Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WalterKovacs" data-source="post: 5498255" data-attributes="member: 63763">Technically speaking:&nbsp;The &quot;new&quot; stuff in the book (races, paragon paths, feats, and the new classes, such as binder, assassin, blcckguard and vampire) does not require Essentials.&nbsp;The new options require the older books. The new hexblade build will likely require the hexblade book, just as the the new schools would require the mage book ... in the same way that the wizard powers require a wizard from earlier books. &nbsp;The &quot;you can decide how much or little it impacts your game&quot; is exactly the same as any previous book. Some DMs may not have allowed some stuff from martial power (for example, they may have banned the battlerager before it's errata). While the design philosophy of the book may continue on, there are still stuff that is usable for old characters.&nbsp;True, there is no new implement mastery stuff in Heroes of Shadow, but would there have been? Without essentials, what element of implement mastery would have really lent itself to shadow magic? MAYBE some sort of superior implement (bone wand, skull orb) or magic implement (necronomicon type of tome), and they could tie into the summoning tome stuff, but there really isn't something like the magical schools that ties neatly into a shadow theme. Similarly, the reintroduced domains for warpriests is a thematic element that lends itself to shadow powers more so than the pretty much no build option (other than Strength or Wisdom, and a couple this or that class features) cleric's had.&nbsp;The warlock is the only one that could have had a pre-Essential expansion, giving the old school warlock a gloom pact in addition to he binder and hexblade versions of that pact [although, the original warlock still leads on number of pacts with 5 vs. the 4 for the hexblade and 2 for the binder, not to mention having many more options and much more feat support].</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WalterKovacs, post: 5498255, member: 63763"] Technically speaking: The "new" stuff in the book (races, paragon paths, feats, and the new classes, such as binder, assassin, blcckguard and vampire) does not require Essentials. The new options require the older books. The new hexblade build will likely require the hexblade book, just as the the new schools would require the mage book ... in the same way that the wizard powers require a wizard from earlier books. The "you can decide how much or little it impacts your game" is exactly the same as any previous book. Some DMs may not have allowed some stuff from martial power (for example, they may have banned the battlerager before it's errata). While the design philosophy of the book may continue on, there are still stuff that is usable for old characters. True, there is no new implement mastery stuff in Heroes of Shadow, but would there have been? Without essentials, what element of implement mastery would have really lent itself to shadow magic? MAYBE some sort of superior implement (bone wand, skull orb) or magic implement (necronomicon type of tome), and they could tie into the summoning tome stuff, but there really isn't something like the magical schools that ties neatly into a shadow theme. Similarly, the reintroduced domains for warpriests is a thematic element that lends itself to shadow powers more so than the pretty much no build option (other than Strength or Wisdom, and a couple this or that class features) cleric's had. The warlock is the only one that could have had a pre-Essential expansion, giving the old school warlock a gloom pact in addition to he binder and hexblade versions of that pact [although, the original warlock still leads on number of pacts with 5 vs. the 4 for the hexblade and 2 for the binder, not to mention having many more options and much more feat support]. [/QUOTE]

Verification