What I still want.
- Shadow Dancer (most likely renamed, "Ninja" perhaps?)
-- Sorry, but the limited set in the Assassin does not count.
- Soulknife (Might be "mindknife" or "Soulblade")
- Pyrokineticest (Most likely Elemental Power source, but may be Psionic)
- Elocater (This can be reworked to be an air element class)
- Illusionist (Yes, this is still possible)
- Necromancer (Most likely in HoS)
- Transmuter (I think this can be combined with the Psinioc Warrior, possibly an Earth Elemental power source class)
- Bladesinger (Coming in the Neverwinter book)
- Arcance Trickster (Though this can be done with a hybrid class, the possibilities with this far exceed it)
What I don't want...
- Assassin (DDi can keep it)
- Hexblade (Really, do we need this?)
- Horizon Walker (Not really compatible with 4th)
- Blackblade (The removal -thank god- of the alignment restiction of all classes makes the advent of an "evil" Paladin unnecessary.
Thoughts?
So yeah, I still think theres an obvious niche for a 'dark knight' type class with enough conceptual space to more then justify an entire class with multiple builds to itself, whether you want to call it 'Hexblade', 'Duskblade', 'Black Guard', or what have you. The shadow power source and defender role seem the best fits, and the Hexblade name was the most ideal (what with shadow powers being 'hexes'), but now the warlock's eaten the hexblade, and I really don't see a lightly armored arcane striker being able to fill this concept at all. Of course, if the hexblade warlock build randomly uses the shadow power source, uses heavy armor & shields, and makes necrotic weapon attacks that inflict debilitating conditions, maybe I'll consider my request filled. But that seems so completely antithetical to 'warlock' that I somehow doubt the new hexblade will fill the gap.
I'm also dying for a necromancer, and would love for there to be a psionic striker that actually used power points.
So.... Do want:
Necromancer
Dark Knight of some type (Duskblade is probably the best available name now)
Power Point psionic striker (Mindblade / Soulblade probably the best concept)
Maybe some sort of beguiler/spellthief/shadow caster/arcane trickster (but maybe shadow instead), there's not a lot out there for the 'magical trickster' type character atm.
Don't Want:
Pretty much anything else, I think we're pretty covered at the moment, those three excepted. I wouldn't mind some more new builds
re: shadowdancer
In particular, though, I don't want a Shadowdancer. The assassin sucks enough already without pulling two thirds of its guts out to make another class. Especially since those still asking for it seem like they want to play an assassin, they just don't want to write the word 'assassin' on their character sheet. That doesn't seem like enough to justify a class to me.
The assassin already teleports through shadow at will, cloaks himself in shadow practically all the time, and his powers in general feel a lot more 'shadow dancery' and a lot less 'assassiny' anyway. 'Bout the only thing the shadow dancer did that the assassin doesn't is summon shadow monsters. In my mind, that would be better covered by a paragon path designed around animating your own shadow, but I guess if you viewed that as core to the shadow dancer concept it might justify another class, maybe. But if they were going to make a shadow summoner class I'd personally rather see a more magical focus - more of a shadow caster and less of a shadow dancer. but that's just me.
The assassin already teleports through shadow at will, cloaks himself in shadow practically all the time, and his powers in general feel a lot more 'shadow dancery' and a lot less 'assassiny' anyway. 'Bout the only thing the shadow dancer did that the assassin doesn't is summon shadow monsters. In my mind, that would be better covered by a paragon path designed around animating your own shadow, but I guess if you viewed that as core to the shadow dancer concept it might justify another class, maybe. But if they were going to make a shadow summoner class I'd personally rather see a more magical focus - more of a shadow caster and less of a shadow dancer. but that's just me.
- Shadow Dancer (maybe as a build for assasin)
- Soulknife (I kinda like the idea of this beign a theme,)
- Necromancer (Most likely in HoS)
- Bladesinger (Coming in the Neverwinter book)
- A summoner defender
and I really want to see some suprises...something I can't think of on my own but the devs have int eh works...
A knight of darkness would pretty much be fulfilled by a shadow defender, most likely the upcoming hexblade.
What I'd like to see, since Shadow is now a power source, it the equivalent in Fey power. ideas springing to mind include:
Builds: All Fey classes would have similar types of builds, based on the different Fey, Summer, Winter, Spring, Gloaming, etc. dexterity and Intelligence would be in high demand for most of the classes. For all classes, teleportation of self and/or others would not be uncommon. Ki Foci for channeling fey energy for most if not all classes.
Defender: Feyguard would be a good name. Roleplaying-wise, these could be past or present servants of the Fey nobility, or just defending the Feywild in general. They resemble swordmages in that Fey power resembles magic, but theirs is more subtle and integrated in every aspect of their fighting.
Striker: A Twilighter would use the brightness of the Feywild to dazzle their enemies, then use the distraction to escape or disappear. They dance on the line between light and darkness.
Leader: An Enchanter would seem like a hybrid ardent/bard at first, but would have the extra benefit of allowing in a small way for some PCs to use one another's powers. Balanced right, such a class would ROCK.
Controller: A Channeler would specialize in a particular natural force they way a dragonborn has a breath type or a genasi has a soul type. This is the kind of fey power that makes some fey embody aspects of nature. Embodying Earth, for example, would provide benefits to force attacks and forced movement, while also enabling a Channeler to help their allies resist the same. Leader as a secondary role, obviously. Really cool. Imagine your Dwarf Earth Channeler slowly turning to stone as he goes up in levels!
Wow. i should really send these to WotC. Or will they see this post? Hmmm...
And the swift battlemind has pretty much eaten the Elocator.
I'd love to see soulknife as a theme, or a class.
A Dragon shaman (maybe just a build or subclass of shaman)
More multiclass PPs
Arcane already strikes me as pretty elemental already as a power source.
A knight of darkness would pretty much be fulfilled by a shadow defender, most likely the upcoming hexblade.
What I'd like to see, since Shadow is now a power source, it the equivalent in Fey power. ideas springing to mind include:
Builds: All Fey classes would have similar types of builds, based on the different Fey, Summer, Winter, Spring, Gloaming, etc. dexterity and Intelligence would be in high demand for most of the classes. For all classes, teleportation of self and/or others would not be uncommon. Ki Foci for channeling fey energy for most if not all classes.
Defender: Feyguard would be a good name. Roleplaying-wise, these could be past or present servants of the Fey nobility, or just defending the Feywild in general. They resemble swordmages in that Fey power resembles magic, but theirs is more subtle and integrated in every aspect of their fighting.
Striker: A Twilighter would use the brightness of the Feywild to dazzle their enemies, then use the distraction to escape or disappear. They dance on the line between light and darkness.
Leader: An Enchanter would seem like a hybrid ardent/bard at first, but would have the extra benefit of allowing in a small way for some PCs to use one another's powers. Balanced right, such a class would ROCK.
Controller: A Channeler would specialize in a particular natural force they way a dragonborn has a breath type or a genasi has a soul type. This is the kind of fey power that makes some fey embody aspects of nature. Embodying Earth, for example, would provide benefits to force attacks and forced movement, while also enabling a Channeler to help their allies resist the same. Leader as a secondary role, obviously. Really cool. Imagine your Dwarf Earth Channeler slowly turning to stone as he goes up in levels!
Wow. i should really send these to WotC. Or will they see this post? Hmmm...
Arcane is just as Fey as it is Elemental.
What I still want.
- Shadow Dancer (most likely renamed, "Ninja" perhaps?)
-- Sorry, but the limited set in the Assassin does not count.
First off, please don't start another "I want a Ninja" thread. Ninja are unnecessary and could be covered either buy Rogue or Assassin.
Second, there's nothign wrong with the assassin, and he fits in with what the 3e Shadowdancer could do quite nicely, with the exception of summoning a shadow.
- Soulknife (Might be "mindknife" or "Soulblade")
Agreed here. Although it might just be a monk build or monk PP.
- Pyrokineticest (Most likely Elemental Power source, but may be Psionic)
Given that this was a PrC in 3e and never a full class, I think the PP in Psionic Power qualifies nicely. It fits the flavor of the 3e PrC very nicely, including firey aura, flame lash, fire walk, fear no fire, and adding fire damage to all other powers.
- Elocater (This can be reworked to be an air element class)
The Elocater only existed in 3.5 XPH as a PrC, I don't see why this is such a bone of contention for you. A Harrier Battlemind fits this quite nicely anyways. And there's always the Master of Moments ED, which concerns a psionic character with cotrol over time.
- Illusionist (Yes, this is still possible)
....and already done. Illusionist wizard. Also Illusionist Mage in upcoming essentials. That's 2.
- Necromancer (Most likely in HoS)
I reall don't get why everyone wants this. Not many people that I've heard of ACTUALLY played Necromancers in previous editions, unless in an evil game.
- Transmuter (I think this can be combined with the Psinioc Warrior, possibly an Earth Elemental power source class)
Huh? I fail to see the connection between Earth Magic and Transmuting. Whatever...moving on, I don't see Transmutation as signifigantly varied enough to warrant an entire, 30-level class on. Maybe a theme with a few powers for a wizard. Perhaps a PP.
- Bladesinger (Coming in the Neverwinter book)
God, I hope it's just a swordmage build.
- Arcance Trickster (Though this can be done with a hybrid class, the possibilities with this far exceed it)
Done as a rogue PP in Martial Power 2.
A lot of your wishlist has already been done. I take it you do not have psionic power or martial power 2.
I don't see the Soulknife as a build, and PP/ED's are not enough. I want the class.
I do not have the power books as of yet, but what is the PP that resembles the Pyrokineticest named?
I think that floating about like the Elocator is cool.
A few illusions and a bit of trickery does not make a full class. This edition is getting away from the "schools" of magic and more focus is being put on the classes themselves. We do not have "specialized" field of magic anymore, just "builds" for the Wizard. That ain't good enough.
The Necromancer is a really good shadow choice. I never have played on before (a bit dark for my tastes) but working with the Dead shouldn't have to be "evil." I liken the want to having played the class in Diablo II, and imagining the same type of feel for the D&D class.
The Transmuter has a lot of self augmentation, and the possible addition of the pychic warrior set along with some sort of class feature to make it a great Elementail class.
Bladesinger, a build in another class? Why?
Right now, there really isn't a real good way to have a caster be a physical melee combantant without being screwed spellwise. The bladesinger has potential in this regard, but the swordmage is lacking.
Assassin is not published yet, hopefully never. I think the Shadowdancer class is still a viable one, though it doesn't need to be called Ninja and I don't particularly need the shadow companions (I always forget about them).
A lot of people did, even the one PC Shadowdancer I've ever had in a game of mine.
I don't see the Soulknife as a build, and PP/ED's are not enough. I want the class.
Soulknives were not power point users before, why would they be now? They were essentially very similar to the 4e monk, save that they used a weapon they created. There's an assassin PP that creates a shadowblade very smilar to the soulknife as well. I'm not opposed to soulknife class, I just mentioned what I saw as more likely.
I do not have the power books as of yet, but what is the PP that resembles the Pyrokineticest named?
Firestarter, check it out in the compendium.
I think that floating about like the Elocator is cool.
That's still only one PrC from the Expanded Psionics Handbook of 3.5. Very niche. And the HArrier Battlemind moves through time and spoace in a similar fashion.
A few illusions and a bit of trickery does not make a full class. This edition is getting away from the "schools" of magic and more focus is being put on the classes themselves. We do not have "specialized" field of magic anymore, just "builds" for the Wizard. That ain't good enough.
What? Illusionists have ALWAYS just been a wizard build. How is now any different? And the Essentials wizard builds include "Mage" which is focused on schools of magic, one of which being illusion, so that brings back that element of it.
The Necromancer is a really good shadow choice. I never have played on before (a bit dark for my tastes) but working with the Dead shouldn't have to be "evil." I liken the want to having played the class in Diablo II, and imagining the same type of feel for the D&D class.
But a class has to be viable for all alignments right? Justify a LG necromancer.
The Transmuter has a lot of self augmentation, and the possible addition of the pychic warrior set along with some sort of class feature to make it a great Elementail class.
Most Transmuters back in the day didn't self-augment that much, unless they were multiclassed into a more melee-heavy class as well.
Bladesinger, a build in another class? Why?
Because the Bladesinger is pretty much a swordmage. A warrior who uses a sword and magic, blending the two together in a style that is both. Yeah...swordmage. Furthermore, Bladesingers were always, in the past, restricted to those of elven blood.
Right now, there really isn't a real good way to have a caster be a physical melee combantant without being screwed spellwise. The bladesinger has potential in this regard, but the swordmage is lacking.
No, the Bladesinger still ended up being primarily a melee character. He just used magic to augment his swordplay, which is exactly what the swordmage does. How would it be any different?
And yeah, Bladesinger is going to be an Essentials style Swordmage build. It's pretty much guaranteed.
Lawful Good necromancer: Jushemtep is the Court Mage for the Pharoh kotenhomen, he maintains the royal gaurd, the most loyal soldiers in the kingdom's history bound to their mummified remains to serve the living pharoh for eternity. He consults the spirits of the dead in order to help advise the Pharoh, and performed the rituals of mummification on the King's childhood pets in preparation for the day the current pharoh is entombed. He has no designs on the throne and was in fact instrumental in foiling the plot of the elven zealot who sought to destroy the phylacarthies of the sacred oracles who preside over the great library.
I'd like to see a psionic striker who is more "make your brain leak out of your ears" than "Boot to the Head". You can do that to an extent with a Psion, but I'd like an actual striker along those lines.
I agree.
As far as good necromancers go ... just don't animate undead, full stop. Necrotic is not 'negative energy', evil aligned, or anything else like that. Just don't, y'know, make horrible shambling monstrosities that loathe all existence, and you're golden.
Where's this blade singer stuff coming from anyways?
GenCon. There is a NeverWinter campaign guide coming next year (to tie in with the new pc game probably) that is going to include the Bladesinger.
Lawful Good necromancer: Jushemtep is the Court Mage for the Pharoh kotenhomen, he maintains the royal gaurd, the most loyal soldiers in the kingdom's history bound to their mummified remains to serve the living pharoh for eternity. He consults the spirits of the dead in order to help advise the Pharoh, and performed the rituals of mummification on the King's childhood pets in preparation for the day the current pharoh is entombed. He has no designs on the throne and was in fact instrumental in foiling the plot of the elven zealot who sought to destroy the phylacarthies of the sacred oracles who preside over the great library.
I like it, but it's awfully dependent on a culture like the Egyptians (or the Aereanai Elves), those that revere death.
~A psionic striker that uses PP
~A ranged/burst implement Ardent build
~ An Elemental Striker which uses heavy armor
~ An Elemental Leader which DOES NOT use heavy armor OR melee weapons
~ An Elemental Defender that uses implements entirely, perhaps a pet class
~ An Elemental Controller which uses close blasts and bursts and specializes in zones
~ Something to make me care about the Runepriest
~ A cavalry Archer build for the Seeker
~ For the SoulKnife to be a theme or Monk build.
What I don't want
~ Any really narrow niche PrC from 3.5 getting turned into a full class because people can't grasp that "class" in 4thE doesn't mean what it did in 3.x.
~ HEAVY ARMOR MELEE WEAPON LEADERS! Seriously, enough already!
I don't see it as a build, and seeing that both PHB's coming out along with Dark Sun not having any classes, it is more likely that the Bladesinger is one.
Joshen Ranken is an investigator with the Sharn watch. His specialty is forensics, using the minute traces left at a crime scene Joshen's necromancy can identify the players and even take the testimony of the dead. Ok sure a witness from beyond the grave is shaky evidence in court but it often leads to more traditional evidence.
OK how about this?
Joshen Ranken is an investigator with the Sharn watch. His specialty is forensics, using the minute traces left at a crime scene Joshen's necromancy can identify the players and even take the testimony of the dead. Ok sure a witness from beyond the grave is shaky evidence in court but it often leads to more traditional evidence.
I did say I liked the first one, btw, it was very good.
This one isn't too bad, either. I like it. But in 4e Speak With Dead is a ritual anyone can use. What makes him truely a necromancer?
Also, in Eberron, which is built so strongly on magic, I think the testimony of Speak With Dead would stand in court.
You use that guarentee an awful lot. I don't see how this is any more of a lock than your past ones. The Bladesinger being a build? Would it require one to be an elf also? I thought we was past these restrictions.
I don't see it as a build, and seeing that both PHB's coming out along with Dark Sun not having any classes, it is more likely that the Bladesinger is one.
Yeah ... and my past ones were right ...
Bladesinger will not be a class. And no, it won't be restricted to elves. Stop being silly just because you think you're making a point.
I did say I liked the first one, btw, it was very good.
This one isn't too bad, either. I like it. But in 4e Speak With Dead is a ritual anyone can use. What makes him truely a necromancer?
Also, in Eberron, which is built so strongly on magic, I think the testimony of Speak With Dead would stand in court.
Raise Dead is a ritual, but it's also a class ability for Warpriests.
- Incarnum classes
- A pure Summoner ... like a Pokemon Trainer class, not necessarily a Necromancer
- Some more non-stereotypical classes, defenders in light armor, a melee Striker in heavy, a close-range/melee controller.
More Psionic Augmentation classes:
- Soulknife as a Power Point using Psi class
- An empath, an implement-wielding leader
A pure Summoner ... like a Pokemon Trainer class, not necessarily a Necromancer
Beastmaster ranger or Shaman can easily fit the bill I think
defenders in light armor
Swordmage and Warden, Dex secondary fighters/battlemind builds if high enough
a close-range/melee controller
Druid
You use that guarentee an awful lot. I don't see how this is any more of a lock than your past ones. The Bladesinger being a build? Would it require one to be an elf also? I thought we was past these restrictions.
I don't see it as a build, and seeing that both PHB's coming out along with Dark Sun not having any classes, it is more likely that the Bladesinger is one.
It's going to be a sub-build of SOMETHING, either the Bard or the Swordmage. I know this because
Knight- fighter build
Slayer- fighter build
Thief- rogue build
Warpriest- cleric build
Mage- wizard build
Hexblade- warlock build
Executioner- assassin build
Hunter- ranger build
Scout- ranger build
Need I go on? Essentials Classes are new sub-classes of already existing classes.
Also- seconding what Chiba said. Assassins and rogues fill the ninja niche. Ninjas are cool, but they're nothing more than japanese assassins. There was nothing special or unique about them, they killed people for money and the closest thing they have to a code of honor was that they did whatever it took to stay alive. If we're going strictly historical, they weren't even the guys sneaking around with daggers wearing black pajamas. Most importantly, they were ever only populated by Japanese people. Unless WotC releases a Japan or a DefinitelyNotJapanLand setting, there will never be a Ninja class because when most people think Ninja they think "Japanese guy in black pajamas".
As for future classes, possibilities for niches not yet covered may include:
- Necromancer (Shadow Controller): Though the role of the necromancer isn't as set in stone, since Essentials introduced the concept of subclasses. There's the possibility of a necromancer subclass with the Leader role (Acolyte?) or a necromantic Striker focused on offensive attacks instead of summoning.
- Hexblade/Reaper (Shadow Defender): It's not yet clear whether the shadow defender class will retain the name of hexblade, or if it will adopt a new name to avoid conflict with the Warlock subclass.
- Elemental classes: Not sure whether the elemental source is still in the works or not, but the concept of classes devoted to a single element seems like the most likely route which doesn't step on the toes of other classes. The Pyromancer, Aquamancer, Geomancer, and Aeromancer might be subclasses of a single Elementalist class, each with differing class roles (Striker, Leader, Defender, and Controller, respectively).
- Soulblade/Lurk (Psionic Striker): Not sure what direction a power-point striker could go which isn't already covered. There might (alternatively or additionally) be a Controller subclass of the Monk which uses PP and focuses more on ki blast powers.
- Empath/Seer (Psionic Leader): A ranged psionic leader class to supplement the Ardent's melee focus. This class could cover both empaths that don't rely on weapons and diviners who can use their precognitive powers to assist their allies and manipulate time.
I was just pointing out that Lawful good necromancers need not be egyptian based. Unless 4e gives me something to work with I'm not entirely sure how to proceed mechanics wise.
I didn't say it had to be SPECIFICALLY Egyptian, just that the concept was dependent on a culture that reveres death in the same manner as Egyptians.
Aerenai Elves of Eberron, for instance.
A martial light armor defender
The shadow source done with at least one defender and have the defender have a choice between Light and heavy armor builds,Controller and striker.
A ranged build for the fighter and rogue.
More builds for swordmage, artificer, runepreist and seeker.
Now for what I don't want to see
No ninja class it can be done as a build or theme for a rogue or assassain.
No new essentials classes or builds after the 10 releases.
No Shadow leader it would not be the first time a power source did not cover every role.
Another note about LG necromancers. They could have the ability similar to the cleric's channel divinity power of turn undead so that they could control undead. I would be basically a dominate effect vs enemy undead and once the encounter is over, the controlled undead would be dismissed back to their resting places.
I hope they make a Ninja sub-class for something. And Necromancer, and whatever.
- Necromancer (Most likely in HoS)
I reall don't get why everyone wants this. Not many people that I've heard of ACTUALLY played Necromancers in previous editions, unless in an evil game.
Mostly because of bullshit stigmata like this, which is all the more reason to give it another shot in the hopes that 4th almost getting alignment right ("almost" because it still exists) will be a step in the right direction for necromancy.
Don't forget Monks - they also fill the Ninja role as well as Rogues and Assassins.
Heck, just about any class with Stealth* can call itself a Ninja. I'd even include Rangers. Why? This guy.
Hmm, how about a Ninja background? Stealth and Thievery. Go to town.
Don't forget Monks - they also fill the Ninja role as well as Rogues and Assassins.
Heck, just about any class with Stealth can call itself a Ninja. I'd even include Rangers. Why? This guy.
I think there may be room to develop a Ninja as a DS style theme. Although that may be a small package to stuff a lot of tropes in. Perhaps Ninja would be justified in having multiple themes even.
I think there may be room to develop a Ninja as a DS style theme. Although that may be a small package to stuff a lot of tropes in. Perhaps Ninja would be justified in having multiple themes even.
That's really why I don't think we need a ninja class. Depending on who you ask about what a ninja should be, you're going to get everything from historical unpowered guys in black pajamas to orange track-suit wearing Naruto firebreathers with everything in between. You really just can't define Ninja anymore because of all the individual spins that have been put on it. Kind of like how when you say 'wizard', you can think of Merlin, Harry Potter, Dr. Strange, or Dresden.
What people need to do is decouple class names and fluff from character identity. Decide what you want your ninja to do, look at the extant classes, then ignore the class fluff, scratch out the class name, and write 'Ninja' in the space instead.
And yeah, Bladesinger is going to be an Essentials style Swordmage build. It's pretty much guaranteed.
I second this.
It's oddly confusing to me that people keep insisting that it could be a Bard build. The Bard has yet to be introduced to 4Ee; I doubt they'll spit him out in a campaign-specific book.
I want to see a "Witch" class or build. I don't really care how they do it; I just want the name in action.
See my post above. Wicked Witch of the West, Charmed, W.I.T.C.H. ... heck, a warlock is just the male term for witch. It's just a matter of fluff.
More Ranged Casters of all roles. But Strikers and Leaders in particular. There's currently NO pure ranged caster style Leader (everyone has at least one melee beatstick class option) and only two ranged caster Strikers (and one unofficial one in the form of the Genasi Blaster Wizard) and they're both considered a bit underpowered compared to their melee and archer counterparts (oddly enough, the unofficial striker, the Blaster Wizard is considered by some to be the most viable of the three, which says something about their class design). Also at least two more psionic classes would be nice (a power point using striker at the very least)
Classes I don't want:
More eff'n melee beatstick Leaders and Strikers. Also more Psionic classes that consider "Clouding men's minds" to mean stabbing someone in the face with a sword.
See my post above. Wicked Witch of the West, Charmed, W.I.T.C.H. ... heck, a warlock is just the male term for witch. It's just a matter of fluff.
Heyyyyy... it's a "what would you like?" thread. Don't be stompin' on my wishes with re-fluff recipes!
I want to see a "Witch" class or build. I don't really care how they do it; I just want the name in action.
See my post above. Wicked Witch of the West, Charmed, W.I.T.C.H. ... heck, a warlock is just the male term for witch. It's just a matter of fluff.
Warlock is NOT the male term for witch.
You repeatedly spit this out and you KNOW that it everytime causes a fight or debate or WHATEVER
do you lack an education beyond what you're spoonfed by television?????
you have an obsession with wiping fluff to fit concepts to the point of being a TROLL. just stop.
I want to see a "Witch" class or build. I don't really care how they do it; I just want the name in action.
See my post above. Wicked Witch of the West, Charmed, W.I.T.C.H. ... heck, a warlock is just the male term for witch. It's just a matter of fluff.
Warlock is NOT the male term for witch.
You repeatedly spit this out and you KNOW that it everytime causes a fight or debate or WHATEVER
do you lack an education beyond what you're spoonfed by television?????
you have an obsession with wiping fluff to fit concepts to the point of being a TROLL. just stop.
Then please educate me. Thanks in advance.
I want to see a "Witch" class or build. I don't really care how they do it; I just want the name in action.
See my post above. Wicked Witch of the West, Charmed, W.I.T.C.H. ... heck, a warlock is just the male term for witch. It's just a matter of fluff.
Warlock is NOT the male term for witch.
You repeatedly spit this out and you KNOW that it everytime causes a fight or debate or WHATEVER
do you lack an education beyond what you're spoonfed by television?????
you have an obsession with wiping fluff to fit concepts to the point of being a TROLL. just stop.
Then please educate me. Thanks in advance.
wikipedia:
Etymology
The commonly accepted etymology derives warlock from the Old English wǣrloga meaning "oathbreaker" or "deceiver."[2] A derivation from the Old Norse varð-lokkur, "caller of spirits," has also been suggested;[3][4] however, the Oxford English Dictionary considers this etymology inadmissible.[5]
The Oxford English Dictionary also provides the following meanings of the word: Warlock v1 Obs. (ex. dial.) rare, also warloke: To secure (a horse) as with a fetterlock.Warlock v2: To bar against hostile invasion.[6]
Oxford English Dictionary:
Origin:
Old English wǣrloga 'traitor, scoundrel, monster', also 'the Devil', from wǣr 'covenant' + an element related to lēogan 'belie, deny.'From its application to the Devil, the word was transferred in Middle English to a person in league with the devil, and hence a sorcerer. It was chiefly Scots until given wider currency by Sir Walter Scott
I want to see a "Witch" class or build. I don't really care how they do it; I just want the name in action.
See my post above. Wicked Witch of the West, Charmed, W.I.T.C.H. ... heck, a warlock is just the male term for witch. It's just a matter of fluff.
Warlock is NOT the male term for witch.
You repeatedly spit this out and you KNOW that it everytime causes a fight or debate or WHATEVER
do you lack an education beyond what you're spoonfed by television?????
you have an obsession with wiping fluff to fit concepts to the point of being a TROLL. just stop.
Dictionary:
1.
a man who practices the black arts; a male witch; sorcerer.
I want to see a "Witch" class or build. I don't really care how they do it; I just want the name in action.
See my post above. Wicked Witch of the West, Charmed, W.I.T.C.H. ... heck, a warlock is just the male term for witch. It's just a matter of fluff.
Warlock is NOT the male term for witch.
You repeatedly spit this out and you KNOW that it everytime causes a fight or debate or WHATEVER
do you lack an education beyond what you're spoonfed by television?????
you have an obsession with wiping fluff to fit concepts to the point of being a TROLL. just stop.
Dictionary:1.a man who practices the black arts; a male witch; sorcerer.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft
There are the links to the complete articles.
You guys decide, but it seems to me that warlock and witch are pretty much the same. So what if witch is assigned to females and warlock is assigned to males, so long as it's not within the context of D&D.
So, um... yeah. Guess that pretty much sums up why "Witch" probably isn't the best choice of class/build moniker.
Yeah, the butthurt levels can reach internet meme levels.
Wikipedia is composed by people like us (mostly college kids)
obviously if you wrote the article it would read different and convey a totally different thing than if i wrote it
Etymologies are the true roots of meaning. they're the true source
Also, there is a burgeoning faith called Wicca (pagan reconstructionists accounting for the largest religious movement in america of the 90's) that identifies with and applies the word in its root context. they are the users of the term in present day, thus the owners, thus the definers.
it doesn't mean MALE WITCH.
- a power point using psionic striker
- more ranged implement-using psionic casters
- a seer class
- necromancer
- hexblade
- a trap-using class or build (maybe for seeker or ranger)
- I'm open to witch as a class. I've posted this in several threads, but I see it very viable as a Fates/Wyrd Sisters/Raistlin concept: someone so close to death that they can see a person's death and guide allies to realize it. Similarly, they see what a person is fated to do before (or after) death, and can guide allies to victory with cryptic hints. A very viable shadow leader. Also, shadar-kai casters are usually called witches (check Monster Manual).
- I miss the incarnum classes. I'm not sure they have room in 4e. At least, it's a niche class I wouldn't expect until towards the end, but I do want the return of incarnum.
- an archivist type class or caster sub-class of runepriest. Needs to be INT-using, since the class is about secret knowledge of the gods.
- soulknife
- maybe a spellthief or arcane trickster? I'll admit there are ways to do this already, but the exploits of Raz just make this idea too awesome.
Don't want:
- runepriest (too late, I know. But I don't see how studying the language of the gods necessitates training with a hammer. Or not needing to be smart. I also can't tell the builds apart).
- more psionic beatsticks
- more weapon-using leaders
- elemental class as one class per traditional Greek element
- shadowdancer class. Really, is there anything it does that assassin doesn't? They both draw upon shadow magic. They both cloak themselves in darkness to hide. They both summon shadows to strike at you. They both are historically a striker type role. I see nothing, in either fluff or mechanics, that the shadowdancer is supposed to do that the assassin doesn't already do. Now, maybe the assassin could use a couple more mobility powers and a power boost, but it doesn't even seem like the shadow dancer is a new build - just more powers. Likewise the ninja. Somebody tell me what sort of concept the ninja covers that the rogue or assassin does not. As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, people have varying concepts of ninja. As mundane, stealthy assassin, it's a rogue. As magically-enhanced assassin, it's an assassin. The only thing I could see is a bit more of a Batman-esque technology wielder (a la smoke grenades). I could see that - like an artificer, only as a striker. *cough* subclass *cough* I don't know how common an idea it is - I've only seen one ninja movie, and it used that kind of ninja. They also assembled into a buzzsaw-tank thing. It was weird. The only other conceivable difference I see is magical ninja as highly trained, while assassin uses some sort of pact or the like to replace a portion of their soul with the Shadowfell. But I don't see why an assassin can't join an academy to learn the secret of forging this bond.
I'm also going to take a risk and chime in on the debate between Salla and evilprincesssasha. You both came up with sources - some dictionaries define warlock as female witch. Others don't. Here's what we can agree on:
1) Warlock = male witch is a common belief. Whether or not it's historically accurate, it's a common enough conception that a witch class would have to fight against this.
2) But, as cited, outside of D&D, warlock and sorcerer both have a substantial history of meaning evil mage, often of a deal-with-the-devil bent. In D&D terms, the common definition of a sorcerer actually means warlock. So the problem noted in #1 is not insurmountable. As long as the witch occupies a conceptually unique role. Like the deathseer I described.
it doesn't mean MALE WITCH.
Except in common usage...:P
Celt.... Let's see, the Warlock is still Arcane, not Divine - The Githzeria is the only PC Gith race - There are classes in the Heroes of Shadow - Bladesinger is a class.
The Neverwinter book is not an Essentials product.
As far as the Warlock being a "male witch," Has no one ever watched Bewitched? This is a given in that show.
Additional wants/don't wants...
Want.
A water based element class, which would include freezing mechanics.
Don't want...
Any new Power Point using classes, This mechanic is clunky and does not work well with this edition of the game. It should have never been brought back.
I also (along with others) do not like the name "Assassin." Playing a cold hearted murderer is not my cup of tea.
That's what I really want right now. More and more stuff for the assassin that isn't racially tied, but more focused on the class.
Celt.... Let's see, the Warlock is still Arcane, not Divine - The Githzeria is the only PC Gith race - There are classes in the Heroes of Shadow - Bladesinger is a class.
The Neverwinter book is not an Essentials product.
Uh ... what? I have never once said the Warlock should be Divine, or that it is, or that it will become so. I don't even know where you pulled that from. The Githzerai will be joined by their cousins eventually. We don't know that there even are classes in Heroes of Shadow at this point. And an entire Bladesinger class alongside the Swordmage is redundant (just like, oh say the Ninja ...), which is why it won't be a class, but a build instead.
As for Warlock vs Witch - yes, Warlock did not originally mean male witch. And gay did not originally refer to homosexuals. English is a living language, and the meaning of words change, or get added to, over time. So while Warlock did not originally mean male witch, that is a completely valid definition now.
Omnirahk_half-Rahksh... The Assassin has some aspects of the Shadow Dancer, but it lacks in three ways, at will teleportation (for a set amount of distance), Backstab mechanic (Shouds suck), and having the ability to summon a shadow companion. Now, admitingly, I don't really need the shadow hanging around, but a class feature to animate shadows instead, having them do simple things at first and more effecting things in later levels, that would be cool.
I also (along with others) do not like the name "Assassin." Playing a cold hearted murderer is not my cup of tea.
... Huh?
I get the feeling you completely skipped over the Assassin's Shadow Step class feature, which gives them an At-Will Teleportation Power.
And you don't like the name "Assassin." Then don't use it. Call your character a Shadowdancer. I doubt that anyone would really care.
... Huh?
I get the feeling you completely skipped over the Assassin's Shadow Step class feature, which gives them an At-Will Teleportation Power.
And you don't like the name "Assassin." Then don't use it. Call your character a Shadowdancer. I doubt that anyone would really care.
If you haven't guessed already by his constant insistence of a Ninja or Shadowdancer class shows that thaX has difficulties with the idea of renaming classes.
Classes I want:
More Ranged Casters of all roles. But Strikers and Leaders in particular. There's currently NO pure ranged caster style Leader (everyone has at least one melee beatstick class option) and only two ranged caster Strikers (and one unofficial one in the form of the Genasi Blaster Wizard) and they're both considered a bit underpowered compared to their melee and archer counterparts (oddly enough, the unofficial striker, the Blaster Wizard is considered by some to be the most viable of the three, which says something about their class design). Also at least two more psionic classes would be nice (a power point using striker at the very least)
Classes I don't want:
More eff'n melee beatstick Leaders and Strikers. Also more Psionic classes that consider "Clouding men's minds" to mean stabbing someone in the face with a sword.
Umm..re: ranged leaders. You can ABSOLUTELY build a bard who uses a wand and NEVER reaches for a melee weapon. I should know, the only time I evr saw the bard in play was my wife's Gnome Bard, Gidget. She only used wands.
Umm..re: ranged leaders. You can ABSOLUTELY build a bard who uses a wand and NEVER reaches for a melee weapon. I should know, the only time I evr saw the bard in play was my wife's Gnome Bard, Gidget. She only used wands.
You can do the same with archer Bards too - especially once they take the PP that makes the bow an implement.
Same thing can be done with Artificers too.
Even with Primal Hp those guys shouldn't be in melee.
Omnirahk_half-Rahksh... The Assassin has some aspects of the Shadow Dancer, but it lacks in three ways, at will teleportation (for a set amount of distance), Backstab mechanic (Shouds suck), and having the ability to summon a shadow companion. Now, admitingly, I don't really need the shadow hanging around, but a class feature to animate shadows instead, having them do simple things at first and more effecting things in later levels, that would be cool.
I also (along with others) do not like the name "Assassin." Playing a cold hearted murderer is not my cup of tea.
... Huh?
I get the feeling you completely skipped over the Assassin's Shadow Step class feature, which gives them an At-Will Teleportation Power.
And you don't like the name "Assassin." Then don't use it. Call your character a Shadowdancer. I doubt that anyone would really care.
It is conditional, having to be beside a creature and it only goes to three squares (Or four in Paragon, and five in Epic). The class named Assassin it not the Shadow Dancer Replacement.
Omnirahk_half-Rahksh... The Assassin has some aspects of the Shadow Dancer, but it lacks in three ways, at will teleportation (for a set amount of distance), Backstab mechanic (Shouds suck), and having the ability to summon a shadow companion. Now, admitingly, I don't really need the shadow hanging around, but a class feature to animate shadows instead, having them do simple things at first and more effecting things in later levels, that would be cool.
I also (along with others) do not like the name "Assassin." Playing a cold hearted murderer is not my cup of tea.
... Huh?
I get the feeling you completely skipped over the Assassin's Shadow Step class feature, which gives them an At-Will Teleportation Power.
And you don't like the name "Assassin." Then don't use it. Call your character a Shadowdancer. I doubt that anyone would really care.
It is conditional, having to be beside a creature and it only goes to three squares (Or four in Paragon, and five in Epic). The class named Assassin it not the Shadow Dancer Replacement.
If it weren't, it would be useful. Ergo, the class called "assassin" is more accurately your desperately wanted "shadowdancer," period, end of story, good-bye.
Omnirahk_half-Rahksh... The Assassin has some aspects of the Shadow Dancer, but it lacks in three ways, at will teleportation (for a set amount of distance), Backstab mechanic (Shouds suck), and having the ability to summon a shadow companion. Now, admitingly, I don't really need the shadow hanging around, but a class feature to animate shadows instead, having them do simple things at first and more effecting things in later levels, that would be cool.
I also (along with others) do not like the name "Assassin." Playing a cold hearted murderer is not my cup of tea.
Let's address those:
1) At-will teleportation. Assassins get that. It may be a tad limited, but it does that for two reasons: (1) balance and (2) keeping to the fluff of shadow-based teleportation. Both of those reasons would apply just as much to a shadow dancer. Deal with it.
2) A backstab mechanic/shrouds suck. Yeah, everyone knows that. Assassins need to have that fixed. That needs errata, not a new class. If WotC goofs at balancing a class, they should fix the class rather than release a brand new class with identical fluff and role, just for the sake of fixing it. If it needs a drastic overhaul, just note that this updated assassin replaces the old one, which should be removed from game.
3) Shadow manipulation. Have you even read the assassin class? Like half the powers are about animating nearby shadows. They don't count as summoned creatures, but I doubt that WotC will be making a summoning-based striker anytime soon.
4) The name. Try this. Take a character sheet. Make an assassin character. Under class, do this: assassin shadow dancer. Seriously, the name of the class is a metagame concept. Do you really think all fighters identify themselves as fighters? Warriors, knights, soldiers, mercenaries, gladiators, a survivor, a simple man - those are all things they might call themselves. Or how about battlepriests, paladins, and laser clerics? I'm telling you, characters within the game world are going to see a bigger difference between a laser cleric and a battlepriest than battlepriest and a paladin, even though the former are two builds of one class, while the latter are two different classes. Trust me, any inhabitant of the game world would give you a funny look if you try insisting that you need to call one heavily-armored soldier of faith a paladin while the other a cleric on the basis that one does more healing than the other. To them, battlepriest and paladin are paladin, and laser cleric is cleric. What people call you is based more on what you do than what you wrote under class. Apply the same thought to the shadow dancer versus assassin. Do you need two unique classes that are identical except for how they relate to society? That's like insisting you need two rogue classes: one for the cheeky scoundrel and one for the hired killer. Seriously, being the assassin class doesn't mean you have to be a hired killer. Even read the fluff - the key part is the replacing a part of your soul with the Shadowfell to gain the power. Ok, maybe the fluff is a bad example, since it does point out "trained to kill" a few times. But it also notes that your motivation doesn't have to be hired killer - you might be seeking vengeance against a powerful enemy or found yourself with no other choice. And it mentions guilds that trained you - with so many guilds, you could easily be from one with a different sort of perspective. Heck, I'll even throw one out there - PH3 includes a monk paragon path with strong ties to the Shadowfell. Perhaps you studies there or in a similar school, and your training emphasized that bond at the expense of more typical pursuits.
In summary, I'm not convinced. Nothing you want in a shadow dancer isn't already a core part of the assassin.
The thing with the shouds is that it takes up to four rounds to set it up, in which time another striker or the fighter can take the enemy down, leaving four rounds of work wasted. I know what they tried to do, set up a "death strike" type of move, a recall from the previous editions. The PrC had the Assassin do two rounds of study and then perform a Save or Die to the enemy. Can't do that in this edition, so the Shouds took it's place.
Nothing that Wizards would errata would make this better, as it would still have the one a round limit. I don't think that is going away. I would think that most playing the Assassin routinly ignore the shroud mechanic, using other powers and what not. My question, why not give the Assassin the Sneak Attack class feature?
Is there errata for the Assassin at all? I will have to look that up.
The thing with the shouds is that it takes up to four rounds to set it up, in which time another striker or the fighter can take the enemy down, leaving four rounds of work wasted. I know what they tried to do, set up a "death strike" type of move, a recall from the previous editions. The PrC had the Assassin do two rounds of study and then perform a Save or Die to the enemy. Can't do that in this edition, so the Shouds took it's place.
Nothing that Wizards would errata would make this better, as it would still have the one a round limit. I don't think that is going away. I would think that most playing the Assassin routinly ignore the shroud mechanic, using other powers and what not. My question, why not give the Assassin the Sneak Attack class feature?
That's a reasonable solution. Myself, I'm not entirely sure the shroud mechanic doesn't work. You have the option of setting up for a death strike, or you could invoke each round. An let's look at that option:
- heroic tier: +1d6 damage once a round. Perfectly in line with ranger, rogue, and warlock.
- paragon tier: +1d6+3 damage once a round. 1d6 is, on average, 3.5 damage. So 1d6+3 is very close to 2d6, but with less random chance. Again, it's in line with ranger, rogue, and warlock.
- epic tier: +1d6+6 damage once a round. 2d6 averages 7 damage, so 1d6+6 is very close to 3d6 damage. Again, assassin bonus damage is actually pretty close to ranger, rogue, and warlock.
So actually, from how I see it, the shroud mechanic isn't necessarily the problem. It's more a matter of powers that better fit the controller role, like the warlock struggles with. Mind you, this is just a mechanical interpretation, not based on experience. But on paper, the shroud mechanic doesn't seem like it's so bad. It also means that it doesn't seem like a big problem to exchange it for sneak attack as a houserule if you want. Still, I will admit that the calculations do put it ever so slightly behind past heroic tier. The feat brutal shroud helps, but the other classes have a feat that boosts their bonus dice to d8's. So the assassin has a tigher bell curve - less chance of sucky damage rolls, but also less chance of a spectacular roll.
Regarding assassin errata - I didn't mean to imply that there has been errata (I don't know either way). I just mean that giving it errata is a better solution than pretending it doesn't exist.
So, what if, instead of laying down a new shroud, the assassin could use the feature to transfer all available shrouds from one enemy to another? Would that help, or would it be too much, not enough, etc?
....
Um, on topic though, I'd like to see a soulknife as well, though I think it would make a dandy monk build. Also, a martial striker variant (however accomplished) which encourages the use of two handed weapons, and light/no armor. Sorta 'wandering swordsman' style.
If you like anime, think Kenshin. If you don't, think... let's say Kill Bill.
Oh, and something to simulate Fezzik from "The Princess Bride." You know, a big guy who mostly fights unarmed. He would use a lot of grapples and close burst attacks, swingin' stuff around to mess people up.
Aside from that, I don't see a big need for more ranged caster types. Though an Abjurer with a ranged aproach to defending could be interesting.
As long as we're bringing things back, I'd like to see the return of reach-based melee 'control,' too.
Oh, and something to simulate Fezzik from "The Princess Bride." You know, a big guy who mostly fights unarmed. He would use a lot of grapples and close burst attacks, swingin' stuff around to mess people up.
Sounds like you're itchin' to play a Brawler Fighter from Martial Power 2.
Oh, and something to simulate Fezzik from "The Princess Bride." You know, a big guy who mostly fights unarmed. He would use a lot of grapples and close burst attacks, swingin' stuff around to mess people up.
Sounds like you're itchin' to play a Brawler Fighter from Martial Power 2.
There are some Princess Bride builds in the Creative Character Collection from my sig.... I didnt build it but check it out
Also, on the Battlemind front, I don't mind them, but I sure as hell don't want them either. They, just don't seem fun........ seriously, they just don't catch me on the cool class front. Hell, even the Seeker did a better job of that.
Also (again), I think that the Necromancer should be a real class, and I have played one in 3.5. It was fun, but eat up round time like nothing on earth. If they can solve that..... then I'd appreaciate the class.
Mcnancy, I'm curious: what's wrong with the battlemind/what would you want the concept to be?
I can tell you what I don't like about the battlemind's concept as is; there seem to be some contradictions between the theme and mechanics, their powers are to alter their body to make it faster and/or more resilient (Something I think the Warden already takes the cake at) but their fluff tells a different story, the fluff talks about getting inside their enemies head and all this metal stuff. plus the whole being unmatched warriors and super ego powers stuff is weird.
It's a very wishy washy concept.
I would've made them more like Psion; I like how Psion draws on science fiction but still sticks to a fantasy archetype, Jean Grey in a Yogi suit. I would do something like that with Battlemind; give them a archetype similar to Sohei/Samurai but at the same time, maybe draw from thing like The Men Who Stare At Goats
I would also make a build for them that uses full disciplines.
Read the Battleminds section of Psionic Power. It helped me understand a bit more. Read the intro part and all the little sidebars throughout the Battlemind Chapter.
Ok, I can accept that. I'll just point out the contradicting fluff about "using the mind to enhance their bodies" and "getting inside their enemies' heads" really represents the two builds from PH3. What I don't get is how "gets inside their heads" also translates to super speed and special attacks of opportunity.
A samurai flavor would be cool, but that seems like simply a choice during character creation. I'm not so fond of the idea of full disciplines for the battlemind though. I like keeping it unique to the monk.
Honestly, I'm glad to have the battlemind. I've long been waiting to realize a character concept that involved a magical warrior that specialized in illusions and screwing with his foe's head. Before battlemind, that was some theoretical illusionist swordmage (or an assault swordmage with the teleportation reflavored as - you fell for my illusion. Again). Now I can play a quick battlemind.
The concept of a warrior who uses psionic power to slip through space/time to essentially teleport sounds really cool.
To me, the fact that the Battlemind has a bunch of random powers actually enhances that flavor.
The Necromancer is a really good shadow choice. I never have played on before (a bit dark for my tastes) but working with the Dead shouldn't have to be "evil." I liken the want to having played the class in Diablo II, and imagining the same type of feel for the D&D class.
But a class has to be viable for all alignments right? Justify a LG necromancer.
If you are familiar with Eberron, the Araneal elves are ancestor worshipers who transform their anscestors into "good" undead; which IMO was a direct adaptation (and extension) of the Elven Archlich of the Forgotten Realms setting.
This creates a precedent for where "good" undead can enter the equasion.
As to the rest, I can see a LG Necromancer being a protector of the dead; having a lot of powers that summon "willing" spirits to aid them in their endeavors for a short time [encounter powers anyone]; a few channel divinity powers that banish/weaken/harm undead; resurrection magics; gentle repose; etc
This combined with the gamut of archetypal "evil" powers, would make for a very well rounded class, although admittedly a few of these musings cross into cleric territory.
If the concept of "the dead rising to aid a good necromancer" is still hard to wrap your mind around, there are hundreds of literary examples where the dead voluntarily rise from their graves to aid the protagonist/innocents, only to return to their graves shortly thereafter.
There are also hundreds of literary references regarding a dead (or undead) companion who aids a good protagonist (making a case for the good necromancers "pet" monster features).
So yes, with a lot of careful planning and consideration, I can see the potential for a well-balanced Necromancer class, with powers suitable for any alignment (if the fluff is worded correctly), that doesn't step on the toes of any other class.
For example: With a word of power, you summon the souls of the dead to come to your aid, either willingly or by force of will.
There's going to be a necromancer, regardless. Sadly, it's likely to be a wizard build at this point, one based on the summoning mechanics in 4e, making the class a spooky themed repeat of the summoning tome wizard build, rather then a new class in the shadow power source that really explores and expands the concept. But either way, the alignment issue is there for the people who have a problem with it. If the people who don't want a playable necromancer are going to have to deal with one anyway, then I wish we would at least have a full class with its own mechanics that would make the people who actually want a necromancer happy.
In past editions, there were two supernatural power sources - arcane and divine. Any caster class had to call on one of those sources (or, in a few cases, both of them).
This is why the Arcane power source includes pieces from all the others (except Divine and maybe Primal), the other sources used to be lumped into Arcane in prior editions of the game. Now that they have their own existance, casters using those sources should be able to do better than their Arcane counterparts - within the parameters of that power source.
Thus, a Shadow-based necromancer should have an advantage over any wizard when it comes to Necromancy; a Psionic-based enchanter should be able to charm better; and an Elemental-based caster manipulate the Elements better.
What makes a Wizard powerful enough to stand with the others is his versatility. He can draw on powers based on many sources, and even some that may draw on multiple sources.
"I was chased from my home city. They called me perverse. They called me a maniac. They called me vile. They called me a necromancer. Only the last is true. When it came time to defend our city from the orc hordes, the Captain of the Guard led how many people to theirs deaths in our defense? I don't deny the good he did, but think of the family those soldiers left behind. When I defend my friends, the only life I put on the line is my own. My army does not live, and so they cannot die. They have no family to grieve for them. They call my choice evil? How is that so, when I spare more lives than the self-righteous paladin I call a friend?"
I'm getting tired of hearing that "such and such class will just be a build of wizard because that's what it's always been." Under that argument, Paladin should be a Fighter build.
Paladin's been it's own, seperate class for several editions now. Necromancer has not.
It also showed the range of the concept, as you could put together a number of rather different takes on the concept using the Dread Necro (along with the usual customization tools of 3e, including multiclassing and prestige classes).
One of the things I was most excited about in 4e was the idea of spinning some of the more self contained magic user concepts out into their own classes, with power sources, party roles, class features, feats, and powers that centered on their individual focuses, rather then making everything work under the wizard's framework. I'm less then thrilled at the present backslide.
I think the Necromancer is a solid concept for a whole new class, rathor than being pulled back into being a "Specialized" build for the Wizard with a Shadow slap on.
I still want the Illusionist, but that is unlikely.
We ALREADY HAVE ONE.
The Illusionist Wizard is a very good wizard build, and focuses a lot on psychic damage and fooling enemies by creating illusory effects that the target has no choice but to accept as real.
I don't see why we need a full Illusionist Class. I could see an Illusionist build of a Shadow class, but the Illusion archetype has been pretty well filled.
We're not getting it now, but just because there's no room for it doesn't mean that people like ThaX shouldn't be disappointed, just as I'll be disappointed if I find the new HoS book doesn't deliver the necromancer I've been waiting for for two years, but instead drops the lifeless husk of yet another re-flavored wizard at my feet, along with a note saying "sorry, maybe in 5th edition".
Just out of curiosity, why does a necromancer, hex-blade, or assassin need the lawful good test? Alignment really doesn't carry any meaning in 4e, just as long as you aren't a murderous bastard, who kills people just to fuel his army and in the end your actions support the greater good, whether intentionally or not, why does it matter whether it fits into the "Lawful Good" alignment... very few people in life are lawful good. That means, you are selfless, you support the law and follow it because you want to... most people follow laws because if they don't, there are consequences... and very few indeed would offer to help a stranger with something that would potentially threaten their life. Justify a LG necromancer? why? I have better things to do... like go pay some bandits to ransack a village that i then rush in to save and retrieve the gold i payed the bandits and a handsome thank you from the villagers... Eat that you lawful good bastard...
Just because every class is supposed to be every alignment, at least possibly. Divine classes restrict by deity, but not by alignment.
Necromancer: as a young page he witnessed the horrors of battle and how many good men died in the battle of good vs evil, when he watched his master and mentor be murdered at the hands of his own allies, ones that had been raised as soldiers to fight against their former comrades, a seed was planted, why not turn this maccabre weapon back upon those who would dare to use it against the righteous... 10 years later, after much research and a many failed experiments, he has mastered the basics of the necromantic art... enemies that fall in battle rise as his soldiers in his fight against evil... he doesn't have many who trust him, but those who have fought beside him give him respect...
If you want to argue against Necromancer, then justify an enchanter as lawful good, or good in general... How can subjugating peoples minds and making them attack their own allies be justified as lawful good? Any argument for the enchanter applies just as much to the necromancer... you just have to get past the "eewww they play with the dead" part...
I will do my best to help those in need.
I will uphold the law as best I can.
I will never use my magic against the innocent or to defend myself against those who attack me soley out of fear.
You get the picture. Necromancy will always be perceived as sinister, however it is mostly macabre... you don't have to like it... a government can even outlaw it (which would mean for the lawful good necromancer that it is time to move on to bigger and better places)... but then again... poison is generally illegal, and Executioner assassins have that...
Just out of curiosity, why does a necromancer, hex-blade, or assassin need the lawful good test? Alignment really doesn't carry any meaning in 4e, just as long as you aren't a murderous bastard, who kills people just to fuel his army and in the end your actions support the greater good, whether intentionally or not, why does it matter whether it fits into the "Lawful Good" alignment... very few people in life are lawful good. That means, you are selfless, you support the law and follow it because you want to... most people follow laws because if they don't, there are consequences... and very few indeed would offer to help a stranger with something that would potentially threaten their life. Justify a LG necromancer? why? I have better things to do... like go pay some bandits to ransack a village that i then rush in to save and retrieve the gold i payed the bandits and a handsome thank you from the villagers... Eat that you lawful good bastard...
Just because every class is supposed to be every alignment, at least possibly. Divine classes restrict by deity, but not by alignment.
I hate lawful good alignment... I refused to play that particular alignment in previous editions simply because regardless of what class you played, everyone expects you to be as self-righteous as the paladin. I normally played anti-heroes... Generally LE, which was the alignment of my dread necromancer who i miss so dearly... or chaotic neutral...
That said, I still find the idea somewhat distasteful, as I really don't see the NEED for it as being that great. I do, however, recognize that as my opinion, and do not, as some people on these boards do, believe that my opinions are somehow so vital and universal that they are facts. I don't feel the need for a necromancer class, but others do.
And, in an objective sort of way, I'm actually glad to see the ideas that responding to my challenge has incited. There have been at least three very good non-evil necromancer concepts that are unique and distinct. I like that.
Since when did alignment matter in this edition..... Oh yeah it does not and thank god for that, its time to base a class on its abilities not if you can envision a LG one. Lawful good is one of the most unrealistic alignments in D&D. Everything is not so black and white because we all have shades of grey mixed in. I wish alignments reflected real life more.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but D&D alignment is not SUPPOSED to be "realistic". Unlike realistic morality, in D&D Good and Evil are tangible forces that shape the cosmos. Pure Evil and Pure Good exist in D&D because it is fantasy. Now some people like to homebrew a more "sunjective morality" in their games, but the core assumption, and the one the RAW uses, is that Good and Evil are tangible, real forces.
I hate lawful good alignment... I refused to play that particular alignment in previous editions simply because regardless of what class you played, everyone expects you to be as self-righteous as the paladin. I normally played anti-heroes... Generally LE, which was the alignment of my dread necromancer who i miss so dearly... or chaotic neutral...
I've seen Lawful Good characters who did not behave like a stick-in-the-butt paladin. I have seen previous edition PALADINS who didn't act stuffy and self-righteous all the time. Being Lawful Good doesn't have to make one a prick. See Roy Greenhilt from Order of the Stick (www.giantitp.com) for another example of a LG character who does NOT behave that way.
Unfortunately, not every campaign has room for "anti-heroes", I know I don't allow Evil characters in the group unless I'm specifically running an Evil Campaign (which I have done). Evil characters in a Good or Neutral group can be disruptive (they won't always be, but they are more likely to). I also make it clear to players that Chaotic Neutral is not an excuse to be "evil" or commit evil acts and try to shrug it off as "hey, I'm chaotic". For people who behave like that, I suggest they more thouroughly read the CN section of the 3.x handbook, and actually read what it says, not what they WANT it to say.
I've seen Lawful Good characters who did not behave like a stick-in-the-butt paladin. I have seen previous edition PALADINS who didn't act stuffy and self-righteous all the time. Being Lawful Good doesn't have to make one a prick. See Roy Greenhilt from Order of the Stick (www.giantitp.com) for another example of a LG character who does NOT behave that way.
I've seen (and played) these kind of characters, too. But the "alignment rules" of old D&D were often used as an excuse for bad archetypal RP, nothing more. I would even say that those who made the best use of alignments for Rp were those who didn't care about this "moral classification" at all. I've seen LG more often played as "Miko" than "Roy".
As for Lawful good necromancers... It happens that I have a whole organisation of them in my current campaign. Masters of death and corpse animation who protect tombs and living people from evil undeads, guide the recently dead to their fate, and create powerful undead warriors and paladins from voluntary subjects who have a long lasting mission to accomplish...
What seems morally apropriate in "our world" does not have to be in a fantasy world.
(sorry for the random one-piece reference, but it's what i'm watching right now...)
Assassins- They have been around for a long time in D&D. They earned the right to stay. I think the shrouds fit an assassin taking his time to study his target for a killing blow. True it doesnt fit well into party mechanics and they are not great at dealing lots of damage over several rounds in big combats. News flash- they arn't supposed to be! Get in kill your target and get out. Thats their job. Don't like it? Don't play it. Want to make him more effective? multi-class him with rogue and use the shrouds and backstab on a melee basic attack. Kill your target, collect your money, grab a dwarven ale and wait for the next job.
Soulknife- I miss the Soulknife something terrible. The psionics rules have always been difficult. 1st Ed. AD&D they were crazy complex and overpowered. 3/3.5 they were much better but I still didn't care for them. In 4E I really don't care for them. With the Soulknife I didn't have to worry about it. As long as the Soulknife doesn't use power points in 4E I would love to see this class re-done. A stealthy striker that doesn't have to rely on whatever crappy gear he can find to do his job. He needs something dead he makes what he needs by sheer force of will. Whats not to love about that.
I have been playing D&D for 30 years now and can see alot of well made points made in this post. The simple answer to many of the arguments is "if you don't like a class don't play it." My personal opinions on the subject are:
Assassins- They have been around for a long time in D&D. They earned the right to stay. I think the shrouds fit an assassin taking his time to study his target for a killing blow. True it doesnt fit well into party mechanics and they are not great at dealing lots of damage over several rounds in big combats. News flash- they arn't supposed to be! Get in kill your target and get out. Thats their job. Don't like it? Don't play it. Want to make him more effective? multi-class him with rogue and use the shrouds and backstab on a melee basic attack. Kill your target, collect your money, grab a dwarven ale and wait for the next job.
Soulknife- I miss the Soulknife something terrible. The psionics rules have always been difficult. 1st Ed. AD&D they were crazy complex and overpowered. 3/3.5 they were much better but I still didn't care for them. In 4E I really don't care for them. With the Soulknife I didn't have to worry about it. As long as the Soulknife doesn't use power points in 4E I would love to see this class re-done. A stealthy striker that doesn't have to rely on whatever crappy gear he can find to do his job. He needs something dead he makes what he needs by sheer force of will. Whats not to love about that.
the last post in this thread was a good 5 months ago... why would you necro it? (i'm not certain but there are usually rules about rezzing something like this)
*looks through code of condut and then edits* so apparently not.... hm, still, this will likely confuse many until they think to look at the dates
anyway i would still like to see-
A Monster class or two to go with our newly minted vampire class would be nice, Lycanthropes would be wonderful.
The current direction of alignment arguments has been going on for decades. Its all how your group plays it.
One great game comes to mind. The LG paladins ended up being the "bad" guys. Very strict Lawful. Baby born with a birth defect, Kill it for the "good" of the rest of humanity. Break a law be punished very harshly. What your a half elf? Then you must die you impure halfbreed for the good and purity of the human race..... you get the idea. They were doing what they and their diety considered good deeds to better the human race. It was a very interesting twist to the alignments that really changed the game. We ended up being hunted by hordes of paladins just because we did not fit what they considered the norm or didn't follow their strict rules. It didn't really matter how good we were at heart. I realize that most people would consider this LN or LE but a good GM can make it work and still fit with a LG alignment. Kill the deformed baby with mercy and respect, perform last rights so its spirit rests in peace. Kind of hard to explain (and harder to play) but great fun to play if done right. Puts a whole new twist on who the good/bad guys are. We had a great DM that was able to pull it all off.
Remember even in real life some people have very different views on what is good and evil. (Western vs. Middle eastern cultures come to mind) Alot of that is driven by religion so why shouldn't the beliefs in a fantasy world be just as diverse, unique, and sometimes as insane?
I would love to see a leather wearing defender with a secondary role as a striker using one handed weapons. Swashbucker archtype I am looking at you. Also I would like to see some anti hero type classes, classes that do good but are viewed in a bad way. Also please use the pre essentials design for these classes as most essentials types bore the hell out of me.
Mechanically you just described the swordmage. A leather-wearing defender who wields a one-handed sword.
OK then a martial leather wearing one handed weapon defender with primary stats being dex and con and just for reference the swordmage wears no armor at all.
They don't? Well my character is borked then. Funny though, I thought that:
Swordmage
.
.
.
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, Leather
meant that swordmages had leather armor proficiency. But if they don't wear any armor at all then clearly that must be a typo that has gone uncorrected for over two years! Oh the humanity of all the swordmages that have not known that they were actually not proficient with the armor they were wearing! www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0025.html" title="www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0025.html">They should have been running around naked instead!
*Admittedly, most people think of a swashbuckler using just a rapier. Sure, some people might go rapier and dagger like one fighting style, but for those who leave a hand open: remember, unarmed strike is a weapon. So you can technically claim that you're TWFing rapier and fist. And a swashbuckler certainly uses that free hand for all sorts of chandelier-swinging, nose-tweaking mayhem.
Please no essentilas crap I would want it for plain old 4.0 thank you. There other weapons that could be used also I used the swashbuckler as an example but a martial light armor defender with its own mechanics could fill a void that is in the game currently.
But like I said, the fighter already has a light-armored build. And that's old school, not essentials.
That build is not what I am looking for there was another thread sometime ago with just the type of martial light armor defender and it pretty hit it right on the mark. I would like something with completly new powers and abilities not just another fighter.
Do you happen to remember what the name of that class was? I'd like to check it out. See for myself if it feels like a wholly new class and not just a new fighter build. Though I guess for me that just boils down to: is the mark punishment identical to the fighter's? I guess for me that's the difference between a new martial defender and a new fighter build that flips on its head a few of your basic assumptions of a warrior.