Heroes of Shadow

[WalterKovacs]

I'm curious about what directives you're given going into a project like this. Are you told things like:

Don't use Themes.

I don't really know, but I'm pretty sure that people would be told: "Here are the races we want, here are the classes we want, etc ..." I'm assuming people aren't told to NOT do themes ... more that they just aren't told to do themes.

 

[Neverfate]

Hey, Klaus. I recall in another thread you mentioned that you had worked on the feats (I think it was during the feat preview thread). Were there any limitations or guidance given to you in which direction to take the feats?

Feats are kind of a back-and-forth subject in the D&D community as a whole. Some think there are too many, others think there aren't enough. Do you take into account pre-existing feats when you start the creative process? Or the current design aesthetic in feats? Had you even SEEN Essential-style feats when you were commissioned on this project?

Sorry, whirlwind number of questions there. I'm just a big fan of commentary, and unlike DVDs, you don't get that option with a copy of HoS. Haha. Thanks!

 

[Klaus]

I'm curious about what directives you're given going into a project like this. Are you told things like:

Don't use Themes.

We don't want any _______ source classes in this one.

Don't refer directly to content in any book older than X.

This suplement must be useable by players who have /only/ books X, Y & Z.

Be sure to build on content in Book Y.

?

Or is it more like, "The working title is 'Heroes of Shadow,' GO!"

"Heroes of Shadow... GO!" is more like it. I was fortunate to work under [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] , whose design I've always liked. The back-and-forth was something like this:

"Come up with 10 paragon path concepts, one-line description only. And here's a sample PP with the new format."
"Okay, here are 10 concepts."
"These five seem intriguing. Write 'em up."
"Here are the five PPs."
"Great, I've written in some comments."
"Okay, here they are with those issues addressed."
"Awesome! Moving on, come up with 5 epic destiny concepts..."

 

[Klaus]

Hey, Klaus. I recall in another thread you mentioned that you had worked on the feats (I think it was during the feat preview thread). Were there any limitations or guidance given to you in which direction to take the feats?

Feats are kind of a back-and-forth subject in the D&D community as a whole. Some think there are too many, others think there aren't enough. Do you take into account pre-existing feats when you start the creative process? Or the current design aesthetic in feats? Had you even SEEN Essential-style feats when you were commissioned on this project?

Sorry, whirlwind number of questions there. I'm just a big fan of commentary, and unlike DVDs, you don't get that option with a copy of HoS. Haha. Thanks!

When the time came to tackle feats, I was given a file with the feat chapter of Heroes of the Fallen Lands, so I could understand the formatting and design. I saw that feats were more broadly available (no class-specific ones, no level limits) and had more reliable benefits.

I didn't know if earlier feats would be re-printed, so I included Wintertouched and Lasting Frost in the Winterkin feat category.

A few of my favorite feats didn't make it to the final product, but I hope they turn up in some other product.

The Ghostwise feats were named after the halfling term (which I posited as being how halflings refer to those who can see the spirits), and the feat category text opened with "You see dead people".

The Ghost Scorpion Strike feat is my version of the White Scorpion Strike feat from Eberron, which I always liked.

 

[Aegeri]

I am still extremely disappointed the book provided no support for necrotic as a damage type or a feat to negate necrotic resistance. That was my one big expectation that the book would fulfill. Was that a deliberate decision, or were such feats written and then cut?

I also wonder why the original assassin build got basically no support from the book at all (minding, it really does feel like it has been left to die).

 

[Klaus]

I would love to know how the original Vryloka racial interacted with the penalty to surge value.

I am also curious as to what on earth went so wrong with the shade. What was the original racial powers action type? Move? I can't really see it being designed initially as a standard action.

In the original design, the vryloka (still named the vrykolaka) had a racial power triggered by killing a nonminion enemy, that allowed them to spend their second wind and regain additional hp equal to their surge value. That power would be most helpful when the vryloka was bloodied, but then their surge value would be reduced by 2. So the player had to decide "do I use it when I can get the most hp out of it, or when I need it the most?", which I thought was interesting.

But the final version is based on their epic racial utility (Crimson Death in the final version, Red Death in the original draft), so it's all good. The versatility adds more power to the race.

As for the shade, the race diverged a bit from what it started out to be. I didn't want an encounter racial power that simply added a bonus to Stealth or something. I wanted something at-will that allowed the shade not to hide better, but to hide on occasions where other creatures simply couldn't. Hence the "can hide in any cover or concealment, including that granted by allies" angle. The "allies" thing gets all the attention, but it's the bypassing of the "full cover or total concealment" requirement that is the real kick for this power.

Now, One With Shadow was a minor action in the early draft, and at some point during R&D it was (probably correctly) that this was just too powerful, and it ended up a standard action. I think that might be too harsh of a penalty (personally, I'd keep it a Standard and include the actual rolling for Stealth into the same action).

Still the shade isn't unplayable as it is. The standard action to activate the power means you have to look at other action types when building your character. The race, to me, leans more towards a controller or leader role (notice how many times other races are referred to as "pawns" in the description). A shade leader can use One With Shadow and a move action to hide, and then spend a minor action to heal or buff an ally, without worrying about being targeted by enemies. A shade controller can use that minor action to create a zone or summon a creature. Minor action attacks like Offhand Strike or Lightning Cuts become very tasty for a shade.

If you want to beef up the shade, I suggest giving Born of Shadow as a bonus feat for shade characters. While the Shadowborn feats aren't meant to be racial feats for the shade per se, they are the ones that can benefit from them the most. Those feats, coupled with Twilight Torch means a shade can pretty much count on having +1 to saving throws, +5 bonus to second wind, +1 to all defenses and the ability to ignore difficult terrain inside the Torch's area.

 

[Klaus]

I am still extremely disappointed the book provided no support for necrotic as a damage type or a feat to negate necrotic resistance. That was my one big expectation that the book would fulfill. Was that a deliberate decision, or were such feats written and then cut?

I also wonder why the original assassin build got basically no support from the book at all (minding, it really does feel like it has been left to die).

There's already a feat that turns your necrotic powers into necrotic and poison, which makes them bypass simple necro resistance. And Ghost Scorpion Strike, while not reducing necrotic resistance, does bypass insubstantial, which is a very annoying quality.

 

[Klaus]

I don't really know, but I'm pretty sure that people would be told: "Here are the races we want, here are the classes we want, etc ..." I'm assuming people aren't told to NOT do themes ... more that they just aren't told to do themes.

When I wrote my part, Dark Sun wasn't even out, so we had no idea how awesome themes would be.

 

[Aegeri]

There's already a feat that turns your necrotic powers into necrotic and poison, which makes them bypass simple necro resistance.

Actually that's possibly one of the worst possible choices you could make, unless you later take the feat to negate poison immunity. Most of the creatures resistant to necrotic damage - notably undead - are immune to poison. So all you're doing is turning your non-damaging effects into something most undead will now utterly ignore (while before you're just doing less damage). That's actually a perfect example of a "trap feat" in the game, because you're actually worse with it against undead (who are widely poison immune, necrotic resistant).

So now you need an assassin multiclass (or be an assassin, in which case you probably weren't worried about necrotic much anyway), then venom hand master and have sunk 3 feats just to negate necrotic in an extremely roundabout manner. Additionally you're actually making life very hard for yourself because your non-damaging power properties are now ignored by undead (due to the poison keyword) - until you have the entire combination that is. The irony is substantial when you consider some of the HoS powers effects target undead, only to be negated because poison picks up all your non-damaging aspects of the power. The undead then become immune to these powers in the first place - which is pretty funny but won't please the player when the DM picks up on this. The necrotic at-will in the book, which cannot negate an undead creatures regeneration or give it vulnerable because you added the poison keyword is pretty funny.

But you can do it this way, it's just grossly ineffective and unless you plan to MC Assassin, practically undesirable. You can actually make all of your powers worse this way, attempting to circumvent the resistance of the same enemies that are causing you the most problems in the first place.

Edit: This requires a direct rules citation.

If a creature is immune to charm, fear, illusion, or poison, it is unaffected by the non-damaging effects of a power that has that keyword

In fairness, this is a remarkably overlooked and overly complex rule that shouldn't be there. But poison is literally and do forgive me here, the poisoned chalice of damage types in 4E. You NEVER add it to a power unless you can get away with it because of this.

Now, One With Shadow was a minor action in the early draft, and at some point during R&D it was (probably correctly) that this was just too powerful, and it ended up a standard action. I think that might be too harsh of a penalty (personally, I'd keep it a Standard and include the actual rolling for Stealth into the same action).

I think a move action would have been okay myself and been tactically useful. It's a bit easier to generate more move actions - or get a move before an attack (as an example, Deft Strike) than a standard. The standard action practically cripples its combat use and that the feature actually isn't worthwhile outside of combat has been discussed pretty extensively.

In the original design, the vryloka (still named the vrykolaka) had a racial power triggered by killing a nonminion enemy, that allowed them to spend their second wind and regain additional hp equal to their surge value. That power would be most helpful when the vryloka was bloodied, but then their surge value would be reduced by 2. So the player had to decide "do I use it when I can get the most hp out of it, or when I need it the most?", which I thought was interesting.

That is actually pretty interesting and I think would have made the penalty fit a bit better in context. I still don't really see any point for the -2 penalty, but at least it doesn't really bother the Vryloka as a race that much after a few levels. Ironically I read elsewhere someone complained that the penalty should scale so that it wasn't a huge disadvantage early, then irrelevant later on!

 

[Incenjucar]

There's already a feat that turns your necrotic powers into necrotic and poison,

Surely you mean acid, which unlike poison isn't the absolute worst damage type in the game?