PHB2: Favorite New Race / Class? Why?

[TigerDave]

Now that the PHB should be in your hands as well as mine, what is your favorite new race and your favorite new class, and why?

For race, I really like the Deva. I like their backstory, and being a "good guy" player I like having someone that can fill the "good guy" roll, but not handcuffed to it. I think the bold patterns to the coloring are very interesting as well. I thought I would really like this race when I saw the preview art at the WotC site. I love the concept art and I even like the "artificial wings" aspect of them. I think I could have fun playing one of these.

For new class, I think Avenger took the show for me. This guy is crazy! I can almost see him shouting "You can run, but you can't hide!" as the enemies attempt to break contact, only to find him right there on their butts! He's got (and I say 'he' because I only play guys - sorry ladies, no disrespect intended) a lot of really scary powers and I'm just itching to play one. Like, *right now* itching. Rarg!!

Anyways, would love to see what inspired you out of the book!

- TD

[Sebastrd]

As far as race, I love the shifter. The art immediately grabbed my attention, and I really like their racial abilities. As far as class, I was pleasantly surprised by the shaman. I'd love to play a female shifter shaman with a tribal flavor to her. It's awesome, because I never would have considered that character type in previous editions. DMPC, here I come!!

[Lazaro]

Favorite race: Deva

Favorite class: Avenger/Sorcerer

Favorite Class Over all: Swordmage :)

Why did I choose the Deva... They make awesome Wandering Swordmages!

[Matthew Koelbl]

My favorite new race is an easy choice: Deva. The entire concept of them as immortal, angelic figures perpetually reborn (but with the danger of being corrupted into Rakshashas) conjures countless possibilites in my mind. I like the "Memory of a Thousand Lifetimes" power, as an excellent use of mechanics to capture the flavor of the class.

Visually, they are quite interesting - not quite what I imagined, but I can see why they tried to avoid having them more ethereal in appearance, as that would make them a bit too similar to the Eladrin.

The only real complaint I have is that I wish they were +Wis and +Cha instead of +Wis and +Int. That would make them even more appropriate for divine classes, and seem even more fitting for their background.

As far as classes go, on the other hand, I have much more trouble picking one favorite. All of them, honestly, have a lot going for them. I love how they have reinvented the Bard and Druid. I love the way they captured the polymorph effects of the Warden and the Druid - and the similar Rage effects of the Barbarian. Sorcerer and Shaman are probably the two I'm most eager to see in action.

I really am impressed by how they handled wild magic. Complicated, yes. Random, yes. But the random effects are often built into the rolls themselves, rather than requiring countless extra rolls - and the effects are random without being either too powerful or too much of a potential penalty. I think that is important for keeping things actually playable. The Wild Mage Paragon Path is even more exciting - it looks like it will be tricky to use well, but very fun in the right hands.

[Amelia]

Race: Shifter. I like the 4E take on them, though gnome comes in a close second. Only one I don't like is Goliath, really.

Class: Don't know yet, only up to Avenger in my read through.

[Scott Betts]

The Deva is a great concept and I can see a lot of interesting character archetypes springing from their reincarnated nature. They take the prize of favorite race.

The Avenger is really excellent. I loved the small amount of preview material we got to see from them over the past weeks and I'm pleased to see that the full class write-up doesn't disappoint. They're flavorful, unique and effective. In fact, the only downside I can see to them is that everyone seems to like Avengers. Not everyone can be a striker!

I also think the Barbarian is fantastic, if only because I'm playing one at epic tier and actually finding myself enjoying it! The rageblood vigor class feature encourages a balls-to-the-wall playstyle that's really kind of refreshing. I feel less like a cautious, well-considered tactical figure and much more like a guided missile in humanoid form.

[Logos]

Goliath's Wowed Me

So did Barbarian and Avenger.

everything I thought was mighty impressive, so its a tight race.

I just love the idea of a huge dude who can run and jump and climb and stuff and actually be great at it. Just blew me away +they look like the old strong.

L

[Jezred]

I thought Avenger would be my favorite class, but Bard has always been my favorite class period. When the playtest came out, I was disappointed with the lack of melee abilities. Now that they have them, it is making a run for favorite. Still, the Avenger is pretty sweet.

As far as race, again it is a close race between Deva and Shifter. The Deva is a nice counter to the Tiefling and has a really cool backstory. The Shifter... well, it is pretty darn cool.

Spoiler:

I am a little surprised/disappointed that the half-orc got a bonus to Dex. It doesn't seem to be very "orcky" in flavor. I have a feeling that they did it to make half-orc rogues viable, as half-orcs have been excellent assassins since 1E.

[William Pall]

As someone who has yet to get the book. Are Deva the re-boot of the Aasimar race, or is that still forthcoming?

[Matthew Koelbl]

William Pall wrote:

As someone who has yet to get the book. Are Deva the re-boot of the Aasimar race, or is that still forthcoming?

They are, though (as with the Tiefling) they have undergone significant changes in their background. Ones I think work quite well, though.

They were once immortal, angelic beings in the service of the gods of good, who chose to enter the mortal world to fight against the forces of darkness. Since then, whenever they die, they are eternally reborn - they do not retain the full memories of their former lives, but still have dreamlike memories that inspire them and guide them in their new life.

They are fiercely committed to the cause of good - not just because of their own nature, but also because Devas whose souls are corrupted risk being reborn as rakshasha when they die...

[P.H. Dungeon]

I like Devas way better than Aasimars (I was never a big fan of the Aasimars). Their origin seems much more interesting, and I like the feel about them better. They have similarities, but they are also quite different- as summarized above. The only problem with devas, is that every time I hear the word images of female pop stars fill my head. I worry that Celine Dion will suddenly join our party.

[William Pall]

P.H. Dungeon wrote:

I worry that Celine Dion will suddenly join our party.

Well, from what I understand, there is the capability with PHB2 for a Deva Bard . . . I assume they could be female. ::Ducks thrown pottery::

[Ken Marable]

Favorite race: Deva. Although it saddens me that they ditched the Planescape aasimar name (apparently because their typos were too embarrasing) ;), the concept behind the 4e version of the race is really intriguing.

Favorite class: Wild sorcerer, no contest. Multiclass into rogue and focus on close and melee carnage (mostly directly towards the enemies) = a really fun class I've wanted to play for a long time. I can see it as playing out as an arcane version of a fighter/thief PC I played back in high school who was the most insane and funnest PC I ever played.

Second to that is the bard since they look far more viable than 3.x ever made them (haven't read the PF version much yet, so I don't want to get into that whole discussion).

The avenger and invoker are next with really interesting concepts, but I haven't delved into the rules much yet. Wild sorcerer hit me just right on both the concept and the mechanic aspects.

[lastknightleft]

You know I never understood the 3.x hate against bards. Not to derail the thread with bashing or anything but I've seen and played bards that with decent (not powergamed at all) spell/skill/feat selection did quite well, I'll admit a core only bard is a little weak, but not to the level I hear people talk about it.

I actually am intrigued by the sound of the Devas and for me a lot of the changes that I liked best about the edition shift was the flavor changes. Since I never actually used core DnD worlds/pantheons/planar cosmology I wasn't bothered by the changes they made and actually appreciated the demon/devil distinction. I'm glad to see they are still putting a lot of effort into their world/pc race mythos if not so much their monsters. I'm glad to see that Devas (which I honestly prefer to the name Aasimar because cmon do I really want to have to call myself an ass all the time, even if followed by imar)have just as compelling a flavor.

As for classes I want to check out the bard to see how it's so much better than the 3.x version which I never saw a problem with.

[TigerDave]

P.H. Dungeon wrote:

I worry that Celine Dion will suddenly join our party.

I believe they've been pronouncing it DAY-vah - but don't hold me to that. Mind you I pronounce the 'ow' in drow as you would in 'ouch', regardless of the official response because I feel it sounds stronger, so I think that blows any credibility I may have had anyways ...

[Davi The Eccentric]

lastknightleft wrote:

As for classes I want to check out the bard to see how it's so much better than the 3.x version which I never saw a problem with.

For the 3x version of the bard, everything just seemed equally mediocre. They were alright at fighting, and had a pretty good skill set, and they had a decent spell list. They were simply the jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none. The 4e bard has the same thing, but they just seem less like they're mediocre at most things and more like they're good at most things, just not as good as the people who only do that. I hope that made sense.

Speaking of bards, bards and shamans are the first leaders I actually want to play.

[Kevin Mack]

Just as a matter of interest how does the 4E shifter differ from the 3E One both in rules and appearance?

[Matthew Koelbl]

Keep in mind that it wasn't that the bard in 3rd Edition wasn't effective - it certainly was. It was effective in situations that revolved around diplomacy or knowledge, and was very useful for buffing the party in combat.

But... that also meant it was a strange beast at the table. I've certainly seen games where it was played well and fit smoothly into the group without a problem. I also saw many more where half the session (during combat) the bard player had nothing to do other than spend every round sustaining bardic music, and the rest of the session (out of combat), the rest of the group got to sit in the background and watch the bard give long elaborate speeches to important NPCs.

A good DM or a good player could work around that, but the class could still wildly swing from boring to overshadowing.

The new version seems to have been modified in the same vein as the cleric was - that playing a healer should mean you are the go-to guy for keeping the party up, but that doing so doesn't prevent you from being engaged in the fight yourself. Similarly, the new bard still buffs his allies and confounds his opponents - but is able to be much more active while doing so, either via dashing swordplay or musical magic. (Which the bard had previously as well, but in such limited quantities as to very rarely see use.)

I'm really interested in seeing some melee bards in action. I am completely enthused about the fact they have made an archetype where bards can actually seem like impressive swashbucklers for enemies to take seriously, rather than just a joke. You can still play a joking fellow with a lute... or you can make a much more serious character, and having it really be viable. That, more than anything else, is what really excites me about this class.

[Davi The Eccentric]

Kevin Mack wrote:

Just as a matter of interest how does the 4E shifter differ from the 3E One both in rules and appearance?

From a flavor standpoint, they're roughly the same. Mechanics wise, there are only two varieties of Shifter, Longtooth and Razorclaw. When bloodied, they can activate their racial power, Longtooth gets extra damage and some regeneration, and Razorclaw gets more speed and improved AC and Reflex defenses.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

lastknightleft wrote:

You know I never understood the 3.x hate against bards. Not to derail the thread with bashing or anything but I've seen and played bards that with decent (not powergamed at all) spell/skill/feat selection did quite well, I'll admit a core only bard is a little weak, but not to the level I hear people talk about it.

I suspect I'll dislike the 4E Bard as much as every prevous edition...thats mainly because every time the Orcs show up and some one starts playing the Mandolin at them I just want to shout 'get a sword you ninny'.

[FabesMinis]

My bard has turned out to be one of the most able combatants - longsword and chainmail, light shield. She shouts encouragement and sings battle epics :D

[lastknightleft]

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

lastknightleft wrote:

You know I never understood the 3.x hate against bards. Not to derail the thread with bashing or anything but I've seen and played bards that with decent (not powergamed at all) spell/skill/feat selection did quite well, I'll admit a core only bard is a little weak, but not to the level I hear people talk about it.

I suspect I'll dislike the 4E Bard as much as every prevous edition...thats mainly because every time the Orcs show up and some one starts playing the Mandolin at them I just want to shout 'get a sword you ninny'.

My gnome bard pulls out his human sized earthbreaker cast mirror image and blur on himself (I rarely ever get hit, except for the first round of combat by a grapling huge outyugh that I couldn't escape from, that was the only combat I've had where the only thing I could do was bardic music, but that was because I litterally couldn't compete with my +7 CMB vs his +16 lol) and starts bashing faces, and yes I wasted feats on martial weapon prof and weapon focus to negate the size penalty. heck he even has the athletic feat so you know he ain't min maxed.

Anywho, I can see how if the party had every role covered a bard could be second string. but I guess that I've always been lucky that in my games some key role was missing (be it no divine healer, or no rogue etc) so a bard with his splatering of jack of all trades always managed to find his niche by filling the holes in the party composition.

Anywho I swear I'm gonna stop derailing this thread.

Just out of curiostity what abilities make the sorcerer a unique class that can't just be subsummed into the wizard class,

same question for the avenger for the paladin.

By that I mean, cutting the class and just saying the powers are open to the second class I just named?

[Logos]

wizards are dudes are study magic. Wizards get spellbooks which let them choose from extra daily, and utility spells, and can use impliments to great effect.

sorcerers are dudes who have inate magic, either threw dragon lineage or wild magic. Sorcerers get innate resistances and resistance piercing, the ability to use daggers as impliments, cool new spells and are inheriting the lore/fluff from both the best thing in 3.x (imo) as well as lots of the old fluff (Chromatic Sphere anyone)

nuff said?

[lastknightleft]

Logos wrote:

wizards are dudes are study magic. Wizards get spellbooks which let them choose from extra daily, and utility spells, and can use impliments to great effect.

sorcerers are dudes who have inate magic, either threw dragon lineage or wild magic. Sorcerers get innate resistances and resistance piercing, the ability to use daggers as impliments, cool new spells and are inheriting the lore/fluff from both the best thing in 3.x (imo) as well as lots of the old fluff (Chromatic Sphere anyone)

nuff said?

I didn't mean flavor wise I meant mechanics wise, so they get bonus resistances and resistance piercing abilities that the wizard doesn't get and they aren't part of the power suite.

Because that's what I'm focusing on, things they get outside of the powers that isn't just fluff.

I'm basically looking for what they get since now all classes have the same "casting" mechanic that says hey this is something unique that you'll loose if you just add the wild and dragon magic powers to the wizard trees if you will. Is what I'm getting at coming across, because I know what I mean in my head but reading it written down it seems to come out sounding wierd.

[David Fryer]

Well the best way to answer this is to say that the first thing I did after reading through everything is role up a Deva Avenger. I like the flavor of both the deva as an immortal mortal, and I liked that avengers fit the grim and gritty, yet good vision I have always wanted to play. I think it's awesome that they can be lawful good without being lawful awful.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Sorcerer vs Wizard

The sorcerer is actually quite different from the wizard, generally in the following ways:

1) Flavor-wise, the sorcerer (remains) distinct in that its magic is inborn, the product of a heritage of draconic or wild magic, as opposed to the learned magic of the wizard.

2) Power-wise, the sorcerer tends to have higher damage powers than the wizard. While it has some multi-target or area effects, the wizard has more of them, and typically hitting many more enemies. The wizard also has many more control effects, and often significantly more powerful ones (daze, blind, stun, etc). The sorcerer has its share of control, but typically ones that move enemies around the battlefield, and some of its most potent effects are unreliable, coming from wild magic.

3) Play-style - the wizard tends to stay back, and control the field from a distance. The sorcerer, especially the Dragon Magic Sorcerer, will often be way up in the face of the enemy. And often is even more fragile than the wizard when doing so - the wizard has access to things like Shield, Displacement, Blur, etc. The Sorcerer is much more of a glass cannon.

4) Stat-wise - the sorcerer's powers are charisma based, the wizard's based on intelligence. These obviously could be changed if you were trying to make them hybrid spells, and make it so they allow for either, but the primary and secondary stats for the two classes are different, and that tends to make for pretty distinct characetrs in play.

They certainly seem related - but so do martial classes, like a ranger and fighter or rogue. Just as with them, the right builds with the right selection of powers will look quite similar at the table, but there generally are still both mechanical and thematic distinctions between them. And there are plenty more builds that are unique to each class alone.

You could probably design a system in which classes of the same power source tapped into the same pool of power choices, and the distinguishing facets came from class features rather than the powers, but I suspect you would start to lose a lot more distinction between the classes - both mechanically, and flavor-wise. I like seeing the Wizard throwing out Magic Missile while the Sorcerer tosses around Chaos Orbs - it really makes them feel unique on the table.

Sorcerer vs Warlock

The even close comparison, actually, is Sorcerer vs Warlock - as both are not just arcane, but arcane strikers, who both have charisma based powers. However, I was impressed to see they both managed to stand on their own.

Flavor-wise, they both rely on magic from specific origins - but the sorcerer's is something they were born with, beyond their control, while the warlock's connection is something deliberately sought out.

Mechanically, the warlock is closer to the wizard in some ways, and farther away in others. It is often even more single-target than the sorcerer, with only a few multi-target or area effect powers, and those often quite small. However, it has many more direct controller effects (status conditions), rather than the indirect control of moving enemies around and putting dangers on the field.

The sorcerer is the highest damage dealer of the two - but, as mentioned previously, is very fragile. The warlock is anything but, with a lot of focus on avoiding damage, temporary hp, teleporting out of danger, gaining concealment or invisibility, and so forth. The sorcerer is focused at rolling up close and hitting closely grouped enemies, or stands back and lets chaos rain down from above; the warlock circles the field, picking the right targets to curse and cripple, and eventually kill.

Now, I should mention that none of these differences are absolute. There are powers from each class that do cross over into the others 'domain'. But studying the overall picture does show these trends and differences, and actual play is where you will really see the true feel of each class.

Avenger vs Paladin

Now this is an interesting thing. There are certainly flavor differences (divine protector vs divine assassin/hunter), and stat differences (Paladins are Str/Cha primary and Wis secondary, while Avengers are Wis primary and Dex/Int secondary.) On the other hand, note that Paladins are the most heavily armored characters in the game (starting with Plate proficiencies), while Avengers are the lightest armored front-line characters. They get some other protections to make up for it, but that still results in a distinct difference between the two, which I'll get into after the next paragraph. ;)

Despite filling different roles, they both do have a solid number of powers that are focused on hunting down a single enemy at a time, and preventing it from escaping. For the Paladin, this is so he can keep the enemy from hurting the rest of the party; for the Avenger, this is so he can kill it.

On the other hand, the rest of their powers are almost completely opposed. The Paladin's are focused at getting enemies to attack him and leave his allies alone, or healing and protecting his allies. The Avenger's powers are focused at discouraging enemies from attacking him - making it so doing so either hurts them, or aids him. And those make a significant difference!

Lumping the powers together would be quite powerful - you could take a selection that punishes enemies for attacking you, while also punishing them if they do not. This makes multiclassing between the two a potentially effective choice, if done right - but the resource cost of doing so (feats, stats, equipment, etc) makes it more balanced. Giving open access to both at once would be a much worse choice - both power-wise, as well as flavor-wise.

All in all, I've been impressed by how well WotC has managed to expand more options to the roles while keeping all those options very distinct. Mike Mearls mentioned that PHB2 was his best work to date, and it shows - aside from a few blunders, the book as a whole is much more ambitious, and much more innovative, than the more safe and stable PHB1. I'd definitely recommend beginners start there, but this book has me excited to make dozens of new characters, and each one feels like it would be very different at the table.

[Ratchet]

I didnt think I would ever like bards but after reading the entry.......hmmm. Now all the WoTC need to do is release a decent monk.

[joela]

Just picked up my copy yesterday. Still mulling about the content.