I maintain that this product is the death of the Shadow Power Source. The only class with the Shadow Power Source is the Original Assassin (The class, not the various PP's in the books) in Dragon. It is sad that this power source is regulared to Keyword Status.
Which it may in fact be. I am not entirely hopeful, but we'll have to see.
The Shadowfell is a dark reflection of the world: its 'shadow'. When a character accesses the power of Shadow, what he or she is actually doing is tapping into his or her own 'shadow-self', the dark reflection of his or her own soul. But you need to have some power of your own to start with, in order to have any 'shadow power' to access.
So, a paladin devoted in body and soul to a particular virtue finds in a moment of desperation that she can tap into another, perhaps even more potent, source of power: her virtue's 'dark side'. She goes beyond sacrificing her life for her friends and instead sacrifices her soul so that she might continue to live and protect them. She's still a paladin, but her power now draws both from the divine power of her virtue and from the shadowy power of her virtue's 'dark side'.
A wizard studying forbidden tomes at the dead of night in a locked vault beneath his academy's library discovers a way to harness the innate power of a part of his own soul he had not realised even existed: a dark reflection of himself that dwells on the other side of Death's veil. His spells are still fundamentally arcane, harnessing the magic that permeates the planes, but now there's something else feeding power into them too: a dark thread that links his soul to the Shadowfell.
A shaman's spirit companion is devoured by a death giant, its primal essence apparently lost forever. But then, a year and a day later, the spirit returns, corrupted by its sojourn beyond the borders of life and death. Cut off from the natural cycle, it instead taps into the endless, desperate, ever-tightening gyre of hopelessness, dissolution and ruin that is the Shadowfell. The shaman's powers are still primal, but are now tainted by shadow. Where his touch once brought boundless life, in harmony with the natural world, it now requires blood sacrifices to the ever-hungry spirit.
Don't get me wrong. I want to see some pure shadow classes as well, to represent those characters (such as shadow-dancers) who tap into the power of Shadow without using another power source as an intermediary. But I don't think the idea of dual-source shadow builds is, in itself, a bad concept.
ETA: It occurs to me that, Shadow being what it is, being 'dead' is not necessarily a handicap... ;)
I do think that they should have a shadow-sourced class other than the assassin or alternatively release a new assassin build that has more of a magey feel to it, call it the shadowcaster, make it a controller class, and give it riders on its powers that increase the number of targets, distance of teleports etc and some wizardy feats. After all, the assassin class is just a placeholder name. We have the thief build for the rogue as well as thief feat power swaps for all classes. The name means little, it's the powers that define the class.
I'm more worried about how the Necromancer will be handled. If it's a mage build, I can't envision it having any of the crazy class features that a Necromancer should have, like the at-will ability to summon undead or some form of life drain. Rather, from the preview, it looks like the Necromanccer mage build (or whatever it's called) will chiefly consist of "Your necrotic attacks ignore necrotic resistance" and another small benefit. Summons seem to be weak daily powers. The preview makes me think of a Shaman who could only summon a spirit companion via dailies.
I think the daily in the preview may have been a class feature like the warlock's summon rather than a selectable daily based on the fact that it requires a specific school of magic and because the summon is persistent. However we do not know what the at-wills, encounter, and daily powers look like. At-wills could be attacks that use corpses as a primary target to deliver an attack, raise (minor action at-will attack for the raise and a standard for the corpse's attack?) corpses with 1 hit point in order to deliver a melee basic attack. Encounters could be sustain minor as long as the corpse doesn't have the negative hitpoints to destroy it's body, and average dailies might either be persistant, have instinctive effects, summon multiples, or/and have opportunity actions in order to keep you guarded or have the mob that you so much desire. Honestly I only judge a class as something I do or do not want to play based on what I can see it do 1.) every round 2.) every encounter.
While I don't have a problem with the Necromancer being a Mage build... per se. Part of me would like to have seen a cleric build for it.
We haven't seen what the cleric build will be. Undeath domain and Death domain? Maybe a Subclass for cleric with darker powers- shadow or infernal
While I don't have a problem with the Necromancer being a Mage build... per se. Part of me would like to have seen a cleric build for it.
We haven't seen what the cleric build will be. Undeath domain and Death domain? Maybe a Subclass for cleric with darker powers- shadow or infernal
If there is a cleric build. I don't remember them mentioning one in HoS.
We saw a preview for a vecna cleric's class ability that dealt with commanding undead (instead of turning undead). I think we are going to be seeing a "necromancer cleric" build in the near future as well.
I would love that. I always liked the cleric based necros better than the wizard based ones.
If the Shadow Leader isn't expected to represent the dark clerical necromancer and the Shadow Controller isn't expected to be the non-arcanist-but-arcanist-like necromancer (because those traditional shticks are already well accounted for via the previewed and hinted at methods), might other interesting options await us in the dark??
...might other interesting options await us in the dark??People like this make me want to shoot myself.
Look at the facts. Essentials ate shadow, and shat out garbage. People keep telling me "I'm too hard on the company, they are trying ". BS they are full of unmitigated hacks that cannot do anything original.
Dont you have a jug of moonshine you should be nursing?
...might other interesting options await us in the dark??People like this make me want to shoot myself.
Look at the facts. Essentials ate shadow, and shat out garbage. People keep telling me "I'm too hard on the company, they are trying ". BS they are full of unmitigated hacks that cannot do anything original.
And you know this because you have an advance copy? Can I see it? I wanna play with shat garbage!!
...might other interesting options await us in the dark??People like this make me want to shoot myself.
Look at the facts. Essentials ate shadow, and shat out garbage. People keep telling me "I'm too hard on the company, they are trying ". BS they are full of unmitigated hacks that cannot do anything original.
And you know this because you have an advance copy? Can I see it? I wanna play with shat garbage!!
Also Blackguard's are fun. And so are necro-mages. Even if that and the shade race is all that's in it. Hey at least it's kind of cool. Not $20 cool, but if we have future copies laying around...
Assassins are always evil and will kill their own party. If they were just called Ninjas, they'd be perfectly fine. ;)
Now now. Don't confuse the Shadow Power Source, with the Assassin.
Assassins are always evil and will kill their own party. If they were just called Ninjas, they'd be perfectly fine. ;)
So I see you have the fond memories as well. Also the whole Dragonborn = Half-Orc thing as well.
I believe what I'm trying to say to Thax is... wait until it is released.
This is just a silly thread. The book isn't even out yet and already it's begun killing things...
If there's rules for shadow magic in the book, and the necro/shadow mage don't use them, well, something must be in there that does use them. Otherwise, why make them at all? I'm all for advocating what you would like to see, but please, stop trying to tear down something that you've only seen the smallest portion of so far. Current evidence may indeed be disheartening for the shadow source, but there's more to come. Wait until you know the full contents of the book to claim it a failure.
This is just a silly thread. The book isn't even out yet and already it's begun killing things...
If there's rules for shadow magic in the book, and the necro/shadow mage don't use them, well, something must be in there that does use them. Otherwise, why make them at all? I'm all for advocating what you would like to see, but please, stop trying to tear down something that you've only seen the smallest portion of so far. Current evidence may indeed be disheartening for the shadow source, but there's more to come. Wait until you know the full contents of the book to claim it a failure.
This is the 3rd round for this type of thread from the OP. I wasn't gonna say anything, but it's kind of comical.
We already had two threads contaminated with all the whine and cheese about this. Did we REALLY need another one? Really?
You've already fought back in one thread with "whine and cheese". Did you REALLY need to do it again? Really?
Just for a sense of irony.
Apologists are just tiresome. If WotC sold a box full of actual ,with the DnD logo on it, they would still call it the best product WotC produced or manage to find excuses or uses for it. I think some of them hope to become VCL, ORCs, become playtesters or even get hired at WotC.
They even have a thread in General where they shout how great they are.
People who claim that their opinions are empirical fact, and can't accept that others might love what they don't, are just tiresome.
That, and the fact that "you're getting the love and we're not" stings a bit. I wouldn't call that a primary cause of our concern, though.
Sounds like an opinion stated as empirical fact.
No, it sounds more like a parody of your original statement, in which I note that your actions are considered tiresome by quite a few of us as well.
And who said I didn't like what others do? I just think that calling people whinners for a legitimate opinion is tiresome. WotC could have made an awesome product by splitting the apple in two and creating new classes with the shadow power source and by creating new builts for old classes. But this is just a tautology. WotC prefere to loose customers and some people like to stick close to WotC. They can't be wrong, since this is the direction WotC is taking for the game.
WotC is already making an awesome product. It just happens to not be the product you want. Which doesn't mean it is a bad business decision. Whether it is a good business decision or a bad one remains to be seen. And those of us that like the concept of the product do not like it because we believe that WotC can't be wrong, but rather because we like the concept of the product. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. In fact, it is one that is objectively provable as false. I am a huge defender of the Heroes of Shadow book. I love the concept. But I have pages and pages of posts in which I complain about the way Gamma World includes a CCG element to its rules. I think WotC did "wrong" (which in this case doesn't equate to WotC actually doing wrong, but rather WotC releasing a product I don't like). I am boycotting Gamma World as a result.
WotC isn't perfect in my PoV. There are many problems I would say. But I enjoy the books, and I'm buying them.
I'm not saying don't complain. I'm saying don't expect your complaining to DO anything – that's something only your dollar or boycott can do, or if WotC actually asks about it.
And wait until the product comes out before making that judgement. I may still think the product isn't a very good book. But from what I've seen, I think it will be good. From what you've seen, it looks like crap. But regardless, we've seen only a tiny bit. You need to learn patience, and wait to see what is actually in the book, before you go proclaiming it the best thing ever or the worst book in the history of D&D and Roleplaying. Otherwise, you're just setting yourself up for dissapointment – by either expecting too much of it, or by deciding it's evil before learning what's in it, and feeling bad about it regardless of the quality of the contents once they're fully revealed.
Some people prefer to see what's ACTUALLY in the book before judging it.
Also, pardon me for reading lines such as "it could have been an awesome product" and coming to the conclusion that you thus do not find (what you have seen of) it to be great. If you do like the concept of the product (as previewed), you were not very clear.
Me, I love what I have seen of the product in its preview. It seems to be exactly what I was hoping for. Though, I won't know for sure until I own it.
And that seems to be about all there is to say to you goldomark... but please, feel free to keep ranting if it makes you feel better.
Now, philosophical discussion surrounding positive and negative emotions and their impact on the world around oneself aside, I see no reason to believe that loving the preview is more justified then hating it. It is a subjective value judgement one way or the other. But, when someone comes here to make empirical statements about about the quality of a product, despite the fact that their empirical statements are nothing but subjective value judgments, they are in effect being rude to the people who do not feel the way they do. I see no reason to be nice to such people. Mind you, not everyone who dislikes the preview is such a person. Some recognize their subjective value judgement for what it is, and I take no issue with those posters.
I support everyone who want a change in the direction, even if I like this direction. Go out and push for it! Show WotC where your dollars go, to what products. But a few people whining here doesn't do anything. They put out those surveys (at least, I believe) because they want to know what the consumerbase as a whole thinks, and it has more to do with sales and other data than people saying they like a product or they hate a product on the WotC forums. We're only a small percentage of it.
Currently, I'm happy with Essentials. That doesn't mean I'm an appologist. It means I'm not going to push for a change at this time. I supported a Necromancer class, but I'm fine with a Necromancer Mage if it's done well. I think it can be done well. I know next to nothing about the Necromancer Mage build, however, since very little of it was previewed. Similarly, I know next to nothing about the Blackguard. Similarly, I know next to nothing about what else is in the book. I'm not saying people who are angry the Necromancer isn't its own class should be quiet and that their opinion doesn't matter. In fact, I would urge said people to push WotC (or submit to Dragon themselves), in order to make material that will support the actual options they want. But that isn't done by whining, and all this talk of "WotC Appologists" seems like a big whine to me as well, casting certain users as unintelligent sheep who just will buy anything and won't think about if something is good or not, and thus opinions such as mine or Cyber-Dave doesn't matter. That is frustrating, and frankly, disrespectful, in my opinion.
What I have been saying is that I'm upset that people are acting like the Shadow Power Source is dead in the water, that pure shadow classes can't exist anymore, simply because the Necromancer isn't a pure shadow class, but a build of a build of Wizard, and because the Hexblade is a build of Warlock, and because the Blackguard is a build of Paladin. These are concepts that players suggested as possible Shadow concepts, but they are not the be-all and end-all. We really don't know yet what is in the book, so writing it off so easily because one thinks that the book won't have something in it seems silly to me.
Also, I did not say that everyone whining, but some people sure seem to be making statements like, "Shadow is Dead; I'm quitting D&D!" or "Shadow is Dead; WotC ruined everything again!" These are whines. Then there is trolling and baiting, which I almost feel you are bordering on, Goldomark. Please don't go there.
Not really. They have ranks. Like good and great, great and awesome.
No, they really don't. The notion that these words come attached with some sort of empirically valid "rank" is a load of bologna. You may have attached some sort of ranking system to those two words. The English language, however, has not. Great and (the non formal usage of) awesome are synonyms. They mean the exact same thing.
...you haven't demonstrated your empirical facts that was soooo easily demonstratable. /Waiting
...what are you talking about? Are you referring to your conclusion that anyone who says they like the product exactly as it is is just an "apologist" who believes that WotC can do no wrong? Because, I have already demonstrated that that conclusion is objectively false.
Like calling people whinners isn't rude? Please, indulge me. What isn't rude about that? Please answer me. I spend time answering your answers, now answer mine. Is saying people are whinners rude or not?
I have no problem being rude to someone who is themselves being rude. I am not a christian. I do not believe in turning the other cheek.
Like whom?
Kalnaur, FitzNighteyes, Foxface, and a few others, specifically strike me as being mature posters who also dislike Essentials. I don't agree with everything they say, but they don't tend to make empirical statements about subjective matters.
Like me? Certainly not like you, since you love HoS even if it hasn't came out yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have just made another objectively false statement. I have quite clearly said that I do not "love" HoS. I have no opinion on the product yet, because I do not own the product yet. What I love is the concept of HoS as previewed. Unlike the words great and awesome, which do equate, the statements that, "one loves HoS," or, "one loves the concept of HoS as previewed," do not.
I agree with Cyber-Dave ( you are missing out Gamma World by the way).
I just can't bring myself to play a CCG. I really hate CCGs. I am sure Gamma World is a great game, but its CCG aspect puts it squarely in the "not my cup of tea" category.
I agree with Cyber-Dave ( you are missing out Gamma World by the way).
I just can't bring myself to play a CCG. I really hate CCGs. I am sure Gamma World is a great game, but its CCG aspect puts it squarely in the "not my cup of tea" category.
But it is only a CCG if you want it to be. You can just ignore the optional expansion cards and then it's not a CCG anymore.
Which reminds me of what you have suggested some of us do with Necromancy/Nethermancy to make the Necromancers we want. ;)
I agree with Kanaur here. Personally, I love Gamma World, and might even buy a few booster packs if they enhance the zaniness, because it's not like I'm seriously changing the level of the game – just the variety of craziness. We all use the same deck, after all, for that one game.
But yeah, booster packs are avoidable (save the free bonus one in the box!). And this book is avoidable too, if you don't want Necromancer/Nethermancer Mages.
However, I doubt WotC will make an Necromancer CLASS as well. So I don't know how well the comparison runs.
But it is only a CCG if you want it to be. You can just ignore the optional expansion cards and then it's not a CCG anymore.
No, it is not. If you don't buy any boosters you place yourself at a disadvantage. Those that do buy boosters will end up with more powerful decks. It is the same situation as the balance problems of 3e, except that power is divided along the real world economic capabilities of the group (which I think is just atrocious). Now, a group could ban player decks from their game completely. But that means you have to find a group of players willing to play that way. That, in turn, diminishes the player base of the game that I would be willing to play with significantly. That, and if I buy the game I support the CCG aspect of it one way or the other. I tell WotC that I am willing to buy games with a CCG aspect. I would rather let them know just how much I hate CCG aspects by voting with my wallet. So, I boycott the game. It just isn't worth it for me to invest in that game when I am not willing to play it by the rules as written.
Which reminds me of what you have suggested some of us do with Necromancy/Nethermancy to make the Necromancers we want. ;)
Does the Necromancer/Nethermancer upset the balance of the game along real world economic lines? If you don't purchase that book, will you be playing at a power disadvantage? No? Then it isn't the same thing at all... but whatever. That game isn't designed for players like me. That is all there is to it. I won't buy that game. But I also don't begrudge its fans. If that is what they like that is what they like. My hatred of CCGs is something that is a) subjective and b) specific to me. It says more about me than it does about the empirical quality of Gamma World.
But it is only a CCG if you want it to be. You can just ignore the optional expansion cards and then it's not a CCG anymore.
No, it is not. If you don't buy any boosters you place yourself at a disadvantage. Those that do buy boosters will end up with more powerful decks. It is the same situation as the balance problems of 3e, except that power is divided along the real world economic capabilities of the group (which I think is just atrocious). Now, a group could ban player decks from their game completely. But that means you have to find a group of players willing to play that way. That, in turn, diminishes the player base of the game that I would be willing to play with significantly. That, and if I buy the game I support the CCG aspect of it one way or the other. I tell WotC that I am willing to buy games with a CCG aspect. I would rather let them know just how much I hate CCG aspects by voting with my wallet. So, I boycott the game. It just isn't worth it for me to invest in that game when I am not willing to play it by the rules as written.Which reminds me of what you have suggested some of us do with Necromancy/Nethermancy to make the Necromancers we want. ;)
Does the Necromancer/Nethermancer upset the balance of the game along real world economic lines? If you don't purchase that book, will you be playing at a power disadvantage? No? Then it isn't the same thing at all... but whatever. That game isn't designed for players like me. That is all there is to it. I won't buy that game. But I also don't begrudge its fans. If that is what they like that is what they like. My hatred of CCGs is something that is a) subjective and b) specific to me. It says more about me than it does about the empirical quality of Gamma World.
GW doesn't take itself seriously enough to concern it self with any of that. Which is why I like it. I wouldn't want an entire campaign with it or anything, but it's a fun "filler" game for a few weeks or so. I do desperately want to try it, though. As to the booster packs, in one of the previews they mentioned that the cards will be arranged in such a manner that you know you'll be getting something different.
I didn't say don't voice it here. Voicing it here is fine. It's just that three threads have been made, and up until the last few days, were filled with whining from people who have decided to hate the book before they even know what content is in it, besides a Divine Blackguard that is a striker sub-class of the Paladin, and two builds of Mage (a Wizard subclass) that use the Shadow Power Source, the Necromancer Mage and the Nethermancer Mage.
In any case, most of what I say is not directed towards a particular person. I prefer not to direct comments personally. I think you misinterprete me and put words in my mouth (which has nothing to do with homosexuality), because you're thinking certain things I've said are directed specifically towards you.
I'm not saying don't voice your upsetness here. But there's a limit, and when certain people aggragate to take over two threads and make a third thread to whine about the death of a power source prematurely, I've been here, trying to stand as a voice of reason. These whiners have MOSTLY died down by now.
Both of you (I mean Goldy and Marandhir) build strawmen, but both of you have points.
Me, I wanted to see what shadow had to offer as a separate source - especially the necromancer, as it would have potential to be something entirely new (though, as psionic shows, it could be wishful thinking).
Now we have an argument about whiners and an overactive Orc.
I don't like the Necromancer becoming a return to the Specialization school from the previous edition. It is a complete turn around from what it was supposed to be for this edition. Making it a build like this delutes the class' effectiveness, and using the Arcane powered Wizard to base it in makes for a muddled concept. It is also split to two schools, Necro and Nether, weakening it further.
Yeah, I don't like the preview. It showed me that this product is a continuation of making this edition back into 3.5.
I expect the elementation of teirs next followed by new multiclassing rules.
Not really. They have ranks. Like good and great, great and awesome.
No, they really don't. The notion that these words come attached with some sort of empirically valid "rank" is a load of bologna. You may have attached some sort of ranking system to those two words. The English language, however, has not. Great and (the non formal usage of) awesome are synonyms. They mean the exact same thing.
There's an issue with your linguistic conclusion here, Dave. It doesn't take into account usage, which when actually...using...a word, is very significant. In modern American usage, the words good, great and awesome have differing common uses. Good is used as a baseline positive descriptor. It can even be used to portray the idea that what is being described is or was good, as opposed to great, rather than simply describe something as good. Great is specifically used to describe something as being "better than good". That is, positive to a degree that is above the norm.
Awesome, in common usage, or non-formal usage is used to describe something as being too good for the use of simple common positive descriptors. It means that something is good enough that one can't help but get excited about it. It very specifically gets used most commonly to describe something as better than great. If it has another positive descriptor with which it shares an exact meaning, it is more likely to be "excellent" than "great".
In fact, the informal purpose of most enthusiastic positive descriptors (awesome, excellent, fantastic, brilliant in the British usage, etc) is to be a step above great. The only time those words get used in any other way, informally, is in sarcasm.
They pretty much lumped them together, so any and all variations possible.
My reason for creating this thread was to lament about the Death of the Shadow Power Source.
This is a horrible statement that has very little basis. Although, it could be made far more acurate by changing it to "this book killed the Shadow Power Source to me." Which is fine by me, even if the book hasn't come out yet... At least stating it this way shows that it is your opinion.
I don't like the Necromancer becoming a return to the Specialization school from the previous edition. It is a complete turn around from what it was supposed to be for this edition. Making it a build like this delutes the class' effectiveness, and using the Arcane powered Wizard to base it in makes for a muddled concept. It is also split to two schools, Necro and Nether, weakening it further.
This? This is opinion stated as such. I like this, even if I don't agree with it. I'm fine that some people don't like the preview, and even that they have already decided the book will be terrible. If that is their opinion, they have the right to it.
Yeah, I don't like the preview. It showed me that this product is a continuation of making this edition back into 3.5.
I expect the elementation of teirs next followed by new multiclassing rules.
This, I don't care for so much. I prefer to see this as upgrading 3.5 into 4e rather than a downgrade of 4e back into 3.5. If they do eliminate (I believe this is the word that was intended there) tiers, then I will apoplogize for being wrong. That would be stepping backwards, but I don't forsee that happening. As for new multiclassing, well duh, you need new rules to help mesh the new content with the old. WotC has said all along that they do not want this to be a new edition, they want it all to be compatible and work together. Even if they made new classes there would have to be new hybrid rules for those classes.
As for my personal feelings on this subject... I love Essentials. I also like the idea of a dark world ruled by corruption and hopelessness (aka The Shadowfell). HoS appeals to me. The Shade race has a lot of potential and I really want to find out more about it. As for Classes, I like the schools of magic staying as schools of magic. I might also like to see a new sorcerer version of a necromancer that could have a stronger flavored tie to the Shadowfell. I could really care less about Blackgaurds, however. I enjoy them as villains, but I've never had an urge to play one as a hero.
Simply put, keep opinions as opinions. Those of us who are optimistic about the book will be less inclined to defend it if it isn't being attacked.
There's an issue with your linguistic conclusion here, Dave. It doesn't take into account usage, which when actually...using...a word, is very significant. In modern American usage, the words good, great and awesome have differing common uses. Good is used as a baseline positive descriptor. It can even be used to portray the idea that what is being described is or was good, as opposed to great, rather than simply describe something as good. Great is specifically used to describe something as being "better than good". That is, positive to a degree that is above the norm.
Awesome, in common usage, or non-formal usage is used to describe something as being too good for the use of simple common positive descriptors. It means that something is good enough that one can't help but get excited about it. It very specifically gets used most commonly to describe something as better than great. If it has another positive descriptor with which it shares an exact meaning, it is more likely to be "excellent" than "great".
In fact, the informal purpose of most enthusiastic positive descriptors (awesome, excellent, fantastic, brilliant in the British usage, etc) is to be a step above great. The only time those words get used in any other way, informally, is in sarcasm.
Close, but not quite DrBadWolf. What you have said is often true. However, in the end, usage must be read from the context of the sentence written. While a word like "awesome" might often be used to say "the best of the best," it is still a synonym of great, and the two can (and are) often used interchangeably as well. When someone writes the following:
Also, pardon me for reading lines such as "it could have been an awesome product" and coming to the conclusion that you thus do not find (what you have seen of) it to be great. If you do like the concept of the product (as previewed), you were not very clear.
...it should be fairly clear that in this case great and awesome are used interchangeably.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
I expect the elementation of teirs next followed by new multiclassing rules.
That could be awesome.
(new multiclassing that is)That would allow me to play my concept of a Knight who has made a Pact with the Lady of the White Well.
I do kind of like the idea of the current multi-classing... that a character of one class can choose to dabble in the abilities of another. However, I also feel that the multi-classing style of 3rd edition had a lot of merit and could still be implemented in 4th, especially now that we have the new class format introduced in Essentials (or Builds, for those that like to call them that.)
For example, my Knight with a Pact wouldn't just take a couple of feats to dabble in the abilities of the Hexblade... he'd be switching off at every other level, with both classes very important to his character concept.
But then I also feel that while some characters would only be Warlocks and that their Pact would be their only claim to power, these Pacts would also be able to be taken by anyone (if you think about the story fluff logically.) If a Scout, for example, made contact with a powerful Fey and tried to make a Pact to gain more magical power, the Archfey in question isn't going to say "you already have cool stuff you can do, so I'm not making a Pact with you." That's just silly.
Or at least, we agree in your first sentence, "We do not need a return of 3.x multiclassing."
I do not remember how MCing working in 1e and 2e of AD&D, so I can't make a statement on those. However, I highly doubt we're going to get a new and different sort of MCing soon. I think it'll be an adaptation of one ore both of the two multiclassing rules (MCing and Hybrid characters) already present in the game.
Also, in regards to thaX's statement, to say that tiers will be eliminated is ridiculous. If anything, Tiers have been highlighted by the revisions since Essentials, since the character advancement tables are broken up into individual tiers.
I've never posted on here before but I read the forums daily. All I want to know are the themes of Darkness and Death separate or combined. I remember the days of holy/unholy, lawful/choatic etc. etc. They seemed to have combined holy w/light and renamed it "radiant". Less in your face? But most of the radiant powers are in divine classes. (Though you can be cleric to a evil god/dess.) I am familiar with the old classes. 3.0/3.5 classes. But when i look at damage types in the compendium there is no, darkness damage type only "Necrotic" (Death). Unless they will add another. I haven't played out the Assassin class mostly cause I hate the shrouds idea. But looking at there powers they say shadow but I haven't seen "Necrotic Damage" key words attached. Unless it is some outside source like a feat or magic item etc. I am a fan of both ideas, or together whatever I would just like it cleared. Now that I think of it. There is the"Dark Pact" 'lock that has a darkness them w/ necrotic damage. Though it's not SHADOW and could be fluff. Why not call it the "Death PACT"! And also i read illusion was also tyed up but that could also be rumor. So a clarification on what shadow powersource is. Cause you could easily tie in subtheme's like cold. etc.
To answer your question mysticpizza, I don't believe Darkness and Death are combined, and technically neither are Holy and Light.
Darkness, I don't believe has its own descriptor keyword, but would cover things like the Drow racial power and many other powers that blind or conceal a person or area.
The Necrotic keyword is essentially Death magic. In my home games we like to imagine that someone taking necrotic damage is actually suffering from necrosis. You attack someone with a power that cuts someone's arm and deals necrotic damage... that person's arm is now rotting to some certain degree.
What was once called Holy in previous editions is now know simply as Divine. There is no Holy/Divine damage however, it is simply a descriptor to show that the magic that powers the attack or effect is drawn from the Astral Sea.
Radiant is the new Light. When someone is hit by Radiant damage they are essentially being hit by a laser (or a blinding light, something along those lines.)
The Shadow descriptor (keyword) simply denotes that the magic that powers the attack (or effect) is drawn from the Shadowfell. Shadow magic is most often associated with powers that conceal through shadow, deal necrotic damage, create illusions, or raise undead.
To better understand, there are some Power Keywords in 4th edition that specifically point out the origin of the magic involved (where the energy is pulled from.) These are also referred to as the Power Source.
Primal = natural world
Psionic = from within; mental/spiritual (although sometimes this power is also granted by the "corruption" of the Far Realm)
Divine = Astral Sea
Elemental = Elemental Chaos (although no classes or powers have yet to make use of this keyword)
Shadow = Shadowfell
Arcane = catch-all*
* The Arcane power source is kinda strange in that Arcane classes, like Wizards and Bards, pull the energy for their spells from all of the various planes (including the Feywild which is not associated with its own type of Magic.) It's really not all that strange that Wizards and such pull their power from everywhere, but it does make the Arcane power source the odd man out. And while it may seem strange at first that the Feywild produces Arcane energy rather than its own type, you have to remember that the Fey deity Corellon is said to have created Arcane magic (according to elven/fey legend.)
There's an issue with your linguistic conclusion here, Dave. It doesn't take into account usage, which when actually...using...a word, is very significant. In modern American usage, the words good, great and awesome have differing common uses. Good is used as a baseline positive descriptor. It can even be used to portray the idea that what is being described is or was good, as opposed to great, rather than simply describe something as good. Great is specifically used to describe something as being "better than good". That is, positive to a degree that is above the norm.
Awesome, in common usage, or non-formal usage is used to describe something as being too good for the use of simple common positive descriptors. It means that something is good enough that one can't help but get excited about it. It very specifically gets used most commonly to describe something as better than great. If it has another positive descriptor with which it shares an exact meaning, it is more likely to be "excellent" than "great".
In fact, the informal purpose of most enthusiastic positive descriptors (awesome, excellent, fantastic, brilliant in the British usage, etc) is to be a step above great. The only time those words get used in any other way, informally, is in sarcasm.
Close, but not quite DrBadWolf. What you have said is often true. However, in the end, usage must be read from the context of the sentence written. While a word like "awesome" might often be used to say "the best of the best," it is still a synonym of great, and the two can (and are) often used interchangeably as well. When someone writes the following:Also, pardon me for reading lines such as "it could have been an awesome product" and coming to the conclusion that you thus do not find (what you have seen of) it to be great. If you do like the concept of the product (as previewed), you were not very clear.
...it should be fairly clear that in this case great and awesome are used interchangeably.
I would argue that when the original poster being quoted in the quote used the word "awesome", they were suggesting that the product could have been a step above great. That is, that it could have been "the best of the best". I believe that the point they were trying to put across was that will more likely be merely good, maybe great, but certainly not worthy of words like awesome, excellent, superb, etc.
While awesome and great can be used interchangeably, they are not indistinguishable in meaning. The words "good" and "superb" can also be used interchangeably, and are synonyms. They do not, however, mean exactly the same thing. There is a clear hierarchy as to how positively the two words describe something.
By the way, please note that I agree with you on the rest of this mess. I'm still looking forward to HoS.
Honestly, I feel that the Blackguard and the Necromancer are two concepts for which there is no good reason to make a full class, when something like the essentials style builds exist.
I also seem to remember reading that the book would have both all new material, and new options for existing classes. It would make sense to preview more of the later first.
I'm expecting at least one new class that is something that hasn't been mentioned before, and possibly the witch as a full class, if it isn't a shadow themed build for an existing class (probably shaman, imo).
I also expect a Shadow Pact for both non essentials warlocks and hexblades. Absolutely not a Dark Pact for Hexblades, because the Dark Pact has absolutely nothing to do with the Shadowfell, and thus the flavour of shadow options in 4e dnd.
Probably some feats of course, of various kinds.
What I'm hoping is that the Shadow Power source will have a heavy focus on vulnerability, ongoing damage and auras of various kinds.
I've never posted on here before but I read the forums daily. All I want to know are the themes of Darkness and Death separate or combined. I remember the days of holy/unholy, lawful/choatic etc. etc. They seemed to have combined holy w/light and renamed it "radiant". Less in your face? But most of the radiant powers are in divine classes. (Though you can be cleric to a evil god/dess.) I am familiar with the old classes. 3.0/3.5 classes. But when i look at damage types in the compendium there is no, darkness damage type only "Necrotic" (Death). Unless they will add another. I haven't played out the Assassin class mostly cause I hate the shrouds idea. But looking at there powers they say shadow but I haven't seen "Necrotic Damage" key words attached. Unless it is some outside source like a feat or magic item etc. I am a fan of both ideas, or together whatever I would just like it cleared. Now that I think of it. There is the"Dark Pact" 'lock that has a darkness them w/ necrotic damage. Though it's not SHADOW and could be fluff. Why not call it the "Death PACT"! And also i read illusion was also tyed up but that could also be rumor. So a clarification on what shadow powersource is. Cause you could easily tie in subtheme's like cold. etc.
None of the above, really. Radiant is neither good nor holy. Necrotic is neither evil nor unholy.
And who said I didn't like what others do? I just think that calling people whinners for a legitimate opinion is tiresome. WotC could have made an awesome product by splitting the apple in two and creating new classes with the shadow power source and by creating new builts for old classes. But this is just a tautology. WotC prefere to loose customers and some people like to stick close to WotC. They can't be wrong, since this is the direction WotC is taking for the game.
Granted, he does suggest that he is not saying that he doesn't like what others do. But he then says that it is a "tautology" that WotC could have made an awsome product by splitting the apple in two and catering to everyone. That is a pretty bold statement. A tautology is supposed to be logically true in every interpretation. It is very easy to interpret that statement in a manner that will render it untrue. For example, it is possible to interpret his use of "could" to imply that WotC is no longer capable of releasing an awesome product. However, as a products "awesomeness" is subjective, it is already possible to interpret said product as still being awesome. His misuse of tautology already suggests that his statement is loaded with opinion. Still, that loaded opinion doesn't necessarily imply that he isn't using awesome in the sense of "the best of the best."
But, he clarifies what he means by stating that WotC prefers to loose customers, and he seems to be saying that those who are not lost just like to stick close to WotC no mater what; such people, he claims, believe that WotC can't do wrong, because anything WotC does must be right. Now, if he still likes the product, even if he doesn't think it is as awesome as it could have been, WotC hasn't lost him as a customer. But, if WotC hasn't lost him as a customer, doesn't that mean (by the logic he provided) that he is one of those who stick close to WotC, and believe they can do no wrong? That certainly doesn't seem to be how he views himself. That would suggest that he does not, in fact, like the product (contrary to his other claims). It makes me believe that some of his posts might be intentionally disingenuous.
But maybe he was not trying to say that everyone who likes the product feels that way. His prose is fairly fractured and difficult to follow (which is not meant to be an insult, it says right in his signature that English is not his first language), so I had to do my best to infer meaning. Maybe his statement that some people will stick with WotC no matter what it does was not meant to imply that everyone who likes the product is one of those people. But, if that is not what he was trying to imply, he should have clarified that he does like the product. He should have been more explicit.
Which brings me back to my original response to him:
If you do like the concept of the product (as previewed), you were not very clear.
It is my opinion that he was not very clear. It seemed like he was implying that the product had been ruined by WotCs choices, and was no longer any synonym of the word awesome.
DoctorBadWolf: I completely agree with you on most points. While I don't agree that there is a "clear" hierarchy as to how positivilty such words describe a thing (or such a hierarchy would be included in their dictionary definition), I do believe it is fair to say that there is an implied hierarchy. Now, as you noted, one can still use such words interchangably in the English language. I used the words interchangably. I did so, in part, because I don't read goldomark's statement that "WotC could have made an awesome product" as a claim that WotC could have made the product "the best of the best." I think that the context of the rest of his statement implies that he was claiming that the product could have been good, but now it is not going to be. I mean, lets look at what he wrote:And who said I didn't like what others do? I just think that calling people whinners for a legitimate opinion is tiresome. WotC could have made an awesome product by splitting the apple in two and creating new classes with the shadow power source and by creating new builts for old classes. But this is just a tautology. WotC prefere to loose customers and some people like to stick close to WotC. They can't be wrong, since this is the direction WotC is taking for the game.
Granted, he does suggest that he is not saying that he doesn't like what others do. But he then says that it is a "tautology" that WotC could have made an awsome product by splitting the apple in two and catering to everyone. That is a pretty bold statement. A tautology is supposed to be logically true in every interpretation. It is very easy to interpret that statement in a manner that will render it untrue. For example, it is possible to interpret his use of "could" to imply that WotC is no longer capable of releasing an awesome product. However, as a products "awesomeness" is subjective, it is already possible to interpret said product as still being awesome. His misuse of tautology already suggests that his statement is loaded with opinion. Still, that loaded opinion doesn't necessarily imply that he isn't using awesome in the sense of "the best of the best."
But, he clarifies what he means by stating that WotC prefers to loose customers, and he seems to be saying that those who are not lost just like to stick close to WotC no mater what; such people, he claims, believe that WotC can't do wrong, because anything WotC does must be right. Now, if he still likes the product, even if he doesn't think it is as awesome as it could have been, WotC hasn't lost him as a customer. But, if WotC hasn't lost him as a customer, doesn't that mean (by the logic he provided) that he is one of those who stick close to WotC, and believe they can do no wrong? That certainly doesn't seem to be how he views himself. That would suggest that he does not, in fact, like the product (contrary to his other claims). It makes me believe that some of his posts might be intentionally disingenuous.
But maybe he was not trying to say that everyone who likes the product feels that way. His prose is fairly fractured and difficult to follow (which is not meant to be an insult, it says right in his signature that English is not his first language), so I had to do my best to infer meaning. Maybe his statement that some people will stick with WotC no matter what it does was not meant to imply that everyone who likes the product is one of those people. But, if that is not what he was trying to imply, he should have clarified that he does like the product. He should have been more explicit.
Which brings me back to my original response to him:If you do like the concept of the product (as previewed), you were not very clear.
It is my opinion that he was not very clear. It seemed like he was implying that the product had been ruined by WotCs choices, and was no longer any synonym of the word awesome.
He wasn't as clear as he could have been. Then again, most people aren't. But, lets' get back on topic. (That was fun, as always.)
Is there any reason to believe that we won't get a Witch class as a shadow Leader, other than how well it would work as an e-style shaman build?
Also, people: please stop talking about Dark Pact for Hexblades as a shadow hexblade option. The Dark Pact is a pact with being of the underdark, in the shadows of drow society, etc. A shadow hexblade would need to make a pact with beings of shadowfell, or be more like the vestige pact, and draw power from the energy of the shadowfell without actually making a contract with a sentient conciousness. Something along those lines. This would also be an opportunity to present a shadow pact for other warlocks.
Also, didn't I read somewhere that there would be yet more assassin love online when HoS comes out in march? Am I the only one who is seriously hoping that it's some new material for the non-essentials assassin?
I also expect a Shadow Pact for both non essentials warlocks and hexblades. Absolutely not a Dark Pact for Hexblades, because the Dark Pact has absolutely nothing to do with the Shadowfell, and thus the flavour of shadow options in 4e dnd.
I so hope they have a Shadow Pact & a new rod implement devoted to it
Would also like to see a new Shadow Heritage line of feats - feats based off becoming one with the Shadows
A Shadowcaster class would also be awesome - but I guess that will be be made into the Nethermancy wizard spells
Since Necromancy and Nethermancy are being tied into wizards - I would like to at least see them handled as warlock spells so if you are a necromancer, you can get extra "riders" that non-necromancers can't get
Also, didn't I read somewhere that there would be yet more assassin love online when HoS comes out in march? Am I the only one who is seriously hoping that it's some new material for the non-essentials assassin?
I'd like to see the O-Assassin get some minor-action weapon encounter attack powers appropriate for each tier. Which would also let Executioners actually use Reserve Maneuver to improve their novas. Everyone wins. :D
You are splitting hairs to save face dude.
No, I am really not. I am calling it like I see it.
I am pretty clear.
No, you were/are really not.
You are the one who implies tht Ifind the product to be ruined. I never said that.
No, I did not "imply" that you find find the product to be ruined. I explicitly stated that you gave me the impression that you found the product to be ruined.
Apologists are just tiresome. If WotC sold a box full of actual ,with the DnD logo on it, they would still call it the best product WotC produced or manage to find excuses or uses for it. I think some of them hope to become VCL, ORCs, become playtesters or even get hired at WotC.
They even have a thread in General where they shout how great they are.
People who claim that their opinions are empirical fact, and can't accept that others might love what they don't, are just tiresome.
The word empirical again. I see past what they are stating as fact as to how they feel. Not as tiresome as the word empirical though.
Demonstrable.
Certfifiable.
Justifiable.
Vindicable.
My favorite- Tried-and-true.
Warrantable.
For once, we agree, Thunder_Dragonbane.
Or at least, we agree in your first sentence, "We do not need a return of 3.x multiclassing."
I do not remember how MCing working in 1e and 2e of AD&D, so I can't make a statement on those. However, I highly doubt we're going to get a new and different sort of MCing soon. I think it'll be an adaptation of one ore both of the two multiclassing rules (MCing and Hybrid characters) already present in the game.
Also, in regards to thaX's statement, to say that tiers will be eliminated is ridiculous. If anything, Tiers have been highlighted by the revisions since Essentials, since the character advancement tables are broken up into individual tiers.
1e/2e multiclassing is like hybrids except you get all your class features (except weapon specialization for fighters for some reason) and all your class abilities work normally. All XP you get were divided between your classes so if you got 100xp in one fight and you were a fighter/mage you would add 50xp to each (classes had different XP tables back then fighters needed more XP at earlier levels and mages needed more at higher levels).
No. I prefer to use the word empirical. It very nicely describes exactly what it is that bothers me about the way certain posters state their opinions; specifically, the way those posters try to empirically colonize the opinions of others. Which is, ultimately, what the 'Heroes of Shadow hate threads' are really about...
"You keep using that word..."
;)
No. I prefer to use the word empirical. It very nicely describes exactly what it is that bothers me about the way certain posters state their opinions; specifically, the way those posters try to empirically colonize the opinions of others. Which is, ultimately, what the 'Heroes of Shadow hate threads' are really about...
And so do you. You try to push that you are just as right (and state that all of your opinions are fact) as everyone else, and that they should believe as you do. Your high horse. You may wish to get off it soon.
Everything in a HoS thread is speculation. Anyone who believes they are more right than another person is a pretty awesome psychic. It's currently looking like there's no standard classes in HoS - but we can't be sure. We can sure express our dislike for those turn of events, and if we're wrong, I'm sure many of us will be pleasantly surprised and possibly warm up to this book.
But please, enlighten us with your gifts from the future and show us the errors of our opinions!
No. I prefer to use the word empirical. It very nicely describes exactly what it is that bothers me about the way certain posters state their opinions; specifically, the way those posters try to empirically colonize the opinions of others. Which is, ultimately, what the 'Heroes of Shadow hate threads' are really about...
And so do you. You try to push that you are just as right (and state that all of your opinions are fact) as everyone else, and that they should believe as you do. Your high horse. You may wish to get off it soon.
Everything in a HoS thread is speculation. Anyone who believes they are more right than another person is a pretty awesome psychic. It's currently looking like there's no standard classes in HoS - but we can't be sure. We can sure express our dislike for those turn of events, and if we're wrong, I'm sure many of us will be pleasantly surprised and possibly warm up to this book.
But please, enlighten us with your gifts from the future and show us the errors of our opinions!
On the contrary, I am tend to be fairly careful about how I state what I do. I state opinions as opinions, facts as facts, and know the difference between an objective observation and a subjective opinion. Your claim that I do otherwise is perhaps the greatest "error" of your "opinion."
As to whether you like HoS or not, I could care less either way. Like it, don't like, it doesn't make a difference to me. Liking or not liking the product is a subjective opinion. I will form my own. Do me a favor, however, and try and avoid making empirical claims as to the product's quality. Though, to be honest, you haven't in that last post. I don't know if you have in other posts or not, but there it is...
No. I prefer to use the word empirical. It very nicely describes exactly what it is that bothers me about the way certain posters state their opinions; specifically, the way those posters try to empirically colonize the opinions of others. Which is, ultimately, what the 'Heroes of Shadow hate threads' are really about...
And so do you. You try to push that you are just as right (and state that all of your opinions are fact) as everyone else, and that they should believe as you do. Your high horse. You may wish to get off it soon.
Everything in a HoS thread is speculation. Anyone who believes they are more right than another person is a pretty awesome psychic. It's currently looking like there's no standard classes in HoS - but we can't be sure. We can sure express our dislike for those turn of events, and if we're wrong, I'm sure many of us will be pleasantly surprised and possibly warm up to this book.
But please, enlighten us with your gifts from the future and show us the errors of our opinions!
On the contrary, I am tend to be fairly careful about how I state what I do. I state opinions as opinions, facts as facts, and know the difference between an objective observation and a subjective opinion. Your claim that I do otherwise is perhaps the greatest "error" of your "opinion."
As to whether you like HoS or not, I could care less either way. Like it, don't like, it doesn't make a difference to me. Liking or not liking the product is a subjective opinion. I will form my own. Do me a favor, however, and try and avoid making empirical claims as to the product's quality. Though, to be honest, you haven't in that last post. I don't know if you have in other posts or not, but there it is...
Isn't quality, all or in part, subjective?
Not necessarily. If you are operating within the confines of a fixed definition of "quality," and those confines can be objectively measured, then quality is not subjective. As a result, quality is not by definition subjective. In this instance, however, you are correct. The quality of an RPG product, within the context of how fun an RPG product is, cannot be objectively measured.
True, there is "quality control", in the sense that all products must be alike and in a fully functional format according to the creator's wishes. I will not deny that some have definitely stated that the product "is going to crash and burn, if it hasn't already." That is stating opinion as fact. However, I still see others getting bashed for their opinions on the quality of the products they are seeing. Some get told "just wait and see; don't jump the gun!" while others (admittedly who become a bit more vehement in their points of view) simply get told to "SD and SU! The game is far better off with blah de blah!"
Who am I to argue with quality, though? It's not as if my point of view matters...
This book is an Essentials extension, not a true 4th edition book. This is the Death of Shadow.
So Shadow is just a semi-source -- Assassin and a few paragon paths, no other whole classes. Ki dies before PHB3 came out. Elemental? No real demand for that one either. I don't think any more power sources are coming in this edition.
I still maintain (despite the discussion about forrum edicate) that this product, The Heroes of Shadow, is the death of the Shadow Power Source. The only class we have is the Assassin, whose build for this book (put on Dragon) is still a muddled mix of 3.5 and 4th edition with a dash of Shadow on the side.
This book is an Essentials extension, not a true 4th edition book. This is the Death of Shadow.
And right on que, as if to make my point, here come the empirical statements on subjective matters...
Not necessarily. If you are operating within the confines of a fixed definition of "quality," and those confines can be objectively measured, then quality is not subjective. As a result, quality is not by definition subjective. In this instance, however, you are correct. The quality of an RPG product, within the context of how fun an RPG product is, cannot be objectively measured.
[humour]
Oh dear... You see, I have an MSc in management blather*, and I can quite definitely state that when we talk about quality we mean fitness for purpose. Is HoS fit for purpose?
[/humour]
*This part is, alas, true.
Not necessarily. If you are operating within the confines of a fixed definition of "quality," and those confines can be objectively measured, then quality is not subjective. As a result, quality is not by definition subjective. In this instance, however, you are correct. The quality of an RPG product, within the context of how fun an RPG product is, cannot be objectively measured.
Actually you can measure it. You find how many people like it, and how many people don't and compare the numbers. It gives you a pretty good idea of quality. Especially if the common factor is how much money the product makes. If it doesn't make 100% profit over loss, then it is not a quality product...
I still maintain (despite the discussion about forrum edicate) that this product, The Heroes of Shadow, is the death of the Shadow Power Source. The only class we have is the Assassin, whose build for this book (put on Dragon) is still a muddled mix of 3.5 and 4th edition with a dash of Shadow on the side.
This book is an Essentials extension, not a true 4th edition book. This is the Death of Shadow.
And right on que, as if to make my point, here come the empirical statements on subjective matters...
I think their statement has empirical facts in there.
- The only known Shadow Source only class is the Assassin.
- It is a mix of martial and shadow, rather than pure shadow.
- All of the previewed material points to "a dash of shadow" added to existing power sources.
Now, the Death of Shadow power source part is opinion, but it is stated as such. I also believe that without a couple of pure shadow pre-E classes, that the shadow power source won't amount to much more than a keyword and some flavor...
Actually you can measure it. You find how many people like it, and how many people don't and compare the numbers. It gives you a pretty good idea of quality. Especially if the common factor is how much money the product makes. If it doesn't make 100% profit over loss, then it is not a quality product...
Actually, you can't measure it. What other people think of the product, as well as the product's profit margin, are irrelevant to any individual's assessment of just how fun/pleasurable an RPG product is. Those factors are not a communally agreed upon definition of a product's quality.
Now, certainly, some people might define a product's quality that way. But, the choice to define a product's quality by those terms is a subjective choice, not an objective choice. Moreover, while those factors can be objectively assessed, I would like to point out that there is not a single person posting in this forum with access to the objective data required to make that assessment. So, even if you choose to subjectively define a products quality by its marketability, put plain and simply, you just don't know what the objective quality of the product is.
I think their statement has empirical facts in there.
- The only known Shadow Source only class is the Assassin.
- It is a mix of martial and shadow, rather than pure shadow.
- All of the previewed material points to "a dash of shadow" added to existing power sources.
The first bullet point is an empirical fact. The second bullet point is not true of the assassin as a whole, but rather of the essentials executioner build. There is a shadow only build of the assassin that is not a mix of martial and shadow. The last bullet point can also be considered an empirical fact (though it is worded in a fairly loaded fashion). The conclusion ThaX draws from those facts, however, is not empirical.
Now, the Death of Shadow power source part is opinion, but it is stated as such. I also believe that without a couple of pure shadow pre-E classes, that the shadow power source won't amount to much more than a keyword and some flavor...
I will be honest, I don't view any of the power sources to be much more than a keyword and some flavor. But that conclusion, like ThaX's and yours, is not empirical.
Thank you, Lokare, for specifying the list of my post. I think it puts a good face on it and makes it more understandable.
Imperial? Are you saying that I am a King?
Thank you, Lokare, for specifying the list of my post. I think it puts a good face on it and makes it more understandable.
EDIT: You know what, forget it... it is not worth the time.
–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
Empirical:–adjective1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
I don't have much of a dog in this fight, not caring one whit about the Shadow power source myself.
Eh, I just quoted dictionary.com for the sake of mocking thaX's ignorance of the English language.
I don't have much of a dog in this fight, not caring one whit about the Shadow power source myself.
Oh, I know. I was just delving down a tanget.
I posted the mistake on purpose.... it was an attempt at humor... I know... I know, Ha. Ha.
Remember when I told you that you should take 5 minutes to think about what you are going to write before you write it, ThaX? That extends to looking up the words you don't understand before you use them
I posted the mistake on purpose.... it was an attempt at humor... I know... I know, Ha. Ha.
It took you that long to write that response? Because, I edited that post within a couple seconds after making it (god knows how you managed to catch it before I deleted it), and I did so hours ago. You know what, I commend you! You certainly took 5 minutes to think that post over. Why you decided to post it, even though the post you are responding to no longer exists, I don't know. But hey, at least you listened to my advice... it is a start.
So what is your take on the Death of the Shadow Power Source?
Email... wonderful thing.
So what is your take on the Death of the Shadow Power Source?
The problem, thaX, is how do you objectively quantify the "death" of a power source?
Is a power source "dead" when WotC creates ZERO classes for it and announces that there will no longer be any intention of writing classes for it (as it was with Ki)? If so, then Shadow is NOT dead, because the original Assassin, as a solely Shadow-powered class, keeps it alive, as well as the eAssassin who combines martial with shadow, and the classes we have thus far seen previewed in the HoS previews, since they all touch on the Shadow power source.
Since it's an objective and empirical FACT that the Assassin exists, however, this definition can obviously not be used to declare Shadow "dead". Even for you, who hate the Essentials classes and do not consider them classes in their own right, the original Assassin still stands-albeit alone-in this regard.
Is a power source "dead" when WotC stops producing whole-spun new classes for it (excepting the Essentials builds since you obviously don't count those as new classes)? If so, then the Martial Power source has been "dead" since after the release of the PHB1. And there hasn't been a new Arcane classes since the PHB2/Eberron. Is Arcane dead? What about Divine? The Runepriest certainly makes it seem as if they've scraped the bottom of the barrel in developing Divine Class Concepts.
No one here is going to take the argument that those other power sources are dead. So that doesn't apply to Shadow either.
Any coherent argument for the death of Shadow as a power source must have an objective definition by which we could (hypothetically) declare it "dead". A definition which all other power sources must not meet, lest we declare them dead as well. The first definition works for me for declaring a power source dead, after all, I would not argue that Ki as a power source is dead. But by that definition, Shadow is not.
Narrowed paths to take, limited choices because of build features and structure, new mechanics thrown in here and there.... What did we as customers do to be punished like this?
No, I don't considered builds of other classes to be of the Shadow power source.
What you consider to be true and the actual truth are two different things.
The fact that there are no PUBLISHED new classes for the Shadow power source. No, I don't considered builds of other classes to be of the Shadow power source. Thus far, we have Divine and two Arcane. No, these sub-builds are not the same as a self sufficent class.
Narrowed paths to take, limited choices because of build features and structure, new mechanics thrown in here and there.... What did we as customers do to be punished like this?
If that is your criteria, as Chiba-Monkey pointed out, one could say that a number of the other power sources (martial, etc.) are now dead too. I don't think anybody would reasonably agree with that claim, so I see no reason to agree with your current claims...
No, I don't considered builds of other classes to be of the Shadow power source.
What you consider to be true and the actual truth are two different things.
Except a nceromancer is still a mage, which is still a wizard, which is still arcane
No, I don't considered builds of other classes to be of the Shadow power source.
What you consider to be true and the actual truth are two different things.
Except a nceromancer is still a mage, which is still a wizard, which is still arcane
Except, if your wizard can build a character that has the "shadow" powersource keyword on every single one of his chosen powers, you have a very strong argument that that particular build of wizard may as well be a "shadow powersource" class.
Except, if your wizard can build a character that has the "shadow" powersource keyword on every single one of his chosen powers, you have a very strong argument that that particular build of wizard may as well be a "shadow powersource" class.
Does making a wizard that has an "illusion" keyword on each of his powers create an Illusion Power Source?
The fact that there are no PUBLISHED new classes for the Shadow power source. No, I don't considered builds of other classes to be of the Shadow power source. Thus far, we have Divine and two Arcane. No, these sub-builds are not the same as a self sufficent class.
Narrowed paths to take, limited choices because of build features and structure, new mechanics thrown in here and there.... What did we as customers do to be punished like this?
If that is your criteria, as Chiba-Monkey pointed out, one could say that a number of the other power sources (martial, etc.) are now dead too. I don't think anybody would reasonably agree with that claim, so I see no reason to agree with your current claims...
Martial has been supported by two books, a couple of these new builds, and still has the four classes. (Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, and Warlord) Shadow has nothing but keywords, just like the aforementioned Illusion power source.
WotC needs to understand that a large portion of their fan base is not interested in subclasses.
You know this how?
The fact that there are no PUBLISHED new classes for the Shadow power source. No, I don't considered builds of other classes to be of the Shadow power source. Thus far, we have Divine and two Arcane. No, these sub-builds are not the same as a self sufficent class.
Narrowed paths to take, limited choices because of build features and structure, new mechanics thrown in here and there.... What did we as customers do to be punished like this?
If that is your criteria, as Chiba-Monkey pointed out, one could say that a number of the other power sources (martial, etc.) are now dead too. I don't think anybody would reasonably agree with that claim, so I see no reason to agree with your current claims...
Martial has been supported by two books, a couple of these new builds, and still has the four classes. (Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, and Warlord) Shadow has nothing but keywords, just like the aforementioned Illusion power source.
And yet there are no published new classes for Martial, not counting Essentials. But I see that you DO count the new builds...how is it that the new builds qualify for Martial but not for Shadow?
And just because you don't consider something published unless it's printed on quality paper and bound in a cover by wotc, doesn't mean that articles published online (to include the original Assassin class) don't exist or have any validity.
Your definition specifically precludes online material from even being counted as existing, and therefore, I challenge your definition of a "dead" power source, and challenge you to come up with a new one.
You have intentionally shifted the goalposts here, because by your definition there is no all-ahadow class because the Assassin is online-only. Setting up a scenario where evidence that contradicts you is redered invalid is dishonest.
Except, if your wizard can build a character that has the "shadow" powersource keyword on every single one of his chosen powers, you have a very strong argument that that particular build of wizard may as well be a "shadow powersource" class.
Does making a wizard that has an "illusion" keyword on each of his powers create an Illusion Power Source?
No, because while the keyword shadow co-notates a power source the keyword illusion co-notates an effect type. The rules of the game explain this...
Except, if your wizard can build a character that has the "shadow" powersource keyword on every single one of his chosen powers, you have a very strong argument that that particular build of wizard may as well be a "shadow powersource" class.Then make a true "shadow" class and leave the essentials subclass at home. One assassin build from dragon 2 years ago does not cut the cheese.
WotC needs to understand that a large portion of their fan base is not interested in subclasses. I'm not particularly interested in shadow stuff, but I can see the need. HoS does not fill it, as previewed.
Your definition of "true shadow class" is subjective. Your opinion in regards to what "cuts the cheese" is subjective. I see no reason why your subjective preferences should be catered to instead of my own. WotC will review their sales numbers and understand what they actually need to understand, as opposed to what you propagate they "need" to understand, and decide for themselves whose subjective preferences they should try and accommodate in the future.
The fact that there are no PUBLISHED new classes for the Shadow power source. No, I don't considered builds of other classes to be of the Shadow power source. Thus far, we have Divine and two Arcane. No, these sub-builds are not the same as a self sufficent class.
Narrowed paths to take, limited choices because of build features and structure, new mechanics thrown in here and there.... What did we as customers do to be punished like this?
If that is your criteria, as Chiba-Monkey pointed out, one could say that a number of the other power sources (martial, etc.) are now dead too. I don't think anybody would reasonably agree with that claim, so I see no reason to agree with your current claims...
Martial has been supported by two books, a couple of these new builds, and still has the four classes. (Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, and Warlord) Shadow has nothing but keywords, just like the aforementioned Illusion power source.
The "aforementioned illusion power source" was an example of poorly used hyperbole. The illusion and shadow keywords are not given the same roles in the rules of this game.
Additionally, there is a shadow class that fulfills the role of a mono-powersource themed class to the same extent that any martial mono-themed class does (that is to say every single one of its powers is a shadow keyword power, and the class is described as being of the shadow power source. The original assassin class (pre executioner subclass assassin) continues to exist. While there are currently no books dedicated to such mono-shadow themed classes, I see no reason to define the life of a power source by such a book...
I think it's fair to define the life of a source by books, when one source has maybe 5 (complete) dragon articles to it's name and zero books, while every other source has 2+ books and more dragon articles than shadow.
#Chiba
The new builds previewed have been explicitly members of the arcane or divine sources; the knight and slayer are explicitly martial sourced- that's the difference.
"The "aforementioned illusion power source" was an example of poorly used hyperbole. The illusion and shadow keywords are not given the same roles in the rules of this game."
Really? So Illusion and Shadow are not the same... How? At one point, the Illusionist was gonna be one of the Shadow Classes. Now, it and the other speciality "schools" from the past editions are gonna regurgitate the same ol' cheese as they had in the last edition. I don't see a difference at all.
In many ways you can make the same argument for Necromancy. I for one can see a warlock pact, with ties to the underworld. A wizard school, of forbidden practices.
That said, there is plenty of lore for to be a unique class as well.
Shadow as a power source really is just one that blends very well with others. I can say that even though I'd like to see it as a seperate thing. It's just the way it goes sometimes.
"The "aforementioned illusion power source" was an example of poorly used hyperbole. The illusion and shadow keywords are not given the same roles in the rules of this game."
Really? So Illusion and Shadow are not the same... How? At one point, the Illusionist was gonna be one of the Shadow Classes. Now, it and the other speciality "schools" from the past editions are gonna regurgitate the same ol' cheese as they had in the last edition. I don't see a difference at all.
Because Illusion is a descriptor denoting a powers effect. Same as Fear, Psychic, Reliable, and Invigorating.
Shadow, however, is a Source keyword, and doesn't have any actual effects on a power unless there is a specific interaction created (Arcane Reserves, for example).
You know there's a difference between them, you're just being beligerant about it.
"The "aforementioned illusion power source" was an example of poorly used hyperbole. The illusion and shadow keywords are not given the same roles in the rules of this game."
Really? So Illusion and Shadow are not the same... How? At one point, the Illusionist was gonna be one of the Shadow Classes. Now, it and the other speciality "schools" from the past editions are gonna regurgitate the same ol' cheese as they had in the last edition. I don't see a difference at all.
Because Illusion is a descriptor denoting a powers effect. Same as Fear, Psychic, Reliable, and Invigorating.
Shadow, however, is a Source keyword, and doesn't have any actual effects on a power unless there is a specific interaction created (Arcane Reserves, for example).
You know there's a difference between them, you're just being beligerant about it.
In the Summon Shadow Servant spell it's in the same line as the Illusion keyword would be for an illusion spell.
Shadow has more than one definition in D&D, sure - it's a power sourse name, a power keyword and a creature origin. It all depends on the context and in this context Summon Shadow Servant is a spell, not a hex and new builds for older classes do not create a powersource.
Also note that new classes weren't expected from the Power series; new builds was what they were about and they never pretended to be anything other; but Heroes of Shadow made the impression that we were going to get Shadow classes, not new Arcane builds.
"The "aforementioned illusion power source" was an example of poorly used hyperbole. The illusion and shadow keywords are not given the same roles in the rules of this game."
Really? So Illusion and Shadow are not the same... How? At one point, the Illusionist was gonna be one of the Shadow Classes. Now, it and the other speciality "schools" from the past editions are gonna regurgitate the same ol' cheese as they had in the last edition. I don't see a difference at all.
Because Illusion is a descriptor denoting a powers effect. Same as Fear, Psychic, Reliable, and Invigorating.
Shadow, however, is a Source keyword, and doesn't have any actual effects on a power unless there is a specific interaction created (Arcane Reserves, for example).
You know there's a difference between them, you're just being beligerant about it.
In the Summon Shadow Servant spell it's in the same line as the Illusion keyword would be for an illusion spell.
Shadow has more than one definition in D&D, sure - it's a power sourse name, a power keyword and a creature origin. It all depends on the context and in this context Summon Shadow Servant is a spell, not a hex and new builds for older classes do not create a powersource.
Also note that new classes weren't expected from the Power series; new builds was what they were about and they never pretended to be anything other; but Heroes of Shadow made the impression that we were going to get Shadow classes, not new Arcane builds.
No. It's in the same place as every other keyword would be for a power. Martial never appears in a different line, it appears in the same line as every other power keyword, it doesn't make it not a Power Source keyword. Shadow in your example is noting a dual origin for the source. Arcane and Shadow. Same as every power on the Umbiri, another use of Shadow+Arcane dual sources. It is not a power descriptor with an effect like Illusion. The Necromancer and Nethermancer, however, may have effects based on using Shadow Source powers. This doesn't make it a power keyword, like Fear or Illusion, though.
I'm not discarding the second part though; I hoped for actual classes in HoS, instead of Essentials sub-builds, with dual-sourced powers, as well. I'm not defending Heroes of Shadow as it is previewed, I'm showing that thaX, as per usual, is making **** up.
@Cyber
I think it's fair to define the life of a source by books, when one source has maybe 5 (complete) dragon articles to it's name and zero books, while every other source has 2+ books and more dragon articles than shadow.
But, I don't care what you think is fair. What you think is fair is subjective to you. I see no reason why I should adhere to your thoughts or agree with them. You have certainly not provided me with a convincing argument. The fact remains that a shadow only class exists. The fact remains that shadow based paragon paths exist. The fact remains that we are now getting some shadow themed powers and builds for existing classes. That might not be exactly what you wanted, but as far as I am concerned that is a living power source. If your definition of "living" doesn't match up that is not my issue...
Naki has covered the issue of powersource keywords fairly well. The objective fact of the matter is that different keywords are given differnt weights. Illusion lives alongside keywords such as enchantment, fire, radient, and the like. Shadow lives alongside keywords such as martial, primal, arcane, and the like. All these keywords are written in the same line, but the game tells us that they have different meanings. The meaning that the game attributes to the word shadow is based on a power's source of power. This is simply objective fact. Like it, don't, whatever, but the game tells us that the keywords illusion and shadow do not have the same weight or connotations.
I like the lack of "empirical" here ;)
@Cyber
I think it's fair to define the life of a source by books, when one source has maybe 5 (complete) dragon articles to it's name and zero books, while every other source has 2+ books and more dragon articles than shadow.
This.
Arguably Ki never died, it was aborted before it ever had a chance at life. Shadow managed to be born, but now it seems that it may die while still in pre-adolescence, where as Martial, Divine, and Arcane have all lived rich and fulfilling lives, and if they should die from a lack of content in the future it will be more akin to death by old age.
I can't speak for everyone, but when I say Shadow has died I am referring to its potential. Way back in PH1 (and even before that in the 4e preview books) WotC hinted at the concept of a fully realized power source every bit the equal of Martial, Divine, and Arcane. People may have disagreed on what form this new power source should take and what kind of classes should represent it, but their was inarguably quite a bit of interest stirred by the concept. Then we got the Assassin class, and despite what I still consider to be a poor choice in naming, it delivered on that concept that had only been hinted at till then. The future looked ripe with possibilities and the eminent arrival of a fully realized power source seemed only a matter of time, but now in the wake of essentials it is that HOPE that seems to died. Every thing that could have been built into a strong concept of its own now seems to have been relegated to nothing more than a sub-concept of an existing frame work.
We were promised a new wing to the house that is 4e, yet now instead all we are getting is some new drapes and a few rugs.
No, because while the keyword shadow co-notates a power source the keyword illusion co-notates an effect type. The rules of the game explain this...
Keyword effects are all noted as their own standard. That there are defenses that allow the disbelief of the illusions but no defenses specific to Shadow is not the issue here.
What is the issue is the mixing of power sources. Just because the Arcane build has Shadow powers does not make it a Shadow "class." It is an Arcane build with Shadow powers.
I would have expected some here to be disappointed with the muddled mixed power sourced Assassin. It is an echo of the 2nd edition Kit from so long ago, though to be far, it is more balanced than the kit ever could be.
Mixing power sources and roles is not 4th edition mechanics, no matter how much Wizards tries to crowbar it in. It is one of the major reasons that Essentials is so dispised by many.
I think the Kit builds in the Essentials book is fine, for them. They needed self contained builds to have the books stand alone. These kit builds could have maintained the roles and power sources of the base class, there was no reason to muddle up the mechanics like this.
Now, with this preview, it seems that they are releasing this book just to have the word "Shadow" out there without actually producing anything for the Power Source. They are doing it with this muddled mixing of Arcane and Divine (and whatever else the base classes will be) with salted Shadow powers. It is disappointing.
Keyword effects are all noted as their own standard. That there are defenses that allow the disbelief of the illusions but no defenses specific to Shadow is not the issue here.
What are you talking about? Remember when I told you to think for 5 minutes before you post? Please try to practice that advice. It is very simple, power sources are a keyword. Powers that work off of a particular power source have that power source keyword. One of the power source keywords is "shadow." That is all there is to it.
What is the issue is the mixing of power sources. Just because the Arcane build has Shadow powers does not make it a Shadow "class." It is an Arcane build with Shadow powers.
The only thing that makes a martial class a martial class is that all of its powers have the martial power keyword. If it is possible to build a wizard so that all of its powers will have the shadow keyword, since the shadow keyword is a power source keyword, for all intents and purposes you may as well consider that build a full out shadow class. Nothing about the class is really arcane anymore. However, I don't know if this will be possible or not. We will have to wait for the product to be released to find out.
Mixing power sources and roles is not 4th edition mechanics, no matter how much Wizards tries to crowbar it in. It is one of the major reasons that Essentials is so dispised by many.
Yea. Sorry. Nope. It is your subjective judgment that WotC has tried to "crowbar" those mechanics in. It is not an objective or empirical position. And, fact of the matter is, in this case the company gets to make the decision as to what fits and what doesn't, not you. I, for one, am happy they have made the decision they have. I like 4e more for it.
I think the Kit builds in the Essentials book is fine, for them. They needed self contained builds to have the books stand alone. These kit builds could have maintained the roles and power sources of the base class, there was no reason to muddle up the mechanics like this.
Sure there is. It makes consumers like me happy.
Now, with this preview, it seems that they are releasing this book just to have the word "Shadow" out there without actually producing anything for the Power Source. They are doing it with this muddled mixing of Arcane and Divine (and whatever else the base classes will be) with salted Shadow powers. It is disappointing.
So you have subjectively decided. I don't agree.
Sorry, Thax, but the Dragon magazine is published by the Wizards. Just because some people are too cheap to shell out $7 for a subscription to the magazine or (fortunately) too honest to grab a free torrent, neither of those things mean that the Assassin has not been published.
It has been published in a limited form, in a non-standard way. There is a limited audience for DDi which is a subset of the audience for Dungeons and Dragons as a whole. Therefore many Dungeons and Dragons players will miss out on the Assassin... Unless of course they re-release it in the Shadow book...
I would have expected some here to be disappointed with the muddled mixed power sourced Assassin. It is an echo of the 2nd edition Kit from so long ago, though to be far, it is more balanced than the kit ever could be.
Mixing power sources and roles is not 4th edition mechanics, no matter how much Wizards tries to crowbar it in. It is one of the major reasons that Essentials is so dispised by many.
I don't think mixed power sources is anathema to 4e, or at least that's what I thought 6+ months ago, now I'm a little less certain. Either way I don't think WotC is currently doing a good job of presenting mixed power source builds/classes, too much reliance on nostalgic stuff that I personally think 4e did well to leave behind and not enough presenting new and compelling material.
What are you talking about? Remember when I told you to think for 5 minutes before you post? Please try to practice that advice. It is very simple, power sources are a keyword. Powers that work off of a particular power source have that power source keyword. One of the power source keywords is "shadow." That is all there is to it.
Yes, and Shadow can be another kind of keyword, it can be a descriptor keyword, like radiant, or weapon. Radiant doesn't necessarily mean divine. So it can both be a descriptor and a power source keyword.
The only thing that makes a martial class a martial class is that all of its powers have the martial power keyword. If it is possible to build a wizard so that all of its powers will have the shadow keyword, since the shadow keyword is a power source keyword, for all intents and purposes you may as well consider that build a full out shadow class. Nothing about the class is really arcane anymore. However, I don't know if this will be possible or not. We will have to wait for the product to be released to find out.
Except that each power source has a particular flavor. Martial favors physical attacks. Arcane favors outlandish "magical" feeling attacks. Divine favors healing, light, and buff attacks.
Shadow should favor deceptive attacks or anti-style attacks, life draining, undead creating/controlling attacks. Which is something none of the other power sources currently cover.
Yea. Sorry. Nope. It is your subjective judgment that WotC has tried to "crowbar" those mechanics in. It is not an objective or empirical position. And, fact of the matter is, in this case the company gets to make the decision as to what fits and what doesn't, not you. I, for one, am happy they have made the decision they have. I like 4e more for it.
Actually since the original 4E design didn't allow crossovers of the power sources and discouraged crossovers with the roles. It is an objective fact that the system was not designed to do this and they have had to change the system up to get it in. So yes they had to "crowbar" it in...
Sure there is. It makes consumers like me happy.
And it makes consumers like us unhappy. Can you truly say you would be unhappy if you got your sub-classes and we got our 2-3 full pre-E design style classes? I think we would all be happy...
Now, with this preview, it seems that they are releasing this book just to have the word "Shadow" out there without actually producing anything for the Power Source. They are doing it with this muddled mixing of Arcane and Divine (and whatever else the base classes will be) with salted Shadow powers. It is disappointing.
So you have subjectively decided. I don't agree.
I'm sorry, but simply adding the word shadow and some fluff to some arcane and divine powers is not adding anything to the game. It does not define the power source anymore than the Radiant keyword defines light. In other words its getting relegated to keyword status...
Yes, and Shadow can be another kind of keyword, it can be a descriptor keyword, like radiant, or weapon. Radiant doesn't necessarily mean divine. So it can both be a descriptor and a power source keyword.
No, it can't. Every keyword has rules attached to it. Radient is described by the text of the book as a keyword that connotes a specific type of damage dealt. Weapon is a keyword that connotes that a power requires the use of a weapon. Shadow is a keyword that connotes that the power uses the shadow power source. That is all there is to it. Like it, don't, but it is objective fact.
Except that each power source has a particular flavor. Martial favors physical attacks. Arcane favors outlandish "magical" feeling attacks. Divine favors healing, light, and buff attacks.
Shadow should favor deceptive attacks or anti-style attacks, life draining, undead creating/controlling attacks. Which is something none of the other power sources currently cover.
Huhu. And? It sounds like the shadow keyword powers will favor life draining, undead creating controling, and shadow conjuring/sense decieving effects. In other words, it sounds like necrotic, summoning, and illusion keywords will be common among shadow keyword powers. What is your point? Nothing you have said changes the tenets of what I said. If you can build a wizard build which has only shadow keyword powers, for all intents and purposes you have a class build that is completely a shadow power source class build.
Actually since the original 4E design didn't allow crossovers of the power sources and discouraged crossovers with the roles. It is an objective fact that the system was not designed to do this and they have had to change the system up to get it in. So yes they had to "crowbar" it in...
No, it is not an objective fact. We have had paragon paths that were tied to alternative power sources for a long time. There is a warlord only shadow power source paragon path. Moreover, there is no evidence that supports the claim that 4e didn't allow crossovers of power sources and discouraged crossover of roles. Since the first PHB classes have had a secondary role. Since the second PHB that secondary role has been explicitly named. Multiclassing has allowed role/power source crossovers since the first PHB. The third PHB introduced hybrid classing which further allowed for such crossovers. Essentials simply introduced the idea that such mix-matching can come pre-mixed in a specific class build/sub-class. It seems like a natural progression to me. Of course, that is a subjective judgment. But so is your claim that they had to "crowbar" it in.
Don't claim something is an objective fact unless it is. My claim about the keywords is an objective fact, because that is what the game itself tells us. I can show you where the game tells us that the word "shadow" connotates a power source. I can show you where every other keyword is described. There is nowhere where the word shadow is described as anything but a power source. There is nothing to interpret in this instance. What you are claiming is objective, however, is a highly subjective interpretation.
And it makes consumers like us unhappy. Can you truly say you would be unhappy if you got your sub-classes and we got our 2-3 full pre-E design style classes? I think we would all be happy...
A book has a fixed amount of space. Yes, I would rather that fixed amount of space got used to publish material I prefer. I understand that that will not always be the case. I am not the only consumer out there. But it is nice that this time my tastes are the ones that are being catered to.
I'm sorry, but simply adding the word shadow and some fluff to some arcane and divine powers is not adding anything to the game. It does not define the power source anymore than the Radiant keyword defines light. In other words its getting relegated to keyword status...
I'm sorry, but I don't see any power source as being anything more than a word and some fluff. If the "shadow" keyword tends to come pair with keywords such as necrotic, summoning, conjuration, and illusion, and its powers are fluffed as being related to necrotic energy, undead, and shadows, then i think the shadow power source will be quite clearly defined despite only having a single mono-power-source class. You are welcome to not agree, but one way or the other it is little more than subjective interpretation.
No, it can't. Every keyword has rules attached to it. Radient is described by the text of the book as a keyword that connotes a specific type of damage dealt. Weapon is a keyword that connotes that a power requires the use of a weapon. Shadow is a keyword that connotes that the power uses the shadow power source. That is all there is to it. Like it, don't, but it is objective fact.
Please... for the love of everything holy AND unholy... spell it right! "Radiant!" Sorry, nitpick over.
Huhu. And? It sounds like the shadow keyword powers will favor life draining, undead creating controling, and shadow conjuring/sense decieving effects. In other words, it sounds like necrotic, summoning, and illusion keywords will be common among shadow keyword powers. What is your point? Nothing you have said changes the tenets of what I said. If you can build a wizard build which has only shadow keyword powers, for all intents and purposes you have a class build that is completely a shadow power source class build.
Necrotic would like to have a word with you.
No, it is not an objective fact. We have had paragon paths that were tied to alternative power sources for a long time. There is a warlord only shadow power source paragon path. Moreover, there is no evidence that supports the claim that 4e didn't allow crossovers of power sources and discouraged crossover of roles. Since the first PHB classes have had a secondary role. Since the second PHB that secondary role has been explicitly named. Multiclassing has allowed role/power source crossovers since the first PHB. The third PHB introduced hybrid classing which further allowed for such crossovers. Essentials simply introduced the idea that such mix-matching can come pre-mixed in a specific class build/sub-class. It seems like a natural progression to me. Of course, that is a subjective judgment. But so is your claim that they had to "crowbar" it in.
Don't claim something is an objective fact unless it is. My claim about the keywords is an objective fact, because that is what the game itself tells us. I can show you where the game tells us that the word "shadow" connotates a power source. I can show you where every other keyword is described. There is nowhere where the word shadow is described as anything but a power source. There is nothing to interpret in this instance. What you are claiming is objective, however, is a highly subjective interpretation.
While I agree that secondary roles have been present, has it been proven that, from the start, they KNEW what all the roles were and how to define them? Last I heard, Wizards/Controllers were still a little fuzzy in their minds when controllers first appeared.
Also, does the last statement indicate that "objective statements" are not the be-all-end-all that you're looking for? That, perhaps, you're looking for an absolute truth statement that can never be found UNLESS there is two-way communication?
A book has a fixed amount of space. Yes, I would rather that fixed amount of space got used to publish material I prefer. I understand that that will not always be the case. I am not the only consumer out there. But it is nice that this time my tastes are the ones that are being catered to.
I am in appreciation of you receiving the material you are looking for. Will you, perhaps, acknowledge that, so far, we have not seen the material WE are looking for? "We" being the people who are in disagreement with "Essential" style products. Death of Shadow, perhaps; perhaps not. We don't know for sure and while I don't necessarily outright agree with ThaX's opinion that the Shadow Source is "dead in the water", I am of the opinion so far that the Shadow power source has not received the justice it yet deserves. There, opinion. I said it.
I'm sorry, but simply adding the word shadow and some fluff to some arcane and divine powers is not adding anything to the game. It does not define the power source anymore than the Radiant keyword defines light. In other words its getting relegated to keyword status...
I'm sorry, but I don't see any power source as being anything more than a word and some fluff. If the "shadow" keyword tends to come pair with keywords such as necrotic, summoning, conjuration, and illusion, and its powers are fluffed as being related to necrotic energy, undead, and shadows, then i think the shadow power source will be quite clearly defined despite only having a single mono-power-source class. You are welcome to not agree, but one way or the other it is little more than subjective interpretation.
I agree that power sources need to be designed just a bit beyond fluff. I'm not saying full crunch, but perhaps something along the lines of "Martial power sources indicate that a weapon or physical ability is utilized".
Please... for the love of everything holy AND unholy... spell it right! "Radiant!" Sorry, nitpick over.
Typos, they happen. My posts tend to be better put together, and more carefully edited, than most of the posts you will find on these boards. However, the more tired I am, and the later at night I am making a post, the more chance that a mistake will slip through. It is an internet forum, not a peer reviewed journal. Get over it.
Necrotic would like to have a word with you.
That article is a non sequitur to the rest of this conversation. What, exactly, were you trying to prove with its existence?
While I agree that secondary roles have been present, has it been proven that, from the start, they KNEW what all the roles were and how to define them? Last I heard, Wizards/Controllers were still a little fuzzy in their minds when controllers first appeared.
It doesn't need to be proven. The word "controller" is written on top of a class in the first 4e PHB. The term controller is described by the text of that book. Nothing more needs to be proven. That the nature of the role has undergone some evolution during the lifespan of the game is natural. That dev's second guess themselves is natural. But when interpreting a text you don't deal with its author's intent, but with the existing text. Sometimes the text seems to imply a particular intent, but you deal with the text in order to prove the existence of such an implication.
Also, does the last statement indicate that "objective statements" are not the be-all-end-all that you're looking for? That, perhaps, you're looking for an absolute truth statement that can never be found UNLESS there is two-way communication?
No, it doesn't. My last statement doesn't indicate anything more than what it states, which is that people should not claim a thing is objective unless it is; to do otherwise is dishonest. I don't believe in the existence of any sort of "absolute truth" beyond objective observation. Beyond objective observation all that exists is Derridian play.
I am in appreciation of you receiving the material you are looking for. Will you, perhaps, acknowledge that, so far, we have not seen the material WE are looking for? "We" being the people who are in disagreement with "Essential" style products. Death of Shadow, perhaps; perhaps not. We don't know for sure and while I don't necessarily outright agree with ThaX's opinion that the Shadow Source is "dead in the water", I am of the opinion so far that the Shadow power source has not received the justice it yet deserves. There, opinion. I said it.
You know better than I whether you have received the material you are looking for. If you say you have not, how can I reasonably argue with that? I am not going to try and convince you that you should like something you don't. I see no reason to believe that your subjective interpretations are any more or less valid than my own. Though, sometimes, I find the statements upon which one's subjective interpretations are based to be very questionable. For example, ThaX's statement that the product in question will offer no ability to build pure shadow characters. Seems to me that it will be very likely that a pure shadow necro/nethermancer style character will be very likely.
I agree that power sources need to be designed just a bit beyond fluff. I'm not saying full crunch, but perhaps something along the lines of "Martial power sources indicate that a weapon or physical ability is utilized".
Good thing that the article seems to suggest that the shadow power source powers will have exactly that sort of relationship with the rules. Specifically, just like martial attack powers tend to come married to the "weapon" keyword, shadow powers look like they will usually come married to one of the following keywords: summoning, conjuration, illusion, necrotic.
... Martial, Divine, and Arcane have all lived rich and fulfilling lives, and if they should die from a lack of content in the future it will be more akin to death by old age.
Martial, Divine, and Arcane go all the way back to the very beginnings of D&D. All of the other power sources we have (except Psionic) were originally part of one of those three. When 4e first came out, the belief was that new power sources would be independent. Now the trend seems to be to keep new power sources as part of the existing ones, particularly Arcane.
I personally don't like this apparent trend. I believe that the Sorcerer should have been an Elemental striker rather than Arcane, and that Necromancy and Illusion both have their roots in Shadow.
I have no problem with Arcane classes using Elemental or Shadow powers. Arcane means "secret" after all, and Arcane users (particularly Wizards) gain power be learning mystic secrets.
In my opinion, Elementalism, Illusion, and Necromancy - all once Arcane specializations - should have separate power sources that Arcane users can tap into - but not quite as well as the specialists.
Typos, they happen. My posts tend to be better put together, and more carefully edited, than most of the posts you will find on these boards. However, the more tired I am, and later at night I am making a post, the more chance that a mistake will slip through. It is an internet forum, not a peer reviewed journal. Get over it.
Hence my comment about a "nitpick". It's somewhat like seeing "to" instead of "too" on a consistent basis, or "teh" instead of "the". I like the bit about the peer reviewed journal, though.
That article is a non sequitur to the rest of this conversation. What, exactly, were you trying to prove with its existence?
Simply that Necrotic is an accompaniment to those keywords you'd specified already. It encompasses all those keywords that you (keyword!) seem to have relegated to the Shadow power source. How is that article not a direct contradiction to the power source itself? I suppose it could be retconned to Shadow...
It doesn't need to be proven. The word "controller" is written on top of a class in the first 4e PHB. The term controller is described by the text of that book. Nothing more needs to be proven. That the nature of the role has undergone some evolution during the lifespan of the game is natural. That dev's second guess themselves is natural. But when interpreting a text you don't deal with its author's intent, but with the existing text. Sometimes the text seems to imply a particular intent, but you deal with the text in order to prove the existence of such an implication.
Sort of like RAW and RAI?
Well, as I don't have the source material on hand, all I can state is that I read, somewhere on this site, that WotC created the Wizard but weren't certain of how to make it a controller... or something along those lines. If I run across that article, I'll bring it up. In the meantime, consider this part of the debate sidelined, at least on my end.
No, it doesn't. My last statement doesn't indicate anything more than what it states, which is that people should not claim a thing is objective unless it is; to do otherwise is dishonest. I don't believe in the existence of any sort of "absolute truth" beyond objective observation. Beyond objective observation all that exists is Derridian play.
My fault. I misread what you'd stated. I saw it as "What you are claiming is objective, however, is highly subject to interpretation." Point conceded.
You know better than I whether you have received the material you are looking for. If you say you have not, how can I reasonably argue with that? I am not going to try and convince you that you should like something you don't. I see no reason to believe that your subjective interpretations are any more or less valid than my own. Though, sometimes, I find the statements upon which one's subjective interpretations are based to be very questionable. For example, ThaX's statement that the product in question will offer no ability to build pure shadow characters. Seems to me that it will be very likely that a pure shadow necro/nethermancer style character will be very likely.
I think ThaX is trying with great difficulty to put out a statement that he/she just can't form the words for. I won't put words into ThaX's mouth, but I think ThaX is trying to state that "a person with all Shadow powers does not a Shadow character make." To some amount, I agree. If I were to throw magic potions around that explode with arcane energy but have no magical ability myself, does that mean my character is Arcane by default?
Keep in mind I said "some amount." The rest of me isn't quite sure what to make of mixing and matching power sources yet. I'm mostly against the idea SIMPLY out of enjoyment of a "one class, one power source" aspect that the game started off with.
Good thing that the article seems to suggest that the shadow power source powers will have exactly that sort of relationship with the rules. Specifically, just like martial attack powers tend to come married to the "weapon" keyword, shadow powers look like they will usually come married to one of the following keywords: summoning, conjuration, illusion, necrotic.
That was my point with necrotic, above. I'm really beginning to think that Power Source and Keywords should have been kept separate. Maybe something along the lines of "Level 29 Shadow Daily Attack" or equivalent.
In my opinion, Elementalism, Illusion, and Necromancy - all once Arcane specializations - should have separate power sources that Arcane users can tap into - but not quite as well as the specialists.
Maybe not illusion, that's one of the things that should stay in the arcane (for wizads and bards).
Necromancy and nethermancy could be a single new class shtick.
No, because while the keyword shadow co-notates a power source the keyword illusion co-notates an effect type. The rules of the game explain this...
Keyword effects are all noted as their own standard. That there are defenses that allow the disbelief of the illusions but no defenses specific to Shadow is not the issue here.
This isn't 3.5. You cannot go "I disbelieve your power" and it fails anymore. That's NOT an applicable defense to Illusion powers anymore. If you play 4E like that, I feel sorry for your DM.
What is the issue is the mixing of power sources. Just because the Arcane build has Shadow powers does not make it a Shadow "class." It is an Arcane build with Shadow powers.
I would have expected some here to be disappointed with the muddled mixed power sourced Assassin. It is an echo of the 2nd edition Kit from so long ago, though to be far, it is more balanced than the kit ever could be.
Mixing power sources and roles is not 4th edition mechanics, no matter how much Wizards tries to crowbar it in. It is one of the major reasons that Essentials is so dispised by many.
Okay, I know you're wrong on two points here. The reason why you feel Essentials is despised is dual-sources. I don't like the class design as being excessively limiting. You make 2, real choices for most Essentials classes: Weapon type, and your utilities whenever they come up. The Mage is a bit more, but still maintains this concept, as you will, primarily, choose powers from your own school. The Ranger was dual-sourced in 2nd Edition, and the same in 3/3.5. The Barbarian was a martial class in all previous editions, and started 100% Anti-magic, to the point they'd lose abilities if they didn't beat the party mage in the face upon starting a game with them. I'm not suddenly shocked and horrified that it is a primal class now.
Power Sources are there for flavour, and if the flavour fits, why not take it? I like Shadow as being the all-access power source; do I want a Shadow source Beguiler, or the like? Sure I do. Am I disappointed that my Avenger might get the option to take Shadow powers? No - I like that. It's fitting for that character, in fact.
However, there's nothing about the keyword system that actively prevents dual sources. Unless you see the Source/Role as a defining grid and that it is rigid, unflexible and unchangable. Keywords aren't arranged in any special way within a power - they're placed alphabetically, any Power Source keywords appearing where they fall (Silver Pheonix Rage is Fire, Healing, Primal, Rage, Weapon. Just to make my point). This makes adding a new keyword relatively simple. The fluff isn't hard to change. It's not an earthshattering revelation if your precious Source/Role grid is broken by a Dual-source class. Why not? Because you created that grid. Not WotC. They just used the concept originally, and eventually, chose to abandon it in favour of dual-sourcing Paragon Paths. Multiclassing is also dual-sourcing your character. Hybrids do the same thing. With enough effort, you can make a [terrible] character with every power source. To say that it was forced in is blindly stating that you didn't see that they game has slowly been moving towards multiple power sources all along.
Your grid is rigid, and unfun. Why confine yourself to that?
The preview, as shown, shows nothing about supporting the Shadow Power Source. It has, thus far, three builds, one Divine and two Arcane, that have some shadow influence. There is also a martial build for the Assassin within the DDi.
I liked the paragraph about Shadow Magic, but there was nothing underneath it to support it.
From what is known thus far, this is the Death of the Shadow Power Source.
some points...
"For example, ThaX's statement that the product in question will offer no ability to build pure shadow characters. Seems to me that it will be very likely that a pure shadow necro/nethermancer style character will be very likely."
You must know something that I do not. From my perspective, you will be able to have some shadow powers in arcane/divine builds. Perhaps you seen a forth entry that is actually a class?
"Mixing power sources..."
First, there is no grid. You will not see a Martial controller anytime soon. I have always looked at the roles as a design tool, not something for the player to obsess over. Right now, it is mainly ignored by all. The mixing of the power sources makes for more than having this with a dash of that, it also messes with the roles and how focused (or with the Essentials Kit Builds, how unfocused) they are.
The separation of the power sources made for a focused theme for those group of classes, one that works pretty well. With the new direction, there are some bad design traps that are coming back in 4th that the original books tried like mad to eliminate.
"Limited choices"
The choices that are limited is the ones inside the Kit Builds. One can not choose other powers from the PHB's and other sources. The build specific mechanics limits our resources to that build, not to mention the return of the Alignment specific build, not a restriction per se, just ineffective for the other alignments.
Power Points was the first indication of the mechanics being changed within a class, this didn't have any question on which power source the class was. The first real instance of the mixing of power sources is in the Essentials book. It wasn't something that was sorta done with other products, or messed around with in the DDi, it was there and that was that.
... Martial, Divine, and Arcane have all lived rich and fulfilling lives, and if they should die from a lack of content in the future it will be more akin to death by old age.
Martial, Divine, and Arcane go all the way back to the very beginnings of D&D. All of the other power sources we have (except Psionic) were originally part of one of those three. When 4e first came out, the belief was that new power sources would be independent. Now the trend seems to be to keep new power sources as part of the existing ones, particularly Arcane.
I personally don't like this apparent trend. I believe that the Sorcerer should have been an Elemental striker rather than Arcane, and that Necromancy and Illusion both have their roots in Shadow.
I have no problem with Arcane classes using Elemental or Shadow powers. Arcane means "secret" after all, and Arcane users (particularly Wizards) gain power be learning mystic secrets.
In my opinion, Elementalism, Illusion, and Necromancy - all once Arcane specializations - should have separate power sources that Arcane users can tap into - but not quite as well as the specialists.
Actually in 1e AD&D psionics did not have their own class they just got tacked on to characters that had one of the standard classes. So psionics were like a psuedo dual power source since it could not stand alone. Psionics did not have a class until 2e with the introduction of the psionicist. Not a big deal just some near useless trivia.
This isn't 3.5. You cannot go "I disbelieve your power" and it fails anymore. That's NOT an applicable defense to Illusion powers anymore. If you play 4E like that, I feel sorry for your DM.
Actually, that is pretty much how it plays... except that it's your Will defence that allows you to "disbelieve" the illusion. (or Insight if the illusion is already in place) At least that's the way I saw it based on the rules in the books; I could be wrong though.
And keep in mind that this book is not neccessarily "Heroes of the Shadow Power Source", it's "Heroes of the Shadowfell." And thus far we've only seen a very small preview of options for existing classes... that doesn't mean that we won't be getting a new class (or classes.)
Plus I gotta say that so far I like what I've seen of the Blackguard and the Necromancy and Nethermancy options for the Mage class. I hope we get a preview of a true Shadow power source class, but I'm not really ready to right off the entire power source just because we haven't gotten a preview of one yet. (And no, I don't care if the class, or classes, are dual-power-sourced like the Executioner is. I love the Executioner class as it post-playtest.)
Now I know I'm probably going to get bashed as one of those people who automatically love anything and everything that WotC puts out. I'm not one of those people, nor do I truly believe that anyone is, but oh well.
What I have been trying to say is a very basic statement.
The preview, as shown, shows nothing about supporting the Shadow Power Source. It has, thus far, three builds, one Divine and two Arcane, that have some shadow influence. There is also a martial build for the Assassin within the DDi.
I liked the paragraph about Shadow Magic, but there was nothing underneath it to support it.
From what is known thus far, this is the Death of the Shadow Power Source.
Except that it's quite clearly thriving in other classes. Just because you don't get your Shadow Striker Role A, Shadow Defender Role A, Shadow Controller Role A, Shadow Leader Role A, Shadow Striker Role B, doesn't mean that Shadow is dead. It thrives quite clearly as an all-access power source that anyone desperate enough can tap into.
"Mixing power sources..."
First, there is no grid. You will not see a Martial controller anytime soon. I have always looked at the roles as a design tool, not something for the player to obsess over. Right now, it is mainly ignored by all. The mixing of the power sources makes for more than having this with a dash of that, it also messes with the roles and how focused (or with the Essentials Kit Builds, how unfocused) they are.
The separation of the power sources made for a focused theme for those group of classes, one that works pretty well. With the new direction, there are some bad design traps that are coming back in 4th that the original books tried like mad to eliminate.
Hot damn! The Scout disappeared then? Pretty sure it's a Martial controller, as only it's stances and utilities are Primal. There is nothing about a power source that messes with roles. Primal is a fine source. It's pretty tight with Martial, and they both really think weapons are cool. Primal just likes the elements more than Martial does (who doesn't like them at all, I believe?). This lends itself better to Strikers, similar to how martial does. Except.... Primal has two Controllers. Arcane doesn't lend itself well to leading or defending. Swordmage and two leaders. Power Sources don't dictate what roles are within that group.
Arcane, by being all encompassing, should really be the one that fits best with Shadow. Yet, you're pretty angry about that. So, you're just angry because you percieve the game has having defined lines between sources, while ignoring that WotC has never intended this. Again, Shadow Captain, Umbiri, Hybrids, Multiclassing, the Half Elf, the Deva's Soul of the World. You're free to have this opinion that WotC never intended for power sources to be mixed, but it's one of those opinions that's legitimately wrong, thanks to written proof.
"Limited choices"
The choices that are limited is the ones inside the Kit Builds. One can not choose other powers from the PHB's and other sources. The build specific mechanics limits our resources to that build, not to mention the return of the Alignment specific build, not a restriction per se, just ineffective for the other alignments.
Yes, you can. The Mage has access to all the wizard spells. All of them. Any sub-class within Essentials can take utilities from it's Archetype. They can take paragon paths from outside sources, same with Epic Destinies. They're also free to take MC feats, and can pick up extra powers that way (Seeker MC, anyone?).
Actually READ Fallen Lands or Forgotten Kingdoms. You might learn something.
Power Points was the first indication of the mechanics being changed within a class, this didn't have any question on which power source the class was. The first real instance of the mixing of power sources is in the Essentials book. It wasn't something that was sorta done with other products, or messed around with in the DDi, it was there and that was that.
Hybrids appeared in the PHB3. Half Elves appeared in the PHB1. Umbiri is from the FRPG. All of these are power source mixing (the last one is egregious as it's the VERY FIRST instance). Making stuff up, you're really good at it.
Let's see if you read this entire post, or take 2 words and assume you know what I said!
Simply that Necrotic is an accompaniment to those keywords you'd specified already. It encompasses all those keywords that you (keyword!) seem to have relegated to the Shadow power source. How is that article not a direct contradiction to the power source itself? I suppose it could be retconned to Shadow...
Who says that those keywords can only come attached to the shadow power source? I have not relegated them to anything. I have merely stated that the shadow power source will commonly come attached to those keywords. That does not mean that every time those keywords appear they will be accompanied by the shadow power source. However, in the specific case of that article, it probably should be retconned into the shadow power source considering what the Heroes of Shadow book seems to be doing.
Sort of like RAW and RAI?
No, not like RAW and RAI, because both the RAW and RAI are concepts tied to the text of the products in question, not the designers' intentions. Put plain and simply, barring articles where the designers tell us their intentions, we have no access to those intentions. What is more, articles that describe a designers' intentions mean little in the face of the enactments of the texts actually produced. A designer could write that they intended to make 3e balanced, and give 3e spellcasters the ability to never run out of spells. That claimed intent is not enacted by the text of 3e. However, sometimes a text does seem to produce intention, via its own text, that is not fulfilled because of a strict adherence to the letter of its rules. That intention is what is referred to with the term RAI.
Well, as I don't have the source material on hand, all I can state is that I read, somewhere on this site, that WotC created the Wizard but weren't certain of how to make it a controller... or something along those lines. If I run across that article, I'll bring it up. In the meantime, consider this part of the debate sidelined, at least on my end.
Even if you could find the article, it wouldn't matter much. I can still quote the PHB on the nature of the role of a controller. I can still point out that the wizard is labeled as a controller.
I think ThaX is trying with great difficulty to put out a statement that he/she just can't form the words for. I won't put words into ThaX's mouth, but I think ThaX is trying to state that "a person with all Shadow powers does not a Shadow character make." To some amount, I agree. If I were to throw magic potions around that explode with arcane energy but have no magical ability myself, does that mean my character is Arcane by default?
The artificer would say yes, that does make your character Arcane. Because really, that is what the artificer does. He has no magic of his own. Rather, he knows how to call upon the latent magic in all matter, and manipulates that magic to produce enchanted items... which he then throws around, or swings.
Of course, that is not what these new shadow build characters are doing. They are calling upon the force of shadow directly.
What I have been trying to say is a very basic statement.
The preview, as shown, shows nothing about supporting the Shadow Power Source. It has, thus far, three builds, one Divine and two Arcane, that have some shadow influence. There is also a martial build for the Assassin within the DDi.
Objectively false. The assassin build is labeled as "martial and shadow," not martial. The preview, as shown, includes powers that have the shadow power source keyword. The preview, as shown, suggests that necromancers and nethermancers will specialize in casting spells that might very well all have the shadow powersource keyword. It might not be the support you like, but (since all of those mechanics deal with the shadow power source) those mechanics are objectively supporting the shadow power source; it just isn't the support you wanted...
I liked the paragraph about Shadow Magic, but there was nothing underneath it to support it.
From what is known thus far, this is the Death of the Shadow Power Source.
Your first line is objectively false. Your second line is highly subjective, and is based on little more than the fact that the support provided does not match your own very personal, subjective, set of expectations in regards to what sort of support should have been provided.
You must know something that I do not. From my perspective, you will be able to have some shadow powers in arcane/divine builds. Perhaps you seen a forth entry that is actually a class?
A build gets called "arcane" or "divine" because it has arcane or divine power source powers. If this wizard build can be built so that every attack and utility power chosen will have the shadow power source keyword, then there is very little reason to call this build an arcane build.
The first real instance of the mixing of power sources is in the Essentials book. It wasn't something that was sorta done with other products, or messed around with in the DDi, it was there and that was that.
Objectively false. Multiclassing was possible before Essentials. Hybrid classing was possible before Essentials. Themes were available before Essentials. Every single one of these mechanics allowed for mixed power source characters. Now, perhaps you have attributed some subjective value to the word "real" in order to make/believe that statement, but that value is purely subjective.
The Assassin Build is denoted with both power sources, true. It becomes a martial rogue with some shadow powers.
"A build gets called "arcane" or "divine" because it has arcane or divine power source powers. If this wizard build can be built so that every attack and utility power chosen will have the shadow power source keyword, then there is very little reason to call this build an arcane build. "
??? So the base class being Arcane/Divine is somehow immaterial? Have you played 4th edition, sir?
Sorry, Thax, but the Dragon magazine is published by the Wizards. Just because some people will not shell out $7 for a subscription to the magazine or (fortunately) are too honest to grab a free torrent, neither of those things mean that the Assassin has not been published.
It has been published in a limited form, in a non-standard way. There is a limited audience for DDi which is a subset of the audience for Dungeons and Dragons as a whole. Therefore many Dungeons and Dragons players will miss out on the Assassin... Unless of course they re-release it in the Shadow book...
I would say that DDI is less limited in nature than books: I wager that more people have an internet connexion than have a game store nearby which carries every D&D book.
Certainly I and my friends subscribe precisely because it is far more convenient and much cheaper than ordering books from America. Even if I were back in Canada, my hometown is 8 hours drive from the nearest city with a good gaming store and 2 hours from the nearest Chapters (which does not carry much on its shelves actually). Think about it: I can pay $80 for a year's worth of magazines plus Character Builder and ALL the rules and powers on-line: or $80 buys me two books (with overseas shipping). Even an American could only buy three or four new books for $80.
Furthermore, I would say that the sort of casual gamer who only checks out his local bookstore and avoids the D&D website, is probably not dreaming of obscure Shadow power sources and 3rd edition archetypes. Whereas the people who complain here about the lack of Shadow classes are clearly plugged into the websites, forums and (potentially) DDI.
If indeed DDI subscribers are only a small proportion of 4e players, then the Wizards must do a better job of advertising these monetary benefits and the completeness of the data on-line. They should stick a big sticker on the front cover of every one of their books.
I talk of the mixing of Power Sources within the single class, not the choice of multi-classing (which is level dependant and changes with Tiers), Hybrid or whatever the Half Elf can do. The class as written before one decides to use feats and choices to broaden their concepts/choices.
The Assassin Build is denoted with both power sources, true. It becomes a martial rogue with some shadow powers.
Umbiri. Shadow Captain.
Again. Debunked. Would you like another try?
EDIT: Also liked that you totally lived up to my expectations and didn't read anything beyond the last section.
Who says that those keywords can only come attached to the shadow power source? I have not relegated them to anything. I have merely stated that the shadow power source will commonly come attached to those keywords. That does not mean that every time those keywords appear they will be accompanied by the shadow power source. However, in the specific case of that article, it probably should be retconned into the shadow power source considering what the Heroes of Shadow book seems to be doing.
I will agree with you on that, but I still hold that "Power Sources" should be kept on a different line than keywords. This mix-and-match simply isn't working, as it can cause confusion. That would be my answer to the final quote in my previous post.
No, not like RAW and RAI, because both the RAW and RAI are concepts tied to the text of the products in question, not the designers' intentions. Put plain and simply, barring articles where the designers tell us their intentions, we have no access to those intentions. What is more, articles that describe a designers' intentions mean little in the face of the enactments of the texts actually produced. A designer could write that they intended to make 3e balanced, and give 3e spellcasters the ability to never run out of spells. That claimed intent is not enacted by the text of 3e. However, sometimes a text does seem to produce intention, via its own text, that is not fulfilled because of a strict adherence to the letter of its rules. That intention is what is referred to with the term RAI.
...?
But when interpreting a text you don't deal with its author's intent, but with the existing text.
Is that... not exactly what we were discussing? I may be yet again misinterpreting your words. Please clarify, if you could.
Even if you could find the article, it wouldn't matter much. I can still quote the PHB on the nature of the role of a controller. I can still point out that the wizard is labeled as a controller.
Again, that debate has been sidelined and I have conceded that, until I can find that article, I will not continue that line of argument.
The artificer would say yes, that does make your character Arcane. Because really, that is what the artificer does. He has no magic of his own. Rather, he knows how to call upon the latent magic in all matter, and manipulates that magic to produce enchanted items... which he then throws around, or swings.
Of course, that is not what these new shadow build characters are doing. They are calling upon the force of shadow directly.
Actually, the Artificer has GOBS of magic on his own. It's in his very description:
Artificers treat mastery of magic like a technical skill. They see patterns in energy and matter, and they understand how to manipulate the flow of magic in and around objects and creatures. Artificers channel energy into items using magical components, diagrams, and complex chains of sigils. Their skills let them assemble a magic device for any situation.
As an artificer, you might be a formal student of magic who became interested in artifacts and arcane items. Alternatively, you could be a tinkerer who devised magic tools in a musty basement. Or perhaps you are an explorer who found your knowledge in the forgotten places of the world. Whatever the source of your talents, a passion for the technical components of magic drives you to perfect your art.
With a bandolier slung across your chest, you carry an arsenal of alchemical compounds, magic implements, mundane materials, and tools. Your weapons, implements, and other gear are inscribed with runes and mystic patterns. You mix reagents, drink potions, and craft items. You use your knowledge to infuse yourself and your allies with arcane power. And one day, your magical skills will carry you into legend.
Mind you, it's a very back-and-forth description. It's a skill! It's weaving magic! It's manipulating items! It's infusing energy! And so on and so forth. I think this may very well be an example of RAW and RAI. I see, in that description, multiple possible "sources" of the energy produced by an Artificer. I also have yet to display many powers that don't utilize implements or items at all.
I talk of the mixing of Power Sources within the single class, not the choice of multi-classing (which is level dependant and changes with Tiers), Hybrid or whatever the Half Elf can do. The class as written before one decides to use feats and choices to broaden their concepts/choices.
It is your subjective decision to divorce the marriage of power sources in a single class from other methods of marrying power sources. That is a subjective decision, and one I see no reason to adhere to. It seems to me that the mariage of power sources in a single class is little more than a logical extension of existing methods of marrying power sources. It seems like little more than a "pre-mixed" version of the hybrid rules, but flavored according to older examples of D&D class fluff.
The Assassin Build is denoted with both power sources, true. It becomes a martial rogue with some shadow powers.
That is a very subjective conclusion; one I do not share.
??? So the base class being Arcane/Divine is somehow immaterial? Have you played 4th edition, sir?
Have you? Other than the fact that your powers have the same keyword as your power source, there is very little materiality to your class's supposed power source. If all of your power sources have a different power source than that usually attributed to your base class, for all intents and purposes your character has a different power source.
I will agree with you on that, but I still hold that "Power Sources" should be kept on a different line than keywords. This mix-and-match simply isn't working, as it can cause confusion. That would be my answer to the final quote in my previous post.
I am apathetic to the possibility. I don't particularly feel that it is necessary, but it wouldn't bother me any either.
...?
What, exactly, did you not understand? Without some sort of text, beyond your three dots, I can't guess your intentions. I have no direct line of access to your intentions, see?
Is that... not exactly what we were discussing? I may be yet again misinterpreting your words. Please clarify, if you could.
I think the answer to your question is: the RAI does not equal the designers intent. However, I am not entirely sure what you were referring to with the word "that," so I may be misunderstanding you.
Actually, the Artificer has GOBS of magic on his own. It's in his very description:
I don't agree. Lets look at your example:
Artificers treat mastery of magic like a technical skill. They see patterns in energy and matter, and they understand how to manipulate the flow of magic in and around objects and creatures. Artificers channel energy into items using magical components, diagrams, and complex chains of sigils. Their skills let them assemble a magic device for any situation.
Now, granted, it does state that artificers channel energy themselves. However, just prior to that statement it clarifies that the energy they channel is not their own. Rather, they manipulate the flow of magic in and around objects and creatures. As I said earlier, they see the innate magic in all things, and they manipulate that magic in order to produce magic items... which they then use. That is very different from a wizard who channels energy directly through himself, using himself as a conduit to produce an effect originating from the wizard himself.
As an artificer, you might be a formal student of magic who became interested in artifacts and arcane items. Alternatively, you could be a tinkerer who devised magic tools in a musty basement. Or perhaps you are an explorer who found your knowledge in the forgotten places of the world. Whatever the source of your talents, a passion for the technical components of magic drives you to perfect your art.
Again, note the texts focus on creating/finding and using magic items. Artificers are like engineers. Engineers produce fantastic circuit, but they are not themselves a component of the circuit... unless you are viewing the circuit as a feedback mechanism, but cybernetics is a whole other discussion.
With a bandolier slung across your chest, you carry an arsenal of alchemical compounds, magic implements, mundane materials, and tools. Your weapons, implements, and other gear are inscribed with runes and mystic patterns. You mix reagents, drink potions, and craft items. You use your knowledge to infuse yourself and your allies with arcane power. And one day, your magical skills will carry you into legend.
The magic skills are yours. But they are not the same magical skills as those possessed by someone like a wizard. Look at the bolded lines of text that precede the phrase "your magical skills;" in this case, your magical skills refer to your ability to create and use magical items. As the text previously stated, you create magical items by manipulating their own latent magical energy. You don't channel energy like a wizard, using yourself as the origin of an effect. You produce magic items. Then you use those magic items. It sounds very much like the character you described, except that the character you described can not necessarily make the magic items as well.
It is as I said, though, a muddled build that turns the Shadow base class into a Martial build with shadow highlights.
"... for all intents and purposes your character has a different power source."
It is an Arcane/Divine build, I am not sure why you want to dispute that. That it has powers of a particular type is all well and good, but the overall it is based on the original class and it's station. I also don't want the Mage Builds to have to mess with "Fire and Forget" stratagy that the Wizard somehow still has.
I know, you think that these builds are somehow like brand new classes in themselves. I don't.
Looking through the Executioner Assassin, seems that Poison use (A vile practice that I would not use) is a major part of the build. I would more likely use the original assassin and choose powers from this build rathor than be saddled with the poisons. It is to bad that some of the features really can't be used with the base class. Replacing the awful Shroud component with the Assassin's strike is alright, though the feature is a bit overpowered compared to the other classes that are balanced with each other.
Personally, I love the poison use aspect of the class. It is a very neat, new, mechanic. And assassin's strike is not overpowered. It gets one single very powerful encounter ability instead of getting multiple encounter abilities. But, assassin's strike is not analogous to the O-assassin shrouds. It is a replacement of the O-assassin's encounter powers. The E-assassin has a finesse feature instead of a shroud mechanic.
It is as I said, though, a muddled build that turns the Shadow base class into a Martial build with shadow highlights.
And as I said, that is a very subjective opinion, one that is not backed with objective facts, and one which I do not share. In fact, I find your subjective value judgments particularly suspect, because you have regularly shown that you can not properly account for the objective details. Your above assessment of the assassin class, where you call assassin's strike the allegorical equivalent of the older shroud mechanic, is a good example of that.
It is an Arcane/Divine build, I am not sure why you want to dispute that. That it has powers of a particular type is all well and good, but the overall it is based on the original class and it's station.
You keep claiming as much, but you also keep proving that you have no idea how to interact with the objective details upon which anyone's claims (yours or otherwise) are based. Again, I can see no objectively evident power source mechanic, except for the fact that your power source is a keyword that is found among all of your class's powers. Mixed power source classes have powers with a mix of different power source keywords. If it is possible to build a necromancer/nethermancer that has the shadow power source keyword among all of its attack power and utility power choices, then for all intents and purposes, that particular character will have the exact same power source mechanic as a character built using a mono-shadow-power-source class would have. Your inability to deal with that has more to do with your own conceptual blocks than anything else. A class is called Arcane, Divine, or Shadow, because of the keywords found in its powers.
I also don't want the Mage Builds to have to mess with "Fire and Forget" stratagy that the Wizard somehow still has.
I am glad you don't. I do. Subjective preferences are subjective, and all that.
I know, you think that these builds are somehow like brand new classes in themselves. I don't.
I know you don't. It is because you are unable to deal with the objective details upon which anyone's opinions are built. Because, really, every reasonable poster on these boards (whatever their opinion of Essentials classes) admits that many of the new Essentials classes are more like sub-classes, which is to say brand new classes that have only a nominal relationship to existing classes, than "builds." The word "build," in 4e, just doesn't accurately incorporate the level of mechanical difference we are now seeing.
Personally, I love the poison use aspect of the class. It is a very neat, new, mechanic. And assassin's strike is not overpowered. It gets one single very powerful encounter ability instead of getting multiple encounter abilities. But, assassin's strike is not analogous to the O-assassin shrouds. It is a replacement of the O-assassin's encounter powers. The E-assassin has a finesse feature instead of a shroud mechanic.
The other classes only get 1 encounter ability at first level, so a powerful single encounter power unbalances the class. At higher levels their encounters are less powerful, and while they have more the E-Assassins powerful encounter is more efficient than any other single one.
It is as I said, though, a muddled build that turns the Shadow base class into a Martial build with shadow highlights.
And as I said, that is a very subjective opinion, one that is not backed with objective facts, and one which I do not share. In fact, I find your subjective value judgments particularly suspect, because you have regularly shown that you can not properly account for the objective details. Your above assessment of the assassin class, where you call assassin's strike the allegorical equivalent of the older shroud mechanic, is a good example of that.
It can be measured. How many powers use the shadow/implement keyword, how many use martial/weapon. How many are just flavored physical attacks easily comparable to martial source powers and how many have odd, shadow style effects (as in not just an attack, but having something to do with shadow such as giving the target minuses to hit and such)...
It is an Arcane/Divine build, I am not sure why you want to dispute that. That it has powers of a particular type is all well and good, but the overall it is based on the original class and it's station.
You keep claiming as much, but you also keep proving that you have no idea how to interact with the objective details upon which anyone's claims (yours or otherwise) are based. Again, I can see no objectively evident power source mechanic, except for the fact that your power source is a keyword that is found among all of your class's powers. Mixed power source classes have powers with a mix of different power source keywords. If it is possible to build a necromancer/nethermancer that has the shadow power source keyword among all of its attack power and utility power choices, then for all intents and purposes, that particular character will have the exact same power source mechanic as a character built using a mono-shadow-power-source class would have. Your inability to deal with that has more to do with your own conceptual blocks than anything else. A class is called Arcane, Divine, or Shadow, because of the keywords found in its powers.
Yes, except it will also have all of the restrictions of the Mage in addition to having the "flavor" of Shadow.
I think me and thaX and others are saying it warrants its own mechanics as in the ability to control undead. Where this would be severely limited to encounter and/or daily powers in its current form...
I also don't want the Mage Builds to have to mess with "Fire and Forget" stratagy that the Wizard somehow still has.
I am glad you don't. I do. Subjective preferences are subjective, and all that.I know, you think that these builds are somehow like brand new classes in themselves. I don't.
I know you don't. It is because you are unable to deal with the objective details upon which anyone's opinions are built. Because, really, every reasonable poster on these boards (whatever their opinion of Essentials classes) admits that many of the new Essentials classes are more like sub-classes, which is to say brand new classes that have only a nominal relationship to existing classes, than "builds." The word "build," in 4e, just doesn't accurately incorporate the level of mechanical difference we are now seeing.
See the problem here is if you had both a seperate AEDU pre-E class that did this as well as enough powers to make a mage have all Shadow powers you would both be happy. As it appears to be, we don't have that...
The other classes only get 1 encounter ability at first level, so a powerful single encounter power unbalances the class. At higher levels their encounters are less powerful, and while they have more the E-Assassins powerful encounter is more efficient than any other single one.
At first level assassin's strike only does 1d10 extra damage. That is very much in line with the sort of powers other strikers get for first level encounter powers. As the assassin levels the power grows in power, eventually becoming more powerful than any other encounter power in the game. However, the assassin gets only one single encounter power. When you compare the damage that the assassin can do with that power to the amount of damage other strikers can deal with 4 encounter powers, the damage is very much in line. In fact, the other classes have a higher damage potential if they hit with all of their encounter powers, which is made up for by the way the assassin encounter power efficiently deals all of its damage with a single reliable spike in damage.
Put plain and simply, you are wrong. Your claim that the assassin is overpowered is fraudulent. All one needs to do to prove this is head on over to the CO boards and check out the DPR that assassin can achieve compared to the DPR of other classes.
It can be measured. How many powers use the shadow/implement keyword, how many use martial/weapon. How many are just flavored physical attacks easily comparable to martial source powers and how many have odd, shadow style effects (as in not just an attack, but having something to do with shadow such as giving the target minuses to hit and such)...
Certainly you can make such counts. What judgments you make with those counts, however, are subjective. Moreover, the powers that you consider to be "just flavored physical attacks easily comparable to martial source powers" only subjectively fit that description. What I said to ThaX stands.
Yes, except it will also have all of the restrictions of the Mage in addition to having the "flavor" of Shadow.
And what restrictions, pray tell, are those? Also, how do those restrictions preclude the character from being considered a shadow based character?
I think me and thaX and others are saying it warrants its own mechanics as in the ability to control undead. Where this would be severely limited to encounter and/or daily powers in its current form...
A subjective assessment, and one I do not agree with.
See the problem here is if you had both a seperate AEDU pre-E class that did this as well as enough powers to make a mage have all Shadow powers you would both be happy. As it appears to be, we don't have that...
This is a non-sequitur to what ThaX said, and how I responded to him.
I don't like the idea of shadow being a 'flavor' that other sources 'dip' into. We have mechanics for classes of one source that want to 'dip' another - it's called multiclassing.
I still want my 'pure' shadow classes, because I love the fluff of the shadow power source, and wanted to play such a character without diluting his theme with another power source's gimmicks. to paraphrase "Arcane characters need intensive study, divine characters must devote themselves to a deity, Shadow characters need only surrender." Note "only surrender", not "first go through extensive study or devotion and then surrender on top of that".
I also wanted to see the new things it could bring to the game. I prefer D&D to be a growing, evolving game, not just constantly retreading the same fighter/cleric/wizard/thief we had 20 years ago. Show some imagination! The Shadow power source was an ideal opportunity to bring something new to the game, something actually new, like the shaman that primal brought. It's this missed opportunity that I find most depressing about Heroes of Shadow.
As for more specifically what I want - I'm not asking for a lot. I don't need a class for each role. I don't need six or five or even four classes. I'm happy with the sneaky class we already have - we don't need a new one, that one just needs a boost to be playable. All I'm asking for are:
1) An all shadow all the time warrior type in armor
2) An all shadow all the time caster type character
That's all. I don't care if they're 4.0 or 4.e. I don't care if they're published in a book or just the online magazines. I don't care what their names are, what roles they fill, what their fluff is (as long as it fits with the fluff for the shadow power source), or what their mechanics look like. Honestly, while the iconic fantasy 'dark knight' and 'shadowcaster' would be great, I'd be equally happy to be surprised with something new (like I was with the warlord in PHBI, and with the Shaman in PHBII).
But a handful of new powers for the wizard simply doesn't do it for me. I don't begrudge the 'necromancer' and 'nethermancer' in themselves. I wouldn't mind the necromancer being a wizard build if I had some other shadow caster class I could go play that wasn't. But the idea that I'm getting re-fluffed wizards instead of any actual shadow classes is so totally dissapointing that it's killing my love for 4e entirely.
The other classes only get 1 encounter ability at first level, so a powerful single encounter power unbalances the class. At higher levels their encounters are less powerful, and while they have more the E-Assassins powerful encounter is more efficient than any other single one.
At first level assassin's strike only does 1d10 extra damage. That is very much in line with the sort of powers other strikers get for first level encounter powers. As the assassin levels the power grows in power, eventually becoming more powerful than any other encounter power in the game. However, the assassin gets only one single encounter power. When you compare the damage that the assassin can do with that power to the amount of damage other strikers can deal with 4 encounter powers, the damage is very much in line. In fact, the other classes have a higher damage potential if they hit with all of their encounter powers, which is made up for by the way the assassin encounter power efficiently deals all of its damage with a single reliable spike in damage.
Put plain and simply, you are wrong. Your claim that the assassin is overpowered is fraudulent. All one needs to do to prove this is head on over to the CO boards and check out the DPR that assassin can achieve compared to the DPR of other classes.
If the e-ssassin gets their damage every time it is used, and other encounter powers don't, and the average hit chance for a decent striker is 65% (I'm not sure, but I've seen that number thrown around) then on average they are only going to get 65% of their damage. So if all damage is equal then the e-ssassin will be ahead by 35% in damage.
It can be measured. How many powers use the shadow/implement keyword, how many use martial/weapon. How many are just flavored physical attacks easily comparable to martial source powers and how many have odd, shadow style effects (as in not just an attack, but having something to do with shadow such as giving the target minuses to hit and such)...
Certainly you can make such counts. What judgments you make with those counts, however, are subjective. Moreover, the powers that you consider to be "just flavored physical attacks easily comparable to martial source powers" only subjectively fit that description. What I said to ThaX stands.
See when I offer an objective way of measuring it, you write it off... Your not even open to debate...
Yes, except it will also have all of the restrictions of the Mage in addition to having the "flavor" of Shadow.
And what restrictions, pray tell, are those? Also, how do those restrictions preclude the character from being considered a shadow based character?
Being a Mage it will shoehorn the idea of an undead controller into a school format, where they gain access to another school at a low level, thus it must be less powerful than a single class feature. Probably something along the lines of "any power that is shadow with a duration lasts one round longer than it normally would" or some such drivel.
Where as a stand alone feature it could do something like "Each time you drop an enemy that is not a minion you may choose to expend a healing surge to raise it as an undead creature that fights for you"
You can compare the class features of current classes to the features of the Mage and its pretty clear how there is a difference...
I think me and thaX and others are saying it warrants its own mechanics as in the ability to control undead. Where this would be severely limited to encounter and/or daily powers in its current form...
A subjective assessment, and one I do not agree with.
As I said above it would be limited as it would inherit the school class features of the mage and would grossly limit or preclude any other features, therefore it would be less useful as a full version of the class. Now if you want a sub-class like this that uses the mages features, I've got no problem with it as long as they put out a full AEDU Necromancer class alongside it...
See the problem here is if you had both a seperate AEDU pre-E class that did this as well as enough powers to make a mage have all Shadow powers you would both be happy. As it appears to be, we don't have that...
This is a non-sequitur to what ThaX said, and how I responded to him.
I have no clue how you come to this conclusion. You get a sub-class of the mage that makes you happy, and thaX gets a full AEDU class that makes him happy. How would this be anything other than a win-win?
It's very simple for me. I want to play shadow characters that aren't also arcane, divine, martial, or what have you. That option is available to me when I play primal classes, or psychic classes, or the aformentioned arcane/divine/martial, I want it to also be available when I want to play shadow.
I don't like the idea of shadow being a 'flavor' that other sources 'dip' into. We have mechanics for classes of one source that want to 'dip' another - it's called multiclassing.
I still want my 'pure' shadow classes, because I love the fluff of the shadow power source, and wanted to play such a character without diluting his theme with another power source's gimmicks. to paraphrase "Arcane characters need intensive study, divine characters must devote themselves to a deity, Shadow characters need only surrender." Note "only surrender", not "first go through extensive study or devotion and then surrender on top of that".
A Warlock with a Shadow Pact fits your bill, which might show up in HoS. It ignores the flavour of arcane as Wizard's defines it, and gives you exactly what you want - a character that doesn't 'dilute' it's flavour with something other than surrender. I don't see this a dilution, however. I see it as natural growth.
A character who places his faith in a deity that falls so far as to surrender to the dark to best 'serve' this deitiy. Even in your 'dark knight' example, let's take one of the most classical examples in modern gaming: Cecil, of FFIV. He is a Dark Knight, an Anti-Hero who does terrible things because it is his duty. In this story, there is no surrender - he willingly chose the path of the Dark Knight, because it was quick, and easy. He went on to, eventually, confront that darkness, and upon realizing that is was weak because he let himself be weakened by it, he stood stalwart and, instead, prevailed as his true nature - a being of light and a paladin.
It makes for a compelling story, but it ultimately still shows that Shadow is a 'dip'. Cecil is easily built in 4E as a Paladin with only Shadow Powers, and his Challenge/Sanction being Necrotic damage (Dark Wave) until he goes through the Trial of Mt. Ordeals. At which point, he trains out of those powers, abandons his 'shadowy' equipment and starts fresh.
In media (literature, gaming, TV, Movies), the "Dark Knight" rarely remains so - they either start off this way, and see the error of their ways, and show that those who give in are weaker than those who maintain their willpower, or fall to this darkness and misuse it, because of a secret greed for power.
Shadow, as a concept, is so very rarely portrayed on it's own, that it's harder to justify as a standalone power source - I understand why WotC may wish to prop it up with other sources - because this is how Shadow tends to work. Augmenting other sources. If they can come up with a good, interesting design for a pure shadow class, awesome. If they can't, then it probably means it steps on someone else conceptually.
If the e-ssassin gets their damage every time it is used, and other encounter powers don't, and the average hit chance for a decent striker is 65% (I'm not sure, but I've seen that number thrown around) then on average they are only going to get 65% of their damage. So if all damage is equal then the e-ssassin will be ahead by 35% in damage.
Please make sure you know what you are talking about before you post. Better yet, make sure you read what people have already written. It has already been noted that 4 average striker encounter powers do more damage (if they all hit) than a single use of assassin's strike. Your math is totally bogus, because your math assumes that those 4 powers do the same amount of damage (if they all hit) as an assassin's strike. Once again, they don't; they do more. Hell, there are actually a couple powers which can rival assassin's strike on their own. The barbarian encounter power that allows 5 attacks comes to mind. Your claim that the E-assassin (or any E) class is overpowered is a total load of straw grasping bologna. Head on over to the CharOp board and check the numbers for yourself.
See when I offer an objective way of measuring it, you write it off... Your not even open to debate...
I am not open to calling bologna streak. It is possible to objectively measure just how many shadow keyword powers a class can have. When the assassin can have 7 shadow keyword utilities, I call that a valid shadow-mixed powersource character. If a mage can choose to have every single one of its attack and utility powers be a shadow-keyword power, I call that a completely shadow power sourced character. But that is a subjective judgement, because ultimately your measurement, while it measures objective data, doesn't objectively define what a class is. The judgments we come to based on those counts will be subjective.
Being a Mage it will shoehorn the idea of an undead controller into a school format, where they gain access to another school at a low level, thus it must be less powerful than a single class feature. Probably something along the lines of "any power that is shadow with a duration lasts one round longer than it normally would" or some such drivel.
Where as a stand alone feature it could do something like "Each time you drop an enemy that is not a minion you may choose to expend a healing surge to raise it as an undead creature that fights for you"
You can compare the class features of current classes to the features of the Mage and its pretty clear how there is a difference...
No, I can't compare the mages feature to that feature, because I don't believe such a feature would have ever existed. 4e is pretty careful not to give away summoning powers to easily. I can not imagine the designers ever giving such a power to anyone. What is more, if you feel that the idea of an undead controller has to be shoehorned into the school format, more power to you, but that is a subjective estimation that I do not agree with.
As I said above it would be limited as it would inherit the school class features of the mage and would grossly limit or preclude any other features, therefore it would be less useful as a full version of the class. Now if you want a sub-class like this that uses the mages features, I've got no problem with it as long as they put out a full AEDU Necromancer class alongside it...
1) As I said, that is a subjective judgement that I can not agree with.
2) The mage is a full AEDU class.
3) If they give you a dedicated necromancer class in the future, I won't bat an eyelash. I am just super happy that I am getting the product I want first.
I have no clue how you come to this conclusion. You get a sub-class of the mage that makes you happy, and thaX gets a full AEDU class that makes him happy. How would this be anything other than a win-win?
Very simply, what you said does not follow from what ThaX said, nor does it follow from my response to him. It may be true. I may not (and personally, if such a class took up space in the HoS book, I believe it would come at the cost of material I would much rather have. Thus, I don't see that as being much of a win for me). One way or the other, it is a non-sequitur to the text you quoted.
A character who places his faith in a deity that falls so far as to surrender to the dark to best 'serve' this deitiy. Even in your 'dark knight' example, let's take one of the most classical examples in modern gaming: Cecil, of FFIV. He is a Dark Knight, an Anti-Hero who does terrible things because it is his duty. In this story, there is no surrender - he willingly chose the path of the Dark Knight, because it was quick, and easy. He went on to, eventually, confront that darkness, and upon realizing that is was weak because he let himself be weakened by it, he stood stalwart and, instead, prevailed as his true nature - a being of light and a paladin.
Off subject, but FF4 being one of my favorites I feel compelled to make a few minor corrections. Cecil did not "willingly" choose to become a dark knight, he did so because his king commanded him to. True he did willingly choose to submit himself to the king's command, but their in lies the component of "surrender".
Also calling paladin his "true nature" seems a bit off. It's not as though he was a paladin that fell from grace before becoming a dark knight. The game gives no indication that Cecil had any magical abilities before submitting to the dark sword, which suggests he was likely more akin to a fighter. Further more, he doesn't seek out the transformation into a paladin out of any need for personal redemption, he's already a good and honorable all be it confused individual even as a dark knight, rather instead it is out of pure necessity as his dark sword is useless against creatures of pure evil.
In media (literature, gaming, TV, Movies), the "Dark Knight" rarely remains so - they either start off this way, and see the error of their ways, and show that those who give in are weaker than those who maintain their willpower, or fall to this darkness and misuse it, because of a secret greed for power.
This is true, however, D&D is not most medias. Most medias don't support the notion that there could be multiple power sources to begin with, whether that power be wizardry, psionics, faith, ki, or the force there is only one path, and perhaps it's dark mirror or corruption. Which is why it can seem like shadow isn't a source that could stand on it's own, but as I said D&D isn't most media. In D&D there are a plethora of sources from which a hero can draw upon, so I see no need to relegate shadow to the typical trope of being a corruption/perversion of something else.
A character who places his faith in a deity that falls so far as to surrender to the dark to best 'serve' this deitiy. Even in your 'dark knight' example, let's take one of the most classical examples in modern gaming: Cecil, of FFIV. He is a Dark Knight, an Anti-Hero who does terrible things because it is his duty. In this story, there is no surrender - he willingly chose the path of the Dark Knight, because it was quick, and easy. He went on to, eventually, confront that darkness, and upon realizing that is was weak because he let himself be weakened by it, he stood stalwart and, instead, prevailed as his true nature - a being of light and a paladin.
Off subject, but FF4 being one of my favorites I feel compelled to make a few minor corrections. Cecil did not "willingly" choose to become a dark knight, he did so because his king commanded him to. True he did willingly choose to submit himself to the king's command, but their in lies the component of "surrender".
Also calling paladin his "true nature" seems a bit off. It's not as though he was a paladin that fell from grace before becoming a dark knight. The game gives no indication that Cecil had any magical abilities before submitting to the dark sword, which suggests he was likely more akin to a fighter. Further more, he doesn't seek out the the transformation into a paladin out of any need for personal redemption, he's already a good and honorable all be it confused individual even as a dark knight, rather instead it is out of pure necessity as his dark sword is useless against creatures of pure evil.
Except that neither of those it true - Cecil became a Dark Knight because the man he called his father wished it. It wasn't 'surrender', it wasn't an act against his will - the man who found him as a child, raised him, and supported he called upon him, and he answered. That's willingly, and it has very little to do with the King of Baron forcing him. There is no surrender here - there is the love of a son answering his father's wishes.
And his nature as a Lunarian, fallen from the moon, makes him a 'being of light', and that a Paladin was his true nature. He was a confused individual, and did feel a need for reflection and personal salvation. But his true nature, as being someone not from the planet - the son of a guardian of a great power (the crystals) is very much akin to that role. Given that it's heavily implied his father was also a paladin, his nature as one as well, and having that capacity is hinted at strongly. While he's sent to Mt. Ordeals as a quest by someone else, it's at Mt. Ordeals that he truly realizes his errors, and that he was destined to save the planet, not destroy it.
It's not as clear in the original or the straight ports, but the rebuilt FFIV:DS makes all of these things clear as day. Made possible through extra scenes that help build the story behind the characters.
In media (literature, gaming, TV, Movies), the "Dark Knight" rarely remains so - they either start off this way, and see the error of their ways, and show that those who give in are weaker than those who maintain their willpower, or fall to this darkness and misuse it, because of a secret greed for power.
This is true, however, D&D is not most medias. Most medias don't support the notion that there could be multiple power sources to begin with, whether that power be wizardry, psionics, faith, ki, or the force there is only one path, and perhaps it's dark mirror or corruption. Which is why it can seem like shadow isn't a source that could stand on it's own, but as I said D&D isn't most media. In D&D there are a plethora of sources from which a hero can draw upon, so I see no need to relegate shadow to the typical trope of being a corruption/perversion of something else.
Half-true. Many media do support the notion of different sources. The most famous and the ones that hang in our mind, however, do not. Admittedly. I'm not saying that it needs to be this, I am saying, however, if the Devs can't make a class that doesn't step on anything else conceptually, then why can you, the upaid joe, be able to do it better? I want a 'pure shadow' class as much as the next guy, but, in the end, I'd rather one impressive class than forcing the devs to make a Shadow class for the sake of having one. If it doesn't appear in HoS, oh well. If it does, it best be mindblowing.
At this point, anything less cannot salvage the hype that the community has created for one. You'll get your pure shadow class, it won't be what you envisioned, and the outcry will be amazing. In the end, just wait and see, instead of making assumptions and overhyping something that may yet be coming.
Except that neither of those it true - Cecil became a Dark Knight because the man he called his father wished it. It wasn't 'surrender', it wasn't an act against his will - the man who found him as a child, raised him, and supported he called upon him, and he answered. That's willingly, and it has very little to do with the King of Baron forcing him. There is no surrender here - there is the love of a son answering his father's wishes.
Love, especially to the degree where one places the wishes of another as above/inseparable from ones own, can very much be a type surrender.
And his nature as a Lunarian, fallen from the moon, makes him a 'being of light', and that a Paladin was his true nature. He was a confused individual, and did feel a need for reflection and personal salvation. But his true nature, as being someone not from the planet - the son of a guardian of a great power (the crystals) is very much akin to that role. Given that it's heavily implied his father was also a paladin, his nature as one as well, and having that capacity is hinted at strongly. While he's sent to Mt. Ordeals as a quest by someone else, it's at Mt. Ordeals that he truly realizes his errors, and that he was destined to save the planet, not destroy it.
And yet FuSoYa, who's very class description is listed as Lunarian bares more in common with the Sage Tellah than Cecil as a Paladin. Paladin could still be Cecil's familial legacy as I agree that his father was likely a Paladin, but that it has anything to do with his off-planet racial heritage is a bit of a stretch.
It's not as clear in the original or the straight ports, but the rebuilt FFIV:DS makes all of these things clear as day. Made possible through extra scenes that help build the story behind the characters.
Maybe the remake presents what was the original intention and includes those additional scenes purely for clarity, or maybe it's blatant revisionism. Not sure I really care either way, and I certainly don't want to get into a "Han/Greedo shot first" type debate as to which version should be taken as cannon. It's still one of my favorite Final Fantasy titles no matter which version is being discussed, though I prefer the original graphically, even if the "new" character designs happen to be more accurate to the original artwork.
Anyway, lets try to get back on topic.
I am saying, however, if the Devs can't make a class that doesn't step on anything else conceptually, then why can you, the upaid joe, be able to do it better? I want a 'pure shadow' class as much as the next guy, but, in the end, I'd rather one impressive class than forcing the devs to make a Shadow class for the sake of having one. If it doesn't appear in HoS, oh well. If it does, it best be mindblowing.
I think the devs are quite capable of making pure shadow classes that stand on their own. They did it with the O-ssassin and as a concept Necromancer seemed to garner plenty of traction even without any mechanics. Rather it seems that the designers are simply "choosing" an approach that is more in line with previous editions, though whether it is because they themselves are indulging in nostalgia or merely because someone thinks nostalgia will increase sales is not a question that particularly concerns me.
It does seem to me that there is a definite financial motivation, but it isn't nostalgia based. Rather sub-classes are more dependent/compatible with pre-existing source material than wholly new ones would be. If concepts like Necromancer and Blackguard were developed as stand alone classes than someone seeking to play them would only need Heroes of Shadow, and people who had no interest in such concepts wouldn't need to touch the book. Conversely, by keeping these concepts tied to Wizard and Paladin respectively WotC could be hoping to artificially create more sales, by getting the Shadow players to consider products like PH1 and Arcane/Divine Power (or more so whatever post-E equivalents come to pass), while simultaneously getting Wizard and Paladin players to consider checking through Heroes of Shadow for options.
Now I'm NOT one to say that this makes WotC an evil money grubbing corporation. They are a business and as such need to turn the best and most efficient profit they can, but that doesn't make me any less disappointed in the loss of what could have been under the original 4e paradigm. Also I would hate to see a return of 3e style supplements where one has to scourer through a dozen or so books because feats as generic as Reckless Offense (-4 AC for +2 attack) are printed in the Expanded Psionics Handbook of all places.
If the e-ssassin gets their damage every time it is used, and other encounter powers don't, and the average hit chance for a decent striker is 65% (I'm not sure, but I've seen that number thrown around) then on average they are only going to get 65% of their damage. So if all damage is equal then the e-ssassin will be ahead by 35% in damage.
Please make sure you know what you are talking about before you post. Better yet, make sure you read what people have already written. It has already been noted that 4 average striker encounter powers do more damage (if they all hit) than a single use of assassin's strike. Your math is totally bogus, because your math assumes that those 4 powers do the same amount of damage (if they all hit) as an assassin's strike. Once again, they don't; they do more. Hell, there are actually a couple powers which can rival assassin's strike on their own. The barbarian encounter power that allows 5 attacks comes to mind. Your claim that the E-assassin (or any E) class is overpowered is a total load of straw grasping bologna. Head on over to the CharOp board and check the numbers for yourself.
Maybe you need to understand what I'm talking about before you respond. I'm assuming that the non Essassin hits with their encounter powers 65% of the time. Thus 65% DPR. Thus the Essassin gets a 35% damage increase. If the Essassin damage stays ahead of the curve, above the total of all encounters at 65% damage, then they are overpowered. I was simply using your data with the addition of the 65% hit chance calculated in.
Here lets do a breakdown at 65% (assuming this number is anywhere near accurate). After actually reading the specifics of the Executioner it seems they get max damage if the target is helpless. I've no clue what the chances are of a target being helpless, but lets say 5% of the time they get max damage.
Rogue 1st level encounter "opening move" does 2d6 damage. Lets assume you get combat advantage 50% of the time and add sneak attack and that's 2d6 more damage.
Average 2d6 = 6 * 65% = 3.9
Average damage 95% * 3.9 = 3.705
Max damage 5% * 12 = 1
Total average damage = 4.705
50% sneak attack = 50% * 6 * 65% (hit chance) = 1.95 for a grand total of 6.655 average DPR.
The Executioner gets 2d4 for its best attack that I can see so 2d4 at 65% hit + 1d10 + 5% crit max + 5% helpless max. 2d4 = 4 * 65% = 2.6 + AS 5 + 5% max + 5% max = 2.6 + 4.75 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 8.35
So even at first level "Assassin's Strike" does more than "Opening Move". Now I don't know if that is the best rogue power, but at a cursory glance it is.
See when I offer an objective way of measuring it, you write it off... Your not even open to debate...
I am not open to calling bologna streak. It is possible to objectively measure just how many shadow keyword powers a class can have. When the assassin can have 7 shadow keyword utilities, I call that a valid shadow-mixed powersource character. If a mage can choose to have every single one of its attack and utility powers be a shadow-keyword power, I call that a completely shadow power sourced character. But that is a subjective judgement, because ultimately your measurement, while it measures objective data, doesn't objectively define what a class is. The judgments we come to based on those counts will be subjective.
Thats ok because WotC already defines Essentials classes as "sub-classes" and "builds". So according to WotC we don't have to worry about that as they have already defined it for us. So if there is even one power that is required that is not a shadow power we can relegate it to the category of mixed power source. While if it can be built using all shadow powers that it can be a full Shadow source character. Since we don't know if it will be either way we are speculating at this point. However from the evidence at hand we do know that it appears to not contain a full pre-E class but rather a mage sub-class...
Being a Mage it will shoehorn the idea of an undead controller into a school format, where they gain access to another school at a low level, thus it must be less powerful than a single class feature. Probably something along the lines of "any power that is shadow with a duration lasts one round longer than it normally would" or some such drivel.
Where as a stand alone feature it could do something like "Each time you drop an enemy that is not a minion you may choose to expend a healing surge to raise it as an undead creature that fights for you"
You can compare the class features of current classes to the features of the Mage and its pretty clear how there is a difference...
No, I can't compare the mages feature to that feature, because I don't believe such a feature would have ever existed. 4e is pretty careful not to give away summoning powers to easily. I can not imagine the designers ever giving such a power to anyone. What is more, if you feel that the idea of an undead controller has to be shoehorned into the school format, more power to you, but that is a subjective estimation that I do not agree with.
Use your imagination, the class feature I described is an example of the kind of freedom they would have if they didn't shoehorn it into the Mage as a school as opposed to the way they would have to balance it against existing schools and the fact that Mages choose 2 schools.
As I said above it would be limited as it would inherit the school class features of the mage and would grossly limit or preclude any other features, therefore it would be less useful as a full version of the class. Now if you want a sub-class like this that uses the mages features, I've got no problem with it as long as they put out a full AEDU Necromancer class alongside it...
1) As I said, that is a subjective judgement that I can not agree with.
2) The mage is a full AEDU class.
3) If they give you a dedicated necromancer class in the future, I won't bat an eyelash. I am just super happy that I am getting the product I want first.
There is nothing subjective about it. It will be limited because it will need to balance as a second choice to another Mage school and it will lose the flexibility a full class feature would grant.
I concede that the Mage is a full AEDU class, I do object that it is an Essentials class...
Point 3 is a subjective value judgment...
I have no clue how you come to this conclusion. You get a sub-class of the mage that makes you happy, and thaX gets a full AEDU class that makes him happy. How would this be anything other than a win-win?
Very simply, what you said does not follow from what ThaX said, nor does it follow from my response to him. It may be true. I may not (and personally, if such a class took up space in the HoS book, I believe it would come at the cost of material I would much rather have. Thus, I don't see that as being much of a win for me). One way or the other, it is a non-sequitur to the text you quoted.
Oh sorry, should have left the quote out, however the statement stands on its own.
Except that neither of those it true - Cecil became a Dark Knight because the man he called his father wished it. It wasn't 'surrender', it wasn't an act against his will - the man who found him as a child, raised him, and supported he called upon him, and he answered. That's willingly, and it has very little to do with the King of Baron forcing him. There is no surrender here - there is the love of a son answering his father's wishes.
Love, especially to the degree where one places the wishes of another as above/inseparable from ones own, can very much be a type surrender.And his nature as a Lunarian, fallen from the moon, makes him a 'being of light', and that a Paladin was his true nature. He was a confused individual, and did feel a need for reflection and personal salvation. But his true nature, as being someone not from the planet - the son of a guardian of a great power (the crystals) is very much akin to that role. Given that it's heavily implied his father was also a paladin, his nature as one as well, and having that capacity is hinted at strongly. While he's sent to Mt. Ordeals as a quest by someone else, it's at Mt. Ordeals that he truly realizes his errors, and that he was destined to save the planet, not destroy it.
And yet FuSoYa, who's very class description is listed as Lunarian bares more in common with the Sage Tellah than Cecil as a Paladin. Paladin could still be Cecil's familial legacy as I agree that his father was likely a Paladin, but that it has anything to do with his off-planet racial heritage is a bit of a stretch.It's not as clear in the original or the straight ports, but the rebuilt FFIV:DS makes all of these things clear as day. Made possible through extra scenes that help build the story behind the characters.
Maybe the remake presents what was the original intention and includes those additional scenes purely for clarity, or maybe it's blatant revisionism. Not sure I really care either way, and I certainly don't want to get into a "Han/Greedo shot first" type debate as to which version should be taken as cannon. It's still one of my favorite Final Fantasy titles no matter which version is being discussed, though I prefer the original graphically, even if the "new" character designs happen to be more accurate to the original artwork.
Anyway, lets try to get back on topic.I am saying, however, if the Devs can't make a class that doesn't step on anything else conceptually, then why can you, the upaid joe, be able to do it better? I want a 'pure shadow' class as much as the next guy, but, in the end, I'd rather one impressive class than forcing the devs to make a Shadow class for the sake of having one. If it doesn't appear in HoS, oh well. If it does, it best be mindblowing.
I think the devs are quite capable of making pure shadow classes that stand on their own. They did it with the O-ssassin and as a concept Necromancer seemed to garner plenty of traction even without any mechanics. Rather it seems that the designers are simply "choosing" an approach that is more in line with previous editions, though whether it is because they themselves are indulging in nostalgia or merely because someone thinks nostalgia will increase sales is not a question that particularly concerns me.
It does seem to me that there is a definite financial motivation, but it isn't nostalgia based. Rather sub-classes are more dependent/compatible with pre-existing source material than wholly new ones would be. If concepts like Necromancer and Blackguard were developed as stand alone classes than someone seeking to play them would only need Heroes of Shadow, and people who had no interest in such concepts wouldn't need to touch the book. Conversely, by keeping these concepts tied to Wizard and Paladin respectively WotC could be hoping to artificially create more sales, by getting the Shadow players to consider products like PH1 and Arcane/Divine Power (or more so whatever post-E equivalents come to pass), while simultaneously getting Wizard and Paladin players to consider checking through Heroes of Shadow for options.
Now I'm NOT one to say that this makes WotC an evil money grubbing corporation. They are a business and as such need to turn the best and most efficient profit they can, but that doesn't make me any less disappointed in the loss of what could have been under the original 4e paradigm. Also I would hate to see a return of 3e style supplements where one has to scourer through a dozen or so books because feats as generic as Reckless Offense (-4 AC for +2 attack) are printed in the Expanded Psionics Handbook of all places.
I wouldn't call it an "evil money grubbing corporation". Its more benign like a volcano. It has no intent to harm, it just does according to its nature. Corporations exist for the sole purpose of making money. All other considerations are secondary. With short sighted people in charge they can limit this to "making money this quarter". There is a disconnect between the stockholders who may or may not care about the D&D brand and the CEOs that run the corporation on down to the actual developers. Mindless is a better word to describe how a corporation works...
Again, I was hoping for something new - I don't see anything new here. I was hoping for something distinctly shadow - I don't see anything distinctly shadow here. I could already play a summoner wizard with a bunch of necrotic powers.
Did we 'need' shadow classes? Define need. Do we 'need' primal classes, or could seeker have been a ranger build, warden a fighter build, druid a cleric build, none of them with their own unique mechanics, just some refluffed powers? Did we need a psionic power source? Did we need a swordmage? Did we need a Warlord? Did we 'need' anything other then fighter, thief, and magic user?
If you like primal or psionic it's easy for you to say 'we have enough classes' with the characters you want to play covered, and to condescendingly tell me I can refluff existing classes to play my characters. But would the psionic fans have been happy if there was no psion class, just a 'psionic' keyword attached to the enchanter's powers? Would the primal fans have been content with a 'nature domain warpriest' instead of a druid? And nobody expected or asked for the Shaman, but it's a fun and genuinely novel addition to the game - and as a new entity was allowed to embody the ideas behind its power source in ways that even other primal classes, stuck with preexisting expectations from previous editions, couldn't do. That's the kind of new addition that you can't have without new classes, the kind of expansion of the scope of playable concepts in D&D I was hoping for, the kind of embodiment of Shadow's unique fluff that a sub build of a sub class of a character from another power source simply can't deliver.
Cecil as a Dark Knight has an entirely separate ability set from Cecil as a paladin. It's a class change, not a dip or evolution. After leveling as a fighter for six levels I can choose to play a druid instead, and with DM permission / a special adventure it can even be the same character in story, that doesn't make fighter and druid the same class.
Again, I was hoping for something new - I don't see anything new here. I was hoping for something distinctly shadow - I don't see anything distinctly shadow here. I could already play a summoner wizard with a bunch of necrotic powers.
Did we 'need' shadow classes? Define need. Do we 'need' primal classes, or could seeker have been a ranger build, warden a fighter build, druid a cleric build, none of them with their own unique mechanics, just some refluffed powers? Did we need a psionic power source? Did we need a swordmage? Did we need a Warlord? Did we 'need' anything other then fighter, thief, and magic user?
If you like primal or psionic it's easy for you to say 'we have enough classes' with the characters you want to play covered, and to condescendingly tell me I can refluff existing classes to play my characters. But would the psionic fans have been happy if there was no psion class, just a 'psionic' keyword attached to the enchanter's powers? Would the primal fans have been content with a 'nature domain warpriest' instead of a druid? And nobody expected or asked for the Shaman, but it's a fun and genuinely novel addition to the game - and as a new entity was allowed to embody the ideas behind its power source in ways that even other primal classes, stuck with preexisting expectations from previous editions, couldn't do. That's the kind of new addition that you can't have without new classes, the kind of expansion of the scope of playable concepts in D&D I was hoping for, the kind of embodiment of Shadow's unique fluff that a sub build of a sub class of a character from another power source simply can't deliver.
Really? Why can't one of the sub-classes deliver it? If the Essentials ideas had existed Swordmage as a Martial/Arcane fighter sub-class would have been fine. None of the elements of the swordmage would have have changed even. (except of course e-classes so far have used auras instead of marks with defenders.) A Battlemind might even be better if it had been an E-Fighter build/subclass as then it could use the Fighter powers if he so chose. (and this is from someone who likes him some Battleminds and isn't really that fond of the 4th ed fighter.)
The E-ssasian adds new and intriguing things different from even the normal assassin. The Blackguard has a lot of potential to change up how it plays compared to the Paladin. I don't see with the large variety in the E-builds/subclasses how we can say that new and interesting character concepts can't be made, especially since the E-style design gives a lot more freedom to make unique abilities for a new class.
Of course if they stick to strongly to only redesigns like HotFL and don't do more things which give something different from the base class then I shall be quite disappointed.
Here's another problem with the FF4 supports shadow as dip theory- Kain, the dragoon- a martial character- at the end of FF4 goes to Mt. Ordeals for training and in the After Years game he succeeds in gaining divine magic grafted onto his skills to become "a Holy Dragoon". If anything Paladinhood is the dip, altering both Cecil and Kain.
I'm guessing it was not the SNES version of the game your talking about? I played the hell out of that back in the day, and have no idea what your talking about.
I'm just as confused. I played both the american version (FF2), and the actual FF4. I remember Kain standing on Mt. Ordeal at the end, but that's it. It never goes into more than that.
Here's another problem with the FF4 supports shadow as dip theory- Kain, the dragoon- a martial character- at the end of FF4 goes to Mt. Ordeals for training and in the After Years game he succeeds in gaining divine magic grafted onto his skills to become "a Holy Dragoon". If anything Paladinhood is the dip, altering both Cecil and Kain.
I'm guessing it was not the SNES version of the game your talking about? I played the hell out of that back in the day, and have no idea what your talking about.
I'm just as confused. I played both the american version (FF2), and the actual FF4. I remember Kain standing on Mt. Ordeal at the end, but that's it. It never goes into more than that.
Final Fantasy IV: The After Years is a sequel to the original game that came out for cellular phones, and later for the Wii Virtual Console. In it you play as Cecil's son, Ceodore. If you have only played the SNES version(localized as FFII in the United States), or basically any other version of the game besides the DS version, you probably won't be aware of that part.
Final Fantasy IV: The After Years is a sequel to the original game that came out for cellular phones, and later for the Wii Virtual Console. In it you play as Cecil's son, Ceodore. If you have only played the SNES version(localized as FFII in the United States), or basically any other version of the game besides the DS version, you probably won't be aware of that part.
Wait what!?
After Years is available on Wii virtual. By Pelor's glowing golden skirt that is awesome. I've wanted play that since I first heard of it, (back when they were still releasing new chapters). I'll have to fire up my Wii later today and check that out, unless it's still JP exclusive (may Asmodeus have mercy on your soul if you've gotten my hopes up for nothing
).ok then. I was not aware of any form of sequil to FF games until FF7 had its sequil.
I hate when they change the ending of games because they put it on a diferent system.
The ending doesn't change, just elaborated on.
Final Fantasy IV: The After Years is a sequel to the original game that came out for cellular phones, and later for the Wii Virtual Console. In it you play as Cecil's son, Ceodore. If you have only played the SNES version(localized as FFII in the United States), or basically any other version of the game besides the DS version, you probably won't be aware of that part.
Wait what!?
After Years is available on Wii virtual. By Pelor's glowing golden skirt that is awesome. I've wanted play that since I first heard of it, (back when they were still releasing new chapters). I'll have to fire up my Wii later today and check that out, unless it's still JP exclusive (may Asmodeus have mercy on your soul if you've gotten my hopes up for nothing
Nope, not lying. It sits on my Wii Menu right now. No worries there. It might be under WiiWare when you search for it though, since it isn't technically a SNES title (or a virtual console game at all, for that matter).
If I would describe what Cecil does in game terms, he was a Blackguard that class swapped for a Sentinel. He full-on loses all of his Dark Knight abilities in favor of the Paladin's abilities.
Maybe you need to understand what I'm talking about before you respond. I'm assuming that the non Essassin hits with their encounter powers 65% of the time. Thus 65% DPR. Thus the Essassin gets a 35% damage increase. If the Essassin damage stays ahead of the curve, above the total of all encounters at 65% damage, then they are overpowered. I was simply using your data with the addition of the 65% hit chance calculated in.
Um, I understand exactly what you are talking about, and what you are saying is completely full of bologna. You stated, "if all damage is equal." But, we have already been over this, all damage is not equal. Four encounter powers end up doing more damage than a single use of the assassin's strike if they all hit. If four encounter powers that all hit do 100 points of damage added together, and the character using them has a 65% hit rate, then the DPR on those four powers is 65. If assassin's strike and an at-will power end up doing 65 point of damage together, assassin's strike also has a DPR of (roughly) 65 (since you only expend the use of the power on a hit). That is far closer to the relationship of assassin's strike and other encounter powers than what you are trying to claim. And, that has already been stated. So, please, try and make sure you know what you are talking about, or that you actually read what other people have written. If you want to prove that assassin's strike is overpowered, come and do it with hard numbers actually taken from the game. Because, the CharOp boards have looked over the class, and they have not deemed it overpowered. Hell, they have not even deemed it a top notch striker. It is fun, and works well enough to be servicable, but classes like the (pre E) ranger are still considered to be a good deal more powerful.
Here lets do a breakdown at 65% (assuming this number is anywhere near accurate). After actually reading the specifics of the Executioner it seems they get max damage if the target is helpless. I've no clue what the chances are of a target being helpless, but lets say 5% of the time they get max damage.
Rogue 1st level encounter "opening move" does 2d6 damage. Lets assume you get combat advantage 50% of the time and add sneak attack and that's 2d6 more damage.
Average 2d6 = 6 * 65% = 3.9
Average damage 95% * 3.9 = 3.705
Max damage 5% * 12 = 1
Total average damage = 4.705
50% sneak attack = 50% * 6 * 65% (hit chance) = 1.95 for a grand total of 6.655 average DPR.
The Executioner gets 2d4 for its best attack that I can see so 2d4 at 65% hit + 1d10 + 5% crit max + 5% helpless max. 2d4 = 4 * 65% = 2.6 + AS 5 + 5% max + 5% max = 2.6 + 4.75 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 8.35
So even at first level "Assassin's Strike" does more than "Opening Move". Now I don't know if that is the best rogue power, but at a cursory glance it is.
If you want to compare things, we should really be comparing things at level 30. Then we can see how 4 encounter powers really stack up against assassin's strike. But you want to stick to level 1 comparisons, fine, lets do that. Lets take a look at two-fanged strike. I pulled it out of the first PHB. A ranger can make that attack with a weapon that deals 1d10 damage. It does 1[w] damage (and allows for 2 attacks). That is 11 damage (average damage of a 1d10 is 5.5) from the weapon over the course of 2 attacks. Lets assume an 18 as a starting stat in Strength, so that is another +8 damage. So, 19 damage. If both attacks hit you get to add your Wisdom modifier to damage as well. Lets assume the ranger is focusing on Strength and Wisdom for his two primary stats (it is a PHB melee ranger). So, 18 in Wisdom as well. If both attacks hit, that is 23 points of damage dealt on average. With hunters query that becomes 26 points of damage. Now, lets assume an assassin wants to deal as much damage as possible, so lets say he is also using a 1d10 one handed weapon, and is using a melee basic attack (that is better damage than what his at-wills can offer him, though each of those has a situational advantage). Lets also assume an 18 in his primary stat. If he hits and adds assassin's strike he will deal 2d10 + 1d8 + 4, which is 19 points of damage average. Now, lets calculate the DPR of those two powers using statistical probability with a 5% chance of scoring a critical hit per attack and no magic items, assuming your 65% hit rate.
Two fanged strike will statistically deal (using your assumed numbers):
2[0.6 * (5.5+4) + 0.05 * (10+4)] + 0.84 * 3.5 + 0.05 * 6 + 0.42 * 4 = 17.72
An assassin's DPR for assassin's strike will equal the DPR of his basic attack + the average damage of assassin's strike (because assassin's strike is a sure thing), with assassin's strike being calculated into the at-will's critical damage. So, assassin's strike will statistically deal (using your assumed numbers):
0.6*(5.5+4+4.5) + 0.05 * 32 + 5.5 = 15.5
Using your assumed numbers, at 1st level two fanged strike is a better encounter power than assassin's strike. Now, lets check out a rogue's use of torturous strike (using your assumed numbers, and a brutal scoundrel build with a strength and dex of 18):
First of all, a rogue will likely end up gaining a 1d10 weapon with a single feat. But hey, lets just calculate the numbers with a 1d6 weapon for giggles right now. That is 2d6 + 4 damage + 2d6 +4 sneak attack damage + 4 extra damage (from the power's synergy with the rogue build). The average damage with a hit will be 26 points of damage. That is more damage dealt than the average damage dealt with an assassin's strike. Now lets calculate the statistical damage dealt with that power over time:
0.6 * 26 + 0.05 * 36 = 17.4
Again, the assassin, with assassin's strike, actually has a lower DPR. So, do me a favor, stop trying to blow smoke up everyone's backside.
And that is really all I have the patience to respond to right now.
.Well, January and Beyond seems to confirm that there will be no independent Necromancer or other shadow classes, unless you count the vampire (which I thought was going to be in Ravenloft Campaign Setting). Sad times
Looks like it is purely Essentials, as was feared. Not a single class within this book is something that hasn't been introduced with an Essentials build.
The Vampire might be a true AEDU class, but in the end, I think my rage that it's a class and not a race is pretty unfathomable at the moment. Not only is it unnecessary, it takes away character options in the long run, and hints that Ravenloft will also follow this format. I dunno if I can handle a Werewolf and Ghost class.
I dunno what to think - this was definitely another blow to HoS for me. The Revenant is not longer DDI exclusive (I'm cool with this), we got no Shadar-Kai (wat!?), and instead the Shade, which was like Eravis Cale of FR, as I thought originally. I'm fine with this. But Vryloka are purely to facilitate and excuse Vampires as a class in this book.
HoS is a huge, huge disappointment, I don't even want to see the powers now. They can only go further down now.
EDIT: Before someone jumps all over this post and starts going "NO IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT!", yes, I'm aware that Pre-Essentials classes can take these powers, unless they get restrictions otherwise (like the Necromancer and Nethermancer) - it doesn't make it supporting both. Intent is clear. Wizards screwed up. =\
Well, I think the Shade preview looked very cool. I don't mind vampires being a class. I like Essentials. So, I like what I am seeing! I am very excited about purchasing this book...
Hmmm Dracula's abilities were pretty much learned and kin to a druids ... well damn... yes I think his style of Vampire certainly might work best as a class concept. I am now curious.
I suggest you take a closer look at the Shade, as gaining combat advantage every other turn with a minimum of +7 to stealth at 1st level and free racial utilities without the need for a feat are pretty good trade offs for one fewer healing surge. In a striker or leader role they would be amazing, in my opinion.
It's not worth giving up an attack. It's horrible. There's an entire CharOp thread that agrees. It's not worth losing the DPR or effects, and DEFINITELY not worth losing a healing surge. Standard action = fail.
Also, free stealth. Big deal. This class is built towards classes like the rogue and assassin, which get free stealth anyway. The utilities have to compete with things like skill powers and class utilities. No biggie, but it may be the only redeeming feature. Drow do what this tries to do much better.
I suggest you take a closer look at the Shade, as gaining combat advantage every other turn with a minimum of +7 to stealth at 1st level and free racial utilities without the need for a feat are pretty good trade offs for one fewer healing surge. In a striker or leader role they would be amazing, in my opinion.
It's not worth giving up an attack. It's horrible.
Only if you don't use it properly. It's practically made for the original Assassin, hide a few rounds laying shrouds on your target then teleport adjacent and smack it for guaranteed damage. I also see it as a viable race for the cunning bard.
I suggest you take a closer look at the Shade, as gaining combat advantage every other turn with a minimum of +7 to stealth at 1st level and free racial utilities without the need for a feat are pretty good trade offs for one fewer healing surge. In a striker or leader role they would be amazing, in my opinion.
It's not worth giving up an attack. It's horrible.
Only if you don't use it properly. It's practically made for the original Assassin, hide a few rounds laying shrouds on your target then teleport adjacent and smack it for guaranteed damage. I also see it as a viable race for the cunning bard.
It's possible the worst optimized race. Losing a healing surge = bad bad bad. As stated in the CharOp thread.. it's has all the problems the original assassin had, only it's a class. The original assassin completely fails as a striker. So saying this is good for one isn't saying much. :P
The game isn't always about optimisation. I would rather play an interesting character than the Juggernaut. But I'm more interested in the role part of rpgs. I understand it's not optimal, but it is funtcional and that's all I ever ask for.
I care about balance and function. This race and the original assassin are sub par in almost every aspect. That does bother me. It isn't about optimization, it's about every choice being viable. Dying faster for no reason is ridiculous. It's all part of this retro thing. They threw negatives back in for no real reason.
I suggest you take a closer look at the Shade, as gaining combat advantage every other turn with a minimum of +7 to stealth at 1st level and free racial utilities without the need for a feat are pretty good trade offs for one fewer healing surge. In a striker or leader role they would be amazing, in my opinion.
It's not worth giving up an attack. It's horrible.
Only if you don't use it properly. It's practically made for the original Assassin, hide a few rounds laying shrouds on your target then teleport adjacent and smack it for guaranteed damage. I also see it as a viable race for the cunning bard.
It's possible the worst optimized race. Losing a healing surge = bad bad bad. As stated in the CharOp thread.. it's has all the problems the original assassin had, only it's a class. The original assassin completely fails as a striker. So saying this is good for one isn't saying much. :P
wait...why did the Assassin fail as a striker? It was a lot of fun to play....the shade also seems like it could be fun. And well Fun is the name of the game not who is best optimized against what. (balance is important but does the assassin lag so badly as to be unplayable or useless like so many 3.5 classes?
Also @CelticMutt, weren't you saying there would be NO new classes? So having one means you were in fact wrong and didn't tell us anything. (If not the revelation that right after Essentials that style of build will be more prevalent is like saying, after PH3 there will be some psionic class support. It kind of goes without saying.
I suggest you take a closer look at the Shade, as gaining combat advantage every other turn with a minimum of +7 to stealth at 1st level and free racial utilities without the need for a feat are pretty good trade offs for one fewer healing surge. In a striker or leader role they would be amazing, in my opinion.
It's not worth giving up an attack. It's horrible.
Only if you don't use it properly. It's practically made for the original Assassin, hide a few rounds laying shrouds on your target then teleport adjacent and smack it for guaranteed damage. I also see it as a viable race for the cunning bard.
It's possible the worst optimized race. Losing a healing surge = bad bad bad. As stated in the CharOp thread.. it's has all the problems the original assassin had, only it's a class. The original assassin completely fails as a striker. So saying this is good for one isn't saying much. :P
wait...why did the Assassin fail as a striker? It was a lot of fun to play....the shade also seems like it could be fun. And well Fun is the name of the game not who is best optimized against what. (balance is important but does the assassin lag so badly as to be unplayable or useless like so many 3.5 classes?
Also @CelticMutt, weren't you saying there would be NO new classes? So having one means you were in fact wrong and didn't tell us anything. (If not the revelation that right after Essentials that style of build will be more prevalent is like saying, after PH3 there will be some psionic class support. It kind of goes without saying.
It utterly fails at its given intention. As an "Assassin", it's terrible. It lacks any kind of real burst damage, and doesn't do focus fire very well, either. The Executioner is far better designed for this theme. As a striker, it's well below an acceptable level. The warlock is well below, but at least it gets incredible status effects to make up for it.
The Shade is given racial penalties for no reason at all, and the racial power is pretty terrible as a standard action.
No, I'm not wrong. I said no new Shadow classes, and I was right. Vampire is a monster class.
really? I'm betting it'll be a shadow power source class. Hence it shall be a shadow class.
Only if you don't use it properly. It's practically made for the original Assassin, hide a few rounds laying shrouds on your target then teleport adjacent and smack it for guaranteed damage. I also see it as a viable race for the cunning bard.
As Samrin already mentioned, being made for the O-Assassin really isn't a virtue. And your use isn't a proper use at all. You need to attack every round, and especially in the first two rounds, when the combat isn't in complete mop-up mode, or you're wasting turns. That racial utility power is, hands down, the worst racial power I've ever seen. If it gets changed to something else other than a standard action, then I'll take my words back.
As for Cunning Bards, tell me why I would ever, EVER want to play a Shade over an Eladrin, Gnome or Tiefling. Give me one reason.
Only if you don't use it properly. It's practically made for the original Assassin, hide a few rounds laying shrouds on your target then teleport adjacent and smack it for guaranteed damage. I also see it as a viable race for the cunning bard.
As Samrin already mentioned, being made for the O-Assassin really isn't a virtue. And your use isn't a proper use at all. You need to attack every round, and especially in the first two rounds, when the combat isn't in complete mop-up mode, or you're wasting turns. That racial utility power is, hands down, the worst racial power I've ever seen.
As for Cunning Bards, tell me why I would ever, EVER want to play a Shade over an Eladrin, Gnome or Tiefling. Give me one reason.
The shades are a shadow based creature with interesting fluff. None of those you mentioned have the same fluff as the shade thus I will take the Shade. Now if you want an optimized reason. I don't have one but then I used to play Half-orc's from time to time in 3rd ed so y'know op isn't really on my top 10 list of why to play things.
Throwbacks are fine, but balance it with something. Not "you die faster, just because".
Durable
Benefit: Your number of healing surges increases by two.
That is your solution for what you see as a deficient about the shade. By your standards gnomes would be equally handicapped as shades given that they are almost identical, instead of losing a healing surge they have a speed of 5, and are small which limits their weapon choices, not to mention in heavy armor they are the slowest race available. CelticMutt, the vampire will more than likely use the shadow source.
Durable
Benefit: Your number of healing surges increases by two.
That is your solution for what you see as a deficient about the shade. By your standards gnomes would be equally handicapped as shades given that they are almost identical, instead of losing a healing surge they have a speed of 5, and are small which limits their weapon choices, not to mention in heavy armor they are the slowest race available. CelticMutt, the vampire will more than likely use the shadow source.
Feat tax for a race now? Really? Come on, the -1 surge isn't offset by anything. Negative speed is nowhere near as much of a hit as having a race die faster for no reason.
I suggest you take a closer look at the Shade, as gaining combat advantage every other turn with a minimum of +7 to stealth at 1st level and free racial utilities without the need for a feat are pretty good trade offs for one fewer healing surge. In a striker or leader role they would be amazing, in my opinion.
It's not worth giving up an attack. It's horrible. There's an entire CharOp thread that agrees. It's not worth losing the DPR or effects, and DEFINITELY not worth losing a healing surge. Standard action = fail.
Also, free stealth. Big deal. This class is built towards classes like the rogue and assassin, which get free stealth anyway. The utilities have to compete with things like skill powers and class utilities. No biggie, but it may be the only redeeming feature. Drow do what this tries to do much better.
Your first problem is is that you read the Charop forums in the 1st place.
In the Dragon Annual that was released a while ago.... I have mentioned this.
So, we actually have a full class. Named Vampire for some lame reason. I guess they didn't want to use Ninja. Wonder if it would have worked better as a theme instead?
Looking at this and the other preview, it seems that what I wanted for this book is completely gone. I am glad that there will be a lot more choices for the characters than what the two Essentials books had, but the overall presentation, thus far, is disappointing.
My wonder for the first part of the preview talking about the classes is about the Assassin. Is it a third build, or a reprint of the original Assassin (With the lame Shroud mechanic)? Maybe the first three are shadow themes for use with the classes in the PHB's. There seems to be a lot more support for classes than the three previewed before, with Assassin, Paladin, Warlock, Cleric, Wizard and the new Vampire "class." The only two shadow classes I see thus far, though, is the Assassin (Build or whatever) and the Vampire.
I like the Shade, reminds me of playing a Ghost in another system. I don't mind the frailty hit, honestly the whole thing about never being pentalized for anything is beginning to be old. Shadow should take away some, like an omen or a curse. This would be part of the reasoning behind it's being feared.
So, one new class is in the book, and at least four builds (Three previewed last time and one for the Warlock) with some sort of support for three others. (seven builds?)
I will have to look at this at the store, but likely it will stay back on the shelf.
I suggest you take a closer look at the Shade, as gaining combat advantage every other turn with a minimum of +7 to stealth at 1st level and free racial utilities without the need for a feat are pretty good trade offs for one fewer healing surge. In a striker or leader role they would be amazing, in my opinion.
It's not worth giving up an attack. It's horrible. There's an entire CharOp thread that agrees. It's not worth losing the DPR or effects, and DEFINITELY not worth losing a healing surge. Standard action = fail.
Also, free stealth. Big deal. This class is built towards classes like the rogue and assassin, which get free stealth anyway. The utilities have to compete with things like skill powers and class utilities. No biggie, but it may be the only redeeming feature. Drow do what this tries to do much better.
Your first problem is is that you read the Charop forums in the 1st place.
At least they can spot bad design when it pops up, and they're usually the ones who get WotC rolling on fixing things. I'm just hoping this race gets changed before the release, as it's pretty awful right now.
Well you could just play a class that relies on Constitution for it's attacks, like a starlock which puts you on an even keel with everyone other than another starlock. I'm telling you One healing surge is not that huge a loss. And we haven't seen the feat support yet.
It's one healing surge with nothing to offset it, and a pretty horrible racial power to boot. That's the problem. It's extremely underpowered. It follows well below the other races in terms of design quality.
Durable
Benefit: Your number of healing surges increases by two.
That is your solution for what you see as a deficient about the shade.
In other words, a feat tax.
By your standards gnomes would be equally handicapped as shades given that they are almost identical, instead of losing a healing surge they have a speed of 5, and are small which limits their weapon choices, not to mention in heavy armor they are the slowest race available.
I will thank you to not shift your goalposts and be dishonest in your rebuttals. You were talking about Cunning Bards, so let's talk Cunning Bards. And of those drawbacks you mentioned about the Gnome, none of those affect his performance as a Cunning Bard. Speed 5 doesn't, because he'll likely be using a wand the whole time (Bards have enough quality implement powers at all levels to make quality implement-exclusive builds). Small size isn't an issue, because, again, he's using a wand, and even if he were to use a weapon Bards don't really care about the damage they do on a hit, anyway. And Cunning Bards don't wear heavy armor.
Your first problem is is that you read the Charop forums in the 1st place.
Spoken like someone who's completely ignorant about Char Op.
Durable
Benefit: Your number of healing surges increases by two.
That is your solution for what you see as a deficient about the shade.
In other words, a feat tax.By your standards gnomes would be equally handicapped as shades given that they are almost identical, instead of losing a healing surge they have a speed of 5, and are small which limits their weapon choices, not to mention in heavy armor they are the slowest race available.
I will thank you to not shift your goalposts and be dishonest in your rebuttals. You were talking about Cunning Bards, so let's talk Cunning Bards. And of those drawbacks you mentioned about the Gnome, none of those affect his performance as a Cunning Bard. Speed 5 doesn't, because he'll likely be using a wand the whole time (Bards have enough quality implement powers at all levels to make quality implement-exclusive builds). Small size isn't an issue, because, again, he's using a wand, and even if he were to use a weapon Bards don't really care about the damage they do on a hit, anyway. And Cunning Bards don't wear heavy armor.
Feat tax isn't really new, but you are right about cunning bards and gnomes. I was merely trying to give an example of how other races have similar penalties that aren't commonly considered penalties. Small size, low mobility, and low durability are already a part of races that are out there now.
Your first problem is is that you read the Charop forums in the 1st place.
Spoken like someone who's completely ignorant about Char Op.
char op is good but it's a guide not the rule. I wish the race had a bit more umph in it but I like it for what it is and will probably use it because I find it intriguing. (Really I think the hide thingy should be a move action would that make this race on-par for you folks?)
You know, I think the Shade looks very neat. But, I respect the opinions of the CharOp board. If this race is totally borked balance wise, I REALLY hope they fix it ASAP. Nothing sucks more than a character option whose flavor you love, but which penalizes you for the choice.
This is basically my problem. The race is sub par. It's underpowered. Bad design decisions in the past are not an excuse for making them again, especially when you now have a chance to repair it. All I want is a race that's at least great at its niche. The races previously mentioned are prime choices for at least a few races. The Shade isn't even prime choices for assassins and rogues (racial features completely replaced or wasted by class features), which is obviously the target niche.
Why is asking for a well balanced race such a bad thing? I was excited to hear about it, and they really dropped the ball on delivery.
No, I'm not wrong. I said no new Shadow classes, and I was right. Vampire is a monster class.
Well, if it isn't a Shadow power source class, then what will it be? A Monster Power Source class? Because that would kinda be cool too.
You know, I wonder what the reprecussions the Vampire class being in HoS will have on Ravenloft(we haven't heard a dang thing regarding Ravenloft this year, which is highly unusual). Probably nothing, but still worth thinking about.
You know, I think the Shade looks very neat. But, I respect the opinions of the CharOp board. If this race is totally borked balance wise, I REALLY hope they fix it ASAP. Nothing sucks more than a character option whose flavor you love, but which penalizes you for the choice.
This is basically my problem. The race is sub par. It's underpowered. Bad design decisions in the past are not an excuse for making them again, especially when you now have a chance to repair it. All I want is a race that's at least great at its niche. The races previously mentioned are prime choices for at least a few races. The Shade isn't even prime choices for assassins and rogues (racial features completely replaced or wasted by class features), which is obviously the target niche.
Why is asking for a well balanced race such a bad thing? I was excited to hear about it, and they really dropped the ball on delivery.
it isn't but how do you go about making the current race balanced? Eliminate the -1 surge, change the racial power wording? I'm just curious really.
You know, I think the Shade looks very neat. But, I respect the opinions of the CharOp board. If this race is totally borked balance wise, I REALLY hope they fix it ASAP. Nothing sucks more than a character option whose flavor you love, but which penalizes you for the choice.
This is basically my problem. The race is sub par. It's underpowered. Bad design decisions in the past are not an excuse for making them again, especially when you now have a chance to repair it. All I want is a race that's at least great at its niche. The races previously mentioned are prime choices for at least a few races. The Shade isn't even prime choices for assassins and rogues (racial features completely replaced or wasted by class features), which is obviously the target niche.
Why is asking for a well balanced race such a bad thing? I was excited to hear about it, and they really dropped the ball on delivery.
I have to agree with Cyber-Dave on this, if it's a lame duck (which it may be, though I don't think it's too much worse than other choices out there) it should be fixed. But just because the Shade isn't optimal for the classes we know of, doesn't mean it's not optimal for one we don't.
You know, I think the Shade looks very neat. But, I respect the opinions of the CharOp board. If this race is totally borked balance wise, I REALLY hope they fix it ASAP. Nothing sucks more than a character option whose flavor you love, but which penalizes you for the choice.
This is basically my problem. The race is sub par. It's underpowered. Bad design decisions in the past are not an excuse for making them again, especially when you now have a chance to repair it. All I want is a race that's at least great at its niche. The races previously mentioned are prime choices for at least a few races. The Shade isn't even prime choices for assassins and rogues (racial features completely replaced or wasted by class features), which is obviously the target niche.
Why is asking for a well balanced race such a bad thing? I was excited to hear about it, and they really dropped the ball on delivery.
it isn't but how do you go about making the current race balanced? Eliminate the -1 surge, change the racial power wording? I'm just curious really.
1. The -1 to surges has to go, unless they can really throw something in there to offset it. It's by far the worst racial penalty out there, for no reason (flavor penalties do not fly Thax, especially for someone who constantly complains about the newer stuff looking too much like previous editions).
2. The racial could be changed to a move, but that might require making it an encounter power (steps on cunning sneak class feature).
3. Auto stealth is ok, but maybe train in one extra class skill would be better. Yeah, Eladrin does it already, but this racial feature is useless for the target classes of the race. Either that or replace it with something else.
I really don't see a problem with the Shade. If combined with the right class it is as good as any other. Warlock stands out as a good match, with shadow walk providing a set up for the racial power every time you move three squares.
It isn't as good as any other is the thing. The racial being a standard is bad. -1 surge is unprecedented and a massive penalty. Move three squares and lose your attack. That's not a good thing. Like I said, all I want is a well balanced and thought out race. This is not it. It's sub par.
Put it this way. The only racial power = you can't attack this round, sorry. That's bad design.
The healing surge penalty just needs to disappear. It serves no purpose, and has nothing to offset it.
Racial powers are usually situational. Fade Away requires you be hit, Iron Mind is the same way. Furious Assault requires you to hit a target. The shifter racials only work once you are bloodied. All are situational, the only difference is you have to use your imagination with the Shade instead of just having the best time to use it shown to you.
None of which has such a high opportunity cost as to give up your attack. The race is crap. Even with the flavoring, it's flavored crap. It needs work.
Racial powers are usually situational. Fade Away requires you be hit, Iron Mind is the same way. Furious Assault requires you to hit a target. The shifter racials only work once you are bloodied. All are situational, the only difference is you have to use your imagination with the Shade instead of just having the best time to use it shown to you.
Fade Away: immediate reaction. Situation: You are hit by an attack.
Iron Mind: immediate interrupt. Situation: You are hit by an attack which nearly missed you.
Furious Assault: free action. Situation: You hit with an attack.
Shifter racial powers: minor action. Situation: You are bloodied.
What do all of these have in common?
1. They use actions which don't get in the way of making attacks or moving.
2. The situations in which they can be used are rather common. Most of them will happen at least one time in each encounter, and these are all encounter powers.
Now, let's look at the shade's racial power. It requires a standard action, so it gets in the way of making an attack. This makes it weaker than those other powers in that regard. This isn't a small thing, either. Giving up your attack to use a utility power is something that was avoided from the start of Fourth Edition. It's why the most basic of leader healing powers comes as a minor action, not a move action or standard action.
Now, with the power, you become better at making Stealth checks (fewer restrictions to becoming hidden, which is a very nice state). It doesn't do anything to change the need to move, however, so you're using a move action and a standard action to become hidden. Doing that frequently means that you're acting every other turn. Have you ever been dazed half the turns of a combat? Imagine if you could only move while you were dazed in one of those combats. This is not much better.
The only place this power can be used effectively is out of combat. The only other race with an ability like that which I can think of is the changeling, and it gets Changeling Trick as an encounter power to make up for it. Oh, yeah, minor action there too.
You do understand there are other ways of playing than keep attacking until you can't anymore?
Not really in combat. If your racial power prevents you from contributing in combat, it fails. No racial should EVER be a standard action. No racial should EVER make you suck in combat. It's terrible. I don't know why you're debating that. It makes you suck.
"Ok, I'm not gonna help you guys out this round, I'm gonna stand behind the fighter and hide. Sorry guys."
It's worthless in combat. Really has no useful application that is worth replacing an attack.
I have no real opinion, as of yet, so this is just me playing the devil's advocate: no racial power has been an at-will power as of yet either. The Shade's is. Doesn't that count for something?
The Changeling has an at-will shape shift.
No in combat. Do you only know the "kill it, with extreme prejudice!" tactic?
Yes, if I want to actually help my party out. Instead of do nothing this round. If I'm playing a Rogue, and I don't attack this round, how am I helping my party? What exactly is this going to accomplish?
It's useless.
I have no real opinion, as of yet, so this is just me playing the devil's advocate: no racial power has been an at-will power as of yet either. The Shade's is. Doesn't that count for something?
In addition to the changeling, if you're counting Monster Manual races, you can also use goblins (Goblin Tactics) and kobolds (Shifty) as examples of races with at-will racial abilities. Shifty is very nice, and though folks have said that it's too good as an at-will, we've seen that WotC doesn't agree, given that they gave bloodbond seekers the ability to shift as a minor action as well.
I have no real opinion, as of yet, so this is just me playing the devil's advocate: no racial power has been an at-will power as of yet either. The Shade's is. Doesn't that count for something?
In addition to the changeling, if you're counting Monster Manual races, you can also use goblins (Goblin Tactics) and kobolds (Shifty) as examples of races with at-will racial abilities. Shifty is very nice, and though folks have said that it's too good as an at-will, we've seen that WotC doesn't agree, given that they gave bloodbond seekers the ability to shift as a minor action as well.
Well those are not intended for players, which was made clear.
You don't have to play a rogue. You may be a wizard, sorcerer, warlock, bard, paladin, ardent, psion, or executioner. Most class healing powers are minor actions so you wouldn't be limited in that case.
Each of those classes have to give up an attack to use the racial. That isn't useful. Wizard = "Sorry, no minion slaying this round. I have to hide." "You wanted me to control the battlefield? Sorry, crouching in a corner here."
Warlock... kinda the same as wizard in that regard.
Paladin: "Nope, not gonna maintain divine challenge this round. Gotsta hide behind a bush. I gotta pee."
Everyone else "Gonna suck this round guys." "Sorry, WotC didn't give me anything useful in combat."
So I guess all those free utility options aren't usable in combat either? Especially not the one that lowers enemy attacks by 2 and causes 10 damage to any enemy that ends it's turn adjacent to the summoned creature.
They come with an opportunity cost. You have to forsake class abilities to access racial abilities. None of which makes up for the -1 to surges and horrid racial power.
So I guess all those free utility options aren't usable in combat either? Especially not the one that lowers enemy attacks by 2 and causes 10 damage to any enemy that ends it's turn adjacent to the summoned creature.
Having read the last couple pages, I must ask this -- Do you really think a racial power should only be useful in niche situations? Isn't one of the big knocks on the Minotaur that it limits the racial power to a small group of builds?
Just because you can make something almost not-suck, doesn't mean it's good.
If you can't understand the advantage given by all the racial traits that's fine, but they do give advantages.
None of which make up for the massive fail that is the rest of the race. Seriously, you actually think that racial power is good design? You think that -1 to healing surges is justified? None of these are balanced out by anything. The race is penalized for nothing with no compensation at all.
I'm sorry, but I hold WotC to a higher standard than this. 4e D&D has been about balance from the start, and this race is flat out underpowered. Horribly so.
Your standards are seemingly a bit too high. You seem to expect every race to be equally as good at everything as everybody else, and that doesn't happen. Is the Shade the greatest thing since sliced bread, is is bigger than Jesus? Hell no, but does it function well enough to allow play? Yes and that all it needs to be.
I expect races to be at least on par with other races at some thing. As it stands, it isn't. Every race has their niche that they're either really good, or the best at in certain cases. The Shade isn't really good at anything.
My standards are not high. Having a racial power negate your own attacks is bad design. Stealth training is useless. The only classes that can really make full use of it are already trained in stealth. -1 healing surge is beyond terrible design. The utilities are interesting, but they don't come anywhere near bringing the race up to par.
As it stands, this race sucks. Plain and simple. It's the most underpowered race in 4e, and really doesn't fill any niche. It looks like it was thrown together in 5 minutes, as I highly doubt any serious playtesting could have gone into something like this. It has no useful traits in combat. None.
Shade fits in the niche that the gnome is in pretty well, and are reasonably similar to changelings as well. It's not the best design, this is true, but even as the so called "most underpowered race in 4e" it's not as terrible as you claim. That's what 4e tries to do, make everything more or less level with the other choices in its field.
It isn't level, though. How do you not see this? -1 to surges, and a racial that takes away your attacks. This is underpowered at its worst.
The comparison to the original assassin is most apt. It's flavorful, and some people will play it for that anyway, and try to find something useful to do with it. But you'll be working twice as hard as everyone else to manage a character that can almost sorta pull his weight.
It's basically a classic trap. A weak mechanical option with cool flavor text to punish players who don't know the system, or who chose to play characters based on theme rather then power.
Secondly, you also don't know any racial feats that may be available in the product, so you cannot claim it's not equal.
Finally, there are people who are not so focused on combat as to be blinded to the merits of non-optimal combatants.
Firstly, you don't know what the classes in the product are like so you cannot make the claim that there isn't a class that is a good choice for it.
Secondly, you also don't know any racial feats that may be available in the product, so you cannot claim it's not equal.
Finally, there are people who are not so focused on combat as to be blinded to the merits of non-optimal combatants.
Again, it isn't about being non optimized. It's about having abilities that are useless in combat. It's the only race with features like this. The fact that it loses a surge makes it the absolute worst choice for any melee combatant. Especially rogues, which it should be good at. Rogues get low surges as it is.
Losing surviveability and the ability to attack as your only defining racial features. You call that a win. Noone seems to know why.
And you won't until the HoS comes out. I'm just giving it a chance instead of denouncing it less than 24 hours after it was made public. I don't see it as absolutely fantastic, I just like to stay optimistic about things until I see them in action.
Then why not make your argument as "I don't know anything about this book, I have no clue about game balance, but I'm optimistic" ? Cause, you woulda saved 10 pages of laughter.
And to be honest I really do see a lot of potential in the Shade.Your standards are seemingly a bit too high. You seem to expect every race to be equally as good at everything as everybody else, and that doesn't happen. Is the Shade the greatest thing since sliced bread, is is bigger than Jesus? Hell no, but does it function well enough to allow play? Yes and that all it needs to be.You are delusional. A con penalty should not be in the game. Actually races with negative stats of any kind should not be in the game, they expired in 2008. The racial power is pointless for any class that might actually take the race. And yes, as a class your first responsibility is not damage, but in 4th ed it really is second. Anything that prevents damaging your opponent is another round your team takes damage. This racial write-up is full of epic fail.
There are no abiltity penalties, you clearly haven't seen the preview. You just lose one healing surge. Even I in my madness would find a con penalty to be outrageous.
No, the shade stats are so fail that, baring serious and seriously annoying feat patches, it's not possible for the...
oh, wait. Yeah "I don't have a clue about game balance, I like them on fluff alone".
Well fine, yeah, sure. I like ossassins, too. Doesn't mean they aren't terrible, mechanically. If you like them, you should want them to be fixed. If your SO has a broken leg, you don't tell them "Honey, don't go to the doctor to have your leg fixed, I love you just the way you are". You say "omg where's the phone honey it'll be ok omg I'm calling the ambulance try not to move it".
That's what we're doing. Desperately calling an ambulance in the hopes that this cool idea might get needed medical assistance.
Because, seriously, if it isn't fixed before printing it never will be.
There's nothing the shade does that, say, a drow couldn't do better provided he remembered to stab himself in the face each morning when he wakes up.
Seriously, the only class that shades would be a good choice for would be one both totally dependant on being hidden and having no means of becoming hidden. Ie, a class so terrible that shades being good at it wouldn't really be a point in their favor.
Okay so in HoS there will be an assassin, at least one maybe two variants on the warlock, the blackguard, new cleric options, the nether/necromancy mage, and the vampire. That provides a lot of opportunity for good class/race combos.
We already know how Warlocks, Warpriests, Blackguards, and Mages work mechanically in at least some degree (stats/fighting style)- there's nothing in the Shade (especially when you don't consider Power Swaps) that shines for those classes, nor any released class.
I just have to disagree, I think you're being overly critical of the shade.
Actually he's got this right despite his biases. The shade is a really poorly designed race - not the least being it has the ignoble honor of being 4Es first race to have a dedicated racial penalty attached to it. The stealth power isn't very useful and taking a standard action is miserable on your action economy. Given that it suits a lot of classes that are squishier strikers and they often have far superior options for becoming hidden, it really feels like a race without any niche whatsoever.
Meals brought back racial stat PENALTIES????
Jeebus FROT!
The more I see of the post-Essentials "New design paradigm" the absolute LESS I want anything to do with it.
I am SO glad I went and bought Goodman Games' Forgotten Heroes: Scythe And Shroud instead of waiting for Heroes of Shadow.
I'll just stick to PHB's 1-3, the various Powers books, PHB Races, the settings books, and the few 3rd-party supplements I like, such as the Advanced Players Guide, and Forgotten Heroes: Sword and Song and Scythe and Shroud.
So far, the Shade... doesn't even look mechanically appealing at all; there's no cool class icon or combo, no real sense of even being better as a shade (so far). The fact that the at-will standard let's... you hide more easily... is that even really worth it? Especially for the price of a healing surge? Losing out a healing surge without an real compensation; that's a pain. That's not appealing at all.
Does it cause a zone of dim light... in bright sunlight?
Going by the fluff text, that's clearly how it's supposed to work: the dim light replaces whatever the ambient lighting conditions are. But a lot of DMs probably won't run it that way (and, by strict RAW, they shouldn't), because that's not how the lighting rules work. Carrying a candle around in daylight doesn't dim the light in a 2-square radius around you.
It's just another sign that this race was not well designed.
As a standard, it is useless. Highly situational at best. As I said, moving it to a different action type might warrant moving it to an encounter power. That would at least make it a viable choice at least every encounter.
Put it this way. The only racial power = you can't attack this round, sorry. That's bad design.
The healing surge penalty just needs to disappear. It serves no purpose, and has nothing to offset it.
I reported it on the Errata Board yesterday. One with Shadow Shade need to be a Minor Action, or else Sneak Trick Thieves and Cunning Rogues will laught at Shades.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Isn't the problem that it is an at will racial power that will be usable by any class? It would be useful for any warlock for starters. As such it needs to be mechanically weaker than the class abilities of sneaky classes and it already lasts for two turns. A move action might be better because giving up a standard action just to hide is a terrible trade off but a minor action seems way too much to me.
Isn't the problem that it is an at will racial power that will be usable by any class? It would be useful for any warlock for starters. As such it needs to be mechanically weaker than the class abilities of sneaky classes and it already lasts for two turns. A move action might be better because giving up a standard action just to hide is a terrible trade off but a minor action seems way too much to me.
Finally someone who sees what I have been saying. But I don't think it should be a move action, at least for the warlocks sake.
Second, it seems this race is pidgeonholed into being a sneaky sneak and not much else. Kinda like the minotaur was forced to CHARGECHARGECHARGE. I don't know if it's as bad as with minotaurs earlier (there are better races for chargers, or so I've heard), but at least charge is an attack.
If the 'Vampire' class is more similar to the vampire origion shown for Gamma World, i.e. not blood suckers but more essence stealers ala San Tsung from Mortal Kombat (I bet i spelled his name wrong.) then I'm all for it as a class.
Oh huzzah... good call the other kind of Vampires I was stuck on Dracula (the Drudic Blood Mage)
How about
Sonja Blue for the kill. Spirit Vampires that pull power for them and bonded allies by generating nasty inter enemy conflict... it could have serious leader elements for sure.
No I was referring to the first half of the quote, the bit about making people choose between combat and non combat abilities being "remarkably stupid". I get what you're saying about the Shade, it needs a little work.
No, not every character should be good at everything. It's ok for some to not be so great at maneuverability, or ranged attacks, or area damage. It is not ok for a race to be 'bad at combat - period.' Like it or lump it, D&D is about combat. 90% of the rules are about combat. 90% of the adventures revolve around a series of combats. Yes, characters can do things out of combat, and a campaign that is nothing but combat gets old real fast, but all that said, being 'bad in combat' is still tantamount to being 'bad in D&D'.
And the Shade's non-combat options aren't even impressive enough to warrant any penalty at all, let alone a non combat one. Any character trained in stealth can do what a shade can do out of combat - and the majority of what a shade can do out of combat amounts to "separate yourself from the party, ensuring a swift end when you do eventually flub your stealth check" - an end that will be even more swift thanks to the arbitrary surge penalty.
Note: I'm not saying I don't like shades as a concept. I might have preferred seeing Shadar-Kai revisited, but whatever, fluff wise shades are still cool. I'd play one, if they weren't so bloody terrible. But 'sucky mechanics for cool concepts' is terrible design.
As for racial feats? Well, we can only hope they get any at all. There were no racial feats in essentials after all.
So I'm not hoping for racial feats. I'm hoping they've mistakenly previewed an early version of this race, and the version that actually gets published is less of a dud.
As for shade being an ideal race for unpublished classes - look at what it does. The only way the previewed shade could be ideal for a class would be if that class A) was utterly dependent on being hidden and B) had no native means of becoming hidden. ie: the only way the shade could be ideal for a class would be if the class was designed such that no other race could possibly use it.
At that point - if shade is worthless outside of one particular class, which is in turn worthless without being a shade, then the shade should have just been a class to begin with, like the Vampire.
Of course there weren't any new racial feats in Essentials! There didn't need to be, as there weren't any new races and all the old racial feats still worked for them even in combination with the Essentials classes. How dumb do you have to be not to realize that?
Many, many of the feats in essentials were reprinted or revised. The fact that racial feats already exist for the essentials races doesn't mean much in that regard. If racial feats were still considered a core part of D&D, would they not have been included in the new core products?
Look, I'm not saying there won't be racial feats. I'm saying it's far from a sure thing. I mean, you berate me for making assumptions about this book. Who's making assumptions now? You see a lousy race, you say 'oh, I'm going to assume that there are some sort of obligatory feats to make up for it', as though losing feats for your race not to suck weren't an additional penalty.
You obviously can't see the advantage of taking a class that has stealth as one of its non automatic skills and being able to train a different skill instead because you're already trained in stealth. How about an ambush? wouldn't you like to be able to set up an ambush easily because you lack the ability to think tactically.
I'm not complaining about the stealth training. It's fine. Choice of arcana or stealth would have been equally fluffy and wouldn't have punished them for choosing classes that fit with their racial gimmicks, but whatever.
I'm complaining about the lack of any meaningful racial combat ability, and the combat penalty that has been given in its place. Training in stealth is an alright ability, but it does not, on its own, make a functional race, any more then humans would be an acceptable race if they only got the skill training and not the bonus feat, especially if they got a feat penalty in its place. Same as the trained skill from eladrin wouldn't be enough if they didn't get the teleport power, and instead had a con penalty.
The problem is, the shade gets only stealth, and a dubious ability to enable stealth. They either need something else, or for their dubious racial power to be less dubious. And they need to ditch the arbitrary, unnecessary penalty that sits in the middle of their racial entry balancing nothing at all, existing solely as a big ole' middle finger to anyone who might have wanted to play this race.
And before you mention it, the racial utilities (in and of itself a great idea that I'd love to see expanded to all the races) don't balance out that penalty either, as they aren't anything extra. They're the option to trade class utilities away for these new powers, and while the previewed powers aren't exactly terrible, they're also almost universally less useful then whatever you might have chosen normally from your class instead, making this race even more of a 'trap' option, punishing players mechanically for thematic role playing decisions.
[sarcasm]I'm confused why you hate role players so much that you're happy to see them suffer mechanical penalties for it.[/sarcasm]
Okay so this is what I have come to. As presented the shade is easy to dismiss as undesirable and inferior. However, there is much that we don't know yet. Little to nothing has been revealed about the classes within HoS let alone enough to know whether the Shade would be an excellent choice for any of them or not (or whether or not not we like any of the classes, but that's another story). Additionally, unknown is the quality and quantity of feat support that the race will receive. And finally, as we have only seen three of those frequently underrated racial utility powers I would not make any decision on whether they are worth the penalties.
+1
Of course there weren't any new racial feats in Essentials! There didn't need to be, as there weren't any new races and all the old racial feats still worked for them even in combination with the Essentials classes. How dumb do you have to be not to realize that? You obviously can't see the advantage of taking a class that has stealth as one of its non automatic skills and being able to train a different skill instead because you're already trained in stealth. How about an ambush? wouldn't you like to be able to set up an ambush easily because you lack the ability to think tactically.
But some of the best ambushers are rogues and assassins, who get stealth as an automatic skill they're trained in, making the Shade stealth training feature useless. And they're also fragile already, with the shade making them even more fragile.
I make no assumptions. I stated before we, and that includes myself, have no idea of what level of feat support is in HoS. Secondly, Essentials is not the "new" core so there was no reason to include unbroken racial feats. It would have meant there would have been less room for things that needed to be in the books which were incomplete as it is. Have you not considered the new direction that 4e is moving in. There has been a marked increase in the design work of non-combat encounters.
And the shade's racial power doesn't even help with non-combat encounters, because if you're not already in combat it's not hard to get total cover or concealment to gain that initial stealth in the first place.
Essentials is the new introduction to the game - the starting products that give you everything you need to play, with everything else being optional (hence "player's essentials: heroes of the forgotten kingdoms" vs. "Player's option: heroes of shadow"). There were many non broken feats reprinted just as is in the feat sections of the essentials players books, including weapon focus, two weapon fighting, and so on. Things reprinted because they were a basic part of the game. Racial feats apparently weren't considered a basic part of the game.
Again, I'm not saying there won't be racial feats. There may be. I hope there will be. I'm saying you shouldn't assume that there will be racial feats, nor should you tell people 'the previewed shade is fine because racial feats will fix its problems'.
And even with the increased allowance for non-combat abilities, it is still not acceptable to balance a non-combat ability with a combat penalty, and the shade's racial power is still of dubious use as a non-combat ability since outside of combat finding total cover to make an initial hide check is rarely difficult, and while it's good for races to be better at some things and worse at others, it's still unacceptable for any race to be 'bad at combat' altogether to balance non-combat abilities.
Frankly, that a designer thinks this is ok does not nothing to replenish my empty confidence reserves when it comes to the rest of the material in this book.
Then I apologize, though I'm hardly the only one guilty of that.
And even with the increased allowance for non-combat abilities, it is still not acceptable to balance a non-combat ability with a combat penalty, and the shade's racial power is still of dubious use as a non-combat ability since outside of combat finding total cover to make an initial hide check is rarely difficult, and while it's good for races to be better at some things and worse at others, it's still unacceptable for any race to be 'bad at combat' altogether to balance non-combat abilities.
Frankly, that a designer thinks this is ok does not nothing to replenish my empty confidence reserves when it comes to the rest of the material in this book.
I accept your apology, and apologize for anything you have said that I have misrepresented.
1.)it allows for vampires of any race, you are not born a Vampire, you become one in a similar fashion to a Warlock making a pact (either through a deal with powerful entities or a dark ritual)
2.)Vampire has become an archetype. Vampire has come to represent any being that derives it's power from draining the energy of others: psychic vampires that bleed dry minds, energy vampires that drain magical or mundane energy, or the most probable: Vampires that drain the blood from victims.
3.)Vampires(Blood at least) are not innately powerful entities like Beholders or Dragons. They're biologically different, to be sure, but the base vampire (not a lord or a powerful, experienced vampire) is basically an albino with rabies: strong and bloodthirsty but not something unslayable by the local town guard. On the other hand (if you've seen Hellsing you know what I'm talking about) powerful Vampires can dominate others, turn into mist, and perhaps command a sort of "blood magic." It suggests a sort of power progression that could be done with leveling.
Still having conceptualization problems?
Think about it like this: assume the Vampire class assumes fluff-wise that your character became a vampire not through heredity or by coercion from another vampire. Assume your character sought out dark rituals, bargained with a vampire, or delved into body altering shadow magic in order to gain power in the same way a Warlock comes into power. It probably assumes that vampiric abilities were the goal of your venture into undeath and that the magic that brought you to your form can take you further.
I think the vryloka race and Dhampyrs are used for second generation vampires and unwitting victims: two vampires produce a vryloka who can decide to embrace the powers and lifestyle of its parents or proceed to other professions. A vampire and a human produce a Dhampyr and it can choose any profession. The victim of a bite that wants to continue it's previous profession could do either but I would suggest Dhampyr heritage as a bonus feat (if it was the DM's idea).
2. You talk of a theme here, hmmmmm....
3. So this is like a level one assassin?
Sorry, but the Vampire race is gonna be like the difference between dracula and the lesser Vamps.
2. Then rangers and druids should be a theme for rogues and wizards, respectively.
3. Actually, yes. Since they made the essentials assassin more martial and rogue-like I would expect this class to feel more like the pre-E assasin, except instead of shadow-hopping and stealth more health-stealing and charm.
Although, on a somewhat-related note, how do you feel about JK Rowlings' use of Wizard as a race?
EDIT:
"Sorry, but the Vampire race is gonna be like the difference between dracula and the lesser Vamps."
Isn't that what I said? Vampire class will be all about delving into vampiric magic and powers and the a member of the vamp race is a vamp that denies or ignores the power of vampire lords in order to pursue other means to power such as arcana, similar to a Deva Wizard who ignores the divine energy empowering it in favor of arcane study.
Although, on a somewhat-related note, how do you feel about JK Rowlings' use of Wizard as a race?
I don't think it's relevent. Bad design is bad design.
How do you know it's bad design? Wait, your Mearls aren't you? I knew it! You set up a fake account so that you could tell just how bad you made things and no one would know that you intentionally drove the 4e design into the ground!
Sorry I had to lighten the mood a bit with a joke (I personally like the new design model and don't think Mike is doing a bad job).
Although, on a somewhat-related note, how do you feel about JK Rowlings' use of Wizard as a race?
I don't think it's relevent. Bad design is bad design.
as much as it doesn't fit D&D, I can totaly see a game designed that way...
race- wizard
race- psychic
race-human
totaly work
Although, on a somewhat-related note, how do you feel about JK Rowlings' use of Wizard as a race?
Really, it's not that different from Sorcerers. They're all about "inborn magical talent" and magic being "in the blood." Seems like a genetic trait to me. It just happens that Rowling's setting only has 1 race: human, and 2 classes: Muggle and Sorcerer. (This isn't counting all the "monster races" like half-giant, etc.)
1. no, having a vampire as a race means that the other races are those races and the vampire race is it's own race. That is like having an Elven Vulcan.
2. You talk of a theme here, hmmmmm....
3. So this is like a level one assassin?
Sorry, but the Vampire race is gonna be like the difference between dracula and the lesser Vamps.
Vampire as a race is easy enough to work - you make them a template race, like the Revenant. I'm a Vampire, my past life was a... whatever.
Although, on a somewhat-related note, how do you feel about JK Rowlings' use of Wizard as a race?
Really, it's not that different from Sorcerers. They're all about "inborn magical talent" and magic being "in the blood." Seems like a genetic trait to me. It just happens that Rowling's setting only has 1 race: human, and 2 classes: Muggle and Sorcerer. (This isn't counting all the "monster races" like half-giant, etc.)
Yes, but in Harry Potter the concept of racial impurity is expessed with "mudblood." One can be born with inborn magical talent but if one isn't one has no access to any sort of magical power. Sorcerer only made sense to me if it coexisted with the wizard, one who can "learn" magic.
I just have one thing to say about the Harry Potter born talent for magic. Midi Clorians. "The force is all around us, surrounds us..."
The overall dragon blood bunk for the Sorcerer is stuff from the 3.5 days, when the Half Class needed some sort of reason to be other than mechanical change. The innate ability explained the reasoning behind the Sorcerer not having to have spellbooks or to mem like the majority of the other classes (The Warlock later in the edition the other exception).
Now, it is the oppisite, with the wizard fumbling around with the spellbook and memming the wrong spells. (Encounter spells with the new Kit Builds? Really?)
This is one of the reasons I wanted a new class for the casters, not the version 2.0 for the wizards, with memory leaks intact. A Shadow class.
Not really, it is still a placeholder of the Shadow Power Source, though having one (1) class for the source with an shadow build for the Assassin (Total of three builds?) is better than having nothing.
I just have one thing to say about the Harry Potter born talent for magic. Midi Clorians. "The force is all around us, surrounds us..."
The overall dragon blood bunk for the Sorcerer is stuff from the 3.5 days, when the Half Class needed some sort of reason to be other than mechanical change. The innate ability explained the reasoning behind the Sorcerer not having to have spellbooks or to mem like the majority of the other classes (The Warlock later in the edition the other exception).
Now, it is the oppisite, with the wizard fumbling around with the spellbook and memming the wrong spells. (Encounter spells with the new Kit Builds? Really?)
This is one of the reasons I wanted a new class for the casters, not the version 2.0 for the wizards, with memory leaks intact. A Shadow class.
Would you care to join me in creating a 3rd party Necromancer, Shadow Dancer, etc... sort of a "What the shadow power source book should have been" kinda thing?
Sorry just didn't want to stray too far from the real point. Does anyone on the thread really see Shadow being dead, or perhaps just the subject of unexpected gene therapy?
Unless the vampire is just completely awesome and not a build of a sub-class, then it may not, but from all appearances it won't be a power source just something to spice up existing character with a bit o' flavor...
Sorry just didn't want to stray too far from the real point. Does anyone on the thread really see Shadow being dead, or perhaps just the subject of unexpected gene therapy?
Unless the vampire is just completely awesome and not a build of a sub-class, then it may not, but from all appearances it won't be a power source just something to spice up existing character with a bit o' flavor...
It may not be a power source as you label it, but by the standards WotC goes by it is. Personally I don't see it as quite dead yet, but I'm open to a ridiculous variety of ideas.
Hopefully D&D experience can shed some light on a new future plan, what with the old one in shambles.
Vampires as a race makes sense because it allows a variety of vampires as far as classes, allowing for multiple archetypes of vampires to be represented, such as, a burly vampire who wades into melee, and relishes the spray of blood from enemies, or the vampiric scholar/wizard type who allows allys/minions to go into melee while striking at a distance with spells. And many more in between.
But wait! What about the previous race? Vampire as a race means I lose the flavor of being a dwarf vampire who preferrs to drink from victims with a high blood-alcohol level, or an elf vampire with a keen interest in preventing the encroachment of civilization into an ancient forest he has dwelt in for centuries. Or, "When he's turned into a vampire, he wouldn't just stop being an elf". Well, the "Vampires as a race" method implies that, at least mechanically, the transformation into a vampire is so severe that the traces of the victim's previous race (at least, those that make a mechanical difference), are wiped clean. This is supported by the idea in many forms of vampire fiction that, as vampires age, they become more and more similar, losing those unique racial identifiers (like in Anne Rice novels, for example), and much of the vampire's previous identity (including race and even gender) become less important, even to the vampire itself, that the fact that it is a vampire...as far as its own identity goes, anyway.
This could have been answered mechanically in D&D (had they done Vampires as a race) with a mechanic similar to Revenants, allowing them to qualify for racial feats of the previous race, even though the racial traits of being a vampire have overwritten their birthright ones (such as stat modifiers, racial bonus to poison saves, attack bonus while bloodied, etc.). Although the problem arises with Small races, if the default for the "vampire-as-a-race" is Medium sized.
Vampires as a class makes sense because it allows us to keep those racial traits, and it also correctly portrays the parasitic nature of the vampire transformation, because the previous racial identity of the vampire is apparent in its appearance. Since race is a very important part of a PC's makeup (ESPECIALLY at heroic tier), this allows for as great a variety in vampires as in any other class. It also answers the problem inherent in the "vampire-as-a-race" with Small races. Vampires as a class allows for Small Vampires.
But wait! What about the previous class? Why would a vampire suddenly stop being a wizard/fighter/cleric? Well, lots of reasons. First off, the easiest answer: who said the PC necessarily had levels in a PC class before becoming a vampire? However, some peopls might want backstories of a mortal life that was also an adventurerm and if he did, some classes might have reasons not to work. A Divine class who served Pelor, for example (or the Raven Queen), would certainly be cut off from divine aid after becoming an undead creature. A Bard's preternatural voice might no longer be able to correctly tone in on the music that was the source of her magic. A Sorceror, blood tainted with the curse of vampirism, might no longer be able to call on the power of his bloodline that gave him arcane might. Granted, some classes this reasoning does not work for (Fighters, Rogues, Wizards).
There's also another solution, which is another pro for vampires as a class: Obviously, if you are playing a PC with the vampire class, you are playing a character who has EMBRACED his/her vampiric nature, as opposed to violently seeking a cure. Since that is the case, does it nor follow that the newly turned vampire would have turned away from the trappings of his/her mortal life to embrace the dark powers he/she now wielded? It's entirely possible that, for him/her to even begin to master the new vampiric powers, took such dedication and time that the skills of the previous life became so out-of-practice that the vampire could no longer perform them.
Result: Both sides of the argument have their merits and their downsides. Obviously, to some, being able to be a Vampire Wizard makes more sense and is more appealing conceptually than a Halfling Vampire. And Vice Versa. Some people can more readily accept the idea that Vampirism dominates one's previous racial identity, and thus should be a race. Others want the previous race to be available as a character creation choice, and have a character for whom being a vampire is something they DO, rather than something they ARE.
Which is why Malisteen and I, though usually at odds in our opinions in most things, both agree that Vampire would have worked better as a theme, which would have made both camps pretty happy, because one could be an Eladrin Vampire Wizard, or a Dwarven Vampire Fighter, etc. To us, and those like us, the pros of both sides are pretty keen points. However, both malisteen and myself both realize that themes are powerful, and since they are not (yet) available for core play, introducing vampire PCs as a theme now would not be balanced, and it would have been better served if they released it as a theme in Ravemloft later this year, which would confine it to a campaign setting, like Dark Sun did.
Incidentally, I think WotC looked at all these points, and since they decided not to go with theme, that Vampire Class > Vampire Race. Given only the two options, I can see why they supported class over race. It allows for more variety in the backstories and character of a given Vampire PC, because he could be from any race, and, liek I said, since he's embracing his vampiric powers so thouroughly (enough to pursue an adventuring career that may last 30 levels, anyway), that Vampire as a Class with its own suite of powers was better. It also allows more for character concepts of people that had the adventuring life thrust upon them BECAUSE they were turned into vampires(i.e. they were not members of ANY PC class before being turned).
I think what we have here is a last minute shift of the vampire class from ravenloft (remember how it was supposed to let us play vampires, werewolves, and ghosts?) to Heroes of Shadow, in order to fill out it's page count in the switch from the smaller digest format to the larger hardcover format. Wizards just grabbed whatever was already in development that was still more or less on theme to fill the space.
Alternatively, they heard the complaints about the lack of fully shadow classes in the shadow power source book, and looked around for a couple full shadow classes they could add in to appease the complainers.
Either way, I think the HoS vampire began its development process as part of Ravenloft, while the Vrykola were original HoS material, and that's how we ended up with the moderate, though not imo intolerable sillyness of Vampire Vampires (take the Dhamphyr bloodline feat for Vampiric Vampire Vampires!). Not that I'm complaining. I don't think races or classes were the right way to do Vampires, not with the theme technology available from Darksun, but I'm still happier with the vampire class in HoS then I was without it. At least there's a chance we'll get one new shadow class out of Heroes of Shadow, rather then only new builds of pre-existing classes. Of course, that's not guaranteed, as we don't yet know anything about the vampire class.
However, we know VERY LITTLE about the vyrkola race, so I'm witholding all speculation on them until I at least see a little more.
What annoys me most isn't that we'll have "Vampire Vampires", it's that we now have Tieflings, Shadar-Kai, Shades, and Vrykola - which brings us up to at least four different races of tainted humans, and I may be forgetting some. That's a bit much retreading of the same ground for my taste, especially with three of them being Shadow oriented.
We know they're an "ancient human race" and that they're "infected with vampirism" from a "fell curse that taints their ancient bloodline". So yeah, vampire race.
What annoys me most isn't that we'll have "Vampire Vampires", it's that we now have Tieflings, Shadar-Kai, Shades, and Vrykola - which brings us up to at least four different races of tainted humans, and I may be forgetting some. That's a bit much retreading of the same ground for my taste, especially with three of them being Shadow oriented.
Well, while the Bael Turath thing is cerayinly interesting, and evocative, in my campaign setting I have retained that tieflings are descended from fiends, albeit very distantly, and the tiefling taint always breeds true with any mortal race.
Shadar-Kai are sort of a product of their environment, though, aren't they? They're people who've LIVED in the Shadowfell so long that they have adapted to it. Their deal with the Raven Queen and everything notwithstanding, since a lot of them still require a lot of extra stimulus to keep the ennui of their existence from making them fade away...
Shades, on the other hand, are humans who, on an indivudual level, have chosen to trade part of their soul, and a significant amount of their physical form, to Shadow.
And we don't know ALL the details on vrykola though, so I'm witholding comment until I know more than just a tiny blurb.
But Tieflings and Shadar-Kai are true races, one a product of bloodlines tainted by an evil choice, the other a product of the environment in which one's ancestors lived. Shades are not a true-breeding race. Each Shade was not born a shade, but rather became one. So, while all "tainted humans", they are all tainted in different ways, and remian unique.
We know they're an "ancient human race" and that they're "infected with vampirism" from a "fell curse that taints their ancient bloodline". So yeah, vampire race.
What annoys me most isn't that we'll have "Vampire Vampires", it's that we now have Tieflings, Shadar-Kai, Shades, and Vrykola - which brings us up to at least four different races of tainted humans, and I may be forgetting some. That's a bit much retreading of the same ground for my taste, especially with three of them being Shadow oriented.
You forgot the infected Shifters (half human, half lycanthrope), blessed Deva, mindful Kalashtar, And halfblood Elves and Orcs. That is an overabundance of human blooded beings. Nice that they are (excluding the Shades and Vrykolakas, which we have yet to see) technically all engineered to be good at doing different things, being parts of diferent classes, etc.
My complaint isn't that we have half a dozen races 'tainted' in this or that way, but that they were all human to start. Couldn't shadar-kai have been gnomes? or shades halflings, or something?
Whatever. It's a minor complaint, not very important, and I didn't mean to pull us off topic.
All I meant to say was that we do know that the Vrykola as a race suffer from the curse of vampirism.
You forgot the infected Shifters (half human, half lycanthrope), blessed Deva, mindful Kalashtar, And halfblood Elves and Orcs. That is an overabundance of human blooded beings. Nice that they are (excluding the Shades and Vrykolakas, which we have yet to see) technically all engineered to be good at doing different things, being parts of diferent classes, etc.
Eh. Devas are unrelated to any other species. They're incarnated angels.
Also keep in mind that humans being corruptable and taintable is part of their intended fluff, as explained in the 4E preview books.
You forgot the infected Shifters (half human, half lycanthrope), blessed Deva, mindful Kalashtar, And halfblood Elves and Orcs. That is an overabundance of human blooded beings. Nice that they are (excluding the Shades and Vrykolakas, which we have yet to see) technically all engineered to be good at doing different things, being parts of diferent classes, etc.
Eh. Devas are unrelated to any other species. They're incarnated angels.
Also keep in mind that humans being corruptable and taintable is part of their intended fluff, as explained in the 4E preview books.
Not to mention their penchant for bumping uglies with every humanoid that's halfway decent to look at.
Again, though, it's not any actual gripe against the Vrykola or Shades. At the moment I've only got the following gripes regarding the races in HoS:
A. Vrykola: minor gripe. It's a little weird having a vampire race and bloodline and class, and I still think themes would have achieved the best of all worlds while being more coherent. Oh, well. If both Vrykola and the Vampire class have cool & distinct fluff and functional mechanics then I won't care.
B. Revenants: minor gripe. If they were going to reprint a DDI race in HoS, I don't think Revenants were the best choice. Yes, they're popular, and no, I don't care about dropping the 'DDI exclusive' tagline, but due to their unique mechanics Revenants require an aweful lot of modular support. In my opinion this simply makes them work better online then in a printed book.
C. Shades: major problem. their rules, as previewed, suck. Hard. I haven't been happy about Wizards' choices for what to put in Heroes of Shadow, but before the most recent preview it didn't even occur to me to think that those options they did choose to provide would be unusably terrible, or that the book on the whole would suffer serious balance issues. Frankly, it just doesn't bode well.
Not to sound like a broken record, but I'm both confused and dissapointed that Shadar-Kai haven't been reprinted / updated in this book. I mean, they're the most populous living race in the Shadowfell. They're the chosen people of the Shadowfell's resident deity. Their racial history, description, personality, traits, features, and power all embody the nature of shadow magic. Shadar-Kai are the people of shadow, and their heroes are the Heroes of Shadow.
but whatever, I'll deal. I'm far more upset about Shadow's primary archetypes being handed out to classes from other power sources (admitedly a matter of preference, but still one I feel very strongly about) then I am about the lack of Shadar-Kai in the book - after all, I can still play the latter.
While I agree that the “shade” needs a re-write, I have a theory on why shadar-ki are not in HoS. They might be in the shadow fell boxed set.Themes would have been perfect for the Vampire cluster frack we now have going on, but I guess someone doesn’t want the non DS players to have use of them.
Someone else has mentioned the possibility of the Vampire class being a 'multiclass only' class a la Spellscarred in the forgotten realms, and I have really mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, like themes I think that would be a better way of doing PC vampires then a full on class. On the other hand, I want there to be more full shadow classes. If I had any actual say in the matter, I'd be quite torn. As it is, I'm trying not to think about it, lest I work myself into a state where either result would be equally disappointing.
As for S-K in the Shadowfell box set - I hadn't though of that. It would be cool, but I doubt it - look how essentials products are for the most part labeled as DM or Player options. It just seems unlikely that they'd go back to mixing DM and Player material so soon. I expect Heroes of Shadow is the "Players guide to the Shadowfell", while the Shadowfell boxset is the DM's version of the same.
While I agree that the “shade” needs a re-write, I have a theory on why shadar-ki are not in HoS. They might be in the shadow fell boxed set.Themes would have been perfect for the Vampire cluster frack we now have going on, but I guess someone doesn’t want the non DS players to have use of them.
Someone else has mentioned the possibility of the Vampire class being a 'multiclass only' class a la Spellscarred in the forgotten realms, and I have really mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, like themes I think that would be a better way of doing PC vampires then a full on class. On the other hand, I want there to be more full shadow classes. If I had any actual say in the matter, I'd be quite torn. As it is, I'm trying not to think about it, lest I work myself into a state where either result would be equally disappointing.As for S-K in the Shadowfell box set - I hadn't though of that. It would be cool, but I doubt it - look how essentials products are for the most part labeled as DM or Player options. It just seems unlikely that they'd go back to mixing DM and Player material so soon. I expect Heroes of Shadow is the "Players guide to the Shadowfell", while the Shadowfell boxset is the DM's version of the same.
Vampires are unrelated to the shadowfell they fall into supplements like Open Grave or similar material so as much as I'd like to see more Vampire & Damphyr related charactor options they don't belong in Heroes of Shadow.
While you may be right it wasn't something anyone had mentioned yet as far as I recall.
I mentioned them being like the spellscared. Not sure if it was this thread or not, and I'm too lazy to check, but I know I mentioned it on this forum somewhere.
It wouldn't be what I want, specifically, but it is a distinct possibility.
Edit: just saw it in the Heroes of Shadow thread. I posted it over there.
Anyway, the confusion is my fault, I mentioned both the S-K idea and the Vampires as Spellscared idea in the same post, without adequately separating them.
I accept your apology, and apologize for anything you have said that I have misrepresented.
I apologize for nothing and nobody, least of all myself, or that guy I might have been last Tuesday at tea-time.
Excuse me while I cuddle up with some antibiotics, a little Codine, and these other meds the nice doctors gave me for my nice whopping case of pneumonia...
I accept your apology, and apologize for anything you have said that I have misrepresented.
I apologize for nothing and nobody, least of all myself, or that guy I might have been last Tuesday at tea-time.
Excuse me while I cuddle up with some antibiotics, a little Codine, and these other meds the nice doctors gave me for my nice whopping case of pneumonia...
Viral lung infection here man. Welcome to the club. 6 days off work and counting!
I accept your apology, and apologize for anything you have said that I have misrepresented.
I apologize for nothing and nobody, least of all myself, or that guy I might have been last Tuesday at tea-time.
Excuse me while I cuddle up with some antibiotics, a little Codine, and these other meds the nice doctors gave me for my nice whopping case of pneumonia...
Viral lung infection here man. Welcome to the club. 6 days off work and counting!
Woo-Hoo!
Sithnipples for everybody!!!!