But I'm going to do it anyway:
I have to say that I don't like the direction it's going in so far, or i should say that i don't think it really has a direction at all.
I feel like the Invoker is too similar to the Cleric, IMO they should feel truly unique; they need a persona all to their own, I mean who are Invokers anyway?
Rods and Staves (staffs?): So this makes me think of Moses, so are Invokers less like priests and more like prophets? cuss that would be interesting.
Int but No Cha: Ok so maybe not prophets cuss Moses was Cha based IMO, so maybe they're just more like actual priests who spend their lives reading holy texts, performing rituals and... blowing things up with fire?
Chain Mail: well that does not seem very studious, so they're not Moses, they're not the Pope and they're sure as hell not Frier Tuck.
so we have a hearty intelligent person wearing chain mail and holding a staff that shoots out fire from the gods, a classic archetype if i have ever heard one
so I'm starting to think that they have no identity of their own and they're just clerics with the first and secondary roles switched.
Wizards said that they don't care about filling in each role with each power source, yet they make these classes that nobody has heard of like Invoker, Avenger and Warden
What exactly was missing from the game that these classes offer?
Wizards said that they don't care about filling in each role with each power source, yet they make these classes that nobody has heard of like Invoker, Avenger and Warden
What exactly was missing from the game that these classes offer?
Originality? Really, you can't please everyone. If Wizards just stuck to classes they'd already done, half the player base would complain that 4E offers nothing new, just more of the same, so why even bother changing editions?
I, for one, welcome new classes. And if you don't like 'em, don't use 'em.
If Wizards just stuck to classes they'd already done, half the player base would complain that 4E offers nothing new
That is what I'm complaining about, there is nothing new about the Invoker, It's a half-ass swapping around of mechanics that were already in the game with no new ideas, concepts or style.
Honestly, the whole class could just be a new path for clerics
like Tempest Fighter, it's a path that turns Fighters into Strikers and there was no need to create some ambiguous class called Invigilator or Blademaster
I for one love the flavor of this class. I think the big thing is using the power of the gods rather than praying for it. Think of it as sort of a hand of god sort of thing, summoning angels and enforcing the will of the pantheon. I don't know what your problem with that is. Neophobia?
Moses was no CHA based. I thought I point that out.
Yeah, the guy couldn't talk his way out of a paper back.
Cultists.
Invokers are the black robed fanatics, chanting to their dark god to bring down the blight upon the unfaithful. Invokers are the archivists, delving into lost lore to summon up powers unmentionable. Invokers are the lore keepers, those who understand the Scriptures, the Tenets, the Hierarchy, the Spheres, and just how all these mystical geometries allow one to blast a heathen to kingdom come. Invokers are the chattering madman, clutching a book to his chest, raving about the end of days while calling down the thunder. Invokers are the firebrands, those tasked with cleansing the unholy alongside the clergy.
Paladins are the shield of faith, ever protecting.
Clerics are the cuirass of faith, the heart of devotion.
Avengers are the gauntlet of faith, ready to strike.
Invokers are the helm of faith, with wrathful glare.
:D
The staff was a pretty easy guess for an implement (given the "Moses figure" vibe). The use of chainmail was pretty surprising, though, and may muddy the invoker's theme a bit (given that there aren't many close-burst powers, and those that are there seem designed to push enemies away from the invoker). I get the feeling that it's purely there for mechanical reasons; to reduce forced dependency on INT for boosting AC.
The use of chainmail was pretty surprising, though, and may muddy the invoker's theme a bit (given that there aren't many close-burst powers, and those that are there seem designed to push enemies away from the invoker). I get the feeling that it's purely there for mechanical reasons; to reduce forced dependency on INT for boosting AC.
Eh, they should have just given him a class feature called "divine shield" that boosts his AC by one or two points per tier.
its powers should be more directed towards damage and battlefield control than healing or buffs.
your right, that does make them stand out
what does that matter? the cleric already had a lot of controller type powers and this class has a lot of leader type powers, all they changed was the role!
Is it just me, or did you just say that it's too much like the cleric, then proceed to list a bunch of ways it's not?
they're 3 ways it is different: 1 they went from major role leader minor role controller or striker to major role controller minor role leader or striker, this is something that i don't think calls for a new class. 2 they switched holy symbol for staff and rod (the only thing remotely clever) 3 they switched out cha and str for int and con
they have new powers, so does ruthless ruffian
they use different equipment, so does ruthless ruffian!
they use differnt secondary stats, all different class builds do
so why do we need a new class
Invokers aren't ordained Priests or Warriors, like Clerics or Paladins. They're direct champions of the Gods, imbued directly with a shard of divine power, rather than empowered by Rituals performed by a Church, as a weapon to use against the forces of chaos embodied by the Primordials
so if clerics are more studious like wizards and Invokers are more about what kind of person they are like sorcerer than why do clerics use cha and invokers use int?
Yeah, the guy couldn't talk his way out of a paper back.
yeah maybe he was not the most social person but God sure liked him for some reason and a whole lot of Jews were willing to follow him through the desert which tells me he had a good charisma and i dont see what int had to do with any of that.
this class should not be made until it brings something new to the table other than the combination of divine and controller
As for correlations and causations, just because God liked Moses does not mean he was charismatic. Charisma is not your reputation, it is the strength of your personality. Charisma can affect your reputation, but it is not a direct representation of it. Charismatic people can have enemies too.
And you've even made this argument yourself, but there is no real point in making sweeping generalizations about a class based on three levels.
I just don't think you understand, or want to understand, the flavor of this class. Did you catch the part where they explicitly state the difference between invoker and other divine classes? I mean geez, if you don't like this, you'll probably want to outright skip avenger. Why do we need ANY new divine classes? We have a holy warrior and a priest?
Maybe I want to play a character with a god complex, who feels he can summon divine wrath in the form of plagues and angels and apocalyptic storms to those who oppose him. Invoker gives me the tools to do just that.
Would you say the rogue and the ranger are the same? They are both strikers. They are both martial. They both have lighter armor. They both use a lot of dexterity, most of the time.
And they're very, very different.
As for why we need a new class, we need to put the wrath back in Wrath of God. The destructive side of divine magic is still lacking, that ground-wracking, sea-parting, plague-sending, fire pillar-calling mojo that we all know and love.
The fact that they have the same power source and wear armor doesn't make them the same.
Would you say the rogue and the ranger are the same? They are both strikers. They are both martial. They both have lighter armor. They both use a lot of dexterity, most of the time.
And they're very, very different.
As for why we need a new class, we need to put the wrath back in Wrath of God. The destructive side of divine magic is still lacking, that ground-wracking, sea-parting, plague-sending, fire pillar-calling mojo that we all know and love.
This.
I'm starting to think that what we are talking about is efficiency, and the purpose of making a new class is so that we can play any type of character we can think of
I measure a class in character concepts, how many concepts does Invoker cover that other classes can not because that is what ratifies it's creation
And i believe it is best to cover as many concepts as you can with as little amount of classes, otherwise we start seeing ninja, samurai, swashbuckler, whatever the hell dragon shamans were, SPELLTHIEF?!?!?!?
Invoker just reminds of when there were so many classes that it took away the meaning and the significance of each and every one of them. Now we have a system where potential of each class is amazing, i am in love with classes that i have never bothered with before because i can be so creative with them and make them my own.
and I am simply here to say to Wizards "not good enough" I expect better from them now, this is a great new edition and i don't want to repeat the mistakes of the old systems
If you want a new class simply for fluff than go play 3.5, Me I'm more than capable of giving a Cleric a god complex unleashing his wrath. I DON"T EVER WANT TO SEE A NINJA CLASS
I'm starting to think that what we are talking about is efficiency, and the purpose of making a new class is so that we can play any type of character we can think of
I measure a class in character concepts, how many concepts does Invoker cover that other classes can not because that is what ratifies it's creation
And i believe it is best to cover as many concepts as you can with as little amount of classes, otherwise we start seeing ninja, samurai, swashbuckler, whatever the hell dragon shamans were, SPELLTHIEF?!?!?!?
Invoker just reminds of when there were so many classes that it took away the meaning and the significance of each and every one of them. Now we have a system where potential of each class is amazing, i am in love with classes that i have never bothered with before because i can be so creative with them and make them my own.
and I am simply here to say to Wizards "not good enough" I expect better from them now, this is a great new edition and i don't want to repeat the mistakes of the old systems
Its not the same though. cleric is the guy preaching to people, hes the one attached to a church and orginization. The invoker is the crazy guy from the desert who does not need training his power comes straight from his god.
What's a Warlock? A Wizard with different flavor that directs fire more than controls.
What's a Paladin? A cross-class Fighter/Cleric.
What's a Ranger? A Rogue who takes slightly heavier armor and uses a bow.
so actual summoning doesn't do it for you? Oh well looks like you'll just have to whine some more until you have a decent point. good luck with that.
Was this directed at me, because I think you missed my point. I believe I said the return of summoning was a reason to have the invoker. A point which I've yet to see McNacy address. I don't think a Cleric can fight like a god would fight. That's invoker's thing. It fights the way a god would fight, tapping the same power the gods themselves tap. When the invoker needs help, or can't be bothered, it summons celestial beings to its aid.
And i believe it is best to cover as many concepts as you can with as little amount of classes, otherwise we start seeing ninja, samurai, swashbuckler, whatever the hell dragon shamans were, SPELLTHIEF?!?!?!?
You are arguing, as near as I can tell, that:
1. If we don't cover as many concepts as possible with as few classes as possible,
2. Then we end up with weird classes that cover weird concepts that I don't like, such as dragon shamans and spellthieves.
This argument doesn't make sense.
I measure a class in character concepts, how many concepts does Invoker cover that other classes can not
Why do we have rogues? Why not just have fighters with light blade powers, and rangers with thrown weapon powers? Why do we have warlords? Why not just have your fighter rp leadership skills?
Why don't we just have martial, arcane, and divine as character classes?
Want swordmage? Arcane multiclass martial. Want rogue? Take light blade powers in martial.
Boring.
If you don't like the invoker, don't expect to like any new classes in power sources that have been fleshed out before.
step on the toes
that's what I'm talking about, turf, every class has character concept turf, the amount of archetypes that the class supports, and sometimes they share turf and that's fine, there nothing wrong with options.
If I wanted to make a knight, that's not a problem; i have Fighter, Paladin, Warlord and Rogue that covers all kinds of knights for me. do we need a knight class? no.
I dig some of the Invoker concepts you guys are talking about and I could come up with a few myself, I believe that the classes we have don't cover em all.
So we have some archetypes who need a home, let's give it to them. But it's a slippery slope to make a class for just a few concepts.
think of it as Sven diagram: every class has a circle, within those circles are the archetypes that class supports, outside of the circles are the archetypes that are not covered by classes
on the far side of cleric's outskirts there's this area that has those archetypes we want to give a home, so Wizards start to create a new class to cover em. But my problem is that this new class's circle is either way smaller than the other classes or more likely it's that way too much of it is overlapping on to cleric
And what I'm trying to say is that there's a lot more out they're in that direction sure their a little weird but if you're going to make a new class than it should have just as big of a circle as the others and have just as much of it's own space.
Unless I a make up an actual Sven diagram for you all, I don't know if I could make it more simple
way to think in black in white guys, only having 3 or 4 classes would depower their identities even more so that's not what I'm saying at all
that's what I'm talking about, turf, every class has character concept turf, the amount of archetypes that the class supports, and sometimes they share turf and that's fine, there nothing wrong with options.
If I wanted to make a knight, that's not a problem; i have Fighter, Paladin, Warlord and Rogue that covers all kinds of knights for me. do we need a knight class? no.
I dig some of the Invoker concepts you guys are talking about and I could come up with a few myself, I believe that the classes we have don't cover em all.
So we have some archetypes who need a home, let's give it to them. But it's a slippery slope to make a class for just a few concepts.
think of it as Sven diagram: every class has a circle, within those circles are the archetypes that class supports, outside of the circles are the archetypes that are not covered by classes
on the far side of cleric's outskirts there's this area that has those archetypes we want to give a home, so Wizards start to create a new class to cover em. But my problem is that this new class's circle is either way smaller than the other classes or more likely it's that way too much of it is overlapping on to cleric
And I'm trying to say is that there's a lot more out there in that direction sure their a little weird but if you're going to make a new class than it should have just as big of a circle as the others and have just as much of it's own space.
Unless I a make up an actual Sven diagram for you all, I don't know if I could make it more simple
Actually I think it will be different enough. Especially if they keep the whole wrath of god kinda thing. I really really do not see much overlap with cleric at all.
Also, wearing heavy armor and healing/bashing people with the power of your faith is plenty different from raining fire and brimstone from afar and summoning divine entities to do your bidding.
They're called Venn diagrams.
if you've known the man for as long as i have you call him Sven
if you've known the man for as long as i have you call him Sven
:D I hope that was a joke...if it was very funny
This is probably what is being meant by 'weird' archetypes like the Spellthief; such concepts are so novel that they can't really be described in any other way besides in terms of their class.
Also, wearing heavy armor and healing/bashing people with the power of your faith is plenty different from raining fire and brimstone from afar and summoning divine entities to do your bidding.
What? they have the same armor profs as cleric and they can heal people, also clerics can specifically rain down fire and summon divine entities. they both do the same stuff, they just focus on different things and that is not plenty different.
I think one of the underlying concerns here is whether the new classes will be both mechanically and thematically unique. For instance, making sure that the Avenger won't just be a 'Striker Paladin', or that the Sorcerer won't be a Wizard with a different coat of paint. At the same time, the classes should have a basis in archetypes, and could be used to describe any number of characters from fantasy or mythology.
This is probably what is being meant by 'weird' archetypes like the Spellthief; such concepts are so novel that they can't really be described in any other way besides in terms of their class.
I agree completely, and i don't really believe that Invoker is on the same level of novelty as Spellthief but when I start seeing classes like Invoker, Avenger and Warden I can't help but feel like it's being done for the wrong reasons.
Really, the Invoker has far more overlap with the Wizard, than it does with the Cleric.
I must have missed the Invoker's healing ability- Can you point me to it?
Really, the Invoker has far more overlap with the Wizard, than it does with the Cleric.
He's right, Mcnancy: There's just a few Invoker powers (of what we've seen previewed) that are affected by allies, and most of those just deal extra damage around bloodied allies. So much for being especially "Leader-y".
You pretty much explained it yourself when you were talking about "turf" and "circles". Fact is, it's less to do with whether or not the Invoker's circle is too small, (I wouldn't say that it is), but rather whether or not the Cleric's circle has been too big for too long.
Remember, in previous editions of D&D, the Cleric was the healer, holy warrior, and divine smiter. The Paladin archetype split from that (with some Fighter in it, mind you), and so did the Druid/nature priest. In 3.5E, Druids and Clerics were among the most capable characters in the universe with the number of archetype they were able to fulfill. Now in 4E, just like the Elf race was divided into its concepts, so has the Druid, and now so has the Cleric into healer and smiter, Leader and Controller, Cleric and Invoker.
You just haven't seen the archetypes yet, Mcnancy.
Depending on your choice of class features and powers, you lean toward either leader or striker as a secondary role.
I think that means healing will be something they can do.
You pretty much explained it yourself when you were talking about "turf" and "circles". Fact is, it's less to do with whether or not the Invoker's circle is too small, (I wouldn't say that it is), but rather whether or not the Cleric's circle has been too big for too long.
that's a very good point, thank you
quoted from Invoker Preview:
I think that means healing will be something they can do.
Then point to the power or class feature that allows them to do some healing. We've only seen three levels so far, granted, but not a single ability available to the Invoker grants him the ability to heal. Not a one. That should tell you something. For God's sake, he doesn't even have access to the Heal skill!
So unless you can actually point to something in the Invoker preview that grants some sort of healing, then what you think and what is are two very different things.
that's a very good point, thank you
Covenant Manifestation: When you use a divine encounter or daily attack power on your turn, you can slide an ally within 10 squares of you 1 square.
Channel Divinity: Preserver's Rebuke
Invoker Feature
You call upon the gods to punish the enemy that dares harm those entrusted to your care.
Encounter: Divine
Immediate Reaction
Personal
Trigger: An enemy within 10 squares of you hits your ally
Effect: Before the end of your next turn, you gain a bonus to your next attack roll against the triggering enemy equal to your Intelligence modifier.
Blades of Astral Fire
Invoker Attack 1
Gleaming blades of radiant energy appear and strike your foes. The blades then transform into spectral shields that protect your allies.
Encounter: Divine, Implement, Radiant
Standard Action
Area burst 1 within 10 squares
Target: Each enemy in burst
Attack: Wisdom vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d6 + Wisdom modifier radiant damage.
Effect: Each ally in the burst gains a +2 power bonus to AC until the end of your next turn.
Covenant of Preservation: The bonus to AC equals 1 + your Intelligence modifier.
and so on. None of which is healing.
Bring on the Invoker.
there are a lot of small things about Invoker i could complain about, but what I want to talk about is the direction that these classes are taking us.
I'm not satisfied with just a wizard in cleric's clothing (or should i say chainmail)
Robed scholarly divine class has always been glaringly absent from D&D and invoker was the best chance to change it
You know, they post these playtests so that we can voice our opinions, you act like they already made the class and now we have to live with it.
Start a thread, get i dialog going, i would be happy to join in because i think your right.
Only you can prevent Spellthieves
That was a preview.
It's already a confirmed class for the phb2.
You should be over the moon then about how the Sorcerer is just another Arcane Controller.
What, don't like Divine classes picking up the mantle of controller? What only wizards are good enough to be controllers?
You know, they post these playtests so that we can voice our opinions, you act like they already made the class and now we have to live with it.
Sorry Mcnancy, but technically, the Invoker was posted as a preview rather than a playtest.
At this stage in the game, it's too late for playtesting, because PH2 needs to be at the printers very shortly -- remember, this book is going to be on store shelves around the world less than three months from now!
I will almost certainly houserule no armor proficiencies and either wis based AC or a class feature ac buff through tiers that someone else suggested. Robed scholarly divine class has always been glaringly absent from D&D and invoker was the best chance to change it and they had to muck it up by giving them chainmail armor. Disappointing, but an easy fix.
Just because they use intelligence doesn't mean they're scholarly. I get a sense of some one a lot closer to Elijah or John the Baptist or Moses. Which I think is amazingly awesome. Will be especially awesome for my group's game. Maleldil* is on the move and it turns out the "gods" are simply Oyarsa** and for one reason or another the world has been more or less cut off for a while and the Oyarsa don't remember what they really are.
*Maleldil is the name CS Lewis made up for God in the Space Trilogy.
**Oyarsa is the same idea but for arch angels (Including those that rebelled, aka demons.)
Class Balance. Now, you say that we could just create a subclass of the Cleric to cover what the Invoker currently is. Lets see what the invoker looks like its going to gain that a cleric doesn't have:
- Summoning
- LARGE amounts of controlling abilities NOT limited to mass damage
- LARGE amounts of controlling abilities centering on ENEMY ONLY damage
If WotC gave these abilities (summoning pending as we dont know much about it) to the current Cleric, even IF he gave up some class abilities, the Cleric would then beable to MAJOR in controller AND be a very good Leader as well. The Cleric would step on the toes of all Controller classes while filling his own role.
--------------------
Now, the Invoker, as pointed out earlier, IS similar to the Wizard. Summoning seems to be his different ability set. I WOULD agree that maybe a reflavoring and expanding of the Wizard could just as well have created the Invoker, BUT we do not know enough of the differences between the two classes yet. The ability to minor as a Leader along with Summoning (yet to be seen) might be enough to seperate them! Who knows!
Some ideas might be a feat giving a bonus to hit with implement attacks while wearing cloth armor. Or a 'spirit ward' feat or property that grants a caster's WIS modifier to AC when using cloth armor, so wizards, invokers, and druids have a use for it. The monk might even end up getting it for free, since if wizards wearing armor are unconventional, monks in armor are patently ridiculous.
Just because they use intelligence doesn't mean they're scholarly.
Yeah it does, I'm pretty sure thats exactly what it means.
Class Balance. Now, you say that we could just create a subclass of the Cleric to cover what the Invoker currently is.
I was saying a new build of Cleric could cover who the Invoker currently is
I think they should replace Wis with Cha, and give them some more interesting features like Sacrifice or Possesion and take away their armor
Yeah it does, I'm pretty sure thats exactly what it means.
No, it means they're smart. They could be completely uneducated and still have 20 (or even higher) Intelligence.
It's best not to put too much stock into exactly what is meant by a given Ability Score or the use of a given Ability Score. All arguments beyond that are built on thin ice, so debate carefully.
The primal professions love the hide armor. Martial professions get a lot of nifty weapons. Arcane professions do it in their skivvies. And divine professions are armored like a nun's chastity belt.
It's part of their theme. Martial has a myriad of equipment, while arcane is very lightly armored and relies upon movement and position to escape a good thwacking. Primal doesn't like manufactured materials, while the divine takes knight in shining armor very, very seriously.
I was saying a new build of Cleric could cover who the Invoker currently is.
But why do that? A cleric is a leader, not a controller. You say they are similar but they are not. I think you may be missing the fundamental difference between controllers and leaders. (please correct me if I'm wrong on that)
For now I will make the assumption that you haven't fully considered the differences between the two roles (otherwise there's no point me typing the rest of this out :rofl
.A Controller's powers primarily: 1) cause debuffs to enemies, 2) have much more AoE capability, 3) allow you to dictate the battlefield by moving enemies around. Secondarily, there may be some powers that give a small buff to your allies.
A Leader's powers primarily: 1) cause buffs to your allies, 2) are usually single target powers (except when dealing with allies), 3) allow healing, 4) allow you to help allies or dictate the battlefield by moving allies around. Secondarily there are some powers that cause debuffs to enemies or allow you to move them.
They are like two sides to the same coin. Could you give powers to a cleric that do what an Invoker does? Yes you could, but then you've just made the cleric fulfill two roles and that muddies the waters. The primary purpose of the roles is that a class within that role should fulfill the purpose of that role. I think we all remember sitting down at Living Greyhawk games, or 3.X games in general, with clerics that didn't heal.
The 4e way of doing things makes it so, if you sit at a table with a Leader, you know what he's there to do (buff and heal), if you're there with a controller, you know what to expect (AoEs, CC, and debuffs), if it's a striker you know what to expect (higher damage output, squishy HP, and some debuffs/ongoing damage (in the case of the warlock)), and you know what to expect from a defender (medium damage output, resilience, and CC, i.e. "stickiness").
Arguing that the Invoker treads on the Cleric's turf is just incorrect. If you're only talking about fluff issues, you may have some points there. Mechanically though, they are vastly different. On the other hand, you could make more of an argument that the Warlord, Artificer, Bard, or Shaman are unnecessary since the Cleric is a Leader and why do we need more than one? (although the anwer to that lies in what features the classes have, i.e. the Cleric has his Channel Divinity powers whereas the Warlord has his bonuses given to those using action points, etc.).
As a compare and contrast: Levels 1-3 of the Invoker have (this is strictly attack powers, not utilities as utilities run the gamut of role styles in every class): 4 direct damage powers, 11 controller-ish powers, 1 Leader-ish power, 1 summoning power (I assume there will be one per set of daily powers). Of those 17 attack powers, 10 are AoE or more than one target.
Levels 1-3 of the Cleric has (out of 16 possible powers): 1 direct damage power, 4 controller-ish powers, 9 leader-ish powers (this includes Beacon of Hope as the buff to the allies is > then the enemy debuff and happens whether you hit or not), 1 conjuration. Of these, 2 powers are AoE or target more than one creature.
My definitions were thus: Direct Damage (aka Striker-ish powers) are ones that deal only damage, deal damage + ongoing damage, or do damage + extra if some condition is met (a la Avenging Light that adds Con damage if a bloodied ally is adjacent to the creature). Controller-ish powers are ones that: Cause a debuff/status effect on the enemy, or move the enemy around. Leader-ish powers are ones that: buff allies or move allies around (or heal).
So actually, you could argue more that the Cleric is treading on others turf than the Invoker (4 controller style powers vs. 1 Leader style). Not to mention the difference between Summoning and Conjuration. While we haven't seen the rules yet for Summoning, I am assuming the major difference will be that Summoned creatures will be, in essence, full fledged creatures (although still sharing an action pool a la Beast Companions) that can provide a flank (unlike a conjuration). You can already see a major difference by looking at Guardian of Faith or Spiritual Weapon and Summon Angel of Fire.
Was this directed at me, because I think you missed my point. I believe I said the return of summoning was a reason to have the invoker. A point which I've yet to see McNacy address. I don't think a Cleric can fight like a god would fight. That's invoker's thing. It fights the way a god would fight, tapping the same power the gods themselves tap. When the invoker needs help, or can't be bothered, it summons celestial beings to its aid.
who are you?
So even if it sounds dorky, I think I can point you to the big differences you're seraching for.
- No healing: their leader aspect is much more similar to the Cunning Bard, sliding allies in order to position them better. Just right for a "minor in" Leader. If they ever get healing, which I seriously seriously doubt, they will lend saving throws or remove conditions, but I'm 99,99% sure they won't replenish your HP, with the exception of MAYBE temp HP. I also think everyone who analyzed the class came to these conclusions about the leaderish aspect.
- Summoning: you really seem to forget that they actually summon angels and who knows what else. They use new mechanics for it, and placing opportunity attackers around sounds like a new type of Controller to everyone. Their class name could very well be Summoner, but I'm glad they changed it to Invoker since it fits with the new divine style, see next point.
- Much more Astral than Divine: they really are the most arcane of the divines, these Invokers. I mean, they know how to MOLD raw divine MAGIC. They cover archetypes that couldn't be covered, this way. The 3.5 Wizard and the 3.5 Cleric could, not the 4e successors. And the Invoker covers that old ground with a very new style, lots of it, by suggesting a variation on the theme of their power source comparable to the one brought out by the Bard, who creates magic from art, or art from magic depending how you see it. Here we create arcane things (but different from Wizard and Warlock and Bard and Swordmage things, look at Summoning), from Astral matter, which is something divine in nature.
- Stats: I would have preferred more variation, such as an alternative Primary stat appearing in some powers, like Warlocks, but even as it is it's original. You said they're scholars because of Intelligence build. I disagree. I say they're tactical because of it. Smart. Not scholars. Intelligence is used here because their powers simply cannot be exploited by low IQ people. And look, we get Con, which wasn't present in the Cleric at all, much like Int. And mind the originality of their use: it's the first time we see Con used for striking harder. And it's a strike-back type of striking. Which is original, just as the Preserver's Rebuke leaderish power is leaderish in a brand new way, centralized on the Invoker. We're seeing a LOT of mechanic-o-conceptual news here.
Do you know what I would have changed? Armor. But then I realized it was much more a complaint about aesthetics than sensibleness. I mean, even if it's not official anymore, it's always been clear: arcane magic requires much more gestures than divine, so if your magic doesn't require complex motions, why the hell would you go out light?
I hope you got some new perspectives.
P.S.: Although not regarding the Invoker, I also have concerns similar to yours. The Avenger is what worries me the most, followed by the Warden. I mean, something as the Avenger won't see this kind of new magic feel the Invoker naturally has. The Avenger is also known to be ordained like Clerics and Paladins, another point that adds to the risk of complete failure at bringing a CORRECT new class. Because as you say, new classes MUST cover new archetypes and do new things. The only thing that brings hope is that apparently it has been playtested by Wil Wheaton who defined it awesome. I doubt he would have gotten so excited with a plain "divine rogue" or "striker paladin"... Let us hope.
Look, I know what a controller is and I know what a Leader is.
I understand that they are going to have different powers, all classes do.
and I'm making it out to be a bit worse than it is, but I'm scared that 4E is headed down a path all too familiar (thank you KOTOR)
DO NOT get me started on Avenger and Warden, thats a downward spiral if i have ever heard one. (I love Wil, he signed my lucky D20 shirt)
see i was excited about Sorcerer becuase they could be way more interesting and dynamic than Invoker seems to be and we already have an arcane controller, you could throw more arcane controllers than i can shake a stick at and as long as they offer enough new character types than i don't mind
my real nighmare is the Ninja, and if their making a Ki source and each source gets 4 classes than I'm pretty sure we're getting a Ninja.
to be painfully honest I wouldn't mind Ninja if they're like Narruto Ninjas; don't get me wrong, I hate Narruto more than anyone else here, but they're different enough and a lot people like that sort of character so i couldn't rightly complain, I just wouldn't play em (
In puplic :rolleyesto be painfully honest I wouldn't mind Ninja if they're like Narruto Ninjas; don't get me wrong, I hate Narruto more than anyone else here, but they're different enough and a lot people like that sort of character so i couldn't rightly complain, I just wouldn't play em (
Naruto ninjas are not ninjas... ninjas do not dress in freshly escaped from prison child molester orange jump suits. They are pajama'd assassin. (this post is mostly in jest)
Binders?
yeah; they were casters in 3E who gained power by "binding" the spirits of powerful beings to themselves.
yeah; they were casters in 3E who gained power by "binding" the spirits of powerful beings to themselves.
I don't remember them, but I think the Shaman is going be more like that (calling forth primal spirits to help them and their friends)
yeah; they were casters in 3E who gained power by "binding" the spirits of powerful beings to themselves.
I don't remember them, but I think the Shaman is going be more like that (calling forth primal spirits to help them and their friends)
They came in with Tome of Magic along my favorite of all time, the Shadowcaster.
They actually bound themselves to entities very different from spirits, at least they were not spirits in the "Primal" sense.
I would say the similarity is that by the means of the Covenant, the Invoker is bound to a deity. But unlike the Binder, it doesn't get different powers depending on the particular entity.
However I also "smell" something of the Binder. Although obviously much more in the Warlock.
The Shaman is just going to get everything coming from the old Druid that will not fit in the new Druid. Summoning and Healing mainly, with Summoning transformed into and or mixed with ally buffing. Plus, of course, something of the Spirit Shaman from Complete Divine, a good class.
To return on track, I wouldn't mind seeing the Ninja if it were a Shadow class, themed on the new concept of Shadow. But in that case they would also call it differently.
Who knows.
Just because they use intelligence doesn't mean they're scholarly. I get a sense of some one a lot closer to Elijah or John the Baptist or Moses.
Int but No Cha: Ok so maybe not prophets cuss Moses was Cha based IMO, so maybe they're just more like actual priests who spend their lives reading holy texts, performing rituals and... blowing things up with fire?
Chain Mail: well that does not seem very studious, so they're not Moses, they're not the Pope and they're sure as hell not Frier Tuck.
Right, the prophet concept is a flawed analogy (though as an aside Moses was not very charismatic; his brother did all the talking...). A more proper concept would be a blend of a Solomon archetype and a First Crusades era priest who accompanied someone like Bohemund of Taranto. The Solomon archetype is the intelligent man who binds higher power and being to his will through the study of the "rules of the divine game," as it were ("I know the seal, I've got the chant, you better well rain fire on that city" versus "Hey Mr. Angel please destroy my enemies") [Aside - the Solomon things works especially well from what I've heard considering the Invoker's fluff on their control mechanism].
The second archetype is that of the not-quite holy holyman. These were the sorts behind the scenes that wanted the job done no matter how much dogma that had to bend, invent, or bury. To avoid translating history into D&D mechanics (and possibly angering any devout Christian forum goers more than I already had) I'll use the Song of Roland, a mythic look at history: Charlemagne was a warlord/paladin multiclass, his companions were paladins or fighter/paladin or paladin/fighter or ranger/paladin or paladin/ranger, and Turpin was an invoker. Consider: did he follow the exact tenants of his clerical vows? No, he was not a pacifist, he drew blood, and generally got his smite on. Yet when one compares this to the whole weapon against the primordials thing it makes sense: who'd be more effective in a war, the cleric of the deity of beauty or the guy the deity allows to tap into the firmament of creation no questions asked?
I will almost certainly houserule no armor proficiencies and either wis based AC or a class feature ac buff through tiers that someone else suggested. Robed scholarly divine class has always been glaringly absent from D&D and invoker was the best chance to change it and they had to muck it up by giving them chainmail armor. Disappointing, but an easy fix.
Sometimes I think people forget that just because WotC publishes source material doesn't mean we can't tweak it to what we think it should be. I think it'd be cool to have three background options: you're found by a church early and they train you as a weapon (gain Cleric armor and weapon profs); you see yourself as a channel for the divine (gain Wis or Cha modifier to AC and weapon prof with deity's weapon of choice - intuitive understanding of it but no formal fighting training with anything else); or you're mis-ID'ed as a sorcerer until someone sets you straight (Gain cantrips and a bonus to Arcana checks). Okay, the last one is a bit farfetched 
EDIT:
I got curious and thought I'd share -
Cleric
1 : a group ordained to perform pastoral or sacerdotal functions in a Christian church
2 : the official or sacerdotal class of a non-Christian religion
1 : a group ordained to perform pastoral or sacerdotal functions in a Christian church
2 : the official or sacerdotal class of a non-Christian religion
Sacerdotal
1 : of or relating to priests or a priesthood : priestly
2 : of, relating to, or suggesting sacerdotalism
1 : of or relating to priests or a priesthood : priestly
2 : of, relating to, or suggesting sacerdotalism
Sacerdotalism
: religious belief emphasizing the powers of priests as essential mediators between God and humankind
My issues with the mechanics aside, I have had a break through:
I was looking at the class again and I noticed something (or lack of) that pleased me and got me starting to accept the archetypes of the class more
not only do they not use holy symbols, but they don't even have to worship a god! I never really processed that and I think it was holding me back when thinking about who they were, when you can take the God out of the picture it opens up alot of cool ideas about divine power and how a person can relate to it.
when you guys were saying things like cultist, i was just picturing some guy who worships an evil god (a cleric), but now i see that it would be more like someone who just consorts with a lot of minor evil divine entities or out right controls them.
also I'm reminded of the Ur Priest who steals power from the gods, so not only do you need not serve a god but the character can be in defience of the gods or maybe even is one in a sense.
Man that was really hanging me up, now i just feel stupid because now I can see what you guys were seeing. and you guys thought i couldn't be convinced.
Ok so the Invoker is justified IMO, this raises my hopes about 4E...
Well now I don't have anything to rant about until the Warden preview comes out
Well now I don't have anything to rant about until the Warden preview comes out
Hmm... You'll say I'm truly diabolical pointing you to something to rant for after trying to convince you of Invoker's goodness, but maybe you missed a controversial thing about Invokers that bothers me more than their armor proficiency...
Yes, they don't have to worship a god in the clerical sense BUT... They have to be of the same alignment as one!
Wow Dragon9, you missed my point completely.
Apparently I did... :P All that talk about Invokers treading on the cleric's turf and can't you make a cleric do what the Invoker does, and aren't they the same archetype... i can't see how I missed your point. ;)
It could be Binderlike too. Forcing the powers of a god into you but having to struggle every day to keep them in you. You can be the last believer of god X who gave you his last power so that you can spread his word again so he could regain power.
So much nice fluff, im happy
Yes, they don't have to worship a god in the clerical sense BUT... They have to be of the same alignment as one!
This could be seen as an issue of compatibility instead of belief. Putting AC into a device that uses DC = Bad Idea.
Now, I don't have a DDI account due to financial reasons, but from what I've seen on the forums, how are they not Archivists with a spiffy new name?
Now, I don't have a DDI account due to financial reasons, but from what I've seen on the forums, how are they not Archivists with a spiffy new name?
As has been stated before it's not a perfect example but it's about the same difference as an old school tent revival preacher and a Presbyterian Sunday School teacher. I am a Christian and Pentecostal which is why I'm drawn to examples like that.
P.S. Yes, despite the stereotype there are conservative pentecostal Christians that play D&D.
The thing about alignment is particularly controversial, because while the covenants (mechanically speaking) are more bound to "defense vs offense" principles, and the whole deity worship and dedication thing suggests that you worship deities as a whole, worshiping more the general divine power than single deities, both the general description of the covenant term and the alignment section clearly say that you must be "Invoker of " and even have the same alignment.
It's more similar to Paladin than to Cleric, but with a twist. Personally I would really reflavor things a bit and make that twist stronger, in order to make them worship all the gods, and even strongly suggesting being Unaligned at doing so. But since forbidding alignments is forbidden in 4e, I would just let them choose whichever alignment they want. The important thing is that they must side against the entropic and apocalyptic nature of the primordials, or not even Gruumsh would be pleased to lend them power. After all where's the fun of wanton violence and destruction if there's not a world in which to do it?
Oh well, a logic hole in the class features is little more than an annoyance for me and easy to fix.
and now I see what direction the class is going in and I'm ok with em
You can be the last believer of god X who gave you his last power so that you can spread his word again so he could regain power.
I like that, but maybe the character once was god X and with whats left of his/her power they try to reclaim their old status, maybe thet're the gods reincarnation or were formed from clay by the god to be they're prophet.
The Spellthief allowed you to play an archetype which previously had NO mechanical representation. Specificaly the ability to commandeer another's magic and use it against them.
Now: Intelligence doiesn't mean you're scholarly. See Warlord.
I haven't SEEN the invoker preview, so I really can't offer anything in the way of position. But I can say that so long as it's a Dvine CONTROLLER it's far enough from Cleric to warrant a new class. Specifically because of the havoc it would induce if a Cleric had the Wizard spell list stacked on their own.
Now, here's hoping that it's different from the Wizard.
I "kind of think" she's multiclassed into something very Charisma-dependent... :D
So you'd all like to picture yourself what an Invoker is, and you'd like to like the picture, uh?
now thats the kind of chainmail I can get behind!
Invoker just should have been an alternate build for a Cleric, much in the same way Tempest Fighter did for the standard Fighter class.
Just splitting hairs in the Invoker case IMO.
I agree with one of the above posters:
Invoker just should have been an alternate build for a Cleric, much in the same way Tempest Fighter did for the standard Fighter class.
Just splitting hairs in the Invoker case IMO.
I was once in the same boat as you Avatar, a very long time ago
If you ignore the similarities in features (armor, channal divinity, wisdom, alignment restriction and so on) and think of divine power like any other power than you might see that the Invoker is more alien than meets the eye
If you think about it, most Clerics and Paladins would be disurbed by Invokers, Invokers don't earn their powers though devout servitude like Clerics and they don't dedicate their lives to any sense of honor like Paladins do
If I was a Cleric or Paladin i would very suspicious of any Invoker who claims to receive power from my god. Beware of false prophets, because anyone who's not working as hard as I am for that power could very well be stealing it.
But If they were legit, I would either admire or be jealous of them, they have earned the favor of my god for some reason. I couldn't help wonder why I wasn't chosen, am I not dogmatic enough? Is my faith not strong enough? Do I not understand divinity?
I agree with one of the above posters:
Invoker just should have been an alternate build for a Cleric, much in the same way Tempest Fighter did for the standard Fighter class.
Just splitting hairs in the Invoker case IMO.
Except that a Controller is not an alternate Leader build. :P Just as the Tempest Fighter isn't an alternate Striker build for a defender. (They still won't match the damage output of a Striker).
Different roles, different classes, different mechanics, different priorities.
Except that a Controller is not an alternate Leader build. :P Just as the Tempest Fighter isn't an alternate Striker build for a defender. (They still won't match the damage output of a Striker).
Different roles, different classes, different mechanics, different priorities.
I think their concern is one of thematics and not mechanics. We can all see how the Invoker is different mechanically from the cleric. The worry is that they aren't different enough thematically. This is what is going to happen when they make new classes out of the blue. The class has no history behind it.
If they had just made up the ranger today, an archer/twfing mixed class, I think a lot of people would have said "what, why not make a twfing and archer build for the rogue". There is no thematic link between archery and twfing, just an artifact of old editions linking them. Yet the ranger is accepted.
It's going to take time for the new classes to find acceptance, because we aren't sure what their identity is. This thread has done a lot to give them an identity (they're Prophets), but there are still a few oddities. For instance, why do they use Constitution to determine the effect of their power's secondary abilities? Are they housing divine power inside their body?
I think the classes could do with some more fluff text. The Warlord and Warlock were easy to imagine, but I think many people are going to have a hard time wrapping their heads around who the Invoker and Warden are.
I think their concern is one of thematics and not mechanics. We can all see how the Invoker is different mechanically from the cleric. The worry is that they aren't different enough thematically. This is what is going to happen when they make new classes out of the blue. The class has no history behind it.
I don;t necessarily disagree on thematic issues, but the person I was replying to did specifically state it should have been an alternate Cleric build which is mechanical in nature.
it should have been an alternate Cleric build which is mechanical in nature.
It was I who said that, and I was confused and angry at the time. also at the time I didn't care that they were controllers and I was willing to part with that and wait till a more worthy divine controller came around
now I think they are worthy (if you ignore a few mechanical distractions)
different builds are not just mechanical in nature, look at the ruthless ruffian and artful dodger, they're IMO more thematically different than mechanical
You said it originally, but i was quoting someone else who said that too. I don't disagree with your assessment of the RR and AD rogue builds, but you're still, mechanically, talking a striker. As much as I have heard people say they are making a martial controller build with it, you really aren't. Just as a 2-H fighter specced for damage still won't outdamage a Striker or fulfill it's role int he party all that well, a RR rogue won't out control a controller. Many classes can dabble in other roles, but not do them as effectively as a class of that role.
To be fair, the Martial Controller builds using the Rogue take a heavy hit in damage- exactly the thing strikers are supposed to be good at. One of the key features, in fact, is a feat that lets you sacrifice SA damage for more debuffing.
While the rogue may not be as totally controlling as a full controller, a Tempest fighter can definately out DPR A Warlock, and I believe the rogue could provide control on the same scale.
There was no Shaman class in the ToM; there was the Shaman class in OA, and the Spirit Shaman class in CD.
He was talking about the binder.
He was talking about the binder.
Ah, pardon me.
I will retract my statement.
It's going to take time for the new classes to find acceptance, because we aren't sure what their identity is. This thread has done a lot to give them an identity (they're Prophets), but there are still a few oddities. For instance, why do they use Constitution to determine the effect of their power's secondary abilities? Are they housing divine power inside their body?
I think that's an overall theme of Constitution in 4e. Its the secondary stat that governs channeling extra power through your physical frame. The Warlock makes it explicit, and the Swordmage follows along.
I think that's an overall theme of Constitution in 4e. Its the secondary stat that governs channeling extra power through your physical frame. The Warlock makes it explicit, and the Swordmage follows along.
Yeah, in the case of the Invoker ("followed by Constitution, since your physical durability allows you to withstand and channel divine wrath") it's more like your body being a bottleneck for the sheer amount of power available. The more you're resistant, the more you can allow to pass through you. Very good concept. And very Japanese anime like, something that I'm seeing more and more into the Invoker (isn't Sailor Moon a perfect match of a Sehanine Invoker?? :D )
Yeah, in the case of the Invoker ("followed by Constitution, since your physical durability allows you to withstand and channel divine wrath") it's more like your body being a bottleneck for the sheer amount of power available. The more you're resistant, the more you can allow to pass through you. Very good concept. And very Japanese anime like, something that I'm seeing more and more into the Invoker (isn't Sailor Moon a perfect match of a Sehanine Invoker?? :D )
The 3e warlock was Sailor Moon.
Charisma based? Check.
Shoots magical energy at people? Check.
Flies? Check.
Wields a magical baton? Check.
Consorts with demons? Uh... Ok, no check there. But mechanically it was perfect!
The 3e warlock was Sailor Moon.
Consorts with demons? Uh... Ok, no check there. But mechanically it was perfect!
I don't know...Tuxedo Mask and the gender bending Sailor Stars always seemed a little on the demonic side to me.
I don't know...Tuxedo Mask and the gender bending Sailor Stars always seemed a little on the demonic side to me.
Better than naruto...
Personally, I actually think its a good idea of the "magical girl" archetype gets D&D-ized. Like every D&D-ization of a popular archetype, there'd inevitably be some changes in translation- think Sailor Moon in armor and with a big knife. But it could be done, and probably should be. Big tent D&D all the way.
Yeah after all you can make an Invoker with just high Wis and Int, and it would be perfect portrait of a frail young girl, who is a freak though of course, manifesting the raw divine power, nothing less. Remember that chainmail is the most fashionable armor after all :D Remember that Elven Chain pic in the 3.5 DMG? :D Oh and rods and staffs match perfectly.
And she even sommons angels, how cute. Seriously, I'm happy because it can really appeal to many girls. Although I think they would prefer Covenant of Wrath. After all high-Con doesn't mean fat for girls, look at half-elves, they can easily be the best-looking in the D&D world for human standards.
And more over, a part from the girlie thing, the Invoker is a better choice than the Wizard for those who want to really have the impression of unleashing big powers on the battlefield. Maybe the Sorcerer will rapidly enter the same league with success, but the implicit differences given by the power source could really let everyone decide better. After all we'll have the three big power-masters Wizard, Invoker and Sorcerer based on three different ability scores. They're really of different color, ergo there will always be personal preference towards one of the three for everyone. And this is intelligent class design.
Ur Priest: Int and Cha and worships no god just steals their power
Moses: Wis and Cha and tight with god
Jacob: Cha and Con and super tight with god
Binder: Cha and Int (because of similarity to warlock) and worships no gods only communes with some
Sailor Moon: (as best I can recall) Cha and ?? (wasn't she kinda dumb?) and not so much worshiped but was tight with the Moon goddess
Favored Soul: Cha and Wis just like jacob
It just seems like Charisma should play a more important role in the class if not the main stat
Sailor Moon: (as best I can recall) Cha and ?? (wasn't she kinda dumb?) and not so much worshiped but was tight with the Moon goddess
Hmm... Wisdom is not clearly visible like Intelligence, and Charisma is not necessarily tied to external beauty. I can picture Sailor Moon like a 10 16 14 8 18 14 very well, if Wisdom is an expression of her magical connection with the deity... Wrath Invoker all the way.
Yes, she didn't seem to possess the keen intuitive faculties of high wisdom, but who knows, maybe it was a lack of Wis skills...
Aw I think I should go to sleep
P.S. Her sexyness must be concentrated in that 16 Con in this case heheh... After all what Con do you have with 1 meter of legs? :D
also I think Charisma when you say "connection"
Sailor Moon is absolutely not an Invoker, and neither are any of her friends.
Perhaps when the [Elemental] power source makes its debut we will see some Sailor-style builds, but there is nothing divine about her. The girl's a Christian, not a moon deity worshiper/recognizer/covenant-forger.[/indent]
[indent]Sailor Moon is a fourteen year-old, modern day reincarnation of the ancient Silver Millenium's crown princess. She is neither wise, smart, dextrous, or particularly charismatic; she is the ultimate underdog. There is no moon goddess {snip}
Hmm... I'm not sure if I should award you geek points or deduct them for knowing so much about Sailor Moon beyond it having the "Boomin' anime babes that make you think the wrong things." :D
Hmm... I'm not sure if I should award you geek points or deduct them for knowing so much about Sailor Moon beyond it having the "Boomin' anime babes that make you think the wrong things." :D
Babes needs quotation marks around it
[indent]The girl's a Christian, not a moon deity worshiper/recognizer/covenant-forger.[/indent]
Why do you assume she's a Christian? Considering her study groop meets in a Shinto Temple, I would think she would prescrbe to the more common (in japan) belief system.
[indent]
Aww I know! I meant that the mechanics, powers and flavor of the powers of the Invoker are very close to those of a generic "super-girl" of pop-anime culture. I never really cared about who Sailor Moon really is. (if not from an aesthetic point of view...)
Most generic anime "Magical Girls", like those of Magic Knight Rayearth, Demon Hunter Youko, Card Captor Sakura and Princess Yukie, have powers much better defined by anything elemental, Fighter, Wizard and Bard.[/indent]
Dragon9:
[indent]
Hmm... I'm not sure if I should award you geek points or deduct them for knowing so much about Sailor Moon beyond it having the "Boomin' anime babes that make you think the wrong things."
I used to be that cool older brother who read manga comics to the little sis at bedtime.
[/indent]Anubis_Reynard:
[indent]
Why do you assume she's a Christian? Considering her study groop meets in a Shinto Temple, I would think she would prescrbe to the more common (in japan) belief system.
No assumptions, man. She's a Christian.
In the manga, she is commonly depicted wearing a crucifix, her family celebrates Christmas, she bickers back and forth with Mars about her "eerie" beliefs, and she attends "church" (as opposed to Shinto's, who attend "temple"). In the anime, she is often spooked by Mars' fire rituals, and her friend Molly is attacked by a traditionally dressed Christian priest with whom Sailor Moon is acquainted. Naoko Takeuchi, the creator of Sailor Moon, was outspoken about the fact that religion played a major part in inspiring her works (the previously mentioned Greco-Roman mythology, Norse mythology, etc.) and she used it to diversify the girls. Venus is a Buddhist; or she at least used to quote Buddhist teachings.
[/indent]Do some people think that maybe the creator got the mythologies for Saturn and Pluto mixed up? I mean in the anime Saturn is more death themed and Pluto can deal with time, but weren't the Roman gods actually reversed in the Pluto was the god of the underworld and Saturn was......ummm....the reason we celebrate Saturnalia? For some reason I can't remember what the Roman god Saturn did.
I love how this board goes off on bizarre tangents when we are waiting for new info. The Dhamyr thread is talking about Anthro Moe right now, and this one is discussing Sailor Moon.Bah Sailor Moon! Its all about Sailor Saturn.
Do some people think that maybe the creator got the mythologies for Saturn and Pluto mixed up? I mean in the anime Saturn is more death themed and Pluto can deal with time, but weren't the Roman gods actually reversed in the Pluto was the god of the underworld and Saturn was......ummm....the reason we celebrate Saturnalia? For some reason I can't remember what the Roman god Saturn did.
a god of scented candles?
Bah Sailor Moon! Its all about Sailor Saturn.
Do some people think that maybe the creator got the mythologies for Saturn and Pluto mixed up? I mean in the anime Saturn is more death themed and Pluto can deal with time, but weren't the Roman gods actually reversed in the Pluto was the god of the underworld and Saturn was......ummm....the reason we celebrate Saturnalia? For some reason I can't remember what the Roman god Saturn did.
Wasn't Saturn the titan that was daddy to the first six gods? I could look that up to be sure, but meh.
Wasn't Saturn the titan that was daddy to the first six gods? I could look that up to be sure, but meh.
The father of all was Uranus, the sky, with the mother being Gea/Gaea/Gaia, the earth. The first sons were the first gods, among them Kronos, which means "time".
Following the request of his mother who was tired of being constantly abused, Kronos castrated his father (the myth goes that the sky and the earth were as one, hence the constant sexual union of the two deities).
It's after this act that Kronos and his brother were called the "titan gods", meaning "straining gods".
From the **** spilled out from the severed genitals (yes, Greeks were a bit perverted) born the giants, cyclopes, other monstrous/demoniac figures, and what appears to be the first goddess of the new generation, Aphrodites (Venus).
Kronos, after imprisoning into Tartaros (an underdark of sorts) the giants and the most dangerous monsters, gave birth to his own generation of gods with Rhea, who was just one of his six sister titans. These were the "Olympians" who later rebelled and overthrown Kronos, who was culprit of eating all of his children-gods no less.
Other titans had offspring as well, and those were continued to be called titans.
The answer to the question however is yes, Kronos was named Saturn in Roman mythology, so in theory, Saturn is the deity of time. And Pluto (Roman name for the Greek god Hades) the god of the underworld and thus death.
However the truly Roman version of Saturn had lost its "titanic" background, and its power over time was downgraded to agriculture and to a lesser extent, the season cycle.
Another short answer, now that's useless, is yes: in Sailor Moon they totally swapped Saturn's and Pluto's powers. Don't know why.
EDIT: Searching in Wikipedia to be sure, I noticed something interesting. The only children not devoured by Kronos/Saturn were Zeus/Jupiter, Poseidon/Neptune, and Pluto/Hades. And it may be interpreted as "Air, Water, and Earth cannot be consumed by Time".
Ditto here.
[indent]
Bah Sailor Moon! Its all about Sailor Saturn.
No way, dude. Sailor Venus all the way!Do some people think that maybe the creator got the mythologies for Saturn and Pluto mixed up? I mean in the anime Saturn is more death themed and Pluto can deal with time, but weren't the Roman gods actually reversed in the Pluto was the god of the underworld and Saturn was......ummm....the reason we celebrate Saturnalia? For some reason I can't remember what the Roman god Saturn did.
None of their powers are perfect matches for their Greco-Roman namesakes. Like I said, there's a mix of mythology going on. Mercury has ice powers, Uranus has earth powers, Venus has metal powers... Jupiter having lightning powers is actually a byproduct of her energies being represented by wood, not the influence of Zeus/Jupiter. The only scout who is a true perfect match is Neptune.
Sailor Saturn is not death themed, her powers were of "destruction". Saturn was the "Dark Messiah", her transformation from girl to Sailor represented a being with the ability to unravel the entire universe. She was only called into being when cycles were meant to end, destroying all that it known as a means of bringing about a new beginning. It was actually her who tore apart and ended the Silver Millenium (the kingdom of which Moon was the princess). She is the "Soldier of Ruin and Birth". The talismans that Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto carry, when united, call her essence into being. That's why those scouts don't arrive until much later in the storyline; they purposefully remain detached as a means of avoiding the reemergence of Saturn. The Roman deity Saturn plays into her theme in his form as god of the harvest.
Pluto did not have time powers. Well... not exactly. She was steward of the Space-Time Door, and she existed outside of time and space. This post gave her the abilities to manipulate time, travel through time, and even reincarnate (all things she was sworn never to do as steward). The energy of her attacks was actually sonic (her main attack being the whispered "Dead Scream"). If there is a death-themed Sailor, then Pluto would be it. Most of her attacks make mention of the dead or the underworld in some manner, which is probably counterpart to the Roman deity Pluto being the ruler of the underworld.
Ultimatecalibur:
[indent]
I love how this board goes off on bizarre tangents when we are waiting for new info. The Dhamyr thread is talking about Anthro Moe right now, and this one is discussing Sailor Moon.
Yeah, we're all a bunch of crazies.
[/indent]