New Podcast up

[Cadfan]

I was thinking, controller/defender who hexes the badguys, selectively debuffing them, and hindering their mobility.

Suppose the hexblade could choose between debuffing the enemy archers, the enemy spellcaster, or the enemy warriors. He'd decide based on how prepared his party was to fight each type of opponent. That strikes me as a very controllerish thing to do.

 

[Dragonblade]

My main issue with the Hexblade and the Warlock is mostly a flavor thing. I don't like classes where there is a default alignment assumption, such as Warlocks having a fiendish flavor implying that they would be evil.

I'd rather the class be alignment neutral, or presented with both a good and an evil flavor. For example, have the Warlock with his infernal pact. But also have celestial Warlock who gains angelic powers, or a neutral Warlock class that gains powers from a neutral source like totem spirits or something. Perhaps even calling it a Shaman.

Hmm, I think I already have my first homebrew class idea. A neutral Warlock called a Shaman with animistic based powers, and good based Warlock with Celestial powers. Perhaps called an Evangelist, or something. (Yes, I know there was a Dragon magazine variant cleric with the same name.)

 

[Kintara]

I was thinking, controller/defender who hexes the badguys, selectively debuffing them, and hindering their mobility.

Suppose the hexblade could choose between debuffing the enemy archers, the enemy spellcaster, or the enemy warriors. He'd decide based on how prepared his party was to fight each type of opponent. That strikes me as a very controllerish thing to do.

Yeah, the debuff thing sounds kind of controllerish to me. I think it depends on the type of debuff.

But then I think the Controller is probably the least understood role as this point, so it's hard to tell.

 

[Kintara]

I'd rather the class be alignment neutral, or presented with both a good and an evil flavor. For example, have the Warlock with his infernal pact. But also have celestial Warlock who gains angelic powers, or a neutral Warlock class that gains powers from a neutral source like totem spirits or something. Perhaps even calling it a Shaman.

I think that's precisely what they are doing. You don't need to make a pact with Infernal forces. Even the 3rd Edition Warlock allowed for fae pacts, and there's even a redeemed Warlock PrC with a celestial flavor.

 

[Rechan]

Yeah, the debuff thing sounds kind of controllerish to me. I think it depends on the type of debuff.

-2 to hits/damage or -2s to saves doesn't sound controllerish to me.

 

[TerraDave]

I haven't seen the podcast yet (at work), but from what I am reading here, this sounds very hopeful to me. Admitedly, I am a lot more concerned about what happens to the spellcasters right now, but it sounds as though this edition can handle a Conan-type character! Woot!

In addition, I note the almost TPK by a monster 6 levels higher than the party. No more knife-edge balances to encounter design is a good thing.....will this edition open up exploration as a playstyle again? Some of the Wyatt blog about I1 makes me think so.

I still wonder how they are going to make encounters tense without either knife-edge balancing or resource attrition, and I would love to see WotC respond to this issue.

RC

The fighter player joked around about loosing massive damage from his great axe...but he does actually throw a spear! Oh, and basically no magic items in that play-test (but probably just the play-test) More or less conan-esque? Also: not a word (a word) on skills.

The monster balancing, hmm. They have an elaborate scheme: monsters have level, and may be minion (fight many), normal, elite (fight few), or solo (fight one). Given how involved that is, I guess they would need things to be more robust otherwise!

 

[Raven Crowking]

The fighter player joked around about loosing massive damage from his great axe...but he does actually throw a spear! Oh, and basically no magic items in that play-test (but probably just the play-test) More or less conan-esque? Also: not a word (a word) on skills.

I like everything that reminds me of my modifications to 3.X; I seem to really dislike some of the other stuff. But this podcast, at least (from what I am gleaning here) seems to be all on the "like" side of things.



RC

 

[Kintara]

-2 to hits/damage or -2s to saves doesn't sound controllerish to me.

I think damage and attack bonus debuffs would have a Leaderish effect, but I don't know about saves (not that they couldn't have that ability, but it doesn't strike me as fitting the role exactly). Movement-based curses would be controllerish, or confusion effects, or certain conditions.

 

[Rechan]

The first or second playtest mentioned that the Warlord had a blanket ability that gave everyone +2 to saves.

 

[Cadfan]

Kintara beat me to it. There isn't that much difference between casting a spell which modifiers the battlefield in order to prevent certain opponents from engaging you easily, and debuffing them so that they cannot engage you effectively.