Preview: December and Beyond

[The Human Target]

Oh Heroes of Shadow, I was so excited for you once upon a time.

Now its all turned to ashes and poopy.

I do like the Icewind Dale tiles though.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

To be fair, this book isn't coming out for months yet and we've only seen the tiniest preview sneak peek.

Granted, WotC's record for impressing people has not been fabulous lately.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Unfortunately the one thing you won't get is actual shadow classes for people who wanted to play actual shadow characters, not just arcane, divine, or martial characters with spooky back stories.

What's the difference? Especially if they go down the essentials route and remove all the silly power-source requirements on feats.

Are you looking for MORE mechanical systems to be squeezed in?

 

[Mengu]

To be fair, this book isn't coming out for months yet and we've only seen the tiniest preview sneak peek.

Who says we have to be fair? Before we knew anything about the book, we were judging it by the cover and had high expectations and great praise and talked about how awesome it could be. After taking a peak inside, those expectations have plummeted and we're shaking our fists in anger.

Rabble rabble rabble!

 

[Klaus]

When I wrote parts of this book, I had no knowledge of Essentials. What I wrote, I aimed at it being available to a wide range of characters (that was, in fact, one of the guidelines set up by Mearls). And I got to see the Wizard spells (yes, Wizard, not "Mage"), and they're absolutely amazing! I'm looking forward to seeing these in their final forms!

Also, from the Previews:

Two new schools of magic, necromancy and nethermancy, join those presented in the Rules Compendium and Heroes of the Fallen Lands. Any wizard can choose spells from these schools. A mage can choose either school as the basis for his or her Apprentice Mage class feature.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm a little conflicted.

On the one claw, I think "Necromancer" is a pretty distinct archetype from "Wizard." Likewise, "Dark Knight" is a distinct archetype from "Paladin." So those archetypes, I think, are "worthy" of their own class. If also-rans like Runepriests, Seekers, and Ardents can get coverage, certainly they are worthy of the treatment.

On the other claw, they certainly don't need their own classes. A necromancer and a wizard are certainly similar enough to split the difference with fluff, a build option, a few power choices, some feats, and a PP + ED chain. They also gain utility with this model: not only can existing characters dip into these new abilities (through retraining if nothing else), but it's more future-proof. When they support the Wizard, they'll also be supporting the Necromancer, avoiding design cul-de-sacs like a new psionic class released after Psionic Power.

I mean, what, mechanically, should be the difference between the Wizard and the Necromancer or the Paladin and the Blackguard? And why can't that mechanic gap be covered by expanding existing options rather than by trying to re-invent the wheel? If you made a Necromancer class, would it be much different from "A Wizard with a Necromancy school?" If you made a Blackguard class, would it be very distinct from "A Paladin Build"?

As much as those archetypes certainly could warrant their own classes in big colorful letters, I don't think there's a problem with rolling them into existing classes, and I do think you gain a lot of added versatility and future-proofing by doing that. Existing and future characters can still make use of the rules being published.

I'm still not sure it's the best option, but I'm certainly willing to give WotC the chance to show me how it's done on this one. If I can build a character that is a Necromancer who doesn't need to rely on any of the usual Wizard character space, I think that'll satisfy my requirements.

 

[Flobby]

Yeah, I was kinda hoping for something like a Player's Handbook 4...

 

[AntlerDruid]

I like the Shadow preview so far.

I figured Necros would be under wizard class.

I like the Blackguard fluff.

I really hope they have Shadow options for Warlocks in the book. I am currently playing a refluffed Dark Pact Hexblade and would love to add some "Shadowness" to my warlock.

 

[mneme]

I wanted to play a Shadow hero. Not an arcane or divine hero with a hint of shadow flavor. I wanted to play a necromancer, with my character's powers and class features focused on animating and controlling the undead. Not a mage with a sub-par daily summon as an afterthought.

Er, did you read the same article I did? Because I didn't see "a mage with a sub-par daily summon as an afterthought."

Instead, I saw "a mage who at fifth level gets an always-on summon as a class feature."

The shadow one is a bit lackluster (and will hopefully get boosted during playtest; phasing and reach two is interesting, but not interesting enough, really) -- but the skeleton is great; a "defendery" summon that lasts through multiple encounters, is present at the beginning of the adventure and only requires a daily use if it gets killed, and does good single-target damage. Hopefully, they'll have feats that let the Necromancer play "defender" even better, blurring the line between controller and defender more than it's ever been blurred (well, except the fighter).

 

[drothgery]

I'm a little conflicted.

On the one claw, I think "Necromancer" is a pretty distinct archetype from "Wizard." Likewise, "Dark Knight" is a distinct archetype from "Paladin." So those archetypes, I think, are "worthy" of their own class. If also-rans like Runepriests, Seekers, and Ardents can get coverage, certainly they are worthy of the treatment.

One of the subtly jarring things about Essentials (and a thing I think was a mistake) is that pre-Essentials, 4e said this kind of thing does merit a different class. And post-Essentials they kind of went back to the 1e/2e paradigm of sub-classes. Either approach is okay (though I prefer the 'classic 4e' approach here), but mixing the two within an edition is confusing.