Design & Development: Heroes of the Feywild

[Klaus]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Heroes of the Feywild)

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I see you got Name Dropped in that article!

I very much look forward to this book. Everything I read about it makes me want it more and more.

 

[Shroomy]

There's really nothing I've read about this book that I haven't liked. I think I'm picking it up the day it goes on sale at the Premier stores instead of waiting for Amazon.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I still don't totally grasp why the Witch wasn't a controller build for the warlock. Okay, it's easier to just make every controller a wizard, but it's also easier to make every PC race unable to fly, and every character with only one role, and they didn't shy away from THOSE. And sure, the fey-pact already exists...which is why it's a natural fit for someone looking to be a witch!

But I guess WotC long ago abandoned the idea of a definitive mechanic. There's not one witch, there's hundreds! There's not one vampire, there's many! There's not one way to tie your shoes, there's a million!

Which has its benefits and drawbacks, certainly. And now we can have multiclassed or hybrided witch|warlocks, I guess.

I am glad they decided on a theme for their shape-shifting kitty people rather than a race, and the class options and the race options look pretty solid. The way they talk about the new Barbarian, it sounds like it can't replace a Defender or replace a Striker in the party, which is a shame, but there's only really two options for a class that occupies more than one role (either it replaces both, or it can't totally fulfill either), so I guess I'm not shocked that they couldn't fix that problem.

 

[Dire Bare]

I still don't totally grasp why the Witch wasn't a controller build for the warlock. Okay, it's easier to just make every controller a wizard, but it's also easier to make every PC race unable to fly, and every character with only one role, and they didn't shy away from THOSE. And sure, the fey-pact already exists...which is why it's a natural fit for someone looking to be a witch!

But I guess WotC long ago abandoned the idea of a definitive mechanic. There's not one witch, there's hundreds! There's not one vampire, there's many! There's not one way to tie your shoes, there's a million!

Which has its benefits and drawbacks, certainly. And now we can have multiclassed or hybrided witch|warlocks, I guess.

They stated why they didn't make the Witch a Warlock subclass. They felt that the Warlock had enough "Fey" with the various Fey Pacts available to the main class and subclasses. Now, one might not agree about the choice, but they made it clear why they made that choice. I do see a lot of conceptual overlap with the Warlock, based on how they described the Witch, but the choice they made doesn't bother me.

I think the Witch would have made a fine Warlock subclass, but I also think it works fine as a Wizard subclass. Heck, I'd even go for a Witch theme instead of a class. Most archetypal character concepts in D&D, like the Witch, could be made to work beautifully in any number of different ways (race, class, subclass, theme, feat chain, etc). The final choice for the latest gamebook doesn't matter to me, as long as it makes sense and is designed well.

Heck, the Ravenloft setting in 2E introduced a "witch/warlock" class, where all the women were "witches" and the men were "warlocks", with slightly different abilities. Not that this old 2E class bears any resemblance to the modern witch or warlock . . .

 

[I'm A Banana]

They stated why they didn't make the Witch a Warlock subclass. They felt that the Warlock had enough "Fey" with the various Fey Pacts available to the main class and subclasses. Now, one might not agree about the choice, but they made it clear why they made that choice.

Right. I'm saying their explanation doesn't entirely satisfy me.

Most archetypal character concepts in D&D, like the Witch, could be made to work beautifully in any number of different ways (race, class, subclass, theme, feat chain, etc).

Right. That's why I said "one million ways to tie your shoes," and said that there's benefits and drawbacks to that method.

So...right.

 

[Dire Bare]

Right. I'm saying their explanation doesn't entirely satisfy me.

Heh, maybe I am just restating what you posted somewhat, but I don't think so. Their explanation doesn't "satisfy" you, does that mean you disagree with the choice (which would be fair), or that you don't buy what they stated as the true, or full, reason (which, IMO, is an odd point of view) for the design decision? That they are "holding back" something from us? The latter position seems nonsensical to me, but I see similar sentiments pop up all the time here (not from you necessarily, just in general).

Right. That's why I said "one million ways to tie your shoes," and said that there's benefits and drawbacks to that method.

You seem to be saying (and forgive me if I'm just being dense) that currently there are tons of ways to build the same (or similar) concepts in the 4E game, right now. I'd disagree. I mean, sure there's the whole vryloka/vampire thing, but I can't think of too many examples beyond that. Well, other than the witch/warlock thing we're talking about. You also feel that this approach is potentially problematic, "pros and cons".

I'm getting at something different (well, again, I hope). When it comes time to design the next book, let's say with a concept of fey folk who change into housecats, the designers could take the "housecat folk" concept and design it in many different ways. It could be a race (as the "tuathan" began in design), it could be a feat chain, it could be a class (like the vampire), or it could be a theme (as it turns out in the Feywild book). Wizards didn't provide us with "one million" ways to use this concept, they gave us "one" way. But how they could have expressed the concept could have gone in different directions, and none of the potential design expressions would have necessarily been "wrong", just different. We got the "tuathan", a theme of housecat people. Would it have been better, or worse, if WotC had given us a tuathan race? Or class?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Their explanation doesn't "satisfy" you, does that mean you disagree with the choice (which would be fair), or that you don't buy what they stated as the true, or full, reason (which, IMO, is an odd point of view) for the design decision? That they are "holding back" something from us? The latter position seems nonsensical to me, but I see similar sentiments pop up all the time here (not from you necessarily, just in general).

Just that I disagree, mostly for the reasons I gave. Not even disagreeing very vehemently.

You seem to be saying (and forgive me if I'm just being dense) that currently there are tons of ways to build the same (or similar) concepts in the 4E game, right now. I'd disagree. I mean, sure there's the whole vryloka/vampire thing, but I can't think of too many examples beyond that. Well, other than the witch/warlock thing we're talking about. You also feel that this approach is potentially problematic, "pros and cons".

Yeah, I do think there are tons of ways to build a "witch" in 4e. Warlocks of any type are obviously appropriate, and you could go with a druid or an "enchanter" wizard or a bard or hybrids or multiclassed variants, or re-fluffing particular themes. Depending on what aspects of a witch are mechanically or thematically key to you, there's lots of ways to build a witch. This is one other way (one they call out by specifically calling it a "witch").

And yeah, there's pros and cons to this approach. Pros, such as not pigeonholing a player by forcing them to use a particular build or class to realize a particular archetype. Cons, such as "options bloat" and redundancies and possible newbie confusion and odd support issues.

There's how many powers that knock enemies prone? There's how many feats that add +1 to your attack rolls? How many different "big, strong" races? How many different divine leaders who use melee combat and heavy armor? I think it's pretty safe to say that this is a basic philosophy that 4e has at this point. They aren't interested in providing the Witch (or whatever), they're interested in providing one million different ways to be the witch (or whatever) you want to be.

Wizards didn't provide us with "one million" ways to use this concept, they gave us "one" way. But how they could have expressed the concept could have gone in different directions, and none of the potential design expressions would have necessarily been "wrong", just different. We got the "tuathan", a theme of housecat people. Would it have been better, or worse, if WotC had given us a tuathan race? Or class?

Actually, there's a few different ways to be a person who turns into a cat. There's the druid class. There's the hengeyokai race. There's this tuathan theme. There's good ol' fashioned refluffing (turning the Dread Rat Deserter theme into a cat-morpher instead of a rat-morpher, forex).

For certain purposes, one is better or worse than the other. If you want to be a rogue who can turn into a cat, a theme or race is better for you than a class. If you want to be able to turn into a cat in combat, the druid is a solid choice. If you want to be fast and agile, taking the Elf or Halfling race in combo with a theme or class would be great, perhaps re-fluffed.

Sometimes there's even mechanical differences. Being a Vryloka Vampire who takes Vampire Heritage feats will give you three different ways to suck blood, some of which are easy peasy, some of which are complicated and awkward, not counting the ways you can re-fluff bloodsucking from, say, warpriest powers.

IMO, for the tuathans, they made a good choice in making it a theme, given their stated description of them as perhaps more of a society or clan than a true race. But there's a lot of ways to be a character who turns into a cat that aren't "be a tuathan."

 

[Dire Bare]

Just that I disagree, mostly for the reasons I gave. Not even disagreeing very vehemently.

Cool. I'm just trying to clarify, as design choices, and how gamers react to them, interest me.

And yeah, there's pros and cons to this approach. Pros, such as not pigeonholing a player by forcing them to use a particular build or class to realize a particular archetype. Cons, such as "options bloat" and redundancies and possible newbie confusion and odd support issues.

I do still think we were talking past one another a bit, but I think I understand what you're saying. A witch, as described in the previews, sounds an awful lot like a warlock, so why have both? Or why separate the archetypes into two different classes? And yeah, whichever "path" the designers take, pros and cons.

Actually, there's a few different ways to be a person who turns into a cat. There's the druid class. There's the hengeyokai race. There's this tuathan theme. There's good ol' fashioned refluffing (turning the Dread Rat Deserter theme into a cat-morpher instead of a rat-morpher, forex).

Heh, you're right, of course, but I suppose how you see "housecat folk" option bloat depends on how you look at the concepts involved. Just like "vampire" and "vryloka", the concepts aren't identical, but obviously cover mostly the same territory. I see the druid, the hengeyokai, and now the tuathan as similar, but different (enough) concepts that their separate existence is justified (story-wise). I tend not to focus on the mechanics. I had posted to an earlier thread how annoyed I was by the myriad ways you could have a "animal-head" character (across the editions), but others saw the different archetypes (shifters, lycanthropes, rakshasas, rakastas, lupins, hengeyokai, etc) as very separate things.

Good conversation! Thanks!

 

[Rechan]

I still don't totally grasp why the Witch wasn't a controller build for the warlock. Okay, it's easier to just make every controller a wizard

The Warlock already has an Arcane Controller build. Called the Binder.