The Shadowcaster -weak?

The shadowcaster is weak

  • Strongly agree

    Votes: 27 14.8%
  • Agree

    Votes: 66 36.1%
  • In the middle/don't know

    Votes: 73 39.9%
  • Disagree

    Votes: 12 6.6%
  • Strongly disagree

    Votes: 5 2.7%

Laman Stahros said:
It isn't designed as a direct combat type. It uses a more tricksy style to defeat its enemies.

A wizard with the right spell selection or beguiler could do this "tricksy" style far better. All you need is invisibility or, even better, greater invisibility and you are as sneaky as you need to be, without being straightjacketed into a limited range of damage types (shadowcasters mostly do cold and subdual damage), and effects (mind affecting things which a zillion creatures are immune to).
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Its appears to have less versatility than a sorcerer, with less spells. That speaks mountains. It doesnt need split ability scores... none of the classes in ToM did, since all are fairly weak. The class should have begun with the mysteries as supernatural abilities, not spells.

Didnt Ari design the marshall as well? If thats the case, then maybe he just favors weak classes.
 

ehren37 said:
Didnt Ari design the marshall as well? If thats the case, then maybe he just favors weak classes.

This is being borderline rude to another Enworld poster. It is unwarranted and unwanted. Please be careful to phrase things better in the future.

For reference, if you had said something like "Didn't Ari design the marshall as well? Both of these classes seem a little weak to me" I wouldn't have stepped in.

I would appreciate it if you would edit your post.

Thanks
 

Speaking about the Marshall from seeing it in play, I believe it to be an outstanding support class. The character by itself wasn't a combat machine or anything, but his auras and other abilities were invaluable. Believe me, we sure missed the character when the player wasn't around.

I don't believe you can judge a class just on a standalone basis, especially if its one that is focused on improving the group as a whole. Which I feel the Marshall does very well.
 

Bisquet: The marshall is an ok class, but I believe the lesson from these discussions is that most people judge a class entirely by its offensive powers. The marshall's auras and skills are primarily defensive in nature, or intended for use out of combat, and for most people therefore do not count.

Its their loss.
 

ehren37 said:
Didnt Ari design the marshall as well? If thats the case, then maybe he just favors weak classes.

Not only did I not design the marshal--Miniature's Handbook predates any work I did for WotC--but I happen to feel the marshal is, while a really nifty concept, too weak as written. (Compare it to the more recent "aura-based" class, the dragon shaman, to see what I mean.) I'm playing one in an upcoming campaign, and the DM and I modified the class to bring it a little more up to par.
 

Mouseferatu said:
Not only did I not design the marshal--Miniature's Handbook predates any work I did for WotC--but I happen to feel the marshal is, while a really nifty concept, too weak as written. (Compare it to the more recent "aura-based" class, the dragon shaman, to see what I mean.) I'm playing one in an upcoming campaign, and the DM and I modified the class to bring it a little more up to par.

Ahh, thats it. I knew you had experience with the class, and were playing one. I personally dislike the "sit there and buff" aspect of the class, since its basically a low skill point aristocrat in terms of active abilities. What did you guys do to buff it up to be enjoyable?
 

Plane Sailing said:
This is being borderline rude to another Enworld poster. It is unwarranted and unwanted. Please be careful to phrase things better in the future.

For reference, if you had said something like "Didn't Ari design the marshall as well? Both of these classes seem a little weak to me" I wouldn't have stepped in.

I would appreciate it if you would edit your post.

Thanks


Its not intended to be rude. Some classes are weaker than others. The marshall, the samurai, etc are weaker classes, the cleric and druid are stronger classes. For me to imply that someone favors making classes at one end of the power scale shouldnt be taken as an insult.
 
Last edited:

Cadfan said:
Bisquet: The marshall is an ok class, but I believe the lesson from these discussions is that most people judge a class entirely by its offensive powers. The marshall's auras and skills are primarily defensive in nature, or intended for use out of combat, and for most people therefore do not count.

Its their loss.

Its not weak because it lacks offense, its weak because it lacks appreciable value over another support class. Sure, its buffs stack with other things, but unless you're running a 9 person game, another class adds buffs and additional options. If you're running a 5 man game, you add a bard. If you're running a 6 man game, you add a druid. And so on. The marshshall, a buff only class, isnt particularly good enough at buffing (over and above other classes) to make up for its limited scope. Add in that its *boring*, since all you do is fire up your aura and wade around whiffing with your 3/4 bab (and not hurting things when you hit), yields not a lot of fun in combat. Add in lowish skill points, and you've got issues out of combat.

Giving him a few more abilities , a few more active combat options, or more skill points, and the marshall could have been more fun.

Regardless, this thread is supposed to be about the shadowcaster. Someone brought up earlier about how a wizard can be tricksy with the right spell selection, which is a very good point. An arcane trickster has even more potential at the sacrifice of a few spell levels. Given that wizards, druids and clerics can change their spells on a daily basis, its hard to design a 20 level niche base class that one of these 3 cant duplicate or surpass with the right spell selection (and still have the option of changing their spells to fill a different role the next day). When designing a new class that fills a small role, I think a good baseline would be to make the class NOTICABLY superior to a wizard/cleric with proper preparation, then go from there. This is even more important when its a class limited product support. Basically every new book expands the potential for wizard/cleric/druid, yet there the support for new mysteries, invocations, etc are limited. Even if new material is published, the static nature of resource selection of some of these classes limits the usefulness. A new spell or vestige that becomes available is pretty much immediately useful, as the caster/binder can add it the next day. A new invocation adds less to a warlock since they cant easily replace the ones the know.
 
Last edited:

I really like the class.

I've only used one npc so far and I've found it to be a bit on the weak side. But not terribly so.

I'll point out that the nature of his abilities have allowed him to escape from direct conflicts on two seperate occasions. So they certainly are not weak on that count.
 

Remove ads

Top