Rule of 3 3/21

[Walking Dad]

This.

I recall when the first HoS preview was out, there was a rather extensive thread on whether or not HoS was for "Essentials" or "old-style" or what-have-you. Sure, while it's technically true that they "tackled Essentials twice," the first question more truthfully tackles the big deal about HoS, which as it turns out, supports both Essentials and "original"

Sorry, but I think the "supports both" is company / PR talk.

Nowhere in this statement does this imply that they provide options for the "old" model that won't work for the "new" model. Nor does it imply that "new" doesn't work with "old". In fact, exactly one line later, the staff gives an explicit example, which merely clarifies the previous statement.

What statement? That you cannot use the minority of the powers with old classes (this is the same as saying you can use the majority),
or their example with the only class whose way to pick powers remained the same (wizard/mage)?

Also quoting WalterKovacs above you:

There is a legitimate complaint to be made for some old builds not getting support, namely there are probably not going to be any powers useful for charisma based paladins (aside from utilities since charisma is a secondary stat), for constitution based warlocks (again, aside from utilities since con is a secondary stat), and strength based clerics. Those old dual attack stat classes won't get support in these books, reverse compatible or otherwise.

 

[renau1g]

EDIT:

There is a legitimate complaint to be made for some old builds not getting support, namely there are probably not going to be any powers useful for charisma based paladins (aside from utilities since charisma is a secondary stat), for constitution based warlocks (again, aside from utilities since con is a secondary stat), and strength based clerics. Those old dual attack stat classes won't get support in these books, reverse compatible or otherwise.

This is a complaint that's been around for a while, heck since PHB1 they haven't supported Str-based Clerics. They also don't support Gnolls, Artificers, Changelings, Seekers, Runepriests, etc ,etc.

 

[erleni]

This is a complaint that's been around for a while, heck since PHB1 they haven't supported Str-based Clerics. They also don't support Gnolls, Artificers, Changelings, Seekers, Runepriests, etc ,etc.

And Shadow Assassin it seems, (so far I've not seen anything for them in HoS) that should be supported on DDI too, but after the first article only got some feats and some fan submissions.

 

[the-golem]

LOL. I was doing other stuff while working on my last post, and others snuck in before I could hit submit. ^_^

Sorry, but I think the "supports both" is company / PR talk.

That's your opinion. I simply took the quote at face value.

What statement? That you cannot use the minority of the powers with old classes (this is the same as saying you can use the majority), or their example with the only class whose way to pick powers remained the same (wizard/mage)?

Interesting how you read my post but missed the quoted bit, which was the "statement" I was referring to. Their example, however, listed four classes. However, that's neither here nor there. If a new power can be used by both essential builds and traditional builds, then (tada!) both types of builds have new choices. New choices means new support.

[MENTION=48381]walter[/MENTION]Covacs:

Regarding the Necromancer, while your viewpoint has merit, I'll have to disagree on my interpretation of support. As I understand it, Mages are built on the "school specialty." Offering a new school to follow, in my mind, qualifies. Suppose I though of making a mage earlier, but disliked any of the three options available. Another option (oooo necromancy!) might entice me to playing a mage.

Personally, I don't see how this is much different than offering other classes new Build options. To use some older examples: "I liked my Two-hand Master Fighter, but this new Battlerager build fits him much better. I'm gonna remake him right now!" Or, "I liked my Taclord okay, but this new Archery Option fits my concept to a tee. <Reroll>"

Of course, even with those builds, you could potentially retrain an old power with a "new" one. I gather, from your argument, that mages are unable to train powers that are outside of there specialty. Is that correct?

 

[WalterKovacs]

This is a complaint that's been around for a while, heck since PHB1 they haven't supported Str-based Clerics. They also don't support Gnolls, Artificers, Changelings, Seekers, Runepriests, etc ,etc.

This seems to be one of those cases where they may be using the stats from the character builder well. There are situations where they seem to have made a mistake [i.e. they stopped building "V-shaped classes", and they may see that not many people were playing runepriests and seekers]. The assumption is that these things are unpopular because they are not supported, but they may also be upsupported because they are unpopular. Support might be able to get them to the point where they are playable (divine power at least gave enough powers for the strength paladin so it could pick a strength based attack for each of it's dailies which it couldn't in PHB1; they eventually gave star pact warlocks a con based paragon path instead of having a charima paragon path and a con based at-will from PHB1) but even then, its quite possible that it isn't just lack of power options and feat support, it may require a bit more work to fix it. The Hunter ranger, for example, seems like a second pass at the seeker. In some ways, the question becomes which is a best use of time/effort. For new books at least, making sure it's something people will play [either new stuff, or support for relatively popular stuff] as opposed to trying to retroactively make older stuff get played more. I.e. You are trying to sell this book, not use this book to get people buying PHB3. Now, with the Dragon articles, things are different. They have access to all classes, and they aren't selling issues of Dragon based on people knowing exactly what they are getting. Still, an article that is only helpful for a small number of players playing unsuported classes/races, and trying to convince other people to play them to, may not be as useful as something that promotes the books that people are less likey to have (i.e. the newest releases) and articles that are useful to a broader section of the readers.

 

[Zaran]

I do have to agree that being being backwards compatible is not the same as new support. We have not seen new powers that give benefits for those that have the Staff Mastery feature . Sure a wizard can learn one of the new powers that was designed for a necromancer but it's still designed for a necromancer which is an Essentials Build.

Arcane power was brought up but I remember Arcane power having powers that had kickers for the other masteries even though the tome mastery was featured in that book. I honestly do not believe we will see something like that in these new books because they don't want to link these new books to old products. I'll give an example to this theory. Mages do not have the ability to use Tomes. They are strictly limited to Staves, Wands and Orbs. If you made a Mage on the character builder you could not add a tome to their equipment even though they SHOULD have all the implement proficiencies that Wizards get. They don't want to confuse a new player with stuff that is not featured in the new books.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Of course, even with those builds, you could potentially retrain an old power with a "new" one. I gather, from your argument, that mages are unable to train powers that are outside of there specialty. Is that correct?

Wizards can (and to some extent have to, as with their spellbook, they may not have 2 options at every level that fit their school). But for the warpriest, their encounter powers are locked in by their choice of domain.

My overall point is that, a new mage school, while it may encourage someone to play a mage, or to make a new mage, the school specific stuff (i.e. the paragon path, and the benefits specific to that school) are options not avaiable to existing characters. If someone already had a, for example, pyromancer mage or orb of imposition wizard, the necromancer school "option" isn't support, it's a new character possibility. The powers, however, are something they can use.

That was my perspective on support. True, support for a class might mean encouraging people to start playing that class, or make a new character for that class ... but a lot of people buying books at this point are already playing, and likely have a character that isn't going to just die and get rerolled as soon as the book comes out. In that case, supporting those characters means giving them new powers and feats and items, things they don't have to abandon their existing character to use. Sure, there are a lot of stuff in the book for new characters (all the races, new classes and new builds for existing classes that are pretty much the same as a new class, but with existing support already) but outside of the races and vampire (unless there is a multiclass feat in the book) provide stuff for existing characters to use.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I do have to agree that being being backwards compatible is not the same as new support. We have not seen new powers that give benefits for those that have the Staff Mastery feature . Sure a wizard can learn one of the new powers that was designed for a necromancer but it's still designed for a necromancer which is an Essentials Build.

Arcane power was brought up but I remember Arcane power having powers that had kickers for the other masteries even though the tome mastery was featured in that book. I honestly do not believe we will see something like that in these new books because they don't want to link these new books to old products. I'll give an example to this theory. Mages do not have the ability to use Tomes. They are strictly limited to Staves, Wands and Orbs. If you made a Mage on the character builder you could not add a tome to their equipment even though they SHOULD have all the implement proficiencies that Wizards get. They don't want to confuse a new player with stuff that is not featured in the new books.

A couple points:

(a) mage's and all the other subclasses from Essentials have different proficiency groups. The warpriest gets shields, the knight gets plate armor, etc

(b) They did give staff based powers in arcane power. However, that was also where those kinds of powers were introduced. In PHB1, those types of powers didn't exist. In that case it was the 'start' of support for that. Before then, they supported the implement masteries indirectly. Staff mastery worked with close bursts and blasts because the defensive effects of the mastery tied to being in close range ... staff expertise supports that by getting around opportunity attacks. Wand mastery was tied to single target attacks with a powerful effect on a hit, which made the boost to the attack more useful. Orb of imposition is obviously supported by save ends effect, orb of deception is supported by illusions, tome of summoning is supported by summoning, of course. The tome of readiness is a bit like the staff in that it's open ended, but it is supported by conditionally useful encounter powers since you have the ability to swap out stuff like say ... a necrotic power when you are against undead. You can also afford to try to overspecialize with a certain kind of power only useful in certain situations, and still have the ability to swap out mid-encounter if necessary.

Also, the new powers that are built "for" the necromancer build are built in the cludgy way that old build powers were. It's not "it does this for some guys, but it does something different for this one build", instead the schools provide a fixed bonus to all powers with that school.

Of course if the argument is "the power is only useful if it's designed for the build" ... that means in order to support old stuff they have to give the wizard twelve new powers (one for each implement mastery, one for each of the schools, counting pyromancy, nethermancy and necromancy) at each available level, and any given wizard would only really find one of those powers useful. (also, for dailies, utilities and the school encounter powers, you'd probably want two at each level, at least for the new schools, since the spellbook lets you pick two at each available level). And that doesn't even include the "anyone can take this" powers that people may take over the build specific power at that level.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sorry, but I think the "supports both" is company / PR talk.


What statement? That you cannot use the minority of the powers with old classes (this is the same as saying you can use the majority),
or their example with the only class whose way to pick powers remained the same (wizard/mage)?

Also quoting WalterKovacs above you:

All just speculation by now. An implement power for clerics is supporting classic more than essentials if you insist to make that distinction. A warpriest just has holy symbol for backward (and maybe foreward) compatibility. A standard warlock will never be able to pick a new at will. If we get a single encounter power for the cleric that does not belong to any domain, then a warpriest can´t even pick it. If the binder gets an encounter power, the hexblade can´t pick it at all.

New design guidelines:
you lose:
- different subclasses can´t use some of its base class´s powers

you win:
- you don´t have to invent a new class just to fill a specific spot that a different base class can´t handle, because it has the wrong role and not the right power source, which allows for more easy feat support.

Imagine the runepriest was a subclass of the str-cleric. just imagine...
You would instantly have good support for both classes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A couple points:

(a) mage's and all the other subclasses from Essentials have different proficiency groups. The warpriest gets shields, the knight gets plate armor, etc

(b) They did give staff based powers in arcane power. However, that was also where those kinds of powers were introduced. In PHB1, those types of powers didn't exist. In that case it was the 'start' of support for that. Before then, they supported the implement masteries indirectly. Staff mastery worked with close bursts and blasts because the defensive effects of the mastery tied to being in close range ... staff expertise supports that by getting around opportunity attacks. Wand mastery was tied to single target attacks with a powerful effect on a hit, which made the boost to the attack more useful. Orb of imposition is obviously supported by save ends effect, orb of deception is supported by illusions, tome of summoning is supported by summoning, of course. The tome of readiness is a bit like the staff in that it's open ended, but it is supported by conditionally useful encounter powers since you have the ability to swap out stuff like say ... a necrotic power when you are against undead. You can also afford to try to overspecialize with a certain kind of power only useful in certain situations, and still have the ability to swap out mid-encounter if necessary.

Also, the new powers that are built "for" the necromancer build are built in the cludgy way that old build powers were. It's not "it does this for some guys, but it does something different for this one build", instead the schools provide a fixed bonus to all powers with that school.

Of course if the argument is "the power is only useful if it's designed for the build" ... that means in order to support old stuff they have to give the wizard twelve new powers (one for each implement mastery, one for each of the schools, counting pyromancy, nethermancy and necromancy) at each available level, and any given wizard would only really find one of those powers useful. (also, for dailies, utilities and the school encounter powers, you'd probably want two at each level, at least for the new schools, since the spellbook lets you pick two at each available level). And that doesn't even include the "anyone can take this" powers that people may take over the build specific power at that level.

Maybe some powers have a line like:

If you have yy implement you get xx as a bonus that resembles the overall bonus the necromancer receives... but we don´t know it right now...