Here's the current Product Page
Previews
December and Beyond: info on the Blackguard subclass and the Necromancy and Nethermancy schools for the Mage.
January and Beyond: more info on the product as a whole, and a preview of the Shade.
February and Beyond: a bit of concept art and a fluff description of the Vampire. No mechanics are previewed this time.
March and Beyond: some item previews, and the Shadowthief Pragon Path for arcane classes.
Shadow Magic: Shadow power source fluff and the table of contents
Shadow Classes: a summary of the class material in Heroes of Shadow, and a detailed look at the Vampire in the heroic tier
Shadow Races: a summary of the races in Heroes of Shadow, and a detailed look at the Vryloka
Paragon Paths: a summary of books paragon paths, and a preview of the Nocturnal
Shadows of Destiny: a summary of the epic destinies, and a preview of the Guardian of the Void
Design & Development - Necromancy & Nethermancy: design thoughts on the new mage schools
January and Beyond: more info on the product as a whole, and a preview of the Shade.
February and Beyond: a bit of concept art and a fluff description of the Vampire. No mechanics are previewed this time.
March and Beyond: some item previews, and the Shadowthief Pragon Path for arcane classes.
Shadow Magic: Shadow power source fluff and the table of contents
Shadow Classes: a summary of the class material in Heroes of Shadow, and a detailed look at the Vampire in the heroic tier
Shadow Races: a summary of the races in Heroes of Shadow, and a detailed look at the Vryloka
Paragon Paths: a summary of books paragon paths, and a preview of the Nocturnal
Shadows of Destiny: a summary of the epic destinies, and a preview of the Guardian of the Void
Design & Development - Necromancy & Nethermancy: design thoughts on the new mage schools
Q: Will there be any new classes in this product?
A: (As interupted by me) We had not planned on it, going with Kit Builds introduced in the Essentials books. As we looked at various comments and reviews of our previews it has been decided to expand the book into hardcover and included one class, a Vampire. The Vampire race will be renamed.
Really, I have to see this to really know how it gels. It may be a good class, or it could be one stretched thin and not have much going for it. One class in a book introducing a power source, though, is a bit under developed. Having only two classes total (Vampire and Assassin) for the Shadow Power source is disappointing.
Thoughts?
I think if you are going to make such bold statements as DDi only content, it should say that, or at least say it's DDi only content for X amount of time.
I think this book looks interesting, though I'm not sure I would allow these options in my current campaign, since it seems these classes would clash with what I'm doing with my campaign.
Apparently the new Hexblade Pact is the "Gloom Pact" and it gives the hexblade Shadow Walk.
Could I get a source, so I can link it in the OP?
Apparently the new Hexblade Pact is the "Gloom Pact" and it gives the hexblade Shadow Walk.
Could I get a source, so I can link it in the OP?
One place calls it "Binder Pact" - while another place calls it "Gloom Pact"
twitter.com/#!/Alphastream/status/306134...
twitter.com/#!/Alphastream/status/306141...
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
I'll mention it in the OP, but I'd prefer to have something more concrete then some vague twitter posts to link to.
Dark, Infernal, Fey, Star, Vestige.... IIRC there is also 1 or 2 Dragon Mag pacts although their names escape me.
Instead of broadening the Warlocks options (Hexblade notwithstanding), can't we just deepen them by creating new powers for the pre-existing pacts?
That said, while I'm generally with you on needing more options for existing pacts rather then more pacts, I would still like to see hexblade versions of the existing dark and vestige pact.
The gloom pact may or may not be a hexblade pact, and if it is then it might be their equivalent of the dark or vestige pact (or both).
There's just not enough info out there right now for me to have much of an opinion.
I also glad they are giving an alternative to Eldritch Blast - I just don't like pure damage powers with no riders. I would rather have the dmg die reduced and have a rider. So glad to see no Eldritch Blast on the Binder Pact. It is also cool the power that replaces it is a Close Blast.
Heroes of Shadows sounds great so far - I just wish we would get better previews for it.
I like the Dark Pact pact boon but their At-will power is just sad...
They had something close to it in Dragon but it was more like a Multi-class feature. I would like to see a Shadow bloodline like they had for the Elan.
Shadar-Kai remain by cannon the most populous PC race of the Shadowfell. An updated reprint in Heroes of Shadow would not have been inappropriate, nor would it be inappropriate in Gloomwrought.
That's a far cry from saying it should happen, or that it's going to happen. I'm just saying that those of us who want it to happen still have some hope.
@AskaniPsion: no mention that I've heard of an Elan-esque bloodline as of yet, much as I would be interested to see one as well.
1) email customer service
2) mail a physical letter to WotC
3) submit an article to Dragon
As for wizards learning from criticism, it's hard to say. As for the Vampire Class in particular, there are any number of ways it might have made it into HoS:
It might have been there from the beginning, and WotC just decided not to talk about it until January for whatever reason.
Heroes of Shadow recently went from a softcover to a hardcover, without sufficient time to really design enough filler to fit the extra page space. At the same time, we're hearing that the Ravenloft setting, which was said to include options for PC 'Vampires, Werewolves, and Ghosts', has been shelved. We could just have material originally developed for a cancelled product being ported over to another product that needed filler.
Or WotC might actually have heard the negative reaction to a HoS book without any new shadow classes and rushed to add one.
Who knows what the truth is? That's why I tried to keep speculation out of my initial post. We just don't know what's going on behind the scenes over there.
In any event, I'm hoping the Vampire is cool, effective, shadowy, and presents meaningful choices. I don't care if it's "essentials style" or not, so long as it's more mage, less slayer, when it comes to meaningful choices of powers.
A fun, effective, shadowy vampire, along witha fun, effective, shadowy assassin, would go a long way towards winning me over to this book.
A HoS book without any fun, effective options shadow characters that aren't also arcane, divine, or martial would certainly leave me dissapointed, to put it mildly. As this is still quite possible, I'm feeling very ambivalent at the moment.
Don't we have enough Warlock pacts already???
Dark, Infernal, Fey, Star, Vestige.... IIRC there is also 1 or 2 Dragon Mag pacts although their names escape me.
Instead of broadening the Warlocks options (Hexblade notwithstanding), can't we just deepen them by creating new powers for the pre-existing pacts?
short answer... No
I still want the following:
Demon Pact
"Dark Powers of the Shadowfell" Pact - I imagine this is what the Gloom Pact will be
Dragon Pact
plus more than that, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head at the moment
Going to take a moment and make a prediction: Heroes of the Shadowfell has been altered to include builds for classic 4e classes. This will be an attempt by WotC to prove they had intended to support Classic 4e all along (this is simply "spin" though, as the material was only added at the last minute) but will be interpreted by the community as proof that Essentials has failed.
Not that support for classic 4e classes is what I hoped for myself, but a suite of new classes for shadow characters the way PHBII did for primal or PHBIII did for psionic is a thoroughly squashed dream at this point.
I see the move to Hardcover as a way to contain more material that was given for inclusion in this product as well as a move for more standard fare in the book like the Vampire (god, worse than the Assassin name) class and more classical builds like those in the power books along with the Kit Builds (most likely call classes, like the Wizard:Necromancer)
I don't believe that any of the material was slapped together at the last moment, though being pulled from elsewhere may be a possibility.
It is my fervent hope that they include a non-melee Warlock sub-class in the book, rather than try to fit new ideas into the old mold... Along the same lines, the I hope that the Vampire will be a Class in the sense that it describes your background fluff and that your class features will come from your choice of Sub-Class / Type (i.e. the new class format.)
If they want to continue putting out DDI articles for the old stuff so be it... but I'd rather they not mix old and new in the books.
Fixed that for you.
My belief is that Wizards realized that the Essentials Kit Builds are not an exclusive design paragon for future products, though I suspect that was the plan at the beginning. If this product was to only have Kit Builds (As was suspected at the beginning) then it would collect dust on the retail shelves.
Right now, it is still disappointing that it has the mixed power sourced builds but the new class (Vampire!) and other things does give this book a chance for sales, at least in my eyes.
"(i.e. the new class build format)"
Fixed that for you.
My belief is that Wizards realized that the Essentials Kit Builds are not an exclusive design paragon for future products, though I suspect that was the plan at the beginning. If this product was to only have Kit Builds (As was suspected at the beginning) then it would collect dust on the retail shelves.
Right now, it is still disappointing that it has the mixed power sourced builds but the new class (Vampire!) and other things does give this book a chance for sales, at least in my eyes.
No need to fix anything... I said I meant.
For clarification, here is the breakdown of the new class format:
Class - Your class dictates basic background information about your character, especially story fluff. I.E. Fighters are military trained specialists with weapons and armor, Wizards are the foremost specialists with magic who gain they're power through long research and stufy, and Clerics are priestly types who gain Divine magic/power by way of being the subject of secret investiture rituals. (Just a few examples.)
Type / Sub-Class - Your Type (the word WotC uses) or Sub-Class (the word most forum posters use) dicates your class features, powers, hit points, skills, more specialized story fluff, etc.
Build - specializations within your Sub-Class... not much to say here, it's pretty self-explanatory. Examples include the Knight's weapon/shield specializations (Longsword & Shield, Warhammer & Shield, or Quarterstaff), the Mage's Schools of Magic (Illusion, Pyromancy, Evocation, Charm, Necromancy, Nethermancy), and the Warpriest's Domains (Sun, Earth, Death, Storm).
I feel that this is a far superior model when compared to the pre-Essentials class format.
I am interested in what the Warlock (Binder) is implied to mean. If it is a all new sub-class for the Warlock, I wonder what it will entail. Will it be similar to the Hexblade, but maybe not melee-focused? Perhaps it will be a leader version of the Warlock (since we haven't had two sub-classes that have been of the same role yet, it is possible, could also be a controller). I suppose another option could be that they named the pre-Essentials Warlock the Warlock (Binder) much in the same way that they named the pre-Essentials Fighter the Fighter (Weaponmaster). If it is just a new name for the old Warlock, I would be quite happy. Heck, if they had the Gloom Pact for both oWarlocks and Hexblades, that would be pretty frickin' sweet.
"(i.e. the new class build format)"
Fixed that for you.
My belief is that Wizards realized that the Essentials Kit Builds are not an exclusive design paragon for future products, though I suspect that was the plan at the beginning. If this product was to only have Kit Builds (As was suspected at the beginning) then it would collect dust on the retail shelves.
Right now, it is still disappointing that it has the mixed power sourced builds but the new class (Vampire!) and other things does give this book a chance for sales, at least in my eyes.
No need to fix anything... I said I meant.
For clarification, here is the breakdown of the new class format:
Class - Your class dictates basic background information about your character, especially story fluff. I.E. Fighters are military trained specialists with weapons and armor, Wizards are the foremost specialists with magic who gain they're power through long research and stufy, and Clerics are priestly types who gain Divine magic/power by way of being the subject of secret investiture rituals. (Just a few examples.)
Type / Sub-Class - Your Type (the word WotC uses) or Sub-Class (the word most forum posters use) dicates your class features, powers, hit points, skills, more specialized story fluff, etc.
Build - specializations within your Sub-Class... not much to say here, it's pretty self-explanatory. Examples include the Knight's weapon/shield specializations (Longsword & Shield, Warhammer & Shield, or Quarterstaff), the Mage's Schools of Magic (Illusion, Pyromancy, Evocation, Charm, Necromancy, Nethermancy), and the Warpriest's Domains (Sun, Earth, Death, Storm).
I feel that this is a far superior model when compared to the pre-Essentials class format.
Why is that?
I'm really looking forward to this book but just about the only thing they could do to really annoy and make me decide not to buy it would be to make the Gloom Pact Essentials/Hexblade exclusive. I would be stunned if they have become so blinkered that they don't want to mix in anything for the older builds. Wizards sneak in with shadow magic because they can still use nethermancy and necromancy style powers. My shadow mage (Warlock/Ossassin hybrid) will feel really screwed if I can't get any warlock attack shadow powers.
Looks like the Binder is a Pre-Ess Warlock
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
I am guessing they made some alterations to the original class. Looks like Prime Shot was altered.
Maybe Curse damage is now a set amount like the Hexblade is.
Looks like the Binder is a Pre-Ess Warlock
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
I am guessing they made some alterations to the original class. Looks like Prime Shot was altered.
Maybe Curse damage is now a set amount like the Hexblade is.
You're misreading that post: the speculation there is that it is not a Pre-E style "build" but a separate Essentials-style "Sub-Class" of the warlock; just like the Slayer and Knight are both Essentials Sub-Classes of the Fighter, Binders and Hexblades are both Essentials Sub-Classes of the Warlock.
Oddly no one has mentioned any other class features that were on the character sheet except different "Prime Shot" & Shadow Walk. I also don't know why no one has any photos of it. Was the Binder character sheet on paper or on the Virutal Table?
Sheesh, it really shouldn't be necessary to have a subclass of warlock to make the class work. This would only lead to narrow feats usable only by this subclass. I'm less worried but it's still possible that I won't be able to use the book for my character at all. Let's hope they haven't snatched failure from the jaws of success.
I still want the following:
Demon Pact
"Dark Powers of the Shadowfell" Pact - I imagine this is what the Gloom Pact will be
Dragon Pact
plus more than that, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head at the moment
Why a Demon Pact? We have Infernal Pact. You want someone who made a pact with fiends? There you go.
2nd one - Ummmm...Dark Pact, nuff said.
Dragon Pact - Not really sure what you're really looking for here, as dragons aren't exactly the kinds of creatures to have power they can "bestow" upon other creatures.
The gloomlock/binder is starting to look more and more like a new e-style subclass for the warlock, not a hexblade but neither an AEDU lock, as, from rumors, it has neither the prelock's curse nor the hexlock's blade. Which likely means it won't be compatible with two-fold pact, or much of anything else designed for the original lock, or the hexlock for that matter.
Where are you getting the information that it won't be AEDU?
they replaced sneak attack with backstab for the thief to avoid any synergy.
No, they didn't. Backstab is the thief's 'generic encounter attack power'. He has exactly the same Sneak Attack class feature as the regular rogue.
Hmm - the hexblade has a pact boon but where does it say that they have to choose a pact as a class feature? Eldtritch Pact is not listed as a class feature for them on the compendium. Multiclass warlocks also fall foul of this as they are instructed to choose a pact but do not gain the class feature. The pact boons are not stated as having the requirement that you choose the particular pact; each one is listed as separate class power/feature. So it looks extremely likely that the new warlock class build will list the gloom pact as a separate class feature rather than a sub-category of Eldritch Pact.
I've enjoyed playing 4E and I haven't found the Essentials stuff to be totally offensive but they are rapidly starting to lose my respect as they flog Essentials to the exclusion of the older builds. I waited over a year for the article on staff-wielding and it was largely useless to non-Essentials builds - no expertise multiclass like with bolas and whip, no feats for tempest or rangers to make it a meaty choice for players into that theme etc.
I suspect I will rapidly be houseruling the gloom pact as an Eldritch Pact that if it proves not to be the case.
Why a Demon Pact? We have Infernal Pact. You want someone who made a pact with fiends? There you go.
2nd one - Ummmm...Dark Pact, nuff said.
Dragon Pact - Not really sure what you're really looking for here, as dragons aren't exactly the kinds of creatures to have power they can "bestow" upon other creatures.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again... in D&D demons and devils are rather different critters and the fluff and mechanics for an Abyssal Pact Warlock could be quite different from that of the Infernal Pact Warlock.
As for the Dragon Pact... There are multiple instances in 2nd & 3rd edition of people having power bestowed upon them by draconic patrons. I'm quite tired though and all I can think of off the top of my head are the pact-style magic-users of the "Council of Wyrms" setting.
As for the Binder... I kind of hope that it is a Controller Warlock, but someone else has mentioned them possibly being a Leader, and I think that that could be pretty cool as well.
Where are you getting the information that it won't be AEDU?
Sorry, my mistake, I mean it's looking like it won't be a 'PHB' warlock build, it probably will be AEDU, at least insofar as having at will, encounter, daily, and utility powers. That said, as a warlock it likely won't get to choose its at will powers, and if it turns out to be a e-style subclass it will likely get the same encounter power multiple times rather then a choice of powers as it levels, and may not get any choice in some of its daily and utility powers, either.
For clarification, here is the breakdown of the new class format:
Class - Your class dictates basic background information about your character, especially story fluff. I.E. Fighters are military trained specialists with weapons and armor, Wizards are the foremost specialists with magic who gain they're power through long research and stufy, and Clerics are priestly types who gain Divine magic/power by way of being the subject of secret investiture rituals. (Just a few examples.)
Type / Sub-Class - Your Type (the word WotC uses) or Sub-Class (the word most forum posters use) dicates your class features, powers, hit points, skills, more specialized story fluff, etc.
Build - specializations within your Sub-Class... not much to say here, it's pretty self-explanatory. Examples include the Knight's weapon/shield specializations (Longsword & Shield, Warhammer & Shield, or Quarterstaff), the Mage's Schools of Magic (Illusion, Pyromancy, Evocation, Charm, Necromancy, Nethermancy), and the Warpriest's Domains (Sun, Earth, Death, Storm).
I feel that this is a far superior model when compared to the pre-Essentials class format.
Interesting take on the e-design.
So along these lines, they reorganized the oCleric 'class' into the eWarpriest 'type', thus leaving more design space for other kinds of Cleric types. For example, in addition to the Warpriest gish (warrior-mage) type, there can be a separate 'Thaumaturge' mage type, along the lines of the original light-armor Laser Cleric.
And so on for the 'classes'.
I want to be able to build a character that uses options from both types, for example the Warpriest and the hypothetical Thaumaturge. Presumably I will be able to by means of some kind of 'hybrid' mechanic. If so, I can appreciate this design structure.
For clarification, here is the breakdown of the new class format:
Class - Your class dictates basic background information about your character, especially story fluff. I.E. Fighters are military trained specialists with weapons and armor, Wizards are the foremost specialists with magic who gain they're power through long research and stufy, and Clerics are priestly types who gain Divine magic/power by way of being the subject of secret investiture rituals. (Just a few examples.)
Type / Sub-Class - Your Type (the word WotC uses) or Sub-Class (the word most forum posters use) dicates your class features, powers, hit points, skills, more specialized story fluff, etc.
Build - specializations within your Sub-Class... not much to say here, it's pretty self-explanatory. Examples include the Knight's weapon/shield specializations (Longsword & Shield, Warhammer & Shield, or Quarterstaff), the Mage's Schools of Magic (Illusion, Pyromancy, Evocation, Charm, Necromancy, Nethermancy), and the Warpriest's Domains (Sun, Earth, Death, Storm).
I feel that this is a far superior model when compared to the pre-Essentials class format.
Interesting take on the e-design.
So along these lines, they reorganized the oCleric 'class' into the eWarpriest 'type', thus leaving more design space for other kinds of Cleric types. For example, in addition to the Warpriest gish (warrior-mage) type, there can be a separate 'Thaumaturge' mage type, along the lines of the original light-armor Laser Cleric.
And so on for the 'classes'.
I want to be able to build a character that uses options from both types, for example the Warpriest and the hypothetical Thaumaturge. Presumably I will be able to by means of some kind of 'hybrid' mechanic. If so, I can appreciate this design structure.
It also means that classes like the Avenger (whose story fluff basically describes as Clerics who are meant to hunt people down rather than be a leader of men) can now be re-done as a "sub-class of Cleric.
Here's the breakdown, as I see it, of pre-Essentials classes that could be revised and reorganized:
Warlord = Fighter / Martial / Leader (and hopefully with a better name)
Avenger = Cleric/ Divine / Striker
Invoker = Wizard / Divine / Controller
Psion = Wizard / Psionic / Controller
Seeker = Ranger / Martial & Primal / Controller (has already been revised into the Hunter)
Swordmage = options for the Fighter and Wizard classes and/or a Fighter/Wizard sub-class
Battlemind/Ardent = options for the Fighter classes involving a mechanic in which power points are used to augment basic attacks
Warden = Druid / Primal / Defender... plus some multi-class stule options for the Knight
Artificer = Wizard / Arcane / 1 Leader type and 1 Controller type
Bard = Wizard / Arcane / 1 Leader type and 1 Controller type
Runepriest = Wizard / Divine / Leader
Shaman = Druid / Primal / Leader (has already been revised into the Sentinel) [I do think that they messed with the fluff more than was really neccessary.]
Barbarian (Rageblood) = Druid / Primal / Striker
Barbarian (Thaneborn) = Druid / Primal / Leader
Monk = martial artist style fighter with some Psionic options or psionic melee wizard
Sorcerer = kept as its own class but now with seperate Bloodlines (similar to the Hexblade's Pacts)
Here's the breakdown, as I see it, of pre-Essentials classes that could be revised and reorganized:
Warlord = Fighter / Martial / Leader (and hopefully with a better name) I am torn. I think it makes sense, but I think it would cause compatibility problems if implemented.
Avenger = Cleric/ Divine / Striker
Invoker = Wizard / Divine / Controller No. Just no. The invoker should be a cleric/divine/controller.
Psion = Wizard / Psionic / Controller No, just no. The point of these new classifications is to create builds that fit better with the game's legacy of organization. The psion has always been a different class than the wizard. I think it should stay that way.
Seeker = Ranger / Martial & Primal / Controller (has already been revised into the Hunter)
Swordmage = options for the Fighter and Wizard classes and/or a Fighter/Wizard sub-class
Battlemind/Ardent = options for the Fighter classes involving a mechanic in which power points are used to augment basic attacks They make more sense as builds of the psion.
Warden = Druid / Primal / Defender... plus some multi-class stule options for the Knight
Artificer = Wizard / Arcane / 1 Leader type and 1 Controller type
Bard = Wizard / Arcane / 1 Leader type and 1 Controller type No, just no, for the exact same reason as I said no to the psion idea.
Runepriest = Wizard / Divine / Leader It makes more sense as a type of cleric.
Shaman = Druid / Primal / Leader (has already been revised into the Sentinel) [I do think that they messed with the fluff more than was really neccessary.]
Barbarian (Rageblood) = Druid / Primal / Striker I don't like it. The barbarian has historically been its own class, and been more martial than primal. I would prefer a new class, called barbarian, which is in some ways a strength based version of something like the scout. In other words, a martial/primal style character with martial at-will and encounter attacks and primal rages.
Barbarian (Thaneborn) = Druid / Primal / Leader Same as above.
Monk = martial artist style fighter with some Psionic options or psionic melee wizard The monk has historically been its own class, and so I would like to keep it this way.
Sorcerer = kept as its own class but now with seperate Bloodlines (similar to the Hexblade's Pacts)
Overall I agree with your concept. But, I really don't like some of your classifications. I put my notes on your thoughts above.
Why a Demon Pact? We have Infernal Pact. You want someone who made a pact with fiends? There you go.
2nd one - Ummmm...Dark Pact, nuff said.
Dragon Pact - Not really sure what you're really looking for here, as dragons aren't exactly the kinds of creatures to have power they can "bestow" upon other creatures.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again... in D&D demons and devils are rather different critters and the fluff and mechanics for an Abyssal Pact Warlock could be quite different from that of the Infernal Pact Warlock.
As for the Dragon Pact... There are multiple instances in 2nd & 3rd edition of people having power bestowed upon them by draconic patrons. I'm quite tired though and all I can think of off the top of my head are the pact-style magic-users of the "Council of Wyrms" setting.
As for the Binder... I kind of hope that it is a Controller Warlock, but someone else has mentioned them possibly being a Leader, and I think that that could be pretty cool as well.
Actually, mechanics-wise demons and devils have a lot of similarity. You have a strong motif of fire, for one, they both torture your soul for eternity if you sell it to either, etc.
And fluff is mutable.
Ummm...I have Council of Wyrms. Which pact-style magic user do you refer to? Because the humanoid "bonded companions" or whatever they were called used normal PHB classes, they just had extra nonweapon profs (like dragonriding) available, and I think it was ONE kit for a PC who could fight while riding his dragon.
But no magic user who gets his power from making a pact with a dragon...nope. Nothing.
It's also completely pointless, since mechanically these subclasses might as well be separate classes for all the overlap they allow, and where overlap is possible the results (leaders taking daily attack powers from a controller, etc) are far from ideal, to my eye.
I agree that 4e went a little overboard in introducing too many new classes too quickly without taking the time to really establish a place for many of them, or to stop and think whether there archetypes were broad or deep enough to really warrant a separate class. That said, the answer to that is to show restraint in introducing new class concepts - not to cut them off completely. Design decisions guided by that kind of pendulum style overreaction are terrible.
The warlord, the Swordmage, the Shaman - these were all great additions to D&D, all totally worthy of the places they've earned in the game. Yet none of them would exist under the current paradigm. Before 4e, there was no 'primal power source' - nature magic was just a subset of divine. After PHBII, one could hardly imagine Primal being shoved back under Divine's mantle in D&D. It's not the same thing anymore, it has it's own place in the feel and the lore of the game - and having it's own suite of classes is absolutely a major part of that. Did we need it? I guess not. But is the game better for it? Absolutely!
That's what I wanted out of Heroes of Shadow. That's what I waited two years for. The product that would take shadow magic out from under the mantle of arcane magic and give it its own essential place in D&D. Fully establish it in a way that you could never imagine it being shoved back under the other power sources again. And now the product that I had hoped would do that, potentially the only product that could in the entire duration of 4e, is doing exactly the opposite, and I find it really just upsetting.
The Vampire and whatever the assassin material in the book is offer some dying illusion of hope, but for the most part I feel like I've waited two years for nothing. Like I've just been wasting my time with 4e.
No need to fix anything... I said I meant.
For clarification, here is the breakdown of the new class format:
Class - Your class dictates basic background information about your character, especially story fluff. I.E. Fighters are military trained specialists with weapons and armor, Wizards are the foremost specialists with magic who gain they're power through long research and stufy, and Clerics are priestly types who gain Divine magic/power by way of being the subject of secret investiture rituals. (Just a few examples.)
Type / Sub-Class - Your Type (the word WotC uses) or Sub-Class (the word most forum posters use) dicates your class features, powers, hit points, skills, more specialized story fluff, etc.
Build - specializations within your Sub-Class... not much to say here, it's pretty self-explanatory. Examples include the Knight's weapon/shield specializations (Longsword & Shield, Warhammer & Shield, or Quarterstaff), the Mage's Schools of Magic (Illusion, Pyromancy, Evocation, Charm, Necromancy, Nethermancy), and the Warpriest's Domains (Sun, Earth, Death, Storm).
I feel that this is a far superior model when compared to the pre-Essentials class format.
Class - You pretty much described the powersources. Except you share utilities and sometimes powers. (which i wil admit is a fine idea)
Type / Sub-Class - So what used to be classes.
Build - So what builds are.
My point, its practicly the same as the old model, you just have new powerscource feats and can trade utilities.
I will admit, the new model has a bit of premise, I kinda like the idea of combining classes in some cases, but I would hardly call it "far surperior"
Actually, mechanics-wise demons and devils have a lot of similarity. You have a strong motif of fire, for one, they both torture your soul for eternity if you sell it to either, etc.
I didn't think that demons were interested in souls. I was under the impression that demons only cared for death and destruction. But then I could be wrong.
I think the pact sounds awesome and is what the Dark Pact should have been. The thing I disliked most about the Hexblade was the lack of Shadow Walk.
I also glad they are giving an alternative to Eldritch Blast - I just don't like pure damage powers with no riders. I would rather have the dmg die reduced and have a rider. So glad to see no Eldritch Blast on the Binder Pact. It is also cool the power that replaces it is a Close Blast.
Heroes of Shadows sounds great so far - I just wish we would get better previews for it.
I like the Dark Pact pact boon but their At-will power is just sad...
I warn you now, do not get your hopes up.
Kudos to Wizards for learning from criticism. I do hope that the class is AEDU-style and about using shadow to utilize life-draining powers, and not being a real vampire. I also hope that we get a self-contained AEDU Necromancer class in a future product (Shadow Power?).
the vampire is a vampire proper, the February and Beyond preview pretty much solidified that.
Actually, mechanics-wise demons and devils have a lot of similarity. You have a strong motif of fire, for one, they both torture your soul for eternity if you sell it to either, etc.
I didn't think that demons were interested in souls. I was under the impression that demons only cared for death and destruction. But then I could be wrong.
Demons consume souls to gain power. More intelligent demons give power to cultists to increase their influence and power in order to rise in the demonic ranks.
the vampire is a vampire proper, the February and Beyond preview pretty much solidified that.
Sadly, that's all it did. After the crunchy previews in December and January, February's non-preview is pretty lame.
Not that I necessarily liked the mechanics on display in Dec and Jan, but they at least gave us something to talk about. At this point there's nothing new to discuss for Heroes of Shadow until March.
the vampire is a vampire proper, the February and Beyond preview pretty much solidified that.
Sadly, that's all it did. After the crunchy previews in December and January, February's non-preview is pretty lame.
Not that I necessarily liked the mechanics on display in Dec and Jan, but they at least gave us something to talk about. At this point there's nothing new to discuss for Heroes of Shadow until March.
yeah, that preview article was pretty much a let down...
it told us stuff we already knew and gave some concept art / cover images
For clarification, here is the breakdown of the new class format:
Class - Your class dictates basic background information about your character, especially story fluff. I.E. Fighters are military trained specialists with weapons and armor, Wizards are the foremost specialists with magic who gain they're power through long research and stufy, and Clerics are priestly types who gain Divine magic/power by way of being the subject of secret investiture rituals. (Just a few examples.)
Type / Sub-Class - Your Type (the word WotC uses) or Sub-Class (the word most forum posters use) dicates your class features, powers, hit points, skills, more specialized story fluff, etc.
Build - specializations within your Sub-Class... not much to say here, it's pretty self-explanatory. Examples include the Knight's weapon/shield specializations (Longsword & Shield, Warhammer & Shield, or Quarterstaff), the Mage's Schools of Magic (Illusion, Pyromancy, Evocation, Charm, Necromancy, Nethermancy), and the Warpriest's Domains (Sun, Earth, Death, Storm).
I feel that this is a far superior model when compared to the pre-Essentials class format.
Interesting take on the e-design.
So along these lines, they reorganized the oCleric 'class' into the eWarpriest 'type', thus leaving more design space for other kinds of Cleric types. For example, in addition to the Warpriest gish (warrior-mage) type, there can be a separate 'Thaumaturge' mage type, along the lines of the original light-armor Laser Cleric.
And so on for the 'classes'.
I want to be able to build a character that uses options from both types, for example the Warpriest and the hypothetical Thaumaturge. Presumably I will be able to by means of some kind of 'hybrid' mechanic. If so, I can appreciate this design structure.
It also means that classes like the Avenger (whose story fluff basically describes as Clerics who are meant to hunt people down rather than be a leader of men) can now be re-done as a "sub-class of Cleric.
Here's the breakdown, as I see it, of pre-Essentials classes that could be revised and reorganized:
Warlord = Fighter / Martial / Leader (and hopefully with a better name)
Avenger = Cleric/ Divine / Striker
Invoker = Wizard / Divine / Controller
Psion = Wizard / Psionic / Controller
Seeker = Ranger / Martial & Primal / Controller (has already been revised into the Hunter)
Swordmage = options for the Fighter and Wizard classes and/or a Fighter/Wizard sub-class
Battlemind/Ardent = options for the Fighter classes involving a mechanic in which power points are used to augment basic attacks
Warden = Druid / Primal / Defender... plus some multi-class stule options for the Knight
Artificer = Wizard / Arcane / 1 Leader type and 1 Controller type
Bard = Wizard / Arcane / 1 Leader type and 1 Controller type
Runepriest = Wizard / Divine / Leader
Shaman = Druid / Primal / Leader (has already been revised into the Sentinel) [I do think that they messed with the fluff more than was really neccessary.]
Barbarian (Rageblood) = Druid / Primal / Striker
Barbarian (Thaneborn) = Druid / Primal / Leader
Monk = martial artist style fighter with some Psionic options or psionic melee wizard
Sorcerer = kept as its own class but now with seperate Bloodlines (similar to the Hexblade's Pacts)
I really, really, really hope they do not touch this idea with a ten foot pole (well, anymore than they already have).
the vampire is a vampire proper, the February and Beyond preview pretty much solidified that.
Sadly, that's all it did. After the crunchy previews in December and January, February's non-preview is pretty lame.
Not that I necessarily liked the mechanics on display in Dec and Jan, but they at least gave us something to talk about. At this point there's nothing new to discuss for Heroes of Shadow until March.
They probably intentionally didn't release any crunchy bits because of the backlash they caused the last times. I fear this confirms that there is no pre-E content since that's what these forums have pleaded for them to preview to show that it is there.
I guess nobody noticed, the twitter that mentioned warlocks also mentioned death warpriests. So, thew support for clerics is obviously the death domain, the clerical version of the necromancer and nethermancer.
I noticed, and I am quite happy about it. I kind of assumed that that was what the Cleric support would be though, so not really shocked.
I really, really, really hope they do not touch this idea with a ten foot pole (well, anymore than they already have).
The simple fact that rational people think this is stupid means it is very likely to be in the works.
Thank you for calling me irrational. I guess most of the gamers I know are also irrational.
Plus, I think it's funny that you consider your statement to be a "fact."
I really, really, really hope they do not touch this idea with a ten foot pole (well, anymore than they already have).
The simple fact that rational people think this is stupid means it is very likely to be in the works.
Oh god, there is so much irony here it is delicious. Calling people rational because they happen to hold a subjective opinion is an irrational statement. Calling an irrational statement a fact is, well, something 'awesome.'
I guess nobody noticed, the twitter that mentioned warlocks also mentioned death warpriests. So, thew support for clerics is obviously the death domain, the clerical version of the necromancer and nethermancer.
It is good that cleric is being thrown a bone. However if that is the case, Pre-E clerics better have some way to get access to the death domain class features, otherwise I'm going to throw a fit when that book reaches my house in April. Being able to choose the attack powers, utilities and feats, paragon paths will be nice, but the exclusion of the ability to choose the domain class features for pre-E clerics would be a deal-breaker for me. (this also includes necromancy schools, nethermancy, and any other essentials only build that the parent class has NO choice to pick up if desired. I want to play a normal wizard with the necromancy school and not have to be a Mage, and a normal cleric with the death Domain features without having to be a warpriest.)
I guess nobody noticed, the twitter that mentioned warlocks also mentioned death warpriests. So, thew support for clerics is obviously the death domain, the clerical version of the necromancer and nethermancer.
It is good that cleric is being thrown a bone. However if that is the case, Pre-E clerics better have some way to get access to the death domain class features, otherwise I'm going to throw a fit when that book reaches my house in April. Being able to choose the attack powers, utilities and feats, paragon paths will be nice, but the exclusion of the ability to choose the domain class features for pre-E clerics would be a deal-breaker for me. (this also includes necromancy schools, nethermancy, and any other essentials only build that the parent class has NO choice to pick up if desired. I want to play a normal wizard with the necromancy school and not have to be a Mage, and a normal cleric with the death Domain features without having to be a warpriest.)
Just so I understand, you are basically wanting the pre-essentials classes to be able to utilise essentials class features?
Yes, a thousand times YES! Why is this so hard to understand? Build... class. The class should be able to use the build, otherwise it should be a NEW CLASS.
Just so I understand, you are basically wanting the pre-essentials classes to be able to utilise essentials class features?
Yes! If essentials formats and content are the future or the direction that wotc is going with, they should make sure its choices that the old classes can pick up. This idea pretty much is the missing link between essentials/non-essentials and I hope that they implement it. And by doing so, it will make everyone happy and there will almost no legitimate gripe against essentials content since you would have the option to use it all with the old class without being forced to be a new sub-class of your own class to benefit from it.
Yes! If essentials formats and content are the future or the direction that wotc is going with, they should make sure its choices that the old classes can pick up. This idea pretty much is the missing link between essentials/non-essentials and I hope that they implement it. And by doing so, it will make everyone happy and there will almost no legitimate gripe against essentials content since you would have the option to use it all with the old class without being forced to be a new sub-class of your own class to benefit from it.
It won't make me happy at all. For one, it imports all of the balance issues with essentials classes into the otherwise better balanced 4e classes, and creates even worse balance and thematic consistency issues in the process.
Do you honestly think PHB classes built around their defender mechanics like the fighter or the paladin could be balanced if you let them trade those defender mechanics for striker mechanics from the Knight or Blackguard? Do you really think there's any reasonable way for the Druid to trade its wild shape ability for an animal companion? What exactly are the knight's stances equivalent to - at will powers? Daily powers?
Simply put, 4e and essentials aren't peanut butter and chocolate. Rather, they're milk and orange juice. Both can sit at the same table as part of a healthy breakfast, but they are not to be mixed within the same glass.
More importantly when it comes to my own happiness with the game, I WANT A SHADOW POWER SOURCE. With new SHADOW classes built from the ground up with new SHADOW feats, powers, and class features all designed to embody new SHADOW fluff and new SHADOW flavor, without having to sacrifice any portion of that fluff or flavor in order to mesh with the fluff and flavor of some other, non-shadow source.
I didn't want Heroes of Shadow to support original 4e classes or essentials subclasses - I wanted new classes to give the Shadow power source a conceptual foothold in D&D the way PHBII classes gave such a foothold to the Primal power source, in short classes that could do for Shadow what the Warden and especially the Shaman did for Primal, while at the same time adding something distinctively new to the game, something that could push the game forward and leave a lasting impression on editions to come. It makes me bitter and unhappy to see the strong Shadow archetypes that could have done this broken down and their components bent and distorted to fit the mold of non-Shadow essentials classes, and distorting them further so they can fit non-Shadow 4e PHB classes as well will only further irritate me.
(note: sorry for the caps - I don't mean to be shouting - it's just that bold seems to be broken at the moment, and italics didn't have the right emphasis. I'll change back to regular-case Bold once it's working)
[hyperbole]It makes me cry bitter tears at night[/hyperbole] when I think of how close I was to getting a real Shadow power source. If only essentials had been one year later! Just one year! But no. This is what we're getting, and expecting any more support for Shadow from WotC this edition seems... hopelessly optimistic.
I've sent letters, but I doubt anyone reads them. And there is no meaningful monitary way to deliver the message of what I want, even if there were a lot of people who wanted the same thing. If HoS sells well, then it's because this format, and the idea of replacing new classes with rebuilds of old classes, is a success. If HoS sells poorly, then it's because nobody wants shadow stuff in D&D. It's really kind of depressing.
It makes me cry bitter tears when I think of how close I was to getting a real Shadow power source. If only essentials had been one year later! Just one year! But no. This is what we're getting, and expecting any more support for Shadow from WotC this edition seems... hopelessly optimistic.
The publication date wouldn't matter if they had kept to their promise of Essentials being 10 products instead of 10 + whatever they publish from now on. Breaking that promise and its consequences is what makes me mad at Wizards at the moment (well, that and the online CB).
It makes me cry bitter tears when I think of how close I was to getting a real Shadow power source. If only essentials had been one year later! Just one year! But no. This is what we're getting, and expecting any more support for Shadow from WotC this edition seems... hopelessly optimistic.
Just be glad you aren't someone who was looking forward to the Elemental power source more than any other.
The Shadow power source at least got one class that "got it" even if it could be better mechanically. Elemental got nothing. It makes me cry bitter tears when I think of how close I was to getting a real Shadow power source. If only essentials had been one year later! Just one year! But no. This is what we're getting, and expecting any more support for Shadow from WotC this edition seems... hopelessly optimistic.
Just be glad you aren't someone who was looking forward to the Elemental power source more than any other.
Nothing, yet! Though there's no evidence of it coming.
Mal, do you honestly care so much about a game that you cry when you don't get exactly what you want? No we don't get PHBs anymore because the format was limited in it's potential. And I somewhat agree that they could be more focused on the "Heroes of" books, however I am not against the idea of getting new options for older classes along with new classes. I think that if they had done that instead of the Power books, you and other people wouldn't be so outraged.
No, I don't actually cry about it. Hyporbole, admittedly on second reading not as readily apparant as I thought. I am rather prone to hyperbole, generally intended for somewhat comedic effect (I did once compare Heroes of Shadow to WotC running over my dog then taking it to a taxadermist to be stuffed and pretending that he's just sleeping) Anyway, I'll go back and edit.
Otherwise: If the current format, as is, were the replacement for powers books instead of PHBs, yeah, I'd be totally behind it.
Even as PHBs, I like the heroes of format - or at least the deliberate attempt to put all PHB style options for a particular theme inside a particular source, rather then have, say, divine classes spread between three different PHBs.
I just want these distinct themes, especially those on the power source level, to get their own material, rather then being shoved under the hat of otherwise unrelated material. Replace the subclasses in HoS with new shadow classes and, provided those classes are mechanically balanced and thematically consistent, HoS suddenly becomes my absolute favorite D&D supplement ever. I would love for this to be the organizational model for PHBs going forward, I just want new classes if a new power source is being introduced.
As for elemental - I never really understood what archetypes were going to fall under elemental's banner (even ki I could get a better picture of in my minds eye), but I can certainly empathize with those who were excited when they heard about it and now will most likely never see it in any form at all. That said, at least there's always still hope that it might come around. Elemental is missing in action. HoS is Shadow's body washed up on the shore, as the chances of getting a second major release dedicated to shadow seem even lower then the already practically nonexistant chances of WotC changing their minds about the whole Post-e design philosophy and releasing a PHBIV next year with actual elemental classes.
It makes me cry bitter tears when I think of how close I was to getting a real Shadow power source. If only essentials had been one year later! Just one year! But no. This is what we're getting, and expecting any more support for Shadow from WotC this edition seems... hopelessly optimistic.
The publication date wouldn't matter if they had kept to their promise of Essentials being 10 products instead of 10 + whatever they publish from now on. Breaking that promise and its consequences is what makes me mad at Wizards at the moment (well, that and the online CB).
Officially HoS is not an Essentials product. It supports options originally printed therein, but is not a part of the actual series. Obviously they were going to continue supporting the Essentials options, they gave no indication that they wouldn't. In fact they made it quite clear that this was one of the new directions that they were going in, and that Essentials was the introduction to this newer design direction.
Mal, do you honestly care so much about a game that you cry when you don't get exactly what you want? No we don't get PHBs anymore because the format was limited in it's potential. And I somewhat agree that they could be more focused on the "Heroes of" books, however I am not against the idea of getting new options for older classes along with new classes. I think that if they had done that instead of the Power books, you and other people wouldn't be so outraged.
No, I don't actually cry about it. Hyporbole, admittedly on second reading not as readily apparant as I thought. Will edit.
If the current format, as is, were the replacement for powers books instead of PHBs, yeah, I'd be totally behind it.
Even as PHBs, I like the heroes of format - or at least the deliberate attempt to put all PHB style options for a particular theme inside a particular source, rather then have, say, divine classes spread between three different PHBs.
I just want these distinct themes, especially those on the power source level, to get their own material, rather then being shoved under the hat of otherwise unrelated material. Replace the subclasses in HoS with new shadow classes and, provided those classes are mechanically balanced and thematically consistent, HoS suddenly becomes my absolute favorite D&D supplement ever. I would love for this to be the organizational model for PHBs going forward, I just want new classes if a new power source is being introduced.
As for elemental - I never really understood what archetypes were going to fall under elemental's banner (even ki I could get a better picture of in my minds eye), but I can certainly empathize with those who were excited when they heard about it and now will most likely never see it in any form at all. That said, at least there's always still hope that it might come around. Elemental is missing in action. HoS is Shadow's body washed up on the shore, as the chances of getting a second major release dedicated to shadow seem functionally nil.
The point I was trying to make, Mal, was that this is the new replacement for both the Power books and the PHB. Could they improve the format by increasing the amount of original classes in the book? Of course, but one is a good start considering that evidence points to there originally being none at all. I know shadow is your favorite and I can understand that you are less than satisfied with them banging out the kinks of the new direction on your baby. I'm just saying that the new direction has some potential.
But this is heroes of Shadow, and Shadow needed its own classes to establish a meaningful and lasting place within the game, and cannibalizing shadow archetypes for material to give to existing non-shadow e-classes just completely undercuts the entire point. Heck, I would have been mildly annoyed but overall content and even happy for e-style classes if they were new, shadow e-style classes. I don't care about e-style or not. I just want new classes for new power sources.
If they wanted to do a book of options for existing classes, they should have picked, say, Heroes of the feywild, with options and e-builds for existing arcane, divine, and primal classes that would have provided a strong theme to develop existing classes without squashing an entire power source's potential thematic space.
It makes me cry bitter tears when I think of how close I was to getting a real Shadow power source. If only essentials had been one year later! Just one year! But no. This is what we're getting, and expecting any more support for Shadow from WotC this edition seems... hopelessly optimistic.
The publication date wouldn't matter if they had kept to their promise of Essentials being 10 products instead of 10 + whatever they publish from now on. Breaking that promise and its consequences is what makes me mad at Wizards at the moment (well, that and the online CB).
Officially HoS is not an Essentials product. It supports options originally printed therein, but is not a part of the actual series. Obviously they were going to continue supporting the Essentials options, they gave no indication that they wouldn't. In fact they made it quite clear that this was one of the new directions that they were going in, and that Essentials was the introduction to this newer design direction.
Officiality doesn't matter, the content does. Can you please find me a quote from the first half of 2010 or earlier that says that Essentials was going to be the new direction instead of a bunch of products for newbies?
I hate to be negative, I really do, but I just don't see it happening without a "price" to pay. The Essentials and Pre-Essentials classes are very different, and frankly I just can't see them being able to free-form mix-and-match without major redesign of everything that already exists. Now a feat could do this fairly easily in a way similar to multiclassing, but just giving it to you for no cost is just impossible without a total overhaul. I fear that you will not get what you desire until the next Edition, if even then.
I actually think that they aren't that different at all. And I believe choosing your class feature is enough of a cost. A fighter who picks up Heroic Slayer, probably couldn't pick up Combat Challenge, Combat Superiority or Defender's Aura+Battle Guardian. Ergo, that fighter will not be a defender as he/she cannot mark and has no defender mechanics to support it. However, that fighter will do more damage than a normal fighter and be a striker. This is the exact same logic as a fighter who picks up the tempest technique class feature can't pick up the battlerager class feature or the fighter weapon talent class feature, thats the inherent cost.
Basically all you have to do is compare the difference between parent class and the sub-class and create a balanced set of exchange between class features. What other differences does the slayer have compared to the standard fighter?
Heroic Slayer,Mighty Slayer, Paragon Slayer, epic slayer = Combat Challenge.
Power Strike, Improved Power Strike, Greater Power Strike + Weapon specialization = 3 Encounter powers.
The first two initial stances = the equivalent of two at-will powers.
The fighter has combat superiority, Fighter Weapon Talent and 3 daily powers left while
The slayer has the following remaining class features,
Spirit of War(Can save at start of turn),
Relentless Slayer (Immune to slow condition),
Unfettered Slayer (ignore speed penalties of heavy armor)
Armored Mobility (Resistance of 10+dex vs oa's.)
Extra Stance at level 17,7
Inexorable Slayer (+1 to saves)
Quick Swap (draw/stow weapon as free action 1/rd)
Weapon Talent (+1 to attacks with weapons)
Now, I can't tell you for sure if the exchange of 3 daily powers and two class features is the equivalent or a fair trade for two extra at-will powers and that large list of extra class features. However, it seems like a good guess to start. That is unless playing a class that just spams the same encounter power over and over again equates to gaining an extra class feature or two...
It makes me cry bitter tears when I think of how close I was to getting a real Shadow power source. If only essentials had been one year later! Just one year! But no. This is what we're getting, and expecting any more support for Shadow from WotC this edition seems... hopelessly optimistic.
The publication date wouldn't matter if they had kept to their promise of Essentials being 10 products instead of 10 + whatever they publish from now on. Breaking that promise and its consequences is what makes me mad at Wizards at the moment (well, that and the online CB).
Officially HoS is not an Essentials product. It supports options originally printed therein, but is not a part of the actual series. Obviously they were going to continue supporting the Essentials options, they gave no indication that they wouldn't. In fact they made it quite clear that this was one of the new directions that they were going in, and that Essentials was the introduction to this newer design direction.
Officiality doesn't matter, the content does. Can you please find me a quote from the first half of 2010 or earlier that says that Essentials was going to be the new direction instead of a bunch of products for newbies?
Though not from the first half of the year, nor stating it explicitly the following article link implies the changes.
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
I hate to be negative, I really do, but I just don't see it happening without a "price" to pay. The Essentials and Pre-Essentials classes are very different, and frankly I just can't see them being able to free-form mix-and-match without major redesign of everything that already exists. Now a feat could do this fairly easily in a way similar to multiclassing, but just giving it to you for no cost is just impossible without a total overhaul. I fear that you will not get what you desire until the next Edition, if even then.
I actually think that they aren't that different at all. And I believe choosing your class feature is enough of a cost. A fighter who picks up Heroic Slayer, probably couldn't pick up Combat Challenge, Combat Superiority or Defender's Aura+Battle Guardian. Ergo, that fighter will not be a defender as he/she cannot mark and has no defender mechanics to support it. However, that fighter will do more damage than a normal fighter and be a striker. This is the exact same logic as a fighter who picks up the tempest technique class feature can't pick up the battlerager class feature or the fighter weapon talent class feature, thats the inherent cost.
Basically all you have to do is compare the difference between parent class and the sub-class and create a balanced set of exchange between class features. What other differences does the slayer have compared to the standard fighter?
Heroic Slayer,Mighty Slayer, Paragon Slayer, epic slayer = Combat Challenge.
Power Strike, Improved Power Strike, Greater Power Strike + Weapon specialization = 3 Encounter powers.
The first two initial stances = the equivalent of two at-will powers.
The fighter has combat superiority, Fighter Weapon Talent and 3 daily powers left while
The slayer has the following remaining class features,
Spirit of War(Can save at start of turn),
Relentless Slayer (Immune to slow condition),
Unfettered Slayer (ignore speed penalties of heavy armor)
Armored Mobility (Resistance of 10+dex vs oa's.)
Extra Stance at level 17,7
Inexorable Slayer (+1 to saves)
Quick Swap (draw/stow weapon as free action 1/rd)
Weapon Talent (+1 to attacks with weapons)
Now, I can't tell you for sure if the exchange of 3 daily powers and two class features is the equivalent or a fair trade for two extra at-will powers and that large list of extra class features. However, it seems like a good guess to start. That is unless playing a class that just spams the same encounter power over and over again equates to gaining an extra class feature or two...
For this to work, all sense of balance as well as any clarity of story elements would have to be thrown out and rewritten. If you want this you should either wait for the possibility of hybrid rules for Essentials style classes, or write them yourself because that is the only way this would happen.
I really, really, really hope they do not touch this idea with a ten foot pole (well, anymore than they already have).
The simple fact that rational people think this is stupid means it is very likely to be in the works.
Oh god, there is so much irony here it is delicious. Calling people rational because they happen to hold a subjective opinion is an irrational statement. Calling an irrational statement a fact is, well, something 'awesome.'
Dammit, Thunder. Stop quoting me! It's like that one South Park where the KKK wanted to support the Republicans. I'd rather not be guilty by association. ;)
The two or three klan mambers I know are republicans...You already are.
Thunder, what I was trying to say is that your extremist views are making me look bad when you quote me.
I was trying to make a joke. I suppose you missed it. I have to remember that the internet and my sense of humor mix about as well as oil and water.
Also, I'm a democrat, bleeding-heart liberal.
For instance, artwork:
I love the cover art. It's a little bright, but the . . . I guess we'll assume blackguard? Looks cool and intimidating, and has a shadowy feel. The previewed vampire image, on the other hand, I find to be less impressive. Just sort of generic. Doesn't really have a sense of personality to it, and the art's a bit . . . I don't know . . . messy? Like, the proportions & angles feel a little off to me. Basically, I look at that art and see a perfectly serviceable monster, but I don't see a character I would actually want to play. click back to the cover art, and yeah, I could totally see myself playing that guy in a campaign.
Or Shades. We haven't talked about Shades yet in this thread:
I love the idea of racial utility powers, but I think it's something that every race should have access to. I'm iffy on the background material we've seen for Shades, as it seems to be the same as the background material for the powersource as a whole. If a human trades a piece of their soul for a shard of the shadowfell's essence, do they gain a shadow class, or do they become the Shade race? (Similarly, is a human vampire a Vryloka, or a human with the vampire class?). It feels somewhat incoherent to me, and runs the risk of stealing the (imo) coolest fluff aspect of the shadow power source and concentrate it into one terrible, ostracized race.
And on the subject of their mechanical terribleness, What's the deal with the healing surge penalty? It seems to be a penalty for no mechanical reason and with no mechanical offset. And what's the deal with their racial power?
I don't know. I find them overall to be both thematically and mechanically inferior to Shadar-Kai, while occupying a very similar niche, which leaves them, subjective impression here, feeling lackluster and redundant.
It makes me cry bitter tears when I think of how close I was to getting a real Shadow power source. If only essentials had been one year later! Just one year! But no. This is what we're getting, and expecting any more support for Shadow from WotC this edition seems... hopelessly optimistic.
The publication date wouldn't matter if they had kept to their promise of Essentials being 10 products instead of 10 + whatever they publish from now on. Breaking that promise and its consequences is what makes me mad at Wizards at the moment (well, that and the online CB).
Officially HoS is not an Essentials product. It supports options originally printed therein, but is not a part of the actual series. Obviously they were going to continue supporting the Essentials options, they gave no indication that they wouldn't. In fact they made it quite clear that this was one of the new directions that they were going in, and that Essentials was the introduction to this newer design direction.
Officiality doesn't matter, the content does. Can you please find me a quote from the first half of 2010 or earlier that says that Essentials was going to be the new direction instead of a bunch of products for newbies?
Though not from the first half of the year, nor stating it explicitly the following article link implies the changes.
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
Yeah, I can live with the changes mentioned in that article. What I don't like is that explicit support for pre-E classes or new pre-E-style classes are apparently not on the works anymore in print products. That change came out of the blue. It was implied that after Essentials, support for the old classes would continue, since Essentials was to be an introductory product used as a stepping stone to true AEDU-classes. Having seen HoS previews that does not seem to be the case. We, who do not like E-classes don't have much to wait for in future products.
Guys, can the politics. We've already had one thread closed for off-topic arguments. Let's stay focused. Heroes of Shadow. What do we think of the previewed mechanics. What do we think of the design decisions behind them. What do we think of the couple pieces of artwork we've seen.
For instance, artwork:
I love the cover art. It's a little bright, but the . . . I guess we'll assume blackguard? Looks cool and intimidating, and has a shadowy feel. The previewed vampire image, on the other hand, I find to be less impressive. Just sort of generic. Doesn't really have a sense of personality to it, and the art's a bit . . . I don't know . . . messy? Like, the proportions & angles feel a little off to me. Basically, I look at that art and see a perfectly serviceable monster, but I don't see a character I would actually want to play. click back to the cover art, and yeah, I could totally see myself playing that guy in a campaign.
Or Shades. We haven't talked about Shades yet in this thread:
I love the idea of racial utility powers, but I think it's something that every race should have access to. I'm iffy on the background material we've seen for Shades, as it seems to be the same as the background material for the powersource as a whole. If a human trades a piece of their soul for a shard of the shadowfell's essence, do they gain a shadow class, or do they become the Shade race? (Similarly, is a human vampire a Vryloka, or a human with the vampire class?). It feels somewhat incoherent to me, and runs the risk of stealing the (imo) coolest fluff aspect of the shadow power source and concentrate it into one terrible, ostracized race.
And on the subject of their mechanical terribleness, What's the deal with the healing surge penalty? It seems to be a penalty for no mechanical reason and with no mechanical offset. And what's the deal with their racial power?
I don't know. I find them overall to be both thematically and mechanically inferior to Shadar-Kai, while occupying a very similar niche, which leaves them, subjective impression here, feeling lackluster and redundant.
Shades are a legacy race. Their fluff predates 4e, and the labeling of power sources. Theoretically, shadow got it's fluff from the "old" shade and classes that were thematically shadowy. As far as the Vryloka, I think the main difference could be that vampires proper are undead while the Vryloka may just be humans that have some sort of hereditary magical affliction, like hemophilia only magic.
Especially given that the core setting origin of Shadar-Kai doesn't work in the Realms, where the Raven Queen doesn't exist. The cold, necrotic, teleportation, incorporeal, stat mods, feats, PrCs and Destinies - all of the aspects of the Shadar-Kai race already map perfectly well to the Shades of the Realms with minimal refluffing.
As for that potential distinction between Vryloka and Vampires... That doesn't entirely strike me as compelling. I'll wait until we see more of the fluff of the race and the class to really complain more, but I'm anticipating a kind of "tying the fluff in knots to try and fit the mechanics we want to do, rather then trying to come up with coherent concepts and then build mechanics to reflect them" sort of situation.
It makes me cry bitter tears when I think of how close I was to getting a real Shadow power source. If only essentials had been one year later! Just one year! But no. This is what we're getting, and expecting any more support for Shadow from WotC this edition seems... hopelessly optimistic.
The publication date wouldn't matter if they had kept to their promise of Essentials being 10 products instead of 10 + whatever they publish from now on. Breaking that promise and its consequences is what makes me mad at Wizards at the moment (well, that and the online CB).
Officially HoS is not an Essentials product. It supports options originally printed therein, but is not a part of the actual series. Obviously they were going to continue supporting the Essentials options, they gave no indication that they wouldn't. In fact they made it quite clear that this was one of the new directions that they were going in, and that Essentials was the introduction to this newer design direction.
Officiality doesn't matter, the content does. Can you please find me a quote from the first half of 2010 or earlier that says that Essentials was going to be the new direction instead of a bunch of products for newbies?
Though not from the first half of the year, nor stating it explicitly the following article link implies the changes.
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
Yeah, I can live with the changes mentioned in that article. What I don't like is that explicit support for pre-E classes or new pre-E-style classes are apparently not on the works anymore in print products. That change came out of the blue. It was implied that after Essentials, support for the old classes would continue, since Essentials was to be an introductory product used as a stepping stone to true AEDU-classes. Having seen HoS previews that does not seem to be the case. We, who do not like E-classes don't have much to wait for in future products.
However, DDI is still supporting the pre-essentials material. Additionally, Heroes of Shadow is the first player product since the last "official" Essentials product and we don't actually know what is in it or the products to come after it. In April when someone gets it, and someone will, if we find out there is no pre-Essentials support, then your fears might be warranted. But until then I'm not ready to admit that there will no longer be any support for Pre-Essentials classes in print products.
The problem is, that Shadar-Kai's mechanics could easily have been applied to Forgotten Realm's Shades, much as Dopplegangers and Changelings became the same thing between editions.
Especially given that the core setting origin of Shadar-Kai doesn't work in the Realms, where the Raven Queen doesn't exist. The cold, necrotic, teleportation, incorporeal, stat mods, feats, PrCs and Destinies - all of the aspects of the Shadar-Kai race already map perfectly well to the Shades of the Realms with minimal refluffing.
As for that potential distinction between Vryloka and Vampires... That doesn't entirely strike me as compelling. I'll wait until we see more of the fluff of the race and the class to really complain more, but I'm anticipating a kind of "tying the fluff in knots to try and fit the mechanics we want to do, rather then trying to come up with coherent concepts and then build mechanics to reflect them" sort of situation.
I disagree. Shadar-kai, are pretty different from what Shades truely are. Shades are scholarly, arrogant, and chose to go to the Shadowfell in search of knowledge and power. Shadar-kai fled death and suckled upon the cold teet of the goddess of that which they feared most. Now the Shadar-kai must fight rabidly to prevent themselves from dissolving into ennui. Shades welcomed the shadow, Shadar-kai fight it ferociously. That's the Official fluff, though I did paraphrase.
Here's the breakdown, as I see it, of pre-Essentials classes that could be revised and reorganized:
Warlord = Fighter / Martial / Leader (and hopefully with a better name)
Avenger = Cleric/ Divine / Striker
Invoker = Wizard / Divine / Controller
Psion = Wizard / Psionic / Controller
Seeker = Ranger / Martial & Primal / Controller (has already been revised into the Hunter)
Swordmage = options for the Fighter and Wizard classes and/or a Fighter/Wizard sub-class
Battlemind/Ardent = options for the Fighter classes involving a mechanic in which power points are used to augment basic attacks
Warden = Druid / Primal / Defender... plus some multi-class stule options for the Knight
Artificer = Wizard / Arcane / 1 Leader type and 1 Controller type
Bard = Wizard / Arcane / 1 Leader type and 1 Controller type
Runepriest = Wizard / Divine / Leader
Shaman = Druid / Primal / Leader (has already been revised into the Sentinel) [I do think that they messed with the fluff more than was really neccessary.]
Barbarian (Rageblood) = Druid / Primal / Striker
Barbarian (Thaneborn) = Druid / Primal / Leader
Monk = martial artist style fighter with some Psionic options or psionic melee wizard
Sorcerer = kept as its own class but now with seperate Bloodlines (similar to the Hexblade's Pacts)
I agree on what I'm not about to criticize. Here's my thoughts on the rest.
Warlord: I thought about it, but I don't think Warlords belong in the fold of Fighter. They just have too much mechanical differentiation and thematic variance. They deserve their own class. They're definitely on the edge, but they're there. They succeed where 3.5's Marshal class failed.
Battlemind/Ardent: I think that there's tons of fluff and distinction between Battleminds and Psions to distinguish them as their own class. Ardents, ideally, have operational space as the Empathic Psion (y'know, if they drop the weapon crap). Battleminds (and Psychic Warriors before them) should remain, either as a kind of Fighter or as a distinct class. I suppose I vote for them being a kind of Fighter, being Martial and Psionic.
Warden: Personally, I don't get the Sentinel's preoccupation with weapon attacks. I always saw Druids as clothy spellcasters. That said, Warden fits no where but in itself. I think it'd be a great line of options for Fighters and Barbarians that wanted a primal-defender feel, but I don't think it fits as its own class or sub-class in a reorganization.
Bard: They aren't just wizards, and I think that the Cha/Con build demonstrates just that. There are dumb bards, and a dumb anything doesn't fit in the Wizard class.
Shaman: I think that there's a lot of missed opportunity in the idea from 3.5 of Incarnum, which was the manipulation of souls. I think that Incarnum and Primal power have a lot of similarities (enough for the former to be a part of the latter), and that Shaman could exist as a type of Incarnum-based class, seperate from Druid.
Barbarian: I think this could be a kind of Fighter. A kind of fighter that gets Rages. There's so much fluff in common between Barbarians and Slayers that it simply makes sense that Barbarians are merely an out-there kind of Fighter.
Warlock: I think that Warlock is the kind of class that deserves to be a whole slew of power sources. Arcane (fey, sorcerer-king), Divine (star), Elemental (infernal), Psionic (vestige), and Shadow (dark) all have a place, so far. Besides, it simply makes sense for a Warlock's power source to be dependent on the power type of his source.
Here's the breakdown, as I see it, of pre-Essentials classes that could be revised and reorganized:
Warlord = Fighter / Martial / Leader (and hopefully with a better name)
Avenger = Cleric/ Divine / Striker
Invoker = Wizard / Divine / Controller
Psion = Wizard / Psionic / Controller
Seeker = Ranger / Martial & Primal / Controller (has already been revised into the Hunter)
Swordmage = options for the Fighter and Wizard classes and/or a Fighter/Wizard sub-class
Battlemind/Ardent = options for the Fighter classes involving a mechanic in which power points are used to augment basic attacks
Warden = Druid / Primal / Defender... plus some multi-class stule options for the Knight
Artificer = Wizard / Arcane / 1 Leader type and 1 Controller type
Bard = Wizard / Arcane / 1 Leader type and 1 Controller type
Runepriest = Wizard / Divine / Leader
Shaman = Druid / Primal / Leader (has already been revised into the Sentinel) [I do think that they messed with the fluff more than was really neccessary.]
Barbarian (Rageblood) = Druid / Primal / Striker
Barbarian (Thaneborn) = Druid / Primal / Leader
Monk = martial artist style fighter with some Psionic options or psionic melee wizard
Sorcerer = kept as its own class but now with seperate Bloodlines (similar to the Hexblade's Pacts)
I agree on what I'm not about to criticize. Here's my thoughts on the rest.
Warlord: I thought about it, but I don't think Warlords belong in the fold of Fighter. They just have too much mechanical differentiation and thematic variance. They deserve their own class. They're definitely on the edge, but they're there. They succeed where 3.5's Marshal class failed.
Battlemind/Ardent: I think that there's tons of fluff and distinction between Battleminds and Psions to distinguish them as their own class. Ardents, ideally, have operational space as the Empathic Psion (y'know, if they drop the weapon crap). Battleminds (and Psychic Warriors before them) should remain, either as a kind of Fighter or as a distinct class. I suppose I vote for them being a kind of Fighter, being Martial and Psionic.
Warden: Personally, I don't get the Sentinel's preoccupation with weapon attacks. I always saw Druids as clothy spellcasters. That said, Warden fits no where but in itself. I think it'd be a great line of options for Fighters and Barbarians that wanted a primal-defender feel, but I don't think it fits as its own class or sub-class in a reorganization.
Bard: They aren't just wizards, and I think that the Cha/Con build demonstrates just that. There are dumb bards, and a dumb anything doesn't fit in the Wizard class.
Shaman: I think that there's a lot of missed opportunity in the idea from 3.5 of Incarnum, which was the manipulation of souls. I think that Incarnum and Primal power have a lot of similarities (enough for the former to be a part of the latter), and that Shaman could exist as a type of Incarnum-based class, seperate from Druid.
Barbarian: I think this could be a kind of Fighter. A kind of fighter that gets Rages. There's so much fluff in common between Barbarians and Slayers that it simply makes sense that Barbarians are merely an out-there kind of Fighter.
Warlock: I think that Warlock is the kind of class that deserves to be a whole slew of power sources. Arcane (fey, sorcerer-king), Divine (star), Elemental (infernal), Psionic (vestige), and Shadow (dark) all have a place, so far. Besides, it simply makes sense for a Warlock's power source to be dependent on the power type of his source.
I disagree on most of what you said, with the exception that I feel that the different warlock pacts could be cool if they combined arcane and another power source (and yes I know you advocated each one being it's own individual source, but I like them to all have a something in common) and a few other things. Really how they are doing things right now is not to far from this. Each subclass has at least one of their powersources in common with their base class. All wizards are arcane, all clerics are divine, so on and so on.
Though not from the first half of the year, nor stating it explicitly the following article link implies the changes.
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
That's the bone of contention. Between the beginning and the end of 2010, the "purpose"/"message"/"goal" what have you of essentials changed from something quite tolerable to pre-E fans to something that basically acts like an edition change.
I disagree. Shadar-kai, are pretty different from what Shades truely are. Shades are scholarly, arrogant, and chose to go to the Shadowfell in search of knowledge and power. Shadar-kai fled death and suckled upon the cold teet of the goddess of that which they feared most. Now the Shadar-kai must fight rabidly to prevent themselves from dissolving into ennui. Shades welcomed the shadow, Shadar-kai fight it ferociously. That's the Official fluff, though I did paraphrase.
Shadar-Kai are also scholarly and arrogant. However they chose to go to the Shadowfell, both went there and were changed by it in ways they didn't intend (Shades trapped themselves in a giant magical Fubar and are only relatively recently able to return). The S-K's fluff is heavily oriented around the Raven Queen, but the Raven Queen doesn't exist in the realms, so of course they would need a different origin story (note that Shadar Kai still need an origin story in the Realms that has nothing to do with the Raven Queen, whether they are Shades or not.
Compare to the Drow. In the core setting, Drow are entirely fluffed around their patron deity Lolth, to the same extent that Shadar-Kai are fluffed around the Raven Queen, if not more so. They like spiders because she's the spider queen. They're all conniving backstabbers because that's her nature, etc.
But in Eberron, there is no Lolth. Eberron Drow doen't worship Lolth there, because she doesn't exist. Their race didn't take team evil's side in a war between elven deities, because those deities don't exist. They aren't a society built entirely around conniving backstabbers, because they aren't entirely based around a conniing, backstabbing deity.
So Eberron Drow aren't inherently traitorous, don't all live underground, don't have a spider fetish, and don't have an ongoing blood-feud with other elves. In a lot of ways, they aren't Drow. Does that mean we need a new race of 'Dark Elves' for Eberron? Even if we don't need it, would it add anything good to the game? No. Because Drow are still a race of shadowy elves with darkness powers mechanically even if their society and history is different. Coming up with a new race of dark elves for Eberron just because their religion and society is different in that game would only add clutter.
Ditto Shadar-Kai and Shades. Yes, the personality of the FR Shade society and the core S-K society are somewhat different (though less so then you make out), but mechanically they're both shadow people residents of the Shadowfell, tainted by their time there, who have taken on aspects of its nature. Conceptually, I'm just not convinced that there's that much meaningful conceptual space between them.
Not that it matters too much. Unless Shades are revised before publication, their mechanics are such that Shadar-Kai will just be the better version of the same thing for anyone who wants that kind of character.
I think racial powers should be available for all races in the same way as skill powers with a feat that allows you to take one as an extra, so characters could get two extra utility powers (one skill and one racial) by taking two feats or can just swap existing utility powers (or 3 extra for humans and half humans?). I don't think that would make anybody overpowered given that the powers tend to be slightly weaker than class powers and usually just add a bit of flavour.
If the extra powers are part of the reason why shades lose a healing surge I think they would have to modify the race if they were to allow other races powers as well.
Essentials stuff is quite good and it is blessedly easy to produce an essentials martial character compared to a non-essentials character - which is fine as an additional option for players. However, there should be a policy to continue support for the pre-essentials characters. I can understand why they're focusing on Essentials - it becomes increasingly harder to produce new feats that aren't unbalanced or repetitive or powers that aren't treading on another class's toes or trumping an earlier, weaker version of a similar power. Essentials lets them narrow their class focus and restrict powers within the sub-class to a large degree. It's easier to manage and easier to spread the sub-classes over a wider area over a longer period of time.
However, there are many classes with huge potential and few powers to date like artificers, swordmages, runepriests, assassins, and the psionic classes. They should continue to be part of the official strategy and not an afterthought. I still want a pre-essentials quarterstaff article with some love for tempest fighters (what can I say, I liked Grace Jones in Conan).
If the gloom pact in teh book is to be tied to an essentials subclass then they should plan to produce a companion DDI article with a pre-essentials Eldritch Gloom Pact with a few powers (doesn't even need to be one per level as a starting point) and a paragon path. I will be mightily miffed if my shadow mage can't take a gloom pact at all.
It makes me cry bitter tears when I think of how close I was to getting a real Shadow power source. If only essentials had been one year later! Just one year! But no. This is what we're getting, and expecting any more support for Shadow from WotC this edition seems... hopelessly optimistic.
The publication date wouldn't matter if they had kept to their promise of Essentials being 10 products instead of 10 + whatever they publish from now on. Breaking that promise and its consequences is what makes me mad at Wizards at the moment (well, that and the online CB).
Officially HoS is not an Essentials product. It supports options originally printed therein, but is not a part of the actual series. Obviously they were going to continue supporting the Essentials options, they gave no indication that they wouldn't. In fact they made it quite clear that this was one of the new directions that they were going in, and that Essentials was the introduction to this newer design direction.
Officiality doesn't matter, the content does. Can you please find me a quote from the first half of 2010 or earlier that says that Essentials was going to be the new direction instead of a bunch of products for newbies?
Though not from the first half of the year, nor stating it explicitly the following article link implies the changes.
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
Yeah, I can live with the changes mentioned in that article. What I don't like is that explicit support for pre-E classes or new pre-E-style classes are apparently not on the works anymore in print products. That change came out of the blue. It was implied that after Essentials, support for the old classes would continue, since Essentials was to be an introductory product used as a stepping stone to true AEDU-classes. Having seen HoS previews that does not seem to be the case. We, who do not like E-classes don't have much to wait for in future products.
However, DDI is still supporting the pre-essentials material. Additionally, Heroes of Shadow is the first player product since the last "official" Essentials product and we don't actually know what is in it or the products to come after it. In April when someone gets it, and someone will, if we find out there is no pre-Essentials support, then your fears might be warranted. But until then I'm not ready to admit that there will no longer be any support for Pre-Essentials classes in print products.
Since only Essentials-style material has been previewed from HoS, I am skeptical. However, if I am wrong, I will be happy to buy you a bewerage of your choice when we meet.
I disagree. Shadar-kai, are pretty different from what Shades truely are. Shades are scholarly, arrogant, and chose to go to the Shadowfell in search of knowledge and power. Shadar-kai fled death and suckled upon the cold teet of the goddess of that which they feared most. Now the Shadar-kai must fight rabidly to prevent themselves from dissolving into ennui. Shades welcomed the shadow, Shadar-kai fight it ferociously. That's the Official fluff, though I did paraphrase.
Shadar-Kai are also scholarly and arrogant. However they chose to go to the Shadowfell, both went there and were changed by it in ways they didn't intend (Shades trapped themselves in a giant magical Fubar and are only relatively recently able to return). The S-K's fluff is heavily oriented around the Raven Queen, but the Raven Queen doesn't exist in the realms, so of course they would need a different origin story (note that Shadar Kai still need an origin story in the Realms that has nothing to do with the Raven Queen, whether they are Shades or not.
Compare to the Drow. In the core setting, Drow are entirely fluffed around their patron deity Lolth, to the same extent that Shadar-Kai are fluffed around the Raven Queen, if not more so. They like spiders because she's the spider queen. They're all conniving backstabbers because that's her nature, etc.
But in Eberron, there is no Lolth. Eberron Drow doen't worship Lolth there, because she doesn't exist. Their race didn't take team evil's side in a war between elven deities, because those deities don't exist. They aren't a society built entirely around conniving backstabbers, because they aren't entirely based around a conniing, backstabbing deity.
So Eberron Drow aren't inherently traitorous, don't all live underground, don't have a spider fetish, and don't have an ongoing blood-feud with other elves. In a lot of ways, they aren't Drow. Does that mean we need a new race of 'Dark Elves' for Eberron? Even if we don't need it, would it add anything good to the game? No. Because Drow are still a race of shadowy elves with darkness powers mechanically even if their society and history is different. Coming up with a new race of dark elves for Eberron just because their religion and society is different in that game would only add clutter.
Ditto Shadar-Kai and Shades. Yes, the personality of the FR Shade society and the core S-K society are somewhat different (though less so then you make out), but mechanically they're both shadow people residents of the Shadowfell, tainted by their time there, who have taken on aspects of its nature. Conceptually, I'm just not convinced that there's that much meaningful conceptual space between them.
Not that it matters too much. Unless Shades are revised before publication, their mechanics are such that Shadar-Kai will just be the better version of the same thing for anyone who wants that kind of character.
Eberron Drow do actually hate other elves. It's because they see them as betraying their ancestral ways. As for Shadar-kai and Shades your "mechanics" argument is invalid because you only mentioned one aspect that they have in common. Also you're confusing Shades with Shadovar, Shades were an upper class that bonded themselves intentionally with shadowstuff for the immediate power boost it granted them as well as social influence. Shadovar were the human residents of the city of Shade that were under the Shades. The Shadovar are incredibly similar to Shadar-kai, and that is why WotC made the Shadar-kai transformed Shadovar.
It makes me cry bitter tears when I think of how close I was to getting a real Shadow power source. If only essentials had been one year later! Just one year! But no. This is what we're getting, and expecting any more support for Shadow from WotC this edition seems... hopelessly optimistic.
The publication date wouldn't matter if they had kept to their promise of Essentials being 10 products instead of 10 + whatever they publish from now on. Breaking that promise and its consequences is what makes me mad at Wizards at the moment (well, that and the online CB).
Officially HoS is not an Essentials product. It supports options originally printed therein, but is not a part of the actual series. Obviously they were going to continue supporting the Essentials options, they gave no indication that they wouldn't. In fact they made it quite clear that this was one of the new directions that they were going in, and that Essentials was the introduction to this newer design direction.
Officiality doesn't matter, the content does. Can you please find me a quote from the first half of 2010 or earlier that says that Essentials was going to be the new direction instead of a bunch of products for newbies?
Though not from the first half of the year, nor stating it explicitly the following article link implies the changes.
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
Yeah, I can live with the changes mentioned in that article. What I don't like is that explicit support for pre-E classes or new pre-E-style classes are apparently not on the works anymore in print products. That change came out of the blue. It was implied that after Essentials, support for the old classes would continue, since Essentials was to be an introductory product used as a stepping stone to true AEDU-classes. Having seen HoS previews that does not seem to be the case. We, who do not like E-classes don't have much to wait for in future products.
However, DDI is still supporting the pre-essentials material. Additionally, Heroes of Shadow is the first player product since the last "official" Essentials product and we don't actually know what is in it or the products to come after it. In April when someone gets it, and someone will, if we find out there is no pre-Essentials support, then your fears might be warranted. But until then I'm not ready to admit that there will no longer be any support for Pre-Essentials classes in print products.
Since only Essentials-style material has been previewed from HoS, I am skeptical. However, if I am wrong, I will be happy to buy you a bewerage of your choice when we meet.
Vampire wasn't in Essentials, though we don't what it's like I am sure that it is not a subclass of a older class. It may be in a the Essentials style, but I doubt it will actually be attached to any other class. However that isn't really that reassuring.
"Few characters are pure shadow power users, like in the D&D editions of the past. I can’t wait to see the community reaction to the pure shadow user I helped create."
critical-hits.com/2011/02/04/the-dd-expe...
so rejoice Pure Shadow wanters!
Again, though, I could be surprised. Either way, it's still a shame to see the shadow archetypes with the most potential (dark-knight, shadowmancer, necromancer) cannibalized by non-shadow classes.
It makes me cry bitter tears when I think of how close I was to getting a real Shadow power source. If only essentials had been one year later! Just one year! But no. This is what we're getting, and expecting any more support for Shadow from WotC this edition seems... hopelessly optimistic.
The publication date wouldn't matter if they had kept to their promise of Essentials being 10 products instead of 10 + whatever they publish from now on. Breaking that promise and its consequences is what makes me mad at Wizards at the moment (well, that and the online CB).
Officially HoS is not an Essentials product. It supports options originally printed therein, but is not a part of the actual series. Obviously they were going to continue supporting the Essentials options, they gave no indication that they wouldn't. In fact they made it quite clear that this was one of the new directions that they were going in, and that Essentials was the introduction to this newer design direction.
Officiality doesn't matter, the content does. Can you please find me a quote from the first half of 2010 or earlier that says that Essentials was going to be the new direction instead of a bunch of products for newbies?
Though not from the first half of the year, nor stating it explicitly the following article link implies the changes.
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
Yeah, I can live with the changes mentioned in that article. What I don't like is that explicit support for pre-E classes or new pre-E-style classes are apparently not on the works anymore in print products. That change came out of the blue. It was implied that after Essentials, support for the old classes would continue, since Essentials was to be an introductory product used as a stepping stone to true AEDU-classes. Having seen HoS previews that does not seem to be the case. We, who do not like E-classes don't have much to wait for in future products.
However, DDI is still supporting the pre-essentials material. Additionally, Heroes of Shadow is the first player product since the last "official" Essentials product and we don't actually know what is in it or the products to come after it. In April when someone gets it, and someone will, if we find out there is no pre-Essentials support, then your fears might be warranted. But until then I'm not ready to admit that there will no longer be any support for Pre-Essentials classes in print products.
Since only Essentials-style material has been previewed from HoS, I am skeptical. However, if I am wrong, I will be happy to buy you a bewerage of your choice when we meet.
Vampire wasn't in Essentials, though we don't what it's like I am sure that it is not a subclass of a older class. It may be in a the Essentials style, but I doubt it will actually be attached to any other class. However that isn't really that reassuring.
Just because it isn't a subclass doesn't mean it won't be an essentials style class.
Edit: spelling
It makes me cry bitter tears when I think of how close I was to getting a real Shadow power source. If only essentials had been one year later! Just one year! But no. This is what we're getting, and expecting any more support for Shadow from WotC this edition seems... hopelessly optimistic.
The publication date wouldn't matter if they had kept to their promise of Essentials being 10 products instead of 10 + whatever they publish from now on. Breaking that promise and its consequences is what makes me mad at Wizards at the moment (well, that and the online CB).
Officially HoS is not an Essentials product. It supports options originally printed therein, but is not a part of the actual series. Obviously they were going to continue supporting the Essentials options, they gave no indication that they wouldn't. In fact they made it quite clear that this was one of the new directions that they were going in, and that Essentials was the introduction to this newer design direction.
Officiality doesn't matter, the content does. Can you please find me a quote from the first half of 2010 or earlier that says that Essentials was going to be the new direction instead of a bunch of products for newbies?
Though not from the first half of the year, nor stating it explicitly the following article link implies the changes.
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
Yeah, I can live with the changes mentioned in that article. What I don't like is that explicit support for pre-E classes or new pre-E-style classes are apparently not on the works anymore in print products. That change came out of the blue. It was implied that after Essentials, support for the old classes would continue, since Essentials was to be an introductory product used as a stepping stone to true AEDU-classes. Having seen HoS previews that does not seem to be the case. We, who do not like E-classes don't have much to wait for in future products.
However, DDI is still supporting the pre-essentials material. Additionally, Heroes of Shadow is the first player product since the last "official" Essentials product and we don't actually know what is in it or the products to come after it. In April when someone gets it, and someone will, if we find out there is no pre-Essentials support, then your fears might be warranted. But until then I'm not ready to admit that there will no longer be any support for Pre-Essentials classes in print products.
Since only Essentials-style material has been previewed from HoS, I am skeptical. However, if I am wrong, I will be happy to buy you a bewerage of your choice when we meet.
Vampire wasn't in Essentials, though we don't what it's like I am sure that it is not a subclass of a older class. It may be in a the Essentials style, but I doubt it will actually be attached to any other class. However that isn't really that reassuring.
Just because it isn't a subclass doesn't mean it won't be an essentials style class.
Edit: spelling
Read before quoting please, it makes you look bad.
The death warpriest's at-will debuffs an enemy instead of buffing allies - it also has an Effect line.
One of the other characters was the new vampire knight.
The players at DDXP got to keep their character sheets with these new classes but I am very surprised that those players haven't posted on the forums regarding the new classes or at least posted photos online.
Read before quoting please, it makes you look bad.
No what was said is right. Just because it's not a sub-class does not by default make it a 4.0 build. It could easily be a 4.5 design.
If it is not a 4.5 design I'd be very supprised.
Which I clearly stated. You should have read as well.
The new Binder binds spirits - supposebly allowing different boons effects. It also doesn't have the normal warlock curse ability but uses a set stat damage like the hexblade.
The death warpriest's at-will debuffs an enemy instead of buffing allies - it also has an Effect line.
One of the other characters was the new vampire knight.
The players at DDXP got to keep their character sheets with these new classes but I am very surprised that those players haven't posted on the forums regarding the new classes or at least posted photos online.
Vampire knight? You mean the vyrolak or whatever, or is the vampire a knight build?
The new Binder binds spirits - supposebly allowing different boons effects. It also doesn't have the normal warlock curse ability but uses a set stat damage like the hexblade.
The death warpriest's at-will debuffs an enemy instead of buffing allies - it also has an Effect line.
One of the other characters was the new vampire knight.
The players at DDXP got to keep their character sheets with these new classes but I am very surprised that those players haven't posted on the forums regarding the new classes or at least posted photos online.
Vampire knight? You mean the vyrolak or whatever, or is the vampire a knight build?
It was a Vyrolak Knight
The Binder was a Reverent.
There was a shade but not sure what class it was.
The Blackguard is more a Striker than Defender - apparently he has ways to get temp hps - by self inflicting damage he can do more damage with his hits.
I just can't believe none of the character sheets have been posted any where.
So far I am really liking what I hear about HoS. Too bad it has been delayed till April....
They can discuss them however as long as the above rule is followed.
They were allowed to keep them but are not allowed to post them or crunch from them wholesale.
They can discuss them however as long as the above rule is followed.
Ah no wonder
Last year when they had the Dark Sun ones there was alot more discussion about them.
I have seen a few posts about the Blackguard but nothing on the Necromancer and very little on the Binder. No concrete info -just general descriptions.
They were allowed to keep them but are not allowed to post them or crunch from them wholesale.
They can discuss them however as long as the above rule is followed.
Were they forced to sign some kind of agreement before playing? Will there be legal repercussions for them posting said material?
The next race I just wana have as a Player race is a demonelf (or fey'ri), But for now the ones other than reveant in the new book will be suitable for now...
I WANT DEMON ELVES!!! (Im not kidding)
They were allowed to keep them but are not allowed to post them or crunch from them wholesale.
They can discuss them however as long as the above rule is followed.
Were they forced to sign some kind of agreement before playing? Will there be legal repercussions for them posting said material?
I dont know that for sure one way or the other. When I was talking to a couple of people that played the characters at DDXP they explained it to me as I explained it above.
I gota say, Im liking it so far, I will buy it. I just wondering if the binder or gloom pact will be warlock or hexblade's feature.
The next race I just wana have as a Player race is a demonelf (or fey'ri), But for now the ones other than reveant in the new book will be suitable for now...
I WANT DEMON ELVES!!! (Im not kidding)
Perhaps in Heroes of the Feywild? I wouldn't mind having them around either.
Hey, I'm all for it, but think it's really gonna happen? Or more Shadow based races; we seem to have 3 total now.
Is that even possible? Demon Elves or Fey'ri, or some such. As much I'm of the more races, even vaguely simliar but distinctly different; there are at least 4 elves already. I thought the point earlier in the edition was to remove the racial deviations; so things like "Ghost Elves" (which were real... look through some of the 3.5 Dragon issues) won't happen.
Hey, I'm all for it, but think it's really gonna happen? Or more Shadow based races; we seem to have 3 total now.
How do we have 4 elves now? We have Elves, Eladrin, and Drow. Did I miss something? Anyway, if they do go through with Heroes of the Feywild (is that the right name?) they will probably have new fey race options.
Shadow doesn't seem to be such a versatile source as primal or arcane that it could produce a plethora of effects, and I don't think any of us want the lameness or redundancy of the shadowcaster returning.
the only shadow class has one build that is commonly accepted as the worst striker in the game and another build that is in line with other strikers, but most people dont know what to make of it. its not like shadow powers have blown away the D&D world
and to make things simple, just stamp shadow over the place where it says "power source x" over the warlock, hexblade, necromancer, neathermancer, blackgaurd and vampire classes in this book and all your dreams of new shadowy classes will come true!
ill have it from my store the day it comes out, thumb through it and enjoy the good content D&D has been giving me latley.
I'm not sure I understand the need for pure shadow source characters. I mean, what exactly would you want a pure shadow class doing? A warrior who strikes with a magical weapon made of shadow can easily fit into the hexblade class, and a spellcaster who wields the powers of darkness and death can easily be added to the mage. Both of those classes are built to have new additions made to them.
Shadow doesn't seem to be such a versatile source as primal or arcane that it could produce a plethora of effects, and I don't think any of us want the lameness or redundancy of the shadowcaster returning.
A wizard who taps into life magic and polymorphs is a druid.
A wizard who messes with people's minds is a psion
A wizard who is fueled off divine lore is an invoker
Or it can pretty much all be a warlock cause they could just make a pact with almost anything.
A swordmage who dabbles in polymorphs is a warden
A swordmage who uses his mind is a battlemind
A swordmage who makes pacts is a hexblade
A cleric who talks with spirits is a shaman
A cleric who depends on his own soul is a ardent
I could go on.
Your statements dont really seem any more justified than these. Beyond legacy value, arcane can effectively be any powersouce but martial because it is effectively the "generic magic" powersource.
As a note, I also liked the shadowcaster.
the only shadow class has one build that is commonly accepted as the worst striker in the game and another build that is in line with other strikers, but most people dont know what to make of it. its not like shadow powers have blown away the D&D world
Which is exactly why some of us were hoping for a book that would do the Shadow power source due justice, and exactly why we're bitter that this book doesn't, given that a second player oriented look at the Shadow power source seems unlikely at this point.
and to make things simple, just stamp shadow over the place where it says "power source x" over the warlock, hexblade, necromancer, neathermancer, blackgaurd and vampire classes in this book and all your dreams of new shadowy classes will come true!
That doesn't do any better for shadow then slapping a 'primal' sticker on the cleric would have satisfied players who wanted a druid, or slapping an 'arcane' sticker on the rogue would have satisfied those who wanted a bard. And it ignores the fact that the warlock, wizard, and cleric were designed from the ground up to embody the fluff and themes of their own power sources - slapping a sticker that says shadow on them won't make them any less arcane or divine.
And it ignores the fact that re-skinned wizards and clerics don't add anything new to the game. What are the coolest elements of 4e? For me it's the Warlord, the Swordmage, the Shaman, the Raven Queen, the Shadowfell and the Feywild - the new things that have expanded the boarders of the game and pushed D&D forward. I wanted new shadow classes that add to D&D the way the Warden and especially the Shaman did back in PHBII - new concepts that expand the scope of the game and establish an enduring place for Shadow magic within the cannon of the game, the kind of place Primal now enjoys thanks to PHBII's primal classes. I don't want more of the same old concepts returning for us to pay for them a second or third (or fourth, or fifth) time.
I can already play a death cleric (worship the Raven Queen, grab death domain feats from Divine Power). I can already play an evil paladin, or a paladin of an evil deity. I can already play a re-fluffed summoner wizard with necrotic powers. We didn't need a new book to tell us we can re-fluff existing classes. We did need a new book for actual Shadow classes.
ill have it from my store the day it comes out, thumb through it and enjoy the good content D&D has been giving me latley.
And I'll thumb through it at the store, and make a decision based on the amount of actual shadow content that the book includes, and either smile with surprise and purchase the book, or sigh and put it back on the shelf, depressed at sad state of 4th edition these days, with the poorly balanced content, regurgitated concepts, anemic release schedules, and an abandonment of the clarity of vision, progressive design philosophy, and enthusiastic spirit of novelty that made this version of D&D my favorite back when it was released only a few years ago.
If the former, I'll happily admit I was wrong, and trumpet my joy from the highest forum top. If the latter, I'll try and give you a day or two to post how happy you are with the book here before I start raining on your parade with diatribes against the book's lamentable lack of vision. In the likely event that the book is somewhere inbetween, I'll enact an appropriate responce based on its approximate position within that continuum.
Elves, Half-Elves, Eladrin, and Drow. That's more like 3 1/2... but Half Elves are allowed to take elvish feats...though none of them do them any good.
Forgot about the half-elves.
that said when it comes out and if i like it and you dont feel free to rain on my parade :D
This is in response to the Executioner not going into the CB today:
So I've got the word on the executioner assassin. While we have seen it and had a chance to play with the executioner thanks to the play-test article, it isn't officially done and baked until the the whole thing comes up in Heroes of Shadow. When that book's content gets rolled into the Character Builder is when we can expect to build the Executioner Assassin using the tool.
Thats... just... aweful. I mean, I had suggested such might be a possibility in the past, but to actually hear it. Just... boo. BOOOO!! WotC go home! Boo!
Well, look on the bright side. People have been asking for previews in DDi.... They just didn't ask for them to be advertised as completed products and DDi exclusive.
The old assassin is rolling in its undersupported grave.
Also, don't most previews usually come as "bonus" to the page counts of the month? as opposed to us getting this assassin...3 times now? Soon to be 4.
The old assassin is rolling in its undersupported grave.
This is most definitely a very low blow. I've tried laying off the deep criticism of WotC, but this is very low...
So, as I said in the DDi thread. Will this be the final final final version?
*edit*
One more thing. Not sure if they were "bonuses" or not, but I do know that they made their debut in the CB.
Instead it really seems to be a great example how WoTC doesn't communicate honestly with its player base, and how magazine content is on a swift decline.
The only reason they told us about the Assassin being moved to HoS was because people complained about it not being in the update.
I guess we should be happy they didn't give us some BS reason and then later include it in the book.
They probably saw all the complaining that there weren't any good previews these days, and thus think 'un-finaling' the assassin and sticking it in the book will make us all happy and love DDI for returning to the old days. At the very least it'd give apologists something to fire back with when people claim DDI gives no good previews.
Instead it really seems to be a great example how WoTC doesn't communicate honestly with its player base, and how magazine content is on a swift decline.
The only reason they told us about the Assassin being moved to HoS was because people complained about it not being in the update.
I guess we should be happy they didn't give us some BS reason and then later include it in the book.
I agree, a little bit of honesty is refreshing. Though it's no consolation for the currently disheveled design direction.
I mean, come on! Why not just print the original Assassin with Errata instead, jettason the Shroud mechanic for one that actually works?
OK, someone is getting their wires crossed. There was a preview article for this build of the Assassin, but that was two months ago. The current (latest) articule was the whole Kit Build, Herioc through Epic. I am for damn sure that they are not reprinting that into HoS, or at the very least it will be an alternative build to the one in DDi, one that may have more choices and no poison use or something.
I mean, come on! Why not just print the original Assassin with Errata instead, jettason the Shroud mechanic for one that actually works?
Yeah, well, apparently the Executioner being in HoS is why they arent putting it in the CB yet. Cause you don't put previews in the CB...if you ignore all the PHB3 previes.
It was definitely a later design choice, as even essentials mention it as a DDI class.
Also, putting in the OLD assassin would be a good idea. It'd show support for a pre-e class, and hopefully fix it in the process. I guess thats the reason why they didnt choose it.
OK, someone is getting their wires crossed. There was a preview article for this build of the Assassin, but that was two months ago. The current (latest) articule was the whole Kit Build, Herioc through Epic. I am for damn sure that they are not reprinting that into HoS, or at the very least it will be an alternative build to the one in DDi, one that may have more choices and no poison use or something.
I mean, come on! Why not just print the original Assassin with Errata instead, jettason the Shroud mechanic for one that actually works?
Yeah, how bout replacing it with a mechanic that each round gives you a cumulative +1[w] to your next attack (you can keep doing it up to your level). You know so that when you jump out of the shadows you kill the monster with one hit, but it doesn't get overpowered, because you can still miss...
So, wait, you want to replace the shround mechanic with a.. shroud mechanic that replicates weapon damage?
How about changing the weapon damage to the next level up, or giving temporary shadow powers to weapons that add effects that slow or hamper the victem... errr, enemy.
How about we forget about the last edition's death attack and actually have something useful instead? Eh?
I just think the OCB is broke, myself, and "they" are trying to get the kit build to work with the sucker instead of pushing it back for the book.
So, wait, you want to replace the shround mechanic with a.. shroud mechanic that replicates weapon damage?
How about changing the weapon damage to the next level up, or giving temporary shadow powers to weapons that add effects that slow or hamper the victem... errr, enemy.
How about we forget about the last edition's death attack and actually have something useful instead? Eh?
Would it be more viable if you could hold it until you make a hit? like the slayers encounter?
I just think the OCB is broke, myself, and "they" are trying to get the kit build to work with the sucker instead of pushing it back for the book.
So, wait, you want to replace the shround mechanic with a.. shroud mechanic that replicates weapon damage?
How about changing the weapon damage to the next level up, or giving temporary shadow powers to weapons that add effects that slow or hamper the victem... errr, enemy.
How about we forget about the last edition's death attack and actually have something useful instead? Eh?
Would it be more viable if you could hold it until you make a hit? like the slayers encounter?
How bout if you make an attack roll, but instead of hitting it, you grant your next hit a bonus to damage, which stacks. So you could still have the flavor of coming out of the shadows and one hit killing your target? then on successfully dropping an enemy you can use a utility or at-will to jump back into the shadows...
Something Trevor said earlier basically implies that the Executioner will be the assassin appearing in HoS.
This is in response to the Executioner not going into the CB today:So I've got the word on the executioner assassin. While we have seen it and had a chance to play with the executioner thanks to the play-test article, it isn't officially done and baked until the the whole thing comes up in Heroes of Shadow. When that book's content gets rolled into the Character Builder is when we can expect to build the Executioner Assassin using the tool.
Well they needed padding on short notice when they switched it from a soft cover book to a hard cover one, so I guess the Executioner was probably right next to them at the time. Regardless of the reason however. LAME!
Not to say the shroud mechanic couldn't be Better - it would be nice if having shrouds on a target would do something right away, and if building up the maximum number of shrouds would come with an extra benefit to make it worth considering, along with some mitigation if the target dies before you invoke. And invoking shrouds after a successful hit would be a whole lot simpler then invoking them beforehand with a different amount of damage resulting depending on whether the attack hits or not.
2) Based on the quoted statement, I wouldn't expect anything out of the HoS assassin at this point beyond a copy-paste reprinting of the finalized executioner article, possibly with some extra nerfs thrown in. At this point, probably the only actual new assassin material that can be expected is some feates targeted specifically at executioners.
1) There's nothing wrong with the shroud mechanic. It works as intended, and is fairly fun to use, ime. The problem is that the class as a whole doesn't do enough damage past the lowest levels, particularly in paragon tier and beyond. This could be fixed by a shroud mechanic that scales better, or higher level powers that do more single target damage.
Not to say the shroud mechanic couldn't be Better - it would be nice if having shrouds on a target would do something right away, and if building up the maximum number of shrouds would come with an extra benefit to make it worth considering, along with some mitigation if the target dies before you invoke. And invoking shrouds after a successful hit would be a whole lot simpler then invoking them beforehand with a different amount of damage resulting depending on whether the attack hits or not.
2) Based on the quoted statement, I wouldn't expect anything out of the HoS assassin at this point beyond a copy-paste reprinting of the finalized executioner article, possibly with some extra nerfs thrown in. At this point, probably the only actual new assassin material that can be expected is some feates targeted specifically at executioners.
Having to stack any type of effects, damage or something else, is a bad design within this structure in 4th edition. It is done this way in an attempt to replicate the Death Attack that the Assassin has in previous editions while keeping the round by round damage balanced with the rest of the classes. When the target is downed before the shrouds are activated, what happens then?
Sorry, nothing you or Cyber Dave is gonna say will convince me that the Shroud mechanic is nothing more than a delayed smack akin to the death attack, weakened to the point of unusability.
Have the Assassin do a stage up on damage for weapons, or something else, dump the shroud.
1) There's nothing wrong with the shroud mechanic. It works as intended, and is fairly fun to use, ime. The problem is that the class as a whole doesn't do enough damage past the lowest levels, particularly in paragon tier and beyond. This could be fixed by a shroud mechanic that scales better, or higher level powers that do more single target damage.
Not to say the shroud mechanic couldn't be Better - it would be nice if having shrouds on a target would do something right away, and if building up the maximum number of shrouds would come with an extra benefit to make it worth considering, along with some mitigation if the target dies before you invoke. And invoking shrouds after a successful hit would be a whole lot simpler then invoking them beforehand with a different amount of damage resulting depending on whether the attack hits or not.
2) Based on the quoted statement, I wouldn't expect anything out of the HoS assassin at this point beyond a copy-paste reprinting of the finalized executioner article, possibly with some extra nerfs thrown in. At this point, probably the only actual new assassin material that can be expected is some feates targeted specifically at executioners.
Having to stack any type of effects, damage or something else, is a bad design within this structure in 4th edition. It is done this way in an attempt to replicate the Death Attack that the Assassin has in previous editions while keeping the round by round damage balanced with the rest of the classes. When the target is downed before the shrouds are activated, what happens then?
Sorry, nothing you or Cyber Dave is gonna say will convince me that the Shroud mechanic is nothing more than a delayed smack akin to the death attack, weakened to the point of unusability.
Have the Assassin do a stage up on damage for weapons, or something else, dump the shroud.
How bout they make the damage really really crappy, then add in some kind of encounter class feature that allows the Assassin to have a chance of slaying a target outright. Like the percent is equal to their level or something, so at level 1 you get a 1% chance to instantly slay your target, at level 30 you get a 30% chance...etc etc...
1) There's nothing wrong with the shroud mechanic. It works as intended, and is fairly fun to use, ime. The problem is that the class as a whole doesn't do enough damage past the lowest levels, particularly in paragon tier and beyond. This could be fixed by a shroud mechanic that scales better, or higher level powers that do more single target damage.
Not to say the shroud mechanic couldn't be Better - it would be nice if having shrouds on a target would do something right away, and if building up the maximum number of shrouds would come with an extra benefit to make it worth considering, along with some mitigation if the target dies before you invoke. And invoking shrouds after a successful hit would be a whole lot simpler then invoking them beforehand with a different amount of damage resulting depending on whether the attack hits or not.
2) Based on the quoted statement, I wouldn't expect anything out of the HoS assassin at this point beyond a copy-paste reprinting of the finalized executioner article, possibly with some extra nerfs thrown in. At this point, probably the only actual new assassin material that can be expected is some feates targeted specifically at executioners.
Having to stack any type of effects, damage or something else, is a bad design within this structure in 4th edition. It is done this way in an attempt to replicate the Death Attack that the Assassin has in previous editions while keeping the round by round damage balanced with the rest of the classes. When the target is downed before the shrouds are activated, what happens then?
Sorry, nothing you or Cyber Dave is gonna say will convince me that the Shroud mechanic is nothing more than a delayed smack akin to the death attack, weakened to the point of unusability.
Have the Assassin do a stage up on damage for weapons, or something else, dump the shroud.
How bout they make the damage really really crappy, then add in some kind of encounter class feature that allows the Assassin to have a chance of slaying a target outright. Like the percent is equal to their level or something, so at level 1 you get a 1% chance to instantly slay your target, at level 30 you get a 30% chance...etc etc...
Nobody likes save-or-die.
The Ossassin is a mixture of ninja, shadowcaster, and shadowdancer with very little in common with a 'classic' assassin. I do think they need powers with greater control and feats to increase damage and control but I think that a desire for one-shot killing powers stems from the name they've used rather than the design intent of the class.
It doesn't need more control because it's not a controller, and it's power selection already has plenty of control for it's secondary focus.
It would take far less to make the assassin an adequate striker (you wouldn't even need to change anything, just give it some more damaging powers at mid levels and beyond), then it would to make it an adequate controller. For the latter, you'd need to officially change its party role, remove its striker mechanic, replace its at-will powers with controller powers, and then introduce new powers at all levels, not just higher levels, with more control, because the assassin's powers. In the process, you'd lose most of their class feats, so you'd need new class feats as well.
While the Assassin's striker feature could be improved, it isn't really necessary. The barbarian is an ok striker, and it doesn't even have a striker feature. The Assassin just needs powers that take into account that their striker feature is, for the most part, a 1d6 damage per turn ability - ie, relatively minor. For whatever reason mearls seems to have dramatically overvalued it when designing the assassin's attack powers. The assassin has the damage feature of a striker that gets most of their damage from powers, like the barbarian, but the powers of a striker that gets most of their damage from their feature, like a rogue. That's the problem.
When the target is downed before the shrouds are activated, what happens then?
This jumped out at me. The Assassin should have the ability to move it's shrouds to another enemy not more than 5 squares away from the original target of it's shrouds. As if, with the dropping of the previous target, the pall of death has chosen a new target to mark for death. There could even be a tactic where the Assassin starts to mark a target for death, and then allows someone else to kill his target just so death will "move on to the next victim".
When the target is downed before the shrouds are activated, what happens then?
This jumped out at me. The Assassin should have the ability to move it's shrouds to another enemy not more than 5 squares away from the original target of it's shrouds. As if, with the dropping of the previous target, the pall of death has chosen a new target to mark for death. There could even be a tactic where the Assassin starts to mark a target for death, and then allows someone else to kill his target just so death will "move on to the next victim".
I thought snap back where the assassins focus was rewarded and he gains a temporary hit points... a bit warlock like though.
I have some hope that they'll remove it. And also, reword the racial utility powers so it's not an inherent trait of the race (thus opening the door for more racial utility powers once people write them up).
I hope they fix the shade before printing, but I really doubt it. Comments from designers at xp seem to indicate that they consider the racial penalty without any compensating benefit to be a feature, not a bug.
Introducing the first race to receive a red for everything in the class guides!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_Shadows
Class Features (as far as I can tell)
Shadow Walk, as usual
Shadow Twist - +1 to ranged and area attacks vs enemies that have no other creature adjacent to it
Gloom Pact Lore - fun benefits like Darkvision and Resist necrotic 5 that stacks with other resist necrotic.
I think they get +1 REF/+1 WILL, will have to verify the math. I think this is standard Warlock-fare, however.
The Binder's benefit when stuff dies is called Shadow Warp:
Shadow Warp, Warlock Utility
At-Will, Arcane, Shadow
Free Action, Close Burst 5
Trigger: You reduce a creature to 0 hit points, or an enemy adjacent to you drops to 0 hit points.
Target: You or one creature in the burst
Effect: You slide the target up to 3 squares
Special: You can use this power only once per round
(It is unclear to me if this is actually the pact boon benefit, or something similar-but-different)
At-Will, Arcane, Shadow
Free Action, Close Burst 5
Trigger: You reduce a creature to 0 hit points, or an enemy adjacent to you drops to 0 hit points.
Target: You or one creature in the burst
Effect: You slide the target up to 3 squares
Special: You can use this power only once per round
(It is unclear to me if this is actually the pact boon benefit, or something similar-but-different)
Looks somewhat interesting. I'm not a big fan of subclasses switching roles. They seem to have put most of the controller effects in build riders to keep them separate from other warlocks, but warlock feat and item support is still almost entirely curse based so for the most part warlocks, binders, and hexblades still might as well have been seperate classes. And twofold pact may allow a character to be both a striker and a controller with the same class, depending on exactly how the interaction works (is that why everything is "gloom pact (binder)"?).
The other complaint is that, at least as previewed, it just isn't a very good controller. I certainly hope it picks up after third level, because if it doesn't it could easily turn out to be ossassin bad. Shades, ossassins, binders... I certainly hope the designers aren't crafting a shadow source where the only unifying theme is that everything sucks. "Shadow: Source of Fail" is not a tagline that will sell books.
Did it have a utility power? Do they have their own utility powers, or do you just grab them from the warlock?
Looks somewhat interesting. I'm not a big fan of subclasses switching roles. They seem to have put most of the controller effects in build riders to keep them separate from other warlocks, but warlock feat and item support is still almost entirely curse based so for the most part warlocks, binders, and hexblades still might as well have been seperate classes. And twofold pact may allow a character to be both a striker and a controller with the same class, depending on exactly how the interaction works (is that why everything is "gloom pact (binder)"?).
Yeah I hope they put in new magic items & feats for Hexblades & Binders.....right now they can't use any of the warlock rods or most of the warlock feats.
I am wondering if Gloom Lore is actually a class ability or you have to spend a feat to get it.
I like the new powers but the Binder is still going to need more support.
Also still not sure why they are even called Binders....
Also, there a thread on ENworld where someone discusses the Blackguard, although it has less detail.
I will paraphrase something I think I heard from Mike Mearls @ DDXP - new classes always be "Essential-ized", meaning that Wizards will always try to find good ways to link class mechanics with story/flavor. Sometimes that means classes will be making a lot of basic attacks, and sometimes that means AEDU. Sometimes it measn something else (power points)
OK, so they call it a Gloom Pact. I'm not sure if that means the Binder can be from other pact types or what though - I doubt it. I suspect they call it a Pact because it'll key off of existing Pact Boon enhancing feats.
Class Features (as far as I can tell)
Shadow Walk, as usual
Shadow Twist - +1 to ranged and area attacks vs enemies that have no other creature adjacent to it
Gloom Pact Lore - fun benefits like Darkvision and Resist necrotic 5 that stacks with other resist necrotic.
I think they get +1 REF/+1 WILL, will have to verify the math. I think this is standard Warlock-fare, however.
The Binder's benefit when stuff dies is called Shadow Warp:Shadow Warp, Warlock Utility
At-Will, Arcane, Shadow
Free Action, Close Burst 5
Trigger: You reduce a creature to 0 hit points, or an enemy adjacent to you drops to 0 hit points.
Target: You or one creature in the burst
Effect: You slide the target up to 3 squares
Special: You can use this power only once per round
(It is unclear to me if this is actually the pact boon benefit, or something similar-but-different)
All the powers are from the sheet including the levels. The only change was my calculating the stat used for attack and damage (not a difficult task). I have no idea about whether Gloom Pact is from Eldritch Pact or not. No higher damage bonus is factored into these powers (unless you mean the damage expressions, in which case, I daresay there are Wizard and Warlock powers already that do similar damage) with more useful effects.
I agree, there would be little to no reason why a warlock couldn't use binder powers unless there is a caveat written into the power in question.
The daily and encounter powers are very lackluster in both roles. Worse, this new build is without a true mechanic for more damage or control. No secondary stat boost or Curse.
Also, I thought that the new design philosophy for the controllers was a Miss line for the encounter powers (Mage, Hunter).
The slide "boon" is nice, but the trigger is weird: melee range for a controller (!) or when you kill a creature but without a damage boost class feature.
I was expecting Burst, Zones, strong conditons and not only slow & ongoing dmg.
Positive points: the return of Shadow Walk and the AEDU format. The new at-wills are good too and the Human Warlock/Hexblade will appreciates the choice, even if Human Effort is still so tempting.
---
Anyway, I sure hope it's only the tip of the iceberg because I begin to have bad feelings for this book. I'm a sad panda.
Edit: Thanks again 22_over_7 for the info. Can you please tell us the type of armor, second highest stat and number of HP the character has?
I'm very disappointed of this "preview" of the Binder, that doesn't seem to work as a good striker nor a good controller.
The daily and encounter powers are very lackluster in both roles. Worse, this new build is without a true mechanic for more damage or control. No secondary stat boost or Curse.
Also, I thought that the new design philosophy for the controllers was a Miss line for the encounter powers (Mage, Hunter).
The slide "boon" is nice, but the trigger is weird: melee range for a controller (!) or when you kill a creature but without a damage boost class feature.
I was expecting Burst, Zones, strong conditons and not only slow & ongoing dmg.
Positive points: the return of Shadow Walk and the AEDU format. The new at-wills are good too and the Human Warlock/Hexblade will appreciates the choice, even if Human Effort is still so tempting.
---
Anyway, I sure hope it's only the tip of the iceberg because I begin to have bad feelings for this book. I'm a sad panda.
Edit: Thanks again 22_over_7 for the info. Can you please tell us the type of armor, second highest stat and number of HP the character has?
Well as far as I can tell it was only a level three character. With the essentials design style they will probably get more controller benefits at higher levels.
I'm not concerned with old warlocks having access to controller powers, because they've cleverly put most of the control aspects in riders that require bothe the 'gloom pact' and the '(binder)' subclass. Sadly, those control aspects are still insufficient for a primary controller.
So far, between the various mechanics we've seen previewed, it looks like the designers went out of their way to lowball the power level of everything in this book - excessive fear of power creep to the point of introducing a forgettable book of fail.
22/7, I know the warlock is what you had, but did you get a good look at any of the other HoS preview characters? Did anything seem impressive, or even worthwhile, on them?
Yes but Essentials classes aren't all the same. The Binder may get more benefits as it increases in levels like the Hexblade,
Right - All the Essentials classes also get some ability at 4th which we haven't seen yet.
I turned my drow warlock into a Binder last night. I did a fantastic job controlling the battlefield especially with the At-will Fear push power. The Binder is good MCing with the Assassin because of its Fear powers - you can take that Assassin feat Nightmare Step that allows you to slide if you miss with a Fear power. So even if I was missing, i was still moving enemies around the battlefield.
Then at 11th level, you can take Nightmare Master to daze your target everytime you hit with your Fear at-will.
But it doesn't stike me as any more valid to assume that what we haven't seen from this book will be any stronger mechanically then what we have seen. And what we've already seen ranges from meh to terrible.
The binder doesn't really seem to gain anything from having access to the warlocks powers, certainly not in the way of control.
In short, the binder is way behind the mage at level 3, and there's little reason to think its going to catch up afterwords.
In short, the binder is way behind the mage at level 3, and there's little reason to think its going to catch up afterwords.
Malisteen do you ever say anything positive? LOL
You just seem to shoot down EVERYTHING - the book is not even out yet so we have no idea what the full Binder will get or what feats will be available to it.Yes I know alot of us D&D fans have had a rough past 6 months with cancellation of books, Dragon's diminshing material & the new CB not being useful to many fans....I have definitely felt this way BUT I am keeping positive about Heroes Of Shadow.
Yes it might end up disappointing me with some things but so far the Blackguard & the Binder look very cool as new alternatives.
Malisteen do you ever say anything positive? LOL You just seem to shoot down EVERYTHING - the book is not even out yet so we have no idea what the full Binder will get or what feats will be available to it.
Hey, I just calls it like I sees it. If things are better then I expect, I'll be the first to admit it when the book is out. That said, this book has already dissapointed me more then any D&D product ever, so yeah, I may be a little predisposed to be negative.
That said, what good have we seen? The shade - terrible. And quotes from the designers indicating that they like it that way. That bodes poorly to begin with, but then we have the level thee binder - also pretty darn bad.
You want something positive from me? Here: the executioner, mechanically, probably won't be terrible, because it wasn't terrible when last we saw it. That said, the fact that our assassin content is just the DDI class we already got, that was supposed to be final a month ago, is kind of terrible in and of itself.
You may or may not have noticed, that my doomy, gloomy storm cloud started entertaining the possibility of a silver lining when they announed assassin content and the vampire class for this book - as I've said endlessly - as I keep droning on and on and just won't shut up about, I want actual shadow classes, that that was potentially two. Of course, then we hear that it's the executioner, so it's down to one, and a monster class at that.
And sure, the vampire might be cool, but monster classes have been tried before, and never in the past have they worked well, conceptually or mechanically.
I guess it's a matter of pattern recognition. D&D products have been pretty sad of late. Monster classes have always been kind of lame in the past. The mechanics previewed for HoS so far have been haphazard (shadow beast's bonus to charge speed, but no ability to charge, and half usual hit points as though it should be insubstantial, but no insubstantial), lackluster (binder preview, mechanically), or terrible (shade). The fluff on hand is contradictory ('shadow only requires surrender' apparantly meaning 'only requires surrender - in addition to whatever training everyone else already has to do'), or just poorly defined (what exactly is divine about the blackguard's background?).
I don't know. I desperately want Heroes of shadow to be awesome, because I love the shadow power source most of all, and it very much seems like this is the only release its going to see this edition. But as much as I want to be excited, the more I hear and see of this product, the harder it becomes.
I'll be peppy and excited (and if you dredge the forums, I was amongst the peppiest and most excited back when HoS was originally announced) when WotC shows me something to actually be happy about. And not a moment before. Over the past six months they've really worn out their 'benefit of the doubt' with me, especially when it comes to this product. And while I was shocked at what seemed like terrible thematic choices in this book, I didn't start complaining about mechanics until WotC started previewing terrible mechanics.
Yes it might end up disappointing me with some things but so far the Blackguard & the Binder look very cool as new alternatives.
I know nothing about the Blackguard, other then it makes little sense to me as a divine class. I haven't seen any mechanics previewed for it to have any opinion on iton that level, although if anyone has links to postings from D&Dxp I'd be happy to add the info to the original post.
As for the binder, I know nothing of the fluff (it really doesn't seem to 'bind' anything from the mechanics, but whatever). Otherwise, I've expressed elsewhere my skepticism of dual source and cross role subclasses as a general matter, and the mechanics we've seen so far are decidedly lackluster. The more we see of it, the less it warrants any measure of excitement from what I can tell. Much like the book as a whole.
Malisteen do you ever say anything positive? LOL
Hey, I just calls it like I sees it. If things are better then I expect, I'll be the first to admit it when the book is out. That said, this book has already dissapointed me more then any D&D product ever, so yeah, I may be a little predisposed to be negative.
All I say is to keep an open mind....sure you might not like the Shade race and I actually don't either but there might be some cool stuff in HoS.
Trust me I know how you feel. I was and still am very disappointed in the Psion class. The psion class has long been my favorite class since 2nd edition. I was VERY disappointed to see the Psion not get Psionic Talents or the Telepath build not get At-will Telepathy ability. Some DMs don't allow the Eberron Kalashtar so until the Elan came out, I was screwed if I wanted a "real" Telepath. I still to this day am VERY annoyed that the Psion still lacks any Mind Reading or Life Sensing abilities.
I had hoped Psionic Power would contain all of this plus the return of the Psicrystal.....it contained neither so yes Psionic Power ended up being somewhat of a disappointment for me.
That being said, not much has been revealed about HoS yet. There can still be cool stuff in it....even Psionic Power had the Elan (which I like) and great new Telekinetic powers.
So while you might be disappointed in the re-print of the Executioner (which yes I don't know why they are doing that and using up space that can be used for new things) and the Shade race, just don't think everything in the book will suck. The Shades might get some awesome racial feats.
While to some people the Binder might not seem like the best Controller ever with what has been shown, I still had alot of damn fun playing one. Sure I might not be optimized as I could be but I saved my party from dying thanks to my Binder powers. There could be some really great Binder feats and items in the book.
I have heard from someone who watched someone play the Binder and the Binder supposebly binded spirits. He wasn't sure if that was the player roleplaying the binding of spirits or if there was an actual Binder ability to do that. It is possible that the Binder could bind different types of spirits which each grant a different Pact Boon. All those choices wouldn't be on the character sheet so we won't know till it pops up in previews or in the book itself.
As for the full Shadow class.....I agree. I think there should be a 4E version of the Shadowcaster in the book. I also am not a fan of the original 4E Assassin (though they do have some cool feats). Even if a Shadowcaster or other full Shadow class is not in the book, there is also DDI if they can get it rolling. If you compare some of the original PHB1 classes to classes they are releasing now, the designers have come a long way and seem to learn from some of their mistakes.
As for the Blackguard, I am guessing the Divine aspect will be that they worship evil gods.....maybe they get a Channel Divinity power. From what I have seen from DDXP on the Blackguard, I really really like it. They attack their enemies to do damage and gain temp hps in return....then they "spend" those temp hps to increase the dmg to their attacks thus a new Striker type of ability. Very cool flavor compared to the PHB1 Warlock Curse flavor. There has been discussion on another main forum on the Blackguard where much is revealed about the Blackguard character played at DDXP but I don't think we are allowed to mention the forum name here.....all I will say is it starts with an "E".
I also hope they don't include alot of Shadar-Kai things in the book....sure they should get a new write-up with new stats.....sure there should be some stuff in it for them but I don't want 10 new Shadar-Kai feats in it when they have received ALOT of attention in DDI so far. I would rather have the Kalashtar or Changeling get more feat love.
I have gone through periods of feeling doom & gloom also in the past 6 months with Dragon being pretty useless to me due to the content they have released (except for the great new Hexblade pacts) as none of it has pertained to any class or race I would play. So I hear where you are coming from.
But I am holding onto the hope that HoS will be a success for me cause I am a HUGE Shadow fan.
To the extent that we've already been told that the only new class in this book is the vampire, this book is already fail. Admitedly a less epic fail then before they cancelled ravenloft and crammed its vampire into the book to fill space, but still thematic fail for lack of actual shadow classes.
Mechanically, I'll admit we haven't seen enough to cast a final verdict. All we can say is that everything we've seen so far has ranged from meh to terrible, and that's not getting off on the right foot.
Show me something excited, and I'll get excited. So far, while I love the idea of a book dedicated to shadow player options, and I live the idea of the Shadow power source on the whole, all of the specifics we've seen have been dissapointing.
At least you get a psion class. I don't even get a shadowcaster or necromancer that isn't just a subtheme of a subclass of wizard. Imagine if PHBIII had rolled around, and they said "whelp, no psion class for you, but we do have this new enchanter build for this new mage thing for the wizard, we'll just slap a 'psionic' label on they're powers, and you're good to go!" I doubt you'd have been happy with that.
To the extent that we've already been told that the only new class in this book is the vampire, this book is already fail. Admitedly a less epic fail then before they cancelled ravenloft and crammed its vampire into the book to fill space, but still thematic fail for lack of actual shadow classes.
Mechanically, I'll admit we haven't seen enough to cast a final verdict. All we can say is that everything we've seen so far has ranged from meh to terrible, and that's not getting off on the right foot.
Show me something excited, and I'll get excited. So far, while I love the idea of a book dedicated to shadow player options, and I live the idea of the Shadow power source on the whole, all of the specifics we've seen have been dissapointing.
I'm in the same boat. Though the board games seem kinda cool. But as far as the book materials go, they lost me since they changed the class design and intent.
Well as far as I can tell it was only a level three character. With the essentials design style they will probably get more controller benefits at higher levels.
Right - All the Essentials classes also get some ability at 4th which we haven't seen yet.
In fact, we already know that the pre-generated characters were level 4 (Module: D&D Classic Kalarel's Revenge). Info for the blackguard also confirm it.
If following the Mage standard, Binder should have a class feature at that level. I know that it could be invisible or that we have only tidbits of the class, but I find that disturbing if it's a true controller class. Could be at later levels too.
Still it doesn't explain the lack of Effect/Miss line on the encounter powers, also I was expecting conditions stronger that soft control, like Immo, Daze or Blind. Mages and Hunters have access to some of them from the start if they choose so.
I turned my drow warlock into a Binder last night. I did a fantastic job controlling the battlefield especially with the At-will Fear push power. The Binder is good MCing with the Assassin because of its Fear powers - you can take that Assassin feat Nightmare Step that allows you to slide if you miss with a Fear power. So even if I was missing, i was still moving enemies around the battlefield.
Then at 11th level, you can take Nightmare Master to daze your target everytime you hit with your Fear at-will.
Sorry I didn't meant that it would be a no-fun class, and it's awesome to see that people are already playtesting it at-home. I'll be happy to see a complete review of your game impressions.
I keep faith in the book and I'm eager to see the complete Binder, Blackguard, Hexblade, Vampire and their feats. But it's always disappointing to hype for something new and shiny, just to discover some flaws in your brand new toy. (That horrible Daily Power is a shock for me).
Will try to stay optimistic.
(By the way I'm a total whatever-warlock-aholic from the start of DD4, and still have stigmata for "The worst striker ever" period of the class that pushes me to expect high for their future design. My bias, my fault).
Until that point, at will teleportation, shade form, frequent invisibility, and shadowy powers make the class a blast. The binder looks fun, but my experience playing an ossassin tells me that unless its control effects start scaling up pretty hard then that fun will quickly wear out.
(That horrible Daily Power is a shock for me).
Will try to stay optimistic.
(By the way I'm a total whatever-warlock-aholic from the start of DD4, and still have stigmata for "The worst striker ever" period of the class that pushes me to expect high for their future design. My bias, my fault).
Even though I playtested the Binder, I still did not take that awful new Binder Daily power. I took a regular Warlock Daily. I too hope they change it. The person who played the Binder did mention the poor Daily to the DM for that session so hopefully something was said before it went to print.
Hmm and I thought the characters were 3rd at that game not 4th as no feats were mentioned.....maybe some things were left off the character sheets? Unless Gloom Lore is actually a feat instead of a class ability.....but still the Binder should have had 2 more feats.
As for the Psion class, I did use a reflavored wizard until the Psion class came out....sad thing is even though I wanted to play a Telepath, I made it a Telekinetic as their Encounter class abilities were much better....luckily Wild Talent Master from DS book made the Psion better.
Was the Binder trained in Stealth? I am wondering if they added Stealth as a Trained skill like they did with the Hexblade.
What kind of rod did the Binder use?
Nice to see the powers are using the rarely used Fear keyword too.
I just remembered something absolutely important. The pregenerated characters that you get at events are never optimized. So yes, the binder we saw wasn't great but it wasn't supposed to be. I already know what the pessimists will say, "It still isn't as good as other controllers." but until we have more than just one unoptimized level 4 example, no one can make anything more than a vague assumption.
Why waste time making excuses? Why not just admit that 'this doesn't look good'? If it turns out to be good later, all the better, but until they show us something actually good, I'm not going to assume that anything we haven't seen is going to be better then anything we have. And we've seen enough now that one can start to detect a pattern. Nothing to say it has to turn out that way. I'm not saying what HoS will be. I'm just saying what everything we've seen from it so far actually is.
When you hear about a movie with a good premise, it's natural to get excited. But if it's from a studio that hasn't done much good stuff recently, and the trailer is decidedly lackluster, and the plot's starting to look really clishe, and they don't screen it for critics, then perhaps its time to start lowering your expectations. If it somehow turns out to be amazing anyway, so much the better, but still.
While D&Dxp pregens generally aren't optimized, they generally do highlight something exciting about the previewed material, and I don't see anything exciting on this previewed binder. Further, WotC is generally happy to have the pregens posted up to build interest and excitement, but this year quite the opposite, not only not posting the characters themselves, but apparently making most of the attendies sign non-disclosure forms as well.
It doesn't bode well. Could it be just a misguided attempt to promote the event itself, sacrificing prime cheap marketing for one of their few products this year in order to try and sell a couple more xp tickets? Could be. It's not the final word, no, but neither is it a good sign.
Thing is, we've seen a lot of 'not very good signs', and not a lot of anything specific to be excited about. That's all I'm saying. I want to be excited about this product, I really do, but I need an actual reason.
I like what I've seen.
Me too - I really like the Binder alot....though they do need to fix the Daily power. I am curious to see what new Utility powers they get.
Also really like the Blackguard - love the flavor of draining energy out of enemies then using it to do more damage to them
I don't know enough about the Deathpriest yet but supposebly it is like the Warpriest but uses "selfish" magic - so it doesn't buff allies
For now, my hope for this product is that the Vampire is a full shadow class and that it doesn't have any lousy mechanics like Power Points or Stances. I really doubt that the Assassin build in this is a new one, but that is what is needed here, and whatever support the classes get, my hope is that it isn't all Kit Builds.
Thus far, we have four (?) kit builds and the Assassin may be a fifth, and a class. Three races that are so so, and likely have feats and other support outside of classes/builds. I had hoped that Themes would make their way to this book, but I suppose that is exclusive to Dark Sun. (The OCB won't let you have them unless your on Dark Sun campaign)
The most disturbing thing is the mixing of Roles and Power Sources. This should have never been an option in any book, it delutes the class/build that does it and makes it unfocused.
Thus far, I am not impressed. More to the fact, I am extremely disappointed.
There is a difference between not being excited, and judging something to be bad from promotional materials only. You want people to accept your opinions as valid, and yet when I make my try to put my two cents on the table you say things like "Why waste time making excuses?". Why do I not admit it doesn't look good? Because it does look good, at least to someone who didn't work themselves up about the prospects. I like what I've seen.
Hatta, your point that was called an excuse was "Pregens suck, therefore this sucky pregen means the real class will be better." That's not a case of looking good, that's hope. Now if you say "X thing about the Binder is unique/cool/awesome" then you have a positive opinion that refutes Malisteen's point of not a lot of good being previewed.
Kletian as already made my responce for me hatta, but again:
what's previewed has, mechanically ranged from forgettable to terrible from what I've seen. Have you seen something I haven't? Or noticed something I haven't considered in the previewed material?
saying "well, pregens aren't optimized anyway" or "maybe the shade will have great racial feats" is trying to excuse the lackluster mechanics we've seen, it doesn't counter my negative impression by calling our attention to something that isn't lackluster. I want actual evidence, not blind faith in WotC. They don't deserve that, anymore.
re: themes: they'll be in the Neverwinter book, apparently, and they're still considering them for general release, but given that they're asking for ideas, that's probably a ways off. They certainly won't be in this book (and it wouldn't have been the right book in which to introduce themes to the general game anyway).
Kletian as already made my responce for me hatta, but again:
what's previewed has, mechanically ranged from forgettable to terrible from what I've seen. Have you seen something I haven't? Or noticed something I haven't considered in the previewed material?
saying "well, pregens aren't optimized anyway" or "maybe the shade will have great racial feats" is trying to excuse the lackluster mechanics we've seen, it doesn't counter my negative impression by calling our attention to something that isn't lackluster. I want actual evidence, not blind faith in WotC. They don't deserve that, anymore.
I offered evidence, the forum didn't accept it, now I give you nothing but inductive reasoning.
The basic jist of this is that what has been seen thus far is not that all impressive, and a bit disappointing to those that wanted an actual 4th edition product that introduces the Shadow Power Source.
So the Shadow Power Source is Alladin?
The basic jist of this is that what has been seen thus far is not that all impressive, and a bit disappointing to those that wanted an actual 4th edition product that introduces the Shadow Power Source.
My point was that sometimes something that looks bad isn't, and that many on this board don't seem to see the big picture.
a real necromancer would have very little in terms of the flavor variety neccesary for a full class, one build based on undead and one based on shadow magic- when compared to say the pacts of a warlock, or the sources of a sorcerer. There isn't very much flavor departure left for that class... As a subset of a wizard it can BE variety rather than being light on variety.
A blackguard, irregardless of denials, would have fallen too close to the hexblade/paladin/ swordmage/ knight/ flavorfully to fit. It only would have worked if we hadn't had the hexblade or something, blackguards work fine as definitevly dark paladins. Beides which, when you get right down to it... what else would a paladin of the evil gods or the raven queen be using? "Divine" is an extremely vague term when the powers of the gods should be as varied as their own flavors.
A vampire, while i wonder at the flavor variety (ignoring really interesting interpretations- the best thing i could see would be slightly varying shades of the same color), has ridiculous amounts of myth to draw on- we could get monstrous vampires with superhuman strength, and shadowy magic users, and possibly even beings who master magical dread- or hell, who can call upon undead minions.
The possibilities for a well-done vampire are actually pretty limitless, necromancers would probably overlap too much with whats already there.
additionally- it wouldn't surprise me to egt mroe shadow options, maybe even another class as time goes on.
Well, you see, the classes should have been in this book or in PHB4, not delayed into a possible trickle of them in a book here and there. We are getting one (1) in this one, with only one (1) build that may be completely shadow, unless Wizards makes do with the threat of copy and pasting the Executioner into this, then it is duel sourced like the rest of the kit builds.
to clarify: 1 full shadow class (vampire) and the assasin, which will either be old stuff or new stuff, correct?
i guess i don't really se the issue with dual source classes, it dilutes the flavor a little bit, as well as the nice neat source design of early 4th edition, but it has very little impact on the actual game- in fact it presents more options, this way classes can take more epic destinies and such... which makes alot of sense.
the assasin is martial/shadow yes? if so it should be able to take martial options as well as shadow options, the godhunter epic destiny, for instance, it would be very odd if it couldn't do something like that, the same goes for many of the other epic destinies, and a multitude of feats (i beleive).
i think the dual power source design is beneficial because it prevents thingsfrom being re-used (like the idea of a mortal with a penchant for taking out gods)and odd little things, like a necromancer not being able to become an archlich.
a real necromancer would have very little in terms of the flavor variety neccesary for a full class
Bologna. Make it a pet class and you've already got three thematic pet options - skeletal, ghoulish, and ghostly, easily aesthetically distinguishable and easily themed with different mechanical effects. We only have two pet classes in the game so far - the shaman and the beastmaster ranger. Do you really think that concept has no life left in it? There are no pet class controllers yet! There was easily enough conceptual room for a new class with three or more quite distinct builds.
A blackguard, irregardless of denials, would have fallen too close to the hexblade/paladin/ swordmage/ knight/ flavorfully to fit.
I would contend that it's the hexblade as we recieved it that wasn't needed - we already had melee warlock options that could have been expanded, and arcane magic already had a light armored magic melee sword guy.
Paladin is divine, healer secondary, and heavily radiant themed. A shadow magic defender could have been practically the opposite of that - with necrotic magic, a different secondary focus, and plenty of room for a unique cursing mark mechanic that could have played quite differently from any other defender. And with both heavily armored and lightly armed conceptual archetypes to go with (say, a str primary class with int or wis secondaries?), there was likewise plenty of room for distinct builds. The existance of other magical melee classes doesn't negate the potential of a unique and compelling shadow warrior any more then it negated the potential of the warden or battlemind.
As it is, we're getting a blackguard build of paladin that doesn't seem to be paladin-like in the least. Why then go through the farce of forcing it to be a subclass, when it's mechanics and theme are so different that it couldn't meaningfully share anything with the parent class, anyway? Why dilute the rich themes of the archetype by forcing it to be divine?
The possibilities for a well-done vampire are actually pretty limitless, necromancers would probably overlap too much with whats already there.
The potential for a well-done vampire is there. I'm skeptical (skepticism I draw from the repeated failed attempts at monster classes in the past), but we'll see. As for necromancers - there's more then enough room for a variety of necromancers, from the researcher into forbidden lore to the mad philosopher to the avatar of death. There's as much room for variety within the necromancer concept as there is within the undead creature type - from shambling bruisers to flitting shadows to ivory warriors and so on. The existance of the summoner wizard no more pre-empts the posibilities of a necromancer class then it did the posibilities of the shaman.
As a matter of fact, necromancy is so open, so varried, that I've wondered elsewhere if it isn't too broad to be the focus of a single class, even allowing for multiple builds.
additionally- it wouldn't surprise me to egt mroe shadow options, maybe even another class as time goes on.
One can only hope. Sadly, I've not much of that left.
Let me, off the top of my head, throw out an idea for a unique shadow class:
Show
Shadowcaster (shadow defender, 2ndary controller, cha primary, dex or int secondary), light armor, defender surges, leader hp. As with all shadow classes, the shadowcaster, voluntarily or otherwise, traded part of their soul for a fragment of pure shadow from which they draw power. However, they traded away a larger part, and recieved a larger piece in return, something with a mind of its own, which inhabits their own shadow.
Shadow-casters are a pet class defender. They litterally 'cast' their shadow out into the battle to harry their enemies, summoning it with a minor action into any adjacent square, and it must remain within 10 squares (distance scaling with level). The shadow is insubstantial and always has concealment, and all damage it takes is transferred to the shadowcaster, and it is immune to other effects of attacks. It occupies a space, and may flank with allies. Allies may target the shadow-caster as though you were occupying the shadow's space. The shadow may take a move action whenever you do, and has phasing, although you must maintain line of effect to it or it vanishes. The shadow posseses the standard essentials defender aura.
All shadow-casters have two automatic at wills - an RBA from the caster for damage and slide (target must end closer to the shadow), and an MBA made from the shadow. They may choose a third from a list of at-will powers, some made from the shadow and others from the caster.
All shadow-casters also have an at-will opp attack that lets them use the shadow MBA mentioned above against any enemy that leaves a square within the shadow's defender aura (by shifting, moving, teleporting, or otherwise), or that makes an attack against a target other then the shadow (including the caster) while within the aura.
Two builds - dex and int based (either way acceptable AC). The dex based build gains an ability to penalize enemy movement equal to dex mod when hits them with the standard shadow MBA listed above, and has many cold/necrotic powers that hinder movement. The int based penalizes damage rolls equal to int mod when hit by shadow MBA, and has many psychic/necrotic powers that hinder attacks. Utilities include transposing the shadow with self or ally's position as an interrupt, animating allie's shadows to grant them concealment, disrupt enemy vision, some teleport/hide themed abilities for the caster yourself, etc. Lots of possibilities.
Further powers include some daily summons, as well as ranged attacks made from the caster and melee attacks made from the shadow. secondary control effects generally include slow, weaken, immobilize, & slides towards the shadow. Could also include a life-draining subtheme, attacks that grant temp HP to the caster, etc.
There, just off the top of my head, is a unique shadow class quite different from anything we already have, that also gives a unique experience as a defender.
Shadow-casters are a pet class defender. They litterally 'cast' their shadow out into the battle to harry their enemies, summoning it with a minor action into any adjacent square, and it must remain within 10 squares (distance scaling with level). The shadow is insubstantial and always has concealment, and all damage it takes is transferred to the shadowcaster, and it is immune to other effects of attacks. It occupies a space, and may flank with allies. Allies may target the shadow-caster as though you were occupying the shadow's space. The shadow may take a move action whenever you do, and has phasing, although you must maintain line of effect to it or it vanishes. The shadow posseses the standard essentials defender aura.
All shadow-casters have two automatic at wills - an RBA from the caster for damage and slide (target must end closer to the shadow), and an MBA made from the shadow. They may choose a third from a list of at-will powers, some made from the shadow and others from the caster.
All shadow-casters also have an at-will opp attack that lets them use the shadow MBA mentioned above against any enemy that leaves a square within the shadow's defender aura (by shifting, moving, teleporting, or otherwise), or that makes an attack against a target other then the shadow (including the caster) while within the aura.
Two builds - dex and int based (either way acceptable AC). The dex based build gains an ability to penalize enemy movement equal to dex mod when hits them with the standard shadow MBA listed above, and has many cold/necrotic powers that hinder movement. The int based penalizes damage rolls equal to int mod when hit by shadow MBA, and has many psychic/necrotic powers that hinder attacks. Utilities include transposing the shadow with self or ally's position as an interrupt, animating allie's shadows to grant them concealment, disrupt enemy vision, some teleport/hide themed abilities for the caster yourself, etc. Lots of possibilities.
Further powers include some daily summons, as well as ranged attacks made from the caster and melee attacks made from the shadow. secondary control effects generally include slow, weaken, immobilize, & slides towards the shadow. Could also include a life-draining subtheme, attacks that grant temp HP to the caster, etc.
There, just off the top of my head, is a unique shadow class quite different from anything we already have, that also gives a unique experience as a defender.
As one of the few fully shadow classes, I'd settle if the shadowcaster is drawn up as a new Ossassin build/guild with more controllery riders on the powers. Now that the Essassin covers the more traditional assassin they can spread out and diversify. The downside seems to be that they have no intention of doing so and all we can look forward to are more discrete sub-classes from now on. That is frustrating.
-snip-
i guess you're right about alot of things, the only thing i'd like to point out is that the three different flavors for the necromancer you pointed out aren't exactly flavors... i think that they would all fall under the category of undead- though you probably could make 3 builds here without too much trouble
build 1- dedicated to the walking dead, zombie based necromancy, could be a simple pet controller, or even work based on a system that lets the mancer summon a small detachment of minions+ (like minions, but even weaker, maybe) controls through using undead to harry and bog down the enemy.
build 2- dedicated to ghosts and phantoms and whatnot, spirit based necromancy, controller who uses ghosts that have aura effects/ casting effects, controls via hittign the enemy with lots of debuffs cast from insubstantials (but destroy those fragile things... and the related effect dissapears) gameplay would involve tactically keeping them up
build 3- dedicated to pure shadow magic (nethermancy?) can use elemental shadow... or better yet, it could steal your shadowcaster "my own shadow" thing. whereas the walking dead would focus on weak swarms, this one would focus on a single stronger pet.
i also came up with a fourth one, but it feels way too close the PHB warlock lifesteal paragon class....
my main concern though, is that unlike different flavors for other classes, this is all thematically... similar, very, very, very much so
it almost feels kind of like a warlock that only has access to the infernal pact, or a sorcerer with only chaos magic.
as for the blackguard, it's a divided archetype, some people like them as fallen paladins- others as shadow warriors... and i would argue that for alot of people the hexblade was the preffered choice- it's got a different feel than anything else whereas a blackguard probably would have felt very much like a fighter, swordmage or paladin.
oh, and i think it's probably better to stay away from classes that can deal only one type of elemental damage- they can get screwed over pretty easily, and the whole radiant damage thing never really made sense unless you ARE worshipping a good god, the book even suggests altering it to necrotic for a flavor change, becoming alot closer to a blackguard as is, at this point it was just better to support a class that needed the "more than 1 walk of life" treatment than create a class that would overlap so thematically with the paladin, particularly if they were following the shadow paladin advice mentioned in the PHB.
and one last thing, in alot of cases, shadow in fantasy is typically taken by someone who already had power to become stronger. The warcraft setting's Arthas (inb4 this isn't WOW, from someone), Voldemort from HP, The Black Ajah from WOT, the PaleMaster from 3.5, Dalamar from dragonlance, Ariakus (the original one who dies at the end of chronicles) from dragonlance, and many many others. this might be why the shadow power source is more diluted. it also makes sense from the perspective of selling something people can use in their (essentials) games without having to reroll a new class.
p.s take this in the intended spirit- one of respectful discussion, thanks (not that i didn't think you would but... it's a helpful disclaimer on the interwebz)
i think people hyped their expectations up WAY too much to the point where nothing will please you guys.
if its too good its game breaking, if its too bad its a waste of your money
you guys wont be happy no matter what happens
i have no idea how things have gotten so bad with so little.
i think people hyped their expectations up WAY too much to the point where nothing will please you guys.
if its too good its game breaking, if its too bad its a waste of your money
you guys wont be happy no matter what happens
that's nice dear, it does my heart good to see that no matter how frustrated about something we become there's always someone out there who's getting even more frustrated that we're discussing it's faults at all, it makes me feel less silly in comparison.
on topic, snark aside: it's not that we're expecting HOS to be complete crap, or worried that it will be, we're worried about certain things, and we're bored with alot of conjecture to express it. these sorts of discussions can give alot of insight as to what people want- the gamer mentality so to speak, particularly as more people weigh in.
also, i'm sure there are things even the worst complainer LIKES about HOS, but the problem is: there isn't much discussion to be generated from that. oh "x is nice, isn't it? "
"why yes, yes it is"
i like the direction quite abit, though i'm wary of essentials class design-
For example, if your mage/wizard focuses on life draining spells and raising zombies, is it so bad that's he's an arcane class casting Shadow spells versus a distinct Shadow class? In fact, the new Mage class has specializations that make each sub-type pretty distinct from the other, allowing for several moderately unique builds while still allowing that player to use other wizard spells. I think that's pretty neat, personally. Anyways, Necros have typically been specializations of Wizards and evil Clerics in the past. Why does it *need* to be different now?
A blackguard is essentially an anti-paladin, right? So why shouldn't it share the same basics? No one said divine classes had to be goody two shoes (well, not in 4th ed anyway).
In the end, it seems to me to just be fluff. As long as the ends are solid, who cares about the means?
You would only need:
Fighter: This takes care of anything that wants to hit things with any sort of forcel physical strike or weapon; it could easily encompass Ranger, Rogue, Monk, Avenger, Paladin, Bard, Warlord or anything that involves hitting things physically.
and
Wizard: this is the spellcaster, does nothing but casts spells, healing, hurting, summoning, whatever your little re-fluffer heart can imagine. But they sure as heck can't actually hit things well with thier luckluster physical stats or limitations.
That's it. The ends are solid with this set up too. Would you still agree?
As someone who wants new mechanics and interesting (if decent) new fluff to actually go with those mechanics, I'm with Malisteen here. They could have easily even made essential style new base classes versus having to kit out already made classes which sometimes the Kits have no actual relation to the class. More new feats, more new stuff; and stuff to make play nice with old stuff.
But I seriously doubt that'll happen in HoS. So far, it's nothing but Kit builds and what amounts to putting the Shadow Source in the forgettable ghetto of interesting and not quite supported ideas.
First off, I think they played it right with the Essentials classes. If they had in fact made the Essentials classes all brand new, then people would have instead complained that there was not enough content available for them in terms of feats and powers. I think WotC was trying really hard to allow, as much as they could of course, people to use old powers and feats with new types. So instead of calling them new classes, they labeled them as 'reflavored'.
Secondly, it really is an enormous amount of fluff. Let's be honest here ... the overwhelming majority (not counting psionics) of classes in pre-E 4th ed all operated the exact same way: 3 or 4 class abilities and then the exact same sequence of 2 at will attacks, 1 encounter attack, and 1 daily attack. Followed by the exact same sequence of Utilities, Encounters, raised attributes, Dailes, etc ... Oh and for something really different, let's try Paragon classes ... which while giving different benefits, again worked in exactly the same way.
Essentials is really what introduced a brand new class design ... one which, again, everyone started yelling about. In the end, there's no way to guarantee you'll satisfy everyone.
So sure, why not make Necromancers a mage subtype? As a mage subtype, they'll have mastery levels and paragon benefits that will *specifically* reward their type of playstyle and introduce an entirely different set of class features while still allowing them to take advantage of all the other mage/wizard feats and powers should they so choose. Because every Necromancer sometimes wishes he could throw fireballs to support his undead army.
And if they had actually made it an entirely different class? People would then be bound to complain that they are not releasing a Shadow Power series of books to come up with new builds for these now new existing classes. Would, you know, would be ironic.
Give them the benefit of the doubt, I say. Let's wait and see and judge them based on what they release as opposed to what they might release.
As a matter of fact, necromancy is so open, so varried, that I've wondered elsewhere if it isn't too broad to be the focus of a single class, even allowing for multiple builds.
Six or seven months ago, that would be one class.
A class with several builds, and a choice of powers for each level of gained powers.
As it is, it would be several e.e locked-in "classes"
EDIT: KarlB, essentials isn't a brand new class design. It's last decade's (3.5 and earlier) design brought back out and given a bit of polish (for the non-spellcasters), and it's basic 4e without choices for the spellcasters.
I don't see how either of those is new.
Don't we have enough Warlock pacts already???
Dark, Infernal, Fey, Star, Vestige.... IIRC there is also 1 or 2 Dragon Mag pacts although their names escape me.
Instead of broadening the Warlocks options (Hexblade notwithstanding), can't we just deepen them by creating new powers for the pre-existing pacts?
short answer... No
I still want the following:
Demon Pact
"Dark Powers of the Shadowfell" Pact - I imagine this is what the Gloom Pact will be
Dragon Pact
plus more than that, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head at the moment
Dragon Pact? ... kin to Dragon Sorceror? Care to Elaborate on the Concept.
Here is some of my ideas the source is shriven spirit shards of Io, the character is swivelled bettween being like Bahamut and Tiamatt.. A Defender and a Striker a crazy berzerklock. who wants to protect the innocent.
Look at the druid, shaman, warden, see how they worked the idea of primal spirits into these classes? Even the barbarian, which I was skeptical of as a primal class, works within that narrative framework - his great power coming not from years of intensive practice and physical training - as with partial classes - but from drawing primal spirits into himself to enter his supernatural rages. Now look at the scout, or the hunter. We can see why these classes are martial - they fit with the 'physical practice and training' concept, and they share the base attack focus of other e-martial classes. But why are they also primal? Nothing about them or their abiliities suggests magic drawn from primal spirits. As far as I can tell, they're primal because they like to go camping. See why I'm not excited about this being the basis of a power source?
The Blackguard may be able to pull something interesting off, being at least a full subclass that gets to have its own role, mechanics, advancement structure, powers, and so on. But even so, it will be stuck with divine paladin utility powers and class feats and items that have nothing to do with its concept or mechanics. The blackguard is so opposite in every way from the paladin from what I can tell (prefers different elements, focuses on a different power source, is selfish instead of being dedicated to a deity - and even evil paladins of evil deities should be dedicated to their deities - has a completely different party role), that it's just stupid that it's a subclass instead of a new class. And I can only think of three reasons to do it this way:
1) nostalgia - which is dumb because it abandons the chance to meaningfully expand the game.
2) class glut - which is dumb because subclass glut is no better, and the problem wasn't that we had too many classes, but that some of the classes they were releasing didn't seem fully conceptualized or have very strong archetypes. Cutting down strong archetypes to shoe-horn them into kit builds is an overreaction that messes things up in the opposite direction.
3) laziness - if you do a kit build, you don't need to come up with class feats, and only only need to do one build, and you only need one paragon path, and you only need to do a couple utility powers, and you never need to support it again after that, since you can falsely pretend that any other paladin stuff already out or that you release in the future will somehow be mechanically and thematically appropriate to support the kit
The lazyness is especially annoying. To paraphrase someone else - "subclasses - no choice for you, less work for us". Not having any meaningful options to customize a character, to shape its development as I level, makes that character completely boring to me. Some may not like it, and I don't begrudge them some options where they don't have to, but for me character building is an essential aspect of D&D, and until it returns every new release offers me les an less that I care for. The mage at least can mix things up, but the customization available to a necromancer mage only exists in terms of the ways that you aren't a necromancer. A shaman can be a bear shaman or a panther shaman, a druid can be a stalker druid or a swarm druid, a necromancer mage can be a necromancer who is a shadowcaster on the side or a necromancer who is an illusionist on the side or a necromancer who is an evoker on the side. Do you see the difference?
The necromancer and shadow caster don't even get to be the sole focus of a character who wants to play them, since a mage needs to select two schools. They can't have a unique mechanical structure, like say the shaman had, because mage schools don't allow for that - since the powers still have to be usable by other mage schools and the benefits for a school need to be relatively minor. And you're still going to feel first and formost like a studious arcane bookworm wizard thanks to their distinctive spellbook mechanic, which I love, and wish more arcane classes used (it could be contract clauses for warlocks, or songbooks for bards, etc), but that still feels distinctly arcane.
The death domain warpriest will have the same issues - it's not even its own subclass able to explore its own mechanical constructs - it has to fit within the warpriest set up.
Remember how power sources were supposed to be a thematic, narrative, organizational tool? Shadow's narrative hook was that the character trades a piece of their soul to the shadowfell for a shard of its dark essence through with they instinctively draw and control their power. That's cool, but what does that have to do with the mage and the warpriest? That's not where they get their powers from. Tacking it on would be just that - tacked on. Warpriests draw their power from their deity. If they worship a deity of death, then thats where they get their deathly powers. Why would a deity have their servants trade away part of their souls to darkness, when the entirety of those souls belong to them? Why would a mage go through with that when they've already studied for years to master the intricacies of arcane magic?
And without that fluff, all we have left of shadow is melodramatic angst. Don't get me wrong, I'm as much of a fan of melodramatic angst as anyone else, but there's no weight behind it, mechanically or conceptually.
as a side note: Thunder, why must you call essentials 4.5?
You seem to be new here so I’ll answer this one last time.
Whenever the designers repackage the PHB1 classes, and races, into a new product that is not really compatible with the existing rules you have a new edition. This is regardless of what the morons in marketing will tell you. I look at the essentials garbage and see a return to 3.x builds so we now have 4.5. Would you prefer 4.x because I’ve seen that for 3.x as well? Bad design is bad design and I would rather not return to it. However the person who brought us 4.0 got let go, and the guy that took his place is a hack who has no creativity, so 4.x is what we get.
In Thunder_Dragonbane's house, you can't put up oil-based paintings next to glue-based paintings because they're incompatible, no matter what those art morons tell you. Bad paint is bad paint. The guys who use oil-based paints are hacks who have no creativity.
When comparing the differences between 4E/Essentials (or 2E/Players Option) vs. the differences between 1E/2E (or 3E/3.5), the former examples were designed to be compatible while in the latter examples, the games are mutually exclusive.
While most editions are linear (1E-2E-3E-3.5-4E), in the case of 4E/Essentials (and 2E/Players Option) the editions are more parallel, prompting me to use the term parallel editions to describe them.
In many respects, running Essentials and pre-Essentials characters at the same table is like running Robotech and Rifts characters at the same table, or more accurately, running Robotech, Nightbane and/or Palladium Fantasy at the same table (since Rifts is on a higher power level than other palladium products).
When comparing the differences between 4E/Essentials (or 2E/Players Option) vs. the differences between 1E/2E (or 3E/3.5), the former examples were designed to be compatible while in the latter examples, the games are mutually exclusive.
While most editions are linear (1E-2E-3E-3.5-4E), in the case of 4E/Essentials (and 2E/Players Option) the editions are more parallel, prompting me to use the term parallel editions to describe them.
Check my sig. While on the surface they may appear to be compatible, you soon run into things like Themes, power swap feats, hybriding, multi-classing feats, warlord/slayer combo cheese, an altered workday (post-E can do more in a day), and some other things I can't think of right now. I'd say they are about 85% compatible. If you don't optimize and don't care about choices you might not really notice anything, but things will come up. Its not so much a question of if, but when something will come up...
In many respects, running Essentials and pre-Essentials characters at the same table is like running Robotech and Rifts characters at the same table, or more accurately, running Robotech, Nightbane and/or Palladium Fantasy at the same table (since Rifts is on a higher power level than other palladium products).
When comparing the differences between 4E/Essentials (or 2E/Players Option) vs. the differences between 1E/2E (or 3E/3.5), the former examples were designed to be compatible while in the latter examples, the games are mutually exclusive.
While most editions are linear (1E-2E-3E-3.5-4E), in the case of 4E/Essentials (and 2E/Players Option) the editions are more parallel, prompting me to use the term parallel editions to describe them.
Thou shalt not speak of Palladium!
Can't.... take.... pressure....
In Thunder_Dragonbane's house, you can't put up oil-based paintings next to glue-based paintings because they're incompatible, no matter what those art morons tell you. Bad paint is bad paint. The guys who use oil-based paints are hacks who have no creativity.
I have quite a few oil paintings on my walls. Thank you very much for looking...
I have a wall which is itself an Acrylic painting with pagodas and ponds and volcanos and waterfalls... etc.
Also, there is no 4.5.
That's entirely dependent on how you would define new edition.
I'm not sure that it is. There are industry standards for what constitutes a new edition.
No races have been replaced. Many have seen new, additional, secondary stat options, but no replacements. No new "this is now official" versions.
No classes have been replaced. Pretty much the same as with races. They've gotten new builds. Call them what you want, but they're still part of the classes under which they fall.
No major rules changes have occured.
The new options are compatable with the older options. I know, many aren't satisfied with the multi-classing options, but that doesn't change that you can have a thief in a group of pre-e classes and it works just fine. Hopefully they will release some of the compatibilty stuff they planned to publish in the mags, of course. Even if they don't, though, the E builds are less compatible for advanced multi-classing, but not incompatible.
No new edition has been announced.
By every standard I can think of, 4.5 is very much non-existant.
No races were replaced in 3.5 either. However, there was errata to the PHB's to make their race entries match essentials, and thus you have "This is now official' versions of races. That said, I like flex stats and the racial options for Humans/Half-Elves, but like does not mean it isnt a .5.
No classes were replaced per se, but the E-classes are the new 'core', with the older PHB's no longer being printed. While not exactly replaced for the older 4e player, it is for the newer.
On the terms of rules changes, the new Magic Item system would like to have a word with you. That said, its houseruled/ignored enough it might as well have not even happened.
In terms of multi-class and options...3.0 classes were much more compatible with 3.5 classes. Honestly, I joined D&D right when 3.5 came out, and my group used mixed 3.0 and 3.5 stuff the entire time, yes, there was a few complications here and there, but in general, player-wise the system was effectively the same.
Essentials is also the "new direction going forward", though thankfully they cancelled most seemingly reprint books (Heroes of Sword and Spell, and probably the Magic Item Emporium). While 3.5 was tweaks to monsters and classes, Essentials has effectively thrown out many of 4e's original design goals, has poluted powersources (Martial = Hit with stick, Primal = is around trees, Arcane = Spell caster, Divine is atleast still what it was, Shadow = dark version of whatever other powersource its paired with), and generally has vastly limited options.
Not to mention, outside of the magazines, non-essentials style stuff seems to be devoid of support this year, entirely.
First, 3.5 really had no business being anything more than an errata in the first place.
Second, and much more importantly, none of those things are even remotely replacements. They are supplements.
Why would you expect PHB1 options to keep getting new print support, without it being something genuinely new. (like the essentials kit builds, for instance.)
The new builds aren't new versions of the classes. They aren't new classes. They are supplemental options for existing classes.
The races are very much not new "this is now official versions." The old "versions" still stand, they have simply been given additional options.
The item rarity system is the single factor in which you might have some solid logic behind you. Even then, it must stand alone, since none of the other points are even remotely indicative of a new edition, and by itself it fails miserably to constitute a new edition.
Third. The Shader-Kai are already published, get the Dragon Annual. (2009)
So are any number of races. What's you point?
We wanted Shadar-kai with a swing stat. Whether they're in a physical book is completely irrelevant. Well, at least to me.
Shadow Hound Paragon path & new equipment
Posts in a thread in General indicate Black Hound didn't end up in the final product, the preview of it was a mistake.
Either that or Bart was being a cheeky monkey and tried to confuse everyone.
Regardless, I kind of like the PP from a thematic standpoint, but it's not awesome mechanically - though not an immediately obvious trap.
The downside of non class-specific PPs is they aren't as good overall. However I can see where it can be pretty good. It wouldn't be a totally terrible choice for an Arcane striker in an undead/shadow heavy campaign, I'm thinking Star pact Warlock(Hexblade would be best) or a Cosmic Sorcerer.
I wonder if those who are still excited for HoS would be equally excited for an "Arcane Power 2" that contained mostly subclasses of fighters, clerics, and druids, with paragon paths for psionic or martial classes.
Well, yes, I was looking foward to the new classes. Unfortunatly, we are getting Kit Builds instead.
I was excited to get new classes, and then i found out that they were essentials classes... and i was even more excited!
Well, yes, I was looking foward to the new classes. Unfortunatly, we are getting Kit Builds instead.
I was excited to get new classes, and then i found out that they were essentials classes... and i was even more excited!
The sad thing is, unlike a lot of the complainers, I would have been happy with new essentials classes. If they were new essentials shadow classes, instead of new essentials kits of existing, non-shadow classes.
At least the Shadowthief isn't mechanically fail, even if yet another great shadow idea being given to arcane characters is, to me, a slap in the face. Again.
Sigh.
Oh and I dont know if you guys noticed but all the PC races are getting flex stats in an article this month.
This right here makes me happy. More because it may put that to rest than anything else.
Well, yes, I was looking foward to the new classes. Unfortunatly, we are getting Kit Builds instead.
I was excited to get new classes, and then i found out that they were essentials classes... and i was even more excited!
The sad thing is, unlike a lot of the complainers, I would have been happy with new essentials classes. If they were new essentials shadow classes, instead of new essentials kits of existing, non-shadow classes.
At least the Shadowthief isn't mechanically fail, even if yet another great shadow idea being given to arcane characters is, to me, a slap in the face. Again.
Sigh.
I will say, I was originally quite upset that they were E-style, but E-style has grown on me, even if i still hate some of their designs like the new martial classses.
The fact the shadow powersource is just dark options for other classes is indeed a much greater issue than just what "style" they are using.
It's being published as a non-exclusive article. Presumably we'll also eventually see it in an updates article, but who knows when they'll put out one of those again.
I didn't even notice that, now I'm really happy.
Oh, wait, it is Dragon.
I would hope that the new set of Errata (little of it as it would be) would be done in april, when HoS comes out. Why they have to waste an article on this instead of simply Errata'd it in is beyond my understanding.
Oh, wait, it is Dragon.
Some people don't check the Errata updates, I personally don't because I almost never get to play. An article is higher profile and will therefore garner more attention, that and they had to fill page space with something.
I would hope that the new set of Errata (little of it as it would be) would be done in april, when HoS comes out. Why they have to waste an article on this instead of simply Errata'd it in is beyond my understanding.
Oh, wait, it is Dragon.
Some people don't check the Errata updates, I personally don't because I almost never get to play. An article is higher profile and will therefore garner more attention, that and they had to fill page space with something.
That is one way of looking at it. Another is that people who aren't interested in D&Di at all will only look at the errata and won't bother looking at what articles are being published because they assume that the only things they can view in the magazines are the non-crunch articles. However I will admit that the second reason(filling up page count) is probably accurate. x_x
1. Is there any plan to "essentialize" the races that were not included inHeroes of the Fallen Lands/Forgotten Kingdoms? The gnome, goliath, genasi, warforged, and deva don't currently have the option to choose stats, which is a shame because they are great races that deserve this treatment.
Yes, as we move forward we will modify races to give them a choice on one of their ability score bonuses. You’ll see these rolled out in a combination of print products and Dragon articles. At this point, our main barrier is simply making time in the schedule to tackle it.
Looks like they found time.
More accurately, Wizards probably noticed how many people considered "finding time in our schedule" to be utter nonsense (how much time does it take to add a bunch of flex stats to a handful of races?)
As such, I believe Wizards decided to throw us a bone in order to de-escalate a frustrated fanbase before we pulled out our pitchforks and called for ye old mob lynching lol.
If anyone read the last Rule of Three article, the motivation behind the flex-stat article should be painfully obvious.
1. Is there any plan to "essentialize" the races that were not included inHeroes of the Fallen Lands/Forgotten Kingdoms? The gnome, goliath, genasi, warforged, and deva don't currently have the option to choose stats, which is a shame because they are great races that deserve this treatment.Yes, as we move forward we will modify races to give them a choice on one of their ability score bonuses. You’ll see these rolled out in a combination of print products and Dragon articles. At this point, our main barrier is simply making time in the schedule to tackle it.
Looks like they found time.
More accurately, Wizards probably noticed how many people considered "finding time in our schedule" to be utter nonsense (how much time does it take to add a bunch of flex stats to a handful of races?)
As such, I believe Wizards decided to throw us a bone in order to de-escalate a frustrated fanbase before we pulled out our pitchforks and called for ye old mob lynching lol.
Don't forget the torches, and of course the rope.
If anyone read the last Rule of Three article, the motivation behind the flex-stat article should be painfully obvious.
1. Is there any plan to "essentialize" the races that were not included inHeroes of the Fallen Lands/Forgotten Kingdoms? The gnome, goliath, genasi, warforged, and deva don't currently have the option to choose stats, which is a shame because they are great races that deserve this treatment.Yes, as we move forward we will modify races to give them a choice on one of their ability score bonuses. You’ll see these rolled out in a combination of print products and Dragon articles. At this point, our main barrier is simply making time in the schedule to tackle it.
Looks like they found time.
More accurately, Wizards probably noticed how many people considered "finding time in our schedule" to be utter nonsense (how much time does it take to add a bunch of flex stats to a handful of races?)
As such, I believe Wizards decided to throw us a bone in order to de-escalate a frustrated fanbase before we pulled out our pitchforks and called for ye old mob lynching lol.
Don't forget the torches, and of course the rope.
Sounds like a reasonable guess, honestly.
If anyone read the last Rule of Three article, the motivation behind the flex-stat article should be painfully obvious.
1. Is there any plan to "essentialize" the races that were not included inHeroes of the Fallen Lands/Forgotten Kingdoms? The gnome, goliath, genasi, warforged, and deva don't currently have the option to choose stats, which is a shame because they are great races that deserve this treatment.Yes, as we move forward we will modify races to give them a choice on one of their ability score bonuses. You’ll see these rolled out in a combination of print products and Dragon articles. At this point, our main barrier is simply making time in the schedule to tackle it.
Looks like they found time.
More accurately, Wizards probably noticed how many people considered "finding time in our schedule" to be utter nonsense (how much time does it take to add a bunch of flex stats to a handful of races?)
As such, I believe Wizards decided to throw us a bone in order to de-escalate a frustrated fanbase before we pulled out our pitchforks and called for ye old mob lynching lol.
Well you have to realize that canabalizing a book that won't see print is a very time consuming process! They have to click copy and paste and then format it! They don't have time for doing that. They are forcing themselves to work two hour days in order to get this copy and paste to us by the end of this month(or beginning of April)! They are sacrificng their time and health to get us this article and you are accusing them of such unsavory motives? How dare you! :P
Back on topic a bit. What direction do you think they will go in with the Paragon Paths for the new "kit builds" (though I loathe calling them that) like the blackguard and binder?
I think they'll look like the default paragon paths in the essentials books. Just whatever you normally do, but in paragon levels. They'll do it in such a way that it will get confusing about which abilities are from your class and which are from your path, and if you don't take the default path you'll feel like your class is incomplete, like the essassin who misses out on paragon or epic poisons if you don't take the default path and destiny.
The non-default paths will be far cooler, if not more powerful, but it will be difficult for any of the e-builds to justify taking them over their default path, much as it would be difficult for a mage to give up their school advancements to take shadowthief instead of the default paragon mage path.
We already know the nethermancer/necromancer Path will be the same as the regular mage path just with necro/nether school abilities by virtue of them being mage schools.
Well yes that will be in there, but we don't know if there will also be new paths for necromancy or nethermancy mages respectively. Essentials had to be limited because it was for Beginners, but this isn't an Essentials line product.
wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/2...
It seems the Vamp will have a "suggested" paragon path, like those for the "kit builds" in the Essentials products. As will the rest of the "Classes" in the book. Also we get new info on how some older races interact with shadow (those that appeared in Heroes of the Fallen Lands). And 10 count'em 10 new Paragon Paths and 4 new Epic Destinies.
Surprised no Dark Pact Hexblade though...
Also the Binder is an actual new kit/class of Warlock like the Hexblade - they have Gloom & Star Pact Binders.
Surprised no Dark Pact Hexblade though...
It does mention the Gloom Pact. Which is probably pretty close.
The Dark Pact Warlock actually had more to do with the Underdark, drow society, and lolth stuff, than it did the Shadowfell.
I also like how the classes are listed first – it's new Cleric powers, new Warlock powers, new Wizard powers, rather than new Warpriest powers, Hexblade powers, Mage powers. It's clear that these should be options that any Cleric, Warlock, or Wizard might consider, and then there are the powers specific to the Death Domain Warpriest, the Gloom Pact Hexblade, and the Nethermancy and Necromancy School Mages.
I'm a bit upset that while they took the time to detail what Dwarves, Eladrin, Elves, Halflings, and Humans are like in the Shadowfell, they didn't give a little section on the Shadar-kai. It's probably because those are the five races from Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms, however, and are the most populous races. These are the Shadowborn, those humanoids who live in the Shadowfell.
The article, in it's description of Shadow Power, gives a lot of reason for why we have so few pure shadow classes, without ruling out future possibilities. In fact, I think it justifies the partial Shadow Executioner, and the Mage schools that dabble in Shadow. I'm beginning to wonder if Death Domain doesn't add Shadow to the keywords of Warpriest powers, and if the Blackguard will turn out to be, in fact dual Divine/Shadow power-sourced.
Binder still looks to be the coolest thing coming out of this book, in my tastes. Vampire and Vryloka will have to prove themselves. Shade will REALLY have to prove itself.
I'm psyched for the Binder. Including the two pacts that make the most sense – binding eldritch abominations and binding shadows and gloom to the the soul. I wonder what the class role is – could be striker, but a Binder (Warlock) might be a whole new breed of Warlock in a new role – more control?
Yep the Binder is a Controller - I am currently playing one now in a campaign and I LOVE it!
I MC'd Assassin so I get the feats that work with Fear powers. So when the Binder Fear Close Burst At-will I have misses, I still get to slide the targets. Combine that with a Superior Implement that grants +1 to slide and those magic boots that add +1 to slides, you get to slide the targets 3 squares even when you miss and push 4 when you hit.
Nice control for an At-will
Was it at D&DXP? Special beta user? Or is there a downloadable preview somewhere?
How'd you get prerelease Binder, AskaniPsion, if you don't mind me asking?
Was it at D&DXP? Special beta user? Or is there a downloadable preview somewhere?
I think they said it was the D&DXP playtest.
Back on topic a bit. What direction do you think they will go in with the Paragon Paths for the new "kit builds" (though I loathe calling them that) like the blackguard and binder?
I think they'll look like the default paragon paths in the essentials books. Just whatever you normally do, but in paragon levels. They'll do it in such a way that it will get confusing about which abilities are from your class and which are from your path, and if you don't take the default path you'll feel like your class is incomplete, like the essassin who misses out on paragon or epic poisons if you don't take the default path and destiny.
The non-default paths will be far cooler, if not more powerful, but it will be difficult for any of the e-builds to justify taking them over their default path, much as it would be difficult for a mage to give up their school advancements to take shadowthief instead of the default paragon mage path.
Personally, I think that the Executioner functions more effectively with a different PP than with the base PP. The extra 2d10 for AS is going to do less average DPE than a 2[w] encounter power, and other than that the poison is the only really cool thing in the PP. You still get more poisons along the same progression as in heroic tier from base class stuff, and then you get some cool PP stuff. Traveller's Harlequin is the most commonly cited example, but I'd say that a full poison build with the assassin poison feats and Venomed Soul PP would be pretty sweet. Also, Shadowblade ends up being a better PP for Executioner than for other Assassins, and an Executioner Covenent Agent build is pretty nice, just to throw out a couple examples.
Some classes do suffer, though. There aren't many (any?) good PP options for hexblades that don't involve multiclassing, for instance. Which is a bummer. I really like playing my white well hexblade. I've been thinking about mc-ing into a defender and looking at defender PPs. If nothing else, the white well hexblade with the right powers and feats puts out a lot more damage if creatures are attacking it....
er, sorry. /tangent.
How'd you get prerelease Binder, AskaniPsion, if you don't mind me asking?
Was it at D&DXP? Special beta user? Or is there a downloadable preview somewhere?
I think they said it was the D&DXP playtest.
Thanks, hatta. I skipped 20 pages of this thread (from page 18 to 38), and far more pages in the previous one, so I probably missed that.
On the note of the Gloom Pact, I doubt it'll be offered in the book for the Original Warlock. However, the Original Warlock is being updated in Dragon in June, in a Class Compendium article, a la the Warlord article this month. We might get it then.
The pact options seem to differ from kit to kit, but the pacts remain the same. So, eventually we might get Sorcerer-King Pact, Vestige Pact, Infernal Pact, Dark Pact, and Fey Pact Binders, and Sorcerer-King Pact, Vestige Pact, and Dark Pact Hexblades. I'd count more on the Sorcerer-King pact for Hexblades and Vestige Pact for Binders than the others though: Binders seem to be more in the thread of Cthulu Mythos horror, so Vestige Pact makes sense, while the weapon focus of Hexblades makes sense for a pact given to Templars. I could also see other pact options arising, so that certain kits have access to certain pacts, but no kit has options to all the pacts. Star Pact seems to be the only one shared in common, possibly because it's so frikkin' badass insanely cool.
How'd you get prerelease Binder, AskaniPsion, if you don't mind me asking?
Was it at D&DXP? Special beta user? Or is there a downloadable preview somewhere?
I think they said it was the D&DXP playtest.
Yeah the D&DXP
The class was missing a Utility Power and the Daily listed was crap - the Daily was pointed out to the DM running the game so hopefully the Daily will be changed in final print as there was a way for the target to avoid all the damage and no Effect line or Miss line.
As a binder fan of those days, I'm curious if e-style can bring back anything I like from the 3.5 class, though from what I've seen, beyond making pacts, it does't.
Back in third all Binders were "vestige pact".
As a binder fan of those days, I'm curious if e-style can bring back anything I like from the 3.5 class, though from what I've seen, beyond making pacts, it does't.
Yeah not sure what makes a "Binder" a binder for this class yet - maybe they have a "binding" 4th level ability not shown or maybe Summoning ability where the Gloom summons Shadow beasts & the Star summons tentacle fun.
If the Binders have Wand/Rod, I just hope they include a new one for the class because as of right now, all the rods are mostly useless for them due to no Warlock curse.
The table of contents confirms that the executioner is the only assassin we're getting in this book (booh!), and that the vampire is the only actual new class, and really the only truely new idea in the entire book - the rest all being re-tinted versions of stuff we already have, with the possible exception of the Blackguard, which really should have been its own class with how much it seems to have to do with the paladin mechanically and conceptually. Hopefully the vampire provides a strong and distinctive play experience, with enough internal variety to stay interesting. I don't have any of my books on hand to compare page count of the vampire with other classes, but I'm skeptical of the
There are exactly two pages of feats, which isn't promising for those who were hoping to see a range of powerful racial feats to make up for the Shade's failure mechanics. Both the Vryloka and the Shade have racial utility powers, which is cool as they're a neat idea. Unless having access to racial utility powers was the justification for the arbitrary surge penalty on shades, in which event it might just mean that Vryloka could suck as well. It's too soon to say.
I see a lot of fun fluff in Shadow Magic, but I don't see a lot of room for it to be reflected in new game mechanics given the mostly re-hashed nature of the classes we're getting. Certainly nothing that conveys the soul-tainted nature of Shadow magic the way the Shaman conveys the spirit-calling nature of Primal magic.
But who knows. Hopefully the class preview on friday is more substantial.
Similarly to how many wizards and warlocks accept the influence of the feywild in their use of magic.
Also, to my mind, this will prevent the existence of classes that just felt contrived- remember how the conceptualization of Ardent and battlemind were more or less...
Okay... so he's a warlord... but... EMPATHIC PSYCHIC POWERS
Okay... so he's a figther... but... PSYCHIC POWERS
and the Warden feels like a figther or paladin with shoehorned nature.
if the psionic classes had been designed with the shadow model, we could've had them as sub builds with the figther and warlord, and retained the psion as it's own class. We could have also had Soul knife rogue builds, and the like.
As a result, we could have had Ki similarly continue to be a power source, with the monk as a pure class, and various builds for other classes (like samurai figther builds and such, and a ninja thing for the rogue).
Also... have to be hoenst Malm, with all due respect... you (and others) would probably dismiss it as contrived based solely on the fact that you dissaprove of Shadow being anythign other than a pure power source, accusing them of laziness is a ridiculous charge, this actually forces them to work within the framework of a more complex system, it adds another dimension to the identification of power sources- it's also a creative solution to the problem of producing more support for the classes, it's an excellent way of covering archetypes people want to see, while producing more content for the current classes...
Just because you *could* produce a slew of full classes based on a thematically narrow (death, darkness, shadow, sinister) concept doesn't mean you should.
And I would politely disagree about the Warden or Battlemind lacking conceptual distinction. They certainly have more conceptual distinction then a 'binder' subclass does from a regular warlock, and they help their power sources have considerably more of a unique identity then shadow now will ever have. We've got minor variants of cleric, wizard ,and warlock, a monster class, the 'wishes it was a rogue' executioner, and the blackguard. Of all of them, the blackguard seems to have the most individual character, but can you honestly say it's more conceptually distinct as a subclass of paladin then it would have been on its own, when it has nothing to do with paladins?
As less then subclasses, most of these are completely unable to bring anything significantly new in their concepts or mechanics.
Getting back to your flippant characterization of ardents and battleminds....
Barbarian: he's a fighter but ANGRY
Warlord: he's a fighter but HEALS PEOPLE
Shaman: he's a druid but SUMMONS
Druid: he's a cleric but NATURE
Ranger: hes a figher but GOES CAMPING
Cleric: he's an invoker but HEALS PEOPLE
Invoker: he's a wizard but WORSHIPS STUFF
Monk: he's a rogue but UNARMED
Rogue: he's a fighter but LIGHT ARMOR
Swordmage: he's a figher but MAGIC
I mean really, most classes can be described in terms of other classes. If you're going to take that minimalistic a view, then we don't need any classes other then MAGIC GUY and NOT MAGIC GUY, if that even. But then you're giving up all the gameplay mechanic variety that separate classes can give.
New classes, unlike builds of existing classes or subclasses, especially when the latter are informed primarily by older editions of the game, have the potential to expand the bounds of D&D, move the game forward, and let people play characters they couldn't before, in ways they couldn't before. The Warlord and Shaman are two of the very best things to come out of 4th edition, and because Heroes of Shadow for the most part eschews new classes, it also abandons this potential for growth and the expansion of boundries. The Vampire and Blackguard are about the only real places left for meaningful innovation in this book, the only places where we might be able to play a character that we couldn't already play, and the former is a monster class (which has never worked before) while the latter is unnecessarily constrained by being a paladin subclass.
As for laziness - we have a copy-paste of the executioner to fill space in the move from paperback to hardcover. Is that lazy enough that I'm allowed to complain? They couldn't have even bothered to fix the shadow assassin instead? It wouldn't have even taken much work - though admitedly more then simply copy-pasting the executioner.
And having things as dual-powersources changes nothing.
Necromancer is a summoner wizard WHOS DARK
A nethermancer is probably an evoker/illusionist wizard, WHOS ALSO DARK
A blackguard is a paladin WHO IS DARK AND PROBABLY EVIL
Except instead of trying to get these classes to be their own, their completely submitting to it and making it just that.
Would you enjoy the warden any more if it was a Martial/Primal class and a part of the fighter?
Would it have made the battlemind or ardent any better to be Martial/Psionic builds?
This is especially the case for death domain warpriests and necromancer/nethermancer wizards - at least the Blackguard as a full subclass can kind of do something new, even if its unnecessarily constrained by having to share fluff, utilities, and feats with the paladin; but the necro/nethermancer and death priest have to have powers that are usable by the rest of the class and class features that fit within the framework of the existing class and have to have the general class features of their class. a Nethermancer simply isn't able to be anything other then a wizard with DARK flavor text - the mage framework simply doesn't allow for anything else.
Why can't builds of existing classes or subclasses expand the bounds of D&D, move the game forward, and let people play characters they couldn't before, in ways they couldn't before?
Cause you have to balance around all their existing feats, utilities and powers.
Yes, they expand it, but not as much as entirely new classes. Because then your free to do more.
I effectively whipped up my own blackguard class in my spare time over 2 days. With a full class i'd have to worry about options and how they'd interact with class features that are actually complex.
I might go post it in homebrew and see what people think.
- Do we have official confirmation that Revenaut and Assassin are now non-DDI exclusive? It seems obvious, I'd just like to hear the official explanation. I could have sworn there was some official assurance that this wouldn't be the case when Heroes of Shadow was announced. I don't much care, but it's strange.
- Any official explanation for the switch to hardcover? Did the soft-cover experiment not go as well as hoped, or what?
- The Vampire migration from Ravenloft to HoS also seems obvious, but any official confirmation that is what occured? Maybe we can get some other stuff poached from the defunct Ravenloft in DDI, like the Werewolf! And the Teen Emo class to round it out! ;)
- Finally, am I the only one confused by all of the Warlock stuff? Okay, so there's a new pact for the existing Warlock sub-class Hexblade, and that's called the Gloom Pact (I'm already winded). But there's ALSO something else new called a Binder? It's like, ANOTHER Warlock sub-class, or maybe a new pact for the regular Warlock, or both? Oh now I've gone cross-eyed.
2. I think there was. I think the major point underlining what they said was that because of the extra material they put into the book, it needed to be bigger – i.e., the refugees from Ravenloft Roleplaying Game.
3. Not official, hence why it was underlining, but considering that they never mentioned Vampire in here, but did in there, and now it's in here, announced after cancelling Ravenloft, it makes a lot of sense. There's a lot of speculation that a Lycanthrope class will appear in Heroes of the Feywild.
4. Original Warlock, Hexblade, and Binder are all subclasses of Warlock. Original Warlock will get a facelift in June or July abouts, and get it's own subclass name, like how the original Fighter will be called Blademaster or the original Rogue will be called Scoundrel. Each subclass of Warlock makes various pacts, some that are shared, some that are unique to that subclass. And each subclass' pact boons work differently – like the Hexblade getting a Pact Weapon. Binder is a Controller, unlike the Striker Hexblade or Striker Original Warlock. While the original Warlock has the Dark Pact, Fey Pact, Infernal Pact, Sorcerer-king Pact, Star Pact, and Vestige Pact; the Hexblade has the Fey Pact, the Gloom Pact, the Infernal Pact, and the Star Pact; and finally the Binder has the Gloom Pact and the Star Pact.
1. Yes. I don't think we have an official explanation, though.
2. I think there was. I think the major point underlining what they said was that because of the extra material they put into the book, it needed to be bigger – i.e., the refugees from Ravenloft Roleplaying Game.
3. Not official, hence why it was underlining, but considering that they never mentioned Vampire in here, but did in there, and now it's in here, announced after cancelling Ravenloft, it makes a lot of sense. There's a lot of speculation that a Lycanthrope class will appear in Heroes of the Feywild.
4. Original Warlock, Hexblade, and Binder are all subclasses of Warlock. Original Warlock will get a facelift in June or July abouts, and get it's own subclass name, like how the original Fighter will be called Blademaster or the original Rogue will be called Scoundrel. Each subclass of Warlock makes various pacts, some that are shared, some that are unique to that subclass. And each subclass' pact boons work differently – like the Hexblade getting a Pact Weapon. Binder is a Controller, unlike the Striker Hexblade or Striker Original Warlock. While the original Warlock has the Dark Pact, Fey Pact, Infernal Pact, Sorcerer-king Pact, Star Pact, and Vestige Pact; the Hexblade has the Fey Pact, the Gloom Pact, the Infernal Pact, and the Star Pact; and finally the Binder has the Gloom Pact and the Star Pact.
Thanks, that's just what I was looking for. Putting Lycanthrope in HotF would be sweet, I hadn't heard that. I also hadn't heard about all sub-classes getting titles; that's good to know. I understand the Warlock now I guess, though this Binder seems the weakest of the new classes (but someone has to be the weakest link, so it's all good).
So I'm pretty excited about this book. The Blackguard has the mechnics to support a concept I've tried to play in the past with mixed results. I'm thinking of running a a dark campaign where all of the characters have the option of gaining greater power by embracing the darkness. I'm thinking of using some compel/FATE mechanics there, should be pretty easy to tack on.
Heroes of Shadow table of contents
18 pages devoted to the assassin, executioner
16 pages devoted to the blackguard
14 pages devoted to vampire
19 pages devoted to warlock, binder
4 pages of new cleric powers
4 pages devoted to new warpriest domains
3 pages of new warlock powers
5 pages devoted to the gloom hexblade
11 pages of new wizard powers
4 pages devoted to new mage schools
7 pages devoted to the revenant
5 pages devoted to the shade
5 pages devoted to the vryloka
7 pages of core race fluff
11 pages devoted to 10 paragon paths each getting its own page ravenkin having 2 pages
4 pages for 4 epic destinies again a page each
3 pages of feats
2 pages of equipment
draw your own conclusions from this information. my original intent was to compare the number of pages given to new wizard powers to the pages given to cleric and warlock powers. i also found it interesting that the revenant has more pages than the shade and vryloka. so ok it's only a difference of 2 pages but you'd think it would have been the other way around with those races' utility powers.
For the most part, because as a subclass they're more narrow, they get less material to start off with, and they're stuck with another classes' mechanics, fluff, feats, and utility powers. Look at how much better the Shaman was able to do the pet class thing then the beastmaster.
True they are limited, but that doesn't mean they don't satisfy your criteria. When the Beastmaster ranger came out, it let people play characters they couldn't before. So did the Archer Warlord.
This is especially the case for death domain warpriests and necromancer/nethermancer wizards - at least the Blackguard as a full subclass can kind of do something new, even if its unnecessarily constrained by having to share fluff, utilities, and feats with the paladin; but the necro/nethermancer and death priest have to have powers that are usable by the rest of the class and class features that fit within the framework of the existing class and have to have the general class features of their class. a Nethermancer simply isn't able to be anything other then a wizard with DARK flavor text - the mage framework simply doesn't allow for anything else.
So basically you're upset because the Nethermancer and the others may not have a new, unique mechanic? That's fair I guess. Personally I don't really mind.
nethermancy apprentice: +1 dmg for powers with the necrotic keyword
necromancy apprentice: when you cast a spell that has the necromancy keyword that weakens, dazes or immobilizes an enemy that a save can end the enemy takes a penalty to the save equal to your constitution or charisma modifier.
who thinks that necro/nethermancy spells will have school keywords or ride on necrotic powers like pyromancy and fire. for instance...
nethermancy apprentice: +1 dmg for powers with the necrotic keyword
necromancy apprentice: when you cast a spell that has the necromancy keyword that weakens, dazes or immobilizes an enemy that a save can end the enemy takes a penalty to the save equal to your constitution or charisma modifier.
Everyone, that's how it works for Mage schools.
so far all of the mage school except pyromancy have their own keyword, my question was will necro/nethermancy be like that with no keyword or will it be like the others
i meant wich one will it be? will necromancy have a keyword or ride on another keyword like necrotic? will both schools work the same way or will one be a rider and the other have a keyword? or will they both have their own keywords? you must think i'm really stupid to have answered my question the way you did. if i'm being redundant it's only because my question was so grossly misunderstood i felt that it was necessary.
so far all of the mage school except pyromancy have their own keyword, my question was will necro/nethermancy be like that with no keyword or will it be like the others
I'm so sorry, I misunderstood what the question was. I'm guessing that they will both have their own keywords. And no I don't think you're stupid, I just didn't read carefully.
Just... wow.
where to begin...
The table of contents pretty much confirms that this is the 11th Essentials book. This book will effectively kill the Shadow Power Source, making it so that there will only be two classes (Assassin, DDi, and Vampire, HoS) and a lot of explanation for the overall feel for the other classes we will never get.
Instead, we have other power sources putting forth Kit Builds, with a splash of Shadow to the side, like putting salt on a hamburger. We also have "Character Options" that may be more like the Power Book builds, and the two Mage Builds, which somehow is separated from the "New Classes" section. At least we didn't have the Illusionist reprinted as a mage build this time around.
So we have new PP and ED, on top of the PP that are a part of the Kit Builds. Wonder if some of those are lost class concepts paired down to a couple of powers and abilities?
This is a sad, sad day.
Wow.
Just... wow.
where to begin...
The table of contents pretty much confirms that this is the 11th Essentials book. This book will effectively kill the Shadow Power Source, making it so that there will only be two classes (Assassin, DDi, and Vampire, HoS) and a lot of explanation for the overall feel for the other classes we will never get.
Instead, we have other power sources putting forth Kit Builds, with a splash of Shadow to the side, like putting salt on a hamburger. We also have "Character Options" that may be more like the Power Book builds, and the two Mage Builds, which somehow is separated from the "New Classes" section. At least we didn't have the Illusionist reprinted as a mage build this time around.
So we have new PP and ED, on top of the PP that are a part of the Kit Builds. Wonder if some of those are lost class concepts paired down to a couple of powers and abilities?
This is a sad, sad day.
For you. I'm pretty happy actually with what I've seen.
For you. I'm pretty happy actually with what I've seen.
Yep I like what I am seeing too.
Just wish it was coming out this month
For you. I'm pretty happy actually with what I've seen.
Yep I like what I am seeing too.
Just wish it was coming out this month
Oh so do I. I've been waiting for stuff like this for years.
Looks promising. I just hope that the Vampire class draws upon the huge legacy of vampiric myth, and doesnt limit itself to the movie Nosferatu for its inspiration.
From what we've seen, it looks pretty Stokery in the good way.
What will it look like? Will the abilities look like classic, stokeresk vampires? Will they be more shadowy in nature, as befits its power source? Will they look more like the powers of 4e monster vampires? Will they have necromantic powers over other undead, summon creatures of the night, or shapechange? Will they have a strong domination theme? Or will they just spam bite attacks? Will they be strikers or controllers or something else? Will they sparkle in daylight? Will you get excellant class features like 'radiant vulnerability' and 'light blindness'? Will they have actual choices of powers, allowing for some internal variety, or will there be exactly two builds, one for this bloodline and one for that? Will they have round by round or level by level variety like essentials wizards and clerics, or will they spam the same action every round of every encounter of every level of every campaign, like essentials fighters or rogues? Will Vampires save this book for me, or will they be the final disappointment?
Who knows? None of us. Maybe we'll get lucky and see some actual mechanics on Friday. But that's not a sure thing, either. After seeing that the only assassin content is a reprint of DDI's martial executioner, the Vampire is the very thing in this book that I'm holding out any hope for, and its not a lot of hope at that, given how lackluster monster classes have always been in the past.
We've seen basically nothing. One piece of concept art really. The pic had a sword, so maybe some weapon attacks? Even that's stretching it, though.
What will it look like? Will the abilities look like classic, stokeresk vampires? Will they be more shadowy in nature, as befits its power source? Will they look more like the powers of 4e monster vampires? Will they have necromantic powers over other undead, summon creatures of the night, or shapechange? Will they have a strong domination theme? Or will they just spam bite attacks? Will they be strikers or controllers or something else? Will they sparkle in daylight? Will you get excellant class features like 'radiant vulnerability' and 'light blindness'? Will they have actual choices of powers, allowing for some internal variety, or will there be exactly two builds, one for this bloodline and one for that? Will they have round by round or level by level variety like essentials wizards and clerics, or will they spam the same action every round of every encounter of every level of every campaign, like essentials fighters or rogues? Will Vampires save this book for me, or will they be the final disappointment?
Who knows? None of us. Maybe we'll get lucky and see some actual mechanics on Friday. But that's not a sure thing, either. After seeing that the only assassin content is a reprint of DDI's martial executioner, the Vampire is the very thing in this book that I'm holding out any hope for, and its not a lot of hope at that, given how lackluster monster classes have always been in the past.
I meant the bloodlines, they give small evidences to being similar to the classic Stoker vampire. I may have exaggerated some. Deep Breaths, okay?
I'm just saying, there's a lot in the air with vampires. The bloodlines don't really tell us anything other then that there will be two builds.
Well it does say one will be beguiling and the other probably has a few restraining orders on it.
Why can't builds of existing classes or subclasses expand the bounds of D&D, move the game forward, and let people play characters they couldn't before, in ways they couldn't before?
Because Essentials hasn't done it so far, the essentials defenders laud them for it, so why should they start pushing boundries now? For god sakes they've made 2 copies of the warlock in 3 books!
The Beastmaster (note very pre-Essentials) tried but failed to perform and the Shamen did the job fantastically. The "archer warlord" already existed in the Artificer, which nailed down at least 2 more archetypes in the same swoop
Because Essentials hasn't done it so far, the essentials defenders laud them for it, so why should they start pushing boundries now? For god sakes they've made 2 copies of the warlock in 3 books!
At-Will Stances, Movement Tricks, Martial Controller, effective melee Warlock without a ridiculous Feat expenditure.
Nope, nothing new in Essentials at all. Nothing to see here. Move along.
The Beastmaster (note very pre-Essentials) tried but failed to perform and the Shamen did the job fantastically.
And the Sentinel does a much better job of having a combat capable pet than both.
The "archer warlord" already existed in the Artificer, which nailed down at least 2 more archetypes in the same swoop
And what does the archer Warlord have to do with Essentials, being from Martial Power 2?
So far you have given us several examples of how previous 4E design tried to push the boundaries and failed, and precious few about how Essentials design has. In fact, you may have hurt your own case and helped that of the "Essentials defenders."
Bravo, chap! Well played. ;)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrykolakas
Because Essentials hasn't done it so far, the essentials defenders laud them for it, so why should they start pushing boundries now? For god sakes they've made 2 copies of the warlock in 3 books!
At-Will Stances, Movement Tricks, Martial Controller, effective melee Warlock without a ridiculous Feat expenditure.
At-Will Stances + Movement Tricks = "You may use this power as a melee basic attack". You defenders have been using that arugment for a while. Honestly, it isnt new, just a different way to express it. It actually limits you from using other stances at the same time. Technicly the Seeker first broke this ground with all his RBA powers too.
Also, the hunter is a Martial/Primal controller, that apparently suffers in later tiers. I'd call dual-powersource more pushing boundaries.
A melee lock isnt really pushing boundaries. I mean, sure, it takes alot of feat investment, but I've been seeing them on these boards forever.
As a slight tangent - I stumbled upon this wikipedia reference to the Vrykolakas (Greek "Vampire") while doing some research on vampires for my own RPG. Looks like Wizards may have done their own research when coming up with the name for their Vampiric race.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrykolakas
I know someone brought this up somewhere here. . .
Oh wait, it was me! ;)
Because Essentials hasn't done it so far, the essentials defenders laud them for it, so why should they start pushing boundries now? For god sakes they've made 2 copies of the warlock in 3 books!
At-Will Stances, Movement Tricks, Martial Controller, effective melee Warlock without a ridiculous Feat expenditure.
At-Will Stances + Movement Tricks = "You may use this power as a melee basic attack". You defenders have been using that arugment for a while. Honestly, it isnt new, just a different way to express it. It actually limits you from using other stances at the same time. Technicly the Seeker first broke this ground with all his RBA powers too.
Also, the hunter is a Martial/Primal controller, that apparently suffers in later tiers. I'd call dual-powersource more pushing boundaries.
A melee lock isnt really pushing boundaries. I mean, sure, it takes alot of feat investment, but I've been seeing them on these boards forever.
Dual power source.. ummm multiclassing and yes hybrids which actually existed for many of us well before phb3... then realize the Emartial encounter effects just have a reliable keyword. (it is indeed largely an adjusted presentation).
They made certain things easier in an effort to evoke certain stereotypes (they took mental stats out of the fighters pervue discipline and perception what soldier needs that? .. this is old D&D in style anyway)
Heroes of Shadow class preview's up. We see a bit of the vampire. Of note - you don't get to choose your encounter powers, and you don't get to choose your daily powers. You might get to choose at will powers, or you might not, they might be determined by your bloodline, since it doesn't seem to determine anything else. Seems like my worst case scenario - radiant vulnerability, daylight damge, spam a couple at will attacks, with an encounter blood drain and some daily shape-shifts or dominates that you don't get to choose. Little to nothing in the way of internal variety or customization, not especially shadowy.
I am dissapoint.
I will have to disagree with you on that last point. The daily at least was perfectly shadowy.
But I am bummed that the class appears to not have any real options. I've spent a great deal of time on these and other forums defending 4th edition against those who want to paint it as tabletop WoW. A class with no important choices while leveling feels like playing WoW, to me.
Vryloka preview is up, I'm getting my flame retardant ready.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/2...
Hmmm I don't like their take on why halflings and dwarves would use Shadow magic. To me, Dwarves would use Primal before Shadow and Halflings would use Fey (Arcane) before Shadow.
Drow and Changelings would have made more sense.
Vryloka preview is up, I'm getting my flame retardant ready.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/2...
Hmmm I don't like their take on why halflings and dwarves would use Shadow magic. To me, Dwarves would use Primal before Shadow and Halflings would use Fey (Arcane) before Shadow.
Drow and Changelings would have made more sense.
Maybe so, but it doesn't really state that they wouldn't. Just that they do use shadow on occasion.
Fluff is hyper generic, and, as expected, rather redundant with the vampire class. But whatev's, that was fully expected, and I can deal with it. Mechanics... like I said, too tired to pass judgment.
So we've got one race with -1 healing surge, and another with -2 surge value. Meh, I'm too tired to form any sort of opinion on the previewed features.
Fluff is hyper generic, and, as expected, rather redundant with the vampire class. But whatev's, that was fully expected, and I can deal with it. Mechanics... like I said, too tired to pass judgment.
Well there is the bright side. You get a lot of the vampire flavor without quite as many drawbacks.
Vryloka preview is up, I'm getting my flame retardant ready.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/2...
Hmmm I don't like their take on why halflings and dwarves would use Shadow magic. To me, Dwarves would use Primal before Shadow and Halflings would use Fey (Arcane) before Shadow.
Drow and Changelings would have made more sense.
As I said in another thread, Birthright Halflings would like to have a word with you, since they were natives of the Birthright equivalent of the Shadowfell. And since the preview there's description fits the Birthright halflings.
Also - me likeys the vryloka.
Vryloka preview is up, I'm getting my flame retardant ready.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/2...
Hmmm I don't like their take on why halflings and dwarves would use Shadow magic. To me, Dwarves would use Primal before Shadow and Halflings would use Fey (Arcane) before Shadow.
Drow and Changelings would have made more sense.
As I said in another thread, Birthright Halflings would like to have a word with you, since they were natives of the Birthright equivalent of the Shadowfell. And since the preview there's description fits the Birthright halflings.
Also - me likeys the vryloka.
I chalk it up to differences between tribes and settlements. One may be more inclined toward arcane magic, another toward shadow, and yet another toward primal. As far as the Vryloka, I also like them. Perhaps a vryloka Barbarian is in order.
I like.
More awake now, the vryloka still looks very generic from a fluff angle. I'm not really feeling it. The mechanical penalty is too strong at first level, while being pointless past low levels. Why include that kind of penalty at all? none of their features look 'strong at first level and pointless later on'. There doesn't seem to be any real fluff reason for it. As with the shade's racial penalty, I'm left asking 'why'?
Further, this is exactly the kind of thing they did away with racial penalties over - something that needlessly punishes characters of particular race/class combinations. Defenders need their surge value because the entire point of that party role is to channel damage to themselves. Why go out of their way to punish first level vryloka fighters and the like?
It just seems unnecessary, both from a fluff and from a mechanics angle.
Add'l leveled racial powers is a good idea, yes, but it's a good idea for any race, why restrict it to monster races in the first place.
More awake now, the vryloka still looks very generic from a fluff angle. I'm not really feeling it. The mechanical penalty is too strong at first level, while being pointless past low levels. Why include that kind of penalty at all? none of their features look 'strong at first level and pointless later on'. There doesn't seem to be any real fluff reason for it. As with the shade's racial penalty, I'm left asking 'why'?
I like to think of it like this. They're living beings that are tainted by undeath. They are stuck between the two. They're dependent on blood like a vampire, but they don't have a vampire's ability to regenerate. So when they are injured, they don't recover as quickly as either a human or a Vampire. Seemingly it is hard to be both alive and undead at the same time. Your living body still has it's needs and ways of working, but the undead half of you has an entirely different set of needs and ways of working that are antithetical to those of your living half. When you become injured both halves of your being try to accomplish the same thing (repairing the damage) in their own way and they have a Three Stooges "all stuck in the door at once" sort of moment.
I like to think of it like this. They're living beings that are tainted by undeath. They are stuck between the two. They're dependent on blood like a vampire, but they don't have a vampire's ability to regenerate. So when they are injured, they don't recover as quickly as either a human or a Vampire. Seemingly it is hard to be both alive and undead at the same time. Your living body still has it's needs and ways of working, but the undead half of you has an entirely different set of needs and ways of working that are antithetical to those of your living half. When you become injured both halves of your being try to accomplish the same thing (repairing the damage) in their own way and they have a Three Stooges "all stuck in the door at once" sort of moment.
Eh explanation doesn't work for me especially considering that the Revenant, the original half living half undead race, is in the same book and their whole thing is that they are pretty much impossible to take down(if properly built) because of their half undead half living state.
You can justify anything (that's what fandoms do). But without the penalty they'd still be just as Vryloka as they are with it. It's arbitrary and unnecessary.
I don't mind penalties so much, though I'm not a huge fan. What I mind are mechanics like this that must be turned off and on. I'll be all the gp in the kingdom that this gets forgotten more often than its remembered. Any takers?
I'm realizing that this stuff really lacks CHOICES for characters flirting with dark powers. Greater power in exchange for loss of soul, that sort of thing.
On a related note, my wife pointed out that there really should be a way to BECOME a vampire during a campaign. There don't appear to be any Vampire multi-class feats, though hopefully that can be remedied in the future. Would be nice if Vryloka had some sort of inside track to gain these feats, be that a boon or curse.
I like to think of it like this. They're living beings that are tainted by undeath. They are stuck between the two. They're dependent on blood like a vampire, but they don't have a vampire's ability to regenerate. So when they are injured, they don't recover as quickly as either a human or a Vampire. Seemingly it is hard to be both alive and undead at the same time. Your living body still has it's needs and ways of working, but the undead half of you has an entirely different set of needs and ways of working that are antithetical to those of your living half. When you become injured both halves of your being try to accomplish the same thing (repairing the damage) in their own way and they have a Three Stooges "all stuck in the door at once" sort of moment.
Eh explanation doesn't work for me especially considering that the Revenant, the original half living half undead race, is in the same book and their whole thing is that they are pretty much impossible to take down(if properly built) because of their half undead half living state.
A revenant is a being brought back from the dead by a god or other higher power to in order to complete a defined task. Vryloka are the descendants of power-hungry human nobles who used a ritual to attain the longevity of vampires. They have very different flavor, though my previous explanation is really more of rationalization.
Add'l leveled racial powers is a good idea, yes, but it's a good idea for any race, why restrict it to monster races in the first place.
I agree. That is why I will be submitting an article(s) on Racial Powers to Dragon as I think the idea is excellent for all races, and is an excellent way of fulfilling one of the Dev's original design goals (one they scrapped some time during the Dev cycle*) - to make race have a larger impact than it did in previous editions (esp. the heroic tier).
* It was their original goal to have your race grant "leveled" abilities all throughout the heroic tier, in order to make a Dwarf Fighter feel culturally and racially distinct from say an Elf Fighter and a Human Fighter, but at some point the Dev's realized it was too difficult to create that much quality material without it feeling contrieved.
Add'l leveled racial powers is a good idea, yes, but it's a good idea for any race, why restrict it to monster races in the first place.
I agree. That is why I will be submitting an article(s) on Racial Powers to Dragon as I think the idea is excellent for all races, and is an excellent way of fulfilling one of the Dev's original design goals (one they scrapped some time during the Dev cycle*) - to make race have a larger impact than it did in previous editions (esp. the heroic tier).
* It was their original goal to have your race grant "leveled" abilities all throughout the heroic tier, in order to make a Dwarf Fighter feel culturally and racially distinct from say an Elf Fighter and a Human Fighter, but at some point the Dev's realized it was too difficult to create that much quality material without it feeling contrieved.
Best of luck to you, I'd be more than willing to offer my opinions if you actually get the opportunity.
On a related note, my wife pointed out that there really should be a way to BECOME a vampire during a campaign.
One word. Dhampyre.
As far as multi-class feats are concerned, the book has 2 pages of feats. Vampire MC is a possibility (as is Blackguard etc), as this book is not part of the "Core" Esssentials line (which eliminated multi-classing in order to reduce game complexity) and can therefore include more complex elements, such as multiclassing (despite using the Essentials class design).
Its also entirely possible that the Hybrid/Multi-Classing rules for the Vampire are included within the classes 10+ pages itself (this would make sense as it would keep all things relating to the class coherrent in the same section of the book).
The fact that the Dev's fully intend on releasing multi-class/hybrid rules for the "Core" Essentials products (via Dragon) supports this hypothesis.
As far as multi-class feats are concerned, the book has 2 pages of feats. Vampire MC is a possibility (as is Blackguard etc), as this book is not part of the "Core" Esssentials line (which eliminated multi-classing in order to reduce game complexity) and can therefore include more complex elements, such as multiclassing (despite using the Essentials class design).
Its also entirely possible that the Hybrid/Multi-Classing rules for the Vampire are included within the classes 10+ pages itself (this would make sense as it would keep all things relating to the class coherrent in the same section of the book).
The fact that the Dev's fully intend on releasing multi-class/hybrid rules for the "Core" Essentials products (via Dragon) supports this hypothesis.
That would be sweetness, but we'll see. We've seen that the Vampire is an Esesntials-style class, like the Executioner. That means that they don't have a modular all-power style progression. Thus multiclass feats would require rolling out an innovative new solution (never mind what would be needed for hybrid). Sure, it might happen, and I'd love it. It just seems to me that the devs would crack the Essentials nut first if they'd really figured it out, so I'm not holding my breath for Shadow.
The Blackguard from what I have gathered so far is the only Striker that I know of that could focus primarily on defending if he choose. Even Slayers only have limited ways to mark and no mark punishment, but the blackguard has excess to all kinds of divine sanction fun from Pally powers, feats, and Paragon Paths and multiple ways to gain temps.
The Blackguard starts with two utilities that grant temp hitpoints one also grants partial cover and the level 2 boost thp and defenses. He also has an at will that grants thp which means he can use the power with his encounter power so he can get more use out of it. A vryloka will also have his racial encounter power, so I figure he'll rarely need healing as long as he plays it slightly more defensively for a few levels.
I believe it is a dark mirror to the summon mount power of Cavaliers, although oddly cavs should be able to take it at level 6.
People are making the weaknesses way to much of a big deal. Don't you think they play tested them first? I mean they might be annoying but at worst they are a slight feat tax. People treat them like they are the worst thing to happen in the world.
I learned all this by the way on the EN World and rpgnet boards. I also learned that if you read the shades fluff or even the frcg that aren't fluffed for assassins and thieves at all. Thier fluffed as Stealthy leaders and controllers. They are the Shadowfell intellectual elites vs the Shadar Kai's peasants. They are rarely lower themselves to being asssassins and thieves. They have people for that. In FR the Iconic Shades, the Netheril Princes amoung others are all wizards and or clerics or even a Swordmage. They are not thieves or assassins. That is part of the difference between the Shadar Kai and Shades. You will find Shadar Kai simple Rogues, common soldiers, and farmers, were you won't find Shades in such lesser roles. The ritual that creates shades wittles away the weak willed, unworthy, and those too stupid to gain access to the ritual. Shades are self made individuals not those simple born of Shadow and with that comes a sense of supperiourity. Its an elitism of meritocracy though not nobility like say the Vrylokas. Shades are Shadow by will and Shadar Kai are shadow by blood.
When it comes to the Vrylokas yes they share a simular back story to tieflings, but I suspect that is no accident. The "Red Witch" could very well be a tiefling using the Vrylokas as an exiperment to further understand the pact magic that created her race by seeing if it could be applied to something other then devils. Also I find the have your cake and eat it too thing with the vryloka interesting. They're not really undead, nor are they related to undead like Dampyrs. They are aliving race that used a bloodbonding ritual no to achive undead but to change their living biological evolution to something that emulates the undead, the same way some creatures in the wild evolved to emulate or appear as more dangerous creatures.
The bloodwolf power really fits well with rangers btw, focusing on improving tracking and scouting as it does.
I'm really looking forward to the shadow pps this friday.
First off the daily has a level so it can be multiclassed away. The only thing so far that can't be multiclassed is the encounter and basic features and if you multiclassed the vampires encounter away you'd cripple your vampire. Thanks to the vampires features a Vryloka vampire wouldn't care about the surge thing thanks to its regen when bloodied and its life is blood feature. A Vryloka Blackguard would focus more often on its powers that generate temp hitpoints of which the blackguard has many. In fact the only time the Blackguard will normally burn real temps are if he foregoes his thp granting at will to focus on his more damaging powers and even then he will have to have exhuasted his utility powers that grant thps.
The Blackguard from what I have gathered so far is the only Striker that I know of that could focus primarily on defending if he choose. Even Slayers only have limited ways to mark and no mark punishment, but the blackguard has excess to all kinds of divine sanction fun from Pally powers, feats, and Paragon Paths and multiple ways to gain temps.
The Blackguard starts with two utilities that grant temp hitpoints one also grants partial cover and the level 2 boost thp and defenses. He also has an at will that grants thp which means he can use the power with his encounter power so he can get more use out of it. A vryloka will also have his racial encounter power, so I figure he'll rarely need healing as long as he plays it slightly more defensively for a few levels.
I believe it is a dark mirror to the summon mount power of Cavaliers, although oddly cavs should be able to take it at level 6.
People are making the weaknesses way to much of a big deal. Don't you think they play tested them first? I mean they might be annoying but at worst they are a slight feat tax. People treat them like they are the worst thing to happen in the world.
I learned all this by the way on the EN World and rpgnet boards. I also learned that if you read the shades fluff or even the frcg that aren't fluffed for assassins and thieves at all. Thier fluffed as Stealthy leaders and controllers. They are the Shadowfell intellectual elites vs the Shadar Kai's peasants. They are rarely lower themselves to being asssassins and thieves. They have people for that. In FR the Iconic Shades, the Netheril Princes amoung others are all wizards and or clerics or even a Swordmage. They are not thieves or assassins. That is part of the difference between the Shadar Kai and Shades. You will find Shadar Kai simple Rogues, common soldiers, and farmers, were you won't find Shades in such lesser roles. The ritual that creates shades wittles away the weak willed, unworthy, and those too stupid to gain access to the ritual. Shades are self made individuals not those simple born of Shadow and with that comes a sense of supperiourity. Its an elitism of meritocracy though not nobility like say the Vrylokas. Shades are Shadow by will and Shadar Kai are shadow by blood.
When it comes to the Vrylokas yes they share a simular back story to tieflings, but I suspect that is no accident. The "Red Witch" could very well be a tiefling using the Vrylokas as an exiperment to further understand the pact magic that created her race by seeing if it could be applied to something other then devils. Also I find the have your cake and eat it too thing with the vryloka interesting. They're not really undead, nor are they related to undead like Dampyrs. They are aliving race that used a bloodbonding ritual no to achive undead but to change their living biological evolution to something that emulates the undead, the same way some creatures in the wild evolved to emulate or appear as more dangerous creatures.
The bloodwolf power really fits well with rangers btw, focusing on improving tracking and scouting as it does.
I'm really looking forward to the shadow pps this friday.
Well put, I have been making the same argument for months.
Personally I agree with Mr. Schwalb's sentiments here. He stands as a generally respected figure among game designers, and as he is a freelancer I doubt he is just trotting out the corporate song and dance.
I hate to beat a dead horse but Robert J. Schwalb just made a blog post that I think is an interesting argument about Power Sources and Essentials. I am posting a link for anyone that wants to read it. www.robertjschwalb.com/2011/03/batteries...
Personally I agree with Mr. Schwalb's sentiments here. He stands as a generally respected figure among game designers, and as he is a freelancer I doubt he is just trotting out the corporate song and dance.
Hey fun I get to whine at a game designer.
Put simply I disagree with him, but I don't think that is really a suprise to anyone. I really don't feel like deconstructing the entirity of his post, but to me it seems like he is complaining because there was a phantom grid that they felt compelled to follow and the only complaint about power sources was this grid. And frankly their own desire to complete said grid is hardly going to change my mind on how bad the change in direction was.
-=Edit: I also feel compelled to point out that the "all mighty grid" was only fully appeased by essentials adding a (sub-par) martial controller.=-
I hate to beat a dead horse but Robert J. Schwalb just made a blog post that I think is an interesting argument about Power Sources and Essentials. I am posting a link for anyone that wants to read it. www.robertjschwalb.com/2011/03/batteries...
Personally I agree with Mr. Schwalb's sentiments here. He stands as a generally respected figure among game designers, and as he is a freelancer I doubt he is just trotting out the corporate song and dance.
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say. Hooray for content with a story behind it that connects to a wide range of players, new and old. Boo to filling out a grid with a bunch of forced extra classes, appealing to a few munchkins wanting to be different for different's sake. *looks at PH2 and PH3 pointedly*
I hate to beat a dead horse but Robert J. Schwalb just made a blog post that I think is an interesting argument about Power Sources and Essentials. I am posting a link for anyone that wants to read it. www.robertjschwalb.com/2011/03/batteries...
Personally I agree with Mr. Schwalb's sentiments here. He stands as a generally respected figure among game designers, and as he is a freelancer I doubt he is just trotting out the corporate song and dance.
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say. Hooray for content with a story behind it that connects to a wide range of players, new and old. Boo to filling out a grid with a bunch of forced extra classes, appealing to a few munchkins wanting to be different for different's sake. *looks at PH2 and PH3 pointedly*
Though I enjoy playing "different" I'm glad the grid is gone. It was just too rigid for me. Role and Power source are a minor part of mechanics at best. With the limitation of The Grid lifted we no longer have to stick to the same role with subclasses and are free to add powersources as well.
I hate to beat a dead horse but Robert J. Schwalb just made a blog post that I think is an interesting argument about Power Sources and Essentials. I am posting a link for anyone that wants to read it. www.robertjschwalb.com/2011/03/batteries...
Personally I agree with Mr. Schwalb's sentiments here. He stands as a generally respected figure among game designers, and as he is a freelancer I doubt he is just trotting out the corporate song and dance.
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say. Hooray for content with a story behind it that connects to a wide range of players, new and old. Boo to filling out a grid with a bunch of forced extra classes, appealing to a few munchkins wanting to be different for different's sake. *looks at PH2 and PH3 pointedly*
It occurs to me that this was unnecessarily critical and caustic. Let me say, rather, that some of the more blue-sky classes appeal to experienced players who really love a variety of crunch. There's nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't service the larger population as well as it might.
Multi-source subclasses don't define a power source the way full classes do, and new power sources aren't in the least required for new themed subclasses. 'mental' mage types like illusionist and enchanter didn't need to be psychic any more then 'spooky' mage types need to be shadow.
I cannot disagree enough. There's "needless grid filling" and then there's stubborn rejection of any new content that wouldn't have fit into the framework of D&D three decades ago. Games of imagination cannot coexist with a mentality that treats novelty as a dirty word.
Hatta: I don't have time to form a proper response that sums up my feelings in a suitably bite-sized nugget for that blog today, but I'll post something by the end of the week, though.
The mixing of the Roles in some of the Kit Builds makes it so that the design choices for the new Role for the new Kit Build suffers because of the Role that the Base Class already has. It weakens the build as it tries to change the base class to work differently than it's previous incarnations.
The mixing of power sources makes for uneven fluff, uninspired mechanics, and an overall weak secondary Power Source that ends up being pared down to Keywords.
Sorry, but his view is skewed by the want to have the previous edition be inserted into the current one. He saw Power Sources as a catalog, not as they are.
And from the preview of Shades, it seems like they're going with the trend of no actual racial power, but letting you replace utilities with powers. I honestly don't like this at all. I really enjoyed 4th's races and their racial power that defined their flavor kinda. Now though these two races have nothing to them really unless you lose utilities to get powers. Which sure, sometimes classes have utility levels that I couldn't careless, but...eh. Just hoping that this isn't their trend for races in the future.
But I'm a little curious about the HoS book. What I'm wondering about is this. Friends of mine claimed that HoS isn't an Essentials book, that the stuff is normal 4th. But the Vamp class is Essentials. Then I checked out the table of contents and they have the Warlock Binder, which I have no clue if that's a new essentials build or what. Then they have the Gloom Pact, and Star Pact(thought we already had this...) so I'm wondering. Does anyone know for a fact whether there's actual normal 4th ed class builds and all?
I'm not meaning just new powers, which I get there are and can be used, but actual class builds which is what I'm guess the Warlock Gloom Pact is. Would be nice.
The mixing of the Roles in some of the Kit Builds makes it so that the design choices for the new Role for the new Kit Build suffers because of the Role that the Base Class already has. It weakens the build as it tries to change the base class to work differently than it's previous incarnations.
No, it doesn't. They may as well be separate classes that share a few things. None of which weakens either class. You're making stuff up again.
The Gloom Pact is a build option for Hexblades (Warlock), and there's also Star Pact and Gloom Pact build options for Binders (Warlock), but not for Warlocks (Warlock). Think of the Binder and Hexblade as subclasses of the Warlock, in addition to the original Warlock, rather than builds of warlock. Similar to how Knight and Slayer are subclasses of the Fighter, in addition to the original Fighter builds, which are now collectively called Weaponmaster. So you have a Brawling Weaponmaster and a Tempest Weaponmaster (amongst other builds), and you have the Sword-and-Board Knight and the Hammer-and-Board Knight and you have the Greatsword Slayer and the Greataxe Slayer. These all are builds of subclasses of the Fighter class. So use that as analogous to Warlocks. Pacts are the builds for all Warlock subclasses, but the Star Pact works differently for Warlocks, Binders, and Hexblades.
The Cleric options include a new build for Warpriests (Death Domain). The Wizard options include two new builds for Mages. But these aren't builds for the original Cleric or Wizard.
You are incorrect about Shades. They have a perfectly useable racial utility power that doesn't trade out your normal utility powers for it – it's the class racial at-will utility power, one with shadow.
You are incorrect about Shades. They have a perfectly useable racial utility power that doesn't trade out your normal utility powers for it – it's the class racial at-will utility power, one with shadow.
Well .... prefectly useable, but arguably not very useful. Largely due to the inane Standard Action thing.
You're in for a disapppointment, I guess.
The Gloom Pact is a build option for Hexblades (Warlock), and there's also Star Pact and Gloom Pact build options for Binders (Warlock), but not for Warlocks (Warlock). Think of the Binder and Hexblade as subclasses of the Warlock, in addition to the original Warlock, rather than builds of warlock. Similar to how Knight and Slayer are subclasses of the Fighter, in addition to the original Fighter builds, which are now collectively called Weaponmaster. So you have a Brawling Weaponmaster and a Tempest Weaponmaster (amongst other builds), and you have the Sword-and-Board Knight and the Hammer-and-Board Knight and you have the Greatsword Slayer and the Greataxe Slayer. These all are builds of subclasses of the Fighter class. So use that as analogous to Warlocks. Pacts are the builds for all Warlock subclasses, but the Star Pact works differently for Warlocks, Binders, and Hexblades.
The Cleric options include a new build for Warpriests (Death Domain). The Wizard options include two new builds for Mages. But these aren't builds for the original Cleric or Wizard.
You are incorrect about Shades. They have a perfectly useable racial utility power that doesn't trade out your normal utility powers for it – it's the class racial at-will utility power, one with shadow.
He also seems to be incorrect about the Vryloka not having a racial power. They do, and it's pretty darn good.
Because of the nature of the roles in party formation, whereby one generally wants close to one of each role in a party, there was a desire to create new classes for each role in each source book. Otherewise there would be no new stuff for some roles, and the players compelled to play the controller or whatever for the good of the group wouldn't get any new fun toys. Thus brand new psi-defender, psi-striker, and psi-healer, or whatever.
The new design direction can solve this problem in different ways. It can create new toys for each role by giving those toys to existing classes, either through new builds (Blackguard) or new options for old builds (Necromancer). Thus new content can follow story elements more closely. The psi-Defender, for example, could easily have been a build for the Fighter, and not forced the designers to strain themselves fluffing out a whole extra class will little analogue in fiction.
That aside, again it's not so much that I need SHADOW CLASS FOR EVERY BOX, and more that I need Shadow Classes to establish a conceptual identity for the Shadow power source distinct from that of other sources. Something that could have lasting impact on future versions of D&D. Mixed source builds and subclasses, built to reflect other sources as much (and frequently more) then shadow, really can't do that effectively. Vampire and Assassin could be a good start, except that Vampire is far too thematically and mechanically narrow to do so as presented, while the Assassin is painfully gimped and unsupported, and now seems largely abandoned in favor of the more-martial-than-shadow executioner.
Give me an AEDU subclass of vampire (a la mage) that allows it to spread out into a wider thematic space, and an update to the original assassin that allows it to contribute meaningfully to the game for all 30 levels, and we'd be, well not in a good place, but in a better one. One or two more classes beyond that would be enough in my mind. Even if they're all strikers - again the grid isn't so important to me, even if the reflexive aversion to filling it seems even more arbitrary and unnecessary.
Classes created to fit a Source-Role grid fits a design policy that there are only four classes: Defender, Leader, Striker, and Controller, with various power source flavour expressions of these. Classes should feel that they are different, rather than just iterations of the same. This is why people freaked at the Ardent, calling it "A Psychic Warlord" or why people called the Invoker "a Holy Wizard." Classes need something that really distinguishes them and makes them feel like they're their own thing, while still fulfilling the basic needs in the party for a mechanical function (the role). But a role can be contributed to in a number of ways. The Bard, for example, is not the best healer, at least in the middle of combat. But it's excellent at moving around the team and the enemy to give a strategical advantage. Control might be Area of Effect damage, it might be locking down enemies with statuses, it might be creating zones that hamper enemy movement. Defending seems the most basic in that the chief concern is assuming aggro, and locking down enemy movement, punishing those who ignore you. But this can be done in a variety of ways. Striking has been shown to not just be expressed in damage spikes, but also with better accuracy, as the Avenger would have you notice.
The new design allows them to create classes (and subclasses) that actually are desired from a story perspective, rather than desired to "fill up a role-source combination." This is good, in my opinion. There's many archetypes I still would like to see (for example, a ranged-weapon-wielding divine exorcist, which might fit as a subclass of Avenger) which would have been ignored as we focus on trying to churn out classes for the new power sources.
When the game was announced, we were told there would be Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, Ki, Psionic, Shadow, and Elemental power sources. While Ki was axed, the rest have appeared in some form thus far (Elemental only in Dragon, and no classes yet). But with Martial, Arcane, and Divine in PH1, and Arcane, Divine, and Primal in PH2, and then seeing how PH2 panned out, it seemed reasonable that by 2012, we'd be done, at least, we'd have 4 classes of each power source, fulfilling the grid (save that ellusive Martial Controller). But where from there? They could keep adding extra classes, or they could keep churning out Primal Power 3s and such, but the X Power series was not as successful with secondary book support (Martial Power 2, I'm looking at you, even if you were the best thing to come to the Martial Power Source in terms of flavour).
This module makes for classes that are only marginally flavoured for their power source (Okay, we have the Knight, the Holy Knight, the Magic Knight, the Green Knight, the Psychic Knight, the Dark Knight, and the Chaos Knight) rather than thinking clearly what would make interesting classes that are actually archetypally important, representing character concepts that players want for a fantasy game. What Goken100 says I somewhat agree with – forcing them to fluff out a whole new class with little analogue. Though there are a lot of things I really LIKE about the Battlemind, it's not united by a core concept. I see them as "I take psychic steroids class," yet the three builds seem all over the place. Quick Battleminds are supposed to be faster, I get that, but most of their powers create nightmarish monstrocities to strike fear into the hearts of their opponents. Harrier Battleminds are supposed to be even faster – so much that they break the confines of the space-time continuum to teleport around the battlefield. Resilient Battleminds turn their body into wood or stone or metal, making themselves a weapon. These are all cool things, but I don't see how they are particularly tied to the story of Battlemind rather than anything else. The story of Battlemind makes them out to be competitors, always striving to be the best, and to throw logic to the curve, pushing themselves beyond their physical limits. But this strains the distinction between Psionic and Martial.
The Battlemind apparently grew out of a Fey Beguiling Trickster Psionic Knight known as the Ironjack, but they didn't want to limit the concept to that, or tie Psionic so closely to Fey, even if charms and psychic effects are shared between the Fey and Psionic Magic. Fey Magic is more Arcane than Psionic, and they didn't want to muddle that ground. But already, they were grasping for straws, trying to make something that wasn't archetypally important, because they needed a Psionic Defender.
As I look at the two Assassins, the old Assassin and the Executioner, I think about what being an Assassin means. And you know? Executioners fit the archetypal concept of the Assassin perfectly. The old Assassin is a shadow-user, for sure, but doesn't feel like an assassin. It feels more like "I'll kill you with shadows." Which might be interesting, but isn't archetypal at all. The Executioner hits the Assassin concept in the sweet spot. But it does so by realising that the Assassin, while utilising shadow magic to escape and to do some pretty cool things, primarily kills using martial techniques. These aren't like the Paladin or the Hexblade swinging their sword, as opposed to using divine or arcane magic. These are like really complicated techniques that could only be achieved by someone who is a martial adept, where intense training, adrenaline, and a moment of opportunity come together to break through physical limitations and allow the Executioner to make the attack, as described how Martial Encounters and Dailies work in Martial Power 2 (and why I said that that book was the best thing to come to the power source).
When I first heard that it would be a mixture of sources, I was very skeptical. There was a podcast a while back saying that they were going to make the Assassin a mixture of sources, but decided that would get in the way of game flavour, and reduce the impact of power sources (this was back around the release of the original Assassin in Dragon). But after looking over Executioners, through three (or four) playtests, and now seeing the final version get tweaked again, and end up in Heroes of Shadow, I'm satisfied with it. The Executioner is exactly how an Assassin should feel. The mixing of power sources in this case demonstrates how power source serves the needs of the class's flavour, rather than the class-creation serving the desire of the power source to have four roles.
Once that can of worms had been been opened, all of Shadow got placed under scrutiny. Does the Necromancer need to be a Shadow controller? It's always been a Wizard school. When it comes down to it, Necromancers are a type of death wizard. So it makes sense to tie them into the dark, forbidden secrets in the hidden chamber beneath the library, where that one professor is experimenting with raising and commanding corpses and doing several other things that aren't quite so ethical. This is where Necromancers appear in fiction. Why would they be a separate class? Necromancers are archetypally Wizards, and may even dabble in other Wizard powers to mask that.
I guess they could have made the Necromancer a subclass of Wizard, thus allowing them to do more with it. But Mages already had schools, and it made sense to make it into it's own school. They can always provide more Necromancy school powers in Dragon and in other sources, and in fact, we already have a handful of them from Secrets of the City Entombed and just from the Player's Handbook, Arcane Power, and other sources.
What I think is cool is how they tied this reoccuring theme of Shadow mixing with other power sources for its usage to the nature of the power source. Usually, the nature and story of the power source doesn't fully get fleshed out until a supplement is released after people have played the classes for a time and found out what they're doing with them. This time, WotC discovered the nature of Shadow being found in the crevices and cracks, the nooks and crannies, hidden from the common eye, but cast like a shadow from all the other forms of magic and combat. This is an interesting idea from a story perspective, and one worth pursuing further.
The question is if you want to play a Primal Controller, or if you want to play a spear-throwing mythic hunter that is guided by the spirits. Both take you to the Seeker Class, but they come from very different directions. One is a mostly mechanical, with a little dash of flavour (I want to play the Controller in the party, and I want the primal story), the other is a mostly flavour thing (I want to play a spear-throwing hunter with primal magic).
The answer is, these aren't mutually exclusive, and neither is a 'wrong way' for a player to go about making a character. There's nothing wrong with a player who says "our party needs a defender, but I want to be a cool psychic guy, not a boring mundane guy or preachy religious guy or tree hugging nature guy our a nebulous, undefined arcane guy". Likewise there is nothing wrong with a player who wants to play a dark magical warrior steeped in that archetype without compromising by resorting to an arcane or divine subclass of some other archetype with a dash of shadow flavor.
Classes created to fit a Source-Role grid fits a design policy that there are only four classes: Defender, Leader, Striker, and Controller, with various power source flavour expressions of these. Classes should feel that they are different, rather than just iterations of the same.
A good power source should suggest dozens of potential class concepts. If you have to force the issue to come up with a good spot for one of the roles, I agree, drop it. If you have to force the issue to come up with a good spot for multiple roles, then maybe what you have is an interesting theme and not a power source at all.
But again, a good power source should suggest dozens of class concepts, several of which should easily fit multiple roles, and there's nothing wrong with choosing to develop one such concept over another just because it allows players of that source to try out a role they don't otherwise have access to. Likewise, if a strong concept has multiple potential roles it could fit, there's nothing wrong with picking the one that the source doesn't yet have access to for no other reason then that.
This is why people freaked at the Ardent, calling it "A Psychic Warlord" or why people called the Invoker "a Holy Wizard." Classes need something that really distinguishes them and makes them feel like they're their own thing.
I don't disagree. The Ardent, Invoker, Runepriest, and Seeker all would have benefitted from some more conceptual thought to help them achieve and project a more iconic and unique identity, an identity that would need unique mechanics as well to have presence on the tabletop.
I guess the difference between our opinions is that I think those classes should have and still should get some more throught put into them, while you would have rather they were just dropped and replaced with subclasses of nothing, cleric, cleric, and ranger respectively. Problem is, what conceptual presence there is to these classes would be even more diluted as subclasses, as can be clearly seen by comparing the Seeker to the Hunter, where they did just that.
Likewise, the current design philosophy doesn't allow for new classes that do have compelling, unique concepts backed up by fun mechanics that mesh well with them. There would be no warlord, no avenger, no swordmage, and no Shaman if the current design philosophy had been in place from the start of 4th edition, and that would be a real loss for the game. I'd gladly accept a few somewhat bland Ardents and Invokers if it means I get compelling new Warlords and Shamen.
The new design allows them to create classes (and subclasses) that actually are desired from a story perspective, rather than desired to "fill up a role-source combination." This is good, in my opinion. There's many archetypes I still would like to see (for example, a ranged-weapon-wielding divine exorcist, which might fit as a subclass of Avenger) which would have been ignored as we focus on trying to churn out classes for the new power sources.
Here we disagree. The old design allowed for this, by allowing and encouraging new classes at all. The new design strongly discourages this by insisting that new material for the most part be subclasses of essentials classes, diluting every potential new archetype to fit some other existing one. And while Essentials design allows for compelling new options by opening up the option of class features past first level, what it's mostly been used for is lazy design work (Why spend all that time developing a range of powers that players can pick to customize their characters as they develop when we can just slap together a single power that scales in effect and number of uses, and just lock players into it?) that produces narrow, largely pre-built classes.
But where from there? They could keep adding extra classes, or they could keep churning out Primal Power 3s and such, but the X Power series was not as successful with secondary book support (Martial Power 2, I'm looking at you, even if you were the best thing to come to the Martial Power Source in terms of flavour).
Like you said, Martial Power 2 was one of the best bits of mechanical/flavor synergy in 4e so far, so why diss that path? More to the point, the job wasn't done. Shadow and Elemental sources are left without strong, iconic classes like arcane's wizard, divine's cleric, primal's shaman, or psionic's psion, and likely at this point will never get them. I'm not opposed to drastic shifts in direction when you've taken your current road to the end of the line, but that hadn't happened yet.
And I'm not impressed with the current philosophy which seems to be "sell them what they already have, as many times as possible". I've already purchased the cleric, wizard, warlock, and paladin twice this edition, and now they want me to buy them again? And yet again when Heroes of the Feywild comes out? I've already purchased the revenent and executioner this edition, in exactly these forms.
As I look at the two Assassins, the old Assassin and the Executioner, I think about what being an Assassin means. And you know? Executioners fit the archetypal concept of the Assassin perfectly. The old Assassin is a shadow-user, for sure, but doesn't feel like an assassin. It feels more like "I'll kill you with shadows." Which might be interesting, but isn't archetypal at all.
I politely disagree. The old assassin was awesome, conceptually. The executioner doesn't do anything archetypal that the rogue didn't already do perfectly well. Oh, a different name could have been used for the Ossassin, sure, I agree. But starving the class to death by only supporting the executioner is killing an interesting conceptual archetype for the sake of supporting another, far more narrow archetype that was already well covered anyway.
Once that can of worms had been been opened, all of Shadow got placed under scrutiny. Does the Necromancer need to be a Shadow controller? It's always been a Wizard school. When it comes down to it, Necromancers are a type of death wizard.
And druids are a type of nature wizard. And psions are a type of mental wizard. And clerics are a type of holy wizard. And bards are a type of musical wizard. And runepriests are a type of linguistic wizard. And Shamen are a type of nature wizard. And swordmages are a type of wizard that uses swords. And artificers are a type of wizard that uses gadgets.
What's your point? The Dread Necromancer was a better necromancer then the wizard specialist ever was because it spent a whole class focusing on that very rich concept. The beguiler was a better sneaky illusionist/enchanter wizard then any specialist wizard ever was because it spent a whole class focusing on the concept. If we're going to shove every 'magic user' under the 'magic user' hat, then why have classes at all? We could just have 'sword guy' and 'spell guy'. Or we could have no classes, and play GURPS.
I'm not opposed to the necromancy mage school. Necromancy's awesome, more the merrier. But it doesn't nullify the value of having an actual shadow class, necromancer or otherwise. I'd honestly rather have a shadowcaster class, and consider the nethermancy school the greater affront.
Your whole giant article of apologetics for wizards' current design policy fails to move me, because again it would never have allowed the warlord, the shaman, the avenger; all the best new ideas that 4e brought to the game. Might as well sit around playing basic and pretending we're back in the 70's. Many of these archetypes you demand everything fit were defined by D&D in the first place, back when D&D used to have some active influence in the fantasy genre.
I say, let the game grow. Establish new archetypes, enable new characters. Throw some stuff at the wall, see what sticks, and run with it. Sure, there'll be a couple duds, but that's better then just spinning your wheels and not going anywhere, and it's better then trying to sell people the same content dozens of times over.
Make New Classes. Especially for new power sources. mixed source subclasses are fine for established power sources that already have full classes to define them, but not so for new sources which require full classes to establish a conceptual identity of their own.
ps: as a side note, because tone doesn't carry well over text, I just wanted to point out that while I vehemently disagree with your position, I do appreciate the dialog.
I'm not saying we shouldn't get new classes. I don't think the Warlord was created so we could have a Martial Leader. If that was the case, we'd have had a Martial Controller from Day One. I'm saying that the power source should serve the classes' archetypal stories, rather than the other way around. And if this means mixing sources, then so be it.
But since you politely disagree and think that power source mixing doesn't serve the classes' archetypal stories, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
A couple other points: I don't think we should be getting all subclasses in the future. I think a mixture of subclasses and new classes is a great thing. I don't think Druid is a Nature Wizard or Psion a Psychic Wizard. These have fantasy tropic forms, as well as date to earlier material than roleplaying games, while also having a history in the context of D&D. I would never have made them into forms of the Wizard. But there are somethings that are conceptually tied in both tropic form and in D&D to other classes – the Necromancer being one of them. Necromancers are almost always wizards that mess with the dead outside of D&D. And they have a history of doing it as a School of Wizardry in D&D as well. The creation of the Dread Necromancer was a great 3.5e test to see if it could be expanded to it's own thing. But that was also a Divine class. I think it was a good idea to make it a School of Mage.
Establishing new archetypes is great – at least archetypes new to D&D. But D&D isn't a game that creates new archetypes for fiction, otherwise they don't catch hold. It's a game where players utilise cliches and tropes and play them out. So I want new classes that reflect stories that haven't been covered in D&D, but appear in fiction. The Origins in Gamma World are a fantastic example of how you can distill the archetypes of Sci-Fi and mix and match them. I want Core D&D to do the same level of breadth with the genre for Fantasy tropes.
The thing is, Shaman, Warlord, and Avenger all are based in archetypes I wanted to see appear in D&D. These aren't brand new things, they're classes given to archetypal character stories.
And shadowcaster and necromancer and dark knight are all archetypes I wanted to see appear in D&D. They also aren't brand new things. They also have archetypal stories. Maybe not as strong as wizard, but that's largely because D&D helped establish the cliche fantasy wizard to begin with, and they're certainly all every bit as archetypal as 'shaman' or 'avenger' Moreso, even.
Dark knight as a build of paladin, Necromancer and Shadowcaster as builds of mage, these are a let down, much as I wouldn't want want to have seen shaman as merely a build of druid, warlord a build of fighter, avenger a build of paladin, exactly as they would have been under the current design climate. I agree that power source should serve the classes' archetypal stories, but I don't see how compromising new archetypes in order to shove them under the hats of old archetypes serves that goal in the least.
You don't want to see classes just to fill grids, and I agree. But I don't want to see new classes that are strong enough to stand on their own watered down in order to shove them under some other class's hat, just because they were stuck under that hat in some prior edition. And I don't want to see a power source sentenced to obscurity by not being allowed distinct archetypes to call its own.
A couple other points: I don't think we should be getting all subclasses in the future. I think a mixture of subclasses and new classes is a great thing.
I don't mind a mixture of classes and subclasses, but new power sources require at least a handful of full classes to call their own. Shadow certainly deserved this, certainly had a strong enough aesthetic and conceptual focus to provide it, and it makes me bitter to see it waterred down out of a reflexive fear of class glut, especially when subclass glut is no better.
I've waited patiently for shadow for two years. I loved the treatment that Primal, another new power source, got this edition. The offerings of Heroes of Shadow are extremely poor by comparison. A bunch of pre-built subclasses, mostly just 'spooky' reflavorings of existing, decidedly non-shadow classes. The only archetypes for shadow to call its own are the underpowered and completely abandoned ossassin and the far, far too narrow vampire (a class that owes it's overly-narrow focus directly to essentials 'no need to allow players to pick their powers' philosophy).
To me, utterly dissapointing.
Shade Wizard (Nethermancer) level 4
Feats: Staff Expertise - Durable - Improved Initiative
Feature: Nethermency Apprentice: Creatures hit by your arcane nethermancy attack powers treat enemies more than 2 sq. away from them as having partial concealment until the end of your next turn.
Powers:
Restless Dead - Wiz Att 1 - At-Will - Standard - Ranged 10
Arcane, Implement, Necromancy, Shadow, Zone
Target: One nonflying creature
Att: Int vs Refl
Hit: 1d8 + Int dmg. The squares adjacent to the target become a zone that last until the end of your next turn.
The ground of the zone is difficult terrain for your enemies.
Scare - Wiz Att 1 - At-Will - Standard - Close Blast 3
Arcane, Fear, Implement, Nethermancy, Psychic, Shadow
Target: Each creature in the blast
Att: Int vs Will
Hit: 1d8 + Int psychic dmg, and the target cannot make opportunity attacks against you until the end of your next turn.
Disrupt Undead - Wiz Utility - At-Will - Minor - Ranged 5
Arcane, Necromancy, Shadow
Target: One undead creature
Effect: The target's necrotic resistance, if any, is reduced by 5 until the end of your turn.
+Magic Missile & Ghost Sound
The racial power for the Shade "One with Shadow" is still a standard action.
Spook - Wiz Utility - Encounter - Free - Personal
Arcane, Nethermancy, Shadow
Trigger: You would make an intimidate check.
Effect: You instead make an Arcane check and use that result to determine the outcome of the Intimidate check.
Twilight Falls - Wiz Att 1 - Encounter - Standard - Area Burst 1 within 10 sq.
Arcane, Implement, Nethermancy, Psychic, Shadow, Zone
Target: Each enemy in the burst
Att: Int vs Will
Hit: 1d6 + Int psychic dmg. If the target is in the origin square, the targer is also dazed until the end of your next turn.
Effect: The burst creates a zone that lasts until the end of your next turn. When any enemy in the zone attacks a creature, the creature has partial concealment against the enemy.
Ebony Razors - Wiz Att 3 - Encounter - Standard - Close Blast 5
Arcane, Implement, Nethermancy, Psychic, Shadow
Target: Each creature in the blast
Att: Int vs Will
Hit: 2d8 + Int psychic dmg.
Effect: Until the end of your next turn, you have partial concealment, and when an adjacent enemy hits you with an attack, that enemy takes 5(Int?) psychic dmg.
Spirit Rend - Wiz Att 1 - Daily - Standard - Area Burst 1 within 10 sq.
Arcane, Implement, Necromancy, Necrotic, Shadow
Target: Each enemy in the burst
Att: Int vs Will
Hit: 3d6 + Int necrotic dmg, and the target is immobilized (save ends). If the target is undead, the creature takes no damage and is not immobilized. Instead the target must take a free action to move as far as its speed allows to a square farther away from you, and its dazed (save ends)
Miss: Half dmg
Life Transference - Wiz Utility 2 - Daily - Imm. Reaction - Ranged 5
Trigger: a nonminion living creature dies within 5 sq. of you.
Target: You or one ally
Effect: The target gains temp.HP equal to his or her healing surge value.
More info & full pdf at ENWorld (also Drow Executioner). Thanks to filthgrinder for the share.
Info from some PAXe character sheets:
Shade Wizard (Nethermancer) level 4
Feats: Staff Expertise - Durable - Improved Initiative
Feature: Nethermency Apprentice: Creatures hit by your arcane nethermancy attack powers treat enemies more than 2 sq. away from them as having partial concealment until the end of your next turn.
Powers:
Restless Dead - Wiz Att 1 - At-Will - Standard - Ranged 10
Arcane, Implement, Necromancy, Shadow, Zone
Target: One nonflying creature
Att: Int vs Refl
Hit: 1d8 + Int dmg. The squares adjacent to the target become a zone that last until the next turn.
The ground of the zone is difficult terrain for your enemies.
Scare - Wiz Att 1 - At-Will - Standard - Close Blast 3
Arcane, Fear, Implement, Nethermancy, Psychic, Shadow
Target: Each creature in the blast
Att: Int vs Will
Hit: 1d8 + Int psychic dmg, and the target cannot make opportunity attacks against you until the end of your next turn.
Disrupt Undead - Wiz Utility - At-Will - Minor - Ranged 5
Arcane, Necromancy, Shadow
Target: One undead creature
Effect: The taget's necrotic resistance, if any, is reduced by 5 until the end of your turn.
+Magic Missile & Ghost Sound
The racial power for the Shade "One with Shadow" is still a standard
Spook - Wiz Utility - Encounter - Free - Personal
Arcane, Nethermancy, Shadow
Trigger: You would make an intimidate check.
Effect: You instead make an Arcane check and use that result to determine the outcome of the Intimidate check.
Twilight Falls - Wiz Att 1 - Encounter - Standard - Area Burst 1 within 10 sq.
Arcane, Implement, Nethermancy, Psychic, Shadow, Zone
Target: Each enemy in the burst
Att: Int vs Will
Hit: 1d6 + Int psychic dmg. If the target is in the origin square, the targer is also dazed until the end of your next turn.
Effect: The burst creates a zone that lasts until the end of your next turn. When any enemy in the zone attacks a creature, the creature has partial concealment against the enemy.
Ebony Razors - Wiz Att 3 - Encounter - Standard - Close Blast 5
Arcane, Implement, Nethermancy, Psychic, Shadow
Target: Each creature in the blast
Att: Int vs Will
Hit: 2d8 + Int psychic dmg.
Effect: Until the end of your next turn, you have partial concealment, and when an adjacent enemy hits you with an attack, that enemy takes 5(Int?) psychic dmg.
Spirit Rend - Wiz Att 1 - Daily - Standard - Area Burst 1 within 10 sq.
Arcane, Implement, Necromancy, Necrotic, Shadow
Target: Each enemy in the burst
Att: Int vs Will
Hit: 3d6 + Int necrotic dmg, and the target is immobilized (save ends). If the target is undead, the creature takes no damage and is not immobilized. Instead the target must take a free action to move as far as its speed allows to a square farther away from you, and its dazed (save ends)
Miss: Half dmg
Life Transference - Wiz Utility 2 - Daily - Imm. Reaction - Ranged 5
Trigger: a nonminion living creature dies within 5 sq. of you.
Target: You or one ally
Effect: The target gains temp.HP equal to his or her healing surge value.
More info & full pdf at ENWorld (also Drow Executioner). Thanks to filthgrinder for the share.
Looks pretty awesome to me. But you can't actually download the pdf unless you're a member of the forum already.
...
As I look at the two Assassins, the old Assassin and the Executioner, I think about what being an Assassin means. And you know? Executioners fit the archetypal concept of the Assassin perfectly. The old Assassin is a shadow-user, for sure, but doesn't feel like an assassin. It feels more like "I'll kill you with shadows." Which might be interesting, but isn't archetypal at all. The Executioner hits the Assassin concept in the sweet spot. But it does so by realising that the Assassin, while utilising shadow magic to escape and to do some pretty cool things, primarily kills using martial techniques. These aren't like the Paladin or the Hexblade swinging their sword, as opposed to using divine or arcane magic. These are like really complicated techniques that could only be achieved by someone who is a martial adept, where intense training, adrenaline, and a moment of opportunity come together to break through physical limitations and allow the Executioner to make the attack, as described how Martial Encounters and Dailies work in Martial Power 2 (and why I said that that book was the best thing to come to the power source).
When I first heard that it would be a mixture of sources, I was very skeptical. There was a podcast a while back saying that they were going to make the Assassin a mixture of sources, but decided that would get in the way of game flavour, and reduce the impact of power sources (this was back around the release of the original Assassin in Dragon). But after looking over Executioners, through three (or four) playtests, and now seeing the final version get tweaked again, and end up in Heroes of Shadow, I'm satisfied with it. The Executioner is exactly how an Assassin should feel. The mixing of power sources in this case demonstrates how power source serves the needs of the class's flavour, rather than the class-creation serving the desire of the power source to have four roles.
...
Good point. If I want to play Vetinari from Disc World, or any other of hundreds of assassin characters from fantasy fiction, I'll be much better served by a character that has some martial in there. The original Assassin class was undoubtedly fun, but a little too niche to be a good analogue for the assassin archetype. That first Assassin is great for playing someone The Rope from Stephen Erikson's Malazan world (perfect actually now that I think about it...), but not so good for the rest of the sneaky killers out there.
On a similar note, the Bard class really should be half-martial. Fortunately, it kinda plays like it's half-martial, so I think it turned out pretty good. But really a Bard should have access to feats and such available to only Martial Classes.
Where I agree that for the scout and hunter primal felt tacked on as Shadow with the executioner, for the Blackguard, Necromancer, and nethermancer and Binder I feel it fits the fluff and adds something.
For example the Blackguard isn't just an evil Paladin for several reasons 1) Blackguards tend to be evil, but can be just as good as anyone. 2) An evil normal paladin still draws power from a virtue: piety, a spiritual virtue instead of a mortal one,one, which reflects his faith in his God where as Blackguard draws power not from the virtues of the Gods, but from thier vices which can come from a good god just as easily as an evil God can have a virtious side to draw power from. 3) drawing power from the gods vices is in a sense drawing from thier weaknesses instead of thier strengths which is not something the even the evil Gods were designed for so Blackguard's cheat the system by using the Shadow power source to that which no mortal should have access. I figure that the part of the Blackguard's soul he gives up is the part of his soul that connects the virtuous part of his soul to the Gods in exchange for the Shadowfells connection to the God's vice. Some Gods such as Zehir or even Sharess would be okay with this as they do not see thier vice as a weakness, but in say Pelor or Torm's case this would be seen as an unwelcome violation, in a limited sense a type of **** as the God does not consent to this sort of connection, yet has no choice in it. Ur-Priest would be a perfect paragon path for the Blackguard's that force thier connection on unwilling diety as opposed to Blackguard's that bond to dieties that offer access to thier vices willingly and or even encourage it.
The Archivist would fit a simular mold, but different. Maybe the Archivist sacrifices his souls connection to the concious will of his God for a connection to his surpressed memories, dark secrets that his God can't or won't access on his own, but which in the surpressing forged a connection to the shadowfell. Some gods would welcome Archivists catolguing this Knoweldge such as Ioun or FR's god of Knoweldge. Over Gods like say Bahumat might not, while others like Vecna might employ Archivist not to perserve the knoweldge, but to keep it out of unworthy hands. Could be shadow build for Invoker or a class all its own. I still would have it an AEDU class in this case.
I picture the use of Divine/Shadow powers like Saidin in the wheel of time series. Divine is the One Power, while Shadow the taint the covers and pollutes it only it feels less sicking and more addictive. Full shadow classes on the other hand have less to constract it to and so it feels like the "true source" of the dark one only colder.
I hate to beat a dead horse but Robert J. Schwalb just made a blog post that I think is an interesting argument about Power Sources and Essentials. I am posting a link for anyone that wants to read it. www.robertjschwalb.com/2011/03/batteries...
Personally I agree with Mr. Schwalb's sentiments here. He stands as a generally respected figure among game designers, and as he is a freelancer I doubt he is just trotting out the corporate song and dance.
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say. Hooray for content with a story behind it that connects to a wide range of players, new and old. Boo to filling out a grid with a bunch of forced extra classes, appealing to a few munchkins wanting to be different for different's sake. *looks at PH2 and PH3 pointedly*
Though I enjoy playing "different" I'm glad the grid is gone. It was just too rigid for me. Role and Power source are a minor part of mechanics at best. With the limitation of The Grid lifted we no longer have to stick to the same role with subclasses and are free to add powersources as well.
I will miss the grid, to be honest. However, without the grid there is more flexibility. The ranger Hunter & Scout from heroes of the forgotten kingdoms mixes both primal and martial power sources.
A problem with the subclasses is that there is a lot of material before E that didn't use it. From a completionist view point, it makes my eyebrow twitch. The heroes of spell and sword will move five of the classes into this design fold, but what about the remaining classes from phb1 and phb2?
I hate to beat a dead horse but Robert J. Schwalb just made a blog post that I think is an interesting argument about Power Sources and Essentials. I am posting a link for anyone that wants to read it. www.robertjschwalb.com/2011/03/batteries...
Personally I agree with Mr. Schwalb's sentiments here. He stands as a generally respected figure among game designers, and as he is a freelancer I doubt he is just trotting out the corporate song and dance.
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say. Hooray for content with a story behind it that connects to a wide range of players, new and old. Boo to filling out a grid with a bunch of forced extra classes, appealing to a few munchkins wanting to be different for different's sake. *looks at PH2 and PH3 pointedly*
Though I enjoy playing "different" I'm glad the grid is gone. It was just too rigid for me. Role and Power source are a minor part of mechanics at best. With the limitation of The Grid lifted we no longer have to stick to the same role with subclasses and are free to add powersources as well.
I will miss the grid, to be honest. However, without the grid there is more flexibility. The ranger Hunter & Scout from heroes of the forgotten kingdoms mixes both primal and martial power sources. A problem with the subclasses is that there is a lot of material before E that didn't use it. From a completionist view point, it makes my eyebrow twitch. The heroes of spell and sword will move five of the classes into this design fold, but what about the remaining classes from phb1 and phb2?
I assume you mean the content from Heroes of Spell and Sword that will be released in Dragon magezine (the original product being canceled)? In any case, what's the eye-twitch causing problem here? The lack of sub-titles for the older classes? We only need those for the classes that have newer sub-classes. Outside of PH1, aren't Druid and Assassin the only ones? And really, is it that hard to say "The Executioner Assassin is better than the original Assassin"? (In malisteen's case, it would be difficult indeed!
)Thematically as an "assassin"? I can admit that, too. The executioner is a better "assassin". However, the kind of assassin an executioner is was already better represented by a rogue, and arguably still is.
Did the original assassin get the wrong name? Yes. It did. Certainly. It was the wrong name for that archetype. It's also pretty clear that if the ossassin had been named something else, say "shadow dancer", that the executioner would have been a subclass of rogue instead. It's an entirely separate brand of fail that the label of the class was deemed to be more important then its spirit.
Even so, the shadow assassin does represent a compelling and unique archetype. One that, unlike the executioner, is not well modeled by any other existing class, and would not be well modeled by subclasses of any other class, either.
I don't want to see the archetype that the shadow assassin tried to bring to the game whither and die for no other reason then that they gave it the wrong name to start, yet that's exactly what were seeing happen here.
And it's very analagous to what we're seeing happen to the entire shadow power source more generally.
Mechanically as a striker? It's not hard for me to admit the Executioner's better. The executioner is far better mechanically. All the more reason that the ossassin needs attention!
Thematically as an "assassin"? I can admit that, too. The executioner is a better "assassin". However, the kind of assassin an executioner is was already better represented by a rogue, and arguably still is.
Did the original assassin get the wrong name? Yes. It did. Certainly. It was the wrong name for that archetype. It's also pretty clear that if the ossassin had been named something else, say "shadow dancer", that the executioner would have been a subclass of rogue instead. It's an entirely separate brand of fail that the label of the class was deemed to be more important then its spirit.
Even so, the shadow assassin does represent a compelling and unique archetype. One that, unlike the executioner, is not well modeled by any other existing class, and would not be well modeled by subclasses of any other class, either.
I don't want to see the archetype that the shadow assassin tried to bring to the game whither and die for no other reason then that they gave it the wrong name to start, yet that's exactly what were seeing happen here.
And it's very analagous to what we're seeing happen to the entire shadow power source more generally.
I was only joking about the Executioner vs. Assasssin thing.
But actually I agree with some of what you say. Not sure an archetype can be both compelling and unique, but I get what you're saying. A shadow-hopping killer has a presence in fiction, albeit a humble one. And Shadow-Dancer would have been a better name. And then the Executioner could have just been a sub-class of Rogue (and probably called Assassin). But look on the bright side: if you're really wanting to play a certain character concept, then you're probably more into role playing than crunch, and so the relatively weaker build might not be too egregious (like it would be in organized play). I know in my games we have never noticed any classes being over or under-powered, because we don't really worry about that sort of thing. Also, doesn't the original assassin still benefit from the Executioner by getting a few new power options and whatnot?
I'm less strongly beginning to believe there should only be 4 "real" classes, either Warrior, Rogue*, Spell-Caster, and Race/Monster, or Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader as classes. Then have everything else be like the Essentials sub-classes. Then you'd still have effectively separate classes, but they would all belong to a single larger unit. But I feel much less strongly about this one, more idle speculation.
* Or Trickster or Everyman or Scoundrel or whatever.
No, it doesn't. They, (Kit Builds), may as well be separate classes
Or perhaps been completely new classes to begin with? Perhaps we agree on something here.
Splicing one power source into a build of another delutes it, and Shadow is just that, a shadow of what it should have been.
Warrior: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
Wizard: Mage, Specialist (eg. Necromancer, Illusionist, etc)
Priest: Cleric, Druid, Priest of a Specific Mythos
Rogue: Bard, Thief
3E reclassified these losely into generic (including martial), arcane, divine, and psionic - classifications which became more structured in 4E, which is the first edition to give fluff for each "power source".
Using 2E classifications for example, the 4E classes would have been grouped as follows:
WARRIOR
Barbarian
Battlemind
Fighter (Knight, Slayer, Hexblade*)
Paladin (Blackguard, Cavalier)
Ranger (Scout, Hunter)
Seeker
Warden
Warlord
*This class would have been a Fighter (or Paladin) sub-class (Kit).
WIZARD
Artificer
Sorcerer
Swordmage
Vampire
Warlock (Binder)
Wizard (Mage, Necromancer)
PRIEST
Ardent
Cleric (Warpriest)
Druid (Sentinel)
Invoker
Runepriest
Shaman
ROGUE
Assassin (Executioner)
Avenger
Bard
Monk
Rogue (Thief)
PSION
Psion
Admittedly, under the 2E system, several of these "classes" would have been kits instead (Warlock, Assassin, Avenger, Seeker, Warden, Artificer, Invoker, Runepriest, Shaman, Ardent and Warlord).
I'm not saying we shouldn't get new classes. I don't think the Warlord was created so we could have a Martial Leader. If that was the case, we'd have had a Martial Controller from Day One. I'm saying that the power source should serve the classes' archetypal stories, rather than the other way around. And if this means mixing sources, then so be it.
You're preaching to the choir. Ive been arguing this since April 2008 - 2 months before 4E was launched!
Symetrical vs. Organic Class Design
Im sad that the dev's moved away from organic class design in their effort to populate PH3, but except for that one book, they have done a good job sticking to their original design ethos (discussed in the 4E preview product - Races & Classes).
It is also ironic that I managed to come up with a tennable martial controller 2 months before the release - the Dervish (see above thread). Incidentilly, my Dervish concept is every bit as much the controller as the Essentials Hunter, and therefore - 3 years later I would reclassify the Dervish as a pure martial controller (vs. the Hybrid Striker/Controller I considered it to be pre-launch).
wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/...
Only 1 hit point?? What a crappy power! Visually cool but damn that creature will die in the next round.
Might have been better as an encounter rather than a daily.
Yeah not worth a Daily in the Heroic levels - in Paragon a smart player might be able to use it wisely but then again I would still rather use a different power
It's probably not good, but it's certainly neat.
Goken: I have played Ossassins before, and they were fun. Until around paragon level when the lackluster mechanical performance got to be too distracting, and sucked the fun right out. The Shadow Assassin is very cool. If it were ever fixed up, it would provide a sterling example of what the shadow power source has to offer the game, conceptually and in play experience.
And there's still enough potential in the source for one or two more solid classes, even with HoS doing its best to vivisect Shadow and auction off its organs.
It's probably not good, but it's certainly neat.
yes will admit it is neat .....but also easy to end up being one disappointed cleric if your creature dies right away
look a rock killed the draco-dragon!
It's a mechanical abstraction, and one I thought we all accepted years ago.
We don't use minions in our campaigns as we don't like the idea of them. But if other groups like them, then that is fine. So nothing to accept for me as I don't use them.
We have alot of House Rules in our campaigns hence why I have no need for the new CB.
If I played a cleric, I just wouldn't take the power. Sure there can be times where it can shine....but there are others where it can turn out to be disappointing.
But yes the flavor of it is a cool idea.
Further-more the pseudo-minion you create with this spell is superior to a true minion, as it retains its full range of attack/utility options, deals normal damage (vs. static damage); and retains all special abilities. In addition, it retains all its normal Defenses which is a nice perk if you pick the right target.
True minions in comparison deal static damage, have very limited attack/utility options, and inflict few (if any) status effects.
Casting this spell on a Solo/Elite monster can be devistating to the enemy (even if said solo only gets 1 Turn/Round of actions), but if you waste such a spell on a lowly goblin, you have nothing to complain about. Its a daily spell for a reason - because a death priest wouldn't want to raise just any enemy as her servant. It has to be something special.
The good thing is that said pseudo-minion doesnt expire at the end of the encounter (like most summoned pets), which only adds to the tactical advantages.....
Your party faces a solo/elite devoid of any help - Cast this spell then launch your Pet Solo at the enemy during the first round of your next encounter and watch how much easier said encounter becomes.
The idea of a pet Minion is something that players have been asking for for a very long time. Some people don't like the idea of a Pet chewing up their action resources and think that a fragile minion is a fair trade for retaining their full action allotment.
Further-more the pseudo-minion you create with this spell is superior to a true minion, as it retains its full range of attack/utility options, deals normal damage (vs. static damage); and retains all special abilities. In addition, it retains all its normal Defenses which is a nice perk if you pick the right target.
True minions in comparison deal static damage, have very limited attack/utility options, and inflict few (if any) status effects.
Casting this spell on a Solo/Elite monster can be devistating to the enemy (even if said solo only gets 1 Turn/Round of actions), but if you waste such a spell on a lowly goblin, you have nothing to complain about. Its a daily spell for a reason - because a death priest wouldn't want to raise just any enemy as her servant. It has to be something special.
The good thing is that said pseudo-minion doesnt expire at the end of the encounter (like most summoned pets), which only adds to the tactical advantages.....
Your party faces a solo/elite devoid of any help - Cast this spell then launch your Pet Solo at the enemy during the first round of your next encounter and watch how much easier said encounter becomes.
Well stated - I see the advantage of it.
The idea of a pet Minion is something that players have been asking for for a very long time. Some people don't like the idea of a Pet chewing up their action resources and think that a fragile minion is a fair trade for retaining their full action allotment.
Further-more the pseudo-minion you create with this spell is superior to a true minion, as it retains its full range of attack/utility options, deals normal damage (vs. static damage); and retains all special abilities. In addition, it retains all its normal Defenses which is a nice perk if you pick the right target.
True minions in comparison deal static damage, have very limited attack/utility options, and inflict few (if any) status effects.
Casting this spell on a Solo/Elite monster can be devistating to the enemy (even if said solo only gets 1 Turn/Round of actions), but if you waste such a spell on a lowly goblin, you have nothing to complain about. Its a daily spell for a reason - because a death priest wouldn't want to raise just any enemy as her servant. It has to be something special.
The good thing is that said pseudo-minion doesnt expire at the end of the encounter (like most summoned pets), which only adds to the tactical advantages.....
Your party faces a solo/elite devoid of any help - Cast this spell then launch your Pet Solo at the enemy during the first round of your next encounter and watch how much easier said encounter becomes.
I think that isn't correct. As far as I can tell this is meant to end at the end of the encounter.
Edit: Nevermind, I went back and reread the power. I like it. It gives you incentive to use your dailies.
I think that isn't correct. As far as I can tell this is meant to end at the end of the encounter.
Oh no....do I sense HoS erratta already?
I think that isn't correct. As far as I can tell this is meant to end at the end of the encounter.
Oh no....do I sense HoS erratta already?
Probably. They sometimes forget the RAW rules.
Note: the power does NOT give full access to the creature's abilities. Your control is through domination, that means the creature gets only one action a turn, and you can can only have it take actions that it can perform at-will, no encounter or daily or even random recharge abilities.
Even so, as written it does allow you to have a minion that was once a solo creature until it dies. That is something in itself. Though I see that little catch being remedied sooner rather than later.
IOWs the zombified creature should gain HP equal to your bloodied value (or the creatures maximum hit points, whichever is lower) and require you to spend your own actions to issue the creature orders. That way, you could spend a Standard Action to grant the creature a use of its At-Will Power(s), and grant the zombie a move action as a minor - that kind of thing.
I forgot about the limitations of the dominated condition. In any case, a former-Solo creature is still going to hit hard (even with its at-will powers).
If it can get into range to use the power before it dies. Dominated only gives you 1 action a round.
Grid filling or not, source is feel and theme and fluff, while role is nature of contribution to combat. If a source isn't deep and wide enough to accomodate a measly four roles, then it's probably not deep and wide enough to be a power source in the first place. Not that I particularly care about the grid, lack of martial controllers didn't bother me, even if the hunter proved that it was a perfectly workable concept. Lack of Shadow defenders or leaders likewise wouldn't bother me, even if I can easily concieve of shadow concepts that could serve those roles.
That aside, again it's not so much that I need SHADOW CLASS FOR EVERY BOX, and more that I need Shadow Classes to establish a conceptual identity for the Shadow power source distinct from that of other sources. Something that could have lasting impact on future versions of D&D. Mixed source builds and subclasses, built to reflect other sources as much (and frequently more) then shadow, really can't do that effectively. Vampire and Assassin could be a good start, except that Vampire is far too thematically and mechanically narrow to do so as presented, while the Assassin is painfully gimped and unsupported, and now seems largely abandoned in favor of the more-martial-than-shadow executioner.
Give me an AEDU subclass of vampire (a la mage) that allows it to spread out into a wider thematic space, and an update to the original assassin that allows it to contribute meaningfully to the game for all 30 levels, and we'd be, well not in a good place, but in a better one. One or two more classes beyond that would be enough in my mind. Even if they're all strikers - again the grid isn't so important to me, even if the reflexive aversion to filling it seems even more arbitrary and unnecessary.
I agree with you on this. I do, however, really think that not having a shadow leader is a HUGE wasted opportunity. A leader that works through vulnerability hexes and ongoing damage on enemies, and regen and insubstantiability/damage resistence on allies would have fealt like a class that wields living shadow to the aid of his allies, and the death of his enemies.
One of the things that made me most excited about a Shadow power source was the thought of shadow options making it into the first PHB when the next edition roles around. I want shadow to be one up there with primal at least, if not one of the main character types. I think that fantasy games have given more and more attention to characters who wield the shadows over recent years, and I think that it's a very good trend.
Mechanically as a striker? It's not hard for me to admit the Executioner's better. The executioner is far better mechanically. All the more reason that the ossassin needs attention!
Thematically as an "assassin"? I can admit that, too. The executioner is a better "assassin". However, the kind of assassin an executioner is was already better represented by a rogue, and arguably still is.
Did the original assassin get the wrong name? Yes. It did. Certainly. It was the wrong name for that archetype. It's also pretty clear that if the ossassin had been named something else, say "shadow dancer", that the executioner would have been a subclass of rogue instead. It's an entirely separate brand of fail that the label of the class was deemed to be more important then its spirit.
Even so, the shadow assassin does represent a compelling and unique archetype. One that, unlike the executioner, is not well modeled by any other existing class, and would not be well modeled by subclasses of any other class, either.
I don't want to see the archetype that the shadow assassin tried to bring to the game whither and die for no other reason then that they gave it the wrong name to start, yet that's exactly what were seeing happen here.
And it's very analagous to what we're seeing happen to the entire shadow power source more generally.
Also, doesn't the original assassin still benefit from the Executioner by getting a few new power options and whatnot?
The cool thing that executioner does for the parent class is utillity powers. Particularly hybrid assassins, who can chose shade form with hybrid talent, and still teleport like crazy via utillity powers.
And what's holding the ossassin back is a lack of scaling single target damage. No utility power could be introduced that would be strong enough to fix this in ossassins but still balanced in the hands of essassins.
The easiest fix to ossassins, without any form of errata, would be just printing more powerful encounter and daily assassin attack powers. But that would be assassin support that the executioner couldn't use, so it seems unlikely that we'll ever see it.
The executioner brings the parent class some utilities, but nothing else. Particularly attack powers - those don't transfer between the ossassin and esssassin at all.
And what's holding the ossassin back is a lack of scaling single target damage. No utility power could be introduced that would be strong enough to fix this in ossassins but still balanced in the hands of essassins.
The easiest fix to ossassins, without any form of errata, would be just printing more powerful encounter and daily assassin attack powers. But that would be assassin support that the executioner couldn't use, so it seems unlikely that we'll ever see it.
Just in case you thougt we were in disagreement, I was saying that utilities are the one thing executioner brings to the parent class.
At this point, I think an errata to shrouds would be the easiest way to go. The 1d6/2d6/3d6 progression plus the max damage on a successful attack that invokes 4 shrouds would probably be close to enough. The class still wouldn't be a top damage dealer, but it would stay close enough to allow the class to stay fun and useful via it's diverse toolkit.
And make the stack extra shrouds feats vaguely useful. :P
EDIT: Maybe Errata the at-wills to be better as well (maybe make them usable as basic attacks). Much simpler than errata to encounter and daily powers. Either that, I'd say, or errata in a new class feature.
This doesn't really say anything new about their reasoning, so, needless to say, I'm unconvinced.
The presence of a shadow class focused on necromancy or shadow manipulation no more prevents the existance of wizard spells so related then the presence of summoning spells and features for the invoker, druid, and shaman prevent wizard summoning spells from existing. Just as the psion can coexist with enchantment spells. Just like paladin and melee clerics can coexist despite both having a strong radiant weapon attack theme. Just like melee ranger and tempest fighter and whirling barbarian can all coexist despite all of them being dual weapon beaters.
As for Shadow being any more 'additive' then any other source: that's an entirely arbitrary decision and not at all something that flows natually from the fluff. Every source has the character do something to add power. The entire point of the shadow soul fluff is that shadow is a quick but dangerous route to power, something that doesn't require the work and dedication of the other power sources. Making it something you tack onto them completely contradicts that. Like, 100% opposite.
No, I don't buy any of it. I look, and see justifications and apologetics defending an arbitrary editorial decision that 'we have too many classes, stop doing that'.
The wizard is the iconic class of the arcane power source, everything about the wizard is defined by that source, and every aspect of the wizard defines the arcane source in turn. Wizard schools and themes simply do not add definition to other sources - to whatever extent the archetypes of other sources are subsumed within the wizard, so to is the source as well diluted and dissolved into the arcane.
If shadow's to be anything more then a flavor of the month, it still needs its own classes.
As for Shadow being any more 'additive' then any other source: that's an entirely arbitrary decision and not at all something that flows natually from the fluff. Every source has the character do something to add power. The entire point of the shadow soul fluff is that shadow is a quick but dangerous route to power, something that doesn't require the work and dedication of the other power sources. Making it something you tack onto them completely contradicts that. Like, 100% opposite.
No, I don't buy any of it. I look, and see justifications and apologetics defending an arbitrary editorial decision that 'we have too many classes, stop doing that'.
The wizard is the iconic class of the arcane power source, everything about the wizard is defined by that source, and every aspect of the wizard defines the arcane source in turn. Wizard schools and themes simply do not add definition to other sources - to whatever extent the archetypes of other sources are subsumed within the wizard, so to is the source as well diluted and dissolved into the arcane.
If shadow's to be anything more then a flavor of the month, it still needs its own classes.
That said, Shadow is Additive is QUITE reflective in the fluff. Every power source casts a shadow – that's the taint that you might go down, if you delve into the darkness of the Shadowfell and sacrifice a bit of your soul. It makes so much sense it practically hurts.
Shadow is the Power lurking in the secret laboratories hidden beneath the Arcane Academy. It is the power lurking in the hidden altar to Vecna in the beneath the Temple of Ioun. It is the power waiting there, offering a choice of greater and darker power, if only you'll take it and give up some of your soul to the darkness. There's so much flavour there.
Controllers are partially about inflicting conditions. The best condition to inflict is dead.
That said, Shadow is Additive is QUITE reflective in the fluff. Every power source casts a shadow – that's the taint that you might go down, if you delve into the darkness of the Shadowfell and sacrifice a bit of your soul. It makes so much sense it practically hurts.
Shadow is the Power lurking in the secret laboratories hidden beneath the Arcane Academy. It is the power lurking in the hidden altar to Vecna in the beneath the Temple of Ioun. It is the power waiting there, offering a choice of greater and darker power, if only you'll take it and give up some of your soul to the darkness. There's so much flavour there.
Then Shadow isn't a power source at all, it's just a flavor you can tack on to any other power source. I don't see any difference in auctioning off the entire contents of shadow to other classes then I would in removing all of the primal classes and replacing them with 'nature domain' clerics and 'spirit pact' warlocks and shapeshifting 'transmutation school' wizards.
Having some bleedthrough between sources is alright if the sources already have well established identities, but having shadow be entirely defined by an absence of its own identity negates the entire point of it in the first place.
Do I object to having necro or nether schools? Not entirely as such. Do I object to those schools being used to replace unique classes shadow might have recieved? Yes. Just as I would have objected to enchantment schools preventing the release of psions or summoning schools preventing the release of shamen or a transmutation school preventing the release of a druid or a radiant school preventing the release of the cleric or a blade magic school preventing the release of the swordmage.
Just because wizards have never, ever had a defined limit to the range of their power does negate the value of having magic using classes apart from wizard. From a wider perspective, just because arcane magic has never had a defined limit to the range of its power does not negate the value of having magical power sources apart from arcane.
That said, the Necromancer has ALWAYS BEEN a Wizard School. It was only in 3.5e that it ALSO became it's own class. There's more story value to it being a Wizard school over being its own class.
What it means is that Classes exist, but they might draw on a single power source, or any number of different power sources. This isn't new – PPaths used multiple power sources in the past. Power Source is flavour. It's not a category.
That said, the Necromancer has ALWAYS BEEN a Wizard School.
And the Druid as ALWAYS BEEN a divine class. The archetypes within the Primal power source were divine before 4e, so obviously they should have remained divine forever?
It was only in 3.5e that it ALSO became it's own class. There's more story value to it being a Wizard school over being its own class.
There's a bit in Open Grave, a little sidebar, that mentions how undeath is associated with the shadow power source, but there are also arcane necromancers, divine death clerics, even primal summoners of death spirits or psionic mediums who commune with ghosts, and all of them can create or manipulate undead in such fashion.
I liked that bit. I don't mind there being wizardly necromancy spells or cleric domains that manipulate the undead. I would love to see a psionic ghost-speaking build or a death-spirit build for the shaman. All of that can exist at the same time, but none of it negates the potential of a pure shadow master of death magic class.
Rather then being 'too narrow' for a whole class, I see necromancy as being 'too wide' for just one.
Again, it's not that we're getting a necromancy school or a death domain that bothers me. It's that we're not, and probably never will get an actual shadow class that shows what death or shadow magic means to Shadow, or that grants the Shadow source its own unique identity with any chance of leaving a lasting impression on the game - the kind of lasting impression that Primal has achieved specifically through it's selection of exclusively primal classes in the PHBII.
The necromancer as a class I could get over. Again, I've come to see it less as a class and more as one more thing that a class might be able to do. Like elemental damage, or summoning spells. Rather then a 'Necromancer Class', I'd prefer to see some sort of Shadow-based caster class, a 'Shadowcaster' if you will, that just happened to have a strong necromantic subtheme, given that its exclusive focus on shadow magic gave it a natural affinity for the practice. The subsumption of 'shadowcaster' into the mage as the nethermancy school is thus a far heavier blow to me even then the necromancy school.
Similarly, the shadow mage was pretty much a 1e illusionist who picked shadow magic, demi-shadow magic, and/or shades for their spellbook. Again, it was 2e that first sub-divided wizards into different specialists (although an optional necromancer class might have appeared in Dragon at some point). It was the optional 2e supplements that padded out the concept of the wizard specialists and shadow mages were brought in as slightly more specialised illusionists in Spells & Magic. It was only during the dying days of 3.5 that shdowcasters were set apart as being entirely separate from wizards and even then the class was slightly weak mechanically.
The point I'm making is that there isn't really a strong historical precedent for or against what they've done here. Maybe they felt that splitting the druid and cleric into 3 classes each was more important for balance or maybe they just changed their minds about the need for that kind of split and people are annoyed to be teased by the prospect and then let down.
Personally, I think that there was more than enough scope for the necromancer as a separate class (less so the nethermancer/shadowcaster) but your character is determined by your build. I'm not overly concerned about the semantics of the crunch. I'm more concerned that there be some compatibility between the essentials subclasses and the pre-essentials classes.
Controllers are partially about inflicting conditions. The best condition to inflict is dead.
That said, Shadow is Additive is QUITE reflective in the fluff. Every power source casts a shadow – that's the taint that you might go down, if you delve into the darkness of the Shadowfell and sacrifice a bit of your soul. It makes so much sense it practically hurts.
Shadow is the Power lurking in the secret laboratories hidden beneath the Arcane Academy. It is the power lurking in the hidden altar to Vecna in the beneath the Temple of Ioun. It is the power waiting there, offering a choice of greater and darker power, if only you'll take it and give up some of your soul to the darkness. There's so much flavour there.
With crunch like soggy cereal. What about those who don't just dip their toe into Shadow? What about those who immerse themselves in it?
Oh, I forgot, that's always (not really, but oh well I guess) evil, and the designers don't want to encourage evil.
Those who emmerse themselves in shadow? Obviously, they're Vampires.
Or other future undead as PC class types, like Ghosts (also originally to have been in Ravenloft), Liches, Mummies, etc.
Those who emmerse themselves in shadow? Obviously, they're Vampires.
Or the original Assassin. Frankly, I'd assume that Shadow would be hard to find. Martial is all about practice, Divine comes from the gods, Arcane is everywhere, Primal is so common you can't swing a cat without hitting it (at least in the Mortal World), Psionics are as common as humanoids, even Elemental is as easy as finding your nearest Genasi or elemental font. But Shadow, it's always there but you have to know how to grab it. Most people don't know how to do that without undergoing some training. Without the proper training, you could lose yourself to the darkness. I think that's why there are so few pure Shadow classes. Few people attempt to use Shadow magic, and a fair number who do become consumed by it.
Classes aren't the same as Monsters. Even the Vampire class is an exemplare of how one becomes a Vampire without losing one's self. As I see the Power Source, it's about maintaining the sense of self as you sacrifice part of your soul to Shadow. And the vast majority of ways people do this is by not relying entirely on shadow to carry them. Which makes sense, to me.
A class is more than a role + power source. It's a discipline of study, a working of order of how someone uses their special talents. It's probably less difficult to be consumed by Shadow when you have other power sources framing your training to fall back on. Most people who submit entirely to shadow are probably consumed, to the point that they really couldn't act as PCs, but would be monsters.
Except that:
1) while those without other focuses of study may be more likely to lose themselves to the shadow, so to could more potential victims so turn. Wizards might delve into shadow out of a sense of curiosity, but they certainly don't need to do so for power - they've already put in the effort required to master a source of power without limits. On the other hand, some poor kid who watches his village destroyed might turn to shadow for revenge, lacking any other means of achieving it, for instance.
2) PCs are already supposed to be the exception. There aren't supposed to be tons of wizards out there. Even the royal guards aren't supposed to be fighters. Fighters train their physical bodies not to the peak of physical ability, but beyond it. PCs, and by extension PC classes, are all rare and special - the fact that 'few would turn to darkness' or that 'shadow users are rare' as such has no bearing. Again, PCs are already the exception.
And yes, a class is more then a role plus a power source. It's unique class features, unique power structures, unique fluff and mechanics. That's why I want actual shadow classes. That's why builds of other classes, while fine in and of themselves, aren't enough for me.
Classes aren't the same as Monsters. Even the Vampire class is an exemplare of how one becomes a Vampire without losing one's self. As I see the Power Source, it's about maintaining the sense of self as you sacrifice part of your soul to Shadow. And the vast majority of ways people do this is by not relying entirely on shadow to carry them. Which makes sense, to me.
This is just apologetics. You're justifying the design decisions after the fact, not establishing that they were the best decisions to make in the first place. Had this book included some sort of 'shadow warrior' or 'shadow caster' class, would you be posting complaints about how that was the wrong move, or doesn't match the fluff?
Again, those who already have power have little reason to go through such a sacrifice. Shadow power should be most attractive to the weak, the desperate, the selfish and impatient, the fringes and the outliers. Those for whom the dark path is the only path available. I'm not opposed to shadowy options for the arcane practitioner who delves into forbidden lore, or the divine worshipper of a deity of darkness, though I'm not sure such options necessitate dual source builds (just as I'm not convinced that the Hunter or Scout needed to be part primal just because they like the woods).
But the other aspects of shadow - the fast route to power for the weak and desperate, shadow for the sake of shadow, concepts that really delve into the nature of the beshadowed soul, and what it would mean, with fluff and mechanic diluted by attachment to pre-existing classes of other power sources - there's still room for that, because these builds and sub builds just don't fully cover it or meet its potential.
Of course, at this point I'd rather see the deficient full-shadow options we already have improved before agitating for the long-shot dream of new classes. A fix for the mechanically deficient if thematically rich shadow assassin, whether repairing the original form or replacing it with a full-shadow essentials rebuild. An expansion of the overly-narrow Vampire, allowing it to stretch into concepts beyond the Bella Lugosi cliche (fun as it is), providing options for those who would like this monster class to be less monster and more class.
A class is more than a role + power source. It's a discipline of study, a working of order of how someone uses their special talents. It's probably less difficult to be consumed by Shadow when you have other power sources framing your training to fall back on. Most people who submit entirely to shadow are probably consumed, to the point that they really couldn't act as PCs, but would be monsters.
Classes aren't the same as Monsters. Even the Vampire class is an exemplare of how one becomes a Vampire without losing one's self. As I see the Power Source, it's about maintaining the sense of self as you sacrifice part of your soul to Shadow. And the vast majority of ways people do this is by not relying entirely on shadow to carry them. Which makes sense, to me.
Shadow is much like the Dark Side of the Force. It makes use of negative feelings to gain power. Most don't rely entirely upon it, but those who do must fight to keep from going all Vader and slaughtering a bunch of innocent kids. If you catch my drift.
That said, Player Characters may be the exception, but there ARE NPC Fighters and Druids and whatnot out there. There are whole Warding Circles, most of the members not Wardens, but there are Wardens amongst them. That's why the class templates appear in the DM's Guide 1+2. There are whole academies dedicated to training Mages, and similar for Bards. They may not gain levels, nor are they rolled up like PCs, but they exist.
Classes exist for more than just PCs. But the PCs are good, and for this case, would be the exception to the rule that those who use it fall.
That said, I WOULD be happy with pure Shadow classes. But I'm JUST AS HAPPY like this. And it's not appologetic at all. I want good story concepts. These are good story concepts. I make no bones about it: I know that WotC originally planned to have full Shadow classes, and probably scrapped that sometime after Assassin was released and leading up with Essentials. WotC found the design of full and pure Shadow classes untenable with their current design goals, but in presentation of Shadowy-subclasses, the were able to flesh out a story to Shadow that is hugely appealing to me, and makes sense from an in-universe sort of way.
A class is more than a role + power source. It's a discipline of study, a working of order of how someone uses their special talents. It's probably less difficult to be consumed by Shadow when you have other power sources framing your training to fall back on. Most people who submit entirely to shadow are probably consumed, to the point that they really couldn't act as PCs, but would be monsters.
Except that:
1) while those without other focuses of study may be more likely to lose themselves to the shadow, so to could more potential victims so turn. Wizards might delve into shadow out of a sense of curiosity, but they certainly don't need to do so for power - they've already put in the effort required to master a source of power without limits. On the other hand, some poor kid who watches his village destroyed might turn to shadow for revenge, lacking any other means of achieving it, for instance.
2) PCs are already supposed to be the exception. There aren't supposed to be tons of wizards out there. Even the royal guards aren't supposed to be fighters. Fighters train their physical bodies not to the peak of physical ability, but beyond it. PCs, and by extension PC classes, are all rare and special - the fact that 'few would turn to darkness' or that 'shadow users are rare' as such has no bearing. Again, PCs are already the exception.
And yes, a class is more then a role plus a power source. It's unique class features, unique power structures, unique fluff and mechanics. That's why I want actual shadow classes. That's why builds of other classes, while fine in and of themselves, aren't enough for me.Classes aren't the same as Monsters. Even the Vampire class is an exemplare of how one becomes a Vampire without losing one's self. As I see the Power Source, it's about maintaining the sense of self as you sacrifice part of your soul to Shadow. And the vast majority of ways people do this is by not relying entirely on shadow to carry them. Which makes sense, to me.
This is just apologetics. You're justifying the design decisions after the fact, not establishing that they were the best decisions to make in the first place. Had this book included some sort of 'shadow warrior' or 'shadow caster' class, would you be posting complaints about how that was the wrong move, or doesn't match the fluff?
Again, those who already have power have little reason to go through such a sacrifice. Shadow power should be most attractive to the weak, the desperate, the selfish and impatient, the fringes and the outliers. Those for whom the dark path is the only path available. I'm not opposed to shadowy options for the arcane practitioner who delves into forbidden lore, or the divine worshipper of a deity of darkness, though I'm not sure such options necessitate dual source builds (just as I'm not convinced that the Hunter or Scout needed to be part primal just because they like the woods).
But the other aspects of shadow - the fast route to power for the weak and desperate, shadow for the sake of shadow, concepts that really delve into the nature of the beshadowed soul, and what it would mean, with fluff and mechanic diluted by attachment to pre-existing classes of other power sources - there's still room for that, because these builds and sub builds just don't fully cover it or meet its potential.
Of course, at this point I'd rather see the deficient full-shadow options we already have improved before agitating for the long-shot dream of new classes. A fix for the mechanically deficient if thematically rich shadow assassin, whether repairing the original form or replacing it with a full-shadow essentials rebuild. An expansion of the overly-narrow Vampire, allowing it to stretch into concepts beyond the Bella Lugosi cliche (fun as it is), providing options for those who would like this monster class to be less monster and more class.
I'm just going to point out the obvious. What you described for the Shadow power source is the Warlock.
I updated the initial post to link to the official previews and remove some of the other reports from DDXP. I might add them back in later when I have some more time.
That said - mixed bag.
The good: holy symbol and ki focus expertisse? A couple decent if rather situational feats.
The bad: that insubstantial on action points feat was close to being cool - until they slapped a way-to-short to matter duration on it, turning an interesting feat into a complete waste of page space and text ink. Very few feats overall.
The ugly: No class feats for the new builds. No class feats for the vampire at all. No racial feats for the shades or vryloka. The racial feats for the revenant are likely to mostly consist of a giant nerf to the existing soul feats.
Largely, the feats are near about the worst case scenario: complete lack of needed support feats for new races and class, and several of the remaining either of situational use or no use at all. Some real trap choices. Only a few potential winners. Lack of racial feats and class feats in particular very, very painful. As if the Vryloka weren't already boarderline, let alone the travasty of the Shade. And the poor vampire is already feeling unloved. Welcome to club shadow?
But hey, I'm the negative nancey around here. I'm sure you've got a more positive impression to share.
Not much to say. Discussion already exists in like three threads.
That said - mixed bag.
The good: holy symbol and ki focus expertisse? A couple decent if rather situational feats.
The bad: that insubstantial on action points feat was close to being cool - until they slapped a way-to-short to matter duration on it, turning an interesting feat into a complete waste of page space and text ink. Very few feats overall.
The ugly: No class feats for the new builds. No class feats for the vampire at all. No racial feats for the shades or vryloka. The racial feats for the revenant are likely to mostly consist of a giant nerf to the existing soul feats.
Largely, the feats are near about the worst case scenario: complete lack of needed support feats for new races and class, and several of the remaining either of situational use or no use at all. Some real trap choices. Only a few potential winners. Lack of racial feats and class feats in particular very, very painful. As if the Vryloka weren't already boarderline, let alone the travasty of the Shade. And the poor vampire is already feeling unloved. Welcome to club shadow?
But hey, I'm the negative nancey around here. I'm sure you've got a more positive impression to share.
I'm sure since the majority of the classes that appear in HoS are already well represented in the feats department elsewhere they didn't feel it was necessary. The fact there were no Vampire specific feats was a tad bit on the lame side. Racial feats are pretty much a Dragon thing now, for better or worse. As are new class feats I suppose. But on the bright side, at least most of them are new.
Only upon release will we be able to confirm whether this is the case or not, however I am still holding out hope that it was just a revamo of their delivery (and that the feats chapter only includes non-specific feats). The fact that a handful of revenant feats have made it into this chapter however makes this possibility all the more unlikely however.
As a lover of racial and class feats I have to ask ... why exactly are they or class feats needed to support a race or class? Why are they needed at all, beyond flavor? A race or class can work perfectly well just using general feats.
I agree, as a fellow lover of racial and class feats. To be honest, the bulk of feats always were fairly general. Class feats far outnumber racial feats, and the majority of racial feats were also class feats. They always seemed to be an after thought as far as the printed products go.
Similarly, the reason people wanted class feats for the vampire was to offset its apparently almost-non-existant level of customisability. And maybe to get rid of the strange sunlight damage rule (which is either pure fluff masquerading as a game mechanic, or a way for dick DMs to play 'Gotcha!' with anyone who dares to play a vampire character).
I don't think anyone really thinks racial and class feats are absolutely essential necessary in general, but there's a perception that the shade (and to a lesser extent the vryloka) are such weak races that they need racial feats to bring them up to par with existing races. As any CharOpper will tell you, racial feats have at least as much impact on how races are ranked for each class as racial ability score bonuses do. See, for example, the pre-Essentials dwarf, who made excellent fighters even without a Str bonus, due to its racial features and feats.
Similarly, the reason people wanted class feats for the vampire was to offset its apparently almost-non-existant level of customisability. And maybe to get rid of the strange sunlight damage rule (which is either pure fluff masquerading as a game mechanic, or a way for dick DMs to play 'Gotcha!' with anyone who dares to play a vampire character).
Fluff should not be game mechanics, even if someone thinks it sounds "cool". Also, engineering ways for people to be dicks is not what I pay for. Both of which is why I feel no need to support this book.
I fully expect the Vampire's innate PP will get rid of the sunlight vulnerability, or at least damage - either with the level 11 or 16 feature.
I suspect (and hope) that you're right. But I'd be willing to spend a feat to get rid of it a tier earlier. And there's precedent for PP features to replicate the effect of feats.
Fluff should not be game mechanics, even if someone thinks it sounds "cool". Also, engineering ways for people to be dicks is not what I pay for. Both of which is why I feel no need to support this book.
Agreed. Well, except for that I will be buying the book anyway. There's enough cool stuff I want in it to make up for the things I don't like.
I wrote up this new bug race that is instantly poisoned by oxygen. But all members of the race start with a gas mask. I'll make sure in the race writeup that the DM knows not to remove the gas mask, even if I should reasonably expect all enemy NPCs to exploit this vulnerability.
The racial feats for the revenant are likely to mostly consist of a giant nerf to the existing soul feats.
I doupt it. The revenant Unnatrual Vitality could certinly use a nerf (or at minimum a clarification), and there dark reaping could use a buff, but the feats are fine. In fact, except for half-elf soul (which may change to knack for success), elf soul, and warforged soul, the other feats listed are just ingored.
One of the things that made me most excited about a Shadow power source was the thought of shadow options making it into the first PHB when the next edition roles around. I want shadow to be one up there with primal at least, if not one of the main character types. I think that fantasy games have given more and more attention to characters who wield the shadows over recent years, and I think that it's a very good trend.
Here here! I agree whole-heartedly.
Also a preview/exposition of the Blackguard written by Mr. Schwalb wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drdd/...
I don't know. Seems kinda awkward in combat, given that, unlike many other summons and similar features, there's no way to move it without sacrificing your own move action. Seems like a lot of hassle for a benefit that isn't difficult to manufacture in other ways to begin with.
Well it is kinda just icing on the Utility cake. It's an extra utility power that they are just giving you at a level where most other classes just get an ability score increase. Really it's more of a RP tool than anything else. Though for what it is, it does have some usefulness.
I don't know. The utility aspect is an 'answer questions' divination effect - which are notoriously dm dependent in their usefulness. The sacrificing daily item uses clause is rather unclear. All in all, I see every blackguard dropping this option in favor of a fiendish steed as soon as they get around to printing the option in dragon.
Or even sooner, if the DM decides that they can use the cavalier bit. They are both level 4 Paladin Utilities, even PHB paladins can take it a 6th level, so why not exchange your little imp friend for a celestial warhorse. Perhaps it was a gift to lure you off the path of Darkness?
I don't know. The utility aspect is an 'answer questions' divination effect - which are notoriously dm dependent in their usefulness. The sacrificing daily item uses clause is rather unclear. All in all, I see every blackguard dropping this option in favor of a fiendish steed as soon as they get around to printing the option in dragon.
Or even sooner, if the DM decides that they can use the cavalier bit. They are both level 4 Paladin Utilities, even PHB paladins can take it a 6th level, so why not exchange your little imp friend for a celestial warhorse. Perhaps it was a gift to lure you off the path of Darkness?
Yeah, even if it were clear what they meant by giving up an item daily use (probably expend a magic item daily power for no effect), there is no way to know if that +5 is worth anything, since the power specifically says the DM sets the DC. I get that some obscure questions should have high DCs, but it would have been nice if they had given some guidlines (like using the skill DCs, with easy, medium, hard, etc). The way it was written I can't see a team of heroes using up all of their magic just to have the imp laugh and say "close, but no cigar!". Even if you trust your DM to set reasonable DCs (which hopefully you can do), is +5 going to swing it one way or the other?
It also seems pretty trivial for a party of 5 adventurers to get +25 in heroic (+50 in paragon, +75 in epic) to ask questions at the end of the day, so I imagine the DCs will have to be set pretty rediculously high - or it might have just said "you ask a question, and the imp answers it".
Mostly because I use the character builder, as I can't be bothered with going through errata documents, and the builder doesn't allow for that level of homeruling.
Well crapsicle! I suggest doing it old-fasioned way, there some very nice character sheets available out there. One could also print out the character from the CB and manually redact it.
I suppose I could do the character in the builder and just copy the info down into a more aesthetically pleasing sheet.
If the quailty of the online magazines doesn't improve and if I don't get into the VT beta by the end of April, I'll be dumping my DDI account at the end of april anyway.
Still, it would require a DM willing to allow some houseruling, and among my group I'm probably the most lenient in that regard - the others not so much.
Mostly I just think it's an interestingly thematic but mechanically empty ability, and I hope the class is worthwhile without it.
I suppose I could do the character in the builder and just copy the info down into a more aesthetically pleasing sheet.
If the quailty of the online magazines doesn't improve and if I don't get into the VT beta by the end of April, I'll be dumping my DDI account at the end of april anyway.
Still, it would require a DM willing to allow some houseruling, and among my group I'm probably the most lenient in that regard - the others not so much.
Mostly I just think it's an interestingly thematic but mechanically empty ability, and I hope the class is worthwhile without it.
Yeah, it's pretty much a plot device. But the Blackguard had to have something other than full-on axe crazy nightmare fuel going for it, it just ended up this. It's not to terribly bad a power really.
* admitedly, this is very DM dependant, and in some games could be of significant value.
As for the ax-crazy nightmare fuel - if instead of an 'anti-paladin' we got a new, non-paladin related shadow melee class, then it wouldn't have to be axe crazy, it wouldn't have to be barred from the good alignment, and it wouldn't have to be defined by its relationship to the cavalier.
This is the kind of mechanics-restricting thematic cage that shoving shadow under the hats of other classes and other power sources creates. This is exactly what I've been complaining about ever since we first started seeing hints that this was the direction they were heading. It's not that the Blackguard is bad, but its relationship to existing classes has definitally restricted its potential.
Why couldn't 'fury' and 'domination' just been made cavalier 'virtues', leaving the shadow heavy melee class concept open? Why couldn't they be defenders? Defender doesn't just mean 'helping your allies', it also has strong control aspects that fit perfectly with a 'dominating your enemies' theme - far better then just beating them in the face for damage. And if I was a paladin of 'fury', I don't think anything would make me more 'furious' then an enemy who attacked my friends or who insulted me by ignoring me.
But whatev's. It is what it is. Hopefully the rest of the subclass is more interesting then what I've seen so far. Some of the 'hurt yourself to do more damage' themes I've heard about sound interesting, at least. I kinda wish this 'design and development' preview had been more about that. You know, the aspects of the subclass that it has on its own merits, rather then the parts that were defined for it by its relationship to the cavalier.
As a level four 'bonus' ability no, though again I'd never take it if I had the paladin steed option. As a chosen utility power, I doubt I'd ever take it, even at level 2. 'plot coupond' divinations just never seem to pan out in games I've played in*, and as a combat tool it seems like more hassle then its worth.
* admitedly, this is very DM dependant, and in some games could be of significant value.
As for the ax-crazy nightmare fuel - if instead of an 'anti-paladin' we got a new, non-paladin related shadow melee class, then it wouldn't have to be axe crazy, it wouldn't have to be barred from the good alignment, and it wouldn't have to be defined by its relationship to the cavalier.
This is the kind of mechanics-restricting thematic cage that shoving shadow under the hats of other classes and other power sources creates. This is exactly what I've been complaining about ever since we first started seeing hints that this was the direction they were heading. It's not that the Blackguard is bad, but its relationship to existing classes has definitally restricted its potential.
Why couldn't 'fury' and 'domination' just been made cavalier 'virtues', leaving the shadow heavy melee class concept open? Why couldn't they be defenders? Defender doesn't just mean 'helping your allies', it also has strong control aspects that fit perfectly with a 'dominating your enemies' theme - far better then just beating them in the face for damage. And if I was a paladin of 'fury', I don't think anything would make me more 'furious' then an enemy who attacked my friends or who insulted me by ignoring me.
But whatev's. It is what it is. Hopefully the rest of the subclass is more interesting then what I've seen so far. Some of the 'hurt yourself to do more damage' themes I've heard about sound interesting, at least. I kinda wish this 'design and development' preview had been more about that. You know, the aspects of the subclass that it has on its own merits, rather then the parts that were defined for it by its relationship to the cavalier.
The Vice of Domination build is the one that gets the temps. It went into it a little bit, but I'd like to see more of that.
The servant of vice is cool, but I'd ultimately prefer feats that grant more powerful fiendish servants to ones that grant a steed as bgs can just take summon mount from cavaliers and refluff.
As a level four 'bonus' ability no, though again I'd never take it if I had the paladin steed option. As a chosen utility power, I doubt I'd ever take it, even at level 2. 'plot coupond' divinations just never seem to pan out in games I've played in*, and as a combat tool it seems like more hassle then its worth.
* admitedly, this is very DM dependant, and in some games could be of significant value.
As for the ax-crazy nightmare fuel - if instead of an 'anti-paladin' we got a new, non-paladin related shadow melee class, then it wouldn't have to be axe crazy, it wouldn't have to be barred from the good alignment, and it wouldn't have to be defined by its relationship to the cavalier.
This is the kind of mechanics-restricting thematic cage that shoving shadow under the hats of other classes and other power sources creates. This is exactly what I've been complaining about ever since we first started seeing hints that this was the direction they were heading. It's not that the Blackguard is bad, but its relationship to existing classes has definitally restricted its potential.
Why couldn't 'fury' and 'domination' just been made cavalier 'virtues', leaving the shadow heavy melee class concept open? Why couldn't they be defenders? Defender doesn't just mean 'helping your allies', it also has strong control aspects that fit perfectly with a 'dominating your enemies' theme - far better then just beating them in the face for damage. And if I was a paladin of 'fury', I don't think anything would make me more 'furious' then an enemy who attacked my friends or who insulted me by ignoring me.
But whatev's. It is what it is. Hopefully the rest of the subclass is more interesting then what I've seen so far. Some of the 'hurt yourself to do more damage' themes I've heard about sound interesting, at least. I kinda wish this 'design and development' preview had been more about that. You know, the aspects of the subclass that it has on its own merits, rather then the parts that were defined for it by its relationship to the cavalier.
I'll agree with this. I've yet to see what I consider a compelling reason Blackguard should be a type of Paladin.
As a level four 'bonus' ability no, though again I'd never take it if I had the paladin steed option. As a chosen utility power, I doubt I'd ever take it, even at level 2. 'plot coupond' divinations just never seem to pan out in games I've played in*, and as a combat tool it seems like more hassle then its worth.
* admitedly, this is very DM dependant, and in some games could be of significant value.
As for the ax-crazy nightmare fuel - if instead of an 'anti-paladin' we got a new, non-paladin related shadow melee class, then it wouldn't have to be axe crazy, it wouldn't have to be barred from the good alignment, and it wouldn't have to be defined by its relationship to the cavalier.
This is the kind of mechanics-restricting thematic cage that shoving shadow under the hats of other classes and other power sources creates. This is exactly what I've been complaining about ever since we first started seeing hints that this was the direction they were heading. It's not that the Blackguard is bad, but its relationship to existing classes has definitally restricted its potential.
Why couldn't 'fury' and 'domination' just been made cavalier 'virtues', leaving the shadow heavy melee class concept open? Why couldn't they be defenders? Defender doesn't just mean 'helping your allies', it also has strong control aspects that fit perfectly with a 'dominating your enemies' theme - far better then just beating them in the face for damage. And if I was a paladin of 'fury', I don't think anything would make me more 'furious' then an enemy who attacked my friends or who insulted me by ignoring me.
But whatev's. It is what it is. Hopefully the rest of the subclass is more interesting then what I've seen so far. Some of the 'hurt yourself to do more damage' themes I've heard about sound interesting, at least. I kinda wish this 'design and development' preview had been more about that. You know, the aspects of the subclass that it has on its own merits, rather then the parts that were defined for it by its relationship to the cavalier.
I'll agree with this. I've yet to see what I consider a compelling reason Blackguard should be a type of Paladin.
For the same reason that Necromancer's are just Mages with a thing for dead stuff, it always has been. Old school Blackguards were fallen Paladins, hell they were virtually identical mechanically accept for a few things. The Blackguard is a Paladin because of tradition, a tradition that has spread beyond the game.
2) I do see a compelling reason for the Blackguard to be a paladin. What I don't see a compelling reason for is why the blackguard had to be a different type of paladin then the cavalier, why fury and (especially) domination didn't fit the defender party role, why the Blackguard had to be Shadow instead of just divine, and why it needed to eat the conceptual space that could have been alloted to a heavy melee shadow class that could exist on its own terms, rather then having it's identity defined primarily if not entirely by its relationship to another subclass.
That said, at this point what's done is done. All I can hope for now is that the Blackguard is playable, balanced, and has at least some identity of its own, because this is now the only heavy melee shadow class we're getting in 4th edition.
Again, though, this is exactly what I've been complaining about all this time. The blackguard may turn out to be balanced and functional (or it may not, it's really too soon to say). But it has been undeniably constrained by it's relationship to the cavalier. For all the essentials format "opens design space", the "subclass instead of new class" philosophy has very much constrained conceptual innovation, and in my own admitedly subjective perspective, the balance of these two trends isn't tilted in a positive direction overall.
Subclasses simply aren't new classes in the same way that actual new classes are, because actual new classes are allowed to define their own category.
Subclasses are new classes. As the Marshal Warlord shows Cavaliers and Blackguards, and whatever the original Paladin ends up getting called, are all separate classes that fall under the Paladin category.
Kit Builds (I refuse to use Subclass) are not new classes, they are elabrate builds that do not need outside informations from the book that they are in.
I don't know why you consider them new classes when they clearly are an extension of the base class.
But, as is clear by the design & development article, large portions if not flat out everything about the Blackguard is defined not by its own unique identity, but rather by its relationship to the paladin in general and cavalier in particular, putting significant conceptual restraints on the subclass that simply would not have existed had it been an actual new class instead.
Subclasses simply aren't new classes in the same way that actual new classes are, because actual new classes are allowed to define their own category.
Its because WoTC likes to design around "stories" now, which ends up railroading classes. Its like the Eladrin Knight build a ways back, nothing about it mechancily should require you to be an Eladrin (beyond the prerequisite), but because the fluff was based around Eladrin Knights, we now have a race specific knight build. No amount of complaining on the forums fixed it.
Such teleportation abilities would have made perfect sense in the hands of Shadar-Kai and Shardmind.
We must now conform to their view of the game world, and what classes/races the CB finds popular. If we don't we wont ever be happy.
Its not about helping people build their own worlds anymore. Its about making the "core" setting more new DM friendly. Or atleast, thats what I hope the recent changes are about.
Isn't open design space wonderful?
Subclasses are new classes. As the Marshal Warlord shows Cavaliers and Blackguards, and whatever the original Paladin ends up getting called, are all separate classes that fall under the Paladin category.
Kit Builds (I refuse to use Subclass) are not new classes, they are elabrate builds that do not need outside informations from the book that they are in.
I don't know why you consider them new classes when they clearly are an extension of the base class.
Oh, I don't know, because a) KIT-BUILDS DO NOT EXIST, and b) WotC themselves consider them separate classes? You know, little logical things like that. I'm glad you finally admit you're an ostrich though.
There is no more "base class." The soon to be renamed Paladin, the Cavalier, and the Blackguard are all separate entities that fall under a single heading called Paladin, which is itself not a class anymore. Just a name.
Same with soon to be renamed Warlocks, Hexblades, and Binders. Or Weaponmasters, Kinghts, and Slayers. There is no Fighter class anymore more, just a label applied to three separate classes.
Its because WoTC likes to design around "stories" now, which ends up railroading classes. Its like the Eladrin Knight build a ways back, nothing about it mechancily should require you to be an Eladrin (beyond the prerequisite), but because the fluff was based around Eladrin Knights, we now have a race specific knight build. No amount of complaining on the forums fixed it.
Such teleportation abilities would have made perfect sense in the hands of Shadar-Kai and Shardmind.
Wait ... people complained that a build made specifically for Eladrin didn't let non-Eladrin take the powers? Wow ... talk about whiny.
There is no more "base class." The soon to be renamed Paladin, the Cavalier, and the Blackguard are all separate entities that fall under a single heading called Paladin, which is itself not a class anymore. Just a name.
Why are you getting bent out of shape about the other dude making up terminology for things when you're making up your own 'category' terminology?
So nobody wants to agree on what class means anymore. So be it. If everybody gets to make up their terms, so do I. It doesn't matter, because we all know what each other are talking about, and the semantics of it have little bearing on my complaints regarding the unnecessary thematic restrictions hampering potential new concepts under the current design policy. All that said, just to avoid confusion, let me define my terms:
So we've got the Fighter "Schmoofdanglus", which includes the Knight, Slayer, and Weaponmaster* "Quadzooks". Ok. Terminology established.
Now we've got a bunch of existing Quadzooks belonging to a range of Schmoofdangli, including several Schmoofdangli of a single Quadzook (can we still call these classes? No? Maybe Schmoofzook? Quaddangus? Let's go with "Uni-Type Quadschmoof").
All that accepted, when new class content is developed, the designers still have the option of developing a new Quadzook for an existing Schmoofdanglus, or instead developing an entirely new Schmoofdanglus with one or more new Quadzooks within it. For example, we have the Blackguard, presented as a new Quadzook of the Paladin Schmoofdanglus, as opposed to the Vampire, a new uni-type Quadschmoof - bringing an entirely new Schmoofdanglus to the game.
My problem with the former choice is that a new Quadzook is inherently more restricted conceptually then a new Schmoofdanglus. Quadzooks are defined in large part by their Schmoofdanglus, and the blackguard in particular is defined not only by the paladin Schmoofdanglus, but by its relation to its fellow cavalier Quadzook within that Schmoofdanglus. In fact, it's so heavily defined by the cavalier, that I have to question why the concept wouldn't have worked as well or better as simply new builds (we can still use 'build' right? good) of Cavalier. This would allow the 'Heavy Melee Shadow Guy' concept to be developed into its own unique new uni-type Quadschmoof, giving players access to a new Schmoofdanglus defined on its own terms, with room for multiple potential Quadzooks within it.
To me the latter is the superior option, encouraging new ideas to grow rather then restricting them in terms of what has come before, as is evident from the Blackguard being defined by its relationship to the Cavalier. It's not that I'm opposed to the idea of the anti-cavalier, but that character type is so cavalier based that it might as well be a build of cavalier, no need to butt in on other power sources or trample other character concepts to do so.
*confusingly previously just called "fighter", back when Schmoofdanglus and Quadzook were both united in the singular "class" root categorinology which apparently no longer exists, despite being a rulebook term in active use functioning as a prerequisite for powers, feats, paragon paths, and epic destinies.
Isn't it great that essentials came along to simplify D&D and make everything make sense? :p
Why are you getting bent out of shape about the other dude making up terminology for things when you're making up your own 'category' terminology?
I'm only using the terms WotC themselves are using. And I'm "getting bent out of shape" because thaX always does this - spreads misinformation on purpose, knowing that it will confuse everyone. Hell, he even admitted it.
Fighter is still the 'class'. Knight, Slayer, and, retroactively, Weaponmaster are all something else. Something less then a class, but more then a build. Something that Wizards hasn't defined or given a clear term for. Subclass is the generally accepted term, and yes, Thax is being needlessly obstinant in calling them 'kit builds'. But, in the absence of clear official terminology, Thax is free to call them whatever, and it doesn't matter because we all know what Thax means by "kit builds".
If you insist on calling them 'classes', however, you are making things more confusing and we won't all know what you mean, because class is already a term, one officially aligned with what you called a 'concept'. To use the same term for Schmoofdanglii and Quadzooks is even more confusing then arbitrarily labeling the latter 'Kit Builds' and pretending the term is some sort of derisive insult.
And either way, the Blackguard still provides a sterling example of how, even if a new Subclass is mechanically viable (and we don't know yet whether the Blackguard actually is or not), it's still significantly constrained on a thematic level in ways that an actual new class (or 'category' or 'Schmoofdanglus' or whatever) is not.
Not confusing. Not misinformation.
And the Blackguard is about as thematically constrained as the Avenger.
The official term is subclass
Then it isn't class.
but subclass and class are the same thing. That is not misinformation, that is fact.
No more a fact then saying squares and rectangles are the same thing. All squares are rectangles, but not vice versa. The terms are related, not identicle.
"these three separate classes can all share stuff." That says cataegory to me.
Not classes, subclasses, as you've said so yourself. And while that says 'category' to you, the official game rules glossary term for that concept isn't 'category', it's 'class'.
And the Blackguard is about as thematically constrained as the Avenger.
Except the Avenger wasn't constrained by something else. It was free to define itself however it wished based on its own avengerness and thus was allowed to be something new. The Blackguard was not so free, instead being defined not by it's on qualities but by being the evil twin doppleganger of another subclass, and thus was not allowed to be something new, and in the process it prevented whatever new heavy melee shadow idea might have otherwise existed from ever manifesting in 4e.
And deny it all you want, but Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, etc. are just categories now. This is what Essentials style means, and I for one welcome it.
Oh please. Class and subclass are the same thing and you know it. And the Blackguard was always going to be the Shadow Heavy melee guy. That was inevitable. The only thing that "constrains it" is the tie to Cavalier, and it really isn't that limiting. No more so than Avenger being tied to "secret illegal warriors of the gods."
And deny it all you want, but Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, etc. are just categories now. This is what Essentials style means, and I for one welcome it.
I have to agree. Additionally the reason why the Blackguard is the way it is, is based on two factors.
- They have switched over to an "Idea" based design theory.
- They didn't have a different idea for a heavy melee shadow combatant.
Oh please. Class and subclass are the same thing and you know it.
Based on what? Seriously, man. What are you talking about? They're defined terms, dude, that's not how they're defined.
And the Blackguard was always going to be the Shadow Heavy melee guy. That was inevitable. The only thing that "constrains it" is the tie to Cavalier, and it really isn't that limiting. No more so than Avenger being tied to "secret illegal warriors of the gods."
Based on when? Back when the first product description was released, we all thought the Hexblade was going to be the shadow heavy melee guy, and not a blackguard in sight. I always thought if the blackguard was ever going to show up it would be a build of paladin as divine as any other, not shadow or arcane or primal at all. I'm not denying that this is how it ended up, I'm lamenting it. But your version of inevitability seems as subtly skewed as your understanding of nomenclature.
As for the tie to the cavalier being the only thing that "constrains it", I'm glad to see we agree, because that's exactly what I was complaining about to begin with. It's just a shame that the heavy shadow melee guy is constrained by such a tie, when, if it were it's own class (or if you prefer, a subclass under a new class, or since their the same thing now apparently, a class under a new subclass) it could have had its own fluff, unburdened by such a tie, from which its own mechanics could have naturally grown into something conceptually new, something capable of standing on its own, defined as the Avenger is on its own terms, which the blackguard will never be and will never do, since you can't have an 'anti paladin' without first having a 'paladin'.
By way of demonstration: if we were to reboot to 5e today, and choose whatever classes (or subclass, or whatever) we felt like all haphazardly to put into the first 5e PHB (or heroes of, or whatever), we could put the Avenger in there regardless of what other classes we chose to include. We could put the avenger in there even if it were the only divine class in the book. Because the avenger is defined on its own terms. Yes, it's constrained by its own fluff, but that fluff is on its own terms.
By comparison, we could not include the blackguard unless we also included the paladin, or more specifically the cavalier. Because the blackguard is largely if not entirely defined as the anti-cavalier. It simply doesn't make sense without having something else to be anti to. It isn't its own thing.
And deny it all you want, but Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, etc. are just categories now. This is what Essentials style means, and I for one welcome it.
And the term for these categories is class. A term which is not the same as subclass.
Your organizational pattern is correct - there are 'categories' with 'classes' in them. But the former term is 'class', and the latter is 'subclass', and if you use them interchangably it gets needlessly confusing, and is far more misinformative then ThaX's use of the term 'kit build' in plase of 'subclass', which is merely ornery.
Again, none of this stops the Blackguard from being playable. But it does stop the blackguard from leaving a lasting impression on the game, or from establishing a conceptual identity apart apart from the paladin. It's not as big a failing, as, say, the Shades sheer mechanical failosity. But as a fan of shadowy themes it still stings to the opportunity lost.
Oh please. Class and subclass are the same thing and you know it.
Based on what? Seriously, man. What are you talking about? They're defined terms, dude, that's not how they're defined.And the Blackguard was always going to be the Shadow Heavy melee guy. That was inevitable. The only thing that "constrains it" is the tie to Cavalier, and it really isn't that limiting. No more so than Avenger being tied to "secret illegal warriors of the gods."
Based on when? Back when the first product description was released, we all thought the Hexblade was going to be the shadow heavy melee guy, and not a blackguard in sight. I always thought if the blackguard was ever going to show up it would be a build of paladin as divine as any other, not shadow or arcane or primal at all. I'm not denying that this is how it ended up, I'm lamenting it. But your version of inevitability seems as subtly skewed as your understanding of nomenclature.
As for the tie to the cavalier being the only thing that "constrains it", I'm glad to see we agree, because that's exactly what I was complaining about to begin with. It's just a shame that the heavy shadow melee guy is constrained by such a tie, when, if it were it's own class (or if you prefer, a subclass under a new class, or since their the same thing now apparently, a class under a new subclass) it could have had its own fluff, unburdened by such a tie, from which its own mechanics could have naturally grown into something conceptually new, something capable of standing on its own, which the blackguard will never be and will never do, since you can't have an 'anti paladin' without first having a 'paladin'.And deny it all you want, but Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, etc. are just categories now. This is what Essentials style means, and I for one welcome it.
And the term for these categories is class. A term which is not the same as subclass.
Yes they could have had a different Melee shadow class that was seemingly unhindered by connections to other classes. However, there really wasn't any intention that being in HoS. The fall of the Source/Role grid meant that since their heavy armor melee class could fit into the Paladin family, it was going in there. The Blackguard is seemingly hampered by it's connection to the Cavalier, but that's the point. Blackguards are counterpoints to Cavaliers, they represent a tao-like duality in not only mechanics but also the in-game story. The only thing that is different is that now they are both the same Powersource rather than the same role. Other examples of the duality exist elsewhere. For example, the Artificer is the other side of the Shaman, the Avenger is the counterpart to the Assassin, the Invoker is the opposite of the Wizard. They all fill the same Role but do it in antithetical ways.
Its because WoTC likes to design around "stories" now, which ends up railroading classes. Its like the Eladrin Knight build a ways back, nothing about it mechancily should require you to be an Eladrin (beyond the prerequisite), but because the fluff was based around Eladrin Knights, we now have a race specific knight build. No amount of complaining on the forums fixed it.
Such teleportation abilities would have made perfect sense in the hands of Shadar-Kai and Shardmind.
Wait ... people complained that a build made specifically for Eladrin didn't let non-Eladrin take the powers? Wow ... talk about whiny.
Well, the issue is that the build and powers lock out every other sensible concept. The Eladrin were the first Swordmages (if you beleive the Eladrin hype), yet you don't need to be an Eladrin to be a Swordmage. The abilities can be taught.
The simple fix, which the author even discussed in his Design and Development article, was to have the requirement be "Trained in Arcana." (Like the Paragon Path abilities, actually. One might argue that the Paragon Path should be more "exclusive" than the basic abilities.)
The build would still favor the Eladrin, who get a free Skill Training. Eladrin have a much lower cost of entry than any other race.
Yes they could have had a different Melee shadow class that was seemingly unhindered by connections to other classes. However, there really wasn't any intention that being in HoS. The fall of the Source/Role grid meant that since their heavy armor melee class could fit into the Paladin family, it was going in there.
There had been, back when 4e was birthed, an intention to give these potentially distinct concepts their own classes. The thought process wasn't "is there any way we can cram this idea into something we've already done?", it was rather "is there any way this idea is distinct enough that we could grow it into its own unique identity?". The distinctions between sources and roles pushed the designers to come up with new ideas. Yes, some were duds. But others were awesome. The new philosophy instead pushes the designers to rehash old ideas. That's not a positive change in my mind.
Better to have class glut and end up with some runepriests and seekers then subclass glut and have a dozen more variants of fighter. You end up with exactly the same amount of option overload, but in the latter case your conceptual options are much more limited.
The Blackguard is seemingly hampered by it's connection to the Cavalier, but that's the point. Blackguards are counterpoints to Cavaliers, they represent a tao-like duality in not only mechanics but also the in-game story.
Which they could have done as a build of cavalier without ever setting foot out of their subclass or power source, and without quashing the potential of other archetypes. After all, clerics of nature gods can be pure divine, and leave the primal power source for separate classes. Shamen and Druids and Clerics of Melora can all exist in the same game. Wardens and Paladine of Selune can exist in the same game. Rangers and Seekers can exist in the same game. Or at least, they used to be able to, and imo the game was better for it. Under the current philosophy, none of those new classes would have existed.
I like my shamen, wardens, and seekers. I liked them far better then I would have liked warpriests of the nature domain, cavaliers of the conservationist virtue, or, well Hunters. Is it so unfair that I should be disappointed at a gifting philosophy that shifted from giving new toys to only making modifications to existing toys right before my birthday?
The only thing that is different is that now they are both the same Powersource rather than the same role. Other examples of the duality exist elsewhere. For example, the Artificer is the other side of the Shaman, the Avenger is the counterpart to the Assassin, the Invoker is the opposite of the Wizard. They all fill the same Role but do it in antithetical ways.
You're very much stretching here. While I admit the Invoker is a bit weak in terms of its own unique feel, claiming that either the Artificer or the Shaman is defined by the other, or the Assassin and Avenger for that matter is simply not true. The artificer/shaman combination in particular seems ludicrous. They are no more dualistic opposites then Psions and Warlocks, or pickup trucks and sharp chedder cheese for that matter. The avenger and assassin aren't anti-anything to each other, and are no more closely related to each other then either of them are to the rogue, all being stealthy light melee strikers. Which is to say similar, but in no way defined or constrained by their relationship to one another.
Again, as a simple demonstration: could the assassin exist in the game without the avenger? Could the shaman exist without the artificer? And by comparison, could the Blackguard exist without some other, non-blackguard paladin?
Yes they could have had a different Melee shadow class that was seemingly unhindered by connections to other classes. However, there really wasn't any intention that being in HoS. The fall of the Source/Role grid meant that since their heavy armor melee class could fit into the Paladin family, it was going in there.
There had been, back when 4e was birthed, an intention to give these potentially distinct concepts their own classes. The thought process wasn't "is there any way we can cram this idea into something we've already done?", it was rather "is there any way this idea is distinct enough that we could grow it into its own unique identity?". The distinctions between sources and roles pushed the designers to come up with new ideas. Yes, some were duds. But others were awesome. The new philosophy instead pushes the designers to rehash old ideas. That's not a positive change in my mind.
Better to have class glut and end up with some runepriests and seekers then subclass glut and have a dozen more variants of fighter. You end up with exactly the same amount of option overload, but in the latter case your conceptual options are much more limited.
The Blackguard is seemingly hampered by it's connection to the Cavalier, but that's the point. Blackguards are counterpoints to Cavaliers, they represent a tao-like duality in not only mechanics but also the in-game story.
Which they could have done as a build of cavalier without ever setting foot out of their subclass or power source, and without quashing the potential of other archetypes. After all, clerics of nature gods can be pure divine, and leave the primal power source for separate classes. Shamen and Druids and Clerics of Melora can all exist in the same game. Wardens and Paladine of Selune can exist in the same game. Rangers and Seekers can exist in the same game. Or at least, they used to be able to, and imo the game was better for it. Under the current philosophy, none of those new classes would have existed.
I like my shamen, wardens, and seekers. I liked them far better then I would have liked warpriests of the nature domain, cavaliers of the conservationist virtue, or, well Hunters. Is it so unfair that I should be disappointed at a gifting philosophy that shifted from giving new toys to only making modifications to existing toys right before my birthday?The only thing that is different is that now they are both the same Powersource rather than the same role. Other examples of the duality exist elsewhere. For example, the Artificer is the other side of the Shaman, the Avenger is the counterpart to the Assassin, the Invoker is the opposite of the Wizard. They all fill the same Role but do it in antithetical ways.
You're very much stretching here. While I admit the Invoker is a bit weak in terms of its own unique feel, claiming that either the Artificer or the Shaman is defined by the other, or the Assassin and Avenger for that matter is simply not true. The artificer/shaman combination in particular seems ludicrous. They are no more dualistic opposites then Psions and Warlocks, or pickup trucks and sharp chedder cheese for that matter. The avenger and assassin aren't anti-anything to each other, and are no more closely related to each other then either of them are to the rogue, all being stealthy light melee strikers. Which is to say similar, but in no way defined or constrained by their relationship to one another.
Again, as a simple demonstration: could the assassin exist in the game without the avenger? Could the shaman exist without the artificer? And by comparison, could the Blackguard exist without some other, non-blackguard paladin?
My intention was to prove that there is precedent for Blackguards and Cavaliers to be connected. In all reality a Blackguard would not fit as a build of the Cavalier. They are far more different than you give them credit. As for the duality present between my various examples I ask this, what traits do there powersources have? The Shaman and Artificer are both leaders with the ability to utilise weapons and implements, both have conjuration powers, and both are lightly armored. Heck they practically have the exact same ability scores, but what sets them apart is that they have opposite routes to gaining their abilities. The same can be said for Avenger/Assassins and Wizard/Invokers. They are all two side of the same idea, now WotC has changed things up and started doing the same thing with roles rather than Power source. Could any class exist without the existence of any other class? Yes, but that doesn't mean they aren't inherently connected.
Its because WoTC likes to design around "stories" now, which ends up railroading classes. Its like the Eladrin Knight build a ways back, nothing about it mechancily should require you to be an Eladrin (beyond the prerequisite), but because the fluff was based around Eladrin Knights, we now have a race specific knight build. No amount of complaining on the forums fixed it.
Such teleportation abilities would have made perfect sense in the hands of Shadar-Kai and Shardmind.
Wait ... people complained that a build made specifically for Eladrin didn't let non-Eladrin take the powers? Wow ... talk about whiny.
People complained that they made a build exclusively for eladrin. Its the only racial exlusive build in the game, and quite possibly the only set of racial exlusive class powers. "racially themed class powers" usually tend to be open to all, just synegyize or have extra benefit for the race.
Its also the kind of thing WoTC says not to submit to them.
Its just as bad, or worse, than those racial feats that really have little to do with the actual race.
Remember when 4e wasn't constrained by fluff? Its a teleporting magical knight with a bunch of pages saying it has to be eladrin.
Its because WoTC likes to design around "stories" now, which ends up railroading classes. Its like the Eladrin Knight build a ways back, nothing about it mechancily should require you to be an Eladrin (beyond the prerequisite), but because the fluff was based around Eladrin Knights, we now have a race specific knight build. No amount of complaining on the forums fixed it.
Such teleportation abilities would have made perfect sense in the hands of Shadar-Kai and Shardmind.
Wait ... people complained that a build made specifically for Eladrin didn't let non-Eladrin take the powers? Wow ... talk about whiny.
People complained that they made a build exclusively for eladrin. Its the only racial exlusive build in the game, and quite possibly the only set of racial exlusive class powers. "racially themed class powers" usually tend to be open to all, just synegyize or have extra benefit for the race.
Its also the kind of thing WoTC says not to submit to them.
Its just as bad, or worse, than those racial feats that really have little to do with the actual race.
Remember when 4e wasn't constrained by fluff? Its a teleporting magical knight with a bunch of pages saying it has to be eladrin.
I like 4e that is not constrained with fluff, Dont get me wrong I love fluff but losing creative freedom (from character to home campaign) is just wrong. But I could accept it if it was something in a campaign stetting book, because most campaign mechanics are natruraly based around fluff.
Until recently they've been good and kept these restrictions mostly to PP's, ED's, and the occasional feat.
Until the Eladrin knight.
That said, for home play. its not hard to remove said requirements. However, for official play, or if you use the CB (and why wouldn't you, if you have the article you have DDI), its more complicated.
Also, without response, WoTC might think its a great idea and provide more race specific builds.
People complained that they made a build exclusively for eladrin. Its the only racial exlusive build in the game, and quite possibly the only set of racial exlusive class powers. "racially themed class powers" usually tend to be open to all, just synegyize or have extra benefit for the race.
Its also the kind of thing WoTC says not to submit to them.
Its just as bad, or worse, than those racial feats that really have little to do with the actual race.
Remember when 4e wasn't constrained by fluff? Its a teleporting magical knight with a bunch of pages saying it has to be eladrin.
Yeah ... still having trouble figuring out why I should be mad about it. In fact, I think it's awesome and want more just like it. I want more racially exclusive builds. Race was supposed to be more important in 4e, and this is the way to do it.
And yes, those bunches of pages saying it has to be Eladrin are more than enough justification.
People complained that they made a build exclusively for eladrin. Its the only racial exlusive build in the game, and quite possibly the only set of racial exlusive class powers. "racially themed class powers" usually tend to be open to all, just synegyize or have extra benefit for the race.
Its also the kind of thing WoTC says not to submit to them.
Its just as bad, or worse, than those racial feats that really have little to do with the actual race.
Remember when 4e wasn't constrained by fluff? Its a teleporting magical knight with a bunch of pages saying it has to be eladrin.
Yeah ... still having trouble figuring out why I should be mad about it. In fact, I think it's awesome and want more just like it. I want more racially exclusive builds. Race was supposed to be more important in 4e, and this is the way to do it.
And yes, those bunches of pages saying it has to be Eladrin are more than enough justification.
Exactly. What's the point of having the fluff at all if the rules don't support it?
The official term is subclass, but subclass and class are the same thing.
"How can you be so obtuse?"
No, that is what I have been trying to get through to you. They are definately not the same. Just as the Class Kits were not a full class in the 2nd edition pamphlets books they were in. One is a build, the other is a class. Build. Class.
Build.
Class.
That the builds are self sustaining and replaces or reprints class features is not a reason to actually call them a "class."
One is a build. The other is a Class.
Kit Build.
Class.
The quote above is from Shawshank Redemtion, btw.
My intention was to prove that there is precedent for Blackguards and Cavaliers to be connected. In all reality a Blackguard would not fit as a build of the Cavalier. They are far more different than you give them credit. As for the duality present between my various examples I ask this, what traits do there powersources have? The Shaman and Artificer are both leaders with the ability to utilise weapons and implements, both have conjuration powers, and both are lightly armored. Heck they practically have the exact same ability scores, but what sets them apart is that they have opposite routes to gaining their abilities. The same can be said for Avenger/Assassins and Wizard/Invokers. They are all two side of the same idea, now WotC has changed things up and started doing the same thing with roles rather than Power source. Could any class exist without the existence of any other class? Yes, but that doesn't mean they aren't inherently connected.
Wow this comparison is way off base. Shamans have (last I checked) zero personal melee powers and no ability to use ranged weapons: they fight through their ever present, fragile yet regenerating spirit companion- the closest thing to the pokemon trainer archetype. Often Shamans improve their spirit but seldom rely on additional multiple creations. Artificers can use Melee, ranged, or throwable weapons interchangably for a major set of their powers and have large, diverse (many non-combatants) selection of limited use conjurations and summons. They have unique utility with magic items and fill the machine user archetype. More importantly, the fact that the Artificer fought one way had NO bearing on the way the Shaman fought beyond a small avoidance of duplicate mechanics. The Shaman could have been technology flavored, called the machinist, and no one would have called foul (assuming our current artificer didn't exist).
This article admits that they CUT builds from the blackguard solely because they didn't have space/ideas for 4 builds of cavelier in HOFL (which "might" get dragon published in the future). That's as dumb as an amputee cutting off his second leg because he likes symmetry! "Dark Strike" or whatever is just Holy Smite with an elemental switching weapon. Blackguards are also getting a stealth/temphp self buff just to contrast to Caveliers party helping shield, despite that the Darkknight archetype in many fields eschews self defense for more offense.
That's as dumb as an amputee cutting off his second leg because he likes symmetry!
I had to quote this because it is such an awesome quote.
My intention was to prove that there is precedent for Blackguards and Cavaliers to be connected. In all reality a Blackguard would not fit as a build of the Cavalier. They are far more different than you give them credit. As for the duality present between my various examples I ask this, what traits do there powersources have? The Shaman and Artificer are both leaders with the ability to utilise weapons and implements, both have conjuration powers, and both are lightly armored. Heck they practically have the exact same ability scores, but what sets them apart is that they have opposite routes to gaining their abilities. The same can be said for Avenger/Assassins and Wizard/Invokers. They are all two side of the same idea, now WotC has changed things up and started doing the same thing with roles rather than Power source. Could any class exist without the existence of any other class? Yes, but that doesn't mean they aren't inherently connected.
Wow this comparison is way off base. Shamans have (last I checked) zero personal melee powers and no ability to use ranged weapons: they fight through their ever present, fragile yet regenerating spirit companion- the closest thing to the pokemon trainer archetype. Often Shamans improve their spirit but seldom rely on additional multiple creations. Artificers can use Melee, ranged, or throwable weapons interchangably for a major set of their powers and have large, diverse (many non-combatants) selection of limited use conjurations and summons. They have unique utility with magic items and fill the machine user archetype. More importantly, the fact that the Artificer fought one way had NO bearing on the way the Shaman fought beyond a small avoidance of duplicate mechanics. The Shaman could have been technology flavored, called the machinist, and no one would have called foul (assuming our current artificer didn't exist).
This article admits that they CUT builds Blackguard from the blackguard solely because they didn't space/ideas for 4 builds of cavelier (which "might" get dragon published in the future). That's as dumb as an amputee cutting off his second leg because he likes symmetry! "Dark Strike" or whatever is just Holy Smite with an elemental switching weapon. Blackguards are also getting a stealth/temphp self buff just to contrast to Caveliers party helping shield, despite that the Darkknight archetype in many fields eschews self defense for more offense.
Admittedly my memory was incorrect with the bit about shaman and weapons. However the comparison still holds. The older classes are less influenced by story than the newer ones are, which made some of them less popular overall, which is why they don't get **** for support. New design starts with an idea and builds around that. Blackguards are tied to Cavaliers because the story demands it, and therefore they share mechanical similarities.
You people like your mechanics enslaved to fluff.
There are those like mechanics that are supported by fluff.
Neither side is going to convince the other that they are wrong.
So yeah, I do like mechanics based on fluff. But I also want new classes with new fluff, not an endless parade of successive iterations of the same classes with the same fluff. And I want new stuff to get its own new fluff, not to have its fluff dictated to it by its relationship to other classes.
While it's not as clear cut as Kletian made it out (it doesn't explicitely say they cut down from four vices because of the cavalier), the quote mentioned bares repeating:
As is sometimes the case, design on Heroes of Shadow occurred in parallel to design on Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. The cavalier wasn’t quite done and I recall working from a .doc file with all sorts of development notes lurking in the pages. At the time, the cavalier had four virtues—and so the blackguard had four vices as well. Development trimmed the options down to two, but maybe one day we’ll see the other vices. In any event, the ones that survived were domination and fury.
This is, again, exactly what I've been talking about when I say subclasses are restricted by their parent classes in ways that actual new classes are not. Cavalier has four virtues, so of course the anti-cavalier blackguard must have exactly the same number of vices! Oh, what's that, Cavalier got cut back to two virtues for space or for whatever other reason? Then the Blackguard must also be cut back to balance!
I thought the faultless sparkling miracle of essentials design was that it got us away from needless symetry and grid filling, that cursed and hated evil that brought such dull and unimaginative class glut offerings as the warlord and shaman. Good thing we have all this conceptual freedom now, huh.
edit: it occurs to me that it's worth noting: if I've been needlessly combative in the last day or so (at least, moreso then usual), then I apologize. I was introduced to homestuck two days ago and consequently my regular sleeping (and bathing) hours have instead been spent pouring over thousands of pages of witty and verbose trolling dialogs and cranking my sagging brain through delightfully complex time travel narratives. At this point I'm kind of fading in and out of consciousness, stumbling through a dense fog of pleasant irritability and dramatically impaired social grace (and hygenic standards).
Also, no new Ponies this week.
It's not even as simple as a red team blue team situation. I like class mechanics to be informed by the fluff - I think it makes for more varied class selection. I think having both a summoner wizard and a shaman makes for worthwhile variety in the game, where as a strict 'mechanics must not take into account fluff' guy would say they should both be different flavors of exactly the same thing, and in the process cheat themselves out of the innovative spirit companion mechanics altogether.
So yeah, I do like mechanics based on fluff. But I also want new classes with new fluff, not an endless parade of successive iterations of the same classes with the same fluff. And I want new stuff to get its own new fluff, not to have its fluff dictated to it by its relationship to other classes.
While it's not as clear cut as Kletian made it out (it doesn't explicitely say they cut down from four vices because of the cavalier), the quote mentioned bares repeating:As is sometimes the case, design on Heroes of Shadow occurred in parallel to design on Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. The cavalier wasn’t quite done and I recall working from a .doc file with all sorts of development notes lurking in the pages. At the time, the cavalier had four virtues—and so the blackguard had four vices as well. Development trimmed the options down to two, but maybe one day we’ll see the other vices. In any event, the ones that survived were domination and fury.
This is, again, exactly what I've been talking about when I say subclasses are restricted by their parent classes in ways that actual new classes are not. Cavalier has four virtues, so of course the anti-cavalier blackguard must have exactly the same number of vices! Oh, what's that, Cavalier got cut back to two virtues for space or for whatever other reason? Then the Blackguard must also be cut back to balance!
I thought the faultless sparkling miracle of essentials design was that it got us away from needless symetry and grid filling, that cursed and hated evil that brought such dull and unimaginative class glut offerings as the warlord and shaman. Good thing we have all this conceptual freedom now, huh.
edit: it occurs to me that it's worth noting: if I've been needlessly combative in the last day or so (at least, moreso then usual), then I apologize. I was introduced to homestuck two days ago and consequently my regular sleeping (and bathing) hours have instead been spent pouring over thousands of pages of witty and verbose trolling dialogs and cranking my sagging brain through delightfully complex time travel narratives. At this point I'm kind of fading in and out of consciousness, stumbling through a dense fog of pleasant irritability and dramatically impaired social grace (and hygenic standards).
Also, no new Ponies this week.
For the love of all things good and wholesome get a shower and some sleep.
The official term is subclass, but subclass and class are the same thing.
"How can you be so obtuse?"
No, that is what I have been trying to get through to you. They are definately not the same. Just as the Class Kits were not a full class in the 2nd edition pamphlets books they were in. One is a build, the other is a class. Build. Class.
Build.
Class.
That the builds are self sustaining and replaces or reprints class features is not a reason to actually call them a "class."
One is a build. The other is a Class.
Kit Build.
Class.
The quote above is from Shawshank Redemtion, btw.
Poor thaX. You're never going to join the rest of us in reality, are you?
They are classes, no matter how much you attempt to deny it.
The official term is subclass, but subclass and class are the same thing.
"How can you be so obtuse?"
No, that is what I have been trying to get through to you. They are definately not the same. Just as the Class Kits were not a full class in the 2nd edition pamphlets books they were in. One is a build, the other is a class. Build. Class.
Build.
Class.
That the builds are self sustaining and replaces or reprints class features is not a reason to actually call them a "class."
One is a build. The other is a Class.
Kit Build.
Class.
The quote above is from Shawshank Redemtion, btw.
Poor thaX. You're never going to join the rest of us in reality, are you?
They are classes, no matter how much you attempt to deny it.
His argument is farcical. He even states that the "kit builds" are self sustaining, which is one of the most important traits of a class.
I just give up.
You people like your mechanics enslaved to fluff.
There are those like mechanics that are supported by fluff.
Neither side is going to convince the other that they are wrong.
It's not enslavement, it's logic.
This is, again, exactly what I've been talking about when I say subclasses are restricted by their parent classes in ways that actual new classes are not. Cavalier has four virtues, so of course the anti-cavalier blackguard must have exactly the same number of vices! Oh, what's that, Cavalier got cut back to two virtues for space or for whatever other reason? Then the Blackguard must also be cut back to balance!
Please. That's not the reason. It's a BS excuse made up to placate the masses over the real reason. The real reason is A) more builds = more words = more pages = more money to produce each book. It's that simple, and it's because of that reason that each of the Hereos books only has two builds (three for mages) for every class that mentions multiple build options. The other real reason being B) because now they can use the builds to furhter fill out Dragon, because lord knows they sure as hell aren't filling it with much else anymore, and they can recoup their word count costs without having to deal with printing costs this way.
Translation: There are only two Vices because of MONEY, not because of your obsession with the idea that Cavaliers somehow constrain Blackguards.
Also:
For the love of all things good and wholesome get a shower and some sleep.
This.
I just give up.
You people like your mechanics enslaved to fluff.
There are those like mechanics that are supported by fluff.
Neither side is going to convince the other that they are wrong.
It's not enslavement, it's logic.This is, again, exactly what I've been talking about when I say subclasses are restricted by their parent classes in ways that actual new classes are not. Cavalier has four virtues, so of course the anti-cavalier blackguard must have exactly the same number of vices! Oh, what's that, Cavalier got cut back to two virtues for space or for whatever other reason? Then the Blackguard must also be cut back to balance!
Please. That's not the reason. It's a BS excuse made up to placate the masses over the real reason. The real reason is A) more builds = more words = more pages = more money to produce each book. It's that simple, and it's because of that reason that each of the Hereos books only has two builds (three for mages) for every class that mentions multiple build options. The other real reason being B) because now they can use the builds to furhter fill out Dragon, because lord knows they sure as hell aren't filling it with much else anymore, and they can recoup their word count costs without having to deal with printing costs this way.
Translation: There are only two Vices because of MONEY, not because of your obsession with the idea that Cavaliers somehow constrain Blackguards.
Also:
For the love of all things good and wholesome get a shower and some sleep.
This.
On a fundamental level I agree. Builds are always limited. It has been that way from day one. Additionally, the ideal of mechanics supporting fluff is fairly old and supported by the designers themselves. Previously it's been mostly relegated to proficiencies, defences, and class skills. Though, disappointingly, it may also be the reason why we haven't seen published firearm rules or the supposedly promised 4e Modern, which I would like to see. Just once I'd like a character to yell "This is my BOOOOMSTICK!", but oh well.
Translation: There are only two Vices because of MONEY, not because of your obsession with the idea that Cavaliers somehow constrain Blackguards.
this reasoning would have a lot more validity if they weren't flailing about to find content to fill space with after the switch from paperback to hardcover format, immediately before which the Revenant and Executioner at least had been officially confirmed as not appearing in this book. If they were desperate enough for space filler to retroactively relabel the finished Executioner article as a HoS playtest preview, then I don't think the need to cut word count was the driving motivation of really any decision in the final version of Heroes of Shadow.
For the love of all things good and wholesome get a shower and some sleep.
This.
Done and Done. Felling much better. Opinions still the same, but orneryness considerably reduced. Homestuck out of system as well. Still bitter regarding lack of Ponies this week. I don't know how I'm going to be able to tolerate the wait for second season after the first season ends.
On a fundamental level I agree. Builds are always limited. It has been that way from day one. Additionally, the ideal of mechanics supporting fluff is fairly old and supported by the designers themselves. Previously it's been mostly relegated to proficiencies, defences, and class skills. Though, disappointingly, it may also be the reason why we haven't seen published firearm rules or the supposedly promised 4e Modern, which I would like to see. Just once I'd like a character to yell "This is my BOOOOMSTICK!", but oh well.
Wait, so are subclasses 'builds' and its ok for them to be narrow and limited, or are they 'classes' that aren't supposed to be so limited (and in fact aren't, but I'm just delusional?)
I mean, I understand I'm arguing with two different people who have two different takes on the matter, but still.
Admittedly my memory was incorrect with the bit about shaman and weapons. However the comparison still holds. The older classes are less influenced by story than the newer ones are, which made some of them less popular overall, which is why they don't get **** for support. New design starts with an idea and builds around that. Blackguards are tied to Cavaliers because the story demands it, and therefore they share mechanical similarities.
You are absolutely right, the amount of story related to a character class clearly relates directly to the amount of support it gets! I'm not sure why we didn't see this before! Clearly the most supported class was the one with the most well defined story t it just look at the tapestry of stories that go with the figh....hmm. Well clearly the least supported classes were the ones that had the least compelling and interesting story attached to them! Just look at the assasi.... I mean the runepri....I mean the seek... Alright so the correlation was apparently the inverse, the least supported classes were the ones with the more narrow concepts in fluff rather than the ones with the least connection with story.
Edit: Crap that was my 3000th post? I was planning on saving that for a whiny good bye message. I guess I'll just have to make my 3001st post the whiny good bye post.
Translation: There are only two Vices because of MONEY, not because of your obsession with the idea that Cavaliers somehow constrain Blackguards.
this reasoning would have a lot more validity if they weren't flailing about to find content to fill space with after the switch from paperback to hardcover format, immediately before which the Revenant and Executioner at least had been officially confirmed as not appearing in this book. If they were desperate enough for space filler to retroactively relabel the finished Executioner article as a HoS playtest preview, then I don't think the need to cut word count was the driving motivation of really any decision in the final version of Heroes of Shadow.
The logical explanation here is that, as is becoming increasingly obvious and usual, the WotC development teams/editors/press guys are not talking to each other. At all. It is very likely the Revenant and Executioner were always going to be in the book, and the official statements that they weren't were either interior miscommunications, or placations.
More importantly, remember that the Vampire was originally going to be in the Ravenloft campaign set that got cancelled. I imagine that was one major reason for the change. I'd also hazard a guess that the rather questionable choice of adding in a "standard races in the Shadowfell" segment was added in last minute as well as filler.
And I think someone in another thread made my point for me, but better - they leave out build options to give them room for future development. Or, you know, like I said to fill out Dragon and keep getting subs.
As for leaving them out to pad dragon: Saying they left the builds out to pad out dragon is very different from saying they left them out for space requirements, and doesn't seem likely to me if at the same time they're republishing previously exclusive material in books, which is more likely to tick off DDI subscribers (not me personally, I don't care about that, but in general).
As for class builds built on a 'story' - classes have always had fluff. I like fluff. But when that fluff becomes a character arc dictated to the player by largely premade builds with little option for customization or development beyond first level, then that's taking things too far. I want to make and play my own character - WotC making and playing characters for me completely subverts the entire game as far as I'm concerned. There's a reason I play D&D and not Descent, but it's getting harder and harder to see of late.
On a fundamental level I agree. Builds are always limited. It has been that way from day one. Additionally, the ideal of mechanics supporting fluff is fairly old and supported by the designers themselves. Previously it's been mostly relegated to proficiencies, defences, and class skills. Though, disappointingly, it may also be the reason why we haven't seen published firearm rules or the supposedly promised 4e Modern, which I would like to see. Just once I'd like a character to yell "This is my BOOOOMSTICK!", but oh well.
Wait, so are subclasses 'builds' and its ok for them to be narrow and limited, or are they 'classes' that aren't supposed to be so limited (and in fact aren't, but I'm just delusional?)
I mean, I understand I'm arguing with two different people who have two different takes on the matter, but still.
Clarification. The number of build per class have always been limited at the time of their introduction. Give me a break, I was sleep deprived.
Also, am I the only one who thinks that too many of the PPs require entry in an arcane class?
And while I'm inclined to agree with you, DoctorBadWolf, I note that in the book we get options for Gloom Pact Hexblades (add Shadow to your Arcane), Gloom Pact and Star Pact Binders (Shadow-Arcane dualsourced Subclass), Necromancer and Nethermancer Mages (add Shadow to your Arcane). That's 5 builds in the book that are for classes that use the Arcane Power Source.
The other player options in the book are Paladin, Blackguard (2 Divine/Shadow builds); Cleric, Warpriest (1 Divine/Shadow build); Vampire (2 Shadow builds); and Executioner (2 Martial/Shadow builds). Noticibly, then, we have 2 Martial builds, 3 Divine builds, 5 Arcane builds, and 12 Shadow builds. Besides the Shadow Power Source which dominates the book, what Source is going to get the most support? Arcane first, then Divine, then Martial, and then any other source (like Primal or Psionic).
So I'm not surprised that Arcane got a bunch of PPaths, considering Hexblades, Binders, and Mages in the book, versus other options.
So, who else is excited about the shadowdancer?
Also, am I the only one who thinks that too many of the PPs require entry in an arcane class?
I would be excited about it... if it was an actual class instead of an arbitary Paragon Path. From the few sentences I seen, it most likely will be an extension of the original Assassin, or a PP for a particular race with Fey Step to take.
Primal gets nocturnal which is a cool pp but that is it.
Psions, get nothing.
Divine gets Grim Blackguard, warpriests pp varient. Dusk Oracle may have divine powers, but does not require you to be a divine user, requiring the religion skill instead.
The rest either require skills or alignment of g or lg.
Arcane does get a dispropationate amount of pps. It would be nice if divine, psionic had gotten more.
Oh well.
I'm definitely excited.
And while I'm inclined to agree with you, DoctorBadWolf, I note that in the book we get options for Gloom Pact Hexblades (add Shadow to your Arcane), Gloom Pact and Star Pact Binders (Shadow-Arcane dualsourced Subclass), Necromancer and Nethermancer Mages (add Shadow to your Arcane). That's 5 builds in the book that are for classes that use the Arcane Power Source.
The other player options in the book are Paladin, Blackguard (2 Divine/Shadow builds); Cleric, Warpriest (1 Divine/Shadow build); Vampire (2 Shadow builds); and Executioner (2 Martial/Shadow builds). Noticibly, then, we have 2 Martial builds, 3 Divine builds, 5 Arcane builds, and 12 Shadow builds. Besides the Shadow Power Source which dominates the book, what Source is going to get the most support? Arcane first, then Divine, then Martial, and then any other source (like Primal or Psionic).
So I'm not surprised that Arcane got a bunch of PPaths, considering Hexblades, Binders, and Mages in the book, versus other options.
Damn. That makes sense. I agree with omegaphallic that primal and psionic could have gotten some more love, but it is what it is. Maybe they'll use this as a way to pad out Dragon with some more shadow/x PPs for those who got little or no love in HoS.
I would be excited about it... if it was an actual class instead of an arbitary Paragon Path. From the few sentences I seen, it most likely will be an extension of the original Assassin, or a PP for a particular race with Fey Step to take.
It already is a class. It's hiding in plain sight under the name Assassin.
Seriously. The name of the assassin should have been Shadowdancer. But it wasn't, and now there's a PP. I'm not sure why you think it's arbitrary, though. Particularly since it was a prestige class previously.
As for the rest, I see nothing in the description that comes near to suggesting that. It is a paragon path for those who teleport and use stealth. My halfling white well hexblade could make use of it far more effectively, I imagine, than my eladrin ranger.
PP and PrC are not the same thing between editions. PPs are level dependant (By tier) and only consist of a few powers and perhaps a feature or two taken at 11th level. PrC's, on the other hand, took over the levels you took in it, as a separate class into itself, and could be taken at any time the preregs were met.
I think 3rd edition would have been better if multiclassing consisted of just PrC's with specific PrC's for each class to go into, and not had the overwhelming taken at a whim class here and there approach.
No, PP are not the replacement for PrC, they are flavor for the character as they progress into the higher levels (As are ED)
www.enworld.org/forum/en-world-official-...
First review over at ENworld.org...
www.enworld.org/forum/en-world-official-...
After reading the review, I have to say that the reviewer allowed his anti-Essentials bias (and he makes no effort to conceal this bias) to get in the way of his objectivity.
For example, from what we have seen, seeveral of the new non-Domain Cleric powers are Implement based, which makes them poor choices for the Warpriest. The reviewer calls out all of thes powers as being for the "Essentials Clerics." He also notes the number of Warlock and Wizard powers that can be used by ANY Warlock or Wizard. Yet, in his summary, he claims that "traditional 4E" receives no support in the book.
An objective review would have been nice.
First review over at ENworld.org...
www.enworld.org/forum/en-world-official-...
After reading the review, I have to say that the reviewer allowed his anti-Essentials bias (and he makes no effort to conceal this bias) to get in the way of his objectivity.
For example, from what we have seen, seeveral of the new non-Domain Cleric powers are Implement based, which makes them poor choices for the Warpriest. The reviewer calls out all of thes powers as being for the "Essentials Clerics." He also notes the number of Warlock and Wizard powers that can be used by ANY Warlock or Wizard. Yet, in his summary, he claims that "traditional 4E" receives no support in the book.
An objective review would have been nice.
Got no arguments with you there...
First review over at ENworld.org...
www.enworld.org/forum/en-world-official-...
After reading the review, I have to say that the reviewer allowed his anti-Essentials bias (and he makes no effort to conceal this bias) to get in the way of his objectivity.
For example, from what we have seen, seeveral of the new non-Domain Cleric powers are Implement based, which makes them poor choices for the Warpriest. The reviewer calls out all of thes powers as being for the "Essentials Clerics." He also notes the number of Warlock and Wizard powers that can be used by ANY Warlock or Wizard. Yet, in his summary, he claims that "traditional 4E" receives no support in the book.
An objective review would have been nice.
Even with his bias he seems to remain fairly objective. I mean, he gave it an A-, which is still saying something for someone who doesn't like "Essentials".
I am still disappointed that Kit Builds are still being calls "new classes."
Everyone is still disappointed that you continue to use a made up word.
I am still disappointed that Kit Builds are still being calls "new classes."
Everyone is still disappointed that you continue to use a made up word.
This.
The official term (given to us by the 4E design team) is Sub-class. Whether you accept this term or not is irrelevant. I could start calling Powers "Talents" or call Exploits "Maneuvers" and it would be just as wrong as you calling sub-classes "kit builds".
I will not argue whether your terminology is superior to the official term, because it is a matter of preference - and in no way invalidates the official terminology.
Your insistance that sub-classes be called "Kit Builds" because you say so is starting to come across as trolling.
thaX, if I was you - I would quit while you're ahead. You have raised your Kit Builds argument on almost every Essentials thread, and no-one is biting.
The official term (given to us by the 4E design team) is Sub-class. Whether you accept this term or not is irrelevant. I could start calling Powers "Talents" or call Exploits "Maneuvers" and it would be just as wrong as you calling sub-classes "kit builds".
I will not argue whether your terminology is superior to the official term, because it is a matter of preference - and in no way invalidates the official terminology.
Your insistance that sub-classes be called "Kit Builds" because you say so is starting to come across as trolling.
I gotta agree there. Also, on an aestetic level, I think "kit-build" sounds stupid. (No offense meant at the user). Besides being different terminology from the accepted norm, it's just an ugly, clunky term.
As for the review, seemed rather fair to me, and the reviewer gave it a good grade despite understandable and hardly unique displeasure with essentials design philosophy. I didn't hear much that I didn't already know, though, particularly a critical (not negative, critical) assessment of the balance of the options presented. Of course, some, like the vampire, are so off the beaten trail that actual playtesting would likely be required to guage them. Overall, the review seemed very shallow, not offering much more then a table of contents and a statement that the production quality is high.
Whatever the term, the book blurbs on the back and in the promotionals are still calling then "New Classes," which they are not. It is an outright lie on the face of the book being that there is only one new class in the whole book, the Vampire.
Believe me, I share your distaste for straight jacket subclasses, especially in cases like the vampire, where there isn't an equivelent alternative full of rhobust options to choose in its place, and I share your dissapointment at the general lack of new class offerings in this book and what it means for the shadow power source and the concept of power sources on the whole, but this isn't the place for the semantic argument, especially when the thread's been almost completely derailed by that argument before. I mean come on, Heroes of Shadow is almost here, do we really need the thread locked this late in the game?
The official term is Sub-Class, regardless of its similarity (or equivalency) to the AD&D Kits (the term Kit Build was never used) from the Complete X Handbook series.
Please learn to accept the official terminology, regardless of how you feel about it. Your insistance on forcing others to use your preferred terminology only irritates (and/or confuses) people.
With that being said, you are free to use whatever terminology you wish in your own games, but stop trying to rename things that have official terminology (and/or definitions).
And Assassins in Heroes of Shadow also can use Ki Focuses. For what purpose, I don't know. But that's definitely different from the Executioner as written in Dragon.
Here's an interesting tid-bit from the Dragon #398 Table of Contents: Vampires use Ki Focuses.
And Assassins in Heroes of Shadow also can use Ki Focuses. For what purpose, I don't know. But that's definitely different from the Executioner as written in Dragon.
Allows for more versatility, so you don't have to buy(or find) enchanted versions of all the different weapons that the Executioner at-will powers use. It's a good idea to me.
It always benefited their weapons anyway, since they have weapon specific at-wills.
Still, Vampires will Ki Foci. Makes sense – allows you to fight with fists/claws/whatever.
www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/3041...
Interesting notes: All Vampire attacks are implement attacks, and if I'm reading him right, they get three at-wills, one for each NAD. And they not only get Ki Foci as Implements ... but HOLY SYMBOLS too.
Vampire: thought I heard they had some implement powers, like dominating gaze or whatever. Not sure, though. Haven't seen it in person.
Executioner: yeah, always had it, because they have powers that call for several different specific weapons.
Vampire: thought I heard they had some implement powers, like dominating gaze or whatever. Not sure, though. Haven't seen it in person.
Like I said, all of their attacks are Implement attacks. Including their melee MBA.
Reporter: What about crosses?
Louis: Actually, Im quite fond of crosses.
It kind of makes you wonder what a vampire's ki focus would look like.
A steak, ascot, ray ban goggles, fang grill, sensodine, Bella ... I could go on.
It kind of makes you wonder what a vampire's ki focus would look like.
A steak, ascot, ray ban goggles, fang grill, sensodine, Bella ... I could go on.
Mustache.
You can see how much more powerful he is after getting one.
It kind of makes you wonder what a vampire's ki focus would look like.
A steak, ascot, ray ban goggles, fang grill, sensodine, Bella ... I could go on.
Maybe something from when they weren't so bitey?
SPF 5000 Sunblock, a Sombrero, Blue-Blocker Sunglasses, I could go on....
Maybe something from when they weren't so bitey?
Waddaya want, a pacifier?! xD (god, I remember girls in middle to high school carrying pacifier jewelry. blegh)
A jar of dirt. "I got a jar of diiiiiirt, I got a jar of diiiiiiiirt." :P
But seriously, a small box or jar filled with soil from the vamp's burial/rising site would be appropriate.
And since someone brought up Anne Rice, how about a violin or fiddle like Lestat's. A vamp's ki focus could also be any item it treasured as a mortal, a spiritual anchor if you will.
Edit - btw, the vamp's ability to spend healing surges to boost certain powers reminds me of Arystar Krory from the D. Gray Man anime, specifically his ability to wrap his own blood around his limbs to fortify his flesh. (ie reduce damage, create claws for more damage, etc). Pretty awesome character.
A jar of dirt. "I got a jar of diiiiiirt, I got a jar of diiiiiiiirt." :P
But seriously, a small box or jar filled with soil from the vamp's burial/rising site would be appropriate.
And since someone brought up Anne Rice, how about a violin or fiddle like Lestat's. A vamp's ki focus could also be any item it treasured as a mortal, a spiritual anchor if you will.
That could lead to some odd items. For example, I personally have an attachment to a light-up rubber duck that strobes combinations of red, yellow, and blue light.
That could lead to some odd items. For example, I personally have an attachment to a light-up rubber duck that strobes combinations of red, yellow, and blue light.
Little Richard, that you?
My ki focus would be a hierglyph inscribed silver thumb ring I got in Egypt.
That could lead to some odd items. For example, I personally have an attachment to a light-up rubber duck that strobes combinations of red, yellow, and blue light.
Little Richard, that you?
My ki focus would be a hierglyph inscribed silver thumb ring I got in Egypt.
No I am not an aging flamboyant musician. It was a birthday gift from my ex-girlfriend. Personal affects would make fantastic ki foci though.
Edit: Apparently Mr. Penniman aka Little Richard is in fact not gay. Who knew?
*Depending on whether you believe sexuality is mutable or static
Wikipedia states that Little Richard was/is bisexual*, but has since renounced his former lifestyle and now lives a "christian" heterosexual life.
*Depending on whether you believe sexuality is mutable or static
Enough of these shenanigans, though they be cheeky and fun. Let us be back to the topic at hand. I attack The Darkness!
Anyway, it seems the Blackguard isn't nearly as terrible as was feared.
"Particularly since it was a PrC previously"
PP and PrC are not the same thing between editions. PPs are level dependant (By tier) and only consist of a few powers and perhaps a feature or two taken at 11th level. PrC's, on the other hand, took over the levels you took in it, as a separate class into itself, and could be taken at any time the preregs were met.
I think 3rd edition would have been better if multiclassing consisted of just PrC's with specific PrC's for each class to go into, and not had the overwhelming taken at a whim class here and there approach.
No, PP are not the replacement for PrC, they are flavor for the character as they progress into the higher levels (As are ED)
PPs were designed to fill the same character customization space as PrCs did in previous editions. They don't work quite the same, but neither does multi-classing, which means they couldn't have. Neither is your primary class, nor can it be, but instead is an extra level of character focus, or a foray into a different skill set, etc.
"Particularly since it was a PrC previously"
PP and PrC are not the same thing between editions. PPs are level dependant (By tier) and only consist of a few powers and perhaps a feature or two taken at 11th level. PrC's, on the other hand, took over the levels you took in it, as a separate class into itself, and could be taken at any time the preregs were met.
I think 3rd edition would have been better if multiclassing consisted of just PrC's with specific PrC's for each class to go into, and not had the overwhelming taken at a whim class here and there approach.
No, PP are not the replacement for PrC, they are flavor for the character as they progress into the higher levels (As are ED)
PPs were designed to fill the same character customization space as PrCs did in previous editions. They don't work quite the same, but neither does multi-classing, which means they couldn't have. Neither is your primary class, nor can it be, but instead is an extra level of character focus, or a foray into a different skill set, etc.
Additionally, much of the creative space that was filled by PrCs is now filled by builds and Subclasses.
"Particularly since it was a PrC previously"
PP and PrC are not the same thing between editions. PPs are level dependant (By tier) and only consist of a few powers and perhaps a feature or two taken at 11th level. PrC's, on the other hand, took over the levels you took in it, as a separate class into itself, and could be taken at any time the preregs were met.
I think 3rd edition would have been better if multiclassing consisted of just PrC's with specific PrC's for each class to go into, and not had the overwhelming taken at a whim class here and there approach.
No, PP are not the replacement for PrC, they are flavor for the character as they progress into the higher levels (As are ED)
PPs were designed to fill the same character customization space as PrCs did in previous editions. They don't work quite the same, but neither does multi-classing, which means they couldn't have. Neither is your primary class, nor can it be, but instead is an extra level of character focus, or a foray into a different skill set, etc.
Additionally, much of the creative space that was filled by PrCs is now filled by builds and Subclasses.
Truth. And a good thing, too, because there were a few PrCs that deserved that level of detail, and some that only needed the PP level of detail.
I'm not sure about the Favored Soul, though, as a PP. I think maybe it would have been better taking up the pagespace of the Invoker...not that I played favored souls much, or have ever played an invoker.
Sorry if I'm late to the show with this.
Hear ye, hear ye! For all those who were hating on Essentials because of supposed incompatability I present to you this.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/...
Sorry if I'm late to the show with this.
Yay for power-swap patch feats!
Hear ye, hear ye! For all those who were hating on Essentials because of supposed incompatability I present to you this.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/...
Sorry if I'm late to the show with this.
Shiny.
Long live 4e. :P
Seriously, though, this is what I've been looking forward to. I never particularly doubted that it would come, but I've been very anxious for it finally arriving, ya know?
Except now its a feat tax to take a power from your own class... nice WotC nice...
Seperate classes, both that just happen to fall under the heading of Fighter, or Rogue, or whatever.
Except now its a feat tax to take a power from your own class... nice WotC nice...
Seperate classes, both that just happen to fall under the heading of Fighter, or Rogue, or whatever.
Split hairs if you want, but the fact remains you can take utilities for free, but to take attack powers you gotta burn a feat. thus a feat tax...
Half the feats are feat taxes. What's one(ish) more?
One less slot for something genuinely interesting?
Also: they're separate subclasses, but they fall under the same class. I thought we all agreed to use the official terminology so as not to have this argument anymore. I mean, seriously Celtic, do you want ThaX busting in here waving his "kit builds" around again?
I will agree its not really a feat tax. That said, powerswap feats have enjoyed a rather negative reputation since their creation.
That said, it is pretty sad to have to take a feat to "Multiclass" within the same class, either the sub class getting rid of silly 3.5 mechanics, or the PHB class using that mechanic within it's own class structure.
Wonder how it will all fit? I don't think it possible, myself.
Oh, and Mutt, Sub Classes/Kit Builds are not seperate classes, just self supported builds. They are still tied to the Base Class in some way, even when they twist and warp it to the point of being a pretzel.
Subclasses are just as much seperate classes as Fighters and Paladins were in 2e - the Weapon Master, Slayer, and Knight are all seperate classes that fall under the heading of Fighter. They share some stuff sure, but they are still seperate.
And kit builds don't exist. Just, you know, had to get that out there.
Sub class, Kit Builds, E-Builds, 3.5 mechanics builds.... call them what you want, just not a "new class."
They are new classes now. Accept it. It's a class built under an archetype. They're basically re-structuring the game this way. It's a bunch of classes built under an archetype.
That they use differing mechanics doesn't make them divorced from the Base Class they are a part of.
In order to keep things clear and to make feats such as the multiclassing options work smoothly, we retroactively applied Heroes of the Fallen Lands-style names to the existing classes that have been updated via Dragon. These names allow us to make a distinction between an option for all fighters and one aimed specifically at a weaponmaster, knight, or slayer. The name change has no mechanical impact on your existing character.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying it addressed the issue well of definitively....
So, what are you gonna call the builds in the Martial powers books?
"In order to keep things clear and to make feats such as the multiclassing options work smoothly, we retroactively applied Heroes of the Fallen Lands-style names to the existing classes that have been updated via Dragon. These names allow us to make a distinction between an option for all fighters and one aimed specifically at a weaponmaster, knight, or slayer. The name change has no mechanical impact on your existing character."
So, what are you gonna call the builds in the Martial powers books?
Pat. But in other news, the Feats and Weaponmaster are now up (ON TIME!).
Pat. But in other news, the Feats and Weaponmaster are now up (ON TIME!).
Interestingly, the feat that allows Slayers and Knights to replace a use of Power Strike with a WM Encounter power says "take an Encounter power of your class." But the same feat for Thieves/Backstab says, "take a ROGUE encounter power of your level or lower." As in, not your class!
Pat. But in other news, the Feats and Weaponmaster are now up (ON TIME!).
Interestingly, the feat that allows Slayers and Knights to replace a use of Power Strike with a WM Encounter power says "take an Encounter power of your class." But the same feat for Thieves/Backstab says, "take a ROGUE encounter power of your level or lower." As in, not your class!
Probably just a semantics thing. Perhaps a bit of a poor editing.
So, what are you gonna call the builds in the Martial powers books?
Presumably, they are all builds of the Weaponmanster. Though, that's conceptually inapropriate for the Battlerager, and a tad questionable for the Brawler.
Strangely enough, on the Compendium, they list the builds as Arena Fighter, Battlerager Fighter, etc; even though they're in the page for Weaponmaster. I guess they just did a name update for classes, PPaths, etc, but forgot to find & replace everywhere within the articles.
Strangely enough, on the Compendium, they list the builds as Arena Fighter, Battlerager Fighter, etc; even though they're in the page for Weaponmaster.
Maybe this is because nobody wants to have to admit to playing a "Battlerager Weaponmaster". A little bit too Hasbro, IMO... ;)
Here's something that confused me. Upon perusal of a copy of HoS I noticed that the Ravenkin PP powers key off of Cha and Wis. I think this is pretty darn odd, mainly because no Arcane classes use Wis as their main stat. I suppose it's aimed toward multiclass characters and Charisma based arcane classes.
The Raven Queen being a goddess naturally inclines things based on her to include priest-friendly options.
Let's see:
Keys off Wis:
Avenger
Invoker
Templar
Warpriest
Keys off Cha:
Bard
Binder
Hexblade
Paladin
Sorcerer
Warlock
So, 5 Arcane classes, and 5 Divine classes. That sounds about right. Remember, you only need to take an Arcane class MC feat in order to qualify for "any Arcane class." So Those 5 Divine characters (and any other character that keys off Wisdom and has the Religion skill, for that matter, like Druids, Sentinels, Seekers, or Shamans) can make use of it.
ETA: Mages who worship the Raven Queen are most likely to be Nethermancers, so they're likely to have a high Wis score anyway.
ETA2: The Raven Queen was explicitly a sorceress when she was mortal. Maybe she just doesn't like Int-primary arcane characters as much as she likes Cha-primary ones? It wouldn't be unprecedented for a sorcerer/ess to have a chip on their shoulder about "those stuck-up bookworms at the academy".
The description of the PP sounds most suitable for Cha/Wis characters anyway. You have to show sufficient "courage and devotion" to "spark [the RQ's] cold heart". Those qualities sound much more likely to be found in a wise or charismatic character than in one who is merely smart or well-educated, IMO.
Sounds about right. Overall I like what I've seen of Heroes of Shadow. Hopefully, Heroes of the Feywild will be as good.
+1 to that!
Hopefully, Heroes of the Feywild will be as good.
Personally, I'm hoping Heroes of the Feywild will be better. "As good as HoS would have been if the shade and vampire were up to the standards of the rest of that book" would be my wish.
"Foci" is not a word. The plural form of "focus" is "focuses." Stop, please.
Wrong. Both 'focuses' and 'foci' are correct pluralizations of 'focus'. Really, go look it up in any dictionary you like.
"Foci" is not a word. The plural form of "focus" is "focuses." Stop, please.
Wrong. Both 'focuses' and 'foci' are correct pluralizations of 'focus'. Really, go look it up in any dictionary you like.
Hrm. Guess I'll change it later to a complaint about how incredibly silly "foci" sounds. I mean, I suppose in math it doesn't sound weird, but when talking about Ki Focuses?
Like I said, the Binder is not intended for melee. It's boon triggers at any point it drops a creature, not just when it is adjacent. They just threw in the bit about it also triggering if an adjacent enemy drops to 0. Probably so that the Binder could get out of melee easier if they ever found themselves there.
Not a bad point, there. This is also why I don't think that the aura would be an issue. Yes, you have an aura around you. But I also suggested a level one summon that duplicates your aura, and a duplicate aura on your lvl 9 summon. Or possibly just making the duplication of your auras onto any binder summon you put out part of the aura class feature.
Heck, they could even be different auras, with the one centered on the binder being geared toward keeping enemies away and/or making them less effective combatants. Inflicting things like the weakened condition, attack penalties, etc. Maybe even, any enemy in the aura is slowed for any movement that takes them closer to the binder.
Heck, essentials likes auras, why not give each pact an aura that inflicts some negative effect, and have some pact specific powers tack damage onto the aura for a turn/encounter(depending on whether it's an encounter or daily power, of course)
Nod. Essentials did try to get away from some tracking issues, like auras instead of marks. I guess curses are easier to track because they don't go away. Still a 'cursed aura' could have worked, too. It'd have to be a biggish aura, maybe 5 or so, so that it comes down to 'enemies w/in x squares of you' get hit harder, controlled more, or give you a bonus for croaking.
Heck, essentials likes auras, why not give each pact an aura that inflicts some negative effect, and have some pact specific powers tack damage onto the aura for a turn/encounter(depending on whether it's an encounter or daily power, of course)
Nod. Essentials did try to get away from some tracking issues, like auras instead of marks. I guess curses are easier to track because they don't go away. Still a 'cursed aura' could have worked, too. It'd have to be a biggish aura, maybe 5 or so, so that it comes down to 'enemies w/in x squares of you' get hit harder, controlled more, or give you a bonus for croaking.
They did that with hero's of shadow.
Enemies you kill, or die within 1, give you a bonus.
They just took away the damage boost. and gave... well.. (a very little) more control.
Heck, essentials likes auras, why not give each pact an aura that inflicts some negative effect, and have some pact specific powers tack damage onto the aura for a turn/encounter(depending on whether it's an encounter or daily power, of course)
Nod. Essentials did try to get away from some tracking issues, like auras instead of marks. I guess curses are easier to track because they don't go away. Still a 'cursed aura' could have worked, too. It'd have to be a biggish aura, maybe 5 or so, so that it comes down to 'enemies w/in x squares of you' get hit harder, controlled more, or give you a bonus for croaking.
They did that with hero's of shadow.
Enemies you kill, or die within 1, give you a bonus.
They just took away the damage boost. and gave... well.. (a very little) more control.
Ah that aint enough range.... maybe they will come up with feats to boost that.
Like I said, the Binder is not intended for melee. It's boon triggers at any point it drops a creature, not just when it is adjacent. They just threw in the bit about it also triggering if an adjacent enemy drops to 0. Probably so that the Binder could get out of melee easier if they ever found themselves there.
Not a bad point, there. This is also why I don't think that the aura would be an issue. Yes, you have an aura around you. But I also suggested a level one summon that duplicates your aura, and a duplicate aura on your lvl 9 summon. Or possibly just making the duplication of your auras onto any binder summon you put out part of the aura class feature.
Heck, they could even be different auras, with the one centered on the binder being geared toward keeping enemies away and/or making them less effective combatants. Inflicting things like the weakened condition, attack penalties, etc. Maybe even, any enemy in the aura is slowed for any movement that takes them closer to the binder.
Heck, essentials likes auras, why not give each pact an aura that inflicts some negative effect, and have some pact specific powers tack damage onto the aura for a turn/encounter(depending on whether it's an encounter or daily power, of course)
Nod. Essentials did try to get away from some tracking issues, like auras instead of marks. I guess curses are easier to track because they don't go away. Still a 'cursed aura' could have worked, too. It'd have to be a biggish aura, maybe 5 or so, so that it comes down to 'enemies w/in x squares of you' get hit harder, controlled more, or give you a bonus for croaking.
Heck, essentials likes auras, why not give each pact an aura that inflicts some negative effect, and have some pact specific powers tack damage onto the aura for a turn/encounter(depending on whether it's an encounter or daily power, of course)
Nod. Essentials did try to get away from some tracking issues, like auras instead of marks. I guess curses are easier to track because they don't go away. Still a 'cursed aura' could have worked, too. It'd have to be a biggish aura, maybe 5 or so, so that it comes down to 'enemies w/in x squares of you' get hit harder, controlled more, or give you a bonus for croaking.
They did that with hero's of shadow.
Enemies you kill, or die within 1, give you a bonus.
They just took away the damage boost. and gave... well.. (a very little) more control.
Heck, essentials likes auras, why not give each pact an aura that inflicts some negative effect, and have some pact specific powers tack damage onto the aura for a turn/encounter(depending on whether it's an encounter or daily power, of course)
Nod. Essentials did try to get away from some tracking issues, like auras instead of marks. I guess curses are easier to track because they don't go away. Still a 'cursed aura' could have worked, too. It'd have to be a biggish aura, maybe 5 or so, so that it comes down to 'enemies w/in x squares of you' get hit harder, controlled more, or give you a bonus for croaking.
They did that with hero's of shadow.
Enemies you kill, or die within 1, give you a bonus.
They just took away the damage boost. and gave... well.. (a very little) more control.
Ah that aint enough range.... maybe they will come up with feats to boost that.