# Heroes of Shadow: Assassins, Hexblades, and Necromancers!



## Mentat55 (Jun 22, 2010)

Has anyone else seen or heard about this?

D&D 4e: The New Player’s Option : Critical Hits

Apparently, Wizards is releasing as part of or to complement the Essentials line, and this particular book will include support for assassins, necromancers, and hexblades.  Interesting.

If anyone else has more info, I'd be curious to hear it.


----------



## Camelot (Jun 22, 2010)

I for one will be disappointed if there's not going to be a Player's Handbook 4.  I really like the consistency and continuity that the core rulebooks and supplements have.  I see nothing wrong with a PH4: Shadow, Psionic, and Primal (or something else) Heroes, followed by a Shadow Power book (which I think sounds like a perfectly cool name).

Unfortunately, I have no more information.  I just want to be part of the discussion, and also to hear more news.

If I may tangent for just a minute, the only series I don't think should be continued are the Draconomicon series (catastrophic dragons with their own book?  That's just a waste) and the Plane: Secrets series (what would be next anyway?  The Plane to the Left: Secrets of the Shadowfell?  Maybe they'll stick the Feywild in as well, and call it the Planes to Either Side).

I really want Arcane Power 2.  Now.


----------



## Bartoneus (Jun 22, 2010)

As I wrote that post, and I have the catalog at hand, I can tell you that there's not much more information than what I posted. I will be talking about some of the other books from the catalog shortly (hopefully before they're posted on the WotC site). 

I'm going to try and get previews of this content ASAP, but I have no idea how possible that is going to be.


----------



## fba827 (Jun 22, 2010)

Mentat55 said:


> Has anyone else seen or heard about this?
> 
> D&D 4e: The New Player’s Option : Critical Hits
> 
> ...




Given that all other Essentials line products are (as far as I understand) a repackage of the previously released materials, I have been under the (perhaps erroneous) assumption that this would be as well.

That would imply to me that we'll see necromancer and hexblade in some form (perhaps DDI, perhaps PHB4) prior to this other book being released.  We are talking Spring 2011 which is not for another 9 months (at minimum).

Having said that, if I'm wrong in my understanding of the essentials line as a repackaging, then this theory holds no water.


----------



## Kelvor Ravenstar (Jun 22, 2010)

*Essentials Line Content*

While the Essential line will likely contain some reprints of some necessary feats, the news I've been reading about it suggests that it will have new builds for the classes they contain (Hopefully some less complicated versions with less fiddly bits IMHO)


----------



## Dire Human (Jun 22, 2010)

Hmm... Would this be balanced as a marking ability?



> *Hexblade’s Curse*: Hexblade Feature
> _You harshly taunt your opponent, cursing them with misfortune if they ignore your challenge._
> *At-Will * Shadow*
> *Minor Action*, *Close* burst 5
> ...


----------



## fba827 (Jun 22, 2010)

Dire Human said:


> Hmm... Would this be balanced as a marking ability?




You may want to fork this to another topic if this conversation continues.  but as a brief response, I'd say possibly not balanced because it is similar to the halfling racial power (that is only an encounter power) and does more on top of that (the marking condition mechanics).  it just seems like too much for an atwill/immediate interupt to me, but i guess balance can't be seen in a vacuum and also depends a lot on what else is involved as options and features for the class.


----------



## Camelot (Jun 22, 2010)

Kelvor Ravenstar said:


> While the Essential line will likely contain some reprints of some necessary feats, the news I've been reading about it suggests that it will have new builds for the classes they contain (Hopefully some less complicated versions with less fiddly bits IMHO)




I hope the essentials don't have any new content, or at least new content that's _good_.  I paid good money on my Player's Handbooks, and I'm not going to buy a book that is mostly the same with a little bit of new added in.  If _every_ class has _entirely new_ options, feats, and powers, then yeah, I'd love that.  But from a gamer who doesn't use DDI, buying a book just for a few feats and powers isn't going to happen.

And if it's just a rehash of the builds, why not just errata it?  I personally don't mind an onslaught of rules updates as long as it's making the game better, and I don't have to pay for it. =)


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk (Jun 22, 2010)

Camelot said:


> If I may tangent for just a minute, the only series I don't think should be continued are the Draconomicon series (catastrophic dragons with their own book?  That's just a waste) and the Plane: Secrets series (what would be next anyway?  The Plane to the Left: Secrets of the Shadowfell?  Maybe they'll stick the Feywild in as well, and call it the Planes to Either Side).
> 
> I really want Arcane Power 2.  Now.




Actually, Open Grave: Secrets of the Undead **is** essentially the Shadowfell plane book. 

And as a DM, **I am** interested in a Feywild book.

I am also longing for a DMG3 with advice on running epic-tier adventures and campaigns.

Damn this "essentials" line for denying my desires!


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jun 22, 2010)

Camelot said:


> I hope the essentials don't have any new content, or at least new content that's _good_.  I paid good money on my Player's Handbooks, and I'm not going to buy a book that is mostly the same with a little bit of new added in.  If _every_ class has _entirely new_ options, feats, and powers, then yeah, I'd love that.  But from a gamer who doesn't use DDI, buying a book just for a few feats and powers isn't going to happen.
> 
> And if it's just a rehash of the builds, why not just errata it?  I personally don't mind an onslaught of rules updates as long as it's making the game better, and I don't have to pay for it. =)



The essentials line is mostly new stuff. The major exceptions are the tile sets and the Rules Compendium. The player oriented stuff is new.


			
				Bill Slavicsek from Ampersand said:
			
		

> Heroes of the Fallen Lands covers the classes and races associated most closely with the traditional Dungeons & Dragons game. It features two new fighter builds, a new rogue build, a new cleric build, a new wizard build, and a new ranger build. The races in this one include humans, dwarves, eladrin, elves, and halflings. Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms features more options, including a new cleric build, a new rogue build, a new paladin build, a new ranger build, a new druid build, and a new warlock build. The races in this one include dragonborn, drow, half-elves, and tieflings.



Obviously, the races aren't new.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 22, 2010)

I think we'll have to wait and see, but I don't see something like this as incompatible with continuing the PHB line.

This looks to be a darker, more optional supplement for groups who want things like assassins and necromancers.  Kind of a BoVD-lite.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Jun 22, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> The essentials line is mostly new stuff. The major exceptions are the tile sets and the Rules Compendium. The player oriented stuff is new.



I just want to note that New Builds != New Powers and Class Features. 

I have no idea what will be in the Essentials line, but I am right now thinking it will contain some new material and a lot of reprinted stuff.

-O


----------



## Solvarn (Jun 22, 2010)

*Essentials*

I'm sort of curious if Essentials isn't testing the waters for a new edition sort of like Book of the Nine Swords did at the end of 3.5E.


----------



## malcolm_n (Jun 23, 2010)

To Fanboy:  The races may not be new, but hopefully they'll incorporate recent trends in racial stats/traits.

That said, I'm looking forward to Heroes of Shadow.  I'm thinking they went this route because they didn't have more primal/psionic classes to introduce yet, and (almost) everybody teased them for giving us ANOTHER divine class in PH3.  By focusing only on shadow power source, they can introduce the appropriate races (kenku, shadar-kai, revenants) with their classes and have enough room to provide plenty of feats within that same genre.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 23, 2010)

Camelot said:


> I hope the essentials don't have any new content, or at least new content that's _good_.  I paid good money on my Player's Handbooks, and I'm not going to buy a book that is mostly the same with a little bit of new added in.  If _every_ class has _entirely new_ options, feats, and powers, then yeah, I'd love that.  But from a gamer who doesn't use DDI, buying a book just for a few feats and powers isn't going to happen.
> 
> And if it's just a rehash of the builds, why not just errata it?  I personally don't mind an onslaught of rules updates as long as it's making the game better, and I don't have to pay for it. =)



The Essentials line is not for those of us who have all the 4e D&D books. The Essentials line is meant for newbies who are overwhelmed by 1) the amount of books, 2) the cost of thsoe books, and 3) the amount of reading necessary to get involved in D&D.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 23, 2010)

I thought the assassin was EXCLUSIVE to DDi? 

Also, I was under the impression the Essentials line would continue solidly for x number of months, and then they'd go back to their hardcover stuff. 

So I doubt we'll see this before we see a PHB4. Which makes me wonder how we'll see these before the Essentials book, or if they are being debuted here.

Interesting that the Shadow power source only has three classes in it. I wonder which roll is missing.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 23, 2010)

Rechan said:


> I thought the assassin was EXCLUSIVE to DDi?




...until it gets put into a book. It was planned to be an exclusive when they announced and released it, but no plan survives contact with the enemy.



> Also, I was under the impression the Essentials line would continue solidly for x number of months, and then they'd go back to their hardcover stuff.




It looks like they're experimenting with format in the main line. Looking at ways to lower prices, perhaps.



> Interesting that the Shadow power source only has three classes in it. I wonder which roll is missing.




It's still early. We could get updated info that throws in a fourth class. Or maybe in another class experiment, one class will be be one of two roles, depending on build. Or they could be actively spurning symmetry.


----------



## Camelot (Jun 23, 2010)

The Little Raven said:


> Or they could be actively spurning symmetry.




They've already done that; remember the martial power source?  They could do it again.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 23, 2010)

And if they spur symmetry, I'm just curious which role they'd leave out.

I do think the Hexblade as a heavy armored striker would be interesting. But that's very unlikely (two strikers and the Necromancer); the Hexblade will be a defender. 

So ultimately it comes down to: is the Necro a leader or a controller?


----------



## Obryn (Jun 23, 2010)

Well, we know the Assassin is a Striker.

Unless they're fooling us, the Hexblade will probably be a Defender.  I find Leader unlikely, but possible.

That leaves the Necromancer as a Controller or a Leader.  I think the former is much more likely; I don't see Necromancers getting any kind of Encounter healing ability like every other Leader does.  Also, Summons and anything which calls more things onto the battlefield are generally a controller's forte.

So if these three classes are all she wrote, I'd say there won't be a Shadow Leader yet.

-O


----------



## Rechan (Jun 23, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Well, we know the Assassin is a Striker.
> 
> Unless they're fooling us, the Hexblade will probably be a Defender.  I find Leader unlikely, but possible.
> 
> That leaves the Necromancer as a Controller or a Leader.  I think the former is much more likely; I don't see Necromancers getting any kind of Encounter healing ability like every other Leader does.



Healing used to be in the perview of the necromancy school. Also, necromancy is playing with both the body and the soul. A necromancer channeling life energy/forcing it to flourish in a target, or literally forcing their wounds to close (in a sort of stopping blood from flowing by forcing it to clot) in a sort of biomancy kind of way would be interesting. How does this strike you:

Rotting Word
_You channel necrotic energy and force shed blood from the battlefield back into the target, and seal their wounds with dead skin. An aura of decaying magic lingers on the target._
Minor Action (Close burst 5)
Special: You can use this twice per encounter, but once per round.
Target: You or one ally.
Effect: Target can spend a healing surge, and until the end of your next turn, the target gains necrotic resistance and deals necrotic damage equal to your wisdom bonus. 

An alternative would be the target gaining temp HP, represented by dead flesh providing some means of softening it up.


----------



## The Human Target (Jun 23, 2010)

I am so down for a necromancer and a hexblade.

I'd like to see them mix it up a little, like making the necromancer a leader.

For the sake of variety if nothing else.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Jun 23, 2010)

I'm with Obryn:

The Assassin is definitely a striker (no surprise there)
The Hexblade is probably a defender, but might instead be a leader.
The Necromancer is likely a controller, but might instead be a leader.

While I guessing that both the Hexblade and the Necromancer both have the former for their primary role, I wouldn't be surprised if their secondary roles are "leadery" - analogous (but obviously not the same) to the way a Palladin is a "leadery" defender, or an assault swordmage is a "strikery" defender.

So, my guess (based on no evidence at all, admittedly) is that the Hexblade will be a defender with a build that is more controllery, and one that is more leadery.

And for the Necromancer, that one build will be more leadery, and one more strikery.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 23, 2010)

This is in the "list" (see sig) and we have speculated on a it a little bit. 

As for the essentials line: it will have new stuff, and errated stuff, and many of us will buy these products. (sorry). 

As for this, and the essentials line: essentials are the new way to get into the game, and the options books may very well be the way to keep going. There may not be a PHB IV, or at least not one for a long time. 

We will learn more from Gencon.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 23, 2010)

I'd need an excellent reason to buy any core Essentials books instead of just picking through the good parts with the Compendium and Character Builder.

The biggie on my own radar is the Monster Vault, because I loves me some monster tokens.  Also, expanded fluff and updated stat blocks _would_ be worth having in hard-copy.

With that said, I'm sure I'll peruse them at the local bookstore or FLGS to see what I think.

-O


----------



## Markn (Jun 23, 2010)

Regarding the Necormancer, role may very well depend on what type of necromancer they are modeling it on.  In previous editions, necromancers could mean wizard or they could mean cleric.  If its the former, then I doubt it would be a controller - my guess would be leader in the form of minion followers because I vaguely remember some WotC guy talking about playing around with this idea.  If its the latter then my guess would be - well I don't know, it could be anything.

I think it would be solid gold if the necromancer could spontaneously create/animate/summon undead with the shadow power source and move them around and they were something akin to minions.  For one, it would be unique, for two, it really fits the theme of necromancer and for three it would set it apart arcane/divine sources while still being in line with the assassins shroud  abilitites.

Go, go necromancers go!


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Jun 23, 2010)

I agree that having a "minion summoner" sounds pretty cool, though that does sound more in tune with a controller's mechanic than a leader's.


----------



## bagger245 (Jun 23, 2010)

Thing is, the hexblade and necromancer fills 2 out of the 3 roles. Why can't the make another class to fill it up? Sure they don't want symmetry ala Martial, but martial controller is a bit hard to pin down due to power source, if not I am sure they would have made one already.

For shadow power however, it is much easier to create fluff with the usual "it's magic" excuse to enable us to have all 3 roles filled. If they can make the monk a psionic striker, they can make anything..


----------



## Markn (Jun 23, 2010)

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> I agree that having a "minion summoner" sounds pretty cool, though that does sound more in tune with a controller's mechanic than a leader's.




I guess it depends on how they do it I suppose.  I was thinking of leader-y based on possibly moving/sliding them, healing them along with allies and so forth.  Either way I think it would be total coolness.


----------



## Myn (Jun 24, 2010)

Markn said:


> I guess it depends on how they do it I suppose. I was thinking of leader-y based on possibly moving/sliding them, healing them along with allies and so forth. Either way I think it would be total coolness.




Another option came into my mind, though I doubt it will happen; A necromancer as a defender that defends from the back, summoning minions and other creatures to take the hits for the party; probably with a sort of spirit-companion like deal with his minions so he has to feed them his own lifeforce to sustain it. Would be breaking the mold, to be sure.


----------



## The Human Target (Jun 24, 2010)

Myn said:


> Another option came into my mind, though I doubt it will happen; A necromancer as a defender that defends from the back, summoning minions and other creatures to take the hits for the party; probably with a sort of spirit-companion like deal with his minions so he has to feed them his own lifeforce to sustain it. Would be breaking the mold, to be sure.




Yeah thats what my buddy was hoping for if they ever did one.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 24, 2010)

I suddenly imagined a Necromancer who comes with a pet, much like the Ranger comes with a beast companion.


----------



## circadianwolf (Jun 24, 2010)

I've been working on a pet-focused defender necromancer for quite a while, actually.


----------



## Insight (Jun 24, 2010)

circadianwolf said:


> I've been working on a pet-focused defender necromancer for quite a while, actually.




I made a pet-focused controller (sorta like the Shaman in that the Necro would have a persistent focal point for his powers).  But I gave up on that idea once Heroes of Shadow was announced.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 24, 2010)

Obryn said:


> The biggie on my own radar is the Monster Vault, because I loves me some monster tokens.  Also, expanded fluff and updated stat blocks _would_ be worth having in hard-copy.
> 
> With that said, I'm sure I'll peruse them at the local bookstore or FLGS to see what I think.
> 
> -O




I think lots of the "red box" will be sold to existing players for nostalgia, novelty, and way of getting others to play reasons. A lot. 

Monster Vault, Rules Compendium, and the core set of tiles also offer a lot to current DMs. 

The player books probably offer the least,  except for course for those people playing those kinds of charecters that want the new options. 



> I'd need an excellent reason to buy any core Essentials books instead of just picking through the good parts with the Compendium and Character Builder.




But this is also why we may not see a PHB IV for a long while.


----------



## Solvarn (Jun 24, 2010)

Camelot said:


> They've already done that; remember the martial power source? They could do it again.




I agree, I think that necro will be controller, hex will be defender, and assassin shadow. I don't think they will have a leader.


----------



## Zaran (Jun 24, 2010)

Although I can't stand necromancy, I'd like to see the Necromancer be a defender. I think it fits them well. The City of Villians MMO lists their Mastermind Archetype as a tank class role because they use their pets to fight with and absorb damage leaving the rest of the group to stay back and do damage. Sounds like a defender to me!


----------



## Rechan (Jun 24, 2010)

I do think a stealthy leader would be interesting. There was someone a few months ago bemoaning the lack of a stealthy leader.


----------



## mneme (Jun 24, 2010)

They were, but then a few weeks later, Wizards published Primal Power -- which had a stealthy build for the Shaman.  The eagle shaman can be amazingly stealthy; he just needs to train Stealth (either a background or a feat -- Twilight Adept would be ideal, but Warrior of the Wild, Montastic Discipline,  or Shadow Initiate and/or Alcolyte of the Veil would work nicely) and he's good.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 24, 2010)

mneme said:


> he just needs to train Stealth (either a background or a feat



That goes for any class, doesn't it?


----------



## circadianwolf (Jun 25, 2010)

Eagle Shamans are the only leader build with Dex as a primary or secondary stat.


----------



## Gargazon (Jun 25, 2010)

This is possibly a little off-topic, but the guy on the cover of that book is totally Arthas from Warcraft.


----------



## Raunalyn (Jun 25, 2010)

I can certainly see the Necromancer as a controller. The Hexblade, to me, looks like a defender (al la SwordMage). Of course, we all know the Assassin is a Striker.

I can definitely see a shadow sourced Leader of some type. Maybe their healing mechanic would be applying either a minor status effect or a small amount of damage to an enemy, then allowing allies to spend a healing surge. The fluff would be that the Shadow leader would "drain" the enemy, then give that life-force to their companions.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 25, 2010)

Myn said:


> Another option came into my mind, though I doubt it will happen; A necromancer as a defender that defends from the back, summoning minions and other creatures to take the hits for the party; probably with a sort of spirit-companion like deal with his minions so he has to feed them his own lifeforce to sustain it. Would be breaking the mold, to be sure.



The thing is, a character who defends from the back and prevents hits to the party is better-known as a "Controller" 

-O


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 25, 2010)

I could see the Necromancer being a Leader. Debuffs are just as effective as buffs, and that could be accomplished through "life force draining" fluff. Boosting an ally with necrotic power sounds reasonable, in context, as a healing effect, as would be draining the life out of an opponent in order to heal an ally.


----------



## Malisteen (Jun 25, 2010)

Classes have a "what" that they do, and a "how" that they do it.

The "what" is the role question.  Do they funnel damage away from the party, lay the hurt on individual enemies, debuff/disrupt enemies, or buff/heal allies?

The "how" is a style question.  Do they do their thing in melee or at range?  Do they use weapons or implements?  What defenses do they target?  What status effects do they inflict?  How are their abilities described?

The fundamental aspect of the Necromancy concept is of a evil (or at least 'morally challenged') spell caster who creates undead monsters to do his bidding.

That's great and iconic and totally worthy of getting its own class, but that's all "how" and no "what".  A true to concept necromancer class could easily be built that does any of the main roles, as undead minions can be used for each of them.

Necrofender?  Con based pet class with a single tough pets, or multiple wussier ones, with life draining spells that grant him temporary hit points and a marking ability that lets his undead buddies slap enemies who attack targets other then the Necro or his minions.  The buddies themselves are easily destroyed, but the necro can keep them up by channeling them some of his hit points when he takes damage.

Necrostriker?  Pet class with single, high damage pet, or multiple wussier pets and powers that let each of them make attacks with focus fire possible, supplemented by single target death spells combining high ongoing damage and a disruptive save ends status effect.

Necroleader?  Pet class with one or more pets that attack for minimal damage but apply penalties to Defenses and Saves.  Necro grants temp HP and saves to allies via necrotic energy, and channels HP from enemies for true healing.

Necrotroller?  Multiple pets and/or summons acting as unliving walls and allowing the necromancer to strike multiple targets simultaniously.  Supplemented with status impairing zones of dark magic.

So yeah, the necromancer could be anything.  I'd personally if the necro were not a stiker or leader, since we already have pet classes for those.  Of the remaining two rolls, I think controller is the best thematic fit, but that's just personal opinion.


----------



## Nichwee (Jun 25, 2010)

The Necro could work as most roles if designed for it tbh.

Leader - Lots of debuffs that transfer HP or other such benefits to the party, and Pet Conjurations that give flanking (like a spiritual weapon effect). The basic heal would probably be the only tricky bit but a version where you had to hit a target to activate it, or it spent a different ally's surge than it healed (to indicate the "Steal and Impart Lifeforce" idea)

Controller - Summoning Wizard with undead pets and necrotic damage.

Striker - Could run quite similar to a Warlock but with necrotic damage, and maybe with a boon style effect that those you kill are dominated by you for a turn before they "die". Or maybe a Minor action 'Pet attack' to give the striker damage bonus. So the Necro doesn't auto do striker damage if its normal attack hits but it can have the extra damage scored even when its normal attack misses sometimes.

Defender - A couple of "controller-y" effects but the main trick being a Pet that marks and has a punishment for ignoring the Pet in favour of others. So this basically makes the Necro a defender by him/her having a permanently controlled "Fighter" as a Pet. Link the Pet's HP so that half the damage goes to the Necro and half to the Pet, or give the Pet low HP and let the Necro transfer his/her HP to the Pet as a Minor action (so the Necro still has to take the damage but can be more careful about it so doesn't need as many as most defenders assuming the Pet has enough to survive a little while unhealed).


----------



## Insight (Jun 25, 2010)

If the Necromancer is a Leader, I'd like to see their healing mechanic look something like this:

*WORD OF CORRUPTION
Encounter (Special) * Healing, Shadow
Minor Action      Close* burst 5 (10 at 11th level, 15 at 21st level)
*Special*: You can use this power twice per encounter, but only once per round. At 16th level, you can use this power three times per encounter.
*Target*: One creature
*Effect*: The target is affected by your _word of corruption_.  The next ally who hits the target can spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6 hit points.
Increase the amount of additional hit points regained to 2d6 at 6th level, 3d6 at 11th level, 4d6 at 16th level, 5d6 at 21st level, and 6d6 at 26th level.

Obviously, you can tinker with the amount of bonus healing; the example given above is based on the Cleric's Healing Word power.


----------



## Malisteen (Jun 25, 2010)

There are some serious problems with that power. Healer feature healing is supposed to be pretty reliable. That ability would only let you heal an ally in need if they were the next one to hit the monster (other allies better delay, and the guy who needs healing better not miss!). It's just not reliable enough to serve as a healer feature power. Makes a good encounter power tacked to damage, though.

Necromancy has had access to temporary hit points in the past. I'd rather just go with that.

False Life
_You channel necrotic energy into your ally, filling them with
unnatural vigor and vitality_
minor action, 2/encounter (+1 at lvl 16)
close burst 5, one ally in burst
the ally may spend a healing surge, but gains no hit points. instead the ally may make a saving throw against one effect that a save can end, and gains temporary hit points equal to his healing surge modifier +d6 (with additional dice based on level)

note the saving throw is there to give the necro a reason to hold onto the power and use it during an encounter, rather then just dropping them up front.

Then again, i'd prefer something that involves undead puppets in some way. perhaps key the range off of a pet? I don't know.

but a leader's base healing needs to be a little more reliable.


----------



## Insight (Jun 25, 2010)

Luckily, I'm not one of the actual designers, so no worries there.  I'm sure they'll come up with something we didn't consider.

I suppose it could be rewritten to designate an ally and maybe it gives that ally a bonus to hit.  I like the idea of requiring the ally to hit something, because I feel like that fits the power source better.  Of course, temp hp works pretty well, too.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 25, 2010)

The problem with temp HP is also the fact that if someone is at 0 HP it's not going to save their ass.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 25, 2010)

Obryn said:


> The thing is, a character who defends from the back and prevents hits to the party is better-known as a "Controller"



Not true. I really hate this statement.

The only way the controller prevents hits is 1) moving enemies around the battlefield, and 2) conditions/debuffs. The former doesn't prevent hits. It prevents OAs, and it slows down/eats up enemy movement, certainly, but it's not stopping the monster from charging. The latter has an impact because it eats up the enemy's round or actions, or makes it less likely to hit. 

A Defender defends simply by saying "If you don't do what I say (in almost all cases: attack me), I'm going to punish you". A Shielding Swordmage is a back row defender because SMes can run away and still do their thing. A back row defender then would punish a target for not attacking him or a designated target. 

A good example of this is the Shaman, whose pet can make OAs to enemies, and the shaman can funnel attacks through his spirit. So a back row defender would basically say "Hit my pet or else". And a ranged defender would say "Hit me, or hit someone I designate, Or Else". 

A better destinction than a Controller than being a Back Ranks Defender is that a Defender is a reactive Controller - controlling by the threat of attack or controlling when responding to an enemy. Controllers do less as immediate interrupts, but are pro-active in doing something to a target that thus limits their options (daze, immobilize, etc). 

I mean if we can have a melee controller (Druid), then a ranged defender isn't all that unreasonable, and it's just a matter of time before that class pops up.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 26, 2010)

Rechan said:


> The problem with temp HP is also the fact that if someone is at 0 HP it's not going to save their ass.




And why would a necromancer want to do that?


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2010)

Gradine said:


> And why would a necromancer want to do that?



A necromancer, no. But a player who decides to play the leader to keep his fellow PCs alive...


----------



## Obryn (Jun 26, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Not true. I really hate this statement.
> 
> The only way the controller prevents hits is 1) moving enemies around the battlefield, and 2) conditions/debuffs. The former doesn't prevent hits. It prevents OAs, and it slows down/eats up enemy movement, certainly, but it's not stopping the monster from charging. The latter has an impact because it eats up the enemy's round or actions, or makes it less likely to hit.
> 
> ...



I see what you're saying, but all a Mark is, is a debuff with a condition - "If you attack me, you're fine."  At range, that is almost exactly the same as any other debuff, because attacking you becomes difficult.  It's also why Shielding Swordmages are as much controllers as defenders - their mark is similar to an effect giving -2 to-hit and -x to damage.

If you're forcing an enemy to attack someone other than you, I don't necessarily see that as very defender-y at all.  No moreso than any other debuff, anyway

YMMV.   It's mostly an academic distinction.

-O


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I see what you're saying, but all a Mark is, is a debuff with a condition - "If you attack me, you're fine."  At range, that is almost exactly the same as any other debuff, because attacking you becomes difficult.



Except that difficulty can very well be part of being the defender. They could target ranged artillery/controllers, and thus you two trade shots across the field (and eat the conditions/AoE that would be going at your party). Or they could be melee monsters, at which point they are forced to close in To You. Point being that if you can Mark and Effect them at a distance, then you're a ranged defender. 



> If you're forcing an enemy to attack someone other than you, I don't necessarily see that as very defender-y at all.  No moreso than any other debuff, anyway



If they're attacking your pet that you're forcing them to beat on, though, that's quite different.


----------



## Takhisis (Jun 27, 2010)

In AD&D/1e and 2e, healing was technicaly under necromancy, so a necromancer as a leader is something that could easily happen if Wizards wants to go that route. However, personally, if there was a Necromancer leader, I would want to see him be a bit like the dark pact warlock in that some of his powers would feed off of his allies as he could  do things like spend the healing surges of allies who really did not need them at that moment to heal/buff/protect another ally who needs protection. While it's still aiding an ally something like that has an "evil" enough feel to be a necromancer. I could see a lot of powers that deal with transferring life force from one place to another as well, very reminiscent of a 2e Necromancer. I also could see the leader necromancer having summons which could allow allies to flank, grant allies bonuses when near them or even afflict enemies  with status effects or -s to attack rolls, or something else like that.

However, a necromancer as a controller works just as well, and if that is the case I really see an Anti-Paladin/Blackguard type being the shadow leader. He would most likely be a bit like a warlord with some unholy powers rather then a healbot like a cleric. Using lots of melee range powers that bolster his allies and such.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Jun 27, 2010)

I can see an argument for Necromancers being a new thing.  A true hybrid of Controller/Leader.

Use necrotic energy to heal the party or unleash minions.  Likewise, all their powers can have this life/death dichotomy, with a kicker that can be chosen when the spell is cast.

It'll be an interesting mechanic.  "Do I want to heal the party with my class feature, or use it to summon some minions?"

Come to think of it, it's rather similar to how Runepriests play.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 27, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Except that difficulty can very well be part of being the defender. They could target ranged artillery/controllers, and thus you two trade shots across the field (and eat the conditions/AoE that would be going at your party). Or they could be melee monsters, at which point they are forced to close in To You. Point being that if you can Mark and Effect them at a distance, then you're a ranged defender.



So that would make Swordmages ranged defenders?  I can see some argument for that, yeah.  I also think Shielding Swordmages have a crazy-powerful mark for that reason, though.



> If they're attacking your pet that you're forcing them to beat on, though, that's quite different.



True - but I still think a summon would fall under the aegis of the controller, given that you're creating something new on the battlefield which is influencing its flow and controlling a zone of monsters.

-O


----------



## Rechan (Jun 27, 2010)

Obryn said:


> True - but I still think a summon would fall under the aegis of the controller, given that you're creating something new on the battlefield which is influencing its flow and controlling a zone of monsters.



Less a summons and more a Shaman's Spirit Companion. Unless you're calling the Shaman a controller because they have a "Summoned" creature?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 27, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Less a summons and more a Shaman's Spirit Companion. Unless you're calling the Shaman a controller because they have a "Summoned" creature?




They are definitely a controller secondary.  Their spirit doesn't really control in the same way that summoned creatures do.  They are completely immune to area attacks and a large number of attacks that target them specifically don't do enough damage to destroy them.  Not being a creature, they can't have status effects applied to them and they can be recreated at will.  So, there isn't much incentive for the enemies to try to take it out and waste their attacks.

Meanwhile, with Wizard's summoned creatures, they do significant damage with low hitpoints.  Might as well spend an attack destroying them since destroying them effectively ends a daily power.  And I tend to define control as anything that causes the enemies to not make optimal choices.  In the case of summoned creatures, the enemy is forced to attack a creature other than one of the PCs as their action to avoid taking damage.

Controlling and Defending are very similar.  Controller prevent enemies from making attacks on the party.  Defenders force the enemies to attack THEM.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 27, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Less a summons and more a Shaman's Spirit Companion. Unless you're calling the Shaman a controller because they have a "Summoned" creature?



I dunno - are you calling them a Defender because enemies are encouraged to attack the spirit in order to avoid effects? 

-O


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 27, 2010)

When the necromancer is the controller, where does it leave the illusionist?

Personally i like someone who has learned enough of life´s essentials by studying the dead... some abilies to numb aching wounds and mending it after the battle would be a nice thing for a necromancer...


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jun 27, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> When the necromancer is the controller, where does it leave the illusionist?



The Illusionist is a Wizard build, specifically what happens when you take the Deceptive Orb specialty.


> Personally i like someone who has learned enough of life´s essentials by studying the dead... some abilies to numb aching wounds and mending it after the battle would be a nice thing for a necromancer...



Most likely the Necromancer will get Rituals for free.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 27, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I dunno - are you calling them a Defender because enemies are encouraged to attack the spirit in order to avoid effects?



Enemies are NOT encouraged to attack the spirit; there's no effect which enemies are avoiding. There's no incentive to do so. The spirit's main functions are: Conduit for powers for the Shaman (melee attacks through it, enemies adjacent to spirit get effects), take up a square, and take OAs against enemies that move away without shifting.

With a minor action the shaman can just pop the spirit back into place, so attacking a spirit really has no real utility for an enemy.


----------



## circadianwolf (Jun 28, 2010)

Aside from all those powers in PP that have the spirit mark the target, of course.


----------



## Camelot (Jun 28, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> They are definitely a controller secondary.




It's funny you say that, since shaman's are listed in the Player's Handbook 2 as being Leader, secondary defender or striker.  However, it's true that Primal Power introduced the World Speaker Shaman, which is a secondary controller.  Still, that's one out of four options.  Most shamans are secondary strikers.



> Their spirit doesn't really control in the same way that summoned creatures do. They are completely immune to area attacks and a large number of attacks that target them specifically don't do enough damage to destroy them. Not being a creature, they can't have status effects applied to them and they can be recreated at will. So, there isn't much incentive for the enemies to try to take it out and waste their attacks.
> 
> Meanwhile, with Wizard's summoned creatures, they do significant damage with low hitpoints. Might as well spend an attack destroying them since destroying them effectively ends a daily power. And I tend to define control as anything that causes the enemies to not make optimal choices. In the case of summoned creatures, the enemy is forced to attack a creature other than one of the PCs as their action to avoid taking damage.
> 
> Controlling and Defending are very similar. Controller prevent enemies from making attacks on the party. Defenders force the enemies to attack THEM.




I do like this definition of Controller, though.  Good thinking.


----------



## GameDoc (Dec 13, 2010)

Just wondering how people's thoughts have changed since we've seen the Essentials classes.

The Hexblade vis-a-vis _Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms_ is actually a Warlock build.  So, will _Heroes of Shadow_ basically give us the shadow pact version of the Warlock-Hexblade?  Will it be a striker or might the build fill another role?

Will the Necromancer be a Mage build or a totally new class?  Seems like they are open to multiple power sources for essentials builds (see rangers and assassins). So I could see a Mage-Necromancer being a "shadow and arcane controller."


----------



## Ajar (Dec 13, 2010)

The necromancer and nethermancer have been revealed by Wizards already in their 2011 product preview on the main D&D site. Both are wizard builds and they seem to be Essentiallized. The blackguard is a paladin build.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Dec 13, 2010)

Ajar said:


> The necromancer and nethermancer have been revealed by Wizards already in their 2011 product preview on the main D&D site. Both are wizard builds and they seem to be Essentiallized. The blackguard is a paladin build.




Technically speaking:

Nethemancy and Necromancy are schools, which means they will be part of the Mage build (i.e., the Essential wizard). Outside of some examples, which appear to replace powers with class features (like the spoiled summons), most of the powers will have the keywords which interact with the Mage school specialties, but are usable by all wizards.

The blackguard is an entirely new build as it's a striker, although it's use of vices will likely mirror in some ways the cavalier's use of virtue to determine some of it's class features. Not sure yet, although it's quite possible that it will resemble Essentialized builds (then again ... the Mage isn't very Essentialized ... it is similar to many builds from Divine Power or Martial Power, etc, which give up some class features [implement mastery and ritual casting for free] in exchange for othe class features [school specialization, encounter powers in spellbook, free magic missle] and lacks many of the 'staples' of Essential builds like removing choice of encounter powers).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 13, 2010)

Although a true necromancer leader class would have been really nice (with skeletal minion and healing word equivalent) a nercromancy school does not sound wrong at all.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 13, 2010)

Ajar said:


> The necromancer and nethermancer have been revealed by Wizards already in their 2011 product preview on the main D&D site. Both are wizard builds and they seem to be Essentiallized. The blackguard is a paladin build.



To clarify:

Necromancy and Nethermancy are schools of wizard spells, which any wizard can take.

Mages (the Essentials build of the wizard) have Necromancy/Nethermancy-specific benefits for their "apprentice/Expert/etc" class features, as seen in the December and Beyond article.


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk (Dec 13, 2010)

How I hate necro'd threads.

If a thread hasn't had comments in more than a couple weeks, start a new conversation with a link back to the old thread.

I wish the board admins would enforce this through software settings.


----------



## Camelot (Dec 13, 2010)

TikkchikFenTikktikk said:


> How I hate necro'd threads.
> 
> If a thread hasn't had comments in more than a couple weeks, start a new conversation with a link back to the old thread.
> 
> I wish the board admins would enforce this through software settings.




But how could anyone resist necroing a thread about necromancy?


----------



## GameDoc (Dec 13, 2010)

TikkchikFenTikktikk said:


> How I hate necro'd threads.
> 
> If a thread hasn't had comments in more than a couple weeks, start a new conversation with a link back to the old thread.
> 
> I wish the board admins would enforce this through software settings.




And this, my fellow gamers, is why I'm not a more frequent commenter or contributor to this forum.  If my netiquette isn't up to snuff, fine - let me know.  But lose the smug.  

Good night, Vienna.  I'm out!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 13, 2010)

Only a few months so it's not really necromancy - more like revivification!


----------



## Umbran (Dec 13, 2010)

TikkchikFenTikktikk said:


> How I hate necro'd threads.
> 
> If a thread hasn't had comments in more than a couple weeks, start a new conversation with a link back to the old thread.
> 
> I wish the board admins would enforce this through software settings.





Folks, 

Tikkchik here has just demonstrated how to fail to deal well with your own dislikes.  

If you dislike a type of thread so badly that you are somehow compelled to threadcrap and try to tell others how to post, then you'll quickly find that you no longer have a choice in the matter.  Save us all the trouble and walk away from threads you don't like.


----------



## Bartoneus (Dec 13, 2010)

I'm actually a bit disappointed that the preview material is giving the impression there won't be a couple of new Shadow classes. At the moment the Assassin is the only class for the power source, and even the Blackguard is still just a Divine Striker. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the idea of NOT adding a slew of new classes just to fill a power source out, but with the way things are now I would rather have seen the Assassin as a Rogue build than a whole new class. It seems the design philosophy behind 4E has changed over the last few years, possibly for the better, but I can't help but wonder what kinds of Shadow/Elemental/Ki based classes/mechanics could be created that would change some people's games as much as Psionics do.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 14, 2010)

It is actually much more elegant to add more subclasses.

This would have saved us a lot of trouble going through many powers which are just useless on most of the different builds of those classes.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Dec 14, 2010)

Bartoneus said:


> I'm actually a bit disappointed that the preview material is giving the impression there won't be a couple of new Shadow classes. At the moment the Assassin is the only class for the power source, and even the Blackguard is still just a Divine Striker.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the idea of NOT adding a slew of new classes just to fill a power source out, but with the way things are now I would rather have seen the Assassin as a Rogue build than a whole new class. It seems the design philosophy behind 4E has changed over the last few years, possibly for the better, but I can't help but wonder what kinds of Shadow/Elemental/Ki based classes/mechanics could be created that would change some people's games as much as Psionics do.




Considering that the Essential assassin is martial/shadow, and the ranger is martial/primal, it's quite possible that some of the new builds (like blackguard) will be hybrid classes as well (divine/shadow) while the new schools, being "inside" the Mage build would likely just be shadow flavored instead of shadow 'powered'. Then again, a pyromancer isn't elemental powered.

In terms of power sources, most have a clear 'source' of where the power comes from.

Martial is basically the "Batman" power source of no 'magical' power source. Divine comes from the astral sea. Primal comes from spirits on the default plane. Psionics technically is attached to the far realm, coming from within but not the same way as martial. With Shadow and Elemental, they do similarly have locations for the power to come from (the shadowfell and elemental chaos respectively). The problem comes with arcane. It sort of ties all over. Heck, just look at the warlock. You have ties to the far realm (star pact and vestige pact), ties to the elemental chaos (hellfire pact), the feywild (fey pact), the shadowfell (dark pact). With arcane being such a catchall ... stuff like shadow and elemental find it a bit harder to carve out a niche. You would basically have "a wizard/sorceror that only uses certain types of powers" ... basically a specialized build that focusses on one type of power.

Considering what we've seen from stuff like the runepriest and essentials, etc, a new power source isn't necessary for adding new mechanics. And many concepts can still fit into existing classes. A ninja could be a new build for the monk (or rogue, or assassin). The Essential builds for druid and cleric, like the wizard, could easily get at a new domain/season tied to shadow and death/undeath.


----------



## Aegeri (Dec 14, 2010)

Personally if I'm disappointed these things are "builds" and not new classes comes down to a simple choice. Do I want more Runepriests and Seekers, classes in full that have been left to die due to a complete lack of any support? Or do I want builds that are majorly massively mechanically different to their original class, yet benefit from piles of already available support?

I believe my choice is easy here.


----------



## Bartoneus (Dec 14, 2010)

WalterKovacs said:


> Considering that the Essential assassin is martial/shadow, and the ranger is martial/primal, it's quite possible that some of the new builds (like blackguard) will be hybrid classes as well (divine/shadow) while the new schools, being "inside" the Mage build would likely just be shadow flavored instead of shadow 'powered'. Then again, a pyromancer isn't elemental powered.




Walter / UngeheuerLich / Aegeri - I agree with all three of you! It's a bit like I feel one way (that sub-classes are more elegant and should be done) but I'm also a bit disappointed in not seeing a brand new approach and treatment for new classes that would set things like Shadow and Elemental apart. My disappointment comes from a strong desire to see things that are wholly new to D&D and push the game in different directions much like I believe Psionics did (though Psionics is still a very contentious thing, a lot of people love it and a lot of people don't go near it).

Walter: from the preview that WotC released, Blackguard was listed as solely a Divine Striker, not Divine/Shadow Striker, so that's where a lot of my assumptions come from. I think you're dead on with pointing out that Arcane covers a lot of territory, and that is one of the issues, but in my experience most people are quite comfortable with the distinction between Wizard/Mage and Psion, so I'm interested to see what kind of other distinctions could be made when you consider the same idea with different power sources (like Shadow and Elemental). I'm not saying something brilliant is there, I'm just saying I'm hopeful that there is something very cool that could be done with those power sources and it seems WotC is comfortable relegating them to secondary power sources whereas everything I've seen before with 4E made me think they'd be trying to push things further.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 14, 2010)

Bartoneus said:


> ...but with the way things are now I would rather have seen the Assassin as a Rogue build than a whole new class.



This would make a lot of sense if it was planned from the beginning to be this way... but you know what I believe happened?

The Assassin was a repurposed Ninja when the Ki power source got nixed.

I suspect that way back when they were putting Player's Handbook 3 together, they had a partially fleshed out Ki power source.  After all... the removal of the Ki source was fairly far along in the design process... and this is evident from so many aspects of the design that remained with the Monk.  The Ki Focus, the Full Disciplines etc.

What happened to all the other class stuff they designed for Ki?  They wouldn't just throw it out whole-cloth... they probably took what they had and tried to find ways to re-use them.  And looking at the non-psionic classes that were in PH3... the choices they went with and the power sources they were assigned to seem awfully arbitrary.  The Runepriest has _nothing_ in common with the other Divine classes, especially considering it doesn't use Channel Divinity and doesn't actually get it's powers from the gods.  So what if the Runepriest was actually repurposed from another class?   The Seeker?  I've heard a number of people talk about how the "magical archer" archetype is actually fairly prominent in anime (granted I know nothing about it, so I cannot confirm whether or not this is true), but using the magical force of Ki to make a controller archer seems extremely plausible.  And the Assassin?  Heck, this was the easiest thing of them all.  When the announcement of the Assassin playtest happened practically on top of the announcement that the Ki source was being jettisoned... I immediately thought to myself "Well... that's the Ninja class being given to us right there."

If my beliefs are in any way true, then we really can't blame or hold WotC accountable for the decision to make the Assassin its own class, but rather should look at it as an extra "perk" we got for being DDI subscribers.  After all, they could have just thrown out all the hard work they did on the class all together... but they instead decided to give us a little something extra as a reward.


----------



## Bold or Stupid (Dec 14, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> This would make a lot of sense if it was planned from the beginning to be this way... but you know what I believe happened?
> 
> The Assassin was a repurposed Ninja when the Ki power source got nixed.
> 
> I suspect that way back when they were putting Player's Handbook 3 together, they had a partially fleshed out Ki power source.  After all... the removal of the Ki source was fairly far along in the design process... and this is evident from so many aspects of the design that remained with the Monk.  The Ki Focus, the Full Disciplines etc.




I've thought the same thing myself. The Seeker could easily be a Shinto Miko (often associated with archery iirc) hence an easy switch to primal as Shinto is a spirit based religion. The Rune priest is I think originally the old Sohei warrior priest class, the Warhammer prof one of the builds get could be a left over from builds being specific weapon based, and the rune states would work a Stances you can switch between (ala the knight).


----------



## Xris Robin (Dec 14, 2010)

WalterKovacs said:


> Heck, just look at the warlock. You have ties to the far realm (star pact and vestige pact), ties to the elemental chaos (hellfire pact), the feywild (fey pact), the shadowfell (dark pact). With arcane being such a catchall ... stuff like shadow and elemental find it a bit harder to carve out a niche. You would basically have "a wizard/sorceror that only uses certain types of powers" ... basically a specialized build that focusses on one type of power.



The vestige pact isn't really tied to anything, the infernal pact is tied to devils... which live in the astral sea in the nine hells, and the dark pact is tied to the underdark, not the shadowfell.  Just saying.


----------

