But...what's the divine part?
Personally, I have heard nothing. Conjecture, yes, hypotheticals, sure, but not a word about any particular substance of the divinity within the tome. Thus, particular prose for the purposes of gathering information post haste. :D
Anyone know?
I should probably mention that there is a small chance that we have the name of it. In one of the books(Eberron Campaign Guide?) there was a blurb listing classes that are common in an organization. It listed clerics, paladins, templars, invokers, and other divine classes. Now this could have been either a hint or bad editing(as the avenger was at one stage in development called templar). We really won't know which it was until we get some other clue.
I'm pretty sure a WotC podcast explained that as a mistake in the editing, and that it was supposed to say Templar - that they were writing both PH2 and Eberron at the same time, so not everything got fixed as it should have.
Cross out "Templar", then replace it with "Avenger".
I'm pretty sure a WotC podcast explained that as a mistake in the editing, and that it was supposed to say Templar - that they were writing both PH2 and Eberron at the same time, so not everything got fixed as it should have.
I recall them mentioning in a podcast that the Avenger was at one point called a Templar, but I do not believe that they ever flat out stated that the reference in the ECG was a mistake caused by the name change. It is certainly a reasonable conclusion(and probably the most likely possibility), but I believe the option of the PHB3 divine class being the Templar has not been ruled out 100% yet.
"I don't really see a high likelihood of a Psionic minotaur being depicted there, but I won't deny it could be the Battlemind (which is most like primary Con), but if not, does that mean we're looking at another melee divine class?"
But, that's just conjecture. It's still possible he's a Divine class instead.
There are certainly worse names than Templar.
Yes. Like Battlemind.
Anyways, we know for certain that the Battlemind uses Constitution as a main stat, and its pretty much guaranteed that it uses Wisdom secondary. Thus, a Minotaur Battlemind certainly could make sense, especially if they have a STR-secondary build (which I find likely if they're a defender).
But, on the other hand, the minotaur is covered in runes. To me, runes mean two things: Divine or Arcane (Certainly not Psionic, of all things). And since we know Arcane's not in there, I have my money on a Divine Striker, the Templar.
But, on the other hand, the minotaur is covered in runes. To me, runes mean two things: Divine or Arcane (Certainly not Psionic, of all things). And since we know Arcane's not in there, I have my money on a Divine Striker, the Templar.
Could be, but it might just be an aspect of the character's equipment rather than class. I wouldn't associate purple crystal blades with barbarians or wardens, seems more like a psionic thing to me, yet the goliath on the cover of PH2 has an axe made of the stuff as well as similar studs on his armor.
But, on the other hand, the minotaur is covered in runes. To me, runes mean two things: Divine or Arcane (Certainly not Psionic, of all things). And since we know Arcane's not in there, I have my money on a Divine Striker, the Templar.
Could be, but it might just be an aspect of the character's equipment rather than class. I wouldn't associate purple crystal blades with barbarians or wardens, seems more like a psionic thing to me, yet the goliath on the cover of PH2 has an axe made of the stuff as well as similar studs on his armor.
Hmmm... You make a good point about the Goliath's armor. I hadn't thought of that before.
Well, the fact that he's in plate armor, to me, still points toward Divine, but I'm much more likely to accept the Psionic possibility now...
The Divine Class is Probably not a Controller, considering today's article on Controllers says there are only 5 Controllers as of PH3. I doubt that they wouldn't let the writer in on the secret about the Divine class if they were going to mention a Divine Controller. The blurb is written as if PH3 is already published, and that's all the controllers we got.
No it isn't.
It mentions that the PHB3 is Forthcoming, and uses the term, "As of this writing".
The Divine Class is Probably not a Controller, considering today's article on Controllers says there are only 5 Controllers as of PH3. I doubt that they wouldn't let the writer in on the secret about the Divine class if they were going to mention a Divine Controller. The blurb is written as if PH3 is already published, and that's all the controllers we got.
No it isn't.
It mentions that the PHB3 is Forthcoming, and uses the term, "As of this writing".
The blurb acted like it. I noticed that in the article afterwards too. However, this seems at least a little hint it won't be another controller.
The Divine Class is Probably not a Controller, considering today's article on Controllers says there are only 5 Controllers as of PH3. I doubt that they wouldn't let the writer in on the secret about the Divine class if they were going to mention a Divine Controller. The blurb is written as if PH3 is already published, and that's all the controllers we got.
Druid
Wizard
Invoker
???
???
Why couldn't one of the two be divine?
The Divine Class is Probably not a Controller, considering today's article on Controllers says there are only 5 Controllers as of PH3. I doubt that they wouldn't let the writer in on the secret about the Divine class if they were going to mention a Divine Controller. The blurb is written as if PH3 is already published, and that's all the controllers we got.
Druid
Wizard
Invoker
???
???
Why couldn't one of the two be divine?
Because they're the Seeker and the Psion (primal and psionic, respectively and confirmed by debut material).
Hopefully they don't butcher it's fluff like they did with the Seeker
And since when was the Seeker a Ki reject? Nothing about it seems very Ki-like to me...
And since when was the Seeker a Ki reject? Nothing about it seems very Ki-like to me...
I think it has to do with some people associating the class with Japanese priestesses (miko?).
. . . The thing summons mushrooms and swarms. o_O
Maybe that's why the fluff is considered to have been BUTCHERED.
. . . The thing summons mushrooms and swarms. o_O
Mmm....swarms of mushrooms....
.....special mushrooms....
I'm guessing it's another Ki reject like the Seeker and Assassin.
Hopefully they don't butcher it's fluff like they did with the Seeker
The assassin isn't a "ki reject". It is an arcane/martial reject if anything. I also don't see any evidence that the seeker was ever planned for the ki power source either.
www.wizards.com/dnd/TOC.aspx?x=dnd/4new/...
"Player's Handbook 3 Debut: The Ardent"
That sounds pretty damn Templar-ish to me.
Second one down on the left:
www.wizards.com/dnd/TOC.aspx?x=dnd/4new/...
"Player's Handbook 3 Debut: The Ardent"
That sounds pretty damn Templar-ish to me.
There's a 3.5 Psionic class called the Ardent which was quite leaderish, so there's a very high chance that the Ardent will be a Psionic class.
LOL!
LOL!
Now go and count how many times 'Slaying Action' (including variations such as 'Giant-Slaying Action') appears as a feat, power, PP feature or other attribute in 4th edition. Think of it as a kind of drinking game...
This does mean, however, that the Ardent COULD be the divine class.
Maybe that's why the fluff is considered to have been BUTCHERED.
Pretty much, yep.
This Ardent better not just be an Avenger in Armor, I will throw up.
Ardent would probably fall on the Leaderish/Defenderish side of Psionic. I would be mildly surprised if it is the PH3 Divine class.
Well, so far we've seen two psionic classes, and one primal. I know there's a taboo about symmetry, but it seems like it's more likely Ardent would be divine, since we haven't seen any divine classes from PHB3 yet.
They said we'd see debuts of 5 of the classes, but they didn't say that we wouldn't see the names for all the classes. We might yet find out the other one or two classes in the book.
A divine archer class seems to be in demand, and would fill an unclaimed niche that none of the other divine classes really cover. There's two possibilities I can see for this kind of class.
Exorcist - Divine Striker. A divine hunter that is dedicated to sealing away and purifying evil spirits, demons, and other unclean entities. Might have leader and controller as secondary roles.
Mystic - Divine Leader. More of a 'healer' archetype than the exorcist, also covering the 'unarmored priest' to contrast the more beefy crusading Cleric. May be either a secondary striker or controller, depending on whether the mystic's attacks focus on single-target damage or sealing away a wide swath of enemies.
A divine controller focusing on archery would probably invite too many comparisions to the Seeker, so I don't see them going that route. A ranged Defender could be an option, but might be a bit difficult to visualize.
Stat arrays may have Wisdom as primary, with Dexterity and Charisma as secondary.
A divine archer class seems to be in demand, and would fill an unclaimed niche that none of the other divine classes really cover. There's two possibilities I can see for this kind of class.
Somebody want to explain to me why exactly is in such demand?
Divine + Bow, Is that all you really want or is there more to it?
Because you can just put the Weapon of Evil Undone enchantment on a Bow and use it as a Holy Symbol...
Isn't the Seeker a Shinto Priest/Exorcist/Mystic bow using zealous vow making... guy.
Can't we do something a little more creative than "just add bow"
A Ranged divine striker, an implement focused raced striker would make more sense than saying Divine bow user.
I think approaching it with a "what mechanics are missing" point of view is the same kind of forced symmetry that 4E is supposed to be avoiding. My first thought is "what archetypes are missing" and then once I have those in mind, I start to think about how I can make it mechanically different.
That being said:
Archivist
"Ash from the temple ruins of Zaluul is known to ward off evil and heal the righteous, let's see if it works"
I could really use a divine cloth caster like the cloistered cleric, WoW priest, Guild Wars monk, white mage, etc. I find it has more ties to the priest archetype than the armored cleric in D&D.
I happened across an interesting take on the Archivist class the other day.
I could really use a divine cloth caster like the cloistered cleric, WoW priest, Guild Wars monk, white mage, etc. I find it has more ties to the priest archetype than the armored cleric in D&D.
I'm not a fan of some of their assumed concepts though.
The Archivist should gain its prayers just like other Divine Classes – in fact, Wizards don't "gain" spells by seeking them in esoteric tomes; that's rituals. I think it would be better to capture that through giving Archivists ritual casting.
That said, the use of a book implement seems obvious – but instead of introducing a new implement like the Prayerbook to use alongside another implement, let it use Tomes, which have already been established. Tomes can easily fit the concept.
Also, the powers designed are somewhat off – many feel more controllerish than leaderish; even with a leaning in controller, the class shouldn't feel like a controller with some healing powers and calling it a Leader.
That said, some of these concepts could work. However, it feels sort of like a cross between the Vestige Pact Warlock and the Invoker – using ancient powers, often dead or forgotten deities, etc. These elements need to be altered, because essentially it's a Vestige Pact Warlock that is called a Divine class – rather than seeking out lost information of various dead entities, they specialise in dead or forgotten gods – another thing that parallels the Amoth Invokers from this month's Dragon.
I'm not say it's a bad class, just that that person's concepts are a bit unpolished. Also, their naming it "Playtest – Archivist" makes them sound like they're pretending to be WotC releasing a Playtest. That was a bit unnerving.
I would love to see the Archivist, either as its own class, or as a build of a tome-focused class (I could see an Evangel build that uses readings from its Tomes to empower allies with the new strength of faith).
Rather than having a direct relationship with a God (Invoker's Covenant or Avenger's Censure), or with a Church or Order (Paladin or Cleric), I could see the Archivist as the philosopher that studies the scriptures and gains insight from them that no other classes do. Their prayers would have a unique scholarly feel to it; they studied at seminary, or spent their entire lives studying the Book, and can quote it extensively. Or maybe they don't know any of it by heart, and are constantly flipping through the book to find relevant passages, which they read aloud, channeling their prayers through their readings of appropriate scriptures.
That said, the use of a book implement seems obvious – but instead of introducing a new implement like the Prayerbook to use alongside another implement, let it use Tomes, which have already been established. Tomes can easily fit the concept.
Agreed, much like how the Psion class abandoned crystals as an implement and instead uses orbs.
On a similar note, it might have been nice if the holy symbol implement had instead left the HOLY part as fluff only used to describe the implements when used by a divine class, allowing other power sources to use the basic concept of a worn implement with different fluff, such as a primal class using a TOTEMIC SYMBOL. Likewise, it might have been nice if "totem" was just a generic catch all label for any implement used by a primal class, rather than another class of implement that seems exclusively bound to a specific power source. But this line of thought is getting off topic.
I would love to see the Archivist, either as its own class, or as a build of a tome-focused class (I could see an Evangel build that uses readings from its Tomes to empower allies with the new strength of faith).
Rather than having a direct relationship with a God (Invoker's Covenant or Avenger's Censure), or with a Church or Order (Paladin or Cleric), I could see the Archivist as the philosopher that studies the scriptures and gains insight from them that no other classes do. Their prayers would have a unique scholarly feel to it; they studied at seminary, or spent their entire lives studying the Book, and can quote it extensively. Or maybe they don't know any of it by heart, and are constantly flipping through the book to find relevant passages, which they read aloud, channeling their prayers through their readings of appropriate scriptures.
Sounds pretty good to me. The evangel build sounds like a lot of fun, and I can see it being very good at granting and improving saving throws as their rousing words aid their allies in "casting the devil out!"
For the other build I'd like something more directly inspired by the 3.5 Archivest, maybe call it the mystery seeker. They would use the knowledge they gain in their scholarly studies to instruct their allies in the best way to harm their enemies. It might be interesting if each power had secondary riders based on the enemy's origin (shadow, fey, aberrant, etc), though balancing the power to be effective against any origin without making it overpowering against its target origin could prove tricky. Maybe something like [Hit: 2d8+INT damage, and the target is slowed (save ends). If the target has the fey origin it takes a -2 penalty on saves to end this condition. Allies who hit the target while this condition lasts deal extra damage equal to your WIS]. While it might infringe on the wizard's uniqueness, giving them the ability to swap their daily powers, and restricting origin riders to daily powers only could be a good way to keep such powers from feeling useless, allowing the archivist to switch between a selection of powers based on the kinds of enemies they expect to encounter.
"The Speakers of Xaos is a college of wizards, sages, druids, priests, and explorers ..." Plane Below, pg. 40.
Sage could be a new term for an Archivist-style divine class, or perhaps primal (though I think it is more likely divine, so I'm putting this here).
Possibly drawing at straws, but Plane Below makes mention of the word "sage" quite a few times, in at least one place with a list of other classes. Specifically:
"The Speakers of Xaos is a college of wizards, sages, druids, priests, and explorers ..." Plane Below, pg. 40.
Sage could be a new term for an Archivist-style divine class, or perhaps primal (though I think it is more likely divine, so I'm putting this here).
Priests aren't a class though... Cleric is...
Though Explorers were mentioned alongside Seekers previously in Primal Power...
(The Power Source Podcast highlighted this fact, since Lord_Dreadman created this Martial Controller class called the Explorer)
I assume sage is just another generic term, since some classes seem to share their name with generic occupations, while others refer to a whole slew of archetypes that might fall into those mechanics. While I find fault with this (I feel all classes should either have many archetypes within them, or else all classes should have one archetype and different ways of looking at that archetype), it does lend weight to the fact that sage MIGHT be a class name. Druid and Wizard are classes, but they are also occupations. Priest and Explorer and Sage are just occupations as far as we currently know. However, since sometimes classes overlap with occupational archetypes, it MIGHT be thus.
I would rather presume, however, multiple meanings to a word.
) who consider the Minotaur on the cover to be a member of the new divine class. And since I think that the theme of the book is "ancient and forgotten arts coming back again to solve weirder problems", and looking at the runes on the bull's armor and mace, my money is on a class that uses divine runic magic. Presented as a type of even more ancient form of divine magic, maybe even not deity-specific, something similar and yet contrary to the Invoker: a more direct form of divine power like the Invoker, but unlike it, totally separated from the specific gods.And my guess is we're getting a very multi-role class, focused either on defending or controlling, with a big hint of leader in both.
Rune circles, weapon/armor enhancement Artificer-style, "symbols of pain/death/madness" and the like wlould be the powers.
A very good thing would be getting totally different armor proficiencies depending on build.
I'm thinking a "V" splitted class with either Int or Con for primaries, with the Con build getting even Plate, and the Int getting only cloth. The Int one would be castery, the Con one would be weapon-using. And Wis would be the WISEST secondary ability for both... So you get a very good class for Devas and a very good one for... Minotaurs... especially if there's also some Strength involved, even if I doubt it, and I doubt that they made Minotaurs a Con & Wis (as they would step on Wilden in the same book). Probably, Minotaurs would be good... "Runecasters" (??) for other reasons too, as defendrish racials, weapon-tied feats and the likes.
Also consider that this theory would include Dwarves as good armored runecasters (which I'd say is the most dwarvish thing ever), along with Wilden that would fit because they'd prefer this type of divine magic over others, if it's really less deity-specific.
And along with Devas, we would get Eladrin to be good castery runecasters, and also Tieflings. I think it fits so damned well. Also, we could get another Int/Wis race in Phb3, since it would be a good thing for the Psionic classes too, like the (awe-inspiring...) telekinetic Psion.
The only problem I really see with this theory is that the fact that I find it so pleasing seams like an index of improbability, and that "Runecaster" would be a **** name, I think, and I can't see other good names for what essentially IS a runic caster...
They'd rather make each branch of the 'V' its own class before making a new 'V' class if you ask me.
The most improbable part of your (GREAT) concept is the return of the 'V' class.
They'd rather make each branch of the 'V' its own class before making a new 'V' class if you ask me.
I'm not quite sure, they supported them pretty well in Divine Power with "Str or Cha" powers for Paladins, for example. I mean, it's a matter of doing the powers well, and NEVER messing up with the secondary. Paladins for example use BOTH Cha and Wis as secondaries, so they screw you up requiring you to have THREE high scores if you want some builds to function. If they stick to ONE secondary score for both branches of the "V", you're just getting two classes.
So I see many other improbable things in the concept... (Thanks! Could make it myself if the thing turns out to be totally different!) One of the improbable things is tied to this talk: too much difference between builds in role is probably unacceptable in their view (because it would be two classes in one). So maybe they should at least stick to one role (leader, at this point seems more obvious, since it's midterm in HP and well-suited for divine) and then simply give strong secondary role for each build. To max out the fun, they could then make it a ""W"" class with Divine Power 2, adding a strikery build with, say, Dex as primary (would be a sound option for the "divine archer", but I wouldn't dig it that much) and hide or chain for armor, midterm between the two other options...!! Wouldn't all of this make the divine power source "LEADERSHIP" undiscussed?? In the sense that you could really make a leader with ANY race!
Current classes:
Monk - Psionic Striker
Psion - Psionic Controller
Ardent - Psionic Leader
Battlemind - Psionic Defender (not 100% confirmed, but it's difficult to see it being anything else)
Seeker - Primal Controller
? - Divine ?
The one role that's disqualified is Controller, since they already confirmed the number of controller classes as of PHB3, and having half the classes consist of the same role would make things a bit top-heavy (even if there's less controllers overall).
That leaves the Striker, Defender, or Leader as possible roles (Striker is less likely than the other two, IMO, due to there being more striker classes already, but is still possible). Current divine classes consist of the following:
Cleric: Wandering priest/crusader. Depending on build, can be melee or ranged(implement).
Paladin: Divine knight and champion. Mostly melee, with a few implement options.
Avenger: Divine assassin and inquisitor. Mostly melee-oriented.
Invoker: Prophet and wielder of pure astral energy. Ranged implement user.
What archetypes are left, then, which cannot be easily covered by an existing class?
Runepriest - Divine Leader
That's my guess. 
Eh....put me down for Heretic- Divine Striker(I guess) if we are putting out guesses. Probably a long shot, but weirder things have happened.
• A Shepherd who protects his flock with club and staff? (Defender)
• An Evangelist or Missionary who's tome grants her power and influence of inspiration over ally and enemy alike? (Leader)
• An Exorcist who devotes his life to sealing away threats to the common people, with divine strictures, holy runes, and a bow of light? (Striker? Controller?)
Those are just four ideas I have had.
www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
About the Gameday for PHB 3 they say "Each character presented for play has a new character class from Player’s Handbook 3; four of the characters use the new races from that book as well!"
so, we know almost all new classes get a Pg (and all new races: it's really about new stuff this time)
Gameday everytime suited for 5 players, and the guess is to have all the 4 roles covered, and the fifth player get a second defender or striker
I say so, because so happened in the Gamedays I tooked part:
Gameday PHB2: double striker (barbarian and avenger)
Gameday MM2: double striker (rogue and barbarian)
Gamedat DMG2: double defender (fighter and swordmage)
With 5 new classes to show, I think they throw in the Gameday 3/4 of the psionics (gith monk confirmed), the primal one and the divine one
the doubled role happears to be controller this time: Seeker and Psion
so, if I'm right: as controller Seeker in, Psion out
then a Battlemind (?) for psionic defender (if so)
monk psion striker confirmed
ardent psionic leader IMHO in
then me divine guy: a defender of striker
end of the guesses
in my opinion, I will have a divine runemaster with cos/sag, melee weapons and armors to give the dwarves a perfect mach for the classic stereotipe
but also a robed priest coulb be interesting
for the psionic defender, I like to see a casterish ranged defender with new mechanics to fit well the role (as guessed in forum, mark the allies to protect and so on...)
or at least I hope for a psionic defender not in heavy armors (an ardent in chain it's enough - especially if they give him a scale or a light shield to match better the defenses for the cha/wis version low on CA-REF-FOR)
It could be a repeat of another Divine class, but with some gimmick attached
Avenger + heavy armor
Paladin + runes
Cleric + robes
Invoker + weapons
Or it could be from a different source just made into a Divine class
Divine Wizard
Divine Bard
so on and so on
Warlord + Psioncs = Ardent, so it may be awhile before we see the Divine Warlord
Ranger + Primal Bees = Seeker, so you will have to keep holding you breath for a Divine archer thats arrows can turn into little angels or something
I would like to see something more fleshed out like an Artificer, Shepard or a Hercules type; but seeing how people are going to buy the book no matter what or just focus on the "sweet" mechanics of the class, they don't really have much reason to take that much time in designing a class do they.
Although I am excited to see how they're going to top Bee Arrows
Judging from the classes that have been coming out lately, it's probably some thing really simple minded as though its just another class from before but with something else tacked on to make you think it's different:
It could be a repeat of another Divine class, but with some gimmick attached
Avenger + heavy armor
Paladin + runes
Cleric + robes
Invoker + weapons
Or it could be from a different source just made into a Divine class
Divine Wizard
Divine Bard
so on and so on
Warlord + Psioncs = Ardent, so it may be awhile before we see the Divine Warlord
Ranger + Primal Bees = Seeker, so you will have to keep holding you breath for a Divine archer thats arrows can turn into little angels or something
I would like to see something more fleshed out like an Artificer, Shepard or a Hercules type; but seeing how people are going to buy the book no matter what or just focus on the "sweet" mechanics of the class, they don't really have much reason to take that much time in designing a class do they.
Although I am excited to see how they're going to top Bee Arrows
That's a very pessimistic stance to take, McNancy. I disagree about the Ardent being a Warlord IN PSIONIC! It definitely cuts closer to some Warlords than to some Clerics, but it also has great similarity with the Valorous Bard. It's a melee combatant, and you need to get into the feel of it, why the powers are psionic, and how the weapon is a tool to set up those powers, rather than to actually carry out those powers, to see it being different. It also has a definite psionic feel, and the Mantles are quite different as well.
Seeker is more than just a Primal Ranger, It's the spellcasting ranger from 3.5e that was lost when Ranger went Martial. It's a mythic hunter that binds spirits to his bow. It's a wanderer that has an intimate relationship with the spirits of nature, and can transform herself into a flock of sparrows, or create mushroom clouds where her arrows land. It's very different. Even the Harrowing Swarm Archer can't truly imitate what teh Seeker does, because at most he emulates what a swarm of bees or other stingining insects does when it attacks, rather than actually creating that swarm. It's still just a rain of arrows, rather than the arrows turning into snakes and injecting their poisonous venom into the enemy with every bite.
So, I believe that PH3 will come through with a very original Divine class idea.
www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-ru...
Seems to be Runepriest, a divine Leader, and the new race it's the Shardmind
My best guess on the stats are WIS/CON and WIS/CHA, since the example runepriest listed in the post was a minotaur. Hopefully, it has enough of a unique thematic niche to set it apart from the Cleric and Paladin, which will be more difficult if it's yet another heavily-armored, weapon-using divine class.
Found this on EnWorld...
www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-ru...
Seems to be Runepriest, a divine Leader, and the new race it's the Shardmind
I am seriously suprised by the Rune Priest. I thought the runes on the minotaur's armor were just going to be a visual unrelated to (class) mechanics. I am quite happy with the Shardmind though if it is the crystaline race that we saw previously or at least something similar.
Unless of course this Shardmind is Small ... then I sahll be disappointed.
That's a very pessimistic stance to take, McNancy.
Thats kinda what I was going for.
I don't think it hurts to have a negative Mcnancy around to keepz it realz
I disagree about the Ardent being a Warlord IN PSIONIC! It definitely cuts closer to some Warlords than to some Clerics, but it also has great similarity with the Valorous Bard. It's a melee combatant, and you need to get into the feel of it, why the powers are psionic, and how the weapon is a tool to set up those powers, rather than to actually carry out those powers, to see it being different. It also has a definite psionic feel, and the Mantles are quite different as well.
It may not really be the Psionic Warlord, but thats what WotC said about it, which to me is a poor reflection on the class's concept.
Seeker is more than just a Primal Ranger, It's the spellcasting ranger from 3.5e that was lost when Ranger went Martial. It's a mythic hunter that binds spirits to his bow. It's a wanderer that has an intimate relationship with the spirits of nature, and can transform herself into a flock of sparrows, or create mushroom clouds where her arrows land. It's very different. Even the Harrowing Swarm Archer can't truly imitate what teh Seeker does, because at most he emulates what a swarm of bees or other stingining insects does when it attacks, rather than actually creating that swarm. It's still just a rain of arrows, rather than the arrows turning into snakes and injecting their poisonous venom into the enemy with every bite.
To me, thats not nearly enough difference to make it interesting or even warranted. I would've thought you of all people would be able to admit that conceptually the Seeker is a downgrade in quality; you're the one who advocates being more efficient with the classes, which I though is why you didn't like Swashbucker/Duelist as class
To me "spellcasting ranger" is exactly what I was talking about. I don't care if the class plays differently, thematically it's redundant and uninteresting. The class is way too gimmicky.
So, I believe that PH3 will come through with a very original Divine class idea.
Honestly, if people are behind "blank + blank" classes like Seeker and this speculated Runepriest, then I don't really see why they couldn't do a Martial Controller, because I don't see how something as dumb as "Ranger + Psychology" is any different than "Ranger + Bee magic"
Honestly, if people are behind "blank + blank" classes like Seeker and this speculated Runepriest, then I don't really see why they couldn't do a Martial Controller, because I don't see how something as dumb as "Ranger + Psychology" is any different than "Ranger + Bee magic"
Oh come on now bee magic isn't that bad. Heck Batman is scared of it. :p
Bee jokes aside, at least personally, I can't agree with the comparison between the seeker and a theoretical martial controller(mostly because I think what you are alluding to would work better as a psionic class, but we can ignore that for now)......*sigh* I really need to lear to stop trying to post right before I go to bed. I've wasted 10 min trying to rewrite this one sentence and I need to wrap this up. Suffice to put my position that I think there are more differences between the classes than you seem to be willin to admit, and I think that the logic you are using could say that paladins/swordmages are just fighters with divine/arcane magic. Probably not as eloquently put as I would like, but w/e. Bed!
That's a very pessimistic stance to take, McNancy.
Thats kinda what I was going for.
I don't think it hurts to have a negative Mcnancy around to keepz it realzI disagree about the Ardent being a Warlord IN PSIONIC! It definitely cuts closer to some Warlords than to some Clerics, but it also has great similarity with the Valorous Bard. It's a melee combatant, and you need to get into the feel of it, why the powers are psionic, and how the weapon is a tool to set up those powers, rather than to actually carry out those powers, to see it being different. It also has a definite psionic feel, and the Mantles are quite different as well.
It may not really be the Psionic Warlord, but thats what WotC said about it, which to me is a poor reflection on the class's concept.Seeker is more than just a Primal Ranger, It's the spellcasting ranger from 3.5e that was lost when Ranger went Martial. It's a mythic hunter that binds spirits to his bow. It's a wanderer that has an intimate relationship with the spirits of nature, and can transform herself into a flock of sparrows, or create mushroom clouds where her arrows land. It's very different. Even the Harrowing Swarm Archer can't truly imitate what teh Seeker does, because at most he emulates what a swarm of bees or other stingining insects does when it attacks, rather than actually creating that swarm. It's still just a rain of arrows, rather than the arrows turning into snakes and injecting their poisonous venom into the enemy with every bite.
To me, thats not nearly enough difference to make it interesting or even warranted. I would've thought you of all people would be able to admit that conceptually the Seeker is a downgrade in quality; you're the one who advocates being more efficient with the classes, which I though is why you didn't like Swashbucker/Duelist as class
To me "spellcasting ranger" is exactly what I was talking about. I don't care if the class plays differently, thematically it's redundant and uninteresting. The class is way too gimmicky.So, I believe that PH3 will come through with a very original Divine class idea.
Honestly, if people are behind "blank + blank" classes like Seeker and this speculated Runepriest, then I don't really see why they couldn't do a Martial Controller, because I don't see how something as dumb as "Ranger + Psychology" is any different than "Ranger + Bee magic"
It's true, I don't like classes being too similar to each other. I'm confident that the second build (Throw-Seeker) will be significantly different, and the idea of a Primal Boomerang hunter is really cool to me. It's something quite different.
I'm skeptical about Runepriest, NOT because of the combination (though I'm skeptical about that), but because of the name. Really, Runepriest? You couldn't think up anything better? And Shardmind? Really? And I thought Githzerai were the most Psionic race in PH3?
That said, Runepriest could be cool for Dwarves. It could be like the Goethia and Angel binding and stuff. I won't close my mind, I'm just not awed yet like I was with the Ardent, the Psion, and the Monk. Battlemind's little teaser, on the otherhand… I can't wait. Even if I dislike the name.
Personally I'm hoping that the rumors of runepriest are false. I'd much rather have the archivist be our final divine class. I never got to play one in 3.5, but I really wanted to. The Dark Knowledge class feature felt so interesting to me. And it's a side of leaders we haven't seen yet: leading by virtue of knowing so much about your enemy, and pointing it out to your allies. It's something the bard could have done, but currently doesn't. Admittedly, the archivist is in ways like a divine wizard, but studied lore and ancient rites are something divine magic hasn't done yet. Stolen power - so interesting. Plus with a little refluffing you would now have a way to do translate support wizards from 3.5. Ah, to play a wizard who rather than blasting, specialized in casting Bull's Strength, Stoneskin, Magic Weapon, and the like. But most of all, I want Dark Knowledge back. It could even be a recurring theme in the attack powers.
Well, all will be certain in five days time. But I'm half inclined to believe these rumours. It could even be that Runepriest ate some of the Archivist.
We'll see some Shardmind Swordmages too; S-M-S-M. (Marquis de Shaarde?)I'm looking forward to seeing the Battlemind; they look interesting.
I'm a little less gung-ho about the Runepriest, although I'll reserve judgment until I see it. As-yet, I'm not sure it sounds distinct enough from the Cleric. If it's con-primary, that would be pretty cool, though, since there're so few con-primary classes. (I think a grand total of one-half, now, 'coz of the warlock?)
I agree with what's been said about the Ardent being really similar to the Warlord. The main defining feature of the Ardent (the path we've seen, anyway), is giving massive defense bonuses against OAs. It's... not useless, but also not something that really makes it feel super-different in action. It reads like it's supposed to be defender-secondary, but it's limited to chain by default and doesn't get any shield proficiencies AND doesn't have a Str-build to make it fluid to get those armor/shield proficiencies. Its distinctiveness from the Warlord is that it has worse AC?
Maybe the other half of the powers will help.The seeker seems distinct enough from the Ranger, though. The fact that two classes use ranged weapons primarily doesn't make them that similar--look at how many classes use melee! If anything, it's the Ranger's fault for being "too primal" relative to other Martial classes. Rangers do much more damage and Seekers are all about control, as is appropriate to their roles. The only thing that really concerns me about the Seeker so far is that I think their class feature might be a bit underwhelming. You get to reroll one attack per encounter, but you have to shift the attack to a different target to do so. Useless on solos. Potentially good in encounters with a couple strong foes when it'd be handy to incap one of them, but it doesn't matter which one. (Say, early on in an encounter.) But if it's mid-encounter, and, say, you really want to incap the one at full health so the party can beat down on the bloodied one... eh. Or in the opposite situation, if you want to contribute to that beatdown and your reroll-feature forces you to split damage onto the other one! It's certainly better than straight-up-missing, but I don't think it's as good as it should be. I do like all the "can be used as a ranged basic" stuff; I'm curious to see how that's gonna interact with other mechanics.
Personally I'm hoping that the rumors of runepriest are false. I'd much rather have the archivist be our final divine class. I never got to play one in 3.5, but I really wanted to. The Dark Knowledge class feature felt so interesting to me. And it's a side of leaders we haven't seen yet: leading by virtue of knowing so much about your enemy, and pointing it out to your allies. It's something the bard could have done, but currently doesn't. Admittedly, the archivist is in ways like a divine wizard, but studied lore and ancient rites are something divine magic hasn't done yet. Stolen power - so interesting. Plus with a little refluffing you would now have a way to do translate support wizards from 3.5. Ah, to play a wizard who rather than blasting, specialized in casting Bull's Strength, Stoneskin, Magic Weapon, and the like. But most of all, I want Dark Knowledge back. It could even be a recurring theme in the attack powers.
Well, all will be certain in five days time. But I'm half inclined to believe these rumours. It could even be that Runepriest ate some of the Archivist.
I hope so. I hope so. I also hope that battlemind winds up being changed to warmind - I loved that 3.5 PrC, and I think it would be a good thing to revive. At the very least, I'm probably going to rename the class warmind in my games. Or maybe Sentinel, taking someone else's suggestion. Unless the battlemind doesn't have a precognitive build, in which case the sentinel may actually be worth being a distinct class.
Personally I'm hoping that the rumors of runepriest are false. I'd much rather have the archivist be our final divine class. I never got to play one in 3.5, but I really wanted to. The Dark Knowledge class feature felt so interesting to me. And it's a side of leaders we haven't seen yet: leading by virtue of knowing so much about your enemy, and pointing it out to your allies. It's something the bard could have done, but currently doesn't. Admittedly, the archivist is in ways like a divine wizard, but studied lore and ancient rites are something divine magic hasn't done yet. Stolen power - so interesting. Plus with a little refluffing you would now have a way to do translate support wizards from 3.5. Ah, to play a wizard who rather than blasting, specialized in casting Bull's Strength, Stoneskin, Magic Weapon, and the like. But most of all, I want Dark Knowledge back. It could even be a recurring theme in the attack powers.
Well, all will be certain in five days time. But I'm half inclined to believe these rumours. It could even be that Runepriest ate some of the Archivist.
I hope so. I hope so. I also hope that battlemind winds up being changed to warmind - I loved that 3.5 PrC, and I think it would be a good thing to revive. At the very least, I'm probably going to rename the class warmind in my games. Or maybe Sentinel, taking someone else's suggestion. Unless the battlemind doesn't have a precognitive build, in which case the sentinel may actually be worth being a distinct class.
Listen. I was a huge supporter of the Sentinel, and hated the name Battlemind. But Battlemind is an official word they used in the Character Builder. I really don't see them changing it. Especially since the book was already finished when they put that word into the Character Builder.
The shardmind looks like an awesome race concept, with the marked exception of the name. I think I'd even prefer over-used suffixes like "-ling" (so, Shardling?) to something that's gonna make a presumably-intended race-class combination sound weird. Shardmind Battlemind!
Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of "shardmind" as a name, either. They probably had the same discussion we did about shardmind battleminds, too, but they probably couldn't find a better names for either thing and so are willing to live with it.
I agree with what's been said about the Ardent being really similar to the Warlord. The main defining feature of the Ardent (the path we've seen, anyway), is giving massive defense bonuses against OAs. It's... not useless, but also not something that really makes it feel super-different in action. It reads like it's supposed to be defender-secondary, but it's limited to chain by default and doesn't get any shield proficiencies AND doesn't have a Str-build to make it fluid to get those armor/shield proficiencies. Its distinctiveness from the Warlord is that it has worse AC?
I'm playing an epic level ardent, and I think he feels different from the warlord I played (although that was in the late heroic tier). The ardent has more obviously magical effects and makes more zones, and power points make the class play different from the warlord. At least in my experience, the difference between a warlord and ardent is about the same as the difference between a warlord and a battle cleric.
Hmm... i wanna play a shardmind battlemind|warlord / warden? Just for kicks.
What about the story when the Warforged Warden/Warlord MC Warlock and the Shardmind Battlemind met the Mindflayer warmongerer and they all ate brains?
Found this on EnWorld...
www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-ru...
Seems to be Runepriest, a divine Leader, and the new race it's the Shardmind
ME HAPPY!!! :D
It's now VERY probable that it will be a V class with Con and (maybe, let's hope) INT as PRIMARIES!!
UPDATE: Oh noes... Looks like the Minotaur Runepriest of the event has 20 Str and only 18 Con, so again they refused to use Con as primary... That, or the character is built to take advantage of a very high secondary (it would be better, but nigh impossible, chance-wise)
It's now VERY probable that it will be a V class with Con and (maybe, let's hope) INT as PRIMARIES!!
Huh? What makes you think that the Runepriest is a V class?
...so again they refused to use Con as primary...
All signs point to Battlemind being CON primary.
I don't follow. Having high STR and CON means that it must be a V class? O_o
Of course, V for Very Large Pecs.
Because people want the class to have Wis and Cha as well...
Ah... so this V class assertion is based on... nothing at all?
Of course, V for Very Large Pecs.
HAHAHA! HAWT!
Because people want the class to have Wis and Cha as well...
Ah... so this V class assertion is based on... nothing at all?Of course, V for Very Large Pecs.
HAHAHA! HAWT!
Exactly. People speculate that there can't be a Divine class without Wisdom. Apparently there were rumours about Charisma being an ability score. Personally, I wish there was an Intelligence build. We know nothing. Hell, No Name could be a liar. I'm inclined to believe him, but it's true. We have no evidence for or against his statements, and we have no evidence FROM his statements whether Runepriest will be A or V shaped. All we know is that the Minotaur Runepriest had really high Str, just less than that Con, and moderate Wis. I'm seeing it as probably a Str-Con-Wis and Str-Wis-Con sort of A-class, personally. Too bad, since Ardent Paladin already uses those ability scores. That said, Wilden and Dwarves will likely capitalise on the secondaries, and Goliaths, Minotaurs, Shifters, and Warforged will LOVE this class.
Personally I'm hoping that the rumors of runepriest are false. I'd much rather have the archivist be our final divine class. [...]
I'm with you, but sadly I think we've already seen the 4e version of the archivist. Check out the Divine Philosopher invoker paragon path in Divine Power. It's got a nod to the two big archivist class abilities:
- Learns a divine at-will power from another class as an encounter power (reference to the archivist's ability to learn any divine spell).
- One paragon path ability and two powers that give bonuses based on monster knowledge checks (reference to Dark Knowledge).
So, I think the archivist went the way of the Favored Soul in 4e.
I'm not real thrilled by the Runepriest concept, either, at least as presented thus far; it doesn't sound very distinct conceptually from a battle cleric. I guess I'll wait to see what the class looks like overall, but I was hoping for something almost completely opposite (cloth-armor Int-based healer).
Looks like I'm sticking with a kludgy artificer-cleric hybrid for now. 
Personally I'm hoping that the rumors of runepriest are false. I'd much rather have the archivist be our final divine class. [...]
I'm with you, but sadly I think we've already seen the 4e version of the archivist. Check out the Divine Philosopher invoker paragon path in Divine Power. It's got a nod to the two big archivist class abilities:
- Learns a divine at-will power from another class as an encounter power (reference to the archivist's ability to learn any divine spell).
- One paragon path ability and two powers that give bonuses based on monster knowledge checks (reference to Dark Knowledge).
So, I think the archivist went the way of the Favored Soul in 4e.
I'm not real thrilled by the Runepriest concept, either, at least as presented thus far; it doesn't sound very distinct conceptually from a battle cleric. I guess I'll wait to see what the class looks like overall, but I was hoping for something almost completely opposite (cloth-armor Int-based healer).
Looks like I'm sticking with a kludgy artificer-cleric hybrid for now.
Many former classes have been turned into PPaths, but others were turned into PPaths and then turned into classes later. Or PPaths have turned into classes – Avenger and Assassin are good examples.
Well, Avenger and Assassin mean a lot more than "X DnD Class". The Angelic Avenger does not resemble the Avenger class in any way. "Favored Soul" is definately a DnD class name.
How about Swordmage? Wizard of the Spiral Tower was a PPath before to try to cover that concept, and the idea of a magic knight had been done as a Prestige Class in the past (Eldritch Knight), but they introduced it as Swordmage only just now in 4e.
Even Hexblade and Duskblade weren't quite what Swordmage is.
Well, Avenger and Assassin mean a lot more than "X DnD Class". The Angelic Avenger does not resemble the Avenger class in any way. "Favored Soul" is definately a DnD class name.
How about Swordmage? Wizard of the Spiral Tower was a PPath before to try to cover that concept, and the idea of a magic knight had been done as a Prestige Class in the past (Eldritch Knight), but they introduced it as Swordmage only just now in 4e.
Even Hexblade and Duskblade weren't quite what Swordmage is.
I'm REALLY not following your line of logic. This started with "certain paragons became full classes" citing Avenger and Assassin which as far as I recall denotes Angelic Avenger and Shadow Assassin. Neither Paragon path is very close in function or flavor to the class you claim came from it. Even the Wizard of Spiral Tower, which does not share the Swordmage class name so not supporting evidence for your claim, is not a defender, just a wizard comfortable in Melee.
Many 3e classes were limited in scope, which is why they are being boiled into Paragon paths. Creating a class just for the name when there's no mechanical niche to set it apart doesn't fly today.
Because people want the class to have Wis and Cha as well, so everybody knows the only way to cover 4 ability scores is with a V-class… o_0
Ah... so this V class assertion is based on... nothing at all?
No people, even if it might be a completely nuts concept for some of you, the assertion is based on the fact that a "Runepriest" is an archetype that could be considered incomplete if it didn't have a more caster-oriented build, and (as you can read in my other posts back on this thread) I think that the way to do it, while still retaining usability, may be to make a Con/Int V-class, with Wis as secondary for both so that there's no MADness, with different armor proficiencies based on build.
Now, with the preview we had we know that either Strength or Constitution are primaries, with Strength being more probable. In this case, I hope that my concept might still be the answer for this class, just making Con the secondary for both builds and having Str for weapon-based melee and Int for the castery one.
If Con is primary and the character just happens to have a stronger secondary, then the V-class theory is debunked, because having the castery build have Str as secondary sounds very nuts.
In case you're wondering why I'm partial towards Int, that's because this class might be the first divine class that "bypasses" the deities (or at least the worship of a single deity) while getting its divine power, so Int might represent that kind of study required to "crack the divine code".
It appears they didn't think the same way, maybe because so many of you hate V classes just because you've seen bad examples such as Paladin.
Paladin doesn't work because it has no fixed secondary, with Cha and Wis floating around features and powers. A V-class with a single fixed secondary is by no means inferior to an A-class, providing it has a slightly larger amount of powers in total. In my vision, this Runepriest had also different armor proficiencies per build (achieved by giving out only cloth with the class and then giving Scale or whatever as a bonus-feat connected with the build-specific feature of one of the builds), and the objective was to cover all the rune-casting fluff with only one class including both the armored "rune-smith" and the mage-like "rune-scribe". I'm sorry for you if you find all of this not compelling... (and I'm sorry for Wizards if they didn't think about this: they would have created a class that satisfied two different kinds of players)
A V-class with a single fixed secondary is by no means inferior to an A-class, providing it has a slightly larger amount of powers in total
So to be clear, in math terms, V class + extra powers= A Class. Therefore, if extra powers is positive, V class < A Class.
I think it's too big an assumption to say the rune priest will have Caster powers using WIS or INT. The Paladin since divine power has pioneered spell-like abilities (shout of condemnation for example) that use STR as the primary stat- it's possible the Runepriests will be similiar, using a mental stat secondary for riders. It's also possible, like the Ardent which uses weapon attacks for everything, that all abilities focus on "hammering out" the runes and there are no spell like powers to justify mental attacking.
The Cleric didn't fail as a V class because the CHA riders were so marginal for the STR powers that WIS was the secondary stat for STR builds. The Ranger didn't fail as a V class because almost every power was double purposed with a different range. The warlock almost fails a V class (Starlocks) but the sheer volume of powers released from the many builds keeps things fresh. Unless they are willing to oversupport the Runepriest, which'll be more difficult as a late released class, it doesn't make sense to make it V.
A V-class with a single fixed secondary is by no means inferior to an A-class, providing it has a slightly larger amount of powers in total
So to be clear, in math terms, V class + extra powers= A Class. Therefore, if extra powers is positive, V class < A Class.
I think it's too big an assumption to say the rune priest will have Caster powers using WIS or INT. The Paladin since divine power has pioneered spell-like abilities (shout of condemnation for example) that use STR as the primary stat- it's possible the Runepriests will be similiar, using a mental stat secondary for riders. It's also possible, like the Ardent which uses weapon attacks for everything, that all abilities focus on "hammering out" the runes and there are no spell like powers to justify mental attacking.
The Cleric didn't fail as a V class because the CHA riders were so marginal for the STR powers that WIS was the secondary stat for STR builds. The Ranger didn't fail as a V class because almost every power was double purposed with a different range. The warlock almost fails a V class (Starlocks) but the sheer volume of powers released from the many builds keeps things fresh. Unless they are willing to oversupport the Runepriest, which'll be more difficult as a late released class, it doesn't make sense to make it V.
Welll, I expplained why it makes sense for me, and they are solid explanations. Of course nobody can argue that an A class is simpler, easier to make it right and everything. But just as we like the fact that the Cleric can be a battle cleric or castery cleric, I think everybody would enjoy the diversity that a V-Runepriest could offer. If they prefer technical simplicity over sheer fun, I'm gonna think they're smoking a bit too much (or too little) there at Wizards.