Rated from least popular to most popular:
8) Warden. Packaging of the least interesting 3.5 druid stuff (earth and plant magic, self buffs). Not a strong previous archetype to draw from. Dilution of druid archetype will probably split previous druid fans, not make more.
7) Shaman. As above, but with a stronger identity, spirit animals are cool, and has an iconic WoW name. Leaders not as popular in general.
6) Invoker. No obvious archetype (the mad prophet idea takes a little thought), similar to wizards. Lack of other controllers will help make slightly more popular.
5) Druid. Iconic class (and WoW class, to boot). Some turn-off by lack of versatility of new wild shape. Still has the most iconic parts of 3.5 druid (wild shape and storm magic).
4) Barbarian. Striker, iconic 3.5 class. Rages are cool, but lots of melee damage builds already in PHB1 will keep from top.
3) Sorcerer. Striker, Str and Dex dependencies make for excellent gish. Wild magic cool concept that will draw people in. Iconic 3.5 class.
2) Bard. First version of bard that doesn't suck will draw in roleplayers, and multiclass versatility will allow endless amount of customization that will continually attract optimizers of all sorts.
1) Avenger. Striker. Flavor and concept will make this the premiere bad-ass class of 4e. Expect to have one in every game.
Its amusing to note, though, that I'm most interested in the Warden and Invoker, but that I fully recognize they will be less popular.
And the Avenger is the very first Striker that has appealed to me in any way whatsoever, so it should definitely win the top spot due to the general popularity of Strikers, and the appeal (that I can't really explain) to non-striker players. I'll still probably never play one.
1. Avenger
2. Warden
3. Invoker
4. Bard
5. Sorc
6. Druid
7. Shaman
8. Barbarian
just my opinions based on my likings
1. Druid
2. Bard
3. Barbarian
4. Sorcerer
5. Shaman
6. Invoker
7. Avenger
8. Warden
While I've not had interest in the top 4 on the list in the last edition, the classes look nice this time around, and have really drawn my interest
1.) Avenger
2.) Sorcerer
3.) Invoker
4.) Warden
5.) Bard
6.) Barbarian
7.) Druid
8.) Shaman
The primal classes seem alright, but the Avenger? Yeah, it seems really awesome.
My personal interests ...
1. Sorcerer
2. Druid (just to tweak other players by playing a 'nonstandard' druid ... one who isn't a thinly disguised eco-terrorist and *never* Wildshapes)
3-8. Meh. No interest so far in any of them.
1. Bard (especially the courage bard)
2. Warden
3. Barbarian
4. Avenger
I'm just not terribly interested in the others, for whatever reason. Maybe as multiclasses, depending upon what options are available.
1) Shaman
2) Druid (Wild Shape one)
3) Warden
4) Bard
5) Avenger
6) Sorcerer
7) Barbarian
8) Invoker
I adore the Primal Power Source, and how it interacts with spirits (a element I have always enjoyed in fiction and games). So they rate very highly in my eyes. The rest just sorta fall into their places as they may. The Barbarian is lower even though Primal since not that much of a fan of Barbarians in general. The Sorcerer would probably be higher but I was hoping for it to go another path, it may become higher once I see it in full and see how I can tweak it.
2. Avenger
3. Sorcerer
4. Bard
5. Shaman
6-8. The rest. For whatever reason, most of Primal just hasn't captured my imagination. It's probably more a reflection of my own personal tastes than of Primal.
I think you guys wildly overestimate the popularity of bards, and wildly underestimate the popularity of shapeshifters. I'd move bards down, and wardens and druids up.
I think multiclass versatility is going to be huge selling point for the bard. Huge. I can see druids moving up, but I don't think wardens will be "shifter-y" enough to grab a lot of attention.
Time will tell, of course, I'm just really pumped for PHB2.
Yearly PHBs = marketing coup by WotC, BTW. I love it.
Avenger: Competing with the barbarian, two-weapon ranger and rogue
Verdict: By general consensus the "IT" class of PHB2, the avenger basically has one trick, but it's such a fun, flavorful trick that players will have to try it out. Seems to require a bit more nous than the ranger, and may suffer in comparison to the rogue in fights where he can't "drag one off and stab it to death". It's concept totally eclipses the ranger and shades the rogue, but draws equal with the barbarian.
Barbarian: Competing with the avenger, two-weapon ranger and rogue
Verdict: Were it not for the avenger, this would be the undoubted king of the melee strikers. A vivid archetype and the universally appealing "HULK SMASH!" factor will ensure this class is eagerly adopted by those who want to tear it up in combat. The ranger and rogue can be more effective damage dealers, but they require a more careful playstyle than the barbarian.
Bard: Competing with the warlord, cleric and shaman.
Verdict: While unlikely to win over those who prefer the warlord's grittiness or the cleric's healing punch, the bard has the style and versatility to be a very strong contender. Long a roleplayer's dream, he now doesn't suck in combat, which will win over formerly reluctant bard players everywhere.
Druid: Competing with the wizard and invoker.
Verdict: It's arguable that the controller role is still waiting for its killer class, which will show up in the psi or shadow source. Has the strongest concept by miles, but is likely to put off those who don't dig its whole nature vibe. The sheer iconicity of the wizard will be tough to beat, despite that class's well known issues. Edges out the invoker due to having a far clearer identity.
Invoker: Competing with the wizard and druid
Verdict: Threatens to be the most powerful controller yet, but its somewhat fuzzy identity may sway people towards the druid or wizard. It's easy to mechanically differentiate an invoker from a cleric, but not at all easy to do the same conceptually. The presence of summoning will be a drawcard, but the wizard will catch up when given the same option in Arcane Power.
Shaman: Competing with the bard, cleric and warlord.
Verdict: Like most of the primal classes, this will appeal to players who are drawn to the concepts of nature, weather and spirits. The pet makes the shaman unique amongst leader classes, and will be a drawcard to players who enjoy figuring out how to best utilise it. (In Magic: The Gathering parlance, shamans suit the 'Johnnies' of the gaming world). For other players, the bard, cleric and warlord are liable to be seen as stronger options.
Sorcerer: Competing with the (ranged) ranger and warlock.
Verdict: It would be quite plausible to suggest that the sorcerer was competing with the wizard as well. Potentially the most damaging class in D&D (though the ranger would give it a run for its money), the sorcerer will be first choice for those who want to unleash tons of arcane destruction from the back rank. Conceptually overshadowed by the warlock, and perhaps a bit shy of that class's subtlety, the sorcerer still demands consideration from any player looking to take on a ranged striker.
Warden: Competing with the fighter, paladin and swordmage.
Verdict: While the possibility of running a 40hp character at 1st level will attract some, the warden may struggle to be picked over other defenders. Its earth-and-roots motifs will be a deal maker or breaker, and the fact that the fighter is now a genuinely interesting & effective class will keep it as the defender of choice in many cases. The warden is most likely to be picked by players who want a change from the fighter, but are put off by the paladin's historical baggage. The swordmage is a far more interesting and dynamic defender, but its more limited availability may score the warden some game time.
Personally, I have to agree that the Avenger is pretty much the first Striker that is interesting to me. I'd love to play an Executioner's Axe weilding Avenger since the Oath of Enmity pretty much makes up for the lower proficiency bonus of the axe compared to Light and Heavy blades.
5: Half Orc
Clearly there because the designers thought it had to be, rather than them wanting it to be. The half orc will be played by its old core of advocates, but other players will probably pass over the half orc, and its potentially uncomfortable backstory, for something more appealing.
4: Shifter
The shifter shouts 'Primal!' pretty loudly, and is unlikely to be picked by players running non-primal classes, unless they're after an unusual character concept. Will be the go-to race for those wishing to run animalistic characters.
3: Gnome
Mustn't speak too soon, but WotC may have finally got the gnome right. Their nature as elusive fey tricksters makes them worth considering as strikers of any sort, and their affinity for the bard class will see them played a lot more than they have been.
2: Goliath
Those players crying out for a big strong race, who are put off by the half-orc and never warmed to the dragonborn, will have their prayers answered by the goliath. Arguably 3.5s most popular new race, the goliath has a hearty, good natured feel. Its bonus to STR and CON makes it a worthwhile race for any hard hitting melee class.
1: Deva
Back in 2e Planescape, the tiefling ran rings around its 'good' counterpart, the aasimar. Today, WotC just might have done the unthinkable with the aasimar's reinvention, and turned the tables. The deva has the complete package: an appealing name, abilities that suit combat hounds & roleplayers alike (Memory of a Thousand Lifetimes/Supernal) and a haunting concept. Being a nice fit for PHB2s finest class, the avenger, doesn't hurt either.
1> Druid -- We have a person who ONLY plays druid if she has the chance. She's been annoyed ever since we started 4e because we didn't have rules for one yet.
2> Warden -- Cause I'm a defender nut, and will make one the first game I don't DM.
3> Tie, Bard and Sorcerer -- People in the group liked wild mages a lot in previous editions, and several of us used to be crazy Multi-classers, so Bard will have strong draw.
5> Three way tie. Invoker, Avenger, Shaman. None of these really jump out as special, yet, though that may change when we actually see the full complete versions. But also no special dislike.
8> Barbarian -- Never been popular with us.
5: Half Orc
Clearly there because the designers thought it had to be, rather than them wanting it to be. The half orc will be played by its old core of advocates, but other players will probably pass over the half orc, and its potentially uncomfortable backstory, for something more appealing.
Of course, we haven't seen much of the new half-orc's flavor yet, and whether it's improved from the old 3.5 version (which was less popular due to its mechanical problems). We're not even absolutely sure about its stat modifiers yet. Based on the half-orc character sheet, the most popular speculations are STR/DEX (good for rangers and rogues) and STR/WIS (good for paladins, clerics, and wardens).
They did well in giving the gnome an unique identity, so they might end up doing the same for the half-orc.
Deva definitely seem cool, though, and goliaths were one of the best new races in 3.5 ed, so they'll be a good addition, too.
1. Avenger
2. Barbarian
3. Shaman
4. Bard
5. Sorcerer/Invoker
6. Invoker/Sorcerer
7. Druid
8. Warden
Of course, we haven't seen much of the new half-orc's flavor yet, and whether it's improved from the old 3.5 version (which was less popular due to its mechanical problems). We're not even absolutely sure about its stat modifiers yet. Based on the half-orc character sheet, the most popular speculations are STR/DEX (good for rangers and rogues) and STR/WIS (good for paladins, clerics, and wardens).
They did well in giving the gnome an unique identity, so they might end up doing the same for the half-orc.
Deva definitely seem cool, though, and goliaths were one of the best new races in 3.5 ed, so they'll be a good addition, too.
You never know, they might provide a great hook for playing a half-orc, and I personally hope they do. I'm predicting bonuses in STR/WIS, since they've never been portrayed as a particularly swift race, and a WIS bonus would fit how they're depicted in the Eberron setting.
All will be revealed when PHB2 drops - like most of us, can't wait!
Half-orcs no longer result from **** Omni. Basically a powerful being merged the humans and their flexibility with the sheer power of the orcs. half-orcs breed true. :P
Where'd you hear this? Haven't been able to find a source.
The 'magical experiment' angle (similar to Uruk-Hai from LotR) might be a convenient way to avoid the fridge-logic of how half-orcs came to be. Or perhaps have them as descendants of a more peaceful orc tribe that intermingled with humans long ago and breed true.
7. Druid: half of it's powers are useless and other half are too complicated.
6. Shaman: I like the concept, not a big fan of it strictly being a pet class.
5. Invoker: The alignment thing bothers me and the Identity is a little weak, the mechanics are good though.
4. Avenger: Why not just give leather prof instead of AoF, everyone is just going to take it anyways? spot on flavor wise.
3. Bard: the many identities of it are a tall order, I have a hope it will be perfected by Arcane Power.
2. Barbarian: yep, thats a barbarian alright.
1. Sorcerer: Druid could really take a hint from Sorcerer, this is how an old class becomes what it's meant to be. It's such a fresh new take on things, just what I would hope for from 4E.
Where'd you hear this? Haven't been able to find a source.
The 'magical experiment' angle (similar to Uruk-Hai from LotR) might be a convenient way to avoid the fridge-logic of how half-orcs came to be. Or perhaps have them as descendants of a more peaceful orc tribe that intermingled with humans long ago and breed true.
It was in the latest Design and Development article on DDI. You have to have a subscription to read it, though. It was one of the many potential backgrounds suggested (including good ol' fashioned Human/Orc lovin') and it was suggested that if you asked any single Half-Orc where their race came from, you could get a variety of answers.
Regarding Class and Race popularity.
I'm really looking forward to the Shaman, Avenger, and Druid classes (especially the Summoning Druid preview we saw). The Shaman's spirit companion looks like it has a lot of potential, as does the Avenger's practical blend of melee and magic. Having fallen in love with the Druid only after playing WoW, I will enjoy this version which can transform in and out of animal form at-will to the older per-day versions (I tended to use the Shapshifter alternate rules from the PHBII). Bard and Warden also look very fun to play. I keep imagining my Warden as a Metamorpho type character; with arms bursting into tangled vines as he reaches out to grab a target, while the other fist balls up into a stone mallet, which he brings around to smash the target.
Sorcerer, Invoker, and Barbarian seem interesting enough, but the class concepts and their flavor don't appeal to me given the kinds of characters I usually play.
As far as races are concerned, I'm glad to see the Gnome given more focus. With the Elf mild flavoring (as opposed to Dwarf-lite it was in earlier editions), it seems poised for a comeback. Deva also looks to be a fine counterpart to the Tiefling, and Shifters fill a much needed "cat/wolf-folk" role. I would have rather seen 4E make Orcs a less antagonistic race, thereby obviating the need for the Half-Orc, but whatever. I also thought Goliaths have always been a little on the boring side, but I won't deny their popularity, although IMO, it was usually amongst people seeking the mechanical advantages of large size.
1. Bard!
...that's it.
[/indent]ZerothoftheLaw:
[indent]
Half-orcs no longer result from **** Omni. Basically a powerful being merged the humans and their flexibility with the sheer power of the orcs. half-orcs breed true.
The origin of Half-Orcs, as per the the recent article, is best described as "undefined".
They can originate from selective breeding, ****, spawning, spells gone wrong, genetic mutation... whatever the player and/or DM decide.[/indent]
1. Shifter
And I'm done.
[indent]
As far as races go ...
1. Shifter
And I'm done.
:heehee
Nice new avatar BTW![/indent]
Salla:
[indent]:heehee
Nice new avatar BTW![/indent]
Thank you. Eight And A Half Tails was my favorite character from Magic's Kamigawa block.
1)Avenger
2)Sorcerer
3)Invoker
4)Bard
5)Druid
6-8)The Rest of Primal. I'm sure the classes will be fine and dandy, but at the moment I'm just meh on the whole power source. That might change in the future, though.
As for Races,
1)Goliath
2)Gnome
3)Deva
4)Shifter - one of my players in an upcoming "20 years later" campaign is looking at playing a Shifter child of his previous character, and I'm looking forward to their racial feats.
5)Half-Orc? Meh. Beyond meh.
1. Gnome.
2. Half-Orc.
3. Deva.
4. Shifter.
5. Goliath.
Gnome and Half-Orc rise to the top, not because I particularly care for either race generally, but because of their roles and societal places in Eberron.
Deva, next, because it seems interesting (and because I can see it easily being the mechanics for 4th Edition Kalashtar).
Shifter is beaten out by Deva, partially because I (and my players) was never a fan of the race in Eberron. One of the "new races" for the setting, yes, but it never felt as "essential" to us.
Goliath... Y'know, I've just realized that I'm far more interested in the races in PH2 than the classes. I'm not a huge fan of Goliaths in 3.X, but I'm interested in seeing them in 4th.
Huh.
But I love bards so much, I played them every chance I got in 3.5.
2) Bard. First version of bard that doesn't suck will draw in roleplayers, and multiclass versatility will allow endless amount of customization that will continually attract optimizers of all sorts.
While the Bard 3.5 wasn't that great if you only used the PHB, Bards were amazingly awesome toward the middle/end of 3.5. While they never approached CoDzilla or the Wizard (nothing did though), they gave out amazing party buffs with the song, and could thrash any monster by themselves. The Book of the Nine Swords made them into incredible melee war machines as well.
But yeah, the 4E Bards looks awesome straight out of the box.
As for PHB2 classes, I'm looking forward to the Avenger the most. The Bard, Druid, and Barbarian are the others I look forward to. Perhaps when I see more of the rest, I'll like them too. The only class I really didn't like from the PHB was the Wizard. It was too stark a change from 3.5 for me. I'm sure I'll come around to liking them at a later date.
1-Goliath--looks to be an interesting addition
2-Half-Orc--bringing back an old favorite from 1E
3-Deva--meh...I'm on the fence with this one
4-Shifter--meh...I'm on the fence with this one, too
5-Gnome--never liked 'em. Have no use for them.
Classes for me:
1. Avenger--pure bad-a--, this guy
2. Barbarian--very nice, and a blast with the playtest
3. Shaman--looks interesting
4. Warden--looks cool so far
5. Sorcerer--has potential
6. Invoker--still ont he fence
7. Druid--like him only slightly more than the bard
8. Bard--never liked him in the first palce
1) Barbarian. Never liked the class in 3.5, but the current incarnation is intriguing. Planning on playing one very soon.
2) Avenger. I can do so many things with this archetype.
3) Bard. Something about it just works for me this time.
4) Sorcerer. Finally distinct from the Wizard. Flavorful and fun.
5) Druid. Not really interested in them myself, but I'm glad there's more Controllers now, and my friends will like it.
6) Invoker. Mostly just controller variety.
7-8) Shaman/Warder. No interest in these.
Interesting that three of my top four are strikers, because I like Defenders (Fighter, mostly) and Leaders (Warlord or Cleric, either one) given first choice.
As for the races... meh. Don't care.
While the Bard 3.5 wasn't that great if you only used the PHB, Bards were amazingly awesome toward the middle/end of 3.5. While they never approached CoDzilla or the Wizard (nothing did though), they gave out amazing party buffs with the song, and could thrash any monster by themselves. The Book of the Nine Swords made them into incredible melee war machines as well.
But yeah, the 4E Bards looks awesome straight out of the box.
As for PHB2 classes, I'm looking forward to the Avenger the most. The Bard, Druid, and Barbarian are the others I look forward to. Perhaps when I see more of the rest, I'll like them too. The only class I really didn't like from the PHB was the Wizard. It was too stark a change from 3.5 for me. I'm sure I'll come around to liking them at a later date.
My problem with the bard wasn't so much the power level issue as the whole image. The 'fruit with the lute' just doesn't work for me. And by 'fruit', I mean just what you think I do. I know, it's not PC.
My problem with the bard wasn't so much the power level issue as the whole image. The 'fruit with the lute' just doesn't work for me. And by 'fruit', I mean just what you think I do. I know, it's not PC.
Fair enough. I couldn't help but see and hear Sir Robin's minstrel while reading that. "Brave, brave Sir Robin...Sir Robin of Camelot..."
1. Avenger: Awesom crunch, awesom fluff combine for an awesom class. Did I mention they're awesom?
2. Sorcerer: One of my favorite 3.5 core classes, I'm glad to see it's back and isn't just a retooled wizard.
3. Shaman: Actually looks like a leader I might play. I like the fluff and the spirit companion.
4. Barbarian: Another 3.5 core class I felt empty without, after play testing and dealing over 90 damage on a crit at level 5 I'm pretty exited.
5. Invoker: Seems pretty neat, I like the covenant of wrath, I also like to say the word "covenant" alot and never get the chance to, this gives me that opportunity!
6. Warden: I'm interested to see how they play out at higher levels, though I like how their dailies work. I have never been a huge fan of defenders though.
7. Druid: I was kind of exited for the druids come back, but I feel they're too... wishy washy. Just like in 3.5 they try to play every classes role, but not like in 3.5 they don't surpass them at it. I'll reserve judgement for once I see the full class though.
8. Bard: I prefer my bards to stay at the inn. Unless we can create a kick ass scald wielding a battle axe and using a horn for an instrument I'm just not a big fan. Never been a fan of leaders anyhow.
On races...
1. Deva... OMG YES. I love good, LOVE IT. I wished I could play some kind of angelic character all the time in 3.5, now I can. Plus them getting +2 int/wis means they are a unique race, no other race has that stat combo. When tiefling made it into PHB and Aasimar didn't I was sorely dissapointed. But now I couldn't be happier cuz Devas are AWESOM!!!
2. Goliath: One of my favorite races in 3.5 bar none and easily my favorite new race, long live the Goliaths!
3. Half-Orc: I like the redesign they gave half orcs and I like being able to play an outsider.
4. Shifters: Eberron race at it's heart, I was never a huge fan of Eberron. I wish they were just one race with multiple selectable paths like the genasi instead of hogging multiple race slots.
5. Gnomes:..... Why is the gnome chic so hot? This confuses and infuriates me. Also their hair... is it too spikey? Not spikey enough? (kudos to anyone who gets that reference)
On the whole though I'm incredibly exited for the PHB 2 and I'm sure that just like in the PHB there's going to be nothing I'm utterlly uninterested in.
Avenger. Striker. Flavor and concept will make this the premiere bad-ass class of 4e.
And the art.
As for me, I'm most interested in the Bard and Invoker, with all others holding equal interest for me.
And the art.
Definitely. When I saw the preview page, I just knew avenger was going to explode in popularity, as long as the concept and mechanics sealed the deal. Fortunately, they did.
Definitely. When I saw the preview page, I just knew avenger was going to explode in popularity, as long as the concept and mechanics sealed the deal.
Wasn't it originally to be called Templar?
In order of Most popular to least.
1. Sorcerer. There's been so many people waiting for this one. Not only is it a 3e class, but it's also combined with Wild Magic. I know three people that practically foam at the mouth in anticipation here.
2. The Bard, everyone that ever loved a bard at any one time or another has been waiting dearly for a version of the class that doesn't suck ***. Many 3e Multiclassers, will jump straight into this class as it can multiclass multiple times ontop of this. It's got a few unique mechanics to it, so the mechanic variety lovers will come to this class as well. It will be by far the most popular Leader introduced in 4e.
3. The Barbarian, it's a traditional class that a whole lot of people have been waiting for. The Barbie, has always had a loyal following. I don't know how many new Barbarian lovers will come to the fold though.
4. The Druid. Everyone likes the concept of the Druid. Problem was, it was always hideously broken in one way or another. Many Dms out and out banned this bugger from the table. The ideal Shapeshifter that it is though will draw alot of new blood to it as well. If people can get over it being actually balanced, and being a controller.
5. The Avenger: New class, lots of new ideas injected into the Striker Role. Bad Ass Cloth Wearer people will flock to this class once they discover how awesome it is.
6. The Shaman: It can easily be reflavored to be a Necromancer, it's still nature wielding, still has facets that are Druid esque. It'll be a popular class but only until the PHB III comes out and the -real - Necromancer comes out.
7. The Invoker, it's a new class sorta. It took the Cleric's other half and turned itself into a class all on it's own where it belongs. I don't think there were as many Cleric lovers though as there were Druid lovers.
8. The Warden, I've not seen nearly the fan love here on this forum about this class, but it'll be getting players.
Races:
1. Shifter - Hell yes. I've liked this races from Eberron and they need more play. :D
2. Deva - Interesting new take on the half-angel...without it being a half angel.
3. Gnome - Cute and cool. Yes please!
4. Goliath - I'm kinda eh about the half Giant type races.
5. Half-Orc - Like the revised origin story(ies), but otherwise the race bores me.
Classes:
1. Avenger - I'm Batman!
2. Bard - Leader and Arcane. Delightful.
3. Warden - Earthmother protect me.
4. Sorcerer - Wild magic ho!!!
5. Druid - Interesting take on the Druid. I like the two builds.
6. Invoker - "Angel Summoner" great...where is the BMX guy?
7. Shaman - Talk to spirits sounds great. I care little about the weird +2 thing is gives you.
8. Barbarian - Ho hum.
Wasn't it originally to be called Templar?
That was the theory. They changed the preview 'letter' and said no. Especially when PHB2 hints hit Amazon, etc.
That was the theory. They changed the preview 'letter' and said no. Especially when PHB2 hints hit Amazon, etc.
Right on, I also thought the W class was going to be Witch.
but my TASTE!?
tied for first and second: avenger and barbarian (again, love these guys)
3rd, 4th and 5th as they are kinda tied also: bard, warden, sorcerer
6th: druid
7th: shaman
8th: invoker
races? i think most people and especially the new folks drawn in are usually drawn to being as powerful as possible and go through initially a min/maxing phase, so I see goliaths being THEE go-to class of phb2. I grew out of min/maxing though and I never cared for goliaths.
infact honestly the only race I care about right now from that entire book is just deva's, thats it, everything else can burn in the 9 hells... gnomes especially.
everything else can burn in the 9 hells... gnomes especially.
Oh, come on, they're fun to toss…or is that dwarves in France…?
2-Avenger... wait no i mean Barbarian
3-Aveng... stupid keyboard, Druid
4-Aven... bl**dy keyboard, i meant Warden
5-Ave... Sorcerer (chaos mainly)
6-Av... ARGH, Bard!
7-Invoker... wait did i mean Avenger... i'm so confused
8-Shaman. yeah the shaman doesn't even deserve to be even mentioned in the same sentence as the Avenger.
I like all of the classes apart from number 8.
Races:
1-Avenger... ... even by my twisted logic i don't think that's right. Perhaps it begins with D? oh well.
2-Half-orc, especially with the new flavor.
3-Shifter
4-Gnome (although i wish they had kept the mechanical flavour)
5-Goliath
While we can all argue over the middle slots, it's looking like Mr. Avenger is taking the solid lead for this book no?
Certainly seems that way. Warden seems to be bringing up the rear pretty solidly, too.
I don't know what's wrong with the warden. The idea of a shapeshifting defender is pretty cool.
By himself he's awesome. But he's bookended by the Druid and the Shaman. He doesn't have the classical theme like the Barbarian, and he doesn't have the full shapeshifting/summoning weirdness of the prior two. It's funny, he's very much like the Avenger (ie a Reskined role with ties to his Power Source) but the Avenger's fluff text bleeds pure awesome. The Warden...mmmm, sounds okay. And that's the problem.
The Warden will be roleplayer candy though.
As for races, once they're on the books, everyone will go back to ignoring the gnome and the half-orc. The CO board will do handsprings over the Goliath and Deva and the Shifter will be the middle race.
By himself he's awesome. But he's bookended by the Druid and the Shaman. He doesn't have the classical theme like the Barbarian, and he doesn't have the full shapeshifting/summoning weirdness of the prior two. It's funny, he's very much like the Avenger (ie a Reskined role with ties to his Power Source) but the Avenger's fluff text bleeds pure awesome. The Warden...mmmm, sounds okay. And that's the problem.
Mm, you have a point. I envision it as being just a little like a defender version of the barbarian, though; you could even reskin the daily powers (transformations) as rages if you were so inclined. Though even there, the battlerager fighter carries a very barbaric defender feel.
If the half-orc is Strength/Dexterity, as we now think, no one's going to be ignoring him. He rockets to a top choice for brutal rogues, ruthless rogues, tempest fighters, and two-weapon rangers. He's also, interestingly enough, a very decent pick for a "mixed" sorcerer, getting bonuses to both secondaries and a racial striker mechanic.
The half-orc will make a great balanced ranger, but pure two-blade rangers are just as likely to go for the shifter, especially if they decide they want to use a weapon other than swords. They'll also make great non-tempest heavy blade/light blade/spear/flail fighters.
Races:
1. Deva - I've always like aasimars, and the new multiple lifetime take has me hooked.
2. Shifters - Anything associated with Eberron is going to keep me watching.
3. Half-orcs - Part of me likes the brutish races, and over the years I've grown more attached to this one than any other
4. Gnome - I've always like gnomes
5. Goliaths - Meh. I never had Races of Stone in 3e, so maybe that's why I don't really care about them.
Classes:
1. Warden - Love the concept, love the mechanics
2. Druid - The class' duality make it interesting to play
3. Avenger - This one's all about the image
4. Bard - I've always like bards, and now I can play one without being laughed at!
5. Barbarian - Fun class, but nothing too special
6. Invoker - The angel summoning interests me, but I don't know if its enough to make me play it over everything above
7. Shaman - I thought I'd like this one, but the mechanics didn't really inspire me
8. Sorcerer - Meh, just not a very interesting class overall
As for how I think it will turn out:
Races:
1. Deva
2. Shifter
3. Gnome
4. Half-orc
5. Goliath
Classes:
1. Avenger
2. Druid
3. Barbarian
4. Warden
5. Bard
6. Sorcerer
7. Shaman
8. Invoker
As far as classes go, the bard is going to be big as the go to leader class, I think. It was really, really good in 3.5, but suffered from 'How I Shot Web' syndrome in that no one told you how to use it, so everyone tried to make him, in 4e terms, a striker and leader when in 4e terms, he was closer to a defender (all about the battle field domination).
The Bard was "really, really good in 3.5," VA? And a Defender? Are we talking about the same Bard?
The Bard in 3.5E was certainly "Leader-y" -- not to mention a bit "Controller-y" -- but I definitely don't recall him being either "Defender-y" nor especially good overall. The Bard was (literally) a second-fiddle class; utterly useless by himself, but handy as a member of a full, balanced party.
The half-orc will make a great balanced ranger, but pure two-blade rangers are just as likely to go for the shifter, especially if they decide they want to use a weapon other than swords.
So being the optimal Stormwarden isn't enough to make the half-orc "a top choice" for ranger? Throw me a frickin' bone here. :P
Oh, and no, I don't like the Druid. Don't ask.
So being the optimal Stormwarden isn't enough to make the half-orc "a top choice" for ranger? Throw me a frickin' bone here. :P
For a stormwarden, yes.
Then again, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who actually likes the pathfinder.
(Classes)
1. Bard: I've always liked bards. (They actually could be quite powerful believe it or not. Beyond that though, I just liked the class.)
2/3. Druid/Barbarian: Both of these classes are high on the list for different reasons, so it's hard for me to choose one or the other. For a complete class I'm more interested in the Druid, but, for multi-classing to help flesh out some other characters that I have, I'm more interested in the Barbarian.
4. Sorcerer: I thought this would be my number 1, but, after seeing what they did with the class, I'm unsure how I feel about it. Will it be a sorcerer or more like a Dragon-pact Warlock?
5. Invoker: Finally! more options that just wizard for a controller
6. Warden: This one might surprise me, but, for right now, kinda "meh"
7. Shaman: not really much to say; just not my thing
8. Avenger: I could really care less...just doesn't appeal to me
(races)
1. Half-Orc: The race I was most disappointed to find wouldn't be in PHB1
2. Deva: I'm not a fan of Tieflings, so I'd like more options for otherwordly origins; I also have a few character concepts which go well with this race.
3. Shifter: I don't have much to say. The shifter just beats out the last two in my mind.
4. Goliath: a race I found interesting in 3E, but it never peeked my interests enough to move ahead of other races that I like.
5. Gnome: They have always been my least favorite D&D race; they didnt really have enough definition in 3E, and I never knew what to do with them as a DM or a player. Maybe their presentation in 4E will change my mind, but I really don't see myself playing a gnome character.
Race-wise, I'll probably still mostly play half-elves.
For the group I play with:
(classes)
1. Barbarian: hands down, this is the class that I hear my group talk about the most
2. Bard: I know already that one of the players is planning a bard character.
3. Druid: It's a controller, and it's a class which a lot of people like.
4. Warden: If the Warden has taken some aspects of the old Druid, I suspect that depending on what various players liked about the 3E Druid that they may find things they like in the Warden.
5. Sorcerer
6. Invoker
7. Avenger
8. Shaman
(races)
1. Goliath
2. Half-Orc
3. Shifter
4. Deva
5. Gnome
4. Sorcerer: I thought this would be my number 1, but, after seeing what they did with the class, I'm unsure how I feel about it. Will it be a sorcerer or more like a Dragon-pact Warlock?
It would be difficult to answer this question without knowing what you think a sorcerer is.
As much as I'm dismayed by the number of Strikers, I'm giddy that the Sorcerer isn't simply a Wizard that uses Charisma and trades a little control for a little damage. A striker that focuses on ranged attacks AND close bursts is something that wasn't in the game yet.
It also bears a striking resemblance to many 3rd edition magic-users that tried to blast one target, but packed a few defensive spells to avoid getting surrounded.
Classes:
1. Bard -- I always wanted to play a gnome bard in 3.5e, but for one reason or another, never got a chance to.
2. Druid -- I'm running one right now. It would've been a bard, but the party needed a controller.
3. Invoker -- I like the Old Testament prophet vibe it has going
4. Avenger -- I'll admit, I think it's cool too.
5. Warden -- I prefer fighters and paladins when it comes to defenders, but this still looks interesting
6. Shaman -- The pet mechanic makes it worth a look, if nothing else
7. Sorcerer -- I've never been a big fan of sorcerers
8. Barbarian -- Even less of a fan of Barbs
Races:
1. Gnome -- See Bard, above
2. Deva -- Seems like an interesting race, and the mechanics are unique
3. Half-orc -- It's good to see their return
4. Goliath -- I always thought they sounded interesting, but I have no real desire to play one
5. Shifter -- Eh, nothing really appeals to me about these guys
It would be difficult to answer this question without knowing what you think a sorcerer is.
As much as I'm dismayed by the number of Strikers, I'm giddy that the Sorcerer isn't simply a Wizard that uses Charisma and trades a little control for a little damage. A striker that focuses on ranged attacks AND close bursts is something that wasn't in the game yet.
It also bears a striking resemblance to many 3rd edition magic-users that tried to blast one target, but packed a few defensive spells to avoid getting surrounded.
I'm not really sure what I expected. I just know that even in 3E I always prefered sorcerers over wizards.
Aside from that, I suppose I played my old sorcerer characters differently than what other people did (at least from threads and comments I see on the boards.) I didn't build my characters in 3E in a way which would be described as a striker in 4E. I had the ability to deal damage, but I focused on what I think would be considered control abilities by 4E's standards.
I know that doesn't really answer your question, but I'm not quite sure how to answer it. I suppose that it's just one of those things where the initial impression of what I saw didn't really live up to the initial hope I had for what I might see. I had thought sorcerer would be the PHB2 class I would be the most anxious to try, but my excitement didn't last.
Classes:
1st: Shaman - Been wanting it since forever and they did decent, if only I wasn't shoehorned into wearing metal armor to be half decent with the build I like (glares at wizards)
2nd: Warden (Screw all the nay sayers wardens are awesome, and I have many concepts it works for, not my fault people are unimaginative)
3rd: Sorcerer (At first I had no interest in the sorcerer, then the preview came out and now I'm excited for it and have a concept ready)
4th: Druid (Non-Wildshape because I never cared for wildshape and like the other aspects of the druid)
5th: Bard (I've always liked bards)
6th: Barbarian (I'm meh about strikers in general so far, though sorcerer is cool)
7th: Avenger (I might play one, which is surprising)
8th: Druid (Wildshape because like I said, never been too interested in it, mostly because of the ludicrous characters I've seen with it, when without it druids are so cool.)
9th: Invoker (What can I say, no interest)
Races:
1st: Gnome (They're Fey instant win)
2nd: Deva (I wanna see where they go with this, will either love it or hate it)
3rd: Shifter (Will love it or hate it)
4th: Half-Orc (Like them slightly more than Goliath's)
5th: Goliath (Never cared for them)
1)Avenger - A crazy, sword swinging zealot? YES!
2)Sorcerer - I have always liked sorcerers and the 'wild magic' feel they give me
3)Barbarian - barbarians are just so much fun
4)Shaman - they seem really interesting to me
5)Invoker - Really interesting, but doesn't do as much for me as the others. may opinion may change on this matter, however.
6)Bard - I liked all the flavor in the class, and am (kinda) interested in seeing how they've changed it
7)Druid - Never really been a Druid fan.
8)Warden - Yeah. Umm. No. This just seems kinda dumb to me.
Races:
1. Deva - WOTC promised us that the angels were gonna be as badass as the devils. The MM provided that, but I wanna see how they measure up in PC terms, y'know, Tiefling vs. Deva in coolness factor? Eh, I'm a wierdo, I know.
2. Half-orc - Now I can bring Tok Speekum into 4E! :D
3. Goliath. A lil interested here, but not too interested.
4. Gnome - A fun race to play, but their stats are already in the MM. Meh.
5. Shifter - Bland. Boring. NEXT! (Also, it's in the MM, which is good enough for me)
1. Avenger
2. Bard
3. Sorcerer
4. Barbarian
5. Druid
6. Shaman
7. Warden
8. Invoker
For me:
1. Sorcerer
(I always liked sorcerers in 3.5e - mostly because of the low upkeep [preparing spells was a load of
to remember] Now I like them because they're just awesome)2. Invoker
(A divine class that actually wears cloth... which is mostly how I picture divine classes)
3. Barbarian
(Rages have a lot more flavor now... plus I can be literate!)
4. Druid
(Hey, why not?)
5. Shaman
(Could be worse... but not really that exciting.)
6. Avenger
(This doens't seem too original to me. I never really liked the whole vengeance theme, but it looks like it might be fun to play.)
7. Warden
(Um... pass)
8. Bard
(Just seems too ridiculous to be playing music in a battle. Never liked the whole concept, and I probably never will. The only person I ever know who played a bard ended up killing the party, so I have bad experiences)
Avengers wear cloth.
1) Barbarian
2) Bard
3) Invoker
4) Sorcerer
The others: I havn't seen the playtests for them. Frankly, I don't like nature classes (sorry, I like civilization just fine, thanks)
The Barbarian has been requested by a player in every group I've run a game for.
Bards likely will make it big, if they have something fun mechanical to keep me interested.
Invoker: I heard it's like a Gandalf type of wizard (servant of the secret flame; call down fire, etc.). Also, it's beyond the cleric and paladin's typical buff role. I mean, if I wanted to run Testament 4e, that'd be a huge help!
Sorcerer: I'm not sure. It may simply be a great place to steal from for wizards.
Races:
1) Deva: just cool. And I have a theory for them for PoL and for my own campaign: a dead deity who spread their essence out before dying. I'll see if the fluff in PHB2 is better for them.
2) Goliaths: stone guys? fun with no LA1 issues. Though frankly, I don't see why they'd be better than Minotaurs from the MM. Same stat bonuses, y'know?
3) Half-orcs don't interest me, except in how they're a classic D&D element. I mean, it's just not plausible to have them be born except through "uncomfortable origin stories" or magic mingling. If I do use them, they'll be "Calibans", people who've been cursed for some transgression or affected by black magic. This origin story I would accept, and so I'll move them to spot #3, but only for my campaign worlds.
4) shifter: if there are more options than int he MM, like there were in 3.5, it'll be good. I want tiger shifters, wolf shifters, whatever. If so, they'll go right to the top, Tiger-shifters especially.
5) Gnomes: I secretly want to run a WoW game tabletop. Otherwise, they'll
be handy for the fey-intensive aspects of my current campaign; but I don't see many people *ever* playing a gnome. They're just a back-of-the-line race compared to the big ones (eladrin, human, half-elf, etc.)
1. Sorcerer
2. Avenger
3. Bard
4. Warden
5. Druid
6. Invoker
7. Shaman
8. Barbarian
1. Deva
2. Shifter
3. Gnome
4. Half-Orc
5. Goliath
3) Half-orcs don't interest me, except in how they're a classic D&D element. I mean, it's just not plausible to have them be born except through "uncomfortable origin stories"
You mean they were conceived in the back seat of a Volkswagen?
The Bard was "really, really good in 3.5," VA? And a Defender? Are we talking about the same Bard?
The Bard in 3.5E was certainly "Leader-y" -- not to mention a bit "Controller-y" -- but I definitely don't recall him being either "Defender-y" nor especially good overall. The Bard was (literally) a second-fiddle class; utterly useless by himself, but handy as a member of a full, balanced party.
This is an example of 'How I Shot Web' at work with the bard. No one knew how to actually use one. People tried to make them buffers or secondary rogues and ended up with something that was just a second fiddle.
Why? Because 3.5 didn't have anything else like the bard. The entire class is about access control and stopping the enemy from effecting other party members. In short, a Defender.
You got free whip proficiency for tripping, a raft of mind control that effectively let you decide if and when any fight with anything with a mind started and enough 'white magic' to counteract any status stuff the enemy dropped on an ally. (song of Freedom, anyone?).
The end result was a Defender/Leader, which was something nothing else in 3e could do... so people didn't. They played the class wrong and convinced themselves that it was a weak class, just like they played wizards wrong and convinced themselves that they were balanced.
I'm not really sure what I expected. I just know that even in 3E I always prefered sorcerers over wizards.
Aside from that, I suppose I played my old sorcerer characters differently than what other people did (at least from threads and comments I see on the boards.) I didn't build my characters in 3E in a way which would be described as a striker in 4E. I had the ability to deal damage, but I focused on what I think would be considered control abilities by 4E's standards.
I know that doesn't really answer your question, but I'm not quite sure how to answer it. I suppose that it's just one of those things where the initial impression of what I saw didn't really live up to the initial hope I had for what I might see. I had thought sorcerer would be the PHB2 class I would be the most anxious to try, but my excitement didn't last.
I'm sorry to hear that. I think the root problem here might be that the primary difference between sorcerer and wizard in 3E was how they used their spells, not the spells themselves. In 4E, that's not enough to distinguish two classes.
One thing I will say I'm feeling the lack of in 4E is a mind-affecting character who isn't strongly linked to the fey. I know that flavor can be changed and blah blah blah, but in 3E the sorcerer with a lot of mind-affecting stuff, the beguiler, and the telepath all felt pretty different from the 4E teleporting status-dropping fey warlock. We may have to wait until the psionic power source to see something similar to that again. (And no, I'm not saying I want to seize control of enemies at level 1 with charm person...I want mechanics that work with 4E.)
The best translation of your old sorcerers into 4E might actually be a wizard.
The wizard is the only one with web, stinking cloud, confusion, etc.3) Half-orcs don't interest me, except in how they're a classic D&D element. I mean, it's just not plausible to have them be born except through "uncomfortable origin stories" or magic mingling. If I do use them, they'll be "Calibans", people who've been cursed for some transgression or affected by black magic. This origin story I would accept, and so I'll move them to spot #3, but only for my campaign worlds.
From http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html
1. Invoker I love the whole wrath of god theme, as well as the ability to summon angels
2.Avenger I like the idea of the guy in cloth armour who hits you in the face with a maul.
3. Bard it actually looks unique and interesting this time around
4. Druid I like the concept of using forces of nature, summoning or shapeshifting
5. Shaman the spirit companion idea seems really really cool.
6. Warden looks interesting and fun to play but not my first choice
7. Barbarian never had interest in these guys
8. Sorcerer should have been a controller not a striker also think it might over shadow the warlock a bit too much will have to see it in play though.
If the half-orc is Strength/Dexterity, as we now think, no one's going to be ignoring him. He rockets to a top choice for brutal rogues, ruthless rogues, tempest fighters, and two-weapon rangers. He's also, interestingly enough, a very decent pick for a "mixed" sorcerer, getting bonuses to both secondaries and a racial striker mechanic.
Who's we? Safe money's still on Str/Wis IMO.
Classes:
1.) Avenger (Still as badass as ever)
2.) Warden (I can't help but think of a character who acts as the guardian of seasons and takes elemental-ish forms. I think it's awesome.)
3.) Sorcerer (I don't need a reason. I just like this guy.)
4.) Invoker (Probably the only controller that really interests me right now.)
5.) Bard (Looks interesting, but not my first choice.)
6.) Barbarian (Same as Bard, really.)
7.) Druid (Also looks cool, but not high on my list.)
8.) Shaman (Same as above. I might play this, but not for a while.)
Races:
1.) Half-Orc (Just 'cause I want to see how they're handled in 4E.)
2.) Goliath (GRRRRAAAAARRR!!!)
3.) Deva (I'm not sure how I feel about the whole "reincarnated over and over again" thing.)
4.) Shifter (Kind of interesting. Just... Meh.)
5.) Gnome (While I like how they're not "it's a Dwarf, but not a Dwarf!" anymore, I'm not sure I'd play one.)
Who's we? Safe money's still on Str/Wis IMO.
Well, cause the half-orc avenger only has 16 Wis. That's like an eladrin wizard with 16 Int. Plus, there is already a Str/Wis race in the book: longtooth shifter.
Well, cause the half-orc avenger only has 16 Wis. That's like an eladrin wizard with 16 Int. Plus, there is already a Str/Wis race in the book: longtooth shifter.
It's still far more likely to be Wis than Dex frankly. Dex just makes no sense for them.
It's still far more likely to be Wis than Dex frankly. Dex just makes no sense for them.
This is true, although remember the entire half-elf thing? "+2 Cha, +2 Any" because people had completely denied the idea Half-Elves could get a bonus to Con? Which, in retrospect, made perfect sense and should have had more support.
Because it's a homonym for Diva.
WRONG. Maybe it looks that way, but the pronunciation is "Day-va".
WRONG. Maybe it looks that way, but the pronunciation is "Day-va".
Yeah, but he is absolutely right about the effect. Playing one in some groups will get you called Celine.
It's still far more likely to be Wis than Dex frankly. Dex just makes no sense for them.
One compelling argument I've seen for it being a Dex bonus is a side effect of the defensive pairings of ability scores. The player of a race with a Dex bonus will tend not to put as many points into Int because of Reflex Defense redundancy.
"Shut up! It's pronounced 'Dey-va'!"
"Whatever. Don't be such a diva, Celine." Or Whitney. Or... etc., etc., etc. They will go look up names to call that player.
One compelling argument I've seen for it being a Dex bonus is a side effect of the defensive pairings of ability scores. The player of a race with a Dex bonus will tend not to put as many points into Int because of Reflex Defense redundancy.
I don't see how that is a compelling argument at all. That same logic can apply to Wisdom based races. If you are getting a boost to your Wisdom, then you won't apply as many points to Charisma because of Will Defense redundancy.
I don't see any compelling arguments for the second stat bonus to be one over the other. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they get when PH2 is finally released.
Race:
1 - Goliath: The first 'official' player race with the much sought after Str/Con pairing, that alone will make them a very good choice for most of my favorite classes.
2 - Deva: Really like this one. Powers are interesting and well, I also like Eladrin and Tiefling, so I guess I'm a sucker for all those extra-planar race.
3 - Gnome: I actually like them concept wise, I just wish they had been given a different stat pairing (Int + Con maybe?) so to not be redundant with the Tiefling.
4 - Half-Orc: I'm pretty annoyed that the main reason they're coming back is because they're a 'staple of D&D' and little else. I'm not a long time D&D player, so I don't get it. Why not full blooded orc? That being said, the race's ability and bonus and the general idea of being a big hulking brute with a dark side is interesting.
5 - Shifter: They're actually much lower than 5th, since I'd score them way below any of the PHB1 race and most if not all of the MM race. They don't call out to me, nor do they seem cool or interesting Unless one of my player begs to play one, odds are they won't even be in my homebrew world. The fact that it looks like they'll be either Dex/Wis or Str/Wis also makes them redundant statwise with the Half-Orc or Elf. Pretty disappointed they didn't go with pretty much any other race...
Class:
1 - Barbarian: Reckless, ruthless, brutal. Takes a lot of risk, but goes down swinging. A fun and simple archtype that may not make for the best class, but will most likely be one of the most fun to play. I really love martial characters, and while the Barbarian isn't 'martial', he's close enough and certainly plays like what I would want a 'striker fighter' to be.
2 - Sorcerer: I always loved the idea of a guy who is just raw power and can blow stuff up at will. No subtly, just raw power (He's essentially the Arcane Barbarian). The Warlock failed to live up to that concept, but the Sorcerer looks like he was designed with that in mind.
3 - Avenger: The main reason why the Avenger isn't higher is because I'm simply not a big fan of the divine power source. He's cool and all, but he also has a bit to much of the 'I'm a badass! I'm cool! Love me!' thing going on, and that kinda turns me off. He's still this high however, because well... He's a bad ass and he's cool >_>.
4 - Shaman: Always liked the idea of a shaman or spirit-walker. The fact that it's a Leader with a whole new gaming mechanic added (Pet) also make it much more interesting mechanically. So yeah, I'm one of those freaks who like the fact that a shaman has a pet ;p.
5 - Invoker: Interesting, but from a flavor point of view, I'd much rather play a Wizard if I'm going to go controller.
6 - Druid: I've never liked the concept of a druid. I also have a hard time with coming up with a personality for a druid that isn't a stereotype. Just not my bag. Unlike most people thought, I actually think his mechanics and powers are extremely interesting... I just don't connect with it on a fluff level I guess, and that gives it the low interest rating.
7 - Bard: I actually loved the idea of a Bard in 3.5... someone who buff his party by inspiring them or using his superior intellect to guide them. However, the Warlord is essentially everything I liked about the Bard, while losing the stuff I didn't like (reliance on music/poetry/art, swashbuckler style, etc - essentially, the 'fruitiness'). Would probably have been one of my favorite class if he had been in PHB1 instead of a Warlord, but now I'd have a hard time convincing myself to play one over a Warlord.
8 - Warden: Weak concept. Feels like he's there because Wizard felt they needed a primal defender and this is the best they could come up with. Opinion might change once I see him in play... awesome game mechanic might make up for lackluster concept.
I like the primal classes, and I feel like the possibilities for good paragon paths are there, but just not as well defined yet.
It's still far more likely to be Wis than Dex frankly. Dex just makes no sense for them.
I thought that too...but the 1E half-orc's recommended classes were fighter, thief, and assassin. Plus, Str/Dex is interesting cause we haven't seen it before.
Someone else noted that it makes sense if you consider that the half-orc has the muscle of the orc, but not the bulk.
You may not think it's apropos, but as far as being "likely," I think the avenger is a compelling argument.
4 - Half-Orc: I'm pretty annoyed that the main reason they're coming back is because they're a 'staple of D&D' and little else. I'm not a long time D&D player, so I don't get it.
Why would you be annoyed that other people get something that they want?
We have the full-blooded orc in the Monster Manual, and we don't need anything else in order to be able to play them just fine. I would actually be quite angered if the orc got the gnome treatment and the half-orc remained non-existant, considering that many memorable characters in my games, including my dad's favorite character of all time, are half-orcs.
2) Bard. First version of bard that doesn't suck will draw in roleplayers, and multiclass versatility will allow endless amount of customization that will continually attract optimizers of all sorts.
Sorry, there's never been a version of bard that sucked.
Rather there's always been two types of people playing them:
Those who are good at using what the class included, and those who weren't....
And those people who've never tried to play a bard in previous editions? Their opinions are irrelevant.
All 4e does for the class is make it so those unskilled players will now have an easier time.
One of the top class for me to look for is the Avenger. For someone so unreligious as I am I find myself ridiculously interested in the Divine classes :p I want to try to use it with a few oddball weapons too. Avenger with Broadsword=Samurai! I also had this 'roguish priest' character that failed due to MAD that I might ressurect as an Avenger for his big return. I think it might end up working better in the end. I can't wait to see what all they can do.
Next up is Shaman. Since I'm the 'designated Leader player' (so to speak) of my group I'm really interested in this guy. In fact I like the flavor of the Primal Classes beyond the Barbarian (I've seen the Barbarian in action already so I'm not as eager to play it as the others).
I think our H serie Wizard might retool her character as a Sorcerer. At least I hope so because she seem to miss the 'striker' Wizard and doesn't really use her Controller abilities really well (not to be mean, she is still an integral part of the team!).
The rest will depend if I have time to try it out.
I like the racial powers of the Shifter races and I'm curious about the Devas!
Why would you be annoyed that other people get something that they want?
We have the full-blooded orc in the Monster Manual, and we don't need anything else in order to be able to play them just fine. I would actually be quite angered if the orc got the gnome treatment and the half-orc remained non-existant, considering that many memorable characters in my games, including my dad's favorite character of all time, are half-orcs.
Oh, I'm glad you're getting what you want.
But having no emotional attachment to the race, it's value to me is pretty close to zero. There's already races that fill the conceptual roles/spots the Half-Orc fill, and often do it better.
So I'm annoyed because it means that instead of getting a genuinely new race or more work done on a race that already existed (via the MM), I'm getting a redundant race that's only brought back for sentimentality's sake.
There's already races that fill the conceptual roles/spots the Half-Orc fill, and often do it better.
Like what? (Isn't there some guy who thinks the half-orc is defined only by its Strength bonus and thus dragonborn = half-orc? Cause uh, that makes zero sense to me.)
Half-orcs are getting some new flavor I'm led to understand, but just considering the 2E/3E half-orc they are unique in that they are born on the frontier from two very different peoples. Half-elves are not similar because they are a product of what passes for civilization, hence the diplomacy bonus (and they are just plain prettier). Half-orcs are more likely to be outcasts, or if they are accepted they are considered uniquely skilled among their human or orc communities. This time of half-breed--fairly rare, much-maligned, yet destined for prominence--is a fantasy archetype asvalid as any other. Heck, even Tolkien had half-orcs.
Plus, they are important in Eberron, which is coming soon.
I'm getting a redundant race that's only brought back for sentimentality's sake.
How is this different from elf, dwarf, and half-elf? Things like the old races are why the game is still Dungeons and Dragons.
Oh, I'm glad you're getting what you want.
Thanks.
I'm sorry that you are so disappointed. There are certainly races that hold no particular interest for me, but I don't begrudge their coming out because I like my players and my world to have options.1. Invoker - I wanted to play a Warforged Cleric of the Becoming God (or at least my interpretation of it =P) back in 3.5, but never got a chance. Once I heard about the Invoker, it sounded like it would fit the 'divine spark within me' I was aiming for better than Cleric and I couldn't bring myself to stat him as a Cleric since then.
2. Barbarian - I like smashing things.
3. Sorcerer - I like the idea of a caster's physical condition impacting their magic. And I was a sucker for the dragon-origin suggestion from 3.x.
4ish. Shaman - Another class I wanted to play in 3.5. Not sure the fluff is quite what I'd like any more.
5ish. Bard - Sounds kind of neat, particularly with the ability to multi-multiclass.
6ish. Avenger - I'm willing to believe I can be suckered in by another striker. This is more down here because I felt the others should come first, not because it's a low choice.
7. Druid - The CoDzilla scare sort of turned me off to the Druid.
8. Warden - Meh. At the moment, it seems like the hacked off part of the Druid and stuffed it into the Defender role.
Races
1. Shifter - See Half-Orc. Originally I didn't want to list Shifters before reading something someone said in this topic about making them like Genasi. The NPC race in the MM is probably what undercut any excitement about this. Once this gets pumped full of racial feats, I hope this to be awesome.
2. Half-Orc - This gets booted from 1st place because I get irritated by the "zomg, we can't have ****-babies" and the "zomg, orcs are too ugly for it to be willing" crap.
3. Deva - While the sample backgrounds leave me less than thrilled, the art provided looked unearthly - in a good way.
4. - Yes, that's right, it's blank.
5. Gnome and Goliath - While they've worked hard to fix it, I'm still suffering from my 3.x Gnome prejudice.
Having never had a chance to read Races of Stone, I know Goliaths for their +4 Strength and Powerful Build, but know nothing of their fluff which leaves me thinking they're big, dumb rock-men.
Avenger - 78 points
Sorceror - 25 points
Bard - 15 points
Barbarian - 14 points
Druid - 0 points
Invoker - -18 points
Shaman - -30 points
Warden - -36 points
Avenger and Warden both resoundingly fell into their slots with the most votes for any single slot, respectively. Avenger had 15 1st-place votes while Warden had 10 last-place votes.
1 - Avenger, as stated before not only won most votes for this slot but most votes for any one slot. (Barbarian/Sorceror runner-up)
2 - Bard/Barbarian tie (Warden runner-up)
3 - Sorceror (Barbarian runner-up)
4 - Bard (Druid/Warden runner-up)
5 - Druid (Bard/Sorceror runner-up)
6 - Invoker (Shaman runner-up)
7 - Shaman (Druid runner-up)
8 - Warden (Barbarian/Invoker runner-up)
Classes:
1. Avenger. I think his awesomeness has been well-established in this thread. There's no way I won't be playing this class at one point or another.
2. Druid. Played one using the preview and this class is really, really fun. I like shifting into animal form, pouncing, shifting back, and blasting a clumped bunch of bad guys with Chill Wind or Fairy Fire. Good times.
3. Barbarian. Not my personal favorite by I know many in my group who will be playing this class, and I admit the class has a certain appeal.
4. Sorcerer. They did some cool things with the Sorcerer and finally gave it an actually distinct identity from Wizards. The gish possibilities are fun, too, so I will likely be playing this class sooner or later.
5. Bard. Lot's of people waiting to play this class, and a friend of mine just started playing one from the 1-10 Ampersand preview, and he loves it. Then again, he also loved the 3.5 bard, so there may be something wrong with that boy. But I do admit being able to mock someone to death is cool.
6. Shaman. Spirit pets are kinda neat, but I don't like leaders much and this class far too much feels like just a splinter class from the 3.5 Druid.
7. Invoker. The concept is somewhat neat, but if I'm going to be playing a controller I'll stick with Wizard or Druid.
8. Warden. Who is this guy, anyway? Also suffering from feeling like a splinter class from the 3.5 Druid.
Races:
1. Deva: I like half-angelic, nephilim characters, so I'm eagerly awaiting the Deva. The crunch looks solid and the fluff looks fun.
2. Gnome: Hey, I've always kinda liked the gnome, and being able to fade away sounds like fun.
3. Goliath: Brutish races are fun, and this one seems cooler than the half-orc.
4. Shifter: Never really had much interest in these guys, even though I've always been a fan of lycanthropes. They just feel like watered-down lycanthropes, unfortunately.
5. Half-Orc. I've always disliked this race.
Like what? (Isn't there some guy who thinks the half-orc is defined only by its Strength bonus and thus dragonborn = half-orc? Cause uh, that makes zero sense to me.)
Half-orcs are getting some new flavor I'm led to understand, but just considering the 2E/3E half-orc they are unique in that they are born on the frontier from two very different peoples. Half-elves are not similar because they are a product of what passes for civilization, hence the diplomacy bonus (and they are just plain prettier). Half-orcs are more likely to be outcasts, or if they are accepted they are considered uniquely skilled among their human or orc communities. This time of half-breed--fairly rare, much-maligned, yet destined for prominence--is a fantasy archetype asvalid as any other. Heck, even Tolkien had half-orcs.
That entirely depend what your Half-Orc concept and why you want to play one.
If what you want is a big brute that doesn't look like human, Dragonborn does indeed do it.
If you want to be mistrusted and disliked and have dark origins, but still stick to your gun and be a Hero, the Tiefling does it.
If you want to go a step further and be hated and yet eventually earn the respect of the people and be seen as hero... Drow does it.
Not to mention that pretty much every single Half-Orc concept out there could be done just as well by just playing an Orc... or Minotaur... or a Gnoll... or any 'big, powerful, ugly and usually evil race'.
Plus, they are important in Eberron, which is coming soon.
That's true, but I don't play Eberron. I understand Shifters are also in this because of Eberron... and you can see how I rated them :P.
That being said... why not just put them in the Eberron player book? Drows and Genasi are important for FR, yet, they aren't in the PHB1 or PHB2.
Remember, that was personal preference. I'm not against other people getting what they want - more power to them. But it does feel like a bit of a let down from my end. Because I don't care for those race and have no real use for them.
How is this different from elf, dwarf, and half-elf? Things like the old races are why the game is still Dungeons and Dragons.
Except I don't personally care for the legacy of D&D. They could have removed the concept of color-coded dragon and I wouldn't have mind either.
Elf, Dwarf and Half-Elf are part of the 'universal' fantasy paradigm... Half-Orc, not so much.
That entirely depend what your Half-Orc concept and why you want to play one.
If what you want is a big brute that doesn't look like human, Dragonborn does indeed do it.
If you want to be mistrusted and disliked and have dark origins, but still stick to your gun and be a Hero, the Tiefling does it. [snip]
Yeah, but Half-Orc does them both, and did them first. By your argument, we don't need the tiefling or the dragonborn... and I agree.
If what you want is a big brute that doesn't look like human, Dragonborn does indeed do it.
What if I want to be a big brute who gets the (human/elf/dwarf) girl in the end and doesn't require a facial transplant in order to kiss her? Or simply who doesn't breath fire?
If you want to be mistrusted and disliked and have dark origins, but still stick to your gun and be a Hero, the Tiefling does it.
What if I want to be mistrusted and disliked and not have any innate connection to dark forces? Or if I simply don't want this particular character to look Satanic?
If you want to go a step further and be hated and yet eventually earn the respect of the people and be seen as hero... Drow does it.
What if drow get killed on sight in my world? Or if I'm one of those guys who breaks out in hives whenever someone has a character vaguely reminiscent of Drizz't Do'Urden? (Mind you, I'm not, but people who do might actually be the majority on this board.)
Not to mention that pretty much every single Half-Orc concept out there could be done just as well by just playing an Orc... or Minotaur... or a Gnoll... or any 'big, powerful, ugly and usually evil race'.
None of them have the mixed parentage backstory/archetype that I mentioned. It would, for instance, be impossible for one of those characters to find out that their unknown father or mother is a respected and influential noble in a human-dominated world. It would be similarly difficult to justify a gnoll's acceptance to a knightly academy in the default world where gnolls are basically Serenity's Reavers. You would not be able to be the respected mystic in the orc tribe whose human blood grants him respect, yet also wariness, from the full-blooded orcs around him. Finally, you would not be able to play a Str/Dex race who looks a bit less bestial than a bugbear. :P
Mind you, thats without even getting into the default racial flavor. Half-orc, tiefling, and dragonborn societies are all wildly different. Frankly, it would be annoying for me even to do a simple mix-and-match of the concepts you floated...what if I want to be a mistrusted and disliked big brute? That's a much more natural fit for the half-orc than for either the dragonborn or the tiefling, so we are already into Monster Manual races.
Hell, what if I want to play against type and be a half-orc wizard who struggled his way up through the ranks on sheer grit and determination? In 3E this kind of character was not unheard of, but it had a problem with sucking horribly. In 4E, a half-orc can actually be a decent wand wizard whose Strength boost gets him into Hide armor, and whose racial power actually can kick in with wizard powers (unlike the orc's or the gnoll's, and even the bugbear's is a stretch). The story point is not compatible with tieflings (who are fine wizards) or dragonborn (who are not mechanically suited to wizards, but whose racial fluff describes it as nevertheless being a respected profession for them). It even may exclude the monstrous races, who after all are not accepted in high society for a reason. But a half-orc gets to straddle the line between the civilized and uncivilized world like no other race.
Sure I could play a human and just roleplay him as barbaric...but I want tusks dammit! :D
Yeah, but Half-Orc does them both, and did them first. By your argument, we don't need the tiefling or the dragonborn... and I agree.
Ah, but they did em first for who?
I started D&D with D&D basic, moved to 2nd edition, took a 10+ years long break (in which i played other rpgs), came back with 3.5 8 months before 4ed came out and switch to 4. Half-Orc had a shelf life of 8 months with me and nobody played one during those 8 months.
That's what I mean when I say H-O are only coming back because of legacy and little else. The concept of the race is simply not needed, it's just coming back because 'it used to be there'.
What if...
Well, if your concept is 'I want to be a Half-Orc and no other race will do!' then yes, no other race than a half-orc can pull it off. And if your concept is 'I want to be a deep space alien with 3 heads, 10 tentacles who can tango and makes salsa at the same time', than nothing else than a deep space alien with 3 heads, 10 tentacles who can tango and make salsa at the same time will cut it.
That doesn't mean either race is actually needed however.
None of them have the mixed parentage backstory/archetype that I mentioned. It would, for instance, be impossible for one of those characters to find out that their unknown father or mother is a respected and influential noble in a human-dominated world.
Except they're trying to get away from the **** baby concept. The assumption is that H-O adventurer have H-O parents. So this isn't even a valid concept for H-O themselves and that was the one thing that actually made them even remotely unique/interesting!
You would not be able to be the respected mystic in the orc tribe whose human blood grants him respect, yet also wariness, from the full-blooded orcs around him.
Orcs are a barbaric and superstitious lot. Them being respectful and wary of the guy who speaks with spirits/gods doesn't requires him to be an half-blood mongrel.
=Anguirus23] It would be similarly difficult to justify a gnoll's acceptance to a knightly academy in the default world where gnolls are basically Serenity's Reavers. Finally, you would not be able to play a Str/Dex race who looks a bit less bestial than a bugbear.
Mind you, thats without even getting into the default racial flavor. Half-orc, tiefling, and dragonborn societies are all wildly different. Frankly, it would be annoying for me even to do a simple mix-and-match of the concepts you floated...what if I want to be a mistrusted and disliked big brute? That's a much more natural fit for the half-orc than for either the dragonborn or the tiefling, so we are already into Monster Manual races.
That's entirely setting specific of course. Much like you said with your example of Drow being killed on sight in a given setting... what if the setting has H-O being killed on sight and seen as no different than orcs, then it wouldn't be any easier for one to enter a knightly order either.
The Dragonborn of FR and the Dragonborn of Core have two very different society and viewpoint, so there's no telling what Dragonborn of other setting will be like either.
The H-O appears to me as a way to play orcs without having to deal with the whole 'You're an orc! you're evil!' thing... which is kinda dumb. Simply give orcs a chance to not be evil by default in your setting and you just removed any need for the race to even exist.
Sure I could play a human and just roleplay him as barbaric...but I want tusks dammit!
Which is what it comes down mostly... people want Half-Orc because they want Half-Orc
I understand why, because well... you've always had half-orc, so why the hell would you have to do without it?
To me tho, it's the other way around. I've never had Half-Orcs. Never seen the need for it. Did just fine without them. And now that it's given to me I'm like 'er... thanks...'.
My gripe here was expressed by making H-O 4th out of 5 in a thread about popularity prediction in which I added a blurb as to why they ranked there...
It's not like I'm making entire thread about it every other day (I did make a thread about it in the racial forum a month ago tho) and crusading for H-O to be banned from the game and saying people who like them are idiots... I'm just replying here because I enjoy the back and forth banter ;p
I also want them to do beguiler, psion, and thrallherd, already! Some of us just prefer to ingore the DM's plots and hypnotize a few hundred commoners into being our willing subjects.
Druid - 0 points
It seems appropriate to me that the Druid would end up with exactly zero points. The old school Druids would be proud.
I also want them to do beguiler, psion, and thrallherd, already! Some of us just prefer to ingore the DM's plots and hypnotize a few hundred commoners into being our willing subjects.
I wouldn't count on any of classes that you mentioned having the ability to do that. Seems a bit out of line with the design philosophy for the rest of 4ed.
I also want them to do beguiler, psion, and thrallherd, already! Some of us just prefer to ingore the DM's plots and hypnotize a few hundred commoners into being our willing subjects.
Make some really good diplomacy checks and describe it as hypnotism.
(As it now stands, only four of the core classes start with heavy armor proficiency, and Martial Power created two new builds for the fighter which encourge him to not use heavy armor.)
That doesn't mean either race is actually needed however.
Why do you get to decide that?
Seriously, I realize that this is all in fun but I think you were a bit too dismissive of the five or so character concepts I pulled out of my butt that half-orc is a natural fit for. One race having a Strength bonus does not negate all other strong races...one race being ugly does not negate all others...one race being an outcast doesn't mean that people wanting to play a different sort of outcast are being unreasonable.
It's trivial to follow your reasoning to the conclusion that we don't need ANY races in the game other than humans. A human can be a bearded berserker, a lithe tree-dweller, or a misshapen outcast. A human can consort with devils, dragons, or fey. Why do we need any other races?
The answer, of course, is that we want to play them. :D
Which is what it comes down mostly... people want Half-Orc because they want Half-Orc
You say that like they're something wrong with it. This is, in fact, precisely the reason that you like the goliath and the deva. You want to play one because you want to play one.
I guess what gets me is not that you don't like the half-orc, it's that you brush off the reasons that people want to play them as irrelevant. Natural 1 on the Diplomacy check, in other words.
Except they're trying to get away from the **** baby concept. The assumption is that H-O adventurer have H-O parents. So this isn't even a valid concept for H-O themselves and that was the one thing that actually made them even remotely unique/interesting!
As I stated, I was discussing 2E/3E half-orcs because I am not looking at the 4E half-orc at the moment. I have a funny feeling that the child of an orc and a human (which is not always a "**** baby") will remain a half-orc. If they also have their own society, all the better. Half-elves became more interesting, not less, when Eberron gave them their own culture. And you don't really know how interesting that culture is going to be, do you?
That's entirely setting specific of course.
Everything is setting-specific.
The H-O appears to me as a way to play orcs without having to deal with the whole 'You're an orc! you're evil!' thing... which is kinda dumb. Simply give orcs a chance to not be evil by default in your setting and you just removed any need for the race to even exist.
Has this been your experience? In my case, I have played several full-blooded orcs in game worlds that also included half-orcs and not one of them has happened to be evil. However, in most settings orcs and humans have distinctly different cultures. Half-orcs are therefore interesting because they may be informed by either or both cultures. Plus, I just like the way they look. They are close enough to humans to be very relatable, yet also clearly different and "out-there."
I'm sorry to hear that. I think the root problem here might be that the primary difference between sorcerer and wizard in 3E was how they used their spells, not the spells themselves. In 4E, that's not enough to distinguish two classes.
One thing I will say I'm feeling the lack of in 4E is a mind-affecting character who isn't strongly linked to the fey. I know that flavor can be changed and blah blah blah, but in 3E the sorcerer with a lot of mind-affecting stuff, the beguiler, and the telepath all felt pretty different from the 4E teleporting status-dropping fey warlock. We may have to wait until the psionic power source to see something similar to that again. (And no, I'm not saying I want to seize control of enemies at level 1 with charm person...I want mechanics that work with 4E.)
The best translation of your old sorcerers into 4E might actually be a wizard.
I've tried the wizard, but it doesn't quite seem to fit the same feel for me. I think that's why I can't give a good answer. 'Feel' is something which is hard to really explain. The orb wizard came close to capturing how I played my sorcerers.
Essentially I liked to pick a lot of spells which didn't directly do damage such as wall spells, transmutation spells, and divination spells. Reverse Gravity was another favorite of mine.
I do sympathize with what you're talking about. Heck, I'm likely to take Ritual Casting with my Sorcerers just to broaden their magic a bit. But conversely, I'm awfully glad that fighters are useful again, so you take the good with the bad.
^ Yeah, unfortunately that style of wizard may have been lost on the altar of game balance. Wall spells are still around, and many rituals replicate divination. There aren't really any debuffs or positioning spells that don't also do damage...however, reflavoring some may get you closer to what you want.
I do sympathize with what you're talking about. Heck, I'm likely to take Ritual Casting with my Sorcerers just to broaden their magic a bit. But conversely, I'm awfully glad that fighters are useful again, so you take the good with the bad.
I actually like how rituals work. A lot of my characters take Ritual Caster.
One thing that I would like to see as an Epic Destiny is the Ultimate Magus. It was a prestigue class in 3E which required you to multiclass between Wizard and Sorcerer. There is a similar idea in Martial Power with the Martial Archtype (I think that's what it is called.) I think it would be cool if Arcane Power brought back Ultimate Magus as an epic destiny. I'm getting off topic though.
I'm interested to see how 4E portrays the 'raw talent' aspect of the sorcerer.
I succesfully predicted the Avenger popularity at the day 01-14-2009 in the
"Avenger? What will it look like?" thread posted by Omni-Wyvernil
THE prediction
I have successfully predicted a lot of things in 4e until now (I'm some sort of 4e oracle). Now I will show to you the most important prediction about the avenger.
THE AVENGER WILL BE ONE OF THE GREATEST SURPRISES OF 4th EDITION, AS IT WILL BE ONE OF THE MOST AWESOME CLASSES (IF NOT THE COOLEST CLASS). THE AVENGER WILL BE A SHADOW TO ALL OTHER DIVINE CLASSES. I FEEL SORRY FOR THE PALADIN. EVEN IF YOU NEVER PLAYED/LIKED A DIVINE CLASS YOU WILL WANT TO PLAY ONE. IN THE END OF THE 4th EDITION ERA THE AVENGER WILL BE CONSIDERED THE MOST POPULAR CLASS.
Check the post 50# to see the full prophecy
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1134726&page=2
There I even predicted the builds !! (Wis/Int and Wis/Dex)
The deva where still a mystery in that time and I successfully predicted that they would make good avengers for the Wis/Int build (at 01-14-2009!!).
I have failed just once. I predicted that the wild mage would come as a elemental class and with another name, but as we already know the sorcerer is the 4e wild mage.
(Sorry for any grammatical errors. English is not my primary language)
IT'S CONFIRMED!! I'M THE 4E ORACLE !!
I succesfully predicted the Avenger popularity at the day 01-14-2009 in the
"Avenger? What will it look like?" thread posted by Omni-Wyvernil
Well done! From what we've seen, it looks like the Avenger is about to become what the warlock was to 3.5. It will be played at tables everywhere, could make the first 5th Edition PHB, and may even, at a stretch, become the new black.
I am saddened by the lack of love for the Warden. This class may very well interest me in playing a Defender. Its not for the nature fluff, no, its for the control. Just the at-wills alone...the Melee 2 range...the slow. That will be very fun strategically. Maybe it will get me to stop playing Warlords for a while. Same with the Invoker. Right now, I think the Warlord more effectively controls the positioning and tempo of a battle than anyone else (especially wizards), so I'm hoping the Warden and Invoker can make some strides in that direction. I'm even interested in the Avenger somewhat because of their isolation abilities (though, at the end of the day, Strikers just deal damage...yawn).
Oh, and no, I don't like the Druid. Don't ask.
You just suggested me what a perfect group may look like: Warden, Warlord, Avenger, Invoker. So much battlefield control. I'd throw in a Shaman as 5th, to have some company for the Invoker in the back row and add survivability and battlefield control thanks to the spirit.
You just suggested me what a perfect group may look like: Warden, Warlord, Avenger, Invoker. So much battlefield control. I'd throw in a Shaman as 5th, to have some company for the Invoker in the back row and add survivability and battlefield control thanks to the spirit.
Well Id replace warden with swordmage, and put a paladin as the fifth. But thats just me. OOh an all arcane party of Bard,Wizard,Swordmage,Warlock, and Sorcerer would be pretty cool as well especially once arcane power comes out.
Well Id replace warden with swordmage, and put a paladin as the fifth. But thats just me. OOh an all arcane party of Bard,Wizard,Swordmage,Warlock, and Sorcerer would be pretty cool as well especially once arcane power comes out.
And what about Warden, Beastmaster Ranger, Barbarian, Shaman and Druid?
Why do you get to decide that?
I obviously don't, hence the H-O in phb2 :P
Seriously, I realize that this is all in fun but I think you were a bit too dismissive of the five or so character concepts I pulled out of my butt that half-orc is a natural fit for. One race having a Strength bonus does not negate all other strong races...one race being ugly does not negate all others...one race being an outcast doesn't mean that people wanting to play a different sort of outcast are being unreasonable.
Except in the majority of the concept you've pulled, the character being an half-orc wasn't necessary and didn't add any depth to it.
That'd be the equivalent of me playing a modern day Vampire game and saying, "I want to play a street gang kid, who's trying to get out of the violence and become a decent citizen, but then he gets turn into a Vampire and everything goes to hell... oh yeah, and he's latino."
Does the fact that he's latino really change the concept? Couldn't he be black, causcassian, asian?
If a guy at the table plays the exact same concept but change his ethnicity, will you feel like he has a different concept? No, not really.
That's pretty much why when you see one of those 'White teacher go help kids in a tough school' movie (Dangerous Mind, Freedom Writers, etc), you pretty much feel you've seen them all, no matter where they move the school in the country or what ethnicity the kids are. It's the same concept, just redone.
Granted, race in D&D make a much bigger impact, but none of your concept necessarily screamed 'I'm an Half-Orc' ... except the one 4e is trying to remove.
It doesn't help that in my view point, a half-orc is basically just going 'Orc-Lite'. Every struggle the Orc would have fitting in is going to be way worse/harder than the same struggle the H-O would have... it's the easy way out.
It's trivial to follow your reasoning to the conclusion that we don't need ANY races in the game other than humans. A human can be a bearded berserker, a lithe tree-dweller, or a misshapen outcast. A human can consort with devils, dragons, or fey. Why do we need any other races?
More or less to embody fantasy concepts. Or go against fantasy concept.
You could quite realistically play a game of D&D with only human, or only dragonborn, or only eladrin, or only whatever race you want and have it works no problem. The different races aren't inherently needed, but are there mostly because it's a fantasy setting and it's somewhat expected. Even so, there's plenty of fantasy books - successful one at that - where it's an all human cast or where non-human are so rare and such bit players that they barely make a difference.
The reason that the half-orc doesn't resonate with me is because he isn't part of what I consider my 'fantasy paradigm'.
And I'm not that big of a fan of the Half-Elf either for that matter, but I've known him since I was 10 years old, so he stuck in anyway.
And while the new D&D race don't necessarily fit my paradigm, I have a much easier time to let them in because of the concept they represent... the Dragonborn allows you to play a Dragon, the Tiefling a Demon/Devil, the Goliath a Giant without 'breaking the game' or unbalancing thing or requiring a whole new rule set. There's always been an appeal to playing the monster. The Half-Orc allows you to play an Orc... but why not just play an orc?
As I stated, I was discussing 2E/3E half-orcs because I am not looking at the 4E half-orc at the moment. I have a funny feeling that the child of an orc and a human (which is not always a "**** baby") will remain a half-orc. If they also have their own society, all the better.
Or maybe not?
If a horse has a sex with a tiger, the result is... a really weird freak show, not a Hogre.
It's been establish that elf and human can do the nasty and produce hybrid... but it seems fairly clear that Half-Dwarf, Half-Dragonborn and Half-Halfling don't exit - Either the union is sterile or the mother gives birth to a normal member of one of the two races.
There's no saying that after the mass production of Half-Orc by the Hogoblin or whatever angle you decide to go with, that without the magic that created the race, Orc and Human will be able to conceive together. Remember, they're trying to remove the ****-baby angle... and that would effectively do it.
Has this been your experience? In my case, I have played several full-blooded orcs in game worlds that also included half-orcs and not one of them has happened to be evil. However, in most settings orcs and humans have distinctly different cultures. Half-orcs are therefore interesting because they may be informed by either or both cultures. Plus, I just like the way they look. They are close enough to humans to be very relatable, yet also clearly different and "out-there."
My experience has been that nobody gave the Half-Orc a second glance when we played 3.5... and not because he was mechanically inferior, we were all pretty green at D&D back when we played 3.5 and I always thought that as the only race with a + in Strenght (We didn't have access to the Goliath and others) that he might be 'overpowered' for most melee class. Funny uh?
We've had people who wanted to play orcs, the comment 'Half-Orc? Why not just orc?' came up while we were making our characters, and so did 'Half-Orc half what?' which I thought was kinda funny.
Our original D&D game ended and we switched to 4e tho, so we only ever got to play 1 character in 3.5.
I guess what gets me is not that you don't like the half-orc, it's that you brush off the reasons that people want to play them as irrelevant. Natural 1 on the Diplomacy check, in other words.
Now that's simply uncalled for.
I wrote that I didn't like getting an half-orc in thread about the popularity of phb2 race - if there was a place where one could give his opinion about phb2 race, this was it.
I actually trashed the shifter even worse, but since you don't seem to have any attachment to them, you didn't even blink at that. So then you ask me why I don't like them... and I tell you.
I didn't say anything that was demeaning or a personal attack. I did not go into a rant about how they're terrible and people who like them are idiot or what not. I wouldn't even have said anything more than a brief paragraph had you not asked me for it. But now, you're the one jumping down my throat and essentially telling me I lack tact, diplomacy and I'm essentially a jerk.
So the only way for a person to not like the concept of the Half-Orc and think it's redundant with all the other races available is for them to be jerks???To keep up with the cheesy analogy, before you accuse people of rolling 1s on Diplomacy, you might want to make sure you didn't roll on 1 on Insight first.
Now that's simply uncalled for.
Um...I think you completely misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I was trying to explain why I felt compelled to respond to your statements regarding the half-orc, despite the fact (as you stated) that you actually rated it higher than the shifter. The conclusion I reached was that you simply happened to say something that struck me in a certain way.
That's why I made the "natural 1" joke, because in D&D anyone can roll a natural 1...it doesn't matter how high your modifier is, you have a 1 in 20 chance of saying something that goes over poorly.
It was not remotely meant to be some sort of personal attack. If anything, the opposite was meant.
So apparently I just rolled a natural 1 as well. I'm sorry that you were offended by my statement, because I absolutely did not mean to imply that you are a jerk or lack tact in any way. I'm quite enjoying our conversation.
If I might illustrate what I was talking about with a more recent quote:
Except in the majority of the concept you've pulled, the character being an half-orc wasn't necessary and didn't add any depth to it.
...is exactly the kind of thing I pointed out to you as happening to hit a nerve with me. I said "I think a half-orc is a natural fit for this concept," and you basically told me "You're wrong."
It is neither unenlightened nor inaccurate to point out that people may feel pulled in two directions by a divergent lineage. This occurs both in real life (because racial and ethnic identities are powerful forces in the lives of many, if not most, people, for better or for worse) and in speculative fiction (Mr. Spock, Elrond). Half-elves are interesting for the same reason, but they are considered to be a representation of cosmopolitanism, a coming-together of civilizations. In most representations of orcs, they may be civilized but they are not cosmopolitan, they are warriors who live on society's fringes. In many ways, they are anti-elves, so half-orcs face a different set of problems and possess a different set of skills from half-elves.
Plus I think they look cool.
And while the new D&D race don't necessarily fit my paradigm, I have a much easier time to let them in because of the concept they represent... the Dragonborn allows you to play a Dragon, the Tiefling a Demon/Devil, the Goliath a Giant without 'breaking the game' or unbalancing thing or requiring a whole new rule set. There's always been an appeal to playing the monster. The Half-Orc allows you to play an Orc... but why not just play an orc?
Because I'd rather play a half-orc. If I wanted to play an orc, I'd play an orc...and I've played both.
You've known the half-elf since you were 10. I've known the half-orc since I was twelve (both from D&D and from LotR). There are mechanical and flavor reasons why I'd like to play one, so please stop telling me that I'm wrong just because you don't want to play one.
I did say that you concept you presented could be done equally well or better with other races... but I've never said they couldn't be done with an H-O.
I've always positioned my point as my opinion, and nothing else. I've said that I understand why people like/want H-O and that I simply disagree with it.
I honestly thought we were having a discussion here, not a debate or an argument. I have no interest in convincing you that H-O are a good or bad fit for anything nor do I care what you use/enjoy in your game. I was merely elaborating on something because you've asked me to. If me saying my opinion 'hits a nerve' with you, than this is not a discussion I want to be part of.
So I'll drop out of this and this will be my last post on the H-O topic.
For one last clarification..."hitting a nerve" didn't mean "you offended me." It was my clumsy way of getting across that you said something that I felt required an answer, rather than just being "oh, wouldn't play one."
So...hey, who else likes the githyanki? I like the githyanki. I hope they are in PHBIII. Along with hobgoblins, I love those guys to death.
The thing about Githzerai, they almost certainly are in PHBIII, unless Shadow had 4 classes in PHBIII. The reason being that Githzerai live in the Elemental Chaos, and therefore would benefit from Elemental; they are archetypal Monks as I mentioned before, and they are also traditionally Psionic.
Githyanki will come along for the ride as long as Psionic gets some representation. Since they have more of a secondary Divine thing going on (due to the Astral Sea), I wouldn't be surprised if they were suggested as Avengers - in fact, Avenger-type Monasteries are Githyankish as apposed to Monk-type Monasteries being Githzeraish.
But the Gith are really cool, and I'm looking forward to them.
And now, for my PHBII Popularity Predictions and personal bias; 1 is good:
Classes - Bias
1. Bard - Bards have always been my favourite. Now I won't the the joke pit.
2. Avenger - Way too cool to not rate highly. Now I'll play Divine too.
3. Sorcerer - Chaos Sorcerer makes the class the Arcane Gambler!!!
4. Druid - I've always loved Druid; now it's actually Balanced and I Like it!
5. Shaman - I've been looking forward to a working Spirit Shaman forever.
6. Invoker - Is Awesome; But I'm more excited for the others.
7. Barbarian - Don't get me wrong, I like this guy a LOT.
8. Warden - Same here; I have great plans for Warden. I just like the others better.
Classes - Suspected
1. Avenger - It's too popular NOT to so high.
2. Bard - Free Multiclassing, Roleplaying, Leader Role, Optimal Builds
3. Sorcerer - Chaos Sorcerer makes the Sorcerer filled with win.
4. Druid - The favourite Class finally comes back in style, though weakened.
5. Barbarian - I Came. I Saw. I Raged. 'Nuff said.
6. Invoker - People like the Wrath of God. And the Moses-figure.
7. Shaman - I'm afraid people are afraid of the spirit companion.
8. Warden - Why don't people see his cool points? Dunno.
Races - Bias
1. Gnome - Finally, the Gnome done right. This fits exactly with the "Little People of the Hills" faerie tales from various Myths. Trickster-Awesome.
2. Shifter - I can finally play a Catfolk race. Gnoll was a Wolfish race.
3. Deva - While I'd prefer Asura (with Daevas being evil...), this'll be the basis for my Angelic Race that once ruled over the world in my setting.
4. Half-Orc - Seriously, I just rename it as a variant Orcish race, one that settles on a different set of classes. This one's a bit nicer than the other though.
5. Goliath - Never really got into Goliath. Never bought Races of Stone. Nevertheless, it will provide an Earth Giantish race to balance my Fomorian/Cyclops/Fey-Giantish race that I've built.
Races - Suspected
1. Deva - Highly anticipated successor to the Aaasimar. But more awesome.
2. Gnome - I think these will be the Sleeper Hit of PHBII. Great new style.
3. Goliath - I have to admit, people like smashing things. And being big.
4. Shifter - Ebberon = awesome. That said, D/G/G are probably going to be more popular.
5. Half-Orc - There are those who love it, and those who hate it.
That said, I don't dislike any of the new material. It's just more to work with to create the epic world that D&D allows a glimpse into.
But even if they aren't divine, they're pockets of their Githness in the Astral Sea amidst Immortals and Divine Power, just as the 'zerai are pockets of Githness in the Elemental Chaos amidst Elementals and Elemental Power.
Nitpick: the Githyanki have traditionally not been allowed by their society to pursue divine classes. I suppose 4E may change that (worship Vlaakith perhaps?) but just living on the astral sea doesn't make you connected to the gods.
The githyanki fluff in the 4E MM doesn't say anything about forbidding divine classes, but it does say that Vlaakith is their absolute ruler, and will kill any of them who challenge her.