So after reading the classes in full what do people think?

[Green Knight]

Jedi Armour is rare, but not exactly unheard of.
[sblock]

[/sblock]
(I fully expect this to devolve into some sort of Star Wars canon/fanon debate.)

[sblock]

[/sblock]

 

[Center-of-All]

Aren't those Jensaarai, not Jedi?

 

[AZRogue]

Most of the things that people wish the Wizard could still do (illusions, for instance) are now Rituals. So the Wizard can still do them. They're just not things that are done during combat so that combat can be better balanced. So, brainstorm away at how to best use the spells to your advantage. They're not really gone. They're now just under tighter DM control, used outside of combat, and usable by more than just ONE class.

 

[Lurker37]

Nice idea, Nifft, I like it.

Unfortunately I can see why it isn't in the core rules. Imagine a new DM trying to come up with the bonuses for say, worshippers of the Norse pantheon. Since there isn't page count to spare to include every deity from prominent real-world religions, let alone all major fantasy settings...

I can see why WoTC kept deity-specific benefits modular and to a lesser extent optional.

 

[MindWanderer]

Here's the thing: Warlocks start out with one of three Pacts. This gives them a "curse" benefit (something cool that happens when one of their special designated targets dies), and a specific at-will power.

BUT! (and this is the cool part) But, they also have little notes in their Encounter powers which say, "If your pact is XXX, instead of just 1, you thingy the jobber by 1 + your Int bonus". That's encouragement for people to stay "within pact", but you aren't actually punished for choosing other Encounter powers.

It'd be nice if there were similar notes in some of the Cleric Encounter prayers: "if you worship the Queen of Ravens, this effect deals radiant damage equal to your Cha modifier even if you miss". That kind of thing.

Probably easy enough to add, but why couldn't they do it? (I'll be doing it for the deities specific to my setting, of course; but prolly it'll be vaguely amenable to generic PoL.)

Cheers, -- N

PS: Also, some of those Channel Divinity powers are rather weak in Heroic tier. Perhaps they start to shine brighter at higher levels.

While I really like the idea in theory, in practice it creates a lot of work for the DM. It makes it so that a mandatory part of the world-building processs is going through every single one of the cleric powers and deciding which ones get little perks for worshipping a particular deity. And you have to keep it all balanced. Which means that for WotC to condone that approach, they'd have to give the DMs a guideline for doing that.

That's something I always disliked about earlier editions, especially 2e but 3e as well. Any other class can just build whatever the heck thay want out of whatever books the DM allows, typically without asking any questions. Someone playing a cleric, however, has to approach the DM and find out what gods exist in that homebrew setting, and what portfolios (domains/spheres) they have. And the DM had to have an answer. In 2e, the DM could just say that only the default cleric and druid spheres were available, although doing so sucked all the flavor out of religion; in 3e the best a DM could do is allow players to pick whatever they wanted (which often resulted in wacky combinations like Celerity and Ice).

In 4e, players can by default choose any of the feats in the PHB, and the DM just has to reflavor them to fit the campaign. Easy. Or you can do it the old way, by having the player ask for a list of gods and the feats they're associated with, and even then it's at least as easy as picking domains in 3e. You can even not bother with the Channel Divinity feats at all, or write your own, or whatever, and it's still easy in comparison with older editions.

 

[mrrodgers]

And yet, in all the editions there have been, all the official settings, there was one... One... that actually treated magic like technology, and did as you suggest; Eberron wasn't even invented by anyone at WotC/TSR, it won a freaking contest.

Mind you, I love Eberron, for that very reason; but out of the many fantasy settings out there, both D&D and fiction/literature, very very few treat magic like technology. There are all kinds of excuses why; magic users are rare, magic is very hard to understand, and/or inconsistent in practice. The whole 'magic is inherently chaotic, and therefore impossible to apply logic to' idea.

Frankly, I think the real 'reason' is that all legends of magic come from by-gone eras, from before there was much in the way of logical thought or scientific process or methods. Heck, the idea of cause and effect, and the difference between causality and coincidence is pretty new, in the grand scheme of things. Because of this, people go the 'magic is not technology' route to maintain a sense of the fantastic. It's wild, crazy, MAGIC! Not just a smart guy with fancy tech.

I whole heartedly agree, the whole "magic is, well... magic" philosophy is a cancer that is killing the fantasy genre for newcomers who are being raised in a technological age where everything around them is governed by sets of natural laws and principles of logic. The nice thing about Eberron is that there are numerous aspects of the setting that are very resonant in today's day and age, such as the trains, Sharn (NY, anyone?), and bank accounts you can access anywhere.

The cool thing is, I live like 20 min from Kieth Baker.

 

[Rechan]

The cool thing is, I live like 20 min from Kieth Baker.

A pox on your house, you lucky bastard!

 

[Nifft]

While I really like the idea in theory, in practice it creates a lot of work for the DM. It makes it so that a mandatory part of the world-building processs is going through every single one of the cleric powers and deciding which ones get little perks for worshipping a particular deity. And you have to keep it all balanced. Which means that for WotC to condone that approach, they'd have to give the DMs a guideline for doing that.

1: Unlike earlier editions, there is (allegedly) some numerical analysis behind this edition. Those numbers are not impossible to extract. So unlike earlier editions, it's actually possible to design such an augmentation, and have good reason to suspect that it is (or is not) balanced.

2: No, you don't. The powers right now don't have faith-based augmentations, and they (presumably) work just fine. If you're lazy, ignore the stuff I will be writing, and go about your business.

3: (to a point earlier in the thread) Power selection already is modular. You can choose powers with augmentations, or those without any special bonuses to those of your faith. The former will make you stronger (but at the cost of flexibility); the latter will make you versatile (but at the cost of raw power).

4: The only bonus I've dropped so far is weak, about the strength of a good Heroic or weak Paragon feat (if it applied to half your Encounter powers).

Anyway, if you don't like it, don't use it. I'm annoyed that they didn't do the work, but that doesn't mean it won't get done.

Cheers, -- N

 

[DonAdam]

Praise be to Odin that the Wizard is more focused now. In combat, he's an evoker. Leaves more room for illusionists, necromancers, and summoners to come along later, have appropriately designed features (why can't my Illusionist bluff?) and be balanced... hopefully.

 

[OakwoodDM]

Here's the thing: Warlocks start out with one of three Pacts. This gives them a "curse" benefit (something cool that happens when one of their special designated targets dies), and a specific at-will power.

BUT! (and this is the cool part) But, they also have little notes in their Encounter powers which say, "If your pact is XXX, instead of just 1, you thingy the jobber by 1 + your Int bonus". That's encouragement for people to stay "within pact", but you aren't actually punished for choosing other Encounter powers.

It'd be nice if there were similar notes in some of the Cleric Encounter prayers: "if you worship the Queen of Ravens, this effect deals radiant damage equal to your Cha modifier even if you miss". That kind of thing.

Probably easy enough to add, but why couldn't they do it? (I'll be doing it for the deities specific to my setting, of course; but prolly it'll be vaguely amenable to generic PoL.)

Cheers, -- N

PS: Also, some of those Channel Divinity powers are rather weak in Heroic tier. Perhaps they start to shine brighter at higher levels.

While I agree that that's a neat idea, and one I'd love to see in practice, the problem I see is that while the Warlock can have one of three pacts, there are (presumably) up to a dozen or more viable religions for a cleric to choose from. If each of them had a different effect on encounter powers, each power would look more like: "This power has this effect, except if you worship Tom, in which case it's this, Dick, in which case it's that or Harry, in which case it's t'other".
That's a lot of work and makes the powers confusing for newbies. Maybe what's needed is a Deities & Demigods or Powers & Pantheons book, giving Encounter power options for the various gods.

As a disclaimer, I feel I should point out I don't have the books yet, so some guesswork is involved in this post.