad variety of effects, perhaps. But the emotionally-driven, empathic, precognitive psychic bolstering her allies.......cannot even manage to fulfill the shoes of the Mystic Helper Without A Weapon trope?
The class reads like someone said "Let's take a warlord, and make it psionic". Not "Let's make a psionic class, and make it an awesome leader." It almost harkens back to the horror that was PsionicX; it feels like they took the melee cleric or warlord and made it psychic, rather than allow the natural ideas of precognition and empathy to flow outward into a class. Some of the powers are nifty. Seeing the future for interrupts, the psychic fervor driving allies, the emotional ebb and flow, they can be quite cool.
But they are constrained, not enhanced, by the reliance upon melee weaponry for all its effects.
And that makes brain moles sad, because it's a damn shame.
Isn't there a build of cleric that allows you to never make an attack? Theres the MHWoAW in my eyes,
I view the ardent's weapon attacks like this: He is emotionally based, he isn't practiced and disciplined like the psion. His powers come from emotions, and he gets into that state of mind by taking part in the melee. THe attacks are just a focus for him to channel his power. His healing powers come from attacks intended to support his allies, while his offensive damage his is anger and passion focusing his ability to manipulate his opponent.
But he still uses disciplines, so I think he is disciplined of a sort. The flavour text says that he's a master of his own emotions, but he wasn't trained by some ancient master (though the Talaric Scrolls teach certain fighting styles that embody a discipline that is learned and passed down rather than something just self-taught).
The Ardent is a master of his own emotions, and knows how to inspire his allies emotions and confuse his enemies emotions. To me, he seems almost like the Sohei from Oriental Adventures; a weapon-using warrior-monk, in terms of using a weapon-based fighting style generated by inner power and ability. The Ardent may be self-trained, and learned their skills with weapons and their empathic prowess naturally. The Ardent is somewhat of a crafty warrior though – he compels enemies' hearts and minds to let open a weak point for his allies and him to attack. Implanted Suggestion, level 1 daily, is a good example of this. As is Imminent Demise, level 15 daily: you project an image of despair upon your foes, and their see you and your weapon as something much deadily than it would be otherwise. The Ardent enhances it's weapon-fighting with effects like these. Wormhole Plunge – after attacking it, that creature drops through a rift in space and falls in front of an ally who can then attack it as well, and it leaves behind that wormhole as well for a while to continue the process. The Ardent isn't just an empathic mage of sorts, she's a warrior who is able to make herself look much more awesome to her allies or much more terrifying to her foes. And because she's more terrifying, her foes take more damage and undergo other effects from her weapon techniques. She's a martial-artist with her weapon, channeling her heart through her blade. She's not just as "What Lame Kind of Power is Heart Anyways" she's as "Heart is An Awesome Power," and she's downright dangerous. She's able to be something more, because she's not a martial adept, she's someone who is able to channel her empathic and ardent power through her flashy and terrifying skills with a weapon.
As for Intellect Bomb? It's not like causing a blast to blow up in the foes brains. It's using such emotional and aesthic weaponplay that the enemy is caught within your web of emotions, giving you a foothold over him, and then you let loose your psychic blasts.
If it helps, try thinking of the ardent's psionic powers as being less overt and potent than the psion.
Aye, I want it to help, but it doesn't.
I keep hearing the words "Intellect Bomb", and what comes to mind is always the same; someone putting their fingers to their forehead and concentrating really hard, and the guy on the other side of the room's head explodes.
"Cut past his guard, jab him with your spear, and then active your Intellect Bomb" is, in my thought process, the equivalent of "To cast fireball, the wizard must first succeed at an attack versus AC with his staff to prod the target in the chest." Yes, I can see a cool variant like Sorcerous Blade Channeling, especially if they did it with Soulknives. But having the default, mainstream, and only option for empathic psionic attacks be melee weaponry training? If it were the bard, with implement and melee powers, that would work. If it had ranged, melee, and mixed abilities to encompass a broad variety of effects, perhaps. But the emotionally-driven, empathic, precognitive psychic bolstering her allies.......cannot even manage to fulfill the shoes of the Mystic Helper Without A Weapon trope?
The class reads like someone said "Let's take a warlord, and make it psionic". Not "Let's make a psionic class, and make it an awesome leader." It almost harkens back to the horror that was PsionicX; it feels like they took the melee cleric or warlord and made it psychic, rather than allow the natural ideas of precognition and empathy to flow outward into a class. Some of the powers are nifty. Seeing the future for interrupts, the psychic fervor driving allies, the emotional ebb and flow, they can be quite cool.
But they are constrained, not enhanced, by the reliance upon melee weaponry for all its effects.
And that makes brain moles sad, because it's a damn shame.
Isn't there a build of cleric that allows you to never make an attack? Theres the MHWoAW in my eyes,
I view the ardent's weapon attacks like this: He is emotionally based, he isn't practiced and disciplined like the psion. His powers come from emotions, and he gets into that state of mind by taking part in the melee. THe attacks are just a focus for him to channel his power. His healing powers come from attacks intended to support his allies, while his offensive damage his is anger and passion focusing his ability to manipulate his opponent.
But he still uses disciplines, so I think he is disciplined of a sort. The flavour text says that he's a master of his own emotions, but he wasn't trained by some ancient master (though the Talaric Scrolls teach certain fighting styles that embody a discipline that is learned and passed down rather than something just self-taught).
The Ardent is a master of his own emotions, and knows how to inspire his allies emotions and confuse his enemies emotions. To me, he seems almost like the Sohei from Oriental Adventures; a weapon-using warrior-monk, in terms of using a weapon-based fighting style generated by inner power and ability. The Ardent may be self-trained, and learned their skills with weapons and their empathic prowess naturally. The Ardent is somewhat of a crafty warrior though – he compels enemies' hearts and minds to let open a weak point for his allies and him to attack. Implanted Suggestion, level 1 daily, is a good example of this. As is Imminent Demise, level 15 daily: you project an image of despair upon your foes, and their see you and your weapon as something much deadily than it would be otherwise. The Ardent enhances it's weapon-fighting with effects like these. Wormhole Plunge – after attacking it, that creature drops through a rift in space and falls in front of an ally who can then attack it as well, and it leaves behind that wormhole as well for a while to continue the process. The Ardent isn't just an empathic mage of sorts, she's a warrior who is able to make herself look much more awesome to her allies or much more terrifying to her foes. And because she's more terrifying, her foes take more damage and undergo other effects from her weapon techniques. She's a martial-artist with her weapon, channeling her heart through her blade. She's not just as "What Lame Kind of Power is Heart Anyways" she's as "Heart is An Awesome Power," and she's downright dangerous. She's able to be something more, because she's not a martial adept, she's someone who is able to channel her empathic and ardent power through her flashy and terrifying skills with a weapon.
As for Intellect Bomb? It's not like causing a blast to blow up in the foes brains. It's using such emotional and aesthic weaponplay that the enemy is caught within your web of emotions, giving you a foothold over him, and then you let loose your psychic blasts.
A much better way of saying what I had to say,
Luckily, after slogging through all the weapon keyword powers I do find I like what they have done so far to roll up a bit of the empath, wilder, and 3.x ardent concepts. In terms of fictional examples, the 4e enlightened-build ardent (not sure that's the best name for the build) seems sort of like a projective empath who hasn't learned or is too wild to shield.
The build's mantle grants opp atk defense to you & allies and insight & perception bonuses to allies, but I also think
INSIGHT should be an automatic skill for the class to emphasize the receptive side of empathic powers across all builds. (I may do that img.) The mantle's bloodied feature useable as a free action is a nice touch, I feel. It brings to mind angels and dragons who have similar free actions.So overall, the presentation would have suited my expectations better if they hadn't emphasized the martial aspect so much. Perhaps this first build is something like the "battle cleric" to its other builds' "lazer" and "shielding clerics." (Not sure how likely that is what with the military melee proficiency.) Regardless, I do like the Ardent a lot.
I think that the class will struggle, it is so heavy dependant on 2 attributes for most of its powers that using the standard point system that is in the character builder will not be as effective as established leader classes. They will lack the hitpoints to be a frontline melee type but may find a role as a second line defender/healer for the front line troops or will lack the attribute bonuses for the class powers. They are a poor replacement for a cleric or warlord who in my mind are much better at the same job. I like the 4th edition psionics much better than in previous editions as there has been more thought put in about game balence. The only thing that jumped out at me about the adrent is the fact at first lvl it can heal up to three times per encounter something no other class to date can do but other than that it is a substandard class that unless you really like psionics most likely be replaced by a cleric, warlord or bard.
If you want hit points go the cha/con build. Remember we've only seen half the class. It still has another build, and powers designed for it. Don't go thinking it's limited to two stats any more than anyother class.
The image it conjures is that of someone who fights with weapons, but managing to have his/her emotions and mind, both psionically trained, far OVER matter. It is one of the most survivalist classes around, with that self-saving at-will and the healing, I was something like a consciously crazy Barbarian, a truly axe-crazy (after all I used a halberd... - oh my) warrior that was crazy because he knew that it was the winning way, someone that has based a combat discipline over recklessness founded on the knowledge that his mind can heal him, save him from trouble, help allies and hinder enemies.
Of course it's a bit ridiculous to have certain powers act by the means of weapons, but thinking about weapon-usage as the probably only way to unleash that kind of psionic power is the key. It's not so much like the old Ardent as the old Wilder, crossed with Tome of Battle's Warblade.
It's raw emotional power, manipulated by psionic discipline and unleashed through warfare tactics.
Maybe (surely) I like it so much because it's the kind of character I like to play, but believe me, the mechanics are also good.
And the flavor can be awesome, ask Karashiik, my evil dragonborn Ardent/Shaman if he's not flavorful... In his geographically secluded dragonborn extended clan, the Ardent is the archetypical warrior and captain, and that kind of "neutral power" mixes wonderfully with Primal power, which is important for their people, who despise the gods in favor of the Old Faith. I'm totally in love with this exotic warrior/sage.
People, have you actually played the Ardent?? I'm testing characters with the (very fun) solo adventure "Dark Awakening" of this month's Dragon (or Dungeon?) and the Ardent was not anywhere short of GREAT, even at first level.
This is where I agree with you, but only with the whole "this class is awesome at lv 1". It's flat out terriable mid paragon and I dread epic. It just doesn't scale and the serious lack of good opitions with the class hurts a lot more at those levels. Give me any leader class but this one at mid levels or higher.
I would say wait for more material to come out, but the Monk is great in all tiers and it's only half written.. is it too much to expect from the Ardent to do the same?
I have a lot of daily powers that are bursts centered on me and can be sustained with a minor action. The one I used in my sole fight was Corona of Battle, which gave my allies a +2 to attacks, +1d10 damage, and regen 5. I found that I spent most of my time positioning myself so most of my allies were inside my burst powers. In fact, I didn't make an attack roll of my own during the whole fight.
Because of my burst powers, I really got the impression that my ardent augmented allies by sending out waves of emotion. It was interesting to see how my overall strategy (position myself so that allies are in my bursts) played out differently than the warlord I played from levels 5 to 10. However, I'm not sure I can make a direct comparison because of the level difference.
I'm playing a level 28 ardent and while I have only one full combat under my belt I felt like I was effective. My bread and butter power was Exhilirating Strike - the 6 point augment giving everyone in the burst a chance to charge or make a basic attack with +5 damage was just too good for me to pass up.
I have a lot of daily powers that are bursts centered on me and can be sustained with a minor action. The one I used in my sole fight was Corona of Battle, which gave my allies a +2 to attacks, +1d10 damage, and regen 5. I found that I spent most of my time positioning myself so most of my allies were inside my burst powers. In fact, I didn't make an attack roll of my own during the whole fight.
Because of my burst powers, I really got the impression that my ardent augmented allies by sending out waves of emotion. It was interesting to see how my overall strategy (position myself so that allies are in my bursts) played out differently than the warlord I played from levels 5 to 10. However, I'm not sure I can make a direct comparison because of the level difference.
Well, very good! Didn't you feel underwhelmed by the unaugmented powers' damage (which doesn't scale as other power source at-wills)?
I really hope that with a simple feat, they'll make scaling damage easy, or give an alternative to it, maybe a +1W or +1dX when you augment an epic power with 1PP.
Well, very good! Didn't you feel underwhelmed by the unaugmented powers' damage (which doesn't scale as other power source at-wills)?
I didn't notice it, as I for the most part I was allowing my allies to make basic attacks with Exhilirating Strike. And as I mentioned, I didn't make an attack roll of my own for the entire encounter. For pretty much the whole fight I found myself sustaining Corona of Battle with a minor action, moving to a position that kept most people within range of Corona of Battle and my mantle, and then using a standard action to use Exhilirating Strike.
As I get more combats under my belt, I'll let you know how they go.