New preview is out of the Healer archtype with Disciple and Spiritseeker as it's classes.  I'm intrigued.  Spiritseeker seems like a neat class and one I will be more than willing to explore. 

Unclechawie said:

I always thought it was SpiritSEEKER as well, but apparently it's been SpiritSPEAKER all this time!

Another great preview. I think it's time to see if I can afford the trip to Realms of Terrinoth. This is how bad I want this game! lol

Elder Mok has some pretty nice abilities. He can still screw with the OL as well.

I really like the healer class a lot.  The spiritspeaker powers look really interesting (thoguh personally, I'm not a lover of the tribal/shamanistic archetype).

Um, when the hell is this game coming out?  I WANT.

Hmm…anyone else think that the Disciple seems a bit…overpowered?  Compare it to the Knight; they have the same defensive capabilities, and the Disciple's base power is much more useful than the Knight's.  Is there any reason someone would select the Knight over the Disciple?

 The Knight's sword does more damage, and he has skills that up his damage output. The adept really doesn't have anything we have seen yet that ups damage. The knight also has skills that make his shield much better which the adept doesn't have.

Walk said:

Nope, no reason at all. Move along now, this game probably isn't for you.

Believe me, I have no great concern for character balance (I play Arkham Horror), I was just wondering whether there might be something I'd missed.  And, as it happened, there was; I failed to notice that the mace uses the yellow rather than the red die.  And yes, the skills might balance things out over time.  But I still contend that the Disciple's starting skill is far, far more useful (healing versus possible extra movement; no contest).  Also, although the yellow die does less damage, it gives a greater chance of getting a surge, and, while the jury is, it would seem, still out on what exactly it means to be Stunned, the more burtal interpretation (losing your whole turn) would make the mace very powerful indeed.  If you're playing a scenario by itself rather than as a campaign (meaning that nothing but the starting line-up comes into play), it just strikes me that the Disciple would be far more useful.

Walk said:

In a game centered around a team of heroes defeating a horde of monsters to complete a quest, you're saying the healer class is gonna be really important to have? I mean, this is a precedent that has never before been seen in board or video games. You may have discovered a new paradigm in game design.

I kid, I kid.

Fair point, fair point.

Lets hope that healer isn't ''must have class'' or you going to have hard time to beat OL. I myself like healer idea a lot but some of my fellow players might be more like charge like headless chickens type of players and start rage like there is no tomorrow when there plan didnt work out.

I have to say I was initially annoyed by second edition, mostly because the day my copy of first edition came in the mail they announced they were doing second, but the more I read the more pumped I'm getting. I love support classes, it was one thing that was really missing from first edition. The fact that the spiritspeaker seems more a buffbot than a walking bandage is pure win. I have to ask though, am I the only one that thinks shared pain seems a little… pointless? On the surface damaging every monster in a group seems good but in my experience from first edition would point to monsters either being to few to make it worthwhile or so weak that they’d die in a single hit anyway. Am I wrong in this? The only use I can see is clearing the grunts while the “real” fighters handle the big guys. Seems rather specific.

Vonpenguin said:

Well there is the possibility that monsters in 2nd Ed are not spiked ballons and can survive more than one attack from a hero. I haven't seen enough yet to say, but they do look a bit tougher so far.

My guess would be that with the smaller dungeon levels it would serve the game better to have fewer monsters, fewer monsters mean monsters that can take more of a beating. The changes the power dice and the improvement (IMO) of the surge system also allows for a more balanced playing experience.

Walk said:

Well, don't forget that the classes you're able to choose depends on your archetype, and your archetype is determined by the character you choose to play. So, if you have a character of the Healer archetype, Knight was never an option to begin with, and if you have a character of the Warrior archetype, Disciple isn't on your list.

Even if the game still provides a random hero distribution like "draw 3 pick 1" (which I actually doubt, since without the conversion kit you wouldn't have enough heroes to go around in a game that supports up to four heroes.) Even if such a rule were available, though, you'd still be limited in your options to the three heroes you drew. Maybe you (as an individual player) would always choose a Healer over a Warrior so that you could be a Disciple instead of a Knight, but if none of the three heroes you drew were Healers, you're still SOL.

Lupin89 said:

Perhaps you are forgetting that this is a team game? You can play the Healer and your friends can play the Warriors who charge in like headless chickens.

It looks like the scaling mechanism in 2e will be to limit the number of monsters on the board based on the number of players (which should work out much better than the system employed in 1e.) This should mean that a game involving fewer heroes can survive more easily without a Healer, although I have little doubt that having at least one Healer in a larger party would be strongly recommended, at least.

nifoc said:

I concur.