Heroes of the Feywild Speculation

[AbdulAlhazred]

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).

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).

It isn't mechanical space I'm talking about, it is CONCEPTUAL space. I'm perfectly happy to believe there are some concepts that I haven't thought of or heard about, and no doubt that would be true of people at WotC as well perhaps. OTOH if someone expects that a feywild themed book should be filled with runepriest builds or something like that because mechanically that class is underserved I'm just frankly dumbfounded. If there's a good concept then it should be implemented, period. I don't care if there 8,642 builds of wizard if # 8643 works and fills a valid conceptual space then that's what should exist. I could give a rat's behind what class that concept is part of, I only care about the concept and that it works in play. I'm not out there to keep score between the different classes. There's no 'build balance' that has to be maintained such that things get spread around between different classes. I think there's been a severe loss of perspective here.

I want to see CONCEPTS appropriate to the LAND OF FAIRY in the book on that subject, period, end of report.

As I said before, some people might have been pleased to see a different order of release. Frankly I'm not one of them. D&D has neglected doing even half decent support on the Fey for 30+ years and it is about time, and FAR more classic a concept than almost anything else I can imagine them working on.

I will say it again too, there's nothing wrong with and I certainly support the notion of adding or tweaking some mechanics here and there to make some of the existing stuff more practically useful, that would be great. The thing is there's this one last great untapped conceptual space and I think WotC would really like to address that first. They also may feel that certain things they did before just aren't WORTH improving when they can put the same effort into something considerably better. Personally this is the way I see the Seeker, it just isn't worth the effort. There's nothing special there. Runepriest OTOH has some conceptual merit and is mechanically solid, if a bit fiddly. There are a few other ones that could be fixed with just a very small amount of work like Ruthless Ruffian, Swarm Druid, or apparently Vampires at higher levels. Some would argue a few others, though I rather think AoE and AoA swordmages are just bad tactical concepts that will never work. That is a point though, your assessment of what is fixable and what it takes to support it better may vary considerably from say Mike Mearls'.

And again, these projects take a considerable amount of time to execute. Have you not listened to anything Klaus has said for instance? HoS material was mostly designed BEFORE ESSENTIALS WAS EVEN RELEASED and without any reference to it. Most book projects like this are around 2 year lead time projects. So no, I don't think you are actually appreciating how these things fall out. For instance I'd imagine there was a plan to do a DP2 that would have picked up added options for the runepriest. That was obviously decided against. That means basically it goes back to the start of a TWO YEAR cycle. That's just reality. Where are we now? Maybe a year into that? Now we hear of a book, Elemental Heroes, that might target that, at least conceivably? What do you know, 2 years! lol. Sure, we are all impatient to have our pet projects be the thing that gets attention, but lets take a bit of a step back and admit that just because WotC doesn't see things exactly your way in terms of priority doesn't make them idiots.

 

[Incenjucar]

Did... did you seriously just suggest that HoS isn't related directly to Essentials...?

Have you READ any of it?

 

[Aegeri]

It isn't mechanical space I'm talking about, it is CONCEPTUAL space.

To me, for something to be worth doing it has to have both. That's a nice way of avoiding the question I asked though. The seeker/runepriest have both and deserve to actually be supported.

I could give a rat's behind what class that concept is part of, I only care about the concept and that it works in play.

Yet you support the binder, which does neither.

I think there's been a severe loss of perspective here.

I agree, it's just not on my part.

The thing is there's this one last great untapped conceptual space and I think WotC would really like to address that first.

Yes, by probably reselling us concepts that are well done and explored in 4E. You seem to have entirely missed the main point of my argument entirely.

Have you not listened to anything Klaus has said for instance? HoS material was mostly designed BEFORE ESSENTIALS WAS EVEN RELEASED and without any reference to it.

Certain parts were (I have no reason to believe Klaus isn't telling the truth and don't want to imply otherwise!), but the overall design is essentials like, uses the essentials class structure and many other essentials like themes (lack of options, no racial/class specific feats). Saying Heroes of Shadow isn't an essentials book is a losing argument from the beginning and shows you aren't considering what the actual content of the book is like. The actual content is definitely essentials.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, there's no doubt that they took Essentials into account, obviously, but there's only so much change in direction that can be accomplished and it can't all be done at the drop of a hat. I'd also say that what we see in HoS is in large part material that was (as Klaus has clearly stated) originally commissioned and conceived pre-Essentials. Thus there was almost certainly a considerable amount of adaptation that was done. Heck, neither of us is over at WotC HQ, we don't know exactly how that works, but it is plain that it takes a good long time to generate a new book and they start working on them at least a solid year ahead.

I did say that the Binder is nice thematically. It is. I also agree that ALL of Essentials style stuff is, quite obviously, treading old thematic ground. In that respect I'm not running around jumping for joy, but at least it is stylistically distinct. Honestly at some point what else are they going to do? There are only so many basic concepts out there. I'd have been happy with a different order of things myself, but I completely understand where WotC is coming from with what they're doing. Are they always putting out exactly what I want? No, not especially. However I accept that what they are doing has a rational set of reasons for it. I don't think the quality is actually less than the quality of material that they released in the first three PHBs either. I recall a lot of things that were slightly 'off' in those books mechanically. At least they aren't releasing new stuff that is overpowered, that would really suck. Vampire will want for some DDI support, and so will Binder, but neither one is 'broken', just in need of a couple tweaks. That's par for the course.

I know you won't accept my position on item rarity either, but there it is. Rarity works fine. There certainly should be a whole bunch of rare items, and they can refine the common/uncommon division a bit, but largely what is common vs uncommon is a specific choice that needs to be controlled on a level of individual games. Given that they have envisaged most new players coming in through Essentials where they have considered each item's rarity more carefully I think the basic approach has made sense. I'd still expect them to revisit this with a replacement for the AV books at some point, but I'd rather they take their time with that and do a good job and come to a clear definition of what they want items to do in 4e than slap something out that won't cut it.

 

[keterys]

Is this like the argument about whether something is videogamey? Two parties use a term that is not actually defined, and it means different things to them (in this case "essentials"), so they disagree. Surprise, surprise.

One could argue that the "weaponmaster" posted on WotC's site was "essentials", because it's formatted in the essentials style - despite the fact that it's almost identical to the original PH1 fighter.

If Heroes of the Fallen Lands had come out before PH3, there are those who would argue that psionics are "essentials", because they don't follow the strict AEDU structure.

I would suggest reframing all arguments in more objective terms, if you want the discussion taken all that seriously.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Is this like the argument about whether something is videogamey? Two parties use a term that is not actually defined, and it means different things to them (in this case "essentials"), so they disagree. Surprise, surprise.

One could argue that the "weaponmaster" posted on WotC's site was "essentials", because it's formatted in the essentials style - despite the fact that it's almost identical to the original PH1 fighter.

If Heroes of the Fallen Lands had come out before PH3, there are those who would argue that psionics are "essentials", because they don't follow the strict AEDU structure.

I would suggest reframing all arguments in more objective terms, if you want the discussion taken all that seriously.

Eh, I don't really have an axe to grind in the "is it Essentials" debate, which I agree is basically a silly debate. Anyway, this thread is perhaps wobbling a bit off course at this point...

 

[Camelot]

Eh, I don't really have an axe to grind in the "is it Essentials" debate, which I agree is basically a silly debate. Anyway, this thread is perhaps wobbling a bit off course at this point...

I agree.

I do hope they manage to surprise us with what turns up in this book though. I think that a completely new race is likely. I know I can't hope for the bladeling as a player race, since those are associated with pretty much any realm except the Feywild. But I have an inexplicable premonition of a frost-themed race.

Maybe we'll see a shaman who summons different kinds of spirits depending on some option, like warlock pacts but associated with different kinds of spirits. Definitely more arcane and primal themed ranger options (hopefully leaning on the arcane side). And I have to say I hope for the qrcana warpriest domain.

 

[DracoSuave]

I don't know if I'm going to hold my breath for a druid build, flavor-wise they've really separated the fey stuff from the primal stuff this edition.

Yeah, the Primal source is explicitly the magic of the world aka Prime Material plane itself. Feywild is explicitly not that.

But... I wouldn't be surprised to see a fey-related power source to go tag along with a primal class or two.

Arcane stuff for sure tho.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think they painted themselves a bit into a corner with the whole identifying power sources with specific planes and all. In legend the aos si for instance could be looked at as gods, devils, nature spirits, ancestors, etc and you could easily assign them a wide variety of power sources, any and all of which could be associated to the sidhe.