Rule of Three - 04/18/11

[AbdulAlhazred]

Indeed!

The problem is that WotC would really very much prefer if everyone forgot there existed any classes before Essentials. They want people to think of the Essentials version when they're talking about the Fighter. The Essentials version is to become the default.

They didn't dare to invalidate the older class versions, but they definitely decided to no longer actively support them. Sure, if someone sends a really cool pitch they might decide to publish it as a DDI article but that's about it.
Printed products will ignore the existence of the 'classic' builds. The back of 'Heroes of Shadow' drove this point home for me. It says:

For use with these Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products:
Heroes of the Fallen Lands
Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms
Rules Compendium

So, technically, I really shouldn't have bought the book since I don't have either of these books and haven't used any Essentials material so far.

In a way it's like installing a software on a hardware that doesn't meet the recommended requirements: Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. It's probably going to be awfully slow, look ugly and crash a lot. But that's entirely my problem, since it would work fine if I just upgraded my hardware.

Anyway, that's not actually a discussion I wanted delve into. I appreciate they're making the revised PHB classes available for free on their website, no matter what they're calling them.

Sorry, I don't think you really grasp what is going on here. This is a simple clarification of nomenclature.

The PHB1 Warlord could be unambiguously referred to as 'Warlord', unless you needed to refer to a specific one, in which case you could informally use its build name (IE Resourceful) or in rules text to the corresponding class feature choice. Now, if WotC released an Essentials Warlord it would be named something, lets say 'Battle Master' or whatever. It would still be a Warlord. To reference the OLD Warlord specifically, unambiguously and in general, it would need a name wouldn't it? That name is Marshal. Same goes for Weapon Master for the Fighter, etc. There's no blinking conspiracy. They just need unambiguous names so they can write rules text (not that that has always stopped them in the past, but still...).

It is nice that they are releasing them online. OTOH it is really a fairly trivial thing since they aren't really new content. It ALMOST made sense to release them as a softcover book since it would put them out in a format everyone could get and was not in a book full of unupdated rules. Released online? I guess they might as well, and any errata are welcome enough, but it isn't very exciting. I hope they spend just about zero time on it vs doing almost anything else.

Of course not. But I would have expected HoS to provide some support for the 'classic' Assassin.

Yeah. Ossassin was an oddball though. It was DDI-only, so if they released updates for it they'd have either had to release the whole class (which they said they wouldn't do), or have a chunk of the book only useful to subscribers. I think releasing the new Assassin was sort of a middle way. Maybe not satisfying to all, but they were in sort of a bind there.

If I was optimistic I would hope for Seeker support in Heroes of the Feywild. But it will never happen. Because just like HoS it will be designed to support only Essentials classes. What they _might_ do is offer a new Essentials Ranger build that reproduces some of the Seeker features that are missing from the Hunter.

I will say I think you are quite likely to be correct. Though at least indications lately are that maybe they're starting to hear people asking for Seeker support. Dunno what will come of that, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a couple articles on it in Dragon at least.

The Essentialized Runepriest (i.e. a Cleric build) would have to be in a different supplement, maybe 'Heroes of the Astral Plane'? Actually I wouldn't mind a reinterpretation of the class. Imho, it should really be an arcane/divine class; let's call it 'Runemaster'

Yeah, I think Runepriest will only ever show up with support on DDI. I kind of agree too. It is a neat concept and the implementation is clever, but it is a VERY complicated class to actually run, and the whole STR focused part of it never quite worked for me. Lots of good ideas and it works, but I also kind of feel like it was a very narrow basis for a whole class. I really would have made a rune based Invoker myself...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Don't mean to sound like this is picking on you, but after going through some of the thread over at the D&D community and then I see the same thing here. I think people aren't looking at it in context.

Were they supposed to dedicate HoS only to the Runepriest and the Seeker???!!! I somehow doubt anyone would have been satisfied with that. I suppose the other possibility would have been to just not put out HoS and start over with a supplement for these classes and put that out instead.

A few themes usable by various classes would have at least given everyone a few new powers to pick from. The death domain could have just as easily been a melee divine/shadow leader theme. Blammo, new powers for the runepriest, strength cleric, blackguard, and whoever else felt like adding that element to their character. Similarly, a ranged primal/shadow theme would have offered new choices to the seeker, druid, etc.

 

[Aegeri]

but they sure as heck have been demanding Shadow stuff from day one.

Yeah, but these people are still unhappy because they didn't want a "Shadow" Wizard/Cleric/Paladin build. They wanted a genuine "Necromancer" and genuine "Shadow" classes. There were numerous threads on this over on Wizards, hundreds of pages long arguing about if HoS was actually adding shadow classes or not.

So really, by throwing more options into the Wizard (which HotF will do more of I would bet) and Cleric, I don't think Wizards have pleased anyone. People who wanted genuine shadow classes - not just a "Wizard" build are upset. People who want support for other classes, who are not impressed at all at seeing two of the best supported classes get even more support are equally annoyed. Really it has been a very lose/lose book for Wizards in many ways. It became obvious to me last year wizards couldn't genuinely win with their approach to this book. The reaction to HoS has been much more negative than any other book than PHB3 (which was divisive because of psionics and the races in it). Negativity over PHB3 was quickly forgotten because of just how damn awesome Dark Sun was looking. I don't see that sort of help for placating people as "Just a blip" on the schedule for HoS.

Going back to HotF, I honestly can't see how you put a runepriest/seeker into that book. I really can't. But I can anticipate one thing: More god damn wizard builds. Because we can't get enough of the same 4 classes! No siree.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, but these people are still unhappy because they didn't want a "Shadow" Wizard/Cleric/Paladin build. They wanted a genuine "Necromancer" and genuine "Shadow" classes. There were numerous threads on this over on Wizards, hundreds of pages long arguing about if HoS was actually adding shadow classes or not.

So really, by throwing more options into the Wizard (which HotF will do more of I would bet) and Cleric, I don't think Wizards have pleased anyone. People who wanted genuine shadow classes - not just a "Wizard" build are upset. People who want support for other classes, who are not impressed at all at seeing two of the best supported classes get even more support are equally annoyed. Really it has been a very lose/lose book for Wizards in many ways. It became obvious to me last year wizards couldn't genuinely win with their approach to this book. The reaction to HoS has been much more negative than any other book than PHB3 (which was divisive because of psionics and the races in it). Negativity over PHB3 was quickly forgotten because of just how damn awesome Dark Sun was looking. I don't see that sort of help for placating people as "Just a blip" on the schedule for HoS.

Going back to HotF, I honestly can't see how you put a runepriest/seeker into that book. I really can't. But I can anticipate one thing: More god damn wizard builds. Because we can't get enough of the same 4 classes! No siree.

Frankly I think they made a mistake in producing so many different classes to start with. The better overall design for 4e, ESPECIALLY considering that classes are very heavy weight in 4e, was to build variations on a fairly limited number of base classes. Obviously they've finally figured that out. Honestly it was plain as the nose on my face to me that creating 20 different classes that all required feat support and 400+ powers each plus often overlapping build concepts was the way to go from the minute I cracked the PHB1 and started reading.

I know it is jarring to have them finally adopt a rational strategy for developing the game 3 years into its run, but better late than never. I just don't CARE if my necromancer is a wizard or not as long as it can do the necromanticalistical stuff that I want it to do, lol. I understand where you're coming from and I don't dispute that people will spew and fume about it till the end of time (or at least a few months). Given that nothing WotC does ever goes without people throwing rotten eggs at them I figure they've long since concluded that they should just do what is sensible and good design and trust that a strong game will last the test of time and not worry too much about the inevitable naysayers.

And yes, I think that HotF will have plenty of mage/wizard support, as well as plenty of other stuff. Probably some strong primal themes, some divine stuff, etc. Again it probably WILL focus mainly on the 4 'base' classes plus whatever else is thematic. Makes good sense to me.

Really, it is a darn fine book. I'm getting a LOT out of it right now. That is partly because it happened to come at a point in one of my campaigns where the action was shifting to the Shadowfell and involving those themes. Still, even if it hadn't been there's a lot of good stuff to throw into the pot for darker characters and villains.

 

[CelticMutt]

So then what would you call all encompassing class that the Warlord and the Marshal would be part of in the way the Knight, Slayer, and Weaponmaster are all part of the Fighter Class?

The naming conventions are fine if you understand that they are there to categorize the classes.

The Modern Major General.

Frankly I think they made a mistake in producing so many different classes to start with. The better overall design for 4e, ESPECIALLY considering that classes are very heavy weight in 4e, was to build variations on a fairly limited number of base classes. Obviously they've finally figured that out. Honestly it was plain as the nose on my face to me that creating 20 different classes that all required feat support and 400+ powers each plus often overlapping build concepts was the way to go from the minute I cracked the PHB1 and started reading.

Agreed. I think the PHB1 classes are fine, but between PHB2 & 3, the only classes we really needed were the Bard, Sorcerer, Druid, Psion, Monk, and maybe, just maybe the Barbarian (though I think the Battle-Rager Fighter could have handled that well enough). I'm not sure we really needed the Swordmage or Artificer as separate classes either.

 

[Obryn]

Honestly, I'd be a bit surprised if Heroes of the Feywild went back to include many options for Wizards, Clerics, or Paladins at all. Maybe warlocks, but I think the fey pact is plenty fine as-is.

I think we'll see the missing two "seasons" for the Sentinel, some more stuff for Rangers, and some new classes. But I've been wrong before!

-O

 

[Aegeri]

I don't think rangers need anything, but I would be fully on board the other two seasons of the Sentinel Druid. It's one of the best essentials classes and one of the few I felt was a better implementation that previous efforts (Beastmaster ranger). At the same time the lack of class feats from this point means the companion is going to suffer from late heroic on. The damage from the companion becomes increasingly middling (to just plain god awful). Sentinel druids are really needing an encounter option outside of combined attack.

 

[Obryn]

Yeah, I think the Sentinel is one of the best new sub-classes. The original PHB2 druid did nothing for me, but the Sentinel is pretty great. Yeah, its companion doesn't scale its damage perfectly - but it at least does better than the Beastmaster's companion.

I'm hoping the swap rules give them some viable options for Encounter powers; about the only flaw in the class, IMO, is how striker-wannabe it gets.

-O

 

[Dice4Hire]

The rule-of-three columns are getting better, that is for sure.

They are turning into a major way of communicating with fans, and that is desperately needed.

As for the above posts, yes, HoS is essentials, and I'm looking forward to seeing the Dragon articles this month and next that allow multiclassing (and hopefully some clarifications) of Essentials and Traditional 4E.

And hopefully with far less feat cost for doing so, especially for choosing stuff from the same class, like the weaponsmaster and the slayer, for example.

If Essentials and traditional can be brought close enough together I might actually buy the heroes books.

 

[Dice4Hire]

And, sorry if that offends, but i cannot get over the fact that the second post in this thread comments ONLY on a spelling error. I mean, this is some tasty stuff with lot's of possibilities to talk about, no?

Everyone contributes what they can to the discussion.