Dragon 374: Arcane Options - Character Concepts

[Nymrohd]

Hehe well ofc we are nowhere near that. I just would like playtests and similar articles not to be part of Dragon but just articles posted under the D&DI. Heck character concepts would have better served as a free column.

 

[Henrix]

How to build your very own Hellbound Wizard

Is that like how Vaarsuvius is doing it?

 

[Nymrohd]

Nah, V took the crash course.

 

[Nymrohd]

Btw, something we expected but now have confirmed. There will be classes that get additional secondary abilities beyond the ones in their PHB (since Bard had Cha primary with Int, Con and now Wis secondaries).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Btw, something we expected but now have confirmed. There will be classes that get additional secondary abilities beyond the ones in their PHB (since Bard had Cha primary with Int, Con and now Wis secondaries).

Neat. New design space!

I wonder if they'll also do it eventually with primary ability scores? (Ranged Warlord!)

 

[Storminator]

I see a lot of Arcane Power 2 nuggets.

The new Bard (Virtue of Prescience) build has Wisdom as a secondary, and favors Ranged attacks.

Combat Virtuoso, a "neat Bard feat", allows the use of Charisma for multiclass attack rolls.
Paragon feats: Armor Specialization, Mettle, and Disenheartening Shot.
Also Quickened Spellcasting (Not sure if it's Epic or not).
Warding Curse (Warlock) feat grants +2 to defenses vs. Cursed foes.

New At-Will: Jinx Shot.

Various tidbits about some powers' effects, particularly ranged attack powers.

Also some paragon paths. I would have liked to see an Epic destiny tho.

As a side note, it annoyed me that the guy writing the article is just "All I want is damage damage damage". Yeah, but what about being a bard? Where's the arcane part of the "Arcane Archer" he set out to make? Dude comes off more as an archer who carries a tune, than doing the leader thing, or anything arcane-related. The way I read this, it feels like the guy would have been better served to just take the Ranger class, and multi-class, instead of going the Bard route, since he's far happier with high-damage ranger powers than Bard powers.

Are we reading the same article? Obviously damage will be important, because he's multiclassing as a striker. But he's rife with re-roll powers and bardic powers (most of which we just don't know what they do). I think it sticks to the theme (all magic delivered by bowshot) well.

Unrelated to how well he hit the mark on the AA, I thought there was a nice mix of feats - some attack, some defense, some bardic and some rangery.

Also, he never picked up more than two first level rituals? What the hell?

Agreed.

PS

 

[Piratecat]

I found this really interesting. It's a nice look at how to create an off-rule concept through the rules. I can apply this sort of theme-based reasoning to any number of different ideas I have.

Next up: my gnome barbarian reskinned into a traditional redcap, iron boots and all.

 

[MrMyth]

As a side note, it annoyed me that the guy writing the article is just "All I want is damage damage damage". Yeah, but what about being a bard? Where's the arcane part of the "Arcane Archer" he set out to make? Dude comes off more as an archer who carries a tune, than doing the leader thing, or anything arcane-related. The way I read this, it feels like the guy would have been better served to just take the Ranger class, and multi-class, instead of going the Bard route, since he's far happier with high-damage ranger powers than Bard powers.

Well, he did seem to have a very specific focus on dice manipulation abilities that let him do all sorts of dice swapping tricks, to magically aid his allies and hinder his enemies. Even specifically focusing on that over better damage, at points. Utilities are also very focused on aiding the party. So I'd say he didn't ignore the leader aspect at all - focused on the buffing over the healer, certainly, but that doesn't make it an inherently 'wrong' choice.

It is somewhat different the classic arcane archer, and I think he would have been well served snagging some sorcerer multiclassing to pick up one or two truly explosive spells to round out his capabilities. But I think it feels like a truly versatile build, and a very nice ranged leader that provides support from afar.

My big frustration was how much the article emphasized the 'must have' feats from PHB2. Implement and Weapon Expertise are among the very first things each character picks up. Paragon Defenses gets grabbed early in Paragon, and retrained to Robust Defenses at Epic, with Epic Fort/Ref/Will also picked up almost as soon as possible. Feats shouldn't be so good as to skip ahead of all other options, and clearly even in WotC's mind, that is what is happening here.

While the Character Concept article isn't really of great use to me personally, I do like seeing someone walking through the steps and exploring some interesting concepts. Both this article and the last one have had some nice themes for the characters and done a good job of exploring them - I actually really like the focus on the dice manipulation part of this character as a 'controller of destiny'. The builds aren't going to be the most optimized ones, but are certainly playable - though there are a few choices that rub me the wrong way. (The bard taking Str 13 to quality for Ranger Multiclassing - which isn't actually needed - and the Warlock's reluctance to train out low-level powers for higher-level ones, for example.)

Still, I like seeing the process in action, and very much appreciated the somewhat hidden 'preview' of the upcoming Arcane Power content as a part of it. It didn't take anything away from the article itself, while making it a little more appealing for the readership, so I'm a fan of that. I can see folks not liking the core concept of the article itself, but I don't see any reason to consider this part of the trend of 'too much preview content' in Dragon.

(Now, being concerned about two Playtests in one month is a much more viable complaint, but not one that this is really a part of...)

 

[garyh]

Two points make no sense to me:

1 - Why in the world would a non-star pact warlock spend stat increases and a feat to learn chain (and be slowed and have a skill penalty) when leather + Int is just fine?

2 - The author seems to think you need Str 13 AND Dex 13 to multi with ranger, and that just isn't so.

Kinda makes it hard to take the advice seriously when there are questionable elements like that.

 

[Alikar]

Kinda makes it hard to take the advice seriously when there are questionable elements like that.

Is character creation advise something to take seriously in the first place?