Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 rechan Apr 28, 2011 17:20:42	Not sure where to put fan suggestions where you hope the WotC boys see it. But I recently looked through the Essentials and was impressed with the design. Since they introduced new class/role combos within the subclasses, I wanted to toss out an idea: Ranged Divine Striker with Magic. The class's fluff would be along the lines of an Exorcist or Archivist - raw will, divine fury, Church's secret knowledge, and a witch-hunter's ziel. Less control, more single-target pain. Similar to how the Avenger is single-target focused. The powers very well could look like someone crossed an Avenger or Wisdom Cleric with the Infernal Warlock: hard hitting single-target effects, or some sort of damage-adder. An Avenger subclass could do the job - permitting the class to grab Avenger utilities. The same could be said with a Domain-using Cleric focused into a ranged striking role. But I'm not certain - I like the PHB style that grants more flexibility with At Wills/Encounters/Dailies/Utilities, as opposed to the more streamlined and simpler Essentials style; I like Encounter and Dailies. On the other hand, taking inspiration from the Ranger and Rogue's knacks and giving "Lore" or "Occult Knowledge" could be fairly cool additive.
#2 Samrin Apr 28, 2011 17:41:05	Not sure where to put fan suggestions where you hope the WotC boys see it. But I recently looked through the Essentials and was impressed with the design. Since they introduced new class/role combos within the subclasses, I wanted to toss out an idea: Ranged Divine Striker with Magic. The class's fluff would be along the lines of an Exorcist or Archivist - raw will, divine fury, Church's secret knowledge, and a witch-hunter's ziel. Less control, more single-target pain. Similar to how the Avenger is single-target focused. The powers very well could look like someone crossed an Avenger or Wisdom Cleric with the Infernal Warlock: hard hitting single-target effects, or some sort of damage-adder. An Avenger subclass could do the job - permitting the class to grab Avenger utilities. The same could be said with a Domain-using Cleric focused into a ranged striking role. But I'm not certain - I like the PHB style that grants more flexibility with At Wills/Encounters/Dailies/Utilities, as opposed to the more streamlined and simpler Essentials style; I like Encounter and Dailies. On the other hand, taking inspiration from the Ranger and Rogue's knacks and giving "Lore" or "Occult Knowledge" could be fairly cool additive. Sounds more like an Invoker.
#3 rechan Apr 28, 2011 18:20:03	Perhaps, but too much control and not enough damaging effects to fit the bill I'm thinking.  The status effects I'm thinking would more often be ongoing damage, with the occasional dazing or immobilizing, as opposed to the multi-target powers and movement killing powers of the Invoker. Also the fluff would need an adjustment; Invokers have the Prophet vibe, the "Outside the Church" vibe or "Olde Religion". I'm thinking of Exorcists, witch hunters and inquisitors; if the Avenger is the equivalent of a Church wetwork man, then this class would be the Church's sniper that backs him up.
#4 Samrin Apr 28, 2011 19:31:43	Perhaps, but too much control and not enough damaging effects to fit the bill I'm thinking.  The status effects I'm thinking would more often be ongoing damage, with the occasional dazing or immobilizing, as opposed to the multi-target powers and movement killing powers of the Invoker. Also the fluff would need an adjustment; Invokers have the Prophet vibe, the "Outside the Church" vibe or "Olde Religion". I'm thinking of Exorcists, witch hunters and inquisitors; if the Avenger is the equivalent of a Church wetwork man, then this class would be the Church's sniper that backs him up. I still see it as an Invoker build with tweaked fluff.
#5 Marandahir Apr 29, 2011 6:47:49	You can't do that, not in CORE.  Mechanics support flavour.  You can always reflavour classes – say your Invoker is a Church Inquisitor or something; however, this is NOT supported by the core game.  That is as much houseruling as making your own feat.  Invokers, by raw flavour, have a direct line to their deity, rather than being part of a religious organisation.  Therefore, if you have a church Exorcist or Inquisitor, it should be a subclass or build of a different Divine class.  Invokers don't have to be the only Divine Controller.  It's why we can have both Sentinels and Shamans as Primal Leaders, or both Sorcerers and Warlocks as Arcane strikers, or both Thieves and Slayers as Martial Strikers.  They play differently and have a different story.  They just draw on the same Power Source.
#6 Samrin Apr 29, 2011 15:21:01	You can't do that, not in CORE.  Mechanics support flavour.  You can always reflavour classes – say your Invoker is a Church Inquisitor or something; however, this is NOT supported by the core game.  That is as much houseruling as making your own feat.  Invokers, by raw flavour, have a direct line to their deity, rather than being part of a religious organisation.  Therefore, if you have a church Exorcist or Inquisitor, it should be a subclass or build of a different Divine class.  Invokers don't have to be the only Divine Controller.  It's why we can have both Sentinels and Shamans as Primal Leaders, or both Sorcerers and Warlocks as Arcane strikers, or both Thieves and Slayers as Martial Strikers.  They play differently and have a different story.  They just draw on the same Power Source. It is supported, and encouraged by the core game. Flavor is disconnected from mechanics.
#7 Marandahir Apr 30, 2011 1:38:41	I think we'll have to agree to disagree.  Mearls and others have stated that they want the mechanics to reflect the flavour going forward; hence design choices in Essentials and since then.
#8 mrpopstar Apr 30, 2011 17:16:19	Mearls and others have stated that they want the mechanics to reflect the flavour going forward; hence design choices in Essentials and since then. Which is a design decision I wholeheartedly support!
#9 salla May 01, 2011 9:28:14	Mearls and others have stated that they want the mechanics to reflect the flavour going forward; hence design choices in Essentials and since then. Which is a design decision I wholeheartedly support! And I wholeheartedly do NOT.  One of the best things about 4e was the limited fluff.  It made it easier to make the character your own, and didn't waste scads of pages on stuff the player should decide for himself.
#10 bone_naga May 01, 2011 9:36:00	You can't do that, not in CORE.  Mechanics support flavour.  You can always reflavour classes – say your Invoker is a Church Inquisitor or something; however, this is NOT supported by the core game.  That is as much houseruling as making your own feat.  Invokers, by raw flavour, have a direct line to their deity, rather than being part of a religious organisation.  Therefore, if you have a church Exorcist or Inquisitor, it should be a subclass or build of a different Divine class.  Invokers don't have to be the only Divine Controller.  It's why we can have both Sentinels and Shamans as Primal Leaders, or both Sorcerers and Warlocks as Arcane strikers, or both Thieves and Slayers as Martial Strikers.  They play differently and have a different story.  They just draw on the same Power Source. So because the Invoker fluff says they have a direct line to their deity, you couldn't possible have one that is part of the church? WTF? Now if you want a single target striker, ok, let's talk about that on a mechanical basis. You are insisting that you can't possibly change the fluff, even though making an Invoker part of a an organized church in no way, shape, or form implies a change in its mechanics, and that's just ridiculous. And no, that is not the same as making your own feat. One has mechanical consequences, the other does not. Changing the fluff of your class is just part of writing your own character's background, and it's actively encouraged by the core books, so your statement about not being able to do this in core is false.
#11 mrpopstar May 01, 2011 15:54:49	Mearls and others have stated that they want the mechanics to reflect the flavour going forward; hence design choices in Essentials and since then. Which is a design decision I wholeheartedly support! And I wholeheartedly do NOT.  One of the best things about 4e was the limited fluff.  It made it easier to make the character your own, and didn't waste scads of pages on stuff the player should decide for himself. (I literally had you in mind as i typed my earlier reply. Haha!) The "access-for-all/cherry-pick and re-flavor" design mess that was the new dawn of 4E created a slop of unintended synergy, infinite loop ridiculousness, and characters that little resembled cohesive development. We were promised a cutting-edge re-imagining of an unwieldy system that would inspire new blood to pick up the game, and we very quickly were working with a mechanic that presented far too many options for character generation and power-level manipulation. When the mechanics reflect flavor, we get interesting character classes that do things unique unto themselves, which makes selection rich and meaningful, and nurtures a game where design anticipates play; which reinforces the mechanic and opens space that would otherwise result in redundancy if explored. Really, all builds were starting to look the same anyway. There were obvious choices to be made at key points during development and every X build of Y class had the same feats and power choices as a matter of obviousness and/or necessity. Shifting to a design philosophy that instead predetermines key points as a means of more solidly building upon intended capability, frees up design space, lifts a heavy load off of adventure building, and prepares for longer life of the edition. Each build will have more meaningful and unique ways of impacting the game through clever mechanics that support the story of the character beyond the numbers, which 4E has struggled to capture from the beginning. The game has been all about numbers for the short life of this edition, and I like that R&D is working to emphasize what the numbers represent in terms of engaging storytelling.
#12 Marandahir May 01, 2011 17:06:48	^ mrpopstar has just said pretty much everything I wanted to say here, in a far more eloquent manner.
#13 salla May 02, 2011 0:19:06	The game is only about numbers if you choose to make it about numbers. The mechanics representing flavor is nothing more than limiting to a lot of players, who will take it as canon/set in stone and not realize that they can ignore it.  It's also a total waste of paper; Heroes of Shadow could likely have been half the size and contained every bit of pertinent information.  Rather than saying 'this is how it is', I feel at most they should say 'here's some ideas as to how it could be, but decide for yourself'. How does mechanics reflecting flavor make classes do things 'unique unto themselves'?  It means every player who plays the same class will likely make it the same, where freedom to flavor makes that character unique to the player.
#14 Duskweaver May 02, 2011 2:26:04	*Shrugs* I just plain will not play a "roleplaying game" where I'm told outright that, for example, my character has to sing just because he's a member of the 'bard' class, or that he has to be a member of an order of knighthood just because I wanted to try out the mechanics of the cavalier or knight subclasses, or that she has to be a tree-hugging hippy just because I wanted to play a character with an animal companion, or who can shapeshift into an animal form. But I think people are probably misunderstanding what Mearls was talking about. I really don't think "mechanics refecting flavour" was intended to mean "turning the default flavour of classes into a mechanical straightjacket", or to imply that reflavouring was the same as houseruling. Reflavouring has always been encouraged in 4e, even since Mearls took over. So, I think Salla is worrying unnecessarily, while Marandahir and MrPopstar are employing a large quantity of wishful thinking.
#15 celticmutt May 02, 2011 2:37:10	Fluff sells.  Simple as that.  Books with more fluff always sell more than books with just mechanics.
#16 Marandahir May 02, 2011 10:08:55	Nah, I guess what I'm saying is that the established flavour is what, in the end, meaningfully distinguishes classes like Invokers and Wizards.  The two could easily be reflavoured into one another (is Gandalf a Wizard or an Invoker?  Tough question, ESPECIALLY when the Invoker was built as the Gandalf class, according to the official D&D podcast that came out just before Divine Power).  I'm not saying you're locked into that flavour.  But from now on, we're seeing flavour reasons mechanics are done one way or another.  They said that Hexblades had a repeating encounter power, and an at-will tied to their weapon, because they wanted the mechanics of the subclass to reflect that you use a pact weapon.  Sentinels have one of their encounter powers built into their beast companion's actions.  You don't have to sing as a Bard, and I bet you won't, even if they make an Essentials+ Bard.  But you might have to do some sort of inspiring performance, unless you really rework the flavour and the mechanics.  Invoker flavour is that you are a direct line to the deity; that you were invested by your God, not by some priestly or knightly order, unlike the other 3 classes (Runepriests aside).  Warpriests and Templars share the Cleric flavour of investiture by priestly orders, and Blackguards, Cavaliers, and O-Paladins share the Paladin flavour of investiture by knightly orders (though O-Paladins differ in that they serve a particular deity first, while Blackguards and Cavaliers devote themselves to principles first).  All I'm saying is that the established flavour of the Invoker class does not lend itself to having a WotC-sanction subclass or build that is a Grand Church Inquisitor or Exorcist.  It's fine to reflavour the class as that.  But such a story concept would fit better as a build or subclass of Avenger.
#17 P1NBACK May 02, 2011 12:34:13	Ummm. Play a Warlock. Reflavor your pact with a god. The end.
#18 salla May 02, 2011 14:36:44	But you might have to do some sort of inspiring performance, unless you really rework the flavour and the mechanics.  That should not be an issue.  We should be presented the mechanics and then how we choose to envision it is up to us.  I have a 'bard' who is a trickster mage.  He does not sing, perform, dance, or anything of the sort.  He casts spells, just like a wizard, that's it, because that's how I want to portray him. Which is how it should be. Warlock Pact?  Fluff.  Invoker tie to god?  Fluff.  Shadow classes 'replacing part of soul with Shadowfell' thing?  Fluff.  If that's not how you want it to work, that's not how it works.  I can't see why someone would want to limit the players' creative freedom.
#19 Marandahir May 02, 2011 14:55:26	Sure.  But classes should ALSO INFORM STANDARD FLAVOUR, not just be a tool box to build the class.  Otherwise, you might as well strip away the class name, the names and blurbs on the powers, and any flavour at all about the class.  The flavour is what invites players to play the class, because they want to be cool and do cool things that are associated with that class's story.  You be a trickster mage Bard too.  I'm sorry, my example was a bit off there.  Bards are artists, and trickery can be an art of it's own.  But the point stands.  Nobody's trying to restrict creative freedom.  But freedom can be dull and undesireable if you don't have some purpose to it.  Sure, you can reflavour the class as you want, because you already have an idea of what you can do with the class concept.  But most players need the classes to inspire their ideas of what to play.  And so flavour comes before mechanics in class design.
#20 salla May 02, 2011 14:58:22	Sure.  But classes should ALSO INFORM STANDARD FLAVOUR, not just be a tool box to build the class. I disagree.  A class should absolutely just be a toolkit.  It should be incumbent on the player to take those tools and create something with it.
#21 Marandahir May 02, 2011 15:21:13	For an advanced, high-level player like you.  Your toolbox argument is great!  But only for players who have a complete handle of the system, and know exactly what they want. However, most players wouldn't play the game if there was no flavour at all.  The flavour is what inspires them.  If you made the classes a series of toolboxes, I doubt you'd get any new players at all.
#22 Garthanos May 02, 2011 23:41:10	For an advanced, high-level player like you.  Your toolbox argument is great!  But only for players who have a complete handle of the system, and know exactly what they want. However, most players wouldn't play the game if there was no flavour at all.  The flavour is what inspires them.  If you made the classes a series of toolboxes, I doubt you'd get any new players at all. Thats just why hybriding isnt the default technique (... or something similar.)  That is also why things do have default flavor....  And that is why unlike in 3x you can build a perfectly reasonable single class character and chose default build options without being a nerf cadet. But many of the same things that act as a functioning class for one person is the basis of anothers tool kilt - which is why the decault is only a default