As a 4e player and DM who's been anxiously waiting for the Shadow power source and the Necromancer class in particular, I was very excited when I read the first vague reports at Enworld about this product appearing in a WotC catolog, slated for a March 2011 release. Thanlis fished the catalog blurb out of the enworld thread:
Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow
Mike Mearls and Robert J. Schwalb
The Shadowfell is a cold place through which the spirits of the dead must pass on their way to...whatever. Dark, evil things live there, suffused with the power of shadow.. Some mortals in the natural world learn how to tap into this source. Assassins. Necromancers. Hexblades. By all accounts, a ruthless lot. However, not all beings that draw strength from the Shadowfell are vile, blackhearted fiends. A few even dare to call themselves heroes, using the power of darkness to fight darkness. Are they evil? No. Deeply disturbed and hounded by their own dark demons? You bet.
Player's Options: Heroes of Shadow focuses on characters that fight evil in ways that make others cringe. In addition to exploring the nature of the shadow power source, this book presents races, classes, feats, powers, and other options aimed at players hungry to play the archetypal antihero with a dark edge.
320 page trade paperback (6x9), $19.95
March 15, 2011.
BUT YAY FOR HEXBLADE. I'm hoping they'll do something really fun with the marking power, and hoping for a Cha primary with Int secondary at some point~
Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow
Mike Mearls and Robert J. Schwalb
The Shadowfell is a cold place through which the spirits of the dead must pass on their way to...whatever. Dark, evil things live there, suffused with the power of shadow.. Some mortals in the natural world learn how to tap into this source. Assassins. Necromancers. Hexblades. By all accounts, a ruthless lot. However, not all beings that draw strength from the Shadowfell are vile, blackhearted fiends. A few even dare to call themselves heroes, using the power of darkness to fight darkness. Are they evil? No. Deeply disturbed and hounded by their own dark demons? You bet.
Player's Options: Heroes of Shadow focuses on characters that fight evil in ways that make others cringe. In addition to exploring the nature of the shadow power source, this book presents races, classes, feats, powers, and other options aimed at players hungry to play the archetypal antihero with a dark edge.
320 page trade paperback (6x9), $19.95
March 15, 2011
I care deeply about artwork, and fine artwork is the only real loss.
But. I have DDI and thats better to use for actual gameplay.
It would be cool if all books came in hardcover and softcover versions. The softcovers Im more likely to buy on a whim. The hardcovers Il buy for the books that turn out to be my favorite, in which case, I really want them to have the stunning glossy artwork that Iv become accustomed too.
$19.95
And that's how it gets on my "Buy" list.
320 pages eh? That's much more then I had feared. With that many pages, and no core game rules to cover, the book could easily have room for a decent number of races, more then three classes, and maybe some of that fluff I'm hoping for. (please, please, please let there be some in character fluff and fiction! Even just a little bit, at the beginning, or a sidebar to start out chapters!)
I still wonder what the binding, paper, cover, and art qualities will be. I guess I'll have to wait until the essentials books start rolling out to see.
Regardless, I was always going to get this book, regardless of the price or page count, but I'm happy to see that it looks like something of a bargain as well.
So lets see, this book will have an introduction, a chapter for races, one for each class (including powers and paragon paths, these should be the longest section), a chapter for hybrid versions of the classes, a chapter for epic destinies, a chapter for feats, and probably a chapter for equipment and items, at the very least. Heroes of the Fallen Lands is 352 pages, and covers five classes (cleric, rogue, fighter, wizard, and ranger), and five races (dwarves, eladrin, elves, halflings, and humans). If they can fit five races and five classes in 352 pages, is it too much to hope for at least four races and four classes in 320?
I would think that if the Assassin is mentioned, that the whole class would be inside. (unfortunatly)
I wonder if this will hasten the Elemental power source for PHB4, with the remainder of the shadow classes to be one of the filler power sources (along with Psionic).
I would think that if the Assassin is mentioned, that the whole class would be inside. (unfortunatly)
I wonder if there will even be a PHB4, or if we are seeing instead of it...
Isn't 320 pages a bit thick for a paperback book? That's more pages than the PHB3. Somewhere I think there's a typo.
In my hand, Im holding the Swordmage novel by Baker. It has 375 pages and is a normal sized paperback. Very convenient to carry and reference.
Actually, this novel only costs $7.
So, hopefully, the $20 paperback books to come will generate profit. Dont begrudge this price, because technical books (like scientific studies or rules manuals) are necessarily more expensive because of the elaborate research that must go into them.
Isn't 320 pages a bit thick for a paperback book? That's more pages than the PHB3. Somewhere I think there's a typo.
In my hand, Im holding the Swordmage novel by Baker. It has 375 pages and is a normal sized paperback. Very convenient to carry and reference.
Actually, this novel only costs $7.
So, hopefully, the $20 paperback books to come will generate profit. Dont begrudge this price, because technical books (like scientific studies or rules manuals) are necessarily more expensive because of the elaborate research that must go into them.
He means a paperback RPG book.
It depends - the digest sized core books for a lot of RPG systems are around that size, but that's pretty large for what amounts to an expansion.
Obviously wer talking about the upcoming RPG book. Im saying, a paperback with that number of pages isnt thick.
Now Im holding a 'thick paperback', and it has 835 pages.
I mean, sure, there's Illusionist, but he'd be too close to the Wizard illusionist, with a more narrow focus, and dark.
There'd be the shadowdancer,who well, is already eaten by the Assassin.
There's the blackguard/dark knight whatever you wana call it, who's just an anti-paladin and a hexblade in diferent armor (or do hex blades wear heavy too?)
There's the shadow caster,who is again, just a wizard but dark, and likely can be a build of the Necromancer in order to give it more flavour.
That said, I'm not too fond of Wizard's going back on "DDI exclusives", but honestly, if it gets the assassin more support, I don't care. Right now, its the same stuff they launched with, except more racial feats,and random combo with avenger stuff.
And on that note...
Anyone think or hope that they will print SHADOW concept powers or feats for other power sources?
Don't know if it will work with the mechanics but I am thinking about playing an unlucky, depressed, pessamistic hexblade. The fighter and paladin charge in yelling "hit me" and this is the guy going "Yup, their attacking me just my luck." kind of like Eore with a mark mechanic "Just attack the donkey, I'm used to it" or you know spiderman. "what is it attack the wall crawler week?"
Remember they may have new assassin builds with out reprinting the base class, arcane power had a swordmage build with out reprinting the base class. You still needed the FR book to know how it or the dark pact warlock worked.
I think, presuming that they mention the Assassin in the introduction and/or back cover, then they would have to reprint the basic mechanics. Otherwise, people who haven't heard that it's a DDI exclusive (there must be some!) would feel cheated if they bought the books for that class and couldn't play it. Although it might not have the same builds, powers, etc. as were in Dragon, I expect the rules for shrouds, defense bonuses, proficiencies, etc. will be reprinted.
I'll throw a vote in for goblin-types--some of them are shadow-ish (and a goblinoid PC is as likely as anyone to be "not-evil-but-not-nice") and it makes sense to put them all in one place.
I'm also voting for goblinoids/kobolds in the book. They just feel right for it.
All that said, I like the idea of shadow as a selfish, solitary power source, and wouldn't mind if it had no leaders, or at least no primary leaders, in order to convey that. Actually, there's something intrinsicly altruistic about the defender role as well, so I wouldn't mind of the hexblade turned out to be a second shadow striker instead of the defender we're all currently assuming it is.
I don't know if goblinoids or kobolds feel right for this book. To me the former feel much more appropriate for the martial and primal power sources (goblin rogues, rangers, and shamen; hobgoblin fighters and warlords; bugbear barbarians), while the latter always felt more arcane to me (due to the dragon connection).
To me, the races I associate with the shadow power source are Shadar-Kai, Revenants, Kenku, and Changellings. Maybe shades.
Not that I don't want to see a book presenting the monsterous humanoids as player options, especially for Eberron, but I'm not really convinced that tying them to the Shadow powers source really works, thematically.
As for the classes, well it's good that the Hexblade is back. It always seemed like an interesting class in concept and flavour to me, but it's mechanics sort of fell weak. I'm guessing it's a defender class, as I'd like to see a class that curses enemies who tried to harm it's allies. I think the closest point of reference to this would be Divine Challenge, except that it might have a more variable effect for punishment that includes increased penalties or things that vary depending on build.
As for Necromancers I could see it diverging in a few different ways. Summoning might be a major thing for one build, but looking at the Necromancy spells in previous editions, a lot of them relied on inflicting unpleasant status effects. So I could see a build that heavily uses debuffs. As to what would make it different from other controllers, well it always seemed to be something where the necromancer got buffed in different ways, whether it was becoming more like undead or something else.
I think the Necromancer will very much focus on undead use - whether through summoning, a class pet, something new, or a combination thereof. The straight debuff/hamper gimmick has been covered many times over by other 4e controllers - I can't imagine any 4e version of a 'necromancer' class where some manner of undead pets aren't their defining thing, regardless of build.
It really looks like DDE isn't just a end of 2010 product line and will be continuing well into 2011. DDE might actually have supplanted generic 4e, and be 4.5 after all.
Given the name (Player's Options: ___, similar to Player's Essentials: ___) and the format (paperback) this looks to be part of the D&D Essentials line.
It really looks like DDE isn't just a end of 2010 product line and will be continuing well into 2011. DDE might actually have supplanted generic 4e, and be 4.5 after all.
Except that the Eseentials line is 10 products and we already know what those 10 products are. This might be using the format of the Essentials line, but it is not an Essentials product.
Given the name (Player's Options: ___, similar to Player's Essentials: ___) and the format (paperback) this looks to be part of the D&D Essentials line.
It really looks like DDE isn't just a end of 2010 product line and will be continuing well into 2011. DDE might actually have supplanted generic 4e, and be 4.5 after all.
Except that the Eseentials line is 10 products and we already know what those 10 products are. This might be using the format of the Essentials line, but it is not an Essentials product.
Then list all ten please. ;)
Confirmed so far (Only the assassin's role is known. The roles of the hexblade and necromancer are conjecture.)
Assassin (Striker)
Key Stats: Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma
Hexblade (Defender)
Key Stats: Intelligence, Strength, Dexterity
Necromancer (Controller)
Key Stats: Intelligence, Charisma, Constitution(or Strength)
Additional classes might include the beguiler(second shadow controller) or witch(shadow leader).
It's also possible that there will be more than two builds for each class in the book, since the book is dedicated to the power source (though more might be saved for a future Shadow Power book).
Nothing about the blurb indicates to me that those are the only three classes. The book is nearly as long as heroes of the fallen realms, which has five classes.
On the other hand, that this is "Player's Option" instead of PHB4, which makes me question if we'll see a Shadow Power. What if they released only this book but included 4 or 5 builds a class? (And nudge people towards DDI if they want more builds?)
Whatever happens, I'm pretty confidant that this is an experiment to test the 6x9 paperback format with people whining about 4.5 and new players getting into the game variables removed.
Then list all ten please. ;)
Give us some playtest articles please..
You already have one, the DDI Exclusive: Assassin article. :P
From that thread:Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow
Mike Mearls and Robert J. Schwalb
The Shadowfell is a cold place through which the spirits of the dead must pass on their way to...whatever. Dark, evil things live there, suffused with the power of shadow.. Some mortals in the natural world learn how to tap into this source. Assassins. Necromancers. Hexblades. By all accounts, a ruthless lot. However, not all beings that draw strength from the Shadowfell are vile, blackhearted fiends. A few even dare to call themselves heroes, using the power of darkness to fight darkness. Are they evil? No. Deeply disturbed and hounded by their own dark demons? You bet.
Player's Options: Heroes of Shadow focuses on characters that fight evil in ways that make others cringe. In addition to exploring the nature of the shadow power source, this book presents races, classes, feats, powers, and other options aimed at players hungry to play the archetypal antihero with a dark edge.
320 page trade paperback (6x9), $19.95
March 15, 2011
I can't wait until this comes out. Hexblades and Necromancers are 2 of my favorite classes.
I'm also not really happy about paperback books. I've always preferred hardcover books, but then again the cheaper price is something I can get into.
A suggestion I once made for the Hexblade that was pretty popular was for its Daily powers to modify its mark punishment mechanism. With Dailies having names like 'Curse of...'.
I can also see a Necromancer pet class with polymorphing powers for its pet and powers that give it debilitating auras.
the mention of 'powers' suggest to me we might indeed see shadowy options, like those Necromancy themed powers (what was the name of that article... 'Secrets of the Forbidden City' or something?), for various classes.
The Seeker and the Runepriest demand their power books.
Don't forget the artificer. Arcane power was out before Eberon so nothing in it for them.
Maybe theyl only publish paperbacks, until all the rules and errata stabilize. Only after that theyl publish the hardcovers?
And I guess it's wait and see about what they do with future releases. I hope in about 2 months time, someone posts photos from the upcoming releases seminar, so that we know what exactly are they planning on doing.
Again, though, defender does seem more likely. It's just a possibility.
I don't think getting both Hexblade and Blackguard seems likely. Seems like too much overlap to me.
The Seeker and the Runepriest demand their power books.
Don't forget the artificer. Arcane power was out before Eberon so nothing in it for them.
The artificer got its third build and additional power support through the DDI. I expect the same will happen to the Seeker and Runepriest.
If the rumors of the axe to the Illusionist is true, I expect more support in this area for the Wizard as well as some for the Bard and Sorcerer.
I'm excited about how fast the new Player's Option book is going to be. Mach 2011? That is really something!
That's fast? That's when PHB2 and 3 came out (in March that is). That's not fast when you think of it as replacing PHB4. That's right on schedule.
I'm excited about how fast the new Player's Option book is going to be. Mach 2011? That is really something!
.I'm with a couple others on here about being unhappy that it won't be in hard cover. But, my wife will be happier that I'm not putting another $30+ on a book.
To Celtic: He was alluding to the "mach 2011" instead of MARCH. I chuckled
Apparently I have that semi-rare condition of automatically filling in missing letters in context ...
Specifically no fluff in PC books and short, short books.
Small books in 3e were 160 pages, while in 4e every book seems to want to be 160 pages (PHBs aside). Just when the book is getting warmed-up it ends.
Likewise, a problem with strict crunch books (i.e. every player book to date, save the racial ones) is that the entire contents of the book are found in DDI. After I paid for two months of DDI I sold my first two monster manuals and PHBs. And I'll probably re-up for a single month for MM3 instead of buying that book.
A larger player book with fluff and story and character ideas means people will buy it even if they have DDI. Pairing a new power source (shadow) with related characters (shadowy scoundrels) means more people interested. Like if Heroes of Battle also had new classes and options.
I was initially negative about the product but I'm beginning to warm-up to the idea. I think it's a sign WotC is solving some of the problems I had with 4e.
Specifically no fluff in PC books and short, short books.
Small books in 3e were 160 pages, while in 4e every book seems to want to be 160 pages (PHBs aside). Just when the book is getting warmed-up it ends.
Likewise, a problem with strict crunch books (i.e. every player book to date, save the racial ones) is that the entire contents of the book are found in DDI. After I paid for two months of DDI I sold my first two monster manuals and PHBs. And I'll probably re-up for a single month for MM3 instead of buying that book.
A larger player book with fluff and story and character ideas means people will buy it even if they have DDI. Pairing a new power source (shadow) with related characters (shadowy scoundrels) means more people interested. Like if Heroes of Battle also had new classes and options.
.....I almost feel bad for pointing this out, but the pages are about half as large so a 320 page book in this format is basically 160 pages from the current format.
I was initially negative about the product but I'm beginning to warm-up to the idea. I think it's a sign WotC is solving some of the problems I had with 4e.
Specifically no fluff in PC books and short, short books.
Small books in 3e were 160 pages, while in 4e every book seems to want to be 160 pages (PHBs aside). Just when the book is getting warmed-up it ends.
Likewise, a problem with strict crunch books (i.e. every player book to date, save the racial ones) is that the entire contents of the book are found in DDI. After I paid for two months of DDI I sold my first two monster manuals and PHBs. And I'll probably re-up for a single month for MM3 instead of buying that book.
A larger player book with fluff and story and character ideas means people will buy it even if they have DDI. Pairing a new power source (shadow) with related characters (shadowy scoundrels) means more people interested. Like if Heroes of Battle also had new classes and options.
.....I almost feel bad for pointing this out, but the pages are about half as large so a 320 page book in this format is basically 160 pages from the current format.
Half would be 4.25 x 5.5, so 6 x 9 is slightly larger. Yes, it's not *much* larger, but probably still a higher page count! It probably also depends on the font.
Still, it looks like they're charging the same price for a paperback with (roughly) the same amount of pages. That seems a little money grubby. Is paper really becoming that expensive?
Half would be 4.25 x 5.5, so 6 x 9 is slightly larger. Yes, it's not *much* larger, but probably still a higher page count! It probably also depends on the font.
Still, it looks like they're charging the same price for a paperback with (roughly) the same amount of pages. That seems a little money grubby. Is paper really becoming that expensive?
Well that would actually be about a quarter of the size. Dimsinsions of PHB1(according to Amazon and probably the cover) are 12.3 x 8.4, so a surface area per page of 103.32 square inches. 6x9 comes out to a surface area per page of 54 square inches. 4.25 x 5.5 would be 23.375 square inches.
And they aren't charging the same price. The player's options are $19.95. I just checked a recent random book and it was $29.95 for suggested price.
I was initially negative about the product but I'm beginning to warm-up to the idea. I think it's a sign WotC is solving some of the problems I had with 4e.
Specifically no fluff in PC books and short, short books.
Small books in 3e were 160 pages, while in 4e every book seems to want to be 160 pages (PHBs aside). Just when the book is getting warmed-up it ends.
Likewise, a problem with strict crunch books (i.e. every player book to date, save the racial ones) is that the entire contents of the book are found in DDI. After I paid for two months of DDI I sold my first two monster manuals and PHBs. And I'll probably re-up for a single month for MM3 instead of buying that book.
A larger player book with fluff and story and character ideas means people will buy it even if they have DDI. Pairing a new power source (shadow) with related characters (shadowy scoundrels) means more people interested. Like if Heroes of Battle also had new classes and options.
.....I almost feel bad for pointing this out, but the pages are about half as large so a 320 page book in this format is basically 160 pages from the current format.
It is possible the fonts will change with the smaller books (so they are more novel sized) but I highly doubt that will happen. Like you said, the page count is deceiving, since the books are smaller.
And I'm super stoked about this power source. Assassin, hexblade, and necromancer are staples that need to see good treatment. I second the heavy armor striker. Instead of being super mobile he's contollery and defendery against things that aren't his target? Kind of opposite of the avenger (most of his tricks go towards things he's not trying to kill)? Sadly this feels like it would become fighter 2.0 since they already deal silly damage.
Since we have a warlord paragon class that pulls shadow power I expect we'll see some more examples of this (especially the rogue and cleric). There is also the shadowmancer class from 3.5 that I loved but it feels an aweful lot like dark pact warlock.
I would like to see 3-4 classes, new rogue, new warlock, new assassin builds, some paragons and a lot of feats. A LOT OF FEATS. feats are awesome.
As for other stuff in this book, I could see there being options for characters who aren't members of any Shadow power source class, or a member of any of it's races. Maybe like paragon paths for such characters to get a little bit of a shadow flavour for their characters.
Calling a vast array of corpse-like/ghostly arms to rise out of the ground and hold it's victims there.
Draining the vitality of nearby enemies (damage plus weakness) to gain strength or heal.
Conjuring a "dark mirror" of an enemy.
A scream of a thousand ghostly souls.
Is anybody else as excited to hear a release date for this as I am? What are you hoping to see in this book?
And so we see the return of the 3.5e splatbook. We'll be getting classes and races in many books a year now (I say at least 3) which means they're running out of ideas. I'll be expecting to see word of 5th edition late 2012 and it to actually appear in 2013.
That said I'm not completely distressed by this. I haven't bought any books in 2010 so far and the only one I plan on getting immediately is Monster Manual 3. So I'll happily soak up 4 years worth of books and then keep the game stable for several campaigns (as long as my players are happy to keep playing 4th ed).
I'm also more than a little bit annoyed that the DDi-Exclusive options are being invalidated only a year after they were released. Fortunately I mainly subscribe for the tools rather than the content.
Is anybody else as excited to hear a release date for this as I am? What are you hoping to see in this book?
And so we see the return of the 3.5e splatbook. We'll be getting classes and races in many books a year now (I say at least 3) which means they're running out of ideas. I'll be expecting to see word of 5th edition late 2012 and it to actually appear in 2013.That said I'm not completely distressed by this. I haven't bought any books in 2010 so far and the only one I plan on getting immediately is Monster Manual 3. So I'll happily soak up 4 years worth of books and then keep the game stable for several campaigns (as long as my players are happy to keep playing 4th ed).
I'm also more than a little bit annoyed that the DDi-Exclusive options are being invalidated only a year after they were released. Fortunately I mainly subscribe for the tools rather than the content.
This is the one and only book thusfar for 2011 that we know is going to have classes in it. We only had classes in one book this year too, so I fail to see this as a sign of anything. However, this does smack of 3.5e splatbook, but those were coming out after a year of 3.5, not three years of it.
This is the one and only book thusfar for 2011 that we know is going to have classes in it. We only had classes in one book this year too, so I fail to see this as a sign of anything. However, this does smack of 3.5e splatbook, but those were coming out after a year of 3.5, not three years of it.
I don't think it's much different from the last two PHs, beyond having a more particular focus.
PH2 could have been "Player's Option: Primal Heroes", except it had a bunch of not-primal material.
PH3 could have been "Player's Option: Psionic Heroes", except it had a bunch of not-psionic material.
So... *shrug*
This is the one and only book thusfar for 2011 that we know is going to have classes in it. We only had classes in one book this year too, so I fail to see this as a sign of anything. However, this does smack of 3.5e splatbook, but those were coming out after a year of 3.5, not three years of it.
I don't think it's much different from the last two PHs, beyond having a more particular focus.
PH2 could have been "Player's Option: Primal Heroes", except it had a bunch of not-primal material.
PH3 could have been "Player's Option: Psionic Heroes", except it had a bunch of not-psionic material.
So... *shrug*
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't see this as a huge change from the existing method of class release. The book is smaller (it is about the same size as a X Power book in content) than a PHB, and the number of classes reflects that. Perhaps this is how we will see Elemental in the future. I like this method, actually. That way, if I am not so keen on X Power Source, I am not missing out on content for other Power Sources. Good show on WotC's part with this idea. Of course, Shadow really does set itself apart from the other sources by being a little darker in theme (...no pun intended?). I wouldn't count on the 2011 setting (if there is one) to be too tied to Shadow Power as much as Dark Sun was to Psionic though, just a hunch on my part.
I myself lean towards controller with a side of striker. I like the idea of shadow being a selfish power source that doesn't help others. We also already have a pet class striker (beastmaster ranger) and a pet class leader (shaman), so I'd like to see a pet class controller, which would be new.
That said, I could also see a necromancer leader, something like a shaman but with a focus on granting temporary hit points and on debuffing enemies (with penalties to attack and defense and effects like weakness, but not harder control impairments like immobilize or stun).
Either could easily work, even if I'd prefer the controller, myself.
Right.
In any case, I'm still looking forward to this book. And just as the races were denied mention, I still have my fingers crossed for Beguillers in the book as well.
Well, being the Shadow powersource book, most of the pics will likely be grey-black anyway.
So, Paperback means no colour pictures, right?
Right.
Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerun and the paperback d20 Modern splats were all color paperbacks. I think the thick FR paperbacks were also color.
Good to hear about necromancers and hexblades, though. Two classes in a single book. Perhaps it's also stuffed full of paragon paths, relevant items and feats. Perhaps a handful of shadow-themed epic destinies. That could fill a small, 320-page book fast.
First of all, the assassin: I agree with many on this thread. The assassin build will be an entirely new build, with no reprinted powers, and only the core class features, as well as new feats, new items, etc. Thus, yes, WotC can indeed keep the DDI content entirely exclusive, while still providing an assassin build for everyone who prefers buying paper books over digital content.
The hexblade should totally be the king of single-target melee debuffing. Like a warlock, hexblades should be cursing
(in this case hexing) their enemies with a minor action, once per turn, with any number of hexes on the board at a time. Instead of some sort of boon trigger, however, the hexed enemy or enemies would suffer from some sort of debuff based on the current "hex state" the hexblade is in, thus allowing the 'blade to switch whatever the current debuff is on all of his or her targets, like a runepriest does.
Then...we have necromaners. I really, really want necromancers to have a completely different feel from almost everything else. It should be a controller, IMHO, and a summoning specialist. So much so, in fact, that it has multiple at-wills that summon minions that last until the end of the encounter. Each such at-will will have only 1 hit point, take no damage on a miss, have an opportunity action of some sort depending on the minion, cost a minor action to summon, and a standard action to attack with.
Thus, the necromaner puts pieces of movable blocking terrain out that is very easy to kill, and is essentially a focal point for attacks at a distance, much like a shaman's spirit companion. Movement is the hardest part. I want them to be mobile, but NOT cost a move action PER minion to move around. I think the solution is either to have a number of minions moved with a move action equal to one of your abilitiy modifiers, or to split your own movement up, such that you might move yourself 2 squares, and 4 minions each 1 square as one example.
Then, of course, their standard summons would be akin to many of the other summons we see, albeit with more life draining (tranfering damage dealt into hit points healed or temp hps gained), status effects such as weakened, slowed, immobilized given, and so on. I'd also have this be the first class that can summon encounter-long, beefier minion-like summons with encounter powers, giving them a more unique twist. This is, of course, in addition to more traditional controller AoE and status-effect laden encounter powers as options. Does this mean more paperwork for necromancers to keep track of? Yup, it sure does. I still prefer this option to something more generically similar to other controllers.
Likely the book will not cover either of the current builds, thus allowing them to claim that they've maintained the DDI exclusivity of the current assassin. Like you, I'd be quick to forgive if the version in HoS is actually able to do its job.
Except that part of the original DDI Exclusive promise was that all support for the exclusive material would be in the magazines as well. And yhou know they will reprint the class basics as well.Will they reprint the builds? Hard to say, but I am willing to bet that the third assassin build which is several months late is going to be in the Heroes of Shadow book.
This book is gonna rock.
Honestly, if printed treatment produces an assassin that can actually kill things, and not be a weak rogue who's invisible, I don't care that WoTC went back a bit on their promise. From the number of non-insiders wanting advice on them in the early days of the Assassin, I wouldn't call it too exclusive anyway.
Again, I'm not saying it makes sense, but this is exactly what's happening.
Step in the right direction, in my opinion. I can shell out way more money on books than I do on DDI. I'm much happier knowing that players who make that expenditure will get their money's worth, which includes full races and classes. DDI exclusive is little more than an enticement to subscribe, which unfortunately means that you cannot play with all basic character concepts with a print-only game of 4e.
I did not pay a subscriber fee for some illusion of "exclusivity".
I joined DDI because I wanted to have the character builder and the monster builder, as well as extra support for the classes. I was hoping DDI would take a support role, not host an entire class and race and prevent them from ever seeing print. That, unfortunately, made it certain that the assassin and the revenant would only have support from dragon magazine. They would never appear in power books, or anything of the sort, which meant that overall support might be limited.
I can understand if other subscribers feel cheated because they were promised exclusivity. But ultimately, if the assassin goes to a whole new set of non-subscribers, won't it raise interest in the class, and ultimately, lead to more support? If anything, the subscribers paid to have over a year of access to the class before anyone else.
As for the necromancer and hexblade, I'm quite happy to hear they'll be coming. Necromancer isn't my cup of tea, but it's a popular character concept that'll definitely see play. The hexblade, on the other hand, was one of my favorite class concepts in 3.5, though it was a bit underpowered. If they keep the same sort of bad-luck fluff, I'll be sure to play one.
Spell-slinging swordsmen have always been a cool concept. The swordmage took the arcane side of things, and now I'd love to see what the hexblade does with the shadow source.
While Archivist probably has room for a full class, I could definitely see it as a dark character theme - then you could have Archivist Clerics, Archivist Invokers, Archivist Artificers, Archivist Bards, Archivist Wizards, etc.
Of course, I suspect the entire class will be revised, and WotC will say the exclusive version was a playtest.
I don't really mind WotC going back on the exclusivity promise. But I am mad that the 3rd build we were promised has very likely been pushed back to the book, making it go from several months late to over a year late. Assassins need a good third build to make them effective, and delaying that for a year is just going to make the divide even worse.
Of course, I suspect the entire class will be revised, and WotC will say the exclusive version was a playtest.
Pushed back to the book? The third build, assassin of the gloaming dance, has been promised for this month; in fact, this coming Friday. It was stated in May's In The Works article. We shall have it in less than a week.
EDIT: Actually, Wednesday!
Pushed back to the book? The third build, assassin of the gloaming dance, has been promised for this month; in fact, this coming Friday. It was stated in May's In The Works article. We shall have it in less than a week.
EDIT: Actually, Wednesday!
Since when have 8 powers, a PP path, and 5 feats qualified as a build?P.S. Thank you people of charop.
Beyond the classes, it strikes me that such a theme-focused book would be a great way to introduce some "darker" character themes. Even if they don't intend to spread themes throughout the core game (really, I suspect they do), a "Dark Heroes" book would be a great place to implement some themes.
While Archivist probably has room for a full class, I could definitely see it as a dark character theme - then you could have Archivist Clerics, Archivist Invokers, Archivist Artificers, Archivist Bards, Archivist Wizards, etc.
Could be. It would be nice to see character themes used more and more. But I did also get to thinking how the archivist as a shadow class could also roll the witch into it. Someone who reads weirds (fate) and uses prophecy. We're still pretty shy on prophetic characters, and it seems to work well with the image I'm creating of Dark Knowledge and a connection to the Shadowfell letting you see what others cannot see - seeing weaknesses, seeing how your enemy dies, seeing the future. I like this idea. And if it becomes a theme instead, that's good too. In fact, if Dark Knowledge became a theme, we could also bring back Bardic Knowledge as a bard with the archivist theme.
Pushed back to the book? The third build, assassin of the gloaming dance, has been promised for this month; in fact, this coming Friday. It was stated in May's In The Works article. We shall have it in less than a week.
EDIT: Actually, Wednesday!
P.S. Thank you people of charop.
Yeah, for some reason we were lead to believe the Gloaming Dance was the new build, then again, the article even calls it a Guild Style, which is you know, whats Assassin builds are. And yet we don't get an actual build.
As much as ThaX hates the assassin, right now, its so shadow-dancery, and is rather poor at actually killing things like an assassin should be.
No, the necro fans on these forums seem pretty evenly split between those wanting a necromancer as leader (with a side of controller) and necromancer as controller (with a side of leader or striker).
I myself lean towards controller with a side of striker. I like the idea of shadow being a selfish power source that doesn't help others. We also already have a pet class striker (beastmaster ranger) and a pet class leader (shaman), so I'd like to see a pet class controller, which would be new.
That said, I could also see a necromancer leader, something like a shaman but with a focus on granting temporary hit points and on debuffing enemies (with penalties to attack and defense and effects like weakness, but not harder control impairments like immobilize or stun).
Either could easily work, even if I'd prefer the controller, myself.
I'd rather see the shadowdancer in that role, personally, but I'll be excited either way. And really that would only be my preference if Shadowdancers aren't done as an Assassin build. One with a control secondary that is actually strong enough to make the class kick ass overall.
Anyway, I'd rather not have the Shadow power source be lacking in leader or defender just so that it can be a "selfish" powersource. That'd be even worse than putting in a class just to fill in a role, imo.
I wonder if this will hasten the Elemental power source for PHB4, with the remainder of the shadow classes to be one of the filler power sources (along with Psionic).
I would think that if the Assassin is mentioned, that the whole class would be inside. (unfortunatly)
I wonder if there will even be a PHB4, or if we are seeing instead of it...
Why "unfortunately"? It's an awesome class that just needs some extra support. Seriously, a new build and some powers that actually support the primary striker role is literally all the class needs to be just as good as any of the existing strikers. Paragon tier powers need to be powerful enough to make up for the damage scaling issues of the shrouds, or have effects which make the shrouds scale, same with epic.
That's it.
Anyway, I'm hoping to see Shadar-kai and Kenku finally have a real publication, and I'm interested in seeing the Necromancer, Hexblade, Shadowdancer(if it doesn't get done as a build option for assassins) and Shadow Adept.
I'd like the Necromancer to be a leader that uses effects like insubstantiability, damage resistance, concielment, invisibility, etc to keep party members alive, with less outright healing than other leaders, and a strong control secondary via summoning.
The Hexblade I'd like to be a defender(unless we just don't get a shadow defender, which I'd be fine with. Hex could be a second striker instead.) that inflicts some cruel effects on marked enemies when they do what it wants.
The Shadowdancer could be a controller that uses melee and close powers, along with conjured shadows, to control.
Shadow Adept would either be like the Psion(Psion is psionic wizard, Shadow Adept could be shadow wizard) or a ranged striker.
The Witch could certainly be included as a leader. I think that any Shadow leader should have a strong secondary role, either controller or striker.
Also of note, the leader does not have to altruistic. Yes, you keep allies from dying, but you also keep yourself from dying. It would be entirely possible to make a leader that is more selfish than any other. First, have many of the powers that support allies also support the leader, and/or require actions from the other character/s.
The defender is even less intrinsicly altruist. For instance, the defender could recieve some kind of bonus from enemies that don't do what it wants. Like, when the target hits with an attack that doesn't include you as the target, it takes 1d6 damage, and you gain the same number of THP.
Just as some really, really basic and preliminary ideas.
Also, if the book includes options for non shadow source characters, I want some kind of shadow bard support. Feats, build, PP, powers, whatever.
The Witch could certainly be included . . .
i would LOVE to see, finally, a witch class. i had long envisioned a witch class as primal, but a shadow-based witch class would be great.
this would be an awesome--and solid--shadow power source line-up:
hexblade - defender
assassin - striker
necromancer - leader or controller (i vote controller)
witch - controller or leader (i vote leader)
p.s., i could see constitution being a prominent stat within the shadow power source, a la wisdom for divine, intelligence for arcane, strength for martial, constitution (and wisdom) for primal, and wisdom (and charisma) for psionic.
Pushed back to the book? The third build, assassin of the gloaming dance, has been promised for this month; in fact, this coming Friday. It was stated in May's In The Works article. We shall have it in less than a week.
EDIT: Actually, Wednesday!
P.S. Thank you people of charop.
Comment No. 1: Already?
Comment No. 2: Dangit, they promised!
Long story short - I think necromancers would make better controllers, but they could go with leader or even striker easily enough. Really hoping for a playtest preview to see what the designers are thinking.
If I were designing the necro
If I were designing the Necromancer, it would be a controller. Its signature class feature would be the ability to create 'corpse puppets' from dead bodies during short or extended rests. These puppets would be undead minions (1 hp, not hurt on a miss), immune to poison and necrotic damage, with size, reach, and movement modes based on the corpse used, and defenses based on the necromancer. Additional properties would be based on the necromancer's build and paragon path. Maybe one build would let them flank, while another would have them do extra damage whenever an enemy adjacent to one or more puppets suffered damage from another source. One paragon path might have them deal cold damage to enemies that start their turn adjacent to them, while another might reduce resistances of enemies adjacent to one or more puppets, while another might have puppets explode for damage when destroyed. They would have no actions of their own, but could take movement actions whenever the necromancer did. The necromancer could control a number of these based on level and class feats - 2 base, 3 at level 16, +1 for a paragon feat, +2 for a non-stacking epic feat.
The necro's at-will powers would be damaging & debuffing melee reach implement attacks that could be delivered personally or through any one of the puppets, including at least one that the necromancer could use as a melee basic attack when making the attack personally. The necro's encounter powers would include touch attacks delivered personally or through multiple puppets simultaneously, or close burst attacks centered on either the necromancer or one of the puppets, or immediate attacks that could be made by a puppet to simulate the opportunity attacks they don't normally have. Daily attacks would include puppet friendly but party unfriently zones, sustainable enhancements to puppets, and summons that call ghostly undead which count as puppets for other necro powers in addition to doing their own thing. Necrotic, Cold, Poison, Psychic, and Fear keywords would be common throughout the necro's attack powers. Utility powers would include temporary hit points, the ability to see & scout through a puppet, the ability to reanimate a fallen puppet during battle, the ability to swap places with a puppet as an immediate interupt when attacked, disguise the puppets as living versions of themselves, and so on.
The necromancer could cancel damage on the puppets by taking some amount of damage himself (maybe half? maybe a set number?), and would have extra base hit points and some ability to grant himself temporary HP though life-draining attacks to compensate. Thus the necro could rely on multiple puppets, taking damage to keep them up if necessary, or could use few or none - or let puppets fall during battle - becoming more of a melee controller a la the druid. Either way, the necro would have the extra HP needed to function.
The necro's at-will powers would be damaging & debuffing melee reach implement attacks that could be delivered personally or through any one of the puppets, including at least one that the necromancer could use as a melee basic attack when making the attack personally. The necro's encounter powers would include touch attacks delivered personally or through multiple puppets simultaneously, or close burst attacks centered on either the necromancer or one of the puppets, or immediate attacks that could be made by a puppet to simulate the opportunity attacks they don't normally have. Daily attacks would include puppet friendly but party unfriently zones, sustainable enhancements to puppets, and summons that call ghostly undead which count as puppets for other necro powers in addition to doing their own thing. Necrotic, Cold, Poison, Psychic, and Fear keywords would be common throughout the necro's attack powers. Utility powers would include temporary hit points, the ability to see & scout through a puppet, the ability to reanimate a fallen puppet during battle, the ability to swap places with a puppet as an immediate interupt when attacked, disguise the puppets as living versions of themselves, and so on.
The necromancer could cancel damage on the puppets by taking some amount of damage himself (maybe half? maybe a set number?), and would have extra base hit points and some ability to grant himself temporary HP though life-draining attacks to compensate. Thus the necro could rely on multiple puppets, taking damage to keep them up if necessary, or could use few or none - or let puppets fall during battle - becoming more of a melee controller a la the druid. Either way, the necro would have the extra HP needed to function.
Comment No. 1: Already?
Comment No. 2: Dangit, they promised!
Yeah sometimes articles are posted really early. I was only aware of it because I recently started reading threads in Char Op. As to th promises....they also promised all Assassin support would be in Dragon. With both of those promises and $2.50 you might be able to get a cup of coffee. :P
I have to say that after rereading the description and comparing it to product descriptions for other books, I am almost positive that there are only three shadow classes in this book. I realize from experience on these forums that no amount of logic, comparisons, or reasoning will ever convince people who are desperatly hoping for more, but I feel it neccessary to throw it out there. The only classes in this book will be the Assassin, Hexblade, and Necromancer. *waits for the inevitable tide of people who disagree*
I'm not going to draw any conclusions yet. But if it does come to that, I'm still happy with the classes it will be covering for certain. Hexblade was really what I was looking for.
The unfortunate bit is that, if this is the case, we're missing out on a number of potential shadowy archetypes. While I can imagine that hexblade will probably be a defender class, I'd much prefer if it would fall in a slightly different role, given the fact that the defender role would make room for a heavily-armored, dark-knightish, blackguard-like class. A big heavy bruiser class is something shadow would be missing, seeing as hexblades are a lightly-armored melee class.
I say blackguard-like only because evil paladins are entirely possible now (with necrotic substitution for radiant), so blackguard fluff isn't exactlly transferable.
That much said, if this book or a future supplement included a build or even mere suggestions to really make your paladin shadowy and dark, it'd be cool. If I recall properly, I think there was a cool Raven Queen channel divinity article that was a step in the right direction.
As for more classes, I'll keep my fingers crossed, but be braced for dissapointment.
I'd be dissapointed if we don't see a shadowcaster/beguiler class, but I'd deal. The necromancer is what I'm really looking for, anyway. As for hexblade - it may have been lightly armored in the past, but somehow I think heavy armor is in its future - cha, str, and con all seem more likely as favored stats then dex or int, especially for the attack stat. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if at least one hexblade build relied on heavy armor for AC, providing the heavily armored dark knight archetype that you're looking for.
Quoted for truth. I agree with you fully, malisteen.
I'd be dissapointed if we don't see a shadowcaster/beguiler class, but I'd deal. The necromancer is what I'm really looking for, anyway. As for hexblade - it may have been lightly armored in the past, but somehow I think heavy armor is in its future - cha, str, and con all seem more likely as favored stats then dex or int, especially for the attack stat. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if at least one hexblade build relied on heavy armor for AC, providing the heavily armored dark knight archetype that you're looking for.
It's also possible that they'll have character themes or builds for other classes that accomplish the same end, such as a Blackguard Paladin build that deals necrotic damage in place of radiant damage and gains temporary HP each time his divine challenge is triggered.
Builds for dark clerics, invokers, or avengers are also possible, as well as extra stuff for the warlock.
I'm also going to guess that this book will feature feats that allow necrotic damage to byass resistances (a lot of creatures resist the damage type), since the necromancer in particular will probably have a ton of necrotic powers.
Plus making them a leader sets them apart from their former identity as a type of Wizard, it helps develop them as their own class with it's own identity.
In my mind, being a Necromancer is somewhal about having someone (or something) else do your dirty work, and that fits pretty well with leader. Also, remember Amplify Damage from Diablo 2, that was very leadery.
I think it's just that when people think of the Leader role, they think about helping people, so antisocial archetypes like Necromancer don't come to mind; but being a leader does not have to mean helping allies, it could mean augmenting your "minnions" and infusing the lifeforce of your enemies into them
At-will Raise Skeletons once per round as a minor action. You could move them as a move action, sustain one as a minor, and attack with one using one of your at-wills or encounter powers that were designed to be channeled through minions. They all had 1 hp, and your defenses, and you could have up to 3 running around at a time as long as you used each one once per round, either attacking, moving, or sustaining.
They also got more powerful undead as they levelled up as encounter powers, like zombies, ghouls, wights, various skeletal incarnations, and eventually greater undead like death knights. They were also minions, and followed the same rules, but each one had an encounter attack power they could use, such as the wight could steal a healing surge that you could spend as a free action to heal yourself or an ally.
Finally, each level of dailies had a daily summon that was more powerful and didn't need to be sustained.
Combined with the other assorted powers and utilities, it was a very good leader with a minor controller role. The secondary build was curse-focused and Int/Cha based, which gave you great buffs for allies and debuffs for enemies.
IMO, Necromancer being a controller is a little boring; sure it fits, but come on, another Controller that summons and debuffs? Leader would be more interesting, especially since we don't really have a *dark* leader; so far the leader classes have been rather social "plays well with others" types, and the Necro could be more of a puppet master type leader, you hate him but you need him sorta thing.
I don't know. There are already leaders that summon and debuff, including one pet class leader that works with 'spirits' to do exactly that. If you're going to argue redundancy, I think leader is a losing argument, because the necromancer leader is already named 'shaman'.
In my mind, being a Necromancer is somewhal about having someone (or something) else do your dirty work, and that fits pretty well with leader. Also, remember Amplify Damage from Diablo 2, that was very leadery.
Necromancer is about having your undead pets do your dirty work. Leader is about having your allies do your dirty work. Those really aren't the same thing at all.
I think it's just that when people think of the Leader role, they think about helping people, so antisocial archetypes like Necromancer don't come to mind; but being a leader does not have to mean helping allies, it could mean augmenting your "minions" and infusing the lifeforce of your enemies into them
Necromancers augment their undead puppet minions, not their living breathing allies.
People do think about helping others when they think leader, and that's totally appropriate, since that's exactly the leader's job description. The fact that antisocial necromancers don't jive thematically with the goals of 4e's Leader Role is specifically a reason not to make them leaders. Do you really want necromancers handing out healing surges and saving throws to allies? Is that really more thematically appropriate then multitarget debuffs and damaging zones? Specifically, since undead use is the necromancer's gimmick, the necromancer should be using its undead in performing its party role. Do you really want the necro's undead survants handing out healing to allies, or do you want them crippling the necromancer's enemies with debilitating effects?
Again, I'm not saying that an appropriately themed necromancer couldn't be made as a leader, I just don't think it would be as welll themed as it would be if it was a controller, instead.
The beguiler probably won't appear as it's been eaten by the Bard and the Psion, and Illusionists are already a Wizard build with the Orb of Deception.
The only thing is, what do you call a male witch?
The only thing is, what do you call a male witch?
According to dictionary.com, a warlock is a male witch....so yes we already have the witch class. :P
The only thing is, what do you call a male witch?
in terms of 4e d&d, a male witch class character should be called a witch.
I think witches would make an excellent shadow leader. I can't think of any specific examples off the top of my head, but I sorta have this feeling that in folk lore and legend, there have been helpful witches. I seem to remember them being portayed as, like, the-devil-you-know type encounters, where the hero(es) of the tale are squicked out and nervous about dealing with the witch because of her dark powers and nasty spell components, but she's ultimately a positive force in the story.
The only thing is, what do you call a male witch?
Well, I did touch on this earlier - I'm picturing the witch and archivist being rolled into one (potentially keeping witch as the name). A keeper of forbidden lore, gifted with second sight and the ability to see peoples' fate. They can use that in battle to bring about their enemies' demise or save their allies. Plus they can guide their allies to their enemies' weaknesses. Because witches are more likely to offer an ally a way to victory rather than do the dirty work themselves.
in terms of 4e d&d, a male witch class character should be called a witch.
So in other words
"I want a man-witch please" ?
also, if a hexblade is released, chances are it will use leather or chain at the most, while the blackguard/death knight would neccesarily use plate, and right now we have 7 classes using leather( rogue,warlock,swordmage,shaman,artificer,assassin,seeker) and only one using plate(paladin). if they decide to give it chain, it would go with all ther leaders. any other armor type would seem unflavorful.
so, my vote is: BLACKGUARD/DEATH KNIGHT
Again, I'm not saying that an appropriately themed necromancer couldn't be made as a leader, I just don't think it would be as welll themed as it would be if it was a controller, instead.
That could very well be true, I guess I just have a harder time picturing the controller Necro doing anything that hasn't been done before, which is most likely from a lack of effort on my part.
One reason I could see them making it a Leader, is that it's really the only class concept that I could see working as a Shadow Leader; anything else would just seem like a leadery ripoff of the Necromancer. Not that they must have a leader, I would hope they don't care if there is one, but if it was a leader then they would have more room for controller concepts which I think are better for Shadow
in terms of 4e d&d, a male witch class character should be called a witch.
So in other words
"I want a man-witch please" ?
that's funny.
One reason I could see them making it a Leader, is that it's really the only class concept that I could see working as a Shadow Leader; anything else would just seem like a leadery ripoff of the Necromancer. Not that they must have a leader, I would hope they don't care if there is one, but if it was a leader then they would have more room for controller concepts which I think are better for Shadow
Go back and check my arguments for witch or archivist as a shadow leader. It feels more like a leader, and it does not feel like a necromancer. Of course, it's not confirmed that these will ever be classes or that they'll be shadow classes, but they still feel right.
The Witch could certainly be included . . .
i would LOVE to see, finally, a witch class. i had long envisioned a witch class as primal, but a shadow-based witch class would be great.
this would be an awesome--and solid--shadow power source line-up:
hexblade - defender
assassin - striker
necromancer - leader or controller (i vote controller)
witch - controller or leader (i vote leader)
p.s., i could see constitution being a prominent stat within the shadow power source, a la wisdom for divine, intelligence for arcane, strength for martial, constitution (and wisdom) for primal, and wisdom (and charisma) for psionic.
I really think that the witch, if included at all, should absolutely be a leader. Now that I think on it a bit.
When I think about folk lore and fantasy literature, witches are one of two things, by and large:
1. BBEGs of the manipulation/misdirection/pit people against eachothers/etc school
2. Secondary Characters who aid the protagonist, and are either of the above school, or are pretty benevolent, unfairly misjudged by the townsfolk, even as they come to her for aid, with some amount of vindictive and/or mischeiviousness in thier nature, who call upon powers which either are, or seem to be, shadowy, dark, dangerous, or otherwise not shiny happy smiley spirits of hugs and rainbow farts.
There's a large range of witch characters, to be sure, but a large swathe of that range falls into variations on the helpful sorceress who communes with dark/wild powers and performs strange rituals, etc, but is a good person. They often are capable of viscious retribution, and some gnarly tricks, and they also generally have some abillity to heal people, whether purely magical, or herbal, or whatever.
Every witch archetype that isn't an evil antagonist fits the thematic and mechanical roles of Shadow Leader.
EDIT: Almost forgot. The hero is generally at least a bit afraid of, or nervous around the Witch. There's an air of danger, often insidious, less often unfounded, and ultimately the hero decides to trust her, or at least accept her aid, for whatever reason.
That, more than anything else, makes the Witch the Shadow Leader, in my mind.
random tangent about necromancers
On a completely unrelated note, and just to foster more discussion, the Necromancer could easily be made as a defender.
Summoned creatures use his defenses, which aren't natively as good as some of the other defenders. He/she also has HP on the lower side for a defender, but isn't actually a low HP class. He/she can also use fight in melee, to some extent, when needed, but prefers being at range, to better survey the battle, and directs his minions to protect his allies, and confound and/or destroy his enemies. The class would have a control secondary for one build, and a striker secondary for another.
The minions could be similar to the spirit companion, in that when one is damaged, the necromancer takes damage instead, and the minion disapears, or they could be able to take a small number of hits, and the necromancer takes a small portion of each hit. Either way would require fine tuning to get the appropriate balance, but could work quite well.
The necro would have an interrupt/reaction power tied to his mark, and a weaker free action power tied to his mark. The mark would go off of an enemy making an attack that doesn't include the nearest necro minion as a target, and would allow the necro to make one of his mark attacks. If the first one is a reaction, it would punish the enemy for hitting the wrong bloke, and if interrupt, it would mitigate the attack. Some combination could be achieved, but I'm sure as sin not going to spend the time figuring out how to make it work. The free action would be useful, but less powerful than the other one, since it could be used quite a lot.
Alternatively, you could replace both with an opportunity action, but combined with the minions, that might seem a bit too "shamany".
Anyway, the control secondary build would defend via denial, interruption, and punishment. The main mark abillity would apply some status affect to marks who don't cooperate, and powers would focus on triggering off enemy actions, and "saying no" to those enemies, in some way.
The striker secondary would straight up punish enemies for non cooperation. With ongoing damage.
Maybe the control secondary would get one or two more minions total out at a time than the striker secondary, and the striker secondary would get more damage output from it's punishments against marked targets?
Anyway, the necrodefender would be less vulnerable to attack via his minions being the ones getting attacked, rather than high AC, HP, DR, etc.
And the flavour. Oh man. "Mastery of the Necromantic Art always has a price. Generally paid in blood."
The class could have an option to deal itself damage to protect an ally, or stop a minion from dissapearing, or dish out more damage, etc.
You take ongoing damage (save ends). This ongoing damage can have a value of 2-5. If you do so, the next target marked by you that deals damage to an ally within 5 squares of you takes ongoing damage equal to the same value + your int mod (save ends), and until it saves, anytime it makes an attack that doesn't include you or one of your minions as a target, it takes a penalty to it's next saving throw equal to the ongoing damage you inflicted on yourself.
Summoned creatures use his defenses, which aren't natively as good as some of the other defenders. He/she also has HP on the lower side for a defender, but isn't actually a low HP class. He/she can also use fight in melee, to some extent, when needed, but prefers being at range, to better survey the battle, and directs his minions to protect his allies, and confound and/or destroy his enemies. The class would have a control secondary for one build, and a striker secondary for another.
The minions could be similar to the spirit companion, in that when one is damaged, the necromancer takes damage instead, and the minion disapears, or they could be able to take a small number of hits, and the necromancer takes a small portion of each hit. Either way would require fine tuning to get the appropriate balance, but could work quite well.
The necro would have an interrupt/reaction power tied to his mark, and a weaker free action power tied to his mark. The mark would go off of an enemy making an attack that doesn't include the nearest necro minion as a target, and would allow the necro to make one of his mark attacks. If the first one is a reaction, it would punish the enemy for hitting the wrong bloke, and if interrupt, it would mitigate the attack. Some combination could be achieved, but I'm sure as sin not going to spend the time figuring out how to make it work. The free action would be useful, but less powerful than the other one, since it could be used quite a lot.
Alternatively, you could replace both with an opportunity action, but combined with the minions, that might seem a bit too "shamany".
Anyway, the control secondary build would defend via denial, interruption, and punishment. The main mark abillity would apply some status affect to marks who don't cooperate, and powers would focus on triggering off enemy actions, and "saying no" to those enemies, in some way.
The striker secondary would straight up punish enemies for non cooperation. With ongoing damage.
Maybe the control secondary would get one or two more minions total out at a time than the striker secondary, and the striker secondary would get more damage output from it's punishments against marked targets?
Anyway, the necrodefender would be less vulnerable to attack via his minions being the ones getting attacked, rather than high AC, HP, DR, etc.
And the flavour. Oh man. "Mastery of the Necromantic Art always has a price. Generally paid in blood."
The class could have an option to deal itself damage to protect an ally, or stop a minion from dissapearing, or dish out more damage, etc.
You take ongoing damage (save ends). This ongoing damage can have a value of 2-5. If you do so, the next target marked by you that deals damage to an ally within 5 squares of you takes ongoing damage equal to the same value + your int mod (save ends), and until it saves, anytime it makes an attack that doesn't include you or one of your minions as a target, it takes a penalty to it's next saving throw equal to the ongoing damage you inflicted on yourself.
Yeah, that sounds like a defender to me. That said, I think WotC won't go that route, because hexblade makes for the obvious defender, and so far defender has always equalled melee weapon-user. I don't expect WotC to go out of the box here. I hope they will, but I won't hold my breath.
Although I am neglecting the possibility of there being two shadow defenders. Um, yeah. I don't think so. People keep calling it the selfish power source. And although I don't think that means we have to forget about defenders and leaders, it would feel wrong to begin the shadow power source with a lot of altruistic roles and neglect the more selfish roles. ...Or would it? This is supposed to be a book on dark heroes? And one staple of dark heroes is making dark deals for a good reason. I could actually see an argument for the shadow power source having more altruistic classes, but not respected classes. And that led me to another possible theme of the shadow source. Look at the assassin: it has less hit points than typical for a striker. Now look at the fluff: the assassin traded a piece of his soul for shadowstuff. We've been told that's a common theme for the shadow power source. I could imagine trading a piece of your soul for its deathly reflection being something that compromises health. If we extend that logic, there's an argument for the shadow source having classes with lower hit point totals than normal. And DoctorBadWolf, didn't you suggest that for a necromancer-as-defender? Well, sounds like it would work.
And one note on the witch: some people had questioned what you would call a male witch. A witch. Historically, that's how it's been done. Back during the Salem witch trials? Witches could be male or female. It's a pretty recent invention that witches are always female.
Secondly while I don't agree that the Necromancer should be a leader, a leader doesn't have to be altruistic. An evil Warlord doesn't strike me as being altruistic, and clearly they are a leader.
. . . a leader doesn't have to be altruistic. An evil Warlord doesn't strike me as being altruistic, and clearly they are a leader.
i agree. there have been a few posters who have a hard time joining the shadow power source with the leader role because of the notion of "altruism," but the truth of the matter is that a leader is acting in his own self interest when he helps his allies (just think of all of the monsters that have "leader" next to their role. i know. not exactly the same, but the notion is largely equivalent). so, i see no problem with a shadow leader class.
thematically, i would emphasize that the shadow leader steals or saps from the enemy to give to his allies, all so they he (uh, okay, we) can win.
shadow powers are called hexes. a witch class fits perfectly, fluff-wise, with that.
Me, I've always seen hexblade as a dark knight / blackguard with a curse ability. The 3.5 hexblade felt like a swordmage with a curse because that's how arcane magic worked then, and that's how you'd make a dark knight with a curse power in 3.5. Personally, I expect the 4e hexblade to be a blackguard by another name. With my much-loved curse mechanic.
In all honesty, I never saw any sort of dark knight archetype in the hexblade, at least not the way I played it. I really actually would prefer a spell-slinging swordsman, a lot like a darker mirror to the current swordmage's conceptual niche. Maybe I'm clutching at straws here, but the previous magic swordsman - the duskblade - had such a similar naming convention to the hexblade that immediately made me draw very basic conceptual parallels, in terms of one just using a darker magic, that of unluck.
Mind you, I haven't looked at duskblade recently, but that's what my mind jumps to simply because of the similarity between the two names...I can't say the same for mechanics.
Perhaps I'm just stuck trying to draw that parallel to the swordmage...and I'll admit, I still am fond of a magic swordsman of shadow being used as the basis of the new hexblade.
I much prefer the hexblade as a lightly-armored character. Seems like the kind of guy that can move easily and with swagger, sling curses and bad luck, and generally stymie opponents. A very irreverant knave, who knows his magic by instinct and survives by grit and hard knocks. I can't imagine playing that same way while clunking around in cumbersome heavy armor. Not to mention the spontaneity of the hexblade's magic and flavor seemed to deviate from the discipline of a knight. There's a slight dissonance there.
The heavily-armored blackguard is still a different archetype, of the grim warrior cloaked in shadow and carnage, and I hope they seperate the two. If not by class, then by making hexblade more flexible in build.
If they're really going the heavy route as you suggest, I'd prefer they changed the name to dark knight or blackguard. That certainly conjures precisely the image of a heavy defender. Both words speak to a very clear fantasy archetype, of the black knight, the implacable warrior of darkness who crushes enemies beneath an iron heel. And there's plenty of room for a curse mechanic there.
But I see the validity of what you're saying, and admit that my image of a hexblade is not going to be the same for everyone else. If it turns out to be the case, I can just play a swordmage with a darker bent. Maybe go Umbriri for the paragon path.
Paladin: You could never defeat me in a fair fight.
Hexblade: Now that's no incentive for me to fight fair, is it?
Paladin: *horrified look* You just stabbed that man in the back!
Hexblade: Only as hard as I could.
That's why I've always seen hexblade as the black knight.
Paladin: You could never defeat me in a fair fight.
Hexblade: Now that's no incentive for me to fight fair, is it?
Paladin: *horrified look* You just stabbed that man in the back!
Hexblade: Only as hard as I could.
That's why I've always seen hexblade as the black knight.
Well, considering that blackguard is often a fallen paladin, it seems the more direct opposite conceptually. Heavily armored fellow with dark powers, downright trampling on all codes of righteous conduct. We already have previously seen a class that more directly fits the role of the typical black knight.
While hexblades have all sorts of fun alignment battles with paladins, it sounds like that's the same argument a rogue might have with a paladin, or any other "dishonorable" class with said paladin.
If I remember at all, 3.5 described hexblades a lot like sorcerors...people who pick up magic spontaneously. In the hexblade's case they manifest it in the form of unluck and happenstance that occurs to other people around them from a young age. Hexblades often come from slums and have rough upbringings, leading them to less-than-honorable lives.
While a hexblade would certainly be directly at odds with a high-and-righteous paladin in terms of mindset, that doesn't mean they'll dress anything like paladins (in heavy armor) and duke it out directly alongside (or against) one. If anything it reinforces the idea of an opportunist, a character who plays well alongside characters like the rogue, bending luck against their enemies and looking for the right moment to strike.
The point of the hexblade, in my eyes, seems to be to hinder enemies and harry them, not to blatantly smite them while slogging into battle in heavy armor. If he dresses lightly, he can move easily and unhindered, and would have an easier time backstabbing people. Heavy armor in my mind seems to equate to brute-force frontal assaults as opposed to a hexblade's dirty scheming.
Mind you, I can still see them blending the concepts, but I hope they manage to keep both of our images intact in some form. I like a black knight as a character concept, but I rather like the original hexblade. I'd hope the blackguard won't eat him and take his name.
Here's to the forlorn hope that these aren't the only classes, and that we'll get a blackguard defender with some sort to fill out the dark paladin role. That'd satisfy us both to some degree, methinks.
I'm still hoping that it will be Necromancer as Leader, and Hexblade as Controller. I think the Hexblade makes more sense as a Controller than Defender, and while it's possible, I doubt they'll do two Strikers.
This. It'd be an interesting melee controller. The curse mechanic and the presence of some form of shadow magic would allow the hexblade to debuff and effectively make life difficult for his targets, which is the sort of thing that typifies a controller or sub-controller...denying the enemy options, or making them more difficult.
I support hexblade as a controller. Probably controller, sub-defender as a secondary role. That would certainly fit, I think. Sub striker wouldn't be bad either.
I've got to agree with you there, DoctorBadWolf. On all notes. I've heard it said before that the necromancer could make a great caster defender. And it just feels like the right fluff for such a questionable class? "Why do I violate the dead? Because they're already past hope. You call my acts blasphemy, an abomination. But I'm making sure no more innocent blood is spilled. You, cleric of Pelor, can you say the same in all you holy self-righteousness? Yes, you heal your allies - but then you lead them back into danger, risking their lives. I make sure that it's not the living who have to risk themselves to protect the innocent. I'll not see another friend of mine die while I have the power to prevent it. And you call that evil? Bah!"
Yeah, that sounds like a defender to me. That said, I think WotC won't go that route, because hexblade makes for the obvious defender, and so far defender has always equalled melee weapon-user. I don't expect WotC to go out of the box here. I hope they will, but I won't hold my breath.
Although I am neglecting the possibility of there being two shadow defenders. Um, yeah. I don't think so. People keep calling it the selfish power source. And although I don't think that means we have to forget about defenders and leaders, it would feel wrong to begin the shadow power source with a lot of altruistic roles and neglect the more selfish roles. ...Or would it? This is supposed to be a book on dark heroes? And one staple of dark heroes is making dark deals for a good reason. I could actually see an argument for the shadow power source having more altruistic classes, but not respected classes. And that led me to another possible theme of the shadow source. Look at the assassin: it has less hit points than typical for a striker. Now look at the fluff: the assassin traded a piece of his soul for shadowstuff. We've been told that's a common theme for the shadow power source. I could imagine trading a piece of your soul for its deathly reflection being something that compromises health. If we extend that logic, there's an argument for the shadow source having classes with lower hit point totals than normal. And DoctorBadWolf, didn't you suggest that for a necromancer-as-defender? Well, sounds like it would work.
And one note on the witch: some people had questioned what you would call a male witch. A witch. Historically, that's how it's been done. Back during the Salem witch trials? Witches could be male or female. It's a pretty recent invention that witches are always female.
I'm with you.
I also don't think there's anything inherently in the Shadow power source that equates to selfishness.
No more so than any other power source, other than divine, at least.
Dark heroes doesn't mean not heroes, after all.
I really think the Necromancer will be a Controller, if they want to placate the majority of people with a Necromancer - it's going to be via a Controller.
I have no idea what a Shadow Leader will be.
The hexblade is too good a fit to not be a Defender, though I could see Controller working.
I really think the Necromancer will be a Controller, if they want to placate the majority of people with a Necromancer - it's going to be via a Controller.
I have no idea what a Shadow Leader will be.
Necromancer. To placate everyone else.
Blackguards are, and have always just been Evil Paladins, The Anti-Paldin was not about being dark it was about being evil; they have nothing to do with the Shadow power source.
The Shadow power source is about being dark, and dark ≠ evil.
They're power came from the exact same place Paladin's did, why would that have changed; I'm not saying it can't, I'm just asking why. Why is Shadow a better fit than Divine for the Anti-paladin?
Assassin, Hexblade and Necro makes sense because their archetype is not defined by how they contrast to another, it's just about using death and calamity magic, so the Shadow power source fit's better than any other source.
The Blackguard archetype is different from Assassin, Hexblade and Necro in that they're more defined by their alignment than they're jerk powers, powers that aren't even as related to the Shadowfell as much as they're the Divine. I think The Blackguard should be put into the game, but only as a Paladin build for people who want to be a Paladin of an evil god or philosophy, which last time a checked was the exact definition of the Blackguard.
I like the idea of Hexblades becoming a sort of knight in sour armor. If I was a Hexblade, who has an uncontrollable power to attract all manners of dangerous things, then I would cover myself with as much armor as possible. Also Hexblades have to deal with a great deal of people hating them for what they are; so becoming a knight would make either a good counter balance or a good disguise for keep the angry mobs at bay. Also I imagine a lot of Hexblades deal with guilt for the problems they cause and have issues with morality; taking on a vow or becoming a knight seems like something a person who seeks redemption would do. Hexblades kinda tend towards good by nature of what they are, which makes them perfect candidates for the Dark Knight archetype
if the hex isn't a heavily armoured class, I'd like to see some kind of Black Knight/Dark Night thing at some point.
Personally, I'd probably go for Con primary and Int/Cha as secondaries. It feels right to me that a hexblade's powers should primarily require channeling dark and destructive energies that threaten his physical wellbeing, with either cold intellect or passionate self-will being used to refine their effects. Basically, the hexblade should feel very much like how the warlock would feel if it was a melee defender class. Hexblade/warlock and warlock/hexblade ought to be mechanically viable as multiclass or hybrid options.
All just IMHO, of course.
Yeah, I've always been in the camp that Hexblade should be a conglomeration of Hexblade/Blackguard/Dark Knight/Death Knight, etc. in a defender role. Heavy armor fits the image I have, but as was just said a Dex- or Int-secondary build that works in light armor would be fine by me. How about a Con/Cha heavy armor build that is striker secondary and a Con/Int light amor build that is controller secondary? Maybe it'll be enough to make Dark One the elusive Con/Int race?
what duskweaver and you have said make a lot of sense.
p.s., dark ones having con and int/dex might be a good way to go.
I like the idea of there being a light armor and a heavy armor Hexblade, creates more varience in the builds, kinda like a V class without having the V class' problems. The quick battlemind should have been int instead of Cha for similar reasons.
If WotC have any sense, they'll give the hexblade either Dex or Int as one of its secondary ability scores, with the primary and the other secondary being something other than Dex or Int, so the class can have both a light armour and a heavy armour build just like the warlord does. That ought to satisfy everybody who is actually capable of being satisfied. ;)
Personally, I'd probably go for Con primary and Int/Cha as secondaries. It feels right to me that a hexblade's powers should primarily require channeling dark and destructive energies that threaten his physical wellbeing, with either cold intellect or passionate self-will being used to refine their effects. Basically, the hexblade should feel very much like how the warlock would feel if it was a melee defender class. Hexblade/warlock and warlock/hexblade ought to be mechanically viable as multiclass or hybrid options.
All just IMHO, of course.
Sounds good to me.
I'm hoping Shadow has 0 wisdom using classes. Right now like 3/4 of the classes in the game have wisdom as a primary or secondary stat. Besides, giving part of your soul to the shadowfell to give you power probably isn't the wisest long-term life choice.
Ha, yes! Honestly, I'm a bit tired of Wisdom being such a common stat nowadays.
I like the idea of there being a light armor and a heavy armor Hexblade, creates more varience in the builds, kinda like a V class without having the V class' problems. The quick battlemind should have been int instead of Cha for similar reasons.
Yeah, I like the "more different" A classes - those where the choice of secondary stat makes some kind of serious impact on how the character looks and plays.
I'm sorry, but if the Assassin is a class, then the Blackguard can be one also. They have about the same motivation.
Classes don't have motivations. Characters have motivations. Classes are just fighting styles.
I'm sorry, but if the Assassin is a class, then the Blackguard can be one also. They have about the same motivation.
But what would you possibly to with a Blackguard that wouldn't just be an anti-paladin?
I mean, sure, it can be done. They managed to make rangers not primal, after all. I just don't see any reason why they should, as opposed to a new build for paladins, or even just making a paladin of an evil god who is motivated by evil. Because that's seriously the difference between a paladin and a blackguard.
He could have an ability that allows him to pull enemies to him, and another to summon a zombie horde during one encounter per day. Finally, he can start with 3 builds, all of which are good defender role, one with secondary striker, one with secondary controller.
He'd be totally different than the paladin class.
I agree that the Blackguard would be to simular to the Paladin to warrent a class, but I also think the class more of a monster position than a player option. It would add nothing to the game as a PC class.
Assassins are vile, ruthless, killing loners. Some argument can be put forward about how specific character break the mold, the compasinate assassin, or one that kills for honer, but that, in my mind, is a break from the typical.
I agree that the Blackguard would be to simular to the Paladin to warrent a class, but I also think the class more of a monster position than a player option. It would add nothing to the game as a PC class.
Why are you unable to separate 'assassin the class' from 'assassin the concept'? It's really not that difficult.
I'm sorry, but if the Assassin is a class, then the Blackguard can be one also. They have about the same motivation.
But what would you possibly to with a Blackguard that wouldn't just be an anti-paladin?
I mean, sure, it can be done. They managed to make rangers not primal, after all. I just don't see any reason why they should, as opposed to a new build for paladins, or even just making a paladin of an evil god who is motivated by evil. Because that's seriously the difference between a paladin and a blackguard.
The blackguard can be our second plate-wearing defender; and go between using a two-hander or dual wielding. His shadow hexes could be applied to slow marked enemies, or deal extra damage like cold and necrotic.
He could have an ability that allows him to pull enemies to him, and another to summon a zombie horde during one encounter per day. Finally, he can start with 3 builds, all of which are good defender role, one with secondary striker, one with secondary controller.
He'd be totally different than the paladin class.
Sure, sounds like a fun class. Why not just call it the Black Knight, or Dark Knight, instead? Particularly since being Evil has been just as much a part of being a Blackguard as being Lawful Good has always been a part of the Paladin.
Sure, people (myself included) are happy that you can now play a non Lawful Good pally, by RAW, but it's still part of the perception of the class. And a huge part of the perception of Blackguards is being actively Evil. Dedicated to Evil gods and Evil causes, pursueing Evil ends via evil means.
Dark Knight? People just think dark. Could be evil, could be Jack Bauer pragmatist, could be troubled but honorable.
And no one would expect them to play at all like paladins.
Assassins are vile, ruthless, killing loners.
Silly Thax, that is a rogue.....and a ranger....and a barbarian...and an avenger.....and a warlock....and an invoker.....and a monk...
Assassins are vile, ruthless, killing loners. Some argument can be put forward about how specific character break the mold, the compasinate assassin, or one that kills for honer, but that, in my mind, is a break from the typical.
I agree that the Blackguard would be to simular to the Paladin to warrent a class, but I also think the class more of a monster position than a player option. It would add nothing to the game as a PC class.
Why are you unable to separate 'assassin the class' from 'assassin the concept'? It's really not that difficult.
An assassin is just a proffessional killer. By that metric, most adventurers are vile, ruthless killers.
In particular, what seperates an assassin from an avenger? They are both trained killers. They both operate outside the law and normal society. They both are often described(but having nothing about them that requires them to be) ruthless and remorseless. Actually, it's takes more ignoring the core fluff for the class to make an avenger not ruthless and remorseless than it does for the assassin.
So, what? A patron god? In 4e, that's not enough. The gods don't strike down their servants for not being paragons of their divine virtues. They may not even care.
The servants or Torm, in FR walled off a forest full of innocent elves, and left them to die, horribly, at the hands of lycanthropes.
So, no. The divine power source doesn't excuse them.
Basically, the assassin is a person with a specific set of skills, who gains their power in a particular manner, and uses specific combat tactics to defeat their enemies.
Assassins in dnd don't need to be evil. They don't need to bastards.
And assassin who only takes political marks which he agrees need to be taken out, criminal overlords, etc is little different than an avenger, in morallity.
Blackguards are specifically dedicated to evil gods and causes. Not a lot of wiggle room there.
If the Assassin can be a Class, so can the Blackguard. I want no part in neither.
Yeah...
If the Assassin can be a Class, so can the Blackguard. I want no part in neither.
Agreed, though I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of mechanic (likely using the existing multiclass framework) for customizing characters according to occupations like assassin, explorer, politician, etc.
Yeah...
If the Assassin can be a Class, so can the Blackguard. I want no part in neither.
Agreed, though I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of mechanic (likely using the existing multiclass framework) for customizing characters according to occupations like assassin, explorer, politician, etc.
Backgrounds. Done.
Yeah...
If the Assassin can be a Class, so can the Blackguard. I want no part in neither.
Agreed, though I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of mechanic (likely using the existing multiclass framework) for customizing characters according to occupations like assassin, explorer, politician, etc.
Backgrounds. Done.
Not quite. Yes, backgrounds help accomplish this (through offering additional skill choices and bonuses to skill check), but they don't go far enough. And they shouldn't, not without a cost to balance it. Consider the idea of "occupational features" that one gains access to from feats. The expenditure of feats to gain these features says that the character is seriously involved in the occupation; as if they were a high-end professional.
Guys, the assassin thing is a done deal. It already exists, it's confirmed for print publishing. Ban or re-fluff in your home games as desired, but get over it either way. All adventurers kill for money, and there are a number of class names that carry negative implications. Warlord, much? Warlock, perhaps? It's not the first unsavory named class, it won't be the last. The entire shadow powers source is meant to cater to those who want to play antiheros or just darker heros in the first place.
As for blackguard, between paladin and hexblade I'm not sure there's need or room for one. Paladins can be evil and follow evil gods, and hexblades are likely to cater to the dark knight archetype. That said, once we see the hexblade, if there's still design and concept room for a blackguard I wouldn't mind seeing such a class. I'm just not sure what the space between it and hexblade would be at the moment.
I'm pretty sure that at some point Wizards will either create a villainous source book that expand options for evil characters across multiple power sources or put an evil twist on Divine Power 2.
Guys, the assassin thing is a done deal. It already exists, it's confirmed for print publishing. Ban or re-fluff in your home games as desired, but get over it either way. All adventurers kill for money, and there are a number of class names that carry negative implications. Warlord, much? Warlock, perhaps? It's not the first unsavory named class, it won't be the last. The entire shadow powers source is meant to cater to those who want to play antiheros or just darker heros in the first place.
As for blackguard, between paladin and hexblade I'm not sure there's need or room for one. Paladins can be evil and follow evil gods, and hexblades are likely to cater to the dark knight archetype. That said, once we see the hexblade, if there's still design and concept room for a blackguard I wouldn't mind seeing such a class. I'm just not sure what the space between it and hexblade would be at the moment.
That's my issue with it.
To be honest, though, I was (to a lesser extent, but still)a bit worried about the same thing with the assassin, between the rogue and the warlock.
Then I read the assassin, and realized I was completely, 100% wrong.
So, if they do put something out for the blackguard lovers, I hope they prove me just as wrong.
But unlike with the assassin, where I was mildly concerned, in this case I just flat out doubt it.
Not quite. Yes, backgrounds help accomplish this (through offering additional skill choices and bonuses to skill check), but they don't go far enough. And they shouldn't, not without a cost to balance it. Consider the idea of "occupational features" that one gains access to from feats. The expenditure of feats to gain these features says that the character is seriously involved in the occupation; as if they were a high-end professional.
If you don't like backgrounds for this purpose, then perhaps themes are more to your liking? As for using feats to represent being a high-end professional, that seems unnecesary to me. It seems unneccesary to me, if you want to represent being a high-end professional(assuming it is a profession that is relevant to adventuring) using a PP(or ED if it applies) will generally work.
Assassins are vile, ruthless, killing loners. Some argument can be put forward about how specific character break the mold, the compasinate assassin, or one that kills for honer, but that, in my mind, is a break from the typical.
No they aren't, no they don't, stop making up crap without a shred of evidence.
Assassins are vile, ruthless, killing loners. Some argument can be put forward about how specific character break the mold, the compasinate assassin, or one that kills for honer, but that, in my mind, is a break from the typical.
No they aren't, no they don't, stop making up crap without a shred of evidence.
Of course they aren't. They are trained killers, yes. The original assassins, however, of the Hashshashin sect, were sleeper agents fighting for the survival of the Shi'ites, and secretly protecting them from outside aggression. They weren't "vile, ruthless, killing loners". They were highly trained protectors of their people. Like many in such positions, they protected through killing of primarily political targets, through intimidation, etc. They DID kill for something akin to honor, and it WAS the norm.
Moreover, modern day assassins are quite similar. They are spies and operatives who assassinate key targets only when ordered to do so, and with as little collateral damage as possible (as well as attempting to remain unseen as much as is possible, else assassinating then essentially sacrificing themselves to protect the greater mission).
The idea that assassins are always, much less usually "vile, ruthless, killing loners" with an implication of doing it for just money or even pleasure, is preposterous, and shows a stunning lack of knowledge of the history of such individuals and their role in world history.
Could be, but at the moment the going assumption is that this is what the hexblade will be. Of course, others have expressed intrest in seeing the hexblade either as a melee controller or a heavy armored striker, but those are kind of long shots at the moment, and I'd really rather not weaken the core concept of the class by not going with the natural role fit simply because it's "too obvious".
Hexblades wearing leather armor and sneaking around is just too redundant and generic; we already have the Assassin who uses mobility and stealth tactics and covers all those wangsty things.
Blackguards are, and have always just been Evil Paladins, The Anti-Paldin was not about being dark it was about being evil; they have nothing to do with the Shadow power source.
The Shadow power source is about being dark, and dark ≠ evil.
Well, first off, I never said "sneaking around". I like the idea of the hexblade as a semi-agile defender or melee controller. Not stomping around in heavy armor. Stealth isn't implied, only a certain way of fighting, supplemented by shadow magic and unluck. Why hide when you can make the enemy trip over his own feet or suffer unnatural innacuracy? I mean, the swordmage is a lightly-armored defender, and you don't see him sneaking around.
I'm still just very stuck on the old hexblade, which couldn't wear heavy armor.
Again, if it ends up absorbing or being absorbed by a dark-knight concept, at the very least I hope they'll make the class flexibleto fit as many different concepts as possible.
And as for the use of the term blackguard, it's more in sticking with the black knight theme without actually having to use a two-word name. Wizards seems allergic to names with a space in them. So Dark Knight and Black Knight and all the rest are out.
Wizards goes so far as to describe the blackguard as "the quintessential black knight." I suppose the blackguard term has a lot of "evil anti paladin" baggage, but they themselves have chosen to make the class fit the archetype of a black knight.
Strip off the baggage of evil anti-paladin and it'll be a perfectly serviceable class-name.
But yes, I can see where the confusion stems from. From here on out, probably best to refer the hypothetical shadow heavy as a dark knight or a black knight.
Not quite. Yes, backgrounds help accomplish this (through offering additional skill choices and bonuses to skill check), but they don't go far enough. And they shouldn't, not without a cost to balance it. Consider the idea of "occupational features" that one gains access to from feats. The expenditure of feats to gain these features says that the character is seriously involved in the occupation; as if they were a high-end professional.
If you don't like backgrounds for this purpose, then perhaps themes are more to your liking? As for using feats to represent being a high-end professional, that seems unnecesary to me. It seems unneccesary to me, if you want to represent being a high-end professional(assuming it is a profession that is relevant to adventuring) using a PP(or ED if it applies) will generally work.
No offense intended but we really don't need the power creep of themes just "tacking on" additional abilities. What we need is something halfway between backgrounds and themes. Something you can get more substantial benefit from that just a skill bonus or skill training but that doesn't throw balance to the wind by just stapling extra powers onto a character.
Of course they aren't. They are trained killers, yes. The original assassins, however, of the Hashshashin sect, were sleeper agents fighting for the survival of the Shi'ites, and secretly protecting them from outside aggression. They weren't "vile, ruthless, killing loners". They were highly trained protectors of their people. Like many in such positions, they protected through killing of primarily political targets, through intimidation, etc. They DID kill for something akin to honor, and it WAS the norm.
Moreover, modern day assassins are quite similar. They are spies and operatives who assassinate key targets only when ordered to do so, and with as little collateral damage as possible (as well as attempting to remain unseen as much as is possible, else assassinating then essentially sacrificing themselves to protect the greater mission).
The idea that assassins are always, much less usually "vile, ruthless, killing loners" with an implication of doing it for just money or even pleasure, is preposterous, and shows a stunning lack of knowledge of the history of such individuals and their role in world history.
Unfortuantely. all of the above has been told, and even shown with evidence, to thaX multiple times. He just keeps shifting goal posts, to the point where he's now saying he doesn't care about real world Assassins and never did (even though he did), he's only talking about DnD Assassins. Which when pressed, he will talk about all these horror stories that are blatantly the result of being involved with bad players, and not the class/concept itself, but he refuses to see that.
No offense intended but we really don't need the power creep of themes just "tacking on" additional abilities. What we need is something halfway between backgrounds and themes. Something you can get more substantial benefit from that just a skill bonus or skill training but that doesn't throw balance to the wind by just stapling extra powers onto a character.
Themes are not power creep. And they're are probably the best (though certainly not the only) way of creating a Blackguard character.
Themes are not power creep.
Because blatant increases in combat power, with no comensurate cost involved*, aren't power creep now?
Are they not power creep, because they're a power hop?
[*: Until we actually see them / until further notice.]
And they're are probably the best (though certainly not the only) way of creating a Blackguard character.
I thought we hammered out something very good here (linky!).
It is sort of the same as the "evil" alignment, both that and the Assassin give players an excuse to be an antagonist to the party and role play against the goals of the party. It is a temtation I would rather not allow for my group. This is a Heroic Adventure, not a dark alley romance.
I'm wondering about what we might get as the third assassin build. Assuming it is Heroes of Shadow. Which seems likely, but isn't actually confirmed, as far as I know. Let's see what possibilities we can think up:
- ghostrider/wings of death. Imagine the grim reaper coming riding in on a nightmare, or flying in on the back of a black pegasus or nightwing. It's an evocative image. I sincerely doubt they'll try anything like this, but I'm amused by the concept. And I can imagine the mechanics. Guild training: Whenever a power would let you move, shift, teleport, or fly, you can instead have your mount move, shift, teleport or fly with you on it. Whenever you move, shift, teleport, or fly, your attacks that turn deal extra damage equal to your charisma modifier.
- cunning assassin. I don't have a name yet. The sort who plans in advance and sets up a trap for their target. Maybe uses wisdom as a secondary. Favors combat advantage and luring their foes into taking actions, which then leads to a counterattack. So lots of immediate actions, I guess.
Well, that's all the ideas I have so far. Any other thoughts on what possibilities exist for a third assassin build?
EDIT: And new thoughts on the wings of death guild. I've heard that WotC has kept away from mounted builds because they can be difficult to reconcile with dungeon crawls. That's why paladins don't get mounts automatically anymore (I still think there's room for a mounted build). That's a bit of a long tangent, but the point I'm getting to is that the mechanics I've created allow for the extra damage just as easily for non-mounted characters. There's just an extra line to make sure the guild training plays well with mounts. And any relevant powers could have a line: Mount: Your mount gains the special effect (such as fly speed) instead. And thus we've made a mounted build that's just as functional without a mount. But why am I drawn to a mounted assassin. Watch the movie Ghostrider. Note the scene where the old ghostrider's horse turns into a thing of bones and hellfire. That's what I'm picturing for this assassin build. Mounted assassins never have mundane mounts. If they aren't fantastic to begin with (say a nightmare), then the assassin's connection to the Shadowfell will warp it into something terrifying. You face nightmares made real when Wings of Death hunt you down. Obviously it's an obscure character concept, and I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of making it to Heroes of Shadow, but I just thought of the idea, and it's at least intriguing.
Still, what other guild ideas do you all have? Some of them are probably more likely for Heroes of Shadow.
There will probably be three or four new classes, three of which we know about already.
Assassin (Shadow Striker)
Key Stats: Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma
Hexblade (Shadow Defender)
Possible Key Stats: Intelligence(or Charisma), Strength, Dexterity
Necromancer (Shadow Controller)
Possible Key Stats: Intelligence, Charisma, Constitution(or Strength)
A possible fourth class, with a secondary Controller focus:
Witch (Shadow Leader)
Key Stats: Charisma, Dexterity, Intelligence
----
There may also be additional builds and/or themes based on making "dark" characters from other power sources. Some of these might include:
Blackguard Paladin
The "black knight" build which lets the paladin substitute radiant for necrotic damage, and grants necrotic vulnerability to his combat challenge targets.
Other dark divine classes
The Cleric and Avenger, at least, might recieve new dark builds.
----
I'm not sure what racial options might be included in this book, but seeing updated versions of monstrous races such as orcs, goblins, or kobolds might be a possibility. Shadar-Kai has already been printed in the Best of Dragon book, but it's still possible we'll get a new version with an alternate stat setup (Intelligence, Dexterity/Constitution?).
$19.95
And that's how it gets on my "Buy" list.
And it'll probably be even less expensive on Amazon.
For races im going to guess Dark One, Shadar-Kai, and Revenant. Which would strangely make this book love dexterity. I guess we could get some sort of new 'bulky' shadow race perhaps.
As of the current MM's, kobolds and orcs have nothing to do with the shadowfell. People seem to love saying they'll be in every book since PHB1 though.
For races im going to guess Dark One, Shadar-Kai, and Revenant. Which would strangely make this book love dexterity. I guess we could get some sort of new 'bulky' shadow race perhaps.
As of the current MM's, kobolds and orcs have nothing to do with the shadowfell. People seem to love saying they'll be in every book since PHB1 though.
The preview write-up has a line that seems to suggest that the book won't consist solely of material for the shadow power source, but also for "dark heroes" in general:
"In addition to exploring the nature of the shadow power source, this book presents races, classes, feats, powers, and other options aimed at players hungry to play the archetypal antihero with a dark edge."
But I do suspect that revenants and shadar-kai will see a reprint in this book. Not sure about dark ones, though (since the monster manual doesn't have a racial trait writeup for those, and they don't seem to have an unique niche besides being a small-sized Shadowfell race). My estimate is that we'll see three or four races (perhaps more if the monstrous races do end up here), and that they won't all be reprints of DDI material.
As to what the additional races will be, I'm not sure. Perhaps shades (or another race comprised of pure shadow) or a second undead race may be in the works for a write-up.
I know it won't happen, but I'd love a Snakeman race, like the humanoid types of Yuanti, or the Snakemen from He-Man. I mean, consiodered how they're often portrayed they're all about the poison and necrotic attacks anyways.
I wish they consolidated what the Pureblood Yuan-Ti are in 4e, beyond all these variations on "Snake-tongue cultists" and make it a PC race. But that's something I'd doubt they do.
And with regards to Dark Ones, well Dark Creepers used to be small creatures and Dark Stalkers used to be medium creatures in previous. If they made Dark Ones a PC race would they do something like offer 2 different size, or make all Dark Ones small, and retcon the so-called Dark Stalkers as Shadar-Kai.
For races im going to guess Dark One, Shadar-Kai, and Revenant. Which would strangely make this book love dexterity. I guess we could get some sort of new 'bulky' shadow race perhaps.
As of the current MM's, kobolds and orcs have nothing to do with the shadowfell. People seem to love saying they'll be in every book since PHB1 though.
I was under the impression that the book was both for shadow-source users and anti-hero themes for characters of all classes: stuff like "darker" races (monstrous, not shadow-themed. Well, in addition to the shadow-themed), a blackguard build for the paladin, etc.
As for races, my wish list includes:
- Shadar Kai
- Changeling
- Kenku
- Dark Ones
- Revenants
Pretty much in that order.
Two words. Death Knight.
Two more words. Monster Manual.
The "death knight" is not a class, it is a type of undead. Look it up on page 50 of the MM. Death knights have their soul bound to a weapon, through an evil ritual. The actual implications of being a death knight are extremely restrictive on PCs, and involve actually consorting with evil. We're talking blatantly evil rituals connected to Orcus.
While a cool idea for a class, it ensures that a player would be undead. In other words, you'd be forced to play a revenant-equivalent. The death knight is far too narrow in scope to be a proper class, and makes several implications affecting your race directly. Not to mention it's already an NPC-only template in the DMG. It would be tantamount to making your character an evil NPC.
If you're referring to the WoW class (which I think you are, as many have before), make sure you're aware that DnD death knights, while superficially similar, are different. They are monsters, not a PC class.
Now a shadowy warrior wearing plate, commanding undead minions and calling up shadow on demand...that'd be badass. Just don't call him a death knight. He could be a dark knight, or a black knight, or even a bone knight (I think that was a cleric PrC or something before).
If anything it would represent a character who wishes to command the same sort of power a death knight has, but does so without taking the "easy path" of surrendering your soul and your mortality for power's sake. Something that would allow a player to remain among the living. Sort of like the assassin, you give a part of your soul to the shadows, not the whole thing.
On the other hand, a Death Knight paragon path, epic destiny, or even Theme would all be feasible.
You know, that's actually not a bad idea. I mean...there were details about the lich ritual, for example, in the DMG. And if you did it, chances are your DM would basically say "Okay, now you're an atagonist NPC, you took the easy (and evil) route to power."
Then along comes arcane power and we have the "Archlich" epic destiny, which allows you to become a lich and remain pure, because you waited until you could handle the power.
Could easily see a similar thing happening with death knight.
a death knight epic destiny--something catering to melee builds--would be fair and foreseeable offering in this tome.
I doubt the book will have options for shadow themed characters of other power sources, but I wouldn't complain if it did. There is a dark pact warlock already, though, so I wonder if a shadow pact warlock would be a bit too redundant.
One correction there. Most of us talking about stuff for non-shadow characters were latching onto one bit of the description:
Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow
Mike Mearls and Robert J. Schwalb
Player's Options: Heroes of Shadow focuses on characters that fight evil in ways that make others cringe. In addition to exploring the nature of the shadow power source, this book presents races, classes, feats, powers, and other options aimed at players hungry to play the archetypal antihero with a dark edge.
Most of us talking about dark options for other classes did not mean dark as in shadow power source. We meant dark as in anti-hero. Look at that last sentence. It sounds like it may mean that Heroes of Shadow will extend beyond the shadow power source to other anti-hero elements. Which is where stuff like a blackguard option for paladins is coming from. And the discussion of kobolds and goblins. They perfectly match the antihero thing, even though they're nothing specific to the shadow source.
Also, the dark pact for warlocks has nothing to do with the Shadowfell. In this context "dark" means "antihero" rather than "shadow power source." Go back to the fluff. No connection to the Shadowfell. It's called dark for two reasons: (1) we often use dark metaphorically to mean evil or monstrous. (2) That's a little more literal here, since the patrons of dark pacts like to skulk in the shadows. But they're mostly demons. So it's closer to the elemental power source than the shadow power source, despite the name. Go back to Dragon and find the article on patrons for warlock pacts. The dark pact gets a demon, while the vestige pact gets the shadowfell.
Between Dark Pact and Vestige Pact i dont think there's anything mechanicly or thematicly that could be done for a "Shadow Pact". Dark Pact may be related to demons, but its all poison and darkness, and vestige is very sould flavoured.
Maybe a "Death Pact" with a more necromantic edge, with powers inspired by the undead (this might be more of a melee-oriented pact). But that kind of thing might be rolled up into a melee build for the Necromancer or an Assassin build.
Most of us talking about dark options for other classes did not mean dark as in shadow power source. We meant dark as in anti-hero. Look at that last sentence. It sounds like it may mean that Heroes of Shadow will extend beyond the shadow power source to other anti-hero elements.
Sounds more to me like they're describing how they think of shadow source classes in general. "A book of shadow races and classes, which have an anti-hero flavor" seems a far more natural reading of that line within the context of the rest of the blurb then "a book of anti hero options, some of which relate to the shadow power source". I wouldn't pin any hopes of material for other classes (other then the standard multiclass feats) or races that don't feel particularly shadowy on that one line.
Also, the dark pact for warlocks has nothing to do with the Shadowfell. . . . IGo back to Dragon and find the article on patrons for warlock pacts. The dark pact gets a demon, while the vestige pact gets the shadowfell.
So you're saying a shadow pact would be redundant both styalistically (since we already have a power source that uses darkness and necrotic energy) and thematically (since we already have a power source that deals with the shadowfell and faded souls). All the more reason we don't need one.
As for anti-paladin options, I'd love some, but I'd rather not have them in this book, I'd rather see them in DDI articles covering options for divine class followers of the evil gods in general.
And I'd really rather see goblinoids, orcs, and gnolls in a players option book that covers classes that seem like a more thematic fit for them - barbarian, warlord, warlock, and such.
In any event, I'd really advise you not to get your hopes up. Everything other then that line is about the shadow power source, and that line sounds like a description of the source's tone, rather then an indication that the book will have material for anything else.
Two words. Death Knight.
Two more words. Monster Manual.
The "death knight" is not a class, it is a type of undead. Look it up on page 50 of the MM. Death knights have their soul bound to a weapon, through an evil ritual. The actual implications of being a death knight are extremely restrictive on PCs, and involve actually consorting with evil. We're talking blatantly evil rituals connected to Orcus.
While a cool idea for a class, it ensures that a player would be undead. In other words, you'd be forced to play a revenant-equivalent. The death knight is far too narrow in scope to be a proper class, and makes several implications affecting your race directly. Not to mention it's already an NPC-only template in the DMG. It would be tantamount to making your character an evil NPC.
If you're referring to the WoW class (which I think you are, as many have before), make sure you're aware that DnD death knights, while superficially similar, are different. They are monsters, not a PC class.
Now a shadowy warrior wearing plate, commanding undead minions and calling up shadow on demand...that'd be badass. Just don't call him a death knight. He could be a dark knight, or a black knight, or even a bone knight (I think that was a cleric PrC or something before).
If anything it would represent a character who wishes to command the same sort of power a death knight has, but does so without taking the "easy path" of surrendering your soul and your mortality for power's sake. Something that would allow a player to remain among the living. Sort of like the assassin, you give a part of your soul to the shadows, not the whole thing.
See, that'd be a perfect class! If they made Death Knights it woulden't be the first time that Wizards bent the rules a little bit. Also, it woulden't really be fair to make it a paragon path, because that would mean that a lot of players would never get to that.
The essential rules compendium is all the core rules of the game - how skills work, how skill challenges work, how combat works, etc. It includes up to date errata.
the players essentials books are like PHBs without core game rules (since those will be in the compendium). They will have races, classes, paths, destinies, feats, and possibly items and equipment (not sure on that). The classes will go from level 1 to level 30. Think of these as the new players handbooks, because they basically are, and they look like they're replacing the PHB line going forward (though they won't be invalidating PHBs already published)
Other essentials products include dice, dungeon tiles, a DM kit with dungeon masters guide and pre-gen adventures picking up from where the red box leaves off, and a Monster kit with a monster manual and tokens for all the monsters in it.
The essentials line is going to be considered the core products for the game moving forward, though they do not invalidate previous 4e material (at least, not any more then already published errata already does. The essentials line is not all low level starter material, that's just the red box.
Player's Options: Heroes of Shadow looks like the start of new espansions after the essentials mold. It seems like it will have the same format and type of content as the players essentials book, but the rules in it are not considered 'essential' to the game, but rather are an 'optional' expansion for groups looking to include 'heroes of shadow'.
The Essentials line is 10 products only, ever. Now, things like this book may take design cues from the Essentials line, but it is not part of the line.
Hence 'options' rather then 'essentials in the title. Still seems to have the same format and layout, though. The 'options' bit seems to designate this book as optional expansion material, rather then core game material. Also, The essentials line has been described as 'remaining in stock', implying that other books, like the books currently released and the 'options' books like Heroes of Shadow, will rotate in and out of stock.
I'd go
Assassin (Striker): Because it's already there!
Blackguard (defender): Because even though defenders in full plate is over done, guys enemies covered in steel and darkness are always aesthetically cool.
Illusionist (controller): I know that there is already wizard builds based on this, but this a class dedicated to pure lies and deciet. They could elaborate incredibly on the wizard build.
Witch/Shadow Speaker (Leader): Speaks with the creepy voices in the dark? think something like a cross between a dark Cleric and a Shamen
Another striker/controller possibility being Necromancer, but when I think Shadow I think Darkness, Cold, and silence not disease, undeath, and unatural blight.
I'd goAssassin (Striker): Because it's already there!
Blackguard (defender): Because even though defenders in full plate is over done, guys enemies covered in steel and darkness are always aesthetically cool.
Illusionist (controller): I know that there is already wizard builds based on this, but this a class dedicated to pure lies and deciet. They could elaborate incredibly on the wizard build.
Witch/Shadow Speaker (Leader): Speaks with the creepy voices in the dark? think something like a cross between a dark Cleric and a Shamen
Another striker/controller possibility being Necromancer, but when I think Shadow I think Darkness, Cold, and silence not disease, undeath, and unatural blight.
The only defender in full plate I can think of is the Paladin. The Fighter and Battlemind have to train into it and I'm pretty sure Warden and Swordmage don't even consider it. I'd personally like the Blackguard to wear plate if they end up doing it.
Maybe its WOW's influence on my brain, but I associate Necromancers with disease, undeath, unnatural blight AND darkness, cold, silence. Hell, if you ask a pvper they probably associate Death Knights(WoW's melee equivalent of Necromancer atm) with cold way more then with undeath and disease.
I'd go
Assassin (Striker): Because it's already there!
Blackguard (defender): Because even though defenders in full plate is over done, guys enemies covered in steel and darkness are always aesthetically cool.
Illusionist (controller): I know that there is already wizard builds based on this, but this a class dedicated to pure lies and deciet. They could elaborate incredibly on the wizard build.
Witch/Shadow Speaker (Leader): Speaks with the creepy voices in the dark? think something like a cross between a dark Cleric and a Shamen
Another striker/controller possibility being Necromancer, but when I think Shadow I think Darkness, Cold, and silence not disease, undeath, and unatural blight.
Ok, first off, we've already confirmed assassin, hexblade, and necromancer. Check earlier in this thread for the quote. The wording doesn't seem conclusive that they're the only classes, but it's possible we're getting just 3 shadow classes.
Second, shadow source = Shadowfell, the Underworld, where all dead things go and death permeates the land, seeping the life from you (hence shadar-kai embrace adrenaline rushes and the like to keep feeling alive - so they don't die. See the Playing Shadar-Kai article in Dragon for the quote). So Shadow source =/= shadows (at least, not just shadows). Necromancy is an inherent part of the shadow power source.
Not sure which direction they'll go with the Hexblade, whether it's a heavily-armored "black knight" or more of a cloaked grim reaper type. I see the hexblade as a Defender with a focus on a Controller secondary, with plenty of abilities that debuff and hinder enemies.
The Assassin we've already seen, so we have a pretty good idea what sorts of abilities it will have. It's not certain how much it will change in the transition to an offline format, if it changes at all.
There are possible solutions that have been bandied about, such as using zombie hordes as walls or making the necromancer use actions in order to command his minions. Still, since raising the dead is part of the necromancer schtick, he's bound to have some sort of summon ability.
Hmm... After being dominated in tonights game, I wonder if they could have some sort of powers that let them 'raise' a defeated enemy as undead and dominate it until the end of the encounter. That could be pretty neat.
There are possible solutions that have been bandied about, such as using zombie hordes as walls or making the necromancer use actions in order to command his minions. Still, since raising the dead is part of the necromancer schtick, he's bound to have some sort of summon ability.
Hmm... After being dominated in tonights game, I wonder if they could have some sort of powers that let them 'raise' a defeated enemy as undead and dominate it until the end of the encounter. That could be pretty neat.
There's already a wizard daily that does it, which IMO is the real problem. Most of what has been suggested for necromancers is already done by wizards/invoker. Just change the damage to necrotic and you've got most of your spells done.
For it to be different, i think it needs to be more like the shaman / beastmaster. Which could easily use a controller counterpart. Perhaps one build focuses on a stronger main creature, while others does more with hordes. Basiclly trading power for size.
There are possible solutions that have been bandied about, such as using zombie hordes as walls or making the necromancer use actions in order to command his minions. Still, since raising the dead is part of the necromancer schtick, he's bound to have some sort of summon ability.
Hmm... After being dominated in tonights game, I wonder if they could have some sort of powers that let them 'raise' a defeated enemy as undead and dominate it until the end of the encounter. That could be pretty neat.
There's already a wizard daily that does it, which IMO is the real problem. Most of what has been suggested for necromancers is already done by wizards/invoker. Just change the damage to necrotic and you've got most of your spells done.
For it to be different, i think it needs to be more like the shaman / beastmaster. Which could easily use a controller counterpart. Perhaps one build focuses on a stronger main creature, while others does more with hordes. Basiclly trading power for size.
Having a couple of powers in other classes that can do the same thing doesn't negate an entire class, IMO. Ok, so a wizard could serve as a necromancer in a pinch. But are there currently enough necromancy power where you could play a wizard and only take necromancy powers for your entire career? I don't think so. Besides, there was room to differentiate wizard from sorcerer. And sorcerer from warlock - both arcane strikers. Necromancer can do the same. Besides, WotC has already said that the necromancer is in Heroes of Shadow. I suppose you're free to disagree with WotC's decision, but the decision is final.
I'm looking forward to the new necromancer, but after hearing some of the weirder news about the essentials classes (no daily powers, encounter powers that work differently), I'm no longer sure what I should expect from the class. All the more reason that I'm dying to see a playtest version.
The defining thing about the necromancer concept is permanent undead minions. The wizard's few necromancy options do not provide this. The necromancer needs to be a pet class. You get a closer approximation of what it should be from re-fluffing Shaman then you get from re-fluffing Wizard or Invoker.
I'm looking forward to the new necromancer, but after hearing some of the weirder news about the essentials classes (no daily powers, encounter powers that work differently), I'm no longer sure what I should expect from the class. All the more reason that I'm dying to see a playtest version.
the necromancer, if it proves to be a pet class, perhaps should take its cues from the shaman. otherwise, it might suffer the same fluff challenges that the 3e druid faced when trying to bring his pet cave bear or t-rex into town, only worse because it would be a pet undead creature.
come to think of it, i wonder why the beast master ranger has not been suffering from that same predicament--at least, in terms of the feedback on these forums. maybe it is because most (all?) of the ranger beasts are size medium or smaller.
anyway, a necro pet would need to be dismissable/hidable in order not to kneecap the class.
You do make a good point about hiding it, though i'm not sure it's a whole lot different from a ranger trying to bring a bear/wold/allagator into a tavern.
The Wizard class and the Arcane power source step on everybodys toes. What exactly is an 'Elemental power source' when the Wizard is hurling Fireballs? The Wizard isnt even a Striker! The Bard pretty much kills the 'Psionic power source' and takes all its Enchantment mental effects. And so on. Not to mention, the Wizard kills the 'Psionic power source' and takes all its Illusion mental effects. As well as Psionic Telekinetic effects like Atwill 'Mage Hand' and Force-damage 'Magic Missile'.
Thats the way it should. The Arcane power source is the 'Generalist' power source, that dabbles in all the other power sources. The other power sources are the 'Specialists' that truly master its thematics.
It's not about what kind of effects the powers use, but where they come from, and how they are used.
Wizards cast their spells quite differently than Psions manifest their disciplines. Wizards and Psions also have a very different origin story and feel to them.
Throwing a Fireball is not the same thing as binding an Efreeti to make something go boom with fire, either (possible Elemental concept). Elemental is sure to have a different origin story than just "you studied the Elemental Chaos" or "Your bloodline was tainted by the Chaos.") Those are Arcane sources. Different.
Obviously, the Martial power source focuses on certain thematics, while the Shadow power source focuses on certain other thematics. Do these areas of specialization overlap? You bet. But they are areas of specialization. Respectively.
The Arcane power source has zero specialization. It can do *anything*. It can and it does.
Again. If all power sources do the exact same things in the exact same ways, it would be silly to have power sources in the first place. If power sources were all redundant, it would be a useless complication that a better design would streamline out of the gaming system.
Haldrik… you're generalising again.
It's not about what kind of effects the powers use, but where they come from, and how they are used.
Wizards cast their spells quite differently than Psions manifest their disciplines. Wizards and Psions also have a very different origin story and feel to them.
Throwing a Fireball is not the same thing as binding an Efreeti to make something go boom with fire, either (possible Elemental concept). Elemental is sure to have a different origin story than just "you studied the Elemental Chaos" or "Your bloodline was tainted by the Chaos.") Those are Arcane sources. Different.
And how is that necessarily different from wizard versus necromancer? We don't know the official flavor text behind the necromancer. Moreover, haven't people here kept quoting WotC saying that a common theme of the Shadow power source is binding a part of yourself to the Shadowfell? Definitely makes the necromancer different from wizard then. So I'd say Haldrik's point still holds in this case.
Maybe:
At will free ritual during a short rest to turn a corpse into an undead puppet, with a max number of puppets at a time
cheap ritual to enchant a number of humanoid fingerbones. These fingerbones can be treated as humanoid corpses for powers and effects that require such (ie, there are no corpses here, throw spare magic fingerbone on the ground and use animating ritual - it grows into whole skeletal warrior).
Powers mostly touch attacks that can be delivered personally or (preferably) through undead puppet. The necromancer is more effective with a puppet (or maybe more then one) active, but if they're in a situation where bringing walking corpses along isn't workable, they can still use their powers
A level 2 at will utility illusion to disguise one or more undead as living creatures.
I would imagine the early powers would be wisps from the shadow, similar to a primal spirit the shaman summons. Necros may get summon powers with the stipulation, "after you drop an enemy to zero, summon skelleton" as one of your wisps animates the corpse.
Or maybe they just shoot necro bolts, and creatuers they drop to zero get to raise.
Different level powers may affect different sizes of creatures. And then the other powers as folks have suggested should be based on improving/utilizing that new thrall.
Another option would be to give them at least one constant undead pal, similar to a beast master ranger, but less focused on striking.
If they are going with the idea of "some classes take more know-how to use" necros are definately a class that would be good for the advanced player.
So "Blackguard" might very well be a subclass of Hexblade.
Assassins, as we know them today, will only be in Dragon Magazine.
However, given that the Essentials model is the model they're using for classes from this point forward, Assassins in PO:HoS will be essentially a different class, like an Essentials class of the Assassin, thereby acting as WotC's saving throw.
Also, WotC didn't lie about Assasins!
Assassins, as we know them today, will only be in Dragon Magazine.
However, given that the Essentials model is the model they're using for classes from this point forward, Assassins in PO:HoS will be essentially a different class, like an Essentials class of the Assassin, thereby acting as WotC's saving throw.
Pretty sneaky, Sis.
To me, such a ritual wouldnt use the keyword 'illusion'. Its more like a 'conjuration', like the spectral Mage Hand utility.
The undead take on the appearance of living creatures. This wouldnt really be a 'disguise'. Rather, it would be a physical manifestation of the memories of their former life as living beings. Flavorwise, the substantiality of their appearance would come from the Shadowfell, and express the gloom and entropy characteristic of that realm. Compare how a living building appears as a dilapidated ruin in the Shadowfell. Even if the undead appear as living creatures, upon scrutiny they would betray telltale marks of death. Perhaps there is a scar corresponding to manner by which they died. Perhaps the clothing is frayed along the hem or in the arm pit. The fashion is clearly out of the style. Perhaps the skin complexion has ghastly pallor. Perhaps the pupils of the eyes are cloudy. Perhaps the gums and fingernails desiccate and withdraw leaving the appearance of fangs and long claws. Perhaps there is the unconscious odor of decomposition and grave soil. And so on. Vampires are the classic image for undead that appears to be living, being also a kind of 'conjuration' of their former lives, and exhibit these hints of death.
Again, though, I'll have a hard time accepting a necromancer class that doesn't involve permanent undead made from corpses. If the undead are all summoned, or collapse at the end of each encounter, that's not really going to work for the concept, imo.
Must be pet class. Whether that means one more significant permanent pet or something else, I don't know.
Also, WotC didn't lie about Assasins!
Assassins, as we know them today, will only be in Dragon Magazine.
However, given that the Essentials model is the model they're using for classes from this point forward, Assassins in PO:HoS will be essentially a different class, like an Essentials class of the Assassin, thereby acting as WotC's saving throw.
Pretty sneaky, Sis.
I'm a dude, dude.
And I would be fine with raising skeletons to fight for me that turned into a pile of bones or bone-dust after the end of the encounter.
Also, WotC didn't lie about Assasins!
Assassins, as we know them today, will only be in Dragon Magazine.
However, given that the Essentials model is the model they're using for classes from this point forward, Assassins in PO:HoS will be essentially a different class, like an Essentials class of the Assassin, thereby acting as WotC's saving throw.
Pretty sneaky, Sis.
I'm a dude, dude.
And I would be fine with raising skeletons to fight for me that turned into a pile of bones or bone-dust after the end of the encounter.
old connect 4 commercial
Also, WotC didn't lie about Assasins!
Assassins, as we know them today, will only be in Dragon Magazine.
However, given that the Essentials model is the model they're using for classes from this point forward, Assassins in PO:HoS will be essentially a different class, like an Essentials class of the Assassin, thereby acting as WotC's saving throw.
I assume your meaning that the Assassin in this product is gonna be two different builds than the current ones in the electronic article. It would be better to call it a ninja and jetison the Shoud mechanic.
thaX, that's what I thought it was going to be until last night, when they revealed all this. Since the Essentials format of design is how all classes are going to be done from this point forward, the Assassin in PO:HoS is almost certainly going to be revised to that format. So, essentially, it will be like playing two different Assassin classes, but with the same core theme.
It would be better to call it a ninja and jetison the Shoud mechanic.
I know you hate the name, so that makes sense, but what is your problem with the shroud mechanic?? and what would you replace it with?
If you are going to have ninja and samurai in the game, lets also have the viking class.
What I mean to say is that I feel Assassin adequately describes what a ninja does, and how you play that assassin makes him more or less ninjay
same could be said for a rogue or ranger, or monk, or any class that is trained in stealth.
That said, the shroud mechanic does have some issues, but they can be fixed via a simple feat tax or errata that let you transfer half or all of them to a nearby target should your target unfortunately die to your teammates.
Problem rigth now is that you invest in your enemy living in order to deal damage if your using more than 1 shroud. For a striker this is somewhat counter-productive.
Shrouds also need a d8 damage feat in order to try and keep up with other striker features, but the Warlock got one after 2 years, so odds are the assassin will get one eventually.
The assassin doesn't need a feat tax, and the shroud mechanic works just fine. They just need the designers to acknowledge that the shroud mechanic is a d6 damage per round mechanic and not the 4d6 damage per round they seem to think it is, and design new powers accordingly. Ie, more damaging powers is all the assassin needs.
As it is, every assassin release makes them less of a striker and more of a melee controller. At this point, once you get to mid levels the assassin is noticeably better at it's secondary roll then it's primary. I hope the new assassin builds in heroes of shadow remedy this, but I don't hold out much hope, since the assassin class acts article seemed to indicate a push in the opposite direction....
These 3 classes were mentioned. With the rate Assassins have been developing, they're more Controllers than Strikers, even more so than the Warlock has been accused of.
That said, I still would love it if Beguillers (taking in both Illusionist and Shadowcaster and Beguiller) to appear as well, though maybe they'd have to wait for a future book.
Leave it at a defender, a striker and a couple of controllers.
Bel
Even the shaman technicly has melee capabilities (via spirit pet), though they are definitely not like a warlord.
www.randomhouse.biz/international/PDFs/w...
For instance, one sub-class could give the Necro the ability to cast Command Undead, or something like that, and another sub-class could give them an ability that lets them steal HP from an enemy (or a summoned creature, perhaps) and transfer it to an ally. Now that I think about it, you lose healing surges when a summon dies anyway, so it would be interesting if you could use that surge for something (i.e. channel the unlife from your skeletal minion into an ally). Either that, or a power that gives allies temp HP for killing an enemy (the idea being you suck out the enemy's soul and use it to boslter your friends).
For illustrative purposes;
Command Undead
You utilize your control over undeath to momentarily take command of your foes.
Encounter, Charm, Implement, Psychic, Shadow
Minor Action Close Burst 5 (10 at 11th level, 15 at 21st level)
Target: One undead creature in burst
Attack: Charisma vs. Will
Hit: 1d6 + Charisma modifier psychic damage. You slide the target a number of squares equal to its speed, and have it make a melee basic attack against a creature of your choice.
Level 6: 2d6 + CHA
Level 11: 3d6 + CHA
Level 16: 4d6 + CHA
Level 21: 5d6 + CHA
Level 26: 6d6 + CHA
Vitality Siphon
You steal the life force of a dying enemy to empower yourself or an ally.
Encounter, Healing, Shadow
Minor Action (special) Close Burst 5 (10 at 11th level, 15 at 21st level)
Target: You or one ally in burst
Effect: The target spends a healing surge, but regains no hit points. It instead gains temporary hit points equal to his or her healing surge value, which last until the end of the target's next extended rest. If this power was used as a free action, the target also deals extra necrotic damage on their next successful attack before the end of their next turn. The damage is equal to your Constitution or Intelligence modifier.
Special: You may use this power as a free action when a creature or summon within this power's burst radius drops to 0 hit points or fewer.
The "extended rest" part is so that it has some benefit when used between encounters. >_>
Btw, my guess is that:
Necromancer; Controller; Cha, Int, Con (could also be Int, Wis, Cha)
Hexblade: Defender; Con, Dex, Cha (or Wis)
Assassin: Striker; Dex, Con, Cha (I'm hoping for an Int or Wis build).
Anyway, other than that, I agree with the idea that the Hexblade should have dailies that modify his mark penalty. It would be something interesting and different, and allow for a lot more versatility (especially if its a sub-controller like I expect) instead of just the usual "-2 atk and I get to hurt you if you ignore me".
As for races, I think it's 50/50 whether or not they do the monster races. If they do, the Kobold and Goblinoids are the obvious choice. If they don't, then it's likely no monster races will be included, and it'll just be new races (the Shadarkai have already been printed, and Revenants are DDI exclusives).
On that subject, I think it's fairly obvious that they're just going to include new builds for the Assassin, and not reprint the class features. They did it for the swordmage, so its not unprecedented. Seriously, what makes you think they wouldn't pull the "hurr hurr if you wanna actually play this character you need to pay for DDI" card, considering they ALREADY did that for the Assassin to begin with?
I think the former, since it gives them the chance to fix a broken class (and I mean that in all the sense that the class can't do its job effectively as a Striker).
That said, I don't know where you're coming from with the "Don't Need a Leader," business. Leaders are probably the most essential class in 4E, and even subleader tendencies can't make up for the lack of a 2/encounter healing surge + bonus power.
I think it's likely these are the only 3 classes in the book, but I don't think it's because Essentials somehow invalidated Leaders. They would have turned Warpriest into a melee Invoker, if that was the case, rather than keep it a melee Cleric.
I don't think Kobolds or Goblinoids are likely to be in the book. They're just not thematically Shadow enough. Shadar-kai could be reprinted, and if they're reprinting Assassins, I wouldn't be surprised if they did it with Revenants too. Dark Ones, however, are a shoe-in, and I'll be surprised if they don't make it.
You know, I've never understood the appeal of Dark Ones. Maybe it's just because I don't know anything more than what Monster Manual says about them, which isn't a lot. Do they have a history I'm missing or something?
I always wonder the same thing.
And I also don't see the appeal...You know, I've never understood the appeal of Dark Ones. Maybe it's just because I don't know anything more than what Monster Manual says about them, which isn't a lot. Do they have a history I'm missing or something?
I always wonder the same thing. And I also don't see the appeal...
since the dark ones have not yet received player character treatment and attention, i am not surprised that people have yet to be hooked into them. however, as the dark ones have thus far been depicted in 4e, they have--from day one--screamed pc race to me. i have since been confident that they would receive pc treament in association with the shadow power source, at which time i think that we will all come to know and love their backstory.
to dark ones, add in revenants, shadar-kai, perhaps kenku (if they were changed from natural to shadow), and--in my estimation--drow, and you have a full line of shadowfell based pc races that rivals the line of fey races of eladrin, gnome, and wilden.
Considering that Drow are already going to be in one of the Essentials Heroes books, there's not a chance in hell they'd be in the Heroes of Shadow book. And WotC is playing up the Drow's Fey nature very heavily; their dark ties are to the dark itself, not Shadow (except the Umbral Drow sub-race from Eberron).
a few thoughts:
i) elves have their fey nature played up just as much as drow, yet elves are firmly planted in the natural world, so i see no obstacle to placing the drow in the shadowfell; but that being said,
ii) i am not at all suggesting that drow in the shadowfell is official stance. i am only expressing my personal view/preference. so, too, with the kenku. and since i seem to be on a roll, troll are fey.
But then again, maybe not... After all I think they learned from past mistakes that novels shouldn't drive game lines. But the mistakes usually had to do with metaplot, rather than what PC races they might include.
i) elves have their fey nature played up just as much as drow, yet elves are firmly planted in the natural world, so i see no obstacle to placing the drow in the shadowfell;
Except drow are from the Underdark. Always has been. And the Underdark has always been a separate thing from the Shadowfell.
The Underdark, Feydark, and Shadowdark all bleed into eachother. This makes good sense thematically because it explains how the Drow maintian the strong Fey flavor, even after being exiled into the Underdark of the Middle World.
It also makes sense for certain Drow to adapt to the local Shadow influences and to specialize in death magic.
That said, we probably need to step back and decide what the 'salient' tropes about Drow are. Right now, they are a bit all over the place.
`They are inhabitants of the 'mortal' Middle World, albeit underground.
`They are Fey with strong connections to the Feywild.
`They are Abyssal with strong connections to the demon queen Lolth.
`In a way, they are connected to the Elemental Chaos, where the demonic Abyss is located.
`Some of them have strong connection with the Aberrants, due to the connection between the underground, Mindflayers et al, the Dungeoneering skill, and the Farrealms.
`Now emphasizing their Shadow connections
... creates too many conflicting tropes, and requires a comprehensive narrative to sort out.
i) elves have their fey nature played up just as much as drow, yet elves are firmly planted in the natural world, so i see no obstacle to placing the drow in the shadowfell;
Except drow are from the Underdark. Always has been. And the Underdark has always been a separate thing from the Shadowfell.
for some reason, you left out the rest of my quote, where i say that "i am not at all suggesting that drow in the shadowfell is official stance. i am only expressing my personal view/preference."
That said, we probably need to step back and decide what the 'salient' tropes about Drow are. Right now, they are a bit all over the place.
`They are inhabitants of the 'mortal' Middle World, albeit underground.
`They are Fey with strong connections to the Feywild.
`They are Abyssal with strong connections to the demon queen Lolth.
`In a way, they are connected to the Elemental Chaos, where the demonic Abyss is located.
`Some of them have strong connection with the Aberrants, due to the connection between the underground, Mindflayers et al, the Dungeoneering skill, and the Farrealms.
`Now emphasizing their Shadow connections
... creates too many conflicting tropes, and requires a comprehensive narrative to sort out.
i agree. we should keep it simple and strictly canon:
(i) lolth is evil, not chaotic evil;
(ii) lolth associates with devils, not demons; and
(iii) drow principally occupy the shadowdark, either because they were losing an ongoing struggle against the ilithids and other aberrants that dominate the underdark or because lolth favors the shadowfell.
remember, strictly canon.
Actually, the Underdark blends the coexistence of all three planes together: Middle World, Feywild, and Shadowfell.
The Underdark, Feydark, and Shadowdark all bleed into eachother. This makes good sense thematically because it explains how the Drow maintian the strong Fey flavor, even after being exiled into the Underdark of the Middle World.
It also makes sense for certain Drow to adapt to the local Shadow influences and to specialize in death magic.
That said, we probably need to step back and decide what the 'salient' tropes about Drow are. Right now, they are a bit all over the place.
`They are inhabitants of the 'mortal' Middle World, albeit underground.
`They are Fey with strong connections to the Feywild.
`They are Abyssal with strong connections to the demon queen Lolth.
`In a way, they are connected to the Elemental Chaos, where the demonic Abyss is located.
`Some of them have strong connection with the Aberrants, due to the connection between the underground, Mindflayers et al, the Dungeoneering skill, and the Farrealms.
`Now emphasizing their Shadow connections
... creates too many conflicting tropes, and requires a comprehensive narrative to sort out.
That's actually how I use the Underdark in my setting – one underground otherworld that overlaps the three parallel planes, so that you can be moving from one plane's xDark into another, and they don't overlap. However, the 4E World Axis model rejects this notion.
Look at Explore Ikemmu. While officially located in the Realms, Ikemmu serves to clarify this element in all settings using the World Axis as presented in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Ikemmu has two versions: an Underdark and a Shadowdark version, that layer on top of each other. They're in the same place, just on different planes. That makes them different from the idea of Shadowdark, Feydark, and Underdark all in seperate, quartered off areas of the same mass of underworld tunnels.
But yeah, Drow have too many thematic connections. It's probably because they were the other main Elf, and Elf were too split before.
I like the Elf – Wis, Drow – Cha, and Eladrin – Int split, however, for how the three races differ on a mental comparison. Drow seem more Divine, Elves more Primal, and Eladrin more Arcane.
i) elves have their fey nature played up just as much as drow, yet elves are firmly planted in the natural world, so i see no obstacle to placing the drow in the shadowfell;
Except drow are from the Underdark. Always has been. And the Underdark has always been a separate thing from the Shadowfell.
for some reason, you left out the rest of my quote, where i say that "i am not at all suggesting that drow in the shadowfell is official stance. i am only expressing my personal view/preference."
My bad. I shouldn't have cut it like that. For some reason that second bit didn't affect my response the way it should have. I dunno. I was just in the wrong there I guess. Still the drow/shadowfell connection just feels wrong to me. Maybe it's the Shadow =/= dark thing that a lot people keep turning to.
As for the drow being too all over the place, that works for me in this edition. They're native to the Underdark - the King's Highway, as it's called, where Torog rampaged in his prison, breaking the walls of reality until all the other planes and even the spaces beyond (the Far Realm) bled in. And that's why the Underdark is in some way a plane all its own, and not just part of the Prime. So I like the idea of the Underdark, Feydark, and Shadowdark all being one plane, but connected to different planes.
And Haldrik, I think you give too much emphasis to some of the drow's connections:
- They may nominally be denizens of the Material Plane, but the Underdark really is a realm of its own. IIRC, some Underdark previews talked about it really being a plane unto itself. To me the Material Plane connection is just a technicality, since you don't need rituals or portals to cross from the Underdark to the Prime. But I can readily agree to disagree on this point, since it's close enough either way.
- The drow are fey with strong connections to the Feywild. I don't agree here. They're fey with some or even weak connection to the Feywild. They left it long ago, and they've cut just about all ties with their past. They've betrayed their Feywild brethren and are their mortal enemies. I don't recall a single bit of fluff that suggests they still see themselves as strongly tied to the Feywild. Now, there is the mechanics of trancing, but that one item alone doesn't seem proof of a strong connection. It shows that some connection still definitely exists, but I wouldn't say that connection has to be a strong one. Now, it's something drow maintain of their eladrin heritage that elves don't, but honestly, elves still feel more fey-like than drow do.
- the Elemental Chaos thing is a stretch. Sure, they've got a demonic connection, but I don't think the demonic connection in any way creates a notable elemental connection. There are other aspects of demonic than warped elementals. I'd say what drow have in common with demons is what demons do not have in common with elementals. Now, that's my own wording and own opinion, so I guess we can again differ here.
But, like I said earlier, I'm fine with drow having such varied connections - it makes them better embody the multiple facets of the Underdark.
i) elves have their fey nature played up just as much as drow, yet elves are firmly planted in the natural world, so i see no obstacle to placing the drow in the shadowfell;
Except drow are from the Underdark. Always has been. And the Underdark has always been a separate thing from the Shadowfell.
for some reason, you left out the rest of my quote, where i say that "i am not at all suggesting that drow in the shadowfell is official stance. i am only expressing my personal view/preference."
My bad. I shouldn't have cut it like that. For some reason that second bit didn't affect my response the way it should have. I dunno. I was just in the wrong there I guess. Still the drow/shadowfell connection just feels wrong to me. Maybe it's the Shadow =/= dark thing that a lot people keep turning to.
Agreed; Shadow ≠ Dark. They're different concepts. Look at the Dark Pact powers… it's almost entirely connected to Spiders and the Underdark.
As for the drow being too all over the place, that works for me in this edition. They're native to the Underdark - the King's Highway, as it's called, where Torog rampaged in his prison, breaking the walls of reality until all the other planes and even the spaces beyond (the Far Realm) bled in. And that's why the Underdark is in some way a plane all its own, and not just part of the Prime. So I like the idea of the Underdark, Feydark, and Shadowdark all being one plane, but connected to different planes.
No, they aren't. We saw this with Ikemmu, if you read my post. The King's Highway runs between them, but that's because Torog's power was strong enough to break the barriers between the planes, and even the barriers of reality, letting loose openings to the Far Realm. However, I do like that idea, and in my setting, it's its own Plane. But the core setting says otherwise.
And Haldrik, I think you give too much emphasis to some of the drow's connections:
- They may nominally be denizens of the Material Plane, but the Underdark really is a realm of its own. IIRC, some Underdark previews talked about it really being a plane unto itself. To me the Material Plane connection is just a technicality, since you don't need rituals or portals to cross from the Underdark to the Prime. But I can readily agree to disagree on this point, since it's close enough either way.
- The drow are fey with strong connections to the Feywild. I don't agree here. They're fey with some or even weak connection to the Feywild. They left it long ago, and they've cut just about all ties with their past. They've betrayed their Feywild brethren and are their mortal enemies. I don't recall a single bit of fluff that suggests they still see themselves as strongly tied to the Feywild. Now, there is the mechanics of trancing, but that one item alone doesn't seem proof of a strong connection. It shows that some connection still definitely exists, but I wouldn't say that connection has to be a strong one. Now, it's something drow maintain of their eladrin heritage that elves don't, but honestly, elves still feel more fey-like than drow do.
- the Elemental Chaos thing is a stretch. Sure, they've got a demonic connection, but I don't think the demonic connection in any way creates a notable elemental connection. There are other aspects of demonic than warped elementals. I'd say what drow have in common with demons is what demons do not have in common with elementals. Now, that's my own wording and own opinion, so I guess we can again differ here.
But, like I said earlier, I'm fine with drow having such varied connections - it makes them better embody the multiple facets of the Underdark.
Agreed on the final point. However, the Drow frequently serve as spies for Fomorians, so it's not like they aren't present in the Feydark. However, Drow are most often used as emissaries between the planes by evil entities. So the multi-faceted nature works well for that niche.
Underdark:13
‘The Feywild and the Shadowfell contain reflections of the Underdark. Called the Feydark and the Shadowdark, these parallel Underdarks have remained separate from the world. However, since the King's Highway meanders back and forth between them, it provides easy-to-access connections. Over the years, the inhabitants of one region emigrate to "neighboring" cross-planar regions.’
I agree the Darks have a plane-to-themselves vibe, tho the regions are distinct.
Dont really have a problem with the Drow. Just saying we need to be thoughtful when adding more to the mix.
Ninjad on the interconnectedness of the Underdark. Here is a quote:
Underdark:13
‘The Feywild and the Shadowfell contain reflections of the Underdark. Called the Feydark and the Shadowdark, these parallel Underdarks have remained separate from the world. However, since the King's Highway meanders back and forth between them, it provides easy-to-access connections. Over the years, the inhabitants of one region emigrate to "neighboring" cross-planar regions.’
I agree the Darks have a plane-to-themselves vibe, tho the regions are distinct.
Dont really have a problem with the Drow. Just saying we need to be thoughtful when adding more to the mix.
That doesn't meant they are they're own thing. Will you read Ikemmu or not?
Mar: 'Will you read Ikemmu or not?'
I grant your point about the Darks remaining parallel.
When I said planar 'vibe' I meant flavorwise, not spacially. I enjoy the loose association of plane and power source: Astral-Divine, Elemental-Elemental, Middleworld-Primal, Shadowfell-Shadow, etcetera.
Because the Darks mutually influence each other, its nice when their tropes do too. I can see Drow Warlocks dabbling in Shadowfell death magic and Middleworld subterrainean nature spirits.
Mar: 'Will you read Ikemmu or not?'
I grant your point about the Darks remaining parallel.
When I said planar 'vibe' I meant flavorwise, not spacially. I enjoy the loose association of plane and power source: Astral-Divine, Elemental-Elemental, Middleworld-Primal, Shadowfell-Shadow, etcetera.
Because the Darks mutually influence each other, its nice when their tropes do too. I can see Drow Warlocks dabbling in Shadowfell death magic and Middleworld subterrainean nature spirits.
i have always felt that the warlock dark pact was weaksauce, flavor-wise. a shadowfell theme or abyssal theme would have worked better, imo. alternatively, the class would have been just fine with fey, infernal, star and vestige pacts alone; although, i would have preferred fey (cha), infernal (cha), star (con--in truth, i prefer cha (see below) but for balance across builds, i chose con here), and vestige (con). or even better:
A-shaped class
primary stat (cha or int)
fey (int or cha secondary, respectively)
infernal (con or cha secondary, respectively)
star (con or cha secondary, respectively)
vestige (int or cha secondary, respectively--really only because it provides balance across builds)
regarding star pact:
everything i read about natural humanoids being exposed to the far realm talks about the dangers of becoming insane. this strikes me as more of a cha issue than a con issue. thus, i think that the star pact should have cha as a primary or secondary stat. if cha as a primary stat, then con as a secondary stat would be fine and flavorfully contributory.
regarding infernal pact:
devils are tempters and manipulators. they attempt to corrupt the minds, and consequently, the souls of mortals. this strikes me as more of a cha issue than a con issue. thus, i think that the infernal pact should have cha as a primary or secondary stat. if cha as a primary stat, then con as a secondary stat would be fine and flavorfully contributory, given the fire and brimstone motif. however, inclusion of a con stat might muddy the distinction between the infernal pact and a possible abyssal pact, which undoubtedly would include a con stat.
Given those two options, Abyssal works better for Drow Lolth flavor. Plus an annihilating Abyssal pact with demons, as opposed to a self-serving Infernal pact with devils, can express the flavor of other chaotic evil races like Gnoll.
'A-shaped class'
Many predict the Essentials will make all Warlock builds Cha-primary. A 'pact' is somewhat of a social bond so Cha can convey approiate flavor.
Many predict the Essentials will make all Warlock builds Cha-primary. A 'pact' is somewhat of a social bond so Cha can convey approiate flavor.
works for me
Not to mention the Charisma Hellock article. Why would they release such a thing if there weren't enough powers to cover 29 levels?
good point
Products coming out after the Essentials, including such exciting titles as Player’s Option: Heroes of Shadow, work with all Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game products. Just started with the Essentials? No problem! Add shadow-based powers to your storm warpriest with no fuss or bother. Got a battle cleric built with Player's Handbook and enhanced with Divine Power and a couple of feats from Essentials? No problem! It’s all D&D, so it’s all compatible! Everything we’re producing in 2011 and beyond works with both Essentials and non-Essentials products—because they all work together! They’re all Dungeons & Dragons!
Doe this mean that Necromancer, Hexblade, and Assasssin as they appear in the book aren't actually classes of their own right, but 3 kits for classes like the kits in Essentials?
Is there going to be a 4th kit for Clerics, then? So Assassin becomes a Rogue kit, Hexblade a Fighter kit, and Necromancer a Wizard kit?
In all honesty, while I'm happy Bill clarified that it's not 4.5E, this has confused me about Player's Option in a whole new way.
I was under the impression this meant we were still getting necromancer, hexblade, and assassin classes (where did the original confirmation come from - maybe we should double check the wording). It just meant that the Heroes of Shadow books offers stuff for characters of other classes as well - shadow themes, multiclass, etc. It sounded to me like powers may not be so class-exclusive anymore. If that is the case, then sorcerers will finally be able to learn fireball (assuming it becomes a generic arcane power than a wizard-specific power and that my guesses are actually close to the truth).
That makes it a little smaller, ne?
That said, you have a point. And the original confirmation is in the WotC Spring 2011 Calendar, which somebody linked a download file of, and I have on my laptop, but I don't know where the download is from at the moment.
In any case, this makes more sense, and also leans towards why the book would have only 3 classes (if new Shadow powers existed for other classes, like the Necromancy powers from that Necromancers article, or PPaths like the Arcane Trickster and the Umbriri).
Apparently Heroes of Shadow includes themes.
seems pretty obvious to me that clerics will be able to pick up shadow powers in the same way they're able to pick up primal powers - through multiclassing.
A reasonable thought. But previous sourcebooks, when introducing a new power source, didn't advertise it for other classes. Sure, multiclassing has always been possible. But it was never advertised as such a big selling point. Maybe that's because the new format means only shadow classes, and WotC is just saying "Hey, even if you're already in a game and can't start a new character, there's something in it for you." But just the way they said it made me suspicious that it goes beyond multiclassing this time. Now I could be wrong - it's all just speculation at this point. But you do have a good point - what reason do we have to expect anything beyond just multiclassing? It could very well be nothing more than panic over how Essentials will change core.
Well, it's 320 pages, but it's a Trade Paperback, 6'' by 9.''
That makes it a little smaller, ne?
That said, you have a point. And the original confirmation is in the WotC Spring 2011 Calendar, which somebody linked a download file of, and I have on my laptop, but I don't know where the download is from at the moment.
In any case, this makes more sense, and also leans towards why the book would have only 3 classes (if new Shadow powers existed for other classes, like the Necromancy powers from that Necromancers article, or PPaths like the Arcane Trickster and the Umbriri).
Trade Paperback does not mean 6" x 9".
They will be roughly the same size as the hard bound books but be soft bound.
B) Clerics taking shadow powers isn't advertised as a major selling point. More like an afterthought in the description.
C) Necromancers, Hexblades, and Assassins are specifically mentioned, and we already know assassins are a class.
Most likely what we're seeing is a combination of what used to be PHB and Power Splat material. Fluff for the shadow power source similar to what we got for primal, two to five races associated with the shadow power source, three full base classes in the essentials mold (ie, class specific advancement tables, class features gained as they level), including at least two distinct builds each, paragon paths for each class and for the power source in general (more for each class then usual for a PHB, but less then usual for a Power Source), epic destinies related to the shadow source, feats (including multiclass feats, general feats with a shadow theme, and race and class specific feats for the new races and classes), and some new items.
Leastwise, that's my royal prediction for this book. For me it's an automatic purchase, I've been jonsing for a necromancer and a decent dark knight since 4e was released, and I liked the core of the ddi assassin (though the powers are a bit too controllery and not quite strikery enough for my taste). The shrouds mechanic, at least, works the way I would want it too.
Personally, I like the idea of shadow powers for other classes. Hopefully they'll have them for all classes, not just a select few. I'd love to be able to have shadowy abilities for my Druid/Assassin without having to burn precious feats on them.
They might. There's already a Warlord PP with Shadow powers.
Personally, I like the idea of shadow powers for other classes. Hopefully they'll have them for all classes, not just a select few. I'd love to be able to have shadowy abilities for my Druid/Assassin without having to burn precious feats on them.
They might. There's already a Warlord PP with Shadow powers.
And one for Swordmages. And Arcane-powered PPaths for Warlords, Fighters, and Rogues.
A) Heroes of Shadow is currently announced as a 6x9 paperback for ~$20(us). Though it's still far enough out that that could change, I wouldn't expect it to.
B) Clerics taking shadow powers isn't advertised as a major selling point. More like an afterthought in the description.
C) Necromancers, Hexblades, and Assassins are specifically mentioned, and we already know assassins are a class.
Most likely what we're seeing is a combination of what used to be PHB and Power Splat material. Fluff for the shadow power source similar to what we got for primal, two to five races associated with the shadow power source, three full base classes in the essentials mold (ie, class specific advancement tables, class features gained as they level), including at least two distinct builds each, paragon paths for each class and for the power source in general (more for each class then usual for a PHB, but less then usual for a Power Source), epic destinies related to the shadow source, feats (including multiclass feats, general feats with a shadow theme, and race and class specific feats for the new races and classes), and some new items.
Leastwise, that's my royal prediction for this book. For me it's an automatic purchase, I've been jonsing for a necromancer and a decent dark knight since 4e was released, and I liked the core of the ddi assassin (though the powers are a bit too controllery and not quite strikery enough for my taste). The shrouds mechanic, at least, works the way I would want it too.
I have looked at both Amazon and Borders and neither of them list a size for the book. Can you provide a link to the site you are quoting the size from. I also cant find the listing on the Wizards product page but thats not surprising.
The book is not huge. A 300ish page 6x9 book is only moderately more actual page space then one of the current power splats. We already know there's going to be three full classes and more then one new race, it's not likely theyd be able to fit alternate powers, paths, and other materials for every non-shadow race and class currently out there, at least not without significantly cutting into the material that is supposed to be the focus of the book - the actual new stuff.
critical-hits.com/2010/06/16/dd-4e-the-n...
From the description, the book lists only three classes, Assassin, Hexblade, and Necromancer. It's still a long way from print, so they could add a fourth class if they wanted, but I don't think so.
Possible ideas for content in this book (whether or not it relates to the Shadow source).
There will probably be three or four new classes, three of which we know about already.
Assassin (Shadow Striker)
Key Stats: Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma
Hexblade (Shadow Defender)
Possible Key Stats: Intelligence(or Charisma), Strength, Dexterity
Necromancer (Shadow Controller)
Possible Key Stats: Intelligence, Charisma, Constitution(or Strength)
A possible fourth class, with a secondary Controller focus:
Witch (Shadow Leader)
Key Stats: Charisma, Dexterity, Intelligence
----
There may also be additional builds and/or themes based on making "dark" characters from other power sources. Some of these might include:
Blackguard Paladin
The "black knight" build which lets the paladin substitute radiant for necrotic damage, and grants necrotic vulnerability to his combat challenge targets.
Other dark divine classes
The Cleric and Avenger, at least, might recieve new dark builds.
My thoughts:
Assassin -- we already know what he does
Hexblade -- Shadow Defender
I think Charisma is the obvious choice for primary stat. The 3.5 hexblade's spells were based on charisma, as were some of the class features, such as Mettle. It just fits the idea or archetype the class is trying to portray.
Of the two builds, I would like to see a trickster build with Intelligence secondary, and a fighter-type build with Strength or Constitution secondary (I would prefer strength myself).
Judging from the cover art, hexblades will probably be wearing heavy armor.
Necromancer -- Shadow Controller
Intelligence as the primary stat makes the most sense.
For the two builds, I would make a summoner build with Charisma secondary and a life-stealer build with Constitution secondary.
Anyone agree or disagree?
If it turns out to be something that's not a defender, well Hexblade at least sounds cool! lol
Also, Necromancer just speaks for itself. lol
I still think the Necromancer should be the Leader and the Hexblade should be the Controller.
You know, I'm not entriely against that. I just want a Shadow powered defender. Though I have been thinking, this could be introduced as some kind of theme or multiclass. I'd hate for it to just be a PP. Not that it wouldn't be awesome, but the PP is a little limited in scope (then again, a multiclass or theme could be too).
Still looking forward to this book. I'm one of the few that really enjoy the assassin class.
I like the role system, but it works better when the classes can actually perform their roles.
Heroes of Shadow will contain options for all characters to gain shadow powers, not just shadow power source characters. (It’s also likely that this book will contain all new classes and races.) They wanted to add powers that added more flavor to existing characters, and the options in this book will encourage that, like when your fighter has a shadow pact.
The Assassin class is NOT in Heroes of Shadow, but it and the Revenant will appear in Heroes of the Fallen Lands Essentials product. (this part is in dispute)critical-hits.com/2010/08/07/gen-con-201...
Don't rely on the info posted there. Dave misheard/misunderstood some of the stuff discussed in that seminar. Assassins and revenants are not going to be in HotFL, for example. Some new stuff for assassins will be released online at the same time as HoS is released in print, and a new 'Essentials' build for the assassin, plus some new stuff for the revenant, will be released online when HotFL comes out in print.
My advice is to listen to the audio recordings of the seminars rather than relying on second-hand sources.
So it's looking like the assassin is out, and material to add shadow flavor to non-shadow classes is in. I'm not happy about either of those, but as long as the Necromancer is still in the book, and is still it's own class and not some cursory set of shadow themed powers or just a paragon path for wizards, I'll still be getting Heroes of Shadow myself.
When a set course of action turns out to be silly, I prefer for that course of action to be acknowledged as silly and a new course set, rather then the silly course followed right off a waterfall.
Agreed. I know I got into an argument with someone about WotC keeping their word. Sure, there's a virtue to keeping a promise, but if the promise turns out to help no one, then it's perfectly ok to reconsider the agreement. Ideally with discussion between both affected parties, rather than one just breaking faith without discussion.
I was afraid Thief would be accompanied by an Assassin kit, and Revenant would be reworked as something like the Dhampyr for all races (so that they didn't have to do it backwards, adding a bloodline feat for every new race).
People mishear things. Critical Hits aren't the ultimate authority. For that, I'm glad.
When a set course of action turns out to be silly, I prefer for that course of action to be acknowledged as silly and a new course set, rather then the silly course followed right off a waterfall.
I agree.
However (and this is purely speculation on my part), I suspect WotC might be worried about the legal implications of making a class that they stated outright would always be exclusive to paid subscribers suddenly not be exclusive to those subscribers, and in fact require those subscribers to purchase a new book to gain access to support for that class (support they'd effectively been told they'd already paid for through their subscription).
The dev (I can't tell which one it was from the audio recording) was very emphatic that "the assassin will remain a DDi exclusive". I might be reading too much into his tone of voice, but he sounded like somebody had told him very firmly beforehand to make it absolutely clear that WotC didn't lie to the DDi subscribers about the assassin's exclusivity.
Thank Pelor…
I was afraid Thief would be accompanied by an Assassin kit, and Revenant would be reworked as something like the Dhampyr for all races (so that they didn't have to do it backwards, adding a bloodline feat for every new race).
People mishear things. Critical Hits aren't the ultimate authority. For that, I'm glad.
Yea, the assassin will get a essental's build in DDI. Not in the book.
I just hope there's enough material for the Hexblade and Necromancer for them to function properly, since they probably aren't getting a 'Shadow Power' book.
Oh, and I'm also hoping that the Hexblade and Necromancer aren't as gimped as the assassin. Please let them have clear class roles! Please let them be able to competantly perform their clear class roles! -_-
Hopefully the new assassin build does something to help that class, but with the way their few decent options from their lass class acts article are getting nerfed before they even hit the builder, I'm not holding my breath.
But with a large amount of content dedicated to non-shadow classes, I doubt they'll be able to fit more then the two shadow classes we're currently expecting.
Cause if you're continually dealing with the semblance of life you might as well give it to your allies.
Actually I was developing a necromancer for a friend to mess about with.
The key concept was that the Necromancer's main heal would grant temp hp rather actual hp.
The flavour was further enhanced by the necromancer's presence turning half of temp hp into real hp at the end of the encounter.
Sort of like: "I feel like a million gold pieces and OH MY GOD MY ARM JUST ROTTED AWAY!"
Unlikely, but who knows. I don't really see what's shadowy or healery about the 'witch' concept, but there are classes that make less sense to me, so who knows.
But with a large amount of content dedicated to non-shadow classes, I doubt they'll be able to fit more then the two shadow classes we're currently expecting.
I've posted this concept before in this thread, but here we go again: how to make a Shadow-source, leader-role witch. The witch is like the witches from MacBeth - seers of fate, readers of Wyrd. Their proximity to death grants them their power. They see the world through different eyes - like Raistlin (at least from the first two Dragonlance Chronicles novels - my only experience). He does not see people as they are, but rather he sees them old, decrepit, and dying. It gives the witch a unique knack for knowing how somebody will die, and then helping make that reality. Similarly, they see the great destiny their allies have, and they manipulate the strands of fate to make it happen. Recurring themes of the powers are prophecy, aging and weakening of foes (including granting vulnerability), and re-weaving fate to help allies. Compared to other leaders, there are less healing powers, but a few more saving throw, reroll, and regain-a-spent-power powers.
I've posted this concept before in this thread, but here we go again: how to make a Shadow-source, leader-role witch. The witch is like the witches from MacBeth - seers of fate, readers of Wyrd. Their proximity to death grants them their power. They see the world through different eyes - like Raistlin (at least from the first two Dragonlance Chronicles novels - my only experience). He does not see people as they are, but rather he sees them old, decrepit, and dying. It gives the witch a unique knack for knowing how somebody will die, and then helping make that reality. Similarly, they see the great destiny their allies have, and they manipulate the strands of fate to make it happen. Recurring themes of the powers are prophecy, aging and weakening of foes (including granting vulnerability), and re-weaving fate to help allies. Compared to other leaders, there are less healing powers, but a few more saving throw, reroll, and regain-a-spent-power powers.
You've actually just sold this class to me.
In fact, if WotC don't give us a class like this, the next PC I create is going to be a prescient bard reflavoured to be this.
I've posted this concept before in this thread, but here we go again: how to make a Shadow-source, leader-role witch. The witch is like the witches from MacBeth - seers of fate, readers of Wyrd. Their proximity to death grants them their power. They see the world through different eyes - like Raistlin (at least from the first two Dragonlance Chronicles novels - my only experience). He does not see people as they are, but rather he sees them old, decrepit, and dying. It gives the witch a unique knack for knowing how somebody will die, and then helping make that reality. Similarly, they see the great destiny their allies have, and they manipulate the strands of fate to make it happen. Recurring themes of the powers are prophecy, aging and weakening of foes (including granting vulnerability), and re-weaving fate to help allies. Compared to other leaders, there are less healing powers, but a few more saving throw, reroll, and regain-a-spent-power powers.
You've actually just sold this class to me.
In fact, if WotC don't give us a class like this, the next PC I create is going to be a prescient bard reflavoured to be this.
Well thank you. I have debated making it as a class. Though from the one class I've fully fleshed out before, I know it's a pain to get all levels 1-30 made. Also, as an example of witch-style healing, look at the webcomic Finder's Keepers. There's this scene where the guy walks in with his throat slit, but somehow still not dead. He then needs to go to Lady Scarring for help. That's shadow-source healing. You ought to be dead. But the witch's strange magic lets you stand and keep fighting. You'll need to be patched up once the battle is over, but for now, you'll keep fighting.
I was thinking of giving the witch two healing options. We'll call the feature Embrace of Shadows. Twice per encounter, you can use Unholy Toughness or Reweave Fate.
Unholy Toughness - you or an ally in range spends a healing surge but does not regain any hit points. Instead, the target gains temporary hit points equal to its healing surge value. While these temporary hit points last, the target gains a +2 power bonus to damage rolls.
Special: During your next short or extended rest, the target regains hit points equal to half its healing surge.
Reweave Fate - your allies have a great destiny before them. You give them a nudge in the right direction. You or an ally within range spends a healing surge but does not regain any hit points. Instead, the target regains the use of a spent encounter power but must use it before the end of its next turn. Until the end of the target's next turn, it can score a critical hit on a roll of 19-20.
11th level: 18-20
21st level: 17-20
Special: During your next short or extended rest, the target regains hit points equal to half its healing surge value.
This is just a quick first idea, so I don't know how well it's balanced. But I think it captures the nature of the shadow source: less true healing, but in exchange the witch also lets everyone else function a little bit more as a striker. Battles that end quicker won't need as much healing. That Special line is just to prevent you from running out of healing surges too soon, since you're paying for healing without getting healing then and there.
I could imagine other witch powers aging your foes, drawing out their weakness and iminent death. Self-fulfilling prophecy, and that sort of thing.
And @ Vigilant1, that sounds like an awesome idea. Potentially very Beastmaster Ranger or shaman-like, but very much a shadow staple.