My guesses: Sorcerer and one other as arcane {i have no idea} and favored soul and one new one for divine.
Barbarian
Druid
Shaman
Primal Controller starting with a W (Witch/Witch-Doctor)
Bard
Sorcerer
A divine striker starting with an I (Inquisitor)
A divine controller starting with a T (Thurge)
Sadly, there are no psionics, so there's no wilder nor telepath. Sadder still is that after people read this post, there still going to insist that they're there. Don't worry, though, I'm sure it will come early next year, even if they plan on keeping it a bit of a secret
PHB II
The new classes in this book include some long-time favorites of D&D players, such as the barbarian, druid, and sorcerer.
Sorcerer is going to be primal controller (I think)
We also know...
Arcane Powers book
This book provides new archetypal builds for the wizard, warlock, sorcerer, bard, and swordmage classes, including new character powers, feats, paragon paths, and epic destinies.
So we know bards are coming sometime before APR09, however we don't know that it will be in the PHB II, or if it is coming from another source.
Besides that, it is all speculation. I like the idea mentioned on other posts of an Inquisitor being a divine striker, however that is not canon and I am not holding my breath for it.
Hope it helps...
Sorcerer is going to be primal controller (I think)
Where'd you get this quote from?
Arcane Powers book
This book provides new archetypal builds for the wizard, warlock, sorcerer, bard, and swordmage classes, including new character powers, feats, paragon paths, and epic destinies.
Because that seems to indicate that the Sorcerer is Arcane, not Primal.
-Barbarian = Primal Defender
-Bard = Arcane Leader
-Druid = Primal Striker (hybrid)
-Invoker/Inquisitor = Divine Striker
-Shaman = Primal Leader
-Sorcerer = Arcane Controller
-Theurge = Divine Controller
-Witch = Primal Controller
You said sorcerer is going to be primal, then quoted something that confirmed sorcerer as arcane.
Yeah, I noticed that, but a man can dream, huh! Anyway, my reasoning was that they said they want a tank, leader, striker, and controller for each power source. Since we already have the wizard and the illusionist (some can argue it is psionic and I wouldn't argue that, either) being arcane controllers a bit of different flare on the class.
My current speculations/hopes:
-Barbarian = Primal Defender
I'm hoping/betting (if I was a betting man) that barbatians are probably going to be a striker who uses 2-handed weapons since we really don't have one of those yet.
I'm hoping/betting (if I was a betting man) that barbatians are probably going to be a striker who uses 2-handed weapons since we really don't have one of those yet.
While that could be interesting, my money is on him being a Defender, they have always had the highest number of HP/HD since 1st Ed, among other reasons.
While that could be interesting, my money is on him being a Defender, they have always had the highest number of HP/HD since 1st Ed, among other reasons.
On the other hand, barbarians usually had poor AC in 3.5, and didn't have the sort of defender-like tricks that a fighter got with his plethora of feats, mostly involving tripping and disarming and extra attacks of opportunity. A barbarian was more about direct damage, and it would seem a little odd to me if they had some sort of marking ability. Of course by the same reasoning, Paladins shouldn't have been made defenders either, except they at least have the AC for the role.
So it really looks like either it will straight out be considered a hybrid role, or the writers will have redesign the barbarian somewhat to either fit as a striker or a defender.
On the other hand, barbarians usually had poor AC in 3.5, and didn't have the sort of defender-like tricks that a fighter got with his plethora of feats, mostly involving tripping and disarming and extra attacks of opportunity. A barbarian was more about direct damage, and it would seem a little odd to me if they had some sort of marking ability.
I can see where you're coming form – maybe he could be this lightly armoured Defender some people are clamouring for?
Yeah, I noticed that, but a man can dream, huh! Anyway, my reasoning was that they said they want a tank, leader, striker, and controller for each power source.
Actually, they've said the opposite. They aren't trying to fill the grid. Part of the mission statement is "no unnecessary symmetry". If a martial controller (for instance) isn't forthcoming, they aren't going to force one, and if two martial strikers (or arcane controllers) come together that are suitably different, then they aren't going to toss one out when both can work.
How do we know the I is a striker and T is the controller?
We don't. It is just where the speculation has ended up for a lot of people(although some people have come to the oppisite conclusion).
Also, edivence in the Witch's favor is a strange comment I can't seem to find right now on witches, wizards, and warlocks that seemed to suggest that despite similar meanings, all three could be viable classes. Not concrete, but since we have two of them it stands to reason the third might be on the way.
the problem with the totemist is that there was a 3e totemist, and with the Shaman that would make only 2 new classes. However, we know there will be three new classes and 5 conversions. So if T is Totemist, Shaman has to go and be replaced with something else.
Also, edivence in the Witch's favor is a strange comment I can't seem to find right now on witches, wizards, and warlocks that seemed to suggest that despite similar meanings, all three could be viable classes. Not concrete, but since we have two of them it stands to reason the third might be on the way.
Wasn't 3.5E's Totemist an Incarnum class? If so, doesn't that make it about as far as possible from Primal?
Correct me if I'm wrong. I read through MoI once, briefly, and that's my experience with it.
Since we already have the wizard and the illusionist (some can argue it is psionic and I wouldn't argue that, either) being arcane controllers a bit of different flare on the class.
I've seen mention that Illusionists will be Shadow power source, not Arcane, along with Necromancers.
its in the frpg.
anyway my guess
barbarian
sohei
wu-jen
sorcerer
druid
bard
I
T
Sohei? Wu Jen? Sounds like it would be in 4e OA to me.
While I would love to see that, as long as all the classes don't have Ki as their power source, I doubt it.
I want Al-Qadim!
the sword mage was a typo at enworld.
its in the frpg.
anyway my guess
barbarian
sohei
wu-jen
sorcerer
druid
bard
I
T
I'm reasonably confident we'll see Sohei along with Ninja, Samurai, and Monk in the Ki power source, in a future PH -- as in, not PH2.
Wu Jen is a weird case, because it's strongly Primal flavoured, and yet also perhaps too "oriental" in flavour to match the other Primal classes. OTOH, Wu Jen would be a shoe-in for the Primal Controller role, if WotC is willing to give it a name that's not especially evocative to english-speaking D&D fans, especially newer fans who never experience the Wu Jen in previous editions.
Wu Jen could neatly replace "Witch" on the current presumptive list of PH2 classes. I'd personally prefer the Wu Jen, if only because I hate the class name, "Witch". "Witch" is way too generic, and yet it potentially shares a huge amount of flavour with the Wu Jen. Further, it wouldn't totally surprise me to see a Wu Jen that was substantially different from 3.5E's Wu Jen; like the Warlock, it's a relatively new class without a major fanbase to tie it down.
How do we know the I is a striker and T is the controller?
You know, your absolutely right. What would you put?
the problem with the totemist is that there was a 3e totemist, and with the Shaman that would make only 2 new classes. However, we know there will be three new classes and 5 conversions. So if T is Totemist, Shaman has to go and be replaced with something else.
Also, edivence in the Witch's favor is a strange comment I can't seem to find right now on witches, wizards, and warlocks that seemed to suggest that despite similar meanings, all three could be viable classes. Not concrete, but since we have two of them it stands to reason the third might be on the way.
Only familiar with 3e core, didn't know it already existed. Sill hope I'm right because Witch is a lame name for a class.
On the other hand, barbarians usually had poor AC in 3.5, and didn't have the sort of defender-like tricks that a fighter got with his plethora of feats, mostly involving tripping and disarming and extra attacks of opportunity. A barbarian was more about direct damage, and it would seem a little odd to me if they had some sort of marking ability. Of course by the same reasoning, Paladins shouldn't have been made defenders either, except they at least have the AC for the role.
So it really looks like either it will straight out be considered a hybrid role, or the writers will have redesign the barbarian somewhat to either fit as a striker or a defender.
Barbarian's AC in 3(.5) didn't have to be poor, unless player or DM insisted on it.
Mithral full plate worked miracles on barbarian's AC.
But barbarians traditionally had a lot of staying power in form of hit points. All previous incarnations of the class (1E, 2E, 3(.5)E) used d12 as their HD.
And the traditional perception of barbarian fighting style (shout a battle cry, charge, deal an obscene amount of damage) matches more with defender flavour than that of strikers.
I kind of expect the 4e barbarian to have at least some of the following class features:
- more hp than fighter or paladin (say 17 + Con as starting hp, and 7 hp/level)
- bonus to damage dealt with melee weapons (similar to how fighter gets attack roll bonuses) or maybe just with a smaller group of melee weapons (say, all simple weapons, plus greataxe, greatsword, and maul), probably +2, maybe +3 for a narrower list
- dragonborn-like bonus to healing surges
- per day amount of healing surges equal to that of paladin (10 + Con modifier)
- armour proficiencies up to hide, perhaps with a swordmage-like bonus to AC if not wearing heavy armour
Personally, I'd like the PHII to have two barbarian builds, the savage warrior (direct damage, sort of defender/striker, if you will) and the "noble savage" (defender/leader).
whole new class name...Warper......Like transmuter but it's so new they can spin it any way they want.
Make it primal or arcane.....you twist reality to your will.
I like it.
Barbarian's AC in 3(.5) didn't have to be poor, unless player or DM insisted on it.
Mithral full plate worked miracles on barbarian's AC.
Anyone outside of mages could strap on mithral plate just as well to improve their AC. Barbarians are the only ones who got an AC penalty for using their class feature. So yeah, you could work around their handicap, but that doesn't change the fact that it was originally flavored to have poor AC along with their massive hp.
And the traditional perception of barbarian fighting style (shout a battle cry, charge, deal an obscene amount of damage) matches more with defender flavour than that of strikers.
Dealing an obscene amount of damage would indicate a striker role along with the weaker AC, and bonuses for mobile attacks such as a charges would also be very striker like. Battle cries could be interpreted different ways, in 3.5 it was just fluff, but I could see them doing so cool things with it, mostly in terms of intimidate.
I kind of expect the 4e barbarian to have at least some of the following class features:...
- bonus to damage dealt with melee weapons (similar to how fighter gets attack roll bonuses) or maybe just with a smaller group of melee weapons (say, all simple weapons, plus greataxe, greatsword, and maul), probably +2, maybe +3 for a narrower list...
- armour proficiencies up to hide, perhaps with a swordmage-like bonus to AC if not wearing heavy armour
I agree that there probably will be some sort of damage bonus for barbarians, possibly scaling damage for that matter. However, the reason the fighter has a to-hit bonus from his class is that he has minor striker abilities along with defender abilities. So the point is that the barbarian will either be a striker with minor defender abilities or a defender with minor striker abilities like the fighter.
Either way, I am almost certain that the barbarian will not get a class defense or AC bonus. In fact I expect alot of their powers to work like 'throw caution to the wind' storm warden power, and give defense penalties for more damage and/or chance to hit.
The rest of the list I agree with.
Personally, I'd like the PHII to have two barbarian builds, the savage warrior (direct damage, sort of defender/striker, if you will) and the "noble savage" (defender/leader).
I don't feel that the class will step too much into warlord like territory. I expect rather that build might instead be directed at intimidation powers and making opponents desire to move away from him. Almost antidefenderish in a way actually. This will be fine if it allows him to setup more charges for extra damage.
I don't feel that the class will step too much into warlord like territory. I expect rather that build might instead be directed at intimidation powers and making opponents desire to move away from him. Almost antidefenderish in a way actually. This will be fine if it allows him to setup more charges for extra damage.
You just gave me the coolest idea for what the barbarian should do.
Imagine this, a class that has lots of pushes, and for whom being near is very dangerous and staying close to puts you at risk, kind of as you said, opposite the defenders goal of keeping enemies close.
You end up with a very scarey brute, chasing/herding enemies around the battlefield away from the squishier members and towards the defenders, who then hold them in place while the barbarian and rogue tear them apart with the fighter help.
How better to capture the barbarian's flavor, than a scary brute no one wants to be near and tries to get away from that knocks people all over the battlefield. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's ideal and would be a really fun character to play.
Also keep in mind, you don't need to rely in intimidate, it's a big scarey dude with a huge weapon, foaming at the mouth and swinging wildly. Think of it this way.
The fighter hits you if you shift away from him, what if the barbarian's "marking" ability were to hit you if you start your turn next to him forcing you to either shift or take damage from the wildly swinging axe, ect? No need for intimidation, use the mechanics instead, same as fighter and paladins don't force others to attack them, they just strongly encourage it.
I also in this case like the idea of marking stacking. I'm just picturing the person peeing themselves as they try to maneuver around the fighter in a panic as this scary mofo keeps trying to murder them, screwed if they do, screwed if they don't. Fighter and Barbarian working in tandem.
Also I expect the barbarian to have high damage, high hit points, low ac and low to hit from taking unnecessary risks.
Really they're kind of a defender/striker/controller hybrid, that kinda do their own thing, and are almost a role unto themselves.
Still, a barbarian with a 2-handed weapon should be feared in terms of damage. Maybe a striker/(weird) controller? I like the idea. Might be time to homebrew some things...
You just gave me the coolest idea for what the barbarian should do.
Imagine this, a class that has lots of pushes, and for whom being near is very dangerous and staying close to puts you at risk, kind of as you said, opposite the defenders goal of keeping enemies close.
You end up with a very scarey brute, chasing/herding enemies around the battlefield away from the squishier members and towards the defenders, who then hold them in place while the barbarian and rogue tear them apart with the fighter help.
How better to capture the barbarian's flavor, than a scary brute no one wants to be near and tries to get away from that knocks people all over the battlefield. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's ideal and would be a really fun character to play.
Also keep in mind, you don't need to rely in intimidate, it's a big scarey dude with a huge weapon, foaming at the mouth and swinging wildly. Think of it this way.
The fighter hits you if you shift away from him, what if the barbarian's "marking" ability were to hit you if you start your turn next to him forcing you to either shift or take damage from the wildly swinging axe, ect? No need for intimidation, use the mechanics instead, same as fighter and paladins don't force others to attack them, they just strongly encourage it.
I also in this case like the idea of marking stacking. I'm just picturing the person peeing themselves as they try to maneuver around the fighter in a panic as this scary mofo keeps trying to murder them, screwed if they do, screwed if they don't. Fighter and Barbarian working in tandem.
Also I expect the barbarian to have high damage, high hit points, low ac and low to hit from taking unnecessary risks.
Really they're kind of a defender/striker/controller hybrid, that kinda do their own thing, and are almost a role unto themselves.
It's the Sheepdog class!
I was thinking on it, and considering alot of the flavor from 3e, the Sorcerer woulc very easily be an arcane striker as opposed to controller
Too bad it was already stated that they are arcane controllers.:P
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1031661
Ah well, the more options the better
Im looking forward to a divine caster limited to wearing cloth. Maybe here.
Like that?
Like that?
lol
When I think of "Divine casters in cloth armor" I think white magic, Final Fantasy. And in my mind that's not a bad thing!
are we sure there will be a divine striker? Could they just have a second divine leader?
I'm guessing that all divine classes will have some minor healing ability, if the lay on hands ability of the paladin is any indication.
Hybrids are another possibility. Some rumors are saying that the druid may be hybrid (either defender/controller or striker/controller depending on whether the shapeshifting ability is based more on damage or defense). It's possible that there may be a few other hybrids as well (like a hybrid defender/striker for the barbarian which can focus either on locking down opponents or dealing more damage).
Sill hope I'm right because Witch is a lame name for a class.
Still hope I'm right, because Witch is an awesome name for a class.
…Oh, IMO.
As for hybrid classes, I believe David Noonan, who designed the class, has confirmed that the druid is a hybrid class, with shape-changing and some spell-casting.
Too bad it was already stated that they are arcane controllers.:P
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1031661
Oh really? I hadn't heard that...Damn. Oh well, I'm still excited to see what they come up with. My first character was a Sorcerer, and I'd like to try returning to my roots :D
I'm guessing that all divine classes will have some minor healing ability, if the lay on hands ability of the paladin is any indication.
Hybrids are another possibility. Some rumors are saying that the druid may be hybrid (either defender/controller or striker/controller depending on whether the shapeshifting ability is based more on damage or defense). It's possible that there may be a few other hybrids as well (like a hybrid defender/striker for the barbarian which can focus either on locking down opponents or dealing more damage).
I am just saying where everyone is specualting they are assuming there will be certain roles taken such as 1 divine striker and 1 divine controller because we have a divine defender and leader. yet, we have 2 martial strikers and no controller. Thus, perhaps they are not so concerned about filling in all the roles for each power source. Perhaps there will only be 3 primal classes. Perhaps there will be another divine defender
I am just saying where everyone is specualting they are assuming there will be certain roles taken such as 1 divine striker and 1 divine controller because we have a divine defender and leader. yet, we have 2 martial strikers and no controller. Thus, perhaps they are not so concerned about filling in all the roles for each power source. Perhaps there will only be 3 primal classes. Perhaps there will be another divine defender
The reason that there is no martial controller is because there is no natural extention of the idea and they don't want to force it. *puts in earplugs to ignore the cries for alchemist, dragoon, and w/e the third common weird idea was* However a divine controller and divine striker are both very natural concepts as people have come up with multiple ideas. As such there is no need for them to force it.
However I really haven't seen any ideas for a second divine leader or divine defender that wouldn't be basically cleric 2.0 or paladin 2.0(actually I haven't seen any, but all the ideas I can think of fall under those two categories), so they would basically be forcing either of those two.
And I really doubt they would go with only three primal classes as that would require them to publish at least one more class before they could give primal a power book, speculation on requirements to get a power source book, and I see them wanting to get the eight primary power sources defined as quickly as possible.
However if you feel that the current lists are lacking, then feel free to speculate something different. Just be aware that I(and probably half the other posters here) will call you on every mistake you make.:P
Sounds like they finally worked out the pet rules and built a class around them.
As for people complaining about martial controllers I say this...there is a martial controller already in the players handbook...the Archer build for the ranger.
Seeing as it does more damage spread through multiple enemies then almost any other martial class, but less damage than the TWF build for the ranger. With your DM's discretion you may convince him/her to let you add more secondary effects on the archer build powers, if you specialized in the archer.
Added slowed effect to enemies here, immobilized effect there, push effect there and viola! Your own martial controller. For my campaign I allowed either trading away the hunter's quarry benefit for the added effects, or lowered the damage of some of the powers by 1 hd
As for people complaining about martial controllers I say this...there is a martial controller already in the players handbook...the Archer build for the ranger.
You are absolutely correct, in fact, I remember reading the designers stating that when they designed the PHB classes, they were still a bit unsure exactly how to define a controller (what it entails etc), so that's why they only released 1, but now they have a better bead on it.
They also said something about the ranger, that's why the archer build is very bordering on a controller – basically the first hybrid class.
The reason that there is no martial controller is because there is no natural extention of the idea and they don't want to force it. *puts in earplugs to ignore the cries for alchemist, dragoon, and w/e the third common weird idea was* However a divine controller and divine striker are both very natural concepts as people have come up with multiple ideas. As such there is no need for them to force it.
Well, OK. There could be a martial controller. That is a "fighter" that occupies several opponents at once. I look back at the old Errol Flynn movies and how a swashbuckler fights 4 or 5 minions at once. They could something like that a fighter using speed and abilities to skirmish w/ several opponents at one time
There could be a martial controller.
Yeah, the Ranger (archer build).
All we're saying is that every idea for a full martial controller has been incredibly contrived so far.
And like Ranadiel said, please no one step in with their Alchemist/Grenadier/Dragoon etc business, it's doing our heads in.
Yeah, the Ranger (archer build).
All we're saying is that every idea for a full martial controller has been incredibly contrived so far.
And like Ranadiel said, please no one step in with their Alchemist/Grenadier/Dragoon etc business, it's doing our heads in.
you no likey my swashbuckler idea. I think it works well in theory. I haven't tried to actually work it out but I think it could work
you no likey my swashbuckler idea. I think it works well in theory. I haven't tried to actually work it out but I think it could work
Well, all I'm saying is there is more to controlling than being able to attack multiple adjacent opponents (a lot more).
I do love swashbuckling action, though, but to me it already exists in 4th Ed.
However I really haven't seen any ideas for a second divine leader or divine defender that wouldn't be basically cleric 2.0 or paladin 2.0(actually I haven't seen any, but all the ideas I can think of fall under those two categories), so they would basically be forcing either of those two.
I can think of a few for leader; for defender, no, I'm kind of stuck at paladin
Divine Leader ideas (these two are kind of similar)
- a pure caster priest, ala the cloistered cleric variant
- something along the lines of the Heroes of Horror Archivist
I can think of a few for leader; for defender, no, I'm kind of stuck at paladin
Divine Leader ideas (these two are kind of similar)
- a pure caster priest, ala the cloistered cleric variant
- something along the lines of the Heroes of Horror Archivist
Hmmm I'll give you that the first one could work as being something that is different from the Cleric. However, I personally see them turning a pure caster priest into a controller with some leader qualities. However being a pure leader could certainly work.
And I'm not familiar with the second one.
I know he was arcane in previous editions, but I think he fits the Primal source better in 4E. My reasoning is that Primal is very spontaneous, emotional, alive, and...well, primal. The Bard's schtick is music and creativity, and creativity is very spontaneous and emotional and alive.
So I think the Bard will be the Primal Leader. We already have an Arcane Leader (the Artificer), although the Artificer and the Bard are different enough that if the Bard was Arcane they could still fill the same role in wildly different ways (the way the Sorcerer and Wizard are supposed to).
That would make the Shaman the Primal Controller instead of the Primal Leader. I don't know about the "W" class ("Witch" or whatever).
(Unless of course it's been confirmed that the Bard is Arcane, in which case I'm just talking out my butt.)
As a side note about Shaman, I think the Shaman and Druid should have their names switched. When I hear the word "Shaman," I think of a Native American medicine man who deals with animal totems and shapeshifting ("skinwalkers," etc.) and also spiritual healing. When I hear the word "Druid," I think of the Celtic druids from Briton (the guys who made Stonehenge), who were pure casters. It's ironic to me that in the minds of most fantasy gamers, the two names have had their meanings transposed.
Has anybody though that maybe the Witch is basically an Enchanter making a comeback? All those Enchantment/Charm spells might be in this book too.
I'm still holding out for the Necromancer, maybe under a different name?
Okay, nevermind then. But I still maintain that the Bard's flavor fits better with Primal than Arcane. Just my opinion. And what I said about Shaman and Druid.
If you are referring to this part of your post.
That would make the Shaman the Primal Controller instead of the Primal Leader. I don't know about the "W" class ("Witch" or whatever).
Then I direct you to the only mention we have of the Shaman, which it confirms it as a leader. If you are reffering to the other part, then I really don't have anything to add.....well other then I believe that Stonehenge was built prior to the celtic druids, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
I'm still holding out for the Necromancer, maybe under a different name?
Necromancer is about 99% confirmed to be a shadow class. As Shadow classes are not in the PHBII, the odds of it being in there are quite slim(for comparison, it has about the same odds as monks, psionics, and incarnum classes).
Alchemist is a heroic tier feat that can be bought normally or taken in place of Ritual Caster if that is granted as a class feature.
Alchemical items are written up as magic items and function like them other than not using rituals to create them. Alchemy uses recipes for creating the items and you need to know the recipe and have the components. This means that any class could take on the alchemist's role and even a bit of the artificer though in a less efficient way. I could also see the Artificer getting both Ritual Caster and Alchemist skills for free.
I want to find out more about the "top-secret leader class that [Shelly] can't disclose yet", that "travels with a "buddy" who keeps the party in tip-top shape".
Sounds like they finally worked out the pet rules and built a class around them.
That might be the shaman, actually. They might have picked up some of the druid's "beast master" flavor, and use 'summons' or 'animal companions' in the form of totem spirits.
One thing to figure out when trying to speculate on classes is what flavor 'niche' isn't already adequately filled by another class.
For instance:
Fighter - weaponmaster/soldier
Paladin - "holy" warrior
Rogue - thief/sneaky guy
Ranger - skirmisher/archer/two-weapon fighter
Warlock - caster who gains powers from pacts with otherworldly entities
Cleric - crusader-type priest
Warlord - 'noble' fighter/general
Wizard - caster who gains powers from studying magic.
I'm guessing some of the more 'naturey' parts of the 3E ranger will get scooped up by the barbarian. Druids will be cut back to the shapeshifting/weather control niche, with Shamans taking up the healing/summoning parts. Bards will likely be less of the 'jack-of-all-trades' and focus more on buffs and debuffs.
Hopefully they come up with some thematic way to set the sorcerer and his powers apart so he doesn't just feel like a 'wizard with wild magic'.
Heres for wild speculation!
Amen!
But I still maintain that the Bard's flavor fits better with Primal than Arcane. Just my opinion.
I can see where you're coming from, as the 1st Ed Bard was under druidic tutelage.
Hopefully they come up with some thematic way to set the sorcerer and his powers apart so he doesn't just feel like a 'wizard with wild magic'.
I'm kind of thinking/hoping the sourcerer is more of the conjuration type and uses "minons" to change the battlefield around.
Looks like we're getting 5 races (4 confirmed and known) and 8 classes in the PHB2, and in September, we'll be getting a playtest, similar to the artificer where we get one build, of one of these classes. My bet is either a druid with shapeshifting powers, or a shaman who summons spirit animals. Both of which have themes that were considered broken in previous versions - shapeshifting, and summoning, and both would need lots of playtesting.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080815
Looks like we're getting 5 races (4 confirmed and known) and 8 classes in the PHB2, and in September, we'll be getting a playtest, similar to the artificer where we get one build, of one of these classes. My bet is either a druid with shapeshifting powers, or a shaman who summons spirit animals. Both of which have themes that were considered broken in previous versions - shapeshifting, and summoning, and both would need lots of playtesting.
Breaking news, the playtest article will be the Barbarian(in September) according to an interview with Chris Youngs. At the moment the video can be found here, but I expect it to be taken down and put back up because they didn't ediit the beginning properly(forgot to take out the first take).
It seems fairly obvious to me that the 'new' classes will begin with W,I T and that two of them will be divine. Witch, Inquisitor and Theurge look like a solid trifecta at this stage, but we may be surprised. It's happened before.
Too bad it was already stated that they are arcane controllers.:P
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1031661
From that article it seems to me that they would be Primal Controllers as oppsed to Arcane. Note in the hint: "Wild magery". If the Primal power source comes as we think it will in PHB II then the Sorcerer is just part of the primal set with the Barbarian as the Primal Defender/Striker and the Druid as the Primal Leader.
Sidenote: Can't wait for Bards!!!!
From that article it seems to me that they would be Primal Controllers as oppsed to Arcane. Note in the hint: "Wild magery". If the Primal power source comes as we think it will in PHB II then the Sorcerer is just part of the primal set with the Barbarian as the Primal Defender/Striker and the Druid as the Primal Leader.
Sidenote: Can't wait for Bards!!!!
Sorcerers will be expanded in the Arcane Power sourcebook, which kinda rules them out of the Primal source. Though the idea of a primal sorcerer was very plausible to me, a few months ago.
From that article it seems to me that they would be Primal Controllers as oppsed to Arcane. Note in the hint: "Wild magery". If the Primal power source comes as we think it will in PHB II then the Sorcerer is just part of the primal set with the Barbarian as the Primal Defender/Striker and the Druid as the Primal Leader.
Sidenote: Can't wait for Bards!!!!
*blinks*
That mean taking the sorcerer back to the broad story concepts (concepts that evolved later in the sorcerer's original 3e design, since the sorcerer began with mechanics in 3e) and thinking hard about what it *could* be and how it could occupy the same role and power source as the wizard but be a different class.
Since when has the wizard been a primal controller? Dang it I knew I should have kept up with the errata.
:PA shadow powersource would in theory recieve power through use of shadow (or rather the Shadowfell).
As for "Since when has the wizard been a primal controller? Dang it I knew I should have kept up with the errata." from Nautilus:
Sorceror has been all but confirmed as an Arcane Controller.
As for "Since when has the wizard been a primal controller? Dang it I knew I should have kept up with the errata." from Nautilus:
Sorceror has been all but confirmed as an Arcane Controller.
....I know, I was joking. Do my jokes really not come accross online? I really thought it was obvious on that one.
I am just saying where everyone is specualting they are assuming there will be certain roles taken such as 1 divine striker and 1 divine controller because we have a divine defender and leader. yet, we have 2 martial strikers and no controller. Thus, perhaps they are not so concerned about filling in all the roles for each power source. Perhaps there will only be 3 primal classes. Perhaps there will be another divine defender
That's because a Divine Striker would be awesome, while every Martial Controller idea is lamer than the last.
That's because a Divine Striker would be awesome, while every Martial Controller idea is lamer than the last.
Yeah, I'm hoping for Invoker, or Inquisitor, and yes, every idea I have seen for a martial controller so far is lame and contrived.
This alchemist/engineer/trap-master/dragoon business is doing me old noggin in.
Anyway, we already have a martial controller of sorts, even the designers have stated it - the ranger (archer path).
That's because a Divine Striker would be awesome, while every Martial Controller idea is lamer than the last.
I would love a divine striker, fun to play.
Makes you wonder why Warlocks don't have Shadow...!
Because shadow has a bunch of illusion and necromancy related powers, which the warlock has more variety in powers and themes in. And whatever the shadow striker is going to be, will probably be some combination of the ninja and shadowdancer.
Because shadow has a bunch of illusion and necromancy related powers, which the warlock has more variety in powers and themes in. And whatever the shadow striker is going to be, will probably be some combination of the ninja and shadowdancer.
My current speculations on the Shadow power source:
-Controller = Illusionist
-Defender = Hexblade (very maybe)
-Leader = Necromancer
-Striker = Ninja/Shadowdancer
Of course, they might not fill every roll with the shadow power source, this is just today's speculation for me.
What about the Blackguard as the defender. I seem to remember them having certain undead pets and followers?
The paladin killed the blackguard and took his stuff.
Bel
First: Barbarian is a primal striker.
Second: There is a primal defender class (not barbarian).
Third: Two upcoming classes will be strikers that can use two handed weapons.
I got these from two different developers. I don't want to reveal names only because I don't want to get anyone in trouble in case this info wasn't supposed to be public yet.
-SYB
I got a chance to speak with a few of the developers at GenCon (and by developers, I am referring to people whose names are on the front cover of current and upcoming books). I got three confirmations.
First: Barbarian is a primal striker.
Second: There is a primal defender class (not barbarian).
Third: Two upcoming classes will be strikers that can use two handed weapons.
I got these from two different developers. I don't want to reveal names only because I don't want to get anyone in trouble in case this info wasn't supposed to be public yet.
-SYB
Hmmm interesting info. It all seems to be about what I expected, but I'm not sure on who the primal defender will be. Assuming the letter placement guesses are right so far(w and s being primal), then I'm wondering if it might be something like warden. I'm not completely sure, but I could see that working as somewhat of a ranged defender. *shrugs*
Oh and I hope you'll understand that I'm not going to add this to my compilation thread as I am unable to personally confirm the info.....unless you happened to record the conversations.
Hmmm interesting info. It all seems to be about what I expected, but I'm not sure on who the primal defender will be. Assuming the letter placement guesses are right so far(w and s being primal), then I'm wondering if it might be something like warden. I'm not completely sure, but I could see that working as somewhat of a ranged defender. *shrugs*
Oh and I hope you'll understand that I'm not going to add this to my compilation thread as I am unable to personally confirm the info.....unless you happened to record the conversations.
Sorry, they confiscated my tape recorder at airport security. :D
I understand completely. Even if I felt comfortable dropping names (which I don't for reasons stated earlier), it would still be second hand information as far as you are concerned. Use the information as you see fit. I just figured, given the topic, people might be interested in what I had heard.
-SYB
My money is on the Druid being the Divine Defender/controller, in a manner similar to how the Warlord is a Leader/defender.
My money is on the Druid being the Divine Defender/controller, in a manner similar to how the Warlord is a Leader/defender.
assuming SYB's information is accurate, i would agree with this estimation.
Edit: i failed to notice the word "divine". of course, druid is primal.
My money is on the Druid being the Divine Defender/controller, in a manner similar to how the Warlord is a Leader/defender.
Eh but the entire Primal mythos is based off of the druid. How the heck would that work if the Druid isn't primal itself?
Well, the Barbarian is definitely one Two-handed striker. I bet the Divine Striker is the other.
My money is on the Druid being the Divine Defender/controller, in a manner similar to how the Warlord is a Leader/defender.
That was probably just a slip of the keys, but the druid's primal, just to note. Also, tactical warlords can get kind of strikery, though I do agree that some warlord builds pretty clearly dabble in defender over striker.
Edit: Beaten massively because I let the window sit open for a while before filling it out.
Mostly what we got is all speculation for a lot of the classes, unless they were ones that existed before. Like how we have a pretty good idea on what a Bard will be like when it was also stated what it'll do in preview books and how it is an arcane leader.
Otherwise we're just guessing that there will be a Divine Striker called an "Inquisitor" and a Divine Controller called a "Theurge". Which we don't have any idea how they work.
Not a controller in the same sense as the wizard, who has lots of AoE effects, but in the sense that, with the right build, the warlord owns the battlefield.
I got a chance to speak with a few of the developers at GenCon (and by developers, I am referring to people whose names are on the front cover of current and upcoming books). I got three confirmations.
First: Barbarian is a primal striker.
Second: There is a primal defender class (not barbarian).
Third: Two upcoming classes will be strikers that can use two handed weapons.
I got these from two different developers. I don't want to reveal names only because I don't want to get anyone in trouble in case this info wasn't supposed to be public yet.
-SYB
*21 hours later*Hmmm hmmm hmmm.....doh! There is a giant piece of info in here that I just completely mentally skipped over on my first read through. We know that there are only two arcane classes in the book, neither of which are strikers. Hvaing two primal 2 hand weapon strikers would end up being mosttly redundant, which would require one of them to be a divine striker! Mostly the revelation is that the Divine Striker is a melee class.
Now with what info we currently have, I'm going to go ahead and make a new speculation list complete with class roles!
-Bard(Arcane Leader)
-Sorceror(Arcane Controller)
-Inquisitor(Divine Striker)
-Theruge(Divine Controller)
-Druid(Primal Controller)
-Barbarian(Primal Striker)
-Shaman(Primal Leader)
-Warden(Primal Defender)
Edit: I should probably note a couple of things here. The druid is most likely not a hybrid class anymore, and I see the controller aspects being more likely to take over the class assuming they keep both weather magic and transformations. As for the warden, I am sort envisioning it as a ranged defender. I'm not completely sure how that would work out, but it feels right to me.
This makes me very curious about how the Warden's new and different aproach to defending will be.
Shamans are rocking pets, Druids are wildshaping weather controllers, and I believe the Barbarians are totemist mofos, what is the Warden doing?
I hope this is true. I don't see Invoker as a becoming name for a two-handed weapon striker, Inquisitor for the win. I can imagine a striker with heavy armor and big weapons. I'm very happy. "Hey Torquemada, what do you say?"
This makes me very curious about how the Warden's new and different aproach to defending will be.
Shamans are rocking pets, Druids are wildshaping weather controllers, and I believe the Barbarians are totemist mofos, what is the Warden doing?
Keep in mind the Warden is just my theory for the name. I really have no idea on how the class would work at all.
war·den
–noun 1. a person charged with the care or custody of persons, animals, or things; keeper.
If the W named class is indeed the Primal Defender, than what better name for it.
1. It's the Druid, with the hybrid role of Defender/Controller.
2. The new Primal Defender class (Warden) is the combat shapeshifting class, with a sort of "beastmaster" flavor. Druid might still have some shapeshifting, but it's mostly for utility (shapeshifting into small animals for travel, movement, and other things) rather than a combat skill. Basically, they couldn't get a hybrid Druid to work, so they split it up into two classes.
Different animal forms might serve as 'builds' for a shapeshifter defender, with a CON-based bear form, DEX-based lion/tiger/wild cat form, STR-based wolf form, and so forth.
I'm not sure how a Primal Defender would work (thematically and mechanically) if it isn't a shapeshifter class or a Barbarian. Any ideas?
If the rumors are true and Barbarian is a striker (with a separate primal defender class), I'm thinking of two possibilities.
1. It's the Druid, with the hybrid role of Defender/Controller.
2. The new Primal Defender class (Warden) is the combat shapeshifting class, with a sort of "beastmaster" flavor. Druid might still have some shapeshifting, but it's mostly for utility (shapeshifting into small animals for travel, movement, and other things) rather than a combat skill. Basically, they couldn't get a hybrid Druid to work, so they split it up into two classes.
Different animal forms might serve as 'builds' for a shapeshifter defender, with a CON-based bear form, DEX-based lion/tiger/wild cat form, STR-based wolf form, and so forth.
I'm not sure how a Primal Defender would work (thematically and mechanically) if it isn't a shapeshifter class or a Barbarian. Any ideas?
I'm really not sure how exactly to make a primal defender work myself(I see shapeshifting as mostly utility powers and striker powers). However I do want to point out that in an interview during Gencon, one of the developers mentioned that hybrid classes ended up just not working. So I think it is safe to assume that the druid is simply one role with splashes of another(like other classes) now.
Barbarian (Primal Striker): Pretty easy to guess. The barbarian will probably be more of a 'tanking' Striker, focused more on dealing damage than locking enemies down. This may give him some secondary Defender traits, but not enough to serve as a true replacement. The barbarian may recieve extra abilities if bloodied (like extra rage damage or free healing surges), which encourage him to press the attack.
Bard (Arcane Leader): Also an easy guess. Will probably focus on buffing allies and debuffing enemies with magicial music/performance, having a bit of a controllerish vibe. The bard may also get some 'enchanter'-type abilities, to hold us over until the psionic and shadow sources are released.
Sorceror (Arcane Controller): Will apparently have a focus on 'wild magic'. I'm not sure how they'll handle this one so
that he doesn't feel too much like a wizard. Maybe he'll be more conjuration-focused, and get some summoning/familiar-type skills.
Druid (Primal Controller): Since hybrids are probably out, druids will probably be focused more on animal/plant/weather control-type magic. Maybe some animal-summoning skills as well. Any shapeshifting he gets will probably be more of a utility skill; useful for travel and subterfuge, but not so much for direct combat.
Shaman (Primal Leader): Will probably be a 'summon'-oriented leader class, using spirit totems to assist him and his allies. May get some other flavorful 'spirit totem'-type abilities.
Warden? (Primal Defender): As mentioned before, will be a shapeshifting combat class, focusing on front-line combat while transformed. May have a lycanthropic flavor (which would fit thematically with the Shifter race), and focus primarily on a single combat form. Some 'wildshape' abilities (like wolves) may be more striker-like in style, but others (like bears) are more 'tank'-like and fit the Defender bill.
Theurge? (Divine Controller): This may be the 'unarmored priest' archetype, similar to the Cloistered Cleric or Archivist. He'll probably focus more on smiting enemies with divine plagues and holy force than healing, though he may still get a few minor healing/Leader-type spells. May also focus on divine summoning.
Inquisitor? (Divine Striker): Will apparently be a close-range combat class, rather than a Warlock-like caster, if the rumors are true. I'm not sure how they'll handle this one.
I can envision picking the animal that the character mimics/shapeshifts into (wolf, bear, tiger, boar etc.) and having certain powers offer slightly variable effects based on that chosen animal, akin to the way weapon choice impacts certain fighter powers.
All that said, Warden would be cool too :D
Has it been revealed what role the Druid will fill? I could easily imagine Druids, with their focus on turning into big scary animals, being defenders.
Nothing confirmed, but with Barbarian being a Striker, there probably won't be two. I'd be happy if the Druid dropped the shapeshifting and was the Divine Controller, lightning- and wind-blasting the battlefield. The only thing I ever liked about the druid was some of its spell list; Wild Shape and summoning left me cold.
Curses, weather, spirits, fey, that sort of thing. Maybe even earthnodes. Not the right fit?Shaman (Primal Leader) confirmed
Barbarian (Primal Striker) theorized
Druid (Primal Controller)
Warden (Primal Defender)
Did something specifically eliminate "Witch" from the possible Primal Controller spot?
Witch is still something that's quite valid as a possibility. It hasn't been eliminated yet.
Just a thought...
No we're just speculating based on a previous poster's "inside tip" which indicated the barbarian as a striker, which shakes things up a bit. We know the druid will be a weather magic kinda guy which makes the druid appear to be a controller. Also Witch doesn't really lend itself to Primal Defender.
Shaman (Primal Leader) confirmed
Barbarian (Primal Striker) theorized
Druid (Primal Controller)
Warden (Primal Defender)
Have they said anything about cutting back on the Druid's wildshape ability? I thought that was supposed to be the classe's primary focus.
Bel
Has it been revealed what role the Druid will fill? I could easily imagine Druids, with their focus on turning into big scary animals, being defenders.
No it has not been confirmed, and I still do not get the idea of shapeshifting=defender. Animal forms seem much more likely to be stirikery then defendery to me. I mean what is more likely, a boar runniong you through or keeping you from moving?
Have they said anything about cutting back on the Druid's wildshape ability? I thought that was supposed to be the classe's primary focus.
Bel
They've said that hybrid classes didn't work, and that it was like having a switch between being a controller and a striker. As Druid was the only hybrid class we knew about, they have likely cut it down to one of the roles. So it is either a striker shapeshifter or a weather magic controller(potentially with shapeshifting for utilities). As we have the barbarian sort of confirmed as a primal striker, I'm more inclined to believe they are upping the number of controllers rather then upping the number of strikers.
Do we actually know for certain that the unaccounted-for 'W' class is the primal defender? Or is it possible that the divine striker is a Witch-hunter?
Just a thought...
I believe that it has been stated that there won't be hyphenated or two word class names. I don't recall ever reading this, but a lot of people have stated it, so I'm assuming there was a source. Besides Inquisitor is a much cooler name for the divine striker with pretty much the same idea behind it(not to mention slightly more generic).
Eh but the entire Primal mythos is based off of the druid. How the heck would that work if the Druid isn't primal itself?
Bah! I mistyped. Of course the Druid is Primal.
I am imagining a defender who's powers allow him to gain the strengths/capabilities of various totem animals. It could be a possiblity to even make the Totem, or even call it a fetish, an implement of some sort.
That would leave the W to be a possible Divine class. Not sure what it would be called, but a distinct possibility.
The other thing on my mind is, why has Templar been ruled out as a possible name for a T? The Templar could be a 2 handed weapon Striker that wears Chain or Scale mail.
Just some thoughts to add to the specualtion.
We could see a 'Templar' class but it might be whenever the Dark Sun Player's Guide comes out, since templar is quite associated with the worshippers of Athasian Sorcerer Kings in D&D.
Not sure if anybody has mentioned this already and I just missed it, but why has the idea of the Primal Defender being a Totemist not come up?
I am imagining a defender who's powers allow him to gain the strengths/capabilities of various totem animals. It could be a possiblity to even make the Totem, or even call it a fetish, an implement of some sort.
That would leave the W to be a possible Divine class. Not sure what it would be called, but a distinct possibility.
The other thing on my mind is, why has Templar been ruled out as a possible name for a T? The Templar could be a 2 handed weapon Striker that wears Chain or Scale mail.
Just some thoughts to add to the specualtion.
Once again I must say, that I don't see how channeling animals has anything to do with being a defender.
And Templar has been ruled out because people(or maybe it is just me) like Inquisitor better as the divine striker.:P
the barbarian is the primal striker,
the other would be an arcane striker or a divine striker..
anyway like the warden idea, but W could easily be, Warder an arcane striker,
or something else completely
they said two were strikers right?
the barbarian is the primal striker,
the other would be an arcane striker or a divine striker..
anyway like the warden idea, but W could easily be, Warder an arcane striker,
or something else completely
All arcane classes(Bard and Sorceror) have been accounted for as we know what classes are going to be covered in Arcane Power.
If they go the controller route with Druid, then it would preserve the shapeshifting aspect of that class, and would fill the "W" slot.
Edit: Not to mention, it actually sounds primal, which I would say is a good thing for a class with the primal powersource. ;)
What about "Wildshaper" for a sort of totemist/shapeshifting primal defender? I'm surprised no one has suggested it, especially having seen the Wild Shape class feature from 3.X mentioned specifically more than once.
If they go the controller route with Druid, then it would preserve the shapeshifting aspect of that class, and would fill the "W" slot.
Edit: Not to mention, it actually sounds primal, which I would say is a good thing for a class with the primal powersource. ;)
Eh, it runs into the same problem for me that a lot of other suggestions are running into. I don't see how is wildshaping a defender ability, and as a defender is what we are missing from primal the fourth class should most likely be a defender.
Just because there are multiple roles, doesn't mean they'll all be filled.
Now forgive me if it was confirmed earlier elsewhere, or in this thread, but what if there is NO primal defender? Maybe WotC hasn't come up with an idea yet. Similar to how there is no martial controller.
Just because there are multiple roles, doesn't mean they'll all be filled.
It isn't confirmed, but it seems pretty likely.
-It is confirmed that there is a defender
-We know it isn't Arcane
This leaves the choices to be either a Divine or Primal defender. As I have yet to see any ideas for a divine defender put forth that wouldn't be a paladin clone(well I actually don't think I've seen any, but minor detail), I'm leaning towards the defender being primal. At the very least it has 50/50 odds of being primal.
Now forgive me if it was confirmed earlier elsewhere, or in this thread, but what if there is NO primal defender? Maybe WotC hasn't come up with an idea yet. Similar to how there is no martial controller.
Just because there are multiple roles, doesn't mean they'll all be filled.
It is confirmed as far as I am concerned, but not for anyone else. I was lucky enough to talk to one of the developers at GenCon (actually many of them, but only one is applicable here). I was commenting on the Barbarian and he mentioned that he knew the Barbarian wasn't the Primal Defender because he had seen the Primal Defender class and it wasn't the Barbarian. In the same conversation, he confirmed that the Barbarian was a Primal Striker (a second developer independently confirmed this). And, no, this wasn't just a no-name (both developers have their names on the cover of books).
Unfortunately, since this was a private conversation (and I don't tape record my life), there is no way for me to provide confirmation. I know it is true. Anyone may choose to believe me or not. It will, obviously, be confirmed one way or another in roughly half a year.
-SYB
It is confirmed as far as I am concerned, but not for anyone else. I was lucky enough to talk to one of the developers at GenCon (actually many of them, but only one is applicable here). I was commenting on the Barbarian and he mentioned that he knew the Barbarian wasn't the Primal Defender because he had seen the Primal Defender class and it wasn't the Barbarian. In the same conversation, he confirmed that the Barbarian was a Primal Striker (a second developer independently confirmed this). And, no, this wasn't just a no-name (both developers have their names on the cover of books).
Unfortunately, since this was a private conversation (and I don't tape record my life), there is no way for me to provide confirmation. I know it is true. Anyone may choose to believe me or not. It will, obviously, be confirmed one way or another in roughly half a year.
-SYB
Actually, concerning the barbarian, I believe it will be confirmed some time in September, when the role out the new playtest article. Or so I've heard.
Eh, it runs into the same problem for me that a lot of other suggestions are running into. I don't see how is wildshaping a defender ability
Never played WoW, then, have you? ;)
Never played WoW, then, have you? ;)
No I haven't, care to elaborate?
No I haven't, care to elaborate?
In that game, Druids tank in bear form. At times (MMORPGs are often tweaked, meaning class balance is liable to change) this has been the best tank class in the game.
In that game, Druids tank in bear form. At times (MMORPGs are often tweaked, meaning class balance is liable to change) this has been the best tank class in the game.
So striker with loads of hp?
So striker with loads of hp?
I'm not quite sure where you're getting this shapechanger=striker equation from. It's not the least bit self-evident to me.
But to somewhat answer your question: they have lots of hp and armor, taunting abilities, and do a medium amount of damage. Pretty much the definition of a D&D Defender, isn't it?
I'm not quite sure where you're getting this shapechanger=striker equation from. It's not the least bit self-evident to me.
But to somewhat answer your question: they have lots of hp and armor, taunting abilities, and do a medium amount of damage. Pretty much the definition of a D&D Defender, isn't it?
I don't think either perspective is objectively "self-evident." Shapeshifting as a Defender = turning into bears, elephants, rhinos, etc. to tank. Shapeshifting as a Striker = turning into birds, serpents, rodents, etc. to get into advantageous positions.
Regarding the Barbarian, I posted the following on the thread for that class and thought it was relevant here as well. Any thoughts?
What if they split the Barbarian into two classes like they've done with the healer & caster "priests," the weather & spirits "druids," or even the foresty & arcane "elves?"
Class 1) Primal Striker who uses fast speed and savage, animalistic attacks like leaps and bites. We could call him Tarzan. :P
Class 2) Primal Defender made of hulking brute who channels strength and endurance to shrug off damage and swing a big axe. This guy we'd call Krusk. ;)
(Sidetrack...I wonder if Conan or Red Sonja would fit either of those...?)
I'm not quite sure where you're getting this shapechanger=striker equation from. It's not the least bit self-evident to me.
But to somewhat answer your question: they have lots of hp and armor, taunting abilities, and do a medium amount of damage. Pretty much the definition of a D&D Defender, isn't it?
I get the idea from the same place I get the idea that the Barbarian is a striker. When I see a bear(or babrbarian), I think "Ok that will hurt if it hits me" not "Oh dang it, I better attack that". I just don't see the thinking of how a shapeshifter is "sticky". I do see how morphing into something with muscles several times larger then yours leads to causing pain though.
I just don't see the thinking of how a shapeshifter is "sticky".
If they make the shapeshifter a defender, it will be "sticky" because it will be able to mark opponents, just like all other defenders. It's a defining trait of the defender role. Perhaps in your opinion, a shapeshifter shouldn't be able to mark enemies, but that is only your opinion.
For instance, it may have been the opinion of others that Paladin=Smiter, aka striker, not defender. In many people's minds, imposing marks may have never fallen into their idea of what a Paladin does.
All roles get their built in stuff, whether they fit anyone's personal "idea" of what defines an individual class. Warlocks were strikers, so they got the ability to tag an enemy and do more damage to it with a blast. They then flavored that ability to suit the class. "Hmm, curse sounds good..."
Artificer is the same way. Since it's a leader, it got a "Healing Word" type ability. They flavored it to fit the class.
So, all they have to do is flavor "sticky" abilities to fit the shapeshifter mold. Look at creatures like bears and wolves. They've always been known for their grab and trip abilities respectively. Sounds both sticky and flavor-iffic to me. So maybe if their opportunity attacks hit, they grab the enemy, immobilizing him. And maybe if a marked enemy makes an attack that doesn't include the shapeshifter, he can make an attack that trips the enemy and does a little damage.
These ideas are just off the top of my head, but I think they illustrate that it doesn't take much to think up ways that a shapeshifter could fulfill the defender role. I think it's just tempting to conceive classes as more "strikery" because previous editions tended to focus more on how hard/how many times you could hit your enemies.
I get the idea from the same place I get the idea that the Barbarian is a striker. When I see a bear(or babrbarian), I think "Ok that will hurt if it hits me" not "Oh dang it, I better attack that". I just don't see the thinking of how a shapeshifter is "sticky". I do see how morphing into something with muscles several times larger then yours leads to causing pain though.
rqshades already answered this well, but just to belabor the point some more...
Real world analogies will lead you astray very easily in gaming. But if I had to choose a representation of a Defender's stickiness, it would most certainly not be "Oh dang it, I better attack that".
It would probably be something more like "I can't afford to ignore that". I think the Defender's role is to be the 800-pound gorilla.
(Or in the case of the druid or other D&D shapeshifter, perhaps the 800-pound grizzly bear.)
The stickiness represented by various marking abilities does not come from having a magnetic pull on the opponents' weapons. It comes from instilling the fear that if you make a wrong move - like, say, turning your back on the Defender - you will get smacked down. This isn't just about being aggressive, though, or both Barbarians and melee Rangers would be Defenders. There also has to be the "large and in charge" element of dominating the battlefield.
Now, granted, this still sounds a lot like a Barbarian. I have to admit to having a bit of a blind spot myself about this Barbarian as Striker business. But that's just because of the literary precedents - I don't see Conan as the precision instrument of death that the PHB Striker classes are. Though I suppose his tactics usually involve hitting first and hitting hardest.
When Thay became embroiled in civil war, the Wychlaran, Rashemen’s witches, seized the opportunity to deal with a growing internal threat—the durthans. This dark group of women and hags, with powers similar to those of the Wychlaran, focused on corrupted spirits and wicked fey. Most durthans felt that the only way to protect Rashemen was to be as ruthless as its enemies. They built a secret sanctuary called Citadel Tralkarn within the Erech Forest.
Rashemi are fiercely tied to ancient ways practiced for over a thousand years. Warriors call up a feral rage against foes. Wychlaran hathrans (learned sisters) cast spells of wild power. The Wychlaran wield magic tied to the land, and they train those with power to serve Rashemen. Male spellcasters, called Old Ones since many live to a staggering age, are few. They excel in itemcraft and rituals.
Spells of wild power, tied to the land and the fey? No, it doesn't stand from the rooftops and declare to the world that Witches will be a class, but to me it definitely hints it.
Sign me up for Witches -- Primal Controllers.
and im not certain i want to buy into the sorcerer will be an arcane controller....
After reading the entry for Rashemen in the FRCG, I am about 98.5% certain that the Witch will be included in the primal power source. It may not necessarily be in PHB2, but I've got just about no doubt in my mind that this class will come to exist.Rashemi are fiercely tied to ancient ways practiced for over a thousand years. Warriors call up a feral rage against foes. Wychlaran hathrans (learned sisters) cast spells of wild power. The Wychlaran wield magic tied to the land, and they train those with power to serve Rashemen. Male spellcasters, called Old Ones since many live to a staggering age, are few. They excel in itemcraft and rituals.
Spells of wild power, tied to the land and the fey? No, it doesn't stand from the rooftops and declare to the world that Witches will be a class, but to me it definitely hints it.
Sign me up for Witches -- Primal Controllers.
ALso hints at Barbarians and Shamans.
Bel
After reading the entry for Rashemen in the FRCG, I am about 98.5% certain that the Witch will be included in the primal power source. It may not necessarily be in PHB2, but I've got just about no doubt in my mind that this class will come to exist.
Spells of wild power, tied to the land and the fey? No, it doesn't stand from the rooftops and declare to the world that Witches will be a class, but to me it definitely hints it.
Sign me up for Witches -- Primal Controllers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the witches of Rashemen arcane casters in previous editions(I want to say wizards)? Considering that the part you quoted mentioned that they are sticking to traditions practiced for over a thousand years, wouldn't that mean that they would be continuing the practices they have been doing since before the spellplague? Besides we really don't have the space for another primal controller.
also its also hinted at that the hathrans were fey pact warlocks.
and im not certain i want to buy into the sorcerer will be an arcane controller....
It was stated by a developer that the sorceror was designed for the same role and power source as the wizard. Really unless you are going to argue that the wizard is not an arcane controller that statement is pretty straight forward as to what the sorceror will be. If you want the exact quote it is on page three here or you can check my compilation topic. I'd post it myself but I;m running late and need to get into the shower right now.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the witches of Rashemen arcane casters in previous editions(I want to say wizards)? Considering that the part you quoted mentioned that they are sticking to traditions practiced for over a thousand years, wouldn't that mean that they would be continuing the practices they have been doing since before the spellplague? Besides we really don't have the space for another primal controller.
That's not the strongest argument, since in previous editions there was no such thing as a Primal power source, and the only core classes that plausibly could function in their place were wizard or druid (at that point divine). So, they got an arcane label that if they were being made from scratch today, they might not have gotten.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the witches of Rashemen arcane casters in previous editions(I want to say wizards)? Considering that the part you quoted mentioned that they are sticking to traditions practiced for over a thousand years, wouldn't that mean that they would be continuing the practices they have been doing since before the spellplague? Besides we really don't have the space for another primal controller.
It was stated by a developer that the sorceror was designed for the same role and power source as the wizard. Really unless you are going to argue that the wizard is not an arcane controller that statement is pretty straight forward as to what the sorceror will be. If you want the exact quote it is on page three here or you can check my compilation topic. I'd post it myself but I;m running late and need to get into the shower right now.
First, stating that because the witches of Rashemen were arcane casters in previous editions of the game means that they should be Arcane casters, instead of primal, if they "follow tradition" is meta-game thinking. As Munchmausen1 pointed out, there was no primal power source in previous editions. Witches, in almost any iteration, have always had a link to the wild. It makes sense for the Witches of Rashemen to have a primal link as well.
Second, stating that there is no room for another primal controller is completely illogical. Saying that is like saying there really isn't any space for a second martial striker, but we have 2 of those (Ranger and Rogue), or that there isn't really any space for a second arcane controller, but we are getting a second one of those (Sorcerer), or that there isn't any space for a second arcane leader, but we are getting 2 of those as well (Artificer and Bard). It seems to me that you are focusing on filling out the Power/Role grid, which has been stated is not a goal of WotC.
I don't mean any disrespect. I've read several of your posts and you strike me as someone who is both intelligent and in the know. I am however disinclined to agree with you on this topic
First, stating that because the witches of Rashemen were arcane casters in previous editions of the game means that they should be Arcane casters, instead of primal, if they "follow tradition" is meta-game thinking. As Munchmausen1 pointed out, there was no primal power source in previous editions. Witches, in almost any iteration, have always had a link to the wild. It makes sense for the Witches of Rashemen to have a primal link as well.
Second, stating that there is no room for another primal controller is completely illogical. Saying that is like saying there really isn't any space for a second martial striker, but we have 2 of those (Ranger and Rogue), or that there isn't really any space for a second arcane controller, but we are getting a second one of those (Sorcerer), or that there isn't any space for a second arcane leader, but we are getting 2 of those as well (Artificer and Bard). It seems to me that you are focusing on filling out the Power/Role grid, which has been stated is not a goal of WotC.
I don't mean any disrespect. I've read several of your posts and you strike me as someone who is both intelligent and in the know. I am however disinclined to agree with you on this topic
I'm sorry I don't think I got my point accross on this very well. Let me try again.
I brought up the arcane tradition thing for two reasons. The first beign that primal classes have been built off of the druid, a 3.X divine caster, which would tend to indicate that primal classes would be coming out of previously divine areas of the game for the most part. However since my initial post I have looked and it would appear that the witches were a combination of both divine and arcane casters, so that point honestly sort of falls by the wayside(beyond that I find a primal tradition where they cast using a spellbook kind of odd, but that is hardly binding).
My second reason for bringing that up, that I really should have elaborated on this a bit more but I was in a rush at the time, is that they haven't needed a class called witch in the past. They have been wizards, clerics(?), and druids(?) in the past and still called the same thing, as such having them referred to by the same name as they have been for previous editions isn't exactly great evidence for there to be a new class. Had they referred to the witches as invokers(gah I hate that class name but it was the first thing to pop into my mind) a name that they have never been called before, then it would most certainly be proof of something new.
Now onto the part about there not being space for them. At current we know that there are 8 classes in the book. We know four of them(barbarian, bard, druid and sorceror) with 100% certainty. We know the power source and a strong idea of the role for another(a more "spellcastery" cleric aka divine controller). We have a confirmed class name(Shaman) that seems likely to be in the book. So then that gives us the following list, if we assume the shaman is a definite which seems to have become a given in most speculation:
-Barbarian
-Bard
-Druid
-Shaman
-Sorceror
-(divine controller)
-(unknown)
-(unknown)
Most people are currently assuming that there have to be four classes for a power source before they will put out a power source book for that power soruce. As we know that Divine Power is coming out next year, that would require one of the two unknowns to be a divine class of some kind. This leaves only one slot for an unknown primal class. Now this slot cannot be a witch, or at least a primal controller witch.
The reason for this is we know that there should be a primal defender in the book and it cannot be any of the three given primal classes, requiring the fourth primal class to be a defender. The shaman was mentioned in a long list of leader classes, so its role is confirmed. The druid was originally going to be a hybrid between weather magic and shapeshifting. However in an interview, it was said that they tried to make a hybrid class but it was just like flipping a switch between being a striker and controller, so they decided to drop the hybrid idea. From this we know that the druid was originally a striker/controller hybrid and that it no longer is. As they would otherwise have to scrap the entire class, it can assumed they kept one of those roles. The barbarian has been described since Races and Classes as being very mobile and hitting hard(....and biting his enemies), and a poster here has confirmed that a developer told him that the barbarian is a striker which is consistent with the previous description.
So this leaves only two slots which could even theoretically be a defender(as we know the role for both bards and sorcerors). However we have semi-confirmation that developer stated that there is indeed a primal defender, meaning the last slot has to be a primal defender.
As Rauric(?) said, canon shouldn't be a crutch.
I'm sorry I don't think I got my point accross on this very well. Let me try again.
I brought up the arcane tradition thing for two reasons. The first beign that primal classes have been built off of the druid, a 3.X divine caster, which would tend to indicate that primal classes would be coming out of previously divine areas of the game for the most part. However since my initial post I have looked and it would appear that the witches were a combination of both divine and arcane casters, so that point honestly sort of falls by the wayside(beyond that I find a primal tradition where they cast using a spellbook kind of odd, but that is hardly binding).
My second reason for bringing that up, that I really should have elaborated on this a bit more but I was in a rush at the time, is that they haven't needed a class called witch in the past. They have been wizards, clerics(?), and druids(?) in the past and still called the same thing, as such having them referred to by the same name as they have been for previous editions isn't exactly great evidence for there to be a new class. Had they referred to the witches as invokers(gah I hate that class name but it was the first thing to pop into my mind) a name that they have never been called before, then it would most certainly be proof of something new.
Now onto the part about there not being space for them. At current we know that there are 8 classes in the book. We know four of them(barbarian, bard, druid and sorceror) with 100% certainty. We know the power source and a strong idea of the role for another(a more "spellcastery" cleric aka divine controller). We have a confirmed class name(Shaman) that seems likely to be in the book. So then that gives us the following list, if we assume the shaman is a definite which seems to have become a given in most speculation:
-Barbarian
-Bard
-Druid
-Shaman
-Sorceror
-(divine controller)
-(unknown)
-(unknown)
Most people are currently assuming that there have to be four classes for a power source before they will put out a power source book for that power soruce. As we know that Divine Power is coming out next year, that would require one of the two unknowns to be a divine class of some kind. This leaves only one slot for an unknown primal class. Now this slot cannot be a witch, or at least a primal controller witch.
The reason for this is we know that there should be a primal defender in the book and it cannot be any of the three given primal classes, requiring the fourth primal class to be a defender. The shaman was mentioned in a long list of leader classes, so its role is confirmed. The druid was originally going to be a hybrid between weather magic and shapeshifting. However in an interview, it was said that they tried to make a hybrid class but it was just like flipping a switch between being a striker and controller, so they decided to drop the hybrid idea. From this we know that the druid was originally a striker/controller hybrid and that it no longer is. As they would otherwise have to scrap the entire class, it can assumed they kept one of those roles. The barbarian has been described since Races and Classes as being very mobile and hitting hard(....and biting his enemies), and a poster here has confirmed that a developer told him that the barbarian is a striker which is consistent with the previous description.
So this leaves only two slots which could even theoretically be a defender(as we know the role for both bards and sorcerors). However we have semi-confirmation that developer stated that there is indeed a primal defender, meaning the last slot has to be a primal defender.
Much more eloquently put, and I now see what you were referring to as not enough space.
So this leaves only two slots which could even theoretically be a defender(as we know the role for both bards and sorcerors). However we have semi-confirmation that developer stated that there is indeed a primal defender, meaning the last slot has to be a primal defender.
Unless when they refocused the Druid, they decided to make the Druid a Defender. Wildshaping into scary animals and such.
Its not like the Druid didn't perform that role in 3.5E frequently.
Unless when they refocused the Druid, they decided to make the Druid a Defender. Wildshaping into scary animals and such.
Its not like the Druid didn't perform that role in 3.5E frequently.
However there are a few problems with that. Firstly they would have had to redo the entire class relatively late in the development cycle. Secondly we knew that there was going to be a defender prior to them unhybridizing the druid, so one of the two remaining slots still would have to be a defender unless they scrapped a class that they already had worked on, in which case basically none of the info we have from prior to one month or so ago can be considered valid anymore as there would be too many potentail changes.
1 -
Primal Defender - Barbarian
Primal Striker - Druid
Primal Leader - Shaman
Primal Controller - Witch/Warden
This option presumes the rumor about Barbarian being a striker turns out false, in which case Druid and class starting with W fill the striker and controller slots. The W classes making somewhat more sense in the controller role, we then have our setup.
2 -
Primal Defender - Warden
Primal Striker - Barbarian, Druid
Primal Leader - Shaman
Primal Controller -
If there is a spot that, given the info to date, will be left open, it is the controller. Alternately, Druid could fill that role.
However there are a few problems with that. Firstly they would have had to redo the entire class relatively late in the development cycle. Secondly we knew that there was going to be a defender prior to them unhybridizing the druid, so one of the two remaining slots still would have to be a defender unless they scrapped a class that they already had worked on, in which case basically none of the info we have from prior to one month or so ago can be considered valid anymore as there would be too many potentail changes.
Based off this, I'm going to guess that the Druid is a controller, and will focus on nature-based spells. Perhaps they made a more combat-centric shapeshifter as a Defender class, and when the Druid was unhybridized, gave most of the wildshape-type abilities that were more Striker-like in function to that class. Maybe that class was going to focus on one (or just a few) combat forms, while the Druid would have access to a wide variety of forms.
Otherwise, the Primal Defender won't be focused on shapeshifting, and I have no idea what it will be like at all. Barbarian would be the only other concept I can think of that would match, and that would be confirmed to be a striker instead.
and so I think the classes are
Druid
Barbarian
Sorceror
Wu-Jen
and then the other letters are
R
I
T
S
Mike Mearls has confirmed the first letters of the PHB2 classes on youtube http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rNtc4sJTdWc
and so I think the classes are
Druid
Barbarian
Sorceror
Wu-Jen
and then the other letters are
R
I
T
S
Yes we know, incidently one of the given letters was wrong and was supposed to be a b. Unless I am getting my classes mixed up, I'm pretty sure that Wu-Jen is not likely to be in the PHB2. For future reference the correct list with all completely confirmed classes is as follows:
Bard
Barbarian
Druid
I
S
Sorceror
T
W
Here are some of the possible class features I see them having:
- Primary Ability Score - Wis or Cha with Str/Dex as secondary
- Deem Profane - The standard striker damage booster.
- Armor - Leather or possibly Chainmail
- Primary Weapons - Crossbows, Flails (Whips have a good chance of ending up in this group), Hammers, Heavy Blades, and Light Blades
Do we think The Bard will be Divine or Primal? I personally think that he'll be some sort of Primal Leader.
We know he will be Arcane.*blinks*
However there are a few problems with that. Firstly they would have had to redo the entire class relatively late in the development cycle. Secondly we knew that there was going to be a defender prior to them unhybridizing the druid, so one of the two remaining slots still would have to be a defender unless they scrapped a class that they already had worked on, in which case basically none of the info we have from prior to one month or so ago can be considered valid anymore as there would be too many potentail changes.
Stop talking about "slots." The Primal classes are all going to be defenders.
Stop talking about "slots." The Primal classes are all going to be defenders.
I can't tell if this is a joke or not, and that scares me.
It is not a joke, but it is also not not a joke. Think about it.
It is not a joke, but it is also not not a joke. Think about it.
You mean it's a joke, but not funny?
Sarcasm aside, I don't think they'll all be defenders in name or in role.
Primal Striker - Barbarian
Primal Leader - Shaman
Primal Controller - Druid
Primal Defender - Warden
Primal Defender - Barbarian
Primal Defender - Shaman
Primal Defender - Druid
Fixed there for you, sport.
Primal Defender - Barbarian
...
This option presumes the rumor about Barbarian being a striker turns out false, ...
I hope not. I'd like to see a two-handed weapon striker option (a real one, not a striker that uses a two-handed weapon without getting any real benefits out of it or a non-striker two-handed weapon wielder that acts like a striker) sooner rather than later.
Personally, all I have to say is that ther had better be something with the psionic and shadow sources in there.
There isn't.
Personally, all I have to say is that there had better be something with the psionic and shadow sources in there.
Do you intentionally *not* read these threads before posting? The PBII will have NO-- I repeat, NO-- classes with the shadow or psionic power sources.
It is Primal, Divine, and Arcane... and we've known this for over a month now.
Why bother coming onto the boards to post without bothering to come onto the boards to read? Jeez.
Primal Defender - Warden
Primal Striker - Barbarian
Primal Leader - Shaman
Primal Controller - Druid
I'm guessing...
Primal Defender - Druid
Primal Striker - Barbarian
Primal Leader - Shaman
Primal Controller - Witch
I'm guessing...
Primal Defender - Druid
Primal Striker - Barbarian
Primal Leader - Shaman
Primal Controller - Witch
I am thinking the same thing, except I still think the barbarian could be a defender and the druid a striker.
Actually, scratch that. If it were up to me, the Barbarian would be a Defender and the Druid would be a Leader, specializing mostly in spellcasting. The Shaman would be the class focusing on animal shape abilities, making it a Striker. Essentially, take the Druid and Shaman as they stand, now, and switch their names.
Bard - arcane leader
Barbarian - primal defender
Druid - primal controller
Invoker - divine controller
Shaman - primal leader
Sorceror
T ???
Warden
I have confirmation from one of the book's designers who is in our group.
Bard - arcane leader
Barbarian - primal defender
Druid - primal controller
Invoker - divine controller
Shaman - primal leader
Sorceror - arcane controller
T ???
Warden
Confirmation of which part? I've red-ed all the parts that are news, as far as I know. (Okay, well the Barbarian will be revealed in about 10 minutes, so maybe not that one.) Regardless, if you're not lying, it's big news.You probably can't say who we're talking about either, can you?
EDIT: I added (in blue) the confirmed part that you forgot.
I have confirmation from one of the book's designers who is in our group.
Bard - arcane leader
Barbarian - primal defender
Druid - primal controller
Invoker - divine controller
Shaman - primal leader
Sorceror
T ???
Warden
Also, the Barbarian playtest says it's a Primal Striker, which makes you wrong.
You also misspelled "Sorcerer".
...
Barbarian - primal defender...
Haaaa...
I have confirmation from one of the book's designers who is in our group.
Bard - arcane leader
Barbarian - primal defender
Druid - primal controller
Invoker - divine controller
Shaman - primal leader
Sorceror
T ???
Warden
One of the book's other designers is in my group, and he told me this is bull-pucky.
One of the book's other designers is in my group, and he told me this is bull-pucky.
Really? Because Cyborg-Elvis is in my group and he says that it is mostly right.:P
Really? Because Cyborg-Elvis is in my group and he says that it is mostly right.:P
Except the Barbarian, which is a striker. This was told to me by Jessica Biel.
Except the Barbarian, which is a striker. This was told to me by Jessica Biel.
Well I was told by Santa Claus that the Barbarian is actually going to be a secret new fifth role that they made just for the Barbarian. The playtest article is just a swerve that to keep us from knowing the truth.:P
Also, the Barbarian playtest says it's a Primal Striker, which makes you wrong.
You also misspelled "Sorcerer".
And? what are you going to do about it? I thought so.
I don't give a dire rat's ass if I was wrong about the barbarian being a defender, it was my assumption (as I don't even like barbs anyhow). I didn't ask anyways. But the rest are legit. I've also been told druids will not be getting animal companions, which sucks.
And? what are you going to do about it?
Easy, ignore you because you are clearly making stuff up and trying to make yourself seem credible by saying that one of the developers is in your group. At least that is what the Easter Bunny told me.
Easy, ignore you because you are clearly making stuff up and trying to make yourself seem credible by saying that one of the developers is in your group. At least that is what the Easter Bunny told me.
I'm not trying to make myself anything. Don't flatter yourself thinking I need your attention. I am merely passing along what I heard first hand from a freelance designer who happens to be in our group. So what if my assumptions about barbs were wrong, I thought they were going to be defenders. You can ignore to your heart's content, but I'm not here just for you.
Back on topic. Anyone have any idea how a divine controller might be handled? What kind of powers will the Invoker have? To me, it sounds like a conjurer or channeler of divine aspects.
And? what are you going to do about it?
Hire a character assassin to kill your credibility.
Oh wait.
Hire a character assassin to kill your credibility.
Oh wait.
lol, I already did. He made it look like "character-suicide".
I don't give a dire rat's ass if I was wrong about the barbarian being a defender, it was my assumption (as I don't even like barbs anyhow). I didn't ask anyways. But the rest are legit. I've also been told druids will not be getting animal companions, which sucks.
If you're curious why no one believes you, it's because you posted a whole list of "confirmations", claimed they were all given to you firsthand by someone in the know, didn't specify that some of your "confirmations" were your own guesses, and then got an easy one wrong. On top of that, all of your "confirmations"/guess are things that have been widely rumoured for months now.
Because of all this, it turns out that now, even if the rest your guesses prove correct, (Hell, even if your BS story is true), nobody here is gonna believe you. Congratulations on learning about credibility the hard way. (Your open attacks on people calling you out haven't help you at all either.)
If you're curious why no one believes you, it's because you posted a whole list of "confirmations", claimed they were all given to you firsthand by someone in the know, didn't specify that some of your "confirmations" were your own guesses, and then got an easy one wrong. On top of that, all of your "confirmations"/guess are things that have been widely rumoured for months now.
Because of all this, it turns out that now, even if the rest your guesses prove correct, (Hell, even if your BS story is true), nobody here is gonna believe you. Congratulations on learning about credibility the hard way. (Your open attacks on people calling you out haven't help you at all either.)
I am not curious if anyone believes me. I said my piece. And to those getting on my case about me being wrong about barbarian, I wrote that before the playtest even came out. Obviously I did not go back and edit it because I did not check to see if it was out or not. As for my open attacks, I have every right to defend myself from people (like you) who come at me with a spelling cleaver and accusations of being wrong when it was you overlooking the fact that barbarian wasn't even out until way after my own post.
Seriously, it was a lapse in your judgment. You are making a much bigger deal out of it than anyone else is (even though you claim to not care what anybody thinks about you).
"C'mon y'all, let's just put this behind us. C'mon y'all ....... C'MON
"TO BE ON TOPIC: If druids get an animal companion or not would, to me, be more of a bummer than the ability to change shape. I could care less about turning into a bear, because with these mechanics you don't need to be a bear to be decent, but I want to ride a big wolf at level 7!
I feel like someone's mom/grandma needs to walk through the door with a plate of cookies and say
"C'mon y'all, let's just put this behind us. C'mon y'all ....... C'MON
You're right, Max, and it's a very classy move on your part to say so.
TO BE ON TOPIC: If druids get an animal companion or not would, to me, be more of a bummer than the ability to change shape. I could care less about turning into a bear, because with these mechanics you don't need to be a bear to be decent, but I want to ride a big wolf at level 7!
Looking back at 3E/3.5E, the problem was that with each "role", the Druid was good at it. Where Wizards were just casters, Barbarians were just tanks, etc., Druids were full casters, excellent tanks (if you Wildshaped into the right creature), and capable healers. The Natural Spell feat allowed Druids to be all these things at once, and additionally, they had an Animal Companion (functionally a monster who followed him around and fought for him) which was potentially stronger than other characters of his level.
That's twisted -- on top of being basically amazing in every way, they had a class feature which could be more powerful than other party members. Obviously, the Druid was broken, and more specifically, nebulous in its key class features. In 4E, the Druid needs the same treatment Elves got: it needs its multiple personalities split between separate classes.
I, personally, don't envision Druids as "tanks" or Defenders. For whatever reason, I've always considered Druids to be nature-themed casters first and animal-shapeshifters second. Because of this, my preference is for the Druid to be a Controller class, or potentially a Leader, although given that there will probably be only four Primal classes in PH2, it's unlikely (but not at all impossible) that there will be any role duplication, and Barbarians and Shamans already have Strikers and Leaders, respectively. That said, I can see how someone who has played a lot of WoW might see Druids completely differently; Druids might be seen as shapeshifting-grizzly-bear-Defenders first, and casters second.
Suffice to say, I believe that Animal Companions are significant enough as a class capability that they don't warrant being tacked-on to a class; rather, I expect to see a whole build devoted to them.
The Druid name would be better served as a nature caster, but the direction seems to make the Druid name into the Shifter class while giving the nature aspect (and most likely animal companions, like in the PHB2 cover) to the Shaman.
I might guess that the shapechanging powers do remain the primary shtick of one class, but that the class is not the "Druid." The following seems likely and fitting to me:
Primal Defender - Wildshaper or Wilder (stealing the name). A shapechanger who primarily tanks, probably with some mobility forms as well (a la 4e druid conversion guide).
Primal Controller - Druid. A spell slinger who commands the weather, the undergrowth, and the wild beasts.
So I think the reverse on your theory, Druid is the shape changer, and the Shaman is the nature caster.
The whole previews and talk has been about the "Shifter" Druid, and I doubt that would change (no matter how logical it would be).
So I think the reverse on your theory, Druid is the shape changer, and the Shaman is the nature caster.
The Shaman is the leader, not the controller. And something that I have pointed out before is that when they were talking about the shapeshifting druid(something they haven't done recently) it was a hybrid class. They later stated that they tried to make Striker/Controller hybrid, but the hybrid idea didn't work well. So it stands to reason that the Druid was originally a Striker(wildshape)/Controller(weather magic) and that it has been trimmed down to focus primarily on one role or the other. As we already have a primal striker, I think it is likely to see the controller druid aspect win out as the primary one.
The Shaman is the leader, not the controller. And something that I have pointed out before is that when they were talking about the shapeshifting druid(something they haven't done recently) it was a hybrid class. They later stated that they tried to make Striker/Controller hybrid, but the hybrid idea didn't work well. So it stands to reason that the Druid was originally a Striker(wildshape)/Controller(weather magic) and that it has been trimmed down to focus primarily on one role or the other. As we already have a primal striker, I think it is likely to see the controller druid aspect win out as the primary one.
Ack, you talk of roles... I care not.
Seriously, why is it so important what role the Druid takes? The shifter can be one or the other. I never believed the Hybrid rumors as it is a complete opposition to the design theory that is already set up.
Let me flip it for you... can you see a shaman as a storm tempest? I see examples of this in movies, like the 13th Warrior, all the time.
Ack, you talk of roles... I care not.
Seriously, why is it so important what role the Druid takes? The shifter can be one or the other. I never believed the Hybrid rumors as it is a complete opposition to the design theory that is already set up.
Let me flip it for you... can you see a shaman as a storm tempest? I see examples of this in movies, like the 13th Warrior, all the time.
The role the Druid takes is important because it will determine what the focus of the class is. If it is a striker it will focus more on wildshape. If it is a controller it will focus on weather magic.
And the hybrid bit wasn't a rumor, it was stated by the person who wrote the original version of the class.
And what the heck is a storm tempest?
Well, we've already heard dev discussion of wildshaping powers and weather-based powers, and Primal Defender and Primal Controller are the slots remaining. Although mechanically the 3e druid may have been most distinguished by its wildshape ability, I too agree that the flavor doesn't match up to the traditional D&D druid archetype as well as a weathery spell slinger would. Both concepts may end up with a base class, however.
I might guess that the shapechanging powers do remain the primary shtick of one class, but that the class is not the "Druid." The following seems likely and fitting to me:
Primal Defender - Wildshaper or Wilder (stealing the name). A shapechanger who primarily tanks, probably with some mobility forms as well (a la 4e druid conversion guide).
Primal Controller - Druid. A spell slinger who commands the weather, the undergrowth, and the wild beasts.
You know, I've been putting my money on "Warden" for Primal Defender, (barring the Barbarian being one, which it turns out, it isn't), but "Wildshaper", a Defender who fights by actually turning into creatures, actually isn't a bad idea! I don't think I've heard that suggestion for "W" yet, either. (Seems obvious now! But it could still be wrong, I suppose :P )
Really, when I picture a "Warden", my mind just gives me a Nature-Paladin anyway. When I think of it like this, "Wildshaper" definitely sounds cooler.
For instance a shifting Druid would have several different forms to adapt to different situations(a bird form for flight, a wolf or cheetah form for quick movement, and so on). These would mostly be utility skills and be limited to one or two basic functions for each form.
Another shapeshifting class (which might be a Defender) might focus on only one (or two) forms, but be able to use them in several different ways (for instance, a power that lets them pounce and knock down an enemy, or a bite attack that deals poison damage).
When they unhybridized the Druid, they might have farmed out some of the abilities that didn't fit to create new classes.
A creature of weather effects, a creator of weather, one that brings lightning from the sky and fog from the ground...
but the name needs not be anything specific, though most that I have seen have a "Shaman" feel.
If the wildshaping would be locked to a striker role (I dispute this!!) then the Druid is a striker.
I think the Shaman will be the primal leader, with the heals buffs with spirity fluff (bonus to damage: "Fury of the bear", bonus to perception utility "eyes of the eagle", yada yada).
Primal defender, I got nothing, but since pointless grid-filling symmetry is off the table, we don't need one.
I'm hoping wildshape and animal companions have gone the way of the dodo and never rear their ugly heads again, though I know those hopes will be dashed.
Druid: to be Wild-Shape based. I could see it working somewhat like the Barbarian (this isn't my own idea has been talked about before) where the Dailies are your shapeshifting and stay active for the encounter, death, etc. and your various powers are influenced by what you have shapeshifted into.
If it was really crazy, like Rage Strike a Daily could be used up for a additional attack. But to make it interesting it could use some of the trait of that Wild-Shape, so... Your current Wolf-Shape in a instant warps into that of a bear and tears off a guys arm, etc.
I would love to see a feat for the Druid where you can pre-assign a certain Daily to shapeshift as a minor-action, but your body is in a constant-state of flux (this is more edging towards my personal style of Druids, where they are pretty hideous looking beings who are constantly fluxing and warping).
Shaman: This call would be the animal and nature oriented class. He would call upon the spirits that reside within nature to help him in his cause (the fluff for why can alter, it can be he forces them, their allied, it is a contract/pact, etc.).
As such he can call upon the spirits that reside in the clouds to smash lightning down on his foes, or for a river spirit to surge forth and swallow his enemies (like the LoTR scene), etc. Or my personal favourite call upon animal/nature spirits to do his bidding, so have wolf and hawk spirits surge past him and into his enemies, ripping away some of their primal spirit.
I personally would base my entire character around the animal-spirits. Especially be neat if as a feat or power, you could have spirits reside within you, be a nice sneak attack to have a wolf spirit appear out of you and take chunk out of someone.
As a general feat for Primal classes I would like to see them be able to commune and talk to spirits. Or another where if in the wilderness they can be warned of approaching creatures, by nature spirits.
You know, I've been putting my money on "Warden" for Primal Defender, (barring the Barbarian being one, which it turns out, it isn't), but "Wildshaper", a Defender who fights by actually turning into creatures, actually isn't a bad idea! I don't think I've heard that suggestion for "W" yet, either. (Seems obvious now! But it could still be wrong, I suppose :P )
Really, when I picture a "Warden", my mind just gives me a Nature-Paladin anyway. When I think of it like this, "Wildshaper" definitely sounds cooler.
Cool. And yeah, in retrospect it does seem kinda like an obvious possibility we should have been considering all along. Those sneaky devs...I'm sure they've planted subliminal distractions everywhere! :P
@Thax, I only saw 13th Warrior once, but I don't remember a lot about shamans or "storm tempests".......? I also completely abhorred the idea of hybrids due to the design principle, so...HOORAY!
My personal speculation is that the Druid will be a controller, laying waste to foes with fire and lightning while manipulating the battlefield with impromptu mudslides and avalanches.
Love it! :D Do it again!
I think the Shaman will be the primal leader, with the heals buffs with spirity fluff (bonus to damage: "Fury of the bear", bonus to perception utility "eyes of the eagle", yada yada).
Think we'll see ancestor spirits as well? Think a shugenja will fit under PHBII shaman?
Primal defender, I got nothing, but since pointless grid-filling symmetry is off the table, we don't need one.
Just as the devs do not have to fill out all four roles with a single class, I doubt they will purposefully avoid doing so when the opportunity presents itself. For the Primal power source I think there's material aplenty for all four roles.
@Sigil, your Druid is what I think will be the Wildshaper in PHBII, and your Shaman is generally similar what I think will also be the Shaman. However, a completely additional class is what I think will end up with the name "Druid," and I believe it will have more emphasis on entangling and weather control than the Shaman. That's all just MHO, though.
On what Omni was saying about classes sharing shapeshifting.....The devs said they sort of saw the barbarian:druid::paladin:cleric. Any new thoughts on this now that we've glimpsed the barbarian? (Haha...does that sound like a naughty dance move to anyone else? "Glimpse the Barbarian?" Oh, I think I'm getting sleepy again.)
-Druid = Primal Defender
-Shaman = Primal Leader
-Witch = Primal Controller
I'm now thinking:
-Druid = Primal Defender
-Shaman = Primal Leader
-Witch = Primal Controller
I think this is good IF, through all the design changes, the devs have retained the idea that the Druid should be defined by wildshape.
Love it! :D Do it again!
Thank you.
Think we'll see ancestor spirits as well? Think a shugenja will fit under PHBII shaman?
Possibly; I could see ancestor spirits being 'team buffs' or heals. I, personally, would file the shugenja under the Elemental power source, probably the leader. The Wu Jen would be the Elemental Controller (assuming WotC does, in time, convert all its previous classes ... I could live without the OA stuff).
Just as the devs do not have to fill out all four roles with a single class, I doubt they will purposefully avoid doing so when the opportunity presents itself. For the Primal power source I think there's material aplenty for all four roles.
True, though what a power source can't do is as defining as what it can. I can't think of a primal defender, but I couldn't concieve of the Barbarian as being anything other than martial and got proven wrong there, too.
Therefore, the spirit totems the Shaman calls on might have some form of 'aura' ability that grants a buff to nearby allies (bonuses to AC, defenses, hit rate, damage, or even regenerating a small amount of HP per turn). Thus, the longer the summon stays up, the longer it benefits the party, which would help make the summoned spirit more than just cannon fodder. Allies might even focus their strategies around staying close to the summon to take advantage of the buffs and protecting it so the buffs stay 'on' longer.
I think the whole primal class tree is filled with the Barbarian and the Druid, with the Druid being split into three classes that each take on one of its traditional representations: defender, leader, and controller. Which of those keeps the name druid remains to be seen but it will likely be defender or controller though I'd prefer it to be the leader and take on the Druid's Celtic depictions of historians, lorekeepers, and advisors (Merlin before Mallory made him into a wizard).
As for wildshape, I'm sure it'll be there but they have said NO to Natural Spell so if you are shifted you won't be using a lot of powers. I could see it being done like the Barbarian's Rages where it's the Daily powers and restricts your use of other powers while it's active. Also some forms might be utility powers rather than attack powers but also likely to be Daily uses.
As for animal companions, we know that Rangers will have a Beastmaster build in Martial Power so that will give us a better feel of how companions work but I suspect animal companions work as powers for controlling them or like the summoned critters from the Bag of Tricks, they do nothing unless you use a minor action to give them commands. This balances them out as it doesn't 'double' the classes powers/actions per round of combat.
If only one of these classes gets wildshaping I'll be upset, however if they create a second striker that is centered around wildshaping I'll definitely change my tone
Then I see the Shaman as a leader using a variety of spirits to buff and heal, the Druid as a controller (WotC dropped the whole super shape-changer druid for the weather/plant/animal controller) and the Warden who picks up the shape-changing and some beastmastering as a defender.
Bel
That being said, I still expect wild-shape to be similar to the fighter stance powers or the barbarians rages. Stays that way getting a bonus until you change it, or it becomes inactive.
Personally I hope one of these primal spell caster classes has a "Native American" inflection rather than the standard European pagan inflection. I'm going to just reflavor if it isn't, but that would make me and my heritage very happy!
That would be kick-ass.
Personally I hope one of these primal spell caster classes has a "Native American" inflection rather than the standard European pagan inflection. I'm going to just reflavor if it isn't, but that would make me and my heritage very happy!
im not native american.
but i support the quoted comment......
Personally I hope one of these primal spell caster classes has a "Native American" inflection rather than the standard European pagan inflection. I'm going to just reflavor if it isn't, but that would make me and my heritage very happy!
Well the term Shaman is actually Asian in origin, it was originally used to describe animist from Mongol, Turkic and Manchurian regions such as Mongolia and Siberia. The term Shaman got used to eventually describe animist from any culture, after European explorers noted how similar they were to the Siberian practitioners.
Personally I hope one of these primal spell caster classes has a "Native American" inflection rather than the standard European pagan inflection. I'm going to just reflavor if it isn't, but that would make me and my heritage very happy!
The postulated Warden could easily have a more native american feel to it, as could the shaman.
As for wild shaping, I'd be willing to bet that changing into an entirely new animal is gone entirely, but that taking the aspects of an animal will be available to every primal character. That is, instead of turning into the bird, you'll gain bird wings and/or bird eyes. Instead of turning into a bear, you get bear claws and/or a bear's build size. This seems to fit far better within the 4e system than turning into an entirely new animal would.
@Thax, I only saw 13th Warrior once, but I don't remember a lot about shamans or "storm tempests".......? I also completely abhorred the idea of hybrids due to the design principle, so...HOORAY!
The attacks by the barbarians was always during bad weather, and the fog was created in the one seen for cover. The Shaman was the main B itch in the caves that the main character kills.
You should see it again, the movie rocks.
Hybrids are something that the previous edition was really good at, sometimes at the expense of being less than others, or overpowered (read, Druid). The hybrid in this new edition are multiclass characters now, where it returned to the more restrictive measure instead of taking a level of this and a level if that and ending up with several classes and, most likely, a weak character.
This new edition should keep with the same design philosophy as the beginning three books has introduced. The dark classes and Magic Item nerf and unsellable issue aside, the new edition is more stable and user friendly than the previous editions. It is also balanced, a stated objective that was achieved.
So, to put a fine point on it, seeing what I have seen from the web site and articles, and what has been talked (typed) about, I believe that the Druid is the Shape Shifter and the Shaman is the weather and spirit caster.
I believe that the Druid is the Shape Shifter and the Shaman is the weather and spirit caster.
Right now I'm seeing the Druid as the Defender (shifting into animal forms and protecting his crew), the Shaman as the Leader, and the Witch as the Controller (weather magic etc).
Or maybe the Druid will be the controller (weather dude), and the "W" class will be the Warden (a primal defender with pets or something).
But then who would be the shape-shaper if the druid isn't?
But then who would be the shape-shaper if the druid isn't?
A Wilder (obviously not psionic or with wild surges) or Wildshaper.
I'm going under the theory that they are:
Inquisitor (striker)
Theurge (controller)
Even if there's been no confirmation on what they might be.
I feel that both of those classes will probably be able to use Channel Divinity just like the Cleric and Paladin. But in the case of the Inquisitor their ability to inflict a lot of damage will be based partially on Channel Divinity. And that there prayers could include Slay Living and Destruction, while the Theurge's prayers could include Storm of Vengeance and Implosion.
But then who would be the shape-shaper if the druid isn't?
Perhaps there won't be one. Perhaps they talked all the 3rd Edition druids into Wildshaping into sacred cows and slaughtered them.
Witch - Controller "possibly summoning Animals and/or weather control"
Shaman - Leader "like the warlord primary buffing and you do this"
Druid - Leader "more like the cleric healing and some buffing area effects"
Shape shifting I can see any of them doing it but it will not be as free form as privies editions. you choose the form and its effects when you choose that daily.
Out of curiosity, what is it that you doin't like about Wildshaping Salla? Is it the idea that you don't think it's appropriate to Druids? Do you feel that any kind of shapeshifter is completely out of the realm of good ideas when it comes to class creation? Why exactly is this?
I don't know, I just don't like it. Even if it were balanced instead of 3e broken, I still wouldn't like it. I think it's because it's a class thing instead of a race thing; I can handle shapeshifting races like doppelgangers or hengeyokai, but 'learning to shapeshift' is just screwy to me. Maybe integrated into the powers structure, it'll feel enough like spellcasting to get me to overlook it.
So, it's not really a 'bad idea/good idea' issue so much of an 'I just don't like the idea'. It's just not a concept that appeals to me; the druid was one of two 3e (core) classes that I never played or had any interest in playing (the bard being the other, for the curious).
I don't know, I just don't like it. Even if it were balanced instead of 3e broken, I still wouldn't like it. I think it's because it's a class thing instead of a race thing; I can handle shapeshifting races like doppelgangers or hengeyokai, but 'learning to shapeshift' is just screwy to me. Maybe integrated into the powers structure, it'll feel enough like spellcasting to get me to overlook it.
So, it's not really a 'bad idea/good idea' issue so much of an 'I just don't like the idea'. It's just not a concept that appeals to me; the druid was one of two 3e (core) classes that I never played or had any interest in playing (the bard being the other, for the curious).
What if the shapeshifting was of the more "aspect of nature" form that we saw in the PHB 2 of 3.5? From a fluff perspective I think that would make sense, but from a mechanical perspective I believe it would work the same way. Pop a daily get an effect until you pop another daily or shift to another aspect.
I think they could do some interesting things with shapeshifting, if they took it along the lines of the Spellscarred secondary-class. as in, Lycanthropy would be its own special set of skills.
And should be handled by the weretouched master paragon path for the Shifter only. I really don't want to see more of the 'I want to contract lycanthropy for the stat bonuses'.
Now seeing the barbarian, with the mechanic they use for rage and the fighter stances, I'm more convinced than ever that shapeshifting/wildshape will be daily powers.
- Four primal classes, not five or three, and only two Arcane and Divine classes
- There is a class that uses weather magic as a controller (this just seems like a very archetypal character, whether Witch or Druid)
- There is a class that uses wildshaping as a primary focus (again, archetypal character and all)
- All the hints are correct
Then we know that there is going to be three totally new classes -- one new defender, one different and dangerous striker guy, and one more spellcaster focused cleric. This leaves us with the following lineup:
Druid (Primal ???)
Shaman (Primal Leader)
Barbarian (Primal Striker)
Bard (Arcane Leader)
Sorcerer (Arcane Controller)
'New Defender' (Primal or Divine Defender)
'Spellcaster Cleric' (nearly certainly Divine Controller)
'Different/Dangerous Striker guy' (Primal or Divine Striker)
If the druid fills the wild shaping archetype, nobody is available to fill the weather caster archetype. The shaman is confirmed to be a leader who has spirit companions, the barbarian obviously isn't a weather caster, and none of the new classes as described could be Primal Controllers. Therefore, for the purpose of completion -- what the heck is the point of a primal power source that doesn't include a weather caster? -- the druid almost certainly has to be just that, the weather caster, and the wild shaper is either the 'New Defender' or the 'Different/Dangerous Striker Guy'. Since I do not see us getting a second Divine Defender (although it is possible I suppose), I see it working out like this:
- 'New Defender' (Primal Defender) Working name: Warden
- Barbarian (Primal Striker)
- Shaman (Primal Leader)
- Druid (Primal Controller)
- Bard (Arcane Leader)
- Sorcerer (Arcane Controller)
- 'Different/Dangerous Striker guy' (Divine Striker) Working name: Inquisitor
- 'Spellcaster Cleric' (Divine Controller) Working name: Theurge
With this, and the Artificer, this conveniently rounds us out with 4 Defenders, 5 Leaders, 5 Strikers, and 4 Controllers. Thank god, too -- we need more controllers. (I just can't understand WotC's thinking with only putting one controller in PHB1. "I know, let's make four roles and say that the balanced party has one of each. That's a great idea! And, let's give them three classes to choose from for three of the roles, and only one for the last role. Yeah, that's perfect.)
Edit: We were both wrong, it would appear. The spellcaster cleric and deadly/dangerous striker guy are both new classes for certain -- they were mentioned in the podcast within the same breath as the words "never before seen in D&D". But the new defender does not have to be in that group. It isn't mentioned until all the way at the end of the podcast when talking about class balance. The only thing specified about him is that he isn't a reflavored fighter.
What that means is it makes this possible:
- Druid (Primal Defender) "the new defender"
- Barbarian (Primal Striker)
- Shaman (Primal Leader)
- New class: 'Weather Caster' (Primal Controller) Working name: Witch
- Bard (Arcane Leader)
- Sorcerer (Arcane Controller)
- 'Different/Dangerous Striker guy' (Divine Striker) Working name: Inquisitor
- 'Spellcaster Cleric' (Divine Controller) Working name: Theurge
So, while the difference between Warden/Druid and Druid/Witch is very small, it would appear my original statement of "druid can't be a defender" is wrong. Which I do apologize.
I still don't believe they should be the defender, though. Historically speaking, outside of 3.x, druids were always weather casters. It was only in 3.x, with the brokenly strong wild shape mechanic, that they became animal shapeshifters in addition to weather casters. I think WotC would be doing a great disservice to the druid name to give all the druid spells to a new class and call it a totally new never before seen thing.
I still don't believe they should be the defender, though. Historically speaking, outside of 3.x, druids were always weather casters. It was only in 3.x, with the brokenly strong wild shape mechanic, that they became animal shapeshifters in addition to weather casters. I think WotC would be doing a great disservice to the druid name to give all the druid spells to a new class and call it a totally new never before seen thing.
Here's how I see it: I have absolutely no problem with druids being shapeshifters, hell when they did it in Diablo 2 it was awesome. I've thought a bit about this as of late with the barbarian, see for the longest time I hated the name barbarian, it's the term for a culture not some raging 'berserker'. I always hated making dwarven barbarians, because I wanted to make the dwarven battle rager or something else also, Conan never went into roid rage to defeat his enemies, at least as far as I'm know, he got angry sure, but he still had that cunning of his, not the foam at the mouth destroy everything anger management issue of the D&D barbarian.
That's when it hit me. Conan wasn't a D&D barbarian. Oh sure, you can make a world like Hyboria in D&D, but Conan the Barbarian wouldn't be a D&D barbarian, he'd be a fighter/rogue multi-class for the most part. See classes in D&D are a certain way because that is what D&D wants them to be. Just because one game says that druids should be weather oriented spellcasters doesn't mean that every game out there should do the exact same thing. If D&D is saying that their druids are shapeshifting defenders of nature, then I think that's awesome. D&D is making classes for words that mean the same thing and changing them up. If you look at the definition of druid 'a priest, magician, or soothsayer in the ancient celtic religion' that could easy be a wizard, or a sorcerer or a cleric. Hell, arcane spellcasters have their names being synonymous with each other the most, wizard, warlock, witch, mage, magus, magician, sorcerer, they all can mean the exact same thing, an arcane spell caster. But D&D is deciding to make them different. A sorcerer is going to be different than a wizard. So, a druid is no longer a weather witch in D&D. I say hurrah to that.
The descriptions of the three classes are for the totally new classes. Or, that's how I understood the quote. Let me go listen through it again to be certain.
Edit: We were both wrong, it would appear. The spellcaster cleric and deadly/dangerous striker guy are both new classes for certain -- they were mentioned in the podcast within the same breath as the words "never before seen in D&D". But the new defender does not have to be in that group. It isn't mentioned until all the way at the end of the podcast when talking about class balance. The only thing specified about him is that he isn't a reflavored fighter.
What that means is it makes this possible:
- Druid (Primal Defender) "the new defender"
- Barbarian (Primal Striker)
- Shaman (Primal Leader)
- New class: 'Weather Caster' (Primal Controller) Working name: Witch
- Bard (Arcane Leader)
- Sorcerer (Arcane Controller)
- 'Different/Dangerous Striker guy' (Divine Striker) Working name: Inquisitor
- 'Spellcaster Cleric' (Divine Controller) Working name: Theurge
So, while the difference between Warden/Druid and Druid/Witch is very small, it would appear my original statement of "druid can't be a defender" is wrong. Which I do apologize.
I still don't believe they should be the defender, though. Historically speaking, outside of 3.x, druids were always weather casters. It was only in 3.x, with the brokenly strong wild shape mechanic, that they became animal shapeshifters in addition to weather casters. I think WotC would be doing a great disservice to the druid name to give all the druid spells to a new class and call it a totally new never before seen thing.
As a side note, if my rememberance of the timeline is correct, the Druid cannot be the defender reffered to in that interview because the Druid was still a Striker/Controller hybrid when that interview was done. Unfortunatly I can't double check because Noonan's blog post about the Druid being turned in has been lost to gleemax's fall.
Here's how I see it: I have absolutely no problem with druids being shapeshifters, hell when they did it in Diablo 2 it was awesome. I've thought a bit about this as of late with the barbarian, see for the longest time I hated the name barbarian, it's the term for a culture not some raging 'berserker'. I always hated making dwarven barbarians, because I wanted to make the dwarven battle rager or something else also, Conan never went into roid rage to defeat his enemies, at least as far as I'm know, he got angry sure, but he still had that cunning of his, not the foam at the mouth destroy everything anger management issue of the D&D barbarian.
That's when it hit me. Conan wasn't a D&D barbarian. Oh sure, you can make a world like Hyboria in D&D, but Conan the Barbarian wouldn't be a D&D barbarian, he'd be a fighter/rogue multi-class for the most part. See classes in D&D are a certain way because that is what D&D wants them to be. Just because one game says that druids should be weather oriented spellcasters doesn't mean that every game out there should do the exact same thing. If D&D is saying that their druids are shapeshifting defenders of nature, then I think that's awesome. D&D is making classes for words that mean the same thing and changing them up. If you look at the definition of druid 'a priest, magician, or soothsayer in the ancient celtic religion' that could easy be a wizard, or a sorcerer or a cleric. Hell, arcane spellcasters have their names being synonymous with each other the most, wizard, warlock, witch, mage, magus, magician, sorcerer, they all can mean the exact same thing, an arcane spell caster. But D&D is deciding to make them different. A sorcerer is going to be different than a wizard. So, a druid is no longer a weather witch in D&D. I say hurrah to that.
The analogy is a miss. 'Conan the Barbarian is not a D&D Barbarian, therefore the new D&D Druid doesn't have to be what D&D Druids always have been' isn't a very compelling argument.
Druids, in D&D, have always been weather casters. In first edition, they were weather casters. In second edition, they were weather casters. In third edition, they were weather casters that could also shapechange into animals. In fourth edition, they had better be weather casters again.
No class in D&D has ever been redesigned such that it is completely different from former versions of that class. The 1e monk, 2e monk, and 3e monks are all similar in flavor and mechanics. The 1e thief, 2e thief, 3e rogue, and 4e rogue are the same. On and on goes with all of the base classes. But, if you make the 4e druid a shapechanger and not a weather caster, he will be a completely different druid than the ones from 1e and 2e. This does not fit.
Is this a sacred cow? Yes, it is. But it is not a sacred cow that needs to die for the sake of the game. The primal power source needs a weather caster. It already has one pre-made. Why kill this sacred cow just to name the weather caster a witch instead of a druid? What do you accomplish here?
If you have to separate the 3e druid's weather caster and shape changer aspects -- which you do, for the sake of balance -- the new class should be the shape changer and the druid should remain the weather caster. Identity is important.
As a side note, if my rememberance of the timeline is correct, the Druid cannot be the defender reffered to in that interview because the Druid was still a Striker/Controller hybrid when that interview was done. Unfortunatly I can't double check because Noonan's blog post about the Druid being turned in has been lost to gleemax's fall.
Well, I suppose that brings us back to stage one: druids can't be the defender class. Good to know.
Well, I suppose that brings us back to stage one: druids can't be the defender class. Good to know.
Well it does require two assumptions. 1) My memory isn't playing tricks on me. 2) That they didn't completely redesign all the primal classes following the druid's dehybridization, making the info we have outdated.
If the druid fills the wild shaping archetype, nobody is available to fill the weather caster archetype. The shaman is confirmed to be a leader who has spirit companions, the barbarian obviously isn't a weather caster, and none of the new classes as described could be Primal Controllers. Therefore, for the purpose of completion -- what the heck is the point of a primal power source that doesn't include a weather caster? -- the druid almost certainly has to be just that, the weather caster, and the wild shaper is either the 'New Defender' or the 'Different/Dangerous Striker Guy'. Since I do not see us getting a second Divine Defender (although it is possible I suppose), I see it working out like this:
- 'New Defender' (Primal Defender) Working name: Warden
- Barbarian (Primal Striker)
- Shaman (Primal Leader)
- Druid (Primal Controller)
- Bard (Arcane Leader)
- Sorcerer (Arcane Controller)
- 'Different/Dangerous Striker guy' (Divine Striker) Working name: Inquisitor
- 'Spellcaster Cleric' (Divine Controller) Working name: Theurge
*Edited for space
I was under the impression that they were reprinting the Swordmage in the PHBII and so the "S" classes would be Sorcerer and Swordmage.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I was under the impression that they were reprinting the Swordmage in the PHBII and so the "S" classes would be Sorcerer and Swordmage.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You are wrong, there is no indication that they are reprinting the Swordmage(except for a mistaken claim from ENWorld which I have disproven several times), and in fact they have stated that they will not be reprinting stuff from FRPG in any other source.
Well, I suppose that brings us back to stage one: druids can't be the defender class. Good to know.
I don't think what someone thinks they remember from an internet blog post that doesn't exist now qualifies terribly well as proof that the Druid couldn't be a Defender, honestly.
You are wrong, there is no indication that they are reprinting the Swordmage(except for a mistaken claim from ENWorld which I have disproven several times), and in fact they have stated that they will not be reprinting stuff from FRPG in any other source.
Ahh...EN World is precisely where I came by that assumption.
Which means that the "D" Race isn't going to be "Drow" afterall, which probably means "Deva"
Where is everyone getting the name Warden? And for that matter, where has it been confirmed that the Druid is now a nature/weather based caster?
Where is everyone getting the name Warden? And for that matter, where has it been confirmed that the Druid is now a nature/weather based caster?
The same place where we got the names Inquisitor, Theurge, and Witch; from speculation people have made on the boards. After screening out the silly and the improbable names, Warden and Witch are the two best names folks have thought of on the boards that start with a W.
I don't think what someone thinks they remember from an internet blog post that doesn't exist now qualifies terribly well as proof that the Druid couldn't be a Defender, honestly.
Bleh, I was remembering wrong. The blog post was in March and the video was several months afterwards. So this brings us back to square one, although I still say the striker/controller hybrid thing should make the Druid as a defender a ridiculous idea, but meh I know not everyone agrees on that.
Consider, for a moment. The wizard has a lot of different abilities, ranging from blasting and blazing to flight and mirror image. What if the druid used a large array of natural magic, sometimes calling down lightning, sometimes sending plants into a frenzy, and sometimes turning into a bird to fly away?
To parallel the wizard's flight ability, if wildshaping was a power that required Sustain Minor actions, the druid could use various forms for utility and a few powers, and still send the whirlwind against all who oppose nature.
Moreover, if not only one class can wildshape, that sort of primal ability could spread around. The Warden, assuming there is a Warden, could buff himself by shifting, perhaps even outright wildshaping into more powerful forms as he protects his allies. So while the druid is flying about the battlefield as a falcon and calling down the thunder, the warden is werebearing it up and smashing left and right.
But you know who has me excited? The divine controller.
Now, I'm fairly certain that I'm going to open up the book and find that it's a fire and brimstone blaster type with a divine flavor. But I'm hopping, wishing, somewhere deep down, that he won't be. What if they made a controller...........that wasn't a blaster?
Because you know what I think of when I hear Divine Controller? Barriers. Wards. Banishments. The more leaderly kind of controller who projects walls of shear will, rejecting all that seek to intrude, or containing the foe in an enclosed circle. I see a controller who doesn't shape the battlefield by punishing enemies who group together, I see a controller who literally SHAPES the battlefield by saying "I'm going to put a ward here to enclose this circle, and these kobolds over here are going to be impeded by this wall here, and the BBEG is going to be trapped in this sphere of purity here, hang on, let me get some markers..."
Remind me, why can't a Druid use weather magic....and wildshape?
Consider, for a moment. The wizard has a lot of different abilities, ranging from blasting and blazing to flight and mirror image. What if the druid used a large array of natural magic, sometimes calling down lightning, sometimes sending plants into a frenzy, and sometimes turning into a bird to fly away?
To parallel the wizard's flight ability, if wildshaping was a power that required Sustain Minor actions, the druid could use various forms for utility and a few powers, and still send the whirlwind against all who oppose nature.
Moreover, if not only one class can wildshape, that sort of primal ability could spread around. The Warden, assuming there is a Warden, could buff himself by shifting, perhaps even outright wildshaping into more powerful forms as he protects his allies. So while the druid is flying about the battlefield as a falcon and calling down the thunder, the warden is werebearing it up and smashing left and right.
The druid was originally slated to be a "hybrid" class simultaneously combining the roles of Striker and Controller. The Striker elements were hinted at with talk of mobility forms and big mauling forms, while the Controller elements were hinted at with talk of weather magic. The two elements were, even at that time, meant to be balanced by only being usable one at a time (i.e., no spellcasting in animal form). Subsequently, the hybrid classes idea was scratched. (:clap
Thus many readers concluded that we would be left with a Primal Controller that focuses on weather magic and a Primal Striker that focuses on shapeshifting.Now that we know the Barbarian is a Primal Striker, many readers conclude that the/a shapeshifting class will instead be a Primal Defender. This is due to forced or unforced (depends on your opinion) symmetry of roles per power source. The possibility of two Primal Strikers, however, is not absolutely out of the question.
But you know who has me excited? The divine controller.
Now, I'm fairly certain that I'm going to open up the book and find that it's a fire and brimstone blaster type with a divine flavor. But I'm hopping, wishing, somewhere deep down, that he won't be. What if they made a controller...........that wasn't a blaster?
Because you know what I think of when I hear Divine Controller? Barriers. Wards. Banishments. The more leaderly kind of controller who projects walls of shear will, rejecting all that seek to intrude, or containing the foe in an enclosed circle. I see a controller who doesn't shape the battlefield by punishing enemies who group together, I see a controller who literally SHAPES the battlefield by saying "I'm going to put a ward here to enclose this circle, and these kobolds over here are going to be impeded by this wall here, and the BBEG is going to be trapped in this sphere of purity here, hang on, let me get some markers..."
I think this sounds uber-awesome. :D I don't see how a few blasts and flame strikes and plagues would hurt the concept.
This is due to forced or unforced (depends on your opinion) symmetry of roles per power source.
The only thing really forcing the idea of a Primal Defender is the fact that we know there is a new defender, and it can't be Arcane and it can be Divine only if the "different/deadly/dangerous striker guy" is Primal, giving us two Primal Strikers (and confirming the Druid as a controller unless they actually want three Primal Strikers).
Thus many readers concluded that we would be left with a Primal Controller that focuses on weather magic and a Primal Striker that focuses on shapeshifting.
Hrm. Let me phrase it better, sorry. I see shapeshifting as an interesting method to add utility to the druid. While they could focus on the aforementioned environmental control, a few forms here and there could be used to enhance their mobility.
Where a wizard gets flight, a druid might get Hawkshape, which transforms them into a raptor of their choosing. For ground mobility, Packshape could shift them into a wolf or similar creature. Each could be an individual form with set bonuses, so no handing the druid a blank check to page through the monster manual for critters. That way, the majority of their power comes from blasting with external forces, but they could change shape a bit for specific bonuses. And they generally wouldn't be their means of combat, but rather mobility and backup.
Meanwhile, the other class could be the shapeshifting master, able to take on aspects of the shape, rather than the entire thing. So a druid could turn into a wolf, and the Otherclassgoeshere shifts into a hulking werewolf. The druid could turn from wolf to deer, but the Stillotherclass could simply sprout jagged antlers, merging animal forms into a primal juggernaut.
I don't see how a few blasts and flame strikes and plagues would hurt the concept.
Well, maybe one plague. A small one. Something with rats. :D
Probably with powers like 'beast claws' as an at will, 'lions charge' as an encounter, and 'avengers form' as a daily. And maybe with builds thrown in to make it's secondary role either controller or leader.
possible "I":
Incanter = divine controller (referencing the MM pg 102; Eladrin Twilight Incanter: a controller with a radiant powered ability that blinds all in a close blast.) Incanter is later used as a Yuan-ti that is very different (so, who knows?)
I combed through a bunch of the MM last night for more ideas but no others yet. I like "witch". The shadar-kai witch is also a controller suggesting that the authors may think of witches as candidates for a primal controller. Witch-doctor may be too much overlap with the Shaman as I think of totems for both of them. Interestingly, the cyclops storm shaman is kind of a primal striker who uses weather powers. hmmm...
I have never been happy with inquisitor or theurge as names but if thats what they choose, I am sure that they will grow on me.
Keep the posts coming, this is a favorite thread thanks to people like Ranadiel
- 'New Defender' (Primal Defender) Working name: Warden
- Barbarian (Primal Striker)
- Shaman (Primal Leader)
- Druid (Primal Controller)
- Bard (Arcane Leader)
- Sorcerer (Arcane Controller)
- 'Different/Dangerous Striker guy' (Divine Striker) Working name: Inquisitor
- 'Spellcaster Cleric' (Divine Controller) Working name: Theurge
Looks pretty good to me. Wild-something could be a Primal Defender as well, and Incanter might work for either of the Divine roles, as posters above have suggested.
Any thoughts as to whether there is balance as far as key ability scores? Counting up as listed in the first PHB, we get 6 Str, 2 Con, 4 Dex, 3 Int, 5 Wis, 5 Cha. The fighter is the only class with 4 key abilities, the rest have 3. Not perfectly balanced, but of course most melee is Str. I will guess based on the above list here:
"Warden" - Str, Wis, Dex?
Barbarian - Str, Con, Cha
Shaman - Str, Wis, Int?
Druid - Wis, Dex?, Str?
Bard - Dex, Cha, Int?
Sorceror - Int, Cha, Con?
"Inquisitor" - Str, Cha, Dex?
"Theurge" - Wis, Str, Cha?
That's 6 Str, 2 Con, 4 Dex, 3 Int, 4 Wis, 5 Cha, almost identical to the PHB 1, although I didn't plan it that way. The ? abilities I am least sure about, and of course no guarantees on the unclear classes. But I'm pretty sure on the unmarked guesses for the confirmed classes.
The two Divine classes we have both have Strength, Wisdom and Charisma, so we don't have enough to go off of, but Wisdom always seemed important in the old days, so I might guess that.
As for Primal, I was thinking maybe Wisdom as well, but that was mainly because what would fall under Primal now used to just be a subgroup of Divine. Trying to keep with the idea of the power source as a whole communing with spirits, Charisma might be an interesting way to put them.
As something to throw into the idea of getting all the stat focuses, we might want to consider a power source's focus. Martial seems to have Strength as its focus, where each of the classes as far as I recall can use Strength to one degree or another, same goes for Arcane with Intelligence. However, there is nothing to say whatsoever that any of that idea was intentional.
The two Divine classes we have both have Strength, Wisdom and Charisma, so we don't have enough to go off of, but Wisdom always seemed important in the old days, so I might guess that.
As for Primal, I was thinking maybe Wisdom as well, but that was mainly because what would fall under Primal now used to just be a subgroup of Divine. Trying to keep with the idea of the power source as a whole communing with spirits, Charisma might be an interesting way to put them.
my first thought was charisma as the principal stat for the primal power source, but then i realized that charisma would make an excellent principal stat for the psionic power source. so, instead, i suggest constitution for primal power source (although, the barbarian uses strength as is pincipal stat).
But you know who has me excited? The divine controller.
Now, I'm fairly certain that I'm going to open up the book and find that it's a fire and brimstone blaster type with a divine flavor. But I'm hopping, wishing, somewhere deep down, that he won't be. What if they made a controller...........that wasn't a blaster?
Because you know what I think of when I hear Divine Controller? Barriers. Wards. Banishments. The more leaderly kind of controller who projects walls of shear will, rejecting all that seek to intrude, or containing the foe in an enclosed circle. I see a controller who doesn't shape the battlefield by punishing enemies who group together, I see a controller who literally SHAPES the battlefield by saying "I'm going to put a ward here to enclose this circle, and these kobolds over here are going to be impeded by this wall here, and the BBEG is going to be trapped in this sphere of purity here, hang on, let me get some markers..."
This is a fantastic idea... you have me hyped about the divine controller now. I was curious what it would look like, but your idea has really set the cogwork in my mind turning.
I am also wondering how much of a "wild mage" the Sorcerer is going to be... :D
Gret thread, everyone!
C
my first thought was charisma as the principal stat for the primal power source, but then i realized that charisma would make an excellent principal stat for the psionic power source. so, instead, i suggest constitution for primal power source (although, the barbarian uses strength as is pincipal stat).
It doesn't have to be the primary attack stat for it to be the common element. Intelligence is secondary for warlocks, while Strength is secondary for some rogues and rangers.