Do we know what Heroes of Shadow is going to be? Is it going to be A, B or C? I'm inclined to buy it, but I'm really not a major fan of Essentials, so I want to try and figure out if it'll be worth buying.
A: Shadow-source builds for Essentials classes, Shadow-sourced races, items, feats, and paragon paths & epic destinies that can be used to add "Shadow" to both Essentials and Original 4e classes.
B: Shadow-source builds for Essentials classes, Shadow-source full classes for Original 4e, Shadow-sourced races, items, feats, and paragon paths & epic destinies that can be used to add "Shadow" to both Essentials and Original 4e classes.
C: Shadow-source builds for Essentials classes, Shadow-source variant class features/builds for Original 4e, Shadow-sourced races, items, feats, and paragon paths & epic destinies that can be used to add "Shadow" to both Essentials and Original 4e classes.
I'm personally hoping beyond hope for B. If it's A or C, I'll really have to see what they've got cooking to know if it's worth buying or not - from what I've heard of Essentials, specifically how they went backwards towards 3e (especially in regards to Martial classes), it really doesn't impress me.
and if thats what you heard about essentials, then you should look at them yourself instead on listening to evryone else and form your own oppinion..
Yeah.
options for hexblades, warlocks and assassins
necromancer wizard school
nethermancer wizard school
vampire class
blackgaurd (paladin build) class
the finalized executioner
a bunch of cool art and fluff
Thus far, we know there's
1 PP, with the prerequisit of "any arcane". So that can be used by plenty of classes.
A vampire class (no idea what it does, or how it's stuctured).
A revenant race (which used to be DDI exclusive).
So, nobody knows whether it's A, B, C or even D (which I'd also really love) yet, huh?
The Mage, the Knight, the Slayer, the Executioner, and similar.
Similar how?
The only thing they have in common that the rest of the classes didn't is a level table...
The mage in paticular is basicly another 4 variants of the impliment's.
The Essentials classes have several tweaks:
1. Some classes drop the power structure or alter it significantly
2. Classes are no longer "front loaded". They get class features at different times
3. Classes that previously had support have alternate class features
4. Different presentation (ie level tables)
By all accounts Heroes of Shadow will have #2, #3 and #4. Most people are concerned about #1. As a community we don't really know but there is mage support (which means AEDU support). So I'm not really sure what you mean.
I highly doubt the book will lack all 4 elements. Some of them are (for better or worse depending on your POV) here to stay.
it will have
options for hexblades, warlocks and assassins
necromancer wizard school
nethermancer wizard school
vampire class
blackgaurd (paladin build) class
the finalized executioner
a bunch of cool art and fluff
Wasn't the Assassin supposed to be DDI only?
along time ago, they were along wit hthe revenant ddi exclusive unless you count the wasted idea of dragon and dungeon annuals....
1. Some classes drop the power structure or alter it significantly
2. Classes are no longer "front loaded". They get class features at different times
3. Classes that previously had support have alternate class features
4. Different presentation (ie level tables)
Those could probably be re-worded.
Nothing is getting replaced (so your old builds will still work) they just get new options.
I'm basically just interested in finding out how compatible Heroes of Shadow will be with Pre-Essentials 4e - if it's just going to be another of the ten books that will make up the entirety of the Essentials line (unless that news has changed since I heard), or if it's also going to include material for those who don't use Essentials material.
It's going to contain compatible material for 4e.
Essentials is also material for 4e.
Weather you like/want the new material (e.g. vampires) is a different story, and not really one we can answer.
Essentials is not fully compatable with 4th edition. To be fully compatable you would have to be able to mix and match powers from essentials to 4th and vice versa something you cannot do at the moment. While some powers/abilities are interchangeable others are not. To me essentials is its own game using a slighly modified rules set.
Try looking at them as different classes, just with a shared utility pool.
The "Heroes of Shadow" thread is far too vast, sprawling and argument laden for me to make any real sense of it, so I came here to get a, hopefully, simple, straightforward and clear answer.
Do we know what Heroes of Shadow is going to be? Is it going to be A, B or C? I'm inclined to buy it, but I'm really not a major fan of Essentials, so I want to try and figure out if it'll be worth buying.
A: Shadow-source builds for Essentials classes, Shadow-sourced races, items, feats, and paragon paths & epic destinies that can be used to add "Shadow" to both Essentials and Original 4e classes.
B: Shadow-source builds for Essentials classes, Shadow-source full classes for Original 4e, Shadow-sourced races, items, feats, and paragon paths & epic destinies that can be used to add "Shadow" to both Essentials and Original 4e classes.
C: Shadow-source builds for Essentials classes, Shadow-source variant class features/builds for Original 4e, Shadow-sourced races, items, feats, and paragon paths & epic destinies that can be used to add "Shadow" to both Essentials and Original 4e classes.
I'm personally hoping beyond hope for B. If it's A or C, I'll really have to see what they've got cooking to know if it's worth buying or not - from what I've heard of Essentials, specifically how they went backwards towards 3e (especially in regards to Martial classes), it really doesn't impress me.
From what we have seen so far, there will be New options for previous essentials builds (mage, warpriest, hexblade), new Essentials style classes connected to the Paladin and Warlock(Blackguard and Binder respectively), the final finalized version of the Executioner, and the Vampire(whatever it may be like mechanically). As well we will be getting PPs and EDs that will fit the new builds and options presented as well as some less specific ones such as the previewed Shadowthief which is open to any Arcane class. There will be two new races, the Vryloka and Shade, as well as an updated version of the Revenant. There will be new items available, and one can only presume there will be feats as well. So it's essentially (pardon the pun) option E (pardon that pun as well). It will have resources for pre-Essential classes, but they won't be the main focus. I'm just thankful that they continue to provide compatible new options for the older stuff. It shows they are actually trying to mean what they say about Essentials not being a new edition (not that I need any proof personally).
So it's essentially option E
So it's essentially option E
I assure you it wasn't intentional.
- It is not the introduction/completion of the Shadow Power Source that it should have been.
- It doesn't really have options that you would have found in the Power Books, at least not in the previews provided thus far.
- It only has one new class (The Vampire) and mixed Kit Builds that are other power sources (Arcane, Divine, Martial) with a dash of Shadow thrown in.
What I see from the previews is a book that tries to be a place holder for the Shadow Power Source instead of actually using it.
To add to what everyone has mentioned here, I can tell you what HoS is not.
- It is not the introduction/completion of the Shadow Power Source that it should have been.
- It doesn't really have options that you would have found in the Power Books, at least not in the previews provided thus far.
- It only has one new class (The Vampire) and mixed Kit Builds that are other power sources (Arcane, Divine, Martial) with a dash of Shadow thrown in.
Well, it's not a PHB, and it's not a Power book, so of course it's not those things. It is, however, the introduction of the Shadow power source in printed material (which is significant for me), and will be the first look I'll have gotten at the Assassin in any incarnation (effectively another new class to me).
Near as I can tell, this book seems to be trying to be a mixture of the formula that was previously used for PHBs, Power books, and Essentials books. Taken in totality, it should offer things that no one of those series would provide, but it doesn't seem quite as... focused as a book in those series would be, either.
What I see from the previews is a book that tries to be a place holder for the Shadow Power Source instead of actually using it.
Not sure what you mean by this. Elaborate?
It is, however, the introduction of the Shadow power source in printed material (which is significant for me), and will be the first look I'll have gotten at the Assassin in any incarnation (effectively another new class to me).
It is a new class.
Just one that's been play-tested... twice...
The other assassin is still DDI exclusive, though you're not missing much.
It is, however, the introduction of the Shadow power source in printed material (which is significant for me), and will be the first look I'll have gotten at the Assassin in any incarnation (effectively another new class to me).
It is a new class.
Just one that's been play-tested... twice...
The other assassin is still DDI exclusive, though you're not missing much.
Hey! The first Assassin is fun to play. But it's not real great mechanically, and dreadfully undersupported. If they were to drop the exclusivity thing, it'd be better.
I think I can explain (sorry if I misrepresent you thaX). You see thaX is unsatisfied by the relative lack of pure shadow classes in HoS. ThaX desires a book more along the lines of a Player's Handbook but only containing the Shadow power source. He (? sorry I don't know) is of the opinion that the options given in HoS would have been better executed by giving them their own dedicated class that made use of ONLY the Shadow power source. ThaX, please correct me if I am wrong.
Yes. The Vampire is a new class, but one that isn't the expected archtype like the Necromancer (Split into two mage builds), Illusionist (In Arcane Power ?), and a Ninja/Shadow Dancer type class (Or some say the Original Assassin, limited as it is) Since it seems that there will be no more PHB's, this is a player's book in it's place with only one Power Source instead of a main power source and two side ones. As such, it should have at least four (An the Vampire) Shadow Classes.
Instead, it has one "Monster" class, a Shadow Kit Build of the Assassin, and a bunch of Kit Builds from other power sources that has Shadow powers. It is disappointing at the very least, and a direction for future books at worst. I do like that there will be Races in the book (One of them a renamed Vampire), and one would hope that feats and other support would at least keep in flavor of the Shadow theme, even if the Kit Builds do not.
I think I can explain (sorry if I misrepresent you thaX). You see thaX is unsatisfied by the relative lack of pure shadow classes in HoS. ThaX desires a book more along the lines of a Player's Handbook but only containing the Shadow power source. He (? sorry I don't know) is of the opinion that the options given in HoS would have been better executed by giving them their own dedicated class that made use of ONLY the Shadow power source. ThaX, please correct me if I am wrong.
Yes. The Vampire is a new class, but one that isn't the expected archtype like the Necromancer (Split into two mage builds), Illusionist (In Arcane Power ?), and a Ninja/Shadow Dancer type class (Or some say the Original Assassin, limited as it is) Since it seems that there will be no more PHB's, this is a player's book in it's place with only one Power Source instead of a main power source and two side ones. As such, it should have at least four (An the Vampire) Shadow Classes.
Instead, it has one "Monster" class, a Shadow Kit Build of the Assassin, and a bunch of Kit Builds from other power sources that has Shadow powers. It is disappointing at the very least, and a direction for future books at worst. I do like that there will be Races in the book (One of them a renamed Vampire), and one would hope that feats and other support would at least keep in flavor of the Shadow theme, even if the Kit Builds do not.
I presume my assessment of your feelings was accurate. However, you have not presented any objective facts. Merely subjective facts that were biased by your desires for and assumptions of the content and layout of Heroes of Shadow. From it's inception, Shadow has been different from other power sources. Shadow began it's life in this edition with a dual-sourced Paragon Path for the Swordmage, not the Assassin class which in and of itself is different in the fact that it is a DDI exclusive. Even before the Assassin came along there was another dual-sourced Paragon path for the Warlord. Dual power source classes were in the works since year One, and yes they are classes. Not just "kit builds", many are so different from the class they are tied to that they cannot be merged. Really they are just different classes that share a utility power pool and some feat prerequisites.
I think I can explain (sorry if I misrepresent you thaX). You see thaX is unsatisfied by the relative lack of pure shadow classes in HoS. ThaX desires a book more along the lines of a Player's Handbook but only containing the Shadow power source. He (? sorry I don't know) is of the opinion that the options given in HoS would have been better executed by giving them their own dedicated class that made use of ONLY the Shadow power source. ThaX, please correct me if I am wrong.
Yes. The Vampire is a new class, but one that isn't the expected archtype like the Necromancer (Split into two mage builds), Illusionist (In Arcane Power ?), and a Ninja/Shadow Dancer type class (Or some say the Original Assassin, limited as it is) Since it seems that there will be no more PHB's, this is a player's book in it's place with only one Power Source instead of a main power source and two side ones. As such, it should have at least four (An the Vampire) Shadow Classes.
Instead, it has one "Monster" class, a Shadow Kit Build of the Assassin, and a bunch of Kit Builds from other power sources that has Shadow powers. It is disappointing at the very least, and a direction for future books at worst. I do like that there will be Races in the book (One of them a renamed Vampire), and one would hope that feats and other support would at least keep in flavor of the Shadow theme, even if the Kit Builds do not.
Just a slight addition/fix to this. The assassin build is a martial kit build, since the original 4th ed assassin is a Shadow source class. The other Kits are totally shadow flavoured kits of original classes.
None of the above is compelling enough to buy the book when it comes out; who knows if the content will rate high enough to buy. Now, a PHB style book with only shadow classes in the old 4th ed style would be bought by me, even if I had to knock over a 7-11 to do it.
I think I can explain (sorry if I misrepresent you thaX). You see thaX is unsatisfied by the relative lack of pure shadow classes in HoS. ThaX desires a book more along the lines of a Player's Handbook but only containing the Shadow power source. He (? sorry I don't know) is of the opinion that the options given in HoS would have been better executed by giving them their own dedicated class that made use of ONLY the Shadow power source. ThaX, please correct me if I am wrong.
Yes. The Vampire is a new class, but one that isn't the expected archtype like the Necromancer (Split into two mage builds), Illusionist (In Arcane Power ?), and a Ninja/Shadow Dancer type class (Or some say the Original Assassin, limited as it is) Since it seems that there will be no more PHB's, this is a player's book in it's place with only one Power Source instead of a main power source and two side ones. As such, it should have at least four (An the Vampire) Shadow Classes.
Instead, it has one "Monster" class, a Shadow Kit Build of the Assassin, and a bunch of Kit Builds from other power sources that has Shadow powers. It is disappointing at the very least, and a direction for future books at worst. I do like that there will be Races in the book (One of them a renamed Vampire), and one would hope that feats and other support would at least keep in flavor of the Shadow theme, even if the Kit Builds do not.
Just a slight addition/fix to this. The assassin build is a martial kit build, since the original 4th ed assassin is a Shadow source class. The other Kits are totally shadow flavoured kits of original classes.
None of the above is compelling enough to buy the book when it comes out; who knows if the content will rate high enough to buy. Now, a PHB style book with only shadow classes in the old 4th ed style would be bought by me, even if I had to knock over a 7-11 to do it.
I agree Kal the book seems to lacks direction. I would have rathered to get a new PHB style book with several shadow classes in it. I will not buy the book as it stands as there is not enough in it to justify the purchase.
It's Heroes of Shadow, referring to the Shadowfell, not to the Shadow Power Source. Heroes of the Feywild is the sequel, not Heroes of Elemental or Heroes of Primal.
I'm just sayin, this isn't supposed to be that book. It's like Heroes of the Fallen Lands, Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, and Heroes of the Feywild. The fact that the name isn't Heroes of the Shadowfell seems to be, however, Wotc's Author's Saving Throw – they could have made it a book devoted solely to the Shadow Power Source if they had wanted to, but in the end, brought it into a line of books devoted to setting classes and builds essential-style within the framework of the setting thematically.
I simply think they're slowing down the sales now, something they should have done over a year ago. I don't think it has to do with their sales being in the toilet, it's that they went to quickly, and their quality decreased. Now they can turn out quality products by devoting more time to them.
It's just not necessarily the quality you want. You know what? I would love them to death if they made a book all about Bards, and a book all about Half-Elves. That's what I primarily use. It's what I'd pay for more than anything. More bard builds, more feats for Half-Elves, more options, more arcane options to use with Bardic Dilettante and Resourceful Magician and such. I'd adore it. But they're not going to only market to me.
So while a group of people here REALLY REALLY want Shadow Power source and plenty of it, we're not getting that right now. We are getting some, which is better than none. Remember that Arcane and Divine initially only had two classes each too. It may take a little while.
Oh, I'd love a book devoted to the Shadow Power Source solely too.
I'm just sayin, this isn't supposed to be that book. It's like Heroes of the Fallen Lands, Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, and Heroes of the Feywild. The fact that the name isn't Heroes of the Shadowfell seems to be, however, Wotc's Author's Saving Throw – they could have made it a book devoted solely to the Shadow Power Source if they had wanted to, but in the end, brought it into a line of books devoted to setting classes and builds essential-style within the framework of the setting thematically.
I simply think they're slowing down the sales now, something they should have done over a year ago. I don't think it has to do with their sales being in the toilet, it's that they went to quickly, and their quality decreased. Now they can turn out quality products by devoting more time to them.
It's just not necessarily the quality you want. You know what? I would love them to death if they made a book all about Bards, and a book all about Half-Elves. That's what I primarily use. It's what I'd pay for more than anything. More bard builds, more feats for Half-Elves, more options, more arcane options to use with Bardic Dilettante and Resourceful Magician and such. I'd adore it. But they're not going to only market to me.
So while a group of people here REALLY REALLY want Shadow Power source and plenty of it, we're not getting that right now. We are getting some, which is better than none. Remember that Arcane and Divine initially only had two classes each too. It may take a little while.
This. I'm in agreement. However the reference to 4.0 that Stormbringer made, I disagree with. There is only 4e, not 4.0 and 4.5.
wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dred/...
That's the article where they say they plan to release the multiclass rules soon.
They have said they would publish the multiclass rules, though they didn't give a specific time frame it is in the works. Further proof of your opinion being "off" is the ability to have a single group containing Essentials "kit builds" and traditional 4e classes with no reformatting. If there is no difference in how a session is ran then it is the same edition. As there was no "Essentials DMG 1" it's still the same edition.
So in your mind there is no 3.5 only 3rd? O.o I mean it is entirely possible, and is in fact quite easy to mix 3rd edition classes and 3.5 classes in the same game without reformatting or changing how the session is run in the slightest. Hell my DM when I played 3.5 had a houserule that made it so that you could only use 3.0 version of one of the classes(ranger maybe?).
it will have
options for hexblades, warlocks and assassins
necromancer wizard school
nethermancer wizard school
vampire class
blackgaurd (paladin build) class
the finalized executioner
a bunch of cool art and fluff
Wasn't the Assassin supposed to be DDI only?
yes and no
they wanted to tweak it again then add more material to the book, this was supposed to be digest sized now they want it to be a full hardback, so they tossed it in
i honestly have no issue with it, but people who still have DDI may
it will have
options for hexblades, warlocks and assassins
necromancer wizard school
nethermancer wizard school
vampire class
blackgaurd (paladin build) class
the finalized executioner
a bunch of cool art and fluff
Wasn't the Assassin supposed to be DDI only?
yes and no
they wanted to tweak it again then add more material to the book, this was supposed to be digest sized now they want it to be a full hardback, so they tossed it in
i honestly have no issue with it, but people who still have DDI may
To add to this, the original Assassin is still DDI exclusive. Executioner is not. Certainly that is a technicality, however the two Classes are really only connected by their utility power/feat pool.
It seems to me that a lot of people are disappointed that Shadow power will not get the "full work-up" that martial, arcane, divine, primal, and psionic have had (i.e. 1 full class for at least three battle roles). Having thought about this for both Shadow and Fey power before WotC revealed the HoS and HotFW books, I see where they're coming from: it's very hard to come up with new classes that don't step on the toes of existing classes. To that end, Vampires as a class is perfect (See also the "Vampires as a class" thread). With fey power, the problem is that it is pretty much arcane/primal in its effects. With shadow, it looks too much like either inverted divine or a shadow pact warlock.
Long story short, shadow shouldn't get the full work-up, not without removing the things it would duplicate.
Duplicate!?!
Then why give us pale imitation kit/mage builds that sorta has the same concepts as what the full classes would have? Why mix Power Sources with the Shadow key word at all? Would it not be better to just use Cold and Necrotic keywords instead? What is the purpose of having Shadow in the title of the book if it is only duplicating what has come before it?
"Full Work-Up" indeed!
As far as Essentials is concerned, it is fully compatible to what has come before, the problem is that the self sustaining builds have inclusive mechanics and powers that can only be used in that particular build. This means two things, that the base class can't use some/most of the material within the build, and the build directs the player onto a narrow, defined path that leaves limited choices. Great for the newbie, sucks for veterians.
The Assassin class in DDi isn't worth printing, DDi can keep it. The Assassin/Executioner needs to be fixed to make Poisons optional instead of an intregrate part of the build. (If you use this build, you have to use poisons, a bad design all around) and needs an replacement for the Shroud mechanic, one that actually is worth using. It needs to be de-essentialized, basically.
It seems to me that a lot of people are disappointed that Shadow power will not get the "full work-up" that martial, arcane, divine, primal, and psionic have had (i.e. 1 full class for at least three battle roles). Having thought about this for both Shadow and Fey power before WotC revealed the HoS and HotFW books, I see where they're coming from: it's very hard to come up with new classes that don't step on the toes of existing classes. To that end, Vampires as a class is perfect (See also the "Vampires as a class" thread). With fey power, the problem is that it is pretty much arcane/primal in its effects. With shadow, it looks too much like either inverted divine or a shadow pact warlock.
Long story short, shadow shouldn't get the full work-up, not without removing the things it would duplicate.
While I partially agree, I think there may be some shadow concepts that can be created without too much toe crunching. They'd have to be something no one has considered before, like a leader role summoner whose summoned creatures have an aura that either buffs allies or debuffs enemies and who heals by summoning bits of flesh from who knows where. As for fey, it's all fluff anyway.
While I partially agree, I think there may be some shadow concepts that can be created without too much toe crunching. They'd have to be something no one has considered before, like a leader role summoner whose summoned creatures have an aura that either buffs allies or debuffs enemies and who heals by summoning bits of flesh from who knows where.
. . . That was my original idea for a necromancer class for 4th edition, actually . . .
While I partially agree, I think there may be some shadow concepts that can be created without too much toe crunching. They'd have to be something no one has considered before, like a leader role summoner whose summoned creatures have an aura that either buffs allies or debuffs enemies and who heals by summoning bits of flesh from who knows where.
. . . That was my original idea for a necromancer class for 4th edition, actually . . .
Sorry if I stole that, didn't mean to. But it is an original idea that doesn't step on too many toes, though I wouldn't call it a necromancer as I've known a few and they are a bit more like a shaman (and yes I'm absolutely serious about that). Anyway I think that I proved my point.
While I partially agree, I think there may be some shadow concepts that can be created without too much toe crunching. They'd have to be something no one has considered before, like a leader role summoner whose summoned creatures have an aura that either buffs allies or debuffs enemies and who heals by summoning bits of flesh from who knows where.
. . . That was my original idea for a necromancer class for 4th edition, actually . . .
Sorry if I stole that, didn't mean to. But it is an original idea that doesn't step on too many toes, though I wouldn't call it a necromancer as I've known a few and they are a bit more like a shaman (and yes I'm absolutely serious about that). Anyway I think that I proved my point.
It's not a problem. Two great minds but with a thought.
And I am not in doubt or disagreement as to necromancers being actually more shamans. Though my idea did sometimes step on the Shaman's toes from time to time. It actually functioned more vampirically with health regeneration, and would weaken enemies while sapping that life to allies in temp buffs and the like.
Well all classes step on each others toes sometimes, though it is a good idea.
I'd uh, I'd be pleased if Wizards stole the idea if it meant that we would get a pure shadow class.
. . . Just sayin'.
Luckily, we know now that all races are getting the dual ability score write-up this month, so Shadar-kai aren't being left out from the book for no reason at all (though interestingly, Shadar-kai were never said to be a DDi-only race, while Revenant were…). The race already got multiple write-ups; all it needs is a dual ability score set and it'll be set (though, it could also use more racial feats, but that's the bane of all race-class combos…)
As for classes, I expect further books extrapolating on the Shadow Power Source. It makes sense – and WotC has seen how much we want the material. This is an introduction to the Power Source, but that's not the core goal of the book. The book is more a setting-type Player book, much like the Player's Essentials series. It's a thematic set of options in the Essentials-mode.
And the fact that Multiclass feats for Essentials are officially on their way as of this month's Dragon Editorial… says gallons about how the "mode" doesn't mean that it's exclusive from old-type classes in early 4e.
Now, I don't see any company, least of all WoTC, just abandoning D&D. So, doesn't that raise the possibility that, once the 10 Books of Essentials are done, WoTC will return to producing Old 4e material, primarily if not solely?
Because, if that's the case, then might not Heroes of Shadow be one of the ten Essentials Books focusing on the Shadow source, and a proper, Old 4e "Player's Handbook: Shadow" will be in the works once all of the Essentials products are done?
Here's a thought that's just been rattling inside my head. The Essentials line of books is only supposed to consist of 10 books in its entirety, which will then be left static, is this not what WoTC said? So far we have... what, the Red Box, Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, one or two others?
Now, I don't see any company, least of all WoTC, just abandoning D&D. So, doesn't that raise the possibility that, once the 10 Books of Essentials are done, WoTC will return to producing Old 4e material, primarily if not solely?
Because, if that's the case, then might not Heroes of Shadow be one of the ten Essentials Books focusing on the Shadow source, and a proper, Old 4e "Player's Handbook: Shadow" will be in the works once all of the Essentials products are done?
No. The thing is, Essentials is a static line of 10 products directed primarily at new gamers and have all been released already. However, Essentials is part of core D&D and therefore the options presented therein will continue to be supported along with older materials presented elsewhere. As Mar said, HoS is less and introduction to the Shadow power source than it is a book of Shadowfell themed player options, much like Heroes of Horror was for horror themed games back in 3rd Edition. Most likely, down the line there will be a Shadow power source book, the people demand it. But Heroes of Shadow ain't it.
Because, if that's the case, then might not Heroes of Shadow be one of the ten Essentials Books focusing on the Shadow source, and a proper, Old 4e "Player's Handbook: Shadow" will be in the works once all of the Essentials products are done?
No, Essentials is ten products, not ten books. The Dungeon Tiles Master Sets, DM's Kit, Monster Vault, etc. are all part of it. Even a set of dice, IIRC. All 10 products are out already. HoS is not one of the ten.
back on thread topic heroes of shadow is not going to be like the previous books i think, since it wont focus on an established power source and will feature 3 classes (blackgaurd, vampire and executioner) it is going to be a diffrent set then the old books, since it will also feature builds for existing classes (mage, warlock, assassin) , support for newer classes (hexblade, executioner) and probably a few random treats for classes more on the edge of this book's titling, like PP for all arcane classes
i do not see shadow powered classes growing in number for a bit, but i cant see the shadow power source be used for things like defending and leading, i mean your an evil dude who sold a bit of his soul, why would you help/protect others?
im excited for heroes of shadow because it will cover a LOT of bases for old classes and new classes, but for the fans who want to get some classes of shadowy doom, better luck in 2012 i hope.
In addition, I don't think shadow is incapable of being used for the defender role as we already have a defender that has the option of using the Shadow power source (though only in a Paragon Path).
As far as Shadow leadership goes, some leaders don't just boost their allies, they demoralize their foes. And something, like a vampire, could redistribute the benefit drained from enemies among allies. Or, the influence of the Shadowfell takes some of the substance from things, and a shadow leader could extend this as a benefit to help allies not feel their wounds.
And not every person who sells all or part of their soul is evil, or remains so. The developers have stressed many times they tend to think of Shadow power for the antihero- overcoming a dark past or inner demons. Just like the arcane warlock, a shadow-class character may take what was once an evil deed, and use it against evil in an attempt to redeem themselves.
So here's my speculation: Blackguard (defender), Vampire (striker, secondary leader), Executioner (striker), and Necro/nethermancy mage schools (controllers). Other things are in for variety, like Binder or Warpriest stuff, but the bases are covered.
@ undeadpool- You mentioned the Blackguard paladin, and then think Shadow can't be a defender?
As far as Shadow leadership goes, some leaders don't just boost their allies, they demoralize their foes. And something, like a vampire, could redistribute the benefit drained from enemies among allies. Or, the influence of the Shadowfell takes some of the substance from things, and a shadow leader could extend this as a benefit to help allies not feel their wounds.
And not every person who sells all or part of their soul is evil, or remains so. The developers have stressed many times they tend to think of Shadow power for the antihero- overcoming a dark past or inner demons. Just like the arcane warlock, a shadow-class character may take what was once an evil deed, and use it against evil in an attempt to redeem themselves.
So here's my speculation: Blackguard (defender), Vampire (striker, secondary leader), Executioner (striker), and Necro/nethermancy mage schools (controllers). Other things are in for variety, like Binder or Warpriest stuff, but the bases are covered.
Sorry, you may not be up to date but the Blackguard is a striker. So as far as the bases being covered, not quite. Though the Vamp may be a Defender what uses psychological manipulation, but that's just a shot in the dark.
A part of the disappointment of this book is the mixing of Power Sources and Roles within the various kit/mage builds within it's pages. It was bad enough when it was done in the Essentials 2 player books. Someone yet again made mention of the fact that Essentials is only a 10 product line. This is an extension of it's overall design philosiphy, with maybe the exception of the Vampire class and a couple of separate PP and ED along with feats and such.
I have always looked at Role as a design focus tool, not an actual overall player choice in the making of an character. (I think the DM would be more focused on that detail than the player) To mix them like this is to invalidate thier purpose for this game. It pushes Role to be one of four classes, with the only varity being how effective a particular build is with it. The DDi Assassin fails at this, but is still better than a couple of the kit builds in the 2 Essentials books thus far.
As far as the grid goes, Shadow does not need a Defender at all.
We also know of two Mage Builds (Wizard/Necromancer and Wizard/Nethermancer).
A part of the disappointment of this book is the mixing of Power Sources and Roles within the various kit/mage builds within it's pages. It was bad enough when it was done in the Essentials 2 player books. Someone yet again made mention of the fact that Essentials is only a 10 product line. This is an extension of it's overall design philosiphy, with maybe the exception of the Vampire class and a couple of separate PP and ED along with feats and such.
I have always looked at Role as a design focus tool, not an actual overall player choice in the making of an character. (I think the DM would be more focused on that detail than the player) To mix them like this is to invalidate thier purpose for this game. It pushes Role to be one of four classes, with the only varity being how effective a particular build is with it. The DDi Assassin fails at this, but is still better than a couple of the kit builds in the 2 Essentials books thus far.
As far as the grid goes, Shadow does not need a Defender at all.
ThaX, the role mixing doesn't matter if you just think of them as not being the same class.
Yeah, sure, a lot of the names they are using was classes later in the previous edition, but that doesn't make these Kit Builds a different class while it uses a base class for it's structure. The whole concept is flawed in this edition.
Sorry, edit time here, Your talking roles. I should clarify. The Kit Builds should not have a different role than the base class. This is like the bard all over again, trying to do all things and never mastering any.
@ hatta, i did not know about the binder actually. and i did know they have parent classes. and now i got something else to look foward to :D
The Kit Builds do not change the Base Class, the main reason for them in the first place was to introduce a different version of a class from the player guides. They are supposed to be the same class, otherwise a new class would be better to make rather than crowbarring in seperate mechanics that don't belong in the Base Class.
Yeah, sure, a lot of the names they are using was classes later in the previous edition, but that doesn't make these Kit Builds a different class while it uses a base class for it's structure. The whole concept is flawed in this edition.
Sorry, edit time here, Your talking roles. I should clarify. The Kit Builds should not have a different role than the base class. This is like the bard all over again, trying to do all things and never mastering any.
its hard to say, but one thing i think they have in mind when they make things like this is retraining, namly retraining your build. maybe a player plays his paladin like a striker, why not retrain him to go all out striker?
also essentials and these kit builds are for newer players, they can learn the game on simple characters in say LFR, and if they wish to retrain into PHB builds they can. in this manner i think the system is good
additionally they get the feats, utilities and sometimes powers of their parent class, there is no issue with this i think, it lets the classes come out of the box pre supported and via retraining lets the new player come into the more complicated 4e builds
The Kit Builds do not change the Base Class, the main reason for them in the first place was to introduce a different version of a class from the player guides. They are supposed to be the same class, otherwise a new class would be better to make rather than crowbarring in seperate mechanics that don't belong in the Base Class.
Yeah, sure, a lot of the names they are using was classes later in the previous edition, but that doesn't make these Kit Builds a different class while it uses a base class for it's structure. The whole concept is flawed in this edition.
There is what was intended and there is what really is. Though they didn't intend for "kit builds" to be different classes that is in effect what they are. The flavor may be the same but the mechanics aren't.
The Kit Builds do not change the Base Class, the main reason for them in the first place was to introduce a different version of a class from the player guides. They are supposed to be the same class, otherwise a new class would be better to make rather than crowbarring in seperate mechanics that don't belong in the Base Class.
Yeah, sure, a lot of the names they are using was classes later in the previous edition, but that doesn't make these Kit Builds a different class while it uses a base class for it's structure. The whole concept is flawed in this edition.
Sorry, edit time here, Your talking roles. I should clarify. The Kit Builds should not have a different role than the base class. This is like the bard all over again, trying to do all things and never mastering any.
its hard to say, but one thing i think they have in mind when they make things like this is retraining, namly retraining your build. maybe a player plays his paladin like a striker, why not retrain him to go all out striker?
also essentials and these kit builds are for newer players, they can learn the game on simple characters in say LFR, and if they wish to retrain into PHB builds they can. in this manner i think the system is good
additionally they get the feats, utilities and sometimes powers of their parent class, there is no issue with this i think, it lets the classes come out of the box pre supported and via retraining lets the new player come into the more complicated 4e builds
I would say that those "kit builds" in the Essentials line were designed for new players, that is a fact. However it would not be wild speculation to presume that the "kit builds" can and likely will not stay simple outside of the original Essentials line. The class design displayed in Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, while limited in those products, need not stay so limited. Now that 4e has broken the "AEDU, all class abilities up front with more when you pick a Paragon Path" mold, design is free to grow. You can now have classes that get new abilities every few levels, as well as the frontloaded variety, and maybe even more progression schemes.
The Kit Builds do not change the Base Class, the main reason for them in the first place was to introduce a different version of a class from the player guides. They are supposed to be the same class, otherwise a new class would be better to make rather than crowbarring in seperate mechanics that don't belong in the Base Class.
Yeah, sure, a lot of the names they are using was classes later in the previous edition, but that doesn't make these Kit Builds a different class while it uses a base class for it's structure. The whole concept is flawed in this edition.
Sorry, edit time here, Your talking roles. I should clarify. The Kit Builds should not have a different role than the base class. This is like the bard all over again, trying to do all things and never mastering any.
its hard to say, but one thing i think they have in mind when they make things like this is retraining, namly retraining your build. maybe a player plays his paladin like a striker, why not retrain him to go all out striker?
also essentials and these kit builds are for newer players, they can learn the game on simple characters in say LFR, and if they wish to retrain into PHB builds they can. in this manner i think the system is good
additionally they get the feats, utilities and sometimes powers of their parent class, there is no issue with this i think, it lets the classes come out of the box pre supported and via retraining lets the new player come into the more complicated 4e builds
I would say that those "kit builds" in the Essentials line were designed for new players, that is a fact. However it would not be wild speculation to presume that the "kit builds" can and likely will not stay simple outside of the original Essentials line. The class design displayed in Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, while limited in those products, need not stay so limited. Now that 4e has broken the "AEDU, all class abilities up front with more when you pick a Paragon Path" mold, design is free to grow. You can now have classes that get new abilities every few levels, as well as the frontloaded variety, and maybe even more progression schemes.
what im saying is it allows for the option, witch is good. it makes it easy to stick a new guy on say a caviler where everything is chosen for you and when he is more knowledgable in the rules he can retrain into palliden
however some of the E classes like the knight and executioner imo are better then their parent class so chances are alot of folks will remain in their essentials build. but it provides a very good option setup espessally when the eclass is alot weaker then its parent (like paladin/cav) so the option to retrain without penelty is good for the way it was designed
When you try to crowbar in a different role than the base class, it further limits what you can do with the build and weakens the overall selection from outside it. It also makes for a poor example for either Role that is represented, the Build's or the Base class.
It is ignoring the basic design set up by the edition, and ignoring the overall theme of the class. If they wanted self sustaining builds for the Essentials books, it should have simply been another aspect of the Base Class. Instead, we have Kit Builds that should have either been new classes in of themselves or been closer to the alternate builds in the power books instead of crowbarring in mechanics that further narrows choices and takes away from the norm you have at the beginning of the PHB1.
The start of this was the poor decision to bring back Power Points in the Psionic Classes. To do away with Encounters powers completely in this manner was pointless and serves no real purpose.
it would be boring if each new set of classes were the same as the old ones just they get powers XYZ while the old ones get ZXY. they gotta switch it up a little to make it interisting. PHB2 altered how dailies worked because primal class daily powers had encounter long effects, PHB3 altered how encounters worked with psionics using power points
the runepreist has his runes, witch older leaders dident have those options and dont get me started with how diffrent the monk operates
essentials just continues along the guidelines of making classes that have a diffrent way of operating
we got plenty of striker defenders and plenty of people who mix roles together with PHB1 and onword, so the idea that a character of a certen role is always that role is moot
now weather or not that is bad design is in the opinion of the customer. i think its good design, however my opinion/doller is no more valuable then yours.
they are not ignoring the basic design, they are intentionally going against it to add more to the game. and i say bravo because if they dident we would be complaining about how they are tossing the same stuff over and over at us
What if your base class is a defender and you choose a sub-class (kit build) that is a striker. So your looking through the utility powers from the base class and your like "There's nothing I can used here because these are all defender powers". So there's another strike against them...
I don't think this is true at all. First, all the classes have utility powers that have nothing to do with their roles. Second, the sub-classes' roles are (so far) the same as one of the base classes's secondary roles, so there are role-specific cross overs.
What if your base class is a defender and you choose a sub-class (kit build) that is a striker. So your looking through the utility powers from the base class and your like "There's nothing I can used here because these are all defender powers". So there's another strike against them...
I don't think this is true at all. First, all the classes have utility powers that have nothing to do with their roles. Second, the sub-classes' roles are (so far) the same as one of the base classes's secondary roles, so there are role-specific cross overs.
true
The Kit Builds do not change the Base Class, the main reason for them in the first place was to introduce a different version of a class from the player guides. They are supposed to be the same class, otherwise a new class would be better to make rather than crowbarring in seperate mechanics that don't belong in the Base Class.
Yeah, sure, a lot of the names they are using was classes later in the previous edition, but that doesn't make these Kit Builds a different class while it uses a base class for it's structure. The whole concept is flawed in this edition.
Sorry, edit time here, Your talking roles. I should clarify. The Kit Builds should not have a different role than the base class. This is like the bard all over again, trying to do all things and never mastering any.
its hard to say, but one thing i think they have in mind when they make things like this is retraining, namly retraining your build. maybe a player plays his paladin like a striker, why not retrain him to go all out striker?
also essentials and these kit builds are for newer players, they can learn the game on simple characters in say LFR, and if they wish to retrain into PHB builds they can. in this manner i think the system is good
additionally they get the feats, utilities and sometimes powers of their parent class, there is no issue with this i think, it lets the classes come out of the box pre supported and via retraining lets the new player come into the more complicated 4e builds
I would say that those "kit builds" in the Essentials line were designed for new players, that is a fact. However it would not be wild speculation to presume that the "kit builds" can and likely will not stay simple outside of the original Essentials line. The class design displayed in Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, while limited in those products, need not stay so limited. Now that 4e has broken the "AEDU, all class abilities up front with more when you pick a Paragon Path" mold, design is free to grow. You can now have classes that get new abilities every few levels, as well as the frontloaded variety, and maybe even more progression schemes.
what im saying is it allows for the option, witch is good. it makes it easy to stick a new guy on say a caviler where everything is chosen for you and when he is more knowledgable in the rules he can retrain into palliden
however some of the E classes like the knight and executioner imo are better then their parent class so chances are alot of folks will remain in their essentials build. but it provides a very good option setup espessally when the eclass is alot weaker then its parent (like paladin/cav) so the option to retrain without penelty is good for the way it was designed
No I understand, and I agree. However I believe that the Essentials classes need not stay so simple, through the addition of different PPs and such they can have a bit more complexity added to them. That way players who like their Cavalier, or Hexblade, or Knight can have even greater range than they normally would.
wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/2...
It seems the Vamp will have a "suggested" paragon path, like those for the "kit builds" in the Essentials products. As will the rest of the "Classes" in the book. Also we get new info on how some older races interact with shadow (those that appeared in Heroes of the Fallen Lands). And 10 count'em 10 new Paragon Paths and 4 new Epic Destinies.
In a side note I must admit I was wrong in saying that Essentials "kit builds" are different classes. I would like to meet somewhere in the middle and call them "sub-classes".
So, nothing that hasnt really been revealed/talked about already, beyond more info on the usual races.
Looks alot like a essentials expansion. Though the PP/ED options are nice to see.
So, nothing that hasnt really been revealed/talked about already, beyond more info on the usual races.
Looks alot like a essentials expansion. Though the PP/ED options are nice to see.
Yup, though I'm still happy with the haul.
In a side note I must admit I was wrong in saying that Essentials "kit builds" are different classes. I would like to meet somewhere in the middle and call them "sub-classes".
Funny, that is exactly what Mike Mearls likened them to back in July last year.
www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
We decided to embrace something similar to the old sub-class concept from bygone editions. The classes presented in Essentials are different takes on existing classes, ones that share a similar place in the Dungeons & Dragons world but that use different mechanics. By embracing this approach, we could produce a “new” fighter with new mechanics without having to change the existing fighter class. After all, plenty of people already play and enjoy the current fighter. Why mess with that?
In a side note I must admit I was wrong in saying that Essentials "kit builds" are different classes. I would like to meet somewhere in the middle and call them "sub-classes".
Funny, that is exactly what Mike Mearls likened them to back in July last year.
www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/d...We decided to embrace something similar to the old sub-class concept from bygone editions. The classes presented in Essentials are different takes on existing classes, ones that share a similar place in the Dungeons & Dragons world but that use different mechanics. By embracing this approach, we could produce a “new” fighter with new mechanics without having to change the existing fighter class. After all, plenty of people already play and enjoy the current fighter. Why mess with that?
Where do you think I got the idea? Though I had called them that before.
In a side note I must admit I was wrong in saying that Essentials "kit builds" are different classes. I would like to meet somewhere in the middle and call them "sub-classes".
Funny, that is exactly what Mike Mearls likened them to back in July last year.
www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/d...We decided to embrace something similar to the old sub-class concept from bygone editions. The classes presented in Essentials are different takes on existing classes, ones that share a similar place in the Dungeons & Dragons world but that use different mechanics. By embracing this approach, we could produce a “new” fighter with new mechanics without having to change the existing fighter class. After all, plenty of people already play and enjoy the current fighter. Why mess with that?
Jeex Mike... why not name theme like subclasses than?
I don't blame him, I don't think he was in charge yet. Was he.
Jeex Mike... why not name theme like subclasses than?
I don't blame him, I don't think he was in charge yet. Was he.
Pretty sure he has been in charge for over a year now, which would put him in charge last July.
at least theres some races
trying to be positive about this book but the class stuff looks exclusively essentials what with the cleric domains, mage schools, hexblade, etc, executioner, etc....its probably melee wisdom cleric powers
at least theres some races
Funny enough, I didn't smile at all until the last half of the book. I see little to no reason to buy this product.
And Dark Pact is different from Gloom Pact.
Gloom Pact relates to the Shadowfell, rather than the Drow civilisation/Underdark.
Binders get Gloom Pact and Star Pact, and seem to bind shadowy entities or edritch monstrocities, more like the original Binder was in 3.5e's Tome of Magic. While that binder used the term "Vestige," it's meaning of Vestige and the current meaning are quite different. Those Vestiges were based off eldritch abominations and dukes of hell, and had the idea that they were entities the cosmo rejected: things that shouldn't exist. Currently, Vestiges are entitites of various levels of power and orders that no longer exist, and you're drawing on the vestige of their existence – like the remnants of Elidyr after his descent into the Abyss at the end of the last war.
I bet Binders will get the Vestige Pact later, since it fits them. Note that Binders are also Controllers, and play differently than early 4e Warlocks and Hexblades. These are all good concepts in my book.
Domain Warpriests make a lot more sense than the way Domains were used to fluff Clerics in the past. Now they actually feel like their powers draw on that deity. I'm looking forward to a true Warpriest of the Raven Queen feeling like a Warpriest of the Raven Queen, rather than a Battle Cleric who smites people with light and holy fire in name of the Goddess of Death and Winter. >_>
Necromancy options existed from a single Dragon article, and were spread out amongst a variety of classes, not just Wizards. This will serve to empower Wizards quite well. Nethermancy is new, and feels more like the Shadowcaster from 3.5e's Tome of Magic. I'm quite stoked for those powers.
I don't know what you're talking about when you say that Blackguards aren't related to Paladins. They're closely tied to Cavaliers, who are the paragons of the Paladin world. Blackguards are exactly who I always thought they'd be, and I'm looking forward to see how they're done. And like Cavaliers, I believe they won't be as tied to their deity as the early 4e Paladin is, but be all around dark and fallen.
The reprinting of Executioner and Revenant hopefully will show changes to a final final final final hardcover published versions from the final final final digitally published versions. I'm a little bit upset with that, but it is an actual Shadow class. I really buy this flavour for Shadow. So what if they created it after realising Vampire and the Osassin were the only pure Shadow classes thus far? A lot of flavour in this game is discovered after finding what works and what doesn't. They could have made flavour for Ki, but first they found that Ki classes didn't work besides Monk. So the flavour of Psionics actually improved, absorbing quite a bit of Ki and oriental mysticism into formerly the western cerebral /scifi power source. Primal's battle against the Far Realm was something that only really got going by Primal Power and Player's Handbook 3. It took playing with the Power Source and seeing what ideas caught on first.
If it feels like most Shadow class concepts really could be placed into another power source, only with shadow flavour on the side, then it makes sense to do it that way. Shadow's flavour now provides a reason for that. And one that opens up for a lot of roleplaying opportunities, with Shadow lurking like… well, a shadow made by every other power source.
Fluff wise gloom and dark pact may be different, but in effect, likely both a bunch of necrotic and poison powers.
Necrotic yes. But there wasn't a lot of Necrotic in the Dark Pact to begin with – more Psychic and Poison. Some Necrotic, and dark elements, but mostly those two. I'm expecting a lot of Necrotic, maybe even some cold powers, plus don't forget that the pact mechanics will work entirely differently.
Darkspiral Aura is bad for team dynamics. Hurt your allies so that you can be more powerful! YAY! Actually, an interesting concept, but one that most groups as a whole won't want, since the goal is to take as little damage as possible while dishing out as much damage as possible within the shortest amount of time.
Now, not only would Gloom Pact have different mechanics if it was being offered for the Original Warlock subclass, it gives a Gloom Pactblade to the Hexblade, and does something else for the Binder. So the mechanics are going to be different regardless.
You can't equate the two.
Actually, I'm not expecting a lot of poison powers out of the Gloom Pact.
Personally, I'm hoping for the gloom hexblade to feel a bit like the pre-Executioner assassin (*coughshadowdancercough*), but as an actually competent striker.
Darkspiral Aura is bad for team dynamics. Hurt your allies so that you can be more powerful! YAY!
Darkspiral Aura doesn't do that.
BTW, anyone note the paragon paths? One is called Shadow Dancer. A certain someone can make of that what he will.
but whether or not its like the old shadow thief of amn from days gone by I don't know...
Shadow dancer..... Foxxie at Twilght.... hmmmmmm
I noticed the shadow thief too
but whether or not its like the old shadow thief of amn from days gone by I don't know...
Shadow dancer..... Foxxie at Twilght.... hmmmmmm
Why don't you go look at the preview of it in the March and Beyond previews?
Fluff wise gloom and dark pact may be different, but in effect, likely both a bunch of necrotic and poison powers.
So far the Gloom Pact powers are psychic & cold.
I noticed the shadow thief too
but whether or not its like the old shadow thief of amn from days gone by I don't know...
Shadow dancer..... Foxxie at Twilght.... hmmmmmm
Why don't you go look at the preview of it in the March and Beyond previews?
read it... don't like it...wish they did the shadow dancer instead
If 4th edition continues like this, it won't last much longer.
Fluff wise gloom and dark pact may be different, but in effect, likely both a bunch of necrotic and poison powers.
So far the Gloom Pact powers are psychic & cold.
Sounds fitting. Dark pacts are DARK, as in made with beings so heinously evil that they dwell in the eternal darkness of the Underdark. Gloom pacts just seem to be intent on making the target of their malace as miserable as possible.
Gloom Pact Powers being Psychic and Cold actually makes sense. I'd expect a few necrotic powers, but Psychic makes more sense than anything, actually – the gloom of the Shadowfell weighing heavily. Reminds me of the mechanic that's going to come in the Shadowfell: Gloomwrought and Beyond box set.
The table of contents pretty much confirms the overall disappointing direction for this product. It is silly that a chapter indicates new classes when in fact it is simply new builds with one exception. (Vampire) Why separate the Mage Schools and shunt them with the options chapter?
If 4th edition continues like this, it won't last much longer.
It won't, or you won't. As far as I can tell you are adverse to innovation. Remember the law of the land, Change or Die.
Only thing that worries me is only 2 pages of feats as the feat charts tend to take up alot of room so hoping there will be at least 2 new Binder feats since most of the current warlock feats are useless to them
I have no interest in Vampire stuff so don't care how they handle that....so over vampire stuff
I love what I have heard about the Blackguard so far
Currently playing a Gloom Pact Binder and loving it so looking forward to seeing the higher level powers
Hoping for Shadow bloodline feats
I like Essentials and non-Essentials classes and this book looks like it contains goodies for both
It focuses on classes that have a relationship with Shadow, and acts somewhat like a Power Book and somewhat like a Player's Handbook. In reality, it is neither.
This is a change in format. I believe thaX wants the format to remain the same. Despite the fact that WotC has found data that says that books like Arcane Power 2 won't sell because players will only want 2% of the book – those few powers for the one class they're playing. Better to mix in new classes and new races with support for old classes and new versions of old classes and than to do one or the other.
The table of contents pretty much confirms the overall disappointing direction for this product. It is silly that a chapter indicates new classes when in fact it is simply new builds with one exception. (Vampire) Why separate the Mage Schools and shunt them with the options chapter?
If 4th edition continues like this, it won't last much longer.
It won't, or you won't. As far as I can tell you are adverse to innovation. Remember the law of the land, Change or Die.
Shouldn't it be "Change, fight it, or die?" I plan on fighting it with my wallet. He is also giving people something to think about, in a sense trying to sway people to his viewpoint. Also another form of fighting it.
The table of contents pretty much confirms the overall disappointing direction for this product. It is silly that a chapter indicates new classes when in fact it is simply new builds with one exception. (Vampire) Why separate the Mage Schools and shunt them with the options chapter?
If 4th edition continues like this, it won't last much longer.
It won't, or you won't. As far as I can tell you are adverse to innovation. Remember the law of the land, Change or Die.
Shouldn't it be "Change, fight it, or die?" I plan on fighting it with my wallet. He is also giving people something to think about, in a sense trying to sway people to his viewpoint. Also another form of fighting it.
Whining and hyperbole are a poor argument for persuasion. If he can't keep up with the change he can just not use or buy anything new until the next edition. For every thaX there is about fifty people who are willing to work with the change.
I'm sorry, did you say New Classes? I admit there is the Vampire, but that is all I see.
You see through crap-colored glasses then.
I'm sorry, did you say New Classes? I admit there is the Vampire, but that is all I see.
Okay, "Better to mix in a new class and new races with support for old classes and new versions of old classes and than to do one or the other." My point still stands. You're grasping at straws here. Blackguard and Binder are new versions of classes that nearly stand as their own things, being class kits.
I'm sorry, did you say New Classes? I admit there is the Vampire, but that is all I see.
Okay, "Better to mix in a new class and new races with support for old classes and new versions of old classes and than to do one or the other." My point still stands. You're grasping at straws here. Blackguard and Binder are new versions of classes that nearly stand as their own things,That should have been their own class instead of being class kits.
Fixed that for ya.
I'm sorry, did you say New Classes? I admit there is the Vampire, but that is all I see.
Okay, "Better to mix in a new class and new races with support for old classes and new versions of old classes and than to do one or the other." My point still stands. You're grasping at straws here. Blackguard and Binder are new versions of classes that nearly stand as their own things,That should have been their own class instead of being class kits.
Fixed that for ya.
Dude, quit trolling before you get another thread shutdown.
the blackgaurd is what im REALLY looking foward to to be honest espessally since its a striker and if its MBA based like the rest of the essentials classes the mounted charges will be devestating espessally with dracconic arragance (MC fighter) + behemoth steed
the executioner is one of the coolest new classes, and im happy to finally get a final version of it
the only thing was i saw that i was disapointed about was there was only 2 pages of feats, i would of liked to know that hexblades were going to get some class specfic feats
@ thax, thats rude to alter somones post
Subclasses/kits happened. We can't take them back this edition. Deal with it.
But what am I doing here? I'm probably just fueling the flames, so I should quit while I'm ahead. >_>
No, they shouldn't. Binder is conceptually extremely closely tied to other Warlocks, as evident in its Pacts that it shares with them (though the original Warlock doesn't have the Gloom Pact yet). Blackguard, similarly, holds a close relationship with Cavaliers, and with Paladins in general.
Subclasses/kits happened. We can't take them back this edition. Deal with it.
But what am I doing here? I'm probably just fueling the flames, so I should quit while I'm ahead. >_>
I agree. The Binder and Blackguard are fundamentally tied to their respective parents. We should just ignore thaX, he just does this for the attention.
As a side note, I like Hexblades, clerics, and wizards. I'm not opposed to new shadowy flavored content for them. What ticks me off is that we're getting that instead of actual shadow classes. Much as I would have been ticked off if PHBII had introduced transmuter wizards, nature domain clerics, and fighter variants in place of the druid, shaman, and warden. Or if PHBIII had introduced enchanter wizards and warlord or fighter variants in place of psions, ardents, and battleminds. Had we recieved a mixed source divine rogue in place of the avenger, I might never have known what I was missing to complain about it, but as it's own class the avenger brought a lot more to the game, and was a lot more thematically distinct, then a rogue variant could have done or could have been.
I see the vague thematic link to Cavaliers (though arguably no more so then between, say, assassins and monks), but I don't see anything linking Blackguards to paladins in general. There's just nothing Divine about the Blackguard's fluff, concept, or powerset.
As a side note, I like Hexblades, clerics, and wizards. I'm not opposed to new shadowy flavored content for them. What ticks me off is that we're getting that instead of actual shadow classes. Much as I would have been ticked off if PHBII had introduced transmuter wizards, nature domain clerics, and fighter variants in place of the druid, shaman, and warden. Or if PHBIII had introduced enchanter wizards and warlord or fighter variants in place of psions, ardents, and battleminds. Had we recieved a mixed source divine rogue in place of the avenger, I might never have known what I was missing to complain about it, but as it's own class the avenger brought a lot more to the game, and was a lot more thematically distinct, then a rogue variant could have done or could have been.
Well Blackguards are sort of a legacy class. They were a prestige class for paladins that fell from grace. So Blackguards being attached to the Divine powersource in this edition makes sense from a historical standpoint. You're disappointment is understandable.
I see the vague thematic link to Cavaliers (though arguably no more so then between, say, assassins and monks), but I don't see anything linking Blackguards to paladins in general. There's just nothing Divine about the Blackguard's fluff, concept, or powerset.
As a side note, I like Hexblades, clerics, and wizards. I'm not opposed to new shadowy flavored content for them. What ticks me off is that we're getting that instead of actual shadow classes. Much as I would have been ticked off if PHBII had introduced transmuter wizards, nature domain clerics, and fighter variants in place of the druid, shaman, and warden. Or if PHBIII had introduced enchanter wizards and warlord or fighter variants in place of psions, ardents, and battleminds. Had we recieved a mixed source divine rogue in place of the avenger, I might never have known what I was missing to complain about it, but as it's own class the avenger brought a lot more to the game, and was a lot more thematically distinct, then a rogue variant could have done or could have been.
I'd rather think of this as a Shadow Power plus extras than a Player's Handbook 4: Shadow, Martial, Divine, and Arcane Heroes minus key elements. It's a new product line; the Player's Option; don't compare it so 1:1 to Player's Handbook. If anything, it's more similar to Player's Essentials than Player's Handbook.
That's fine, except that we're not getting players handbooks anymore, so we're still getting this material instead of the actual shadow classes we might otherwise have received.
Unless of course this was the plan for the big debut of Shadow from the start, as I have hypothesized.
I see the vague thematic link to Cavaliers (though arguably no more so then between, say, assassins and monks), but I don't see anything linking Blackguards to paladins in general. There's just nothing Divine about the Blackguard's fluff, concept, or powerset.
As a side note, I like Hexblades, clerics, and wizards. I'm not opposed to new shadowy flavored content for them. What ticks me off is that we're getting that instead of actual shadow classes. Much as I would have been ticked off if PHBII had introduced transmuter wizards, nature domain clerics, and fighter variants in place of the druid, shaman, and warden. Or if PHBIII had introduced enchanter wizards and warlord or fighter variants in place of psions, ardents, and battleminds. Had we recieved a mixed source divine rogue in place of the avenger, I might never have known what I was missing to complain about it, but as it's own class the avenger brought a lot more to the game, and was a lot more thematically distinct, then a rogue variant could have done or could have been.
Really, having the Blackguards be the Paladin/Blackguard Kit Build is akin to having the Seeker be the Fighter/Seeker kit build. Makes no real sense to me.
The problem with the PHBIII was the introduction of Power Points. This edition should have never returned to this mechanic, as a Mana pool or as the Augmentation Encounter Replacement it is now. If it were me, I would have set up the At Wills to have stages throughout the levels instead of making new At Wills at every level needed, that is if I had to do with the Power Point sludge.
The change I did was simpler than having a paragraph of comment to say the same thing. Why not have a new class instead of warping a base class to the point of unreconizability in a Kit Build? I have asked this before and mostly it is because of a new directionless road that D&D Design is going to now. I agree with Malisteen, This is lazy design.
that said i really hope you get your wish of shadow classes malisteen, i would like to see that too. but it dosent look like that is what they intended for this book
"heroes of shadow" would imply a focus on the shadow powersource but unfortunatly, you will probably have to hope for that in dragon or another book in 2012
I see the vague thematic link to Cavaliers (though arguably no more so then between, say, assassins and monks), but I don't see anything linking Blackguards to paladins in general. There's just nothing Divine about the Blackguard's fluff, concept, or powerset.
This is because you don't understand the nature of the gods and the divine power source in 4e. Gods are "beings of thought and ideal" (this is straight from the DMG), born of the Astral Sea, which is a realm where thoughts, emotions, convictions and beliefs create and shape reality (see The Plane Above). When a cavalier devotes himself body and soul to a virtue, or a blackguard devotes herself body and soul to a vice, that's no different from a pre-E paladin (or cleric, avenger or invoker) devoting himself to a god, or to a domain of that god. Virtues and vices are effectively minor divine portfolios that remain unclaimed by any particular deity. Channeling their power into the world is not significantly different from channeling the power of an actual deity. It's all 'divine' power, in that it comes from thoughts and ideals focused through fervent spiritual devotion.
No, they shouldn't. Binder is conceptually extremely closely tied to other Warlocks, as evident in its Pacts that it shares with them (though the original Warlock doesn't have the Gloom Pact yet). Blackguard, similarly, holds a close relationship with Cavaliers, and with Paladins in general.
Subclasses/kits happened. We can't take them back this edition. Deal with it.
But what am I doing here? I'm probably just fueling the flames, so I should quit while I'm ahead. >_>
I agree. The Binder and Blackguard are fundamentally tied to their respective parents. We should just ignore thaX, he just does this for the attention.
Accually Thanx has some good points and while I rarely agree with him/her I do see his/her point. If you don't play essentials there is not a lot in this book for you. While I own all the essentials products I do not play them as I see the classes as a step backwards not forwards. We need more pre essentials material and did not get it in this book and thanx may very well be right in saying that 4th/essentials might not be long in going due to the lack of support for 4th. As for subclasses we can take them back they can stop with the essentials style and go back to what got them to this point which was classes having roles to fill. that was one of the best design ideas of 4th.
I see the vague thematic link to Cavaliers (though arguably no more so then between, say, assassins and monks), but I don't see anything linking Blackguards to paladins in general. There's just nothing Divine about the Blackguard's fluff, concept, or powerset.
This is because you don't understand the nature of the gods and the divine power source in 4e. Gods are "beings of thought and ideal" (this is straight from the DMG), born of the Astral Sea, which is a realm where thoughts, emotions, convictions and beliefs create and shape reality (see The Plane Above). When a cavalier devotes himself body and soul to a virtue, or a blackguard devotes herself body and soul to a vice, that's no different from a pre-E paladin (or cleric, avenger or invoker) devoting himself to a god, or to a domain of that god. Virtues and vices are effectively minor divine portfolios that remain unclaimed by any particular deity. Channeling their power into the world is not significantly different from channeling the power of an actual deity. It's all 'divine' power, in that it comes from thoughts and ideals focused through fervent spiritual devotion.
well said, well written and i couldent agree with you more
This is the first 4e hard back I have not pre-ordered.
Is there enough material in this book to justify a non-essentials player picking this up, especially if you have a DDI account?
This is the first 4e hard back I have not pre-ordered.
It can be difficult to justify any book with a DDI account.
That said, most of it is new "classes", feats and powers. There's some things that require a "hero's of" books, some that require the "PHBx" books, but it stand by itself fairly decently.
Or at least that's what i can surmise from the table of contents.
Is there enough material in this book to justify a non-essentials player picking this up, especially if you have a DDI account?
This is the first 4e hard back I have not pre-ordered.
It can be difficult to justify any book with a DDI account.
That said, most of it is new "classes", feats and powers. There's some things that require a "hero's of" books, some that require the "PHBx" books, but it stand by itself fairly decently.
Or at least that's what i can surmise from the table of contents.
Yes, there is an entire section dedicated to Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies that would useful to anyone, as well as the new equipment and feats.
I'm sorry, did you say New Classes? I admit there is the Vampire, but that is all I see.
You see through crap-colored glasses then.
*grumble, I can't believe I'm agreeing with ThaX*
No. He's not, hatta. You're seeing through rose-tinted ones.
Vampire is the ONLY new CLASS. There are new SUBCLASSES, but only one new CLASS.
The Blackguard is a subclass of the Paladin. Just because it SHOULD have been its own class with its own mechanics et. al., doesn't mean it counts as a new class.
The Binder is a subclass of the Warlock. Just because it SHOULD have been its own class with its own mechanics et. al., doesn't mean it counts as a new class.
I'm sorry, did you say New Classes? I admit there is the Vampire, but that is all I see.
You see through crap-colored glasses then.
*grumble, I can't believe I'm agreeing with ThaX*
No. He's not, hatta. You're seeing through rose-tinted ones.
Vampire is the ONLY new CLASS. There are new SUBCLASSES, but only one new CLASS.
The Blackguard is a subclass of the Paladin. Just because it SHOULD have been its own class with its own mechanics et. al., doesn't mean it counts as a new class.
The Binder is a subclass of the Warlock. Just because it SHOULD have been its own class with its own mechanics et. al., doesn't mean it counts as a new class.
I knew saying that would bite me one day. Yeah, after I posted that I had a closer look at the "Heroes of" books, I did see how they were subclasses and not their own. Crap colored glasses was extremely harsh even for thaX, though I still hate the term "kit build". "Kit build" just gives the wrong idea in my opinion, doesn't give them the credit they deserve.
Crap colored glasses was extremely harsh
One might even say it was . . . uncivil.
(I kid, I kid)That said, yeah, the full subclasses are more then builds, if less then actual classes, making it hard to come up with proper terminology, especially as WotC has opted not to provide such. 'kit-builds' is alright, they are in some ways similar to the kits of 2e, but 'subclasses' is becoming the accepted term around here, and should probably be used for clarity's sake.
Otherwise, some of what we're getting (mage schools, cleric domain, hexblade pact) really are just builds and not even 'subclasses' or 'kits'.
Crap colored glasses was extremely harsh
One might even say it was . . . uncivil. (I kid, I kid)
That said, yeah, the full subclasses are more then builds, if less then actual classes, making it hard to come up with proper terminology, especially as WotC has opted not to provide such. 'kit-builds' is alright, they are in some ways similar to the kits of 2e, but 'subclasses' is becoming the accepted term around here, and should probably be used for clarity's sake.
Otherwise, some of what we're getting (mage schools, cleric domain, hexblade pact) really are just builds and not even 'subclasses' or 'kits'.
I believe I was one of the first adopters of the Subclass moniker. Though, credit goes to Mr. Mearls for actually coining it back in the Warpriest preview.
I believe I was one of the first adopters of the Subclass moniker. Though, credit goes to Mr. Mearls for actually coining it back in the Warpriest preview.
Didn't you only start using the term less than a month ago? The term has been in use since before Essentials came out. :P
Although it might seem like a new term considering how the use of it declined late last year when one of the pro-essnetials people screamed bloody murder every time they saw the term sub-class used....although I do not remember who that was.
They have their own mechanics, they have their own class features, they have their own proficiencies, and they have their own progressions and powers – some of which can be traded between versions of the class, others that can't.
They're their own class in all but these ways:
1. They can share utilities, and some of the ones closer to AEDU can share attacking powers, with other subclasses.
2. They share feats and qualify for Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies that have their class as a prereq.
3. They are thematically related.
And the third is the most important. A Knight is almost entirely thematically similar to the Sword&Board Guardian Fighter, but they play differently. However, the Guardian Fighter is a form of the Blademaster, the original subclass of the Fighter released in Player's Handbook and to be featured next month in Dragon. Cavaliers look and feel like Paladins, but are quite different from the god-based Paladins from Player's Handbook and Divine Power. Blackguards are thematically related to them as well, as fallen Cavaliers. The only thing that delineates a Mage from the original Wizard subclass is one chooses Schools, the other focuses on an Implement Expertise. Though Mages have a better spellbook and the original Wizard got free rituals.
So, thematically, these aren't new classes. But mechanically, they are. I think the major division here is when people want new classes that push into new territory that hasn't been explored, they don't like seeing subclasses, because they're tied back to elements that have been explored already. I can understand that frustration, but I'm also excited for new subclasses of Paladin and Warlock.
And yet, they act as their own class.
They have their own mechanics, they have their own class features, they have their own proficiencies, and they have their own progressions and powers – some of which can be traded between versions of the class, others that can't.
They're their own class in all but these ways:
1. They can share utilities, and some of the ones closer to AEDU can share attacking powers, with other subclasses.
2. They share feats and qualify for Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies that have their class as a prereq.
3. They are thematically related.
And the third is the most important. A Knight is almost entirely thematically similar to the Sword&Board Guardian Fighter, but they play differently. However, the Guardian Fighter is a form of the Blademaster, the original subclass of the Fighter released in Player's Handbook and to be featured next month in Dragon. Cavaliers look and feel like Paladins, but are quite different from the god-based Paladins from Player's Handbook and Divine Power. Blackguards are thematically related to them as well, as fallen Cavaliers. The only thing that delineates a Mage from the original Wizard subclass is one chooses Schools, the other focuses on an Implement Expertise. Though Mages have a better spellbook and the original Wizard got free rituals.
So, thematically, these aren't new classes. But mechanically, they are. I think the major division here is when people want new classes that push into new territory that hasn't been explored, they don't like seeing subclasses, because they're tied back to elements that have been explored already. I can understand that frustration, but I'm also excited for new subclasses of Paladin and Warlock.
This is why I could care a less about essentials it has taken everything we knew from 4.0 and turned it on its ear. I think running and supporting to simular and still very different models is not a good business model. I will confuse new players that might turn into loyal customers. They should just pick one or the other and run with it and see how it goes.
And yet, they act as their own class.
Let us stop right there.
If they are so different than the base class, then why not just make a new class, why mix the Power Sources and weaken the concept? I still don't see a valid explanation on why this was done. I most likely never will, other than "the new design direction." This isn't 3rd edition, it isn't 2nd edition, so why fall back onto the same tired design that acts like the past editions instead of supporting the edition that is here?
Why kill the Shadow Power Source?
And yet, they act as their own class.
If they are so different than the base class, then why not just make a new class,
The big reason is to re-use material.
And yet, they act as their own class.
Let us stop right there.
If they are so different than the base class, then why not just make a new class, why mix the Power Sources and weaken the concept? I still don't see a valid explanation on why this was done. I most likely never will, other than "the new design direction." This isn't 3rd edition, it isn't 2nd edition, so why fall back onto the same tired design that acts like the past editions instead of supporting the edition that is here?
Why kill the Shadow Power Source?
There's a couple of things here. One is that WotC have noticed that they released too much too fast. There's already 26 independent classes, and 29 fully stated races, if I've counted correctly. That's a lot of material. They don't want to release too many more classes so quickly, but instead pump up what they already have. They run the risk of spreading themselves too thin, like they did in 3.5e. WotC have made a statement that they want to tone down the number of classes they release per year in that regards. There's also the issue of design space: does this REALLY deserve it's own class? Seeker probably wouldn't have been made if they knew at the time that Rangers could grow to include primal elements.
I see this as diametrically opposed to the design of 3.5e: 3.5e had too many classes that were worth nothing, and the Player's Handbook classes were just pumped up so that they were the only good classes to play, despite many other interesting options. 4e wants to real that in, and not let itself get away with itself.
I don't see how you're jumping from the argument you made to "killing the Shadow Power Source." I realise you see subclasses as a bad thing, and you see lack of full classes a bad thing, but the Shadow Power Source is there. There's time for it to grow too.
Patience is a virtue, my friend. Remember, fear, hate, agression: these are the tools of the Dark Side. It's very easy to want everything now and right away. If you read the preview on the Shadow Power Source, however, they clearely stated an explenation for Shadow being more common as a secondary power source, while still leaving room for pure shadow options. There's always time for them to add more, if it seems appropriate. Right now, Vampire seems appropriate to them for this book. I don't know what else does.
I believe I was one of the first adopters of the Subclass moniker. Though, credit goes to Mr. Mearls for actually coining it back in the Warpriest preview.
Didn't you only start using the term less than a month ago? The term has been in use since before Essentials came out. :P
Although it might seem like a new term considering how the use of it declined late last year when one of the pro-essnetials people screamed bloody murder every time they saw the term sub-class used....although I do not remember who that was.
That was meant to be ironic, darn context. Anyway I agree with Marandahir on the reasons for Subclasses over Standalone Classes.
And yet, they act as their own class.
Let us stop right there.
If they are so different than the base class, then why not just make a new class, why mix the Power Sources and weaken the concept? I still don't see a valid explanation on why this was done. I most likely never will, other than "the new design direction." This isn't 3rd edition, it isn't 2nd edition, so why fall back onto the same tired design that acts like the past editions instead of supporting the edition that is here?
Why kill the Shadow Power Source?
Let us stop right there.
why mix the Power Sources and weaken the concept?
subjective, while your treating it as fact-
though i agree (after much arguing), that it does weaken the concept for some, it does not for everyone... it doesn't for me, Power sources lend a class traits, classes don't lend Power Sources traits. By combining them, you're simply taking traits from two different classes and applying them to better define a single class. Irregardless, our opinions on the matter don't change the reality of the situation, neither of us having the evidence to draw an objective (or atleast relatively objective) conclusion.
There's a couple of things here. One is that WotC have noticed that they released too much too fast. There's already 26 independent classes, and 29 fully stated races, if I've counted correctly. That's a lot of material. They don't want to release too many more classes so quickly, but instead pump up what they already have. They run the risk of spreading themselves too thin, like they did in 3.5e. WotC have made a statement that they want to tone down the number of classes they release per year in that regards. There's also the issue of design space: does this REALLY deserve it's own class? Seeker probably wouldn't have been made if they knew at the time that Rangers could grow to include primal elements.
I see this as diametrically opposed to the design of 3.5e: 3.5e had too many classes that were worth nothing, and the Player's Handbook classes were just pumped up so that they were the only good classes to play, despite many other interesting options. 4e wants to real that in, and not let itself get away with itself.
You do know that since E-classes support mostly PHB1 classes and 1 PHB2 class, and since they have abaonded the power series, this means they have pretty much pumped those classes while leaving all those other classes in the cold?
If they had kept with the old method of PHB and Powerbook, all classes would be supported roughly evenly.
That said, did PHB3 need 6 classes? No, we could have settlted for 4 (the psionic ones). No one would have missed the seeker or runepriest if they were never announced. I'm sure people would have complained if we PHB 3 had 1 'pure' psionic class and a number psionic builds for others. We could have settled for 4 this year too, the shadow ones. Thats still half the number of classes they produced the first two years.
I would have missed the Seeker. The primal hunter is something that I'd been waiting for all edition. I was like, "Nine Hells, Yeah!" when it was announced. Rangers lost their magic when they lost their beast and… well, their magic. I liked how they focused on the martial styles, but I wanted the magical hunter again, especially with the onset of primal. Rageblood Barbarians got to be primal versions of Battlerager Fighters. And Whirling Barbarians were like primal versions of the Two-Blade Ranger and the Tempest Fighter. But the Primal version of an archer was missing entirely.
Seeker provided, and with another archetype I had been longing for: the primal spear thrower. God, the Seeker provided. Now I just want more powers for Seekers, and I'm lost in the dark for them.
Also, if they had kept with the old method of PH and Powerbook, WotC would have gone bankrupt. People weren't buying Martial Power 2 or Player's Handbook 3 nearly as much as the first (and second for the PHs) installments. They needed a new system.
And who's to say that they aren't going to support other classes in the future? They know that the PH1 classes are the most popular, due to CharBuilder. So they're going to keep on supporting them. But they ALSO decided to provide more support to classes like the Runepriest to make them more desirable, since it's the least played class.
(I love the Runepriest as well, by the way, but I wouldn't have guessed it if you had asked me. I was actually hoping for an Archivist or a Shepherd class or something. Now I can see those as potential subclasses of the Runepriest and the Invoker, respectively, using different proficiencies and roles).
*Raises hand*
I would have missed the Seeker. The primal hunter is something that I'd been waiting for all edition. I was like, "Nine Hells, Yeah!" when it was announced. Rangers lost their magic when they lost their beast and… well, their magic. I liked how they focused on the martial styles, but I wanted the magical hunter again, especially with the onset of primal. Rageblood Barbarians got to be primal versions of Battlerager Fighters. And Whirling Barbarians were like primal versions of the Two-Blade Ranger and the Tempest Fighter. But the Primal version of an archer was missing entirely.
Seeker provided, and with another archetype I had been longing for: the primal spear thrower. God, the Seeker provided. Now I just want more powers for Seekers, and I'm lost in the dark for them.
Also, if they had kept with the old method of PH and Powerbook, WotC would have gone bankrupt. People weren't buying Martial Power 2 or Player's Handbook 3 nearly as much as the first (and second for the PHs) installments. They needed a new system.
And who's to say that they aren't going to support other classes in the future? They know that the PH1 classes are the most popular, due to CharBuilder. So they're going to keep on supporting them. But they ALSO decided to provide more support to classes like the Runepriest to make them more desirable, since it's the least played class.
(I love the Runepriest as well, by the way, but I wouldn't have guessed it if you had asked me. I was actually hoping for an Archivist or a Shepherd class or something. Now I can see those as potential subclasses of the Runepriest and the Invoker, respectively, using different proficiencies and roles).
Yet again I agree (god I'm starting sound like such a toady). I very much liked both the Seeker and Runepriest. And there are certainly new directions they can take PHB2 classes in as well. I'm seeing the rise of Themed products, where they give you a theme and then play with classes around the theme. For now it's just the Shadowfell and Feywild, but who knows what is next.
*Raises hand*
I would have missed the Seeker. The primal hunter is something that I'd been waiting for all edition. I was like, "Nine Hells, Yeah!" when it was announced. Rangers lost their magic when they lost their beast and… well, their magic. I liked how they focused on the martial styles, but I wanted the magical hunter again, especially with the onset of primal. Rageblood Barbarians got to be primal versions of Battlerager Fighters. And Whirling Barbarians were like primal versions of the Two-Blade Ranger and the Tempest Fighter. But the Primal version of an archer was missing entirely.
Seeker provided, and with another archetype I had been longing for: the primal spear thrower. God, the Seeker provided. Now I just want more powers for Seekers, and I'm lost in the dark for them.
Also, if they had kept with the old method of PH and Powerbook, WotC would have gone bankrupt. People weren't buying Martial Power 2 or Player's Handbook 3 nearly as much as the first (and second for the PHs) installments. They needed a new system.
And who's to say that they aren't going to support other classes in the future? They know that the PH1 classes are the most popular, due to CharBuilder. So they're going to keep on supporting them. But they ALSO decided to provide more support to classes like the Runepriest to make them more desirable, since it's the least played class.
(I love the Runepriest as well, by the way, but I wouldn't have guessed it if you had asked me. I was actually hoping for an Archivist or a Shepherd class or something. Now I can see those as potential subclasses of the Runepriest and the Invoker, respectively, using different proficiencies and roles).
Yet again I agree (god I'm starting sound like such a toady). I very much liked both the Seeker and Runepriest. And there are certainly new directions they can take PHB2 classes in as well. I'm seeing the rise of Themed products, where they give you a theme and then play with classes around the theme. For now it's just the Shadowfell and Feywild, but who knows what is next.
I liked the fact that the Seeker inhabited it's own design space (and thus hate and shun the Ranger subclass that steals some of it's thunder, unjustly in my opinion) as well as what the Runepriest does and could do further. I think they really need to push the more Nordo-Germanic roots of the class to the nines, give it some spear-wielding, god imbued baddassery. Like a Viking having just been blessed by his gods runing into battle and "sharing the love" as it were.
My personal opinion runs toward supporting the existence of mixed power source classes and subclasses. In my opinion it fleshes out the world in which they exist, as it makes no sense to me that a Power Source would exist in a vacuum completely uninfluenced by any other source.
I hate combining power sources. At least as a default, I personally think that classes should only ever start as single power sources, to hold that one source as a paragon of it's type. Later, sullied convolutions could give a more mudied approach in mixing them, but dammit, give me pure classes any day.
HOWEVER . . .
It would be interesting to see a divine/elemental class called a Tailor, who would actually sew their powers together out of raw divine and elemental stuff. Leaderish, I think. With the ability to be Controller or Defender types, preferably as secondary roles, not alternative ones. Though perhaps that would be a gimmick of the class: to sew themselves into new roles as the situation demanded, but to much changing of the "weave" would be unavailable. Perhaps choosing at character creation their two primary roles they could switch at fulfilling, with 2 "encounter points" given so as to switch a total of twice per encounter, earning more points as they leveled up.
So, everyone latched onto that sentance. I didn't mean it to say that I hated the seeker and runepriest. Honestly, I love the runepriest, wish it had support. I also liked that the seeker did provide a throwing class finally.
However, if they had never EVER been announced, and never included. Would you be upset over PHB3? Especially with the label "Psionic Classes" only on it?
Regardless, I was merely saying that their current goal of mostly supporting the classical D&D classes while leaving others out to dry, isnt doing the game any more favors that producing a ton of classes and mostly just beefing iup the PHB classes in 3rd.
Also, WoTC going bankrupt? Really? I think Magic would have carried them. That said, I didn't expect a Martial power 3. I'm not saying they needed to continue the power series. I'm just saying that if they continued to produce classes and support them ,they wouldnt have the 3.5 issue, which Essentials seems to be almost backpeddling to.
So, everyone latched onto that sentance. I didn't mean it to say that I hated the seeker and runepriest. Honestly, I love the runepriest, wish it had support. I also liked that the seeker did provide a throwing class finally.
However, if they had never EVER been announced, and never included. Would you be upset over PHB3? Especially with the label "Psionic Classes" only on it?
Regardless, I was merely saying that their current goal of mostly supporting the classical D&D classes while leaving others out to dry, isnt doing the game any more favors that producing a ton of classes and mostly just beefing iup the PHB classes in 3rd.
Also, WoTC going bankrupt? Really? I think Magic would have carried them. That said, I didn't expect a Martial power 3. I'm not saying they needed to continue the power series. I'm just saying that if they continued to produce classes and support them ,they wouldnt have the 3.5 issue, which Essentials seems to be almost backpeddling to.
Yes but there'd have to be a limit to how many classes one created per power source if you were to base support books by that otherwise the number of classes would become too outrageous for one book to provide new material for all of them. With an ever growing number of new Power sources, inevitably there would be a huge stinking pile of uninteresting stuff that never gets used anyway. Then they'd just start over from the beginning with a new edition, and the vicious cycle would start over again. Basically the way they are handling it is the best way possible, though nowhere near perfect.
I hate combining power sources.
You have a negative emotional reaction of such intensity that you' call it "hate" when presented with combining power sources?
Power Source is such an irrelevant thing in system terms. Other than accessing the occasional paragon path or epic destiny and maybe a feat or two, what does it really do?
And it story terms, there already were multiple power source classes. The Avenger has martial skills and actually fights with weapons. Same with the Barbarian and Warden and Battlemind. They actually get some of their abilities from old fashion martial prowess. The Paladin is another example. And the Seeker. Even some bard bulds. All of these classes could easy have had ", Martial" tacked onto their Power Source line.
Why bother hating something that is largely irrelevant in system terms and already existed thematically in other classes?
I hate combining power sources.
You have a negative emotional reaction of such intensity that you' call it "hate" when presented with combining power sources?
Power Source is such an irrelevant thing in system terms. Other than accessing the occasional paragon path or epic destiny and maybe a feat or two, what does it really do?
And it story terms, there already were multiple power source classes. The Avenger has martial skills and actually fights with weapons. Same with the Barbarian and Warden and Battlemind. They actually get some of their abilities from old fashion martial prowess. The Paladin is another example. And the Seeker. Even some bard bulds. All of these classes could easy have had ", Martial" tacked onto their Power Source line.
Why bother hating something that is largely irrelevant in system terms and already existed thematically in other classes?
Power source segregation must end now!
But in all seriousness Power source is for the most part a matter of flavor. Flavor that I may say is not always accepted by the entirety of the consumer base (look how much disagreement there is about how WotC handled shadow fluff). Combining sources allows for a wider array of flavor/mechanics combinations.
Power source segregation must end now!
You almost made me spew my coffee.
But in all seriousness Power source is for the most part a matter of flavor. Flavor that I may say is not always accepted by the entirety of the consumer base (look how much disagreement there is about how WotC handled shadow fluff). Combining sources allows for a wider array of flavor/mechanics combinations.
Exactly. In one campaign I ran, the primal spirits were the elemental powers but forced into order. So all the primal characters were technically elemental characters (as well as being martial because of their skill with a sword or bow).
I know power source technically existed in previous editions (divine vs arcane spell casting, for example) but it's one thing I wish 4E was a little looser about since the beginning.
I hate combining power sources.
You have a negative emotional reaction of such intensity that you' call it "hate" when presented with combining power sources?
Power Source is such an irrelevant thing in system terms. Other than accessing the occasional paragon path or epic destiny and maybe a feat or two, what does it really do?
And it story terms, there already were multiple power source classes. The Avenger has martial skills and actually fights with weapons. Same with the Barbarian and Warden and Battlemind. They actually get some of their abilities from old fashion martial prowess. The Paladin is another example. And the Seeker. Even some bard bulds. All of these classes could easy have had ", Martial" tacked onto their Power Source line.
Why bother hating something that is largely irrelevant in system terms and already existed thematically in other classes?
Spooky! That's exactly what I was about to say when I got to the bottom of the thread. Further, simply multiclassing into a martial class can open up a wealth of options to any non-martial character. You can build character concepts in a number of different ways that will be thematically similar but will play differently - the power source written on the page matters little overall. This can be a strength (for experienced gamers and number crunchers) and a weakness (confusing new players).
I wasn't really a fan of Essentials conceptually any more than I liked the psionic classes. But having built a slayer and a hunter I can say that it was a joy to have to make only a few decisions and still be able to reach the character concept I was aiming for in a short space of time. Moaning about a lack of support for non-essentials builds is silly, since with an increasing numbers of ANY class options, articles on exisiting builds are going to be spread thinner in Dragon. Having said that, I was still annoyed that the staff article contained very little for non-essentials builds - just one or two general feats and/or for tempest fighters would have satisfied me.
Similarly, as long as Heroes of Shadow has SOMETHING for pre-essentials builds (such as available wizard, assassin, and warlock powers and feats that can apply to non-essentials builds) it will be worth buying the hardback as far as I'm concerned.
I hate combining power sources.
You have a negative emotional reaction of such intensity that you' call it "hate" when presented with combining power sources?
Power Source is such an irrelevant thing in system terms. Other than accessing the occasional paragon path or epic destiny and maybe a feat or two, what does it really do?
And it story terms, there already were multiple power source classes. The Avenger has martial skills and actually fights with weapons. Same with the Barbarian and Warden and Battlemind. They actually get some of their abilities from old fashion martial prowess. The Paladin is another example. And the Seeker. Even some bard bulds. All of these classes could easy have had ", Martial" tacked onto their Power Source line.
Why bother hating something that is largely irrelevant in system terms and already existed thematically in other classes?
Nonononono, the classes mentioned might have martial prowess, but not Martial power. Taking away their Psionic, Divine, or Primal powers would leave them defenseless. Martial power would only be applicable if the person is only relying on their own body and crazy hardcore training of the body; any other training included makes the class dependent on that power to maintain status quo.
And that is my point. It would be like tacking on Elemental to a fire spell of a Wizard. Unless the Wizard pulled that energy from the Elemental Chaos (instead of the magical energies surrounding themselves), it may be elemental, but not Elemental. The powersource defines ultimate origin of the abilities of the class. A cleric would be worthless without their divine powers. The Swordmage would be a clumsy fool. It is their powersource that defines the very core of what it means to be their class. And mixing that meaning dilutes and obfuscates the origin of their abilities. If an assassin uses any shadow powers at all, it is Shadow power sourced, end of story, because without those Shadow powers, it would be less than a player class; it could not perform it's intended function.
A Barbarian without the ability to draw on the raw power of the primal spirits would simply be an NPC with an axe; a Battlemind without the defending abilities enabled by their mind power would not default to fighter, they would default to some schmo with a weapon and some armor. The point is that the power source defines the powers as class uses, and vice versa, it along with role defines the very features of the class. The two together give the class a coherent structure and a defined purpose, without which it again becomes some muddied half defined thing. Having a class with anything less than one pure, primary role and one pure source dilutes a concept and weakens the entire feel of the class.
Which is why I hate mixing power sources.
I hate combining power sources.
You have a negative emotional reaction of such intensity that you' call it "hate" when presented with combining power sources?
Power Source is such an irrelevant thing in system terms. Other than accessing the occasional paragon path or epic destiny and maybe a feat or two, what does it really do?
And it story terms, there already were multiple power source classes. The Avenger has martial skills and actually fights with weapons. Same with the Barbarian and Warden and Battlemind. They actually get some of their abilities from old fashion martial prowess. The Paladin is another example. And the Seeker. Even some bard bulds. All of these classes could easy have had ", Martial" tacked onto their Power Source line.
Why bother hating something that is largely irrelevant in system terms and already existed thematically in other classes?
Nonononono, the classes mentioned might have martial prowess, but not Martial power. Taking away their Psionic, Divine, or Primal powers would leave them defenseless. Martial power would only be applicable if the person is only relying on their own body and crazy hardcore training of the body; any other training included makes the class dependent on that power to maintain status quo.
And that is my point. It would be like tacking on Elemental to a fire spell of a Wizard. Unless the Wizard pulled that energy from the Elemental Chaos (instead of the magical energies surrounding themselves), it may be elemental, but not Elemental. The powersource defines ultimate origin of the abilities of the class. A cleric would be worthless without their divine powers. The Swordmage would be a clumsy fool. It is their powersource that defines the very core of what it means to be their class. And mixing that meaning dilutes and obfuscates the origin of their abilities. If an assassin uses any shadow powers at all, it is Shadow power sourced, end of story, because without those Shadow powers, it would be less than a player class; it could not perform it's intended function.
A Barbarian without the ability to draw on the raw power of the primal spirits would simply be an NPC with an axe; a Battlemind without the defending abilities enabled by their mind power would not default to fighter, they would default to some schmo with a weapon and some armor. The point is that the power source defines the powers as class uses, and vice versa, it along with role defines the very features of the class. The two together give the class a coherent structure and a defined purpose, without which it again becomes some muddied half defined thing. Having a class with anything less than one pure, primary role and one pure source dilutes a concept and weakens the entire feel of the class.
Which is why I hate mixing power sources.
Wow this hits the nail on the head. This edition gave us power sources where the classes got the abilities from and it was a very good idea. Mixing power sources just waters the game down and that was an issue with 3rd and 3.5. One I was hoping WOTC would not repeat but now we have essentials doing just that.
It doesn't water down anything. There is no water here. There are only the chemicals that while awesome on their own, can be mixed to get new substances with different properties. No powersource as a whole loses anything from having a subclass that mixes it with something else, it only gains a bond with that something else.
If it was done competently then yeah there would be no watering down. The problem is that WotC has not handled mixing power sources competently. All they are doing is slapping a second power source to a class without exploring or even considering the relation to the fluff of the second power source. The hunter is secondarily primal because he frolics in nature not because he communes with the primal spirits.The executioner is secondarily shadow because....he is an anti-hero(?) not because he traded a portion of his soul to the shadows. When WotC mixes power sources they aren't giving the power sources the attention they deserve, at which point it would be better to not use them at all rather than giving them poorly thought out lip service.
It doesn't water down anything. There is no water here. There are only the chemicals that while awesome on their own, can be mixed to get new substances with different properties. No powersource as a whole loses anything from having a subclass that mixes it with something else, it only gains a bond with that something else.
Well, that is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
Look at the hunter. In what way exactly does it use primal spirits again? How is that worked into its design? It's an afterthought, irrelevant. It could have been martial only and been exactly the same thing with exactly the same connotations and feel.
I would have preferred mixed sources to only be achieved through multiclassing - where the source of the various components remains clearly defined.
Martial power is more then just 'bonks with weapon'. Martial power is physical skill and training taken to impossible degrees, skill surpassinging the limits of possibility and bending the laws of reality. As a rogue, you train and practice until you can perform impossible feats with your weapon through sheer superhuman skill. As an avenger you perform impossible feats by channeling astral power though faith. As a fighter you train with your weapons until you can perform attacks that lesser warriors can't even concieve of. As a barbarian, you draw primal spirits into yourself and let their fury overwhelm your body's normal limits.
But the scout or hunter? Where is their interaction with primal spirits? The binder - why is it shadow? The vestige and Dark pacts weren't shadow. The necro and nethermancer, why are they shadow? The pyromancer isn't elemental, and the enchanter isn't psionic. The necromancer could be published exactly as its going to be as an arcane class with no mention of shadow, and it would be exactly the same, conceptually. These dual source builds don't make power source mean more, they make it mean less, they reduce it to the point that it really is nothing more then a keyword on some powers. Fine enough for Primal, Arcane, Divine, Martial, and Psionic - their identity is already well established by their suite of single-source classes. Sadly, that is not the case for shadow, as the only full classes to establish an identity beyond a mere keyword are the underpowered and seemingly forgotten ossassin and the vampire. The vampire might deliver something distinctive and amazing, something that leaves a real mark on D&D, but as a monster class I don't hold out a lot of hope.
And let me stress again - I like Warlocks, Wizards, Clerics, and Paladins. I love dark, shadowy themed content. I'm not opposed to getting necromancy wizard schools, or gloom pacts for warlocks, or death domains for warpriests, and so on. But all of those things, with the possible exception of the Blackguard which I've seen little of, could have stayed entirely within the sources of parent classes and been exactly the same not only in mechanics but in concept and connotation as well. None of them care that they're shadow, and as such they simply cannot establish a distinctive space for Shadow the way the Primal classes established a distinctive space for their power source back in PHBII.
Nonononono, the classes mentioned might have martial prowess, but not Martial power. Taking away their Psionic, Divine, or Primal powers would leave them defenseless.
That's an artificial distinction and also, not the case. A barbarian can have no supernatural power whatsoever (take only rages and attack powers that do not have any supernatural element) and still be just as good at connecting with a sword. A psionic character that relies on reading the thoughts of others has the exact same to-hit and damage rolls against an unthinking being and a thinking being.
Martial power would only be applicable if the person is only relying on their own body and crazy hardcore training of the body; any other training included makes the class dependent on that power to maintain status quo.
I'm talking themetically, not in some world of absolute artificial distinctions you have decided to make.
Power Source is a fluff/conceptual organizational tool. If you blur the lines between power sources, they cease to have any meaning.
I disagree. Roles are a conceptual orginization, yet the lines where blurred since PHB1's warlock. Nor do i see why people have no issue with multiclass or hybrid divine|primal character, yet they have issue with divine|primal power.
It's almost like people are LOOKING for reasons to hate essentials. Why can't we treat it like any other book(s)?
I mean, no one said "i hate PHB2 cause they included primal", and even PHB3 which had a greater change then essentials at most got "the monk and runepriest are cool, but i don't like the Power Points system".
No one started saying "i won't buy any more books ever because it's might have a feat that a PHB3 class can take".
And muticlassing maintains the distinction between sources because the componants clearly come from one side or the other.
Power sources are a tool for conceptual organization, party roles a tool for mechanical organization. Source helps define the tone, background, and thematic identity of a class. role helps define what it does on the battlefield and how it fits into a player party's combat dynamics.
The warlock's over-mixing of party roles - with too much focus on its secondary role and not nearly enough focus on its primary role - made it the weakest class out of the PHBI, and people on the forums harped on it and on its failure to live up to the design tenants of the edition quite a bit back when the PHB was released. Hybrids I remain skeptical of due to excessive mixing of roles, something that many expressed when the rules were first previewed in DDI. People didn't like how power points scaled improperly and encouraged boring, repetetive tactics, and said as much when PHBIII was released. We are treating essentials like any other book - praising the parts we like, and harping on the parts we don't. There are just a lot more vocal people who find a lot more that they dislike then that they like in essentials, when compared to previous products.
Again, the death domain cleric could be divine only, the necro and nethermancer arcane only, the scout and hunter martial only, and nothing would be different about them, mechanically or conceptually. If the Warlord or Shaman were divine classes, they would be different mechanically (possessing channel divinity powers), and extremely different conceptually. If the psion was an arcane class, it would again be different both mechanically and conceptually. These classes establish the conceptual identities of Martial, Primal, Psionic, etc. in ways that half-hearted half-builds simply cannot.
Again, I'm not opposed to the existance of the half builds, at least, not for power sources that already have full classes to establish their conceptual identity. Shadow doesn't have that yet, and at this point likely never will, at least not this edition.
Power Source is a fluff/conceptual organizational tool. If you blur the lines between power sources, they cease to have any meaning.
I disagree. Roles are a conceptual orginization, yet the lines where blurred since PHB1's warlock. Nor do i see why people have no issue with multiclass or hybrid divine|primal character, yet they have issue with divine|primal power.
This is because when you hybrid your intentionally taking parts from one source and another with the intent of mixing them for a wonky character (usually for a gamebreaker). The way WotC did it they didn't think it through. They didn't balance it or give it reason. They just kinda took it and threw it in a bucket and stirred it up. Rather than taking it and painting a canvas with it, where the different sources would highlight each other and make a unified cohesive whole.
It's almost like people are LOOKING for reasons to hate essentials. Why can't we treat it like any other book(s)?
Because its not 'any other book(s)' its a complete paradigm change, and a completely different and broken way of creating character classes.
I mean, no one said "i hate PHB2 cause they included primal", and even PHB3 which had a greater change then essentials at most got "the monk and runepriest are cool, but i don't like the Power Points system".
Actually many people said they didn't like how Psionics worked. The only reason it was as accepted was because it was Psionics, not because it was different. Its more like people liked it in spite of being different.
No one started saying "i won't buy any more books ever because it's might have a feat that a PHB3 class can take".
We've never said anything like that. We've said if it doesn't have enough pre-E material to be worth it, we won't buy it. Some of us just don't like Essentials style classes. WotC is going to have to understand that. Some of us just won't buy Essentials...
Nonononono, the classes mentioned might have martial prowess, but not Martial power. Taking away their Psionic, Divine, or Primal powers would leave them defenseless.
That's an artificial distinction and also, not the case. A barbarian can have no supernatural power whatsoever (take only rages and attack powers that do not have any supernatural element) and still be just as good at connecting with a sword. A psionic character that relies on reading the thoughts of others has the exact same to-hit and damage rolls against an unthinking being and a thinking being.Martial power would only be applicable if the person is only relying on their own body and crazy hardcore training of the body; any other training included makes the class dependent on that power to maintain status quo.
I'm talking themetically, not in some world of absolute artificial distinctions you have decided to make.
Ecept the fact that the rages themselves are the empowerment of the Barbarian by primal spirits. Same with even something as simple as Howling Strike. It all flows not from just his or her physical ability, but his or her connection to the primal source. Personally, refluffing something as strong and distinctive as power sources is verboten, since you are going to have to find a way to refluff every single power and feature as well. Because it is all closely tied to their power source. It's not just fluff, but a reinforcement of the way a character works. Otherwise, the Invoker and the Wizard would be the same damned class, with nothing to separate them. Power source is important.
No one started saying "i won't buy any more books ever because it's might have a feat that a PHB3 class can take".
We've never said anything like that. We've said if it doesn't have enough pre-E material to be worth it, we won't buy it. Some of us just don't like Essentials style classes. WotC is going to have to understand that. Some of us just won't buy Essentials...
Some people have basicly said that yes.
"I'll look at the book and see if i like it before i buy it" is perfectly reasonable.
"I'll look at the book and see if it has essentials before i buy it" is not. It's bigotry.
Hatta there is one very large thing I can do to show WOTC how I feel about the total crap they are releasing and that is not to buy it and that is what I plan to do. Unless they get there collective acts together they have lost a very loyal D&D customer of 30 years. 4th was unique, now it seems to appease the crowd that likes the old editons we get essentials. Before you go and say it is an easier entry point I will say thats bull because the rules are pretty much as complicated in the essential books as the ones presented in the PHB and DMG. The good thing is that I have enough books to play D&D for as long as I could ever want to but I was hoping for more than a 2 and a half year run for true 4th edition not this mix and mash we have now.
Hell Yeah!
I don't get the whole Essentials idea anyway... 4th edition is awesome and dynamic as hell... I should know, started to play AD&D back in the early 90's (Miss the boxed sets though)
If you're the DM, let your players know that in your houseruling, Hunters are plain rangers like the rest of them, and Hunter PCs in your campaign cannot choose Primal options, even if the game lets them. Anything in the Hunter build that does sound Primal can be reflavored with ease.
It doesn't matter what WotC did all that much: It's there for the people who like it, and can easily be ignored by people who don't.
And having strolled through numerous forums, I think there's a key part of D&D a lot of people don't think about as much as they should. This is our game. Wizards just provides options, and we get the final decision. Don't like dual power sources for a class? Ignore it. Think Essentials builds are basically new classes? In your world, they are. It's that easy.
so far, only the shadow dancer is of interest to me
Here's a thought: If you don't like the presence of one of the power sources for a class, like Hunter, ignore it.
If you're the DM, let your players know that in your houseruling, Hunters are plain rangers like the rest of them, and Hunter PCs in your campaign cannot choose Primal options, even if the game lets them. Anything in the Hunter build that does sound Primal can be reflavored with ease.
It doesn't matter what WotC did all that much: It's there for the people who like it, and can easily be ignored by people who don't.
And having strolled through numerous forums, I think there's a key part of D&D a lot of people don't think about as much as they should. This is our game. Wizards just provides options, and we get the final decision. Don't like dual power sources for a class? Ignore it. Think Essentials builds are basically new classes? In your world, they are. It's that easy.
I don't know if it is that simple, I think this is a deeper discussion, probably involving financial reports on the green or whatever... But maybe you are right...
And having strolled through numerous forums, I think there's a key part of D&D a lot of people don't think about as much as they should. This is our game. Wizards just provides options, and we get the final decision. Don't like dual power sources for a class? Ignore it. Think Essentials builds are basically new classes? In your world, they are. It's that easy.
Here's the thing - I can ignore the dual source nature of hunters and scouts, and still get play a class that fully fleshes out the martial or primal concepts by playing an actual martial or primal class. My perception that the hunter fails to meaningfully convey the concepts of the Primal power source doesn't bother me much because I can in its place select the Warden or Shaman or even Seeker, all of which in my estimation succeed in that regard to a far greater degree then the Hunter.
I don't have that option in shadow because, for the most part, Actual shadow classes don't and at this point probably won't exist. Wizards hasn't provided those options. We have a painfully underpowered and almost completely unsupported ossassin, and we have the Vampire, which I admit might surprise me, but it is a monster class and such concepts have never worked well in the past.
And while this is 'our' game, it's also a shared experience, and the shared baseline, which does indeed matter, is provided by wizards. I don't want to design complicated house rules or homebrew classes, DMs I've played with don't want to allow them, and Players I've run for don't want to deal with them. Being able to join up with players I don't know all that well and create a new character with confidence that it will play a particular way is the reason we use any of these products in the first place.
You know there is a certain amount of role-playing in roleplaying games. If you really want a class to feel like what you want you are going to have to work for it. A Hunter can feel very primal if you play it that way. I also think that if they didn't add shadow to the classes in Heroes of Shadow that were originally something else, people would be even more mad. "What? There's only two classes in here that even use shadow! I'm not buying this." is what they'd say. As it stands most of the gripe is only because people don't like that things have changed.
Actually, we voice our concerns not because it has changed, but the direction it changed to. The direction is important.
This is our game. Wizards just provides options, and we get the final decision. Don't like dual power sources for a class? Ignore it. Think Essentials builds are basically new classes? In your world, they are. It's that easy.
OMG! Blashemy!!! ROFL!!
EXACTLY - the books are guidelines. No one is forcing you to use the books or what it contains. The game designers are players just like us except their ideas get published. Nothing is going to hurt anything by saying a dual shadow/arcane can't just be a Shadow class.
I don't know why there has to be 3 ongoing threads arguing if we should call the HoS "builds", "sub-classes" or "classes" - really doesn't even matter???
If you want to make a Blackguard just a Shadow class instead of divine/Shadow, so be it. If you want to remove the -1 surge from the Shade race, do it.
It is not going to cause the Space-time continuum to unravel.
Unless you're the sort of edritch abomination where making up your own rules causes the space-time continuum itself to melt into a vitreous solid and ooze away.
Yes but then wouldn't Dr Who or the X-Men come to save the day???
You know there is a certain amount of role-playing in roleplaying games. If you really want a class to feel like what you want you are going to have to work for it. A Hunter can feel very primal if you play it that way. I also think that if they didn't add shadow to the classes in Heroes of Shadow that were originally something else, people would be even more mad. "What? There's only two classes in here that even use shadow! I'm not buying this." is what they'd say. As it stands most of the gripe is only because people don't like that things have changed.
Actually, we voice our concerns not because it has changed, but the direction it changed to. The direction is important.
Alright then tell me a way that it could have changed that all the haters would have liked and wouldn't have required a full overhaul of the system.
Because its not 'any other book(s)' its a complete paradigm change, and a completely different and broken way of creating character classes.
Having run a game since the first Essentials product that came out which is 50/50 split between PHB classes and Essentials classes, I can tell you that they work fine together at the table. When people made their characters, they went through the process just like any other RPG character creation.
So no, it's not broken for any definition of broken that matters when you're actually playing the game.
We've never said anything like that. We've said if it doesn't have enough pre-E material to be worth it, we won't buy it. Some of us just don't like Essentials style classes. WotC is going to have to understand that. Some of us just won't buy Essentials...
The entire point of Essentials was to make options for people who weren't currently 4e players. Why is anyone surprised that existing players of 4E who like the AEDU class might not like Essentials? The whole point was to make something that appealed to other people in order to broden the range of interest so more people can have something they like.
As for having enough "pre-E materials to be worth it", I'd say that's an assement you need to make after the fact. Yes, we have a table of contents, but we need more data. And unfortunately, some people are going to pass it over without an honest assessment out of some emotional need to be right in the latest edition war. Just like people downplay the encounter, daily and utility powers, feats, broadened stat choices for races, that support pre-E 4E because those things happen to be in an Essentials product.
You know there is a certain amount of role-playing in roleplaying games. If you really want a class to feel like what you want you are going to have to work for it. A Hunter can feel very primal if you play it that way. I also think that if they didn't add shadow to the classes in Heroes of Shadow that were originally something else, people would be even more mad. "What? There's only two classes in here that even use shadow! I'm not buying this." is what they'd say. As it stands most of the gripe is only because people don't like that things have changed.
Actually, we voice our concerns not because it has changed, but the direction it changed to. The direction is important.
Alright then tell me a way that it could have changed that all the haters would have liked and wouldn't have required a full overhaul of the system.
Profession Themes. Heck, Themes in general.
An earth-shaping Elemental character class whose powers would depend on what was around him (standing on a volcano? you can draw on obsidian shards to throw or fire-blasts to hurl, for just one example). Possibly all the Elemental classes having their powers either elemental focused to an extreme, or being base powers with Keywords of an "Or" nature (I am thinking of the elemental bending done in Avatar:TLAB, and the abilities of Geomancers from Final Fantasy, respectively).
A fighter build that, like a druid's need for wildshape to have at least one beast, at least one normal, and one other power, would use some of the ideas for the martial Essentials builds in giving them an ability to be in an at-will Technique stance, where only Technique keyworded powers could be used, to enhance speed, make MBAs more dangerous, etc. But that more bombastic attacks would not be available when the Fighter was so focused. Maybe the Keyword would be Focus instead. I'm not sure of the fine details.
I'm sure I could think of more, but those are going to be it for now. After all, I ain't being paid for this.
You know there is a certain amount of role-playing in roleplaying games. If you really want a class to feel like what you want you are going to have to work for it. A Hunter can feel very primal if you play it that way. I also think that if they didn't add shadow to the classes in Heroes of Shadow that were originally something else, people would be even more mad. "What? There's only two classes in here that even use shadow! I'm not buying this." is what they'd say. As it stands most of the gripe is only because people don't like that things have changed.
That's the thing - the design of heroes of shadow to me comes off not as a sincere attempt to bring shadow into the game but rather as a half-heartes attempt to stave off complaints.
And as for working - sometimes I don't want to twist my imagination into pretzels to pretend a wizard is a fighter. Sometimes I just want to play a fighter. I mean, by that measure there's no point to Heroes of Shadow at all, because we could already re-fluff clerics and wizards and warlocks perfectly well already, and none of them are starved for options in 4e.
Your rebuttals amount to a nejection of the value of expansions altogether, and an excuse of half-hearted effort that amounts to "people would have been even more upsed if it were a no-hearted effort".
You know there is a certain amount of role-playing in roleplaying games. If you really want a class to feel like what you want you are going to have to work for it. A Hunter can feel very primal if you play it that way. I also think that if they didn't add shadow to the classes in Heroes of Shadow that were originally something else, people would be even more mad. "What? There's only two classes in here that even use shadow! I'm not buying this." is what they'd say. As it stands most of the gripe is only because people don't like that things have changed.
Actually, we voice our concerns not because it has changed, but the direction it changed to. The direction is important.
Alright then tell me a way that it could have changed that all the haters would have liked and wouldn't have required a full overhaul of the system.
Profession Themes. Heck, Themes in general.
An earth-shaping Elemental character class whose powers would depend on what was around him (standing on a volcano? you can draw on obsidian shards to throw or fire-blasts to hurl, for just one example). Possibly all the Elemental classes having their powers either elemental focused to an extreme, or being base powers with Keywords of an "Or" nature (I am thinking of the elemental bending done in Avatar:TLAB, and the abilities of Geomancers from Final Fantasy, respectively).
A fighter build that, like a druid's need for wildshape to have at least one beast, at least one normal, and one other power, would use some of the ideas for the martial Essentials builds in giving them an ability to be in an at-will Technique stance, where only Technique keyworded powers could be used, to enhance speed, make MBAs more dangerous, etc. But that more bombastic attacks would not be available when the Fighter was so focused. Maybe the Keyword would be Focus instead. I'm not sure of the fine details.
I'm sure I could think of more, but those are going to be it for now. After all, I ain't being paid for this.
Those do not constitute changes, they are additions. When I said changes, I meant what new direction in class design would have been approved by the majority?
You know there is a certain amount of role-playing in roleplaying games. If you really want a class to feel like what you want you are going to have to work for it. A Hunter can feel very primal if you play it that way. I also think that if they didn't add shadow to the classes in Heroes of Shadow that were originally something else, people would be even more mad. "What? There's only two classes in here that even use shadow! I'm not buying this." is what they'd say. As it stands most of the gripe is only because people don't like that things have changed.
That's the thing - the design of heroes of shadow to me comes off not as a sincere attempt to bring shadow into the game but rather as a half-heartes attempt to stave off complaints.
And as for working - sometimes I don't want to twist my imagination into pretzels to pretend a wizard is a fighter. Sometimes I just want to play a fighter. I mean, by that measure there's no point to Heroes of Shadow at all, because we could already re-fluff clerics and wizards and warlocks perfectly well already, and none of them are starved for options in 4e.
Your rebuttals amount to a nejection of the value of expansions altogether, and an excuse of half-hearted effort that amounts to "people would have been even more upsed if it were a no-hearted effort".
I agree that they may have pulled some punches with delivering the Shadow power sources. I disagree, Heroes of Shadow has a reason for existence even for those who have already just reflavored other classes to be shadowy. Yes it provides limited umbral options, but greater still it provides new options in the bigger picture. I admit my better-this-than-nothing at all argument is weak, but it wasn't really intended to be a strong argument merely an observation I made about someone saying if they were just going to weaken the shadow power source by mixing it they might as well not even added it. I can't remember if that was you.
A Vampire might be just the thing... we are all debating what role it is... well maybe its an experiment in pick a role any role ... for advanced players kind of like when you hybrid a Paladin and a Warlock. A Blood Knight is kind of that way. (I doubt it but shrug)
but then I may be a minority, I believe that the vampire would of been better if had been a feat taht grant the por sod powers at each lvl....
but then I have beef with how the 4e monster manuals were done too...
but tahts a gripe for another time
I would love to give my drow paladin a smattering of Blackguard powers, but I can't.
Well, you can give the Paladin an Cavalier at-wills from Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms (Vengeful Strike and Strike of Hope). Maybe the Blackguard powers will say "Paladin Attack 1" and you'll be able to take those as well.
As far as I can tell, there is no way to Essentials Hybrid, so Vampire/Anything is out (Please tell me where to find it if there is a way to Essentials Hybrid.) They were going to release a book explaining how to mesh the two, but it was one of the books they pulled for this year.
Purely on a house rule level, I would handle it by simply switching back and forth between the two and level up the character on the basis of "what does this class give me for this level?" Then on the next level, you level him up as if he was the other class. If you have a striker damage rider (like the Vampires), then it only applies when you make attacks with that class' powers. Just like a Hybrid Ranger can only use Hunter's Quarry on Ranger and Ranger Paragon Path attack powers. A slayer would only get their bonus damage on basic attacks. You use the normal hybrid rules for weapons and implements, getting them from both classes, and the normal rules for armour (getting only those that are usable by both classes). If there is already a Hybrid class entry for the class, you use that.
That's my biggest issue with the Essentials products so far- I can't integrate them into what I already have, so unless I'm willing to drop my AEDU characters, it's practically useless to me.
Definitely. But so is arcane power to your paladin unless you do some sort of multiclassing or something. And there is *some* things you can use from HotFL/FK for some non-Essentials characters. The wizard and cleric got a bunch more powers including some much needed wisdom based melee powers for the cleric. Warlocks got dailies from HoFK. It's not lots, but it is some.
I would never expect someone who isn't playing a class from the books to want to buy it just as I wouldn't expect a person playing a primal character to necessarily want Arcane Power.
Hopefully, the designers will learn from this, and some day (hopefully not too soon in my opinion) when they release the next edition, they'll incorporate an "Easy-Build" version of each class, with few choices, and then have the full option spread for more experienced players. After all, that's the heart of Essentials: repackaging classes to be easier to build, which is why they have so fewer options.
This is a great idea.
It's also refreshing to hear from someone who has issues with some of the stuff that's been released lately without frothing at the mouth and going on a tirade. Thanks for that!
I think those are more fitting than words. So much childishness.
Sad but true.
I know WotC needs to grow up and act like a real company...
I think those are more fitting than words. So much childishness.
Sad but true.
I know WotC needs to grow up and act like a real company...
I was actually referring to the boards. Some of the posts have been quite immature, like something an extremely intelligent 5 year old would say. Or someone who was emotionally stunted.
I was actually referring to the boards. Some of the posts have been quite immature, like something an extremely intelligent 5 year old would say. Or someone who was emotionally stunted.
.....You do know you are on the Internet right? You just described something like 95% of people on the Internet.
I was actually referring to the boards. Some of the posts have been quite immature, like something an extremely intelligent 5 year old would say. Or someone who was emotionally stunted.
.....You do know you are on the Internet right? You just described something like 95% of people on the Internet.
Don't remind me. My God there are parts about humanity I really do hate. But aside from the world being nothing but children that should have been disciplined better, I think I may have a concise and accurate answer to the actual question that this thread is about. Heroes of Shadow is a supplement aimed at adding elements of Shadow to your game with support for the wizard, cleric, warlock, paladin, assassin, and vampire. As well as a trio of shadow themed races, ten Paragon paths that will add the Shadow Power source to your existing character, and 4 Epic Destinies for those who follow darker paths to immortality. Additionally there are a selection of feats and equipment useful to a variety of characters.
Only it's worse then that, because in addition to some vocal portion of the 4e player base rejecting essentials entirely (whether that portion is a majority or minority is entirely up for debate), there has also been a dramatic slip in the quantity and quality of releases, and an off-the-cliff dive in terms of customer relations and communications. Seriously, it's been abysmal.
WotC's D&D department over the last 8 months or so has been a textbook example of how to divide and alienate a fanbase. About the only more extreme example I can think of would be DC's handling of their Batgirl property. Divided and alienated nerds get grumpy on the internet. It's what we do. You can blame them for being grumpy (seriously, the age range on this game says 12+, you're expecting only completely reasonable adult dialog from 12 year olds?), or you can recognize that the WotC has been messing up on a customer relations level.
when WotC matures up realizes its screwing up and takes responsibility for its actions. I'll start treating it like an adult, until then...
:p
I was actually referring to the boards. Some of the posts have been quite immature, like something an extremely intelligent 5 year old would say. Or someone who was emotionally stunted.
.....You do know you are on the Internet right? You just described something like 95% of people on the Internet. Planet
Fixed that for you.
The internet just brings it out more.
Though i do find it funny that some people are complaining about vampires being overpowered and others underpowered. I guess any excuse to complain...
an off-the-cliff dive in terms of customer relations and communications. Seriously, it's been abysmal.
Yeah I received TERRIBLE Customer Service from WOTC - I asked for a refund for Feb or a 1 month extension to my subscription because there were barely any articles in Feb. CS replied basically with a "tough sh*t - if you don't like, it cancel your membership".
I have been a loyal customer for over 20 years and they don't seem to care. So after 20+ years, I canceled my Dragon subscription.
So I can totally relate to the backlash on this board.
There's always bile and hate on the internet. It's the internet. Hate on D&D has increased dramatically of late, because the haters who jumped ship with pathfinder still hate 4e, while the players who went with 4e to begin with are now split between those who like essentials and those who don't.
Only it's worse then that, because in addition to some vocal portion of the 4e player base rejecting essentials entirely (whether that portion is a majority or minority is entirely up for debate), there has also been a dramatic slip in the quantity and quality of releases, and an off-the-cliff dive in terms of customer relations and communications. Seriously, it's been abysmal.
WotC's D&D department over the last 8 months or so has been a textbook example of how to divide and alienate a fanbase. About the only more extreme example I can think of would be DC's handling of their Batgirl property. Divided and alienated nerds get grumpy on the internet. It's what we do. You can blame them for being grumpy (seriously, the age range on this game says 12+, you're expecting only completely reasonable adult dialog from 12 year olds?), or you can recognize that the WotC has been messing up on a customer relations level.
i can agree that WOtC has been messing up customer relations, thats for sure. from a buisness standpoint naming the product line essentials was a bad idea, by nature we like to attack things that have a name we can point to and say THIS SUCKS because just as you say it divides and alinates its fanbase, i like essentials alot of folks dont, but because they made it a easy to see target it will be rejected by some
also the non comunication is what made people like me drop ddi compleatly, you are right it has been abysmal.
as for imaturaty on boards, it will happen just continue the conversation with people like Malisteen or hatta, and ignore them
EDIT: the vampire class looked awsome to me, just throw on a cloak and probably something else underneath and your fine.
I can't say it enough. Building characters is at least half the fun of D&D to me. Taking the character's encounter and daily attack powers out of the players hands, or even forcing them to be decided by build choice at first level, just doesn't do it for me. The more choices they remove altogether, or consolidate at first level, the more boring the class gets in my eyes.
I want WotC to provide options I can use to make characters, not full blown characters I can choose to play as is.
I can't say it enough. Building characters is at least half the fun of D&D to me. Taking the character's encounter and daily attack powers out of the players hands, or even forcing them to be decided by build choice at first level, just doesn't do it for me. The more choices they remove altogether, or consolidate at first level, the more boring the class gets in my eyes.
Totally agree! That is why I am glad that they allowed the Binder to choose Encounter/Utility/Daily powers.
I don't want the same powers as another character next to me - that would be so boring.
I still don't feel it's an adequate replacement for actual new classes, though. And it's sad to see that the only new class in the book opted to go with the "build your character for you" approach.
It's really annoying. I love shadow, and really really wanted to like this book. I've been skeptical of the vampire, trying not to get my hopes up because monster classes have always been somewhat dull, narrow, and questionably balanced in the past. But when the 'assassin content' turned out to be a reprint of the executioner, the Vampire was all I had left. So now, seeing the preview, it's another big dissapointment for me.
From what I've seen, I much prefer the way they're handling binders to the way they've handled hexblades, even if I like the hexblade concept more.
yeah I was excited when I heard about the Hexblade - I tried playing one and well.....I found it boring as most of the powers were chosen for me. Also the lack of rods/wands that were useful also put a damper on the class for me.
I also would rather had the Dark Pact Hexblade come out instead of the multiple Fey Pact ones.
I don't mind the fluff damage to sunlight - it's fluffy, and easily avoided. I would have preferred a list of a few similar fluff-type but mechanically circumventable weaknesses to choose from, though. Because, again, choice.
I can't say it enough. Building characters is at least half the fun of D&D to me. Taking the character's encounter and daily attack powers out of the players hands, or even forcing them to be decided by build choice at first level, just doesn't do it for me. The more choices they remove altogether, or consolidate at first level, the more boring the class gets in my eyes.
I want WotC to provide options I can use to make characters, not full blown characters I can choose to play as is.
very true thats why i was disapointed so much by the cavilier, you get only like 2 choices by level 6
@askanipsion the hexblade is a good class, but since its so undersupported your grasping for useful feats at level 8 and there is no feat combos you can do that other classes cant, i think it just needs a set of feats and implements that are useful to it and we are good. but since there is only 2 pages of feats in this book i highly doubt that there is alot of support for the hexblade, but hopefully we will see implements
There's always bile and hate on the internet. It's the internet. Hate on D&D has increased dramatically of late, because the haters who jumped ship with pathfinder still hate 4e, while the players who went with 4e to begin with are now split between those who like essentials and those who don't.
Only it's worse then that, because in addition to some vocal portion of the 4e player base rejecting essentials entirely (whether that portion is a majority or minority is entirely up for debate), there has also been a dramatic slip in the quantity and quality of releases, and an off-the-cliff dive in terms of customer relations and communications. Seriously, it's been abysmal.
WotC's D&D department over the last 8 months or so has been a textbook example of how to divide and alienate a fanbase. About the only more extreme example I can think of would be DC's handling of their Batgirl property. Divided and alienated nerds get grumpy on the internet. It's what we do. You can blame them for being grumpy (seriously, the age range on this game says 12+, you're expecting only completely reasonable adult dialog from 12 year olds?), or you can recognize that the WotC has been messing up on a customer relations level.
i can agree that WOtC has been messing up customer relations, thats for sure. from a buisness standpoint naming the product line essentials was a bad idea, by nature we like to attack things that have a name we can point to and say THIS SUCKS because just as you say it divides and alinates its fanbase, i like essentials alot of folks dont, but because they made it a easy to see target it will be rejected by some
also the non comunication is what made people like me drop ddi compleatly, you are right it has been abysmal.
as for imaturaty on boards, it will happen just continue the conversation with people like Malisteen or hatta, and ignore them
EDIT: the vampire class looked awsome to me, just throw on a cloak and probably something else underneath and your fine.
I agree with this post. I also agree that WotC has got about half it's collective head up it's behind. Additionally I did not know how many 12 year olds actually used these boards, honestly your mothers would be ashamed of some of your behaviour.
honestly your mothers would be ashamed
(not really, I just couldn't resist)
I agree with this post. I also agree that WotC has got about half it's collective head up it's behind. Additionally I did not know how many 12 year olds actually used these boards, honestly your mothers would be ashamed of some of your behaviour.
Oh shush now. I am not a 12 year old....I am something much worse. I am an egotistical know-it-all idealistic law student who feels that the world has shattered his ideals despite having not stepped into the real world yet. About the only thing that could make this combination any worse is if I was a hippy, but my ego won't let me stoop that low. :P
I agree with this post. I also agree that WotC has got about half it's collective head up it's behind. Additionally I did not know how many 12 year olds actually used these boards, honestly your mothers would be ashamed of some of your behaviour.
Oh shush now. I am not a 12 year old....I am something much worse. I am an egotistical know-it-all idealistic law student who feels that the world has shattered his ideals despite having not stepped into the real world yet. About the only thing that could make this combination any worse is if I was a hippy, but my ego won't let me stoop that low. :P
I can beat that, but half of it is pretty outrageous.
Yes the vampire is out and guess what? you get hit with a radiant attack your dead at 1st level. Other than that you never have to stop and rest because you steal healing surges from monsters and party members between fights. Oh did I mention you have a bad case of XP. Its ok though because you can wear a heavy cloak. Personally my vampire is going to be covered in rags like a mummy and wearing sunglasses so there won't be any accidental "oops my hand hit sunlight and I burst into flames and die. Time to make a new character" moments...cuz you know...you can't be rezzed after that...
You have Radiant Vulnerability 5, which I don't think is going to go up as you level. At level 1, you probably have somewhere in the vicinity of 20 or more HP. Only being dropped by the sun's radiant damage destroys you (and I am assuming that pushes you straight into the "need a Raise (Un)Dead" category, not the "welp, roll up a new character" category), and being caught in the day with your protective gear will deal 10 radiant damage per round, assuming you cannot find any source of concealment. So yes, standing outside in the daylight for several rounds will hurt, but it'll be less damaging as you gain levels (and I strongly suspect that the Vampire Noble paragon path will eliminate that solar vulnerability, if it's anything like the Vampire Lord). Additionally, the number of monsters levels 1 through 5 that can deal radiant damage, can be counted on one hand with only one or two from that capable of doing at-will (the rest having encounter powers). So if it's glowing and shouting holy words, don't fight it. Past this point, you've got more HP and have probably pick up things that will grant you resistance, even though that might not actually be all that important. Radiant damage is one of the least common sources (and least commonly resisted as well). If you're facing something that's cranking out radiant damage on an at-will basis, you've probably angered a deity somehow. The only source of radiant damage you have to worry about is the big glowing ball of death in the sky, and that's dealt with by just wearing heavy clothing (and even if you do get tagged with it, you have several rounds to haul your pale butt into a shadowy or smokey location). You also have regeneration, so after you get away from the glowing death ball you can heal yourself up to bloodied and borrow a surge off the defender (you do have only a few surges yourself, to better emphasize your parasitic nature).
The vampire's weird healing abilities sound very intriguing to me, even if I'm a bit disappointed by the seemingly pre-ordained suite of powers in the heroic tier. That said, it has two bloodlines which should help differentiate things and there's always the option for replacement features down the road.
Yes the vampire is out and guess what? you get hit with a radiant attack your dead at 1st level. Other than that you never have to stop and rest because you steal healing surges from monsters and party members between fights. Oh did I mention you have a bad case of XP. Its ok though because you can wear a heavy cloak. Personally my vampire is going to be covered in rags like a mummy and wearing sunglasses so there won't be any accidental "oops my hand hit sunlight and I burst into flames and die. Time to make a new character" moments...cuz you know...you can't be rezzed after that...
You have Radiant Vulnerability 5, which I don't think is going to go up as you level. At level 1, you probably have somewhere in the vicinity of 20 or more HP. Only being dropped by the sun's radiant damage destroys you (and I am assuming that pushes you straight into the "need a Raise (Un)Dead" category, not the "welp, roll up a new character" category), and being caught in the day with your protective gear will deal 10 radiant damage per round, assuming you cannot find any source of concealment. So yes, standing outside in the daylight for several rounds will hurt, but it'll be less damaging as you gain levels (and I strongly suspect that the Vampire Noble paragon path will eliminate that solar vulnerability, if it's anything like the Vampire Lord). Additionally, the number of monsters levels 1 through 5 that can deal radiant damage, can be counted on one hand with only one or two from that capable of doing at-will (the rest having encounter powers). So if it's glowing and shouting holy words, don't fight it. Past this point, you've got more HP and have probably pick up things that will grant you resistance, even though that might not actually be all that important. Radiant damage is one of the least common sources (and least commonly resisted as well). If you're facing something that's cranking out radiant damage on an at-will basis, you've probably angered a deity somehow. The only source of radiant damage you have to worry about is the big glowing ball of death in the sky, and that's dealt with by just wearing heavy clothing (and even if you do get tagged with it, you have several rounds to haul your pale butt into a shadowy or smokey location). You also have regeneration, so after you get away from the glowing death ball you can heal yourself up to bloodied and borrow a surge off the defender (you do have only a few surges yourself, to better emphasize your parasitic nature).
The vampire's weird healing abilities sound very intriguing to me, even if I'm a bit disappointed by the seemingly pre-ordained suite of powers in the heroic tier. That said, it has two bloodlines which should help differentiate things and there's always the option for replacement features down the road.
In addition, you could choose Deva for your race and cancel out your radiant vulnerability. Even to the point of being resistant at later levels.
Yes the vampire is out and guess what? you get hit with a radiant attack your dead at 1st level. Other than that you never have to stop and rest because you steal healing surges from monsters and party members between fights. Oh did I mention you have a bad case of XP. Its ok though because you can wear a heavy cloak. Personally my vampire is going to be covered in rags like a mummy and wearing sunglasses so there won't be any accidental "oops my hand hit sunlight and I burst into flames and die. Time to make a new character" moments...cuz you know...you can't be rezzed after that...
You have Radiant Vulnerability 5, which I don't think is going to go up as you level. At level 1, you probably have somewhere in the vicinity of 20 or more HP. Only being dropped by the sun's radiant damage destroys you (and I am assuming that pushes you straight into the "need a Raise (Un)Dead" category, not the "welp, roll up a new character" category), and being caught in the day with your protective gear will deal 10 radiant damage per round, assuming you cannot find any source of concealment. So yes, standing outside in the daylight for several rounds will hurt, but it'll be less damaging as you gain levels (and I strongly suspect that the Vampire Noble paragon path will eliminate that solar vulnerability, if it's anything like the Vampire Lord). Additionally, the number of monsters levels 1 through 5 that can deal radiant damage, can be counted on one hand with only one or two from that capable of doing at-will (the rest having encounter powers). So if it's glowing and shouting holy words, don't fight it. Past this point, you've got more HP and have probably pick up things that will grant you resistance, even though that might not actually be all that important. Radiant damage is one of the least common sources (and least commonly resisted as well). If you're facing something that's cranking out radiant damage on an at-will basis, you've probably angered a deity somehow. The only source of radiant damage you have to worry about is the big glowing ball of death in the sky, and that's dealt with by just wearing heavy clothing (and even if you do get tagged with it, you have several rounds to haul your pale butt into a shadowy or smokey location). You also have regeneration, so after you get away from the glowing death ball you can heal yourself up to bloodied and borrow a surge off the defender (you do have only a few surges yourself, to better emphasize your parasitic nature).
The vampire's weird healing abilities sound very intriguing to me, even if I'm a bit disappointed by the seemingly pre-ordained suite of powers in the heroic tier. That said, it has two bloodlines which should help differentiate things and there's always the option for replacement features down the road.
It clearly states that if you die from radiant you cannot come back. I was mistaken before it will take 2 rounds of sunlight and your regeneration won't kick in right away because radiant interupts it. I mean your going to be walking around worrying about a gust of wind blowing your hood off, or a monster slashing your clothes open. If you are more than 60 foot away from shelter your screwed. I would have been happy with 'while in direct sunlight you have the weakened condition' but no they had to make it a super negative effect. They balance it out by letting them steal a surge per encounter and take as many surges from party members as they want. So they either die from sunlight / radiant monsters or they are nigh unkillable. Not only that they get no choices except for utilities and their at-wills. Because of this they won't be able to trade out powers or multi-class. They could have made it an interesting class, but instead they made it an Essentials class. Really because it has no choice they should have just made it a theme. You know you get the blood-drain power and then you have the option of trading out other powers as you level. That would have been perfect for this.
Wow more crap this is sad.
One man's crap is another man's treasure.
Wow more crap this is sad.
One man's crap is another man's treasure.
That is the Dumpster Diver's motto. Anybody can play a Dragonborn Paladin, but it takes a creative soul to take a Vryloka or Shade and make it into a well oiled wrecking machine!
Yes the vampire is out and guess what? you get hit with a radiant attack your dead at 1st level. Other than that you never have to stop and rest because you steal healing surges from monsters and party members between fights. Oh did I mention you have a bad case of XP. Its ok though because you can wear a heavy cloak. Personally my vampire is going to be covered in rags like a mummy and wearing sunglasses so there won't be any accidental "oops my hand hit sunlight and I burst into flames and die. Time to make a new character" moments...cuz you know...you can't be rezzed after that...
You have Radiant Vulnerability 5, which I don't think is going to go up as you level. At level 1, you probably have somewhere in the vicinity of 20 or more HP. Only being dropped by the sun's radiant damage destroys you (and I am assuming that pushes you straight into the "need a Raise (Un)Dead" category, not the "welp, roll up a new character" category), and being caught in the day with your protective gear will deal 10 radiant damage per round, assuming you cannot find any source of concealment. So yes, standing outside in the daylight for several rounds will hurt, but it'll be less damaging as you gain levels (and I strongly suspect that the Vampire Noble paragon path will eliminate that solar vulnerability, if it's anything like the Vampire Lord). Additionally, the number of monsters levels 1 through 5 that can deal radiant damage, can be counted on one hand with only one or two from that capable of doing at-will (the rest having encounter powers). So if it's glowing and shouting holy words, don't fight it. Past this point, you've got more HP and have probably pick up things that will grant you resistance, even though that might not actually be all that important. Radiant damage is one of the least common sources (and least commonly resisted as well). If you're facing something that's cranking out radiant damage on an at-will basis, you've probably angered a deity somehow. The only source of radiant damage you have to worry about is the big glowing ball of death in the sky, and that's dealt with by just wearing heavy clothing (and even if you do get tagged with it, you have several rounds to haul your pale butt into a shadowy or smokey location). You also have regeneration, so after you get away from the glowing death ball you can heal yourself up to bloodied and borrow a surge off the defender (you do have only a few surges yourself, to better emphasize your parasitic nature).
The vampire's weird healing abilities sound very intriguing to me, even if I'm a bit disappointed by the seemingly pre-ordained suite of powers in the heroic tier. That said, it has two bloodlines which should help differentiate things and there's always the option for replacement features down the road.
It clearly states that if you die from radiant you cannot come back. I was mistaken before it will take 2 rounds of sunlight and your regeneration won't kick in right away because radiant interupts it. I mean your going to be walking around worrying about a gust of wind blowing your hood off, or a monster slashing your clothes open. If you are more than 60 foot away from shelter your screwed. I would have been happy with 'while in direct sunlight you have the weakened condition' but no they had to make it a super negative effect. They balance it out by letting them steal a surge per encounter and take as many surges from party members as they want. So they either die from sunlight / radiant monsters or they are nigh unkillable. Not only that they get no choices except for utilities and their at-wills. Because of this they won't be able to trade out powers or multi-class. They could have made it an interesting class, but instead they made it an Essentials class. Really because it has no choice they should have just made it a theme. You know you get the blood-drain power and then you have the option of trading out other powers as you level. That would have been perfect for this.
- If you end your turn in direct sunlight and lack a protective covering such as a cloak or other heavy clothing, you take 5 radiant damage (plus additional damage from your radiant vulnerability) from the sunlight, and you are weakened (save ends). If you drop below 1 hit point from this damage, you are instantly destroyed.
(emphasis mine). It is only radiant damage from the sun that can instantly destroy you. Now, we're not entirely sure what "destroyed" means. It could mean that the character is obliterated beyond hope of even Raise Dead or similar abilities. It could mean that it's just their substition for "dead" since the character in question is already dead(ish). As a DM, I'd favor the second interpretation since it's completely scrapping a character is not something I'm fond of in most situations. I hope that Heroes of Shadow clears this up, otherwise we'll have to ask Mearls and Schwalb what's going on.
Technically, it's if you're more than 80 feet away from concealment, since you can run. And if you're a drow, you can run 80 feet, drop a cloud of darkness, then run 80 feet on your next turn (being shoved out of your cloud when it isn't your turn doesn't count apparently). For a "Vampires burn in sunlight" mechanic, the fact that it activates at the end of your turn is rather generous (though there are obviously mixed opinions about if it should be there at all). Once you hit paragon tier, I suspect the vampire noble paragon path will minimize the sun's negative effect, and even if it doesn't, there are neck or armor things that provide radiant resistance (Armor of Starlight would be good in this case). The weakened (save ends) seems a bit much, but I believe that the more reasonable option (weakened until the end of your next turn) is being reserved for the Noble Vampire. Not my personal favorite choice, but I can understand why they did it (and I understand why others are not amused).
Based on the mechanics, it seems like a vampire can endure a few seconds of sunlight before starting to take damage (being out of cover at the end of your turn is what triggers the burning), so you shouldn't have to worry about instantly dying once your hood is knocked off, since in most cases you can probably put it back on. Same for your clothing being slashed- unless you're playing in a very peculiar game, clothing damage probably won't be that common unless your DM is specifically gunning for you. And since your DM is significantly more powerful, having him or her gunning for you is a problem no matter what class you play (though there is a discussion to be had on whether certain mechanics enable those sorts of DMs to gun for you more easily- consider the horror stories of DMs who set up no-win situations with paladins in order to make them fall).
As to the apparent immortality of the class, taking a look at it...
Level 1: Blood Is Life
Your undead nature and your dependence on blood force you to use healing surges in a different way than other characters. The few healing surges you have can be augmented by the life force you drain from your foes with many of your powers. In addition, you can draw on the life energy of a willing ally to fuel your own vitality.
Benefit: Once during a short rest, an ally adjacent to you can willingly lose one healing surge to allow you to regain hit points equal to your bloodied value. You regain hit points equal to your bloodied value.
If you end a short rest with more healing surges than your usual number of healing surges for the day, you lose any healing surges beyond that number but regain all your hit points.
(emphasis mine)
This class is probably going to make even the wizard look hearty when it comes to healing surges. I would not be surprise if it had between two and five surges total, with no option for using your Constitution modifier (being undead and all). Yes, you have regeneration, but Cha modifier per round is a lot less than what a constant stream of beatings can take from you. And if you're knocked unconscious, you pretty much have to have someone patch you since regeneration stops working once you drop below 0 HP. Between having your leader's powers expend your surges or activating second wind, you can burn through several surges in a fight if your team isn't on top of things, especially as a melee striker who goes where the fighting is fiercest and tends to be a bit squishier than the defender. You can gain surges, but you can't gain too many or too quickly. I can't make an effective appraisal of the class in-combat just yet because so many things are in flux (such as the enemy, how good you are at avoiding damage, how well your defender is, how much healing your leader can drop, etc). Out of combat, your regeneration can take you up out of bloodied surge-free, which means either you spend two surges (or possibly one with your leader's Word ability) or you top yourself off by putting one of your friends on tap (or you managed to overflow on surges). This seems like a rather interesting mechanic, because unlike the hunger checks in Libris Mortis where you had to either feed regularly or go completely out of control and become a slavering monstrosity, you aren't forced to consume blood from others- it's just the most effective and attractive option when you only have a few surges to begin with. I'd have to see the whole class package to figure out how effective it is at immortality, but in-battle it is looking like it's about as squishy as the rogue (or monk- since the Blood Drain adds d10s instead of [W]s, I suspect that the class is primarily implement powers, with the implement in question probably being "ki focus, weapons you are proficient with"), so being swarmed and knocked unconcious is certainly a possibility (especially if the at-will powers are single-target). And if you're battered around in battle, you may just end up spending a fair amount of your precious-few surges at a rate faster than you can acquire them, which can be a problem if you put on repeat performances.
Personally, this class is the one I am most intrigued by, and want to take a good look at all of its features before making a final decision. And even should this book prove to be a complete disappointment, it gave us this
I Don't Always Play Strikers
But when I do, I prefer Vampire.
Stay thirsty, my friends.
which is a net gain in my book.
Yes the vampire is out and guess what? you get hit with a radiant attack your dead at 1st level. Other than that you never have to stop and rest because you steal healing surges from monsters and party members between fights. Oh did I mention you have a bad case of XP. Its ok though because you can wear a heavy cloak. Personally my vampire is going to be covered in rags like a mummy and wearing sunglasses so there won't be any accidental "oops my hand hit sunlight and I burst into flames and die. Time to make a new character" moments...cuz you know...you can't be rezzed after that...
You have Radiant Vulnerability 5, which I don't think is going to go up as you level. At level 1, you probably have somewhere in the vicinity of 20 or more HP. Only being dropped by the sun's radiant damage destroys you (and I am assuming that pushes you straight into the "need a Raise (Un)Dead" category, not the "welp, roll up a new character" category), and being caught in the day with your protective gear will deal 10 radiant damage per round, assuming you cannot find any source of concealment. So yes, standing outside in the daylight for several rounds will hurt, but it'll be less damaging as you gain levels (and I strongly suspect that the Vampire Noble paragon path will eliminate that solar vulnerability, if it's anything like the Vampire Lord). Additionally, the number of monsters levels 1 through 5 that can deal radiant damage, can be counted on one hand with only one or two from that capable of doing at-will (the rest having encounter powers). So if it's glowing and shouting holy words, don't fight it. Past this point, you've got more HP and have probably pick up things that will grant you resistance, even though that might not actually be all that important. Radiant damage is one of the least common sources (and least commonly resisted as well). If you're facing something that's cranking out radiant damage on an at-will basis, you've probably angered a deity somehow. The only source of radiant damage you have to worry about is the big glowing ball of death in the sky, and that's dealt with by just wearing heavy clothing (and even if you do get tagged with it, you have several rounds to haul your pale butt into a shadowy or smokey location). You also have regeneration, so after you get away from the glowing death ball you can heal yourself up to bloodied and borrow a surge off the defender (you do have only a few surges yourself, to better emphasize your parasitic nature).
The vampire's weird healing abilities sound very intriguing to me, even if I'm a bit disappointed by the seemingly pre-ordained suite of powers in the heroic tier. That said, it has two bloodlines which should help differentiate things and there's always the option for replacement features down the road.
It clearly states that if you die from radiant you cannot come back. I was mistaken before it will take 2 rounds of sunlight and your regeneration won't kick in right away because radiant interupts it. I mean your going to be walking around worrying about a gust of wind blowing your hood off, or a monster slashing your clothes open. If you are more than 60 foot away from shelter your screwed. I would have been happy with 'while in direct sunlight you have the weakened condition' but no they had to make it a super negative effect. They balance it out by letting them steal a surge per encounter and take as many surges from party members as they want. So they either die from sunlight / radiant monsters or they are nigh unkillable. Not only that they get no choices except for utilities and their at-wills. Because of this they won't be able to trade out powers or multi-class. They could have made it an interesting class, but instead they made it an Essentials class. Really because it has no choice they should have just made it a theme. You know you get the blood-drain power and then you have the option of trading out other powers as you level. That would have been perfect for this.
- If you end your turn in direct sunlight and lack a protective covering such as a cloak or other heavy clothing, you take 5 radiant damage (plus additional damage from your radiant vulnerability) from the sunlight, and you are weakened (save ends). If you drop below 1 hit point from this damage, you are instantly destroyed.
(emphasis mine). It is only radiant damage from the sun that can instantly destroy you. Now, we're not entirely sure what "destroyed" means. It could mean that the character is obliterated beyond hope of even Raise Dead or similar abilities. It could mean that it's just their substition for "dead" since the character in question is already dead(ish). As a DM, I'd favor the second interpretation since it's completely scrapping a character is not something I'm fond of in most situations. I hope that Heroes of Shadow clears this up, otherwise we'll have to ask Mearls and Schwalb what's going on.
Technically, it's if you're more than 80 feet away from concealment, since you can run. And if you're a drow, you can run 80 feet, drop a cloud of darkness, then run 80 feet on your next turn (being shoved out of your cloud when it isn't your turn doesn't count apparently). For a "Vampires burn in sunlight" mechanic, the fact that it activates at the end of your turn is rather generous (though there are obviously mixed opinions about if it should be there at all). Once you hit paragon tier, I suspect the vampire noble paragon path will minimize the sun's negative effect, and even if it doesn't, there are neck or armor things that provide radiant resistance (Armor of Starlight would be good in this case). The weakened (save ends) seems a bit much, but I believe that the more reasonable option (weakened until the end of your next turn) is being reserved for the Noble Vampire. Not my personal favorite choice, but I can understand why they did it (and I understand why others are not amused).
Based on the mechanics, it seems like a vampire can endure a few seconds of sunlight before starting to take damage (being out of cover at the end of your turn is what triggers the burning), so you shouldn't have to worry about instantly dying once your hood is knocked off, since in most cases you can probably put it back on. Same for your clothing being slashed- unless you're playing in a very peculiar game, clothing damage probably won't be that common unless your DM is specifically gunning for you. And since your DM is significantly more powerful, having him or her gunning for you is a problem no matter what class you play (though there is a discussion to be had on whether certain mechanics enable those sorts of DMs to gun for you more easily- consider the horror stories of DMs who set up no-win situations with paladins in order to make them fall).
As to the apparent immortality of the class, taking a look at it...Level 1: Blood Is Life
Your undead nature and your dependence on blood force you to use healing surges in a different way than other characters. The few healing surges you have can be augmented by the life force you drain from your foes with many of your powers. In addition, you can draw on the life energy of a willing ally to fuel your own vitality.Benefit: Once during a short rest, an ally adjacent to you can willingly lose one healing surge to allow you to regain hit points equal to your bloodied value. You regain hit points equal to your bloodied value.
If you end a short rest with more healing surges than your usual number of healing surges for the day, you lose any healing surges beyond that number but regain all your hit points.
(emphasis mine)
This class is probably going to make even the wizard look hearty when it comes to healing surges. I would not be surprise if it had between two and five surges total, with no option for using your Constitution modifier (being undead and all). Yes, you have regeneration, but Cha modifier per round is a lot less than what a constant stream of beatings can take from you. And if you're knocked unconscious, you pretty much have to have someone patch you since regeneration stops working once you drop below 0 HP. Between having your leader's powers expend your surges or activating second wind, you can burn through several surges in a fight if your team isn't on top of things, especially as a melee striker who goes where the fighting is fiercest and tends to be a bit squishier than the defender. You can gain surges, but you can't gain too many or too quickly. I can't make an effective appraisal of the class in-combat just yet because so many things are in flux (such as the enemy, how good you are at avoiding damage, how well your defender is, how much healing your leader can drop, etc). Out of combat, your regeneration can take you up out of bloodied surge-free, which means either you spend two surges (or possibly one with your leader's Word ability) or you top yourself off by putting one of your friends on tap (or you managed to overflow on surges). This seems like a rather interesting mechanic, because unlike the hunger checks in Libris Mortis where you had to either feed regularly or go completely out of control and become a slavering monstrosity, you aren't forced to consume blood from others- it's just the most effective and attractive option when you only have a few surges to begin with. I'd have to see the whole class package to figure out how effective it is at immortality, but in-battle it is looking like it's about as squishy as the rogue (or monk- since the Blood Drain adds d10s instead of [W]s, I suspect that the class is primarily implement powers, with the implement in question probably being "ki focus, weapons you are proficient with"), so being swarmed and knocked unconcious is certainly a possibility (especially if the at-will powers are single-target). And if you're battered around in battle, you may just end up spending a fair amount of your precious-few surges at a rate faster than you can acquire them, which can be a problem if you put on repeat performances.
Personally, this class is the one I am most intrigued by, and want to take a good look at all of its features before making a final decision. And even should this book prove to be a complete disappointment, it gave us this
I Don't Always Play Strikers
But when I do, I prefer Vampire.
Stay thirsty, my friends.
which is a net gain in my book.
I have to agree overall. But the real reason I'm replying is because that picture made me blast tea out of my nose.
Or rather, you can say it, but it doesn't make it true.
Another point, Iokiare: We actually don't know how many choices the Vampire will get. So you can't say that they don't get to choose their at-wills until we know they don't get to choose their at-wills. In fact, it says "at-will powers" at first level, which implies that you get a choice of at-wills.
Or rather, you can say it, but it doesn't make it true.
No we can't be sure, but the evidence we are presented with does look to be a single string of no choice power as they level. You can hope in one hand and spit in the other and then see which one fills up first...
Yes the vampire is out and guess what? you get hit with a radiant attack your dead at 1st level. Other than that you never have to stop and rest because you steal healing surges from monsters and party members between fights. Oh did I mention you have a bad case of XP. Its ok though because you can wear a heavy cloak. Personally my vampire is going to be covered in rags like a mummy and wearing sunglasses so there won't be any accidental "oops my hand hit sunlight and I burst into flames and die. Time to make a new character" moments...cuz you know...you can't be rezzed after that...
You have Radiant Vulnerability 5, which I don't think is going to go up as you level. At level 1, you probably have somewhere in the vicinity of 20 or more HP. Only being dropped by the sun's radiant damage destroys you (and I am assuming that pushes you straight into the "need a Raise (Un)Dead" category, not the "welp, roll up a new character" category), and being caught in the day with your protective gear will deal 10 radiant damage per round, assuming you cannot find any source of concealment. So yes, standing outside in the daylight for several rounds will hurt, but it'll be less damaging as you gain levels (and I strongly suspect that the Vampire Noble paragon path will eliminate that solar vulnerability, if it's anything like the Vampire Lord). Additionally, the number of monsters levels 1 through 5 that can deal radiant damage, can be counted on one hand with only one or two from that capable of doing at-will (the rest having encounter powers). So if it's glowing and shouting holy words, don't fight it. Past this point, you've got more HP and have probably pick up things that will grant you resistance, even though that might not actually be all that important. Radiant damage is one of the least common sources (and least commonly resisted as well). If you're facing something that's cranking out radiant damage on an at-will basis, you've probably angered a deity somehow. The only source of radiant damage you have to worry about is the big glowing ball of death in the sky, and that's dealt with by just wearing heavy clothing (and even if you do get tagged with it, you have several rounds to haul your pale butt into a shadowy or smokey location). You also have regeneration, so after you get away from the glowing death ball you can heal yourself up to bloodied and borrow a surge off the defender (you do have only a few surges yourself, to better emphasize your parasitic nature).
The vampire's weird healing abilities sound very intriguing to me, even if I'm a bit disappointed by the seemingly pre-ordained suite of powers in the heroic tier. That said, it has two bloodlines which should help differentiate things and there's always the option for replacement features down the road.
It clearly states that if you die from radiant you cannot come back. I was mistaken before it will take 2 rounds of sunlight and your regeneration won't kick in right away because radiant interupts it. I mean your going to be walking around worrying about a gust of wind blowing your hood off, or a monster slashing your clothes open. If you are more than 60 foot away from shelter your screwed. I would have been happy with 'while in direct sunlight you have the weakened condition' but no they had to make it a super negative effect. They balance it out by letting them steal a surge per encounter and take as many surges from party members as they want. So they either die from sunlight / radiant monsters or they are nigh unkillable. Not only that they get no choices except for utilities and their at-wills. Because of this they won't be able to trade out powers or multi-class. They could have made it an interesting class, but instead they made it an Essentials class. Really because it has no choice they should have just made it a theme. You know you get the blood-drain power and then you have the option of trading out other powers as you level. That would have been perfect for this.
- If you end your turn in direct sunlight and lack a protective covering such as a cloak or other heavy clothing, you take 5 radiant damage (plus additional damage from your radiant vulnerability) from the sunlight, and you are weakened (save ends). If you drop below 1 hit point from this damage, you are instantly destroyed.
(emphasis mine). It is only radiant damage from the sun that can instantly destroy you. Now, we're not entirely sure what "destroyed" means. It could mean that the character is obliterated beyond hope of even Raise Dead or similar abilities. It could mean that it's just their substition for "dead" since the character in question is already dead(ish). As a DM, I'd favor the second interpretation since it's completely scrapping a character is not something I'm fond of in most situations. I hope that Heroes of Shadow clears this up, otherwise we'll have to ask Mearls and Schwalb what's going on.
Technically, it's if you're more than 80 feet away from concealment, since you can run. And if you're a drow, you can run 80 feet, drop a cloud of darkness, then run 80 feet on your next turn (being shoved out of your cloud when it isn't your turn doesn't count apparently). For a "Vampires burn in sunlight" mechanic, the fact that it activates at the end of your turn is rather generous (though there are obviously mixed opinions about if it should be there at all). Once you hit paragon tier, I suspect the vampire noble paragon path will minimize the sun's negative effect, and even if it doesn't, there are neck or armor things that provide radiant resistance (Armor of Starlight would be good in this case). The weakened (save ends) seems a bit much, but I believe that the more reasonable option (weakened until the end of your next turn) is being reserved for the Noble Vampire. Not my personal favorite choice, but I can understand why they did it (and I understand why others are not amused).
Based on the mechanics, it seems like a vampire can endure a few seconds of sunlight before starting to take damage (being out of cover at the end of your turn is what triggers the burning), so you shouldn't have to worry about instantly dying once your hood is knocked off, since in most cases you can probably put it back on. Same for your clothing being slashed- unless you're playing in a very peculiar game, clothing damage probably won't be that common unless your DM is specifically gunning for you. And since your DM is significantly more powerful, having him or her gunning for you is a problem no matter what class you play (though there is a discussion to be had on whether certain mechanics enable those sorts of DMs to gun for you more easily- consider the horror stories of DMs who set up no-win situations with paladins in order to make them fall).
As to the apparent immortality of the class, taking a look at it...Level 1: Blood Is Life
Your undead nature and your dependence on blood force you to use healing surges in a different way than other characters. The few healing surges you have can be augmented by the life force you drain from your foes with many of your powers. In addition, you can draw on the life energy of a willing ally to fuel your own vitality.Benefit: Once during a short rest, an ally adjacent to you can willingly lose one healing surge to allow you to regain hit points equal to your bloodied value. You regain hit points equal to your bloodied value.
If you end a short rest with more healing surges than your usual number of healing surges for the day, you lose any healing surges beyond that number but regain all your hit points.
(emphasis mine)
This class is probably going to make even the wizard look hearty when it comes to healing surges. I would not be surprise if it had between two and five surges total, with no option for using your Constitution modifier (being undead and all). Yes, you have regeneration, but Cha modifier per round is a lot less than what a constant stream of beatings can take from you. And if you're knocked unconscious, you pretty much have to have someone patch you since regeneration stops working once you drop below 0 HP. Between having your leader's powers expend your surges or activating second wind, you can burn through several surges in a fight if your team isn't on top of things, especially as a melee striker who goes where the fighting is fiercest and tends to be a bit squishier than the defender. You can gain surges, but you can't gain too many or too quickly. I can't make an effective appraisal of the class in-combat just yet because so many things are in flux (such as the enemy, how good you are at avoiding damage, how well your defender is, how much healing your leader can drop, etc). Out of combat, your regeneration can take you up out of bloodied surge-free, which means either you spend two surges (or possibly one with your leader's Word ability) or you top yourself off by putting one of your friends on tap (or you managed to overflow on surges). This seems like a rather interesting mechanic, because unlike the hunger checks in Libris Mortis where you had to either feed regularly or go completely out of control and become a slavering monstrosity, you aren't forced to consume blood from others- it's just the most effective and attractive option when you only have a few surges to begin with. I'd have to see the whole class package to figure out how effective it is at immortality, but in-battle it is looking like it's about as squishy as the rogue (or monk- since the Blood Drain adds d10s instead of [W]s, I suspect that the class is primarily implement powers, with the implement in question probably being "ki focus, weapons you are proficient with"), so being swarmed and knocked unconcious is certainly a possibility (especially if the at-will powers are single-target). And if you're battered around in battle, you may just end up spending a fair amount of your precious-few surges at a rate faster than you can acquire them, which can be a problem if you put on repeat performances.
Personally, this class is the one I am most intrigued by, and want to take a good look at all of its features before making a final decision. And even should this book prove to be a complete disappointment, it gave us this
I Don't Always Play Strikers
But when I do, I prefer Vampire.
Stay thirsty, my friends.
which is a net gain in my book.
The destroyed thing only means he skips death saving throws and goes straight to dead aka ashes.
Another point, Iokiare: We actually don't know how many choices the Vampire will get. So you can't say that they don't get to choose their at-wills until we know they don't get to choose their at-wills. In fact, it says "at-will powers" at first level, which implies that you get a choice of at-wills.
Or rather, you can say it, but it doesn't make it true.
No we can't be sure, but the evidence we are presented with does look to be a single string of no choice power as they level. You can hope in one hand and spit in the other and then see which one fills up first...
As I said elsewhere:
If you check the Heroic Vampire Advancement Chart, you'll notice under Level One: at-will powers. Furthermore, under Level Two: utility power. These are where we do not know if we get choices or not from. Until we know what these "at-will powers" are, the evidence is not in your favour. You're saying there are no choices. I'm saying we don't know if there are choices or not. There is a difference between opposing an argument and supporting the opposite argument.
However, I'd have you notice that if there was no choice at level one for at-wills or at level two for your utility, then they most likely would have just listed the auto-utility you gain and the auto-at-wills you gain, rather than saying those words. Still I do not know, so I will wait. But I would ask you to please misconstruing the facts and saying there are no choices with this class.
We can spit in one hand, and hope with the other, but I'm not calling for either. I'm saying that we don't know, but pointing that the evidence points that there are choices, at least at 1st and 2nd level, which might point to similar choice points at Paragon and Epic Tier.
New topic:
Anybody know what the key ability scores for the Binder are?
I agree with this post. I also agree that WotC has got about half it's collective head up it's behind. Additionally I did not know how many 12 year olds actually used these boards, honestly your mothers would be ashamed of some of your behaviour.
Well said.
That is my point: Not saying anything specific about any product(HoS) or product line(Essentials), but if it is true that WoTC has got about half it's collective head up it's behind(and it looks like it), then what will be our beloved DnD's future like? ... I remember thinking the same thing about TSR back in the day...
New topic:
Anybody know what the key ability scores for the Binder are?
I'm probably reaching here, but I'll go out on a limb and say the main stat is Cha. No idea why, just call it a hunch.
As for secondary ... Con maybe? Though Int or Wis seem more likely.
New topic:
Anybody know what the key ability scores for the Binder are?
I'm probably reaching here, but I'll go out on a limb and say the main stat is Cha. No idea why, just call it a hunch.
As for secondary ... Con maybe? Though Int or Wis seem more likely.
Seems logical.
I'd be willing to bet the binder is Cha primary, with the secondary depending on pact, just like the hexblade. I'd guess Int for the star pact (same as the hexblade star pact) and Dex for the gloom pact.
I have an odd feeling about Wis for a secondary for the Gloom Pact. I have no explanation, just a feeling.
I don't think it will have a secondary just like Mages don't
Mages do have a secondary, they have three actually. Constitution, Wisdom, and Charisma.
On a side note, Pyromancer Mages tend to be Int-Con as well (since they're like a very specialised form of the Evoker Mage), and they use Con in their option for Enigmatic Mage.
I'm wondering what Necromancer and Nethermancer will use. It is interesting that Illusionist Implement Mastery Wizards use Charisma while Illusionist Mages use Wisdom – but luckily powers aren't really effected, since the Cha bonuses are only relegated to Class feature for Orb of Deception and to powers that require that class feature. So you can mine the powers from either and not worry about ability score compatibility.
I'm still waiting on my Transmuter Mages that were promised in the Rules Compendium and were previewed in the Red Box (and now those Trasmutation School powers from the Red Box appear in the Character Builder under other options, so it's not like they've been abandoned).
But the Binder is a Warlock build, and we know a few things here:
It uses Star Pact and Gloom Pact. The first two Star Pacts used Radiant, Psychic, and Cold Damage, and had fear and teleportation effects. We know that the Gloom Pact uses Fear effects, and Cold and Psychic damage and maybe Necrotic, though I'm not sure.
Fear tends towards Charisma (and the Intimidate skill), and both pacts that Binders use to start with have had a focus on fear (though the Hexblade Star Pact didn't have any fear effects thus far…). However, Binder seems to have more in common in theme with the Infernal Pact and Vestige Pact Warlocks, which were Con-based. That said, the Hexblade abandoned V-class building, and made the Infernal Pact Cha-based, with a Con-secondary. It also introduced a Dex-secondary for Fey Pact, while giving Int-secondary to Star Pact.
I'd probably guess Gloom Pact has a Con-secondary, to resist the pervasive melancholy of the Shadowgloom. So Cha/Con for Gloom Pact, and Cha/Int for Star Pact. At the least, I'd guess Hexblade Gloom Pacts will use Con secondary. But Binders, I don't know. Maybe they'll be Con primary, and defy expectations that way. But I also have a questioning whether they're going about errating all previous powers to fit into A-class types, and that when June rolls around and we get the Essentialised form of the original Warlock, it'll be all Cha-primary, and with the Con-based builds Cha/Con, and likewise fall into place for the other builds. That would cause some issues for some people who had built Con-based Warlocks, however, with races that have boosts to Con but not to Cha.
In conclusion, I don't know, hence why I posed the question. Does anybody who's played it at D&D XP know? Otherwise, feel free to give your speculations.
I'd probably guess Gloom Pact has a Con-secondary, to resist the pervasive melancholy of the Shadowgloom.
In conclusion, I don't know, hence why I posed the question. Does anybody who's played it at D&D XP know? Otherwise, feel free to give your speculations.
I have also wondered this but don't know for sure. I am currently playing a Binder with the information from the conventions. The character sheets don't tell you if CON is secondary skill so is currently unknown.
By making it CON, it does cut out alot of the powers that have secondary riders of INT but CON would fit the flavor of the Binder the best since CHR is now the primary stat of all new Warlocks.
I think CHR should have been the Primary stat from the beginning with CON & INT as secondary. It would be quite the overhaul of the class if they went back to change CHR as sole primary skill.
I also hope there are new Binder feats in HoS as most of the Warlock feats are utterly useless to the Hexblade & Binder along with new rods. I am wondering if Orbs will also be included with the Binders.
AskaniPsion, can you see the pregen character's ability scores? We should be able to back work where they've placed the higher scores at if they did. I mean, your race plays into it – but if you know which two abilities to remove the +2 bonuses from, then the two highest ability scores after that should be the primary and the secondary, unless the character is unconventional.
Unfortuately no - I would be able to figure it out if I did. The character sheet for the Binder has also not been posted online like the Necromancer & Assassin.
WOTC is keeping very tight lipped on the Binder.
How are you playing one, then?
I have a list of all the class features, pact boon & spells up to 4th - using WIS as secondary.
I mean, there isn't a class feature that builds off the secondary ability score?
Ahhhh. But you don't actually know if Wis is the secondary?
I mean, there isn't a class feature that builds off the secondary ability score?
Their Encounter powers have secondary effects - 5 & 3 - so they are not the same modifier.
Their Pact Boon doesn't seem to.
We aren't going to know most likely until people start getting their advance copies.