Champions of the Heroic Tier available for pre-order - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Champions of the Heroic Tier available for pre-order

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
mboss77
Nov 10, 2010 19:15:25 Amazon just listed this for pre-order Here

Player's Option: Champions of the Heroic Tier offers a wide array of new options for all characters. Themes allow characters' pasts to play a role in their future. New backgrounds allow players to create hill dwarves and wood elves. An all new take on rituals makes those magical abilities more useful in the heroic tier of play than ever before.

For wizards, warlocks, and other arcane characters, familiars are useful assistants when exploring ancient dungeons. Clerics and paladins gain access to relics, items imbued with the power of the gods. Professions allow characters to dabble in the more mundane side of adventuring life, while the rules for adventuring companies allow groups of heroes to combine their efforts in new ways.

With option-packed page after page, this book is certain to have something for everyone!
#2
darth_singe
Nov 10, 2010 20:31:31 Is this an essentials product?
#3
inarai
Nov 11, 2010 3:45:38
Is this an essentials product?

It is not. There are only 10 of those (And only 5 of them are books): Rules Compendium, HotFK, HotFL, DMK, Monster Vault, 3 tile sets, and I think 1 set each of miniatures and dice.
#4
ranadiel
Nov 11, 2010 3:57:45
Is this an essentials product?

It is not. There are only 10 of those (And only 5 of them are books): Rules Compendium, HotFK, HotFL, DMK, Monster Vault, 3 tile sets, and I think 1 set each of miniatures and dice.

It does however use Essentials design principles and display format for game elements.
#5
inarai
Nov 11, 2010 4:00:54
Is this an essentials product?

It is not. There are only 10 of those (And only 5 of them are books): Rules Compendium, HotFK, HotFL, DMK, Monster Vault, 3 tile sets, and I think 1 set each of miniatures and dice.

It does however use Essentials design principles and display format for game elements.

If by "design principles", you're referring to breaking from the from the previous absolute fixedness (a move which started in the PHB3, not in Essentials), then, probably.

If by "design principles", you mean the various things directly related to the design goals of the Essentials line itself, IE, being "retro" to appeal to lapsed players and simple to appeal to new players, I'm gonna have to challenge that statement.
#6
Relo
Nov 11, 2010 6:36:56 They had me with Themes. Now only hoping for hardcover.
#7
modern_iconoclast
Nov 11, 2010 8:22:51 I wonder too about the format.
I guess we can't really take the picture on Amazon for granted.
Hoping *fingers crossed* for hard covers AND a full-sized book with more than one paragraph per page.
#42
ranadiel
Nov 16, 2010 17:24:26
Which is, according the the devs, a change that would have come without Essentials anyways, they just wrapped a whole bunch of stuff together into the product line in addition to the new builds.

So the fact that they were going to replace everything anyways impacts my statement how? It hardly means that they aren't replacing existing material, and it certainly doesn't increase or decrease the quality of the decision to do so.
#43
inarai
Nov 16, 2010 17:53:46
Which is, according the the devs, a change that would have come without Essentials anyways, they just wrapped a whole bunch of stuff together into the product line in addition to the new builds.

So the fact that they were going to replace everything anyways impacts my statement how? It hardly means that they aren't replacing existing material, and it certainly doesn't increase or decrease the quality of the decision to do so.

How is an identical (with errata!) reprint a replacement? It's the same thing as existed before, or have you not seen the preview of the fighter reprint?

A thing cannot replace itself.
#44
sithlore
Nov 16, 2010 18:46:26 would have like it to come earlier
#45
ranadiel
Nov 17, 2010 5:26:57
How is an identical (with errata!) reprint a replacement? It's the same thing as existed before, or have you not seen the preview of the fighter reprint?

A thing cannot replace itself.

Which is not what you posted above at all. This is certainly a potentially valid argument, but I can't say I really feel like having a drawn out argument over this. I'm sure it will end up becoming one anyways, but all I really want to do is make snippy comments these days...

The 4es weaponmaster is a sub class that is substantially the same as the 4ed fighter class. However they are not same in terms of presentation or even the type of game element that they are(class vs sub-class). The weaponmaster sub-class is the 4ed fighter class modified to fit essential design principles(or would you rather have me call them 4.5 design principles since you seem to dislike me calling them essentials design principles?). In the future the weaponmaster sub-class will be recieving support and not the fighter class.

And it is easy to replace something with soemthing else that is substantially the same.
#46
inarai
Nov 17, 2010 17:13:24
How is an identical (with errata!) reprint a replacement? It's the same thing as existed before, or have you not seen the preview of the fighter reprint?

A thing cannot replace itself.

Which is not what you posted above at all. This is certainly a potentially valid argument, but I can't say I really feel like having a drawn out argument over this. I'm sure it will end up becoming one anyways, but all I really want to do is make snippy comments these days...

The 4es weaponmaster is a sub class that is substantially the same as the 4ed fighter class. However they are not same in terms of presentation or even the type of game element that they are(class vs sub-class). The weaponmaster sub-class is the 4ed fighter class modified to fit essential design principles(or would you rather have me call them 4.5 design principles since you seem to dislike me calling them essentials design principles?). In the future the weaponmaster sub-class will be recieving support and not the fighter class.

And it is easy to replace something with soemthing else that is substantially the same.

The Weaponmaster is the Weapon Talent fighter, directly and completely. It isn't kinda similar, it is the same thing. Sub-class is not a type of game element, simply design speak/useful shorthand. The Weapon Talent/Weapon fighter is two builds to the Fighter class.

And "new design principles" would be the terminology you're looking for, but what I would prefer is that you stop talking about them as if you knew somehow what they were. You don't. None of us do. I have my thoughts on the subject, which I can back up with some reasons, but if you're gonna keep going on about it, I'd expect to see you define what it is you think that means.

As for presentation, that is an aesthetic issue and meaningless for this discussion. So what if they show the same thing in a different way? Doesn't make it a different thing.
#47
ranadiel
Nov 18, 2010 5:16:37
The Weaponmaster is the Weapon Talent fighter, directly and completely. It isn't kinda similar, it is the same thing. Sub-class is not a type of game element, simply design speak/useful shorthand. The Weapon Talent/Weapon fighter is two builds to the Fighter class.

It is design speak used to distinguish it from the existing concept of a build because it is different from a build. If a sub-class was the same thing as a build then there wouldn't be a need for the developers to distinguish it with a different name, even solely as design speak.

And "new design principles" would be the terminology you're looking for, but what I would prefer is that you stop talking about them as if you knew somehow what they were. You don't. None of us do. I have my thoughts on the subject, which I can back up with some reasons, but if you're gonna keep going on about it, I'd expect to see you define what it is you think that means.

.....Sub-classes and item rarity are what I am mostly referring to when I say that. I've said that at least once before. And we have evidence of both continuiong forward.

As for presentation, that is an aesthetic issue and meaningless for this discussion. So what if they show the same thing in a different way? Doesn't make it a different thing.

Except it does because of the way D&D rules work. If there is a single PP or feat that requires a Weaponmaster fighter in order to be taken, then RAW means that a 4ed Fighter cannot take it. Now someone who is aware of what is going on can clearly houserule that away, but not everyone follows the goings on of WotC closely. So someone who doesn't follow too closely(or even at all) would be unaware of the Weaponmaster thing, and such a person could easily pass on the Class Compendium since they already ahve the PHB1. They would then be lost by any future support for the Weaponmaster.
#48
inarai
Nov 18, 2010 5:42:54
The Weaponmaster is the Weapon Talent fighter, directly and completely. It isn't kinda similar, it is the same thing. Sub-class is not a type of game element, simply design speak/useful shorthand. The Weapon Talent/Weapon fighter is two builds to the Fighter class.

It is design speak used to distinguish it from the existing concept of a build because it is different from a build. If a sub-class was the same thing as a build then there wouldn't be a need for the developers to distinguish it with a different name, even solely as design speak.

And "new design principles" would be the terminology you're looking for, but what I would prefer is that you stop talking about them as if you knew somehow what they were. You don't. None of us do. I have my thoughts on the subject, which I can back up with some reasons, but if you're gonna keep going on about it, I'd expect to see you define what it is you think that means.

.....Sub-classes and item rarity are what I am mostly referring to when I say that. I've said that at least once before. And we have evidence of both continuiong forward.

As for presentation, that is an aesthetic issue and meaningless for this discussion. So what if they show the same thing in a different way? Doesn't make it a different thing.

Except it does because of the way D&D rules work. If there is a single PP or feat that requires a Weaponmaster fighter in order to be taken, then RAW means that a 4ed Fighter cannot take it. Now someone who is aware of what is going on can clearly houserule that away, but not everyone follows the goings on of WotC closely. So someone who doesn't follow too closely(or even at all) would be unaware of the Weaponmaster thing, and such a person could easily pass on the Class Compendium since they already ahve the PHB1. They would then be lost by any future support for the Weaponmaster.

1: The considerations of design language are nothing like the considerations of game language - that is what I'm saying. They're different enough that one needs design language to differentiate them to make communication easier, but "sub-class" is not a game term, full stop. Therefore, when your argument hinges upon the idea that it is, you've made a critical error.

2: "Sub-classes" to what extent? A greater degree of variety (which is kinda the point of the new presentation format), or the locked-in builds (which I haven't seen anything to suggest that those will be all we see going forward, probably just expanding the Essentials material for people who want a Winter Sentinel and such; really, the locked in builds seem pretty clearly tied to the specific goals of the Essentials line)? The first I'd agree with; the second seems like a baseless assumption. Rarity, though, you're right about. It is a rather poor way of doing what it does, which is not to say something for that wasn't needed - a general restriction on item access to prevent abuse. Fiat should not be needed to keep the system from being abused, ideally.

3: Yes, someone who misses the book, and (because the change will presumably be in there) doesn't read the errata might miss something depending on the way requirements get written. As is, all the other builds fall into the Weaponmaster except for the E-Builds, because they simply replace Fighter Weapon Talent, a feature of the Weaponmaster. So if they want to keep it to the Guardian and/or Greatweapon fighters, they can use the current language used to do so. If they want to confine it away from the E-Builds, they use the one feature that all the other builds share: Combat Challenge.
#49
Marandahir
Nov 18, 2010 14:22:46 The official language used for these "sub-classes" or "kits" in the CharBuilder is to list them independant of any other class, so for Leader Classes we have Ardent, Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Runepriest, Shaman, Warlord, Warpriest (Cleric). Note that Sentinel (Druid) won't be added until they update the CharBuilder next month with the HotFK data.

But the point here is that they list them as separate classes. Despite this, they've included language saying that they can take any feat or PPath with the name of their class, because they are of that class, but a "version of the class," as in "the version of the Cleric you can build with this book is called the Warpriest." We also know that from the Heroes of Sword and Spell preview that "The Weaponmaster was first printed in the Player's Handbook as the Fighter." From that, we can take that not only can anything with the Fighter prerequisite can be taken by the Warpriest, but Warpriest related feats, PPaths, and EDests can be taken by non-Knight, non-Slayer fighters, because all previous builds of the Fighter are a variety of the Weaponmaster (Fighter). So errata will be printed saying that something like the Bladestorm Duelist, a PPath for Tempest Fighters, will be now have "Weaponmaster, Tempest Technique, class feature, proficiency with rapier."

Furthermore, a caveate in future books will clarify that if you're using Martial Power in conjuction with this book, you should know that the Tempest and Battlerager builds for the Fighter are Weaponmasters, since their build's class feature replaces a Weaponmaster class feature, rather than a Knight or Slayer class feature, and thus they qualify for certain Weaponmaster options like feats or PPaths.
#50
rampant
Nov 18, 2010 14:50:00 Yay for themes!

I dunno what you guys are on about with the weapon master, since it's not even in the book the thread is about.

Champions of heroic tier has more themes, this is a good thing.

#51
Marandahir
Nov 18, 2010 19:04:30 This is true. I realised this, but the tangent had gotten this far anyways. Hence why I said it was in Heroes of Sword and Spell.

In any case, I'm excited for this book even more, since it has plenty of new stuff – Character Themes, Professions, Crafts, etc.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mboss77 Nov 10, 2010 19:15:25	Amazon just listed this for pre-order Here Player's Option: Champions of the Heroic Tier offers a wide array of new options for all characters. Themes allow characters' pasts to play a role in their future. New backgrounds allow players to create hill dwarves and wood elves. An all new take on rituals makes those magical abilities more useful in the heroic tier of play than ever before. For wizards, warlocks, and other arcane characters, familiars are useful assistants when exploring ancient dungeons. Clerics and paladins gain access to relics, items imbued with the power of the gods. Professions allow characters to dabble in the more mundane side of adventuring life, while the rules for adventuring companies allow groups of heroes to combine their efforts in new ways. With option-packed page after page, this book is certain to have something for everyone!
#2 darth_singe Nov 10, 2010 20:31:31	Is this an essentials product?
#3 inarai Nov 11, 2010 3:45:38	Is this an essentials product? It is not. There are only 10 of those (And only 5 of them are books): Rules Compendium, HotFK, HotFL, DMK, Monster Vault, 3 tile sets, and I think 1 set each of miniatures and dice.
#4 ranadiel Nov 11, 2010 3:57:45	Is this an essentials product? It is not. There are only 10 of those (And only 5 of them are books): Rules Compendium, HotFK, HotFL, DMK, Monster Vault, 3 tile sets, and I think 1 set each of miniatures and dice. It does however use Essentials design principles and display format for game elements.
#5 inarai Nov 11, 2010 4:00:54	Is this an essentials product? It is not. There are only 10 of those (And only 5 of them are books): Rules Compendium, HotFK, HotFL, DMK, Monster Vault, 3 tile sets, and I think 1 set each of miniatures and dice. It does however use Essentials design principles and display format for game elements. If by "design principles", you're referring to breaking from the from the previous absolute fixedness (a move which started in the PHB3, not in Essentials), then, probably. If by "design principles", you mean the various things directly related to the design goals of the Essentials line itself, IE, being "retro" to appeal to lapsed players and simple to appeal to new players, I'm gonna have to challenge that statement.
#6 Relo Nov 11, 2010 6:36:56	They had me with Themes. Now only hoping for hardcover.
#7 modern_iconoclast Nov 11, 2010 8:22:51	I wonder too about the format. I guess we can't really take the picture on Amazon for granted. Hoping fingers crossed for hard covers AND a full-sized book with more than one paragraph per page.
#42 ranadiel Nov 16, 2010 17:24:26	Which is, according the the devs, a change that would have come without Essentials anyways, they just wrapped a whole bunch of stuff together into the product line in addition to the new builds. So the fact that they were going to replace everything anyways impacts my statement how? It hardly means that they aren't replacing existing material, and it certainly doesn't increase or decrease the quality of the decision to do so.
#43 inarai Nov 16, 2010 17:53:46	Which is, according the the devs, a change that would have come without Essentials anyways, they just wrapped a whole bunch of stuff together into the product line in addition to the new builds. So the fact that they were going to replace everything anyways impacts my statement how? It hardly means that they aren't replacing existing material, and it certainly doesn't increase or decrease the quality of the decision to do so. How is an identical (with errata!) reprint a replacement? It's the same thing as existed before, or have you not seen the preview of the fighter reprint? A thing cannot replace itself.
#44 sithlore Nov 16, 2010 18:46:26	would have like it to come earlier
#45 ranadiel Nov 17, 2010 5:26:57	How is an identical (with errata!) reprint a replacement? It's the same thing as existed before, or have you not seen the preview of the fighter reprint? A thing cannot replace itself. Which is not what you posted above at all. This is certainly a potentially valid argument, but I can't say I really feel like having a drawn out argument over this. I'm sure it will end up becoming one anyways, but all I really want to do is make snippy comments these days... The 4es weaponmaster is a sub class that is substantially the same as the 4ed fighter class. However they are not same in terms of presentation or even the type of game element that they are(class vs sub-class). The weaponmaster sub-class is the 4ed fighter class modified to fit essential design principles(or would you rather have me call them 4.5 design principles since you seem to dislike me calling them essentials design principles?). In the future the weaponmaster sub-class will be recieving support and not the fighter class. And it is easy to replace something with soemthing else that is substantially the same.
#46 inarai Nov 17, 2010 17:13:24	How is an identical (with errata!) reprint a replacement? It's the same thing as existed before, or have you not seen the preview of the fighter reprint? A thing cannot replace itself. Which is not what you posted above at all. This is certainly a potentially valid argument, but I can't say I really feel like having a drawn out argument over this. I'm sure it will end up becoming one anyways, but all I really want to do is make snippy comments these days... The 4es weaponmaster is a sub class that is substantially the same as the 4ed fighter class. However they are not same in terms of presentation or even the type of game element that they are(class vs sub-class). The weaponmaster sub-class is the 4ed fighter class modified to fit essential design principles(or would you rather have me call them 4.5 design principles since you seem to dislike me calling them essentials design principles?). In the future the weaponmaster sub-class will be recieving support and not the fighter class. And it is easy to replace something with soemthing else that is substantially the same. The Weaponmaster is the Weapon Talent fighter, directly and completely. It isn't kinda similar, it is the same thing. Sub-class is not a type of game element, simply design speak/useful shorthand. The Weapon Talent/Weapon fighter is two builds to the Fighter class. And "new design principles" would be the terminology you're looking for, but what I would prefer is that you stop talking about them as if you knew somehow what they were. You don't. None of us do. I have my thoughts on the subject, which I can back up with some reasons, but if you're gonna keep going on about it, I'd expect to see you define what it is you think that means. As for presentation, that is an aesthetic issue and meaningless for this discussion. So what if they show the same thing in a different way? Doesn't make it a different thing.
#47 ranadiel Nov 18, 2010 5:16:37	The Weaponmaster is the Weapon Talent fighter, directly and completely. It isn't kinda similar, it is the same thing. Sub-class is not a type of game element, simply design speak/useful shorthand. The Weapon Talent/Weapon fighter is two builds to the Fighter class. It is design speak used to distinguish it from the existing concept of a build because it is different from a build. If a sub-class was the same thing as a build then there wouldn't be a need for the developers to distinguish it with a different name, even solely as design speak. And "new design principles" would be the terminology you're looking for, but what I would prefer is that you stop talking about them as if you knew somehow what they were. You don't. None of us do. I have my thoughts on the subject, which I can back up with some reasons, but if you're gonna keep going on about it, I'd expect to see you define what it is you think that means. .....Sub-classes and item rarity are what I am mostly referring to when I say that. I've said that at least once before. And we have evidence of both continuiong forward. As for presentation, that is an aesthetic issue and meaningless for this discussion. So what if they show the same thing in a different way? Doesn't make it a different thing. Except it does because of the way D&D rules work. If there is a single PP or feat that requires a Weaponmaster fighter in order to be taken, then RAW means that a 4ed Fighter cannot take it. Now someone who is aware of what is going on can clearly houserule that away, but not everyone follows the goings on of WotC closely. So someone who doesn't follow too closely(or even at all) would be unaware of the Weaponmaster thing, and such a person could easily pass on the Class Compendium since they already ahve the PHB1. They would then be lost by any future support for the Weaponmaster.
#48 inarai Nov 18, 2010 5:42:54	The Weaponmaster is the Weapon Talent fighter, directly and completely. It isn't kinda similar, it is the same thing. Sub-class is not a type of game element, simply design speak/useful shorthand. The Weapon Talent/Weapon fighter is two builds to the Fighter class. It is design speak used to distinguish it from the existing concept of a build because it is different from a build. If a sub-class was the same thing as a build then there wouldn't be a need for the developers to distinguish it with a different name, even solely as design speak. And "new design principles" would be the terminology you're looking for, but what I would prefer is that you stop talking about them as if you knew somehow what they were. You don't. None of us do. I have my thoughts on the subject, which I can back up with some reasons, but if you're gonna keep going on about it, I'd expect to see you define what it is you think that means. .....Sub-classes and item rarity are what I am mostly referring to when I say that. I've said that at least once before. And we have evidence of both continuiong forward. As for presentation, that is an aesthetic issue and meaningless for this discussion. So what if they show the same thing in a different way? Doesn't make it a different thing. Except it does because of the way D&D rules work. If there is a single PP or feat that requires a Weaponmaster fighter in order to be taken, then RAW means that a 4ed Fighter cannot take it. Now someone who is aware of what is going on can clearly houserule that away, but not everyone follows the goings on of WotC closely. So someone who doesn't follow too closely(or even at all) would be unaware of the Weaponmaster thing, and such a person could easily pass on the Class Compendium since they already ahve the PHB1. They would then be lost by any future support for the Weaponmaster. 1: The considerations of design language are nothing like the considerations of game language - that is what I'm saying. They're different enough that one needs design language to differentiate them to make communication easier, but "sub-class" is not a game term, full stop. Therefore, when your argument hinges upon the idea that it is, you've made a critical error. 2: "Sub-classes" to what extent? A greater degree of variety (which is kinda the point of the new presentation format), or the locked-in builds (which I haven't seen anything to suggest that those will be all we see going forward, probably just expanding the Essentials material for people who want a Winter Sentinel and such; really, the locked in builds seem pretty clearly tied to the specific goals of the Essentials line)? The first I'd agree with; the second seems like a baseless assumption. Rarity, though, you're right about. It is a rather poor way of doing what it does, which is not to say something for that wasn't needed - a general restriction on item access to prevent abuse. Fiat should not be needed to keep the system from being abused, ideally. 3: Yes, someone who misses the book, and (because the change will presumably be in there) doesn't read the errata might miss something depending on the way requirements get written. As is, all the other builds fall into the Weaponmaster except for the E-Builds, because they simply replace Fighter Weapon Talent, a feature of the Weaponmaster. So if they want to keep it to the Guardian and/or Greatweapon fighters, they can use the current language used to do so. If they want to confine it away from the E-Builds, they use the one feature that all the other builds share: Combat Challenge.
#49 Marandahir Nov 18, 2010 14:22:46	The official language used for these "sub-classes" or "kits" in the CharBuilder is to list them independant of any other class, so for Leader Classes we have Ardent, Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Runepriest, Shaman, Warlord, Warpriest (Cleric). Note that Sentinel (Druid) won't be added until they update the CharBuilder next month with the HotFK data. But the point here is that they list them as separate classes. Despite this, they've included language saying that they can take any feat or PPath with the name of their class, because they are of that class, but a "version of the class," as in "the version of the Cleric you can build with this book is called the Warpriest." We also know that from the Heroes of Sword and Spell preview that "The Weaponmaster was first printed in the Player's Handbook as the Fighter." From that, we can take that not only can anything with the Fighter prerequisite can be taken by the Warpriest, but Warpriest related feats, PPaths, and EDests can be taken by non-Knight, non-Slayer fighters, because all previous builds of the Fighter are a variety of the Weaponmaster (Fighter). So errata will be printed saying that something like the Bladestorm Duelist, a PPath for Tempest Fighters, will be now have "Weaponmaster, Tempest Technique, class feature, proficiency with rapier." Furthermore, a caveate in future books will clarify that if you're using Martial Power in conjuction with this book, you should know that the Tempest and Battlerager builds for the Fighter are Weaponmasters, since their build's class feature replaces a Weaponmaster class feature, rather than a Knight or Slayer class feature, and thus they qualify for certain Weaponmaster options like feats or PPaths.
#50 rampant Nov 18, 2010 14:50:00	Yay for themes! I dunno what you guys are on about with the weapon master, since it's not even in the book the thread is about. Champions of heroic tier has more themes, this is a good thing.
#51 Marandahir Nov 18, 2010 19:04:30	This is true. I realised this, but the tangent had gotten this far anyways. Hence why I said it was in Heroes of Sword and Spell. In any case, I'm excited for this book even more, since it has plenty of new stuff – Character Themes, Professions, Crafts, etc.