# Pre-Release Review of Heroes of Shadow by Wizards of the Coast



## Neuroglyph (Apr 6, 2011)

Early last August, at _GenCon 2010_, members of the *Wizards of the Coast *R&D Department, along with writers from the Design and Development team, hosted the *Product Preview Seminar*. And during that standing-room-only seminar, Bill Slavicsek announced that in 2011, there would be a new D&D Player’s Option book – *Heroes of Shadow* – which would allow character to select powers and feats with from the _shadow_ power-source to enhance their D&D 4E characters.

Yesterday, I was fortunate enough to receive an advanced copy of *Player’s Option: Heroes of Shadow* in order to work up a review, and I have been up all night (literally!) perusing the new 4E content. According to the _Official WotC Press Release_, not only will this book be released on April 19th, but its contents and material will be available the _SAME DAY_ in the web-based tools accessible to *DDI Subscribers*:
Additionally, for the first time, D&D Insider subscribers will be able to access _Heroes of Shadow_ content on the new web-based *D&D Character Builder* the same day as the book release. D&D players who are then willing to take a walk on the dark side with their Heroes of Shadow character can bring them to the next season of *D&D Encounters*, _The Dark Legacy of Evard_, and experience the deadly secrets of the master of shadow magic. 
​*So the real question is*: What new content do D&D 4E gamers have to look forward to with this new *Player’s Option: Heroes of Shadow *release?


*Player’s Option: Heroes of Shadow*


Authors: Mike Mearls, Claudio Pozas, Robert J. Schwalb
Cover Illustrator: Christopher Moeller (front), Ben Wooten (back)
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast
Year: 2011
Media: Hardbound (160 pages)
Retail Cost: $29.95 ($18.95 from [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Players-Option-Heroes-Shadow-Supplement/dp/078695745X/ref=as_li_wdgt_fl_ex?&camp=212361&creative=383961&linkCode=waf&tag=neurogames-20"]*Amazon.com*[/ame])
*Player’s Option: Heroes of Shadow* is a 4th Edition D&D supplement which explores using powers, feats, and other options to allow characters to tap into the _shadow_ power-source to add a dark edge to their fantasy role-playing experience. This *D&D Essentials* sourcebook introduces four new character classes and builds – Assassin (_Executioner_), Paladin (_Blackguard_), Vampire, and Warlock (_Binder_) - as well as _shadow_-based power options for existing Essentials characters – Cleric (_Death Domain_), Warlock (_Gloom Pact_), and Wizard (_Shadow Magic_ Powers, _Necromancy_ & _Nethermancy_ Schools). *Heroes of Shadow* also provides an update to a Shadowfell-native player race (_Revenant_), and introduces two new playable races – _Shades_ and _Vryloka_. Additional role-playing and background material is provided for other player races who dwell in the Shadowfell, including locales, organizations, and history for those born in this gloomy realm. *Heroes of Shadow* comes with ten new Paragon Paths, four new Epic Destinies, and a selection of 20 new Feats for use with characters who hail from the Shadowfell, or who have dabbled too much in soul-tainting _shadow magic_.


*Production Quality*
The production quality of *Player’s Option: Heroes of Shadow* is exceptional, with information revealed in a logical progression, sharp and exciting writing, and material presented in a format readily useful by D&D Essentials players. 

Surprisingly, *Player’s Option: Heroes of Shadow* did not continue to use the smaller trade paperback style in which the previous “Heroes of…” players books were released. In dimensions, *Heroes of Shadow* resembles the Traditional D&D 4E supplements like *Martial Powers* and *Arcane Powers* – although personally, I liked the smaller format books, and can easily stuff my copy of the *Rules Compendium* into the front of my laptop bag for easy portability to game sessions. 

The artwork in *Heroes of Shadow* is a combination of some great pieces we have seen before from sources like *Dragon Magazine* and *Monster Manual*, along with some new and really stunning illustrations that evoke the new shadow magic powers, the classes and races of the Shadowfell. Overall, the illustrations work to really enhance the Reader’s experience, and I think the art directors did a splendid job selecting the right pieces for this book.


*The Player’s Options*
Heroes of Shadow is divided into four chapters, each chapter touching on a different aspect of building a character tainted (or blessed?) by the power of the Shadowfell:


*Chapter 1: Into the Dark* – a short introduction to the the Shadowfell, shadow magic and other related topics.
*Chapter 2: Shadow Classes* – contains the new Essentials classes and class-options for designing shadowy player-characters.
*Chapter 3: Races of Shadow* – detailing the new Shadowfell races, as well as pole-play options for other races born in the shadow realm.
*Chapter 4: Shadow Options* – discusses new Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, Feats, and a few new pieces of Equipment.
Chapter 1: Into the Dark
This is a really short chapter introducing readers to the nature of the shadow magic and the _shadow_ power-source, and how they are often sought for by player-characters. Small excerpts of this material was provided on the official WotC D&D site back on March 7th, and you can read a selection of it *here*. The Shadowfell itself, along with its major city of Gloomwrought, are also touched on here, albeit briefly, undoubtedly to whet gamers’ appetites for the upcoming release of [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Shadowfell-Gloomwrought-Dungeons-Dragons-Supplement/dp/0786958480/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302076676&sr=8-1"]The Shadowfell: Gloowrought and Beyond[/ame] - due out in May!


Chapter 2: Shadow Classes
It will come as no surprise that this chapter on Shadow Classes takes up the largest percentage of pages in *Heroes of Shadow *– over 100 pages of this 160 page book is devoted to just new Essentials classes, builds, and class power options! But while there is definitely some exciting new content, I do not necessarily see eye-to-eye with all of the Dev Teams design concepts for these new Essentials classes/builds.

For instance, the Essentials Assassin class, the _Executioner_, has changed little from the martial-powered, poison-using character that was introduced as a play-test in Dragon #391, although it is still a very nice option for players who want to portray a ninja in D&D 4E. Oddly, the Dev Team did little to increase the number of Executioner’s _shadow_-based powers, so this class actually has a much smaller percentage of overall _shadow_ keyword abilities than does its Traditional 4E parent class, the original Assassin. Of course, as *Heroes of Shadow* is all Essentials content, so the original 4E Assassin is not supported at all by this book.

However, the new Paladin Essentials class, the _Blackguard_, is a fantastic design idea - and were I to play in a D&D Essentials game after this books official release, I would not hesitate to roll one up! I know there were some D&D gamers skeptical of changing a Defender class into a Striker class, but the cross-over is handled very well, and there are plenty of really good _crunch_ as well as _fluff_ reasons to consider a playing a Blackguard –whether it is as a fallen paladin, or as a more evil-bent death-knight like character. The idea that a Blackguard embraces one of two _Vices_ to draw their power from – _Domination_ or _Fury_ – was quite evocative of the mythology created for Star Wars, particularly in relation to the nature of the Sith. In essence, the Blackguard is much like a Sith Lord, as opposed to a Paladin, which is more like Jedi Knight. And it would be hard to argue that a character like Darth Maul is not a pure Striker, compare to a Jedi Knight like Obi-Wan.

Sadly, the new _Vampire_ class is by far my least favorite, both in design and execution. Although I read the *Design & Development article* posted this morning about the class, I still have a Dungeon Master’s innate dislike of a character class which is basically nothing more than a player-controlled monster. The _Vampire_’s basic abilities of _darkvision_, _regeneration_, and _resistance_ to necrotic damage make it feel over-powered right from Level 1. Add to that the ability to gain _healing surges_ and then expend for added damage and bonuses, an encounter _flight_ form by Level 6, _domination_ by Level 9, and an _insubstantial_-_phasing_ form by Level 10, and I think all you have is a Dungeon Master’s worst nightmare sitting across the game screen! 

The last new Essentials class – the Warlock’s _Binder_ build – is nicely conceived class, and is comparable in some ways to the Summoner-build for the Traditional 4E Wizard. The Dev Team designed the _Binder_ to summon and bind powers from either the shadow realms (Gloom Pact) or the Far Realms (Star Pact), and they actually gain a summoned creature to fight for them at 9th and 25th levels. The creatures have unique stat blocks depending upon their origin (Gloom Pact – _Shadow Lurk_ and _Gloom Beast_ / Star Pact – _Soul Eater_ and _Doom Hulk_), and should be very handy servants in a big combat. Although any Warlock can take powers from the two dozen new pacts’ powers, the _Binder_ is specifically designed to make the most of these dark spells.

Other classes are also given new options in this chapter, so that Clerics, Warlocks and Hexblades, Wizards and Mages, all can find something new to add to their class powers from the realm of the Shadowfell. 

For Essentials Clerics, there are 17 new daily and utility powers available, designed for the servants of darker gods, granting them powers like _Inflict Wounds_ (Level 1), _Drain Life_ (Level 15), and _Death Shield_ (Level 22) - not to mention a new set of Death Domain powers. There are 9 new Warlock powers available to any pact, plus a new set of separate pact powers (Gloom Pact) for the Hexblade.

But Wizards and Mages gain substantial power when pursuing shadow-magic studies, and have over three dozen new powers of all types – at-wills, encounters, and dailies – to add a darker edge to their arcane castings. Many of these have names of familiar spells from older editions of Dungeons & Dragons such as _Ray of Fatigue_, _Darklight_, _Wall of Gloom_, and _Enervation_. But what I really liked were the new powers from the Necromancy and Nethermancy Schools, and the care that the Dev Team went to make them distinctive from each other. I think that separating the ability to raise and control undead and undead-like powers (Necromancy) should be kept separate from the use of shadow power in one’s arcane spells (Nethermancy). It should be noted that the famous old wizard, Evard, makes his debut in 4E as a nethermancer, and several new powers are attributed to his name.


Chapter 3: Races of Shadow
In this chapter, several races are given extensive histories for how they came to live, and continue to exist for generations – with some notable alterations – in the glooms of the Shadowfell. These include dwarves, halflings, humans, elves, and eladrin, and there are some exciting background _fluff_ material to create characters which have their origins in shadow. But there are three races which are given extensive write-ups in this chapter, detailing not only _fluff_ material, but considerable _crunch_ as well – the _Revenant_, _Shade_, and _Vryloka_.

For those already playing a Traditional D&D 4E character, the Revenant has been part of the *D&D Insider* exclusive content since 2009, and the version appearing in *Heroes of Shadow* differs very little from that original race. The only notable exception is that players will now be able to choose between Charisma or Constitution for their character’s secondary attribute +2 bonus. On the other hand, the Shade and the Vryloka are completely new races selectable for D&D Essentials characters.

The Shade was first introduced as a monster in AD&D’s *Monster Manual II*, and later made into the game as a playable race in the *Forgotten Realms Setting* under 3.5 edition rules. This new Essentials player race does bear some notable similarities to the monster of old 1st Edition, being able to manipulate shadows to their advantage, and having amazing skills at stealth. Unlike Shades from previous editions, they do not suffer deceasing levels in their abilities when subjected to increasing intensities of light, but they do retain a number of powers to manipulate shadows - portrayed as racial utility powers which can be substituted for class utilities.

The Vryloka is another variant of a monster from previous editions of D&D, and it debuted as a vampire known as the _vrykolaka_ back in old AD&D’s Dragon #125. This new playable race is a potent half-vampire exhibiting traits of both humans and undead blood-drinkers. Like the Shade, the Vryloka has a number of racial utility powers which can be substituted for class utilities, ranging from assuming the form of a wolf (_Bloodwolf Form_), or flying as a bat (_Crimson Wings_), or even raise a dead comrade (_Vryloka Bloodbond_) – although this latter ability will cause a human character to become a Vryloka as well!

Although I really liked these two new character classes, there was one oddity which I noted in this chapter of *Heroes of Shadow* - both the Shade and the Vryloka have a selection of Racial Utility Powers, but the Revenant was not given any as part of their expanded racial description. Although all three new player races have been given extensive role-playing development (ie. fluff), the lack of Racial Utility Powers for the Revenant makes it feel just a little bit unfinished. I can only assume that the Dev Team decided not to make too many changes to an already existing character race, to avoid problems for Traditional 4E players who choose to make use of the Essentials options in *Heroes of Shadow*.


Chapter 4: Character Options
The final chapter of *Heroes of Shadow* offers not only new Feats for characters, but advanced options for higher level D&D Essentials play, including new Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. There are a wide range of Paragon Paths in *Heroes of Shadow*, with several that focus on arcane classes wielding shadow magic and illusions. 

There are a couple of interesting exceptions to this, such as the _Nocturnal_, a primal-based Path invoking wild night-predator powers, and the _Veiled Master_ which is a Path for martial artists who have learned to fight in complete darkness. The old 3.5 Prestige Class, the Shadowdancer, has been given new life as an Essentials Paragon Path of the same name (_Shadow Dancer_), which relies on moving and teleporting between shadows. And one Path I found intriguing was the _Ravenkin_, designed for a character that has come to the notice of the Raven Queen and is followed by a shadow raven familiar with potent powers.

The four Epic Destinies discussed in *Heroes of Shadow* have particularly strong ties to the Shadowfell, or the Raven Queen, and might not fit well in all campaigns. But still, they offer some unique opportunities for the highest level characters to become defenders of the Shadowfell, protectors of lost souls, or even commanders of the vast host of the Raven Queen’s armies!

Of the 20 new Feats in Heroes of Shadow, obviously there is going to be a bit of overlap between these Essentials feats and already available Traditional 4E feats. For instance, the three race specific feats for the Revenant already exist in 4E – _Dark Feasting_, _Empowered Reaping_, and _Past Soul_. There are a number of new feats, however, including a new feat to grant shadow-origin to characters – called _Born of Shadow_. Traditional 4E gamers might find that this feat is similar to the already existing Multiclass Feat, _Haunting Shade_. Being a multi-class feat, _Haunting Shade_ has pre-requisites and is more powerful, than _Born of Shadow_, but the latter has the advantage of no pre-requisites and is itself a pre-requisite for five additional new feats. Taken as a group, these new _Shadowborn_ Feats allow players to feel a firm connection to the Shadowfell. 

Another interesting selection of new feats, dubbed as _Ghostwise_ – no relation to Halfling tribes, by the way – offer characters exceptional ability to deal with non-corporeal beings (_Ghost Eyes_ and _Ghost Scorpion Strike_), and to make themselves insubstantial for a round upon spending an Action Point (_Spectral Step_). All the feats in *Heroes of Shadow* have great flavor as well as usefulness, and I liked how the Dev Team grouped the feats to make selection an easier task.

Finally, the last chapter concludes with four new quasi-mystical pieces of adventuring gear – _Blessed Soil_, _Ghoul Candle_, _Poisoner’s Kit_, and _Raven’s Feather_. These items are inexpensive (10 gp and 25 gp) and perform minor magical functions useful to adventurers. _Blessed Soil_, for instance, prevents undead from rising from graves over which it has been sprinkled, while a _Poisoner’s Kit_ is a self-explanatory piece of gear needed for the Assassin (Executioner) to make his toxins. The _Raven’s Feather_ is a really nifty role-playing item that turns from black to red when the person to which they are attuned dies – the mystical feather could easily find its way into an adventure as an interesting plot device, or a warning! 

*Overall Grade: A-*

*Conclusions*
With only a few exceptions, there is simply some amazing and exciting new content contained in the pages of *Player’s Option: Heroes of Shadow*. For D&D players who participate in pure D&D Essentials campaigns, or in “kitchen-sink” campaigns where 4E material from any source is allowed (Traditional and Essentials), there is no doubt that this book easily qualifies in the _must-have_ category! The book does an excellent job of bringing a dark edge to the powers for a wide variety of character classes, linking their destinies to the Shadowfell and shadow-magic. Without a doubt, players of almost any skill level should have no trouble in developing anti-heroes and tragically-cursed champions to portray in their D&D campaigns.

In closing, however, while I cannot deny that *Heroes of Shadow* is a great book for Essentials D&D gaming, I still find myself extremely disappointed over this new Player’s Option book - because of what it lacks for gamers who want to maintain their Traditional D&D 4E campaigns. For those of us – and I include myself here – who choose not to play a pure Essentials campaign, and have no interest in a “kitchen sink” campaign content philosophy, this book offers nothing but a few pages of _fluff_ material about the Shadowfell, and very little else.

During the _Product Preview Seminar_ at GenCon 2010, *Heroes of Shadow* was promised as an option’s book for “Core players” after the *ten* Essentials products have been published over the last quarter of 2010, and this clearly is not the case. It makes me very uncomfortable as a D&D gamer to look at all the facts – but given that all content exclusive to Traditional 4E has now been removed from the calendar for this year - and given the fact that *Heroes of Shadow* has been published with 100% Essentials content - it is extremely hard not to find the situation very similar to how *Wizards of the Coast* released 3.5 D&D to replace 3rd Edition back – just three years after 3.0 had been released. I would like to think this is a coincidence of timing, seeing as how 4E is almost three years old itself, but it is pretty apparent from *Heroes of Shadow* that Traditional 4E gamers are not going to see any new content anytime soon – unless they choose to just give up, and accept the new Essentials content into their campaigns.

_So until the next review… I wish you Happy Gaming!_

*Grade Card*


*Presentation*: A
- Design: A
- Illustrations: A+
*Content*: B+ 
- Crunch: B+
- Fluff: A-
*Value*: A-


----------



## Aramalian (Apr 6, 2011)

Pole-play options. Those are the best.


----------



## Matt James (Apr 6, 2011)

Great review. Thanks for putting it up!


----------



## e4Mafia (Apr 6, 2011)

Can I ask a question? (No snark intended) The new classes and variants shown, do they list powers in such a form as "Cleric Attack Level x"? or are they specifically not level listed in their titles? Thats the only thing that would make them "Essentials Only" in my opinion. If its got a level next to it, then _any_ Cleric can use it.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 6, 2011)

It sounds like a good book. I think it's great if the worst nerdrage provoked by it is about whether it feels more like a 'traditional 4e' book or an 'essentials 4e' book. If it's balanced, flavorful, and the options inside are fun, I'll buy it.


----------



## deinol (Apr 6, 2011)

I don't get the comment about "kitchen sink". Isn't PHB 2 or PHB 3 "kitchen sink"? Maybe I'm used to a different definition, but I thought "kitchen sink" campaigns throw all available races/classes/options together. Hasn't that been 4E's philosophy from the beginning? That "everything is core" and player options shouldn't be limited?

I'm also not sure what makes new powers "essentials" instead of "traditional"? If they didn't tell you the new builds were "essentials", would you have noticed the difference between the binder build and a build from arcane power X?


----------



## Klaus (Apr 6, 2011)

Glad you liked the book, Neuroglyph!

BTW, the original text of the Ghostwise feats stated that the name originated among halflings, and was quickly appropriated for all who "see dead people".


----------



## davidgiven (Apr 6, 2011)

Great review! Thank you for getting this up so quickly...

Can you provide more detail on what "some notable alterations" occur to halflings who live in the Shadowfell? I find this idea very very interesting!

> Retail Cost: $29.95 ($18.95 from Amazon.com )
Also, I think we have been over this before, but why are we linking to Amazon & not our FLGS [or some online equivalent]?


----------



## lkj (Apr 6, 2011)

e4Mafia said:


> Can I ask a question? (No snark intended) The new classes and variants shown, do they list powers in such a form as "Cleric Attack Level x"? or are they specifically not level listed in their titles? Thats the only thing that would make them "Essentials Only" in my opinion. If its got a level next to it, then _any_ Cleric can use it.




Indeed. I'm a bit confused by the review as well. My understanding is that any build of a given class can take the powers available to it. The only Essentials--restricted stuff would be class features that aren't explicitly powers.

Since the reviewer mentions there are a number of new powers, how are these essentials only?

Is there some restriction listed in the power that only allows essentials classes to take them? A pre-req or something?

If not, I think the review is a bit misleading and might merit a correction.

AD


----------



## Truename (Apr 6, 2011)

lkj said:


> Indeed. I'm a bit confused by the review as well. My understanding is that any build of a given class can take the powers available to it. The only Essentials--restricted stuff would be class features that aren't explicitly powers.
> 
> Since the reviewer mentions there are a number of new powers, how are these essentials only?
> 
> ...




Agreed. There was this constant angry drumbeating of "This is an Essentials-only book" that really soured me on the review. Since that doesn't match what I've heard from other sources, it made me feel like I couldn't really trust the reviewer.

I'm looking forward to hearing from someone who doesn't have so much anti-Essentials angst.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 6, 2011)

deinol said:


> I don't get the comment about "kitchen sink". Isn't PHB 2 or PHB 3 "kitchen sink"? Maybe I'm used to a different definition, but I thought "kitchen sink" campaigns throw all available races/classes/options together. Hasn't that been 4E's philosophy from the beginning? That "everything is core" and player options shouldn't be limited?





I'm fascinated by this semantic discussion.  Do you understand "everything is core" to mean that someone running the game must-have or must-allow everything rather than someone running the game can rest assured that everything produced is balanced enough that they _can allow_ it if they wish?  Obviously, "kitchen sink" refers to a game that _does_ allow everything but your post (and several below your post) seem to suggest that "kitchen sink" is a foregone conclusion.


----------



## lkj (Apr 7, 2011)

Truename said:


> Agreed. There was this constant angry drumbeating of "This is an Essentials-only book" that really soured me on the review. Since that doesn't match what I've heard from other sources, it made me feel like I couldn't really trust the reviewer.
> 
> I'm looking forward to hearing from someone who doesn't have so much anti-Essentials angst.




Yes. And looking at the review again, it looks like there are dozens of new powers. If these really are restricted to Essentials classes, I'd really like to know. If not, then there appears to be a substantial amount of material for the 'traditional' classes.

AD


----------



## deinol (Apr 7, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I'm fascinated by this semantic discussion.  Do you understand "everything is core" to mean that someone running the game must-have or must-allow everything rather than someone running the game can rest assured that everything produced is balanced enough that they _can allow_ it if they wish?  Obviously, "kitchen sink" refers to a game that _does_ allow everything but your post (and several below your post) seem to suggest that "kitchen sink" is a foregone conclusion.




I totally agree with you.

What I was trying to find out is: what makes a supplement any more "kitchen sink" than another supplement? WotC produces books that provide new options. How many of those options are included is up to the GM. How is this book more "kitchen sink" than every other book produced by WotC past PHB 1?

As far as I can tell it is a supplement like any other.


----------



## gyor (Apr 7, 2011)

I find it funny that many people were afraid the vampire class was too fragile and the one guy who has actually seen it fears it will be too powerful.

The Vryloka powers sound awesome, especially bloodbond. Resurrection with a shadow twist.

The comments on the blackguard made me curious about the rest of the blackguards features and powers.

Binders sound interesting and I hope they come out with a vestige binder. It could summon some of the vestige based creatures from tome of magic I beleave it was?

The Hexblade gloom pact will get to summon a seperate set of shadow creatures.

I hope there will be other reviews soon.


----------



## AntlerDruid (Apr 7, 2011)

gyor said:


> Binders sound interesting and I hope they come out with a vestige binder. It could summon some of the vestige based creatures from tome of magic I beleave it was?




Yeah eagerly waiting to see full Binder 

I am wondering if Binder has a secondary stat like other warlocks - if so, what stat?


----------



## Neuroglyph (Apr 7, 2011)

The first thing that indicates this being an Essentials book is the back cover, which states:
_Player&#8217s Option: Heroes of Shadow_ is aimed at players who are ready to reach beyond the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials books, _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_ and _Heroes of Forgotten Kingdoms_.

For use with these Dungeons & Dragons Essentials Products: _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_, _Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms_, _Rules Compendium_​Also, the name itself was a dead giveaway, as a Traditional 4E book would have probably been called "Shadow Powers" rather than "Heroes of Shadow".

But what really makes "Heroes of Shadow" an Essentials product is  in the class design and structure - the four classes presented, as well  as the class options like the new Death Domain, were designed using the format seen in the other  "Heroes of..." books: melee classes were given a limited number of  power options, while casters had their choice from a plethora of spell-like  powers. 

The Essentials design structure differs from the Traditional 4E  character "chassis" by limiting the actions of melee characters and  reducing the number and choices of their daily attack powers.  For example, by level 10, the Executioner being pure melee has no daily attack powers at all; the Blackguard as a melee/caster mix has two daily attack powers, while the Vampire and Binder have the three dailies that a Traditional 4E character would have.  The Assassin (Executioner) has a daily-like power, in that they can prepare three vials of poison from a short list of four poisons they have learned by 10th level.

The other Essentials design concept is to limit choices when creating a character to make the process faster and more streamlined for _new_ D&D 4E players.  As an example, when creating a 10th Level Vampire and selecting powers, a player is allowed to make only one choice: at Level 2, they can choose between two encounter utilities - that is all the choices on powers that a Vampire is given.  Other classes have similar limitations, being able to make selections between 2-3 powers at certain Levels.

While it is true that the Dev Team has stated that Traditional 4E characters may use feats and powers from Essentials interchangeably, that fact does not transform this book into Traditional 4E content.  This book has a lot of great material in it, and my grade card showed that I respected and even liked most of the content - as a reviewer, I was able to take a step back and looked at it objectively.  But it was still designed under Essentials parameters and labeled on its back cover as Essentials -which makes it an Essentials source book.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 7, 2011)

My verdict of the review is: more review, less propaganda next time. Even if I were anti-essentials, I would much rather have had a concrete count of how much material is usable in a pressentials* game than a "wizards are ruining 4e with essentials" rant.

*pre-essentials. Or is there some other word for it?


----------



## lkj (Apr 7, 2011)

Neuroglyph said:


> The first thing that indicates this being an Essentials book is the back cover, which states . . . <snip>.




I don't have a problem with your pointing out that the class design for new classes is 'essentials' rather than 'traditional'.

I take issue with statements like 

"_For those of us who choose not to play a pure Essentials campaign  . . . this book offers nothing but a few pages of fluff material about the Shadowfell, and very little else."_

And:

_"During the Product Preview Seminar at GenCon 2010, Heroes of Shadow was promised as an option’s book for “Core players” after the ten Essentials products have been published over the last quarter of 2010, and this clearly is not the case."_

Neither statement appears to be true given that feats, powers and items are all available for a non-essentials game. Furthermore, I have a sneaking suspicion that at least some and possibly most of the paragon paths and epic destinies are available to non-essential classes as well. 

In short, it seems this book provides a plethora of options for 'traditional' players. And this seems to jive quite well with what was stated at the product seminar.

The fact that the new classes follow the essentials design philosophy does not make every other piece of material in the book 'essentialized' and unusable by traditional campaigns. The same can be said of the text on the back of the book, which could just as easily be put on the back of Players Handbook 3 (looking for options beyond the essentials books? Look no further)

I do realize you liked the book and gave it a good review. However, I was given the distinct impression from the review that there was almost nothing in the book that was usable by someone not playing essentials classes. That strikes me as very misleading. To be honest, it doesn't seem much different than what we saw with the other Power books you mention, where new builds (albeit in traditional format) were presented; the new powers were flavored to work with the new builds; but almost everything was available for other builds. I don't really see much different in this book from what you've described. 

I'm sure you didn't intend to be misleading. And I don't mean to come across as accusatory. But I do use these sorts of reviews in assessing my purchase choices, and I found myself confused about what was in the book (e.g., from the review it appeared that feats, powers etc. weren't available to non-essentials classes). 

Anyway. I do appreciate the review. Even if I have a fairly major quibble.

Cheers,
AD


----------



## Walking Dad (Apr 7, 2011)

gyor said:


> I find it funny that many people were afraid the vampire class was too fragile and the one guy who has actually seen it fears it will be too powerful.
> ...



And didn't mention that 2 HS are a big disadvantage...



lkj said:


> Yes. And looking at the review again, it looks like  there are dozens of new powers. If these really are restricted to  Essentials classes, I'd really like to know. If not, then there appears  to be a substantial amount of material for the 'traditional' classes.
> 
> AD



Related questions:
Are all warlock powers Cha based?
Are all paladin powers Str based?
Are all cleric powers Wis based?



> _Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow_ is aimed at players who are ready to reach beyond the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials books, _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_ and _Heroes of Forgotten Kingdoms_.
> 
> For use with these Dungeons & Dragons Essentials Products: _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_, _Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms_, _Rules Compendium_




I have to post this in some threads


----------



## OnlineDM (Apr 7, 2011)

Is there anything that limits the Vryloka or Shade races to Essentials classes? I can't imagine that there is.

And when it comes to new classes, it sounds like the author feels that "no dailies or limited dailies" is what makes a class "Essentialized." From that definition, it sounds like the Executioner is an Essentials class, the Blackguard is a semi-Essentials class, and the Vampire and Binder are full-on traditional classes.

So, the book presents two classes for non-Essentials players, two new races (and one old race) for non-Essentials players, plus the fluff and feats for non-Essentials players, and a bunch of powers for certain non-Essentials classes like the Wizard, Cleric and Warlock. We don't know yet how flexible the paragon paths and epic destinies are for non-Essentials classes, but I'm guessing that some of them will be fine.

Which sounds to me like the book is pretty much as the author mentioned WotC saying it would be at GenCon - plenty of material for non-Essentials players, and plenty of material for Essentials-only or "kitchen sink" players.

I'm really confused by that part of this review. Is it really Essentials because the back cover refers to the Essentials books rather than the PHBs? If there are tons of options for players who only have the PHBs, this seems like a good hybrid book to me.

I guess I lose at Edition Wars, because I just don't understand the controversy.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 7, 2011)

> The _Vampire_'s basic abilities of _darkvision_, _regeneration_, and _resistance_ to necrotic damage make it feel over-powered right from Level 1.




I've seen darkvision. Regen is on shifters already. And I've seen resistance on more than a few PCs - but vulnerability on none.



> Add to that the ability to gain _healing surges_




After starting with 2/day.



> an encounter _flight_ form by Level 6,




My Monk's been able to fly since Level 2.



> _domination_ by Level 9,




Only four levels behind my old Bard.



> For those of us and I include myself here who choose not to play a pure Essentials campaign, and have no interest in a kitchen sink campaign content philosophy, this book offers nothing but a few pages of _fluff_ material about the Shadowfell, and very little else.




I don't see why Blackguards and Executioners couldn't fit into _any_ campaign. Or Binders if you allow Warlocks at all. The executioner is a stealthy martial killer with just a touch of illusionary magic - I can see no valid fluff reason to keep one out. So other than two entire new classes, a new warlock build, and a large handful of paladin, cleric, warlock and wizard powers - and a few feats (Ki Focus Expertise, Holy Symbol Expertise) and a handful of paragon paths, what does it have to offer 4e DMs who don't play kitchen sink? More than _Psionic Power_ does for starters. And I could make a strong case for more than both of the PHB3 and Primal Power.



> For example, by level 10, the Executioner being pure melee has no daily attack powers at all




Except the poisons. Which are dailies and mechanically work out as dailies - they are just presented slightly differently than traditional stances or forms or daily attacks. Doesn't mean that they are anything other than ordinary dailies. (Now if you were to go after _Assassins' Strike...)_


----------



## Walking Dad (Apr 7, 2011)

OnlineDM said:


> Is there anything that limits the Vryloka or Shade races to Essentials classes? I can't imagine that there is.
> 
> And when it comes to new classes, it sounds like the author feels that "no dailies or limited dailies" is what makes a class "Essentialized." From that definition, it sounds like the Executioner is an Essentials class, the Blackguard is a semi-Essentials class, and the Vampire and Binder are full-on traditional classes.



No, mages have no limited dailies and the only classes without dailies a some of ones with only the 'martial' power source.



> So, the book presents two classes for non-Essentials players, two new races (and one old race) for non-Essentials players, plus the fluff and feats for non-Essentials players, and a bunch of powers for certain non-Essentials classes like the Wizard, Cleric and Warlock.



Actually the Wis Cleric, Str Paladins and the Con warlock (the rest only if you also include ability-less utilities).



> We don't know yet how flexible the paragon paths and epic destinies are for non-Essentials classes, but I'm guessing that some of them will be fine.



I'm sure of this as well.



> Which sounds to me like the book is pretty much as the author mentioned WotC saying it would be at GenCon - plenty of material for non-Essentials players, and plenty of material for Essentials-only or "kitchen sink" players.



 plenty of material _compatible_ for non-Essentials players



> I'm really confused by that part of this review. Is it really Essentials because the back cover refers to the Essentials books rather than the PHBs? If there are tons of options for players who only have the PHBs, this seems like a good hybrid book to me.



Yes, when the publisher says it is a support product for specific book, it usually means at least that you need these books to fully use the supplement.
Seems to be the case, so good call, Wizards.



> I guess I lose at Edition Wars, because I just don't understand the controversy.



I love to use essentials and other together. But they clearly don't mention not-essential books on the back-cover. Doesn't mean it is not compatible, but for me that is was made with primarily essentials in mind (which is 95% compatible wit pre-essentials stuff).


----------



## OnlineDM (Apr 7, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> No, mages have no limited dailies and the only classes without dailies a some of ones with only the 'martial' power source.




I'm completely confused now. What are people worried about when they say that a book is "for Essentials" then? It's just about marketing rather than content?

I think it only matters because some people (such as the author of this review) do not allow "Essentials" content in their games. Where do they draw the line? Obviously they are not allowing Heroes of the Fallen Lands / Forgotten Kingdoms, but it sounds like they're also excluding Heroes of Shadow now.

I know that some people don't like the "simplified" martial classes from Essentials, so I can understand them saying that those are not going to be part of their games. But why not the Mage or Warpriest - are they tainted by association?

And given that, why not the Binder or Vampire classes or the Shade or Vryloka races (other than flavor reasons, which I can understand)? Is it just a statement against the marketing of these books? Or is there a mechanical issue with these books?

If the PHB1 were reprinted with its original crunch (fighters with dailies, etc.) and incorporated errata but with Essentials branding on the cover, would it be disallowed at these tables? Do these tables disallow the Warlord now because WotC has put out a reformatted version of the class but with no mechanical changes?

I can completely understand not allowing certain content for mechanical or flavor reasons, but this sounds like excluding content for marketing reasons, which feels bizarre to me.


----------



## Neuroglyph (Apr 7, 2011)

I am a bit chagrined that so many readers of my review felt that the last two paragraphs - placed strategically _after_ my positive closing remarks about *Heroes of Shadow* - somehow invalidated the review or ruined their experience of finding out about this book.  To those gamers, I apologize, but would remind them, however, that a reviewer is nothing more than a guy with opinions, and they will not always agree with their own.

I still stand by my statement in saying that this book is designed more with Essentials in mind than Traditional (pre-Essentials) D&D 4E.  While one could use the Paragon Paths, Races, Feats and Powers with Traditional 4E - all Essentials material can be used that way - it does not change the fact that the format was designed more like the "_*Heroes of...*_" books and not the "_*... Powers*_" books.

In fact, one of the reasons that I included the poll at the top of the page is to find out what percentage of gamers were playing with all 4E materials, and which were sticking to only Traditional 4E content.  If I was a lone holdout in trying to maintain an "Essentials-free" game, my closing comments would have not been appropriate.  But as you can see there are a number of our fellow gamers choosing to play Traditional 4E - almost as many as those playing a Hybrid of Essentials and Traditional content.

It's interesting that someone pointed out the fact that the PHB3 could have had the statement about "looking for options beyond the essentials books? Look no further!", because that's the way Essentials was explained at last GenCon 2010.  Essentials was to be a gateway to D&D 4E, providing ten products designed to get new players used to the rules before having them move on to Traditional D&D books and character formats.  

If the authors of _*Heroes of Shadow*_ had wanted this book to be for both Traditional as well as Essentials players, would they not have considered creating at least one character class in Traditonal format?  The fact that they chose not create any traditional 4E classes, included a Clerical domain, as well as two new Mage schools speaks volumes about the nature of the book.

But I will not deny that this book has great material in it, and will probably make Traditional 4E gamers reconsider their positions about letting Essentials content into their campaigns - and I would be lying if I said I was not reconsidering it myself.  I still don't like how the book was marketed back at GenCon as "Core" content, which was misleading, but you all can make your own judgments once you see the book at your local gaming stores as to whether it is Essentials or not.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Apr 7, 2011)

deinol said:


> I don't get the comment about "kitchen sink". Isn't PHB 2 or PHB 3 "kitchen sink"? Maybe I'm used to a different definition, but I thought "kitchen sink" campaigns throw all available races/classes/options together. Hasn't that been 4E's philosophy from the beginning? That "everything is core" and player options shouldn't be limited?
> 
> I'm also not sure what makes new powers "essentials" instead of "traditional"? If they didn't tell you the new builds were "essentials", would you have noticed the difference between the binder build and a build from arcane power X?




Yeah this whole kitchen sink think is confusing me, too. The changes from pre-Essentials 4E to post Essentials 4E are mostly a case of "new build styles" but not in a manner which excluded previous content. It's not like, say, 3.0 to 3.5 where if you played a barbarian, bard or ranger you definitely wanted to upgrade to 3.5....it's more like, if you played a straight fighter from the PHB you could now, in theory, meet a slayer or knight in a game and play together...but if you prefer the PHB fighter over the Essentials slayer, nothing prevents you from playing one over the other. Heck, the only direct compatibility issue I've seen with some Essentials builds (and this is very minor) is that they really need integration in to multiclassing and hybridization in a useful way. I've actually made a multiclass slayer/wizard, and he works...but the power swap feats are more or less useless to him without this patch. Of course, I guess one could argue that a slayer is just the "basic" fighter for people who don't want to deal with such things, and that the PHB fighter would be the way to go...but obviously from this review YMMV.

I guess there's also the fact that many feats got more useful in Essentials, too...but that's more of an errata feature that works fine for backwards-compatibility.

Also, more fun fluff in Essentials...but fluff is not a mechanical feature, it's just fun stuff, and it would be silly to think of it as something distinctly "Essentials."

So yeah, still confused here too. But I guess I'll benefit a great deal from this book since I have no qualms with using all my pre-and-post Essentials stuff together.


----------



## occam (Apr 7, 2011)

Neuroglyph said:


> The first thing that indicates this being an Essentials book is the back cover, which states:
> _Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow_ is aimed at players who are ready to reach beyond the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials books, _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_ and _Heroes of Forgotten Kingdoms_.
> 
> For use with these Dungeons & Dragons Essentials Products: _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_, _Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms_, _Rules Compendium_​Also, the name itself was a dead giveaway, as a Traditional 4E book would have probably been called "Shadow Powers" rather than "Heroes of Shadow".




As you've said yourself, the Essentials books were designed to be the new onramp to D&D. Where did you think that onramp would go? Of course the stated requirements going forward would reference HotF* and the Rules Compendium. That doesn't address the utility of the product for those who only have earlier 4e books.



Neuroglyph said:


> I still stand by my statement in saying that this book is designed more with Essentials in mind than Traditional (pre-Essentials) D&D 4E.  While one could use the Paragon Paths, Races, Feats and Powers with Traditional 4E - all Essentials material can be used that way - it does not change the fact that the format was designed more like the "_*Heroes of...*_" books and not the "_*... Powers*_" books.




Ah, but now you're backing away from what you've said before, which included "...this book offers nothing but a few pages of _fluff_ material about the Shadowfell, and very little else.", and (on the Neuroglyph Games site) that this book "was designed entirely as a D&D Essentials book, and does not have any purely Traditional 4E content in it at all!", and that "WotC has made it clear that it no longer has plans to support new products for Traditional D&D", and, in response to WotC folks saying that the book would contain support for "Core" D&D players, that "I am particularly angry at having been blatantly lied to by Wizard of the Coast.". Those are not statements that support what you just said in the paragraph above; they imply that if you didn't buy either of the HotF* books, that _Heroes of Shadow_ is _completely useless to you_.

I can appreciate that you may not like the design of the some of the classes in the HotF* books, and in this book, but your wording in this review, and in your blog commentary, was lacking in that nuance. It was absolutist, and serves only to contribute to what is, IMO, a pretty nonsensical conflict. If you don't like those classes, don't play them. If you're the DM and you _really_ don't like them, don't let your players choose them, either.

Ask this question: If you didn’t buy any of the Essentials products, what could you use from this book? Almost everything. AFAICT, other than the warpriest Death domain and the two new mage schools, this entire book is directly playable by someone who owns only the Player’s Handbook.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 8, 2011)

Neuroglyph said:


> I am a bit chagrined that so many readers of my review felt that the last two paragraphs - placed strategically _after_ my positive closing remarks about *Heroes of Shadow* - somehow invalidated the review or ruined their experience of finding out about this book.  To those gamers, I apologize, but would remind them, however, that a reviewer is nothing more than a guy with opinions, and they will not always agree with their own.



Right.  So that's where the disagreement comes in, as often does with conflicts of opinion.  I think we have a conflict of fact here, though, in your statement that it offers nothing but fluff for PHB- or AEDU-style classes.



> If the authors of _*Heroes of Shadow*_ had wanted this book to be for both Traditional as well as Essentials players, would they not have considered creating at least one character class in Traditonal format?  The fact that they chose not create any traditional 4E classes, included a Clerical domain, as well as two new Mage schools speaks volumes about the nature of the book.



Oh, it's certainly support for the HotFx line, with some support for Core 4e classes, but your review indicated that it's useless for people who don't have or don't allow the HotFx books, beyond fluff.  Which is kind of an opinion, but sounds a lot more like a statement of description and fact.

Pointing out the cover blurb is silly.  You're a reviewer, and if you're critically looking at content, it's clear the blurb is contradicted in the text.

So I'd ask, "Why doesn't my Orb wizard get any use out of these spells?"  Or, "Why can't my Paladin pick these new powers?"  Or, "What's Essentials about the Vryloka race?"  Choosing to disallow them from your game isn't a failing in the book - it's a choice you've made for your campaign.

If anything, this book points out how silly the Essentials/Non-Essentials divide can be.  "Look, this book has stuff your PHB characters can use!"  "Yes, but it also has the Vampire and options for Mages, and therefore it's an Essentials book, and your PHB character can get nothing out of it.  Don't even think about making a vryloka Bard."

-O


----------



## Walking Dad (Apr 8, 2011)

Obryn said:


> ...
> 
> If anything, this book points out how silly the Essentials/Non-Essentials divide can be.  "Look, this book has stuff your PHB characters can use!"  "Yes, but it also has the Vampire and options for Mages, and therefore it's an Essentials book, and your PHB character can get nothing out of it.  Don't even think about making a vryloka Bard."
> 
> -O



Yes, the book is as compatible with 'traditional' 4e as were HotFL/FK, Rules Compendium and Monster Vault. Can I still call these 'Essentials books'?

 "Look, this book has stuff your PHB characters can use!"  "Yes, but it  also has the Hexblade and Mages, and therefore it's an  Essentials book, and your PHB character can get nothing out of it.   Don't even think about making a Tiefling (+2 Cha / +2 Con) valorous Bard."


----------



## Obryn (Apr 8, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Yes, the book is as compatible with 'traditional' 4e as were HotFL/FK, Rules Compendium and Monster Vault. Can I still call these 'Essentials books'?



...which is a further illustration of the silly divide.  Those items are part of the 10-item line, so yes, and this one isn't, but that kind of nomenclature means little for actual games.

Again, take it another way.

"I'd like to take Bludgeon Expertise." "No, that book has the Slayer in it."
"I'm using the Stirge Suckerling Swarm in my next encounter." "What are you thinking? That's in an _essentials_ book!"

New classes are new classes, new builds are new builds.  Banning a feat or a power because it was in a book which _also has stuff you don't like_ is silly and arbitrary.  You can feel free to be as silly and arbitrary as you want in your home games, but that doesn't make it automatically sensible.

Ban the Slayer, ban the Mage, ban the Warpriest, whatever.  Banning a power or a feat because it was published in proximity to banned stuff is just a bit crazy.

-O


----------



## Neuroglyph (Apr 8, 2011)

occam said:


> As you've said yourself, the Essentials books were designed to be the new onramp to D&D. Where did you think that onramp would go? Of course the stated requirements going forward would reference HotF* and the Rules Compendium. That doesn't address the utility of the product for those who only have earlier 4e books.




I thought that was obvious - the on-ramp was supposed to lead players to buy the Traditional 4E products, because the Essentials line was proclaimed to only be series of ten products. 



occam said:


> Ah, but now you're backing away from what you've said before, which included "...this book offers nothing but a few pages of _fluff_ material about the Shadowfell, and very little else.", and (on the Neuroglyph Games site) that this book "was designed entirely as a D&D Essentials book, and does not have any purely Traditional 4E content in it at all!", and that "WotC has made it clear that it no longer has plans to support new products for Traditional D&D", and, in response to WotC folks saying that the book would contain support for "Core" D&D players, that "I am particularly angry at having been blatantly lied to by Wizard of the Coast.". Those are not statements that support what you just said in the paragraph above; they imply that if you didn't buy either of the HotF* books, that _Heroes of Shadow_ is _completely useless to you_.




No, I never implied that at all.  They are statements I made about being angry at WotC for marketing the book as a "Core" product, and then presenting a book with Essentials-exclusive content (Classes/Domain/Schools) on over half its pages, and with no content that one can label as exclusively Traditional 4E.  You can still use content from this Essentials book in your 4E game - as you can with all Essentials products - but that does not make the book a Traditional 4E product.  Using your logic, one could argue that because you can use feats and powers from HotF*, that it is not an Essentials book but is really a Traditional 4E book.



occam said:


> Ask this question: If you didn’t buy any of the Essentials products, what could you use from this book? Almost everything. AFAICT, other than the warpriest Death domain and the two new mage schools, this entire book is directly playable by someone who owns only the Player’s Handbook.




Alright, I have a counter question: Why is it so difficult for you to admit that this book, which contains copious amounts of exclusive Essential material is really an Essentials book?  I have already admitted that Essentials material can be used in Traditional 4E characters, so calling _*Heroes of Shadow*_ an Essentials book makes no difference, correct?

In reality, making that admission makes a BIG difference - because the moment you admit that this book is an Essentials product, and not a Core product, then you would have to accept that WotC mislead the D&D community about the nature of the book.  And WotC even went so far as to mislead the D&D community about the Essentials line being an "on ramp" or "gateway" to the game - it has become the replacement design paradigm for all future releases.

*Is the fact that Essentials is the new paradigm for future releases a bad thing?*  Not necessarily - the poll shows that there are more people enjoying pure Essentials and Essentials/Traditional mixed content than those just enjoying Traditional content.  

*Is it a bad thing that WotC misinformed their customer base about the true purpose of Essentials to become the new design paradigm?*  Yes - honesty is always preferred - the gaming community should have been told about the impending change, rather than be misinformed and lead to believe that Essentials was designed to merely assist new players.  

*Does this make Heroes of Shadow a bad book?*  Nope, it's a great book, but players and DMs wanting a non-Essentials play experience will need to consider purchasing this book carefully, given the amount of exclusive Essentials material it contains.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 8, 2011)

Neuroglyph said:


> No, I never implied that at all.



"I still find myself extremely disappointed over this new Player’s Option book - because of what it lacks for gamers who want to maintain their Traditional D&D 4E campaigns. For those of us – and I include myself here – who choose not to play a pure Essentials campaign, and have no interest in a “kitchen sink” campaign content philosophy, this book offers nothing but a few pages of fluff material about the Shadowfell, and very little else."

You're right!  It's not implied so much as spelled out. 



> Using your logic, one could argue that because you can use feats and powers from HotF*, that it is not an Essentials book but is really a Traditional 4E book.



I don't much care about the weird categorization thing.  Call it part of the Essentials line if you want.  It's a distinction without meaning to me; if you're banning books from your game, you're banning books from your game, and that's your prerogative as a DM.  However, I think worrying about which "line" a feat or power is from is bizarre, if you're otherwise running an everything-goes sort of game with powers & feats from Powers books, Dragon, etc.

The question is - in all the Heroes books - what makes feats and most of the powers "Essentials Content"?  I can see "Essentials Classes" but "Essentials Feats" is a weird concept.  Why would you ban feats and powers for existing Core AEDU classes from these three books and not, say, PHB3 or Martial Power 2?

I can understand not liking the new class design, and I can understand not wanting to play one or even allow them in your game.  I have much less understanding when it comes to banning otherwise-balanced and capable stuff because it's been published _adjacent to _those things.

-O


----------



## deinol (Apr 8, 2011)

Wizards has always said that Essentials is not a new edition. It isn't meant to be a separate RPG that is distinct from "traditional" 4E. It is a separate product line for 4E geared towards beginners.

So they didn't market Heroes of Shadow as an "essentials" book because it isn't essential. It is a supplement. Wizards finished releasing "traditional" classes with PHB 2. Now they are experimenting with new things. PHB 3 classes were different. Essentials classes were different.

I'm glad they aren't bloating the classes with too many powers. There are already plenty of powers for the basic classes. Giving a new build a smaller number of tightly themed powers seems like the right choice.

It sounds like the biggest mistake they made in the book was making Vampire a class instead of a theme. Although I bet you could convert it to a theme with little trouble.

Anyway, thanks for the review. You've convinced me that I should buy this book. Which is saying something because I don't actually play 4E at the moment.


----------



## OnlineDM (Apr 8, 2011)

Neuroglyph said:


> I thought that was obvious - the on-ramp was supposed to lead players to buy the Traditional 4E products, because the Essentials line was proclaimed to only be series of ten products.
> 
> .....
> 
> *Is it a bad thing that WotC misinformed their customer base about the true purpose of Essentials to become the new design paradigm?*  Yes - honesty is always preferred - the gaming community should have been told about the impending change, rather than be misinformed and lead to believe that Essentials was designed to merely assist new players.




Okay, I think I get it now. You're upset about the way WotC phrased things at GenCon last year. You walked away with the understanding that the Essentials books were a little side project that were designed to bring new players into the game and then get them using the PHBs. 

That's not how it turned out - the HotFL/HotFK books were more substantive and were pitched at existing players, too, and the following books are influenced by the HotFL/K books. And you don't like that, because you really like the PHBs and don't like the HotFL/K books, so you're bummed that WotC is marketing things more with an eye on the HotFL/K books.

Me, I don't care. I think the HotFL/K books are very nice, just as I think the PHBs are very nice, and I appreciate the options they make available, even if I might not use all of them myself. I probably won't build a Hexblade, and I probably won't build a Sorcerer. I have played a PHB1 Wizard and Paladin and a PHB2 Avenger, and I have played an HotFK Hunter Ranger. <shrug>


----------



## Walking Dad (Apr 8, 2011)

deinol said:


> Wizards has always said that Essentials is not a new edition. It isn't meant to be a separate RPG that is distinct from "traditional" 4E. It is a separate product line for 4E geared towards beginners.
> 
> So they didn't market Heroes of Shadow as an "essentials" book because it isn't essential. It is a supplement. ...



Yes, and as spelled out by wizards on the book itself, a supplement for the essentials books.




> It sounds like the biggest mistake they made in the book was making Vampire a class instead of a theme. Although I bet you could convert it to a theme with little trouble.
> 
> ....



I think this depends on the individual taste.



OnlineDM said:


> Okay, I think I get it now. You're upset about the way WotC phrased things at GenCon last year. You walked away with the understanding that the Essentials books were a little side project that were designed to bring new players into the game and then get them using the PHBs.
> 
> That's not how it turned out - the HotFL/HotFK books were more substantive and were pitched at existing players, too, and the following books are influenced by the HotFL/K books. And you don't like that, because you really like the PHBs and don't like the HotFL/K books, so you're bummed that WotC is marketing things more with an eye on the HotFL/K books.
> 
> Me, I don't care. I think the HotFL/K books are very nice, just as I think the PHBs are very nice, and I appreciate the options they make available, even if I might not use all of them myself. I probably won't build a Hexblade, and I probably won't build a Sorcerer. I have played a PHB1 Wizard and Paladin and a PHB2 Avenger, and I have played an HotFK Hunter Ranger. <shrug>



Why has someone to dislike Essentials to criticize deliberate misinformation of the customers?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 8, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Yes, and as spelled out by wizards on the book itself, a supplement for the essentials books.




It is _also_ a supplement for the PHB.  As is obvious from what's included in there.  However the Essentials line is the current on-ramp so it mentions them rather more explicitely.  And Essentials classes need support rather more than PHB classes.  I've seen people go so far as to call it Arcane Power 2 for Wizards and Warlocks. 



> Why has someone to dislike Essentials to criticize deliberate misinformation of the customers?




_What_ deliberate misinformation?  I never got the impression that classes and builds introduced in Essentials would be left on the shelf to moulder away with no further support.  And I'm curious once it was clear that there were going to be different classes/builds (thank goodness or it would have been a complete waste of my money) who said that anything introduced in there was going to be left to rot rather than supported?

Expecting this would be like expecting any splatbooks to not produce _any_ support for classes not in the PHB.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 8, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Yes, and as spelled out by wizards on the book itself, a supplement for the essentials books.



It's an _advertising blurb._  On the _back cover._  It's not a _rule._

(And, it's true, you need the two Heroes books if you want to use absolutely every option in this book, so it's not really a lie - much like you needed the FRPG if you wanted to use absolutely every option in Arcane Power.)

But unless you completely lack the ability to think critically about advertising blurbs, this means absolutely nothing when it comes to whether or not your PHB Wizard could use the spells in this book, or whether or not your Laser Cleric could pick up some of the prayers here.  (In fact, you're better off than warpriests in that respect, since before this book, they didn't have any implement powers at all.)

-O


----------



## Windjammer (Apr 8, 2011)

My 4E group (1 DM, 6 players) has sworn off Essentials. So we're in the same group as the reviewer, we don't mix and mash pre- and post-Essentials material.

Why all the people who DO mix and mash feel they have to jump on his conclusions, deliberately stated for those who are LIKE him (and us) in this respect, is beyond me.

The review is 100% correct. Those who previously felt they didn't want to mix/mash will not want to use this book. End of story.


----------



## Windjammer (Apr 8, 2011)

Obryn said:


> It's an _advertising blurb._  On the _back cover._  It's not a _rule._




It's a statement by the publisher under the section: _Intended to be used with the following products_. As such the statement serves informational purposes.

You're free to make of that statement what you want. 

Personally, if WotC wanted to communicate that the product is primarily intended for Heroes of... buyers, and secondarily at PHB clients, they could have made the items in that list a wee bit longer. _But they chose not to._


----------



## Walking Dad (Apr 8, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> ...
> _What_ deliberate misinformation?  I never got the impression that classes and builds introduced in Essentials would be left on the shelf to moulder away with no further support.  And I'm curious once it was clear that there were going to be different classes/builds (thank goodness or it would have been a complete waste of my money) who said that anything introduced in there was going to be left to rot rather than supported?
> 
> ...




Posting this
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Commencing Countdown!)


> If you’re already playing a *Dungeons & Dragons* game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Essentials products matter only as much as you want them to.




And later this
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Wizard Preview)


> Products coming out after the Essentials, including such exciting titles as _Player’s Option: Heroes of Shadow_, work with all *Dungeons & Dragons*  roleplaying game products. Just started with the Essentials? No  problem! Add shadow-based powers to your storm warpriest with no fuss or  bother. Got a battle cleric built with _Player's Handbook_ and enhanced with _Divine Power_  and a couple of feats from Essentials? No problem! It’s all D&D, so  it’s all compatible! Everything we’re producing in 2011 and beyond  works with both Essentials and non-Essentials products—because they all  work together! They’re all *Dungeons & Dragons*!




Seems that Essentials matters a bit more in further products than they said at first.

Taking the battle (str-based) cleric as a sample of a supported build, because he can use some of the feats is ... odd.

---

And there were sopme changes some people dislike. These changes have maybe started in PHB 3, but came most blatant in the Essentials line, so they describe it at 'Essentialized' maybe not entire correct, but certainly not entirely wrong either.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 8, 2011)

Windjammer said:


> My 4E group (1 DM, 6 players) has sworn off Essentials. So we're in the same group as the reviewer, we don't mix and mash pre- and post-Essentials material.
> 
> Why all the people who DO mix and mash feel they have to jump on his conclusions, deliberately stated for those who are LIKE him (and us) in this respect, is beyond me.




Banning things for being Essentials is only one way of restricting mixing and matching.  And has _nothing_ to do with whether or not the setting is a kitchen sink setting.  If anything, the less kitchen-sinky the setting the more useful Essentials material is.  My settings are not kitchen sink.  And I ban things.  But there is nothing in the flavour of _any_ Essentials class that makes me want to ban it.  (Now if someone were to show up with a Shardmind, a Hybrid, or a few other choices...)



Walking Dad said:


> Posting this
> Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Commencing Countdown!)
> 
> 
> > If you’re already playing a *Dungeons & Dragons* game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Essentials products matter only as much as you want them to.




Doesn't say to me that they are going to let Essentials products rot.  It just says they aren't going to abolish previous material.



> Taking the battle (str-based) cleric as a sample of a supported build, because he can use some of the feats is ... odd.




Poor battle cleric.  Agreed.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 8, 2011)

Windjammer said:


> It's a statement by the publisher under the section: _Intended to be used with the following products_. As such the statement serves informational purposes.
> 
> You're free to make of that statement what you want.
> 
> Personally, if WotC wanted to communicate that the product is primarily intended for Heroes of... buyers, and secondarily at PHB clients, they could have made the items in that list a wee bit longer. _But they chose not to._



...because it's an _advertising blurb_.  For their _newer products_ done by the _marketing department_.

I mean, are you arguing that because some marketing goon didn't list the PHB, the designers didn't intend a PHB Wizard to take any Heroes of Shadow powers?

-O


----------



## occam (Apr 9, 2011)

Neuroglyph said:


> They are statements I made about being angry at WotC for marketing the book as a "Core" product, and then presenting a book with Essentials-exclusive content (Classes/Domain/Schools) on over half its pages, and with no content that one can label as exclusively Traditional 4E.




By my count, the new warpriest domain, hexblade pact, and mage schools take up 13 out of 159 pages, according to the table of contents. _Everything else in the book_ looks to be directly playable by someone who owns _only_ the Player's Handbook.



Neuroglyph said:


> You can still use content from this Essentials book in your 4E game - as you can with all Essentials products - but that does not make the book a Traditional 4E product.  Using your logic, one could argue that because you can use feats and powers from HotF*, that it is not an Essentials book but is really a Traditional 4E book.




No, it's not an Essentials book because it doesn't say "Essentials" on the cover. Essentials was a line of products, not a fundamental change in the game. In the same way, _Arcane Power_ was not a Forgotten Realms book, even though it included support for the swordmage.



Neuroglyph said:


> Alright, I have a counter question: Why is it so difficult for you to admit that this book, which contains copious amounts of exclusive Essential material is really an Essentials book?  I have already admitted that Essentials material can be used in Traditional 4E characters, so calling _*Heroes of Shadow*_ an Essentials book makes no difference, correct?




(I would dispute your notion of "copious" -- see above.)

It makes no difference because it's a nonsensical distinction. _Heroes of Shadow_ is no more an "Essentials" book than _Arcane Power_ is a Forgotten Realms book. If you want to call _Arcane Power_ an FR book because it included support for swordmages, fine, you can call _Heroes of Shadow_ an Essentials book. It doesn't matter; whether you call it "Essentials" or not, the fact is that the vast majority of the book's contents is usable even if you never bought a single product from the Essentials line.



Neuroglyph said:


> In reality, making that admission makes a BIG difference - because the moment you admit that this book is an Essentials product, and not a Core product, then you would have to accept that WotC mislead the D&D community about the nature of the book.




No, I don't. I really don't know what you were expecting, but based on the comments from WotC folks, this is about exactly what I expected to see in this book.


----------



## occam (Apr 9, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> WotC said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The statement you quoted looks to be completely accurate to me. Sure, the Str cleric was a poor choice as an example, but the larger point, that _Heroes of Shadow_ works with both Essentials and non-Essentials products, is correct.

I honestly don't get it; do you see some falsehood in that quote that I'm missing?


----------



## Walking Dad (Apr 10, 2011)

occam said:


> ...
> I honestly don't get it; do you see some falsehood in that quote that I'm missing?



Sorry for being unclear. Yes, the second quote just sounds like their current idea what Essentials is. And they give more examples what is useful for users with the essentials books than material that is useful for pre-essentials.
This seems to contradict their older claim that Essentials books "matter only as much as you want them to".

Please also note the last paragraph of my above post, "essentials" became the battle-cry for those disliking the changes who became most noticeable with the Essentials releases.


----------



## RichGreen (Apr 10, 2011)

Hi,

Thanks for the review - really looking forward to this book which seems to have a lot of really interesting stuff for 4e D&D in it.

I got to play a character from Heroes of Shadow at the ukdndtweetup recently (a binder warlock) and had _no idea_ it was an Essentials character. It seemed just like a 4e character to me. 

Cheers


Richard


----------



## GrecoG (Apr 11, 2011)

*Chris Sims at Comicpalooza*

Neuroglyph,

No negative emotion intended - I guess I don't draw such a stark line between "regular" 4e and "Essentials".  I freely mix both in my homebrew and RPGA campaigns, and even put up with it when I run Encounters for the local organizer.  As a DM, I have always picked and chosen from among available options, and said "no" just as honestly as I would say "yes" for any given option a player brings to me for approval.  The bottom line is not what any publisher puts out, but how I shape and allow options in the campaigns I run.

That being said, I was surprised to see you write "extremely" disappointed and yet give the book such relatively high marks.  I think it will deserve those high marks, but as so many people listen to you, a well respected reviewer, maybe those concerns are a little too strongly worded?

I invite you ALL to come to Houston in May and meet Chris Perkins, and also let Chris Sims run you through some shadow-tinged games and some Ashes of Athas!  We also have Steve Jackson, and from Paizo, Hyrum Savage & Stephen Radney-McFarland.

www (dot) comicpalooza (dot) com

www.warhorn.net/comicpaloozahouston


----------



## Argyle King (Apr 16, 2011)

GrecoG said:


> Neuroglyph,
> 
> No negative emotion intended - I guess I don't draw such a stark line between "regular" 4e and "Essentials".  I freely mix both in my homebrew and RPGA campaigns, and even put up with it when I run Encounters for the local organizer.  As a DM, I have always picked and chosen from among available options, and said "no" just as honestly as I would say "yes" for any given option a player brings to me for approval.  The bottom line is not what any publisher puts out, but how I shape and allow options in the campaigns I run.
> 
> ...




quoting because it fits what I was about to say...

I feel like -based on the content of the review- the book should have been given a lower grade than 'A-.'

I also feel it should have been lower after I've now had hands on experience with the book, but that's a different topic.


----------



## Malisteen (May 19, 2011)

This review doesn't seem to delve into the mechanics very much, or very accurately.  You object to the vampire on thematic grounds, but what about its shocking lack of options?  What about its terrible mechanics - legitimately fighting with the original assassin for worst striker in the game?

And the binder - the weakest controller in the game - weaker at controlling than a regular warlock, or even a hexblade?  The binder is a complete trap option, and should never have been printed.

The executioner is better then either of those, but still thematically little different from yet mechanically far short of a rogue.  The necromancy school for the mage is overall quite weak, and the individual abilities are mostly just blasting powers, leaving it feeling not very much like a necromancer at all, and when compared to the support for that concept in 3.5 it is extremely disappointing.  The one summon necromancers and nethermancers can get suffers since two of the options presented have half the normal summon hp for no discernible reason, and the shadow beast has a speed bonus on charging despite having no ability to charge.

And then there's the feats - rather anemic, and they do nothing to mitigate how terrible necrotic damage is, despite its frequent use by the power source.

And lets not even get into the Shade.  Dear lord.

And then there's weird stuff.  Like, if a new player comes to this book from essentials, how are they supposed to play an executioner without any option for a ki focus?  And the Blackguard has one less daily power then everyone else, including it's cousin the cavalier, because when writing it's retraining bits, they forgot it didn't get one at first level (much as the cavalier also lacks a first level daily, but they don't start retraining old ones until one power later so they end up with the same number)


There's decent stuff in the book.  Nethermancy is pretty decent.  The death warpriest and gloom hexblade options are ok.  The Blackguard, despite the daily power issue, is still fun and effective.  Revenants are still good, and Vryloka are a decent addition as a race.  One or two of the paths and epic destinies are pretty good, even if most are lackluster and add little to the game beyond glut.


The production value of the book is pretty decent, even if it suffers from re-used art.  And the fluff is pretty good, too.  But a lot of the mechanics are flawed, if not just outright bad, and when one looks back at Primal or Psionic and considers what Shadow could have been in 4e, it's hard not to see the entire book as a major missed opportunity.


----------



## Neuroglyph (May 23, 2011)

[MENTION=44380]Malisteen[/MENTION] - Given the amount of material covered in the review of Heroes of Shadow, I chose not to delve too deeply into the class mechanics of every new class, and measure it against the mechanics of every other class.  One could devote several articles just to comparing classes in a particular role - I know, I did an article spread on Defenders and it took me three massive blogs to do it!  

And historically, no class upon release has many options - and certainly the vampire was the worst of show in that category.

If your complaint is that I gave the book higher marks than it deserved, well feel free to join that club.  Alot of readers will agree with you, and there are alot that won't.  It's one of the reasons I specified that as an Essentials book, it works well, and has some neat stuff in it.  In hindsight, I'd probably agree with you though, and give it a lower grade when compared to the body of total 4E releases - but again, just like your comments, reviews are all just opinions anyway, and the gaming community will never have total agreement on the topic.


----------



## Grimgrin (May 25, 2011)

After looking at it I completelely agree. It is an "essenstials" book since the classes are essenstial build style. Since that the major significant difference between Heros Of ..... and .... Power books. IMHO, races, paragon builds, and feats are not product line specific unless they specifically contradict already "printed" material and are just additional 4.0 supplements.



deinol said:


> So they didn't market Heroes of Shadow as an "essentials" book because it isn't essential. It is a supplement.




An Essential Supplement, now thats an oxymoron (or a new one per day multi-vitamin).


----------

