So the final class appears to be the Runepriest(Divine Leader) and the final race appears to be the Shardmind. So what are everyone's thoughts on this development?
Edit: I really hate the new forums. -_-
This is the PHB3, which will finally allow you to play characters like the Shardmind Battlemind!
There may be worse possible truths, but that doesn't mean the above sentence isn't awkward as hell.
But how reliable is the source? People have been inferring both the race and class from artwork for months now. I've seen some pretty elaborate and developed theories spring out of the lightest sources - sometimes even from thin air!
I'm going to need more proof.
Although I would not put it past WotC to come up with such a stupid class, lol.
I have to agree that WotC really has seemed to have fired their staff in the Creative Naming department recently, but what's in a name? At least I won't stumble over Shardmind the way I have been with the Eisk Jet and the Incanabulum. Or whatever they are.
But how reliable is the source? People have been inferring both the race and class from artwork for months now. I've seen some pretty elaborate and developed theories spring out of the lightest sources - sometimes even from thin air!
Oh come now, D&D has never had creative names. Fighter? Really? :P
And I give the source a 50% chance at least to be real. He claims to have seen something which would certainly be able to confirm the remainder of the information. The only question is whether he really saw it or not. Considering some of the details he has provided beyond his initial post, I'm inclined to believe him, but I admit it is a judgement/gut call as to whether you believe him atm. *shrugs*
But how reliable is the source? People have been inferring both the race and class from artwork for months now. I've seen some pretty elaborate and developed theories spring out of the lightest sources - sometimes even from thin air!
If people read the linked posts, they'd notice that the source is someone with a pre-release look at the PHB 3 gameday kit. The kit apparently contains characters of both the new race and class.
Well, I won't say that I believe it, but if it were to be true, there are much worse possible truths. The class could go either way, but it's always good to see a race that isn't just another human but with some slightly different feature. The only down side is that this would mean that the image of the completely non-plant-like Seeker really is the new Wilden after all. =/
Actually, the pregen characters have been posted online already. The runepriest looks...nasty. Really, really nasty. Leader, yes. Looks to specialize in part on debuffing. If I'm not mistaken, one of the at-wills was something like: Wis vs AC, 1[W]+Wis damage, -Wis to attack rolls of the target until the end of your next turn. Seems really, really good for an at-will.
I don't remember what the shardmind did, though.
Runepriest is a class from Warhammer. What do people think of that?
A thought:
Runepriest is a class from Warhammer. What do people think of that?
I, personally, think ...
"So what?"
A thought:
Runepriest is a class from Warhammer. What do people think of that?
Warhammer ? Ok. They didn't invented Rune Casting i believe though.
There was a Dwarf Rune Caster kit in 2E IIRC. Or was it from the Humanoid Handbook ?
I thought the name had been pulled out of their donkey, but, like the Psion and the Battlemind (with whom I was also intensely dissatisfied with the name of, but have mellowed down about), the name has a historical context in roleplaying games.
I personaly think that Erudite, Sentinel, and something different (for Runepriest, but I'm not sure what, perhaps Exorcist, perhaps Archivist, not sure yet) should have been used for the class names, but the names at least aren't brand new.
Even Ardent was chosen over Empath due to history. Ardent is a cool name though, and I'm happy with it.
I think the only thing notable about it really is that the name has a history.
If you hadn't said that the Runepriest was in Warhammer, I would never have known.
I think the only thing notable about it really is that the name has a history.
If you hadn't said that the Runepriest was in Warhammer, I would never have known.
I wouldn't have either if I hadn't taken the time to google the terms as one word.
A thought:
Runepriest is a class from Warhammer. What do people think of that?
So, does he cast Storm Caller, Jaws of the World Wolf, dispel enemy psychic powers on a 4+, and wound daemons on a 2+ no matter what?
If so, sign me up now!
If possible, I'd love to get a link either here or as a pm to where the pregens have been posted.
Make that two, please.
If possible, I'd love to get a link either here or as a pm to where the pregens have been posted.
Make that two, please.
Same here.
A thought:
Runepriest is a class from Warhammer. What do people think of that?
Great. When 4e haters say that 4e is too much like an MMO, they can now add WAR to their list.
;)
www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-ru...
if you're still interested. We don't have the pregen write-ups in full, though.
Of course, I change the name of EVERY race for my setting, so that's to be expected. For the first time, however, I might have to change the name of CLASSES. That's unheard of.
Personally I shudder whenever I hear the name of a class used in-game-in-character to describe a character of that same class.
If you don't know the name of my character fine, but don't refer to him as "Rogue". He's a Corligano, a member of an instituion loyal to the council who infiltrates neighboring nations and gathers information on them while simultaneously taking out key personalities and neutralizing situations before they can cause trouble back home. Call him a spy, an agent, an assassin, a scout, a watcher, operative, or even call him out by his race or region of origin.
Just don't call him "Rogue".
This is especially true for "Wizard" who everyone in game seems to accureately identify and never confuse with the party Sorcerer, Warlock, or any other spellcaster they've never really seen or "Barbarian" characters which never seems to get confused with Fighters, Rangers, Monks, or other melee-oriented classes from primitive societies.
I've never really cared about class names because nobody ever uses them in-world.
Personally I shudder whenever I hear the name of a class used in-game-in-character to describe a character of that same class.
If you don't know the name of my character fine, but don't refer to him as "Rogue". He's a Corligano, a member of an instituion loyal to the council who infiltrates neighboring nations and gathers information on them while simultaneously taking out key personalities and neutralizing situations before they can cause trouble back home. Call him a spy, an agent, an assassin, a scout, a watcher, operative, or even call him out by his race or region of origin.
Just don't call him "Rogue".
This is especially true for "Wizard" who everyone in game seems to accureately identify and never confuse with the party Sorcerer, Warlock, or any other spellcaster they've never really seen or "Barbarian" characters which never seems to get confused with Fighters, Rangers, Monks, or other melee-oriented classes from primitive societies.
Not to mention that we have builds of various classes that emulate other classes – Battlerager Fighters would be barbarians, Vengeful Seekers are archers just like Archer Rangers, both Battle Clerics and most Paladins are warriors of faith. So the classes and builds themselves orient towards not using their names. That said, there are cases of class names being used "in-game" Warding Circles are centred around Wardens. Avengers are possibly an organisation. Bardic Colleges train Bards. It seems Psionic characters will be more apt towards this as well.
"Barbarian" characters which never seems to get confused with Fighters
Heh, funny you should say that. My fellow players often forget I'm playing a Barbarian. This isn't because I say "You are marked by me" or try to use deceit and pass myself off as a Fighter (e.g. playing an elf pretending to be a dwarf by using a dwarf miniature). I just play him as a character rather than a class, and most people don't think about it.
Not to mention that we have builds of various classes that emulate other classes – Battlerager Fighters would be barbarians, Vengeful Seekers are archers just like Archer Rangers, both Battle Clerics and most Paladins are warriors of faith. So the classes and builds themselves orient towards not using their names. That said, there are cases of class names being used "in-game" Warding Circles are centred around Wardens. Avengers are possibly an organisation. Bardic Colleges train Bards. It seems Psionic characters will be more apt towards this as well.
But you do realize that people often have a official title almost no matter what they do, it's just something that happens in all cultures, we come up with labels for even the most mundane things just so we can streamline society more, it's an aspect of cultural darwinism
I for example am a professional Groundskeeper, I do much more than just grounds keeping and I don't even really think of myself as one, but thats "what I am" it's sorta my IRL class eventhough I might be reflavored
I use Class names in game, the Wizard class explains in its fluff what a wizard is based on what they do and how they relate to arcane magic so if I meet someone in game who does all the things that the class's fluff talks about and relates in the same way to arcane magic, I call that person a Wizard because there has to be a name for what they do, thats how almost any culture works
Not to mention that we have builds of various classes that emulate other classes – Battlerager Fighters would be barbarians, Vengeful Seekers are archers just like Archer Rangers, both Battle Clerics and most Paladins are warriors of faith. So the classes and builds themselves orient towards not using their names. That said, there are cases of class names being used "in-game" Warding Circles are centred around Wardens. Avengers are possibly an organisation. Bardic Colleges train Bards. It seems Psionic characters will be more apt towards this as well.
But you do realize that people often have a official title almost no matter what they do, it's just something that happens in all cultures, we come up with labels for even the most mundane things just so we can streamline society more, it's an aspect of cultural darwinism
I for example am a professional Groundskeeper, I do much more than just grounds keeping and I don't even really think of myself as one, but thats "what I am" it's sorta my IRL class eventhough I might be reflavored
I use Class names in game, the Wizard class explains in its fluff what a wizard is based on what they do and how they relate to arcane magic so if I meet someone in game who does all the things that the class's fluff talks about and relates in the same way to arcane magic, I call that person a Wizard because there has to be a name for what they do, thats how almost any culture works
Agreed, and in fact, I use the class names in the game as well. Especially with the arcane power source, where Arcane = Collegial learning. However, I can see while each character might share a tie to a type of class, I remind myself that classes are rare things: only PCs and rare NPCs have classes; most people aren't heroes. So I have classes as the paragon of orders and such, and they fit together in different ways. Martial characters too share bonds of what they do, but as there are a lot more builds to be understood for them, they are less likely to use those names. But there are fundamental relationships and outlooks that come with the classes, and I capitalise on those. So I'm willing on one hand for fluidity of classes, but on the other hand, I allow them to establish their roles in culture as heroic archetypes.
I use Class names in game, the Wizard class explains in its fluff what a wizard is based on what they do and how they relate to arcane magic so if I meet someone in game who does all the things that the class's fluff talks about and relates in the same way to arcane magic, I call that person a Wizard because there has to be a name for what they do, thats how almost any culture works
For me it depends on the class. I'll call someone a Wizard, because that's often how arcane characters are described in novels. Likewise a Warlock isn't a Wizard because they haven't studied for their powers. They have instead made a pact with an entity of dubious alignment. While a sorcerer isn't a Wizard because they were born with their powers. They didn't study them.
With that said, I wouldn't call someone an Artificer. I'd probably call them a tinkerer or an inventor. I wouldn't call someone a Swordmage, but instead ask them what their profession is (most likely in a D&D game it will be mercenary).
Divine characters are never called clerics or paladins by me. They're instead called priests. I'd probably call an Invoker either a priest or a cultist. Avengers I might call an Avenger because they're essentially a secret assasin squad dedicated to a particular god.
Fighters, Rogues and Warlords also never get called that by me. Although a ranger with a beast companion might be called a ranger. Other ranger builds would just get called "archers" or "hunters" and I'd try to overlook the absurdity of using swords for hunting.
Similarly someone isn't a shaman, seeker or barbarian. But someone can be a Shaman or Druid.
For me its fairly arbitrary and just happens to be what I feel describes a "occupation" or "lifestyle" versus what sounds like a class.
Except the Runepriest existed long before Warhammer became an MMO, but we will ignore that slight detail.
Details don't stop haters. Of any kind. ;)
For me it depends on the class.
Very true. It also depends on the setting. But from a sociological point of view I could see how some patterns could be very common in almost any setting.
Fighter, Warlord and Rogue might be a little too catch all for me to see them being used as titles in game; your not going to call a royal spy a Rogue, because as a servant of the king they would be anything but "rogue"
I like to think Ranger is a title people use in game; in the Tolkien and Forgotten Realms books, the term Ranger carries a lot of weight. But it is still a broad class with lot's of different kinds of people using the class, so I think Ranger is one of those titles that's based more on reputation than what you do, because there are a lot of Rangers but not all of them are know to be "Rangers"
I see the Arcane power source as being very prone to such nomenclature, for the very reason Mar pointed out, even to the point of Arcane scholars being the creators of many of these terms. My character in one campaign is a Sorcerer, and the more scholarly arcanists in the game are always very quick to point that out. I also like to think the term Mage is a catch all term for arcane magic users, often used by people who don't really know the difference or just think they're all the same.
And I see Priest as being the Divine equivalent to Mage, a catch all term for all Divine characters. Although with divine characters I see the titles varying depending on the religion, much like how priests, rabis and ministers and such are all pretty much the same IRL class. I see Invoker as a much more technical term than a colloquial one, perhaps even coined by Wizards who are more likely to see them all as the same kind of thing. Avengers sometimes don't think they're Avengers or certainly would not want to be called that, because sometimes they think they're just like other priests. And can see how a Cleric or someone might not see another Divine class as what they are because they do share the same beliefs.
And with Primal and Psionic classes, being the more existential power sources, I see their titles being more placed upon them by outsiders to distinguish the differences that their members don't really care as much about. with maybe the Exception of Warden which often has specific duties that come with it and thus it has it's own heavy title.
Races:
- Githzerai - Dex, Wis
- Minotaur - Str, Con
- Shardmind - Int, Wis
- Wilden - Con, Wis
Notes: Still no playable Int, Con race for LFR. Shardminds are odd as they mentioned the Githzerai as the "morst psionic race" even though Shardminds obviously make some great psionic characters. Shardminds may not be Int, Wis but it seems unlikely from the sample ability scores. Also no +Cha race at all, and 3 +Wis races (or 3 +Con races if Shardmind is +Con)
Classes:
- Ardent - Psionic Leader - Cha (Con, Wis) - Decent all-around leader, but better buffing than healing
- Battlemind - Psionic Defender - Either Con or Wis primary (likely Con (Wis, ?[Int])) - Mainly single-target defender, offensively oriented.
- Monk - Psionic Striker - Dex (Str, Wis) - Mobile and good at doing close multi-target damage.
- Psion - Psionic Controller - Int (Wis, Cha) - Offensive and debuff-focused.
- Runepriest - Divine Leader - Either Str or Con primary (likely Str (Con, ?[Wis/Cha])) - Very buff-focused.
- Seeker - Primal Controller - Wis (Str, Dex) - Focused around damage and discouraging/encouraging certain movement.
Notes: Interesting, it seems we will likely have one class with each ability score for the primaries (assuming the above is correct and there are no V classes). Also it seems we have four weapon classes, and just two implement ones. As far as roles go I am kind of relieved to see fewer striker classes, though we still have a dearth of defenders: one from each power source (excluding shadow). Psionic classes seem to each be fairly focused on offense, just an interesting note.
Also, having the super secret divine class staring at us the whole time from the cover of the PHB3 would be super ironic. I bet somewhere someone at WotC is having a good laugh.
But this leak does seem like it could be legit, yeah.
Man, if several years of watching "leaked info" for World of Warcraft has shown me anything, it's that the more details you get, the more likely the whole thing was written by one rapid fan who zealously and desperately believes his homebrewed material for the game is correct.
But this leak does seem like it could be legit, yeah.
Which is amusing considering the leaked info for WoW: Cataclysm was 85 - 90% accurate ...
Well, we should know by 2-2 whether or no he's right about the battlemind. Doesn't DDI return to updating on the 1st Tuesday of the month in February?
We haven't seen the Feb calendar. Do you have information as a writer that we don't?
Well, we should know by 2-2 whether or no he's right about the battlemind. Doesn't DDI return to updating on the 1st Tuesday of the month in February?
We haven't seen the Feb calendar. Do you have information as a writer that we don't?
It should be returning to the 1st Tuesday now, but no, writers know as little as you do usually.
Well, we should know by 2-2 whether or no he's right about the battlemind. Doesn't DDI return to updating on the 1st Tuesday of the month in February?
We haven't seen the Feb calendar. Do you have information as a writer that we don't?
It should be returning to the 1st Tuesday now, but no, writers know as little as you do usually.
Did they say that in an Ampersand or something? I don't recall that information at all.
The Runepriest, on the other hand, is surprisingly appealing to me. With the ability to switch between different rune states, it seems like it may be the most versatile leader that we've gotten so far. Instead of choosing between defensive and offensive buffs, many of the powers can do both depending on which rune state you're in. I wonder if this mechanic will take the place of having separate builds (in a sense, all runepriests are both builds, though they don't express both builds at the same time). If this ends up being accurate, then kudos to WotC for coming up with a divine leader that doesn't step on the Cleric's toes! And it certainly sounds more interesting than the Ardent.
As for the Shardmind...yeah, I haven't formed a definitive opinion of them yet but I'm leaning toward not liking them. They're definitely unique, but I just can't picture myself relating to a humanoid shaped rock that runs around killing stuff. Warforged I get, they're sentient golems. As much as I don't like the vast majority of Warforged art, I can understand the appeal for them conceptually. But Shardminds? I can't imagine many people will see them and say "oh cool, I can play as a guy made out of crystals!" Then again, who knows, I could be wrong. Looks like the Wilden is the only race that I find appealing in the PHB3 (and even that's contingent on the most recent very humanoid artwork being a fluke; come on, the concept art was awesome!).
Hmm, interesting. Based on the Enworld thread, so far I'm very unimpressed with the Battlemind. It has the same "enemy can just shift + charge" problem as the Warden's mark, but whereas the Warden can mark tons of enemies, the Battlemind can only mark 1 (like a Swordmage), or 2 (by using a pp). Wow, I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my pp's for Augmenting. And at least if a bunch of enemies shift + charge away from a Warden, there's a bunch of enemies with -2 to attack. Not so for the Battlemind (who can only mark 1, sometimes 2 enemies). I'm assuming that the Battlemind will have feats/powers that discourage such blatant disregard for their marks (like the Warden's Sudden Roots, and their plethora of sticky powers), but without more info it's hard to tell.
Apparently you missed the post where it's said the Battlemind can shift adjacent to the marked enemy when it shifts as an opportunity action.
Hmm, interesting. Based on the Enworld thread, so far I'm very unimpressed with the Battlemind. It has the same "enemy can just shift + charge" problem as the Warden's mark, but whereas the Warden can mark tons of enemies, the Battlemind can only mark 1 (like a Swordmage), or 2 (by using a pp). Wow, I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my pp's for Augmenting. And at least if a bunch of enemies shift + charge away from a Warden, there's a bunch of enemies with -2 to attack. Not so for the Battlemind (who can only mark 1, sometimes 2 enemies). I'm assuming that the Battlemind will have feats/powers that discourage such blatant disregard for their marks (like the Warden's Sudden Roots, and their plethora of sticky powers), but without more info it's hard to tell.
Apparently you missed the post where it's said the Battlemind can shift adjacent to the marked enemy when it shifts as an opportunity action.
Yes, and since you only get 1 OA per opponent's turn, that enemy can charge from a position adjacent to you without incurring an OA. The only purpose the OA shift serves is when an enemy shifts to enter melee with an ally and then attacks that ally (since the Battlemind's mark punishment is an immediate action, it can still use that after shifting, but it requires the Battlemind to be adjacent to the marked target).
That is, assuming that No Name didn't make everything up to begin with, which would make the entire point moot, but I'm assuming No Name is not a liar and is genuinely excited to tell us about Shardmind and Runepriest and Battlemind.
But if you work back the ability scores No Name gave us for the Shardmind Psion, we get 25 ability points required to invest for an Int/Con race, while 22 points required to be invested if it's an Int/Wis. Bleh.
Of course, there's always the option that No Name is telling the truth about some items of information but lying about others. I have NO idea why someone would do that other than to mind screw us.
Well, we should know by 2-2 whether or no he's right about the battlemind. Doesn't DDI return to updating on the 1st Tuesday of the month in February?
We haven't seen the Feb calendar. Do you have information as a writer that we don't?
It should be returning to the 1st Tuesday now, but no, writers know as little as you do usually.
Did they say that in an Ampersand or something? I don't recall that information at all.
mdonais has said that the next update is Feb.2 repeatedly down in the character builder forum, and the CB itself confirms this.
Darn it! As much as I want it to be an Int/Con race, Shardmind is most definitely Int/Wis.
That is, assuming that No Name didn't make everything up to begin with, which would make the entire point moot, but I'm assuming No Name is not a liar and is genuinely excited to tell us about Shardmind and Runepriest and Battlemind.
But if you work back the ability scores No Name gave us for the Shardmind Psion, we get 25 ability points required to invest for an Int/Con race, while 22 points required to be invested if it's an Int/Wis. Bleh.
Of course, there's always the option that No Name is telling the truth about some items of information but lying about others. I have NO idea why someone would do that other than to mind screw us.
There's always the possibility they went the Changeling route with the Shardmind, giving us an option of +2 Int and +2 Wis OR +2 Con.
But I guess that's wishful thinking.
Worth thinking about.
But if you work back the ability scores No Name gave us for the Shardmind Psion, we get 25 ability points required to invest for an Int/Con race, while 22 points required to be invested if it's an Int/Wis.
I don't suppose you know how many points the other characters are built with do you?
Of course, there's always the option that No Name is telling the truth about some items of information but lying about others.
It's also possible he's remembered something wrong, seeing as apparently all this is coming from a set of character sheets he caught a glimpse of.
There's always the possibility they went the Changeling route with the Shardmind, giving us an option of +2 Int and +2 Wis OR +2 Con.
That's extraordinarily unlikely.
What people, especially home-brewers, don't seem to understand about the Changeling ability score boosts is that the reason a Changeling gets that sort of feature is because adaptability, flexibility, and versatility are the entire point of the flavor of playing a Changeling. They didn't do that just to do it because they could. It serves an actual thematic purpose. Unless another race (or your homebrew race for that matter) emphasizes adaptability, flexibility, and versatility as much as the Changeling does (which is arguably even more than the Half-Elf and Human do), giving it options for its ability score boost is completely out of place.
There's always the possibility they went the Changeling route with the Shardmind, giving us an option of +2 Int and +2 Wis OR +2 Con.
That's extraordinarily unlikely.
I think that's an overstatement.
What people, especially home-brewers, don't seem to understand about the Changeling ability score boosts is that the reason a Changeling gets that sort of feature is because adaptability, flexibility, and versatility are the entire point of the flavor of playing a Changeling. They didn't do that just to do it because they could. It serves an actual thematic purpose. Unless another race (or your homebrew race for that matter) emphasizes adaptability, flexibility, and versatility as much as the Changeling does (which is arguably even more than the Half-Elf and Human do), giving it options for its ability score boost is completely out of place.
They might not have done that just because they could, but it might have been one of many reasons. Adding flexible ability scores is a way of testing new features in the gaming system. Besides, there might be other reasons than adaptability, flexibility and versatility to flexible ability scores (at least by your definitions of the traits).
If you compare the shifter variants for example - they are basically the same species, yet there are two distinct races. Maybe something similar is the case with the shardmind (laborer vs. ruling class perhaps)?
All I'm saying, is that it's a possibility. However remote you, or anyone else for that matter, might find it, it's still there.
Time will tell, no point in arguing over it though.
However, if you know, the Changeling method of adjustable ability scores has Dexterity and Intelligence, two ability scores that share the same Defence, as substitutes for each other. Wisdom and Constitution do not share the same defence, and having them as substitutes could mess up the balance of the race.
For allw a know the shardminds are "+2 Int, +2 any one other;" the problem is we have no earthly idea.
However, if you know, the Changeling method of adjustable ability scores has Dexterity and Intelligence, two ability scores that share the same Defence, as substitutes for each other. Wisdom and Constitution do not share the same defence, and having them as substitutes could mess up the balance of the race.
For allw a know the shardminds are "+2 Int, +2 any one other;" the problem is we have no earthly idea.
That would make you superior to a human…
Well, we should know by 2-2 whether or no he's right about the battlemind. Doesn't DDI return to updating on the 1st Tuesday of the month in February?
We haven't seen the Feb calendar. Do you have information as a writer that we don't?
It should be returning to the 1st Tuesday now, but no, writers know as little as you do usually.
Did they say that in an Ampersand or something? I don't recall that information at all.
mdonais has said that the next update is Feb.2 repeatedly down in the character builder forum, and the CB itself confirms this.
As a follow up to all this, I noticed the Calendar has updated for February. While the CB and the Compendium update next Tuesday on the 2nd, the Debut article for Battleminds isn't until Tuesday the 16th, the same day they release MP2. While it's possible that the Battlemind stats will be updated to the CB and Compendium on the first Tuesday when they update, I'm thinking it's more likely we won't see them in an update until the beginning of March (and by then, it's only half a month away from the actual launch…)
I'm hoping for it to be a CON/INT race, since the only such race so far is the githyanki in the MM, and WotC won't give us a player write up for them.
I'm willing to bet WotC will give the Githyanki a PC write-up eventually, despite what they've said. It's just that it most likely will happen in Dragon, and probably not til after the Astral Seas book at the earliest. More likely it'll be a year or more at least.
Yes, and since you only get 1 OA per opponent's turn, that enemy can charge from a position adjacent to you without incurring an OA. The only purpose the OA shift serves is when an enemy shifts to enter melee with an ally and then attacks that ally (since the Battlemind's mark punishment is an immediate action, it can still use that after shifting, but it requires the Battlemind to be adjacent to the marked target).
Did you want the battlemind to obsolete the fighter? The only purpose is for melee shifts? What about when the mark wants to shift away and make a ranged or area attack? The battlemind will still be next to the mark and guaranteed to hurt the mark if it makes a ranged attack. If the mark makes a big ranged attack, it takes a ton of damage and since that damage has two damage types, it's unlikely to be resisted. Yes, the mark can still charge away, but I'd much rather have most monsters doing a melee basic over some brutal encounter or recharge power. The battlemind ends up still limiting the mark's options and probably reducing it's damage output.
I think that's an overstatement.
Really? Because when I was writing it, I was thinking of how much of an understatement it was.
They might not have done that just because they could, but it might have been one of many reasons.
Yeah, but my point is that being able to do it wasn't the only factor. The thematic factors are just so much more significant. They could also have given Dwarves radiant resistance or bow proficiency, but it just wouldn't have been very thematically appropriate, so there was very good reason not to do it.
If you compare the shifter variants for example - they are basically the same species, yet there are two distinct races. Maybe something similar is the case with the shardmind (laborer vs. ruling class perhaps)?
I also find that highly unlikely, but it's much more likely than their just getting flexible ability score options for no thematic reason at all.
All I'm saying, is that it's a possibility. However remote you, or anyone else for that matter, might find it, it's still there.
That's why I said it was unlikely as opposed to impossible. My general points were just that you shouldn't expect it and that you shouldn't expect anybody else to think that a likely theory.
For allw a know the shardminds are "+2 Int, +2 any one other;" the problem is we have no earthly idea.
Just because we don't know doesn't mean that such outlandish theories as the one you just suggested should be taken seriously. +2 INT / +2 Any would just be broken.
Hahaha, wow. Where is the button to report WotC for trolling?
Crimson isn't trolling… he's being very reasonable. Everything he says makes sense and has merit. I may not always agree with him, but in this case he's certainly got the better case.
Hahaha, wow. Where is the button to report WotC for trolling?
Crimson isn't trolling… he's being very reasonable. Everything he says makes sense and has merit. I may not always agree with him, but in this case he's certainly got the better case.
I wasn't talking about Crimson.
Hahaha, wow. Where is the button to report WotC for trolling?
Crimson isn't trolling… he's being very reasonable. Everything he says makes sense and has merit. I may not always agree with him, but in this case he's certainly got the better case.
I wasn't talking about Crimson.
Oh… I don't think trolling is the appropriate term for the othe person though. But maybe you should use quotes to show who you're referring to, LoK. You posted after Crimson and didn't quote, so…
Hey, just in case anyone was interested, the rumors about PHB3 are all true. I've had the PHB3 materials for a few days now. Unfortunately, it's been difficult to reverse-engineer everything (since, as always, there seem to be some mistakes with the character cards), but if there are still questions, I'll try to answer as many as I can.
Lets praise him !
Is there anything Build-Featury in the Runepriest layout ?
That leads me to believe that there's a Str/Con build (that's probably more weapon based) and a Str/Wis build (that might be based on blasts and bursts). It's interesting to note that he does not have a holy symbol, but his burst and blast powers have the same attack bonus. I wouldn't be surprised if this class can use some type of weapon as an implement (c'mon, hammers...)
The character card doesn't really differentiate between class features, racial traits, and feats, so it's hard to know which are which. There is this thing called Wrathful Hammer, which gives (in this case) a +4 bonus to damage rolls against enemies that hit you with attacks. I think that's pretty neat, and if the bonus is based on Con mod (which numerically makes sense), that would make it a class feature suited for the Str/Con class.
BTW, Chris Tulach mentions the Shardmind in the WotC Twitter Feed.
It's hard to say. It's highest stats are Str, Con, and Wis (20, 18, and 13, respectively), so the WWGD character is definately a Str/Con build (which makes sense, since it's a minotaur). The attacks are Str based, and there are definately some effects that key off of Con mod (target takes 4 extra damage, ally gains 4 temps, etc.)
That leads me to believe that there's a Str/Con build (that's probably more weapon based) and a Str/Wis build (that might be based on blasts and bursts). It's interesting to note that he does not have a holy symbol, but his burst and blast powers have the same attack bonus. I wouldn't be surprised if this class can use some type of weapon as an implement (c'mon, hammers...)
The character card doesn't really differentiate between class features, racial traits, and feats, so it's hard to know which are which. There is this thing called Wrathful Hammer, which gives (in this case) a +4 bonus to damage rolls against enemies that hit you with attacks. I think that's pretty neat, and if the bonus is based on Con mod (which numerically makes sense), that would make it a class feature suited for the Str/Con class.
It's also possible that the runepriest has two primary stats, with a STR-primary melee build and a WIS-primary build (with CON as the common secondary between the two builds). WIS/CON as a setup would favor dwarves, who fit the 'rune' flavor to a T.
Of course, doing it that way might make the class harder to set apart thematically from an ordinary Cleric, and recent classes seem to be moving away from the "A" setup.
I think there was some backlash in the design department from Ki. I think they spent a lot of time trying to make Ki work, but in the end decided it was unsustainable. So thats where some of these left field classes are coming from
We got the Assassin; a great new class that i'm sure would have fit just fine in a book but they released it way before any shadow classes around the time they're debuting PH3 material, could it be that the Assassin was originally be the Ninja and a part of the PH3?
We got the Seeker; a class that has solid mechanics but with some thrown together fluff, it could have easily been a Ki class to begin with as some sort of zen archery archetype
Now we have the Runepriest; a class that sounds more like a cleric build than an actual class, could it have been a Ki class based on Incarnum as some people speculated there would be?
Now my point is not that these are bad classes, all I'm asking is what is the possibility that the Ki power source has had some effect on the origin of some of these new classes? What do think, did Ki really die, or are we dealing with it's ghosts?
Regardless of what you think of the new classes, I for one am not a fan of some of the new stuff. But whether or not you like the PH3 classes and the Assassin or whatever, I think there might be something behind it.
I think there was some backlash in the design department from Ki. I think they spent a lot of time trying to make Ki work, but in the end decided it was unsustainable. So thats where some of these left field classes are coming from
We got the Assassin; a great new class that i'm sure would have fit just fine in a book but they released it way before any shadow classes around the time they're debuting PH3 material, could it be that the Assassin was originally be the Ninja and a part of the PH3?
We got the Seeker; a class that has solid mechanics but with some thrown together fluff, it could have easily been a Ki class to begin with as some sort of zen archery archetype
Now we have the Runepriest; a class that sounds more like a cleric build than an actual class, could it have been a Ki class based on Incarnum as some people speculated there would be?
Now my point is not that these are bad classes, all I'm asking is what is the possibility that the Ki power source has had some effect on the origin of some of these new classes? What do think, did Ki really die, or are we dealing with it's ghosts?
Well we know the monk was a ki refugee(they wouldn't leave the now iconic monk out), and I can buy Assassin as a slightly revamped ninja from the ki source. Seeker is a stretch but still possible. I'll have to see rune preist before I really decide, but nothing ties it to Ki in my mind (then again it doesn't tie to devine either). SO I guess it's possible. This gives us 2 strikers (bothe melee), a leader and a controller. This is a rather strange spread of classes imo to be the left overs. Also none of them have a real connection to eachother (such as channel divinity, pp). And these would be plenty of rather well developed classes, with 4 classes developed why axe the power source? I'm not all that convinced. Seeker was likely out want for a non spell slinging controller. Assassin is a way of showing off the shadow power source. Monk was a class that needed to be made but didn't have a home. And well rune preist I will comment on later.
Now my point is not that these are bad classes, all I'm asking is what is the possibility that the Ki power source has had some effect on the origin of some of these new classes? What do think, did Ki really die, or are we dealing with it's ghosts?
The reason Ki died was because they found themselves unable to build an entire power source based around the Full Disciple mechanism(which is sort of a giant duh and makes me want to slap the designers who were working on ki). None of the classes you mentioned have the full disciple mechanism in any form. So it sort of stands to reason that either they are not ki refugees or they have been so completely remodeled from how they were as ki classes that they might as well be entirely new classes. Really if they had four classes(monk, seeker, assassin, and runpriest) for ki then the source wouldn't be dead. That would have been a sustainable power source. If they got to the point where any classes besides the monk were designed for ki, I really doubt we're going to see them any time soon. Truthfully, I think it is more likely they dropped the ki power source before they made any substantial progress with any other ki classes.
The reason Ki died was because they found themselves unable to build an entire power source based around the Full Disciple mechanism(which is sort of a giant duh and makes me want to slap the designers who were working on ki). None of the classes you mentioned have the full disciple mechanism in any form. So it sort of stands to reason that either they are not ki refugees or they have been so completely remodeled from how they were as ki classes that they might as well be entirely new classes. Really if they had four classes(monk, seeker, assassin, and runpriest) for ki then the source wouldn't be dead. That would have been a sustainable power source. If they got to the point where any classes besides the monk were designed for ki, I really doubt we're going to see them any time soon. Truthfully, I think it is more likely they dropped the ki power source before they made any substantial progress with any other ki classes.
You're probably right, I was just sort of thinking out loud because I feel like WotC is starting to slip creatively and I was hoping It's all related to some phenomenon.
I fell in love with 4E and I really want it to meet it's potential, but now I see starting to go down the road that the past versions of game went down, the Runepriest is about one step away from Spellthief if you ask me, I just think 4E is better than that.
In the "What classes would you like to see" thread, we come up with such great ideas in there, and these new classes like Ardent and Seeker are so far off from what we could potentially be getting, it just makes me sad.
Well, Twitter confirmed that Shardmind is real, so I presume the rest are too.
Where exactly is the Shardmind confirmed? Do you have a link?
Well, Twitter confirmed that Shardmind is real, so I presume the rest are too.
Where exactly is the Shardmind confirmed? Do you have a link?
Here. Scroll down and hit "more" enough times. There's a passing reference.
Well, Twitter confirmed that Shardmind is real, so I presume the rest are too.
Where exactly is the Shardmind confirmed? Do you have a link?
Here. Scroll down and hit "more" enough times. There's a passing reference.
Thanks!
*coughspawnmoreoverlordscough*
Other than not having mouths and having vaguely similar body proportions, I'm not sure I see much of a significant resemblance.
EDIT: Also the loincloth, I guess.
*coughspawnmoreoverlordscough*
Wrong race, should have been: *coughyoumustconstructadditionalpylonscough* ;)
quote] For allw a know the shardminds are "+2 Int, +2 any one other;" the problem is we have no earthly idea.
Heh... I remember when 4e was still only preview material, and everyone was sure that the half-elf was +2 Cha, +2 any other, because no one wanted to believe they got +2 Con. They just didn't like the idea.
On the other hand, since we have zero idea what the flavor of the shardmind is like, it could possibly be +2 Int, +2 (some set of options inclusive of Wis), or +2 Wis, +2 (some set of options inclusive of Int). They may be adaptible, or there may be subraces like with the shifter and genasi. Of course, if they can be Int/Con, then they'll instantly become the most popular race for Conlocks, Shielding Swordmages, Battlesmith Artificers, and staff Wizards.
I'm hoping for it to be a CON/INT race, since the only such race so far is the githyanki in the MM, and WotC won't give us a player write up for them.
I'm willing to bet WotC will give the Githyanki a PC write-up eventually, despite what they've said. It's just that it most likely will happen in Dragon, and probably not til after the Astral Seas book at the earliest. More likely it'll be a year or more at least.
My guess is that the PHB4 will be the Eeeevil PHB, showcase the Darkness power source, and give us guys like the Assassin, maybe shadow dancer, (not really evil) Blackguard, etc, and then give us races like Githyanki, Goblins, etc, etc, as well as a little more info on the Evil points of light campaign Gods.
Granted, I also thought that the PHB3 was basically going to be "oriental adventures" and feature the Ki source, so don't go running to Vegas with this opinion.
My guess is that the PHB4 will be the Eeeevil PHB, showcase the Darkness power source, and give us guys like the Assassin, maybe shadow dancer, (not really evil) Blackguard, etc, and then give us races like Githyanki, Goblins, etc, etc, as well as a little more info on the Evil points of light campaign Gods.
Granted, I also thought that the PHB3 was basically going to be "oriental adventures" and feature the Ki source, so don't go running to Vegas with this opinion.
Sorry, but the Assassin is not going to show up in a player's handbook. Wizards has stated multiple times that this class is an Insider only class, and won't show up in print.
Sorry, but the Assassin is not going to show up in a player's handbook. Wizards has stated multiple times that this class is an Insider only class, and won't show up in print.
That might have been why he said "like the Assassin".
My guess is that the PHB4 will be the Eeeevil PHB, showcase the Darkness power source, and give us guys like the Assassin, maybe shadow dancer, (not really evil) Blackguard, etc, and then give us races like Githyanki, Goblins, etc, etc, as well as a little more info on the Evil points of light campaign Gods.
I can see the PH4 being the Dark ≠ Evil book more so than the Evil book, and I don't see Githyanki fitting into that theme, Githyanki aren't just dark, they're evil
My guess is that the PHB4 will be the Eeeevil PHB, showcase the Darkness power source, and give us guys like the Assassin, maybe shadow dancer, (not really evil) Blackguard, etc, and then give us races like Githyanki, Goblins, etc, etc, as well as a little more info on the Evil points of light campaign Gods.
Granted, I also thought that the PHB3 was basically going to be "oriental adventures" and feature the Ki source, so don't go running to Vegas with this opinion.
Sorry, but the Assassin is not going to show up in a player's handbook. Wizards has stated multiple times that this class is an Insider only class, and won't show up in print.
No apology needed. As an Insider, I have access to it. I just would not be surprized to see them alter their opinion on the matter, as they have done for other things in the past as well, like all that stuff that seemed to have vanished when the website got a make-over.
*coughspawnmoreoverlordscough*
Other than not having mouths and having vaguely similar body proportions, I'm not sure I see much of a significant resemblance.
EDIT: Also the loincloth, I guess.
That's a pretty big "other than"