# Heroes of Shadow Table of Contents



## Neverfate (Mar 7, 2011)

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Shadow Magic)

The new HoS preview interestingly has the table of contents at the bottom as a download.

Classes = Assassin (executioner), Paladin(blackguard), Vampire, Warlock (binder)

Class Options = Cleric (death domain), Warlock ("new powers"), Hexblade (gloom pact), Wizard (Necromancy and nethermancy schools)

Races = Revenant, Shade, Vyrloka, Dwarf, Eladrins ("the Pale Court"), Elves, Halfling, Humans

10 Paragon Paths (will list later)

4 Epic Destinies 

2 pages of shadow/adventurer feat options. 1 page of equipment.


----------



## Mummolus (Mar 7, 2011)

Interesting that they've included new Revenant stuff, but nothing for the Shadar-kai.


----------



## Colmarr (Mar 7, 2011)

Neverfate said:


> Races = Revenant, Shade, Vyrloka, *Dwarf*, Eladrins ("the Pale Court"), *Elves*, *Halfling*, *Humans*




Huh?!

Don't these races already exist, both in classic and essentials? Is something new about them in the works, or is this more duplication of existing information across multiple books?

That peeve aside, I have to say that the excerpts from Evard's writings have so far been amazing. If there's more of that in the book, Heroes of Shadow is going to be a very enjoyable read.


----------



## OSEZNO (Mar 7, 2011)

Very excited to see this when it comes out.

Just curious and doubtful if a DM is ever going to let me play them


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 7, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> Huh?!
> 
> Don't these races already exist, both in classic and essentials? Is something new about them in the works, or is this more duplication of existing information across multiple books?
> 
> That peeve aside, I have to say that the excerpts from Evard's writings have so far been amazing. If there's more of that in the book, Heroes of Shadow is going to be a very enjoyable read.




Or... probably because they're only getting a single page or two each, it's one of those 'how do these essentials races deal with things of Shadow, what does it mean to them?'

Man, some people would have their questions answered if they just looked at the contents.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 7, 2011)

Well, I had my question answered. This is essentials. Too bad. 

My group and I have decided not to use Essentials after giving it a look, so I will not be needing this book. I imagine Feywild will be the same. Really too bad.


----------



## Vicar In A Tutu (Mar 7, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Well, I had my question answered. This is essentials. Too bad.
> 
> My group and I have decided not to use Essentials after giving it a look, so I will not be needing this book. I imagine Feywild will be the same. Really too bad.



lol


----------



## erleni (Mar 7, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Well, I had my question answered. This is essentials. Too bad.  [/]
> 
> Agreed. I hoped for some love for the original assassin but now I think that the PP and Ed will be geared towards the executioner too.
> 
> Really sad....


----------



## Dannager (Mar 7, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Well, I had my question answered. This is essentials. Too bad.
> 
> My group and I have decided not to use Essentials after giving it a look, so I will not be needing this book. I imagine Feywild will be the same. Really too bad.



I...wait...what?


----------



## Klaus (Mar 7, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Well, I had my question answered. This is essentials. Too bad.
> 
> My group and I have decided not to use Essentials after giving it a look, so I will not be needing this book. I imagine Feywild will be the same. Really too bad.



Uh... No.

I think those entries list how these D&D races (which appear in PH1 and Essentials) view and approach shadow magic. HoS is not an Essentials book.


----------



## Nullzone (Mar 7, 2011)

Why does the anti-essentials crowd feel they have to manifest that hate on every new product that comes out? We get it, you don't like the series. Go back to petting your PHBs.

Joke's on you, though; this book has nothing to do with essentials. It's a hardbound book, no different from any other player option book in print (Arcane Power, Martial Power...) and it seems pretty clear just from the overview that it provides a lot of flavor for both players and DMs in addition to the crunchy bits of the additional play options.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 7, 2011)

I have to say that I'm liking this new openness, from Wizards. This also looks like a good book, that I'll be picking up. The Pale Court and Binder Warlock are things that I could have used a year ago, so I'm definitely glad to see them now.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 7, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> Why does the anti-essentials crowd feel they have to manifest that hate on every new product that comes out? We get it, you don't like the series. Go back to petting your PHBs.
> 
> Joke's on you, though; this book has nothing to do with essentials. It's a hardbound book, no different from any other player option book in print (Arcane Power, Martial Power...) and it seems pretty clear just from the overview that it provides a lot of flavor for both players and DMs in addition to the crunchy bits of the additional play options.




Right, and besides, would people expect that WotC would simply toss the e-classes out there and then forevermore ignore them? That they wouldn't incorporate what they've learned from designing Essentials into what they do from here on out? Of course there are options for Essentials classes. Of course when they create a new class it is likely to adhere to the Essentials class design pattern to one extent or another. I don't see anything that says "PHB1 classes, for get it, you're dirt, we're not going to even acknowledge you exist anymore!" Now, maybe that's the case, but maybe people want to actually see some of the previews at the very least before they decide. You might be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 7, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> Joke's on you, though; this book has nothing to do with essentials.




Warpriest.

nuff said, really. 


but to continue.

Did you see the writeup for the paragon path they showed a few days ago?


----------



## Klaus (Mar 7, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Warpriest.
> 
> nuff said, really.
> 
> ...



Nuff what? Yes, there's the Death domain for warpriests. And those powers will still be "Cleric Attack X", meaning any cleric can take them. Ditto on the necromancy and nethermancy spells for the Wizard.

And aside from the format, the PP previewed in March & Beyond was no different from what PPs have always been.


----------



## kaomera (Mar 7, 2011)

New books going forward are probably mostly going to include some contend aimed at the Essentials sub-classes. We can't be sure yet how that's going to work out, but it could well include alternate features etc. for the sub-classes that isn't compatible with core class builds.

Mind you, this is no different from supporting material from the PHB2 or 3 or any of the Power books, except that we've got a very vocal group who don't want to use options introduced in Essentials. You can't use any new Ranger Beast powers unless you're using PHB2 material in your game...


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 7, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> Why does the anti-essentials crowd feel they have to manifest that hate on every new product that comes out? We get it, you don't like the series. Go back to petting your PHBs.
> 
> Joke's on you, though; this book has nothing to do with essentials. It's a hardbound book, no different from any other player option book in print (Arcane Power, Martial Power...) and it seems pretty clear just from the overview that it provides a lot of flavor for both players and DMs in addition to the crunchy bits of the additional play options.




I don't get the anti-anti-essentials hate 

And no, it is not like the 'X Power' books. It contains new races.

It seems more like a 'Heroes of X' book, what is fitting as it is named 'Heroes of Shadow' 

That said, yes, every new book will now contain essentials material. Live with it. The question remains, will there be new options for non-essential classes (and only them, not compatible with essentials, like new implement masteries for wizards)? I don't think so...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 7, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> I don't get the anti-anti-essentials hate
> 
> And no, it is not like the 'X Power' books. It contains new races.
> 
> ...




I for one would really hope that there are options for pre-Essentials classes. It seems to me like it would be kind of dumb for WotC to release material that a lot of people are not going to be that interested in. It shouldn't be hard for them to provide a feat or two or just basic optional class features or whatever for old style classes.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 7, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> The question remains, will there be new options for non-essential classes (and only them, not compatible with essentials, like new implement masteries for wizards)? I don't think so...



I don't think so either. And that means I'm no longer interested.

I guess, I can stop looking at any forthcoming 4e product that is (mainly) aimed at players. The changes on the DM side of things have been less annoying, so I should still get good use out of things like the Nentir Vale MV.

Since they also cancelled the DDM line, this means I have more money to spend on other stuff. I think, I can live with that


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 7, 2011)

There are most definitely options in there for pre-Essentials classes.

All those juicy Cleric, Warlock and Wizard options, under the heading of *Class Options*. If they were only for Essentials classes, then it would have likely said Warpriest, Hexblade, and Mage, but that's not what it says.

There is also a section later on that spells out that there are New Powers for older classes, Clerics, Warlocks, and Wizards, *in addition to* Death domain, Binder, and Nether/Necromancy schools.

Not to mention Paragon Paths, which usually have pretty broad entry requirements. And there will be feats that anyone can take.

And I'm pretty sure you don't need to be an Essentials character to enjoy a new race.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 7, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> _...
> _There is also a section later on that spells out that there are New Powers for older classes, Clerics, Warlocks, and Wizards, *in addition to* Death domain, Binder, and Nether/Necromancy schools.
> ...




I think you are partial right, but I think that isn't stuff for the older classes. It is just stuff they too can use.

On the other hand, maybe you are alright and we will see new cleric at-wills and encounter attack powers that are not part of a domain...

And I highly doubt that were will be feats that require 'implement mastery' for example.


----------



## Nullzone (Mar 7, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Warpriest.
> 
> nuff said, really.




Damn, you're so right. I guess we should start calling every edition of Dragon magazine essentials too since they sometimes have one article per edition devoted to those build options. Nevermind that there's _*nine other articles of content that are completely unrelated and stand on their own merits*_.

PS- And yet you missed the line _right before that one_ which clearly says *Cleric Options: New powers*. Please don't be dense.



Walking Dad said:


> And no, it is not like the 'X Power' books. It contains new races.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> That said, yes, every new book will now contain essentials material. Live with it. The question remains, will there be new options for non-essential classes (and only them, not compatible with essentials, like new implement masteries for wizards)? I don't think so...




Binder warlock is a classic-PHB-ranged-warlock and has nothing to do with hexblades.

Necro/nethermancy wizard schools have nothing to do with the Mage; in fact, the Mage interpretation of them is listed completely separately.

I compared it to the player option books because it provides content based on a centralized theme. If you want to nitpick the fact that it has stuff that no other option book has, whatever. This isn't a courtroom though so the principle of precedent doesn't really fly.



Jhaelen said:


> I don't think so either. And that means I'm no longer interested.
> 
> I guess, I can stop looking at any forthcoming 4e product that is (mainly) aimed at players. The changes on the DM side of things have been less annoying, so I should still get good use out of things like the Nentir Vale MV.
> 
> Since they also cancelled the DDM line, this means I have more money to spend on other stuff. I think, I can live with that




So you're passing judgment without even seeing what the rest of the book looks like? We have no idea the direction they'll take the paragon paths or epic destinies; they've been very specific to emphasize that this book will have something for everyone, so I won't be surprised to see some material for martial and primal characters in there.


Respectfully, all three of you seriously need to back up and take a breath. Your prejudice is running away with your emotions and I feel badly for your gaming groups if everything you do is looked at through the lens of "HATE ESSENTIALS RAWRRRRRR".


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 7, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> I think you are partial right, but I think that isn't stuff for the older classes. It is just stuff they too can use.
> 
> On the other hand, maybe you are alright and we will see new cleric at-wills and encounter attack powers that are not part of a domain...
> 
> And I highly doubt that were will be feats that require 'implement mastery' for example.



Does it really matter if new at-wills are part of a domain or not? Older classes can still take them.

I can understand the desire to have material that is _compatible_ with older classes, but _exclusive?_ That doesn't make any sense. There are already a ton of options that are exclusive to pre-E classes.

It sometimes feels like the anti-E crowd won't be happy unless or until WotC announces that they are completely forsaking Essentials and going back to producing only non-essentials material.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

And why should it? There are loads of folks who like to use both. Why can't we just live and let live?

It has already been *explicitly stated* that they are not discontinuing support for older classes, and it's not being abandoned, but new stuff is new, and needs support more than old stuff with almost 3 years of exclusive support. You might have to wait a bit before you see a lot of it, but this book will contain some stuff you can use.

Maybe not exclusive, but there will be some.

You want something that requires implement mastery? You do realize that there are already 6 implement masteries to, what, 3 schools?

Oh, and all the old classes are getting updates, one a month (two in June, by their stated intent), for the next 5 months. If that doesn't make you happy, I don't know what will.


----------



## Nullzone (Mar 7, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Oh, and all the old classes are getting updates, one a month (two in June, by their stated intent), for the next 5 months. If that doesn't make you happy, I don't know what will.




Yes, but they're getting ESSENTIALIZED! *THE HORROR*!


----------



## renau1g (Mar 7, 2011)

Hey, so when 4e was announced we had edition wars... Essentials isn't a new edition... what should we call this fighting over stuff now? 

the E-wars (for Essentials), the OMG everything is still compatible-wars, the mid-edition wars? I don't know, I'm not creative enough I s'pose.


----------



## Nullzone (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm sure if the naysayers had their way we'd be calling it the dark age or something


----------



## Oates (Mar 7, 2011)

As others have stated, more than likely, it will contain material for both. Essential format classes (Blackguard, Executioner, Binder, Necromancer) and new powers for PHB1 classes; Wizard, Cleric, Warlock.

I am wary of the 'Vampire' class. I hope that it is an essential class without any basic on any of the standard classes [i.e. Slayer(Fighter), Cavalier(Paladin)]

I also find it odd that there is not any information concerning the Shadar-Kai ... the 'race' of shadow.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 7, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> Huh?!
> 
> Don't these races already exist, both in classic and essentials? Is something new about them in the works, or is this more duplication of existing information across multiple books?




The ToC lists a couple specific entries for each race: 
Dwarf = The Lure of Shadow, the Obsidian Cave
Eladrin = The Pale Court, The Twilight Phantoms
Elves = Gloaming Hearts, Dusk Elves
Halflings = The Bleak Paths, The Phantom Blades
Humans = First in Shadow, Dark Teachings

Nothing indicates they are just reprinting the standard race entries. Presumably they are just providing shadow-themed options. The Dusk Elves, for example, previously showed up as a bloodline in Dragon magazine (I believe). So some of those options may be racial bloodlines, others could just be backgrounds, etc.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 7, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Well, I had my question answered. This is essentials. Too bad.
> 
> My group and I have decided not to use Essentials after giving it a look, so I will not be needing this book. I imagine Feywild will be the same. Really too bad.




Fair enough, though it is pretty clear the book supports both Essentials as well as the original classes - as seen by having cleric options alongside warpriest options, wizard options alongside mage options. 

Now, yes, presumably the format for presenting the new class builds and paragon paths will follow the same layout they used for Essentials. If that is truly your issue, that's rather silly. A Paragon Path still provides 2-3 benefits at level 11 (one based on Action Points) and another benefit at level 16, plus an encounter power at 11, a utility power at 12, and a daily power at 20. 

The fact that those benefits are listed by level, rather than grouped into features vs powers, is a completely trivial difference, and hardly a good reason to boycott a book. 

Now, if you and your group don't have characters that would benefit from these options, or would not be thematically appropriate to dabble in shadow power, that's a perfectly fair reason to avoid the book. But dismissing it as simply Essentials, and thus not worth your time... well, I don't see any real reason for it, but I suppose it is your money to spend and your decision to make.


----------



## Xris Robin (Mar 7, 2011)

The only problem I have is that they decided to make Shadow a power source you add to other powers, leaving the poor original Assassin in the dust.  The only pure Shadow option in this book is the monster class, Vampire.  That's... disappointing for me.

A few things I noticed... the Vices (builds) for Blackguards are Domination and Fury, the Bloodlines (builds, also, I assume) for Vampires are Beguiler and Stalker, the Binder has Gloom and Star Pact, and the Hexblade also gains the Gloom Pact.  No mention of Gloom for the original Warlock, but maybe in the June Class Compendium article?  Or just some new powers under that section.

Also of note, Vryloka have a utility powers section same as the Shades.  No mention of Shadar-Kai anywhere.


----------



## Neverfate (Mar 7, 2011)

If anyone can help me out on this one, I'm almost sure I read somewhere that Shadowfell: Gloomwrought and Beyond will have some player content. I need to find the source where I read/heard that. If anyone knows or can find it, that'd be helpful. I'd assume, if there is player content in the book, it would be the Shadar-Kai. 

Also, if we do not see them in the "Racial Ability Scores" in Dragon later this month, then we know they are lurking in another book!


----------



## AntlerDruid (Mar 7, 2011)

I am alittle disappointed there will only be 2 pages of feats considering all the new "sub-classes" and races that are to appear in this book. 

Also no rituals


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 7, 2011)

Askanipsion said:


> I am alittle disappointed there will only be 2 pages of feats considering all the new "sub-classes" and races that are to appear in this book.
> 
> Also no rituals




Realistically, there are only two races in the book that will need additional feat support. Revenants have the ability to gain feat support from their origin race. Vampires are a class, so they similarly will be able to draw from their origin race for feats. 

And if they gave you everything now, there would be nothing to sell to you in the future.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 7, 2011)

Ryujin said:


> Realistically, there are only two races in the book that will need additional feat support. Revenants have the ability to gain feat support from their origin race. Vampires are a class, so they similarly will be able to draw from their origin race for feats.
> 
> And if they gave you everything now, there would be nothing to sell to you in the future.




I think they've just plain decided to ramp back the proliferation of feats a LOT. 2 pages is a reasonable amount though, enough for 15-20 feats. They might also split feat support for races to their own sections. 

I'm also pretty disappointed at the thought that invoking shadow power would have NO ritual magic of any kind associated with it???!!!!! Even if you have a gripe with the ritual system you really gotta admit that rituals + shadow is a pretty natural thing. 

Come on Mike, I know there weren't rituals per-se in 1e, but really...


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 7, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think they've just plain decided to ramp back the proliferation of feats a LOT. 2 pages is a reasonable amount though, enough for 15-20 feats. They might also split feat support for races to their own sections.
> 
> I'm also pretty disappointed at the thought that invoking shadow power would have NO ritual magic of any kind associated with it???!!!!! Even if you have a gripe with the ritual system you really gotta admit that rituals + shadow is a pretty natural thing.
> 
> Come on Mike, I know there weren't rituals per-se in 1e, but really...




I'd like to see more rituals also, but the truth is that there's already a wealth of them available. There were several rituals released in the "Open Grave" book and many others can easily be reflavoured. Another inconvenient truth is that you and I, people who like rituals, seem to be in the decided minority.


----------



## mudlock (Mar 7, 2011)

I just assumed that "Shade" would be PC-term for Shadar-Kai; kind of like how Doppelganger becomes Changeling.

(And isn't there Shade=Shadar-Kai precedence in Forgotten Realms?)


----------



## Badwe (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm pretty excited about this book, but then I was excited about the books that got canned as well.

I think there's some legitimate concern from the anti-essentials folks.  My group is not anti-essentials per-se but we have been going in this campaign for longer than the existence of essentials, and a lot of the stuff is just plain incompatible.  So, for example, if they make mostly powers that key off of mage schools, my pre-E wizard can't take any of those powers.  

Of course, we just invited a new player and since we were high level and he had never played 4e before (just 3.5) i encouraged him to make an essentials martial character, so now we have a mix.  

Ultimately, if a hardcover is going to be successful, well-recieved, and actually SELL, it has to have some things for everyone.  This means essentials and non-essentials stuff, and stuff that works equally well with both.  

That being said, there are some pretty obvious shortcomings: no shadar-kai, no shadow themes, and no rituals.  I'm wondering if the table of contents was meant to ferret out good candidates for the first wave of dragon articles but... lately it seems like they're having a hard enough time keeping up with a month worth of standard content much less supporting a book.


----------



## Neverfate (Mar 7, 2011)

mudlock said:


> I just assumed that "Shade" would be PC-term for Shadar-Kai; kind of like how Doppelganger becomes Changeling.
> 
> (And isn't there Shade=Shadar-Kai precedence in Forgotten Realms?)




The Shade race was previewed last month and are in fact their own race and decidedly underpowered as their racial is a standard and they have a racial penalty to # of surges ( -1 surge). Though it was just preview material.

There's still likely a Shadar-Kai adjustment hiding somewhere. Either in another book or this weeks planned Dragon article that gives stat adjustments to all player races.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 7, 2011)

Badwe said:


> I think there's some legitimate concern from the anti-essentials folks.  My group is not anti-essentials per-se but we have been going in this campaign for longer than the existence of essentials, and a lot of the stuff is just plain incompatible.  So, for example, if they make mostly powers that key off of mage schools, my pre-E wizard can't take any of those powers.



This is not correct. Your pre-E Wizard can take any Wizard power (s)he likes, including the ones in HoS with the Nethermancy or Necromancy keywords (which will likely be all of them). At worst, those powers will have a keyword that your Wizard will ignore. They will otherwise be fully compatible with PHB Wizards.

While it is true that your Wizard cannot specialize in a school of magic (such as Nether- or Necromancy), as that is a class feature of the Mage, but nothing is stopping you from slotting any of the new Wizard powers (as in Powers).


----------



## mudlock (Mar 7, 2011)

Badwe said:


> if they make mostly powers that key off of mage schools, my pre-E wizard can't take any of those powers.




They'll be riders, surely. But that doesn't mean you *can't* take them. I've often played characters who took powers from the "wrong" sub-class.

And as previously mentioned, Martial Power was worse in this regard. A non-beastmaster ranger really *can't* make any use of beast powers.


----------



## Neverfate (Mar 7, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> This is not correct. Your pre-E Wizard can take any Wizard power (s)he likes, including the ones in HoS with the Nethermancy or Necromancy keywords (which will likely be all of them). At worst, those powers will have a keyword that your Wizard will ignore. They will otherwise be fully compatible with PHB Wizards.




But clearly, since HoS doesn't have a build for the PHB1 fighter, your argument is invalid.


----------



## SparqMan (Mar 7, 2011)

Christopher Robin said:


> No mention of Shadar-Kai anywhere.




Good catch. That's a bummer.


----------



## mudlock (Mar 7, 2011)

Neverfate said:


> The Shade race was previewed last month and are in fact their own race and decidedly underpowered as their racial is a standard and they have a racial penalty to # of surges ( -1 surge). Though it was just preview material.




I did not see that.

That's very disappointing


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 7, 2011)

mudlock said:


> I did not see that.
> 
> That's very disappointing



Here it is. There was also a huge thread of complaints about in this forum.


----------



## mudlock (Mar 7, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Here it is. There was also a huge thread of complaints about in this forum.




Ah, no wonder I missed it: It was buried under a bunch of Gamma World and fortune card crap (no offense meant... to Gamma World.)

As disappointing as the actual race is, I really like the higher-level racial utility powers. I hope we see more of that (and outside of a shadow-specific book.)


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 7, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> I think you are partial right, but I think that isn't stuff for the older classes. It is just stuff they too can use.
> 
> On the other hand, maybe you are alright and we will see new cleric at-wills and encounter attack powers that are not part of a domain...
> 
> And I highly doubt that were will be feats that require 'implement mastery' for example.




Well, going by the table of contents....

The new Cleric Options are seperated from the Warpriest Domains, which indicates that you're getting both new domain stuff AND new base cleric stuff... which is double good because most domain stuff IS base cleric stuff (tho not vice versa.)

Some new Warlock powers, seperate from a new hexblade pact. 

Wizard powers, which can obviously be picked up by a mage, but whatever, anything for one that isn't directly related to school specialization or implement mastery are options for both.

Some new feats, perhaps even a new feat type... adventurer feats?  I doubt they'll have a section on 'feats adventurers can take'.  It might mean something more than that.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 7, 2011)

If they don't provide some great necrotic keyword type support in the feats in this book I will face palm _so hard_.


----------



## ferratus (Mar 8, 2011)

I don't really care about essentials vs. non-essentials.  I have to admit though that I am very sad that we don't get the necromancer written up as a full fledged class.  As a subclass of the wizard, it's going to be a controller, and a necromancer would work better as a leader.

A series of ranged attacks to do damage (ie. suck out life energy) and heal allies is pretty much how a leader operates already.  So those sorts of powers could cover the healing role adequately enough.  For his special flavour, he would have powers that put hit points into slain monsters and enemies rather than into living allies.  The necromancer then would start out weak and gain in strength as the monsters started dying, having his moment of cool in the latter half of the battle.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 8, 2011)

ferratus said:


> I don't really care about essentials vs. non-essentials.  I have to admit though that I am very sad that we don't get the necromancer written up as a full fledged class.  As a subclass of the wizard, it's going to be a controller, and a necromancer would work better as a leader.
> 
> A series of ranged attacks to do damage (ie. suck out life energy) and heal allies is pretty much how a leader operates already.  So those sorts of powers could cover the healing role adequately enough.  For his special flavour, he would have powers that put hit points into slain monsters and enemies rather than into living allies.  The necromancer then would start out weak and gain in strength as the monsters started dying, having his moment of cool in the latter half of the battle.




Sounds like every Darklock out there; Build up the ol' necrotic smoke rings, daring anyone to take a shot at him, then bite & grind everything in sight after 3 or 4 rounds.


----------



## kaomera (Mar 8, 2011)

Oates said:


> As others have stated, more than likely, it will contain material for both. Essential format classes (Blackguard, Executioner, Binder, Necromancer) and new powers for PHB1 classes; Wizard, Cleric, Warlock.



I thought Binder was going to be based more on the PHB1 Warlock, or does that just mean that it's not a Hexblade?


MrMyth said:


> Nothing indicates they are just reprinting the standard race entries. Presumably they are just providing shadow-themed options. The Dusk Elves, for example, previously showed up as a bloodline in Dragon magazine (I believe). So some of those options may be racial bloodlines, others could just be backgrounds, etc.



Character Themes, maybe?


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 8, 2011)

ferratus said:


> I don't really care about essentials vs. non-essentials.  I have to admit though that I am very sad that we don't get the necromancer written up as a full fledged class.  As a subclass of the wizard, it's going to be a controller, and a necromancer would work better as a leader.




Except, outside of Vampiric Touch, arcane necromancy spells didn't actually do any healing for anyone else except the caster.  You had some metamagic stuff like Spectral Hand, but most necromancy was about debuffing, damage, or save-or-die spells.  The 'create minion' stuff was actually subpar to the evil cleric, and is generally a controller thing anyways.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 8, 2011)

> Except, outside of Vampiric Touch, arcane necromancy spells didn't actually do any healing for anyone else except the caster. You had some metamagic stuff like Spectral Hand, but most necromancy was about debuffing, damage, or save-or-die spells. The 'create minion' stuff was actually subpar to the evil cleric, and is generally a controller thing anyways.




Why so tethered by what was?

A while ago, I posted what a theoretical "necromancer leader" would look like -- all stealing health and inflicting penalties on enemies (while granting that health and symmetrical bonuses to allies)...

Y'know, not that it matters, I bet an old-school necromancer works well as a mage school. Debuffs are a very Controller-y thing. 

But there's a lot of potential workspace for a "necromancer." The team didn't HAVE to go back to old necromancy spells and just make it a mage build. That's a valid and interesting choice, but it's certainly not the only valid and interesting choice (and some folks might've thought Leadermancers would have been more interesting maybe). 

Anyway, more broadly, I'm looking forward to everything (possibly not the new races, but the Shade wasn't the strongest foot to lead with). And I still don't quite understand the complaints of those who aren't _Essentials_ fans with regards to future products, especially this product, which looks to be much broader than an Essentials splat.

Curious about the Binder, and how it'll vary from/combo with the Vestige Pact warlock....


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 8, 2011)

It seems like a wasted opportunity in some places, now I'm okay with them supporting the Essentials sub-classes, but they should directly support any of the non-Essentials classes where appropriate.

Like for example the option to have a shadowy/undead spirit for a Shaman's Spirit Companion.


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 8, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why so tethered by what was?
> 
> A while ago, I posted what a theoretical "necromancer leader" would look like -- all stealing health and inflicting penalties on enemies (while granting that health and symmetrical bonuses to allies)..




Well, for an extension of the mage... they kinda do.

I don't disagree tho that some form of death-magic wielding leader doesn't have a place in the game tho, not one bit.  A cleric build that specializes in sapping life would work extremely well given what they already have, and actually fits the legacy support a lot better as well.

Also, that seems like what they're doing.

You might be getting what you want, just not in the form you think.




Kobold Avenger said:


> It seems like a wasted opportunity in some places, now I'm okay with them supporting the Essentials sub-classes, but they should directly support any of the non-Essentials classes where appropriate.
> 
> Like for example the option to have a shadowy/undead spirit for a Shaman's Spirit Companion.




Primal magic doesn't grant power over other planes, it's strictly the magic inherent to the world itself (read: prime material plane).  Divine and Arcane explicitly do.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 8, 2011)

Nullzone said:
			
		

> So you're passing judgment without even seeing what the rest of the book looks like?



No. I'm passing judgement based on the information I have NOW.
If new information is revealed, I may well change my opinion. E.g. a change of opinion happened for me after the recent preview of the Nentir Vale MV. Before the preview I wasn't interested, now that I know it will include 4e versions of several old favorite monsters, I'm probably getting it.


ferratus said:


> I don't really care about essentials vs. non-essentials.  I have to admit though that I am very sad that we don't get the necromancer written up as a full fledged class.  As a subclass of the wizard, it's going to be a controller, and a necromancer would work better as a leader.



Really? I thought Essentials builds could be of any role, e.g. the Slayer is a striker, though it's a fighter build and should therefore be a defender.


			
				mudlock said:
			
		

> They'll be riders, surely. But that doesn't mean you *can't* take them. I've often played characters who took powers from the "wrong" sub-class.
> 
> And as previously mentioned, Martial Power was worse in this regard. A non-beastmaster ranger really *can't* make any use of beast powers.



Well, powers with riders that can only be used if you have a certain class feature are typically less attractive than powers without riders or powers with riders that you _can_ use. It's part of the powers' balancing.
Sure, you can pick them, but it's often a suboptimal choice.

I agree, that it's not a new problem, though.

In the end, how useful it's going to be for someone who prefers to ignore Essentials will depend on how much of the content represents _worthwhile_ options for 'Classic' characters.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 8, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> In the end, how useful it's going to be for someone who prefers to ignore Essentials will depend on how much of the content represents _worthwhile_ options for 'Classic' characters.




Excellent way to say what I am thinking.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 8, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> ...
> Binder warlock is a classic-PHB-ranged-warlock and has nothing to do with hexblades.
> 
> Necro/nethermancy wizard schools have nothing to do with the Mage; in fact, the Mage interpretation of them is listed completely separately.
> ...




Where did you get the information about the Binder? And he will have as much as common with the Hexblade as the Slayer has with the Knight, I think. That does not make it more similar to the PH1 book warlock.

There are no 'wizard schools' mentioned. They are listed under 'School of Magic'. I predict that page 98 contains the fluff and necromancy keyword stuff, usable for all wizard classes (old and new) and starting on page 100 apprentice bonuses and the like for Mages (no stuff for old wizards).
This would be the same as they did in 'Heroes of the Fallen Lands', general school description on page 193-194 and specific Mage school bonuses on 238+.

And yes I nit-pick your attempt to make it another category of book because of the hardness of it's cover, even as it is named 'Heroes of Shadow', like another book is named 'Heroes of the Fallen Lands'.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 8, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> ...
> 
> You want something that requires implement mastery? You do realize that there are already 6 implement masteries to, what, 3 schools?
> 
> Oh, and all the old classes are getting updates, one a month (two in June, by their stated intent), for the next 5 months. If that doesn't make you happy, I don't know what will.



For the record, I like Essentials. I don't like to pretend that the new books are not more focused on them as on the PH1-3 stuff.

Implement Mastery and non-domain cleric at-wills were just examples that show that they do only:

A) Essentials stuff compatible with PH1-PH2 classes (Example: Wizard/Mage At-will attack powers)

B) Essentials stuff non-compatible with PH1-PH2 classes (Example: more Mage Schools)

but not:

C) Stuff for PH1-PH2 classes that is non-compatible with Essentials (Examples: New wizard implement masteries, non domain cleric at-will attacks)

Please prove me wrong before attacking me again for my 'Essentials hate' (I'm playing right now more essential classes than PH1-3 ones).


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 8, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> Well, going by the table of contents....



Yeah, let's do this!



> The new Cleric Options are seperated from the Warpriest Domains, which indicates that you're getting both new domain stuff AND new base cleric stuff... which is double good because most domain stuff IS base cleric stuff (tho not vice versa.)



Could be... or the new Cleric powers are all utility and daily attack ones. In this case they are just powers PH1 clerics and Warpriests can take. No exclusive PH1 cleric stuff in this case.



> Some new Warlock powers, seperate from a new hexblade pact.



See my cleric power comment.



> Wizard powers, which can obviously be picked up by a mage, but whatever, anything for one that isn't directly related to school specialization or implement mastery are options for both.



Yes, for both. With school riders only for Mages.


----------



## Nullzone (Mar 8, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Where did you get the information about the Binder? And he will have as much as common with the Hexblade as the Slayer has with the Knight, I think. That does not make it more similar to the PH1 book warlock.
> 
> There are no 'wizard schools' mentioned. They are listed under 'School of Magic'. I predict that page 98 contains the fluff and necromancy keyword stuff, usable for all wizard classes (old and new) and starting on page 100 apprentice bonuses and the like for Mages (no stuff for old wizards).
> This would be the same as they did in 'Heroes of the Fallen Lands', general school description on page 193-194 and specific Mage school bonuses on 238+.
> ...




I know about the Binder from DDXP. It's a PHB Warlock, spends all its time casting spells at range.

As for Wizard options, read harder:



> Wizard Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
> School of Magic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
> Necromancy School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
> Nethermancy School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
> ...



Eleven pages of nothing but Wizard powers, before it even gets to the Mage schools!

I'm not going to argue with you any more on the book type, but you're being dumb if you treat this as an Essentials component just because of the name.

Edit: Just saw this.



> Could be... or the new Cleric powers are all utility and daily attack ones. In this case they are just powers PH1 clerics and Warpriests can take. No exclusive PH1 cleric stuff in this case.




...what? So because they aren't adding stuff exclusive to a PHB class, suddenly that class isn't supported?

You do know that your powers are interchangeable right?

Did we all suddenly forget how our own game's rules work here? What is going on?


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 8, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> I know about the Binder from DDXP. It's a PHB Warlock, spends all its time casting spells at range.



??? I have to trust you on this, but the reason you gave is not compelling. Having mostly ranged powers says nothing about similar to the PH. Or is the warpriest like the PH str cleric because he uses mostly melee powers?



> As for Wizard options, read harder:
> 
> Eleven pages of nothing but Wizard powers, before it even gets to the Mage schools!



I read it. and I commented it farther above:


Walking Dad said:


> ...
> 
> Yes, for both. With school riders only for Mages.



With school riders I meant the mage school bonuses. The new spells have them keyed to keywords instead of a special section for using it with certain implements, like 'Staffstrike Corrosion' had.




> I'm not going to argue with you any more on the book type, but you're being dumb if you treat this as an Essentials component just because of the name.



I would appreciate if you would not call me dumb because we have different opinions.



> Edit: Just saw this.
> 
> 
> ...what? So because they aren't adding stuff exclusive to a PHB class, suddenly that class isn't supported?
> ...



No, but by you above logic, heroes of the Fallen Lands wasn't an essentials component either, because it contained powers usable for certain PH 1/2 classes.

Are you really not getting my argument? The rule book is most likely *primary for essentials* but has stuff *compatible with PH1&2* classes.

It does not present exclusive options for PH1-3 as far as we know. Can we agree on this.


----------



## Nullzone (Mar 8, 2011)

No, I'm not getting your argument, because even Essentials gives material to the PHB1-3 classes. PHB classes grow as they level by the gain of new powers and some minor scaling of existing powers. There's nothing _exclusive_ in this game once you get into the actual decision making bits; if it says Cleric on it, any Cleric can take it.* Every new power added is lending support to the class to which it is assigned.*

By contrast, the Essentials builds need specific additions because they use the "baked in" class features as a means to remain competitive because they are designed with a smaller array of powers to be used (thus lending to their simplicity); so new flavoring for them means you need to outline their class feature growth to support the new flavor design.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 8, 2011)

Last try:

Domain Features, Mage School bonuses, warlock powers that require a specific pact weapon -> exclusive material for essentials

Implement Masteries, non-domain at-will cleric attack powers -> exclusive to pre-essentials.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 8, 2011)

> It does not present exclusive options for PH1-3 as far as we know. Can we agree on this.




You mean options that ONLY PH1-3 characters can take that are somehow forbidden to Essentials characters?

Why would they want to present options like that?

Generally speaking, the more characters that can gain an option, the more broadly useful (and thus valuable, in terms of page count, design decisions, and book sales) it is. 

If I'm WotC, I'm not going to want to provide a book with options ONLY for beastmaster rangers and wand wizards.

I'm going to want to provide a book that potentially has options for ANY character. ALL characters, even. That way, the dude playing the Ardent and the lady playing the Barbarian all get something that provokes them to buy the book.

I think that's part of why we're not seeing the Power Splats at this point. _Martial Power 3_ is a non-starter for anyone not playing a martial character. Its options are too exclusive.

Instead, we're getting _Heroes of Shadow_, which is hitting a broader base. Perhaps not as broad as it might be (Shamans? Runepriests? Beastmaster rangers!?!?!), but pretty broad nonetheless.

That is a good thing. 

A book whose rules I can use (whatever game or character I happen to be playing) is a very good thing.

_Edit_: The place for the narrower, more limited options, are the magazines. If you really want more cleric at-wills or implement masteries, I'm sure they'd print a good article with that stuff in it. Personally, there seem to be plenty to me, but everyone plays this game differently.


----------



## Nullzone (Mar 8, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Last try:
> 
> Domain Features, Mage School bonuses, warlock powers that require a specific pact weapon -> exclusive material for essentials
> 
> Implement Masteries, non-domain at-will cleric attack powers -> exclusive to pre-essentials.




All you're doing is pointing out material that already exists; how does that make a case for continuing to stovepipe options in such a limiting way?


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 8, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> All you're doing is pointing out material that  already exists; how does that make a case for continuing to stovepipe  options in such a limiting way?



Yes, why they are continuing to print new Domains and Mage Schools 

----

Ok, I give up...

You are right

_- a PH wizard and an Essential Mage will be able use the same amount of material in the book.

- It has nothing to do with essentials, despite the title and the presented classes.

- I hate essentials despite playing mostly essential classes.

- I stovepipe options because I use existing material as examples._


So, is this all right? You decide, I stop posting in this thread. Good gaming everyone.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 8, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> If they don't provide some great necrotic keyword type support in the feats in this book I will face palm _so hard_.




I would expect the necro-builds of the mage to have the same as the pyromancers ability to bypass fire resistance.


----------



## twilsemail (Mar 8, 2011)

renau1g said:


> I would expect the necro-builds of the mage to have the same as the pyromancers ability to bypass fire resistance.




I'm certainly hoping so.  Necrotic is even more resisted than Fire damage.  This is going to be another build with a specific damage type and they'd be gimped going up against zombies.  I think a necromancer should be able to handle those shambling monstrosities pretty well, neh?


----------



## Nullzone (Mar 8, 2011)

Not trying to be right, just frustrated with people taking the same broken-record, hard-lined stance as soon as the word Essentials comes anywhere around...particularly in a case where it isn't justified because the material in question clearly supports a lot more than Essentials.

Sorry we can't come to a better understanding. Good gaming to you as well.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 8, 2011)

twilsemail said:


> I'm certainly hoping so.  Necrotic is even more resisted than Fire damage.  This is going to be another build with a specific damage type and they'd be gimped going up against zombies.  I think a necromancer should be able to handle those shambling monstrosities pretty well, neh?




Perhaps Necros will get a mechanic to ignore a certain amount of Necrotic resistance? That would keep them effective against undead. Hell, they might even get some Radiant abilities. We won't know until we see them.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 8, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> ... the material in question clearly supports a lot more than Essentials.
> ...



Posting once more to bring peace 

I agree on the above with you. 
The funny thing is that I never said something else. It isn't like that most of the game has suddenly become incompatible with the older stuff.
But I see an adjustment of the focus and can always understand people who still like 'older' stuff. I simply like them all 



> Good gaming to you as well.



Thanks
(only the 'dumb' hurt a bit)


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 8, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> You mean options that ONLY PH1-3 characters can take that are somehow forbidden to Essentials characters?
> 
> Why would they want to present options like that?
> 
> ...



I'd have XP'd you for this, but I already got you today.



			
				Walking Dad said:
			
		

> It does not present exclusive options for PH1-3 as far as we know. Can we agree on this.



It seems like this discussion is at a loggerhead. Why does this matter? Why should they print exclusive material for the older classes? There are already eight books and several magazine articles full of stuff exclusive to PH1-3 classes. Why do we need more? Why not books full of things everyone can use? And why not a few things that only the Essentials classes can use? Fair is fair.


			
				Walking Dad said:
			
		

> Ok, I give up...
> 
> You are right
> 
> _- a PH wizard and an Essential Mage will be able use the same amount of material in the book._



_Wizard powers typically do not make much use of build-specific  riders. Yes there are a few from Arcane Power, but they are by far in  the minority.
__
Aside from a small benefit that triggers off a keyword in the top part  of the power, which itself refers back to a paragraph or three of text  (both these options take 1 page), there is no evidence that there is  anything exclusive to the mage in any of the new wizard powers.

Example. Beguiling Strands. It's a great at-will. Arguably better than  Thunderwave. It has the Enchantment keyword, yet, it remains a strong  option, even for an implement Wizard, even though they get nothing from  the Enchantment keyword.

There looks to be very little in this book that a mage can make use of that an implement wizard will not also be able to make *effective* use of. Sure, we don't know until we crack it open, or get more preview material.
__ 


			
				Walking Dad said:
			
		


			- It has nothing to do with essentials, despite the title and the presented classes.
		
Click to expand...


Clearly, this book has to do with Essentials, but it is not an Essentials book. That line is a series, 10 products. No more, no less. This is not one of them.

This book contains options for Essentials characters, but also options for non-Essentials characters. This book contains new classes. Classes we know very little about. It might be that some of them are Essentials-style with streamlined options, but it may also be that some of them have more in common with, and similar power structure to older classes.

Someone who saw the Binder, was presumably at DDXP, told you the Binder is not an Essentials class, but rather more similar to the Curse Warlock, but you didn't believe them. That's your hangup, I guess, but why not take another poster at their word when they have seen it and you have not?

You know, it might not even resemble either Essentials or Curselock. What is it then?



			
				Walking Dad said:
			
		


			- I hate essentials despite playing mostly essential classes.
		
Click to expand...


This is probably a false assumption, but you sure are fighting pretty hard against them presenting anything exclusive to an Essentials class. It does lend the impression that you don't like Essentials.

I guess it would be fairer to say that you want them to print a pile of things that the Essentials classes can't use. You want Shadowshard implements, Shadowcurse Pact Warlocks (with a full suite of 1-30 powers with exclusive riders), a slew of Shadow-themed Cleric powers that Warpriests can't take (to add to the two books full of powers they already can't take, while the reverse is not true). Do I read you right?

I suppose that opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else's. It just won't sell books, so they're not going to do it. Like another poster pointed out, this is the kind of thing that we're likely to see in a Dragon article.



			
				Walking Dad said:
			
		


			- I stovepipe options because I use existing material as examples.
		
Click to expand...


__I'm not even sure what stovepipe means in this case, but I will say that your examples only served to point out that you want things exclusive to pre-Essentials classes, which, for my part, hardly seems fair considering the vast amount of it that is already out there.
_


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 8, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> Primal magic doesn't grant power over other planes, it's strictly the magic inherent to the world itself (read: prime material plane).  Divine and Arcane explicitly do.



In regards to my Shaman example, I know there's no new Essentials Ranger or Druids options in that book or martial (beyond the Executioner) options, but the intro chapter speaks of primal magic with corrupted spirits.  Already presenting a plausible way that Primal magic could interact with Shadow Magic.

Now the idea of a Shaman with a Shadowy Spirit Companion, is one that should have been covered in this book as an example, that they still should support non-essentials classes where appropriate, having nothing to do with the fact that Primal Magic can or can't interact with Shadow Magic.  It represents the fact that they're not trying hard enough to include non-essentials material, even if they could easily put it in a book that has essentials classes.

It would be as disappointing as having Heroes of Feywild, not having anything for Bards or Wardens who can be easily thematically linked to Fey, or Battleminds which were described by the devs as thematically being some sort of Fey warrior during one point of it's design.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 8, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny, hy did you post this after I offered peace and wanted to leave the thread?

I will not argue any further.

I will just see if the binder and all other builds use the essential presentation.
And saying that the 'old' material got enough support doesn't disprove the notion that people, who liked them, want more material.



> _I guess it would be fairer to say that you want them to print a pile  of things that the Essentials classes can't use. You want Shadowshard  implements, Shadowcurse Pact Warlocks (with a full suite of 1-30 powers  with exclusive riders), a slew of Shadow-themed Cleric powers that  Warpriests can't take (to add to the two books full of powers they  already can't take, while the reverse is not true). Do I read you right?_



No. I just pointed out that this isn't going to happen. I'm fine with this, but I don't understand the hate for people who want it.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 8, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> I will just see if the binder and all other builds use the essential presentation.




This is one element I find strange. Does it really _matter _if the Binder uses the Essentials presentation (of giving the class a 1-30 write-up, rather than seperating features from powers) if the overall class structure is more akin to the PHB1 classes? 



Walking Dad said:


> And saying that the 'old' material got enough support doesn't disprove the notion that people, who liked them, want more material.




That's fair enough. What I think most people objected to was the idea that this book wouldn't have that sort of support, despite a Table of Contents that largely suggested otherwise. 

I mean, they might not provide the support in the amount that is desired, but it certainly seems likely that it will be there. If the cleric powers include new non-domain At-Wills and Encounter Attack Powers, will that be the sort of thing you are looking for? If the wizard is offered their own versions of the Schools of Necromancy and Nethermancy as alternate options to Implement Mastery, and given a full selection of powers that work without them having to be a mage - would that be acceptable?

I don't expect stuff to come out that ignores Essentials entirely, at least not for a while. But this book looks like to support both Essentials and earlier builds, and the assumption that it won't - or that new options are useless unless _specifically _exclusionary of Essentials content - isn't something I can really wrap my head around.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 8, 2011)

Walking Dad said:
			
		

> And saying that the 'old' material got enough support doesn't disprove  the notion that people, who liked them, want more material.



That's fine and dandy, I want to see more support for the older material as well. _Eventually._

I don't begrudge folks that want this. I'm one of them. That said, I'd prefer the new options have some time to "catch up" before we see Martial Power 3.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 8, 2011)

I'd like support for older material that haven't been properly supported first myself (say like Changelings, Artificiers, Bladelings, gnolls, swordmages, Seekers, Runepriests, etc..) Heck even humans are going to need some love after this weeks racial bumps article comes out. There's not a lot of human-exclusive options out there to make someone want to give up a +2 stat bump in one of their classes key modifiers. Outside of Action Surge, but even that one is only useful once every other fight (until higher levels) and it's easily exploited by Revenants & half-elves


----------



## Ekio (Mar 8, 2011)

Looks like they already released Heroes of Shadow for classic 4th edition classes, am I right?

I'm not dropping $30 for this, Wootsie darling. I'll wait till you get back to 4th edition stuff.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 8, 2011)

Well, all of this certainly puts the downside of the whole Essentials experiment out there to see. Not that I think it is a big tragedy or anything, but any time you make significant reworkings of core elements of how the game works you're going to fracture it into pieces that aren't going to mesh 100%. Sure, that was true with pre-Essentials builds to SOME extent (the beastmaster powers are useless to everyone else), but  it is a good bit more true now. In a way it is a shame that for instance we now have Wizard and Mage, which are effectively covering the same conceptual space but depending on which of these I happened to use when I created my character I may or may not be able to use or combine certain things later on. That's rather too bad. It isn't really a matter of what gets support or doesn't get support going forward, but more a matter of your average player coming along and making a PC and then saying "Oh, I want THIS neato option" and the rules saying "Eh, sorry, you should have made a Slayer and not a FWT2H Fighter." In any GAME-WORLD narrative sense the distinction between the two is trivial to non-existent, yet mechanically thematic options that would fit either one are now incompatible with one or the other.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 8, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> In a way it is a shame that for instance we now have Wizard and Mage, which are effectively covering the same conceptual space but depending on which of these I happened to use when I created my character I may or may not be able to use or combine certain things later on.



Wizard and Mage are the least different of 4e/Essentials pairings. You could easily put everything under the same heading:



> WIZARD
> 
> When creating a wizard, choose one of the following:
> - Implement Mastery: you are focused in an implement type: orb, wand or staff.
> - School Specialization: you are focused in a school of magic: enchantment, evocation, illusion, pyromancy, necromancy or nethermancy.




Even clerics and warpriests could be listed this way, with a notation of "if you want a streamnlined creation, you can choose to be a warpriest focused in a single divine domain"


----------



## gyor (Mar 8, 2011)

If it makes you feel better about the shaman i think that the Ravenkin paragon path will be a shadow pp for primal classes just a guess. 

Actually there is a set of class features that can be traded between builds. The cavaliers summon mount which is both a class feature and a level utility power so both blackguards and opaladins which am betting with be called divine champions when re released, can gain them as level 6 utility powers. The blackguards servant of vice is both feature and power takable by cavaliers and champions as powers. The divine sanction of champions is baked right into paladin powers and feats so both blackguards and cavaliers can use it. Use may want to refluff of course such as calling it summon unholy steed and summoning an fiendish horse or shadow or purple dragon. Or summon servant of virtue or divine servant. The former could be a latern say and the latter a small imp sized angel. Divine Sanction could became addictive complusion or enforced virtue.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 8, 2011)

Klaus said:


> Wizard and Mage are the least different of 4e/Essentials pairings. You could easily put everything under the same heading:
> 
> Even clerics and warpriests could be listed this way, with a notation of "if you want a streamnlined creation, you can choose to be a warpriest focused in a single divine domain"




Yeah, I agree. Honestly when creating a character I'd hardly care one way or another Wizard vs Mage, it is like 'puce' vs 'reddish-brown'. There are now and then things that require an implement mastery or a mage school, which is a bit annoying. For some of the other classes it is rather more significant. Personally it isn't a huge big deal, just that it is the price of adding new layers of differently designed classes. Not sure it was a good design decision in the long run. That's neither a criticism of Essentials for what it is taken on its own nor a criticism of the older stuff. The whole system has just become less wieldy.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 8, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, I agree. Honestly when creating a character I'd hardly care one way or another Wizard vs Mage, it is like 'puce' vs 'reddish-brown'. There are now and then things that require an implement mastery or a mage school, which is a bit annoying. For some of the other classes it is rather more significant. Personally it isn't a huge big deal, just that it is the price of adding new layers of differently designed classes. Not sure it was a good design decision in the long run. That's neither a criticism of Essentials for what it is taken on its own nor a criticism of the older stuff. The whole system has just become less wieldy.



After HoS comes out, I'll be able to say more, but for now I can say this: when I wrote my part of HoS, Essentials wasn't even out.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 8, 2011)

Klaus said:


> After HoS comes out, I'll be able to say more, but for now I can say this: when I wrote my part of HoS, Essentials wasn't even out.




Right, and I'm all in favor of options for all of them. I'm just getting the feeling we now need more options because sometimes you have to have different ones for different class variations. lol. I like them all. I'll buy HoS for sure because it will be cool for sure. It will all be good  Really want to see your stuff too!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 8, 2011)

Klaus said:


> After HoS comes out, I'll be able to say more, but for now I can say this: when I wrote my part of HoS, Essentials wasn't even out.




You do know that means you won't recognise what you wrote, don't you, Klaus? 

Cheers!


----------



## Klaus (Mar 8, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, and I'm all in favor of options for all of them. I'm just getting the feeling we now need more options because sometimes you have to have different ones for different class variations. lol. I like them all. I'll buy HoS for sure because it will be cool for sure. It will all be good  Really want to see your stuff too!



I'm eager to see their final form, as well!

From the ToC, my contributions that made it are:
- Shade
- Vryloka
- Feats
- Paragon Paths: Battleweaver, Dusk Oracle, Ravenkin, Veiled Master
- Epic Destinies: Keeper of the Everflow, Marshal of Letherna, Twilight Tribune


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 8, 2011)

renau1g said:


> I would expect the necro-builds of the mage to have the same as the pyromancers ability to bypass fire resistance.




Which would therefore make all the powers in the book for the non-essentials classes (or just what they could use) utterly useless. They absolutely 100% need FEATS that *everyone* can take in this book that boost necrotic as a damage type. If they don't, the book will be flat out useless for anyone except the essentials classes granted the ability to bypass necrotic resistance. Not to mention even aside from resistance, necrotic just needs support the likes that radiant/cold/fire and such have had to be a viable legitimate choice. This is the book to do it in and if it's not there, it will never be there frankly.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 8, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> For the record, I like Essentials. I don't like to pretend that the new books are not more focused on them as on the PH1-3 stuff.
> 
> Implement Mastery and non-domain cleric at-wills were just examples that show that they do only:
> 
> ...




Stuff in arcane power, martial power 1 and 2, divine power and primal power:

See A and C with absolutely no B.

Also, all books and Dragon magazine articles prior to the two Heroes of X books. Nothing but A and C.

So, your argument is basically, the BEST supported classes in the game (especially the wizard) is not recieving even MORE support to the exclusion of newer builds with less support.

Also, ANY summoning power supports the summoning tome mastery. ANY save effect supports the orb of imposition. ANY illusion power supports the orb of deception. ANY situationally specific encounter power is supported by the tome of rediness. The wand? I guess single target spells. Not all of the masteries are specific, some are a bit vaguer.

Of course, until Arcane power, those masteries did NOT have special powers that get bonuses the way that say, a specific warlock pact would. Outside of "orb goes with saves" type stuff, it was pretty much a free for all in terms of bonuses. Similarly, the benefits that schools of magic provide are mostly just the flat bonuses you get as class features (such as pyromancer ignoring fire resistance) which does more towards limiting a mage's choice than making the powers useless when used by anyone else (although I'd hardly recommend a non pyromancer to take nothing but fire spells unless they take similar steps to get around the fire resistance/immunity issue).


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 8, 2011)

To be quite honest, I have to be brutal here and say I don't have even the barest hint of sympathy for Walking Dad's argument at all. I really am not going to spare any tears for the poor Wizard or Cleric - who have both got several billion books, dragon articles and such with powers in them for those classes. I'll shed many tears over the TRULY forgotten classes who have been entirely abandoned by WotC, like the Artificer, Seeker and Runepriest. 

You know, the ones with _zero_ support anywhere and aren't looking like getting any more _ever_. I'm really not going to be that worried if the original Cleric/Wizard doesn't get a lot out of this book, if you can't make an interesting character out of the billions of options already available for the PHB classes then I just don't know what to say.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 9, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, I agree. Honestly when creating a character I'd hardly care one way or another Wizard vs Mage, it is like 'puce' vs 'reddish-brown'. There are now and then things that require an implement mastery or a mage school, which is a bit annoying. For some of the other classes it is rather more significant. Personally it isn't a huge big deal, just that it is the price of adding new layers of differently designed classes. Not sure it was a good design decision in the long run. That's neither a criticism of Essentials for what it is taken on its own nor a criticism of the older stuff. The whole system has just become less wieldy.




Basically, with the Heroes books they were taking the most popular/core classes and doing them again. So the issue becomes, how do you take the MOST supported classes and not only do something that is new, that is playable on it's own AND with the old stuff, and that isn't overly complicated. Basically, they had to "cut off" the old stuff, at least to some extent, so that the new content didn't automatically include ALL of the old content. It's hard to create a streamlined or beginner's version of a class, that happens to encompass EVERYTHING from the original class and more. Also, by not absorbing the original classes, they don't replace them, giving you different options. In the case of the cleric, you have complete choice of powers, including the new ones, instead of being shackled into the new build.

[And, don't forget, with the old way there were the various "two attack stat" classes which basically were two seperate classes you couldn't tie together without completely ignoring their 'secondary' stat which provide most of your bonuses.]

They ended up with a middle ground of "new classes with familiar names/styles" to deal with the fact that they were trying to make iconic classes accesible to new people when those classes have been so well supported that they have TONS of powers and options available and it would be a diservice to both old and new to just throw more stuff on to the pile instead of at least trying to make a new one. Trying to avoid that whole power creep thing some people worry about. For example, the thief has some ridiculous stuff it can do ... but it also loses access to amazing dailies like knockout.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 9, 2011)

Klaus said:


> I'm eager to see their final form, as well!
> 
> From the ToC, my contributions that made it are:
> - Shade
> ...




Those all seem like they are easy to be Essential-free. Actually, the Essential books have so far only had 1 paragon path for each "class", and a single Epic Destiny for the book, so multiple options for each is a pre-Essential idea. And races were already getting 2 options for their second +2 before Essentials, so races aren't really Essentialized either (except for Revenants getting a new bonus). The only thing that could change would be feats, as they were avoiding restrictions on feats in the other books (i.e. no tier, class, race restrictions), so we'll see if that continues going forward, or if that was just a "keep the 'core' books simple" thing instead of an Essentials thing. We have seen Essential feats in Dragon magazine that are only for specific classes (like the rogue feat to be able to use staffs for sneak attack and backstab, etc).


----------



## gyor (Mar 9, 2011)

Since the shade has been preview would it be alright if I ask about it? 

The -1 surge has been contraversial personally I don't think its a big deal just curious about why you made that choice was it to compensate for the utility powers?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 9, 2011)

Klaus said:


> I'm eager to see their final form, as well!
> 
> From the ToC, my contributions that made it are:
> - Shade
> ...




So you haven't joined with the camp that thinks PPs and EDs are failed design concept?


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 9, 2011)

What people have utterly failed to comment on so far is that this book is biased: it's all about Shadow. We already had a book or three on "Light" (presumably the PHB's). What we are lacking is a book about the in-between amounts of light. 

And what's with the Heroes all the time? What about ordinary folks? Don't they deserve a book? Of course they do!

When are we finally going to see "Mediocre Peasants of the Late Afternoon/Overcast Sky"?


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 9, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> What people have utterly failed to comment on so far is that this book is biased: it's all about Shadow. We already had a book or three on "Light" (presumably the PHB's). What we are lacking is a book about the in-between amounts of light.
> 
> And what's with the Heroes all the time? What about ordinary folks? Don't they deserve a book? Of course they do!
> 
> When are we finally going to see "Mediocre Peasants of the Late Afternoon/Overcast Sky"?




Well, get writing.

WOTC: Be a pal and put this one behind a paywall.


----------



## gyor (Mar 9, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So you haven't joined with the camp that thinks PPs and EDs are failed design concept?




I wasn't aware that anyone was saying pps and eds were a failure, they seem universal popular concepts.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 9, 2011)

gyor said:


> Since the shade has been preview would it be alright if I ask about it?
> 
> The -1 surge has been contraversial personally I don't think its a big deal just curious about why you made that choice was it to compensate for the utility powers?



The shade, as previewed, changed a bit from the original thing. When I was assigned to it, the -1 surge was already in place. I was handed the "gray box" and the first paragraph of the description... I changed the racial power to what was previewed and added the description, roleplaying, racial utilities, etc. I think the surge hit worked better in the original thing, but it's not really a dealbreaker. I think the penalty reinforces a certain way to play a shade, which is a race that works best in a more subtle type of campaign where combat is more infrequent.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 9, 2011)

Klaus said:


> I think the penalty reinforces a certain way to play a shade, which is a race that works best in a more subtle type of campaign where combat is more infrequent.




Like how the warlock is for campaigns where things don't have as many hit points?


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 9, 2011)

Klaus said:


> I think the penalty reinforces a certain way to play a shade, which is a race that works best in a more subtle type of campaign where combat is more infrequent.




This is really poor reasoning, akin to saying that a character with all 8s should be perfectly viable because he never has to do any combat. It also goes against the principle that 4E was founded on, where every type of character should be able to contribute and be effective in combat. It doesn't change that as written, the Shade is probably going to end up the bottom of the pile for racial choices for nearly every class. An in built penalty (regardless of how significant someone thinks a -1 surge penalty is or isn't) and arguably one of the worst racial powers in the game is not going to help it. Unless the feats are genuinely insane I don't see anyone ever playing a shade in my games.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 9, 2011)

That's it. If I cannot have a 16 in Con, I'm not playing the character. That -1 surge by going down to 14 makes him unplayable. :-t

Or is it 18-16? or 20-18?

Seriously, I don't see how -1 surge is THAT bad.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 9, 2011)

Getting -1 surge, arguably one of the worst racial powers in the game and getting a redundant skill that most of the classes it is good for are getting anyway, makes it an exceptionally poor choice. -1 surge can be argued to not be that significant - though potential healing wise it definitely can be when you consider many strikers are not exactly filled with surges - but what is significant is that _it's the only race in the game with an inherent built in penalty_. That in itself makes it exceptional and _IMO_ bad design from the outset.

I really hope racial penalties are not common in the races in this book. They are one thing 4E made go out the door with the dodo and their return is a really bad sign.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 9, 2011)

The surge is a meaningless sacrifice. Hopefully what Klaus did with the race makes up for them starting off with a limp, but they're always going to have that limp.


----------



## Colmarr (Mar 9, 2011)

gyor said:


> I wasn't aware that anyone was saying pps and eds were a failure, they seem universal popular concepts.




Ditto.

Were you being tongue-in-cheek Abdul, or is there an anonymous but growing underclass somewhere clamouring for PPs and EDs to be jettisoned?


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 9, 2011)

I think he probably reads too much of the official forums where that sort of thing comes up (albeit I haven't seen it directly). But I am convinced on the official forums if you claimed your favourite color was blue, you could make a 90 page thread of people arguing purple was superior.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 9, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> I think he probably reads too much of the official forums where that sort of thing comes up (albeit I haven't seen it directly). But I am convinced on the official forums if you claimed your favourite color was blue, you could make a 90 page thread of people arguing purple was superior.




Only the official forum? BTW, hot pink is sub-optimal.


----------



## gyor (Mar 9, 2011)

Klaus said:


> The shade, as previewed, changed a bit from the original thing. When I was assigned to it, the -1 surge was already in place. I was handed the "gray box" and the first paragraph of the description... I changed the racial power to what was previewed and added the description, roleplaying, racial utilities, etc. I think the surge hit worked better in the original thing, but it's not really a dealbreaker. I think the penalty reinforces a certain way to play a shade, which is a race that works best in a more subtle type of campaign where combat is more infrequent.




Thank you for answering. I don't think the lost surge really cripples it at all, I'm surprised that with things like that character op boards that you guys didn't see the dissatifacation that the op crowd would have for it. That being said I personally feel that the shades racial utilities are like a free mullticlass that doesn't take up your multiclass slot or feats so if you have to take one feat to get your surge back big deal.

As for the racial power standard action question clearly it meant to be primarily a non combat power with situational combat uses such as retreating. In fact a party of Shades coud be very interesting. Makes me think of spectural panthers strageties. 

My thinking is like changelings Shades will be most effective in a party of thier own kind where you can use thier non combat abilities to change that nature of battles. The irony of shades to is that they excell not in improving sneaky classes but in making none sneaky classes sneaky such as a shade cavalier or wizards.

I'm excited about the release of the book. I wonder fluff wise how your going to keep vrylokas and vamps seperate. My guess is by using thier greek origin of vrylokas as opposed to a bram stroker hollywood flavour for vamps. Plus as the Vrylokas are a race they will have thier own culture perhaps with greek influences.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 9, 2011)

> As for the racial power standard action question clearly it meant to be  primarily a non combat power with situational combat uses such as  retreating.



Nobody has given me a single situation this power is superior to just being trained in stealth outside of combat for far - especially considering just how friendly the current stealth rules *actually* for a PC to gain stealth by a reasonable DM. It really does not have any actual benefit outside of combat than what anyone already trained in stealth could do (sometimes for free as a part of doing whatever else they do). Bearing in mind a background makes gaining stealth inherently simple _no matter what class you play as_.



> The irony of shades to is that they excell not in improving sneaky  classes but in making none sneaky classes sneaky such as a shade  cavalier or wizards.



They don't really benefit a wizard that much, who can stand back and gain total cover/conealment in other more action efficient ways. In addition to this your controller and defender - absolutely 100% key roles in the party wasting an _entire_ round just to become hidden is a genuine waste of their actions. There are so few scenarios this is ever worthwhile that I can say it's practically useless. Noting that becoming hidden is NOT worthless - it's absolutely fantastic - but needing to take such a massive action sink to do so *is* what makes it useless in this scenario.

The point is even these classes can access far superior options that will be more useful more of the time - they don't take the larger cost of their race to do so. Instead only sacrificing something with a very low cost, like a background.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 9, 2011)

Ekio said:


> Looks like they already released Heroes of Shadow for classic 4th edition classes, am I right?



Open Grave is a book for DMs. Heroes of Shadow is a book for players.

I don't quite get why everyone ganged up on WalkingDad. Everything he wrote was correct (as far as anyone can currently tell):
There is every indication that someone using Essentials classes in their game will be able to make use of 100% of the material in the book and someone not using Essentials classes will not be able to use 100% of the material.

Or does anyone disagreee about that?!

Now, of course this doesn't mean you'd actually _want_ to use all of the material or that you'd absolutely have be able to use all of the material. But that wasn't the point.

As I mentioned in a previous post, deciding to buy or not to buy the book depends on how much of the material is going to be of actual use to _me_. And that is something everyone will have to determine for themselves, regardless if you're using Essentials builds or not.

I mean, I've bought the PHB3, so I could theoretically use 100% of the included material. After reading it I found that I didn't care all that much about psionic classes (except for the monk) and didn't care about Hybrid rules. So, a huge chunk of the book turned out to be useless to me.


----------



## Nullzone (Mar 9, 2011)

Material that you may not use personally for your characters does as much to at least educate you on _how_ it's used so you can best integrate with players who use those builds as you play. It's shortsighted to just treat the entire section as dead weight, especially if you DM ever in your career.


----------



## erleni (Mar 9, 2011)

for Klaus: did you design some content for the original Assassin? A PP or ED?
My main interest in HoS is further material for the original class (and not so much for the executioner) as the online support for the assassin has been very limited so far (we have basically no new powers since the original article).


----------



## kaomera (Mar 9, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> I don't get the anti-anti-essentials hate



I think that part of the issue may be that some posters are replying to Walking Dad as a spokesman for a larger "anti-essentials crowd".

I have gotten the impression from some posters that going forward they don't want to see any material published that would be usable / applicable to the essentials sub-classes. Walking Dad seems to have taken a different approach: that he would like to see more material that is specifically not applicable to the sub-classes, specifically that he'd like to see the pre-essentials build mechanics supported by future products.

We won't know 100% until the book(s) are in our grubby little paws, but I think that we will see such support. More importantly I see no actual reason or indication that we wouldn't. However, there is a lot of such ground that doesn't really need to be included in future products, either because it's already been gone over or because it's a bit of a failed concept (in terms of overall use).

And aside from this there looks to be plenty of new material for players who aren't using essentials, although I'll admit that this does somewhat depend on your definition of "essentials". There will be those players who will see some of the material included as "damning" the book with the essentials brand.


----------



## Nullzone (Mar 9, 2011)

kaomera said:


> Walking Dad seems to have taken a different approach: that he would like to see more material that is specifically not applicable to the sub-classes, specifically that he'd like to see the pre-essentials build mechanics supported by future products.




Which has already been established: Every time a game element comes out that has the name of your class of preference on it, you've added support to those classes. Even the essentials books themselves do this.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 9, 2011)

gyor said:


> Thank you for answering. I don't think the lost surge really cripples it at all, I'm surprised that with things like that character op boards that you guys didn't see the dissatifacation that the op crowd would have for it. That being said I personally feel that the shades racial utilities are like a free mullticlass that doesn't take up your multiclass slot or feats so if you have to take one feat to get your surge back big deal.
> 
> As for the racial power standard action question clearly it meant to be primarily a non combat power with situational combat uses such as retreating. In fact a party of Shades coud be very interesting. Makes me think of spectural panthers strageties.
> 
> ...




Two things: I'm just a freelancer, I don't speak for WotC in any way, shape or form. And the racial power was nerfed from the original form. I now realize it needed a nerf, but I wonder if the pendulum swung too much in the other direction. Then again, being hidden is a powerful condition.

Many people look at the Shade and think "Rogue! Assassin! Striker!", where the free Stealth training is wasted and the surge penalty is greater. But the fluff speaks more to Controller or Leader (specially a ranged Leader like the archer warlord or prescient bard), two roles that would benefit from the free Stealth and who don't usually miss the 1 surge.



erleni said:


> for Klaus: did you design some content for the original Assassin? A PP or ED?
> My main interest in HoS is further material for the original class (and not so much for the executioner) as the online support for the assassin has been very limited so far (we have basically no new powers since the original article).




I can't comment, sorry.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 9, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> Ditto.
> 
> Were you being tongue-in-cheek Abdul, or is there an anonymous but growing underclass somewhere clamouring for PPs and EDs to be jettisoned?




Yeah, mostly. There was a blog a while back by one of the devs, forget which one off the top of my head, and another one on Critical Hits discussing the success or lack thereof of the design concepts behind EDs and PPs. The general take was that EDs worked out fairly well from a design perspective, while PPs are a bit too constrained. The other issue that was that apparently there was a feeling that fixing these character growth transitions to exactly level 11 and 21 is a bit constraining. The party hits level 21 for instance and all of a sudden the acquisition of ED's by all of the party members need to be worked in all at once in a single level up. This makes it a bit hard for the DM to really work it into the story line. There was some comparison with the way PrCs worked in 3.x and some sentiment that PPs in particular might be improved by being more PrC-like in the sense of not being fixed at a specific level. Obviously how that would be accomplished is an open question.

So there has been some grumbling and dissatisfaction in the 4e developer community about the rigidity of these mechanics. I wouldn't say people think they are terrible or a disaster or anything like that. Just more a hankering for a greater degree of design freedom. In other words perhaps in some hypothetical future 5e some of the devs would prefer to see the tier concept made more flexible so that different characters could evolve in a more organic way and that some form of 'class add-ons' of whatever sort could be built in a greater variety of ways. 

So yeah, I was joking about Klaus being/not being on that bandwagon. OTOH it would be interesting to hear his perspective on that subject since he has experience with developing PPs and EDs. 

What about it Klaus? Got any insight on how that is working out from a dev perspective?


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 9, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Or does anyone disagreee about that?!



Well, yes, some people do. And they engaged him in discussion about it. It's ok to disagree with people.


----------



## gyor (Mar 9, 2011)

Klaus said:


> Two things: I'm just a freelancer, I don't speak for WotC in any way, shape or form. And the racial power was nerfed from the original form. I now realize it needed a nerf, but I wonder if the pendulum swung too much in the other direction. Then again, being hidden is a powerful condition.
> 
> Many people look at the Shade and think "Rogue! Assassin! Striker!", where the free Stealth training is wasted and the surge penalty is greater. But the fluff speaks more to Controller or Leader (specially a ranged Leader like the archer warlord or prescient bard), two roles that would benefit from the free Stealth and who don't usually miss the 1 surge.
> 
> ...




Interesting I'm going to have to relook at the fluff. If you look at FR the birth place of shades the most powerful well known shades are wizards and/or clerics of shar. Aka the twelve princes of shade and thier father. Another shade was an Swordmage possibly the most likely defender to take ritual casting. Even the fluff just presented says controller/leader as these classes are the most likely to have ritual casting as a class feature or to choose to take on thier own and of course the shades use a ritual to turn themselves into shades. Its Shadar-Kia that make more sense as rogues and assassins were as Shades fit more as Nethermancers or Death Clerics. Still if a Shade wished to become a melee striker Blackguard makes more sense as scarificing life force for power fits the blackguards fluff and abilities and Paladins are less likely to notice the lost surge. Also Blackguards would probably be more likely to know rituals then rogues from a fluff perpective trained in Religion as Paladins are. If I played a Shade ritual casting is a must for me. It makes sense now. Thank you.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 9, 2011)

fanboy2000 said:


> Well, yes, some people do. And they engaged him in discussion about it. It's ok to disagree with people.



Indeed.

The ToC seems to indicate that there is, in fact, stuff in there not usable by Essentials PCs. The section entitled *Cleric Powers* springs immediately to mind, and there may be more, I don't know.

But we've been down this road, many times in this thread alone, and both sides appear to be sticking to their guns and not backing down. I'm done arguing. People are going to believe what they want to believe.


----------



## gyor (Mar 9, 2011)

I really hope the blackguard has feats that improve his servant of vice. A succubus or a skull lord would be cool.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 9, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Indeed.
> 
> The ToC seems to indicate that there is, in fact, stuff in there not usable by Essentials PCs. The section entitled *Cleric Powers* springs immediately to mind, and there may be more, I don't know.
> 
> But we've been down this road, many times in this thread alone, and both sides appear to be sticking to their guns and not backing down. I'm done arguing. People are going to believe what they want to believe.



Hey, I stopped arguing before you. 
We should all just wait until it is out. If I was wrong I will happily admit it then and be glad about it. And if not, I'm here to get apologies from various people win/win


----------



## Knightfall (Mar 9, 2011)

I'm really eager to see the preview coming up on Friday.

Classes!!! 

And then races on Monday...

I've very excited about HoS!


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 9, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Hey, I stopped arguing before you.
> We should all just wait until it is out. If I was wrong I will happily admit it then and be glad about it. And if not, I'm here to get apologies from various people win/win



You did indeed stop before I did, and good on you for it 

I guess I'm easy to provoke.

If it turns out that I'm wrong, I'll own up to it, sure.

I do hope that I'm not, though, and in this case it has nothing to do with my pride. I actively want there to be options for non-Essentials, but right or wrong, I will get what I want from the product (more options).


----------



## Klaus (Mar 9, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So yeah, I was joking about Klaus being/not being on that bandwagon. OTOH it would be interesting to hear his perspective on that subject since he has experience with developing PPs and EDs.
> 
> What about it Klaus? Got any insight on how that is working out from a dev perspective?



Not only from HoS, but also all the way back to the Arrow of the Moonbow PP for Dragon:

- Strong flavor first, rules afterwards.
- Try and make it unique, not "more of the same". If you find a unique mechanic for the powers, all the better.
- Broad availability is better.


----------



## Estlor (Mar 9, 2011)

I'm not choosing sides or seeking to start any hat of essentalz here, but it Walking Dad left out the most likely to appear thing that's 100% incompatible with Essentials:

Warlock encounter attack powers.


----------



## kaomera (Mar 9, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> Which has already been established: Every time a game element comes out that has the name of your class of preference on it, you've added support to those classes. Even the essentials books themselves do this.



Classes, yes, but I think he was asking for support for the specific build mechanics (arcane implement mastery, etc.) that these classes used pre-essentials. Mind you, I think that there hasn't been (or really needed to be) a huge amount of support for some of this stuff even pre-essentials. At some point WotC seems to have come to the conclusion that it's not worth the extra effort needed to balance powers so that they are usable and not OP both with and without riders.


----------



## xXElaDriNDrizZztXx (Mar 10, 2011)

I lol at this. I'm genuinely confused on what the hell is going on... It's funny because everyone's pretty much at each others throats. I hope this book doesn't suck. I really hope I get options that make me feel like something unique is brought to the table. Shadow has a lot of potential. I didn't necessarily like Psionic characters. I feel they kinda dropped the ball on them too. That's for a completely different (and done to death) discussion.


----------



## AntlerDruid (Mar 10, 2011)

xXElaDriNDrizZztXx said:


> I lol at this. I'm genuinely confused on what the hell is going on... It's funny because everyone's pretty much at each others throats.




Yep the Shadow boards have been filled with lots of throat strangling for months now - the book isn't even out and already the riots have started long ago.

I don't even bother to read the rants anymore as on the WOTC boards there are 3 separate threads all saying the exact stuff over and over.

I am looking forward to HoS - I have been having a blast playing a Binder in my campaign.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 10, 2011)

The issue that I see with the Shade is:

(a) The free stealth skill (which is better than a background, since it doesn't count as your normal trained options) is wasted on the Rogue and Assassin. 

But

(b) Being hidden is best used by those two classes. Only the Rogue is dependent on combat advantage for it's bonus damage, and the executioner assassin has a few powers that require he be hidden. 

For characters outside those classes, combat advantage is nice, but not something that is necessarilly worth say giving up a standard action to do. The -5 to being hit is a powerful motivation if you can pull it off, but if you are not a rogue or assassin, it will often mean using up a standard action to do so ... thus not attacking an opponent to make it harder to hit you.

Of course, it's possible there are other things in the book that can work well with the shade. The old warlock could forgo their INT to pump up DEX and combine shadow walk with stealth, while the fey pact hexblade does use a light blade and DEX as a secondary stat, so light blade expertise would at least give a little bit of a bonus. I do remember someone mentioning that the Blackguard that was previewed did have some kind of combat advantage dependent striker damage, so they may end up being a good person to have as a shade. And, at the very least, the druid and ranger essential builds can take their stealth for free to use with their knack/stances and be able to grab an extra skill (like athletics which, while not fitting their primary stats, again ties into a knack).

It will be interesting to see the rest of it. Just seems a shame that shades are "too stealthy" to be Rogues or Assassins basically.

EDIT:

The only riot I've been involved with (and mostly at the table complaining instead of on the boards) was the last minute "by the way" where the Assassin was not just going into the book, but the at the time final version was labelled a playtest article for the book (or three playtest articles) so it wouldn't make it into the CB until HOS drops and gets it's content put in. Since our DM was allowing the rogue to become a thief next level, I had been looking forward to becoming an Executioner, but that all went out the window.


----------



## Insight (Mar 10, 2011)

Like some others, I am very disappointed in the "Necromancer" they have decided to release.  I was looking forward to a full class (and a leader at that) and it appears that the new "Necromancer" is just a Wizard option.

A while back, I started working on my own Necromancer as a shadow leader.  It was kind of like a Shaman in that it used a pet for a lot of its powers.  Its healing ability required the ally to hit a designated target and siphon the target's life force.

Maybe I'll revisit my design now that Wizards hasn't given me what I was hoping for.


----------



## Nichwee (Mar 10, 2011)

Insight said:


> Like some others, I am very disappointed in the "Necromancer" they have decided to release.  I was looking forward to a full class (and a leader at that) and it appears that the new "Necromancer" is just a Wizard option.
> 
> A while back, I started working on my own Necromancer as a shadow leader.  It was kind of like a Shaman in that it used a pet for a lot of its powers.  Its healing ability required the ally to hit a designated target and siphon the target's life force.
> 
> Maybe I'll revisit my design now that Wizards hasn't given me what I was hoping for.




I find it odd that peeps are surprised tha a Necro is a Wizard. It always has been, and I expectted it to always remain so. Wizard is often where _summoning_ goes, so the "army of undead" is a Wizzy thing imo. Otherwise a Necro is just a "cleric of death" (which was the best way to do the classic "army of undead" in 3.5 as it happens).

I do see you could have a strong Leader secondary role to Necros but they have a real issue as a Leader primary imo. I don't see a way, in their feel, to let them heal without hurting others first - unless they do just become "Cleric with necrotic powers" to keep Healing Word (or an equivalent).
This could be considered no biggie (Like the idea suggested by Insight) but then you have the problem that if a person is dying they can't hit anything to get healing, and if the Necro has a bad string of misses (or is debffed) the dying PC may not recieve healing in time. 
One of the best things about 4E healing was they allowed a Leader to attack and heal such that they didn't interfere with each other - and I see no way to get this to work for a Necro Leader without sacrificing the feel of a Necro (I can't think of Necro Heals that aren't lifestealing in some way). I suppose they could have a self-sacrifice heal to cover these situations but that would just make them a poor healer, as they would need to then heal themselves straight afterwards.

You could treat a Necro heal as a "inspiring with fear" thing, but that just makes them a scary Warlord imo. So I say again, I don't see how to make a Necro Leader a pure class without it beign a currently existing Leader with minor refluffing - so imo it works better as a sub-class.


----------



## gyor (Mar 10, 2011)

Something odd I noticed about the blackguard in the toc is that its the only "class" that has a full page devoted races. I wonder why.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 10, 2011)

gyor said:


> Something odd I noticed about the blackguard in the toc is that its the only "class" that has a full page devoted races. I wonder why.



Maybe much artwork on the page?


----------



## gyor (Mar 10, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Maybe much artwork on the page?




Could be or it could be that the previous entry ran onto the races page. Or Blackguards could have a more complicated relationship with other races. Or it could have an unlisted side bar.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 10, 2011)

Give me 45 days or so and I'll let you all know. Or someone will.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 11, 2011)

Nichwee said:


> I find it odd that peeps are surprised tha a Necro is a Wizard. It always has been, and I expectted it to always remain so. Wizard is often where _summoning_ goes, so the "army of undead" is a Wizzy thing imo. Otherwise a Necro is just a "cleric of death" (which was the best way to do the classic "army of undead" in 3.5 as it happens).




Yeah, I find this odd too. There was absolutely no option for a Necromancer of ANY kind in the game until 2e, which allowed it as a wizard school. 2e also allowed for reversed effect cleric spells as a standard thing, which allowed a bit of necromantic action for clerics, but in no case could you even really summon undead as a general thing. It wasn't until LATE 3.5 that there was ever any kind of class that was a dedicated necromancer. There really is little tradition for it in D&D.

Beyond that who cares what class is written on your character sheets guys? Seriously. The 4e devs don't really care about fluff wedded to the name of a class. They never did. They likely never will really. 

Yes, your Necromancer is based on a controller. I suspect there are enough options in the game at this point that you can manage to make a leaderish necromancer or whatever.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 11, 2011)

People are surprised in the sense of a pure-shadow necromancer being what many feel is a perfect class to add to the game as its own thing, especially since it gives WotC a way to innovate further. Not everyone is used to the new "cling to the past" paradigm yet.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 11, 2011)

> but if you are not a rogue or assassin, it will often mean using up a  standard action to do so ... thus not attacking an opponent to make it  harder to hit you.



You've actually missed the key point that makes the power actually extremely poor for almost anyone. You need to use your standard just to be *able* to make the stealth check. The standard action does not in any way let you make a stealth check - you need to spend a second action, which will probably be a move action to actually become hidden. So the standard action power lets you make a check with any cover or concealment, including from allies and THEN you need ANOTHER action to become hidden. If you need to move away, you provoke an OA and thus accomplish nothing - especially if you were using it to try to leave combat to heal (this likely leaves you unconscious). 

Additionally it's primary claim to fame - using allies as cover - assumes monsters can't just take a shift action. If a monster can shift, it can break your cover quite trivially in many cases (by no longer having the ally placed between yourself and it). 

So the huge action sink - combined with how ineffectual it is unless you are in the land of perpetual night and enemies lack low-light or darkvision - makes it worthless for controllers (who frankly, have better options than this that won't take their most important actions in a round to do), leaders and most defenders. They're just not classes who can afford to throw away two vital actions to gain some CA. Especially given the total concealment being worth anything in the first place is conditional on monsters not having a burst or blast attack (or blindsight, tremorsense or truesight). The racial power becomes useful in only an incredibly limited number of niche scenarios that it is never worth using.

To be honest though, in general I am worried about the mechanical crunch in the book. What I've seen has been... less than impressive to put it nicely. The shadow hound for example, which relies on charging and fails to have any melee basic attack - so hence cannot charge - is another mechanic that seems to have been poorly thought out. I really hope many of these things are fixed in the final book.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 11, 2011)

Estlor said:


> I'm not choosing sides or seeking to start any hat of essentalz here, but it Walking Dad left out the most likely to appear thing that's 100% incompatible with Essentials:
> 
> Warlock encounter attack powers.




This does depend on what the binder ends up looking like. The hexblade doesn't provide any encounter powers for the old warlock, but since the binder is a controller, it's possible it may be closer to the wizard (or at least he cleric) in giving it encounter powers as well as dailies and utilities.


----------



## AntlerDruid (Mar 11, 2011)

WalterKovacs said:


> This does depend on what the binder ends up looking like. The hexblade doesn't provide any encounter powers for the old warlock, but since the binder is a controller, it's possible it may be closer to the wizard (or at least he cleric) in giving it encounter powers as well as dailies and utilities.




Yes the Binder gives Encounter powers - I am currently using one in my campaign.


----------



## gyor (Mar 11, 2011)

I think it would be cool if the Gloom Hexblade's pact blade was a double weapon, secondary stat dex of course. Hexblades the Jedi Knights of Dnd


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 11, 2011)

Askanipsion said:


> Yes the Binder gives Encounter powers - I am currently using one in my campaign.



The binder starts to sound really interesting.
Can you say if it feels more like a wizard/invoker/psion/old warlock?
Has he summoning powers (dailies)?

BTW, the vampire preview uses the new class format.
I like it.
Kind of glad he turned out to be a striker. And another class that loves unarmored agility.


----------



## AntlerDruid (Mar 11, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> The binder starts to sound really interesting.
> Can you say if it feels more like a wizard/invoker/psion/old warlock?
> Has he summoning powers (dailies)?




I only know the 1st level Binder Daily and it is total crap as the target can avoid it completely - there is also no Effect line. So I took a different Daily. They could get a Summon on 5th - dunno. Hopefully the Daily will be changed in final print.

What really shines is their At-Will Close Burst 5 Fear power that pushes, does psychic dmg and is a Fear attack. If you MC Assassin, you can slide with it if you miss! You can also target one or TWO targets. Awesome power!

They do not get Striker dmg. So it kinda feels like a Telekinetic Psion because they get so many push powers.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 11, 2011)

The Heroes of Shadow preview article is up at wizards.com.

Fluff and crunch info on Vampires. Fluff info on Assassins, Paladins, Warlocks, Clerics, and Wizards.

I logged in to read the article, but hopefully this link will still get you there.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 11, 2011)

looks intriguing so far, but then again I was sold a long time ago...


----------



## gyor (Mar 11, 2011)

Another cool idea for a blackguard build half elf with commanders strike and mount summon for his level six utility power. Use your commanders strike with your encounter power so that you deal that damage and then your dragon mount does a basic attack as he is an ally according to RC. Add Holy Steed feat to add charisma mod to mount attacks. Wish I knew if servant of vice's creature has an attack.

A really fun twisted idea to shake up a slayer, play one as Shade/Slayer/swordmage/mythic slayer/loreseeker then focus on intelligence and intelligent blademaster instead of strength. Take Shade utilities at every opportunity. Use loreseeker to make two daily utilities into encounter powers, like say the shades shadow monsters utility power. Take a background that gives you religion and history as class skills taking both. You can even use the shades free stealth trained sklll as Slayer don't get it as class skill. So far a slayer with Arcana, Religion, History and stealth as trained skills, plus one other. You even really good at them. Add ritual caster and or vistani hertiage feats for weirdness. Dump stat strength. Want to add insult to injury take the skill power feat and take Arcane babble so that you can be of use in social encounters as well. Heck take a familiar as well liker that gibberling thing that has 360 vision and the feat that allows you to see like it does and vis virsa, so now you have eyes in the back of your head as well as Darkvision which you grant to you familiar. Cast Familiar Mount on it as well. You won't even miss the surge because your a striker with defender surges and hps.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 12, 2011)

lol, sounds pretty wacky to me... Probably work OK too.


----------



## gyor (Mar 12, 2011)

Yeah, its my solution to people complaining the slayer is just hit, hit harder, hit with no replay value as well a, people complaining that the shade is too fragile and useless. Once you get passed the expectation of Rogues and Assassins the Shade is pretty cool. Maybe alittle eratta to tweak it, but still has cool potential to add shadow powers to classes that don't get it, that's were it shines. People think it supposed to be like the Shadar-Kai and they ask well why do we need this when we already have shadow people. They don't get that the Shade is the intelligenasa/elites to the Shadar-Kais prolatarite. Most Shades don't want to dirty themselves with being thieves and assassins, they have shadar-kai and monsters for that. It the acculation of mystic might and temporal power that interests the shades. Shades are shadow by will while ShadarKai are shadow by blood.


----------



## gyor (Mar 12, 2011)

Thanks for the comment Klaus, although I wonder how you did that? I'm not sure if this post counts as a double post or not honestly. Anyway now that I feel like I understand Shades better. There are no medicore Shades. Shadar Kai can be farmers, blacksmiths, or common soldiers, but the very act of becoming a shade is difficult and dangerous so to thier perpective it makes then elite, better then everyone else. Even heroic Shades would have elements of that even if they didn't put in those terms. The elitism of Shades isn't that of the noblity though (although a noble who becomes a shade might have that as well) its the elitism of meritocracy where power is earned not simply inherited by the unworthy.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 12, 2011)

gyor said:


> Thanks for the comment Klaus, although I wonder how you did that?




he gave you xp.

See the little green thumbs-up icon under people's icon? click on that to give xp to someone and leave a comment (e.g. if you are particularly pleased by something they posted).

There are some restrictions, but that should get you going.

Cheers!


----------



## gyor (Mar 13, 2011)

Oh cool thanks for the info. And thanks for the xp Klaus.

I love thinking up cool\weird builds that may not be perfectly optimized but offer a unique play and rp experience. The intelligent slayer shade above for example I imagined grew up in a vistani clan to family with a strong slayer tradition of fighting to protect thier clan. Unlike his father, uncles, and brothers and even his sister he was born kind of weak, but smart. While his family encouraged him to pursue intellectual studies believing that being a slayer was not in the cards for him realistically, he refused to remain the family disappointment. He experimented a little with swordmage magic in the hopes of finding an edge, but found that despite his intellect and speed he had little talent for combat magic although he excelled in rituals passed down from his mothers side of the family. It was from them that he at least learned how to use his smarts when fighting as well as the ritual to become a shade which his greated grandmother had attempted to use, but destroyed herself with. When the clan was appoaching a shadowcrossing to get to a rare market in the shadowfell that would play top coin for wares from the swamps of the Feywild that they had collected, he took his chances and cast his ritual to transform himself into a Shade in the hopes that it would be the edge he needed to thrive as a slayer. He was right it gave him an edge and he found that his unique combination of intelligent blade mastery with slayer might and innate shadow magic made him the best slayer in the clan as well as a repected sage and shadow mystic. The price was high though as the part of his soul that the shadowfell took as brideprice for power was his connection to his family, he lost his ability to connect and understand them,  not because he violated a taboo, his clan was practical about such matters,  but because the previous ingrained feelings of belonging and kinship to his family were ripped away with that part of his soul. He can't even recall the memory of those feeling although his memories of those experiences are otherwise still in tact. He still remains a member of his clan, not out of love, of which her retains the capacity for even if the previous emotional connections are gone, but out of a mixture of possesiveness and an unnatural drive to prove his suppiorority to all of them, far beyond his previous desire to belong and prove his worth. He still jokes with his clans men and women, but while he is as witty as ever, his humour has a darker edge to it and his words have hidden barbs were before there was only playful teasing and an open heart.


----------

