I suggest we have a one time chat in order to establish what the end goals of the project are, how we want to go about design and development… and whatever else we want to talk about. It seems like right now we've got different people working on different things and less people working together.
If you're talking about the three different Necromancers, I agree. And can we see about focusing on one class at a time, too? I think it might be a bit easier if we're focusing on the same thing rather than going off with one group for each class. :3
Personally I think priority should be as follows:
Assassin (It is the easiest since we already have a version and just need to expand it; we could also glean some insights into our work process and organization and find something akin to a 'template' for creating shadow characters).
Necromancer (duh, everyone luhs them, myself included)
Dusk-Blade (plays into a number of strong archetypes, good name, if based on life-drain and fear, could make for effective flavour reasons for having a defender i.e. he's not a willing martyr, HE JUST WANTS TO EAT THEIR SOUL!)
Wyrd/Medium/Fate-Spinner (I think definitely has some interesting potential and represents a different side of shadow/death/the netherworld than the previous options; I put out these couple names because they are my favorites, Wyrd being THE favorite.)
The necromancers was mentioned by name. I favor greatfrito's version, the first alternate. That's my two coppers. :3
Aye! From what I recall, we'd need the following:
- Off-action attacks to increase damage potential
- Some way to be a decent Striker without using a sword bigger than you are
- Striker mechanic that works better than the frakking shrouds
- Screw it, it might be easier to make this one wholecloth. ;_;
I really don't think the shrouds are a bad mechanic, I just think they need some upgrades to make them mechanically even with the other strikers. Your other suggestions are fine though, and I agree we should probably try focusing on one class at a time. Assassin seems like an easy enough fix.
I agree. I like shrouds, and they can work. We just need more damage die in the powers themselves - the powers have such a strong control side that damage is reduced (too much). As for weapons, I saw a pretty good idea on the forums: add in a class feature Assassin Weapon Training. Increase the damage die if you wield a one-handed weapon, again if it's off-hand, and again if you have a hand free. It brings daggers and such up a fair bit. Mind you, that's a touch complicated. But some way to increase the damage die of more assassin-y weapons is what we're going for. It might be easier to write it as a damage bonus with off-hand weapons and selected other weapons. And perhaps we could make it "deal 1[W] extra damage with basic attacks, assassin powers, and assassin paragon path powers." It seems to fit the mechanical feel too - combined with brutal shroud, you're rolling a few more small dice. Or there's an idea - the selected assassin weapons become brutal while you're wielding them. I think that fits assassins pretty well - you're never dealing minimum damage.
I agree, the shrouds aren't the problem, it's the damage overall. I read that same post that you did Omni, and I think there is some good potential for that idea. If you could put some of your suggestions into a game-rules language proposal, I'd like to see it (since I can't remember where that post was and I must admit, I'm not intimately acquainted with the assassin).
No, see, that's just it. The assassin is supposed to be a Striker. Its damage output sucks, and it's so-called damage mechanic, the shrouds, aren't helping. The first issue, then, would be fixing the damage mechanic (I favor switching it to a single veil that gives you a scaling increase to crit range for better spike damage ability). The second would be to increase spike/nova potential, to wit off-action attacks and/or some capacity for dual-wielding.
Also, I feel we should add an items page. No matter how we go with the necromancer, we'll have to add at least one category of new superior implements. ^_^;;
Maybe we should open an Assassin discussion thread before we go on with this one.
Here's the thread:
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/26238173/Assassin,_Updated_(Non-Essentials)
The changes are as follows:
- a shroud now does 1d6, or 2d6 at 11th, or 3d6 at 21st. You can still spend several rounds stacking shrouds for increased benefit.
- Assassins are masters of using almost anything to kill their target. When using a one-handed weapon, your weapon damage die increases by one size. When wielding a weapon with the off-hand property, your weapon damage die increases by one size. When you are carrying nothing in your off-hand, your weapon damage die increases by one size. These increases stack, to a maximum of 1d12 damage.
That does more or less fix it does it not?
We could just change the shroud damage and add the weapon info to the assassin weapon side-bar info. The damage peaks at higher than other strikers but it takes longer getting there and has a higher minimum damage this way, to account for the precision of the assassin.
I don't see any problems with this, but I'm not an expert either.
Then we still need higher-output attack powers and off-action hits… don't think I'll be much help. Any idea what ability scores you'll be using for the new builds?
Maybe it would better to keep the increased shroud damage to a feat, that way those who like the Assassin's Shrouds as is wouldn't be alienated when trying to use the new builds. I do agree with the off-action attacks and general increase in spike damage potential. Perhaps more powers/feats that let the Assassin stack shrouds faster under certain situations, like Marked For Death for instance.
Anyway, we should probably continue this discussion in the Assassin thread and leave this one for other business.
Some project philosophy questions:
Are we hoping to replace Heroes of Shadow entirely, or supplement its deficiencies? Basically, does our necromancer replace the HoS mage specialty, or is it intended to exist alongside it, occupying a different conceptual niche?
Also, are we going to reject essentials entirely, or are we going to incorporate some essentials principles into our project? ie: class features beyond first level, builds that can differ significantly in class features and even have separate roles.
The answers to these questions I think are very significant. If there's incompatible official material and homebrew material, people won't even consider the homebrew, even long enough to decide which they like better. Also, some essentials developments are good. We already have issues over, say, what primary party role the necromancer should be - issues that separate subclass style builds could entirely bypass. And class features beyond first level really opens up some room for fleshing out a class. Finally, Heroes of Shadow, while it won't have classes, may present mechanical concepts in its shadow using sub classes or new fluff concepts that we'd want to incorporate into our project.
In short, I think our project would be much more usable to a wider audience if we were willing to consider Heroes of Shadow and design classes to supplement it. Unfortunately, this would mean not getting too attached to any detailed mechanical choices until March. So I don't know. Just wanted to throw that out there.
As I designed it (Necro C), the necro was supposed to stand alongside other potential options that might be released. I'm all for WoTC doing work for me and coming up with necro/nethermancy options for existing classes/races, particularly the wizard even if I do f*cking hate essentials.
I think the general feeling on here so far has been that we should try and use the older class model when building these because, according to WoTC, it should be compatible with essentials (more so than us just using the HotFL as the only basis for new classes). This way, we have A LOT more material to reference. So generally, I don't think anyone's trying to do the multi-role thing, just secondary roles. Likewise with gaining class features beyond first level. I think by making something entirely new (classes) using the old model, we don't run the risk of stepping of WoTC's toes. We can always go back an do minor adjustments or additions but as far as what we have worked on, I don't see any reason to stop development and wait for HoS to drop.