2011 April 6
by Bartoneus
My first impression of this book is that it is a perfect combination of the production level of the original 4th Edition books with the quality of content that we have come to expect as 4th Edition and Essentials have progressed.
Talk about this review here.
I may end up getting this book, even with the Essentials slant. I still hate that there is only one new class in the whole book.
The reviewer fails to appreciate that there is material in the book made specifically for pre-Essentials classes and builds. For example, the Implement-based Cleric powers. Or the PPath that caters to Monks.
Are pro-e posters so vehement in their orthodoxy that even a highly favorable review (it gives the overall product a rating of what, A-? B+?) must be seen and derided as woefully biased simply for acknowledging the post-e focus, and calling it out as something that might prevent some from enjoying the book?
I'm not overly impressed with the review myself, since it seems to consist only of two things:
1) a summary of the table of contents and
2) a statement that the production quality is good
There doesn't seem to be significant or critical analysis of the mechanics the book presents, which is really what I'd want to see out of a review for this book. Can the new strikers do their jobs, or do they join their ossassin predecessor on the short bus? Is enough done to mitigate the inherent weakness of necrotic damage given its heavy use by the power source? Do the utility power options of the new races bring enough to the table to make up for their complete lack of racial feats, let alone the arbitrary penalties they've been saddled with? etc.
That said, I much prefer this review, but I think both are adequate analyses of the contents of the book, if lacking in the mechanical discussion department.
Are pro-e posters so vehement in their orthodoxy that even a highly favorable review (it gives the overall product a rating of what, A-? B+?) must be seen as derided as woefully biased simply for acknowledging the post-e focus, and calling it out as something that might prevent some from enjoying the book?
I am surprised that the reviewer gave the book such a high rating despite his bias. This does not change the fact that the reviewer wasted a significant amount of time and space complaining about Essentials design and that felt it was more important to complain about Essentials than it was to talk about
significant or critical analysis of the mechanics the book presents, which is really what I'd want to see out of a review for this book. Can the new strikers do their jobs, or do they join their ossassin predecessor on the short bus? Is enough done to mitigate the inherent weakness of necrotic damage given its heavy use by the power source? Do the utility power options of the new races bring enough to the table to make up for their complete lack of racial feats, let alone the arbitrary penalties they've been saddled with? etc.
these things.
The reviewer got so hung up on his own bias that his feelings about Essentials became more important in his review than the book he was supposed to be reviewing.
Malisteen: It was only after I finished the review, which a decent chunk of was admittedly a reaction to Neuroglyph's ENworld review, that I noticed it was missing my usual account of the mechanics presented and more detailed analysis of them. I'm going to be doing a more in-depth mechanical review of the book very soon, so thanks for the advice on what to discuss!
He keeps calling the Kit Builds "Classes," but other than that it seems like a very well written review.
Probably because they are classes, and because "kit builds" don't exist.
He keeps calling the Kit Builds "Classes," but other than that it seems like a very well written review.
Probably because they are classes, and because "kit builds" don't exist.
Why do you insist on sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la... not happening!"
Sub Classes/Kit Builds/E-Builds or whatever. They are not new classes. The only new class is the Vampire, and that seems to be a railed class. (No choices for a majoriaty of levels).
Why do you insist on sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la... not happening!"
Good question. Why do you do that, thaX? CelticMutt has proven, repeatedly, that he is right on this matter, but your brain won't absorb the information.
So you saying there are no base classes anymore? Or roles? Power Sources? Is Wizards gonna recall the PHB?
Or are you saying that Builds and Classes are the same thing? That because the new builds are self sustaining that they no longer take the Base Class into account at all?
What exactly are you saying?
The same problem exists with many of the debates here, ie "Essentials is/is not 4.5" or "HoS is/is not an Essentials book" In the end, both sides are arguing different things, both imagining the other is actually using the same terminology that they are. One side is generally arguing "X is equivalent to Y" while the other is arguing "X is not literally Y" not realizing their arguments are not mutually exclusive, and come down to what the definition of "is" is.
There's plenty wrong with HoS without arguing over semantics and terminology. Instead, why don't we discuss why it's okay/not okay for the Vampire to have two attack stats and how this limits their racial choices unnecessarily, or what thematic justification they have for using king-fu meditation aids and pagan equivalents of crucifixes to use their supernatural abilities.
Still this makes the vampire the only class in the lfr that can be a holy symbol using athesist as vampires are not a divine class at all. With I think it is a symbol of vengence a vampire can add 1d10 radiant damage to implement attacks against creatures that have attacked him or his allies. Beyond Ironic;)
On topic: regarding vampires and ki foci, if I may repost something I've read:
I've got a jar of dirt! I've got a jar of dirt! And guess what? It's dirt from my grave!
That's the sort of thing that makes sense as a vampire ki focus. Anything that either helps them meditate on their inner darkness or helps them fight it off. But really, it's just a result of 4e assuming that you need some sort of magic item to hit at higher levels. That's one thing I disagree with - it's the default. To me, that's a sacred cow 4e could have gotten rid of. Not necessarily getting rid of the +1 to +5 magic weapons, but changing what that +1 means. I could go into my approach, but that's further off topic. As for holy symbols, that really only makes sense for gods with a death theme. When I think vampire and religion, I think of vampires as foresaken by the gods. Well, except for dark gods, of course. But I guess that goes back to version of Count Dracula as Vlad Dracul, making a pact with the devil when things go awry. Like in the 90s Dracula movie with Keanu Reaves. Or the webcomic Dracula vs King Arthur. That's actually hard to justify to me, but I'm willing to read the fluff.
But multiple attack stats?! Really? Bah!
Well put, Damon Tor. My one thought on the matter: ThaX, please, just start using the term subclass. That's the accepted norm, subclass literally means below class, and hence it's an equivalent term to kit-build, except it's the term generally accepted for use. They refer to the same thing, they both specify that this is less than a class, it's different from typical pre-Essentials builds but fills a similar purpose, but it doesn't set off rants for anybody, and it doesn't sound and look ridiculous. Whether or not kit-build is a more accurate term for the same concept, it is aesthetically unappealing, and it grates my nerves every time I read it. Honestly, I don't give a damn about the semantics, I just find the word in and of itself annoying. It sounds clunky, that's my only complaint.
On topic: regarding vampires and ki foci, if I may repost something I've read:
I've got a jar of dirt! I've got a jar of dirt! And guess what? It's dirt from my grave!
That's the sort of thing that makes sense as a vampire ki focus. Anything that either helps them meditate on their inner darkness or helps them fight it off. But really, it's just a result of 4e assuming that you need some sort of magic item to hit at higher levels. That's one thing I disagree with - it's the default. To me, that's a sacred cow 4e could have gotten rid of. Not necessarily getting rid of the +1 to +5 magic weapons, but changing what that +1 means. I could go into my approach, but that's further off topic. As for holy symbols, that really only makes sense for gods with a death theme. When I think vampire and religion, I think of vampires as foresaken by the gods. Well, except for dark gods, of course. But I guess that goes back to version of Count Dracula as Vlad Dracul, making a pact with the devil when things go awry. Like in the 90s Dracula movie with Keanu Reaves. Or the webcomic Dracula vs King Arthur. That's actually hard to justify to me, but I'm willing to read the fluff.
But multiple attack stats?! Really? Bah!
They never learned their lesson. They did quite the opposite, actually. The previous classes with multiple attack stats could just pick one and ignore the other. The vampire is forced to use both. Basically forcing you to take a dex/cha class, or fail.
Well put, Damon Tor. My one thought on the matter: ThaX, please, just start using the term subclass. That's the accepted norm, subclass literally means below class, and hence it's an equivalent term to kit-build, except it's the term generally accepted for use. They refer to the same thing, they both specify that this is less than a class, it's different from typical pre-Essentials builds but fills a similar purpose, but it doesn't set off rants for anybody, and it doesn't sound and look ridiculous. Whether or not kit-build is a more accurate term for the same concept, it is aesthetically unappealing, and it grates my nerves every time I read it. Honestly, I don't give a damn about the semantics, I just find the word in and of itself annoying. It sounds clunky, that's my only complaint.
On topic: regarding vampires and ki foci, if I may repost something I've read:
I've got a jar of dirt! I've got a jar of dirt! And guess what? It's dirt from my grave!
That's the sort of thing that makes sense as a vampire ki focus. Anything that either helps them meditate on their inner darkness or helps them fight it off. But really, it's just a result of 4e assuming that you need some sort of magic item to hit at higher levels. That's one thing I disagree with - it's the default. To me, that's a sacred cow 4e could have gotten rid of. Not necessarily getting rid of the +1 to +5 magic weapons, but changing what that +1 means. I could go into my approach, but that's further off topic. As for holy symbols, that really only makes sense for gods with a death theme. When I think vampire and religion, I think of vampires as foresaken by the gods. Well, except for dark gods, of course. But I guess that goes back to version of Count Dracula as Vlad Dracul, making a pact with the devil when things go awry. Like in the 90s Dracula movie with Keanu Reaves. Or the webcomic Dracula vs King Arthur. That's actually hard to justify to me, but I'm willing to read the fluff.
But multiple attack stats?! Really? Bah!
They never learned their lesson. They did quite the opposite, actually. The previous classes with multiple attack stats could just pick one and ignore the other. The vampire is forced to use both. Basically forcing you to take a dex/cha class, or fail.
Or just not use some of your attack powers.
On topic: regarding vampires and ki foci, if I may repost something I've read:
I've got a jar of dirt! I've got a jar of dirt! And guess what? It's dirt from my grave!
That's the sort of thing that makes sense as a vampire ki focus.
Does the vampire need to dress like a pirate when he says the first two lines?
Seriously though Your ki focus can actually be a jar of dirt or rather a box of dirt. I think the original idea of what the ki focus would work better. It was supposed to be an internal well of magical energy that you could draw on to enhance your attacks. But people didn't like that because it made it hard to upgrade so they changed it to a physical object.
But really, it's just a result of 4e assuming that you need some sort of magic item to hit at higher levels. That's one thing I disagree with - it's the default. To me, that's a sacred cow 4e could have gotten rid of. Not necessarily getting rid of the +1 to +5 magic weapons, but changing what that +1 means.
You could try the inherent bonus system. While it is not the default, it is RAW.
That said, my Revenant Vampire will have a Ki Focus which is a memento from her dead Human Cavalier boyfriend from her past life, when she was a Vryloka Cosmic Sorcerer. I like it how I can use that memento idea as a mechanical bonus for her attacks.
But multiple attack stats?! Really? Bah!
They never learned their lesson. They did quite the opposite, actually. The previous classes with multiple attack stats could just pick one and ignore the other. The vampire is forced to use both. Basically forcing you to take a dex/cha class, or fail.
In case it has been missed, and given some of these comments, it has, most, if not all, of the secondary attack stat powers assume that the secondary stat is going to be between two and four points lower than the primary stat. All of the CHA attack powers I have seen are listed as "CHA +2 vs. Will"
If you actually make Charisma your secondary stat, then, depending on your Race, your CHA attacks should be on par or one better than your DEX attacks.
In case it has been missed, and given some of these comments, it has, most, if not all, of the secondary attack stat powers assume that the secondary stat is going to be between two and four points lower than the primary stat. All of the CHA attack powers I have seen are listed as "CHA +2 vs. Will"
If you actually make Charisma your secondary stat, then, depending on your Race, your CHA attacks should be on par or one better than your DEX attacks.
If you choose a Dex/Cha race then your Cha attacks should be 2 better than Dex attacks. Unless you do something crazy like 20 Dex 16 Cha like some of the Cha Opers insist on.
In case it has been missed, and given some of these comments, it has, most, if not all, of the secondary attack stat powers assume that the secondary stat is going to be between two and four points lower than the primary stat. All of the CHA attack powers I have seen are listed as "CHA +2 vs. Will"
If you actually make Charisma your secondary stat, then, depending on your Race, your CHA attacks should be on par or one better than your DEX attacks.
If you choose a Dex/Cha race then your Cha attacks should be 2 better than Dex attacks. Unless you do something crazy like 20 Dex 16 Cha like some of the Cha Opers insist on.
I would probably Dex 18, Cha 14 or 16, and drop the extra points in Con to increase my base Hit Points and possibly up my surge value by one. The way I see it, Vampires need to play a delicate game in order to survive with only 2 Healing Surges. Since I can attack any NAD At-Will, and almost no monster has universally good NADs, I think it is acceptable to not have a 20 in Dex.
In case it has been missed, and given some of these comments, it has, most, if not all, of the secondary attack stat powers assume that the secondary stat is going to be between two and four points lower than the primary stat. All of the CHA attack powers I have seen are listed as "CHA +2 vs. Will"
If you actually make Charisma your secondary stat, then, depending on your Race, your CHA attacks should be on par or one better than your DEX attacks.
Didn't miss that at all. The system assumes 18 in primary stat, 14 in secondary stat, 11 in tertiary stat before racials. With +2 to all the cha attacks, this means a dex/cha race will hit as well on cha attacks as dex attacks. A dex/other class will be -1 to hit on their cha attacks in this scenario, while a cha/other will be -1 to hit with all the other attacks.
No other class has this problem: even the "V" classes are designed assuming any given character will ignore one of the two primary stats. The Vampire is a "~" class with two primary stats and no secondaries, and no ability to chose a path that relies on neither.
The choice to sacrifice dex for higher cha is a trap. Your daily powers will be more accurate, but at the cost of most of your at-wills, including both the at-wills that your encounter power can trigger off of. Effectively, you do so in some attempt to become a sub-par controller. (as opposed to the sub-par striker you were intended to be.)
...I think it is acceptable to not have a 20 in Dex.
No.
To even begin to fulfil his role as a striker, the vampire cannot spare the ~10% damage decrease that comes with having 18 in the primary stat. It's a trap.
...I think it is acceptable to not have a 20 in Dex.
No.
To even begin to fulfil his role as a striker, the vampire cannot spare the ~10% damage decrease that comes with having 18 in the primary stat. It's a trap.
I will never understand this so called logic. No striker needs a 20 starting prime stat, including the Vampire. It's a bonus, not a necessity.
In case it has been missed, and given some of these comments, it has, most, if not all, of the secondary attack stat powers assume that the secondary stat is going to be between two and four points lower than the primary stat. All of the CHA attack powers I have seen are listed as "CHA +2 vs. Will"
If you actually make Charisma your secondary stat, then, depending on your Race, your CHA attacks should be on par or one better than your DEX attacks.
Didn't miss that at all. The system assumes 18 in primary stat, 14 in secondary stat, 11 in tertiary stat before racials. With +2 to all the cha attacks, this means a dex/cha race will hit as well on cha attacks as dex attacks. A dex/other class will be -1 to hit on their cha attacks in this scenario, while a cha/other will be -1 to hit with all the other attacks.
Actually, Char Op assumes 18 in Primary, 14 in Secondary and 11 in Tertiary before Racial.
The system assumes 16 in Primary, 14 in Secondary and 12 in Tertiary before Racial, and the "Feat Taxes" are meant to compensate for this assumption.
The CHA +2 assumes that the Secondary stat will be 4 lower than the Primary stat and that all attacks will remain even as a result. Because of this, there should be no "trap" of sacrificing Dex for Cha by which to be tempted.
Optimal performance requires that the Striker hit that extra 5% of the time that having a 20 requires, acceptable performance can afford an 18 after Racial (provided the appropriate Expertise Feat is taken by level 8 or so).
...I think it is acceptable to not have a 20 in Dex.
No.
To even begin to fulfil his role as a striker, the vampire cannot spare the ~10% damage decrease that comes with having 18 in the primary stat. It's a trap.
I will never understand this so called logic. No striker needs a 20 starting prime stat, including the Vampire. It's a bonus, not a necessity.
It's an issue of what you get for the sacrifice. For vampires, it appears to be a near certainty that it isn't worth the trade-off, nearly as bad for them as it is for scouts.
This cost benefit of 18-14 vs 16-16 or 16-14 is mostly a problem for dex-primary strikers, because dexterity is such a critical stat. For strikers with other primary scores, the tradeoff is less severe. Rogues can get away with lower dex scores because they have unusual accuraccy, easy combat advanatage, and deal a large amount of damage. The vampire has none of these traits, as he deals remarkably low damage and does not appear to come with any sort of accuraccy boost. (please correct me if I'm incorrect)
But I do get you points, so I shall ammend my sig and start using the PC term.
Stats for a character should be a do or die kind of situation. I beleive that a part of the intrigue of rolled stats is lost on the new generation, and all the stats kinda get lumped into a puzzle of what to do with an array to suit a class, and the choice of race is no longer an astetic, but depends on what the class chosen would benefit from.
All this plus 2 here and to low stats there seems nit picking to me, a munchkin tirade of nudging this and that for the PERFECT character.
with that said, can we talk about the vamp instead of the stats of perfection.
Edit: Grrr. The person on ENWorld that said all their encoutners were No Actions was apparently wrong. Oh well, a 2d12 encounter + and extra 2d8 if you spend a surge isn't bad. They're still mid-line, not abysmal.
While they're not Rogue or Ranger level DPSers, they look to be better than Ossassins... They're still mid-line, not abysmal.
Just to be through, I'll just note here that this has been thoroughly refuted. They are, in fact, worse than O-ssassins.
Just wanted to make sure nobody read this thread and actually tried to play one, thinking they were actually playable. Want to save them and their party the heartache.
While they're not Rogue or Ranger level DPSers, they look to be better than Ossassins... They're still mid-line, not abysmal.
Just to be through, I'll just note here that this has been thoroughly refuted. They are, in fact, worse than O-ssassins.
Just wanted to make sure nobody read this thread and actually tried to play one, thinking they were actually playable. Want to save them and their party the heartache.
Unfortunate but true.
Sub Class, to my mind, quanifies these builds as something more than what they are. It actually has the term "class" in them.
But I do get you points, so I shall ammend my sig and start using the PC term.
Thank you. And while I think you'll disagree, subclass seems appropriate because sub indicates less than class, and while a subclass may be a type of build, it changes just about all of the class features. From that light, subclass makes sense as a term - it even specifies where it differs from traditional builds.
Back on topic: I just read the analysis of vampire weakness, and well, damn.... Please at least tell me that the vampire's powers have a strong control element. While it may not work in optimization-oriented parties, I've never seen a problem with the Ossassin or warlock. The drop in damage potential was compensated for by the stronger control element and party dynamics. Which I'll admit, is an argument of "it's not broke if you can fix it." Flawed, I'll admit, but it's less broken if it's easy to fix. Or if it only appears broken next to high performance strikers.
why ease it up on the vampire? and they even will be begging for other players to give them a surge to bite after encounters, and if you dont have a defender with battlemind, fighter or warden surges your going to be SOL, this would be ok if they were as hard hitting as the rest of the new kids on the block
perhaps we need to see what happens, maybe an article fixes this, but taxing other party members surges without any BIG boom for your buck is just a waste.
Just to be through, I'll just note here that this has been thoroughly refuted. They are, in fact, worse than O-ssassins.
Just wanted to make sure nobody read this thread and actually tried to play one, thinking they were actually playable. Want to save them and their party the heartache.
I'm grasping at straws here, but the ossassin problem isn't so much poor first level damage as it is poor scaling. If the Vampire's offensive output scales noticeably better then the ossassins, then it could still prove to be a functional striker where the ossassin fails.
...I think it is acceptable to not have a 20 in Dex.
No.
To even begin to fulfil his role as a striker, the vampire cannot spare the ~10% damage decrease that comes with having 18 in the primary stat. It's a trap.
I will never understand this so called logic. No striker needs a 20 starting prime stat, including the Vampire. It's a bonus, not a necessity.
It's an issue of what you get for the sacrifice. For vampires, it appears to be a near certainty that it isn't worth the trade-off, nearly as bad for them as it is for scouts.
This cost benefit of 18-14 vs 16-16 or 16-14 is mostly a problem for dex-primary strikers, because dexterity is such a critical stat. For strikers with other primary scores, the tradeoff is less severe. Rogues can get away with lower dex scores because they have unusual accuraccy, easy combat advanatage, and deal a large amount of damage. The vampire has none of these traits, as he deals remarkably low damage and does not appear to come with any sort of accuraccy boost. (please correct me if I'm incorrect)
Can't correct you since I don't have the book... where did you get yours?
Thanks for the thread just about my review, and for the generally kind words, but especially for the critical but very helpful comments because that lets me know exactly how you guys percieve the review and what I need to work on or improve in the future!
Malisteen: It was only after I finished the review, which a decent chunk of was admittedly a reaction to Neuroglyph's ENworld review, that I noticed it was missing my usual account of the mechanics presented and more detailed analysis of them. I'm going to be doing a more in-depth mechanical review of the book very soon, so thanks for the advice on what to discuss!
If you don't mind, what's your impression of the mechanics.
specifically:
How do necrotic heavy classes overcome the proliferation of necro resist?
While the books is very arcane/divine heavy, how effective is the non-arcane/divine material (feats, etc)?
Malisteen: It was only after I finished the review, which a decent chunk of was admittedly a reaction to Neuroglyph's ENworld review, that I noticed it was missing my usual account of the mechanics presented and more detailed analysis of them. I'm going to be doing a more in-depth mechanical review of the book very soon, so thanks for the advice on what to discuss!
sorry for the late reply. Cool to hear that there's a more detialed review coming. I look forward to reading it.
He keeps calling the Kit Builds "Classes," but other than that it seems like a very well written review.
Probably because they are classes, and because "kit builds" don't exist.
Why do you insist on sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la... not happening!"
Oh the irony. This is just... precious.
Really, why do you think that Sub Classes are the same as Classes? Just because they are written differently than before? (When in X power books) That they have 3rd edition mechanics crowbared in them? Is it that the concept you want in a game consists of the Four Classes (Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Healer) and that would be it?
I suggest you play Guantlet, sir, and leave the real game to actual players.
Kit: any collection of items needed for a specific purpose, especially for use by a workman, or personal effects packed for travelling
I don't see how something restrictive, and lacking options can in any way be a "kit", or a "build", since you have nothing to build, and no collection to use.
Inheriting properties from the parent class however, fit's the slayer nicely.
That doesn't answar the question, Cyber. Classes are classes, this product only has one. A very limited one.
Really, why do you think that Sub Classes are the same as Classes? Just because they are written differently than before? (When in X power books) That they have 3rd edition mechanics crowbared in them? Is it that the concept you want in a game consists of the Four Classes (Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Healer) and that would be it?
I suggest you play Guantlet, sir, and leave the real game to actual players.
I suggest you stop insulting other posters.
And yes, they are actual classes because they are written up as actual classes.
blackgaurd was bada**, the new wizard powers are great and the cleric options are awsome
moreover they are all usable by their parent class
the vampire is weak, but who cares it is still unique and interesting
i felt that this book kicks a**
blackgaurd was bada**, the new wizard powers are great and the cleric options are awsome
moreover they are all usable by their parent class
the vampire is weak, but who cares it is still unique and interesting
Unique and interesting don't make for a well designed class, though. The Avenger is unique and interesting, and very functional within its role. The warlord is unique and interesting, etc.
I like the concept behind the vampire, but the execution on it is just horrible. Sits with the Ossassin in that regard.
i felt that this book kicks a**
blackgaurd was bada**, the new wizard powers are great and the cleric options are awsome
moreover they are all usable by their parent class
the vampire is weak, but who cares it is still unique and interesting
Unique and interesting don't make for a well designed class, though. The Avenger is unique and interesting, and very functional within its role. The warlord is unique and interesting, etc.
I like the concept behind the vampire, but the execution on it is just horrible. Sits with the Ossassin in that regard.
Dunno, it seems fine to me. Perhaps alot more swingy then other classes, but fine.
i felt that this book kicks a**
blackgaurd was bada**, the new wizard powers are great and the cleric options are awsome
moreover they are all usable by their parent class
the vampire is weak, but who cares it is still unique and interesting
Unique and interesting don't make for a well designed class, though. The Avenger is unique and interesting, and very functional within its role. The warlord is unique and interesting, etc.
I like the concept behind the vampire, but the execution on it is just horrible. Sits with the Ossassin in that regard.
sorry it isent as tough as you want it to be, but not everything will put up numbers like theives, slayers, rangers, avengers or all the other psycho classes out there.
however, it dosent do enough to offset its obvious and glaring weaknesses, namly the healing surge stuff and the vunrability to radiant. if your DM is a metagamer then he will probably keep throwing this stuff in your face, and you dont do enough damage or dibilitation to make it a fair trade.
but that is the only downspot of the book, i mean from the way people talk you would think that vampire was the only thing in the book.
I just got it today. Still digesting everything, but I'm more than a little disappointed by the necromancer. It fails to deliver as master of an undead horde. You get two powers that create/summon undead. And technically, it's the same power that can summon one of two different things, depending on level. Not entirely clear to me if you can actually use both, or if the later one replaces the first. I'm sure some people will defend it saying the necromancer doesn't just summon undead: it does the other necromancy stuff: blights, curses, and fear. I'll admit that's got quite a history in D&D. But classic necromancer stuff is an army of undead. This class can't deliver on that sub-archetype of necromancer, which if you ask me, is the more classical one. That has me really pissed.
Thats actually pretty fail compared to normal 'summoner' class builds even. Usually the summoner build has a number of dailies at every daily level that summon something. I know this is Essentials style, and limited options are apparently "in" right now, but you'd think there'd atleast be a summon at every level.
I wasn't expecting an army or horde, but Im surprised there's only 2.
I just got it today. Still digesting everything, but I'm more than a little disappointed by the necromancer. It fails to deliver as master of an undead horde. You get two powers that create/summon undead. And technically, it's the same power that can summon one of two different things, depending on level. Not entirely clear to me if you can actually use both, or if the later one replaces the first. I'm sure some people will defend it saying the necromancer doesn't just summon undead: it does the other necromancy stuff: blights, curses, and fear. I'll admit that's got quite a history in D&D. But classic necromancer stuff is an army of undead. This class can't deliver on that sub-archetype of necromancer, which if you ask me, is the more classical one. That has me really pissed.
Thats actually pretty fail compared to normal 'summoner' class builds even. Usually the summoner build has a number of dailies at every daily level that summon something. I know this is Essentials style, and limited options are apparently "in" right now, but you'd think there'd atleast be a summon at every level.
I wasn't expecting an army or horde, but Im surprised there's only 2.
They should have thrown this in there as a bonus at-will class feature:
Spawn Undead - Necromancer utility 1
Shadow, Implement - close blast 2 - Standard Action
You call out using your shadowy essence and an undead being claws
its way through the ground from a long forgotten battle or graveyard.
Effect: You create an undead minion of half your level or lower (minimum 1) in an unoccupied square in range. Upon creation the minion can make a single basic attack or move action. The undead minion persists until the end of the encounter or until killed as per minion rules in PHB (pg X).
You may expend a move action to make the minion attack with a basic attack. You may expend a minor action to make the minion move. If you make a minion attack you may not make an attack yourself in the same round. You may not control more undead minions than your level.
They could make a few encounter powers to enhance this allowing your entire group of undead to move or attack in a single round. Maybe throw a daily out there that does the same thing but allows you to create your maximum number of undead minions and make them all attack or move in the same round.
Wow see what I can do in five minutes WotC... Try to keep up...
To be fair, I did leave out the fact that the necromancer version of the enigmatic mage paragon path gets you one more summons, and this one summons five undead minions that last until your next extended rest. I mean, it is an awesome spell, and it does what a necromancer should do. There's just something wrong that you can't be a necromancer in charge of a hoarde until level 20.
Is there a reason you can't make a ritual to do this?
I mean they have henchman rules (sorta) so could you not make an undead "template" for henchmen and say that there you go. GP for army. simple.
To be fair, I did leave out the fact that the necromancer version of the enigmatic mage paragon path gets you one more summons, and this one summons five undead minions that last until your next extended rest.
It's a shame the rest of the necromancer's version of Enigmatic Mage is so horrifically bad.
But Nulathoe's Undead Army isn't all that great a power anyway. "Lasts until your next extended rest" sounds good until you remember they are minions, with only 1 hp each. Good luck actually keeping them around for more than a single encounter. It's also very difficult to get them from one encounter to another even if they do somehow survive, since you need to spend a minor action each to get them to move anywhere. There's nothing in that power worth losing a healing surge (and taking an otherwise utterly pants PP) for.
To be fair, I did leave out the fact that the necromancer version of the enigmatic mage paragon path gets you one more summons, and this one summons five undead minions that last until your next extended rest.
It's a shame the rest of the necromancer's version of Enigmatic Mage is so horrifically bad.
But Nulathoe's Undead Army isn't all that great a power anyway. "Lasts until your next extended rest" sounds good until you remember they are minions, with only 1 hp each. Good luck actually keeping them around for more than a single encounter. It's also very difficult to get them from one encounter to another even if they do somehow survive, since you need to spend a minor action each to get them to move anywhere. There's nothing in that power worth losing a healing surge (and taking an otherwise utterly pants PP) for.
Rule 0: Out of combat movement, you can order them like an army and not have to worry about it. But yeah, it's not an amazing power, and the rest of the paragon path sucks. I mean really? You spend an action point, and adjacent enemies gain necrotic vulnerability? Um, hello? Mage! What you doin' in melee?!
On a kinda related topic. I find close burst powers on controllers, especially only like close burst 1 or 2, rather pointess.
I guess to use a necrotic close burst power he saves for his action points.
On a kinda related topic. I find close burst powers on controllers, especially only like close burst 1 or 2, rather pointess.
Sometimes things get past your range-keeping defenses, and then you want to make them explode.
I guess to use a necrotic close burst power he saves for his action points.
On a kinda related topic. I find close burst powers on controllers, especially only like close burst 1 or 2, rather pointess.
Sometimes things get past your range-keeping defenses, and then you want to make them explode.
True enough, but when choosing powers, do you want one that can save your rear if things are going horribly but is otherwise useless, or would rather choose a power that's useful all the time? I'd probably go for the latter.
i felt that this book kicks a**
blackgaurd was bada**, the new wizard powers are great and the cleric options are awsome
moreover they are all usable by their parent class
the vampire is weak, but who cares it is still unique and interesting
Unique and interesting don't make for a well designed class, though. The Avenger is unique and interesting, and very functional within its role. The warlord is unique and interesting, etc.
I like the concept behind the vampire, but the execution on it is just horrible. Sits with the Ossassin in that regard.
sorry it isent as tough as you want it to be, but not everything will put up numbers like theives, slayers, rangers, avengers or all the other psycho classes out there.
however, it dosent do enough to offset its obvious and glaring weaknesses, namly the healing surge stuff and the vunrability to radiant. if your DM is a metagamer then he will probably keep throwing this stuff in your face, and you dont do enough damage or dibilitation to make it a fair trade.
but that is the only downspot of the book, i mean from the way people talk you would think that vampire was the only thing in the book.
Old post, but the vampire isn't the worst thing in the book. I think that goes to the Shade. The vampire does utterly fail as a striker, though.
the executioner: 7/10, its a decent striker in its own right, the poisions are a awsome concept and fun to play with id moss is my favorite one, however it is a reprint of a reprint in dragon magazine, but im not a member of DDI and wouldent have access to it if kept DDI exclusive so WOO HOO
the vampire: 2/10, ugh and.... ugh and....ugh starting with the 2 healing surges and moving on to find it has no class feats and crunching the numbers to reveal at best i can only make it barly passable as a striker. then i look at the mediocre things i can do with it and realize that it is pointless because its a drain on other peoples surges while contributing so little i just said, "eh no" however the concept is cool but it suffers even more because the vampire has no options to customize
the blackgaurd 11/10 it turns awsome to a new level, and my new favorite class, it hits like a truck and does so in a unique intresting way, the concept is bad*** and the access to the paladins seemingly endless bucket of tricks and support make this one class you really want to look at not to mention it has all the HP, defense bonuses and armor/weapon proficencies of the paladin
the binder 7.5/10 while i like its concept and it has some awsome artwork, i dont really see myself messing with this class too much, most of the warlock feats are tied to the curse, so it has a small pool of feats (like 5) to play with within its class, however it is a pretty cool concept and i find you have some decent control with it, not bad but not great either.
cleric options 8/10 this is great if your a cleric who worships a dark god and gives you powers that are really cool although "servitude in death" should of been in the necromancer section
mage options 2/10 only 4 things i see myself ever using, the summons, ebony razers, unraveling dart and soul harvest. the schools are meh and the necromancer dosent get his undead army until level 20 and even then, they suck to be frank, they follow normal summon rules and there is 5 of them, there is really no use for them but to eat up space since they only do a paltry non scaling amount of damage, you can pull off 11 damage at level 1 with no sweat and this is right before EPIC.
if i designed this book, this would be a level 1 power, you would have 5 minions a day to summon and they would take a move, minor and standard at the end of your turn and they would a scaling amount of damage (probably like int modifier+1/2 level) not game breaking or in many peoples eyes optomal but it would satisfy your ability to be a necromancer, and the servatude in death power would allow you to gather another undead minion, it sucks that your stuck with this crappy excuse of a wizard while the pyromancer gets to blow up the universe.
shade 0/10 the worst thing in the book a compleatly unplayable race, you take a penelty for one of the more important things in the game and get a useless at will standard action hide that has almost no use whatsoever.
gloom pact hexblade 8/10 a reach weapon on a hexblade? and one nifty slide 1 and -2 to attack rolls at will power, and a multi use encounter power that dazes! neat! the emoblade is born! but no flail expertise and they need to errata the attacks to have the implement keyword.... no way that was intentional
death warpriest 5/10 sun domain is better, alot better. but this is pretty cool concept wise
vryloka 9/10 now were talking, 7 speed, low light, cha and dex/str, a encounter power that gives you 3 options of what it can do including a shift your speed or grant temps, hell yeah. this is like the son that gets stright As and goes to hartvard while the shade is like his brother who dropped out of high school and went to work at a gas station. the only thing stopping a 10 is no racial feats
revnent, nothing new already knew of this race and already have it in my old offline CB
feats 7/10 i like feats as a general rule, you can never have enough in my book, but apparently in this book you can, only 2 pages worth and no racial feats or class feats ki focus expertise and holy symbol expertise are much needed in the post essentials expertise era, they just need to put the special feats in for the rest of the weapon/implement groups other then that pretty solid group here.
art 10/10 most of you dont look at D&D books for art but i found the art to be really cool so bravo to the artists
overall i like this book, the blackgaurd, binder, executioner, gloom pact, vryloka and the art are for me what make the book a really good product
the shade, vampire and necromancer are those pages that will get stuck together because you never flip to them the necromancer is pretty much so bad its beyond errata
Your binder score's way high. A binder is a warlock who gives up their striker bonus damage for, as near as I can tell, absolutely nothing.
Class feats and racial feats are likely a thing of the past.
And that's a dire shame because there are some terrible races and classes out there, and in particular some terrible races and classes within the pages of Heroes of Shadow, that are really dying at the moment, and patch feats, while lame, might be the only thing that could salvage them.
Further, race and class feats, especially for races and classes that currently don't have any, really don't contribute to the overall feat glut the way general feats do.
A bunch of vampire or vryloka feats wouldn't show up on the list when someone's trying to sift through the pile of garbage for something worthwhile for their rogue or druid, but the dozen or so terrible general feats they did print in Heroes of Shadow will.
Your mage score's a bit low. Nethermancy is pretty decent.
Your binder score's way high. A binder is a warlock who gives up their striker bonus damage for, as near as I can tell, absolutely nothing.
you make a good point, but i think the binder is really cool and i dont think its powers are too bad
the mage stuff exept for 3 powers i feel is a bunch of junk that does stuff that mages could do already/better with other powers
Binder: yeah it's thematically cool, but it's also thematically the same as a warlock, and warlock has better control powers already. Seriously, almost any binder you could play would be mechanically better yet thematically the same as a warlock, apart from gimmicky builds using polearm momentum and the like.
Your mage score's a bit low. Nethermancy is pretty decent.
Your binder score's way high. A binder is a warlock who gives up their striker bonus damage for, as near as I can tell, absolutely nothing.
Yeah, what is with that?
There most likely won't ever be feats for Subclass builds, and class feats might have to wait for actual classes to return.
There should have been Racial feats in this product. I imagine someone with a page of these feats that was supposed to make it in, realizing that they didn't get them in, smacking his forehead and voicing a simpson epitath.
"Doh!"
A step in the right direction.
Your mage score's a bit low. Nethermancy is pretty decent.
Your binder score's way high. A binder is a warlock who gives up their striker bonus damage for, as near as I can tell, absolutely nothing.
Yeah, what is with that?
They also have striker HP while being a controller still.
Also their replacement of Prime Shot is much, much more likely to be used.
Also their replacement of Prime Shot is much, much more likely to be used.
Most likely the "updated" Warlock class will have its Prime Shot adjusted to match the Binder in June.
Even with Striker hps, the Binder is still lacking. I would not even call them a Controller when some of their powers match what the Warlock already has.
I do like both of their At-Wills & 9th level Summons though. I really want to like the class but they still need something else.
Unfortuately without the Striker dmg, their pact boon is not going to activate as much since it will be harder for them to knock an enemy down to zero.....and they shouldn't be adjacent to any enemy.
Unfortuately without the Striker dmg, their pact boon is not going to activate as much since it will be harder for them to knock an enemy down to zero.....and they shouldn't be adjacent to any enemy.
You do know it says "Trigger: You reduce a creature to 0 hit points, OR an enemy adjacent to you drops to 0 hit points." because sooner or later, monsters are going to get on top of him....and they may get killed before it becomes his turn to kill them
Unfortuately without the Striker dmg, their pact boon is not going to activate as much since it will be harder for them to knock an enemy down to zero.....and they shouldn't be adjacent to any enemy.
You do know it says "Trigger: You reduce a creature to 0 hit points, OR an enemy adjacent to you drops to 0 hit points." because sooner or later, monsters are going to get on top of him....and they may get killed before it becomes his turn to kill them
Yeah, but as he said, the Binder isn't likely to be adjacent to an enemy. For a hexblade thats a fine trigger, for the binder, not so much. I will say however, as a controller your likely to be atleast catching minions in your AOE's, so there's some extra triggers.
But yeah, I want to like the binder too, unfortunately I don't like a fair amount of its powers. I generally like a good forced movement/aoe at-will, and the binder doesnt really deliver in either.
With the mage (well, the non-HoS builds of mage atleast) they finally learned how to make proper controller features...and then proceeded to forget them.
They also have striker HP while being a controller still.
Highly debatable, given how weak most of the binder's "control" is.
Also their replacement of Prime Shot is much, much more likely to be used.
Disagree. You can always get prime shot. Always. Warlock even has some options for moving into melee if necessary. If you need it, it's there. That isn't the case for the binder's shadow twist. If something's adjacent to the target, you just don't get the bonus, period. Nothing you can do about it.