Some ideas may include:
New paragon paths/epic destinies (obvious)
Expand on the wizard spell list to give back some of the variety of previous editions. This might include conjurations/summoning effects, illusions, and transmutation/polymorph effects that aren't broken (baleful polymorph, at least, can be handled using a condition. Turning people into toads is pretty basic wizard material).
Familiars (if the ranger is getting animal companions in Martial Power, then familiars are a distinct possibility).
New warlock pacts
- Shadow Pact (necromantic-flavored/Shadowdark-type pact)
- Elemental/Primordial Pact (dealing with ancient rivals of the gods seems like warlock material)
- Celestial Pact (For balance. This might be more of a divine thing, though)
A lot of new rituals (For extra arcane variety. Perhaps even include rare material components that can be used in place of gold for the more expensive rituals)
Material for the bard, sorcerer, and swordmage (these aren't out yet, so I can't comment on what they need. Perhaps some artificer stuff too, but the book will probably come out before Eberron is released)
What do you think?
-More awesomeness and win for the swordmage
Oh a developer has confirmed no artificer stuff in it.
A melee warlock, echoing the old 3.x hideous blow path, would be pretty awesome. I could see it using Constitution or Charisma like all the other warlock powers--or perhaps it'll be the only warlock that uses Strength (beyond armour/shield feat prereqs). Or perhaps it'll use Dexterity and focus on light blades, considering the whole pact blade thing. Who knows.
If the PHBII doesn't have a melee bard build (I can easily see two bard builds: one Cha/Int, using mind-affecting musical attacks and instruments as implements, and one Dex/Cha, probably using light blades and favouring melee with vocals for song backup), Arcane Power should.
A melee warlock, echoing the old 3.x hideous blow path, would be pretty awesome. I could see it using Constitution or Charisma like all the other warlock powers--or perhaps it'll be the only warlock that uses Strength (beyond armour/shield feat prereqs). Or perhaps it'll use Dexterity and focus on light blades, considering the whole pact blade thing. Who knows.
That will be one hack of a build, I played Warlock/Soulknife for a one-timer and it was fun as hack.
Nothing spells more fun for any mage than making a warrior attack himself every round instead of you. I'd also like to see some better applications of the
eldritch blast for warlocks. And while I know the have the WotST paragon for wizards, it would still be nice to have a build that works a little bit more with weaponry to work better as a gish, and yes I know about the swordmage, but I still want the wizard itself to get more melee love rather than having to use swordmage, so that I can stay a controller, just have some more melee powers.
Some bard things would be nice too, although far as i know they haven't specified their power source yet, I'm thinking arcane since in 3e they were considered arcane casters.
Some bard things would be nice too, although far as i know they haven't specified their power source yet, I'm thinking arcane since in 3e they were considered arcane casters.
They have confirmed that the bard will be in Arcane Power, and by extention that it will be an arcane class.
Baleful Polymorph
1-creature polymorph (like in 3.5 PHBII)
Cool hats
Familiars
Summoning spells and rituals
Illusion spells that aren't just psychic damage
EDIT: And maybe an epic "slow death" power for wizards akin to the beholder eye tyrant and the elder gibbering orb." Or a power like the bodak's death gaze.
I want to see a varraint path for Sword mage...ARCANE ARCHER
- Celestial Pact (For balance. This might be more of a divine thing, though)
I hope they never do anything just for balance again.
Other than that, I'd like to see useful familiars, not just stat/skill bonuses that pop in and out of existence. I'd like more rituals, especially ones that aren't spells from 3e.
For Wizards I want to see not only more implement types, but also more meaningful specialization options for implements at later levels.
I'd also like to see more damage type specialty feats, that do interesting things with using certain damage types.
And if PHB2 doesn't have paragon paths like Seeker of the Song and Sublime Chord, then Arcane Power should get such paragon paths.
I want to see a varraint path for Sword mage...ARCANE ARCHER
How would that work for an defender build? Surely arcane archer has always been a striker/controller type. I dont see an arcane archer with tons of teleports and high hps. I think it would certainly be an awesome new build for the ranger, with Dex being the main focus and int a secondary focus to determine effects, or if wizards started making cross class paragons or something like that, but still think a different build for wizard or ranger seems more likely.
I suspect we may see a new melee build for warlocks in Arcane Power
New build-Hexblade.
COOL ones.
You know how you could have a wyrmling dragon as a familiar in 3.5? Well, that's *almost* cool enough to give up a class feature for. :D
Seriously, no flying/crawling liabilities please, but with the Ranger precedent a build with a Familiar could be neat. Or, it could be feat-based so Warlocks can get in on the fun.
Feats, builds/powers, pps/eds, all will be present, I imagine, and I imagine familiars will show up in some form. For those who have been clamoring for some more player-centric or faster/more convenient Rituals (I actually somewhat agree with some who have complained that a lot of the Rituals seem more intended for DMs to use for baddies, or aren't really easy to set up/use in tense situations) I would bet this is where we'll see them.
I think it seems very likely that Warlocks will get just one pact from this, so I hope it's a good one.
I think to go along with the new build, SM will get a new Aegis, and I've got no idea how that'll work out.
Wizards could very likely have some kind of Familiar focused path, giving up an implement mastery.
I think there are rules for animal companions in Martial Power so this might be extended to make familiars a weaker version of an animal companion, each one providing a 'familiar' bonus to a skill much like an item bonus, with alternative bonuses or powers depending on the level anf type of familiar. I bet there will be some familar feats as well.
They have stated that there are going to be more charm, illusion, and summoning spells. Although illusions have a link to the shadowfell, we know that not every illusion spell has such a link. I was wondering whether they might approximate the illusionist by making an illusionist build path for the wizard that synergises with either dexterity (as traditionally illusionists had high dex) or charisma. I'm not convinced that a iconic arcane class will be offloaded onto the shadow power source; I think the shadowcaster will fill the shadow controller role instead.
They have confirmed that the bard will be in Arcane Power, and by extention that it will be an arcane class.
And a Leader, I believe.
Warlocks- Demonology Pact, Vesteige Pact. A feat to allow a spellbook and Cantrips
Swordmages- Wisdom baised path. A better spellbook feat, that allows cantrips. A power like elemental Foible that is either an encounter power, or an upgraded version for higher levels.
Artificer- Hard to say what I want with this, or even if it will be in the book. I want a Bane power for my gun ( prefrebly an encounter one), a paragon path like the Renegade Mastermarker, where you make yourself into a cyborg.)
Artificer- Hard to say what I want with this, or even if it will be in the book. I want a Bane power for my gun ( prefrebly an encounter one), a paragon path like the Renegade Mastermarker, where you make yourself into a cyborg.)
It is confirmed that it won't be in the book.
- Hexblade, a melee based paragon path for the warlock
- Arcane Archer, a ranged based paragon path for the wizard. Similar to the Spiral tower wizard.
- artificer stuff. Yes, I know it's not in there, but this is a 'wish list' after all.
No. I hope not. Leave that to other classes meant for this sort of thing. The Illusionist is a Shadow Power sourced character. Wizards should not get more than what they really have now, lest wizards wish to scrap the Shadow Powersource (which would be a poor idea in my opinion) Let the specialists stay special.
More variety in wizards spells Yes we should have. But I don't think they should make it so that you can build a total Illusionist Wizard from the ground up, and negate the point of an Illusionist class (which is not even out yet but is coming) The wizard was such that it really was not a class. It was ten classes rolled into one, and I -hated- that. I'm glad it got split into multiple classes.
Now that being said what -do- I want in Arcane power? I dunno. More Pacts, obviously.
More bardic musics (assuming they have them)
More spells
feats, paragon paths etc
I will have a better idea what I want once Martial Power comes out. Because then we know more of what to expect.
Magic tomes could do things like alter the damage type of spells cast using them, or allow you to prepare a specific Daily or Utility spell instead of one of your regular ones. Like, Tome of Blizzards, Lvl 9 magic Tome, Property: You may prepare Ice Storm in place of one of your Daily Spells, assuming that you could prepare a 9th level spell in that slot.
New Pacts: Two to three of them, complete with one spell per level and a Paragon Path (like the Dark Pact in the FRPG). I'd like to see a Primordial Pact (Pact with the lords of the Elemental Chaos, Pact powers randomly deal Fire, Cold, Electric, or Acid damage), and a Necro pact (Undead powers, Necrotic Damage)
Warlock Melee: I would like to see warlocks somehow get access to the equivilent of Eldrich Glaive from 3.5. Something that allows them to make a weapon out of Eldrich energy. Also, they should have the ability to swich damage from that weapon to a type based on thier pact. Like star pact warlocks should be able to do Radiant damage, Infernal do Fire, etc.
New Implement: Tome.
Which was originally a Wizard implement for 4th Ed, but they seemed to have dropped it, along with the Golden Wyvern business that got so many panties in bunches.
But, they might add it back come Arcane Power.
That said, if the new build uses a different stat (which I don't think is horribly unreasonable), the process of elimination would suggest it would be based on Strength or Charisma. Since I don't expect an honest-to-goodness serious melee wizard build or anything like that, or, for that matter, anything else that would really seem a good fit with Strength, my money's on it involving Charisma somehow.
The current Orb of Imposition feature would work very well thematically with Charisma as a basis, but that already exists and uses Wisdom instead. So I don't know what it would be.
It occurs to me (as it does to everyone else, certainly) that the three extant wizard implements all use a different ability score, and that the ability scores in question don't include the class's primary ability score.
That said, if the new build uses a different stat (which I don't think is horribly unreasonable), the process of elimination would suggest it would be based on Strength or Charisma. Since I don't expect an honest-to-goodness serious melee wizard build or anything like that, or, for that matter, anything else that would really seem a good fit with Strength, my money's on it involving Charisma somehow.
The current Orb of Imposition feature would work very well thematically with Charisma as a basis, but that already exists and uses Wisdom instead. So I don't know what it would be.
I think this is why some people think that familiars might end up being implements based off Charisma.
Which was originally a Wizard implement for 4th Ed, but they seemed to have dropped it, along with the Golden Wyvern business that got so many panties in bunches.
But, they might add it back come Arcane Power.
What was that about Golden Wyverns and panties?
What was that about Golden Wyverns and panties?
The whole "schools" thing that was in the early, early teaser data.
I forget the details, but basically, they were going to have something like wizards guilds that focused on certain types of spells, but not like the specialist wizards from previous editions.
Like, a school might be all Orb users, and focus entirely on Lightning damage spells, Teleportation, and Thunder/daze effects.
And yes, I knew about Tomes from before, that's why I picked them for my choice for a new implement. Because I just like the mental image of a mage standing there with a book hovering in front of him as he casts.
Just my idea, although I'd also like to see an option for using a familiar as a spell casting aide (if not an actually implement maybe a feat that allows you to drain the familiar's HP to boost a spell).
Warlocks: Melee build, Dragon Pact, Celestial Pact, Vestige Pact, Primordial Pact, Hexblade Paragon Path.
Swordmage: Eldritch Knight paragon path, Bladesinger Paragon Path, maybe a duskblade paragon path if there is content for it, int/wis build, more self-buffs and debuffs, more sword throwing powers.
Multiclass or Prestige Paragon Paths: Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, Hexblade (if not a straight up warlock paragon path)
I'm getting a mental image of curmudgeonly wizards tossing out/selling/"disenchanting" their old kitty-cat when they find one with more plusses.
Yeah that's why I reconsidered my wish for familiars as implements. Upgrading them like magic items would, at least in my opinion make them feel less like magical companions and more like just another piece of equipment. I'd much rather have a feat in arcane power (in addition to the one that allows one to acquire a familiar) that allows you to drain HP or something similar from a familar in order to buff up a spell. Then you'd need to determine the cost/benefit ratio of leaving your companion vulnerable (and losing whatever bonuses he's giving you, plus the loss of a spy, adviser and friend) and beefing up a spell to strike down your foes. Plus, it's extremely evocative of many fantasy novels and historical texts which depict wizards, warlocks and witches drawing power from their familiars.
More specific Pact weapons for the locks.
Both in terms of Race specific pact weapons, like the pact hammer and pact sword, and Pact specific pact weapons.
Example:
The Fallen Star
The black, meteoric Iron head of this Morningstar radiates a disturbing sense of loss.
Lvl (variable)
+X (variable with level)
Weapon: Morningstar
Enhancement: Attack and Damage Rolls
Critical: +1d6 Damage per plus, or +1d6 Radiant damage if you have the star pact.
Property: You can use this weapon as an implement for Star Pact warlock spells. Add it's enhancement bonus (but not proficiency bonus) to attack and damage rolls with such spells.
Property: When you reduce an enemy under your curse to 0 HP with an attack or power that utilizes The Fallen Star as a weapon or implement, you gain a +1 on any one d20 roll you make before the end of your next turn. This stacks with itself, and with your pact boon, and any other power that stacks with your pact boon.
Things like that.
I'd like to see Wizards get a summoner path, using a system similar to that used for the Bags of Tricks in AV.
Limit them to one Minion per tier of play (1 in heroic, 2 in paragon, 3 in epic), and make the summons all minions, but give them several summoning powers and several buffing powers. And Summon swarm effects, which would function as an area debuff rather than as a creature. Creatures in the Swarm suffer x damage a round and are dazed or something.
And I know they've said they aren't planning on it, but seeing as Arc Powers is only coming out Three Months before Eberron, I'd really like for it to have some Artificer stuff in it. I mean, Adventurer's Vault came out 2 months before Martial Powers is schedueled to, and it contained a small section of items for the animal companions that are going to be in MP. So I don't think a SMALL section of powers (like one build beyond what the EPG will have) would be out of line, Especially since Arcane Powers is going to have Swordmage stuff in it.
My
I know they're including the Swordmage in AP, but here's my thoughts on this. I'm thinking the EPG will dedicate more room to the Artificer than the FRPG did to the Swordmage, because it will be the sole class in the book, whereas the FRPG had to make space for the spellscar multiclass/powers/whatever.
That way, it will essentially get the same amount of options as the others, but even better, all in the same book, instead of two!
I guess it wouldn't be 'out of line' (assuming by 'out of line' you mean 'inappropriate') for a few Artificer powers to show up in Arcane Power, but I bet you twenty bucks here and now they won't. It's just not going to happen.
I know they're including the Swordmage in AP, but here's my thoughts on this. I'm thinking the EPG will dedicate more room to the Artificer than the FRPG did to the Swordmage, because it will be the sole class in the book, whereas the FRPG had to make space for the spellscar multiclass/powers/whatever.
That way, it will essentially get the same amount of options as the others, but even better, all in the same book, instead of two!
Of course the EPG will have to have the artificer, and I would expect the spellscar to be very similar to the Dragonmarks - remember there's about 13 (including aberrant) marks that need to be detailed. With having to include all this, and the lack of info in Arcane Power, I hope that the Eberron Players Guide is larger than the Forgotten Realms one.
I guess it wouldn't be 'out of line' (assuming by 'out of line' you mean 'inappropriate') for a few Artificer powers to show up in Arcane Power, but I bet you twenty bucks here and now they won't. It's just not going to happen.
Considering that we have a developer who stated that the Artificer won't be in Arcane Powe(I believe the reason was that the Artificer wasn't far enough along in development), that is a bet that you would win.
Of course the EPG will have to have the artificer, and I would expect the spellscar to be very similar to the Dragonmarks - remember there's about 13 (including aberrant) marks that need to be detailed. With having to include all this, and the lack of info in Arcane Power, I hope that the Eberron Players Guide is larger than the Forgotten Realms one.
Are you suggesting that possessing a Dragonmark will preclude multiclassing, ala spellscars? That would be a major disappointment to me. I would hope multiclass characters wouldn't be barred from a feature that is iconic to the setting. I mean, I don't even really play multiclass characters that often, but a lot of people do, and I would like that option available for them and myself if I ever chose to do so.
Are you suggesting that possessing a Dragonmark will preclude multiclassing, ala spellscars? That would be a major disappointment to me. I would hope multiclass characters wouldn't be barred from a feature that is iconic to the setting. I mean, I don't even really play multiclass characters that often, but a lot of people do, and I would like that option available for them and myself if I ever chose to do so.
Not at all. I do expect that the spellscar mechanic will be similar to what we will see in Eberron, with perhaps, a Dragonmark Heir multi-class only class.
Basically, anyone can have a dragonmark and get some minor bonuses from it, however to really use it you have to practice, hence the multi-class dragonmark heir. I would expect an Heir of Siberys would be another, seperate, multi-class class.
Some ideas for additional Warlock pacts may include Primordial (CON-based, focused on elemental blasting) and Necro/Vampiric (focused on a mix of necrotic energy, temporary/drained HP, and a few charm skills).
There will probably be a whole bunch of new rituals. There may even be some new cantrips for the wizard (or other classes, depending on if the sorcerer gets his own set). Alternatively or additionally, there may be a wizard multiclass feat that gives cantrips.
Wizards- Firmiliar Impliment, Dagger Impliment.
Warlocks- Demonology Pact, Vesteige Pact. A feat to allow a spellbook and Cantrips
Swordmages- Wisdom baised path. A better spellbook feat, that allows cantrips. A power like elemental Foible that is either an encounter power, or an upgraded version for higher levels.
Artificer- Hard to say what I want with this, or even if it will be in the book. I want a Bane power for my gun ( prefrebly an encounter one), a paragon path like the Renegade Mastermarker, where you make yourself into a cyborg.)
Wouldn't a Demonology pact already fall under the Infernal pact? The Infernal Pact already derives it's powers from the Demons doesn't it?
Now a Primordial pact, that's what we need.
Wizard MC Feat with Impliment mastery as a daily use
yes please
Wizard - feats that play off of implement use and that allow one to get different side effects from certain types of damage. It's a bit strange that the Wizard didn't give some kind of specialization in Wands or Staffs past the basic class features.
Also for wizards, a build that replaces specialization with an implement with the acquisition of a Familiar. The Familiar wouldn't be nearly as interactive as the Ranger's Beast Companion, but it could allow for "channeling" or "bouncing" spells and other such shenanigans.
The big focus of the Wizard would be expanding spells, however.
Warlock - one or two new pacts. A Vestige pact, as mentioned in Races & Classes, would be cool. They'd get a melee At-Will (Soul-Ruin) and have numerous close range (melee or burst) powers. Vestiges would be the remnants of demonic, primordial, and divine spirits stuck between worlds. I'm thinking Con based.
More powers that are generally useful to all Warlocks, regardless of Pact.
Racial/Pact feats. By this I mean niche feats that enhance the pact boon and at-wills that also are restricted by Race. For example, Tiefling/Infernal, Eladrin/Fey, Human/all, Drow/dark, Dwarf/vestige.
Swordmage - New Aegis effects. One that emphasizes control even more (teleport/slide as an interrupt) another that uses twin blade implements. Some bigger hits in the Heroic tier.
Don't know much about the Bard or Sorcerer yet - so no real opinions there.
Having read Martial Power - some things I would like to see:
Wizard - feats that play off of implement use and that allow one to get different side effects from certain types of damage. It's a bit strange that the Wizard didn't give some kind of specialization in Wands or Staffs past the basic class features.
Also for wizards, a build that replaces specialization with an implement with the acquisition of a Familiar. The Familiar wouldn't be nearly as interactive as the Ranger's Beast Companion, but it could allow for "channeling" or "bouncing" spells and other such shenanigans.
The big focus of the Wizard would be expanding spells, however.
Warlock - one or two new pacts. A Vestige pact, as mentioned in Races & Classes, would be cool. They'd get a melee At-Will (Soul-Ruin) and have numerous close range (melee or burst) powers. Vestiges would be the remnants of demonic, primordial, and divine spirits stuck between worlds. I'm thinking Con based.
More powers that are generally useful to all Warlocks, regardless of Pact.
Racial/Pact feats. By this I mean niche feats that enhance the pact boon and at-wills that also are restricted by Race. For example, Tiefling/Infernal, Eladrin/Fey, Human/all, Drow/dark, Dwarf/vestige, Genasi/Primordial.
Swordmage - New Aegis effects. One that emphasizes control even more (teleport/slide as an interrupt) another that uses twin blade implements. Some bigger hits in the Heroic tier.
Don't know much about the Bard or Sorcerer yet - so no real opinions there.
Made a slight edit to your Racial/Pact feats paragraph :P
Wouldn't a Demonology pact already fall under the Infernal pact? The Infernal Pact already derives it's powers from the Demons doesn't it?
Actually it comes from devils not demons. However it can be used to represent a pact with demons
Sorcerer: It's a bit difficult to imagine new "spell sources" for this new class without bumping into another power source or the warlock. Faerie Magic is a possibility (for a more control-oriented sorcerer), but may overlap too much with the Fey Warlock.
Bard: Don't know too much about this one, but they may add a more agility-based build (Virtue of Grace?) or a Jester build (Virtue of Mirth?)
Swordmage: Much like Martial Power added new weapon choices for the Rogue, it's possible they'll do the same for the Swordmage. An Arcane Archer build that focuses on ranged defending may be an idea.
If the wizard is going to be 'fixed' in AP, as seems likely, then it will take up a fair chunk of that book's 160 pages. The warlock and sorcerer, arguably the two most powerful arcane classes, won't need as much expansion of options.
- More non-elemental spells. So for all the classes I would love if they paid attention to creating new Powers that used Keywords that are not elemental.
- Some sort of Class Feature and Powers for any of the classes (well besides Swordmage, for Swordmages a Class Feature/Powers for Spiked Gauntlet) orienting toward Melee Touch spells. It was what I was hoping for with the Sorcerer so now hoping for something in Arcane Power.
additional feats for all classes including the sorcerer coming out in PHB2
more multiclass feats for all arcane classes
A feats requiring paragon multiclassing for each arcane class and allowing a minor class ability (along the lines of First In, Battle Acumen, Battle Instructor and Courageous Shooter in Martial Power).
perhaps feats with different implement options; possibly based on race
familiar options for Wizards
implement options for wizards
additional pact/s for Warlocks, bloodline/s for sorcerer etc
and some additional class related items (such as the Bard's Song Blade)
Titan magic... another str build
Angle magic... another dex build
Angle magic? The magic of arcane Geometry. Implements: Compass and Protractor.
yes...I always liked mathamagicans...
I ment angel...
I'd be interested to see if they include a new implement mastery for wizards because this would presuppose an "equipment" entry to detail said implements, and I'm not sure if the Power books are intended to contain gear.
You may ask, what about celestial warlocks? Shouldn't there be a celestial pact? IMO, no. Part of the warlock's 'feel' is that the beings he makes pacts with are the sort no sensible person approaches. Even the kindest warlock has a sinister edge, because he deals with devils, dark fey and the like.
But a warlock who makes a pact with guardian angels just doesn't seem very 'warlocky'. On the other hand, sorcerers with angelic heritage make sense, and would fit nicely alongside the others.
Whatever happened to summoning armies of the dead to crush your foes underfoot? Draining the vitality of your victims with vicious spells? This is the one caster archtype I miss the most. They don't need to give them their save-or-die spells, but at least bring the undead flavor back!
Well it has been confirmed in D&D XP that there will be Familiars.
Is there a link?
If you listen to the podcast it gets mentioned. It is all about upcoming products.
Wouldn't a Demonology pact already fall under the Infernal pact? The Infernal Pact already derives it's powers from the Demons doesn't it?
Now a Primordial pact, that's what we need.
I think you are very confused. As has already been stated, the infernal pact is make with devils if you stick with RAW. This emphasises their deal making shinanigans.
Furthermore, most primordials ARE demon lords. Many Primordials were killed by the Gods, and most demon lords are corrupted primordials = how many primordials do you think there are? Imix the firelord and is the only primordial I can name that isn't a demon lord.
Hence when I say, a primordial pact = a demon pact.
One word, NECROMANCERS.
Whatever happened to summoning armies of the dead to crush your foes underfoot? Draining the vitality of your victims with vicious spells? This is the one caster archtype I miss the most. They don't need to give them their save-or-die spells, but at least bring the undead flavor back!
I have bad news for you, necromancers will definitely be a class in a shadow power source, so you are waiting another year at least.
Anything but Wizard options that significantly outshine those in the Player's Handbook. If PH Wizards are too weak to compete with our new controllers, buff their at-wills in the errata. The PH Wizard should be competitive with both Wizards built using Arcane Power and the other two controllers. Rendering PH-only Wizards inviable because of intentional power creep would disgust me.
The pretty much admitted that they got the wizard wrong, so why shouldn't they move to correct this mistake in Arcane power? If anything, they should buff at-wills and nerf dalies, because Flaming sphere and stinking cloud are way out of line compared to comeback strike and dread star.
I think a plausible new sorcerer heritage would be angelic. Or something along celestial lines.
You may ask, what about celestial warlocks? Shouldn't there be a celestial pact? IMO, no. Part of the warlock's 'feel' is that the beings he makes pacts with are the sort no sensible person approaches. Even the kindest warlock has a sinister edge, because he deals with devils, dark fey and the like.
But a warlock who makes a pact with guardian angels just doesn't seem very 'warlocky'. On the other hand, sorcerers with angelic heritage make sense, and would fit nicely alongside the others.
Wouldn't somebody who makes a pact with celestial powers be.....a cleric? or paladin? and third edition aside, I always got the feeling the celestial powers weren't known for sleeping around, unlike, say, fey or dragons. heck, in 4e, celestia is just one astral domain, and the servants of gods are these smoky formless humanoids. The whole idea of a half celestial is kinda losing it's meaning.
Furthermore, most primordials ARE demon lords. Many Primordials were killed by the Gods, and most demon lords are corrupted primordials = how many primordials do you think there are? Imix the firelord and is the only primordial I can name that isn't a demon lord.
Considering that primordials are pretty much a completely new concept, it isn't suprising that you can't name too many. However that doesn't mean that none exist which aren't demon lords. There is Mual-Tar, the chained serpant; Huer-Ket; and Blazing Rorn the Fury. I'm pretty sure that there has been a few others mentioned who I am forgetting.
Just because they haven't been mentioned, does not mean that they do not exist. As an example, how many primal spritis did we know about prior to the PHB2 excert from this month? Zero. However that doesn't mean that there are no primal spirits that exist. Likewise, just because we only know a couple of primordials does not mean that all the primordials are now demon lords.
The pretty much admitted that they got the wizard wrong, so why shouldn't they move to correct this mistake in Arcane power?
If a PH class is inviable, it needs to be corrected for people who only have the PH. "You can't play a Wizard--perhaps the most iconic class in the game--without gimping yourself unless you have this particular splatbook" is totally unacceptable. They need some simple fix in the errata that makes them viable.
That would make:
Imix, Ogremoch, Olhydra, Yan-C-Bin, Cryonax, Ben-Hadar, Chan, Sunnis, Zaaman Rul, Ssendam, Ygorl, Chourst, Rennbuu, Akadi, Grumbar, Istishia, Kossuth, Surtr and Thrym as some of Primordials. And I know a couple of them have been mentioned before in 4e.
They need some simple fix in the errata that makes them viable.
They are already viable. No other class in the PHB can replicate what the wizard does, not even close.
The only errata that is needed is that stacking save penalties (possibly any save penalties) need to go away, because they make the wizard too good. Even making the Orb of Imposition a duration 1 round effect would make a difference. If their at-wills are slightly worse than other controllers, that is not a threat to the game or to the viability of the wizard.
They are already viable. No other class in the PHB can replicate what the wizard does, not even close.
The only errata that is needed is that stacking save penalties (possibly any save penalties) need to go away, because they make the wizard too good. Even making the Orb of Imposition a duration 1 round effect would make a difference. If their at-wills are slightly worse than other controllers, that is not a threat to the game or to the viability of the wizard.
one power fiery burst. Seriously awsome at will power.
yes...I always liked mathamagicans...
Or better yet, Calculators. LevelPrimeHoly!
I'd like it to keep the quality of Martial Power, and not be full of crap that hasn't been properly thought-out or playtested.
You mean, like Marked Scourge and Longsword Finesse?
one power fiery burst. Seriously awsome at will power.
As compared to the invoker's Vanguard's Lightning? Not so much.
Or better yet, Calculators. LevelPrimeHoly!
You mean, like Marked Scourge and Longsword Finesse?As compared to the invoker's Vanguard's Lightning? Not so much.
Personally Ive seen wizards do fairly well. That said dont know how they compare to the others as I havent seen them played. I think the cantrips allow for a lot of interesting things even in combat. Ive already seen a wizard use ghost sound to scare a group of enemies into running away. Mage hand used to place a bucket on an enemy guards head. I realize the books say they shouldnt be used in combat but my group at least largley ignores that rule.
They are already viable. No other class in the PHB can replicate what the wizard does, not even close.
The only errata that is needed is that stacking save penalties (possibly any save penalties) need to go away, because they make the wizard too good. Even making the Orb of Imposition a duration 1 round effect would make a difference. If their at-wills are slightly worse than other controllers, that is not a threat to the game or to the viability of the wizard.
I agree that save penalty stacking should be errata'd. For wizards of every other build, however:
You can't have it both ways. Either wizards are gimped enough that they need to be improved, or not. If so, then they need to be improved in Arcane Power and the PH errata. If not, then they ought not to be improved in Arcane power or the PH errata. If wizards' at-wills being weak "is not a threat to the game or to the viability of the wizard," then obviously there is no need for the wizard at-wills in Arcane Power to be any stronger than those in the PH; they should be equally strong so as not to make all the PH at-wills gimped and obsolete. If, on the other hand, the weakness of the wizard's at-wills is "a threat to the game or to the viability of the wizard" then wizard at-wills need to be improved both for people who have Arcane power and for people who have only the PH.
Either way, Arcane Power wizards should not be obviously more powerful than PH wizards. Making a class obviously worse without a splatbook than with it is the very definition of power creep, and it's totally unacceptable.
We won’t reveal too much just yet (and nothing on the new arcane classes still set to release in Player’s Handbook 2), but what might this book offer the current arcane classes? Here’s a small taste:
* Swordmage: new class feature, new build (the ensnaring swordmage, who foils his foes with cun¬ning footwork, entangling spells, and dazzling swordplay), and new powers and paragon paths.
* Warlock: new eldritch pact, new powers and paragon paths (such as the God Fragment and Hellbringer).
* Wizard: new implements, builds, powers, and paragon paths (focusing on specialized techniques such as invisibility and teleportation, or even exploiting random chance.)
I wonder what the new Pact will be, and this also makes me bet that a new Spell Source will be in the works for Sorcerer.
God Fragment could actually be a pact and not a paragon path, in which case it would be the vestige pact.
I suspect the Swordmage path is a Dex path, and that a future Sorcerer path might be a Con path (though what bloodline, I don't know; immortal maybe?)
Nothing in Martial Power added a new secondary attribute, and I'm guessing that will hold true here. So the swordmage will be either be Con, Str, or both. Str swordmages need the most love, so I'm guessing not pure Con. Sorcerer could be either.
As for the new pact, I think they kind of gave it away. The way it's phrased implies that the God Fragment and Hellbringer are paragon paths; the God Fragment screams "Vestige Pact."
Wizard: New implements? Really? That would mean you have to put new items in a "Power" book, which is a no-no. Unless you just say, "here's a new implement mastery feature, you can use it with any dagger we've already printed." Which is possible. Since it says implements, I'm guessing dagger and rod. The only others are totem and holy symbol, which would be silly.
If a PH class is inviable, it needs to be corrected for people who only have the PH. "You can't play a Wizard--perhaps the most iconic class in the game--without gimping yourself unless you have this particular splatbook" is totally unacceptable. They need some simple fix in the errata that makes them viable.
Wizards are viable. He's overselling the comments from WOTC about the wizard's design. The only thing they said was that the wizard wasn't quite as controller-ish as they'd like it to be, and in the course of conversation comparison was made to the newer controllers. The gist of the discussion was that wizards do damage when sometimes they should be inflicting status effects, and an admission was made that Scorching Burst was a hair behind where maybe it should be. The Invoker ranged area burst 1 power was used as a comparison- it does the same damage, but it also does a little damage to the target if the target makes an opportunity attack before the end of your next turn. It is strictly better, but its strictly better by the addition of a small, difficult to use power.
So while something will probably happen in Arcane Power to adjust this, I wouldn't expect any significant disparities in power level. I'd expect feat support to be used, if I had to guess. And meanwhile I'd expect more wizard at wills that do things like "1d8+Int damage, slide 1" or something.
Wizard: New implements? Really? That would mean you have to put new items in a "Power" book, which is a no-no. Unless you just say, "here's a new implement mastery feature, you can use it with any dagger we've already printed." Which is possible. Since it says implements, I'm guessing dagger and rod. The only others are totem and holy symbol, which would be silly.
Tomes. Ampersand has a much larger preview of Arcane Power than what everyone is discussing here. It confirms Tomes.
Tomes. Ampersand has a much larger preview of Arcane Power than what everyone is discussing here. It confirms Tomes.
It confirms Tomes (Int-based, with Con secondary), and Summoning Spells. Woo-hoo! :D
The summons are quite good, IMO.
Woud love to see Vestige Pact warlocks, and got interested by this Ensnaring Swordmage as well.
Nothing in Martial Power added a new secondary attribute, and I'm guessing that will hold true here.
I remember one of the designers mentioning the possibility that new paths/builds would use a new secondary ability score for the class.
And secondly Martial Power shouldn't be used as the determination of what all splatbooks will be like, since one of the new splatbooks will be using "multi-class only classes" which weren't in Martial Power. There's a bunch of things that the designers never thought of when designing Martial Power that shows up in future splatbooks.
And secondly Martial Power shouldn't be used as the determination of what all splatbooks will be like, since one of the new splatbooks will be using "multi-class only classes" which weren't in Martial Power.
You mean, like the Borderlands Marshal in Martial Power?
Tomes. Ampersand has a much larger preview of Arcane Power than what everyone is discussing here. It confirms Tomes.
And once again, WotC has lied to us. Tomes being in Arcane Power means that there will have to be magic items in that book as well. So now we'll have items in 3 series of books--PH, AV, and Power, when we were promised that all material was going to be in one type of source.
WotC has lied to us. Tomes being in Arcane Power means that there will have to be magic items in that book as well. So now we'll have items in 3 series of books--PH, AV, and Power, when we were promised that all material was going to be in one type of source.
how do you know it wont say new tomb items are avaibe in AVII...and in the mean time just follow th + formula
how do you know it wont say new tomb items are avaibe in AVII...and in the mean time just follow th + formula
Because that would **** people off royally.
BTW, I'm not sure where that "promise" was made that the previous poster was referring to. Sure, I've seen statements to the effect that they were trying to limit certain types of info to a smaller number of venues, but no blanket statement of the breadth implied.
Because that would **** people off royally.
.
anything they do will...they are damned if they do damned if they don't
You mean, like the Borderlands Marshal in Martial Power?
And once again, WotC has lied to us. Tomes being in Arcane Power means that there will have to be magic items in that book as well. So now we'll have items in 3 series of books--PH, AV, and Power, when we were promised that all material was going to be in one type of source.
This was inevitable. There's no way to add new implements for wizards that doesn't create this problem.
Following your rules, tomes can't go in the PHBII because that book is four eight classes, none of which use tomes.
They can't go in Arcane Power because then they're not in an Adventurer's Vault book.
And they can't go in Adventurer's Vault because then the Implement Mastery rules would be in the wrong place.
Putting the Tome implements in the same book as the tome implement mastery rules, where that book is especially designed to cater to a list of arcane classes that includes the class that uses Tomes, is about as efficient a solution as is possible.
I mean, other than not creating Tomes. And if your argument boils down to a persnickety reason why we shouldn't have nice things, I don't think its worth much.
I mean, other than not creating Tomes. And if your argument boils down to a persnickety reason why we shouldn't have nice things, I don't think its worth much.
wait...maybe it is the fighter revenge for the wizard penceling in "Fighter can't have nice things" in tthe 3.5 rules...:D
I wouldn't be surprised if the Ensnaring Swordmage build is a Str-based build that actually uses Strength in a meaningful way. Y'know, like Aegis of Assault doesn't.
OMG a reason for str to not be a dump stat...no way...
My inital thought would be that we'd see a Bladesinger PP for the Ensnaring Swordmage that would be kind of like how the Anarch of Shyr and Coronal Guard PPs are for Assault and Shielding Swordmages respectively. Again, this may just be me hoping
You mean, like the Borderlands Marshal in Martial Power?
Like the Spellscarred and the weapon specialist classes in the Gladiator article.
New warlock pacts
- Shadow Pact (necromantic-flavored/Shadowdark-type pact)
Oh I wish! I would settle for Necromancy period :D
New Implement: Tome. With a new Implement specialization for Wizards.
I wonder if I guess the power right as well?
I look forward to seeing how they work.
This was inevitable. There's no way to add new implements for wizards that doesn't create this problem.
Not true. They could give them rods or daggers as implements, because the rules for those as implements already exist (or will by then). Or, if they really loved the idea of times, they could have let invokers use them (which sounds perfectly in line with the invoker's flavor, IMO), thus opening tomes up for other classes (i.e. the wizard) later on.
And once again, WotC has lied to us. Tomes being in Arcane Power means that there will have to be magic items in that book as well. So now we'll have items in 3 series of books--PH, AV, and Power, when we were promised that all material was going to be in one type of source.
Isn't that immaterial? If you release a build for one class in a Power book that depends on a certain item, and only that build has a use for that item, what does it harm you if the item stats are in that Power book?
If you don't buy ArPow, you not using the build, so you don't need the item either.
Does anyone know if they will put the dragon magazine powers into this book? Like the illusionist powers wizards got back in june '08.
As a general principle, they've stated "no reprints from one source to another". I.e. stuff that appears in one book or online magazine won't appear again in another.
But it seems they're willing to make the occasional exception. Warforged will probably be one such.
And I dunno, those illusion spells could use some errata, at the very least. Printing "fixed" versions of them in AP might be possible. But this is just speculation.
I'm getting ready to play an Invoker following a winter deity, but casting fire angels etc. is a bit odd :D
I'd like to see the following:
Energy Substitution - Heroic Tier Feat
Choose an energy type when you select this feat.
Any power you use which has an energy type will have its energy type changed to the chosen type, and therefore all effects the power creates will have the chosen type only.
This feat can be selected multiple times, choosing another energy type each time.
Advanced Energy Substitution - Paragon Tier Feat
Prerequisite: Energy Substitution for the same energy type
Choose an energy type when you select this feat.
When using a power, you decide if the power will have either its own energy type(s), or just the energy type you chose when selecting this feat. Therefore all effects the power creates will have either the chosen type, or its own types, but not both unless the power description already included your chosen type.
This feat can be selected multiple times, choosing another energy type each time, provided you have the required prerequisite feat.
Any thoughts?
Cool hats
Are you insane??? Clearly cool hats are far too powerful for 4e!
Are you insane??? Clearly cool hats are far too powerful for 4e!
The power of Cool Hats alone caused 2 TPKs and 4 nations to fall in my games. You fiend! Do you know what your asking to unleash?!?!