|
3 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2010 - 9:42PM
#51
|
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2004
|
I think the problem isn't individual, it is collective.
When the PHB2 came out, it turned systems on their heads. A controller that can switch between states for melee mastery? A leader who relies on the position of a summoned critter? Those are major changes, the kind that redefine a role. Even if it was only a handful of the classes, they pushed the boundaries of what we normally think of as an individual role, and brought completely new ideas to the table.
By comparison...what does any given PHB3 class do that another class cannot?
All the innovations of the latest handbook are just ways to do the same things all the others do a different way. No matter the power points or the rune state, melee leaders have been done by the Valourous Bard, Warlord, Artificer, and the Strength Cleric. A controller with status effects and AoEs from far away is.....every controller ever, and power points are just a different way of looking at the same picture. Many strikers are melee based, and although the full discipline idea was a good one, it still does the same kind of thing. And the defender role hasn't advanced one iota, because they are all thinking from the perspective of the Fighter.
Take any individual class from the PHB3, and it is probably quite awesome, one excluded. But taken together, they don't really do anything new. It doesn't help that the hybrid rules reduced the classes to six, because it only takes one or two amazingly unique classes to bring something completely new to the table. A lot of it feels like a review; ever find it funny how similar the Runepriest/Ardent is to the Strength Cleric/Inspiring Warlord, how the Warden's flavor is so close to the Seeker, how the Battlemind copies every other defender for power ideas?
It's not any single one of them. But all together, you have a book that is regressive, not progressive.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2010 - 11:42PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2005
|
The problem could also just be any of the following
1) There may be a finite number of ways to do defender and leader before you either mess with power levels or step on someones toes
2) We might be looking at this a little differently in a few weeks/months after some dust has settled, it might be worth waiting to see how it all plays out given that some other classes had reaction issues as well when first launched, the Warden for example.
3) Psionics ended up playing with the power templates (excepting monk) a lot more than was initially expected by people I'm guessing. We probably are going to need time to work out what needs to be done and what changes should be made.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2010 - 11:55PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Mar 14, 2010
|
A) The Ardent's terribly flavored. Just plain bad. It is, as has been said, the Psychic Warlord...done poorly. Just no niche for it. A straight-up Empath would have been far better received, assuming decent mechanics to back it.
I disagree with the fact that the Ardent is poorly flavored. I love the idea of a leader who empowers his allies through emotion but I feel like this is poorly expressed in the mechanics of the class. The ardent mantle and its associated powers is cool and captures the feel of an ardent very well. Ardent Outrage, in particular, strikes me as what the ardent is about. His anger or anguish is directly affecting enemies. However, I don't see this same affect in the other powers of the ardent. Looking at the first level powers alone, Demoralizing Strike and Ire Strike both express this very well. Your emotions of fear or anger are flowing into those around you. Psionic Shield, not so much. Playing one today, I also felt like I wasn't leading a lot and more of playing a mediocre controller, especially in contrast to the runepriest.
In general, I like most of the classes, at least thematically. While I love the ardent for its concept, I feel like the execution is lacking. I think an implement wielding leader who focuses on close bursts would have been a better idea. The seeker, while an interesting concept, is also poorly executed. However, I can't quite define what would make it better. The rest of the classes are all appealing both mechanically and thematically. I'm very eager to try a couple different builds using these new feats.
The Ardent is horrible. Does the same thing as the warlord, only they have to cheat and use dirty psionics to force the emotions into your head. The warlod does their job by being naturally charismatic and a good leader.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 21, 2010 - 12:31AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2005
|
I've got mixed feeling with the options of PHB3. Ardent: As others have said, a Psionic Warlord. If they had made it an Implement class it would have been a bit more unique. For some reason, I feel the cerebral power source shouldn't have half of it's classes focus on weapons. Also, it has a very flavorless name. You ask anyone with any interest in fantasy or sci-fi about a ranger, barbarian, or psion, and they could probably give you a decently close picture of what the class would be like. You see Ardent, and nothing really comes to mind. It has no identity. Not to mention they named it after a build of the Paladin. No joking here; I told my friend they were coming out with the Ardent class, and he said 'Didn't they do that in Divine Power?'. Empath or something like that would have been a much better and more flavorful name for the class. Fans of psionics would instantly know what the class would be focused around (but would probably be confused about it being a melee class). Battlemind: Worst. Name. Ever. Even more terrible than Ardent. I hate their reasoning behind naming it this as well. 'Psionic Warrior sounded to generic'. Really? And Battlemind is less generic? Psionic Warrior gave you exactly what you should expect from the class, and doesn't sound like an elementary school kids' fantasy persona. (Sneak preview of PHB4 classes; the Axe Cop) Flavor is almost non-existant, and is contradictory (powerful warrior who uses his mind to confound opponents, with his CONSTITUTION. I've never heard of a fantasy archetype who corrupts enemies' minds with his immune system). And of course, as has been pointed out before, his marking mechanics are broken horrendously. They 'can' punish their marks, if the DM plays the enemy with all the nuance of a mindless zombie (note; is ok if you are actually fighting zombies). Psion: Now this is a great addition to the game! A prime example of a controller who isn't trying to be 'Damage, but with LOTS of targets'. Mind control is always fun, and their dazing and stunning capability is top-notch. TK build could use some boosts, but overall a great and flavorful new character concept. Monk: Wushu mobility masters. A definite hole in the available character options pre-PHB3. You could make fighter or ranger that doesn't use weapons, but they wouldn't have the mechanical and thematic focus on graceful, flowing combat. Perfect for players who want to play a character closer to those in Hero or House of Flying Daggers. The switch to Implements for their attacks is a bit odd, and in my opinion reduces the need to have Monk Unarmed Strike at all (with the exception of opportunity attacks, where it helps an unarmed monk strike with some potency). Great addition. Seeker: Ranger, with spells! Just feels like it's a very niche class. I can't really comment on it much since it really doesn't grab my attention. Some voice in the back of my mind keeps saying 'WoTC realized they f'ed up with the flavor of the ranger'. I don't think that the stats of the archery-focused build and the archer ranger being compatable is a coincidence, if you get my meaning  . Runepriest: Poor battle clerics. These guys are not only potent, but very flavorful. I saw the mechanics of Rune Mastery and thought 'Welp, not going to make a frontline cleric again'. As has been said, their healing is much less effective, but they make up for it tremendously with buffs. Another great addition. Only real beef: It's a class focused on study and implementation of runes of divine power, but has Str as it's primary stat and Int as a dump stat! What!? It sounds like someone in editing misplaced the two. "I can uncover the secrets of the universe because of my sweet lats, brah!" I didn't know divine revelation was based on muscle density and ligament connections. I guess I have another reason to hit the gym.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 21, 2010 - 1:12AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
> It's a class focused on study and implementation of runes of divine power, This has been covered extensively in another thread: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758... They're not scholastic types who bury their noses in books. I do remember seeing a post or blog or somesuch by one of the developers (I think it was Mike Mearls) talking about the dislike he had of having to find a concept to fill the 'psionic defender' role and some character from fiction (that I'd never heard of) becoming the model. I can't help but feel that the results we're seeing are great proof of why creating a class just to fill a grid spot is a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 21, 2010 - 1:16AM
#56
|
|
|
I knew of the Ardent back in 3.5, while it being a weapons focus leader rather than a implement leader. I am sure this will be fixed in Psionic Power, I hope.
Battlemind, it's in a sorry state. Blur Step as said over and over, needs to be free action. How else is the class suppose to punish his marks? Fighters can OA them and stop them in their tracks, Wardens can slow down the marks and pull them closer, Paladins have auto damage..etc. Wardens relies on being adj and the enemy hitting, and Swordmage can do several things. This needs to be errataed immediately.
Psion & Monk are great.
Seeker is meh, it's the Ranger and Druid mixed into one class.
Rune Priests, while I don't like the idea of another STR/WIS, STR/CON class. The ability to mix between more striker and defender is nice indeed.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 21, 2010 - 1:48AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
To return to the OP... PHB3 Classes: What went wrong?
Honestly, I don't think anything "went wrong" with the classes as a whole. There are certainly mechanical problems with a few things (Epic augmeting at-will damage; Several far-too-potent Heroic augmenting at-wills; the Battlemind, in significant part...), and there are some missed opportunities (Ardent as another weapon-using leader; Battlemind not clear enough for most folks; Runepriest being another Strength-based, weapon-using, heavy-armored, divine leader), but overall I find the classes to be about as appealing as I found the PH2 class offerings.
In the PH2, I loved the Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Shaman and Sorcerer. I honestly didn't care for the Avenger, Invoker, and Warden at all. Really I didn't care for the Invoker for the same reason I don't care for the Ardent (it doesn't feel like "a new class", so much as "a new power souce for an existing class"). But 5 out of 8 classes.
When I compare that to PH3 (and if I include "Hybrids" as filling in the 2-class-gap between the two books), I get almost the same thing. I love the Monk and the Psion, and I love the Hybrid rules. I like about 4 out of "8" classes in PH3 - and I feel like I would like the Battlemind if the mechanical problems with it were solved (I'm enjoying playing one, "by the book", at the moment - but it's... a strange experience). That would match the PH2 for me (5 out of "8").
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 21, 2010 - 6:12AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
Not really. The rogue and ranger have always existed in literature, and I daresay most players have a clear idea what a rogue is, and what a ranger is. Therefore, the class types are justified. However, where the stereotypes don't actually exist - like most of the PH3 classes - why create new classes, when you could expand existing ones? It would certainly help the players understand what the new characters are supposed to be.
Many of the (as yet) non-existent classes that you mention, like Necromancer, Blackguard and Elementalist have a foundation before their existence in the game. Players have wanted to play characters like them. But I have never heard a player say that they wanted a Ranger that was more primal.
You do realize people with mind powers is a staple in Fantasy right? Just because it doesn't appear in Tolkien, or Ron Howard's books doesn't mean it's Niche.
While there is one class in particular Wizards Failed Miserably with (the Battlemind, and seriously it should have name wise remained Psychic Warrior) the rest of them are fairly well handled in my opinion.
The second let down is easily the Rune Priest it shouldn't have ever existed in the first place. We have Divine coming out of our ears already and all of the archetypes for Divine are already frankly represented with the existing Classes. Battle Cleric 2.0 over there is simply proof of that.
The Black Guard is something that existed only because of D&D. Literally the Anti Paladin is a creation of D&D. And guess what? You don't need to go out of your way to make it thanks to the way the current rules work. You want an Evil Paladin? Play an Evil Paladin. Done. Remember previous Es had those Garbage "You fall if you don't RP THE ONE TRUE WAY" mechanics. Now the paladin doesn't have those mechanics. So a falling Champion is actually easier to play especially since there isnt' an unnecessary game mechanic in the way.
The Seeker. Let's see a fey like Archer of the Wild Hunt. There done. The Ranger really isn't supernatural enough at the end of the day to really pull that off. Preexisting well established niche right there. Each class is a Niche archetype. That's just how D&D works.
Lycanthrope classes would be fun by the way. As would Vampire classes. And yes it's quite possible to make them work in a balanced and unique fashion. I'm already doing that myself.
Samurai, Knight, Ninja and Pirate? Really you think those are classes? really? Two of those are Fighters, or Paladins depending how you look at them. One of them is the Assassin or Rogue, and the last can be frankly anyone, favoring Rogue. And no I don't want Gnomes 2.0 in D&D. Keep the classes and the races conceptually spread out. NO more of that 3e Clone Class Crap. I never want to see that return.
MY problems with PhbIII.
1. Ardent... really why not name it Empath. Really it would have worked better. Ardent? really? That was the name you came up with?
2. Battlemind... No this class is Schizo, both in it's abilities and it's Flavor Text for it's powers. They also have HUGE disconnects with the stats that they are fueled off of. I'm sorry your Fortitude has nothing to do with affecting someone else's mind. That's all on the Cha score there.
Did I mention it's a Worthless Defender as well? It also has an incredibly dull name. Psychic Warrior honestly sounds better.
3. Rune Priest... Battle Cleric 2.0 is here! As if they needed to be 2.0ed. Printing more Divine Classes when we already have so many is simply a waste of printing.
4. Flex Stats. I don't like a free floating Plus 2 on so many races. It weakens the Human, and starts infringing on other races. I hope that this Flex Stat isn't a trend for future releases. Cause if it is I'm gonna be banning races left and right.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 21, 2010 - 7:55AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2009
|
People who think that the Runepriest is going to replace the Battle Cleric seriously need to reread Runepriest. Other than being on the front lines and hitting things with weapons, the classes have very little in common with each other in terms of gameplay.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 21, 2010 - 8:02AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
2. Battlemind... No this class is Schizo, both in it's abilities and it's Flavor Text for it's powers. They also have HUGE disconnects with the stats that they are fueled off of. I'm sorry your Fortitude has nothing to do with affecting someone else's mind. That's all on the Cha score there.
Did I mention it's a Worthless Defender as well? It also has an incredibly dull name. Psychic Warrior honestly sounds better.
Psychic Warrior would have never happened, as 4e classes seem to be following a trend of one word class names. I agree that Battlemind is a terrible name, though.
|
|
|
