One thing that struck me is that this might be an experimental format for future power source intros. I mean shadow and elemental are the only power sources left without at least four classes, and it seems like WotC is slowing down on the races, so maybe they don't want to make PHBs anymore?
Just wonder about peoples hopes/fears for Heroes of Shadow.
One thing that struck me is that this might be an experimental format for future power source intros. I mean shadow and elemental are the only power sources left without at least four classes, and it seems like WotC is slowing down on the races, so maybe they don't want to make PHBs anymore?
This was asked at GenCon and been clarified. The Assassin will remain a DDI exclusive, and the copy on the catalog entry is wrong. We DDI subscribers have had the Assassin to ourselves for well over a year by the time Heroes of Shadow ships, it wouldn't bother me at all if Wizards opened the class up to all by publishing it in a book (same goes for the Revenant).
The copy also mentions a Hexblade class. Adding to the confusion about the content of Heroes of Shadow, Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms will include a new Warlock build, the Hexblade.
Since Heroes of Shadow is further down the development cycle, it is possible that Assassin and Hexblade were just "working names" for the new classes in Heroes of Shadow, and they will have "final names" when the book ships (maybe Lurk instead of Assassin and Blackguard instead of Hexblade). It would be nice to get some clarification from Wizards about this, though.
And to answer the other question: yes, I get the feeling that this is how Power Source books will be done from now on. Dedicate a book to the power source, have new builds and classes be in that book, as well as options for flavoring characters of other sources. I would expect to see either "Arcane Heroes" or "Heroes of the Elemental Chaos" next, after Heroes of Shadow.
i can roll with power books instead of phbs. as far as the power books having essential builds (and all that baggage) I am fine with this. actually i really don't see a difference between essentials builds and phb/powers builds. maybe we will see shadow powers books?
The assassain as we know it now is to remain DDI exclusive but there will be a essentials assassain in the heroes of shadow.
Actually we get the essentials assassin next week.
Since Heroes of Shadow is further down the development cycle, it is possible that Assassin and Hexblade were just "working names" for the new classes in Heroes of Shadow, and they will have "final names" when the book ships (maybe Lurk Shadowdancer instead of Assassin and Blackguard Shadowguard instead of Hexblade). It would be nice to get some clarification from Wizards about this, though.
"We are neither the light or the dark, but forever in the shadows. We.... are gray."
And to answer the other question: yes, I get the feeling that this is how Power Source books will be done from now on. Dedicate a book to the power source, have new builds and classes be in that book, as well as options for flavoring characters of other sources. I would expect to see either "Arcane Heroes" or "Heroes of the Elemental Chaos" next, after Heroes of Shadow.
I believe that we will have a phb4, perhaps in 2012, with the Elemential power source with Shadow and Psionics as the lesser. Still am wondering if there will be any new classes/races in the full PHB that is out for 2011 (is it Players Options?)
I believe that we will have a phb4, perhaps in 2012, with the Elemential power source with Shadow and Psionics as the lesser. Still am wondering if there will be any new classes/races in the full PHB that is out for 2011 (is it Players Options?)
Nothing announced for next year has a number on it. Even the second Monster Vault doesn't have a number, it's Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale. As to the 2011 Player's Handbook, Player's Handbook: Champions of the Heroic Tier is to have options for characters level 1-10. Feats, Themes for core D&D, character options for Professions (without using up Skill Training slots or Feats), and other character options for existing classes for levels 1-10 were what it was described as (3e "Unearthed Arcana-esque" was the analogy given), rather than another book in the Player's Handbook 1-2-3 model with new races and classes. It could have races in it (such as the stat choice for the PH2 races that weren't covered yet) but as it's focused on levels 1-10 it's hard to see it having any class write-ups in it.
I believe that we will have a phb4, perhaps in 2012, with the Elemential power source with Shadow and Psionics as the lesser. Still am wondering if there will be any new classes/races in the full PHB that is out for 2011 (is it Players Options?)
Nothing announced for next year has a number on it. Even the second Monster Vault doesn't have a number, it's Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale. As to the 2011 Player's Handbook, Player's Handbook: Champions of the Heroic Tier is to have options for characters level 1-10. Feats, Themes for core D&D, character options for Professions (without using up Skill Training slots or Feats), and other character options for existing classes for levels 1-10 were what it was described as (3e "Unearthed Arcana-esque" was the analogy given), rather than another book in the Player's Handbook 1-2-3 model with new races and classes. It could have races in it (such as the stat choice for the PH2 races that weren't covered yet) but as it's focused on levels 1-10 it's hard to see it having any class write-ups in it.
not directed at the author who wrote this quote. listen to the podcast from gencon about the future announcements. bill specifically states that there will be a Nentir Valley Monster Vault. he goes on to say that those who are wanting another monster manual can look towards the nentir valley instead. meaning, there isn't going to be a monster manual 4 in 2011. i am very muchly looking forward to the nentir valley monster vault.
this goes on to show that if another vault is coming out in 2011 then we very well may have seen the end of power, monster manual, player handbook, etc...as the nentir valley is an extension of the essentials.
listen to the podcast from gencon about the future announcements. bill specifically states that there will be a Nentir Valley Monster Vault. he goes on to say that those who are wanting another monster manual can look towards the nentir valley instead. meaning, there isn't going to be a monster manual 4 in 2011.
That's what I said.
listen to the podcast from gencon about the future announcements. bill specifically states that there will be a Nentir Valley Monster Vault. he goes on to say that those who are wanting another monster manual can look towards the nentir valley instead. meaning, there isn't going to be a monster manual 4 in 2011.
That's what I said.
heh...oops
I want a widescreen wallpaper of this now!
With more specificly themed stuff you have a better idea of what to create monster wise than just making alittle bit of everything.
You know what, if the PE Assassin becomes more... assassin-y, and can deal out more damage, less dancing, and more shadows. I think I'm all for it. Even if it has to leave DDI exclusitivity. I just want a more... assassin-y Assassin.
Yeah, it'd be a great to have an assassin that could actually kill monsters instead of mildly inconviencing them.
There's alot of shadowy monsters in movies, books, and anime that could really make the assassin into an awesome class. More conjurations, zones, abilities to turn enemies against eachother, and just plain damage needs to be there. If they want control, it needs to be decent enough control to keep other enemies at bay while you go after your main target.
Then we hear that the Hexblade is actually a build of warlock, and that's bad news, too. The hexblade could have been an awesome dark knight class - but now it's a warlock? Will that mean light/no armor? Will that mean arcane and not shadow? The hexblade totally had enough conceptual space to fill out an entire class, expecially if it absorbed the dark knight / blackguard concepts, and now it's being shoe-horned into something else entirely?
Will Heroes of Shadow have any new classes? At this point it's sounding like a handful of shadow themed options for non-shadow classes and nothing more.
Which I think sucks. I was so looking forward to Heroes of Shadow from the catalog blurb - it looked like exactly the 4e book I've been longing for since the system's debut. Since then every new bit of information we've received about the book or its contents has been another painful dissapointment. Shadow was set to be my favorite power source, conceptually, with my favorite classes in it, and now one of those classes has been eaten by a non-shadow class that shares very little conceptual space, and another has been locked in the ddi ghetto. If they screw up the necromancer - a class I've been waiting for since 4e was released, it really is going to suck all the joy out of D&D for me.
The day it was released, people downloaded and posted it all over the web.
Having exclusive content is stupid. For example, some people like to shop at Sams Club (an exlusive grocery store in which you have to have a membership card to get in). I refuse to pay basically a cover charge to walk in to a grocery store. So you know what? I simply buy the exact same products next door at Wal-Mart.
DDI is the same thing. People at our local gaming store wanted the assassin handouts. One of the gamers said "Oh...I have that" and let the players copy all the PDFs to their flash drives. So much for being exclusive.
If you people actually think that the assassin was an exclusive, you couldn't be more incorrect.
The day it was released, people downloaded and posted it all over the web.
Having exclusive content is stupid. For example, some people like to shop at Sams Club (an exlusive grocery store in which you have to have a membership card to get in). I refuse to pay basically a cover charge to walk in to a grocery store. So you know what? I simply buy the exact same products next door at Wal-Mart.
DDI is the same thing. People at our local gaming store wanted the assassin handouts. One of the gamers said "Oh...I have that" and let the players copy all the PDFs to their flash drives. So much for being exclusive.
You know Wal-Mart owns Sam's Club, right? And it's not a grocery store, per say. It's a warehouse club. It tends to sell in bulk, and at cheaper prices.
If you people actually think that the assassin was an exclusive, you couldn't be more incorrect.
The day it was released, people downloaded and posted it all over the web.
Having exclusive content is stupid. For example, some people like to shop at Sams Club (an exlusive grocery store in which you have to have a membership card to get in). I refuse to pay basically a cover charge to walk in to a grocery store. So you know what? I simply buy the exact same products next door at Wal-Mart.
DDI is the same thing. People at our local gaming store wanted the assassin handouts. One of the gamers said "Oh...I have that" and let the players copy all the PDFs to their flash drives. So much for being exclusive.
while you bring up a good point about pirating and sharing, i can say that I game with people of integrity. all of us have ddi subscriptions. one of my friends calls them prescriptions on accident- we correct her all the time. we sent a couple packing because they had pirated d&d PDF books- punks.
In fact, a leaked quote from Heroes of Fallen Lands specifically listed the Assassin's new build (Executioner) that we're getting the 17th of this month as being from DDI.
What we don't know is if Heroes of Shadow will actually present new classes or just expand on the current ones.
In fact the snippet on the catalogue talks about Assassins and Hexblades. And we know a new Warlock build in Heroes of Forgotten Kingdoms is going to be named Hexblade, so now some people is speculating that Necromancers could just be specialist Wizards and so on.
I actually hope we're getting brand new Hexblade, Necromancers (and maybe Witch? Witch-Doctor like in Diablo 3??) classes with Heroes of Shadow and maybe (why not) also another type of Assassin, but that would mean either publishing DDI-dependent material or simply cancelling the DDI-exclusivity of the class.
ugh, leave diablo out of d&d please. if I want a witchblade I'll play diablo 3. way to stay on topic
I said "like in Diablo 3" because Witch-Doctor (not Witchblade) is one of its classes, but the concept of witch-doctors is far from being a Diablo exclusive, and it's actually older and more consolidated in fantasy culture than many of the new D&D classes such as the Warden, the Avenger and more than anything the Seeker, which is a class that has no roots whatsoever in fantasy culture, and only vague roots in myths that are quickly ruined by the discordant name, powers, and role of the class.
A witch-doctor (or simply witch) is instead a concept/niche that D&D 4e has never filled with a class, if not with big approximation by the setting-specific Artificer.
It would be a shadow-necromancery-themed Artificer-like leader, with a focus on fear-based attacks, short range healing (strange concoctions) and maybe powers dealing with the corpses of the monsters.
What's more: Necromancers, just as Druids, have always been capable of being both controllers and leaders. So just as they split the old Druid's leading and controlling powers between Shaman and Druid, it would be straightforward to split the old Necromancer into a controller class and a leader class. Whatever name they choose for them is ok with me, the important thing for me and most here in teh community would be to have both a shadow controller and a shadow leader.
ugh, leave diablo out of d&d please. if I want a witchblade I'll play diablo 3. way to stay on topic
I said "like in Diablo 3" because Witch-Doctor (not Witchblade) is one of its classes, but the concept of witch-doctors is far from being a Diablo exclusive, and it's actually older and more consolidated in fantasy culture than many of the new D&D classes such as the Warden, the Avenger and more than anything the Seeker, which is a class that has no roots whatsoever in fantasy culture, and only vague roots in myths that are quickly ruined by the discordant name, powers, and role of the class.
A witch-doctor (or simply witch) is instead a concept/niche that D&D 4e has never filled with a class, if not with big approximation by the setting-specific Artificer.
It would be a shadow-necromancery-themed Artificer-like leader, with a focus on fear-based attacks, short range healing (strange concoctions) and maybe powers dealing with the corpses of the monsters.
What's more: Necromancers, just as Druids, have always been capable of being both controllers and leaders. So just as they split the old Druid's leading and controlling powers between Shaman and Druid, it would be straightforward to split the old Necromancer into a controller class and a leader class. Whatever name they choose for them is ok with me, the important thing for me and most here in teh community would be to have both a shadow controller and a shadow leader.
fair enough. I get what you are saying. I too would like to see a necromancer class. don't know about the witch-doctor but apparently i can't quote it's name correctly so I'll pass judgement on it.
I to am hoping for some new classes but the more we find out about this sourcebook the less we seem to be getting. This was the book I wanted most in the coming year but as I find out more about it the less I am inclined to get it.
I feel the same way. This product had so much potential, and should have been so easy to develop. A slam dunk. And yet, the more I hear of it, the less they seem to be getting right.
How hard was it to list and detail 3 to 5 shadowish races, 3 to 4 classes in the shadow power source, feats, paragon paths, items and multiclass info for the detailed races and classes, some fluff on the shadowfell and characters who draw power from it, and a handful of shadowy themes, feats, skill powers, and epic destinies for anyone who wants a bit of shadow flavor.
Again, seriously, this book is awesome and totally writes itself. I could design this thing in my sleep, though I'd need some good developers to test & balance the content.
Even the new classes wrote themselves - the hexblade wrote itself as a weapon using Shadow Defender, with the hex as its marking mechanic and curse themed punishment. Have a non-AC primary stat and a choice of AC or non-AC secondary stat builds (ie, a heavy armored version and a light armored version). Add in powers that do theme appropriate damage (cold, poison, necrotic), mark punishments that inflict theme appropriate conditions (blind, weakened), some powers to grant allies concealment or invisibility... I mean, really. I have a hard time seeing how a subclass of Warlock will come even close to the mark, here.
It seemed like such an obvious product, but the more I hear, the more confused I am. Where did they go wrong? Did someone wake up and say 'a PHB for shadow characters is too awesome to exist, we need to take a hack saw to this thing, pronto'?
This is, for now, all speculation based on the ONLY sure fact that we're going to have a hexblade BUILD.
Granted, it stinks: it's not easy to think that we're getting both a build and a class with the same name, but isn't it the case of the Avenger build of the Paladin class? Still it's just a name, no more references are made to it, and when we see "Requirement: Avenger class", we know it's not something for a Paladin. The same could happen with the Hexblade, and in that case, we're also surely going to get the much-awaited Necromancer class and who knows, maybe also a shadow leader or controller that will not be a necromancer.
A better example is the Ardent Paladin though. There's also the Ardent Champion PP for the Avenger.
@Malisteen: wait, you're assuming as many others that since we'll get a hexbalde build for warlock, we'll also get a necromancer build for wizards (which is absolute speculation) and we're basically not getting any base class with the book.
This is, for now, all speculation based on the ONLY sure fact that we're going to have a hexblade BUILD.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just expressing my mounting frustration. When the blurb for this book was released, it sounded very much like we were getting printed classes for hexblade, necromancer, and assassin, and I couldn't have been happier. Since then, we've learned that there won't be any assassin content or options in this book, in order to preserve the ddi exclusivity that was such a terrible idea in the first place. Then we find out that hexblade isn't it's own class, it's a subclass of warlock, which is going to seriously hamper it's potential in terms of feat, path, and power support. We haven't heard anything on the necromancer, but since the only reason to think there would be a necromancer in the book was the sentence that also implied hexblades and assassins, there's now no real reason to believe there'll be a necromancer at all, much less as it's own class, and with what I consider to be extremely poor decisions made for the assassin and hexblade, I'm succenly left with very little confidence for the necromancer.
Granted, it stinks: it's not easy to think that we're getting both a build and a class with the same name, but isn't it the case of the Avenger build of the Paladin class? Still it's just a name, no more references are made to it, and when we see "Requirement: Avenger class", we know it's not something for a Paladin. The same could happen with the Hexblade, and in that case, we're also surely going to get the much-awaited Necromancer class and who knows, maybe also a shadow leader or controller that will not be a necromancer.
I've pretty much lost all confidence at this point. At this point I don't know if I'm anticipating or dreading this product.
Again, it seemed like such an easy thing to make, but every new detail and tidbit we hear is eroding its awesomeness, rather then building it up.
@Malisteen: wait, you're assuming as many others that since we'll get a hexbalde build for warlock, we'll also get a necromancer build for wizards (which is absolute speculation) and we're basically not getting any base class with the book.
This is, for now, all speculation based on the ONLY sure fact that we're going to have a hexblade BUILD.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just expressing my mounting frustration. When the blurb for this book was released, it sounded very much like we were getting printed classes for hexblade, necromancer, and assassin, and I couldn't have been happier. Since then, we've learned that there won't be any assassin content or options in this book, in order to preserve the ddi exclusivity that was such a terrible idea in the first place. Then we find out that hexblade isn't it's own class, it's a subclass of warlock,
Bolded text is the contraddiction: we haven't learned for sure none of the things you say.
Although it's probable that Assassin's going to remain DDI exclusive (since I guess most people would not be happy otherwise), it is much more probable that we'll get a full-fledged shadow defender, since the hexblade build of the warlock is not going to be a defender, but a striker, and that we know for sure, as well as we know that the new essential build for Druids (Sentinel) is going to be a leader.
And I guess we don't know that Hexblade will be a build of warlock, because apparantly scans of pages of published books also don't constitute 'knowing' things, either.
Oh, wait, maybe we just don't have the same definition of knowing things? Or maybe we do, because you tell me I'm making wild assumptions when I say the Hexblade is a build of warlock, and then you say one of the things we do know is that the Hexblade is a build of warlock.
Er....?
And then you say we'll almost assuredly see a shadow defender. We'll I'd love for that to be the case. Really, I would. But is there any evidence at all supporting that? Something in the blurb? A quote from a developer? No? Which one of us is making assumptions, again?
Maybe I'm just confused. I'm certainly grumpy, and I aplogize for that, at least.
- We have proof that there's going to be a hexblade build for warlocks.
- It is only wild assumption to state there's NOT going to be a Hexblade full class.
The facts:
We have a Shadow power source and we know for sure that the developers are not making power sources for one single class to use them. That's why they ditched the Ki power source. So if they wanted to make the Assassin the only Shadow class, they would have made it Arcane, or even Primal for that matter (they don't care very much about theme, look at the Seeker...).
The developers always said "they loved necromancers", it's a true quote compiled in the rumors compilation.
Plus, the blurb cites Hexblades and Necromancers along Assassins. Assassins are a full class. It's not logic to assume that they're mixing builds and classes together, in the same sentence.
Now,
I'm not saying these facts completely assure that we're getting both Hexblade and Necromancers, but there's absolutely nothing that disconfirms that.
As for the Hexblade, it's possible the name was just a placeholder and the class is called something else in HoS. It's also completely possible WotC is going to have a build/sub-class and full class with the same name. But it's also completely possible it's nothing more than more options for the Hexblade Warlock. Just like it is completely possible for the Necromancer to be a full class, or a Wizard build. Both are fully possible.
Saying that there is no way the Necromancer won't be a full class is just as foolish and naive as saying it will be just a build at this point.
Uh ... no, we have learned for sure that the Assassin won't be in Heroes of Shadow. WotC reps and staff have said that repeatedly, first at GenCon and then on these and other boards: the Assassin will not be in Hereos of Shadow. It will only be getting articles in Dragon like the playtest this month to coincide with Essentials releases.
That doesn't change my points, I actually said it was the most probable thing that we wouldn't see the Assassin in HoS.
As for the Hexblade, it's possible the name was just a placeholder and the class is called something else in HoS. It's also completely possible WotC is going to have a build/sub-class and full class with the same name. But it's also completely possible it's nothing more than more options for the Hexblade Warlock. Just like it is completely possible for the Necromancer to be a full class, or a Wizard build. Both are fully possible.
Yes
Saying that there is no way the Necromancer won't be a full class is just as foolish and naive as saying it will be just a build at this point.
No. Because everything is fully possible, it doens't mean everything is fully probable. And I demonstrated some good points in favor of the probability of both a Hexblade and a Necromancer full class. First of all the mere existence of Shadow as a power source, and the fact that we never got less than 4 classes per power source. I don't see how Essentials could change such a simple thing, nor why. Hence, it's more probable that we'll get 2 or 3 more Shadow classes.
I don't understand why everyone is so worked up about them. They've never even been particularly attractive options in previous editions, either. So it's not like there's a strong precedent for them. I know in 3e, necromancers were among the weakest of specialist wizards, and for most other specialists, necromancy was one of those schools that didn't hurt to give up.
If you wouldn't allow necromancers in your campaign, fine. But they've got a big enough fan following to warrant a full release, and they're a deep enough character concept to warrant a full class.
As for the 'defiling graves of family members' thing - that's such a straw man. there's nothing to compare in 4e, but in previous editions no necromancer worth his black onyx animated humanoids anyway. A commoner with a sword fights better then a zombie, and will do so for way less then 25 gold pieces, while a skeletal owlbear, hill giant, or dragon could actually be worth the investment. The village may not like undead, but why should they know or particularly care if you animated the corpses of a few evil monsters you slew to help you slay a few more evil monsters?
But whatev's. That's an argument for another time.
What do we have now for this book? Well, we know only the following: It won't have assassins in it, they're DDI only. The blurb mentioned hexblades, but hexblades are an essential build for warlocks. Maybe they're that and a class, but that seems very unlikely now, especially with how much more important build names are in essentials (they're practically their own classes). We don't even know for sure that there will be necromancers in the book (the only reason to think so is a sentence that also mentions assassins and hexblades, one of which probably isn't its own class anymore, and one of which is confirmed as not being in the book, so....)
It's just looking less attractive, and I'm getting less excited. We've had developers excitedly telling us how the book will have options for existing non-shadow classes, but nothing about any new classes, and that's not terribly promising.
Just like you cross out "Machine Gun" and write in "Pizza Oven".
What? it's a good idea.
Anyway, the book's blurb says it has new classes, or it did when I read it last. That says to me it will have at least two.
So if assassin is off the list that leaves Hexblade, and Necromancer.
If Hexblade is printed in essentials then it becomes one of the non-shadow classes to get support material or we have a case of name overlap.
It seems like we're getting the Necromancer new at least.
The description of HoS never stated it would contain anything for the assassin, nor that the hexblade and necromancer were classes. Those are merely how some people interpreted the text. We now know that interpretation is at least partly wrong.
Assassins, hexblades and necromancers are given as examples of "mortals in the natural world [who] learn how to tap into [the shadow power] source". That's the context in which they are mentioned. There's no claim that they're in the book at all, or whether they are builds or classes or themes or something else entirely.
What the text does say is that HoS "presents races, classes, feats, powers, and other options". So there are full classes in there. Whether one of those classes is called 'hexblade' or 'necromancer' is something we do not currently know (although having 'hexblade' be both a full class and a warlock build seems unlikely).
To be clear, I am not excoriating those who leaped to the conclusion that HoS would contain assassin material and full classes called 'hexblade' and 'necromancer'. That interpretation was a pretty obvious (if optimistic) one based on the book's description. The real fault here lies with whoever at WotC wrote that description. They should have been much more clear about what was and wasn't in the book, rather than dropping in tantalising hints that (in hindsight) seem almost calculated to lead people to the wrong conclusion.
I really don't get all the hubub regarding necromancers and why people think that they are such a key niche to fill. Necromancers are people who deal in death, the dead, and the undead. These kinds of things are usually associated with Evil, and most undead are Evil. 4e has very little in the way of options or support for evil campaigns, and most necromancers are evil, or at the very least, non-good, especially since most humanoid cultures would view a necromancer's actions as a defiling the resting places of their family members. I, myself have a hard time accepting the idea of a Lawful Good Necromancer. And a class should not be prohibited from any alignment, as per the 4e design intent.
I don't understand why everyone is so worked up about them. They've never even been particularly attractive options in previous editions, either. So it's not like there's a strong precedent for them. I know in 3e, necromancers were among the weakest of specialist wizards, and for most other specialists, necromancy was one of those schools that didn't hurt to give up.
.... What?
Drow
Revenenants
Warlocks
Sorcerer King Pact
Dragon King ED
Prince of Hell ED
Darklord ED
Assassins
Gnolls
Templars
Thrallherd
Alienist
support for Bane worshippers
All of those are fully supported options for players. Do I really need to continue?
The description of HoS never stated it would contain anything for the assassin, nor that the hexblade and necromancer were classes. Those are merely how some people interpreted the text. We now know that interpretation is at least partly wrong.
Wrong. The original text for the book, which has changed at least once since it came out, stated Assassins, Hexblades, and Necromancers were classes in the book.
Wrong. The original text for the book, which has changed at least once since it came out, stated Assassins, Hexblades, and Necromancers were classes in the book.
No the original blurb for the book stated that Assassins, Hexblades, and Necromancers used shadow magic. It never actually stated that any of them would be in the book. Yes, the common sense, "Duh", reading is that all three will be covered in there. However strictly speaking, it does not state that those three are classes or that they will even be covered by the book.
This whole fiasco is a good example of people reading into a piece of text what they want to see.
The description of HoS never stated it would contain anything for the assassin, nor that the hexblade and necromancer were classes. Those are merely how some people interpreted the text. We now know that interpretation is at least partly wrong.
Assassins, hexblades and necromancers are given as examples of "mortals in the natural world [who] learn how to tap into [the shadow power] source". That's the context in which they are mentioned. There's no claim that they're in the book at all, or whether they are builds or classes or themes or something else entirely.
What the text does say is that HoS "presents races, classes, feats, powers, and other options". So there are full classes in there. Whether one of those classes is called 'hexblade' or 'necromancer' is something we do not currently know (although having 'hexblade' be both a full class and a warlock build seems unlikely).
To be clear, I am not excoriating those who leaped to the conclusion that HoS would contain assassin material and full classes called 'hexblade' and 'necromancer'. That interpretation was a pretty obvious (if optimistic) one based on the book's description. The real fault here lies with whoever at WotC wrote that description. They should have been much more clear about what was and wasn't in the book, rather than dropping in tantalising hints that (in hindsight) seem almost calculated to lead people to the wrong conclusion.
This kills any doubt and doubtmongering, THANKS DUSKWEAVER.
It says it has classes. It doesn't say it has new classes, and it doesn't even say it has shadow classes. The essentials books have classes. Those classes are all builds of existing classes, but you can't say it doesn't have any.
So HoS could just have a reprint of the warlock's essentials hexblade build and reprint of the wizard mage build that adds a 'necromancy' school with a small handful of powers like those in the 'necromancy' dragon article from way back when - a bunch of standard wizard control spells that are 'necromantic' in flavor text only and a couple super-sucky daily summon powers.
I really don't get all the hubub regarding necromancers and why people think that they are such a key niche to fill. Necromancers are people who deal in death, the dead, and the undead. These kinds of things are usually associated with Evil, and most undead are Evil. 4e has very little in the way of options or support for evil campaigns, and most necromancers are evil, or at the very least, non-good, especially since most humanoid cultures would view a necromancer's actions as a defiling the resting places of their family members. I, myself have a hard time accepting the idea of a Lawful Good Necromancer. And a class should not be prohibited from any alignment, as per the 4e design intent.
I don't understand why everyone is so worked up about them. They've never even been particularly attractive options in previous editions, either. So it's not like there's a strong precedent for them. I know in 3e, necromancers were among the weakest of specialist wizards, and for most other specialists, necromancy was one of those schools that didn't hurt to give up.
.... What?
Drow
Revenenants
Warlocks
Sorcerer King Pact
Dragon King ED
Prince of Hell ED
Darklord ED
Assassins
Gnolls
Templars
Thrallherd
Alienist
support for Bane worshippers
All of those are fully supported options for players. Do I really need to continue?
Yes, in fact, since it doesn't address what I was asking. You have provided examples of things that are often for a "hero with a slightly darker edge". But several of those can be accepted as heroes nonetheless.
Drow - D&D is replete with Drizzt clones
Revenants - Nothing necessarily "evil" about them, just disquieting
Warlocks - I can come up with several non-evil pact options, including for infernal pact.
Sorc-King Warlock/Templar/Dragon King ED - Not as relevant, Dark Sun does not present the same kind of morality as standard D&D. Athas is a dark, gritty world where people do what they need to survive.
Prince of Hell/Darklord - quite a bit of what's in the fluff for those is a "turn it around from the inside" kind of deal.
Gnolls - I have personally played gnolls that are not evil at all, simply Unaligned and Primal-spirit-worshipping. The Gnoll article supports this.
Assassin - Just because you're CALLED an assassin doesn't mean he kills people for money. Furthermore, the story of a hero with a dark choice in his past to overcome can be quite compelling.
Thrallherd/Alienist - Weird, but not necessarily evil. The Alienist is only "villanous" in a campaign that directly involves stemming the corruption of the Far Realm.
None of those are as directly or overtly unsettling as the guy who literally fights with the imprisoned souls of the dead (either trapped in corporeal bodies or disembodied spectres) as his army.
Furthermore, I've been playing D&D for well over a decade now, and from widespread gaming experience and talking with gamers all throuhout those years, I have encountered few people who have ACTUALLY played a necromancer. And those that did were usually playing an evil character. Not one who played a good aligned necromancer.
All the above examples could be good (with the exception of some of the Dark Sun stuff, but Dark Sun has never really been about Good vs Evil). You could have Good drow, revenants, assassins, etc.
I cannot fathom the Lawful Good Necromancer. And it has to be possible, all classes shoulod be possible with all alignments.
Just because you can't fathom a Lawful Good Necromancer doesn't mean they can't exist. It just means you can't imagine. You are not an entire player base. And just because you've never played with anyone who wanted to be a Necromancer, it also does not mean that wanting one is rare. Your experince is with a limited player base.
My experience is with quite a arge player base, I've played with High school stuidents, college students, older players (over 30), younger players, and many more. I used to DM for the RPGA at GenCon and Origins. As well, I've been active on these forums for seven years. I've met a wide array of players.
And I never said I NEVER met anyone who wanted to play a necromancer, I said I've only met a handful who actually HAVE played a necromancer. And those that have were playing evil characters.
So help me out here, how would YOU see a LG necromancer?
It could also be the Ennervator - the guy who drains the power and life of his enemies to heal or aid his allies, taking from the wicked and giving to the righteous. Hell, it's no more evil than the supposedly Lawful Good adventurers that slaughter entire villages or clans of monsters just because "they're monsters so they're evil, and when we slaughter evil things like war criminals we're really heroes!"
Simeple - a spirit talker. Contrary to popular opinion on these boards, every Necromancer does not have to control hordes of undead, or even have one as a pet. That can just easily be a single build. The apparently necessary pristine lily white Necromancer can be the the mdeium that helps lay spirits to rest or avenges the wrongs commited to them in life, that helps Jane Doe rest easy knowing mama still loves her after their last big fight, etc. ...
It could also be the Ennervator - the guy who drains the power and life of his enemies to heal or aid his allies, taking from the wicked and giving to the righteous. Hell, it's no more evil than the supposedly Lawful Good adventurers that slaughter entire villages or clans of monsters just because "they're monsters so they're evil, and when we slaughter evil things like war criminals we're really heroes!"
Spirit Talker doesn't seem to flow well with the Shadow Power source, though. Seems more Primal...like the Shaman. And classic fantasy Necromancers deal with death and the dead, even if not undead. At best, they are Harry Keough-like characters who speak with the dead and are granted powers by them. At worst, even a non-undead-obsessed Necromancer was someone who rips the secrets from the dead.
The Ennervator isn't a bad concept, but just doesn't seem like a "Necromancer". Necro means dead. Something about this class is distincly related to the dead.
The most potent Necromancer build form 3e used the True necromancer prestige class which required a non-good alignment.
Asking for a Good necromancer in 3e was akin to asking for a non-lawful samurai, doable but you lost out on the best bits of the class.
Spirit Talker doesn't seem to flow well with the Shadow Power source, though. Seems more Primal...like the Shaman. And classic fantasy Necromancers deal with death and the dead, even if not undead. At best, they are Harry Keough-like characters who speak with the dead and are granted powers by them. At worst, even a non-undead-obsessed Necromancer was someone who rips the secrets from the dead.
The Ennervator isn't a bad concept, but just doesn't seem like a "Necromancer". Necro means dead. Something about this class is distincly related to the dead.
I'm going to have to chalk this up to you and me having vastly different ideas of what Necromancy is. Necromancy by it's very DnD history explicitly encompasses the Ennervator - it has been a part of every form of DnD Necromancer. As to spirit talking - spirits of the dead. The Shadow power source explicitly ties into the Shadowfell, and the Shadowfell is where lost spirits of the dead go.
Not only that, but the spirit talker Necromancer is the oldest real world form of Necromancy. The first people in the real world who practiced necromancy where people who claimed to be communicating with, not controlling, the dead.
I see the Necromancer as being at least 3 builds:
1) The Spirit Talker - probably has a lot of pyschic/fear powers, probably gets rituals or abilities related to peering into the Shadowfell, probably gets a few summoning spells specifically for spirits
2) The so-called classic Necromancer - has an undead pet like the Beastmaster Ranger, the WoW Death Knight, or even the Shaman, probably also summons physical undead
3) The Ennervator - focuses on Necrotic damage and debilititating conditions like Stun, Daze, Immoblize, Weaken, etc.
I see the first as a Leader, the third as a controller, and the other .... could be any of the four roles really.
The reason you saw so few or no lawful good necros back in the old days was because the feats/classes to get good at it, or in some cases even the very spells, were considered evil and unavailable to good and/or lawful characters.
The most potent Necromancer build form 3e used the True necromancer prestige class which required a non-good alignment.
Asking for a Good necromancer in 3e was akin to asking for a non-lawful samurai, doable but you lost out on the best bits of the class.
Important note: Only divine characters were restricted by alignment descriptors on their spells, and there were only single-digit Evil Necromancy spells in the 3e PHB anyway. Not that big of a drawback.
Wrong. The original text for the book, which has changed at least once since it came out, stated Assassins, Hexblades, and Necromancers were classes in the book.
That is not my recollection. Unless you can provide the original text, I will continue to assume you are misremembering what it said.
Wrong. The original text for the book, which has changed at least once since it came out, stated Assassins, Hexblades, and Necromancers were classes in the book.
That is not my recollection. Unless you can provide the original text, I will continue to assume you are misremembering what it said.
Original text, changed after this thread went up:
Heroes of Shadow
Isn't that what it says now?
Hunh?
So it does.
I could have sworn that someone posted a version of that copy that had the class names removed.
Isn't that what it says now?
Hunh?
So it does.
I could have sworn that someone posted a version of that copy that had the class names removed.
I went hunting around the Internets to see if someone on a blog or a forum had quoted it long enough ago to have different text, but as far back as early June everything I found was identical to the text as it currently reads (which may just mean that the text was changed prior to that, of course).
At best, they are Harry Keough-like characters who speak with the dead and are granted powers by them. At worst, even a non-undead-obsessed Necromancer was someone who rips the secrets from the dead.
so if the class was called necroscope could you imagin PCs of any alignment then???
At best, they are Harry Keough-like characters who speak with the dead and are granted powers by them. At worst, even a non-undead-obsessed Necromancer was someone who rips the secrets from the dead.
so if the class was called necroscope could you imagin PCs of any alignment then???
I meant Harry Keough-like simply in respects to their relationship with the dead. If you recall, there were actusal necromancers in that series.
The Necroscope himself was more psionic.
Heroes of Shadow D&D Game Supplement, Player's OptionsMike Mearls and Robert J. Schwalb
Executioner is a ddi assassin build.
I seriously doubt we shall see a necromancer class. Be sorta like having an Ice Sorcerer class, a fire sorcerer class, a rainbow sorcerer. I'd rather have a wizard build around necro.
Necromantic Bards could influence undead by their songs.
Necromantic Wizards could create/influence/destroy undead through their learning.
Necromantic Sorcerers could do the same intuitively.
Necromantic Warlocks could get their power from an undead entity.
Necromantic Artificers could build their own undead à la Frankenstein.
This theme could also apply to any devine characters that worship a deity of death or undeath.
Necromantic clerics, paladins, etc.
I don't know about the details of the shadow power source, but that would also be a classic source of necromantic power.
The other power sources would be difficult to see as necromantic, but not impossible.
Put another way, I like the idea of an 'enchanter wizard', but I don't think the existance of the enchanter wizard makes the bard class or the psion class obsolete. Same with 'necromantic wizard' and honest to goodness necromancer.
Oh, I like the idea of 'necromantic themes' for other casters, but after the early dragon article with necromantic powers for the wizard I really have to say that a 'necromantic theme' wizard in no way shape or form satisfies my desire for a Necromancer class.
Similarly, if the Warlock hexblade is still a lightly armored arcane striker, then it will in no way satisfy my desire for a dark-knight style class, and a 'necromantic theme' for existing classes isn't likely to, either, as the swordmage is also light armored, and the existing heavily armored defenders don't really have the kind of magical bent to their attacks that I want out of this concept.
Again, for me, both necromancer and dark knight/hexblade/duskblade/whathaveyou are concepts sufficiently rich, deep, and untilled that they still warrant entire classes to themselves.
As for lawful good necromancers - why does every class have to make sense for every alignment? I have a hard time imagining lawful good infernal warlocks. Drawing upon the powers of hell is kind of evil for LG characters. Sure, you can have the 'using evil against evil' kind of dark hero vibe, but that vibe doesn't exactly scream "LG", and in any event it works perfectly well for necromancers, too, as long as they're using monsters as fodder for their pets. And there are cultures where LG necromancers fit. They're corner cases, but they exist, so it's not impossible anyway.
DDi Essentials Assassin may be Martial, based on the preview here.
o_o If this comes to pass as it appears that it will then I am going to go ahead and just call fail. They've already removed the inate connection between classes and roles, so if they remove the inate connection between class and power source then there really isn't anything left. *sigh* And they had to do it with the class with the most awesome flavor in the game too. I guess I really shouldn't hold out any hopes for the Elemental power source being half as awesome as it should be...
As for lawful good necromancers - why does every class have to make sense for every alignment? I have a hard time imagining lawful good infernal warlocks. Drawing upon the powers of hell is kind of evil for LG characters. Sure, you can have the 'using evil against evil' kind of dark hero vibe, but that vibe doesn't exactly scream "LG", and in any event it works perfectly well for necromancers, too, as long as they're using monsters as fodder for their pets. And there are cultures where LG necromancers fit. They're corner cases, but they exist, so it's not impossible anyway.
Just because I've actually done something similar...
Long ago, an order of Bahamut's faithful battled a rampaging demon. Not powerful enough to destroy it or banish it, they were instead able to maintain a prison for it. In a hidden shrine outside the city, this prison still exists and is maintained by a secret order of Bahamut's faithful. In order to prevent the demon from breaking the barrier, a number of members of this order siphon off the demon's power. Though their power stems from the demon, the possible stain on their reputation for weilding power of such a nature is a burden they bear, a sacrifice they made to siphon the demon's power and keep it weak. These warlocks are henceforth banished from the very temple in which their powers were invested in them. Namely because the more of them that there are, the more the demon's power is spread thin, and they don't want other demonic agents to be able to try and kill these warlocks off easily. Thus, most are given to a life of either hermitage, or adventuring.
BAM! Lawful Good Infernal Lock. Built in reasoning for adventuring, and the backstory contains a potential plot hook (The warlock's power starts behaving strangely, he discovers that most of his brothers are being killed, must find a new way to imprison/banish the demon).
To be honest, this is slightly modified from the backstory of a Half-Elf Infernalock who played in one of my games a few years ago. He and I created it, although it was an order dedicated to Sehanine, not Bahamut. But hey, it still works. Works a little better for the goddess of secrets, but... you get the idea.
Oh, and any people on the forums may certainly feel free to poach the idea, in part or wholesale.
The actual article is a playtest that is supposed to be released in a few more hours/tomorrow. Supposedly.
Nope, they updated the calendar sometime in the last 3 hours, and pushed it to Friday.
The actual article is a playtest that is supposed to be released in a few more hours/tomorrow. Supposedly.
Nope, they updated the calendar sometime in the last 3 hours, and pushed it to Friday.
I just noticed. Man, their scheduling issues have been insane this month. First the calender is bare bones, then it has a lot of stuff, then stuff gets moved, then more stuff gets moved, at least one thing got added ... *sigh*
What really annoys me is that Pyromancer has been moved to next week because of this. That's the one I really wanted to see.
I just noticed. Man, their scheduling issues have been insane this month. First the calender is bare bones, then it has a lot of stuff, then stuff gets moved, then more stuff gets moved, at least one thing got added ... *sigh*
What really annoys me is that Pyromancer has been moved to next week because of this. That's the one I really wanted to see.
It has been crazy. It's funny, too - nothing about DDI irritates me more than when they move an article I wanted to read. It's not even rational. If they never make another DDI tool, I won't care. If they decide the CB and MB aren't good ideas, and disable them, I'll be like, "Man, that sucks."
But they move an article I was looking forward to, and I'm like "FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!"
But i am excited about the new Martial Assassin coming out. A Blowgun darter empoisonning it's target...cool. An Illusion power doesn't sound very Martial thought.
Anyway, it says it will be huge, big and fearsome. I have a feeling a dude is about to hit the Boards that will make people talk a lot about him.
A new Sherrif might be in town......a dirty one....
Also, it would be a heavy indication of the complete gutting of the shadow power source. I would take it poorly.
I swear essential related stuff likes looking good when its far off, and then being utterly annoying when it finally comes around. Or maybe thats just WoTC's new direction.
Everyone who wanted them to get more rogue-like weapons got their wish. I don't mind too much, but it seems like that at-will is very restrictive.
Thats a fairly magical illusion for martial.
Also, with all this class/powersource changing, they are further going against everything they said in early 4e.
That said, the article sounds like its pretty big, so I hope I am proven wrong. I was really looking forward to a Shadowy Executioner, not the poisoner rogue subclass.
Since classes are never listed without actually being in the book, you'd still be wrong.
When did WotC officially announce they'd never mention a class in a book's description without that class being present in said book?
In any case, you are arguing against a straw man. My original contention was that the HoS description did not explicitly state those classes were in the book (or even that they were classes). That's objectively true. You now appear to be trying to argue that, because the presence of those (potential) class names in the book's description merely implies they're in the book, that I'm therefore wrong. But I never claimed the implication wasn't there.
Like I said, people read into that description what they wanted to see. It was certainly reasonable to conclude that the assassin, hexblade and necromancer were classes in HoS, but that's only one possible interpretation. It was never explicitly stated.
I was really looking forward to a Shadowy Executioner, not the poisoner rogue subclass.
This. Seriously, this.
Shadow was easily going to be my favorite power source. I feel like I'm watching it get gutted, and I can't even begin to imagine why this is happening. Again, this content should have been so easy, how are they getting it so wrong?
Shadow was easily going to be my favorite power source. I feel like I'm watching it get gutted, and I can't even begin to imagine why this is happening.
I know I'm about to propose an extreme position for an internet forum, but can we at least see the product before we break out the torches and pitchforks?
B) It's possible, if admitedly unlikely, that if the designers actually are planning on replacing shadow classes with shadowy sub-builds of other classes they might see the clamboring and re-think it. Conversely, if we wait until after the release of Heroes of Shadow to say that we wanted actual shadow classes, our complaints - while potentially more rational and justified, would also be entirely pointless and 100% too late to fix.
Shadow was easily going to be my favorite power source. I feel like I'm watching it get gutted, and I can't even begin to imagine why this is happening.
I know I'm about to propose an extreme position for an internet forum, but can we at least see the product before we break out the torches and pitchforks?
Not if they keep delaying it!
A) That's not how we do things here on the internet, sir.
B) It's possible, if admitedly unlikely, that if the designers actually are planning on replacing shadow classes with shadowy sub-builds of other classes they might see the clamboring and re-think it. Conversely, if we wait until after the release of Heroes of Shadow to say that we wanted actual shadow classes, our complaints - while potentially more rational and justified, would also be entirely pointless and 100% too late to fix.
This
It's possible, if admitedly unlikely, that if the designers actually are planning on replacing shadow classes with shadowy sub-builds of other classes they might see the clamboring and re-think it. Conversely, if we wait until after the release of Heroes of Shadow to say that we wanted actual shadow classes, our complaints - while potentially more rational and justified, would also be entirely pointless and 100% too late to fix.
If the Shadow Power Source ends up with the Assassin stuck in DDi and "builds" instead of classes, this is fail on so many levels.
I should have seen it coming, though. When the Illusionist turned into an illusion of hope instead of being a class in itself. I think it would have been a perfect Controller for the Shadow Power Source.
If the Shadow Power Source ends up with the Assassin stuck in DDi and "builds" instead of classes, this is fail on so many levels.
I should have seen it coming, though. When the Illusionist turned into an illusion of hope instead of being a class in itself. I think it would have been a perfect Controller for the Shadow Power Source.
Why? There's no precedent for it. Illusionist has always been a subset of wizard.
After seeing and playing the beguiler in 3.5, I agree that an illusionist type class could definitely stand on its own apart from being a sub-build of wizard, and the shadow power source at one point made sense for it, since illusions were at one point part of the shadow source.
Now, not so much, they've officially shoved illusions back into the wizard, with a lot of "illusion" powers that just do single target or area damage with a generic save ends negative status effect. Mechanically, they don't seem to feel very distinct from anything else. Not to mention that there's conceptual ground for the 'magical rogue/arcane trixter' archetype that isn't well covered by existing classes, and a beguiler/arcane trickster/spellthief type class thematically and mechanically focused on illusions really has potential to stand on it's own. It's a shame we'll never see it now that we have an illusionist build of wizard.
I don't want to see the necromancer's conceptual ground also left barren in the same way.
And the Begiuiler? The 3.5 PHBII was garbage, most of it broken. The Knight was interesting, but only because it introduced a precursor of the marking mechanic. The Beguiler was to the mage/rogue what the warmage was to the mage/fighter. The Duskblade was also broken.
First off, necromancer has ALSO always been a subset of wizard.
And the Begiuiler? The 3.5 PHBII was garbage, most of it broken. The Knight was interesting, but only because it introduced a precursor of the marking mechanic. The Beguiler was to the mage/rogue what the warmage was to the mage/fighter. The Duskblade was also broken.
But... the warmage had nothing to do with a mage/fighter. The warmage was just a blasting focussed mage, no fighter in it at all, and like the beguiler was considerably weaker then a single classed wizard. But where the warmage was kind of bland, the beguiler was full of fun mechanics and and solid thematic value that made it a blast to play, much like the Dread necro. Duskblade broken? Well, it is surprisingly easy to get intimitatingly large amounts of damage out of it for a few attacks a day, especially at low levels, but then again it didn't really do any more then a charge opped barbarian, was way weaker then a wizard once you got to mid levels, and let you play an actual magical swordsman, which multiclass fighter wizards never quite managed, at least not smoothly, in 3e, even with the dozens of PrCs that tried to make the mix smoother.
Hardly, Duskblade, was simply a better designed class than the hexblade. The Dragon Shaman wasn't broken, it just replaced the piss poor marshal class. Beguiler wasn't broken so much as the game just never got around to evolving defenses against it. Like how non-psi 3.x monsters are still rather vulnerable to 3.x psi-users.
The Marshal class was fine, and a better (6th party member) than most bards. Not as useful by himself, however...
And 3.5 psionics were SUPPOSED to use the psionics/magic transparency, so monsters didn't need psi-specific defenses.
And Beguiler was broken.
Dragon Shaman...may have been all right, but it didn't excuse the plethora of broken crap in that book.
But... the warmage had nothing to do with a mage/fighter. The warmage was just a blasting focussed mage, no fighter in it at all, and like the beguiler was considerably weaker then a single classed wizard. But where the warmage was kind of bland, the beguiler was full of fun mechanics and and solid thematic value that made it a blast to play, much like the Dread necro. Duskblade broken? Well, it is surprisingly easy to get intimitatingly large amounts of damage out of it for a few attacks a day, especially at low levels, but then again it didn't really do any more then a charge opped barbarian, was way weaker then a wizard once you got to mid levels, and let you play an actual magical swordsman, which multiclass fighter wizards never quite managed, at least not smoothly, in 3e, even with the dozens of PrCs that tried to make the mix smoother.
Would you prefer sorcerer/fighter? A Warmage could cast as many spells/day as a sorcerer, but with no limited spells known, he could spontaneously cast from his entire spell list, which, I might add, not only contained claeric and druid attack spells, but he could also add spells to it. Not only that, but he could (with the selection of a single feat) cast in Medium Armor at first level with no penalty, and in Heavy Armor at level 8. He got a better weapon selection than the wizard (I think all simple), and, oh, wait, he got to add his INT bonus to damaging spells. He was a COMBAT MAGE, yes, and he wore armor. Hence the thematic fighter/mage
Beguiler was the attempt to do the same with a sneaky class.
Warmage can only add a select few spells to his list and those are limited in school, and level, a warmage will never cast wish.
Non-psi monsters, and monsters in general tended to be more vulnerable to psionic characters because of tactics, not so much needing x amount of PR. Like the rotating energy types for psion powers, or the swift powers of the psychic warrior, changes in the way the character played meant many monsters weren't equipped to deal, regardless of what defenses they may or may not possess. It was up to dms to adapt, and in every case I've seen they failed.
I mean, Dual-Wielding, Summoning, and even unarmed combat aren't the sole purview of one class. Said concepts aren't all there is to one class either.
Marshal was good in theory but was pretty underpowered.
Warmage can only add a select few spells to his list and those are limited in school, and level, a warmage will never cast wish.
No, but he could cast Meteor Swarm an ungodly number of times per day, in Full Plate Armor, with a shield.
Non-psi monsters, and monsters in general tended to be more vulnerable to psionic characters because of tactics, not so much needing x amount of PR. Like the rotating energy types for psion powers, or the swift powers of the psychic warrior, changes in the way the character played meant many monsters weren't equipped to deal, regardless of what defenses they may or may not possess. It was up to dms to adapt, and in every case I've seen they failed.
The variable energy of psion powers was offset by what was usually a smaller amount of raw damage. Augments had to be paid for, and the manifester was limited by his level on how much he could augment.
And the Swift powers of the psychic warrior weren't too bad. In fact, the PW wasn't THAT powerful. He only had a 3/4 BAB progression, and had to make up for it somehow. Paladins and Rangers could cast spells and be competent melee combatants. He traded some of his melee effectiveness for a little boost to his psionic abilities. Most of which were designed to augment him in combat in some way.
Bards weaker than marshals? It is easy to build a bard that makes marshals cry home to their mommies. With a straight bard you could give out +14 to hit/damage or +14d6 sonic damage to the entire party for the price of one song (or two songs for both).
Duskblades are fun and have a decent power level but they are less unbalancing than cleric, druids, wizards, sorcerers, favored souls, artificers, or archivist.
On topic I want to see this new assassin and see if it is worth anything. I enjoyed playing a 1st ed assassin and so this new one will hopefully be fun and functional.
Warmages are possibly the weakest 9th level spell casting class ever. It could only cast direct damage spells naturally (weakest spells for and 9th level spell caster). Armor casting was not powerful since you could get a wizard to cast in full plate with no problems outside of a lot gold. The best warmage build involved rainbow servant which gave him access to cleric spells. that was powerful but it did not happen until 16th level or so. On the otherhand warmages are a TON of fun so it did have that.
Bards weaker than marshals? It is easy to build a bard that makes marshals cry home to their mommies. With a straight bard you could give out +14 to hit/damage or +14d6 sonic damage to the entire party for the price of one song (or two songs for both).
Duskblades are fun and have a decent power level but they are less unbalancing than cleric, druids, wizards, sorcerers, favored souls, artificers, or archivist.
On topic I want to see this new assassin and see if it is worth anything. I enjoyed playing a 1st ed assassin and so this new one will hopefully be fun and functional.
I've only ever had actual experience playing a bard, and being in a party with a marshal up to level 6 or so, so I haven't seen this massive buff of which you speak (unless you mean the Bard PrC in Complete Adventurer, that one did turn the bard into a beast...Seeker of the Song I think it was called). And at all low levels, the bonuses provided by the marshal were WAY better.
Clerics could be extremely broken, but were not unbalanced by virtue of the class right out the gate. If the only healer in the party (in a party that depended on them to spontaneously cast often), they weren't that beastly. Druid, I can say, from experience, takes the right kind of experienced player. I have seen druids be woefully underpowered because the player was simply overwhelmed with options on his turn. Sorcerers are nothign compared to the warmage, they, at least have the balancing factor of spells known, d4 hit dice (I believe warmage got d6), and no armor. Favored souls were the sorcerors of the divine, but I've never actually seen anybody play one. Artificers were not unbalanced at all. At least not in combat. The only Eberron game I ever DM'd back in 3.5 didn't go any higher than 3rd level unfortunately. So all he was making was scrolls and potions. So I may have missed out on some of the broken-ness there. And teh archivist...I have heard people mention, but I have never seen or read myself. What book was it even in?
Warmages, however, were not that useful outside combat, I'll agree. But they WILDLY skewed any combat encounter that the paryt was facing. Little need to conserve spells, ability to survive the risk of being targeted, and better-than-wizard-or-sorcerer spell damage.
As for the Essentialized Assassin, I've been reading through it. Seems grossly overpowered. I liked the 4e assassin, although have never gotten a chance to actually see it in play (I'm in the Navy, as are most of players. Being in different commands, we haven't played in a long time). If one takes the suggested paragon path, at 13th level, the 4eE assassin can do an EXTRA 6d10 damage on a hit as an encounter ability. Not a big fan of his forced weapon selection, however.
Marshall got to project two week auras, a half-handfull of feats, no prestige classes, and the superior dragon shaman to replace him.
Bards got probably a hundred feats, 20-30 prcs designed for them, not to mention ones they could qualify for despite being a non-target class, and several variations.
Yeah Marshall got boned in 3e.
Fortunately he went back to school and changed his name to Warlord for 4e. Now he's up a Power book on the bard, and the dragon shaman will probably never even be released as a class in 4e (might make a good theme though). Who's getting more love now you glorified garage band rejects!
As for the assassin a lot of people were complaining about how under powered the basic assassin was (obviously they've never had to put up with all the assassin cheese I do), and so they probably decided to beef it up for the executioner. It should see some nerfing as the playtest progresses.
Poor thaX. You're never going to really understand that the Shadowdancer already exists, are you?
And yet, his obsession with the shadowdancer still isn't as tiresome as your constant baiting of him over it.
No, but there's a monk PP that has a shadowdancer-like feel. I think it's in Psionic Power.
Unseen Hand, although it's feel is more 'assassin-like' than 'shadowdancer-like', IMO.
There was also a Class Acts article that gave us a 'Gloaming Dancer' PP for the assassin.