Does anyone know which races & classes have been confirmed for PHB3? Thank you.
Confirmed races: githzerai, minotaur, and wildren. There is one additional unconfirmed race.
Confirmed classes: psion and monk. There are four more classes, one of which is thought to be the seeker (not sure what it is).
Assassin is another class that will be present in PHB3. They are aligned with shadow powers.
Thanks for the clarification, I just assumed classes that appeared in the DDI were part of the next release, i.e. PHB3.
I heard for Halloween that a Michael Myers class is coming out just for fun as a preview of the PHBXIII.
Seriously? Was that really needed? Its s*## like this that makes it harder for anyone that isn't a dedicated 4E fan to have any kind of discussion in this forum, because the defensiveness is up from knee jerk commentary all of the time.
I heard for Halloween that a Michael Myers class is coming out just for fun as a preview of the PHBXIII.Seriously? Was that really needed? Its s@*~ like this that makes it harder for anyone that isn't a dedicated 4E fan to have any kind of discussion in this forum, because the defensiveness is up from knee jerk commentary all of the time.
While I don't think the comment is useful in the thread, nor do I believe that the post was delivered with the best of intentions. Unless I'm missing something within that post, I don't think that this particular post is a good example of the situation you present. That one has to read into the post to find insult in it. While there are reasons for the defensiveness to be up, if a post like this is to blame, then I would say that the defensive people should deal with it themselves.
I'm not saying that I believe all posts are fine, just that this one seems to be a very, very low key one to pounce on top of.
|
However, Pax also has a history of trolling the 4e boards, 4e product reviews, whining in the 3.5 boards about how 4e has ruined D&D and the like. Which is a shame as he seems an OK guy, but he just loses it over 4e. This is not the worst of his comments, but it also links in with his snide comments about the Adventurers Vault 2 being (as a rapid sequel) a sign of the decadence and lack of ideas of WotC and 4e. As such, it is pretty annoying and also fairly clear in its agenda. That said, I simply ignored it when I saw it a few days ago (though I had a riposte typed, and had to excercise self-control in not posting it) and decided instead to take it in the (possible) light of it simply being a lighthearted comment/joke. Despite the history.
It's best not to feed the trolls.
You're liable to be collateral damage when the big red dragon comes by and poops on them.
|
|
Seeker preview hit DDI today, and it looks like the "Primal Hunter" archetype it is! Think Ranger with the 'nature magic' dialed up to 11 - the class is a ranged controller that uses bows and thrown weapons, and unleashes primal spirits when they launch their arrows. Cool effects and cool build, from what I saw.
How does that compare with the ranger? I mean, I know the ranger is martial and so, well, just hits/shoots people, albeit in various inventive ways. How have they differentiated it (i.e. what do the spirits do)?
Interesting - it's a sort of striker leaning towards controller (whereas the ranger is really a pure striker). Thanks for the info.
Technically, it's a controller leaning toward striker, but yes.
I'd really like to see a pure melee controller, but I'm not sure what that would look like (Druid is closest for now).
|
I heard for Halloween that a Michael Myers class is coming out just for fun as a preview of the PHBXIII.Seriously? Was that really needed? Its s~## like this that makes it harder for anyone that isn't a dedicated 4E fan to have any kind of discussion in this forum, because the defensiveness is up from knee jerk commentary all of the time.
I think there's a "forreetroll" race in there; they can fling psionic dooky three times a day.
For Aubrey:
*Don't really feel it is right to call out actual poster names.
|
|
For Aubrey:
** spoiler omitted **
Perhaps, but if they make a habit of it, they have it coming. People have been repeatedly asked not to do that on the 4e boards, both by the regular posters and the management (as the sticky says) and if they cannot restrain themselves I will call them on it. I respect your approach but I don't particularly agree.
|
Interesting - it's a sort of striker leaning towards controller (whereas the ranger is really a pure striker). Thanks for the info.Technically, it's a controller leaning toward striker, but yes.
That was one of the truely great innovations of PHB 2. The idea that a class could fill one roll really will, and then fill in another role in a pinch really gave the game some flexability that Ithought was missing in PHB 1. Now if we could just get some more controller classes out there, since there are only 3 right now.
4 now with the Seeker.
|
|
Interesting - it's a sort of striker leaning towards controller (whereas the ranger is really a pure striker). Thanks for the info.Technically, it's a controller leaning toward striker, but yes.
I'd really like to see a pure melee controller, but I'm not sure what that would look like (Druid is closest for now).
As a 4e Drow Ranger, I actually can answer that, its really a precise build that allows for this, but its possible...
Ranger (Beast Mastery) / Sharp Shooter / Beastlord
At Wills:
Hunter's Teamwork
Twin Strike
Hunter's Quarry
Encounter Powers:
Arrow of Vengeance
Disrupting Shot
Herd the Prey
Stab and Shoot
Cloud of Darkness
Darkfire (Wisdom)
Daily Powers:
Menacing Cry
Ferocious Roar
Five Missile Dance
Escalating Barrage
Utility Powers:
2nd - Yield Ground
6th - Invigorate the Beast
10th - Companion Emplacement
PARA - Perfect Aim
16th - Shared Healing
22nd - Wild Dash
Feats
1st - Lethal Hunter
2nd - Hunter's Aim
4th - Instinctive Darkness
6th - Predatory Action
8th - Weapon Focus
10th - Beast Protector
11th - Coordinated Opportunity
12th - Distracting Companion
14th - Hunter's Resurgence
16th - Sturdy Beast
18th - Master of Fire and Darkness
20th - Retrained to Quick Beast Command
21st - Peerless Hunter
22nd - Staggering Shot
24th - Bow Mastery
26th - Surprise Action
28th - Martial Mastery
30th - Sniper's Aim
This build allows you full control of your companion while using him as a mobile AOE and damage sponge. The beauty of the Build comes in around Paragon tier when beast protector + sharpshooter allows you to make an AoO every time they go after the companion. Since few encounter powers allow the beast to act independently from the Ranger, the ones you do take will interrupt enemy actions and allow damage when its not your turn, allowing you some more control of the battlefield. Five Missile Dance allows you to spread some damage around to five targets as does Twin Strike. Staggering shot slows down opponents you twin strike and would deal quarry damage to, on average one or two enemies a turn (since predatory action lets you deal it twice).
Very narrow, very precise, but it can control a portion of the battlefield, when properly used.
Ugh, and I just realized you said melee, NOT martial...oh well still throwing it out there for theoretical optimization.
I'd really like to see a pure melee controller, but I'm not sure what that would look like (Druid is closest for now).
The build for the monk comes pretty close right now. It is a striker with controller tendencies.
|
|
I heard for Halloween that a Michael Myers class is coming out just for fun as a preview of the PHBXIII.Seriously? Was that really needed? Its s#!& like this that makes it harder for anyone that isn't a dedicated 4E fan to have any kind of discussion in this forum, because the defensiveness is up from knee jerk commentary all of the time.
The irony and hypocrisy here is that he is making fun of something that Wotc does that Paizo does too. That is releasing new classes. Sure they may not release as many as Wotc yet they still do. After all is Paizo not doing openm playest on the Oracel and Cavalier at this point. Then the Pathfinder community wonders why they have such a bad reputation in 4E circles.
The irony and hypocrisy here is that he is making fun of something that Wotc does that Paizo does too. That is releasing new classes. Sure they may not release as many as Wotc yet they still do. After all is Paizo not doing openm playest on the Oracel and Cavalier at this point. Then the Pathfinder community wonders why they have such a bad reputation in 4E circles.
I'm not sure that an almost two month old comment that was within a few posts chastised and not really ever supported as a good comment by other posts is the best example. In fact, if this is why the Pathfinder community has such a bad reputation in 4e circles, I pretty much give up trying to satisfy them. I would even suggest that almost all circles aren't utterly devoid of posters that aren't particularly good in a number of their posts.
|
|
I'm not sure that an almost two month old comment that was within a few posts chastised and not really ever supported as a good comment by other posts is the best example. In fact, if this is why the Pathfinder community has such a bad reputation in 4e circles, I pretty much give up trying to satisfy them. I would even suggest that almost all circles aren't utterly devoid of posters that aren't particularly good in a number of their posts.
It's not just the two month old comment. Before Paizo put a stop to it the anti-4E stuff was out of control. You had the same posters posting the same anti-4E comments in every 4E thread that popped up. Every single one every single time and almost always the same posters. I'm all for healthy debate but every single thread. Even then instead of stopping it as soon as it started Paizo took forever to do anything about it. It took them almost a month or was it two before they posted a disclaimer about it.
It's not just the two month old comment. Before Paizo put a stop to it the anti-4E stuff was out of control. You had the same posters posting the same anti-4E comments in every 4E thread that popped up. Every single one every single time and almost always the same posters. I'm all for healthy debate but every single thread. Even then instead of stopping it as soon as it started Paizo took forever to do anything about it. It took them almost a month or was it two before they posted a disclaimer about it.
Then the issue of the bad reputation in 4E circles is about those posts and a month or so delay before posting a disclaimer almost two years ago. Again, not a particularly compelling reason for me to really care about those 4e circles because I can't do anything to change what happened that long ago.
But this doesn't really connect with the apparent topic of the thread. Creating another thread or e-mailing Paizo might be more appropriate if you have complaints about the moderation of the forum.
I actually played a psion last night. I don't do a lot of 4E gaming currently but there was a new campaign starting through MapTools so I gave it a shot.
I enjoyed the Psion, and played a human in order to get another At-Will Power. I didn't find I missed my regular starting encounter power all that much, especially since my Psionic Points refreshed after a short rest.
What did kinda suck was it was a Forgetten Realms game, but the GM placed no real restrictions on race and class. Another player played a Kalashtar Ardent. My Psion was supposed be a telepath dicispline focus, and had Send Thoughts as a Class based encounter power. A kalashtar can use telepathy at will. I felt really kind of undercut by that. Here I was as a telepath and had an encounter power that another character could actually use as much as they wanted as a free action communication. Not that it was a game wrecker, or that anyone was being unfair.. but I had to scratch my head at that design decision.
Had a lot of fun though!
PHB1
8 Races
8 Classes
PHB2
5 Races
8 Classes
PHB3
4 Races?
6 Classes?
What else is in PHB3? Two less classes is a lot of pages to work with, assuming the book is the same length as the previous PHBs.
What else is in PHB3?
Hybrid rules for sure. That will probably take up for the extra space due to fewer races and classes, and then some.
Hybrid rules for sure. That will probably take up for the extra space due to fewer races and classes, and then some.
Ick. That's one of the rules I'm not really happy about. I like the rigid class structure of 4e, and the way that multiclassing is handled. I don't want to go back to the days where everyone was some weird multiclass combo.
And 5 with the Psion, which has also been previewed. :)
I don't think PHB3 will result in a complete balance amongst the roles, but I suspect it will be close - with Strikers still the most plentiful, the rest all close behind.
My suspicion is they are in some sense purposely keeping the number of strikers high. 4E seems to run better in default mode with more strikers then other roles in the party. Its to late for WotC to really delve into the core of the mechanics that cause this to be true but its not to late for them to give out a lot of options in the striker role in order to mitigate the issue for most groups.
Hybrid rules for sure. That will probably take up for the extra space due to fewer races and classes, and then some.Ick. That's one of the rules I'm not really happy about. I like the rigid class structure of 4e, and the way that multiclassing is handled. I don't want to go back to the days where everyone was some weird multiclass combo.
I don't think you need to worry about this. Whereas in 3.5 multiclassing was a great way to squeeze more power into your character from a bunch of classes, hybrid multiclassing very rarely makes characters more powerful than their single-classed counterparts. If you're skeptical of how they work in play, I suggest trying them out for a bit. Speaking from experience, there doesn't end up being a whole lot of difference.
I'd also add that a lot of hybrid combinations are sub-par or quite terrible. They do fill in niches, though, especially when 2 classes have elements you really like. I used an invoker/druid hybrid to make a fairly decent 'fury' class.
Then again, they're releasing their final incarnation in this month's Dragon, so we'll have to see.
There will also be Skill Powers. They are utility powers that you can take instead of those granted by your class if you have training in the prerequisite skills. It is a good way for adding a different flavour to your concept. I find that many times when I am building a character in the CB that one of those skill powers actually makes for a better pick than the ones offered up by the class.
They will also be introducing hybrid characters, which are more like 3.5 multiclassing than anything. Basically you mash together two classes and make one class out of them.
I'd say class hybrids are more like 1E/2E multiclassing and distunctly unlike 3E multiclassing. The (old) multiclassing in 4E is much more like 3E.
They will also be introducing hybrid characters, which are more like 3.5 multiclassing than anything. Basically you mash together two classes and make one class out of them.I'd say class hybrids are more like 1E/2E multiclassing and distunctly unlike 3E multiclassing. The (old) multiclassing in 4E is much more like 3E.
I can't say I really agree on either account. 3.5 multi-classing was pretty fundamental and was usually part of some kind of a build. 4E multi-classing is more like flavoring a character.
Hybrids don't really remind me if 1st or 2nd edition either. Hybrids are more like full on classes that happen to share elements of two different classes while 1st and 2nd where closer to 3.5's gestalt rules.
I don't really think any of them are particularly closely related to each other.
PHB3 will also have Superior Implements (originally rumored to show up in AV2). Not sure of the specifics of how they will work, but should help slightly with the imbalance between weapon-based classes and implement-based classes.
Is there an imbalance between weapon-based classes and implement-based classes? I haven't noticed one in play. In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say that implement-based classes often seem to have the upper hand, because their attacks usually allow them to choose which of the enemy's defenses they'd like to attack. For example, a fighter typically has to attack AC with any power he chooses, but a wizard can mix it up and take a few powers that attack each defense. Then he can choose to attack where the enemy is weakest.
PHB3 will also have Superior Implements (originally rumored to show up in AV2). Not sure of the specifics of how they will work, but should help slightly with the imbalance between weapon-based classes and implement-based classes.Is there an imbalance between weapon-based classes and implement-based classes? I haven't noticed one in play. In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say that implement-based classes often seem to have the upper hand, because their attacks usually allow them to choose which of the enemy's defenses they'd like to attack. For example, a fighter typically has to attack AC with any power he chooses, but a wizard can mix it up and take a few powers that attack each defense. Then he can choose to attack where the enemy is weakest.
In play I had noticed that the implement based characters were missing alot more on monsters that are equal to them or greater in level. This is mainly due to the extra +2-3 to hit from the weapons. When the will/fort/ref is not always 2-3 lower than the AC. This is not always the case though.
Your characters are attacking the wrong defenses, then. Almost every monster has at least one defense that's 2-3 points lower than its AC. Brutes and Artillery are the exceptions, AC is their low defense. Soldiers have an AC that's considerably higher than any of their defenses.
Your characters are attacking the wrong defenses, then. Almost every monster has at least one defense that's 2-3 points lower than its AC. Brutes and Artillery are the exceptions, AC is their low defense. Soldiers have an AC that's considerably higher than any of their defenses.
Quite possibly, I am not arguing that fact. Just stating that it does happen. Also could be builds of the characters.
Example of characters, and I am not saying builds are equal either. On one pbp that I follow these are the following to hits for some of the characters. These may not be accurate, only as accurate as the players who input them. Just using them as an example.
Fighter +14 ac
Sorc +10 vs ref/fort (implement)
Assasin +11 vs ac, +9 vs fort/will (mainly using implement attacks)
Swordmage +10 vs ac/fort (mainly using implement attacks)
Ranger +12 vs ac
Warlord +12 vs fort/ac
Wizard +8 vs fort/ref (implement)
Bard +12 vs ac
The average for characters using weapons as primary is rounded down to 12
The average for implement characters is rounded down to 9
Not the biggest difference, but unless you are always hitting the right fort/will/ref it can be a disadvantage, but you are correct it is to benefit of the character to know exactly what defense to attack on every monster they face.