What classes would you like to see?
I'd like to see a geomancer, a controler with lot's of hard movement control. Heavy on the difficult terrain, walls, pits, and forced movement. Probably Wis/Con/Str based, with a minor in defender.
I would like to see a Shapechanger Class and a Mountend Fighter Class with cool animals and cool attack combos.
Incarnate and other classes from incarnum (3.5). Vestige binders, shadow casters and true namers including as much of the tome of magic (3.5) as possible. I wouldn't complain if they released every class found in 3.5, along with every race.
Oh, and elemental power classes, shadow power classes and psionic power classes. Everything I can get my hands on.
I also would like to see some sort of mounted combar focused class.
After that? ... perhaps a guy who had a few minions that he could summon and control all the time. Some sort of puppetmaster or necromancer probaly.
Id also like to see a ranged defender. but im not sure how that would out 
swashbuckler
swashbuckler
I buckle swashes in my spare time.
arrrr
Some prime chocies for me:
Swashbuckler
Hexblade
I like the puppet master idea as well.
Mounted combat could be fun, but sounds more like a pp to me
But the more the merrier
I agree, mounted combat is much better handled as a PP, as having a class based on a mount as a number of issues, mostly due to its size, and fitting it everywhere. The other problem is what if your in a throne room and you tick the king off, causing the guards to come at you, odds are they didnt let you bring your horse in.
I'd like to see a Duskblade (Striker Swordmage. And I don't mean assault ... I mean with an actual striker mechanic. Or a Sorcerer with the ability to channel through a longsword and some powers intended to be channeled.)
I'd like to see something that has a "3.5 druid shapechanged into a tiger, with Pounce" feel to it. A primal striker that uses claws, shapechange. Although the pursuit druid can get awefully close, and they don't seem to be much of a controller....
I'm looking forward to the Psionic Warrior.
The "I'm weak now, but wait until I've fortified myself with my powers" concept doesn't seem to fit into 4th, and I wouldn't mind seeing some of it (A class that's under power par until they use standard action buff powers that then last for the encounter.)
Incarnate and other classes from incarnum (3.5). Vestige binders, shadow casters and true namers including as much of the tome of magic (3.5) as possible. I wouldn't complain if they released every class found in 3.5, along with every race.
They have vestiges as a warlock pact.
I would like to see a Witch!
Can be a Shadow class with leader|controller hexes that are heavy on the necrotic, fear and psychic.
Can be a Psionic class with leader|controller disciplines that are heavy on the charm, illusion and psychic.
Can be an Elemental class with leader|controller (x) that are heavy on the (y), (z) and psychic.
Can be a Primal class with leader|controller evocations that are heavy on the lightning, polymorph and psychic.
Can be a Divine class with leader|controller prayers that are heavy on the radiant, force and psychic.
Can be an Arcane class with leader|controller spells that are heavy on the conjuration, poison and psychic.
...I don't care...
I say psychic because the Witch in my head has lots of enchantments and vs. Will effects that complement his other capabilities. The class should feel "bewitching", of course.
WotC please specify in next Martial Power that the Rogues are also called Swashbucklers, or make a Swashbuckler build for rogues. Either way please let people understand that there can't be a Swashbuckler class.
WotC please specify in next Martial Power that the Rogues are also called Swashbucklers, or make a Swashbuckler build for rogues. Either way please let people understand that there can't be a Swashbuckler class.
Uh... see Martial Power page 96?
Anyway, I'd like to see a proper gladiator class. A lightly-armoured martial controller who specialises in exotic weapons like the net, whip, bola etc. to do short-ranged and melee control, focusing on one or a small number of targets at once and doing relatively low damage (for a martial class) but slowing, weakening and dazing by cutting tendons, disarming or entangling their opponents, etc. The druid has already proven that the concept of a melee controller can work, and the gladiator would also have access to many thrown weapon powers to use at range.
But, in any case, it's a gladiator I want rather than necessarily a martial controller. I'd be just as happy if it was a striker or defender. I just think it would work better as a controller, since a good gladiator doesn't just kill his opponents quickly, but uses well-placed cuts and jabs (as well as specialist weapons) to move them around and control their actions so as to make a good show for the audience. To me, that's the difference between a 'gladiator' and a 'pit-fighter'.
I want a cloth-wearing leader like the WoW priest, Guild Wars monk, White Mage, 3rd edition cloistered cleric, etc. I can tweak a laser cleric to create one, but I'd like an official build.
I would like to see a Witch!
Can be a Shadow class with leader|controller hexes that are heavy on the necrotic, fear and psychic.
Can be a Psionic class with leader|controller disciplines that are heavy on the charm, illusion and psychic.
Can be an Elemental class with leader|controller (x) that are heavy on the (y), (z) and psychic.
Can be a Primal class with leader|controller evocations that are heavy on the lightning, polymorph and psychic.
Can be a Divine class with leader|controller prayers that are heavy on the radiant, force and psychic.
Can be an Arcane class with leader|controller spells that are heavy on the conjuration, poison and psychic.
...I don't care...
I say psychic because the Witch in my head has lots of enchantments and vs. Will effects that complement his other capabilities. The class should feel "bewitching", of course.
Bolded fix mine.
Isn't that Warlock you're talking about?
Dark Pact
Fey Pact
Infernal Pact
Star Pact
Vestige Pact
It could use more pacts, like a Genie Pact (wishes from Efreet and Djinn) or a Marut Pact (compact with Maruts), but it's already the basis of what you're talking about. And people have been wrongly using Warlock to mean Witch for a LONG time (they're unrelated words, and Warlock actually has a meaning of liar and oathbreaker, which is ironic that they make Pacts in D&D, because the name would suggest they BREAK pacts). But in any case, the thematics are all there.
I do want to see a Soulknife, even if I have to wait till PHB4 for the 2nd batch of Psionic classes. Don't say it's another Monk build or just X class, as temporary substitutions it's fine as those, but it's not those classes and none of you really understand the Soulknife concept with that statement.
I would also like to the Shaper Psion and it's Astral Constructs return as new Discipline Focus for Psionic Power.
I think there's some room for a Primal-like caster that doesn't shapeshift or have a spirit companion, that could be made unique in other ways.
I want to see the Sha'ir come back in some form.
And I want to see an implement only Defender, now that we finally have a weapon only Controller.
I'd like them to publish my Dreadnought class and admit that I'm the genius I'm always telling people I am. I would like to use it as a title.
I'd like to see a hopilite class, Shield and Spear, with both ranged and melee attacks, able to hit and run. More like a monster skirmisher then anything player role.
none of you really understand the Soulknife concept with that statement.
The egotism is both blatant and almost painful to witness.
3.5 beguiler please ^_^
Beguiler
Power Source: Shadow
Role: Controller
Primary abilities: Charisma (primary), dexterity, intelligence (secondaries)
Implements: Wands, light blades
Armor proficiencies: Robes, Leather
Weapon proficiencies: Simple melee, simple ranged, shortsword
astral pact warlock
What classes would you like to see?
I would like to see the Pacman class from the arcade power source.
I'd like to see a hopilite class, Shield and Spear, with both ranged and melee attacks, able to hit and run. More like a monster skirmisher then anything player role.
This, this sounds awesome. I would love to play that type of class
I do want to see a Soulknife, even if I have to wait till PHB4 for the 2nd batch of Psionic classes. Don't say it's another Monk build or just X class, as temporary substitutions it's fine as those, but it's not those classes and none of you really understand the Soulknife concept with that statement.
I would also like to the Shaper Psion and it's Astral Constructs return as new Discipline Focus for Psionic Power
I would love a Shaper Psion, as I love little minion like things. And Astral Constructs are just plain cool.
And I think the soulknife is different from the monk and psion, but we don't know how the other two psionic classes will play like, the Psidefender(Sentinel) could have a Soulknife build. You don't know.
I want more classes that can wear Scale and Plate Armour and Heavy Shields from the get-go.
Actually, more Shield-bearing classes in general would be nice.
So far we only have Paladin for Plate.
For Scale, Paladin and Fighter.
For Heavy Shields, Paladin and Warden.
For Light Shields, Fighter, Paladin, Warden, Cleric, and Bard.
Shields and Heavy Armour (besides Chainmail) need more love.
It'd be cool to build a shield-oriented class. Like, one that could go all Captain America on things, just with a more fantasy orient. But what power source? Martial and you'd be stuck without your shield (arguably not that bad, as weapon-based classes have the same deal). Any other source you could do some fancy tricks with it (Arcane might let you magically modify the shield or do cool things like throw it, Divine might do things like lash out to protect others or do some extra self-buff, Psionic could obviously be specifically augmented like any other Psionic ability).
Psionic could work rather well, especially if they had the ability to control the shield WITH THEIR MINDS!!!!! And it could be used to bound psychic energy off of... Man I can't wait till PHB3..........
wouldnt the hoplite be a controler??
wouldnt the hoplite be a controler??
It could be constructed as any role, just depends on the powers and features it gets.
I would prefer a Gladiator with focus on exotic weapons over a Hoplite because I believe they would be more versatile. Also a Necromancer with some necrotic damage, summon his own minions and weakening the enemy. Necromancer could have several paragon paths/epic destinies geared towards becoming one of many powerfull undead himself too, so there could be 2 classes with the same undead thematic or one with different paths.
Divine:
Archivist: Indiana Jones type who uses ancient lore and reliquary
Avatar: Hercules type who is born with natural Divine abilities, has auras
Shadow:
Hexblade: defender who does not so much as challenge enemies as much as *attracts* them
Necromancer: I think would be a fun twist on the leader role
Beguiler: a puppet master type, like a pet class that controls a monster or make a shadow version of one and uses powers through it's pets
Elemental:
Binder: basically the Totemist from incarnum, but with elemental creatures
Entropist: still working on this concept, i'm thinking something like the old prestige class mixed with Void Disciple
Channeler: ragemage type, controller class for Con+Str races, Con based with Str and Cha as secondarys, a butt load of AoEs that hurt anyone and even damage and contort the terrain, summons that beyond your control and just attack wantonly
Beyond that, I can't really think of a concept that shouldn't be covered by an already existing class as a new build or something... for now...
I want a telekinetic of some kind. It was easy to do with the Wilder in 3.5, but the Psion wasn't a good option for it because there weren't enough telekinesis powers, so it was just wasting powers known to be a Psion telekinetic.
The Psion as we've seen it doesn't fit my desire. It doesn't have nearly enough telekinesis powers that I can simply just take those exclusively. Most of them seem to be telepathic in nature.
Also, due to their relative complexity and difficulty, I maintain that pyrokinesis and its counterpart, cryokinesis, should be left to Paragon Paths... I'm very picky about how "realistically" my psychic phenomenon are portrayed, which is why I hated most psionic powers last edition. I couldn't help but to absolutely cringe whenever anybody tried to use a metacreativity power, most of psychometabolism powers, and a good half of psychokinesis powers that dealt with weird energy damage. In my mind, psychic phenomenon is the following:
(1) Telepathy (reading minds, influencing minds, dominating minds, mental feedback, etc.)
(2) Telekinesis (Influencing matter via moving, lifting, spinning, bending, breaking, impacting, etc.)
(3) Extra-Sensory Perception (precognition, retrocognition, remote viewing, clairvoyance, etc.)
And when I'm feeling very generous:
(4) Teleportation
But just to be clear, it's not that I don't want other types of psionics to exit. I just want to be able to play a psychic character the way that I want to play a psychic character, without all of that extra nonsense psionics has historically thrown in.
I would like to see a Witch!
. . . You mean a female Wizard or Warlock?
I want a telekinetic of some kind. It was easy to do with the Wilder in 3.5, but the Psion wasn't a good option for it because there weren't enough telekinesis powers, so it was just wasting powers known to be a Psion telekinetic.
The Psion as we've seen it doesn't fit my desire. It doesn't have nearly enough telekinesis powers that I can simply just take those exclusively. Most of them seem to be telepathic in nature.
That's because we've only seen the Telepath half of the class. There's a Telekinetic build too.
That's because we've only seen the Telepath half of the class. There's a Telekinetic build too.
I hope so, but I also hope that this build isn't completely filled with all that silly pyrokinesis, cryokinesis, etc. junk. That's really my main concern...
I should also hope there's an ESP-focused build. Of course, it's difficult (but not impossible) to make attack powers out of those... Come to think of it, this could make a great leader class. Giving insight into the future to give allies various bonuses, predict openings for extra attacks, and so on...
It's always funny to me that "what do you wish for?" threads are always peppered with "THAT ALREADY EXISTS AS X"... obviously, if X really epitomized what people are wishing for, they would just use X. Since they're wishing in the first place, X must not be a satiating substitute.
...let dreamers dream, yo.
Bolded fix mine.
Ah, oops!
Isn't that Warlock you're talking about?
No... I'm talking about a new class that I'd like to see called Witch...
Dark PactFey Pact
Infernal Pact
Star Pact
Vestige Pact
It's the Pact thing that gets in the way of the feel that Witches of older editions evoked (for me).
Warlocks are strikers that blast, curse and beguile. I desire a class that functions as a leader|controller that polymorphs other (boon to allies, bane to enemies), conjures and enchants. Big difference.
Also, Warlocks teleport and turn invisible. They're mobile and hard-hitting. The Witch in my head is much less aggressive.
It could use more pacts, like a Genie Pact (wishes from Efreet and Djinn) or a Marut Pact (compact with Maruts), but it's already the basis of what you're talking about. And people have been wrongly using Warlock to mean Witch for a LONG time (they're unrelated words, and Warlock actually has a meaning of liar and oathbreaker, which is ironic that they make Pacts in D&D, because the name would suggest they BREAK pacts). But in any case, the thematics are all there.
The "arcane might wrested from primeval entities" theme does not serve my purpose.
The Warlock is a servitor, bargainer and/or partaker of sinister dealings. They have a business relationship with their source.
The Witch (as designed by me) could be described as the child of their source. An enigmatic and reverent protector of knowledge who practices a particular magic.
I see covens as sources of learning, orbs and wands as implements, nature, history, arcana and religion as skills, zones that play as conjured circles of power, polymorphs that give allies awesome attack buffs or enemies crippling forms, utilities that support, enchantments that captivate and disillusion, etc.
The Arcane power source is also the last source I'd like to see tacked onto the Witch. I really want it to be Shadow (for some unknown reason). I think it's because Shadow association would give it that nefarious-but-not feel that people are so into, but mostly because a benevolent user of Shadow could be tooled elegantly and serve to enrich the fluff as it differentiates the class.
On the subject of the term "Warlock" and its (mis)use, I believe that you must enter a pact or take an oath in order to break it; so the name ultimately fits. It adds a dash of unease to the class, which further supports its sinister undertones, because the very name of the class implies that the debt incurred for arcane might wrested from primeval entities is not going to be repaid. That's the stuff of great storytelling!
. . . You mean a female Wizard or Warlock?
*poke*
I should also hope there's an ESP-focused build. Of course, it's difficult (but not impossible) to make attack powers out of those... Come to think of it, this could make a great leader class. Giving insight into the future to give allies various bonuses, predict openings for extra attacks, and so on...
Isn't that a precient bard? ^^;
What classes would you like to see?
I would like to see the Pacman class from the arcade power source.
I'd give you a cookie, but it's guarded by a ghost.
wouldnt the hoplite be a controler??
It could be constructed as any role, just depends on the powers and features it gets.
Right. It's sorta like a striker/defender/controler (can't see it as a leader). It has the ability to strike a paticular target (movement + range/melee options), has a shield and can get in the way (defender), and should be able to handle a few enemies at once (controler).
Obviously it wouldn't be the best at any of these, but should make for a great 5th man.
Isn't that a precient bard? ^^;
Come to think of it, that could actually work well enough with just a bit of reflavoring. I hadn't considered it because of all of the silly music powers, but those can be ignored. I'd still need to find out what to do with the class features, but it's not unworkable...
Shadow:
Hexblade: defender who does not so much as challenge enemies as much as *attracts* them
Necromancer: I think would be a fun twist on the leader role
Beguiler: a puppet master type, like a pet class that controls a monster or make a shadow version of one and uses powers through it's pets
THIS
in particular the Beuiler that I call Illusionist thinking of the first edition AD&D Illusionist
One sec while I get my dead horse beating stick out......
Okay cool. I would like to FINALLY get a simple Kengo/Swordmaster class, that uses technique as opposed to brawn or trickery to slay his opponents.
(perhaps Str/Int so theres finally a smart striker)
One sec while I get my dead horse beating stick out......
Okay cool. I would like to FINALLY get a simple Kengo/Swordmaster class, that uses technique as opposed to brawn or trickery to slay his opponents.
(perhaps Str/Int so theres finally a smart striker)
And this can't be any of the extant martial classes because ... ?
Wether a build, a class or a even a MC style feat I want someone that gains some sort of advantage from using versatile weapon and switching from one hand to two hands.
Wether a build, a class or a even a MC style feat I want someone that gains some sort of advantage from using versatile weapon and switching from one hand to two hands.
Swordmage. Hold the sword one-handed for +3 AC from Warding, free action to swing it two-handed for bonus damage, free action to let go with one hand to go back to full Warding.
Basic classes:
The Strong Hero The Fast Hero The Tough Hero The Smart Hero The Dedicated Hero The Charismatic Hero
or in other words d20 modern classes and a game for them
Wether a build, a class or a even a MC style feat I want someone that gains some sort of advantage from using versatile weapon and switching from one hand to two hands.
Swordmage.
True... but I'd like something more...dynamic and strategic.
Basically every turn you'd have to pick wether you wait your next turn in a one handed stance or a two handed stance and each one would have its own advantages and disadvantages beyond the +1 to damage of two-handed. Maybe even powers that give you different effect depending on one handed or two handed weapon and they would lock you until your next turn into that stance.
Ideas for classes to be featured in PHB4:
I'm currently guessing it will have Shadow, Psionic, and Martial characters, with Elemental being saved for PHB5. Of course, they might throw a curveball and put Shadow and Elemental together, with additional Psionic classes being saved for DDi like the Assassin, but this is unlikely unless 5e or 4.5e is right around the corner.
Potential Shadow classes:
Necromancer (Shadow Controller): Raises the undead from their graves and attacks with powerful necrotic, poison, and shadow attacks.
Illusionist/Beguiler (Shadow Controller): A sort of shadow illusionist, with a focus on trickery, enchantment, and illusion. May have a number of roguish skills at his disposal.
Witch/Medium (Shadow Leader): A leader with a secondary controller focus, with curses that debilitate and transform enemies and charms that aid allies.
Hexblade (Shadow Defender): Uses powerful curses to injure and hinder enemies that attempt to attack his allies.
Nightblade/Channeler (Shadow Striker): A second shadow striker, with more of a focus on emulating the undead and offensive necromancy.
Future Psionic Classes:
Soulblade/Lurk (Psionic Striker): A PP-using striker class. Will likely incorporate elements from the Lurk and Soulknife (if the latter isn't part of the psionic defender).
Sohei/Blademaster (Psionic Defender): A more weapons-oriented form of monk, with a focus on mobility and striking down multiple enemies at once (a secondary striker or controller focus, depending on build). Doesn't make use of PP, to make the monk less of an odd duck amongst the psionic classes.
Future Martial Classes:
Martial Controller: Not sure what form this will take. If the gladiator from the Dark Sun setting is a separate class (which I doubt due to comments the developers made earlier), it may fill this role.
Necromancer (Shadow Controller): Raises the undead from their graves and attacks with powerful necrotic, poison, and shadow attacks.
Eh, I still think the Necormancer wuld be a better shadow leader with quite a lote of control and summons, rather like the Artificer. The Illusionist/Shadowcaster/Beguilder/Whatever would be a better shadow controller.
I have several Character Class ideas floating around, half formed, in my head.
For a Martial Controller I thought of;
The Mounteback - A character who uses Force of Personality, Tactics and Agile Maneuvering (Charisma Prime, Dexterity and Intelligence secondary) to manipulate his foes on the battlefield. The builds would be The Swashbuckler (Cha/Dex) and the Demagogue (Cha/Int).
Yes, I know this steps on the toes of both the Rogue and the Warlord a bit but I think it has potential.
I'd like to see the return of the Wilder as a Psionic Striker.
And then there is my Elemental Power Source character classes. I haven't got them all fleshed out very well but here are the rough ideas.
The Mystic - Elemental Leader. Mystics are people who've nurtured a spiritual bond with on of the four classical elements. They tap into the positive and creative aspect of the Elemantal chaos to radiate elementally aligned energy for the benefit of their companions. There is a build for each of the 4 elements (Air, Earth, Fire, and Water)
The Elementalist - Elemental Controller. These guys take an academic view of the Elemental Chaos, seeing it as a means to an end. They transpose terrain, environmental effects and creatures (Elemental and Demonic creatures) from the Elemental Chaos to the Mundane world. The two builds I envision for them is the Geomancer and the Summoner (boring I know but I couldn't think of anything better)
The Bastion (Icky name but it's only a working title until I think of something better)- Elemental Defender. Bastions are related to the Mystic in that they channel Elemental Energy, although in their case they manifest it outwardly in "Mantles" or shells of elemental force that surround them.
The Reaver - Elemental Striker. Reavers are forces of Chaos in an orderly world. At their best they are freedom fighters and free thinkers and at their worst they are chaotic engines of destruction. I haven't really got much more than that on them though.
I have to totally agree with this:
"Illusionist/Beguiler (Shadow Controller): A sort of shadow illusionist, with a focus on trickery, enchantment, and illusion. May have a number of roguish skills at his disposal.
Witch/Medium (Shadow Leader): A leader with a secondary controller focus, with curses that debilitate and transform enemies and charms that aid allies."
I am very frustrated with the inability to create a non-damaging character.
Witch/Medium: Leader/Controller - Unlike the warlock who is a striker, the witch should be an ANTI Striker. A player class who can curse enemies, bless allies, and do VERY FEW spells that cause damage. With a combination of healing, enchantments, hold, blind, control and summon creatures or spirits. She should be a cross between a cleric, a druid and a sorcerer - with covens, rituals, book of shadows and control of animals, spirits and ability to have multiple familiars (every 10 levels each on stronger than the last based on their pact). I would even say the Witches set of Rituals should be far more lengthy than their list of Powers
Black Witch: Pact of Destruction
Brown Witch: Pact of Nature (easily confused with Druids)
Gray Witch: Pact of Truth - Hunt and provide atonement for other Witches
White Witch: Pact of Healing
---- I would totally create this class out and submit it if Wizards want me to.
Illusionist: A shadow illusionist who focuses on trickery, enchantment and illusion. Confusing the enemy - and who is not required to be a GNOME. With both Feats and Powers to enhance those abilities. Being able to create illusions OF MY CHOOSING - which I could give up a Standard Action to Sustain - would be perfect.
Enchantress: A REAL Controller - who can charm the enemies to do her bidding (save ends), dominate, trick, seduce, control - a character who makes others do the work for her and hides behind the others empowering them for being controlled by the enchantress.
Monk: A real Striker Monk - not the one that is currently created. Expanding the powers of the monk per level so Shouhlin and other martial art styles can be created - setting powers at upper levels with some pre-reqs from lower levels so monks can follow a disciple. Both hard and soft styles from Judo, Karate, Kick Boxing, and Aikido can be created.
Ninja: Add a Shadow Rogue build to Rogue that would give that build Utility powers that gives shadow magic and invisibility.
Samurai: Add a Master Swordsman build to Fighter that would give the build speed strikes and focused strikes with a given weapon losing preficiency with all other weapons. Similar to a Guardian but with some charge, moveby strikes and special utility moves worthy of legendary high speed movement. For example, at upper levels a charge attack so fast they turn invisibile during the charge such that no AoO is possible or performing wall runs as part of the charge.
-----------------------------------------------
The other thing I would say to wizards is the biggest problem that my players have with 4E - and that is of CHOICE and REWARD per level.
Each time a player finally gets to select a new power, feat or treasure - they need more freedom of choice. While choice was one of the problems 3.5 had in that they tried to merge all classes into a class like the wizard - thus making it the ultimate swiss army knife that created some imbalance. However, I think that was because there was little pre-req assigned to spells/powers in 3.5 - thus you could take a higher level domination spell without ever having to learn a lower level charm of any type.
I think WotC's first focus should be to re-release a new players handbook that gives more CHOICES to all the existing classes. Look at common builds and requests so that every level of every class has at several choices and "cool" effects - rather than everything doing 1[W]. AKA rather than creating more NEW stuff - take some time to refine the existing stuff.
I think feats need expanded and some unrestricted - there are too many feats that require specific re-reqs and while pre-reqs are okay/required some times - a race or class should have a similar set of choices as those that are restricted. In building an illusionist that is a changling, there were lots of GNOME feats along those lines but nothing similar for Changlings. The problem with feats is that you go several levels to finally get one - and when you do get it - it doesnt give the player that "YAH" feeling they got in older systems but rather oh boy - another +1 or whatever.
In general, they need to focus more on bringing back that feeling of "WOW" and "Empowerment" when players level and get new treasure that made this game so great in the past. As it is now, leveling is not that exciting in many cases (there are some that are there) and rewards arent "fantastic" or "wonderous" as they used to feel.
Now dont get me wrong 4E has alot of things to offer in its mechanics that are an improvement over 3.5 and previous systems - but there is almost too much control exacted over the players that removed alot of the imagination and freedom that used to be there. I think a focus has shifted to hard to the side of mechanics over creativity of player that it used to have where players were less restricted in what they could create and empowered level to level.
I am very frustrated with the inability to create a non-damaging character.
Actually, the pacficist cleric build from Divine Power can go from level 1 to 30 without ever rolling a damage die. Every single level has at least one power, often two, that deal no damage, and instead heal, inflict a condition that impairs the enemy's ability to attack, or outright prevents foes from fighting.
They daze, they stun, they inflict "cannot attack until damaged", they push, or they heal, buff, protect, and armor everyone around them. And all throughout, they deal no damage whatsoever, not even on the dazing powers and the like.
They also have some of the nastiest effects to be hit with in the game, like Iron to Glass, which gives an enemy a rather large attack penalty....and everytime they actually manage to hit, the penalty gets worse, to a maximum of -10. Did I mention it has no save?
Meanwhile, they are some of the best healers in the game, but they are punished whenever they actually hurt a bloodied enemy. Rather thematic and nifty, they be.
I would agree with you there but its limit stops there. Try creating a controller like an Enchantress, Illusionist or Druid along those lines.
I think the Illusionist and Enchantress builds could be combined into a single class (Beguiler?). The Illusionist is INT primary, DEX secondary, and is more of a pure controller (perhaps with a striker secondary) focused on creating illusions, phantasms, and trickery. The Enchanter is INT primary, CHA secondary, and has a secondary leader function, and can use charms and dominate effects to hinder enemies, as well as grant allies extra attacks like a Warlord.
Also, we've only seen one build of the Monk, so if there's anything missing from its current preview, it might turn up in the DEX/STR build we haven't seen yet. Also, Psionic Power may end up filling in some gaps as well.
Necromancer!!!!
A primal class that does more with the natural world i.e. weather and elementals, but that could be the realm of the elemental power source.
A primal class that does more with the natural world i.e. weather and elementals, but that could be the realm of the elemental power source.
Well wardens now have their storm build, and druid i think have some storm powers, but I think the real wheater manipulation stuff is rituals now. At least from what I've seen.
When the elemental power source comes out I want to see a defender that sheathes is body in elements. Cloth armor, but can wrap himself in earth/fire/whatever as part of attacks that given him different deffense bonuses. Give bonuses for charges, like a wind armor that is part of a sonic boom attack. Also cool would be this class creating weapons out of the various elements.
As far as the elemental power source goes with their release I hope that each class type is tied to two elements for the build.
example
Elemental Strike Build 1: Fire
Build 2: Air
Elemental Defender Build 1: Earth
Build 2: Water.....etc
then the power source book of it could expand the builds by introducing the left out elements. That would probably make my day with WotC and the PHB# of that time.
Archivist: Divine Leader, Int vs. Dex with Wis
Godborn: Divine Defender, Con with Str or Cha
[edit] Dualist: Martial Defender, Dex with Int or Cha
The new Hexblade: Shadow Defender, Str with Cha or Int
Necromancer: Shadow Leader, Int with Cha or Con
Beguiler: Shadow Controller, Cha vs Dex with Int
The new Binder: Elemental Leader, Con with Dex or Str
Entropist: Elemental Striker, Int with Con or Wis
[edit] Shaper: Elemental Defender, Wis with Con or Dex
Channeler: Elemental Controller, Con with Str or Int
pretty pictures
good ideas. I especially like the elemental classes.One question: what is the Binder?
One thing I wonder is; if there's going to be a sixth Primal class, what would it be? There's a few possibilities:
Savage (Primal Striker), a wild child or hermit that seeks to become one with the wilderness. The savage would be a stealthy melee combatant with a penchant for sneaking up behind enemies and pouncing on them when they least expect it. Potential builds would be the Wild Beast (CON/DEX), a secondary defender and melee combatant, and the Wild Ghost (CON/WIS), a secondary controller who can fade into the wilderness and strike when least expected.
Blighter (Primal Striker), the "dark" primal class, focused on harnessing the powers of the spirits of decay. More of a ranged attacker similar to the Warlock or Sorcerer, with a lot of cold, acid, and poison attacks. Curses that change the forms of others might also be featured. Builds might include the Child of Winter (CON/WIS), focused on cold blasts and immobilizing attacks, or the Child of Vermin (CON/INT), a powerful attacker with acid and poison attacks that deal damage over time.
My idea for an Elemental Striker was my Infuser. A Heavy Armored striker (something we don't really have yet) who binds pieces of the Elemental Chaos to his gear, changing their basic building blocks to create powerful effect. He can also bind to the enemy, making them degrade from within or inflict terrible status ailment. One of my favorite tricks were turning your arm into the arm of an aciding demon or fusing an Earthwind Ravager into your armor and turn yourself into a walking whirlwind of doom!
The old Binder is the Vestige Pact Warlock, essentially.
The new Binder would be someone who binds elementals, presumably.
I think the Illusionist and Enchantress builds could be combined into a single class (Beguiler?). The Illusionist is INT primary, DEX secondary, and is more of a pure controller (perhaps with a striker secondary) focused on creating illusions, phantasms, and trickery. The Enchanter is INT primary, CHA secondary, and has a secondary leader function, and can use charms and dominate effects to hinder enemies, as well as grant allies extra attacks like a Warlord.
Also, we've only seen one build of the Monk, so if there's anything missing from its current preview, it might turn up in the DEX/STR build we haven't seen yet. Also, Psionic Power may end up filling in some gaps as well.
I still believe that the Illusionist is a Full controller off the Wizard Class as they currently have it defined - with INT/DEX as you outline. I dont dont think whoever put it together "gets it" or that the 4E design guidelines are forcing some "weirdness" in the spells that are created to ensure balance. If they create a new PHBx and update the Illusionist with more POWERS and FEATS - they could get it right.
For the Enchantress, could as well be a BUILD of the Wizard with the correct spells - but if they MUST break it out - they would be as you said a CONTROLLER who is secondary a leader but I would say they would be Primary CHA and Secondary WILL. I think they would be all about WILL Power vs WILL Power. I think creating additional classes like a Beguiler just makes it harder to mix and match feats and other equipment specifically designed for Wizards. aka there just wont be many Beguiler feats to choose from.
What's the deal with Necromancer being a Shadow Leader? I really can't envision somebody using undead summons or black magic to bolster their allies in any way. Sounds much more like a controller to me.
What's the deal with Necromancer being a Shadow Leader? I really can't envision somebody using undead summons or black magic to bolster their allies in any way. Sounds much more like a controller to me.
I have to agree - sounds like a Summoner / controller to me too.
What's the deal with Necromancer being a Shadow Leader? I really can't envision somebody using undead summons or black magic to bolster their allies in any way. Sounds much more like a controller to me.
The idea is to take necromancers back to their roots as masters of not only death, but LIFE as well. (way back in first edition healing spells were part of the necromancy school). The idea is to create a caster that not only drains the life of his enemies, but also channels that siphoned energy back to the necromancers allies.
The idea also stems from the lack of any other obvious choice for shadow leader. If shadow is going to have any leader at all the necromancer seems the most viable choice.
As for creating undead minions, the artificer class proves that such tricks are not the exclusive domain of controllers.
What's the deal with Necromancer being a Shadow Leader? I really can't envision somebody using undead summons or black magic to bolster their allies in any way. Sounds much more like a controller to me.
Well, leaders can do use as much summoning as controllers, look at the Artificer
Keep in mind that 4E is focusing on making each class more heroic, and making the Necromancer a leader could make him a little less evil, like how in 2E all healing was Necromancy (as I recall)
They could heal by draining the life force from enemies and infusing it into his allies and summons, he could boost party dmg by doing something like Amplify Damage
One of the things that make Artificer so cool is that they can enhance their own summons with their leader abilities, and the Necro could do the same thing
pretty pictures
good ideas. I especially like the elemental classes.One question: what is the Binder?
The vestige pact warlock. Not it's own class in 4e.
The idea also stems from the lack of any other obvious choice for shadow leader. If shadow is going to have any leader at all the necromancer seems the most viable choice.
A better question is...why does Shadow need a leader?
Shadow is a connection to the Shadowfell, a plane of death, decay, despair. It is the Dark Arts incarnate, the malicious and malevolent magics meant to unmake. It drains life, reanimates the dead, bestows curses, and drags its enemies into the darkness.
Does that sound like Healing and Buffing material?
It would be infinitely more evocative if Shadow did not have a leader class. If it were purely offensive, its defenders throwing horrendous hexes, its striker slipping through the shade to silence the enemy, its controllers raising the dead and the damned in a wailing frenzy or manipulating darkness itself into a solid form. Defenders, strikers, and controllers are all it needs.
Needless symmetry be damned.
The idea also stems from the lack of any other obvious choice for shadow leader. If shadow is going to have any leader at all the necromancer seems the most viable choice.A better question is...why does Shadow need a leader?
Shadow is a connection to the Shadowfell, a plane of death, decay, despair. It is the Dark Arts incarnate, the malicious and malevolent magics meant to unmake. It drains life, reanimates the dead, bestows curses, and drags its enemies into the darkness.
Does that sound like Healing and Buffing material?
It would be infinitely more evocative if Shadow did not have a leader class. If it were purely offensive, its defenders throwing horrendous hexes, its striker slipping through the shade to silence the enemy, its controllers raising the dead and the damned in a wailing frenzy or manipulating darkness itself into a solid form. Defenders, strikers, and controllers are all it needs.
Needless symmetry be damned.
I think the main idea behind the want for a shadow leader is that dark is not evil.
The idea also stems from the lack of any other obvious choice for shadow leader. If shadow is going to have any leader at all the necromancer seems the most viable choice.A better question is...why does Shadow need a leader?
Shadow is a connection to the Shadowfell, a plane of death, decay, despair. It is the Dark Arts incarnate, the malicious and malevolent magics meant to unmake. It drains life, reanimates the dead, bestows curses, and drags its enemies into the darkness.
Does that sound like Healing and Buffing material?
It would be infinitely more evocative if Shadow did not have a leader class. If it were purely offensive, its defenders throwing horrendous hexes, its striker slipping through the shade to silence the enemy, its controllers raising the dead and the damned in a wailing frenzy or manipulating darkness itself into a solid form. Defenders, strikers, and controllers are all it needs.
Needless symmetry be damned.
I agree... but I do think the Necromancer would be Controller with the possibility of Leader sub role, with plenty of power that syphon enemies and channel that back to your allies. Stuff like 'target take -1 to ATK one ally within five squares gain a +1 bonus to attack until the end of your next turn' and 'target takes X necrotic damage and you and every ally within five squares of the target gain temporary hit points equal to X' etc etc. You know, have both a conjuration/summoner build and a life-stealer build.
Needless symmetry be damned.
I don't think the Necromancer should be a leader because of want for Shadow to have a leader
I just think it would make the Necro more interesting and stand out more from Wizard, make it it's own class for once instead of just being a themed Wizard
Needless tradition and preconceptions be damned.
I have a Shadow Leader concept.
The Acolyte.
It's based off the Flesh Cultist monster from Open Grave. You manipulate your own body and the bodies of your allies to turn wounds into semi-undead monstrocities through necromantic rituals. And the Flesh Cultists hate true undead, so they're still within the category of Dark is Not Evil.
You could even have a summoner build where you summon Flesh Scamps and other such by embuing your own ruined flesh with temporary false life.
It would also be a Shadow class that isn't actively embraced by the Raven Queen, but not against her (because she opposes all necromantic rituals, but more so they have a common enemy of the undead).
The idea also stems from the lack of any other obvious choice for shadow leader. If shadow is going to have any leader at all the necromancer seems the most viable choice.A better question is...why does Shadow need a leader?
Shadow is a connection to the Shadowfell, a plane of death, decay, despair. It is the Dark Arts incarnate, the malicious and malevolent magics meant to unmake. It drains life, reanimates the dead, bestows curses, and drags its enemies into the darkness.
Does that sound like Healing and Buffing material?
It would be infinitely more evocative if Shadow did not have a leader class. If it were purely offensive, its defenders throwing horrendous hexes, its striker slipping through the shade to silence the enemy, its controllers raising the dead and the damned in a wailing frenzy or manipulating darkness itself into a solid form. Defenders, strikers, and controllers are all it needs.
Needless symmetry be damned.
With this, I agree wholeheartedly. Shadow is te stuff from which nightmares are made, there's no damn sense in allowing it to heal allies or the such (I could understand temporary HP, but true, honest-to-goodness, twice-an-encounter healing? Not so likely).
And, really, there's no problem about that. No one needs to heal his allies in order to be a hero. I can see the Necromancer (and all the Shadow source, for that matter) just like I see the warlock: a kind of ''I know, guys, I messed things up and now my soul is screwed, but please, can we get this going and finish off this devil before I descend into eternal damnnation??'' vibe.
EDIT: If it is absolutely, positively necessary to have a Shadow Leader, they could go all Druid on this and separate the previous Necromancer into several classes, one who controls with undead minions and death magic and one who steals life of his enemies to heal his allies.
Shadow is te stuff from which nightmares are made, there's no damn sense in allowing it to heal allies or the such (I could understand temporary HP, but true, honest-to-goodness, twice-an-encounter healing? Not so likely).
Who says that the necromancer's twice per encounter heal has to restore hit points? There are already quite a few powers that cost a healing surge, but only grant temporary hit points. Maybe as a leader the necromancer will be a master of that kind of healing. It certainly could create a new dynamic to the leader role. Most leaders so far have to wait for their allies to be injured before they can start to significantly bolster HP, however, if the necromancer "heals" with temps he would have the option to bolster allies he feels are most like to need such at the beginning of the fight instead.
EDIT: If it is absolutely, positively necessary to have a Shadow Leader, they could go all Druid on this and separate the previous Necromancer into several classes, one who controls with undead minions and death magic and one who steals life of his enemies to heal his allies.
The key difference here is that unlike the druid, the necromancers of previous editions have most often been subclasses (usually of wizard). The necromancer isn't overflowing with too many concepts for one class, if anything it is actually in need of something more than just necrotic damage and undead minions. As a controller it might prove difficult to differentiate them from a specialized wizard, but as a leader they could branch out into some interesting new territory.
I don't think the necromancer should be a leader, have a leader build to be sure, but not a straight leader.
As for the elementalist, my geomancer could be a sub-build of that (right now i'm doing a re-flavored swarm druid). I do like the idea of picking elements (class features). Fire = striker, water = leader, wind = + control, earth = defender, take any 2 you want (with probably an epic that gives you all 4).
This right here. WotC, take note!
I want more classes that can wear Scale and Plate Armour and Heavy Shields from the get-go.
Actually, more Shield-bearing classes in general would be nice.
So far we only have Paladin for Plate.
For Scale, Paladin and Fighter.
For Heavy Shields, Paladin and Warden.
For Light Shields, Fighter, Paladin, Warden, Cleric, and Bard.
Shields and Heavy Armour (besides Chainmail) need more love.
Reaper [Shadow Defender] -grim reaper in heavy armor
Heretic [Divine/Shadow Defender] -essentially the blackguard
Stalker [Primal Striker] -sort of like the ranger, but just different enough. sort of like the rogue to the assassin
Exorcist [Divine Striker/Controller] -ranged holy magic
Mentalist [Psionic Striker] -more strikery version of psion
I have a Shadow Leader concept.
The Acolyte.
It's based off the Flesh Cultist monster from Open Grave. You manipulate your own body and the bodies of your allies to turn wounds into semi-undead monstrocities through necromantic rituals. And the Flesh Cultists hate true undead, so they're still within the category of Dark is Not Evil.
You could even have a summoner build where you summon Flesh Scamps and other such by embuing your own ruined flesh with temporary false life.
It would also be a Shadow class that isn't actively embraced by the Raven Queen, but not against her (because she opposes all necromantic rituals, but more so they have a common enemy of the undead).
I just got excited.
A Necromantic Healer would be all about Stealing Life from enemies, they would either have a healing pwoer that is either a Necrotic Close Burst Attack that heals an ally as an effect or one that's done as an immediate reaction after any ally hits and damages an enemy.
As for a Shadow Leader, well I think they are far more tennable than any Martial Controller idea.
One sec while I get my dead horse beating stick out......
Okay cool. I would like to FINALLY get a simple Kengo/Swordmaster class, that uses technique as opposed to brawn or trickery to slay his opponents.
(perhaps Str/Int so theres finally a smart striker)
And this can't be any of the extant martial classes because ... ?
We went over that in a different thread, thus the deceased equine abuse reference:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Fighters and rogues are a near-miss for what he had in mind.
There are still some fairly straightforward concepts that are too quick/light-armored/whatever to be fighters and not sneaky or underhanded enough to be rogues. A martial striker going on pure technique, rather than raw power like a fighter or barbarian, sneak attacking like a rogue, or running around in the woods like a ranger. For that matter, a competent archer who's not a woodsy Ranger would be nice, too.
I'd like to see a martial class that pushes the envelope a bit more, the way the Warlord did, but not a leader. I'd like to see martial implements, for instance, and the use of tactics/manuevers/intimidation to mess with the enemy. J_V's Dreadnaught is a good example.
In addition to another archery-using or thrown-weapon-based martial class or build, I'd second the call for more fun with Shields and, yeah, heavy armor. I'd really like to see something like a hoplite, using a shield and a reach weapon. Might be a defender or even a controller, depending on how it was executed.
Where do people get the idea that a fighter has to be 'all brute force' instead of technique? That's 100 percent pure fluff. And BTW, a fighter who uses blades is going to want a high DEX, which means they're better off in light armor, so, yeah 'lightly armored swordmaster who uses technique instead of brute force' is covered, by the fighter.
The Ranger does not have to be 'woodsy'. That is also 100 percent pure fluff.
Where do people get the idea that a fighter has to be 'all brute force' instead of technique? That's 100 percent pure fluff. And BTW, a fighter who uses blades is going to want a high DEX, which means they're better off in light armor, so, yeah 'lightly armored swordmaster who uses technique instead of brute force' is covered, by the fighter.
The Ranger does not have to be 'woodsy'. That is also 100 percent pure fluff.
This.
A simple change of Nature/Dungeneering to Streetwise and you can make a bounty hunter out of ranger. This is an option I allow in my campaigns.
And the fighter's powers can be seen as training,At least to me.
Also why make a whole new class for a "skilled" fighter, make it a build instead.
I agree with the hopilite being an intersting class, and one I could see having some fun with.
Good Fighters use Con, ALL others drink ass from the keg.(Brash Strike Vs. Dual Strike=Case in point)
Scout would be awesome. Just make it as a Ranger build with if you move powers/ability to use a two-hander and poof, done.
Good Fighters use Con, ALL others drink ass from the keg.(Brash Strike Vs. Dual Strike=Case in point)
My group has two Fighters. A Strength/Constitution based Warforged with an Executioner's Axe, and my own Greatspear-wielding control-oriented Polearm Master (just hit Paragon on Saturday). Both characters are pretty effective, but my character has clearly superior ability to perform his function and keep enemies occupied whether they like it or not. Respectable damage, too.
Who says that the necromancer's twice per encounter heal has to restore hit points? There are already quite a few powers that cost a healing surge, but only grant temporary hit points. Maybe as a leader the necromancer will be a master of that kind of healing. It certainly could create a new dynamic to the leader role. Most leaders so far have to wait for their allies to be injured before they can start to significantly bolster HP, however, if the necromancer "heals" with temps he would have the option to bolster allies he feels are most like to need such at the beginning of the fight instead.
This would clash too much with classes / builds who depend on Temporary Hit Points on an at-will basis, such as the Rageblood Barbarian, Bleak Disciple Assassin and Battlerager Fighter. I agree that there should be different aproaches to leading, but I don't think that granting THP would be one of them.
Good Fighters use Con, ALL others drink ass from the keg.(Brash Strike Vs. Dual Strike=Case in point)
Scout would be awesome. Just make it as a Ranger build with if you move powers/ability to use a two-hander and poof, done.
So make a fighter build that rewards something other than Con. I disagree with you assesment of fighters, but to each their own. But a new class doesn't need to made, just a build that rewards a different secondary ability score.
A build as striker effective and dex based as the original tempest fighter would rock.(minus the ranger plagurism of course)
Also for fighters I was talking about a heavy blade user, polearm technique of course still controls the field really well.(Khopesh>FULLBLADE???, stupid brash strike)
This would clash too much with classes / builds who depend on Temporary Hit Points on an at-will basis, such as the Rageblood Barbarian, Bleak Disciple Assassin and Battlerager Fighter. I agree that there should be different aproaches to leading, but I don't think that granting THP would be one of them.
I would hazard a guess that Rageblood Barbarians, Bleak Disciple Assassins and Battlerager Fighters are most commonly the last party members calling for a medic.
Also, I understand Tharag_Bocc to be a critically thinking individual, and I guarantee that his outline of a Leader who serves up THP took into account the self-bolstering classes you've listed. As a point of fact, THP do not stack (larger amounts supersede/replace smaller amounts), but Leaders doling out gifts of THP would most certainly be handing out amounts equalling surge value + X (which would far outshine the THP generated by self-generating classes). There would be no clash; THP-rich builds would not be ill-effected or rendered moot.
As an aside, I don't particularly support the idea of Shadow Leaders granting THP unless the THP gained is explained as being illusory or a figment in some way. THP occurs to me as a mind-set, like you're on a roll and being bolstered by morale, anger/rage, excitement/ingenuity or inspiring words (Valorous Bards come to mind). When I envision a Necromancer siphoning life from one to give to another, it occurs to me that such energy would be true life-stuff, not intangible THP-stuff.
When I think 4E Necromancer, I think class features like "Once per round, whenever you damage an enemy with an attack, you may grant an ally within 5 squares of you X hit points", or powers like "XdY+Z in a X burst or zone that damages enemies and siphons Y HP to all allies caught in the effect". --Or what have you.
Also, I understand Tharag_Bocc to be a critically thinking individual, and I guarantee that his outline of a Leader who serves up THP took into account the self-bolstering classes you've listed.
Wow, a fan. I'll try not to let you down.
As an aside, I don't particularly support the idea of Shadow Leaders granting THP unless the THP gained is explained as being illusory or a figment in some way. THP occurs to me as a mind-set, like you're on a roll and being bolstered by morale, anger/rage, excitement/ingenuity or inspiring words (Valorous Bards come to mind). When I envision a Necromancer siphoning life from one to give to another, it occurs to me that such energy would be true life-stuff, not intangible THP-stuff.
Temporary hit points can be a mere mind-set, but then again given the abstract nature of hit points in general so can actual healing. Certainly that's the case with the Warlord's completely non-magical Inspiring Word power. Anyway, the ability to drain the life from an enemy and convert it into a temporary bolster already exists in a limited fashion, notably the warlock power Vampiric Embrace, so using that as a spring board for a shadow leader concept doesn't seem at all unnatural to me.
Mayhap something like a compromise between THP and healing from the Necromancer would be in order to not invalidate the THP gains of certain classes and abilities. Perhaps the Necromancer grants HP that can exceed the recipient's natural HP limit and any excess is lost at the end of the encounter.
For example a Fighter with 35 of 40 total HP gains a Necromancer heal of 10 HP. That puts the Fighter at 45 HP. If the Fighter uses a power or ability that grants THP then that is counted separately. At the end of the encounter, when THP are lost then the Fighter drops down to his normal maximum of 40 HP.
If there was a necromancer leader (and i really think it should be a sub build), i think giving a bonus to people aready down would be better then THP. Perhaps something that let's you bring recently dead allies back, or allows then to not die/fall unconcious till they've taken even more damage.
A good example of a good Necromancer can be found in Gail Z Martin's "Chronicles of the Necromancer".
He can command the dead, but only if they're willing.
And, whilst he can't heal people, he can prevent their soul leaving thier body. With this guy at your side you'll keep fighting even though you have a fullblade stuck in your liver.
That's what we call healing. HP is simply a count of how long you can keep in the fight. It's as much psychological as physical. That's why Inspiring Word and Majestic Word heal - they provide encouragement to keep on fighting, even when you're losing hope and getting tired out from dodging so much that you're making mistakes and even get bloodied (actually hit).
I think a necromancer should be about raising(summoning/conjuring) undead minions/shadowfell minions, granting bonuses to those minions and gaining bonuses depending on how many and what kind or minions the necro has.
The idea of a necro acting as a warlord or cleric doesn't sit right with me. Necromancers don't heal allies. They curse foes, command undead, have flesh grafting/augmenting talents and spread conditions like disease.
I certainly hope wotc releases the necromancer soon (this year) cause I'd like to see how they handle it. Although I'm afraid they may have to tone down the darker aspects of the class so as to not upset the carebear crowd.
Wow, a fan. I'll try not to let you down.
Hehe.
Temporary hit points can be a mere mind-set, but then again given the abstract nature of hit points in general so can actual healing. Certainly that's the case with the Warlord's completely non-magical Inspiring Word power. Anyway, the ability to drain the life from an enemy and convert it into a temporary bolster already exists in a limited fashion, notably the warlock power Vampiric Embrace, so using that as a spring board for a shadow leader concept doesn't seem at all unnatural to me.
All very true, but it just seems intuitive to have leaders offer up tangible heals instead of tacking on temporary pads of stamina.
The non-magical heals of Warlords and/or Bards are so awesome as to be tangible effects. They truly bolster, as opposed to insulate. I guess the semantics of the whole thing just rubs me weird.
Perhaps it would be most appropriate for the Necromancer to have ways of siphoning surges from other allies in a way reminiscent of the Artificer?
That's what we call healing. HP is simply a count of how long you can keep in the fight. It's as much psychological as physical. That's why Inspiring Word and Majestic Word heal - they provide encouragement to keep on fighting, even when you're losing hope and getting tired out from dodging so much that you're making mistakes and even get bloodied (actually hit).
I realize that Hit Points would be better described as "Defeat Points", measuring your level of defeat as opposed to the amount of times you've been physically damaged, that's why I prefaced my further explanation of the purely speculative and opinion-based Necromancer musings with "THP occurs to me as...".
My idea for a Necromancer Leader's healing feature:
Deviate from the Leader norm. Instead of Providing a flat out heal and bonus to the surge value make it this:
Necromatic Siphon: You can use two necromatic siphons per encounter, three times per encounter at level 16 . You choose which siphon you use, Siphon of the Body or Siphon of the Soul, when you use the power.
Siphon of the Soul You use a tendril of necrotic energy to transfer life force from an enemy into an ally.
Shadow, Healing, Necrotic Encounter (special) Minor Action
Close burst 5 (10 at 11th, 15 at 21st)
Target: You or one ally in burst
The target gains an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to one target of the next attack power the target hits with. After the damage is resloved the target can spend a healing surge and heal extra equal to the extra necrotic damage dealt. This effect ignores necrotic resistance.
At level 6 = 2x the extra necrotic damage dealt
At level 11 = 3X the extra necrotic damage dealt.
Etc....
Siphon of the Body You attempt to tear an affliction out of a nearby ally and use your ally's pain against your foe.
Shadow, Healing, Necrotic Encounter (special) Minor Action
Close burst 5 (10 at 11th, 15 at 21st)
Target: You or one ally in burst.
Choose an ally in the burst under a condition that a save can end. On the next attack you make deal an extra 1d4 necrotic damage. The ally may then make a saving throw with a +1 bonus. On a critical hit the ally automatically saves and the condition is transfered to the enemy you hit. (for conditions such as dominate, the enemy is under your control).
At Level 11 = The bonus to saving throws equals half the extra damage dealt (minnimum 1)
At level 21 = The bonus to saving throws equals the extra damage dealt.
I'd love a more Strikery version of the Swordmage.
I'd love a more Strikery version of the Swordmage.
It's called the Fey Charger
I'd love a more Strikery version of the Swordmage.
It's called the Fey Charger
It's SUPPOSED to be called assault, though that more or less failed.
I want to see the Wu Jen as a sort of Primal Warlock...you form pacts with the primal spirits and agree to meet with certain taboos in order to gain primal powers that let you aid your companions.
I think a necromancer should be about raising(summoning/conjuring) undead minions/shadowfell minions, granting bonuses to those minions and gaining bonuses depending on how many and what kind or minions the necro has.
The idea of a necro acting as a warlord or cleric doesn't sit right with me. Necromancers don't heal allies. They curse foes, command undead, have flesh grafting/augmenting talents and spread conditions like disease.
I certainly hope wotc releases the necromancer soon (this year) cause I'd like to see how they handle it. Although I'm afraid they may have to tone down the darker aspects of the class so as to not upset the carebear crowd.
With the existence of the warlock and assassin, I don't think they'll be squeamish about releasing "dark" classes. It's possible (with a bit of justification) to have a good-aligned Hell Warlock, for crying out loud. Alignment probably won't be an issue when a necromancer class does come out.
I also agree that Necromancer works best as a controller. Perhaps one of the builds could have a leader secondary, though. But the core of the class, in my opinion, is the summoning of undead and the use of necrotic curses and death spells, which seems to fit best in a Controller role.
I also agree that Necromancer works best as a controller. Perhaps one of the builds could have a leader secondary, though. But the core of the class, in my opinion, is the summoning of undead and the use of necrotic curses and death spells, which seems to fit best in a Controller role.
Maybe, but the artificer shows that leaders can summon too, and the cleric has some of the meanest debuffs in the game.
I would like to see something that is based around aura's. They would probably be encounter long dailies (like rages/stances), but a class with lot's of "any enemy that starts it turn within X squares" would be cool.
I could see it as a primal controler, "summoning" aspects of the primal plane, and letting you choose from different damage types.
Maybe, but the artificer shows that leaders can summon too, and the cleric has some of the meanest debuffs in the game.
True, but when the artificer summons, he calls up critters that buff everything around them. When the shaman summons, he's calling in a critter to grant bonuses to other people.
When I summon clattering skeletons fused from the bones of the slaughtered, powered by the twisted souls of the damned, their eyes glowing with unholy fire which longs to snuff out the life of the living, I don't want them to grant an attack bonus to all my allies, I want them to KILL THINGS.
So much of the necromantic flavor comes from being offensive. The wailing banshees screaming the life out of foes, the ghouls grinning wickedly as they drag down their paralyzed prey, the zombies lurching forward in their never ending hunt for brains...
Besides, as the druid demonstrates, a controller can have a few powers that heal or assist their allies. The life leeching thing could easily be portrayed as a few powers across the levels, but if it became the main feature of the class, methinks it would dilute the other themes that make and break the necro...minions, curses, diseases, and bringing the death and doom upon the enemy.
Maybe, but the artificer shows that leaders can summon too, and the cleric has some of the meanest debuffs in the game.True, but when the artificer summons, he calls up critters that buff everything around them. When the shaman summons, he's calling in a critter to grant bonuses to other people.
Dancing Weapon, Flame Heart Defender, Relentless Harrier, Animate Arbalester, Stalwart Defender, Clockwork Acid Wasp, Dimensional Shifter; these power aren't about grant allies bonuses. Most of the artificers summons are focused on injuring and or impeding the actions of enemies.
Dancing Weapon, Flame Heart Defender, Relentless Harrier, Animate Arbalester, Stalwart Defender, Clockwork Acid Wasp, Dimensional Shifter; these power aren't about grant allies bonuses. Most of the artificers summons are focused on injuring and or impeding the actions of enemies.
"Should I pull out my copy and check the artificer's summons," I said. "Nah, I remember them well enough," I said. "I'm pretty sure I recall exactly how all of them worked," I said...
.....
I'd see the Necromancer with an At-Will wall. Like Wall 3 within 10 square, flavored as skeletal or ghostly hands striking from the ground.
Would inflict damage to foes who begin their turn there, and foes who would fall prone in those squares would be immobilized and unable to get up! Or take extra damage?
It would be pretty :D
Added a new class to my list; It was something I was tinkering around with in my head... and then it hit me
The Shaper: Elemental Defender, Wis with Con or Dex
Wields pure elemental energy and matter as both their weapon and shield, also creates barriers and fire auras to block off enemies from allies and punish them when they attack and things like that
Favored by Githzerai and Dwarves
After recently reading Open Grave I'd like to see a necromancer class, with some variety in how it can be used.
3 examples
Necromancer - defender - calls upon skeletal remains or corpses to rise and fight for him, make these minions, so they attack in swarms but are easily defeated, tactics allow them to slow an enemy down allowing the Strikers to move in and destroy the enemy while they are occupied.
Necromancer - controller/leader - drains the living energy from his enemies and uses the same energy to strengthen / heal his allies. A more postive use of necromantic studies.
Necromancer - striker - using necromantic magic the spell caster rips the life force from its enemies, in the case of the undead can force the spirit to leave its undead body.
I'd love a more Strikery version of the Swordmage.
It's called the Fey Charger
Your answer is a build that is only open to one race and involves jumping through a bunch of silly char-op hoops, including at least one feat that isn't available for the first 10 levels of play. So... no.
Gladiator as a martial controller seems like a very good idea.
Necromancer as a controller make sense, maybe you can do different builds, more controller oriented and another defender oriented (His skeletons doing the tanking). One build would be focused in enhancing curse and skeletons numbers, while the other more in enhacing his skeletons. Just an idea.
Elemental classes that have pop up in this thread are very good, i like the ideas too.
Geomancer as a controller who is able to modify the terrain to the advantage of his allies and bringin caos over the enemy lines sound interesting. There is also a Geomancer as the class of the Final Fantasy tactics, is a striker that his powers depend on the ground he is standing in. That idea could be used in the controller version as well now that i think about it.
Will think of more and go for another post.
I want to see a 4E Soulknife class. I'm hoping it'll appear in PH3. I would also like to see the return of the Oriental Adventure classes, but I have a feeling they'll just be flavors tact onto the already established classes. 4E versions of the Tome of Battle classes would be cool too.
4E versions of the Tome of Battle classes would be cool too.
Tome of Battle is a known 4e test bed, and it shows. The new paladin seems to strongly resemble the crusader. Between fighter and warlord the warblade seems to have been covered. Swordmage, avenger, and assassin can each cover different swordsage schools.
4E versions of the Tome of Battle classes would be cool too.
Tome of Battle is a known 4e test bed, and it shows. The new paladin seems to strongly resemble the crusader. Between fighter and warlord the warblade seems to have been covered. Swordmage, avenger, and assassin can each cover different swordsage schools.
I'm guessing the monk will also incorporate parts of the swordsage class (particularly Setting Sun and other unarmed-focused builds). Though, perhaps the flavor of the swordsage/warblade will find its way into a future Psionic Defender class which serves as a more weapons-oriented monk (though monk powers appear to be usable with certain types of weapon already).
Geomancer as a controller who is able to modify the terrain to the advantage of his allies and bringin caos over the enemy lines sound interesting. There is also a Geomancer as the class of the Final Fantasy tactics, is a striker that his powers depend on the ground he is standing in. That idea could be used in the controller version as well now that i think about it.
I could see getting diferent bonuses for being on different terrain, but i don't think they should be huge things, or built into the powers.
Something like, if you're in a desert, all powers add -1 to hit, and if you're on a mountain, movement powers get +1 forced movement, caves add damage, ect...*
But that would be a table as part of the class, sort of like the sorcerer table/even-odd roles, putting them in the powers (or worse, making powers for each terrain) would be too much.
*(and if you're in the air you get nothing).
That would be dangerous - it would be VERY situational, and classes shouldn't have such situational benefits. That's the problem with the Beastmaster in Final Fantasy Tactics series - your power requires a certain type of monster to be on the field to take control of. Situational benefits means you don't get to use half your powers 3/4 of the time.
That would be dangerous - it would be VERY situational, and classes shouldn't have such situational benefits. That's the problem with the Beastmaster in Final Fantasy Tactics series - your power requires a certain type of monster to be on the field to take control of. Situational benefits means you don't get to use half your powers 3/4 of the time.
Right.
It would be fun (and fitting) to have you're powers affected by terrain, but it shouldn't make them useless.
Which is why i proposed small bonuses. Doing 1d8+wis + slide 4, on one spot and doing 1d8+wis+2 + slide 3 on another. So the power will always be usefull.
If I was going to have a way to make terrain affect a PCs powers, I'd probably go the feat route. Add a skill bonus, language, or ritual to it so it doesn't make it completely worthless when you're not adventuring in that particular terrain.
I want to see NECRO!
I was wondering about something like the dread necromancer in the 3.5, a shadow-power based controller who'll summon vile undead armies.
I'd like to see also a beguiler from the PHBII in 3.5, a really sneaky arcane class, with lots of charm and illusion powers.
For a possible shadow leader/defender, i thought about something like a Death Knight, a fallen paladin thet uses his shadow powers to boost himself drawing lifeforce from his enemies.
Incantantraix
Blackguard - Shadow Defender
Necromancer - Shadow Controller
Samurai - Fighter Build Option
Enchantress - Wizard Build Option
I want the Hexblade, preferably as a defender. It was one of my favorite classes from3.5 and witht the shadow source now avaiable it's time for this class to shine.
I would like to see the Hexblade and Blackguard combined to make one class, that way the class is both unique and flexible
I was wondering about something like the dread necromancer in the 3.5, a shadow-power based controller who'll summon vile undead armies.
I'd like to see also a beguiler from the PHBII in 3.5, a really sneaky arcane class, with lots of charm and illusion powers.
For a possible shadow leader/defender, i thought about something like a Death Knight, a fallen paladin thet uses his shadow powers to boost himself drawing lifeforce from his enemies.
1. Don't expect a PC necromancer to have anything resembling an 'army'. Maybe one permanent sidekick, and summons from there.
2. That's called a Feypact Warlock, or an Illusionist Wizard.
3. Paladins can't fall.
I want to see a Shadow Controller - a Beguiller, who utilises shadows to be a master of illusions and deception. It would be like a Cunning Bard taken to a logical, but dark, extreme.
2. That's called a Feypact Warlock, or an Illusionist Wizard.
That's why a Beguiler class would probably be based on the Shadow source, rather than Arcane. Between the Bard, Illusionist Wizard, and Fey Warlock, most of the conceptual space for a 'sneaky' arcane class is filled up.
A shadow-based Beguiler would give a new option for those who want a roguish caster.
How about a Power Source called "Ascendancy":
You draw your Power from the respect or fear you inspire ... blabla.
Defender Class:
Knight -> You draw your Power from your Honor. You follow a strict Code of Conduct, if you ignore it you lose daily Powers. Your mark Ability let you also blame unfair behaivior of your enemies e.g. strike from Invisibility or attacking helpless creatures.
Controller Class:
Arrogant Noble -> You draw your Power from your diplomatic Talents, your Influence and Respect from other Nobles. Your Controller Powers do a lot of dominating or enemy can only use at-will powers (save ends). His versatility gained not from Spellbook, Rituals etc, it raises from the possibility to buy back Powers with Money or alter it through paying extra Money. E.g. Bribe Power: Charisma + spent Money/100 vs. Will; dominate (save ends).
Leader Class:
Lord -> You draw your Power from your Possesions and Followers. You have the Ability to "Summon" Cohorts like Guards for defense or Scholars for Buffs. Your Healing Power is your "Healer Slave" who provides better healing, but have to Move in Combat and can be slain.
Striker Class:
Pirate or Swashbuckler -> You draw your Power from Fear and Reputation, which you use against enemies to weaken their mind and Body. Unlike the other Striker your extra damage unlocks if you fraud, intimidate or trick him. (Sorry very close to the rouge)
I have been thinking about the Beguiler, and how I would make him stand out
Wizard have the illusion thing cover on somewhat basic level
Assassin has the whole shadow magic using stealth agent
Psion has the whole mind-control thing
and Warlocks are mages who don't play fair
I think it would be cool if the class was capable of tricking the DM, reveiling to the DM that things are not as the monsters believed; They could have a class feature that let's them delay spells to be used as immediate interrupts, allowing them to do things like using a spell to switch a ally with a monster to have the monster take a attack that triggers it (because it was that way all along), or to have the monster suddenly appear amongst your allies confused (as they wake to realize that they were never where they thought they were) or when a monster uses an encounter attack you make it target another monster and gains CA and bonus damage (showing that the monster was already under the beguiler's control and was waiting for the right time to use it)
their tag line could just be "Ahhhhh but wait"
"Not so fast! I use my TRAP POWER Mirror Force to repel your attack!"
"OH NOES!"
:p nice!
The only new Martial class that I could think of that would be a somewhat welcome addition would be a Dex based defender that uses Int and Cha; as Rogue is the only Martial class that uses finesse instead of brawn, I think a second option would be good and making it a defender allows it to have it's own identity
I would call it Dualist; to me "swashbuckler" is a bit too specific and it should be a concept that any class can own, Dualist has more elbowroom in the name, so if you wanted someone who is a calculating and stoic student of fencing you don't have to worry about the image of a laughing smirking Errol Flynn popping into peoples' head when they hear your class name
Dualist: Martial Defender, Dex with Int or Cha
I have been thinking about Martial classes, and if they were going to make another one what would it be, I think it's a pretty well fleshed out power source and for the most part it's all covered
The only new Martial class that I could think of that would be a somewhat welcome addition would be a Dex based defender that uses Int and Cha; as Rogue is the only Martial class that uses finesse instead of brawn, I think a second option would be good and making it a defender allows it to have it's own identity
I would call it Dualist; to me "swashbuckler" is a bit too specific and it should be a concept that any class can own, Dualist has more elbowroom in the name, so if you wanted someone who is a calculating and stoic student of fencing you don't have to worry about the image of a laughing smirking Errol Flynn popping into peoples' head when they hear your class name
Dualist: Martial Defender, Dex with Int or Cha
I think the Duellist should remain an upcoming Artful Dodger build of the Rogue, expanding on the nature of the class as not just being thieves and thugs, but noble scoundrals and swashbuckling musketeers too (not the soldiers, but the Three, and not the candy, but the people).
Case in point, it would be nice to see a dedicated single weapon user. The wandering dualist, the noble samurai, the shaolin spear monk, there are many themes that revolve around a skilled and swift warrior who stands toe to toe with the strongest of foes, but defeats them through speed and celerity.
Sure, the rogue could probably shoulder the burden if we butchered the concept a bit, but it shouldn't have to, not when there are three martial classes who all use strength in melee. There is room to expand the martial source; we already have broken the four class per source boundary, and the game could certainly use more dexterity-prime classes.
I would call it Dualist; to me "swashbuckler" is a bit too specific and it should be a concept that any class can own, Dualist has more elbowroom in the name
Personally I feel quite the opposite. That aside I don't really care what the class's name is, I just want it.
Hmm. I'm not sure I like the idea that the Rogue should have the burden of being the be-all, end-all Dextrous Martial Hero. Don't get me wrong, I love me some roguish goodness. But the idea of lumping every single martial trope that possibly involves finesse and speed into a single class seems to be a mistake.
This.
That the rogue already is a finesse based martial class is no good reason why there can't be others. Much like how the existence of the ranger shouldn't dictate that it be the only two-weapon specialist (tempest fighter) or the only archer (upcoming warlord build in Martial Power 2). If WotC can create another finesse based class they by all means should. To not do so will eventually turn the rogue class into some kind of mutt class.
I would call it Dualist; to me "swashbuckler" is a bit too specific and it should be a concept that any class can own, Dualist has more elbowroom in the name
Personally I feel quite the opposite. That aside I don't really care what the class's name is, I just want it.
Verily, I doth hear that!
Hmm. I'm not sure I like the idea that the Rogue should have the burden of being the be-all, end-all Dextrous Martial Hero. Don't get me wrong, I love me some roguish goodness. But the idea of lumping every single martial trope that possibly involves finesse and speed into a single class seems to be a mistake.
Case in point, it would be nice to see a dedicated single weapon user. The wandering dualist, the noble samurai, the shaolin spear monk, there are many themes that revolve around a skilled and swift warrior who stands toe to toe with the strongest of foes, but defeats them through speed and celerity.
Sure, the rogue could probably shoulder the burden if we butchered the concept a bit, but it shouldn't have to, not when there are three martial classes who all use strength in melee. There is room to expand the martial source; we already have broken the four class per source boundary, and the game could certainly use more dexterity-prime classes.
Agreed.
I should have made it more clear that I too would not the class restricted to just using rapier, there would be a lot of crunch support for rapier, but other finesse type weapons and such would be usable as well
Which is another reason I would call the class Dualist, shaolin spear monk Swashbuckler just does not sound right
I think the Duellist should remain an upcoming Artful Dodger build of the Rogue, expanding on the nature of the class as not just being thieves and thugs, but noble scoundrals and swashbuckling musketeers too (not the soldiers, but the Three, and not the candy, but the people).
I'm not saying the Rogue is just for thieves and thugs, I think the Rogue with it's Rakish Swashbuckler PP does a great job at conveying the fencing type. And I put Cha as a secondary stat not because I think the Dualist class should become the new be-all end-all swashbuckler, I was thinking it would be for the dualist who sees combat as an art (blade dancers and such) and the Int build would be for those who see as a science (fencers and such).
Rogues are those who focus on winning a fight more so than being good at fighting, and Dualists are more of the true martial artist who master both style and technique and yet may know nothing of violence
This is more about having a choice when it comes to playing a graceful warrior, not about swashbuckling
Though just for the sake of his defenses that class shouldn't use DEX/INT but rather DEX/WIS as a build (though I guess you could always just make up some 'Use INT for Will defense' feature). Maybe even a DEX/CON build representing the stamina needed to maintain your speed of attack, a build with lots of Minor Action powers thrown in... maybe Daily Stances (with 'Style' in the names) that grant you various Minor Action attack.
Though just for the sake of his defenses that class shouldn't use DEX/INT but rather DEX/WIS as a build (though I guess you could always just make up some 'Use INT for Will defense' feature).
There is no good reason to be hating on DEX+INT. We already have plenty of class builds with STR+CON or WIS+CHA, and they all do just fine.
I guess you're right. I would still like a DEX/CON build. I think it makes for an interesting image. Would make a good class for Gnolls and Kobolds for a change too :p
Does the Bleak Disciple Assassin suffice, or do you require a martial class?
But seriously, yes, a finesse warrior would be appreciated.
Also we need another class with CON as primary somewhere so the poor Warlocks aren't so lonely :p
Dex+Int needs the love. There's like, what, one Dex+Int build in the entire game?
True enough.
and please not another defender make it a striker or controller just to be different and light armor just for fun.
Controller maybe, but striker? To be different? Striker is already both the most represented role among all classes in general and among martial classes specifically as well (ranger and rogue). As the only finesse based martial class, the rogue, is already a striker, that seems a poor role to start from if the goal is to create a separate and distinct class. Given that martial controller is at best a dubious concept, I think defender really is the best direction to go with for the duelist/swashbuckler class concept.
and please not another defender make it a striker or controller just to be different and light armor just for fun.
Controller maybe, but striker? To be different? Striker is already both the most represented role among all classes in general and among martial classes specifically as well (ranger and rogue). As the only finesse based martial class, the rogue, is already a striker, that seems a poor role to start from if the goal is to create a separate and distinct class. Given that martial controller is at best a dubious concept, I think defender really is the best direction to go with for the duelist/swashbuckler class concept.
I agree, Dex defeder would be fun, but i could honestly see this as a rogue build, replacing sneak attack with a mark and adding +2AC when 1 handed. Reposting Strike FTW :-)
I agree, Dex defeder would be fun, but i could honestly see this as a rogue build, replacing sneak attack with a mark and adding +2AC when 1 handed. Reposting Strike FTW :-)
Replacing the rogue's key striker feature (Sneak Attack) with a mark (the key feature of a defender) goes beyond what should be allowed as an alternate class feature. Build features that determine sub-role are fine, but changing the class's primary role seems dangerous, especially as most of the rogue's powers and feats are meant to support it's role as a striker.
I agree a single weapon martial class would be great. It some thing that is lacking. and please not another defender make it a striker or controller just to be different and light armor just for fun. I like the DEX con idea as they would use skill to out fight an opponent but would have to outlast those stronger two handed types.
Three Defenders to eight strikers? How is that different, we need more defenders, we don't need more strikers.
How many different ways can you make a tank.
This already shows a distinct lack of understanding of what each role does. Defender does not equal tank. The defenders main job does not require it to soak damage. Instead the main goal of the defender should be to reducing the damage taken by other party members, soaking that damage themselves is only one way for a defender to accomplish that goal. Arguably soaking isn't even the best way to defend as it doesn't usually reduce the amount of the overall damage taken as a whole, thus does not reduce the healing burden of the leader unless the defender has an adequate supply of self healing powers and/or damage negating powers.
That said many defenders have various tank-like qualities (fighter, paladin, warden), but each has other build options as well. One defender class however is distinctly non-tank-like (swordmage), and while it can be built as a pseudo-tank, it works better as a mobility based punisher/denier with strong sub-controller tendencies.
As far as a single weapon dualist being a rogue build that's great but a rogue still is a striker lets think outside the box and come up with something new and fresh that is not a striker or defender.
I still don't see why leader is somehow a more creative choice than defender. Matial has an equal number of defenders and leaders, and among all powers sources the balance is pretty close (with leaders being slightly more numerous). Controller might arguably be more "creative", but matial and controller make for a difficult combination, and the best concepts I've seen for such are distinctly non-finesse based.
Obviously its a homemade class, just incase you couldn't help but need that pointed out.
Where was DragonCat when I was getting burned at the stake in my single weapon user thread??? Seriously, its like people only think its a stupid idea when I say it!
But seriously, yes, a finesse warrior would be appreciated.
Actually, it was exactly your thread that got me thinking about these sorts of things, and eventually coming to conclude that an additional class might be nice, and you might be on to something. But I didn't say it there, because I am the cat who walks by himself, and all threads are alike to me! :P
We need something that can handle some of the traditional styles of combat that just don't see enough loving. Quarterstaves. Quarterstaves are really, really nifty. Single weapon swordplay. Swords are great, but we need something to account for the guy without much armor, with great speed, who actually goes toe-to-toe with the enemy rather than ducking and diving around. Exotic weapon mastery. Deep down, I miss having that one guy at the table who pulled out something that looks like art deco forged in metal, and then beat up monsters with it in the most impractical yet effective manner possible.
Where was DragonCat when I was getting burned at the stake in my single weapon user thread??? Seriously, its like people only think its a stupid idea when I say it!
But seriously, yes, a finesse warrior would be appreciated.
Hmmm, well now that you put it like that it does sound like a really bad idea :P
lol, I think thats because too many people don't bother to post a quick "good idea!" where as if they feel the need to burn you at the stake they're more than willing to say something about it.
I'm 100% sure it should be a defender; not just because it makes it stand out from the Rogue, but because the tactics of a defender is good match for what it means to be a Dualist. A Dualist is not so much a defender because they seek to protect their allies, but more because they seek to challenge an opponent to fight them ("I challenge you to a dual!"), they see a big monster coming after the meek mage and see it as a disgrace, so they deflect the monsters attack and position themselves in between the monster and it's prey, forcing the monster to fight honorably against a willing opponent
This is something I don't think fits into the Rogue's jurisdiction, the martial artist; the Rogue is all about breaking the rules and philosophies of combat, the martial artist is the opposite, they're all about following a code and/or trusting the science of combat. Plus I think their should be fencers who are Int based as apposed to the Cha based Rogue ones
I would like to see the class's two builds being Blade Dancer(Cha) and Weapons Master(Int)
I'm 100% sure it should be a defender; not just because it makes it stand out from the Rogue, but because the tactics of a defender is good match for what it means to be a Dualist. A Dualist is not so much a defender because they seek to protect their allies, but more because they seek to challenge an opponent to fight them ("I challenge you to a dual!"), they see a big monster coming after the meek mage and see it as a disgrace, so they deflect the monsters attack and position themselves in between the monster and it's prey, forcing the monster to fight honorably against a willing opponent
This is something I don't think fits into the Rogue's jurisdiction, the martial artist; the Rogue is all about breaking the rules and philosophies of combat, the martial artist is the opposite, they're all about following a code and/or trusting the science of combat. Plus I think their should be fencers who are Int based as apposed to the Cha based Rogue ones
These are all good points.
I'm definitely a member of the Duelist=Defender camp.
The main problem I see with a Duelest being a defender is that a duel is between two people and how often is an encounter just one creature/person. Almost never This would not be very effective defender against swarms or groups of targets. I see it being something else if it comes at all.
I would do it either two ways;
the first is that this defender would be more focused on going toe to toe with bigger enemies with the Weapons Master build using a single target mark that's super sticky and the Blade Dancer build will be better at fighting off large groups of a small enemies with a weaker multi target mark,
and the other way I might do it, is that I would make the whole class specialize in defending against one opponent at a time and let the Warden be guy who specializes in fighting off hoards
Where was DragonCat when I was getting burned at the stake in my single weapon user thread??? Seriously, its like people only think its a stupid idea when I say it!
But seriously, yes, a finesse warrior would be appreciated.
Hmmm, well now that you put it like that it does sound like a really bad idea :P
lol, I think thats because too many people don't bother to post a quick "good idea!" where as if they feel the need to burn you at the stake they're more than willing to say something about it.
I'm 100% sure it should be a defender; not just because it makes it stand out from the Rogue, but because the tactics of a defender is good match for what it means to be a Dualist. A Dualist is not so much a defender because they seek to protect their allies, but more because they seek to challenge an opponent to fight them ("I challenge you to a dual!"), they see a big monster coming after the meek mage and see it as a disgrace, so they deflect the monsters attack and position themselves in between the monster and it's prey, forcing the monster to fight honorably against a willing opponent
This is something I don't think fits into the Rogue's jurisdiction, the martial artist; the Rogue is all about breaking the rules and philosophies of combat, the martial artist is the opposite, they're all about following a code and/or trusting the science of combat. Plus I think their should be fencers who are Int based as apposed to the Cha based Rogue ones
I would like to see the class's two builds being Blade Dancer(Cha) and Weapons Master(Int)
Don't confine the Rogue into your philosophies of how they work. The Duellist Rogue has a very different flavour from other Artful Dodgers.
The main problem I see with a Duelest being a defender is that a duel is between two people and how often is an encounter just one creature/person. Almost never This would not be very effective defender against swarms or groups of targets. I see it being something else if it comes at all.
This is obviously WotC's logic, as they released the Duellist as a striker build (of the Rogue class).
Don't confine the Rogue into your philosophies of how they work. The Duellist Rogue has a very different flavour from other Artful Dodgers.
This is not scripture, I'm not saying that the Rogue is not a good fencer class or that Dualist would be better for all fencing concepts, it's just my opinion that Sneak Attack does not make a very good key class feature some concepts of the fencer or even being a striker shouldn't be a universal trait of any martial character who fights with grace and cunning. There are lots of fencing/blade dancer archetypes out there and I don't think Rogue should have ownership of all of them.
The main problem I see with a Duelest being a defender is that a duel is between two people and how often is an encounter just one creature/person. Almost never This would not be very effective defender against swarms or groups of targets. I see it being something else if it comes at all.
This is obviously WotC's logic, as they released the Duellist as a striker build (of the Rogue class).
How would it being a striker make it better at fighting swarms or groups of targets?
I like the idea of the duellist defender.
Instead of marking an opponent, how about slowing it instead? That helps the defender bit.
Give build options to push, pull, slide and imobilize and you have secondary controller too.
The odd burst attack for the time you face several opponents at once and maybe a fear effect or the like where you dazzle your opponents with your skill.
The rogue duellist with sneak attach damage is great, but a duellist can be so much more than that.
The main problem I see with a Duelest being a defender is that a duel is between two people and how often is an encounter just one creature/person. Almost never This would not be very effective defender against swarms or groups of targets. I see it being something else if it comes at all.
Just one of the many reasons I prefer the name swashbuckler over duelist for this particular class concept.
The main problem I see with a Duelest being a defender is that a duel is between two people and how often is an encounter just one creature/person. Almost never This would not be very effective defender against swarms or groups of targets. I see it being something else if it comes at all.
Just one of the many reasons I prefer the name swashbuckler over duelist for this particular class concept.
Maybe if the class was only for using a rapier, it might be a better name, but then the class would be way too constricting. At that point you really are just trying to rob the Rogue
I want a warrior who can use Dex to fight with not just rapiers but with Staffs, Spears, Martial Arts, Canes, Whips, Chains, Scimitars and other graceful and exotic weapons
Alternate equipment methods as a basis for a martial class. We already have the Ki focus which, according to the monk, can apply to whatever weapon the character picks up. We also have boons and grandmaster training from the DMG2.
What if there was a swordsage sort of martial character who relied upon Masteries as the source of his power, using his training with whatever weaponry he picked up? The one who would seek out the Ancient Dragon Scroll which contains the ultimate secret of kung fu, or compete for the right to learn the Steel Void Style from the great elder on the mountain, or piece together the fragments of the Book of Nine Swords to discover the supreme fighting technique? And once learned, once mastered, this training could extend to steel and stave, knife and knuckle, allowing him to use his abilities anywhere and with anything? The kind of techniques where fellow masters could see each other's styles just as well as fighters can judge each other by their magic swords, or wizards by their counterpart's implement?
After all, what swashbuckler is complete without the ability to fence an opponent with a candlestick, or strike down a nemesis with a roast turkey leg? What explorer doesn't carry three knives, two hammers, a ten foot staff, and at least three flavors of bombs? What operative goes without twenty different deadly devices dasterdly designed to decimate, decapitate, or defenestrate anything in his path? And what adventurer chooses a single weapon, when he can have a tool for every purpose, a spear for skeletons, a blade for bugbears, a glaive for ghasts, a dirk for dragons?
Half the fun of thinking up a new martial class is musing about how new mechanics could be added, and how the changes they've included well within the game could be channeled to new creative ends...
Alternate equipment methods as a basis for a martial class. We already have the Ki focus which, according to the monk, can apply to whatever weapon the character picks up. We also have boons and grandmaster training from the DMG2.
I have thinking that very thought, I have been playing around with the idea of Dualist being the Ki Focus using Martial class.
I like the Idea, but not if it means that they can do magic effects like make a weapon do fire damage or something; so if there was some way of limiting what kind of Ki foci they can get then I would love to see Dualist as the Martial Ki class
They could also use a mechanic similar to the Psionic Power Points and make a Martial class with no dailies, only augmentable Encounter powers so at first level you either got 1 Daily equivalent or 2 use of something in between Encounter and Daily.
A lot of new twists could be brought to a Martial class.
I have three friends playing Monks on Friday.(shortsword/Unarmed/Staff.)
I want a melee controller, that focuses on blasts, bursts, and fluff-wise uses intimidation to instill fear in his foes. Making people run away, giving them status effects, and even causing them to be under the effects of difficult terrain (although not actually going through it), can all be imagined through examples of movies when people become so afraid that they will do very stupid things.
It not an official class, but IIRC the Dreadnought is at least in part based around such a premise. It also happens to be one of the more well excepted, even popular, Martial Controller homebrews.
I want a melee controller, that focuses on blasts, bursts, and fluff-wise uses intimidation to instill fear in his foes. Making people run away, giving them status effects, and even causing them to be under the effects of difficult terrain (although not actually going through it), can all be imagined through examples of movies when people become so afraid that they will do very stupid things.
It not an official class, but IIRC the Dreadnought is at least in part based around such a premise. It also happens to be one of the more well excepted, even popular, Martial Controller homebrews.
Hmm, I guess I should look that up.
Now a martial controller that is a really cool idea and something totally different is there a link where I could find the dreadnought class? I would like to see it.
They could also use a mechanic similar to the Psionic Power Points and make a Martial class with no dailies, only augmentable Encounter powers so at first level you either got 1 Daily equivalent or 2 use of something in between Encounter and Daily.
A lot of new twists could be brought to a Martial class.
I'm not a fan of Power Points, I think they complicate things more than they need too. And they're sort of Psionics' shtick
I'm all for a class having a new twist, but I don't think it should be too complicated, and Ki focus is wierd enough; Martial is the power source for things being simple, it's a safe haven for the minimalist. Plus this class concept in particular would be about giving players an alternative to finesse combat, so we wouldn't want the class to be too 'advanced' and scare people away
This has probably been mentioned somewhere in the thread already, but a Hexblade. Fell in love with the fluff of that class. Don't care what role, so long as it falls in with the feel of a hexblade...cursing foes with unluck.
Probably a defender primary.
This has probably been mentioned somewhere in the thread already, but a Hexblade. Fell in love with the fluff of that class. Don't care what role, so long as it falls in with the feel of a hexblade...cursing foes with unluck.
I'm not opposed to Hexblade as a class. I enjoyed the concept back in 3.5, however, for 4e I'd just as soon see the Hexblade as a melee build for the Warlock class with more powers like Eldritch Strike. I would see such a build changing out the warlock's sub-controller role for a sub-defender role.
For Shadow Defender I'd rather see something like Blackguard, not as the evil counterpart to the paladin as it was in 3.5, but rather as a dark knight type concept.
- a Dex/Cha based arcane striker; highly mobile, mostly melee based with an enfasis on charging arcane energy and releasing it through his weapon (from light blades for spellswords fans to staves for Gambit/Dart Maul lovers to scarfs and whips) and generally casting spells through gestures more than formulas (possible name "spelldancer")
- a leather based single weapon martial striker; as most others, I think at the moment what the game misses is the archetype of the nimble, mobile swordmaster; a fighter type that sacrifices heavy armor for absolutely phenomenal swordplay and acrobatics.
The core problem about think over classes I may want is that 4e does already and egregious job detailing an enormous number of archetypes.
And while many concepts aren't covered (I generally play the nimble, crazy skilled swordmaster) I fear the risk of trying to create a class for every concept risks to endanger the biggest merit of 4e, which is balance. I generally prefer to play a less-than-fanatic avenger or have weaker DPR GWFighter than bloating the game with redundant classes and power creep.
The core problem about think over classes I may want is that 4e does already and egregious job detailing an enormous number of archetypes.
And while many concepts aren't covered (I generally play the nimble, crazy skilled swordmaster) I fear the risk of trying to create a class for every concept risks to endanger the biggest merit of 4e, which is balance. I generally prefer to play a less-than-fanatic avenger or have weaker DPR GWFighter than bloating the game with redundant classes and power creep.
Sure, but their going to relase more classes or subclasses, and it's good to get a vote on what's wanted. Many of the idea's in here arn't just fluff changes, but are mechanically different from what's already out, like a Dex defender.
Mmmh, what I would like to see:
- a Dex/Cha based arcane striker; highly mobile, mostly melee based with an enfasis on charging arcane energy and releasing it through his weapon (from light blades for spellswords fans to staves for Gambit/Dart Maul lovers to scarfs and whips) and generally casting spells through gestures more than formulas (possible name "spelldancer")
New Sorcerer build?
- a leather based single weapon martial striker; as most others, I think at the moment what the game misses is the archetype of the nimble, mobile swordmaster; a fighter type that sacrifices heavy armor for absolutely phenomenal swordplay and acrobatics.
Duellist Rogue? Tempest Fighter covers the two-weapon form, but Duellist Rogue gets what you're talking about.
The core problem about think over classes I may want is that 4e does already and egregious job detailing an enormous number of archetypes.
And while many concepts aren't covered (I generally play the nimble, crazy skilled swordmaster) I fear the risk of trying to create a class for every concept risks to endanger the biggest merit of 4e, which is balance. I generally prefer to play a less-than-fanatic avenger or have weaker DPR GWFighter than bloating the game with redundant classes and power creep.
Agreed. Let's get more builds for Martial Classes, rather than new martial classes that could easily fit into the old classes.
Sure new builds are great but it would be nice to get an entirely new class that is not tied to an existing class. A new single weapon class would be a very welcome edition to the martial power source. Its a idea not really covered by the existing classes well, sure you can have a one weapon defender or rogue but a new light armor dex/int or cha build that is not a defender or rogue build would be better, be it a striker, leader or controller. I personally would like to see a martial controller (with a secondary role of striker) as there is not one yet but any role other than defender would be great.
First why the hate for one of the least represented roles in the game? (actually the least represented as of right now)
And why reinvent the wheel? If they have a class that can be made to fit a build or character arch, why create a brand new class?
If my calculations are correct the controller is the least repersented role in the game. The second reason if you keep lumping everything that uses one weapon and light armor into the rogue class, it does not do it justice. Not all light armor single weapon character should have sneak attack if they don't use steath why make them a rogue. Another thing is I do not hate defenders as I play one currently but I think that the idea needs a fresh approach. The rogue class desciption says and I quote "Rogues are cunning and elusive adversaries. Rogues slip into and out of shadows on a whim, pass anywhere across the field of battle without fear of reprisal, and appear suddenly only to drive home a lethal blade." If you are talking about a well trained swordman or other weapon using charcter type that does not rely on steath and uses light armor.The rogue just does not fit very well nor does the defender classes. That leaves ranger and warlord both also poor fits. I think this would be a good idea for a new controller class as martial classes do not have one and is the only power source without one. As for reinventing the wheel it does not have to be that difficult. If you read this thread several people have said this type of charcter is lacking from the game. Imo you will see at least one defender class in PHB3, what it will look like I have no idea.
If my calculations are correct the controller is the least repersented role in the game.
Currently:
Stikers(8)- Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Avenger, Sorcerer, Barbarian, Monk, and Assassin
Controllers(5)- Wizard, Invoker, Druid, Psion, and Seeker
Leaders(5)- Warlord, Cleric, Artificer, Bard, and Shaman
Defenders(4)- Fighter, Paladin, Swordmage, and Warden
It makes perfect sense - it's not sneaking up, but an artful attack that requires some trickery and flourish with the blade to get the foe off guard to utilise it.
It's all about imagination and using it to fluff, with powers that play off it. Duellist is best represented as a build of the Rogue. We don't need a build of a Martial Class that exists to emulate the main schtick of another martial class; because the build came first, and placed it where it should be (expand out class builds rather than classes; ask yourself, "does this warrant a new class, or is this really just a build that can fit somewhere else?"), the build should stay and the class is somewhat a flawed concept.
Battlerager VS Barbarian is something similar; however, the Barbarian is a Primal class, and thus has very, very different flavour and feel to it. But we're working with two Martial classes here, which means the feel will be very similar, only they'll a rogue build and a class. Thus we should think about that question, "can I place this in an existing class?" Because if it can fit in an existing class it should be there, even if it means expanding out the class proficiencies, like the Warlord ranged-weapon build will do. Warlords don't normally get full ranged weapon proficiencies, but this one will indubitably give it to them, because the class fits the concept, and it's better to have it within an existing class than to create two classes that are that similar within the same Power Source.
ask yourself, "does this warrant a new class, or is this really just a build that can fit somewhere else?"), the build should stay and the class is somewhat a flawed concept.
Battlerager VS Barbarian is something similar; however, the Barbarian is a Primal class, and thus has very, very different flavour and feel to it.
Yes the swashbuckler/duelist concept does deserve it's own class. It's not a rogue build because it is a defender, not a striker. It's not a Fighter build because it's DEX centered, not STR centered. Those two aspects make it at least as much of a unique class as the barbarian.
Conceptually it might be similar to a hybrid Fighter|Rogue, but it's still different in that its powers and class features should all function together as unified whole. It' doesn't alternate back and forth between tough defender and graceful striker, but instead always functions as a graceful defender.
ask yourself, "does this warrant a new class, or is this really just a build that can fit somewhere else?"), the build should stay and the class is somewhat a flawed concept.
Battlerager VS Barbarian is something similar; however, the Barbarian is a Primal class, and thus has very, very different flavour and feel to it.
Yes the swashbuckler/duelist concept does deserve it's own class. It's not a rogue build because it is a defender, not a striker. It's not a Fighter build because it's DEX centered, not STR centered. Those two aspects make it at least as much of a unique class as the barbarian.
Conceptually it might be similar to a hybrid Fighter|Rogue, but it's still different in that its powers and class features should all function together as unified whole. It' doesn't alternate back and forth between tough defender and graceful striker, but instead always functions as a graceful defender.
Why is it a defender? What does it do that lends itself to the defender role, and why does this sort of class fit best in that role? Just "it's a defender, not a striker" doesn't cut it for making it a new class, when everything else resembles the rogue.
Why is it a defender? What does it do that lends itself to the defender role, and why does this sort of class fit best in that role? Just "it's a defender, not a striker" doesn't cut it for making it a new class, when everything else resembles the rogue.
It sound to me like you have not been reading the ideas that we have been coming up with for the class, at least not mine, because I have already talked about why it makes sense as a defender and also how it's too different from the rogue to fit within the Rogue class
The Dualist class would be able to use non-rogue weapons such as quarterstaves, so I don't see how that fits into the Rogue class
The Dualist uses Int as a secondary stat, so neither Rogue nor Fighter comes to mind
The Dualist can challenge enemies to a dual as a mark, which the Rogue will most likely never be able to do
Many Dualists believe in fighting fare without using stealth or trickery, so unless you're going to give the Rogue the ability to feign every round, which most dualist don't even do that often
Dualist don't care about traps, picking pockets or sneaking around so I don't see why they would be for a class that starts with those skills
Dualist wear light armor and use Dex for their attack, many use rapiers as their weapon of choice; that does not make them Rogues automatically
Sorry about the length.
I swear to god, if I see duelist misspelled one more time, I'm suicide bombing the internets.
Whoops, your right
I always thought dual and duel were spelled the same, they seem like they would have the same origin
Anyways, I really don't think this Duelist class steps on the toes of another class nearly as much as some of the classes that have already been done do.
Why is it a defender? What does it do that lends itself to the defender role, and why does this sort of class fit best in that role? Just "it's a defender, not a striker" doesn't cut it for making it a new class, when everything else resembles the rogue.
It sound to me like you have not been reading the ideas that we have been coming up with for the class, at least not mine, because I have already talked about why it makes sense as a defender and also how it's too different from the rogue to fit within the Rogue class
The Dualist class would be able to use non-rogue weapons such as quarterstaves, so I don't see how that fits into the Rogue class
The Dualist uses Int as a secondary stat, so neither Rogue nor Fighter comes to mind
The Dualist can challenge enemies to a dual as a mark, which the Rogue will most likely never be able to do
Many Dualists believe in fighting fare without using stealth or trickery, so unless you're going to give the Rogue the ability to feign every round, which most dualist don't even do that often
Dualist don't care about traps, picking pockets or sneaking around so I don't see why they would be for a class that starts with those skills
Dualist wear light armor and use Dex for their attack, many use rapiers as their weapon of choice; that does not make them Rogues automatically
The new Warlord build will give Warlords new weapon proficiencies; there's no reason the rogue couldn't get them too.
Why use Intelligence? That's just the same as arbitrarily deciding on a role to place it in to fill out the wheel of classes - because you want a Dex/Int class isn't a good enough reason.
Avenger isolates an enemy in a pseudo-mark; as does the Duellist Rogue. I don't see the reason we need a marking mechanic to have a one-on-one duel. In fact, it makes the Duellist more capable because it's main mechanic doesn't require it all to HAVE to be in a two-man battle; it can still fight against many enemies in a fray, like many a swashbucker has had to have been.
Have a class feature that trades Thievery training for Acrobatics or Perception training. Simple enough.
Considering that Martial Power is about weapons and armour and the exploits you can perform with them, and a build has already been introduced where they utilise light armour, Dexterity, and Rapiers, this seems a lot more like a Rogue build than it's own class.
Not every character who uses dex and wears light armor is a rogue.
I agree with this. A defender with mobility is something we havn't seen enough of. Swordmage can sort of fit that role, as can a persuit avenger, but there's still plenty of room for a full class.
The new Warlord build will give Warlords new weapon proficiencies; there's no reason the rogue couldn't get them too.
Why use Intelligence? That's just the same as arbitrarily deciding on a role to place it in to fill out the wheel of classes - because you want a Dex/Int class isn't a good enough reason.
Quick point I would like to harp on.
Because I refuse to believe that Intelligence is only useful for a single build of a single archetype for the entire martial source. Int has one use and one use only for martial class; taclords. If you want to play a Smart Martial Hero, you have only one option right now, and that is a leader focused on positioning allies. Nothing else. And that is absurd.
In regards to the duelist, there is a precedence; the formulaic approach to combat as if it were a game of chess. Thibault counters Cappa Ferro, stop thrust to deflect feint, different techniques for different situations, and the encyclopedic knowledge of combat as a series of moves which can be logically analyzed and taught. That is the essence of the formal duelist; the idea that you can study combat just as one studies natural philosophy or physics, and the application of the knowledge in question can lead to victory.
Why use Intelligence? That's just the same as arbitrarily deciding on a role to place it in to fill out the wheel of classes - because you want a Dex/Int class isn't a good enough reason.
I'm a little disappointed, usually you're pretty well on the ball about things, but for some reason you are coming off as narrow minded on this subject
The choice of defender as a role and Int as a secondary stat were not "arbitrarily" decided, I have already explained why I chose them for the concept
I like the idea of them being a defender because of several reasons; a Duelist enjoys fighting and does not mind a monster trying to kill em so they're not as quick to end a fight or escape from agro as a striker is, a Duelist believes in a fare fight so if they see a squishy ally being attacked they might feel obligated to draw the beasty(s) off of his allies, and strikers often go after the meeker ranged and support monsters while defenders keep the bigger and more aggressive enemies occupied and picking a fight with other melee combatants would be something a Duelist does more often then going after mages and archers
I chose Int as a secondary for good reasons as well; I see one build of the class, the Weapon Master, representing the truly academic combatant, a cerebral scholar of the science that is battle and a mastery of of one or more weapons, perhaps someone who has never even seen bloodshed yet they have surpassed veterans in skill, I see them as the antithesis of Barbarians because they believe emotion has no place in combat because it will make you predictable and sloppy, they believe that things like armor, great big weapons and brute strength are only crutches to compensate for a lack of technique, knowledge and cunning
I could understand your position if it was just one or two things, but I'm saying it's going to have different weapon profs, secondary stat, class feature, party role which includes HP and defs, skill selection and concept achetypes? The only things this class would even have in common with the Rogue is leather armor, Dex as the attack stat, they share a secondary stat and that they use lighter weaponry, which all could also be said about Monk. And IMO that all a good thing because this class should be able to MC easily with either Monk or Rogue
Why use Intelligence? That's just the same as arbitrarily deciding on a role to place it in to fill out the wheel of classes - because you want a Dex/Int class isn't a good enough reason.
I'm a little disappointed, usually you're pretty well on the ball about things, but for some reason you are coming off as narrow minded on this subject
The choice of defender as a role and Int as a secondary stat were not "arbitrarily" decided, I have already explained why I chose them for the concept
I like the idea of them being a defender because of several reasons; a Duelist enjoys fighting and does not mind a monster trying to kill em so they're not as quick to end a fight or escape from agro as a striker is, a Duelist believes in a fare fight so if they see a squishy ally being attacked they might feel obligated to draw the beasty(s) off of his allies, and strikers often go after the meeker ranged and support monsters while defenders keep the bigger and more aggressive enemies occupied and picking a fight with other melee combatants would be something a Duelist does more often then going after mages and archers
I chose Int as a secondary for good reasons as well; I see one build of the class, the Weapon Master, representing the truly academic combatant, a cerebral scholar of the science that is battle and a mastery of of one or more weapons, perhaps someone who has never even seen bloodshed yet they have surpassed veterans in skill, I see them as the antithesis of Barbarians because they believe emotion has no place in combat because it will make you predictable and sloppy, they believe that things like armor, great big weapons and brute strength are only crutches to compensate for a lack of technique, knowledge and cunning
I could understand your position if it was just one or two things, but I'm saying it's going to have different weapon profs, secondary stat, class feature, party role which includes HP and defs, skill selection and concept achetypes? The only things this class would even have in common with the Rogue is leather armor, Dex as the attack stat, they share a secondary stat and that they use lighter weaponry, which all could also be said about Monk. And IMO that all a good thing because this class should be able to MC easily with either Monk or Rogue
Sorry that I don't live up to your expectations of me. But I feel that the Martial Power source, as it stands, doesn't need any more classes, because the classes they set are broad and more vague than the other classes. If we don't have a narrowminded view about what a rogue is, then we can accept the Duellist as a build of the rogue, which it already is in Dragon Magazine (and based on previous Class Acts articles, if this is early enough, it may well be in Martial Power 2).
A tactician seems more like a Leader or a Controller, and another Int build would be very welcome in my opinion to Martial. I would even love an Int Rogue. I'm a big fan of the old Int Rogue. But I also think that that ship has sailed, at least with Dex/Int being the Duellist Rogue, since they chose Artful Dodger to represent the build's class feature (it gets a lot of love). The Duellist Rogue showed a distinct, non-sneaky usage of Artful Dodger.
I personally feel that there may be room for what you're saying amongst both Fighter and Rogue classes; the Tempest Fighter already uses light armour and light blades, albeit two of them.
Sorry that I came off narrowminded. I just feel that it's important to limit the number of classes, and increase the number of builds. I feel everything you wish to achieve, flavourwise or mechanicswise, could be achieved through builds. Your class feels flavourfully a rogue, but it could also flavourfully be a fighter. Obviously there's a niche for a light weaponed fighter as well. But you create concepts, and then decide what class it fits into. You don't make classes to fit concepts. That's why we don't have an Archer Fighter anymore: the archer fighters are now Archer Rangers, because it plays to their strengths and concepts better.
But you create concepts, and then decide what class it fits into. You don't make classes to fit concepts. That's why we don't have an Archer Fighter anymore: the archer fighters are now Archer Rangers, because it plays to their strengths and concepts better.
I agree with you on that, which is why I wanted the Duelist to be as vague and versatile as the other Martial classes. I'm not one of those people that think "the more the merrier", but I'm not a minimalist either who would want to see a four class system, so I think I just draw the line in a different place than you would
I don't want to see a class for every concept, I too prefer a more elegant class system and I'm annoyed by people wanting a gladiator or samurai class. but I don't think a class should be forced to cover a concept thats only similar in a few ways
In fact, I think the Duelist should be the last Martial class because I can't really think of any other Martial concepts that couldn't be covered by those five classes. Beyond the list of classes I posted in this thread I really don't see a need for any other classes.
Archivist: Divine Leader
But you create concepts, and then decide what class it fits into. You don't make classes to fit concepts.
I think the biggest problem here is simple; there is one dextrous martial class (Well, one and a half, half being purely archery rangers). There are two and a half strong classes.
Saying "Well, it is light/swift, therefore can be fit into the rogue" is akin to saying "all physical two weapon fighting can be done through the fighter, so let's fit 'rangerish' powers into a fighter build" and "well, all these helper powers are using strength and positioning, so lets make a battle commander fighter build, no need for this warlord nonsense".
You make classes out of two things. 1) core mechanics, and 2) concepts. The latter sets the tone, the former allows them to be fleshed out. With that in mind, the question must be asked: do the rogue or fighter's core mechanics reflect the ideas of the concepts presented?
Sneak Attack and the Weapon Talent are the prime features of rogues, the latter ability being present on three out of four martial classes (although rangers call it Fighting Style, warlords get their command style instead). Fighters can make attacks against any marked target that attacks an ally, plus they get their opportunity attack bonus from wisdom and a weapon talent.
From these, I offer the proposition that there is a mechanically and conceptually lacking feature: the ability to parry, intercept, or deflect attacks. Shielding swordmages come closest, with their ability to mitigate damage, but not only is this a very vulgar form of magic, given their range, but it only occurs on a hit. A new marking feature could draw on a paladin's devotion to a single target and have a nod towards the movement control of a warden, but still remain its own martial attribute. A way to focus on a single opponent and most importantly, deflect, redirect, or outright negate their attacks, which no other class can do, would be a magnificent marking ability.
Rogues are too focused on damage, and lack sufficient ability to assist others, rather than simply benefit from them/occassionally grant them combat advantage. Fighters focus too much on damage, their marking being a form of punishment rather than mitigation. Rangers are too damage obsessed, and warlords spend too much time in the gym and not enough juggling.
So we've got a concept of that isn't fully expressed with the current classes, and a mechanic idea tied to it that doesn't have a life within the rules system. That, in a nutshell, is the seed of a potential new class.
Well put Dragoncat. We now have have something that is very different from exisiting martial classes. I think since the rogue has a duelist article and possible build coming we need a new unique name for this new martial class then comes the fleshing out of the mechanics and concepts for builds and powers. Also what role does everyone think the new class should be?
SWASHBUCKLER
Role: Defender. Focuses on mobility, especially flashy and risky stunt-like mobility (the bigger the risk the better the rewards). Uses its mark to deflect enemy attacks and/or make them more vulnerable to allied counter attacks. Leader sub-role that focuses on enhancing allies mobility, enabling and encouraging them to perform stunts similar to those of the swashbuckler (the action is always more exciting with a swashbuckler on the team). Controller sub-role that focuses on provoking enemies into pursuing the swashbuckler into precarious positions (catch me if you dare).
Ability Scores: Dexterity (primary), Intelligence (sub-controller), Charisma (sub-leader)
Armor: Can wear leather, but should have just as much AC in cloth. Gains additional shield-like AC bonuses when wielding a one-handed weapon with the off-hand empty or holding a defensive weapon.
Weapons: Base proficiency with one-handed light and heavy blades, but can still use other weapons.
Well put Dragoncat. We now have have something that is very different from exisiting martial classes. I think since the rogue has a duelist article and possible build coming we need a new unique name for this new martial class then comes the fleshing out of the mechanics and concepts for builds and powers. Also what role does everyone think the new class should be?
SWASHBUCKLER
Role: Defender. Focuses on mobility, especially flashy and risky stunt-like mobility (the bigger the risk the better the rewards). Uses its mark to deflect enemy attacks and/or make them more vulnerable to allied counter attacks. Leader sub-role that focuses on enhancing allies mobility, enabling and encouraging them to perform stunts similar to those of the swashbuckler (the action is always more exciting with a swashbuckler on the team). Controller sub-role that focuses on provoking enemies into pursuing the swashbuckler into precarious positions (catch me if you dare).
Ability Scores: Dexterity (primary), Intelligence (sub-controller), Charisma (sub-leader)
Armor: Can wear leather, but should have just as much AC in cloth. Gains additional shield-like AC bonuses when wielding a one-handed weapon with the off-hand empty or holding a defensive weapon.
Weapons: Base proficiency with one-handed light and heavy blades, but can still use other weapons.
So, Martial Swordmage with a twist?
So, Martial Swordmage with a twist?
If one wanted to be VERY blunt then yes, though I also see the class as having some avenger like characteristics as well.
I could also see using some monk mechanics as well, notably full discipline (or should that be full exploit for a martial class
) would seem an ideal mechanic to steel for my swashbuckler concept. A possible twist might be that sub-leader powers share the special movement option with an ally, while sub-controller powers would share the special movement option with an enemy the swashbuckler has marked (likely with a restriction, such requiring the enemy to end the move adjacent to the swashbuckler or else grant combat advantage against the next attack targeting the enemy).Well put Dragoncat. We now have have something that is very different from exisiting martial classes. I think since the rogue has a duelist article and possible build coming we need a new unique name for this new martial class then comes the fleshing out of the mechanics and concepts for builds and powers. Also what role does everyone think the new class should be?
SWASHBUCKLER
Role: Defender. Focuses on mobility, especially flashy and risky stunt-like mobility (the bigger the risk the better the rewards). Uses its mark to deflect enemy attacks and/or make them more vulnerable to allied counter attacks. Leader sub-role that focuses on enhancing allies mobility, enabling and encouraging them to perform stunts similar to those of the swashbuckler (the action is always more exciting with a swashbuckler on the team). Controller sub-role that focuses on provoking enemies into pursuing the swashbuckler into precarious positions (catch me if you dare).
Ability Scores: Dexterity (primary), Intelligence (sub-controller), Charisma (sub-leader)
Armor: Can wear leather, but should have just as much AC in cloth. Gains additional shield-like AC bonuses when wielding a one-handed weapon with the off-hand empty or holding a defensive weapon.
Weapons: Base proficiency with one-handed light and heavy blades, but can still use other weapons.
The way i imagine this build working, is that it doesn't prevent monsters from moving, so much as it just keeps following them around.
Deft footwork: Once per round, If an enemy adjacent to you and marked by you shifts, you may shift 1 square as a free action. (or some other "follow" option)
Deflect: Once per round, If an enemy adjacent to you and marked by you makes an attack that doesn't include you, you can become the target of that attack. (or some other "disable" option)
Parry: You reduce damage from melee and ranged attacks by you Int mod. (or some other "defense" option)
It's much less about punishing enemies for attacking someone else, and more about reducing their effectiveness. So yea, shielding swordmage with a twist.
Archivist: Divine Leader
Archivist: Divine Leader
Archivist: Divine Leader
I still think the Necromancer would be better served as a controller, but, wathever. Let's wait and see how WotC handles it.
Here is the way I see it, it's should be a leader for three reasons; one is that we need more anti-leaders by that I mean darker and less compassionate healers, and secondly Necromancer would be too similar to Wizard if it was a controller, and lastly I for one like it when a power source has all four roles, but not because of symmetry, I just like that if I was to come up with an idea for a Shadow Leader or just a dark/creepy leader in general there would be a class that would likely be used to reflavor into what I want.
For example if I was wanting to play a Shaman, but more of an dark Shaman witch doctor type who focuses on the importance of death in cycles of nature and how death empowers the living and thus wanted to be a leader, I would either have to wait until such a build for shaman comes along or I could use another class and call it a Shaman, and a Shadow leader would be good for that.
DUELIST. With an 'E'. They fight DUELS. DUAL is an adjective referring to a grouping of two.
Thank you.
*walks off stage*
I swear to god, if I see duelist misspelled one more time, I'm suicide bombing the internets.
*steps onto the stage*
DUELIST. With an 'E'. They fight DUELS. DUAL is an adjective referring to a grouping of two.
Thank you.
*walks off stage*
You're behind me by about two pages on that one, Sal. Thanks for the back up, though? =P
I still think the Necromancer would be better served as a controller, but, wathever. Let's wait and see how WotC handles it.
Here is the way I see it, it's should be a leader for three reasons; one is that we need more anti-leaders by that I mean darker and less compassionate healers, and secondly Necromancer would be too similar to Wizard if it was a controller, and lastly I for one like it when a power source has all four roles, but not because of symmetry, I just like that if I was to come up with an idea for a Shadow Leader or just a dark/creepy leader in general there would be a class that would likely be used to reflavor into what I want.
For example if I was wanting to play a Shaman, but more of an dark Shaman witch doctor type who focuses on the importance of death in cycles of nature and how death empowers the living and thus wanted to be a leader, I would either have to wait until such a build for shaman comes along or I could use another class and call it a Shaman, and a Shadow leader would be good for that.
Creepy shadow leader would be cool, but i don't think necromancer should be the one to do it. He really should be a controller, with summons(beast master/spirit companion-esk), and ally/summon sacrifice powers (like the team damaging warlock).
Perhaps a the shadow leader can be a Witch, who can brew potions and give out weird bonuses (grow a third eye for perception, fangs for damage). Or a tarrot card reader, that has chaos mage like effects.
Creepy shadow leader would be cool, but i don't think necromancer should be the one to do it. He really should be a controller, with summons(beast master/spirit companion-esk), and ally/summon sacrifice powers (like the team damaging warlock).
The artificer class proves that leaders can also have summons. I like the idea of the Necromancer have a darklock like build, though I think the idea of a leader that mixes party restoration with party life drain could make for a unique dynamic.
Perhaps a the shadow leader can be a Witch, who can brew potions and give out weird bonuses (grow a third eye for perception, fangs for damage). Or a tarrot card reader, that has chaos mage like effects.
Personally I think the concept of a witch might fit better with the controller role. Notably in the tendencies of witches to use transformation as a curse. A series of baleful polymorph type effects allowing the witch curse enemies with debilitating forms.
Creepy shadow leader would be cool, but i don't think necromancer should be the one to do it. He really should be a controller, with summons(beast master/spirit companion-esk), and ally/summon sacrifice powers (like the team damaging warlock).
The artificer class proves that leaders can also have summons. I like the idea of the Necromancer have a darklock like build, though I think the idea of a leader that mixes party restoration with party life drain could make for a unique dynamic.Perhaps a the shadow leader can be a Witch, who can brew potions and give out weird bonuses (grow a third eye for perception, fangs for damage). Or a tarrot card reader, that has chaos mage like effects.
Personally I think the concept of a witch might fit better with the controller role. Notably in the tendencies of witches to use transformation as a curse. A series of baleful polymorph type effects allowing the witch curse enemies with debilitating forms.
Perhaps they just want to say a necromancer is both leader and controller. Most classes already have a sub-role, making more of a 50/50 split wouldn't be bad.
Perhaps they just want to say a necromancer is both leader and controller. Most classes already have a sub-role, making more of a 50/50 split wouldn't be bad.
Agreed. While my preference would be to see the necromancer be a leader/sub-controller, I would be satisfied if it were a controller/sub-leader.
As for Duellist, I've been calling it that the entire time.
I MIGHT be able to get behind the most recent Swashbuckler concept raised. It still feels a bit too close to the Duellist Rogue build, but Tempest Fighter has similarities to Two-Blade Ranger...
I'd like to propose a Dream-seer sort of class, one that manipulates your dreams and nightmares through the shadows as a Shadow Leader. I fleshed out this class concept months and months ago in this forum and a couple others as well.
I'd like to propose a Dream-seer sort of class, one that manipulates your dreams and nightmares through the shadows as a Shadow Leader. I fleshed out this class concept months and months ago in this forum and a couple others as well.
Sounds interesting. Though I'm having difficulty envisioning it as a useful combat class.
Perhaps they just want to say a necromancer is both leader and controller. Most classes already have a sub-role, making more of a 50/50 split wouldn't be bad.
Agreed. While my preference would be to see the necromancer be a leader/sub-controller, I would be satisfied if it were a controller/sub-leader.
I'm not suggesting a x/sub-y so much as a hybrid x|y, like with ritual casting and 1 heal per encounter (instead of the 2). I don't see why everything needs to stick to the 4 roles.
Oh, and something not on the list, a hopilite, though i could see that as a sub-duelist (mobile defender).
I MIGHT be able to get behind the most recent Swashbuckler concept raised. It still feels a bit too close to the Duellist Rogue build, but Tempest Fighter has similarities to Two-Blade Ranger...
Agreed, I think the gallant swashbuckler concept is better represented by the Rogue
I'd like to propose a Dream-seer sort of class, one that manipulates your dreams and nightmares through the shadows as a Shadow Leader. I fleshed out this class concept months and months ago in this forum and a couple others as well.
I was thinking that would be the concept behind a Beguiler build, manipulating the shadow within people's minds, infecting them with dark thoughts and visions
I see the Beguiler as similar to the Assassin in that they're sort of magical rogue types, but the Beguiler is not a killer or even a combatant for that matter, the Beguiler is more often a con-artist and/or a thief who uses shadow magic to infiltrate and manipulate, like Wormtongue from LotR
I'm not suggesting a x/sub-y so much as a hybrid x|y, like with ritual casting and 1 heal per encounter (instead of the 2). I don't see why everything needs to stick to the 4 roles.
I think that the hybrid roles should be left to actual hybrid classes. If WotC starts introducing standard classes with hybrid roles the interaction could get messy. What happens when someone decides to hybrid your necromancer concept with say another theoretical class that is a 50/50 defender+striker? Would the resulting 25/25/25/25 controller+defender+leader+striker be too potent, or would it be so lacking in specialization as to be next useless?
I MIGHT be able to get behind the most recent Swashbuckler concept raised. It still feels a bit too close to the Duellist Rogue build, but Tempest Fighter has similarities to Two-Blade Ranger...
Agreed, I think the gallant swashbuckler concept is better represented by the RogueI'd like to propose a Dream-seer sort of class, one that manipulates your dreams and nightmares through the shadows as a Shadow Leader. I fleshed out this class concept months and months ago in this forum and a couple others as well.
I was thinking that would be the concept behind a Beguiler build, manipulating the shadow within people's minds, infecting them with dark thoughts and visions
I see the Beguiler as similar to the Assassin in that they're sort of magical rogue types, but the Beguiler is not a killer or even a combatant for that matter, the Beguiler is more often a con-artist and/or a thief who uses shadow magic to infiltrate and manipulate, like Wormtongue from LotR
I could see it either way. Getting in touch with your inner shadow self, the part of yourself you reject because it's dark and painful, is a psychological healing process. It could work as a Leader concept as well. It would be cool in a Beguiller build though. I'm really adamant about the Beguiller being the Shadow Controller, but I don't see any problems with having two Shadow Controllers. We're probably going to see a second Shadow striker, in any case (because they'll want a striker for PH4's Shadow classes).
I hope that the Hexblade will appear in PH4 though as the Shadow Defender. The fact that Shadow powers are called Hexes lends it to do that, even.
I hope that the Hexblade will appear in PH4 though as the Shadow Defender. The fact that Shadow powers are called Hexes lends it to do that, even.
Maybe it's a little hypocritical of me, but here's a taste of your own medicine. Personally I'd much rather see hexblade concept as a melee build for Warlocks. We already have the start with powers like Eldritch Strike. Technically speaking though what I want would be more of a theme than a build, as I'm not interested in hexblade having a unique pact feature, but rather just a series of melee powers with a mix both generic and specific to the already existent pacts.
For shadow defender I would much rather see something based on the concept of a blackguard. Not the part of their concept related to being a fallen paladin, the 3.5 prestige class wasn't even required to have ever had any paladin levels after all. Given how heavily 4e's assassin draws inspiration from it's 3.5 namesake, I feel that the blackguard could do much the same.
Blackguard's image of a black knight in plate armor, hexblade's dark energies and curses.
Nothing says that the two ideas can't be combined; a heavily armored Dread Knight who calls down baleful curses upon his foes and channels profane energy as he wades through combat, battle axe reaping souls.
Blackguard's image of a black knight in plate armor, hexblade's dark energies and curses.
This is true, and to some extent that is exactly what I want out of Blackguard as a shadow defender.
However I (and probably others) also want something like the lightly armored hexblade as first presented in 3.5's Complete Warrior. While that concept could be shadow, I personally would much rather see it remain arcane, at which point I feel that it has sufficient conceptual overlap with the warlock that they might as well be the same class. Also I don't feel that the original flavor of the hexblade lends itself well to defender as a primary role, it always seemed more aggressive and striker like to me, however, I do feel that if hexblade were a sub-build of warlock that it should favor defender as a sub-role over the standard warlock's more typical sub-controller tendencies.
Personally I'd much rather see hexblade concept as a melee build for Warlocks. We already have the start with powers like Eldritch Strike. Technically speaking though what I want would be more of a theme than a build, as I'm not interested in hexblade having a unique pact feature, but rather just a series of melee powers with a mix both generic and specific to the already existent pacts.
For shadow defender I would much rather see something based on the concept of a blackguard. Not the part of their concept related to being a fallen paladin, the 3.5 prestige class wasn't even required to have ever had any paladin levels after all. Given how heavily 4e's assassin draws inspiration from it's 3.5 namesake, I feel that the blackguard could do much the same.
That was something I thought about too...
But the thing is, how do you explain a non-evil Blackguard? IMO without them being evil the concept kinda falls on its face. And I think the Hexblade could take on a little of the old Blackguard archetype, as a way of preserving it for all the dark knight fans out there.
And I get the Warlock thing, but the Shadow's powers are already called hexes, so you might as well have Hexblade as a Shadow class, it would sorta be weird if we didn't. I'm not really in love with the name Hexblade but it's a name we all know so thats why I use it.
So here's my idea for the Hexblade, which I think is pretty unique; the Hexblade are not evil by choice, they are born cursed with the mark of shadow, and they must learn to control it or let it be their doom. Unlike many other classes, the power of the Hexblade is never sought after, to some it is more burdensome than it is empowering; the curse draws evil closer to it's bearer at all times, beckoning forth destruction and woe to those around the Hexblade. Nearly all Hexblades are feared and some are even hunted because death and affliction are said to follow in their footsteps. Few Hexblades survive past childhood, only those with the will to deny fate and to take command of the shadow inside them can overcome the trials of the curse bearer. These haunted outcasts can control the blight that surrounds them and can focus it against the evil the curse attracts. A surprising amount of Hexblades choose good over evil, perhaps it is because they're constantly under assault from evil that they choose to fight it wherever it dwells, perhaps they seek to redeem the pain and woe their existence causes and prove to the world that they're not the pawns of darkness
I like the idea of the Hexblade being a defender, because I like the idea of a defender who not so much into challenging enemies so much as just attracts them, and not so much into protecting people but more just weakens enemies that don't heed the call of the curse
That list I posted was not just me throwing a name on to a role and power source, I've got this whole thing figured out, I've got whatever you can think of covered.
But the thing is, how do you explain a non-evil Blackguard?
You mean a Paladin?
But the thing is, how do you explain a non-evil Blackguard? IMO without them being evil the concept kinda falls on its face. And I think the Hexblade could take on a little of the old Blackguard archetype, as a way of preserving it for all the dark knight fans out there.
The same way you have non-evil assassins and non-evil infernal/dark pact warlocks. Just because a character gained power as the result of a deal with the devil (whether literally or only figuratively) does not mean that character holds an allegiance to evil as alignment. Think heroes such as Ghostrider or Spawn.
And I get the Warlock thing, but the Shadow's powers are already called hexes, so you might as well have Hexblade as a Shadow class, it would sorta be weird if we didn't. I'm not really in love with the name Hexblade but it's a name we all know so thats why I use it.
Hex is also a synonym of curse, and curse is one of warlocks primary mechanics. I'd probably rename my conceptual theme/build curseblade to avoid confusion, but I'd still use flavor akin to the old hexblade class.
I like the idea of the Hexblade being a defender, because I like the idea of a defender who not so much into challenging enemies so much as just attracts them, and not so much into protecting people but more just weakens enemies that don't heed the call of the curse
That's an interesting idea, though I don't much care for it. I prefer a more proactive class by default fluff, though I don't mind if players choose to refluff in that manner.
But the thing is, how do you explain a non-evil Blackguard?
You mean a Paladin?
An evil paladin is not necessarily the same concept as a blackguard. The pladin class has too much focus on healing and otherwise aiding their allies. I see the blackguard as a much more aggressive defender, sub-striker instead of the paladin's sub-leader. Most importantly though I want a dark knight class that doesn't have to worship an evil deity just to be dark and edgy.
Ardent Paladins can sub striker, and they do it pretty well.
True, but even ardent paladins are more like a crusader that deals righteous violence unto their enemies rather than a proper dark knight. Also I'd rather see a blackguard sub-striker through imposing debilitating conditions rather than just dealing lots of damage, however, paladins are more likely to buff themselves or their allies than debilitate their enemies.
Can the paladin be used to build a passable blackguard? Yes, but I fell their is still room for a full dark knight archetype class.
I would prefer the light armor hexblade but for me its a pure concept thing as how I would visualize the character.
That's a fine reason. Personally though, I think the shadow power source already has enough light armor concepts (assassin, necromancer, beguiler). Even the game as whole seems to have more light armor class (ranger, rogue, avenger, all arcane and primal classes, psion, monk). Not only are heavy armor classes out number, but the heaviest armor of all, plate, only has one class with automatic proficiency. The way I see it we could use more knight archetypes, and dark knight seems good candidate.
But as it stands now I hope they takes the idea of the hexblade and seperate the blade aspect of the name, as it would be very similiar to the swordmage (except we have no clue on their mark crunch), A Hexknight sounds more like a direction to go with the Shadow defender if there is going to be one. Hexblade as a name can still be used as a build or paragon path.
As for the marking mechanic I would really like it to avoid the pitfall of the paladin's DC and the swordmages aegis in favor of a mark that allows them to punish those violate their mark. Not to mention the synergy with fighter/warden MC feats and with bards and other leaders ability to mark a foe for the defender.
I would like to see another martial class, but the archtypes are very limited as is and the idea of a martial controller (while interesting) ruffles a lot of peoples skins. As it stands martial has 4 classes and with what we are seeing from the PHB3 and what PHB 2 did we are likely to see 4 psionic classes, a divine class and a primal class, putting those power sources closer to the the number that arcane has.
I would rather not see anymore arcane classes as it still reminds me of the old anything you can do the wizard can do better with spells and still cast other spell while doing it from previous editions (stange part is I usually was the one doing it as almost no one else would play a wizard in my groups)
In the future I would be interested in an alternative to the hybrid system we are looking at in the PHB3 in favor of some power source splicing such as a divine/martial paladin, a martial/primal ranger, or an shadow/arcane assasin.
You mean a Paladin?
Exactly my point; there is no non-evil Blackguard
The same way you have non-evil assassins and non-evil infernal/dark pact warlocks. Just because a character gained power as the result of a deal with the devil (whether literally or only figuratively) does not mean that character holds an allegiance to evil as alignment. Think heroes such as Ghostrider or Spawn.
IMO the whole deal with the devil origin is getting old, we can't use that for every class that has evil powers, all that would do is water down the theme as a whole. I think new classes should have new origins, not just steal other classes.
I also think it's a little silly that there would be fallen Paladins and risen? Blackguards, I don't why, that just seems weird.
Hex is also a synonym of curse, and curse is one of warlocks primary mechanics. I'd probably rename my conceptual theme/build curseblade to avoid confusion, but I'd still use flavor akin to the old hexblade class.
No, i'm not saying that the Warlock build would step on the Shadow power source's toes, I'm saying that the Shadow power source has already stepped on the Warlock's toes so you might as well have a Hexblade class, if only to justify naming the powers hexes
You may remember that I made the Hexblade Cha based with Str or Int as secondaries, but I'm still not sure if that's right; I want there to be heavy armor build and a light armor build, I want it to MC well with Paladin, Sorcerer and Warlock, I wanted a will stat to be it's attack stat because they control their power with willpower and emotion. I might switch Str for Wis so that is can MC better with Avenger
That's an interesting idea, though I don't much care for it. I prefer a more proactive class by default fluff, though I don't mind if players choose to refluff in that manner.
Being proactive is what the class would be all about; the Hexblade is only able to become who they are by not being a victim and choosing to retaliate against the darkness. I was thinking it might be cool if the only way a Hexblade can control the blight is through anger, so those that for many reasons seek vengeance on evil itself, they are the ones who can use the blight against their foes by focusing their hate the curse is vented onto the bad guys. It would make for interesting characters, seeing how many Hexblades would be crusaders for justice yet at the same time they must rely on hate and apathy in order to spare their allies from the blight's power, pretty much a fool-proof formula for anti-hero goodness that has yet to be done
The same way you have non-evil assassins and non-evil infernal/dark pact warlocks. Just because a character gained power as the result of a deal with the devil (whether literally or only figuratively) does not mean that character holds an allegiance to evil as alignment. Think heroes such as Ghostrider or Spawn.
IMO the whole deal with the devil origin is getting old, we can't use that for every class that has evil powers, all that would do is water down the theme as a whole. I think new classes should have new origins, not just steal other classes.
I also think it's a little silly that there would be fallen Paladins and risen? Blackguards, I don't why, that just seems weird.
Again it's not that there are RISEN blackguards, It's that the new blackgaurd would not be innately evil to begin with. Their powers might be dark, and they might have acquired them through questionable means, but they would not be required to hold any particular allegiance. They would not be BLACK=EVIL, but rather BLACK=SHADOW. Paladins are no longer innately good, and Assassins are no longer innately evil, so why should the the blackguard still be stereotyped by the past?
Also, I don't see how the deal with the "devil" (which doesn't have to be literal) origin in danger of getting over played. Only 2 out of 20+ classes explicitly use that kind origin, unless you count divine classes that worship evil deities.
You mean a Paladin?
Exactly my point; there is no non-evil Blackguard
No, that's exactly my point. An non-evil Blackguard is a Paladin. An evil Paladin is a Blackguard. The Paladin class no longer has any alignment restrictions, so if you play an evil Paladin, that's a Blackguard. I'm not sure what's wrong with this. The last thing I want in 4E is for stupid alignment restrictions to come back...
Again it's not that there are RISEN blackguards, It's that the new blackgaurd would not be innately evil to begin with. Their powers might be dark, and they might have acquired them through questionable means, but they would not be required to hold any particular allegiance. They would not be BLACK=EVIL, but rather BLACK=SHADOW. Paladins are no longer innately good, and Assassins are no longer innately evil, so why should the the blackguard still be stereotyped by the past?
But all you're doing is just reusing the Assassin's fluff, it's lazy and it makes the entire theme less inspiring. It's not just that it's redundant, it that its a hand wave to explain how a person with evil powers is not evil, and if you use the same hand wave too many times people start to see it for what it really is an excuse.Also, I don't see how the deal with the "devil" (which doesn't have to be literal) origin in danger of getting over played. Only 2 out of 20+ classes explicitly use that kind origin, unless you count divine classes that worship evil deities.
Because of how specific this origin is and its hand wavy nature, I would say it's at risk of being over played much more than other origins, and when you're suggesting that two classes in the same power source use it, the whole ghost rider origin idea just becomes a joke.
But all you're doing is just reusing the Assassin's fluff, it's lazy and it makes the entire theme less inspiring. It's not just that it's redundant, it that its a hand wave to explain how a person with evil powers is not evil, and if you use the same hand wave too many times people start to see it for what it really is an excuse.
Really? Having classes in the same power source have similar origins for their powers is lazy? Because all martial class don't get their powers from a blend of physical powers and conditioned training. Because all divine class don't unlock their prowess through through religious rituals. Because all primal classes aren't imbued by the primal spirits. Wait, it seems that most classes in the same power source do indeed have similar origins. Their reason for acquiring power, or the particulars of how they hone them may vary, but the origins are quite similar
As for it being a handwave, given the nature of the shadowfel, to which most people attribute shadow powers to, and given that we already have the assassin and that the necromancer is another likely shadow class, it would seem to me that such handwaves may well be a common theme of the shadow power source.
Really? Having classes in the same power source have similar origins for their powers is lazy? Because all martial class don't get their powers from a blend of physical powers and conditioned training. Because all divine class don't unlock their prowess through through religious rituals. Because all primal classes aren't imbued by the primal spirits. Wait, it seems that most classes in the same power source do indeed have similar origins. Their reason for acquiring power, or the particulars of how they hone them may vary, but the origins are quite similar
Did you really think that I meant that classes in the same power source getting their power from the same power source was redundant? Thats just insulting, regardless of how sarcastic the comment was.
The class's reason and method of acquiring and honing their powers is exactly what i'm talking about, and when classes in the same power source start just repeating the same specific story it's very lazy writing.
It's not only that they "may vary" it's that they should vary.
As for it being a handwave, given the nature of the shadowfel, to which most people attribute shadow powers to, and given that we already have the assassin and that the necromancer is another likely shadow class, it would seem to me that such handwaves may well be a common theme of the shadow power source.
I'm not against hand waves, the being born with their powers and controlling them with anger origin I came up with for the Hexblade is a hand wave to allow them to be dark apathetic knights with evil powers and yet at the same time be good aligned; I just made sure to give them a different origin than the other shadow classes, because it makes the Assassin more of it's own class as well as the hexblade, it empowers their origins by making each one more unique, and gives the player more variety and depth which distracts from them being hand waves
Here's what I think would work; just Make the Blackguard a Paladin build, it should be a divine class anyways, the paladin's origin makes for a good excuse as to them having evil powers because Paladins are stuck with the powers they're given now. That way you're adding on to whats already there, not just copying and repeating something to the point of it being a joke.
No, we need a Hexblade, not a Blackguard, as our Shadow Defender. I can understand the desire for a melee Warlock, and that would be a great element to further in a future Arcane Power 2 or something, along with maybe another pact or so (Pact with Djinn and Efreet "Genie Pact," perhaps?), but I feel there's conceptual room for the actual Hexblade to go ahead and be our Shadow Defender, especially with the Shadow powers being called Hexes. I wish they were called Mysteries, but that ship has sailed. In any case, Mysteries could be a daily of the Beguiller or some other class that eats the Shadowcaster (I like the name Shadoweaver, but...).
Just as there's a Barbarian-like Fighter build (Battlerager), and there's a Ranger like Barbarian build (Whirling Barbarian), there's room for overlap in some basic concepts across power sources. However, when you get to overlap within a power source, that's where it get's tricky. The Bow Warlord should, and I'm sure it will, feel very different from the Archer Ranger. However, that's why I'm hesitant about the Swashbuckler defender with the Duellist Rogue in existance. There may be room, but only if they can be significantly different in fluff as well as mechanics.
Here's what I think would work; just Make the Blackguard a Paladin build, it should be a divine class anyways, the paladin's origin makes for a good excuse as to them having evil powers because Paladins are stuck with the powers they're given now. That way you're adding on to whats already there, not just copying and repeating something to the point of it being a joke.
Yet I don't see any reason the blackgaurd concept should need to be religious in the first place. Paladins, even those that worship evil deities, are divine champions that fight for the glory of their divine patron. While some blackguards might worship a dark or unsavory deity, I don't see that being any different than a wizard that worships Ioun or a druid that worships Malora. They do so because the deity presides over a related sphere or because they personally find some merit in the deity's tenants, not because they draw power from the deity.
The blackguard shouldn't be the anti-paladin because they are the champion of an evil deity, but because they are champion to no one but themself. Their motivations should have little to do with the veneration of a higher power, instead their cause is far more selfish and self-serving. While the paladin's power comes from faith in their god, the blackguard has faith only in himself. The blackguard might have benevolent goals, such as protecting their homeland, but they gained their powers so as be able to take matters into their own hands rather than put fate in the distant and seemingly uncaring gods.
I don't have rules for a hexblade, atleast not as a defender (if they were to make it a striker (bad idea imo) it would step on warlock toes some).
Unless of course it was the warlock (using melee instead of ranged powers and with an emphasis on sub-defender rather than sub-controller), hard to step on your own toes.
The strange thing is that I can remember a time when blackguard was the popular choice on these boards for shadow defender and people were trying to build melee warlocks to recreate the old hexblade. Oddly enough, back then my opinion was the reverse of what it is now. So I'm not just pining for the old anti-paladin out of some misguided sense of nostalgia, as my opinion is something I have come to after much long thought.
Yes, i know this is what classes do you want, but its a combo that can surprisingly work in the meantime.
Choose a race with con, and go Hybrid Swordmage|Warlock, going shielding, and either pick up warding or a pact (a CON based one) or paragon hybrid for both.
Yes, i know this is what classes do you want, but its a combo that can surprisingly work in the meantime.
Very true, and a good point. I still find it easier to create a blackguard with existing rules, then the hexblade, but I guess both can be made just fine.
I'm fine if the Blackguard is the(a) shadow defender, but I would prefer the hexblade. Partially for the nostalgia of the class I so loved before. Both have decent stories and background options, however I think the blackguard is a little more limiting then the hexblade. And I feel the hexblade is more unique, in play and background oprotuities, as I feel the black guard will be a paladin with necrotic energy instead of radiant (hopefully I'm wrong if the blackguard is released, but I think it will be all to easy to slip into)
So here's my idea for the Hexblade, which I think is pretty unique; the Hexblade are not evil by choice, they are born cursed with the mark of shadow, and they must learn to control it or let it be their doom. Unlike many other classes, the power of the Hexblade is never sought after, to some it is more burdensome than it is empowering; the curse draws evil closer to it's bearer at all times, beckoning forth destruction and woe to those around the Hexblade. Nearly all Hexblades are feared and some are even hunted because death and affliction are said to follow in their footsteps. Few Hexblades survive past childhood, only those with the will to deny fate and to take command of the shadow inside them can overcome the trials of the curse bearer. These haunted outcasts can control the blight that surrounds them and can focus it against the evil the curse attracts. A surprising amount of Hexblades choose good over evil, perhaps it is because they're constantly under assault from evil that they choose to fight it wherever it dwells, perhaps they seek to redeem the pain and woe their existence causes and prove to the world that they're not the pawns of darkness
I like the idea of the Hexblade being a defender, because I like the idea of a defender who not so much into challenging enemies so much as just attracts them, and not so much into protecting people but more just weakens enemies that don't heed the call of the curse
This. Man, just send this thing to Wizards and demand that they release it. If they don't. I´ll suicide-bomb their building. C'mon, this must have been the awesomest idea for a hexblade that I've ever seen. Seriously, I was never in agreement with the idea of the class, but this puts so much flavor in it that now I can't imagine how it hasn't been done before!
One thing I like is the flavor of the Assasin trading a piece of his soul for a piece of pure Shadow. I like that theme and I'd like to see another Shadow class who trade something else... like a guy who nearly died and got a piece of Shadow transplanted to replace his heart or something... its something I just randomly came up with but I think it could be spiffy.
Oooh I like McNancy's Hexblade idea too. Pretty spiffy.
One thing I like is the flavor of the Assasin trading a piece of his soul for a piece of pure Shadow. I like that theme and I'd like to see another Shadow class who trade something else... like a guy who nearly died and got a piece of Shadow transplanted to replace his heart or something... its something I just randomly came up with but I think it could be spiffy.
Another hand here for McNancy's Hexblade. I would LOVE it if the Beguiller traded his/her heart for shadow, and thus is ever veiled in lies, always deceiving the world and never showing it his/her true feelings.
Oooh I like McNancy's Hexblade idea too. Pretty spiffy.
One thing I like is the flavor of the Assasin trading a piece of his soul for a piece of pure Shadow. I like that theme and I'd like to see another Shadow class who trade something else... like a guy who nearly died and got a piece of Shadow transplanted to replace his heart or something... its something I just randomly came up with but I think it could be spiffy.
Another hand here for McNancy's Hexblade. I would LOVE it if the Beguiller traded his/her heart for shadow, and thus is ever veiled in lies, always deceiving the world and never showing it his/her true feelings.
Fantastic idea there... they would get Bluff as an automatic class skill and get a class feature bonus in addition to using CHA as an attack stat.
An Assassin trades a bit of soul, morality, purpose, all for power.....a beguiler trades heart, empathy, true connections with others, gaining mastery over deception......
The dreaded shades trade away their future prosperity, their fortune, their luck in exchange for mastery over entropy and catastrophe. Calamity befalls their foes, misfortune shines along their blades, and all that stands before them falls to ruin. They bring disaster unto their enemies, yet also unto themselves, for they walk the knife edge of oblivion to grasp the mastery of that which is doom.
< Dragoncat: It's better to stress the nature of the Shadow source as Dark, Mysterious, and Forbidden, rather than Evil. >
QFT.
In previous editions, the Blackguard is the same thing as an Evil Paladin. In 4e, this concept is the same thing as a Paladin build without any alignment restrictions. But if it evolves into something saliently differernt from a Paladin, it should probably use the Shadow power source, which again would lack any alignment restrictions.
The Beguiller utilises shadows to create dark illusory deceptions, always veiling their hearts and minds. It would probably be the most Shadowcaster like class in Shadow.
Im having trouble with the Beguiler concept. Why would it use the Shadow power source and not the Psionic power source?
It used to be Arcane, which was definitely not Psionic.
I can see the design space for two manipulative casters, especially if the Psion stays in Telepathy and Telekinesis. Though we do have lots of charm, fear, illusion and psychic spells coming from a number of different classes these days.
Hmmmm....
An Assassin trades a bit of soul, morality, purpose, all for power.....a beguiler trades heart, empathy, true connections with others, gaining mastery over deception......
Oooh...taking this further the Beguiler could have a class skill where he gets a +2 to Bluff, be able to use INT for Perception and gets to use his own Bluff check to oppose the Bluff of other (as in 'I know how to lie, you can't use that trick on me) so they have no use of WIS and thus suck at Insight. Just without the Insight penalty ;) INT and CON would be the possible secondary? Or maybe DEX?
The dreaded shades trade away their future prosperity, their fortune, their luck in exchange for mastery over entropy and catastrophe. Calamity befalls their foes, misfortune shines along their blades, and all that stands before them falls to ruin. They bring disaster unto their enemies, yet also unto themselves, for they walk the knife edge of oblivion to grasp the mastery of that which is doom.
Hmm... maybe a sort of tragic figure who lost everything dear, who feels his future his dark and gloomy to begin with so he trades any future he has for power to exact a specific cause, what ever that is. His own personal happiness is forfeited for the sake of a goal that might or might not bring peace to others.
I like the idea that the Shadow power source is about giving up a part of you that makes you 'human' (for lack of better term) for power for whatever reasons you might have.
Like I said, the bargaining thing belongs to the Assassin and it should stay that way.
What do you think of this; the Beguilers heart and mind are not traded away, their heart is twisted and transformed by tragedy. The Beguiler understands the evil that lurks in the hearts of all better than anyone, it's how they are able to make their enemies' worst dreams come true, and they understand this dark part of all our souls because they have been to it's deepest depths in their own life. At some point in a Beguiler's past, they experience a event so painful or commit a act so dire that it sunders them on a spiritual level, loss, regret, fear, suffering or even madness so unheard of that it deforms their hearts into withered husks and their minds into a mind of pure shadow, and in so they become in touch with the Shadowfell and the darkness within us all.
This talk of Beguilers having no heart is deliciously sad, It reminds me of the Grinch. I like the idea of them being almost pitiful lonely people. It has inspired me
Like I said, the bargaining thing belongs to the Assassin and it should stay that way.
What do you think of this; the Beguilers heart and mind are not traded away, their heart is twisted and transformed by tragedy. The Beguiler understands the evil that lurks in the hearts of all better than anyone, it's how they are able to make their enemies' worst dreams come true, and they understand this dark part of all our souls because they have been to it's deepest depths in their own life. At some point in a Beguiler's past, they experience a event so painful or commit a act so dire that it sunders them on a spiritual level, loss, regret, fear, suffering or even madness so unheard of that it deforms their hearts into withered husks and their minds into a mind of pure shadow, and in so they become in touch with the Shadowfell and the darkness within us all.
Even better. It's so fun bouncing ideas off you, McNancy. I would suggest that we make sure that this ties back thematically into lying and trickery though, rather than just emo-ness. It's great for the Beguiller to be dark and twisted by tragedy, but we need to make sure that that twistedness leads to them sealing away their true thoughts and emotions, rather than wallowing in despair. But I like this a lot. Much better than trading the heart for shadow. Makes more sense, psychologically.
Also, the Cunning Bard and the Illusionist and Charms Wizards do similar things as the Telepathic Psion as well. This is something cross-source. Beguiller I see as sort of a dark and twisted Bard; the Bard is excited and vibrant with life, though some may be sadder and more sombre about things, singing laments after a battle, but the Beguiller takes the Cunning Bard and twists it from just trickery into a dark trickery. They have some overlap in their deception department, but the Beguiller is perhaps more tragic, darker, and more gnarled.
Don't let the fluff take away the almost harmless trickester archetype. A character I would like from the beguiler is a gnome who takes his jokes a little too far. The shadow power source is gonna be tricky cause it invites all too easily a plethora of antihero characters, since it is dabbeling in darker magics. Antihero archetypes can be difficult. I would love to see the beguiler allow for a harlequin type character, and more sinister options as well. But I don't want the shadow source to be all doom (they can't help but be gloom), the assassin covers a darker story so I'd like to see other classes to avoid going to far down that path.
I think your Idea could and other trickster ideas could totally be done, I imagine a good deal of Beguilers see life as a joke, picture this; a gnome's life is destroyed by some tragic event or maybe he's just going crazy over some girl or something, his heart and mind begin a spiral into an unknown depth of darkness, and on a cold dark night as the power of the Shadowfell invests his mind entirely his pain dies down and a smile slowly stretches across his face, and then he can't help but laugh at it all (cue Mark Hamill), laugh at the joke that is life. Now the gnomes motive is to make others laugh with him, or maybe he's just looking for a punchline.
It's a little dark yeah, but it's a Shadow class. If you want happy go luck play a Wizard or a Bard.
we need to make sure that that twistedness leads to them sealing away their true thoughts and emotions, rather than wallowing in despair. But I like this a lot. Much better than trading the heart for shadow. Makes more sense, psychologically.
I don't think the Beguiler's origin has to be a emo thing, or at least it should not reflect on who they are now, it just has to be something that shatters their sense of humanity. In fact, I would think almost all Beguilers are completely unemotional beings, their heart is dead after all, which is why they have no qualms about lying and taking advantage of other, they're just cold manipulative bastards.
Psionic is no longer futuristic. The themes are Medieval and Iron Age.
4e Shadow = Death magic
4e Psionic = Mind magic
In 4e, the Psionic power source can telepathically implant sensations and mess with dreams (Illusion), mess with emotions (Charm, Fear), override decisions (Dominate), and can telekinetically create quasi-real Force constructs (Phantasm). Second sight (Divination) is also appropriate flavor. Mind magic.
That said, certain aspects of the Beguiler do seem appropriate for the Shadow power source. Shadowfell is a bleak, gloomy, dreary, melancholy, merciless, and horrifying distortion of reality. Likewise, this Shadow mage distorts reality in a bleak, gloomy, dreary, melancholy, merciless, and horrifying way.
< McNancy: Beguilers heart is twisted by tragedy. The Beguiler understands the [despair] that lurks in the hearts of all better than anyone. They make their enemies' worst dreams come true. They understand this dark part of all our souls because they have been to its deepest depths in their own life. It deforms their hearts into withered husks and their minds into a mind of pure shadow, and in so they become in touch with the Shadowfell and the darkness within us all. >
< Marandahir: Beguiller I see as sort of a dark and twisted Bard. They have some overlap in their deception department, but the Beguiller is perhaps more tragic, darker, and more gnarled. >
Heh. They probably do less tricking and more tormenting. Whether Good or Evil, their humor would probably fixate on life-and-death.
That's where Shadow has some overlap, because we're already dealing with souls in the Assassin class, just that they trade away a part of their soul for shadow. Beguillers can be really dark illusionists that don't really have emotions - and without emotions, that can't be psionic thing, because emotions would be the driving factor, not the lack of it. I see it this way: the Shadow power source is drawing energy from the lack of it: Shadows are where there is no light, so in this case, the Beguiller is drawing from where this is no heart.
In previous editions, Psionic sucked because it was strictly redundant. Anything it could do, Arcane and Divine could do, often better.
In 4e, Psionic carves out its own niche. A niche that other power sources cant have.
Psionic is mind magic. Mind magic is Psionic. They mean the same thing.
Its ok when power sources overlap a little bit. But Psionic must be the master of mind magic.
< Mar: Beguillers can be really dark illusionists that don't really have emotions - and without emotions, that can't be psionic thing. >
But Psionic can be emotional-idealists or logical-rationalists. So not necessarily emotional.
Frankly, WE DO NOT KNOW what Psionic's niche in 4e is going to be. We have the more mental Monk build, and the more charismatic Psion build. This is one quarter of what Psionic builds are going to be PH3. We haven't gotten a Design & Development article on Psionics in 4e.
We Don't Know Yet.
And I don't see WotC putting Psionics in such a way that you'd classify some builds of Arcane or Shadow classes as "subPsionic" sort of how some classes have subRoles. It's not just mental magic, and mental magic isn't just in Psionic. It's about where you draw the power from, and Arcane characters don't draw it from the power of their own mind, they draw it from how they interact with the cosmic arcana - the laws of physics "Magic A is Magic A."
Psionic characters seem, thus far, to draw their magic from inside themselves. The lone Shadow character draws its power from trading part of its soul for shadow. Divine characters draw their power from their faith, regardless if the Gods are listening, living, or even real (even Invokers, who feel a more direct connection). Primal characters draw their power from their relationship with the spirits. Martial characters get their almost supernatural abilities from keeping their body and mind in tip top shape to react with the powers of arms and armour.
So there's no room for "subPower" because the Power Sources talk about where that power comes from, not the kind of things it does. Some Psionic characters, especially the Psion, should be the masters of Psychic effects, because that's part of the class theme, and it fits in with the source. That doesn't mean that Illusionist Wizards, Cunning Bards, and Beguillers should be Psionic or subPsionic because they also deal in mental effects.
Just my two cents.
And rationalism isn't opposed to emotion. The Beguiller might be defined by their lack of emotion, rather than their logic and reasoning.
Perhaps the most insidious effect the Shadowfellhas is a mental one. Those who travel the plane pay
'Rage' is a mental theme for Primal.
Psionic covers all of these mental effects.
From the Manual of the Planes:Perhaps the most insidious effect the Shadowfellhas is a mental one. Those who travel the plane pay
Mental attacks of despair - 'sadness, hopelessness, depression' - seems appropriate for the Shadow power source. Also fear.
'Rage' is a mental theme for Primal.
Psionic covers all of these mental effects.
But the point is that those mental effects AREN'T Psionic, because they're a relationship with the OUTSIDE, not the inside. Psionics is primarily a relationship with the self, not with the Shadowfell or the Spirits or Divinities.
They may have psychic connotations, but they're not Psionic.
Shadow is primarily about death effects, but by extension dabbles in mental effects, namely despair, fear, amnesia, and unconsciousness.
Psionic is primarily about mental and force effects, but via telekinesis dabbles in elemental effects, like the Monk does.
Elemental is primarily about the physical elemental effects - namely, storm, wind, water, fire, and earth - but via the Abyss dabbles in physical annihilation thus overlaps some of the death magic of Shadow.
And so on.
Finally Arcane overlaps anything and everything.
I look at it this way.
Defacto, Arcane is the generalist power source (in the tradition of the Bard), and the rest are specialist power sources.
Each specialist power source dominates certain magical themes, but there are overlapping boundaries.
These overlapping themes provide the game with advantages and disadvantages. Theyr dynamic and flexible, but require discretion and vigilance.
Iv a question for you guys ...
The Hells is the antithesis of the Astral Sea.
The Abyss is the antithesis of the Elemental Chaos.
The Farrealms too seems an antithesis, but of what?
With regard to flavor, how do you see it?
Is the Farrealms the antithesis of the Natural World? (Thus aberrants would be to Natural creatures, as devils are to Immortals and as demons are to Elementals.)
Is the Farrealms the antithesis of the Psionic power source? (Thus where Psionic expresses consciousness and force, the Farrealms would be insanity and dissolution. This emphasizes the Psionic themes of aberrant creatures, like Mindflayers and Aboleths. Maybe the Farrealms is the antithesis of the plane of Dreaming?)
Maybe the Farrealms is the antithesis of the Arcane power source? (Thus where Arcane is the universal power source, the Farrealms is universal annihilation. This corresponds somewhat to the Lovecraft tradition where the Necronomicon is a rather 'arcane' book?)
Maybe the Farrealms is the antithesis of the Elemental power source? (Farrealms could be an expansion of the Abyss. After all, Lovecraft identified these evil 'elder gods' with demonic imagery. In D&D, the demons too strive for total annihilation. D&D demons emphasize physical annihilation, less so mental, but mental could be appropriate too, especially emphasizing widespread societal selfdistruction.)
They are all antitheses, but do they work together? Are aberrants, devils, and demons of one impulse? Each unfurling annihilation according to the traits of their origins?
The Hells is the antithesis of the Astral Sea.
The Abyss is the antithesis of the Elemental Chaos.
I don't think that these two are true to begin with. Rather, the Nine Hells are a part of the Astral Sea, a specific location within it, and the Abyss is a part of the Elemental Chaos, a specific location within it. The Far Realms aren't any specific location like the Nine Hells or the Abyss are. Rather, the Far Realms are a general location like the Astral Sea and the Elemental Chaos are.
The Far Realm is the breakdown of reality itself, the place where physics and causality collapse, and the mind of a common mortal is assailed by horror and madness. Psionics is deeply related to the self, to the refinement of the mind, and of the enlightening of the spirit. First and foremost, each Psion follows the principle of knowing thineself, and the insanity of the Far Realm is their greatest threat and fiercest enemy. They are also, however, the most gifted slayers of such evils, able to withstand the mental assault that such foes unleash, and can bring clarity to insanity, serenity to madness.
In previous editions, Psionic sucked because it was strictly redundant. Anything it could do, Arcane and Divine could do, often better.
Its ok when power sources overlap a little bit. But Psionic must be the master of mind magic.
If anything 4e Power Sources seem to be mostly fluff, with a bit of common disign elements thrown in, while what a class actually does is a matter of role. Clerics, Bards & Warlords all use different power sources, but they all heal and do generally leaderish stuff. Wizards make with the blasting magic, so do Invokers. Battlerager Fighters and Barbarians both do the berserker thing.
There's no reason we couldn't have a psionic leader and defender to go with the psionic striker and controller we've seen previews of. (Other than that psionics has no place in a fantasy game, of course, but there's no need to go over that again.)
BTW, pages back, some folks were spelling 'duelist' as 'duallist' - which, since we're touching on psionics, makes me think of a class based on Cartesian Duallism. Astral Projection could be a class feature...
With regard to flavor, how do you see it?
Is the Farrealms the antithesis of the Natural World?
Yes. It's defined by it's alieness, by how un-Natural it is.
The Hells is the antithesis of the Astral Sea.
The Abyss is the antithesis of the Elemental Chaos.
I don't think that these two are true to begin with. Rather, the Nine Hells are a part of the Astral Sea, a specific location within it, and the Abyss is a part of the Elemental Chaos, a specific location within it. The Far Realms aren't any specific location like the Nine Hells or the Abyss are. Rather, the Far Realms are a general location like the Astral Sea and the Elemental Chaos are.
OK, then, you could see the Astral Sea and Elemental Chaos as diametrically opposed, then - one the realm of the Gods, the other of the Primordials.
Perhaps the most obvious one is the Feywilds, with its overwhelming life and energy, riotous colors and sensory overload, vs the Shadowfel, with its grey, decerpit settings, general aura of depression, and shadowy (un)life.
The Farrealms could be understood as a specific location being the periphery of the Natural World. It exists deep in the earth below and high in the stars above, beyond the boundaries of Nature.
If like the ancients perceived it, the World was flat and round like a disk, the Farrealms would probably be the outer 'chaos' beyond the encircling 'ocean'. Cosmic order establishing itself vigilantly in the center. Actually, the sky above formed an upper hemisphere (where the landdisk was inside a starry dome), and the 'waters below' formed a lower hemisphere (where the land-disk floated on its flat top). Forming a sphere. The outer chaos would surround beyond this sphere.
However, with the Land understood as the surface of a spherical the planet, this 'outer' periphery seems to be understood as deep below the Land, in the core of the planet, and far above the Land, in the starry skies.
However it maps out, the Farrealms comprise the regions at the outer limits of the Natural World.
< Rather, the Far Realms are a general location like the Astral Sea and the Elemental Chaos are. >
On the other hand, as you suggest, these outer limits of the Natural World arent necessarily part of the Natural World. The Farrealms could be understood as a separate location. The plane of the Natural World could be an oasis of cosmic order, floating inside the plane of the Farrealms like a bubble.
If I understand you correctly, you see the Farrealms as both physical and mental. Mentally, Psionic happens to conflict with the Farrealms because the Farrealms threatens mental order, sanity.
But inferring from your post, Primal also conflicts with the Farrealms because it unravels rhythms of Nature, and Martial conflicts with it because it deforms the physical body and warps the use of tools.
In other words, the Farrealms is a threat to the cosmic order of the Natural World (Primal), whose living creatures comprise both mind (Psionic) and body (Martial).
< Tony: Yes. [The Farrealms]'s defined by its alieness, by how un-Natural it is. >
Ok, so that seems to be the emerging consensus: the Farrealms is the 'antithesis' of the Natural World. Happily, that seems to be the direction the designers are planning for the PH3, so this 'worldview' as a gaming conceit seems solid.
Tony, in your response to Crimson, you seem comfortable with the idea the Farrealms isnt really an 'antithesis' in the sense of negation (comparing to how the Elemental Chaos is physical existence but its negation is physical annihilation being the Abyss). The Farrealms is more like a juxtaposition (comparing to how the plane of Elemental Chaos is physical existence but its juxtaposition is spiritual existence being the plane of Astral Sea).
In other words, the Farrealms wouldnt be part of the Natural World, but rather be a separate plane that juxtaposes it (surrounding it). Happily, Aberrant creatures and Natural creatures have separate origins - they come from different planes.
But this 'worldview' suggests, the Farrealms isnt primarily Evil, unlike Hells and Abyss which are primarily Evil and negatory. The Farrealms itself would seem to be Unaligned, being just another plane in the multiverse. It wouldnt seek to destroy the Natural World. It just by its qualities happens to conflict, similar to how spirit and matter conflict.
Where the Primal power source and the plane of the Natural World represent cosmic order, the Farrealms would represent chaotic entropy, but not necessarily Evil. There may be many Good Aberrants in the Farrealms. These Good Aberrants would probably have a 'transcendent' worldview, beyond any categories that order forms.
Do you guys see Farrealms as primarily Unaligned?
< Tony: If anything 4e Power Sources seem to be mostly fluff, while what a class actually does is a matter of role. >
Its worth your mentioning the distinction between fluff and crunch. 'What' a power source can do (heal, attack, defend, etc.) depends mechanically on its role, regardless of the power source flavor. I just meant 'how' depending on its flavor.
Every power source carves out its own niche with regard to fluff. So for example, even tho every power source can heal mechanically, the flavor text for 'how' they do this will emphasize different distinctive themes. So, the Divine power source will heal miraculously by 'faith healing', the Primal power source may heighten the immune system, even regenerate, via herbal remedies or being in tune with natural processes. Psionic will heal psychically, by regulating the energy flows of the bodily aura. Martial will bandage the wounds, give heartening comfort andor excite the adrenalin. Shadow will heal vampirically, leaching the bodily auras (?) of other creatures or else persist by means of the ghostly force of Shadowfell. Elemental will heal 'bionically' by reconstructing the elements of the body (stormy circulation, windy oxygenation, fiery warmth, watery blood, and earthy flesh). Arcane can basically heal by any of the means above.
So power sources use the same mechanics depending on role, in this case hit points of healing. But each carves out its own thematic niche.
That said, flavor themes tend to emphasize certain kinds of mechanics over others. For example, the Divine power source indeed mechanically heals hitpoints far better than any other power source. So even mechanical healing is, defacto, the domain of the Divine power source. But the other power sources are overlapping it by means of their appropriately distinctive thematic flavors.
The Far Realm is simply described as being alien, aberrant and anathema to the inhabitants of the material world, influencing prime existence in perverse, unimaginable and horrific ways.
I am not fully convinced that such perceived qualities are antithetical to prime existence or diametrically opposed to nature and order as a whole, since such a mindset is supportive of a symmetry that WotC has actively, and outspokenly, avoided.
A fundamental point, which is integral to debate about the alignment and intention of the Far Realm (if any), is whether or not the Far Realm actively exerts influence upon the other planes. If its corruption is a passive byproduct of its existence, then the Far Realm is unaligned. If its corruption is born of intent to corrupt, the Far Realm is evil.
Given the POL setting, I assume the Far Realm to be a blanket of darkness and nightmare that envelopes and pervades the known world; slowly asphyxiating points of light in the cosmos and giving shape to the nightmare beyond shadow. It’s not good, nor evil. It’s not order, nor chaos. It’s not aligned with any plane, being or way of thinking, nor unaligned with any plane being or way of thinking. It’s inexplicable. It’s something that no one is intended to understand because contemplation or understanding do nothing but illicit madness. Whether or not the Far Realm and its inhabitants have an agenda, remains to be seen.
PHB3 can’t come soon enough!
"I Think, therefore I Am" taken to it's most brutal extreme.
Psionics imho is at it's heart an extension of this effect, in that a psionic character directly alters reality according to his wishes, without having to use another power source as an intermediary.
Then we get the delicious duality of having a power source which either works in the same way as the thing it's designed to fight (if psionics is reality's immune responce to Far infection), or actually depends on it (if psionics is a result of the Far's weakening of physical Law).
Hell, it could be both.
Regarding shadow classes, one theme I'd love to see is the idea that Shadow powers have a real cost associated with them, preferably associated with the ability the shadow powers improve.
A beguiler, for example, might have great control over the emotions of others at the cost of his powers slowly devouring his own.
An Assasin's improves his physical abilities, but as he becomes more powerful he becomes more a creature of shadow than one of flesh.
@Haldrik: Would you mind editing your old posts instead of making new ones? It'd make it a bit easier to read.
Regarding shadow classes, one theme I'd love to see is the idea that Shadow powers have a real cost associated with them, preferably associated with the ability the shadow powers improve.
A beguiler, for example, might have great control over the emotions of others at the cost of his powers slowly devouring his own.
An Assasin's improves his physical abilities, but as he becomes more powerful he becomes more a creature of shadow than one of flesh
Yeah that would be fun, stuff like that makes for really good builds.
Regarding shadow classes, one theme I'd love to see is the idea that Shadow powers have a real cost associated with them, preferably associated with the ability the shadow powers improve.
A beguiler, for example, might have great control over the emotions of others at the cost of his powers slowly devouring his own.
An Assasin's improves his physical abilities, but as he becomes more powerful he becomes more a creature of shadow than one of flesh.
I don't know...
I completely, 100% understand and vibe with the idea that Shadow could potentially be a negatively connotative power source, but I'm not fully on-board with the idea.
I'd prefer that Shadow not be so antihero/doom-n-gloom/emo/dark/etc themed. I liked the original ideas presented by the devs, painting Shadow as the stuff of figment, illusion and such, as well as the essence of life and death. When I presented my ideas on a Witch class, many pages back, I emphasized the benevolence and aiding effects I intended for the class. I really don't want a cabal of Warlock-types hailing from another source. The "using evil to do good" theme is tired already. Although the bleak/moody/ashen/goth-flavor lends itself most easily to the way we players perceive the source (since we really have NO IDEA what's in store for Shadow), it would be most imaginative and engaging to surprise us with a take that's something fresh and new.
And I'm not overly keen on the idea that power source Shadow is fueled by the ShadowFell either.
Except Evil as a definition denotes intent, or at least an equvalent. Without malice the Denizens of the Far are no more evil than a horde of Soldier ants. This extends to the Far itself: the corruption it exudes into the World may simply be it's nature.
Yes!
Regarding shadow classes, one theme I'd love to see is the idea that Shadow powers have a real cost associated with them, preferably associated with the ability the shadow powers improve.
A beguiler, for example, might have great control over the emotions of others at the cost of his powers slowly devouring his own.
An Assasin's improves his physical abilities, but as he becomes more powerful he becomes more a creature of shadow than one of flesh.
I don't know...
I completely, 100% understand and vibe with the idea that Shadow could potentially be a negatively connotative power source, but I'm not fully on-board with the idea.
I'd prefer that Shadow not be so antihero/doom-n-gloom/emo/dark/etc themed. I liked the original ideas presented by the devs, painting Shadow as the stuff of figment, illusion and such, as well as the essence of life and death. When I presented my ideas on a Witch class, many pages back, I emphasized the benevolence and aiding effects I intended for the class. I really don't want a cabal of Warlock-types hailing from another source. The "using evil to do good" theme is tired already. Although the bleak/moody/ashen/goth-flavor lends itself most easily to the way we players perceive the source (since we really have NO IDEA what's in store for Shadow), it would be most imaginative and engaging to surprise us with a take that's something fresh and new.
And I'm not overly keen on the idea that power source Shadow is fueled by the ShadowFell either.
I agree that shadow shouldn't be about cutting oneself, but I would be disappointed if there wasn't ANY self-cutting shadow stuff. At least 1 class should have it as a feature, and perhaps another sub-class or 2, along with a smattering of PP and an ED.
I think the best class for self damage would be a heavy armored defender, with a Blackguard/Dark Knight vibe. Though that might be stepping on the toes of the paladin, who has a few daily's that hurt himself.
A problem is, this 'stuff of figment' seems identical to the 'though-stuff' of the plane of Dream, and is Psionic.
The main thing that distinguishes 'ghosts' from 'dreams' is ... death itself. Ghost are the fading memory of the dead or else the fatalistic inevitability of death. The Shadow power source is necessarily about death. Death is bleak.
A happy sunshine-and-light illusionist character suits better the Psionic or Arcane power source.
That said, tho obsession with death is depressing ... it doesnt have to be depressing. Spiritual traditions like Buddhism sometimes focus on death to welcome the despair to (carefully) encourage detachment. They let the finite identity construct that 'clings' die, and instead adopt an unlimited identity construct that includes any and all beings. This transcendent altruistic perspective often brings surprising joy.
To be fair, this transcendent joy probably associates more with the Divine power source, and the 'infinite possibilities' of the Astral Sea. Nevertheless, it is possible to emphasize the deathly detachment itself, thus express the flavor joyful Shadow.
Instead of trying to 'bleach' the Shadow power source with goodness and light. It might make more sense to let some of the Psionic power source darken, to achieve the effects of despair. That gives the flavor of thought-stuff more flexibility to cover more character concepts.
I agree that shadow shouldn't be about cutting oneself, but I would be disappointed if there wasn't ANY self-cutting shadow stuff. At least 1 class should have it as a feature, and perhaps another sub-class or 2, along with a smattering of PP and an ED.
I think the best class for self damage would be a heavy armored defender, with a Blackguard/Dark Knight vibe. Though that might be stepping on the toes of the paladin, who has a few daily's that hurt himself.
I'm all for playing up the emo/darkness/cutter-thing, I'm just resistant to polishing off the whole power source with the same shine.
A problem is, this 'stuff of figment' seems identical to the 'though-stuff' of the plane of Dream, and is Psionic.
The main thing that distinguishes 'ghosts' from 'dreams' is ... death itself. The Shadow power source is necessarily about death. Death is bleak.
A happy sunshine-and-light illusionist character suits better the Psionic or Arcane power source.
Very true. Good points.
That said, tho obsession with death is depressing ... it doesnt have to be depressing. Spiritual traditions like Buddhism sometimes focus on death to welcome the despair to (carefully) encourage detachment. They let the finite identity construct that 'clings' die, and instead adopt an unlimited identity construct that includes any and all beings. This transcendent altruistic perspective often brings surprising joy.
To be fair, this transcendent joy probably associates more with the Divine power source, and the 'infinite possibilities' of the Astral Sea. Nevertheless, it is possible to emphasize on the deathly detachment itself, thus express joyful Shadow.
I think my issue is trying to meld my previous familiarity with "Shadow" in the Shadow Weave context of Forgotten Realms mythos to the new ShadowFell/Death/Ravenloft context of 4E. Although very similar superficially, the two concepts are very different in their implementation.
Instead of trying to 'bleach' the Shadow power source with goodness and light. It might make more sense to let some of the Psionic power source darken, to achieve the effects of despair. That gives the flavor of thought-stuff more flexibility to cover more character concepts.
I haven't yet broken out the Clorox, I'm just voicing the opinion that I will be dismayed if every class fueled by the Shadow source is a soul-comprimising, self-sacrificing, death-dealing, negative/necrotic, life-stealing emophile. They don't have to be happy-types to keep me interested, I just don't want them all to feel the same, or have the fluff of the source infringe on the reception of my characters due to the implications its flavor has on the expectations of the other players.
I haven't yet broken out the Clorox, I'm just voicing the opinion that I will be dismayed if every class fueled by the Shadow source is a soul-comprimising, self-sacrificing, death-dealing, negative/necrotic, life-stealing emophile. They don't have to be happy-types to keep me interested, I just don't want them all to feel the same, or have the fluff of the source infringe on the reception of my characters due to the implications its flavor has on the expectations of the other players.
As classes from the same power source, that power source being Shadow, they're all going to have some amount of darkness to them.
I mean... It's called Shadow... It's Shadowy
As classes from the same power source, that power source being Shadow, they're all going to have some amount of darkness to them.
I mean... It's called Shadow... It's Shadowy
I get it. I'm simply stating my opinion and expressing my hope that not every Shadow-fueled class will be of equal shadowy darkness.
As classes from the same power source, that power source being Shadow, they're all going to have some amount of darkness to them.
I mean... It's called Shadow... It's Shadowy
I get it. I'm simply stating my opinion and expressing my hope that not every Shadow-fueled class will be of equal shadowy darkness.
If all else fails, it shouldn't be too hard to refluff. You don't have to play an Assassin as some emotionally stunted 'oh noes, part of my soul is replaced by shadow, I must wangst' loser; while the 'official' fluff may encourage such, there's nothing that says you have to go along with it.
If all else fails, it shouldn't be too hard to refluff. You don't have to play an Assassin as some emotionally stunted 'oh noes, part of my soul is replaced by shadow, I must wangst' loser; while the 'official' fluff may encourage such, there's nothing that says you have to go along with it.
Too true, too true.
LOL I think we should patent the term "shadow angst" and apply it liberally to any character or concept that is stereotypically developed to adhere to common "Shadow" associations of dread, anxiety, anguish, fear, death and darkness. (i.e. All of his characters are too heavy on the shadow angst.)
If I had my way, the classes would look like this, or at least close to it:
6 Arcane
6 Divine
5 Martial
4 Primal, I would get rid of the Seeker
4 Psionic
4 Shadow
4 Elemental
9 Leaders
9 Srtikers
9 Defenders
6 Controllers
I just don't want them all to feel the same, or have the fluff of the source infringe on the reception of my characters due to the implications its flavor has on the expectations of the other players.
Isn't this kinda inevitable? Every power source has connotations. Arcane users are usually seen as knowledgable, and Divine users are religious.
We just need Shadow Magic to be seen as mysterious instead of forbidden.
We just need Shadow Magic to be seen as mysterious instead of forbidden.
Yes!
There's no reason we couldn't have a psionic leader and defender to go with the psionic striker and controller we've seen previews of. (Other than that psionics has no place in a fantasy game, of course, but there's no need to go over that again.)
Read the Deryni Chronicles by Katherine Kurtz and get back to me on this.
While psionics are not an element commonly found in western fantasy literature, things like telepathy, telekinesis, ESP and other mental disciplines have been a part of myth and folklore for a long time, especially in the East. Just because you have convinced yourself that Psionics is exclusive to science fiction does not make it true.
Not that I expect to convince you, but at least I have given you a fantasy setting that is well over 20 years old that uses psionics as a core concept. If nothing else, that alone makes the bolded sentence above patently false.
But this 'worldview' suggests, the Farrealms isnt primarily Evil, unlike Hells and Abyss which are primarily Evil and negatory. The Farrealms itself would seem to be Unaligned, being just another plane in the multiverse. It wouldnt seek to destroy the Natural World. It just by its qualities happens to conflict, similar to how spirit and matter conflict.
Where the Primal power source and the plane of the Natural World represent cosmic order, the Farrealms would represent chaotic entropy, but not necessarily Evil. There may be many Good Aberrants in the Farrealms. These Good Aberrants would probably have a 'transcendent' worldview, beyond any categories that order forms.
Do you guys see Farrealms as primarily Unaligned?
Creatures from or touched by the Far Realms, 'Abberations,' are mostly evil or non-intelligent. That implies a realm that either tends toward evil - or towards an alieness much worse than evil. I don't think realms - unless they embody and alignment - are aligned, per se, but I'd expect the Far Realms to be naturally antagonistic to the natural world, and that, yes, it would, in a force-of-un-nature way 'seek' to currupt, assimilate, or destroy the Natural world. So, not 'evil,' since evil in rarely entirely implacable and generally motivated by easily-understood things like hate, lust, cruelty, greed, and envy and so forth, but incomprehensibly alien and callous. The beings of the Far Realms wouldn't anihilate all life in the natural world because they hate it, but because they don't recognize it's significance.
Read the Deryni Chronicles by Katherine Kurtz and get back to me on this.
Not exactly the top of my reading list, sorry. But, I did go to Amazon and searched the text of 'Deryni Rising.' Occurences of the word psionic: 0. psychic: 0. psyche 0. psi 0. telepathy, telepath, or telepathic: 0. telekinetic or telekinesis: 0. ESP, obviously, 0. (Mind you, out of all those, I'd only strongly object to ESP and psionic - 'psychic' is just dandy, for instance, an ancient term long used to describe some sorts of magic or mysticism).
'magic,' OTOH, 27 and 'ritual' 17. 'Sorcerer' only 4, and 'sorcerery' only in the front flap of the hardbound edition. So, sure, it might be fantasy, and the magic in it may involve the mind (Wikipedia seems to think so) or superficially evoke the way psionics are portrayed in sci-fi, but it doesn't actually go and use the word.
Let's see, I'm bored: High Deryni: 0 psionic(s) (2 for 'psychic,' though, which I'm fine with). Deryni Checkmate: 0 psionic(s) (no tele-anything either, or even phsychic). Maybe it was a later development? Skip to the end, Childe Morgan: 'psionic' never used, 'psychic' is, but, again, only twice.
I've never used the Amazon 'look inside' feature before, is it notorious for a bad search function?
Just because you have convinced yourself that Psionics is exclusive to science fiction does not make it true.
I said there was no need to go into it. I've spent enough time on that merry-go-round. I only mentioned it in passing because people who have seen my 'rants against' psionics might have been taken aback that I was defending it. While I'd be happy if it were expunged from the game or, even better, relegated to settings where it's apropriate (Dark Sun, for instance, isn't a pure fantasy setting, getting into heavy-handed issues of environmentalism as it does, among other things), I'd hate to see it maligned for the wrong reasons, especially as I like the concept of Power Sources. Psionics is perfectly workable as a power source, just as a power source in a certain range of settings...
I said there was no need to go into it. I've spent enough time on that merry-go-round. I only mentioned it in passing because people who have seen my 'rants against' psionics might have been taken aback that I was defending it. While I'd be happy if it were expunged from the game or, even better, relegated to settings where it's apropriate (Dark Sun, for instance, isn't a pure fantasy setting, getting into heavy-handed issues of environmentalism as it does, among other things), I'd hate to see it maligned for the wrong reasons, especially as I like the concept of Power Sources. Psionics is perfectly workable as a power source, just as a power source in a certain range of settings...
Without giving the merry-go-round any momentum, I find myself in agreement with your sentiments regarding psionics.
It's not so much the effects of psionics that rubs my fantasy wrong, it's the way it is handled. Most of my issue is with the liberal use of sci-fi terminology. If they implemented the Psionic power source with fantasy terms, like class names "Enchanter", "Witch", "Mindmage", what-have-you, it would be much easier to swallow and integrate into my game. It's the science-heavy stuff that I'm resistant to.
On the bright side, I am inclined to believe that WotC shares this mindset, and I think that "Psion" may be as sci-fi as it gets. ...Hopefully.
Read the Deryni Chronicles by Katherine Kurtz and get back to me on this.
Not exactly the top of my reading list, sorry. But, I did go to Amazon and searched the text of 'Deryni Rising.' Occurences of the word psionic: 0. psychic: 0. psyche 0. psi 0. telepathy, telepath, or telepathic: 0. telekinetic or telekinesis: 0. ESP, obviously, 0. (Mind you, out of all those, I'd only strongly object to ESP and psionic - 'psychic' is just dandy, for instance, an ancient term long used to describe some sorts of magic or mysticism).
'magic,' OTOH, 27 and 'ritual' 17. 'Sorcerer' only 4, and 'sorcerery' only in the front flap of the hardbound edition. So, sure, it might be fantasy, and the magic in it may involve the mind (Wikipedia seems to think so) or superficially evoke the way psionics are portrayed in sci-fi, but it doesn't actually go and use the word.
Let's see, I'm bored: High Deryni: 0 psionic(s) (2 for 'psychic,' though, which I'm fine with). Deryni Checkmate: 0 psionic(s) (no tele-anything either, or even phsychic). Maybe it was a later development? Skip to the end, Childe Morgan: 'psionic' never used, 'psychic' is, but, again, only twice.
I've never used the Amazon 'look inside' feature before, is it notorious for a bad search function?
I've never used it before either. Most of ther terminology for the mind powers of the Deryni is bound in either religious or arcane trappings. Deryni see their powers as gifts from God, and many of their rituals also use religious trappings. Most of the current terminology for these powers is based on modern parapsychology or science fiction. Ther term "psionic" is firmly rooted in science fiction.
Just because Katherine Kurtz chose not to use the modern terminology in favor of terminology more appropriate to the setting does not change the fact that Deryni use telepathy, biofeedback, empathy, extra sensory perception and psychoportation.
Just because you have convinced yourself that Psionics is exclusive to science fiction does not make it true.
I said there was no need to go into it. I've spent enough time on that merry-go-round. I only mentioned it in passing because people who have seen my 'rants against' psionics might have been taken aback that I was defending it. While I'd be happy if it were expunged from the game or, even better, relegated to settings where it's apropriate (Dark Sun, for instance, isn't a pure fantasy setting, getting into heavy-handed issues of environmentalism as it does, among other things), I'd hate to see it maligned for the wrong reasons, especially as I like the concept of Power Sources. Psionics is perfectly workable as a power source, just as a power source in a certain range of settings...
So, having no knowledge of your prior arguments, it sounds like your true objection is to the term "psionics," and not to characters having mental powers? If it was called mesmerism, would you feel more comfortable? While mental powers may not be a staple of modern fantasy literature, they are certainly a part of our historical folklore. Buddhism has held the concepts of mental powers attainable via enlightnement for at least 2000 years.
Again, just because you can't get past the concept of psionics as being rooted in science fiction does not make it so.
I support the use of "psionics" as a metagame term so that Wizards doesn't need to reinvent the wheel. The terminology for mental powers coined in the 19th century by the Society for Psychical Research have percolated through our culture so that they have become common usage. There is no need for them to create new terminology that they will then need to explain. I won't be using the terminology as spoken by characters in game unless they are sages or scholars who have studied psionics. As far as the average townsperson is concerned, psionics is just another form of the magic used by Druids, Wizards, Shamen, Necromancers and Sorcerers.
So, having no knowledge of your prior arguments, it sounds like your true objection is to the term "psionics," and not to characters having mental powers? If it was called mesmerism, would you feel more comfortable?
Heh, if it were called mesmerism, someone would object on the grounds that it is a semi-modern term, originating from Franz Mesmer in the 1700s, and therefore not part of "traditional fantasy".
Most of ther terminology for the mind powers of the Deryni is bound in either religious or arcane trappings. Deryni see their powers as gifts from God, and many of their rituals also use religious trappings.
All very apropriate for a setting with magic instead of science.
Most of the current terminology for these powers is based on modern parapsychology or science fiction. The term "psionic" is firmly rooted in science fiction.
My point, exactly. Some anachronism is probably unavoidable just due to writing in modern english, but it's nice to avoid it as much as possible. You don't call Searling Light a 'lazer,' however much it may resemble one. Fans can and do give in to that temptation, but it's tounge in cheek.
Just because Katherine Kurtz chose not to use the modern terminology in favor of terminology more appropriate to the setting does not change the fact that Deryni use telepathy, biofeedback, empathy, extra sensory perception and psychoportation.
You brought it up. It just happens to support my point. She set out to write fantasy, not wanting to write science fiction, she eschewed terminology with that connnotation. Good for her.
So, having no knowledge of your prior arguments, it sounds like your true objection is to the term "psionics," and not to characters having mental powers? If it was called mesmerism, would you feel more comfortable?
Yep. The word is the problem. The meaning of the word as well as it's origins and connotations. The feel of the powers ('Disciplines' and 'Sciences' they were originally called) in 1e were also problematic, but most of that has been abandoned over the years. 'Psychic' would be fine, a much older word used in both genres. 'Mesmerism' is both too narrow, and still anachronistic, though it's at least 18th or 19th century instead of 20th (and I still think of the 20th century as 'the present,' though it won't be long now before we have gamers with no memory of it whatsoever), likewise the various 'tele-' this and '-esis' that and so forth. Even the relative recent coining of the word wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the way psionics and psychic powers have been used in science fiction.
There's really no such thing as a new story, and sci-fi re-hashes many of the themes of myth and legend. Gods and magic have been such features of so many basic storylines that science fiction writers have gone to a lot of trouble to find science-acceptable stand-ins for them. Ancient alien races, artificial intelligences, sufficiently advanced technology, genetic mutant supermen, and, of course, psionics. They did so for a reason, because if they'd gone and tossed gods and magic into thier sci-fi, it wouldn't have been sci-fi anymore, and they knew it. It's a knudge-and-wink kinda thing, though, because we all /know/ that Robby the Robot is really just Shakespear's Ariel. Even so, if Dr. Morbius had 'conjured an airy spirit' instead of 'built a robot,' Forbidden Planet would've been just another production of The Tempest. It's even less forgiving the other way 'round. At least, in most science fiction, the setting has a history, however distant, of belief in magic and things fantastic. Pern can have dragons and Darkover witches, because humans brought the memories of those superstitious with them when they colonized those worlds, and encountered (or created) something to hang those labels on. There's no way a wizard in a suposed fantasy story should pull out a WP grenade instead of casting a ball of fire, though, or consult a computer terminal instead of a crystal ball - those things have no place in the setting.
Of course, the genres have been blended. 1e D&D did a lot more of it back in the day than 4e does now. The anachronisms and sci-fi bits were sprinkled in there pretty liberally, from spells that used scientific terminology in thier descriptions and anochronistic material components, to an 'artifact' that was obviously a robot, to crossover rules with Gamma Word, to, of course, Psionics. But, that's mostly fallen away over the years - a trend I continue to encourage.
Other thing I wonder about is the resistance people have to including psionics in fantasy settings, as psionics can slot into most settings pretty seamlessly, as at it's heart psionics is simply a way to use magic without the props and artificiality associated with arcane magic.
As an aside, Robin Hobb has written the "Farseer", "Liveship Traders" and "Tawny Man" fantasy trilogies which feature Psi abilities pretty heavily, refered to in the world as "The Skill".
There is precedence for class names to be fluff as well that is known in the world, but usually its amongst organisations of characters who aren't classed, but have similar themes: Warding Circles usually have 1 or 2 Wardens and a bunch of unclassed (or a PC party of classed) characters. In that case, the term Warden exists as a game world fluff thing.
On the other hand, classes with LOTS of archetypes, like the Rogue, the Warlock, the Paladin, the Fighter (hell, all of martial, in fact), the Wizard; these classes are less likely to call themselves their class, because they would identify more with their build, station, religion, etc.
So it's a mix. That's a possibility I would push for in a future edition of D&D - do away with all usages of class names in game-world fluff, because it traps some classes into being more similar to other members of the class than other classes do. Thus Wardens feel all sort of the same, despite having four clear different builds, because the builds don't feel as important to their fluff as the universal Warden fluff. The fluff differences between Earth, Wild, Life, and Storm need to be played up more in the future.
The alignment of the Far-realm and the name of Psionics is not the subject of this thread.
I did start a thread awhile back for people who don't like the sci-fi feel of Psionics.
I've often wondered why the term Psionics is so bound to sci-fi, seeing as it's never actually used in the genre. Sure, you may have psychics or telepaths, but the word psionics is never actually seen.
It originated with science fiction. It's not the only word used to describe such powers in sci-fi, but it most certainly is used in that broad genre. It's a word of comparatively recent coinage, going back only to the 50s, so even some famous sci-fi examples of psychics, like the Lensmen, predate it. The meaning of the word is more specific than 'psi' (a general grouping of psychic powers like ESP and telekinesis, coined by paranormal researchers) or 'psychic' (which encompasses both fictional/mythological mystic or magical powers of the same nature, and reputed 'paranormal' abilities subject to scientific investigation). 'Psionic' is formed from 'psi,' above plus '-onics' as lifted from 'electronics.' You have to understand that in the 50s there was a boom in electronics and that adding '-onics' to the name of your company was like appending '.com' in the 90s. It was a very trendy, very modern thing. 'Psionic' refers to psi-powers that can be systematically developed, refined, and advanced like any other technology, making it an ideal aproach to psychic abilities for sci-fi, and decidedly inapropriate for fantasy that does not intend to include science fiction or modern elements (though, of course, a great deal of fantasy, often called 'science fantasy' or 'modern fantasy' /does/ include such elements - Shadowrun, for an RPG instance).
Interestingly, 'psion' was not coined at the same time. I'm not sure where it came from, but it was being bandied about before 2e used it - in science fiction novels, of course. It certainly sounds better than 'psionician' or 'psyician' or whatever it'd've otherwise been based on it's origins. ;)
In any case, 'psionic' and 'psion' are not good choices for words to describe psychic powers of a magical or mystical nature. 'Psychic' would be better, and it's not like there was ever any reason not to use it instead of the sci-fi-tainted 'psionic.' The only reason not to in 4e is that it's already a keyword. Fine, use 'Psyche' for the power source. It's got more of a mystical ring to it, anyway.
So it's a mix. That's a possibility I would push for in a future edition of D&D - do away with all usages of class names in game-world fluff, because it traps some classes into being more similar to other members of the class than other classes do. Thus Wardens feel all sort of the same, despite having four clear different builds, because the builds don't feel as important to their fluff as the universal Warden fluff. The fluff differences between Earth, Wild, Life, and Storm need to be played up more in the future.
I don't think it's really possible for class names to ever be completely eschewed from the fluff, unless they all fairly abstract and/or generic concepts, like fighter or the ability score based classes of d20 modern. Nor do I think it's even desirable to try. It's nice when the language players use amongst themselves isn't completely alien to the game world. Naturally purely mechanical concepts, such as dice roles, are shouldn't mean anything to the characters in the game world, but it's okay for class names to be meaningful.
I just hope that my sentinel(or if it truly must be called it, battlemind) can be a barrier expert. Cause that would be awesome.
What does any of this have to do with new classes?
The alignment of the Far-realm and the name of Psionics is not the subject of this thread.
I did start a thread awhile back for people who don't like the sci-fi feel of Psionics.
Good call, McNancy.
Let's get back on target.
So, how many classes does everyone want per-power source?
I'd personally like 6 per non-Martial source, and only then because I feel that most martial concepts can already fit into the four Martial classes already released, though McNancy and others have made a good case for a fifth, the Swashbuckler (lightweight martial defender).
I'd like is something like this:
Martial
Fighter - Defender
Ranger - Striker
Rogue - Striker
*Swashbuckler - Defender
Warlord - Leader
Arcane
Artificer - Leader
Bard - Leader
Sorcerer - Striker
Swordmage - Defender
Warlock - Striker
Wizard - Controller
Divine
Avenger - Striker
Cleric - Leader
*Exorcist - Controller
Invoker - Controller
Paladin - Defender
*Shepherd - Defender
Primal
*Ascetic - Leader
Barbarian - Striker
Druid - Controller
Seeker - Controller
Shaman - Leader
Warden - Defender
Psionic
*Battlemind - Defender
*Dreamweaver - Leader
*Empath - Leader
Monk - Striker
Psion - Controller
???
Shadow
*Acolyte - Leader
Assassin - Striker
*Beguiller - Controller
*Hexblade - Defender
*Necromancer - Controller
???
Elemental
???
???
???
???
???
???
Note the number of missing classes here. I don't have a concept for Elemental, for example, because I don't have a precedence for the theme of the Power Source (nothing has been raised by WotC as of yet, and I don't want us jumping the gun on what Elemental WILL be or that it SHOULDN'T be, because we simply have no clue as of this moment).
The classes with asterixes are suggestions that I have or others have raised that I have jumped on the bandwagon for (some, albeit, more of late).
The Dreamweaver was originally a suggestion for Shadow, dealing with the Shadow self from psychology, but that would probably fall into Psionic now, even if it's delving into the darkest, most repressed part of ourselves. It draws out the psychological stress of the allies and cures it, giving them new found strength, by absorbing the psyche-pain into its own mind and heart. It then uses that psychological stress to power its own attacks (the more healing is done, the more powerful the Dreamweaver's attacks become, because they convert that pain into phantoms to attack the foes and such). It could fit easily in with Healing recoveres, or even grants Power Points or something, and thus slide in with the Psionic PP thing. It could be possible that the Dreamweaver can't use PP unless it uses a healing power first to gather it's font of psionic power from its allies.
This would be very different from the Empath, since its more of a Warrior Therapist rather than a Power of Heart character. The Empath could be very scary as well though to enemies – the Power of Heart could be very dangerous when *abused,* but there are plenty of Mind-bending and dominating powers already. The Empath could transform enemies into weapons, and heal allies as they do so.
I'm hoping Battlemind will have killed the Soulknife and taken its stuff, becoming a Lightsaber sort of Defender, a la Jedi Knights. I know that Swordmage already does this to an extent, but it's a nice Psionic archetype that should be expressed with less Force-elements and more mind tricks and spatial awareness.
Exorcist could come in at least two flavours - a Buddhist Monk sort of Ki Focus wielding exorcist a la Miroku from InuYasha (if we're using a well-known fantasy anime example), or a Shinto Bow-wielding exorcist a la Kikyou from the same show, or pretty much any Miko from anime. Lots of area of effect lock-down powers that prevent the enemies from moving (thus, sealing them within zones where they are rendered semi-harmless). The class could also derive basis from Omyouji (Ying-Yang Masters) from Japanese exorcist tradition.
Shepherd has been represented elsewhere, but I was recently thinking of it in new ways, such as creating mystical divine shields that protect the "flock" and the Shepherd, since it's a light armour, implement/club/sling/staff defender. The Shepherd would also empower the "flock" to fight better, somewhat subLeaderish. Instead of Marking, anytime anyone attacked the party, the damage would be reduced, and the divine shields would deal radiant or force damage or something to the attacker, knocking them back. However, the Shepherd would probably only be able to put up shields for three party members (including him/herself in that 3) at a time, thus requiring it to think about who is best to defend at the moment. This makes the Defender role a bit less standard, and could be dangerous, but I've really taken to this idea, if I do say so myself. Feel free to rip it to shreds.
Ascetic is the Shugenja from 3e Oriental Adventures and 3.5e Complete Divine. It feels best amongst the Shinto-ish Primal classes (though some Divine get in on the Shintoism as well; I see Shintoism as a mixed religion and primal reverence in D&D terms, but that's another can of worms). It feels more like Nature magic than pure Elemental manipulation magic, and drawing from the traditions of Shugendo as Mountain Ascetics in Japan, it fits in well.
Beguiller has been explained earlier, and I feel that the ideas we've played around with are more than enough explanation of what I feel it should be. Hexblade has been previously mentioned and debated as well; so has Necromancer. I feel they all have a place in Shadow.
Acolyte is my own addition, and I draw it chiefly from the Flesh Cults from Open Grave. The idea that someone uses necrotic spells to ruin their own bodily organs, and start decaying their own innards to summon flesh scamp homunculi and heal and such, is really awesome to me. I see it being a Summoner a la Tinkerer Artificer, but with these flesh scamps. Flesh Cult Acolyte could be only one build, with other builds like Raven Cult Acolyte or something. Part of the idea is that they would have a common enemy in true complete undead with the Raven Queen's religion, and with other player heroes, but have necromantic forms here. I could see them as a Doctor Death sort of class as well, knowing where every vital organ is and being able to manipulate the organs in their own body to avoid attacks or to heal others with well placed incisions. They might use daggers as implements. I definitely see them as a Leader, though with fewer healing powers, at least in the Flesh Build. It plays into "Trade part of yourself for Shadow" as well.
I think Necromancer has a place, but I'm not sure where to put it, because Necromancers are traditionally evil. I think WotC will come up with something, though it might fall into something like my Flesh Cultist Acolyte build. But I want it to be the Shadow Controller.
Dreamweaver: I had made the Beguiler the master of using peoples dark side against them as shadow constructs, without that the Beguiler is just boring.
Ascetic: I could see this as a ranged striker, cloth armor, Wis based, it could work. I suspect this is what the new Divine class is though, seeing how so far all the new classes are Ki rejects, I think it works better as Primal.
I think we could make a cool class out of this Ascetic concept.
Exorcist: I'm not really sure I get this one, to me the Seeker is the Shinto Priest and the Cleric is the western exorcist. I would like to see a cloth armored priest but I don't think this is it.
Shepherd: This is a cool Idea, Implement defender; It's pretty much what I had in mind for the Shaper, except it would a Elemental class that conforms elemental energy and matter into barriers and weapons; one build is a sort of geomancer type called the Architech Shaper that's perfect for Dwarves and the other build is a agile soulknife type called the Prismatic Shaper that's perfect for Githzerai
Hopilite: I don't get the Hoplite, how hard is it to make a mobile Fighter?
One of the major themes of the elemental source may be transmutation, since elemental blasts are pretty well covered by the Arcane source already (and this is one of the niches which has yet to be explored in another class). Unlike the Primal source which focuses on transformation of the self using the power of primal spirits, the Elemental source may focus on transformation of the environment, making things into other things using the powers the Primordials used to shape the world.
I could see Elemental powers being called "transmutations", "mantras", "fusions" or something similar.
There's a few concepts which could fit into this frame.
Elementalist (Elemental Striker): The more "blasty" type of elemental caster, who combines elements of the Warden, Monk, and Sorcerer. Each build of the elementalist will focus mainly on a single element. With the mutability of the elemental source as a theme, each of these builds will have a different secondary role (using the classical elements as an example, a Water build might be a secondary leader and an Earth build a secondary Defender). Powers may transform part of the caster's body into his given element, or use it to blast nearby or distant foes.
Alchemist (Elemental Defender or Controller): An alchemist class may make an ideal transmuter-type. The alchemist archetype may overlap a bit with the Artificer (haven't seen that class in detail yet), so it might focus more on the spiritual aspects of classical alchemy; transformation of the self into its base elemental components to attain immortality. Powers may include transforming the body into steel to deflect attacks, or into a cloud of steam to escape enemies or scald them for fire damage.
Geomancer/Wu Jen/Sha'ir (Elemental Controller): An update of the wu jen, who transforms his environment and calls upon the power of the Elemental Chaos. Powers may include impeding enemy progress by creating rivers of magma, or summoning elementals to serve the caster.
Soulknife=Psionic Striker
If I have to hate the Monk AND there is no Soulknife, im switchin back to 3.5*!
*(Impotent Rage)
Monk=Ki Refugee Striker
Soulknife=Psionic Striker
Personally , I always found soulkinves to be very monk like, save only their choice of weapon. Now that the Monk is also a psionic class the differences seem even less relevant, and it seems to me that both classes would have mostly the same kinds of powers.
As such, I am a strong supporter of the idea that SOULBLADE should be a variant class feature that replaces the monks typical improved unarmed strike, allowing them to manifest a single simple or military weapon chosen at creation (and retrainable each level). Feats could then be used to allow them to manifest additional weapons, including superior weapons.
This line of thought however did originate when the monk still had [w] powers, so this variant wouldn't be as meaningful to the finalized monk. It is even possible that the removal of [w] powers was, in part, a misguided attempt to enforce an arbitrary distinction between the attack powers of monk and soulknife.
This line of thought however did originate when the monk still had [w] powers, so this variant wouldn't be as meaningful to the finalized monk. It is even possible that the removal of [w] powers was, in part, a misguided attempt to enforce an arbitrary distinction between the attack powers of monk and soulknife.
I believe it was just for simplicity. Soulblade could be a monk sub-build easy enough.
The Soulblade can easily be a single Monk feat. The Monk *always* deals ki damage, so its just as easy to deal it via an implement-weapon shaped out of the ki force. The Soulblade feat would grant appropriate benefits for this force-construct weapon fighting style, like the Pointed Step feat does for the spear. Done.
I like. "As a minor action you can change what weapon you are wielding, you're proficiencies still apply". Then you can take advantage of any weapon specific feat/power you want. Great for hybrid or multiclass, swapping from a reach weapon to a light blade for SA then back.
Blah, if they every do bring back the soulknife, it should be more than simply a monk sub build. The concept of a person who generates a weapon out of his soul can lead to many interesting ideas, but if it is constrained within another class concept then most of those ideas will never come to be.
Maybe, but one could say the same think about monks already. Why should unarmed combat be limited to only one class.
Regardless, multiclassing could solve that. A monk feat that grants the Unarmed Combatant class feature seems likely, so if Soulblade was an alternate class feature it might be just as easily a multiclass feat as well.
I came up with the Shaper with the soulknife in mind; they have the ability to shape the elements into a handheld weapons as well as energy coils and spheres that they punish enemies with
I think the whole psychic blade thing could be done as a Paragon Path for monks or Battleminds, thats basically what the Shadowblade PP is but with shadow energy instead of psychic.
Maybe, but one could say the same think about monks already. Why should unarmed combat be limited to only one class.
Regardless, multiclassing could solve that. A monk feat that grants the Unarmed Combatant class feature seems likely, so if Soulblade was an alternate class feature it might be just as easily a multiclass feat as well.
O.o I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. My idea for the Soulknife is that it should be a class based on continually changing what weapon it is using(essentially every power would change the sould blade in some way). My ideas are stuff like hitting an opponent with a battering ram made of your soul, stabbing someone with a ten foot long spear, or punching them with a literal "dragn fist"(where you are shaping the maw of a dragon around your hand). If the soulknife is simply a minor monk option, then there is no way that they would add something along the lines of what I am thinking on top of the full discipline powers(the monk's primary mechanic).
Maybe, but one could say the same think about monks already. Why should unarmed combat be limited to only one class.
Regardless, multiclassing could solve that. A monk feat that grants the Unarmed Combatant class feature seems likely, so if Soulblade was an alternate class feature it might be just as easily a multiclass feat as well.
O.o I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. My idea for the Soulknife is that it should be a class based on continually changing what weapon it is using(essentially every power would change the sould blade in some way). My ideas are stuff like hitting an opponent with a battering ram made of your soul, stabbing someone with a ten foot long spear, or punching them with a literal "dragn fist"(where you are shaping the maw of a dragon around your hand). If the soulknife is simply a minor monk option, then there is no way that they would add something along the lines of what I am thinking on top of the full discipline powers(the monk's primary mechanic).
Sounds more like a Shaper, which might emigrate to Elemental should that be a thematic era that Elemental picks up.
Maybe, but one could say the same think about monks already. Why should unarmed combat be limited to only one class.
Regardless, multiclassing could solve that. A monk feat that grants the Unarmed Combatant class feature seems likely, so if Soulblade was an alternate class feature it might be just as easily a multiclass feat as well.
O.o I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. My idea for the Soulknife is that it should be a class based on continually changing what weapon it is using(essentially every power would change the sould blade in some way). My ideas are stuff like hitting an opponent with a battering ram made of your soul, stabbing someone with a ten foot long spear, or punching them with a literal "dragn fist"(where you are shaping the maw of a dragon around your hand). If the soulknife is simply a minor monk option, then there is no way that they would add something along the lines of what I am thinking on top of the full discipline powers(the monk's primary mechanic).
Sounds more like a Shaper, which might emigrate to Elemental should that be a thematic era that Elemental picks up.
Thats what I'm hoping from the elemental defender, earthen armor, fire swords, water whips, wind sheilds and such. Thawould make an awesome class to me.
O.o I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. My idea for the Soulknife is that it should be a class based on continually changing what weapon it is using(essentially every power would change the sould blade in some way). My ideas are stuff like hitting an opponent with a battering ram made of your soul, stabbing someone with a ten foot long spear, or punching them with a literal "dragn fist"(where you are shaping the maw of a dragon around your hand). If the soulknife is simply a minor monk option, then there is no way that they would add something along the lines of what I am thinking on top of the full discipline powers(the monk's primary mechanic).
Ah, I see. Sound very cool, though I also think it sounds a bit excessive for what a base heroic tier soulknife should be capable of. I've seen some soulknife-like characters that constantly shift the shape of their blade, but the majority of soulknife-like characters that I'm familiar with usually only have a basic blade form, and many of those that do shift their blade form often couldn't do so when they first started using their powers.
I like your idea, but it seems to me more like something that should be implemented through a series of feats, power swaps, and a paragon path. That way the character start with a base soulblade, and gains a more dynamic weapon as they dedicate themselves to that particular specialty.
I also can't help but feel that it's a concept more fitting a specific character or small group than a full class, as the concept is pretty constraining. The soulknife is an impressively flexible character type, and limiting it to a single fighting style doesn't do it justice.
Ideally, I'd like to see the Soulknife as a feat available to any character who uses the Ki focus implement, allowing them to conjure a weapon they're proficient with, with the ability to change the weapon summoned either at level up or during an extended rest.
Then we can have additional feat chains and a PP or two to allow characters who really focus on their blade's unique abilities.
Use the Enchant ritual to transfer magic powers from acquired weapons to the soul weapon, upgrading it.
A 'soul weapon' could be defined as getting the Enchant ritual for itself for free, so it can simply obsorb magic powers from any weapon in possession.
I think this would work best with the elemental simply because it's natrual breakdown into different sub-types. An elemental striker could pick fire and frost and add those elements to it's attack, an elemental defender could pick fire and wind adding resist to those elements, ect...
Tack on an epic that gives you all of them for kicks.
< Storm: His weapon stays for life. What to do as the others get magical weapons, how do you reflect this with a character's soul weapon? >
Use the Enchant ritual to transfer magic powers from acquired weapons to the soul weapon, upgrading it.
A 'soul weapon' could be defined as getting the Enchant ritual for itself for free, so it can simply obsorb magic powers from any weapon in possession.
I think it's better done as a ki-focus, and you can change the "base" weapon, so you can change to a javalin for rain of blows, then switch to a longsword for the +3.
I agree. When I said 'soul weapon', I meant the manifestation of the Ki energy in the form of a weapon.
< You can change the "base" weapon, so you can change to a javalin for rain of blows, then switch to a longsword for the +3. >
I think this is awesome flavor. My only concern is mechanics.
Generally speaking, a weapon 'specialist' would keep taking feats to improve a specific weapon more and more. (A kind of minmaxing.)
But, if the soul-weapon 'generalist' scatters feats on many 'intro' fighting styles, but never specializes, how would you ensure this generalist remains equivalent in power to the specialist?
Generally speaking, a weapon 'specialist' would keep taking feats to improve a specific weapon more and more. (A kind of minmaxing.)
But, if the soul-weapon 'generalist' scatters feats on many 'intro' fighting styles, but never specializes, how would you ensure this generalist remains equivalent in power to the specialist?
Well, what if the weapon switching thing was done by power, not by equipment?
In other words, he might have utility powers that turn his weapon into different styles. For example, at level 2, he takes Glavieshape, shifting his mindblade into a polearm and granting him reach. Further utility powers at higher levels could mimic major feat abilities, allowing him to mimic different weapon feats at the cost of his power choices.
With proper utility powers, he could transform his mindblade into an axe and use cleaving strikes (the enhanced utility over the heroic tier 'turn into an axe' power), then halfway through the battle decide he needs a hammer for devastating blows and shift weaponry again. Restricted a bit to ensure he doesn't get a free ride, but still mimicing the weapon feats well enough to suffice as a cool option.
Much like the Green Lantern, the shaper uses his will to wield energy as a weapon in a more intuitive way; they use rods and staffs as their implement which sometimes are used as a handle for which to wield the elements, their at-wills are simple small practical things like a reach attack with a energy whip or a ice blade that slows, their encounters are bigger things like a battering ram of sound or a dragons maw made of fire, their dailies would have permanent structures like energy blade that lasts until the end of the encounter or moving earth to make a barricade. One build would focus on using structures and the other build would focus on using energy, the Architect Shaper and the Prismatic Shaper.
Here's what I had in mind for the Shaper:
Much like the Green Lantern, the shaper uses his will to wield energy as a weapon in a more intuitive way; they use rods and staffs as their implement which sometimes are used as a handle for which to wield the elements, their at-wills are simple small practical things like a reach attack with a energy whip or a ice blade that slows, their encounters are bigger things like a battering ram of sound or a dragons maw made of fire, their dailies would have permanent structures like energy blade that lasts until the end of the encounter or moving earth to make a barricade. One build would focus on using structures and the other build would focus on using energy, the Architect Shaper and the Prismatic Shaper.
That'd work for the encounter/daily powers, but it would still be nice if they could switch weapon types on the fly.
Even if it's only an at-will that let's you change weapons before you attack.
Effect: You can turn you're ki-weapon into any weapon you are proficient in.
1 |W| + stat
Special: This counts as a basic attack.
That'd work for the encounter/daily powers, but it would still be nice if they could switch weapon types on the fly.
Even if it's only an at-will that let's you change weapons before you attack.
Effect: You can turn you're ki-weapon into any weapon you are proficient in.
1 |W| + stat
Special: This counts as a basic attack.
You seem to be confused; they don't use Weapons, they only have implement attacks. So what shape the elemental substance is in is really up to the player, because it's just fluff; they could be built to where you could say that they only use one kind of shape or switchs to specific Weapons, and there would be a PP just for weapons that allow you to make your attacks brutal or high crit and things like that, or you could be like the green lantern and use all sorts of shapes like sharks, you could hit people with an energy shark
As for implements (I wish he didn't actually need any but...) ki focus would be ok as they can be re-fluffed fairly easily into nothingness, totems could also work as they resemble fetishes, otherwise they could create another class of implement (except that has drawbacks as far as the amounts of options available).
There could be two builds, one that is close range, more brutish, focusing in slowing, immobilizing and dealing outright damage, he could have a class feature that allows him to vanish as an immediate reaction when hit by a melee attack and reappearing in an obscured square he created (if not just outright teleporting from shadows to shadows, but the assassin can do than so it would seem that this controller won't). The second build would be longer range and more warlock like, sacrificing damage focusing in status effects that last a couple of rounds before they can be saved from (although an outright penalty to saves could work if not for the infamous Orbwizard ) their feature could be syphoning the life energy of downed enemies to deal more damage with their next attack or something similar.
Now as to the name of such a class, Reaper would be good but I really have no idea what to call it.
I really have no idea what to call it.
That's usually a bad sign when coming up with a class concept.
The Assassin has most of what you said; grabbing with shadows, stepping from shadow to shadow, using Ki focus.
And My idea for the Beguiler can do the other stuff; they trick and warp the minds of enemies by creating false reality constructs out of shadows, and creating a shadow double of an enemy is well within their bag of tricks.
If they actually made my Beguiler, you could multiclass the two to get what you wanted
I really have no idea what to call it.
That's usually a bad sign when coming up with a class concept.
Not necessarily, I mean you can have the idea of a ranged archer whose arrows turn into stinging bees and you won't necessarily think "seeker".
As for the assassin being able to do some of those things, it really all depends on the end result, A two weapon ranger and a two weapon fighter do the same thing, fight with two weapons and attack several times per round, but they do it for diferent ends.
I would like to see your idea of the Beguiler, if you could please post a link to it.
you could hit people with an energy shark
This is everything that is right with this thread.
Not necessarily, I mean you can have the idea of a ranged archer whose arrows turn into stinging bees and you won't necessarily think "seeker".
I'm hoping that's sarcasm, because IMO the seek is the worst class WotC has made yet
As for the assassin being able to do some of those things, it really all depends on the end result, A two weapon ranger and a two weapon fighter do the same thing, fight with two weapons and attack several times per round, but they do it for diferent ends.
I get that, but it's still a slippery slope
I would like to see your idea of the Beguiler, if you could please post a link to it.
I came up with the Idea on this thread when we were talking about Beguilers and the Shadow source, but I will post what I have so far
Beguilers are people who's humanity has been broken, some dire event or goings on in their life has left them in such bleakness that the Shadowfell's power becomes connected to them; as the darkness of the Shadowfell invests their heart and mind they gain a sort of insight into the dark parts of people's mind and soul, and their new found connection to the Shadowfell allows them prey on these weaknesses. Few Beguilers have qualms about manipulating and corrupting people, not because they're bad people, but because they have little sense of humanity or empathy left in them.
I see them as having a lot of interrupt powers that are traps you have already set in place, to illustrate to the DM that an enemy should never think they know what's really going on; the DM might think the monsters are attacking your allies, but you shall reveal that is not the case
Beguiler
“I know the dark beast within you, and when I have you crawling at my feet, you will know it too.”
Role: Controller. Your words create shadow constructs out of the darkness within your foes’ heart; these phantasms distort reality and ravage your foes' soul
Power Source: Shadow. Your heart has been warped and withered by bleakness and pain and your mind is infected with the manipulating power of the Shadowfell
Key Abilities: Cha with Dex or Int
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, simple ranged Implement: Orbs, daggers, wands
Builds: Mindbender and Shadowcaster
Not necessarily, I mean you can have the idea of a ranged archer whose arrows turn into stinging bees and you won't necessarily think "seeker".
I'm hoping that's sarcasm, because IMO the seek is the worst class WotC has made yetAs for the assassin being able to do some of those things, it really all depends on the end result, A two weapon ranger and a two weapon fighter do the same thing, fight with two weapons and attack several times per round, but they do it for diferent ends.
I get that, but it's still a slippery slopeI would like to see your idea of the Beguiler, if you could please post a link to it.
I came up with the Idea on this thread when we were talking about Beguilers and the Shadow source, but I will post what I have so far
Beguilers are people who's humanity has been broken, some dire event or goings on in their life has left them in such bleakness that the Shadowfell's power becomes connected to them; as the darkness of the Shadowfell invests their heart and mind they gain a sort of insight into the dark parts of people's mind and soul, and their new found connection to the Shadowfell allows them prey on these weaknesses. Few Beguilers have qualms about manipulating and corrupting people, not because they're bad people, but because they have little sense of humanity or empathy left in them.
I see them as having a lot of interrupt powers that are traps you have already set in place, to illustrate to the DM that an enemy should never think they know what's really going on; the DM might think the monsters are attacking your allies, but you shall reveal that is not the caseBeguiler
“I know the dark beast within you, and when I have you crawling at my feet, you will know it too.”
Role: Controller. Your words create shadow constructs out of the darkness within your foes’ heart; these phantasms distort reality and ravage your foes' soul
Power Source: Shadow. Your heart has been warped and withered by bleakness and pain and your mind is infected with the manipulating power of the Shadowfell
Key Abilities: Cha with Dex or Int
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, simple ranged Implement: Orbs, daggers, wandsBuilds: Mindbender and Shadowcaster
---Martial---
Ranger -- Striker
Rogue -- Striker
Fighter -- Defender
Myrmiddon -- Defender
Warsage -- Controller
Warlord -- Leader
-- Arcane --
Sorcerer -- Striker
Warlock -- Striker
Swordmage -- Defender
Wizard -- Controller
Bard -- Leader
Artificer -- Leader
-- Divine --
Avenger -- Striker
Paladin -- Defender
Archivist -- Controller
Invoker -- Controller
Ardent -- Leader? (My guess)
Cleric -- Leader
-- Primal --
Barbarian -- Striker
Warden -- Defender
Seeker -- Controller
Druid -- Controller
Shaman --- Leader
Witch -- Leader
-- Psionic --
Monk -- Striker
Wilder -- Striker
Battlemind -- Defender (my other guess)
Psion -- Controller
Empath -- Leader
-- Shadow --
Assassin -- Striker
Hexblade -- Defender
Necromancer -- Controller
Beguiler -- Controller
Gravespeaker -- Leader
-- Elemental --
Incarnate -- Striker
Shaper -- Defender
Wu Jen -- Controller
Entropist -- Controller
Shujenja -- Leader
Myrmiddon: A new type of defender which is based on the "Brute" role. Instead of having high defenses like other defenders, this guy's thing is to have MASSIVE hit points. Like, more hit points than any other PC could ever dream of having. I'm talking in the 400s by mid-epic. His attacks would focus on multi-marking and close attacks, as his fluff would be an elite warrior who's a big tough-as-nails brawler who likes to take on as many enemies as possible. He'd minor in controller, with a bunch of Immediate Interrupts and Reaction powers that punish enemies for doing things he doesn't want them to (like moving, shifting, or attacking his allies).
Warsage: The long-awaited Martial Controller, he would be a Con/Cha/Int squishy who uses a Ki Focus and wears light armor. His builds would focus on ranged weapon attacks (where he would do AoE damage) or melee or close implement attacks which generate zones of intimidation. At higher levels he would get more hard control using stunning strikes and ki channeling to inflict conditions on opponents, by disrupting their flow of energy or striking in a vital spot.
And before anyone says this is a Monk, I'm going off the article where they say that Ki is no longer a power source, but rather a way of channeling a power source. This would be the Martial Ki-user, like the Monk is the Psionic Ki-user.
Archivist: A squishy controller which is essentially a divine wizard, who gains his powers from academic study rather than invesiture by divine patrons or churches. He would have a spellbook that functions like a Wizard's spellbook, and would use Tomes as implements instead of Holy Symbols. His powers focus on soft control and summoning powers, moreso than the Invoker, with lots of powers that create area denial zones and punish enemies for performing certain actions. He would also minor as leader, giving his allies bonuses to their attack rolls, defenses, and such by using his knowledge of the enemy.
Witch: A primal leader class combining the art of summoning spirits to debuff enemies and heal allies, to creating warding circles and zones of buffing spirits, as well as including ranged implement powers delivered through a bow, wand, or orb. One build would include elements of the Shinto priestess as well, including purifying arrows and arrows which create healing zones. The other build would be based more on the modern western witch, with tons of powers which deal no direct damage, but totally screw over the enemy, but with a more controllery curse-like bent (including weaken, restrain, daze, stun, etc.) than the Shielding Cleric's powers.
Wilder: A chaotic and unrestrained Striker who is flavored as a slightly unbalanced person who is brimming with raw, uncontrolled psionic power. His class powers revolve around creating weapons and constructs out of his mind, and using them to attack enemies. At higher levels he gains summoning powers; forming quasi-real beasts from his own psychic energy to attack enemies. He would absorb the SoulKnife, and thus have a Mind Blade, as well as his own Wild Surge, which would allow him to augment his powers to higher levels at the price of inflicting a condition on himself.
Empath: This class would basically be what Marandahir described as a "Dreamweaver". Basically, it would involve ridding allies of mental obstacles (thus buffing them or healing status), as well as amplifying the fears and anxieties of their enemies to bring them to ruin (thus making it minor in controller). Though Marandahir insisted this would be different than an Empath, I really don't see much thematic difference between a dude who heals his allies' minds, and a dude who screws with those of his enemies. If anything, Dreamweaver could be a different build of Empath.
Hexblade: A defender in heavy armor, his class would revolve around giving temporary boosts to his mark's (Hexblade's Curse) potency by using powers to lay "hexes" on his marked targets. Each power he uses would have an additional penalty which would stack onto his generic mark, such as draining HP if the target hits an ally, or weakening them, or giving them defense penalties, and such. This would make the Hexblade a unique defender, since it could strategically spike the power of its mark to keep enemies off allies who are in mortal danger. Hexblade would have a heavy controller sub-role (similar to swordmage), and would be able to summon undead "familiars" to aid it in battle.
Necromancer: Summons undead, controls undead, spreads pestilence and disease with necrotic powers. The usual stuff. Uses orbs, staves, and rods as implements.
Beguiler: Specializes in illusions, fear, charm, and invisibility effects. Less with the undeath flavor, and more with the secretive and deceptive element of shadow. Uses orbs, tomes, and wands.
Gravespeaker: Specializes in giving allies temporary hit points, and giving them bonuses based on how much damage they do to the allies (strengthening them with pain). Most of his buffing abilities involve harming the enemy to heal an ally, and transfering conditions from allies to enemies, and doing other such stuff which gives it a minor in controller. This and the Necromancer would basically be two sides of the same coin, each emphasizing a different aspect of what it means to "control" death. The main difference would be the class features, and the flavor (Necromancer is a wizard specializing in death magic, gravespeaker is more of a Shaman-type character who listens to the whispers of dead souls and turns them to his own purposes).
Incarnate: A flashy non-nonsense character who is essentially a weapon-using version of the Sorcerer. He's a pure striker draws his power directly from the Elemental Chaos, carrying a spark of elemental energy within his soul. He can infuse his body with elemental power, creating polymorph effects similar to the Warden's guardian form, but focused on offense and supreme mobility. The Incarnate is chaos embodied; the swiftness of the wind, the ruthlessness of flames, the fluidity of water, and the resilience of earth.
Shaper: A Defender who creates weapons and armor out of elemental energy, and imbues elemental power within his equipment to buff himself and his allies. He minors in leader, striker, or controller, with lots of powers that involve adding elemental damage or resistances, or increasing speed, giving DR, or temp HP. Usually these powers affect himself only, turning him into a tank that can outlast any opponent. His mark is, by necessity, pretty vicious, but limited to one target at a time, and must be sustained as a minor. One build focuses on buffing his allies as well as himself, while the other focuses on becoming an immovable wall and bringing foes to him.
Wu Jen and Shujenga: Basically exactly what the were in 3.5
Entropist: >_>... An elemental mage.... <_< I dunno... I'm low on ideas right now.
Lighter tricksters are covered by the Illusionist Wizard (and the Charms-Wizard from Class Acts), Cha-based Warlocks (especially Fey), Sorcerers, and Bards. Maybe some Artificers, based on the Traveller's fluff and his connection with them.
Beguiller should be as dangerous and grimdark as a trickster can get without crossing that moral event horizon from Unaligned to Evil or Chaotic Evil. And that means a twisted heart like what McNancy said, or something similarly dark and angsty. But not wangsty. There's such a thing as justifiable good angst.
If you want to play a trickster or a manipulator, there are already lots of non dark options; the Wizard, the Bard, the Rogue, the Warlock, the Psion. Frankly I'm tired of Mastermind, I want Scarecrow
I really don't want light and jovial Shadow classes. Play up the angst, but don't make it wangst. Make it Grimdark, darker and edgier, but not so much that the characters cross the moral event horizon into evilness. Very few Shadow-classed characters, in my opinion, should be Good or Lawful Good. On the other hand, I don't want my DM saying "you cut yourself. Roll 1d6" every 5 minutes simply because I'm playing a Shadow class (happened to me when I played a Shadowcaster in 3.5e, despite the fact that it was an all evil campaign and I was the only non-evil character in the party).
Lighter tricksters are covered by the Illusionist Wizard (and the Charms-Wizard from Class Acts), Cha-based Warlocks (especially Fey), Sorcerers, and Bards. Maybe some Artificers, based on the Traveller's fluff and his connection with them.
Beguiller should be as dangerous and grimdark as a trickster can get without crossing that moral event horizon from Unaligned to Evil or Chaotic Evil. And that means a twisted heart like what McNancy said, or something similarly dark and angsty. But not wangsty. There's such a thing as justifiable good angst.
I'm fine with most of the power source being angsty, and well aware there is good angst. And I'm not saying I want beguiler's to be all hugs and kisses, quite the contrary I want them to be tricksters who take it too far, who can't tell where the line of acceptable punchline is. Thats what I always thought of the class from 3.5. I atleast want an explanition of good shadow characters, unless they will have an alignment restriction for the classes. THe reason I support the hexblade over blackguard is it's a character who has the darkness thrust upon them as opposed to another who takes it on themselves. I'm fine with most shadow classes being angsty, but I would like at least one who is grey rather then black.
Well as far as Alignment goes, I don't think a good shadow character should be common by any means, but I do think the class should have room to make a good character interesting and not contrived
I can see some Beguilers as pranksters, it would be easy to see how a Beguiler might just see life as one big joke with no punchline, kinda like the Comedian from the Watchmen or the Joker.
I can also see how some Beguilers would strive to do good, as sometimes their hearts and minds are malformed by shadow through shear regret over some dire mistake or sin, so a Beguiler might have little humanity left but they might still want to right wrongs in hopes to cure themselves
Batman for example was driven insane by the death of his parents, a part of him died and was replaced by a dark persona, he swore vengeance on crime and uses fear to defeat his enemies. A Beguiler could easily have the same concept.
There you go, the Joker and Batman all in one class.
And my Hexblades are more often good than evil. So I very much believe that you should be able to make all kinds of grey characters and anti-heroes, but they should all have a dark aspect to them as it is the Shadow source.
(snip)
I can see some Beguilers as pranksters, it would be easy to see how a Beguiler might just see life as one big joke with no punchline, kinda like the Comedian from the Watchmen or the Joker.(snip)
Batman for example was driven insane by the death of his parents, a part of him died and was replaced by a dark persona, he swore vengeance on crime and uses fear to defeat his enemies. A Beguiler could easily have the same concept.
There you go, the Joker and Batman all in one class.(snip)
Beware, McNancy. Beware trying to place Batman in an alignment. Because no matter what you say, someone can prove to you that Batman is a different alignment. Because Batman is EVERY alignment.
(snip)
I can see some Beguilers as pranksters, it would be easy to see how a Beguiler might just see life as one big joke with no punchline, kinda like the Comedian from the Watchmen or the Joker.(snip)
Batman for example was driven insane by the death of his parents, a part of him died and was replaced by a dark persona, he swore vengeance on crime and uses fear to defeat his enemies. A Beguiler could easily have the same concept.
There you go, the Joker and Batman all in one class.(snip)
Beware, McNancy. Beware trying to place Batman in an alignment. Because no matter what you say, someone can prove to you that Batman is a different alignment. Because Batman is EVERY alignment.
I disagree. Batman is ABOVE your foolish idea of "alignment."
Well as far as Alignment goes, I don't think a good shadow character should be common by any means, but I do think the class should have room to make a good character interesting and not contrived
I can see some Beguilers as pranksters, it would be easy to see how a Beguiler might just see life as one big joke with no punchline, kinda like the Comedian from the Watchmen or the Joker.
I can also see how some Beguilers would strive to do good, as sometimes their hearts and minds are malformed by shadow through shear regret over some dire mistake or sin, so a Beguiler might have little humanity left but they might still want to right wrongs in hopes to cure themselves
Batman for example was driven insane by the death of his parents, a part of him died and was replaced by a dark persona, he swore vengeance on crime and uses fear to defeat his enemies. A Beguiler could easily have the same concept.
There you go, the Joker and Batman all in one class.
And my Hexblades are more often good than evil. So I very much believe that you should be able to make all kinds of grey characters and anti-heroes, but they should all have a dark aspect to them as it is the Shadow source.
Thats closer to what i'm looking for. I don't want a boy scout from the shadow source by any means, that makes no sense. And I'll reflavor a class if need be. One think that comes to mind for shadow characters is this exchange from Buffy:
Giles: ...she couldn't take a human life. She's a hero, you see. She's not like us.
Ben: Us? *Suffocated by Giles*
Thats the inspiration line I want for the shadow source.
I really don't want light and jovial Shadow classes. Play up the angst, but don't make it wangst. Make it Grimdark, darker and edgier, but not so much that the characters cross the moral event horizon into evilness.
This.
Batman for example was driven insane by the death of his parents, a part of him died and was replaced by a dark persona, he swore vengeance on crime and uses fear to defeat his enemies.
Actually Batman is one of the reasons that I support the Blackguard over the Hexblade for shadow defender. My blackguard concept isn't an a fallen paladin. They merely are dark knights, and Batman is one of the most archetypal dark knights in modern fiction.
The trope is fine: I can never forgive myself, but I must help others from now on. Angel of Buffy, etc. But the trope tends to get melodramatic and can lead to 'wangst'.
An other trope that can lead to wangst is: Im innocent but suffer guilt by association. Drizzt, Tiefling, Gnoll, etc.
An other trope: Someone killed my girlfriend, so finally I can start killing people with impunity. Punisher, etc.
An other trope: I was an orphan - now Im Superman, but I still feel vulnerable. LOL! Do non-orphan heroes even exist?
For me, there are two situations when wangst becomes annoying.
1) As long as I keep punishing myself, I can do whatever I want. (F*** ethics.)
2) I really dont want to help, but my guilt makes me do it. (Its all fake.)
Well, maybe playing these character concepts *knowingly* and cynically could be fun. But otherwise, the craving for approval gets annoying.
Darkside classes and races probably need a section to include fresh examples and cautionaries for playing a Good character.
That could be a Shadow character, but I'd like shadow to have real roleplaying consequences for their powers. Not mechanical ones, but they should be losing a bit of themselves.
Personally, if we're making a Batman class, I'd rather it be called Vigilante than Blackguard. Blackguard has a universal villain meaning. It was only applied to the Dark Paladin because they were supposed to be Evil, not because they were supposed to be Dark.
Of course, the original meaning before it had the [scoundrel, villain] definition, was a highly offensive term for the kitchen-utensil servants...
I really don't think the term belongs in the Shadow Power Source. It's a villain thing, or else it's an offensive slur.
Hexblade makes a better shadow character, in my opinion. Let Vigilante be a mindset that various classes could take up – perhaps a fighting style a la Martial Power, Gladiators, Assassins, Guild Rogues, etc.
They merely are dark knights
But what does that mean?
Because that just sounds like a Paladin build to me.
And i'm not saying the Beguiler is the best class for Batman, I was just using the concept to illustrate an anti-hero Beguiler is easy to imagine.
Utopia Justifies the Means, much?
That could be a Shadow character, but I'd like shadow to have real roleplaying consequences for their powers. Not mechanical ones, but they should be losing a bit of themselves.
Personally, if we're making a Batman class, I'd rather it be called Vigilante than Blackguard. Blackguard has a universal villain meaning. It was only applied to the Dark Paladin because they were supposed to be Evil, not because they were supposed to be Dark.
Of course, the original meaning before it had the [scoundrel, villain] definition, was a highly offensive term for the kitchen-utensil servants...
I really don't think the term belongs in the Shadow Power Source. It's a villain thing, or else it's an offensive slur.
Hexblade makes a better shadow character, in my opinion. Let Vigilante be a mindset that various classes could take up – perhaps a fighting style a la Martial Power, Gladiators, Assassins, Guild Rogues, etc.
Maybe not that extreme, perhaps that could be a villian form of a good shadow character. Sorry to go back to this again, but in the scene I talked about it wasn't for utopia it was to prevent an evil force from coming back to threaten the world. I want them to be the wolverine to most other sources Cyclops.
But in all fairness I want the shadow source to have the same diversity in how they interact with and aquire their powers as the other sources. Avengers can be any alignment, Paladins and clerics have to stay relaively close to their patrons. A warlock and a wizard are both arcane, they come about it very differently though. I don't mind the assassin's story, but i hope all shadow characters aren't "I gave up ____for power" in official fluff. The assassin is about as dark as I will take for a "hero" class.
Personally, if we're making a Batman class, I'd rather it be called Vigilante than Blackguard. Blackguard has a universal villain meaning. It was only applied to the Dark Paladin because they were supposed to be Evil, not because they were supposed to be Dark.
Personally, I'm not interested in making a BATMAN class. Much like trying to fix Batman to any one alignment can be problematic, so to can any attempt to fit him into a single class (mostly do to how many way the character has been presented/interpreted by different authors).
What I want is a dark night class. A charter who wears the typical trappings of a knight, but who uses methods no "true" knight would ever sink to. In most fictions this would be conveyed though the character's actions, but limiting a PC's actions is a big RPG no no. So instead I would choose to focus on the kind of power they have at their disposal. The class would have dark abilities that might IMPLY a character who is at best an anti-hero, but it would ultimately remain up to the player what their character's is. All I want is a Shadow powered knight, blackguard is simply a name I choose because it is a term already associated with D&D (yes in past editions they were exclusively evil, but then again paladins used to all be lawful good).
They merely are dark knights
But what does that mean? Because that just sounds like a Paladin build to me.
The quick short version, I mean Batman. He's often described as being the dark knight. Sometimes it is only a descriptor of him being a hero who fights crime during the night, other times it goes deeper into his motivations and methods portraying him as a hero that fights dirty so that others won't have to suffer as he has. It's mostly that second interpretation I'm going for.
And i'm not saying the Beguiler is the best class for Batman, I was just using the concept to illustrate an anti-hero Beguiler is easy to imagine.
I never meant to suggest that I thought were trying to portray Batman as any particular class. I was only using your mentioning of Batman as a springboard of sorts. My statements weren't meant to have any barring on my opinion of the beguiler class (which I am in support of).
That doesn't seem to be the ship Shadow has sailed on. Where would his/her Hexes come from?
Personally, if we're making a Batman class, I'd rather it be called Vigilante than Blackguard. Blackguard has a universal villain meaning. It was only applied to the Dark Paladin because they were supposed to be Evil, not because they were supposed to be Dark.
Personally, I'm not interested in making a BATMAN class. Much like trying to fix Batman to any one alignment can be problematic, so to can any attempt to fit him into a single class (mostly do to how many way the character has been presented/interpreted by different authors).
What I want is a dark night class. A charter who wears the typical trappings of a knight, but who uses methods no "true" knight would ever sink to. In most fictions this would be conveyed though the character's actions, but limiting a PC's actions is a big RPG no no. So instead I would choose to focus on the kind of power they have at their disposal. The class would have dark abilities that might IMPLY a character who is at best an anti-hero, but it would ultimately remain up to the player what their character's is. All I want is a Shadow powered knight, blackguard is simply a name I choose because it is a term already associated with D&D (yes in past editions they were exclusively evil, but then again paladins used to all be lawful good).They merely are dark knights
But what does that mean? Because that just sounds like a Paladin build to me.
The quick short version, I mean Batman. He's often described as being the dark knight. Sometimes it is only a descriptor of him being a hero who fights crime during the night, other times it goes deeper into his motivations and methods portraying him as a hero that fights dirty so that others won't have to suffer as he has. It's mostly that second interpretation I'm going for.And i'm not saying the Beguiler is the best class for Batman, I was just using the concept to illustrate an anti-hero Beguiler is easy to imagine.
I never meant to suggest that I thought were trying to portray Batman as any particular class. I was only using your mentioning of Batman as a springboard of sorts. My statements weren't meant to have any barring on my opinion of the beguiler class (which I am in support of).
Much like the trickster I talked about, and even my idea for a person willing to break a few rules for the greater good, this dark knight is really a rp application more then anything. It can be done with any class, for your idea in particular fighter is probably the best bet. the fluff for base classes should be kept vauge, and a fighter covers that idea well.
Why does a dark knight arch type have to be a pally. This makes no sense to me, it could as easily be a fighter or warlord. Blackguard is just a name for a idea of a shadow defender. I for one would rather see class ideas or build ideas rather than trying to decide on a name. Game mechanics are more important than a name, then add in the fluff th finish the idea. As for batman who really cares what D&D alignment he would be, I hate the whole alignment system in D&D I was hoping they would drop it in this edition but alas its still here. Using the D&D alignment system is like trying to put a square peg in a round whole, its clumbsy and unwieldy at best. It hurts roleplaying more than it helps in my experience.
No. The 4e D&D clearly designates characters based on their primary motivations and actions, and serves to keep the party from killing each other.
Good, Lawful Good, and Unaligned party members should care about each other. The mark of an Unaligned character is that they care about themselves and their family and friends, but not so much about the world around them. An Unaligned character will not attack another party member, as long as the party actually worked on party unity as the DMG2 suggests. Good and Lawful Good still care about the party first and foremost, but have a desire to help people and the world beyond that as well: they just go about it with different opinions on order in society. Evil characters have crossed that moral event horizon, and Chaotic Evil characters are too dangerous to be kept unchecked: they'll conquer everything, just to see it burn. Alignment serves the system by designating what sort of character motivations the players should have. It really shouldn't be as important to NPCs, because the PCs don't know the NPCs alignment, and don't have a tool to finding it out. They could designate the villain as evil, but the villain might have a moral cause for everything they do (Knight Templar) or might see things as Utopia Justifies the Means. The heroes might not accept that justification, and still designate the antagonist as evil or chaotic evil, but they really have no way of knowing for sure.
The alignment system exists primarely to prevent parties from falling out against one another, in that case, and when used correctly, it's very useful.
Then there are players who claim to be Unaligned, but are actually Chaotic Evil. These are the same Chaotic Neutral bastard characters from 3.X and earlier that really were just so selfish they'd even hurt the party for what they want. That wasn't Chaotic Neutral, and it's not Unaligned. Balancing evil acts with good acts isn't Unaligned either. Unaligned simply means you have little care for ethical debates, but you're willing to put your life on the line to protect your family, friends, and nakama (i.e., the Party).
/end rant.
Dark Knight doesn't have to be a Paladin. It's a roleplaying flavour you can easily create with any defender, or even other classes with a bit more difficulty and imagination. I could see dark Battle Clerics, dark Valorous Bards, dark Rangers or Barbarians that fit your scheme of Dark Knight.
But please avoid Blackguard. It's not a "dark" name, it's an "evil" name. So the only reason to use it is because it appeared as an evil-only Dark Knight class that was usually a fallen Paladin in the past.
Does that sound like what we should be recycling as a Dark Knight? Just because he happened to be dark as well as being Evil? The primary motivation for the existence of the Blackguard was evilness; to have an anti-Paladin, who were Always Lawful Good back then. They did a bit of this elswhere – the Holy Liberator was a Chaotic Good prestige class that did the same thing for Paladins who wanted to be the OTHER sort of Good. At least the Assassin prestige class said "Any nongood" rather than the "Any evil" the Blackguard said. And the Assassin has been shown to be a broad enough name to be applicable to characters who would fight alongside the good guys. Blackguard is not one of those names.
And yet you still use Batman for your description. Blackguard doesn't even close get the right connotation for what you're trying to describe. And that feels VERY thematically different from what's been established with the Assassin. If you want a dark anti-hero knight who uses unconventional/frowned on methods, you can do that through roleplaying your Defender character.
That doesn't seem to be the ship Shadow has sailed on. Where would his/her Hexes come from?
Much like the trickster I talked about, and even my idea for a person willing to break a few rules for the greater good, this dark knight is really a rp application more then anything. It can be done with any class, for your idea in particular fighter is probably the best bet. the fluff for base classes should be kept vauge, and a fighter covers that idea well.
Except I'm not looking for something that just RPs the concept of a dark knight, but something that is mechanically a dark knight. When I say like Batman, I don't mean the character, but the concept. A dark defender whose methods are arguably little different than those he opposes. A knight with dark powers to contrast the paladin and its holy powers. Yes, I know that paladin can serve evil gods in 4e, but I want a DARK knight, not an EVIL knight. Also, as I have said before, I don't see my blackguard concept functioning as a paladin build because they aren't divine servants.
As for where the class would get its mystical shadow powers from, that isn't nearly so much of a concern to me. They could like the Blackguards of old make a deal with an extraplaner entity, they could just be someone who suffered a near death experience and came back changed, or any number of other methods. I don't really care how this concept became infused with the power of shadow, only that they have it.
Except I'm not looking for something that just RPs the concept of a dark knight, but something that is mechanically a dark knight. When I say like Batman, I don't mean the character, but the concept. A dark defender whose methods are arguably little different than those he opposes. A knight with dark powers to contrast the paladin and its holy powers. Yes, I know that paladin can serve evil gods in 4e, but I want a DARK knight, not an EVIL knight. Also, as I have said before, I don't see my blackguard concept functioning as a paladin build because they aren't divine servants.
As for where the class would get its mystical shadow powers from, that isn't nearly so much of a concern to me. They could like the Blackguards of old make a deal with an extraplaner entity, they could just be someone who suffered a near death experience and came back changed, or any number of other methods. I don't really care how this concept became infused with the power of shadow, only that they have it.
I understand you want something mechanical, but give me some examples of what types of powers you are talking about. Its easy to say you want their methods to be different or what not, but that doesn't make sense. I have played vs. a person that uses just might to be evil, and am currently playing a fighter that uses dirty methods and doesn't really care about killing, even enjoys it, but doesn't go out of his way to kill.
Give an example of powers or maybe a class feature, that would help people better relate to what type of class you want.
And yet you still use Batman for your description. Blackguard doesn't even close get the right connotation for what you're trying to describe. And that feels VERY thematically different from what's been established with the Assassin. If you want a dark anti-hero knight who uses unconventional/frowned on methods, you can do that through roleplaying your Defender character.
That doesn't seem to be the ship Shadow has sailed on. Where would his/her Hexes come from?Much like the trickster I talked about, and even my idea for a person willing to break a few rules for the greater good, this dark knight is really a rp application more then anything. It can be done with any class, for your idea in particular fighter is probably the best bet. the fluff for base classes should be kept vauge, and a fighter covers that idea well.
Except I'm not looking for something that just RPs the concept of a dark knight, but something that is mechanically a dark knight. When I say like Batman, I don't mean the character, but the concept. A dark defender whose methods are arguably little different than those he opposes. A knight with dark powers to contrast the paladin and its holy powers. Yes, I know that paladin can serve evil gods in 4e, but I want a DARK knight, not an EVIL knight. Also, as I have said before, I don't see my blackguard concept functioning as a paladin build because they aren't divine servants.
As for where the class would get its mystical shadow powers from, that isn't nearly so much of a concern to me. They could like the Blackguards of old make a deal with an extraplaner entity, they could just be someone who suffered a near death experience and came back changed, or any number of other methods. I don't really care how this concept became infused with the power of shadow, only that they have it.
I guess I'm just not seeing what your wanting mechanically. Could you give examples, cause so far all your saying sounds like a role playing application.
Because Power Sources isn't about what the class or build does, it's about where they get their powers from (with a small, lesser extent on what they do and overarching mechanical themes that invoker the source of the powers, which is the definition of a Power Source – cue Department of Redundancy Department).
Martial Classes use weapon powers almost exclusively, and will get their Martial Practices and Martial Fighting Styles to further the ties between them. Arcane Characters use Wands, Staffs, or Rods for at least one build of implement powers. Half of them are really good at rituals or alchemy too. And they also tend to have powers that either invoke elements, charms, illusions, or summons/conjurations. Divine characters get Channel Divinity, Domains, usually deal radiant damage, lots of healing (at least one Subleader build in every non-leader class), and have a special relationship with the deities (worship deity channel divinities). Primal Characters undergo transformations or summon/conjure spirits of some kind. Psionics have Power Points (with the exception of the Monk), and their disciplines change the way powers work (either through the augments or through the Monk move-actions within the powers). Shadow characters seem to deal with shadow (obviously), but Assassin is all we got, so we don't know.
But the point is, Power Sources are intrisically tied with the Power Sources classes. You can't have a Dark Knight that is a Shadow class, but doesn't have anything to do with the Power Source itself other than being dark. That's not being a Shadow class, that's being a Dark Knight, which could be a number of different classes, and better suited for either your own roleplaying, a fighting style, refluffing, or a Class Acts articles (or two).
Except I'm not looking for something that just RPs the concept of a dark knight, but something that is mechanically a dark knight. When I say like Batman, I don't mean the character, but the concept. A dark defender whose methods are arguably little different than those he opposes. A knight with dark powers to contrast the paladin and its holy powers.
If I may suggest, one of the problems with the communication here is very little mention of what these Dark Powers might be.
The reason people are saying Hexblade is because they are familiar with the hex mechanic, which works very well from a defender point of view (mark a target by cursing them). Which, by the way, would work very well. The Dark Knight image is mostly about wearing heavy armor while busting out shadowy magic, which would also work very well. Plenty of heavily armored, dark-power-totin' imagery, from Vader to Lord Soth to Sauron and the Witch King.
The big thing to discuss, however, are things like 1) What kind of marking would work well, 2) What power would make him unique among the current set of defenders, and 3) How would the shadow source translate directly into his abilities, thematically and mechanically?
Plenty of heavily armored, dark-power-totin' imagery, from Vader to Lord Soth to Sauron and the Witch King.
See all of the images you talk about are villians, thats why I shy away from this dark knight he comes off more as a villian then a hero.
I want hexblade because how well the marking works, among other things. One cool thing to really give hexblades a place among other defenders is having powers that mark, but with more then just the -2 penalty. Also the fluff appeals to me more than the dark knight.
I guess I'm just not seeing what your wanting mechanically. Could you give examples, cause so far all your saying sounds like a role playing application.
No what I want is for a class that is mechanically dark (wields dark powers), and therefore fits the concept of a dark knight regardless of how the player chooses to RP. Classes should not dictate or restrict RP. I might use Batman (the concept, not the character) as a sort inspiration, but that's only meant as a sort of vague analogy. What I want is a Shadow Knight. Fighters are the martial knights (though Warlods can make excellent knights as well), Paladins are the divine knights, Swordmages are the arcane knight (though they lack armor), Wardens are the Primal Knights (and while they also lack heavy armor that seems to suit the flavor of primal). As for mechanics, see below.
Shadow characters seem to deal with shadow (obviously), but Assassin is all we got, so we don't know.
This is exactly my problem in trying propose any mechanics. We only have a single practical example of shadow class (the assassin) and a few hypotheticals (necromancer and illusionist/beguiler). It's very hard at this time to say what exactly are thematic shadow powers, and what are merely the unique defining aspects of the assassin class. The best I can say is that the Blackguard is to Assassin as the Paladin is to Avenger.
Tharag, it sounds to me like you want a Class Acts: Dark Paladins article, rather than a Shadow Defender. Or you want to take a Paladin and MC a shadow class. Or you want to do the same thing, but Hybrid-class.
No, I specifically said that I don't want a Paladin build. The dark knight shouldn't be a divine servant. That said, I would appreciate a class the multiclassed/hybrided well with fighter and paladins, but that's not any different than how I already appreciate the ability to mix-and-match fighter and paladin with each other.
But the point is, Power Sources are intrisically tied with the Power Sources classes. You can't have a Dark Knight that is a Shadow class, but doesn't have anything to do with the Power Source itself other than being dark.
When did I ever say that I wanted a dark knight that has nothing to do with shadow? I specifically mentioned that I see them as the shadow equivalent of the paladin, which I thought would have implied that I envision them as having mystical abilities, and presumably those those mystical abilities would shadowy given my choice of power source.
Watch, they'll combine the two. The Hexblade's "mark is a curse" mechanic transferred onto the heavy armor wearing anti-paladin image.
I wouldn't be entirely apposed to this. While the 3e prestige class is most remembered as the goto choice for fallen paladins, its description also mentions that rogues and bards might take the class as well (and that when they do they emphasize the sneak/manipulative aspects of the class). In fact, I'd actually appreciate it if a 4e Blackguard class could carry some of that concept forward as well, even if the dark knight is the concept I'm most concerned with. Mechanically I would probably like to see it as STR primary with INT/CHA secondaries, with CHA being for the more knight-like build, while INT would be a subtler style.
As for Hexblade though, I just don't see it being very shadow like, other than its name being similar to that of shadow powers. I'd much rather see it as a melee focused warlock variant, with a defender sub-role instead of the warlocks more typical controller sub-role. Part of this is because I think that the warlock's curse class feature (with a little feat support) already covers the hex part, but more importantly I don't want the hex blade locked into the narrower theme of shadow powers. I want Infernal Hexblades and Fey Hexbaldes in addition to Dark Hexbaledes. Which is further more why I only envision hexblade being a power based build rather than a new pact (sort of like how summoner druids aren't tied to a particular Primal Aspect), though being melee focused the build would likely have a class feature that replaces Prime Shot (maybe as simple as giving them light shields instead for extra AC).
I hear you about a Shadow Knight, but you really aren't be specific at all about what they would DO.
What reason would they have to hex people, what gives them the hexes, and why aren't they evil if they're called Blackguards?
You could just as well have a Swordmage or Warden Class Acts that gives Necrotic powers – you'd still achieve the same effect of making a Dark Knight, and you'd avoid your terrible "serving a deity" thing.
You may have said the mechanics, but whenever anyone asks you for flavour, you default to Batman. Batman doesn't mesh well with Hexes. Please tell me how your Dark Knight fits with hexes.
But from everything you're saying, your Dark Knight wouldn't hex things. Hexes are the DEFINING trait we know is shared by all Shadow classes.
No, "hexes" are what shadow powers are called. If a Paladin can call hitting enemies over the head while channeling divine power through their sword a "prayer", than I think the Blackguard can hit enemies over the head while channeling shadows through his sword and call it a "hex".
and why aren't they evil if they're called Blackguards?
It's little more than a strait forward synonym (Black=Shadow and Guard=Defender). Sure Blackguards were always evil in editions past, but than again so were Assassins, and Paladins were always Lawful Good.
I'm surprised you do not know this.
What do Paladin Prayers have anything to do with our Dark Knight if he's not a Paladin? I was asking how you're thematically making your Dark Knight hex. Paladins pray to the gods as they attack. Swordmages incant spells as they attack. Wardens make evocations to the spirits as they attack. Fighters carry out mighty exploits as they attack. Our Shadow defender needs to Hex, which means that a Batman-analogy doesn't really work here.
You can't just say, "he uses shadowy power as a knight, and we call those powers hexes." It has to be thematically hexing, and thematically tied to the shadow power source, which, from the Assassin's example, seems to be going in quite a different direction than you're pointing to.
That might be, if BLACKGUARD wasn't a REAL WORD that is pronounced Blaggard, and denotes a scoundrel or villain and was an offensive slur in origin.
So what? The term "paladin" originated from the knights of Charlemagne. The term "bard" originally referred to a poet employed by monarch to praise their royal endeavorers (and not necessarily through musical verse). The term "druid" originally meant specifically a Celtic priest. A class's name has at best tentative connection to the real world history of word used.
What do Paladin Prayers have anything to do with our Dark Knight if he's not a Paladin? I was asking how you're thematically making your Dark Knight hex. Paladins pray to the gods as they attack.
Again, if Paladins "pray" while swinging a sword, and a Barbarian can "evoke" while swinging an axe, than Blackguards can "hex" while doing the same. Even if that hex is little more than a projection of malice/spite and a desire to see misfortune befall their enemies.
You can't just say, "he uses shadowy power as a knight, and we call those powers hexes." It has to be thematically hexing, and thematically tied to the shadow power source, which, from the Assassin's example, seems to be going in quite a different direction than you're pointing to.
Seriously? You think that assassins "hex" their enemies? Other than the name for shadow powers being "hex", seems to me that their primary focus is KILLING their enemies which they do by channeling the power of shadow.
As you seem prone to using real word definitions towards the word "blackgaud", how about some of the same the for the word "hex"?
HEX (verb): to bewitch; practice witchcraft on: He was accused of hexing his neighbors' cows because they suddenly stopped giving milk.
I suppose that the assassin's powers at a stretch could be seen as a form of witchcraft, but it seems to me that what I want out of the Blackguard is no more of a stretch. Personally though, I think you're taking what is mostly a set convenient label for identifying powers of a specific source and reading more meaning into them than the authors ever intended.
I like the Shaper idea. I'd like to think the various 'Shapes' of elemental weapons (though all would be Implement attack in actuality) would work similar to Forms and Rages. Maybe have them be Dailies that affect your At-Will powers in certain ways. You could also have a sort of basic class feature where you can pick a number of basic Shapes for your elemental weapon (say 2 out of 5 for exemple) that gives you specialisation and a type of flexibility. Making them an Implement only Defender would be cool, though I guess they could be Strikers too.
One idea for an Elemental Striker I had, an Heavy Armored Striker at that since we lack that, was the Infuser. The Infuser grabs pieces of the Elemental Chaos to fuse with objects, mostly his equipment (heavy armor and weapon), or even his enemies to alter how they work.
His blade can gain new properties like being acidic, his armor can shatter and fly around him like an Earthwind Ravager or essentially trade body parts for those of a demon or Elemental or Efreet, etc. Meanwhile he can make enemies fall apart from within. Lots of transmutation, zones centering on them, plenty of dailies that grant minor action attack and uses of On-going damage. I even had this cool 'Elemental Shift' mechanic for their Striker damage: whenever they inflict a certain damage type the target gets vulnerability to that damage type for a turn. Essentially they need to keep attacking the same enemy to maintain that vulnerability and their damage, but it also helps the allies inflict more damage if they do the same type.
I see Transmutation as a recurring theme of Elemental Power source, but also the way the elemental chaos shifts from one elemental to the next all the time. I guess transmutation feels close to the Primal theme of Transformation but I see it somewhat differently. The relationship certainly wouldn't be the same. Wheras the Primal Classes call the Spirits their allies the Elemental class would just TAKE the power they need.
I'd go with CON as the most common attack stat for Elemental. With CHA as a most common secondary.
I could see the line blurring between Leader and Controller in the Elemental Controller where they could actually make their allies turn to steel and stuff with Daily polymorph spells and then turn around and turn the ground to mud beneat the enemies' feet!
I like the "vulnerability as striker damage" mechanic, though i imagine it could easily get over-powered with everyone wielding flaming weapons. If it was limited to once per round it would work good. Especially since other allies could trigger it if you miss.
Something else i'd like to see, at-will weapon switching/shaping/summoning. This could fit into the shaper idea, but It would probably work best as a series of feats rather then a class.
Feat: you can summon any simple or military weapon as a minor action
Feat: you can summon any weapon as a minor action
Feat: you can summon any weapon as a free action
It could go psi-blade or elemental. It also needs a way to be enchanted (ki focus would work well here).
Shadow
I'd really like to see the Necromancer return as a controller, with a summoned minion for thier gimmick. Thier powers would be weakened controller assortment, but each would have a rider which centers on the minion. For example, if he cast a necrotic damage "fireball", then his minion would deal int necrotic damage to an adjacent enemy.
Then we can have a shadowmancer build which augments your hex's power, and a build which improves your minion, perhaps even granting you another.
For the defender, I'm hoping for a Bone Knight
For thier mark, I'd like to see a save-ends curse, which kicks in on any round where the knight hasn't attacked them. Then we'd have a defender which works best by rapidly switching between targets, something we haven't really seen yet.
Power wise, I'd love to see the bone knight as a class that takes on the powers of the undead. One power might let him grow a vampires fangs, or a ghoul's incapacitating touch.
For the shadow source in general, I want to see underlying themes of mystery, creepyness and above all sacrifice. Shadow users may have power, but they've had to pay for it. Whether they use it for good or ill depends on the character.
Elemental
I'm pretty sure the Elemental source will concern Elementals, not the Chaos. That is, Elemental users will be classes who bind, become or bargain with elementals.
A running theme would be undefined damage types: The majority of powers shouldn't have a set damage type, instead being defined externally.
For the striker, I'd like to see something to similar to undrave's armour wearer who binds elementals to his equipment. Each of his at-wills would deal a different damage type, and his other powers would deal the damage type of the last at-will used.
Vunerability would make a good striker damage source, but it should be against the striker's attacks instead of against a specific damage type.
For a name, perhaps Battle Smith?
The defender would be the Binder, an unarmoured, unarmed fighter who binds elementals to his own flesh. Every extended rest, he would choose 1 damage type per tier, and all his powers would take those damage types. For a mark, I'm thinking a save-ends DoT.
Stat wise, both sources should use constitution-heavy, with wisdom being completely absent.
Even if that hex is little more than a projection of malice/spite and a desire to see misfortune befall their enemies.
That is basically the 3.5 hexblade.
And hexblades are not warlocks. They do not make pacts with demons or fay, they are cursed and channel that to fight their enemies.
And hexblades are not warlocks. They do not make pacts with demons or fay, they are cursed and channel that to fight their enemies.
Maybe so, maybe not. What was true in 3e need not remain so in 4e.
Also the flavor of a warlock's pact is highly mutable. Some bargain for their own selfish gain, while others are strong armed into the deal by a patron with an agenda, still others might never have made any deal at all and instead inherited the power due to the actions of an ancestor. Seems to me that the hexblade's old flavor of, "I was cursed, now I channel that power to smite my enemies", is a subcategory of the more diverse possibilities of the warlock's pact.
Nah, being cursed doesn't really work for 'locks. The pact concept precludes the concept of a truely unwilling participant, with the knowledge to cast spells as either payment or reward. Sure, you make a warlock who gets his powers due to a curse, but that's a character specific fluff alteration, and shouldn't be spread to the class as a whole.
Well as of the recent pact article they did fey do ocasionally charm mortals into pacts.
But I still agree with you that these are corner cases, and while their curse works for the hexblades their powers don't feel like curses to me. Also warlocks lack the weapon profeciencies to really pull off a martial (not the power source) class, witch Hexblade was. Also lacks a sheild profeciency. And while what was isn't necessarily what is still, it would be a pretty big overhaul to make the hexblade a build of the warlock. I want the hexblade back, it was one of my favorite classes of 3.5, and I think it's a defender, and it would either be arcane like it was in then past, or shadow (remember the assassin used to be arcane as well) I like shadow for them better. Their powers align witht he idea of a hex, and so could their version of the mark.
Warlocks sought out or learn to control power they get pipelines to through dangerous arcane patrons. They might not require the knowledge a Wizard or Artificer or Swordmage needs to manipulate the world's laws to create effects, but they need intelligence to seek out and use those patron's pipeline spells.
They know that they're making a pact – they have a choice in the matter, and chose to sell their soul or life or something. Not so with the Hexblade.
Now, Assassin's flavour says that they traded some of their soul for shadow; we could see the Hexblade as a character that inverts that: the Hexblade had the shadow thrust upon them without their consent. It wouldn't be quite the same, and would undermine the "trading-consequences" theme several of us are speculating, but it would be interesting for sure.
I don't buy that because Warlocks don't have weapon powers besides Eldritch Strike, they can't have weapon powers in the future. We've already seen Summoner Druid be a build that stretches over the other three builds, being an applicable concept on top of them. There very well could be a melee overarch for Warlocks in the future, making dual-use of that Pact Blade implement. But just as there is Battlerager Vigour and Rageblood Vigour, I want a real Shadow Hexblade class alongside a melee build for the Warlock.
Both are applicable concepts. Hexblade itself would be VERY thematically different in their powers and power source, even if it has some of the same character feel (Battlerager essentially feels like the non-magical Barbarian, just as Whirling Barbarian feels like a magical Two-Blade Ranger and Vengeful Seeker feels like a magical Archer Ranger).
I'm still very unsure about this Dark Knight concept, and completely appose the name Blackguard for it, since despite WotC reusing old names for new ideas, Blackguard has too many evil connotations for it to actually work. They were NEVER PC classes. Assassins and Necromancers were from their start.
a 1st - 30th level progression for every race. That opens up the innate special powers and abilities of every race. Rather than being defined by your class you are a paragon of your species with powers and abilities far beyond that of your fellow members of your race. This could come in the form of numerous powers, that are specific only to your race. whether they be magicial of skill oriented could depend on the race or build. Humans would probably have all skill based powers, while elves or eladrin might have a combination of magicial or skill based powers.
class features could be more expanded upon versions of the racial features. There might be one or two more new paragon paths for each race but really they already have paragon paths that are racial specific so I wouldn't hold out for a lot more but maybe one or two more.
Epic Destiny wise, I suppose so long as their are destines that are open for all classes then this isn't necessary.
If you're cursed into having a power, you don't have the knowledge-focused aspect of Warlock-hood.
Warlocks sought out or learn to control power they get pipelines to through dangerous arcane patrons. They might not require the knowledge a Wizard or Artificer or Swordmage needs to manipulate the world's laws to create effects, but they need intelligence to seek out and use those patron's pipeline spells.
They know that they're making a pact – they have a choice in the matter, and chose to sell their soul or life or something. Not so with the Hexblade.
Now, Assassin's flavour says that they traded some of their soul for shadow; we could see the Hexblade as a character that inverts that: the Hexblade had the shadow thrust upon them without their consent. It wouldn't be quite the same, and would undermine the "trading-consequences" theme several of us are speculating, but it would be interesting for sure.
I don't buy that because Warlocks don't have weapon powers besides Eldritch Strike, they can't have weapon powers in the future. We've already seen Summoner Druid be a build that stretches over the other three builds, being an applicable concept on top of them. There very well could be a melee overarch for Warlocks in the future, making dual-use of that Pact Blade implement. But just as there is Battlerager Vigour and Rageblood Vigour, I want a real Shadow Hexblade class alongside a melee build for the Warlock.
Both are applicable concepts. Hexblade itself would be VERY thematically different in their powers and power source, even if it has some of the same character feel (Battlerager essentially feels like the non-magical Barbarian, just as Whirling Barbarian feels like a magical Two-Blade Ranger and Vengeful Seeker feels like a magical Archer Ranger).
I'm still very unsure about this Dark Knight concept, and completely appose the name Blackguard for it, since despite WotC reusing old names for new ideas, Blackguard has too many evil connotations for it to actually work. They were NEVER PC classes. Assassins and Necromancers were from their start.
Very well put. And for the record I have no problems with a melee warlock, in fact think it could be cool, i just don't think they have the proficencies necessary to be the type of fighter the hexblade was in 3.5.
Also I see no problem if WotC goes with the shadow classes giving up part of them for shadow with having one class that is an inversion of that concept.
Also warlocks lack the weapon profeciencies to really pull off a martial (not the power source) class, witch Hexblade was. Also lacks a sheild profeciency.
Easily fixed. I already mentioned that as a melee build for warlocks the Prime Shot class feature would likely need an alternative variant. Just Replace it with a class feature that grants light shields and proficiency with a single military weapon of choice.
If you're cursed into having a power, you don't have the knowledge-focused aspect of Warlock-hood.
A person that is cursed might seek knowledge to understand the nature of that curse. Certainly if they derive a way to turn that curse to a meaningful heroic end it might well be through the acquisition of such knowledge.
But just as there is Battlerager Vigour and Rageblood Vigour, I want a real Shadow Hexblade class alongside a melee build for the Warlock.
This I rather agree with. Conceptually I might want to divide the old Heblade into the arcane "curseblade" and the shadow "darkblade". The arcane concept seems a natural fit for a warlock variant. To some degree the assassin might already cover the shadow half, but I think that would ultimatly sell the concept short. I'd rather see it as the other half of my Blackguard concept, which would have a heavy armor build (based on fighter/blackguards and paladin/blackguards) and a light armor build (based on rogue/blackguards and bard/blackguards).
Edit: quotation fix
But just as there is Battlerager Vigour and Rageblood Vigour, I want a real Shadow Hexblade class alongside a melee build for the Warlock.
This I rather agree with. Conceptually I might want to divide the old Heblade into the arcane "curseblade" and the shadow "darkblade". The arcane concept seems a natural fit for a warlock variant. To some degree the assassin might already cover the shadow half, but I think that would ultimatly sell the concept short. I'd rather see it as the other half of my Blackguard concept, which would have a heavy armor build (based on fighter/blackguards and paladin/blackguards) and a light armor build (based on rogue/blackguards and bard/blackguards).
Hey, hey... don't attribute what I said to Jedi!
Hey, hey... don't attribute what I said to Jedi!
Sorry, should be fixed now.
The concept I have in mind for the Hexblade is the perfect class for that Anti-Paladin flavor but without the alignment issue, and it MCs well with Paladin both mechanically and thematically
Hexblade
“Is that the best you’ve got? Ha, you really should have just stayed away from me.”
Role: Defender. The forces of destruction are closing in on you and those closest to you at all times, and you have spent your whole life keeping them at bay
Power Source: Shadow. Born under a dark omen, your existence bears the mark of shadow and will forever have doom and woe follow in your footsteps
Key Abilities: Cha with Str or Dex
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide, chain, scale, plate, light shield, heavy shield
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, simple ranged, military melee
Builds: Dark Crusader and Fatespinner
Also, they could play into the "Lordless Knight" archetype of the Black Knight.
That's actually sort of what I want out of my blackguard concept. Obviously it has to go further than that, as a historical knight whether they serve a lord or not is still a martial class. However, if one contrasts the paladin as the typical knight (substituting divine patron for sovereign monarch), then a shadow class anti-paladin works (playing both off the historical lordless knight and the fantasy night with dark powers).
As for hexblade. I still don't care for the idea of a dark knight who lives under a curse. Make the class feel to depressingly gloomy to me. I prefer my black knights to embrace their power willingly rather than simply having been born under a bad omen. I want a dark knight who walks the razor edge of defending what he believes in without becoming the kind of monster he fights against. It might make a fine variant refluff, but would grates against my sensibilities if it were the default.
I prefer my black knights to embrace their power willingly rather than simply having been born under a bad omen. I want a dark knight who walks the razor edge of defending what he believes in without becoming the kind of monster he fights against. It might make a fine variant refluff, but would grates against my sensibilities if it were the default.
But what would be the story behind that? How do the do-gooder knights get these dark powers? Why do they seek dark power but at the same time fight for good? Why do they choose "willingly" to "walk on a razor's edge"? If they willingly got the powers beforehand what leads them to the path of good?
I prefer my black knights to embrace their power willingly rather than simply having been born under a bad omen. I want a dark knight who walks the razor edge of defending what he believes in without becoming the kind of monster he fights against. It might make a fine variant refluff, but would grates against my sensibilities if it were the default.
But what would be the story behind that? How do the do-gooder knights get these dark powers? Why do they seek dark power but at the same time fight for good? Why do they choose "willingly" to "walk on a razor's edge"? If they willingly got the powers beforehand what leads them to the path of good?
Well some of them might be barley better than the bad guys antiheroes. Others might be more like the Batman analogy, people who suffer a great tragedy and seek the power to protect others from the same Still others might be like Cecil of Final Fantasy IV, who train in dark arts out of a sense of duty.
I get that, I'm a fan of that too, the Assassin is like that somewhat and it's always been the story behind Necromancer. Whether it's out of shamelessness or desperation or past mistakes, they all chose to be that kind of wrongness and I think that gives them a sort of scariness that I appreciate.
I think the Necromancer can get away with it more because of the level of moral ambiguity behind necromancy, it's arguably more gross than it is evil. The Assassin's story requires a little more complication, they require some sort of story as to why they sold their sold for murder powers. And I think two classes that have willfully learned Shadow Hexes is enough, otherwise you start seeing too many characters carrying around the Bad-boy Card, plus those kinda classes are often taken advantage of by players who just want to be evil.
To me it sound like this Blackguard is just an Assassin only less ninja and more knighty, to me that's kinda redundant and a little too much bad-boyness for 4E's heroic classes motto.
To me it sound like this Blackguard is just an Assassin only less ninja and more knighty, to me that's kinda redundant and a little too much bad-boyness for 4E's heroic classes motto.
I don't really see it as redundant, but as a unified theme. All divine classes are typicaly members of a church or similar organization, save Invokers. They are all likely in good standing with other members of the faith, save Avengers. Likewise most primal classes share very similar origins.
I see shadow as dark to the point where heroes that tap its powers walk a fine line. Choosing that dark path out of personal greed, desperation, or ignorance of the danger make for fine commonalities. That said it's fine to have classes that stand out, in fact each class should do exactly that in its own way, but to me the class that should be cursed by shadow rather than having chosen it is the Beguiler and not the Shadow Defender.
I'd much rather see the Shadow Defender as a someone who willingly excepts the dark power as a means to protect others from greater evils or because they believe that darkness can only be fought with more darkness. Perhaps they chose the path in ignorance of what it would cost them and now seek to escape the "curse" they brought upon themselves, or perhaps they see themselves as martyrs who suffer in the dark so others might live happily in the light. Either way, they still chose to walk the dark path rather than have it forced upon them.
I don't really see it as redundant, but as a unified theme. All divine classes are typicaly members of a church or similar organization, save Invokers. They are all likely in good standing with other members of the faith, save Avengers. Likewise most primal classes share very similar origins.
Walking the line between good and evil as a theme, doesn't really translate easily to the black and white morality of D&D, and especially not the new keep it simple and everybody's a good guy mentalities of 4E, It can be done though, and it should be done so that we can start to get away from the care bear 4E morality, and I think it could be something fun for more advanced and experienced players as more of a campaign theme, but that whole care bear thing is not really that important.
The more important reason I think it would be better as a campaign theme and also why it's not good for the theme of Shadow, is because it's about good vs. evil, and the Shadow power source is not really about being evil. I'm sure you would agree that Dark ≠ Evil, and making the theme of the Shadowfell about being on the edge of evil sorta sends the wrong message about what the Shadowfell is about. I think good and evil is a theme that touches on all the power sources and thats really the way it should be.
So in a nutshell, the line between good & evil is a great theme, but the Shadow power source is not about evil and therefore that particular theme would be inappropriate.
To me the theme of Shadow should be Power at a Heavy Cost, each class has a different connection to the Shadowfell but the power of the Shadowfell is different from any other power source in that it always come with a dire cost and is just as much a burden as it is a gift; The Assassin must give away apart of their soul and can never hope to be the same again, the Necromancer is the most feared and hated of all classes and yet they embrace it's infamy willingly, the Hexblade must constantly overcome their blight or fall victim to it, and every Beguiler is but a mere shadow of their former self and carry with them the ghosts of their past.
That to me is what the Shadowfell is about; when I read the Manual of the Planes about the Shadowfell, I get a sense of wrongness, but not in the ethical sense of wrongness, in a unhealthy and unwholesome sense of wrongness. It's something to be feared and avoided because it's bad for you and offers nothing but pain, not because it's evil, it's not malicious by any real means. In fact I think there is a sort of virtue to it; the principals of the Shadowfell are that nasty things like death, gloom, sickness and darkness are just as important as the nice things and that humanity and life are not supposed to be flawless.
Perhaps in a more subtle and more profound way, the true theme of the Shadow power source is that Dark ≠ Evil
I don't really see it as redundant, but as a unified theme. All divine classes are typicaly members of a church or similar organization, save Invokers. They are all likely in good standing with other members of the faith, save Avengers. Likewise most primal classes share very similar origins.
Walking the line between good and evil as a theme, doesn't really translate easily to the black and white morality of D&D, and especially not the new keep it simple and everybody's a good guy mentalities of 4E, It can be done though, and it should be done so that we can start to get away from the care bear 4E morality, and I think it could be something fun for more advanced and experienced players as more of a campaign theme, but that whole care bear thing is not really that important.
The more important reason I think it would be better as a campaign theme and also why it's not good for the theme of Shadow, is because it's about good vs. evil, and the Shadow power source is not really about being evil. I'm sure you would agree that Dark ≠ Evil, and making the theme of the Shadowfell about being on the edge of evil sorta sends the wrong message about what the Shadowfell is about. I think good and evil is a theme that touches on all the power sources and thats really the way it should be.
So in a nutshell, the line between good & evil is a great theme, but the Shadow power source is not about evil and therefore that particular theme would be inappropriate.
To me the theme of Shadow should be Power at a Heavy Cost, each class has a different connection to the Shadowfell but the power of the Shadowfell is different from any other power source in that it always come with a dire cost and is just as much a burden as it is a gift; The Assassin must give away apart of their soul and can never hope to be the same again, the Necromancer is the most feared and hated of all classes and yet they embrace it's infamy willingly, the Hexblade must constantly overcome their blight or fall victim to it, and every Beguiler is but a mere shadow of their former self and carry with them the ghosts of their past.
That to me is what the Shadowfell is about; when I read the Manual of the Planes about the Shadowfell, I get a sense of wrongness, but not in the ethical sense of wrongness, in a unhealthy and unwholesome sense of wrongness. It's something to be feared and avoided because it's bad for you and offers nothing but pain, not because it's evil, it's not malicious by any real means. In fact I think there is a sort of virtue to it; the principals of the Shadowfell are that nasty things like death, gloom, sickness and darkness are just as important as the nice things and that humanity and life are not supposed to be flawless.
Perhaps in a more subtle and more profound way, the true theme of the Shadow power source is that Dark ≠ Evil
QFT.
Shadow powers aren't evil, evil is role playing as is that razorr's edge, they are dark, mysterious, and perhaps a bit unsavory. Necromancers aren't evil, but something about messing with the dead is off putting. The assassin can be good, but anyone who kills with such precision is scary. While other people in the world might see shadow classes as evil, because they have the prejudice of dark=evil, doesn't mean that the characters feel that way themselves. Perhaps the necromancer has found that using the dead is a good way to save the living from having to risk dieing themselves. The assassin can give up part of themselves to gain the power to protect others from harm (btw I think this is the best idea for batman since we keep using him in this thread). The shadow characters in my oppinion should be the ones willing to cross the line when it is needed, not someone always at the line, at least as default.
Walking the line between good and evil as a theme, doesn't really translate easily to the black and white morality of D&D, and especially not the new keep it simple and everybody's a good guy mentalities of 4E, It can be done though, and it should be done so that we can start to get away from the care bear 4E morality, and I think it could be something fun for more advanced and experienced players as more of a campaign theme, but that whole care bear thing is not really that important.
Actually it seems to me that the thematic premise of 4e (PoL) is more gray than ever. Small/isolated communities against a vast unexplored/untamed wilderness. A world were the forces of "evil" vastly out number the forces of "good", with "evil" only being kept in check by their tendency to fight each other.
To me, HEROES who turn to the power of shadow are those who see the world as being a giant crappot. They embrace the darkness rather than become a beacon of light, but not because they've given up on saving the world, instead they see themselves as turning the darkness against itself. Where as the typical hero fights to create a world with more light, the shadow hero fights to create less darkness. They walk a fine line because as they grow in power so to does the darkness within them and they must struggle to destroy ever more darkness to compensate.
To me the theme of Shadow should be Power at a Heavy Cost, each class has a different connection to the Shadowfell but the power of the Shadowfell is different from any other power source in that it always come with a dire cost and is just as much a burden as it is a gift; The Assassin must give away apart of their soul and can never hope to be the same again, the Necromancer is the most feared and hated of all classes and yet they embrace it's infamy willingly, the Hexblade must constantly overcome their blight or fall victim to it, and every Beguiler is but a mere shadow of their former self and carry with them the ghosts of their past.
That to me is what the Shadowfell is about; when I read the Manual of the Planes about the Shadowfell, I get a sense of wrongness, but not in the ethical sense of wrongness, in a unhealthy and unwholesome sense of wrongness. It's something to be feared and avoided because it's bad for you and offers nothing but pain, not because it's evil, it's not malicious by any real means. In fact I think there is a sort of virtue to it; the principals of the Shadowfell are that nasty things like death, gloom, sickness and darkness are just as important as the nice things and that humanity and life are not supposed to be flawless.
Oh I agree. When I say walks the razor's edge I'm actually trying to get at Dark ≠ Evil, but while that is the case the two concepts are more the same than different, that's were the fine line comes into play. Just how much can darkness be emphasized before it becomes indistinguishable evil?
Also you're right that the shadowfel itself isn't malevolent, but it is all consuming. Those who seek its power must pay a hefty price, often a portion of their "humanity". In that respect those who wield its power walk the fine line of how to use that power to its fullest without losing the rest of their "humanity". Those who wield the power of shadow, no matter how noble their cause, must live with the constant doubt that they might one day lose what ever moral compass guides them, becoming no different than the shadowfel itself. It's not the fear of becoming evil, but the fear of reaching the point where one is no longer able to distinguish between good and evil, or worse still, no longer cares enough to even try.
The shadow characters in my oppinion should be the ones willing to cross the line when it is needed, not someone always at the line, at least as default.
I can see that as a very valid interpretation, but I still think that the concept of walking the line can apply to those who cross the line. It just changes to the concept of how many times can they cross the line before they lose their way and forget how to return to the other side, or worse sill find themselves no longer caring to even try.
Just out of curiosity, what does (would) the hexblade do, mechanicly? Try to be more specific then just "curses" and "hexes". What exatly set's it's play style apart from a paladin? (besides necrotic damage).
First of I don't see them using necrotic damage, thats other shadow weilders powers. They would be a sub controller rather then sub leader, focusing on debuffs and things like immobolized. They channel the negative curse through their weapons and place it on their enemy, sometimes as a minus to attack, others as an inability to move.
Just out of curiosity, what does (would) the hexblade do, mechanicly? Try to be more specific then just "curses" and "hexes". What exatly set's it's play style apart from a paladin? (besides necrotic damage).
They curse and hex people so they hit less often and also have an aura that causes mis rates (by granting cover/concealment). They also have a selection of illusion,transformation and necromancy spells. Usually around debuffing.
In 4e they'd be a Defender/Controller with a lot of debuffs, as oposed to the Paladin who's Defender/Leader with buffs.
Just out of curiosity, what does (would) the hexblade do, mechanicly? Try to be more specific then just "curses" and "hexes". What exatly set's it's play style apart from a paladin? (besides necrotic damage).
They curse and hex people so they hit less often and also have an aura that causes mis rates (by granting cover/concealment). They also have a selection of illusion,transformation and necromancy spells. Usually around debuffing.
In 4e they'd be a Defender/Controller with a lot of debuffs, as oposed to the Paladin who's Defender/Leader with buffs.
Hmm...
Hexblades curse
Imediate Interupt
Trigger: An enemy marked by you makes an attack that doesn't include you
Effect: The target is weakend untill the end of it's turn.
How's that sound?
Just out of curiosity, what does (would) the hexblade do, mechanicly? Try to be more specific then just "curses" and "hexes". What exatly set's it's play style apart from a paladin? (besides necrotic damage).
When I come up with a class concept, I don't think too much about the mechanics; making a class mechanically different from other classes seems like it wouldn't really need to have an effect on the class concept itself, so I just figure that stuff can wait until I have solid thematics and archetypes.
I like the idea of the Hexblade as a defender because in a way being the tank is in of itself a curse; the job of a defender is to get their *** kicked as much as they can and to keep all the *** kicking directed at them, and the Hexblade is perfect for that because they've been drawing agro since the day they were born.
Just out of curiosity, what does (would) the hexblade do, mechanicly? Try to be more specific then just "curses" and "hexes". What exatly set's it's play style apart from a paladin? (besides necrotic damage).
When I come up with a class concept, I don't think too much about the mechanics; making a class mechanically different from other classes seems like it wouldn't really need to have an effect on the class concept itself, so I just figure that stuff can wait until I have solid thematics and archetypes.
I like the idea of the Hexblade as a defender because in a way being the tank is in of itself a curse; the job of a defender is to get their *** kicked as much as they can and to keep all the *** kicking directed at them, and the Hexblade is perfect for that because they've been drawing agro since the day they were born.
But the core mechanic and a thematic stretch of what it's powers DO should be included in a class concept.
Wardens are nice and all with their newfound fluff, but they would be bland Green-Knight if it weren't for their polymorphic powers, and the way they mark.
For a Striker, the way they get the Damage Spike should at least be noted. For a Defender, same thing with the Mark. For a leader, the Healing Mechanic should be noted. For a controller, there's no universal mechanic, so basically a core class feature of their's that supports their powers should be noted (Arcane Implement Mastery, Wild Shape, the thing where the arrow always finds it's target for the Seeker).
I'd like to see the mechanic of the Hexblade's marking, as well as an overarching theme to it's powers.
I like the weakening mark suggested above.
Dark Knight (I refuse to accept the name Blackguard, as that would fly in the face of Dark≠Evil) would need to satisfy all these things as well.
I'd prefer Bone Knight though.
For a mark, how about this?
Sigil of Reviled Regard
Minor Action Ranged Sight
Target: An enemy you have damaged this turn
Effect: The target is slowed and marked until you attack it or you use this power again.
And for powers a mix of Shadow-Imbued weapon strikes, with encounters/dailies granting tha abilities of the undead.
Harrowing Blade * Shadow, Necrotic, Weapon
At-Will Melee Weapon
Target: One Creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] Necrotic damage, and is Weakened if it attacks one of your allies before the start of your next turn.
Visage of the Nightwalker * Shadow, Necrotic, Weapon Bone Knight Attack 25
At-Will Close Burst 5
Target: Each enemy in Burst
Attack: Strength vs. Will
Hit: 6[W] Necrotic Psychic damage.
Effect: The target is pushed 4 squares and takes a -2 penalty to all defences (Save Ends).
Dark Knight (I refuse to accept the name Blackguard, as that would fly in the face of Dark≠Evil) would need to satisfy all these things as well.
I really don't see the name Blackguard being any more problematic than the name Paladin flying in the face of Light≠Good. If 4e can have evil Paladins then I see no reason why it can't have good Blackguards. The classes need no longer be tied to alignments, but rather to concepts. Not good knight vs. evil Knight, but instead holy Knight vs. dark knight.
I really think your getting too hung up on the name, particularly on its archaic etymology. Personally I find ASSASSIN to be a much worse class name because it still caries serious negative connotations in MODERN english. In the end though, I could care less what name the dark knight concept ultimately ends up with, but until I have a better name I will continue to call it Blackguard.
Dark Knight (I refuse to accept the name Blackguard, as that would fly in the face of Dark≠Evil) would need to satisfy all these things as well.
I really don't see the name Blackguard being any more problematic than the name Paladin flying in the face of Light≠Good. If 4e can have evil Paladins then I see no reason why it can't have good Blackguards. The classes need no longer be tied to alignments, but rather to concepts. Not good knight vs. evil Knight, but instead holy Knight vs. dark knight.
I really think your getting too hung up on the name, particularly on its archaic etymology. Personally I find ASSASSIN to be a much worse class name because it still caries serious negative connotations in MODERN english. In the end though, I could care less what name the dark knight concept ultimately ends up with, but until I have a better name I will continue to call it Blackguard.
Except I'm not hung up on the archaic, offensive etymology. I'm hung up on the fact that in MODERN ENGLISH, Blackguard is a synonym for a villain, a bad guy, even if the usuage is slightly dated. Paladins weren't Holy Knights, either: they were the Knights of Charlemagne's court, the Knights of the Palace. It has nothing to do with Light or Good, so that's not a good comparison. Also, in Unearthed Arcana, there were Paladins of Freedom, Tyranny, and Destruction as well as the standard Paladin of Justice, so there was already precidence for Paladins of any end of the alignment spectrum.
Blackguard should not be a PC option on the basis of the name alone, though the D&D history also shows it's as something that is solely evil, even more than just Dark. I'm sorry. It's just an inappropriate name.
EDIT: It was never made or meant for PCs (hence why Prestige classes were originally in the DMG in the past edition). It was mostly useful for creating a villain, an Anti-Paladin to oppose the Paladin in the party, or as something a PC could become if they fell into evil and thus were put in the hands of the DM afterwards. Or should have been, because an evil member of the party would wreck the party cohesion.
Well those are my ideas anyway.
Paladins weren't Holy Knights, either: they were the Knights of Charlemagne's court, the Knights of the Palace. It has nothing to do with Light or Good, so that's not a good comparison.
Historically the term paladin refereed to the knights of Charlemagne, but in modern use it has largely become synonymous with the concept of a holy knight and is most often portrayed as the ultimate champion of the forces of good (except when portrayed more as a knight templar). It is both more synonymous with good than blackguard with evil and its usage is generally more wide spread.
Historically the term paladin refereed to the knights of Charlemagne, but in modern use it has largely become synonymous with the concept of a holy knight and is most often portrayed as the ultimate champion of the forces of good (except when portrayed more as a knight templar). It is both more synonymous with good than blackguard with evil and its usage is generally more wide spread.
I'm pretty sure thats because of D&D's use of the word. Any of classic class names have taken on a new meaning since D&D has become the grandfather of almost all fantasy terminology.
But the core mechanic and a thematic stretch of what it's powers DO should be included in a class concept.
Yeah... But IMO those things, although very important to the class concept, are something that should come after the class concept has been well seated thematics, story and archetypes wise. And I'm not really good at coming up with mechanics, I know what kind of things they should be able to thematically but I don't know how to make a balanced mechanic for it.
So I'm thinking the Hexblade can shoot arrows that turn into bees.... JK
I think you guys have the right Ideas for the mechanics; thats the power of making a class concept with strong flavor and archetypes behind it, the rest just falls right into place.
Blackguard & Spellthief
(Dread, Doom, Dusk, Death, Void, Blight, Soul, Ebon) + (blade, knight, helm, scythe, guard, edge) =......
Warforged. I can only imagine the fun to be had.
Though I still prefer the Hexblade.
I was going to give you a huge definition list, on what Blackguard means outside of D&D, and talk about how the people who DON'T know D&D that I talk to see the word Blackguard as having a villainous meaning, but I accidentally pressed F5 instead of F4 (my dashboard), which deleted my entire post and I'm too lazy right now to write all that up again.
Let's just say the evidence is against you on Blackguard.
And yeah, Paladin only means what it does in "Modern Media Culture" because D&D appropriated the term, and many other RPGs are playing a game of Follow the Leader. It rarely shows up outside of RPGs (only in a couple RPG-based anime and such).
How about merging it with the Duskblade and calling the idea that?
Let's just say the evidence is against you on Blackguard.
What evidence?
We have an assassin who isn't evil or a murder or even middle east in origin.
Why the hell would anyone care what the word Blackguard means?
First off, the Blackguard had an Aura of Evil, not an Aura of Darkness. In past editions of D&D, no less, the Blackguard is not the Dark Knight, but the Evil Knight. With a couple dark powers.
Oxford American Dictionary:
black•guard |'blagərd; 'blak,gärd|
noun dated
a person, particularly a man, who behaves in a dishonorable or contemptible way.
verb [ trans. ] dated
abuse or disparage (someone) scurrilously.
DERIVATIVES
black•guard•ly adjective
ORIGIN 16th cent. (originally as two words): from BLACK + GUARD. The term denoted a body of attendants or servants, esp. the menials who had charge of kitchen utensils, but the exact significance of the epithet [black] is uncertain. The sense [scoundrel, villain] dates from the mid 18th cent., and was formerly considered highly offensive.
American Heritage Dictionary:
black·guard html_removed// play_w2("B0299400")html_removed ..."return m_over('Click for pronunciation key')" onmouseout="m_out()" onclick="pron_key()">(bl
g
rd, -ärd
)n.
1. A thoroughly unprincipled person; a scoundrel.
But to get things a little bit more on track, what other classes would you like to see?
I belive you have more association with the term blackguard them most people do. The only time i've ever heard it is in relation to D&D. Not to say i'm paticularly for the name, it's rather bland, as is battlemind and fighter, but i think most people associatiate it with D&D more then anything else.
But to get things a little bit more on track, what other classes would you like to see?
Exactly my point: The only time it's used as a Dark Knight is in D&D, and there it's more used as an EVIL KNIGHT than a Dark Knight.
Other classes I'd like to see:
I'm hoping Swordmage comes back (possibly as part of Battlemind) with aspects of the Setting Sun discipline wrapped into it. I always wanted an Aikidoka class in 4e, one that uses the enemies own force against them.
The possibilities to develope Aikido in Monk however exist too, especially with the no-weapon attacks.
I want to see an Evangel class, coming in flavours of Archivist and Missionary, that can use the Tome implement as a holy book and are leaders who empower their audiences with speeches of the Glory of the Gods and the Heavenly Host. The Archivist build would be more of a researcher, someone who devotes their lives to studying holy texts, while the Missionary would focus on pulling allies to their causes. Probably Wisdom-related, though I coud see it as a V-shaped class with Int and Cha as primaries and Wisdom as secondary.
First off, the Blackguard had an Aura of Evil, not an Aura of Darkness. In past editions of D&D, no less, the Blackguard is not the Dark Knight, but the Evil Knight. With a couple dark powers.
And Paladins in that same edition had an Aura of Good. They weren't just a Holy Knights, but a Good Knights.
Oxford American Dictionary:
I can't help but notice the definitions are all listed as dated.
American Heritage Dictionary:
Unprincipled and foulmouthed might equal unpleasant, but they do not necessarily equal evil.
Collins English Dictionary:
As above.
WordNet 3.0 Thesaurus:
The first list might support you, but the second two lists (which are each longer) are only unpleasant rather than evil.
Wikitionary:
Again, unpleasant but not inherently evil.
Of those, D&D and Warhammer have evil Blackguards, the others are real life examples. The only Dark Knight Blackguards you have really to work with are those two Roleplaying Games ones. I think you may be confusing the Dark Knight archetype that appears in MANY roleplaying games, isn't necessarily evil, with Blackguard. Blackguard wasn't chosen for the name of the Prestige Class because it fits a Dark Knight, but because it fits a villain. It also sounds similar to Braggart, which may or may not be a good thing for the class (but my mother mentioned that when she voiced how silly a hero must be to WANT to be called a Blackguard). No hero would WANT the definition – it's something you use to demean others, a put-down. Not a hero name.
No, no confusion. I seek the dark knight archetype and don't really care what it is called. I use the name Blackguard because it roles well off the tongue and has a history of use in D&D. Sure they WERE exclusively evil in the PAST, but in those same editions Paladins were exclusively good. If Paladins can change in 4e, why can't Blackguards.
Earlier you mentioned duskblade, and while that's a fine enough name the class concept was more spellknight than dark-knight. Also, unlike the Swordmage, (which it likely helped inspire) I would rather avoid the implication that the class operates under any kind of weapon restrictions.
As for being a name no hero would choose, who says such characters self-identify as Blackguards? Perhaps it is more of a slur used by a world that hates and fears them, but doesn't really understand them. Being a hero who allows the world to see them as a villain certainly fits the dark knight theme.
Assassin doesn't have that connotation, and the Assassins weren't necessarily evil in their origin. In fact, there have been cases of people, like Diedrich Bonhoeffer, who tried to assassinate Hitler, who would have been Assassins and he, though he lamented his methods, decided the ends justified the means. That's what it means to be an Assassin (and most adventures, who kill in the name of good or such).
Seriously, assassin is generouly synonomous with muderer. Worse still assassins are generly veiwed as cowards who don't even give their kill a fair chance to defend themself. No HERO should ever WANT to be called an assassin.
They weren't just good. I shouldn't have to repeat myself on this point.
And Blackguards weren't necessarily Anti-Paladins.
But I thought we got off this topic and back to classes we wanted.
(As a wild guess, I suspect the original meaning of 'blackguard' would relate to 'blacksmith', hence taking care of the kitchen utensils. Whence the 'lowest of the low' among those in an aristocratic estate. To an egalitarian, its surprising how the word became *extremely* offensive, but perhaps to a near-caste-system society, the loss or ambiguity of social status was a nightmare.)
Remember, Paladins were of all four extreme alignments in the past.
No, a set of variants in single book allowed for paladins of other alignments. In the CORE game Paladins remained exclusively Lawful Good. Unearthed Arcana was little more a than book of "official" house rules.
They weren't just good. I shouldn't have to repeat myself on this point.
Nor should I.
But I thought we got off this topic and back to classes we wanted.
I still want the Blackguard class, or rather dark knight concept. You might not like the name, but until I have a better one I intend to use it when discussing the concept.
Tharag, if that is the case, I'll refer to your concept as a Dark Knight until a better name is proposed.
Let us leave these semantic arguments aside for the time being, and get back to a discussion of what future classes we want, as Mellored, the OP, suggested.
I doubt emphasizing how contemptuous and villainous the reallife slur Blackguard is, will dissuade WotC. LOL! Evil seems to make WotC more likely to canonize it.
Just look at the Tiefling. Originally the race was a child of a devil from the hells. Now canonized with a see-thru lampshade over it. I laughed out loud when one of the contributors to the forums called it, 'the I-can't-believe-it's-not-satan race'.
Tharag, if that is the case, I'll refer to your concept as a Dark Knight until a better name is proposed.
Let us leave these semantic arguments aside for the time being, and get back to a discussion of what future classes we want, as Mellored, the OP, suggested.
Fine by me. I can agree to disagree.
Just look at the Tiefling. Originally the race was child of a devil from the hells. Now canonized with a see-thru lampshade over it. I laughed out loud when one of the contributors to the forums called it: 'the I-can't-believe-it's-not-satan race'.
LOL!
I knew there was a reason I don't put you on my ignore list (beyond the fact that I'm opposed to the use of such lists on a community forum).
Mar,
I doubt emphasizing how contemptuous and villainous the reallife slur Blackguard is, will dissuade WotC. LOL! Evil seems to make WotC more likely to canonize it.
Just look at the Tiefling. Originally the race was child of a devil from the hells. Now canonized with a see-thru lampshade over it. I laughed out loud when one of the contributors to the forums called it: 'the I-can't-believe-it's-not-satan race'.
Between them, the warlock, and the assassin they do seem not a have a little bit of a thing for the anti-hero going don't they. Add in the fact they now have dusk elves, and a bunch of stuff tailored for paladins of the raven queen, and hell even the featured avenger in the avenger essentials article was a follower of her, they seem to favor the dark notes. Also the recent walock article was about pushing the warlock even closer to that proverbial line.
Yeah, friendly disagreement is a valuable resource.
What new Primal classes would you like to see?
I have been thinking about it for awhile now, and it's not easy to come up with anything too new because so far the Primal source is a little all over the place and unorganized, let's just say it's not put together the way I would have done it.
But I think the Witch can be done, for lack of a better name, as a leader that *transforms* others via polymorph magic, something others have come up with too; I can see lycanthropy/moon/night magic being a sub-theme, using disease and poxes is another good one, turning people into toads is a classic.
I could see them having a daily that turns all allies into wolves until the end of the encounter, mechanically doing stuff like granting them a bonus to speed and ability to knock prone while flanking. different dailies at different levels are different kinds of lycanthropy, like bats or wolf lords.
I can see them making an ally a plague bearer that spreads disease to the enemies they attack.
Giving enemies vulnerabilities would be a big part of their leader tactics, using slime to make them grant combat advantage, or by turning them to stone for a moment giving an ally a chance to shatter off a big chunk of em.
I can see one build being a sort of scary voodoo priest archetype and the other being a sort of stoic moon priestess archetype.
What do you think about this
Another possible concept for a sixth Primal class would be a "dark side of nature" class. Maybe call it the Blighter and make it a ranged Primal Striker who focuses on blasting with poison and cold attacks. Transformative curses might also appear in this class, using the wrath of nature to wither enemies and transform them into small harmless animals.
Stat arrays could include CON/WIS (for a primal class suited for the Wilden) and CON/CHA (since that combination isn't used much).
I'd love a Witch Doctor, though the Shaman seems to have tha covered.
A class that transforms allies into animals and things sounds cool though. However, it would probably have to be temporary, like the possession work that the Warrior Forge Artificer does (attacking through the allies); otherwise, they would get in the way of allies' fighting as well.
I dunno about the Blighter. The Blighter was supposed to be the Druid's Blackguard. It drained and blighted nature. I wouldn't call that a Primal Class.
I'd love a Witch Doctor, though the Shaman seems to have tha covered.
A class that transforms allies into animals and things sounds cool though. However, it would probably have to be temporary, like the possession work that the Warrior Forge Artificer does (attacking through the allies); otherwise, they would get in the way of allies' fighting as well.
I agree. Dark in in of itself is not a class concept, I think the whole dark side of nature thing would be better as a build for the already in place classes, In fact I would like to see a book that has "dark" flavored builds for the Divine and Primal classes.
Witch doctor I think is at least somewhat covered by the Shaman, but the other aspects of it could be covered by the Witch
The turning allies into animals thing would just be party buffs, you wouldn't be controlling them or anything, you would just be granting bonuses and abilities that make the party more unified and specialized like a hunting pack of animals. And you could put in a side note that says if a ally didn't want to be polymorphed, they could choose not to get the bonuses or it could just be reflavored as just being granted a pack mentality or something
Actually, 4e already covers the Primal concepts that I look for. Mainly I try to flesh out the Norse mythos and Scandinavian folklore.
Jotun/Troll berserkergang = Barbarian Rage
Troll-animal/Shape-Leaper = Druid Beastform
Finn shaman = Druid Beastform and Druid Weather magic
The rest of the Norse nature-spirit concepts can be done via hybrid classing, especially the 'shape leaper' being a Barbarian rager that can Wildshape into a totem animal.
(The rest of Norse magic concepts, Psionic covers. So wel see how that goes later. More peripheral magic themes fall under Shadow for graveyard divination, but Primal ancestor worship can more-or-less cover this too. Elemental covers certain cosmic Jotnar, especially Water-Ice versus Fire-Smoke. Wind and 'white-muck' Earth too, but Primal can more-or-less cover these two. Finally, Arcane Bard and Artificer cover certain kinds of magic, respectively. Martial handles Nordic warriors. The seafaring Vikingr translates well as an Archer Ranger, Brawny Rogue, or light-armored sword-and-shield Fighter. Eventually a water-world setting could supply sailing mechanics, but the Nature skill and Acrobatics already work well now. Ideally, the Ranger class will get a sea-savvy, dexterous, sword-and-shield build to cover the Vikingr concept perfectly.)
The new Primal Seeker is awesome. IMO, the quintessential class for the official Elf.
I have no preconceptions about the Warden, but it looks interesting.
The Shaman seems excellent to represent certain African and Amerindian shamans. But I cant get passed the lack of Charisma. Reallife shamans are 'charismatic' spiritual leaders, who rely on Diplomacy, Intimidation - and notably Bluff and tricksterism! Often shamans fake 'miracles' like a stage-magician. However, their intent isnt to deceive. Its more like the Western concept of Santa Claus, where parents trick their children for a higher spiritual purpose. Reallife Shamans can mix tricksterism with genuine miracles, in away that surprises, disturbs, and fascinates a Western worldview.
So, if theres any Primal class Im still looking for, its a Charisma-Wisdom build for the Shaman. This 'Trickster' build focuses on tricksterism to provoke deeper insight, but also on responsible community leadership via healing and oracles, and on spirit journeys with nature spirits on behalf of the community.
Let's talk about the Primal power source.
What new Primal classes would you like to see?
I have been thinking about it for awhile now, and it's not easy to come up with anything too new because so far the Primal source is a little all over the place and unorganized, let's just say it's not put together the way I would have done it.
But I think the Witch can be done, for lack of a better name, as a leader that *transforms* others via polymorph magic, something others have come up with too; I can see lycanthropy/moon/night magic being a sub-theme, using disease and poxes is another good one, turning people into toads is a classic.
I could see them having a daily that turns all allies into wolves until the end of the encounter, mechanically doing stuff like granting them a bonus to speed and ability to knock prone while flanking. different dailies at different levels are different kinds of lycanthropy, like bats or wolf lords.
I can see them making an ally a plague bearer that spreads disease to the enemies they attack.
Giving enemies vulnerabilities would be a big part of their leader tactics, using slime to make them grant combat advantage, or by turning them to stone for a moment giving an ally a chance to shatter off a big chunk of em.
I can see one build being a sort of scary voodoo priest archetype and the other being a sort of stoic moon priestess archetype.
What do you think about this
I like your idea but instead of turning allies into a creature what about summoning natures creature(s), that way it would give you a a way to help your group out and they still have there characters abilities. Or you sumon spiritual versons of those creatures. I also think it could be a good or evil class which works for the game better, remember nature is all about balence.
Avatar
"All men have something they would rather hide from the world. I simply choose to unleash mine upon my enemies."
There are people who have used shadow magic to sunder their soul in two. There are many reasons that a person may choose to this, perhaps they sought to remove violent urges that they were being lost in or perhaps they sought to forget some memory of bloodshed from long ago. Regardless of the reason, the shadowfell isn't so kind as to let these people completely forget their pasts. Those people who perform the ritual will always have a frgment of the lost portion of their soul with them as a nagging reminder of the past they wished to forget.
Some who perform the ritual learn to bring physical form to this fragment. They can learn to control this immortal fragment to aid them in combat. While these fragments always symbolize the portion of the soul that was ceded to the Shadowfell, their exact appearance is not stagnent and they may change appearances as they attack or simply to taunt their owner. For while the owner may not remember why he ceded a portion of his soul to the Shadowfell, the fragment will always make sure that he never forgets that he did.
The witch class is interesting, but dosen't make me think witch. I'm not sure witch should be primal, I think it is more fitting of arcane or shadow, at least my idea of a witch is(I could possibly be convinced of primal). Also I think a witch more of a controller then a leader. Just my 2 cents. If we were to do a primal witch I'd like it to take after voodoo a bit more. TOrmenting enemies with spirits, and baleful polymorph abilities. A class that actually comands minor spirits, but pays respect to the upper level. This could also take care of the "dark" primal class, though any of the primal classes could be made dark.
As for other classes:
Hexblade- Discussed at length why I want this class.
I really want an elemental defender class that wears cloth armor, and forges weapons and armor and sheilds out of elements. One such attack i think of is a charge where they cover themselves in earth to make a bull rush attack for massive damage and gain a bonus to ac.
I like your idea but instead of turning allies into a creature what about summoning natures creature(s), that way it would give you a a way to help your group out and they still have there characters abilities. Or you sumon spiritual versons of those creatures. I also think it could be a good or evil class which works for the game better, remember nature is all about balence.
Ok, I seem to have confused a few people. It's not like wildshape, it's more like a rage or a guardian form
All the power does mechanically is give allies bonuses, special attributes and might augments their attacks; the allies would still have all of their powers and abilities but they would have some extra stuff granted to them that allows them work with other allies with a new tactic. It's like the utility for the Shifter PP, it turns you into a wolf but you still fight the same way.
I was thinking about Witches some more and I'm thinking the Witch could be a sort of primal transmuter, but not like *rock to mud* transmutation(thats the Shapers department) more like *hair to snakes* transmutation; they could start with Alchemy as a default,
they can mutate the environment somewhat by doing things like turning plants into vine horrors that make OAs,
they can mutate enemies by turning their weapons or hands into spiders making them easier targets for allies,
they could call up oozes from the ground to do a number of effects or make a wall,
they could infect an enemy with acidic blisters that adds acid dmg to allies' atks on em and if they are killed before they save then the the acid spreads out over other enemies dealing a little dmg,
they could turn one ally into a winter wolf granting him bonus cold dmg to his attacks and temp HP,
they could call down moon light that makes your allies more instinctive and deals radiant dmg to enemies,
they could freeze an enemy making them more fragile,
they could temporarily blot out all light with a swarm of leaves that also grant allies darkvision so they can hunt in the night.
SOrry not feeling the Avatar class, it seems like a shadow version of the Shaman.
O_O Shaman? Really? I really don't feel that there is any more similarities between the Shaman class and my proposed Avatar clas than there are between the Shaman and the Beastmaster Ranger(although I admit the the Beastmaster Ranger and Avatar might have a few more similarities with each other than either have with the Shaman). Beyond the Shaman and Avatar both being pet classes, I don't think they have too much in common. Or at the very least there are as man,y if not more, differences between them than between the rogue and assassin.
I mean for starters the Shaman is leader and the Avatar would be a striker(most likely). The shaman is calling upon the spirits of nature to help her allies. The spirit is mostly insubstantial and is used as a focus points for attacks. The Avatar's pet would be the physical manifestation of past traumas or other things that the Avatar wishes to forget. The Avatar's pet would be doing most of the work(I see the Avatar himself doing very little work himself and being very frail).
As for the fluff of the Witch, I'm not sure yet; I want to play up the good witch bad witch archetype, and I'm thinking I want the Primal classes to be somewhat untrusting of Witches but at the same time able to see them as allies, maybe Witches know things that other Primal classes do not and refuse to share it.
It's hard because the fluff for the Primal classes is so all over the place, it's hard to find a spot for the Witch to fit in.
I'm guessing that if there ever is a Witch class, it'll be quite different from the concept of a primal controller. Pathfinder has sort of made the Witch a Arcane/Divine caster. The 4e Witch could very much be a Shadow or Psionic class, even though I don't think there's room for a witch in the latter power source. I don't really have much of an idea yet what would separate Elemental from other classes.
I think we can do with another Ranged Weapon using striker, since the Ranger is the only one so far. It's kind of hard to tell which way the Elemental Power Source will go. I mean we could get Captain Planet for all you know... I'm guessing that it might be more based on Attuning yourself to the fabric of creation and the elements.
Another reason to avoid the name Blackguard is, because it remains in use but not widely, people *often* mistake its actual pronunciation to be a racial slur. It sounds like 'blackered' or 'blackard', being made more Black or some such, while in the context of a slur. Blakrd has the same problem as the word 'niggardly' (meaning stingy), which my mom had to stop using in reallife. People easily mistake it for a racial slur.
SOrry not feeling the Avatar class, it seems like a shadow version of the Shaman.
O_O Shaman? Really? I really don't feel that there is any more similarities between the Shaman class and my proposed Avatar clas than there are between the Shaman and the Beastmaster Ranger(although I admit the the Beastmaster Ranger and Avatar might have a few more similarities with each other than either have with the Shaman). Beyond the Shaman and Avatar both being pet classes, I don't think they have too much in common. Or at the very least there are as man,y if not more, differences between them than between the rogue and assassin.
I mean for starters the Shaman is leader and the Avatar would be a striker(most likely). The shaman is calling upon the spirits of nature to help her allies. The spirit is mostly insubstantial and is used as a focus points for attacks. The Avatar's pet would be the physical manifestation of past traumas or other things that the Avatar wishes to forget. The Avatar's pet would be doing most of the work(I see the Avatar himself doing very little work himself and being very frail).
And it's the shaman's pet that does most of the work. Mechanically the shaman's spirit is just the origins of the attck, but I always interpretted it as comanding the spirit to attack. And it's not the fluff that was similar, but the mechanics of a character that uses another figure as the source of attacks (especially witht the new artificer build and the beastmaster ranger), i don't see how it's mechanically very different.
And it's the shaman's pet that does most of the work. Mechanically the shaman's spirit is just the origins of the attck, but I always interpretted it as comanding the spirit to attack. And it's not the fluff that was similar, but the mechanics of a character that uses another figure as the source of attacks (especially witht the new artificer build and the beastmaster ranger), i don't see how it's mechanically very different.
Oh well if you are speaking mechanically then I admit at the moment that it might not sound too unique because I haven't really thought about the mechanics too much at this point. As I recall, I originally came up with the class idea before PHB2 came out, so at the time just having it be a pet class distinct from the beastmaster ranger was enough. I haven't really looked at the other pet classes mechanically in depth, so I don't completely know what mechanically would be novel and what has been done before. Off the top of my head though, I would think that the Avatar and the soul fragment(really need to come up with a better name) would share HP, surges, or perhaps both. I really don't think that making this concept mechanically unique would be that hard, I would just need some time to think it out.
An Elemental "Chaosblade" class, absorbing the theme of the soulblade by having a weapon that is summoned from the ever-changing flux of the elemetal chaos- perhaps a maul of earth, a blade of wind, a chain of water, an arrow of fire. Like the Cosmic sorcerer, it can choose to change it's aspect in the middle of a fight- and also like the cosmic sorcerer, sometimes it HAS to change aspects, whether you want to or not. Technically an implement user, it would use the Elemental-powersource implement (like Divine's Holy symbol or Primal's Totems) to harness chaos.
Also Elemental, an "Alchemist" or "Worldshaper" class, who is a controller that unleashes the mutability of the Elemental chaos over the world, warping reality to suit his tactical goals- Staffs, orbs, and the elemental implement would be it's implements.
I think It could make for a really cool PP of the Beguiler, someone who can conjure the part of themselves that was lost as a shadow construct to enhance the Beguiler's ability to prey on the darkness within others.
The Seeker was nice as a nature class, but I'd still like to see a Divine class based on the Miko Archer, delivering bindings and holy auras through a bow.
An Elemental "Chaosblade" class, absorbing the theme of the soulblade by having a weapon that is summoned from the ever-changing flux of the elemetal chaos- perhaps a maul of earth, a blade of wind, a chain of water, an arrow of fire. Like the Cosmic sorcerer, it can choose to change it's aspect in the middle of a fight- and also like the cosmic sorcerer, sometimes it HAS to change aspects, whether you want to or not. Technically an implement user, it would use the Elemental-powersource implement (like Divine's Holy symbol or Primal's Totems) to harness chaos.
Also Elemental, an "Alchemist" or "Worldshaper" class, who is a controller that unleashes the mutability of the Elemental chaos over the world, warping reality to suit his tactical goals- Staffs, orbs, and the elemental implement would be it's implements.
More archer concepts wouldn't be bad, I don't like them but I know plenty others do.
The "Chaosblade" (I hope for a much better name) is kinda what I want out of the elemental defender, only with armor options as well.
The world shaper sounds kind of like a more extreme version of the geomancer concept some have talked about. I like the geomancer a little more, mostly cause I don't want the elemental power source to be any more evil then I want the shadow classes to be.
EDIT: I also want a melee controller at some point, not martial perse just melee. I prefer melee characters and so want that option avaiable to me in something besides one build of Druid.
I don't think Martial could have it in it (in terms of archetypal roles), but I'm hoping to see it somwhere.
For some reason, I really like the idea of an Exorcist that uses a Pick to bash in enemies.
I have this Divine exorcist class concept, with a ranged weapon (Miko) build, a Ki Focus sort of Monk-exorcist build ranged implement build, and melee weapon build that uses heavy weapons like picks and hammers and flails. But especially picks.
They might bash their picks into the ground, and create a zone around where they did that. Or they might bash their pick into the skull of the enemy, and all enemies in a radius around that enemy are trapped within the zone of exorcism as well, restricting their movement and actions.
I want a Melee Weapon Controller, if that's even possible. We've seen a a melee controller, and we've seen a ranged-weapon controller, now I want to see a melee weapon controller.
I don't think Martial could have it in it (in terms of archetypal roles), but I'm hoping to see it somwhere.
For some reason, I really like the idea of an Exorcist that uses a Pick to bash in enemies.
I have this Divine exorcist class concept, with a ranged weapon (Miko) build, a Ki Focus sort of Monk-exorcist build ranged implement build, and melee weapon build that uses heavy weapons like picks and hammers and flails. But especially picks.
They might bash their picks into the ground, and create a zone around where they did that. Or they might bash their pick into the skull of the enemy, and all enemies in a radius around that enemy are trapped within the zone of exorcism as well, restricting their movement and actions.
I'm not feeling the exorcist (namely since that mainly implies usage only against demons and such, at least to me). Also if we do see a Martial Weapon Controller (like I said all for it) I would hope it to be in a power source I like to play(I tend to dislike the Divine source as a whole). My idea of a shaper could be modified, forming a sword out of air that blasts enemies within a burst, or a water lasso that pulls target. THis isn't quite a true weapon controller, but I'd be happy to see it.
It might need something to set it apart from the Ranger and Seeker, the other two bow-using classes (three if you count the archer Bard from Arcane Power). A reliance on ranged attacks might be enough to distinguish it from the melee-oriented Avenger.
Exorcist could be a good idea for a ranged (or mostly-ranged, if it has both melee and ranged powers like the Ranger) Divine Striker class. Its extra damage feature might deal increased damage to evil or unnatural creatures like undead, devils, demons, primordial creatures, or abberations (reflecting the PHB3's Far Realms-oriented flavor). Favored weapons might include crossbows (for the vampire-hunter types) or longbows (for those preferring a more Oriental exorcist flavor). Possible stat setups would probably be DEX primary, WIS and CHA secondary (or WIS/DEX and WIS/CHA).
It might need something to set it apart from the Ranger and Seeker, the other two bow-using classes (three if you count the archer Bard from Arcane Power). A reliance on ranged attacks might be enough to distinguish it from the melee-oriented Avenger.
Actually, there are currently 4 Ranged Weapon class builds, and a Warlord build is on the way: Archer Ranger, Vengeful Seeker (a heavy thrown build seems on the way), Prescient Bard, and all Artificers to a degree. I don't know why you wouldn't count the Prescient Bard... it's just as core as anything else.
A divine archer is a concept that needs fleshing out though.
I think that more than Dexterity, Wisdom is the key stat for Archers. It's the one ability score shared by every single archery class, and I have a suspicion the ranged-weapon Warlord build will be the Wis-lord as well. That said, Wisdom as a key skill, with Charisma or Constitution I could see for my Exorcist idea. Dexterity might be a third ability score that all Exorcists might use to some degree, much like Wisdom for Rangers.
It just sounds like a ranged Avenger to me. I'm not saying it's a bad Idea, it just needs to stand out more IMO.
Thinking more about the Witch, I can't help but feel like what really makes a Witch a Witch is the arrogance; when I think about Witches, whether it's a good witch or a bad one, they always have this outlook like they're the one eyed king in the land of the blind.
So I'm thinking the Witch should be some sort of ascetic, similar to the Wu-Jen of 3.5e who has a very scholastic approach to their magic that is at the same time very dogmatic and secretive. Perhaps Witch magic was sort of the equivalent to wizardry (magic without principles) in the time before anyone understood arcane magic, thus explaining the nonsensical nature of Witchcraft. I don't know, I'm just throwing around ideas in my head.
It just sounds like a ranged Avenger to me. I'm not saying it's a bad Idea, it just needs to stand out more IMO.
Thinking more about the Witch, I can't help but feel like what really makes a Witch a Witch is the arrogance; when I think about Witches, whether it's a good witch or a bad one, they always have this outlook like they're the one eyed king in the land of the blind.
So I'm thinking the Witch should be some sort of ascetic, similar to the Wu-Jen of 3.5e who has a very scholastic approach to their magic that is at the same time very dogmatic and secretive. Perhaps Witch magic was sort of the equivalent to wizardry (magic without principles) in the time before anyone understood arcane magic, thus explaining the nonsensical nature of Witchcraft. I don't know, I'm just throwing around ideas in my head.
I think thats not a bad place to start, I often called the wu jen a witch in more traditional settings. But the 3.5 wu jen would be elemental power source probably
It just sounds like a ranged Avenger to me. I'm not saying it's a bad Idea, it just needs to stand out more IMO.
Thinking more about the Witch, I can't help but feel like what really makes a Witch a Witch is the arrogance; when I think about Witches, whether it's a good witch or a bad one, they always have this outlook like they're the one eyed king in the land of the blind.
So I'm thinking the Witch should be some sort of ascetic, similar to the Wu-Jen of 3.5e who has a very scholastic approach to their magic that is at the same time very dogmatic and secretive. Perhaps Witch magic was sort of the equivalent to wizardry (magic without principles) in the time before anyone understood arcane magic, thus explaining the nonsensical nature of Witchcraft. I don't know, I'm just throwing around ideas in my head.
Except that witchcraft actually has a lot of sense to it. If you look at the literary sources of the potions Witches make and their ingredients (there are some GREAT plays and books out there that deal with these), they usually are all key ingredients (though unrefined) in sexual preventatives, aphrodisiacs, stimulants, relaxitives, and many have herbal medicinal properties that would be useful for other reasons. The Good-Witch/Bad-Witch distinction wasn't a distinction – these were women who could give life as well as destroy it. At least in the common perception of the people. They were midwifes, herbalists, women who would be doctors but weren't allowed to be, and thus were demonised because they were threatening the male dominance in healing.
Now, that's a big simplification, and it's a lot more complicated than that, but that should help to define some concepts that have been in popular understanding of witches. For the really bad witch, the Warlock actually fits that trope to the T; but if you're going to go after a more true-to-the-witch class, you need to look into the actual material that exists.
*just took an entire course on witchcraft and the history of witch trials*
It just sounds like a ranged Avenger to me. I'm not saying it's a bad Idea, it just needs to stand out more IMO.
Thinking more about the Witch, I can't help but feel like what really makes a Witch a Witch is the arrogance; when I think about Witches, whether it's a good witch or a bad one, they always have this outlook like they're the one eyed king in the land of the blind.
So I'm thinking the Witch should be some sort of ascetic, similar to the Wu-Jen of 3.5e who has a very scholastic approach to their magic that is at the same time very dogmatic and secretive. Perhaps Witch magic was sort of the equivalent to wizardry (magic without principles) in the time before anyone understood arcane magic, thus explaining the nonsensical nature of Witchcraft. I don't know, I'm just throwing around ideas in my head.
Except that witchcraft actually has a lot of sense to it. If you look at the literary sources of the potions Witches make and their ingredients (there are some GREAT plays and books out there that deal with these), they usually are all key ingredients (though unrefined) in sexual preventatives, aphrodisiacs, stimulants, relaxitives, and many have herbal medicinal properties that would be useful for other reasons. The Good-Witch/Bad-Witch distinction wasn't a distinction – these were women who could give life as well as destroy it. At least in the common perception of the people. They were midwifes, herbalists, women who would be doctors but weren't allowed to be, and thus were demonised because they were threatening the male dominance in healing.
Now, that's a big simplification, and it's a lot more complicated than that, but that should help to define some concepts that have been in popular understanding of witches. For the really bad witch, the Warlock actually fits that trope to the T; but if you're going to go after a more true-to-the-witch class, you need to look into the actual material that exists.
*just took an entire course on witchcraft and the history of witch trials*
Very good point, and the Witch takes a lot of root from celtic life, inparticulat the caldron if I'm not mistaken.
The Salem Witch (i.e. the christen idea of someone who trafficed with the devil for power) is very much an infernal pact warlock in my eyes (any warlock could possibly be used honestly). SO we would have no need for that style of witch. I think sticking with the primal feel is better, more of the crone in the woods. And because of the image with the couldron and potions I think alchemy bonus feat is a given (possibly able to switch for rituals). But what types of powers would she have. I like the transforming enemies angle, but not so much the transforming allies. I could see her getting healing powers and being a leader.
Mostly just spouting stuff off.
Hell, a Holy Symbol would work just as well.
Why this didn't exist for Silver Flame followers in the EPG is beyond me.
A concept I've had running around in my head for a while is the Cursed. Divine characters are defined by thier relationship with thier diety. What if, instead of being favoured by the gods, we instead have someone who the gods have withdrawn thier favour from? Who knows what the Divine "Spark" keeps suppressed?
I honestly don't see the attraction of a dedicated Witch class, especially since we already have Wizards, Sorcerers, FeyLocks, Bards and Druids. What exactly would we get from the Witch that we don't already have?
Whilst the Divine archer is compelling concept, all we really need to achieve it is a feat or PP that lets you use a bow or crossbow as your implement for divine classes.
Hell, a Holy Symbol would work just as well.
Why this didn't exist for Silver Flame followers in the EPG is beyond me.
A concept I've had running around in my head for a while is the Cursed. Divine characters are defined by thier relationship with thier diety. What if, instead of being favoured by the gods, we instead have someone who the gods have withdrawn thier favour from? Who knows what the Divine "Spark" keeps suppressed?
I honestly don't see the attraction of a dedicated Witch class, especially since we already have Wizards, Sorcerers, FeyLocks, Bards and Druids. What exactly would we get from the Witch that we don't already have?
Actually, I feel somewhat of the same way about Witches. I think it could be done, just as a Swashbuckler class could be done, but it occupies space that is already occupied, and could be stepping on toes.
As for Divine Archer, what I want isn't an Avenger or Cleric or Invoker or Paladin that can use bows or crossbows as an implement; I want a Ranged Weapon power divine class or build. That's what Prescient Bard gave us, it's what Artificer gave us, it's what Seeker and Archer Ranger gave us, and I expect a Divine one too.
I really feel like it could occupy a space of a Divine Exorcist, Witch-Hunter, Miko, Purifier, etc. Someone who hunts down enemies of the faith, locks them away with zones, and purifies them. It would play very differently from the Avenger, and I would put it as a controller, rather than a striker, but creating the themes to differenciate it would be necessarily. I probably wouldn't put them as the shadowy blade of the faith, but rather a zealous face that is up close and personal with you. Like an Inquisitor – confess of your sins and you might be reprieved, but if you continue to oppose me, I'll have to kill you.
I'm not interested in making a midwife class, I don't want it to be too historically accurate. But I do like the idea of Witches being feared hated, not because they are spooky or evil, but because they challenge the status-quo. What if Witches were non Divine priests, what if they were petty much just Primal(pagan) priests.
I actually really like this idea, because D&D is a polytheistic world, it's hard to have heretics when there are no false gods. The Witch could be a follower of the old faith that through commitment and deeds have been invested with the authority to wield Primal power on behalf of the spirits they venerate. As such, Witches would have little respect for the gods who take credit for what the earth provides, and Divine characters wouldn't want to hear about how their gods are nothing but a burden on the world, so of coarse there would be the occasional "witch hunter"
Divine classes and Witches wouldn't undermine each others' power source or goals, but they would undermine the necessity and authority of each other; sort like on cop shows when two people are investigating the same case and they work together while at the same time arguing over who's in charge of the case.
Tell me, what do you think, of, that?
The Seldarine dedicate PP is pretty much the PP you are talking about, it's in Divine Power
I'm not interested in making a midwife class, I don't want it to be too historically accurate. But I do like the idea of Witches being feared hated, not because they are spooky or evil, but because they challenge the status-quo. What if Witches were non Divine priests, what if they were petty much just Primal(pagan) priests.
I actually really like this idea, because D&D is a polytheistic world, it's hard to have heretics when there are no false gods. The Witch could be a follower of the old faith that through commitment and deeds have been invested with the authority to wield Primal power on behalf of the spirits they venerate. As such, Witches would have little respect for the gods who take credit for what the earth provides, and Divine characters wouldn't want to hear about how their gods are nothing but a burden on the world, so of coarse there would be the occasional "witch hunter"
Divine classes and Witches wouldn't undermine each others' power source or goals, but they would undermine the necessity and authority of each other; sort like on cop shows when two people are investigating the same case and they work together while at the same time arguing over who's in charge of the case.
Tell me, what do you think, of, that?
I like this idea, although I would like it if some of the Witch Powers were a bit non-sensical in flavor and whimsy.
Actually, I feel somewhat of the same way about Witches. I think it could be done, just as a Swashbuckler class could be done, but it occupies space that is already occupied, and could be stepping on toes.
What if stepping on toes is exactly what the class is all about; that's why the Witch is feared, they're the competition, and they have been around longer but at the same time are much more obscure.
I like this idea, although I would like it if some of the Witch Powers were a bit non-sensical in flavor and whimsy.
Me too, like as though the Witch is on a different level of thinking than everybody else.
I like this idea, although I would like it if some of the Witch Powers were a bit non-sensical in flavor and whimsy.
Me too, like as though the Witch is on a different level of thinking than everybody else.
Exactly, although I don't agree that it needs to step in other classes shoes.
I think it would be great if the class worked like this:
- Totem implement
- Some attack through allies' spaces possibly flavored as (a cloud of mosquitoes pour out of your friend's mouth)
- Some Chaos Bolt like attacks that bounce arround
- A lot of ranged bursts that dominate or mini-dominate (enemy does a basic attack against other enemy or enemy explodes in a close burst X doing yd8 damage to everyone around and regenerates unaware of what happened (dazed))
- Poymorphs on enemies
- summonings that deal with spirits as opposed to beasts like the druids, however the summoned creatures are highly random and work better when yoou don't control them.
Whilst the Divine archer is compelling concept, all we really need to achieve it is a feat or PP that lets you use a bow or crossbow as your implement for divine classes.
Such a PP already exists, for clerics at least, in Divine Power. Regardless though, PP are never the solution to the desire for a new class, as they are not an viable option until mid level game play. The desire for a new class usually stems from wanting a concept to exist starting at level 1.
As for Divine Archer, what I want isn't an Avenger or Cleric or Invoker or Paladin that can use bows or crossbows as an implement; I want a Ranged Weapon power divine class or build. That's what Prescient Bard gave us, it's what Artificer gave us, it's what Seeker and Archer Ranger gave us, and I expect a Divine one too.
I really feel like it could occupy a space of a Divine Exorcist, Witch-Hunter, Miko, Purifier, etc. Someone who hunts down enemies of the faith, locks them away with zones, and purifies them. It would play very differently from the Avenger, and I would put it as a controller, rather than a striker, but creating the themes to differenciate it would be necessarily. I probably wouldn't put them as the shadowy blade of the faith, but rather a zealous face that is up close and personal with you. Like an Inquisitor – confess of your sins and you might be reprieved, but if you continue to oppose me, I'll have to kill you.
While I find the concept of a divine archer very appealing, I'm not sure it needs a whole new class. Bards and soon warlords prove that archery can be added to a class. Avengers are already the Divine Assassin so they can fit much of witch-hunter concept. As for wanting the class to be more open and less in the shadows, the Ardent Avenger build proves that Avengers can be more out in the open. The only thing the Avenger really needs to make a fine archer is appropriate attack powers and the flexibility to use their oath against targets at range.
Personally if I were to build dedicate a divine archer class I'd try to go for either defender or leader as the role. Striker could just be an Avenger build. Controller might have some potential, but it would need unique mechanics or it might end up feeling like a refluffed seeker. As a leader they could be long range alternative to the cleric, as even laser clerics are forced to stay fairly close due to the limited range of their powers. I'm still not sure a ranged defender works, but the idea of a holyman who conjures divine shields with his arrows seems like it could have some potential. Whether a defender or a leader I might choose CHA for the primary stat rather than WIS, to help further distinguish it from the mystical archery of the Seeker and any potential ranged Avenger build. Let primal have zen, give divine the impossible shot that only hits because of sheer belief and determination flavor.
I'm still not sure a ranged defender works, but the idea of a holyman who conjures divine shields with his arrows seems like it could have some potential.
I think that the main problem with a ranged defender is twofold, 1) no OA's, 2) the nemies won't have a way to retaliate against the defender.
Whilst the Divine archer is compelling concept, all we really need to achieve it is a feat or PP that lets you use a bow or crossbow as your implement for divine classes.
Such a PP already exists, for clerics at least, in Divine Power. Regardless though, PP are never the solution to the desire for a new class, as they are not an viable option until mid level game play. The desire for a new class usually stems from wanting a concept to exist starting at level 1.As for Divine Archer, what I want isn't an Avenger or Cleric or Invoker or Paladin that can use bows or crossbows as an implement; I want a Ranged Weapon power divine class or build. That's what Prescient Bard gave us, it's what Artificer gave us, it's what Seeker and Archer Ranger gave us, and I expect a Divine one too.
I really feel like it could occupy a space of a Divine Exorcist, Witch-Hunter, Miko, Purifier, etc. Someone who hunts down enemies of the faith, locks them away with zones, and purifies them. It would play very differently from the Avenger, and I would put it as a controller, rather than a striker, but creating the themes to differenciate it would be necessarily. I probably wouldn't put them as the shadowy blade of the faith, but rather a zealous face that is up close and personal with you. Like an Inquisitor – confess of your sins and you might be reprieved, but if you continue to oppose me, I'll have to kill you.
While I find the concept of a divine archer very appealing, I'm not sure it needs a whole new class. Bards and soon warlords prove that archery can be added to a class. Avengers are already the Divine Assassin so they can fit much of witch-hunter concept. As for wanting the class to be more open and less in the shadows, the Ardent Avenger build proves that Avengers can be more out in the open. The only thing the Avenger really needs to make a fine archer is appropriate attack powers and the flexibility to use their oath against targets at range.
Personally if I were to build dedicate a divine archer class I'd try to go for either defender or leader as the role. Striker could just be an Avenger build. Controller might have some potential, but it would need unique mechanics or it might end up feeling like a refluffed seeker. As a leader they could be long range alternative to the cleric, as even laser clerics are forced to stay fairly close due to the limited range of their powers. I'm still not sure a ranged defender works, but the idea of a holyman who conjures divine shields with his arrows seems like it could have some potential. Whether a defender or a leader I might choose CHA for the primary stat rather than WIS, to help further distinguish it from the mystical archery of the Seeker and any potential ranged Avenger build. Let primal have zen, give divine the impossible shot that only hits because of sheer belief and determination flavor.
You mean Commanding Avenger, right? Ardent Paladin is the grimmer Paladin build.
I would be fine with it being an Avenger build, if it could be worked out right. Maybe another Dexterity build, to complement the Pursuing Avenger (the Commanding and Isolating both use Intelligence).
I'm still not sure a ranged defender works, but the idea of a holyman who conjures divine shields with his arrows seems like it could have some potential.
I think that the main problem with a ranged defender is twofold, 1) no OA's, 2) the nemies won't have a way to retaliate against the defender.
Not to mention also that shielding your allies from afar is one step away from simply buffing them. Which is really more leader territory, at least conceptually. If there were to be anything resembling a ranged defender, chances are it would step heavily in leader territory.
And as stated above, it would have to be a defender not based on OAs or actually being the target of the enemies, particularly the melee ones. Which is strange in and of itself, a defender seems to me like it would take a hit or two from time to time, and - more importantly - directly engage enemies.
Now, if a ranged defender say, took some sort of magical or psychic backlash from shielding his alllies from afar, that might be viable. Taking hits for them, so to speak, or having to expend some sort of resources to keep them protected, would be a different restriction from say: staying in melee. Shielding swordmage already can reduce the damage dealt to his allies, so this isn't far off.
But honestly, the concept of a ranged defender isn't he most viable one, IMO.
I'm still not sure a ranged defender works, but the idea of a holyman who conjures divine shields with his arrows seems like it could have some potential.
I think that the main problem with a ranged defender is twofold, 1) no OA's, 2) the nemies won't have a way to retaliate against the defender.
Not to mention also that shielding your allies from afar is one step away from simply buffing them. Which is really more leader territory, at least conceptually. If there were to be anything resembling a ranged defender, chances are it would step heavily in leader territory.
And as stated above, it would have to be a defender not based on OAs or actually being the target of the enemies, particularly the melee ones. Which is strange in and of itself, a defender seems to me like it would take a hit or two from time to time, and - more importantly - directly engage enemies.
Now, if a ranged defender say, took some sort of magical or psychic backlash from shielding his alllies from afar, that might be viable. Taking hits for them, so to speak, or having to expend some sort of resources to keep them protected, would be a different restriction from say: staying in melee. Shielding swordmage already can reduce the damage dealt to his allies, so this isn't far off.
But honestly, the concept of a ranged defender isn't he most viable one, IMO.
This would be a really cool Psionic Defender class – the character isn't melee, but draws its allies pain to it in a psychic conduit when an marked enemy attacks an ally. The ally doesn't take damage, but instead the Psionic defender takes the damage for them. Or maybe they share the pain. The defender might then channel that pain that they draw into their attacks. I really like that concept.
It might also work as a build of the Ardent, considering the thematic similarities...
This would be a really cool Psionic Defender class – the character isn't melee, but draws its allies pain to it in a psychic conduit when an marked enemy attacks an ally. The ally doesn't take damage, but instead the Psionic defender takes the damage for them. Or maybe they share the pain. The defender might then channel that pain that they draw into their attacks. I really like that concept.
It might also work as a build of the Ardent, considering the thematic similarities...
I like the idea, could be called empath.
Not to mention also that shielding your allies from afar is one step away from simply buffing them. Which is really more leader territory, at least conceptually. If there were to be anything resembling a ranged defender, chances are it would step heavily in leader territory.
Shielding Swordmages are already halfway their. They have to get up close an personal to activate their aegis, but afterwords they easily move about in a way that inhibits the enemies ability to target them.
This would be a really cool Psionic Defender class – the character isn't melee, but draws its allies pain to it in a psychic conduit when an marked enemy attacks an ally. The ally doesn't take damage, but instead the Psionic defender takes the damage for them. Or maybe they share the pain. The defender might then channel that pain that they draw into their attacks. I really like that concept.It might also work as a build of the Ardent, considering the thematic similarities...
I like the idea, could be called empath.
I agree, though not with the name.
Exactly, although I don't agree that it needs to step in other classes shoes.
What? No, no stepping into shoes; The Witch will have it's own unique shoes. The Witch's powers and mechanics will be very much different from other classes and they will be themed different.
When I said they would be stepping on other classes toes, I meant in the context of the game world more so than in the class's design. So yes there would be superficial aspects of their fluff thats very similar to Divine classes, but thats the point, their heretics.
Exactly, although I don't agree that it needs to step in other classes shoes.
What? No, no stepping into shoes; The Witch will have it's own unique shoes. The Witch's powers and mechanics will be very much different from other classes and they will be themed different.
When I said they would be stepping on other classes toes, I meant in the context of the game world more so than in the class's design. So yes there would be superficial aspects of their fluff thats very similar to Divine classes, but thats the point, their heretics.
That's one of the major fluff schticks of the Warlock. They're the heretics.
That's one of the major fluff schticks of the Warlock. They're the heretics.
When I say heretic, I mean it in a religious sense. Paganism IMO hasn't really been done by any classes yet.
Sure Warlocks can get their powers from strange gods, but those are real gods, real dead gods, and that's not really religious anyways. The Witch would be a very religious class, but at the same time it's a very godless religion; which is why some see Witches as threats to the authority of Divine institutions.
On another note I am verry worried about what is coming after the pisonics, the one shadow class we have seen is good but on the same note the ardent is a one trick pony, healing but with only one build I will wait to pass judgement. A new power source should add more than just reflavored ideas for classes and how they get there powers, hopefully my fears are unfounded but most long term D&D player's I know or have talked to are also worried that this is how the game is going. I would rather see new builds for existing classes and new classes for the power sources we already have than to dilute the game so much its just another excuse for wizards to sell another book with sub par material in it. That is what happened to all the previous editions I don't want to see it happen to this one.
QFT
So a primal invoker. Give the witch some of anti-astral and anti-primodial powers.
Well Invokers are not necessarily religious either, so far they're the one Divine class that get around the dogma and tenets of their god. I would say the Witch is closer to the other three Divine classes, as they have power invested into them by the institution of the their religion, and they earn this right through their devotion and credence.
I would say the Warden is the Primal Invoker because they are chosen personally by the spirits themselves and gifted powers directly.
That's one of the major fluff schticks of the Warlock. They're the heretics.
When I say heretic, I mean it in a religious sense. Paganism IMO hasn't really been done by any classes yet.
Sure Warlocks can get their powers from strange gods, but those are real gods, real dead gods, and that's not really religious anyways. The Witch would be a very religious class, but at the same time it's a very godless religion; which is why some see Witches as threats to the authority of Divine institutions.
On another note I am verry worried about what is coming after the pisonics, the one shadow class we have seen is good but on the same note the ardent is a one trick pony, healing but with only one build I will wait to pass judgement. A new power source should add more than just reflavored ideas for classes and how they get there powers, hopefully my fears are unfounded but most long term D&D player's I know or have talked to are also worried that this is how the game is going. I would rather see new builds for existing classes and new classes for the power sources we already have than to dilute the game so much its just another excuse for wizards to sell another book with sub par material in it. That is what happened to all the previous editions I don't want to see it happen to this one.
QFT
Problem is, Paganism is something that refers directly to not being Christian. It's not like believing in the non-standard gods; there were times when even Judaism was considered Paganism, because it's not Christianity.
D&D isn't creating divine you get from the accepted pantheon and then divine you get from an older faith from before worshiping the deities. That's what Primal's for: Initiate of the Old Faith, remember?
So instead of having like 50 pantheons of deities that you may or may not believe in, you might choose to venerate the spirits, which are nearly infinite, rather than the finite number of established deities that unquestionably exist.
Note that this is not the truth in Eberron – things work somewhat differently there, since the deities are more questioned, and there are several philosophical divine sects that don't really revere any deities.
Warlocks get across the heretical, unfaithful very well – they draw their powers from entities opposed to, or even reviled by the gods. Your Witch sounds like it's trying to be a divine class that is defined by it's faith rather than being able to choose it's faith. That's really limited.
Problem is, Paganism is something that refers directly to not being Christian. It's not like believing in the non-standard gods; there were times when even Judaism was considered Paganism, because it's not Christianity.
Really Mar, is there only that one definition the word...
It's just a word, not a historical document.
D&D isn't creating divine you get from the accepted pantheon and then divine you get from an older faith from before worshiping the deities. That's what Primal's for: Initiate of the Old Faith, remember?
I do... Which is why it would be Primal class...
Warlocks get across the heretical, unfaithful very well – they draw their powers from entities opposed to, or even reviled by the gods. Your Witch sounds like it's trying to be a divine class that is defined by it's faith rather than being able to choose it's faith. That's really limited.
Again, when I said heretic, I meant that they would be considered to be of a false religion.
And I don't think Warlocks are of any religion... so the Warlock is irrelevant
So instead of having like 50 pantheons of deities that you may or may not believe in, you might choose to venerate the spirits, which are nearly infinite, rather than the finite number of established deities that unquestionably exist.
So Witches would be just as defined by their religion as Divine classes but with infinitely more choices... Doesn't sound that "limited" to me.
No disrespect, but pull your head out of your dictionary dude.
Problem is, Paganism is something that refers directly to not being Christian. It's not like believing in the non-standard gods; there were times when even Judaism was considered Paganism, because it's not Christianity.
Really Mar, is there only that one definition the word...
It's just a word, not a historical document.
You obviously have no idea who you're talking to. Marandahir has no doubt taken a class on this very subject, possibly written a paper or 10 on it, or at the very least it was a fundamental matter daily discussion when he was five years old. Furthermore, he seems to of had his dictionary surgically attached, either that or he was born that way.
Humor aside, whether or not he takes his dictionary too seriously, you probably don't want to get into an etymological argument with him unless you're prepared for a few lengthy debates
. That having been said......BLACKGUARD FOR SHADOW DEFENDER!
Again, when I said heretic, I meant that they would be considered to be of a false religion.
Heretic means following and disapproved/banned doctrine of a religion.
Heretic means following and disapproved/banned doctrine of a religion.
Well at least one person knew what I meant when I said it, thank you.
I think there is already some Primal vs. Divine controversies that is just begging for a class like Witch to come along and make it interesting. Who is one better off paying honor to for safe passage across the seas, Melora or the Great Current spirits? I'm sure if you were to ask a Witch and a Cleric they would give you two different answers, and if they were standing right next to each other, you would have just started a heated argument about who really has authority over the seas. As players we know that one is not better than the other, you could pay tribute to either Melora or the Great Current spirits, as they are not as much at odds as those who venerate them are. Basically it's a too many cooks in the kitchen type scenario for Witches and Divine classes, with both Gods and Spirits answering people's prayers and such.
Problem is, Paganism is something that refers directly to not being Christian. It's not like believing in the non-standard gods; there were times when even Judaism was considered Paganism, because it's not Christianity.
Really Mar, is there only that one definition the word...
It's just a word, not a historical document.
You obviously have no idea who you're talking to. Marandahir has no doubt taken a class on this very subject, possibly written a paper or 10 on it, or at the very least it was a fundamental matter daily discussion when he was five years old. Furthermore, he seems to of had his dictionary surgically attached, either that or he was born that way.
Humor aside, whether or not he takes his dictionary too seriously, you probably don't want to get into an etymological argument with him unless you're prepared for a few lengthy debates
...BLACKGUARD FOR SHADOW DEFENDER!
QFT
...
Seriously, Tharag, I had written up this huge long response to what McNancy said on Paganism, how we can't ignore the established definitions because that's what people know, but I accidentally pressed F5 again and deleted the whole thing (I'm writing up my longer responses in Pages now (Word-equivalent program for Mac)).
Frustrated as I was about deleting my response, I gave up on responding...
But your humour here made all that laugh away. I think that's the first time I've laughed on these boards in quite some time. Thank you.
There's nothing like seeing others point out your own craziness to make you laugh.
There's nothing like seeing others point out your own craziness to make you laugh.
Happy to be of sevice.
I would like to see the specialist wizards. I cannot even begin to describe my astonishment at the fact that two PHB's and two Campaign Settings into the growth of 4e, and we still have no Necromancer, no Enchanter, no Abjurer, no Evoker! After what they did to the mighty Red Wizards in Thay, and how they handled Szass Tam as a monster, I am stirred into a muttering idiotic frenzy akin to a barbarian rage in verbal form. Nothing I say will really make sense, but it is still potentially hazardous to anyone within earshot. Luckily the printed version is far less harmful, so this post should be safe to read.
But honestly...
I don't understand where WotC is trying to take D&D? So many intrinsic elements of the game are being completely ignored, or retooled beyond recognition. Lycanthropy is now ONLY genetic, not contagious. A vampire sires his vampire servitors through a ritual that cost 5,000 gp per level? Creating a magic item costs the same as buying it? I know it is simple enough to fix all these issues myself, and creating a specialist build wizard is pretty simple too. But should I really have to do that? Shouldn't some of these iconic aspects of the game exist somewhere in the Official material? At least in a Dungeon, or Dragon Magazine pdf release....
I understand that WotC is going for this whole "the party is good, and they live in a points of light world" thing, but wtf???
IMHO It is a gods forsaken travesty to NOT have a playable Necromancer class, or build at this point in the evolution of 4e. I would really like to hear someone from WotC give a specific explanation to the question, "Why has wizards chose to not explore any of the specialist wizards with the exception of the illusionist build?"
I could continue to mutter on, but I am going to force myself to stop here before I wander too far of my original point.....
Abjuration seems to be more the domain of a Leader class, since most of its spells were buff-oriented. Divination is mostly covered by Rituals, and it and Enchantment are now mostly part of the Psionic domain (though Bards and Fey Warlocks have inherited some of the Enchanter's flavor). Transmutation may be a possibility for Arcane Power 2, if it hasn't been given to the Elemental source (which needs something of its own to set it apart from the Arcane, Divine, and Primal sources).
I'm one of those (actually the first of those, excuse me... ) who consider the Minotaur on the cover to be a member of the new divine class. And since I think that the theme of the book is "ancient and forgotten arts coming back again to solve weirder problems", and looking at the runes on the bull's armor and mace, my money is on a class that uses divine runic magic. Presented as a type of even more ancient form of divine magic, maybe even not deity-specific, something similar and yet contrary to the Invoker: a more direct form of divine power like the Invoker, but unlike it, totally separated from the specific gods.
And my guess is we're getting a very multi-role class, focused either on defending or controlling, with a big hint of leader in both.
Rune circles, weapon/armor enhancement Artificer-style, "symbols of pain/death/madness" and the like wlould be the powers.
A very good thing would be getting totally different armor proficiencies depending on build.
I'm thinking a "V" splitted class with either Int or Con for primaries, with the Con build getting even Plate, and the Int getting only cloth. The Int one would be castery, the Con one would be weapon-using. And Wis would be the WISEST secondary ability for both... So you get a very good class for Devas and a very good one for... Minotaurs... especially if there's also some Strength involved, even if I doubt it, and I doubt that they made Minotaurs a Con & Wis (as they would step on Wilden in the same book). Probably, Minotaurs would be good... "Runecasters" (??) for other reasons too, as defendrish racials, weapon-tied feats and the likes.
Also consider that this theory would include Dwarves as good armored runecasters (which I'd say is the most dwarvish thing ever), along with Wilden that would fit because they'd prefer this type of divine magic over others, if it's really less deity-specific.
And along with Devas, we would get Eladrin to be good castery runecasters, and also Tieflings. I think it fits so damned well. Also, we could get another Int/Wis race in Phb3, since it would be a good thing for the Psionic classes too, like the (awe-inspiring...) telekinetic Psion.
The only problem I really see with this theory is that the fact that I find it so pleasing seams like an index of improbability, and that "Runecaster" would be a **** name, I think, and I can't see other good names for what essentially IS a runic caster...
The most improbable part of your (GREAT) concept is the return of the 'V' class.
They'd rather make each branch of the 'V' its own class before making a new 'V' class if you ask me.
I'm not quite sure, they supported them pretty well in Divine Power with "Str or Cha" powers for Paladins, for example. I mean, it's a matter of doing the powers well, and NEVER messing up with the secondary. Paladins for example use BOTH Cha and Wis as secondaries, so they screw you up requiring you to have THREE high scores if you want some builds to function. If they stick to ONE secondary score for both branches of the "V", you're just getting two classes.
So I see many other improbable things in the concept... (Thanks! Could make it myself if the thing turns out to be totally different!) One of the improbable things is tied to this talk: too much difference between builds in role is probably unacceptable in their view (because it would be two classes in one). So maybe they should at least stick to one role (leader, at this point seems more obvious, since it's midterm in HP and well-suited for divine) and then simply give strong secondary role for each build. To max out the fun, they could then make it a ""W"" class with Divine Power 2, adding a strikery build with, say, Dex as primary (would be a sound option for the "divine archer", but I wouldn't dig it that much) and hide or chain for armor, midterm between the two other options...!! Wouldn't all of this make the divine power source "LEADERSHIP" undiscussed?? In the sense that you could really make a leader with ANY race!
More Weapon Based Paragon Paths for the Fighter. Much like the Polearm Master, but for the Hammer Group and whatnot.
A minion-based necromancer. The totemist. Non-controller variations of the Druid. A dexterity-based defender.
A necromancer would be nice, and will likely come in good time. A totemist, if you referring to the class from 3.5 Magic of Incarnum, is something we already mostly have as its basic concepts have been largely subsumed by the warden and to a lesser extent the druid. Likewise, "non-controller druid" is something we largely already have in both the warden and the shaman. A DEX based defender, if you mean a weapon wielding melee class, is something I'm very much in favor of.
More Weapon Based Paragon Paths for the Fighter. Much like the Polearm Master, but for the Hammer Group and whatnot.
I wouldn't mind more weapon based paths, but i really don't think they should be fighter specific. Fighters have enough support as is, other classes need some room.
A necromancer would be nice, and will likely come in good time. A totemist, if you referring to the class from 3.5 Magic of Incarnum, is something we already mostly have as its basic concepts have been largely subsumed by the warden and to a lesser extent the druid. Likewise, "non-controller druid" is something we largely already have in both the warden and the shaman. A DEX based defender, if you mean a weapon wielding melee class, is something I'm very much in favor of.
The Warden doesn't have the essentia or the adaptability of the totemist that I like. They have the ability to adapt to situations on the fly and change their soulmelds to adjust and that made them amazing(in my opinion). Although, I'm not sure how that would fit into a role-dominant structure like 4e. So, I know if they did make the totemist, it would be quite different.
A necromancer would be nice, and will likely come in good time. A totemist, if you referring to the class from 3.5 Magic of Incarnum, is something we already mostly have as its basic concepts have been largely subsumed by the warden and to a lesser extent the druid. Likewise, "non-controller druid" is something we largely already have in both the warden and the shaman. A DEX based defender, if you mean a weapon wielding melee class, is something I'm very much in favor of.
The Warden doesn't have the essentia or the adaptability of the totemist that I like. They have the ability to adapt to situations on the fly and change their soulmelds to adjust and that made them amazing(in my opinion). Although, I'm not sure how that would fit into a role-dominant structure like 4e. So, I know if they did make the totemist, it would be quite different.
Then think of it this way. The totemist is the Primal power source. Full stop.
The Warden doesn't have the essentia or the adaptability of the totemist that I like. They have the ability to adapt to situations on the fly and change their soulmelds to adjust and that made them amazing(in my opinion). Although, I'm not sure how that would fit into a role-dominant structure like 4e. So, I know if they did make the totemist, it would be quite different.
Perhaps, but it would take some pretty radical mechanics to make anything resembling 3.5 esentia in 4e. Also, the main problem isn't that 4e is a role-dominant system, roles have always been an important part of D&D. It's not that roles are more important in 4e, but rather that they are more well defined. The problem with updating esentia is instead the universal structure of at-will, encounter, daily, and utility powers used by most classes. While the updated power point system used by most psionic classes shows us that 4e's power structure can be flexible, I'm not sure if any kind of incarnum based subsystem would work (though as a fan of that particular source book I would rather enjoy something that tried to capture a similar feel).
As for the Warden, I think you underestimate the class. Its daily polymorph effects can make it highly versatile, and with the right selection they can allow a warden to radically shift its combat style for any given encounter. They might not work quite like a Totemist's melds mecahnical, but they are in many ways the spiritual successor to that flavor.
Perhaps, but it would take some pretty radical mechanics to make anything resembling 3.5 esentia in 4e. Also, the main problem isn't that 4e is a role-dominant system, roles have always been an important part of D&D. It's not that roles are more important in 4e, but rather that they are more well defined. The problem with updating esentia is instead the universal structure of at-will, encounter, daily, and utility powers used by most classes. While the updated power point system used by most psionic classes shows us that 4e's power structure can be flexible, I'm not sure if any kind of incarnum based subsystem would work (though as a fan of that particular source book I would rather enjoy something that tried to capture a similar feel).
As for the Warden, I think you underestimate the class. Its daily polymorph effects can make it highly versatile, and with the right selection they can allow a warden to radically shift its combat style for any given encounter. They might not work quite like a Totemist's melds mecahnical, but they are in many ways the spiritual successor to that flavor.
Essentia could be like power points, except that instead of using 1 to boost it slightly and 2 to boost a power even further, you could use essentia in melds(which could be a small set for each build) that have different effects on different powers. And the powers would be limited to certain melds. Something like that would be neat.
More Weapon Based Paragon Paths for the Fighter. Much like the Polearm Master, but for the Hammer Group and whatnot.
I wouldn't mind more weapon based paths, but i really don't think they should be fighter specific. Fighters have enough support as is, other classes need some room.
I agree, I currently have a barbarian from 3.5 I'd like to convert to 4th, but right now there isn't a good build. He too wields a hammer, so you know hammer paragon for barbarian would rock, but I mostly choose fighter based on the concept of the 4th ed fighter. When they first talked about them in the preview books and in the PHB you see that their are plenty of powers to define your fighter and develop yourself and your weapon choice, but paths dedicated to those group would finish that idea as a whole. Like the Polearm Master did for Polearm Fighter builds.
I think the Totemist is a great class concept
I know we don't know that much about the Elemental power source, but I think it's safe to say it's connected to the Elemental Chaos. And I think the Elemental source offers a opportunity to pick up the old classes and prestige classes that's place in the cosmology have fallen through the cracks.
I think the Totemist could be combined with the Binder and made into a Elemental class; basically a mystic who binds the power of elemental entities into special melds, maybe throw in some flesh grafting and some genies in a bottle.
Aye, the Vestige warlock ate the Binder, and the Totemist was devoured by the Warden and the Barbarian.
I'm not sure how the barbarian OR the warden have done anything that makes the totemist redudndant.
Niether barbarians nor wardens rely in any way on soulmelds or essentia, which take the place of magic items. The totemist just had my favorite list of soulmelds. The idea is awesome and they literally take from natural soul energy to make items that they can meld to their own chakras to bring out their greater power.
The totemist is an all around adaptable class because of his melds and he fights with claws and other melds made to represent animals and magical beasts. Their is NO other class that mimics magical beasts the way a totemist does. Not even the druid. And the barbarian and warden use weapons....not souldmelds. There are so many differences between the totemist and wardens/barbarians. I see where they are similar, no doubt, but their differences are vast. The Totemist does not rage. It doesn't use weapons or shields. And it does not transform. It makes items that it attaches to itself. Attaching those items brings out it's powers(potential for daily powers) and those abilities are made more effective through essentia.
I know it won't be exactly the same as it was, but what they did with the psionic power points has shown me they could keep it very similar.
And I also want to see a soulknife. That is my favorite psionic class
Also, soulknife apparently got eaten by the assassin.
Ah. What you're looking for, then, is fluff. Anything in the Primal power source will do. Or, since you're deadset on this "no weapons" crap (the Totemist used weapons and shields just as much as anyone else, bar caster cheeze), reskin a damn monk. That's it, that's the closest anyone's going to get to pure incarnum in this edition, is melee caster.
Also, soulknife apparently got eaten by the assassin.
For the third time....essentia and soulmelds...not fluff. Not saying it will ever happen, but the point of this thread is to express what classes you want to see, is it not?
By the assassin? Really? Sad day for fans everywhere
And the assassin part is a paragon path. You could probably also get a soulknife feel from the monk. Maybe. Haven't seen the other build yet, after all.
The totemist is an all around adaptable class because of his melds and he fights with claws and other melds made to represent animals and magical beasts. Their is NO other class that mimics magical beasts the way a totemist does. Not even the druid. And the barbarian and warden use weapons....not souldmelds. There are so many differences between the totemist and wardens/barbarians. I see where they are similar, no doubt, but their differences are vast. The Totemist does not rage. It doesn't use weapons or shields. And it does not transform. It makes items that it attaches to itself. Attaching those items brings out it's powers(potential for daily powers) and those abilities are made more effective through essentia.
The major problem is that what you are asking for are mechanical conventions of an old edition.
The barbarian and the warden thematically replace the totemist; they transform themselves by channeling forces, gaining bite attacks, leaping through the sky, or breathing fire. The warden grows spines, horns, scything tails, flapping wings, reaching branches, the barbarian rages with the might of the dragons, the phoenix, the bulette, the gorgon.
The fact that the totemist uses an item slot in a previous edition isn't very meaningful; he grew claws, wings, spines, horns, or entire heads (chimera, good times) by channeling the forces of magical beasts.
The mechanical way they went about it, item slots and essentia, doesn't translate to the new edition, just as we wouldn't debate whether we need a vancian casting class to create a scholarly mage archetype; the wizard does it, and does it in a different mechanical way, but is thematically the same.
Likewise, the spirit of the totemist has been turned into the warden and barbarian. The idea of channeling magical beasts and manifesting their traits has been fully realized within the new mechanical means.
Now, if you really, really wanted to have an Item Replacing Totemist, there is a way, just not a class one.
The DMG2 talks about alternate reward structures; divine boons, grandmaster training, etc. You could construct "Items as Totemic Soulmelds", intended for primal classes, and allow them to access them in a similar fashion. They'd be very similar to items, get power from Daily ability investment, and run off of body slots....just like soulmelds, and they'd keep the new mechanics of the edition without suffering major trouble.
The major problem is that what you are asking for are mechanical conventions of an old edition.
The barbarian and the warden thematically replace the totemist; they transform themselves by channeling forces, gaining bite attacks, leaping through the sky, or breathing fire. The warden grows spines, horns, scything tails, flapping wings, reaching branches, the barbarian rages with the might of the dragons, the phoenix, the bulette, the gorgon.
The fact that the totemist uses an item slot in a previous edition isn't very meaningful; he grew claws, wings, spines, horns, or entire heads (chimera, good times) by channeling the forces of magical beasts.
The mechanical way they went about it, item slots and essentia, doesn't translate to the new edition, just as we wouldn't debate whether we need a vancian casting class to create a scholarly mage archetype; the wizard does it, and does it in a different mechanical way, but is thematically the same.
Likewise, the spirit of the totemist has been turned into the warden and barbarian. The idea of channeling magical beasts and manifesting their traits has been fully realized within the new mechanical means.
Now, if you really, really wanted to have an Item Replacing Totemist, there is a way, just not a class one.
The DMG2 talks about alternate reward structures; divine boons, grandmaster training, etc. You could construct "Items as Totemic Soulmelds", intended for primal classes, and allow them to access them in a similar fashion. They'd be very similar to items, get power from Daily ability investment, and run off of body slots....just like soulmelds, and they'd keep the new mechanics of the edition without suffering major trouble.
Eh, I don't care much for soulmelds taking the place of magic items. And I am aware of the fact they wouldn't have the same mechanics as they used to. I would just like to see how WotC would bring it back if they did.
No, I'm saying that power points are apparently enough of an eyesore that anything similar (read: essentia) would likely be shot down before it's even considered as a playtest. So I've come to grips with, "hey, Primal monk?" and made that what the Totemist would most likely look like.
And the assassin part is a paragon path. You could probably also get a soulknife feel from the monk. Maybe. Haven't seen the other build yet, after all.
Yeah, I guess the ki focus could be refluffed as the mindblade. It just bums me out that the soulknife won't make a true, revamped appearance in 4e.
No, I'm saying that power points are apparently enough of an eyesore that anything similar (read: essentia) would likely be shot down before it's even considered as a playtest. So I've come to grips with, "hey, Primal monk?" and made that what the Totemist would most likely look like.
And the assassin part is a paragon path. You could probably also get a soulknife feel from the monk. Maybe. Haven't seen the other build yet, after all.
Yeah, I guess the ki focus could be refluffed as the mindblade. It just bums me out that the soulknife won't make a true, revamped appearance in 4e.
I can certainly see (and it's been suggested a few times here), a class that uses ki-focus to create weapons/effects. Or at least a multi-class feat thing (like spiked chain), so you can wield any type of weapon you want.
No, I'm saying that power points are apparently enough of an eyesore that anything similar (read: essentia) would likely be shot down before it's even considered as a playtest. So I've come to grips with, "hey, Primal monk?" and made that what the Totemist would most likely look like.
And the assassin part is a paragon path. You could probably also get a soulknife feel from the monk. Maybe. Haven't seen the other build yet, after all.
Yeah, I guess the ki focus could be refluffed as the mindblade. It just bums me out that the soulknife won't make a true, revamped appearance in 4e.
Let's wait to see the final Psionic class before making that assumption.
...Didn't the warlock eat the Binder, though?
only the vestige part; the two classes worked very differently. But at the very least the new Binder would just use the name and be more like a Totemist
Ah. What you're looking for, then, is fluff.
These kind of comment don't have any place on this thread; the thread is about what new classes people want, and it's safe to say that people are not looking for a new class that's just a copy of another class with different fluff. I don't think it's that hard to make a class both thematically different and mechanically different from existing ones.
The man says he wants a Totemist class, not just a Totemist character; that means he's looking for something different and exciting, so telling him to play a reflavored Warden is not helping anyone.
Reminding people about fluff being mutable is unnecessary and somewhat inane in general when it comes to future releases, seeing how the game already has enough mechanics to do any concept you can think of.
As long as WotC is making new classes, there is no reason why one of them can't be like the Totemist.
...Didn't the warlock eat the Binder, though?
only the vestige part; the two classes worked very differently. But at the very least the new Binder would just use the name and be more like a TotemistAh. What you're looking for, then, is fluff.
These kind of comment don't have any place on this thread; the thread is about what new classes people want, and it's safe to say that people are not looking for a new class that's just a copy of another class with different fluff. I don't think it's that hard to make a class both thematically different and mechanically different from existing ones.
The man says he wants a Totemist class, not just a Totemist character; that means he's looking for something different and exciting, so telling him to play a reflavored Warden is not helping anyone.
Reminding people about fluff being mutable is unnecessary and somewhat inane in general when it comes to future releases, seeing how the game already has enough mechanics to do any concept you can think of.
As long as WotC is making new classes, there is no reason why one of them can't be like the Totemist.
In order. The pacts system in general is what ate the 3.5 Binder. And thank you for wasting that Raise Dead ritual so that people could continue to beat the horse.
Ah. What you're looking for, then, is fluff.
These kind of comment don't have any place on this thread
Well, actually, it kind of does.
If someone says "I want a cult leader that has self-sacrifice powers to deal horrific effects, and can cause great amounts of fear in his opponents or summon horrors from the beyond", we can say "refluff the invoker" because fear effects and damaging the self and summoning are all invoker schticks. If someone says "I want a Totemist who summons the essences of magical beasts into transforming effects", we can say "you know, that's kind of what the warden does, just use X to give him natural attacks". If someone says "I want a Heretic class", we can say "You know, there's nothing mechanically unique about being a heretic, so why not reimagine one of the existing classes in that fashion?"
New classes can be examined from both a thematic AND mechanical point of view. If a proposed class is mechanically just about the same as something that exists, we can point out how the flavor could be changed. If a proposed class, likewise, has identical flavor to something that exists but uses different mechanics, we can point out that there is significant overlap, and offer a critique on how the proposal might tweak its flavor, or muse as to whether the new mechanics are interesting or necessary.
Anyone can propose any class, certainly. But in turn, we can discuss the idea and talk about whether or not we think, in our own respective opinions, we share the belief that that would be a good idea or if we believe that idea can already be accomplished or is unnecessary. That's what discussion is all about.
Ah. What you're looking for, then, is fluff.
These kind of comment don't have any place on this thread
Well, actually, it kind of does.
If someone says "I want a cult leader that has self-sacrifice powers to deal horrific effects, and can cause great amounts of fear in his opponents or summon horrors from the beyond", we can say "refluff the invoker" because fear effects and damaging the self and summoning are all invoker schticks. If someone says "I want a Totemist who summons the essences of magical beasts into transforming effects", we can say "you know, that's kind of what the warden does, just use X to give him natural attacks". If someone says "I want a Heretic class", we can say "You know, there's nothing mechanically unique about being a heretic, so why not reimagine one of the existing classes in that fashion?"
New classes can be examined from both a thematic AND mechanical point of view. If a proposed class is mechanically just about the same as something that exists, we can point out how the flavor could be changed. If a proposed class, likewise, has identical flavor to something that exists but uses different mechanics, we can point out that there is significant overlap, and offer a critique on how the proposal might tweak its flavor, or muse as to whether the new mechanics are interesting or necessary.
Anyone can propose any class, certainly. But in turn, we can discuss the idea and talk about whether or not we think, in our own respective opinions, we share the belief that that would be a good idea or if we believe that idea can already be accomplished or is unnecessary. That's what discussion is all about.
TRUTH!
Come to think of it there is no class with powers that can manipulate the iniative order much. The Warlord gives a bonus to his allies and thats pretty much it.
TRUTH!
Dragoncat has a lot of it.
Warlord has A power that let's him swap init with someone, i also think there's an item that does it too. Having a time mage would be pretty cool, caster as a leader is something we don't have much of.
New classes should be able to do both mechanics and fluff, but give you only have an idea for part of a class, don't hesitate to post. So i guess the question is, what would the totemist do different?
Warlord has A power that let's him swap init with someone, i also think there's an item that does it too. Having a time mage would be pretty cool, caster as a leader is something we don't have much of.
–I summon the Time Wizard! Time Roulette!!
A hundred years pass, and my Baby Dragon grows into the Thousand Dragon!
–That's not all, Joey! The time lapse has caused her Harpy Ladies to age!
If a proposed class is mechanically just about the same as something that exists, we can point out how the flavor could be changed. If a proposed class, likewise, has identical flavor to something that exists but uses different mechanics, we can point out that there is significant overlap,
But the thing is, I don't think that either of those are really anyone's intention when they post a class concept on this thread.
If I say I want a Totemist class, why would you assume I want it to have similar mechanics to already existing class? Nobody even has said what the Totemist should do mechanically, yet people claim it's mechanically redundant; I think that's unfair.
and offer a critique on how the proposal might tweak its flavor, or muse as to whether the new mechanics are interesting or necessary.
Thats fine. Just don't assume that the flavor or the mechanics are the only thing they're looking for.
If I say I want a Totemist class, why would you assume I want it to have similar mechanics to already existing class? Nobody even has said what the Totemist should do mechanically, yet people claim it's mechanically redundant; I think that's unfair.
If you say "I want a Totemist", I'm going to assume you are talking about...the Totemist. Since it existed previously, I can look at its mechanics from Magic of Incarnum, read about its basic schtick, and then compare it to classes currently within the addition.
Now, if you said "I want a class with the same flavor as the Totemist, but did X", then X would be the mechanics I would compare to what we have currently.
If, however, you said you wanted a class that we currently don't have by name....let's go with Time Magus, then it's more reasonable to assume that the mechanics could be vague. At the same time, I would expect you to describe this fabled Time Magus, at which point we could discuss the mechanical implications.
We can't have a discussion if we're just listing off things willy-nilly without actually pondering each one, and sometimes offering criticism. Otherwise, we're just going "I want a factotum! I want a samurai! I want a pony!" which, while amusing, isn't condusive to analysis or examination of the trends that people are looking for and the elements that people think are lacking proper expression in this edition.
Warlord has A power that let's him swap init with someone, i also think there's an item that does it too. Having a time mage would be pretty cool, caster as a leader is something we don't have much of.
Time Mage might be too narrow a concept for a full class but would make for a good build. Maybe an artificer build or maybe a Wizard build with a leader bend? Throw in a Paragon path to exacerbate the flavor and we'd be golden.
If I say I want a Totemist class, why would you assume I want it to have similar mechanics to already existing class? Nobody even has said what the Totemist should do mechanically, yet people claim it's mechanically redundant; I think that's unfair.
If you say "I want a Totemist", I'm going to assume you are talking about...the Totemist. Since it existed previously, I can look at its mechanics from Magic of Incarnum, read about its basic schtick, and then compare it to classes currently within the addition.
Now, if you said "I want a class with the same flavor as the Totemist, but did X", then X would be the mechanics I would compare to what we have currently.
If, however, you said you wanted a class that we currently don't have by name....let's go with Time Magus, then it's more reasonable to assume that the mechanics could be vague. At the same time, I would expect you to describe this fabled Time Magus, at which point we could discuss the mechanical implications.
We can't have a discussion if we're just listing off things willy-nilly without actually pondering each one, and sometimes offering criticism. Otherwise, we're just going "I want a factotum! I want a samurai! I want a pony!" which, while amusing, isn't condusive to analysis or examination of the trends that people are looking for and the elements that people think are lacking proper expression in this edition.
Agreed. While you're entitled to want whatever you want, McNancy, the critique comes as part of the bargain. David Hume, Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, said that "Truth springs from argument amongst friends." I would be enclined to agree with this notion. We're not shooting down your ideas; heck, the Totemist COULD be a new Primal class, or belong to an entirely new power source (Incarnum, for example). But we should look at all options when adapting an old class concept. Not all old classes are tenable. Favoured Soul became a PPath of the Avenger, for good reason. Healer really wasn't necessary in 4e, and it had become untenable back in later 3.5e due to the Cleric becoming a better healer than the Healer.
But there are places where a concept occurs multiple times. Battlerager Fighter is very much so like the Barbarian who doesn't have any mystical rages at all – just a barbaric warrior. At the same time, the Barbarian does exist with many subconcepts. The Whirling Barbarian, in fact, seems more like a mystical version of the Two-Blade Ranger or the Tempest Fighter than the Battlerager Fighter, and the Vengeful Seeker is like a mystical version of the Archer Ranger.
There is so much space for build concepts and Class Acts within existing classes that we don't necessarily need to make new classes to fit what we want, but that doesn't invalidate those concepts necessarily, either.
If you really, really want a Totemist CLASS, I'd like to see why it's mechanically, and fluffwise, different from other Primal classes and doesn't fit into them. It well may be, but it could also fit into one of them without too much trouble, and there's always a possibility of both. But the point of this topic is a discussion, and that doesn't mean just talking about what classes we want, it's talking about how we want our concepts to be adapted into the 4e material, whether through new classes, or if they can fit into old ones as well. It might not be the direct title of the discussion, but it's basically a necessity when it comes to this topic.
If you really, really want a Totemist CLASS, I'd like to see why it's mechanically, and fluffwise, different from other Primal classes and doesn't fit into them. It well may be, but it could also fit into one of them without too much trouble, and there's always a possibility of both. But the point of this topic is a discussion, and that doesn't mean just talking about what classes we want, it's talking about how we want our concepts to be adapted into the 4e material, whether through new classes, or if they can fit into old ones as well. It might not be the direct title of the discussion, but it's basically a necessity when it comes to this topic.
QFT my friend.
That's exactly the kind of attitude that this thread is about.
I could come up with a way to do any class that has been brought up on this forum as a reflavored version of another class, but thats not what this thread is about. I'm more interested in talking about how to make those class concepts into a welcome addition to D&D.
I'm just saying, don't shoot down a class concept just because you're too lazy to think of how it could be mechanically distinct or because you're hung up on what they did in 3.5
I'm not sure of a name for this class, but I imagine it as part of the elemental power source. It's defender caster, who weilds implements. Their attacks take the form of burst, with a few blasts. The concept is a walking nuke. He wades into battle causing earthquakes, and blast fire all around him, swirling winds knock all is adjacent enemies to the ground. Basically I imagine a raw barely controlled connection to the elemental chaos.
ALso I want the hexblade as shadow defender, with an aura mark. Using hexes and such to make sure his enemies stay within range of his baleful presence. Something along the lines of any creature that starts it's turn within x squares of him his marked until the begining of the hexblades next turn.
THose are my main two ideas right now
I think we could use a new 'Pet Class' in a different role. Closer to the Shaman where the pet is very central to the class compared to the Ranger where the pet is basically supplemental. A Necromancer class would be great as a Pet Class with one big frankenstein-esque brute to lock down enemies and a Daily summon at each level.
I think 4th edition's Dread Necro should be like this as well, maybe gaining the ability to summon a small horde of skeletons at higher levels for a set duration like the end of the encounter or something.
'm not sure of a name for this class, but I imagine it as part of the elemental power source. It's defender caster, who weilds implements. Their attacks take the form of burst, with a few blasts. The concept is a walking nuke. He wades into battle causing earthquakes, and blast fire all around him, swirling winds knock all is adjacent enemies to the ground. Basically I imagine a raw barely controlled connection to the elemental chaos.
I'm seeing some issues with this.
If almost all it's attacks are bursts, do the bursts hurt allies? Hurting allies is not something a defender should have to worry about to much, and being able to spare his allies would imply that the class is in more control than the concept says.
But I like the concept; It's sorta what I'm going for with my Channeler class.
ALso I want the hexblade as shadow defender, with an aura mark. Using hexes and such to make sure his enemies stay within range of his baleful presence. Something along the lines of any creature that starts it's turn within x squares of him his marked until the begining of the hexblades next turn.
It's a tasty thought isn't it.
I want to see more psionic classes Like a psionic necromancer called a Cryistalmancer that can summon a cryistal grim reaper at higher levels. Also I want an ectopic adept and psykic warrior. And for races a cryistal warforged and a minor cryistal lich.
I sincerely hope that was meant in an ironic tense.
I'm thinking it's related to the Elemental Chaos and all junk that lives there.
Thats why my class choices are Binder, Shaper, Entropist and Channeler
The Binder I can see doing a lot of different things, so Controller would be best, with Leader and Striker as secondarys
I see one build as focusing on binding demons, maybe a sort of flesh grafter that collects organs and uses the power within
I see the other build as a little similar to the Totemist, they specialize in binding the souls elemental beings into objects to either be worn or animated
Mechanically I think it would be cool if they were based on body slots; many of their powers would be for a specific chakra, for example Mask of the Gorgon (an encounter power) would take the Breath chakra and Blood of the Evistro (a daily power) would take the Heart chakra and might last until the end of the encounter
The different Chakras could be like Mind, Sight, Breath, Heart, Spine, Speed, and Touch (which you have two of). There might be a feat or an item that lets you bind two things to one chakra or gives you an extra chakra, and there would be powers that don't use a chakra like a summoning power or just Binds that are used on enemies like Possession
However, my party would love to meet and defeat him!
Anyone else have ideas?
Mymidon
Class Traits
Role: Defender. You are a loyal and devoted warrior who never backs down, and never surrenders in the face of even certain defeat. Depending on your powers, your secondary role may lean more toward Controller or Leader.
Power Source: Martial. Your power is derived from your intense physical training, and the will to endure any challenge, no matter how daunting.
Key Abilities: Constitution, Strength, Wisdom
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, light shield
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, military melee, simple ranged.
Implements: Ki Focus
Bonus to Defense: +1 Reflex, +1 Will
Hit Points at 1st Level: 10 + Constitution Score
Hit Points per level gained: 7
Healing Surges/day: 10 + Constitution Modifier
Trained Skills: Endurance (Con), choose three more trained skills at 1st level from this list:
Class Skills: Athletics (Str), Endurance (Con), Intimidate (Cha), Perception (Wis), Insight (Wis), Nature (Wis), Stealth (Dex), Streetwise (Cha).
Build Options:???
Class Features: Indomitable Resolve, Survival Training, and Warrior’s Devotion
His main schtick is that he gets temp HP equal to his max HP at the beginning of every encounter as long as he wears cloth or no armor. The idea is to duplicate the "brute" role; ridiculously high HP and low defenses with enough damage-dealing ability to make him a threat.
As for his powers, he's gonna have lots of powers that lower his own defenses and give enemies incentives to hit him, while allowing him to spend surges and wail on the enemy mercilessly if they attack anyone other than him. He'll also have a touch of leader in him; allowing him to transfer some of his temp HP to allies, or otherwise expend it in exchange for other benefits.
Here's something I'm working on:Mymidon
Class Traits
Role: Defender. You are a loyal and devoted warrior who never backs down, and never surrenders in the face of even certain defeat. Depending on your powers, your secondary role may lean more toward Controller or Leader.
Power Source: Martial. Your power is derived from your intense physical training, and the will to endure any challenge, no matter how daunting.
Key Abilities: Constitution, Strength, Wisdom
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, light shield
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, military melee, simple ranged.
Implements: Ki Focus
Bonus to Defense: +1 Reflex, +1 Will
Hit Points at 1st Level: 10 + Constitution Score
Hit Points per level gained: 7
Healing Surges/day: 10 + Constitution Modifier
Trained Skills: Endurance (Con), choose three more trained skills at 1st level from this list:
Class Skills: Athletics (Str), Endurance (Con), Intimidate (Cha), Perception (Wis), Insight (Wis), Nature (Wis), Stealth (Dex), Streetwise (Cha).
Build Options:???
Class Features: Indomitable Resolve, Survival Training, and Warrior’s DevotionHis main schtick is that he gets temp HP equal to his max HP at the beginning of every encounter as long as he wears cloth or no armor. The idea is to duplicate the "brute" role; ridiculously high HP and low defenses with enough damage-dealing ability to make him a threat.
As for his powers, he's gonna have lots of powers that lower his own defenses and give enemies incentives to hit him, while allowing him to spend surges and wail on the enemy mercilessly if they attack anyone other than him. He'll also have a touch of leader in him; allowing him to transfer some of his temp HP to allies, or otherwise expend it in exchange for other benefits.
Sounds like a Fighter with a couple displaced mechanics to me…
The concepts can already be down with Battlerager.
Ki Foci isn't necessary, and in fact, I would say is not useful with Martial.
I would hesitate to allow any Martial class to use implements to begin with.
That said, keep going at it. Don't take my words as discouragement. I just don't see it's uniqueness yet.
Here's something I'm working on:Mymidon
Class Traits
Role: Defender. You are a loyal and devoted warrior who never backs down, and never surrenders in the face of even certain defeat. Depending on your powers, your secondary role may lean more toward Controller or Leader.
Power Source: Martial. Your power is derived from your intense physical training, and the will to endure any challenge, no matter how daunting.
Key Abilities: Constitution, Strength, Wisdom
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, light shield
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, military melee, simple ranged.
Implements: Ki Focus
Bonus to Defense: +1 Reflex, +1 Will
Hit Points at 1st Level: 10 + Constitution Score
Hit Points per level gained: 7
Healing Surges/day: 10 + Constitution Modifier
Trained Skills: Endurance (Con), choose three more trained skills at 1st level from this list:
Class Skills: Athletics (Str), Endurance (Con), Intimidate (Cha), Perception (Wis), Insight (Wis), Nature (Wis), Stealth (Dex), Streetwise (Cha).
Build Options:???
Class Features: Indomitable Resolve, Survival Training, and Warrior’s DevotionHis main schtick is that he gets temp HP equal to his max HP at the beginning of every encounter as long as he wears cloth or no armor. The idea is to duplicate the "brute" role; ridiculously high HP and low defenses with enough damage-dealing ability to make him a threat.
As for his powers, he's gonna have lots of powers that lower his own defenses and give enemies incentives to hit him, while allowing him to spend surges and wail on the enemy mercilessly if they attack anyone other than him. He'll also have a touch of leader in him; allowing him to transfer some of his temp HP to allies, or otherwise expend it in exchange for other benefits.
Seems pretty cool, though i would have it's feature be more "if a marked enemy attacks an ally, redirect it to you, with Con damage reduction" or somethign similar. Also their known to have trowing weapons, so having a few ranged attacks would be good too. I don't see them as heavy damage dealers though.
I would protest that the flavor behind the mechanic is very different from the Battlerager Fighter, in that the Battlerager is a Fighter who gets invigorated by the fury of battle, and thereby gets temp HP after each swing to represent his adrenaline rush. The Myrmidon, in contrast, psyches himself up before battle to give him a massive reserve of confidence and willpower at the beginning of the battle, which steadily decreases as he takes more damage in combat (representing a soldier slowly giving in to fatigue and the fog of war).
As for Ki Focuses, I was considering that only because it would allow the Myrmidon to use a wider variety of weapons than the fighter, basically allowing him to be a walking arsenal (or, back to the "Marine" analogy, to have training and expertise in a wide range of armaments). By using one Ki Focus (which, in game, could be something like dogtags or even a tatoo of his military company) to channel his grit and determination, the Myrmidon would be able carry a bunch of mundane weapons and switch them as needed to adjust to the changing layout of the battle.
Since a Ki Focus applies to Weapon attacks as well as Implement attacks, there's no need to give him actual Implement powers. As well, the idea of an inner reserve of power fits quite well with the archetype I'm going for, and I don't think it makes the character any less "martial" as long as he's not shooting Kamehameha waves and leveling a forest with one swing of a katana.
As for the "redirecting attacks", I'm saving that for a Swordmage build I came up with the other day (Aegis of Interception). I'm still working on ideas for his mark, but at present what I've got is "as a free action, when an enemy you can see attacks you or an ally, you may mark that enemy until the end of your next turn... while the target is marked, if it makes an attack which doesn't include you as a target, you may make a basic attack against the target as an opportunity action."
Lots of his powers would allow you to use it as a basic attack for AoOs, and the ones that are ranged wouldn't provoke, allowing him to defend with ranged weapons (something the other defenders can't do). It would also include powers with the range listed as "Close Burst Reach", with a sidebar explaining that this indicates the power's burst area is dependant on your melee reach.
EDIT: Oh, of course the number of guys he can mark at once starts out at one, and can be expanded via paragon and epic feats to as many as four.
Partly because I want there to be a melee weapon using int(and cha, see below) striker(or controller, since we have so many strikers), but mostly because I like the idea of a death dealer who uses magic/study etc to empower his weapons to deal greater, and specific types of, damage.
also, the rogue is not really a swashbuckler and/or man in black, zorro type.
Might be able to get it using an assassin|rogue or something, but it doesn't exist as a class, or a single build in a class yet. well, ok, I haven't been able to see the new rogue build yet, so I could be wrong.
What I'm seeing, though, is a swordsman who using charisma, trickery, etc. Honestly, a melee bard fits the bill better than a rogue, to me. Particularly with the right feats, powers, equipment, multi-classing.(just enough to boost the damage potential, really.)
An arcane duelist, perhaps, cha based melee striker or controller, secondary role:whichever of those two isn't it's primary?
I really want some kind of magic swordsman that isn't a defender, a leader, or divine.
seriously.
EDIT: This reminds me of some of the ideas that were brought up in the fixing the assassin thread I started. For a swashbuckler/charismatic duelist class, I'd like to see, rather than just lots of outright damage, lot's of negative effects(save ends) with maybe a class feature to give penalties to saving throws made against effects you inflict. all the time would probably be broken, unless it was a (the) central class feature, but something along those lines would beautifully fit the swashbuckler concept. powers with riders that give vulnerabilities, penalties to defenses, dazed, etc. plus decent damage, and variable damage types. tricksy.
lots of ongoing elemental damage. Being unarmed would allow for control of damage dice, and thus easily avoid damage unbalance issues. If the class initially doesn't scale as well as wished for in the testing phase, the base damage die could be bumped up a step in paragon and epic tier, rather than having to throw a bunch of die at it. I think that the proposed brutal feel of such a class would be well represented by upping damage die steps.
possibly ongoing elemental damage with the extra benefit that a failed save means all adjacent enemies(of the elemental fist. go with it, i like the name. :P) take some damage of that elemental keyword.
I'm also getting some cool vague thoughts concerning an elemental leader. I'll flesh them out a bit more before posting them.
also, the rogue is not really a swashbuckler and/or man in black, zorro type.
Might be able to get it using an assassin|rogue or something, but it doesn't exist as a class, or a single build in a class yet. well, ok, I haven't been able to see the new rogue build yet, so I could be wrong.
What I'm seeing, though, is a swordsman who using charisma, trickery, etc. Honestly, a melee bard fits the bill better than a rogue, to me. Particularly with the right feats, powers, equipment, multi-classing.(just enough to boost the damage potential, really.)
Man in black/tricky swordsmen, Dex/Cha Striker; how is that not a Rogue, In what way is not Rogue not cut out to handle that archetype?
also, the rogue is not really a swashbuckler and/or man in black, zorro type.
Might be able to get it using an assassin|rogue or something, but it doesn't exist as a class, or a single build in a class yet. well, ok, I haven't been able to see the new rogue build yet, so I could be wrong.
What I'm seeing, though, is a swordsman who using charisma, trickery, etc. Honestly, a melee bard fits the bill better than a rogue, to me. Particularly with the right feats, powers, equipment, multi-classing.(just enough to boost the damage potential, really.)
Man in black/tricky swordsmen, Dex/Cha Striker; how is that not a Rogue, In what way is not Rogue not cut out to handle that archetype?
Especially with the Duellist powers from Dragon which give you a focus on various swashbuckling aspects, such as using the Rapier, buckler, etc?