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
To be honest, it looks like the only guys who are throwing this off are the fighter and the wizard. The fighter is a bit too high, and the wizard is a bit too low. Those are probably due to build issues, and not issues with the game system as a whole.
The imbalance actually isn't in terms of accuracy, but damage...
OK, that actually makes a lot of sense to me. I'm going to assume that they'll work similarly to superior weapons, and I think I'm on board with that concept.
To be honest, it looks like the only guys who are throwing this off are the fighter and the wizard. The fighter is a bit too high, and the wizard is a bit too low. Those are probably due to build issues, and not issues with the game system as a whole.
It does help things along that Fighters do get a bonus +1 bonus to attacks from the Fighter Weapon talent. That would definitely give them a slight boost over other classes with similar builds.
It does help things along that Fighters do get a bonus +1 bonus to attacks from the Fighter Weapon talent. That would definitely give them a slight boost over other classes with similar builds.
Yeah, and the wizard only has a +1 implement. Most of the other differences are just because most of the party either doesn't have __ Expertise or are still using a +1 weapon. Oh, and the swordmage is really a swordmage/barbarian hybrid.
-The Fighter
am i reading the 'in the works' article right that there are only 4 races and 6 classes (with the 5th class as the battlemind') in phb3?
am i reading the 'in the works' article right that there are only 4 races and 6 classes (with the 5th class as the battlemind') in phb3?
Yep, that's right.
You know, I'm not sure how many more races and classes I'm even interested in seeing. There's probably a bit more out there already than I'm ever going to need or want to see in a campaign. I was looking at the Wildren on the Character Builder last night, and I thought to myself, "Am I ever really going to want to play a plant-guy?" Now, I'm sure there are some people out there who will, but from what I've seen, the vast majority of gamers want to play humans, elves, dwarves and hobbi... er, halflings. By PHB2, there were already a bunch of races I could tell right away that I had no interest in. Deva? Whatever. Goliath? Lame. Shifter? Sure, in my Eberron game. PHB3 is going to have minotaurs, a plant guy, and a psychic alien. Can't say I'm excited about any of that.
The same thing goes for classes, with the added caveat that when you add classes, you start seeing a lot of 'role overlap.' The best example of this is the Fighter compared to the Warden. Both of them mark people and lock them down. The Warden is a little more tanky, the fighter is a little more hitty. Is the psychic warrior (or whatever the psionic defender is) going to be that much different? From what I've heard, the Seeker sounds a lot like ranger, especially the archery themed ranger. I don't know if I can get into any of the stuff in this book.
You know, I'm not sure how many more races and classes I'm even interested in seeing. There's probably a bit more out there already than I'm ever going to need or want to see in a campaign. I was looking at the Wildren on the Character Builder last night, and I thought to myself, "Am I ever really going to want to play a plant-guy?" Now, I'm sure there are some people out there who will, but from what I've seen, the vast majority of gamers want to play humans, elves, dwarves and hobbi... er, halflings. By PHB2, there were already a bunch of races I could tell right away that I had no interest in. Deva? Whatever. Goliath? Lame. Shifter? Sure, in my Eberron game. PHB3 is going to have minotaurs, a plant guy, and a psychic alien. Can't say I'm excited about any of that.
The same thing goes for classes, with the added caveat that when you add classes, you start seeing a lot of 'role overlap.' The best example of this is the Fighter compared to the Warden. Both of them mark people and lock them down. The Warden is a little more tanky, the fighter is a little more hitty. Is the psychic warrior (or whatever the psionic defender is) going to be that much different? From what I've heard, the Seeker sounds a lot like ranger, especially the archery themed ranger. I don't know if I can get into any of the stuff in this book.
I agree completely on the races, not much left out there. However with that being said, I am waiting patiently for my necromancer and shadow knight/death knight/duskblade/blackguard (however you want to name it).
I am waiting patiently for my necromancer and shadow knight/death knight/duskblade/blackguard (however you want to name it).
Didn't they call it a spellsword?
I am waiting patiently for my necromancer and shadow knight/death knight/duskblade/blackguard (however you want to name it).Didn't they call it a spellsword?
Swordmage is the one you are thinking of. I am looking for a more shadowy bend to it. A shadow power version of it would be great. The spiritsworn in Scythe and Shroud is just about right. I would just like to see something offical.
|
I agree completely on the races, not much left out there. However with that being said, I am waiting patiently for my necromancer and shadow knight/death knight/duskblade/blackguard (however you want to name it).
+1
My prediction is those two classes will wind up appearing as DDI content. (I'm hoping anyway.)
|
You know, I'm not sure how many more races and classes I'm even interested in seeing. There's probably a bit more out there already than I'm ever going to need or want to see in a campaign. I was looking at the Wildren on the Character Builder last night, and I thought to myself, "Am I ever really going to want to play a plant-guy?" Now, I'm sure there are some people out there who will, but from what I've seen, the vast majority of gamers want to play humans, elves, dwarves and hobbi... er, halflings. By PHB2, there were already a bunch of races I could tell right away that I had no interest in. Deva? Whatever. Goliath? Lame. Shifter? Sure, in my Eberron game. PHB3 is going to have minotaurs, a plant guy, and a psychic alien. Can't say I'm excited about any of that.
The same thing goes for classes, with the added caveat that when you add classes, you start seeing a lot of 'role overlap.' The best example of this is the Fighter compared to the Warden. Both of them mark people and lock them down. The Warden is a little more tanky, the fighter is a little more hitty. Is the psychic warrior (or whatever the psionic defender is) going to be that much different? From what I've heard, the Seeker sounds a lot like ranger, especially the archery themed ranger. I don't know if I can get into any of the stuff in this book.
I know what you mean. However, I find the execution can be better than the concept. I found the idea of the warden seriously "meh" but when I started reading the description, and the various powers and how they were thematically linked to minor polymorphing and the various elements, I really began to like it. The seeker likewise leaves me thinking "meh" but I'm interested enough to look after my warden experience.
Devas? Really? What about them interested you?
I thought the Devas sounded cool too. Reincarnating angels who can become Rakshasas if they are naughty in their past life. The concept intrigued me.
I am also looking forward to Githyanki as a PC race. They have always interested me since their first appearance in the Fiend Folio.
I looked over the seeker a bit on the Character builder this morning. They're actually pretty interesting. They're ranged controllers, with the concept being that they shoot their enemies with arrows (or thrown weapons, although I think longbow is going to be the weapon of choice) The arrow 'delivers' an additional effect, so they deal weapon damage and then add on the effect. I think there was a class in FF Tactics that was very similar to this. Anyway, that's something new for a controller class - in fact, I think they're the first controller class that's based around weapons rather than implements. From what I saw, they lean towards striker a bit, but most of their powers are designed to slow down or delay enemy attackers. I think they'll make a really useful addition to the game.
New Race: Shardmind
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/270945-new-class-race.ht ml
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Argh! Bewbs on the shardmind! WTF! I've said it before and I'll say it again, 4e is the edition that puts breasts on things that should not have breasts.
Also, I had more than enough Crystal-hair with the Genasi, thank you very much, I'd rather not have any more.
I will say the over-sized spiky Popeye arm is kind of cool, but so far nothing else about that new race makes me happy.
Argh! Bewbs on the shardmind! WTF! I've said it before and I'll say it again, 4e is the edition that puts breasts on things that should not have breasts.
Also, I had more than enough Crystal-hair with the Genasi, thank you very much, I'd rather not have any more.
I will say the over-sized spiky Popeye arm is kind of cool, but so far nothing else about that new race makes me happy.
Well, we probably should wait until we get some actual fluff about them before we declare our undying hatred for the race. I admit the race doesn't look that good yet, but we do only have one picture and what we can guess from a single sample character.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Well, we probably should wait until we get some actual fluff about them before we declare our undying hatred for the race. I admit the race doesn't look that good yet, but we do only have one picture and what we can guess from a single sample character.Argh! Bewbs on the shardmind! WTF! I've said it before and I'll say it again, 4e is the edition that puts breasts on things that should not have breasts.
Also, I had more than enough Crystal-hair with the Genasi, thank you very much, I'd rather not have any more.
I will say the over-sized spiky Popeye arm is kind of cool, but so far nothing else about that new race makes me happy.
Absolutely true, and I'll be holding off final judgement until we get a clearer picture of the race. Just saying, so far...
Absolutely true, and I'll be holding off final judgement until we get a clearer picture of the race. Just saying, so far...
Oh, I agree with you for the most part. I just figured I should get that bit out of the way now. Besides, other than the whole "crystalline beings don't need sexual dimorphism" deal, they've got some pretty good aesthetics from what little we've seen so far.
I'm actually fine with crystalline creature that have sexual dimorphism. Either created or born I can definitely seeing different members of the race taking a more masculine or feminine form.
What does irritate me is when "sexual dimorphism" seems to turn into "the females have large racks."
I would have similar problems if I saw a male version of that creature with a large codpiece. I suspect it would be somewhat disturbing.
Honestly, I'm not very likely to be content, even if the fluff explains why the females have that form. To me, it would seem more like they were just trying to create a reason to give the women that form.
While I'm pretty happy with the way that creature looks, but I really do think that reducing the size of it's breasts (if not eliminating them entirely) would improve the appearance of the creature.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I'm actually fine with crystalline creature that have sexual dimorphism. Either created or born I can definitely seeing different members of the race taking a more masculine or feminine form.
What does irritate me is when "sexual dimorphism" seems to turn into "the females have large racks."
I would have similar problems if I saw a male version of that creature with a large codpiece. I suspect it would be somewhat disturbing.
Honestly, I'm not very likely to be content, even if the fluff explains why the females have that form. To me, it would seem more like they were just trying to create a reason to give the women that form.
While I'm pretty happy with the way that creature looks, but I really do think that reducing the size of it's breasts (if not eliminating them entirely) would improve the appearance of the creature.
Personally, I'd like to see them get a little more adventurous with their non-human designs. I mean, look at the shardmind. Yeah, it's made of crystal, but its got a rack, and hair, and an identifiably human face (sans mouth, as far as I can tell). Now maybe there's an in-game flavor reason, but I'd honestly rather see a humanoid-crystal that looks weird and freaky and alien.
Personally, I'd like to see them get a little more adventurous with their non-human designs. I mean, look at the shardmind. Yeah, it's made of crystal, but its got a rack, and hair, and an identifiably human face (sans mouth, as far as I can tell). Now maybe there's an in-game flavor reason, but I'd honestly rather see a humanoid-crystal that looks weird and freaky and alien.
Yeah, I think I would prefer that too. Currently, I'm at least hoping for baby steps away from the current position.
I haven't seen the picture, but in a similar vein the thing that annoys me is breasts on the dragonborn. I mean, they are reptiles...
I think this should take you to the picture being referenced.
I was told dragonborn are monotremes. Thus, I can rest easy.
More to the point: plant-guy, crystal-girl, the minotaur, and the psychic alien. Who's going to play these guys, or even want them in their campaign world?
Sure, the Gith and the Minotaur have long histories in D&D - as monsters. I guess there's some monster-fetishists out there who might be interested in those two. Not sure how the dwarf and elf feel about walking round with a man-eating bull, but whatever. That leaves the plant-guy, who is basically ripped off from Warhammer's Dryads, and the crystal-girl, who continues WotC's weird obsession with putting crystals where crystals don't belong (Psiforged, duergar, genasi, etc.)
|
|
More to the point: plant-guy, crystal-girl, the minotaur, and the psychic alien. Who's going to play these guys, or even want them in their campaign world?
Sure, the Gith and the Minotaur have long histories in D&D - as monsters. I guess there's some monster-fetishists out there who might be interested in those two. Not sure how the dwarf and elf feel about walking round with a man-eating bull, but whatever. That leaves the plant-guy, who is basically ripped off from Warhammer's Dryads, and the crystal-girl, who continues WotC's weird obsession with putting crystals where crystals don't belong (Psiforged, duergar, genasi, etc.)
Actually, I'd probably be interested in a minotaur. The 4e background is potentially interesting, and it is also probably appealing to anyone who has played a tauren in WoW (like me). Githzerai less so - boring monster, boring race. I don't know enough about the other races to really comment at this stage. By and large the new races have been OK - not to everyone's taste, but with possibilities. I will (like Celestial Healer) buy this book anyway.
The way I look at them adding all the new races that are a non-standard is so DMs can make a Homebrew setting and just choose a specific subset of races to make their world unique. This would be a good way to get away from the Tolkien setting for those who dislike it.
Enworld is blocked from my work, but I can sort of understand why they might want to put breasts on female of the crystal race. In my past gaming experience, when you have races that are not anthopomorphic, players have a harder time relating to their characters. It may look silly, but it gives the player a frame of reference to role play.
I think all those races sound awesome. I mean why wouldnt I want some of that crazy sh*t in my game?
plus I like bewbs.
No matter how hard I try, I just can't put myself in the shoes of the sort of person who gets annoyed by breasts on a fantasy humanoid.
No matter how hard I try, I just can't put myself in the shoes of the sort of person who gets annoyed by breasts on a fantasy humanoid.
Maybe it's jealousy? :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
No matter how hard I try, I just can't put myself in the shoes of the sort of person who gets annoyed by breasts on a fantasy humanoid.Maybe it's jealousy? :)
Yep, I've got a bad case of bewb envy :P
But seriously, I'm not outraged at the fact that a fantasy creature has breasts, contrary to any possible sort of logic. Fantasy doesn't have to abide by real world biology, or lack thereof, really, I get that.
In fact I'm not even outraged.
I just find it rather insulting is all. Insulting that they think I can't recognize something as being 'female' unless it has a giant rack on it.
Also, it shows that they think I'm not a good enough role-player. Apparently, I need to have a playable race that 'looks like me'(or in this case females of my species) so I can identify with it. You know what? If I want to play something that looks like me, I'll play a damn human. If I want to get a little crazy with it, I'll play a dwarf. If you're going to give me the option to play something weird, like an intelligent humanoid crystal, at least accept the possibility that I might not care so much about whether it looks 'human enough'.
That's what it comes down to for me. It's not the bewbs, it's the reason they put them there
Edit: Plus I think the art looks silly. (I think that about a lot of 4e art though, so take that as you will)
|
|
Personally, speaking as a breast fetishist, I'm all in favour of them. However, my mind rebels somewhat when then put breasts in biologically improbable places (like reptiles). To some extent it breaks the suspension of disbelief. I'm not insulted by it - I understand the marketing necessity and the Paizo guys themselves have stated that, in their experience, sex sells. And it is a visual tradition of pulp fantasy too, from which D&D springs in part, for women to be well-endowed (as referenced in most of the Planet Stories covers).
Monotremes!
I can't say it enough.
I just find it rather insulting is all. Insulting that they think I can't recognize something as being 'female' unless it has a giant rack on it.
Also, it shows that they think I'm not a good enough role-player. Apparently, I need to have a playable race that 'looks like me'(or in this case females of my species) so I can identify with it. You know what? If I want to play something that looks like me, I'll play a damn human. If I want to get a little crazy with it, I'll play a dwarf. If you're going to give me the option to play something weird, like an intelligent humanoid crystal, at least accept the possibility that I might not care so much about whether it looks 'human enough'.
That's what it comes down to for me. It's not the bewbs, it's the reason they put them there
You know, I can't be positive about this, but I'm pretty sure that neither
a) We don't think they'll be able to figure out which ones are female unless they have breasts...
or
b) We don't think D&D players are good enough role-players...
...made their top list of reasons why they decided to add breasts to some of their creatures.
I'm pretty sure that list began and ended with "Because breasts sell, and most reasonable people won't mind at all."
Why have you chosen to imagine that the reasons you listed are the ones they used? You have no way of knowing this, and parsimony makes it clear that your reasons are less likely than the one I provided.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You know, I can't be positive about this, but I'm pretty sure that neithera) We don't think they'll be able to figure out which ones are female unless they have breasts...
or
b) We don't think D&D players are good enough role-players...
...made their top list of reasons why they decided to add breasts to some of their creatures.
I'm pretty sure that list began and ended with "Because breasts sell, and most reasonable people won't mind at all."
Why have you chosen to imagine that the reasons you listed are the ones they used? You have no way of knowing this, and parsimony makes it clear that your reasons are less likely than the one I provided.
My main reason (which you may not have caught, as it was an edit) was that in the case of the shardmind, I think they look silly. :D Simple as that, and even "reasonable people" who don't have a problem conceptually with crystal-folk having mammaries could potentially find those same breasts silly looking. Now, whether they do or not, that's not up to me to guess at.
As for the "sex sells" angle, I suppose I did neglect that as a possibility. Probably on account of me finding those shardmind breasts to be so silly looking, it hadn't even occured to me that they might be there to titillate the viewer. But thats a good point.
I'm not sure that makes me feel any better though. I can understand throwing a certain amount of fan service into the books, but altering (or designing) the visual appearance of an entire race just so they can show some cleavage? Not really all that comforting to me if thats their design philosophy.
I also want to point out, in case I've tripped your "Anti-4e" alarm, I have no real animosity against the 4e system or Wizards of the Coast.
I just happen to disagree with several of their art decisions, this being the most recent, I'm frustrated by what I consider to be a series of bad calls, and I can't help but guess at why they make them. I fully admit to having no real knowledge of why they put the breasts on the shardmind, I just don't particularly like any of the potential reasons I can think of.
|
Enworld is blocked from my work, but I can sort of understand why they might want to put breasts on female of the crystal race. In my past gaming experience, when you have races that are not anthopomorphic, players have a harder time relating to their characters. It may look silly, but it gives the player a frame of reference to role play.
Yeah and the implications are even more silly.
rock man and rock girl have a little tet-a-te which involves fondling of certain rocks and some rock upon rock stuff.Some months later rock girl gives birth to a little rock baby. Now instead of adventuring she feeds it a lot of rock milk (will that be oil?). And soon the little lump of rock grows to be an adolescent rock. Now he is ready to do some rocking with another adolescent rock chick...
That also leads to some serious disturbing themes in more adult oriented games when there are mmulti-racial brothels.
|
|
Monotremes!
I can't say it enough.
Well, monotremes don't have breasts to speak of, either. Certainly the platypus doesn't - mild just sort of dribbles out of glands and the babies lap it up from hairs on the mother's underside. Not so sure about echidnas. And monotremes are mammals that lay eggs. I thought that dragonborn were reptiles that give birth to live young. Of course, "dragons" are not strictly reptiles so that probably puts dragonborn in a bit of a biological grey area.
You know, I can't be positive about this, but I'm pretty sure that neither
a) We don't think they'll be able to figure out which ones are female unless they have breasts...
or
b) We don't think D&D players are good enough role-players...
...made their top list of reasons why they decided to add breasts to some of their creatures.
Actually, I read an interview with one of the art designers a while back (I can't remember where), and option A was the reason he gave for putting breasts on the dragonborn. He said that they tried female dragonborn without breasts during the concept art for the game, and it was difficult to tell which were the males and which were the females. They wanted all the races to appeal to female gamers, so they drew the dragonborn females with human-shaped curves to make them have an instantly recognizable silhouette.
Anyway, we don't know whether these rock people are even a natural race. They could be some sort of created race, like the warforged, in which case, there's no reason for them not to have breasts.
I thought that dragonborn were reptiles that give birth to live young.
Dragonborn lay eggs. That's been mentioned a few times in the fluff.
Damn it all! Don't bring science into it! I know real monotremes ooze milk. But it assuaged my mind to think that it was a possible explanation for the dragonborn.
Sob.
No use crying over spilt milk. Or not, as the case may be.
|
|
Anyway, we don't know whether these rock people are even a natural race. They could be some sort of created race, like the warforged, in which case, there's no reason for them not to have breasts.
Hey, I am cool with breasts. Everything should have them!
I am still waiting for magic items to show them. Boobsword! Yihah!