since those first bits of information, i have learned that
(i) the assassin--a shadow power source class--will have a ddi-only build released in connection (association?) with heroes of shadow, but not actually in the book; and
(ii) the hexblade will be a build of the warlock--an arcane power source class.
now, i hear speculation that the necromancer might be a build of the wizard--another arcane power source class.
so, with the assassin build not appearing in the actual book, and the hexblade and possibly the necromancer being builds of arcane classes, where are the new classes of the shadow power source? was i wrong to believe that heroes of shadow will be the shadow power sourcebook? if it won't be, then will we see a shadow power sourcebook?
i am confused.
For heroes who bask in darkness.
The Shadowfell is a cold, grim place through which the spirits of the dead must pass on their way to... wherever. Dark, evil things live there, suffused with the power of shadow. Some mortals in the natural world learn how to tap into this source. Assassins. Necromancers. Hexblades. By all accounts, a ruthless lot. However, not all beings that draw strength from the Shadowfell are vile, blackhearted fiends. A few even dare to call themselves heroes, using the power of darkness to fight darkness. Are they evil? No. Deeply disturbed and hounded by their own dark demons? You bet.
Player's Options Heroes of Shadow focusses on characters that fight evil in ways that make others cringe. In addition to exploring the nature of the shadow power source, this book presents races, classes, feats, powers, and other options aimed at players hungry to play the archetypical antihero with a dark edge.
The above text is straight from the WOTC product catalogue. The way I read it is that this book will enable dark heroes aka batman type characters to be played in 4ed. The line that references blackhearted fiends however to me indicates the book isnt about playing Assassin, Necros etc its about adding the shadow source options to the 'good guys'.
If it is, look for this to fail big time.
Really the only thing is to wait and see with the first preview. Alot of speculation has gone around and no one even knows if the classes are being presented like the PHB1-3 classes or like the essential classes. I'm sure we will see a preview around November or December in the "Month & Beyond Previews" article.
If it is, look for this to fail big time
I dont understand why you would think this will fail ? The way i read it the book fits within the WOTC model that all players are heroes and this book allows you to play a flawed hero. I dont see the fail.
I'll partially agree with ThaX in that saying if the shadow book doesnt actually include any new shadow classes, then the book has kind of failed. It kind of shows WoTC has given up on the power source and is really just making dark themes for classes, even though the shadow has a few very strong archetypes that could stand alone as classes.
But again just because there are no new classes doesn't mean fail in my eyes. I think we are too quick to judge WOTC (and others) and brand things as Fail before we have even seen them. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Shadow options can be used either with existing characters or new characters. I thinks its a different approach by WOTC that offers up a lot of possibilities - after all we already have 20+ classes why do we need more.
. . . after all we already have 20+ classes why do we need more.
i agree that we do have a decent number of classes already; however, the shadow power source is just too compelling of an opportunity to pass up, in my opinion. after a proper bevy of shadow classes, i would be okay if wotc then chose to focus on enhancing and expanding existing classes, such as the coming swordmage int/dex build, the bladesinger (yes, i did go there).
. . . after all we already have 20+ classes why do we need more.
i agree that we do have a decent number of classes already; however, the shadow power source is just too compelling of an opportunity to pass up, in my opinion. after a proper bevy of shadow classes, i would be okay if wotc then chose to focus on enhancing and expanding existing classes, such as the coming swordmage int/dex build, the bladesinger (yes, i did go there).
I dont disagree with you after all its a very valid point. My fear with it would be that if we continue with more classes we end up in a situation where players want to play the latest "cool" class just because and not for the RP element. I just think that adding Shadow to rogue with some neat feats and powers creates an assassin, adding darker powers to a wizard creates a necro - why do we need the classes ?
when i first heard about heroes of shadow, i was under the impression that the book will serve effectively as the shadow power sourcebook. there are references to the hexblade, necromancer and assassin. i presumed that all three of these were classes.
since those first bits of information, i have learned that
(i) the assassin--a shadow power source class--will have a ddi-only build released in connection (association?) with heroes of shadow, but not actually in the book; and
(ii) the hexblade will be a build of the warlock--an arcane power source class.
now, i hear speculation that the necromancer might be a build of the wizard--another arcane power source class.
so, with the assassin build not appearing in the actual book, and the hexblade and possibly the necromancer being builds of arcane classes, where are the new classes of the shadow power source? was i wrong to believe that heroes of shadow will be the shadow power sourcebook? if it won't be, then will we see a shadow power sourcebook?
i am confused.
Where did you get this information? How do you know its true? I'm really curious, cause hexblade doesn't sound like a warlock build, it sound more like it would be a shadowy swordmage. Though I do hope its wrong, I would prefer a necromancer class. I mean we have one shadow power source class why not a couple more.
I dont disagree with you after all its a very valid point. My fear with it would be that if we continue with more classes we end up in a situation where players want to play the latest "cool" class just because and not for the RP element. I just think that adding Shadow to rogue with some neat feats and powers creates an assassin, adding darker powers to a wizard creates a necro - why do we need the classes ?
Each of the power sources is supposed to bring a different thematic element, which can bring unique thematic elements to the class design. I want to see shadow themed feats and powers usable by all classes, and new classes designed to showcase the Shadow power source (And I want to see the Assassin reprinted for all to use so that the class will start to get some decent support rather than being a DDI exclusive aftethought).
It looks like the copy in the catalog has been changed to remove the class names, yet it continues to reference new classes. This tells me that new classes are still in the book, but the names given to the classes originally (like Hexblade, since appropriated by the new Warlock build) were working names only, and release will see different names.
Where did you get this information? How do you know its true? I'm really curious, cause hexblade doesn't sound like a warlock build, it sound more like it would be a shadowy swordmage. Though I do hope its wrong, I would prefer a necromancer class. I mean we have one shadow power source class why not a couple more.
The info on the Assassins comes straight from WotC staff at GenCon and on these boards. Hexblades being a Warlock build comes from Heroes of the Fallen Lands, which lists the names of the builds for the classes in Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, the book the Essentials Warlock will be in.
A sub-class is effectively it's own class, with its own powers and features. The "Fighter" hovering over the slayer just means WotC can have some feats and utility powers that both the Knight and Slayer can share, and perhaps things like paragon paths and such. But make no mistake, they ARE their own distinct classes.
If the Hunter (controller), Slayer (striker), and Sentinel (leader) can have totally different roles than their parent classes (ranger, fighter, and druid respectively) there's no reason why a Necromancer can't have the Shadow origin, even though it's parent class (wizard) is arcane. It might have a totally different role as well... leader, striker, defender... who knows?
Whether this is their new design style for 4e or if it's simply a design choice for this power source will remain to be seen.
The failure here is a failure to adopt the new terminology: there are no "builds" in essentials, there are "sub-classes". IE, the Slayer is not a fighter build, it is a fighter sub-class. This is why it is capable of having a different role than a fighter.
A sub-class is effectively it's own class, with its own powers and features. The "Fighter" hovering over the slayer just means WotC can have some feats and utility powers that both the Knight and Slayer can share, and perhaps things like paragon paths and such. But make no mistake, they ARE their own distinct classes.
If the Hunter (controller), Slayer (striker), and Sentinel (leader) can have totally different roles than their parent classes (ranger, fighter, and druid respectively) there's no reason why a Necromancer can't have the Shadow origin, even though it's parent class (wizard) is arcane. It might have a totally different role as well... leader, striker, defender... who knows?
a very interesting point
The failure here is a failure to adopt the new terminology: there are no "builds" in essentials, there are "sub-classes". IE, the Slayer is not a fighter build, it is a fighter sub-class.
We'll know what Heroes of Shadows will look like after seeing Heroes of the Fallen Lands in a couple weeks. I also think the cover will have the white Essentials style.
Shadow source was probably scheduled for PHB4 and I was looking forward to it, also (more than psionics!). But WotC hit the reset button and launched the Essentials product line, so Heroes of Shadow is what's leftover - and it's so much further out, they might still make changes to it. The Heroes of the Fallen Lands covers four classes and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms covers another four so I think that will be their pace going forward. That's probably a good thing as it will extend the life of 4E.
we need shadow themes
Now that would be full on crunchy goodness !
We'll know what Heroes of Shadows will look like after seeing Heroes of the Fallen Lands in a couple weeks. I also think the cover will have the white Essentials style.
Sadly, no we won't. A few people already have the book (Fallen Lands taht is) as preview copies and have been posting ibfo left and right. It hasn't brought us any closer to understanding what Heroes of Shadow will be like, beyond the info drop about the Hexblade Warlock.
Also where is everyone getting this assumption that all the stuff is gonna be essentials style from now on? The essentials books are clearly labeled as such, and those not part of the essentials line, such as HoS, are not labeled as part of the essentials line.
I dont disagree with you after all its a very valid point. My fear with it would be that if we continue with more classes we end up in a situation where players want to play the latest "cool" class just because and not for the RP element. I just think that adding Shadow to rogue with some neat feats and powers creates an assassin, adding darker powers to a wizard creates a necro - why do we need the classes ?
In addition to being shadow power source, the Necro is defined by use of undead. It needs to be a pet class that attacks through its pets, similar to the shaman. That's so completely unlike a wizard that making it a subclass of wizard is pointless.
These concepts are rich enough to be their own classes. Assassin/shadowdancer/ninja is as distinct from rogue as monk, seeker, ranger, and avenger are. Hexblade/duskblade/blackguard/dark knight is as distinct from fighter as barbarian, warden, and battlemind are, and as distinct from warlock as, well, as anything.
The idea of the entire power source, one rich with concepts and archetypes quite distinct from those of existing classes and power sources, being reduced to a pile of themes and builds for existing classes is just utterly depressing to me. It would be as if the psionic power source were a few themes and an enchanter build for wizard instead of it's own source with it's own feel and its own classes, or if primal were just some variant themes for martial classes. There's still room for classes in this game. It would infuriate me no end if what are, to me, redundant or contrived concepts like seeker and runepriest get to be classes, but more solid archetypes like the dark knight and the necromancer are thoehorned into kits of other classes.
IMO - different power source, different concept, different mechanics = different class. Otherwise Druids, Wizards, Clerics, and Artificers might as well just be 'sub classes' of fighter.
I dont disagree with you after all its a very valid point. My fear with it would be that if we continue with more classes we end up in a situation where players want to play the latest "cool" class just because and not for the RP element. I just think that adding Shadow to rogue with some neat feats and powers creates an assassin, adding darker powers to a wizard creates a necro - why do we need the classes ?
In addition to being shadow power source, the Necro is defined by use of undead. It needs to be a pet class that attacks through its pets, similar to the shaman. That's so completely unlike a wizard that making it a subclass of wizard is pointless.
These concepts are rich enough to be their own classes. Assassin/shadowdancer/ninja is as distinct from rogue as monk, seeker, ranger, and avenger are. Hexblade/duskblade/blackguard/dark knight is as distinct from fighter as barbarian, warden, and battlemind are, and as distinct from warlock as, well, as anything.
The idea of the entire power source, one rich with concepts and archetypes quite distinct from those of existing classes and power sources, being reduced to a pile of themes and builds for existing classes is just utterly depressing to me. It would be as if the psionic power source were a few themes and an enchanter build for wizard instead of it's own source with it's own feel and its own classes, or if primal were just some variant themes for martial classes. There's still room for classes in this game. It would infuriate me no end if what are, to me, redundant or contrived concepts like seeker and runepriest get to be classes, but more solid archetypes like the dark knight and the necromancer are thoehorned into kits of other classes.
IMO - different power source, different concept, different mechanics = different class. Otherwise Druids, Wizards, Clerics, and Artificers might as well just be 'sub classes' of fighter.
Quoted for truth.
Where did you get this information? How do you know its true? I'm really curious, cause "hex"blade doesn't sound like a warlock build, it sound more like it would be a shadowy swordmage.
Notice that one word there. Sounds to me like a Martial Arcanist class.
I dont disagree with you after all its a very valid point. My fear with it would be that if we continue with more classes we end up in a situation where players want to play the latest "cool" class just because and not for the RP element. I just think that adding Shadow to rogue with some neat feats and powers creates an assassin, adding darker powers to a wizard creates a necro - why do we need the classes ?
In addition to being shadow power source, the Necro is defined by use of undead. It needs to be a pet class that attacks through its pets, similar to the shaman. That's so completely unlike a wizard that making it a subclass of wizard is pointless.
These concepts are rich enough to be their own classes. Assassin/shadowdancer/ninja is as distinct from rogue as monk, seeker, ranger, and avenger are. Hexblade/duskblade/blackguard/dark knight is as distinct from fighter as barbarian, warden, and battlemind are, and as distinct from warlock as, well, as anything.
The idea of the entire power source, one rich with concepts and archetypes quite distinct from those of existing classes and power sources, being reduced to a pile of themes and builds for existing classes is just utterly depressing to me. It would be as if the psionic power source were a few themes and an enchanter build for wizard instead of it's own source with it's own feel and its own classes, or if primal were just some variant themes for martial classes. There's still room for classes in this game. It would infuriate me no end if what are, to me, redundant or contrived concepts like seeker and runepriest get to be classes, but more solid archetypes like the dark knight and the necromancer are thoehorned into kits of other classes.
IMO - different power source, different concept, different mechanics = different class. Otherwise Druids, Wizards, Clerics, and Artificers might as well just be 'sub classes' of fighter.
Well if you wanted to get technical you could put all the classes into two Power Sources.
Where did you get this information? How do you know its true? I'm really curious, cause "hex"blade doesn't sound like a warlock build, it sound more like it would be a shadowy swordmage.
Notice that one word there. Sounds to me like a Martial Arcanist class.
That one word has already been defined.
Just as Martial powers are called exploits, and Arcane powers are called spells, according to Dragon 379, Shadow powers are called Hexes.
That being said, since Warlocks access the Arcane via otherwordly pacts, I can see a "Shadow Pact" Warlock being called a Hexblade. I would rather they had left whatever class had the working name "Hexblade" alone, and called the new Warlock build "Shadow Pact Warlock" or "Shadow Warlock," but they wanted to use one word, descriptive names for the Essentials builds, so anything "Pact" or anything "Warlock" was out.
It would have saved some of the worry and confusion over the content of Heroes of Shadow we are now experiencing had they chosen a different name for the HotFK Warlock, though.
That one word has already been defined ... Shadow powers are called Hexes.
Yes, but 'Hexer' is also a warlock PP. 'Hex' might be a defined game term mechanically, but it's still ambiguous on a fluff level, and class/build names are as much fluff as mechanics. 'Hexblade' says 'warlock' just as strongly as it does 'shadow power source'. Assuming a 'hexblade' warlock build must have some ties to the shadow power source would be like assuming the same of MP2's 'shadowy' (Dex/Int) rogue build.
While I agree that the Shadow Power source deserves its own classes and hope that Heroes of Shadow contains actual classes and not builds ...
In addition to being shadow power source, the Necro is defined by use of undead. It needs to be a pet class that attacks through its pets, similar to the shaman.
No, it doesn't. There are plenty of versions of Nercomancers where undead are at best things brought about on the spot like a summoner, or where the Necromancer doesn't even use a "pet" at all - like a spirit talker. Undead pets are not such an intrinsic part of the concept that every build of the class has to have one. Plenty attack through just spells alone.
I could easily see a Necromancer where one build has a pet like the Ranger, one summons undead like a controller, and one doesn't get a pet until Paragon with a PP like Thrallherd, if it bothers to get one at all.
And frankly, that is what I hope for. I do not want to have to be forced into a single vision of the Necromancer. Which is why I do hope that it follows the Essentials path in one respect at least, and provide builds for both primary Controller and primary Leader roles.
Class Acts: Essentials Assassin
www.wizards.com/DnD/TOC.aspx?x=dnd/4new/...Class Acts: Essentials AssassinBy Stephen Schubert
In addition to being shadow power source, the Necro is defined by use of undead. It needs to be a pet class that attacks through its pets, similar to the shaman. That's so completely unlike a wizard that making it a subclass of wizard is pointless.
You might be interested in this thought exercise I came up with a few months back. It's level 1-4 of a theoretical necromancer class balanced with 4e's action economy in mind. It bears alot of similarity to shamans.
www.wizards.com/DnD/TOC.aspx?x=dnd/4new/...Class Acts: Essentials AssassinBy Stephen Schubert
I was kind of hoping for a necromancer playtest. A necromancer class has the potential to mess with the action economy, and thus could use the extra insight from playtest feedback. Now I'm not even sure there's going to be a necromancer class, so I would have liked a playtest just to confirm its existance....
QFT
The failure here is a failure to adopt the new terminology: there are no "builds" in essentials, there are "sub-classes". IE, the Slayer is not a fighter build, it is a fighter sub-class.
We'll know what Heroes of Shadows will look like after seeing Heroes of the Fallen Lands in a couple weeks. I also think the cover will have the white Essentials style.
Shadow source was probably scheduled for PHB4 and I was looking forward to it, also (more than psionics!). But WotC hit the reset button and launched the Essentials product line, so Heroes of Shadow is what's leftover - and it's so much further out, they might still make changes to it. The Heroes of the Fallen Lands covers four classes and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms covers another four so I think that will be their pace going forward. That's probably a good thing as it will extend the life of 4E.
I sincerely hope that Heroes of Shadows is not designed after Essentials, although it probably will be because the price tag of HoS ($19.95) and the trade paperback format is the same price and book layout as essentials from the product description. I say I hope not, because I have a copy of the Heroes of the Fallen Lands. First, I understand essentials being built for new players but I really don't like having their lack of choices in builds for the characters, except for the two variant "builds" of fighter (the slayer adn the Knight). I also use the term build loosely because while some of the design features are honestly interesting they don't feel like builds so much as they do pre-set subdivisions of the greater class. So for example, I would say Mage is a subclass or perhaps alternate version of the Wizard, etc. It definately doesn't have the feel of choice and customization that the standard PHB and various Power books have.
Secondly, and it may seem like I'm being petty but I really do not at all like the digest size format of the Essentials line. I'm willing to pay more money to have a nice hardbound cover of a book like the PHB and various Powers book as opposed to something that makes me feel like I'm reading Manga or a video game code book. Honestly, it wouldn't be so bad if they made the books soft cover but the same size as previous books (I mean if DnD 2E you had the various Complete books like the Complete Fighter, the Complete wizard, etc and while they were soft cover they were sized to match the core books and the same goes for the various splat book of DnD 3, until 3.5 came along and made all the splat books hardcover also which I liked), but to have the books be soft cover and digest size it aesthetically just does not appeal to me.
Also, I must say as someone who was looking forward to PHB 4, which I assume is not coming out any longer, I am saddened I'm getting this digest sized book instead of a good old hardcover book that while have 4 Shadow classes and X amount of expanded other power source classes like the other PHB as opposed to HoS. I think, it is kind of interesting when people say but we already have XX amount of classes, XX amount of feats, etc so why do we need more, it's overkill, etc, because back in 2E when I started people routinely complained about the rules of DnD being too restrictive and not given players enough choices, etc. People stated that I game that gave unlimited choices would be far better than a game that is so restrictive as DnD. Now, Wotc has done that and people start complaining about having too many choices. It seems like DnD can't win no matter what it does. I guess, that is what comes of being the most popular pen and paper RPG. Still, to me complaining about too many choices is like complaining about having too much money because you don't know what to spend it all one. To me it's not a bad problem to have.
At any rate to summarize, I like 4E just fine. I think Essentials is good (I guess) for what it was designed to do namely bringing new players into the fold. I don't want the core books to be designed along the Essentials line however.
Peace,
Fallstorm
So the Essentials product line is meant to be self-conatained and will be aimed at beginners, but its mechanics can be used for complex things aimed at experts, and we still haven't seen anything like what they say they have in store for these targets (us).
@Fallstorm: I remember very well reading a developer's words telling that even if they're going to follow the Essentials new "philosphy" for classes/builds, it doesn't mean they're just going to release simplified classes/builds.
So the Essentials product line is meant to be self-conatained and will be aimed at beginners, but its mechanics can be used for complex things aimed at experts, and we still haven't seen anything like what they say they have in store for these targets (us).
I certainly hope the simplified builds will be self-contained and separate from "mainline DnD" (for lack of a better term). What also concerns me however is the book format of Essentials becoming the standard of DnD. Again, looking at Heroes of Shadow it appears to be designed the same as Essentials in terms of book format and I think for the these digest size trade paperbacks to be the standard format for DnD books would be a shame. Like I said I wouldn't mind soft cover per se as previous editions had soft cover expansion books like the various "Complete" series from 2E, but those products were at least standard gaming book size not digest size, and for the Shadow Power Source to be introduced in this way...if that is what WOTC is doing instead of giving us PHB 4 is a big let down. Just looking at WOTCs product catalog that they currently have posted through FEB 2011 I see nothing for DnD other than novels and game wise various Essentials stuff. This concerns me.
All in all, I have to say while I understand the intent of Essentials and I am not opposed to it, I think Essentials may have created more problems marketing wise for the current game due to all the confusion surrounding it. For example, a lot of existing players are really still not clear on what Essentials is. I know the designers have posted various things on WOTCs website but actually there is a good number of gamers who are not DnD Insider subscribers and don't just dwell on WOTCs website constantly, and even the one who do my miss an article every now and then. I purchased Heroes of the Fallen Lands and brought it to my Friday Night game which currently has 7 players. Over half of us are DnD Insider Subscribers (myself included) and all of us are long time DnD players, and I got to say in all honesty most of the group besides myself really did not know what Essentials was for. Some thought it was "Basic DnD" for new players and that when people graduated to playing "real" DnD or if they were already playing "real " DnD the Essential rules from Fallen lands and Forgotten kingdoms would no longer be applicable much like the rules from the Basic DnD sets vs AD&D from the old days. Some thought Essentials was DnD 4.5. One guy knew what Essentials was but was still confused as to how it fit into current DnD and basically just stated he is waiting until Character Builder is updated to see how Essentials fits into the current DnD game like whether it is an option (like Inherent Bonuses) that can be ignored under preferences or whether they would be core, and finally one guy, who is a DnD Insider subscriber, but doesn't really use the website for anything other than character and encounter builder (because when he isn't gaming he spends his time working his butt off at the business he just opened) had no clue whatsoever about Essentials!
I also, due Wednesday Night Encounters at two local game shops that I switch up going to and at both of those I can honestly saw almost all veteran gamers (none of whom really know each other) are all pretty confused about how Essentials fits in with DnD. Now, I know WOTC designers have posted articles on the website but for whatever reason the message is not getting out and I think that constitutes a marketing failure. Personally, I think a simple paragraph or line in the Heroes of the Fallen Lands books stating what Essentials are and how they fit into existing DnD i.,e ("The Essentias line and the book that you hold in your hands is a game source aim bringing new players into DnD but for existign players here's how essentials fits into the current game...") would have been an obviously simple way to clarify all this up no question;. but for whatever reason I can't fathom I don't see anything like this in The Heroes of the Fallen Land book.
Peace,
Fallstorm