Are there classes in this book?
With all the rumor and gossip on these pages flying about, I have to ask the one question that will make or break this product.
Are there classes in this book?
Two seconds of internet research gives me this bit from its catalog blurb, excerpted: "In addition to exploring the nature of the shadow power source, this book presents races, classes, feats, powers, and other options"
So, no.
Some believe that there won't be classes, just "options."
Basically, what I'm hoping is that the use of the name "Hexblade" is simply an example of either the dev teams not sharing ideas about what they're working on, or just not caring whether they reuse a name (c.f. Ardent Paladin). Because, frankly, the alternative is very disappointing. We already know there won't be any new Assassin builds in the book (which really, really sucks. Honestly, the exclusivity thing was stupid to begin with, and God knows you've already promised things and not followed through with them *coughvirtualconsolecough*), so if the Hexblade is a Warlock that means one of two things;
1) There will only be one class in the book (Necromancer).
2) Necromancer will be a Wizard build.
Now, I'm leaning toward the first one, just because the devs admitted to liking Necromancers, and because it's got such a concrete archetype in fiction that draws from so many sources, from Voodoo to witch-doctors to the much-toted zombie raising puppetmaster.
... However, I sent an email to CustServ about this issue, and their response was that "we can neither confirm nor deny your assumptions, but rest assured that any changes made reflect the best interests of the players. Keep the faith."
Now, this could be interpretted as "Yeah, we made them all essentials builds but trust us, it's gonna work" or "no, we wouldn't do something that stupid, but I can't tell you directly 'cuz the higher-ups will fire me".
... Take your pick.
I have been one of the people questioning the need for a necormancer class, and among one of the more vocal proclaiming that there is little precedent for Necromancer being it's own class, as opposed to a subset of wizard.
But it seems likely that we will see a necromancer full class in this book, as well as something called a hexblade...whatever that turns out to be.
As for the assassin in the book. Technically, it does not say that the assassin is in the book, it just mentions the assassin (as well as necromancer and hexblade) as an example of someone who draws on the power of shadow to do what they do. Basically, calling all 3 out to be shadow classes.
Hexblade to me seems more like it should be a shadow class, especially since shadow powers ra ecalled "hexes". While I may wince at the idea of a full-fledged PC necromancer class, I think the hexblade would be a perfect concept for, say, a shadow defender. This would fulfill what many people on the forums wish for in a "death knight/dark knight" style character.
In a recent podcast they said that assassins are still DDI exclusive. They also said (if I remember correctly), that there will be two races in the book. Did they mention anywhere what those races might be? What are the speculators on the boards thinking?
Well, since the assassin and revenant will continue to be DDI exclusive, I think we can count on at least one, if not two, new, unique race(s).
The reason I say a possibility of one, is that i find it very likely that we will get a decent write-up of Shadar-kai, with updated, variable stats, a racial PP, more feats, etc.
Did they say how long the Assassin and the Revenant will be DDI exclusive?
Forever.
Did they mention anywhere what those races might be? What are the speculators on the boards thinking?
If there are two races in the book, then my guesses are shadar-kai (with a third optional stat boost as Chiba said) and dark one.
But it seems likely that we will see a necromancer full class in this book, as well as something called a hexblade...whatever that turns out to be.
The hexblade actually dates back to 3.5. It is very much a "dark knight" character - a scoundrel of a warrior, who cheats by laying curses upon his foe to soften them up. I've been around a few topics on this, and I and several other forum-goers hope the hexblade gets a set of daily powers that can alter the mark punishment. In 3.5, there were feats that allowed the hexblade to use his Hexblade's Curse class feature to either lay on a standard curse or a more specific but more powerful curse. This seems like it should be handled by powers, not feats, now. I sincerely hope WotC has been paying enough attention to notice and grab this idea.
I was hoping to get some sort of official answer to this by a Wizard Employee, either "Yes" or "No" to the question.
Is there some Classes in this book?
I agree that the Necromancer should be a full class, as well as the Illusionist and a Shadow Dancer type class. Right now, it might not be any if some of those "in the know" are telling the truth.
The Shadow Dancer, though, I don't see. At least, I don't see it in print.
Here is what I want in a Shadow Dancer like class.
The ability to jump shadows at will. The limit would be a certain distance in a day, most likely done in "squares." I think 6 squares to begin, and it would tier every three levels or so. Paragon would be up to 15 square, epic would be 30, while at level 28 it would go to 45.
Darkvision at some point. Thus far, there are very few races that have this.
Hiding without having to use skill rolls.
Powers that teleport in addition to the shadowjumps.
A sneak attack like class feature.
Powers that use other's shadows to effect the enemies.
Stuff like that.
The Shadar-kai are in the Dragon Annual, so it is more likely two different races instead.
But the cynic in me keeps saying, "But that would be the perfect place to rehash Shadar-kai with the 'new' attribute choice thing."
I know there are some Wizard builds out there that deal with Illusions, and that most likely this is the poor man's replacement for the full fledged Illusionist.
The Shadow Dancer, though, I don't see. At least, I don't see it in print.
Here is what I want in a Shadow Dancer like class.
The ability to jump shadows at will. The limit would be a certain distance in a day, most likely done in "squares." I think 6 squares to begin, and it would tier every three levels or so. Paragon would be up to 15 square, epic would be 30, while at level 28 it would go to 45.
Darkvision at some point. Thus far, there are very few races that have this.
Hiding without having to use skill rolls.
Powers that teleport in addition to the shadowjumps.
A sneak attack like class feature.
Powers that use other's shadows to effect the enemies.
Stuff like that.
ThaX, we just had this conversation a couple days ago. The assassin does everything you ask the shadowdancer to do. It fills the same conceptual and mechanical niche - as long as you don't let the class name dictate how you play your character. You don't need a new class - you just need to repair the current one. Honestly, I'd be pretty upset if WotC always took the stance of "well, we screwed this up. We're just going to ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist and never did exist, and then try again, hoping nobody points to the previous failure."
So the question is, "Are there going to be any new classes in Heroes of Shadow", and that's a very important question that I would very much like to hear an answer to from a dev. I've been looking forward to the shadow power source since 4e was released, and watching the assassin banished to the ddi ghetto and the hexblade eaten by the warlock makes me very unhappy about the future of what should be my favorite product in all of 4e, but is looking more and more like it might turn into something I don't want at all.
As for races, I would love to see Shadar Kai get a write up in a published book. I mean, they're the iconic player race of 4e's Shadowfell, and the chosen people of that plane's resident deity. They deserve the spot, and it would be an ideal place to put their e-stats.
I'd also love to see dark ones, and, while they aren't from the shadowfell, both changelings and kenku have a shadowy feel and could benefit from an e-stat player race write up. While changelings already have e-style stats, their existing abilities are a little lack-luster, and their feat support is dramatically sub-par in both quantity and quality, so I think another book write up could be worthwhile.
But the more important concern is the classes. The shadow source itself covers ideas from shadow-mancy (spellcasters who attack by manipulating darkness and shadows) and necromancy, as well as the classic dark knight. These archetypes were well supported in 3e, and even though almost all magic fell under 'arcane' or 'divine' headings back then, these characters still felt distinct and apart, having more in common thematically with each other then with other classes.
Distinct examples of these archetypes abound. In 3e D&D, there was the shadow caster, the beguiler, the hexblade, the dread necromancer, the shadow dancer, the blackguard, the necrocarnate, the assassin, and more. In popular fantasy there's Naruto's Shikamaru, FF IV's Dark Knight Cecil, Warcraft's Death Knights and necromancers, and so on. The source has a natural thematic leaning towards teleportation, hiding, invisibility, illusions, and manipulation of the undead. "The powers of darkness" is an overwhelmingly common fantasy trope, and more and more frequently these days dark does not always mean evil, not just in D&D. While these very strong thematic elements are usually associated with villains (making the optional part of "players options" ideal), they are certainly strong and wide and deep enough to justify multiple full shadow classes for those games where PC anti heros or dark heroes are apporpriate. They shouldn't be bent out of proportion to try and make them share space with other classes and other power sources.
Diluting the thematic value of the shadow power source by awkwardly shoe-horning the distinctive archetypes that fall under its domain into other classes, forcing them to share space with other power sources, is very much pounting the proverbial square peg into the round hole, and will inevitably lead to a lack-luster product that fails to deliver on the promise of these concepts.
[
ThaX, we just had this conversation a couple days ago.
And you'll have it a couple of days from now. And a couple of days after that. Thax has demonstrated that he simply cannot (or more likely, will not) overcome the mental block of associating class name with character concept.
If any devs are reading this, if this is truely the direction you're looking at going, and if there's any time left to change your minds... do so. If this is the case, it's a stupid direction to take these ideas and this product.
They're openly asking for feedback on the Essentials assassin in that article. They are listening. Fling 'em an e-mail.
The Shadow Dancer, though, I don't see. At least, I don't see it in print.
Because you have this non-sensical idea that runs contrary to the real world and the world of publishing that electronic media is not published or printed material. Too bad for you, you're wrong.
Anyways, the Pyromancer article seems to indicate that the Necromancer will in fact be nothing more than another Mage specialization.
Anyways, the Pyromancer article seems to indicate that the Necromancer will in fact be nothing more than another Mage specialization.
And thank goodness for that. The more schools the better (though Pyromancy is kind of out of left field for me, but I like the original D&D schools). I wonder when we will see the Transmuter (it already has some powers in the Red Box). Bring on the Abjurer and Conjurer too!
They're openly asking for feedback on the Essentials assassin in that article. They are listening. Fling 'em an e-mail.
really? Because the impression I get is that they only want mechanical feedback on the essassin (ie, can you break hidden spear? if so we'll remove it), not an overall response to it's mixed sources or the implications for the shadow source as a whole, or even feedback on whether we still want material for the ossassin.
They're openly asking for feedback on the Essentials assassin in that article. They are listening. Fling 'em an e-mail.
really? Because the impression I get is that they only want mechanical feedback on the essassin (ie, can you break hidden spear? if so we'll remove it), not an overall response to it's mixed sources or the implications for the shadow source as a whole, or even feedback on whether we still want material for the ossassin.
If that is the case (and I'm not saying it isn't), I think you stand a better chance of your opinions being read by the development team if you sent them an e-mail. If any of them hang out on the forums anywhere other than CharOp, they don't advertise it.
Here is what I want in a Shadow Dancer like class.
There is a class that has all the stuff you mentioned ThanX. It is called the pre-E assassin class....
The ability to jump shadows at will. The limit would be a certain distance in a day, most likely done in "squares." I think 6 squares to begin, and it would tier every three levels or so. Paragon would be up to 15 square, epic would be 30, while at level 28 it would go to 45.
Shadow step. Assassin has it.
I am pretty sure there is an assassin utility that grants this.
Darkvision at some point. Thus far, there are very few races that have this.
I am pretty sure there is an assassin utility that grants this.
Hiding without having to use skill rolls.
The assassin has multiple utilities that grant this.
Powers that teleport in addition to the shadowjumps.
The assassin has multiple abilities that grant this.
A sneak attack like class feature.
You mean, something like the ability to drop shadows onto an enemy that outline the enemie's most vulnerable spots for you? The assassin has that too. It is called the shroud mechanic.
Powers that use other's shadows to effect the enemies.
The assassin gets plenty of these as well... including a few in at-will form.
The thing is, the first assassin class released isn't really an assassin. It is a shadowdancer with a hired killers fluff tacked on in places. If someone wants to play a shadowdancer, they should really just build an assassin using the pre-E build released.
Seriously, the Shadow sourced Assassin IS the Shadow Dancer.
Actually, the Assassin has a feat and a PP that both grant permanent Darkvision.
Seriously, the Shadow sourced Assassin IS the Shadow Dancer.
I agree. I really wish they would have just called it that in the first place...
Actually, the Assassin has a feat and a PP that both grant permanent Darkvision.
Seriously, the Shadow sourced Assassin IS the Shadow Dancer.
I agree. I really wish they would have just called it that in the first place...
WotC doesn't like two word names. Now if only there were a way to delete the space between Shadow and Dancer...
*grin* Silverblaze has a point.
I know there are some Wizard builds out there that deal with Illusions, and that most likely this is the poor man's replacement for the full fledged Illusionist.
The Shadow Dancer, though, I don't see. At least, I don't see it in print.
Here is what I want in a Shadow Dancer like class.
The ability to jump shadows at will. The limit would be a certain distance in a day, most likely done in "squares." I think 6 squares to begin, and it would tier every three levels or so. Paragon would be up to 15 square, epic would be 30, while at level 28 it would go to 45.
If the power is "at-will", why would it be limited in distance per day? If it's at-will, it should have a limited distance per jump that might scale. Otherwise, would be encounter. Having a "distance per day" mechanic sounds like you are just trying to cram the 3e shadowdancer into 4e.
Oh, wait...you are.
The 4e assassin can shadow jump at-will from one enemy's shadow to another.
Darkvision at some point. Thus far, there are very few races that have this.
You are once again describing the shadow assassin.
Hiding without having to use skill rolls.
Powers that would grant concealment aside, being able to automatically be hidden (and thus effectively invisible) without even ever having to make a skill check is overpowered. #e Shadowdancers couldn't even do that, now you're just wrapped up in how awesome you thought the 3e shadowdancer was, and you want this class you describe to be "uber".
Powers that teleport in addition to the shadowjumps.
Non-shadow teleportation? It's not even thematically appropriate. All his teleports should remain shadow-realted.
Which s what the assassin does.
A sneak attack like class feature.
All strikers have one. Even...*gasp* the assassin.
Powers that use other's shadows to effect the enemies.
Stuff like that.
Yeah, I'm almost positive I remember an assassin power that has the enemies' shadows reach out and start attacking them.
So what is it your really want?
You mean like calling it the Shadancer?
Kind of weird.
If Swordmage, Battlemind, Runepriest can be 1 word, I dont see why Shadowdancer can't.
I think they may have avoided shadowdancer originally for 2 reasons.
1) Having the name of the powersource in the class sounds kind of weak. The only exception to this is the Psion kind of, but instead his name is part of the powersource, Psionic.
2) It was originally designed to be the Assassin. I remmber podcasts/interviews early on where they were thinking of it being a Martial|Arcane class or some powersource hybrid i don't remmeber, the change to Pure Shadow came later because power source hybrids weaken what makes a powersource a powersource.
-- Assassin = Shadowdancer.... Not being able to shadow jump when there are no enemies is not at will. It is situational, a utility class feature.
- - - I have to say, with all the posting here, I will have to take a look at the Assassin and go through everything to see exactly what it stole from the Shadowdancer. It saddens me that the name of the class is "paid murderer" but I may have to concede defeat with this.
So, With the Necromancer gone, the Hexblade stolen, and no real infomation, does it look like the Heroes of Shadow is a bust?
Is there not going to be any New Classes in this book?
Anyways, the Pyromancer article seems to indicate that the Necromancer will in fact be nothing more than another Mage specialization.
Maybe, but then again 3e had multiple versions of the necromancer, one being a specialized wizard the other a base class.
[...]I would wager the Necromancer will be like the Evoker, Illuisionist, Pyromancer...etc... and for sure not its own class.
Which is very, very, sad. I would say it's the last nail on Heroes of Shadow proverbial coffin.
I mean I might buy the book, if nothing just to look at the new "builds" - they seriously should stop calling it that. They're subclasses, not builds; there are multiple builds in the subclasses. So no, you can't call it a "build". But so far, it seems that there's nothing that people who are more adherent to the idea of a real shadow source want anything do with this book.
I guess Elemental as a power source is dead since Pyromancers use the arcane power source.
I honestly cannot tell whether you are being sarcastic here. I'm going to guess 'yes', though.
I guess Elemental as a power source is dead since Pyromancers use the arcane power source.
I really hope not, but WotC hasn't mentioned the Elemental Source for awile now.
However, there is a Dragonborn Elementalist in the new minis set.
Elementalist was/is supposed to be a Class of the Elemental Power Source.
So maybe the Source isn't dead yet. Besides, nobody has said it has been killed.
When they killed Ki we knew about it pretty quick.
Confirmation one way or the other would be nice though.
Sarcastic?
Pyromancer being a wizard build tells us absolutely nothing about the elemental power source. But you're intelligent enough to realise that. So I assume you were being sarcastic.
If Heroes of Shadow doesn't actually have any "real" shadow classes; what does mean for other sources? The Elemental Source is already shaky at best, and might be killed off the same way (and probably is) Ki was; couldn't find a cohesive or coherent source theme, and was then killed off.
There is an overabundance of base classes as it is. Runepriest? Really? There's no reason that class isn't a build for a Cleric.
I humbly submit that new shadow builds and toys to make all new kinds of characters can be very awesome without having to invent classes from scratch.
Wanting separate classes instead of new builds doesn't seem logical to me. A new build such as what we've seen in Essentials offers almost all of the new toys of a totally new class, but with WAY more synergy with existing product support (powers, feats, paragon paths, etc).
There is an overabundance of base classes as it is. Runepriest? Really? There's no reason that class isn't a build for a Cleric.
I humbly submit that new shadow builds and toys to make all new kinds of characters can be very awesome without having to invent classes from scratch.
No, just no.
Yup, but a fire wielding class was the perfect way to introduce the Elemental power source, like the assassin introduced the shadow power source.
To echo the guy above, no, just no.
Having the Elemental source be nothing more than classes or builds that follow the 4 or 5 element archetypes like Pyromancer is the surest way to kill it like Ki. Elemental as the fundamental building blocks of reality is vastly more open with what you can do with it.
Wanting separate classes instead of new builds doesn't seem logical to me.
So your stance is to have the Wizard, Fighter, Cleric and Thief and everything else is a build from those four classes, right?
Silly rabbit, Builds are for power books.
Wanting separate classes instead of new builds doesn't seem logical to me.
So your stance is to have the Wizard, Fighter, Cleric and Thief and everything else is a build from those four classes, right?
Silly rabbit, Builds are for power books.
I get where you guys are coming from. The other power sources were in Player's Handbooks, with brand new shiny classes. "We want that for our favorite power source!", you say. But that's your gut talking. What you really want is to be able to play the character concepts that the Shadow power source evokes.
For example, as a player, I want to play a noble. In my mind, a noble grows up learning to wield authority and most physical experience is hunting with other nobles. So I think that he should contribute to combat by providing guidance to other creatures and with ranged attacks. But shucks, there's no class for that. So I might request a brand new Noble class be made just the way I dreamed up. But wait! A new build for the Warlord comes out that uses ranged attacks. Now the mechanics can support my character concept, and all I need to do is re-skin the flavor. I certainly wouldn't call that character a "Warlord" in game, but I get to command and shoot things, so I'm happy.
Thus, if the Necromancer is a Mage build, no worries. The character concept is supported, that's the important thing.
This is also better for the health of the game. We all know the role playing hobby isn't exactly exploding in popularity, and D&D is underperforming as well (just look at canceled miniature support, changes in leadership, constant firings, etc). Is creating a confusing glut of class choices doing the game any favors for bringing in new blood?
Also consider the alternative to Heroes of Shadow. Player's Handbook 4? Do we really think people would buy that? PH3 was lucky it had the Monk class, or it would be even more of an afterthought than it is now. But a slimmer, cheaper, approachable book that adds fun Shadow builds and powers to existing classes, and is approachable by new (Essentials) and old players alike might just be a big seller. So give it a chance, I think we're in for a treat.
Keep the primal, psionic, divine, shadow, elemental, psionic, and martial power sources.
Then, for the Wizard class that can do anything and everything, describe the builds as follows.
• Evocation Wizard (arcane-elemental striker)
• Enchantment Wizard (arcane-psionic controller)
• Necromancy Wizard (arcane-shadow ...)
• Staff Wizard (arcane-martial defender)
• Thaumaturge Wizard (arcane-divine leader)
• Biomancy Wizard (arcane-primal controller)
Or whatever, depending on exactly what the Wizard concept is.
Arcane is the generalist power source that can benefit from any of the power sources.
At the same time, you would still have specialist classes.
• Pyromancy Alchemist (elemental controller)
• Telepath Psion (psionic controller)
• Deadwaker Necromancer (shadow controller)
• Tactical Warlord (martial leader)
• Radiant Cleric (divine leader)
• Predator Druid (primal control)
Or whatever, depending on exactly what the specialization focus is.
Wanting separate classes instead of new builds doesn't seem logical to me.
So your stance is to have the Wizard, Fighter, Cleric and Thief and everything else is a build from those four classes, right?
Silly rabbit, Builds are for power books.
I get where you guys are coming from. The other power sources were in Player's Handbooks, with brand new shiny classes. "We want that for our favorite power source!", you say. But that's your gut talking. What you really want is to be able to play the character concepts that the Shadow power source evokes.
For example, as a player, I want to play a noble. In my mind, a noble grows up learning to wield authority and most physical experience is hunting with other nobles. So I think that he should contribute to combat by providing guidance to other creatures and with ranged attacks. But shucks, there's no class for that. So I might request a brand new Noble class be made just the way I dreamed up. But wait! A new build for the Warlord comes out that uses ranged attacks. Now the mechanics can support my character concept, and all I need to do is re-skin the flavor. I certainly wouldn't call that character a "Warlord" in game, but I get to command and shoot things, so I'm happy.
Thus, if the Necromancer is a Mage build, no worries. The character concept is supported, that's the important thing.
This is also better for the health of the game. We all know the role playing hobby isn't exactly exploding in popularity, and D&D is underperforming as well (just look at canceled miniature support, changes in leadership, constant firings, etc). Is creating a confusing glut of class choices doing the game any favors for bringing in new blood?
Also consider the alternative to Heroes of Shadow. Player's Handbook 4? Do we really think people would buy that? PH3 was lucky it had the Monk class, or it would be even more of an afterthought than it is now. But a slimmer, cheaper, approachable book that adds fun Shadow builds and powers to existing classes, and is approachable by new (Essentials) and old players alike might just be a big seller. So give it a chance, I think we're in for a treat.
But that's advocacy for effectivelly kill the game, you realize. This is a list based game, you have to add onto the list.
This is more for an individual mini with the added bonus of not having a game for them.
They are re-evaluting the minitures, and have not given up on them yet. Look for another set for the Heroscape line in the meantime.
Second, It isn't my gut, it is my expetation that a "new" power source will have new classes. Forget for a second that the Assassin has been in the unprinted DDi for a bit and think for a second. This book is the Player's Guide for the Shadow Power Source. It is more focused on the power source than any other product has been on any previously introduced power source. I expect new classes to take advantage of that power source.
More than likely, it would be three of them, with the Assassin being the number four class in the DDi.
Third, going from having new classes to doing all builds for all future products would kill the game. Period.
Fourth. I still think the PHB4 is gonna come out, possibly in 2012, for the Elemental power source.
I don't want builds for classes from different power sources, that would not be the Shadow power source, that would be a dark aspeck of that class.
The more I learn, the less I want this product.
First thing... The miniatures is not the fault of the economy, but basic costs compared to before and after the "game" died. (The 2nd edition mini game, not D&D) Before, in 12 pc random packs, you paid 12 bucks for them. Now, for 5 minis, you pay... 12 bucks for them.
This is more for an individual mini with the added bonus of not having a game for them.
They are re-evaluting the minitures, and have not given up on them yet. Look for another set for the Heroscape line in the meantime.
Second, It isn't my gut, it is my expetation that a "new" power source will have new classes. Forget for a second that the Assassin has been in the unprinted DDi for a bit and think for a second. This book is the Player's Guide for the Shadow Power Source. It is more focused on the power source than any other product has been on any previously introduced power source. I expect new classes to take advantage of that power source.
More than likely, it would be three of them, with the Assassin being the number four class in the DDi.
Third, going from having new classes to doing all builds for all future products would kill the game. Period.
Fourth. I still think the PHB4 is gonna come out, possibly in 2012, for the Elemental power source.
I don't want builds for classes from different power sources, that would not be the Shadow power source, that would be a dark aspeck of that class.
The more I learn, the less I want this product.
For once, +1.
First thing... The miniatures is not the fault of the economy, but basic costs compared to before and after the "game" died. (The 2nd edition mini game, not D&D) Before, in 12 pc random packs, you paid 12 bucks for them. Now, for 5 minis, you pay... 12 bucks for them.
This is more for an individual mini with the added bonus of not having a game for them.
They are re-evaluting the minitures, and have not given up on them yet. Look for another set for the Heroscape line in the meantime.
Second, It isn't my gut, it is my expetation that a "new" power source will have new classes. Forget for a second that the Assassin has been in the unprinted DDi for a bit and think for a second. This book is the Player's Guide for the Shadow Power Source. It is more focused on the power source than any other product has been on any previously introduced power source. I expect new classes to take advantage of that power source.
More than likely, it would be three of them, with the Assassin being the number four class in the DDi.
Third, going from having new classes to doing all builds for all future products would kill the game. Period.
Fourth. I still think the PHB4 is gonna come out, possibly in 2012, for the Elemental power source.
I don't want builds for classes from different power sources, that would not be the Shadow power source, that would be a dark aspeck of that class.
The more I learn, the less I want this product.
For once, +1.
And +2
Look, I agree that 'Runepriest' wasn't a distinct enough concept to warrant its own class. Ditto Seeker, and probably a few other classes as well. But just because some classes were printed that probably shouldn't have been, doesn't mean that other archetypes that are conceptually distinct enough to warrant their own classes shouldn't get them.
A "necromancer" that is just a wizard, with the same old wizard powers, only with spooky flavor text and the 'shadow' keyword simply doesn't cut it. If that was good enough, there wouldn't be any need for a necromancer in the first place - even as a build.
And the Shadow power source is extremely compelling as an idea - more narratively solid then any other power source barring maybe divine. We know what kinds of powers and classes fit the theme, we know where they draw their power from, and how they access it, and it's all fun interesting stuff.
If Heroes of Shadow rolls around without actual Shadow Classes in it, then it will simply have failed to deliver. Those who wanted the book in the first place will be dissapointed with the unnecessarily watered down result, and a real opportunity will have been missed.
And, as I've said several times, Shadow is so solid, so distinct a concept that full shadow classes practically write themselves. Dark Knight, Necromancer, Shadowcaster, Shadowdancer (which became the ossassin), These are classic archetypes that easily warrant their own classes beyond 'spooky paladin' and 'spooky wizard'. WotC can release all the 'spooky wizard' builds they want, and people will still be dissapointed, waiting for an actual 4e necromancer to arrive.
Look the essentials products are labeled as such and HoS does not have that label. Worst case we're gonna get shadow builds of existing classes not essentials style sub-classes.
Now the text mentions classes, meaning more than one, so even if they reprint assassin (seems unlikely) we're gonna get one new class minimum.
Odds are we're looking at a controller (necromancer), a defender (the use of hexblade is most likely just an unfortunate convergence of nomenclature), and I'm not at all sure what we can expect for striker seeing as WoTC is being weird about the assassin. Shadow doesn't seem like a good power source for healing so probably no primary leader class.
Hopefully we can nab a few new themes as well, because lets face it the Themes in Athas just aren't enough.
Going back to the essentials for a bit: Essentials is in no way the future of 4e. Sure a few feats get tweaked, so what? the feat chapter format makes me want to beat the editing team over the head with the damned book, big deal! Some of the stuff reminds people of 3.5, yeah it sort of does. The Dragon articles are being done with the new format and builds, that's just wizards trying to bring out stuff for the current releases, it's just good timing.
The essentials stuff lacks some important bits to take over 4e:
1.) Multi-classing
2.) Paragon and epic options, once you pick an essentials class you're locked in pretty tight
3.) Backwards compatibility, if wizards was gonna give up on the 25 classes and 28 races they've released for 4e already they'd call it 5e.
4.) Forwards compatibility, again you're in there pretty good any options added later would have to be meticulously balanced and described in order to avoid mangling the essentials progressions. Adding a new epic destiny is potentially doable, but adding new paragon paths for those classes looks almost impossible.
Don't worry
Be happy
Doing builds instead of new classes for distinct concepts and archetypes, especially when that archetype is as wide and as strong as the entire shadow power source, doesn't make things simpler and it doesn't make things more compatible. Instead it muddies the thematic waters, dilutes the narrative value of 'class' and 'power source' to the point that they lose all meaning, makes classes confusing rather then iconic, and either leaves distinct concepts without appropriate mechanical backing or introduces intra-class inaccessability or balance issues by forcing entirely distinct mechanics to coexist under the same roof.
Look, I agree that 'Runepriest' wasn't a distinct enough concept to warrant its own class. Ditto Seeker, and probably a few other classes as well. But just because some classes were printed that probably shouldn't have been, doesn't mean that other archetypes that are conceptually distinct enough to warrant their own classes shouldn't get them.
A "necromancer" that is just a wizard, with the same old wizard powers, only with spooky flavor text and the 'shadow' keyword simply doesn't cut it. If that was good enough, there wouldn't be any need for a necromancer in the first place - even as a build.
And the Shadow power source is extremely compelling as an idea - more narratively solid then any other power source barring maybe divine. We know what kinds of powers and classes fit the theme, we know where they draw their power from, and how they access it, and it's all fun interesting stuff.
If Heroes of Shadow rolls around without actual Shadow Classes in it, then it will simply have failed to deliver. Those who wanted the book in the first place will be dissapointed with the unnecessarily watered down result, and a real opportunity will have been missed.
And, as I've said several times, Shadow is so solid, so distinct a concept that full shadow classes practically write themselves. Dark Knight, Necromancer, Shadowcaster, Shadowdancer (which became the ossassin), These are classic archetypes that easily warrant their own classes beyond 'spooky paladin' and 'spooky wizard'. WotC can release all the 'spooky wizard' builds they want, and people will still be dissapointed, waiting for an actual 4e necromancer to arrive.
Actually I think you make some excellent points. I'll agree that very distinct archetypes shouldn't be bundled under the same class rooftop (especially when compared to the Runepriest and whatnot).
My guess is that if Hexblade is bundled under Warlock, its because the development of a distinct Hexblade class was stepping on the toes of the Warlock too much. I'm not sure if that's a good excuse, but I could see it happening.
Necromancer is a sticky wicket because the Essentials mage has brought back the school of magic idea. The idea seems to contradict malisteen's assertion that distinct archetypes need distinct classes, but we're stuck with it now.
Goldomark: Unlikely, Essentials is simply too tight for that, every time you want to introduce a new archetype you have to make a whole frigging class progression, a paragon progression, and an epic progression. In order to cover the 75 or so distinct builds wizards has introduced they'd need to write up a 30 level progression for each one. Not. Gonna. Happen. Especially when you consider that so far essentials lacks racial feats, or class feats.
The problem with rune priest is that they tried to make the 3.5 Truenamer into a Cleric, and came up with some sort of bastard off-spring of the two.
Goldomark: Unlikely, Essentials is simply too tight for that, every time you want to introduce a new archetype you have to make a whole frigging class progression, a paragon progression, and an epic progression. In order to cover the 75 or so distinct builds wizards has introduced they'd need to write up a 30 level progression for each one. Not. Gonna. Happen. Especially when you consider that so far essentials lacks racial feats, or class feats.
Um, you remember the Pyromancer build they released on tuesday right? They dont make class feats for them, they just auto-get them at higher levels.
WoTC is actually more free to make subclasses than normal builds because there is less mix and match, less concern of broken combos, or classes using something that wasn't intended for them.
However that still doesn't address racial feats, or the sheer number of sub-classes they'd have to build.
I mean there are about 2-6 builds for each class, and 25 classes.
Not to mention racial paragon paths and such.
I don't see Wizards producing a sub-class of fighter just for elves, or d-born, Half-orc seems to be pretty perfect for slayers though.
Wizards went through a lot of trouble to keep race important at all tiers of play even if we go to 5e I doubt they'll back pedal the racial importance that much.
Essentials books are for people interested in a simpler faster character generation aimed at newbies but trying to stay competitive power wise with mainstream classes. The books are labeled as essentials products. HoS is not.
Seriously until they label HoS an essentials book, or say it will use essentials style classes, there's no reason to suspect it will. The hexblade is likely just an unfortunate accident, and the necromancer scare is pure conjecture.
Seriously until they label HoS an essentials book, or say it will use essentials style classes, there's no reason to suspect it will. The hexblade is likely just an unfortunate accident, and the necromancer scare is pure conjecture.
They basically stated that all classes moving forward would be essentials style classes a month or two back.
-=Edit: Bleh despite my searching I was unable to find the exact quote source. It is probably in a podcast or something. The exact statement was basically that all classes moving forward would have class features above first level and such which pretty much is the definition of an essnetials style class when compared to an original style class. Essnetials classes are the new standard just as item rarity is the new standard. We already have one "essentialized" class outside of essentials(the executioner). To think that they are goimg to just drop these new standards is just being silly. Then again hoping they will see the error of their ways and abadoning it is quite pointless and that is what I am doing. *shrug*=-
But I see your point. Worrisome.
Hmmmmmm, mayhap there is a happy medium, a place where you get leveling features but can still have the choices we've come to love?
Getting a little desperate.
Or do you mean that all classes and builds will be more directed than the previous classes ala Essentials?
Are you saying that there will be no new classes in Heroes of Shadow?
Barbarian gets a feature at fifth level.
Only because people were confused about how the thing worked when the barbarian got the feature at 1st during the playtest. :p
I am a bit confused, Ranadiel, are you saying there will not be any more new classes, just "builds" ala Essientials?
Or do you mean that all classes and builds will be more directed than the previous classes ala Essentials?
Are you saying that there will be no new classes in Heroes of Shadow?
In my last post or in general? In my last post I was just stating that all future classes would be essentialized so if you are hoping for full fledged 4ed classes in HoS you'll definatly be dispointed.
In general, I believe that there will only be essential style sub-classes of existing classes in HoS(and quite possibly beyond that) because WotC seems to be trying to find new ways to make me hate their products(I guess all the money I was givig them wasn't good enough). Plus the executioner just feels like an omen of things to come to me.
Shadow doesn't seem like a good power source for healing so probably no primary leader class.
I can see a necromantic healer stealing life force from his enemies to heal his allies. Or taking a surge from a willing ally to heal another ally. I don't know if this would be enough to justify a full class, though.
Your saying "no."
I would like an official answer.
You would need a direct line with the devs.
And CS doesn't count.
They basically stated that all classes moving forward would be essentials style classes a month or two back.
-=Edit: Bleh despite my searching I was unable to find the exact quote source.=-
It was in the Essential Warpriest preview in Dragon magazine. Some key points ...
• 'Essentials products form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward.'
• 'Essentials products are a set of core reference tools for everyone playing the game.'
• 'Many of the things we did with the new designs was directly inspired by the suggestions of past [pre-4e] players.'
• 'The original Dungeons & Dragons [1e] game design allowed players to find their own level of mastery. Playing [an arcane] wizard required more rules mastery than playing [a martial] fighter. We return to that in the Essentials products.'
• 'In the past, [4e] focused more on the overall structure of the character classes. Each class used the same rate of progression for powers. [In Essentials], structure has fallen far down the list. You can expect to see different progressions in classes.'
• 'The Future: We’ve charted a new direction in class design with the Essentials products. It’s a direction we intend to use from here on out.'
In other words, the Essential 'game design' is a 'future' that appears to abandon the current design goals of 4e, and to backslide into the failure of previous editions with their chaos of bewildering rules mechanics - wild unbalance, convolution, inconsistency, redundancy, and necessity of rules mastery.
Because Essentials abandons the universal Character Advancement standard, each class is already getting its own weird system of resource management and unique rules for customization, which will require more system mastery than ever and repel more casual players than ever.
I mean seriously, taking out the consistency of the power curve essentially screws over everything that makes 4e great. I liked having mages be on the same page as warriors complexity wise. I didn't have to tell my newbies "oh you're new so you should probably stick to fighter", it hurts me inside to do that. I liked that fighters had to be involved and consider things like teamwork, positioning, and even the odd burst affect. I mean the sub-classes are cute, and a solid starting point for new, younger, or even veteran players looking for something simple, but they're not a substitute for the incredible matrix system of a real 4e class.
It's like raising someone on gourmet cuisine, then tossing them into a plane filled with only canned food.
Ok where would we send a petition to make the madness stop?
• At the bottom of this page, you see the 'Corporate' column.
• Click 'Contact Us' in the list under it.
• On the new page click the customer service address link under 'Email'.
• On the next page after that, at the top of the page, click 'Email Us' tab.
• Fill out the the text boxes with how you feel about the changes to D&D. Dont forget to press 'Continue' at the bottom of the page, and confirm the sending of your message after that.
Maybe the class could be called the Conduit, moving allies and resources through the places where the material realm and the shadow realm grow thin.
In the first essentials books, the difference between the Slayer and Knight was the Level 1 roll out of class abilities; and thier different at-will and encounter powers. The Chassis is so the same that you could change out some parts between the two;-> I think what happened is that since they changed role, it was better to differentiate them into completely (if barely) different sub-classes.
Look at the new Assassin, where the differences between the builds in the sub-class essentially are weapon proficiencies. What I'm saying is that, while these sub-classes are really locked in, there are pretty easy ways to replace bits and pieces to accomodate new ideas or racial stuff.
So anyway, back the thread:
So far, really, they could introduce some new sub-classes, or.. make a whole new Class/Sub-class thing, and introduce a new Controller, Striker, and Defender. The current description doesn't mention much about a leader, though it's highly possible. But... I'm thinking if the Assassin goes well, they might even just change out sub-class power sources... Like the Necromancer could be a subclass of Wizard, but... as a full SC, and is actually shadow based. Or something.
Note:
While I do miss the complex matrix that is the original 4e class design philosophy, I do not miss it as a homebrewer DM. I like in the new system, that SC's are so focused on what they do as role, theme, and mechanics, that it's a lot simpler to extrapolate a cool idea and make it work. I don't know whether that's a bad thing, like the insane explosion of base classes in 3.5 or that it's a good thing that it's much simpler to take an idea of a class and not have to be this over reaching archetype that may agree with the majority, but is vehemently hated by a minority or vice versa.
Ok where would we send a petition to make the madness stop?
What madness?
Really the only change i see is that people get free "feats" as they level up, and even then that's not horribly new since we've seen "increases to X at lvl Y" since PHB1.
My primary issue is now that the power structure is no longer aligned across classes we can't multi-class. The power curve might return to the bad days of 3.x when class A ruled during levels F-K but sucked past them. Further more the return of the mindset that mages should be more complex than warriors frightens me. It's that thinking that lead to the power curve issues in the first place.
No. See in 3/3.5 it was INTENTIONAL to have certain classes being more powerfull then others at certain levels. A wizard couldn't take a hosuecat at lvl 1 on purpose. It has nothing to do with complexity, but more the idea that mages invested in the future, while fighters invested in the now.
If you''ve looked at..
The slayer, more DPR then most striker (except ranger), but a low nova,very compitent.
The knight's slightly worse then a regular sword and board figher.
Mages are slighty more powerfull then impliment wizards.
Warpriest are slightly worse then battlepriest, but can get alot of versatility with ranged Wis spells.
The thief would be ahead of the regular rogue, but it's very vulnerable to daze.
There are no major differences as you level.
I apologize if I'm sending this to the wrong place.
I'm a long time fan of D&D, and I have enjoyed what Wizards of the Coast have done with the game, particularly in the current edition. When I saw the catalog blurb for Player's Options: Heroes of Shadow I was very excited - this is a product I have been eagerly anticipating since the release of 4th edition.
However, some recent developments have caused me to become concerned, specifically the official statement that the Assassin would be remaining DDI only, the new assassin class having mixed power sources with a significantly reduced emphasis on shadow magic, the announcement of the Hexblade not as its own class but rather as a subclass of warlock, and the seeming implication of the mage subclass and the pyromancer article that the necromancer might be a specialty for the mage, rather than its own class.
All in all, the impression is quickly building that there will be no new classes in Heroes of Shadow, only new builds of existing classes, and worse that there will be no pure shadow source classes at all, with the exception of the vestigial original assassin. I understand that I'm leaping to conclusions based on rather flimsy evidence, but if possible I would like to offer some feedback now while the book is still in development and changes can be made.
If this is the direction you are going with the development of the Shadow Power Source, please stop and reconsider. I understand that there are a lot of classes already in 4e, and some of them are on some rather shaky conceptual ground, but the core archetypes within the Shadow Power source are more then solid enough to justify their own classes.
The death mage/necromancer, the shadow assassin/mystical ninja, the dark knight / blackguard - whatever you call them, these archetypes are every bit as strong as 'paladin' or 'ranger' or 'bard'. These concepts received significant support in 3e, both in classes (dread necromancer, hexblade, ninja, beguiler, shadow-caster) and in prestige classes (shadow dancer, assassin, blackguard, death knight, pale master, master of shrouds, necrocarnate). Such concepts are also strong in modern fantasy gaming and fiction - see Shikamaru in Naruto, Riku in the Kingdom Hearts games, Crona in Soul Eater, Raven in Teen Titans, The Death Knights and Necromancers in Warcraft, the necromancer in Diablo 2, and the color black in Wizards' own Magic the gathering.
Relegating these archetypes to subclasses dilutes their narrative values, as well as the considerable narrative value of the shadow power source on the whole. It simply doesn't do justice to the ideas involved. Please give the Shadow Power Source the content it deserves, including full new shadow classes. I want to play a necromancer, not a wizard with spooky flavor text in his power descriptions.
If Players Option: Heroes of Shadow does not include options for full shadow characters grounded in their own archetypes rather then shoe-horned into existing concepts, then it will have simply failed to deliver on its potential, and those like myself who have been waiting patiently for such a product since 4e's release will be left still waiting.
I also sent an e-mail to Robert Schwalb on his website.
I worry though that it's already to late for there to be any changes to this product if indeed they're planning on marginilizing the shadow power source, even if I could convince anyone that It's every bit as thematically and conceptually and narratively powerful and distinct as the Primal and Psionic power sources.
While I am not as convinced that there will be no new classes, I think it is an unfortunate case of the Essentials writers poaching the Shadow class names (which I also dislike, in much the same way I dislike that there will be two, very distinct, Hunter Ranger builds). I can see how, based on the information available, you can infer the lack of new classes, and support your quest for clarity.
I am more concerned that they will be presented in the "Essentials format," with powers, features, paragon paths and epic destinies all blended together. I don't mind if some classes get features instead of powers at some levels, but I hate reading through the power selection of the Warpriest and the Mage ("at 7th level, you get the Domain Encounter Power for your Domain," 15 pages later, we find out what that power is, in the Domain section. Add the X Domain keyword to the power and put it where it belongs, with the 7th level Encounter powers.)
I am more concerned that they will be presented in the "Essentials format," with powers, features, paragon paths and epic destinies all blended together. I don't mind if some classes get features instead of powers at some levels, but I hate reading through the power selection of the Warpriest and the Mage ("at 7th level, you get the Domain Encounter Power for your Domain," 15 pages later, we find out what that power is, in the Domain section. Add the X Domain keyword to the power and put it where it belongs, with the 7th level Encounter powers.)
Agreed. I really hope they stop mixing the PP and ED in with the classes.
It still sounds more like subclasses then new classes, though, and while the designers want to have power source mean something more narratively, I utterly fail to see how mixing multiple power sources in a single class, or leaving the Shadow power source without a suite of classes dedicated to its pursuit (especially when there are concepts within the source strong enough to justify full classes), is anything other then a step in the opposite direction. So my skepticism grows. I'll certainly be looking this book over as it approaches release, but I'm no longer 'counting the days' as it were.
I also got an auto-notice from custserve that my letter there was submitted.
Show
From: Rob <rjschwalb@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: New Message from Robert J. Schwalb
To: Npwoehlke@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, September 25, 2010, 11:39 AM
Hey man,Thanks for your support!
The assassin in particular seems like some developers got together and said. Okay, so the gloves are off and the 4e structure is gone, lets build us a Batman class.
It also makes sense for the Hexblade to fall under the Warlock Banner. The 4e Warlock feels like an implement based or mage version of the 3e hexblade. The curse mechanic just feels right. To be honest, I hope they continue to utilize At-Will and Encounter Powers, Eldritch Pacts, and Pact Boons. I don't care if they can continue to choose a Pact from the existing ones or if they get their own, so long as it's compatible with the existing feats and options.
I'm hoping that the Hexblade makes Swordlocks extinct by giving them arcane melee powers so savage that they hybrid combination falls into obscurity.
Schwalb: Going forward, we're aiming at having a power source mean something more than just be an umbrella for a suite of four classes.
• Power source now shapes a subclass's identity
• lays out a particular acquisition scheme,
• and has a stronger story as it relates to a particular class.
• The executioner is an interesting example since it returns the assassin to its more martial roots. Remember, the original assassin didn't use spells.
• Yet, the executioner is not the only expression of the assassin since the pure shadow class is still viable alongside the essentials classes.
Probable translation:
• The shadow power source is to combine with specific non-shadow Essential subclasses - namely the Mage Wizard, Hexblade Warlock, etcetera, similar to how the Executioner Assassin subclass is now understood to be a 'martial' class that 'combines' with the shadow power source.
• Choosing to add the shadow power source to your class build is like taking a theme but it forces you to take everything in a list of specific features and powers.
• When the non-shadow subclass combines with a shadow power source build, it comes with highly specific shadowy flavor.
• The Essential Assassin is now a martial class. (Whose subclass combined with a non-martial power source.)
• The designers will no longer support the 'viable' pre-Essential Assassin class, despite the need to revamp its striker damage. Not in the forseeable future anyway.
On the brightside, there may be hope for proper shadow classes.
We're aiming at having a power source mean something more than just be an umbrella for a suite of four classes.
In other words, there will be at least four proper classes for the shadow power source - as part of the grid of one class per role per power source. Given the wording of the response, it seems the Heroes of Shadow wont have any proper classes. Nevertheless, there still is 'design space' for them in some future shadow product.
In other words, there will be at least four proper classes for the shadow power source - as part of the grid of one class per role per power source.
The grid is a lie.
There is no grid. There is no need for a grid.
Essentials products aside, there is no martial controller, and no need for one.
This business of at least four proper classes is highly subjective.
Think about it this way. Can you come up with four shadow classes that aren't "dark" versions of existing classes.
Blackguard = Paladin
Hexblade = Warlock
Necromancer = Wizard
"Ninja" = Execustioner Assassin
People want both things. People want melee warlocks and people want Hexblades. Can they be two separate classes? Yes, but people will still want the melee warlock. Now, apply this principle to the Paladin and the Blackguard. Is it better to create two different classes that accomplish the same purpose or add a new build to an existing class.
Believe it or not, I do believe that the Shadow Powersource merits its own role. However, I can see a functioning shadow mechanic for Warlocks, Wizards, Artificer, Bards, Paladin, Cleric, Avenger, Invoker, Shaman, and Warden.
If you can't have four shadow classes and a bunch of shadow builds which will you choose? You could have a Wailing Bard who sings funeral marches and dirges, a Reanimator Artificer, devil/demon channeling Shaman, a Warlock Hexblade, a Wizard Necromancer, a Death Sentinal Warden that sees death as a part of nature, and all of the evil or death god worshiping Divine classes.
Of course this choice is an illusion, we are probably getting many of the suggestions I just made. The real question is, is there still room for a Shadow defender, leader, and controller?
How exactly are the Arcane, Divine, and Primal Weapon classes not also Martial in origin?
For the same reason that random guards don't draw on the martial power source? Because there is more to drawing upon the martial power source than just swinging a sword ro firing a bow. Throwing every class that does so under beiong martial completely diminishes what it means to be martial.
In other words, there will be at least four proper classes for the shadow power source - as part of the grid of one class per role per power source. Given the wording of the response, it seems the Heroes of Shadow wont have any proper classes. Nevertheless, there still is 'design space' for them in some future shadow product.
I think you are horribly misreading that quote. He is saying that the power source will have a stronger identity than something that connects some number of classes(although with the dilution of martial, I question the validity of the stronger identity). He is saying nothing about the number of classes/subclasses that will be present.
This business of at least four proper classes is highly subjective.
Think about it this way. Can you come up with four shadow classes that aren't "dark" versions of existing classes.
Blackguard = Paladin
Hexblade = Warlock
Necromancer = Wizard
"Ninja" = Execustioner Assassin
This is hardly a fair characterization. If you were to really look at all classes to the same degree that you are subjecting the shadow source to, you would basically come down to the conclusion that we only need two classes the fighter and the wizard. Every other class is a subset of that. Cleric? Holy wizard who heals. Rogue? Fighter who sneaks around. That is not the standard that has ever been used nor every should be uised to determine the validity of classes.
As for shadow classes, I can come up with three off the top of my head that are distinct from existing classes. If I actually bothered to think about it, I'm sure I could come up with more.
1. Original Assassin(no need to deny myself access to something that already exists)
2. "Avatar"- A pet class idea I came up with a while ago for a person who calls upon the portion of the shadowfell in his soul, which takes the form of a cruel reminder of what he traded away to the shadows, in order to fight.
3. Necromancer- It is distinct enought from the wizard to warrant being a class of its own.
In other words, there will be at least four proper classes for the shadow power source - as part of the grid of one class per role per power source.
There is no grid. Essentials products aside, there is no martial controller, and no need for one.
As you seem to say, one of the Essential Rangers appears to be a martial controller.
In other words, there will be at least four proper classes for the shadow power source - as part of the grid of one class per role per power source. Given the wording of the response, it seems the Heroes of Shadow wont have any proper classes. Nevertheless, there still is 'design space' for them in some future shadow product.
I think you are horribly misreading that quote. He is saying that the power source will have a stronger identity than something that connects some number of classes(although with the dilution of martial, I question the validity of the stronger identity). He is saying nothing about the number of classes/subclasses that will be present.
It appears 'you are horribly misreading' what I said.Just saying, the notion a power source has an array of proper classes is still taken for granted as 'normal', even within the Essential philosophy. Eventually this can apply to the shadow power source too, even if not now. In the mean time, I agree. It will be non-shadow subclasses that fill out the shadow roles.
Thank you, Malisteen, for the posting of the response. I will browse through it also, but it seems that New Classes are not forth coming for this. Neither will my purchase of this product.
Blackguard = Paladin
Blackguard in 3e was an anti 3e paladin. While it had similar themes, it's mechanics were completely different - the class features replaced, the spells replaced, etc. They had a similar theme, but nothing, mechanically, in common, because the paladin mechanics utterly failed to cover the dark knight archetype. The 4e paladin, even with re-fluffing, or even worshiping an evil god, or even with a spooky theme, similarly does not fill the 'dark knight' archetype. The paladin deals radiant damage and heals his allies with holy magic. A proper dark knight, whether we call it duskblade or death knight or hexblade or blackguard, should be dealing necrotic, cold, and poison damage, and should be incapacitating his enemies with shadow magic. There is simply no overlap with paladin.
There's some very little overlap with swordmage, but swordmage is way too elementally, and in any event swordmage's int primary locks it into light armor, while a dark knight class should have at least the option of heavy armor.
You can try to approximate this archetype with multiclasses and hybrids, but frankly none of them really to the trick.
Long story short, 4e really just doesn't cover the dark knight archetype right now, despite it being a strong fantasy staple. Maybe a subclass or theme could pull it off, but I really don't see how that's the case, because a subclass has to share something with the original class (generally at least feats and utility powers), and there aren't even any 4e classes with the right feats and utility powers for this character type.
Hexblade = Warlock
They both have curses. That's the end of the overlap. One's a melee, weapon weilding class who fit under 3e's defender role (he was in the fighteresque category), the other's a ranged, implement weilding class who fit under 3e's controller role (he was in the wizardesque category, although he relied on UMD to fill much of the utility aspects of the role), or under 4e's striker role.
This 'hexblades fit with warlocks' idea is bologna. There's just no real mechanical overlap. I'll try to give the hexlock a fair shake when I see it, but honestly here, this is just totally random and arbitrary.
The most vexing bit of the hexlock is that the hexblade was a great name for a new class to fill the currently vacant dark knight archetype, and the fact that it simply isn't going to do so leaves that archetype still empty.
Necromancer = Wizard
Necromancer works better as its own class. Sure it fit well under wizard in the past, when wizard was any magical guy who could do anything magical at all. Any magical effect or mechanic was valid under the wizard class before 4e.
Now, that's not so much the case, and adding a pet based subclass of wizard will be rather awkward, while a non-pet based necromancer in 4e will simply fail to deliver on the concept at all. I want to play a necromancer, not an evoker with spooky themed powers.
"Ninja" = Execustioner Assassin
I don't know. The non-magical ninja is better covered by the rogue, while the magical ninja is better covered by the ossassin. The executioner assassin doesn't do a great job of either. Mostly it just fits the old D&D assassin, which wasn't magical at all.
But the problem is, the executioner assassin shouldn't be shadow at all, it should be pure martial. It has this deep connection to the powers of darkness, but doesn't utilize them at all in killing people? The 'shadow' part of this martial/shadow class is restricted to the utilities it shares with the old assassin. It's practically accidental, not integrated at all. Where is the sense of power source meaning more, when you can have one accidentally which has very little to do with how you do your thing in combat?
They wanted to make a non-magical assassin, because essentials is for grognards, and you know what, that's fine. They did a pretty decent job of it, imo. But if they wanted to do a non-magical subclass, they should have started with a non magical class. The only reason the executioner is even part shadow is because the shadow type shadowdancer class had already taken the assassin name, and the grognardism thus forced them to use that classes utilities instead of the rogue.
Again, how does that represent Power Sources meaning more? Or being better integrated into the fluff? Power source did mean something for the orriginal assassin. It was core to its fluff, it told us how the ossassin gained and used its power. It was integral not only in the flavor text, but also the mechanical effects of all of the ossassins powers and class features. The ossassin lived and breathed shadow, and you felt like you were playing a living shadow when you played one. Maybe not a living shadow that hit as hard as it should have, but the thematic, narrative, fluff value, it was absolutely perfect
The new executioner? It's certainly better at doing its job, and it seems like a fun class to play. I'm not knocking it. But power source means very little to that class, practically nothing, especially its shadow half. When the executioner teleports or becomes invisible or creates an illusion it feels clunky.
So while I'm glad that the designers are thinking about power source, and I'm glad they want it to mean more, the executioner is an example of a step in completely the opposite direction, where power source can mean nothing at all. And if the rest of the shadow source goes the same way, as it seems set to, then it will be the only power source that doesn't mean anything to anyone.
People want both things. People want melee warlocks and people want Hexblades. Can they be two separate classes? Yes, but people will still want the melee warlock. Now, apply this principle to the Paladin and the Blackguard. Is it better to create two different classes that accomplish the same purpose or add a new build to an existing class.
"People want melee rangers, and people want swordmages. Can they be two separate things? Yes, but people will still want the melee ranger. Now apply this principle to the bard and the psion. Is it better to create two different classes that accomplish the same purpose, or add a new build to an existing class."
Do you see what I did there? I'm all for putting the same concepts under the same class umbrella, but Necromancer is not the same concept as 4e Wizard, 4e Paladin is not the same concept as the dark knight archetype of which blackguard was a part in 3e, and hexblade is not the same concept as warlock. See above.
Believe it or not, I do believe that the Shadow Powersource merits its own role. However, I can see a functioning shadow mechanic for Warlocks, Wizards, Artificer, Bards, Paladin, Cleric, Avenger, Invoker, Shaman, and Warden.
After seeing how completely the executioner failed to mechanically and narratively integrate its two power sources (it's a completely martial class that is part shadow by accident on account of wanting to write 'assassin' in its name - after all that time we told Thax not to get hung up on names, now it seems the designers themselves are falling into that pit of fail), I am convinced that the right way to mix a shadow theme into another class is with multiclassing and hybriding, not mixed power source builds that leave power source meaning nothing at all.
If you can't have four shadow classes and a bunch of shadow builds which will you choose? You could have a Wailing Bard who sings funeral marches and dirges, a Reanimator Artificer, devil/demon channeling Shaman, a Warlock Hexblade, a Wizard Necromancer, a Death Sentinal Warden that sees death as a part of nature, and all of the evil or death god worshiping Divine classes.
I would choose actual classes, considering that we have strong archetypes - Necromancer, Shadowcaster, Shadowdancer (ossassin), and Dark Knight, all of which are quite strong enough to justify their own classes, and none of which make much sense mixing in other power sources, and none of which have much if any thematic/mechanical overlap with an existing class.
You want to play the magitech item guy? You've got him! Artificer! You've even got options while doing so! You want to play the dark magical knight? Nope! Try playing this one specific subclass of warlock that doesn't do the knight thing, doesn't wear heavy armor, and mixes in arcane magic with the shadow magic that your concept was supposed to be about! Or you could play a paladin and pretend that your powers and class features that heal your allies are hindering your enemies instead, and pretend that your radient damage is necrotic, and maybe lock yourself into one specific theme that kind of sort of fits, so maybe a third of your character is the character you wanted to play!
Want to play a necromancer, who animates the dead to attack your enemies while crippling them with death magic? Well, there isn't that, but you could play this wizard subclass with spooky flavor text on his necrotic fireball spell and a handfull of weak daily summon power that don't feel at all like animating undead minions, such that you'd be better off trying to awkwardly re-fluff a shaman.
Seriously. the archetypes that fall under the shadow power source deserve their own classes. They're strong enough to warrant it, and simply don't overlap with existing concepts in 4e like you're claiming.
Do you know what I think we have? I think we have designers who arbitrarily decided we have too many classes, so now there won't be any more classes at all, only subclasses, even for archetypes that totally warranted full classes and that some of us have been waiting patiently for since 4e was released. It sucks really, really hard that all this happened right before I was going to get my shadow classes. Couldn't they have waited on thise whole essentials thing until after? It's really pissing me off. I need to stop ranting and go calm down.
Saying any class that uses a weapon is martial is not what the martial powersource is a bout. If weapons = martial, shouldnt all implement users be just the Magic powersource?
Also, saying that the shadow classes are just dark equivs of others can be said about other classes.
DIVINE:
Avenger = Divine 2-handed fighter (or slayer now i guess)
Paladin = divine fighter
Cleric = divine warlord
Runepriest = divine warlord (even more so than the cleric)
Invoker = divine wizard
PRIMAL:
Barbarian = Primal slayer
Warden = primal fighter
Shaman = actually pretty unique, but kind of a primal cleric with a pet
Druid = primal wizard, kind of of.
Seeker = Primal ranger, or more correctly, Primal Hunter (essentials Hunter that is) Ranger
PSIONIC:
Battlemind = its a fighter who became psychic, its pretty much their fluff
Ardent = as the battlemind, but warlord
Monk = psionic rogue
Psion = psionic wizard, though less so than it was last edition
ARCANE
Bard = arcane warlord/cleric
Swordmage = arcane fighter
Artificer = arcane cleric
Warlock = 'striker' wizard
Sorceror = striker warlock
Wizard = all the controllers are pretty much the same class, with the exception of the seeker.
So while I'm glad that the designers are thinking about power source, and I'm glad they want it to mean more, the executioner is an example of a step in completely the opposite direction, where power source can mean nothing at all.
The new Assassin makes power source *less* integrated and meaningful, *more* adhoc and random.
Compare the stats from the previous Assassin class and the new Executioner Assassin subclass.
Assassin (Dragon 379):
Role: Striker. You are the ghost in the night and the whisper on the wind. Barriers are worthless against you, and you strike your foes with sudden, precise force. You lean toward controller as a secondary role.
Power Source: Shadow. You have bound your soul to the Shadowfell and become a being of darkness.
The original class makes the shadowy flavor text cohere with - and central too - its shadow mechanics. With this Assassin class gaining a vivid shadow feel, this shadow power source tradition gains class facts and meaningful techniques - traction within the D&D cosmology.
Contrast the new Assassin.
Assassin, Executioner (Dragon 391):
Martial and Shadow Striker: Your sense of timing, skill with weapons, and ability to use the shadows as a second home allow you to strike with devastating effect against an unsuspecting foe. You even mix in some shadow magic when appropriate.
Heh. You can almost hear the flavor text say, 'Oh yeah, by the way, you can also do some shadow magic'.
The shadow power source seems completely irrelevant, or at most incidental to the Executioner subclass concept.
While its important for the official flavor text to be openended, the default flavor still needs to give one or more vivid examples of what they can do with flavor to inspire players who want to customize their own.
Before: the shadow power source deeply flavored the Assassin class - and visaversa.
After: notsomuch.
By the way, I deeply appreciate 'Playtest' Articles that rely on feedback from the D&D community. It is extremely important to make sure the majority is happy, and the significant minorities gains some workable alternatives beyond personal customization.
I wish the designers would get in the habit of doing more playtests - especially whenever there are surprises in the design goals that will effect the entire D&D community now and forever 'going forward'.
It is irresponsible for the leaders of the D&D tradition not to touch base with the D&D community, especially the informed community here in these official forums.
• Most important of all. I want the power sources. I want psionic. I want shadow. I want elemental. I dont want the arcane power source to obsorb and erase the identities of these other power sources. I dont want the D&D 1e Wizard class to be the best at everything. I dont want the Wizard to be the best Enchanter - I want a psionic Psion Telepath to be the best mind-affecting Enchanter. I dont want the Wizard to be the best Necromancer - I want a shadow Necromancer to be the best Necromancer. I dont even want the Wizard to be the best Elementalist - I want an elemental Elementalist - whatever its name, Alchemist? - to be the best Elementalist. I dont want the Wizard to be the best class at everything. I dont want the Wizard to destroy every other meaningful option.
• Guessing from the poll of 'parrying dagger' versus 'shadow armor', this flavorful detail may suggest: almost two-thirds of the D&D community want the Assassin to be a 'shadow' class, and a solid one-third want the Assassin to be a 'martial class'. At least as its primary flavor. It seems the designers and developers should go back to the original pure-shadow Assassin and revamp it to satisfy the shadow-enthusiasts. Then they will have more of a free hand to develop the martial aspects of the Executioner subclass, without worrying about unhappy customers. Work on both at the same time.
If the designers and developers are really interested in incorporating significant feedback ...
At this point ... split the Assassin into two separate classes. Rename the pure-shadow class the Shadowdancer, and rename the martial class the Assassin. Possibly the martial Assassin could be Rogue subclass. This particular Assassin Rogue subclass would have both martial and shadow as part of its build - this would delight D&D 0e enthusiasts. Or the Assassin is strong enough to stand as its own martial class, and in this case the Executioner Assassin subclass would have both martial and shadow as part of its build - this would delight D&D 1e enthusiasts.
My impression is, most players want or can live with the pure-shadow class going by the name 'Shadowdancer'. The oldschoolers want the name 'Assassin' for their martial nostalgia, but it seems to me most players can live with that.
Instead, imo Executioner should either be its own class, or should be re-cast as a build of rogue.
To put it bluntly - the knight and the fighter are completely different classes, mechanically, but at least they occupy the same conceptual space. They're the same fantasy archetype.
The executioner and the ossassin share neither thematic nor mechanical ground. The only reason that the executioner is a build of 'assassin' is that they wanted the 'assassin' name, and that's just not good enough. The executioner makes no more sense as a build of ossassin then the barbarian would make as a build of paladin.
Ideally, yes, the ossassin would be renamed shadowdancer, and the executioner would get the name assassin. But that's simply not a viable option. The next best thing would be to take the executioner out of assassin and put it under rogue, or just make it its own class, and it's not too late to do that as the executioner is still in playtest form. That's the reccomendation I'll be sending to the ddi folks' playtest responce.
It's not even that I don't like the executioner, I do, it looks like a lot of fun, I'd love to play one. But it shares nothing with the ossassin - not a power source, not a way of fighting, not a prefered weapon style, not options for implement attacks, not a narrative means of gaining their power, and not a thematic fantasy archetype. They simply do not go together, to the dramatic detriment of all narrative threads involved, as well as to the detriment of the very concepts of 'class' and 'power source'.
Ideally, yes, the ossassin would be renamed shadowdancer, and the executioner would get the name assassin.
Because everything specific to the 'Assassin' is self-contained within D&DI and Dragon magazines, its more doable to do renaming. There are no books to reprint. Changing the name of the core 'Assassin' to 'Shadowdancer' ... all it takes is literally hitting the button of a find-and-replace command.
It's not even that I don't like the executioner, I do, it looks like a lot of fun, I'd love to play one. But it shares nothing with the ossassin - not a power source, not a way of fighting, not a prefered weapon style, not options for implement attacks, not a narrative means of gaining their power, and not a thematic fantasy archetype. They simply do not go together, to the dramatic detriment of all narrative threads involved, as well as to the detriment of the very concepts of 'class' and 'power source'.
Yeah, I think thats the point for so many of us. Nobody - not even the most commited Essential haters - actually minds the existence of the railroading subclasses and new design explorations. Theres a place for these. We just dont want Essentail to displace and choke out the popular advancements in design that D&D 4e has made so far.
As you pointed out, the 'Shadowdancer' Assassin has nothing to do with the 'Executioner' Assassin - neither flavor nor mechanics. They are two separate classes in their very concept. But both offer appealing options. It would be a disappointment if one were to push the other out of the way.
I was looking foward to this product, now, I am already disappointed. I should have seen it coming when the Class of Illusionist became a weak build for the wizard.
Thank you, Malisteen, for the posting of the response. I will browse through it also, but it seems that New Classes are not forth coming for this. Neither will my purchase of this product.
Oh good grief. The "Class of Illusion" was never coming. It was never going to be anything other than a Wizard build, and has been so since like 5 or 6 months into 4e.
And it is not a weak build. That's just laughable.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
I was looking foward to this product, now, I am already disappointed. I should have seen it coming when the Class of Illusionist became a weak build for the wizard.
Why are you already disappointed? We've recieved nothing concrete from wotc. Everything on this thread about HoS has been speculation, regardless of what "evidence" we base it on. There's been no definite details released.
But, "oh, you've already made up your mind to be disappointed about it". Don't let anything like FACTS dissuade you.
And the Illusionist is actually a very good build for the wizard. Better controller than the wand wizard. The Illusionist build actually provides battlefield control, and inflicts status effects.
Thank you, Malisteen, for the posting of the response. I will browse through it also, but it seems that New Classes are not forth coming for this. Neither will my purchase of this product.
And you won't be turned from this decision by anything remotely resembling good sense, logic, or factual information, will you?
Seriously?
This has all been speculation. No one on the boards is going to give you an official answer to your questions, so your "I'm just looking for an official answer here" is ridiculous. None of us have those answers. None of us know those answers. So nothing that any of us give you is official.
And that response letter? Vague, at best. As we have already seen from the responses to it, it could mean multiple things. The author signed a NDA, and you can bet everyone else on the project did, too. So we won't be getting any hints or leaks until wotc starts doing preview material.
Why don't you reign it in, not jump the gun, and wait, like the rest of us, before you make that call? Just because you're impatient for shadow classes doesn't make you any more special, or more likely to get "an official answer" before anyone else.
Sorry, thax, but you just have to accept that we don't have enough concrete information on this product yet. But tell you what, I'll gonna subscribe to this thread, and when HoS finally comes out, and it turns out to be what you wanted, I'll just post your affirmation that you won't be buying it after any time you ever post that you like it.
If they only make the proper shadow classes, people are going to cry because they still don't have their Evil Paladin build or Necromancer Wizard. If they only make shadow builds of existing classes, people will cry that they aren't getting both. If they create both people will complain that some of the classes or builds are pointless, that the system has too many class, or that wizards is too busy pumping out classes rather than supporting the classes that "really need it".
What, I was asking is simply what the best option for wizards in this no win situation.
What makes me feel bad is the knowledge that Wizards is going to keep firing people until they can make all of us happy. So, maybe we should stop trying to be so trivial about this and give this stuff a chance before we freak out. Sometimes I think the panic on the boards is worse than a retirement home after watching a cable news program.
There is just way to much here to quote now, so I'll just say that I'm not saying that there shouldn't be more full on shadow classes. I'm just saying that no matter what Wizards does, there will be fan outrage.
If they only make the proper shadow classes, people are going to cry because they still don't have their Evil Paladin build or Necromancer Wizard. If they only make shadow builds of existing classes, people will cry that they aren't getting both. If they create both people will complain that some of the classes or builds are pointless, that the system has too many class, or that wizards is too busy pumping out classes rather than supporting the classes that "really need it".
What, I was asking is simply what the best option for wizards in this no win situation.
What makes me feel bad is the knowledge that Wizards is going to keep firing people until they can make all of us happy. So, maybe we should stop trying to be so trivial about this and give this stuff a chance before we freak out. Sometimes I think the panic on the boards is worse than a retirement home after watching a cable news program.
+1
If they only make the proper shadow classes, people are going to cry because they still don't have their Evil Paladin build or Necromancer Wizard. If they only make shadow builds of existing classes, people will cry that they aren't getting both. If they create both people will complain that some of the classes or builds are pointless, that the system has too many class, or that wizards is too busy pumping out classes rather than supporting the classes that "really need it".
Just because they are in a no-win situtation(although I would argue that for the first choice the complaining would be significantly less and on lower volume) does not meant they have a free pass to exercise poor design judgement by diluting out what it means to use the shadow power source.
What makes me feel bad is the knowledge that Wizards is going to keep firing people until they can make all of us happy. So, maybe we should stop trying to be so trivial about this and give this stuff a chance before we freak out. Sometimes I think the panic on the boards is worse than a retirement home after watching a cable news program.
Wth? Why the heck are you bringing firing people up?There is just way to much here to quote now, so I'll just say that I'm not saying that there shouldn't be more full on shadow classes. I'm just saying that no matter what Wizards does, there will be fan outrage.
I disagree. There are already options for evil paladins in some of the evil god descriptions, and there are already options for some necromantically themed spells in some dragon articles. I'm not opposed at all to adding some shadow & necromancy themed 'themes' that any class can take for some of that flavor.
But sub builds of paladin and wizard don't work for those who want to play 'dark knights' and 'necromancers'. The mechanics of those classes are completely off, and if you're talking about a completely different concept with completely different mechanics, then you should also be talking about a completely different class. It's really quite simple. Everyone could easily be happy in this case. You're imagining a false dilemma, here. The only people who will be unhappy are those who don't want PC options for darker archetypes in the first place, and they'll be unhappy with this book no matter what.
If they only make the proper shadow classes, people are going to cry because they still don't have their Evil Paladin build or Necromancer Wizard. If they only make shadow builds of existing classes, people will cry that they aren't getting both. If they create both people will complain that some of the classes or builds are pointless, that the system has too many class, or that wizards is too busy pumping out classes rather than supporting the classes that "really need it".
Why anyone would complain about lack of support for non-shadow classes in the heroes of shadow book is beyond me. Catering to someone like that is pointless. A handful of shadow themes and two shadow classes would make everyone involved happy who could possibly be made happy. And shadow archetypes as builds of unrelated classes won't make the people waiting for seeker and runepriest support happy, either.
What, I was asking is simply what the best option for wizards in this no win situation.
The best option is to print two full shadow classes - a dark knight and a necromancer - because these classes do not fit thematically or mechanically into any of the existing classes, and trying to cram them into an existing class would be to the detriment of both. I'd like to see a shadowcaster as well, but honestly the ossassin already does most of that. Then, for characters who want a shadowy theme to their non-shadow class, add a handfull of fluffy shadow themes.
This is by far the best option, will make everyone happy who can be made happy, and more important will do justice to the concepts involved. Watered down subclasses and a diluted shadow power source won't make anyone happy.
What makes me feel bad is the knowledge that Wizards is going to keep firing people until they can make all of us happy. So, maybe we should stop trying to be so trivial about this and give this stuff a chance before we freak out. Sometimes I think the panic on the boards is worse than a retirement home after watching a cable news program.
Bologna. A) they're not being fired based on whether the forum grumps are angry. B) Heroes of shadow should have full classes. It's really the only way I can see to do justice to the concepts involved. I'll give it a fair shot when it comes out, but I'm not going to buy a book that takes all the classes I've been waiting for since 4e was released and waters them down to the level of refluffing classes we already have. If the book fails to deliver on the concepts involved, then I'm not obliged to purchase it, or be happy about it, either.
- Evil Paladin's vs. Dark Paladins. We're just splitting hairs here. You could easily create a Blackguard like 3e via Paragon Path and feature/keyword swapping. You can create an Anti-Paladin or Dark Knight with standard feature swapping alternate build options. Both of these things would be served by a new set of necrotic or darkly themed paladin powers.
- The most popular Necromancer has ALWAYS been a wizard. A Necromancer as a wizard makes sense.
- Bologna? Read the most recent Mike Mearls interview. The interviewer pretty much spells it out. Is it because of the forums? That's up for debate. I would say yes. We bring more feedback to wizards than any other source. Frankly, If I were in charge I would NEVER look for feedback from the forum unless it was about abusing rules oversites to break the system. CharOp is pretty good at that. Why? Because as a whole we are worse fear mongerers than real life versions of Stephen Colbert. If sales are low, I'm pretty sure our raving banter is the most prominent reason they can find to explain it. Frankly, I like Mike Mearls articles. I'd like to give him a fair shake at this.
That said, I also hope that they at least give us a full fledged Death Knight class. I don't know about a Shadow Controller/Leader class though. I'm not sure whether the Necromancer is better served via the Wizard or it's own class. I look to the Pyromancer as example of why the Sorcerer no longer has a place in this world.
Evil Paladin's vs. Dark Paladins. We're just splitting hairs here. You could easily create a Blackguard like 3e via Paragon Path and feature/keyword swapping. You can create an Anti-Paladin or Dark Knight with standard feature swapping alternate build options. Both of these things would be served by a new set of necrotic or darkly themed paladin powers.
The paladin attacks enemies with holy power while being a secondary leader, healing his allies. You can re-fluff all you want, but radient damage and ally healing don't fit the dark knight mold. IMO, it really is like comparing swordmages and Melee rangers - they both hit things with swords, but a ranger isn't just a nature themed swordmage - everything about the way the class functions - narratively and especially mechanically - is different. An evil paladin subclass simply won't be able to fill the dark knight role while still remaining a paladin. In 3e, the blackguard replaced all of the paladin class features, including giving a new spell list. To pull the same shift in 4e, an 'anti-paladin' would need entirely different feats, class features, and powers, at which point pretending that it's somehow the same class is absurd.
The most popular Necromancer has ALWAYS been a wizard. A Necromancer as a wizard makes sense.
That was back in pre-4e when the wizard was any magical guy who could do anything magical at all. Any mechanic could be and was written up as a spell and stuffed into the ever bloating wizard envelope. Undead minions are core to the necromancer archetype. In 4e, proper undead minions would require some sort of pet class mechanically, and the wizard isn't one. This concept works far better on its own (ref: dread necromancer), and never entirely fit within the wizard mantle (see death domain clerics, true necromancer prc).
That said, I also hope that they at least give us a full fledged Death Knight class. I don't know about a Shadow Controller/Leader class though. I'm not sure whether the Necromancer is better served via the Wizard or it's own class. I look to the Pyromancer as example of why the Sorcerer no longer has a place in this world.
I am dreading a return to the days when anything magical was a wizard. I mean, just because you use a sword doesn't make you a fighter, right? I don't see anyone saying "rangers, barbarians, rogues, monks, warlords - all of these should be schools of fighter". This things are better as their own classes, as is necromancer. Different theme, different fluff, different archetype, different mechanics -> different class.
And mixing power sources to force the matter doesn't lead to power sources meaning more, just look at the new assassin, which has the shadow power source practically by accident. Seriously.
As for my saying nice things - I say nice things when I like something, and say unhappy things when I don't. That's pretty straight forward and honest, and I've had a lot of nice things to say about 4e over the last couple years, even if right now I'm unhappy with a lot of recent developments, particularly vis a vis the Shadow power source which I've been waiting for this whole time, only to watch it collapse and fade right before it was finally going to cross the finish line.
Of course, I also try to express the reasons for why I like or don't like something as plainly as possible, and am willing to change my mind if I'm shown wrong. If HoS comes out with full classes, I'll breath a sigh of relief. If it comes out with only subclasses, but they still manage to fully capture the archetypes represented without diluting their narrative value or the mechanical coherency of the class they get added to, I'll be the first to step up and admit I was wrong, my newly purchased copy of the book in hand. Heck, I so love the concepts involved, and the fluff of the Shadow Power Source so far that if they nail this product I'll be up here begging for a hardcover fancy edition.
However, I have yet to see a good reason why concepts as unrelated thematically and mechanically as hexblade and warlock should be the same class. To me, that undermines the narrative concepts of 'hexblade' and 'warlock', as well as the concepts of 'class', and 'power source', diluting everything to the point that they become thematically meaningless, with concepts haphazardly and arbitrarily put together. The executioner is, again, a prime example of what I'm fearing here. While I love it on its own, it has nothing mechanically or thematically to do with the previously published assassin, and IMO its existence in its current form undermines the concepts of class and power source, while doing a disservice to both the original shadowdancer build and the new retro assassin build.
As far as the paladin goes, I did qualify my answers with a little something called feature swapping. The Blackguard would get Death Touch instead of lay on hand, whatever that means. Maybe he gets the ability to swap out necrotic for divine or a whole slew of necrotic themed powers the way any new class build would get.
Suggesting that myself or others are simply pretending it's the same class doesn't really apply here because I'm talking about how it can be done, without creating a new class.
I too fear that every arcane class is becoming a subset of the wizard. I just don't want another Sorcerer; a class that has very little defining mechanics. Hopefully they return to their idea of cloaking them in the magical aura of the spells they use.
I strongly believe that the Hexblade should fit under the warlock umbrella. Magic is just plain old different now than it was in 3e. In 3e there were two kinds of magic, arcane and divine. Now each "power source" has several different "flavors" of spells to choose from. I would venture to say too many to choose from. The Warlock is a hexer, he even curses/hexes his foes in combat. Maybe the option of choosing a pact doesn't fit the 3e Hexblade, but did you have this problem when the Binder was tucked under the Warlock umbrella? How about the Templar?
What if the Hexblade doesn't make a pact with anybody? What if he just uses the raw magical nature of the shadowfell to power his curses? What if he doesn't have a boon at all?
Adding it as a Warlock build means it has a wealth of feats and support to choose from. If Wizards has 50 classes to support how many versions of the same feat do you need? Lets take Killing Curse, Lethal Hunter, Backstabber for example. I realize that these feats mostly come from PHBs but what about killing curse? It came from Dragon. How many Dragon Articles does it take to support every class?
What if you took the 10 fighter builds and split them into individual classes? Want to support those with all of their own feats? I believe this is the reason why wizards is being more build focused and less class focused.
Ideally you want to have 4 core shadow classes with some shadow builds for other classes, right? I can totally get behind this.
Want a Dark Knight Defender? Done
Want a Necromancer Controller? Done
Want a Hexblade Defender? Denied. see Dark Knight.
Want a Hexbalde Striker? Denied. See Assassin.
Of course this argument is flawed. They can absolutely have two shadow strikers. I'm just saying that maybe all of these classes are gumming up the pipes.
Can an evil paladin fill the dark knight archetype?
As far as the paladin goes, I did qualify my answers with a little something called feature swapping. The Blackguard would get Death Touch instead of lay on hand, whatever that means. Maybe he gets the ability to swap out necrotic for divine or a whole slew of necrotic themed powers the way any new class build would get.
Listen to what you're saying. This is a new build that would first contain entirely different class features, because the paladin class features wouldn't fit the 'blackguard' and the 'blackguard' class features wouldn't fit the paladin. Next, it would have entirely different powers, because again the current paladin powers would not fit the 'blackguard' and vice versa. If you look at the feats, the same could be said. Same with utility powers.
The build you're proposing shares nothing with the class you're suggesting we would attach it to.
Again, I'm not asking for an evil paladin - we have that, and it's great that we do. But good or evil, the paladin heals and bolsters his allies as a strong secondary leader, and smights his enemies with the radiant power of divine light - whether that light is the gleaming justice of Bahamut or the searing damnation of Asmodeus. The existing builds, class features, attack powers, utility powers, and feats of the paladin are all built around this strong, archetypal concept. To mix in the powers of darkness, or add an option to drop the bolstering of your allies, would only serve to dilute the thematic value of the class until there was nothing left.
The dark knight archetype does not heal his allies. The dark knight archetype does not drag his enemies before the radiant judgment of his divine patron. The dark knight wraps himself and his foe in shadows and darkness, incapacitates his enemies with curses, shrugs their weakened blows off of his dark armor, and strikes them down with heavy steel shrouded in distilled death, all the while emanating not evangelical zeal but rather cruel and fatalistic detachment.
I know I'm repeating myself here, but to turn the paladin into a 'dark knight' you'd have to replace: their attack powers, their utility powers, their feats, and their class features. If you replace powers, utilities, feats, and features then you can just as easily turn fighters into wardens, wizards into bards, rogues into clerics. Those things are what a class is, and saying that the 'dark knight' and the paladin are the same except for those things is like saying a brick oven and the Eiffel tower are the same except for their size, location, history, and material composition.
Suggesting that myself or others are simply pretending it's the same class doesn't really apply here because I'm talking about how it can be done, without creating a new class.
And I can suggest a build of rogue that replaces sneak attack with healing word, rogue tactics with channel divinity, and the rogue weapon bonuses with a bonus to healing powers, and introduce a suite of divine healing rogue powers to go with it, and feats to coincide, and then say we don't need clerics anymore. Saying two classes are the same if you change everything about them is just silly.
I too fear that every arcane class is becoming a subset of the wizard. I just don't want another Sorcerer; a class that has very little defining mechanics. Hopefully they return to their idea of cloaking them in the magical aura of the spells they use.
Like you, I feel that there are classes that shouldn't have been printed, diluting the narrative and mechanical value of the 'class' mechanic (though I don't necessarily agree that the sorcerer is one of them). That said, making distinct concepts that should be their own classes squish into sub-classes of something else doesn't solve the problem - it's an overreaction that only makes the problem worse.
I mean, think about it. Light armored implement-based Caster who who talks to the "spirits of the ancestors" (who are, y'know, dead), and has a "spirit companion" who he channels his attacks through. Replace "call spirit companion" with a power that summons multiple ghosts or wraiths, and refluff it, and you just need necrotic powers. Healing Spirit could be modified to draw power from enemies to heal allies and give them temp HP. Add daily summons or utilities that give you more fleshy minions, and you have a Necromancer.
I don't think they'll do this, but just adding an idea.
This began to split the arcane power source between the two classes, even though the Wizard still had the specialization schools, and 3.5 went further with the Sorcerer Dragon Magic.
If all the concepts in the world totally belonged to the Wizard, then I invite you to return to 2nd edition. But this notion was already beginning to unravel in 3rd edition, and I expected at least HALF of the specializations to be their own classes instead of weak builds for the Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Psion/Artificer/whaterever else in 4th edition. The Illusionist was hinted at being a class for the Shadow Power source in the beginning, before the Dragon mag splash of Illusions for the wizard.
If this product doesn't have new Full Classes, Then it is fail. Period.
One question, though:
Why would a dark knight use cold? That seems too WoW-ish to me. Death Knights in WoW use cold because of the unique association with the Lich King and the Frozen Throne that WoW has. The liches frequently use cold, dracoliches are called "frost wyrms", and the DKs have cold powers in addition to unholy/necrotic and disease/poison.
One question, though:
Why would a dark knight use cold?
For the reasons you stated.
Cold = Death = Raven Queen.
Just because WoW uses an archetype doesn't mean it's bad.
This is hardly the complete rehaul of the class that you seem to think I'm suggesting. I just figured you would be so kind as to connect the dots. You are clearly smart enough.
Malisteen, you are manipulating my very giving and diplomatic statements to prove your point and further your agenda. I was earnestly inquiring as to what your limits are. Lets talk about dropping features. I asked you about dropping each feature in a different question, meaning what if you keep 1 but drop 2? However, you're responding to each statement as part of a whole. I'm not even arguing with you beyond conversation. I'm trying to have a discussion, which you clearly aren't interested in. If you want to turn this into a me vs you, then I'll take my toys, go home, and declare myself the winner because proving myself here doesn't matter.
If you want the Dark Knight to get his magic from Vecna, Asmodeus, or the Raven Queen. It needs to be Divine. Can it be Divine and Shadow, sure why not? But the Death Knight and Anti Paladin archetypes get their magic from the Gods. Hell, divine Necromancers get their magics from the Gods too.
Hexblade as a Defender fills the grid just fine. Is he a Knight? Does he still linger to a code of honor? Does he have a bizzaro anti code of honor? No. He's just a bad@$$ renegade who curses everybody in his path. He's a me first kind of guy. I wouldn't call him a Knight, and therefore not our dark paladin or dark knight. Especially since his powers aren't divine.
I dusted off my copy of Complete Warrior today. If you are intent on preserving his 3e function he would really work best as an Arcane Defender. His Curse is truly nothing like the Warlock's Curse. Is this what you want?
I think I need to clarify something. I'm not coming from a place of ideals as I now believe you are. It would be great to go back in time and say, this is what you should have done Wizards. I'm coming from a place of realities, the the Hexblade is all ready a Striker. Because of that fact, I think it works nicely as a Warlock. It has a curse flavored mechanic, it shares the same power source, it debuffs foes, and uses deception. Best of all it has that dark selfish tone just right.
The reason I want the hexblade to be a function of the Warlock is twofold. Right now the Warlock is my favorite class. Adding a strong cursing melee striker to it's portfolio sounds ****. The other reason is because I actually want that Dark Knight class as the Shadow Defender. If the Hexblade fulfills its original purpose as a Defender, then I can pretty much count on having to Hybrid my Warlock with a Swordmage to be happy. While my desire for a stronger warlock is selfish, my genuine desire for a full dark Knight class is honest.
I also think that since we are stuck with Shadowsassin as our Shadow Striker I'd like to see it fleshed out and developed more. Would I like to see it remade into a Shadow Controller, yes. Will it happen, absolutely not? I don't know why I'm bothering to engage you again, but what the hell. Okay, knowing what you know is going to happen with the Hexblade, the Assassin, and the Executioner, what would it take to make you happy? How would you make the best of this situation?
Have you considered that Wizards is not offering their Spring PHB offering this year? It seems likely that they want to offer something to players who are desperately yearning for Shadow Power, since they can't get get a PHB out this season. I have a feeling that this book is an appetizer to next years main dish. I'd rather wait for them to get it right then serve it half-baked.
If you want the Dark Knight to get his magic from Vecna, Asmodeus, or the Raven Queen. It needs to be Divine. Can it be Divine and Shadow, sure why not? But the Death Knight and Anti Paladin archetypes get their magic from the Gods. Hell, divine Necromancers get their magics from the Gods too.
I think here we've picked out a key point of miscommunication. I don't want the Dark Knight to be tied to a particular deity in the first place. In popular fantasy, this concept frequently isn't. If an individual player wants his individual dark knight to worship a particular god, then so be it. If they want to tie it into their mechanics they can multiclass or hybrid into a divine class. But I see nothing in this concept that should make it inherently divine in the first place, or that should require any player who wants to play one to tie themselves to a deity.
Hexblade as a Defender fills the grid just fine. Is he a Knight? Does he still linger to a code of honor? Does he have a bizzaro anti code of honor? No. He's just a bad@$$ renegade who curses everybody in his path. He's a me first kind of guy. I wouldn't call him a Knight, and therefore not our dark paladin or dark knight. Especially since his powers aren't divine.
A shadow hexblade defender would completely and totally fill the conceptual void I'm looking at. It would, in fact, be the ideal. But the hexblade isn't shadow, at least not fully, and isn't a defender, and isn't a 'knight' since he doesn't wear heavy armor. Note: "knight" I don't mean tied to a code, I simply mean guy who fights with weapons and can use heavy armor and shields (I'd prefer a build option each for heavy and light armor, but at least the option for heavy needs to be there).
I don't need or want an 'anti paladin' blackguard. The only reason I've mentioned blackguard at all is as an alternate name for the 'dark knight' archetype I want to see filled with the full class it deserves now that hexblade is definitively an striker in light armor who is at least partially arcane.
I dusted off my copy of Complete Warrior today. If you are intent on preserving his 3e function he would really work best as an Arcane Defender. His Curse is truly nothing like the Warlock's Curse. Is this what you want?
What I want is already not going to happen, because the Hexblade is already a build of warlock. But what I wanted was a hexblade class, inspired by it's 3e counterpart, as a Shadow defender, benefitting from all the compelling shadow power source fluff the original 4e assassin established, with a curse based marking mechanic and build options for light or heavy armor. That's still what I want - there's no way the hexlock is going to deliver that - just now what I want needs another name, because the best name for it was stolen.
I think I need to clarify something. I'm not coming from a place of ideals as I now believe you are. It would be great to go back in time and say, this is what you should have done Wizards. I'm coming from a place of realities, the the Hexblade is all ready a Striker. Because of that fact, I think it works nicely as a Warlock. It has a curse flavored mechanic, it shares the same power source, it debuffs foes, and uses deception. Best of all it has that dark selfish tone just right.
I don't think the hexblade works so well as a warlock. Curses are too broad a concept to be the only connection, every class in the shadow power source should have that selfish tone, they don't share the same power source - while the 3e hexblade may have been arcane, shadow didn't exist back then. Under 4e shadow makes way more sense for the hexblade's dark magic (shadow powers are 'hexes' after all). Rogues debuff foes and use deception. Bards do, too. And every shadow class should have a dark, selfish tone. And if the hexblade had been given its own class, I doubt it would be a striker to begin with. That seems to be a result of being shoved into warlock, rather then a reason to do it in the first place.
Here's my reality - the mechanical and thematic distinctions between classes and power sources have been watered down by haphazard and arbitrary classes that weren't fully thought out and didn't represent distinct mechanical and thematic archetypes. In response, we're seeing an overreaction where even concepts that do carry distinct mechanical and thematic archetypes are being forced into existing classes as builds rather than getting their own classes, and this is only furthering the original problem. This is particularly vexing to me because I particularly enjoy the themes and archetypes associated with the shadow power source in 4e, and it's those archetypes that are getting the watered down treatment.
I'm trying to lay out what I think should be done now. The ossassin was maybe a bit broad in theme, while the essassin was crammed into it without care for whether they had any mechanical or thematic overlap. That's done, there's no fixing that. What should be done? Well, the ossassin still needs a mechanical boost, and it can come in the form of better powers, since the essassin can't poach them. Sadly the over-boradness of the ossassin means a shadowcaster probably doens't have enough room of its own to exist in.
The dark knight archetype is still distinct enough to warrant its own class. Hexblade was the ideal name, but now that's part of the warlock. The best solution? Release a dark knight class anyway, just call it something else. Anything will do - duskblade, dark knight, blackguard, death knight, nightblade, shadowblade, whatever. Coming up with a new name for this concept is easy.
Necromancer: works better thematically and mechanically as its own class, and the wizard works better thematically when you don't cram every form of magic use under the sun into the same class. Keep them separate.
While my desire for a stronger warlock is selfish, my genuine desire for a full dark Knight class is honest.
Look, we've apparently been arguing accross one another. If you want a full shadow class to represent the dark knight concept, whatever you call it, then we're in agreement. All I'm saying is that a new build of paladin wouldn't fill that void any better then the new build of Warlock will.
I also think that since we are stuck with Shadowsassin as our Shadow Striker I'd like to see it fleshed out and developed more. Would I like to see it remade into a Shadow Controller, yes. Will it happen, absolutely not? I don't know why I'm bothering to engage you again, but what the hell. Okay, knowing what you know is going to happen with the Hexblade, the Assassin, and the Executioner, what would it take to make you happy? How would you make the best of this situation?
Did you read the bottom half of my last post? You're repeating pretty much exactly what I said. A shadowcaster would be nice, but there's too much overlap with the possibly slightly overwide shadow assassin, so it's probably not viable. The assassin needs mechanical fixing up - mostly better single target damage powers in paragon and epic tier, which the executioner can't poach, so there's no risk of overpowering that build. A build of warlock won't cover the dark knight archetype, so we'll still need a new class there, and it should be an actual new class, not a new build, since it doesn't really overlap with any other existing class or power source. Necromancer should be its own class for reasons I've already mentioned.
Have you considered that Wizards is not offering their Spring PHB offering this year? It seems likely that they want to offer something to players who are desperately yearning for Shadow Power, since they can't get get a PHB out this season. I have a feeling that this book is an appetizer to next years main dish. I'd rather wait for them to get it right then serve it half-baked.
You're way more optimistic then me. The shadow concepts aren't core to D&D. Heroes of Shadow, and maybe the ravenloft setting, are all we're getting. If they only grant builds, not actual classes, then there won't even be a shadow power splat. The build-only Heroes of Shadow is the half-baked option.
As for why a dark knight would use cold:
a) WoW
b) it's a shadow power source class.
Why should the shadow power source use cold?
a) raven queen
b) night time is colder then day time
c) associations of cold with negative energy, shadow plane
Other then that, not much. IMO cold & poison (and probably psychic, to go with fear & dread) should be noticeable minor themes in the shadow power source, and thus in all shadow classes, but none of them should be as prominant as the necrotic keyword in shadow powers as a whole. Of course, necrotic damage is generally a bad deal, so there should be some tools to overcome resistance, possibly feats that any shadow character can take.
The executioner assassin doesn't do a great job of either. Mostly it just fits the old D&D assassin, which wasn't magical at all.
To me, the executioner feels almost exactly like the 3.x edition assassin, who relied on weapons and poison to kill her targets, while using a limited selection of 'utility' spells to turn invisible, disguise herself, boost her dexterity, spider-climb, create illusions, and so on.
If this product doesn't have new Full Classes, Then it is fail. Period.
I need to check my meds... I am actually agreeing with thaX.
Although I would clarify my take: If it doesn't have full non-essential-style classes in it then it is fail.Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that WotC is trying to keep everything current and compatible, but there have been enough changes, and enough rules structure problems have come to light, that I think a new edition wouldn't be the worst thing for the game - at lest in terms of coherency and consistency.
Poeple would throw a fit, of course, so it likely won't and probably shouldn't happen, but whatev's.
The Hexblade gets it power from Shadow, but at the same time they're more often on the side of good; from an early age they must learn to resist and rebuke the forces of destruction and darkness in order to protect themselves and those around them, this is one reason they're often seen as or take on the persona of a knight, the other reason is because people are less likely to burn you at stake if you tell them you're a knight
So here's my idea for the Hexblade, which I think is pretty unique; the Hexblade are not evil by choice, they are born cursed with the mark of shadow, and they must learn to control it or let it be their doom. Unlike many other classes, the power of the Hexblade is never sought after, to some it is more burdensome than it is empowering; the curse draws evil closer to it's bearer at all times, beckoning forth destruction and woe to those around the Hexblade. Nearly all Hexblades are feared and some are even hunted because death and affliction are said to follow in their footsteps. Few Hexblades survive past childhood, only those with the will to deny fate and to take command of the shadow inside them can overcome the trials of the curse bearer. These haunted outcasts can control the blight that surrounds them and can focus it against the evil the curse attracts. A surprising amount of Hexblades choose good over evil, perhaps it is because they're constantly under assault from evil that they choose to fight it wherever it dwells, perhaps they seek to redeem the pain and woe their existence causes and prove to the world that they're not the pawns of darkness
I like the idea of the Hexblade being a defender, because I like the idea of a defender who not so much into challenging enemies so much as just attracts them, and not so much into protecting people but more just weakens enemies that don't heed the call of the curse
Basically my stance on Hexblade is "screw Warlocks"
Maybe a official 4.5 would be in order. Well 4.75 in this case.
I disagree. The reason 3.5 was necessary was because 3.0 had significant problems. You had an entire skill (scry) that was useless at low levels, but necessary to have decent ranks in if the players ever wanted to cast a scrying spell higher. You had the problems inherent in the Paladin1/Ranger1/Fighter X builds that people took, just to get the insane bonuses that those classes offered right out the gate at first level, then went fighter for the bonus feats. You had a lot of confusion regarding spacing with monsters of non-square space occupation (like flanking). And a lot more.
4e is balanced, and didn't need to be "fixed".
Essentials was/is an attempt to bring new players into the game as well as re-introduce people who may have disliked 4e at start. I had someone explain to me why he thought Essentials was a good idea. To him, some previous edition grognards were turned away from 4e because of the PHB1. When PHB1 was all we had for classes, a lot of the classes seemed very similar, with not a whole lot to differentiate between them. And there was confusion as to what, exactly, a controller was, since we only had one. Subsequent books (various Power books, and PHBs) have made 4e more diverse, and a lot better. But there were those who were turned away from 4e forever by what they saw in the PHB1. Essentials tries to bring these people back into the fold by presenting 4e classes in a more diverse fashion.
That said...I, personally find the BMA-only builds of the fighter and rogue distasteful. The Mage is a step forward for me, as I miss some things about the wizads of old, but it still lacks something. The warpriest, however, suits me to a T. He's entirely Wisdom-based (never cared for STR clerics), has decent healing, and some very cleric-specific utilities that remind me of the clerics of older editions, while still retaining that 4e-feel.
Back on topic:
Hexblade the warlock build may or may not be related to the hexblade in heroes of shadow. After all "Hunter" is a Ranger build in MP2, and an essentials build.
I could see a dark knight style shadow defender. But I still disagree on cold being one of hhis key damage types. I know Raven Queen is a goddess of winter, but that still ties him to a deity. It's too WoW-ish (and I have never been one to criticize 4e for being like WoW, I don't want to start). Necrotic makes sense, Psychic (fear powers) makes sense, even Poison. Just not cold.
As to why - darkness is inherently tied to cold. The sun brings both light and warmth. Night is both darker and colder then day. You seek shade to get out of the heat. We warm ourselves by the fire - which delivers both light and heat. Dead bodies get cold. Winter is both the coldest and the darkest seasons. The darkest places are the polar regions during winters, and they are also the coldest places. A world without the sun would be both lightless and frozen. People think of the cold dark void of space (even if in reality space is neither cold nor dark). Dark matter absorbs both light and heat.
It makes every bit of sense to me for the shadow power source to have a noticeable cold theme, even if that theme is distinctly secondary from its necrotic theme. If you disagree that's cool (if not cold), we'll just have to agree to disagree on the matter.
I also think that since we are stuck with Shadowsassin as our Shadow Striker I'd like to see it fleshed out and developed more. Would I like to see it remade into a Shadow Controller, yes. Will it happen, absolutely not? I don't know why I'm bothering to engage you again, but what the hell. Okay, knowing what you know is going to happen with the Hexblade, the Assassin, and the Executioner, what would it take to make you happy? How would you make the best of this situation?
Did you read the bottom half of my last post? You're repeating pretty much exactly what I said. A shadowcaster would be nice, but there's too much overlap with the possibly slightly overwide shadow assassin, so it's probably not viable. The assassin needs mechanical fixing up - mostly better single target damage powers in paragon and epic tier, which the executioner can't poach, so there's no risk of overpowering that build. A build of warlock won't cover the dark knight archetype, so we'll still need a new class there, and it should be an actual new class, not a new build, since it doesn't really overlap with any other existing class or power source. Necromancer should be its own class for reasons I've already mentioned.
Yeah, I totally read the bottom half of your post. I was agreeing with you. Like I said, "I also think..."
Damn written English language and it's inability to convey inflection.
You're way more optimistic then me. The shadow concepts aren't core to D&D. Heroes of Shadow, and maybe the ravenloft setting, are all we're getting. If they only grant builds, not actual classes, then there won't even be a shadow power splat. The build-only Heroes of Shadow isthe half-baked option.
Maybe, I'm actually pretty on the fence. I'm unsure whether or not I prefer 4e or 4eE. The specialized classes are cool, but they don't Hybrid at all. People are going to start getting pissed about this eventually. I like the Executioner, one of my players is going to start playing one this Sunday. I completely support it as an essentials build. As a Shadow Class not so much.
The one thing I'm sure of is that Mike Mearls will give us what we (as a community) want. That's why he's bringing back the classic elements that people were butt-hurt about since launch and addressing the cookie cutter design strategy. Whether that is good or bad, I'm not certain. I just hope that 4eE isn't a grass is greener scenario.
I'm certain they will release a full Shadow Power Source book at some point. The market for it is just huge. People didn't buy PHB 2 for the Primal Source, they bought it for the Barbarian, the Bard, and all of the other iconic classes they wanted. People didn't buy PHB3 because Psionics isn't really that popular. People love Dark Sexy good guys. Vampires *shudder* are todays Dark Pop Culture phenomenon. 15 years ago every nerd in town was all about the Crow, 5 years ago it was Pirates , in 10 years it will be something else. There will always be an emo character, or an anti-hero in your group of players.
Heroes of Shadow is just going to give us a Dark Paladin Build, Necromancer Wizard, and all of dark iconic versions of everything else that's all ready come out. This whole year is going to be all about Essential-izing the all-ready released classes. There will be a PHB 4 (haven't they confirmed this all ready) and unless HoS completely tanks, it's going to be Shadowed up. There is just too much money in Shadow because everybody wants it.
I'm not optimistic, I just know how money works. If you can profit from something, you'll probably do it.
People love Dark Sexy good guys. Vampires *shudder* are todays Dark Pop Culture phenomenon. 15 years ago every nerd in town was all about the Crow, 5 years ago it was Pirates , in 10 years it will be something else. There will always be an emo character, or an anti-hero in your group of players.
Errrr ... Vampires have been the "It" dark character since .... oh the late 1800s? There's a reason Vampire the Masquerade is the only RPG to nearly match DnD in sales, and that was the 90s.
I just realized something relevant. The standard encounter/daily/utility style classes can't be dead. They are going to release more themes in the November PHB Heroic Tier book. This means that classes will still use that structure.
Essentials doesn't mean no encounter/daily/utility style classes. It means classes can gain class features as they level (hurray), builds can varry in power source and role (something I'm less happy about), fluff is tied more strongly into class mechanics, and power acquisition and advancement can vary more from class to class.
The essentials martial classes don't use daily powers, and deemphasize encounter powers, in favor of focusing on basic attacks, which is something of a mistake in my mind. The focus on basic attacks throws off the balance on existing support for basic attacks while the lack of daily resources throws off the adventure pacing.
The executioner, if you ignore for a moment the fact that it was haphazardly hitched to a totally unrelated class, is actually an example of an e-style martial class done right. It doesn't have daily powers, but it does have daily resources in the form of poisons to keep the encounter pacing on, and it has a selection of class specific at will powers so it doesn't rely exclusively on basic attacks - keeping it balanced with basic attack support designed under the assumption that it would see occassional rather then constant use.
But martial classes aside, the divine and arcane classes we've seen in essentials pretty much follow the normal power acquisition structure - though their build theme shapes their choices more then in pre-essentials classes, which is fine, imo.
Are there gonna be any other new classes after the Bladesinger?
The book isn't gonna be out until the middle of next year, and you already know what it contains.
AMAZING!!
When they mentioned the Bladesinger in the semenar, it wasn't exactly detailed in it's presentation, as the main guy that knows about the book wasn't there. The main speaker (I can never remember names) looked through some "notes" and mentioned the Bladesinger. Right now, it is assumed to be a class, but if it turns out to be a build for the Swordmage, one would question why it would be in the Neverwinter book, why not put it in the DDi?
My question still stands, though. Will there be any new classes in future products, or will everything become builds/double entries classes/themes?
I want to know whether or not I should keep supporting 4th edition.
Wow.
The book isn't gonna be out until the middle of next year, and you already know what it contains.
AMAZING!!
When they mentioned the Bladesinger in the semenar, it wasn't exactly detailed in it's presentation, as the main guy that knows about the book wasn't there. The main speaker (I can never remember names) looked through some "notes" and mentioned the Bladesinger. Right now, it is assumed to be a class, but if it turns out to be a build for the Swordmage, one would question why it would be in the Neverwinter book, why not put it in the DDi?
My question still stands, though. Will there be any new classes in future products, or will everything become builds/double entries classes/themes?
I want to know whether or not I should keep supporting 4th edition.
I sure as hell hope it's the first option.
Wow.
The book isn't gonna be out until the middle of next year, and you already know what it contains.
AMAZING!!
When they mentioned the Bladesinger in the semenar, it wasn't exactly detailed in it's presentation, as the main guy that knows about the book wasn't there. The main speaker (I can never remember names) looked through some "notes" and mentioned the Bladesinger. Right now, it is assumed to be a class, but if it turns out to be a build for the Swordmage, one would question why it would be in the Neverwinter book, why not put it in the DDi?
My question still stands, though. Will there be any new classes in future products, or will everything become builds/double entries classes/themes?
I want to know whether or not I should keep supporting 4th edition.
LOL. Because builds are never put in books, right? Oh wait ... Dark Pact Warlock, Wild Battlemind, Sorcerer King Warlock, Arena Fighter, Animist Shaman, the Essentials Books ....
And yes, the book isn't out until next year. However, the Swordmage is out right now. There is no reason to make a Bladesinger class when we have the Swordmage. Therefore, it will be a build.
And surprise surprise, I'm not the only one to think so. Saying it is assumed to be a class is a false claim, because there are people who are assuming both, not just one.
Will there be any new classes though? I hope so, but I doubt it now. Builds and Themes are probably where the design focus will be for the next few years.
I really hope that you are wrong. I really do.
About which, the Bladesinger or the classes? If the classes, yeah I hope I'm wrong too. I want actual Shadow and Elemental classes. I just don't expect it anymore.
If you mean the Bladesinger, why? There is absolutely no reason to make it a full class when we already have the Swordmage, which pretty much was already the Bladesinger. There is absolutely no logical reason to make it a class when a build is more than sufficient.
Wow.
The book isn't gonna be out until the middle of next year, and you already know what it contains.
AMAZING!!
When they mentioned the Bladesinger in the semenar, it wasn't exactly detailed in it's presentation, as the main guy that knows about the book wasn't there. The main speaker (I can never remember names) looked through some "notes" and mentioned the Bladesinger. Right now, it is assumed to be a class, but if it turns out to be a build for the Swordmage, one would question why it would be in the Neverwinter book, why not put it in the DDi?
My question still stands, though. Will there be any new classes in future products, or will everything become builds/double entries classes/themes?
I want to know whether or not I should keep supporting 4th edition.
Isn't Neverwinter Nights a Forgotten Realms supplement, as in the Source book from which the Swordmage hails from?
If you mean the Bladesinger, why?
Agree. Seriously, Thax. Neverwinter is an expansion to forgotten realms. Swordmage was the new class in forgotten realms. A new swordmage build makes sense for that product.
Swordmage is a melee arcane class that cast spells using your blade as an implement while slicing up your enemies. It is straight up a bladesinger. You don't even need a new build to play it, though I don't mind that we're getting one.
If we get two separate full classes both covering the exact same character niche of finesse arcane sword guy, while concepts like dark knight and necromancer are forced to make due with builds of existing classes, I might just give up in frustration.
When they mentioned the Bladesinger in the semenar, it wasn't exactly detailed in it's presentation, as the main guy that knows about the book wasn't there. The main speaker (I can never remember names) looked through some "notes" and mentioned the Bladesinger.
The Bladesinger was confirmed by Mearls a couple podcasts ago as being an Essentials-style build. Speculation is Swordmage given the Forgotten Realms connection, as well as older fluff that described Bladesinger doing pretty much the same thing that Swordmage does - arcane-powered melee (though it could be another role besides Defender).
My question still stands, though. Will there be any new classes in future products, or will everything become builds/double entries classes/themes?
What future classes (or builds) look like in forthcoming products is subject to personal interpretation of statements made by D&D R&D.
As to Themes in "regular" D&D, my speculation is that a stripped-down version of what came out in Dark Sun (my guess is no bonus Encounter power) will replace the PH2 Background rules but provide benefits of similar scope at 1st level, and grant access to Theme-specific Feats, Powers (guessing more Utility than Attack since not everyone still gets Attack Powers), etc. at later levels. But that's really another thread.
The Bladesinger Swordmage better be a full-on class build with the full choices of powers, like the Mage Wizard and Warpriest Cleric. If its a dumbed-down subclass like the Knight and Slayer, Il be upset.
Heh, I also hope its the *blade* that 'sings' while whistling thru the air and cutting thru metal armor, with preternatural speed and precision.
I hope the Bladesinger is a Swordmage build because I want a Swordmage build that the Eladrin are actually good at. Hopefully, its key abilities will be Int and Dex, so both the Eladrin and the Elf can excel at this racially appropriate class.
The Bladesinger Swordmage better be a full-on class build with the full choices of powers, like the Mage Wizard and Warpriest Cleric. If its a dumbed-down subclass like the Knight and Slayer, I wont be upset.
Heh, I also hope its the *blade* that 'sings' while whistling thru the air and cutting thru metal armor, with preternatural speed and precision.
Well, they made the Warpriest Wisdom primary, Constitution secondary. And that just so happens to match up with the ability scores of Dwarves, who are supposed to be the best Clerics.
What I'm saying is, I wouldn't be surprised if this were so, as there is precedent.
I hope the Bladesinger is a Swordmage build because I want a Swordmage build that the Eladrin are actually good at. Hopefully, its key abilities will be Int and Dex, so both the Eladrin and the Elf can excel at this racially appropriate class.
Int/Cha would work too, at least for eladrin if less so for elves. Both elves and eladrin already make good swordmages, of course. Getting a +2 bonus to both primary and secondary ability scores of your class/build is really good, but it's not massively better than just getting a bonus to the primary.
The Bladesinger Swordmage better be a full-on class build with the full choices of powers, like the Mage Wizard and Warpriest Cleric. If its a dumbed-down subclass like the Knight and Slayer, I wont be upset.
I was going to agree with you (vociferously, even). But, having finally gotten hold of HotFL and looked at the Essentials fighter and rogue, I could actually imagine a swordmage build that worked in a similar way, with (Int-based) melee basic attacks enhanced by at-will 'bladesong' utility powers that make those attacks do funky magical things. I think that'd be neat. I'd still like to see it have proper encounter and daily powers, though, that it can share with the existing swordmage builds.
Their at least 50% new.
Just out of curiosity, why don't people consider the slayer/knight their own class?
Their at least 50% new.
I don't know about anyone else, but I do. I just try to avoid saying that, to remove any temptation for someone to remind me at length that it's just another build or something like that.
I actually liked the Palemaster, Master of Shrouds and True Necromancer prestige classes of 3e, and felt that the Shadowcaster was an interesting class even if it probably wasn't the strongest. I was hoping that this book would cover material like that, with having something like a full Necromancy using class right beside a Wizard specialty.
I'd hope that this book would meet half way between full classes and essentials subclasses, but everything I've been hearing has been disappointing me. I know a lot of it is just mechanics, and I'm always about the fluff before the crunch.
Then there's no reason to be disapointed. There's alot more fluff in the essentials books, and future (sub) class will have more as well.
I actually liked the Palemaster, Master of Shrouds and True Necromancer prestige classes of 3e, and felt that the Shadowcaster was an interesting class even if it probably wasn't the strongest. I was hoping that this book would cover material like that, with having something like a full Necromancy using class right beside a Wizard specialty.
Those classes still got (some) progression with regular wizards spells, traded for other abilites.
So having a sub-class that get's (some) regular wizards spells as well as some of it's own would seem like a perfect 4e translation. Like the level 1 dialy is replaced by a summon skeleton, but you get a regular level 5 daily.
Edit: My biggest hope for Hero's of Shadow is basicly a shaman like controller. Summoning minion(s) into battle while you stand in the back and direct. It would work great with a necromancer flavor.
I hope the Bladesinger is a Swordmage build because I want a Swordmage build that the Eladrin are actually good at. Hopefully, its key abilities will be Int and Dex, so both the Eladrin and the Elf can excel at this racially appropriate class.
Int/Cha would work too, at least for eladrin if less so for elves. Both elves and eladrin already make good swordmages, of course. Getting a +2 bonus to both primary and secondary ability scores of your class/build is really good, but it's not massively better than just getting a bonus to the primary.
Truthfully, I would prefer an Int-Cha Bladesinger. It would be especially Eladrin flavor, and the Cha works well for a wizardish version of the suave swashbuckling flavor.
But when the designers gave the Elf Int-Dex as their racial abilities, it seems they moved the goal post. Now the Elf is - or at least often is - the Wizard of the 'High Elf' of previous editions. Now I see the 4e Eladrin as inheriting both the former Int-Cha Eladrin Faerie Lords and the former Int-Dex Grey Elf. Meanwhile the 4e Elf inherits both the former (Int)-Dex High Elf and the former (Wis)-Dex Wild Elf.
As such, the 'High Elf' tradition derives especially from the Fighter/Magic-User tradition. So the 4e Elf race benefits from the flavor of the Int-Dex Bladesinger Swordmage that resonates with this tradition.
Meanwhile, the 4e Int-Cha Eladrin race are the eldritch scholar sages (pure Wizards) and artists (Bards), while the Int-Dex Eladrin are the eldritch knight warriors (Bladesingers).
The class-race flavor of an Int-Dex Bladesinger Swordmage works pretty well.
Just out of curiosity, why don't people consider the slayer/knight their own class? Their at least 50% new.
Yeah, thats why I want the word 'subclass' to become an official 4e technical term. I would define it as a class variant that swaps out the class features. Mind you, when a core Rogue chooses between the Artful Dodger feature and the Brutal Scoundrel feature, their respective builds would also qualify as 'subclasses'. However, the Knight and Slayer would be extreme examples of subclasses. Heh, maybe 'railroad' should become a 4e technical term.
1: Armored melee attacker, with powers that self damage to deal more to foes (Cecil ff4). This might be able to be covered with a Paladin that chooses powers like Blood of the Mighty and Ardent Vow.
2: Armord melee attacker, with attack magic spells at a similiar level to the Paladin has healing magic spells-attack spells can be either standard elements or exclusively "evil element" (Many RPG protagonists, including KH Riku). If you put them in light armor this becomes the Swordmage.
3: Same as 2, but attack magic replaced with debuffing or status effect magic, maybe HP/MP drains, so most of their damage is physical (FF11 Dark Knights).
As for what keywords shadow classes could use; I see them as opportunistic more than married to an elemental theme. If they cast a cold spell, it's cold because they also want to freeze them in place. The same character might create a wall of black flames or poisoned thorns to block an escape- no reason to say "cold over fire".
Then there's no reason to be disapointed. There's alot more fluff in the essentials books, and future (sub) class will have more as well.
Well, I understand that this is coming out after the Essentials books have started to be released, but this particular product is not an essentials one.
This is a new introduction for the Shadow Power Source, so even though there might be more fluff for the material within, I would hope that there isn't any sub class or builds using already existing classes from other power sources. That would not be a Shadow class, it would be another power source with a spattering of Shadow, like salting my Cottoge Cheese.
I think the option that will make the most people happy is full, all-new shadow classes of the Hexblade and Necromancer (Ossassin stays DDI-exclusive in order to keep the promise.) Then add subclass variants for say, wizard and paladin and print version of the Essassin. Feat support all around. Few pages of fluff about the nature of shadow magic, what makes it different, what it means to use it, etc. Ultimately, the page count for that should still come in around as much as a Power book.
Ditto, although I wouldn't mind a theme in there as well.
But what if Hexblade turns out to be a warlock build?
Then WotC has failed.
The only reason they're being lumped together is that a warlock is a creepy mage who uses curses while the hexblade is a creepy warrior who uses curses. But those curses really aren't at all alike. 4e warlock's curse is just extra damage. Now look back at the 3.5 hexblade. What was hexblade's curse? A foiler. It was a control element, not a damage element. It imposed annoying penalties. Some people complained the 3.5 hexblade was underpowered, but others countered you just need to know how to play it: like a pirate. Cheat at every opportunity. And that's what the curse was about: cheating. Honestly, I feel like a marking mechanic would be a very nice way to capture this: the curse foils attacks that don't include you, and ignoring the mark makes the curse work. Such a mark would be about control and not damage as a deterent. And the Curse feats from 3.5 would be nice to carry over as daily powers: different ways to modify what the curse is. Although not necessary, it would be cool to try out something different with the mark: it applies a (save ends) penalty, and ignoring you imposes a penalty to the save while attacking only you gives a bonus to the save. It might need some balancing though - elites and solos, with their bonus to saves, would be less affected by the mark. But it would also make the hexblade better at defending against multitarget attacks.
Errr ... the Hexblade has already turned out to be a Warlock build.
Where is it this Warlock build, what product/article?
Errr ... the Hexblade has already turned out to be a Warlock build.
Where is it this Warlock build, what product/article?
Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. In H.o.t. Fallen Lands, there is a table depicting all builds that will appear in the second book. Two are for Ranger (Scout and Hunter), one is for the Paladin (Cavalier), one for the Druid (Sentinel), and the Hexblade build is for the Warlock class.
Fail, I agree.
Where is it this Warlock build, what product/article?
Linky.
Errr ... the Hexblade has already turned out to be a Warlock build.
Where is it this Warlock build, what product/article?
Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. In H.o.t. Fallen Lands, there is a table depicting all builds that will appear in the second book. Two are for Ranger (Scout and Hunter), one is for the Paladin (Cavalier), one for the Druid (Sentinel), and the Hexblade build is for the Warlock class.
Fail, I agree.
Well, yeah, that's why we're even talking about the Hexblade as a Warlock at all. But it's speculation at this point whether this is THE Hexblade (as in Hexblade is a Warlock PERIOD), or if this is just an unfortunate nomenclature issue, and we're just getting a melee Warlock build IN ADDITION to an actual Hexblade class.
Almost all of us agree that it is EPIC FAIL if the former turns out to be the case, but like I said, until they give us a preview, we won't know either way. We do, however, appear to be getting quite a few excerpts of the new HotFK book, and one of them is bound to have this notorius Warlock. So we can keep the faith until we see the words "Arcane and Shadow Striker" in the preview article, at which point it will be pretty much official that the Shadow "Source" is dead.
However, it could work if we were to approach the problem from the essentials stand-point, and make a sort of "base" class that we could just add builds onto to statisfy the different groups who, for instance, would prefer the Hexblade be a heavy armored striker vs. the ones who want a defender with shadow armor, or those who want it to be a dark knight vs. those who want it to be closer to the 3.5 Hexblade, and so on.
If we did do something like that, and it gained wide enough appeal, there's a chance that WotC might even reverse it's decision and publish shadow classes based on our ideas. Though, frankly, all of this is highly dependant on both the forum community's ability to work together and share ideas constructively, as well as their ability to come up with innotative ideas that don't suck and yet are also balanced against existing classes...
...
So, basically, it's ridiculously unlikely.
There's already been a variety of attempts at making shadow classes, but if you're talking about three full homebrew classes created by the forum community... I dunno, it would definitely be massive undertaking to make a class most of us agree on, considering so many of us are split on fundamental issues (like whether a Necromancer should be a pet-based controller or a Shadow Leader).
I'll desagree with the idea that Essential classes are best suited for creating a whole spectrum of possible shadow classes.
The advantage of the "source/role" combination was that you could easily build very different classes - their name being only a label, not a restriction on what a character can be.
If I take your example of a Necromancer seen by some as a pet-controller, by others as a leader, the best way was to build two classes. Maybe one would have been called Necromancer and the other something else, but the two would have been there, and usable for creating whatever you best liked.
In the same way that if you want to play a "swashbuckler" character, you can make it a Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Barbarian, Swordmage, Avenger, etc, depending on the way you want to play it.
Essential is more limiting, if I correctly understood what the designers said about the way they now build classes (a class is the best possible incarnation of a typical archetype). It means that you need a new class for each possible archetype, when we mainly had "super classes" vague enough to allow a great number of different archetypes to fit in.
I agree on the point that building "pre -E" classes is an enormous task, though. Especially because you need to build most of the classes of a given source at the same time, as a spectrum of possible characters.
We'll have to wait for the book anyway. We will see if the way they implemented the Shadow source is or not to our taste.
Poison is ahem more often as not a tool of life itself... venoms and such to me making it less appropriate
4e Power Tool Kit is an an interesting gadget I have been looking at. Not actually a character builder more a class creation tool and handy sharing tool...
"Hamburgers and hot-dogs are examples of fast foods, but there are lots of other fast foods out there. Here, have a fast food meal in a box."
Would you feel I'd lied to you when you opened up the box and found it contained a pizza, and not a hamburger or hot-dog?
No, but I might be dissapointed if I had been waiting for a hamberger for two years, and you mentioned previously that hambergers would be covered when you got around to fast food meal boxes, and then you gave me slice of pizza with little hamberger bits on it.
You're the one who's saying they would be lying if they didn't have 'new' classes. The blurb doesn't say new classes. It only says classes. If HoS comes out with a hamburger build of pizza that includes everything you need to eat the pizza, then it will still have a 'meal'. It may not be a 'new' meal, but it's still a 'meal'.
If HoS comes out with a 'necromancer specialty mage' then there's a class. It's not a new class. It's not the class I wanted. In fact, it's a slap in the face, because not only is it not the class I've been waiting for, it's also a clear statement that they don't intend to ever provide that class.
But it's still a class, and the blurb is still technically accurate.
If HoS comes out with a 'necromancer specialty mage' then there's a class. It's not a new class. It's not the class I wanted. In fact, it's a slap in the face, because not only is it not the class I've been waiting for, it's also a clear statement that they don't intend to ever provide that class.
But it's still a class, and the blurb is still technically accurate.
That would be wrong. A class is a container within which there are builds. HotFL/FK offer new builds, new things to put in the container. HoS is promising new containers, probably with a couple of builds to go in it.
Or, in short, the Mage is not a class, it is a build that belongs to a class.
Even tho HOS says 'class', it may mean subclass. Hence build.
That said. Re the customer service response that ended with the note, 'Keep the faith!' It is a curious remark. Whatever motivated, it seems the representative genuinely expected the sender to be pleasantly surprised. I feel theres optimism for an actual class. Who knows maybe more.
So now HoS is getting a lot of pressure put on it. Poor thing.
Because 'subclass' isnt an official 4e term, theres seems to be confusion about whether to refer a 'subclass' as a class or a build.
Even tho HOS says 'class', it may mean subclass. Hence build.
Which isn't strictly valid reasoning, because as you yourself say, subclass isn't an official term - so, they can't mean sub-class.
and you mentioned previously that hambergers would be covered when you got around to fast food meal boxes,
When did WotC ever do that? AFAIK, they never claimed hexblades, assassins or necromancers would be classes in HoS. What have they actually explicitly promised that we know for certain isn't going to be delivered in HoS?
and then you gave me slice of pizza with little hamberger bits on it.
Kinda like a Sloppy Giuseppe? I love those. Honestly, though, I've lost track of how you're (ab)using my analogy. Is this meant to be the new semi-martial assassin build, or what?
You're the one who's saying they would be lying if they didn't have 'new' classes.
No. I am saying that would cause me to agree with those who are already claiming WotC are lying. I do not agree with those people yet, because I see no evidence supporting their rather cynical conclusion.
The blurb doesn't say new classes. It only says classes. If HoS comes out with a hamburger build of pizza that includes everything you need to eat the pizza, then it will still have a 'meal'. It may not be a 'new' meal, but it's still a 'meal'.
If HoS comes out with a 'necromancer specialty mage' then there's a class. It's not a new class. It's not the class I wanted. In fact, it's a slap in the face, because not only is it not the class I've been waiting for, it's also a clear statement that they don't intend to ever provide that class.
But it's still a class, and the blurb is still technically accurate.
WotC appears to understand the difference between 'class' and 'build', even if you don't.
These analogies are making me hungry.
Then at least something constructive has been achieved by this thread.
That would be wrong. A class is a container within which there are builds. HotFL/FK offer new builds, new things to put in the container. HoS is promising new containers, probably with a couple of builds to go in it.
Or, in short, the Mage is not a class, it is a build that belongs to a class.
Yes, this is exactly my point. WotC has never (AFAIK) referred to any of the new Essentials builds as 'classes' in any official communication. WotC clearly do not consider the terms 'class' and 'build' to be interchangeble. Therefore, the HoS description's claim that the book contains 'classes' means that it contains new classes, not merely builds for existing classes.
Because 'subclass' isnt an official 4e term, theres seems to be confusion about whether to refer a 'subclass' as a class or a build.
WotC refers to subclasses as 'builds'. See the official desciptions of the HotFL and HotFK books I linked to earlier. They have never referred to subclasses as 'classes' (or as anything other than 'builds') in their product descriptions, and there is absolutely zero reason to think the HoS description is an exception.
The designers informally use the term 'subclass'.
'Informally' <> 'in official product descriptions'
When Slavicsek first introduced the 'Essentials Classes', he refers to them exclusively as 'classes', even while featuring the Warpriest Cleric build, and never uses the term class 'build'.
(Dragon 389: Cleric Preview: Ampersand Special: The Essential Classes)
Slavicsek seems to avoid the term 'build', using almost any other term except 'build'. Here references to an Essential class build appear in red:
'In the Essentials products, we’re introducing new variations of the core classes in a manner similar to sub-classes from older editions of the game. There are two new types of fighters, the slayer and the knight, in the Essentials products. The great thing about this approach is that it allows us to build character classes that feel unique.'
Elsewhere too an Essential class build is simply called a 'class'. Example:
'If a class gives you a power that has a level in its stat block, you can swap that power for one of the same type (at-will, encounter, daily, or utility) and the same or lower level. If the power doesn’t have a level, you can’t swap it for a different power.'
I dont think its a big deal they used the term 'classes' for Essential class builds. The designers were thinking of these as the *only* classes available in the Essentials line. So they seem to not have thought of them as 'builds' in the context of mix-and-matching with the 'core classes'. Even the Slayer and Knight dont mix-and-match well with eachother, so they arent Fighter 'builds' per se in the sense of core Fighter builds. Meanwhile, these designers explicitly appeal to old-school D&D gamers and intentionally model these not-quite-build not-quite-classes on 1e sub-classes. The terminology seems still in flux at this point.
But that's only one example, when there are others that do not work.
Adroit Explorer, for example, the human racial PP. There are some others, as well, that would not work in conjunction with the essentials classes.
Adroit explorer actually works just fine with all the e-classes. Since a Knight and Slayer, for example, are explicitly still Fighters, they just choose any 7th-level Fighter encounter attack power.
A note, though, is that since only ONE ED is presented in HoFL, almost any ED would work. But even then there are a handful that would not. I believe Eternal Seeker requires normal 4e classes, but I don't recall.
You got me there. Eternal Seeker doesn't work with Knight, Slayer and Thief because they at no point in their epic progression gain new encounter or daily powers so they wouldn't gain any benefit from their 21st-level Epic Destiny feature. That's.... one ED out of 88 as of the last Compendium Update.
For an epic destiny it would be possible to sub in another one for the one in the book. However I have no idea what that might do to the power curve.
Paragon paths face some difficulty in that many are based on class features the e-version might not have.
The same problem, then, exists with multiclass and hybrid characters. And in that case, the better fix would be to add the enhanced/altered class feature as a prerequisite.
But the real killer is that the classes specifically say you take on these PP and ED right there in the description. No options are offered, or even discussed.
Blatantly false. Page 79 explicitly states that you can choose other Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies from other Dungeons and Dragons supplements or from the D&D Insider. In fact, each class in Heroes of the Fallen Lands refers you to page 79 when it says you take on this or that Paragon Path.
When did WotC ever do that? AFAIK, they never claimed hexblades, assassins or necromancers would be classes in HoS. What have they actually explicitly promised that we know for certain isn't going to be delivered in HoS?
Necromancers are mentioned as part of the shadow power source in the worlds & monsters preview book for 4e, written back before the PHB even, when classes sat firmly within a single power source, and as such that could only mean that necromancer was at that time intended to be its own class apart from wizard once they got around to it. It was not unreasonably for necromancy fans to be expecting a new necromancer class once the designers finally got around to the shadow power source. Likewise, it's not unreasonable for such fans who have been waiting since before 4e's release to be worried given the recent developments and current grognard-oriented design atmosphere.
Frankly, wizards hasn't really promised that anything would be in this book. Oh, sure, there'll be races and classes, but not that they would be new. Reprinting shadar-kai and reprinting the wizard would constitute included races and classes, and if the reprinted wizard included some new powers with the shadow keyword then that would constitute a class that uses the shadow power source.
It wouldn't make me happy, but it would satisfy the blurb description, which, again, does not specify new anything. I'm not accusing WotC of lying, or breaking promises. That kind of melodrama isn't my thing. But I am quite afraid that the shadow power source, born out of 4e's desire to establish power sources in the first place, is going to be absorbed into other sources, much as arcane and divine used to cover almost any magical activity in the past.
And frankly, the idea that 'assassins, hexblades, & necromancers' were just examples of people who use the shadow power source, but aren't supposed to be an indication of the contents of the book is just silly from the perspective of a natural reading of the blurb. Those are the iconic examples of shadow source users. If the iconic users of shadow aren't shadow classes in this book then what do you think is? Maybe we'll get lawyer as a shadow class? Blacksmith? Outrider? New age retro hippie? Will we get more classes like the seeker, arbitrary combinations of source and role without a distinct conceptual backbone? Because the reply I got from one of the writers indicates that's exactly what they aren't doing anymore.
You could maybe argue in favor of some sort of shadowcaster class as having a firm conceptual backbone and that isn't already dismissed in the 'a, h, n' bit, but even that may be a bit of a stretch. Again, do we really want shadow classes if the most iconic archetypes are excluded?
Kinda like a Sloppy Giuseppe? I love those. Honestly, though, I've lost track of how you're (ab)using my analogy. Is this meant to be the new semi-martial assassin build, or what?
This is meant to be a necromancer build of the mage/wizard, when what I and some others have been waiting for since the 4e preview books was a separate necromancer class entirely within the shadow power source. I'm confused how it's 'abusing' your analogy, since I though that was exactly what your analogy was in the first place.
No. I am saying that would cause me to agree with those who are already claiming WotC are lying. I do not agree with those people yet, because I see no evidence supporting their rather cynical conclusion.
Hence the 'would be' in the line you quoted, though perhaps 'would have been' would have been more precise.
WotC appears to understand the difference between 'class' and 'build', even if you don't.
You seem to be putting a lot of faith in a blurb that was likely written by a marketing guy based off some second hand early design notes. Why would the blurb mention all the classes that aren't in it (hexblade, assassin), instead of any that are? If hexblade and assassin aren't new classes in heroes of shadow, why would you think necromancer is, when it's in the same sentence and the same context as the two classes that aren't in it? If hexblade, assassin, and necromancer, the most obvious potential shadow classes, aren't in this book, why would you expect any new shadow classes at all? Would we even be happy with new shadow classes if they passed over the hexblade and the necromancer to bring us "new shadow class: the Bedarkener"?
Again, you're hanging a lot of expectations on a blurb that was probably an afterthought written by a marketing intern without any access to the in-development material in the first place. Yeah, they're careful to say "builds" in the essentials books, but do you still think they're walking on eggshells for the stuff after? And then there's the distinct possibility that the design direction for this book changed after that blurb was written.
Yes, this is exactly my point. WotC has never (AFAIK) referred to any of the new Essentials builds as 'classes' in any official communication. WotC clearly do not consider the terms 'class' and 'build' to be interchangeble. Therefore, the HoS description's claim that the book contains 'classes' means that it contains new classes, not merely builds for existing classes.
The blurb is already confusing and misleading - see hexblade, assassin at the very least. Note I didn't say wrong or lying, just misleading. Which raises the distinct possibility that the blurb writer was working with earlier design notes later abandoned.
I'm not saying this is definitely the case. I want there to be new, full, shadow-only classes in HoS. I would love that. I still think it's a possibility, even if I see it as a fading one. I'm raising a stink in the hope that there might still be enough time to change direction if the designers see the shadow source and the concepts within it already have a following who want to see full classes for them. And before you say the designers don't look in this forum, remember that I also have sent letters to custserv and to the writers themselves, and have posted back the replies I've gotten, which are necessarily vague due to NDA's, but at the same time not exactly encouraging on this issue.
WotC refers to subclasses as 'builds'. See the official desciptions of the HotFL and HotFK books I linked to earlier. They have never referred to subclasses as 'classes' (or as anything other than 'builds') in their product descriptions, and there is absolutely zero reason to think the HoS description is an exception.
They're walking on eggshells with the essentials books - being extra careful because of the heat they expected to be getting. Nothing says they'd be walking on eggshells for books after - which means the terms might get looser, or they might get less careful about blurb wordings.
As a parting note, we seem to be on the same side. We seem to want the same thing - a Heroes of Shadow book that presents Shadow as a distinct and fully supported power source with iconic fantasy archetypes represented by fully new, fully shadow classes rather then just builds that force the power source and its concepts to share space with other existing sources and classes.
You look at one piece of evidence, the catalog blurb, and say you're sure that's what we're getting (despite the blurb being somewhat vague, and notably misleading in other instances), and we should only complain after the book is released if it doesn't deliver.
I'm saying that we've already seen that the blurb isn't the most reliable (assassins 0 not in, hexblades - another book, part of warlock), and there's mounting evidence that the designers are leaning away from new classes for this book (mage, pyromancer article, grognard oriented design philosophy, responces from writers, the new assassin which shares nothing but a name with the old assassin, ect), and while the blurb provides evidence to the contrary, it's hardly a sure thing.
And given that it's not a sure thing, if you want there to be full new shadow classes, if you want the shadow power source to exist independently of other sources, rather then being just a flavor text sticker that can be applied to other classes, then you'd better express that in the form of letters to WotC and the writers of heroes of shadow in particular now while there might still be time to change direction on the final product, rather then waiting to complain about it until after the book is released, at which point it's too late to do anything, and any wailing and gnashing of teeth and accusations of lying are all just complete wastes of time.
When Slavicsek first introduced the 'Essentials Classes', he refers to them exclusively as 'classes', even while featuring the Warpriest Cleric build, and never uses the term class 'build'.
(Dragon 389: Cleric Preview: Ampersand Special: The Essential Classes)
Slavicsek seems to avoid the term 'build', using almost any other term except 'build'. Here references to an Essential class build appear in red:
'In the Essentials products, we’re introducing new variations of the core classes in a manner similar to sub-classes from older editions of the game. There are two new types of fighters, the slayer and the knight, in the Essentials products. The great thing about this approach is that it allows us to build character classes that feel unique.'
Elsewhere too an Essential class build is simply called a 'class'. Example:
'If a class gives you a power that has a level in its stat block, you can swap that power for one of the same type (at-will, encounter, daily, or utility) and the same or lower level. If the power doesn’t have a level, you can’t swap it for a different power.'
I dont think its a big deal they used the term 'classes' for Essential class builds. The designers were thinking of these as the *only* classes available in the Essentials line. So they seem to not have thought of them as 'builds' in the context of mix-and-matching with the 'core classes'. Even the Slayer and Knight dont mix-and-match well with eachother, so they arent Fighter 'builds' per se in the sense of core Fighter builds. Meanwhile, these designers explicitly appeal to old-school D&D gamers and intentionally model these not-quite-build not-quite-classes on 1e sub-classes. The terminology seems still in flux at this point.
Two things. First off, note that he uses the term "sub-class" as a reference to something from old editions, not saying "this is what these are called", rather, "there used to be this thing with this name and these are kinda like those". Second, the language in an article like that isn't bound to anything near the level of specificity as marketing materials, where concerns of false advertisement suits have to be considered. An article like that is more like an interview, some of the details or specific language may not be 100% accurate. But the actual, formal, official descriptions refer to the Essentials builds as builds, not as classes. There is a specific difference in language between "contains new builds for classes", and "contains new classes". No matter how much people try to interpret the former into the HoS description, it just isn't there. There is not a rational basis for thinking that's what they mean.
Now, I can't speak to the terminology choices in Essentials directly, of course, but here's a thought: If they were going to start talking about builds there, it has to be considered that doing so would have made the book just a little more complex, introduced an extra point for misunderstanding. Within the concept of being simple and easy to grasp, such a thing is directly against the goal. I'd also note that strictly speaking, in rules terms, while a build may alter how this happens as of Essentials, a character gets powers from their class, not their build. Saying "if a build gives you a power" would be a ridiculous thing to do, as it would ahve some rather poor interactions with the rest of the rules.
And, as an aside - I'm not really sure what's stopping there from being an Essentials Warlock build called a Hexblade alongside a fully realized Hexblade class. They may or may not decide to change the name of the latter, but, the name is not really the important part. And if they don't, well, a little duplication isn't strictly harmful - a little confusing to some, certainly, but, I still wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.
Two things. First off, note that he uses the term "sub-class" as a reference to something from old editions, not saying "this is what these are called", rather, "there used to be this thing with this name and these are kinda like those".
But other designers have used the term 'sub-classes' in casual contexts, and it seems to be part of the 'design speak', sorta like when the term 'design conceit' was in vogue.
Second, the language in an article like that isn't bound to anything near the level of specificity as marketing materials, where concerns of false advertisement suits have to be considered. An article like that is more like an interview, some of the details or specific language may not be 100% accurate.
I agree. Even tho this article is official and 'core', the context is a personal editorial, and the tone is friendly and casual. Thus using unofficial jargon is to be expected.
But the actual, formal, official descriptions [in the product descriptions] refer to the Essentials builds as builds, not as classes. There is a specific difference in language between "contains new builds for classes", and "contains new classes". No matter how much people try to interpret the former into the HoS description, it just isn't there. There is not a rational basis for thinking that's what they mean.
You may well be correct here. Especially if its a separate group of people who write the product descriptions. They would refer to their own terminology, thus be more consistent.
My point is, there is real fluidity in terminology for 'sub-classes'. So you cant blame people who take the product descriptions with a grain of salt. Especially when there are surprises, like the Hexblade almost certainly being a subclass of Warlock, and zero confirmation for a proper Necromancer class.
You and Duskweaver may well be right in your reliance on the product descriptions, but others are less confident.
And, generally speaking, I'm pretty sure product descriptions are written by professional writers in marketing departments, who are liable to be extremely specific with their word choices. Hence my assumption that it can be taken to be specific.
And, as an aside - I'm not really sure what's stopping there from being an Essentials Warlock build called a Hexblade alongside a fully realized Hexblade class. They may or may not decide to change the name of the latter, but, the name is not really the important part. And if they don't, well, a little duplication isn't strictly harmful - a little confusing to some, certainly, but, I still wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.
The thing preventing it is that for the essentials sub-classes, the name of the build is farm more important then it is for pre-e builds. In fact, it's basically the name of their class. Pre-e builds coexisted within the same class in a much closer fashion. They chose from the same powers, mostly shared the same class features. A warlord is a warlord, whether tactical or inspiring.
For e-builds, the build basically is the class. The knight and slayer share almost nothing with each other or with the pre-e fighters, having almost completely different class features and attack powers. Just utility powers and maybe a couple feats, but even then most class feats center on class features that e-builds don't share with each other or with their pre-e counterparts.
As a general rule, a Knight is a 'Knight' and a Slayer is a 'Slayer'. While they might share names with some pre-e builds, from back when builds didn't mean as much, they are almost certainly not going to share names with other e-builds or with other classes, because that will get confusing.
Frankly, at this point I'd rather see a 'dark knight' armored shadow defender have some other name rather then recycling the name hexblade between a subclass and another class.
And there's still the distinct possibility that the blurb was written before significant shifts in the design philosophy for this product. Again, there's evidence on both sides, both outcomes are quite possible now, if you'd greatly prefer one over the other, then I'd strongly recommend that you make that clear to WotC directly.
The writer very likely knew what he meant, but that doens't mean he used the best term for the task. That doens't make him 'lying' but it could make him 'wrong'. Either way, we won't know until the silly thing comes out, will we? (Well, we'll probably have an idea when it starts getting exerpts.)
Fitz
Speculation about upcoming releases is fine (and is what this forum is for, after all), but I think it's best to keep such speculations in-line with what we actually know, or have genuine reason to suspect, rather than basing them on our own personal hopes and fears and how much we like or dislike the design team.
Speculation about upcoming releases is fine (and is what this forum is for, after all), but I think it's best to keep such speculations in-line with what we actually know, or have genuine reason to suspect, rather than basing them on our own personal hopes and fears and how much we like or dislike the design team.
I underlined what I think is an important part. I agree with you, but most of the debate here is about what each debater think is, or not, a "genuine reason to suspect".
I suspect that what we see in essentials will be the basis of the new products for D&D after essentials. Especially, I suspect that future classes in Heroes of Shadow will be designed as in essential, either as "special builds of existing classes" or as mechanics created around an "historical" D&D archetype, rather as the exploration of a Source. I also suspect we will see more classes with "martial and shadow" or "arcane and shadow" than pure shadow.
Of curse I may be wrong. But it would be far more coherent with the current design goals than classes as we knew them.
If you want there to be new classes in HoS, are you better off making that desire clear to WotC now, when we're first getting hints that there might not be new classes but the book still might be in development, or are you better off just assuming that a vague catalog blurb is the final say despite mounting evidence, admitedly circumstantial though it may be, to the contrary?
Again, if you wait until Heroes of Shadow is released any complaints you might have will be fully informed and rational. But they'll also be completely wortheless, because it will be to late to change anything for this product.
If we hear one way or another whether or not we'll be getting a Necromancer or a "NEW Wizard Dark: now with 30% more angst", then we have a better stand to influence the direction of HOS before it becomes irreversible.
I'm the one who sent the email that's being referred to ("keep the faith"), and I'm with Malisteen on this one. Whining on a forum won't do anything to get answers or change the devs' opinions, which is why I just sent an email to CustServ requesting an official preview of HoS that covers this question. I suggest anyone who really wants to know the truth to do the same, and let WotC know how many of us are worried about this development.
If we hear one way or another whether or not we'll be getting a Necromancer or a "NEW Wizard Dark: now with 30% more angst", then we have a better stand to influence the direction of HOS before it becomes irreversible.
Once they preview, again probably too late. If you want classes, just let WotC know you want classes. Send a note through email, custserve, snailmail, direct line to the writers, whatever.
The return of wizard specialties, the introduction of multi-power source classes, the demonstrated ambiguity of the blurb, the fact that 'classes' does not inherently imply 'new classes', the necessarily vague but still somewhat discouraging email replies from a writer, and especially HotFK's Hexlock - I'd certainly say there's 'genuine reason to suspect' that there might not be new classes in Heroes of Shadow, certainly on par with the limited reasons (well, reason) to believe there will be.
If you want there to be new classes in HoS, are you better off making that desire clear to WotC now, when we're first getting hints that there might not be new classes but the book still might be in development, or are you better off just assuming that a vague catalog blurb is the final say despite mounting evidence, admitedly circumstantial though it may be, to the contrary?
Again, if you wait until Heroes of Shadow is released any complaints you might have will be fully informed and rational. But they'll also be completely wortheless, because it will be to late to change anything for this product.
Specifically, the Illusionist and Necromancer was said to be future classes at the beginning of the 4th edition roll out. That the Illusionist has been downgraded to being a couple of builds for the Wizard does not bode well for the Necromancer.
My overall feeling is that Wizards may be shunting the Shadow Power Source aside, putting shadow tinged builds in one product (This one, Heroes of Shadow) and going on to the next thing (Elemental) without missing a beat. This would be more than simply disappointing, it would be an insult.
Specifically, the Illusionist and Necromancer was said to be future classes at the beginning of the 4th edition roll out. That the Illusionist has been downgraded to being a couple of builds for the Wizard does not bode well for the Necromancer.
My overall feeling is that Wizards may be shunting the Shadow Power Source aside, putting shadow tinged builds in one product (This one, Heroes of Shadow) and going on to the next thing (Elemental) without missing a beat. This would be more than simply disappointing, it would be an insult.
The more I look at Essential builds, the less I think the New Team In Charge understands what Sources were meant to be. The mixing of Sources, the fact that Martial seems no more "power derived from expert use of weapons and tactical abilities" but simply "hit at things with a weapon", using Primal as "is fond of wilderness" rather than "uses the powers of the spirits of the World"... It seems also that many players did not understand, either.
Maybe the Team That Was In Charge did not insist enough on them and what new concept they were, or their importance as "cosmological fluff" for D&D - or the New Team did not like them because they were not a traditional aspect of D&D.
I suspect that the Shadow source will only be... a shadow of what it was meant to be. A new, different definition of the source as simply "does dark things and plays anti-hero".
Specifically, the Illusionist and Necromancer was said to be future classes at the beginning of the 4th edition roll out. That the Illusionist has been downgraded to being a couple of builds for the Wizard does not bode well for the Necromancer.
When were these things promised? I recall something that mentioned Shadow as a power source being prone to effects of illusion and necromancy, but never an official word that both necromancer and illusionist were going to be full classes in and of themselves. Please cite the reference.
And...we do have an illusionist. And the Illusionist has ALWAYS been a type of wizard, so for crying out loud, WHY DO YOU KEEP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE LACK OF ONE? What the F*** are you looking for? And what precedent do you claim for there being one that isn't a type of wizard? You certainly behave as if you've been deprived of something you're entitled to.
My overall feeling is that Wizards may be shunting the Shadow Power Source aside, putting shadow tinged builds in one product (This one, Heroes of Shadow) and going on to the next thing (Elemental) without missing a beat. This would be more than simply disappointing, it would be an insult.
And what do you get this feeling from? Because something in Essentials shares a name with a blurb of filler material for a product that hasn't been released yet? Something in that same book cites "Hunter" as a type of Ranger build, and...guess what? There's already a Hunter Ranger in MP2. Oh, no! I guess they've given up on the martial power source, too! /sarcasm.
And...we do have an illusionist. And the Illusionist has ALWAYS been a type of wizard, so for crying out loud, WHY DO YOU KEEP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE LACK OF ONE? What the F*** are you looking for? And what precedent do you claim for there being one that isn't a type of wizard? You certainly behave as if you've been deprived of something you're entitled to.
I don't want to speak for thaX, nor do I want to give the impression I agree with him on this, but... everything you just said about the illusionist would apply also to the necromancer if HoS presented it as a new wizard build or a new mage school. Which is exactly what many people seem to be concerned about.
While both the illusionist and the necromancer have always been types of wizards, they also both have always had very distinct tones and styles from the wizard proper, and in 3e they were both far better represented by their own classes (dread necro for the necromancer, beguiler for the illusionist, though the latter also mixed in enchantment), which gave them unique tones, roles, fluff, and class features based on their unique personalities. It's not unreasonable for players to have hoped for separate classes, and it's not unreasonable for players to be dissapointed now that we aren't getting them.
And while these things have always been part of wizards, 4e moved away from a lot of things that have always been. Fighters got to do more then just regular attacks in 4e. spellcasters weren't automatically more powerful then non-casters in 4e. Non-combat spells didn't choke off other non-combat activities in 4e. Lots of things were different in 4e, and separate classes for some of the more distinct wizard identities, the ones that could have conceptually sustained classes of their own, would have been nice to see.
As for feelings that we're not going to get unique classes, there's again a lot in the air. The most distinctive possibilities for shadow classes at the moment were hexblade and necromancer, and hexblade is a warlock build, and necromancer very much looks like it's set to be reabsorbed into wizard. At one point illusionist might have been a shadow class, but that's already been reabsorbed into wizard. Right now, the only concept remaining that might be its own shadow class is the guy who uses magic to directly manipulate shadows, but even that's questionable, as that's pretty thoroughly covered by the existing shadow assassin, which officially isn't going to be in this book. Again I ask, if the archetypal shadow concepts aren't new shadow classes, then why would we even want shadow classes? I don't want a pure shadow mud wrestling class any more then I want a mixed source necromancer wizard build.
I agree with Kaliban that the problem seems to be an abandonment of 'Power Source' as a term of metaphysical significance. In the new classes, 'martial' just seems to mean 'uses weapons'. 'Primal' just seems to mean 'goes camping'. Likely 'shadow' will just mean 'blue, black, and purple are prominent colors in the character portrait'. But this problem didn't start with new design staff and it didn't start with essentials. This problem started surfacing early on in 4e, beginning with the lack of definition of the arcane power source. It became quickly apparant that without a limiting definition, the arcane source was spreading to the point that other sources were threatened. People have been wondering what the elemental source could possibly be that would be distinct from arcane for a while now.
And then there were classes put into sources that didn't make a lot of sense. Barbarian as a primal class was something of a conceptual stretch. The death of ki and random re-assigning of monk to psychic was a far greater blow to the basic concept of power sources. There was pretty much nothing psychic about the monk, especially given the distinct mechanical theme other psychic classes shared that the monk notably did not. And then there were classes that had no conceptual backbone, that were simply arbitrary combinations of role and source - the seeker in particular, though there are others. These classes are fine mechanically (the seeker lags a bit behind, but just a little support would have it right up to par), and they aren't terrible, but they don't have a powerful conceptual backing that makes them distinct or that draws their abilities together into a coherent whole. Finally you have the executioner, an otherwise purely martial class that has some shadow powers for no conceptual reason what-so-ever, simply as an accident of wanting to be called an 'assassin'.
Right now, it really seems like there are no power sources at all, how could any newly introduced power sources in this environment possibly have any life to them?
Also, I want to address a few points in your last post, which I don't completely agree with.
- barbarian. While a familiar concept, the legacy goes back to the beserkers, which I think were a Celtic or Scottish type of warrior. I think Celtic. They believed there was a magic to their rage. Enemies even thought they became bear-like in combat. See the bear warrior paragon path. Point is, the primal barbarian alludes to that myth. For a non-primal barbarian, that's the battlerager fighter. So both archetypes are covered.
- seeker. People keep hating on its lack of fluff, but you know what? Seeker:ranger::swordmage:fighter. Magical and martial warrior, magical and martial archer. Truly, I believe that the seeker is the 4e version of the arcane archer. I'll concede that the power source changed, but as we've already said, 4e can do that, since previous editions only had arcane and divine. Furthermore, since the ranger (pre-Essentials) was purely martial, we were missing the slightly magical aspect of the ranger. Which also gets rolled into the seeker. Honestly, I don't see a problem with the seeker.
I will agree, however, that the martial power source is being diluted. WotC should remember why random guards don't have the martial power source. Martial means more than "hit with a weapon." Extreme training is important. Which I guess I see in the executioner assassin. Possibly in the swordmage. (At the very least, footwork lure should have the martial keyword. It's identical to the fighter power of the same name. They didn't even tack on magical fluff).
Malisteen, I have a question. You keep saying the hexblade is dead, because we know it's the name of a warlock E-build. But as pointed out several times, the hunter is both a ranger MP2 build and an E-build. Is it impossible to think that WotC made this goof-up more than once? At the very least, I think it's worth keeping in mind both possibilies: that the hexblade as a unique class is dead, or that there may be two distinct hexblades.
It's highly unlikely. Again, 'build' pre-e was a pretty casual thing. It meant something significant for some classes, but not for others, and was distinctly secondary to class as part of a character's identity. For e-classes and presumably post-e classes build is of prime importance, more important then class even, since build defines your role, power source(s), attack powers, and class features, while class only defines your utility powers. Theoretically class also defines your class feat options, but since the majority of these modiefy class features, and class features are entirely dependant on build and not shared between multiple builds of the same class...
So yeah, given how important build is for post-e classes, it is extremely unlikely that an essentials build - basically a subclass - will share a name with another subclass or class. Maybe there'll be a class with another name covering the conceptual archetype I and some others had hoped to see out of the Hexblade, but hoping to see both a hexblade subclass and a totally unrelated hexblade class . . . well I find that to be pretty tenuous. It also means accepting that the HoS blurb is based on outdated design notes. Once you accept that the blurb is outdated, there's no evidence at all that there will be new classes in this book.
Malisteen, I have a question. You keep saying the hexblade is dead, because we know it's the name of a warlock E-build. But as pointed out several times, the hunter is both a ranger MP2 build and an E-build. Is it impossible to think that WotC made this goof-up more than once? At the very least, I think it's worth keeping in mind both possibilies: that the hexblade as a unique class is dead, or that there may be two distinct hexblades.
It's highly unlikely. Again, 'build' pre-e was a pretty casual thing. It meant something significant for some classes, but not for others, and was distinctly secondary to class as part of a character's identity. For e-classes and presumably post-e classes build is of prime importance, more important then class even, since build defines your role, power source(s), attack powers, and class features, while class only defines your utility powers. Theoretically class also defines your class feat options, but since the majority of these modiefy class features, and class features are entirely dependant on build and not shared between multiple builds of the same class...
So yeah, given how important build is for post-e classes, it is extremely unlikely that an essentials build - basically a subclass - will share a name with another subclass or class. Maybe there'll be a class with another name covering the conceptual archetype I and some others had hoped to see out of the Hexblade, but hoping to see both a hexblade subclass and a totally unrelated hexblade class . . . well I find that to be pretty tenuous. It also means accepting that the HoS blurb is based on outdated design notes. Once you accept that the blurb is outdated, there's no evidence at all that there will be new classes in this book.
Your logic should be sound. Except it's already happened with the hunter (two unrelated ranger builds). While your argument should (sadly) be correct, it would also predict something that's already happened wouldn't happen.
Illusions being made from shadows and mist was a very cool concept, one put foward near the beginning of this new edition, and the disappointment of it being downgraded to a few wizard powers and traits shouldn't be taken lightly or seen as lamenting on an obscure possibility.
So, what will we have for the Shadow Power Source?
That is the question that seems to be asked now, whether it means new classes, lousy builds, or a throw away product that will not be supported past it's pages.
I will either be pleasantly surprised at the book, or extremely disappointed.
The illusionist and necromancer are in the same boat. Both have always been part of the wizard, but then again the wizard used to do everything and choke off any more theme focused possible magic users. Part of the fourth edition preview material mentioned spinning off some of the more distinct wizard identities into separate classes using other power sources. The necromancer was mentioned. iirc, the illusionist was also mentioned, though I'm not sure of that, because I'm not personally as interested in illusion and wouldn't have paid as much attention, though illusion was mentioned as one of the things associated with the shadow source, as per the old connection of illusion to the plain of shadow.
That is what I recall as well. Not an Illusionist class.
While both the illusionist and the necromancer have always been types of wizards, they also both have always had very distinct tones and styles from the wizard proper, and in 3e they were both far better represented by their own classes (dread necro for the necromancer, beguiler for the illusionist, though the latter also mixed in enchantment), which gave them unique tones, roles, fluff, and class features based on their unique personalities. It's not unreasonable for players to have hoped for separate classes, and it's not unreasonable for players to be dissapointed now that we aren't getting them.
Dread Necromancer I'll give you, but beguiler not really. Beguiler was also very rogue-like. The beguiler was a caster with a bent towards rogue like the warmage was a caster with a bent towards warrior classes. Regardless, it was an unbalanced class released at the tail end of 3.5, and I'd hardly call that a sufficient amount of precedent for a valued aspect of fantasy roleplaying. Illusionists are, yes, but that's been covered.
And while these things have always been part of wizards, 4e moved away from a lot of things that have always been. Fighters got to do more then just regular attacks in 4e. spellcasters weren't automatically more powerful then non-casters in 4e. Non-combat spells didn't choke off other non-combat activities in 4e. Lots of things were different in 4e, and separate classes for some of the more distinct wizard identities, the ones that could have conceptually sustained classes of their own, would have been nice to see.
So you think the Conjurer needs it's own class, too? I think the wizard who spends a lot of time calling magical beasts to fight for him has a pretty strong case, too. Or the Enchanter? A caster who manipulates the minds of sentient humanoids to his will? Then there's the themes tat don't lend well to combat, but are still strong archetypes, like the Diviner (or Seer/Oracel/whatever).
You see where I'm going? At some point, one has to say "enough". The wizard can cover a lot, yes. But some of that NEEDS to be rolled into the wizard, or the wizard itself loses its identity. Wizards have done so much through so many years of D&D, that to break it down so that every speciality that could stand alone does so, the Wizard itself would be left hanging. And that's one of the classic 4 classes we're talking about.
As for feelings that we're not going to get unique classes, there's again a lot in the air. The most distinctive possibilities for shadow classes at the moment were hexblade and necromancer, and hexblade is a warlock build, and necromancer very much looks like it's set to be reabsorbed into wizard. At one point illusionist might have been a shadow class, but that's already been reabsorbed into wizard. Right now, the only concept remaining that might be its own shadow class is the guy who uses magic to directly manipulate shadows, but even that's questionable, as that's pretty thoroughly covered by the existing shadow assassin, which officially isn't going to be in this book. Again I ask, if the archetypal shadow concepts aren't new shadow classes, then why would we even want shadow classes? I don't want a pure shadow mud wrestling class any more then I want a mixed source necromancer wizard build.
The necromancer "looks like it's going to be reabsorbed into wizard"? What are you basig this off of? One line in the Pyromancer srticle that mentions necromancy as a focus of study for mages?
For all we know hexblade was a working name for the shadow class when the blurb was written, and then the E-team decided to use it for their warlock build.
WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THESE THINGS! This is ALL just speculation based off of a blurb of text fro a product that hasn't even been previewed yet on the main site. I think it' a little premature for the emo-tastic ennui that declares these classes to be lost forever.
I agree with Kaliban that the problem seems to be an abandonment of 'Power Source' as a term of metaphysical significance. In the new classes, 'martial' just seems to mean 'uses weapons'. 'Primal' just seems to mean 'goes camping'. Likely 'shadow' will just mean 'blue, black, and purple are prominent colors in the character portrait'. But this problem didn't start with new design staff and it didn't start with essentials. This problem started surfacing early on in 4e, beginning with the lack of definition of the arcane power source. It became quickly apparant that without a limiting definition, the arcane source was spreading to the point that other sources were threatened. People have been wondering what the elemental source could possibly be that would be distinct from arcane for a while now.
So? People had no idea Primal was going to involve lots of spirits that hate both gods an primordials until we saw it.
And then there were classes put into sources that didn't make a lot of sense. Barbarian as a primal class was something of a conceptual stretch.
Not really, the barbarian has always had a close-to-nature theme. I know in 3e, they had Survival (or Wilderness Lore) as a class skill, which nly Rangers and Druids had otherwise. They were grouped in with Rangers and Druids for the splatbook Masters of the Wild. And, like was mentioned, Prestige Classes such as Bear Warrior were there. Now that's nto to say that ALL barbarians had to be that way. One could certainly play one off as a trained civilized warrior who goes into a calculated state of berserker rage. But to say the Primal Barbarian was a conceptual stretch is, I think, ignoring too much of the barabarian's past.
The death of ki and random re-assigning of monk to psychic was a far greater blow to the basic concept of power sources.
Now, I didn't play 1st edition, but I have heard that the monk used to be psionic.
At any rate, psionics and ki are not too far divorced from each other. At least with psions (as opposed to ardents and battleminds). Psions use training and discipline to unlock hidden potential within themselves, allowing them to achieve things beyond the ken of normal human beings. Monks do the same.
And then there were classes that had no conceptual backbone, that were simply arbitrary combinations of role and source - the seeker in particular, though there are others. These classes are fine mechanically (the seeker lags a bit behind, but just a little support would have it right up to par), and they aren't terrible, but they don't have a powerful conceptual backing that makes them distinct or that draws their abilities together into a coherent whole.
Do you have Races and Classes? Look in the back, there's a picture of a "primal blaster" with a bow. Seeker appears to be something they were working on for awhile at least. I think the concept is neat, but I'll agree with you on it not having a solid conceptual backbone.
The illusionist and necromancer are in the same boat. Both have always been part of the wizard, but then again the wizard used to do everything and choke off any more theme focused possible magic users. Part of the fourth edition preview material mentioned spinning off some of the more distinct wizard identities into separate classes using other power sources. The necromancer was mentioned. iirc, the illusionist was also mentioned, though I'm not sure of that, because I'm not personally as interested in illusion and wouldn't have paid as much attention, though illusion was mentioned as one of the things associated with the shadow source, as per the old connection of illusion to the plain of shadow.
That is what I recall as well. Not an Illusionist class.
The 1st ed Illusionist was a sub-class of Magic-User (and Paladin was a sub-class of Fighter), but it had its own, distinct spell list. Some Illusionist spells also appeared on the Magic-User spell list, but at higher levels or in less-powerful versions. Wizards could cast illusions, but not as well as Illusionists.
So you think the Conjurer needs it's own class, too? I think the wizard who spends a lot of time calling magical beasts to fight for him has a pretty strong case, too. Or the Enchanter? A caster who manipulates the minds of sentient humanoids to his will? Then there's the themes tat don't lend well to combat, but are still strong archetypes, like the Diviner (or Seer/Oracel/whatever).
You see where I'm going? At some point, one has to say "enough". The wizard can cover a lot, yes. But some of that NEEDS to be rolled into the wizard, or the wizard itself loses its identity. Wizards have done so much through so many years of D&D, that to break it down so that every speciality that could stand alone does so, the Wizard itself would be left hanging. And that's one of the classic 4 classes we're talking about.
I have no problem with the Wizard having Illusion spells, Elemental spells, Necromancy spell, Conjuration/Summoning spells, Enchantment spells, etc. in their repertoire. I think the Wizard is like your magical generalist - able to learn the secrets (e.g., Arcana) of the other casters, but not be as powerful in any one of them as the specialists are.
The Wizard can be almost as good at illusions as an Illusionist (which is a lot better than a Summoner would be), almost as good at affecting undead as a Necromancer, almost as good at enchantments as a Psion, etc., all at the same time. Plus Wizards can have unique abilities that the others don't have, like shielding and Force spells.
- barbarian. While a familiar concept, the legacy goes back to the beserkers, which I think were a Celtic or Scottish type of warrior. I think Celtic. They believed there was a magic to their rage. Enemies even thought they became bear-like in combat. See the bear warrior paragon path. Point is, the primal barbarian alludes to that myth. For a non-primal barbarian, that's the battlerager fighter. So both archetypes are covered.
Berserkers were Germanic, not Celtic. The closest Celtic equivalents (such as the Gaulish Gaesatae, or the Irish hero Cuchulain) had no conceptual ties to animal shapeshifting like the Germanic berserkers (lit. 'bear-skin-shirt-wearers') did. In D&D terms, the Gaesatae and similar Celtic warriors would probably be better represented as avengers (fighting in a divinely-inspired trance with no armour), rather than as barbarians.
The 1st ed Illusionist was a ub-class of Magic-User (and Paladin was a sub-class of Fighter), but it had its own, distinct spell list. Some Illusionist spells also appeared on the Magic-User spell list, but at higher levels or in less-powerful versions. Wizards could cast illusions, but not as well as Illusionists.
Thank you, that was bugging me. So it was, basically, it's own class within the Arcane casters.
- barbarian. While a familiar concept, the legacy goes back to the beserkers, which I think were a Celtic or Scottish type of warrior. I think Celtic. They believed there was a magic to their rage. Enemies even thought they became bear-like in combat. See the bear warrior paragon path. Point is, the primal barbarian alludes to that myth. For a non-primal barbarian, that's the battlerager fighter. So both archetypes are covered.
Berserkers were Germanic, not Celtic. The closest Celtic equivalents (such as the Gaulish Gaesatae, or the Irish hero Cuchulain) had no conceptual ties to animal shapeshifting like the Germanic berserkers (lit. 'bear-skin-shirt-wearers') did. In D&D terms, the Gaesatae and similar Celtic warriors would probably be better represented as avengers (fighting in a divinely-inspired trance with no armour), rather than as barbarians.
All right. Thanks for the information. Now I know the facts. (Glad I didn't make stronger claims).
Did they say how long the Assassin and the Revenant will be DDI exclusive?
Forever.Did they mention anywhere what those races might be? What are the speculators on the boards thinking?
If there are two races in the book, then my guesses are shadar-kai (with a third optional stat boost as Chiba said) and dark one.
The Shadar-Kai is already in the Dragon Annual, so it would be redunit to put it in the Heros of Shadow. Though they may reprint that race and the Drow if going the Essentuals route.
Difference is that HotFK features the reprinting of the races along with builds of classes, while Heroes of Shadow should be new material. My point is that Wizards already printed the Shadar-Kai and most likely wouldn't do so again in this product.
The Shadar-Kai have only been in Dragon. Minotaurs were in Dragon first yet they got a PHB write up. I actually would be surprised if the Shadar-Kai didn't receive a write up in HoS with more feat support and the new variable stat bonuses.
@Chiba-Monkey - Much of the talk of prior statements of Necromancer and Illusionist being their own classes were from a post by Rich Baker. Here's the relevent part:
3. Every class gets cool "non-attack" power choices as well as attack power choices. Wizards will still be able to cast spells such as Disguise Self, Jump, or Levitate. It's true that we'd like to "narrow" wizards a bit, and save (for example) some illusion spells for an honest-to-gosh Illusionist class down the road, or necromancy spells for a Necromancer. But wizards will still "splash" at least a few of the iconic powers in these themes of magic. For example, wizards still have Invisibility available to them. But when the Illusionist class comes around, he'll have better Invisibility options.
Shadar-kai can easily be reprinted for similar reasons. They could also use a bit of work to make them more unique and have stats that make more sense for them.
Besides, beyond like dark ones (who honestly need a better name), how many other shadowy races could they make up?
Kobolds, goblins, and the like are not shadowfell related.
Since the Assassin is still DDI exclusive, I assume the same is for the Revenant.
They were in the Annual.
I highly doubt that will matter. It was just a straight reprint of Dragon articles for those without DDI and all indication was that it didn't sell too well.
Also, they're the only PC race that is thematically tied to the Shadowfell and, indirectly, the Shadow power source. It would be silly for them not to update it to current standards and include it in that book, expecially when it may be sought after by all the possible new poeple who will have gotten into the game starting with Essentials and won't have the Dragon Annual, DDI, and may not even look into buying the old books anyway. Besides, every race in the HotFL was a reprint. Do we really think that's going to matter?
Since the Assassin is still DDI exclusive, I assume the same is for the Revenant.
HoFL says that Revenants are still going to be DDI exclusive, just as the assassin.
@Chiba-Monkey - Much of the talk of prior statements of Necromancer and Illusionist being their own classes were from a post by Rich Baker. Here's the relevent part:3. Every class gets cool "non-attack" power choices as well as attack power choices. Wizards will still be able to cast spells such as Disguise Self, Jump, or Levitate. It's true that we'd like to "narrow" wizards a bit, and save (for example) some illusion spells for an honest-to-gosh Illusionist class down the road, or necromancy spells for a Necromancer. But wizards will still "splash" at least a few of the iconic powers in these themes of magic. For example, wizards still have Invisibility available to them. But when the Illusionist class comes around, he'll have better Invisibility options.
That's not exactly a promise of illusiuonist or necrtomancer as a seprate class, and has NOTHING to do with the Shadow power source being mentioned at all.
I opened up my copy of Races and Classes, and found this on page 80 (under "Are Schools of Magic Dead?"):
Some future classes will eve be based more heavily on past schools. Don't be surprised if you see illusionist of conjurer appear as classes or paragon paths at some point.
Still not a promise, and still nothing to do with the Shadow power source.
All these quotes show is that they toyed with the idea of making illusionist its own class, but decided not to. We have a wizard build (and a paragon path) devoted to summoning. We have a wizard build devoted to illusions (and Unseen Mage and Hermetic Sabateur PPs).
Nothing in any of the preview material is a concrete promise of illusionist class. Or a necromancer class, for that matter (not that I don't think they'd make one). Arcane Power gave us the summoner and Illusionist, but not the necromancer. I think, if there is going to be a necromancer class, that shadow is a more fitting power source. But I think the reason Illusionist was made a wizard build is this: Illusion doesn't fit shadow as well as it does arcane. Sure, we have the "Shadow Evocation" and "Shadow Conjuration" spells of old, but that's pretty limited. Illusion works better with arcane, I think. Shadow is very dark, with dark themes and motifs of manifesting darkness. Illusionists also create illusory terrain, perhaps a lush carpet of grass over a pit trap. Or a wave of scintillating colors, mass disguise spells, and, of course, invisibility. Arcane reflected the versatility more. And given the nature of what illusions do to enemies, Controller was the best fit for a role. Now, should they make a seperate arcane controller who wears cloth and casts spells, just because they considered making it a seperate class? Or would doing so confuse people as to why the wizard can't do these things, and why the wizard has SOME illusions, but not others? No, making Illusionist a wizard build was a good move. Aside from the people who whine and complain about it, claiming it should be it's own class (or a shadow controller), tthere are those of us who have actually tried it out. The illusionist is a great wizard build, better at achieving it's purpose as a controller than the "war wizrd" build. Plus the reliance on INT and CHA makes for a very smooth character who's whole focus in life is deception. Very compelling character concept.
Shadow magic was originally exclusive to illusionists in 1e. I can see a wizard PP that converts illusions to shadow magic (e.g. by adding the shadow keyword to illusion attacks thus bypassing psychic resisntance) or a feat limited to shadow classes or shadow races that adds some extra damage or extra riders to illusion attacks. Is there a familiar that is the caster's own shadow yet? If not, we can expect one.
Far more likely is rolling most shadow magic into the shadowcaster class or something similar. There are enough options in 3e to make several shadow classes and paragon paths.
Dual power sources and builds are also quite likely given the way Essentials went. So a warlock shadow pact seems very likely. Making a shadowcaster a version of the mage is also possible. The original 2e shadow mage was just a tweaked version of the illusionist i.e. a full on specialist wizard build with a few extras.
That's not exactly a promise of illusiuonist or necrtomancer as a seprate class
I never said wizard promised anything. I'm not claiming anything about promises, and I'm not getting bent out of shape about broken promises. Hell, I was thrilled when the blurb sounded like assassins might be in this book, even though that actually would constitute a broken promise.
I don't get hung up on 'promises'. WotC is a business, business plans change. They used to do one each of the PHB, MM, and DMG each year. Now they're organizing releases differently. That's cool. Changes in plans don't bother me in themselves, what saddens me is what I perceive as a change from a good plan (spinning out wizard specialties into their own classes, necromancer as a unique class, unique classes for the shadow power source) to a lame plan (wizard once again steps on unique archetypes that could have supported their own class, shadow is left as the only power source without a selection of 'pure' classes of its own for players who want to play shadow characters who aren't also martial or arcane or what-have-you).
No, Necromancer and Illusionist haven't really been core classes traditionally, but neither have Avenger, Invoker, or Warden. Even the Warlord, one of the shining gems of 4th edition and, as one of the PHB classes, a fundamental and core part of 4e D&D (at least up to essentials), had never been a class before. The closest you got was the marshall, an extremely obscure 3e expansion class. Illusionist and Necromancer both had fairly unique identities apart from standard wizards. As pointed out, illusionists at one point even had an entirely unique spell list, which made them functionally another class to themselves.
I'm not saying Nec or Ill had to be separate classes. I'm not saying they were promised as separate classes. At one point, the designers let us know that they were intended as separate classes, and those of us who had always wanted that were ecstatic. Now that it seems the design philosophy has turned around the other way those of us who wanted full separate classes are not happy about it. Nobody is accusing wizards of lying, or at least I'm not. HoS could come out with a 'necromancer' wizard, reprinting shadar-kai, and have no fully new races and classes, and I don't think anybody at wizards would have been guilty of any moral wrongdoing, and I don't think even the blurb would be 'lying' in that case. Misleading, maybe, but not deliberately so.
I'd be disappointed, not enraged. I personally think this product would be better with multiple full shadow classes, including a full necromancer and a full dark knight of the type I had previously hoped the hexblade to be. A full shadowcaster would also be welcome, though the original ddi assassin does a lot of that already. A product without such wouldn't be 'immoral', it would just be disappointing, a sad waste of the potential of both the book itself and the shadow power source as a whole, since this is likely 'it' when it comes to the shadow power soure in 4e.
It's not that I think these concepts can only be done as independent classes, just that I feel they'd be much, much if they were, and after having been led to expect such, I'm extremely dissapointed to see that it's looking increasingly unlikely. I've sent letters hoping to influence the designers if possible, I've asked others to send the same if they like me prefer these concepts as separate classes rather then smooshed into tangentially related existing classes. If you feel otherwise, I suppose you could send a letter expressing an opposing desire, or approval of the assassin staying DDI only and necromancer and illusionist getting forced back under the wizard mantle.
Though, for purely personal reasons, I rather hope you don't.
All right. Thanks for the information. Now I know the facts. (Glad I didn't make stronger claims).
Why do I get the feeling I'm now that annoying know-it-all guy that everybody hates?
More important, shadow will be a power source in the 4th edition D&D game. Shadow power isn't evil, but it's not friendly either. It aids in stealth, conjures illusions, inspires dread, devastates enemies, and manipulates necrotic energy. If all that's not enough, a character who works with shadow might even have some influence over death itself.
There's also a quote on page 50, second column, second paragraph, about the source of necrotic energy which animates undead creatures:
The source of this necrotic energy is most often the Shadowfell. Its shadowstuff can "leak" into a dying creature as that being passes away. It can be introduced by necromancy. . . . Since shadow is the source of undead vitality, radiant energy is often more harmful to such creatures...
So yes, there was both reason to suspect separate classes for illusionist and necromancer, and reason to suspect they would be associated with the shadow powersource, particularly for the hypothetical necromancer class. That the illusionist and now possibly the necromancer have been reabsorbed into the wizard doesn't represent a broken promise, just a change in design direction. I don't dissaprove of such changes in and of themselves, but I am dissapointed with this particular change, because I feel it squanders much of the unique flavor of these concepts while over-inflating the wizard class.
The only thing in that quote that even remotely links Illusionists to the Shadow power source is that the shadow power source "conjures illusions". Which isn't to say illusions are solely the purview of the shadow power source, nor that those who specialize in illusion are Shadow-powered characters.
I heartilly agree with everything in your last 2 posts, malisteen, I don't know why you're arguing with me.
I feel that WotC hasn't "promised" us anything regarding illusionist and necromancer as a seperate class. I do recall that such was mentioned as an idea they were working toward in R&D. I understand that sometimes, plans change, and they have to go with what works better to make all classes more fun and have each possess unique features. They are professional game designers, I am not.
I, too, would prefer to see all new classes in HoS. I want the classes to be full classes like I'm opening up a new PHB, and not an Essentials product.
They may have been printed in Dragon already, but so were minotaurs before they made their way into the PHBII. Recent developments have shaken my faith in this book, and left me completely unsure of what will be in it, but even so I'd still be willing to bet good money that Shadar-Kai are reprinted there, with updated stats.
As for other races? Who knows if there'll even be any. Iirc, Revenants are officially out. Otherwise? Dark ones seem like a fair guess. Kenku have the right look and the right feel, but aren't from the shadowfell. Changelings could also work, thematically. Again, they aren't from the shadowfell, at least not to this point, but they fit with the assassin, and their shape-shifting gimmick feels 'shadowy' to me at least. Plus they could really use some extra support. Some have suggested orcs & goblinoids, but while I would love to see official PC write ups for them (maybe in an eberron expansion?), they don't feel particularly 'shadowy' to me.
Anyway, Shadar-Kai? Probably in. Dark Ones? maybe in. Anything else? long shot. Nothings sure on anything, though, other then Revenants not making the cut.
Minotaurs was in Dragon, an article that was gathered into a monthly "Magazine" at the end of a particular month, and was never "printed."
Shadar-Kai was published and printed in the Dragon Magazine Annual that was released. I expected a polished product giving us updated material from the original articles online. Instead, it was simply a reprint, flaws and all, and the Errata doesn't even mention the damn thing. (It goes by the Magazine numbers, as if it mattered)
If it is reprinted or redone (Like it was supposed to be in the Annual) in HoS, then it is another item in the book that isn't really new.
More and more, this book seems to be a throwaway product, something to release to have the word "Shadow Power Source" on it without ever providing the goods.
It would be like having 'heroes of the underdark' without drow, or 'fey heroes' without eladrin. It would be like 'arcane heroes' without a wizard build, or 'martial heroes' without a fighter.
I've been wrong about this book, before. Horribly so, it seems. So take what I say with a grain of salt.
But if reprinting the definitive shadow race of 4e in the 4e book on shadow heroes would send you into a rant, then you can probably start drafting it up right now.
As for re-printed material, we may be getting a bunch of builds for existing classes, but that doesn't constitute re-printed material. HotFL brought us no 'new classes', but it still brought a lot of new class material, and almost no reprinted class material.
All right. Thanks for the information. Now I know the facts. (Glad I didn't make stronger claims).
Why do I get the feeling I'm now that annoying know-it-all guy that everybody hates?
Well don't feel that way. I'm happy for the correction.
first, get it straight.
Minotaurs was in Dragon, an article that was gathered into a monthly "Magazine" at the end of a particular month, and was never "printed."
Shadar-Kai was published and printed in the Dragon Magazine Annual that was released. I expected a polished product giving us updated material from the original articles online. Instead, it was simply a reprint, flaws and all, and the Errata doesn't even mention the damn thing. (It goes by the Magazine numbers, as if it mattered)
And? Again, so what? None of that matters to whether Shadar-Kai might appear in HoS. By this logic, HotFL would have had no races in it because Humans, Elves, Eladrin, Halflings and Dwarfs were all previously published in PHB1.
first, get it straight.
Minotaurs was in Dragon, an article that was gathered into a monthly "Magazine" at the end of a particular month, and was never "printed."
Shadar-Kai was published and printed in the Dragon Magazine Annual that was released. I expected a polished product giving us updated material from the original articles online. Instead, it was simply a reprint, flaws and all, and the Errata doesn't even mention the damn thing. (It goes by the Magazine numbers, as if it mattered)
And? Again, so what? None of that matters to whether Shadar-Kai might appear in HoS. By this logic, HotFL would have had no races in it because Humans, Elves, Eladrin, Halflings and Dwarfs were all previously published in PHB1.
but essentials is more a separate product from the line than this is by being a "introduction set", I guess.
Who knows, maybe HoS will just have 'shadow builds' of existing PC races, like the shadowdragonborn and the necrognomes (authors of the legendary necrognomicon).
One cannot forget the the dark, dark elves.
Embodiments of pure evil, only more so. Except when they're good guys.
Ah, the double-dark elves, how could I have forgotten them? Double-D elves have long been a stable of fantasy gaming.
i c wat u did thar
first, get it straight.
Minotaurs was in Dragon, an article that was gathered into a monthly "Magazine" at the end of a particular month, and was never "printed."
Shadar-Kai was published and printed in the Dragon Magazine Annual that was released. I expected a polished product giving us updated material from the original articles online. Instead, it was simply a reprint, flaws and all, and the Errata doesn't even mention the damn thing. (It goes by the Magazine numbers, as if it mattered)
And? Again, so what? None of that matters to whether Shadar-Kai might appear in HoS. By this logic, HotFL would have had no races in it because Humans, Elves, Eladrin, Halflings and Dwarfs were all previously published in PHB1.
The difference is that the Essentials book isn't introducing a new power source. It is structured to introduce new players into the game while providing more alternatives for the classes it adds to for the veterans.
This product (Heroes of Shadow) is supposed to be introducing a new power source. That should mean new races, new classes, and so on.
I mean, really. Shadow origin plus bland bonus is kinda meh. They're going to show up, they're going to get V-stats, and I can smell a new racial feature on it.
That, thaX, is what's colloquially known as "errata." And, to my understanding, the Annual didn't go as well as they thought it would, so I'm willing to bet they're calling a mulligan. The Annual "never happened," therefore the Shadar-kai get reprinted. Get the picture? 
What they should have done with it in the Annual? Why print the Annual then, I mean if they are gonna improve and use the material inside in other products what good is the old book?
Maybe, and I may be goign out on a limb here, the Annual was meant to be a printing of the "best" articles to be sold to those without DDI and maybe to have them all in one place.
But I've been known to sniff glue before posting, so I could be totally off base.
As in, there is no real value to anything official in DDi, especially those pesky exclusives. While so far the Gnoll hasn't been reprinted (though I thought it was in the annual along with the Shadar Kai)... It would just belittle the value of DDi. While I enjoy the Magazine and the nice playtests; it really would be the last nail in the coffin so to speak to the value of the service. Though really, the other features are you are paying for, I guess.
Both the Shadar-Kai and the Minotaur were originally in the back of the MM, their dragon articles really only spruced up versions of either, with feat/paragon path support.
Also, we got the 'dragon' minotaur about a year a half before its reprint, and about a year between the 'dragon' shadar-kai and heroes of shadow. Neither changed a whole lot, the minotaur changed more in that it lost oversized, the article was more fluff and feat support to make them more viable as pc's.
As long as the heroes of shadow book includes the flex stat and provides feats/paragon paths that arent just copy and paste from the articles, reprinting the basics of the race shouldn't be any detriment to the magazine.
My real disappointment is that it would be yet another source that uses past material instead of having something new for the Power Source that it is introducing. We already have the Shadark-Kai, buy the Annual and enjoy, we don't need it here.
Regarding the 3e Hexblade: We already have this character in the Swordmage. Let's break down the Hexblade and his features.
Weapons and Armor proficiencies: Hexblade - all simple and martial weapons as well as light armor but not shields. Swordmage - Simple melee, military light blades, military heavy blade, simple ranged, cloth, leather. The two are identical.
Cursing: Hexblade - -2 to all rolls for 1 hr, 1 target within 60 feet, limited number of times per day, target can shrug it off with a successful save, can reach higher penalties as you level up. Swordmage - once per round -2 to attack, close range, allows you to either teleport and get an MBA or reduce incoming damage, better feat support. The two are comparable.
Arcane Resistance: Hexblade - bonus to saving throws equal to charisma, class feature. Swordmage - Fear No Elements level 2 utility power, reduces elemental damage to one element. Comparable.
Mettle: Hexblade - class feature, improves results of saving throws. Swordmage - Mythal Recovery level 2 utility power gives a saving throw. Due to the way saving throws are handled in each edition I'd say this is identical.
Familiar: Hexblade - class feature. Swordmage - feat. Hexblade wins.
Aura of Unluck: Hexblade - grants miss chance against hexblade for a number of rounds equal to 3 + cha, once per day more uses as you level up. Swordmage - Umbriri PP action points grant concealment to swordmage and adjacent allies for 1 turn, concealment grants CA to swordmage. Comparable.
What more is really needed?
My hope for HoS to make everyone happy are include one to two new races, essentials style classes/builds that are similar in style to warpriest and mage, Shadow Source themes for each role, decent feat support.
I want to have options for shadow characters. not "shadow/arcane". Not "shadow/divine". Not "shadow/martial". shadow.
I, at least, won't be happy with anything else.
I don't care whether the classes are 'essentials style' or not, as long as they have actual options, which the current essentials builds are very much lacking in.
The swordmage is the closest we have to the old hexblade at the moment, but the old hexblade still generally wore heavier armor eventually (mythril breastplate, typically), while the swordmage will never wear anything heavier then hide because it's an int based class. Swordmage also doesn't have the style of the hexblade, being overly flashy and piling on every element except those most relevant to the hexblade.
And in any event, again the hope for the hexblade was that it would cover the relatively untouched dark knight concept, a debuffing, necrotic damaging defender with at least one build's worth of options for heavy armor.
But whatever. It doesn't matter anymore. If the book delivers what I want, wonderful, and if not I'm out. I loved the concept of power sources. I loved the well defined power sources where the concept had thematic significance - divine, primal, shadow. I loved the concept of the Shadow power source most of all, but was willing to wait because it wasn't 'core' to the game. So my time with 4e has been more or less twiddling my thumbs until the shadow power source was out. If HoS delivers a bunch of watered down, redundant ideas, a re-fluffed summoner wizard for the necromancer, and no new classes that are just shadow and not shadow/something else, then that will be a pretty heavy blow to my morale. But there are other games out there, so whatever.
While I don't hate the mixed power source classes/builds in theory, as with a lot of essentials developments I do hate it in practice. The executioner is a completely martial class that is only part shadow by accident of name. The new hunter ranger seems to be primal not because it has anything to do with the thematically rich primal spirits concept, but simply because it likes to go camping. These classes show us a design philosophy where power source means less, not more, and yeah that does suck away all my confidence when it comes to the release of what amounts to an entire new power source under the current theories.
Ugh. Just ugh.
And I'm not just complaining in this thread. I've written letters to customer service, and to individual writers of the book. I've submitted articles to dragon. I'm doing everything in my extremely limited power to try and tell the designers that I won't be happy with only builds of existing classes. Whether it gets anywhere, well I doubt it. But the shadow power source is going to make or break 4e for me, so I'm not just taking a wait and see attitude.
Finally finished reading this whole thread.
Regarding the 3e Hexblade: We already have this character in the Swordmage. Let's break down the Hexblade and his features.
Weapons and Armor proficiencies: Hexblade - all simple and martial weapons as well as light armor but not shields. Swordmage - Simple melee, military light blades, military heavy blade, simple ranged, cloth, leather. The two are identical.
Cursing: Hexblade - -2 to all rolls for 1 hr, 1 target within 60 feet, limited number of times per day, target can shrug it off with a successful save, can reach higher penalties as you level up. Swordmage - once per round -2 to attack, close range, allows you to either teleport and get an MBA or reduce incoming damage, better feat support. The two are comparable.
Arcane Resistance: Hexblade - bonus to saving throws equal to charisma, class feature. Swordmage - Fear No Elements level 2 utility power, reduces elemental damage to one element. Comparable.
Mettle: Hexblade - class feature, improves results of saving throws. Swordmage - Mythal Recovery level 2 utility power gives a saving throw. Due to the way saving throws are handled in each edition I'd say this is identical.
Familiar: Hexblade - class feature. Swordmage - feat. Hexblade wins.
Aura of Unluck: Hexblade - grants miss chance against hexblade for a number of rounds equal to 3 + cha, once per day more uses as you level up. Swordmage - Umbriri PP action points grant concealment to swordmage and adjacent allies for 1 turn, concealment grants CA to swordmage. Comparable.
What more is really needed?
My hope for HoS to make everyone happy are include one to two new races, essentials style classes/builds that are similar in style to warpriest and mage, Shadow Source themes for each role, decent feat support.
You've pointed out mechanical similarities pretty well, but the feel is very different. The swordmage's aegis is the marking mechanic, so I wouldn't really count it as a refluffed hexblade's curse any more than I would count Combat Challenge, Divine Challenge, or Battlemind's Demand. Really, the swordmage is more like the duskblade than the hexblade - a flashy arcane warrior who flits around like a swashbuckler. The hexblade is more of a dark knight, creepy rather than flashy. Ignoring the umbriri paragon path, something like 90% of the swordmage is elemental, which the hexblade did not do. Hexblade was curses, illusions, and charms. I'm pretty sure you could count on one hand the number of swordmage powers that could do that. Honestly, the battlemind does more of that.
And I'm not just complaining in this thread. I've written letters to customer service, and to individual writers of the book. I've submitted articles to dragon. I'm doing everything in my extremely limited power to try and tell the designers that I won't be happy with only builds of existing classes. Whether it gets anywhere, well I doubt it. But the shadow power source is going to make or break 4e for me, so I'm not just taking a wait and see attitude.
More power to you, friend. I'm mostly with you. I can't say I'd likely stop playing 4E, but since Essentials, HoS has been the thing I've been most interested in, and it rekindled my interest after some burnout.
I have this to say, Mixing of power sources isnt going to change the game for me. If the necromancer is an arcane/shadow wizard im confident that with some clever twists it will feel like a new class to anyone with an open mind. At first the new essentials format alarmed me. a few weeks ago i'd be on the same page as all the very upset people here on this thread. you know what changed my mind. the idea of a leader druid and a martial/primal ranger controller. i just didnt think they would do it but considering what those classes were in the past this is starting to feel right to me. that druid and ranger feel like completely new classes to me despite they share a name but not a role or a source with an existing class.
whos to say that an arcane/shadow necromancer wizard leader wont feel like a new class. will it not have new powers? new featres? regardless of role even if it remains a controller it'll still have those things. if the necromancer gains a twice encounter heal "vampiric syphon" wich heals allies and damages enemies simultaneously, if it's undead "summoning" powers focus more on hindering adjacent enemies and assisting adjacent allies like a shaman's familiar, if it did both of those things but was still technically a wizard would you not play it?
a paladin or cleric who has official necrotic powers, that deviates from its original role will not be your average run of the mill divine hero. perhaps the divine/shadow cleric is a striker that swaps healing powers for inflicting powers. im very much fond of this idea and im sure others would enjoy playing it too if it is made.
a hexblade will feel very different from a warlock im sure of it. while still maintaining some of those aspects they have in common. a warlock doesnt jump into combat swinging a blade unless your the fabled hybrid swordlock. what if the warlock traded prime shot and shadow walk for a feature that gave it some staying power in combat. something like unarmored agility that gave it a defense boost if it was wearing light armor and wielding a pactblade? and for what its worth i do not think this melee warlock will have any powers that do (w) damage cuz daggers suck!
what i like best about this idea of mixing sources is that somewhere down the line these new subclasses will become compatable with the old builds like heroes of sword and spell will be doing for essentials builds. i just hope they can get all that in a single book so no one needs to wait several months to be a necromancer who dabbles in original wizard. after all if the necromancer is also a wizard that means it cant multiclass as a wizard. so seeing how they accomplish this compatability in Sword and Spell will be very interesting because i think it will form the basis of the classes in heroes of shadow maybe all classes going forward. my hope is since it is not an essentials product and has the blue border, it will have essentials style classes presented in a pre essentials PHB table of contents. races here, classes lv1 - 30 here, PP following individual class, ED here, feats here, etc. not the clumsy ordering of material people are complaining about and no imcomplete classes. ie missing druid seasons, ranger aspects, paladin virtues, you get the idea.
it all boils down to this, to me a power source is nothing more than a word used to inspire thematic flavor in your characters. complainers, you arent me or rather i was you and no longer am. beyond what ive already said i wont try to change your minds, i dont need to. as players we have the creative freedom to change any aspects of the game we wish in regards to fluff. if you feel that strongly about your necromancer being arcane aswell as shadow he doesnt need to be. it's your game you'll be playing the devs wont be there and unless you have a rules lawyer in your group then everyone should be happy with your choice to ignore the word "arcane" in that line of text there. that word has little to no effect on the mechanics of gameplay. if you are that rules lawyer and you still feel strongly about it well there's always white out... just let it dry before you turn the page.
... to me a power source is nothing more than a word used to inspire thematic flavor in your characters. .... if you feel that strongly about your necromancer being arcane aswell as shadow he doesnt need to be. .... everyone should be happy with your choice to ignore the word "arcane" in that line of text there. that word has little to no effect on the mechanics of gameplay.
I would actually prefer if necromancer was arcane and shadow, because those words *do* have a mechanical effect. I think it would be nice if a necromancer had access to more of the same options (feats, epic destinies, etc) that typical wizards/warlocks have, and if his powersource is only "shadow", that will not be the case (without multiclassing).
Someone who prefers that their necromancer not be "arcane" can always choose not to take any "arcane" options, and to focus on "shadow" options, instead - so it seems to me that having dual power sources just opens up options, and doesn't close any.
I would similarly like my blackguards to be martial-shadow (although I wanted paladins to be divine-martial, as well, and that doesn't seem to be the case), and I like that assassins are martial-shadow. The only problem I see with this new class design is that the new assassin doesn't have a lot of powers that *feel* shadow, and we still haven't seen any other support for the shadow power source (since Heroes of Shadow isn't out yet), so other than borrowing powers from the original assassin, it is tough to make that "shadow" aspect feel like a character's source of power.
I'm confident that after HoS comes out, dual-power-source classes (including any new ones they throw in there) will have plenty of options on both sides of the fence - and it will just mean more options for players, and more kinds of characters the rules can support.
ok 10 pages in and my eyes started to hurt...
Take it in chunks. There is good discussion throughout, it's not all rehashing of the same opinions over and over like some threads.
I have this to say, Mixing of power sources isnt going to change the game for me. If the necromancer is an arcane/shadow wizard im confident that with some clever twists it will feel like a new class to anyone with an open mind. At first the new essentials format alarmed me. a few weeks ago i'd be on the same page as all the very upset people here on this thread. you know what changed my mind. the idea of a leader druid and a martial/primal ranger controller.
And here I'm in pretty much the opposite boat. I used to be cool with the idea of mixed power source classes, until I started seeing them in practice. The Executioner is Martial/Shadow, but that's a lie. Nothing in the fluff or features of that class support shadow magic. It's a pure martial class that has the shadow source by accident, because it wanted to have the same name as a class it has nothing to do with. The Hunter and Scout are Martial/Primal, but again, from what was previewed so far that's just a bald faced lie. There's nothing about their fluff or abilities that implies a connection to Primal magic or Primal spirits. In all three of these cases, we're seeing power source meaning less.
I liked the narrative and thematic value of power sources. Especially those like Divine, Primal, and, yes, Shadow (at least what we saw of it from the Ossassin), where the source was strongly defined in what it could do and where its power came from. Of late we're seeing those strong thematic elements severed and abandoned, and no, that does not make me feel optimistic about any new power sources introduced under the current design philosophy.
whos to say that an arcane/shadow necromancer wizard leader wont feel like a new class.
Oh, it might, but it won't feel like as much of a new class as if it was, you know, a new class. On the other hand, if they do make it entirely new, but then force it to be a 'wizard in name only', what does that accomplish? It's fluff is diluted to force the '/arcane' split, the wizards fluff is diluted further into the 'any magic guy that does anything with magic' territory, and so on. I don't like 'builds' that should have been entirely new classes any more then I like entirely new classes that should have just been builds (I'm looking at you, runepriest). Diluting 'Power Source' and 'Class' until they don't mean anything does not improve my game.
if the necromancer gains a twice encounter heal "vampiric syphon" wich heals allies and damages enemies simultaneously, if it's undead "summoning" powers focus more on hindering adjacent enemies and assisting adjacent allies like a shaman's familiar, if it did both of those things but was still technically a wizard would you not play it?
What party role a necromancer should be is an entirely separate debate, one that we probably don't need to get into here. Let me just say that
A) if the necromancer's use of undead is limited to 'summon' powers, that I for one will be completely unsatisfied with it, regardless of any other aspect of the class or subclass it turns out to be. I can already re-fluff a summoner wizard. I don't want to play a haloween-themed summoner, or a wizard with spooky flavor text. I want to play a necromancer.
B) I'm of the 'necromancer should be a controller' school, and I'll leave it at that.
Like many other aspects of essentials, I like the idea of builds of a class having different roles in theory, and thus in theory I wouldn't mind multiple builds of necromancer covering different roles. In practice, however, I would want such builds to share key features that make them make sense as the same class and not just entirely different classes that have the same name for no good reason, so in practice this is yet another element of essentials that I've been dissapointed by.
a paladin or cleric who has official necrotic powers, that deviates from its original role will not be your average run of the mill divine hero. perhaps the divine/shadow cleric is a striker that swaps healing powers for inflicting powers. im very much fond of this idea and im sure others would enjoy playing it too if it is made.
If two classes have different fluff, different class features, different attack powers, different utility powers, and different feats, then they should be different classes. Your hypothetical shadow striker cleric shares no more with the cleric then the fighter druid or wizard or monk does, yet I don't see you saying that those classes would work fine as 'builds' of cleric. All that does is remove any significance from the word 'class' and replace it with the word 'build', in the process causing a lot of undesired theme and party role bleed from classes taking utility and attack powers from what are essentially completely different classes with different fluff and party roles.
a hexblade will feel very different from a warlock im sure of it. while still maintaining some of those aspects they have in common. a warlock doesnt jump into combat swinging a blade unless your the fabled hybrid swordlock. what if the warlock traded prime shot and shadow walk for a feature that gave it some staying power in combat. something like unarmored agility that gave it a defense boost if it was wearing light armor and wielding a pactblade? and for what its worth i do not think this melee warlock will have any powers that do (w) damage cuz daggers suck!
I have no interest in the hexlock. It's been discussed to death already in this thread. We already know it's a striker and at least partially arcane, so that's already enough for me to know it isn't the class I wanted when I said I wanted a hexblade. We can discuss it more on friday, when we see the preview.
what i like best about this idea of mixing sources is that somewhere down the line these new subclasses will become compatable with the old builds like heroes of sword and spell will be doing for essentials builds.
And that's exactly what I don't like about them. All that cross polinating accross theme and party role and power source will just serve to make those things meaningless. "Oh, I'm a primal controller, but all my powers are martial striker". "Oh, I'm a shadow leader, but all my powers and features are arcane controller". "Oh, I'm a warlock, but I haven't promised my soul to anyone, and I'm shadow, but I haven't traded part of my soul to the shadowfell, and I'm primal, but I don't care about or interact with primal spirits".
I'm sorry, but I don't like it.
it all boils down to this, to me a power source is nothing more than a word used to inspire thematic flavor in your characters.
That's what it used to be and what I liked it as, and now it's . . . well, nothing. Might as well not be there, for these new mix source builds.
And you know what? For the existing sources, whatever. If I want to play an archer controller of the primal source where that source actually matters in the character's fluff and powers, I'll go play a seeker. That's fine. The existing power sources are supported enough, covered enough, that if I want to play a class that's definitively divine, or psychic, or martial and nothing else those options are there. But, for the most part, they aren't there for shadow. If I want to play the shadow knight, I don't have anywhere else to turn if Heroes of Shadow lets me down. Same for the necromancer. Same for any shadow source concept other then the shadow dancer, which at least has the ossassin, sub par though that class may be. If Heroes of Shadow is released with a bunch of watered down, mixed source builds and nothing that is distinctly shadow in nature, then that's it for the shadow source, it's dead until 5e. And that's what I'm worried about, because the shadow source does have unique, iconic fantasy archetypes that deserve full classes, and those happen to be the fantasy archetypes that I want to play, and that I have been patiently waiting for since 4e was released.
And that's all entirely besides my complaints that two classes that are entirely different should in fact be different classes.
And it's entirely besides my complaint that summon powers simply do not convey the feel of animating undead minions sufficient for a 'necromancer', be it arcane or shadow, class or build, to be based purely on them.
I used to be cool with the idea of mixed power source classes, until I started seeing them in practice. The Executioner is Martial/Shadow, but that's a lie. Nothing in the fluff or features of that class support shadow magic. It's a pure martial class that has the shadow source by accident, because it wanted to have the same name as a class it has nothing to do with. The Hunter and Scout are Martial/Primal, but again, from what was previewed so far that's just a bald faced lie. There's nothing about their fluff or abilities that implies a connection to Primal magic or Primal spirits. In all three of these cases, we're seeing power source meaning less.
I liked the narrative and thematic value of power sources. Especially those like Divine, Primal, and, yes, Shadow (at least what we saw of it from the Ossassin), where the source was strongly defined in what it could do and where its power came from. Of late we're seeing those strong thematic elements severed and abandoned, and no, that does not make me feel optimistic about any new power sources introduced under the current design philosophy.whos to say that an arcane/shadow necromancer wizard leader wont feel like a new class.
Oh, it might, but it won't feel like as much of a new class as if it was, you know, a new class. On the other hand, if they do make it entirely new, but then force it to be a 'wizard in name only', what does that accomplish? It's fluff is diluted to force the '/arcane' split, the wizards fluff is diluted further into the 'any magic guy that does anything with magic' territory, and so on. I don't like 'builds' that should have been entirely new classes any more then I like entirely new classes that should have just been builds (I'm looking at you, runepriest). Diluting 'Power Source' and 'Class' until they don't mean anything does not improve my game.
If two classes have different fluff, different class features, different attack powers, different utility powers, and different feats, then they should be different classes. Your hypothetical shadow striker cleric shares no more with the cleric then the fighter druid or wizard or monk does, yet I don't see you saying that those classes would work fine as 'builds' of cleric. All that does is remove any significance from the word 'class' and replace it with the word 'build', in the process causing a lot of undesired theme and party role bleed from classes taking utility and attack powers from what are essentially completely different classes with different fluff and party roles.what i like best about this idea of mixing sources is that somewhere down the line these new subclasses will become compatable with the old builds like heroes of sword and spell will be doing for essentials builds.
And that's exactly what I don't like about them. All that cross polinating accross theme and party role and power source will just serve to make those things meaningless. "Oh, I'm a primal controller, but all my powers are martial striker". "Oh, I'm a shadow leader, but all my powers and features are arcane controller". "Oh, I'm a warlock, but I haven't promised my soul to anyone, and I'm shadow, but I haven't traded part of my soul to the shadowfell, and I'm primal, but I don't care about or interact with primal spirits".
I'm sorry, but I don't like it.it all boils down to this, to me a power source is nothing more than a word used to inspire thematic flavor in your characters.
That's what it used to be and what I liked it as, and now it's . . . well, nothing. Might as well not be there, for these new mix source builds.
And that's all entirely besides my complaints that two classes that are entirely different should in fact be different classes.
And it's entirely besides my complaint that summon powers simply do not convey the feel of animating undead minions sufficient for a 'necromancer', be it arcane or shadow, class or build, to be based purely on them.
I think you post is a bit self-contradictory. I do agree that these sub-classes are more like new classes but many of them will still have access to daily and utility powers as well as feats of the 'base' class so interesting combinations wills till be possible.
Personally, I agree that "power source is nothing more than a word used to inspire thematic flavor in your characters" but I think that this is also true of 'class'. Your ranger class can represent a reckless fighter who uses two large weapons depending on how you build it and the limitations you place on yourself in that build process.
The assassin class, name aside, is based on oriental ninja-themed stories and movies; it has little to do with the 1e concept of the assassin, which would now be a ranger or rogue build and perhaps the cutthroat, bravo, or poisoner multiclass feats. Even the essentials assassin can be built with pretty much no shadow powers if you use multiclass and skill power choices. You don't have to choose feats with the shadow pre-requisite if you want an almost entirely martial build. It's player choice and the shadow power source becomes an irrelevance in play.
I always prefer to start with a concept and then search the class and abilities that fit the concept. However, the cooperative nature of 4e sometimes makes that difficult on a practical level if the group is missing a key role. The character role is more signficant and this is not even tied to class any more.
The necromancer is tricky. I'd be happy to see it as a pure shadow class with various builds (or possibly sub-classes) to fill multiple concepts or roles but they might equally split its iconic abilities into completely separate classes with arbitrary name tags. It might also be a sub-class of wizard. Shadowcaster is likely to be pure shadow but could also be a build of wizard with a dual power source. A shadow pact might be enough for the warlock without requiring a dual power source. Ultimately, I'm not sure that these labels have to mean that much.
My 2e human shadow mage is now a shadar-kai infernal warlock. None of her background has changed ans she still feels cool. I will look for a more shadow-themed more controllery build when this supplement comes out but I could leave her as is and she'd be fine to play. In fact my mages rapier will be useless to me if I'm forced to choose a pure shadow build.
Optimisers will always look at the mechanics over and above flavour but the two need not be mutually exclusive.
I think you post is a bit self-contradictory.
It's a lose/lose situation thing. Either these 'sub-classes' share nothing with their original class, in which case they shouldn't be the same class in the first place, or they do allow overlap, and the resulting thematic and party role bleed is bad for the concept of classes.
The right way to do this is Different fluff + different concept + different abilities = different class. If you want to mix differing concepts and abilities and party roles in the same character, well that's what the multiclassing and hybrid rules are for.
The problem with the rest of your post is that by that logic everything could be a subclass of wizard. Invoker? Just a wizard with divine flavor text. Psion? Ditto, psionic flavor. Ranger? A wizard who hits things with swords. Still a wizard though! Why not?
I think you post is a bit self-contradictory.
It's a lose/lose situation thing. Either these 'sub-classes' share nothing with their original class, in which case they shouldn't be the same class in the first place, or they do allow overlap, and the resulting thematic and party role bleed is bad for the concept of classes.
The right way to do this is Different fluff + different concept + different abilities = different class. If you want to mix differing concepts and abilities and party roles in the same character, well that's what the multiclassing and hybrid rules are for.
The problem with the rest of your post is that by that logic everything could be a subclass of wizard. Invoker? Just a wizard with divine flavor text. Psion? Ditto, psionic flavor. Ranger? A wizard who hits things with swords. Still a wizard though! Why not?
I do agree with what you say about the classes. The trouble is they have to keep thinking of new names for even more classes I suppose.
Your latter point depends on what you're looking at. I view characters in terms of previous classic editions of D&D and/or the story that I want to tell. The divide between arcane, divine, and martial has always been very clear. Primal was previously divine and shadow was arcane so there is less need to be puritanical in my view.
Even in previous editions, spells were taken from fairy stories, fables, and legends. So if divine and arcane characters in those stories used the same spells, both classes got the same spells in game, although possibly at a different level. This has now grown into the ritual casting feature now. So you can (and our group does) have a martial character who uses spells (in our case it is a knight of the shield lands who has become obsessed with prophecy and the player has taken a bard feat to grant him this ability).
In terms of fluff, I can see no reason why a divine being could not gift a character with great martial skill or magical abilities. The dividing line between mechanics and story doesn't need to be so clear.
I view characters in terms of previous classic editions of D&D
And I view them in terms of what works best now, to make the most enjoyable, most thematically coherent and internally consistant game now. If a new idea is better then an old idea from a previous version of the game, well, use the better idea. Simple as.
I loved the power sources of 4e, especially the new ones. They actually give solid, thematic value to build into and around classes. Especially Primal, Divine, and Shadow, which have strong narrative elements built in. In contrast, arcane is my least favorite power source, because it's comletely meaningless. What can arcane magic do? Anything. Where does it come from? Anywhere. How does it work? Any way. It's taught, it's inborn, it's the result of intricate effort, it's spontaneously developed, it creates any keyword, deals damage in every element, is drawn from the shadowfell, the feywild, the astral sea, and the elemental chaos, it is taught by dragons, devils, demons, abberations, and fey. There are no primal spirits, so power point, no focus on particular kinds of powers, no leaning towards or away from any particular role. Arcane power has no unique thematic or mechanical element that binds it together. It has no place in the history of the 4e cosmos, playing no role in the story of creation despite being the most ubiquitous and powerful creative force in the planes
Again, I wasn't initially opposed to the idea of dual power source classes, but I'd prefer them to be entire classes, rather then working alternate power sources into new builds of existing classes that are firmly tied to particular sources. I'd also prefer both sources to be integrated throughout the class design, and for them both to mean something significant to the class.
This, sadly, is just not what we've gotten from multisource classes. Instead it's making sources mean less, taking them from well defined thematic elements to something more akin to arcane magic, something characters just 'have' arbitrarily, regardless of the nature of the abilities in question, where the source simply doesn't mean anything. Again, shadow is meaningless to the executioner, and while we haven't seen all of the hunter or scout, primal seems meaningless to them as well. That's just not a step in a positive direction.
It seems to me that somebody in design arbitrarily decided that they have too many classes, so they aren't going to do any new ones, only builds. But while I agree there might be a few too many classes, and some of the existing classes don't have the strongest archetypes behind them as conceptual backbones, there are still concepts out there that don't fit entirely within existing classes and that do deserve their own classes, and squashing these things into builds of existing classes, distorting both in the proces and undermining the thematic value of power source and the gameplay value of party role in the process is no better.
Soyeah, New shadow classes. Want 'em. Need 'em, in fact, for the Shadow Power Source to come anything close to fulfilling its potential. Don't get me wrong, Heroes of Shadow may be full of useful options even without them. By comparison, as a set of mechanics, I like the executioner. But without full classes the potential of the shadow power source will be dramatically curtailed, and I will be colossally dissapointed, regardless of what the product actually does include.
I hope, beyond my highest hope, that the lackluster feeling toward the Executioner Assassin would change their minds and that we can expect New Classes instead of lack luster builds.
Asking again, for someone official to answer. Is there New Classes, or varient builds, in this product?
New Classes I will buy, Builds is a pass.
And you're not going to get an official answer. Hell, the emplyoees aren't allowed to give you an answer due to this little legal matter called a non-disclosure agreement.
This playtest one already has 2 builds.
The executioner as a set of mechanics looks fun to play. As a mix of martial and shadow power sources, it's pretty bad, though, since the shadow source isn't at all worked into it. As a build of assassin it's also pretty pants, since it has nothing do with the existing assassin class. It's pretty clearly an entirely different class that is only a build of 'assassin' to have the name 'assassin' attached.
The assassin label simply allows the player to pick assassin feats and assassin utility powers (or a human at-will). It's more like a hybrid rogue/assassin built into an actual class in the same way that the hunter ranger is a bow ranger/seeker. Assassin paragon paths may add more of a shadow feel, although paragon paths open to 'any martial character' will also be open.
They have certainly moved the goalposts though. I built a hybrid seeker / bow ranger in an effort to recreate an old 1e ranger character and now I need to look whether the hunter ranger with Seeker multiclass might be a better fit.
I rather like the new options. I regret that the mechanics don't seem all that compatible but no more so than martial and psionic I suppose.
I like new options, but I prefer those new options to be compatible with previous options, and to support the themes and concepts in the game rather then undermining them.
Again, there's a lot to like about the executioner's mechanics and the way it plays. But if the original DDI assassin had been named 'shadow dancer' instead, do you think the executioner would still be a build of that class? Of course not. The only reason that the executioner was a build of the original class was so that it could have the name 'assassin', and to me that's poor design, imo.
At least the other e-builds we've seen so far still have mostly the same themes and fighting styles as the classes they share names with, even if their mechanics are entirely different. With the exception of the druid, which is another sore spot for me, if one that is off topic for this thread.
The only reason that the executioner was a build of the original class was so that it could have the name 'assassin', and to me that's poor design, imo.
can you prove that? did a dev secretly tell you that was the case or is this an opinion? cuz its beginning to look like youve blurred the line between fact an theory. your oppinion might be right but you cant know that it is true.
the Essassin does not have two builds it has two sub-builds. just to make sure i went back and pulled this out of a side bar from the article
What we’re offering here is the playtest version
of the assassin. You’re looking at something
that’s still being worked on by our designers,
developers, and editors. This article presents a
single build for the assassin—the executioner—
from 1st to 30th level.
whether youre with the red scales or the league of whispers, youre still an executioner.
I understand once the thing is completed that it may be filled in, as it were, but the overall presentation is one that represents a replacement for the Assassin instead of being additional options or choice.
To me, it seems a bit incomplete not becuase both of the new builds are not present but because it seems to skip levels and not offer much durring the Paragon levels.
I understand once the thing is completed that it may be filled in, as it were, but the overall presentation is one that represents a replacement for the Assassin instead of being additional options or choice.
Pretty sure both new builds are present, isnt that what the 2 guilds are?
Or are these builds, of a build, of a build.
I'm somewhat on the fence about it being a replacement or not.
Fluff-wise it has more to do with the rogue than it does the original Assassin, making it definitely not a replacement in that regard.
Meanwhile, its also the new version of an already super-undersupported class that barely has more support than the Runepriest/Seeker despite being out almost twice as long. Due to having virtually nothin mechanicly similar with the original assassin, any support for 1 assassin beyond utility powers is very unlikely to support the other. This means unless they amp up their support for assassins, both will be even more under supported as we progress into 2011, or more likely, they'll stop giving the original assassin support and give more support to the newer one.
Now, we have "shared" power sources and more questions than answers, and no official response as to whether or not there will be new character classes in the Heroes of Shadows.
It is starting to look like there will be no more new classes at all, just "builds" that work off of already existing ones, with a splash of power source sharing here and there.
As for what that means for Heroes of Shadow and the 'hexblades' mentioned in its catalog blurb, who can say? Maybe HoS will present nothing more then a 'shadow pact' for this hexblade build. Or maybe the 'hexblade' that blurb once referred to will get renamed to something else.
I still think there's room for a shadow source debuffing, cursing, armor wearing, weapliment using defender, even with the new Hexlock as previewed. It just doesn't seem to overlap the 'dark knight' concept so much that it prevents the latter from existing. But that doesn't mean the latter will exist either.
As for the hexlock itself, well I don't hate it at first glance, but it's not even part shadow, so I don't feel any need to go into specifics in this particular thread.
Kingdoms only has the Fey and Infernal pacts. Star pact will be in Dragon in November. It's entirely pssoible that the Dark pact will be in HoS and it will be Arcane & Shadow.
I hope not. Go to Forgotten Realms and read the fluff of the Dark pact. It's really got nothing to do with Shadow. Sure, it's got an Underdark connection, but it represents you having a pact with "dark entitites that lurk at the edges of civilization." "Dark" = evil =/= shadow. It was basically bringing back demonic pacts - magic from evil beings of chaos and destruction. Nothing about that sounds like shadow magic to me.
I am hopeful though, because I am currently building a world centered around the shadow, arcane and divine power (in the same fashion that Dark Sun focusses on arcane, primal and psychic power).
Kingdoms only has the Fey and Infernal pacts. Star pact will be in Dragon in November. It's entirely possible that the Dark pact will be in HoS and it will be Arcane & Shadow.
I hope not. Go to Forgotten Realms and read the fluff of the Dark pact. It's really got nothing to do with Shadow. Sure, it's got an Underdark connection, but it represents you having a pact with "dark entities that lurk at the edges of civilization." "Dark" = evil =/= shadow. It was basically bringing back demonic pacts - magic from evil beings of chaos and destruction. Nothing about that sounds like shadow magic to me.
I concur.
Kingdoms only has the Fey and Infernal pacts. Star pact will be in Dragon in November. It's entirely pssoible that the Dark pact will be in HoS and it will be Arcane & Shadow.
I hope not. Go to Forgotten Realms and read the fluff of the Dark pact. It's really got nothing to do with Shadow. Sure, it's got an Underdark connection, but it represents you having a pact with "dark entitites that lurk at the edges of civilization." "Dark" = evil =/= shadow. It was basically bringing back demonic pacts - magic from evil beings of chaos and destruction. Nothing about that sounds like shadow magic to me.
I know what the Dark Pact currently is. Or rather, was. The designers have shown no hesitation in changing things if they think it's better. Or "better." Dark Pact becoming shadow based instead of demons is entirely possible.
Go to Forgotten Realms and read the fluff of the Dark pact. It's really got nothing to do with Shadow.
Deathboon. The descriptive text for that power specifically mentions your "Shadowfell patron". Granted that most of the pact's flavour seems to be "dark, poisonous spidery things that live in the Underdark", but there's a certain amount of "Shadowfell" flavour there too. Blades of Vanquished Armies is another power with clear Shadowfell overtones (shadowy echoes of dead soldiers), and there are several other Dark Pact powers that influence undead in some way.
Go to Forgotten Realms and read the fluff of the Dark pact. It's really got nothing to do with Shadow.
Deathboon. The descriptive text for that power specifically mentions your "Shadowfell patron". Granted that most of the pact's flavour seems to be "dark, poisonous spidery things that live in the Underdark", but there's a certain amount of "Shadowfell" flavour there too. Blades of Vanquished Armies is another power with clear Shadowfell overtones (shadowy echoes of dead soldiers), and there are several other Dark Pact powers that influence undead in some way.
All right. Good to know. But if I and other posters on this thread remember it more for the demon/CE tie-ins, doesn't that suggest (though not prove, I admit) that the demonic ties are portrayed more strongly than the Shadowfell ties?
At this point, I have no idea what's going to be in this book, and it's replacing my excited anticipation with with unhappy unease. What this product 'should' have included seemed so obvious to me that I didn't even feel a need to question it at first. Now, it's just a complete unknown. It could be an awesome tome with everything I need to make the characters I've been longing to play since 4e was released, including awesome fluff, new race write ups, and entirely new, entirely shadow based classes to cover my favorite fantasy gaming archetypes. Or it could be a watered down book, with no new shadow classes and maybe even no new classes and maybe even no new builds - just a new specialization for the mage build of the arcane wizard class, and a new pact for the hexblade build of the arcane warlock class, alongside a reprint of the shadar-kai write up from dragon with nothing new apart from PHBIII style stat options.
I just have no idea what to expect out of this product anymore, and I've been waiting and hoping for the Shadow power source in 4e for so long that now these doubts are sucking all of the enthusiasm for D&D right out of me.
I don't know, the Arcane Hexblade actually makes me a little more enthusiastic, like I said. It serves to reinforce what I initially hoped; that the "Hexblade" Warlock was a build name chosen before work began on HoS, and that the Hexblade mentioned in the blurb is the "true" Hexblade we've all been waiting for (though to be honest, I'm hoping that there's a light armor Dex build for those of us who want to play Batman. I'm thinking Con/Dex light armor, and Con/Cha heavy. >_>
I think you might be preparing yourself for disapointment here. We know that Heroes of Shadows will contain shadow options for existing classes. The developers have said nothing about the book containing new classes. If it contained new classes don't you think you would mention that before you mention support for existing classes?
-=Edit: And here is the quote from Mearls on the subject: "There are powers and builds for shadow power source classes, but those tend to focus on giving shadow options to existing character classes."(emphasis added)
P.S. Damn you for causing me to re-listen to that GenCon panel that completely destroyed my faith in the WotC powers that be.
=-The only info we have about Heroes of Shadow that actually comes from a context about heroes of shadow is the catalog blurb, which is already acknowledged to be at the very least easily misread. It says new classes, but it also mentions the hexblade (which isn't shadow) and the assassin (which we have confirmed as not appearing in the book), so... yeah.
The whole situation's a mess. We know nothing. At this point I'd say having any expectations at all is setting yourself up for disappointment.
I don't know, the Arcane Hexblade actually makes me a little more enthusiastic, like I said. It serves to reinforce what I initially hoped; that the "Hexblade" Warlock was a build name chosen before work began on HoS, and that the Hexblade mentioned in the blurb is the "true" Hexblade we've all been waiting for (though to be honest, I'm hoping that there's a light armor Dex build for those of us who want to play Batman. I'm thinking Con/Dex light armor, and Con/Cha heavy. >_>
I would rather see a Con/Dex and a Con/Int builds, a shadow walk class feature (move 3 to gain concelment), and leather and cloth as base prof... then give all milatary and simple weapons... and a curse/mark mechanic that marks, and the curse goes off if the mark is triggerered...(I personaly like weaken until the end of your next turn)
I would even make it a bonus damage against marked targets (not targets of his mark, but any marked targets)
Not if the mention of support for existing classes was specifically in the context of an editorial responding to numerous 'sky is falling' comments about existing classes receiving no further support post essentials.
The only info we have about Heroes of Shadow that actually comes from a context about heroes of shadow is the catalog blurb, which is already acknowledged to be at the very least easily misread. It says new classes, but it also mentions the hexblade (which isn't shadow) and the assassin (which we have confirmed as not appearing in the book), so... yeah.
The whole situation's a mess. We know nothing. At this point I'd say having any expectations at all is setting yourself up for disappointment.
Well Mearls went into more detail than just that one comment I cited. He went on for like two min about how if you play a fighter with a dark past you can add shadow-y stuff to him from the book. And I know I recall a comment from somewhere saying there would be cleric support in the book also(which prior to Gencon I had assumed was complete BS).
Note that the shade is not an available race at this
time, but it will appear in Heroes of Shadow.
Well, we now know one thing is confirmed for Heroes of Shadow. Today's Star Pact Hexblade article mentions a new race called Shade that will be in Heroes of Shadow.Note that the shade is not an available race at this
time, but it will appear in Heroes of Shadow.
And that one of its stat pairs is going to be Int/Cha.
To those who don't have a DDI subscription, this is because it was recommended alongside the Int/Cha Eladrin and Tiefling as the best users of the Int/Cha Star Pact Hexblade build.
1) It will include Shades as a playable race
2) It will not include Revenants
3) It will not include Assassins
4) It will include some usable material for existing classes, in particular fighter and cleric at least, although whether this takes the form of shadow content specifically designed for existing classes or something more general along the lines of shadow themes or multiclass options available to anybody is still entirely unknown.
Like the name "Shade" for a race, for me it makes it less likely the Shadar Kai will be in this product with it.
I, to, am curious about it.
And let's not forget that FR article about Shadar-Kai that came out recently. Shadar-Kai and Shades can both exist and be unique from each other in a given setting.
So, really, Shades being in the book has no bearing at all on the likelyhood of Shadar-Kai being in it.
Shades may be the Forgotten Realms Shades with some fluff to make them less campaign-specific, much as how Shifters emigrated from being unique to Eberron to being "core".
And let's not forget that FR article about Shadar-Kai that came out recently. Shadar-Kai and Shades can both exist and be unique from each other in a given setting.
So, really, Shades being in the book has no bearing at all on the likelyhood of Shadar-Kai being in it.
I agree with this, however I am curious what would differentiate them statistically.
What we still don't know (And why I created this thread) is if it will contain new classes instead of "builds."
You know I just remembered something which sort of answers this question.
Class Compendium Blurb:
"This book gathers five classes from the Player’s Handbook—the cleric, the fighter, the rogue, the warlord, and the wizard—and presents them in the new D&D Essentials class format introduced in Heroes of the Fallen Lands, with rules updates and errata. It features rules that allow D&D Essentials characters to select non-D&D Essentials powers, and it grants non-D&D Essentials characters access to class features from Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. In addition, this book presents feats, rituals, and rules for multiclassing."
Basically the term class has been repurposed to mean build....so odds are not in your favor of getting new class classes although. Although I suppose there is enough evidence to possibly support the possibility of oneor two in the book.
What we still don't know (And why I created this thread) is if it will contain new classes instead of "builds."
You know I just remembered something which sort of answers this question.
Class Compendium Blurb:"This book gathers five classes from the Player’s Handbook—the cleric, the fighter, the rogue, the warlord, and the wizard—and presents them in the new D&D Essentials class format introduced in Heroes of the Fallen Lands, with rules updates and errata. It features rules that allow D&D Essentials characters to select non-D&D Essentials powers, and it grants non-D&D Essentials characters access to class features from Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. In addition, this book presents feats, rituals, and rules for multiclassing."
Basically the term class has been repurposed to mean build....so odds are not in your favor of getting new class classes although. Although I suppose there is enough evidence to possibly support the possibility of oneor two in the book.
Except that the "from the Player's Handbook" note would seem to exclude the supplemental material found in other books. The preview of the Fighter's presentation suggests the entirety of the fighter as presented in the first Player's Handbook will be in the CC - just not the material from Martial Power 1 or 2, or Dark Sun, or Dragon Articles. It presents the class, just not the extra builds or powers.
In other words, your singular sample could be explained in another way, quite easily, and is thus entirely insufficient to draw a conclusion from.
Except that the "from the Player's Handbook" note would seem to exclude the supplemental material found in other books.
What does that have to do with what I posted or the point I was trying to make in my post?The preview of the Fighter's presentation suggests the entirety of the fighter as presented in the first Player's Handbook will be in the CC - just not the material from Martial Power 1 or 2, or Dark Sun, or Dragon Articles. It presents the class, just not the extra builds or powers.
.....It presents the class as the Weaponmaster build(sub-class) for the essentials fighter....which was sort of the point I was going for. The blurb refers to it as a class, but what is presented in the book is a build option(sub-class) and not a new and seperate class. The Heroes of Shadow blurb likewise makes mention of new classes, but Mearls's statements on the book are more consistent with new sub-classes rather than new classes. The fact that sub-classes are referred to as classes in other product blurbs strengthens the possibility that Heroes of Shadow will contain mostly shadow sub classes for existing classes.
Except that the "from the Player's Handbook" note would seem to exclude the supplemental material found in other books.The preview of the Fighter's presentation suggests the entirety of the fighter as presented in the first Player's Handbook will be in the CC - just not the material from Martial Power 1 or 2, or Dark Sun, or Dragon Articles. It presents the class, just not the extra builds or powers.
.....It presents the class as the Weaponmaster build(sub-class) for the essentials fighter....which was sort of the point I was going for. The blurb refers to it as a class, but what is presented in the book is a build option(sub-class) and not a new and seperate class. The Heroes of Shadow blurb likewise makes mention of new classes, but Mearls's statements on the book are more consistent with new sub-classes rather than new classes. The fact that sub-classes are referred to as classes in other product blurbs strengthens the possibility that Heroes of Shadow will contain mostly shadow sub classes for existing classes.
Actually, what seems to be presented in the book is the original Fighter, in its entirety. The Greatweapon and Guardian fighters, however, are not distinct enough that they do not require two seperate charts, so, they rolled them into one thing because there is only one decision point worth of difference.
The book contains the fighter class just like the PHB1 contained the fighter class - whereas MP2 did not contain the fighter class, simply variant options for the features of the class. In game terms, the Slayer and the Knight are still just builds.
I would like to speculate though, that while it seems that they don't really listen to us, sometimes they do, and the majority of the people in the forums have voiced their desire for new shadow classes instead of shadowy builds for existing classes, so hopefully wizards will see the bill board we have painted in the forums, but i'm not going to get my hopes up... at least that way I can be content with the mediocrity we may be in for...
According to CharBuilder, there's currently 36 classes.
26 is a correct count, regardless of the implementation of the Essential builds in the nwe CharBuilder, because, as ever, the CharBuilder is not a rules source.
According to CharBuilder, there's currently 36 classes.
26 is a correct count, regardless of the implementation of the Essential builds in the nwe CharBuilder, because, as ever, the CharBuilder is not a rules source.
Actually, between the Online Compendium and the Character Builder, I consider the Character Builder the 'core of core'.
The Character Builder is where the rubber hits the road, where all the gaming systems translate into an actual character that players use in an actual game. For me, the CB isnt a channel, but a 'supreme court' for what rules actually happen.
I treat the CB as *the* rules source.
To say nothing of the fact that it's currently practically unusable due to how slow and prone to crashing the new online builder is, on top of many places where it's just wrong (such as letting characters multiclass into their own class) or non-functional (hybrids?).
I simply can't put that much stock in the builder. While generally useful and reliable, bugs and mistakes are just too common to put that kind of stock in it.
To say nothing of the fact that it's currently practically unusable due to how slow and prone to crashing the new online builder is, on top of many places where it's just wrong (such as letting characters multiclass into their own class) or non-functional (hybrids?).
I just used the builder without it crashing (it has never crashed for me). It was MUCH faster than it was when I tried it on the 16th.
Have you checked to see if you have the most recent version of Silverlight?
According to CharBuilder, there's currently 36 classes.
26 is a correct count, regardless of the implementation of the Essential builds in the nwe CharBuilder, because, as ever, the CharBuilder is not a rules source.
Actually, between the Online Compendium and the Character Builder, I consider the Character Builder the 'core of core'.
The Character Builder is where the rubber hits the road, where all the gaming systems translate into an actual character that players use in an actual game. For me, the CB isnt a channel, but a 'supreme court' for what rules actually happen.
I treat the CB as *the* rules source.
Do what you like, but that's incorrect. The "core of core" is the books/articles+updates, and that is all. The builder does have a known history of being "wrong", which comes up Rules Q&A from time to time.
In that book the "weapon master fighter" aka, the classic 4e one, is a class of the Fighter Archetype, alongside the knight and slayer.
Wizards most likely couldn't do it like this in the CBC, or it didn't play nice with the structure of the levels and powers being messed with. This is more like the Fluid debacle all over again.
I think I have lost hope for the HoS product. It is gonna be a rehash of already existing classes with a hint of Shadow, sorta like salting my food.
They aren't builds. Each of these "class versions" has its own builds. Knights have Hammer Knights and Longsword Knights. Hexblades have Star Pact Hexblades, Fey Pact Hexblades, and Infernal Pact Hexblades. Mages have each of their 3 schools (and we know Transmutation is on the way). Warpriests have Domains. Cavaliers have Virtues. Slayers have Greatsword Slayers and Greataxe Slayers. Hunters have Bow Hunters and Crossbow Hunters. Sentinels have Druids of x Season. Etc. THESE are builds.
There's also sub-builds like Pyromancer within Evoker and White Lady of the Well Pact within Fey Pact. But those are like getting additional powers in an X Power book, rather than being railroaded into one choice. It's just additional features, for the most part, instead, because of the way classes are working a little bit differently since Essentials.
No, they're not different builds, is the thing. The official language used the two Essentials players books are "versions of this class," i.e., "The version of the Paladin you can make with this book is the Cavalier."
They aren't builds. Each of these "class versions" has its own builds. Knights have Hammer Knights and Longsword Knights. Hexblades have Star Pact Hexblades, Fey Pact Hexblades, and Infernal Pact Hexblades. Mages have each of their 3 schools (and we know Transmutation is on the way). Warpriests have Domains. Cavaliers have Virtues. Slayers have Greatsword Slayers and Greataxe Slayers. Hunters have Bow Hunters and Crossbow Hunters. Sentinels have Druids of x Season. Etc. THESE are builds.
There's also sub-builds like Pyromancer within Evoker and White Lady of the Well Pact within Fey Pact. But those are like getting additional powers in an X Power book, rather than being railroaded into one choice. It's just additional features, for the most part, instead, because of the way classes are working a little bit differently since Essentials.
So, every single decision point renders you into a new build? No way. Builds are more significantly different than that. The difference between a Hammer and Sword Knight is not remotely the same as the difference between a Guardian and Tempest Fighter - a difference more akin to the difference between a Knight and a Slayer. The essentials books just use the meaning of build instead of the word build, because that is simpler to grasp: Build as a game term means "versions of a class".
The essentials products (the two player books) have the "classes" within them stand alone because the player that bought it may not have the PHB/PHB2/PHB3. There is another book (not part of the essentials line) that is doing up the original write ups in much the same way. (redundant in my opinion)
That doesn't change the fact that it is a different build of the same class. My hope was that Wizards wasn't doing the same in this product (Heroes of Shadow) but my expectations for this is exceedingly low.
No, they're not different builds, is the thing. The official language used the two Essentials players books are "versions of this class," i.e., "The version of the Paladin you can make with this book is the Cavalier."
They aren't builds. Each of these "class versions" has its own builds. Knights have Hammer Knights and Longsword Knights. Hexblades have Star Pact Hexblades, Fey Pact Hexblades, and Infernal Pact Hexblades. Mages have each of their 3 schools (and we know Transmutation is on the way). Warpriests have Domains. Cavaliers have Virtues. Slayers have Greatsword Slayers and Greataxe Slayers. Hunters have Bow Hunters and Crossbow Hunters. Sentinels have Druids of x Season. Etc. THESE are builds.
There's also sub-builds like Pyromancer within Evoker and White Lady of the Well Pact within Fey Pact. But those are like getting additional powers in an X Power book, rather than being railroaded into one choice. It's just additional features, for the most part, instead, because of the way classes are working a little bit differently since Essentials.
So, every single decision point renders you into a new build? No way. Builds are more significantly different than that. The difference between a Hammer and Sword Knight is not remotely the same as the difference between a Guardian and Tempest Fighter - a difference more akin to the difference between a Knight and a Slayer. The essentials books just use the meaning of build instead of the word build, because that is simpler to grasp: Build as a game term means "versions of a class".
No, it doesn't. Build means that there are unique class features tailored to that style of play. Most builds have alternate class features to choose from that set them apart from other builds. Knights and Slayers each have different class features for their weapon specialisation. These are builds. Hexblades have different class features for each of their different Pacts. These are just as much different builds as the Pacts are for the standard Warlock. There are power choices within Essentials builds as well: they just haven't been fleshed out as much since they wanted simplicity in the books so as not to overwhelm the new players; futhermore, we've seen some of these new choices – Pyromancers for Evokers, Lady of the White Well features and powers for the Fey Pact Hexblade, Celestial Steeds for the Cavalier, etc.
Builds are tied to Class features, and Hammer Knights and Sword Knights have different class features these are builds, not just options. You can't pick and choose. You go with the Longsword class features early on, you're going with the same longsword progression class features later.
Arena Fighter is a Build of Weaponmaster. Hammer Knight is a build of Knight. Etc.
Pyromancers are not Evokers. They are an entirely separate build, just like Evokers are separate from Enchanters.
Yes, I realised this fallacy after I made that statement earlier today. However, the Fey Pact and Cavalier articles remain in my point.
Pyromancers DO have a complex situation however, since Pyromancy spells are not their own school of spells, but fire typed Evocation school spells. There's just different class features, which is the definition of a build (and thus makes Pyromancers a different build.
I wasn't arguing the point about builds, just Pyros. :p
Yeah, I understood that. Thank you for raising the point: I probably would have let it sit if you hadn't.
Regardless of what you call it a Fighter: tempest, Fighter: Slayer, and Fighter: knight are of the same class. They share the same utilities and you can retrain your build from one to another... So IMHO the difference in the examples is simply a matter of build, nothing more.
No, they're not just a matter of build. They may share the same utilies, but you CANNOT retrain from a Knight to a Slayer. They have different proficiencies, multiple different class features, and completely different sets of powers. They are different enough to be different classes, but they are still within the same archetypal class concept (Fighter). Thus, they're more like sub-classes, and the different ways of playing each sub-class is a build.
So, every single decision point renders you into a new build? No way. Builds are more significantly different than that. The difference between a Hammer and Sword Knight is not remotely the same as the difference between a Guardian and Tempest Fighter - a difference more akin to the difference between a Knight and a Slayer.
Yes, but there are numerous other pre-essentials builds that are far more similar to one another than a hammer knight is to a sword knight. Cutthroat rogue and trickster rogue, for example.
So, every single decision point renders you into a new build? No way. Builds are more significantly different than that. The difference between a Hammer and Sword Knight is not remotely the same as the difference between a Guardian and Tempest Fighter - a difference more akin to the difference between a Knight and a Slayer.
Yes, but there are numerous other pre-essentials builds that are far more similar to one another than a hammer knight is to a sword knight. Cutthroat rogue and trickster rogue, for example.
You mean Aerialist Rogue and Trickster Rogue, I believe. And yes, that is a cunnundrum. Both use the same class feature. Furthermore, there is the two Warlock builds, which have nothing to do with the Warlock class features. There is also the Summoner Druid, who doesn't have a class feature, but is apparently a build.
The truth is, as much as we argue about build terminology, WotC doesn't seem to have one particular purpose to the word "build." However, what I'm trying to say is that there are several tiers of class choices:
1. "Class" choice. Something like Fighter or Cleric. We'll ignore Hybrids for now. Everything below this all belong in the same class archetype and have the same class story, of sorts. They have connections with one another closer than any two sets of classes. They train in essentially the same way, having some sort of defining feature, like a Bard's songs, a Barbarian's rages, or a Fighter's weapon usages in his martial exploits.
2. "Subclass" choice. Something like Weaponmaster or Knight or Slayer (all Fighters). Everything below this share proficiencies, core class features, party roles, power source, and a more specific story of what this type of character is. A legendary warrior (Slayer), a crusading knight (Knight), a cleric in wartime (Warpriest), a master of many weapons and maneuvers (Weaponmaster), etc.
3. "Class Feature" choice. What I've been referring to as "build," though there are obvious exceptions to the terminology. Everything below here shares the same shiftable archetypal class feature, and differs only in power choice and secondary class features. Something like a Fey Pact Hexblade, an Enchanter Mage, a Wand of Accuracy Wizard, an Earth Domain Warpriest, an Ardent Vow Paladin, an Artful Dodger Scoundrel (what we call a Rogue until Heroes of Sword and Spell, if I read the preview right), a Hammer-wielding Knight or a Crossbow wielding Hunter. At this level, characters are defined by a particular class feature or weapon focus.
4. "Power" choice. This is where all characters start to vary a lot. There are a number of powers that each character can take at each power choice level. For classes that don't have a lot of choices, or force you into a certain choice, this level of differentiation may be a bit more static. But for most characters, this is a level of variation. Which at-will powers do I choose at 1st level? Even the Knight and Slayer have to make this important decision, even if their choice of powers is limited after 1st.
As for Hybrid characters, they break down the first decision point and say, NO. I want to be two different classes. At that point, they get fewer class feature choices, which are tied to certain sub-classes and builds, and their power choices are broader, but because of that, they're tighter with what they get. So Hybrids sort of break down this system; but hey, that's what they warned us about them.
And by the rules, you can in fact retrain from a knight to a slayer, just as you can retrain from brawny rogue to trickster rogue...
Where does it say that?
My hope, for the Heroes of Shadows, is that the entries for the classes are actual new Classes instead of Shadowtouched builds.
Ditto, we got a bit off topic with the attempt at defining build... But yes would like to see new full, completely independent classes vs new build/subclass/whatever u wish to call it...
The problem with the new "builds" is that the choices you don't get to make for the specific area that takes the place of a segment of the class, like dailies being replaced by stances and such. It makes the overall choice of powers more limiting for those that have more than the book that the new "build" is in.
My hope, for the Heroes of Shadows, is that the entries for the classes are actual new Classes instead of Shadowtouched builds.
Seconded. If its just essential classes or builds for existing classes, I probably won't buy it.
Also, my heart will be broken.
So, every single decision point renders you into a new build? No way. Builds are more significantly different than that. The difference between a Hammer and Sword Knight is not remotely the same as the difference between a Guardian and Tempest Fighter - a difference more akin to the difference between a Knight and a Slayer.
Yes, but there are numerous other pre-essentials builds that are far more similar to one another than a hammer knight is to a sword knight. Cutthroat rogue and trickster rogue, for example.
You mean Aerialist Rogue and Trickster Rogue, I believe. And yes, that is a cunnundrum. Both use the same class feature. Furthermore, there is the two Warlock builds, which have nothing to do with the Warlock class features. There is also the Summoner Druid, who doesn't have a class feature, but is apparently a build.
The truth is, as much as we argue about build terminology, WotC doesn't seem to have one particular purpose to the word "build." However, what I'm trying to say is that there are several tiers of class choices:
1. "Class" choice. Something like Fighter or Cleric. We'll ignore Hybrids for now. Everything below this all belong in the same class archetype and have the same class story, of sorts. They have connections with one another closer than any two sets of classes. They train in essentially the same way, having some sort of defining feature, like a Bard's songs, a Barbarian's rages, or a Fighter's weapon usages in his martial exploits.
2. "Subclass" choice. Something like Weaponmaster or Knight or Slayer (all Fighters). Everything below this share proficiencies, core class features, party roles, power source, and a more specific story of what this type of character is. A legendary warrior (Slayer), a crusading knight (Knight), a cleric in wartime (Warpriest), a master of many weapons and maneuvers (Weaponmaster), etc.
3. "Class Feature" choice. What I've been referring to as "build," though there are obvious exceptions to the terminology. Everything below here shares the same shiftable archetypal class feature, and differs only in power choice and secondary class features. Something like a Fey Pact Hexblade, an Enchanter Mage, a Wand of Accuracy Wizard, an Earth Domain Warpriest, an Ardent Vow Paladin, an Artful Dodger Scoundrel (what we call a Rogue until Heroes of Sword and Spell, if I read the preview right), a Hammer-wielding Knight or a Crossbow wielding Hunter. At this level, characters are defined by a particular class feature or weapon focus.
4. "Power" choice. This is where all characters start to vary a lot. There are a number of powers that each character can take at each power choice level. For classes that don't have a lot of choices, or force you into a certain choice, this level of differentiation may be a bit more static. But for most characters, this is a level of variation. Which at-will powers do I choose at 1st level? Even the Knight and Slayer have to make this important decision, even if their choice of powers is limited after 1st.
As for Hybrid characters, they break down the first decision point and say, NO. I want to be two different classes. At that point, they get fewer class feature choices, which are tied to certain sub-classes and builds, and their power choices are broader, but because of that, they're tighter with what they get. So Hybrids sort of break down this system; but hey, that's what they warned us about them.
So, on the one hand, you'll admit that the term "build" is not strictly defined and has been constantly expanding over the course of the edition to include more, and more, and more. Yet, on the other hand, you're trying to shoe-horn your concept of a sub-class into there. You don't choose between the Weaponmaster, Slayer, or Knight, and THEN decide if you want a Tempest Fighter or a Battlerager. You decide between a Guardian Fighter, a Greatweapon Fighter, a Tempest Fighter, a Brawler Fighter, an arena Fighter, a Battlerager, a Slayer, or a Knight.
Also: Is the Archer Warlord a subclass of the Warlord in your mind?
And back to the central point: If you'll agree that WotC doesn't have some strictly defined idea of builds, and that the way they use the term covers the builds seen in Essentials, doesn't it than follow that when they say class, they mean class, at least in anything that takes the full edition into consideration?
I don't know why anyone would be confused about why I asked about the state of "classes" in the Heroes of Shadow. I still have not seen an official answer to the question. (Is there actual classes in HoS?)
I don't know why anyone would be confused about why I asked about the state of "classes" in the Heroes of Shadow. I still have not seen an official answer to the question. (Is there actual classes in HoS?)
And, once again, you are STILL not going to find it here.
The confusion on what Wizards would consider a class or a "build" is one of the main reasons that this thread exists. In the new WEBCB, the Essentials "classes" are listed separatly, mainly because they have class features that doesn't play nice with the PHB originals.
I don't know why anyone would be confused about why I asked about the state of "classes" in the Heroes of Shadow. I still have not seen an official answer to the question. (Is there actual classes in HoS?)
I think the best answer to your question at this point is, We don't know. Frankly, there is a fairly good chance that there will be proper classes styled in a similar manner to past PH type books. However, there is of course an equal probability of there being Essentials style support for past classes with the added Shadow power source (much like Essential rangers are both primal and martial). In my opinion, have you this pure prognostication on my part, there will be perhaps three "purely" shadow classes with the old power layout (at-wills, encounters, dailies, and utility powers) as well as a few specific "builds" for previous classes in the Essentials format. As well as races, feats, and the like supporting the new power source which to be honest isn't all that new as it was used as part of a Warlord PP all the way back in the Manual of the Planes.
So, on the one hand, you'll admit that the term "build" is not strictly defined and has been constantly expanding over the course of the edition to include more, and more, and more. Yet, on the other hand, you're trying to shoe-horn your concept of a sub-class into there. You don't choose between the Weaponmaster, Slayer, or Knight, and THEN decide if you want a Tempest Fighter or a Battlerager. You decide between a Guardian Fighter, a Greatweapon Fighter, a Tempest Fighter, a Brawler Fighter, an arena Fighter, a Battlerager, a Slayer, or a Knight.
Also: Is the Archer Warlord a subclass of the Warlord in your mind?
And back to the central point: If you'll agree that WotC doesn't have some strictly defined idea of builds, and that the way they use the term covers the builds seen in Essentials, doesn't it than follow that when they say class, they mean class, at least in anything that takes the full edition into consideration?
No, my point with all this illustration is that Essentials CLEARLY created a new level of character choice, putting it right in-between class and build. You can see this most clearly when you look at the two Player's Essentials books. HOWEVER, they have alternatively used the term class and build for this new level of complexity, just as they've used the term build for multiple different purposes before.
When they said new class for Bladesinger in the Neverwinter Nights Campaign Guide preview, it is believed now that they meant Essentials-esque kit for the Swordmage – a new class of Swordmage, a new sub-class. When they said builds and classes and such for Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow, it is unclear what they meant. This is my point.
As for Skirmishing Warlords, they're clearly a build. They trade out a particular proficiencies, but do it by class feature choice. Remember, Druid of Spring Sentinels gain Scimitar proficiency through a class feature choice. What is different is those starting tables at the front. A Sentinel and an old-style Druid have different starting tables and progression tables. These are important differences, unlike the difference between a Guardian Druid, a Predator Druid, and a Swarm Druid, and Druids who choose Summoning powers for dailies.
So, on the one hand, you'll admit that the term "build" is not strictly defined and has been constantly expanding over the course of the edition to include more, and more, and more. Yet, on the other hand, you're trying to shoe-horn your concept of a sub-class into there. You don't choose between the Weaponmaster, Slayer, or Knight, and THEN decide if you want a Tempest Fighter or a Battlerager. You decide between a Guardian Fighter, a Greatweapon Fighter, a Tempest Fighter, a Brawler Fighter, an arena Fighter, a Battlerager, a Slayer, or a Knight.
Also: Is the Archer Warlord a subclass of the Warlord in your mind?
And back to the central point: If you'll agree that WotC doesn't have some strictly defined idea of builds, and that the way they use the term covers the builds seen in Essentials, doesn't it than follow that when they say class, they mean class, at least in anything that takes the full edition into consideration?
No, my point with all this illustration is that Essentials CLEARLY created a new level of character choice, putting it right in-between class and build. You can see this most clearly when you look at the two Player's Essentials books. HOWEVER, they have alternatively used the term class and build for this new level of complexity, just as they've used the term build for multiple different purposes before.
It's a difference that the game does not care about classifying so you're trying to shoehorn one in (which is honestly fine, but it needs to be acknowledged for what it is) and trying to say that it has meaning upon the words of others (which is NOT fine. You cannot use your own definitions to determine the meaning of what someone else has said, you must use the definitions they use to be able to derive a conclusion possessed of any accuracy beyond the purely coincidental.). Wizards typically uses class to mean class, and build to denote lower level items in that hierarchy (even powers to some extent). Which means that when trying to figure out the central question of whether or not Heroes of Shadow contains classes, we need to be applying that definition to where it says "classes".
I'll ignore the blatant speculation you continued with below there - that does not meet the standard of proof to qualify as evidence.
(Interestingly, HotFL doesn't say it contains classes, but rather details on classes.)
It's a difference that the game does not care about classifying so you're trying to shoehorn one in (which is honestly fine, but it needs to be acknowledged for what it is) and trying to say that it has meaning upon the words of others (which is NOT fine. You cannot use your own definitions to determine the meaning of what someone else has said, you must use the definitions they use to be able to derive a conclusion possessed of any accuracy beyond the purely coincidental.). Wizards typically uses class to mean class, and build to denote lower level items in that hierarchy (even powers to some extent). Which means that when trying to figure out the central question of whether or not Heroes of Shadow contains classes, we need to be applying that definition to where it says "classes".
I'll ignore the blatant speculation you continued with below there - that does not meet the standard of proof to qualify as evidence.
(Interestingly, HotFL doesn't say it contains classes, but rather details on classes.)
I know what HotFL and HotFK say. They say "the version of this class." HOWEVER, D&Di has alternatively called Executioner a new class and also a new build. Same thing with Bladesinger, which was later said to be an Essentials-verson of the Swordmage, after being called a new class.
In the CharBuilder, the HotFL "versions of this class" are considered their own class choices as well.
There is a lot of discrepency.
I have not used my definitions to define what other people have said. What I have said is that there is something that needs to be acknowledged; WotC has officially acknowledged it's space separate from classes and builds. Heroes of Shadow also has discrepencies, so what I'm trying to say here is that we know little about what is ACTUALLY going to be in that book, because we don't know what WotC means when it uses terminology like class or build.
It's a difference that the game does not care about classifying so you're trying to shoehorn one in (which is honestly fine, but it needs to be acknowledged for what it is) and trying to say that it has meaning upon the words of others (which is NOT fine. You cannot use your own definitions to determine the meaning of what someone else has said, you must use the definitions they use to be able to derive a conclusion possessed of any accuracy beyond the purely coincidental.). Wizards typically uses class to mean class, and build to denote lower level items in that hierarchy (even powers to some extent). Which means that when trying to figure out the central question of whether or not Heroes of Shadow contains classes, we need to be applying that definition to where it says "classes".
I'll ignore the blatant speculation you continued with below there - that does not meet the standard of proof to qualify as evidence.
(Interestingly, HotFL doesn't say it contains classes, but rather details on classes.)
I know what HotFL and HotFK say. They say "the version of this class." HOWEVER, D&Di has alternatively called Executioner a new class and also a new build. Same thing with Bladesinger, which was later said to be an Essentials-verson of the Swordmage, after being called a new class.
In the CharBuilder, the HotFL "versions of this class" are considered their own class choices as well.
There is a lot of discrepency.
I have not used my definitions to define what other people have said. What I have said is that there is something that needs to be acknowledged; WotC has officially acknowledged it's space separate from classes and builds. Heroes of Shadow also has discrepencies, so what I'm trying to say here is that we know little about what is ACTUALLY going to be in that book, because we don't know what WotC means when it uses terminology like class or build.
1: I have seen nothing but rumour on the subject of the Bladesinger and it being a full class versus being a build. And rumour is not evidence (Besides, even if that's the case, it doesn't mean that was the case when they first began talking about the class. Change is a very real thing.). I can't speak to the Executioner one way or another, however.
2: The CharBuilder's poorly implemented. Is this news? Is it not clear that it is an insane rush job (No? Consider all the "Day One" features that they missed. The ONLY reason to start pulling those is an impossible fixed deadline.)?
3: "Officially acknoweledged"? Gonna need a quote on that one.
It's a difference that the game does not care about classifying so you're trying to shoehorn one in (which is honestly fine, but it needs to be acknowledged for what it is) and trying to say that it has meaning upon the words of others (which is NOT fine. You cannot use your own definitions to determine the meaning of what someone else has said, you must use the definitions they use to be able to derive a conclusion possessed of any accuracy beyond the purely coincidental.). Wizards typically uses class to mean class, and build to denote lower level items in that hierarchy (even powers to some extent). Which means that when trying to figure out the central question of whether or not Heroes of Shadow contains classes, we need to be applying that definition to where it says "classes".
I'll ignore the blatant speculation you continued with below there - that does not meet the standard of proof to qualify as evidence.
(Interestingly, HotFL doesn't say it contains classes, but rather details on classes.)
I know what HotFL and HotFK say. They say "the version of this class." HOWEVER, D&Di has alternatively called Executioner a new class and also a new build. Same thing with Bladesinger, which was later said to be an Essentials-verson of the Swordmage, after being called a new class.
In the CharBuilder, the HotFL "versions of this class" are considered their own class choices as well.
There is a lot of discrepency.
I have not used my definitions to define what other people have said. What I have said is that there is something that needs to be acknowledged; WotC has officially acknowledged it's space separate from classes and builds. Heroes of Shadow also has discrepencies, so what I'm trying to say here is that we know little about what is ACTUALLY going to be in that book, because we don't know what WotC means when it uses terminology like class or build.
If I may, the primary stumbling block in the discussion is this. The mechanical differences between Essentials and previous builds has lead to the necessity of referring to them as different classes within the Character Builder for ease of use. When we take the Character Builder as the official views of the designers themselves things get muddied. The class/"sub-class"/build system is far from a rigid set of absolute rules, rather it is more loosely bound thing. I think the Druid really demonstrates this best.
Firstly you have the banner of Druid, everything under it is a druid and always will be.
Next is the first choice, wildshape or animal companion, each serves it's own role but are both druids.
From there you decide which build you want within your "sub-class", but regardless of your choice you are still a druid.
Now I think that the concept of a "class" is fairly stable, being the banner under which everything else is placed. However, it should be said that everything is technically in flux. What is intended as a full class today may become a "sub-class" tomorrow, a build the day after that, and be completely scrapped by the weekend.
I know what HotFL and HotFK say. They say "the version of this class." HOWEVER, D&Di has alternatively called Executioner a new class and also a new build. Same thing with Bladesinger, which was later said to be an Essentials-verson of the Swordmage, after being called a new class.
In the CharBuilder, the HotFL "versions of this class" are considered their own class choices as well.
There is a lot of discrepency.
I have not used my definitions to define what other people have said. What I have said is that there is something that needs to be acknowledged; WotC has officially acknowledged it's space separate from classes and builds. Heroes of Shadow also has discrepencies, so what I'm trying to say here is that we know little about what is ACTUALLY going to be in that book, because we don't know what WotC means when it uses terminology like class or build.
1: I have seen nothing but rumour on the subject of the Bladesinger and it being a full class versus being a build. And rumour is not evidence (Besides, even if that's the case, it doesn't mean that was the case when they first began talking about the class. Change is a very real thing.). I can't speak to the Executioner one way or another, however.
2: The CharBuilder's poorly implemented. Is this news? Is it not clear that it is an insane rush job (No? Consider all the "Day One" features that they missed. The ONLY reason to start pulling those is an impossible fixed deadline.)?
3: "Officially acknoweledged"? Gonna need a quote on that one.
Change is a real thing. However, the podcast in question that clarified the status of the Bladesinger came quite soon after the statement was made. Just as you can't speak about the Executioner, you can't speak to the CharBuilder, because you're not a D&Di subscriber, and are working off hear-say. The new CharBuilder is, in fact, quite well implemented, and the way they integrated classes and building walks you through it very specifically tailored to choices. The discrepencies on the Builder are quite valid.
Officially Acknowledged in that they've created a whole page dedicated with a new format just to this new choice type; officially acknowledged in that they said that they harken back to kits of earlier editions, rather than being just new builds; if you were an insider, you might be able to look these things up yourself. I'm not going to look up a quote for you for the sake of arguing. That's not the point.
My point is, WotC have not been very clear, and we don't know exactly what will be in HoS. So we can speculate, and hope, but we won't know until we start seeing previews.
Here is what I'm confused about I built a Primal Guardian Druid from the PHB 2 and now Primal Guardian is a class feature of the Sentinel Druid in Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. Does my charactor now become a Sentinal Druid since Primal Guardian is now a class feature of this build I know we're supposed to use the most update rules but this would effectively eliminate an entire set of build options
No, of course not. "Primal Guardian" is just the "Nature's Aspect" choice the Sentinel Druid gets, much like it's the (unstated) choice for Summoner Druids. They just called it Primal Guardian instead of Nature's Aspect for the purpose of simplification, and because that was the only Aspect that wasn't useless to a Druid without Wild Shape. Once the Class Compendium II comes out (I fully expect there to be at least 3 of them), I'm sure it'll have rules for swapping out Primal Guardian with one of the other Aspects, along with Wild Shape.
In fact, if they do that with more similary-ly themed classes then there will be little to no need for the Hybrid characters to exist.
My hope is that the Bladesinger will be an Essentials-style class/build that will be considered a Striker Fighter/Wizard (which would not only fit with the original story/theme of the Bladesinger in 3e, but would also allow the Bladesinger to take Utility powers from both the Fighter and Wizard lists.)
In fact, if they do that with more similary-ly themed classes then there will be little to no need for the Hybrid characters to exist.
I truly am sorry to piss on your dreams, but I really don't see it happening. At least not this edition anyway. It just doesn't gel with the design principles of 4e. Mainly because we already have the swordmage, which fills most story purposes for a spell slinging swordsman, but also the hybrid class support there already is. You may not like those rules, but it is unlikely that they will throw out the need for them after only a few months of existence. However, I will state a significant possibility that the Bladesinger may be a striker build for the Swordmage that incorporates the Martial power source. But, I would not get my heart set upon it.
In fact, if they do that with more similary-ly themed classes then there will be little to no need for the Hybrid characters to exist.
So, what, you're only permitted to hybridize the classes they bothered to print a combination of?
Screw. That.
In fact, if they do that with more similary-ly themed classes then there will be little to no need for the Hybrid characters to exist.
So, what, you're only permitted to hybridize the classes they bothered to print a combination of?
Screw. That.
That is precisely why it won't happen any time soon.
If the Bladesinger isn't a full on class instead of a build, then something is wrong. I would rather the Swordmage have a PP named "bladesinger" than a bloated build for an already existing class.
I do hope it is it's own class, but I will not be upset with it being a essential swordmage.
I built my own class blade singer Arcane striker (off leader), but after seeing the essentials, I have a new idea.
Arcane/Martial source, Martial stances (like knight and slayer, maybe even some of those), an Arcane encounter, but like th essentials, something like Blade song dance... usable multi times in the encounter (at higher levels) and it mods basic attacks... then daily's that are arcane stand alone powers...and both martial and arcane utlities to choose from.
The bladesinger will be a Swordmage sub-class, I garauntee it. It's coming out in the new FR guide, it fills the niche the SM already fills, and the BS's class features (at least the one's I've seen online) are pretty much the same as Swormage Warding. The changes of a new class, let alone a new Arcane class, coming out so soon after the switch to 4.5 is ridiculously unlikely. This just WotC taking the opportunity to update the SM to 4.5, like they'll probably do with the remaining classes in whatever replaces the ____ Power books.
.... Nothing's reaplacing anything. At all.
See this? This is why people shouldn't answer "What is Essentials" with "4.5". People start thinking Essentials stuff replaces existing stuff and/or that the Essentials stuff is non-compatible with existing material, which is wrong.
coming out so soon after the switch to 4.5 ... ... ... This just WotC taking the opportunity to update the SM to 4.5, like they'll probably do with the remaining classes in whatever replaces the ____ Power books.
Repeat after me...
There is no 4.5, there is no 4.5, there is no 4.5.
All the releases thus far can and do work with one another. The hope, for HoS and Neverwinter, is that the old class with new builds isn't the only way to have new "classes" for future releases, but that these products will actually have new class(es) within their pages. If the current essentials builds bleed over to the non-essentials product, then I beleive it will have a negative effect on their sales.
I don't want the Bladesinger to be regulated down to being a "build" of another class, and I don't want other classes with new builds with a splash of Shadow thrown in for the HoS either. I doubt there are many out there that do. I am looking for the long awaited Necromancer, not a specialized school for the still memming Wizard. I want my Illusionist (fat chance there), my Shadow Dancer that isn't named Assassin, my dark knight (whatever it ends up being called).
My disappointment right now is it is looking more likely that I won't get them, and Wizards won't get my money.
Blackguard is a striker build for the Paladin.
Necromancy is a school for the Mage (as anything otherwise would be utterly moronic...).
Also listed is a Nethermancy school. Interesting.
Well, the new In the Works showed us a couple things.
Blackguard is a striker build for the Paladin.
Necromancy is a school for the Mage (as anything otherwise would be utterly moronic...).
Also listed is a Nethermancy school. Interesting.
And these seem to be new builds for Essentials classes. What was that talk about "10 Essentials products, and that's it"? Seems like good old classic 4e builds are as good as dead when it comes to new products that WotC churns out. Another instance of lying and misdirection.
I will be the first to admit I have had a long history of loving necromancers far, far to much in D&D, showhorning them into any game I could in previous editions. The necro is just an iconic thing, something about mastery over the dead is interesting to us as humans on a primal level, certainly more than any of the other old specializations (how many of those got their own complete "blue" book in 2ed?).
I must agree with Crystix, a crappy (and that necro pet is crappy by any standard) as my level 5 daily (unless that is PURE bonus, i.e. I still get a real level 5 Daily AND this - which I doubt) is completely uninspiring.
"Fear my legions of the dead! Okay, nevermind that, fear this crappy shadow skeleton thing that will kind of stand around and maybe do something but probably just cost me a healing surge when it dies to a Blast/Burst attack incidentally!"
I am not judging it all yet and I hope beyond hope it will still be good, but as I said, I am not liking what I am seeing (it also hurts the nethermancy (which doesn't have NEAR the grokability and history of necromancy) has a better pet (though still, not great).
While the hound can't take an OA, he does necrotic damage (that's a negative), he does impose an attack penalty onto an enemy and he can backfire heavily on the party (as heavily obscured squares offer concealment to your enemies as well). The hound is more mobile though, because phasing let's you run through any manner of walls and objects you want.
Well, the new In the Works showed us a couple things.
Blackguard is a striker build for the Paladin.
Necromancy is a school for the Mage (as anything otherwise would be utterly moronic...).
Also listed is a Nethermancy school. Interesting.
Uh ... no. Necromancers as a school is moronic. Expected, but moronic. And utterly limited.
Sadly, this pretty much confirms that there are no new pure Shadow classes - they're all just going to be builds for the other sources. What a load of crap.
Actually the nethermancers pet is strictly worse by your complaints. For one, it has less HP as it's only your surge value, while the Necromancers undead skeleton gets your bloodied value. In addition the hound cannot make opportunity attacks (note the complete lack of a MBA power) and it deals necrotic damage (which is a weak energy type for various reasons). So the skeleton if unremarkable has solid physical damage, prevents the target from shifting (helping hold it next to a defender) and has decent summon level HP (plus has an opportunity attack for enemies that move away).
While the hound can't take an OA, he does necrotic damage (that's a negative), he does impose an attack penalty onto an enemy and he can backfire heavily on the party (as heavily obscured squares offer concealment to your enemies as well). The hound is more mobile though, because phasing let's you run through any manner of walls and objects you want.
considering the pyromancer could ignore fire resistance and, with the help of a feat that reduced fire immunity to fire resistance, it could kill anything with fire, I think it's likely the nethermancer and the necromancer will be able to ignore necrotic resistances. Although if you are in a campaign facing off against the undead there are probably better classes to choose from.
Actually the nethermancers pet is strictly worse by your complaints. For one, it has less HP as it's only your surge value, while the Necromancers undead skeleton gets your bloodied value.
I wonder if they intended to give it Insubstantial to make up for reduced HP, and just forgot to add it to the stat block. That is consistent with the creature type anyway. If that were the case, it would be interesting from an optimization point of view, since there are far more ways to boost surge value than bloodied value.
Note that the shadow beast really needs to be able to make a melee basic, at least when charging - otherwise, its extra speed on a charge is completely wasted.
Finally, as crappy as these pets are, we can't underestimate the fact that they have the potential to live through more than one encounter, unlike any other existing summong (except for the Cavalier's mount, which is also awesome). Keeping them alive doesn't seem that easy, though, unless necro/nethermancers REALLY invest in defensive options.
Well, the new In the Works showed us a couple things.
Blackguard is a striker build for the Paladin.
Necromancy is a school for the Mage (as anything otherwise would be utterly moronic...).
Also listed is a Nethermancy school. Interesting.
Uh ... no. Necromancers as a school is moronic. Expected, but moronic. And utterly limited.
Sadly, this pretty much confirms that there are no new pure Shadow classes - they're all just going to be builds for the other sources. What a load of crap.
Not true, think back to Player's Handbook 3. Some people were somehow expecting only classes that had power points, and their expectations proved incorrect. The initial class books gave each class two builds, so far we've only seen three of the builds in Heroes of Shadow. It's not to far of a stretch that they could have one genuinely new class rather than just new builds for older classes. However it should be stated that there is nothing wrong with them just creating new build for existing classes. Do you remember the unholy clusterf#@* that was the 3.5 class lineup?
Although if you are in a campaign facing off against the undead there are probably better classes to choose from.
Isn't that conceptually rather stupid, though? I mean, if you're going up against legions of undead, having an ally who has spent a lifetime (or longer...) studying the damn things and knows their strengths and weaknesses and how to command them seems like it should be a really good idea to me.
If you're going up against a goblinoid army, a friendly cleric of Bane is probably an advantage. A drow exile should be an asset when foiling the plots of a high priestess of Lolth. A half-orc barbarian who understands orcish language and culture should be a useful ally when taking on an orc horde. So why the hell should an allied necromancer be a liability when facing a vampire lord?
* This needs to be ranted about more. The book is "Heroes of Shadow" and from what can be seen so far I cannot use it to make a purely shadow hero. The fluff is paraphrased as "arcane characters need careful study, divine characters need devotion to a deity, shadow characters just need to surrender". Except that every shadow character in the book also seems to be a studious arcane wizard or devoted divine paladin, so I guess shadow doesn't just require surrender, huh? Ugh.
The Shadow Power Source: great fluff and iconic archetypes squandered on lackluster builds for non-shadow classes.
I don't even know where to begin expressing how dissapointed I am. When this book was announced it was an automatic purchase for me. Now not only am I not pre-ordering it, but I may not buy it at all. Making this book just ridiculously cool should have been easy to the point of the bloody thing writing itself. I can't say that it's worse than anticipated - this is pretty much what I expected after the bad omens started showing. Even so, I'm still flabbergasted to see it fumbled so completely. Heroes of Shadow is shaping up to be my biggest D&D dissapointment ever.
I agree the necromancer has enough flavour and fans to warrant its own shadow class but on the other hand it was never its own class in any earlier edition so this isn't really a step backwards, particularly if there are decent enough paragon paths. The shadowcaster class could still sneak in as a nethermancer or might be a warlock pact or a class in its own right. If there were new classes you would have thought they would have teased us with one early on. Interesting though.
it would mean that the assassin is the only true (single power source) shadow class.
The assassin which was already confirmed to have no new content in this book, though this preview says otherwise again, so we once again have no idea. Also, will we see anything for the original assassin? It seems more likely at this point that any new assassin material will be directed at the executioner, which is again not a pure shadow class. In fact, it's hardly a shadow class at all.
I mean, the shadow-caster, the spellcaster specifically themed to drawing out and manipulating shadowstuff, is an arcane wizard now. If that isn't an abandonment of the Shadow Power Source as as a concept, I don't know what is. They couldn't have dropped shadow harder without retroactively erasing existing content.
I agree the necromancer has enough flavour and fans to warrant its own shadow class but on the other hand it was never its own class in any earlier edition so this isn't really a step backwards, particularly if there are decent enough paragon paths.
It's a step backward from the design philosophy of the 4e preview books, which specifically called out necromancer as a wizard specialty to be spun out into its own class. It's a step backward from the Dread Necromancer of latter day 3.5, from when they were spinning out caster concepts into their own classes, rather then every distinct concept being another half dozen wizard spells, a gimmick I'm terribly dissapointed to see returning.
The shadowcaster class could still sneak in as a nethermancer or might be a warlock pact or a class in its own right. If there were new classes you would have thought they would have teased us with one early on. Interesting though.
Somehow I'm not excited to see both the necromancer and the shadowcaster reduced to spooky flavored wizards with lackluster summons and powers all gimped by the second worst damage type in the game. Yeah, there will probably be feats to mitigate the suckitude of necrotic - hopefully not limited to particular builds as the infernal hexblade needs it too - but those are feats that characters with good damage types would have spent to get even better.
The only thing interesting to me is realizing how much of my enjoyment of 4e to this point came with the disclaimer that I was just spinning my wheels, patiently waiting for the Shadow Power Source that I read about in the preview books - the content that I actually was interested in but now will not see in this edition of D&D.
And there seem to be all sorts of misprints already. The shadow beast should probably be insubstantial, and should probably be able to charge. The blackguard should probably be divine and shadow, not just divine. These are some pretty obvious mistakes, hopefully the material gets cleaned up before it goes to the printer. Even so, copy-editing won't fix the fundamental conceptual mistakes.
Look at it this way: The Blackguard isn't even Shadow. What does this mean? We can relegate the Blackguard to somewhere like the Runepriest or the Seeker. There is NO evidence WHATSOEVER that we will NOT get a pure shadow class amidst all these Dark Pact Hexblades (predicted/10), Necromancy and Nethermancy school Mages, and whatnot. In fact, the presence of a class kit (Blackguard) that isn't shadow at all, is heartening.
Don't stop believing until we start seeing more previews. They've only given us some select concepts from a book that is the successor to the Player's Handbook series.
Also, whoever said that Mage was pigeonholed and restricted needs to get his or her glasses/eyes checked and then read Heroes of the Fallen Lands again. The Mage is a far superior, more versatile, and overall better-at-its-job version of the Wizard. Necromancy and Nethermancy will be joining a really solid class.
There is NO evidence WHATSOEVER that we will NOT get a pure shadow class amidst all these Dark Pact Hexblades (predicted/10), Necromancy and Nethermancy school Mages, and whatnot.
Hopefully this is true. While I think Necromancy as a school is a really good idea, it seems they turned the shadow caster into a Mage school as well. And that isn't a good idea. Hopefully we will see stuff like what they have been doing with primal, making some half-power source classes (Hunter and Scout) and a full-power source class (Sentinel). I just wonder what that full class will be.
Don't stop believing until we start seeing more previews. They've only given us some select concepts from a book that is the successor to the Player's Handbook series.
Indeed, lets not make snap judgements based on others (and our own) speculation.
I like the Essentials line, but I too am hoping for a stand alone Necromancer class as well as a unnique Shadow power source mechanic. My namesake 'Quizzit' was my favorate character that I played back in the 2ed days. I reincarnated him in 3.5, and hope to do so again in 4e, with out the need to simply reflavor.
What Shadow classes do you possibly think there could be?
As for mage not being limited - perhaps not. but a mage necromancer certainly is, since he can't cash in on the variety available to wizards without sacrificing his necromancy options. I can see it now:
"I'm a necromancer, but all my powers are radient because the radient wizard powers are better, and I'd be worthless against undead if I took the necrotic necromancy powers. Also, I can't animate the dead because the level five daily summon was terrible, and I would have been gimping myself to take it over something else."
Also he has to take the mage paragon path or he stops getting school bonuses. I thought the whole idea of paragon paths was they were something extra, so you didn't have to be less of your base class in order to take a prestige class.
And that's ignoring the Blackguard, which judging from the Cavalier actually will be pretty restricted.
The Dark Knight is a paladin build named Blackguard. The Hexblade is a Warlock build. The Necromancer is a Wizard specialty. The Shadowcaster is a wizard specialty named nethermancy. the Shadow Dancer is a gimped DDI exclusive class confirmed by developers to not be appearing in this book.
What Shadow classes do you possibly think there could be?
As for mage not being limited - perhaps not. but a mage necromancer certainly is, since he can't cash in on the variety available to wizards without sacrificing his necromancy options. I can see it now:
"I'm a necromancer, but all my powers are radient because the radient wizard powers are better. Also, I can't animate the dead because the level five daily summon was terrible, and I would have been gimping myself to take it over something else."
Also he has to take the mage paragon path or he stops getting school bonuses. I thought the whole idea of paragon paths was they were something extra, so you didn't have to be less of your base class in order to take a prestige class.
And that's ignoring the Blackguard, which judging from the Cavalier actually will be pretty restricted.
Cavalier wasn't that restricted (more than Mage and Warpriest, but far less than Knight and Slayer).
Also, remember that you can choose Nethermancy for your back-up spells/hexes. (On a side-note, what do you call a power that's multi-sourced? I call primal powers evocations, arcane powers spells, but if something is both arcane and shadow, what is that? A Sphexell?) In any case, you can use those. Oh, and Transmutation school will almost CERTAINLY come before March, and those sorts of spells may be something you might want to draw on. Or Illusion spells, maybe. Whatever fits your character. Radiant evocations are only a small portion of the wizards' spell list, and if you're playing a Necromancer, hopefully your DM isn't evil enough to constantly send you to the Shadowfell to fight legions of undead. Or else, we need an article for Necrotic similar to the BURN EVERYTHING article for Fire damage. I know that my party's pyromancer liked that article a lot.
"What Shadow classes do you possibly think there could be?" is the same question that denies that Elemental will ever be a Power Source. I don't buy it. I doubt many people expected the Seeker, the Avenger, or the Battlemind, and yet, those classes exist. And they have iconic, archetypal power. WotC are paid to think up new classes, new concepts that will resonate with us. I'm not paid to do that, so it's not my place.
Also, Hexblade being eaten by Warlocks doesn't eliminate the possibilities of a 3.5e-type Hexblade, with a different name, as a Shadow defender. Actually, the fact that Blackguards aren't even Divine and Shadow gives even more hope, because they're not rolling the shadow defender into that. And Blackguards get to be what they should be – strikers.
Blackguard is a paladin build
Necromancy is a wizard school
Nethermancy (shadow beast) is a wizard school
There's a preview up in december and beyond.
Blackguard is a paladin build
Necromancy is a wizard school
Nethermancy (shadow beast) is a wizard school
Which is what we've been discussing for the last four pages, mellored (not meant as an attack ;) )
Note I'm not saying it's all necessarily changing for the worst, but denying there's been any change at all seems really naive to me. I mean, does it REALLY take them writing 4.5 on the game cover for everyone to agree that it's a new edition? Are you going to wait until the new Heroes of ___ come out and present "updated" versions of all the PHB2 and 3 classes in the "updated" format? Or are you going to wait until the only new content given to 4.0 classes are feats and powers that are either equally useful to 4.0 and 4.5 classes, or articles in Dragon?
Or maybe when the Elemental "Source" turns out to be sub-classes of Arcane classes, just like the Shadow "source" is now (with one undersupported exception) dead and replaced with a wizard with a skull fetish, and a Warlock who thinks he's the Batman.
There's a preview up in december and beyond.
Blackguard is a paladin build
Necromancy is a wizard school
Nethermancy (shadow beast) is a wizard school
To be more accurate
Blackguard is a CAVELIER build,
Necor/Nethermancy are MAGE schools.
Essentials ate the shadow powersource, just as I wish I wasn't right about.
There's a preview up in december and beyond.
Blackguard is a paladin build
Necromancy is a wizard school
Nethermancy (shadow beast) is a wizard school
To be more accurate
Blackguard is a CAVELIER build,
Necor/Nethermancy are MAGE schools.
Essentials ate the shadow powersource, just as I wish I wasn't right about.
No, Blackguard is NOT a Cavalier build. Mounted Cavaliers is a Cavalier build.
Blackguard is a Paladin build, just as Weaponmaster is a fighter build (representing all fighters but Knights and Slayers) and Cavalier is a Paladin build.
Blackguards are the antitheses of Cavaliers.
Essentials goes hand in hand with what already happened. Just because they talked about Blackguards in Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms doesn't make Blackguard a Cavalier build. That's like saying that a Hunter is a Scout build, rather than both being builds of the Ranger.
"Am I so disappointed that I'm going to give up 4e altogether."
and
"If not, do I have the effort / is it worth the time for me to homebrew the Shadow power source done right as a fan project."
The former is a toughy. I've been waiting for HoS for two years, and seeing it as it is has been a massive blow to my moral. I play D&D for fun, this preview, even though I was bracing myself for it, has sucked most of the fun out of D&D for me, and I'm not sure what if anything is left. This on top of the sad state of DDI, and just not liking a lot of essentials (the random treasure, the rarity system, the e-martial classes).
The latter question depends first on the former being answered in the positive, and second on whether anybody else has any interest in doing something like that, or would care to see the results. I'm certainly not going to write an entire D&D book as a fan project purely for my own enjoyment.
The only questions left for me are:
"Am I so disappointed that I'm going to give up 4e altogether."
and
"If not, do I have the effort / is it worth the time for me to homebrew the Shadow power source done right as a fan project."
The former is a toughy. I've been waiting for HoS for two years, and seeing it as it is has been a massive blow to my moral. I play D&D for fun, this preview, even though I was bracing myself for it, has sucked most of the fun out of D&D for me, and I'm not sure what if anything is left. This on top of the sad state of DDI, and just not liking a lot of essentials (the random treasure, the rarity system, the e-martial classes).
The latter question depends first on the former being answered in the positive, and second on whether anybody else has any interest in doing something like that, or would care to see the results. I'm certainly not going to write an entire D&D book as a fan project purely for my own enjoyment.
Aren't you jumping the gun a bit, malisteen? The book isn't out yet. It might fulfill your hopes IN ADDITION to having these things. You never know until it's released. And there's 3 months to go, still.
As well as races, feats, and the like supporting the new power source which to be honest isn't all that new as it was used as part of a Warlord PP all the way back in the Manual of the Planes.
Actually, the shadow power source is even older than that, as the Umbriri swordmage PP in Forgotten Realms Player's Guide (released three months before MotP) has arcane/shadow powers.
@ Marandahir: You're kidding right? You actually think it's gonig to have a shadow necromancer and a necromancer build for the mage? A dark knight class and a blackguard paladin build? That's beyond optimism and wishful thinking. That's self delusion. The preview's up, it is what it is.
Necromancer and Dark Knight aren't the only shadow concepts. Shadow classes could well be in the book. You can say, "I told you so" when the book comes out, if I'm wrong. Until then, don't make assumptions.
You're kidding right? You actually think it's gonig to have a shadow necromancer and a necromancer build for the mage? A dark knight class and a blackguard paladin build? That's beyond optimism and wishful thinking. That's self delusion. The preview's up, it is what it is.
Just as a point of fact:
You are making an assumption of what is not in HoS based on what is not in one preview.
One could make the argument that your statments are beyond pessimism.
Where are all these shadow archetypes you're seeing that aren't already accounted for, albeit in lackluster fashion?
Necromancers where always a wizard build.
Hexblades could of been a different class.
Not 4.5 indeed...
Make it 4.E
People don't like half a thing.
Not 4.5 indeed...
Make it 4.E
People don't like half a thing.
Perhaps they shouldn't BUILD half a thing?
Not 4.5 indeed...
Make it 4.E
People don't like half a thing.
Perhaps they shouldn't BUILD half a thing?
I won't go there.
Let's show Wizards the mistake they made by abandoning the Shadow source, by proving to them that the archetypes they've shoddily slapped together are strong enough to endure!
My only real concern is how these builds/subclasses are going to deal with Necrotic resistance, which is very common among enemies in this game. Esepcially the Blackguard, a Striker.
Did I miss the part where they announced a new Defender and Leader? Also if they don't have a controller class I'd assume the Necro/Nether Mage builds to be quite extensive. So far in both the paperback books we've gotten 5 classes/builds, an announcement on 2 of them isn't enough to discount what the rest might be. (and since I doubt they'll reprint a lot of basic character creation stuff we have even more room for new classes/races/feats/awesome stuff.)
So the Necromancer's 5th level summon isn't amazing who knows what else we'll get that is though? I'm hoping for a new take on the Defender, an all impliment using Defender who has shadow auras, and can manifest 'shadow armor' to give him buffs/impedes his opponents?
This is disappointing. The Shadow Power Source is dead.
so everyone who has do to the preview of 1 class, and 2 new options for a class declared all the classes in HoS decided.
Did I miss the part where they announced a new Defender and Leader? Also if they don't have a controller class I'd assume the Necro/Nether Mage builds to be quite extensive. So far in both the paperback books we've gotten 5 classes/builds, an announcement on 2 of them isn't enough to discount what the rest might be. (and since I doubt they'll reprint a lot of basic character creation stuff we have even more room for new classes/races/feats/awesome stuff.)
So the Necromancer's 5th level summon isn't amazing who knows what else we'll get that is though? I'm hoping for a new take on the Defender, an all impliment using Defender who has shadow auras, and can manifest 'shadow armor' to give him buffs/impedes his opponents?
That's the point, there won't be a new defender and leader class. Every named concept for a shadow class has already been annouced to be something different. Instead, they'll publish necrotic powers for other classes like Warpriest to fill the space. Not to mention being essentialized every minor feature will get a paragraph of fluff and every power twice the normal amount of flavor text.
So that is it, then. The Shadow Power Source only has one half class (Assassin) and nothing else.
This is disappointing. The Shadow Power Source is dead.
We're talking about resurrecting it. Look at the link I posted above.
That's the point, there won't be a new defender and leader class. Every named concept for a shadow class has already been annouced to be something different. Instead, they'll publish necrotic powers for other classes like Warpriest to fill the space.
And I'm totally fine with this. Class overload was really starting to get out of hand after the PHB3. Many of these concepts could and should easily be folded into existing classes.
Not to mention being essentialized every minor feature will get a paragraph of fluff and every power twice the normal amount of flavor text.
Meh, the flavor text isn't THAT obtrusive in the Essentials products, and I'm as pro-crunch a guy as there is.
The Shadow Power Source is dead.
Though i think your missing the fact that the spell does have the shadow keyword.
Again, we barely know what's in the book. Would you declare someone dead and throw her in the morgue before you knew for certain? I wouldn't.
Yes, it's certainly worth hoping that they made the most absolutly moronic selection of previews possible.
1) Wizards is clueless about how to present material to their fans.
2) Essentials semi-builds are their intended future path, and the shadow power source is defunct.
Neither are exactly inspiring.
It's not a bad decision at all as some here are trying to make it quite frankly. I never felt the Necromancer warranted its own class anyway (there I went and said it).
Some of the whining in this thread is beyond hilarious.
My only real concern is how these builds/subclasses are going to deal with Necrotic resistance, which is very common among enemies in this game. Esepcially the Blackguard, a Striker.
Perhaps it will achieve it by bypassing Necrotic Resistance similar to how Poisoner Assassin do it with Poison. But instead of Feat tax in disguise, this could be baked into the Build....
To be brutally honest I think they are making the right decision by publishing no new true classes. They've already shown an inability to support anything beyond the original five PHB classes anywhere near consistently. How many more "Runepriests" and "Seekers" that are dead, forgotten classes that will never see the significant support they need to come up to par with other classes options do we need in 4E? Keeping these as builds of other classes gives them access to all the support and options of available classes, while being their own builds lets them be mechanically distinct from what came before.
It's not a bad decision at all as some here are trying to make it quite frankly. I never felt the Necromancer warranted its own class anyway (there I went and said it).
What the hell? We agree on something?
What the hell? We agree on something?
It frightens me as well, I assure you.
But better options for players means more variety in classes/builds at the game table, which means a healthier game overall. Poorly supported classes that end up wallowing in their own mediocrity since release and have no future support anywhere in sight? We can do without that now.
"support" indeed. The Wizards will end up being the most supported class in this edition.
That's the point, there won't be a new defender and leader class. Every named concept for a shadow class has already been annouced to be something different. Instead, they'll publish necrotic powers for other classes like Warpriest to fill the space. Not to mention being essentialized every minor feature will get a paragraph of fluff and every power twice the normal amount of flavor text.
Wait, so if they haven't mentioned the name of a class yet for a book 3 months from now then it doesn't exist? So what is going to be in the book then? It doesn't seem like a big flavor book since the Shadowfell is getting it's own book soon.
There are feats that will most likely be more genaric instead of specified for the builds in the book or for the (now axed) Shadow power source. Magical items, fluff, and new EQ, plus some oblictory reference to the game being centered around Heroes.
Really, are we that far off the mark?
To be brutally honest I think they are making the right decision by publishing no new true classes. They've already shown an inability to support anything beyond the original five PHB classes anywhere near consistently. How many more "Runepriests" and "Seekers" that are dead, forgotten classes that will never see the significant support they need to come up to par with other classes options do we need in 4E? Keeping these as builds of other classes gives them access to all the support and options of available classes, while being their own builds lets them be mechanically distinct from what came before.
Runepriests and seekers were bland and flavourless even as concepts, so it's no wonder they haven't gotten any support, and I don't mind if they ever won't. However, necromancers and blackguards are iconic fantasy characters, which could easily support entire classes of their own. I'm very disappointed that we don't seem to get them.
To be brutally honest I think they are making the right decision by publishing no new true classes. They've already shown an inability to support anything beyond the original five PHB classes anywhere near consistently. How many more "Runepriests" and "Seekers" that are dead, forgotten classes that will never see the significant support they need to come up to par with other classes options do we need in 4E? Keeping these as builds of other classes gives them access to all the support and options of available classes, while being their own builds lets them be mechanically distinct from what came before.
Runepriests and seekers were bland and flavourless even as concepts, so it's no wonder they haven't gotten any support, and I don't mind if they ever won't. However, necromancers and blackguards are iconic fantasy characters, which could easily support entire classes of their own. I'm very disappointed that we don't seem to get them.
I like Runepriests and Seekers. They are weak, weak concepts, but I like them. Though really, WotC would have been better off just giving us Psionics in the PHB3. And I agree, I like the idea of independent Shadow Power Source classes.
To be brutally honest I think they are making the right decision by publishing no new true classes. They've already shown an inability to support anything beyond the original five PHB classes anywhere near consistently. How many more "Runepriests" and "Seekers" that are dead, forgotten classes that will never see the significant support they need to come up to par with other classes options do we need in 4E? Keeping these as builds of other classes gives them access to all the support and options of available classes, while being their own builds lets them be mechanically distinct from what came before.
Runepriests and seekers were bland and flavourless even as concepts, so it's no wonder they haven't gotten any support, and I don't mind if they ever won't. However, necromancers and blackguards are iconic fantasy characters, which could easily support entire classes of their own. I'm very disappointed that we don't seem to get them.
I like Runepriests and Seekers. They are weak, weak concepts, but I like them. Though really, WotC would have been better off just giving us Psionics in the PHB3. And I agree, I like the idea of independent Shadow Power Source classes.
The Runepriest in some ways ties back to the Illumians in 3.5. And I really quite liked the Illumians, SO. As I recall, it ties back to the Words of Creation? Rather interesting implications.
The Seeker is interesting, both in terms of its relation to game mechanics (RBA encounters and dailies can go in so many interesting directions) and its relation to the Primal Spirits, the way in which it seems to directly channel them/their power into its weapons is really rather interesting.
Today's preview makes it look like I was wrong and Malisteen was right two months ago. I am disappointed. However, the DDi/online-only-CB debacle that has occurred since then means that I am not as surprised as I would otherwise have been. WotC seem to be working extra hard to turn me into a cynical, pessimistic 'hater' lately.
Same here. While I wasn't turned away by Essentials (I like Essentials for the most part), pretty much everything they've done in the most couple of months has made me want to leave DnD for a good long while more and more.
To be brutally honest I think they are making the right decision by publishing no new true classes. They've already shown an inability to support anything beyond the original five PHB classes anywhere near consistently. How many more "Runepriests" and "Seekers" that are dead, forgotten classes that will never see the significant support they need to come up to par with other classes options do we need in 4E? Keeping these as builds of other classes gives them access to all the support and options of available classes, while being their own builds lets them be mechanically distinct from what came before.
Runepriests and seekers were bland and flavourless even as concepts, so it's no wonder they haven't gotten any support, and I don't mind if they ever won't. However, necromancers and blackguards are iconic fantasy characters, which could easily support entire classes of their own. I'm very disappointed that we don't seem to get them.
I like Runepriests and Seekers. They are weak, weak concepts, but I like them. Though really, WotC would have been better off just giving us Psionics in the PHB3. And I agree, I like the idea of independent Shadow Power Source classes.
The Runepriest in some ways ties back to the Illumians in 3.5. And I really quite liked the Illumians, SO. As I recall, it ties back to the Words of Creation? Rather interesting implications.
The Seeker is interesting, both in terms of its relation to game mechanics (RBA encounters and dailies can go in so many interesting directions) and its relation to the Primal Spirits, the way in which it seems to directly channel them/their power into its weapons is really rather interesting.
I never said they were uninteresting, they are very interesting. But they are still weak. They have interesting implications, but it feels like the excecution was a bit off. They are classes that read more like flavour than solid mechanics. And flavour is all well and good, but if the two do not support each other, there's nothing to make a class interesting.
To be brutally honest I think they are making the right decision by publishing no new true classes. They've already shown an inability to support anything beyond the original five PHB classes anywhere near consistently. How many more "Runepriests" and "Seekers" that are dead, forgotten classes that will never see the significant support they need to come up to par with other classes options do we need in 4E? Keeping these as builds of other classes gives them access to all the support and options of available classes, while being their own builds lets them be mechanically distinct from what came before.
Runepriests and seekers were bland and flavourless even as concepts, so it's no wonder they haven't gotten any support, and I don't mind if they ever won't. However, necromancers and blackguards are iconic fantasy characters, which could easily support entire classes of their own. I'm very disappointed that we don't seem to get them.
I like Runepriests and Seekers. They are weak, weak concepts, but I like them. Though really, WotC would have been better off just giving us Psionics in the PHB3. And I agree, I like the idea of independent Shadow Power Source classes.
The Runepriest in some ways ties back to the Illumians in 3.5. And I really quite liked the Illumians, SO. As I recall, it ties back to the Words of Creation? Rather interesting implications.
The Seeker is interesting, both in terms of its relation to game mechanics (RBA encounters and dailies can go in so many interesting directions) and its relation to the Primal Spirits, the way in which it seems to directly channel them/their power into its weapons is really rather interesting.
I never said they were uninteresting, they are very interesting. But they are still weak. They have interesting implications, but it feels like the excecution was a bit off. They are classes that read more like flavour than solid mechanics. And flavour is all well and good, but if the two do not support each other, there's nothing to make a class interesting.
Oh, yeah, the Seeker's dissappointing on the power scale aside from some edge cases (like, say, a Half-Elf Seeker/Rogue that takes Twin Strike, Two-Fisted Shooter, and crit-fishes) or some great leader support. I'd say they're among the top of the "under-supported, write more stuff for them!" list, really.
The only questions left for me are:
"Am I so disappointed that I'm going to give up 4e altogether."
and
"If not, do I have the effort / is it worth the time for me to homebrew the Shadow power source done right as a fan project."
Well, I homebrewed a Dark Knight class (based on Final Fantasy) and a Ninja class (main class feature - flurry of shuriken, minor action, small amount of damage and slow target until end of your next turn, slide target 1, or cause target to grant combat advantage until the end of your next turn) some time ago...
The first problem can be fixed easily enough by spitting out a good thrown weapon (is it really that hard to say "superior one-handed range 8/15 +3 1d8 heavy thrown spear"?)
What's wrong with the Tratnyr in Adventurer's Vault? That's a 10/20 +2 1d8 heavy thrown versatile spear.
There may still be full classes, or they may all be essentials builds, or some new thing that is in between the two... however it turns out, we'll just have to wait and see... of course they are going to give shadow flavor to existing classes, that is kind of the point, but what else it may contain is anybodies guess (unless they are on the inside, and they aren't going to tell us anyways)...
I want Shadow Classes, not Arcane and Divine classes with a touch of shadow trickery.
The problem with the "builds" is that it isn't using the Shadow Power Source as is suggested by the title of the product. The problem is that a new Power Source (Shadow) shouldn't be regulated to an exclusive class in the DDi and half assed builds in the book that introduces it.
I want Shadow Classes, not Arcane and Divine classes with a touch of shadow trickery.
That is absolutely understandable, heck I would be ecstatic to see a new class with just the Shadow power source even if it wasn't all that interesting fluff wise or particularly unique in mechanics. But if I were to have to choose between at most 4 new yet less defined classes or quite a few new options for other classes that are more than viable and even interesting. But yeah, ideally I think we'd all prefer a solid base for Shadow rather than just the chocolate swirl ice cream that they have shown so far. But the pessimism of assuming there won't be any actual classes is kind of sad.
Okay so I just read the Essentials classes in the compendium and I honestly don't see why people are so negative about the builds we get in Heroes of Shadow. I have to say that Essentials was an improvement. Of course I liked the 3.5 linear progression style but hated all the excess number crunching, so really it's cool that they adopted it into 4e. Also, wouldn't you rather have a well thought out and genuinely good build than a half assed, thrown together full class that won't get the support that they deserve? I like what they are doing with the Necromancer and Nethermancer, sure they need more work but that can be said of any class. That is why we have Errata.
But for those of us that want full classes and less edition bleeding, their preview for Heroes of Shadow follows up a disappointing showing within the class options for Essentials.
Circumstantial, I know, but we foresee what WotC has been telling us will be.
... when was the last time you saw Essentials products mixed with old products?
Heroes of Sword and Spell.
... when was the last time you saw Essentials products mixed with old products?
Heroes of Sword and Spell.
You foresee the future?! Quick, tell me tonight's winning Mega Millions numbers!
< /jest>
In all seriousness, the way I view that upcoming product is a method to convert just about everything in the past to their current methods. Kind of a phasing-out product if you will. However, just as many have pointed out in this thread, we have no evidence of what, yet, will be included in said product. We have a summary that states how the "old classes" can access the new features and the new classes can access "old powers", most likely (read: my opinion) in the form of a simple "mix and match".
That still only leaves the products that we've seen so far as our only source of evidence.
... when was the last time you saw Essentials products mixed with old products?
Heroes of Sword and Spell.
This proves my point. That product is their effort to tastefully homogenize everything. Will any full class that could potentially be in Heroes of Shadow look exactly like they did back in the first Player's Handbook? Absolutely not, that is a given but it would be a full class.
... when was the last time you saw Essentials products mixed with old products?
Heroes of Sword and Spell.
You foresee the future?! Quick, tell me tonight's winning Mega Millions numbers!
< /jest>
In all seriousness, the way I view that upcoming product is a method to convert just about everything in the past to their current methods. Kind of a phasing-out product if you will. However, just as many have pointed out in this thread, we have no evidence of what, yet, will be included in said product. We have a summary that states how the "old classes" can access the new features and the new classes can access "old powers", most likely (read: my opinion) in the form of a simple "mix and match".
That still only leaves the products that we've seen so far as our only source of evidence.
I take it you haven't seen the Weaponmaster preview, then? The fighter stuff printed in Sword and Spell is the PHB1 fighter - not kinda sort of like it, but a direct, mechanically identical reproduction (they happen to write it with a level chart, with entries for "Encounter Power" and the like at the normal spots, which is to be expected as that's their new standard form for the writing of builds.).
Conclusion: Sword and Spell doesn't change the design of these classes, rather, it takes the Essentials module and attach it properly to the rest of the game.
However, it still has not caused my view to be changed regarding the Heroes of Shadow. I still see the Sword and Spell as simply providing an "update" from the PHB1-3 + Powers to allow for mingling of old material (not to be further expanded upon any more) to the essentials build shoehorning. Heroes of Shadow has been shown to be creating... duh duh duh duhhhh!... new builds. For already existing classes. The people in this thread are correct: There is no guarantee that no COMPLETELY new classes won't show up, but it's not looking favorable. And if it is, will this "new class" utilize any of the old rules? Picking powers per level, not being assigned class features with a few minor choices here or there.
You are correct, I did miss the Weaponmaster preview (odds are I stopped reading after the section where the CB went web-based). It alleviates some concern... about that particular book. It does bring up the redundancy factor, though. I already have a PHB1, PHB2, and PHB3. Do I need to get another copy with a few alterations to it JUST to attempt to clarify some rules?
However, it still has not caused my view to be changed regarding the Heroes of Shadow. I still see the Sword and Spell as simply providing an "update" from the PHB1-3 + Powers to allow for mingling of old material (not to be further expanded upon any more) to the essentials build shoehorning. Heroes of Shadow has been shown to be creating... duh duh duh duhhhh!... new builds. For already existing classes. The people in this thread are correct: There is no guarantee that no COMPLETELY new classes won't show up, but it's not looking favorable. And if it is, will this "new class" utilize any of the old rules? Picking powers per level, not being assigned class features with a few minor choices here or there.
A couple of things here:
1) You can see it that way, but there's nothing establishing that. HOWEVER: They have to change things up at some point, there's only so much you can do with only one singular design scheme. Moving off of that, however, doesn't have to mean extremely restricted lockstep builds, either.
2) It could go either way, honestly - I wouldn't overestimate the cross-applicability of such a small amount of information.
wait so how many choices do you need to be non-minor? The poor Artificer, Runepriest, and Seeker still only have about 4 each level. The Mage/Warpriest have tons the martials have tons for each utility power, the new druid build also has tons each level. So, some classes will have assigned class features and some will have powers. Personally I like a mix. The class features really help the E-classes stand apart from the others, whether that is good or not is a matter of choice. But I find many of the AWEUD classes to feel very samey mechanically.
AWEUD? (Sorry, bit late and my mind's fuzzy)
And by "minor choices", I'm referring to where the classes have three, maybe four utility powers at one level and must choose one of them when they reach the appropriate level. The point is, building your character with planning is not a bad thing... Essentials so far shoehorns everything, with very few choices in-between. Inarai, above, has shown that there may be some interesting combinations coming up, but it still feels that the multitude of powers from before will be left to the wayside in lieu of the new path they are taking.
A couple of things here:
1) You can see it that way, but there's nothing establishing that. HOWEVER: They have to change things up at some point, there's only so much you can do with only one singular design scheme. Moving off of that, however, doesn't have to mean extremely restricted lockstep builds, either.
2) It could go either way, honestly - I wouldn't overestimate the cross-applicability of such a small amount of information.
1) Perhaps, but does not a nearly new design scheme not bring with it either a change or overhaul of editions? Also, one usually does not change the platform upon which the system is built. Providing OPTIONS, on the other hand, seems a far more appropriate path to take. Exploring Essentials for a long time I could see--but having it be the complete path from that point forward?
2) Neither would I, to tell you the truth. However, I'm a pessimistic optimist... or is that optimistic pessimist? I rarely like to take things at face value--I must explore other possibilities when the full story is not given to me. Kind of like I'm playing Devil's Advocate just for the sake of covering all the bases.
I suppose there really is nothing that can be said that will make those set on hating this product just because it includes anything related to Essentials give it a chance. Even though there is no evidence that it will not contain a solid shadow class, they insist on forming a sarcastic rabble bent on panning it after one preview. Honestly if you hate the way Wizards are doing things, go play Pathfinder.
Nah, if I wanted to play 3rd edition, I'd play Essentials instead. ;)
I somewhat kid, but really, I started on the 4th edition of D&D for a reason; niether 3rd nor 2nd nor 1st edition gave me the kind of game I wanted. Now older editions are doing more than contributing names and ideas; the classes themselves are forming around what traditions some people think should be D&D. Now there may be a full Shadow class, maybe two. Our problem is that if there was, they should have given a preview of that, replacing the preview of either the Blackguard or the Necromancer/Nethermancer concepts. It would have made us happy. There is an expectation that they would have shown us a preview of a new full class if they intended to have one to placate us, and there is the opinion that since they did not, the people who wanted 4th edition to eschew tradition in favor of invention are left behind in favor of the 3rd/2nd edition fans.
None of this is meant to be inflamitory or insulting. People like what they like. However, the best idea for WotC is to support both Essentials and the original concept designs of D&D 4th edition. Them not doing that (or not showing that they are doing that) is a source of great tension.
As for the preview, they are salespeople and a salesperson will never show you the best stuff right when you walk in.
I suppose there really is nothing that can be said that will make those set on hating this product just because it includes anything related to Essentials give it a chance. Even though there is no evidence that it will not contain a solid shadow class, they insist on forming a sarcastic rabble bent on panning it after one preview. Honestly if you hate the way Wizards are doing things, go play Pathfinder.
See, the problem here is that you don't know what you're talking about. A lot of us, myself included, do not hate what we're seeing is Heroes of Shadow because of Essentials. I like Essentials. What I hate is the fact that we're getting a bunch of builds with a scrap of Shadow tossed in like a leftover bone instead of actual Shadow Source classes. And yes, there is solid evidence for that.
Also, Pathfinder sucks. Give me Fantasy Craft for the 3e done right feel any day. But of course that's besides the point, because A) being pissed about HoS has absolutely nothing to do with Pathfinder - I have no idea why you would even bring that up except to cause another DnD/Pathfinder fight, and B) you fail once again because the people who do hate Essentials usually compare Essentials to 3.5 & Pathfinder.
Essentials doesn't necessarily shoehorn anybody. It nudges or even openly advises, but not shoehorn anymore than other classes. The rogue is a prime example, almost all of it's powers require you to either be trained in a specific skill or use a specific type of weapon. What if someone wanted to play a rogue with a whip? They wouldn't be able to would they? Yes, there are parts that are things chosen for you, but that doesn't mean you have to go along with it.
As for the preview, they are salespeople and a salesperson will never show you the best stuff right when you walk in.
The archetype being shoehorned into certain narrative approrpriate weapons (who requirements have been increasing loosened via feats) is completely different from Essentials shoehorning. Shoehorning is that every Slayer, every Sentinel, and every Executioner gets 1 encounter power to use (possibly multiple times) from level 1-30 instead of an expanding choice to fill a pool of 4 different powers. Shoehorning is saying "this class does this and only this" rather than having the opporunity to make a character that fits your vision from large pools of mechanical elements.
Previews are ALWAYS about showing you the best stuff, have you ever seen a movie trailer? Even if they wanted to save something for later it didn't make sense to preview exactly what would anger a non-trivial population of people following this book.
I suppose there really is nothing that can be said that will make those set on hating this product just because it includes anything related to Essentials give it a chance. Even though there is no evidence that it will not contain a solid shadow class, they insist on forming a sarcastic rabble bent on panning it after one preview. Honestly if you hate the way Wizards are doing things, go play Pathfinder.
See, the problem here is that you don't know what you're talking about. A lot of us, myself included, do not hate what we're seeing is Heroes of Shadow because of Essentials. I like Essentials. What I hate is the fact that we're getting a bunch of builds with a scrap of Shadow tossed in like a leftover bone instead of actual Shadow Source classes. And yes, there is solid evidence for that.
Also, Pathfinder sucks. Give me Fantasy Craft for the 3e done right feel any day. But of course that's besides the point, because A) being pissed about HoS has absolutely nothing to do with Pathfinder - I have no idea why you would even bring that up except to cause another DnD/Pathfinder fight, and B) you fail once again because the people who do hate Essentials usually compare Essentials to 3.5 & Pathfinder.
Hearsay is not viable evidence, if you like essentials then my statement wasn't intended for you, and I actually understand why you would be upset to not receive a full class I would prefer that as well but honestly don't care enough either way because it's a GAME.
Essentials doesn't necessarily shoehorn anybody. It nudges or even openly advises, but not shoehorn anymore than other classes. The rogue is a prime example, almost all of it's powers require you to either be trained in a specific skill or use a specific type of weapon. What if someone wanted to play a rogue with a whip? They wouldn't be able to would they? Yes, there are parts that are things chosen for you, but that doesn't mean you have to go along with it.
As for the preview, they are salespeople and a salesperson will never show you the best stuff right when you walk in.
The archetype being shoehorned into certain narrative approrpriate weapons (who requirements have been increasing loosened via feats) is completely different from Essentials shoehorning. Shoehorning is that every Slayer, every Sentinel, and every Executioner gets 1 encounter power to use (possibly multiple times) from level 1-30 instead of an expanding choice to fill a pool of 4 different powers. Shoehorning is saying "this class does this and only this" rather than having the opporunity to make a character that fits your vision from large pools of mechanical elements.
Previews are ALWAYS about showing you the best stuff, have you ever seen a movie trailer? Even if they wanted to save something for later it didn't make sense to preview exactly what would anger a non-trivial population of people following this book.
I'm afraid you are making generalizations, yes the slayer (and possibly other essentials builds) do limit you but that is far from all Essentials always shoehorns everything. As for your comparison of books and movies, it really doesn't make much sense. Movies are marketed in a much different way than RPG materials.
As for your comparison of books and movies, it really doesn't make much sense. Movies are marketed in a much different way than RPG materials.
Which is kind of unfortunate.
With the movie way, we would see what we were getting much sooner. Though really I'd even prefer the video game method: show a few "screenshots" and "Design art" (previews of a broad nature) and give vague and then specific information on what is coming in a game so people know what horse to bet on.
As for your comparison of books and movies, it really doesn't make much sense. Movies are marketed in a much different way than RPG materials.
Which is kind of unfortunate.
With the movie way, we would see what we were getting much sooner. Though really I'd even prefer the video game method: show a few "screenshots" and "Design art" (previews of a broad nature) and give vague and then specific information on what is coming in a game so people know what horse to bet on.
I agree, and also I apologize to those I may have offended with my curtness.
As for your comparison of books and movies, it really doesn't make much sense. Movies are marketed in a much different way than RPG materials.
Which is kind of unfortunate.
With the movie way, we would see what we were getting much sooner. Though really I'd even prefer the video game method: show a few "screenshots" and "Design art" (previews of a broad nature) and give vague and then specific information on what is coming in a game so people know what horse to bet on.
I agree, and also I apologize to those I may have offended with my curtness.
I cannot speak for everyone, but for myself, I would challenge you to try and offend me (though I won't, since I think the ORCs would get a wee bit miffed
). I don't offend easily.I don't know, of course new classes would be cool but new stuff still is useful as well. I'm hoping they'll still support the old Assassin, I'm going to try sending in some pitches for two differnt builds, no promises of course. I hope that Wizard's have a plan for the shadow source (especially with the uproar it has caused). Of coures a lot of the things that Wizards create end up being pretty cool, so I'm not to worried about it.
Really? Ok, I'm curious - what's the general concept of your two builds? I'm not talking mechanics, but the general type. Currently we have the death-worshipping serial killer (bleak disciple) and lurking nightmare (nightstalker).
What, if anything, do we have confirmed in regards to a Necromancer Class?
and what are the most popularly accepted speculations on the non-confirmed info?
thanks to anyone willing to help me out here, and again if I am asking a question that has already been answered, I apologize.
I'm new to this thread, and don't have much free time, so forgive me for not reading the previous 48 pages of this thread. The question may have been answered already, but...
What, if anything, do we have confirmed in regards to a Necromancer Class?
and what are the most popularly accepted speculations on the non-confirmed info?
thanks to anyone willing to help me out here, and again if I am asking a question that has already been answered, I apologize.
It's an Essentials Mage school. Most are currently assuming that there will be no shadow classes, only builds that either have the shadow keyword as well as another powersource or have a shadowy feel.
I'm new to this thread, and don't have much free time, so forgive me for not reading the previous 48 pages of this thread. The question may have been answered already, but...
What, if anything, do we have confirmed in regards to a Necromancer Class?
and what are the most popularly accepted speculations on the non-confirmed info?
thanks to anyone willing to help me out here, and again if I am asking a question that has already been answered, I apologize.
It's an Essentials Mage school. MostSome are currently assuming that there will be no shadow classes, only builds that either have the shadow keyword as well as another powersource or have a shadowy feel.
The assumption some folks are making about that is because of 1 preview showing the Necromancy mage school and a supposed 'lack of shadow concepts.' Currently we don't have a clue about the contents of the book besides the Necromancy, Nethermancy mage schools and the Blackguard classbuild. An undead summoner class could still exist (perhaps a shadow based one taking the flavor of the traditional divine undead summoner.) or various other shadow classes (a shadow controller or leader based on manipulating others shadows, or a defender who can pin enemies shadows? I'm certain there are better ideas then mine the developers have thought of.)
All the major Shadow class concepts have already been covered by these not-Shadow builds. The only way there will be any Shadow classes now is if they're some red-headed step-child like the Seeker or Runepriest that gets ignored and reviled.
but those classes are awesome
They need support like nothing else but they both are quite intriguing.@hatta, And I'd still say you were mostly right, it's the big debate lately. I'm probably just to hopeful for my own good. (I fully expect to find out that wizards has let me down but I hope I'm wrong.)
All the major Shadow class concepts have already been covered by these not-Shadow builds. The only way there will be any Shadow classes now is if they're some red-headed step-child like the Seeker or Runepriest that gets ignored and reviled.
I'd have to disagree. Certainly all the preconceived concepts for shadow classes have been covered (to an extent). However, that is no reason that are no other concepts that could well be conceived. Heck I'll come up with one off the top of my head. Let's see, a shadow leader that debuffs using a "curse" mechanic connected to it's build. One build could be terror and another could be crushing despair. I'd imagine it being a caster type. Has that been done yet?
I'd love to see a 'shadow caster', a pet class themed around the animated shadow of the controlling player. You send the shadow out to spy for you, immobilize enemies by grabbing their shadows, deal necrotic damage by striking shadows, expand it to create damaging zones of darkness or conceal allies, maybe even send it into an enemy's shadow for a dominate, or into a corpse to control it as a sort of temporary undead puppet (your shadow, your alignment, not necessarily evil). But I strongly suspect this concept to be absorbed by the nethermancer, with a resuld nowhere near as compelling as a pure shadow full class could have been.
Otherwise, dark pact hexblade and blackguard don't really leave any room for a shadow warrior or black knight type class. A shadowdancery class is pretty much covered by the original assassin (which hopefully hasn't been assassinated by the executioner, which doesn't cover that concept at all). I'm sorry, I just don't see it.
That's a pretty dry, mechanical concept. Where's the personality? The fantasy archetype? That kind of thing - mechanics before flavor - is exactly the kind of thing that leads to runepriests and seekers, classes that may be functional, may even be fun to play, but lack the mental impact that makes players interested in them.
I'd love to see a 'shadow caster', a pet class themed around the animated shadow of the controlling player. You send the shadow out to spy for you, immobilize enemies by grabbing their shadows, deal necrotic damage by striking shadows, expand it to create damaging zones of darkness or conceal allies, maybe even send it into an enemy's shadow for a dominate, or into a corpse to control it as a sort of temporary undead puppet (your shadow, your alignment, not necessarily evil). But I strongly suspect this concept to be absorbed by the nethermancer, with a resuld nowhere near as compelling as a pure shadow full class could have been.
Otherwise, dark pact hexblade and blackguard don't really leave any room for a shadow warrior or black knight type class. A shadowdancery class is pretty much covered by the original assassin (which hopefully hasn't been assassinated by the executioner, which doesn't cover that concept at all). I'm sorry, I just don't see it.
Agreed. And I like the shadowcaster as a pet class - reminds me of the Seventh Tower book series - a world with an impenetrable veil blocking (almost) all light, where the one last great Point of Light is a castle filled with sunstones, and everyone is expected to have bound a magical creature from another plane to their shadow, a constant and living companion. It was a really fun idea, and I would so love to play a class that did that (I did try a ranger/assassin combo to play it).
Y'know, the more I look at it, the stronger I start to feel/hope that this is the case, that Heroes of Shadow is going to cover options for Shadow in both forms of 4e D&D and they merely chose to display some of the Essentials material as a short hand reference in this month's "In The Works". Who knows, we might see more of it in the January In The Works notification.
Just to stick my own two cents in... is it at all possible that Heroes of Shadow is actually going to be a "twin set" sourcebook? With options for both Classic 4e and Essentials 4e? I mean, I've seen something like that before (Deadlands had a few sourcebooks which had two different profiles for each thing; one for its own rule system, the other for D20 ruleset), so it's not impossible WoTC might have tried to do the same thing, is it? All we've really seen is mention of a bit of generic Shadow Magic fluff and the Blackguard and Necro/Nethermancer Essentials builds - we won't know for certain what's going to be in until around Febuary or so, when we start seeing excerpts. It's going to be a 320 page book, and that's the exact same size as the original Player's Handbook 1... and it's not going to need to cover all of the actual rules on how to play the game like that PHB did.
Y'know, the more I look at it, the stronger I start to feel/hope that this is the case, that Heroes of Shadow is going to cover options for Shadow in both forms of 4e D&D and they merely chose to display some of the Essentials material as a short hand reference in this month's "In The Works". Who knows, we might see more of it in the January In The Works notification.
It's a possibility, but so far Wotc has given no evidence to support that it is, and at least some to say that it's essentials only.
1> Early preview material has only mentioned powers for Clerics/Warpriests
2> Recent preview has shown only essentials builds
3> Public statement of "less classes, more builds" in developers descriptions of essentials going forward.
4> Book blurbs cites Necromancers, Hexblades, and Assassins as "users of the shadow power source." Annoucement is given that DDI assassin will not be inside this book. This preview shows how the Blackguard, Necromancer, and Nethermancer will be implemented as essentials: this totals 5 "build/classes" which matches the number of classes presented in other books. Furthermore, these 5 concepts cover the majority of shadow archetypes and source/role combinations.
5> In a general thread, Wotc Rodney offered (and quickly retracted) to answer questions concerning this preview. The few comments he did make before withdrawing did not give any assurance for availablity of the material to pre-essentials builds.
6> Essentials books are full of wasted space: reprinting general how to play rules and the same feat list between both Heroes of Books. It's completely possible Shadow will reprint this material.
I don't know, of course new classes would be cool but new stuff still is useful as well. I'm hoping they'll still support the old Assassin, I'm going to try sending in some pitches for two differnt builds, no promises of course. I hope that Wizard's have a plan for the shadow source (especially with the uproar it has caused). Of coures a lot of the things that Wizards create end up being pretty cool, so I'm not to worried about it.
Really? Ok, I'm curious - what's the general concept of your two builds? I'm not talking mechanics, but the general type. Currently we have the death-worshipping serial killer (bleak disciple) and lurking nightmare (nightstalker).
I guess you could call one of them the "nice guy" killer and the other is more of a competitive killer I suppose. I don't know if those are the best descriptions (especially the second one), but they both apply to them.
That's a pretty dry, mechanical concept. Where's the personality? The fantasy archetype? That kind of thing - mechanics before flavor - is exactly the kind of thing that leads to runepriests and seekers, classes that may be functional, may even be fun to play, but lack the mental impact that makes players interested in them.
I'd love to see a 'shadow caster', a pet class themed around the animated shadow of the controlling player. You send the shadow out to spy for you, immobilize enemies by grabbing their shadows, deal necrotic damage by striking shadows, expand it to create damaging zones of darkness or conceal allies, maybe even send it into an enemy's shadow for a dominate, or into a corpse to control it as a sort of temporary undead puppet (your shadow, your alignment, not necessarily evil). But I strongly suspect this concept to be absorbed by the nethermancer, with a resuld nowhere near as compelling as a pure shadow full class could have been.
Otherwise, dark pact hexblade and blackguard don't really leave any room for a shadow warrior or black knight type class. A shadowdancery class is pretty much covered by the original assassin (which hopefully hasn't been assassinated by the executioner, which doesn't cover that concept at all). I'm sorry, I just don't see it.
Flavor wise I was thinking something akin to a "witch". Not necessarily with that name, but along those lines. Someone who lovingly embraces that which is darkness out of some desire for balance in the multiverse. A kind of walker in the shadows. At least that is the idea. May need more details.
I don't know, of course new classes would be cool but new stuff still is useful as well. I'm hoping they'll still support the old Assassin, I'm going to try sending in some pitches for two differnt builds, no promises of course. I hope that Wizard's have a plan for the shadow source (especially with the uproar it has caused). Of coures a lot of the things that Wizards create end up being pretty cool, so I'm not to worried about it.
Really? Ok, I'm curious - what's the general concept of your two builds? I'm not talking mechanics, but the general type. Currently we have the death-worshipping serial killer (bleak disciple) and lurking nightmare (nightstalker).
I guess you could call one of them the "nice guy" killer and the other is more of a competitive killer I suppose. I don't know if those are the best descriptions (especially the second one), but they both apply to them.
Interesting. My first thought on what that means is "mercy killer" - tries to avoid too much suffering -> better against bloodied foes, and competitive killer -> is driven onward by competition -> allies are competition -> more dangerous when someone else is also targeting the same creature.
Basically, I see 2 options here. Divine, and arcane. A new class would be awesome, but not necessarily needed. It really wouldn't be hard to take existing concepts, and translate them to a necromancer build. It may seem like mostly fluff, but a few mechanical adaptations may be necessary.
I am an arcanist at heart, so I will throw out some ideas for a Wizard, necromancer build.
Step 1: Take your basic Wizard class, and go to a swap meet to switch out different abilities, and powers.
Step 2: Make sure you stop by the summoners tent, and pick up some nifty summoning powers. Fluff the elementals, and other creatures for undead. Skeletons, Zombies, Ghouls, Spectres, and the like.
Step 3: Base a majority of the necromancer's powers on Necrotic & Cold damage. (Magic Missile --> Necrotic Bolt)
Step 4: Use the "familiar" as a baseline for a concept "pet". A semi-permanent companion that stays with the Necromancer untill destroyed. A Skeleton is a simple low level option here.
Step 5: Look back on previous editions for inspiration, such as the 3.5 Libris Mortis True Necromancer, and the series of "Necrotic" spells that required a Mother Cyst to have access to, and that the target have a Necrotic Cyst in them to work. But those spells are then more powerful than their standard counterparts.
Step 6:Smile upon the devious creation, and ask yourself....hmmmm.... how could I now make him a playable Lich? (MUHAHAHA!!!) I want to think template, but that isn't comfortable in 4e, I'll delve more into later, once the Necromancer is finished.
Ok, so let's have it. All the nay sayers that say they aren't naysayers, here is where you follow up with a post that says nay, lol.
Seriously though, don't take it too seriously, it's a rough concept at best, and a jokeingly delightful post at least. We all have our thoughts, these are just a few of my less detailed ones, so please take it for what it is intended to be, a happy go lucky, of the top of my head, idea. Not a detailed and well designed remodel or primer to anything unofficially official.
Thanks, and smiles!!! (Evil Necrotic Smiles... MUHAHAHA!!!!)
In regards to a necromancer class, or build...
Basically, I see 2 options here. Divine, and arcane. A new class would be awesome, but not necessarily needed. It really wouldn't be hard to take existing concepts, and translate them to a necromancer build. It may seem like mostly fluff, but a few mechanical adaptations may be necessary.
I am an arcanist at heart, so I will throw out some ideas for a Wizard, necromancer build.
Step 1: Take your basic Wizard class, and go to a swap meet to switch out different abilities, and powers.
Step 2: Make sure you stop by the summoners tent, and pick up some nifty summoning powers. Fluff the elementals, and other creatures for undead. Skeletons, Zombies, Ghouls, Spectres, and the like.
Step 3: Base a majority of the necromancer's powers on Necrotic & Cold damage. (Magic Missile --> Necrotic Bolt)
Step 4: Use the "familiar" as a baseline for a concept "pet". A semi-permanent companion that stays with the Necromancer untill destroyed. A Skeleton is a simple low level option here.
Step 5: Look back on previous editions for inspiration, such as the 3.5 Libris Mortis True Necromancer, and the series of "Necrotic" spells that required a Mother Cyst to have access to, and that the target have a Necrotic Cyst in them to work. But those spells are then more powerful than their standard counterparts.
Step 6:Smile upon the devious creation, and ask yourself....hmmmm.... how could I now make him a playable Lich? (MUHAHAHA!!!) I want to think template, but that isn't comfortable in 4e, I'll delve more into later, once the Necromancer is finished.
Ok, so let's have it. All the nay sayers that say they aren't naysayers, here is where you follow up with a post that says nay, lol.
Seriously though, don't take it too seriously, it's a rough concept at best, and a jokeingly delightful post at least. We all have our thoughts, these are just a few of my less detailed ones, so please take it for what it is intended to be, a happy go lucky, of the top of my head, idea. Not a detailed and well designed remodel or primer to anything unofficially official.
Thanks, and smiles!!! (Evil Necrotic Smiles... MUHAHAHA!!!!)
It's a perfectly acceptable idea if you don't care for the Necromancer they are offering. But, it's not really a new class, and the people want a new class. It's what they have been commiserating about.
Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow doesn't refer to the Shadow Power Source, though it will be highlighted in the book. It refers to the Shadowfell itself.
We recently discovered the second book in the Player's Option series: Heroes of the Feywild. I am now of the belief that these books are more like Shadowfell and Feywild expansions to HotFL and HotFK.
I'd like to raise the point that we've had a misconception about the meaning in the title of this book, it seems.
Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow doesn't refer to the Shadow Power Source, though it will be highlighted in the book. It refers to the Shadowfell itself.
We recently discovered the second book in the Player's Option series: Heroes of the Feywild. I am now of the belief that these books are more like Shadowfell and Feywild expansions to HotFL and HotFK.
If this is the truth, I see it causing more of a ****storm, not less. Because if any book comes out with only Essentials based support, it will be labeled an Essentials book (even if said book is not evergreen, thus not part of the Essentials line as such), and people will claim that it invalidates WotC's claim that Essentials will only be 10 products. Or that the class designs going forward will only be Essentials builds. Or that it is proof that WotC has issued 4.5. You know, this:
followed by this:
And it will only be that good if there is a PHB-style book planned with Shadow Power Source Classes contained therin. If not, this will be me:
First, what Necromancer class are they offering?
Second, what exactly is this "Essentials" ten book thing that was mentioned above? Something about a 4.5e?? I'm really confused all of a sudden.
I would love to see a Necromancer as a whole new class, not just a build. But I don't think that a Shadow power source really fits with the Necromancer. Sure, shadow, gloomy, creepy, scary, sounds Necro. But really, Necro's are more likely to just be focused in either arcane or divine power sources, and use necrotic and cold damage.
Just my 2 cents...
When 4th edition was first released, there was a reference for future power sources in the preview and the Necromancer and Illusionist specically was mentioned for the Shadow Power Source. The Assassin was made a Shadow class exclusively in the DDi (Dragon).
Now earlier this year, Wizards released "Essentials." It is 10 products that will be the introduction of the system for new players and also provide options for the vetern player. The problem that some have is that the new builds doesn't exactly meld with the chart that details the levels in the PHB. (Pg 29) Most have new mechanics that take the place of an aspect of that chart, like when dailies or encounters are given, much like how Psionics had the bad idea to re-introduce power points in the place of Encounter powers.
Now we have the Heroes of Shadow (HoS) , and instead of being a book to introduce a new power source (A single source PHB replacement), it seems that it is an extension of the Essentials line.
The Necromancer has been a sub set of the Wizard, in one way or another, in the previous editions and the prospect of having it be a class by itself had me and a lot of others excited. Now, it is a broken dream that Wizards has dashed with the current preview of the HoS. It previewed three builds, one for the Paladin that is called The Blackguard, and two for the Wizard that are set up as Schools of magic, something that started in "Essentials," Necromancers and Nethermancers.
It is a disappointment for me and many others.
Just to inform...
When 4th edition was first released, there was a reference for future power sources in the preview and the Necromancer and Illusionist specically was mentioned for the Shadow Power Source. The Assassin was made a Shadow class exclusively in the DDi (Dragon).
Now earlier this year, Wizards released "Essentials." It is 10 products that will be the introduction of the system for new players and also provide options for the vetern player. The problem that some have is that the new builds doesn't exactly meld with the chart that details the levels in the PHB. (Pg 29) Most have new mechanics that take the place of an aspect of that chart, like when dailies or encounters are given, much like how Psionics had the bad idea to re-introduce power points in the place of Encounter powers.
Now we have the Heroes of Shadow (HoS) , and instead of being a book to introduce a new power source (A single source PHB replacement), it seems that it is an extension of the Essentials line.
The Necromancer has been a sub set of the Wizard, in one way or another, in the previous editions and the prospect of having it be a class by itself had me and a lot of others excited. Now, it is a broken dream that Wizards has dashed with the current preview of the HoS. It previewed three builds, one for the Paladin that is called The Blackguard, and two for the Wizard that are set up as Schools of magic, something that started in "Essentials," Necromancers and Nethermancers.
It is a disappointment for me and many others.
A few things:
- WotC claims that the power points of the psionic classes were well recieved, and gave them the idea to change up the way classes were presented in the first place. It's where they got the idea to modify existing classes into the Essentials builds.
- Arcane schools existed before Essentials, just not in 4th edition.
- It is a dissapointment to you as well as I and indeed many others. However, there are players of older editions such as 2nd who claim that the feel of essentials is what they wanted in 4th edition, and are close to ecstatic about not only the products, but the possibility of, for them, a return to the game they remember from their childhood.
Damn straight. That is the point, I didn't want to return to this paragon. I was excited for the break from this straighjacket when hearing about having actual separate classes for these specialized wizards. Now, it is back to the old standard that the first books of 4e tried to break away from.
If you want schools, play pathfinder. They do it better than it has been done in 3.5 or 2nd edition. This is a patch for 4th edition, a bad one.
"Arcane schools exested before Essentials, just not in 4th edition."
Damn straight. That is the point, I didn't want to return to this paragon. I was excited for the break from this straighjacket when hearing about having actual separate classes for these specialized wizards. Now, it is back to the old standard that the first books of 4e tried to break away from.
If you want schools, play pathfinder. They do it better than it has been done in 3.5 or 2nd edition. This is a patch for 4th edition, a bad one.
Subjective opinion is subjective. The point Kalnaur was making is that many people have an opinion that is directly antithetical to yours. You should stop trying to state your subjective opinion as if it is a fact, and instead word it as an opinion.
And (I think that) the word you were looking to use is paradigm, not paragon. Paragon just doesn't make sense in the context you used it in.
A few things:
- WotC claims that the power points of the psionic classes were well recieved, and gave them the idea to change up the way classes were presented in the first place. It's where they got the idea to modify existing classes into the Essentials builds.
I'm not going to argue as to whether or not power points were well recieved or not(personally I think they are alright in theory and slighty off in practice). However the reception that power points recieved was fairly irrelevnat to how the essentials classes turned out. They have about a two year product development cycle before a book is released. The last two months of that cycle are the books being printed. A month or two before that the book is being typeset. There was about six months between the release of Heroes of the Fallen Lands and PHB3. Assuming that thy knew immediatly upon release the reaction to power points, that give them about a 1/12 of the development cycle to make significant changes to the product. They did not just come up with the idea and implementation of the essentials classes solely on the reaction to power points, a lot of it was already there before they knew the reaction.....although the released form of essentials being developed in only two months certainly feels accurate. :P
Don't take this seriously though.
"Arcane schools exested before Essentials, just not in 4th edition."
Damn straight. That is the point, I didn't want to return to this paragon. I was excited for the break from this straighjacket when hearing about having actual separate classes for these specialized wizards. Now, it is back to the old standard that the first books of 4e tried to break away from.
If you want schools, play pathfinder. They do it better than it has been done in 3.5 or 2nd edition. This is a patch for 4th edition, a bad one.
Subjective opinion is subjective. The point Kalnaur was making is that many people have an opinion that is directly antithetical to yours. You should stop trying to state your subjective opinion as if it is a fact, and instead word it as an opinion.
And (I think that) the word you were looking to use is paradigm, not paragon. Paragon just doesn't make sense in the context you used it in.
Make sense in context? Don't be such a contraction!
I actually like the schools of magic because it helps the Pre-E wizard more than harm it. The PHB 1 gave you many spells that were essentially evocation or charm, not much else. They were rather bland and generic. Whatever at-will you took was essentially the same. But something special happened with the introduction of the mage: new spells that were specialized so that one could create an entire character around them OR dabble with spells, if you're an implement specialist, that previous books couldn't provide (I'm looking at you, hypnosis). Now you are allowed to have two or three Wiards/Mages in the party who don't thematically overlap. You can have your evoker/pyromancer who wields pure elements to blast his opponents to kingdom come, a nethermancer/illusionist who's control over the unreal and insubstantial makes him a legend (if you did your illusion/shadow powers well enough no one should know you were even there), or a necromancer/enchanter who can cause the living to strike each other by sundering their wills and make dead enemies rise up to attack their brethren- making you a lord of strife feared by every commander or squad leader for your ability to disrupt even the most organized platoon and make them turn on eachother.
And just before essentials Wizards was catching flak for making new classes instead of builds. Remember the Runepriest? While I liked (it and) its mechanics, it was a rather bland class that could have worked as a subclass of the cleric or invoker, or even thematically better the much stronger artificer. Wizards caught flak for the Runepriest and the Seeker, and you know what they did? They listened and started creating builds to avoid major redundancy. In fact I look forward hopefully to a monk subclass soulblade because it would be rather ridiculous and repetitive as anything else (except maybe Battlemind).
Make sense in context? Don't be such a contraction!
Where is the "head explodes" icon when you need it?
Make sense in context? Don't be such a contraction!
Where is the "head explodes" icon when you need it?
I feel better.
Me too!
4e was initially built to get away from the over complicated rule systems of previous editions. Simplify the game, and let players quickly get into, and out of encounters without long delves into the core books looking for special circumstance rules that may apply. (There were, and are positives, and negatives to this approach) During the "evolution of 4e, they have apparently begun to add more options, and variations, as many people have asked for, but now there may be an unbalancing effect to the core game mechanics. (I am sort of speculating here based on some info I've heard around the forums, but I may be misunderstanding the situation) In regards to classes of a "darker" nature (Necromancer, Blackguard, Assassin) there was originally some talk of new classes, and a new power source (Shadow), however, after the Essentials development, that has changed. They are now builds of some sort. This is obviously leaving many members of the community feeling frustrated, and disappointed.
In the end, it seems to me that WotC has strayed from their original concept of 4e, and tried to incorporate elements of earlier editions to appease the unsatisfied portion of the community. This is creating in-continuity in the game, and causing more disappointment among the community.
I have to admit, my ego is rising somewhat here. Like many people, I have the occasional thought that "I could do it better." Perhaps I may even be able to in some areas. However, my ego has mislead me in the past, so perhaps a reality check is in order.
CHECK!
Ok, I have a relatively simple suggestion, that I believe would allow the community to "design" a game that we could all enjoy. The ramifications of these choices may be dire though. **sits back and gasps at the words about to flow from his fingers** If the community pieces together a game model of what they want from D&D, there is the possibility that it would be completely incompatible with 4e. Perhaps R&D needs to begin working on 5e. **gasps!!** I know, I hate myself for even thinking it.
Back to the idea... Polls. I don't mean 5 polls, but dozens. Covering every aspect of the game individually. Ask the community what they want with as many specific polls as possible, and take all the majority answers, try to weave those together, and start from there. I think if nothing else, this would be a great "Hypothetical Scenario". I would love to see the polls put up, and a R&D of sorts be formed by the community. Let's see if our egos are right. Can the community (the one filled with people complaining about all the "mistakes" WotC has made {self included; at times}) develop a better edition of D&D than WotC has produced thus far?
I know I left the main subject a while ago, but I think my line of thought is sound. If we did build a better game, then we all win. If we don't, then we would at least have a better appreciation of what WotC has to go through to develop a successful, popular, and enjoyable D&D game.
Think about it..... I would really like to see this idea come to fruition. I see potential here.
Anyone have any thoughts, or ideas about this?
We're not a good representation of the demographic that plays D&D. Furthermore, among the people satisfied with the direction of the game who are members of the boards, fewer would partake in these polls than vocal minorities. This is why petitions almost always fail (they don't represent the large span of everyone who may or may not be invested), and why a lot of things happen that are dislike and complained about (because people are fundamentally lazy, and it's very hard to motivate people to show the support the direction they'd want openly. A lot of people don't vote for this very reason). However, strangely enough, a lot of people who are content are willing to vote with their wallets by BUYING THE GAME. WotC have asked us what we want, and we responded, and this is what we got. Furthermore, people have bought certain products, told what they would buy and what they wouldn't, and refused subscriptions or subscribed in certain ways. Companies like WotC take these into account, and use it as a part of their business model. If you want the game to play out differently, buy only what you want, and convince others to do the same. But no amount of surveying and board-based polls are going to change the direction. It comes off as complaining.
Simply put: haters whine, supporters dine.
I have a thought:
We're not a good representation of the demographic that plays D&D. Furthermore, among the people satisfied with the direction of the game who are members of the boards, fewer would partake in these polls than vocal minorities. This is why petitions almost always fail (they don't represent the large span of everyone who may or may not be invested), and why a lot of things happen that are dislike and complained about (because people are fundamentally lazy, and it's very hard to motivate people to show the support the direction they'd want openly. A lot of people don't vote for this very reason). However, strangely enough, a lot of people who are content are willing to vote with their wallets by BUYING THE GAME. WotC have asked us what we want, and we responded, and this is what we got. Furthermore, people have bought certain products, told what they would buy and what they wouldn't, and refused subscriptions or subscribed in certain ways. Companies like WotC take these into account, and use it as a part of their business model. If you want the game to play out differently, buy only what you want, and convince others to do the same. But no amount of surveying and board-based polls are going to change the direction. It comes off as complaining.
Simply put: haters whine, supporters dine.
Ding ding ding! we have a winner. Somebody has studied their economics.
But honestly that's how it is. If you don't like a product then don't buy it and if you are in the plurality the producers will stop making that type of product. In the end it's all about money, what makes it and what doesn't.
I have a thought:
We're not a good representation of the demographic that plays D&D. Furthermore, among the people satisfied with the direction of the game who are members of the boards, fewer would partake in these polls than vocal minorities. This is why petitions almost always fail (they don't represent the large span of everyone who may or may not be invested), and why a lot of things happen that are dislike and complained about (because people are fundamentally lazy, and it's very hard to motivate people to show the support the direction they'd want openly. A lot of people don't vote for this very reason). However, strangely enough, a lot of people who are content are willing to vote with their wallets by BUYING THE GAME. WotC have asked us what we want, and we responded, and this is what we got. Furthermore, people have bought certain products, told what they would buy and what they wouldn't, and refused subscriptions or subscribed in certain ways. Companies like WotC take these into account, and use it as a part of their business model. If you want the game to play out differently, buy only what you want, and convince others to do the same. But no amount of surveying and board-based polls are going to change the direction. It comes off as complaining.
Simply put: haters whine, supporters dine.
Oh, right! That 52% totally wins out over that 48%, huh? Completely forgot about that!
< /sarcasm... kinda>
I have a thought:
We're not a good representation of the demographic that plays D&D. Furthermore, among the people satisfied with the direction of the game who are members of the boards, fewer would partake in these polls than vocal minorities. This is why petitions almost always fail (they don't represent the large span of everyone who may or may not be invested), and why a lot of things happen that are dislike and complained about (because people are fundamentally lazy, and it's very hard to motivate people to show the support the direction they'd want openly. A lot of people don't vote for this very reason). However, strangely enough, a lot of people who are content are willing to vote with their wallets by BUYING THE GAME. WotC have asked us what we want, and we responded, and this is what we got. Furthermore, people have bought certain products, told what they would buy and what they wouldn't, and refused subscriptions or subscribed in certain ways. Companies like WotC take these into account, and use it as a part of their business model. If you want the game to play out differently, buy only what you want, and convince others to do the same. But no amount of surveying and board-based polls are going to change the direction. It comes off as complaining.
Simply put: haters whine, supporters dine.
Ding ding ding! we have a winner. Somebody has studied their economics.
But honestly that's how it is. If you don't like a product then don't buy it and if you are in the plurality the producers will stop making that type of product. In the end it's all about money, what makes it and what doesn't.
Personally, I love most of what they've done with 4e compared to 3e and 3.5... it is FAR easier for means a DM to set up a storyline in 4e.
I tend to invent half of my storyline on the fly, with major arcing goals and a few specific encounters along the way. This was all but impossible in 3e because of the length of preparation time required. It was almost a second job in 3rd ed because even if I wanted impromptu encounters I had to set up my own generic npc's for every eventuality, and those were built just like characters.... and character building isn't a slow task, especially in 3rd edition. I alter a lot in my games to ensure that the players are challenged, the game is fun, and to adapt to the players actions. 4e has proved to make this far easier than any other previous edition.
All this said, I do have a problem if they decide to cut out the shadow power source. I do understand cutting the Chi power source and relegating it to simply a class feature. The reasons they did this were sound. We've also seen no real proof that I have seen that they are cutting out the possibility of a true shadow source still being viable past the assassin. Blackguard was always an offshoot of the Paladin, and Necromancy was an old school of magic. This will just require them to think of names for the pure-shadow versions of some of these classes.
With Ravenloft and the shadowrealm as it is, getting the ability to flavor existing classes with shadow is perfectly reasonable, but there should still be some real shadow classes with the major flavors of shadow magic, including undead, shadow teleports, poison/necrotic damage, fears and compulsions, shadowy illusions, blood use, and feeding off of base emotions.
You don't like it, don't whine about it – or if you whine, don't expect results of said whining. That's not a good demographic for them, since we're just a fraction of the buyers of the game.
You don't like Essentials? Don't buy it. You don't like what they did with Heroes of Shadow (even though you don't even KNOW what they've done with it, since they've only previewed a tiny bit of it), DON'T BUY IT. Actions speak louder than words, my friend.
As for me, I'll be happily buying Heroes of Shadow like every other product.
As I said. Essentials has sold quite well.
You don't like it, don't whine about it – or if you whine, don't expect results of said whining. That's not a good demographic for them, since we're just a fraction of the buyers of the game.
You don't like Essentials? Don't buy it. You don't like what they did with Heroes of Shadow (even though you don't even KNOW what they've done with it, since they've only previewed a tiny bit of it), DON'T BUY IT. Actions speak louder than words, my friend.
As for me, I'll be happily buying Heroes of Shadow like every other product.
Therein lies the the issue, Marandahir. You WILL buy the book. So will hundreds, nay, thousands upon thousands of others. It is the reason I made a post sarcastically stating that the 52% completely outweigh the 48% that dislike the product. Do I have numbers to back it up? No. However, I consider a good number of people on this forum to represent a larger number of people behind them (directly and indirectly) that either don't or can't post. One person on this forum can easily represent an entire group and more!
So, when everyone else continues to pay for a product that a decent-sized number of people on the boards do NOT like, take into consideration that you buying hurts those that don't want to buy it.
As I said. Essentials has sold quite well.
You don't like it, don't whine about it – or if you whine, don't expect results of said whining. That's not a good demographic for them, since we're just a fraction of the buyers of the game.
You don't like Essentials? Don't buy it. You don't like what they did with Heroes of Shadow (even though you don't even KNOW what they've done with it, since they've only previewed a tiny bit of it), DON'T BUY IT. Actions speak louder than words, my friend.
As for me, I'll be happily buying Heroes of Shadow like every other product.
Therein lies the the issue, Marandahir. You WILL buy the book. So will hundreds, nay, thousands upon thousands of others. It is the reason I made a post sarcastically stating that the 52% completely outweigh the 48% that dislike the product. Do I have numbers to back it up? No. However, I consider a good number of people on this forum to represent a larger number of people behind them (directly and indirectly) that either don't or can't post. One person on this forum can easily represent an entire group and more!
So, when everyone else continues to pay for a product that a decent-sized number of people on the boards do NOT like, take into consideration that you buying hurts those that don't want to buy it.
You are basicly arguing that a vocal minority should have absolute say over what is and isn't published regardless of whether their choices prove beneficial to the company, unless I'm mistaken. But that isn't how this "game" works. Majority rules, and if theres a big clump of people who actually like everything being put out and buy every product that comes down the line then that just adds to the number of people who will buy an individual product because they like it as well. If the product makes a significant profit, then you're going to get more of the same. But finally, someone buying everything doesn't hurt anyone, it just irritates those that don't like what's being sold.
Majority rules, yes, but that certainly doesn't mean that I'm going to sit back and "just accept it."
The thing is, when I say a vocal minority, I mean a very vocal, not nearly as big minority. It's probably more like 90%-10%. You disagree? Then prove it by not buying, and by showing how many people boycott the book.
I'm not saying, "sit back and accept it." What I am saying is that multiple 50+ page topics featuring 3-4 players posting about how they hate Heroes of Shadow already because the tiny preview we got didn't include what they want out of the book isn't going to do much to change WotC's design choices.
You need to show them that a lot of people aren't buying. One way is to not give them your money for that product. Another way is to fill out the forms they ask every now and then about how you play the game. A third way is to watch for WotC employees' stances on these things, and post when their gaze is on you. A fourth way would be to wait until the book comes out and see if you actually don't like the book before complaining.
Another issue is that: right now, some people don't like what they are seeing, and some people do. I however believe that if HoS was done the way I liked it, people happy with the current HoS would STILL be happy. I've never seen anyone explicitly hate the idea of a shadow power source or separate classes; just mild pleasure that it was done the same as old editions. If this assumption is true, it'd be worth it to WotC to listen, whether my viewpoint was 10% or 49% of the population.
As I said. Essentials has sold quite well.
You don't like it, don't whine about it – or if you whine, don't expect results of said whining. That's not a good demographic for them, since we're just a fraction of the buyers of the game.
You don't like Essentials? Don't buy it. You don't like what they did with Heroes of Shadow (even though you don't even KNOW what they've done with it, since they've only previewed a tiny bit of it), DON'T BUY IT. Actions speak louder than words, my friend.
As for me, I'll be happily buying Heroes of Shadow like every other product.
Therein lies the the issue, Marandahir. You WILL buy the book. So will hundreds, nay, thousands upon thousands of others. It is the reason I made a post sarcastically stating that the 52% completely outweigh the 48% that dislike the product. Do I have numbers to back it up? No. However, I consider a good number of people on this forum to represent a larger number of people behind them (directly and indirectly) that either don't or can't post. One person on this forum can easily represent an entire group and more!
So, when everyone else continues to pay for a product that a decent-sized number of people on the boards do NOT like, take into consideration that you buying hurts those that don't want to buy it.
Studies show that internet communities do not make a good sample for a biopsy of the overarching community that they supposedly represent. The thing about forums such as these is that they tend to attract people at the poles of an opinion more than they attract moderate posters. Additionally, people who are displeased tend to be more vocal than people who are pleased. Put plain and simply, we have no idea how many people like Essentials compared to how many do not. Only time and sales data will tell.
Now, I am not telling you not to voice your subjective opinion (so long as you voice it as subjective opinion). If you want that voice to amount to anything, however, you will also a) have to vote with your wallet and b) be part of a large enough community of people to affect future decisions due to the revenue WotC lost from you.
I voted with my wallet on Gamma World (I won't buy any RPG product that has a CCG element introduced into it in any shape or form). You should vote with your wallet on Essentials and HoS. However, if you turn out to be a member of the minority, it is unreasonable to expect WotC to continue to cater to you. If it turns out the community likes CCG elements in their RPG games, sucks to be me. If it turns out that the design decisions of Essentials appeals to the majority of people in the D&D consumer base, sucks to be you. That is just how life works...
Just to inform...
When 4th edition was first released, there was a reference for future power sources in the preview and the Necromancer and Illusionist specically was mentioned for the Shadow Power Source. The Assassin was made a Shadow class exclusively in the DDi (Dragon).
Just to inform...
This information is misleading at best, and a flat lie at worst.
In the preview books Races & Classes and Worlds & Monsters, the Shadow power source was mentioned as a power that drew on the Shadowfell for power. It stated that Shadow powers would lean more in the direction of things like necromancy and illusion.
Later, in the preview material on wizards, the devs mentioned that one of their design ideas was to have Wizard specialties be their own class. Or perhaps that things that were wizard specialties in the past would show up as central parts of other classes. Illusionist was specifically mentioned as something they would like to see as it's own class. But the article also mentioned how it was going to somehow share powers with the Wizard (such as invisibility). Again, this was all just design ideas that the dev team was throwing around.
In the end, having multiple cloth-wearing, arcane-powered, implement-using classes that were somehow NOT wizards, but which also had their own sets of class features (besides powers) that made them distinct, proved to be ineffective and inefficient. For each of them to be it's own class would further dillute available support for each of them (in the form of supporting DRAGON articles, feats, items, etc.).
This is why Illusionist became a wizard build, because that was the one they had the most work done on. And, to be fair, the Illusionist build is actually one of the better Wizard builds, especially in terms of actually being a controller.
But no, the preview material NEVER said that Necromancer or Illusionist were going to be their own unique, seperate classes, nor that they would be Shadow-powered ones.
The Necromancer has been a sub set of the Wizard, in one way or another, in the previous editions and the prospect of having it be a class by itself had me and a lot of others excited. Now, it is a broken dream that Wizards has dashed with the current preview of the HoS. It previewed three builds, one for the Paladin that is called The Blackguard, and two for the Wizard that are set up as Schools of magic, something that started in "Essentials," Necromancers and Nethermancers.
It is a disappointment for me and many others.
The prospect of having it be a class by itself was a disappointment that you set yourself up for, ThaX. YOU built up the excitement for it, based off YOU extrapolating what was mentioned in the preview material into something that YOU considered to be the dev's intent.
See the common denominator there?
Don't believe me? Actually go back and read Races & Classes again, if you have it.
Here's the relevant part, on page 80 of R&C: (although I still suggest you go into the book and read it yourself to search for this so-called "promise")
Some future classes will eve be based more heavily on past schools. Don't be surprised if you see illusionist of conjurer appear as classes or paragon paths at some point.
NOT a promise.
And again, to re-post what I said earlier on the subject:
All these quotes show is that they toyed with the idea of making illusionist its own class, but decided not to. We have a wizard build (and a paragon path) devoted to summoning. We have a wizard build devoted to illusions (and Unseen Mage and Hermetic Sabateur PPs).
Nothing in any of the preview material is a concrete promise of illusionist class. Or a necromancer class, for that matter (not that I don't think they'd make one). Arcane Power gave us the summoner and Illusionist, but not the necromancer. I think, if there is going to be a necromancer class, that shadow is a more fitting power source. But I think the reason Illusionist was made a wizard build is this: Illusion doesn't fit shadow as well as it does arcane. Sure, we have the "Shadow Evocation" and "Shadow Conjuration" spells of old, but that's pretty limited. Illusion works better with arcane, I think. Shadow is very dark, with dark themes and motifs of manifesting darkness. Illusionists also create illusory terrain, perhaps a lush carpet of grass over a pit trap. Or a wave of scintillating colors, mass disguise spells, and, of course, invisibility. Arcane reflected the versatility more. And given the nature of what illusions do to enemies, Controller was the best fit for a role. Now, should they make a seperate arcane controller who wears cloth and casts spells, just because they considered making it a seperate class? Or would doing so confuse people as to why the wizard can't do these things, and why the wizard has SOME illusions, but not others? No, making Illusionist a wizard build was a good move. Aside from the people who whine and complain about it, claiming it should be it's own class (or a shadow controller), tthere are those of us who have actually tried it out. The illusionist is a great wizard build, better at achieving it's purpose as a controller than the "war wizard" build. Plus the reliance on INT and CHA makes for a very smooth character who's whole focus in life is deception. Very compelling character concept.
The issue with "not buying is the only valid complaint" is how will Wotc measure how many people "aren't buying". They only get numbers for those that do. Maybe they could compare to the numbers of PHB1 or HotF_ books sold, but it's imprecise.
Another issue is that: right now, some people don't like what they are seeing, and some people do. I however believe that if HoS was done the way I liked it, people happy with the current HoS would STILL be happy. I've never seen anyone explicitly hate the idea of a shadow power source or separate classes; just mild pleasure that it was done the same as old editions. If this assumption is true, it'd be worth it to WotC to listen, whether my viewpoint was 10% or 49% of the population.
1) WotC will judge its success based on how much of the market it dominates. It is no surprise that shortly after it became public knowledge that Pathfinder and D&D were tied in their market shares that WotC started to release 4e books that cater more to an "oldschool" D&D aesthetic.
2) Don't be obtuse and conceited. If HoS was done the way you would have liked it, it is very likely it would not have appealed to quite a few people. The claim that "your desires would have appealed to more people" is ridiculous. You have no way of knowing that. In fact, evidence would suggest you are wrong. There was a LOT of feedback and complaints which claimed that D&D was straying, in terms of its fluff and aesthetic, too far from its roots, that D&D no longer felt like D&D. That is why the Essentials products have turned out the way they have. And low and behold, we have quite a few people who are saying they like the Essentials products because they feel more grounded in the roots of the game, and say the same about the HoS system of class/build organization. To offhandedly say, "everyone would have liked it if it was just done my way," is ridiculous beyond measure.
The thing is, if 48% of the potential buyers aren't buying, that's too large a percentage to ignore. It's not a simple 52-48 majority-wins sort of thing. WotC just showed they want to cater to Mac users like myself, when it became profitable to switch over the CharBuilder and AdventurerTools to java-based. Macs don't hold anything close to 50%. But they still offered support.
The thing is, when I say a vocal minority, I mean a very vocal, not nearly as big minority. It's probably more like 90%-10%. You disagree? Then prove it by not buying, and by showing how many people boycott the book.
I'm not saying, "sit back and accept it." What I am saying is that multiple 50+ page topics featuring 3-4 players posting about how they hate Heroes of Shadow already because the tiny preview we got didn't include what they want out of the book isn't going to do much to change WotC's design choices.
You need to show them that a lot of people aren't buying. One way is to not give them your money for that product. Another way is to fill out the forms they ask every now and then about how you play the game. A third way is to watch for WotC employees' stances on these things, and post when their gaze is on you. A fourth way would be to wait until the book comes out and see if you actually don't like the book before complaining.
Alright, assuming 100,000 purchases beforehand, is 10% of that (10,000 books priced at $20 apiece is $200,000 they're NOT getting) NOT a relevant amount? Then multiply that by 11 books/products. I'd like to think I'm being generously low-numbered, though I know better than to call it fact.
I am already one person who has not purchased a single Essentials Product. I bought EVERY new book that popped onto the shelf until Essentials came along. I was an avid supporter of the system as a DM and a player... until then.
The thing is, if 48% of the potential buyers aren't buying, that's too large a percentage to ignore. It's not a simple 52-48 majority-wins sort of thing. WotC just showed they want to cater to Mac users like myself, when it became profitable to switch over the CharBuilder and AdventurerTools to java-based. Macs don't hold anything close to 50%. But they still offered support.
The thing is, when I say a vocal minority, I mean a very vocal, not nearly as big minority. It's probably more like 90%-10%. You disagree? Then prove it by not buying, and by showing how many people boycott the book.
I'm not saying, "sit back and accept it." What I am saying is that multiple 50+ page topics featuring 3-4 players posting about how they hate Heroes of Shadow already because the tiny preview we got didn't include what they want out of the book isn't going to do much to change WotC's design choices.
You need to show them that a lot of people aren't buying. One way is to not give them your money for that product. Another way is to fill out the forms they ask every now and then about how you play the game. A third way is to watch for WotC employees' stances on these things, and post when their gaze is on you. A fourth way would be to wait until the book comes out and see if you actually don't like the book before complaining.
Alright, assuming 100,000 purchases beforehand, is 10% of that (10,000 books priced at $20 apiece is $200,000 they're NOT getting) NOT a relevant amount? Then multiply that by 11 books/products. I'd like to think I'm being generously low-numbered, though I know better than to call it fact.
I am already one person who has not purchased a single Essentials Product. I bought EVERY new book that popped onto the shelf until Essentials came along. I was an avid supporter of the system as a DM and a player... until then.
It is not that simple. It is about net gain. How many purchases has Essentials gained? If 10% of D&D 4e fanbase hate it, and have not bought a single Essentials book because of that, 80% of 4e fanbase likes it enough to purchase it, 10% of D&D's fanbase was about ready to not buy any more 4e books, and have changed their minds because of Essentials (which they love), and Essentials has brought in a group of new players, who are buying products, equal in number to 20% of D&D 4e's original fanbase, then Essentials is (give or take, because I don't know WotC's revenue and market goals) a success. Point is, there is not enough data on the table for conjecture on the impact of Essentials to WotC's revenue to have any value one way or the other. Nobody on this forum (who is talking about the subject) knows whether Essentials or HoS are good or bad business decisions. We know exactly one thing: do we love, hate, like, dislike, feel ambivalent, or apathetic, towards these products. Each opinion, in the end, is subjective, and fairly meaningless to the grand scheme of things. So spout your opinion. Don't buy the product. And expect WotC, in the end, to do what is best for WotC's bottom line. While you are at it, assume that every decision that WotC makes is an informed decision designed to produce more revenue. Which also means, by the way, that you should assume that the fact that these books are getting designed this way means that WotC's marketing data indicates that this is what the RPG market wants. Of course, they may have made a mistake. These things happen. Interpreting marketing data is not a science. So time will tell whether they judged correctly or not. If, with time, more such products get released... well, you know what that means; good news for me!
I think the idea of the specialization schools having their own classes was superb and I had pinned my hope on that aspect, but when the Illusionist became a watered down build for the Wizard, slowly that hope came to be disappointment.
Perhaps your right, Chiba-M, that the Devs were only looking at one of many directions, but the "essentials" build like this certainly wasn't on the radar. More likely, if a Necro build was considered before Essentials was around it would have been in an Arcane Power book on down the line. The "schools" of magic is simply a copy of the schools scheme that Pathfinder has in it's current product.
My problem, at this point, is that if this is the only Shadow book to be released (Now or for a while) then the Shadow Power Source becomes regulated like the Ki Power Source was. That doesn't sit well with me and some others as it effectively kills the power source and puts out an 11th book for the Essentials line.
As it is, HoS will be a good coaster, but I don't see it being in my library if we are getting builds instead of classes.
When I made this thread, my one question (Which really has not been answered yet, but it is likely "No) was if there was gonna be any actual (new) classes in this product.
I think the idea of the specialization schools having their own classes was superb and I had pinned my hope on that aspect, but when the Illusionist became a watered down build for the Wizard, slowly that hope came to be disappointment.
Perhaps your right, Chiba-M, that the Devs were only looking at one of many directions, but the "essentials" build like this certainly wasn't on the radar. More likely, if a Necro build was considered before Essentials was around it would have been in an Arcane Power book on down the line. The "schools" of magic is simply a copy of the schools scheme that Pathfinder has in it's current product.
My problem, at this point, is that if this is the only Shadow book to be released (Now or for a while) then the Shadow Power Source becomes regulated like the Ki Power Source was. That doesn't sit well with me and some others as it effectively kills the power source and puts out an 11th book for the Essentials line.
As it is, HoS will be a good coaster, but I don't see it being in my library if we are getting builds instead of classes.
As I have pointed out, mechanically speaking, the "Essentials" builds are new classes. The only thing that differentiates them from a new class is a nominal relationship.
Your opinion. I do not agree.
No. In this case, it is not an opinion, it is an objective fact. So long as one qualifies "class" to be a particular relationship of mechanical difference, it is objectively evident that the Essentials "builds" bear the same quantity of mechanical difference to any other prior released class as any other prior released class does to another prior released class. The only reason that one can not objectively call them a new class is because the game uses a particular nominal relationship to connect them to prior existing classes. Which is why I repeat: as I have pointed out, mechanically speaking, the "Essentials" builds are new "classes." The only thing that differentiates them from a new class is a nominal relationship. This is simply objective fact. Opinion has nothing to do with it.
Though they will most likely be self sustaining (don't need to look up the base class, like in Essentials) they still provide optional powers for the base class and can choose powers from other builds of that class.
Not sure why we are going in circles in this, but a new class is different from a new build. If that build is one from the power books, or it is a kit like in essentials, it is still a build. I had hoped that this book would introduce the Shadow Power Source. It most likely is not. This is a severe disappointment.
I know you don't understand this. Your stuck on 3.5.
They are builds of a Divine class and of two Arcane classes. They are not Shadow Classes.
Though they will most likely be self sustaining (don't need to look up the base class, like in Essentials) they still provide optional powers for the base class and can choose powers from other builds of that class.
Not sure why we are going in circles in this, but a new class is different from a new build. If that build is one from the power books, or it is a kit like in essentials, it is still a build. I had hoped that this book would introduce the Shadow Power Source. It most likely is not. This is a severe disappointment.
I know you don't understand this. Your stuck on 3.5.
I am really not. I am simply stuck on facts (facts you like to ignore). When a "build" doesn't share a single class feature with the class it is nominally related to it stops being a build in the sense used by the "Power" books. It becomes something closer to a new class... one which simply happens to be organized under a nominal relationship to an already existing class. This is very true of the slayer, knight, hunter, cavalier, and ranger. It is still strikingly true of the warpriest and hexblade. It is less true of the mage, but the statement still resonates with the mage's brand new class features (only its ability to share all of its powers with the older wizard makes it more like a new build than a new class). What is more, a "power source" has no real mechanical reality other than organization. Take the Necromancer/Nethermancer mage schools, say that the two combined are a new class (and remove the classes ability to share powers or feats with any other class), say that the class's power source is shadow, and provide two builds (you either choose Necromancy as your primary power or Nethermancy as your primary build type), and you effectively have something that looks exactly like a new 4e class of the shadow power source (using only the mechanics provided in HoS). Your issues are not objective realities, they are subjective conceptual blocks.
They are builds of a Divine class and of two Arcane classes. They are not Shadow Classes.
This is where you're wrong, thaX. I will agree, they are choices under a single class archetype amongst other choices (what you call a build).
However, Classes are no longer relegated as specialisations of specific power sources. Instead, Power Source is a descriptive tool for class design.
The point is, classes come before power sources, not the other way around. The Ranger is not "The Martial Striker." If it was, the Rogue and the Ranger would be the same thing. The Ranger is sometimes a purely martial striker, and sometimes a mixed martial/primal striker, and sometimes a mixed martial/primal controller.
Roles and Power Sources are no longer riding above classes. Classes have dominance now.
The Blackguard is a build of a class that is (since the beginning of this edition, until now and still now) entirely Divine. It is usually a defender, though the Blackguard is a Divine Striker "build" of the Paladin.
The difference is the Necromancer Mage and the Nethermancer Mage. These are Shadow/Arcane Controllers. They are not Arcane Controllers. They are both.
I had thought we were past that.
If Wizards is thinking in the same manner as you, then the chance of any new classes whatsoever in any future product is bleak and beginning to be non-existant. If indeed these new "Kits" are considered "new classes" then 4th edition is dead.
Sorry, but an Arcane build with "shadow" keyword spells is not a shadow class. Please don't expect me to think otherwise.
I don't think anyone in this thread expects you to use logic. But I still have to note (primarily for the benefit of others) that the only thing that makes the power source label meaningful is the description of the powers used. If a "build" of the mage (designed to the point where it's class abilities are as different from the wizards as the invokers are) uses an entire suit of powers which are shadow based powers, then for all intents and purposes that build is a shadow power source character.
Cyber-Dave, did you ever toy with 3.5's Unearthed Arcana (or it might be PHB II)?
Both, for the record. UA replaced the bonus feats, PHBII replaced the mandatory familiar.
So you agree with the elimination of Power Sources altogether? To blend the roles again and return to the previous editions way of play, with all the bad with the good?
I had thought we were past that.
I had thought so to. It was another main reason I got into 4th edition.
Sorry, but an Arcane build with "shadow" keyword spells is not a shadow class. Please don't expect me to think otherwise.
I don't think anyone in this thread expects you to use logic. But I still have to note (primarily for the benefit of others) that the only thing that makes the power source label meaningful is the description of the powers used. If a "build" of the mage (designed to the point where it's class abilities are as different from the wizards as the invokers are) uses an entire suit of powers which are shadow based powers, then for all intents and purposes that build is a shadow power source character.
I think we will have to agree to disagree. Mainly because Mage is the build. Necromancy and Nethermancy are the schools that give the build it's features. But you could still choose default Mage spells instead of being required to choose spells limited within the scope of their damage types, effects and intents. The required is our sticking point. I want the Necro class (or whatever class that is the Necro class) to be unable to ever take the Burning Hands spell (for example) without hybridizing/multiclassing into being a wizard. Being able to, eventually, take spells that are not poisonous, acidic, cold or necrotic damage should be extremely limited or (ideally) unavailable. Ever. And that's just one example of what I would like to see in a Necromancer. I like the idea of that kind of restriction. I want that restriction. It's why I enjoy the Seeker and the Ranger, instead of some odd amalgamate of the two. They seem like separate concepts to me, and thus in my mind, putting them together should require effort. And simply choosing not to take those spells is not really an option. It just is a way of saying, "Jury-rig what you want" instead of "here is the class you want, with all of the abilities and restrictions that implies".
Sorry, but an Arcane build with "shadow" keyword spells is not a shadow class. Please don't expect me to think otherwise.
I don't think anyone in this thread expects you to use logic. But I still have to note (primarily for the benefit of others) that the only thing that makes the power source label meaningful is the description of the powers used. If a "build" of the mage (designed to the point where it's class abilities are as different from the wizards as the invokers are) uses an entire suit of powers which are shadow based powers, then for all intents and purposes that build is a shadow power source character.
In reality, this means that there is little reason to develop actual shadow feats and paragon paths because there are already plenty of arcane and wizard feats and paragon paths. It also makes it that much harder to design said feats and paths because you have to design them to work for shadow wizards and shadow fighters, shadow shamans, shadow seekers, shadow monks, and shadow runepriests, which are all working on their own mechanics, rather than having unifying mechanics that apply to most shadow classes, like the various martial feats do for martial characters.
I think we will have to agree to disagree. Mainly because Mage is the build. Necromancy and Nethermancy are the schools that give the build it's features. But you could still choose default Mage spells instead of being required to choose spells limited within the scope of their damage types, effects and intents. The required is our sticking point. I want the Necro class (or whatever class that is the Necro class) to be unable to ever take the Burning Hands spell (for example) without hybridizing/multiclassing into being a wizard. Being able to, eventually, take spells that are not poisonous, acidic, cold or necrotic damage should be extremely limited or (ideally) unavailable. Ever. And that's just one example of what I would like to see in a Necromancer. I like the idea of that kind of restriction. I want that restriction. It's why I enjoy the Seeker and the Ranger, instead of some odd amalgamate of the two. They seem like separate concepts to me, and thus in my mind, putting them together should require effort. And simply choosing not to take those spells is not really an option. It just is a way of saying, "Jury-rig what you want" instead of "here is the class you want, with all of the abilities and restrictions that implies".
Those restrictions you want are artificial restrictions. It pisses me off to no end that the ranger and the seeker are two separate classes, because they really shouldn't be. In the terms of D&D (and this is what this game is, D&D, not some other fantasy game), the concepts portrayed by those two classes belong to the same archetype. It would have pissed me off to see the wizard and the necromancer be separate classes for the same reason. You want that sort of restriction in your games? House rule it. Call the mage build in HoS a "shadow mage." Say that it has two builds, necromancy focused or nethermancy focused (though all shadow mages learn a bit of both). Say that the powers in that book can not be taken by other mage builds/other wizards, and that shadow mages can not take spells from other books. Bang. You are done. You have what you are asking for. It will have unique class features, a unique power list, and be what you want. But the thing is, in non-house-ruled D&D, that restriction should not exist. It should not exist, because that is not how the specialist mages in D&D have been organized (ever). And while I know, to you earlier editions don't matter, to many of the rest of us they do. Divorce this game too far from those earlier editions and this game should not be called D&D anymore. Up to now, 4e has been walking the thin red line in order to bear the right to claim that nominal relationship. I forgave it that for being an amazing game system. Now the game finally gets to both be an amazing game system and a game system that captures the spirit of the D&D brand name.
Sorry, but an Arcane build with "shadow" keyword spells is not a shadow class. Please don't expect me to think otherwise.
I don't think anyone in this thread expects you to use logic. But I still have to note (primarily for the benefit of others) that the only thing that makes the power source label meaningful is the description of the powers used. If a "build" of the mage (designed to the point where it's class abilities are as different from the wizards as the invokers are) uses an entire suit of powers which are shadow based powers, then for all intents and purposes that build is a shadow power source character.
In reality, this means that there is little reason to develop actual shadow feats and paragon paths because there are already plenty of arcane and wizard feats and paragon paths. It also makes it that much harder to design said feats and paths because you have to design them to work for shadow wizards and shadow fighters, shadow shamans, shadow seekers, shadow monks, and shadow runepriests, which are all working on their own mechanics, rather than having unifying mechanics that apply to most shadow classes, like the various martial feats do for martial characters.
Load of bologna. They can create feats that have "any shadow power source class" as a requirement (and give every shadow based class build a dual power source that includes shadow). They can create feats that have no class restriction, but only benefit powers with the shadow keyword. They can create paragon paths specifically for the new shadow themed class builds they are introducing. It is really not that big a deal.
They would have to be incredibly vague to cover both shadow wizards and shadow fighters.
Not really...
They would have to be incredibly vague to cover both shadow wizards and shadow fighters.
They wouldn't have to be any more vague than a racial paragon path, and you are assuming that there would only be paragon paths with only Shadow class as their prerequisite which is most likely erroneous as there are very few paragon paths that have a power source as their only prerequisite. They exist but there aren't that many.
Those restrictions you want are artificial restrictions. It pisses me off to no end that the ranger and the seeker are two separate classes, because they really shouldn't be. In the terms of D&D (and this is what this game is, D&D, not some other fantasy game), the concepts portrayed by those two classes belong to the same archetype.
Kind of off the subject, but I feel very similar, save that I do not consider myself "piised of" about it.
In my game world, the Rangers of Mensyannah (Nature Goddess) are a prominent in-game organizatio, with close ties to the Druidic Circles. Seekers bridge that gap even more. Also on that point, Wardens are considered druids as far as fluff goes (kind of like how in L5R a character with levels in fighter, ranger or rogue would be considered a samurai in-game because he/she was a bushi of his/her clan). I continue to issue Druidic as a bonus language for druids and wardens.
I think we will have to agree to disagree. Mainly because Mage is the build. Necromancy and Nethermancy are the schools that give the build it's features. But you could still choose default Mage spells instead of being required to choose spells limited within the scope of their damage types, effects and intents. The required is our sticking point. I want the Necro class (or whatever class that is the Necro class) to be unable to ever take the Burning Hands spell (for example) without hybridizing/multiclassing into being a wizard. Being able to, eventually, take spells that are not poisonous, acidic, cold or necrotic damage should be extremely limited or (ideally) unavailable. Ever. And that's just one example of what I would like to see in a Necromancer. I like the idea of that kind of restriction. I want that restriction. It's why I enjoy the Seeker and the Ranger, instead of some odd amalgamate of the two. They seem like separate concepts to me, and thus in my mind, putting them together should require effort. And simply choosing not to take those spells is not really an option. It just is a way of saying, "Jury-rig what you want" instead of "here is the class you want, with all of the abilities and restrictions that implies".
Those restrictions you want are artificial restrictions. It pisses me off to no end that the ranger and the seeker are two separate classes, because they really shouldn't be. In the terms of D&D (and this is what this game is, D&D, not some other fantasy game), the concepts portrayed by those two classes belong to the same archetype. It would have pissed me off to see the wizard and the necromancer be separate classes for the same reason. You want that sort of restriction in your games? House rule it. Call the mage build in HoS a "shadow mage." Say that it has two builds, necromancy focused or nethermancy focused (though all shadow mages learn a bit of both). Say that the powers in that book can not be taken by other mage builds/other wizards, and that shadow mages can not take spells from other books. Bang. You are done. You have what you are asking for. It will have unique class features, a unique power list, and be what you want. But the thing is, in non-house-ruled D&D, that restriction should not exist. It should not exist, because that is not how the specialist mages in D&D have been organized (ever). And while I know, to you earlier editions don't matter, to many of the rest of us they do. Divorce this game too far from those earlier editions and this game should not be called D&D anymore. Up to now, 4e has been walking the thin red line in order to bear the right to claim that nominal relationship. I forgave it that for being an amazing game system. Now the game finally gets to both be an amazing game system and a game system that captures the spirit of the D&D brand name.
Do shadow mages have unique class feature that only they get, such as the ability to cut through necrotic resistance, teleport through shadows, suck the life out of an enemy as an at-will feature (for examples)? Are specific Skills (such as Endurance, Intimidate or Stealth) that are on their class list? Do they get a default spirit companion that functions less like a familiar and more like an anchored game mechanic? Those are the types of things I want, a true full class with designed class features, powers, class skill list, proficiencies and all the trimmings. And anything less is, for me, unacceptable. As is the idea that it is wrong to divorce one edition further away from certain core assumptions within previous editions. Why should the Ranger be primal/martial? Heck, why would any mixed class be seen as the norm instead of as an advanced, multiclass/hybrid option? Neither concept makes any sense.
completely disagree, the seeker stands apart from the ranger quite well, and they do not even play alike in my experience. we have a 7th level seeker in our group that is just nothing like a ranger apart from a bow.
I don't think we disagree quite as much as you think. I think the big thing here is a dissonance between concept and mechanic. Mechanically the seeker is distinct different from a ranger, but conceptually there is a fair bit of overlap. Personally I love the conceptual overlap it allows more diversity overall. Imagine it like this, you're invited to a big outdoor party where all the the different "builds" are having fun and and fraternizing. When you arrive at the party you see dozens of huge tents with tables set for lunch. There are signs near each of these tents with one word written on each. One says "Fighters" and at the table you see sitting the sword-and-board fighter sitting with the great weapon fighter, across from them is a knight joking with a slayer. At the next tent, you see mages of every school discussing theory with orb wizards and wand wizards and their ilk. As you continue on you come to a tent that reads "Rangers", and at the table you see the hunter and the scout, the beastmaster and archer, and the seeker and two-weapon ranger all carousing. My point is conceptually many classes share themes and all fall under the same Super-Class (the tents), this doesn't mean they don't deserve their own class, it just means that you should consider them as related in a way. Note, of course, that this is only my opinion and that I should have been clearer in my previous post.
completely disagree, the seeker stands apart from the ranger quite well, and they do not even play alike in my experience. we have a 7th level seeker in our group that is just nothing like a ranger apart from a bow.
I don't think we disagree quite as much as you think. I think the big thing here is a dissonance between concept and mechanic. Mechanically the seeker is distinct different from a ranger, but conceptually there is a fair bit of overlap. Personally I love the conceptual overlap it allows more diversity overall. Imagine it like this, you're invited to a big outdoor party where all the the different "builds" are having fun and and fraternizing. When you arrive at the party you see dozens of huge tents with tables set for lunch. There are signs near each of these tents with one word written on each. One says "Fighters" and at the table you see sitting the sword-and-board fighter sitting with the great weapon fighter, across from them is a knight joking with a slayer. At the next tent, you see mages of every school discussing theory with orb wizards and wand wizards and their ilk. As you continue on you come to a tent that reads "Rangers", and at the table you see the hunter and the scout, the beastmaster and archer, and the seeker and two-weapon ranger all carousing. My point is conceptually many classes share themes and all fall under the same Super-Class (the tents), this doesn't mean they don't deserve their own class, it just means that you should consider them as related in a way. Note, of course, that this is only my opinion and that I should have been clearer in my previous post.
Funny thing is, I see only six of those tents, with several tables for each. The Martial Tent, where the fighters and the warlords talk tactics and weapons while the rangers and rogues share techniques for stealth and speed killing. The Arcane Tent, where the wizards argue with the sorcerers about study over natural talent, while the swordmage talks to the artificer about how how could kick a fighter's butt any day of the week, just ask him, and the bard keeps trying to cheer up the warlock with a song. The Divine Tent, where the cleric offers words of prayer over the food, the paladin sits talking religion with the runepriest, and the avenger and invoker argue about who is better and more devout. The Primal Tent has the Barbarian trying to talk about killing things while his mouth is full, to the druid attempting not to wild shape and rip said barbarian's throat out, and the shaman and warden talk about the best ways to interact with the spirits of nature whilst the seeker gets drunk and plays archery games. The Psionic Tent is silent, with all those damned mind wagglers talking to each other telepathically or some ****; damn freaky psionics. And the Shadow Tent, where the Assassin sits alone, shifting his food around on his plate and hoping his friends get there soon.
completely disagree, the seeker stands apart from the ranger quite well, and they do not even play alike in my experience. we have a 7th level seeker in our group that is just nothing like a ranger apart from a bow.
I don't think we disagree quite as much as you think. I think the big thing here is a dissonance between concept and mechanic. Mechanically the seeker is distinct different from a ranger, but conceptually there is a fair bit of overlap. Personally I love the conceptual overlap it allows more diversity overall. Imagine it like this, you're invited to a big outdoor party where all the the different "builds" are having fun and and fraternizing. When you arrive at the party you see dozens of huge tents with tables set for lunch. There are signs near each of these tents with one word written on each. One says "Fighters" and at the table you see sitting the sword-and-board fighter sitting with the great weapon fighter, across from them is a knight joking with a slayer. At the next tent, you see mages of every school discussing theory with orb wizards and wand wizards and their ilk. As you continue on you come to a tent that reads "Rangers", and at the table you see the hunter and the scout, the beastmaster and archer, and the seeker and two-weapon ranger all carousing. My point is conceptually many classes share themes and all fall under the same Super-Class (the tents), this doesn't mean they don't deserve their own class, it just means that you should consider them as related in a way. Note, of course, that this is only my opinion and that I should have been clearer in my previous post.
Funny thing is, I see only six of those tents, with several tables for each. The Martial Tent, where the fighters and the warlords talk tactics and weapons while the rangers and rogues share techniques for stealth and speed killing. The Arcane Tent, where the wizards argue with the sorcerers about study over natural talent, while the swordmage talks to the artificer about how how could kick a fighter's butt any day of the week, just ask him, and the bard keeps trying to cheer up the warlock with a song. The Divine Tent, where the cleric offers words of prayer over the food, the paladin sits talking religion with the runepriest, and the avenger and invoker argue about who is better and more devout. The Primal Tent has the Barbarian trying to talk about killing things while his mouth is full, to the druid attempting not to wild shape and rip said barbarian's throat out, and the shaman and warden talk about the best ways to interact with the spirits of nature whilst the seeker gets drunk and plays archery games. The Psionic Tent is silent, with all those damned mind wagglers talking to each other telepathically or some ****; damn freaky psionics. And the Shadow Tent, where the Assassin sits alone, shifting his food around on his plate and hoping his friends get there soon.
That is one way to look at it, but it doesn't really seem to fit with what Wizards has in mind for future design. I'm afraid that with that view you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. The main reason why it's not likely that they will organize classes the way you wish is the difficulty involved. Concepts are easy to group together, and of course power source has a part to play in it. The source of power is what makes a class stand out. But power source has to deal with mechanics to deal with and mechanics work as a limiter. The way you like it would prevent any mingling between power sources, which would severely limit what could be done without resorting to hybrid rules or multiclassing. Which would mean that great classes would go ignored and unchanged, and it all would hasten the arrival of something you would really hate, 5E.
The way you like it would prevent any mingling between power sources, which would severely limit what could be done without resorting to hybrid rules or multiclassing.
Which has been my point all along: this is what should be. I hate Power Source mingling. It dilutes the strong flavour of a single power source in exchange for drawing more class flavour and design from previous editions. All around, that's a lose-lose situation for me.
Which would mean that great classes would go ignored and unchanged, and it all would hasten the arrival of something you would really hate, 5E.
That all depends on the designers of said 5th edtion. If it was more of a backpedal towards old editions, I would hate it. If it was more like the beginning of 4th edition (and stayed that way instead of bowing to the older edition grognards), I'd say bring it on.
Do shadow mages have unique class feature that only they get, such as the ability to cut through necrotic resistance, teleport through shadows, suck the life out of an enemy as an at-will feature (for examples)?
Very likely, yes, they will have some of those features. I say that becaus we have already seen those types of features given to existing mage builds. Allow me to point you to the evoker, who can reduce energy resistance and reroll 1's on any of his evocation spell damage dice. Allow me to point you to the pyromancer who can ignore fire resistance, and who can turn any of his AoE fire spells that don't already have zone effects into a zone in which any enemy who ends their turn their takes his constitution modifier as damage. So yes, it is not unreasonable to believe that the sort of features you want to see will be the sort of features that the class's mage school features will give us.
Are specific Skills (such as Endurance, Intimidate or Stealth) that are on their class list?
I don't know. But it is also very likely that the mage school will give you some sort of bonus to some of those skills, because the mage schools already do that too. The evoker gets a +2 bonus to Endurance checks, the Pyromancer a +2 bonus to Intimidate, the illusionist gets a +2 bonus to stealth, the echanger gets a +2 bonus to diplomacy, so on and so forth. Most of those also have a +2 bonus to a second skill as well (bluff seems to be pretty common). So, it is reasonable to believe that the necromancer/nethermancer mage school will give you a bonus to a few thematic skills as well. It might even have a secondary stat tied to a particularly key skills primary stat to further give you a boost.
Do they get a default spirit companion that functions less like a familiar and more like an anchored game mechanic?
You mean sort of like the Necromancer/Nethermancer only summoning power we just saw previewed?
Those are the types of things I want, a true full class with designed class features, powers, class skill list, proficiencies and all the trimmings.
As I pointed out, if those are the type of things you want, it sounds like a mage build might give you something very, very close. The only thing it won't give you is an arbitrary restriction on not being able to take other wizard powers... but you can impose that on yourself if you really want to, or house rule it into your game if you are DMing a homebrew setting where it is important to divide the necromancer from other types of wizard.
As is the idea that it is wrong to divorce one edition further away from certain core assumptions within previous editions. Why should the Ranger be primal/martial? Heck, why would any mixed class be seen as the norm instead of as an advanced, multiclass/hybrid option? Neither concept makes any sense.
Making sense to you isn't what the game should be trying to do. Making sense to the expectations created by its brand name is. The ranger should be primal/martial because the ranger has always, in every edition of D&D until 4e's early release, had the ability to cast nature based utility magic. That is one of the tropes of D&D. Remove that trope, and you remove some of the credibility of the game's right to bear the brand name. Now, don't get me wrong, I want the option to play a completely martial ranger. But I shouldn't have to become a hybrid or multiclass in order to gain a nature based magical utility powers, or be forced to be a hybrid if I want to heavily invest in nature based utility powers. Being a purely martial ranger should be an alternative option to the ranger norm, because the ranger norm should fall in life with the tropes that come attached to the game's brand name.
I hate Power Source mingling. It dilutes the strong flavour of a single power source in exchange for drawing more class flavour and design from previous editions. All around, that's a lose-lose situation for me.
That strong flavor you are talking about is antithetical to the equally strong flavor of D&D's tropes. It was exactly the thing that was starting to turn me away from the game (and probably would have, eventually, if things like the ranger-seeker relationship kept on getting created). It was an all around lose-lose situation for me. Honestly, I started to wish that the concept of "power source" had never been created, because instead of aiding in game design it started to become an arbitrary boundary that was hurting the game's ability to model D&D tropes with new (and I would say better) mechanics. Of course, Essentials has completely fixed that for me. Finally, once again, the class (and its tropes) reign supreme, not an arbitrary boundary built around the idea of a "power source."
As is the idea that it is wrong to divorce one edition further away from certain core assumptions within previous editions. Why should the Ranger be primal/martial? Heck, why would any mixed class be seen as the norm instead of as an advanced, multiclass/hybrid option? Neither concept makes any sense.
Making sense to you isn't what the game should be trying to do. Making sense to the expectations created by its brand name is. The ranger should be primal/martial because the ranger has always, in every edition of D&D until 4e's early release, had the ability to cast nature based utility magic. That is one of the tropes of D&D. Remove that trope, and you remove some of the credibility of the game's right to bear the brand name. Now, don't get me wrong, I want the option to play a completely martial ranger. But I shouldn't have to become a hybrid or multiclass in order to gain a nature based magical utility powers, or be forced to be a hybrid if I want to heavily invest in nature based utility powers. Being a purely martial ranger should be an alternative option to the ranger norm, because the ranger norm should fall in life with the tropes that come attached to the game's brand name.
Why must a brand do what it has always done in order to keep the name?
I hate Power Source mingling. It dilutes the strong flavour of a single power source in exchange for drawing more class flavour and design from previous editions. All around, that's a lose-lose situation for me.
That strong flavor you are talking about is antithetical to the equally strong flavor of D&D's tropes. It was exactly the thing that was starting to turn me away from the game (and probably would have, eventually, if things like the ranger-seeker relationship kept on getting created). It was an all around lose-lose situation for me. Honestly, I started to wish that the concept of "power source" had never been created, because instead of aiding in game design it started to become an arbitrary boundary that was hurting the game's ability to model D&D tropes with new (and I would say better) mechanics. Of course, Essentials has completely fixed that for me. Finally, once again, the class (and its tropes) reign supreme, not an arbitrary boundary built around the idea of a "power source."
Why should a the old class concepts override the new and interesting concept of splitting classes among power sources? And what was stopping Dragon from publishing any number of hybrid builds that would accomplish what you, the older gamer wants (a dilution of power sources and augmentation of old school class flavour)? Why abandon new and fresh ideas that could bring in new blood that are not so keen on the old conceptual design space of previous editions of D&D in order to cater to the old and stagnating pool of gamers?
That's ridiculous! To claim that the flavour of a power source would be weakened by it being mingled with others in the case of a few classes is just silly. Power sources are highlights to classes, they shouldn't be the foundation of the class. It's why they are represented by keywords and classes aren't. If you were to replace any power source with any other in a class it would only change it a little. A rogue would still be a rogue mechanically even if you switched the martial source out for the psionic source, you'd just flavour it differently. Essentially you are advocating an unyielding formulaic design style which quickly becomes bland and boringly uniform in its execution.
Really? Because I find that design style to contain within it small subtleties that could stretch the designing of classes on for quite a while. But then again I liked the Power books. If I had the money, I'd own them all, as the overriding flavour of a power source helps to unify the classes under it. Yes, to me classes should be subservient to the umbrella mechanics of a power source.
I also love the Power books.
That's ridiculous! To claim that the flavour of a power source would be weakened by it being mingled with others in the case of a few classes is just silly. Power sources are highlights to classes, they shouldn't be the foundation of the class. It's why they are represented by keywords and classes aren't. If you were to replace any power source with any other in a class it would only change it a little. A rogue would still be a rogue mechanically even if you switched the martial source out for the psionic source, you'd just flavour it differently. Essentially you are advocating an unyielding formulaic design style which quickly becomes bland and boringly uniform in its execution.
Really? Because I find that design style to contain within it small subtleties that could stretch the designing of classes on for quite a while. But then again I liked the Power books. If I had the money, I'd own them all, as the overriding flavour of a power source helps to unify the classes under it. Yes, to me classes should be subservient to the umbrella mechanics of a power source.
Just going to say, while I'm not a fan of Essentials, you're wrong. Power Source mixing occurred well before Fallen Lands/Forgotten Kingdoms. In fact, the first mixed source paragon path appears in The FRCS - the Umbiri - and it's flavour isn't diluted, but in fact strengthened. While I don't like the Necromancer and 'Nethermancer' being builds within the Mage class, mixed power sources are not inherently bad. They're good and can add a new degree to a character. If a Shadow/Divine build came out for the Avenger, I would hop right on that bandwagon, and use that to enrich my character. Why? Because the idea that, ultimately, surrender seduces even the most devout is an amazing concept to play with.
Mixed power sources enrich characters, and allow them to more accurately blend classes to create archetypes, old and new. The Swordmage should have been Arcane/Martial from the start. Perhaps it would have solved it's damage problems and poor power scaling. Maybe not.
In the end, you're being narrow-minded. Shadow is one of the easiest power sources to spread the love around. And while it can (and should) have it's own 'pure' options, allowing other classes to surrender to it's call is just as enriching as the classes that focus on that surrender.
Why must a brand do what it has always done in order to keep the name?
It doesn't have to do exactly what it has always done. I want to make that clear before I answer your question. But it does have to maintain a certain level of common conceptual ground. It must, to some extend, do what it has always done because otherwise its brand name becomes meaningless. The brand only maintains its marketing power if the expectations it creates are met.
Why should a the old class concepts override the new and interesting concept of splitting classes among power sources? And what was stopping Dragon from publishing any number of hybrid builds that would accomplish what you, the older gamer wants (a dilution of power sources and augmentation of old school class flavour)? Why abandon new and fresh ideas that could bring in new blood that are not so keen on the old conceptual design space of previous editions of D&D in order to cater to the old and stagnating pool of gamers?
Whether the concept of "splitting classes among power sources" is interesting or not is very much up to subjective opinion. I don't find it interesting in the least. It bothers me to see the ranger split up among different classes (ranger-seeker) because variouse aspects of its concept cater to different "power sources." As to why old class concepts should override that idea, it is because old class concepts help to fulfill expectations created by a brand name, because failing to fulfill those expectations devalues a brand name, and because it is objectively evident that 4e was being devalued to an unacceptable extent; for the first time in many, many, many years D&D failed to dominate the market last quarter. Instead, a product that catered to the expectations that 4e failed to fulfill managed to tie D&D in sales. (Now, don't get me wrong, I hate Pathfinder. I think its mechanics are terrible, and I think the mechanics of 4e are great. But 4e really did need a heavy dose of D&D flavor reinserted into its product line. And low and behind, Essentials and HoS are doing just that).
As to why these classes could not be presented in Dragon, theoretically they could be. I am assuming, however, that D&D's marketing team realized that that would not help them sell more D&D books, and that the sale of D&D books was not matching expectations. Considering that so many people were complaining about how 4e lacked the "spirit of D&D," it is no surprise that they are trying to up the sale of D&D books by reinserting some of that spirit back into their product line. So, I suppose the answer to your question is that the segment of the D&D consumer base who wanted more "D&D spirit" in their 4e game is simply too large for WotC to only cater to us through Dragon magazine.
Put plain and simply, it would seem that those of us who like more "D&D spirit" in our 4e game are not as "old and stagnant" as you want to believe. Likewise, it would seem the ideas you would have rather seen implemented are not as "new and fresh" as you would like to believe. Those are subjective opinions that obviously do not match the information gathered by WotC's marketing team (or else Essentials never would have gotten created in the first place). Who knows though. Maybe they miscalculated. Maybe, in the future, they will return to the "new and fresh" ideas you like. If so they will lose out on my dollar. Now that they have provided me with Essentials I am spoiled. I am not turning back. I like the product line too much. But that is neither here nor there... WotC needs to do what is best for WotC (which equates to what is best for the consumer base as whole), not what is best for individual consumers.
By the way, I just wanted to point out that I think it is ironic that I actually own all the products you are championing while you do not. (I own every single 4e book released so far except for the Draconomincon 1 and 2, the Demonomicon, Dungeon Delve, the Adventurers Vault 2, the Adventures, the two race pamphlets that got released, the dragon/dungeon annuals, the Essentials DM kit, and the Monster Vault. Of those products, I plan to purchase everything except for the Adventures, the two race pamphlets, and the dragon/dungeon annuals, which I have no interest in. I should be picking all those up in January, if I get the next big paycheck I am hoping to get. I already own all of the PHBs and all the Power books.
)And the Shadow Tent, where the Assassin sits alone, shifting his food around on his plate and hoping his friends get there soon.
Awwwww.....sad.And the Shadow Tent, where the Assassin sits alone, shifting his food around on his plate and hoping his friends get there soon.
Awwwww.....sad.
But at my party he gets to play drinking games with the rogues and avengers and the monks because they all got bunched together (not enough people at their individual tables).
Why must a brand do what it has always done in order to keep the name?
It doesn't have to do exactly what it has always done. I want to make that clear before I answer your question. But it does have to maintain a certain level of common conceptual ground. It must, to some extend, do what it has always done because otherwise its brand name becomes meaningless. The brand only maintains its marketing power if the expectations it creates are met.
Why should a the old class concepts override the new and interesting concept of splitting classes among power sources? And what was stopping Dragon from publishing any number of hybrid builds that would accomplish what you, the older gamer wants (a dilution of power sources and augmentation of old school class flavour)? Why abandon new and fresh ideas that could bring in new blood that are not so keen on the old conceptual design space of previous editions of D&D in order to cater to the old and stagnating pool of gamers?
Whether the concept of "splitting classes among power sources" is interesting or not is very much up to subjective opinion. I don't find it interesting in the least. It bothers me to see the ranger split up among different classes (ranger-seeker) because variouse aspects of its concept cater to different "power sources." As to why old class concepts should override that idea, it is because old class concepts help to fulfill expectations created by a brand name, because failing to fulfill those expectations devalues a brand name, and because it is objectively evident that 4e was being devalued to an unacceptable extent; for the first time in many, many, many years D&D failed to dominate the market last quarter. Instead, a product that catered to the expectations that 4e failed to fulfill managed to tie D&D in sales. (Now, don't get me wrong, I hate Pathfinder. I think its mechanics are terrible, and I think the mechanics of 4e are great. But 4e really did need a heavy dose of D&D flavor reinserted into its product line. And low and behind, Essentials and HoS are doing just that).
As to why these classes could not be presented in Dragon, theoretically they could be. I am assuming, however, that D&D's marketing team realized that that would not help them sell more D&D books, and that the sale of D&D books was not matching expectations. Considering that so many people were complaining about how 4e lacked the "spirit of D&D," it is no surprise that they are trying to up the sale of D&D books by reinserting some of that spirit back into their product line. So, I suppose the answer to your question is that the segment of the D&D consumer base who wanted more "D&D spirit" in their 4e game is simply too large for WotC to only cater to us through Dragon magazine.
Put plain and simply, it would seem that those of us who like more "D&D spirit" in our 4e game are not as "old and stagnant" as you want to believe. Likewise, it would seem the ideas you would have rather seen implemented are not as "new and fresh" as you would like to believe. Those are subjective opinions that obviously do not match the information gathered by WotC's marketing team (or else Essentials never would have gotten created in the first place). Who knows though. Maybe they miscalculated. Maybe, in the future, they will return to the "new and fresh" ideas you like. If so they will lose out on my dollar. Now that they have provided me with Essentials I am spoiled. I am not turning back. I like the product line too much. But that is neither here nor there... WotC needs to do what is best for WotC (which equates to what is best for the consumer base as whole), not what is best for individual consumers.
By the way, I just wanted to point out that I think it is ironic that I actually own all the products you are championing while you do not (I own every single 4e book released so far except for the Draconomincon 1 and 2, the Demonomicon, Dungeon Delve, the Adventurers Vault 2, the Adventures, the two race pamphlets that got released, the dragon/dungeon annuals, the Essentials DM kit, and the Monster Vault. Of those products, I plan to purchase everything except for the Adventures, the two race pamphlets, and the dragon/dungeon annuals, which I have no interest in. I should be picking all those up in January, if I get the next big paycheck I am hoping to get. I already own all of the PHBs and all the Power books. )
While in theory you are correct, it just really bothers me that so many people would rather have
the primal/martial ranger and the fighter who only uses basic attacks back. For me it moves away from the structure I joined D&D for. I liked Power Source to Role to Class tree (which is how I envision it) though indeed there was overlapping as hatta says (Rogue and Assassin and Avenger are similar yet different, for example).
Also, just because the majority of players want something I label as old to be present in D&D does not mean that it is not old. It could be that the player base is glutted with more old-school players than new people interested in trying out the hobby, or that the marketing research in question was heavily biased before it even got off the ground. Whatever the reason, I know that for now the line of 4th edition products will be support for Essentials class ideas and Essentials line packaging (which is my only other grievance with Essentials, the boxes and paperbacks over hardbacks). It just means that I have time to catch up on the material I haven't gotten, which by the way is due to my unemployment since spring of 2009 and not for lack of wanting every 4th edition product up to Essentials.
Opinions. That is what this all boils down to. Opinions. Some people seem to be extremely disrespectful of others opinions here.
In my previous post (2 days and about 6 pages ago) I mentioned my opinions of the Necromancer debate, and an off the wall thought about how we as a community could collectively voice our opinion. These thoughts were rapidly dismissed, and that's fine. However, where the discussion went after that seemed to be more about whose opinions mattered, as if every one of our opinions didn't matter.
I have no opinion on HoS (it's not out yet). I have opinions on how 4e has evolved thus far. I am in the minority. I would much rather have seen the game evolve in different way, but; as one person here said, "sucks to be me". I don't hate. I don't consider myself a whiner either. I do voice my opinions economically. I bought the core 3 books (PHB, DMG, & MM) when they launched, and a 1 year DDi subscription at the same time. I have not bought any other material since, and I did not renew my DDi subscription. I still love D&D, and I still have hopes for the game. I come here to voice my opinions, and hope that enough others will have similar views. So that perhaps we can, in time, influence the future of D&D. I am glad so many are happy with what they are getting, but I am disappointed. As a lifelong lover of D&D, and as a parent that wants to pass that love on to my children, I will always come here to voice my opinions, positive, and negative.
IMHO, it would be far more constructive, if when suggestions were made, the people that agreed, posted, and engaged in a discussion on "their" suggestions for how to improve (in their opinion) the game. Those that disagreed could simply ignore the post. Or, better yet, start a post about their own views instead. Not only would this make each thread more constructive, but it would allow those "minority opinions" to drift off the main thread page. While the more supported ideas would remain at the top of the list. This would also cut down on the number of threads that are little more than arguments between a handful of people.
"It is far more constructive to support the causes you believe in, than to attempt to derail the causes you don't."
--F. D. Roosevelt
I am not so naive as to believe this post will change anything, but it would be foolish to succumb to that defeat without ever bringing the matter to light.
I am absolutely appalled!
Opinions. That is what this all boils down to. Opinions. Some people seem to be extremely disrespectful of others opinions here.
In my previous post (2 days and about 6 pages ago) I mentioned my opinions of the Necromancer debate, and an off the wall thought about how we as a community could collectively voice our opinion. These thoughts were rapidly dismissed, and that's fine. However, where the discussion went after that seemed to be more about whose opinions mattered, as if every one of our opinions didn't matter.
I have no opinion on HoS (it's not out yet). I have opinions on how 4e has evolved thus far. I am in the minority. I would much rather have seen the game evolve in different way, but; as one person here said, "sucks to be me". I don't hate. I don't consider myself a whiner either. I do voice my opinions economically. I bought the core 3 books (PHB, DMG, & MM) when they launched, and a 1 year DDi subscription at the same time. I have not bought any other material since, and I did not renew my DDi subscription. I still love D&D, and I still have hopes for the game. I come here to voice my opinions, and hope that enough others will have similar views. So that perhaps we can, in time, influence the future of D&D. I am glad so many are happy with what they are getting, but I am disappointed. As a lifelong lover of D&D, and as a parent that wants to pass that love on to my children, I will always come here to voice my opinions, positive, and negative.
IMHO, it would be far more constructive, if when suggestions were made, the people that agreed, posted, and engaged in a discussion on "their" suggestions for how to improve (in their opinion) the game. Those that disagreed could simply ignore the post. Or, better yet, start a post about their own views instead. Not only would this make each thread more constructive, but it would allow those "minority opinions" to drift off the main thread page. While the more supported ideas would remain at the top of the list. This would also cut down on the number of threads that are little more than arguments between a handful of people.
"It is far more constructive to support the causes you believe in, than to attempt to derail the causes you don't."
--F. D. Roosevelt
I am not so naive as to believe this post will change anything, but it would be foolish to succumb to that defeat without ever bringing the matter to light.
As someone that considers himself helpful may I offer you a bit of advice? If you wish to avoid being appalled I would avoid forums as they have a tendency to devolve into very ugly flame wars. However in my honest opinion this has been rather tame as far as arguments go. Regardless, I would like to apologize for offending you.
While in theory you are correct, it just really bothers me that so many people would rather have
the primal/martial ranger and the fighter who only uses basic attacks back. For me it moves away from the structure I joined D&D for. I liked Power Source to Role to Class tree (which is how I envision it) though indeed there was overlapping as hatta says (Rogue and Assassin and Avenger are similar yet different, for example).
1) Its not like we don't want a pure martial ranger as well. But the option to create the classic D&D ranger archetype should be there.
2) Claiming the the new Essentials melee classes only use basic attacks is a fiction. They get plenty of powers. Their powers are just written up differently then the original 4e martial powers are written up. Instead of having each possibility stated as a single power, they are stated as stances and encounter powers that can be mixed and matched to augment a "melee basic attack." By the time that augmentation is finished, that basic attack is anything but basic. People who try and ignore that are no different than people who claim that powers can't be used to represent a martial attack. What they are saying speaks more to their own conceptual blocks than a valid criticism of the mechanics in question. I say this as someone who loves the PHB fighter, and would be very upset if it was ever removed from the game. It is nice to have "weaponmaster" style martial builds with a classic 4e AEDU schematic. It is also nice to have Essentials style builds as an option too.
3) The idea of a martial/primal ranger, or of alternative methods of resource distribution for different types of classes, might not appeal to you. But to many people (and I am not one of those people) the classic 4e classes from the PHB were not appealing. There is no valid reason why they should not have classes that match the structure of D&D that they want to play. There is no valid reason why I should not be given the ability to play every type of option, because they all appeal to me. (Well, except for the random division of class archetypes along the lines of power sources. That "option" doesn't appeal to me at all. I like the idea of being able to play an all martial ranger, an all primal ranger, or a mix and match ranger, but if the classic D&D archetype is the same then in my opinion all the options should be nominally connected in some shape or form.)
Also, just because the majority of players want something I label as old to be present in D&D does not mean that it is not old. It could be that the player base is glutted with more old-school players than new people interested in trying out the hobby, or that the marketing research in question was heavily biased before it even got off the ground. Whatever the reason, I know that for now the line of 4th edition products will be support for Essentials class ideas and Essentials line packaging (which is my only other grievance with Essentials, the boxes and paperbacks over hardbacks). It just means that I have time to catch up on the material I haven't gotten, which by the way is due to my unemployment since spring of 2009 and not for lack of wanting every 4th edition product up to Essentials.
And just because you label it as old doesn't mean it is. Even more important, even if it is old, that doesn't mean it is "old and stagnant." Same in regards to your preferences being "new and fresh." Ideas don't have lifespans. As a result, terms like "old" or "new" applied to ideas are subjective assessments. The best one can do when objectively ascribing such a label to an idea is calling it "newer" or "older" in relation to another idea. As for terms like stagnant or fresh, there is absolutely no way they can be applied to ideas in an objective fashion. The best one can do is apply the common subjective opinion of the community to such ideas. The community, it would seem, does not agree with your terminology. It does not find the ideas you favor so fresh, nor does it find the ideas you despise to be stagnant.
So, it was turned into a Psionic build without the Power Points?
As someone that considers himself helpful may I offer you a bit of advice? If you wish to avoid being appalled I would avoid forums as they have a tendency to devolve into very ugly flame wars. However in my honest opinion this has been rather tame as far as arguments go. Regardless, I would like to apologize for offending you.
--hatta
First, let me say that no apology is necessary. I lay no blame. There is no one person at fault, or even any two.
I am simply exhausted by how often people on these forums will argue opinions. Facts can be argued. They are either true, or not. Opinions are never wrong, or right for that matter. An opinion is simply a point of view which may, or may not be shared by others. It seems far more productive to discuss the merits of an opinion, that to attempt to invalidate, or minimalize it.
I, for example, have my opinion. I do not seem to have many people that agree with my opinions, and I accept that. However, I feel like it would be easier to find other people that may agree with me, to any extent, if every opinion I had didn't get hidden behind endless, and seemingly pointless debate. Debate can be a healthy part of any development process, but the time for debate, is after a cohesive plan of thought has been established. Trying to debate an idea before it's merits have been duely expanded upon kills an idea before it has had the opportunity to reach any meaningful potential.
What if when the WotC devs first discussed the "Essentials", a couple of them started bashing the idea for some reason, and the whole concept was scrapped before it was ever really thought out, or conceptualized. An apparent majority of the customer base would have been denied a very popular product line.
I realize there is a minority of people here on the forums that are unhappy with the development of 4e for a variety of reasons. I would just like the opportunity to discuss their concerns (and mine) to see if there would be any way to integrate some of those opinions into the growth of 4e in a way that wouldn't detract from what the majority already finds enjoyable.
An early thought here is options. Why is there only one way to do something? Could we not have a Necromancer build for the Wizard, and a Necromancer class? Or perhaps a power tree that is built on a specific power source, and another that isn't? More than likely you would not use both options in the same game, but if the variant options exist, every one would have the choice to play the game they wanted to play. I wouldn't expect a new book for each option, but perhaps some PDF's that expand the options available. Perhaps the HoS has two new Wizard builds based on the shadow power source. The Necromancer, and the Nethermancer. Then on DDi a PDF could be released offering a stand alone class, a True Necromancer, whose powers are based on a combination of Arcane, Divine, and maybe even Shadow power sources.
D&D is now, and always has been a game of unique characters, stories, worlds, and creatures. In order to make the most of every game, more options are a necessity. Growth comes from change, change will never happen if people are unwilling to consider options that may not initially seem in their favor. Who knows, perhaps one day, the idea you disliked today will evolve into a reality you'll love.
*Looking at explenation of Essentials Fighter build*
So, it was turned into a Psionic build without the Power Points?
ThaX, before you post anything again, may I kindly ask that you look up the definition of a non-sequitur, and stop and take five minutes to think about what you are posting before you post it. It would help you... a lot.
It would also help all of us who happened to stumble across the 'pearls of wisdom' you leave behind.
Mixed power source classes are an interesting idea with many possibilities. We just don't want it to cause what we've been wanting to never happen.
The druid of old simply did too much and too well, by splitting it up into roles it started fitting into the party rather than BEING the party. Looking at the Sentinel, I'm concerned we've fallen back into that pit: it's a leader with healing powers and party supporting at wills, it's encounter power is basically twinstrike with large weapons for above average damage, and the companions serve as an HP buffer and source of opportunity attacks. It can take controller powers from the old class to some degree. That's all 4 roles in one.
Going back to ranger, perhaps the conceptual split into 2 classes was more to keep the ranger from being a controller with striker level damage, rather than to fill the power source grid.
It would also help all of us who happened to stumble across the "pearls of wisdom" you leave behind.
Huh ... my pet rabbit leaves behind 'pearls of wisdom' too, it seems.
It should be stressed that few if any proponents of pure shadow classes truly feel that mixed classes should not be, but rather that we want pure shadow classes, and that the current developments sugggest that they will not be.
Mixed power source classes are an interesting idea with many possibilities. We just don't want it to cause what we've been wanting to never happen.
Oh I know, but Kalnaur was expressing a dislike of mixed source classes and we started discussing that. I think we all understand that we all want a new class that doesn't already have another form elsewhere.
This discussion of whether or not it was 'bad' for the ranger to be split into ranger/seeker calls to mind another split that essentials is working on undoing- the druid/warden/shamen split.
The druid of old simply did too much and too well, by splitting it up into roles it started fitting into the party rather than BEING the party. Looking at the Sentinel, I'm concerned we've fallen back into that pit: it's a leader with healing powers and party supporting at wills, it's encounter power is basically twinstrike with large weapons for above average damage, and the companions serve as an HP buffer and source of opportunity attacks. It can take controller powers from the old class to some degree. That's all 4 roles in one.
Going back to ranger, perhaps the conceptual split into 2 classes was more to keep the ranger from being a controller with striker level damage, rather than to fill the power source grid.
Not trying to hate on you, but a sentinel could technically take druid powers however it wouldn't be optimal as the sentinel class is not proficient with implements. When you boil it down the sentinel is in fact a different class from the druid. It is under the druid sphere conceptually but is so different mechanically that to effectively combine the two one would have to use the hybrid or multiclassing rules. This is true of many of the class options from Essentials.
And of course, anything that didn't rely on an implement – such as utilities – wouldn't be a problem to switch out for.
But yes, the Sentinel is a melee leader, through and through. He get's his second at-will through his beast, and his encounter through a combo-attack. There's no worry about the Sentinel stealing design space from the Shaman (who isn't melee; the spirit companion is quite different from the animal companion of the Sentinel; Shamans create powerful conjurations of the Primal Spirits; etc), nor is there worry of overlapping with the Warden in terms of weapon attacks and primal magic. The Warden's self-polymorphing powers differentiate it significantly.
The Sentinel is a nice addition to the family of Primal Magic users.
You know, one of the things I disliked the most about Essentials was that it interfered with my excell spreadsheets. Since the beginning, I've organised classes by power and role in excell spreadsheets (actually, in Pages, but it's the same thing…) . When Essentials came along, I was like, "So where do I put Rangers? Executioners? They no longer fit in the families of Power Source classes."
It frustrated me to no end, because one of the things I liked about 4E was that classes were categorised, and there was a thematic power to that. Power Sources are in-deed, one of the best things that came with 4E. Classes now have meaning, identity, and connection. Barbarians and Druids are more than just tied by their wildness. Back then, Rangers and Druids were even more closely tied, but Rangers were somehow given the shaft on the Primal magic in PH1. But that didn't matter to me, because this allowed Rangers to focus on what they did best, even if it meant the death of casting, even if it meant the death of beast companions. Of course, the Beastmaster Ranger later was introduced, but not in a way that was compatible with old characters. Drizz't had to turn Gwenhwyfar into an item in order for her to continue as his companion and still be a Two-Blade Ranger.
When Whirling Barbarian came out, I was like, "So this is the Primal version of the Two-Blade Ranger." And when Seeker came out, I was like, "So this is the Primal version of the Archer Ranger." It made sense: those who wanted to grasp at the Primal magic elements of the old Ranger had to look into the Barbarian and the Seeker, who each got options similar to the old Ranger. But these still weren't "Rangers." Even the Seeker has different flavour than a Ranger. Personally, I'm a huge fan of the Protecting Seeker, who is given little time around here, maybe because Javelins aren't all that fun to play with. But the Seeker felt more like a mythic hunter, while the Ranger was a person who came to the wild from the borders of civilisation, and was introduced to the mysteries of nature through that journey. That's not represented by the Seeker.
It IS, however, represented by the Scout and the Hunter, who start with more Martial-based abilities and gradually become more and more Primal. These two subclasses elicit the flavour of the old Ranger more than even, even though they don't have a Beastmaster sister-subclass.
They still irritate me that I can't categorise them. But that's okay. It's okay to leave my comfort zone for that. You know why? Because the Executioner and these two Ranger subclasses "feel" more like they should be. They "feel" right, when I think about these classes; about the tropes associated with these classes, about the occupation of the real-world equivalents; about the characters in fiction that would be associated with them; about the D&D history of them. They're embedded in a story of that leads us to classes that trump Power Sources. What makes the class as iconic as it can be, should be the important question. Each individual class needs to be weighed on it's own scale, of what it is, without comparison to the others. The class is it's own story, and through Power Sources, it has relationships to other classes' stories, but the Power Source isn't the story. The class is. Because the class is a function of your character's story. And your character isn't multiple classes, unless s/he's MCing or Hybridising.
. Anyway, I think that we will be able to multiclass a sentinel with a druid.@Marandahir. My concern is not the Sentinel eating the warden/shamen's narrative, my concern is the Sentinel becoming the new Codzilla. A small point of correction, Drizzt pet was always a figurine of power, it wasn't a 4e retcon.
Your last point is philosophically very different from mine: I always considered that the finer points of class mechanics weren't known by the characters from a Story perspective. Everyone knows a Cleric can heal, but no one identifies the user of Thunder Smite as a level 7+ paladin like in Order of the Stick. Aided by the interchangability of the edition, classes were just a means to an end of getting abilities of a certain type.
If you take Kestral, my first DnD 4e Character (loving illustrated in my past and present avatars), an Eladrin Str/Wis paladin multiclassed cleric as an example. That race with that class (pre-essentials) and that stat build pre-Divine Power reflect that he wasn't a product of powergaming, even though I was a heavy char op forum resident. His power choice was guided by the personal narrative I gave him. "Former knight (fighter) who lost everything he cared for to a horde of undead his martials skills were powerless to stop. Avenged by agents of the Raven Queen, he sought to dedicate the rest of his long life in her service, constantly seeking more and more divine energy to destroy the undead he reviled".
Multiclassing cleric let his Wisdom be used for more destructive cleric magic than the STR/CHA build offered, the healing word and lay on hands were his divine energy keeping him going despite the reckless fury he engaged in. Also, the Angelic Avenger path fit perfect in his story of personal surrender to the divine will of undead obliteration. Never was he introduced as an odd paladin that multiclass cleric, nor did he need a martial keyword to explain his physical strength, he was a paladin by profession who wielded destructive divine power through sword, spell, and heavy armor; a conceptual cross between a member of the Castlevania Belmonts and a medival Batman.
This is part of why having essentials builds being so locked in and resultantly similar bothers me. We shouldn't need the ideal mix of concepts published as an essentials build to tell our character's story when a few interchangable power swaps does it while also giving some distiction between others of the "profession".
In any case, with the new rules stating that proficiency in an implement from any source grants you proficiency in that impelement for every class's powers, it is not that hard to pick up proficiency in an implement so that a Sentinal can use other druid daily powers. But, I really don't see it as being that big a deal. The Sentinal's daily powers already have a controller facet to them, and without any controller encounters or at-wills the Sentinal is never going to be able to fill the controller role as a primary role. As for filling it as a secondary role, it would not be the only class to have a secondary role. In fact, pretty much every class does, and has even since the PHB (though it was not explicilty stated in the first PHB). I mean, just look at the fighter. It is no surprise that the Slayer was made as a striker instead of a defender, because the fighter has always had something of a striker secondary role. Like I said, it seems to me that Kletian999 is grasping at straws.
@Hatta, I agree with you as well. My comment about unable to MC or Hybrid was merely pointed towards you saying that you'd have to MC or Hybrid between the two of them if you wanted a create that "Superclass" Archetype. Now I understand that you were saying if you wanted to make that.
It's like trying to make Gandalf. Each of the Invoker builds 'invoke' a different aspect of Gandalf. You'd have to play all three at once, plus MC or Hybrid with Staff-Wizard, plus do something to get swordsman skills, in order to create him. He's a Superconcept, and within him are many subconcepts that are playable.
Now, with the new format, we very well may see a class that better allows you to play someone like Gandalf (a divine/arcane swordsman/caster). This is because they're trying to make the concepts we want to play playable. But we should remember that Gandalf is not of D&D; he's of Tolkien. So only if people REALLY want a class based power to power, feature to feature, on Gandalf, will we get that.
@Kletian999 Sentinel isn't becoming a CoDzilla. Read it again. It might TRY to do controller, defender, or striker things, but unless it focuses on its Leadership, it'll become too spread out. Bards are the same way. By focusing on powers that enhance their leadership, they become functional. If they take too many MC powers and spread themselves out too much, they start to dilute their ability to lead the party. This is very different from the old Cleric and Druid from 3.5e. These were classes that were not only the best at their own role, but the best at all the other roles as well. A Sentinel that tries too hard to be something other than a Leader fails at everything.
About your Cleric/Paladin… you can still play him. He's still viable. Don't worry. Be happy. And MCing options will come for Essentials style classes. This is something promised for the near future (I can't remember if it's in Heroes of Sword and Spell or in Champions of the Heroic Tier, but regardless, it's coming in the next year).
This is me showing that I don't follow Drizz't very carefully. >_<''
@Hatta, I agree with you as well. My comment about unable to MC or Hybrid was merely pointed towards you saying that you'd have to MC or Hybrid between the two of them if you wanted a create that "Superclass" Archetype. Now I understand that you were saying if you wanted to make that.
It's like trying to make Gandalf. Each of the Invoker builds 'invoke' a different aspect of Gandalf. You'd have to play all three at once, plus MC or Hybrid with Staff-Wizard, plus do something to get swordsman skills, in order to create him. He's a Superconcept, and within him are many subconcepts that are playable.
Now, with the new format, we very well may see a class that better allows you to play someone like Gandalf (a divine/arcane swordsman/caster). This is because they're trying to make the concepts we want to play playable. But we should remember that Gandalf is not of D&D; he's of Tolkien. So only if people REALLY want a class based power to power, feature to feature, on Gandalf, will we get that.
@Kletian999 Sentinel isn't becoming a CoDzilla. Read it again. It might TRY to do controller, defender, or striker things, but unless it focuses on its Leadership, it'll become too spread out. Bards are the same way. By focusing on powers that enhance their leadership, they become functional. If they take too many MC powers and spread themselves out too much, they start to dilute their ability to lead the party. This is very different from the old Cleric and Druid from 3.5e. These were classes that were not only the best at their own role, but the best at all the other roles as well. A Sentinel that tries too hard to be something other than a Leader fails at everything.
About your Cleric/Paladin… you can still play him. He's still viable. Don't worry. Be happy. And MCing options will come for Essentials style classes. This is something promised for the near future (I can't remember if it's in Heroes of Sword and Spell or in Champions of the Heroic Tier, but regardless, it's coming in the next year).
While that's not exactly what I meant, it is close enough. The four primary 1e classes are still the main concepts that serve as the basis of all class flavour design. The mechanics change, but the stories remain the same. It's all very philosophical if you think about it.
@Mara. In my experience, being both a laser cleric and a Valor Bard, being a leader is easy. There's so much variety between leaders that really all the party needs to keep going most times is the 2 words a battle everyone offers. If a module requires a dedicated pacifist cleric to survive, then almost any other leader class would have failed anyway. In this regard, braching out to the subrole is feasible for most leader classes. Bard is limited in taking a 3rd or 4th roles by its features that are solidly leader and that power swapping is limited by feats. In contrast, the Sentinel has high damaging encounter powers and utilities for significant personal damage increase out of the box. The companion being a flanker/OA maker and having HP on top of what the Sentinel has is out of the box. Lastly, the controller utilties are also baked into the class because Primal and summoning vines go hand in hand. Using feats to make these roles stronger is just icing on the cake at this point.
@CyberDave. Please. I'm not making non-sequiters, I'm using the compendium to read the class, I'm not misquoting things you say. I know we disgree on this issue but I expect a little more respect than you denigrating my posts with "grasping at straws." I'll stop by Char Op in a bit to see if sentinel numbers have been run yet, and if not I'll try to throw something together if it'd make you believe I'm being serious here.
@Mara. In my experience, being both a laser cleric and a Valor Bard, being a leader is easy. There's so much variety between leaders that really all the party needs to keep going most times is the 2 words a battle everyone offers. If a module requires a dedicated pacifist cleric to survive, then almost any other leader class would have failed anyway. In this regard, braching out to the subrole is feasible for most leader classes. Bard is limited in taking a 3rd or 4th roles by its features that are solidly leader and that power swapping is limited by feats. In contrast, the Sentinel has high damaging encounter powers and utilities for significant personal damage increase out of the box. The companion being a flanker/OA maker and having HP on top of what the Sentinel has is out of the box. Lastly, the controller utilties are also baked into the class because Primal and summoning vines go hand in hand. Using feats to make these roles stronger is just icing on the cake at this point.
I think the point that was trying to be made is that while the sentinel could make a passable character of any role, it is designed as a leader and that is what it excels at. That can be said of any class, you can speciallize in its sub-role but then it will not excel at it's original purpose.
Let me start by saying my favorite line from several of the 4e books "The only limit is your imagination." Apparently this is more limiting for some than for others.
I understand the desire for new classes and something that is wholely shadow powered like the orginal assassin. I think that type of character can still be created with the Essentials character builds that will be released. Yes, it may require a bit of work, but if that's the kind of character you want, it can be done. I'm not against having new classes, but I'm of the opinion that it will be better to have new builds. Giving a necromancer the option of choosing Wizard feats, PP, Powers, etc allows them to have more variety and support. And by viewing past Essentials products, there is a good indication that these builds will have new options that are specifically suited to the Style that is the Shadow power source.
Secondly, one of the biggest complaints of Essentials I've seen in here is that it "shoehorns" characters into certain choices. Firstly, I had this problem when the PHB was originally released for 4e. There just weren't enough player options for my taste, I had been spoiled by all the options in 3.5. I believe more options will arrive as we delve further into Essentials. Also, Essentials is backwards compatible. All of the Knight and Slayer powers are listed as "Fighter" powers. Any Fighter can take them, just as any Knight or Slayer could choose a Fighter At-Will in place of one of their stances. The same goes for Encounter and Utility powers. The classes are presented in their given format to make it simple for players who are new to the game. I have personally seen it bring in a lot of new blood during my encounters game. As well as bringing back older players. Like it or not, Essentials is helping 4e grow in player base.
As for combining multiple power sources, I belong in the camp that says power sources should be flavor more than hard dividing lines. Multiple power sources will dilute some of the flavor. But, it is possible that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. This is still a new concept, perhaps it needs a little more time to develope and mature. I like the feel of the new ranger and I'm looking forward to seeing some new possabilities in the future. If you aren't willing to keep an open mind and at least try new things, you will always find yourself getting disappointed. The world moves forward, it can't exist standing still. And before someone claims that Essential is taking D&D backwards... It's actually taking old ideas and bringing them forwards. Old styles of play, updated for a new edition.
Took me three days, but I finally made it all the way through this thread. And I must say there are quite a few things that bug me a bit.
Let me start by saying my favorite line from several of the 4e books "The only limit is your imagination." Apparently this is more limiting for some than for others.
I understand the desire for new classes and something that is wholely shadow powered like the orginal assassin. I think that type of character can still be created with the Essentials character builds that will be released. Yes, it may require a bit of work, but if that's the kind of character you want, it can be done. I'm not against having new classes, but I'm of the opinion that it will be better to have new builds. Giving a necromancer the option of choosing Wizard feats, PP, Powers, etc allows them to have more variety and support. And by viewing past Essentials products, there is a good indication that these builds will have new options that are specifically suited to the Style that is the Shadow power source.
Secondly, one of the biggest complaints of Essentials I've seen in here is that it "shoehorns" characters into certain choices. Firstly, I had this problem when the PHB was originally released for 4e. There just weren't enough player options for my taste, I had been spoiled by all the options in 3.5. I believe more options will arrive as we delve further into Essentials. Also, Essentials is backwards compatible. All of the Knight and Slayer powers are listed as "Fighter" powers. Any Fighter can take them, just as any Knight or Slayer could choose a Fighter At-Will in place of one of their stances. The same goes for Encounter and Utility powers. The classes are presented in their given format to make it simple for players who are new to the game. I have personally seen it bring in a lot of new blood during my encounters game. As well as bringing back older players. Like it or not, Essentials is helping 4e grow in player base.
As for combining multiple power sources, I belong in the camp that says power sources should be flavor more than hard dividing lines. Multiple power sources will dilute some of the flavor. But, it is possible that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. This is still a new concept, perhaps it needs a little more time to develope and mature. I like the feel of the new ranger and I'm looking forward to seeing some new possabilities in the future. If you aren't willing to keep an open mind and at least try new things, you will always find yourself getting disappointed. The world moves forward, it can't exist standing still. And before someone claims that Essential is taking D&D backwards... It's actually taking old ideas and bringing them forwards. Old styles of play, updated for a new edition.
Well said.
I think the point that was trying to be made is that while the sentinel could make a passable character of any role, it is designed as a leader and that is what it excels at. That can be said of any class, you can speciallize in its sub-role but then it will not excel at it's original purpose.
The point I was trying to make is that the Sentinel appears to be outdamaging all other leaders and their pet is an effective (though not superior) defender similiar to how the animal companion of the past was superior to the old fighter, at no cost to their leader abilities.
I think the point that was trying to be made is that while the sentinel could make a passable character of any role, it is designed as a leader and that is what it excels at. That can be said of any class, you can speciallize in its sub-role but then it will not excel at it's original purpose.
The point I was trying to make is that the Sentinel appears to be outdamaging all other leaders and their pet is an effective (though not superior) defender similiar to how the animal companion of the past was superior to the old fighter, at no cost to their leader abilities.
Yea. And people are saying they don't agree with you. You have, as of yet, provided no evidence to support the claim.
About your Cleric/Paladin… you can still play him. He's still viable. Don't worry. Be happy. And MCing options will come for Essentials style classes. This is something promised for the near future (I can't remember if it's in Heroes of Sword and Spell or in Champions of the Heroic Tier, but regardless, it's coming in the next year).
I missed commenting on this earlier. It wasn't my intention to say my character has been compromised by essentials (if anything, the Cavelier has finally given the opportunity for STR based attacks to catch up to the CHA based suite). My points were,
1. Classes are metagame constructs, we don't need to be faithful to them by saying "all rangers have the capacity to use primal magic". We can say Aragorn calls himself a ranger and has a bit of primal magic (multiclassed with a primal), while Drizzt calls himself a ranger and just uses blades. The character narrative (and the players desires) should determine what suite of abilities the character has, then the mechanics can be selected and mixed to fit.
2. It doesn't make sense for me to desire an "aggressive paladin of holy destruction" subclass when the mechanics already support it. Similiarly, the mechanics already supported letting the ranger cast a few utility (or even attack) spells, before the essentials builds came out.
3. I gave my character as an example of "starting mundance to becoming more supernatural over time" narrative without needing a mixed powersource class, or even multiclassing to martial. The game just starts far enough in the narrative that he has the full suite of level 1 paladin powers. Complaining the game doesn't support the "pure martial towards divinity/primal transition" is like complaining the game doesn't support the "simple farmer to trained hero transition", in my perspective at least.
[The point I was trying to make is that the Sentinel appears to be outdamaging all other leaders and their pet is an effective (though not superior) defender similiar to how the animal companion of the past was superior to the old fighter, at no cost to their leader abilities.
None of your statements are true. They are a reasonable semi-striker, with poor leader capabilities compared to others - so a Sentinel is not the man you want to rely on as the main healer - while only semi-defending. Basically a sentinel can kinda do everything, but they are nowhere near an actual defender/striker. They have more limited options than another leader as well, due to their dailies all being taken from a controller. So they also kinda do control as well but only when they use their dailies: Unlike normal controllers who can do this all day.
So have you actually played with a sentinel yet or is just your theorycraft? Because there is absolutely *no* way, no way on this earth or universe the pet is better than a 4E Fighter as a defender. There is absolutely *no* way, no way on this earth or universe the Sentinel is a better striker than a scout/ranger/rogue/thief/slayer/sorcerer/warlock etc (list goes on).
Absolutely no way.
Is the sentinel a very handy and quite flexible man to have around in an already balanced party? Why yes, yes he is. Does he do everything better than everyone in the party like the 3rd edition Druid? Absolutely no way. The sentinels flexibility comes at a great cost of being unable to excel at practically anything.
As for evidence, regretably the character builder doesn't have Sentinel yet, so I'm going to hold off on hard numbers. I did find some interesting tidbits on Charop though
The abandoned Sentinel guide, which affirms my observations of midlevel striker level encounter damage, constant leader benefits via companion aura community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
The all druid guide. Confirms that controller powers are completely open the sentinel (can cast for it's personal at will and have the creature do the melee at will for example) via Afsair spear or Staff, as well as take instictive action daily summons. Since being dazed alows the companion to act unhindered, and vice versa, this presents a huge action economy advantage over most classes. This downplays the Sentinel defending abilities, but it ignores the fact that getting to self flank in cardinal directions (if you took a melee atwill) is as punishing to "shift charge" as a weaponmaster fighter or assault swordmage (basic attack damage). Since it doesn't rely on marks, it can stack with other defenders.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
It's fine for the Weaponmaster fighter to Sub Striker because that's only 2 roles, not 3 or 4. Also, defending requires more investment to succeed compared to leading. Or perhaps I should say, BEING a leader (which grants the encounter words) is a lot harder to replace with multiclassing than striking (high damage), defending (survivalbility+hindering enemy targeting), or controlling (multitarget debilitation). Such that when you start as a leader, you're already 80% there. I DMed a level 28 delve and a single unoptimized bard with 2 targeting, 3 used healing word made the damage dealt a joke.
I promise I'll get around to building a sentinel once the builder is up.
About your Cleric/Paladin… you can still play him. He's still viable. Don't worry. Be happy. And MCing options will come for Essentials style classes. This is something promised for the near future (I can't remember if it's in Heroes of Sword and Spell or in Champions of the Heroic Tier, but regardless, it's coming in the next year).
I missed commenting on this earlier. It wasn't my intention to say my character has been compromised by essentials (if anything, the Cavelier has finally given the opportunity for STR based attacks to catch up to the CHA based suite). My points were,
1. Classes are metagame constructs, we don't need to be faithful to them by saying "all rangers have the capacity to use primal magic". We can say Aragorn calls himself a ranger and has a bit of primal magic (multiclassed with a primal), while Drizzt calls himself a ranger and just uses blades. The character narrative (and the players desires) should determine what suite of abilities the character has, then the mechanics can be selected and mixed to fit.
2. It doesn't make sense for me to desire an "aggressive paladin of holy destruction" subclass when the mechanics already support it. Similiarly, the mechanics already supported letting the ranger cast a few utility (or even attack) spells, before the essentials builds came out.
3. I gave my character as an example of "starting mundance to becoming more supernatural over time" narrative without needing a mixed powersource class, or even multiclassing to martial. The game just starts far enough in the narrative that he has the full suite of level 1 paladin powers. Complaining the game doesn't support the "pure martial towards divinity/primal transition" is like complaining the game doesn't support the "simple farmer to trained hero transition", in my perspective at least.
I don't think that Cyber-Dave, or anyone on this board, is saying every individual ranger is capable of primal magic. The truth is the Metagame is more important in design than the individual characters. They have already designed a ranger that can use some primal magic without modification, and therefore if you were to come upon a ranger in the forest they could possibly use magic on your butt. Of course they could just as easily cleave your skull in twane.
Bad choice of words perhaps, I didn't mean to imply Sentinel companion outperforms the 4e fighter, but rather that it's like having a free 3.5 fighter added to your own.
This statement isn't true either, because the sentinel isn't increasing her action economy like the 3.5 druid. The druid had themselves and a pet that could outfight the fighter with complete ease. This is no longer the case in 4E and the Sentinel is nowhere near a fighter in any way. The 3.5 fighter is better than the sentinels pet equivalently, especially as he'll get multiple attacks with levels, the sentinels pet won't. The core reason that high level 3.5 druids were better than fighters, was because their pets gained incredible abiliites and could easily outfight the fighter. All the while the druid was still capable of casting spells and doing whatever they felt like on their turn: Effectively being two characters in one.
It should be stressed that few if any proponents of pure shadow classes truly feel that mixed classes should not be, but rather that we want pure shadow classes, and that the current developments sugggest that they will not be.
Mixed power source classes are an interesting idea with many possibilities. We just don't want it to cause what we've been wanting to never happen.
Oh I know, but Kalnaur was expressing a dislike of mixed source classes and we started discussing that. I think we all understand that we all want a new class that doesn't already have another form elsewhere.
And mixed source classes will bother me, but I do not deny their possible usefulness to others. Personally, I find them disdainful and too "old school" for me; if I wanted a mixed source class I would expect to be required to mix them myself through hybrid rules. But I know that it is not the case, that some want classes like the old school, ready mix classes and I'm fine with that, provided that pure source classes and original 4th edition straight AEDU classes and level-up progression is still supported.
Think of it this way, for mixed classes. I would prefer to have a cake that is made by hand-picked flour, eggs, butter and other ingredients. That does not mean I would go into a store and light up the Betty Crocker box mixes. For those who want a box mix cake, that's fine; but if I wanted to mix up a cake, I'd do it from scratch.
As for power sources, let's use ice cream, and just say that mixing french vanilla (Let's call this "martial") with chocolate fudge (let's call this "primal") might be good, but neither the french vanilla nor the chocolate fudge will have as strong and distinct a flavour as they would have if not mixed. Sure they are both ice cream (in this comparison, "classes"), but the ice cream tastes better to me if it's a single flavour at a time. Then again, I am the kind of guy that generally gets cheese pizza, separates and eats each item individually on his plate, and generally likes only one taste at a time. There are a few combinations that increase the flavour or interesting nature of both (a frothy rootbeer float, for example) but those for me are the exception instead of the rule. I know I am not the norm, but I also know I am not alone.
Now, with a box mix, mixed flavour cake (or would it be a pre-mixed tub of mult-flavour ice cream?), I am not getting what I want. I know some are, but others are not, and those others include me.
The moral of this post: do not try metaphor when you haven't eaten all day. Now, to food.
My favorite number in the alphabet is green!
"That's all I have to say about that."
--Forest Gump
Just great! Now I want ice cream cake.
The cake is a lie.
Just great! Now I want ice cream cake.
The cake is a lie.
It is not, rather your perception of the cake is erroneous.
Just great! Now I want ice cream cake.
The cake is a lie.
It is not, rather your perception of the cake is erroneous.
It's been a lie the whole time.
Just great! Now I want ice cream cake.
The cake is a lie.
It is not, rather your perception of the cake is erroneous.
It's been a lie the whole time.
It's an existentialism joke.
Just great! Now I want ice cream cake.
The cake is a lie.
Yes, and it's a made up drug as well.
[I'm sorry, but it took all my energy not to channel Homer Simpson...]
That.... that is the lie...
- End of line
Assassins & Rogues
We already have the Shadar-Kai. Dragon Annual.
You completely missed the joke, but yes we already have Shadar-kai. Also it's not a lie about the classes, it's just a "misunderstanding", you know what they say about when you assume.
...sorry, been holding in that rant for a while. While I can appreciate them bringing back old themes and abilities from the older versions (Domain Clerics, for one), the way that it's been re-created it's almost like a completely new class. Couldn't they just have released something that stated 'For this kind of cleric you can exchange Healer's Lore for a Domain power' in a magazine article or something?
"Misrepresented" you mean, not misunderstood.
Not misrepresented, you just don't like what Wizards calls classes now.
"Misrepresented" you mean, not misunderstood.
Not misrepresented, you just don't like what Wizards calls classes now.
Basically this.
It seems that they're switching more towards building archetypes, then putting classes under that archetype. Instead of just having a "wizard"... you have different classes under the "wizard" archetype. Same goes for the slayer and knight being under the "fighter archetype. Just looks like the direction of essentials.
Ugh. I hope Necromancers and Hexblades get their own classes. I think I'll give up on 4th Edition if they're not. -_- I've hated these 'Essentials' re-writeups that have been getting released; I just don't see a point to it. It feels they're basically recreating classes because they made the newer ones too powerful or something. 'Oops. Our Bad. Here, have this.' The game has been simplified as it is; do we really need a 'For Dummies' version of the game anyway?
...sorry, been holding in that rant for a while. While I can appreciate them bringing back old themes and abilities from the older versions (Domain Clerics, for one), the way that it's been re-created it's almost like a completely new class. Couldn't they just have released something that stated 'For this kind of cleric you can exchange Healer's Lore for a Domain power' in a magazine article or something?
Hate to piss on your parade, but it is more likely that there would be a Stripper class than it would be to get both a necromancer mage school and a necromancer class. It would be laughably redundant to have both. The same goes for having the hexblade warlock and a hexblade class.
"Misrepresented" you mean, not misunderstood.
Not misrepresented, you just don't like what Wizards calls classes now.
Misrepresented. It is still a build of the base class. It still shares the power source of that class (though it may have keyworded powers of another or have an abiltity of another). As I have mentioned in other threads, it is more like the class kits of 2nd edition. (not a good thing)
"Misrepresented" you mean, not misunderstood.
Not misrepresented, you just don't like what Wizards calls classes now.
Misrepresented. It is still a build of the base class. It still shares the power source of that class (though it may have keyworded powers of another or have an abiltity of another). As I have mentioned in other threads, it is more like the class kits of 2nd edition. (not a good thing)
Unless you have held the finished product in your hands and there are NO classes in it you cannot say that they have misrepresented the product. Your argument doesn't hold water.
"Misrepresented" you mean, not misunderstood.
Not misrepresented, you just don't like what Wizards calls classes now.
Misrepresented. It is still a build of the base class. It still shares the power source of that class (though it may have keyworded powers of another or have an abiltity of another). As I have mentioned in other threads, it is more like the class kits of 2nd edition. (not a good thing)
Or maybe, just maybe, they are self-reflexively noting that their "builds" are, mechanically speaking, new classes; the only thing that makes them a "build" is their nominal relation to another class.
"Misrepresented" you mean, not misunderstood.
Not misrepresented, you just don't like what Wizards calls classes now.
Misrepresented. It is still a build of the base class. It still shares the power source of that class (though it may have keyworded powers of another or have an abiltity of another). As I have mentioned in other threads, it is more like the class kits of 2nd edition. (not a good thing)
Or maybe, just maybe, they are self-reflexively noting that their "builds" are, mechanically speaking, new classes; the only thing that makes them a "build" is their nominal relation to another class.
Thank you. I wanted to say just that and couldn't word it right.
Ugh. I hope Necromancers and Hexblades get their own classes. I think I'll give up on 4th Edition if they're not. -_- I've hated these 'Essentials' re-writeups that have been getting released; I just don't see a point to it. It feels they're basically recreating classes because they made the newer ones too powerful or something. 'Oops. Our Bad. Here, have this.' The game has been simplified as it is; do we really need a 'For Dummies' version of the game anyway?
...sorry, been holding in that rant for a while. While I can appreciate them bringing back old themes and abilities from the older versions (Domain Clerics, for one), the way that it's been re-created it's almost like a completely new class. Couldn't they just have released something that stated 'For this kind of cleric you can exchange Healer's Lore for a Domain power' in a magazine article or something?
Hate to piss on your parade, but it is more likely that there would be a Stripper class than it would be to get both a necromancer mage school and a necromancer class. It would be laughably redundant to have both. The same goes for having the hexblade warlock and a hexblade class.
Alas, I am aware. v.v I've blown my steam, now I've gone into the mourning phase. I just hope they don't butcher Incarnum should they decide to reprint them.
Ugh. I hope Necromancers and Hexblades get their own classes. I think I'll give up on 4th Edition if they're not. -_- I've hated these 'Essentials' re-writeups that have been getting released; I just don't see a point to it. It feels they're basically recreating classes because they made the newer ones too powerful or something. 'Oops. Our Bad. Here, have this.' The game has been simplified as it is; do we really need a 'For Dummies' version of the game anyway?
...sorry, been holding in that rant for a while. While I can appreciate them bringing back old themes and abilities from the older versions (Domain Clerics, for one), the way that it's been re-created it's almost like a completely new class. Couldn't they just have released something that stated 'For this kind of cleric you can exchange Healer's Lore for a Domain power' in a magazine article or something?
Hate to piss on your parade, but it is more likely that there would be a Stripper class than it would be to get both a necromancer mage school and a necromancer class. It would be laughably redundant to have both. The same goes for having the hexblade warlock and a hexblade class.
Alas, I am aware. v.v I've blown my steam, now I've gone into the mourning phase. I just hope they don't butcher Incarnum should they decide to reprint them.
Sorry for the harshness.
"Misrepresented" you mean, not misunderstood.
Not misrepresented, you just don't like what Wizards calls classes now.
Misrepresented. It is still a build of the base class. It still shares the power source of that class (though it may have keyworded powers of another or have an abiltity of another). As I have mentioned in other threads, it is more like the class kits of 2nd edition. (not a good thing)
Or maybe, just maybe, they are self-reflexively noting that their "builds" are, mechanically speaking, new classes; the only thing that makes them a "build" is their nominal relation to another class.
No, see, the Mage is a class. Taking Necromancy doesn't make it a 'new class'.
It's pretty clear that the new style is Archetype -> Class -> Build. Polish a turd all you like. Necromancy and Nethermancy are builds. The Blackguard is a class.
"Misrepresented" you mean, not misunderstood.
Not misrepresented, you just don't like what Wizards calls classes now.
Misrepresented. It is still a build of the base class. It still shares the power source of that class (though it may have keyworded powers of another or have an abiltity of another). As I have mentioned in other threads, it is more like the class kits of 2nd edition. (not a good thing)
Or maybe, just maybe, they are self-reflexively noting that their "builds" are, mechanically speaking, new classes; the only thing that makes them a "build" is their nominal relation to another class.
No, see, the Mage is a class. Taking Necromancy doesn't make it a 'new class'.
It's pretty clear that the new style is Archetype -> Class -> Build. Polish a turd all you like. Necromancy and Nethermancy are builds. The Blackguard is a class.
I think he meant that in some cases they're retconning what they were calling builds while advertising Essentials into classes to make things more clear to players.
"Misrepresented" you mean, not misunderstood.
Not misrepresented, you just don't like what Wizards calls classes now.
Misrepresented. It is still a build of the base class. It still shares the power source of that class (though it may have keyworded powers of another or have an abiltity of another). As I have mentioned in other threads, it is more like the class kits of 2nd edition. (not a good thing)
Or maybe, just maybe, they are self-reflexively noting that their "builds" are, mechanically speaking, new classes; the only thing that makes them a "build" is their nominal relation to another class.
No, see, the Mage is a class. Taking Necromancy doesn't make it a 'new class'.
It's pretty clear that the new style is Archetype -> Class -> Build. Polish a turd all you like. Necromancy and Nethermancy are builds. The Blackguard is a class.
That is funny. I thought we were just talking about how they sold HoS by saying that the book will contain classes in it. ThaX said they misrepresented the sale. I said they didn't, because many of the "builds" are, for all intents and purposes, new classes. You just said that the blackguard "build" is a new class. Seems you agree with me. But, you opened your post with the word no... a little odd, but ok.
The Essentials builds are not new classes. They are sometimes very close to being new classes, but can use class options otherwise only available to an existing class, and cannot take options which those classes are restricted from. They have enough new mechanics that, if someone were to give them class-specific support and remove their access and restriction to a proper class's options, THEN sure they're a new class. But until that happens, no.
Knight and Slayer are certainly different classes than the PHB fighter. Mage is a different class than PHB Wizard.
Different Wizard builds woud be the choices of implement specialization and choices of spells a wizard makes. Different Fighter builds are Tempest, Battlerager, Greatweapon, etc. and the class features that go with it, but share powers, other class features, etc. with the core class.
Knight and Slayer share no class features with the fighter. Noyt enough to be considered builds anyway.
On the other hand...they CAN share Utilities...maybe we should be calling them sub-classes?
The Essentials builds are not new classes. They are sometimes very close to being new classes, but can use class options otherwise only available to an existing class, and cannot take options which those classes are restricted from. They have enough new mechanics that, if someone were to give them class-specific support and remove their access and restriction to a proper class's options, THEN sure they're a new class. But until that happens, no.
Knight and Slayer are certainly different classes than the PHB fighter. Mage is a different class than PHB Wizard.
Different Wizard builds woud be the choices of implement specialization and choices of spells a wizard makes. Different Fighter builds are Tempest, Battlerager, Greatweapon, etc. and the class features that go with it, but share powers, other class features, etc. with the core class.
Knight and Slayer share no class features with the fighter. Noyt enough to be considered builds anyway.
On the other hand...they CAN share Utilities...maybe we should be calling them sub-classes?
Or kits. Whatever. But they are still the same class insofar as 4E's rule structure works.
Classes aren't internally defined as playing the same, they're defined by whether or not they count as the same class in regard to feats, paths, destinies, and so forth.
If you feel that classes should have more unified mechanics, that's fine, that doesn't mean that unified mechanics are what makes a class a class.
The Essentials builds are not new classes. They are sometimes very close to being new classes, but can use class options otherwise only available to an existing class, and cannot take options which those classes are restricted from. They have enough new mechanics that, if someone were to give them class-specific support and remove their access and restriction to a proper class's options, THEN sure they're a new class. But until that happens, no.
Knight and Slayer are certainly different classes than the PHB fighter. Mage is a different class than PHB Wizard.
Different Wizard builds woud be the choices of implement specialization and choices of spells a wizard makes. Different Fighter builds are Tempest, Battlerager, Greatweapon, etc. and the class features that go with it, but share powers, other class features, etc. with the core class.
Knight and Slayer share no class features with the fighter. Noyt enough to be considered builds anyway.
On the other hand...they CAN share Utilities...maybe we should be calling them sub-classes?
Or kits. Whatever. But they are still the same class insofar as 4E's rule structure works.
Classes aren't internally defined as playing the same, they're defined by whether or not they count as the same class in regard to feats, paths, destinies, and so forth.
If you feel that classes should have more unified mechanics, that's fine, that doesn't mean that unified mechanics are what makes a class a class.
The Mage really isn't a different class than the wizard, as they can interchange powers freely. I consider giving up implement mastery to gain the schools somewhat similar to a beastmaster giving up prime shot. Give up one class feature to gain another.
The Essentials builds are not new classes. They are sometimes very close to being new classes, but can use class options otherwise only available to an existing class, and cannot take options which those classes are restricted from. They have enough new mechanics that, if someone were to give them class-specific support and remove their access and restriction to a proper class's options, THEN sure they're a new class. But until that happens, no.
Knight and Slayer are certainly different classes than the PHB fighter. Mage is a different class than PHB Wizard.
Different Wizard builds woud be the choices of implement specialization and choices of spells a wizard makes. Different Fighter builds are Tempest, Battlerager, Greatweapon, etc. and the class features that go with it, but share powers, other class features, etc. with the core class.
Knight and Slayer share no class features with the fighter. Noyt enough to be considered builds anyway.
On the other hand...they CAN share Utilities...maybe we should be calling them sub-classes?
Or kits. Whatever. But they are still the same class insofar as 4E's rule structure works.
Classes aren't internally defined as playing the same, they're defined by whether or not they count as the same class in regard to feats, paths, destinies, and so forth.
If you feel that classes should have more unified mechanics, that's fine, that doesn't mean that unified mechanics are what makes a class a class.
The Mage really isn't a different class than the wizard, as they can interchange powers freely. I consider giving up implement mastery to gain the schools somewhat similar to a beastmaster giving up prime shot. Give up one class feature to gain another.
Yeah the Mage is less of it's own class than the others. I suppose there are a few things that connect Essentials classes with their predecessor classes; like weapon, armor, and implement proficiencies. But that's tenuous really.
The Essentials builds are not new classes. They are sometimes very close to being new classes, but can use class options otherwise only available to an existing class, and cannot take options which those classes are restricted from. They have enough new mechanics that, if someone were to give them class-specific support and remove their access and restriction to a proper class's options, THEN sure they're a new class. But until that happens, no.
Knight and Slayer are certainly different classes than the PHB fighter. Mage is a different class than PHB Wizard.
Different Wizard builds woud be the choices of implement specialization and choices of spells a wizard makes. Different Fighter builds are Tempest, Battlerager, Greatweapon, etc. and the class features that go with it, but share powers, other class features, etc. with the core class.
Knight and Slayer share no class features with the fighter. Noyt enough to be considered builds anyway.
On the other hand...they CAN share Utilities...maybe we should be calling them sub-classes?
Or kits. Whatever. But they are still the same class insofar as 4E's rule structure works.
Classes aren't internally defined as playing the same, they're defined by whether or not they count as the same class in regard to feats, paths, destinies, and so forth.
If you feel that classes should have more unified mechanics, that's fine, that doesn't mean that unified mechanics are what makes a class a class.
The Mage really isn't a different class than the wizard, as they can interchange powers freely. I consider giving up implement mastery to gain the schools somewhat similar to a beastmaster giving up prime shot. Give up one class feature to gain another.
Yeah the Mage is less of it's own class than the others. I suppose there are a few things that connect Essentials classes with their predecessor classes; like weapon, armor, and implement proficiencies. But that's tenuous really.
The class compendium will fill in the rest of the holes... hopefully.
Or kits. Whatever. But they are still the same class insofar as 4E's rule structure works.
Classes aren't internally defined as playing the same, they're defined by whether or not they count as the same class in regard to feats, paths, destinies, and so forth.
If you feel that classes should have more unified mechanics, that's fine, that doesn't mean that unified mechanics are what makes a class a class.
Officially speaking, you are correct. The new "builds" bear a nominal relationship to existing classes, and as a result are not considered to be a new "class." But insofar as a class is, or at least used to be, a group of mechanical abilities, and insofar as all of the mechanical abilities of some of the Essentials "builds" are completely different than the parent class that the build bears a nominal relationship to, those "builds" can be considered a new "class." Basically, Essentials changed the definition of build and class. A build now means something akin to what the word class used to mean in the context of 4e. The word class now refers to an overarching archetypal concept, not a group of mechanical abilities.
The notion of class and build have indeed changed with Essentials. Also Power Source, since you can now mix them, assuming WotC decides to make "Shadow" more meaningful than "Charm"
I would assume that there will be feats in HoS tailored for those that make use of the shadow source.
My problem with this product thus far is that it isn't introducing a new power source, it is simply using the source for flavor and not much else. From what I see, any character class is gonna be able to use shadow powers/effects with the options within this book.
My main question for it is what is happening beyond the three builds previewed? Is there a Shadow Dancer like build/class or a Shadowcaster? Is there another build for a Primal class? Martial? Psionic? Is the Assassin build mentioned at all, since it has been downgraded to a Dragon Article?
What I see thus far make me think that these three builds are it, with the Assassin build taken out for Dragon Exclusivality. I assume that the Shadar Kia will stay within the pages of Dragon also, online and in the Annual.
I understand the reason for having the self sustaining builds in the two player Essentials books, but for the supposed introdution of a new power source, there needs to be new classes. New Shadow Classes. Not builds for Divine and Arcane base classes. Are they waiting for the PHB4? In 2012?
But yeah, I think the idea of more numbers is the problem. WotC probably doesn't want new players to feel that if they want the material in a new book that has a 4 on the end of it, it means they need to get 1-3 first. Because they should be able to buy PH4 without buying PH1, since material from PH1 is covered in the HotFL/HotFK/Class Compendiums. I believe the same issue is with an Adventurer's Vault 3. They gave it a new name, so it didn't seem necessary to buy the first two.
Well, there's also, Player's Handbook – Champions of the Heroic Tier, which adds options others than new classes, such as occupations and themes.
But yeah, I think the idea of more numbers is the problem. WotC probably doesn't want new players to feel that if they want the material in a new book that has a 4 on the end of it, it means they need to get 1-3 first. Because they should be able to buy PH4 without buying PH1, since material from PH1 is covered in the HotFL/HotFK/Class Compendiums. I believe the same issue is with an Adventurer's Vault 3. They gave it a new name, so it didn't seem necessary to buy the first two.
Forgot about that one, but my point is still valid. It's unlikely for any further Player's Handbooks will be like the first three in composition.
Mixing power sources is falling back to the previous edition way of things. It is undoing the structure that was set at the beginning of this editions release. Power Points began this slide, Essentials is putting the wedge in, and this product is poking holes.
My main question for it is what is happening beyond the three builds previewed? Is there a Shadow Dancer like build/class or a Shadowcaster? Is there another build for a Primal class? Martial? Psionic? Is the Assassin build mentioned at all, since it has been downgraded to a Dragon Article?
First of all, mixing power sources is what now? Are you not-so-secretly trying to imply that 4E is trying to make every class into a Mystic Theurge, which focused on two things and succeeded at neither? Because if so, you're wrong. There's nothing wrong with multiple power sources on a power, or even a class. The Umbiri has been around since the first Campaign setting was released. We've HAD the Shadow power source for a long time, in the Umbiri. It's notably, not just Shadow, but Arcane/Shadow. A single word "Shadow" does not take something away from the class, just for being there. The Mage, presumably, doesn't get one fewer benefit from taking Nethermancy or Necromancy, PURELY because they have the Shadow/Arcane school. They get the same benefits of everyone else. Mixing power sources may 'dilute' in some minds, but the keyword itself enriches player options and takes nothing away - instead adding more.
Second, stop using opinion as fact. There's nothing wrong with Power Points. It's just another unit to track and a mechanic to make Psionics stand out. They do. Your dislike for Psionics =/= "The sky is falling!" The only true failing of Psionics was frontloading their powers so that the best powers are the ones are located in Heroic tier.
That said, I'm not a fan of essentials and I think you]re wrong. Essentials fixed a larger number of things than it broke. We no longer have 12 defense feats, instead we now have 7 - and all of them scale. They each serve a specific purpose, instead of being taxes. They made Expertise into less of a tax and more of a benefit to taking it. Essentials added a ton of new, useful feats for players - even if they're not a Slayer, Knight or Mage.
Shadow Dancers are the Assassin, expecting a whole new class built around the same mechanic we already have is odd. The Assassin is staying Dragon Only, so is the Revenant. That's been clear forever and ever.
There may be another build - we've only seen two schools and the Blackguard. Might be more. Might not. Personally, my hopes aren't high - it looks like it'll take a miracle to confirm whether this is it for HoS. WotC has already quickly retracted their offer to solve this confusion - so they clearly don't care as much as they've claimed so solving this gross miscommunication. They're likely trying to save face, so that we don't get anything more until they start posting excerpts from the book. By then, many of us may not care anymore.
My problem with Psionics isn't that it exists, it is that it uses an outdated mechanic for it's classes with the exception of the one Ki class that it asorbed. Augmentation could have been used without the use of another resource to keep track of and the return if Power Points is a slap in the face. Psionics has always been anathama to the normal course of things in each edition it has been in. It was basically wizards with Mana in the previous edition, with science instead of magic. Now, it is less choices without the need of change of the main powers as they level.
The Shadow Dancer is able to Shadowjump with more freedom than the situational ability that the Assassin has, and would hopefully have a more effective striker mechanic than the lousy Shrouds. The name Assassin should really not be used for a class name, though this argument has been done to death in other threads. I will say no more on that front.
Hatta. I am not to sure, for me it seems they previewed all the builds. I think the Assassin was originally supposed to be a part of this product but was back off to keep exclusivility. (It still would have been exclusive, this would just be an addition build)
My problem with Psionics isn't that it exists, it is that it uses an outdated mechanic for it's classes with the exception of the one Ki class that it asorbed. Augmentation could have been used without the use of another resource to keep track of and the return if Power Points is a slap in the face. Psionics has always been anathama to the normal course of things in each edition it has been in. It was basically wizards with Mana in the previous edition, with science instead of magic. Now, it is less choices without the need of change of the main powers as they level.
The Shadow Dancer is able to Shadowjump with more freedom than the situational ability that the Assassin has, and would hopefully have a more effective striker mechanic than the lousy Shrouds. The name Assassin should really not be used for a class name, though this argument has been done to death in other threads. I will say no more on that front.
So, you want them to have Ethereal Stride? Or.... Misty Step? Shadowstep wasn't good enough? Play a Fey Pact Warlock, it apparently fills the niche you want. Eldritch Strike to your heart's content, if you want weapons. Your concept of the "Shadow Dancer" already exists in 4E. Between the Assassin and Warlock.
As for Power Points being 'outdated'. If it's kept current, I'm not sure how it's 'outdated'. Points have been rather iconic to Psionics, but I'm really curious how you'd have dealt with Augmentation without a new resource. Enlighten us! Fix the Psionic Power Source!
Hatta. I am not to sure, for me it seems they previewed all the builds. I think the Assassin was originally supposed to be a part of this product but was back off to keep exclusivility. (It still would have been exclusive, this would just be an addition build)
My problem with Psionics isn't that it exists, it is that it uses an outdated mechanic for it's classes with the exception of the one Ki class that it asorbed. Augmentation could have been used without the use of another resource to keep track of and the return if Power Points is a slap in the face. Psionics has always been anathama to the normal course of things in each edition it has been in. It was basically wizards with Mana in the previous edition, with science instead of magic. Now, it is less choices without the need of change of the main powers as they level.
The Shadow Dancer is able to Shadowjump with more freedom than the situational ability that the Assassin has, and would hopefully have a more effective striker mechanic than the lousy Shrouds. The name Assassin should really not be used for a class name, though this argument has been done to death in other threads. I will say no more on that front.
So, you want them to have Ethereal Stride? Or.... Misty Step? Shadowstep wasn't good enough? Play a Fey Pact Warlock, it apparently fills the niche you want. Eldritch Strike to your heart's content, if you want weapons. Your concept of the "Shadow Dancer" already exists in 4E. Between the Assassin and Warlock.
As for Power Points being 'outdated'. If it's kept current, I'm not sure how it's 'outdated'. Points have been rather iconic to Psionics, but I'm really curious how you'd have dealt with Augmentation without a new resource. Enlighten us! Fix the Psionic Power Source!
While I've got nothing against the power point mechanic, it wasn't the only way they could have done. In fact, way back when 4e was only a month or two old, they had articles on updating characters - they said you could make a psion by adding an augmentation feature: spend a healing surge to augment. Of course, you'd need a considerably more powerful augment to make it worth it, but it was an option. Or they could have gone with a class feature. I was going to write it up, but then I realized it was basically the sorcer-king pact warlock. Really, it's the same concept, but still using the standard framework of encounter powers. Both were viable options. (Actually, I might have preferred that, since it can be a little frustrating to never move beyond 3 powers. But I also would have been fine with feats or paragon path/epic destiny features letting you learn an extra at-will power.)
Just to be clear, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I support psionics, and I applaud WotC for trying out new things and seeing if they can deviate from the standard progression. But I do think something more akin to the sorcerer-king pact warlock's augmentation might be what thaX is talking about.
My problem with this product thus far is that it isn't introducing a new power source, it is simply using the source for flavor and not much else. From what I see, any character class is gonna be able to use shadow powers/effects with the options within this book.
What I see thus far make me think that these three builds are it, with the Assassin build taken out for Dragon Exclusivality. I assume that the Shadar Kia will stay within the pages of Dragon also, online and in the Annual.
I understand the reason for having the self sustaining builds in the two player Essentials books, but for the supposed introdution of a new power source, there needs to be new classes. New Shadow Classes. Not builds for Divine and Arcane base classes. Are they waiting for the PHB4? In 2012?
Your pessimism is ridiculous. The power source can be introduced in a number of ways, even in smaller bite-sized chunks as part of a mixed power source. Your issue is that you aren't getting exactly what you want. Fine, that leaves you two basic choices: 1) Ignore this book and only play using older stuff/quit playing altogether, or 2) Suck it up and make do with what you're given. Of course there are lots of other things you can do too, including constructively trying to influence the design of D&D, or simply home-brewing what you want into the game. Attacking HoS, in the manner you have been, has no effect, no point, and no place here.
Might want to try and stop contradicting yourself as well. "Any character class is gonna be able to use shadow powers" followed by "What I see thus far make me think that these three builds are it." I'm willing to bet we've only seen TWO builds so far. Necro and Nethermancy are both Mage schools, thus equal one "build." Much the way the Mage from Heroes of the Fallen Lands has three schools listed in its one build. That leaves plenty of room for more classes, or at least more class builds if that's all this book contains.
Also previously mentioned several times, Shadar Kai is not Dragon exclusive, thus is most likely to be included with the Shade race. Also I'll throw out the possibility of Gnomes making the cut due to their pre-disposed nature towards illusion and trickery.
Personally, I'm hoping for a continuation of the current Heroes format. I'd love to see five races (particularly Goliaths and Devas though they have no real connection here) and five builds. I think everything I could want from this book can easily be done within the classes we already have, thus making the builds stronger right out the gate. Not to mention house ruling and re-flavoring is fun. I love my Drow Sentinel (Druid of Spring) with his giant spider animal companion.
Regardless, I'd expect Gnomes to get their versatile ability scores in Heroes of the Feywild, rather than Heroes of Shadow.
I'm expecting 5 races and 5 builds, whether they feature one or two kits for a new class, or an old class with a new build for it, just like in the two Essentials player books.
Considering we know Mages are appearing again in Heroes of Shadow, as well as Blackguards, that leaves three builds or new classes still to be covered. I'm expecting Hexblades to get more coverage as well, leaving two new builds or classes. Considering Assassins are Dragon-only, this means that we might get two new complete shadow classes. That's if they're following the Player's Essentials formulae to the letter with Player's Option.
-Sentinels get proficiency with staff and totem implements even while no implement powers that I am aware are included for sentinels in Hofk
-Am I forgetting something or weren't Necromancers as a class in 3.5 a mix of two "power sources" (arcane and divine?)
-I can understand peoples desire for a dedicated/focused necromancer class. There has always been a difference between studying death (a wizard specializing in necromancy) and fully embracing the darkness (3.5 dread necromancer class for example.) They can fill different niches.
-I for one am exited to get a chance to pull out one of my old character concepts. The practical necromancer who is not evil, but sees the dead as a tool, or unused resource. He desires to learn what he can about shadow and the undead to help aid his companions and meet his personal goals.
-Bring on the key words!!! I could see in the future a class or build that is allowed to choose from, lets say, any shadow keyword powers from the cleric or wizard classes, but who could only take those keyworded powers. Add in some new class features to taste. This would most likely be insider material. That could be one way to placate peoples desire for more restricted shadow classes
-As for essentials overall, I like it as a DM, specificly as an organized play DM, but generally do not like it as a player. I love the customization and options 4th ed brought, but have seen too many new or casual players that don't grasp the rules and make truly HORRIBLE characters. This can be hard on a player and a DM, especially when the player just walked in off the street into our gaming store expecting to have a fun adventure. Essentials makes it harder for these people to make that dud character that could scare them away from the game for good.
I have a couple random comments after trudging through some of this thread.
-Sentinels get proficiency with staff and totem implements even while no implement powers that I am aware are included for sentinels in Hofk
-Am I forgetting something or weren't Necromancers as a class in 3.5 a mix of two "power sources" (arcane and divine?)
-I can understand peoples desire for a dedicated/focused necromancer class. There has always been a difference between studying death (a wizard specializing in necromancy) and fully embracing the darkness (3.5 dread necromancer class for example.) They can fill different niches.
-I for one am exited to get a chance to pull out one of my old character concepts. The practical necromancer who is not evil, but sees the dead as a tool, or unused resource. He desires to learn what he can about shadow and the undead to help aid his companions and meet his personal goals.
-Bring on the key words!!! I could see in the future a class or build that is allowed to choose from, lets say, any shadow keyword powers from the cleric or wizard classes, but who could only take those keyworded powers. Add in some new class features to taste. This would most likely be insider material. That could be one way to placate peoples desire for more restricted shadow classes
-As for essentials overall, I like it as a DM, specificly as an organized play DM, but generally do not like it as a player. I love the customization and options 4th ed brought, but have seen too many new or casual players that don't grasp the rules and make truly HORRIBLE characters. This can be hard on a player and a DM, especially when the player just walked in off the street into our gaming store expecting to have a fun adventure. Essentials makes it harder for these people to make that dud character that could scare them away from the game for good.
Sentinels can use older Druid powers (Fire of Life Daily for more healing power)
I don't remeber the class "Necromancer" in 3.5, but I generally prefered Divine Necrocasters to Arcane ones.
I can agree with both of your next two points, but I'm happy that they are starting with necro as a school before the possibility of having a sole necro class.
As for keywords, I like keywords as long as they serve a purpose. The class you are proposing seems unlikely to me as it could easily be made with multiclassing rules.
I love Essentials all around personally. If a new or casual player is making a horrible character, then someone (preferably the DM) needs to step up and explain what is wrong with their character and help them make the necessary changes to make it a good character. Also, Pregens are much better suited to these types of players for their first few games, gives them time to familiarize themselves with the new rules...
I have a couple random comments after trudging through some of this thread.
-Sentinels get proficiency with staff and totem implements even while no implement powers that I am aware are included for sentinels in Hofk
-Am I forgetting something or weren't Necromancers as a class in 3.5 a mix of two "power sources" (arcane and divine?)
-I can understand peoples desire for a dedicated/focused necromancer class. There has always been a difference between studying death (a wizard specializing in necromancy) and fully embracing the darkness (3.5 dread necromancer class for example.) They can fill different niches.
-I for one am exited to get a chance to pull out one of my old character concepts. The practical necromancer who is not evil, but sees the dead as a tool, or unused resource. He desires to learn what he can about shadow and the undead to help aid his companions and meet his personal goals.
-Bring on the key words!!! I could see in the future a class or build that is allowed to choose from, lets say, any shadow keyword powers from the cleric or wizard classes, but who could only take those keyworded powers. Add in some new class features to taste. This would most likely be insider material. That could be one way to placate peoples desire for more restricted shadow classes
-As for essentials overall, I like it as a DM, specificly as an organized play DM, but generally do not like it as a player. I love the customization and options 4th ed brought, but have seen too many new or casual players that don't grasp the rules and make truly HORRIBLE characters. This can be hard on a player and a DM, especially when the player just walked in off the street into our gaming store expecting to have a fun adventure. Essentials makes it harder for these people to make that dud character that could scare them away from the game for good.
Sentinels can use older Druid powers (Fire of Life Daily for more healing power)
I don't remeber the class "Necromancer" in 3.5, but I generally prefered Divine Necrocasters to Arcane ones.
I can agree with both of your next two points, but I'm happy that they are starting with necro as a school before the possibility of having a sole necro class.
As for keywords, I like keywords as long as they serve a purpose. The class you are proposing seems unlikely to me as it could easily be made with multiclassing rules.
I love Essentials all around personally. If a new or casual player is making a horrible character, then someone (preferably the DM) needs to step up and explain what is wrong with their character and help them make the necessary changes to make it a good character. Also, Pregens are much better suited to these types of players for their first few games, gives them time to familiarize themselves with the new rules...
There was no class just called "Necromancer" in 3.5. There was the "Dread Necromancer" from Heroes of Horror, though. It was basically a divine/arcane mix as stated above.
Necromancy School was a Wizard school, and thus Arcane.
Undead were once immune to mind effecting spells back in editions past. In 4e a bards vicious mockery or a wizards hypnotism works just fine, but that zombie still can't be poisoned. I have never seen a reason for the distinction. For some people this lack of new classes might be their one big issue. If you are one of those people just try not to let it ruin the game for you.
And… Executioners have proved themselves to be pretty awesome; a good example of how two power sources can come together to make a really good class, mechanically and thematically.
Yeah, the article is up. Bravo, WotC... Bravo. We finally have an awesome assassin.
Too bad he [the executioner] can't kill things with shadows. Good for Rodney that he was able to rebuild his 1st edition assassin, but I remain unimpressed.
Consider yourself the minority. The new assassin is amazing. It is exactly what an assassin should be, both in terms of effectiveness, and fluff. I am very impressed. Minus one level 25 poison. One of those level 25 poisons is very underpowered...
Considering there's an upcoming Heroes of the Feywild, I have a feeling that the Heroes of Shadow and Heroes of the Feywild are the sequels to Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.
This sounds about right: addons to the Essential Set.
Considering there's an upcoming Heroes of the Feywild, I have a feeling that the Heroes of Shadow and Heroes of the Feywild are the sequels to Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.
This sounds about right: addons to the Essential Set.
I like to think of it like a continuing series rather than add-ons. It just seems more planned out that way.
Thats what I said.
I said a sequel, as in a spiritual sequel, not an add-on or continuation. It is not part of Essentials, but it is part of the design policy, and it seems more thematically and designed closer to the Player's Essentials than to Player's Handbook. A subtle difference, but one that means everything when people are calling this 4Essentials rather than a continuation of 4E.
And Hatta said a continuation. But I meant neither. The point is, Player's Option is NOT Essentials, because Essentials is just 10 products.
I said a sequel, as in a spiritual sequel, not an add-on or continuation. It is not part of Essentials, but it is part of the design policy, and it seems more thematically and designed closer to the Player's Essentials than to Player's Handbook. A subtle difference, but one that means everything when people are calling this 4Essentials rather than a continuation of 4E.
I agree with this. They're not "Essential" products, but I do think they are a continuation of the the Heroes of books in the Essentials line at least in spirit.
Something that isnt Essentials, but was designed to be 'added on' to Essentials, and not added on to Core.
But this is what I meant:
The Player's Option series is probably going to be more in the vein of the Player's Essentials series than the Player's Handbook series, in that I suspect it will be formatted very similarly, and have something along the lines of 5 races (with versatile ability score boosts) and 5 subclasses of some sort (Blackguard included). The question would be if Mage counts as one of these 5 subclasses, reprinted so that the Necromancer and the Nethermancer can have their fun in the book, or if that's part of a separate section. Considering that the Player's Essentials series had rules for rolling up and running your character in the game, as did the original Player's Handbook, the Player's Option would not need that, and would have more space for other material. That's at least 70 pages that can be reappropriated for other purposes.
What I expect in the Player's Option series books are 5 races, 5 subclasses, items, and feats. Then we have 70 more pages to fill with PPaths, EDests, and options for any character (or at least characters from Player's Essentials) to add a bit of shadow to their repetoire, similar to the X Power series of books. The question is if the Necromancy/Nethermancy school appears in these 70 pages or if Mage is reprinted with these two new schools as one of the 5 subclasses featured in the Classes section of the book.
My point is, I don't think Player's Option is not an add-on for Player's Essentials. It probably will reference Player's Essentials, and assume you started from there. But it will at the very least provide some options for any character to take, regardless of their origin. It probably doesn't stand alone to build your character, but it's not part of Essentials, nor is it part of Core because these are not mutually exclusive. Everything is Core, and only 10 products are Essentials, and all 10 products are now currently on sale.
Heh. You know what I mean. The word 'core' has more than one meaning.
Well if you were referring to the first three books which are labeled the Core books because it's impossible to play without them, then yes it's not core it's an excessory. But, by other meanings it is part of the core of D&D.
Heh. You know what I mean. The word 'core' has more than one meaning.
Well if you were referring to the first three books which are labeled the Core books because it's impossible to play without them, then yes it's not core it's an excessory. But, by other meanings it is part of the core of D&D.
Even then, it's not impossible to play without them. You can use the Essentials line of products, for example. There are multiple pathways to playing the game. Multiple ways of having the rules needed to run. The book is an accessory, but it's not an "accessory product of Essentials" it's an "accessory product of 4E," in that all books are 4E, all are core 4E.
It seems to me, the only non-core stuff are preview material, playtest material, and Unearthed Arcana.
*rolleyes*
My problem with Psionics isn't that it exists, it is that it uses an outdated mechanic for it's classes with the exception of the one Ki class that it asorbed. Augmentation could have been used without the use of another resource to keep track of and the return if Power Points is a slap in the face. Psionics has always been anathama to the normal course of things in each edition it has been in. It was basically wizards with Mana in the previous edition, with science instead of magic. Now, it is less choices without the need of change of the main powers as they level.
Your objectivity here is questionable. You clearly hate psionics, in previous editions and now. Thus your stance on the matter is colored by your prejudices.
Psionics in 3.x were a little more like sorcerors than wizards. They had a limited amount of powers known, but had versatility in how they cast them. The crux was that they had slightly MORE versatility in that they weren't limited to the x number of spells of y level, and n number of z level, etc.
3.5 psionics, especially, were great. For the first time in D&D history, psionics were not taked on, broken systems that gave psionic characters some great advantage over nonpsionic ones. The psion was different from spellcasters, but still balanced. The psionic warrior had his own power list, unique from the psion. And the soulknife was utterly unique and awesome. Never really got into the wilder, so not much to add there.
The ability to augment powers was brilliant and really made low-level powers still significant at high levels. I know when my party reached level 17, the wizard was almost never falling back on magic missile. He had enough spells per day, and, as an elemental savant, his elemental focused powers were so much more effective, that his 1st level spell slots went unused for many sessions at a time.
In 4e, Psionics is balanced again. My only real problem with the augmentation system is how the humans' bonus at-will is treated. It never gets better, and can never be augmented. Lame. I admit that all of my experience with the augmenting classes has been hypothetical up to this point, but next week I start DMing again, and the party defender is a Battlemind. I'm looking forward to it.
The Shadow Dancer is able to Shadowjump with more freedom than the situational ability that the Assassin has, and would hopefully have a more effective striker mechanic than the lousy Shrouds. The name Assassin should really not be used for a class name, though this argument has been done to death in other threads. I will say no more on that front.
Why not? Assassin was a class in 1st edition. Why should it not be a class again? 3e made it a PrC that focused exclusively on the name assassin as a contract killer. It was a PrC for rogues (although monks were AWESOME assassins) that focused exclusively on making him more deadly in combat (or, preferably, ambush). His short spell list seemed tacked on almost as an afterthought.
Assassin certainly has a legacy right to be included as a base class again. And it needs something to set it apart from a rogue who kills for money. Rogues are called such because they are no longer exclusively thieves like in 1st and 2nd ed. I once had a player with an elven rogue with ZERO ranks in Sleight of Hand. He was, in behavior, much more like a Ranger (this was before the scout class wass released), because he was a forward scout and skills specialist. He was expert at stealth, opening locks and disarming traps. So Rogue can mean more than one thing. So something needed to set the assassin apart.
You have set the 3e Shadowdancer on a pedestal, praising its virtues to condemn the assassin as "not good enough". It should come as little surprise to the regulars on these forums that you are being misleading-intentionally-just to have something to whine about.
The 3e Shadowdancer wasn't as good as you claimed. Let's tale a look at it, shall we? At level 1 it got Hide in Plain Sight, which allowed him (or her, but I use "him" from now on for sake of convinience) to use the Hide Skill, even whilst being observed. He did, however, still require concealment, or at least be near shadows other than his own. Level 2, Evasion (ignore if you have already), darkvision (big deal), and Uncanny Dodge (which most rogues have by this point, and for them, becomes Improved U.D., which is nice). Level 3, a spell-like effect like silent image 1/day (lame), and the ability to summon a shadow. The summoning of shadows was somethign that a lot of people, in my experience both in-game, and on these boards, forgot about. The shadowdancer had an insubstantial, Strength-draining minion, which even the people who played them sometimes forgot they had. 4e moved away from having companion characters, and for good reason. Level 4, we FINALLY get the Shadow Jump that ThaX raves about. But what's that? He can only jump 20 feet PER DAY, he MUST start and end in "an area with at least some shadow" (note that does not indicate that the shadow of a living creature is sufficient), and, oh, that's right, EVERY JUMP NO MATTER HOW SMALL COUNTS AS 10 FEET MINIMUM TOWARDS HIS DAILY ALLOTMENT.
I want to stop here a moment and point out what ThaX said above. He said the Shadowdancer's shadow jump had more freedom that the assassin's. The assassin can do his AT-WILL as a move action, the only restraint is that he must start and end adjacent to a creature (which, fluff-wise, means he is jumping ino and out of those creatures' shadows). He can jump 3 squares at level one, and an additional square every tier. For those of you who don't recall 3.5, one square was 5 feet, tha means if a character with 4 levels in shadowdancer jumped 3 squares with his shadow power, he was DONE FOR THE DAY. And the Assassin's power is not exclusively an attack power, either, which is what ThaX's narrow imagination fails to see. Teleportation requires neither line of sight nor line of effect to the destination square. An assassin on one side of a wall with an ally could jump into his ally's shadow, teleport through the wall, and pop out of the shadow of the guard on the other side, taking him by surprise, thus silently infiltrating a building.
Moving on, level 5, we get defensice roll, which is: IF you get reduced to 0 hp by an attack you see coming, you may make a Reflex save to reduce the damage by half. Once per day. Also, Improved Uncanny Dodge if you didn't have it yet, but most Shadowdancers were Rogues, so they did. Level 6, another forgettable shadow, and another 20 feet to the shadow jump. Now it's almost respectable, but not quite. With a maximum of 4 jumps per day (if they are all 2 square shadow jumps), it's still kind of laughable. Level 7, Slippery Mind: a second saving throw against an enchantment, should a shadowdancer fail his first one. Level 8, more Shadow Jump, 80 feet now. At last, this ability is ALMOST on par with the 4e assassin, assuming the shadowdancer uses his jump distances wisely. The distance he can travel is now significantly higher than the amount a 4e assassin can do in one jump. 80 feet, especially when one takes vertical movement into account, is also sufficient to throw off pursuers. At 8h level of the PrC, the shadow jump is finally worth a damn. Level 9, one more forgettable shadow. Level 10, Improved Evasion, which rocks. But the big news: Shadow Jump distance doubles again to a whopping 160 feet. At this point the Shadowdancer has enough jump distance available to him in one day that he truely has WAY more freedom than the 4e assassin, as ThaX claims. But how many of you played a 3e game up to 17th level? Because the prerequisites required 10 ranks in Hide, so level 7 AT LEAST, before you could even START taking this PrC. And level 8 in it before Shadow Jump even really holds a candle to the 4e assassin, and not until 10th level is it unquestionably better, objectively (which I do admit the level 10 effect, with 160 feet per day does finally outstrip the 4e assassin).
And yet, ThaX, you find the 4e assassin's shadow jump "situational"? It requires you to be adjacent to a creature (not enemy, but could be), and withing 3 squares of another creature (again, could be an enemy, doesn't HAVE to be). Wow how often does that happen in D&D? /sarcasm.
I do admit I find the Shroud mechanic a bit bulky and awkward, but you claim that this Shadowdancer class in your fantasies would have a "more effective striker mechanic"? Give it up, they're not going to make a Shadowdancer class, even if HoS HAD contained full, "non-Essentials-style" classes. It would be too similar to the assassin we already have.
ThaX, you need to realize that this golden pedestal you put the 3e shadowdancer on was based off what you remember from back in 3e(as opposed to actual fact), and has been altered by how much you liked it then-and what you complain about now-until you have twisted it, forcing it to be something better than what it was. The reality was much less amazing.
This would allow them to be able to raise their undead armies without making it unbalanced. At lower levels these undead would literally be minions with 1hp, at higher levels they would be low hp (for the level) undead that would slow up the enemies and tax them. Hmmm maybe I need to create my own class and publish it... Anyone like what I'm saying please tell me so I know if there is any interest...
Your sarcastic incredulity has no power here Hal.
LOL! He just wouldnt let me agree with him, no matter how hard I tried.
... could easily be taken in the wrong direction by many people of this forum.
I realized that was the issue.
Personally, Im satisfied with statements by the devs to continue supporting 'core' classes alongside 'essential' classes. For me, the sooncoming Heroes of Sword and Spell demonstrates their mutual integration, as do casual statements such as the recent Assassin Des-Dev article emphasizing ongoing support for both Assassin 'classes'.
The Heroes of Shadow *seems* designed to support and expand the options that players will have when using the Essentials Set. This isnt a surprise, really. So, shadow enthusiasts may need to wait a little longer to support and expand the options for players using the PHs and Power books.
The Shadowdancer shadowjump was better than most of the compariable classes in that edition, though in 4th it would be, of course, vastly improved. I would think a cool down period for distances over a certain amount, dependant on level, perhaps a couple rounds or such.
The problem with the term Assassin is two fold. First is the meaning, hired killer, one that is a loner and not a very good group contributar. The second is that the previous incarnations (cept the PrC in the last edition, which was effectively an NPC class) was overpowered and tended to grate against party cohesion. This is why I was glad to see the Assassin PP's in the PHB and PHB2. I had mistakenly thought that had taken care of the Assassin debate. I had thought that these were the "assassins" of this edition.
In this edition, the advent of an 1st level assassin is silly, like a child making 30 bucks an hour repairing cars.
My main problem with this product, from the preview that had been profered, is that it seems to kill the Shadow power source instead of introducing it. I made a separate thread about this. Builds instead of classes, the mixing of power sources, and the missing Assassin stuck in Dragon. (A Ninja could have been in it's place) makes for a book that is not on my library shelf.
Still haven't had an answer from official source. Is there any new classes in this product? (Not new builds)
First thing to comment on. If the two books (Heroes of Shadow and of Fey Wild) are in the same format at the other two within the 10 product Essentials, then it is an extention of that line. It may not have the name "Essentials" on the book, but it seems that it is the start of the next 10 products from what has been seen thus far.
The Shadowdancer shadowjump was better than most of the compariable classes in that edition, though in 4th it would be, of course, vastly improved. I would think a cool down period for distances over a certain amount, dependant on level, perhaps a couple rounds or such.
The problem with the term Assassin is two fold. First is the meaning, hired killer, one that is a loner and not a very good group contributar. The second is that the previous incarnations (cept the PrC in the last edition, which was effectively an NPC class) was overpowered and tended to grate against party cohesion. This is why I was glad to see the Assassin PP's in the PHB and PHB2. I had mistakenly thought that had taken care of the Assassin debate. I had thought that these were the "assassins" of this edition.
In this edition, the advent of an 1st level assassin is silly, like a child making 30 bucks an hour repairing cars.
My main problem with this product, from the preview that had been profered, is that it seems to kill the Shadow power source instead of introducing it. I made a separate thread about this. Builds instead of classes, the mixing of power sources, and the missing Assassin stuck in Dragon. (A Ninja could have been in it's place) makes for a book that is not on my library shelf.
Still haven't had an answer from official source. Is there any new classes in this product? (Not new builds)
First: Blackguard. It's a new class. So, yes. There is. Quibble away - Necromancy and Nethermancy are build options (not builds), the Blackguard is a class (in that it has a different role than the Paladin or Cavalier, and therefore, is not 'Evil Cavalier').
As for "a ninja instead".... You know that Ninjas are also assassins, correct? The 4e Assassin is a combination of the Persian/Syrian Hashashin, and the Japanese Ninja - relying rather heavily on the mythos of the latter in order to justify it's 'shadow powers'.
I'm not sure where the Assassin of 3.5 was an "NPC Class"; just because it was in the DMG, like every other of the original PrCs, didn't preclude a player from using it. One would have to invoke DM Fiat to prevent a player from gaining access to it, and nothing stops you from doing the same in this edition if you don't like the assassin. And finally, on the 1st level Assassin, haveyou read up on the Hashashin or Hassan-i Saddah? There was a rank of young, highly trained Hashashin called Fida'i (self-sacrificing agents). These were the lowest rank of the Hashashin, and considered extremely expendable, even by Hassan-i. You know what they were taught? Everything else a higher ranking Hashashin was taught, including more. They had to be stronger than older, experienced Hashashin, because they were younger and lacked the necessary strength, initially, to be able to finalize a kill on their target.
But still, they were used as pawns - expendable, incredibly loyal pawns. Why? Because they were skilled. Even at the 1st level.
1st level Assassins now justified enough for you?
First thing to comment on. If the two books (Heroes of Shadow and of Fey Wild) are in the same format at the other two within the 10 product Essentials, then it is an extention of that line. It may not have the name "Essentials" on the book, but it seems that it is the start of the next 10 products from what has been seen thus far.
The Shadowdancer shadowjump was better than most of the compariable classes in that edition, though in 4th it would be, of course, vastly improved. I would think a cool down period for distances over a certain amount, dependant on level, perhaps a couple rounds or such.
The problem with the term Assassin is two fold. First is the meaning, hired killer, one that is a loner and not a very good group contributar. The second is that the previous incarnations (cept the PrC in the last edition, which was effectively an NPC class) was overpowered and tended to grate against party cohesion. This is why I was glad to see the Assassin PP's in the PHB and PHB2. I had mistakenly thought that had taken care of the Assassin debate. I had thought that these were the "assassins" of this edition.
In this edition, the advent of an 1st level assassin is silly, like a child making 30 bucks an hour repairing cars.
My main problem with this product, from the preview that had been profered, is that it seems to kill the Shadow power source instead of introducing it. I made a separate thread about this. Builds instead of classes, the mixing of power sources, and the missing Assassin stuck in Dragon. (A Ninja could have been in it's place) makes for a book that is not on my library shelf.
Still haven't had an answer from official source. Is there any new classes in this product? (Not new builds)
First: Blackguard. It's a new class. So, yes. There is. Quibble away - Necromancy and Nethermancy are build options (not builds), the Blackguard is a class (in that it has a different role than the Paladin or Cavalier, and therefore, is not 'Evil Cavalier').
As for "a ninja instead".... You know that Ninjas are also assassins, correct? The 4e Assassin is a combination of the Persian/Syrian Hashashin, and the Japanese Ninja - relying rather heavily on the mythos of the latter in order to justify it's 'shadow powers'.
I'm not sure where the Assassin of 3.5 was an "NPC Class"; just because it was in the DMG, like every other of the original PrCs, didn't preclude a player from using it. One would have to invoke DM Fiat to prevent a player from gaining access to it, and nothing stops you from doing the same in this edition if you don't like the assassin. And finally, on the 1st level Assassin, haveyou read up on the Hashashin or Hassan-i Saddah? There was a rank of young, highly trained Hashashin called Fida'i (self-sacrificing agents). These were the lowest rank of the Hashashin, and considered extremely expendable, even by Hassan-i. You know what they were taught? Everything else a higher ranking Hashashin was taught, including more. They had to be stronger than older, experienced Hashashin, because they were younger and lacked the necessary strength, initially, to be able to finalize a kill on their target.
But still, they were used as pawns - expendable, incredibly loyal pawns. Why? Because they were skilled. Even at the 1st level.
1st level Assassins now justified enough for you?
ThaX is just butthurt because the product isn't exactly what they wanted, and will continue to complain about it.
That made it into an NPC class. All the PrC's was with DM approval, and the Assassin was the least used PrC of the edition, npc or not.
Ninja have a more robust backstory and works better with a group than the loner Assassin.
A new class? The Blackguard... here, let me paste something from the preview...
New Paladin Build: The Blackguard
Uhh.. ok.
the Assassin was the least used PrC of the edition, npc or not.
Proof?
"Evil alignment restriction"
That made it into an NPC class. All the PrC's was with DM approval, and the Assassin was the least used PrC of the edition, npc or not.
Ninja have a more robust backstory and works better with a group than the loner Assassin.
A new class? The Blackguard... here, let me paste something from the preview...New Paladin Build: The Blackguard
Uhh.. ok.
Assassins worked in groups just as often as ninjas did, and in fact it was more common for a ninja to work alone so as to not raise suspicion among their targets. Assassins kill in whatever way is most effective, whether it be with a team or alone.
Ninja have a more robust backstory and works better with a group than the loner Assassin.
Wow. Remember when I told you that you need to spend 5 minutes thinking about what you write before you write it, ThaX? Please, try doing that again.
"Evil alignment restriction"
That made it into an NPC class. All the PrC's was with DM approval, and the Assassin was the least used PrC of the edition, npc or not.
Ninja have a more robust backstory and works better with a group than the loner Assassin.
A new class? The Blackguard... here, let me paste something from the preview...New Paladin Build: The Blackguard
Uhh.. ok.
...Ninja have what now?
A ninja (忍者?) or shinobi (忍び?) was a covert agent or mercenary of feudal Japan specializing in unorthodox arts of war. The functions of the ninja included espionage, sabotage, infiltration, and assassination, as well as open combat in certain situations.[1] The ninja, using covert methods of waging war, were contrasted with the samurai, who had strict rules about honor and combat.[2]
Perhap you'd like to rephrase that? The assassin of Japan is the ninja. Just as the Hashashin are the original assassins, from Syria and Persia. Stop being a weeaboo about it. The mystical Ninja of Naruto are entirely fictional, have no basis in reality and do not factor into this situation. They're not even used in 4th edition's version of the Assassin. Remotely.
The Executioner is the Hashashin/Ninja. The Assassin is the Shadowdancer. The Ninja isn't any more likely to play well in groups than the Hashashin is, because they both follow the same precept.
Also, whenever "Clans of not-so-honorable mercenaries, killing people for money" becomes more robust than "Child Soldiers, willing the die for a single man, because he desires such", I'll concede that Ninja deserve more attention than the archetypal Assassin.
And faux pas on Wizards? They insist Essentials subclasses are 'classes' under specific archetypes. Unless it is LITERALLY Evil Cavalier, which you can't tell me with 100% definitive proof, you must assume it falls under this same line of thinking. If it is, quite literally, the Evil Cavalier when HoS is released, I'll gladly give you props for calling it in advance. Until then, I must look at it as Wizards clearly intended.
I think you misunderstand what an NPC class is. The Warrior, Adept, Noble and Commoner were NPC classes. The Assassin was a PrC, in the DMG, in a system where Evil was not inherently discouraged. By your own admission any PrC in the DMG was purely for DM use, and therefore, not a PC option. You know, like your ever-so-dear Shadowdancer. By your own admission, it has no root in PC options, and therefore, should not be a class in 4E.
So far, we've come to the conclusion that: you hate Assassins (except Ninjas. Naruto's cool~); you hate Psionics, because they deviate from what you accept as normal (Because differentiating classes is bad, mmkay); you hate Essentials (Fixing broken **** is also bad. Also, new concepts are a step back~), because... well... it's the cool thing to do nowadays; You're hypocritical about what defines something as a player option, and read only what you like. Silly thaX, what you hate isn't all of these things. It's change. You don't like to see your game evolve.
.Each "build" of the blackguard will be named after a vice, there'll be 2 vices listed in the book and maybe a 3rd released in a Dragon article within a month or two of the book. The vice will determine 1 at will power, the second being valiant strike.
Their encounter powers will function like Holy Strike and Power Strike, adding damage after the fact and spammed more and more at higher levels. Instead of Cavelier defender aura, they'll have the Slayer's statmod to all damage.
If I was being really pessimistic, they'll have a Darksteed just like the Caveliers, but perhaps they'll summon an evil minion instead.
I'm not sure what Holy shield will be replaced by.
The rest of the "build" with be paladin daily powers that don't really do anything new power wise, but likely darkly flavored and some with Vice specific riders.
"Evil alignment restriction"
That made it into an NPC class. All the PrC's was with DM approval, and the Assassin was the least used PrC of the edition, npc or not.
Ninja have a more robust backstory and works better with a group than the loner Assassin.
A new class? The Blackguard... here, let me paste something from the preview...New Paladin Build: The Blackguard
Uhh.. ok.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the alignment restriction on PrC Assassins in the 3.5e DMG was "any nongood." That meant you could be LN, TN, CN, and still not be evil. Also, 3.5e didn't have as tight a grip against Evil PCs. There were lots of good entities to fight and kill if you wanted to play an evil campaign. That's no longer a design policy in 4e, since the idea of the game is playing heroic fantasy, not kill-em-all villainry fantasy.
Blackguard stands as a subclass. The book is likely to have 5 subclasses, whether subclasses for new classes or old ones. Blackguard is one of the subclasses for an old class. I'm using the term subclass to refer to the type of stand-alone builds that appeared in Player's Essentials, btw, even if subclass isn't an official term.
The Shadowdancer shadowjump was better than most of the compariable classes in that edition, though in 4th it would be, of course, vastly improved. I would think a cool down period for distances over a certain amount, dependant on level, perhaps a couple rounds or such.
I have already re-posted, ver batim what the 3.5 shadowdancer's shadowjump was like, and it's EXTREMELY limited. And what "other classes of that edition" even HAD a shadowjump to compare to? Oh, that's right? None.
Your argument is weak, unsupported by anything resembling fact, and nothing but a collection of petty WHINING on your part.
The problem with the term Assassin is two fold. First is the meaning, hired killer, one that is a loner and not a very good group contributar. The second is that the previous incarnations (cept the PrC in the last edition, which was effectively an NPC class) was overpowered and tended to grate against party cohesion. This is why I was glad to see the Assassin PP's in the PHB and PHB2. I had mistakenly thought that had taken care of the Assassin debate. I had thought that these were the "assassins" of this edition.
I guess you were just WRONG, then, huh?
In this edition, the advent of an 1st level assassin is silly, like a child making 30 bucks an hour repairing cars.
And yet assassins as a base class have a long-standing precedent in D&D. You don't like it? Take it up with the authors of 1e.
My main problem with this product, from the preview that had been profered, is that it seems to kill the Shadow power source instead of introducing it. I made a separate thread about this. Builds instead of classes, the mixing of power sources, and the missing Assassin stuck in Dragon. (A Ninja could have been in it's place) makes for a book that is not on my library shelf.
That's what you come back with? Ninja? You are no different than every other 12-year old on these forums who just thinks that D&D needs ninjas.
Got news for you, Ninja can already be done, and done well.
You want a ninja based more on real-world one? Rogue is PERFECT, in every way, just make your character look Japanese.
You want a ninja based offf fantasy archetypes with actual shadow magic, who is stealthy, deadly in melee and can command dark shadow power? Assassin fits the bill 100%
You want something in between? Perhaps a ninja who is deadly unarmed or with anything he picks up becoming a potential weapon? Monk.
Calling it "Ninja" officially just pigeonholes a class into only being ONE thing. But ANY of the classes I mentioned can be a ninja. Just like any Fighter, Warlord, or Ranger could be a samurai. Take a look at ow 3e Rokugan handled ninja and samurai. Even though there were classes of those names, the title was a part of what someone DID. A PC (or NPC) could have ZERO levels in the "samurai" class, but to the world, he was still a samurai. He was a noble, a bushi, and a member of his clan. Samurai.
Ninja have a more robust backstory and works better with a group than the loner Assassin.
This statement is completely, 100% asinine filth.
Ninjas have only ONE backstory, they come only from legends of fuedal Japan. They don't work well in groups, particularly with non-ninjas who KNOW they are a ninja.
And your statements about this "loner assassin" has not merit whatsoever, becxause you are not talking about D&D assassins in any edition (not even the 3e one, who worked VERY well with groups). You are hung up on the modern real-world parlance of someone who kills people for money.
Ergo, you fail. Utterly, completely, and miserably, at even ATTEMPTING to support your point.
the Assassin was the least used PrC of the edition, npc or not.
Proof?
Asking for proof from ThaX is an exercise in futility. You aren't going to get any, because he doesn't have any. And he never will have any. In all of the posts he's ever made on these forums, not ONCE has he backed up anything he has ever said with facts, quotes, doucmentation of any kind. He's a troll. One who likes to whine and complain, and make over-reeaching, blanket statements based PURELY on his own opinions. And what's worse, he thinks his opinions are so objective and universal that they MUST be facts, regardl;ess of actual evidence to the contrary.
). I do so enjoy my little jokes.Fact is, the 3e shadowdancer's shadow jump ability was, when compared objectively with the 4e assassin, subpar until level 8 of the PrC (which required one ot be 15th level), and not until the end of the PrC is it objectively better. The assassin's shadow jump ability thus has more use and versatility, even though it lacks the range that the 3e shadowdancer (eventually) gets.
And as far as assassins as a class: thaX, you're wrong, plain and simple. The assassin was a class all it's own going back to 1st edition. It has a legacy right to be there. WAY moreso than a "ninja" class, which would be asinine. Fact is, "ninja" is just a culture-specific nomenclature, which could be applied to any of AT LEAST 3 classes in the game (and that's not counting the Essentials-style classes, since a Thief or Executioner could be a ninja as well), and still work well mechanically, without needing it's own class.
And hatta, you want to talk about what the real facts about ninjas are? How about this: There's very little evidence to support the idea that ninjas as we percieve them today existed at all. When guards failed to protect something or someone, ninjas were often usedas an excuse for their own lax attention. Real ninjas, as they existed, were disaffected peasants, who took up arms against their noble lords. Most ninja weapons, if you look at them, evolved from peasant weapons and tools, the kusari-gama, just to name one.
Ninjas are far less exciting in true history. Nonetheless, D&D already has classes with the mechanics to be "ninjas" of any of the modern perceptions thereof. Rogue, Monk, and Assassin all make excellent ninjas.
Oh, and Marandahir: sorry, but thaX IS correct on one note: The 3e assassin PrC required an EVIL alignment. I still had my 3.5 DMG sitting here and I looked it up.
And Naki: He didn't really say that all PrCs in the DMG weere for NPC use. He said all PrC's were subject to DM approval, which is technically correct, since the DM reserves the right, by Rule 0, to nix anything, Core or not. But really, only 2 of the PrCs in the DMG fall into the purview of "NPC only" status that you refered them to, as they require Evil alignments (Assassin and Blackguard). Mystic Theurge saw quite a bit of use (although it suffered from MAD like a mofo, the Cerebremancer in the XPH was much more broken), and the Dragon Disciple, Arcane Trickster, Arcane Archer, and Archmage were all pretty cool. I always liked the Loremaster, even if I never saw a lot of people use it. Gave a caster a LOT of neat stuff.
To be truthful ninja did exist in feudal era Japan, they were nothing like modern perceptions though. They were more like James Bond than the black clad cannon fodder/bad a's that we think of. But Chiba was accurate on all other accounts, thaX is just a troll (and apparently one that gained some resistance to fire if he's intentionally fanning the fires on this board
Ninja as we see them never existed. That's a hollywood fabrication. The word "Ninja" was never used until an Edo-period playwright, same with the black suits. They would be portrayed in theater wearing black suits against a black background to indicate that they were invisible. They were actually referred to as Shinobi no Mono, which shares the same characters as "Nin" and "Ja". Ninja was a lot easier to say.
As for the enemy of the Samurai and dishonorable bit... again, hollywood fabrication. Many Shinobi were in fact, Samurai. Just hate seeing quotes on here depicting historical accuracy, when it is nothing more than a hollywood fabrication.
This is nothing against you, hatta. Your post is more accurate than many of the others. Just quoting yours because it's the only one that begins with some truth.
Pet peeve of mine... rant over.
*edit*
Here's a good article regarding them for those interested. I personally find the actual history much more interesting than what we see in fantasy.
www.chinatownconnection.com/misconceptio...
The point about 3.5e and 4e having different design philosophies in relation to alignment still stands. That was a time when being evil wasn't outside of the standardly accepted rules.
To be truthful ninja did exist in feudal era Japan, they were nothing like modern perceptions though. They were more like James Bond than the black clad cannon fodder/bad a's that we think of. But Chiba was accurate on all other accounts, thaX is just a troll (and apparently one that gained some resistance to fire if he's intentionally fanning the fires on this board
Ninja as we see them never existed. That's a hollywood fabrication. The word "Ninja" was never used until an Edo-period playwright, same with the black suits. They would be portrayed in theater wearing black suits against a black background to indicate that they were invisible. They were actually referred to as Shinobi no Mono, which shares the same characters as "Nin" and "Ja". Ninja was a lot easier to say.
As for the enemy of the Samurai and dishonorable bit... again, hollywood fabrication. Many Shinobi were in fact, Samurai. Just hate seeing quotes on here depicting historical accuracy, when it is nothing more than a hollywood fabrication.
This is nothing against you, hatta. Your post is more accurate than many of the others. Just quoting yours because it's the only one that begins with some truth.
Pet peeve of mine... rant over.
*edit*
Here's a good article regarding them for those interested. I personally find the actual history much more interesting than what we see in fantasy.
www.chinatownconnection.com/misconceptio...
No big deal, sometimes the stuff in my brain just bleeds together and ends up clear as mud. Also I said nothing of them being enemies of samurai, furthermore I said that they didn't wear the silly black suits.
To be truthful ninja did exist in feudal era Japan, they were nothing like modern perceptions though. They were more like James Bond than the black clad cannon fodder/bad a's that we think of. But Chiba was accurate on all other accounts, thaX is just a troll (and apparently one that gained some resistance to fire if he's intentionally fanning the fires on this board
Ninja as we see them never existed. That's a hollywood fabrication. The word "Ninja" was never used until an Edo-period playwright, same with the black suits. They would be portrayed in theater wearing black suits against a black background to indicate that they were invisible. They were actually referred to as Shinobi no Mono, which shares the same characters as "Nin" and "Ja". Ninja was a lot easier to say.
As for the enemy of the Samurai and dishonorable bit... again, hollywood fabrication. Many Shinobi were in fact, Samurai. Just hate seeing quotes on here depicting historical accuracy, when it is nothing more than a hollywood fabrication.
This is nothing against you, hatta. Your post is more accurate than many of the others. Just quoting yours because it's the only one that begins with some truth.
Pet peeve of mine... rant over.
*edit*
Here's a good article regarding them for those interested. I personally find the actual history much more interesting than what we see in fantasy.
www.chinatownconnection.com/misconceptio...
No big deal, sometimes the stuff in my brain just bleeds together and ends up clear as mud.
Like I said, your post was pretty accurate, but when other people are like "Ninja did this and that and were dishonorable and enemies of the samurai and did triple backflipsomersaults before killing someone with chopsticks then walking on water to get away". That just bugs me :P
And the first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.
Considering that we're dealing with a fantasy role-playing game and not a historically-accurate documentary, it doesn't matter too much. Ninjas in your game are what you want ninjas to be in your game.
And the first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.
I fully understand that. It's just when people post things that are myth as historical fact... it bugs me. A lot.
The thing is, D&D is a fantasy role-playing game, but it draws on three spheres of influence – real-life existing traditions (what Assassins were really like), D&D traditions (what Assassins have been like in D&D throughout the editions since the 70s), and fantasy/pop-culture tropes (what Assassins are popularly seen as in media and on the internet).
I include Assassins there as an example. One of the best things D&D did in 4e was get rid of the Asian classes. A Fighter might be a Samurai, but so might be a Warlord (after all, a Samurai is a fancy Japanese way of saying a warrior, but also a "strategist"). Monks draw on both the Wuxia, Shaolin-style, as well as fitting in with western contemplatives and mountain warriors as well. A rogue might be a ninja, but so might be an assassin, or so might be a ranger.
Here's a good article regarding them for those interested. I personally find the actual history much more interesting than what we see in fantasy.
www.chinatownconnection.com/misconceptio...
To be honest, while I agree with this - the guy doesn't cite sources, and can easily be opinion as fact. It's an essay, without citations. A high school professor wouldn't take this as acceptable, and frankly, you shouldn't either. It doesn't matter how right it is, because it may be 100% accurate and the guy did he research, but the fact that he never once cites actual Japanese historians, or anything as irrefutable proof makes this link garbage. The original page is also gone, so if he did cite sources, and this site didn't carry them over, they're gone. Which is unfortunate.
As for not being honorable - a single man does not all of them make. To make a generalized statement that Shinobi were honorable is the same as saying all of them were not. To properly answer that question, you'll need a Delorean, or a Telephone Booth from some Rad Dude. We cannot get into the heads of the supposed Ninja of the actual era, so we can never say, definitively that they are, or are not honorable men.
It's a good source, if you want to believe it. But it's still just as useful as wikipedia, and at least they cite sources.
EDIT: It was accreditting the quote to hatta, not Samrin. Odd.
I did not mean that all the PrC's were NPC classes, just that the restrictions of the Assassin and another made it so that PC use was limited to the point of special circumstances and "evil" campaigns. Most times, it was requested by munchkins and those nastagic of the old kit/class. I used it a couple of times as an NPC class, ignoring the insta death power.
PP's and ED's wasn't really a good replacement for the PrC's in the previous editions, I liken the builds to be more apt at this point. It made since to have the rogue to become an assassin, though, and I had hoped that it was the end of the full class consideration. The advent of having a Shadow Dancer full class, along with the Illusionist and Necromancer, was exciting to ponder and would have brought this edition to a better evolution than the current backslide.
Ninja's have indeed performed assassin's duties in the past, but they would not be limited to that narrow scope of a theme. They spy, collect information, and other various themes that the Assassin simply doesn't cover.
Blackguard is a build of the DIVINE Paladin. Not sure what else to say here, it isn't a new class.
Most likely the answer to the question (as I said before earlier and in other threads) is that there are no new classes coming to any future product. Ever again.
1st edition did not have the Assassin as a class until near the middle of it's lifespan. It was loved by munchkins and hated by DM's because of it's overpowered structure. It was a "kit" in 2nd edition, though most used the 1st edition version which transfered into it pretty well, though more overpowered than the tempered classes in 2nd. We already have been around and around about it's entry in 3rd. (I believe it was restricted to evil alignment in 3.0 and non good in 3.5)
I did not mean that all the PrC's were NPC classes, just that the restrictions of the Assassin and another made it so that PC use was limited to the point of special circumstances and "evil" campaigns. Most times, it was requested by munchkins and those nastagic of the old kit/class. I used it a couple of times as an NPC class, ignoring the insta death power.
PP's and ED's wasn't really a good replacement for the PrC's in the previous editions, I liken the builds to be more apt at this point. It made since to have the rogue to become an assassin, though, and I had hoped that it was the end of the full class consideration. The advent of having a Shadow Dancer full class, along with the Illusionist and Necromancer, was exciting to ponder and would have brought this edition to a better evolution than the current backslide.
Ninja's have indeed performed assassin's duties in the past, but they would not be limited to that narrow scope of a theme. They spy, collect information, and other various themes that the Assassin simply doesn't cover.
Blackguard is a build of the DIVINE Paladin. Not sure what else to say here, it isn't a new class.
Most likely the answer to the question (as I said before earlier and in other threads) is that there are no new classes coming to any future product. Ever again.
I literally know disabled homeless people that are less pessimistic than you are being. Your hyperbole and melodrama is not appreciated here.
My bad; I should have spent time looking it up in my old, near-ruined 3.5e DMG.
The point about 3.5e and 4e having different design philosophies in relation to alignment still stands. That was a time when being evil wasn't outside of the standardly accepted rules.
That is your perception. It has always been suggested that the PC's have a good alignment. 4th edition skew toward that view by limiting the choices that evil characters would take. The evil gods are just mentioned in the players book, for example.
That doesn't mean that the previous editions were not done with the good characters in mind. Evil is likely what the PC is fighting, be it plots or monsters, and the heroic nature of the game has Good characters in mind.
The Philosophy is strengthened in 4th edition.
Here's a good article regarding them for those interested. I personally find the actual history much more interesting than what we see in fantasy.
www.chinatownconnection.com/misconceptio...
To be honest, while I agree with this - the guy doesn't cite sources, and can easily be opinion as fact. It's an essay, without citations. A high school professor wouldn't take this as acceptable, and frankly, you shouldn't either. It doesn't matter how right it is, because it may be 100% accurate and the guy did he research, but the fact that he never once cites actual Japanese historians, or anything as irrefutable proof makes this link garbage. The original page is also gone, so if he did cite sources, and this site didn't carry them over, they're gone. Which is unfortunate.
As for not being honorable - a single man does not all of them make. To make a generalized statement that Shinobi were honorable is the same as saying all of them were not. To properly answer that question, you'll need a Delorean, or a Telephone Booth from some Rad Dude. We cannot get into the heads of the supposed Ninja of the actual era, so we can never say, definitively that they are, or are not honorable men.
It's a good source, if you want to believe it. But it's still just as useful as wikipedia, and at least they cite sources.
EDIT: It was accreditting the quote to hatta, not Samrin. Odd.
I did my senior research project in high school on Feudal Japan and the seperation between myth, truth, and hollywood is all (yes, myth and hollywood are quite different as well. That article sums it up pretty well. Just linked it as a quick read.
1st edition did not have the Assassin as a class until near the middle of it's lifespan. It was loved by munchkins and hated by DM's because of it's overpowered structure. It was a "kit" in 2nd edition, though most used the 1st edition version which transfered into it pretty well, though more overpowered than the tempered classes in 2nd. We already have been around and around about it's entry in 3rd. (I believe it was restricted to evil alignment in 3.0 and non good in 3.5)
Your subjective perceptions surrounding who used the class, and why they liked it, are irrelevant. The point is, it objectively existed, and thus has an objective place in any game with the brand name D&D (due to its legacy appeal).
I did not mean that all the PrC's were NPC classes, just that the restrictions of the Assassin and another made it so that PC use was limited to the point of special circumstances and "evil" campaigns. Most times, it was requested by munchkins and those nastagic of the old kit/class. I used it a couple of times as an NPC class, ignoring the insta death power.
Again, your subjective opinion surrounding who used the class is irrelevant. Your opinions are not an objective observations. What is objective is that the PrC existed, and there was no rule that existed that stopped players from taking the PrC.
Ninja's have indeed performed assassin's duties in the past, but they would not be limited to that narrow scope of a theme. They spy, collect information, and other various themes that the Assassin simply doesn't cover.
The assassin's duties, despite your (false) statements to the contrary, are not restricted to the same narrow scope of a theme that you restrict them too either. Speaking from the point of view of both a historical and literary tradition, characters that bear the name "assassin" have spied, collected information, and performed various duties in addition to hired murder. Quite frankly, an assassin makes for a better catchall name then ninja, because the term "assassin" covers that archetype across all nationalities. The term ninja does not.
Blackguard is a build of the DIVINE Paladin. Not sure what else to say here, it isn't a new class.
People might agree with you, if it didn't have a different role, and didn't look like it is going to have an entirely new set of class abilities...
1st edition did not have the Assassin as a class until near the middle of it's lifespan. It was loved by munchkins and hated by DM's because of it's overpowered structure. It was a "kit" in 2nd edition, though most used the 1st edition version which transfered into it pretty well, though more overpowered than the tempered classes in 2nd. We already have been around and around about it's entry in 3rd. (I believe it was restricted to evil alignment in 3.0 and non good in 3.5)
Your subjective perceptions surrounding who used the class, and why they liked it, are irrelevant. The point is, it objectively existed, and thus has an objective place in any game with the brand name D&D (due to its legacy appeal).
This has been exactly my point as well, thank you.
I did not mean that all the PrC's were NPC classes, just that the restrictions of the Assassin and another made it so that PC use was limited to the point of special circumstances and "evil" campaigns. Most times, it was requested by munchkins and those nastagic of the old kit/class. I used it a couple of times as an NPC class, ignoring the insta death power.
Again, your subjective opinion surrounding who used the class is irrelevant. Your opinions are not an objective observations. What is objective is that the PrC existed, and there was no rule that existed that stopped players from taking the PrC.
I don't really want to defend thaX here, but he has a point. D&D is, and always has been, primarily geared towards the heroic rather than the villainous. Evil PCs got very little support, and there were fewer Good-aligned monsters than there were evil.
While you are technically correct in that no rule existed to stop players from taking that class (or, indeed, being evil at all), thaX is referring to actual USE that said PrC saw, which was minimal. It is quite common for DMs to not alow PCs of evil alignment in their games. 3.5, while not forbidding it, discourgaes it. Go and read the alignment sections in Chapter 6 of the 3.5 PHB, it refers to non-evil alignments in positive light, and refers to Evil ones negatively. "Lawful Evil is the most dangerous alignment because..." "Neutral Good is the best alignment because..." and so on and so forth.
The assassin's duties, despite your (false) statements to the contrary, are not restricted to the same narrow scope of a theme that you restrict them too either. Speaking from the point of view of both a historical and literary tradition, characters that bear the name "assassin" have spied, collected information, and performed various duties in addition to hired murder. Quite frankly, an assassin makes for a better catchall name then ninja, because the term "assassin" covers that archetype across all nationalities. The term ninja does not.
Again, +1. My sentiments exactly.
I did my senior research project in high school on Feudal Japan and the seperation between myth, truth, and hollywood is all (yes, myth and hollywood are quite different as well. That article sums it up pretty well. Just linked it as a quick read.
I'm not disputing you did, and I already noted that I agree with you, outside of honorability, which is a nebulous concept that cannot be proven because it requires knowledge of state of mind that we can never have.
I just feel that the article doesn't do any justice, or add to the weight of your statements, because it's on a site that either excised all citations, or never had any to begin with.
Go and read the alignment sections in Chapter 6 of the 3.5 PHB, it refers to non-evil alignments in positive light, and refers to Evil ones negatively. "Lawful Evil is the most dangerous alignment because..." "Neutral Good is the best alignment because..." and so on and so forth.
It uses "Most Dangerous" and "Best" to contrast them. You don't play Evil for a positive spin. All of the evil alignments note why they can be the most dangerous, and all of the good ones note why they can be the best. It is to show each alignment for a good player, and an evil player, not to say "You should really be a hero!" 3.5's alignment section was always terribly written, regardless. The cleric is the first class in the book to point out Evil is an option, with Rebuke Undead and Spontaenous Inflict. If Good was the intended option, and that they wanted evil to be a strict DM option, then the rules for Evil Clerics should have been in the DMG.
3.5 is also the first edition to give real rise to evil options. There are at least 3 books I can think of off hand, Champions of Ruin, Libris Mortis (it spun both ways) and the Book of Vile Darkness (ignoring how poorly it was written). There were other products that definitely had evil options in there (Heroes of Horror, Lords of Madness, Drow of the Underdark). It was the edition that made it clear that Evil is a player option. Fiat is a houserule - not the rules of the game. 3.5 played loose and fast with 'heroic' fantasy, allowing you to play a heroic villain, if you really wanted - it made it clear that Shades of Grey was in effect, and that the game was not Black and White. Evil did not mean Baby Eating, Puppy Kicking Monster. It could, but it wasn't necessary.
I don't really want to defend thaX here, but he has a point. D&D is, and always has been, primarily geared towards the heroic rather than the villainous. Evil PCs got very little support, and there were fewer Good-aligned monsters than there were evil.
While you are technically correct in that no rule existed to stop players from taking that class (or, indeed, being evil at all), thaX is referring to actual USE that said PrC saw, which was minimal. It is quite common for DMs to not alow PCs of evil alignment in their games. 3.5, while not forbidding it, discourgaes it. Go and read the alignment sections in Chapter 6 of the 3.5 PHB, it refers to non-evil alignments in positive light, and refers to Evil ones negatively. "Lawful Evil is the most dangerous alignment because..." "Neutral Good is the best alignment because..." and so on and so forth.
That is actually not true. In both 2e and 3e there were plenty of good aligned monsters. I can't remember what the ratio was in 3e (I could not bring myself to play 3e D&D by the time 3.5e rolled around), but in 2e I remember it being fairly even. I mean, between good aligned dragons, good aligned fey (like ents, dryads, and nymphs), good aligned NPC statblocks of PC races (elves, gnomes, and the like), there were plenty of good aligned NPC statblocks that could be used in combat. It also offered many PC abilities that could only be taken by evil aligned characters. 3e did the same. And, as someone has pointed out, there were no fewer than 3 splatbooks that were almost completely geared towards the creation of evil characters. The fluff for the evil alignments may have called them "most dangerous," but if you are looking to play an evil aligned character that descriptor is not going to deter you. Now, perhaps the campaign would have largly pitted you against evil villains. But, to be quite frank, D&D has a long standing tradition of having the token evil character fighting alongside a group of good heroes. Such characters appeared with a fair amount of frequency among the videogames, and I remember seeing quite a few of them at the table over the years as well. There was nothing in the books that suggested that DMs disallow this. Now, some did; some DMs subjectively felt that allowing such a PC would cause trouble. Indeed, depending on the player who wanted to play said evil character, sometimes those DMs were right. But that does not change the fact that such characters did exist; the rules to create such characters objectively existed. What is more, to claim that every person who wanted to play such a class, or that even most people who wanted to play such a class, were "munchkins" is a load of bologna. ThaX has zero objective proof to back that statement up.
The fact of the matter is, the only objective evidence is that the PrC (and back in 1e the class) existed, and that there were absolutely zero rules precluding PCs from making use of said PrC (or class). The game's assumptions are not ThaX's assumptions. Plenty of DMs allowed token evil characters, who still had a reason to adventure alongside the other PCs and aid them, to join the group. Plenty of players used that PrC.
It uses "Most Dangerous" and "Best" to contrast them. You don't play Evil for a positive spin. All of the evil alignments note why they can be the most dangerous, and all of the good ones note why they can be the best. It is to show each alignment for a good player, and an evil player, not to say "You should really be a hero!" 3.5's alignment section was always terribly written, regardless. The cleric is the first class in the book to point out Evil is an option, with Rebuke Undead and Spontaenous Inflict. If Good was the intended option, and that they wanted evil to be a strict DM option, then the rules for Evil Clerics should have been in the DMG.
Did you even read what I wrote?
I never said that it wasn't an option, simply that the PHB put a more negative light on the evil alignments, and playing them. Clearly, the rules supported Evil alignments as an option for players, that was never being contested. The part you quoted was me simply highlighting how the PHB depicted Evil alignments vice good and neutral ones.
3.5 is also the first edition to give real rise to evil options. There are at least 3 books I can think of off hand, Champions of Ruin, Libris Mortis (it spun both ways) and the Book of Vile Darkness (ignoring how poorly it was written). There were other products that definitely had evil options in there (Heroes of Horror, Lords of Madness, Drow of the Underdark). It was the edition that made it clear that Evil is a player option. Fiat is a houserule - not the rules of the game.
Libris Mortis is a so-so example. That book was as much about FIGHTING unead as anything else. Lords of Madness is a pretty bad example, too. It contained a lot of fluff about said monsters, lots of new options for DMs, and new options for players to fight aberrations, including a few options regarding using aberrations' own techniques against them.
BoVD is obviously the best example.
Never really perused the others.
3.5 played loose and fast with 'heroic' fantasy, allowing you to play a heroic villain, if you really wanted - it made it clear that Shades of Grey was in effect, and that the game was not Black and White.
The books specifically refute you. At least as far as your point on Black and White vs Shades of Gray. The 3.5 PHB says "Good and Evil are not philisophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos. Even the BoVD, the best resource for playing Evil PCs, states that the objective view of Evil (that is, the black and white) is the default. Yes, it does present some information on viewing Evil in shades of gray, but it specifically calls this out as a VARIANT.
In 3.5 Evil could be detected, measured, and quantified. Certain acts are specifically, unequivicably Evil. Consorting with Fiends, Creation of Undead, Damning or Harming Souls. There is no room for shades of gray.
I don't really want to defend thaX here, but he has a point. D&D is, and always has been, primarily geared towards the heroic rather than the villainous. Evil PCs got very little support, and there were fewer Good-aligned monsters than there were evil.
While you are technically correct in that no rule existed to stop players from taking that class (or, indeed, being evil at all), thaX is referring to actual USE that said PrC saw, which was minimal. It is quite common for DMs to not alow PCs of evil alignment in their games. 3.5, while not forbidding it, discourgaes it. Go and read the alignment sections in Chapter 6 of the 3.5 PHB, it refers to non-evil alignments in positive light, and refers to Evil ones negatively. "Lawful Evil is the most dangerous alignment because..." "Neutral Good is the best alignment because..." and so on and so forth.
That is actually not true. In both 2e and 3e there were plenty of good aligned monsters. I can't remember what the ratio was in 3e (I could not bring myself to play 3e D&D by the time 3.5e rolled around), but in 2e I remember it being fairly even. I mean, between good aligned dragons, good aligned fey (like ents, dryads, and nymphs), good aligned NPC statblocks of PC races (elves, gnomes, and the like), there were plenty of good aligned NPC statblocks that could be used in combat.
Actually, it IS true, especially if you re-read what I posted. I said that there were FEWER Good aligned monsters than evil ones, and that is an objective fact. I never denied that there WERE Good aligned monsters, just that they were fewer in number. Ant that's just in the 3e MM1. Once you start adding up monsters from other sources (later MMs, Lords of Madness, Libris Mortis, Hordes of the Abyss, etc.) it starts becoming even MORE apparent. But in the MM alone, evil monsters outnumber good ones. There are 42 Good aligned monsters in the 3.5 MM, and that counts variants as seperate monsters (such as the Unicorn and "Celestial CHarger"). I just went and counted. Then I went and started counting monsters with Evil Alignments. I hit 43 before I even got to Displacer Beast.
Sorry, but it's an objective fact that Evil monsters outnumbered Good ones at a ratio of more than 2:1.
It also offered many PC abilities that could only be taken by evil aligned characters. 3e did the same. And, as someone has pointed out, there were no fewer than 3 splatbooks that were almost completely geared towards the creation of evil characters.
And outsiode of those splatbooks that were, as you pointed out, SPECIFICALLY geared for Evil PCs, what options might those be?
It mentions that Evil clerics spontaneously inflict and rebuke undead. And that a Ranger must be Evil to take his/her own race as a favored enemy.
AND THAT'S IT. In the PHB anyway. There are ZERO feats in the PHB that are explicitly for evil characters. And only 2 PrCs in the DMG for them. Even in the other splatbooks, the ratio of support for evil characters was slim. In the Complete Warrior, for example (the only one I have here, some of my 3.5 books were stolen), there are 3 PrCs that are explicitly for evil characters(and that counts Eye of Gruumsh, for which a character COULD be a CN half-orc, but he would still have to worship Gruumsh, a CE god, as well as Thayan Knight, which simply requires nongood, but, as well all know Red Wizards of Thay are evil and the knight serves them).
Look, I'm not contesting that Evil PCs were an option. All I'm saying is this: If you were looking for options that explicitly catered SOLELY to evil PCs, the pickings were slim. I know about the BoVD, I have it. But that's ONE book. Of the other books he mentioned, most could go either way (Heroes of Horror, Libris Mortis). Champions of Ruin I don't count, as that was a FR book, and I wasn't counting setting-specific books.
The fluff for the evil alignments may have called them "most dangerous," but if you are looking to play an evil aligned character that descriptor is not going to deter you.
And I neither said nor implied that it would. Obviously, if you've already made up your mind to play an evil character, there's probably very little reason to be reading the other alignments anyway. However, a new player, whose mind is unbiased, reading through the alignments would see that the writers clearly are trying to make Evil alignments seem less appealing, without actually removing them as options.
Now, perhaps the campaign would have largly pitted you against evil villains. But, to be quite frank, D&D has a long standing tradition of having the token evil character fighting alongside a group of good heroes. Such characters appeared with a fair amount of frequency among the videogames, and I remember seeing quite a few of them at the table over the years as well.
Hate to call you out on this buddy, but fair is fair. This is a subjective statement that you could not possibly furnish any proof on.
And in the videogames? a lot of times said evil character in group of good PCs would express dissatisfaction and possibly leave, or, less often, could be redeemed (both of these could happen in the Baldur's Gate series).
There was nothing in the books that suggested that DMs disallow this. Now, some did; some DMs subjectively felt that allowing such a PC would cause trouble. Indeed, depending on the player who wanted to play said evil character, sometimes those DMs were right. But that does not change the fact that such characters did exist; the rules to create such characters objectively existed.
And I agree completely. Don't lecture me on this. I never contested that point. I simply am being completely objective and fair myself. Evil PCs had very little support that was not simply generic. You could have an evil fighter or wizard or rogue with the same equipment and feats as a good one, mechanically he is the same. But to have a dark spellcaster with spells no one of even moderate conscience would cast, who gained power from demonic pacts and dark sacrifice...that took some more doing. There was ONE book that specifically supported such options mechanically. And a handful more that contained options for evil characters on approximately equal footing with nonevil ones. Apart from that, any support for Evil PCs such as PrCs and such, were spaced out quite far (two things in one book, maybe three in another).
So while the rules objectively existed, they were also quantifiably less of them than there were for nonevil ones.
What is more, to claim that every person who wanted to play such a class, or that even most people who wanted to play such a class, were "munchkins" is a load of bologna. ThaX has zero objective proof to back that statement up.
I never did that. Don't EVER put me in the same camp as him. I simply pointed out that he was CLOSE to being right in ONE aspect of what he said. The rules don't exist in a vacuum. You can't just claim that Evil PCs were as common as nonevil ones just because the rules for them were there. It's entirely fair to say that, in practice such characters were far less common.
The fact of the matter is, the only objective evidence is that the PrC (and back in 1e the class) existed, and that there were absolutely zero rules precluding PCs from making use of said PrC (or class). The game's assumptions are not ThaX's assumptions. Plenty of DMs allowed token evil characters, who still had a reason to adventure alongside the other PCs and aid them, to join the group. Plenty of players used that PrC.
And plenty of DMs did not. I didn't allow token Evil PCs. Only one DM I know ever did. Evil PCs were not permitted in Organized Play or RPGA events. It's long-standing wisdom among DMs that a single Evil PC has great potential to be disruptive. Whether he's attacking or stealing from his allies, or being difficult in gameplay because "my character's evil". Granted he might not do such things, but all it took to keep an Evil PC out of a party was a paladin, who could not knowingly associate with evildoers.
My whole point is: there's a significant difference between the objective FACT that those rules were out there, and the actual USE those rules and options ever got to see in play.
If you can agree with the above paragraph, we have nothing more to discuss on the subject.
I personally would accept the challenge of playing an evil character in a predominantly good party. It's not impossible and it doesn't make me a munchkin to want and play such a character.
Not a munchkin, certainly, who is someone who seeks to exploiut, or even stretch the rules for his or her own gain.
But having one evil character in a party can be very disruptive. As a DM, I feel it is my job to ensure the players are all having fun. And that means all of them. If one guy decides to assassinate the person standing watch, make off with a powerful artifact, and then desert the rest of the party (or some other course of action that might be justified by the payer of an evil PC), then the fun of many is compromised. If people really want to play evil characters, I could (and have) run games with parties exclusively comprised of such. And even that was mediated, by having all players make their characters together so that they had common (evil) goals. Much less likely to turn into a player versus player scenario, which create tension at the game table.
Part of the creation of Unaligned in 4e was to clarify a grey area, where scoundrels who care about their allies and won't double-cross them, but can play the dark anti-hero sort of thing, can exist. They're not evil, because they're not going out of their way to be malicious and cruel to anyone, nor are they backstabbing their allies, but they're not goodie-twoshoes either. This is important, since it fulfills most of what players want when they say, "I wanna Play Evil!"
But yeah, in earlier editions, there WERE monsters with the Good alignment. All the evil deities WERE accessible to players, and quite easily. There were Splat books with extra support options. Even if there was only a little bit, a drop in the bucket compared to the support for good, Evil had support in 3.5e. This is a complete design reversal for 4e.
WotC realised that Assassins and Blackguards don't have to be evil. They can exist in the Grey of Unaligned. And that's fine. Because there's other things than just murder and backstabbing that Assassins do. But the Executioner really does play in that way: Kill off the target quickly before there's a chance for anyone to react, and then help the allies clean up the guards/target's allies. But outside of combat, there's plenty of room for other actions. And they already showed how Shadowdancers could be rolled into the Assassin concept as well.
And Blackguards, even if they're fallen Cavaliers, they don't have to be evil to embrace vices. They're struggling against the darkness in their hearts. That's prime Unaligned character material, there.
The assassin's duties, despite your (false) statements to the contrary, are not restricted to the same narrow scope of a theme that you restrict them too either. Speaking from the point of view of both a historical and literary tradition, characters that bear the name "assassin" have spied, collected information, and performed various duties in addition to hired murder. Quite frankly, an assassin makes for a better catchall name then ninja, because the term "assassin" covers that archetype across all nationalities. The term ninja does not.
So, just to clarify things for a humble northern lass of very little brain. James Bond would be classified as an assassin in 4e? How about George Smiley? Just so I know. (I wouldn't regard either of them as assassins, but maybe that's just me. And that's why I'm asking.)
So, just to clarify things for a humble northern lass of very little brain. James Bond would be classified as an assassin in 4e? How about George Smiley? Just so I know. (I wouldn't regard either of them as assassins, but maybe that's just me. And that's why I'm asking.)
Classifying/categorizing fictional characters in D&D is always tricky, and quite subjective; there's usually more than one way to do it. I don't know George Smiley, so can't comment there. I would personally just call Bond a rogue, but if someone else were to build him as an assassin, I certainly wouldn't feel there was much room to object.
So, just to clarify things for a humble northern lass of very little brain. James Bond would be classified as an assassin in 4e? How about George Smiley? Just so I know. (I wouldn't regard either of them as assassins, but maybe that's just me. And that's why I'm asking.)
Classifying/categorizing fictional characters in D&D is always tricky, and quite subjective; there's usually more than one way to do it. I don't know George Smiley, so can't comment there. I would personally just call Bond a rogue, but if someone else were to build him as an assassin, I certainly wouldn't feel there was much room to object.
George Smiley is the main character in several books by John Le Carre. The Spy Who Came In From The Cold. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, Smiley's People. I suppose you could say that he is to James Bond what Inspector Morse is to somebody like Jack Regan from The Sweeney. (Or, if you prefer, what Columbo is to... gaah, I'm not that big on US cop shows.)
Anyway, George Smiley is more... thoughtful than James Bond, but they're both spies, just... different.
Indeed, I would say that seeing as he has carte blanche to get stabby (or trigger happy, or make things go BOOOM!) he'd be considered an assassin.
I'm iffy on that, myself. It seems to boil down to what I like to call Capital Letter Syndrome; the idea that for your character to be a barbarian (a savage warrior), he must be a Barbarian (primal striker), or that a Monk (psionic striker) must be a Monk (introspective guy living in a monastery). Similarly, you do not have to be an Assassin (shadow/martial striker) to be an assassin (one who murders by surprise attack).
Im glad the first term in the Executioner Assassin description about alignment is 'Lawful Good'.
This has always made sense to me. This represents well most military covert operatives as well as most patriotic spies. Navy Seals, Rangers, every 'tip of the spear' or 'intelligence operative', can use the Executioner to represent the concept.
The definition of an 'assassin' is someone who kills a 'prominent person'. The assassin necessarily relies on surprise attacks because of the tactics of numbers, when only one person is the target. The term has nothing to do with being paid to kill - the term is strictly defined by who the *target* of the killing is, 'prominent', not who the killer is. Most assassinations are ideologically motivated and have nothing especially to do with money.
The Assassin is Lawful to the extent that the goal of the killer is to promote the ideology of a collective community. The Assassin is Good to the extent that em prefers to kill an antihuman bloodthirsty dictator who is guilty of mass-murder, rather than kill all the innocent 18 year-olds who were drafted into the tyrants army against their will. And, all nonlethal options were exhausted and the tyrant is demonstrably too powerful to keep in prison because the tyrant has enough supporters who will continue killing under leadership from prison or else break the tyrant out of prison or take hostages to free the tyrant as ransome.
That is, the Assassin fulfills the striker role to neutralize a special threat.
By the way, when an Assassin reduces a monster to zero hit points the Assassin can choose not to kill, but just subdue and imprison.
Lawful Good can be appropriate.
I personally would accept the challenge of playing an evil character in a predominantly good party. It's not impossible and it doesn't make me a munchkin to want and play such a character.
Not a munchkin, certainly, who is someone who seeks to exploiut, or even stretch the rules for his or her own gain.
But having one evil character in a party can be very disruptive. As a DM, I feel it is my job to ensure the players are all having fun. And that means all of them. If one guy decides to assassinate the person standing watch, make off with a powerful artifact, and then desert the rest of the party (or some other course of action that might be justified by the payer of an evil PC), then the fun of many is compromised. If people really want to play evil characters, I could (and have) run games with parties exclusively comprised of such. And even that was mediated, by having all players make their characters together so that they had common (evil) goals. Much less likely to turn into a player versus player scenario, which create tension at the game table.
I'm speaking of the Evil alignment specifically, not the catch all evil. What you describe is more like Chaotic Evil. The Player's Handbook describes the Evil alignment as such, "Evil characters don't necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they're perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want. Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain. They don't care whether laws hurt other people. They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others' freedom. Slavery and rigid caste structures are not only acceptable but desirable to evil characters, as long as they are in a position to benefit from them." which honestly sounds like someone that could work fairly well in a group of good characters. However you'd have to not offer them a reason to betray the other PCs, because that could cause the brunt of problems. Of course this is in a perfect world where the evil PC forms positive bonds with the other PCs, and sticks to the alignment as described. I get wear you're coming from though, I just thought I'd give my two cents.
Bad choice of words perhaps, I didn't mean to imply Sentinel companion outperforms the 4e fighter, but rather that it's like having a free 3.5 fighter added to your own.
As for evidence, regretably the character builder doesn't have Sentinel yet, so I'm going to hold off on hard numbers. I did find some interesting tidbits on Charop though
The abandoned Sentinel guide, which affirms my observations of midlevel striker level encounter damage, constant leader benefits via companion aura
The all druid guide. Confirms that controller powers are completely open the sentinel (can cast for it's personal at will and have the creature do the melee at will for example) via Afsair spear or Staff, as well as take instictive action daily summons. Since being dazed alows the companion to act unhindered, and vice versa, this presents a huge action economy advantage over most classes. This downplays the Sentinel defending abilities, but it ignores the fact that getting to self flank in cardinal directions (if you took a melee atwill) is as punishing to "shift charge" as a weaponmaster fighter or assault swordmage (basic attack damage). Since it doesn't rely on marks, it can stack with other defenders.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
It's fine for the Weaponmaster fighter to Sub Striker because that's only 2 roles, not 3 or 4. Also, defending requires more investment to succeed compared to leading. Or perhaps I should say, BEING a leader (which grants the encounter words) is a lot harder to replace with multiclassing than striking (high damage), defending (survivalbility+hindering enemy targeting), or controlling (multitarget debilitation). Such that when you start as a leader, you're already 80% there. I DMed a level 28 delve and a single unoptimized bard with 2 targeting, 3 used healing word made the damage dealt a joke.
I promise I'll get around to building a sentinel once the builder is up.
Started work on this. Not quite finished yet but the gist of it so far is summoner Druid Daily Powers and Defense feats up to wazoo to make him unkillable. Half Elf Verstile master steals hand of radiance for awesome spread out damage, while meleeing entirely through the Beast or Combined attack. The biggest surprise has been the lack of Primal Guardian for the Sentinel despite being WIS/CON in hide. I thought it was previewed otherwise, but giving them scale via feats won't be too hard.
This lack of easy AC (and wildshape) compared to a caster oDruid is the only disadvantage. On it's side is powerful melee through a beast (1d12+both statmods), beast aura benefit, and encounter healing word- non of which feats can mimic. Even from this it's clear the Sentinel is significantly more powerful than a guardian druid. Hopefully in another week I'll have some sample numbers to throw around, and I haven't even tried multiclassing to optimize summons yet. community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
The biggest surprise has been the lack of Primal Guardian for the Sentinel despite being WIS/CON in hide. I thought it was previewed otherwise, but giving them scale via feats won't be too hard.
Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms definitely gives the Primal Guardian feature (Con bonus to AC instead of Dex or Int) to Sentinel Druids. I am pretty sure that its omission from the Character Builder is a bug. The programmers may have lost track of it because Primal Guardian is a required feature for Sentinel Druids but a selectable option for standard Druids.
Im glad the first term in the Executioner Assassin description about alignment is 'Lawful Good'.
This has always made sense to me. This represents well most military covert operatives as well as most patriotic spies. Navy Seals, Rangers, every 'tip of the spear' or 'intelligence operative', can use the Executioner to represent the concept.
Perhaps you can explain... when I seen rogue even from day one in the phb and the striker role I said oh battle field assassan and the ranger is a scout. I never seen a need for an assassin especially a martial one either martial striker umm works for me. Then I seen paragon paths in martial powers and it pretty much followed suit. What is brought to the table by these new assassins? Heck shadow assassin was a paragon path from phb wasnt it? Buy blood stinger or blood root poisons (or dabble in alchemy like eyesting and blinding bomb) if thats your flavor want to be a sword using ninja maybe? use versatile duelist and use a long sword along side your shuriken... want more dark magic hybrid or mc with a warlock.... shrug
Assassin... great. When is it gonna be published?
Just because it isn't in a high-quality paper bound within a cover by WotC and sold in bookstores doesn't mean it wasn't published. This is the modern age, and digital publishing, whther you like to acknowledge it or not, exists.
You must pay for a DDi subscription at least once to access the Assassin (you can download it to your harddrive at the time), so it's not like it's a free resource.
Face it, thaX, the Assassin was published. You've lost that point in the argument.
Hoping to see:
- new Shadow based powers for warlocks
- Shadow bloodline feats
- Dark Pact hexblades
- Shadowcaster implement type base class
- new Assassin utility powers
- shadow creature summoning spells for warlocks
This book looks really interesting to me, I'll most likely be getting it. It sounds really intriguing, especially since it includes classes and races.
Builds... not classes...
This book looks really interesting to me, I'll most likely be getting it. It sounds really intriguing, especially since it includes classes and races.
Builds... not classes...
There really needs to be some sort of standardization for the terminology here. After all, the Knight and Slayer are almost classes in and of themselves. After all, while they can switch Utility powers with a pre-Essentials fighter, they otherwise have nothing in common.
The Essentials-style classes are more than just builds, and less than seperate classes.
There really needs to be some sort of standardization for the terminology here. After all, the Knight and Slayer are almost classes in and of themselves. After all, while they can switch Utility powers with a pre-Essentials fighter, they otherwise have nothing in common.
The Essentials-style classes are more than just builds, and less than seperate classes.
Sub-clases, it was used by some developer at some point to refer to one/some of the essentials "builds"....although someone on the forums(forgot who) gets pissy when you use it. Although if you create a new term I'm sure that person will feel the same way as their problem was seperating the essentials builds from other builds. *shrugs*
There really needs to be some sort of standardization for the terminology here. After all, the Knight and Slayer are almost classes in and of themselves. After all, while they can switch Utility powers with a pre-Essentials fighter, they otherwise have nothing in common.
The Essentials-style classes are more than just builds, and less than seperate classes.
Sub-clases, it was used by some developer at some point to refer to one/some of the essentials "builds"....although someone on the forums(forgot who) gets pissy when you use it. Although if you create a new term I'm sure that person will feel the same way as their problem was seperating the essentials builds from other builds. *shrugs*
I think sub-classes nails it nicely...
This book looks really interesting to me, I'll most likely be getting it. It sounds really intriguing, especially since it includes classes and races.
Builds... not classes...
6 of one, half dozen of the other...
except that with the new class/sub-class format we're getting new classes that can have different game mechanics and fluff from each other that still share similar enough bonds to be grouped together (which allows them to share Utility Power and Feat lists.)
I'm personally a huge fan of the new class/sub-class format and sincerely hope that it is the norm for 4e from here on out.
They are more like the Class Kits you had in 2nd edition.
No, they are not. They are more like sub-classes. The class kits didn't change the base mechanics of your chosen class. So, two fighters, no matter what kits were chosen, would still share a host of common class features. The slayer, knight, and "weaponmaster" share zero class features. The only thing that connects them is a nominal connection, and certain features that are commonly shared across different classes (such as weapon proficiencies, armor proficiencies, hit points, healing surges, or the like).
To continue to muddle mechanics and ignore the standard set in the first books would mean that this edition is waning to the end. If this continues at is, this edition will have a shorter lifespan than any of the previous editions.
Bologna. You have zero objective proof to back up that statement. It is little more than emotionally charged doom-saying born of your own subjective dislike of the products in question.
To continue to muddle mechanics and ignore the standard set in the first books would mean that this edition is waning to the end. If this continues at is, this edition will have a shorter lifespan than any of the previous editions.
I disagree wholeheartedly... I feel that the new format is simply 4e coming into its maturity. We still have the 4e rules and game mechanics, which is great because 4e is easily the best edition of the game we've gotten to date (at least in my opinion as someone who has been playing since AD&D 2nd edition.) But now we're also getting a new, better class format that merges together a lot of what was good about 3rd editon classes with what is good about 4th edition to create a much better new format.
And to top it off, they've revised the current editon in such a way that players who prefer the old approach can still play with the existing classes right alongside the new ones. To anyone who was around to remember the frustrating debacle of trying to convert characters and adventures from 3.0 to 3.5, I really feel that WotC has been pretty smart about all this. The Essentials books aren't truly a new editon, nor is it a revison on the scale of 3.5 (which very nearly invalidated the books that came before it)... instead we have new books and options for the same edition we've already been playing, some nicely thought-out eratta, and a new, improved format for classes that includes "sub-classes" instead of "builds."
Class / "sub-classes" - Similar in some ways to the kits of AD&D 2nd edition, sub-classes are essentially seperate classes that have their own story fluff / background, class features, advancement, powers, role, and power source. However, as evidenced by the name, all sub-classes are grouped into classes, which provides the sub-classes within that group to pull from a collective pile of Utility Powers and Feats. Your choice of sub-class only gives you options for powers and abilities that actually fit your role and the background story of the sub-class (for the most part.)
Class / Builds - Under this format (the norm until the release of the Essentials books), you chose a Class to play and optionally a build. It seemed like builds were largely optional (officially at least) because with some classes and class features it was vitally important that you choose one, and with other classes choosing a build was really just superfluous and the class only had builds in order to be like all the others. The builds often seemed half-put together, especially since they actually mattered very little in the grand scheme of things; you could pick any power available to the class whether it made any sense whatsoever or not (and regardless of if it fit your chosen build's theme and story.)
Just my two cents... I know that my thoughts and opionons don't match up with everyone else's... but I also feel that as a strong supporter of this new direction that I should let my support and opinions be known, not just at my local store and in the Encounters games I run, but also online where WotC and other players can read them.
Although I also know that in the end the 'vote' that WotC listens to the most is probably that of people's wallets. With that in mind I do have to say that I am very excited about the vast majority of the products coming out this year (especially Heroes of Shadow, Neverwinter campaign setting, and the Ravenloft Campaign Setting.) Probably the two most glaring exceptions to that are Mordenkenain's Magnificent Emporium and the Fortune cards. Frankly, the magic item lists are already so bloated and annoying to sort through when finding an item I'd like for a character that another book of items doesn't really get me excitedl. (Although I suppose we do need more Rare items. In fact, I don't think there are currently any Rare items, but I'm not sure.) The Fortune cards seem like they could be cool, and I'll probably buy a pack or two to see what I think of them, but I have my reservations about them.
They are more like the Class Kits you had in 2nd edition.
No, they are not. They are more like sub-classes. The class kits didn't change the base mechanics of your chosen class. So, two fighters, no matter what kits were chosen, would still share a host of common class features. The slayer, knight, and "weaponmaster" share zero class features. The only thing that connects them is a nominal connection, and certain features that are commonly shared across different classes (such as weapon proficiencies, armor proficiencies, hit points, healing surges, or the like).
I would actually agree with Thax that the "sub-classes" are rather similar in some ways to AD&D 2nd edition's kits. However, that's not really a bad thing... the kits were a good idea at the time, just not the best implemented... these are basically kits with the bugs worked out.
Keep in mind that while many kits didn't change the base mechanics of the classes, there were also quite a few that did. Granted, the main examples I have of this was in the Al-Quadim sub-campaign of the Forgotten Realms setting (the Sha'ir, the Elementalist, the Clockwork Mage), so that might have been more true there than it was in other 2nd edition books.
I was very fond of the Sha'ir, Elementalist, and Clockwork Mage kits/classes. We have the Artificer now, which is probably better than the old Clockwork Mage, but I'd really like to see the Sha'ir and Elementalist return in 4e. I'd like the Elementalist to be a Wizard sub-class and the Sha'ir to be a Warlock sub-class, with both of them hopefully utilizing the thus-far-untapped Elemental power source.
Really, these new kit builds are like the 3.5 nine swords book. It is an experiment, a test.
I would hope support for the edition would include new choices, not limit them like these kit builds. Right now, it seems to be going further into Jobs catagories instead of actual characters, like in Final Fantasy.
I got into 4th edition to get away from 3.5.
Really, these new kit builds are like the 3.5 nine swords book. It is an experiment, a test.
I would hope support for the edition would include new choices, not limit them like these kit builds. Right now, it seems to be going further into Jobs catagories instead of actual characters, like in Final Fantasy.
I agree. It appears to be like the book of nine swords for 3.5E or skills and powers for 2E. Now we can't say for sure either way, but this is what it appears to be. It is also a significant change to the way characters are designed and how they progress. Whether good or bad balanced or unbalanced can be debated. It is however a step backward in the direction 4E was going. 4E was about balance and choices. Essentials appears to be about quick and easy.
Essentials is just not for me and by not creating new material for pre-E, WotC is losing my money. If they put a few AEDU classes using the pre-E design philosophy in Heroes of Shadow, then I would be happy. It would not make me unhappy if they put post-E sub-classes in the book. If they don't put AEDU classes in, it will make me unhappy.
I agree. It appears to be like the book of nine swords for 3.5E or skills and powers for 2E. Now we can't say for sure either way, but this is what it appears to be. It is also a significant change to the way characters are designed and how they progress. Whether good or bad balanced or unbalanced can be debated. It is however a step backward in the direction 4E was going. 4E was about balance and choices. Essentials appears to be about quick and easy.
That is also very much up for debate.
I agree. It appears to be like the book of nine swords for 3.5E or skills and powers for 2E. Now we can't say for sure either way, but this is what it appears to be. It is also a significant change to the way characters are designed and how they progress. Whether good or bad balanced or unbalanced can be debated. It is however a step backward in the direction 4E was going. 4E was about balance and choices. Essentials appears to be about quick and easy.
That is also very much up for debate.
No actually its not.
The stated goal of 4E was balance and choice.
The stated goal of Essentials was simplicity and encapsulation (nothing depends on anything else).
Essentials hearkens back to previous editions, thus a step back.
Whether this is good or bad is up for debate...
No actually its not.
The stated goal of 4E was balance and choice.
The stated goal of Essentials was simplicity and encapsulation (nothing depends on anything else).
Essentials hearkens back to previous editions, thus a step back.
Whether this is good or bad is up for debate...
No, it actually is. See, the construct you just laid out is subjective. It is not based on objective observation, but rather on your subjective interpretation of objective reality. You have outlined the logic you used to create that subjective interpretation, but logic and theory exist in the realm of the subjective. They can be disputed by alternative theories and alternative methods of constructing logical structures. Since people can disagree with your statement, because your statement (no matter how much you may want it to be) is not an objective observation, your statement is also very much up for debate. For example:
I do not think that Essentials has removed balance or choice from 4e. The Essentials products seem to have been built with the notion that they must be balanced with prior existing material. As they are new editions to an older game, by definition they add more choice. Indeed, they offer choices people did not have before, such as the ability to choose mixed power source classes. Certainly the Essentials classes do add a new layer of "simplicity" and "encapsulation," but 4e has been adding new layers of simplicity and encapsulation to D&D since day one. One of the major stated goals of 4e was to simply the rules, and to encapsulate the rules into more easily understood components. This is why 4e chose to use a standardized power stat blocks and keyword formatting. And, I do not see the evocation of the fluff of prior editions to be a mechanical step backwards. Fluff does not equal mechanics. The whole purpose of using the D&D brand name is to promise your consumer base that you are going to tie your product to earlier examples of that product. The way that is done in RPGs is by reusing and sometimes reinterpreting fluff from older editions of the game. If anything, I see Essentials as the logical next evolution of 4e based on the feedback WotC has received about the system. It seems very much like a step forward to me.
I agree. It appears to be like the book of nine swords for 3.5E or skills and powers for 2E. Now we can't say for sure either way, but this is what it appears to be. It is also a significant change to the way characters are designed and how they progress. Whether good or bad balanced or unbalanced can be debated. It is however a step backward in the direction 4E was going. 4E was about balance and choices. Essentials appears to be about quick and easy.
That is also very much up for debate.
No actually its not.
The stated goal of 4E was balance and choice.
The stated goal of Essentials was simplicity and encapsulation (nothing depends on anything else).
Essentials hearkens back to previous editions, thus a step back.
Whether this is good or bad is up for debate...
By all accounts 4e still is about balance and choice. The Essentials line was about quick and easy, but that doesn't mean about the overall direction of the game. Just because (sub)class design is no longer uniform does not make it unbalanced, it gives you more choices in the long run.
The Kit Builds do indeed provide a choice for those wanting to play them, but most (with the possible exception of the Mage builds) can only use the features and mechanics within the builds themselves. This makes those same features be unavailable for the base class at the same time.
It is the difference of having free form choices or being directed into a (well worn) path.
No actually its not.
The stated goal of 4E was balance and choice.
The stated goal of Essentials was simplicity and encapsulation (nothing depends on anything else).
Essentials hearkens back to previous editions, thus a step back.
Whether this is good or bad is up for debate...
No, it actually is. See, the construct you just laid out is subjective. It is not based on objective observation, but rather on your subjective interpretation of objective reality. You have outlined the logic you used to create that subjective interpretation, but logic and theory exist in the realm of the subjective. They can be disputed by alternative theories and alternative methods of constructing logical structures. Since people can disagree with your statement, because your statement (no matter how much you may want it to be) is not an objective observation, your statement is also very much up for debate. For example:
I do not think that Essentials has removed balance or choice from 4e. The Essentials products seem to have been built with the notion that they must be balanced with prior existing material. As they are new editions to an older game, by definition they add more choice. Indeed, they offer choices people did not have before, such as the ability to choose mixed power source classes. Certainly the Essentials classes do add a new layer of "simplicity" and "encapsulation," but 4e has been adding new layers of simplicity and encapsulation to D&D since day one. One of the major stated goals of 4e was to simply the rules, and to encapsulate the rules into more easily understood components. This is why 4e chose to use a standardized power stat blocks and keyword formatting. And, I do not see the evocation of the fluff of prior editions to be a mechanical step backwards. Fluff does not equal mechanics. The whole purpose of using the D&D brand name is to promise your consumer base that you are going to tie your product to earlier examples of that product. The way that is done in RPGs is by reusing and sometimes reinterpreting fluff from older editions of the game. If anything, I see Essentials as the logical next evolution of 4e based on the feedback WotC has received about the system. It seems very much like a step forward to me.
Personally I think the balance issue is out of whack, but that is a discussion for the CharOp boards. As to simplicity, are you trying to tell me that the slayer and thief have more choices than their pre-E counterparts? This is provably false. The only class that comes close to having pre-E choices is the Mage, all of the others have provably less features.
Pre-E classes were all about choices even within each build you could choose to stray outside the norm. Post-E precludes this. Thus less choices. You can't choose powers (other than utility powers) outside your sub-class. Encapsulation.
All of these features are closer to previous editions, rather than pre-E. Thus a step into the past (for those that don't like the word "backward").
Whether it is good or bad remains to be seen.
No actually its not.
The stated goal of 4E was balance and choice.
The stated goal of Essentials was simplicity and encapsulation (nothing depends on anything else).
Essentials hearkens back to previous editions, thus a step back.
Whether this is good or bad is up for debate...
No, it actually is. See, the construct you just laid out is subjective. It is not based on objective observation, but rather on your subjective interpretation of objective reality. You have outlined the logic you used to create that subjective interpretation, but logic and theory exist in the realm of the subjective. They can be disputed by alternative theories and alternative methods of constructing logical structures. Since people can disagree with your statement, because your statement (no matter how much you may want it to be) is not an objective observation, your statement is also very much up for debate. For example:
I do not think that Essentials has removed balance or choice from 4e. The Essentials products seem to have been built with the notion that they must be balanced with prior existing material. As they are new editions to an older game, by definition they add more choice. Indeed, they offer choices people did not have before, such as the ability to choose mixed power source classes. Certainly the Essentials classes do add a new layer of "simplicity" and "encapsulation," but 4e has been adding new layers of simplicity and encapsulation to D&D since day one. One of the major stated goals of 4e was to simply the rules, and to encapsulate the rules into more easily understood components. This is why 4e chose to use a standardized power stat blocks and keyword formatting. And, I do not see the evocation of the fluff of prior editions to be a mechanical step backwards. Fluff does not equal mechanics. The whole purpose of using the D&D brand name is to promise your consumer base that you are going to tie your product to earlier examples of that product. The way that is done in RPGs is by reusing and sometimes reinterpreting fluff from older editions of the game. If anything, I see Essentials as the logical next evolution of 4e based on the feedback WotC has received about the system. It seems very much like a step forward to me.
I am an avid D&D player (usually twice a week) and I approve of this message.
Also, I feel that the new Class/Sub-Class format introduced in Essentials absolutely does not "remove choice" from character design as many people keep saying, it merely shifts those choices.
Pre-Essentials, you chose a class to play, then possibly a build (which was a mixed bag, but I've already talked about that up above), then every level you'd have to slog through an ever-bloating pile of powers. And for the most part there was little to nothing to stop you from taking a slew of powers that had nothing at all to do with your build and/or little to no connection to your character type. I know I said that funny, but forgive me, I'm quite tired.
Post-Essentials, you choose a class you want to play based on the flavor and story fluff. Then, within each class you choose a sub-class which dictates your role, power source (or sources), and many of your powers (which now all actually fit with your role and story background instead of being all willy-nilly and hodge-podged.) And then within each sub-class is other choices like School of Magic (for Mages), Doman (for Warpriests), Pact (for Hexblades), etc. etc. Then you have your Utility Powers and Feats (which everyone from a particular class draws from a common list.)
Thus, the choices involved aren't what powers do I choose out of the ever-bloating pile, but instead what Sub-Class do I choose out of what will hopefully be a growing list of possibilities. I'm totally hoping to see a return to the types of Class Acts articles that used to be in Dragon... you know, the ones that would include entire new classes or prestige classes... well, in this case you could have an entire new sub-class in an article with all its game mechanics, some feats (if needed), and relevant story fluff, and it wouldn't even have to be that large of an article to get the job done and start providing a healthy supply of new classes/sub-classes to choose from.
What if I wanted to see something new - something actually new and not just more builds/powers for classes that have plenty already? What if I was hoping for the option to play a character that wouldn't have been possible in 2e or 3e?
HoS, from the preview, is just a total let down for me. It's so completely not the book I've been waiting for for two years that I don't even know how to describe my dissapointment. I've never been so miserable about a D&D product. In the past there were books I wanted that I purchased, and books I didn't want that I skipped - no problem. But this isn't just a book I don't want to buy, it's also a glowing neon sign that says the book I've been waiting patiently for since the preview books will never be published this edition, and I might as well just give up on 4e entirely.
They are more like the Class Kits you had in 2nd edition.
Not really. Those Class Kits were, more often than not, just additioal abilities that got tacked on to an existing class. rarely, you would see it swap abilities from the class, or add weapon proficiencies, or take some away, but usualy they were additional powers.
So...your attempt to compare it to Essentials sub-classes is pretty much a FAIL.
To continue to muddle mechanics and ignore the standard set in the first books would mean that this edition is waning to the end. If this continues at is, this edition will have a shorter lifespan than any of the previous editions.
They're not ignoring them, so everything you've said here is complete garbage (not unlike what most of us have come to expect from your posts).
The Class Compendium Book (Heroes of Sword and Spell?), which is apparently on hiatus if the product catalog is to be believed, was meant to direct ore attention to the material in the first books. It was aimed at the people brought in (or back) to the game with Essentials, and direct them to the previous AEDU classes. The only difference is that the errata would be integrated, and the actual layout of the powers in the book would be in the level-by-level format of Essentials, which a lot of people (not me, butothers) find easier to read.
I got into 4th edition to get away from 3.5.
Really, these new kit builds are like the 3.5 nine swords book. It is an experiment, a test.
You got something backwards there. The 3.5 Nine swords book was a test for 4e mechanics. The ORCUS design team was already working on the AEDU system, and Nine Swords was a test to see how that kind of system would work with a purely martial type character like a fighter (or warblade, whatever).
I would hope support for the edition would include new choices, not limit them like these kit builds. Right now, it seems to be going further into Jobs catagories instead of actual characters, like in Final Fantasy.
To anyone who's actually PLAYED a Final Fantasy game that implemented a Job System, your analogy makes no sense. The new sub-classes are nothing like a job system, which is fluid. In a job system, the character can completely abandon a previous class and adopt a new one.
How are Essentials classes ANYTHING like a FF job system?
Personally I think the balance issue is out of whack, but that is a discussion for the CharOp boards.
I could care less about what you think, because in this case you are 100% wrong. You can head to the CharOp boards and see what they say for yourself.
As to simplicity, are you trying to tell me that the slayer and thief have more choices than their pre-E counterparts? This is provably false. The only class that comes close to having pre-E choices is the Mage, all of the others have provably less features.
I am trying to tell you that when you have option 1, 2, and 3, adding option 4 adds another option. It doesn't matter that you don't add three more options, because the three older options still exist. Option 4 is an extra option that did not exist before. What is more, in the case of Essentials, option 4 is a drastically different option that did not exist before.
Pre-E classes were all about choices even within each build you could choose to stray outside the norm. Post-E precludes this. Thus less choices. You can't choose powers (other than utility powers) outside your sub-class. Encapsulation.
Encapsulation is nothing new to 4e. There are lots of elements of 4e that encapsulated the game beyond what was seen in 3e. There are lots of elements in 4e that encapsulated the game beyond what was seen in any prior edition. Post E classes both offer more choices then you give them credit for, and less options than prior builds. But this is irrelevent. They are nothing more than a new set of options which a player can choose to play.
All of these features are closer to previous editions, rather than pre-E. Thus a step into the past (for those that don't like the word "backward").
And this statement is highly subjective and suspect. I understand that it is your value judgement, but it is not an objective obeservation. It is a generalized blanket statement that is only possible because of your subjective opinions.
Put plain and simply, your statement that E is a step backwards is not objective. It is thus open for debate. That is all there is to it. I don't view E as a step backwards. I view it as a natural evolution of the game.
As to simplicity, are you trying to tell me that the slayer and thief have more choices than their pre-E counterparts? This is provably false. The only class that comes close to having pre-E choices is the Mage, all of the others have provably less features.
I am trying to tell you that when you have option 1, 2, and 3, adding option 4 adds another option. It doesn't matter that you don't add three more options, because the three older options still exist. Option 4 is an extra option that did not exist before. What is more, in the case of Essentials, option 4 is a drastically different option that did not exist before.
If I could chime in, I think I understand what lokiare's trying to say. Let's say you have options 1, 2, and 3. If you choose 1, later you can choose options A, B, C, or D, and then later options I, II, II, or IV, etc... If you choose options 2 or 3, you do not get to make those later choices. Thus, while the introduction of options 2 and 3 in and of themselves actually provide more options, choosing 2 or 3 limits your choices at a later point. Perhaps a metaphor would work better. You come to a fork in the road. If you go right, the road continue straight for the rest of its way. If you left, the road forks again repeatedly. Hence going right limits your options after you choose to go right. The complaint that Essentials limits your options equates to the complaint that the path on the right doesn't have any more forks. (Technically this isn't true, as sentinel still gives choice of animal companion, and cavalier gives choice of virtue and whether you enhance a living mount or summon a celestial one. I expect these class feature substitutions will evolve like they did in 4e, providing more options down the road).
So really, the argument about whether or not Essentials limits your choices is based on what your reference point is: are you standing before or after you took a right? It seems to me that a lot of people don't realize that either stance can actually be right depending on your reference point. So just think about that. It sounds to me like this is a sore enough subject that we're not so far away from it devolving into a flame war. Let's just relax and try to look through both perspectives.
Personally I think the balance issue is out of whack, but that is a discussion for the CharOp boards.
I could care less about what you think, because in this case you are 100% wrong. You can head to the CharOp boards and see what they say for yourself.
Then why did you make this comment. I clearly relegated it to the CharOp boards...
As to simplicity, are you trying to tell me that the slayer and thief have more choices than their pre-E counterparts? This is provably false. The only class that comes close to having pre-E choices is the Mage, all of the others have provably less features.
I am trying to tell you that when you have option 1, 2, and 3, adding option 4 adds another option. It doesn't matter that you don't add three more options, because the three older options still exist. Option 4 is an extra option that did not exist before. What is more, in the case of Essentials, option 4 is a drastically different option that did not exist before.
Except if option 4 keeps getting better and more powerful over time and options 1, 2, and 3 don't.
Pre-E classes were all about choices even within each build you could choose to stray outside the norm. Post-E precludes this. Thus less choices. You can't choose powers (other than utility powers) outside your sub-class. Encapsulation.
Encapsulation is nothing new to 4e. There are lots of elements of 4e that encapsulated the game beyond what was seen in 3e. There are lots of elements in 4e that encapsulated the game beyond what was seen in any prior edition. Post E classes both offer more choices then you give them credit for, and less options than prior builds. But this is irrelevent. They are nothing more than a new set of options which a player can choose to play.
Yes, but within the post-E option there are fewer options. Within the pre-E option there are more options so the post-E option is closer to previous editions because it has less options and previous editions have less options. If you want we can list post-E options and pre-E options as well as previous editions options and then see where we stand, but your are attempting to prove me wrong by saying my facts are subjective. So you go first, count all the options and we'll see which one is more similar.
All of these features are closer to previous editions, rather than pre-E. Thus a step into the past (for those that don't like the word "backward").
And this statement is highly subjective and suspect. I understand that it is your value judgement, but it is not an objective obeservation. It is a generalized blanket statement that is only possible because of your subjective opinions.
Put plain and simply, your statement that E is a step backwards is not objective. It is thus open for debate. That is all there is to it. I don't view E as a step backwards. I view it as a natural evolution of the game.
Well then debate it, quit saying its "not objective" or "its subjective" and dismissing it. I've offered verifiable facts. Dispute them or move on...
As to simplicity, are you trying to tell me that the slayer and thief have more choices than their pre-E counterparts? This is provably false. The only class that comes close to having pre-E choices is the Mage, all of the others have provably less features.
I am trying to tell you that when you have option 1, 2, and 3, adding option 4 adds another option. It doesn't matter that you don't add three more options, because the three older options still exist. Option 4 is an extra option that did not exist before. What is more, in the case of Essentials, option 4 is a drastically different option that did not exist before.
If I could chime in, I think I understand what lokiare's trying to say. Let's say you have options 1, 2, and 3. If you choose 1, later you can choose options A, B, C, or D, and then later options I, II, II, or IV, etc... If you choose options 2 or 3, you do not get to make those later choices. Thus, while the introduction of options 2 and 3 in and of themselves actually provide more options, choosing 2 or 3 limits your choices at a later point. Perhaps a metaphor would work better. You come to a fork in the road. If you go right, the road continue straight for the rest of its way. If you left, the road forks again repeatedly. Hence going right limits your options after you choose to go right. The complaint that Essentials limits your options equates to the complaint that the path on the right doesn't have any more forks. (Technically this isn't true, as sentinel still gives choice of animal companion, and cavalier gives choice of virtue and whether you enhance a living mount or summon a celestial one. I expect these class feature substitutions will evolve like they did in 4e, providing more options down the road).
So really, the argument about whether or not Essentials limits your choices is based on what your reference point is: are you standing before or after you took a right? It seems to me that a lot of people don't realize that either stance can actually be right depending on your reference point. So just think about that. It sounds to me like this is a sore enough subject that we're not so far away from it devolving into a flame war. Let's just relax and try to look through both perspectives.
THIS. All of this.
What remains after acknowledging the above seems like soreness about differing opinions and head-butting. Less random choice and more set theme is sort of the point of "essentials;" you can grab and go. However, that doesn't take anything away from the options of the initial 4e classes, and if some people want a hearkening back to older editions and some don't, so what? You're all correct!
However, there are the separate issues of A) whether or not there will be Shadow-only classes (thaX's thread topic) and B) will 4e from now on ONLY provide Essentials-style material? I believe the devs said no, but I'm not 100% sure how that will be upheld. If seeing no Shadow-only classes in the preview so far is equated with shifting away from initial 4e to only Essentials-style, I can see why some are disappointed or upset though it seems a smidgeon too early to call imho. (No problem in debating what may come if you don't get lost in it all.)
I personally would like some Shadow-only classes, but I don't mind having Essentials stuff there too. I think having both would be the best way for WOTC to continue the initial 4e style as well as use the new edition to recall past ones. At this point, however, I'm willing to wait to see what's in the book. [EDIT: When is the next preview, btw?]
As to simplicity, are you trying to tell me that the slayer and thief have more choices than their pre-E counterparts? This is provably false. The only class that comes close to having pre-E choices is the Mage, all of the others have provably less features.
I am trying to tell you that when you have option 1, 2, and 3, adding option 4 adds another option. It doesn't matter that you don't add three more options, because the three older options still exist. Option 4 is an extra option that did not exist before. What is more, in the case of Essentials, option 4 is a drastically different option that did not exist before.
If I could chime in, I think I understand what lokiare's trying to say. Let's say you have options 1, 2, and 3. If you choose 1, later you can choose options A, B, C, or D, and then later options I, II, II, or IV, etc... If you choose options 2 or 3, you do not get to make those later choices. Thus, while the introduction of options 2 and 3 in and of themselves actually provide more options, choosing 2 or 3 limits your choices at a later point. Perhaps a metaphor would work better. You come to a fork in the road. If you go right, the road continue straight for the rest of its way. If you left, the road forks again repeatedly. Hence going right limits your options after you choose to go right. The complaint that Essentials limits your options equates to the complaint that the path on the right doesn't have any more forks. (Technically this isn't true, as sentinel still gives choice of animal companion, and cavalier gives choice of virtue and whether you enhance a living mount or summon a celestial one. I expect these class feature substitutions will evolve like they did in 4e, providing more options down the road).
So really, the argument about whether or not Essentials limits your choices is based on what your reference point is: are you standing before or after you took a right? It seems to me that a lot of people don't realize that either stance can actually be right depending on your reference point. So just think about that. It sounds to me like this is a sore enough subject that we're not so far away from it devolving into a flame war. Let's just relax and try to look through both perspectives.
THIS. All of this.
What remains after acknowledging the above seems like soreness about differing opinions and head-butting. Less random choice and more set theme is sort of the point of "essentials;" you can grab and go. However, that doesn't take anything away from the options of the initial 4e classes, and if some people want a hearkening back to older editions and some don't, so what? You're all correct!
However, there are the separate issues of A) whether or not there will be Shadow-only classes (thaX's thread topic) and B) will 4e from now on ONLY provide Essentials-style material? I believe the devs said no, but I'm not 100% sure how that will be upheld. If seeing no Shadow-only classes in the preview so far is equated with shifting away from initial 4e to only Essentials-style, I can see why some are disappointed or upset though it seems a smidgeon too early to call imho. (No problem in debating what may come if you don't get lost in it all.)
I personally would like some Shadow-only classes, but I don't mind having Essentials stuff there too. I think having both would be the best way for WOTC to continue the initial 4e style as well as use the new edition to recall past ones. At this point, however, I'm willing to wait to see what's in the book. [EDIT: When is the next preview, btw?]
Thanks for the support. As for B) Will 4e only support Essentials now, the answer is definitely no. At least, if you can use Dragon as a guide. Did anyone read the Aberrant Totems article in Dragon? They offered 4 new paragon paths, and notably, one had a class restriction: seeker or ranger (hunter). Right there we have a path spelling out that it's supporting both pre-E and post-E. Debate solved.
Thanks for the support. As for B) Will 4e only support Essentials now, the answer is definitely no. At least, if you can use Dragon as a guide. Did anyone read the Aberrant Totems article in Dragon? They offered 4 new paragon paths, and notably, one had a class restriction: seeker or ranger (hunter). Right there we have a path spelling out that it's supporting both pre-E and post-E. Debate solved.
It also manages to shoot down the whole idea that many of the articles we will be getting for pre-Essentials stuff is just stuff that sat in the cue while Essentials was seeing focus in Dragon. It is the exact sort of article I hope will be seeing more of in the future. In terms of support for previous classes, any Essentials Warpriest or Mage article, such as a new domain or school, it will have more powers for the Cleric and the Wizard to choose from. However, the reverse isn't true, an article that supports only pre-Essentials Cleric and Wizard, such as a new Implement Mastery or just straight cleric powers (which a Warpriest is unable to use), won't be as useful.
I kind of like having shadow being combined with other power sources most of the time. It fits the previous fluff of quasi-real that shadow used to be. Shadow is only a quasi-real power source, a dark rflection of actual power sources like martial, arcane, or divine....
Good point. In addition the Shadow power source always seemed a bit parasitic to me.
I gotta agree with Shroomy on this one. Like the Shadowfell itself, shadow power really seems like a reflection of other power sources. That's not to say it can't stand alone fluff wise, but being attached to other sources fits the idea of power that comes from a dark reflection of reality where the dead gather before passing on, at least in my opinion.
My question is why can't they do both?
I gotta agree with Shroomy on this one. Like the Shadowfell itself, shadow power really seems like a reflection of other power sources. That's not to say it can't stand alone fluff wise, but being attached to other sources fits the idea of power that comes from a dark reflection of reality where the dead gather before passing on, at least in my opinion.
My question is why can't they do both?
There is no reason beyond personal preference, though technically, WotC has already done this with the original Assassin class.
Except if option 4 keeps getting better and more powerful over time and options 1, 2, and 3 don't.
This statement is a non-sequitur to what I said. What I said is that the addition of option 4 clearly adds extra options, as it is in and of itself an extra option on top of options 1, 2, and 3. The statement had nothing to do with balance one way or the other. When it comes to balance, we have already been over that; your claim that the E-builds are more popular is total bologna. All you need to do is check out the numbers on the CharOp board for proof of that.
Yes, but within the post-E option there are fewer options.
Who cares? The choice to play an E class is a player's choice. Some players don't mind losing a few options in order to gain the benefits given by the E classes. I prefer playing a scout to any other type of melee ranger, for example. Because the choice to play an E-class is just one more choice on top of prior existing choices, if you don't like the class setup of any given E-class you still have nothing to worry or complain about. Play a pre-E class. Nobody is forcing you to play a E-class.
Within the pre-E option there are more options so the post-E option is closer to previous editions because it has less options and previous editions have less options. If you want we can list post-E options and pre-E options as well as previous editions options and then see where we stand, but your are attempting to prove me wrong by saying my facts are subjective. So you go first, count all the options and we'll see which one is more similar.
That is a massive oversimplification and generalization. You have used a single quality, ignoring the specifics of all other features, to make a claim that is not objectively true. Perhaps you attach so much subjective value to the number of options that a class gets that to you the lack of those options makes a class seem like it has followed the model of prior editions. However, there are many other facets to examine. For example, the new classes still use "power" formats. The new classes all still gain utility powers. The new classes don't have features that monsters regularly get complete immunity to (such as the rogue having a backstab that can't affect undead). When viewed in the context of all these facets, I don't see the E classes as being like the classes of earlier editions. The Essentials thief, unlike the 2e thief, is a well balanced combatant--one who can serve a real function in combat. The Essentials thief doesn't gain experience for every gold piece it steals. Because of details such as that I don't share your subjective value judgement. Rather, I see the E-classes as being the next logical evolution of the 4e classes based on the feedback WotC has received. Your claim that the E-classes are a step backwards to the classes of earlier editions is very much up for debate.
Well then debate it, quit saying its "not objective" or "its subjective" and dismissing it. I've offered verifiable facts. Dispute them or move on...
I have no interest in debating it with you. Objectively speaking, the conclusion you have come to is a non-sequitur to the facts you have provided. You attach very personal and subjective values to those facts. To you, classes that offer fewer options (and, mind you, they still offer a good deal more options than the classes of the past) than current 4e classes automatically equates to a step backwards towards the mechanics of earlier editions. To me, one doesn't equate to the other. I don't attach the same subjective value to that verifiable fact. I attach far more value to the fact that the E classes still use power formats, gain utility powers, are well balanced, use the 4e skill mechanics, and so on and so forth. What changes I see seem like an attempt to provide fun options for those who have complained about certain features of older 4e classes; what I see is a natural next evolution of the 4e mechanics. Now, if your subjective value judgments differ, that is fine. I don't plan to argue that with you. People have different perspectives all the time. If one of our perspectives was objective then maybe there would be a point to argue. Since neither is, it really amounts to the question, "what do you like more, chocolate or vanilla?" I am not interested in discussing something like that with you, as we will never agree, and neither of us can claim a more objectively valid position. It feels like a step backwards to you, it doesn't to me, end of story.
Things I'm psyched about:
We're getting a revised/updated version of the Revenant. I like the original quite a bit fluff-wise, but hated the weird feathers and bird talons thing that was part of that write-up. I noticed that the Revenant character from "Mark of Nerath" did not not have any of those odd features and was a very cool character. Hopefully this update to the race will follow those cues.
We're getting two more cool sounding new races, the Shade and the Vryloka. And the Shade race seems to have a built-in Shadow magic theme allowing them to take Shadow magic based Utility powers. Very awesome and very thematic to their race. (Of course I'd like to see this applied to other races who would have innate sources of magic... such as the Githzerai with Psionic magic, as an example.)
New Essentials style Sub-Classes for the Assassin, Paladin, and Warlock. The Assassin one is a biggie for me... it confirms what I've been thinking recently about the blurb that the assassin would be in this book. They've said recently that the Executioner is DDi exclusive, but I'm thinking that this will now be a non-exclusive sub-class for the Assassin... probably based more off of third edition's Shadowcaster class (much like the previous version of the Assassin seemed to be.) Obviously the new Paladin sub-class is the Blackguard (which looked pretty cool to me.) And I'm thinking that the Warlock sub-class will probably be a ranged class based more or less off of the class from PH1.
New options for the Cleric, Warlock, and Wizard. I'm betting (and hoping) that these will be new Domains for Warpriests and new Pacts for Hexblades (and for the new Warlock sub-class as well, obviously.) We already know that the Mage is getting new Schools of Magic (Necromancy and Nethermancy.)
And then we're also getting the Vampire class... I'm very excited to see what they're doing with this. Wondering if it will be a new multi-class only class (similar to the Spellscars)... although if that's the case I think it'd be better off as a Theme now that those exist.... or if it's actually going to be a full new class (going with the idea that being a vampire is your character's main avenue of gaining new powers and abilities.
So excited about this book... although it only makes it harder to wait for the new Ravenloft Campaign Setting (which I was a huge fan of back in AD&D 2nd edition.)
Vampire Class might be interesting, certainly unexpected after the Dhampyr article. Things would have been a lot different if they'd mentioned it in December. Hopefully it's not a basic attack spammer.
Vryloka seems like it's a race that "vampires" are based on, which sounds like a good compromise between those who want to be a "elf vampire" versus those that want a "Vampire sorcerer".
But no, I'm excited for the Vampire Class. Also, Revenant and Assassin in the book are nice to me, though it seems like a decision made AFTER the release of the Player's Essentials books, since both of those said that the Revenant would be D&Di, not Player's Option. I'm fine with it, though. I pay for exclusive content, and I get that – in magazine content. Executioner is badass, anyway, and I'm happy with it. Now we can see a working Shadow Dancer original-form Assassin, perhaps, updated in HoS.
New options for Assassin, Paladin, Warlock, and also for Cleric, Warlock, and Wizard. Hmm. Obviously, there's either a typo with the duplicate Warlocks, or there's something of a different categorisation here. The first three were separated from the second set of three. That seems to be new Subclasses for Asassin, Paladin, and Warlock, and new builds for Clerics, Warlocks, and Wizards. This makes sense from what we've seen of Paladins and Wizards respectively. So really, I'd expect a new kit/subclass for the Assassin, using full Shadow Magic like the original – possibly even being an update that works of the original; the Blackguard, and some sort of caster Warlock subclass, perhaps an update to the original Warlock into Post-Essentials format, since it won't appear in Heroes of Sword and Spell (assuming that book is still going to be printed). As for Clerics, Warlocks, and Wizards in the second category, I'd assume we're getting Death Domain for Warpriests, Dark Pact for Hexblades, and of course, Necromancy and Nethermancy Schools for Mages. We might get another domain and another pact as well, but those are the ones I'd definitely put money on. Raven Queen Warpriest, Dark Hexblades, and Necromancers and Nethermancers. Yup yup yup.
If the assassin in this book (if there even is an assassin in this book - maybe the assassin and revenant comments are referring to new DDI articles tied to Heroes of Shadow, since articles tie to books now), but anyway if the assassin in this book is fully shadow then I'll be pretty happy with that. A reprint of the original assassin with a needed boost would be great, but I'd even be happy with a third assassin sub-class, so long as it was fully shadow.
The vampire I'm really ambivilent about. Now we'll have vampire races, bloodlines, and classes, and none of them fit the concept as well as themes, which do everything we would want in a vampire better. I would have been much happier with a new class with vampyric fluff and abilities, but wasn't just flat out 'vampire'. And then there's the question of what the vampire will do. If it does shadowy dark magic stuff (necromancy, teleportation, stealth, animating shadows, insubstantial, fear, soul drain, necrotic attacks, etc) I'll be ok with it, but most of the iconic dracula powers are Primal, not shadow in nature. Think about it - turning into animals, summoning & controlling animals, animal powers like flight and spider climb. So there's still room for this to be fail as a shadow class even beyond the issue of whether 'vampire' should be a class in the first place.
Seriously, we have the technology to do vampires correctly - it's themes. The fact that we have a vampire race, class, and feat, but not a vampire theme, is just redoodoodiculous.
Shades - I like shades, and I like the idea of racial utility powers (much as I liked the idea of skill powers before it). However, why is their fluff the same as the fluff for the shadow power source? If you trade a piece of your soul for a shadowstuff reflection, do you become a shade, or gain a shadow class? Is this embracing my favorite aspect of the Shadow power source, or is it auctioning off the last piece of its corpse?
And why no Shadar-Kai or Dark Ones? I mean, I don't mind the races we're getting (although I kind of would have prefered revenants to remain DDI only, not because of 'promises' but rather because of the large quantity of modular support they require), but Shadar-Kai and Dark Ones are the iconic shadow races of 4e. Shadar-Kai are explicitely the largest living sentient race of the Shadow Fell, and the chosen people of the popular PC deity that rules there. The lack of Shadar-Kai in this book just strikes me as bizzonkers.
So I still think this book is wack with poo-brain, but I have gone from entirely negative to only mostly negative in my feelings. If the 'Vampire' class turns out to be thematically strong and definitively shadow, if the assassin does make the book after all and in an all shadow all the time form, and if at least one of the subclasses has the option to be fully shadow (ie, can be made entirely without arcane, martial, or divine powers or abilities - which the shade utilities may allow), then I may forgive this book after all.
But it still seems like a waste of potential. Even if it turns out to be the best is could possibly be at this point, it still won't be as good as it could easily have been, should have been, imo.
So see sky is falling folks, you get your new classes and new support while getting even more support by getting new subclasses. Yay for win/wins!
The vampire I'm really ambivilent about. Now we'll have vampire races, bloodlines, and classes, and none of them fit the concept as well as themes, which do everything we would want in a vampire better. I would have been much happier with a new class with vampyric fluff and abilities, but wasn't just flat out 'vampire'. And then there's the question of what the vampire will do. If it does shadowy dark magic stuff (necromancy, teleportation, stealth, animating shadows, insubstantial, fear, soul drain, necrotic attacks, etc) I'll be ok with it, but most of the iconic dracula powers are Primal, not shadow in nature. Think about it - turning into animals, summoning & controlling animals, animal powers like flight and spider climb. So there's still room for this to be fail as a shadow class even beyond the issue of whether 'vampire' should be a class in the first place.
Seriously, we have the technology to do vampires correctly - it's themes. The fact that we have a vampire race, class, and feat, but not a vampire theme, is just redoodoodiculous.
I'm of the same mind on Vampire as a class. Themes, however, right now, are not fully integrated into non-Dark Sun material. Having one or more characters in a party with a theme when other characters do not have one is overpowered. Dark Sun has always had characters that are more powerful than their counterparts in other worlds (back in the day, they had higher stats and started at a minimum level of 3), which is represented with the inclusion of themes. Vampire as a theme was something I was looking forward to in Ravenloft, where I think it would have been more appropriate.
Shades - I like shades, and I like the idea of racial utility powers (much as I liked the idea of skill powers before it). However, why is their fluff the same as the fluff for the shadow power source? If you trade a piece of your soul for a shadowstuff reflection, do you become a shade, or gain a shadow class? Is this embracing my favorite aspect of the Shadow power source, or is it auctioning off the last piece of its corpse?
I like it. It's sort of an entire race of people who made the deal for shadow power, but still can embrace another class, such as a martial or arcane one. I'm just hoping they excel at dark pact warlock (and/or hexblade) as well as wizard, which fits into the existing iconic fluff of shades in FR.
And why no Shadar-Kai or Dark Ones? I mean, I don't mind the races we're getting (although I kind of would have prefered revenants to remain DDI only, not because of 'promises' but rather because of the large quantity of modular support they require), but Shadar-Kai and Dark Ones are the iconic shadow races of 4e. Shadar-Kai are explicitely the largest living sentient race of the Shadow Fell, and the chosen people of the popular PC deity that rules there. The lack of Shadar-Kai in this book just strikes me as bizzonkers.
+1 to everything here.
As a matter of fact, themes are the right way to do any 'transformational' race, and frankly that includes shades (and revenants for that matter, but they pre-dated themes, so whacha gonna do). Does a halfling who becomes a shade grow to medium size? Does a deva who becomes a shade forget one of the languages they knew? If any race can become a shade, then it shouldn't be a race, it should be a game mechanic that any race can select - ie a theme.
There's no reason racial utility powers had to be limited to shades - I could see 'elf' powers and 'dragonborn' powers and 'tiefling' powers just as easily. And the 'people who made a deal with shadow' is already a theme well covered by the Shadar-Kai, which could simply be shades of forgotten realms in that setting (especially since their core setting fluff of giving themselves to the raven queen doesn't translate into the realms anyway).
So yeah, I would have prefered 'Shadar-Kai' with S-K racial powers to the shades that we're getting.
All that said, it looks more or less like I'll be able to play some shadow characters, so long as the assassin and blackguard and shadow warlocks have Shadow attack powers and not Martial/Divine/Arcane. Even if they're stuck with martial/divine/arcane utility powers, I can just play a shade and swap them out for shadow racial powers (assuming there are shade powers of every utility level). So then I get a couple options for all-shadow characters with the shadow shard soul fluff, even if they all have to be the same race.
But that still seems like an arse-backwards way of doing things, and it still doesn't bring anything novel to D&D that moves it forward or has a chance of making a lasting impression (since I doubt 'transformational race as a class' is a concept with legs).
Themes are the right way to do PC vampires. If themes won't be integrated into core rules until a later book, then PC vampires should have waited for that later book.
As a matter of fact, themes are the right way to do any 'transformational' race, and frankly that includes shades (and revenants for that matter, but they pre-dated themes, so whacha gonna do). Does a halfling who becomes a shade grow to medium size? Does a deva who becomes a shade forget one of the languages they knew? If any race can become a shade, then it shouldn't be a race, it should be a game mechanic that any race can select - ie a theme.
There's no reason racial utility powers had to be limited to shades - I could see 'elf' powers and 'dragonborn' powers and 'tiefling' powers just as easily. And the 'people who made a deal with shadow' is already a theme well covered by the Shadar-Kai, which could simply be shades of forgotten realms in that setting (especially since their core setting fluff of giving themselves to the raven queen doesn't translate into the realms anyway).
So yeah, I would have prefered 'Shadar-Kai' with S-K racial powers to the shades that we're getting.
All that said, it looks more or less like I'll be able to play some shadow characters, so long as the assassin and blackguard and shadow warlocks have Shadow attack powers and not Martial/Divine/Arcane. Even if they're stuck with martial/divine/arcane utility powers, I can just play a shade and swap them out for shadow racial powers (assuming there are shade powers of every utility level). So then I get a couple options for all-shadow characters with the shadow shard soul fluff, even if they all have to be the same race.
But that still seems like an arse-backwards way of doing things, and it still doesn't bring anything novel to D&D that moves it forward or has a chance of making a lasting impression (since I doubt 'transformational race as a class' is a concept with legs).
I think that you may have misread the blurb about Shades, which says this "Shade: Shades are human mortals who have willingly embraced the darkness by engaging in secret rituals that infuse their souls with shadow.". Technically that makes them more akin to Tieflings. Additionally, Shadar-Kai made a deal with death (or the personification of death in the form of the Raven Queen). Their shadowyness came from a combo of their deal and their residence in the Shadowfell. It's actually explained pretty well in an article that was in DDI that introduced some bloodline feats exclusively for the Shadar-Kai, one of which was the Shade bloodline. It was Dragon 391 to be specific.
And, the more that I look at them, the more I'm coming to realize that the shade race is just terrible mechanically. Just absolute garbage. They would be 'meh' even without the lost healing surge - that surge just puts them over the top awful.
I mean darkvision? That's a fluff ability. Stealth training? They only classes that can really make use of it already have it. their racial power? meh. Seriously, what about them justifies the racial penalty? I thought we weren't doing racial penalties anymore? Thier fluff and abilities seem like they should be rogues or assassins - but both those classes are already stealth trained, and are already frail melee guys - making the stealth wasted and the surge penalty even more unnecessarily punishing.
Ugh, I hope this book's not already at the printers, because the shade race needs to go back for some revision. As someone mentioned on the charop board, they're like the distilled mechanical fail of the original assassin only in race form.
As far as the mechanics go, Shades do have one thing that no other race has in the form of racial utilities. Certainly other races can replace class powers with racial powers, but they require feats. I think that is an equal trade for a lack of one healing surge, which can also be replaced with a feat (durable).
No, that is an equal trade for the utility powers you're trading away. From the preview the racial utilities look ok, but not great, and certainly not better than or even as good as the class utilities you'll be trading away. And double certainly not worth the lost healing surge, triple especially because the stealth based utilities fit best with assassins or thieves who really, really didn't have any healing surges to spare.
Additionally it is more than likely that the guys in design and R&D have already thought of that, as well as the issue of the Stealth dilemma and have probably remedied that with feat support.
Maybe, or maybe not. The last few product releases specifically had no racial feats. It wouldn't shock me if HoS didn't, either.
The things is they are essentially the oppostite of the tank races, namely the Minotaur which as is doesn't offer much for ranged attackers. Shades offer a lot to ranged attackers but are at a bit of a disadvantage up close.
Except that one of the big things about 4e races is that there wasn't supposed to be racial penalties. Minotaurs don't get anything good for range, but they don't go out of thier way to punish you for playing a ranged class, which is just lame, especially as the shade race isn't strong enough to warrant the arbitrary nerf to begin with. Honestly, look at the race again, if it didn't have the lost surge, would you be on here complaining that they're too strong? No. Even without it they'd still only be kinda meh, mechanically.
And I still don't like the fluff. Even if it's distinct from shadar-kai (I don't personally think its distinct enough, but I admit it's a matter of taste), it isn't distinct at all from the entire Shadow power source. If you trade a piece of your soul for a shard of the darkness do you become a shade, or do you gain a shadow class? I don't know. I can deal with the fluff issues.
But the mechanics. Ugh. Just ugh.
It's just terrible. Without feat support they are the most useless race in 4E by a wide margin.
My thoughts on them:
I'm totally cool with a new Assassin sub-class appearing in "Heroes of Shadow". My thoughts are that the Executioner sub-class is exclusive to DDi so it's not really that big of deal. Granted, I'm biased because I hate the idea of online-exclusive classes. I think that now, post-Essentials, Dragon magazine should have a new Sub-Class every 1-2 months and then compile them into an annual once a year.
I'm very iffy about the Vampire class; I think it could turn out to be very silly. However, I also feel that it could be awesome, so I want to wait and see how it turns out. As for why it's a class instead of a theme... I think the designers' idea was probably that when playing a Vampire, it would be the primary source of your abilities and powers with anything else being multi-class feats... Whereas if it was a Theme it would only give you power options and most of your abilities would come from your class. I can definately see how they could think that a Theme wouldn't provide enough powers and abilities to a player wanting to play a vampire since a Theme would only give you a few Utilities (and only at the expense of class utility powers.)
I guess we'll see how these turn out when March rolls around... frankly I can't wait.
The main point of the hiding is to allow you to heal, or get off an attack with combat advantage.
It's not even that CA is that difficult to get in the first place and healing? Yeah, that's so great given you're penalized a surge for this crappy feature. That's not exactly a selling point here.
As far as fluff goes, only the Assassin so far states that it has traded a part of it's soul for power. Other classes most likely have different fluff.
That's how the entire power source works. Re-read the description of it in the rules compendium or DM's kit. All shadow characters trade a part of their soul for a fraction of the shadowfell's essence. Just like all divine characters receive a divine investiture from their chosen deity and all martial character draw strength from training their bodies beyond the peak of perfection and all primal classes gain their powers from a connection to primal spirits and so on.
And as for shades - even without the surge penalty they're still pretty bad. some racial powers and features that are all pretty redundant on any of the classes that could have actually made use of them. The surge penalty is just the icing on the failcake.
Again, look at the entry (for the ninth time, now), and just cover up the surge penalty so you don't see it, and tell me, is that race too strong? Does it make you say "woah, this is way too good, they need to give this race some sort of arbitrary nerf or everyone's going to be shades from now on!" In fact, can you even name one class in the game where a shade would be the best racial choice even without the surge penalty?
Because I can't. It's a completely arbitrary, unnecessary penalty.
"Where the world is life and light, the Shadowfell is death and gloom. Where the world is growth and vitality, the Shadowfell is decay and apathy. The world, being a point of balance, holds these darker elements too. But even the Shadowfell’s lighter side is beset with such sinister components.
The darker aspects of existence embodied in the Shadowfell contain fearsome power. Any magic laced with the essence of the plane of shadow already has dread on its side. Shadow magic is the stuff of fell legends, wielded by terrible villains.
In stories it is the province of the desperate, the vicious, and the reckless. Such tales fall from the lips of the ignorant and the superstitious. Shadow magic is no more evil than any other magic. It is attractive because it can be easier to acquire than other forms of power, but it is also demanding.
Divine power requires, at least initially, devotion to an external source. Arcane magic can entail study and hard work. Martial excellence comes through difficult training and mastery of refined techniques. Psionic power hones the mind in a similar way. Shadow magic, unlike all of the foregoing, requires simple surrender."
The main point of the hiding is to allow you to heal, or get off an attack with combat advantage. You could use it continually in an abusive way but it would be more trouble than it's worth. As far as fluff goes, only the Assassin so far states that it has traded a part of it's soul for power. Other classes most likely have different fluff. Also, and I'm not sure if you know this but Shade status is hereditary, it passes down to their children. Class abilities don't (accept for sorcerers).
I could be mistaken, but I thought it had been mentioned in a few different places that while anyone can learn some Shadow-based magic (such as Mages, which makes sense since they use magic that comes from all the planes) it takes giving up a piece of your soul to the mysterious Dark Powers of the Shadowfell (in the fashion that Assassins and now the Shade race do.)
Of course that gets confused a bit because it appears that the Raven Queen can also grant Shadow magic in the same way that the Dark Powers do. This begs the question: is the Raven Queen both a goddess and one of the Dark Powers... or did WotC simply forget their own world fluff... we'll probably never know since the mysterious Dark Powers of the Shadowfell are so mysterious.
Of course we can always hope that the Ravenloft boxed set will give us more info on stuff like that since the Dark Powers traditionally always controlled the Mists and Domains and such.
I have neither of those so I can't.
Ah, here you go then:
As for arcane magic, I don't like it because of how poorly defined that mishmash is. Every other power source gets their powers from a relatively distinct place, in a relatively distinct way, and that fluff helps shape a character and informs what kinds of powers a class can use.
Arcane is the 'everything' source that gets its powers from 'everywhere' to do 'anything'. It's poorly defined to the point of not being defined at all, and everything under its mantle likewise loses all definition. It makes my head hurt. That's why I don't like Arcane, and it's a big contributing factor to why I'm so upset to see the concepts of 'necromancer' and 'shadowcaster', both archetypes just oozing potential for highly thematic classes that could have brought distinct and novel mechanical elements to the game, subsumed under the arcane mantle. In doing so, they'e become not even subclasses but rather just sub builds of a sub class of the wizard, their potential for unique mechanics smashed under the necesity to fit the wizard class structure and the mage's school mechanics.
I believe it was mentioned somewhere in the FR books that some Archfey have the ability to grant primal magic.
That may be a FR only thing. do the primal spirits even exist in the Realms?
I'm inclined to say yes. But really there are no Campaign setting restricted materials anymore so if they can do it in one setting they can do it in any.
Using that sort of logic, you can't play divine characters in any campaign because you can't play them in Dark Sun. Crunch is universal. Fluff is not.
Plus it gets more confusing because all of the other Powers Sources have a specific origin like so...
Martial - pure training and non-superhuman fighting techniques and tricks (though pretty cinematic)
Divine - magic from the Astral Sea
Primal - magic based on the primal spirits that watch over and weave through the world
Shadow - magic from the Shadowfell
Psionic - magic that comes from a person's own soul
Elemental - magic from the Elemental Chaos (although we haven't seen any of this yet)
... and then we have the Arcane power source which is kind of a catch-all. Arcane spellcasters call upon magic from all the planes and from within themselves. So in a way the Arcane is power source is kind of like all of the others (except Martial) combined together into one.
One class, seven builds? Wonder if Themes will be used at all in this book, I really am.
This was the final nail, Shadow is Dead.
But seriously, I wouldn't put that baby in the grave just yet.Seriously, this HoS is like if PHBII had introduced the Primal power source with a nature domain for clerics, a barbarian build for fighters, a seeker build for rangers, a werewolf class, and no druid or shaman.
Or like if PHBIII introduced the Psionic power source with an enchanter build for wizards, a monk build for rogues, a psionic warrior build for swordmages, a mind flayer class, and no psion or ardent.
Or like if my dad ran over my dog while I was at school that one time, and took it to the taxadermist to get stuffed before I got home, and then pretended he was fine and nothing was the matter and I was the one acting weird.
Why did you run over my dog, WotC? What did she ever do to you? Don't tell me she makes a great stuffed animal! That's just awful and cruel.
, a psionic warrior build for swordmages, a mind flayer class, and no psion or ardent.
I would totally be ok with this.
In a way that shadow now likely never will.
Shadow can't only require surrender if it also requires just as much study and devotion as everything else.
Seriously bologna. BS.
And, again, you didn't see or appreciate or want shadow material. Fine. Then shadow material shouldn't have been targeted at you. Just like they didn't and shouldn't have designed the psionic material purely for those who didn't want to see it in a fantasy setting. Some people think magic drawn from music is stupid. The bard shouldn't have been designed with those people in mind.
Seriously, design material for the people who actually want it, or design something else instead.
Who are you talking to? Because if it's me, the shadow power source has been around since the FR player's book.
That was a teaser. That's like saying the Kalashtar race released in the Eberron player's book before there were any psionic classes was a sign that psionics were intended to be racial powers and not classes.
That's absolutely ridiculous. The source hadn't been released yet.
I think the way they're presenting it fits the flavor much better. The assassin was full of fail, and it completely failed at its intent. Being an "assassin". Having it being the only representative of the shadow power source doesn't speak highly of the source itself.
I think the way they're presenting it fits the flavor much better. The assassin was full of fail, and it completely failed at its intent. Being an "assassin". Having it being the only representative of the shadow power source doesn't speak highly of the source itself.
The assassin was fail on mechanics and mechanics alone. Give it better single target damage and suddenly it's an awesome class. It's just dripping beautiful, unique flavor that oozes out of everything the class does. If anything, the Ossassin shows just how strong Shadow is conceptually. That class has a fan base that scrimps and scrapes every possible cheating advantage they can to try and bring that class up to almost sort of passable because of how hard its flavor rocks. We wouldn't bother if the flavor was fail.
And when it comes to mechanical fail, this book keeps up the terrible work with the Shade - quite possibly the weakest race in 4e.
I think the way they're presenting it fits the flavor much better. The assassin was full of fail, and it completely failed at its intent. Being an "assassin". Having it being the only representative of the shadow power source doesn't speak highly of the source itself.
The assassin was fail on mechanics and mechanics alone. Give it better single target damage and suddenly it's an awesome class. It's just dripping beautiful, unique flavor that oozes out of everything the class does. If anything, the Ossassin shows just how strong Shadow is conceptually. That class has a fan base that scrimps and scrapes every possible cheating advantage they can to try and bring that class up to almost sort of passable because of how hard its flavor rocks. We wouldn't bother if the flavor was fail.
And when it comes to mechanical fail, this book keeps up the terrible work with the Shade - quite possibly the weakest race in 4e.
I can finally agree with you on the shade. It's exactly what I feared when Mearls took over. Penalties for the sake of having penalties.
Who are you talking to? Because if it's me, the shadow power source has been around since the FR player's book.
That was a teaser. That's like saying the Kalashtar race released in the Eberron player's book before there were any psionic classes was a sign that psionics were intended to be racial powers and not classes.
No it's not. The shadow source has existed mechanically since that time as parts of classes, namely the Umbriri paragon path.
Ah, then they really should have just been shadar-kai. Making a deal with the deity of the shadowfell to become shadow people isn't distinct enough from making a deal with the shadowfell to become shadow people.
And, the more that I look at them, the more I'm coming to realize that the shade race is just terrible mechanically. Just absolute garbage. They would be 'meh' even without the lost healing surge - that surge just puts them over the top awful.
I mean darkvision? That's a fluff ability. Stealth training? They only classes that can really make use of it already have it. their racial power? meh. Seriously, what about them justifies the racial penalty? I thought we weren't doing racial penalties anymore? Thier fluff and abilities seem like they should be rogues or assassins - but both those classes are already stealth trained, and are already frail melee guys - making the stealth wasted and the surge penalty even more unnecessarily punishing.
Ugh, I hope this book's not already at the printers, because the shade race needs to go back for some revision. As someone mentioned on the charop board, they're like the distilled mechanical fail of the original assassin only in race form.
I really agree on the racial penalties part. I am not happy to see it come back. It seems a lose-lose situation. To maintain balance, either:
A) The race also gets some pretty powerful stuff to compensate and stay equal with races balanced without penalties
B) Other races must retroactively gain penalties, dragging everything down to shade level, or
C) The race is not balanced.
It's looking like C. And so help me, if they try to go with B.... And even A is a bad idea, just being fuel for min-maxers.
So fail.
And what to all these sub-classes bring to D&D that's actually new? What could a necromancer mage specialty possibly do that a summoner wizard with some necrotic spells couldn't already do? What of any of this has any chance of leaving a lasting impression on D&D, as the warlord has done? What character can I play after this book that I couldn't just as easily have played before it?
A vampire. Huzzah, I guess. Way to jump on the bandwagon. [sarcasm] I'll be looking forward to psionic power II: options for enchanter wizards and mind flayers.[/sarcasm]
So yeah, while the Warlord wasn't a concept entirely out of nothing, it most certainly was something new and groundbreaking in a way that the necromancer and nethermancer can't be because they need to fit into the mage's framework - meaning they have to get abilities at the same time a mage gains school features, and their PrC has to fit the framework of the mage's prc, and their powers have to be balanced when used by every other wizard, and they have to be balanced with the option of using every other wizard's powers. It's very much the same as comparing a 'shaman' to a 'nature domain warpriest'. Keep in mind, unlike some of the HoS complainers, I don't hate essentials sub classes. I think they open a lot of design space. But the necromancer and shadow caster don't even get that, because they aren't their own subclass, they're instead a handful of powers for an existing subclass.
So what is the necromancer? It's some necrotic powers, some summoning powers, some comparatively minor class features that make it better at summoning and necrotic spells. As a mage, that's all it can be. And there's nothing wrong with that, except in so far as we aren't getting any actual new shadow classes that can really stretch their legs and play, with the exception of the Vampire, which is silly (vrykola dhamphyr vampire for the derp) and really shouldn't have been a class to begin with.
I'm not comparing it to 3rd party stuff, I'm comparing it to what we got for Primal and Psionic, the other two 'supplementary' power sources, primal in particular as also being a new power source to 4e (with current 'primal' archetypes falling under divine or martial headings in previous editions). It's hard to imagine primal getting folded back under divine at this point, after PHBII and Primal Power went out of their way to establish Primal's place in D&D. As for Shadow, the product that should have been doing the same for it instead seems to be folding it back under.
So yeah, as someone who loved what Power Sources brought to 4e, and who loved what was done with the Primal source, and who was eagerly anticipating shadow, yeah, HoS is just beyond disappointing.
And for me, D&D may be dead. I liked some things about essentials (hexlock isn't the hexblade I wanted, but it's still kinda cool), but a lot of what's been going on recently (item rarity rules, reduction in dragon crunch, scrapping of the working character builder for one that doesn't so much work, anemic release schedule compounded by seeming cancellation of most of the products I actually wanted, HoS in its current state, poor communication & customer relations, design direction that seems to be facing back rather then forward, questionable balance, etc), I haven't been excited about D&D since Darksun. I really liked 4e going in, and it will always irk me that the game was never finished (without shadow it really just feels incomplete), but maybe it is time to just be done with this game.
As a matter of fact, themes are the right way to do any 'transformational' race, and frankly that includes shades (and revenants for that matter, but they pre-dated themes, so whacha gonna do). Does a halfling who becomes a shade grow to medium size? Does a deva who becomes a shade forget one of the languages they knew? If any race can become a shade, then it shouldn't be a race, it should be a game mechanic that any race can select - ie a theme.
Well the point about shades only being human beforehand was covered, but you missed a point on revenants, too. Revenants are NOT undead that exist in their prior bodies. The body of a revenant is created whole cloth by the Raven Queen. Go ahead and re-read the article for yourself if you doubt me. They have access to some abilities (like feats) that they had in their prior life, but a revenant who was a dragonborn in his last life did not have his soul replaced in his original body. In fact, his orginal body might currently be used as an undead or entombed or something, and recovering his body and being able to perform a Raise Dead ritual on it may be the key to ending his revenant existance.
However, I, too, am still not keen about the Vampire class, and I agree it should have been a theme, and saved for Ravenloft, since Ravenloft promised werewolf and vampire characters, having themes be available in a seprate setting seems okay. Themes like Vampire Hunter (or undead/dark hunter, whatever), werewolf, vampire, cursed knight, or "gypsy" (I forget what the Ravenloft gypsy tribe was called, but they had some WEIRD powers) would work for members of any race/class.
But themes are unlikely to be introduced into core, simply by virtue that either ALL PCs in a party should have a theme or NONE should. Otherwise there is a balance issue.
Wow.
One class, seven builds? Wonder if Themes will be used at all in this book, I really am.
This was the final nail, Shadow is Dead.
What shock, a blanket, pessimistic statement based solely on an opinion with no foundation in objective fact.
From thaX?
Perish the thought.
I think the way they're presenting it fits the flavor much better. The assassin was full of fail, and it completely failed at its intent. Being an "assassin". Having it being the only representative of the shadow power source doesn't speak highly of the source itself.
The assassin was fail on mechanics and mechanics alone. Give it better single target damage and suddenly it's an awesome class. It's just dripping beautiful, unique flavor that oozes out of everything the class does. If anything, the Ossassin shows just how strong Shadow is conceptually. That class has a fan base that scrimps and scrapes every possible cheating advantage they can to try and bring that class up to almost sort of passable because of how hard its flavor rocks. We wouldn't bother if the flavor was fail.
And when it comes to mechanical fail, this book keeps up the terrible work with the Shade - quite possibly the weakest race in 4e.
Personally, I don't agree. I think the flavor of the Essassin is FAR and away better than the flavor of the Ossassin. This from someone who should be the target audience of an assassin class; conceptually, assassin's are some of my all time favorite fantasy characters.
Of course, some of my other all time favorites include the blackguard, necromancer, and vampire, and I am quite happy with what I am seeing from heroes of shadow in general. Minus the mechanical problems visible in the shade race... those don't appeal to me so much.
The Fey are kind of odd ducks anyway from a Power Source point of view. I mean the Feywild is supposed to be the source of Arcane magic (since Corellon is said to have created Arcane magic.) However, fey creatures are a form of nature spirit and Eladrin lords are usually considered to be Lords and Ladies or Kings and Queens of Summer, Winter, Autumn, and Spring. Sounds very Primal to me.
Plus it gets more confusing because all of the other Powers Sources have a specific origin like so...
Martial - pure training and non-superhuman fighting techniques and tricks (though pretty cinematic)
I add or emphasize that includes the largest dose of heroic luck too... they are after all the central characters of the larger part of of fantasy literature.
In D&D Core Setting canon you become a vampire by performing a ritual and giving a piece of your soul to Orcus. In return he turns you into a full Master Vampire and grants you access to Shadow magic. (Or the alternative is to be turned into a vampire by another vampire, but that just turns you into a spawn most of the time unless your will is strong enough, or some such thing.)
Now I can kind of see this story fluff lending itself well to a complete Shadow class except that PCs don't normally have demon princes as their patron. Therefore, I'm guessing that the fluff for that will be one of the following:
You only paid lip-service to Orcus in order to become a vampire (similar to Malgroth did to become a lich.)...
You were changed by a Master Vampire, but for some reason became a full vampire yourself instead of a spawn / thrall....
You were changed by the Dark Powers of the Shadowfell instead of Orcus (since we know that they can do it... they changed Strahd von Zarovich.)
....or WotC will suddenly decide that the Raven Queen can make vampires although it goes against her core ethos
But still, I could see something like a Vampire being done as a class since that would be where you would get the majority of your Powers and Features from... In other words, it would be far more involved than a theme really would be... so it's hard to say what the better way to do it would be, if not as a class.
We get that your disappointed, maybe in the future you shouldn't make assumptions.
I was going by the preview books. I didn't pull this stuff out of my rear.
So you would have been giddy as a school girl if the very next product after HoS was a boxed set that gave Essentials style options for every class published? No, you would still be a sullen defeatist that says 4e is dead to you.
Why would that make me happy? I don't need new builds for every class published (with the exceptions of maybe seeker, runepriest, artificer). But otherwise, those classes are already published, and were good the first time around. I want new classes that let me do new things and play new characters, particularly Shadow ones. If the next book had a handful of shadow classes, even if they were 'essentials style builds', I would be happy. I want specific things. Not anything. And I certainly don't need a book asking me to purchase again the 4e wizard that I've already purchased twice.
Imagine shadow had been released in PHBII instead of primal, and now we were gearing up for Heroes of Nature. Some players would have been waiting this whole time to play primal characters, to see what new ideas Wizards had for Primal classes. Those players wouldn't have been happy to get a warpriest cleric, a barbarian build for the slayer, and a werewolf class, instead of actual primal classes.
Would you still be here telling them they were wrong for daring to want the same support for their favorite themes and archetypes that the others got? That anything Wizards has the immaculate grace to release is a blessing from heaven that they should fall on their knees in thanks for? Maybe. If you're happy with whatever, as your defense of the previewed shade suggests, then fine. But WotC doesn't need apologists.
I would be arguing that they were wrong.
What? Wrong how?
Me: I'm dissapointed with this book. I wanted new classes.
You: You're Wrong! You're not dissapointed! You didn't want new classes! You don't like shadow! Buying the same classes you've bought twice already is totally the same thing as getting new classes!
??
And WotC didn't have to give you anything, Hasbro could have decided that books were to expensive to produce and sold D&D to a publishing company like Scholastic and then we might have had crap like Heroes of Hogwarts!
That goes both ways. If they want us to buy things with our money during a recession, then they need to produce things we actually want. You're happy with anything they make. I want shadow classes. If they made shadow classes, we'd both be happy, and we'd both buy the book, instead of just one of us.
If not enough people wanted shadow classes to justify making a product for us so be it. If HoS as it is is what more people actually want, then so be it, they'll get their money. I'll be unhappy but whatever. But if sales are lackluster, they might want to ask if maybe people wanted something else, and if they glance to the forums (or their e-mail inboxes, I don't just express my opinions here) then they might find that there's more then just me asking for shadow to get the full treatment who would be lining up for a product very much like heroes of shadow, while being completely different at the same time.
I'm not out to get anyone. I'm not out to tear down D&D or Wizards or Mearls. I'd happily give them my money. I just would like a product I actually want in return, something mostly new, not mostly powers and support for classes I already have. I don't need more wizard support - I've got wizard support out my ears.
Obviously the gaming public has been spoiled by being catered to like a persian cat. Hell if TSR hadn't sold it off you'd be playing 2e with no official support at all.
Yeah, how dare we ask for products we actually want? How dare we not buy something we don't want? How dare we get on to the company's forums to try and tell them the difference?
Obviously I'm what's wrong with D&D. It's not a jarring surprise shift in design philosophy half way through 4e. It's not the abandonment of many core design principles. It's not the random cancellations of half a dozen books without explanation. It's not the deafening lack of communication. It's not the random firings of key designers. It's not the replacement of a functioning character builder with one that seemed like it hadn't been beta tested. It's not the seeming lack of real play testing in many of their recent releases. It's not the anemic dungeon and dragon articles the last few months. It's not the fact that all these issues are happening in a relatively narrow time frame, giving the perception that the D&D department at WotC has just completely collapsed.
It's certainly not the lack of any visible plan for the future that could give fans some sense of confidence and security.
Nah, WotC has been handling D&D perfectly. The fan community doesn't deserve to be treated so well.
If, however, like Essentials, there are no rules for multiclassing and hybriding in the book then I will be considerably less happy. All the other pre-essentials source books had multiclass options in the books themselves. Hybriding is slightly different because the rules weren't finalised until a later PHB but they HAVE been finalised now. There is no reason why the rules could not be in the source book and they damn well should be!
I'm still looking forward to the book and I still rather like the shade. I'm interested in a shadow pact for the standard warlock build but if they are sticking like glue to the Essentials design, I'm preparing to be disappointed. The mage isn't so different to the wizard though, so I'm not devoid of hope.
If, however, like Essentials, there are no rules for multiclassing and hybriding in the book then I will be considerably less happy. All the other pre-essentials source books had multiclass options in the books themselves. Hybriding is slightly different because the rules weren't finalised until a later PHB but they HAVE been finalised now. There is no reason why the rules could not be in the source book and they damn well should be!
I am also very much looking forward to the book... I only wish it were coming out sooner.
Both of the previews we've gotten thus far only make me want the book more. The Revenant needed an update and the other two new races (Shade and Vryloka) both seemed very cool to me. (Although I wish that racial utility powers was something that more, if not all, races got instead of just the Shade.) And I'm extremely excited about the Vampire class and the new Essentials-style sub-classes for the Assassin, Paladin, and Warlock.I was also very much looking forward to the new Essentials-style multi-classing that was supposed to be in "Heroes of Sword and Spell" so that book's cancellation has me a little upset. I hope that material either gets moved to a new book or a soon-coming Dragon article or something.
That makes three of us.
There is even the slightest possibility that I could even be won over to purchasing this book, provided that:
A) the assassin build is all shadow, not shadow/martial or whatever
B) the vampire class is a shadow class, not something else
C) both the new assassin build and the vampire class are cool
D) both the new assassin build and the vampire class are functional - able to perform their intended party roles.
At the moment, I'm not holding a lot of hope out for these things. The last assassin we saw was a martial class, the vampire concept is rather broad and I fear that the class won't be thematically coherent, and the previewed shade is poorly balanced mechanically, being basically the ossassin of races (cool ideas, very poor implementation, making it almost universally worse then any other option you might have taken). If the whole of Heroes of Shadow was developed with this 'if a fluff idea is too cool then it needs to be balanced with a mechanical penalty' mentality, then things are still looking rather grim.
But hey, if the assassin and the vampire are awesome shadow classes then I'll get over the rest of my disappointment and get on board.
One nice thing I can say is that there certainly seems to be a lot more content than I expected, even if it's not all content I wanted. The preview may be somewhat misleading (previews for this product have been in the past), but this preview makes it seem like we're getting, what, three new essentials subclasses (assassin, paladin, warlock), three new builds for existing essentials subclasses (mage, warpriest, hexblade?), and one new class in the Vampire? No, it's not what I wanted, but it is a lot.
But then I look at the shade again, and wonder how many of these options are real, and how many exist only to punish players who make the mistake of playing them....
Honestly, what is with the obsession with power source purity? It's not like having a bit of divine, arcane, or martial in your shadow is going to kill it.
I want to have the option. I like power sources. I like the fluff of the shadow source. I want to have options for characters who embrace that particular fluff. I want to have mechanical options bent solely towards embodying that fluff, without compromising it so that it can also fit the fluff for arcane or divine or what have you. I don't want shadow classes to channel divinity or use radiant powers, but I also don't have any interest in divine classes that don't do those things, for instance, so while I admit I haven't seen the blackguard in its entirety, I have a very difficult time imagining how it could fulfill both my desire to see options for paladins of evil gods or my desire to see a shadow-powered dark knight. It seems like one or the other must be compromised, if not both.
When I want play a martial character, I have the option to play a class with fluff and mechanics that are targeted 100% around delivering that badass martial flavor. I have similar options when I want to play arcane or divine or primal or psionic characters. I wanted to have the same option for shadow characters. That is not as much to ask as you're making it out to be.
Especially not from me - I know some of the other posters complaining about HoS want to roll the clock back on essentials - they're mad at the lack of AEDU support (even though mage and warpriest at least are AEDU classes, but whatever). While there are issues with essentials that I don't like (item rarity in particular) I'm not even asking for that. I just want new classes with the design space to devote themselves fully to delivering shadowy goodness without having to take into account the piles of material that already exist for previous classes, with the freedom to come up with fully new class features and progressions and feats and powers without having to compromise on mechanics or fluff to mesh with some other class from some other power source. I want shadow classes, which means I want new classes, which means I don't need or care about further support for this or that old class (with the exception of the ossassin). I'm not upset at its existence, but I am upset that I'm getting support for previous, non-shadow classes largely instead of completely new shadow options.
As for mixed-source subclasses, I'm not excited about them, because the mixed source sub-classes we already have aren't exactly impressive, thematically. Oh, mechanically the executioner and the hunter may be fine, but they don't exactly feel right. The executioner is entirely martial, with the exception of its utilities, which are entirely shadow magic. The lack of bleed through between them hurts its thematic consistency, imo. The hunter's abilities - none of them highlight the primal spirits concept - the core idea of the primal power source. Nor do any of their powers feel especially magical. So why is the hunter martial/primal instead of just martial? The primal power source is the source of nature magic drawn from nature spirits. It's not the power source of 'anybody who likes to go camping'.
I don't hate the idea of mixed source classes, but there are a few things I would want form them:
A) embrace the fluff of both power sources. A power source is where a classes powers come from, not just a keyword. Primal isn't just 'goes camping'. Shadow shouldn't be just 'wears black'.
B) be both sources all the time. Not sometimes this and sometimes that. That isn't integrated power sources, that's just a multiclass character. A primal/divine class should integrate its nature magic drawn from primal spirits and its divine magic drawn from astral deities into every aspect of the class.
C) not be the only option for a given source. I'm not opposed to having a shadow/arcane class for players who want their character to embrace both (although I'd rather have a rhobust multiclassing system to allow for such hybrid concepts, but whatever, 4.e doesn't have that either), but there should be a range of options for players who just want to follow one source as well.
While they've been fine mechanically, thematically the dual source builds we've seen so far haven't done these things, so I haven't been hugely happy with them, and I'm certainly not happy with duel source builds of existing non-shadow classes being the majority of the options available to me as a player who wants to play a shadow character.
For an example of a dual-source concept I would like thematically, look at the PHBII barbarian. Yes, they're all primal by keyword, and their fluff and mechanics (particularly the rage mechanics) do convey the primal spirits fluff in terms of taking spirits into their body to drive them into an animalistic rage. But one could also see them as just as much martial in terms of drawing power from training their own bodies to physical perfection and mastering the use of their weapons. If you just slap the martial keyword on the barbarian in addition to primal, add some fluff of their physical strength and conditioning enabling them to accept primal spirits into themselves, and maybe add some weapon-type dependent powers for a bit of martial feel, you could get a class that is both fully primal and fully martial, while still having the 'pure' options of fighter and warden for characters who just want to be one or the other.
Not to say I don't like the hunter or executioner. On the whole, I do like them. Compared to other e-martial classes, I love that they found a way to give executioners a daily resource. But thematically, I think they're a little shaky, because I think their power sources were assigned somewhat arbitrarily (executioner seems to be part shadow mostly because it wanted to be an 'assassin' and that name was already taken by a shadow class, while the hunter seems to be part primal mostly because... they go camping? they like animals? I don't know).
That said, the HoS assassin and vampire could do a lot to mitigate my complaints, provided they're fluffy, functional, and purely shadow based, but none of those things are exactly guaranteed.
In my defense, shadow is all about melodrama, imo. Take some quotes from one of my favorite shadow-using video game villains (kingdom hearts spoilers): www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT_V1I_rtEA
(Leonard Nimoy is such a ham.
) I suppose that's fair. I did let myself get worked up, taking people disagreeing with my opinions as people saying I was wrong for having them, and that's my fault.
In my defense, shadow is all about melodrama, imo. Take some quotes from one of my favorite shadow-using video game villains (kingdom hearts spoilers): www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT_V1I_rtEA
(Leonard Nimoy is such a ham. )
yeah, but a fun ham
Maybe they actually saw the outcry after these releases. They pushed the book back another month. Hopefully, they use that extra time to fix some stuff.
Hopefully they change vampire to a race template that you slap onto another race kinda like the hybrid classes except for races. You know, you pick either one or the others ability bonuses, you pick one or the others feature, defense bonuses, etc etc...
Then tack on the option of taking race powers instead of class powers at specific levels and you would have everything a vampire is in that package...
Maybe they actually saw the outcry after these releases. They pushed the book back another month. Hopefully, they use that extra time to fix some stuff.
Hopefully they change vampire to a race template that you slap onto another race kinda like the hybrid classes except for races. You know, you pick either one or the others ability bonuses, you pick one or the others feature, defense bonuses, etc etc...
Then tack on the option of taking race powers instead of class powers at specific levels and you would have everything a vampire is in that package...
An interesting idea, but a bit much to get together by April.
Maybe they actually saw the outcry after these releases. They pushed the book back another month. Hopefully, they use that extra time to fix some stuff.
Hopefully they change vampire to a race template that you slap onto another race kinda like the hybrid classes except for races. You know, you pick either one or the others ability bonuses, you pick one or the others feature, defense bonuses, etc etc...
Then tack on the option of taking race powers instead of class powers at specific levels and you would have everything a vampire is in that package...
An interesting idea, but a bit much to get together by April.
I could throw that together in a week or two at 8 hours a day. I mean you only get utility powers at specific levels so we're not talking about 100 powers or something. In fact I might just do that to show it can be done. Anyone wanna playtest with me? we can do it on the WotC VT or Fantasy Grounds II...
Oh I don't doubt you, but there is a big difference between you and WotC. Do you remember how long it took them to get fully functional hybrid classes? Months, now imagine them having to do something like that for every race. Plus it'd just be confusing.
No more confusing than Core, Essentials, Hybriding, backgrounds, and everything else...
Plus, I could rather understand the idea that you become a Vampire by way of a ritual that infuses you with Shadow magic and transforms you (similar to the Assassin) and as a class it would dictate where most of your powers and abilities come from. Something like multi-class or bloodline feats couldn't really convey the same level of theme, flavor, powers, and abilities.
I don't know... I've kinda come to like the idea of Vampire as a class and I don't think it would work as well as a race or bloodline... and 3rd edition should have taught us that templates don't really work.
Plus, I could rather understand the idea that you become a Vampire by way of a ritual that infuses you with Shadow magic and transforms you (similar to the Assassin) and as a class it would dictate where most of your powers and abilities come from. Something like multi-class or bloodline feats couldn't really convey the same level of theme, flavor, powers, and abilities.
I agree. For the maximum vampness you really have to go with a class. If you desire less, you can obviously go with something like the Vryloka race or the dhampyr feat tree. Iokiare, a "racial template" for a vampire like we got for the revenant wouldn't be confusing, but a full mix and match hybrid race system could be somewhat confusing.
If it manages to be cool, coherent as a class, shadowy in nature, and mechanically balanced, and if the assassin in this book is the same, then I could yet be won over.
I have to wonder if the presence of the vampire and assassin in this book are responses to the negative reactions of people like me to the idea of a shadow book without shadow classes. After all, back at gencon the vampire was in Ravenloft, not heroes of shadow, and the assassin was absolutely confirmed as remaining DDI only and not appearing in this book at all. Since then there's been a lot of complaining / pleading comments and emails from myself and other fans asking for actual shadow classes, and now we hear the book's delayed and some unexpected, potentially fully shadow classes are now listed in the contents.
Of course there are alternative theories to how this came about. They decided to cancel almost all of their book releases, so maybe they just wanted to charge more for the only player's books they're still releasing, so HoS is a hardcover now. But they needed more content to fill the larger page space, so they grab some content they've already developed from other products (assassin build out of DDI, Vampire out of Ravenloft) and just copy pasted it into this book.
Either way, I might get two actual shadow classes, and while I wouldn't exactly be happy, I could try to be content with that.
On the other hand, I could still get none. The HoS assassin could turn out to be a copy-paste of the mostly martial executioner. And the Vampire's powers might all be about transforming into animals (bat, wolf) or summoning animals (rats, bats), which would certainly fit the classical vampire archetype, but in my brain would make them a primal class, keywords not withstanding.
And even if they are shadow classes, the Shade (ossassin in race form) tells me that functional mechanics in this book are far from guaranteed.
On the other hand, I could still get none. The HoS assassin could turn out to be a copy-paste of the mostly martial executioner. And the Vampire's powers might all be about transforming into animals (bat, wolf) or summoning animals (rats, bats), which would certainly fit the classical vampire archetype, but in my brain would make them a primal class, keywords not withstanding.
I'm really betting / hoping that this isn't the case. I really liked the Executioner sub-class for the Assassin, but I wouldn't expect (or want) a second sub-class to be nearly identical. I'm hoping that it will instead of a revised/updated version of the pre-Essentials Assassin. (Hopefully in Essentials class/sub-class format, but that's just my own personal opinion.)
Part of the updating/revising that I would do would be to either make them into a Controller or keep them as Strikers and find some way to make them more survivable. My players felt that the Assassin's powers and theme were quite nifty (they especially liked the Inescapable Blade), but they also felt that they weren't very good at staying alive (especially since they were melee strikers that were given controller hit points and healing surges) and that a lot of their Shadow magic powers felt very controller-y. I'd probably go the with the controller role and call them Shadowcaster or something like that.
As for the Vampire, I'm hoping that they're very steeped in the Shadow power source (because anything else would be lame and wouldn't really fit D&D's canon backstory for vampires) and they have at least two different sub-classes. I could easily see lots of classic vampire abilities that would allow them to fit all four roles.
Charming and Dominating your enemies - Controller
stronger than most mortals & Blood Drain as a method of getting temp hp - Defender
mobility through Shadowdancer-like teleportation and turn-to-mist type powers - Striker
healing by way of life force transfer & "shadow" temp hp - Leader
Of course those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure that others could think of a lot of other suitable vampiric powers and abilities for them.
My hopes are the same as yours when it comes to the Vampire and the HoSassin (I coined it first!), I'm just trying not to get my hopes up, because this product has already let me down pretty horribly.
I found that the original assassin can be survivable enough if you leverage all the insubstantiality / hidden / invisible that the class provides. The ossassin suffers more in the 'killing things' department, which as a striker, let alone an 'assassin', is pretty inexcusable. Unless you've only played it at low levels, during which it's lack of killyness is less noticeable and the tools available to mitigate the survivability issue are less numerous.
My hopes are the same as yours when it comes to the Vampire and the HoSassin (I coined it first!), I'm just trying not to get my hopes up, because this product has already let me down pretty horribly.
The player in my group who had played the Assassin only played (most of) the Heroic tier. We were playing through the Scales of War campaign, but I got rather tired of trying to replicate some of the more complicated maps onto blank battlemats (especially trying to prep for a weekly D&D game while working full-time.)
Taking the feat to use shade form defensively rather then as a non-combat ability makes a big difference early on, as does focusing on powers that make you invisible or insubstantial or the like.
Not to say survivability isn't more of a pain then it really should have been. It's just not as crippling as the assassin's inability to perform its basic party role from paragon levels on.
The ossassin is still a fun and fluffy class with cool abilities, but it desperately needs more single target damage. Whether this comes from better single target attack powers or from a ramped up striker mechanic or both doesn't particularly matter. For the record, I like shroud and how it works, it just seems to have been massively overvalued by the developers.
It sucks to waste it on a minion only to see all that damage go into a 1hp sponge. (The D&D Minion, not the yellow guys on Dispicible Me)
As a class feature, it is disappointing and seems a bit lost in the overall 4th edition scheme.
I think that the Assassin should have had their weapons do damage as a weapon one catergory higher (The Dagger doing 1d6 instead of 1d4, for example) instead.
The assassin discussion is getting off topic. All I wanted to say is that the ossassin is a lot of fun and highly thematic and in my mind demonstrates beautifully the potential of the shadow power source and full shadow classes, and it's only failing is that it simply doesn't do enough damage as a striker, a failing that could have been easily fixed with an errata upping shroud damage, or simply printing some new, more damaging single target attack powers.
Want to join me in creating a 3rd party Necromancer, Shadow Dancer, anything else we can think of. Kind of a "What the shadow Power source book should have looked like"?
Want to join me in creating a 3rd party Necromancer, Shadow Dancer, anything else we can think of. Kind of a "What the shadow Power source book should have looked like"?
I tried that before, with a group that was working on something over on wikidot. Sadly, my ideas didn't line up with theirs enough for me to be helpful. And they never took the time to really sit back and take stock of the idea of the shadow source as a whole, nor were they willing to wait and see what exactly wizards does with their half-classes, before diving right into specific mechanical frameworks.
I'm not opposed to trying something like that again, but A: I'd want to suplement WotC's ideas on shadow rather then replace them, which means waiting to see what they do with HoS in April before committing to specific mechanics (which also gives time to really heavily consider the fluff and tone of the source as a whole and how separate classes might be organized to deliver a coherent theme), B: I'd want to be in on the ground floor, rather then merely offer cleanup advice on stuff mostly done, and C: I'm not looking to roll the hands back on essentials. I may not agree with every aspect of the new paradigm, but I would want any homebrew material I worked on to be in line with the current design principles. If you'd still like my input on such a project, shoot me a pm.
The Shroud mechanic is a delay, a stacking of potential damage on a target round by round. It was supposed to be the replacement for the 3.5 overpowered (and mostly NPC use) Death Attack. My group calls it the DM's Thumb.
It sucks to waste it on a minion only to see all that damage go into a 1hp sponge. (The D&D Minion, not the yellow guys on Dispicible Me)
As a class feature, it is disappointing and seems a bit lost in the overall 4th edition scheme.
I think that the Assassin should have had their weapons do damage as a weapon one catergory higher (The Dagger doing 1d6 instead of 1d4, for example) instead.
The improved damage idea seems strong. But I'm interested in how you would warrant it in fluff, that's not a jibe, just a question.
The assassin discussion is getting off topic. All I wanted to say is that the ossassin is a lot of fun and highly thematic and in my mind demonstrates beautifully the potential of the shadow power source and full shadow classes, and it's only failing is that it simply doesn't do enough damage as a striker, a failing that could have been easily fixed with an errata upping shroud damage, or simply printing some new, more damaging single target attack powers.
It wasn't that it didn't do enough damage as a striker, it's that it utterly failed at it's design intent as an "Assassin". It had some neat ideas, but that's all it was. It was a bunch of neat ideas that didn't work very well together. There were some horrible ideas as well, like controller hp and surges.
Burst damage is non-existent, which is unacceptable on a class called "Assassin".
Maybe they actually saw the outcry after these releases. They pushed the book back another month. Hopefully, they use that extra time to fix some stuff.
Hopefully they change vampire to a race template that you slap onto another race kinda like the hybrid classes except for races. You know, you pick either one or the others ability bonuses, you pick one or the others feature, defense bonuses, etc etc...
Then tack on the option of taking race powers instead of class powers at specific levels and you would have everything a vampire is in that package...
They clearly had enough material to publish it as a class, and you think they should scrap all that work, in order to make it not only something COMPLETELY different, but also create a completely new type of racial mechanic that gets the same kind of attention and playtesting that WotC gives the rest of their finished products?
In a month?
As opposed to...changing the publsihing format...?
Anyway, on Vampires as a race or class, "which is better?", I WOULD have reposted my statement from the 'Death of Shadow" thread, but the computer I'm on won't let me...odd. Anyway, post #380 in that topic, covers points on both sides nicely, if I do say so myself. (and if someone else could quote it and post it here...that would be great).
In their defence, the class has takes much of its inspiration from asian history and mythology (the initial basis for the real world concept of the assassin) but that mythology long ago gave way to the modern, less flavourful, concept of the generic trained killer for hire. In particular, the 1e assassin was based on the modern idea so most people just scratch their heads when they look at the more mythological concept.
In game terms the Ossassin is a mishmash of ninja, shadowdancer, and shadowcaster with insufficient power choices to give any of the build concepts much prominence. It would be nice if they do a full-on official Cha-based shadowdancer or shadowcaster build in Heroes of Shadow (the latter would be my preference) but if they are determined to follow the Essentials model (and I suppose they have to since the mechanics of the Ossassin are supposed to be DDI exclusive), maybe a shadowdancer is the only likely one.
A lot of classes need more DDI support but it is interesting that the assassin still provokes a lot of debate - it clearly is a popular concept. If they can give it more feat and power support it may well increase the popularity of DDI. They need something to make up for the ongoing lack of functionality of the new character builder!
On the other hand, we had confirmation that the Assassin and Revenant would be remaining DDI exclusives and would not be appearing in this book only a few short months ago, so I'm thinking that the HoSsassin was a short notice addition to fill out pages in the shift from the smaller digest to the larger hardcover format. Given that possibility, it wouldn't shock me if the HoS assassin turns out to be a direct reprint of the Executioner, which would make me very sad. Not that I hate the executioner, but I'm really hoping for something fully shadow and not mostly martial with a hint of shadow flavor.
I don't know why they called it an assassin either. I can only assume it was because they hoped that a popular name on a DDI exclusive character class might tempt people to subscribe to ddi.
In their defence, the class has takes much of its inspiration from asian history and mythology (the initial basis for the real world concept of the assassin) but that mythology long ago gave way to the modern, less flavourful, concept of the generic trained killer for hire. In particular, the 1e assassin was based on the modern idea so most people just scratch their heads when they look at the more mythological concept.
In game terms the Ossassin is a mishmash of ninja, shadowdancer, and shadowcaster with insufficient power choices to give any of the build concepts much prominence. It would be nice if they do a full-on official Cha-based shadowdancer or shadowcaster build in Heroes of Shadow (the latter would be my preference) but if they are determined to follow the Essentials model (and I suppose they have to since the mechanics of the Ossassin are supposed to be DDI exclusive), maybe a shadowdancer is the only likely one.
A lot of classes need more DDI support but it is interesting that the assassin still provokes a lot of debate - it clearly is a popular concept. If they can give it more feat and power support it may well increase the popularity of DDI. They need something to make up for the ongoing lack of functionality of the new character builder!
The Ossassin needs to be re-written from the ground up to live up to itself is the problem. I would actually be fine with this for HoS, because it's just taking up server space now (as long as they completely remove the original).
The Executioner basically does everything that should be expected of an "Assassin", though. Not sure what HoS could offer to change that.
Our opinions on the ossassin aside, our hopes for the HoSsassin are much the same, though I'd rather see a dex primary shadowdancer assassin e-build then a cha primary one (that whole acrobatics/dancing thing).
On the other hand, we had confirmation that the Assassin and Revenant would be remaining DDI exclusives and would not be appearing in this book only a few short months ago, so I'm thinking that the HoSsassin was a short notice addition to fill out pages in the shift from the smaller digest to the larger hardcover format. Given that possibility, it wouldn't shock me if the HoS assassin turns out to be a direct reprint of the Executioner, which would make me very sad. Not that I hate the executioner, but I'm really hoping for something fully shadow and not mostly martial with a hint of shadow flavor.
Problem is, that would be the 3rd class with the title "Assassin".
So? Rangers have the Ranger (with three & change builds), the Hunter, and the Scout. Fighters have the Weapons Master (with half a dozen builds), the Knight, and the Slayer. Why cant the Assassin have an Ossassin (with two builds), an Executioner, and a HoSassin?
If it is a new build, I would expect it to be an E-build. I'm thinking the Ossassin is dead. Unless, like I said earlier, they plan on remaking the Ossassin from the ground up.
If it is a new build, I would expect it to be an E-build. I'm thinking the Ossassin is dead. Unless, like I said earlier, they plan on remaking the Ossassin from the ground up.
I agree. How is that any different from what I said? There would be three assassin subclasses:
1) Ossassin, two builds (nighstalker, bleak disciple)
2) Executioner, two builds (I forget the names)
3) HoSassin
Much as there are presently three Ranger subclasses and three Fighter subclasses. I don't see that as being a problem.
Frankly, What I hope to see in the HoSassin is a new assassin subclass leaning more towards the shadowdancer or shadowcaster themes of the original but with more streamlined and functional mechanics. What I'd love but don't even dare to hope for is a reprint of the original class with revised mechanics that make it able to function on the tabletop. What I expect, but don't want to see is just a copy-paste reprint of the executioner to fill blank page space caused by the shift to the larger hardcover format.
If it is a new build, I would expect it to be an E-build. I'm thinking the Ossassin is dead. Unless, like I said earlier, they plan on remaking the Ossassin from the ground up.
I agree. How is that any different from what I said? There would be three assassin subclasses:
1) Ossassin, two builds (nighstalker, bleak disciple)
2) Executioner, two builds (I forget the names)
3) HoSassin
Much as there are presently three Ranger subclasses and three Fighter subclasses. I don't see that as being a problem.
Frankly, What I hope to see in the HoSassin is a new assassin subclass leaning more towards the shadowdancer or shadowcaster themes of the original but with more streamlined and functional mechanics. What I'd love but don't even dare to hope for is a reprint of the original class with revised mechanics that make it able to function on the tabletop. What I expect, but don't want to see is just a copy-paste reprint of the executioner to fill blank page space caused by the shift to the larger hardcover format.
It would be a travesty if they just reprinted the Executioner (not that I wouldn't mind actually having it in print and not just existing in virtual space on my computer.)
Similar to what you want, I'm really hoping for a new Essentials-style Assassin sub-class... Call it the Shadowcaster or something along those lines and treat as an update/revision to the Assassin that originally appeared in Dragon.
One of my players is currently playing an Executioner, and while he does like it (and is having a fun time roleplaying him,) the class isn't nearly as much his cup of tea as it is mine. He misses the fully-Shadow Assassin (and was a big fan of the Shade Form ability and the Inescapable Blade power.)
Although something I think would be neat is instead of the Inescapable Blade they would instead get a Shadow Minion that would allow you to essentially make melee attacks from a short distance away.
I'd also like to see the Shrouds get replaced by something better. I really felt that as Strikers go, it was quite difficult for them to actually get their Striker damage. The player I mentioned who had played an Assassin before always had the complaint that he'd put a Shroud or two on someone while attacking for pitiful damage (compared to other strikers)... and then someone else in the part would kill the enemy. It was very rare for him to actually inflict his Shroud damage on someone to much effect.
Also, thank you Malisteen for explaining more about the post-Heroic tier Assassin.
Maybe they actually saw the outcry after these releases. They pushed the book back another month. Hopefully, they use that extra time to fix some stuff.
Hopefully they change vampire to a race template that you slap onto another race kinda like the hybrid classes except for races. You know, you pick either one or the others ability bonuses, you pick one or the others feature, defense bonuses, etc etc...
Then tack on the option of taking race powers instead of class powers at specific levels and you would have everything a vampire is in that package...
Well, technically if it's a class you do sort of just slap it onto your race. Not saying a race template wouldn't work; just that vampire as a class sort of creates the same effect that any race can become one, doesn't it?
Woo a new class! Vindication your name is vampire apparently. (Wizards any chance you guys need a theasaurus or something?) So see sky is falling folks, you get your new classes and new support while getting even more support by getting new subclasses. Yay for win/wins!
Plus we already have evidence like the above of vampires functioning as heroes and saving the day. What says class more than that?
As for the Vampire, I'm hoping that they're very steeped in the Shadow power source (because anything else would be lame and wouldn't really fit D&D's canon backstory for vampires) and they have at least two different sub-classes. I could easily see lots of classic vampire abilities that would allow them to fit all four roles.
Charming and Dominating your enemies - Controller
stronger than most mortals & Blood Drain as a method of getting temp hp - Defender
mobility through Shadowdancer-like teleportation and turn-to-mist type powers - Striker
healing by way of life force transfer & "shadow" temp hp - Leader
Of course those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure that others could think of a lot of other suitable vampiric powers and abilities for them.
Controller was my first thought, except I don't see much in the way of multi-target attacks. Maybe striker with a controller element focusing on single targets, like charming one enemy to attack when you do and increase your damage. Idk. Or maybe the devs will put some new twist on class role with this class.
"The Dark Gift comes different to us all" in some vampire lore, right? So yeah, I don't know what they'll emphasize. Hm....strength, cunning, guile, charm, mystery, melancholy, blood sucking. So many choices!
Ascribing its most iconic elements to classes form other power sources and leaving it with only the underpowered and undersupported ossassin and a monster in class form would, though.
Seriously, this HoS is like if PHBII had introduced the Primal power source with a nature domain for clerics, a barbarian build for fighters, a seeker build for rangers, a werewolf class, and no druid or shaman.
Or like if PHBIII introduced the Psionic power source with an enchanter build for wizards, a monk build for rogues, a psionic warrior build for swordmages, a mind flayer class, and no psion or ardent.
Or like if my dad ran over my dog while I was at school that one time, and took it to the taxadermist to get stuffed before I got home, and then pretended he was fine and nothing was the matter and I was the one acting weird.
While I'm not ready to criticize the book yet, I do think the above illustrates fairly well the "power source purity" issue (and I mean illustrates the perspective, not destroys all other perspectives). Also, it was funny.
Regardless, I am still excited to see the ways they've got for shadow to creep into other classes.OH
also.......they used the word taint (I think it was in the preview). Does anyone think they'll have a Taint mechanic like in Rokugan? Or maybe that old insanity marker or something for Ravenloft? And I have wanted to buy Heroes of Horror for so long but never have......do you think this book will have anything like that stuff in it?Maybe they actually saw the outcry after these releases. They pushed the book back another month. Hopefully, they use that extra time to fix some stuff.
Hopefully they change vampire to a race template that you slap onto another race kinda like the hybrid classes except for races. You know, you pick either one or the others ability bonuses, you pick one or the others feature, defense bonuses, etc etc...
Then tack on the option of taking race powers instead of class powers at specific levels and you would have everything a vampire is in that package...
Well, technically if it's a class you do sort of just slap it onto your race. Not saying a race template wouldn't work; just that vampire as a class sort of creates the same effect that any race can become one, doesn't it?
Kind of like the Spellscarred class thing in Forgotten Realms. It was more a template, and took a feat if I remember correctly, while this sounds more like a full on class.
Controller was my first thought, except I don't see much in the way of multi-target attacks. Maybe striker with a controller element focusing on single targets, like charming one enemy to attack when you do and increase your damage. Idk. Or maybe the devs will put some new twist on class role with this class.
"The Dark Gift comes different to us all" in some vampire lore, right? So yeah, I don't know what they'll emphasize. Hm....strength, cunning, guile, charm, mystery, melancholy, blood sucking. So many choices!
My hope is that the Vampire will have the same class format as the other post-Essentials classes. That would allow to have seperate "sub-classes." I think it'd be a crime to try to force all of the various stereotypical vampire powers into a single role just in order to try to keep the old format.
I'm picturing one sub-class that's a controller with lots of charm and dominate type powers and one that's a striker that's more about melee attacks.
Anyway, on Vampires as a race or class, "which is better?", I WOULD have reposted my statement from the 'Death of Shadow" thread, but the computer I'm on won't let me...odd. Anyway, post #380 in that topic, covers points on both sides nicely, if I do say so myself. (and if someone else could quote it and post it here...that would be great).
Finally got around to doing it on my home comp.
Re: Vampires as a race vis a class - There are positive arguments for both and negative arguments against each, and it's impossible to objectively weigh the pros and cons against each other, since they all have their inherent valid points, many of which stem from the fact that vampires are not creatures that reproduce sexually. They reproduce in a fashion that is frankly parasitic, and often subsumes many of the previous traits of the "victims".
Vampires as a race makes sense because it allows a variety of vampires as far as classes, allowing for multiple archetypes of vampires to be represented, such as, a burly vampire who wades into melee, and relishes the spray of blood from enemies, or the vampiric scholar/wizard type who allows allys/minions to go into melee while striking at a distance with spells. And many more in between.
But wait! What about the previous race? Vampire as a race means I lose the flavor of being a dwarf vampire who preferrs to drink from victims with a high blood-alcohol level, or an elf vampire with a keen interest in preventing the encroachment of civilization into an ancient forest he has dwelt in for centuries. Or, "When he's turned into a vampire, he wouldn't just stop being an elf". Well, the "Vampires as a race" method implies that, at least mechanically, the transformation into a vampire is so severe that the traces of the victim's previous race (at least, those that make a mechanical difference), are wiped clean. This is supported by the idea in many forms of vampire fiction that, as vampires age, they become more and more similar, losing those unique racial identifiers (like in Anne Rice novels, for example), and much of the vampire's previous identity (including race and even gender) become less important, even to the vampire itself, that the fact that it is a vampire...as far as its own identity goes, anyway.
This could have been answered mechanically in D&D (had they done Vampires as a race) with a mechanic similar to Revenants, allowing them to qualify for racial feats of the previous race, even though the racial traits of being a vampire have overwritten their birthright ones (such as stat modifiers, racial bonus to poison saves, attack bonus while bloodied, etc.). Although the problem arises with Small races, if the default for the "vampire-as-a-race" is Medium sized.
Vampires as a class makes sense because it allows us to keep those racial traits, and it also correctly portrays the parasitic nature of the vampire transformation, because the previous racial identity of the vampire is apparent in its appearance. Since race is a very important part of a PC's makeup (ESPECIALLY at heroic tier), this allows for as great a variety in vampires as in any other class. It also answers the problem inherent in the "vampire-as-a-race" with Small races. Vampires as a class allows for Small Vampires.
But wait! What about the previous class? Why would a vampire suddenly stop being a wizard/fighter/cleric? Well, lots of reasons. First off, the easiest answer: who said the PC necessarily had levels in a PC class before becoming a vampire? However, some peopls might want backstories of a mortal life that was also an adventurerm and if he did, some classes might have reasons not to work. A Divine class who served Pelor, for example (or the Raven Queen), would certainly be cut off from divine aid after becoming an undead creature. A Bard's preternatural voice might no longer be able to correctly tone in on the music that was the source of her magic. A Sorceror, blood tainted with the curse of vampirism, might no longer be able to call on the power of his bloodline that gave him arcane might. Granted, some classes this reasoning does not work for (Fighters, Rogues, Wizards).
There's also another solution, which is another pro for vampires as a class: Obviously, if you are playing a PC with the vampire class, you are playing a character who has EMBRACED his/her vampiric nature, as opposed to violently seeking a cure. Since that is the case, does it nor follow that the newly turned vampire would have turned away from the trappings of his/her mortal life to embrace the dark powers he/she now wielded? It's entirely possible that, for him/her to even begin to master the new vampiric powers, took such dedication and time that the skills of the previous life became so out-of-practice that the vampire could no longer perform them.
Result: Both sides of the argument have their merits and their downsides. Obviously, to some, being able to be a Vampire Wizard makes more sense and is more appealing conceptually than a Halfling Vampire. And Vice Versa. Some people can more readily accept the idea that Vampirism dominates one's previous racial identity, and thus should be a race. Others want the previous race to be available as a character creation choice, and have a character for whom being a vampire is something they DO, rather than something they ARE.
Which is why Malisteen and I, though usually at odds in our opinions in most things, both agree that Vampire would have worked better as a theme, which would have made both camps pretty happy, because one could be an Eladrin Vampire Wizard, or a Dwarven Vampire Fighter, etc. To us, and those like us, the pros of both sides are pretty keen points. However, both malisteen and myself both realize that themes are powerful, and since they are not (yet) available for core play, introducing vampire PCs as a theme now would not be balanced, and it would have been better served if they released it as a theme in Ravemloft later this year, which would confine it to a campaign setting, like Dark Sun did.
Incidentally, I think WotC looked at all these points, and since they decided not to go with theme, that Vampire Class > Vampire Race. Given only the two options, I can see why they supported class over race. It allows for more variety in the backstories and character of a given Vampire PC, because he could be from any race, and, liek I said, since he's embracing his vampiric powers so thouroughly (enough to pursue an adventuring career that may last 30 levels, anyway), that Vampire as a Class with its own suite of powers was better. It also allows more for character concepts of people that had the adventuring life thrust upon them BECAUSE they were turned into vampires(i.e. they were not members of ANY PC class before being turned).
What I expect we have isn't any particularly deliberate design decision so much as a need to fill extra space in moving from digest to hardcover format, and a vampire class under development for Ravenloft (remember how RL was going to let us play 'werewolves, ghosts, and vampires?) that was on-theme enough to steal for filler.
... except they didn't choose class over race, they did both - since the book also has the 'Vrykola' which is a race of humans 'cursed with the taint of vampirism'.
What I expect we have isn't any particularly deliberate design decision so much as a need to fill extra space in moving from digest to hardcover format, and a vampire class under development for Ravenloft (remember how RL was going to let us play 'werewolves, ghosts, and vampires?) that was on-theme enough to steal for filler.
That just seems unlikely. They probably wouldn't try to squeeze in a class, class feats, powers, etc. into the product. They'd probably just plunk in some quick feats or do some formatting.
Thought about that after I posted that. But that's why a threw in a the bit about reformatting, 'cause they may choose have a slightly thinner book rather than to be sloppy with the mechanics. I see that, or additional fluff being written as a more likely outcome than throwing a half-baked class in there just to fill pages.
They probably just took stuff from discontinued products and put them in the book. You know "hey since shadow is basically a keyword we can change this radiant power to shadow and change the fluff" kind of stuff...
The support for other classes was always the plan, this not being a PHB, though whether they use feats, alternate class feats outside the Kit Builds, or (unlikely) Class Themes is unknown.
Loki, I really don't believe that. The Necro/Nether mancy wizard builds seem to be something planned on since the beginning, not slapped into the book. The Vampire Class may well be a later addition, but I see the delay of the release to April as a buffer to tweak the format and do some last minute editing. Nothing in this product screams a repackaging job, just lousy design, particularly the Essentials kit builds instead of new classes, making for mixed Power Sources between the Base Classes and Shadow.
The support for other classes was always the plan, this not being a PHB, though whether they use feats, alternate class feats outside the Kit Builds, or (unlikely) Class Themes is unknown.
I was talking about the added content, but yea basically...
Thought about that after I posted that. But that's why a threw in a the bit about reformatting, 'cause they may choose have a slightly thinner book rather than to be sloppy with the mechanics. I see that, or additional fluff being written as a more likely outcome than throwing a half-baked class in there just to fill pages.
They probably just took stuff from discontinued products and put them in the book. You know "hey since shadow is basically a keyword we can change this radiant power to shadow and change the fluff" kind of stuff...
Wow, you are just bound and determined to be a doomcryer and a pessimist aren't you? You have absolutely ZERO proof to support these claims, it's all pure wild speculation, and yet you get so depressed by said speculations...
The assassin we know was grabbed from DDI to fill space (before the shift to hardcover we had official confirmation that the assassin would not show up in heroes of shadow). Whether the assassin we're getting is the ossassin, the executioner, or a new build/subclass that had been intended to coincide with HoS's release (there was some talk of that at one point), we can't say at the moment.
I think it seems likely that the Vampire was similarly grabbed. It's the most iconic bit of Ravenloft, and likely was in development long enough to be sufficiently ready for printing, and they know they have long enough before Ravenloft's release (assuming it hasn't simply been cancelled) that they could develop a new vampire build/subclass for it. That's not inherently a bad thing at all.
As for the idea that material pulled from Ravenloft might be underdeveloped - well now I am going to be a negative nancy. Honestly WotC doesn't seem to do any serious play testing or balancing, and I doubt there's any meaningful difference between material that's been in development for two months and material that's been in development for two years. Does anyone honestly believe the vampire, even if it had been intended for release in November initially, could turn out more poorly balanced then, say, the Shade?
The only real problem I have with them is that it seems like the Racial Utility powers is something that's being done as uniquely theirs. I would have much, much preferred seeing Racial Utility powers as simply a new category of Utility power you could choose from whenever you'd normally be able to choose a Utility power. Meaning that your Mul Escaped Slave Scout would four seperate sources for Utility Powers... a Race list (Mul), a Theme list (Escaped Slave), a Class list (Ranger), and a Skill list (Nature + whatever else he's trained in.)
I still kind of hope that this will eventually be the case... That we'll eventually start getting Racial Utility articles in Dragon.
I still don't see the problem with the Shade. They're not quite as healthy as the other races and get one less healing surge at first level... big whoop. If you're playing a in-the-frontlines class then you should have enough healing surges to make up for that missing one, and if you're a ranged character (or especially a Mage) you'll most likely be sneaky enough to prevent yourself from getting hit all that often (as long as strategy is used and the dice gods are with you.)
The only real problem I have with them is that it seems like the Racial Utility powers is something that's being done as uniquely theirs. I would have much, much preferred seeing Racial Utility powers as simply a new category of Utility power you could choose from whenever you'd normally be able to choose a Utility power. Meaning that your Mul Escaped Slave Scout would four seperate sources for Utility Powers... a Race list (Mul), a Theme list (Escaped Slave), a Class list (Ranger), and a Skill list (Nature + whatever else he's trained in.)
I still kind of hope that this will eventually be the case... That we'll eventually start getting Racial Utility articles in Dragon.
It's -1 surge for no reason, and no compensation for it. That's a HUGE penalty.
I'm eagerly looking forward to the classes, though.
But I'm just crushed to see another product that I was looking forward to cancelled. They really do seem to be giving up. It's just depressing.
Thought about that after I posted that. But that's why a threw in a the bit about reformatting, 'cause they may choose have a slightly thinner book rather than to be sloppy with the mechanics. I see that, or additional fluff being written as a more likely outcome than throwing a half-baked class in there just to fill pages.
They probably just took stuff from discontinued products and put them in the book. You know "hey since shadow is basically a keyword we can change this radiant power to shadow and change the fluff" kind of stuff...
Wow, you are just bound and determined to be a doomcryer and a pessimist aren't you? You have absolutely ZERO proof to support these claims, it's all pure wild speculation, and yet you get so depressed by said speculations...
You didn't read the DDXP stuff did you? they said they took some of the material in the books that were canceled and put them in other books...
. . . aaand now Ravenloft is officially cancelled. I'd be smug and say it was just more evidence of my theory that the HoS Vampire Class was originally to be part of Ravenloft...
But I'm just crushed to see another product that I was looking forward to cancelled. They really do seem to be giving up. It's just depressing.
Not canceled. Shelved. Postponed. They are most obviously unsure of how to go forward. So things get postponed while they try to figure out what is wrong.
. . . aaand now Ravenloft is officially cancelled. I'd be smug and say it was just more evidence of my theory that the HoS Vampire Class was originally to be part of Ravenloft...
But I'm just crushed to see another product that I was looking forward to cancelled. They really do seem to be giving up. It's just depressing.
Not canceled. Shelved. Postponed. They are most obviously unsure of how to go forward. So things get postponed while they try to figure out what is wrong.
Here's a suggestion... ASK THE FREAKIN' CUSTOMERS....
. . . aaand now Ravenloft is officially cancelled. I'd be smug and say it was just more evidence of my theory that the HoS Vampire Class was originally to be part of Ravenloft...
But I'm just crushed to see another product that I was looking forward to cancelled. They really do seem to be giving up. It's just depressing.
Not canceled. Shelved. Postponed. They are most obviously unsure of how to go forward. So things get postponed while they try to figure out what is wrong.
Here's a suggestion... ASK THE FREAKIN' CUSTOMERS....
It was mentioned that one reason the designers are at D&DXP is to be told what missteps they have taken. I think you only have so long to buy a ticket, loki.
. . . aaand now Ravenloft is officially cancelled. I'd be smug and say it was just more evidence of my theory that the HoS Vampire Class was originally to be part of Ravenloft...
But I'm just crushed to see another product that I was looking forward to cancelled. They really do seem to be giving up. It's just depressing.
Not canceled. Shelved. Postponed. They are most obviously unsure of how to go forward. So things get postponed while they try to figure out what is wrong.
Here's a suggestion... ASK THE FREAKIN' CUSTOMERS....
It was mentioned that one reason the designers are at D&DXP is to be told what missteps they have taken. I think you only have so long to buy a ticket, loki.
I'm intentionally not going. If I went bad things would happen...
. . . aaand now Ravenloft is officially cancelled. I'd be smug and say it was just more evidence of my theory that the HoS Vampire Class was originally to be part of Ravenloft...
But I'm just crushed to see another product that I was looking forward to cancelled. They really do seem to be giving up. It's just depressing.
Not canceled. Shelved. Postponed. They are most obviously unsure of how to go forward. So things get postponed while they try to figure out what is wrong.
Here's a suggestion... ASK THE FREAKIN' CUSTOMERS....
It was mentioned that one reason the designers are at D&DXP is to be told what missteps they have taken. I think you only have so long to buy a ticket, loki.
I'm intentionally not going. If I went bad things would happen...
Well then if you aren't going to meet them and tell them where they went wrong (respectfully), then I guess you have no reason to complain when they are in their offices working without your input.
. . . aaand now Ravenloft is officially cancelled. I'd be smug and say it was just more evidence of my theory that the HoS Vampire Class was originally to be part of Ravenloft...
But I'm just crushed to see another product that I was looking forward to cancelled. They really do seem to be giving up. It's just depressing.
Not canceled. Shelved. Postponed. They are most obviously unsure of how to go forward. So things get postponed while they try to figure out what is wrong.
Here's a suggestion... ASK THE FREAKIN' CUSTOMERS....
It was mentioned that one reason the designers are at D&DXP is to be told what missteps they have taken. I think you only have so long to buy a ticket, loki.
I'm intentionally not going. If I went bad things would happen...
Well then if you aren't going to meet them and tell them where they went wrong (respectfully), then I guess you have no reason to complain when they are in their offices working without your input.
I've explained over and over on these forums where they went wrong. That doesn't seem to have helped...
. . . aaand now Ravenloft is officially cancelled. I'd be smug and say it was just more evidence of my theory that the HoS Vampire Class was originally to be part of Ravenloft...
But I'm just crushed to see another product that I was looking forward to cancelled. They really do seem to be giving up. It's just depressing.
Not canceled. Shelved. Postponed. They are most obviously unsure of how to go forward. So things get postponed while they try to figure out what is wrong.
Here's a suggestion... ASK THE FREAKIN' CUSTOMERS....
It was mentioned that one reason the designers are at D&DXP is to be told what missteps they have taken. I think you only have so long to buy a ticket, loki.
I'm intentionally not going. If I went bad things would happen...
Well then if you aren't going to meet them and tell them where they went wrong (respectfully), then I guess you have no reason to complain when they are in their offices working without your input.
I've explained over and over on these forums where they went wrong. That doesn't seem to have helped...
You seem to think creative people would come here, read these forums and then have any energy left to create anything for us. The tone of a fair number of posters here makes it so I can't do art for days after I come here, and I'm not even being pressured to create anything for the masses. IF the tone were less disrespectful to the creative process mixed with the company business model, they might just come here and see what we had to say. I know some people might claim that they have to give us something first, but that's basically bull. If we were the ones who showed that we have faith in their abilities (even if we do not like the path they have taken) there might be some common ground upon which to build a stable foundation of fan and designer communication. However, if I had a forum for a game company and it had the same forum goers as this one does, I'd never speak to the lot of them. If I did, I'd never feel like my work (even if it was misguided or off the prefered design path) was being appreciated and thus I'd never feel like doing more work for those people.
Basically, the forums have tried vinegar to catch flies. Honey works better, if you'll remember the old adage.
. . . aaand now Ravenloft is officially cancelled. I'd be smug and say it was just more evidence of my theory that the HoS Vampire Class was originally to be part of Ravenloft...
But I'm just crushed to see another product that I was looking forward to cancelled. They really do seem to be giving up. It's just depressing.
Not canceled. Shelved. Postponed. They are most obviously unsure of how to go forward. So things get postponed while they try to figure out what is wrong.
Here's a suggestion... ASK THE FREAKIN' CUSTOMERS....
It was mentioned that one reason the designers are at D&DXP is to be told what missteps they have taken. I think you only have so long to buy a ticket, loki.
I'm intentionally not going. If I went bad things would happen...
Well then if you aren't going to meet them and tell them where they went wrong (respectfully), then I guess you have no reason to complain when they are in their offices working without your input.
I've explained over and over on these forums where they went wrong. That doesn't seem to have helped...
You seem to think creative people would come here, read these forums and then have any energy left to create anything for us. The tone of a fair number of posters here makes it so I can't do art for days after I come here, and I'm not even being pressured to create anything for the masses. IF the tone were less disrespectful to the creative process mixed with the company business model, they might just come here and see what we had to say. I know some people might claim that they have to give us something first, but that's basically bull. If we were the ones who showed that we have faith in their abilities (even if we do not like the path they have taken) there might be some common ground upon which to build a stable foundation of fan and designer communication. However, if I had a forum for a game company and it had the same forum goers as this one does, I'd never speak to the lot of them. If I did, I'd never feel like my work (even if it was misguided or off the prefered design path) was being appreciated and thus I'd never feel like doing more work for those people.
Basically, the forums have tried vinegar to catch flies. Honey works better, if you'll remember the old adage.
And there we have it. No one likes vitriol, so they ignore the vocal minority.
You seem to think creative people would come here, read these forums and then have any energy left to create anything for us. The tone of a fair number of posters here makes it so I can't do art for days after I come here, and I'm not even being pressured to create anything for the masses. IF the tone were less disrespectful to the creative process mixed with the company business model, they might just come here and see what we had to say. I know some people might claim that they have to give us something first, but that's basically bull. If we were the ones who showed that we have faith in their abilities (even if we do not like the path they have taken) there might be some common ground upon which to build a stable foundation of fan and designer communication. However, if I had a forum for a game company and it had the same forum goers as this one does, I'd never speak to the lot of them. If I did, I'd never feel like my work (even if it was misguided or off the prefered design path) was being appreciated and thus I'd never feel like doing more work for those people.
Basically, the forums have tried vinegar to catch flies. Honey works better, if you'll remember the old adage.
Please explain in more detail. Quote some of my posts and tell me how I can convey the same information in a more respectful manner. I'm open to all kinds of suggestions. As far as I know I point out the flaws in their design. I don't openly condemn them without cause.
The fact that we've given them slack for 2 1/2 years tells me you must be new to D&D, WotC and/or the forums themselves. Many of us are just getting sick and tired of getting less for more. I mean its not like WotC is even following basic good sense established business practices.
2 years ago I "showed faith" in their abilities. I've been disappointed ever since... Nearly every choice they've made has been counter intuitive and caused more people to become enraged over their actions. Whether or not I like or dislike Essentials doesn't matter. It further fractured the customer base in exactly the way they want to avoid.
A lot of people don't like the direction they are going. I predicted this six months ago. I'm sorry i was right...
Please explain in more detail. Quote some of my posts and tell me how I can convey the same information in a more respectful manner.
Only because you asked...
- Don't use inflammatory language like screwed
- Be specific. Don't intimate that you've already proven yourself right. That comes off as pompous and self-congratulatory, not convincing or civil
- Don't declare yourself the winner of an argument for the same reasons.
- Avoid the snide parenthetical asides
- Don't use ALL CAPITALS for emphasis. It makes you look angry and irrational.
- Avoid the adolescent use of hipster speak such as "WOTC=fail". This makes it seem like you are more interested in appearing hip than in making substantive points.
- Stop making one-off quips that don't contribute to the conversation. (A good half of your recent posts appear to be posts in this vein.)
- Stop making emotional whines.
- Oh, and you could stop cyber-stalking Dane_McArdy with your "Dane, you are my hero" posts. That was pretty much the nadir of your behavior today.
I only provide this because you asked. This is just what I noticed from reading the posts you've made in the last six hours. (You post a lot!) I'm sure if I went further back into your posting history I could find you more examples. I am posting this is the hopes that you were sincere about wanting to be a more productive and civil poster.
Please note I did not ask you to stop posting negative things about Wizards or their products. My posts only concern the manner in whcih you post, not the substance.
I would love to go to DDXP and have my opinoin heard (and get to play in some of the convention exclusive adventures.) But, you know, if they (WotC) want to truly get their fan base's opinions there has to be a better way... beause frankly, where's the opinion outlet for players like myself (and nearly all of the people that I game with)... I DM two games a week (Encounters on Wednesdays and a home game on Fridays), I've had an Insider subscription since the beginning of the edition (only missing a month or two here or there), and I feel that my opinion should count just as much as someone who can afford to go to conventions... but I can't afford to go to all these conventions that most so-called "real gamers" act like everyone should be able to just run off to.
I haven't been to a convention since 2001 (Gen Con). I tried saving up the money every year since to go again, but bills and real life just don't allow for it. So where's the outlet for my opinoins on the game? Just because I can't afford to go to conventions doesn't mean that I don't play the game or buy the books or have a legitimate opinion on how things could/should be done.
And in theory these forums should be that outlet, but what WotC employee would want to just hang around reading the forums... especially when so much of what gets posted is just 'verbal bile' spewed forth in order to tear others down.
You seem to think creative people would come here, read these forums and then have any energy left to create anything for us. The tone of a fair number of posters here makes it so I can't do art for days after I come here, and I'm not even being pressured to create anything for the masses. IF the tone were less disrespectful to the creative process mixed with the company business model, they might just come here and see what we had to say. I know some people might claim that they have to give us something first, but that's basically bull. If we were the ones who showed that we have faith in their abilities (even if we do not like the path they have taken) there might be some common ground upon which to build a stable foundation of fan and designer communication. However, if I had a forum for a game company and it had the same forum goers as this one does, I'd never speak to the lot of them. If I did, I'd never feel like my work (even if it was misguided or off the prefered design path) was being appreciated and thus I'd never feel like doing more work for those people.
Basically, the forums have tried vinegar to catch flies. Honey works better, if you'll remember the old adage.
Except the adage is wrong... scientifically, at least. Flies are attracted to decaying matter and vinegar fits the bill more than honey does. Metaphorically... Eh. It works one way, not both. If we're always nice to WotC, I doubt our voice would be heard. The squeaky wheel, and all that, would be a better adage.
Please explain in more detail. Quote some of my posts and tell me how I can convey the same information in a more respectful manner.
Only because you asked...
- Don't use inflammatory language like screwed
- Be specific. Don't intimate that you've already proven yourself right. That comes off as pompous and self-congratulatory, not convincing or civil
- Don't declare yourself the winner of an argument for the same reasons.
- Avoid the snide parenthetical asides
- Don't use ALL CAPITALS for emphasis. It makes you look angry and irrational.
- Avoid the adolescent use of hipster speak such as "WOTC=fail". This makes it seem like you are more interested in appearing hip than in making substantive points.
- Stop making one-off quips that don't contribute to the conversation. (A good half of your recent posts appear to be posts in this vein.)
- Stop making emotional whines.
- Oh, and you could stop cyber-stalking Dane_McArdy with your "Dane, you are my hero" posts. That was pretty much the nadir of your behavior today.
I only provide this because you asked. This is just what I noticed from reading the posts you've made in the last six hours. (You post a lot!) I'm sure if I went further back into your posting history I could find you more examples. I am posting this is the hopes that you were sincere about wanting to be a more productive and civil poster.
Please note I did not ask you to stop posting negative things about Wizards or their products. My posts only concern the manner in whcih you post, not the substance.
Wrecan got to it first. Thank you sir.
The squeaky wheel, and all that, would be a better adage.
except sometimes it's just easier to replace the wheel than give the old one more grease.
About the Dane thing. I'm only going to post that kind of talk when he cyber-stalks me and brings up my discontinued magazine Friar's Almanac. Since its off-topic and trolling. I've only posted 3-4 times about "Dane your my hero!!!!". All but one time he was trolling my posts. In one instance he was fantasizing about disemboweling me with a hot poker. You be the judge. What is the best response (note I report him all the time, his posts rarely if ever get edited or removed). I can't help it if the ORC are biased.
Thanks for the suggestions. The reason I've posted those kinds of comments is because I'm tired of having to explain my position over and over. It appears WotC does not listen. So its more of a resigned to failure kind of attitude coming from me. I will make an effort in the future to be concise and leave the emotional speak out of my posts....
About the Dane thing. I'm only going to post that kind of talk when he cyber-stalks me and brings up my discontinued magazine Friar's Almanac. Since its off-topic and trolling. I've only posted 3-4 times about "Dane your my hero!!!!". All but one time he was trolling my posts. In one instance he was fantasizing about disemboweling me with a hot poker. You be the judge. What is the best response (note I report him all the time, his posts rarely if ever get edited or removed). I can't help it if the ORC are biased.
Discretion is the better part of valour.
i.e. ignoring him helps.
Note, I am bad at following my own advice.
Sad, but only partially true. I'm neither a mouthpiece nor do I hate him with a burning passion. I do however wish he would stick to facts (you know...the truth?) instead of making stuff up (generally called lies). Does that mean that I wish him silenced?Don't deny it, you want to jam red hot pokers up his jackies! You want to rip out his entrails, feed them to him, and create a continous loop of him eating them!
Seems like a typical forum type of humor. If it hurt your feelings, I'm sorry.
except sometimes it's just easier to replace the wheel than give the old one more grease.
Well, sure... if you want to pay 20+ times the cost of just adding some more grease to it
Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. If someone wishes to restart the ORIGINAL topic about Heroes of Shadow, they may. Please do NOT pull any more threads off topic. Thanks.