Release date is the 19th right for normal stores, and the 8th for flag stores right? Well I just asked my flag store if they got any word on this product, and they stated their system said it got pushed back to the 30th. Has anyone else heard this?
Well, they told us they'd have all the HoS content ready in the OCB on HoS's release date. Of course, nothing stops them from pushing back HoS's release date to accommodate that promise...
it would suck if true but ill live
Sounds like your store has a problem with its distributor.
I have seen it in 2 stores here locally.
Sounds like your store has a problem with its distributor.
This is what I was hoping to hear. Thanks. I have several stores to choose from. If that one doesn't have it, I'll just go to another then. Thanks for replying
Whats a flag store and are there any in south England?
It's a major store or something. It gets a lot of business. It's not a really a label or anything for a store. Can be rephrased as - my dominant, super supreme store in Central Atlanta, Georgia.
Whats a flag store and are there any in south England?
It's a major store or something. It gets a lot of business. It's not a really a label or anything for a store. Can be rephrased as - my dominant, super supreme store in Central Atlanta, Georgia.
A Premier Store is a store that sells a lot of WotC stuff and there for gets to sell the new releases a few weeks early. A FLGS is a Friendly Local Game Store, and yes, I know you have them in England. I went to several when I lived there...;)
A game store in my town got the book, but Barnes & Noble shows it not out till like the end of the month I think, which I thought was ridiculous. Oh well, it is what is, I'm not even buying the book anyway.
Premier stores (i.e. mostly game stores), get it early.
Otherwise, it's comming out on the 19th.
That is not disturbing, its great, means we have one less essentials product to deal with!
The 10 product essentials line has already run its course. HoS is a D&D product (with material for the essentials format and material usable by the original format).
That is not disturbing, its great, means we have one less essentials product to deal with!
People actually do like Essentials you know.
A lot of people like 4th to but we get less material than essentials. They said 10 products then they were going back to the regular 4th edition design now they change there minds and those of us that have played 4th since launch and don't like or use essentials are just getting screwed. Is that really fare to us the fans of the true 4th edition?
A lot of people like 4th to but we get less material than essentials. They said 10 products then they were going back to the regular 4th edition design now they change there minds and those of us that have played 4th since launch and don't like or use essentials are just getting screwed. Is that really fare to us the fans of the true 4th edition?
Less material? Seriously? Because from where I am, pre-Essentials has a good two and a half years of material, and Essentials has what, 6 months worth? Oh yeah, you're totally right, you have so much less material.
Essentials is getting the priority right now because *gasp!* IT HAS LESS MATERIAL.
A lot of people like 4th to but we get less material than essentials. They said 10 products then they were going back to the regular 4th edition design now they change there minds and those of us that have played 4th since launch and don't like or use essentials are just getting screwed. Is that really fare to us the fans of the true 4th edition?
Seriously? I've seen it quoted I don't know how many times - one of those product spotlight interviews, the developers said, "Essentials is this line of 10 products, however, it will inform our design philosophy from here on out." You may not like it, but they never lied to us: they told us this is what they were going to do. People keep quoting it - why do some people insist that WotC lied about the length of Essentials?
So does that mean those of us who don't use essentials and have supported D&D for the last 2plus years are getting srcewed.If WOTC does not think that this will hurt there already crappy bottem line I can tell you it will as more people play 4th edition than essentials with 4th edition if the forums here and on other sites are any indication. I for one will not buy a product that I cannot use at least 50% of the material. HOS is almost useless to you unless you play essentials. I hope this book is a huge flop just to show WOTC how dumb they are being at the moment.
Except if its a flop they won't see that. They'll see that D&D is failing and cut the budget for it or turn it into video games and board games...
I for one will not buy a product that I cannot use at least 50% of the material. HOS is almost useless to you unless you play essentials.
Here's all the stuff in HoS you can't use without owning HotFL/HotFK:
- Warpriest Death domain features (but the powers are all usable);
- Devout Warpriest paragon path powers and features for the Death domain;
- Hexblade Gloom pact powers and features;
- Legendary Hexblade paragon path powers and features for the Gloom pact;
- The wizard's Summon Shadow Servant spell;
- Mage school features for the Necromancy and Nethermancy schools;
- Enigmatic Mage paragon path powers and features for the Necromancy and Nethermancy schools.
That's it. Comes to a grand total of 10 pages' worth of material. Out of a 160 page book. Literally everything on the other 150 pages is absolutely 100% usable even if you've never even seen the Essentials books.
If 50%+ usability is your buying criterion, then you should definitely buy this book.
I for one will not buy a product that I cannot use at least 50% of the material. HOS is almost useless to you unless you play essentials.
Here's all the stuff in HoS you can't use without owning HotFL/HotFK:
- Warpriest Death domain features (but the powers are all usable);
- Devout Warpriest paragon path powers and features for the Death domain;
- Hexblade Gloom pact powers and features;
- Legendary Hexblade paragon path powers and features for the Gloom pact;
- The wizard's Summon Shadow Servant spell;
- Mage school features for the Necromancy and Nethermancy schools;
- Enigmatic Mage paragon path powers and features for the Necromancy and Nethermancy schools.
That's it. Comes to a grand total of 10 pages' worth of material. Out of a 160 page book. Literally everything on the other 150 pages is absolutely 100% usable even if you've never even seen the Essentials books.
If 50%+ usability is your buying criterion, then you should definitely buy this book.
Did you remember to take out all stuff that requires an Essentials class feature, including riders to powers that require an Essentials class feature...
So does that mean those of us who don't use essentials and have supported D&D for the last 2plus years are getting srcewed.If WOTC does not think that this will hurt there already crappy bottem line I can tell you it will as more people play 4th edition than essentials with 4th edition if the forums here and on other sites are any indication. I for one will not buy a product that I cannot use at least 50% of the material. HOS is almost useless to you unless you play essentials. I hope this book is a huge flop just to show WOTC how dumb they are being at the moment.
Stop being selfish and realize that all fans of 4e deserve their stuff, and not just you.
So does that mean those of us who don't use essentials and have supported D&D for the last 2plus years are getting srcewed.If WOTC does not think that this will hurt there already crappy bottem line I can tell you it will as more people play 4th edition than essentials with 4th edition if the forums here and on other sites are any indication. I for one will not buy a product that I cannot use at least 50% of the material. HOS is almost useless to you unless you play essentials. I hope this book is a huge flop just to show WOTC how dumb they are being at the moment.
Stop being selfish and realize that all fans of 4e deserve their stuff, and not just you.
I'm not a fan of Essentials, but I agree. There is a significant chunk of playerbase that DOES like Essentials, and they deserve their fair share of material.
So does that mean those of us who don't use essentials and have supported D&D for the last 2plus years are getting srcewed.If WOTC does not think that this will hurt there already crappy bottem line I can tell you it will as more people play 4th edition than essentials with 4th edition if the forums here and on other sites are any indication. I for one will not buy a product that I cannot use at least 50% of the material. HOS is almost useless to you unless you play essentials. I hope this book is a huge flop just to show WOTC how dumb they are being at the moment.
Stop being selfish and realize that all fans of 4e deserve their stuff, and not just you.
I'm not a fan of Essentials, but I agree. There is a significant chunk of playerbase that DOES like Essentials, and they deserve their fair share of material.
And they are going to get it. The people who aren't getting any more support are those who like pre-essential class design.
Did you remember to take out all stuff that requires an Essentials class feature, including riders to powers that require an Essentials class feature.
Having a rider that triggers of an essential class feature isn't the same as requiring that class feature to be used.
And they are going to get it. The people who aren't getting any more support are those who like pre-essential class design.
WotC has said (and proven, as noted by Duskweaver above) otherwise.
Did you remember to take out all stuff that requires an Essentials class feature, including riders to powers that require an Essentials class feature.
Having a rider that triggers of an essential class feature isn't the same as requiring that class feature to be used.
While that's true for most of us, I'm sure the Char Op types would disagree. Of course, "usability" and "ability to optimize" are not the same and should not be mistaken as such.
Did you remember to take out all stuff that requires an Essentials class feature, including riders to powers that require an Essentials class feature...
Yes.
Even if we also remove all the non-crunch material from consideration, we're still at around 80% usability for people without the Essentials books.
And they are going to get it. The people who aren't getting any more support are those who like pre-essential class design.
WotC has said (and proven, as noted by Duskweaver above) otherwise.
I see nothing in Duskweaver's post to indicate that there are any new AEDU classes in Heroes of Shadows. I was referring to getting new classes not to getting support for old classes. I thought I had worded it carefully to indicate that, but clearly my wording was off.
And they are going to get it. The people who aren't getting any more support are those who like pre-essential class design.
WotC has said (and proven, as noted by Duskweaver above) otherwise.
I see nothing in Duskweaver's post to indicate that there are any new AEDU classes in Heroes of Shadows. I was referring to getting new classes not to getting support for old classes. I thought I had worded it carefully to indicate that, but clearly my wording was off.
The vampire theme that is masquerading as a class is AEDU, it has almost no choices, but its AEDU.
The vampire theme that is masquerading as a class is AEDU, it has almost no choices, but its AEDU.
Then someone needs to invent a new term to for AEDU classes that get choices every level becasue that was what I meant. Choiceful AEDU.....ok yeah it needs a lto of work.
The vampire theme that is masquerading as a class is AEDU, it has almost no choices, but its AEDU.
Then someone needs to invent a new term to for AEDU classes that get choices every level becasue that was what I meant. Choiceful AEDU.....ok yeah it needs a lto of work.
Being AEDU it has more choices than it appears ... multi-classing, themes and potentially hybrids
This is an issue that can be rectified by a future support article, if they so choose to do it. But the Vampire is as fully playable as anything else. It's just that my Vampire, and CelticMutt's Vampire, and your Vampire, and everyone else's Vampire, for now, are nearly identical. The only way we distinguish our Vampires is through feats, skills, racial choice, whether we go for Beguiller or Stalker bloodlines in Paragon tier, and what Utilities we choose at 2nd and 22nd level.
This basically says that all Vampires have a core set of abilities they use if "Vampire" is the most fundamental thing that defines them (otherwise, play Vryloka and another class, because then you're a Vampire, but you're fundamentally a Fighter, or a Bard, or whatnot). I'm not happy about it, but it doesn't mean that the Vampire is unfinished. It just means they chose not to give it as many options as other classes. But it still has something to do, and it has more to do than a Knight or a Slayer, you know.
The Vampire is a full class. It has powers at every level it needs powers, it has a full 30 level progression, the works. You are wrong. This isn't even an interpretation debate like subclasses might be. You are flat out factually in every way it can be possible wrong. The Vampire is a full class. Get over it.
Literally yes. But I'm pretty sure what ThaX is saying is that technicalities aside, the Vampire sure as hell doesn't feel like a whole class: not only does it fail at its role, it only has a fraction of the options seen in a build of a class. Heck, it has fewer options than a build of the knight or slayer. So when ThaX calls it incomplete, it seems foolish to take that statement literally, because you're missing a very clear point: it doesn't feel complete. If this were a playtest rather than finished product, that's exactly the complaint we'd be giving: that is not a complete class.
Put another way, don't take ThaX's complaint literally. Take it as a metaphor or hyperbole. Then it makes perfect sense, and honestly feels pretty accurate.
EDIT: Oh, what about feats? Currently the vampire has zero class feats. That's incomplete. Not what ThaX meant, but still incomplete.
Two, don't expect anymore class feats. Or racial feats. I expect they are not going to be made anymore. I half expect the existing ones to be removed, but I doubt WotC will go that far. They probably should though, and I say that as a fan of racial feats. And eStyle classes are fully playable and complete without class feats.
Or racial feats. I expect they are not going to be made anymore.
I think the new racial utilities that vryloka and shades get are intended to fill the design space racial feats would otherwise have occupied. I can think of a few existing racial feats that would have worked far more elegantly as racial utility powers. The tiefling's Diabolic Soul or Clever Tail, for example, or the eladrin's Twist The Arcane Fabric.
One, if it's fully playable, it feels complete. It has problems yes, but not due to a lack of features.
Two, don't expect anymore class feats. Or racial feats. I expect they are not going to be made anymore. I half expect the existing ones to be removed, but I doubt WotC will go that far. They probably should though, and I say that as a fan of racial feats. And eStyle classes are fully playable and complete without class feats.
Sure they are playable but that does make them limited. The vampire does it fails badly at its role and that is a fact. So what kind of class is it? It feels unfinished to me lacking a lot but can you play it, yes but that does not make it complete in my books. I am with Omni and Than on this one.
(At-Will/Encounters/Dailies/Utilities)
Quoting myself from above. I didn't know either for a long time, there is also SEND and others out there.
That it is fully playable is fine, for those that actually want a Vampire just like that. I play more modern games, though, and would like the choices normally afforded a typical A.E.D.U. class.
2) AEDU no more equals modern than the Vampire equals "non-modern"
1) Fully playable = complete, otherwise the weapon Master wouldn't be complete with just the PHB1, or the Barabarian with just PHB2
2) AEDU no more equals modern than the Vampire equals "non-modern"
1) The Weaponmaster (Fighter) and the Barbarian have even with just the book they appeared in have alot more options then the Vampire, if you'd like I can tell you how many more, but I'm fairly sure you know that and are just being contrary.
2) Thats an opinion, and not one I and others share. There are a total of 8 different kinds of Vampires over the entire 1-30 level experience, there are more Weaponmaster options at first level. If I wanted to play Gauntlet, theres a working machine in the Gameroom, but my players want a little more out of there D&D 4.0 game then Green Elf needs food badly.
Fighter is the class, Knight is the build/subclass. The point, my friend, is that the Vamp is a new class that has less powers than the classes (At-Will/Encounters/Dailies/Utilities) that came before it. It is incomplete. Call the new Subclasses what you will, but that is not the comparison to be made against what should be a full class of the Vampire.
Wrong. Fighter is not the class. When you opt to play a knight or a slayer you do not put fighter in your class slot. Try it on the character builder and see what happens. I'd bet you can't even build a knight or slayer if you opt for fighter as a class. That's because they are separate classes.
What it essentially boils down to is this: Wizards made each build into separate classes that fall under the same umbrella category. And each umbrella category has a single pool of utility powers all of its classes can share; plus some other powers may be sharable depending on the umbrella category. That they have made some classes under the umbrella categories that don't fall into the old AEDU lockstep is a really stupid thing to be arguing about... but that's the internet for ya.
I mean honestly, wouldn't all of this wasted effort (I say wasted because I have no illusions that anyone here is going to change anyone else's mind) be better spent on working out a way to modify the classes you don't like so they fit the AEDU format. It's not really that hard. I already did the work for at-will abilities here. For encounter abilities, it's simple enough to sacrifice a use of power strike (or whatever the power is for the E-style class in question) for a single encounter power of your level or lower. That right there opens up tremendous options for all the essentials classes, and that's without finding a way to put dailies in.
You people can bicker about what is or isn't rightfully called a class, or you can suck it up, have some pride, and do something about it.
But you're wrong that if you chose to be a Fighter in the Character Builder, you couldn't choose Knight or Slayer. You can't choose to be a Fighter to begin within in the Character Builder – but neither can you choose to be a Knight or a Slayer. You can choose to be a Knight (Fighter), Slayer (Fighter), or Weaponmaster (Fighter), though. They are all Fighters, just different subclasses of Fighter. The Feats article from where Martial Crosstraining originates uses "subclass" as the designation of these different kinds of Fighter.
This is one situation that bothers me a bit, as a lot of posters here, as well as the Wizards articles and such, do not use the proper format for the classes from the Essentials format, that of Fighter/Knight or Fighter/Slayer. One assumes that it is known what those builds are, or that they are somehow separate from anything even when they are a build of the base class.
As more content is released, and the unnecessary renaming of the PHB original builds commences, the actual classes will face into the background. A fact that Wizards is most likely counting on.
Call them what you want, really in this thread I am still saying, in comparison to the CORE classes, the Vampire is woefully lacking. It. Is. Incomplete.
Fighter hampered by Essentials subtitled to a subclass is still a fighter. Just because he has less choices doesn't make him less of a man. (Or person, or non-gender type macho fighter)
This is one situation that bothers me a bit, as a lot of posters here, as well as the Wizards articles and such, do not use the proper format for the classes from the Essentials format, that of Fighter/Knight or Fighter/Slayer. One assumes that it is known what those builds are, or that they are somehow separate from anything even when they are a build of the base class.
As more content is released, and the unnecessary renaming of the PHB original builds commences, the actual classes will face into the background. A fact that Wizards is most likely counting on.
Call them what you want, really in this thread I am still saying, in comparison to the CORE classes, the Vampire is woefully lacking. It. Is. Incomplete.
It is not icomplete. Again, using your own definition. It is complete and ready to play. Less or no options does not = incomplete. Incomplete would = not playable from 1-30, or there are more options already made that they have just not released yet (the old previews that appeared in the CB). What we have is all we're gonna have, and that is complete by definition.
Hey, MechaPilot, did you know the Power Strike to Encounter power trade off is now a Martial Crosstraining feat for Fighters? It makes sense.
I actually did not know that. While I'm glad to hear they did that, I am disappointed that it costs a whole feat for that. I hope there is another benefit you get from that crosstraining feat (and that you can freely re-train that power as you level).
But you're wrong that if you chose to be a Fighter in the Character Builder, you couldn't choose Knight or Slayer. You can't choose to be a Fighter to begin within in the Character Builder – but neither can you choose to be a Knight or a Slayer. You can choose to be a Knight (Fighter), Slayer (Fighter), or Weaponmaster (Fighter), though. They are all Fighters, just different subclasses of Fighter. The Feats article from where Martial Crosstraining originates uses "subclass" as the designation of these different kinds of Fighter.
The character builder doesn't allow you to be phb1 fighter? Did they do that to all of the pre-e classes? Can you no longer be a phb1 cleric or a phb1 wizard?
Fighter hampered by Essentials subtitled to a subclass is still a fighter. Just because he has less choices doesn't make him less of a man. (Or person, or non-gender type macho fighter).
Not so. Fighter is now the umbrella category for a group of individual martial classes.
This is one situation that bothers me a bit, as a lot of posters here, as well as the Wizards articles and such, do not use the proper format for the classes from the Essentials format, that of Fighter/Knight or Fighter/Slayer. One assumes that it is known what those builds are, or that they are somehow separate from anything even when they are a build of the base class.
You are not the arbiter of what the porper terminology is. The notion that you get to decide what the "proper" terminology is for these classes is laughable. That's like me calling cars "rolly shiny boxes" and getting pissed that Ford isn't using the proper terminology. They created the dang thing, they get to decide what the terminology is.
As more content is released, and the unnecessary renaming of the PHB original builds commences, the actual classes will face into the background. A fact that Wizards is most likely counting on.
Correction: As builds get turned into individual classes to trim the fat, the original classes will continue to become the umbrella categories they are intended to be from this point forward.
Call them what you want, really in this thread I am still saying, in comparison to the CORE classes, the Vampire is woefully lacking. It. Is. Incomplete.
You have yet to prove that to anyone's satisfaction but your own.
I suggest you download the free feats article. It has all the crosstraining feats for Fighters, Clerics, Wizards, and Rogues. It also calls those classes by new names (Weaponmaster, Templar, Arcanist, and Scoundrel, respectively, to distinguish from Knight/Slayer, Warpriest, Mage, and Thief respectively). It does cost a feat to trade out class features or encounter power usages, but it works both ways, and you can retrain for free.
Fighter hampered by Essentials subtitled to a subclass is still a fighter. Just because he has less choices doesn't make him less of a man. (Or person, or non-gender type macho fighter)
This is one situation that bothers me a bit, as a lot of posters here, as well as the Wizards articles and such, do not use the proper format for the classes from the Essentials format, that of Fighter/Knight or Fighter/Slayer. One assumes that it is known what those builds are, or that they are somehow separate from anything even when they are a build of the base class.
As more content is released, and the unnecessary renaming of the PHB original builds commences, the actual classes will face into the background. A fact that Wizards is most likely counting on.
Call them what you want, really in this thread I am still saying, in comparison to the CORE classes, the Vampire is woefully lacking. It. Is. Incomplete.
1) Weapon Master (Fighter), Knight (Fighter), and Slayer (Fighter) IS the correct format. Accept it. Move on. Because WotC themselves are telling you you're wrong.
2) Everything is CORE.
3) Not. Incomplete.
No, there is Core, then Essentials. It seems one is trying to take over the other.
Look at you PHB. Then look at the Vampire "class." Does it look like the same number of choices to you? It is incomplete, and woefully lacking, even if one could play the class with the lack of choices provided.
Put it another way, The Vampire is like stripped down model car, crank windows, no cruise, AM radio set to one station, and the air conditioner only works if the window is down.
The other classes (PHB) have electric windows, seat warmers, HD Radios, and climite control.
Everything is Core. Including Essentials and Postessentials. I don't know where you're getting this idea from, thaX.
Everything is CORE. Always has been, always will be until 5e arrives. Accept it. Move on.
The Vampire is complete. It may not have many options, but it's complete. Accept it. Move on.
So the lesser term is given more importance. The fact remains, it is still a Fighter. I really don't know why any would dispute this.
Since when is the less specific term the more important term? Fighter is an umbrella category (like mammal, automobile, movie, etc). If you want to accurately and precisely describe something, you don't use an umbrella category to do so (a dog is called a dog, not a mammal; a sedan is called a sedan, not an automobile; and a horror movie is called a horror movie, not just a movie).
No, there is Core, then Essentials. It seems one is trying to take over the other.
Not true. There is original core and essentials core. Both are core.
Also, essentials isn't trying to take anything over. Since you feel the need to phrase it as a conflict, it should benefit you to know that essentials has already won. IIRC, the designers have said the essentials format will be the format used in going forward.
Look at you PHB. Then look at the Vampire "class." Does it look like the same number of choices to you? It is incomplete, and woefully lacking, even if one could play the class with the lack of choices provided.
I'm sure there are the same number of effective options. Remember that the classes in original 4e include powers that were designed to be more effective for certain builds. Essentials trims the fat, removing options that were more or less intended for other builds, by developing each build into a separate class.
Put it another way, The Vampire is like stripped down model car, crank windows, no cruise, AM radio set to one station, and the air conditioner only works if the window is down.
The other classes (PHB) have electric windows, seat warmers, HD Radios, and climite control.
That's not actually accurate. The original classes have some options that are only half-effective unless you meet certain build requirements. The essentials classes however don't fall into that trap. Every power on an essentials class' list is effective for that class.
To go back to your analogy, you only get HD radio and effective climat control if your car is a certain model; otherwise you get normal radio and ac/heat that barely works.
THe Vampire is complete but I'm sure at some point there will be another Vampire "bloodline" or something that will be represented through alternate builds and powers... but hey...