Thoughts on PHBII
- Thread starter Sitara
- Start date
carborundum
Adventurer
Though I remember a gleemax post where the sorcerer was said to be pretty wild, possibly with wild magic. Sounds like that fits with the primal power source and earns it's place in the new book by having a new source.
Sitara said:
I'm almost sure WotC has explicitly said otherwise.
Sitara said:
Even if the bard is on DDI, it will reappear in a print product, most likely PHB2. There's no way wizards is going to relegate the bard to online-only; it's not the psychic rogue or something equally obscure.
Also, WotC has definitely said the sorcerer is arcane.
malraux
First Post
I though it was that just that splats would only focus on a single power source and only have powers for those of that source, like the martial splat on the schedule now. Or did I misunderstand that? Certainly they aren't limiting new classes to just the phbs, as the spellsword shows.glass said:
Shining Dragon
First Post
Sitara said:
Barbarians (Angry power source) will be angry. All the time.
Re: Useless Symmetry and Roles:
We'll see more controllers. I promise you. WotC would not just leave one class as a controller. In fact, I remember a blog post where they were discussing a Divine Controller, who did lots of flame strikes, et al.
Now, some Power Sources may lack one of the roles. Ki may not have a controller or leader. Shadow may not have a Defender. Psionics might not have a leader or a defender (Psychic warrior, at least in my mind, is too similar to the Swordmage unless they do something interesting).
Re: Which class is which role.
The class and race book said Monks would be a striker. I personally can't see psionicists not being controllers, because leaders seem less involved in effecting the enemy, as opposed to buffing/helping the party.
The barbarian will not be a controller. First of all, controllers have far too few HP for a barbarian. Next, look at the Rogue; he's shifting people a lot, as well as moving and attacking. And many, MANY skirmishers in the MM can "Move x squares, make y number of attacks, do not incur OAs". The barbarian screams striker to me, because very little of his abilities correspond with "Tieing enemy down".
I'm more curious how they're going to handle Elementalists, at least from a role perspective.
We'll see more controllers. I promise you. WotC would not just leave one class as a controller. In fact, I remember a blog post where they were discussing a Divine Controller, who did lots of flame strikes, et al.
Now, some Power Sources may lack one of the roles. Ki may not have a controller or leader. Shadow may not have a Defender. Psionics might not have a leader or a defender (Psychic warrior, at least in my mind, is too similar to the Swordmage unless they do something interesting).
Re: Which class is which role.
The class and race book said Monks would be a striker. I personally can't see psionicists not being controllers, because leaders seem less involved in effecting the enemy, as opposed to buffing/helping the party.
The barbarian will not be a controller. First of all, controllers have far too few HP for a barbarian. Next, look at the Rogue; he's shifting people a lot, as well as moving and attacking. And many, MANY skirmishers in the MM can "Move x squares, make y number of attacks, do not incur OAs". The barbarian screams striker to me, because very little of his abilities correspond with "Tieing enemy down".
I'm more curious how they're going to handle Elementalists, at least from a role perspective.
