Heroes of the Feywild Speculation

[GMforPowergamers]

For the Feywild book to avoid being deemed an Essentials book, it will have to either introduce class material for undersupported pre-Essentials classes to help bring them forward or it will have to include full-sized, pre-Essentials-style classes with all the bells and whistles. These classes will also have to be done well, or the community will treat it as an insult, like offering someone a delicious pie then throwing it in their face.

I wonder if there were 4 or 5 warden powers and 1 or 2 seeker ones should put this to rest right...

 

[Aegeri]

Where is the design space supposed to come from for this?

We can easily get rid of a mage and hexblade build for this. Easily.

But incenjucar has the entire point correct. Wizards aren't going to convince anyone that they are supporting "pre-essentials" by publishing mage, warlock (please no more binders, unless Wizards actually makes them have *something* that makes them just not a crappier warlock) and warpriest builds. They need to show they are still supporting non-essentials classes, otherwise yes, they will just be viewed as "essentials" books (however fair or unfair that will seem). Tangentially supporting the original classes by token stuff that covers essentials classes will not do it.

I want to see something real, like powers for the artificier or a build for that class (who again, could use it). Or a new Runepriest build (possibly in Elemental Heroes Handbook, elemental runes have been hinted at in the fluff). Or a build that gives the seeker back some teeth with an exotic throwing weapon worth taking (a good heavy thrown weapon that doesn't suck would go a *long* way). This is the kind of support *I* want to see.

It is very easy for me to say "Just sacrifice YAFW" for this easily. Unless you actually like buying the same stuff over and over and over. Especially when the "new" stuff isn't even that good in the first place. You might do, but I'm going to get sick of that REALLY fast. Reading around and just generally talking to people, there is a heck of a lot riding on this book for Wizards. They have to impress: I don't think another mage, another warpriest and another hexblade, with a linear railroad class with no choices anywhere is going to do that. I hope that isn't what the book contains, but one has good reason to be skeptical these days.

 

[Flobby]

Yeah, I really don't get the gripe with Essentials. I have Heroes of Shadow and it contains four classes that you don't need any of the essentials books for, and most of the other options can be used with non-essentials classes. You can say that you don't like the new classes or new power in the book but for the most part it doesn't require you to buy any of the essentials books.

 

[Incenjucar]

The gripe with essentials design is that it has a strongly trends toward fewer options per class, and/or design which is significantly weaker than previous classes were on release, and/or that it supports or rehashes things that don't really need support or rehashing.

If essentials/+ classes were more often released with as many options, equal power, and with equally unique concepts as previous classes, they would get much less flak. Not zero flak, because there is never zero flak, but much less. Also note that being able to take powers from previously-released classes will never be given the same weight as introducing new powers along with the class at the same rate they were released with new builds, whether or not that is fair.

Compare this with, say, ardents. Many people just don't care for ardents, but most negative comments about it are "it's just an emotional warlord!" When the biggest complaint about something stems from people simply lacking imagination, you're doing something right.

--

That all said, I expect that this book will more or less be HoS 2, and if so, I will not purchase it. However, I have seen many signs that WotC is taking action on some of the recent feedback, so I am optimistic about Elemental Heroes. WotC has a lot of smart folk - they can learn.

 

[WalterKovacs]

We can easily get rid of a mage and hexblade build for this. Easily.

But incenjucar has the entire point correct. Wizards aren't going to convince anyone that they are supporting "pre-essentials" by publishing mage, warlock (please no more binders, unless Wizards actually makes them have *something* that makes them just not a crappier warlock) and warpriest builds. They need to show they are still supporting non-essentials classes, otherwise yes, they will just be viewed as "essentials" books (however fair or unfair that will seem). Tangentially supporting the original classes by token stuff that covers essentials classes will not do it.

If binders should never be played instead of pre-E warlocks ... all binder powers are really support for pre-E warlocks, since that's the only class that should ever use those encounter powers.

It's true that the only pre-E classes they are supporting (and they ARE supporting them) are the 'easy' ones, wizards and clerics and warlocks. Everything else is only supported by utilities and sometimes dailies. And some classes are not supported at all.

However, there is a bit of a catch 22. If they need to sell the book, putting in support for classes that no one plays (because of lack of support) may not be the best way to make sure the book sells. It is a spiral were the best supported classes see the most play and get the most support, etc. In part it's because they are already popular, they were introduced first, received the most support over time, and had the most people clamoring for most support. But also, as a well supported class, it was good enough that people actually enjoy playing it as opposed to underwhelming/undersupported classes.

However, it's ALSO possible that people don't want to play a Runepriest or a seeker because it's not something they want to play, whether or not it's supported. They didn't come up with it until PHB3, so it's not like people were demanding it before it came out. And the "bow wielding controller" people were asking for seems to be fufilled more elegantly by the hunter than the seeker. Dragon magazine is the safer place to experiment and try to "salvage" some of the older unsupported and underplayed classes ... not something to risk book sales on.

Now, creating a new class build, like the blackguard, executioner, binder, etc ... assuming they do it well, is more likely. Since they have the option of rebuilding the class from the ground up (if they want to) they can redesign whatever wasn't working. A class doesn't necessarily need support to be good. It doesn't matter if 1 out of 4 encounter powers are good or 3 out of 20 ... you only get to pick 1 at each level anyway. A class that has only 1 good option at every level may not have much variation between different members of the same class, but it would at least be good, and since most parties won't have multiples of the same class anyway, it shouldn't be a big problem. Now, in none of the options are good, or the 'whole' of the class is bad, it needs more than just a bit of support ... it basically needs to a good option added at just about every level and some new class features via a new build. In other words ... an entirely new class basically.

 

[Incenjucar]

If you do not have real options, you've created a character, not a class. There will always be significant and deserved backlash when a class is produced with only one -real- way to play it. Not everyone cares, but a very financially significant portion of the community cares about options. Otherwise they wouldn't keep buying books.

 

[Aegeri]

If binders should never be played instead of pre-E warlocks ... all binder powers are really support for pre-E warlocks, since that's the only class that should ever use those encounter powers.

This is tenuous logic at best and it's not really in support of Wizards that the dismal failure of one class makes a bunch of - actually quite dismal - powers support for another. Warlocks actually already have very good control powers in many ways. The binders powers tend towards being on the terrible side, with the odd good one - their at-will power for example is pretty good actually.

Other than that, Binders are actually miserable controllers compared to Warlocks AND do far less damage. You can take the fluff/theme of the Binder, apply it to any ole Warlock and then be better at everything the Binder is supposed to do. It's an extremely poorly designed class.

However I will give Wizards on thing: They can brutally nerf the Warlock into oblivion when they release the errata this month (Warlock is getting "updated"). At least then the original Warlock can be scraping the same bottom of the barrel with the Binder. I so hope this doesn't happen, but after seeing what they did to the Cleric I am not optimistic anymore.

It's true that the only pre-E classes they are supporting (and they ARE supporting them) are the 'easy' ones, wizards and clerics and warlocks. Everything else is only supported by utilities and sometimes dailies. And some classes are not supported at all.

I used to argue that HoS wasn't an essentials book and "supported" previous classes based on this. Having seen the result, I've found it extremely wanting and I don't think this is a good method going forward at all.

If they need to sell the book, putting in support for classes that no one plays (because of lack of support) may not be the best way to make sure the book sells.

By all accounts from player reviews, the opinions of those who have bought it and the general feeling of the internet is that this book wasn't received very well at all. We may not know how well it sold in reality, I agree because such numbers aren't available. But if we go by the general reaction to the book, which has been overall very negative then I think we can tell this wasn't a winning strategy.

It doesn't matter if 1 out of 4 encounter powers are good or 3 out of 20 ... you only get to pick 1 at each level anyway. A class that has only 1 good option at every level may not have much variation between different members of the same class, but it would at least be good

This is lovely in theory, but in practice this just isn't how Wizards have been managing things since the game came out. Every class has crap options and every class has some much better ones. The good thing about choices is that you at least have a good chance of having something decent to pick. You are quite frankly in the realm of fairies and unicorns at this point with this idea, because I don't think a class can really do this concept well for 30 levels. The vampire for example has numerous woeful powers for a striker throughout. It's complete lack of options then make it impossible to do anything about it, ensuring it falls further and further behind in its role (as a striker) in paragon tier especially.

It's worth noting that in general, where most of these classes in HoS fall over is in paragon tier and above. There seems to be a comfort level with the current designers at Wizards where in Heroic they can make things decent enough they compete, but then implement poor scaling. For example the Fury Blackguard competes well with the Domination blackguard, but the damage feature he has scales very poorly. So in paragon/epic tier, he falls well behind the Domination Blackguard in bonus damage. Same with the Nethermancer (or is it Necromancer? can't remember off hand) whose level 1 feature gives 2 temp HP. This doesn't scale, rapidly becoming utterly useless by paragon tier and epic tier.

The vampire again is another good example. It keeps up okayish in heroic tier with other strikers and then just falls through the floor in paragon. By epic the Vampire isn't even competing well with some non-strikers or secondary strikers like many defenders (Fighters are practically strikers with the support they have in epic!). The Vampire can't eve get an "Out" because it's so on rails, you're pretty much stuck with a poorly performing class once you get out of heroic tier. At least in saying this I think there is real merit to the Vampire: Merit that support could do something about. A feat to boost damage at paragon and epic, some better more striker like power options, being able to get a feat to add more damage when spending surges - just anything. There is real merit to the Vampire and if it didn't fall over so badly in damage, it would really be a great class.

But it is another Runepriest. It is another Seeker. It's another "Almost there, but severely flawed so doesn't quite get there". But at the same time all three of these classes can at least say "At least we aren't the binder!".

Supporting options that need support (and IMO, the Vampire DOES) is what I want to see. I don't want to see over-saturated bloated classes continue to become more and more bloated. There is nothing wrong mechanically with mages or fighters that really deserves more support (and to borrow a term from Abdul, their design "space" is firmly tapped out now). On the other hand classes with real merit like the Vampire, Runepriest and Seeker could use support to make them viable options. It's not even like they need *that* much to get over the line. The vampire needs damage, the runepriest plain needs options (that's it, just more options to round the class out and make it feel more complete), the seeker needs a bit more AoE control and a decent heavy thrown weapon option etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

We can easily get rid of a mage and hexblade build for this. Easily.

But incenjucar has the entire point correct. Wizards aren't going to convince anyone that they are supporting "pre-essentials" by publishing mage, warlock (please no more binders, unless Wizards actually makes them have *something* that makes them just not a crappier warlock) and warpriest builds. They need to show they are still supporting non-essentials classes, otherwise yes, they will just be viewed as "essentials" books (however fair or unfair that will seem). Tangentially supporting the original classes by token stuff that covers essentials classes will not do it.

I want to see something real, like powers for the artificier or a build for that class (who again, could use it). Or a new Runepriest build (possibly in Elemental Heroes Handbook, elemental runes have been hinted at in the fluff). Or a build that gives the seeker back some teeth with an exotic throwing weapon worth taking (a good heavy thrown weapon that doesn't suck would go a *long* way). This is the kind of support *I* want to see.

It is very easy for me to say "Just sacrifice YAFW" for this easily. Unless you actually like buying the same stuff over and over and over. Especially when the "new" stuff isn't even that good in the first place. You might do, but I'm going to get sick of that REALLY fast. Reading around and just generally talking to people, there is a heck of a lot riding on this book for Wizards. They have to impress: I don't think another mage, another warpriest and another hexblade, with a linear railroad class with no choices anywhere is going to do that. I hope that isn't what the book contains, but one has good reason to be skeptical these days.

design space =/= page space

Where does the DESIGN SPACE come from, that is the new concept that new material will support, vs simply reiterating some concept which is already supported. There is design space for fey pact warlocks and eladrin wizards, the sort of thing that you'd both expect to exist in material about the land of the fairies and for which some added material can be produced. I still haven't even heard an IDEA for anything related to the book's theme that would tie into the runepriest, an entire class that is already begging for a really compelling concept to start with.

You have to make a good case for the appropriateness of the concept you want to develop. It needs to have some traction and some roots in fantasy somewhere. If it is going to be in this particular book it also has to address the theme of the book in a reasonable way.

I mean I can well see 'Elemental Heroes' catering to the runepriest. I can see Heroes of the Feywild catering to the Seeker (though honestly I think the class itself was ill-conceived, but it certainly has thematic appropriateness). Really, it may be that HotFW is less well-positioned to boost the things you're interested in seeing. Maybe if the devs were psychic they'd have done Elemental Heroes first, but I don't think they have a crystal ball and I don't think once they organize the schedule for what is going to be done when they can change it at the drop of a hat either, even if they would like to. Things don't always end up falling out in such a way that every element of the game gets all the support you could wish for as quickly as you might wish, and some things may end up much better supported than others, as has happened.

I don't think people railing against WotC for this have more than the very vaguest notion of what large, complex projects take to pull off.

 

[Incenjucar]

Abdul, are you suggesting that WotC is unable to create new things, and that they lack the ideas to do so? Are you under the impression that the fey isn't an incredibly rich and complex area in which can be found many new ideas to add to the game?

 

[Aegeri]

Where does the DESIGN SPACE come from, that is the new concept that new material will support, vs simply reiterating some concept which is already supported.

You mean like mages, wizards and two (actually I think there are three Fey related) warlocks? On this point, you are just arguing with absolutely nothing and won't convince me of anything here (unless we have very different ideas of what "Design space" means).

Design space wise, classes that need support need it because of problems with how they work out. Only new powers and elements that boost the problematic areas solve those. They as a result have a huge amount of it. Wizards are a mechanically great class that has plenty of build options and doesn't need more support. We have two (maybe three) Fey-pact warlocks already, one in the original PHB (that has plenty of support) and a fey-pact Hexblade*. Both of them play very well actually (I am fond of hexblades myself).

I don't think people railing against WotC for this have more than the very vaguest notion of what large, complex projects take to pull off.

Thank you for the insult to my intelligence, I actually do and personally the failure here on Wizards part is planning. It's pretty clear to me that since essentials there is no coherent leadership or direction at wizards anymore. Considering they cancelled a bunch of books, butchered the cleric with possibly the first near universally rejected errata I've ever seen since 4Es inception - especially without fixing anything that should have (standard action utility healing powers for example) and the sheer mess that is the item rarity system all indicate the planning just isn't there anymore.

In fact I cannot believe we have the same company that made the incredibly awesome Dark Sun last year, go sliding downhill like this less than a year later. It reeks of poor planning and not having any idea what to do beyond essentials and how to go about it. Want to say otherwise? Then explain the item rarity system to me and how immensely badly that has been implemented. That's a prime example of what I'm talking about in terms of leadership in the new direction and planning.

Moving aside from that and returning to your original point, would you care to tell me what areas of the Wizard/Warlock are mechanically deficient and need further support? Mechanically. Not fluff or flavor. Mechanically. Because I am not seeing it. Wizards are the best designed controller in 4E and by far and away the strongest. Warlocks have billions of options, especially if the errata doesn't butcher them to Binder levels and gives them a needed damage boost to curse damage (all they need!). I could see an argument for more cleric options, in the strength cleric that is (but not the Warpriest/Wisdom cleric).

I mean you are saying "I can't see how X would fit into this book" and all I'm going to respond to you is "Boo hoo, they should have picked something that would actually let them support things as they wished". I'm not sympathetic whatsoever - if planning was better we'd have books that could give wide support to what needs it. Not being hemmed into "How many mage builds can we make because we painted ourselves into a corner?"

*I can swear there is a second one that is fey flavored as well hiding out somewhere.

Edit: I am correct. This is the Feypact Hexblade and there is the White Well Hexblade in Dragon 393 (which is another Feywild based Hexblade).