Me, I really want the return of the hexblade. Some may say that the swordmage works, especially if you multiclass into warlock, but I disagree. Sure, you could just rename warlock's curse Hexlbade's Curse, but it lacks the flavor I'm looking for. I'm looking for a warrior who wields bad luck as a weapon. Here's how I'd handle it:
- the mark is Hexblade's Curse. Like the paladin's mark, it auto-triggers. However, it doesn't directly cause damage. Instead, it brings bad luck upon your foe. The foe grants combat advantage and gains a slight vulnerability to damage. I never got to play a hexblade in 3.5, but I did toy with builds, and I always liked playing it up as a secondary leader. I want that to be the essence of a hexblade. "Fine. Ignore me. That'll just make it so much easier for myself and all my allies."
- Different builds do get an immediate interrupt/reaction tied to their mark, but it's independent of the default curse. Maybe a slide, maybe a knock prone. Perhaps the vulnerable damage is actually one of these builds.
- Greater curses are built into powers. I can just look at 3.5 feats like Curse of Sloth or Curse of the Softened Blade.
maybe they build up a sort of hexblade or black guard, but without moral limits without it (good for a "bad paladin" stereotype but not a "evil" class)
same for the, maybe, necromancer: must not be evil
ncromancer as controller (conjuactions, zones and summons of undeads) or leader (vanish souls to heal allies with it) with some minor in striker (some good attacks)
-> IMHO could be a controller with a "arcane-flavour" buil minor in striker and a "divine-flavour" bil minor in leader: with to bring back the old necromancers who were wizards or clerics
-> some powers who give the impression to use a defeated enemy's body as undead minion (immediate reaction to kill? but the enemy could e also not a humanoid or beast...)
maybe a beguiler for the part of "shadow doesn't mean only undeads but also illusion" like a best replacemen for illusionist as the illusionist wizard
we have already one shadow striker: the assassin
the "I bring illluck to you" is just IMHO a fluff theme, yet covered by the bard
Curse of the Softened Blade.
They have prayers for that, consult your cleric. But if the enchantment lasts longer than four hours, seek immediate medical help from the nearest temple.
So, maybe it's early to be jumping on this bandwagon, as we won't be getting Shadow source classes (outside of Insider) until PH4, but what do you all hope to see there?
Me, I really want the return of the hexblade. Some may say that the swordmage works, especially if you multiclass into warlock, but I disagree. Sure, you could just rename warlock's curse Hexlbade's Curse, but it lacks the flavor I'm looking for. I'm looking for a warrior who wields bad luck as a weapon. Here's how I'd handle it:
- the mark is Hexblade's Curse. Like the paladin's mark, it auto-triggers. However, it doesn't directly cause damage. Instead, it brings bad luck upon your foe. The foe grants combat advantage and gains a slight vulnerability to damage. I never got to play a hexblade in 3.5, but I did toy with builds, and I always liked playing it up as a secondary leader. I want that to be the essence of a hexblade. "Fine. Ignore me. That'll just make it so much easier for myself and all my allies."
- Different builds do get an immediate interrupt/reaction tied to their mark, but it's independent of the default curse. Maybe a slide, maybe a knock prone. Perhaps the vulnerable damage is actually one of these builds.
- Greater curses are built into powers. I can just look at 3.5 feats like Curse of Sloth or Curse of the Softened Blade.
I kind of enjoy this idea of a class. I feel that it offers enough new stuff that it isn't just a rehash of a previous class. I really like the idea of the "bad luck" stuff. I'm not sure if combat advantage + vulnerability would be the way I would go, though. Why not go with the luck system already in place in D&D... the dice! I can see a theme where you have the enemy roll twice, and take the lower roll for attacks and damage. You could even expand that to have your allies roll twice and take the higher roll for attacks and damage. Obviously this is pretty powerful, so it would have to be balanced by frequency and duration, but that would be a really cool theme.
the bard do it already
@Chewie8
the bard do it already
Yes, well, the fighter can already do the basic attack when mark is activated, but assault swordmages get it too. Yes, it's nice for classes to have unique mechanics. But there's only so much uniqueness out there. Perhaps hexblades might have mechnical similarities to prescient bards. But that doesn't make the hexblade only a refluffed bard. They're different enough that I could see it being a unique class without being "too similar." Maybe make one hexblade build focused more on bad luck sabotaging the enemy's attacks, the other focus on aiding allies' damage. Ok, make that mark, and add in a few power and/or feat riders that do the vulnerability/combat advantage/knock prone/etc.
Hexblade
“Is that the best you’ve got? Ha, you really should have just stayed away from me.”
Role: Defender. The forces of destruction are closing in on you and those closest to you at all times, and you have spent your whole life keeping them at bay
Power Source: Shadow. Born under a dark omen, your existence bears the mark of shadow and will forever have doom and woe follow in your footsteps
Key Abilities: Cha with Str or Dex
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide, chain, scale, plate, light shield, heavy shield
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, simple ranged, military melee
Builds: Dark Crusader and Fatespinner
Necromancer
“Rise my minions; let us show these poor souls that there are far worse fates than death.”
Role: Leader. A Necromancer is never short on friends, you use your forbidden knowledge to drain the strength and life force of your foes and empower your allies and minions with it
Power Source: Shadow. Perhaps out of shamelessness or an unconventional sense of morality, you have studied the black art of necromancy and have become a master of both life and death
Key Abilities: Int with Con or Dex
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee
Implement: Staffs, tomes, daggers
Builds: Animator and Pale Master
Beguiler
“I know the dark beast within you, and when I have you crawling at my feet, you will know it too.”
Role: Controller. Your words create shadow constructs out of the darkness within your foes’ heart; these phantasms distort reality and ravage your foes' soul
Power Source: Shadow. Your heart has been warped and withered by bleakness and pain and your mind is infected with the manipulating power of the Shadowfell
Key Abilities: Cha with Dex or Int
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, simple ranged
Implement: Orbs, daggers, wands
Builds: Mindbender and Shadowcaster
@Chewie8
the bard do it already
Yes, the bard does it already. No, the bard does not specialize in exactly what I was thinking. There are a few powers that punish the enemy, but the majority of the powers I saw were for helping your allies. I still think the hexblade has a reasonably clear area of development. The bard is a leader, and its powers show this by helping allies. A hexblade could dive more into the punishing enemies.
@Chewie8
the bard do it already
Yes, the bard does it already. No, the bard does not specialize in exactly what I was thinking. There are a few powers that punish the enemy, but the majority of the powers I saw were for helping your allies. I still think the hexblade has a reasonably clear area of development. The bard is a leader, and its powers show this by helping allies. A hexblade could dive more into the punishing enemies.
And even when the hexblade does help his allies, it's more a form of punishing his enemies, as it needs the mark to trigger it.
Necromancer
“Rise my minions; let us show these poor souls that there are far worse fates than death.”
Role: Leader. A Necromancer is never short on friends, you use your forbidden knowledge to drain the strength and life force of your foes and empower your allies and minions with it
Power Source: Shadow. Perhaps out of shamelessness or an unconventional sense of morality, you have studied the black art of necromancy and have become a master of both life and deathKey Abilities: Int with Con or Dex
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee
Implement: Staffs, tomes, daggersBuilds: Animator and Pale Master
Honestly, this looks more like a Controller, maybe even a Striker, to me. The Leader role is about supporting one's allies; the Shaman is a Pet Leader, yes, but that's because its Spirit Companion is the centerpiece for burst or "channelled" powers that heal allies, let them throw off ongoing damage, boost attack/damage rolls, increase defenses and make new saving throws. That's not really the 'theme' of the Necromancer. Raising and leading hordes of the undead... that's more like a Summoner Wizard/Druid or even a Beastmaster Ranger then a Shaman. Controller with some Leader elements, I could buy that, but straight-up Leader?
In fact, I really think Shadow might be a Source without a Leader, just as Martial doesn't have a Controller, because I can't really think of anything that doesn't seem unsuited for the role. The Illusionist is about the only possibility that occurs to me; their ability to make enemies see things that aren't there, and not see things that are, makes them pretty good candidates for protective Shadow hexes. And that might even be spun as a "caster based" Defender.
Honestly, this looks more like a Controller, maybe even a Striker, to me. The Leader role is about supporting one's allies; the Shaman is a Pet Leader, yes, but that's because its Spirit Companion is the centerpiece for burst or "channelled" powers that heal allies, let them throw off ongoing damage, boost attack/damage rolls, increase defenses and make new saving throws. That's not really the 'theme' of the Necromancer. Raising and leading hordes of the undead... that's more like a Summoner Wizard/Druid or even a Beastmaster Ranger then a Shaman. Controller with some Leader elements, I could buy that, but straight-up Leader?
In fact, I really think Shadow might be a Source without a Leader, just as Martial doesn't have a Controller, because I can't really think of anything that doesn't seem unsuited for the role. The Illusionist is about the only possibility that occurs to me; their ability to make enemies see things that aren't there, and not see things that are, makes them pretty good candidates for protective Shadow hexes. And that might even be spun as a "caster based" Defender.
I really really really like the idea of a Necromancer leader that inspires his allies by instilling an unholy dread of what he may do to them should they fail.
I could see a healing word equivalent that only provides temp hp (deadens the flesh so your ally doesn't feel pain) or that heals for far more than any other class's healing word, but comes with the cost of applying damage later (though not so much that it's not still a net benefit), or even better; the ability to instead of healing with their "word", cause the target to lose a healing surge to gain a damage buff (as you burn out your ally's life force to push them beyond their normal capabilities).
Then toss in some encounter powers or utilities that are vampiric in nature (drain health from your enemies to invigorate your allies. Either immediately or just next ally to hit the target can spend a healing surge, or any permutation thereof.) Add the occasional Bone Armor type power, or interrupts that drain the force of an attack before it can land.
Save the actual "raising the undead" powers for dailys and tailor them along the lines of skeletal warriors (that put their shield between your enemies and adjacent allies) and specters (that you force to possess your friends, giving them some offensive buffs and possibly augmenting their Will defense or other NADs). I can even see that as being part of the divide between sub-Controller and sub-Striker builds.
Fill it out with some pure damage powers and some controllery powers (because every single class has plenty of each, regardless of role), and you've got yourself the makings of a Leader class. Possibly one with the potential to heal even less than the stingiest of Taclords, but a Leader nonetheless.
Although the idea of a pet-based striker class that was designed as a pet-based striker from the ground up and not as a normal striker with a pet build stapled on does intrigue me.
I'm not a huge fan of the name "hexblade," mostly because it sounds too much like swordmage (hexblade to me sounds like it would make a better paragon path for shadow-themed swordmages, kind of like how Shadow Captain is a shadow-themed martial class). I guess I see as shadow defender as more like a death knight from WoW - a heavy armor tank with a vicious streak. "Blackguard" would be my name, as it has a longer tradition in D&D.
Well, change the name to blackguard. But keep the fluff I proposed. I want a bad luck-themed defender. Perhaps the name might sound too much like the swordmage, but the concept is certainly distinct.
And regarding the necromancer - maybe the class could be made to be a primary leader, and certainly it can be a secondary leader, but when I look at the concept "necromancer" outside of rules, I don't think someone who makes his allies stronger. I like the idea of a pet-striker, secondary leader. Make it a secondary leader by improving allies, as you've suggested. There is precedent: avengers (especially the commanding variety) are strikers that improve allies. And it's just cool to have a striker who's striker less by high damage output but rather by above-average damage output and the ability to increase allies' damage output. Also, I'd like to see a striker with summons, if only for inspiration for how to give the warlock summons. It's a real gap currently, infernal warlocks that don't conjure the forces of Hell.
As another idea for necromancers, I'd like to point to Jacob from Dominic Deegan. dominic-deegan.com/ He does such awesome stuff, like pulling out somebody's spine and assembling it into a rapier. Or wearing somebody's skin as a disguise. Or gliding through soil. I hope necromancers get this sort of stuff. I'll admit the bone-sword thing could be leader-ish like an artificer is a leader. Especially if the bone-sword goes to an ally.
It's another odd take, but I'd seen somebody make a necromancer as a caster-defender. I can see that: reanimating the dead to make sure more friends don't die. But again, I see that as a secondary role, not primary. Although I definitely would like a paragon path to play that up.
I just made it a leader to make stand out more as it's own class.
As for the Blackguard, I have always seen that Class as more about being Evil than Dark, and Dark does not equal Evil, and if it's a concept based more on morality than it should go to Divine as morality is the theme of Divine. I think Blackguard would make a awesome Paladin Build.
I would like to see the theme of Shadow be power that is both a gift and a curse, that each class had to give something up for it or that it power that they have been cursed with, thus all shadow powers are called Hexes.
Mechanically, it might be awesome if at least one necromancer build acted like the controller version of a shaman; he gets at will summon abilities, and several of his powers augment, shape, or manipulate things with the undead as the focus.
So he might raise a zombie from the ground, command it to attack as normal, then use an encounter power to make it explode upon death, raining bone and diseased flesh on all opponents in the area. Or have a reaction power that triggers when one of his undead is damaged, and allows him to animate a chopped off bit as a minion in an adjacent square. Or invoke a daily power to create a bigger, tougher, meaner minion of a special type.
The Dreadknight (hexblade is too much like swordmage, blackguard is too tied to antipaladin) is already being discussed, not much to say there.
The fourth class is the problematic one. The Assassin, the Necromancer, the Dreadknight, those are all iconic, have a history, and make sense. The fourth, though, is going to be tricky.
Thematically and mechanically, illusion is already taken by wizards, and psions dominate the charm and manipulation market. Warlocks have curses cornered, and the necro would take care of summoning focus, while guardian druids already have terrain manipulation. Therefore, although I loved the Beguiler, I'm not sure it is enough on its own, unless it got a schtick.
So.
1) Give the Beguiler something unique, such as a mechanical twist to its illusions and phantasms that makes it viable? Or a thematic shift, like playing up the rapier and sword focus of the original class, turning them into a weaponry controller who favors melee or a bit of ranged?
2) Create a second striker of a different variety, something shadowy yet still different from the Assassin?
3) Confrom to that damned symmetry and make a Shadow Leader?
Anyway I really hope they gives out a Necromancer class. That's what I am most excited about. A class than can l summon loads of minions, Creates walls of bones, weaken it's enemies and make them cower in fear. I hope they get minions that is actually minion as in MM and can act on it's own unlike wizard summons. Seems like I'm not the only one having dreams of a Necromancer class.
The Necromancer could very much be a controller, I would just hope that if it does turn out to be a controller that it's made to be very different from the Wizard mechanically.
I just made it a leader to make stand out more as it's own class.
As for the Blackguard, I have always seen that Class as more about being Evil than Dark, and Dark does not equal Evil, and if it's a concept based more on morality than it should go to Divine as morality is the theme of Divine. I think Blackguard would make a awesome Paladin Build.
I would like to see the theme of Shadow be power that is both a gift and a curse, that each class had to give something up for it or that it power that they have been cursed with, thus all shadow powers are called Hexes.
Agreed, Blackguards don't really have the feel of a Shadow class. More divine, though I suppose it could be a build of paladin, I think it should be its own class. I've made a fully functional class that I sent into Dragon. I'll post it if they don't accept it, which will probably be the case, but you can't lose hope.
Could you leech life vampirically from an enemy and donate it to an ally, have skeletal hands pin down an enemy for a friend to hit, or send your buddy's blade aglow with necrotic energy? Sure.
Should it be the core of the class? No.
See, one thing about a Necromancer that I think everyone can agree on is that they Don't Play Well With Others. You always find necromancers in dank lairs surrounded by undead servants, or leading a ghostly army to pillage the village, or when they do work together, huddled together in a whispering cabal of treachery and deception and sacrifice.
Leaders have to play nicely with others, it's their job. A Necromancer shouldn't have to. He shouldn't have his core class features be twice-per-encounter heals, he shouldn't have buff spells as 90% of his power choices, and he shouldn't be contingent upon playing with allies.
The druid proved you can have a bit of healing or buffing within a controller's powers, and a necro could easily have a power or three that vampirically leeched health or sacrificed his own health to grant an ally power.
But the core of the class should focus on what Necros do best, and that's bring death and unleash undeath upon the world. They send waves of necrotic energy to inflict disease and despair, they summon horrific monsters that hunger for living flesh, they play their enemy's bones like a fiddle and rip their skin apart to craft new abominations. They master the forces of the dead and damned, bind them to their will, and unleash them upon their enemies. They don't cure, the hurt. They don't heal, they rend. They don't lift curses, they cast them. They don't remove afflictions, they inflict them. Do they occassionaly master life? Yes. Because it makes them better at killing things and raising their bones.
Necromancers seek power over death. They Control.
Has Wizard given any hints about what shadow classes we will get? Also when will they get out? The Assassin will come out for PHB3 right, but is there any other classes with shadow as power source or do we have to wait for PHB4? Many questions here
Anyway I really hope they gives out a Necromancer class. That's what I am most excited about. A class than can l summon loads of minions, Creates walls of bones, weaken it's enemies and make them cower in fear. I hope they get minions that is actually minion as in MM and can act on it's own unlike wizard summons. Seems like I'm not the only one having dreams of a Necromancer class.
Sorry, Assassin's DDI-only.
Actually a Necromancer could be a leader, for isn't Necromancy the power of Life and Death?
Nah Necromancers are the masters of Undeath and Death. Unless you are a party of Revenants, that shouldn't really lead to being leadery.
Actually a Necromancer could be a leader, for isn't Necromancy the power of Life and Death?
Nah Necromancers are the masters of Undeath and Death. Unless you are a party of Revenants, that shouldn't really lead to being leadery.
Healing used to be in the school of Necromancy. The idea here is that you are bending the very idea of life to your whims. This is a Necromancer; you're not necessarily raising a shambling army of the dead, you're creating a living creature that just happens to spit in the face of actual life!
Healing used to be in the school of Necromancy.
I rest my case. :P
Healing used to be in the school of Necromancy.
I rest my case. :P
My point stands. It's not just control over death, it's control over the rate at which something dies.
My point stands. It's not just control over death, it's control over the rate at which something dies.
Eh, I really don't see it. I see necromancers as having domain only over the dead(minus ritual magic). They can certainly accelerate the rate at which things die, but not decrease it. Certainly we could go round and round on this argument for days on end(and I certainly have before), but I seriously doubt anyone would be convinced by such an expenditure.
So I'm really going to cut to the chase here. We aren't going to see a leader necromancer because the majority of the dammand for the necromancer is from the people who want to play a character that commands hoards of undead. Hoards of undead attacking enemies is not condusive to the leader role. We might end up with a necromancer build that leans towards being leader as a secondary role, but I do not think there is any chance of seeing a necromancer who is a healer before he is commanding hoards of undead(which would be either a controller or striker).
Right. And as Artificers summon, this "undead horde" Necromancer can't possibly be a Leader because...? Look here: Life drain! Transposition of buffing! Pre-emptive healing! The Necromancer archetype has always used existing resources to do his work rather than create something out of nothing. That's a Leader schtick, not a Controller!
Well, change the name to blackguard. But keep the fluff I proposed. I want a bad luck-themed defender. Perhaps the name might sound too much like the swordmage, but the concept is certainly distinct.
Yeah, I can buy a blackguard as a "bad luck" defender. I've heard "blackguard" used as a verb, meaning to insult. Perhaps the "verbal" component of blackguard hexes could be threats and cajoling that bestow bad luck on targets.
"Blackguard" as a word does have scoundrel-like connotations. I think it would be cool if the class embraced that, giving us a scurrilous, traitorous, back-stabbing sort of defender. Given it's recent history in D&D, I also admit that it had evil connotations. But, assassins for the longest time were considered universally evil, so I can see blackguards going the same route. They, along with the other shadow classes, perhaps, have just gotten a bad rap with the common folk.
Actually a Necromancer could be a leader, for isn't Necromancy the power of Life and Death?
Nah Necromancers are the masters of Undeath and Death. Unless you are a party of Revenants, that shouldn't really lead to being leadery.
Necromancy of olden editions consisted largely of Clerics that only really healed Undead.
Just like how Artificers back then could only heal Warforged.
As far as a pet-based Striker Necromancer goes, I'm trying to imagine how such a thing would work.
My current best guess is that there would be a summonable permanent pet probably with mechanics somewhere between the Ranger's and the Shaman's. Attacks would be Implement based and could include the standard Ranged, Area, and Close, as well as Melee Pet or Close Pet. I'm imagining a Monk-like damage boost, where whenever you hit someone, your pet follows up with an auto-damaging melee attack. Perhaps at higher levels, when other strikers would get more dice or other increases, the Necromancer could get additional zombies.
Necromancers could, of course, easily be pet-based controllers. After all, we already have Summoning Druids, Wizards, and Invokers showing us how it could be done. But we already have Druids, Wizards, and Invokers doing that, so I'd really rather see something else from the Necromancer. Now if they can stretch what is currently one build that multiple classes have into an entire class with multiple builds and do it in such a way that it feels different from all the summoners already in the game, then I'm all for it.
I think if it was a Leader, it would not be like any other leader class; it would not be about teamwork and comradery like the others, it would be more about using their allies as tools and vessels for their magic and letting them do the work for you.
They could Necros having a class feature that triggers when an ally drops an enemy to 0, like a corpse explosion or a heal for the ally, maybe depending on the build
And then of course there's always the Amplify Damage Curse from Diablo 2, very leadery
Right. And as Artificers summon, this "undead horde" Necromancer can't possibly be a Leader because...? Look here: Life drain! Transposition of buffing! Pre-emptive healing! The Necromancer archetype has always used existing resources to do his work rather than create something out of nothing. That's a Leader schtick, not a Controller!
Oh yes because when I hear the term undead, my first instinct is healbot.
And what the fudge does creating something out of nothing or using existing resources have to do with role? So does that mean that the druid is a leader and not a controller because he uses the resources he has at hand(his own body) instead of summoning a bear out of thin air for every single one of his attacks? O.o
Edit: Just remembered that the artificer is basically fluffed as making things out of nothing, so clearly it must be a controller. *nods*
Well, change the name to blackguard. But keep the fluff I proposed. I want a bad luck-themed defender. Perhaps the name might sound too much like the swordmage, but the concept is certainly distinct.
Yeah, I can buy a blackguard as a "bad luck" defender. I've heard "blackguard" used as a verb, meaning to insult. Perhaps the "verbal" component of blackguard hexes could be threats and cajoling that bestow bad luck on targets.
"Blackguard" as a word does have scoundrel-like connotations. I think it would be cool if the class embraced that, giving us a scurrilous, traitorous, back-stabbing sort of defender. Given it's recent history in D&D, I also admit that it had evil connotations. But, assassins for the longest time were considered universally evil, so I can see blackguards going the same route. They, along with the other shadow classes, perhaps, have just gotten a bad rap with the common folk.
Change the fact that they serve evil forces into serving Death, which is neutral, and there you go. A sort of grim reaper like fellow, easing the dying's passage, but hunting down those who try to avoid their fate. At least that was my idea.
A Necromancer is indeed similar to the theme of working with whats there, they don't actually summon, they animate, they don't throw fireballs, they explode corpses.
Change the fact that they serve evil forces into serving Death, which is neutral, and there you go. A sort of grim reaper like fellow, easing the dying's passage, but hunting down those who try to avoid their fate. At least that was my idea.
How is that not just a Paladin of the Raven Queen?
I'm just saying you're going to need to be a little more original than that to justify giving the concept a whole class.
I just see the Necromancer/Undead relationship to be the same as the Artificer/Warforged. And if Artificers can be re-tooled to heal more than just constructs in this edition, I don't see why Necromancers can't be given the same treatment.
Besides, looking back at previous editions, Necromancers were either Clerics or the only Wizards in the game with healing effects.
I think what he meant was that a leader often deal with the things already in combat; buffing and healing allies, effecting how enemies interact with allies, undoing effects and conditions, helping allies deal whats already there. A controller creates new aspects to the combat, new factors for both enemies and allies to deal with.
A Necromancer is indeed similar to the theme of working with whats there, they don't actually summon, they animate, they don't throw fireballs, they explode corpses.
But a necromancer class should be able to bring new things into combat. There are remains of creatures all over the place in our world without monsters. In a PoL world the necromancer should easily have more than enough resources to work with just laying in the ground. While technically that is using something already there, it is bringing something new into the battle when the necromancer resurects the skeleton that is buried a few feet under the ground.
*shrug*
I just see the Necromancer/Undead relationship to be the same as the Artificer/Warforged. And if Artificers can be re-tooled to heal more than just constructs in this edition, I don't see why Necromancers can't be given the same treatment.
Besides, looking back at previous editions, Necromancers were either Clerics or the only Wizards in the game with healing effects.
All right. I'll give you that. But let's step back from the history of how necromancy has been handled in D&D in the past. Step away from rules. Just look at fluff. In fantasy in general (not specific to RPGs), what is a necromancer? A specializer in the magic of death and undeath. Yes, some editions of D&D had necromancy as the manipulation of life and death. But is that typical of fantasy, or is that a D&D quirk? And is it iconic enough? Do necromancers usually work well with living allies?- and I'll give you the ability to consider "working well with" as "using to own ends callously." I'd say no. Sure, they can do it, but I don't think it's iconic. Moreover, the using allies at their own expense - can it be heroic? Because 4e doesn't embrace evil characters. They can be morally ambiguous, yes. The warlock (especially dark pact) is a great example. But I'd say there's a line between ambiguity and blatant evil, as it's too easy to slip into with a necromancer-leader who pushes allies on by drawing on their vitality or being creepy and threatening towards them.
I agree with the druid comparrison - I want necromancers to get some healing and buffing effects. But I don't want it to be primary to what they do. That said, I won't oppose a leader-build for them that could fill in as primary leader. But I don't want a necromancer that will be hard-pressed to be succesful at being something other than a leader. So I want a different primary role.
Necromancer: If it shows up it needs to be handled well, but death magic the way a necro iconicly does it is usually seen as evil. Most images of necromancer's are villians, but there are exceptions. I willing to give it a shot.
Blackguard: THis term has historically been a very neggative term. In D&D history(so muteable in a new edition) has had them strictly villians, namely disgraced paladins. I agree with someone though that this could be a build of paladin. My main gripe though is they would be a defender, witch is what I want the next class to be.
Hexblade: I want the hexblade to be a defender. I also like it because it fits the shadow source, but isn't a class that dabbles in "dark" magic, it is a class that has "dark" magic thrust upon it. THe shadow source is likely to have a lot of characters like the assassin, weilding dark power by choice. The hexblade is a great place to put a sympathetic (cursed) arch into the source. Also it was one of my favorite classes from 3.5 and I want it back.
Other classes thrown out: Beguiler-controller, Witch-Leader. I have heard very little in the way of striker ideas outside of the assassin.
In fantasy in general (not specific to RPGs), what is a necromancer?
Typically, a Necromancer is someone who doesn't make an appearance once the fighting starts :P
As said before, I really like the idea of Necromancers as a Leader class, though I see them performing a lot of effects that trade their allies' health or healing surges for buffs. Not necessarily healing so much as instilling their allies/minions with an unholy vigor. I can see them with Dailys that allow their allies to continue fighting after their hp has dropped below zero. I see them hurting their allies even as they push them harder.
But the more I think about it, the more I would also like to see Necromancers as a pet based striker. Something that can reliably keep a few minions on the field but focuses more on applying pain to his enemies than just keeping them occupied like Controller summons.
Really, I'd like to see both of those classes whether or not they end up having the name Necromancer.
Controller just feels redundant with all the other summoning Controllers out there, but if were done in a way that made them feel different, I wouldn't be disappointed.
Defender just wouldn't make any kind of sense.
Speaking of Controllers, I'd be interested in seeing how they could make a Beguiler that was thematically different from an Illusionist Wizard or a Telepath Psion.
That's a rather brilliant idea; summons as a way to strike swiftly and deal damage.
Mobility is solved by the ability to raise a minion or three from different points on the battlefield.
Damage is obtained by the dead and damned lunging for the flesh of the living.
Aftereffects, like the warlock's curse, could take a fallen enemy slain by the necromancer and add it to the horde.
And it would be mechanically unique, merging summoning with a role it has not touched.
Nice idea.
Agreed, Blackguards don't really have the feel of a Shadow class. More divine, though I suppose it could be a build of paladin
And prior to the Insider class Most people were of the opinion that ASSASSIN was just a rogue build. WotC themselves even started with the concept of a dual power source class (martial/arcane) before repurposing it for Shadow.
See, one thing about a Necromancer that I think everyone can agree on is that they Don't Play Well With Others. You always find necromancers in dank lairs surrounded by undead servants, or leading a ghostly army to pillage the village, or when they do work together, huddled together in a whispering cabal of treachery and deception and sacrifice.
Yes, but those kind of Necromancers are villains, or at best hermit-like NPCs. The heroic class needs to be different, not some death obsessed cultist, but a true master of both Life and Death. This takes the concept of Necromancy back to it's first edition roots (when cure spells and resurrection were necromantic). That said I think that the leader necromancer would still be a strong sub-controller (near but not quite 50/50). The 4e Necromancer needs to be the class that takes the basic concept of a 4e leader (buffing/heeling while still being an offensive threat) and dial it up to 11. Both because it moves the concept of necromancer out of brooding villain and into viable PC territory, and also because it's the most viable concept for a shadow leader (beguiler already gives shadow a viable controller).
Oh yes because when I hear the term undead, my first instinct is healbot.
IThere is a huge gap between the role of leader and a HEALBOT. Clerics are healbots, but warlords and bards are very much not.
In fantasy in general (not specific to RPGs), what is a necromancer? A specializer in the magic of death and undeath. Yes, some editions of D&D had necromancy as the manipulation of life and death. But is that typical of fantasy, or is that a D&D quirk? And is it iconic enough? Do necromancers usually work well with living allies?
Atypical is a shaman in post-apocalyptic setting who manipulates the forces of nature and the elements, but in doing so hastens the final destruction of the world. this was justified by the idea that it was the power of death, or rather power from death (of the world).
What we're discussing, a necromancer who drains the life of enemies to revitalize his allies, is fairly typical. As for should necromancers work well with allies? The answer must be resounding yes, or else it's a poor PC concept. The problem is that too many people seem to want to replicate a concept of NPC necromancers, which just aren't viable as a heroic concept.
Summoning isn't a focus in 4th ed, and most such spells are dailies, so I wouldn't expect a necromancer to be able to summon an army.
Yes, dark pact warlocks have some attacks that hurt your allies, but no one likes that.
What's wrong with more than one defender class? There are multiple striker classes in the martial power source, Rogue + Ranger?
Shadow Striker.. hmmm... I 'll try to think of one...
And prior to the Insider class Most people were of the opinion that ASSASSIN was just a rogue build.
I suppose we will just have to take your word on that.
IMO even if that was true, those people would have been off target. The Assassin and the Blackguard were and still are different stories; I feel that the while the Assassin was very similar to Rogue in the past, it's relation to the Rohue is not what defines it, the Blackguard on the other hand IMO is defined by it's contrast to the Paladin archetype. If you ask me, the Blackguard's contrast to the Paladin is really the only thing that makes it interesting, if you take that away you just have a evil guy in armor and that's pretty boring IMO. Let's face it, Anti-Paladin is the concept behind the blackguard, which is a fine concept, but not for a whole class, it makes a much better Paladin Build.
Because now in 4E there are Evil Paladins and also there are no more Ex-Paladins, a Paladin can't loose their power from straying in their beliefs; so Blackguards would just be Paladins of an evil dogma that have turned goodish and still retain their powers, which I think is a great concept although it's a too specific to be a full on class it would make a great build.
This takes the concept of Necromancy back to it's first edition roots (when cure spells and resurrection were necromantic).
And the ones casting those cure spells were clerics.
Meanwhile, the necromancy-focused wizards did no such thing. They couldn't cast those spells; healing was a divine thing, and the Necromancer focused casters, being arcanists, were all about inflicting conditions, summoning undead, and throwing around death energy like confetti. That's the necro's thing.
If you want to examine how a summoning leader works, look at the shaman and the artificer. Most of their abilities involve healing, protection, aiding, and buffing party members. Does that sound remotely like necromantic pastimes?
When you try to make them masters of Life and Death by turning them into leaders, they lose the latter in favor of the former. Being a leader means less time inflicting conditions, channeling death magic, crafting horrific hexes, sending undead hordes to tear foes asunder, and raining doom and despair upon all in front of you. In other words, less time using all the arcane Necromancy of the past.
Because now in 4E there are Evil Paladins and also there are no more Ex-Paladins, a Paladin can't loose their power from straying in their beliefs
This is exactly why I think Blackguard is an ideal candidate to be repurposed. Now that there are actual evil paladins the Blackguard doesn't have to be a mere mechanical mirror. Instead they can focus on being a conceptual mirror. Where as paladins are champions of faith, the blackguard is a faithless warrior who seeks dark power because he doesn't believes the if he doesn't take matters into his own hands than no one will. The paladin sees the best in people, the Black guard sees the worst. The paladin defends against monsters that lurk in the darkness, while the black guard defends while lurking in the darkness. The paladin is superman, the blackguard batman.
Some blackguards might be the champions of evil, but only because they have given up on "humanity" and succumbed to their own inner darkness (though they might still see themselves as the hero, the only one willing to go to the extremes needed to save a world that hardly deserves to be saved). The heroic blackguard however is the kind or hero who suffers alone in the dark so others won't have to.
If you want to examine how a summoning leader works, look at the shaman and the artificer. Most of their abilities involve healing, protection, aiding, and buffing party members. Does that sound remotely like necromantic pastimes?
If you think of a necromancer as manipulating forces of Life *and* Death, yes. Healing or Temporary HP via bolstering the target's life force, similar special effects for other buffs and aids. Works perfectly for me.
Leaders also debuff, which would be sapping or suppressing lifeforce to penalize attacks and defenses. Sounds right up the necromancer's alley to me.
No, it's not like the necromancy of yore. Considering how many pains in the butt it brought with it (Level drain? Ability damage?!), I can't think of this as a bad thing.
I can't think of this as a bad thing.
+1
if he doesn't take matters into his own hands than no one will. The paladin sees the best in people, the Black guard sees the worst. The paladin defends against monsters that lurk in the darkness, while the black guard defends while lurking in the darkness. The paladin is superman, the blackguard batman.
IMO that kind of dichotomy has been represented in the Paladin vs. Avenger
I just don't see the Blackguard so much as a anti-hero than I do as an ex-villain.
The heroic blackguard however is the kind or hero who suffers alone in the dark so others won't have to.
That's a great concept, but one I would like to see from the Hexblade
No, it's not like the necromancy of yore. Considering how many pains in the butt it brought with it (Level drain? Ability damage?!), I can't think of this as a bad thing.
Yes, but it is still the theme.
A Leader class is a master of Life. They are reliant, dependant, and focused upon their living allies. They protect them. They heal them. They help them make saving throws. They cure their afflictions. They provide them with defensive boosts. They use their own success to bolster their teammates so that others can carry the day.
None of which has anything to do with the Necromancy of Yore.
If you want a summoning leader, that's already been done. The artificer and the shaman fulfill these roles completly, and if you want to refluff, the artificer even includes powers like Life-Tapping Darts for the vampiric healing vibe, and corporeal forms to boost and augment so they can help your friends. The shaman, meanwhile, has an easy time pretending to call ghosts, wights, and spectres to aid allies.
But the themes of Necromancy from the past, the ability to raise a small minion army, the use of disease, despair, and degeneration to sap the strength of foes, the manipulation of undead flesh into strange, exotic, and distorted forms, the channeling of pure death to decimate the enemy and raise his newly corpsified flesh as one of your puppets....those themes are the ones unfulfilled and hungry for mechanics.
And the ones casting those cure spells were clerics.
Meanwhile, the necromancy-focused wizards did no such thing. They couldn't cast those spells; healing was a divine thing, and the Necromancer focused casters, being arcanists, were all about inflicting conditions, summoning undead, and throwing around death energy like confetti. That's the necro's thing.
Yet clerics have also been the other side of the necromantic coin, 3.5 even had a prestige class that existed to blend the cleric and wizard aspects of necromancy. As for healing being the purview of the divine, that's just not how things work any more (see the Bard and Artificer).
Sure necromancers should be inflicting conditions, but while they drain their enemies leaving them sick and week they might as well channel that strength to alleviate the ailments of their allies. Yes they should drain the life from their enemies leaving them a dried husk, but they might as well channel the siphoned energy to heal their allies. The necromancer is the master of balance, they steel the life of some so that others may live.
IMO that kind of dichotomy has been represented in the Paladin vs. Avenger
But the avenger is still at it's core a warrior of faith. It might be the aggressive alternative to the paladin's defensive nature, but they aren't anti-paladins because ultimately they fight for the same cause. This is also why Blackguard shouldn't just be a paladin build. Because even the champion of an evil god is still a defender of the faith.
There might be two possible builds of necromancer:
Dread Necromancer: The more controller-oriented build (perhaps with a secondary Striker focus), with a focus on summons and necrotic blasts. A class feature may cause temporary undead minions to rise when the necromancer reduces opponents to 0 HP, which damage and harass nearby enemies.
Blood Necromancer: The secondary Leader build, who possesses a lot of soul-draining and debuff abilities. A class feature may let the necromancer grant temporary HP to allies when an enemy is reduced to 0 HP.
The Shadowcaster from the Tome of Magic would, imo, be one of the most obvious choices for a shadow-powered class. Most likely as a ranger striker/controller.
"I wish I could say what bothers me more... that shadowcasters claim darkness is the greatest power in the cosmos, or that a small part of me believes they might be right." -Jinna Aurinaire, priestess of Pelor.
So much talk about blackguards and necromancers, yet nothing about Shadowcasters?!
The shadowcaster has been discussed, maybe not here, but in other previous threads. Generally it's blended with the beguiler to make a stronger and more versatile class concept. At this point that merged concept often goes solely by the beguiler name, since shadowcaster is overly generic sounding (all shadow classes could possibly be considered shadowcasters, or at least the implement users).
I think your ideas would be great if they were integrated into Hexblades.
(And I also think there should be more melee choices for Warlocks, but I don't think that should sacrifice the Hexblade as it's own class).
aside from giving 'em a role and then the powers, I think it's much better to think about possibly powers, and then see how they fit in a role structure
Necromancer:
- raising the killed enemy as a zombie / scheleton / whatever undead
- unleashing heavy burst of necrotic energy on enemies
- zombie hands who come up from the soil, grab the enemies and pin down them
- drain life energy from an enemy and convoy it in your ally
- infuse your allies with necrotic energy to give them the resilience of undeads
- summon undead hordes (in 4E mechanics: mobile and attaching zones or summon single creature with swarm keyword as to seem like a group of undeads)
- invoke darkness to conceal your allies
- invoke darkness where to suffocate your enemies
- control a more powerful undead (4E: shaman-like pet of daily single summon)
- summon multiple undeads (daily power for summoning not a single monster but multiple undead-like minion monsters)
- paralize an ennemies with fear of death, make them flee
- rip out flesh and bones from a living enemy, causing them to bleed and suffer at every move/attack/action
Beguiler:
- control enemy's mind (psion-like)
- invoke a illusory wall (wizard-like)
- disguise allies
- make ememies attack each other, thinking about to attack monsters
Conclusions:
the powers I find for the necromancer cover many roles, so it's not time to establish main/secondary role
the powers I founded yet for the beguiler and few and seem the ones of other classes, so it's a concept who needs more work and a totaly new mechanic (maybe the case for a casterish ranger defender who lets emenyes attack fake illusion copies of your allies instead them?)
Again, Tharag_Bocc, I like your ideas, but I would have to disagree on the power of the Blackguard name. It's too villainous a term. Necromancers and Assassins weren't always evil. Blackguards were.
I think your ideas would be great if they were integrated into Hexblades.
(And I also think there should be more melee choices for Warlocks, but I don't think that should sacrifice the Hexblade as it's own class).
Is it in bad taste to give a +2 before a +1
...all the opinions aout Necromancer and Beguiler are valuable
aside from giving 'em a role and then the powers, I think it's much better to think about possibly powers, and then see how they fit in a role structure
Necromancer:
- raising the killed enemy as a zombie / scheleton / whatever undead
- unleashing heavy burst of necrotic energy on enemies
- zombie hands who come up from the soil, grab the enemies and pin down them
- drain life energy from an enemy and convoy it in your ally
- infuse your allies with necrotic energy to give them the resilience of undeads
- summon undead hordes (in 4E mechanics: mobile and attaching zones or summon single creature with swarm keyword as to seem like a group of undeads)
- invoke darkness to conceal your allies
- invoke darkness where to suffocate your enemies
- control a more powerful undead (4E: shaman-like pet of daily single summon)
- summon multiple undeads (daily power for summoning not a single monster but multiple undead-like minion monsters)
- paralize an ennemies with fear of death, make them flee
- rip out flesh and bones from a living enemy, causing them to bleed and suffer at every move/attack/action
Beguiler:
- control enemy's mind (psion-like)
- invoke a illusory wall (wizard-like)
- disguise allies
- make ememies attack each other, thinking about to attack monsters
Conclusions:
the powers I find for the necromancer cover many roles, so it's not time to establish main/secondary role
the powers I founded yet for the beguiler and few and seem the ones of other classes, so it's a concept who needs more work and a totaly new mechanic (maybe the case for a casterish ranger defender who lets emenyes attack fake illusion copies of your allies instead them?)
If the necromancer archetype is so broad, maybe it could be divided into multiple classes (like how some of the Druid's functionality split off to the Warden and Shaman).
Some basic ideas:
Reaper: Shadow Striker
Key Abilities: Intelligence, Dexterity, Strength
A necromantic "gish" class which straddles the line between life and death. The reaper's builds take on the properties of various undead, such as vampires, ghosts, and ghouls. This would be the ideal place for ghoul touch, vampiric touch, and other offensive necromancy spells. This class will probably be less sneaky than the Assassin, and more focused on a combination of melee and ranged necrotic attacks.
Some of the "draining life to bolster allies" skills could be moved to the Reaper rather than the Necromancer, to give it a secondary Leader focus.
Necromancer: Shadow Controller
Key Abilities: Intelligence, Charisma, Constitution
The undead summoner focused on controlling the dead and the powers of darkness and death.
Beguiler: Shadow Controller
Key Abilities: Charisma, Intelligence, Dexterity
A second controller with more of a roguish flavor; a trickster dedicated to manipulating the shadows in order to befuddle and trick enemies. Will probably absorb the shadowcaster and incorporate some of its tricks.
Witch: Shadow Leader
Key Abilities: Charisma, Wisdom, Constitution
A leader class with a secondary talent at control, focused on cursing enemies in order to help allies fight. The class might mix aspects of the Prescient Bard build with some properties of the Warlock.
Hexblade: Shadow Defender
Key Abilities: Strength, Intelligence, Charisma
An offensive class focused on cursing enemies in order to encourage them to attack him, and which debilitate foes if they go after other targets.
Again, Tharag_Bocc, I like your ideas, but I would have to disagree on the power of the Blackguard name. It's too villainous a term. Necromancers and Assassins weren't always evil. Blackguards were.
And again I disagree. Also, I must wonder how I manage to see any of your posts, as we clearly live in different plains of the multiverse. In the universe I live in "assassin" has a far more unsavory context than "blackguard".
An assassin is little more than a sanctioned killer at best, and a blatant murder at worst. Blackguards were just knights that lacked or concealed their noble heraldry, which while a violation of the code of chivalry, did not nasally make them a villain (at least not by modern sensibilities). The term was certainly a slur historically and has received a lot of negative spin in modern fantasy, but in context they have more in common with a costumed vigilante.
A 4e blackguard could simply be a paladin tied to the shadowfell, capable of commanding necrotic powers and leading undead armies. A blackguard could be a loyal servant to the ravenqueen or a specialist in battling abyssal minions and demon princes. It could be very different from the 3e version.
We know we will eventually get a necromancer and no matter how we dance around the fact, necromancers are usually evil and their magic is one of the darkest there is. They're abomination creators. Assassins are also usually evil. Saying we will never get this or that because its "evil" is not a good enough reason. There is no alignment restrictions in 4e, so a blackguard doesn't have to be evil, even if the fluff leans towards it. We don't even have to use alignment in 4e, which makes what alignment it could be irrelevant. We are capable of playing whatever character type we want, good or evil or neither. We can be heroic, selfless murderers if we want. That's 4e.
But again, I encourage people to design what they like themselves. Don't wait for wotc to do it for you, because they might never do it. 4e is the puppies and kitties edition, after all.
Anyway to the topic, I really hope that the Shadow power source just does not turn into the Emo power source. I am fine with it being the "outsiders" power source as it will deal with the more...unsavory aspects of being a hero. But, if it's flavor is really "Emo/Anti-Hero" I am going to be more then a little disappionted. This does come from one the oversateration of Anti-heros in the late 90's to mid 2000's. And well, really if you had an "Emo Player" at your table...you know...
Once again, sorry for bringing my pet peeve into this.
First the Hashshashin (Where the assassin originated) was a religious order that did not always kill, but would threaten. They were also, a sect of the Shi'a not just sancationed killers. Sorry I know beside the point, but it's a pet peeve of mine when people bring up assassins.
Sorry to have added to your discontent. I'd have mentioned the hashshashin, but I consider it to be separate concept (covered by the Avenger class), despite the fact that it is the etymological origin of the word assassin.
. I will admit it is silly to get alittle in arms/uppity about it, I mean it is only a game
. But, hey we all have our one thing right? Assassins have changed a great deal over the years, but now it's like the Warlock in that it may have been a past mistake and you can be good.
For the Blackguard, Paladins were honorable and good, Blackguards dishonorable and evil. Paladins have lost the good part, so we could take away the blackguard's evil part. Is dishonorable bad, think of that everytime you use Coup De Grace.
Yes, Hexblade seems similar to Swordmage, but isn't Assassin similar to Rogue on the same sort of level (for the most part)? After all, apparently everyone thought that Assassin would be a rogue build. They could each approach their tactics differntly. Swordmage = Elemental forces Hexblade = dark hexes.
Blackguard and Hexblade could both be defenders. Blackguards I see as divine rather than shadow though (for even in older editions they were serving higher forces that granted them power.)
I think one problem is people are holding on to the old concept of what classes used to be like. Assassins from 3e share almost nothing with the 4e version, barring a little flavor and the name.
A 4e blackguard could simply be a paladin tied to the shadowfell, capable of commanding necrotic powers and leading undead armies. A blackguard could be a loyal servant to the ravenqueen or a specialist in battling abyssal minions and demon princes. It could be very different from the 3e version.
We know we will eventually get a necromancer and no matter how we dance around the fact, necromancers are usually evil and their magic is one of the darkest there is. They're abomination creators. Assassins are also usually evil. Saying we will never get this or that because its "evil" is not a good enough reason. There is no alignment restrictions in 4e, so a blackguard doesn't have to be evil, even if the fluff leans towards it. We don't even have to use alignment in 4e, which makes what alignment it could be irrelevant. We are capable of playing whatever character type we want, good or evil or neither. We can be heroic, selfless murderers if we want. That's 4e.
But again, I encourage people to design what they like themselves. Don't wait for wotc to do it for you, because they might never do it. 4e is the puppies and kitties edition, after all.
Plus, if you build the class the way you see it should be, then you'll never be disappointed.
When it comes to the blackguard, I would much rather see this as a PP for a paladin that is Shadow source. Here is where we could start exploring the possibility of power sources mingling.
Or, of course we can just leave the Blackguard out of Shadow and leave it Divine .
Meh, if it was a PP for paladin I guess it would be fine, though I like the idea of it being its own class.
Is there really enough for there to do a whole 30 lvls with say 4 builds, 8 pp, 5 ed ,and 4 racial pp that are not human and tiefling? (I choose those numbers with a shadow power book in mind also)
It might be that I am not fully considering all the possilbe options that a blackguard could be though. I am still in the mind frame of a more fallen paladin for one. I suppose a Shadow leader that summons minions that seconds as a defender then that would fit the bill for one.
Still one the fence though of a full class
So much talk about blackguards and necromancers, yet nothing about Shadowcasters?!
The shadowcaster has been discussed, maybe not here, but in other previous threads. Generally it's blended with the beguiler to make a stronger and more versatile class concept. At this point that merged concept often goes solely by the beguiler name, since shadowcaster is overly generic sounding (all shadow classes could possibly be considered shadowcasters, or at least the implement users).
Imo, there's quite a big differance between beguilers and shadowcasters. Beguilers are more or less rogues/illusionists (Strikers) while shadowcasters are pure spellcasters (Controllers). The shadowcaster by itself is versatile enough as it is. If anything, some beguiler aspects might be incorporated into the shadowcaster.
Come to think of it has that kind of hexblade been brought up, or have more posts been about just retooling the original hexblade?
Ahhh see I think I am with alot of people in seeing the Hexblade as the shadow striker, but I see them like the shadow infused ranger. They can do some nifty ranged shadow attacks, or they can infuse whatever the weapon of choice with shadow for melee options.
Come to think of it has that kind of hexblade been brought up, or have more posts been about just retooling the original hexblade?
From what I've seen mostly retooling the 3.5 edition.
I want it to be a defender namely because I think the mark is a perfect representation of this hex. I've even offered a couple of times the idea of an aura based mark, making him focused on keep his opponents with in the boundries of his curse.
. In a year we shall see.Hmmm, a concept I had not considered, and a very good one Jedi, you may have sold me on it
Thank you and yeah we will, i just want to see the hexblade in some form, but I like the idea i've come up with a lot.
The Assassin makes a dire trade-off for the power of the shadowfell, they give up a part of their soul for their power, some regret that choice and for some it was the only choice they had. They are the desperate heroes who embrace dark power because no one else will help them.
The Avenger is our dark crusader, the one who throws honor out the window and does whatever it takes to defeat their enemies, they are willing to go to the lengths that others would never stoop to. They are shameless heroes who embrace a dark mentality because no one else will go there.
The evil Paladin is the righteous enforcer of tyrannical dogma, an evil god's iron fist.
Between those three classes, I don't see any real open niche for the Blackguard class you're talking about, all that stuff is already covered.
The Hexblade however is a dark knight that doe's not step on any classes toes; unlike Assassin they're born with their powers, unlike Avenger and Paladin they don't crusade out of principle so much as do it for survival, sense of responsibility and to prove to themselves they are not just a burden on the world. That too me is a unique enough concept to deserve it's own class.
If you can come up with a concept for Blackguard thats not just an Assassin wearing armor who's trying to take the the Avenger's job just to spite Paladins who they feel are lazy for some reason.
I mean I really am expecting a picture of a Jared Leto looking guy with hair over his eye in the book for one of the classes, and a coupon to Hot Topic to fall out of the book.
Any spec on the races associated with the source?
Well Shadar Ki may go the way of the Minotaur, Gnolls for that matter too, they would fit in quite well
If the classes use my stats, the Shadar Ki would make great Necros and they would be ok Beguilers, Gnolls would make ok Necros
Not trying to be rude, I just reread this post and wasnt sure if it sounded rude or didnt.
Is there really enough for there to do a whole 30 lvls with say 4 builds, 8 pp, 5 ed ,and 4 racial pp that are not human and tiefling? (I choose those numbers with a shadow power book in mind also)
It might be that I am not fully considering all the possilbe options that a blackguard could be though. I am still in the mind frame of a more fallen paladin for one. I suppose a Shadow leader that summons minions that seconds as a defender then that would fit the bill for one.
Still one the fence though of a full class
In the build I sent in, the Blackguard is the divine servant of Death and keeper of fates. He hunts down those who try to avoid it, while easing the passage of those who accept. The two builds were the Reaper Blackguard and the Shade Blackguard, one focusing on ranged attacks and some stealth and the other on armor and strikes.
PP were Grim Reaper which focused on marks, Necroguard which focuses on defense, Black Knight takes damage from a curse but can give it to enemies, and Ghost Warrior which uses poison and can become ghostly.
I made a multi-class feat, 4 heroic feats, 3 paragon feats, and 1 epic feat.
I didn't make an epic destiny since those aren't usually based on class (exception Archmage).
38 heroic tier powers, 29 paragon tier powers (12 from paragon paths), and 17 epic tier powers.
Rather than using implements, my Blackguard gains points in a Death Count that grants not only the implement bonuses, but could adapt several utility powers and some daily powers in his arsenal.
I made the Blackguard use Strikes rather than Smites so most of his powers are called strikes, he also uses poison, has a few powers that sort of attribute Sneak Attacks, and has a bursts and ranged attacks.
His mark is similar to the Swordmage, but pulled instead of teleported and if the target couldn't be pulled into your attack, all adjacent enemies take a small amount of damage.
I think there's still room for adaptation in terms of summoning. If I recall correctly, all the summoning powers we've seen so far have been daily powers that summoned single creatures that were intended to individually effect the encounter for a extended period of time. The summoned critters had a decent amount of HP, a way to either heal them or increase their starting HP, and more often than not, multiple attacks.
Now, when I think of Necromantic summoning, I think more of quantity than quality. If I'm calling skeletons up out of the ground, I'm not really expecting them to take much punishment or contribute long-term. I'm thinking I'm calling up a couple shambling corpses at a time to gang up on an enemy and maul him. If it only takes one well-placed swing from the enemy to destroy a skeleton, so what? It's a walking pile of bones, I can have two more staggering that direction before that enemy even finishes his swing...
How does this translate?
- A class feature At-will power that summon two 1HP minion skeletons. They have your defenses, and can only make melee basic attacks. (If this seems too powerful, allow them to be damaged on a miss or set a limit to how many skeletons you can have summoned at a time)
- AoE powers refluffed to represent skeletal limbs rising from the ground to hinder and attack enemies.
- Daily powers, like the other classes', that summon more powerful, lasting undead.
- a class feature that recharges summoning powers when nearby enemies die.
I think the best way to differentiate necromancers in terms of summoning is to make the class revolve around it, not just one build. Make the class focus on it - you're summoning lackeys to do your fighting for you, not using them to augment your own battlefield prowess.
Also, one thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is rituals. I can very easily see Nercomancers getting their own subset of rituals, like Bardic rituals, showing power over life and death. For example, zombie porters to lug around equipment and treasure, conjuring undead mounts for overland travel, undead acting as sentinels around a campsite, etc. And let's be honest, there couldn't be a better class to use Raise Dead and Speak with the Dead. And while ritual casting isn't the SOLE province of Controllers, it's close.
I think the best way to implement the classic Necromancer in 4E is as a controller. You're likely not well-armored or physically imposing, so you find a safe place behind the defender or some defensible terrain, and start calling wave after wave of the dead up to both defend their master and destroy his enemies. While your minions handle their business, you take necrotic potshots at other enemies and conjure up walls of bones and zones of vicious undead to control the ebb and flow of battle. Then, once the fight's over, pick up the severed head of a deceased foe and ask it a few questions...
Blackguard and Hexblade could both be defenders. Blackguards I see as divine rather than shadow though (for even in older editions they were serving higher forces that granted them power.)
Blackguards of old were (in my opinions) more like the allies of evil than the servants of evil (compare that one was far more likely to see a blackguard as the general leading an army of fiends than a paladin leading an army of angels). They gained power through contact with evil outsiders, but those allies were usual only demons/devils, not gods. In some cases their "patrons" might be as powerful as a demon prince or archdevil, but often they might instead be associated with mere mid-level fiends (who might be in a more codependent, or even slave like position relative to the blackguard). Either way it's a far cry from the god powered champion that defines the modern divine archetype. Sure their spells were classified as divine in editions past, but then so were druids.
The thing I don't like the most about a Shadow Blackguard class, is that if it's not an Anti-Paladin, then what is it?
They'd still be anti-paladins in a sense, but it would be along purely thematic lines rather than out of alignment based mechanical necessity. The paladin is defined by his faith in a higher power, the blackguard would be defined by only having faith in himself. While the paladin is no longer dependent on their deities approval, their power is still rooted in the concept of a divine servant. The blackguard takes the power he needs to get the job done and doesn't care who he ticks off in the process.
That said it's not entirely essential that the blackguard concept be strictly tied to that of anti-paladin. While most associated with and obviously built for the fallen paladin archetype, the 3e prestige class mentioned that fighters, rogues, and even bards might seek to become blackguards. While a fighter/blackguard would likely feel very similar to the default paladin/blackguard, the idea of a rogue/blackguard or bard/blackguard seems different enough that I can see plenty of opportunity for multiple archetypes and build variety within the base concept.
The Avenger is our dark crusader, the one who throws honor out the window and does whatever it takes to defeat their enemies, they are willing to go to the lengths that others would never stoop to. They are shameless heroes who embrace a dark mentality because no one else will go there.
Avengers aren't all that dark though. They might use unsavory methods but they are still ultimately defined by their faith in their deity. Their not s much dark as they are secrets agents (and should they be caught their church will deny any knowledge of their existence).
Blackguard and Hexblade could both be defenders. Blackguards I see as divine rather than shadow though (for even in older editions they were serving higher forces that granted them power.)
Blackguards of old were (in my opinions) more like the allies of evil than the servants of evil (compare that one was far more likely to see a blackguard as the general leading an army of fiends than a paladin leading an army of angels). They gained power through contact with evil outsiders, but those allies were usual only demons/devils, not gods. In some cases their "patrons" might be as powerful as a demon prince or archdevil, but often they might instead be associated with mere mid-level fiends (who might be in a more codependent, or even slave like position relative to the blackguard). Either way it's a far cry from the god powered champion that defines the modern divine archetype. Sure their spells were classified as divine in editions past, but then so were druids.The thing I don't like the most about a Shadow Blackguard class, is that if it's not an Anti-Paladin, then what is it?
They'd still be anti-paladins in a sense, but it would be along purely thematic lines rather than out of alignment based mechanical necessity. The paladin is defined by his faith in a higher power, the blackguard would be defined by only having faith in himself. While the paladin is no longer dependent on their deities approval, their power is still rooted in the concept of a divine servant. The blackguard takes the power he needs to get the job done and doesn't care who he ticks off in the process.
That said it's not entirely essential that the blackguard concept be strictly tied to that of anti-paladin. While most associated with and obviously built for the fallen paladin archetype, the 3e prestige class mentioned that fighters, rogues, and even bards might seek to become blackguards. While a fighter/blackguard would likely feel very similar to the default paladin/blackguard, the idea of a rogue/blackguard or bard/blackguard seems different enough that I can see plenty of opportunity for multiple archetypes and build variety within the base concept.The Avenger is our dark crusader, the one who throws honor out the window and does whatever it takes to defeat their enemies, they are willing to go to the lengths that others would never stoop to. They are shameless heroes who embrace a dark mentality because no one else will go there.
Avengers aren't all that dark though. They might use unsavory methods but they are still ultimately defined by their faith in their deity. Their not s much dark as they are secrets agents (and should they be caught their church will deny any knowledge of their existence).
That doesn't sound like shadow, though. Frankly, it sounds Martial or Psionic (faith in onesself is a feature of those two power sources, rather than drawing power from some sort of energy source).
The thing I don't like the most about a Shadow Blackguard class, is that if it's not an Anti-Paladin, then what is it?
They'd still be anti-paladins in a sense, but it would be along purely thematic lines rather than out of alignment based mechanical necessity. The paladin is defined by his faith in a higher power, the blackguard would be defined by only having faith in himself. While the paladin is no longer dependent on their deities approval, their power is still rooted in the concept of a divine servant. The blackguard takes the power he needs to get the job done and doesn't care who he ticks off in the process.
That's not what I was asking exactly, I want to know why are they Shadow? What is their origin if not religious? What differentiates them from Assassins
The bolded text, IMO, could also be a Paladin; a Paladin could easily be someone who just conned their powers just to have powers, like you said, the paladin is no longer dependent on their deities approval.
That said it's not entirely essential that the blackguard concept be strictly tied to that of anti-paladin. While most associated with and obviously built for the fallen paladin archetype, the 3e prestige class mentioned that fighters, rogues, and even bards might seek to become blackguards. While a fighter/blackguard would likely feel very similar to the default paladin/blackguard, the idea of a rogue/blackguard or bard/blackguard seems different enough that I can see plenty of opportunity for multiple archetypes and build variety within the base concept.
That doesn't sound like shadow, though. Frankly, it sounds Martial or Psionic (faith in onesself is a feature of those two power sources, rather than drawing power from some sort of energy source).
You seem to have misunderstood me, my blackguard doesn't HAVE power through faith in himself, he TAKES power because he puts faith in no one but himself.
a Paladin could easily be someone who just conned their powers just to have powers, like you said, the paladin is no longer dependent on their deities approval.
Paladins no longer have a mechanical dependency on their deity (the rules won't punish you for failing to RP the tenants of faith), but paladins still have a very thematic dependency on their deity (that's why the power source is called divine). Also while I think it's just fine to have divine characters who are over zealous extremists or might even have fallen from grace, I draw the line at gaining the power through trickier. God aren't just powerfully outsiders, THEY ARE GODS, the idea that a mere mortal (a pre-1st level character no less) could trick them is practically inconceivable. Trick the church, sure. Long enough to undergo the ritual investiture of power, maybe. At that point however flavor text suggests that the deity, or at least an aspect there of, tests the resolve of the prospectant devotee. Even in settings where the deities are distant and/or non-existent, there's an implication that the ritual works as something of a mirror of the soul, thus if the belief is anything less than true the investiture will fail. The only way I can see the concept gaining divine power through trickery is with a god of trickery, but in that case such would serve the deity's needs and likely be a required component of the investiture process.
As for what makes my particular blackguard the concept shadow? I supposes not all that much, it could probably be another power source, but what makes the warlock arcane? The answer is a matter of theme. I choose shadow because it works best for my vision. It's not martial because it has overt mystic powers. It's not divine because it has no innate ties to the gods. Psionic, Elemental, or Arcane are all possibilities but none of them feel quite right. Also, most of most of my explanations thus far in this thread might not seem very shadow like, but that's because proving its shadowiness has not been the focus of my argument, rather I have instead focused on debunking the ideas that blackguards must be inherently evil or that blackguards are just evil paladins. Taken in isolation "guy who takes power for himself" is not innately tied to any power source, but I've always meant to imply a connotation that the power being taken is that of shadow, I just left that part unsaid as I thought the mere topic of the thread would make it redundant to specify it.
I've said it elsewhere, one of my inspirations is Batman, and while the actual character is martial that's not the part I'm after, rather I'm focused on the idea of the hero who turns the villains' own weapons against them (namely fear). The exploitation of fear would be a major theme across the class's powers, though there would certainly be necrotic and probably poison like effects mixed in as well.
Any spec on the races associated with the source?
Mostly modrons afaik.
And I think that some people have different ideas of what the shadow power source should represent...
(snip)
As for what makes my particular blackguard the concept shadow? I supposes not all that much, it could probably be another power source, but what makes the warlock arcane? The answer is a matter of theme. I choose shadow because it works best for my vision. It's not martial because it has overt mystic powers. It's not divine because it has no innate ties to the gods. Psionic, Elemental, or Arcane are all possibilities but none of them feel quite right. Also, most of most of my explanations thus far in this thread might not seem very shadow like, but that's because proving its shadowiness has not been the focus of my argument, rather I have instead focused on debunking the ideas that blackguards must be inherently evil or that blackguards are just evil paladins. Taken in isolation "guy who takes power for himself" is not innately tied to any power source, but I've always meant to imply a connotation that the power being taken is that of shadow, I just left that part unsaid as I thought the mere topic of the thread would make it redundant to specify it.
I've said it elsewhere, one of my inspirations is Batman, and while the actual character is martial that's not the part I'm after, rather I'm focused on the idea of the hero who turns the villains' own weapons against them (namely fear). The exploitation of fear would be a major theme across the class's powers, though there would certainly be necrotic and probably poison like effects mixed in as well.
Exploitation of fear? Sounds like a Quick Battlemind! They even get Heavy Armour and weaponry and are defenders – if I was trying to make a character who exploits their enemies' worst fears, is a defender, uses weapons and heavy armour, I would make a Battlemind. But that's just me.
That doesn't sound like shadow, though. Frankly, it sounds Martial or Psionic (faith in onesself is a feature of those two power sources, rather than drawing power from some sort of energy source).
You seem to have misunderstood me, my blackguard doesn't HAVE power through faith in himself, he TAKES power because he puts faith in no one but himself.a Paladin could easily be someone who just conned their powers just to have powers, like you said, the paladin is no longer dependent on their deities approval.
Paladins no longer have a mechanical dependency on their deity (the rules won't punish you for failing to RP the tenants of faith), but paladins still have a very thematic dependency on their deity (that's why the power source is called divine). Also while I think it's just fine to have divine characters who are over zealous extremists or might even have fallen from grace, I draw the line at gaining the power through trickier. God aren't just powerfully outsiders, THEY ARE GODS, the idea that a mere mortal (a pre-1st level character no less) could trick them is practically inconceivable. Trick the church, sure. Long enough to undergo the ritual investiture of power, maybe. At that point however flavor text suggests that the deity, or at least an aspect there of, tests the resolve of the prospectant devotee. Even in settings where the deities are distant and/or non-existent, there's an implication that the ritual works as something of a mirror of the soul, thus if the belief is anything less than true the investiture will fail. The only way I can see the concept gaining divine power through trickery is with a god of trickery, but in that case such would serve the deity's needs and likely be a required component of the investiture process.
As for what makes my particular blackguard the concept shadow? I supposes not all that much, it could probably be another power source, but what makes the warlock arcane? The answer is a matter of theme. I choose shadow because it works best for my vision. It's not martial because it has overt mystic powers. It's not divine because it has no innate ties to the gods. Psionic, Elemental, or Arcane are all possibilities but none of them feel quite right. Also, most of most of my explanations thus far in this thread might not seem very shadow like, but that's because proving its shadowiness has not been the focus of my argument, rather I have instead focused on debunking the ideas that blackguards must be inherently evil or that blackguards are just evil paladins. Taken in isolation "guy who takes power for himself" is not innately tied to any power source, but I've always meant to imply a connotation that the power being taken is that of shadow, I just left that part unsaid as I thought the mere topic of the thread would make it redundant to specify it.
I've said it elsewhere, one of my inspirations is Batman, and while the actual character is martial that's not the part I'm after, rather I'm focused on the idea of the hero who turns the villains' own weapons against them (namely fear). The exploitation of fear would be a major theme across the class's powers, though there would certainly be necrotic and probably poison like effects mixed in as well.
What mystic powers? THe last time this came up all your suggestions sounded rather non mystic. I think the reason shadow feels right to you isn't because of the powers but the fact that shadow is dark. By that same mindset Warlock should be shadow. Give us ideas of powers, cause so far it sounds like a fighter in black armor with a chip on his shoulder. How will it be distinctly shadow.
@AH: But consider the key component of the the hexblade, his curse and using it against his enemies. yes this could be striker damge mechanic, but I feel the mark is a better representation of this. My idea is an aura based mark. Every enemy within lets say 2 squares of him is marked. The move out side of that aura they are no longer marked, so it becomes his job to keep them near him, perhaps with dazes and immobolizes and othe forms of bad luck.
Paladin: You could never beat me in a fair fight.
Hexblade: Well that's no incentive for me to fight fair, is it?
Paladin: You just stabbed that guy in the back!
Hexblade: Only as hard as I could.
Yes, hexblades are our blackguards. I'd say even in 3.5, hexblades were blackguards intended to be party-friendly. That's where I say it belongs in 4e.
Exploitation of fear? Sounds like a Quick Battlemind! They even get Heavy Armour and weaponry and are defenders – if I was trying to make a character who exploits their enemies' worst fears, is a defender, uses weapons and heavy armour, I would make a Battlemind. But that's just me.
Hmm... I don't get anything even close to that from the Battlemind, even read it a second time over to make sure. The fluff mentions they tend towards arrogance and battle-lust, which while might be qualities of some blackguards is not what I see as their central theme. Mechanical they are no good either, too many movement based abilities, not enough fear, and no necrotic or poison.
What mystic powers? THe last time this came up all your suggestions sounded rather non mystic. I think the reason shadow feels right to you isn't because of the powers but the fact that shadow is dark. By that same mindset Warlock should be shadow. Give us ideas of powers, cause so far it sounds like a fighter in black armor with a chip on his shoulder. How will it be distinctly shadow.
Again, I must have left the mystic powers part implied, by the fact that I contrast it to the paladin and of course the topic of this thread being shadow classes. As for the Warlock, they aren't shadow because their potential patrons are a diverse lot (with only one of the pacts being particularly shadow-like). The only power source capable of representing that kind of diversity is arcane. My concept of a blackguard wields power exclusively of a shadow variety, though like the paladin he does have a martial slant.
As for powers I have no specific powers in mind, I only know the concept I'd like to see, not its mechanics. What I do know is heavy armor, martial weapons, lots of fear effects with a side of necrotic and poison.
- A class feature At-will power that summon two 1HP minion skeletons. They have your defenses, and can only make melee basic attacks. (If this seems too powerful, allow them to be damaged on a miss or set a limit to how many skeletons you can have summoned at a time)
...much too powerful: no necromancer will ever begin a combat with previously summoning dozens and dozens of minions
also a single minion will be too powerful: do you mean about the hobbyes of the necromnacers in they free time? summoning thousands of minions every day
and ven if you let last the minions just one turn, it will be clearly über
I can see it maybe if the power as a standard action let you summon 1 that crush self at the end of the next turn, and you need another action for make it attack (minor action = it attacks the 2 times before crushing ; standard action = it attacks only 1 time the turn next the creation and moments before crushing)
but, you know, doing it at-will will open the gates of many problems
better if the summoning at-will works quite like "cloud of daggers" and the lightining-related wizard's at-will: you summon the minion scheleton, but it attacks (secondary-stat auto-damage?) only enemies who begin the turn adiacent or who moves in position adiacent the minion
of course, for a encounter power will be a good idea to have a are-like effect of summoning some minions (secondary-stat number?) who crush at the end of the next turn if not already destroyed
- A class feature At-will power that summon two 1HP minion skeletons. They have your defenses, and can only make melee basic attacks. (If this seems too powerful, allow them to be damaged on a miss or set a limit to how many skeletons you can have summoned at a time)
...much too powerful: no necromancer will ever begin a combat with previously summoning dozens and dozens of minions
also a single minion will be too powerful: do you mean about the hobbyes of the necromnacers in they free time? summoning thousands of minions every day
and ven if you let last the minions just one turn, it will be clearly über
I can see it maybe if the power as a standard action let you summon 1 that crush self at the end of the next turn, and you need another action for make it attack (minor action = it attacks the 2 times before crushing ; standard action = it attacks only 1 time the turn next the creation and moments before crushing)
but, you know, doing it at-will will open the gates of many problems
better if the summoning at-will works quite like "cloud of daggers" and the lightining-related wizard's at-will: you summon the minion scheleton, but it attacks (secondary-stat auto-damage?) only enemies who begin the turn adiacent or who moves in position adiacent the minion
of course, for a encounter power will be a good idea to have a are-like effect of summoning some minions (secondary-stat number?) who crush at the end of the next turn if not already destroyed
I don't really see how a single minion is overpowered. I'm not entirely sure how to word it in a power, but I'm thinking of summoned creatures that really aren't all that imposing on their own:
- 1 Hit Point, able to be damaged on a miss
- your defenses base defenses
- somewhat slow, speed of maybe 4 or 5
- only attack being a melee basic, dealing bare-bones damage, like equal to a single ability mod
- not able to make opp attacks, one attack per turn
the point of these minions isn't to overwhelm the whole encounter with mini-strikers, it's to direct a small swarm of easily killed, easily replaced cannon fodder. Gang up on a big brute, his movement by surrounding him, and try to wear him down. Or, send out groups to attack opposing minions so your allies don't have to.
After thinking about it, perhaps an at-will attack isn't the right way to approach it. Perhaps a class feature encounter power that summons two or three skeletons, that recharges when an enemy drops. And if you're still worried about having too many on the field, set a limit on it (If you have X or more skeletons active, you can't use that power).
thoughts?
Exploitation of fear? Sounds like a Quick Battlemind! They even get Heavy Armour and weaponry and are defenders – if I was trying to make a character who exploits their enemies' worst fears, is a defender, uses weapons and heavy armour, I would make a Battlemind. But that's just me.
Hmm... I don't get anything even close to that from the Battlemind, even read it a second time over to make sure. The fluff mentions they tend towards arrogance and battle-lust, which while might be qualities of some blackguards is not what I see as their central theme. Mechanical they are no good either, too many movement based abilities, not enough fear, and no necrotic or poison.
Let's see:
Demon Dance, Spectral Legion, Visions of Terror, Nightmare Vortex, Inexorable Death Strike, Shadow Ally, Paralysing Fear Strike, Cage of Cowardice, Mind-Sundering Burst all have the effect you were pointing at, even if only half of those actually have the fear keyword.
Also note that not only is this only one build, but that this is only about half the powers that this build will have after Psionic Power, and that they'll almost certainly get more fear-type powers.
Demon Dance, Spectral Legion, Visions of Terror, Nightmare Vortex, Inexorable Death Strike, Shadow Ally, Paralysing Fear Strike, Cage of Cowardice, Mind-Sundering Burst all have the effect you were pointing at, even if only half of those actually have the fear keyword.
Maybe, still seems like a rather minor aspect of the Battle mind, while I would want it to be a defining element of the Blackguard. Also there's the problem with the class feature not being even remotely in theme to what I envision. Then there's the complete lack of other effects I'm interested in such as necrotic and poison.
I still don't get it.
To me it's just sounds like you describing an Assassin in armor; the Assassin's power is easy to obtain and it's highly efficient so shameless scoundrels seek it out when they need a mystic edge, some want the power for evil, some need it to do "good" and don't care about the consequences.
Granted what you're talking about is more focused on tanking and less focused on stealth, but everything else is there, so really all you're changing is the role of the concept IMO. And I don't think it's very inspiring to just take the Assassin and change it's role and call it a new class.
I just think your concept for the Blackguard is lacking something unique, something that makes the class inspire and represent character ideas that other classes can't compete with on the same level.
Though if it makes you feel better, if the Blackguard was Psionic, it would make a much more interesting class than Battlemind
To me it's just sounds like you describing an Assassin in armor;
Granted what you're talking about is more focused on tanking and less focused on stealth, but everything else is there, so really all you're changing is the role of the concept IMO. And I don't think it's very inspiring to just take the Assassin and change it's role and call it a new class.
My concept for the Blackguard is no more an Assassin in heavy armor than the Avenger is a Paladin in light armor. Of course there are similarities, all classes in the same power source share some qualities, save the grab bag that is arcane.
To me it's just sounds like you describing an Assassin in armor;
Granted what you're talking about is more focused on tanking and less focused on stealth, but everything else is there, so really all you're changing is the role of the concept IMO. And I don't think it's very inspiring to just take the Assassin and change it's role and call it a new class.
My concept for the Blackguard is no more an Assassin in heavy armor than the Avenger is a Paladin in light armor. Of course there are similarities, all classes in the same power source share some qualities, save the grab bag that is arcane.
+1
My concept for the Blackguard is no more an Assassin in heavy armor than the Avenger is a Paladin in light armor. Of course there are similarities, all classes in the same power source share some qualities, save the grab bag that is arcane.
They all have something they share, but they all also have something that sets them apart.
I don't think it's fair to use Divine classes as an example of diversity between classes, the Divine classes get their variety from the difference between religions not the difference between the classes. Divine classes are defined by the institutions they belong to and their role within that institution; the difference between a Paladin and an Avenger in terms of origin is almost nothing, but their duties reputations make them like day and night.
Shadow classes don't have duties, they all have the same reputation, they don't belong to any institutions. Shadow classes are defined by what they gain and what they loose for being a shadow class, that's what sets Shadow classes apart.
Reputation is what Shadow classes have in common and origin is what sets them apart, origin is what most Divine classes have in common and their Reputation is what sets them apart.
I agree that the hexblade should be the shadow defender. I like the aura mark, although it isn't quite what I would have done. Definitely make the mark's special effect some form of bad luck. Maybe roll twice for attacks/damage and use the lower for attacks that don't include the hexblade. And give a few immediate interrupts/reactions to do other bad stuff if you ignore the hexblade's curse. As for the blackguard, I think its best role in 4e is to be absorbed into the hexblade. It seems to me that the blackguard's main theme is being an anti-paladin. And that's what a hexblade is too. From what I've heard in 3.5, fun games were to be had that included a paladin and a hexblade in the party:
Paladin: You could never beat me in a fair fight.
Hexblade: Well that's no incentive for me to fight fair, is it?
Paladin: You just stabbed that guy in the back!
Hexblade: Only as hard as I could.
Yes, hexblades are our blackguards. I'd say even in 3.5, hexblades were blackguards intended to be party-friendly. That's where I say it belongs in 4e.
I don't know, after all old school Blackguards were never spell heavy like the hexblade was. Plus, rolling twice and taking the lower result is good enough (unless you have to pick your effect), so I don't think it should stack with other immediate interrupts/reactions. Rolling twice may be too good too, the closest thing to a defender affect the actual attack is the Swordmage which reduces damage. It would be unique however. An aura would be interesting, but it seems like it would be strange to implement, and certain areas may make it useless. But i don't know
I don't know, after all old school Blackguards were never spell heavy like the hexblade was.
They had the same 1-4 spell progression that Palys and Rangers had, I think.
The Hexblade had more ranged spells if that's what you meant.
I don't know, after all old school Blackguards were never spell heavy like the hexblade was.
They had the same 1-4 spell progression that Palys and Rangers had, I think.
I think it's more a matter that Hexblades were built to synergies with their spellcasting abilities, where as for rangers and paladins spell casting was seemingly tacked on as an after thought. Rangers and paladins could almost ignore there spellslots, while a hexblade that tried to do the same would be notably impaired.
Personally I love the idea of a Blackguard Class, but if they mix it with Hexblade, what can you do? Hexblade in itself isn't bad either and would probably be fun to play, as I think Swordmage is my fav. right now, and the hexblade would give similar abilities with a certain twist.
I'd still love to see the Blackguard though, he's been around longer anyways.
(Though ultimatly it's up to Wizards.One neat thing with 4th ed though is that they have introduced new things as classes rather than just the old. Maybe we could expect an entire differnt set of classes that what is expected. It's be cool, unless the classes disappoint.
So since this is another shadow thread, I feel it is necessary to bring out my shadow class idea yet again! I mean if I keep mentioning it then it will eventually get ingrained into the minds of other posters eventually leading to great demmand for the class right?....Okay probably not, but I can dream. I really want to come up with a better name than Avatar, but it works for now. I think my fluff description could use a bit of work also, but I think this does a good job of expressing ym idea for now.
Avatar
“Some memories, even if you forget them, will never leave you.”
Role: Defender. A fragment of your soul fights to protect you and your allies from falling before the Shadowfell has finished with you. It stops enemies in their tracks by manipulating their shadows or through showing them the horrifying memories of others who have banished their memories to the shadows. Depending on your choice of class feature and powers, you may lean towards either striker or leader as a secondary role.
Power Source: Shadow. You surrendered a portion of yourself to the shadows and received an eternal reminder in its place.
There exists a ritual in the world that allows a person to sunder their soul in two. There are many reasons that a person may choose to perform this ritual, perhaps a soldier at war who seeks to remove his mercy before the climactic fight or perhaps a wanderer who seeks to forget the memory of home village being destroyed. Regardless of the reason, the Shadowfell is not a kind land and does not permit these people to completely forget their pasts. Those people who perform the ritual will always have a fragment of the lost portion of their soul with them as a nagging reminder of the past they wished to forget.
These fragments are capable of manifesting outside of their owner when in times of need. These fragments draw their strength from their owner’s vitality, but can and will continue to fight even as their owner lies dying. While these fragments always symbolize the portion of the soul that was ceded to the Shadowfell, their exact appearance is not stagnent and they may change appearances as they attack or simply to taunt their owner. For while the owner may not remember why he ceded a portion of his soul to the Shadowfell, the fragment will always make sure that he never forgets that he did.
Blackguard, Hexblade, Dreadknight, Doombringer, Calamitous, whatever he's called, there seems to be a calligng for Dark Knight In Black Platemail With Shadow Power.
Which, by the by, is just fine.
Personally, I like the idea of partial sacrifice in the Shadow source presented by the assassin. It would be interesting, then, if the DKIBPWSP wielded the power of DOOM by sacrificing his own wellbeing. Calamity and misfortune follow him wherever he goes, but he can direct the ire of fate's hand by directing it towards others. For some, this means averting disaster by letting it strike around him and just happen to defeat enemies in the process. For others, it means sacrificing all who fall before his sword and shade to whatever malevolent forces seek his destruction. A few seek immediat e results in exchange for the loss of their future, power at a price, so to speak.
Depending on the DKIBPWSP's particular build, he might lean more towards casting, stabbing, or shanking, with different types of hexes to reflect different variants of disaster. Most would concetrate on pulling enemies towards his location, being a bit slower than some of the agile classes (plate is rather heavy, especially when burdened by DOOM!), but would be incredibly sticky, pinning down foes and tearing them asunder.
That way, the DKIBPWSP can fit all the tropes we're talking about, without arguing over particular names. Because as much fun as it is to debate Hexblade versus Blackguard, both sides seem to be leaning toward a similar concept, and just arguing which name (both of which are burdened by prior history) is more appropriate.
Casting, stabbing, shanking? controller, defender, striker?
Blackguard, Hexblade, Dreadknight, Doombringer, Calamitous, whatever he's called, there seems to be a calligng for Dark Knight In Black Platemail With Shadow Power.
Indeed. I might strongly favor one particular version over the others, but at the end of the day as long as I get some kind of DKIBPWSP I'll be satisfied.
That way, the DKIBPWSP can fit all the tropes we're talking about, without arguing over particular names. Because as much fun as it is to debate Hexblade versus Blackguard, both sides seem to be leaning toward a similar concept, and just arguing which name (both of which are burdened by prior history) is more appropriate.
I think there's a bit more to it than just names and histories, but your observation isn't entirely off base either.
My Blackguard build was actually divine, so I wasn't thinking of a Dark knight with shadow powers, just giving you a hard time though.
A name makes people get excited at seeing an old favorite be revived (even though it could be disappointing to your view of it.) People like to see old favorites in a new way is the reason why we hold onto the names, I think.
power at a price
That to me is sorta what I think the Shadow power source's theme really is.
Each class comes with a loss:
The Assassin surrenders a part of his very soul to become an Assassin.
The Necromancer is the most feared and shunned profession one can take, so society is their loss.
The Hexblade is sort of the flipside, instead of power with a side of burden, they're born with burden with a side of power, only with conviction and training can the burden be turned into a gift.
The Beguiler, by that I mean my concept for the Beguiler, have already lost everything at some point and when so much vacancy exists within one's heart and mind, shadow is all that's left to fill the void.
I realize my Beguiler is quite different from the Beguiler of the past, but I think the 3.5 Beguiler could be easily done with Bard, Assassin or most likely a Wizard with training in Stealth and Thievery. My Beguiler is maybe a little more based on the mental haunting power of the Shadowfell, they can see the dark secrets within other's souls; they can create shadow constructs that mirror the enemies nightmares or even desires. I sorta based em on characters like Wormtongue.
The Beguiler, by that I mean my concept for the Beguiler, have already lost everything at some point and when so much vacancy exists within one's heart and mind, shadow is all that's left to fill the void. I realize my Beguiler is quite different from the Beguiler of the past, but I think the 3.5 Beguiler could be easily done with Bard, Assassin or most likely a Wizard with training in Stealth and Thievery. My Beguiler is maybe a little more based on the mental haunting power of the Shadowfell, they can see the dark secrets within other's souls; they can create shadow constructs that mirror the enemies nightmares or even desires. I sorta based em on characters like Wormtongue.
Hmm, here's a thought.
What if we didn't assume that all power comes from the shadowfell, as obvious a connection as it is, but instead could come from another source?
Like, for example, the Feydark.
The Feywild is usually considered arcane, but what if the aspects of the Feydark were treated as an equally shadowy source. If the Beguiler, unlike the rest of his brethren, drew power from a deal with the most malevolent of the fey, the kind from the Grimm tales, and gave up a portion of his humanity in exchange for dark power? If the mind and soul of the Beguiler were equally tainted as the shadows with which he can pull the heartstrings of his foes?
The Beguiler, by that I mean my concept for the Beguiler, have already lost everything at some point and when so much vacancy exists within one's heart and mind, shadow is all that's left to fill the void. I realize my Beguiler is quite different from the Beguiler of the past, but I think the 3.5 Beguiler could be easily done with Bard, Assassin or most likely a Wizard with training in Stealth and Thievery. My Beguiler is maybe a little more based on the mental haunting power of the Shadowfell, they can see the dark secrets within other's souls; they can create shadow constructs that mirror the enemies nightmares or even desires. I sorta based em on characters like Wormtongue.
Hmm, here's a thought.
What if we didn't assume that all power comes from the shadowfell, as obvious a connection as it is, but instead could come from another source?
Like, for example, the Feydark.
The Feywild is usually considered arcane, but what if the aspects of the Feydark were treated as an equally shadowy source. If the Beguiler, unlike the rest of his brethren, drew power from a deal with the most malevolent of the fey, the kind from the Grimm tales, and gave up a portion of his humanity in exchange for dark power? If the mind and soul of the Beguiler were equally tainted as the shadows with which he can pull the heartstrings of his foes?
That sounds like the untenable concept of the Ironjack that became the Battlemind (a Psionic Warrior who drew his power from the Feywild). The concept seems stretched within the power source. Even Arcane isn't that stretched (since everything in it has some sort of educational/experimental component).
Ok I feel I need to address some inaccuracies here.
The Shadar Kai were negatively affected by their time in the Shadowfell, it had deadened their ability to feel anything. I suggest reading more about them, it's quite an interesting race.
Also, the Feydark is simply the underground portion of the Feywild, it has no power of it's own. The Feywild is an Arcane plane through and through, It has always been considered thusly, and classes and PPs related to Fey are Arcane, such as Warlocks. The denizens of the Underdark be it on the Feywild or on the Natural World, have no connection to the Shadow Power source. If you read Assassin or some of the Shadow PPs, it will show you that the Shadow power source is very much related to the Shadowfell.
That sounds like the untenable concept of the Ironjack that became the Battlemind
Actually it sound like a Fey Pact Warlock to me.
Ok I feel I need to address some inaccuracies here.
The Shadar Kai were negatively affected by their time in the Shadowfell, it had deadened their ability to feel anything. I suggest reading more about them, it's quite an interesting race.
Also, the Feydark is simply the underground portion of the Feywild, it has no power of it's own. The Feywild is an Arcane plane through and through, It has always been considered thusly, and classes and PPs related to Fey are Arcane, such as Warlocks. The denizens of the Underdark be it on the Feywild or on the Natural World, have no connection to the Shadow Power source. If you read Assassin or some of the Shadow PPs, it will show you that the Shadow power source is very much related to the Shadowfell.That sounds like the untenable concept of the Ironjack that became the Battlemind
Actually it sound like a Fey Pact Warlock to me.
I thought it said they feel extremes, but they locked down most emotion to by pass the depression caused by the Shadowfell?
I suppose it's a kind of loss, but not really similar to that of the assassin. The Shadowfell affected them and they adapted, so couldn't there be a shadow class that rather than sacrificed for power, they adapted to use that power?
I suppose it's a kind of loss, but not really similar to that of the assassin. The Shadowfell affected them and they adapted, so couldn't there be a shadow class that rather than sacrificed for power, they adapted to use that power?
How is the Assassin at more of a loss? there don't seem to be that many drawbacks to trading away a portion of your soul, other than automatic doors at the supermarket don't open for you anymore.
I suppose it's a kind of loss, but not really similar to that of the assassin. The Shadowfell affected them and they adapted, so couldn't there be a shadow class that rather than sacrificed for power, they adapted to use that power?
How is the Assassin at more of a loss? there don't seem to be that many drawbacks to trading away a portion of your soul, other than automatic doors at the supermarket don't open for you anymore.
Depends on how you look at it, I don't think there is any worse than that, besides utter loss of it.
Isn't it your soul that seperates you from the monsters?
Isn't it your soul that seperates you from the monsters?
From what little I know about D&D cosmology, I believe it's the soul that allow one to feel emotion and empathy. With that said, I would conclude that the Shadar-Kai and the Assassin are really in the same boat; one lost a portion of their soul and replaced it with darkness and the other has lost the ability to make full use of their soul.
I like my concept of the Beguiler, because I wanted a Shadow class that an adventuring party would almost pity more so than fear, Necromancer are universally shunned, Assassins, being masters of murder, are considered to be at the very least amoral, Hexblades are just a liability; but many Beguilers are just victims of tragedy, shadows of their former selves that might need a guiding light.
I don't really see how a single minion is overpowered. I'm not entirely sure how to word it in a power, but I'm thinking of summoned creatures that really aren't all that imposing on their own:
- 1 Hit Point, able to be damaged on a miss
- your defenses base defenses
- somewhat slow, speed of maybe 4 or 5
- only attack being a melee basic, dealing bare-bones damage, like equal to a single ability mod
- not able to make opp attacks, one attack per turn
the point of these minions isn't to overwhelm the whole encounter with mini-strikers, it's to direct a small swarm of easily killed, easily replaced cannon fodder. Gang up on a big brute, his movement by surrounding him, and try to wear him down. Or, send out groups to attack opposing minions so your allies don't have to.
After thinking about it, perhaps an at-will attack isn't the right way to approach it. Perhaps a class feature encounter power that summons two or three skeletons, that recharges when an enemy drops. And if you're still worried about having too many on the field, set a limit on it (If you have X or more skeletons active, you can't use that power).
thoughts?
It's definitely way too powerful the way you describe it. The main problem is in damage: Allies can just hide behind the skeletons and snipe the entire time. Monsters could easily end up wasting dozens-to-hundreds of points of damage just taking out the minions. The idea could work, but only if someone (probably the necromancer) takes most, if not all, of the damage when a skeletal minion is destroyed.
Now, of course, that doesn't make it a bad idea. Even if the necromancer takes all the damage when a minion is destroyed, the minions can still be in many more places than any single party member. The flanking, AoOs, etc, could provide a good benefit, and attacks through the minions could also be interesting (of course, you'd still only get 1, maybe 2 attacks per round, but the upshot is being able to pick many more places for that attack to come from than an ordinary melee character would). You'd probably also have to limit the number of minions that can move in a turn, to prevent you from completely rearranging the battlefield every turn, and you'd probably have to put a limit on the number of minions you can have (maybe, like CON mod or something), but I think it could work and is, overall, this is probably more balanced. You can be very effective if you're everywhere at once, but on the flip side, you're essentially within everyone's range.
Heck, I could see a class like that being the "caster defender." If minions can make AoOs, you'd still only get 1/turn, but you could set up minions adjacent to more enemies than any single character could, making it hard for them to get around (since you can literally be in 3 or 4 places at once). The Defender hit points would take the edge off of being attacked so often, with your minions making such prime targets. The mark would probably specify that minions count as you for the purposes of the penalty, and would probably make your minions a bit more sticky.
I don't really see how a single minion is overpowered. I'm not entirely sure how to word it in a power, but I'm thinking of summoned creatures that really aren't all that imposing on their own:
- 1 Hit Point, able to be damaged on a miss
- your defenses base defenses
- somewhat slow, speed of maybe 4 or 5
- only attack being a melee basic, dealing bare-bones damage, like equal to a single ability mod
- not able to make opp attacks, one attack per turn
the point of these minions isn't to overwhelm the whole encounter with mini-strikers, it's to direct a small swarm of easily killed, easily replaced cannon fodder. Gang up on a big brute, his movement by surrounding him, and try to wear him down. Or, send out groups to attack opposing minions so your allies don't have to.
After thinking about it, perhaps an at-will attack isn't the right way to approach it. Perhaps a class feature encounter power that summons two or three skeletons, that recharges when an enemy drops. And if you're still worried about having too many on the field, set a limit on it (If you have X or more skeletons active, you can't use that power).
thoughts?
It's definitely way too powerful the way you describe it. The main problem is in damage: Allies can just hide behind the skeletons and snipe the entire time. Monsters could easily end up wasting dozens-to-hundreds of points of damage just taking out the minions. The idea could work, but only if someone (probably the necromancer) takes most, if not all, of the damage when a skeletal minion is destroyed.
Now, of course, that doesn't make it a bad idea. Even if the necromancer takes all the damage when a minion is destroyed, the minions can still be in many more places than any single party member. The flanking, AoOs, etc, could provide a good benefit, and attacks through the minions could also be interesting (of course, you'd still only get 1, maybe 2 attacks per round, but the upshot is being able to pick many more places for that attack to come from than an ordinary melee character would). You'd probably also have to limit the number of minions that can move in a turn, to prevent you from completely rearranging the battlefield every turn, and you'd probably have to put a limit on the number of minions you can have (maybe, like CON mod or something), but I think it could work and is, overall, this is probably more balanced. You can be very effective if you're everywhere at once, but on the flip side, you're essentially within everyone's range.
Heck, I could see a class like that being the "caster defender." If minions can make AoOs, you'd still only get 1/turn, but you could set up minions adjacent to more enemies than any single character could, making it hard for them to get around (since you can literally be in 3 or 4 places at once). The Defender hit points would take the edge off of being attacked so often, with your minions making such prime targets. The mark would probably specify that minions count as you for the purposes of the penalty, and would probably make your minions a bit more sticky.
I can see where you're coming from about the multiple minions soaking up all the damage from a enemy and throwing off the entire balance of the encounter, that's a good point. You're probably right about the 'mancer needing to take the brunt of the damage when one of them drops, but if you have multiple minions in the field, that could add up quickly. Maybe make the damage smaller, like equal to an ability mod. If you're calling up wave after wave of minions, even if the damage to you per minion is negligible, the damage will still add up of the course of the battle.
As far as the minions themselves, I wouldn't even give them opportunity actions. Just a single standard action - only melee basic attack that they could make once per turn. I'm still trying to puzzle out a way to work out summoning in a way that would emphasize quantity over quality, and be different than the way all the other classes summon.
While i really think the idea of a caster-defender is cool, i don't think it's right for the necromancer, mostly because I wholeheartedly believe that they should have Necromantic rituals, and ritual casting, by and large, is the province of controllers.
I like the Defender Necromancer idea. Make the summong a class feature minor action limited to a number of critters equal to your attack stat (probably INT) and you take a specific ammount of damage when one goes down. Maybe half a healing surge.
A possibility would be to make all the Necromancer's at-wills similar to Firehawk, Cloud of Dagger and Storm Pillar. Maybe also Grasping Tides. Different at-will conjure up different types of skeletons. Throw in a Basic Ranged Attack necrotic blast at-will and you got your at-wills.
That to me is sorta what I think the Shadow power source's theme really is.
The shrouded nothingness that existed before creation, the primal darkness, the flawless void erased at the beginning of time by a distant, unconcerned overdiety, the calm nonexistance.
The magic of shadow is not flashy, beautiful, or divine, but it is eternal, and thus superior.
Shadow-based illusions and darkness spells merely scratch the surface of what is possible with the power of shadow. Like a child playing rude clay to the skillful effort of a master sculptor. An illusionist might use the shadow to create the illusion of an item, a shadowcaster uses the shadow to create true items, as real as anything on the material plane.
Alignment: Shadowcasters deal with dark powers, magic often associated with evil, and live with a skewed perception of the world itself.
- A class feature At-will power that summon two 1HP minion skeletons. They have your defenses, and can only make melee basic attacks. (If this seems too powerful, allow them to be damaged on a miss or set a limit to how many skeletons you can have summoned at a time)
...much too powerful: no necromancer will ever begin a combat with previously summoning dozens and dozens of minions
also a single minion will be too powerful: do you mean about the hobbyes of the necromnacers in they free time? summoning thousands of minions every day
and ven if you let last the minions just one turn, it will be clearly über
I can see it maybe if the power as a standard action let you summon 1 that crush self at the end of the next turn, and you need another action for make it attack (minor action = it attacks the 2 times before crushing ; standard action = it attacks only 1 time the turn next the creation and moments before crushing)
but, you know, doing it at-will will open the gates of many problems
better if the summoning at-will works quite like "cloud of daggers" and the lightining-related wizard's at-will: you summon the minion scheleton, but it attacks (secondary-stat auto-damage?) only enemies who begin the turn adiacent or who moves in position adiacent the minion
of course, for a encounter power will be a good idea to have a are-like effect of summoning some minions (secondary-stat number?) who crush at the end of the next turn if not already destroyed
I don't really see how a single minion is overpowered. I'm not entirely sure how to word it in a power, but I'm thinking of summoned creatures that really aren't all that imposing on their own:
- 1 Hit Point, able to be damaged on a miss
- your defenses base defenses
- somewhat slow, speed of maybe 4 or 5
- only attack being a melee basic, dealing bare-bones damage, like equal to a single ability mod
- not able to make opp attacks, one attack per turn
the point of these minions isn't to overwhelm the whole encounter with mini-strikers, it's to direct a small swarm of easily killed, easily replaced cannon fodder. Gang up on a big brute, his movement by surrounding him, and try to wear him down. Or, send out groups to attack opposing minions so your allies don't have to.
After thinking about it, perhaps an at-will attack isn't the right way to approach it. Perhaps a class feature encounter power that summons two or three skeletons, that recharges when an enemy drops. And if you're still worried about having too many on the field, set a limit on it (If you have X or more skeletons active, you can't use that power).
thoughts?
...overpowered 'cause you can summon undreds of them before every encounter or just everytime you have some actions free, so to combat just standing out the room (standard dungeon as example) and sending your minions in: minions killed a bunch every turn, but are a total reliable source
and think about sending minions to scout: maybe you can't speak with them to understand what they saw, but you can pretty easy disable most traps letting them being destroyied - you just summon more the next turn
then use them to immobilize all creature in the encounte, occupying all the squares with minion
don't use it as an at-will power
and maybe not ever as a encounter (trap-disablying)
uhm, to have it balanced with other classes you must have it as a daily power (summon 1 minion in every free square adiancent to you: they last until the end of the encounter)
and with a class feature semi-controllable: everytime you use second wind or an action point, you summon 1 minon in a square adiacent to you (should work: trade some resources for the minion, who last just one turn)
(maybe not second wind: just action point: you can at every moment spend an action point for summoning a minion, or using an action point an at the same tame sacrifice second wind/some healing sourges for creating a minion)
and use the corpse of dead enemies, so encounter power to summon a minion as a immediate reaction when you kill a non-minion enemy
and as a clas feature summon a minion free action everytime you kill ad enemy with a critical hit
so: many ways to get a minion, and and every way is situational or drain some half-reliable resources
so the necromances doesn't have total free control on when to summon minions or hove many of them to summon
So how about giving the necromancer an undead pet, with various spells to temporarily improve it?
Likely different pets would be: skeletons, zombies, spetres/ghosts, and maybe a flesh golem too.
and use the corpse of dead enemies, so encounter power to summon a minion as a immediate reaction when you kill a non-minion enemy
Raising them would be an option, but wouldn't go for each and every creature type.
Rapid acceleration of the decomposition process might be another idea (exploding corpses!).
Again, it wouldn't work for every creature type.
So summing it up we'll have three possible paths already:
- Minion-Master with multiple, but weak minions.
- Corpse-Crafter with a single stronger undead ally.
- Putrid Master which (ab)uses enemy/allied corpses without raising them as undead.
In case with the minion-master, it could be an encounter power which raises the enemy corpse as a minion/weak undead which lasts until killed and/or (level/2) days with a limit of a maximum of (level/5, minimum 1) minions?
Shadow-based illusions and darkness spells merely scratch the surface of what is possible with the power of shadow. Like a child playing rude clay to the skillful effort of a master sculptor. An illusionist might use the shadow to create the illusion of an item, a shadowcaster uses the shadow to create true items, as real as anything on the material plane.
Alignment: Shadowcasters deal with dark powers, magic often associated with evil, and live with a skewed perception of the world itself.
That's pretty much what i'm going for with the Shadowcaster build of the Beguiler; creates shadow constructs, not illusions, that mirror the enemies' fears or desires and preys upon them. The other build is the Mindbender who infuses his voice with the mind affecting energy of the Shadowfell, to break his enemies down mentally or to turn them against each other.
The Shadowcasting Beguiler uses a lot of conjurations, including multiple conjurations, that tend to do necrotic damage and have a balance of simple fear and charm effects such as luring enemies closer. Minors in Striker, as the constructs are really only good at hurting people.
The Mindbending Beguiler uses mostly non-damaging or dominating type effects, the powers that do damage tend to do psychic damage, their fear and charm effects are more complex and last longer. Minors in Leader, many of the effect leave enemies open to attacks.
It's definitely way too powerful the way you describe it. The main problem is in damage: Allies can just hide behind the skeletons and snipe the entire time. Monsters could easily end up wasting dozens-to-hundreds of points of damage just taking out the minions. The idea could work, but only if someone (probably the necromancer) takes most, if not all, of the damage when a skeletal minion is destroyed.
Now, of course, that doesn't make it a bad idea. Even if the necromancer takes all the damage when a minion is destroyed, the minions can still be in many more places than any single party member. The flanking, AoOs, etc, could provide a good benefit, and attacks through the minions could also be interesting (of course, you'd still only get 1, maybe 2 attacks per round, but the upshot is being able to pick many more places for that attack to come from than an ordinary melee character would). You'd probably also have to limit the number of minions that can move in a turn, to prevent you from completely rearranging the battlefield every turn, and you'd probably have to put a limit on the number of minions you can have (maybe, like CON mod or something), but I think it could work and is, overall, this is probably more balanced. You can be very effective if you're everywhere at once, but on the flip side, you're essentially within everyone's range.
Heck, I could see a class like that being the "caster defender." If minions can make AoOs, you'd still only get 1/turn, but you could set up minions adjacent to more enemies than any single character could, making it hard for them to get around (since you can literally be in 3 or 4 places at once). The Defender hit points would take the edge off of being attacked so often, with your minions making such prime targets. The mark would probably specify that minions count as you for the purposes of the penalty, and would probably make your minions a bit more sticky.
I can see where you're coming from about the multiple minions soaking up all the damage from a enemy and throwing off the entire balance of the encounter, that's a good point. You're probably right about the 'mancer needing to take the brunt of the damage when one of them drops, but if you have multiple minions in the field, that could add up quickly. Maybe make the damage smaller, like equal to an ability mod. If you're calling up wave after wave of minions, even if the damage to you per minion is negligible, the damage will still add up of the course of the battle.
As far as the minions themselves, I wouldn't even give them opportunity actions. Just a single standard action - only melee basic attack that they could make once per turn. I'm still trying to puzzle out a way to work out summoning in a way that would emphasize quantity over quality, and be different than the way all the other classes summon.
While i really think the idea of a caster-defender is cool, i don't think it's right for the necromancer, mostly because I wholeheartedly believe that they should have Necromantic rituals, and ritual casting, by and large, is the province of controllers.
That's the problem with the necromancer summoning hordes of minions. If they necromancer takes too much damage from minions dropping, then the entire class feature may become unusable. Too little, and the class could completely dominate by erasing too much damage and being able to control the battlefield with little cost. That's the main reason why I suggested that they be Defenders; not only is a Defender like this (or any caster defender, for that matter) unique, but it also skirts around the damage issue. Sure, you might take quite a bit of damage for downed minions, but that's your main role, and Defender-level surges and hit points help to shrug off that damage easier than a Controller or something. Another role might not want to create more minions after receiving some damage, but that effectively neuters the class, since they will probably rely heavily on minion-based powers. As a Defender, it's part of the job.
As for necromantic rituals, there's no reason that the Necromancer couldn't have that as a class feature. Bards and Clerics have ritual casting as a class feature, and they're not Controllers.
It's definitely way too powerful the way you describe it. The main problem is in damage: Allies can just hide behind the skeletons and snipe the entire time. Monsters could easily end up wasting dozens-to-hundreds of points of damage just taking out the minions. The idea could work, but only if someone (probably the necromancer) takes most, if not all, of the damage when a skeletal minion is destroyed.
Now, of course, that doesn't make it a bad idea. Even if the necromancer takes all the damage when a minion is destroyed, the minions can still be in many more places than any single party member. The flanking, AoOs, etc, could provide a good benefit, and attacks through the minions could also be interesting (of course, you'd still only get 1, maybe 2 attacks per round, but the upshot is being able to pick many more places for that attack to come from than an ordinary melee character would). You'd probably also have to limit the number of minions that can move in a turn, to prevent you from completely rearranging the battlefield every turn, and you'd probably have to put a limit on the number of minions you can have (maybe, like CON mod or something), but I think it could work and is, overall, this is probably more balanced. You can be very effective if you're everywhere at once, but on the flip side, you're essentially within everyone's range.
Heck, I could see a class like that being the "caster defender." If minions can make AoOs, you'd still only get 1/turn, but you could set up minions adjacent to more enemies than any single character could, making it hard for them to get around (since you can literally be in 3 or 4 places at once). The Defender hit points would take the edge off of being attacked so often, with your minions making such prime targets. The mark would probably specify that minions count as you for the purposes of the penalty, and would probably make your minions a bit more sticky.
I can see where you're coming from about the multiple minions soaking up all the damage from a enemy and throwing off the entire balance of the encounter, that's a good point. You're probably right about the 'mancer needing to take the brunt of the damage when one of them drops, but if you have multiple minions in the field, that could add up quickly. Maybe make the damage smaller, like equal to an ability mod. If you're calling up wave after wave of minions, even if the damage to you per minion is negligible, the damage will still add up of the course of the battle.
As far as the minions themselves, I wouldn't even give them opportunity actions. Just a single standard action - only melee basic attack that they could make once per turn. I'm still trying to puzzle out a way to work out summoning in a way that would emphasize quantity over quality, and be different than the way all the other classes summon.
While i really think the idea of a caster-defender is cool, i don't think it's right for the necromancer, mostly because I wholeheartedly believe that they should have Necromantic rituals, and ritual casting, by and large, is the province of controllers.
That's the problem with the necromancer summoning hordes of minions. If they necromancer takes too much damage from minions dropping, then the entire class feature may become unusable. Too little, and the class could completely dominate by erasing too much damage and being able to control the battlefield with little cost. That's the main reason why I suggested that they be Defenders; not only is a Defender like this (or any caster defender, for that matter) unique, but it also skirts around the damage issue. Sure, you might take quite a bit of damage for downed minions, but that's your main role, and Defender-level surges and hit points help to shrug off that damage easier than a Controller or something. Another role might not want to create more minions after receiving some damage, but that effectively neuters the class, since they will probably rely heavily on minion-based powers. As a Defender, it's part of the job.
As for necromantic rituals, there's no reason that the Necromancer couldn't have that as a class feature. Bards and Clerics have ritual casting as a class feature, and they're not Controllers.
+1
Personally, I'd go for this:
Assassin = Striker
Hexblade = Defender
Necromancer = Controller
Beguiler = Controller
Witch = Leader/Striker
So summing it up we'll have three possible paths already:
- Minion-Master with multiple, but weak minions.
- Corpse-Crafter with a single stronger undead ally.
- Putrid Master which (ab)uses enemy/allied corpses without raising them as undead.
In case with the minion-master, it could be an encounter power which raises the enemy corpse as a minion/weak undead which lasts until killed and/or (level/2) days with a limit of a maximum of (level/5, minimum 1) minions?
...really not: if it' a power (encounter or daily), it will affects only the current encounter (so, until end of the next turn or 5 minutes), like all encounter or daily powers
a corpse raised that doesn't crumble into dust in 5 minutes needs to be a ritual: a selective ritual, meybe only for necromancesr aka the bard's rituals, without direct use in combat (not-attacking corpse)
viceversa, if you want a minion useful in combat, it will be summoned with a power, aka it explodes maximal after 5 minuter
othewise, it's throwing balancing out of the window
and you know, what balance is for this edition
then, open the houserules's chest and pray your DM, if you dislike this results...
so, IMHO multiple minion raising possible as encounter power (minions crumbles into dust the next turn) or daily power (minion crumbles into dust at the end of the encounter)
and obviously weak minions with poor melee attack, maybe not opportunity attack, low defences
How is it throwing balance out of the window? You spend an encounter power to raise a single undead ally, of which you can have a maximum of five, which means that you'll need at least five encounters (or a way to make that encounter power re-useable) to reach the supposed limit. Level 1-4: 1 minion, level 5-9: 2 minions, level 10-14: 3 minions, level 15-19: 4 minions, level 20+: 5 minions. One could raise the cap to six, but I thought that five would be a nice, round, number.
Is it me, or is everyone taking what they want from a Shadow class and trying to shoe-horn the Necromancer into fitting their ideal?
Afaik, the only connection between Shadow and Necromancers is the plane of shadow/shadowfell with all the undead roaming there, even though that's mostly the shadowy/incorporeal undead like nightshades.
How is it throwing balance out of the window? You spend an encounter power to raise a single undead ally, of which you can have a maximum of five, which means that you'll need at least five encounters (or a way to make that encounter power re-useable) to reach the supposed limit. Level 1-4: 1 minion, level 5-9: 2 minions, level 10-14: 3 minions, level 15-19: 4 minions, level 20+: 5 minions. One could raise the cap to six, but I thought that five would be a nice, round, number.
...balance out of the window: if you wake up in the morning without a crossbow aimed at your throat (means: with no über-time pressure) you spend the first half hour bevor breakfast summoning that undead minions =
use the encounter power, then rest for some minutes, recharge the power, use it again, rest again, and so on until you reach the limit of such undeads
if you set the limit to 5, you will have soon 5
then have your breakfast and begin your daily journey with the max limit of minions
cambat encounter? some or all minion die?
then hope to rest: if you don't have to flee and run, ask to your allies to be protected and take your time to summon again the maximal numner of minion you can reach
so, it's quite easier if you can have many times much more minions as the only one summonable using that power in that combat
so maybe you think to set the limit of minions to 1, and let then live for only 5 minutes: good point, so they're no more stackable
but there's aways the problem of a "free scout", "free trap-tapper" to see what destroy it in the next dark room (understanding much more about next enemies or trap-attack)
oviously, when you need to be sneaky, just don't use your minion in that way and send in the stealth rogue
so, multiple summon (read: all summons) only as daily powers or getting some conditions not in your total control: killing critical, use action point, burn somehow you second wind...
Is it me, or is everyone taking what they want from a Shadow class and trying to shoe-horn the Necromancer into fitting their ideal?
Perhaps in some cases.
Honestly, a Necromancer is a death Wizard, plain and simple. Not Defender, not Leader, not Striker, it's a Wizard that kills things with dark magic.
That's all you want the Necromancer to be? the same thing it was in the past, just a themed Wizard? I don't want plain and simple, I want the Necromancer to have it's own identity away from Wizard thats interesting and dynamic.
I think what people are really trying to do is create a place for the Necromancer, a place for it to call it's own.
That part of the Necromancer and raising spells has long been left out. It would seem that everytime you need to raise a skeleton no matter the type it happened to be laying there.
...here I see a Ritual casting issue:
use the ritual "raise scheleton" if you have a corpse with bones
use the ritual "raise zombie" if you have a organic corpse
and so on...
or maybe it's the same ritual but with some differences about input (which kind of dead corpse you use) and output (what you get): so Raise Undead Minion, used in different situations, can give you a zombie (with minor zombie-like stuff: +2 Fort? something else?) or a scheleton (with minor stuff) ...
powers about summoning combat minions obviously can be situational (raise a scheleton if you find/kill an enemy of humanoid or beast tipe: but such stuff is against balance) or "raise generic undead minion ghost-like so you don't ever need corpses and if you have it describe it as reviving them"
That part of the Necromancer and raising spells has long been left out. It would seem that everytime you need to raise a skeleton no matter the type it happened to be laying there.
...here I see a Ritual casting issue:
use the ritual "raise scheleton" if you have a corpse with bones
use the ritual "raise zombie" if you have a organic corpse
and so on...
or maybe it's the same ritual but with some differences about input (which kind of dead corpse you use) and output (what you get): so Raise Undead Minion, used in different situations, can give you a zombie (with minor zombie-like stuff: +2 Fort? something else?) or a scheleton (with minor stuff) ...
powers about summoning combat minions obviously can be situational (raise a scheleton if you find/kill an enemy of humanoid or beast tipe: but such stuff is against balance) or "raise generic undead minion ghost-like so you don't ever need corpses and if you have it describe it as reviving them"
A ritual like this would be fine, but you run into a couple of problems, either one this ritual needs to a full round action to cast in battle or your players are going to be confused with plague bearers as you cart around abunch of dead bodies.
I mean, I not saying we need to bring the "you need a corpse with you" it can easily be assumed that you only need a couple of teeth from a corpse to raise a skeleton, or something along those lines.
See Open Grave. Yeah, I want a class based off that guy.
It would be Leader, in my mind.
As for sacrifices to gain hexes? You sacrifice your bodily function. Slowly, but surely, you are dying, as your body falls apart, but while you live you act as a claymold to play around with.
Maybe you can manipulate the location of your organs as well to avoid attacks.
Constitution primary, and Intelligence as rider, perhaps?
I want an Acolyte of the Flesh class
....you can use for your purposes the stuff in Open Grave about using pieces aof undead on your body: there are good statistic for zombie-arm, skeleton-hand, lich-eye or something like that
it states for DM's= maybe the heroes are captured by necromancers and when they epen their eyes again they have such trasformation: give them some malus accordingly with the story and fluff to create a quest for becoming totally human again
but, obviously, just speak with your DM to not get these malus since you want such stuff attached to your body (maybe you did the ritual willingly to yourself)
an entire class about it? uhm, difficult: too much single-buided and too heavy "mad/evil" flavour
@LizardMage
...obviously a ritual for creating a undead minion requires much more than 1 round, so like all the other ritual it's not usable in combat
a cart full of corpses? yep, better to avoid it
interesting the idea about "ypu just need some pieces"
I think what people are really trying to do is create a place for the Necromancer, a place for it to call it's own.
I know that's my desire.
I want an Acolyte of the Flesh class that ruins their own body with necromatic rituals to create flesh scamps and empower themselves and heal their allies. They would be masters of incision and manipulation of body-parts: expert surgeons, because they practice on corpses and on themselves. They don't actually do Necromancy; instead, they ruin their own body for the sake of their work.
This certainly has an evocative flavor, and could have some interesting potential. That said, it might push the boundaries of acceptable heroic behavior a bit TOO far, not so much because its evil, but just because it VERY creepy. Also I'm not sure that the concept warrants a full class, seems more like something to use as a pseudo-class (like spellscared) or as a pseudo-race (like vistani), however, if any attempt where to be made at making a full class I think it would be more appropriate for a theoretical aberrant power source, as the concept is a close parallel to the concept of a fleshwarper/fleshweaver.
I don't think it's as aberrant as shadow because of the connection with Necromancy, but I always saw it as less evil than Necromancers, but as you said, probably more creepy. But I think Shadow should be creepy.
I don't think it's as aberrant as shadow because of the connection with Necromancy
Maybe, but body manipulation tends to be a stronger theme among aberrant origin creatures than shadow origin or undead creatures. I could maybe see some kind of fleshgrafter being a build for necromancer (sort of a mystical Dr. Frankenstein, though more focused the augmentation of life than its creation), but I still think that a theoretical aberrant source is the only place where the concept could stand fully as its own class.
If you want a debilitating aura, my Blackguard class had a feature you could choose that made all adjacent enemies take a -1 to saves and a feat that made it remain on marked creatures that are no longer adjacent to you. That seems more fair. A -2 AC for attacking an ally is better than taking the immobilization and combat advantage, so why would they ever attack a Hexblade with that feature? I don't think the idea is to punish foes for doing as you ask, but punishing them if they don't. I realize your aura includes party members, but i'm not sure that's a fair trade-off for anyone.
That said, I like what people are doing with Blood Sacrifice. I can see a Necromantic Medic class that deals with flesh and blood and knows all the precise locations of the bodily organs and their functions, and is able to move stuff around with a scalpal implement and drain, infuse, and stop blood (possibly two builds, a blood focused one and a flesh focused one).