• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Just how compatible is Essentials?

Okay, got it:
A subclass is what you call a build that happens to be incompatible with other builds.

Whew, thanks for clearing _that_ up! :D

Once we get to the point where we're arguing about whether the inclusion of subclasses makes something incompatible... I think it's time to step back and take a breather. :P
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Okay, I'll write a bit more slowly, maybe then you understand the difference:

Saying it slowly will not make you correct, in the same way yelling at someone whose language you don't understand won't make you speak their language.

Hexblade is the name of a build for the Warlock class introduced in Heroes of Shadow.
'Sorcerer King Pact' is another build for the Warlock class introduced in the Dark Sun Campaign Setting.

Wrong, and wrong.

Hexblade is a class type under the warlock class, with two builds in the first book, Fey (accurate) and Infernal (hard-hitting)

The Sorcerer-King pact is a build for the primary warlock class-type (as of yet unnamed)

Both class types have some features and powers that cannot cross-pollenate, and some that do. This doesn't make them incompatible.

I only have the PHB1, not the HotF*** book.
This means, I can use everything from the 'Sorcerer King Pact' build in my game.
I cannot, however, use everything from the Hexblade build in my game.

You can't use anything from the Swordmage, Sorcerer, or Bard in Arcane Power either. It's the exact same problem.

Moreover, you CAN use stuff from the Hexblade class type.

When reading the Hexblade stuff in HoS I kept wondering how it's supposed to work, obviously I'm missing some important information.

You make a +3/1d10 or +2/1d12 one-handed weapon, and you run into people, and you do massive damage with attacks that can benefit from your implement and your weapon feats simultaneously.

What is this if not a compatibility issue?

Because it's a reading comprehension issue. Compatibility issues arise when things cannot work along side each other. A base warlock and a hexblade can be in the same party together, fighting the same monsters. They're going to be as different as a Swordmage and a Sorcerer in playstyle, however.

That's not incompatibility. That's how class types work. They're pretty much new classes, but they can take some powers or feats or options older classes can.

Swordmage is a different class than Warlock, not a different build of the same class.

Hexblade is a different class type. That's the game term for it. It's a subclass, not a build. It's like the difference between a 2E Fighter and a 2E paladin, which were subclasses of the Warrior class.

I would not expect to be able to make full use of everything from a different class.

Then you're halfway to understanding how class types work in the game.

To use things from a different class usually requires multi-classing or playing a hybrid.

Class types have less barriers between types for the same class, but barriers exist, just as they do for different classes within the same power source. Some things are the same, some things are not.

Neither should be required to use things from a different build of the same class.

And we're not talking about different builds. We are talking about different class types. The problem is a comprehension issue. You're not using the right terminology, so obviously it's not conceptualizing properly.

Do you understand the difference between a build and a class or should I elaborate? I realize you're new to the game and might have trouble with these terms ;)

Class types. It's a game term. You might not be familiar with it, after all it involves books you might not own. But it's a new concept and one that I think you need to understand to help you get past these issues you have.
 

This thread is starting to show personal attacks. I'll bow out before I get banned again for using the word turd to describe anyone ;)

I can't see how anyone who has played with an amalgamation of both essentials and non-essentials classes can say they are incompatible. We are being trolled.
 

Except that the announcement for that article begins with something along the lines of "you've spoken and we've listened."

Fortunately, the rewrite of the Cleric into the Templar seems to have served as a bit of a rallying point for all us masochistic Str-cleric players, and WotC have decided to do something about it.

Would it have been on WotC's radar if not for the recent outcry? I very much doubt it.

How DARE they listen to us! How can one company be so villified to the point that they are criticized for not responding to fans and then criticized again when they do?

Life is about fighting for what you want. Did you really expect WotC to deliver what you wanted if you just sat back and waited for it?
 

How DARE they listen to us! How can one company be so villified to the point that they are criticized for not responding to fans and then criticized again when they do?

Life is about fighting for what you want. Did you really expect WotC to deliver what you wanted if you just sat back and waited for it?

The poster to whom I responded suggested that Warpriest didn't replace the Str-cleric.

I addressed the (in retrospect, slightly different) question of whether it was intended to. I provided my reasons in significant detail. I assume from the fact that you take issue with none of my post other than the first sentence that there's nothing constructive here for us to discuss. :)

It appeared in the PHB2 first, in the same book as the Warden, rather than online, and you wouldn't have known it if you didn't read the part at the end about saving throws.

I'm not sure I agree that publication source coincidence can be used to support supposed cause and effect, but I can see why you think so. As I agree with the general thrust of your post, I'm happy to leave it at that.
 
Last edited:

The poster to whom I responded suggested that Warpriest didn't replace the Str-cleric.

I addressed the (in retrospect, slightly different) question of whether it was intended to. I provided my reasons in significant detail. I assume from the fact that you take issue with none of my post other than the first sentence that there's nothing constructive here for us to discuss. :)

I don't believe it has intended to replace the Strength priest, nor has it effectively done so.

Sun domain is an obvious healing-based domain. Storm is more of a DPR+defensive buffs domain. Str-cleric is an offensive buffer.

Leaders are defined more by what they buff than their attack type, and I just don't see a build based on a temporary hp at-will power being an intended replacement for a build based on a attack-buff at-will. The two are as different as a Bravura warlord is from a Inspiring warlord. Sure... they both use charisma and are melee but... not the same thing.
 

I don't believe it has intended to replace the Strength priest, nor has it effectively done so.

I never said it replaced it mechanically :)

My point was (and I can't be bothered to go back and check my exact wording) that it was intended to replace the Str-cleric in its niche as the melee 'half' of the cleric class.

IIRC, WotC designers have publicly acknowledged that V-shaped classes were a mistake, so I personally believe that the basic premise that the Warpriest was intended to replace the Str-cleric is pretty self-evident.

I respect everyone's right to believe otherwise, and hopefully we'll see plenty of love for the Str-cleric in the future. The irony is that the campaign in which I play one has just wrapped up.
 

A quick google lookup produces this definition, which fits what I'm using very well:

Adjective: No longer produced or used; out of date.

That describes much of PH1 (and MM1, and much of DMG) to a T.

Given that I, and several other people in this thread who actually run games, still use all these books all the time, I can't buy that argument at all.

The newest player in my campaign is a PH1 paladin with a few Divine Power options, but almost completely PH1.

It sounds like you're arguing, essentially, "Well, I no longer use it, so nobody else does either". But that's demonstrably, factually incorrect.
 


I never said it replaced it mechanically :)

My point was (and I can't be bothered to go back and check my exact wording) that it was intended to replace the Str-cleric in its niche as the melee 'half' of the cleric class.

That definition is pretty simplistic tho. Leaders are not defined by attack-types.

IIRC, WotC designers have publicly acknowledged that V-shaped classes were a mistake, so I personally believe that the basic premise that the Warpriest was intended to replace the Str-cleric is pretty self-evident.

Except it doesn't DO what the templar does.

The irony is that the Str-cleric is a legacy thing. There've always been armored clerics that hit the front lines and beat things to death, and yes... they were based on Strength. Clerics were the best melee class in 3.x for a reason.

The Warpriest's only commonality with the Str-Templar is the word 'Melee' on the powers. The Death Domain doesn't even resemble one at all.

Thing is... Domains are a good idea, and they wanted to make a leader based around them. So they did. By the time essentials rolled around, the idea of a wisdom meleer wasn't some unusual thing like in the PHB1 days. The technology and acceptance of it made the warpriest possible.

But a replacement for a Strength Cleric? When one of the domains gives attack bonuses like candy, then I can see an argument there.

I respect everyone's right to believe otherwise, and hopefully we'll see plenty of love for the Str-cleric in the future. The irony is that the campaign in which I play one has just wrapped up.

I do hope so as well.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top