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

Obryn · Apr 8, 2011

Windjammer said:
It's a statement by the publisher under the section: Intended to be used with the following products. As such the statement serves informational purposes.

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

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

...because it's an advertising blurb. For their newer products done by the marketing department.

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

-O

occam · Apr 9, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

occam · Apr 9, 2011

Walking Dad said:
WotC said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Walking Dad · Apr 10, 2011

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

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

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

RichGreen · Apr 10, 2011

Hi,

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

I got to play a character from Heroes of Shadow at the ukdndtweetup recently (a binder warlock) and had no idea it was an Essentials character. It seemed just like a 4e character to me.

Cheers

Richard

GrecoG · Apr 11, 2011

Chris Sims at Comicpalooza

Neuroglyph,

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

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

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

www (dot) comicpalooza (dot) com

www.warhorn.net/comicpaloozahouston

Argyle King · Apr 16, 2011

GrecoG said:
Neuroglyph,

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

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

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

www (dot) comicpalooza (dot) com

www.warhorn.net/comicpaloozahouston

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

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

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

Malisteen · May 19, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neuroglyph · May 23, 2011

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

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

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

Grimgrin · May 25, 2011

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