Heroes of Shadow Reactions

Due to a combination of some Heroes of Shadow reviews providing misinformation on just how much--if not all--material was Essentials only, and people who believe that stuff in an Essentials book is somehow incompatible (or even more laughably, a separate edition by any degree), I am not surprised to find 20-30 page forum threads of people bitching back and forth. Is it odd that I find it refreshing that at least some are complaining about how crappy the shade is/isn't?

First things first (again); Essentials isn't a new edition (or even a half edition, errata, or what the fuck ever). It's a limited book line that just so happens to have some classes that follow a different starting and advancement structure. That's not a bad thing, "allowing" designers to think more than a step outside the box. Yeah, past classes did minor changes, like giving you flexibility on making at-wills into encounters (most psionic classes), or giving you up to three at-wills (in the case of the druid). Using an entirely different class structure doesn't mean that we've somehow stepped into a new edition.

Were things really this bad when WotC released Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, or Book of Nine Swords? Do people even remember how much shit changed between 3rd Edition and Revised? To make things as clear as I possibly can about the content in Heroes of Shadow, virtually all of it can be used by clerics, paladins, warlocks, and wizards of any structure. There are some powers that are tied to class features, but they are way in the minority (unless your DM is sane and doesn't mind your warlock grabbing a "binder-only" summoning power).

Second, some people are upset that the shade and vryloka have racial penalties, and/or some are also pissed at Mearls for his justifications on why shades lose all of one healing surge. I really see no problem with a small penalty here or there, especially when it's nowhere severe enough to render the race unplayable as a specific class. I remember back in the day when a real racial penalty was having a net -2 to your stats, and no racial features of merit, or being Small with a Strength penalty and trying to play an inherently dead-end class like the fighter. One less healing surge? One? Wizards get six, though I've never encountered--nor heard of--an instance where one healing surge spelled the difference between life and death.

Again, this mentality just serves to irrationally straight-jacket designers. If they make a race that gets a penalty only when using spells or using melee attacks, then we'll talk.

Others are pissed off that the shade racial is a standard action, and that it allegedly does for the most part that "anyone can do in the right situation". I'd like to point that using Stealth requires total concealment, superior cover, or the DM's mercy/leniency/rules ignorance. I know that at night, these requirements might not be as steep, but the fact that they can hide behind allies and create areas of dim light as a minor action at will by 6th level should not be discounted so readily (that, and all those dim-light feats). Others complain that some of the classes that the shade is good at (ie, rogues and assassins) will now have a wasted skill. While I can understand the sentiment behind this, the same thing could also be said for races with weapon proficiencies, racial features whose usefulness depends on the class you play (like goring charge), or skill bonuses for skills that you need a feat to take, or won't ever use.

In short, I think a the vocal minority needs to take a step back and look at the larger picture. Just because WotC put some sub-classes and races with (minor) penalties in a book does not mean that other classes won't get laundry-list power articles, or that 5th Edition is coming out, or that Mearls doesn't listen to you (because he hates you).


  1. So far I rather like HoS. I am not 100% sold on everything, but I do like what I have read so far.

  2. I'm especially happy with the star pact warlock and wizard stuff.

  3. I am loving HoS, though I am in it for my affinity of the Raven Queen. I like that the Vampire is not made just to be made-- you can easily tell that they were just having fun making it!(which means it is loaded with fun content)I constantly preach Essentials as an awesome starting point for FOURTH edition, as it is really easy to follow and well formatted for beginners.(I run Encounters) It pisses me of how many people think it is anything new as far as an edition goes. Maybe my 18 year-old mind is still a little more flexible, but they all sound like stuck-up jackasses to me. Elitists are why I don't play 3.5, what the hell are they ruining my 4E for?


    The level of grousing on the WotC forum is just pathetic.

  5. Agreed. Many of the folks on the WotC forums would complain, if Mike Mearls came round to their house with a bunch of new Seeker and Runepriest powers, as he "did not phone first" or "ate way too many biscuits". Increased communication with the design and dev teams has just lead to more complaining. I am glad that 4E is evolving and the old adage/ruie 0 still applies now as it did when I started with the original redbox - don't like, don't use.

  6. Couldn't agree more. Why is the community wasting so much time on this bickering about Essentials vs 'Classic'? (if a 3 year old game can be called this ...)


Powered by Blogger.