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

The Vampire's basic abilities of darkvision, regeneration, and resistance to necrotic damage make it feel over-powered right from Level 1.

Click to expand...

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

Add to that the ability to gain healing surges

Click to expand...

After starting with 2/day.

an encounter flight form by Level 6,

Click to expand...

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

domination by Level 9,

Click to expand...

Only four levels behind my old Bard.

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

OnlineDM said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

I'm sure of this as well.

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

Click to expand...

plenty of material compatible for non-Essentials players

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

Walking Dad said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

deinol said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

Neuroglyph said:

The first thing that indicates this being an Essentials book is the back cover, which states:

Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow is aimed at players who are ready to reach beyond the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials books, Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of Forgotten Kingdoms.

For use with these Dungeons & Dragons Essentials Products: Heroes of the Fallen Lands, Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, Rules Compendium
​

Also, the name itself was a dead giveaway, as a Traditional 4E book would have probably been called "Shadow Powers" rather than "Heroes of Shadow".

Click to expand...

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

Neuroglyph said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Neuroglyph said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

-O

Obryn said:

...

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

-O

Click to expand...

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

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

Walking Dad said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Again, take it another way.

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

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

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

-O

occam said:

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

Click to expand...

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

occam said:

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

Click to expand...

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

occam said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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