I realize that the Realms are being advanced 100 years to account for the shift in the mechanics and what not but will that also mean that in 100 years Druids and Barbarians and any other PC class besides the ones that are listed in the PHB have somehow died out as well? Or perhaps will the FRCS reference Classes that will be coming out in the PHB2. Might be nice to get a sneak peek at what will be in the next PHB.
So what are your thoughts?
Cheers!
From what I hear, NPCs will not have stat blocks and so won't have to worry how many levels of barbarian/druid/monk/etc....each have.
-Rich Baker mention that many characters will get the abbreviated stat block: Elminster, Human Wizard 20? . That one.
I for one am happy they're doing it this way. Usually the NPCs stats were far from the mark to begin with and were basically stagnant in a "living world". Also, with additional sources coming out, one feat or ability could better "classify" a character than a previous one could. I say it should be up to the DM how these NPCs are carried out rather than it being canon.
-That's all something I could see DDI doing good. Imagine a database of NPCs, where things like classes, feats, and all that can be updated as new information is released. I'm not holding my breath for something like that, but it sure sounds nice.
-That's all something I could see DDI doing good. Imagine a database of NPCs, where things like classes, feats, and all that can be updated as new information is released. I'm not holding my breath for something like that, but it sure sounds nice.
I should apply for that job. :D
I should apply for that job. :D
-You should.
But that, of coure, is just my opinion.
-Rich Baker mention that many characters will get the abbreviated stat block: Elminster, Human Wizard 20? . That one..
Like we had in the Gold Box twenty years ago?
How bloody intuitive. ;)
-All those Druids, Bards, Barbarians, and whoever else are still in the Forgotten Realms. For the time being, they will either be rewritten to reflect classes that exist now, or these NPCs will simply not be featured in statblocks until the relevant classes are published.
And we know most if not all of these classes will be coming, probably next year
Like we had in the Gold Box twenty years ago?
How bloody intuitive. ;)
-Don't even know what that is.
And we know most if not all of these classes will be coming, probably next year
-Right. So, don't expect seeing much about these NPCs until said material is available.
I just better get monks and bards real quick like
-Better yet, you can make up your own Monk/Bard class!
I just better get monks and bards real quick like
Multiclass mage/warrior and roleplay the rest! ;)
For those who don't want to wait, Necromancer Games is gonna put out the Advanced Player's Guide, in which they'll be writing up their own 4E version of the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer. It's being written by Ari Marmell. That'd make a good stopgap until the PHB 2 is out. And even after that, as the 4E versions are going to be going in different directions, while the ones in the APG will look more like the classic versions. Oh yeah, and it'll have halflings with hairy feet (called 'Shire Halflings' ;) ).
-They might even be better!
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic. Keep it clean, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Also, with the way the wizard and warlock work, I don't really see the need for a sorcerer.
-From what I remember of the early rumblings, the Sorcerer was going to be pretty different from the Wizard. Side effects from casting spells and things like that. From what I remember of it, it reminded me something of a 'Rage Mage'.
For the Druid, I'm thinking controller. Many of the Druid's spells will effect lots of enemies or you can shapeshift into certain animals like in 3e. Though I'm still very intrested what they come up with, hopefully it's good.
I heard rumors the druid might become a hybrid class like the paladin, who is a defender with leaderish streak. The druid might get to be a leader (barkskins for the party and healing) with a hybrid flair (shapeshift dependant). A lion or bear shaped druid could get a defenderish abilities, a falcon or panther striker powers, a wolf more pack attack warlordlike abilities, and porcupines and other projectile throwing beasts as controllers. So the choice of your shape defines your secondary role.
Just referencing some NPC or two as a Bard or Barbarian isn't gonna waste space on the actual stats and it's likely the way they are going to represent the iconic people with in the pages of the FRCG.
-Better yet, you can make up your own Monk/Bard class!
Generally speaking, I am not great at that
I'm a lover not a base-class maker
Generally speaking, I am not great at that
I'm a lover not a base-class maker
-Understandable.
BARBARIANS - Mike Mearls
I love barbarians. One of my earliest 3E moments in good die rolling involved a barbarian rolling a crit with a greatsword, dropping a foe, and critting on his Cleave attack to drop a second foe. The words "I rage" are a great part of D&D. At the time of this writing, barbarians are in draft form, but here's what we have so far.
Rage is the heart of every barbarian, and that's still true in 4E. With the increased customization in the game, barbarians now have several varieties of rage to choose from. We've also tied barbarians and druids closer together, creating a relationship between them similar to the link between paladins and clerics. If a paladin is the sword of the faith, the barbarian is nature's fury given physical form.
We wanted the barbarian to be more then a fighter who rages, and to that end we firmly pushed weapon tricks and mastery into the fighter's realm. Barbarians still heft axes and mauls with the best of them, but they now have access to feral, totemic abilities that make them unique.
On a historical note, my playtest barbarian character used a rage ability called lightning panther strike to move across a dungeon chamber and chop down five skeletons in one round. He also had an unhealthy tendency to follow up strikes from his axe with a quick bite attack. Barbarians are more feral and, well, angrier, than ever. All that stuff might not make it into the final draft, but that's the direction we're headed.
BARDS - Logan Bonner
A master of artistry and social grace, a bard is a leader who wields magic both dramatic and subtle. Harnessing a natural talent for creativity (be it song, painting, dance, or oratory), a bard draws magic from otherworldly patrons that admire the bard's work. This is fundamentally different from the relationship other spellcasters have with their power sources. A bard is not a subservient worshipper like a cleric, nor does he bend forces to his will like a wizard. The relationship between a bard and his patrons is one of mutual respect, and the magical gifts given cannot be taken away.
Though many bards hone their skill through intense study and practice at bardic colleges, others are free-spirited wanderers with inborn creative genius that, though rough around the edges, is truly marvelous to behold. To most bards, understanding history and lore is essential. Because they are respected as artists, performers, and sages, bards are accepted in most societies and can enter doors that are closed to others (especially to other adventurers).
A bard can be truly inspiring to the rest of his adventuring party and immensely aggravating to his enemies. With the skill to fool enemies with illusory magic and to influence them with mental trickery, a bard can make his foes work against themselves. The bard makes his enemies distrust their eyes, their ears, and even their allies. And that is why he's truly dangerous.
Though many bards are fond of treasure, a bard is a storyteller at heart. Every expedition is a new tale to spin - and the show must go on.
DRUIDS - Mike Mearls
The druid presents an interesting problem for D&D 4E design, in that the class in 3E covers so much ground. Is the druid the guy who summons monsters? Is he the guy who transformers into monsters? Is he a spellcasting healer like the cleric? Many gaming groups consider the D&D 3E druid one of the most powerful classes in the game, and for good reason. The druid does a lot of things well, though it takes an experienced player to see and fully utilize the possibilities inherent in the class.
Moving forward, design identified a few things that made the druid unique. We expect other classes to cast spells, and we expect other classes to summon monsters. We don't expect many classes to have the ability to turn into raging dire bears and elementals, so that talent became the foundation on which the druid is built. The current design for druid allows them to use wild shape a lot more often, though at a price. Druids select shapes they can assume in much the same way that other classes pick spells and maneuvers.
To carry this analogy forward, we designed a variety of forms to fit different needs. A druid might turn into a hawk to fly over an orc camp and spy on the monsters below. He then turns into a mouse to sneak into the orc king's tent, then shifts into bear form to tear the king in half. The druid's forms are the primary tools he uses on an adventure. To give the druid an incentive to walk around in humanoid form, he gains a selection of nature-themed spells that give him some ranged firepower and utility abilities.
MONKS - Logan Bonner
Through dedication and practice, monks become supreme martial artists, capable of great feats of speed and strength. What others accomplish with magic and steel, monks can do with only their bodies and minds. Monks live an ascetic lifestyle and carry minimal gear (at least compared to other adventurers). Most are taciturn and disciplined, so they sometimes find it difficult to socialize with their party members. This might be a liability in society, but it translates to a singleminded, unflagging focus in battle.
The typical monk lives in a monastery or as a hermit in the wilderness. Those who begin adventuring usually do so to continue the perfection of their bodies and technique. Some have altruistic ideals and adventure to protect the weak. A few monks are simply obsessed with being the most powerful fighters and wander the land seeking out strong adversaries to defeat.
In battle, no one is faster or more agile than the monk. After darting across the battlefield, a monk can execute rapid maneuvers that send his opponent flying, knock it to the ground, or stun it into submission. A monk's defenses are also strong - an awareness of his own body and his surroundings lets a monk avoid attacks, and he can channel his ki to heal his own wounds.
The monk class is still on the horizon, but we know it will work great in the game's new structure. Since the monk relies on mobility, the class will likely be a striker, putting down high damage with unarmed attacks.
SORCERERS - Mike Mearls
The sorcerer presents an interesting design challenge in that the class stands so close to the wizard. In 3E, both classes use the same spell lists. They differ in how they access those lists. The magic system in 4E makes the differentiation hard to carry forward. The design team also wanted to create clearer, vivid differences between the two classes. Not only do sorcerers in 4E use different spells, but they utilize a different method of spellcasting.
The design team posited a class that has a more rudimentary, simplistic style of magic. Sorcerers use inborn talents, giving them a leg up on wizards when it comes to learning spells. The magic they use is more art then science, driven more by a feel for the ebb and flow of energy than by hours of study and practice.
To capture this flavor, the design team built mechanics that reflect a caster who barely controls the power he wields. A wizard creates magical effects by carefully reciting a magical formula. The sorcerer reaches into the magical energies that burn within him and lets them loose on the world with little real control.
The power wielded by a sorcerer is powerful enough that even after a spell is done, ambient energy swirls around him. A sorcerer who blasts you with a cold spell is protected by a small, swirling cloud of snow and ice for a short time. One who unleashes a fireball bursts into flames that scorch enemies who try to attack. The sorcerer is one with his magic, and he (in some cases quite literall) wears it like a second skin.
Personally, I am more interested in the Paragon and Epics coming out of it. Such as, for one instance, Chosen of Mystra Paragon/Epic. Also, how they will change the Drow after the advent of the Eladrin. Finally, the other hybrid-human races other than just Tieflings.
Barbarians still heft axes and mauls with the best of them, but they now have access to feral, totemic abilities that make them unique.
-This is the kind of thing that does not belong in the base class. A PrC/Paragon Path, sure, but not the base class. Not all Barbarians come from this type of tribal, wild background.
When the FRCS came out for 3.X, it had classes and races in it. Perhaps the FRCS will have the Monk, Barbarian, and Bard classes in it.
It wont. Those classes are still in the development stage. Though the FRCG probably will have the Swordmage base class in there and from what I heard, the half-orc too. We'll just have to wait and see.
Personally, I am more interested in the Paragon and Epics coming out of it. Such as, for one instance, Chosen of Mystra Paragon/Epic. Also, how they will change the Drow after the advent of the Eladrin. Finally, the other hybrid-human races other than just Tieflings.
Yea, i'm excited to see additional paragon and epic options myself. Considering how clerics work, different paragon paths based on their god might add more optimization/difference. Though I don't think the chosen of Mystra anything is going to be listed in any FR product (at least not for a while) condisering she's dead an all and power granted from her would've probably stoped. I really don't know how they're going to handle the "dark elves" racial stats. They probably won't have the same abilities listed in the back of the Monster Manual. As for other hybrid-human races, I don't think the Aasimar...er i mean.... celestial.. or was it serephim or whatever name they're going to call it isn't going to be out with the FRCG to my knowledge.
-This is the kind of thing that does not belong in the base class.
A PrC/Paragon Path, sure, but not the base class. Not all Barbarians come from this type of tribal, wild background.
I think it's getting back to the basics of barbarism. I like it, it makes a clear definition that's far removed from the basic fighter.
I think it's getting back to the basics of barbarism.
-Not all Barbarians (the class) are "devolved" into barbarism, however. Which is why I do not like the idea.
How else would you classify being a barbarian? Considering the fact that most people who play barbarians are into this sort of style, I don't see a problem with this being the default.
"Barbarian" is a pejorative term for an uncivilized, uncultured person, either in a general reference to a member of a nation or ethnos perceived as having an inferior level of civilization, or in an individual reference to a brutal, cruel, warlike, insensitive person whose behaviour is unacceptable in the society of the speaker.
How else would you classify being a barbarian? Considering the fact that most people who play barbarians are into this sort of style, I don't see a problem with this being the default.
-The bolded part does not fit into the mold of an individual coming from an uncivilized, barbaric culture. The bolded part can include individuals who come from "ordinary" society as well, which is why I am saying that I don't like where they are headed. The ability to fly into a murderous, blind, angry rage is hardly limited to "uncivilized" folk.
It wont. Those classes are still in the development stage. Though the FRCG probably will have the Swordmage base class in there and from what I heard, the half-orc too. We'll just have to wait and see
Not probably. WoTC has announced that the Swordmage will be in FRCG. I believe they may have stated that the genasi will be there too
Granted, but unless it specifically states that you HAVE to come from an uncivilized society for you backround I still don't see a problem. I won't know until the class comes out but i'm willing to bet you don't have to role play the Conan-Wulfgar image of a barbarian though I do see them as being proficient with only cloth, leather, and hide armor. And i'm faily certain that you won't be forced to believe in animal totems in favor of say Kord or Bane for that matter. I think most of the stuff is going to be fluff to get your character in the feel of a barbarian but not manditory.
-Why would, say, a Barbarian from Waterdeep, who has class ranks as a Barbarian because of his rage, receive magical class benefits from animal totems? This is why I dislike magical abilities granted by feral animalistic totems. Like I said, a PrC/Paragon Path, sure, that's cool. Not everyone is going to go down those routes.
-Why would, say, a Barbarian from Waterdeep, who has class ranks as a Barbarian because of his rage, receive magical class benefits from animal totems? This is why I dislike magical abilities granted by feral animalistic totems. Like I said, a PrC/Paragon Path, sure, that's cool. Not everyone is going to go down those routes.
I don't think they're going to be "magical" abilities. The abilities of the Figher, Ranger, and Rogue are all called Exploits and aren't magical. I won't know the full depth of the Barbarian until it comes out but i'm willing to bet that the flavor can be changed to suit any character who wants to play a barbarian.
-I don't care what the rules say, if the character in question is doing something Humanly* impossible through the intervention of something other than his/her/own physical abilities, that's magical.
*Again, I don't want to hear with the semantics. You know what I mean! :P
Ok, the barbarian's powers, whether extra-ordinary or supernatural....... though definitly not magical :P, can be derived from anywhere, it doesn't have to be totemic-based. You can add any sort of flavor you wish i'm guessing and doesn't have to be based on the iconic barbarian image.
-Sure, sure, but that preview text does alludes to something specific, in animal totems.
For those who don't want to wait, Necromancer Games is gonna put out the Advanced Player's Guide, in which they'll be writing up their own 4E version of the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer. It's being written by Ari Marmell. That'd make a good stopgap until the PHB 2 is out. And even after that, as the 4E versions are going to be going in different directions, while the ones in the APG will look more like the classic versions. Oh yeah, and it'll have halflings with hairy feet (called 'Shire Halflings' ;) ).
Sounds like a nice supplement--I'll keep my eyes open for it.
I wouldn't want that for every bard character I make, but I'd love to try it out.
For those who don't want to wait, Necromancer Games is gonna put out the Advanced Player's Guide, in which they'll be writing up their own 4E version of the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer. It's being written by Ari Marmell. That'd make a good stopgap until the PHB 2 is out. And even after that, as the 4E versions are going to be going in different directions, while the ones in the APG will look more like the classic versions. Oh yeah, and it'll have halflings with hairy feet (called 'Shire Halflings' ;) ).
do we know when?
I have to admit, I rather like the proposed take on bards, with them having a relationship of mutual respect with their otherworldly patron.
I wouldn't want that for every bard character I make, but I'd love to try it out.
Agreed! This mutual respect with their patron diety is a nice way to define their source of power. This will make bards loosely akin to arcane clerics imbued with the magic of music. I think they'll regret their culling of the realmsian gods because it had several really fitting patrons for Bards: Milil, Zandilar, Liiera and Finder among others make great patrons for this relationship.
If they get to be masters of mindmagic and moodaltering abilities they can be quite the strong contenders to outperform the current leaders. The Warlord should have been in the PHB2.
I think they'll regret their culling of the realmsian gods because it had several really fitting patrons for Bards: Milil, Zandilar, Liiera and Finder among others make great patrons for this relationship.
There are others that might work as well. Perhaps borderline nature gods such as Lathander (or whatever they are calling him) and Selune would fit I think as well. How about Valkur or even military gods would use music to inspire
A bard can be truly inspiring to the rest of his adventuring party and immensely aggravating to his enemies. With the skill to fool enemies with illusory magic and to influence them with mental trickery, a bard can make his foes work against themselves. The bard makes his enemies distrust their eyes, their ears, and even their allies. And that is why he's truly dangerous.
So the bards are now a hybrid of bard/beguiler? From what the description says, they'll be tricking his enemies and probably de-buffing them as well. Nice! The bard might actually have some usefullness now.
So the bards are now a hybrid of bard/beguiler? From what the description says, they'll be tricking his enemies and probably de-buffing them as well. Nice! The bard might actually have some usefullness now.
I agree. I like that concept.
Now, what do they have going on for the monk?
I agree. I like that concept.
Now, what do they have going on for the monk?
Like the article said, it'll probably be a "striker" class in that it'll do lots of damage through unarmed strikes to single opponents. I can see lots of powers based off of things pulled from the Tome of Battle. A 3.5e Monk/Swordsage using the Sun Setting discipline is......awesome. At least, I hope they do that sort of stuff for the monk.
Monk will probably also be the only class that can get proficiency in Unarmed Attacks, and the damage inflicted by their Unarmed Attacks will be higher then normal. Who knows what other crazy crap they'll come up with. I'm looking forward to it, though. Hell, I like that idea they put up on the WotC page of converting the Ranger to a Monk. Here's the link to that article, and the relevant section.
Monk
At a glance, the player with a 3E monk might think that he’s out of luck until the 4E monk releases—there’s no unarmored, unarmed melee fighter option anywhere in the Player’s Handbook. However, with your DM’s permission you can create a martial-arts striker who captures much of the monk’s style by following this process:
1. Choose the two-blade ranger build (p104). (Don’t worry, this will make sense in a minute.)
2. Give up your leather and hide armor proficiencies, gaining a +3 bonus to AC when wearing no armor or cloth armor. You’re now only a point behind the normal ranger’s AC.
3. Gain a +2 bonus to Will defense (in addition to the ranger’s normal defense bonuses).
4. Replace Dungeoneering and Nature on your class skill list with Arcana, Diplomacy, Insight, and Religion. Choose five trained skills from your class list.
5. Give up your martial weapon proficiencies. Grant your unarmed strike a +3 proficiency bonus, increase the damage to 1d8, and add the off-hand property. Now you’re wielding two melee weapons that are as good as the martial melee options available to the ranger.
6. Rename Hunter’s Quarry as Monastic Battle Focus, and lose the Prime Shot class feature. (You thought you were getting that +2 bonus to Will for free, didn’t you?)
7. Focus on mobility-oriented powers, particularly those that reward a high Wisdom score (such as evasive strike, yield ground, and weave through the fray). As desired, you can rename those powers with a flavor that befits your monkish heritage (peerless balance of the crane instead of fox’s cunning, for example).
8. Pick up feats to recreate other 3E monk class features—Evasion, Fleet-Footed, Long Jumper—and use multiclass feats (p209) to replicate the supernatural features. For example, the warlock has several teleportation powers reminiscent of abundant step.
This doesn’t faithfully recreate every element of the 3E monk, but it’s definitely a reasonable stopgap if you’re really committed to sticking with the character. Feel free to experiment with additional tweaks, and by all means please share your results on the D&D message boards!
Monk will be a Ki Striker, so first thing we'll probably see is a Monk equivalent to Sneak Attack, Hunter's Quarry, and Warlock's Curse. The Monk will probably only be proficient in Cloth Armor, which'll put it around two to three points less AC then other Strikers. So maybe a class bonus to AC, which scales as the Monk levels?
Monk will probably also be the only class that can get proficiency in Unarmed Attacks, and the damage inflicted by their Unarmed Attacks will be higher then normal. Who knows what other crazy crap they'll come up with. I'm looking forward to it, though. Hell, I like that idea they put up on the WotC page of converting the Ranger to a Monk. Here's the link to that article, and the relevant section.
Interesting, but I do hope the monk is part of the March PHB2
Interesting, but I do hope the monk is part of the March PHB2
Sadly, that won't be the case. The first letter of the eight classes in the PHB2 were revealed in a podcast, and none of them were 'M'. Not to mention that the PHB2 will only have Arcane, Divine, and Primal classes, while the Monk being a Ki Striker is pretty much a given. So unless it's released on DDI on in another book, it looks like we'll have to wait til the PHB3 for the 4E Monk.
The letters, incidentally, are...
B, B, D, I, S, S, T, W
Sadly, that won't be the case. The first letter of the eight classes in the PHB2 were revealed in a podcast, and none of them were 'M'. Not to mention that the PHB2 will only have Arcane, Divine, and Primal classes, while the Monk being a Ki Striker is pretty much a given. So unless it's released on DDI on in another book, it looks like we'll have to wait til the PHB3 for the 4E Monk.
The letters, incidentally, are...
B, B, D, I, S, S, T, W
Plus we now know that the power sources in PHB2 will be divine, arcane and primal, not Ki
Plus we now know that the power sources in PHB2 will be divine, arcane and primal, not Ki
Yeah, I actually mentioned that. :P
Looks like they're gonna finish off each of the power sources as fast as possible, though. The PHB2 will probably finish off the Arcane and Divine classes, as well as give us all the Primal classes. Then PHB3 will probably give us a full set of classes for one power source, while giving us classes for two other power sources (I'm guessing PHB3 will have Ki, Psionic, and Shadow). And so on until every class is covered.
Can't wait for the PHB2, though. I really want to see the Divine Controller. Not to mention one can only imagine what a Divine Striker will look like. And of course, once they're out, Divine Power won't be far behind.
All the Primal classes will be pretty sweet, too. Barbarian, Druid, Shaman, and...?I don't mean filling out the grid. Rather, making all the classes they're gonna make for each power source. For instance, the PHB1 appears to give us all the Martial characters we're gonna be getting. The Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, and Warlord. That's probably why they're releasing Martial Power, as all the Martial characters are out. Likewise, I don't think it's coincidence that they'll be releasing Arcane Power right after the PHB2. By then, we'll have the Bard, Swordmage, Warlock, and Wizard at least. Sorcerer, too, if it stays Arcane. In which case every Arcane class will be out.
Sorry I just meant this because you mentioned Divine Controllers. What class did you have in mind for that? Maybe Thaumaturges as Divine Controller (Summoner).
Sorry I just meant this because you mentioned Divine Controllers. What class did you have in mind for that? Maybe Thaumaturges as Divine Controller (Summoner).
Someone else on another thread suggested that Divine Controllers might be called Theurges (One who works miracles, or persuades a god or spirit to perform a supernatural work.). Theurge, Thaumaturgist, etc, all sounds pretty good. They'll definitely exist, though, as the developers have already been talking about a Divine Controller.
-My TV remote control is a divine controller. I thank G-d every day that I have one.
a little late night Cinemax action, Karsus, hmmmmmmmmm
I don't mean filling out the grid. Rather, making all the classes they're gonna make for each power source. For instance, the PHB1 appears to give us all the Martial characters we're gonna be getting. The Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, and Warlord. That's probably why they're releasing Martial Power, as all the Martial characters are out. Likewise, I don't think it's coincidence that they'll be releasing Arcane Power right after the PHB2. By then, we'll have the Bard, Swordmage, Warlock, and Wizard at least. Sorcerer, too, if it stays Arcane. In which case every Arcane class will be out.
Now we know the sorcerer, bard, barbarian and druid are in the PHB2 and that it will deal with Arcane, Divine, and Primal power sources.
I guess between PHB2 and PHB3 will get Primal Power and Divine Power too
Sorry I just meant this because you mentioned Divine Controllers. What class did you have in mind for that? Maybe Thaumaturges as Divine Controller (Summoner).
I do hope they come out with an Undead Summoner like the Dread Necromancer. Maybe a counter-balance to the Thaumaturge?
I'd rather the Divine Controller not be a summoner class, myself. But a Necromancer who's a summoner would be cool.
We are getting an Undead book. maybe a necromancer class (or at least a PrP) will be there
-I always felt a Necromancer class (ie, Dread Necromancer) was redundant. Why no "Master Illusionist" class, no "Super Evoker" class, no "Trendy Transmutater" class, and so on.
the buyers like dead stuff, ya gotta give the kids what they want
-I always felt a Necromancer class (ie, Dread Necromancer) was redundant. Why no "Master Illusionist" class, no "Super Evoker" class, no "Trendy Transmutater" class, and so on.
I found it redundant, myself. Then again, that's how I felt about a lot of the PrCs I've come across over the years.
I found it redundant, myself. Then again, that's how I felt about a lot of the PrCs I've come across over the years.
-PrCs, I'm more open-minded towards, because there's more than 1 way to arrive at the same path.
I found it redundant, myself. Then again, that's how I felt about a lot of the PrCs I've come across over the years.
don't diasgree but PrCs sold books as I expect Paragon Paths will
Here is a link to a thread covering PHB2:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1044294
As I understand it phb2 will deal with primal, psionic and ki. They did arcane and divine in the players handbook. Those two will be developed further in their own books, as well as martial.
Here is a link to a thread covering PHB2:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1044294
actually, you are very wrong. It has been confirmed that the PHB2 will deal with divine, arcane and primal powers. No ki or psionic
Anyway, the divine and arcane only got 2 classes each so presumably they wanted to fill out those power sources more. especially in an effort to create more usablity for the already announce Arcane Power book and the presumed Divine Power book to follow. One can only imagine there will be a Primal Power
we know for sure that the bard (arcane leader), sorcerer (arcane controller? leader?), barbarian (primal defender) and druid (primal striker?) will be there. Its also a pretty good bet there will a shaman class
We also know the first letters of all 8 classes: D, R, B, W, I, T, S, S
So we shall see. Obviously, the bard or, more likely, the barbarian has been renamed. Perhaps the Barbarian is a Rager. But that still leaves us I, T, and W
Maybe they have decided to combine psi into ki?
Ki and Psionics are two separate power sources. The PHB lists the following as the eight power sources: Arcane, Divine, Elemental, Ki, Martial, Primal, Psionic, Shadow.
There is no R class. That was a mistake which was later corrected. The eight letters are B, B, D, I, S, S, T, W.
Missed that Thanks. Well, then obviuosly that means the Barbarian is till called that thankfully.
The question remains what are the I, T and W
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Illusionist?
Samurai?
S
T
W
-Ah, cryptic clues. Hmm...
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Illusionist?
Samurai?
S
T
W
likely the 2 Ss are sorcerer and shaman.
The designer also gave out the following on the 5 races
first letters Gn, second letters o, e, and h, and one has the last letter of r.
We know gnome is one and from the cover of the book, the second letter is "o" for goliath.
likely the 2 Ss are sorcerer and shaman.
-I thought Sorcerer was already published? Guess not...
-I thought Sorcerer was already published? Guess not...
It was conspicously missing from the first PHB along with the druid, bard, barbarian and monk
Apparently, we won't be getting the monk in the second PHB either
as for a samurai, I am not sure if that would fit in with a primal, divine or arcane power source
It was conspicously missing from the first PHB along with the druid, bard, barbarian and monk
Apparently, we won't be getting the monk in the second PHB either
as for a samurai, I am not sure if that would fit in with a primal, divine or arcane power source
-Our selections are limited to things only revolving around those?
-Our selections are limited to things only revolving around those?
Yes, those have been confirmed as the power sources for the second PHB
Other power sources to be explored in the future include ki, psionics, and shadow among others
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Illusionist?
Sorcerer
Shaman
Theurge?
Wu-Jen
-In that case, I'll change my guesses to:
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Illusionist?
Sorcerer
Shaman
Theurge?
Wu-Jen
solid guess. Though I would predict the Witch as a primal powered PC. I also heard someone guess that T would be the Templar a divine striker which I find interesting
Though I would predict the Witch as a primal powered PC.
-Interesting.
I also heard someone guess that T would be the Templar a divine striker which I find interesting
-There's already Paladins for that.
-There's already Paladins for that.
Paladins are Defenders
Also the druid pretty much has to be split into multiple classes. He can be a leader since he has plenty of healing spells, he can be a controller since many nature spells would rock at this (entangling roots ftw!), he could be a striker both as a caster and with shapeshift forms and he could be a defender by wild shaping into something large and tough. Obviously one class cannot be allowed that much versatility so I think the Witch will get the weather and plant control and become a Primal Controller, the Shaman will get the summoning, animal spells and heals and become a leader, and the druid will keep all the wild shaping and become a Hybrid Striker/Defender.
As for I and T, I like the suggestion someone else made elsewhere that I stands for Inquisitor (Divine Striker), and T stands for Theurge/Thaumaturge/Thaumaturgist (Divine Controller).
-
-There's already Paladins for that.
As has been stated, Paladins are divine defenders not strikers. Defenders well defend, using their high hit points and abilities to draw attacks away from the rest of the group such as fighters. Strikers deal heavy damage to 1 target, like rogues, rangers and warlocks. The controller of which there is currently only the wizard attack wide areas. Finally there are leaders that buff and heal. We now have the warlord and cleric
I am sure the new book will aid at least one more controller to broaden the options in this new classification. Currently, we have 2 arcane classes and 2 divine classes. The Bard will be the arcane leader and the FR's Swordmage will be the arcane defender. The sorcerer will likely be another controller.
As for the Primal classes, we will have the Barbarian who will either be the primal defender or with its rage based powers will be a primal striker. The druid IMHO will be the primal striker. It has been stated that the druid will have less magic and rely more on its shapechanging abilities. The Shaman will likely be the Primal Leader using nature and spirits to aid, buff and heal
The last 3 classes (I, T, W) wil contain at least 2 divine classes. As we have a defender and leader its likely at least one new role, striker or controller, will be covered. The other class will likely be a 4th primal class or perhaps there will be a 5th divine class.
As has been stated, Paladins are divine defenders not strikers. Defenders well defend, using their high hit points and abilities to draw attacks away from the rest of the group such as fighters. Strikers deal heavy damage to 1 target, like rogues, rangers and warlocks. The controller of which there is currently only the wizard attack wide areas. Finally there are leaders that buff and heal. We now have the warlord and cleric
-I've never been convinced of all of those people comparing 4e to WoW, or a MMORPG, but after reading this, I am convinced.
-I've never been convinced of all of those people comparing 4e to WoW, or a MMORPG, but after reading this, I am convinced.
Not being a Warcraft guy I can't really comment
Not being a Warcraft guy I can't really comment
-I'm not either, but my cousin is, and from watching him play, that sounded like a line right out of a Final Fantasy XI FAQ.
All MMO's did was take what D&D's been doing for years and quantified it.
-The fact that D&D is quantifying it as well, using the terms and strategies, is disturbing.
We're not talking anything new here.
-News to me.
I remember reading an article published in Dragon from years back where the author outright states "You need a Fighter, Cleric, Thief, and Wizard to have a successful adventuring party". It was from before the age of MMO's. This was something we knew even back during AD&D. You needed a Fighter, a Cleric, a Thief, and a Mage.
-Again, news to me. I guess the party I am DMing, that consists of a Samurai, a Bard, and a Rogue, is inherently wrong.
Well not really Karsus. You have a defender, a leader, and a striker. It is pretty much the best 3man party you can get.
-I have two characters that are primarily designed with combat in mind, maxed out in the applicable fighting stats (STR and CON), and a Bard.
-Again, news to me. I guess the party I am DMing, that consists of a Samurai, a Bard, and a Rogue, is inherently wrong.
Would your game suddenly turn into crap because the Samurai is categorized as a Defender and the Bard is categorized as a Leader?
Would your game suddenly turn into crap because the Samurai is categorized as a Defender and the Bard is categorized as a Leader?
yes
Would your game suddenly turn into crap because the Samurai is categorized as a Defender and the Bard is categorized as a Leader?
-Crap, no, but this mischaracterizes these characters: The Samurai does not "defend", and the Bard is not the "lead".
Why?
Because
Well the defender and the leader are just titles. Doesn't the bard inspire, aid and heal the other characters? Doesn't the samurai have good defense and good melee offense? Doesn't the rogue specialize in dealing high amounts of damage on a single target? These are the definitions of the roles.
-Doesn't seem to be the same definitions as stated above:
"Defenders well defend, using their high hit points and abilities to draw attacks away from the rest of the group such as fighters. Strikers deal heavy damage to 1 target, like rogues, rangers and warlocks. The controller of which there is currently only the wizard attack wide areas. Finally there are leaders that buff and heal."
as defenders. I haven't read the 4E PHB but at least in 3.5 a paladin (:cloud9 can be a striker or a defender or to a lesser degree a healer,Depending on PrC and feats. A Fighter could be a skimrisher, striker or defender Again dependin on feats. Same goes for Rangers, Rogues, Clerics, Druids, Monks and let not even count other classes from other books, Now if 4E doesn't give you the Flexibility to do this, That'll be yet another reason NOT to buy it, If it does, then like GK said:"I fail to see what's desturbing about it".
-Doesn't seem to be the same definitions as stated above:
"Defenders well defend, using their high hit points and abilities to draw attacks away from the rest of the group such as fighters. Strikers deal heavy damage to 1 target, like rogues, rangers and warlocks. The controller of which there is currently only the wizard attack wide areas. Finally there are leaders that buff and heal."
Well these are the exact definitions given in the PHB. What you quote is just how people may interpret them.
-Crap, no, but this mischaracterizes these characters: The Samurai does not "defend", and the Bard is not the "lead".
Just because it's called a 'leader', it doesn't mean that that particular character is automatically in charge. Anyway, here're the definitions from the PHB, page 16. Except for one thing, the 'Defender' title characterizes the Samurai pretty accurately.
Defender (Fighter, Paladin)
Defenders have the highest defenses in the game and good close-up offense. They are the party’s front-line combatants; wherever they’re standing, that’s where the action is. Defenders have abilities and powers that make it difficult for enemies to move past them or to ignore them in battle.
Leader (Cleric, Warlord)
Leaders inspire, heal, and aid the other characters in an adventuring group. Leaders have good defenses, but their strength lies in powers that protect their companions and target specific foes for the party to concentrate on.
Clerics and warlords (and other leaders) encourage and motivate their adventuring companions, but just because they fill the leader role doesn’t mean they’re necessarily a group’s spokesperson or commander. The party leader—if the group has one—might as easily be a charismatic warlock or an authoritative paladin. Leaders (the role) fulfill their function through their mechanics; party leaders are born through roleplaying.
Now if 4E doesn't give you the Flexibility to do this, That'll be yet another reason NOT to buy it, If it does, then like GK said: "I fail to see what's desturbing about it".
Depends what you want to do. Do you want to play a Fighter and not be a Defender? Can't do that, as the idea is for you to be able to fulfill your role no matter what. Do you want to play a Fighter and be just as good as a Striker? Can't do that, as you'd essentially be playing two classes. Do you want to play a Defender who's pretty good as a Striker, Leader, or Controller? You can do that. As it says in the PHB, "many classes include limited elements of one or more other roles as well. For example, both the fighter and the paladin are defenders, but the fighter adds some aspects of the striker to his repertoire, while the paladin has some abilities often associated with leaders, such as healing." You can expand even further through the use of some Feats, including multiclass Feats (Sneak of Shadows, for instance, gives you the Thievery skill and Sneak Attack once per encounter).
Depends what you want to do. Do you want to play a Fighter and not be a Defender? Can't do that, as the idea is for you to be able to fulfill your role no matter what. Do you want to play a Fighter and be just as good as a Striker? Can't do that, as you'd essentially be playing two classes. Do you want to play a Defender who's pretty good as a Striker, Leader, or Controller? You can do that. As it says in the PHB, "many classes include limited elements of one or more other roles as well. For example, both the fighter and the paladin are defenders, but the fighter adds some aspects of the striker to his repertoire, while the paladin has some abilities often associated with leaders, such as healing." You can expand even further through the use of some Feats, including multiclass Feats (Sneak of Shadows, for instance, gives you the Thievery skill and Sneak Attack once per encounter).
Actually you can be a fighter that is not a defender it is called a ranger or rogue (striker) or warlord (leader), they use the martial power source and weapons. Regardless of what your class is called, you can take it and call it something else. What, after all, is the difference between a wizard and a mage? If I play a ranger, and call myself a fighter, who is going to argue with me. The base classes are there to define the role you want to play in the party, not the tone of the campaign. Now if we could just get more choices for all the power sources...
And will someone explain to me what is so wrong about introducing elements from MMOs.
RPGs are different and have their own thing going on. There is also a difference in role playing at a table with that interaction then just on a computer screen, where you are much more limited
RPGs are different and have their own thing going on. There is also a difference in role playing at a table with that interaction then just on a computer screen, where you are much more limited
This has nothing to do with rules. Balanced rules in a CRPG will be balanced in an RPG unless there are creative interpretations involved (and this is not the case with this matter).
And yes, some of those people would be horrible roleplayers (too many player killers out there) but some just don't realize how much better table top is, and they would like it as much if not more.
To be honest, I have never played Warcraft or anything like it. The last "computer" type game I played was Madden 01 on my Playstation2. So I am the wrong person to ask about this.
I have read the Warcraft comic and I can see at least a few things that D&D is copying. Such as the druid that is more of a wildshaper than nature priest. I actually kind of like that. Leaving the shaman for the nature spirit cleric role.
(The class was one of my favourites - after mage of course eh eh - in 2nd ed, but I never liked it in 3rd+ :/ Lost it's flavour for me.)
I think what 4e has done with it's classes is make them all more "team" oriented. They work more off of group dynamics than 3e did and I think that's a good thing.
-Maybe that's the part I find unsettling.
If you want to be a solo hero then play a video game. :P
-Don't make me shock you. Or take away your salsa.
-Maybe that's the part I find unsettling.
What's so unsettling about team work or every character doing a certain job really well?
What's so unsettling about team work or every character doing a certain job really well?
-Classes shouldn't be designed with teamwork in mind, with the group dynamic in mind. A fighter class should be designed with the intent that the class is going to be hitting things with his/her/its weapons, and not that this class is going to be "kiting" monsters to allow other classes to avoid injury. A bard class should be designed with the intent of "being a bard", and not being a "battlefield controller", optimally choosing where enemies stand, to maximize the long-range abilities of allies. And so on and so forth.
-That these things happen by virtue of the classes being what they are is fine, but I don't like the idea of classes being designed specifically with these things in mind.
If you want to be a solo hero then play a video game. :P
At most points in MMO RPGs, groups are required. ;)
Well it is a bad design philosophy not to design for group synergy when you are creating a game that is intented for groups.
-That's where I disagree. The game is designed for group play in mind, but this doesn't mean classes need to be designed to play off of the group synergy (I like that term).
-That's where I disagree. The game is designed for group play in mind, but this doesn't mean classes need to be designed to play off of the group synergy (I like that term).
No one says you have to synergize with your group. If you want to be a fighter that rushes head-long into the battle with the sole intent to demolish opponents, nothings stopping you from doing that. You might, however, die because you have no back up or rush into something that overpowers you without the support of your leader, striker, and controller. 4e only helps group synergy to become more of a role in D&D.
At most points in MMO RPGs, groups are required.
This is true, but I feel that's a good thing. I get a better feeling of accomplishment when everyone does their part in participating to overcome an encounter instead of 1 or 2 PCs gaining all the spotlight.
No one says you have to synergize with your group. If you want to be a fighter that rushes head-long into the battle with the sole intent to demolish opponents, nothings stopping you from doing that. You might, however, die because you have no back up or rush into something that overpowers you without the support of your leader, striker, and controller. 4e only helps group synergy to become more of a role in D&D.
-Right, but designing the class with the synergies in mind, again, is "guiding your hand".
-Right, but designing the class with the synergies in mind, again, is "guiding your hand".
And that's bad how? Nothing's different now than it was, they just put more emphasis on those roles. A fighter always attacked with his weapons against foes, clerics heal, rogues use trickery, deception, and tactical maneuvering to be effective, and wizards large repertoire of area spells helps control the battle field. The difference now is that it's more focused on those roles to be more effective.
And that's bad how? Nothing's different now than it was, they just put more emphasis on those roles. A fighter always attacked with his weapons against foes, clerics heal, rogues use trickery, deception, and tactical maneuvering to be effective, and wizards large repertoire of area spells helps control the battle field. The difference now is that it's more focused on those roles to be more effective.
-Because, to repeat myself...
-Classes shouldn't be designed with teamwork in mind, with the group dynamic in mind. A fighter class should be designed with the intent that the class is going to be hitting things with his/her/its weapons, and not that this class is going to be "kiting" monsters to allow other classes to avoid injury. A bard class should be designed with the intent of "being a bard", and not being a "battlefield controller", optimally choosing where enemies stand, to maximize the long-range abilities of allies. And so on and so forth.
-That these things happen by virtue of the classes being what they are is fine, but I don't like the idea of classes being designed specifically with these things in mind.
-Can you give an example of design philosophy identifying and limiting group tactics beforehand? As in, how would this be done?
Well when you make the synergies more obvious for once. Striker damage takes into account how the leaders can improve their chance to hit or damage and how the defenders and controllers can lower the defenses of the mob. Buffs are created so that they share a similar power level across classes. Mobility effects take into account how mobility increases the defense of ranged attackers and improves the positioning of melee attackers. It is complicated, certainly, but when a class' damage output and survivability is designed as a function of the above instead of being balanced strictly to what other classes have at similar level, it allows for classes who synergize better to have somewhat reduced personal output so they do not overperform through synergies.
For instance, if you design a rogue considering how he performs alone in the battlefield you are missing the massive positioning advantage a fighter or warlord can provide him which would increase his damage output by a lot. If you designed him to work alone he would either overperform or he would have no use for the synergies since he could manage to achieve the positioning he needs solely by his own power. That would make people play as individuals on the table rather than a group, which is not in the spirit of the game.
That would make people play as individuals on the table rather than a group, which is not in the spirit of the game.
-We just disagree here. Players play as a group, always, but characters don't necessarily.
-That said, the thought processes going into class creation you gave me some insight on...Interesting stuff.
-I got the gist of it, though. ;)