Heroes of the Feywild Excerpts

[Dire Bare]

Seems like some races and classes get support because they are popular, and are popular because they get support. There are a few concepts out there which are so underdeveloped that it's easy to dismiss them as bad ideas or false starts or lungfish, rightfully abandoned . . . but a couple of good articles online could be enough to make us reassess them.

That's a challenge for the online writers, really --- write some really good support for the shardmind or the seeker or the runepriest, and you might end up salvaging the entire concept.

I don't see it quite the same way. I think the runepriest class was pretty cool and never "needed" additional support to make it playable, it works just fine as is. I think more support would be cool, but it doesn't bother me that there hasn't been much. "Runepriest" is simply not a central archetype to D&D like "Fighter" or "Wizard" is. Player's don't write to WotC in droves requesting more Runepriest support (not that there aren't a few loud individuals who do), and freelancers aren't submitting Runepriest articles in big piles, and WotC isn't frantically looking to fill the Runepriest "void" . . . it's simply not as popular as a class because it just doesn't scream "D&D" like the classic classes do. WotC prints what it believes the majority of its customers want, and it isn't Runepriest articles.

That doesn't make the Runepriest a bad class or a bad idea, just not one central to the D&D mythos. I'm glad it was published and is a part of the game, I'm happy to see new articles expanding the concept (like the one we'll see this month), but the complaints that WotC is shafting player's of the class I think are overwrought. Not all options need to be central to the D&D mythos to be a valuable contriution to the game, but not all options need or require equal support down the road to keep them viable.

This works with races too. The Shardmind is cool, but you're never going to see it get equal support as the Elf, and you shouldn't. IMO, it's kinda silly to expect otherwise.

 

[JPL]

I don't see it quite the same way. I think the runepriest class was pretty cool and never "needed" additional support to make it playable, it works just fine as is. I think more support would be cool, but it doesn't bother me that there hasn't been much. "Runepriest" is simply not a central archetype to D&D like "Fighter" or "Wizard" is. Player's don't write to WotC in droves requesting more Runepriest support (not that there aren't a few loud individuals who do), and freelancers aren't submitting Runepriest articles in big piles, and WotC isn't frantically looking to fill the Runepriest "void" . . . it's simply not as popular as a class because it just doesn't scream "D&D" like the classic classes do. WotC prints what it believes the majority of its customers want, and it isn't Runepriest articles.

That doesn't make the Runepriest a bad class or a bad idea, just not one central to the D&D mythos. I'm glad it was published and is a part of the game, I'm happy to see new articles expanding the concept (like the one we'll see this month), but the complaints that WotC is shafting player's of the class I think are overwrought. Not all options need to be central to the D&D mythos to be a valuable contriution to the game, but not all options need or require equal support down the road to keep them viable.

This works with races too. The Shardmind is cool, but you're never going to see it get equal support as the Elf, and you shouldn't. IMO, it's kinda silly to expect otherwise.

I'm not saying that we should ever expect shardminds and seekers to overtake dwarves and wizards in popularity, but I think that any concept that's worth adding to the game will spark new ideas, introduce new synergies with existing material, and just otherwise merit some kind of followup.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not saying that we should ever expect shardminds and seekers to overtake dwarves and wizards in popularity, but I think that any concept that's worth adding to the game will spark new ideas, introduce new synergies with existing material, and just otherwise merit some kind of followup.

While I agree with your argument, one could also argue that the lack of new ideas or synergies with previously existing classes indicate that maybe they weren't worth adding in the first place.

Look at 3.5 as an example. The Complete books added 12 new classes to the game. I think it became obvious from the books that followed that some of the classes (warlock!) had really taken hold in people's imagination and some others (samurai!) didn't.

 

[JPL]

While I agree with your argument, one could also argue that the lack of new ideas or synergies with previously existing classes indicate that maybe they weren't worth adding in the first place.

Indeed. Which I guess is how I ended up with "salvage" in an earlier post . . . there are a few game elements like runepriests where I feel like I'm on the fence about whether its (1) a misfire that doesn't merit additional attention, or (2) untapped potential that just needs a little love.

 

[TwoSix]

Indeed. Which I guess is how I ended up with "salvage" in an earlier post . . . there are a few game elements like runepriests where I feel like I'm on the fence about whether its (1) a misfire that doesn't merit additional attention, or (2) untapped potential that just needs a little love.

I would argue for "cool concept in an Essentials cleric build" or "interesting concept to carry into 5e".

I hope the kanji runepriest article changes my mind.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, while the RP class is interesting, it is a concept that really seems kind of narrow for a whole stand-alone class. Maybe best to let that implementation fade into history, and if they do a new edition it can be resurrected as a cleric variant build or something like that. Maybe even a theme.

There are a few ways you could become a cat BTW. Some sort of item, a boon, be a hengeyokai be a PHB1 Druid (sort of, technically aren't able to be small/tiny, but details details). The caption did say "form", which kind of implies a class/race feature. Still, not every single thing that has an illustration has specific mechanics either.

 

[Dire Bare]

There are a few ways you could become a cat BTW. Some sort of item, a boon, be a hengeyokai be a PHB1 Druid (sort of, technically aren't able to be small/tiny, but details details). The caption did say "form", which kind of implies a class/race feature. Still, not every single thing that has an illustration has specific mechanics either.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the art series we're discussing most definitely depicts a class, race, or feat chain in "Heroes of the Feywild". It would be rather silly to make such a big deal of it, only for the game options to be found in another source. And illustrations in game books most often DO depict mechanics found in the book, old-timey tradition.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the art series we're discussing most definitely depicts a class, race, or feat chain in "Heroes of the Feywild". It would be rather silly to make such a big deal of it, only for the game options to be found in another source. And illustrations in game books most often DO depict mechanics found in the book, old-timey tradition.

Oh, it probably does depict something that is in the book. My guess would be a druid build or some other druid related thing, possibly a feat. Really all you'd NEED would be a feat/build that lets you wild shape to a small/tiny creature and give up your ability to attack, maybe in trade for some benefit to stealth or whatever. It could be an encounter/at-will equivalent of some of the form powers, but limited to one specific form, like cat.

It COULD also be some kind of race based thing. We know the 4e races, and presumably the character depicted isn't a member of any of them, but she could be benefiting say from some alternative 'fey human' kind of thing.

 

[Vael]

Satyr preview is up.

Looks good. The racial power is solid, and I like that they always have bluff as a class skill.

I do find the fluff a little amusing. It seems a little ... backpedalish? "Satyrs are hedonistic ... but not too hedonistic". "Satyrs like to partay, but aren't stupid about it."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Male Satyers and Female Hamadryad are the same race more or less. They make little Satyers and Hamadryads...

I love it.