Some of the material in this chapter is for use with classes found in other books. The barbarian and the bard appear in Player's Handbook 2, the druid appears in Player's Handbook 2 and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, and the wizard material is for use with either the Player's Handbook or Heroes of the Fallen Lands.
Chapter 3 of Heroes of the Feywild includes the following material:
- New powers for the barbarian, as well as alternate class features for the berserker subclass.
- New powers for the bard, as well as alternate class features for the skald subclass.
- New powers for the druid, as well as alternate class features for the protector subclass.
- New powers for the wizard, as well as alternate class features for the witch subclass.
In today's preview, we look more closely at the witch subclass, initially revealed in our In the Works column:
We've all already seen the barbarian power that boosts your Defender Aura.
And if your choice is Rageblood, Whirling, Thaneborn, or [New Feywild Option] isn't that support?
-O
We've all already seen the barbarian power that boosts your Defender Aura.
And if your choice is Rageblood, Whirling, Thaneborn, or [New Feywild Option] isn't that support?
-O
It's the same backhanded, incidental support that has been upsetting people since Essentials came out. It won't make anyone happy who was upset, even if it's good in and of itself. Let it be judged on its own merits instead of as "support."
We've all already seen the barbarian power that boosts your Defender Aura.
And if your choice is Rageblood, Whirling, Thaneborn, or [New Feywild Option] isn't that support?
-O
Non-feywild option barbarians dont have defender aura, its not really support.
Its like if they printed an option they claimed was for the original warlock that grants a bonus to your Hexblade.
And while its similar to having different builds having powers that only benefit them, its still subtly different due to entirely different set of core features.
All told, I don't think we'll get a true view of where WotC is taking things until the Elemental book, since Feywild was in production while the Essentials books were still a current event.
Why does the Barbarian boost Defender Aura?
Same reason the cleric boosts Sneak Attack.
Why does the Barbarian boost Defender Aura?
We don't know this, in all honesty.
Those who do know are the ones who have seen the book, and they should not be talking.
We DO know that the Berserker build will start each encounter as a Defender, and later in the combat can switch roles into a Striker. The assumption being made that prompted your question is that the "marking mechanic" would be Defender Aura because that is the "Essentials Mark."
The Berserker could have a Defender Aura, or it could have a different marking mechanic. We won't know until it hits the Premier store shelves on November 5th (or until WotC sends out a preview copy to one of the folks in the gaming press).
This is why the notion of support is comical - the only power we've seen is useless for existing barbarians.
No, we know it has a defender aura. It has a power that increases the radius of the defender aura.
This is why the notion of support is comical - the only power we've seen is useless for existing barbarians.
Oddly enough, the reason why the folks who are crying fowl are comical is also contained within this very sentence.
The notion that there will be no "real" support for the PHB2 Barbarian is comical because the ONLY (singular) power we have seen for the new build happens to be one that (*GASP*) supports the new build.
Here's what I'm going to do. When the book comes out, I will check it out for myself (rather than letting a bunch of twits on the internet tell me what they want me to think). I will judge the new build based on its own merits (knowing that it is going to be doing something that other Barbarians usually don't). If it so happens that most of the powers don't support my Rageblood Barbarian, I'm not going to come here and complain about it because I expect the lion's share of powers in a new book to support the builds contained in the same book, just like the powers for Whirling and Thunderborn Barbarians from Primal Power didn't do much for my Rageblood Barbarian.
Your Mileage May Vary.
As I said, the class should be judged on its own merit, not on any supposed support it lends to previous classes. If it happens to support previous builds in a meaningful way, hey, bonus.
But yeah. It uses some sort of Defender Aura: wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/...
It of course isn't a rage daily, so cannot be burned for Rage Strike or used to trigger the wide range of powers and feats that utilize raging.
The notion that there will be no "real" support for the PHB2 Barbarian is comical because the ONLY (singular) power we have seen for the new build happens to be one that (*GASP*) supports the new build.
It's comical that we went through this dance with each Essentials and post-Essentials release - even though it's turned out the same each time.
You might want to edit your insults out. Just saying.
Nope. If the chicken littles who get bent out of shape and decry it as the end of D&D whenever the developers try something new or the folks who have an axe to grind and want everyone to join them on their crusade against things they haven't even tried for themselves want to take offense, let 'em. I'm sick of suffering fools "gladly." Fools should be taken out into the village square and mocked like they were in olden times, not treated as if their idiociy were sacrosanct.
As I said, the class should be judged on its own merit, not on any supposed support it lends to previous classes. If it happens to support previous builds in a meaningful way, hey, bonus.
All things should be judged on their own merits, and each of us should be in charge of our own judging. Whenever someone asks for my opinion of some new (or any) thing, I always reinforce that it is my opinion that is being given, and that if they truly want to know, they need to check out the object in question and decide for themselves if they like it or not.
The notion that there will be no "real" support for the PHB2 Barbarian is comical because the ONLY (singular) power we have seen for the new build happens to be one that (*GASP*) supports the new build.
It's comical that we went through this dance with each Essentials and post-Essentials release - even though it's turned out the same each time.
D&D ain't dead yet, my friend. Neither is 4E, despite every idiot who predicted that Essentials would kill it.
My pre-E characters use material from the E(and post-E)-books all the time. I feel supported.
Your mileage may vary (and, from our many discussions, it does, greatly).
The amazing thing is that we both play D&D in the way that pleases us, and we have fun. I would like to think that the goal of having fun is more important to you than any prejudices you may have regarding characters others choose to play. Based on that assumption, despite our many disagreements regarding all things E, I would still be honored to have you at my table, and would do my best to make the experience as fun for you as it is for myself and everyone else at the table.
Can't we all just quit arguing about each new thing that comes out and just play D&D?
I would love it if a new product came out, and, for once. we all obsessed about what we liked about it instead of arguing about what we didn't like.
You might want to edit your insults out. Just saying.
Nope. If the chicken littles who get bent out of shape and decry it as the end of D&D whenever the developers try something new or the folks who have an axe to grind and want everyone to join them on their crusade against things they haven't even tried for themselves want to take offense, let 'em. I'm sick of suffering fools "gladly." Fools should be taken out into the village square and mocked like they were in olden times, not treated as if their idiociy were sacrosanct.
And the ravings and insults of uncritical apologists and mindless yes-men can be safely ignored, in any case.
And the ravings and insults of uncritical apologists and mindless yes-men can be safely ignored, in any case.
Absolutely. Fabulous that neither of us is guilty of being either, isn't it?
My pre-E characters use material from the E(and post-E)-books all the time. I feel supported.
Can't argue with feel.
Fact, OTOH...
Wizard support in Essentials: sub-class with 3 builds (schools), new spells, spells errata'd to be more powerful.
Wizard support post-Essentials: another sub-class, two more 'schools' worth of new spells, more on the way.
Warlord support in Essentials: none.
Warlord support post-Essentials: none.
Clearly, we're just playing different pre-E classes.
I would like to think that the goal of having fun is more important to you than any prejudices you may have regarding characters others choose to play.
Funny you bring up 'prejudices.' It's the stereotypes brought back in HotFL and subsequent products that really annoy me the most. I mean, there's /plenty/ that's bad about the new direction, and balance issues are probably the worst, but the hoops designers are jumping through to resurrect the big dumb fighter, do-anything godwizard, and healbot cleric... it's just sad. Hey, at least they backed off on the cleric, a little, for now.
I would love it if a new product came out, and, for once. we all obsessed about what we liked about it instead of arguing about what we didn't like.
I do find that it's a good bit easier to re-introduce returning AD&Ders using Essentials. That's all the positive I've got on the subject, and it doesn't go very far. Though I /am/ going to run an Essentials version of the ancient Temple of the Frog at the next local Con... see if I get any 0D&Ders to give it a whirl.
Can't argue with feel.
Fact, OTOH...
Wizard support in Essentials: sub-class with 3 builds (schools), new spells, spells errata'd to be more powerful.
Wizard support post-Essentials: another sub-class, two more 'schools' worth of new spells, more on the way.
Warlord support in Essentials: none.
Warlord support post-Essentials: none.
Clearly, we're just playing different pre-E classes.
We most certainly are. I am playing Fighters and Paladins. I also dabble in new (sub)classes as they are released. My favorite classes have always and will probably ever be Rogue, Fighter, Paladin and now (with 4E) Warlord.
I understand one of the basic truths of class bloat, however, and that is that with every single new class released, the amount of available developer time to expand all classes is reduced. As soon as the Barbarian was released in PHB2, Warlord support was reduced. As soon as the Monk was released, Warlord support was reduced further. Trying to lay blame for reduced Warlord support on Essentials is taking an extremely narrow view and trying to make the facts fit that view. By virtue of being the only source with a Power 2 book, pre-E Martial classes are still some of the best supported classes in the game, e-build or not, and that includes the Warlord.
Funny you bring up 'prejudices.' It's the stereotypes brought back in HotFL and subsequent products that really annoy me the most. I mean, there's /plenty/ that's bad about the new direction, and balance issues are probably the worst, but the hoops designers are jumping through to resurrect the big dumb fighter, do-anything godwizard, and healbot cleric... it's just sad. Hey, at least they backed off on the cleric, a little, for now.
I DMed up to high Paragon, and expect to get back into Epic soon (DM burnout right as we finished Paragon), with a Knight in the party. These "balance issues" you are always talking about simply don't exist. The Knight has not turned into a big, dumb fighter, and our Wizard still isn't trivializing the rest of the party. As soon as one of these events happens, I'll admit that you might have a case. They may have resurrected the AD&D 2E feel for those who had trouble grokking the concept of Martial Daily Powers, but the e-Martial classes still function perfectly in the 4E paradigm, staying completely relevant and functional (at least into Epic Tier, by direct experience, I am not willing to argue theorycraft for things I have not experienced). Since they accomplished this Herculean task, I applaud them for jumping through those hoops instead of cutting corners.
Play the game instead of theorycrafting corner cases, and you might come out with different results.
Can't argue with feel.
Fact, OTOH...
Wizard support in Essentials: sub-class with 3 builds (schools), new spells, spells errata'd to be more powerful.
Wizard support post-Essentials: another sub-class, two more 'schools' worth of new spells, more on the way.
Warlord support in Essentials: none.
Warlord support post-Essentials: none.
Clearly, we're just playing different pre-E classes.
We most certainly are. I am playing Fighters and Paladins.
Mmm-hm. So really /just/ a feeling. I won't try to talk you out of your subjective opinion. If you can enjoy a Slayer for more than an hour or two, great. No accounting for taste.
I understand one of the basic truths of class bloat, however, and that is that with every single new class released, the amount of available developer time to expand all classes is reduced. As soon as the Barbarian was released in PHB2, Warlord support was reduced.
PH2 2009. MP2 2010. Nope, support kept coming post-Barbarian. The 'old direction' model didn't create second-class classes.
Trying to lay blame for reduced Warlord support on Essentials is taking an extremely narrow view and trying to make the facts fit that view. By virtue of being the only source with a Power 2 book, pre-E Martial classes are still some of the best supported classes in the game, e-build or not, and that includes the Warlord.
An accident of when the Essentials axe fell, I suppose, but look at how it's trending. The Fighter was one of the best-supported classes, and it had 5 builds including PH1, MP1&2. The Wizard had 6 just counting PH1 & AP1. Essentials+, has added 2 largely incompatible (they can share only utility powers) fighter sub-classes, and, if you count Dragon, a second build for one of 'em. Essentials has added (including the imminent HotFw) 3 wizard sub-classes, two of them compatible, and 5 additional builds (schools), 6 including Dragon. The Cleric, one semi-compatible subclass (with quite a few Domains stacking up), and the whip-saw nerf/less-nerf Templar and overdone Battle Cleric upgrade. The Rogue, 1 incompatible sub-class, the Ranger, 2. The Paladin, two quasi-compatible sub-classes, about the same for the Warlock. The Barbarian & Bard, 1 semi-compatible sub-class on the way for each. The Avenger, Invoker, Shaman, Warden, Monk, Psion, Battlemind, Ardent, Seeker, RunePriest - like the Warlord, nothing.
Funny you bring up 'prejudices.' It's the stereotypes brought back in HotFL and subsequent products that really annoy me the most. I mean, there's /plenty/ that's bad about the new direction, and balance issues are probably the worst, but the hoops designers are jumping through to resurrect the big dumb fighter, do-anything godwizard, and healbot cleric... it's just sad. Hey, at least they backed off on the cleric, a little, for now.
I DMed up to high Paragon, and expect to get back into Epic soon (DM burnout right as we finished Paragon), with a Knight in the party. These "balance issues" you are always talking about simply don't exist. The Knight has not turned into a big, dumb fighter, and our Wizard still isn't trivializing the rest of the party.
It is certainly true that one can compensate for or willfully ignore - or revel in - even egregious imbalances. Just because a mechanic can keep a trabant running doesn't mean it's a good car.
(at least into Epic Tier, by direct experience, I am not willing to argue theorycraft for things I have not experienced).
Calling unverifiable anecdotal evidence 'direct experience,' and irrefutable logic 'theorycraft,' doesn't make the former proof or the latter invalid.
Calling unverifiable anecdotal evidence 'direct experience,' and irrefutable logic 'theorycraft,' doesn't make the former proof or the latter invalid.
This is, of course, assuming that you have irrefutable logic. Which, by him having an experience counter to your logic, is in fact refuting it.
the Warlord, nothing.
I think I read the term Marshall under Warlord somewhere (Essentialised Warlord), can someone verify?
the Warlord, nothing.
I think I read the term Marshall under Warlord somewhere (Essentialised Warlord), can someone verify?
Marshal is just like Weaponmaster or Arcanist, just the retro-applied subclass name for the PHB1 version of the class.
Personally I think Maka is pretty much right, all the bitching and hand-wringing and whatnot is vastly overblown. HotF* and etc are just more splat-books. 4e has a LOT of classes and sub-classes and builds. Not every new thing they add will work with all of them, and that's really nothing new. It is pointless to complain about it, either you have the material you need in order to support your character concept, or you don't. It is irrelevant whether or not some new thing will work with build X or not, all that matters is you can create the character you want to play. If you can then you've got nothing to complain about, if you can't, well, then send WotC a note and tell them you'd like to see them support your idea. At this point though there's not much you can't do.
And for those who somehow feel entitled to have the game only focus on things THEY like and nothing else, well, sure it would be just peachy, but remember that what YOU like ain't the whole world. There are bound to be things you won't personally care to use in the game. Such has it always been and such will it always be, get used to it.
the Warlord, nothing.
I think I read the term Marshall under Warlord somewhere (Essentialised Warlord), can someone verify?
Marshal is just like Weaponmaster or Arcanist, just the retro-applied subclass name for the PHB1 version of the class.
Personally I think Maka is pretty much right, all the bitching and hand-wringing and whatnot is vastly overblown. HotF* and etc are just more splat-books. 4e has a LOT of classes and sub-classes and builds. Not every new thing they add will work with all of them, and that's really nothing new. It is pointless to complain about it, either you have the material you need in order to support your character concept, or you don't. It is irrelevant whether or not some new thing will work with build X or not, all that matters is you can create the character you want to play. If you can then you've got nothing to complain about, if you can't, well, then send WotC a note and tell them you'd like to see them support your idea. At this point though there's not much you can't do.
And for those who somehow feel entitled to have the game only focus on things THEY like and nothing else, well, sure it would be just peachy, but remember that what YOU like ain't the whole world. There are bound to be things you won't personally care to use in the game. Such has it always been and such will it always be, get used to it.
TL;DR - If you don't like what's on the school lunch menu you can just go hungry for the day or bring your own lunch.
And while it's wholely my opinion, I still find most of the new stuff to be lazy design. There is no harm in expressing that opinion.
the Warlord, nothing.
I think I read the term Marshall under Warlord somewhere (Essentialised Warlord), can someone verify?
Marshal is just like Weaponmaster or Arcanist, just the retro-applied subclass name for the PHB1 version of the class.
Personally I think Maka is pretty much right, all the bitching and hand-wringing and whatnot is vastly overblown. HotF* and etc are just more splat-books. 4e has a LOT of classes and sub-classes and builds. Not every new thing they add will work with all of them, and that's really nothing new. It is pointless to complain about it, either you have the material you need in order to support your character concept, or you don't. It is irrelevant whether or not some new thing will work with build X or not, all that matters is you can create the character you want to play. If you can then you've got nothing to complain about, if you can't, well, then send WotC a note and tell them you'd like to see them support your idea. At this point though there's not much you can't do.
And for those who somehow feel entitled to have the game only focus on things THEY like and nothing else, well, sure it would be just peachy, but remember that what YOU like ain't the whole world. There are bound to be things you won't personally care to use in the game. Such has it always been and such will it always be, get used to it.
TL;DR - If you don't like what's on the school lunch menu you can just go hungry for the day or bring your own lunch.
And while it's wholely my opinion, I still find most of the new stuff to be lazy design. There is no harm in expressing that opinion.
Yeah, it's the "I don't like this, it isn't interesting to me, therefor it is BAD!" nonsense that is annoying. Truthfully though, if you think this or that is 'lazy design', do some design work! lol.
Yeah, it's the "I don't like this, it isn't interesting to me, therefor it is BAD!" nonsense that is annoying. Truthfully though, if you think this or that is 'lazy design', do some design work! lol.
Funny thing about that is that the gate keepers to the White Tower of WotC is WotC itself. So if your design doesn't fit their philosphy you're SoL... I know, I've tried.
I'm confused as to why we're getting a 3rd Druid build. Hopefully it won't be as lackluster as the Sentinel.
Yeah, it's the "I don't like this, it isn't interesting to me, therefor it is BAD!" nonsense that is annoying. Truthfully though, if you think this or that is 'lazy design', do some design work! lol.
Funny thing about that is that the gate keepers to the White Tower of WotC is WotC itself. So if your design doesn't fit their philosphy you're SoL... I know, I've tried.
I'm confused as to why we're getting a 3rd Druid build. Hopefully it won't be as lackluster as the Sentinel.
Well, what sort of build is it? I doubt heavily it is an entire new subclass. It is either a variation of sentinel or of the PHB2 druid. I'm betting PHB2 druid myself since the sentinel is rather less flexible. I don't really know though. My guess is that in general they're not going to do entire new subclasses very often. The barbarian for instance sounds like a build of the PHB2 barbarian, not an entirely new subclass. The Witch is a significant variation on the Arcanist but still appears to be effectively an Arcanist build. Really the boundaries there are pretty fuzzy and WotC hasn't exactly formalized any of that terminology anyhow.
Marshal is just like Weaponmaster or Arcanist, just the retro-applied subclass name for the PHB1 version of the class.
What have they re-named the other O-classes (druid, paladin, ranger, warlock)?
Marshal is just like Weaponmaster or Arcanist, just the retro-applied subclass name for the PHB1 version of the class.
What have they re-named the other O-classes (druid, paladin, ranger, warlock)?
Not all of the PHB1 classes have 'retro names' and presumably some of them never will, like the Warlock. There is Arcanist (Wizard), Marshal (Warlord), Weaponmaster (Fighter), Templar (Cleric), and something or other for Rogue IIRC. Really 'subclass' is not a well-defined concept or term in 4e, so really they just create names when they need to distinguish things mechanically from other things. The names don't mean a whole lot, though they do show up in CB and Compendium.
Yeah, it's the "I don't like this, it isn't interesting to me, therefor it is BAD!" nonsense that is annoying. Truthfully though, if you think this or that is 'lazy design', do some design work! lol.
Funny thing about that is that the gate keepers to the White Tower of WotC is WotC itself. So if your design doesn't fit their philosphy you're SoL... I know, I've tried.
I'm confused as to why we're getting a 3rd Druid build. Hopefully it won't be as lackluster as the Sentinel.
Well, what sort of build is it? I doubt heavily it is an entire new subclass. It is either a variation of sentinel or of the PHB2 druid. I'm betting PHB2 druid myself since the sentinel is rather less flexible. I don't really know though. My guess is that in general they're not going to do entire new subclasses very often. The barbarian for instance sounds like a build of the PHB2 barbarian, not an entirely new subclass. The Witch is a significant variation on the Arcanist but still appears to be effectively an Arcanist build. Really the boundaries there are pretty fuzzy and WotC hasn't exactly formalized any of that terminology anyhow.
The new Druid type/build/subclass/whatever is called the Protector Druid. No idea what it does except that it has a different name than any of the prior builds. Funny because we already have a Guardian and Sentinel so we know that we're at least repeating ground we've already covered. I would hope for a PHB 2 version as well but that would mean WotC has to reprint Wild Shape which would likely mean some sort of nerf/dumbing down is coming. So my guess it'll be some 3rd (or 5th depending on how you count them) build that covers more of the caster role, maybe even tightens up summoning. Considering how WotC has treated E-reboots of classes I'm not exactly looking forward to it but I'll wait and see.
As for the barbarian we already know if gets a defender mechanic, likely an aura, so that won't be shareable. Also it's new Rage like ability doesn't seem compatible with rage strike, but we've seen too little to know for sure. Hopefully it'll have real at-wills, encounters, and dailies that can be used by real barbarians. Also didn't WotC already remake the Barbarian with the Slayer? Just some dude who charges all the time?
The Witch somehow thinks that a familiar is somehow a trade of for implement master or school specialization. So unless features gained at later levels improve it it'll just be an excuse to give Wizards even more Powers to choose from. Because you know, that's what Wizards and Mages really needed, more power.
The new Druid type/build/subclass/whatever is called the Protector Druid. No idea what it does except that it has a different name than any of the prior builds. Funny because we already have a Guardian and Sentinel so we know that we're at least repeating ground we've already covered. I would hope for a PHB 2 version as well but that would mean WotC has to reprint Wild Shape which would likely mean some sort of nerf/dumbing down is coming. So my guess it'll be some 3rd (or 5th depending on how you count them) build that covers more of the caster role, maybe even tightens up summoning. Considering how WotC has treated E-reboots of classes I'm not exactly looking forward to it but I'll wait and see.
Maybe it will have a "bear form" and when it's in that form it acts as a defender , marking and tanking. Then I'll finally throw in my hat at the "4e is WoW"
Maybe it will have a "bear form" and when it's in that form it acts as a defender , marking and tanking. Then I'll finally throw in my hat at the "4e is WoW"
You mean 4E isn't WoW?
We most certainly are. I am playing Fighters and Paladins.
Mmm-hm. So really /just/ a feeling. I won't try to talk you out of your subjective opinion. If you can enjoy a Slayer for more than an hour or two, great. No accounting for taste.
I can enjoy a Slayer for more than a few hours, but I really need to have handle on the character (RP). Fargrim, the pregen for the last three seasons of Encounters, would bore the crud out of me. Memnon, the Minotaur Slayer with a perverse sense of humour is a gas to play. The difference, of course being that I created the latter and I didn't create the former. If I create a character, I am going to give it the personality and background required to engage me and invest me in the game, whether I am creating a Slayer, a Warpriest, a Warden or an Invoker.
The Fighter and Paladin I was referencing above were a Brawler and a Chaladin. I seriously consider the powers from HotFL and HotFK when leveling these guys up, and have taken several of them for each build.
I understand one of the basic truths of class bloat, however, and that is that with every single new class released, the amount of available developer time to expand all classes is reduced. As soon as the Barbarian was released in PHB2, Warlord support was reduced.
PH2 2009. MP2 2010. Nope, support kept coming post-Barbarian. The 'old direction' model didn't create second-class classes.Trying to lay blame for reduced Warlord support on Essentials is taking an extremely narrow view and trying to make the facts fit that view. By virtue of being the only source with a Power 2 book, pre-E Martial classes are still some of the best supported classes in the game, e-build or not, and that includes the Warlord.
An accident of when the Essentials axe fell, I suppose, but look at how it's trending. The Fighter was one of the best-supported classes, and it had 5 builds including PH1, MP1&2. The Wizard had 6 just counting PH1 & AP1. Essentials+, has added 2 largely incompatible (they can share only utility powers) fighter sub-classes, and, if you count Dragon, a second build for one of 'em. Essentials has added (including the imminent HotFw) 3 wizard sub-classes, two of them compatible, and 5 additional builds (schools), 6 including Dragon. The Cleric, one semi-compatible subclass (with quite a few Domains stacking up), and the whip-saw nerf/less-nerf Templar and overdone Battle Cleric upgrade. The Rogue, 1 incompatible sub-class, the Ranger, 2. The Paladin, two quasi-compatible sub-classes, about the same for the Warlock. The Barbarian & Bard, 1 semi-compatible sub-class on the way for each. The Avenger, Invoker, Shaman, Warden, Monk, Psion, Battlemind, Ardent, Seeker, RunePriest - like the Warlord, nothing.
Reduced support does not mean non-existant support. Warlords, by virtue of being in a Power 2 book, and one of the more popular Dragon Magazine entrants, are already one of the most supported classes in the game. I share your disappointment at the lack of support for the Seeker, Runepriest (new build coming, but that doesn't help your argument, so you fail to mention it), Artificer, Shaman, etc. Since the developers are not being forced to create such material without Power 2 books on the schedule, it needs to be fit into other products or the magazine. This is where "reduced support" due to class bloat comes into play.
Funny you bring up 'prejudices.' It's the stereotypes brought back in HotFL and subsequent products that really annoy me the most. I mean, there's /plenty/ that's bad about the new direction, and balance issues are probably the worst, but the hoops designers are jumping through to resurrect the big dumb fighter, do-anything godwizard, and healbot cleric... it's just sad. Hey, at least they backed off on the cleric, a little, for now.
I DMed up to high Paragon, and expect to get back into Epic soon (DM burnout right as we finished Paragon), with a Knight in the party. These "balance issues" you are always talking about simply don't exist. The Knight has not turned into a big, dumb fighter, and our Wizard still isn't trivializing the rest of the party.
It is certainly true that one can compensate for or willfully ignore - or revel in - even egregious imbalances. Just because a mechanic can keep a trabant running doesn't mean it's a good car.
And to this, again, I say that you need to play the darned game. We aren't ignoring anything. The Knight is well-designed, and does not become trivialized by AEDU classes. It is simple in appearance, but tactically complex in play. If you were doing more than theorycraft (yet somehow still ignoring the Char Op boards and all their theorycraft) you would know this. BTW, Char Op, and all their number crunching agrees with me, and they are masters of theorycraft, while you are proving yourself to be an armchair theoritician, at best
(at least into Epic Tier, by direct experience, I am not willing to argue theorycraft for things I have not experienced).
Calling unverifiable anecdotal evidence 'direct experience,' and irrefutable logic 'theorycraft,' doesn't make the former proof or the latter invalid.
My "unverifiable anecdotal evidence" has been matched by DMs and players around the country who have had similar experience and come here to post about it in the several hundred E-war threads. You participated in most of threads, as did I. If anyone is "willfully ignoring" anything, I'd say that it is you, and not us, because you have blinders on that your "logic" will not allow you to remove.
I refute your logic because it does not match my experience (or the experience of the five players around my table, or the experience of other players and DMs who have posted, refuting your irrefutable logic in the past). Maybe some experience of your own would be beneficial.
Inigo sez
"Irrefutable" and "logic." You keep using those words. Somehow, I don't think they mean quite what you think they mean.
;)
Tony, you and I have done this dance. Your logic simply cannot counter my experience, and until you have some experience, nothing I say will counter your logic. On virtually every other topic related to D&D, I think we either agree or almost agree. When it comes to all things E, however, we just aren't going to see eye to eye. I'll agree to disagree if you do.
The Neverwinter campaign book makes many references to pre-essentials books including the PHB, DMG and monster manuals. I especially liked how it used monsters from all sources to flesh out the various factions. The Gardmore Abbey superadventure did the same. This is a nice nod to those DM's who have the older books.
In general, the DDI support for Pre-E material is steadily improving since bottoming out after the release of Essentials. Options for strength clerics, o-assassins, and the upcoming articles for Runepriest and Bladeling represent a real attempt by WotC to meet everyones demand for support for those options.
The real clincher for me would be more support for the Seeker. Any bets on when/if we'll see it?
The Fighter was one of the best-supported classes, and it had 5 builds including PH1, MP1&2. The Wizard had 6 just counting PH1 & AP1. Essentials+, has added 2 largely incompatible (they can share only utility powers) fighter sub-classes, and, if you count Dragon, a second build for one of 'em. Essentials has added (including the imminent HotFw) 3 wizard sub-classes, two of them compatible, and 5 additional builds (schools), 6 including Dragon. ... The Avenger, Invoker, Shaman, Warden, Monk, Psion, Battlemind, Ardent, Seeker, RunePriest - like the Warlord, nothing.
Reduced support does not mean non-existant support.
I don't see how /nothing/ constitutes 'reduced' rather than non-existant support. Perhaps there's some vaporware on the horizon?
Funny you bring up 'prejudices.' It's the stereotypes brought back in HotFL and subsequent products that really annoy me the most. I mean, there's /plenty/ that's bad about the new direction, and balance issues are probably the worst, but the hoops designers are jumping through to resurrect the big dumb fighter, do-anything godwizard, and healbot cleric... it's just sad. Hey, at least they backed off on the cleric, a little, for now..... It is certainly true that one can compensate for or willfully ignore - or revel in - even egregious imbalances. Just because a mechanic can keep a trabant running doesn't mean it's a good car.
And to this, again, I say that you need to play the darned game. We aren't ignoring anything. The Knight is well-designed, and does not become trivialized by AEDU classes.
I'm not saying it always will be - in theory, it could even do the overshadowing in the right campaign. The Knight (or Slayer ) is not badly designed for what it is - a class that resurects an old stereotype - but whether by design or accident, it doesn't balance /well/ or consistently with pre-existing or other Essentials classes.
The reason is simple and obvious enough, if you care to look at it objectively. If you assume that the daily-less class's other abilities balance with those of other classe, which include dailies - at the expected average 4-5 encounter day, then if you have fewer encounters, the classes with dailies will tend to overshadow those without, and, conversely, if you have /very/ long/unpredictable days, the reverse will be true. In a campaign that sticks tightly to that 4-5 average - rarely ever having only 3 or as many as 6, say - no extreme class balance problem is aparent (you /might/ notice that the contributions of the daily-less class are less dramatic, but overall they're contributing in a balanced fashion). In a campaign that has greater variation from the norm, the players may still feel their characters are balanced in the long run - some 'shining' on some days, some on others - but the DM will notice that encounter balance becomes trickier when he has very 'short' or 'long' days (balancing an encounter to challenge some characters who can 'go nova' while others can't has never been easy - though Essentials doesn't come close to making it as problematic as it was in 3.x). In a campaign that deviates consistently, so it's average is lower or higher than the balance point, class imbalances will become quite difficult for the DM to compensate for or the players to ignore (though, of course, some may revel in them).
That's the facts - /assuming/ the classes balance at all, but I'm content to stipulate that they do, at some point, even if it may not be 4.5 encounters/day at every table. You can claim contrary experiences or call facts 'theorycrafting' or falsely accuse me of not playing the game (I play Encounters, a campaign that's currently in Paragon, and I run Lair Assault - and I've been an avid gamer since 1980) all you like, the facts won't change to suit you.
Tony, you and I have done this dance. Your logic simply cannot counter my experience, and until you have some experience, nothing I say will counter your logic.
1) I do have experience - an excess of it, in fact. So you can stop making that snide insinuation anytime you care to begin being intellectually honest. 2) you absolutely can attempt to counter my logic. If you have any of your own to offer. You'd have to aproach the questions raised objectively and with an open mind... You might even find that not only am I 'right,' but what I'm actually claiming isn't quite as damning nor nearly as at odds with your own experience as you seem to think.
The real clincher for me would be more support for the Seeker. Any bets on when/if we'll see it?
Heroes of the Feywild would be the place for it.
Really, they could just take the Seeker's handful of decent powers, rework inevitable shot and bonds into at-wills with some kind of powerup mechanism (like stances), and slap an Essentials label on it and that would be enough for me. Hmm perhaps something for me to spend my evening on now that my game has been cancelled.
Wizard support in Essentials: sub-class with 3 builds (schools), new spells, spells errata'd to be more powerful.
Wizard support post-Essentials: another sub-class, two more 'schools' worth of new spells, more on the way.
Warlord support in Essentials: none.
Warlord support post-Essentials: none.
Wizard support in Martial Power: None.
Warlord support in Arcane Power: None.
Warlord support in Martial Power: Loads.
Wizard support in Arcane Power: Loads.
It's almost as if a class not having support in some books doesn't mean that it will never have support ever again.
But who am I to talk? I'm obviously an "apologist", because it's impossible that someone can disagree with Tony due to personal taste, since he has already fortold the future, not to mention how he already decreed that his tastes were superior to all others!
Wizard support in Martial Power: None.
Warlord support in Arcane Power: None.
Warlord support in Martial Power: Loads.
Wizard support in Arcane Power: Loads.
It's almost as if a class not having support in some books doesn't mean that it will never have support ever again.
This argument is so dishonest. Essentials books were not merely new splat books for existing classes, the builds that were included in Essentials were not the equivalent of builds released in the Powers books, and the shift in philosophy that accompanied the Essentials line was not the same as the incremental shifts in design that predecessed it.
If there is a shift in design philosophy, release plan, branding, and class format and certain classes seem to fall off the table without ever being mentioned again, it's not unreasonable to have some concern that they have gotten lost in the shuffle. That's a little different from complaining that a book called Arcane Power doesn't have support for martial characters.
On the other hand, it's very similar to pointing out that a book called Heroes of the Feywild has options for an arcane class that has by far the broadest post-Essentials support, but no options for the damn seeker! I mean, if Martial Power had shipped with new wizard options and no warlord options, you would find concern about that at least a bit reasonable, no? What do they have to do, release a book called "The Warlord Book" that has nothing but wizard options before you will concede that the balance of class coverage is pretty clearly deliberately favoring some over others?
Wizard support in Essentials: sub-class with 3 builds (schools), new spells, spells errata'd to be more powerful.
Wizard support post-Essentials: another sub-class, two more 'schools' worth of new spells, more on the way.
Warlord support in Essentials: none.
Warlord support post-Essentials: none.
It's almost as if a class not having support in some books doesn't mean that it will never have support ever again.
I'm making no definitive claim about the future, just the current trend. The current trend has been to build upon the 'evergreen' Essentials products, not on earlier dead-tree materials. It makes marketing sense, but it's meant vanishing little to no ongoing support of pre-E. Really, it gives the impression that the devs wish they could just sweep it all under the rug and honestly roll a rev - but the nerdrage over a formal 4.5 would have been epic.
Anyway if you go all the way back to my first post, you'll notice that I pointed out that HotFw actually referencing PH2 as well as Essentials as resources you'd use it with /would/ be a non-trivial development in that regard. I was my usual cynical self, but by my standards, it was positively hopeful. ;P
Personally I would have been less upset if Essentials had been a totally new edition.
Especially if it had gone:
3.5 -> Essentials -> 4e
I do feel like Essentials is a step back in many regards, but it's still a step forward in others. I dream of a final, polished 4e that merges the best of both even though that will never happen. In this fantasy world, the concepts for Essentials that were good but not appropriate for 4e would be spun-off into a true Evergreen, beginner's line of D&D products. A set of paperbacks that would contain all of the rules and an adventure for simpler classes with a smaller set of choices similar to the knight or slayer. An actual finished product that wasn't constantly being tweaked with more splat books, that WotC could put in a fancy box and say to every grandmother, aunt, uncle, mother, father, etc. who are looking for a birthday gift for a creative kid "Everything you need to play dungens and dragons," with a set of characters and adventures so simple that you could set up the game and play it right at the party. That's totally impossible with 4e. Assuming that your ignorant uncle gets the right books needed to play, it would take half the day to figure out character generation, let alone the duties and tasks of a DM. The entry bar for 4e is extremely high, not in terms of intelligence or creativity, just time investment before you can actually sit down and play your first game with your own character.
Basically, bring back Basic DnD.
I fail to see how "warlords have gotten no post-essentials support, therefore post-essentials books do not support any pre-essentials classes" is good logic, let alone irrefutable.
Strawmen do not have to be refuted. They collapse under their own weight.
Edit: There is a difference between not supporting previous material and pretending it never existed.
I had a whole bunch of stuff written, but it just isn't worth it. For reference, see any of the 1000+ E-war threads.
I'd rather be talking about the Barbarian.
Since we have seen that the Daily powers are not all Rages, how do you think this build will handle Rage?
I don't count support as the mentioning of an earlier book because in the Neverwinter Campaign guide it mentions "The Grand History of the Realms" as a good source for Realms history and I seriously doubt they are "supporting" 3rd edition.
Edit: There is a difference between not supporting previous material and pretending it never existed.
ok first, I belive the grand history was a bridge title, out after 3.5 ended but before 4e was relased, adn was fluff only, so I guess quasi 4e
second, we will never end this support arguement. It reminds me of my mother and me argueing.
Mom "You never help around the house"
Me "I just did the dishes"
Mom "That doesn't count I cooked, it was your turn to do the dishes"
me "I empty the garbag every week, and put it out"
Mom "That is your chore"
Me"I do the shoping for the food"
Mom "Only becuse I can't walk anymore"
Me "So in closeing, if you discount everything I do, then yes I do nothing"
it feels the same way here:
They have 30+ mage powers take able by any wizard, Doesn't count
almost evey sub class gives utilities to it's parrant class Doesn't count
Dragon articles have A?E?D?U powers for old classes Doesn't count
Some classes have all there set powers have levels so they can be swaped Doesn't count
Wotc claims to have a new A/E/D/U Barbarian but then show that the 9th level daily is only good for that build... of cource that means it dosen't count
I think the only way to end this eaither way is to have WotC put out an entire book with out anything for a subclass, or ebuild... but that is not going to happen
-O
So what counts as "support." I mean, things I'd consider support - like powers, builds, and the like - evidently aren't. So what is? I don't like to accuse people of shifting goalposts, so let's set up some definitions.
-O
Evidently, it's only support if you like it.
So what counts as "support." I mean, things I'd consider support - like powers, builds, and the like - evidently aren't. So what is? I don't like to accuse people of shifting goalposts, so let's set up some definitions.
-O
Evidently, it's only support if you like it.
I mean, who needs ACTUAL support, right? It's so much easier to just discount things that DON'T fit in with a set belief.
The real clincher for me would be more support for the Seeker. Any bets on when/if we'll see it?
The best we can hope for is eratta that makes the seeker a subclass of ranger, and all seeker powers ranger powers. Same with Runepriest and Invoker -> Cleric, Artificer and Swordmage -> Wizard, and so on and so forth.
So what counts as "support." I mean, things I'd consider support - like powers, builds, and the like - evidently aren't. So what is? I don't like to accuse people of shifting goalposts, so let's set up some definitions.
-O
If I were to hazard a guess, it would be a new build off of the old AEDU classes exactly like the ______ Power books had, with no reference or use to Essentials subclasses beyond the possiblity of taking powers from said build, with the build published in a prominent hardcover instead of a magazine.
Now I want you to note, that is not my defenition of support. Just one I distilled from the "no god-damned support" section of the forums.
The real clincher for me would be more support for the Seeker. Any bets on when/if we'll see it?
The best we can hope for is eratta that makes the seeker a subclass of ranger, and all seeker powers ranger powers. Same with Runepriest and Invoker -> Cleric, Artificer and Swordmage -> Wizard, and so on and so forth.
Oh god no. There is just no real good way to do that. Thinking of all the class feats, powers that don't match the role of a class, etc . . . that would be a disasterous mess.
Since we have seen that the Daily powers are not all Rages, how do you think this build will handle Rage?
My guess would be that 'rage' is the mechanic that enables the switch from Defender to Striker.
I fail to see how "warlords have gotten no post-essentials support, therefore post-essentials books do not support any pre-essentials classes" is good logic, let alone irrefutable.
The lack of support for the pre-Essentials martial classes and many others is merely a fact. It supports the supposition that the plan going forward is not support those classes, but hardly proves it. The inclusion of a Barbarian and Bard - especially if they're more compatible to the degree the Mage is with the Wizard - in HotFw would not support that supposition so well. If they were actually presented such that you'd /need/ the PH2 to use them (the back of HotFw would have to say something like 'for use with HotFL/K and PH2'), that'd shoot it right down, which'd be a heartening development.
The 'irrefutable logic' I alluded to earlier had to do with the impossiblity of keeping daily-less and AEDU classes balanced across the broad range of possible campaigns and DM/play styles in which they might plausibly be used.
Also the basic structure of powers has not changed. We still have At-will, Encounter, Daily and all the bells and whistles that go with it. It's one of those things where new powers can be used with older builds. Also, I kind of look at the PHB2 and 3 as more splatbooks than core books like the PHB1, DMG and MM. You couldn't play the game with just the PHB2 only.
Well right now, Wizards has no choice but mention the PHB2 because that is where the Bard, Druid and Barbarian are located. It's not like they are able to direct new player's to a different book to find these classes.
They could present the new versions as complete sub-classes, though, that need no reference to the PH2 versions to use, and thus avoid mentioning the PH2 entirely. There'd be something like there is for other subclasses, where they mention how the presented sub-class differs from 'others' of the class, without mentioning where other subclasses might be found. Y'know 'unlike other Barbarians, you go berserk' (ignoring that Rageblood barbarians are pretty berserky)....
So it could come down to nothing more than spin. Do they start using post-E to point new players at older books, or do they continue to give them the impression that there's nothing prior to Essentials they need to worry their newbie little heads over?
So what counts as "support." I mean, things I'd consider support - like powers, builds, and the like - evidently aren't. So what is? I don't like to accuse people of shifting goalposts, so let's set up some definitions.
-O
The general sense of "support" by those not satisfied with Essentials as "support" would generally mean a number of powers and optional class features that can be reasonably applied to existing examples of that class. Essentials HAS provided some utility power support, but since many classes don't use utilities as much, it's not really given credit. Attack powers, however, would, since they're used constantly and are more likely to define a character. Powers which are useless for existing builds are not considered support.
The various Power books are chock full of support. Most powers, while more useful for one build than another, can not only be taken by other builds, but are useful to them in their own unique way, even if less competative than they otherwise would be. Many, many powers are also build-neutral, and are just as effective for one build as another, or their effects are tied to a secondary ability score instead of a class feature choice. Rattling powers are a great example - best for Ruthless Ruffians, but still useful for anyone else.
Feats which apply to most of a class are also support for the class as a whole, but attack powers really are the main thing people want.
The general sense of "support" by those not satisfied with Essentials as "support" would generally mean a number of powers and optional class features that can be reasonably applied to existing examples of that class.
OK, so then, by this reasoning... Let's take Heroes of Shadow. It's support for Wizards, Warlocks, Paladins, and Clerics, right?
Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms would have support for Paladins, Druids, and (somewhat) Warlocks. And minimal support for Rangers, given that it's primarily Utility powers?
So if HoF has Druid, Bard and Barbarian Attack powers that are usable and even attractive to the PHB2 builds, even if they have beneficial riders for whatever builds show up in HoF, it'd count as support?
-O
Wizards of course always get support. The amount of support they get is astounding.
HoFK pretty much is as you say. Frankly, rangers (and other martial classes) have enough support as is, so that's all fine with me. The lack of encounter powers is an issue though - they're what characters tend to get defined around.
If HoF does indeed have a number of attack powers, especially Encounter attack powers, that can be easily used by other members of the class - and not just wizards -, it will be a reasonable support book, yes.
--
In general, people who cal for support want to even the playing field between classes. They dream of seekers and runepriests having as many choices-per-build as wizards, and as many build options. This will never happen, but the closer we get, the better.
--
A really powerful way that could be done with the berserker would be if the defender aura actually doesn't pull it into being a subclass, but is instead a class feature that can be exchanged for a striker feature. Imagine if ANY barbarian could pick it up instead of rage strike or the like.
So what counts as "support." I mean, things I'd consider support - like powers, builds, and the like - evidently aren't. So what is? I don't like to accuse people of shifting goalposts, so let's set up some definitions.
-O
An example of disappointing "support" would be the Sentinel - a druid based around melee weapon attacks and an animal companion. Since original druids are based around implement attacks and wild shape, you basically end up with two incompatible halves of a whole. While they do overlap in utilities and some dailies, the core features of the builds are so different that they really shouldn't even be the same class. Whatever the Protector druid turns out to be, it's going to end up being largely incompatible with one existing druid subclass already.
It's extremely frustrating when you love a class like druid and new "druid" material comes out that you can't use. And furthermore, future druid material is much more likely to support the new druid rather than the old. Instead of supporting your favorite class, it's displacing it.
Note that this doesn't have much to do with the actual quality/viability of the Sentinel itself. The key word is compatibility.
While I'm reserving judgement, I think it's likely that HoF will present similar issues (as the previewed Barbarian power seems to indicate). Personally, I expect next to nothing from the builds themselves (that way if I;m wrong I can be pleasantly surprised) - rather I look forward to the other things like races, items, feats, and themes which are truly "backwards-compatible."
Really what's the difference between a Warlock daily that doesn't use the Curse mechanic and a Wizard daily that doesn't use an implement feature or a school of magic feature? Really you just have the keywords "Wizard" and "Warlock".
In general, people who cal for support want to even the playing field between classes. They dream of seekers and runepriests having as many choices-per-build as wizards, and as many build options. This will never happen, but the closer we get, the better.
Personally I would rather see more support for the popular classes and less for the seekers and runepriests.
Third party support would have been a god-send for the "minority" classes but for the unfortunate inability to add to the official character builder.
Personally I would rather see more support for the popular classes and less for the seekers and runepriests.
Third party support would have been a god-send for the "minority" classes but for the unfortunate inability to add to the official character builder.
There is the argument that "minority" classes remain a "minority" because of a failure to support them. They are the squeaky wheel, while classes like the wizards are clogged with grease.
Instead of obsessing over one word in a post, try reading all of them and trying to determine what that poster meant by the word in context. It's good practice for, y'know, life as a decent human being.
In this case, if you don't like the word "support," fine. We don't need it. The actual substance of the complaint is that certain classes with noticeably spare powers, builds, errata, and other general features have not received any attention since this "new direction."
To be honest, I don't really care about the warlord since martial classes had some of the most thorough pre-E support. But I do believe the reason this class is often mentioned is that it was emblematic of 4e when it was released. A martial class that healed and used its turn to influence and buff other characters while also dealing damage, and in the PHB instead of some distant splat book destined to be half forgotten, was kind of a symbol of several of the new takes on old concepts that 4e had. The martial class builds released since then have often seemed like a regression by comparison.
When new books, even new books that seem like they are opportunities designed to offer improvements and expansions for those characters instead offer opportunities and expansion for one of the more iconic classes, especially one well-known for dominating the game in earlier editions in both opportunity and power level, it's pretty reasonable to start to become suspicious that maybe this "new direction" is slightly more than 90° away from whatever direction some of these PHB classes were in.
Add to that a tendency for newly released "support" for many classes having a kind of coincidental feel due to sharing many fewer qualities with their predecessors than the form that similar "support" (e.g. new builds, class feats, powers) took previously, and there is at least a circumstantial case that WotC is no longer interested in developing some classes further.
Even taking into account that WotC probably doesn't feel like it can announce anything until well after it is in development, there has been ample time since Essentials' release and response for further development of some of these minimally supported classes to wind their way into the development cycle. On its own, that fact doesn't mean much. There has been plenty of time for WotC to hole up in their compound in the remote wilderness and shoot it out with the FBI Ruby Ridge style, too. Just because enough time has passed for something to occur doesn't mean it should have or would have. What I think is more interesting is how WotC chose to spend that time, not how they didn't. Specifically, they put a damn wizard build in every book since PHB3. Unlike the minimally compatible builds that some other classes received, wizards have been 100% compatible since book one of Essentials and continue to be so. In errata, they receive power UPS. Whether it was some premeditated nefarious conspiracy to treat the wizard with some favoritism or pure coincidence doesn't really matter so much as the effects, which are impossible to deny. Whatever "support" is, the wizard has received a hell of a lot more of it than (say) the seeker.
Now, I'm not too worried about the seeker's feelings. There is no moral obligation to be fair or just to an imaginary construct invented to organize game mechanics and roughly associate them with a mutant bastard of mythological memes. Absolutely nothing that WotC has done is wrong or evil or even unwise. For all I know they have reliable market research that shows that 7/10 DnD players will only buy a new book if and only if it has a wizard build in it. Or maybe the design team just loves wizards. In either case, I would almost certainly have made the same choice in their position.
The only concern is that when there appears to be a whole lot of time available to fully "support" the wizard or other builds that you have little interest in, but little to none to support your pet class (and especially if that class is new to 4e), then it is hard to get excited about the new direction because it feels like the new direction has made the design team turn its back on you.
WotC has been somewhat coy about what classes will receive the kind of expansions and overhauls that were typical of the pre-E splat material. They have said over and over again YES WE PLAN TO SUPPORT AEDU CLASSES and YES WE PLAN TO SUPPORT PHB CLASSES, etc. But then they either fail to mention useful details (like, hrm, which classes) or follow it up with something that shows that they have completely missed the point like "I mean, we've supported the wizard in like every book recently!"
This is quintessential fanboy entitlement. Maybe DnD has gone in a new direction, a better direction, and we were wrong the while time. Or maybe they're going to come all the way around to the beginning eventually, so why whine about it? On the other hand WotC is just a corporation, an organization of humans created to serve humans. It feeds families and it makes games and it puts them on our bookshelves to entertain us. As customers we're as much a part of that cycle as the designers and the retailers. Why shouldn't we press our opinions in the hopes of improving the product that we purchase? There is always that fandom tendency to believe that the game's survival depends on your opinions, anybody who posts on the Dungeons and Dragons message board has probably tasted that righteousness. But hyperbole aside there is a real case here that there is little intent in the short term, and possibly the long term, to "support" many classes very much, and some probably not at all. No sense in holding back if you'd rather that were not the case. If you're wrong, and you call for more support for those classes, then you get more support for those classes so you win. If you're right and no support comes, then you win because you were right. If support comes in a certain window of time following your angry rant on their website, you can take personal responsibility for single-handedly shifting an international corporation's priorities by doing nothing but sitting on your ass and typing longwinded ballyhoo in then shcnoeal snwhed glkdhwna. Just seeing if you were still paying attention.
Personally I would rather see more support for the popular classes and less for the seekers and runepriests.
Third party support would have been a god-send for the "minority" classes but for the unfortunate inability to add to the official character builder.
There is the argument that "minority" classes remain a "minority" because of a failure to support them. They are the squeaky wheel, while classes like the wizards are clogged with grease.
That is true, but it could also be a combination of several factors such as not having a distinctive image space to capture the imagination, not being powerful enough, not having enough "history".
Wizards, however, have a distinctive imagination-capturing image in spades as well as years of history behind them.
Wizards, however, have a distinctive imagination-capturing image in spades as well as years of history behind them.
"Wizard" is about as indistinct as you can get. Hell, half of the classes in the game could be called "wizard."
Wizards, however, have a distinctive imagination-capturing image in spades as well as years of history behind them.
"Wizard" is about as indistinct as you can get. Hell, half of the classes in the game could be called "wizard."
Only if you then call the other half "Fighter"
Thinking of all the class feats, powers that don't match the role of a class, etc . . . that would be a disasterous mess.
Which is different from the current situation... how? Binders and Hexblades get very little out of Warlock feat support, for example.
Thinking of all the class feats, powers that don't match the role of a class, etc . . . that would be a disasterous mess.
Which is different from the current situation... how? Binders and Hexblades get very little out of Warlock feat support, for example.
Same with Sentinels and Druids, the classes share utilities and some dailies, but that about it.
The Cavalier doesn't benefit from nay paladin feats that effect divine challenge, divine sanction, marks, or get much benefit out of any feat, utility, or power involving Wisdom..
On another note, I think part of the reason HoS isn't counted as support very often, its because alot of it either sucks, or was stuff people wanted to be full classes.
Wizards, however, have a distinctive imagination-capturing image in spades as well as years of history behind them.
"Wizard" is about as indistinct as you can get. Hell, half of the classes in the game could be called "wizard."
Only if you then call the other half "Fighter"
As I think Wrecan has pointed out in his blog, classes can pretty much just be summed up as "fighter" "wizard" or "fighter/wizard." No classes are as nebulous as the fighter and wizard, and the variety of their abilities and builds reflects that. However, between fighter and wizard, the wizard is even more indistinct - the class is pretty much entirely about its power selection, meaning that a wizard isn't even the same from day to day. A wizard in D&D is almost defined by its indistinctiveness.
As I think Wrecan has pointed out in his blog, classes can pretty much just be summed up as "fighter" "wizard" or "fighter/wizard." No classes are as nebulous as the fighter and wizard, and the variety of their abilities and builds reflects that. However, between fighter and wizard, the wizard is even more indistinct - the class is pretty much entirely about its power selection, meaning that a wizard isn't even the same from day to day. A wizard in D&D is almost defined by its indistinctiveness.
If a Wizard is someone who can cast magic from any source and a Fighter is someone that can use any martial power, then yes of course you are correct. But when you start to break it down to finer points like arcane/divine and martial/skillful then the classes look a little less arbitary.
Ever since the Wizard could choose to specialise in their schools (or not) you have had many different types, similar to Clerics with their different Gods/domains, Fighters with their weapons/feats and Rogues with their backstab/sneak/skills.
New classes have a lot of work to do to carve out their own niche - Warlord has done it but Seeker and Runepriest have not really done much to stand out. In my eyes Seeker is just some kind of Ranger build and Rune Priest could be a type of Cleric. Of course your milage may vary and it may turn out that all they need is a couple of years and then they will be the 5e success stories similar to the Warlord in 4e.
As I think Wrecan has pointed out in his blog, classes can pretty much just be summed up as "fighter" "wizard" or "fighter/wizard." No classes are as nebulous as the fighter and wizard, and the variety of their abilities and builds reflects that. However, between fighter and wizard, the wizard is even more indistinct - the class is pretty much entirely about its power selection, meaning that a wizard isn't even the same from day to day. A wizard in D&D is almost defined by its indistinctiveness.
If a Wizard is someone who can cast magic from any source and a Fighter is someone that can use any martial power, then yes of course you are correct. But when you start to break it down to finer points like arcane/divine and martial/skillful then the classes look a little less arbitary.
Ever since the Wizard could choose to specialise in their schools (or not) you have had many different types, similar to Clerics with their different Gods/domains, Fighters with their weapons/feats and Rogues with their backstab/sneak/skills.
New classes have a lot of work to do to carve out their own niche - Warlord has done it but Seeker and Runepriest have not really done much to stand out. In my eyes Seeker is just some kind of Ranger build and Rune Priest could be a type of Cleric. Of course your milage may vary and it may turn out that all they need is a couple of years and then they will be the 5e success stories similar to the Warlord in 4e.
I can see Runepriest as a Cleric, sorta, but how is a primal ranged combatant like the Seeker anything like a Ranger?
how is a primal ranged combatant like the Seeker anything like a Ranger?
A ranger (hunter) is also a primal ranged combatant. Or were you being ironic?
I can see Runepriest as a Cleric, sorta, but how is a primal ranged combatant like the Seeker anything like a Ranger?
Before Drizzt made rangers into two weapon fighters, they were the primal ranged combat guys.
If anything they should be a sub-class of ranger.
how is a primal ranged combatant like the Seeker anything like a Ranger?
A ranger (hunter) is also a primal ranged combatant. Or were you being ironic?
Haven't seen the hunter. Is it Essentials?
I can see Runepriest as a Cleric, sorta, but how is a primal ranged combatant like the Seeker anything like a Ranger?
Before Drizzt made rangers into two weapon fighters, they were the primal ranged combat guys.
If anything they should be a sub-class of ranger.
I have some third hand knowledge that the Ranger used to be primal, but frankly I just don't see it. I always pictured the Ranger class as more like Aragorn, so "Martial only" seemed much more logical to me. Thus Seeker is a whole different animal.
I have some third hand knowledge that the Ranger used to be primal, but frankly I just don't see it. I always pictured the Ranger class as more like Aragorn, so "Martial only" seemed much more logical to me. Thus Seeker is a whole different animal.
You dont think that those guys tooling around in the bush shooting at things with their bows might not have picked up a few things from the local druids?
They used to be arcane as well - but that would get the anti wizard crew really up in arms
You don't think that those guys tooling around in the bush shooting at things with their bows might not have picked up a few things from the local druids?
Not really, no. At least not by default. There might be some rangers that would have an aptitude for magical means, but for the most part I see no reason for them to be magical in nature. And Primal is totally magical; it's primal spirits, channeling energy, etc. The Nature or Dungeoneering skills (or both) do enough to give the Ranger type class their knowledge of nature aspect. There is a distinct difference between "inclined to nature" and "empowered by nature supernaturally"; I personally think Rangers should be and stay in the "inclined to nature" area.
how is a primal ranged combatant like the Seeker anything like a Ranger?
A ranger (hunter) is also a primal ranged combatant. Or were you being ironic?
Haven't seen the hunter. Is it Essentials?I can see Runepriest as a Cleric, sorta, but how is a primal ranged combatant like the Seeker anything like a Ranger?
Before Drizzt made rangers into two weapon fighters, they were the primal ranged combat guys.
If anything they should be a sub-class of ranger.
I have some third hand knowledge that the Ranger used to be primal, but frankly I just don't see it. I always pictured the Ranger class as more like Aragorn, so "Martial only" seemed much more logical to me. Thus Seeker is a whole different animal.
Hunter is an essentials build of the ranger. Ranged attack controller, martial and primal powersource.
It is, (IMHO), essentially the seeker but as a ranger subclass.
On the same note, I will give them a clap for the scout, a DEX based 2wpn ranger build that is more in line with what I had imagined for a dual wield ranger than the original. One of the areas I think 4essentials did well.
I can see Runepriest as a Cleric, sorta, but how is a primal ranged combatant like the Seeker anything like a Ranger?
Before Drizzt made rangers into two weapon fighters, they were the primal ranged combat guys.
If anything they should be a sub-class of ranger.
Rangers have been doing the 2-weapon fighting thing since 1E's Unearthed Arcana.
Drizzt didn't even exist then.
I'm not sure what caused the shift in rangers to 2-weapon fighting.
Can't argue with feel.
Fact, OTOH...
Wizard support in Essentials: sub-class with 3 builds (schools), new spells, spells errata'd to be more powerful.
Wizard support post-Essentials: another sub-class, two more 'schools' worth of new spells, more on the way.
Warlord support in Essentials: none.
Warlord support post-Essentials: none.
Clearly, we're just playing different pre-E classes.
Out of 25 classes base classes(including vampire but not counting subclasses like knight as seperate from fighter), warlord has the 6th most powers, 2nd most potential paragon paths, and 2nd in class specific feats.
Warlords shouldn't get any support. same with figher and ranger. Wizard oddly enough is 14th in class specific feats, 9th in potential paragon paths available, and 6th in powers dispite all the people bitching and moaning that wotc is supporting them to much (and calling for more warlord abilities).
Runepriests are currently the least supported in powers and feats except for vampire, and seeker and artificer is right above them. Hopefully this months runepriest and monk articles will help those classes out and soon after have some psion/artificer/seeker love.
(in case you were wondering how i got paragon path numbers i included power source and role restricted classes in the count)
Out of 25 classes base classes(including vampire but not counting subclasses like knight as seperate from fighter), warlord has the 6th most powers, 2nd most potential paragon paths, and 2nd in class specific feats.
Warlords shouldn't get any support. same with figher and ranger. Wizard oddly enough is 14th in class specific feats, 9th in potential paragon paths available, and 6th in powers dispite all the people bitching and moaning that wotc is supporting them to much (and calling for more warlord abilities).
Yeah, complaining about the warlord not getting support is not going to move me. Its already overall the most effective class in its roll, has 2 power books, and tons of good options. The only class left from phb1 that really needs some more support is the warlock, and even it doesn't need much. The cleric needed some until about 5 months ago, but it is fine now post dragon 400 and with all the new essentials powers it got. By needs more support I mean classes either don't have good options or doesn't do its job competetively.
When you get to PHB2 then you get classes that need support. Sorcerer, Barbarian, and Avenger all need some better striker paragon paths. Sorcerer and avenger could use some better powers and sorcerers need some better feats. Shaman is fine, though an AC fix feat would be nice. Bards, wardens, and invokers are fine as is. Druids could maybe use a little more, but mainly a swarm druid fix.
Artificers could use some more options, but what they have is good and some of the swordmage builds, assault and ensnaring, especially need some support to make them good defenders.
PHB3 classes probably need the most. Runepriests work fine, but don't have many options. Seekers don't work that well most of the time and they don't have many options. The three power point classes all work well enough and have decent options and the problems they do have are based on power points not scaling well. Monks need some better powers and paragon paths. Except for at will choices they have a lack of good attack power options most levels, usually with only one or two choices worth looking at. And they don't have the item or feat support to compliment their confusing ki focus mechanics as strikers. But they work ok at least.
Out of 25 classes base classes... warlord has the 6th most powers
Wizard oddly enough... 6th in powers
Could I get a clarification on this?
Fighter 424
Warlock 392
Cleric 384
Ranger 372
Wizard 364
Warlord 338
Rogue 324
Avenger 296
Paladin 258
Druid 254
Shaman 236
Sorcerer 232
Warden 211
Invoker 209
Swordmage 207
Bard 204
I am pretty sure everyone else is under 200.
Clerics are definately well-supported, as are warlords. Most of the classes have recieved adequate support at this point, but a few lag behind.
It is because they have PHB1, Divine Power, a few dragon aritcles and 8 different warpriest builds each of which gets about 15 new powers.
There are 125 channel divinity powers, most of which (96) any one of the 4 can take.
Edited for clarity and detail and it initially refered to the previous post.
Out of 25 classes base classes(including vampire but not counting subclasses like knight as seperate from fighter), warlord has the 6th most powers, 2nd most potential paragon paths, and 2nd in class specific feats.
Warlords shouldn't get any support. same with figher and ranger. Wizard oddly enough is 14th in class specific feats, 9th in potential paragon paths available, and 6th in powers dispite all the people bitching and moaning that wotc is supporting them to much (and calling for more warlord abilities).
Yeah, complaining about the warlord not getting support is not going to move me. Its already overall the most effective class in its roll, has 2 power books, and tons of good options. The only class left from phb1 that really needs some more support is the warlock, and even it doesn't need much. The cleric needed some until about 5 months ago, but it is fine now post dragon 400 and with all the new essentials powers it got. By needs more support I mean classes either don't have good options or doesn't do its job competetively.
When you get to PHB2 then you get classes that need support. Sorcerer, Barbarian, and Avenger all need some better striker paragon paths. Sorcerer and avenger could use some better powers and sorcerers need some better feats. Shaman is fine, though an AC fix feat would be nice. Bards, wardens, and invokers are fine as is. Druids could maybe use a little more, but mainly a swarm druid fix.
Artificers could use some more options, but what they have is good and some of the swordmage builds, assault and ensnaring, especially need some support to make them good defenders.
PHB3 classes probably need the most. Runepriests work fine, but don't have many options. Seekers don't work that well most of the time and they don't have many options. The three power point classes all work well enough and have decent options and the problems they do have are based on power points not scaling well. Monks need some better powers and paragon paths. Except for at will choices they have a lack of good attack power options most levels, usually with only one or two choices worth looking at. And they don't have the item or feat support to compliment their confusing ki focus mechanics as strikers. But they work ok at least.
Good list of what is lacking in support for certain classes.
The bigger issue I see is that time wasted on classes that are on rails such as the Witch, Vampire, Bladesinger, Cavelier, and so on is time not spent updating other classes and options. Especially since these new classes are just retreading ground already covered by older classes. While having some Wizard-on-rails, the Witch development time could have been better spent on providing "witch-like options" for Warlocks and Druids. Bladesinger could have instead been used as options for Bards and Swordmages, classes that already combine sword and spell. Cavalier and Blackguard would have simply been better served as options for the Paladin, not classes that can sorta take stuff from the parent class but are really just weaker versions that a class that's been out since PHB1. Vampire... well vampire just sucks, pun can be intentional.
People like to think that Essentials design is offering something new, but I don't see it. I just see simplified versions of what we already have. Simple isn't always better. It's one thing to offer a new Paladin build in a book aimed at new players. But instead of rewriting a class that works and has support, they chose to mechanically change the class. Would the Blackguard not have been easier if they simply lost Divine Challenge and Lay on Hands for "Add Cha to your attacks vs targets granting CA" and "Once per encounter {insert extra damage mumbo-jumbo}" instead of designing a class that is forced into specific at-wills and is missing dailies?
Or you can look at a class like the Bladesinger which functions as an Essentials charge-spam striker, gets a striker boost for two rounds, but gets no real encounters and it's dailies do not help it function as a controller or striker really. Wouldn't a Swordmage that loses a mark and instead gains a solid control feature such as a form of Blade implement mastery, or maybe even dip into the Mages vancian school system? This type of design has been around since the Power Books started offering alternatives for PHB 1 & 2 classes. Instead we're just getting "new" classes that are just retreading ground already covered by other classes.
Want to design a new class WotC? Where's the Divine ranged striker? Where's the Psionic striker that uses power points? Why make a martial controller that's a new ranger type instead of simply proving new A/E/D/U's and feats for the exisiting ranger that allow it to control? Why do we instead get another Barbarian, Warlock, two subpar rangers on rails, etc? Don't make up new classes just because. Work with exisiting material, change small sections that allow it to cover a new role without invalidating prior design or causing a need for even more new feats and items to cover holes.
It's okay if a new book only shows limited options for a Bladesinger that is just a Swordmage or Bard type. Those are the powers that work best with the build as presented in "Book of New Stuff". However if you also own the PHB2, FRPG, and Arcane Power you can make a Bard of your own that pulls on exisiting builds and powers and you can customize more control elements into melee attacks. Use the build from the new book or combine with the old. Do not create a Wizard sub-type (a class which doesn't need new support really) and muddle up a class which is poor at controlling and at best a mediocre striker (unless you build a Str/Dex one that dumps Int... I know my brain hurts from that too...).
The tools to add more types and builds for classes already exist and there isn't much of a need to reinvent the wheel. Instead we're getting a weird lumpy bloat with stuff that doesn't mesh well or forces players in mediocre builds on rails.
TL;DR - This is all essentials design looks like to me: retreading old ideas and needlessly re-inventing the wheel.
Out of 25 classes base classes(including vampire but not counting subclasses like knight as seperate from fighter), warlord has the 6th most powers, 2nd most potential paragon paths, and 2nd in class specific feats.
Warlords shouldn't get any support. same with figher and ranger. Wizard oddly enough is 14th in class specific feats, 9th in potential paragon paths available, and 6th in powers dispite all the people bitching and moaning that wotc is supporting them to much (and calling for more warlord abilities).
Yeah, complaining about the warlord not getting support is not going to move me. Its already overall the most effective class in its roll, has 2 power books, and tons of good options. The only class left from phb1 that really needs some more support is the warlock, and even it doesn't need much. The cleric needed some until about 5 months ago, but it is fine now post dragon 400 and with all the new essentials powers it got. By needs more support I mean classes either don't have good options or doesn't do its job competetively.
When you get to PHB2 then you get classes that need support. Sorcerer, Barbarian, and Avenger all need some better striker paragon paths. Sorcerer and avenger could use some better powers and sorcerers need some better feats. Shaman is fine, though an AC fix feat would be nice. Bards, wardens, and invokers are fine as is. Druids could maybe use a little more, but mainly a swarm druid fix.
Artificers could use some more options, but what they have is good and some of the swordmage builds, assault and ensnaring, especially need some support to make them good defenders.
PHB3 classes probably need the most. Runepriests work fine, but don't have many options. Seekers don't work that well most of the time and they don't have many options. The three power point classes all work well enough and have decent options and the problems they do have are based on power points not scaling well. Monks need some better powers and paragon paths. Except for at will choices they have a lack of good attack power options most levels, usually with only one or two choices worth looking at. And they don't have the item or feat support to compliment their confusing ki focus mechanics as strikers. But they work ok at least.
Good list of what is lacking in support for certain classes.
The bigger issue I see is that time wasted on classes that are on rails such as the Witch, Vampire, Bladesinger, Cavelier, and so on is time not spent updating other classes and options. Especially since these new classes are just retreading ground already covered by older classes. While having some Wizard-on-rails, the Witch development time could have been better spent on providing "witch-like options" for Warlocks and Druids. Bladesinger could have instead been used as options for Bards and Swordmages, classes that already combine sword and spell. Cavalier and Blackguard would have simply been better served as options for the Paladin, not classes that can sorta take stuff from the parent class but are really just weaker versions that a class that's been out since PHB1. Vampire... well vampire just sucks, pun can be intentional.
People like to think that Essentials design is offering something new, but I don't see it. I just see simplified versions of what we already have. Simple isn't always better. It's one thing to offer a new Paladin build in a book aimed at new players. But instead of rewriting a class that works and has support, they chose to mechanically change the class. Would the Blackguard not have been easier if they simply lost Divine Challenge and Lay on Hands for "Add Cha to your attacks vs targets granting CA" and "Once per encounter {insert extra damage mumbo-jumbo}" instead of designing a class that is forced into specific at-wills and is missing dailies?
Or you can look at a class like the Bladesinger which functions as an Essentials charge-spam striker, gets a striker boost for two rounds, but gets no real encounters and it's dailies do not help it function as a controller or striker really. Wouldn't a Swordmage that loses a mark and instead gains a solid control feature such as a form of Blade implement mastery, or maybe even dip into the Mages vancian school system? This type of design has been around since the Power Books started offering alternatives for PHB 1 & 2 classes. Instead we're just getting "new" classes that are just retreading ground already covered by other classes.
Want to design a new class WotC? Where's the Divine ranged striker? Where's the Psionic striker that uses power points? Why make a martial controller that's a new ranger type instead of simply proving new A/E/D/U's and feats for the exisiting ranger that allow it to control? Why do we instead get another Barbarian, Warlock, two subpar rangers on rails, etc? Don't make up new classes just because. Work with exisiting material, change small sections that allow it to cover a new role without invalidating prior design or causing a need for even more new feats and items to cover holes.
It's okay if a new book only shows limited options for a Bladesinger that is just a Swordmage or Bard type. Those are the powers that work best with the build as presented in "Book of New Stuff". However if you also own the PHB2, FRPG, and Arcane Power you can make a Bard of your own that pulls on exisiting builds and powers and you can customize more control elements into melee attacks. Use the build from the new book or combine with the old. Do not create a Wizard sub-type (a class which doesn't need new support really) and muddle up a class which is poor at controlling and at best a mediocre striker (unless you build a Str/Dex one that dumps Int... I know my brain hurts from that too...).
The tools to add more types and builds for classes already exist and there isn't much of a need to reinvent the wheel. Instead we're getting a weird lumpy bloat with stuff that doesn't mesh well or forces players in mediocre builds on rails.
TL;DR - This is all essentials design looks like to me: retreading old ideas and needlessly re-inventing the wheel.
Well don't forget that with the new direction you can either lace your shoes by going down into the bottom holes or you can come up those holes and you have two different ways of doing the same thing. They figure if they change something we already have very slightly then we have a whole new subclass.
Out of 25 classes base classes... warlord has the 6th most powers
Wizard oddly enough... 6th in powers
Could I get a clarification on this?
clarification, typo, i ment 5th. They are doing pretty well on powers, but oddly have some of the fewest class only feats and paragon paths. Luckily there are like 11 paragon paths that require just arcane powersource.
1) Before Drizzt made rangers into two weapon fighters,
2) they were the primal ranged combat guys.
1) The Two-Weapon thing was part of the original 1st Ed Drow (AD&D Fiend Folio), a racial ability.
2) Originally they were not primal or ranged, they were basically a Fighter with limited access to Magic-User and Druid spells.
In general, people who cal for support want to even the playing field between classes. They dream of seekers and runepriests having as many choices-per-build as wizards, and as many build options. This will never happen, but the closer we get, the better.
Personally I would rather see more support for the popular classes and less for the seekers and runepriests.
Third party support would have been a god-send for the "minority" classes but for the unfortunate inability to add to the official character builder.
What does CB have to do with it? I can't believe anyone would not do a character only because CB doesn't support it.
In general, people who cal for support want to even the playing field between classes. They dream of seekers and runepriests having as many choices-per-build as wizards, and as many build options. This will never happen, but the closer we get, the better.
Personally I would rather see more support for the popular classes and less for the seekers and runepriests.
Third party support would have been a god-send for the "minority" classes but for the unfortunate inability to add to the official character builder.
What does CB have to do with it? I can't believe anyone would not do a character only because CB doesn't support it.
Yup, strange but true.
In general, people who cal for support want to even the playing field between classes. They dream of seekers and runepriests having as many choices-per-build as wizards, and as many build options. This will never happen, but the closer we get, the better.
Personally I would rather see more support for the popular classes and less for the seekers and runepriests.
Third party support would have been a god-send for the "minority" classes but for the unfortunate inability to add to the official character builder.
What does CB have to do with it? I can't believe anyone would not do a character only because CB doesn't support it.
I'm actually on the verge of banning the CB in my campaign for this reason (among others) - people don't want to look at anything not in the CB - like offical products are necessarily 100% better than Third Party.
In general, people who cal for support want to even the playing field between classes. They dream of seekers and runepriests having as many choices-per-build as wizards, and as many build options. This will never happen, but the closer we get, the better.
Personally I would rather see more support for the popular classes and less for the seekers and runepriests.
Third party support would have been a god-send for the "minority" classes but for the unfortunate inability to add to the official character builder.
What does CB have to do with it? I can't believe anyone would not do a character only because CB doesn't support it.
I'm actually on the verge of banning the CB in my campaign for this reason (among others) - people don't want to look at anything not in the CB - like offical products are necessarily 100% better than Third Party.
There are 3rd party offerings for 4e?
But yeah, I tend to see it as a ghettoization of homebrewing/houseruling. Not just a result of the character builder, though.
You don't think that those guys tooling around in the bush shooting at things with their bows might not have picked up a few things from the local druids?
Not really, no. At least not by default. There might be some rangers that would have an aptitude for magical means, but for the most part I see no reason for them to be magical in nature. And Primal is totally magical; it's primal spirits, channeling energy, etc. The Nature or Dungeoneering skills (or both) do enough to give the Ranger type class their knowledge of nature aspect. There is a distinct difference between "inclined to nature" and "empowered by nature supernaturally"; I personally think Rangers should be and stay in the "inclined to nature" area.
That is fine, but Rangers have a lot of history that includes both Primal, Arcane, Ranged and Two Weapon Fighting - we need to ask how Seekers can differentiate themselves from that legacy other then being magic controlling rangers.
1) Before Drizzt made rangers into two weapon fighters,
2) they were the primal ranged combat guys.
1) The Two-Weapon thing was part of the original 1st Ed Drow (AD&D Fiend Folio), a racial ability.
2) Originally they were not primal or ranged, they were basically a Fighter with limited access to Magic-User and Druid spells.
1) Yes you are right, Drow had the whole Two-Weapon thing going on and Drizzt was originally just a Fighter. But now Drizzt is the archetypal Two-Weapon fighting ranger. The only other DnD ranger that I can think of off the top of my head was Ren from Pool of Radiance days and I think he only used daggers.
2a) Druid is old-school for primal
2b) Ranger is so close to Ranged that they just changed one letter.
There are 3rd party offerings for 4e?
There are. I got a Mounted Paladin build off of RPGNow when I was getting Amethyst, which is also a 4e product. There's plenty of 4e stuff on RPGNow, and I'm sure that the larger publishers have more stuff for 4e.
That said, I am waiting for Dias Ex Machina's Ultramodern 4e and Neurospasta, so I can totally rock out the Modern/Cyberpunk.
You don't think that those guys tooling around in the bush shooting at things with their bows might not have picked up a few things from the local druids?
Not really, no. At least not by default. There might be some rangers that would have an aptitude for magical means, but for the most part I see no reason for them to be magical in nature. And Primal is totally magical; it's primal spirits, channeling energy, etc. The Nature or Dungeoneering skills (or both) do enough to give the Ranger type class their knowledge of nature aspect. There is a distinct difference between "inclined to nature" and "empowered by nature supernaturally"; I personally think Rangers should be and stay in the "inclined to nature" area.
That is fine, but Rangers have a lot of history that includes both Primal, Arcane, Ranged and Two Weapon Fighting - we need to ask how Seekers can differentiate themselves from that legacy other then being magic controlling rangers.
1) Before Drizzt made rangers into two weapon fighters,
2) they were the primal ranged combat guys.
1) The Two-Weapon thing was part of the original 1st Ed Drow (AD&D Fiend Folio), a racial ability.
2) Originally they were not primal or ranged, they were basically a Fighter with limited access to Magic-User and Druid spells.
1) Yes you are right, Drow had the whole Two-Weapon thing going on and Drizzt was originally just a Fighter. But now Drizzt is the archetypal Two-Weapon fighting ranger. The only other DnD ranger that I can think of off the top of my head was Ren from Pool of Radiance days and I think he only used daggers.
2a) Druid is old-school for primal
2b) Ranger is so close to Ranged that they just changed one letter.
Ranger was taken from Tolkien, I believe. Fighters of the woods, basically.
Also, the one thing I think might be cool, since seekers aren't just archers specifically, would be to have errated in a bonuse to attacking with improvised ranged weaponry. After all, Rangers might be archers primarily, but Seekers have the space to separate themselves from that notion and turn into "that one guy who can throw anything and hit his mark". They are a class feature away from being the primal source's Bullseye!
You don't think that those guys tooling around in the bush shooting at things with their bows might not have picked up a few things from the local druids?
Not really, no. At least not by default. There might be some rangers that would have an aptitude for magical means, but for the most part I see no reason for them to be magical in nature. And Primal is totally magical; it's primal spirits, channeling energy, etc. The Nature or Dungeoneering skills (or both) do enough to give the Ranger type class their knowledge of nature aspect. There is a distinct difference between "inclined to nature" and "empowered by nature supernaturally"; I personally think Rangers should be and stay in the "inclined to nature" area.
That is fine, but Rangers have a lot of history that includes both Primal, Arcane, Ranged and Two Weapon Fighting - we need to ask how Seekers can differentiate themselves from that legacy other then being magic controlling rangers.
1) Before Drizzt made rangers into two weapon fighters,
2) they were the primal ranged combat guys.
1) The Two-Weapon thing was part of the original 1st Ed Drow (AD&D Fiend Folio), a racial ability.
2) Originally they were not primal or ranged, they were basically a Fighter with limited access to Magic-User and Druid spells.
1) Yes you are right, Drow had the whole Two-Weapon thing going on and Drizzt was originally just a Fighter. But now Drizzt is the archetypal Two-Weapon fighting ranger. The only other DnD ranger that I can think of off the top of my head was Ren from Pool of Radiance days and I think he only used daggers.
2a) Druid is old-school for primal
2b) Ranger is so close to Ranged that they just changed one letter.
Ranger was taken from Tolkien, I believe. Fighters of the woods, basically.
If we go Tolkein the term was for a Race/Culture which was very like Half-elves technically they were the Dúnedain. They certainly had some magical/nature associations. However Aragorns fighting abilities are wholy martial in nature and definitely not a two weapon fighter and his magics very similar to rituals.(or maybe utilities).
The original Ranger in D&D was not a very subtle interpretation even if patterned after Aragorn... while the most recent game "can" do him better (probably as a Warlord) D&Ds world is generally more magical than Tolkeins.
1) Yes you are right, Drow had the whole Two-Weapon thing going on and Drizzt was originally just a Fighter. But now Drizzt is the archetypal Two-Weapon fighting ranger. The only other DnD ranger that I can think of off the top of my head was Ren from Pool of Radiance days and I think he only used daggers.
Ren used two (returning) daggers in Pool of Radiance, but was pretty much a Thief in that book with his character background being that he had started as a ranger. In Pools of Darkness and Pool of Twilight he had returned to being a ranger and used a two-handed sword as his primary melee weapon.
I read this topic last night and spent all morning at work pondering how I'd run PoolRad with 4e. >_<
The D&D Ranger - like so many things in D&D (so many that TSR was sued) - was a rip-off of Tolkien's Rangers, specifically 'Strider.' Strider new some elfy lore and healed with herbs, so they gave the Ranger a few spells. Aside from that, it was just a woodsy fighter.
Casting magic missile is a woodsy fighter?
Also, Gygax seemed a bit anti-Tolkien (much prefered Howard, Lieber and Moorcock).
The current Ranger seems to be a combination of original two-weapon fighintg drow and archers.
The D&D Ranger - like so many things in D&D (so many that TSR was sued) - was a rip-off of Tolkien's Rangers, specifically 'Strider.' Strider new some elfy lore and healed with herbs, so they gave the Ranger a few spells. Aside from that, it was just a woodsy fighter.
Casting magic missile is a woodsy fighter?
Well you do need something to attack the darkness.
Also, Gygax seemed a bit anti-Tolkien (much prefered Howard, Lieber and Moorcock).
The current Ranger seems to be a combination of original two-weapon fighintg drow and archers.
I do not know if Gygax was anti-Tolkien at the start - after all he did rip hobbits directly from Tolkien.
But maybe later when Tolkien's estate came after him, he may have become more, um discreet is a good word.
My ranger with healing skills and 4e rituals is more sublime and feels quite naturalistically magical many of the first level rituals kind of scream ranger. Noble Scion (arcana) background + ritual caster feat.
Tolkein is pretty written all over the game even now .. and yup I think Shas is right "discreet"