Preview: December and Beyond

[Aegeri]

To clarify a bit:

What I wanted to see was themes, PPs, feats and such that use shadow, not essentialized builds of classes. I'm really disappointed they are going this route.

Themes are coming in a later book for everyone (not just essentials classes) actually. Paragon Paths are a given, unless they tie them into class features there should be no reason a Wizard cannot pick up a Shadow PP. In fact that's one of the entire points they are doing it this way. And again, unless shadow feats are restricted with class features then there is no reason why paladins and wizards will not be able to take them.

 

[fanboy2000]

One of the subtly jarring things about Essentials (and a thing I think was a mistake) is that pre-Essentials, 4e said this kind of thing does merit a different class. And post-Essentials they kind of went back to the 1e/2e paradigm of sub-classes.

What's the diffrence between a sub-class and a build? Arcane Power has builds that seem to work a lot like the Essentials sub-classes.

 

[Malisteen]

What's the difference? Especially if they go down the essentials route and remove all the silly power-source requirements on feats.

Are you looking for MORE mechanical systems to be squeezed in?

Honestly? Yes. Let me put it this way: What's the difference between a druid and a cleric of a nature god? What's the difference between a Warlord and a Fighter with diplomacy? What's the difference between an avenger and a rogue? What's the difference between a psion and a wizard? Either you have a system where unique fantasy archetypes get their own classes or you have a system where everything's smushed under the same heading, you can't change your mind half way through.

The difference is that a new necromancer class could have been entirely designed around its necromantic concepts and mechanics, where as now we're getting a necromancer where everything necromantic about it has to be hampered and restrained to fit into the mage's shool progression mechanics. You can't have a unique pet-oriented class like, say, the shaman because everything the necromancer is and does has to fit within the wizards framework. You can't have a necromancer that does anything differently from the wizard because by definition it's just another wizard. It's not even a fully separate build like the Blackguard - it has to fit the framework of the mage build of wizard.

I liked that the Psionic power source had a unique mechanical identity. I had hoped for something similar with the Shadow power source, but that's simply not possible anymore because shadow classes don't exist, just shadow themed builds of other classes for other power sources.

Do you honestly want a blackguard dealing radiant damage? Or a paladin dealing necrotic damage? Are there honestly any paladin feats that a necrotic damaging striker could use, or vice versa? Do you really want a defender having unrestricted access to a strikers attack and utility powers, and vice versa? Do Blackguards and Paladins share any bloody thing at all that would make them make sense as builds of the same class, mechanically? If not, then why shackle the dark knight archetype to an existing class when it could have flourished on its own?


[MENTION=59248]mneme[/MENTION]: "Er, did you read the same article I did? Because I didn't see "a mage with a sub-par daily summon as an afterthought."

Instead, I saw "a mage who at fifth level gets an always-on summon as a class feature."

I saw a mage who at fifth level gets to trade a powerful wizard daily power - for a daily summon that lasts until the first blast or burst damage you run into on a given day, which then kills the summon and you don't have it anymore. At least the cavalier's mount can be summoned twice a day, so you have at least some ability to recover from a gank - on top of having better defenses and better hp and sharing surges with a defender. The skellie has half of a controller's hp, and has to share a controller's surges. Not very promising, imo.

While it is around, you can spend your actions on it, but why would you when you could instead cast some quality wizard at-will power. Since you don't get it until level 5, your at-will powers won't revolve around it, and since you'll likely be without it for much of a given day the rest of your powers won't either. So whenever you're spending actions on it, you're not being your class. Compare to the Shaman, who's every action is directed through his pet, which he gets at level one. That's the kind of fluff-reinforcing mechanical identity that separate classes for separate concepts can deliver, and that this necromancer just doesn't.

Don't get me wrong - the skeleton summon is ok as a summon power. But it's nowhere near as character-defining as the undead servants of a necromancer class should be, imo.

As for why I call it an after thought - look at the shadow beast. It obviously didn't get much attention from the designers if they gave it extra charge speed but forgot to give it the ability to charge, or if they gave it half hp to balance the insubstantiality that they also forgot to give it.


@ Aegen: "Being builds of other classes has the option of getting support that is for those classes that you can use."

What material exactly is the necrotic damaging striker blackguard going to use from the radiant damaging defender paladin, and vice versa? Even if mixing between them were possible and mechanically beneficial, why would you even want that in the game, thematically? At that point, why not just throw your hands up and let any class use any power or feat from any other class?

This doesn't guarantee more support for, say, necromancers. What it does is let the developers be lazy and not support necromancers at all and just say to use new wizard material if they want something new, regardless of whether it fits with necromancy at all. They don't have to make necrotic damage viable for necromancers because the necromancers can take radiant powers if they want. They don't have to make the summons good, or actually incorporate them into the necromancer's other mechanics at all, because they can just say necromancer can take fireball or what have you instead if they don't like them.

I can see it now. A bunch of necromancers with radiant powers instead of fluffy necromancy powers because otherwise they'd be gimped against undead. Blargh.

Honestly, I prefer the 'many classes requiring individual support' model, because then at least when you do get support it actually fits your theme.

 

[DMZ2112]

I needed actual shadow classes. This book is worse then worthless, because its mere existence means I'll never get any.

I wouldn't worry too much about this, Malisteen. In the past, Wizards has proven more than willing to stretch a single concept into as many books as humanly possible.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I can see it now. A bunch of necromancers with radiant powers instead of fluffy necromancy powers because otherwise they'd be gimped against undead. Blargh.

Honestly, I prefer the 'many classes requiring individual support' model, because then at least when you do get support it actually fits your theme.

I don't know why you think this model of doing things is so crippling. You haven't even seen what the Apprentice, Expert, and Master benefits are going to be for the Necromancy school, let alone its PP.

I have a long-running necromancer-themed character and I've already thought of ways to provide what you're saying can't be done with what I feel are fairly balanced house rules. If I've been able to think of ways around it, little ol' me, an unpublished mook, then certainly the likes of Mike Mearls, and heck, even our very own Klaus certainly can.

Calm down, wait 'til it's out, read it, play it, then decide. Or, you know, jump to conclusions about a product you've seen only a tiny, incomplete snippet of and don't.

 

[DMZ2112]

Except that the one spell we're shown in the preview, Summon Shadow Servant, has the Prerequisite: You must have the Expert Mage benefit associated with necromancy or nethermancy.

In other words that spell (and presumably there are others with a similar prereq) is unavailable to pre-essentials Wizards.

I know some other folks have weighed in on this, but to help put this particular bit of worry to bed, this excerpt is from the website description of Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell:

"It features rules that allow D&D Essentials characters to select non-D&D Essentials powers, and it grants non-D&D Essentials characters access to class features from Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms."

It will also apparently fix the multiclassing gap and cure cancer.

 

[mattcolville]

hasis mine)

I, for one, would like to see a little more of the Life side of Necromancy.

Don't take this the wrong way but; the life side of death magic? Isn't that a cleric?

I look at that 2E Description and I see a writer desperately reaching to try and find a way to avoid saying "Necromancers raise the dead," because he's been told parents will read that and throw their kids books away.

Necromancers are dudes who raise the dead. If you want to be a leader who keeps people alive...that's a cleric.

Now, I can buy the idea of a Necromancer who isn't Evil, but *purely as a deliberate subversion* and even then I'd expect it to be a Faustian bargain. I agree with...whatever edition of D&D that just flat out said "Raising the dead is an evil act." Yeah. Seems that way to me. Certainly that's the association we make with the word Necromancer.

I haven't checked out the preview yet, but if Necromancers aren't dudes who raise a LOT of undead, even if only as minions (actually, probably IDEALLY as minions) then Ima be pissed.

 

[Aegeri]

What material exactly is the necrotic damaging striker blackguard going to use from the radiant damaging defender paladin, and vice versa? Even if mixing between them were possible and mechanically beneficial, why would you even want that in the game, thematically? At that point, why not just throw your hands up and let any class use any power or feat from any other class?

Ardent Strike for one, which lets the Blackguard have a bit of a secondary defender role without compromising its ability to deal damage either. It could be an interesting dichotomy and one I feel works very appropriately for it. Additionally they may be able to turn features like divine sanction into a necrotic damage dealing power. This is assuming they get at-will attacks of course, they might be stance based like a slayer/knight and therefore not get selections of paladin at-wills (unless you're human). Radiant damage is also not "thematically" a good damage type. If you think this you are simply flat out wrong: Angels of evil gods like Vecna also employ radiant damage. The angel is perfectly evil and serves Vecna, just because it uses radiant damage doesn't make it good in any manner.

The Blackguard is still a divine class, so sourcing part of your power from the astral sea and hence gods does allow the perfectly logical use of radiant damage. I suggest you re-read your 4E fluff before making such complaints, because they really aren't actually valid anymore.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Don't take this the wrong way but; the life side of death magic? Isn't that a cleric?

I look at that 2E Description and I see a writer desperately reaching to try and find a way to avoid saying "Necromancers raise the dead," because he's been told parents will read that and throw their kids books away.

Necromancers are dudes who raise the dead. If you want to be a leader who keeps people alive...that's a cleric.

Now, I can buy the idea of a Necromancer who isn't Evil, but *purely as a deliberate subversion* and even then I'd expect it to be a Faustian bargain. I agree with...whatever edition of D&D that just flat out said "Raising the dead is an evil act." Yeah. Seems that way to me. Certainly that's the association we make with the word Necromancer.

I haven't checked out the preview yet, but if Necromancers aren't dudes who raise a LOT of undead, even if only as minions (actually, probably IDEALLY as minions) then Ima be pissed.

Ugh.

Sorry, if this comes off a bit harsh. I've had this conversation before. Many times. Why is it that most people's brains only work in a binary way when it comes to necromancy?

There is more grey area between "BBEG that Raises the Dead and tosses Fear mojo" and "shiny cleric of light" and I think that there is room to explore that with necromancy.

Even if you disagree, and hold that it's a Yin-Yang type concept, surely you can imagine someone who harnesses both aspects of the power.

But we don't even need to go that far. A shadow (and therefore Shadow) cannot exist without a light source, and it is not complete and utter black.

 

[Malisteen]

Calm down, wait 'til it's out, read it, play it, then decide. Or, you know, jump to conclusions about a product you've seen only a tiny, incomplete snippet of and don't.

I'm unhappy now, because the entire direction of the book is just so completely not what I wanted, and I've built up a lot of wanting for this product over two years of waiting for material for shadow characters. I can understand martial, arcane, and divine getting done first - they're more iconic. I was patient. I watched Primal and Psionic get the full treatment and said "wow, that's awesome, I can't wait for Shadow to get released so I can play with them!"

Why is it that only now, when the power source that I was exited for was about to be released, why is it only now that the developers say "whoops, guess we made too many classes, no new classes for anybody else, but hey, you can share with the wizard or the paladin if you really want"? I feel like I've been waiting all night to sit on Santa's knee and get my picture taken and when I finally got to the front of the line they decided it was time to close the mall. It really has taken the wind out of my sails, as far as enthusiasm for 4e and D&D in general goes.

And yeah, I'll read it when it comes out, and comment again. I'll try to give it a fair shot, really I will. If I haven't just given up on D&D altogether by that point.