PDA

View Full Version : 4th Ed: Roll vs. Role Article



Person_Man
2007-11-05, 02:31 PM
New Article Up (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/duad/20071105&authentic=true):

Here's the text, for those who are blocked from the WotC site for whatever reason:


A caravanserai is an elaborate roadside inn that caters more to trade caravans than lone travelers. Such an establishment is typically a square structure with a wide entrance that permits the passage of wagons and beasts of burden into a large central courtyard. Within the walls are permanent rooms containing accommodations, a common room, food stores, and other comforts of the road. Caravanserais thus help support the flow of commerce, information, and people.

What would the ramifications be if a group of vampire lords secretly controlled such a place? How might entangled adventurers deal with the situation, with words or weapons?

For the DM....

Delyth Caravanserai

Delyth Caravanserai’s faded walls have greeted travelers for more then a century with flickering lanterns lit just after nightfall, snippets of exotic song, and the scent of the inn’s famous baths. Like typical caravanserais, Delyth is great walled square, and travelers must pay a fee based on party size to enter. The courtyard is open to the elements, and the inner wall is riddled with doors to stables, rooms for sleeping, and vaults for safeguarding valuable merchandise.

The most prominent area of that wall is Road Spirits, the caravanserai’s common taproom. It is here that travelers find bedchambers for rent, hearty meals and refreshing drinks, and trips to the caravanserai’s baths.

Otherwise, the courtyard encloses various merchant booths and a central well. Delyth merchants own many of the stalls and sell mainly travel supplies. Other booths come and go throughout the seasons.
Adventure Hooks

Characters can become entwined with the caravanserai in a variety of ways.

1. Traveling PCs chance to meet up with a caravan heading the same direction on the road. Merchants in the caravan offer the characters food and shelter in exchange for companionship and a few extra eyes to keep watch. After making some friends, the PCs arrive with the caravan at Delyth Caravanserai. Soon after, one of their new pals goes missing.


2. Mazh Frenkler, a wealthy cloth merchant, has a problem. His son, normally a responsible man, refuses to leave the Delyth Caravanserai. Now he seems to be “living like a wastrel,” asking his father for money and for a few servants to be sent to the caravanserai. Mazh instead sends the characters to investigate and bring back his son.


3. A slaving ring has long vexed the PCs’ patron. The patron learns of disappearances at the Delyth Caravanserai and sends the characters to carefully scrutinize the possibility that slavers operate there.


4. One of the PCs has an adventurous relative who takes rough jobs, such as caravan guard duty and the like. That relative is missing after traveling with a caravan that stopped over at the Delyth Caravanserai.

Investigation

PCs that have History might know about the caravanserai, and those with Streetwise can do a little legwork to find out similar information.

DC 10: Reveals the basic information provided under Delyth Caravanserai.

DC 15: Reveals names of important people working in the caravanserai. It also reveals that the caravanserai’s owners live under the place in a played-out opal mine.

DC 20: Reveals names of important people known to be currently staying in the caravanserai. It also reveals that the owner has been known as “Savasti” for more than a hundred years.

Stories circulate about how people staying at the caravanserai go missing, though most are roustabouts hired to work with or guard a caravan en-route. No one finds this particularly ominous—people go missing all the time. Hired hands have a way of drifting without notice from one job to another.

DC 25: Rumors do circulate that the supernatural is involved, perhaps in the form of ghouls, ghosts, or even vampires.

Vampires?

A successful Religion check can tell PCs more about vampires, as detailed in the Vampire entry of the Monster Manual.
Important People

Once characters have exhausted their information resources, the only way they can find out more is to explore the caravanserai and meet with its principle inhabitants.

Vernor Grimbold

Anyone who walks into Road Spirits meets the dwarf billeter and barkeep, Vernor Grimbold. He’s talkative, sometimes annoyingly so, and sleeps only about 6 hours a night. Vernor isn’t a vampire, and he has no deep knowledge of what’s going on in the caravanserai.

Social Encounter: Vernor responds favorably to Diplomacy, but he doesn’t take kindly to Intimidation. Those who successfully engage Vernor in a social encounter get an earful, including the fact that Blasius the Steward coordinates most day-to-day business of the caravanserai, and Vernor reports to him. Vernor also pokes fun at Jezlar Frenkler, a merchant’s son who has paid in advance for a room for the next several months. Jezlar seems to have become good friends with Bryn Delyth.

To particularly charming PCs, the dwarf volunteers the fact that Savasti Delyth is the descendant of the original founder of the caravanserai. Vernor mentions that he only rarely sees Savasti emerge from her home, which has one entrance in the Road Spirits and another in the caravanserai courtyard. He knows Savasti is a magician of some sort, and he attributes her lack of aging to whatever magical talents she possesses.

Vernor is quite proud that criminals and rowdies rarely stay long in the caravanserai. He claims that Savasti’s rules are strict, and that she sees to it that those who disturb the peace never come back again.

Blasius the Steward

Blasius is the senior servant of the caravanserai, in charge of supplies, the readiness of guest rooms, the quality of the baths, and every other element required to keep the caravanserai in business. He sees customers only by appointment, relying on others to take care of mundane dealings. Characters can get an audience with the busy butler if they’re clever enough to make their problems or requirements seem dire, or if they offer monetary inducement.

Blasius is a refined, elderly human who is unfailingly polite. He isn’t a vampire, but he knows Savasti and her son are. He loves Savasti, and he hopes to become a vampire himself before death comes for him.

Social Encounter: Blasius responds to Diplomacy and Intimidate. He won’t reveal the complete truth unless a sharp user of the Insight skill catches his half-truths and misleading statements. He knows the problems Savasti is having with her “son,” and he works to play the PCs against Bryn Delyth while securing his mistress’s safety and perhaps his own immortality.

If the PCs ask the right questions or threaten Blasius with serious injury, the steward reveals that Bryn is a vampire. He gives up another half truth—that Savasti wishes to be rid of Bryn but can’t bring herself to slay her “son,” whether or not he is a monster.

The steward has keys to all the caravanserai’s doors, and he’s willing to give the PCs those required to get into Bryn’s section of Savasti’s underground house. Explaining that Bryn gets up to some “unpleasantness” down there, he says the PCs should perhaps only descend by day. He also gives the PCs directions to Bryn’s burial chamber.

Blasius would rather die than give up Savasti to the swords of so-called heroes. However, he is willing to admit she’s a warlock and that she has a policy of being judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to criminals in the caravanserai.

Jezlar Frenkler

Jezlar is the key to a plot to wrest control of the caravanserai from Savasti and place it squarely in Bryn’s decadent hands. He has, in fact, asked his father to send servants and money, but he intends to convert those servants to his aims. He and Bryn are also plotting how Jezlar can take control of his father’s business. Jezlar hopes also to become a vampire lord.

A whip of a man, Jezlar is richly dressed and well armed. He’s a fair hand with a sword, but he’s not willing to die for anyone.

Social Encounter: Jezlar knows that Bryn and Savasti are vampires. He also knows Blasius is loyal to Savasti and that the steward has control of keys that could get anyone into the old opal mine where Savasti and Bryn lair. The truth is, Jezlar knows too much for such a weak link, but Bryn didn’t expect outside influence or interference.

Jezlar lies and demurs when confronted, and he tries to be clever in evading direct questions. Claiming he’s here trying to cement a business deal with Bryn (true enough), he staunchly refuses to leave. He’s quite savvy in negotiations and bluffing, but Intimidate can persuade him to give up information and possibly go back to his home, especially if he is threatened with bodily harm.

If the PCs convince Jezlar to go home, Bryn and his spawn attack the PCs to keep Jezlar at the caravanserai.

Bryn Delyth

Most caravanserai employees think Bryn is Savasti Delyth’s oldest son. He doesn’t actually do much but take advantage of the baths, the liquor, and the company at the caravanserai. Most nights Bryn can be found in Road Spirits.

Bryn is a vampire lord and a skilled rogue—Savasti turned him fifty years ago for companionship. Always a rake, Bryn chafes under his “mother’s” authority. He feeds on those he wants, keeps others as pets, and has, in Savasti’s eyes, become reckless.

Despite Bryn’s apparent lack of morals and loyalty, for now he does plan to give Jezlar the gift of immortality. He feels he can handle any future treachery from the cloth merchant.

Social Encounter: If the PCs confront Bryn, he laughs off their suggestions, offers to buy them drinks, and acts particularly friendly. However, if the characters make pointed accusations or ask informed questions, especially if they can show that Blasius or Savasti want him eliminated, Bryn willingly bargains.

He reveals his “mother’s” nature and tries to convince the PCs to free him from her control. He might even expose the whereabouts of Savasti’s resting place, as well as how to steal Blasius’s keys from the steward’s chambers. If it comes to it, Bryn can even be intimidated into breaking ties with Jezlar Frenkler, or at least feigning his intent to do so.

If the PCs attack Bryn inside Road Spirits, he calls for help—Jezlar, Vernor, and a few other bar patrons defend the vampire. Bryn then retreats, gathering his spawn to later murder the characters. Unlike Savasti, though, Bryn has no intention of honoring a peaceful arrangement. Even if the PCs slay Savasti and her loyalists, Bryn later attacks them to keep his plans with Jezlar alive and to protect the secret of the caravanserai.

Savasti Delyth

To most, Savasti is a descendent of the original founder of the caravanserai, operating it with her only son, Bryn. The truth is that Savasti Delyth is a vampire lord and a warlock of some power. She is the original founder of the caravanserai, so she is also a businesswoman.

In fact, she is an entrepreneur first and bloodsucker second. Her policy of taking only the wicked to feed upon has kept the caravanserai free of thugs and criminals for many years. Bryn’s foolishness has changed all that. He no longer feeds only on the corrupt. Savasti believes that soon his actions will negatively impact business.

It’s impossible to get a meeting with Savasti unless the PCs work through Blasius and suggest they know more than they should. Savasti has a regal air, and she is circumspect but polite. She seldom smiles.

Social Encounter: If the characters manage to arrange a meeting with Delyth Caravanserai’s mysterious owner, they find a woman who’s ready to deal. If they break into her home, Savasti appears almost immediately to confront the interlopers, a few vampire spawn lurking behind her. If she’s attacked, she flees deeper into her mine-turned-mansion, and the PCs have to fight through her servants. They have to face Bryn as well, if he hasn’t already been eliminated.

Savasti knows about Bryn’s exploits, but her lingering attachment to him has prevented her from acting until now. To her, the PCs’ inquiry is proof that Bryn’s actions are drawing attention. If the characters are successful in a social encounter with Savasti, she promises to “deal permanently” with Bryn, as well as to send Jezlar home if the characters care about that. The PCs needn’t do the deed, but she will allow them to if they wish. She and Blasius give the characters keys and directions to Bryn’s resting place. If this final deal is made and the bargain kept, the threat to innocent people presented by Delyth Caravanserai is resolved peaceably.

Roleplaying Vampire Lords

The transformation into a vampire lord doesn’t eliminate the goals and desires a creature had while living. Some aspirations are turned to darker purposes, while other wants are amplified into animalistic cravings. This means that in addition to an appetite for living blood, a vampire lord can be motivated by anything that moves a living creature of its kind. It merely has an eternity to bring its goals to fruition, though it might have no more patience than any living creature.

When creating or running a vampire lord as a villain or NPC, the creature’s desires should form the basis for its behavior in the game. Bryn, for instance, is self-indulgent and greedy, and he is willing to eliminate Savasti so he can have his way. Savasti, on the other hand, is a calculating monster who wishes to simply continue her immortal existence hidden from the world. Bryn is expendable when compared with that goal, but Savasti’s soft spot for him prevents her from murdering him outright. That is until proof that Bryn has brought danger to their home shows up in the form of the PCs. These complications make several story outcomes possible.

Such complications make vampire lords gripping villains, but they also make great monsters. The vampire lord the PCs mistakenly awaken deep within a dungeon doesn’t need much motivation beyond slaking its inhuman thirst. However, with a little planning, even this sort of vampire lord can be more fun and enduring as a threat. As you would for a more detailed vampire lord villain, plan escape routes, hidden allies, and even traps the vampire knows about. It might have additional burial sites it can retreat to if seriously wounded. From such an area it can plot its revenge or simply show up again to plague the living. Maybe someone even knows that the PCs are at fault for letting the vampire loose in the first place.

As with any intelligent foe in the D&D game, vampire lords are more entertaining if they seem motivated in ways that make sense. If they have getaway plans, at the very least a thrilling chase can ensue. A little thought given to the actions of your vampire lord, whether mere monster or detailed NPC, can go a long way toward increasing everyone’s fun.

For the PCs....

vs. Vampires

When dealing with vampire lords, planning is essential. Vampire lords are often entrenched among mortals, using society’s mores to cover their bloody habits. The clever among them leave few overt signs of their true nature, but a little work can uncover their dark secrets.

Look to the Past

Vampires live long, so rely on History to garner information. Give heed to legends where the same name frequently shows up. Look for relatives that seem to have similar looks, and pay attention to unusual deaths and disappearances. Suspect convenient heirs and generous patrons. If you don’t already know it, learn your enemy’s name so you can further your investigations using it.

Examine the Present

What you can’t discover from a library’s books and folktales, you might learn on the streets by asking the right people. If you know your quarry’s home, seek out those familiar with what goes on there. Ply old timers for stories surrounding the names you’ve discerned and share a drink with experts who are acquainted with your enemy’s businesses.

Streetwise helps with all these tasks.

Seek Spiritual Guidance
Religion teaches about life, death, and the undead. If none in your party is educated about such matters, find a sage who is. Learn the difference between a vampire lord and its spawn. Use the knowledge you gain to select tactics, weapons, and defenses.

Learn the Layout
If at all possible, learn the layout of your enemy’s abode. The most important place to locate beforehand, if you can, is where the vampire lord reposes during the day.

Find out Who’s Who
Vampire lords often establish themselves among other humanoid creatures, so it’s important to figure out who the bad guys are. It’s likely that many of the people surrounding the vampire are innocents who don’t know of the creature’s true nature. A little time and talk might even gain you an ally or two in your fight. At the very least, you could uncover a bit of information that gives you a strategic edge.

Put Word before Sword
Vampire lords are terrible foes, and sometimes it’s better to just cut one down rather than give the creature a chance to gain the upper hand. But if the monster seems willing or eager to talk, indulging in conversation might grant you the benefit of the creature’s knowledge. After all, immortality gives one the opportunity to learn a great deal.

Expect the Unexpected
Vampire lords are elite creatures that often have powers similar to those of a heroic individual. Although it’s possible a vampire lord is merely a foppish merchant prince, it’s likely that he’s instead a warlock or rogue.

Focus Fire
When you’re facing a vampire lord, focus your attacks on the vampire, no matter what other sinister distractions or lesser creatures might arise. The creature most likely to bring you an untimely end is the vampire. Once the vampire lord is down, many of its effects and powers will end, and you can then mop up its lackeys without much trouble.

The article mentions the following skill checks: Diplomacy, History, Intimidation, Insight, Streetwise, and Religion. Obviously, they're following through on their promises to consolidate/streamline Skills.

Thoughts?

Morty
2007-11-05, 02:58 PM
Hm. I don't think I like making Religion and History separate skills. What was wrong with Knowledge(Something)? Unless there's no change to that and they're presenting it like that just to simplify the article, in which case there's no problem.

cupkeyk
2007-11-05, 03:08 PM
Streetwise is an awesome skill, instead of Knowledge (Local) and Gather Information. The knowledges were weird.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-05, 03:19 PM
Apparently they're taking a leaf out of White Wolf's skill system.

Which is definitely an improvement over either 2E or 3E skills.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-05, 03:42 PM
This "Roll vs. Role" title makes me want to stab something. Fortunately, it's not about what I thought it was going to be about.

Green Bean
2007-11-05, 03:47 PM
I like the way they've broken down 'social combat', so to speak, so that certain approaches are more effective than others. It seems to make a great deal of sense, and it means that a character would have a reason to increase more than one social skill.

Person_Man
2007-11-05, 04:15 PM
FYI, WotC has essentially said that Star Wars Saga Edition Skills (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview2) are a preview of how 4th Ed will work.

The formula for Handling any Skill check will be:

1/2 character level + relevant ability mod + 5 if trained + 5 if you take Skill Focus feat

There will be very few Skill modifiers (such as synergy bonuses, magic item bonuses, or class based bonuses) to reduce paperwork and make being Trained and/or Focused in a Skill worth it. And they're going to consolidate thematically and/or mechanically similar Skills.

Here's my wild guesses about how the Skills will end up looking, based on nothing but my reading all the different forums:

Acrobatics: Balance, Escape Artist, Tumble. (FYI, they’ve stated that AoO will be much rarer).

Climb: Climb.

Deception: Bluff, Disguise, Forgery.

Diplomacy: Diplomacy.

Heal: Heal.

Initiative: Now a Skill, so that Experienced PCs/enemies go before inexperienced ones, and you can boost it by being Trained and Focused in it.

Insight: Appraise, Decipher Script, Sense Motive.

Intimidate: Intimidate.

History: Knowledge History and Nobility.

Jump: Jump.

Legerdemain: Sleight of Hand and Use Rope.

Perception: Listen, Search, and Spot.

Religion: Knowledge Religion and Planes.

Ride: Ride and Handle Animal.

Spellcraft: Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana.

Streetwise: Knowledge Local and Gather Information.

Stealth: Move Silently and Hide.

Survival: Survival and Knowledge Nature and Geography.

Tinker: Disable Device and Open Lock.


They’ve already said that they’re eliminating defensive casting (Concentration), because it’s a “required Skill sink” that really doesn’t add much to the crunch of combat. They’ve also said that they’re eliminating Craft and Profession, because “you can just write down Cook on your character sheet. They’ll probably get rid of Perform for the same reasons. I’m guessing they’ll eliminate UMD as well, since every class will have every Skill to some extent. Speak Language will probably be shifted back to Common + Int mod languages.

skywalker
2007-11-05, 04:47 PM
Initiative: Now a Skill, so that Experienced PCs/enemies go before inexperienced ones, and you can boost it by being Trained and Focused in it.

How does a monster without class levels calculate initiative? Do they use hit dice? This could cause a problem, because most of the time monsters(and bad guys with class levels) have more hit dice than the PCs. If you've got a ginormous tank of a monster that has tons of hit dice, shouldn't it be slower than the little halfling rogue?



Speak Language will probably be shifted back to Common + Int mod languages.

Another jab at linguists if it comes to pass.

All I see here(I know this isn't official, but I trust person_man to have done more research than he gives himself credit for), is more rogue-nerfing. I heard somewhere about getting rid of precision damage and making sure that "every class knows it's place on the battlefield"(that last one is a direct quote from some Wizards release around launch). Skill ranks are out, precision damage is going away, and now everyone can have most skills? What, precisely, is the rogue's place going to be on the battlefield? Has anyone considered that perhaps it's not the monk, but the rogue that may be going away?

Fax Celestis
2007-11-05, 04:48 PM
Initiative: Now a Skill, so that Experienced PCs/enemies go before inexperienced ones, and you can boost it by being Trained and Focused in it.

Thank god.

Rex Blunder
2007-11-05, 05:00 PM
What was wrong with Knowledge(Something)?

Well, History is shorter than Knowledge (History), and has less punctuation, which are both good things.

Furthermore, removing the Knowledge() function call means that there isn't an artificial distinction between abstract learning and applied learning - for instance, Knowledge(arcana) lets you know stuff and Spellcraft lets you do stuff, but it's very reasonable to roll them into one skill.

Generally, the skill name changes are shorter and punchier. Insight is better than Sense Motive, and Streetwise is better than Gather Information.

The Spined Devil card does mention a +5 Spot bonus, I think, so it's possible that Spot and Perception are different skills. I hope this is not the case though.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-05, 05:08 PM
The Spined Devil card does mention a +5 Spot bonus, I think, so it's possible that Spot and Perception are different skills. I hope this is not the case though.

Spot could be visual, while Perception is social, or it could be a carryover from prior to alterations.

shadowdemon_lord
2007-11-05, 05:13 PM
What about craft(stoneworking), or knowledge(architecture). Are we just going to assume that characters just kinda know that hey! That buidling is rigged to collapse if I enter it. That seems like the kinda thing that made 2E so weird.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-05, 05:20 PM
The fact that Feats still exist in 4th edition means that there will be absolutely no improvement in how any rolls are being handled.

The fact they are following anything constructed by White Wolf means that nothing will be fixed concerning how 3rd edition absolutely destroyed both Planescape and Ravenloft game settings,

I'm thuroughly disappointed in what I've seen concerning the prospect of 4th edition.

Morty
2007-11-05, 05:24 PM
Well, History is shorter than Knowledge (History), and has less punctuation, which are both good things.

:rolleyes: Oh, come on. Who cares about lenght and punctation? Besides, it looks like History is something different that Knowledge(History).


Furthermore, removing the Knowledge() function call means that there isn't an artificial distinction between abstract learning and applied learning - for instance, Knowledge(arcana) lets you know stuff and Spellcraft lets you do stuff, but it's very reasonable to roll them into one skill.

Why? It'd be more fitting to remove Spellcraft, and let all checks for knowledge about magic use Knowledge(Arcana).


Generally, the skill name changes are shorter and punchier. Insight is better than Sense Motive, and Streetwise is better than Gather Information.

I couldn't care less, really. Those are purely cosmetic changes.
All in all, my Wizard/Loremaster doesn't look like he's going to fit in 4ed.

Rex Blunder
2007-11-05, 05:36 PM
I couldn't care less, really. Those are purely cosmetic changes.

True. But you say these phrases a lot during game sessions, and I don't mind saying slightly less dorky things. I wish they had figured out a better name for "Attack of Opportunity", but, alas, that name is staying. But, as you say, all very minor.


The fact they are following anything constructed by White Wolf means that nothing will be fixed concerning how 3rd edition absolutely destroyed both Planescape and Ravenloft game settings,

What does a skill mechanic have to do with campaign settings? Although I agree that 4e won't resurrect those campaign settings.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-05, 05:37 PM
The fact that Feats still exist in 4th edition means that there will be absolutely no improvement in how any rolls are being handled.What? How do you figure? Feats have nothing to do with skill checks, more than providing an occasional modifier. And articles linked above specifically state that those will be less prevalent.


The fact they are following anything constructed by White Wolf means that nothing will be fixed concerning how 3rd edition absolutely destroyed both Planescape and Ravenloft game settings,Again, what? Planescape didn't get ported to 3.5, which I suppose would make it "destroyed", except for the fact that all the pieces are still there, just not easily pieced together for you. Ravenloft, on the other hand, never really was a very good setting.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-05, 05:48 PM
What? How do you figure? Feats have nothing to do with skill checks, more than providing an occasional modifier. And articles linked above specifically state that those will be less prevalent.

Oh please, if you've been playing 3e and havent seen a know it all bard ace every skill check before the roll is being made, then you haven't seen 3e being played right.

As long as Feats exist those kind of rolls will always be screwed. WoTC butchered the game by modeling the Feat System after the Player's Option books rather than updating the proficiencies, and refusing to eliminate that Feat system by preventing all these modifiers is not going to make the problem go away.


Again, what? Planescape didn't get ported to 3.5, which I suppose would make it "destroyed", except for the fact that all the pieces are still there, just not easily pieced together for you. Ravenloft, on the other hand, never really was a very good setting.

Sounds to me more like you never actually read what you can do in 3e if you keep asking what.

The big problem with 3e is that it literally destroyed multiple game settings such as Planescape and that's why they didn't get ported, or in the case of Ravenloft, they were ported so poorly that they turned into nothing more than fodder for the recycle bin.

Ravenloft was a perfected setting in 2nd edition. The only people who utterly failed at it were munchkin power gamers. There was nothing to power game in Ravenloft. It was low magic, low god interference with a detailed horror/fear tables.

The creation of FEATS made the Domain Lords literally GODS (hence White Wolf's absolute butchering of the conversion, they had to try and justify why Lord Soth couldn't single handedly consume Krynn), and it practically abolished the Fear/Horror system entirely by putting it all in the GMs hands (resembling the abomination of the Story Teller attitude in all white wolf games).

The fact that these two settings were ruined so utterly by the power gaming munchkin changes that pervaded 3rd edition is proof that WoTC doesn't know how to handle a Role Playing Game to save its life.

I also had some choice words for how Oriental Adventures was ported into 3e, when I could remember what the handbook looked like (I blocked that horror out of my mind after I read it).

The rules for AD&D are supposed to be flexible enough to allow these settings. Instead what we wound up with is munchkin's ruining the game for the save of having a first level monk, or ninja, or thief who could single handedly conquer a 5 HD monster without batting an eye. Completely imbalancing the class system.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-05, 05:52 PM
Oh please, if you've been playing 3e and havent seen a know it all bard ace every skill check before the roll is being made, then you haven't seen 3e being played right.

You know, going around forums saying that people who disagree with you obviously have never "played the game right" is probably not such a good idea. Just a thought.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-05, 05:55 PM
What does a skill mechanic have to do with campaign settings? Although I agree that 4e won't resurrect those campaign settings.

Many campaigns revolve around skill mechanics. Some aspects of Planescape's special races and classes relied heavily on who had what skills.

Ravenloft relies heavily on what group you have, and what proficiencies are involved. By continuing the abuse of these skill mechanics that WoTC has generated in 3e, only shows that none of the people who design rules at WoTC have ever played anything other than an EverQuest or World of Warcraft type of "hack and slash whomever has the best equipment always wins" game.

If they had, there would be a modicum of understanding on how a Bard having specific skills would make him more important than a Ninja with specific skills, but without overriding the Ninja's own social class and understanding of his homeland which would play a pivotal role in the next encounter set in oh what is it called, Kara'Tur (oriental adventures land right?).

Instead we continue to get these rules which completely remove the precious balance of rolling character knowledge or character skill checks that DMs have to fight with, by allowing these Feat modifiers. It totally imbalances what each unique class and race was supposed to bring to the table. And that DOES affect campaign settings. Even existing ones!

Because that's the entire purpose of campaign settings! To celebrate the uniqueness of each character's class, race, and knowledge.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-05, 06:00 PM
You know, going around forums saying that people who disagree with you obviously have never "played the game right" is probably not such a good idea. Just a thought.

Let me put it this way, I was working at a very boring game store during the years of transition from 2e to 3e.

With my past AD&D experience, it took nothing for me to create a level 1 god amongst men. It's not a matter of disagreement with me that's the issue, Kurald. It's a matter of "This game was practically destroyed with feats and any knowledgable player could do it with their hands tied behind their back".

I will admit though that Feats certainly made Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms more interesting, and work very well with those, and only those campaign settings.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-05, 06:08 PM
Oh please, if you've been playing 3e and havent seen a know it all bard ace every skill check before the roll is being made, then you haven't seen 3e being played right.

Actually, from what it sounds like, you haven't seen it correctly. Bards are not skill masters, their 6+Int per level aside. Fully half of those go into required skills for the bard class to function: perform, concentration, spellcraft.


As long as Feats exist those kind of rolls will always be screwed. WoTC butchered the game by modeling the Feat System after the Player's Option books rather than updating the proficiencies, and refusing to eliminate that Feat system by preventing all these modifiers is not going to make the problem go away. I'm curious as to what you mean by 'feat system', since 3.x's feats don't really do what you're talking about. Feats, as written in 3.5, are designed to "[give] your character a new capability or one that he or she already has." (PHB 87) They [i]don't, however, make one capable of breaking the skill system with minor feat expenditure. That's not to say that the skill system is a perfect one--far from it, and that's exactly what this article is delineating: a condensation and restructuring of the skill system itself.


The big problem with 3e is that it literally destroyed multiple game settings such as Planescape and that's why they didn't get ported, or in the case of Ravenloft, they were ported so poorly that they turned into nothing more than fodder for the recycle bin. The Ravenloft Debacle was not the fault of WotC, in actuality: WotC handed the rights to Ravenloft to White Wolf--under their Sword & Sorcery label--who wasn't able to make anything even resembling the original.


Ravenloft was a perfected setting in 2nd edition. The only people who utterly failed at it were munchkin power gamers. There was nothing to power game in Ravenloft. It was low magic, low god interference with a detailed horror/fear tables. TABLES! Don't get me started on tables, or on low magic. D&D is a heroic fantasy game, which involves heroism, magic, and supernatural powers. Ravenloft, which dampens two of these by its very existence, is not built for D&D, and fits much better under a White Wolf, Warhammer: Fantasy, or other ruleset.


The creation of FEATS made the Domain Lords literally GODS (hence White Wolf's absolute butchering of the conversion, they had to try and justify why Lord Soth couldn't single handedly consume Krynn), and it practically abolished the Fear/Horror system entirely by putting it all in the GMs hands (resembling the abomination of the Story Teller attitude in all white wolf games). And the "abomination" of a Storyteller over a Gamemaster method is what, personal preference? Some people prefer it that way, you know. There's not One True Path to Gaming Nerdvana. As for feat-creation making the game unbalanced? That's pretty patently impossible: since everyone has feats, that would represent a global power increase. Everyone has feats, everyone enjoys their benefits, and everyone is summarily increased in strength.


The fact that these two settings were ruined so utterly by the power gaming munchkin changes that pervaded 3rd edition is proof that WoTC doesn't know how to handle a Role Playing Game to save its life.Again, WotC didn't handle either of these games. Planescape wasn't ported, and Ravenloft was left in the (inept) hands of S&S.


The rules for AD&D are supposed to be flexible enough to allow these settings. Instead what we wound up with is munchkin's ruining the game for the save of having a first level monk, or ninja, or thief who could single handedly conquer a 5 HD monster without batting an eye. Completely imbalancing the class system.I'm sorry, but that sounds like a personal problem. Maybe the group you played with was filled with "munchkin powergamers", but there's no reason one can't desire to be powerful--after all, the D&D universe is a very dangerous one, and if you suck, you're dead.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-05, 06:12 PM
Many campaigns revolve around skill mechanics. Some aspects of Planescape's special races and classes relied heavily on who had what skills.

Ravenloft relies heavily on what group you have, and what proficiencies are involved. By continuing the abuse of these skill mechanics that WoTC has generated in 3e, only shows that none of the people who design rules at WoTC have ever played anything other than an EverQuest or World of Warcraft type of "hack and slash whomever has the best equipment always wins" game.

If they had, there would be a modicum of understanding on how a Bard having specific skills would make him more important than a Ninja with specific skills, but without overriding the Ninja's own social class and understanding of his homeland which would play a pivotal role in the next encounter set in oh what is it called, Kara'Tur (oriental adventures land right?).

Instead we continue to get these rules which completely remove the precious balance of rolling character knowledge or character skill checks that DMs have to fight with, by allowing these Feat modifiers. It totally imbalances what each unique class and race was supposed to bring to the table. And that DOES affect campaign settings. Even existing ones!

You keep saying "feat modifiers". I do not think that means what you think it means. It is incredibly difficult to get a high modifier to a single skill without totally throwing everything else out the window--and most often, it is utterly not worth it to do so, since skills are actually rather easily circumvented.


Because that's the entire purpose of campaign settings! To celebrate the uniqueness of each character's class, race, and knowledge.
NO! Campaign settings are there to set a stage for a game in which the players and the DM create and portray a story.

warmachine
2007-11-05, 06:24 PM
I think WotC have lost track of the needs of skills. In particular, archetypal niche protection. Everyone can lie but forgery is a rogue specialty. Everyone might be able to recognise potions and spells but only arcane casters recognise magical symbols. Restrictions have to be loose to allow, say, a son-of-a-noble fighter with court intrigue skills but not so loose that an invisible wizard with high Tinker makes the rogue redundant.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-05, 06:27 PM
You keep saying "feat modifiers". I do not think that means what you think it means. It is incredibly difficult to get a high modifier to a single skill without totally throwing everything else out the window--and most often, it is utterly not worth it to do so, since skills are actually rather easily circumvented.

I know what it means, and I've seen what you've described done far more often than you claim it is, with far more munchkinning success.


NO! Campaign settings are there to set a stage for a game in which the players and the DM create and portray a story.

IF you say that's different than this:
Because that's the entire purpose of campaign settings! To celebrate the uniqueness of each character's class, race, and knowledge.

Then I'd hate to know what kind of bland stories you portray. Each campaign is supposed to offer a unique perspective and story to the table. That's why there were so many different campaign worlds in D&D, AD&D 1st and 2nd editions. The lack of the uniqueness presented and retained in 3e is what I find to be an abomination.

Tren
2007-11-05, 06:32 PM
I think WotC have lost track of the needs of skills. In particular, archetypal niche protection. Everyone can lie but forgery is a rogue specialty. Everyone might be able to recognise potions and spells but only arcane casters recognise magical symbols. Restrictions have to be loose to allow, say, a son-of-a-noble fighter with court intrigue skills but not so loose that an invisible wizard with high Tinker makes the rogue redundant.

:smallconfused: That's by and large how the 3.x skill system works. Classes have specific lists of skills relevant to their character archetype, such as a ranger getting survival and handle animal, a bard having perform and knowledge() checks, and a rogue having sleight of hand, disable device, and lock pick. And for further hard and fast distinction you have level based class abilities such as trapsense, bardic music, and wild empathy that give classes respective abilities that can't be replicated by any application of feats or skill points.

Catch
2007-11-05, 06:33 PM
I know what it means, and I've seen what you've described done far more often than you claim it is, with far more munchkinning success.

Of all the things to gripe over in 3e, you chose feats? And Bards?

Obviously your munchkin-fu is weak. Since when is a +2 untyped skill bonus somehow more powerful than, say, spellcasting? Since when is a Diplomancer cheesier than Polymorph, Gate, Shapechage, or Forcecage? If you think that feats are the problem with 3e, you're not looking high enough.

Swordguy
2007-11-05, 06:33 PM
All I see here(I know this isn't official, but I trust person_man to have done more research than he gives himself credit for), is more rogue-nerfing. I heard somewhere about getting rid of precision damage and making sure that "every class knows it's place on the battlefield"(that last one is a direct quote from some Wizards release around launch). Skill ranks are out, precision damage is going away, and now everyone can have most skills? What, precisely, is the rogue's place going to be on the battlefield? Has anyone considered that perhaps it's not the monk, but the rogue that may be going away?

Not to be on it.

Their jobs include presetting the battlefield, poisoning enemy water supplies or such, performing pre-battle recon, and other, stealth-oriented skills. Once the fighting actually takes place, they shouldn't BE anywhere near the front line, instead performing, at best, hit-and-runs on enemy flanks.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-05, 06:34 PM
I know what it means, and I've seen what you've described done far more often than you claim it is, with far more munchkinning success. Then provide me an example of such, and we'll go from there.


IF you say that's different than this:
Because that's the entire purpose of campaign settings! To celebrate the uniqueness of each character's class, race, and knowledge.

Then I'd hate to know what kind of bland stories you portray. Each campaign is supposed to offer a unique perspective and story to the table. That's why there were so many different campaign worlds in D&D, AD&D 1st and 2nd editions. The lack of the uniqueness presented and retained in 3e is what I find to be an abomination.I don't portray bland stories, I just don't anchor them into a specific setting. Sure, I make sure that when I do tell a story, it fits in with the surrounding world: after all, that's just how reality is. but I don't make it so that the setting is intrinsically part of the story, because the story takes precedence over the setting itself. Think of thus: Romeo and Juliet could have taken place in modern New York, in ancient Britain, or in any number of other places, with little more than a few name changes. The story, however, would have remained the same. And when you sit down a bunch of different people at the game table, all with their own ideas about who they're portraying and what they'll be doing there, you don't have "gamers", you have "story tellers". Each has a tale that they want to portray, and who am I to tell them that their story isn't good enough for my world? There's absolutely no reason I should ever do that, and my players thank me for it. The setting is malleable, the players are not.

Tren
2007-11-05, 06:36 PM
Then I'd hate to know what kind of bland stories you portray.

Wow, you seriously need to cool it. You just joined this forum and you're already behaving incredibly discourteously towards the veteran posters, especially someone as venerated as Fax. That paragon pseudonatural damn crab in his avatar isn't just for show.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-05, 06:38 PM
Wow, you seriously need to cool it. You just joined this forum and you're already behaving incredibly discourteously towards the veteran posters, especially someone as venerated as Fax. That paragon pseudonatural damn crab in his avatar isn't just for show.

The fact that I'm a veteran doesn't matter, despite your vote of confidence. What does matter, however, is remaining courteous--something I'm attempting to do (and probably failing in points).

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-05, 06:41 PM
I dumped 3e within 3 weeks of it coming out. That was a few years ago, so I can tell you with a great deal of certainty I will not waste my money to buy those books just to provide example of how to munchkin in 3e.

There are plenty of magazine articles on how to do this.



I don't portray bland stories, I just don't anchor them into a specific setting. Sure, I make sure that when I do tell a story, it fits in with the surrounding world: after all, that's just how reality is. but I don't make it so that the setting is intrinsically part of the story, because the story takes precedence over the setting itself. Think of thus: Romeo and Juliet could have taken place in modern New York, in ancient Britain, or in any number of other places, with little more than a few name changes. The story, however, would have remained the same. And when you sit down a bunch of different people at the game table, all with their own ideas about who they're portraying and what they'll be doing there, you don't have "gamers", you have "story tellers". Each has a tale that they want to portray, and who am I to tell them that their story isn't good enough for my world? There's absolutely no reason I should ever do that, and my players thank me for it. The setting is malleable, the players are not.

My point is: settings are meant to be unique and meant to celebrate uniquess, bro. By saying they aren't meant to do either is unbelievably wrong. And that IS what you said. Veteran or not, it means that you either did not understand the value of these Campaign Settings or never played them.

Dausuul
2007-11-05, 06:44 PM
Ooh, Two Versus Three edition wars! Ahem:

CHAINMAIL RULES! All you "role-players" with your pansy character development and your molly-coddling skill mechanics wouldn't last a minute in a real wargame like we played back in the day! Why, we had to walk forty miles to our dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways...

Anyway. Back to 4E.


All I see here(I know this isn't official, but I trust person_man to have done more research than he gives himself credit for), is more rogue-nerfing. I heard somewhere about getting rid of precision damage and making sure that "every class knows it's place on the battlefield"(that last one is a direct quote from some Wizards release around launch). Skill ranks are out, precision damage is going away, and now everyone can have most skills? What, precisely, is the rogue's place going to be on the battlefield? Has anyone considered that perhaps it's not the monk, but the rogue that may be going away?

I doubt that. 4E may be butchering a lot of sacred cows, but I can't see them going so far as to axe one of the four iconic classes (fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue). The monk, on the other hand, is eminently disposable.

From what WotC is saying, rogues will be Strikers, meaning they will specialize in picking out one key target and taking that target out. I'm not sure where you get that precision-based damage is disappearing, but even if it is, that doesn't mean the rogue won't have some form of sneaky, high-damage strike.

Catch
2007-11-05, 06:44 PM
I dumped 3e within 3 weeks of it coming out. That was a few years ago, so I can tell you with a great deal of certainty I will not waste my money to buy those books just to provide example of how to munchkin in 3e.

There are plenty of magazine articles on how to do this.

You claim feats are horrible, that they've broken 3e to complete unplayability. And yet you didn't buy the books, you didn't spend much time with the rules, and can't provide an example for the munchkinery you claim exists. Funny, that.

Norsesmithy
2007-11-05, 06:45 PM
Many campaigns revolve around skill mechanics. Some aspects of Planescape's special races and classes relied heavily on who had what skills.

Ravenloft relies heavily on what group you have, and what proficiencies are involved. By continuing the abuse of these skill mechanics that WoTC has generated in 3e, only shows that none of the people who design rules at WoTC have ever played anything other than an EverQuest or World of Warcraft type of "hack and slash whomever has the best equipment always wins" game.

If they had, there would be a modicum of understanding on how a Bard having specific skills would make him more important than a Ninja with specific skills, but without overriding the Ninja's own social class and understanding of his homeland which would play a pivotal role in the next encounter set in oh what is it called, Kara'Tur (oriental adventures land right?).

Instead we continue to get these rules which completely remove the precious balance of rolling character knowledge or character skill checks that DMs have to fight with, by allowing these Feat modifiers. It totally imbalances what each unique class and race was supposed to bring to the table. And that DOES affect campaign settings. Even existing ones!

Because that's the entire purpose of campaign settings! To celebrate the uniqueness of each character's class, race, and knowledge.

First off, I hardly see how feats wreck the math behind the game like you say they do.

Second, if a portion of the Core Rules set doesn't mesh with a particular Campaign setting, I am sure that the Campaign setting Rulebook with have fixes and ports to alleviate that issue. Or if they don't, that we will find that using the rules, as they are, does not interfere with our enjoyment of the updated versions of those settings.

Just because something works one way in 3.X E doesn't mean that it won't neccessarily work better another way in 4.X E.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-11-05, 06:45 PM
I'll repost what I said in the other thread:


Fax - I don't think it's worth it to argue with this guy. I doubt anything anyone says is going to change his mind, and I don't want this to end up being a repeat of TLN and Molonel. You're far too big a part of this community.

dragonseth
2007-11-05, 06:47 PM
Not to be on it.

Their jobs include presetting the battlefield, poisoning enemy water supplies or such, performing pre-battle recon, and other, stealth-oriented skills. Once the fighting actually takes place, they shouldn't BE anywhere near the front line, instead performing, at best, hit-and-runs on enemy flanks.

That doesn't really work. D&D is a system built primarily for combat. As much as I like roleplaying my characters and dealing with political intrigue and such, I can't deny that the focus of the D&D game is combat. A character that can't participate in combat is not one that fits.

Edit: Woops, I'm off-topic by now. My internet lied and said that Swordguy's post was the last one. My bad.

Rex Blunder
2007-11-05, 06:56 PM
Woops, I'm off-topic by now.

Or, you're back on-topic. It all depends on your point of view (as do many of the truths we cling to).

1) Rogues are staying, and have been confirmed by WOTC.
2) Rogues should have both a place on the battlefield (don't forget the "striker" buzzword) and skill-based niche protection. I believe there was an early article or playtest report that talked about them using skills in ways that other classes couldn't - something like skill tricks from Complete Scoundrel, perhaps - although I can't find that article at the moment.

Dausuul
2007-11-05, 06:58 PM
I dumped 3e within 3 weeks of it coming out. That was a few years ago, so I can tell you with a great deal of certainty I will not waste my money to buy those books just to provide example of how to munchkin in 3e.

You don't have to. Allow me to present you with a truly excellent resource for D&D players:

http://www.d20srd.org

That site has all the key rules for character creation in 3.5E, all hyperlinked together--it can actually be a lot more convenient than paging through a physical rulebook--and 100% legal under the terms of the OGL. So please, show us your feat-based skill-based munchkin build. Inquiring minds want to know.


That doesn't really work. D&D is a system built primarily for combat. As much as I like roleplaying my characters and dealing with political intrigue and such, I can't deny that the focus of the D&D game is combat. A character that can't participate in combat is not one that fits.

Edit: Woops, I'm off-topic by now. My internet lied and said that Swordguy's post was the last one. My bad.

Nah, you're not off-topic. The thread just got hijacked by a spate of "2E Versus 3E."

And I agree. Combat is a large part of D&D and takes quite a bit of time (and by all accounts, that will still be the case in 4E, although that time will be spent in more interesting ways than it is now). It would be very poor design to make a class that had nothing to do for all that time.

Matthew
2007-11-05, 07:09 PM
Heh, heh. Edition Wars. I have to admit I found the forgoing a bit confusing. Less hyperbole and more exposition would be useful. Still, Planescape and Dark Sun were ported to 3e via the Official Fan Sites. Like every other aspect of D&D, though, the experience heavily depends on the people playing. I prefer previous editions, but it's really passed the point of mattering very much.

Starsinger
2007-11-05, 08:45 PM
I think WotC have lost track of the needs of skills. In particular, archetypal niche protection. Everyone can lie but forgery is a rogue specialty. Everyone might be able to recognise potions and spells but only arcane casters recognise magical symbols. Restrictions have to be loose to allow, say, a son-of-a-noble fighter with court intrigue skills but not so loose that an invisible wizard with high Tinker makes the rogue redundant.

Why? Why can't my sorcerer be just as good at playing the flute as a bard? Or a Monk? Why can't my fighter who was raised by a wizard have a high knowledge arcana (Like Roy)? Who is WotC to tell me that I can't have a rogue that knows alot about the planes? Why is this a good thing in your eyes?

Swordguy
2007-11-05, 08:56 PM
Why? Why can't my sorcerer be just as good at playing the flute as a bard? Or a Monk? Why can't my fighter who was raised by a wizard have a high knowledge arcana (Like Roy)? Who is WotC to tell me that I can't have a rogue that knows alot about the planes? Why is this a good thing in your eyes?

Who is WOTC to tell you that your fighter can't both have a +20 BAB and cast 9th level spells after adventuring for 2 days? Who is WOTC to tell you that you can't know everything about everything?

That's where that argument goes, if taken to its logical conclusion. While IN THEORY it's great to have more flexibility for characters, in practice, all that happens is that it becomes easier for people to game the system. What's needed is MORE separation of character roles, not less. Specialization, and a need for each specialization built into the system, prevents character role overlap and gives each person a "schtick", so they don't go bored at the table.

Yakk
2007-11-05, 08:58 PM
To be clear: "Precision Damage" was a Rogue weakness. It mean that the Rogue's damage dealing ability was crap against anything immune to Precision Damage.

Getting rid of "Precision Damage" doesn't mean that a Rogue won't be able to do something similar to "Backstab" or "Sneak Attack", it means that it won't be a super-special kind of damage that a huge swath of creatures will be immune to.

The Rogue is being called a "Striker" with the Ranger, in compared to the "Controller" Wizard and Warlord. I'm guessing that Strikers will be good at taking out single targets, while the Controller will be good at hindering large numbers of opponents.

Starsinger
2007-11-05, 09:02 PM
Who is WOTC to tell you that your fighter can't both have a +20 BAB and cast 9th level spells after adventuring for 2 days? Who is WOTC to tell you that you can't know everything about everything?

That's where that argument goes, if taken to its logical conclusion. While IN THEORY it's great to have more flexibility for characters, in practice, all that happens is that it becomes easier for people to game the system. What's needed is MORE separation of character roles, not less. Specialization, and a need for each specialization built into the system, prevents character role overlap and gives each person a "schtick", so they don't go bored at the table.

Yeah... exactly... like my asking if I can have diet soda instead of regular with my dinner is the exact same as asking if I can have a lobster instead of a salad... .

Swordguy
2007-11-05, 09:08 PM
Yeah... exactly... like my asking if I can have diet soda instead of regular with my dinner is the exact same as asking if I can have a lobster instead of a salad... .

Hey, in THEORY communism works. In THEORY giving people more flexibility in character design promotes more interesting roleplaying.

In REALITY, communism fails because the people in charge of the redistribution of wealth are in the perfect position to skim off the top, and do so. In REALITY giving people more flexibility gives gamers more chances to minmax a character without regard for how that character could have come about and how it should be roleplayed, and they do so.

Theory and reality are different. And, frankly, gamer psychology should be considered when doing game design. "What are people likely to do to our game if we do 'X'?" should be a required question whenever designing a game.

Xaros
2007-11-05, 09:17 PM
Theory and reality are different. And, frankly, gamer psychology should be considered when doing game design. "What are people likely to do to our game if we do 'X'?" should be a required question whenever designing a game.

I find that gamer psychology tends to be a variable and complicated thing. Even if all gamers were barely restrained munchkins bent on obliterating game balance at every turn, I fail to see how letting a wizard have a solid Tumble skill or giving melee types the ability to learn Spellcraft is going to upend the balance of the system.

Starsinger
2007-11-05, 09:19 PM
I find that gamer psychology tends to be a variable and complicated thing. Even if all gamers were barely restrained munchkins bent on obliterating game balance at every turn, I fail to see how letting a wizard have a solid Tumble skill or giving melee types the ability to learn Spellcraft is going to upend the balance of the system.

Because they'd all become Communists.. duh.. :smallsigh:

Kantolin
2007-11-05, 09:28 PM
Who is WOTC to tell you that your fighter can't both have a +20 BAB and cast 9th level spells after adventuring for 2 days? Who is WOTC to tell you that you can't know everything about everything?

If nothing else, game balance suggests that you can't get a +20 BAB at level 1.

(Although from your example, if those two days were packed with so much adventuring, and you were gestalt, that you became capable of both having a +20BAB and 9th level spellcasting... that would suddenly become fair)

Either way, the skill system is a method of stating, 'Your fighter must be talented at jumping, and may not be talented at knowing his religion nor doing cartwheels'. This strikes me as odd as well.

In addition, the only skill which may be game-unbalancing if all skills became in-class for everyone is use magic device. Your skill monkeys would still have 6+int or 8+int skill points to spread around, making them still skill monkeys and removing oddities like your 'skill-monkey' not being capable of tying rope or riding horses. It will not horribly unbalance the universe if the cleric can walk a tightrope when not in armour, or the sorceror has keen hearing. In addition, it'll open up more character customization abilities, and decrease the irritation of character-clones, such as each and every sorceror having only Knowledge(arcana), Concentration, and Spellcraft.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-11-05, 09:38 PM
In addition, the only skill which may be game-unbalancing if all skills became in-class for everyone is use magic device. Your skill monkeys would still have 6+int or 8+int skill points to spread around, making them still skill monkeys and removing oddities like your 'skill-monkey' not being capable of tying rope or riding horses. It will not horribly unbalance the universe if the cleric can walk a tightrope when not in armour, or the sorceror has keen hearing. In addition, it'll open up more character customization abilities, and decrease the irritation of character-clones, such as each and every sorceror having only Knowledge(arcana), Concentration, and Spellcraft.

If it reduces the irritation of "We need a trapfinder so someone play a rogue" as well, I'm all for it.

dragonseth
2007-11-05, 09:49 PM
If it reduces the irritation of "We need a trapfinder so someone play a rogue" as well, I'm all for it.

Who needs trapfinders? The Barbarian will work fine.

Neek
2007-11-05, 09:50 PM
Then I'd hate to know what kind of bland stories you portray. Each campaign is supposed to offer a unique perspective and story to the table. That's why there were so many different campaign worlds in D&D, AD&D 1st and 2nd editions. The lack of the uniqueness presented and retained in 3e is what I find to be an abomination.

The lack of defined settings and out of the box worlds does not create a bland game. On the other hand, it forces DMs to either create campaign settings which offer a unique perspective and story; rather than simply get it out of the box, 3rd edition has given the power to provide that to the GM with various crunch books. If you're desiring out of the box, 100% playability and the lack of that is a discouragement, perhaps you should check your own imagination and creativity power?

Comparing 2nd edition to 3rd, or 3rd to 4th, or 2nd to 4th, is the same as comparing Risk to Chess. They're different games on differing levels of complexity and gameplay that are trying to accomplish the same thing: Dungeons and Dragons is attempting to provide a fantasy backdrop, 2nd edition was an improvement of an innovation on tabletop warfare, WotC is attempting to make it more cinematic in concept.

Furthermore, your argument about feats? You've given no explanation, provided no demonstration to back up your statements. Rather, you spouted biased nonsensical rhetoric backed by your own bile for the d20 system. You have a right to bare revulsion, but we also have a right to ask for an explanation.

Starsinger
2007-11-05, 09:51 PM
If it reduces the irritation of "We need a trapfinder so someone play a rogue" as well, I'm all for it.

Not to mention it'll help keep people in one class instead of multi-class madness , since one of the major reasons to multi-class is for ranks in a skill yo need for a feat or prestige class.

warmachine
2007-11-05, 09:51 PM
Why? Why can't my sorcerer be just as good at playing the flute as a bard? Or a Monk? Why can't my fighter who was raised by a wizard have a high knowledge arcana (Like Roy)? Who is WotC to tell me that I can't have a rogue that knows alot about the planes? Why is this a good thing in your eyes?
Playing a flute is flavour and usurping another classes' flavour doesn't make a player feel useless, so that's not a problem. Knowledge Arcana is more useful and its the job of the nerd classes to know stuff. Roy just knows the spell descriptions from PHB, just like all players, and there's no evidence of advanced, arcane knowledge. This may sound arbitrary and stereotypical but AD&D is based around an arbitrary and stereotypical system known as classes. WotC don't think you can have a rogue with high Knowledge Planes because they think only the academic classes would study other worlds.

That is petty but a rogue usurping a cleric's non-combat skills means the cleric player is bored outside combat. If you dislike stereotypes following popular fiction and prefer to create your own, unique skill sets, then you should not be using AD&D in the first place. Niche protection is part of the game design.

Starsinger
2007-11-05, 09:53 PM
Playing a flute is flavour and usurping another classes' flavour doesn't make a player feel useless.

Why is it a class skill for Monks, then? Flutist =\= Monk...

dragonseth
2007-11-05, 10:00 PM
Why is it a class skill for Monks, then? Flutist =\= Monk...

There's a lot of stupid skill assignments. I'm sure this was justified in WOTC's mind somehow, though.

Temp
2007-11-05, 10:04 PM
You know, I honestly wouldn't be opposed to every class gaining every skill so long as classes have abilities backing their respective archetypal jobs.

I would be happy if all Fighters had UMD, Search/Disable Device and Perform as long as only Spellcasters could cast spells unaided, as long as Rogues kept Trapfinding and as long as Bards kept their Bardic Music. (Actually, I'm not to crazy about Trapfinding being the defining ability of every talented non-combatant, but that's beside the point)

In fact, that's one of the current edition's problems; some classes (Fighters) have flat numeric bonuses to abilities every other character in the game can emulate (swinging swords around), while some have abilities that can hardly be imitated at all (Spellcasters can be only copied via UMD, which only a handful of classes actually have).

Swordguy
2007-11-05, 10:13 PM
Why is it a class skill for Monks, then? Flutist =\= Monk...

Not a David Carradine fan eh? Watch Kung Fu. It'll make sense then.

Nonah_Me
2007-11-05, 10:17 PM
Why is it a class skill for Monks, then? Flutist =\= Monk...

Likely for Perform (Weapon Drill) or Perform (Kata/Set).

Edit: Which means anyone with a martial background should have perform as a class skill. Perhaps they should have given Perform (Weapon Drill) to the martial classes.

Xaros
2007-11-05, 10:32 PM
In addition, the only skill which may be game-unbalancing if all skills became in-class for everyone is use magic device.

And even in that case, a lot of classes have either UMD or its functional equivalent, since a spellcaster can cast from a device if the spell is on her list (and her ability scores are sufficient). UMD is a bit more versatile, to be sure, but I get the feeling that WoTC dumped balance out the window when Warlocks and Artificers (!) could take 10 on UMD (negating any possibility of failure under appropriate - read *all* - circumstances).

I'd be a fan of letting any class use wands of any type, restricting staves/scrolls to casters who have the requisite spells to use such items, and getting rid of emulating race, alignment, and ability scores altogether. That, however, is probably the subject for another thread entirely.


Your skill monkeys would still have 6+int or 8+int skill points to spread around, making them still skill monkeys and removing oddities like your 'skill-monkey' not being capable of tying rope or riding horses. It will not horribly unbalance the universe if the cleric can walk a tightrope when not in armour, or the sorceror has keen hearing. In addition, it'll open up more character customization abilities, and decrease the irritation of character-clones, such as each and every sorceror having only Knowledge(arcana), Concentration, and Spellcraft.

Unsurprisingly, I agree with this assessment.

Draz74
2007-11-06, 12:17 AM
Since when is a Diplomancer cheesier than Polymorph, Gate, Shapechage, or Forcecage? If you think that feats are the problem with 3e, you're not looking high enough.

I agree with your overall point ... but not your example. Diplomancer certainly IS cheesier than the spells you mention, at least in a game that starts at a level lower than 7th.

Diplomancer starts to get ridiculously broken as low as Level 2, when you get synergy bonuses. The other things you mention don't enter the game until Levels 7, 17, 17, and 13, unless you're using even more cheesy things to pull them into play (e.g. Pun-Pun or Candle of Invocation).

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-06, 01:15 AM
I don't have a problem with all skills = class skills, as long as there is still a boost to iconic skills for certain classes built in.

For example:

Rogues should be the most stealthy class. If Hide/Move Silently is a class skill for everyone, they should get a bonus to stealth skills built into their class features. Like Hide in Plain Sight, or a scaling bonus (similar to the ninja's bonus to acrobatic skills).

Another approach would be to give classes a number of class skills equal to their skill points/level, and let them pick.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-06, 01:39 AM
Hey, in THEORY communism works.

No, it doesn't. It always bugs me when people bring that example up. Communism goes against every basic principle of economics and human nature. It fails for a variety of reasons (a centralized government cannot allocate resources effectively, there is no incentive for workers to do well at their jobs, etc). Claiming that communism works in theory is like claiming trial by combat works in theory: It's no less a stretch to assume that some divine power makes innocent people invincible combat demigods than it is to assume anything that would be required to make communism work.

Back on topic, I'm far more interested in the vampires than in anything else. The article clearly states that vampires are no longer Always Chaotic Evil. Furthermore, it appears that vampires may not even necessarily be Evil: Savasti appears closer to Neutral, given that she's basically using her power to eliminate crime in her tavern and improve her business. Additionally, freshly "born" vampires do not appear to necessarily be under the control of their sires (see Bryn's active plots against Savasti). Both vampires have mention of "spawn," but this may just be the weak, 4-HD-or-less Vampire Spawn, meaning no more sprawling networks of vampires chaining control of spawned vampires (unless, of course, Savasti intentionally left Bryn as free-willed, but that sort of thing would probably be mentioned as odd if it weren't the default option). To sum up:

Vampires are no longer CE monsters, and may not even necessarily be Evil
While Vampires can still create spawn, and can still control Vampire Spawn, they may not be able to create massive networks of powerful vampire underlings
Vampires have servants who are genuinely loyal to them, not simply compelled to obey them

What do you suppose the implications of this are? Could this be a trend to represent all intelligent undead less as mindless beasts that seek only to destroy the living and more as actual people with goals and personalities, albeit skewed closer to selfish ends? Could necromancy be let off the hook as "the magic of ultimate evil"?

Mewtarthio
2007-11-06, 01:42 AM
I'd be a fan of letting any class use wands of any type, restricting staves/scrolls to casters who have the requisite spells to use such items, and getting rid of emulating race, alignment, and ability scores altogether. That, however, is probably the subject for another thread entirely.

Last I checked, wands and staves are getting a complete overhaul and will be changed from magic items with charges to magic items that augment the power of the mage weilding them.

Serenity
2007-11-06, 01:55 AM
@ Mewthario: God, I hope so.

Goumindong
2007-11-06, 02:13 AM
No, it doesn't. It always bugs me when people bring that example up. Communism goes against every basic principle of economics and human nature.

No, it doesnt. Just like Laissez-faire works in theory but not in practice, so does Communism.


What do you suppose the implications of this are? Could this be a trend to represent all intelligent undead less as mindless beasts that seek only to destroy the living and more as actual people with goals and personalities, albeit skewed closer to selfish ends? Could necromancy be let off the hook as "the magic of ultimate evil"?

It is unlikly. Take the Old WOD as an example. All of that also heavily depends on the setting.

In "DnD Proper" the answer is no, vampires are evil, our job as adventurers is to kill evil, evil things are supposed to die.

Now, in a setting like Eberron this might not be the case.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-06, 02:40 AM
No, it doesnt. Just like Laissez-faire works in theory but not in practice, so does Communism.

I'm not trying to start up a political debate: I'm just saying that you can't claim something works "in theory" if it clearly fails in practice. The original quoted argument was comparing communism to freedom in character design. That's not a valid argument, since allowing freedom in character design works just fine with certain players (and could feasibly be used as a large-scale system), while communism cannot ever work on any meaningful scale.


It is unlikly. Take the Old WOD as an example. All of that also heavily depends on the setting.

I'm unfamiliar with World of Darkness. All I really know is that the system goes deep into the inner workings of the monsters.


In "DnD Proper" the answer is no, vampires are evil, our job as adventurers is to kill evil, evil things are supposed to die.

But the article implies that things work out best for the players if they cooperate with Savasti, the biggest vampire in the scenario. Furthermore, Savasti herself poses no major threat to anyone not already committing crimes. Her "son," Bryn, is evil and needs to die (it's very difficult to "complete" the scenario without Bryn's death; the alternatives involve retreat and/or surrender), but you can collaborate with Savasti all you want (heck, you can even have her finish off Bryn for you). Savasti does not appear to be evil, nor does she need to die, nor is she even supposed to die.

warmachine
2007-11-06, 03:02 AM
Why is it a class skill for Monks, then? Flutist =\= Monk...
My bad. That was badly written. Flute playing should be cross class for monks 'cos monks, stereotypically, aren't brilliant at music but there's no reason why they can't be pretty good.

Goumindong
2007-11-06, 03:36 AM
I'm not trying to start up a political debate: I'm just saying that you can't claim something works "in theory" if it clearly fails in practice

You keep using that word, I dont think it means what you think it means.


since allowing freedom in character design works just fine with certain players (and could feasibly be used as a large-scale system), while communism cannot ever work on any meaningful scale.

You are changing your standards now. Freedom works fine for "some players", but communism has to work on a "meaningful scale"

ED: In fact, they both fail for the same reason. Because it only takes one or a few instances to mess up character generation freedom and the same for communism.


But the article implies that things work out best for the players if they cooperate with Savasti, the biggest vampire in the scenario But the article doesnt tell you in what setting the encounter was based around.

Rex Blunder
2007-11-06, 09:54 AM
Since setting isn't mentioned, it's safe to assume it's the default setting. My guess is this is how vampires will work now.

The "Roleplaying Vampire Lords" section talks about playing vampires intelligently, and giving them coherent motivations: "a vampire lord can be motivated by anything that moves a living creature of its kind." Since altruism can move a living creature, I'd say that vampires don't have to be evil.

However: "Some aspirations are turned to darker purposes, while other wants are amplified into animalistic cravings." I'd guess that even altruism may have a twisted edge.

The section talks about vamps in 4 roles: "villain", "monster", "foe", "NPC". I'd guess that most of the time you'll be killing vampires, but some might be morally complex non-enemies. But, I mean, they're still undead monsters who drink the blood of the living, so maybe still no Saint Dracula?

Person_Man
2007-11-06, 10:53 AM
I think that WotC is making a real effort to make every Skill relevant and useful. We'll see a lot more ToB like abilities, where you have to make a Skill check in order to succeed on your attack. Traps and environmental hazards are being worked directly into combat. Non-combat encounters are being expanded. More and useful content written directly for the former Knowledge Skills. And social Skills are being broken down into branches - If you succeed on a Diplomacy check, then you have options A, B, and C. Options A and B can be opened through another Diplomacy check, option C can be opened with an Intimidate check, and so on.

Really, I think this is all a very positive thing.

However, in virtually every game I have ever DM'd, there is always at least one person who has the burning desire to have Perform, Craft, Profession, Forgery, or one of the other "useless" Skills. They often build their entire character around the idea that their PC is a cook/singer/poet/whatever. They don't care about optimization. They just want to roleplay and maybe have a some fun in combat, and they want the character sheet and the rules to reflect their character decisions, not "what's useful." Having a mature Drama Queen in your group is often very fun and helpful, because it helps maintain the balance between roleplaying and crunchy goodness. And I'm afraid that by abolishing the "useless" Skills and class features, that Drama Queens will stop playing D&D, and spend more time with White Wolf, LARPs, etc. This would be a huge loss for the D&D community.

horseboy
2007-11-06, 11:57 AM
You know what? I like this. This is certainly a step in the right direction. This is almost an actual story arc and not some mindless meat grinder to make sure the mage doesn't auto win with one or two spells. Now if they can pull some mechanics out there ass that would support this type of thing, I may actually be more interested.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-06, 12:02 PM
However, in virtually every game I have ever DM'd, there is always at least one person who has the burning desire to have Perform, Craft, Profession, Forgery, or one of the other "useless" Skills.

In 2nd edition those skills were always useful and in some cases required, especially in my games. IF they became useless in 3rd edition, then that's the sole fault of WoTC.

kjones
2007-11-06, 12:47 PM
I like the possibility of doing away with class skills. It allows for additional customization of characters, and as long as the skills are reasonably balanced (which is something that's easier to do when you consolidate them, as it looks like they're doing) this should allow for easier creation of more interesting characters.

As for those arguing that it will make character roles obsolete, I like the argument that while anyone can have the skill, certain classes will be able to do things with those skills that others won't. Everyone can take Perform, but only a Bard can Fascinate. Anyone can have Search, but only the Rogue has trapfinding. This especially opens up interesting possibilities for the much-maligned fighter, vis a vis Leap Attack and maneuvers like those from the Diamond Mind discipline, that rely on skill checks.

tainsouvra
2007-11-06, 01:24 PM
In 2nd edition those skills were always useful and in some cases required, especially in my games. IF they became useless in 3rd edition, then that's the sole fault of WoTC. They are no more useful or useless in 3E than they were in 2E. You can ease off the crusade now :smallamused:

warmachine
2007-11-06, 01:26 PM
As for those arguing that it will make character roles obsolete, I like the argument that while anyone can have the skill, certain classes will be able to do things with those skills that others won't. Everyone can take Perform, but only a Bard can Fascinate. Anyone can have Search, but only the Rogue has trapfinding. This especially opens up interesting possibilities for the much-maligned fighter, vis a vis Leap Attack and maneuvers like those from the Diamond Mind discipline, that rely on skill checks.
Then we risk a Wizard picking Tinker, Perception and Insight, which he can afford with a high INT bonus, permanent Detect Magic for finding those high DC, magical traps and claiming he, not the Rogue, should disable them because he's got the best INT modifier. Personally, I think it's up to the players to divide the skills and roles between them but I'm sure WotC don't see it that way and they're making a mistake by their own design philosophy.

Still, I'll be glad that high level characters won't have Spot and Listen skills that suck because they're cross-class.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-06, 01:28 PM
You keep using that word, I dont think it means what you think it means.

Well, any debate's going to be pointless if we're talking about entirely different things. What's your definition of "theory" and "practice"?


You are changing your standards now. Freedom works fine for "some players", but communism has to work on a "meaningful scale"

ED: In fact, they both fail for the same reason. Because it only takes one or a few instances to mess up character generation freedom and the same for communism.

It's not a double standard. It's just that "meaningful scale" has different meanings. Rules for character generation don't have to work with every single player in the world: It only needs to work on the scale of individual groups. Communism has to work on the scale of nations.

It doesn't just take "one or a few instances" to mess up character generation freedom: If somebody intentionally tries to break the game, the DM's job is to prevent him from doing so. If somebody accidentally breaks the game (eg Druids with Natural Spell), the DM's job is to correct the mistake so the player can learn from it. When I say that "character generation freedom works with certain players," I mean "freedom works with players that will not abuse those freedoms." Such players do exist, and in the context of small groups it's quite possible that you could get a significant number of them.


But the article doesnt tell you in what setting the encounter was based around.

I think it's safe to assume default. This looks like a little module built to be stuck into any campaign world provided it treats vampires in the default manner.

MrNexx
2007-11-06, 07:18 PM
In 2nd edition those skills were always useful and in some cases required, especially in my games. IF they became useless in 3rd edition, then that's the sole fault of WoTC.

I think one of the differences came down with allocation of resources.

In 2e, you bought a proficiency and that was it. You usually had a couple more proficiency slots than you needed, because most were not integral to character concepts. When you got to 3rd/4th level, you got another NWP, which you had to do something with, which often meant picking up some ancillary proficiencies ("Heck, I might as well spend it on Direction Sense... I've got everything else I need").

In 3.x, skill points had a lot more to do, and skills can be constantly improved. As such, you rarely got to a level and found you had nothing to spend your skill points on... even characters whose focus wasn't skills could drop some in non-class skills, which was harder in 2e.

As for the skills having nothing to do, that doesn't lie on WotC, but on DMs.

Matthew
2007-11-06, 07:27 PM
You could improve the Proficiency with a spare Slot, +1 per Slot, but that was generally a poor decision for a PC. For NPCs who got as many Proficiencies as you liked, it was great.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-06, 07:30 PM
You could improve the Proficiency with a spare Slot, +1 per Slot, but that was generally a poor decision for a PC. For NPCs who got as many Proficiencies as you liked, it was great.

For me, Nonweapon Proficiencies were cumbersome. I don't know why, but I just never could get my brain around them.

Matthew
2007-11-06, 07:34 PM
For me, Nonweapon Proficiencies were cumbersome. I don't know why, but I just never could get my brain around them.

I think you would find a large number of AD&D Old Schoolers would agree with that. Personally, if I were to run a btb 2e game again, I wouldn't use them; they were optional, after all.

Of course, most Old Schoolers would say something similar about 3e Skills.

shaddy_24
2007-11-06, 11:46 PM
Not to be on it.

Their jobs include presetting the battlefield, poisoning enemy water supplies or such, performing pre-battle recon, and other, stealth-oriented skills. Once the fighting actually takes place, they shouldn't BE anywhere near the front line, instead performing, at best, hit-and-runs on enemy flanks.

Sorry to go back to an old idea, but no PC class should be set up this way. If you play it and you can't do anything in an actual battle, that cuts out a lot of what you can do. If everytime a battle breaks out you have to run to the back because you can't do anything, you get to sit back and do nothing until everyone finishes. Then, when you get to do your battlefield preparation, everyone else gets to sit back and watch you. It sets up too much time when people are forced to sit back and do nothing.


About the skills, I think this system can work. Certain classes should still be better at some things than others (rogues are best at finding and disarming traps, wizards are more knowledgeable, fighters are stronger), but opening things up to everybody can help the game, let you make some different characters. But if the fighter can disarm traps just as well as the rogue and fight better, then the game has lost something.

Jack Zander
2007-11-07, 12:01 AM
Doesn't everything work in theory? Isn't that the whole point of making the theory in the first place?

horseboy
2007-11-07, 12:05 AM
As for those arguing that it will make character roles obsolete, I like the argument that while anyone can have the skill, certain classes will be able to do things with those skills that others won't. Everyone can take Perform, but only a Bard can Fascinate. Anyone can have Search, but only the Rogue has trapfinding. This especially opens up interesting possibilities for the much-maligned fighter, vis a vis Leap Attack and maneuvers like those from the Diamond Mind discipline, that rely on skill checks.
You know what? I really don't care. I will admit to a strong dislike for rogues, as the only people I've met who play them are ***** IRL and are just looking for an excuse for dickery in game. I haven't had a "rouge" in the party in like 15 years. I've never even had to put my foot down, I stopped playing with that kind of person and no one has wanted to play a rogue. So I guess I'm saying "Yes they deserve to die, and I hope they burn in Hell!"

Dausuul
2007-11-07, 12:08 AM
I think you would find a large number of AD&D Old Schoolers would agree with that. Personally, if I were to run a btb 2e game again, I wouldn't use them; they were optional, after all.

Of course, most Old Schoolers would say something similar about 3e Skills.

Yeah, I would probably go with the secondary skills system instead of NWPs, and I'd be pretty liberal about what you could do with secondary skills.

I kind of hope they have something like secondary skills in 4E. Not so much because I feel we need rules for things like being a chef, but because I think it encourages people to develop these aspects of their characters when there's a space for it on the sheet. If there isn't such a thing in the core rules, I'll probably house-rule it in.

Dervag
2007-11-07, 12:17 AM
No, it doesnt. Just like Laissez-faire works in theory but not in practice, so does Communism.If you accept the basic axiomatic assumptions of the theory itself, yes, the theory works 'in theory'. But all that proves is that the theory is consistent with its own axioms.

It does not prove that the axioms are valid. Swordguy's point is that there are compelling theoretical reasons to be skeptical of the axioms, and that the social theory in question does not work, even in theory, if our definition of 'theory' includes things outside the axiom-set of communism.


Doesn't everything work in theory? Isn't that the whole point of making the theory in the first place?Again, it depends heavily on what you mean by theory.

I am a physicist in training. When someone asks me if something will work 'in theory,' I interpret the question to mean: "Does this violate any physical laws? Is it a perpetual motion machine? Does it rely on gravity/magnetism/friction/whatever working in a way it doesn't work?" and so on.

If I can see no fundamental law or blindingly obvious issue preventing the device from working, I say "it will work in theory." It may be that to actually build the thing you'd need a metal stronger than anything that exists, or some apparatus that would cost a quadrillion dollars to build, or some such thing. If so, it will not work in practice, but it still works in theory because it doesn't contradict any of the laws of logic or physics.

I interpret a question about a sociological theory such as communism or laissez-faire capitalist fundamentalism in the same way. If the theory does not violate any of the laws of logic or the 'laws' of human nature, I will say it works in theory.

By this criterion, Swordguy might well be correct in saying that communism does not work in theory. Communism works well if your starting assumption is that all the basic underlying assumptions of communist theory are correct, but that is inherently a circular argument. That kind of circular argument is not what many people mean by the phrase 'in theory'.

Jack Zander
2007-11-07, 12:23 AM
Very good points I must say. What I meant though was simply "why would someone make a theory if it was so easily foreseeable that it would fail in practice?"

With sociological theories, most of them assume people will act in a certain way, thus they do work in theory. However, it's easy to produce your own theory were they do not work. Since there are not set laws for sociology like there are for physics, theories are generally much, much looser and it's really hard for me to say that a sociological idea does not work in theory. The theory just may be flawed by not taking something into account, like human greed for communism.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 12:23 AM
They are no more useful or useless in 3E than they were in 2E. You can ease off the crusade now :smallamused:

I'm a Lawful Good paladin, and my church views Hasbro and WoTC as evil incarnate.

:P

Nonah_Me
2007-11-07, 12:27 AM
Hmm. Smite Corporation?

Anyway, I thought I read somewhere that WotC was getting rid of the Alignment rules. Therefore you could have a Vampire who wasn't neccessarily evil because of the Monster Manual Alignment Designation. However, I'm frequently wrong.

dragonseth
2007-11-07, 01:03 AM
Hmm. Smite Corporation?

Anyway, I thought I read somewhere that WotC was getting rid of the Alignment rules. Therefore you could have a Vampire who wasn't neccessarily evil because of the Monster Manual Alignment Designation. However, I'm frequently wrong.

That would definitely make me sad. I happen to like the alignment system, even if it does have its quirks.

Person_Man
2007-11-07, 10:31 AM
Hmm. Smite Corporation?

Anyway, I thought I read somewhere that WotC was getting rid of the Alignment rules. Therefore you could have a Vampire who wasn't neccessarily evil because of the Monster Manual Alignment Designation. However, I'm frequently wrong.

They've stated that they're going to de-couple most of the alignment rules from crunch for PCs. Apparently, too many players (especially new players) view alignment as a straitjacket. For example, the Paladin will no longer required to be Lawful Good. Instead the Paladin will be a holy warrior for their god, who can have whatever belief system that god wants. Few if any class abilities and magic items will be tied to alignment. Alignment will still be in the PHB, but it will be a starting point for roleplaying, not a constraint on your character actions. Presumably changing alignment

I haven't decided what I think of this yet. Most gamers I know use a modified alignment system or ignore it. I even ran a poll (back in the day when this site had polls) which had a pretty big response, and I think only 20 something percent of the community used the alignment rules as written. So I'm glad they're getting rid of cumbersome crunch that doesn't really fit into most DMs worlds. But for those 20% who do use it and love it, I feel sorry that they're getting shafted.

I don't know how they'll handle it for enemies. I'm assuming that it will also be much less important, as evidenced by this article.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 10:43 AM
Hmm. Smite Corporation?

Anyway, I thought I read somewhere that WotC was getting rid of the Alignment rules. Therefore you could have a Vampire who wasn't neccessarily evil because of the Monster Manual Alignment Designation. However, I'm frequently wrong.

Further destruction of Ravenloft whose many rules revolved around alignment.

Thinker
2007-11-07, 10:47 AM
Further destruction of Ravenloft whose many rules revolved around alignment.

If someone wants to publish a Ravenloft Campaign Setting for DnD 4e they can introduce new campaign-specific rules, including alignment. Every campaign has modified rules to make things work for that setting.

hewhosaysfish
2007-11-07, 11:40 AM
Apparently, too many players (especially new players) view alignment as a straitjacket.

Alignment will still be in the PHB but it will be a starting point for roleplaying, not a constraint on your character actions.

My prediction: This will fail. At risk of derailing the thread:

People will reach this 'starting point for roleplaying', mistake it for the end and scream "Help help! I'm trapped!".
"You're not trapped" we will say, soothingly.
"Yes we are! We're in a straight-jacket! Our choices have been limited!"
"It's just a start-point. Move beyond it."
"It's not allowed! It's the rules!"

In short, this 'new' approach to alignment is the same as the old one.




Few if any class abilities and magic items will be tied to alignment.
I'm not sure how i feel about this. In my vision of heroic fantasy, there should be some magic doodats that only open for/reveal their secrets to/work for/help the pure of heart and some (possibly the same ones) the blast the wicked for their wickedness (and vice versa. Good doesn't have a monopoly on doodats).
Of course, this could always be limited to artifact level magic items, legendary critters and epic-ish spells and/or function by the Power of Plot rather than being a core game mechanic.
Now that I think about it, that would actually gel better with my views... Down with Alignment!