Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 gothikaiju Oct 24, 2011 3:55:11	If this is the case, I will be sad. More than half of my playtime since starting with 4e a couple years ago has been spent on some variant of earthstrength warden. I love the stone-powered, earth-shaking defender of nature fluff. Their multimarking and durability suits my playstyle perfectly. I've been hoping for some new powers, especially appropriate dailies, to try something different with my next warden, but it seems like the class might be done as far as wotc is concerned.
#2 Tony_Vargas Oct 24, 2011 4:35:29	If anything, the Barbarian getting a mention in the Feywild book is an encouraging sign.  Formerly, classes from published pre-Essentials books didn't get anything in Essentials+, unless they happened to have a sub-class in HotFL or HotFK.  The Barbarian was from PH2.   Thus, by extension, there may be hope for other PH2 classes to someday get a little accidental pass-through support from some semi-compatible sub-class - and that'd include the Warden.
#3 Damon_Tor Oct 24, 2011 8:30:44	Thus, by extension, there may be hope for other PH2 classes to someday get a little accidental pass-through support from some semi-compatible sub-class - and that'd include the Warden. Except that they seem to be reducing the number of classes to a few "cores" and rolling up various concepts which had already been shown as a separate class in O4e into one of the more iconic classes as a 4eE "subclass."  Best examples of this are where the seeker concept was appropriated by the ranger overclass via the hunter, or the swordmage concept was taken over by the wizard overclass via the bladesinger. In otherwords, a "defender barbarian" implies to me that the barbarian is simply absorbing the warden concept. The trend means we have strong reason to doubt that the less iconic classes will ever get any support.  They won't offer any other support to the invoker, for example, instead they'll release a "controller cleric" subclass.
#4 alien270 Oct 24, 2011 9:48:50	Thus, by extension, there may be hope for other PH2 classes to someday get a little accidental pass-through support from some semi-compatible sub-class - and that'd include the Warden. Except that they seem to be reducing the number of classes to a few "cores" and rolling up various concepts which had already been shown as a separate class in O4e into one of the more iconic classes as a 4eE "subclass."  Best examples of this are where the seeker concept was appropriated by the ranger overclass via the hunter, or the swordmage concept was taken over by the wizard overclass via the bladesinger. In otherwords, a "defender barbarian" implies to me that the barbarian is simply absorbing the warden concept. The trend means we have strong reason to doubt that the less iconic classes will ever get any support.  They won't offer any other support to the invoker, for example, instead they'll release a "controller cleric" subclass. While Swordmages and Bladesingers are conceptually similar, mechanically they're very different and I don't have a problem with that.  They'll feel very different in play, and they aren't even the same role. You have a point with Hunters and Seekers, and it will be a pity if the Seeker never gets any new support.  Hunters (like most E-classes) are more or less self-contained, with the only feasible way to be expended being to publish new builds.  Given that their builds are "uses crossbow" and "uses bow," I don't see this happening any time soon.  Seekers, OTOH, are only bad because the powers published for them in the PHB3 are largely terrible.  A couple of Dragon articles and/or Primal Power 2 could potentially completely fix the class, assuming quality powers comparable to existing controllers are printed.  It simply makes more sense to support the Seeker over the Hunter. Now, do I expect this to happen?  Probably not.  But then again, I don't particularly expect either class to gain more support (at least not in the near future) because they occupy such a narrow archetype, which is already bloated with classes that don't do the job particularly well.  The best "magical archer" is probably the Bard, but even then it's the Bard's least-supported build.  I speculate that the designers consider the Hunter to be their "patch," being a controller archer that works relatively well out of the box.  Those who want to delve deeper into the concept are free to make hybrid Ranger|Seekers, which fortunately are also perfectly viable.  Still, more Seeker powers would go a long way toward improving the archetype.
#5 LordofKhyber Oct 24, 2011 10:53:46	I hope not the warden was one of my favourite classes.
#6 Janx_14 Oct 24, 2011 11:02:51	The sorcerer is also supposed to get a subclass in the elemental heroes book. But yeah, it just proves they're collapsing classes back into pre-4e ones they split off from.
#7 Steely_Dan Oct 24, 2011 11:18:23	The sorcerer is also supposed to get a subclass in the elemental heroes book. I read about the Elementalist?
#8 Loneclimber Oct 24, 2011 11:47:19	I have noticed that WoTC seems to enjoy starting something, and then never finishing it. A perfect example of this is the Power cards and power books. They made a martial power 2, yet no others have gotten a second book. Now they are working on the Essentials for the game. If you look at them you see the 4th ed powers and such, yet all they are doing is making a 4.5 (even though they claim this is not an upgrade, it clearly is) and they are reverting back to 3 and 3.5. They had a good thing going with the way it was, there was no real reason to change. I love the warden, I played a Goliath Storm Warden for 2 years. I am scared to see what they do to damage the class, since it will more than likely come out like the Essentials. If they wanted to do this type of system, they should have started it like this or they should just make 2 different styles. 1 for those who love the way 4th edition is, and one for those who like the Essentials. I have played a couple of essential style characters and I was not impressed with it.
#9 Hippolyte Oct 24, 2011 13:20:31	I have loved the Warden since its premiere. The concept is interesting, and it also reminds me of my all time favourite computer game, Dark Age of Camelot, which had a Celtic (called Hibernian) Warden. I really loved the early 4th edition with all its wonderful new classes: the Warlord, the Swordmage, the Warden, the Invoker, the Avenger. It felt fresh and exciting. I fully welcome the Essentials stuff as a worthwhile addition to the canon, but I would hate to see future 4th edition or future editions abandon the good new stuff. The Seeker was disappointing, but the Runepriest is nifty. Of course the obvious solution is for people to write terrific Dragon articles for these classes, articles so good that they beg to be published and cannot be ignored by Wizards. Unfortunately, I suck as a designer and creative writer, so it will not be from my hand.
#10 IxidorRS Oct 24, 2011 17:09:20	You have a point with Hunters and Seekers, and it will be a pity if the Seeker never gets any new support.  Hunters (like most E-classes) are more or less self-contained, with the only feasible way to be expended being to publish new builds.  Given that their builds are "uses crossbow" and "uses bow," I don't see this happening any time soon.  Seekers, OTOH, are only bad because the powers published for them in the PHB3 are largely terrible.  A couple of Dragon articles and/or Primal Power 2 could potentially completely fix the class, assuming quality powers comparable to existing controllers are printed.  It simply makes more sense to support the Seeker over the Hunter. Now, do I expect this to happen?  Probably not.  But then again, I don't particularly expect either class to gain more support (at least not in the near future) because they occupy such a narrow archetype, which is already bloated with classes that don't do the job particularly well.  The best "magical archer" is probably the Bard, but even then it's the Bard's least-supported build.  I speculate that the designers consider the Hunter to be their "patch," being a controller archer that works relatively well out of the box.  Those who want to delve deeper into the concept are free to make hybrid Ranger|Seekers, which fortunately are also perfectly viable.  Still, more Seeker powers would go a long way toward improving the archetype. Hunter/Seeker (Ranger/Seeker with Archery Mastery) is probably the best support they're going to get, sadly.
#11 salla Oct 24, 2011 17:14:42	I have noticed that WoTC seems to enjoy starting something, and then never finishing it. A perfect example of this is the Power cards and power books. They made a martial power 2, yet no others have gotten a second book. Now they are working on the Essentials for the game. If you look at them you see the 4th ed powers and such, yet all they are doing is making a 4.5 (even though they claim this is not an upgrade, it clearly is) and they are reverting back to 3 and 3.5. They had a good thing going with the way it was, there was no real reason to change. I love the warden, I played a Goliath Storm Warden for 2 years. I am scared to see what they do to damage the class, since it will more than likely come out like the Essentials. If they wanted to do this type of system, they should have started it like this or they should just make 2 different styles. 1 for those who love the way 4th edition is, and one for those who like the Essentials. I have played a couple of essential style characters and I was not impressed with it.           What you are missing (intentionally, I'm sure) is that Essentials does not replace anything (thus why it is not a '.5').  Even if they did release an 'Essentials build' for the Warden, absolutely nothing would stop you from playing the original version, even in a game where someone else is playing an E-Warden.
#12 Damon_Tor Oct 24, 2011 19:16:42	While Swordmages and Bladesingers are conceptually similar, mechanically they're very different and I don't have a problem with that.  They'll feel very different in play, and they aren't even the same role. The Bladesinger is a similar to a Swordmage as a Slayer is to a Fighter.  There's not any consistancy here, and this isn't the only example.  I'm not sure how they decide what becomes a subclass of what anymore: if the hunter is just a primal/martial ranger, why isn't the berserker a primal/martial fighter?  Why make it a barbarian at all?  Why does the "barbarian" get to keep it's identity with the move into essentials, while the seeker loses ground to the ranger? I wouldn't mind the overclass/subclass concept, if it had been released as a part of a new system or if they had updated the old classes appropriately, and if they showed some consistancy in how it was implemented.  It leaves 4e feeling messy.
#13 Tony_Vargas Oct 24, 2011 20:42:46	4e had a very pat feel to it.  You had Sources, you had Roles, you had classes that used a Source to fill a Role.  You had Builds that maybe emphasized one aspect of a role or a secondary role, for a little added interest.  It was pretty tidy. Essentials, taken by itself isn't quite that tidy.  And, yes, the whole of 4e and Essentials+ is pretty darn messy.  I get the sense that it's the consequence of not daring to do Essentials as a formal 4.5 or other sort of 'rev roll.'  By insisting on compatibility, they munge together two very different aproaches to game design.  The result is... inelegant.
#14 Damon_Tor Oct 24, 2011 23:10:48	I get the sense that it's the consequence of not daring to do Essentials as a formal 4.5 or other sort of 'rev roll.'  By insisting on compatibility, they munge together two very different aproaches to game design.  The result is... inelegant. Agreed.  As I said before, I'd have minded Essentials far less if it had been a straight-up new edition with no pretense of compatibility.
#15 psikus Oct 25, 2011 6:21:20	I'm not sure how they decide what becomes a subclass of what anymore: if the hunter is just a primal/martial ranger, why isn't the berserker a primal/martial fighter?  Why make it a barbarian at all?  Why does the "barbarian" get to keep it's identity with the move into essentials, while the seeker loses ground to the ranger? Well, the Barbarian concept is much, much more iconic than that of the Seeker.
#16 Damon_Tor Oct 25, 2011 22:08:14	I'm not sure how they decide what becomes a subclass of what anymore: if the hunter is just a primal/martial ranger, why isn't the berserker a primal/martial fighter?  Why make it a barbarian at all?  Why does the "barbarian" get to keep it's identity with the move into essentials, while the seeker loses ground to the ranger? Well, the Barbarian concept is much, much more iconic than that of the Seeker. That was basically my point.  Which is why, IMO, they should go ahead and change the seeker into a ranger subclass, along with the other less-iconic O4e classes.
#17 ah_stormbringer Oct 26, 2011 3:58:08	I liked alot of the non iconic classes 4th edition introduced. They were unique and most were alot of fun to play. They should be left alone and given support as they exisit now not made into a sub class.
#18 ranadiel Oct 26, 2011 5:32:42	I liked alot of the non iconic classes 4th edition introduced. They were unique and most were alot of fun to play. They should be left alone and given support as they exisit now not made into a sub class. Agreed.
#19 dropsonexistance Nov 12, 2011 19:13:23	I don't play 4e enough anymore (always the DM, never the bride) to have made anything except a couple of wardens in the last year or so. I also don't play enough 4e lately to feel like I need more options for warden right now.  That being said, many 4e original basic classes, the ones with interesting concepts outside of the standard cleric/fighter/rogue/wizard(/ranger) have the feel of abandoned gadgets on an inventor's table: he's had to concentrate on perfecting a few things for whatever reason (money to pay rent maybe?) and has let his less substantial curiosities gather dust on the top shelf.
#20 Luis_Carlos Nov 13, 2011 3:09:56	I´m sorry, but about the idea of Warden class I can´t forget the concept of totemist from "Magic of Incarnum". For me Berseker is a kit/subclass/archetype of barbarian... and the idea of Warden is like "paladin from wood, defender of trees (friends of pixies and lover of beauty of flowers)". I would rather something like "bloddbeast" or "fierceskin", a  "wannabe werebeast" fighter. If socerers have got blood of dragons ancestors (or uoutsiders/inmortals from other planes) the "skinchanger" or totem champion would descendent of therianthropes, like the shifters. Is ther any word to be used about nature spirits like totem? Rodnize?