Now, with the revelation of Weapon Specialization Multiclassing for Martial Classes, More weapons, and possible other builds like say Swashbuckler for Rogue, etc. etc.
Logically, the odds of us getting Martial Power 2 sooner, rather than later is high.
That's about it.
It doesn't surprise me that a book making company will keep making books to sell, however.
Okay. Here's the logic. First, next year be it Ki, Psionics, Shadow, whatever. They'll only have at most 4 classes done for the new power source. That means 1 confirmed X Power book. Now, in the span of the year there can be 2-3 these books easily. And WotC did say there might be more Powers books dealing with the same power source.
Now, with the revelation of Weapon Specialization Multiclassing for Martial Classes, More weapons, and possible other builds like say Swashbuckler for Rogue, etc. etc.
Logically, the odds of us getting Martial Power 2 soon, rather than later is high.
That's about it.
What if they go with a 4/4 Ki/Psionics or Shadow instead of 4/2/2?
That would give 2 X Power books for next year and 2 for the next, leaving the following PHBs for additional classes in existing power sources.
Bel
Seeing as at the fulfillment of the eight named power sources there will be a minimum of 32 classes and maybe more if they include new classes in each CS.
Bel
1) Martial power 1 saw at least one feat per core race per class. The PH2 and other suppliments as well as things like the Eberron Players Guide will introduce more core races. A Martial Power 2 would be needed to add martial themed race feats for these races
2) Again bringing up the Eberron Players Guide. There are going to be more than 4 classes in each source, once the EPG hits we will have a total of 6 arcane classes, I can see new Martial classes at some point, added in a campaign setting or some additional suppliment type we haven't seen precidence for, and thus you have another class to add more builds and features to in a Martial Power 2
3) We're talking about WotC, if they can make money off of it, no matter how bad an idea it is, they will make it.
will there eventually be a divine striker and divine controller?
if each of the 8 power sources gets a full set. there will be a minimum of 34 classes (including ones with extras on the roles)
However From Wotc, i can expect upwards of 40 classes. as they got close enough to it on 3.5. (before prestige classes, and before alternate class features and UA variants. w/ all that you had trillions of potential combinations.)
i can also expect them to realease a 4.0 unearthed arcana. (book on house rules. every Table Top RPG has one)
will there eventually be a martial controller? (martial has 1 defender, 2 strikers and a leader, arcane has 1 defender, 1 controller, and 1 (possibily 2) striker ('s) and 1 possibile leader. divine only has only 1 defender and one leader.)
will there eventually be a divine striker and divine controller?
if each of the 8 power sources gets a full set. there will be a minimum of 34 classes (including ones with extras on the roles)
However From Wotc, i can expect upwards of 40 classes. as they got close enough to it on 3.5. (before prestige classes, and before alternate class features and UA variants. w/ all that you had trillions of potential combinations.)
i can also expect them to realease a 4.0 unearthed arcana. (book on house rules. every Table Top RPG has one)
So, the Divine Striker and Controller are coming in PHB II. Avenger and Invoker respectively.
Will we ever see a Martial Controller? Who knows. But I figure we will eventually.
I wonder if we will see more classes from old power sources in future PHBs.
will there eventually be a martial controller?
Not likely.
will there eventually be a divine striker and divine controller?
Yes, in PH 2.
i can also expect them to realease a 4.0 unearthed arcana. (book on house rules. every Table Top RPG has one)
Not gonna happen. Or rather, if it does happen, it will mark the death of all 4e design philosophy.
But back on topic: I expect there might be a MP 2 near the end of 2010 or early 2011. Why not earlier? Because PH 3 will be out early 2010, I predict it will only have 2 power sources, and splatbooks for them will be pushed out in the summer and fall.
Another option is that Arcane Power 2 will happen first, as the Artificer has been left out of the first one and will be the red-headed stepchild of the arcane classes. Unless it gets splatbook-level support in the EPG, ofc.
Or a Con+Wis/Wis+Con fighter I guess.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a Martial Power 2, but it better have my Dex-primary fighter.
Or a Con+Wis/Wis+Con fighter I guess.
While such fighter builds might be interesting, what I would most like to see is a Warlord build that doesn't require STR. I'd like to be able to play a leader who leads buy presnce and cunning without the need to beat the enemies faces in himself. More powers that function like Commanders Strike would be a good place to start.
Also I'd like two see a two-weapon rogue build.
Also I'd like to see a way to multi-class into beastmaster ranger.
I honestly don't see them making anymore Martial classes. The comment about no "unneccesary semetry" seems to address the martial controller pretty specifically. I would much rather not have a martial controller class than have them create one that turned out to be a steaming pile of stuff.
I also hope that they don't just keep making multi-class feats that will eventually let you gain every feature of a class. I think some things should be left as the sole purview of a whole-sale member of a class.
As for a multi-classing feat that grants the Ranger's animal companion feature: don't hold your breath. The actual mechanics of granting a feature like that are too difficult to accomplish with a feat.
To elaborate: The best you can hope for from a beginning Multiclass feat is the use of an at-will power once per encounter. So you would have an animal that stood around and scratched itself for the whole combat, with the exception of the one attack that it makes. Honestly, I'd rather have a feature that was at least slightly more useful.
In order to make the animal useful you would need to be granted an at-will power, as an at-will. That pretty much goes against how multiclassing works because it is giving a character a free at-will attack in exchange for a feat.
If you want a multiclass character that has an animal companion, start as a beastmaster ranger, then take all of the multiclass feats you can to gain powers from the second class. Go paragon multiclass if you need to. Eternal seeker for even more powerswapping in the Epic tier.
I also hope that they don't just keep making multi-class feats that will eventually let you gain every feature of a class. I think some things should be left as the sole purview of a whole-sale member of a class.
I can't agree with this. I would like to see the versatility of being able to choose from all a class's available features when multiclassing. Also, paragon multiclassing is a little weak compared to normal paragon paths, so the ability to take additional class features helps to make up the difference. It would would still take a noticeable effort to gain the full range of abilities for two classes (4 heroic feats, paragon multiclass, and 3 or more paragon feats).
As for a multi-classing feat that grants the Ranger's animal companion feature: don't hold your breath. The actual mechanics of granting a feature like that are too difficult to accomplish with a feat.
To elaborate: The best you can hope for from a beginning Multiclass feat is the use of an at-will power once per encounter. So you would have an animal that stood around and scratched itself for the whole combat, with the exception of the one attack that it makes. Honestly, I'd rather have a feature that was at least slightly more useful.
Two-Blade Warrior grants the Ranger's ability to wield a non-off-hand weapon in the off-hand with no restrictions, so there is precedent for multi-classing to grant a full class feature (...and yes I know that an actual ranger would also get Toughness with his two-blade style, but that's just a matter of another feat for those that even care).
Furthermore, I think you're overestimating the usefulness of a beast companion. While it can move simultaneously with the character, it cannot attack unless the character uses a power that grants it an attack or takes a standard action to have it make a basic attack. As such, it would be an effective tool for flanking, but would otherwise be of limited use unless one takes additional multi-class feats for powers that have the beast keyword. Basicaly, economy of action is what would serve as a limitation to a non-ranger with a beast companion.
2008: Martial Power (PHB)
2009: Divine Power/Arcane Power (PHB II)
2010: Primal Power/(Power source 5) Power (PHB III)
2011: (Power source 6) Power/(Power source 7) Power (PHB IV, all eight initial power sources out)
2012: (Power source 8) Power/ ?
So Fall/winter 2012 is the first slot I see Martial Power 2 coming out. At that point they'll have released the PHB V, which could detail more martial classes, or more classes from whatever power sources. Or they could come up with new power sources (another cycle of another 8 power sources could begin at that point) and we wouldn't see Martial Power 2.
However, I think the smart money is on there being two splats for each power source eventually, though I'm not sure quite how well that will be handled. Its also possible they'll come up with another cycle for such things to fill those release slots. We'll see.
2008: Martial Power (PHB)
2009: Divine Power/Arcane Power (PHB II)
2010: Primal Power/(Power source 5) Power (PHB III)
However, I think the smart money is on there being two splats for each power source eventually, though I'm not sure quite how well that will be handled. Its also possible they'll come up with another cycle for such things to fill those release slots. We'll see.
Your already wrong there. Primal Power is due out this year around August/September I believe. They're not holding back on these books. As soon as they get them done, they're out the door. So with 3 X power books in 1 year, I see a greater odds of them getting more out the following.
But I agree 2 X Power books sounds about right per power source.
The designers aren't going to stop coming up with ideas. That's like saying that a DM is going to stop coming up with campaign ideas, or a player is going to create just one character, and never think up another one again. Its not in the personality profile. And once you add together
A bunch of ideas for martial characters
+
You work at a company that publishes D&D books
you get
A book full of ideas for martial characters.
Your already wrong there. Primal Power is due out this year around August/September I believe. They're not holding back on these books. As soon as they get them done, they're out the door. So with 3 X power books in 1 year, I see a greater odds of them getting more out the following.
I have to say, that's not the best of plans on their part. Honestly, while I see the desire to get product out the door, how many people will buy MP2 and the like as compared to MP1? It seems like you're going to have a successively smaller market every release, and releasing MP2 next year sounds... ugly.
I know I'll probably purchase all of the X Power books (probably) as well as the PHBxs (but maybe not DMGxs or MMxs, though looking at their release schedule, I'm not seeing a DMG 2...), but I won't buy MP x2. Then again, I guess they'll get the same cash out of me regardless of when they release the power books, so it may not matter.
But it also seems like it makes it more likely they'll end up with second half of 4th edition similar to the second half of 3rd, with a lot of rather niche books released all at once, together, rather than spread out. I was trying to construct their release plan a while ago, and maybe they just don't know what else to toss in, so are pushing the power books forward.
though looking at their release schedule, I'm not seeing a DMG 2...
It's on there. September.
But it also seems like it makes it more likely they'll end up with second half of 4th edition similar to the second half of 3rd, with a lot of rather niche books released all at once, together, rather than spread out. I was trying to construct their release plan a while ago, and maybe they just don't know what else to toss in, so are pushing the power books forward.
Yeah, after PH 4, AV 4 and one splatbook for each power source is out, I don't know how much longer they can keep cranking out more player options before it starts to wear thin.
Of course the possibilities for DM options are infinite: they can produce adventures, campaign settings and monster splats (Draconomicon, Open Grave and the like) till the cows come home, and it's unlikely we will ever tire of it.
The problem from a business perspective is that the player options sell much better...
Oh, and DMG 2 is in September.
Logically, the odds of us getting Martial Power 2 soon, rather than later is high.
That's about it.
I see nothing wrong with your logic.
What if they go with a 4/4 Ki/Psionics or Shadow instead of 4/2/2?
I don't see Ki and Psionics getting "completed" in the same PHB book. I just think it would be putting too many golden eggs in one PHB.
A Martial Power 2 would be needed to add martial themed race feats for these races
I think needed is a bit too strong. They could easily put Martial themed race feats in the books the race appears in.
I don't see Ki and Psionics getting "completed" in the same PHB book. I just think it would be putting too many golden eggs in one PHB.
I've actually come around to this point of view as well.
I used to think Ki/Psi made a natural pairing, but these two sources contain just about all the classes players are waiting for, so the marketing logic will probably be that shooting the entire wad in PH 3 is a bad idea - drumming up interest for a PH 4 full of weird new stuff would be too difficult.
So my new prediction is 4 Ki and 4 Elemental in PH 3, 4 Psi and 4 Shadow in PH 4. I think these pairings have a natural feel to them: both Ki and Elemental seem to me to be about loud, flashy stuff, while Psi and Shadow are both more subtle - more about illusion and suggestion.
The new races in the PHB 2 will need Martial options, and I'm sure Wizards can throw out some more options for existing classes.
Agree. I'd kind of like to see some feats that reward a fighter for having an OK (i.e., 13ish) Intelligence or Charisma score (it'd be nice for dragonborn, eladrin, devas, etc.), and I do want to see the sword dancer (read: Dex-primary) build they were working on before they scrapped it. Sure, they scrapped it because it wouldn't be compatible with other fighter builds... but starting fresh with a new Martial Power, they should have room to fit in three or four Dex-primary at-wills and then two, maybe three encounter and daily powers for every level at which they're gained. And a few paragon paths, of course.
and I do want to see the sword dancer (read: Dex-primary) build they were working on before they scrapped it. Sure, they scrapped it because it wouldn't be compatible with other fighter builds...
Not to harsh your mellow or anything, but it seems pretty clear that they've been scared off designing multiple-primary classes.
All hope is not lost, however. It's still possible that some new class might be designed as a Dex-primary melee combatant.
Not to harsh your mellow or anything, but it seems pretty clear that they've been scared off designing multiple-primary classes.
Indeed, a darn shame too.
All hope is not lost, however. It's still possible that some new class might be designed as a Dex-primary melee combatant.
Agreed, maybe there is hope for a Swashbuckler class in 4E yet (...and yes I know that their is already a paragon path called the Rakish Swashbuckler, but their was also already a path called Angelic Avenger). Alternatively, maybe Swashbuckler could at least be a pseudo-class, like spellscared.
Yeah, after PH 4, AV 4 and one splatbook for each power source is out, I don't know how much longer they can keep cranking out more player options before it starts to wear thin.
Er, anything after the original AV is probably going to be 90% wankery. Seriously, the original AV is like 60% garbage, and they've already covered most of the cool ground. The new ones will be even worse.
PHB Xs will, I think, do fine because people like classes. That said, PHB 4 will put them up to 36 classes (32 core, 4 from expansion books), which is about the same as 3.x had.
Of course the possibilities for DM options are infinite: they can produce adventures, campaign settings and monster splats (Draconomicon, Open Grave and the like) till the cows come home, and it's unlikely we will ever tire of it.
Yeah, but how many people will buy them?
The Draconomicon I bought for 3.x soured me on them horribly, and I am not buying them for 4th despite my well-known love for dragons for that reason.
I bought one of the environmental books and got another as a gift.
And I have two monster manuals. I might buy a second for 4th edition, but then again, I might not.
I used to think Ki/Psi made a natural pairing, but these two sources contain just about all the classes players are waiting for, so the marketing logic will probably be that shooting the entire wad in PH 3 is a bad idea - drumming up interest for a PH 4 full of weird new stuff would be too difficult.
So my new prediction is 4 Ki and 4 Elemental in PH 3, 4 Psi and 4 Shadow in PH 4. I think these pairings have a natural feel to them: both Ki and Elemental seem to me to be about loud, flashy stuff, while Psi and Shadow are both more subtle - more about illusion and suggestion.
Depends on whether they want to release one or two X power books that year, and two or three X power books the next.
All hope is not lost, however. It's still possible that some new class might be designed as a Dex-primary melee combatant.
It has been. Its called the Rogue. There will be at least one more, and I would guess two more.
Er, anything after the original AV is probably going to be 90% wankery. Seriously, the original AV is like 60% garbage, and they've already covered most of the cool ground. The new ones will be even worse.
Yes, I was being generous.
On books with mostly DM material:
Yeah, but how many people will buy them?
Indeed, that was my point you know. :P
The implication I was leading up to is that a 5th edition is inevitable, purely for reasons of sales. No matter how good the designers are, there will eventually come a day when cranking out books for the current edition will provide diminishing returns. If WotC want to continue making money beyond that point, they will have to clean the slate and get all the players to buy all-new sets of books.
Unless, of course, they've come up with some alternate business model by then. I assume DDI is a test project for something like that.
The Draconomicon I bought for 3.x soured me on them horribly, and I am not buying them for 4th despite my well-known love for dragons for that reason.
Conversely, the 3.5 Draconomicon was my first 3.5 book, and the foundation of what eventually led to me finally getting involved in D&D as an active player rather than continuing on as just some guy who got an occasional book during 2nd edition (mostly just to look at the artwork, read the fluff, and dream of finding a group of like-minded people to play with).
So don't dis the crown jewel of my 3.5 collection. The one book of that edition that I will never, ever, part with.
Anyway, as I recall the monster books actually sold quite well back in 3.5. That's why WotC followed up with Lebris Mortus, Lord of Madness, and Fiendish Codexs I & II. I haven't heard much about the 4E Draconomicon, but Open Grave seems to have garnered substantial positive reviews.
The implication I was leading up to is that a 5th edition is inevitable, purely for reasons of sales. No matter how good the designers are, there will eventually come a day when cranking out books for the current edition will provide diminishing returns. If WotC want to continue making money beyond that point, they will have to clean the slate and get all the players to buy all-new sets of books.
We knew this, actually. 5th edition was inevitable. Thing is, it won't happen after PHB 4, because editions are too expensive to produce regularly. A seven year timespan is what one ex-employee said; I'd say its going to be around that, between 6 and 8 years. I personally prefer eight for cyclic reasons, but we'll see how it works out in five years, I think - depending on how the PHB 5 looks, we'll probably know the timescale.
Its really 8th edition which is interesting. At some point, they'll have a power system (which will resemble 4ths, but have different growth and be different in other ways) alongside a better non-combat system (the correct implementation of skill checks, basically, along with skill challenges), wherein the flaws are not the system itself but specific things inside it. What happens when you make a system which is extremely close to correct? While I don't think they're in danger of that in 5th edition (4th edition is not quite right on the combat side, though it is much closer than previous editions, and the inklings of the right way on non-combat are there, but its got a lot of bugs in it) but in, say, twenty or thirty years, I could see them coming out with an edition which is at that point.
So my new prediction is 4 Ki and 4 Elemental in PH 3, 4 Psi and 4 Shadow in PH 4.
The problem with that is we get the Illusionist and Necromancer along with all the psionic classes in one book :P
My prediction is something closer to:
* PHB3: Monk (we're getting a preview coming up of this so its guaranteed), 3 other KI classes, 2 Elemental classes and 2 psionic classes.
* PHB4: 2 psionic classes, 2 Elemental Classes, 4 Shadow classes.
OR swap out 4 KI in PHB3 in favour of 4 KI in PHB3 and 2 KI in PHB3 and PHB4.
The reason for that is the Elemental source simply doesn't have the fanbase that KI, Psionics and Shadow have. As such I expect it to be squeezed in as something on the side, rather then try to carry half a book. Also I think we'll get psionics sooner then shadow because Eberron is psionic-friendly and I'm expecting/hoping we'll get Dark Sun next year ;)
I could be wrong of course.
The implication I was leading up to is that a 5th edition is inevitable, purely for reasons of sales.[ No matter how good the designers are, there will eventually come a day when cranking out books for the current edition will provide diminishing returns. If WotC want to continue making money beyond that point, they will have to clean the slate and get all the players to buy all-new sets of books.
And like all the 3.x grognards, I don't know if I'll be switching. Unlike many who dislike 4th ed, I actually like it while I dislike 3.x. For me 5th edition would have to improve upon 4th ed, and if the massive change from 3.x to 4th edition is any indication, it quite possibly won't. It will instead go in a completely different direction that I might not like.
On March 23rd there will be a Playtest Article for Martial Power 2.
I like to be right, so I figure other people do as well. Here's a gift for TheLoneCleric, I call it vindication: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/calendar
On March 23rd there will be a Playtest Article for Martial Power 2.
Wow, I knew it was going to be soon, but I didn't think they would be ready for playtesting until we at least had Arcane Power out. Oh well, hurray for more Martial options!You know, I got a wish for Rangers. A feat or chain of feats that enables a "two-handed weapon + unarmed" combat style, a la Aragorn.
It shouldn't be a build of course, it's simply a two-weapon style.
But I'm really a little puzzled, do you think they can bring out something good a part from new racial feats?
Yeah, but how many people will buy them?
The Draconomicon I bought for 3.x soured me on them horribly, and I am not buying them for 4th despite my well-known love for dragons for that reason.
I'll buy them, in all likelihood. They've all been interesting so far this edition.
But you didn't like 3.5E's Draconomicon? Really? I was under the impression it was one of the best written/received books of 3.5E. I suppose it's natural that some folks will disagree, mind you.
I'm going to speculate, TD: perhaps the reason you disliked the Draconomicon so much was because you like dragons so much? You were such a fan of dragons that you had your own strong opinions about them, but the Draconomicon canonized them in a form very different from what you had imagined for yourself. (Let me know if I'm way off base. I'm just curious, is all.)
I hoped they were going to call it differently from simply "Martial Power 2", but in the end who cares...
You know, I got a wish for Rangers. A feat or chain of feats that enables a "two-handed weapon + unarmed" combat style, a la Aragorn.
It shouldn't be a build of course, it's simply a two-weapon style.
But I'm really a little puzzled, do you think they can bring out something good a part from new racial feats?
Non-class "multiclass" feats. This is a cool mechanic that they've only begun to explore, in the form of "multiclass-only" classes, and in the form of "weapon mastery" multiclassing. I'd also kinda like some "racial" multiclass feats; not mixed-races per se, but a set of multiclass feats which allow, say, a Dragonborn character to become more "dragonborn-y".
In 4E, we essentially have two forms of secondary specialization (specialization outside your class); the first is Paragon Paths and to a lesser extent, Epic Destinies, and the second is multiclass feats. It's staggering how many unique character concepts are made possible by combinations of class build, multiclass, and Paragon Path*, and unlike in 3E, nearly all of these combinations are playable, if not optimized to CharOp standards. Personally, I think the way 4E handles multiclassing is so useful to character concept that the either 4E revision or 5E ought to give each character a free multiclass feat at 1st level.
*Powers and "normal" (non-multiclass) feats also distinguish characters from one another, but mostly don't contribute to a character's identity the way that class (& build), multiclass feats, PPs, and EDs do.
For me at least, this throws open the possibility that PHB3 will feature some martial classes. Has the Monk gone from ki to martial? Not necessarily, but after the sorcerer went from controller to striker (and maybe from primal to arcane) nothing can be counted out.
Heh, I reckon the 'Martial Controller' thing tormented them too much, and they're going to put one in PHB3 just to show it can be done. :D
Oh and if Monks stay Ki and thus supernatural, please give us Hokuto-like and Nanto-like "schools", please...
On March 23rd there will be a Playtest Article for Martial Power 2.
Damn, that was fast >.<
Not that I'm complaining, of course. In my opinion, the whole spectrum of options was one of the main things that broke 3e (and 3.5). More options means more optimized ones, and it leads to ''more broken ones''. However, it's hard not to get thrilled when you start wandering about what builds, powers & feats they gonna come up with this time.
So, can we now start discussing the possibility of a Martial Power 3?
Well color me completely surprised. Martial Power 2, right in the March calendar.
For me at least, this throws open the possibility that PHB3 will feature some martial classes. Has the Monk gone from ki to martial? Not necessarily, but after the sorcerer went from controller to striker (and maybe from primal to arcane) nothing can be counted out.
Heh, I reckon the 'Martial Controller' thing tormented them too much, and they're going to put one in PHB3 just to show it can be done. :D
Monk was confirmed in DDI to be Ki (And we will get playtest of it in may).
What MP 2 means to me, is that the odds of Darksun for 2010 are improving (Due to the Gladiator).
It also means we can likely expect a Knight who rides a beast constantly as a new class in PHB 3 (Or some variation of a defender and pet).
It's a longshot, but I'll guess the Dex-primary fighter despite the stated animosity towards giving a class split primary stats simply because they were already working on it, and they might have decided not to leave it on the cutting room floor so much as to delay it and put it in a later book.
Anyone wanna take wild guesses as to what might be in MP2, or more specifically, what the playtest content might be?
It's a longshot, but I'll guess the Dex-primary fighter despite the stated animosity towards giving a class split primary stats simply because they were already working on it, and they might have decided not to leave it on the cutting room floor so much as to delay it and put it in a later book.
I'm picking MP2 to cover four classes; two current ones and two yet-to-be-named ones. The Dex-based fighter sounds like as good a pick as any. I haven't yet thought of any new builds for the other classes. It'd be great if they gave us a sniff of a new martial class, though it's more likely to be a variant of an existing one.
Anyone wanna take wild guesses as to what might be in MP2, or more specifically, what the playtest content might be?
It's a longshot, but I'll guess the Dex-primary fighter despite the stated animosity towards giving a class split primary stats simply because they were already working on it, and they might have decided not to leave it on the cutting room floor so much as to delay it and put it in a later book.
My guess for Martial power 2 is that it is just going to be new options for the four Martial classes that we already have. I'm expecting that the playtest will probably new weapon mastery chains or something similair.
It also means we can likely expect a Knight who rides a beast constantly as a new class in PHB 3
This is actually one of the least likely class features I can imagine.
Anyone wanna take wild guesses as to what might be in MP2... ?
My guess is feats and powers for characters of the Martial persuasion.
This is actually one of the least likely class features I can imagine.
Nah, its actually standard for DnD Cavalier...likely named.
My guess is feats and powers for characters of the Martial persuasion.
That's hardly wild, now.
Nah, its actually standard for DnD Cavalier...likely named.
Ummm I'd like to know where you are getting the idea that it is likely that we are going to be getting a mounted class that is likely going to be called cavalier. We don't even have any idication at the moment that there will be any new martial classes. We know that there will be a Martial Power 2, but that doesn't mean that there will be new classes covered in it. Between now and when Martial Power 2 is released, there are going to be somewhere between 7 and 19 new races released(5 for PHBII, 2-3 for Eberron Player's Guide, 5-8 for PHBIII if it is released after it, and 2-3 for for 2010's campaign setting's player's guide if it is released after that). A decent amount of Martial Power 1 was dedicated to racial feats and paragon paths for the races of PHBI and FRPG. So add in support for the new races, add in some weapon mastery feats, and add in a new build for each class and we have enough material for a Martial Power 2 without the need of any new classes.
Also if we were to get a mounted class, it would most likely be a new paladin build as a developer has talked about such a build before. However, his comment was that they would add it if they could find a way to make it interesting mechanically(note: not word for word). The implication of course being that they haven't found such a way yet, so I would hardly count on such a build coming out soon.
...on the other hand, imagine the Caviler as a new Fighter or Warlord build.
Ehhhh, I can sort of see that working, but it just doesn't feel right to me. The problem with the caviler being a new fighter or warlord build is that it would require them to have a ritual like the ranger does so that they aren't completely gimped in the middle of an adventure. For the fighter and the warlord, that just doesn't feel right to me. I do however realize that this is a personal opinion and nothing more and I have no way of knowing whether or not this would be an issue for the majority of players or not.
I should also go ahead and note that Paladins having such an ability for a caviler build would not bug me due to the power source difference and the likely difference in the method for revival(resummoning a celestial mount versus reviving a dead horse). Also I'll go ahead and add that if they were to make a martial caviler build, I would prefer it for the warlord over the fighter as Paladins wold be almost guaranteed to get mounts eventually and I'd prefer not to limit mounted combat to defenders if we are going to have multiple classes with mounted builds.
Ummm I'd like to know where you are getting the idea that it is likely that we are going to be getting a mounted class that is likely going to be called cavalier.
Cavalier has been around since ODnD (Where it was an expansion of the Paladin). We have always had some Mounted Fighter Type Thing, ergo: Its likely to happen again.
We don't even have any idication at the moment that there will be any new martial classes. We know that there will be a Martial Power 2, but that doesn't mean that there will be new classes covered in it. Between now and when Martial Power 2 is released, there are going to be somewhere between 7 and 19 new races released(5 for PHBII, 2-3 for Eberron Player's Guide, 5-8 for PHBIII if it is released after it, and 2-3 for for 2010's campaign setting's player's guide if it is released after that). A decent amount of Martial Power 1 was dedicated to racial feats and paragon paths for the races of PHBI and FRPG. So add in support for the new races, add in some weapon mastery feats, and add in a new build for each class and we have enough material for a Martial Power 2 without the need of any new classes.
I actually kinda doubt this, if only for the fact it means new classes are always behind in options.
Also if we were to get a mounted class, it would most likely be a new paladin build as a developer has talked about such a build before. However, his comment was that they would add it if they could find a way to make it interesting mechanically(note: not word for word). The implication of course being that they haven't found such a way yet, so I would hardly count on such a build coming out soon.
Actually I expect the paladin to get his mount back in DP.
Cavalier has been around since ODnD (Where it was an expansion of the Paladin). We have always had some Mounted Fighter Type Thing, ergo: Its likely to happen again.
We've also always had wizards that are able to do basically everything that everyone else in the party can do only better. Does that mean we are going to see a return of them? Probably not. Just because something has happened before, does not mean that it will happen again. Will we see more mounted combat options eventually? I imagine so. Will there be a martial mounted combat class in the PHB3? There is no evidence to suggest that there will be one.
I actually kinda doubt this, if only for the fact it means new classes are always behind in options.
But if they don't do something like that then the new races will always be behind in options.:P
Actually I expect the paladin to get his mount back in DP.
And I expect for that not to happen based off of the timing of that developer comment that I mentioned before. It seemed to be far too late in the development cycle for Divine Power for them to have absolutely no idea of how the mechanics, of one of the large parts of one of the chapters, were going to work. I admit there is a lot of guesswork in my reasoning, but no less than is present in your belief.
The major hook for MP1 was pets for rangers, followed closely by two-weapon fighters. I don't think cutthroat rogues or bravura warlords were hook material, however meritorious those concepts were.
To get MP2 off the shelves, I think there'll have to be more on offer than feats for your goliath and a nifty paragon path for your warforged warlord. Is there a kick-ass concept for any of the existing martial classes that has yet to be covered? Maybe it will introduce the knight as a multiclass-only option, along the lines of the gladiator, that any martial class can adopt.
:D
And I expect for that not to happen based off of the timing of that developer comment that I mentioned before. It seemed to be far too late in the development cycle for Divine Power for them to have absolutely no idea of how the mechanics, of one of the large parts of one of the chapters, were going to work. I admit there is a lot of guesswork in my reasoning, but no less than is present in your belief.
I was nearly sure some time ago, but after receiving some info about the paladin presented at the Game Day and noticing nothing could suggest a mounted build, now I'm sure at least one new paladin build will NOT be the mounted paladin. So Divine Power either covers both a new build and the mounted build, or only one new build or two different not mount builds. And since making the build like the Ranger's beast companion would take a lot of space, I'm starting to believe that if they implement it, it would not be as a class option/feature/build, but rather as something more detached from the character, be it a "Mount Mastery" multilcass feats chain or simply some daily summoning of destriers and chargers.
We've also always had wizards that are able to do basically everything that everyone else in the party can do only better. Does that mean we are going to see a return of them? Probably not. Just because something has happened before, does not mean that it will happen again. Will we see more mounted combat options eventually? I imagine so. Will there be a martial mounted combat class in the PHB3? There is no evidence to suggest that there will be one.
A). Mounted Characters don't break the game balance
B). We have no evidence there won't be either, and we have correlative evidence there Could be. (Namely pet classes, pets are easier than mounts, so its a logical chain of progression)
But if they don't do something like that then the new races will always be behind in options.:P
Unless some of the new feats in the PHBs cover the same ground for the races in the book.
And I expect for that not to happen based off of the timing of that developer comment that I mentioned before. It seemed to be far too late in the development cycle for Divine Power for them to have absolutely no idea of how the mechanics, of one of the large parts of one of the chapters, were going to work. I admit there is a lot of guesswork in my reasoning, but no less than is present in your belief.
I will grant you that, but I still expect if only for the same reason I kinda knew familiars would be back in AP, its a former iconic feature of the class that had to be put aside for a while.
A). Mounted Characters don't break the game balance
No, but they could break the fun when you realize that a character of a "mounted only" class is not wanting to separate from his/her mount even if the dungeon corridors are not even tall enough for the horse alone.
There simply can't be an entire class dedicated to mounted combat.
No, but they could break the fun when you realize that a character of a "mounted only" class is not wanting to separate from his/her mount even if the dungeon corridors are not even tall enough for the horse alone.
There simply can't be an entire class dedicated to mounted combat.
There always has been, or so practically dedicated to mounted combat as to exclude non-mounted, and its never mattered before (to a degree).
There always has been, or so practically dedicated to mounted combat as to exclude non-mounted, and its never mattered before (to a degree).
3rd edition didn't have such a class unless you count the paladin's mount, but it hardly classifies as "so practicaly dedicated", and if it doesn't matter it means either DMs make ad-hoc adventures for always-mounted character or simply don't care about the height of the ceilings. But come on, it's ridiculous to imagine any kind of adventurer going mounted inside a dungeon. A mount should always be something you don't depend on so much as to not wanting to dismount for dungeon delving.
3rd edition didn't have such a class unless you count the paladin's mount, but it hardly classifies as "so practicaly dedicated", and if it doesn't matter it means either DMs make ad-hoc adventures for always-mounted character or simply don't care about the height of the ceilings. But come on, it's ridiculous to imagine any kind of adventurer going mounted inside a dungeon. A mount should always be something you don't depend on so much as to not wanting to dismount for dungeon delving.
A dungeon with ogres an giants that has roofs where they can't fit makes Sense?
A dungeon with ogres an giants that has roofs where they can't fit makes Sense?
No, and in case of giant's dungeons guess what, you can use your damned horse.
Plus riding a beast isn't strictly horses.
After about level 10 or so, its hard to have an adventure that features no large monster: Ergo, its hard to justify medium sized roofs, Ergo: Its diffcult to truly say 'nope sorry, you can't ride an animal that size here'
Plus riding a beast isn't strictly horses.
The matter is not that and it's so obvious I don't believe you're seriously not seeing it.
What does a mounted character do amidst a party of people on foot? And what does a (common) mount do in closed and/or subterranean environments in first place? It's simply ridiculous, you don't find this in any fantasy literature, not tied to the concept of class which is the thing that defines your character nearly 100%. If it's true that after level 10 dungeons are all this big (mine wouldn't, and they would have vertical areas as well as submerged areas, so it "might" be screwed for a mount), than fine, make it a paragon path. At least everyone with requirements can take it and it's not inexplicably tied to beginning your heroic career with a mount and ending it the same way.
Belgarion's horselords.
Various Knights in the Ellerium.
There, there examples of commonly mounted characters without even straining to hard.
Elf Quest.
Belgarion's horselords.
Various Knights in the Ellerium.
There, there examples of commonly mounted characters without even straining to hard.
Raiding lich's tombs, drow outposts, evil temples, and occasionally run- I mean- riding through some layer of the abyss? You can start a thread about it, let's return to martial options in the new book.
It isn't even all about not having large creatures. Sure, a lot of high level adventures will involve large creatures. But will all parts of that adventure involve them? You only need to climb down through narrow tunnels into the underdark to get into a situation wherein there could be large creatures, but you couldn't have brought them with you. Dancing across the tops of ruins is another place where mounts would be highly awkward.
It is not unreasonable for characters to have to be in narrow spaces for the purposes of exploring someplace, be it caves, ruins, or even normal houses or similar buildings, with five-foot wide hallways.
And it isn't as though, say, Sorrowsworn aren't mostly medium sized. Not to mention a good number of NPCs of normal races. Its not like there aren't high-level versions of things like Dragonborn or Eladrin in the PHB, and its not like a mage guild or similar organization couldn't make for a viable high-level adventure. Indeed, a showdown with a powerful mage guild could take place in a tower with five foot wide hallways, with large creatures in rooms which it is impossible for them to get into.
Cavalier has been around since ODnD (Where it was an expansion of the Paladin). We have always had some Mounted Fighter Type Thing, ergo: Its likely to happen again.
Ranadiel has already exposed your logical fallacy here, so I'll just add that the designers have stated that they are not bringing everything from earlier editions back just for the sake of bringing it back.
It's also their intention to not include stuff that's gimped. The original example was a class that's substandard in combat but is "compensated" by getting more skills. A Cavalier would be similar to that: not able to use their most important feature in any indoor encounter, but "compensated" by ruling the open fields.
Individual feats don't need to be balanced this way, though, so more feats to specialize in mounted combat are entirely possible. Maybe even a PP, though that's stretching it.
Unless some of the new feats in the PHBs cover the same ground for the races in the book.
Then they can just do the same thing with classes for old power sources in new PHBs. They get as much coverage in the PHB as previous classes of that power source have gotten from a PHB and any additional Power books.
I like to be right, so I figure other people do as well. Here's a gift for TheLoneCleric, I call it vindication: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/calendar
On March 23rd there will be a Playtest Article for Martial Power 2.
*ahem* HA! I was right! Thank you. Actually, it was just looking at the rate they've been coming out with classes that lead me to see the pattern they're going with the core books and the Powers books. 4 primary, 2 secondary per core book. Once you hit 4 primary classes, do a power book. Easy stuff.
No, but they could break the fun when you realize that a character of a "mounted only" class is not wanting to separate from his/her mount even if the dungeon corridors are not even tall enough for the horse alone.
There simply can't be an entire class dedicated to mounted combat.
Same could be said for a Ranger's companion when an adventure starts and continues from a high-priced place (such as a ball which has been an issue with a ranger with an extremely large beast companion).
I heard there will be a mounted paladin build in DP, right?
Nope, nothing to indicate that at the moment.
Nope, nothing to indicate that at the moment.
As dangerous as arguing any point concerning future releases with you can be, I would like to point out that, IIRC, the designers have stated that they might include a mounted paladin build in the future if they can figure out a way to make it work. While that is a far cry from a promise, it certainly isn't nothing.
Nope, nothing to indicate that at the moment.
Nope, you're wrong, I definitely read one of the designers mention something about it.
See, I can be bluntly passive-aggressive to (oh, and I'm actually correct to boot) – yay!
As dangerous as arguing any point concerning future releases with you can be, I would like to point out that, IIRC, the designers have stated that they might include a mounted paladin build in the future if they can figure out a way to make it work. While that is a far cry from a promise, it certainly isn't nothing.
Yes they said that they would make one if they could make it mechanically interesting(which I mentioned several times earlier in this thread). However the statement that I was shooting down was that it would be in Divine Power, it appearing in Divine Power was what I was disputing not it ever coming out. As an example they have said that they will make a monk class, that doesn't mean that it will be in PHBII.(I know this is a bad example since we know what is going to be in PHBII and where the monk will be coming out, but pretend that it is a few months ago when you read that example)
Nope, you're wrong, I definitely read one of the designers mention something about it.
See, I can be bluntly passive-aggressive to (oh, and I'm actually correct to boot) – yay!
.....If you are correct then provide a link which says that a mounted build will be present in Divne Power. Not a link that says there will be new build options for the paladin. Not a link that says that they will make a mounted build if they can come up with a good way to make it work. A reputable link that specifically says Divine Power will have a mounted paladin build. If you can't provide such a link, then don't claim to be correct as that is essentially the entirity of your claim.
Yes they said that they would make one if they could make it mechanically interesting(which I mentioned several times earlier in this thread). However the statement that I was shooting down was that it would be in Divine Power, it appearing in Divine Power was what I was disputing not it ever coming out.
True enough. I was merely pointing out that between the facts that Divine Power will contain new build options for paladins and that the designers have acknowledged the possibility of printing a mounted paladin build, it is entirely reasonable to speculate that such a build will appear in Divine Power. There may not be any guarantee it will happen but there isn't any significant evidence against it either.
.....If you are correct then provide a link which says that a mounted build will be present in Divne Power. Not a link that says there will be new build options for the paladin. Not a link that says that they will make a mounted build if they can come up with a good way to make it work. A reputable link that specifically says Divine Power will have a mounted paladin build. If you can't provide such a link, then don't claim to be correct as that is essentially the entirity of your claim.
Ranadiel, Ranadiel, Ranadiel, why must your posts so often be riddled with condescension and rudeness? I mean, otherwise your posts have some interesting info sometimes, but ease off the gas with the aggression a bit, you just come off as an angry, snippy young person, and that takes away your credibility – we're all just trying to have fun here speculating, like Thrarag Bocc, you are not the police of new releases information, no need for the attitude.
I also posed the mounted build as a question, and as others have confirmed, it may very well be an option, but not necessarily in DP.
See, is that so hard, are we all friends again?
You can't take them into the dungeon with you in most adventures, and therefore mounted options become inherently very situational. It's not that mounts can't be cool, or that mounted combat couldn't be a big part of a campaign, it's just that it typically doesn't. The Monster Manual is literally filled with creatures who live in places where trying to ride a larger creature is simply impractical for Medium-sized characters.
BTW: Good call, TLC! And so close to time it was announced, too! ...What's your secret: Psionic divination, or inside Insider info? ;)
Ranadiel, Ranadiel, Ranadiel, why must your posts so often be riddled with condescension and rudeness? I mean, otherwise your posts have some interesting info sometimes, but ease off the gas with the aggression a bit, you just come off as an angry, snippy young person, and that takes away your credibility – we're all just trying to have fun here speculating, like Thrarag Bocc, you are not the police of new releases information, no need for the attitude.
I also posed the mounted build as a question, and as others have confirmed, it may very well be an option, but not necessarily in DP.
See, is that so hard, are we all friends again?
I just wrote a quick post saying that there had been nothing said which would confirm a mounted paladin build. How the heck does that make me the bad guy here?They never outright confirmed the mount for DP, but WAY back in Race & Classes they make mention of it, and I think it was brought up in the last pre-Penny Arcade cast, that they only confirmed Domains. There was a podcast where they mentioned considering it, but it was a bit back. :P
Wasn't that the podcast where they said they still hadn't come up with a way to make the mounted paladin build mechancially interesting? :P
A Mounted combat PP might work though, a PP doesn't dominate a build and you could make one that benefits on a mount but isn't limited to only working on a mount.
Actually i'm sure you could make a class that's suited to mounted combat but doesn't require a mount to function.
I know you're a nice guy, R, but Dan's right: sometime your posts do come across a bit "know-it-all-y". (Which isn't so bad, because most of the time, you do know it all, particularly with respect to Future Releases.) I think it's that you don't use words that leave the reader with the impression that you believe there might be some redeeming quality to others' suggestions; doing so would make your posts seem that much friendlier, even if you really don't think there's anything to what others are saying.
Like I said, R: you're a good guy, but it seems like there's a bit of an edge to some of your posts. YMMV.
BTW, we're still cool, bro.
I know you're a nice guy, R, but Dan's right: sometime your posts do come across a bit "know-it-all-y". (Which isn't so bad, because most of the time, you do know it all, particularly with respect to Future Releases.) I think it's that you don't use words that leave the reader with the impression that you believe there might be some redeeming quality to others' suggestions; doing so would make your posts seem that much friendlier, even if you really don't think there's anything to what others are saying.
Like I said, R: you're a good guy, but it seems like there's a bit of an edge to some of your posts. YMMV.
BTW, we're still cool, bro.
I admit that some of my posts are hostile, demeaning, or some other negative terms that I can't think of right now. Those are mostly because I am either annoyed, POed, or in a bad mood. But the post in question was 8 words without an insult, threat, rude joke, or oddball comparison in it. How the heck is there an edge to 8 words like that?And of course we're still cool. *locks doctorhook in the washing machine*:P
Bel
If they do mounted combat at all, wouldn't they need to make it a multiclass type of mechanic? Paladins(divine), fighters(knights)(martial), etc?
Bel
That would be the smart way to do it. Having a mount in combat is much like fielding a summon or a familiar. It changes the way combat acts. Heck, if you have a 'smart' mount it gobbles up some of the exp share. Now, having a class feature or a Multiclass (They're gonna have to come up witha better name for these feats) feat for special mounts (loyal, astral) would be awesome.
That would be the smart way to do it. Having a mount in combat is much like fielding a summon or a familiar. It changes the way combat acts. Heck, if you have a 'smart' mount it gobbles up some of the exp share. Now, having a class feature or a Multiclass (They're gonna have to come up witha better name for these feats) feat for special mounts (loyal, astral) would be awesome.
You're damned straight. Also because, how do you think they're gonna implement domains??
EDIT: Thinking one more minute about it, I guess they could also just use that general layout, which just works, but give the domain feats the keyword that should belong to them: "Domain". It should act like multi-class in the sense that you can't have more than one domain and in the sense it should have some requirements (like the Channel Divinity feat for that deity).
Thinking one more minute about it, I guess they could also just use that general layout, which just works, but give the domain feats the keyword that should belong to them: "Domain". It should act like multi-class in the sense that you can't have more than one domain and in the sense it should have some requirements (like the Channel Divinity feat for that deity).
I talk about this in another thread but I think the Domain powers will be an extention on the Channel Divinity class feature, but 'tagging' some powers to be swapable with Domain power that match the theme. So tag out your encounter powers for Domain powers, etc.
You said there was ntohing to indicate it. Which was wrong. Indicating something and confirming something are two different things. It was abrupt, and wrong to boot. Abrupt can come across on the internet as condescending and rude.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Wouldn't it be great if they made a Far Realms source book where we got to learn more about illithid culture, and have a chapter on how you could run a campaign in an illitthid city? And wouldn't it be wonderful to have more abberation options and to be able to take on abberations at lower levels as well as higher levels?
No.
In this example the 2nd poster comes across as rude and dismissive. Technically he's just answering the question the OP asked. But because its the internet, its difficult to convey tone and so it can easily come across as rude and dismissive.
I could have just quoted your post and said "You're wrong" and left it at that. Which would have also come across as rude and condescending ;)
Just my opinion. Other people will of course read certain posts in different ways thanks to the text-medium.