Heroes of Shadow: Assassins, Hexblades, and Necromancers!

[Rechan]

The problem with temp HP is also the fact that if someone is at 0 HP it's not going to save their ass.

 

[Rechan]

The thing is, a character who defends from the back and prevents hits to the party is better-known as a "Controller"

Not true. I really hate this statement.

The only way the controller prevents hits is 1) moving enemies around the battlefield, and 2) conditions/debuffs. The former doesn't prevent hits. It prevents OAs, and it slows down/eats up enemy movement, certainly, but it's not stopping the monster from charging. The latter has an impact because it eats up the enemy's round or actions, or makes it less likely to hit.

A Defender defends simply by saying "If you don't do what I say (in almost all cases: attack me), I'm going to punish you". A Shielding Swordmage is a back row defender because SMes can run away and still do their thing. A back row defender then would punish a target for not attacking him or a designated target.

A good example of this is the Shaman, whose pet can make OAs to enemies, and the shaman can funnel attacks through his spirit. So a back row defender would basically say "Hit my pet or else". And a ranged defender would say "Hit me, or hit someone I designate, Or Else".

A better destinction than a Controller than being a Back Ranks Defender is that a Defender is a reactive Controller - controlling by the threat of attack or controlling when responding to an enemy. Controllers do less as immediate interrupts, but are pro-active in doing something to a target that thus limits their options (daze, immobilize, etc).

I mean if we can have a melee controller (Druid), then a ranged defender isn't all that unreasonable, and it's just a matter of time before that class pops up.

 

[Gradine]

The problem with temp HP is also the fact that if someone is at 0 HP it's not going to save their ass.

And why would a necromancer want to do that?

 

[Rechan]

And why would a necromancer want to do that?

A necromancer, no. But a player who decides to play the leader to keep his fellow PCs alive...

 

[Obryn]

Not true. I really hate this statement.

The only way the controller prevents hits is 1) moving enemies around the battlefield, and 2) conditions/debuffs. The former doesn't prevent hits. It prevents OAs, and it slows down/eats up enemy movement, certainly, but it's not stopping the monster from charging. The latter has an impact because it eats up the enemy's round or actions, or makes it less likely to hit.

A Defender defends simply by saying "If you don't do what I say (in almost all cases: attack me), I'm going to punish you". A Shielding Swordmage is a back row defender because SMes can run away and still do their thing. A back row defender then would punish a target for not attacking him or a designated target.

A good example of this is the Shaman, whose pet can make OAs to enemies, and the shaman can funnel attacks through his spirit. So a back row defender would basically say "Hit my pet or else". And a ranged defender would say "Hit me, or hit someone I designate, Or Else".

A better destinction than a Controller than being a Back Ranks Defender is that a Defender is a reactive Controller - controlling by the threat of attack or controlling when responding to an enemy. Controllers do less as immediate interrupts, but are pro-active in doing something to a target that thus limits their options (daze, immobilize, etc).

I mean if we can have a melee controller (Druid), then a ranged defender isn't all that unreasonable, and it's just a matter of time before that class pops up.

I see what you're saying, but all a Mark is, is a debuff with a condition - "If you attack me, you're fine." At range, that is almost exactly the same as any other debuff, because attacking you becomes difficult. It's also why Shielding Swordmages are as much controllers as defenders - their mark is similar to an effect giving -2 to-hit and -x to damage.

If you're forcing an enemy to attack someone other than you, I don't necessarily see that as very defender-y at all. No moreso than any other debuff, anyway

YMMV. It's mostly an academic distinction.

-O

 

[Rechan]

I see what you're saying, but all a Mark is, is a debuff with a condition - "If you attack me, you're fine." At range, that is almost exactly the same as any other debuff, because attacking you becomes difficult.

Except that difficulty can very well be part of being the defender. They could target ranged artillery/controllers, and thus you two trade shots across the field (and eat the conditions/AoE that would be going at your party). Or they could be melee monsters, at which point they are forced to close in To You. Point being that if you can Mark and Effect them at a distance, then you're a ranged defender.

If you're forcing an enemy to attack someone other than you, I don't necessarily see that as very defender-y at all. No moreso than any other debuff, anyway

If they're attacking your pet that you're forcing them to beat on, though, that's quite different.

 

[Takhisis]

In AD&D/1e and 2e, healing was technicaly under necromancy, so a necromancer as a leader is something that could easily happen if Wizards wants to go that route. However, personally, if there was a Necromancer leader, I would want to see him be a bit like the dark pact warlock in that some of his powers would feed off of his allies as he could do things like spend the healing surges of allies who really did not need them at that moment to heal/buff/protect another ally who needs protection. While it's still aiding an ally something like that has an "evil" enough feel to be a necromancer. I could see a lot of powers that deal with transferring life force from one place to another as well, very reminiscent of a 2e Necromancer. I also could see the leader necromancer having summons which could allow allies to flank, grant allies bonuses when near them or even afflict enemies with status effects or -s to attack rolls, or something else like that.

However, a necromancer as a controller works just as well, and if that is the case I really see an Anti-Paladin/Blackguard type being the shadow leader. He would most likely be a bit like a warlord with some unholy powers rather then a healbot like a cleric. Using lots of melee range powers that bolster his allies and such.

 

[cdrcjsn]

I can see an argument for Necromancers being a new thing. A true hybrid of Controller/Leader.

Use necrotic energy to heal the party or unleash minions. Likewise, all their powers can have this life/death dichotomy, with a kicker that can be chosen when the spell is cast.

It'll be an interesting mechanic. "Do I want to heal the party with my class feature, or use it to summon some minions?"

Come to think of it, it's rather similar to how Runepriests play.

 

[Obryn]

Except that difficulty can very well be part of being the defender. They could target ranged artillery/controllers, and thus you two trade shots across the field (and eat the conditions/AoE that would be going at your party). Or they could be melee monsters, at which point they are forced to close in To You. Point being that if you can Mark and Effect them at a distance, then you're a ranged defender.

So that would make Swordmages ranged defenders? I can see some argument for that, yeah. I also think Shielding Swordmages have a crazy-powerful mark for that reason, though.

If they're attacking your pet that you're forcing them to beat on, though, that's quite different.

True - but I still think a summon would fall under the aegis of the controller, given that you're creating something new on the battlefield which is influencing its flow and controlling a zone of monsters.

-O

 

[Rechan]

True - but I still think a summon would fall under the aegis of the controller, given that you're creating something new on the battlefield which is influencing its flow and controlling a zone of monsters.

Less a summons and more a Shaman's Spirit Companion. Unless you're calling the Shaman a controller because they have a "Summoned" creature?