PDA

View Full Version : 4E: Pit Fiend stat block



Tren
2008-01-26, 12:23 PM
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080125&authentic=true

I'm a forum nub so I don't know how to work spoilers, can someone else post it?

Anyway, it took me a couple seconds to get a grip on some of the terms I was seeing. It's definitely different. After reading it over a few times I kind of liked it, though some terms I'm still only guessing at, like abilities being standard/minor, I think they're referring to the type of action it is to use that ability. Anyway, peruse, and let the whining begin :smallwink:

Morty
2008-01-26, 12:39 PM
Few things I notice:
-Pit Fiend is likely to be a race now
-There's a class or something similiar named "Elite Soldier"
-Teleport is now a type of movement
-Attacks and special abilites seem to be listed together
-Chaos/Law is gone, or at least devils don't figure on this axis
-There's set amount of XP for monsters.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-26, 01:00 PM
Something I'm surprised with is the fact that it saves at only +2. Are save DCs changing that dramatically?

Theli
2008-01-26, 01:04 PM
Saves are actually in the 40s...

AC 44; Fortitude 42, Reflex 38, Will 40

What saving throws +2 means...hmm... I really can't think of anything. Maybe it's just a modifier to saving throws derived from the base devil or immortal humanoid type? Though that seems like a waste of a line...

Artanis
2008-01-26, 01:06 PM
Something I'm surprised with is the fact that it saves at only +2. Are save DCs changing that dramatically?
Do you mean the Pit Fiend itself's saves? Because the line above it says "AC 44; Fortitude 42, Reflex 38, Will 40".

If you mean the save DC on the Pit Fiend's abilities though, there may be something in another part of the rules that makes "+2" make more sense. Like if there's a default DC based on level (or creature type, or "class", or whatever), and the +2 is on top of that. Like if some other part of the mechanics winds up giving a L26 Devil save DCs of, say, 30, then the Pit Fiend would have save DCs of 32. Something like that.



Edit: Bah, Theli beat me to it!

Zeful
2008-01-26, 01:08 PM
The 'Elite' thing was covered in another article it means that it is effectively two enemies.

Spiryt
2008-01-26, 01:10 PM
Other interesting things :

Senses Perception +23; darkvision - Senses covered by skills are gone?

Bloodied 175 - I wonder what is that.

Artanis
2008-01-26, 01:14 PM
Other interesting things :

Senses: Perception +23; darkvision - Senses covered by skills are gone?
Bloodied 175 - I wonder what is that.
Perception:

Perception covers pretty much all senses, it's Spot, Listen, and maybe Search rolled into one. So that covers the senses. They probably don't put any other skills on there because they wouldn't really be relevant. A Pit Fiend's job is to get stabbed to death by adventurers, so you don't really need to remind everybody what their Religion check is :smallwink:


Bloodied:

Bloodied means, basically, "half health". Certain abilities only work when bloodied, and certain abilities only work on bloodied opponents. There may be times when bloodied comes at a different fraction, but even if there aren't, it's worth a couple words in space that otherwise would've been wasted to avoid having to hassle with division, especially in the middle of a fight.

Theli
2008-01-26, 01:18 PM
Bloodied seems to also be a major part of the rogue's shtick. Once bloodied, they can commit major damage to finish the creature off.

Spiryt
2008-01-26, 01:19 PM
Bloodied:

Bloodied means, basically, "half health". Certain abilities only work when bloodied, and certain abilities only work on bloodied opponents. It's probably listed there so that the DM doesn't have to hassle with division. Not really necessary, but an extra two words to save some annoyance won't hurt anybody.

Yay! Finally some difference between full being "full health" and being almost eviscecrated.:smallwink:


Perception:

Perception covers pretty much all senses, it's Spot, Listen, and maybe Search rolled into one. So that covers the senses. They probably don't put any other skills on there because they wouldn't really be relevant. A Pit Fiend's job is to get stabbed to death by adventurers, so you don't really need to remind everybody what their Religion check is :smallwink:


Not yay. When I had seen that I though " I hope that all senses are not in this "Perception" together". It's little stupid for me.

Theli
2008-01-26, 01:21 PM
The oddest thing to me is this:

Melee Pit Fiend Frenzy (standard; at-will)
The pit fiend makes a flametouched mace attack and a tail sting attack.

Is it really necessary to specify yet another action type in order to use a combination of actions listed earlier?

I guess this is the price paid for getting rid of the full attack line...

Edit: Although perhaps frenzied actions have some side-effect or something...

Fax Celestis
2008-01-26, 01:23 PM
Not yay. When I had seen that I though " I hope that all senses are not in this "Perception" together". It's little stupid for me.

Can I ask why you think that? I run in a lot of games right now where Listen/Spot become Perception, Open Lock/Disable Device become Disable Device, Knowledge (Arcana)/Spellcraft become Knowledge (Arcana), and Hide/Move Silently become Stealth. Makes things a lot simpler, and cuts die rolling nearly in half in sneakier situations.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-26, 01:24 PM
The oddest thing to me is this:


Is it really necessary to specify yet another action type in order to use a combination of actions listed earlier?

I guess this is the price paid for getting rid of the full attack line...

Edit: Although perhaps frenzied actions have some side-effect or something...

Actually, I think it stems from the fact that 4e is getting rid of multiple attacks in a round except via special abilities. This is one of those abilities, as it lets the pit fiend attack with both its mace and its tail sting.

Spiryt
2008-01-26, 01:32 PM
Can I ask why you think that? I run in a lot of games right now where Listen/Spot become Perception, Open Lock/Disable Device become Disable Device, Knowledge (Arcana)/Spellcraft become Knowledge (Arcana), and Hide/Move Silently become Stealth. Makes things a lot simpler, and cuts die rolling nearly in half in sneakier situations.

Yeah well, it's always better when things can be done quick.

But for the cost o common sense. Sense of hearing is something completely different from sight. Just as ability to stay unseen and ability to move without sound...

Well, overally those are probably different tastes. I like many different skills, it give more choice, customisation - like someone who can hide pretty well and fast but is heavy on his foot, so he'll make qite a noise even when sneaking.

Thanatos 51-50
2008-01-26, 01:40 PM
Spoiler'd for your pleasure.

Last month, I shared the elf racial entry from the upcoming 4th Edition Player's Handbook with you. It went over so well that I thought I'd do something like it again this month. This time, though, I've decided to dive into the Monster Manual files and see how that book is coming along. Just today, for example, Mike Mearls and I finished reviewing every minion and swarm in the book, making sure that the rules for these are clear, concise, and easy to use at the table. I was going to show you one of those, but while they're all cool and great for the game, they aren't anywhere near the sexiest monsters in the book. No, I want to share with you something meaty, something substantial, and something well and truly at the top of the pile of D&D monsters. Something new won't work for this purpose, since I want you to be able to compare the 3E version to the 4th Edition version if you have a desire to make such a comparison.

For all these reasons and more (and because the art sketch by Arnie Swekel is just wonderful), I've settled on the pit fiend. Here's the entry from the new Monster Manual in all its current glory. Enjoy!

PIT FIEND
Nobles of the Nine Hells, pit fiends form an elite ruling class that oversees vast numbers of lesser devils. Only the archdevils known as the Lords of the Nine stand higher than the pit fiends.

Each pit fiend is lord of a large domain within one of the layers of the Nine Hells and is vassal to the archdevil who rules that layer. A pit fiend might govern a city, command a fortress, lead a great legion, or serve as a seneschal or counselor for an archdevil. With the exception of Asmodeus, each Lord of the Nine commands no more than a dozen or so pit fiends.

As the lords, barons, viziers, and generals of the Nine Hells, pit fiends rarely confront adventurers in person. They are the progenitors of devilish schemes, and they step in only when important plans go awry or when great plots reach fruition. In the Nine Hells proper, pit fiends command vast numbers of lesser devils. Penetrating the defenses of a pit fiend's castle and destroying the mighty devil in its own demesne is a deed of truly epic proportions.

Description
This hulking devil stands 12 feet tall and has red scales, leathery wings, and a long whiplike tail. It carries a massive mace and wears an ornate breastplate decorated with evil runes and symbols.

Pit Fiend Level 26 Elite Soldier (Leader)
Large immortal humanoid (devil) XP 18,000
Initiative +22 Senses Perception +23; darkvision
Aura of Fear (Fear) aura 5; enemies in the aura take a –2 penalty on attack rolls.
Aura of Fire (Fire) aura 5; enemies that enter or start their turns in the aura take 15 fire damage.
HP 350; Bloodied 175
AC 44; Fortitude 42, Reflex 38, Will 40
Resist 30 fire, 15 poison
Saving Throws +2
Speed 12, fly 12 (clumsy), teleport 10
Action Points 1
Melee Flametouched Mace (standard; at-will) • Fire, Weapon
Reach 2; +31 vs. AC; 1d12+11 fire damage plus ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends).
Melee Tail Sting (standard; at-will) • Poison
+31 vs. AC; 1d6+11 damage, and the pit fiend may make a free followup attack. Followup: +29 vs. Fortitude; ongoing 15 poison damage, and the target is weakened (save ends both effects).
Melee Pit Fiend Frenzy (standard; at-will)
The pit fiend makes a flametouched mace attack and a tail sting attack.
Ranged Point of Terror (minor; at-will) • Fear
Range 5; +30 vs. Will; the target takes a –5 penalty to all defenses until the end of the pit fiend's next turn.
Ranged Irresistible Command (minor 1/round; at-will) • Charm, Fire
Range 10; affects one allied devil of lower level than the pit fiend; the target immediately slides up to 5 squares and explodes, dealing 2d10+5 fire damage to all creatures in a close burst 2. The exploding devil is destroyed.
Infernal Summons (standard; encounter) • Conjuration
The pit fiend summons a group of devil allies. Summoned devils roll initiative to determine when they act in the initiative order and gain a +4 bonus to attack rolls as long as the pit fiend is alive. They remain until they are killed, dismissed by the pit fiend (free action), or the encounter ends. PCs do not earn experience points for killing these summoned creatures. The pit fiend chooses to summon one of the following groups of devils:


8 legion devil legionnaires (level 21), or
2 war devils (level 22), or
1 war devil (level 22) and 4 legion devil legionnaires (level 21)
Tactical Teleport (standard; recharge 4 5 6) • Teleportation
The pit fiend can teleport up to 2 allies within 10 squares of it. The targets appear in any other unoccupied squares within 10 squares of the pit fiend.
Alignment Evil
Languages Supernal
Skills Bluff +27, Intimidate +27, Religion +24
Str 32 (+24) Dex 24 (+20) Wis 20 (+18)
Con 27 (+21) Int 22 (+19) Cha 28 (+22)
Equipment flametouched mace, noble signet ring

Pit Fiend Tactics
A pit fiend fights close to its enemies, catching them in its aura of fear and aura of fire. On the first round of combat, it spends an action point to use infernal summons. It then uses point of terror against a tough-looking foe and tactical teleport to place two allies in flanking positions around that foe. With its remaining minor action, the pit fiend uses irresistible command on an ally within range.

A pit fiend alternates between point of terror and irresistible command, sometimes using both if it has a spare move action it can replace with a minor action. Otherwise, the pit fiend uses pit fiend frenzy, teleporting as needed to gain a better position.

A pit fiend does not sacrifice its life needlessly and makes a tactical retreat if death is imminent.

Pit Fiend Lore
A character knows the following information with a successful Religion check:

DC 25: Pit fiends are the nobles of the Nine Hells. Each pit fiend serves as a vassal to one of the nine archdevils and commands a fortress, city, or army in its master's domain.

DC 30: Once every 99 years, a pit fiend can grant a mortal's wish by performing a terrible ritual. Only the most powerful and promising of mortals are offered such a temptation.

DC 35: Well-known pit fiends include Baalzephon, one of the powerful circle of pit fiends known as the Dark Eight; Gazra, who governs the city of Abriymoch in Phlegethos, the Fourth Hell; and Baalberith, the major-domo of the palace of Asmodeus.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What else is going on around here right now? The Player's Handbook is in Typesetting, and we're poring over the galleys to make every last improvement we can before it goes to print. The Monster Manual is in its last two weeks of Managing Editing, the stage right before it goes into Typesetting. And the Dungeon Master's Guide is about to leave Editing and enter its Managing Editing stage. So, from a certain point of view, the end of the process is in sight. At the same time, all kinds of other things are in process or just beginning.

For example, our Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and Player's Guide have just entered Development, and Design is underway on a number of projects -- many of which I can't talk about just yet. As for D&D Insider, maybe I'll take some time next month to talk about how the digital initiative is shaping up.

Meanwhile, I need to select monsters from this wonderful Monster Manual file for my game tomorrow night. Let's see if Biggy Small and company can get out of this one -- bwaHAHA!

Until then ...

Keep playing!

--Bill Slavicsek

Theli
2008-01-26, 01:40 PM
So...monsters can have action points...and spending them will give them more actions...


Pit Fiend Tactics
A pit fiend fights close to its enemies, catching them in its aura of fear and aura of fire. On the first round of combat, it spends an action point to use infernal summons. It then uses point of terror against a tough-looking foe and tactical teleport to place two allies in flanking positions around that foe. With its remaining minor action, the pit fiend uses irresistible command on an ally within range.

A pit fiend alternates between point of terror and irresistible command, sometimes using both if it has a spare move action it can replace with a minor action. Otherwise, the pit fiend uses pit fiend frenzy, teleporting as needed to gain a better position.

So what do we have here...2 standard actions and 2 minor actions on the first round of combat takes an action point expenditure...

Minor actions can take the place of a move action... (nothing special, but nice to have it laid bare like this)

The 2nd paragraph here is odd... It's hard to interpret... Maybe you're allowed a standard action, a minor action, and a movement action normally and the action point just gives you an extra standard action? And maybe teleporting is just a regular movement? (It has a rating of 10...so 10 squares teleportation?) Or maybe it requires both a movement and a minor action.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-26, 01:43 PM
The 2nd paragraph here is odd... It's hard to interpret... Maybe you're allowed a standard action, a minor action, and a movement action normally and the action point just gives you an extra standard action? And maybe teleporting is just a regular movement? (It has a rating of 10...so 10 squares teleportation?)

Looks like.

Mewtarthio
2008-01-26, 01:54 PM
The oddest thing to me is this:


Is it really necessary to specify yet another action type in order to use a combination of actions listed earlier?

I guess this is the price paid for getting rid of the full attack line...

Edit: Although perhaps frenzied actions have some side-effect or something...

My guess is they just want to be clear in case something happens that robs a Pit Fiend of certain abilities. For instance, somebody could sunder the Flametouched Mace, meaning that he has to use the Tail Sting alone.

Person_Man
2008-01-26, 02:50 PM
Looks like Initiative is not a Skill like SWSE. Too bad.

Looks like they changed the name of Swift Action to Minor Action. Meh.

I'm glad to see that they've eliminated the laundry list of pointless abilities that never end up being used.

Also, I can't figure out why they screwed with the stat bonuses. Any ideas?

Theli
2008-01-26, 02:53 PM
Because players have a mental block against accepting negatives perhaps?

SoD
2008-01-26, 02:57 PM
Heh, you can find out about a 'well known' Pit Lord...only with a DC 35 check? Maybe he's not so well known after all.

Theli
2008-01-26, 02:58 PM
Or maybe the abyss just likes to keep its secrets...

Swooper
2008-01-26, 04:14 PM
Observations:

Languages: Supernal - Will all creatures from outside the Material Plane/Feywild/Shadowfell speak this? Seems silly, with the basic languages in 3E I always have trouble finding appropriate languages for the high-int characters.
XP: 18000 - Removing the CR vs. PC level table. I suppose I don't mind, it was kind of superfluous and tedious to look up every time XP was awarded, so nice.
Everything measured in squares now. I take that as a bad thing, I was kind of hoping (although I didn't expect it) that they'd switch to the metric system, I get a headache from thinking in feet, yards, miles, Fahrenheit degrees, inches, and pounds.

Little_Rudo
2008-01-26, 04:16 PM
Observations:

Everything measured in squares now. I take that as a bad thing, I was kind of hoping (although I didn't expect it) that they'd switch to the metric system, I get a headache from thinking in feet, yards, miles, Fahrenheit degrees, inches, and pounds.

From what I've heard, 1 square = 5 feet = 1.5 meters, approximately. It should now actually be easier to find the metric measurements, since it's just one-and-a-half times the square measurement.

Fax Celestis
2008-01-26, 04:20 PM
Everything measured in squares now. I take that as a bad thing, I was kind of hoping (although I didn't expect it) that they'd switch to the metric system, I get a headache from thinking in feet, yards, miles, Fahrenheit degrees, inches, and pounds.

Who's to say a "square" isn't two meters instead of five feet? That's one of the advantages of an inexplicit system.

Morty
2008-01-26, 04:34 PM
Also, I can't figure out why they screwed with the stat bonuses. Any ideas?

Because they think bigger numbers look preetier? I've heard (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=217471&page=1&pp=30) that now stat bonuses look like in 3ed, but 1/2 of level is added. But then, everyone gets this, so only real change is that numbers are bigger. Unless monster HD don't count, that is.

Dausuul
2008-01-26, 04:35 PM
As regards the "+2 Saves" thing, popular opinion on the ENWorld forums is that that's not a saving throw as we know it in 3E. Rather, it's a save as per the new DDM rules. Basically, when you have an ongoing debuff, you make a "save" each round to throw off the effect. You roll 1d20, and if you get 10 or higher, the effect goes away. (Notice how the ongoing fire and poison damages call for a "save" but don't specify a DC, nor which save is required.)

So, the pit fiend's special ability allows him to make this type of save on an 8 or higher.

Artanis
2008-01-26, 04:58 PM
Also, I can't figure out why they screwed with the stat bonuses. Any ideas?
Huh. Didn't notice that the first time through. I have absolutely no idea what to make of it. Are the numbers in parentheses the bonus (like how 18 in a stat is +4 in 3e), or some sort of baseline? :smallconfused:

Swooper
2008-01-26, 05:22 PM
Who's to say a "square" isn't two meters instead of five feet? That's one of the advantages of an inexplicit system.
Good point. I guess I'm just miffed they're taking another step towards forcing us to use a battlemap and miniatures, which is something my group has never done and I doubt we will. :smallannoyed:

Fax Celestis
2008-01-26, 05:35 PM
Good point. I guess I'm just miffed they're taking another step towards forcing us to use a battlemap and miniatures, which is something my group has never done and I doubt we will. :smallannoyed:

Thing is, D&D's always been mini-centric. It's been playable without, but it did originate from the tactical wargame Chainmail. Hell, IIRC 2e didn't measure in squares or in feet: it measured in inches moved on the table. If anything, having a fixed square distance instead of a fixed metric/imperial distance makes non-mini play easier, since you can be more arbitrary about distances.

kjones
2008-01-26, 05:37 PM
I think it's a compromise. Sure, they've been moving towards miniatures for some time, but at the same time, it makes the distances "unitless". I don't know, if you decided to make everything really small-scale, you just say that 1 square = 1 ft. on a side. Also, metric. Hooray!

AslanCross
2008-01-26, 05:49 PM
I noticed that the creature type line no longer includes Outsider, probably due to the way the planes are being reconfigured.

Large immortal humanoid (devil)

Edit: Also, no more fire and poison immunity. It's down to high fire resistance and a lesser degree of poison resistance. Also interesting is that the way poison resistance is worded seems like it's no longer about ability damage, but is direct HP damage.

illathid
2008-01-26, 07:56 PM
Skills Bluff +27, Intimidate +27, Religion +24
Str 32 (+24) Dex 24 (+20) Wis 20 (+18) Con 27 (+21) Int 22 (+19) Cha 28 (+22)

I believe that the number in parenthesis behind the stat score is the pit fiends untrained skill check for bonus for skill tied to that ability score.

Lets see, 32 Str= +11 add that to half the pit fiends level (13) and that gives you 24. Ok seems consistant, let try that again.

13 + 5 (20 Wis) gives us 18.

So I think we can that the number is the skill bonus, and not the straight ability bonus, otherwise the pit fiend would have much larger bonuses to the skills he's trained in (like Bluff and Intimidate).

Kellus
2008-01-26, 10:08 PM
What I found really intriguing about this is that normal attacks and magical effects seem to be following the same rules. They now target as " +x vs Fortitude/Will/Reflex/AC". And the saves of the pit fiend are listed as a flat value, just like AC is. My inclination is to think that this may mean that when you cause any offensive effect you roll (a d20?) and add your modifier to the roll to compare against the defender's AC/Fortitude/Reflex/Will/What have you. I like that.

Also, they seem to have done away with the morass that is full attacks in favour of mutually exclusive standard attack forms. And then to get iterative attacks, you get another ability that lets you combine some of your attacks into a single standard action. I like that a lot.

Standard, move, and minor (free?) actions all seem to have a clear hierarchy now. No more combining or adapting, you have the three seperate actions and can trade a higher action for an additional action. I approve.

What I also like is the way the attacks and special attacks are formatted; in exactly the same way. They're defined by the action it takes to use them, how often it can be used, and the descriptors that are tacked onto them. There's no arbitrary distinction in the way that supernatural abilities or melee attacks work, they just have different descriptors on them; melee attacks made with the devil's mace have the "Weapon" descriptor, his aura of fear has the "Fear" descriptor, and so on. This seems to promise a much more standardized system; attacks are defined by their component descriptors. For example, by combining the "Charm" and "Fire" descriptors, the devil gets to force a weaker devil to move and explode into a fiery burst. This is pretty sweet.

Also, I like the recharge mechanic for the teleportation. Apparently "1d4 round" recharge is gone, replaced with "4 5 6" recharge. Presumably rolling a d6 against the target number to regain access?

Overall, I like it a lot. It seems streamlined, internally consistent, and easy to access. Flat XP gained is also probably a good idea, since it makes it easy to find, easy to award, and gets rid of those stupid XP by level rules.

Mewtarthio
2008-01-26, 10:38 PM
As regards the "+2 Saves" thing, popular opinion on the ENWorld forums is that that's not a saving throw as we know it in 3E. Rather, it's a save as per the new DDM rules. Basically, when you have an ongoing debuff, you make a "save" each round to throw off the effect. You roll 1d20, and if you get 10 or higher, the effect goes away. (Notice how the ongoing fire and poison damages call for a "save" but don't specify a DC, nor which save is required.)

So, the pit fiend's special ability allows him to make this type of save on an 8 or higher.

It could also mean that any ongoing debuff caused by a Pit Fiend has a +2 to the "DC" to save against it. Namely, you need to roll a 12 or higher to break free.

On an unrelated note, while tranforming your minions into makeshift bombs is a fairly awesome ability, it kind of weakens the military ideals of the devils. I'd understand if he used this as a last resort against an enemy that was about to kill him (better to have your minions die to protect their leader), but the combat block implies that Pit Fiends pull this trick all the time. Serving under a Pit Fiend is basically a death sentence now. I'd like it better if it were restricted to only be usable when the Pit Fiend is bloodied, or if the combat block noted that Pit Fiends only use the attack against opponents that pose a significant threat.

horseboy
2008-01-26, 10:56 PM
So it summons other devils, teleports them into the middle of the party and command detonates them?!?! He's got suicide bombers! LOL! That's great!

Draz74
2008-01-26, 11:05 PM
Too much to comment on (here, I'll demonstrate:)

So ... they're still using stat blocks more similar to the newer-but-not-so-popular stat block style that the MMIV and V used. Personally I don't mind. I like having, for example, senses and initiative at the top of the stat block.

Elite ... makes sense, although I kind of thought Pit Fiend might be like a Beholder or Dragon and count as a well-rounded encounter on its own. Actually, I like this better. So a typical encounter at this level could be a Pit Fiend and two Level 26 non-Elite, non-Solo monsters? (What monsters at such a high level won't be Elite or Solo? Besides NPC's?)

Soldier. I don't know if we really know anything yet about this monster role. Sounds awfully generic. I guess this is one reason (of many) they rejected the idea of having the Warlord class be named Soldier.

Leader. What? Is Leader a monster role as well as a hero role, or is this here in case an NPC Pit Fiend is part of an adventuring party? I really don't understand why this part is here.

XP 18000. Good to see the rumor is true that they're bringing back flat XP rewards, although I hope they do something to fix the old problem of PCs beating up low-level monsters for easy (if slow) XP. This is also our first clue about what scale the XP rewards will be on ... but with just one clue, there's not much to calibrate. Will 26th-level PCs still require 27000 additional XP to advance to 27th level? If so ... wow. A Pit Fiend alone gets them a good share of the way through that level.

Init +22. Why? Its (level-dependent) Dex bonus is +20. Where is it getting an extra +2? Not from having Initiative as a trained skill; that would be +25. Nor is Initiative still a non-level-dependent Dex check; that would be +7. Nor have they adopted the sometimes-seen houserule of Initiative being Wisdom-based; that would be +18. This is puzzling indeed. I hope it's not something random like "all Devils get +2 Initiative."

Perception +23. That one's easy; apparently Perception is a Trained Skill for the pit fiend, so it's a Wisdom check with a +5. (As a side note, I'm a little worried about just how Saga-like this skill system is looking. Maybe they adopted the Saga system for monster skills, but still kept a bit more detail for PCs?)

Darkvision. I thought they were dropping this ability from the game entirely maybe, but apparently it's still OK for monsters. Just not for any PC races. Well, I definitely approve of devils having it, since having them potentially sneak up on you in the dark is nice and creepy.

Auras. I like the notation, with the subtypes of the abilities and the radii listed like they are. I don't like that auras have such defined and limited ranges like 5 squares, although I guess they kind of have to for monsters (unlike the Elf's ability to give his party +1 Perception, which should be defined by something other than distance). From DDM rules we know that 5-square radii probably means a big square, not a big octagon, which will be more convenient to use but make much less sense. :smallmad: At least the pit fiend's two auras have the same radius. And I never did understand why more 3e monsters didn't have abilities like the Fire Aura.

HP/Bloodied. OK, we were already at least 99% sure that the Bloodied statistic was just them doing the "divide HP by 2" math for us, and here it's confirmed again. The main interesting thing here is how much less HP the Pit Fiend has, compared to the Dragon they described in that one article (which had 1000). In theory that battle could have been with a monster even scarier than this -- a Level 30 dragon perhaps? -- but I think it's much more likely that Dragons just have a friggin huge amount of HP compared to most monsters (even of their same difficulty -- HP is one of their specialties as monsters). That's cool. Certainly fits the way dragons are described in fantasy, especially if they've dropped "DR /magic" and/or ridiculous Natural Armor as the ways that dragons are supposed to be ridiculously tough.

AC. I'm quite curious how they calculated this. Is it still based on an arbitrarily-chosen-but-necessary-for-balance quantity of Natural Armor, like most 3e monsters? Or do most monsters now get their Con bonus to AC or something? Only that still wouldn't quite get us up to 44. Is it supposed to be wearing actual armor? Picture and description don't indicate it.

Other defenses. Again, the formulas for almost everything except skills are mysterious. Fortitude is 10+Con bonus+11. Reflex is 10+Dex bonus+8. Will is 10+Wis bonus+12. Since that 11 and 8 and 12 don't match up, and I don't see where they could be generated from ... apparently defenses don't follow the "+1 per two levels" formula at all. So what do they follow? I hope they're not Saga-like, where they go up one for every level. That doesn't seem to fit the numbers either ... good.

Resistances. More confirmation that poison does HP damage. Does poison resistance have any means of blocking the non-damage effects of poison? Not very many kinds of resistances compared to 3e devils; good.

Saving Throws. So apparently this rule from DDM is also in the normal game. So it's equally easy to shrug off almost any condition after the first round? Like Hold Person, whether it was cast as +7 vs. Will or +29 vs. Will? Weird.

Speeds. Measured in squares of course. Maneuverability ratings for flight still exist, even though they were one of the most clunky parts of the 3e rules. Hopefully they've been streamlined. Will anything that can teleport get a teleport speed? Will monsters get "speeds" listed for other movement types, such as fly, even if they can't fly at-will, but only sometimes?

1 Action Point. Um, so Action Points give you an extra standard action on your turn now? Seems totally broken (although it's an easy way to implement Action Point rules to be sure). But the evidence is there: the statement that the Fiend uses his summoning ability on the first turn by using his Action Point up.

Basic mace attack. So all of it is considered fire damage? Is that typical of flaming weapons, or is it because the fiend somehow makes this weapon magically, out of fire? Ongoing fire damage. Nifty, but so many sources of ongoing damage seems like a bookkeeping problem. +31 attack -- again, a numeric mystery. +11 damage, on the other hand, is easy to figure out, and gives us a clue that not all ability checks add 1/2 your level like skill checks do; damage apparently adds your old-fashioned 3e-style Strength modifier. Interesting that they specify "at-will" even for a normal weapon attack like this. Does the "Weapon" tag (among other things) tell you that this is the ability that can be used for an Opportunity Attack? Or does the "Melee" tag do that (in which case the Fiend can do its combo "Frenzy" attack as an Opportunity ... yikes!)?

Tail sting. No reach; apparently having all attacks on a monster use the same reach doesn't "streamline" things much? Flavorful. I think I approve, at least when you consider the simplified new Reach rules. So "weakened" can be added to the list of conditions that poisons can cause as their side effects. (What does Weakened do again? I don't have the DDM rules document in front of me right now.) The "Followup" notation is nice and simple.

Hmmm. 18-ish average damage from the mace isn't much, when the fighters who face this monster will presumably have about 200 HP. Not very scary, even combined with the 14.5 average damage of the tail sting. I guess this monster really relies on its ongoing damage. Let's see. Hey -- does ongoing damage stack? I hope not. I hope you don't start taking 45 or 60 damage/round after getting hit multiple times with that tail sting. If not, then in an ideal round, this beast can expect to do ... 83 damage (15 aura +18 mace +5 ongoing mace +14 sting +15 ongoing poison +16 for blowing up one of its devil minions). OK, now that could be scary (especially considering damage to other targets in the fight at the same time).

No option to use claws as an attack. Or horns. I guess that's the "dropping stuff out which doesn't actually ever get used by monsters" thing. Which I highly approve of in this case.

Frenzy. So, it can make both attacks in one round with no penalty. Owch; I think this kind of "full attack" ability is going to be pretty rare and powerful.

Point of Terror. Ow. If he does this at the beginning of his turn every turn, he can possibly keep two targets affected by it constantly. Does AC count as a defense? (Probably not, based on DDM rules.)

Irresistible Command: The "Charm" tag probably means it's not irresistible, if you have the right buffs on you. :smallamused: Although it only works on "allied" devils, so who cares. Very flavorful, and will cause nasty tactical choices. ("Do I attack the minion or the main fiend? If I kill the minion in one hit, it's worth it, because then the Fiend can never make the minion blow us up. But if I don't quite kill it, it's bad, because that means the Fiend will be extra-willing to blow up the minion on its next turn.")

Infernal Summons: "encounter" means how many times per encounter? Always 1? Is there a recharge mechanism? I'm surprised they've kept the "Conjuration" descriptor (instead of, say, "Summoning") if they've gotten rid of the arcane magic Schools idea. The no-XP rule shouldn't have to be written; it should be a standard part of summoning abilities. Summoned creatures having their own initiative is good. Summoned creatures ... being independent, complex stat blocks of their own isn't so good. Oh, and remembering the +4 attack bonus for the minions is a pain, too. I hoped this was the kind of battle-extending ability they would be avoiding in 4e. Although this is an iconic, high-level monster, so maybe they made an exception. The first listed option seems best for the Fiend -- more fodder for Irresistible Command! All of the options seem pretty impressive, though; you're telling me the Pit Fiend can routinely summon enough force to dismantle any two Paragon-tier (i.e. Level 20 or lower) parties? Wow.

Tactical Teleport. Definitely less broken than the 3e Fiend ability to Greater Teleport at will. :smalltongue: I guess everything makes sense here except the "Recharge 4 5 6" list. Maybe after the first time the Fiend uses it, he has to wait 4 rounds; after the second use, wait 5 rounds; etc.? Yuck, lots of bookkeeping.

Wow. I know this is a high-level, iconic monster, but I'm having trouble believing WotC when they say that monsters have been stripped down to be pretty simple in 4e. This one can do 7 different things on his turn, besides default actions (like moving, or using a skill, or presumably trip/grapple/etc.). And that's if he doesn't use an Action Point or just have his minions fight for him or whatever. You get the idea.

Alignment Evil. Simple enough. :smallamused: No "Always"?

Skills: so apparently devils get 4 trained skills? Bluff, Intimidate, Religion, and Perception? This, by the way, is the part of the stat block that really testifies to the use of the Saga skill system.

Picture: Nice artwork. But doesn't look much like a "humanoid" to me. I thought they'd humanize devils a bit more than that, with the new changes that distinguish Devils and Demons. But maybe this is one of the more monstrous-looking devils. By the way, why does a monster with no shield not bother to use a two-handed weapon?

Equipment: I never did like high-level fiends having a specific list of (magic) treasure that you get for killing them. Meh, whatever.

Still using the format for Knowledge about monsters that the later Monster Manuals have used. Except of course with "Religion" instead of "Knowledge (The Planes)." OK, it's good to have a system for that. Although it seems crazy to have a DC 25 for knowing that "Pit Fiends are the nobles of the Nine Hells." Um, duh. Sounds like a DC 15 Religion check to me. This makes me worry that the game still has problems with the Monster Knowledge system. Like "I can identify obscure insect species, because they're so weak, but I can't identify that big furry beast that looks just like a bear, but bigger, because it's higher-level."

Still a once-per-century Wish ability. So they didn't actually get rid of this kind of out-of-combat ability, like they threatened. But no rules given about how the ritual works; that's what they actually changed. I think I actually like that. Makes DM's actually make the ability part of their plot. And yet, since it's so rare, it doesn't necessarily have to come up, even if Pit Fiends enter the story. Hmmm, even if the effects of the ritual are left up to the DM, it might have been good to have rules about the ritual's requirements, such as how long it takes (or how many mortals sacrificed). But I guess that would be back to having too many rules that don't get used enough.

Reinboom
2008-01-26, 11:16 PM
May I put the spined devil older unveiling next to this one?

Spined Devil
Medium Immortal Humanoid (Devil)
Level 6 Skirmisher

Init +5 Speed 5 Fly 7

Senses Nethersight, Perception +5

Resists Fire 20

AC 20 Fort 18 Ref 18 Will 18

HP/Blooded 47/23

ATTACKS
Melee 2 claws +9 vs AC each; 2d4+4
Spine Rain Standard, Ranged 10; +9 Dex vs. Ref; 1d6+2 + 2d6 Fire AND Poison 5, Slowed while Poisoned.

SKILLS Spot +10

Str +7(19) Dex +5(14) Con +5(15) Int +5(15) Wis +5(14) Cha +5(15)


Letsee... taking the below into account... letsee if it still matches.


I believe that the number in parenthesis behind the stat score is the pit fiends untrained skill check for bonus for skill tied to that ability score.

Lets see, 32 Str= +11 add that to half the pit fiends level (13) and that gives you 24. Ok seems consistant, let try that again.

13 + 5 (20 Wis) gives us 18.

So I think we can that the number is the skill bonus, and not the straight ability bonus, otherwise the pit fiend would have much larger bonuses to the skills he's trained in (like Bluff and Intimidate).

Level 6
Str +7(19) Dex +5(14) Con +5(15) Int +5(15) Wis +5(14) Cha +5(15)

19 = +4, +3 = +7
14 = +2, +3 = +5
...

Yep. I think Illathid has made the discovery here.

---
This also gives us the mechanic, that, your skills scale with your level.

---
*wonders if entering, exiting, entering, exiting, etc. the aura of fire on a single turn will keep damaging you*

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-26, 11:20 PM
Just a note--compare the seven things this pit fiend can do with the more than twice as many options the 3.5 Pit Fiend has.

AslanCross
2008-01-27, 01:48 AM
Just a note--compare the seven things this pit fiend can do with the more than twice as many options the 3.5 Pit Fiend has.

Yeah, they kind of axed its entire spell-like ability list. It used to have blasphemy, fireball, create undead and a whole bunch of other defensive spells, as well as 1/day meteor swarm. I hope they fix the whole deal with (Sp), (Su) and (Ex) types. I mean, (Su) vs (Ex) I could stomach, but the distinction between (Sp) and (Su) is a bit weird. (Sp) is "this is a copy of a spell" while (Su) is "something else and can't be dispelled, but antimagic field makes it go away anyway."

Theli
2008-01-27, 02:00 AM
Picture: Nice artwork. But doesn't look much like a "humanoid" to me. I thought they'd humanize devils a bit more than that, with the new changes that distinguish Devils and Demons. But maybe this is one of the more monstrous-looking devils. By the way, why does a monster with no shield not bother to use a two-handed weapon?

Because it needs the other hand to point with? :p (Fully aware that gripping is probably still a free action. Just saying...)

It's possible that two-handed weapons won't offer exactly the same benefits that they used to... So a one-handed weapon may have its own advantages... *shrugs*

JadedDM
2008-01-27, 04:02 AM
I play 2E, and they don't measure things in inches...it's mostly feet and yards.

KIDS
2008-01-27, 04:43 AM
I really like this, particularly that the Pit Fiend is no longer stuffed with over-the-top spell like abilities, and wish is gone, and DR (Resists) seems easier to keep track of.... but here, I will rephrase how I see it:

The Pit Fiend keeps many of its cool aspects, including detonating allied devils into enemies (yes!!!!), while at the same time letting go of the mumbo-jumbo and abuseability that made Pit Fiends in hands of two different DMs a totally different creatures, depending on whether the DMs knew what was better.

One thing I don't get:


Skills Bluff +27, Intimidate +27, Religion +24

How does it have only 3 skills....? I know that it will have a high total in others due to hit dice and attributes, but still....

lord_khaine
2008-01-27, 06:10 AM
that made Pit Fiends in hands of two different DMs a totally different creatures, depending on whether the DMs knew what was better.


i seriously Hate this, i find it idiotic that they have limited the pit fiends tactical options to such a degree that if you have fought 1 pit fiend you have fought them all.

besides that i also dislike that damage reduction have apperently been remove from the game.

Reinboom
2008-01-27, 06:15 AM
How does it have only 3 skills....? I know that it will have a high total in others due to hit dice and attributes, but still....

4, actually. Perception.

Note: It uses "class levels". That class might have a low number. Who knows? ... and then maybe int bonus is also different... hmm...

Drascin
2008-01-27, 06:53 AM
4, actually. Perception.

Note: It uses "class levels". That class might have a low number. Who knows? ... and then maybe int bonus is also different... hmm...

Yeah... that makes sense. After all, the class is supposed to be "Elite Soldier" or somesuch, and we all know just how generous WotC tends to be with Skills in melee-centric classes, especially classes named things like Soldier, Warrior, Fighter, or other generic meleer name :smalltongue:

Gorbash
2008-01-27, 07:13 AM
Or maybe the abyss just likes to keep its secrets...

Nine Hells of Baator, actually.

Charity
2008-01-27, 07:27 AM
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080125&authentic=true

I'm a forum nub so I don't know how to work spoilers, can someone else post it?


For future reference the stuff you wish to spoiler

Arakune
2008-01-27, 07:59 AM
Observations:

Everything measured in squares now. I take that as a bad thing, I was kind of hoping (although I didn't expect it) that they'd switch to the metric system, I get a headache from thinking in feet, yards, miles, Fahrenheit degrees, inches, and pounds.

You know my pain friend! :smallbiggrin:

Theli
2008-01-27, 09:30 AM
Nine Hells of Baator, actually.

Ah, right. For some reason I thought they changed the abyss to be an area that encompassed others. But I was just thinking of the astral sea, which encompasses both the nine hells and the abyss.

Sebastian
2008-01-27, 06:12 PM
Ah, right. For some reason I thought they changed the abyss to be an area that encompassed others. But I was just thinking of the astral sea, which encompasses both the nine hells and the abyss.

No, the abyss now is in the middle of the elemental chaos, I'm not sure if the elemental chaos is in the astral sea, but I think not.

TheLogman
2008-01-27, 06:50 PM
I'm not sure I like the change completely to "Squares" Also, notice how he has no "Spell-Like Abilities", but he does have a few monster-specific abilities. It will make monsters more exciting and cleaner to play, which is nice. I like that Experience is per monster, makes it easier. Teleportation as a movement should be good, but once again, a forced Battlemap isn't cool, it makes you either play in RL, or use their online service, making it impossible to play online without paying them.

Talya
2008-01-27, 07:12 PM
It looks like it could almost work in SW Saga Edition...


...which is rather what I feared they were doing with the flavor of 4e.

horseboy
2008-01-27, 07:46 PM
I'm not sure I like the change completely to "Squares" Also, notice how he has no "Spell-Like Abilities", but he does have a few monster-specific abilities. It will make monsters more exciting and cleaner to play, which is nice. I like that Experience is per monster, makes it easier. Teleportation as a movement should be good, but once again, a forced Battlemap isn't cool, it makes you either play in RL, or use their online service, making it impossible to play online without paying them.

Okay, I apologize in advance for possibly derailing this, but I remember something about a European Commonwealth law that was going to make GW drop the "inches" in future editions of 40k and such. It's possible that these "squares" really aren't an attempt by WotC to make battle maps mandatory but a way to create a "loop hole" to keep Americans from having to learn the metric system.

Gralamin
2008-01-27, 08:06 PM
I'm not sure I like the change completely to "Squares" Also, notice how he has no "Spell-Like Abilities", but he does have a few monster-specific abilities. It will make monsters more exciting and cleaner to play, which is nice. I like that Experience is per monster, makes it easier. Teleportation as a movement should be good, but once again, a forced Battlemap isn't cool, it makes you either play in RL, or use their online service, making it impossible to play online without paying them.

There are plenty of online programs that would allow you to play without their service actually. I'm not sure where you get that idea from. :smallconfused:

Voyager_I
2008-01-27, 09:38 PM
Or you could, you know, just say "1 Square = 5 Feet/2 Meters", and go back to the way things always were. They're just simplifying things for grid purposes. Heck, you could just declare "Squares" to be the international unit of measurement in your games, and have everyone therein refer to them. They mean exactly what you want them to.

Rutee
2008-01-27, 09:46 PM
It looks like it could almost work in SW Saga Edition...


...which is rather what I feared they were doing with the flavor of 4e.

...Wait, this is almost pure mechanics. What are you babbling about, "Changing the flavor of 4e"?

Talya
2008-01-27, 09:54 PM
...Wait, this is almost pure mechanics. What are you babbling about, "Changing the flavor of 4e"?

You have to be one of the more irritatingly condescending posters on this message board right now. I'd appreciate it if you would tone down the passive aggressive flaming.


Mechanics have their own flavor. This stat block tastes Saga-crunchy. Saga doesn't taste bad, but i'd prefer my D&D with less Lucas.

Rutee
2008-01-27, 10:03 PM
You have to be one of the more irritatingly condescending posters on this message board right now. I'd appreciate it if you would tone down the passive aggressive flaming.


Mechanics have their own flavor. This stat block tastes Saga-crunchy. Saga doesn't taste bad, but i'd prefer my D&D with less Lucas.

I wouldn't really call that passive aggressive; Your post literally made no sense to me, given that they're just stats which convey no flavor. Notwithstanding that Lucas was likely not in on the design of Saga, seriously, what's the problem with that stat block specifically?

Oh, right, I'm reminded; I don't /think/ Elite soldier was a class so much as a descriptor for the monster. I'm not totally sure, just had that particular feel to me. It'd make sense, to boot, if you're trying to say "Monsters don't need classes" to make your first example something that doesn't actually have a class.

Talya
2008-01-27, 10:10 PM
I wouldn't really call that passive aggressive; Your post literally made no sense to me,
Which has more to do with you not understanding what was said, than any "babbling" on my part.


Notwithstanding that Lucas was likely not in on the design of Saga,

Of course he wasn't.


seriously, what's the problem with that stat block specifically?

There's no "problem" with it per se. It just tastes saga-esque.
For instance, two things stood out immediately:
The Fortitude/Reflex/Will saves appear to no longer be saves, they are targets, just like in Saga.
Speed appears to be done in squares.

It looks like a common direction.

Rutee
2008-01-27, 10:20 PM
Which has more to do with you not understanding what was said, than any "babbling" on my part.
No, those words all make sense individually. Your post, however, not so much, because you chose to attack the /presentation/ of the mechanics, which is just pointless. Your problem, apparently, is in fact with the /actual mechanics/, which is different, and requires words that in fact distinguish that. Yes, from what I have noticed in recent editions of various games, not just DnD or D20, there is a trend moving all offensive actions require a to-hit check against a static value.

In general, I couldn't care less which direction DnD moves with it, but I'm glad that they're finally unifying them. Now AC and Saves work the same. Why would this be taken as some sort of negative change in any sense? It's /minor/, sure, but it's a simplification of the system.

ImperiousLeader
2008-01-27, 10:34 PM
Yes, from what I have noticed in recent editions of various games, not just DnD or D20, there is a trend moving all offensive actions require a to-hit check against a static value.

This, to me, is a good thing. It streamlines and makes the system more consistent. At least 4e won't have the odd quirk of Saga defenses outpacing some attacks like Force powers.

Theli
2008-01-28, 12:05 AM
No, the abyss now is in the middle of the elemental chaos, I'm not sure if the elemental chaos is in the astral sea, but I think not.

Gah, you're right!

Why am I getting so confused by these new planes...

Starbuck_II
2008-01-28, 07:30 AM
This, to me, is a good thing. It streamlines and makes the system more consistent. At least 4e won't have the odd quirk of Saga defenses outpacing some attacks like Force powers.

I hope they don't make disarm suck. Saga made disarm suck. It is easier to beat a guy to death to disarm him than use the disarm mechanics in Saga.

Duke of URL
2008-01-28, 09:55 AM
Will 26th-level PCs still require 27000 additional XP to advance to 27th level? If so ... wow. A Pit Fiend alone gets them a good share of the way through that level.

IIRC from the Basic and 1st editions (which used flat XP awards), the total XP awarded is divided among all party members, not granted to each. A three-person party would get 6,000 XP each, a four-person party would get 4,500 XP each, a five-person party would get 3,600 XP each, and a six-person party would get 3,000 XP each.

AKA_Bait
2008-01-28, 10:39 AM
Heck, you could just declare "Squares" to be the international unit of measurement in your games, and have everyone therein refer to them. They mean exactly what you want them to.


Squares and Sides... I like it. Sort of like square feet and feet.

"How far away is Waterdeep my good man?"

"Around 5,000 sides to the East sir."

Person_Man
2008-01-28, 11:03 AM
I hope they don't make disarm suck. Saga made disarm suck. It is easier to beat a guy to death to disarm him than use the disarm mechanics in Saga.

I was under the distinct impression that in addition to sucking in SWSE, Disarm has always sucked in D&D 3.5. There is no equivalent of Knock-Down, Knockback, or Scorpion's Grapple for Disarm. And many enemies don't use weapons, which renders the tactic (and the feat/class investment) useless for many combats.

Is there a counter argument I'm not aware of? I suppose a Monk could efficiently Disarm on a regular basis by using Stunning Fist. But that's not really really a Disarm, its a secondary effect of being Stunned. And then you'd have to be a Monk, which often has serious problems with damage, AC, MAD, etc.

Draz74
2008-01-28, 11:11 AM
Depends. An urban, swashbuckling campaign where almost all your enemies are NPC humanoids, means that disarm is actually OK.

The J Pizzel
2008-01-28, 11:16 AM
I hope they don't make disarm suck. Saga made disarm suck. It is easier to beat a guy to death to disarm him than use the disarm mechanics in Saga.

Do you mean it's hard to understand, or hard to achieve. Cause it's quite easy to understand.

My opinion is that it is going in the direction of SWSE and I couldn't be more happy. Me and my gang have been playing SWSE since the day it came out and we're loving every minute of it. It looks as though their taking the things that make it better and combining it with DnD (as well as adding new thing) and making a great game. I love the new vs For, Ref, Wll that SAGA used.

I could go on for days, but I'll just say I'm looking more forward to it every time I see a preview.

JP

Starbuck_II
2008-01-28, 11:25 AM
I was under the distinct impression that in addition to sucking in SWSE, Disarm has always sucked in D&D 3.5. There is no equivalent of Knock-Down, Knockback, or Scorpion's Grapple for Disarm. And many enemies don't use weapons, which enders the tactic (and the feat/class investment) useless for many combats.

Is there a counter argument I'm not aware of? I suppose a Monk could efficiently Disarm on a regular basis by using Stunning Fist. But that's not really really a Disarm, its a secondary effect of being Stunned. And then you'd have to be a Monk, which often has serious problems with damage, AC, MAD, etc.

Not really, the basic mechanic was roll and equal/succeed their disarm check in D&D.

Saga uses their disarm check +10. You start out losing/ easier to defend against disarm than do it.

Even Vader fails at it (unlike the movie).

Theli
2008-01-28, 12:20 PM
Vader, in the movie, was probably using it on characters a lot lower level than him. He just screams "BBEG you're not supposed to be able to beat yet".

Artanis
2008-01-28, 12:26 PM
How many characters does Vader actually disarm in the movies? He force-pulls Han's blaster out of his hand which, as Theli said, was more him being badass than him being a master...uh...disarm-er. He also disarms Luke, but he does so literally, so I'm not sure that counts as a disarm. I can't think of any other times Vader disarms somebody off the top of my head...usually he just kills them and doesn't bother disarming.

Starbuck_II
2008-01-28, 04:47 PM
How many characters does Vader actually disarm in the movies? He force-pulls Han's blaster out of his hand which, as Theli said, was more him being badass than him being a master...uh...disarm-er. He also disarms Luke, but he does so literally, so I'm not sure that counts as a disarm. I can't think of any other times Vader disarms somebody off the top of my head...usually he just kills them and doesn't bother disarming.

Um, that is what the problem is.
He has to be a master disarm to be a badass in Saga. That is why Saga messed up disarm.
You can't disarm by being badass. You have to focus. In fact, there are no master disarmers in Saga I'd wager because you can't be that good.
You start out being worst than defender.
Attacker: Check.
Defender 10 + check.
You have to have disarm check +11 what they have to be a better disarmer.

Vader fails in Saga versus Han: he had to use Force points and get the max roll to get a even chance. He needs 8 on a d8 for force points.

Than he needs a 20 on disarm check on a d20. Yes, it is that hard for him. Granted, he loses some due to mechanical hand, but that isn't important becaause he did it in the movie.

Theli
2008-01-28, 05:00 PM
Or he was over 10 levels higher than Han at that point in the movie.


There's nothing that says that they have to be on equal footing 100% of the time.

Mewtarthio
2008-01-28, 05:21 PM
He also disarms Luke, but he does so literally, so I'm not sure that counts as a disarm.

Wait, you mean there aren't rules for chopping off hands with a lightsaber? Come on, that's easily the single most popular method of disabling an opponent in the series! :smallbiggrin:

It's not like it'd permanently ruin a character, what with lifelike prosthetics being more common than R2 units with friggin' voice synthesizers.

souldoubt
2008-01-28, 11:53 PM
Mechanics have their own flavor. This stat block tastes Saga-crunchy. Saga doesn't taste bad, but i'd prefer my D&D with less Lucas.

This strikes me as a problem of association on your part. You associate these (apparently) Saga-like mechanics with Star Wars, so they don't agree with your palate when toted as D&D. However, for many people out there who've never even glimpsed Saga Edition, this is not the case.

You can tell an Amazonian who's never tasted chicken that the anaconda he's eating tastes like chicken, but he'll probably just look at you like you're crazy and say something like, "No, it tastes like anaconda." If you then treated him to a dish of chicken to prove your point, he'd probably conclude that chicken tastes like anaconda rather than vice-versa, and your point would go unproven.

I am one of those never-tasted-Saga-before proverbial Amazonians. So these mechanics strike me only as interesting glimpses of a new system, not Lucas-flavored D&D. Based on that, I'd say that the Star-Wars-y taste you're experiencing is probably part of your own perception and not inherent in the mechanics.

Talya
2008-01-28, 11:57 PM
This strikes me as a problem of association on your part. You associate these (apparently) Saga-like mechanics with Star Wars, so they don't agree with your palate when toted as D&D. However, for many people out there who've never even glimpsed Saga Edition, this is not the case.

You can tell an Amazonian who's never tasted chicken that the anaconda he's eating tastes like chicken, but he'll probably just look at you like you're crazy and say something like, "No, it tastes like anaconda." If you then treated him to a dish of chicken to prove your point, he'd probably conclude that chicken tastes like anaconda rather than vice-versa, and your point would go unproven.

I am one of those never-tasted-Saga-before proverbial Amazonians. So these mechanics strike me only as interesting glimpses of a new system, not Lucas-flavored D&D. Based on that, I'd say that the Star-Wars-y taste you're experiencing is probably part of your own perception and not inherent in the mechanics.



This is all absolutely true. I didn't say otherwise.

I also said, long before 4e was announced, along with many of people who now applaud everything WotC defecates about 4e, that while Saga rules are simple and quaint and probably nice for the star wars setting, almost none of it would work well or feel right in D&D.

Rutee
2008-01-29, 12:01 AM
This is all absolutely true. I didn't say otherwise.

I also said, long before 4e was announced, along with many of people who now applaud everything WotC defecates about 4e, that while Saga rules are simple and quaint and probably nice for the star wars setting, almost none of it would work well or feel right in D&D.
Correction: You feel none of it will work well or feel right. SWSE's mechanics being adapted somewhat to the baseline DnD fluff is probably going to /work/, and work awesomely. Can't guarantee it'll feel right, obviously, but the mechanics to SWSE were solid and adaptable, and I've seen a lot of where it seemed to take its inspiration from, as far as I can tell. They all work great.

Talya
2008-01-29, 12:05 AM
Correction: You feel none of it will work well or feel right. SWSE's mechanics being adapted somewhat to the baseline DnD fluff is probably going to /work/, and work awesomely. Can't guarantee it'll feel right, obviously, but the mechanics to SWSE were solid and adaptable, and I've seen a lot of where it seemed to take its inspiration from, as far as I can tell. They all work great.


I also said, long before 4e was announced, along with many of people who now applaud everything WotC defecates about 4e, that while Saga rules are simple and quaint and probably nice for the star wars setting, almost none of it would work well or feel right in D&D.

Case in point. Most people like Rutee (not her specifically, mind you) were among the overwhelming majority who were adamant that WotC would never use Saga-type changes as the direction they would go with 4e, because it wouldn't feel right. Now whatever WotC decides is obviously going to be wonderful.

Rutee
2008-01-29, 12:15 AM
Case in point. Most people like Rutee (not her specifically, mind you) were among the overwhelming majority who were adamant that WotC would never use Saga-type changes as the direction they would go with 4e, because it wouldn't feel right. Now whatever WotC decides is obviously going to be wonderful.

...I can't be a case in point if I never said it. In fact, that's ENTIRELY COUNTER to the concept of a case in point, which means you have a living example right in front of you. And I already pointed out one trend I definitely hope doesn't make it to the cutting room floor, which is the move towards an actual default setting, as that would manage to be an enormous step back for it.

Believe me when I say I have no particular love for WotC. They're just another game company that says "Boy HOwdy, we sure do like money!" That 4e seems to be moving in a positive direction from a game design standpoint is utterly unrelated with my base dislike for them. Notwithstanding that I have a longstanding hatred of apologists, though an even longer-standing hatred of rebels-without-a-cause. And just so there's no misconceptions, I /do/ mean the cantankerous curmudgeons who refuse to look at things and patiently wait, and instead loudly crusade about how it must suck because you picked up a negative vibe from sections of the mechanics.

Now, I suggest you lay off the ad-hominem attacks (I don't have to address anything that was just said because they OBVIOUSLY have /never once/ looked at the processes system design, RP, the meta-game, and setting design through a microscope, and are just parroting the greatness of 4e.) Yes, it can't POSSIBLY be that the direction 4e is heading is in fact a good one, despite all initial belief that 4e would be as generally useless as 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5

Talya
2008-01-29, 12:55 AM
...I can't be a case in point if I never said it.

I said you were a case in point of defending everything they did, I rather specifically pointed out that I have no idea whether or not you were among those who said WotC would never move toward Saga rule styles for 4e.
Which makes this...

Now, I suggest you lay off the ad-hominem attacks

...Absurd, as I didn't implicate you in anything at all, or attack you in any way. I have attacked the designers of 4th Edition, but that's not against any rules here.

My problem with your posts on this subject, is you go auto-defensive on every criticism anyone has over some new boneheaded idea they let us preview. And to the vast majority of regular 3.x players, most of what has been released about 4e goes beyond boneheaded. I have stated repeatedly that it's entirely possible that the final product will be an improvement, but the vast majority of what they've shown for changes so far is catering to angsty kiddie-gamers, or "cool kids," trying to break with established and excellently functioning tradition just for the sake of making changes. Change for change sake alone is automatically a bad thing, every time. Don't fix what isn't broken. 3.5 needed some small fixes, not a huge overhaul to the best system ever designed.

While you seem to automatically defend, though, I do not automatically criticize. They've got a couple of great ideas so far, out of the dozen or so they've published. I don't hesitate to praise what looks good. Most of what they've released of 4e looks putrid, however.

Edit: And maybe you aren't doing it to defend WotC, from what you just said. Maybe you hate 3.5 that much, and anything that changes it seems good to you. Would that be more accurate?

Rutee
2008-01-29, 01:24 AM
I said you were a case in point of defending everything they did, I rather specifically pointed out that I have no idea whether or not you were among those who said WotC would never move toward Saga rule styles for 4e.
This is funny, because as a whole I despise DnD and significantly favor White Wolf and their work. I /could/ play DnD, but the only purpose to doing so is the gamism, as far as I'm concerned, which makes it a rare urge. Any fluff I care to handle is going to be better handled by other systems, most notably Fudge (For small games), homebrew (Small still), and BESM in general, with Weapons of the Gods or Exalted for wuxia awesomeness, and I suppose Mekton Zeta for Space Opera.




...Absurd, as I didn't implicate you in anything at all, or attack you in any way.
I'm going to define ad hominem attack for you, in detail, for the sole purpose of clearing this up.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_attack)
"Ad hominem attacks are often used in a debate or discussion where the speaker wishes to avoid the substance of the discussion and instead resorts to smearing the character of their opponent."


Accompanying Quotes,
Case in point. Most people like Rutee (not her specifically, mind you) were among the overwhelming majority who were adamant that WotC would never use Saga-type changes as the direction they would go with 4e, because it wouldn't feel right. Now whatever WotC decides is obviously going to be wonderful.
You did not even attempt to address the post's content, but instead wrote it off because I always support WotC, apparently (Which is why I never botherred playing their games after finding better stuff, don'tcha know?)


My problem with your posts on this subject, is you go auto-defensive on every criticism anyone has over some new boneheaded idea they let us preview. And to the vast majority of regular 3.x players, most of what has been released about 4e goes beyond boneheaded.
Prove it. The majority in general, and this is not just WotC, not just DnD, is silent in its approval of a system. A few people squawking on a message board are meaningless compared to the silent majority.


I have stated repeatedly that it's entirely possible that the final product will be an improvement,
You're certainly heading there kicking and screaming then.


but the vast majority of what they've shown for changes so far is catering to angsty kiddie-gamers, or "cool kids," trying to break with established and excellently functioning tradition just for the sake of making changes. Change for change sake alone is automatically a bad thing, every time. Don't fix what isn't broken. 3.5 needed some small fixes, not a huge overhaul to the best system ever designed.
Small fixes wouldn't need a new edition. They may be, and I quote, 'caterring to the angsty kiddie gamers' (Hint: Angsty Kiddy Gamers don't /want/ to be awesome. Look at Vampire: The Masquerade), in which case they're doing it wrong, seeing as they seem to be moving more agency and potential to the PCs.


While you seem to automatically defend, though, I do not automatically criticize.
What have you agreed with, exactly? And, I'm going to tell you exactly once, in completely unequivocal english, the following, since you can't pick up on subtlety, apparently.

I am not an apologist. I have had, in my past, a long laundry list of negative experiences due to that idiotic groupthink in designing games. I have, in my most recent foray in game design, examined, deconstructed, reconstructed, and in other fashions, poked with a stick every last aspect of gaming that I know of, in the effort to build a system that would most properly suit my tastes. I do not accept changes without a careful examination of what they will do. I do not accept game design theory or notes without a careful examination at the conclusions drawn and the evidence or experience used to draw it. I have labelled vast portions of my own work "A stupid idea" due to an incomplete understanding of, at the time, what makes a game good. And there is no work more difficult for a designer to examine then her own. I am not going to suffer some random stranger decide that because she does not like my opinion, I must obviously be the most useless thing imaginable for any form of non-purely-objective design; An Apologist.


They've got a couple of great ideas so far, out of the dozen or so they've published. I don't hesitate to praise what looks good. Most of what they've released of 4e looks putrid, however.
Correction: Most of what they've released about 4e doesn't match your tastes. The one thing we can both agree on, I bet, is that the other's tastes are not the end all of what makes a good game.

Yahzi
2008-01-29, 01:32 AM
...Wait, this is almost pure mechanics. What do you mean by, "Changing the flavor of 4e"?
There, Rutee, I fixed it for you.

See how easy that was?

Talic
2008-01-29, 01:37 AM
I think that more likely there's a Soldier Class, and an Elite array, and this uses both. "Elite Soldier" doesn't seem like a good class name, at least not to me.

Reinboom
2008-01-29, 01:41 AM
I believe what Elite is was already discussed. It means the pit fiend accounts for 2 characters. It's not part of the class.

Rutee
2008-01-29, 01:42 AM
I believe what Elite is was already discussed. It means the pit fiend accounts for 2 characters. It's not part of the class.

Issatso? Was that in the podcast and I just didn't listen long enough?

Talya
2008-01-29, 01:51 AM
This is funny, because as a whole I despise DnD and significantly favor White Wolf and their work.

I don't have much experience with the white wolf rules, although their fluff is intolerable. Nevertheless, this makes my second option mentioned above morelikely.





You did not even attempt to address the post's content, but instead wrote it off because I always support WotC, apparently (Which is why I never botherred playing their games after finding better stuff, don'tcha know?)

I've addressed everything you've mentioned on this topic. It just boggles my mind the kneejerk defenses that you and others have against any criticisms of 4e. The criticisms are logical, but none of the defenses have ever come close to rebutting any of them.



Prove it. The majority in general, and this is not just WotC, not just DnD, is silent in its approval of a system. A few people squawking on a message board are meaningless compared to the silent majority.

I have no scientific polls to give you. I just have the general reactions of d20 gamers when one explains even the most innocent of changes, online, in real life, or anywhere. It's anecdotal, not scientific, but it sure seems like a good cross-section of gamers.

"Hey, dwarves are losing darkvision." - "Uh...why? Lame."
"Gnomes are gone." - "..."
"They're getting rid of subraces." - "But subraces are fun!"
"They're making 'dragonborn' a core race. And tieflings too, but they're no longer fiendspawn." - "Is this even D&D?"
"They've pidgeonholed all classes into design categories that sound like City of Heroes. They aren't called Blaster, Scrapper, Tanker, or Controller, but the concept is the same." - "...WHY?!?"
"You should see what they're doing to the Realms..." - "Noooooo!"




They may be, and I quote, 'caterring to the angsty kiddie gamers' (Hint: Angsty Kiddy Gamers don't /want/ to be awesome. Look at Vampire: The Masquerade), in which case they're doing it wrong, seeing as they seem to be moving more agency and potential to the PCs.

That's why I said "or", those are two different groups. Also, "Cool" != "awesome."



What have you agreed with, exactly?

Racial design. No more is race just a couple of bonuses you get at inception. Race actually matters for more than optimizing your stats, I like that. They're almost a sub-class. This is brilliant.

Reduced reliance on equipment. Despite liking the FR setting, I hate equipment being the bulk of your character. THAT feels video-gamey...like an MMO. Changing that is a step in the right direction.
You're certainly heading there kicking and screaming then.


I am not an apologist.

So what do you dislike that they've said about 4e so far compared to 3.5?

Reinboom
2008-01-29, 01:53 AM
Issatso? Was that in the podcast and I just didn't listen long enough?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071211&authentic=true

Rutee
2008-01-29, 01:58 AM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071211&authentic=true

Handy. That'd make setting up boss fights and the like easier, though my highest hope is still for a proper system for designing good retributive counters.

Job
2008-01-29, 02:45 AM
Very interesting, I like the setup overall. From everything I’ve seen the simplified skill setup will be a godsend. The classifications system does give me pause, immortal humanoid just a new name for outsider?

Rutee
2008-01-29, 04:21 AM
I don't have much experience with the white wolf rules, although their fluff is intolerable. Nevertheless, this makes my second option mentioned above morelikely.
SEcond Option? The only option in the posts I quoted was to be a WotC apologist.


I've addressed everything you've mentioned on this topic. It just boggles my mind the kneejerk defenses that you and others have against any criticisms of 4e. The criticisms are logical, but none of the defenses have ever come close to rebutting any of them.

Insofar as you've demonstrated your dislike of SWSE, yes. You have not substantiated any claim that the mechanics don't work in DnD, and I have pointed out (And can fetch examples) that other systems have moved towards a unification of Defenses and Attacks, and that it's worked there quite well. Point out to me where you demonstrate how those changes, by all means.


I have no scientific polls to give you. I just have the general reactions of d20 gamers when one explains even the most innocent of changes, online, in real life, or anywhere. It's anecdotal, not scientific, but it sure seems like a good cross-section of gamers.

No, you don't have a good cross section of gamers, or even just d20 gamers (And basing your entire opinion on just d20 gamers is folly anyway, if you want the best look at your system possible). That's my point. Heck, I'll even give you an example. Look for a moment in the Ongoing Games section. A lot of those games are 3.5 ed, no? A lot of those players, we can assume, know and understand 3.5 ed, since they're playing it. Now, how many of those posters have you seen post on 3.5 ed? And feel free to take an hour or two to check the threads on the first couple pages of each of the 4 channels (Alpha, Gamma, Beta, and none), and then check the recent 4e threads. When you finish, start on the last five or six pages of the OOC forum, because people sometimes speak on games they're not in. What you have here, at the least, is the 3.5ed gamers who took a shine to taking an interest in 4ed. You'll have, at my estimate, gamers interested in game design theory, WotC Apologists, and Cantankerous Curmudgeons. In other words, people of 2 extremes, and people with interest in the theoretical. Hardly a microcosm of all geeks. Now bear in mind not only are you, by my estimate (Which is entirely theoretical; Even if it were accurate here, there's no guarantee it would be elsewhere), you do not get the opinions of 3.5ed fans who are not on the internet. You do not get the opinions of those who are not willing to make love with every WotC employee. You miss the opinions of those who don't consider the old edition better under all circumstances. And you miss the opinion of virtually every potential gamer who isn't currently interested in DnD, because in general they won't trawl a forum wehre they can discuss it.

Now, I recognize you said you had an anecdote, so you at least know that much. But tell me, who else are you asking, and why are you so sure /they/ are a good microcosm? Quite frankly, no player or designer of a game on this scale of distribution can EVER get a good idea of the majority of his playerbase's feelings through observation, and relying on the observations of others means it's going to be filterred through that person's confirmation bias. And they sure as hell can't get a good judge of potential players' opinions either. In general (Not sure if it applies to WotC or other large companies, because I don't know how many filters information passes through there) a designer is in the best position to get the players' views. And they're still not in a very good one


"Hey, dwarves are losing darkvision." - "Uh...why? Lame."
"Gnomes are gone." - "..."
"They're getting rid of subraces." - "But subraces are fun!"
"They're making 'dragonborn' a core race. And tieflings too, but they're no longer fiendspawn." - "Is this even D&D?"
I can genuinely not fathom complaints over subraces/darkvision. Not real ones, anyway. I never really considerred Dwarves to be defined by their darkvision, and subraces just struck me as filler, with the exception of the various Deep versions. And Unearthed Arcana's templates, since they picked genuinely, and quite massively, different terrains or circumstances for the races. I'll miss the UA templates if they're gone, really; Subraces by geography or Magic and not culture makes infinitely more sense. Then again, there are people who feel Light Sensitivity defined Drow, as opposed to everything else, so some people are odd.


"They've pidgeonholed all classes into design categories that sound like City of Heroes. They aren't called Blaster, Scrapper, Tanker, or Controller, but the concept is the same." - "...WHY?!?"


...You're going to prove that they're pidgeonholing character concepts based on comparing them to an MMO who can handle far more character concepts compared to DnD 3.5 core (Or indeed, any DnD without MASSIVE Splatbook additions).

I accept your surrender. Gift Prize is crackers.



"You should see what they're doing to the Realms..." - "Noooooo!"
Did WotC announce in a press conference that they'd send elite squads of ninja at you for not following their metaplot, or not playing their game EXACTLY AS RAW SAYS or something? :smallconfused:




That's why I said "or", those are two different groups. Also, "Cool" != "awesome."
If Cool != Awesome, I don't care; That's splitting hairs. And really, what would "Caterring to the cool kids" mean? That has so many different meanings to so many different people that it requires a proper explanation



Racial design. No more is race just a couple of bonuses you get at inception. Race actually matters for more than optimizing your stats, I like that. They're almost a sub-class. This is brilliant.
Glad to hear it.




So what do you dislike that they've said about 4e so far compared to 3.5?
First off, I'm going to correct something for you. There is a distinct difference between not yet finding a flaw, and being an apologist. An apologist would seek to cover up an obvious flaw, every time. Before you manage to anger me again, I'm going to remind you yet-fragging-again that most of your problems frankly seem to stem from your intentions/desires for DnD seperating from the designers'. Nobody is ever properly happy with a system not designed to handle what they specifically want. I don't expect you to /like/ the system given these circumstances. Merely recognize that a system you don't like is NOT the same thing as a system that is terrible, or mechanics that are ill-founded. Now, /that/ said.

1: There /seems/ to be a direction towards an established setting. Unless that setting is Eberron or Spelljammer, both of which are highly unlikely, this is badwrongbad for my enjoyment of DnD (As opposed to badwrongfun).
2: If indeed NPCs work on totally dissimilar mechanics (Supported by Races n' Classes, counterindicated by the Podcast), as opposed to just being assembled on different mechanics, /that's/ bad. Probably, anyway; My concern may not be as big a deal in a tabletop RPG as in a game on the intertubez, but my intuition says otherwise.


Very interesting, I like the setup overall. From everything I’ve seen the simplified skill setup will be a godsend. The classifications system does give me pause, immortal humanoid just a new name for outsider?
I think most outsiders are now humanoid, with the apellation "Immortal" added to anything that doesn't die of old age. I would hazard a guess that if I'm correct, it's to follow along with the general killing of immunities that monsters are facing.

Lady Tialait
2008-01-29, 05:01 AM
I took a look at it, I'ved already Decided i'm gunna buy the three 4e core books, and if it enhances my enjoyment of they game, i'll keep up with them. Same as my Dad did for 3e (He never bought another book).

The first thing that hits my poor little mind is the stats on the block, they confuse me. I'll just have to learn it tho, same as I had to learn Roll low was NEVER good. but whatever.

What I have already decided to do is to contunie my world as it was built, if the book's mechanic doesn't work that way, I'll say screw the book, after all If i can't change a rule here or there, Why Am I DMing? For the player it's a game of Adventure and Exitment, for the DM it's a game of Creation and Storylines.


So, if i have to change a few thing. oh well.

I will have alot to learn.

Talya
2008-01-29, 09:46 AM
SEcond Option? The only option in the posts I quoted was to be a WotC apologist.

The second option was where I said that maybe, then, it's more likely that you like all the gratuitous and unnecessary changes because you hate 3.5, and anything that makes it different is a good thing to you.



Insofar as you've demonstrated your dislike of SWSE, yes.

I like SWSE...for Star Wars. Now, there are some huge balance flaws in Saga, but it sounds like they are, at least, correcting some of those in 4e, such as uneven progression rates between directly opposed BAB/Defenses/Skills.) I'm of the opinion that Jedi need a few tweaks in Saga Edition as well. That may translate to Wizards needing a few tweaks in 4e. I never play a wizard, but I don't think all classes really should be balanced against each other. All classes should fill essential roles, but for sheer combat power, some should outclass others. Wizards are at that top of the list.


No, you don't have a good cross section of gamers, or even just d20 gamers

A few dozen certainly isn't a scientific sample, but I think it's a good cross section as far as anecdotal evidence goes. The fact is most people who currently use d20 like the things that 4e is changing.

And basing your entire opinion on just d20 gamers is folly anyway
I disagree. If you wanted to make a new system that current d20 gamers don't like, make a new system. Don't gut and destroy one that is currently loved. That's the main problem. D&D without vancian casting, for example, is not D&D. It's been in use for decades. Changes from 1st to 2nd, to 3rd and 3.5 have been "evolutionary, not revolutionary." They didn't gut the system and restart from the beginning They're making a new system that bears almost no resemblance to the past ones.

you do not get the opinions of 3.5ed fans who are not on the internet.
This is not true, although there are far fewer of them, admittedly, I can count RL examples on my fingers.


And you miss the opinion of virtually every potential gamer who isn't currently interested in DnD, because in general they won't trawl a forum wehre they can discuss it.

See, I'm not interested in those who are not currently interested in DnD. Basing design choices on them and making such radical changes is like saying, "Damn. How can we make this Sci-fi TV show more popular? I know, let's ditch the Sci-Fi, and make it a medical drama!" Yes, you'll get more viewers, but doesn't that kinda ruin the point?


I can genuinely not fathom complaints over subraces/darkvision. Not real ones, anyway. I never really considerred Dwarves to be defined by their darkvision, and subraces just struck me as filler, with the exception of the various Deep versions.

They're part of our settings and worlds for decades. Some of them (such as dwarves with keen vision in the dark) date back past Tolkien, to Norse Mythology or older (although in these cases "low light vision" might be more appropriate.) Subraces were also inspired by things like Tolkien. The "Woodland Elves" of Mirkwood, though the same species, differed in ability and aptitude than those with distant human blood in the Last Homely House, or those high elves of Lothlorien.


...You're going to prove that they're pidgeonholing character concepts based on comparing them to an MMO who can handle far more character concepts compared to DnD 3.5 core (Or indeed, any DnD without MASSIVE Splatbook additions).

It's not the "concepts," it's the pigeonholing of classes into specific roles by design. For example, all blasters in COH did the same thing, regardless of the flavor to them.


Did WotC announce in a press conference that they'd send elite squads of ninja at you for not following their metaplot, or not playing their game EXACTLY AS RAW SAYS or something? :smallconfused:

We've had this argument before. Why don't you understand, yet? At the point we break from the metaplot, the world is dead. I want stories and novels to read in the setting. I want the setting to change, subtlely, over time. The more rich the history and world characters are, the more detail there is, the more alive the world is. And constantly providing new history and characters is wonderful. To continue that, I either have to follow the metaplot, or play in a dead world that ends up being as stagnant as Greyhawk, only with more detail in its past.




If Cool != Awesome, I don't care; That's splitting hairs. And really, what would "Caterring to the cool kids" mean? That has so many different meanings to so many different people that it requires a proper explanation

Every decision they've made seems to have been based on what they call "Cool." Gnomes were removed because they weren't "cool" enough. Dragonborn and tieflings are "cool." We did this because it's "Cool." That's their word.

Artanis
2008-01-29, 12:25 PM
I never play a wizard, but I don't think all classes really should be balanced against each other. All classes should fill essential roles, but for sheer combat power, some should outclass others.
Hoo boy, this statement opens up a whole new can of worms, largely because the definition of "balance" can change drastically from medium to medium, system to system, and even person to person. What you think is "filling essential roles" is, to others, the definition of balance. What you think of as the obvious "fact" that some classes should be better than others is, to some people, the sign of a potentially-broken system because it all depends on how the system plays out.

In any system where a sneaky trapmaster or pansy socialite are little more than dead weight, then every class damn well better be as good as a Wizard in combat, or else they shouldn't be included in the first place. In any system where an axe-toting moron is little more than a hindrance to the socialization upon which the system is based, then every class damn well better be as good as any other at Social-Fu, or else they shouldn't be included in the first place.

souldoubt
2008-01-29, 12:48 PM
And to the vast majority of regular 3.x players, most of what has been released about 4e goes beyond boneheaded. I have stated repeatedly that it's entirely possible that the final product will be an improvement, but the vast majority of what they've shown for changes so far is catering to angsty kiddie-gamers, or "cool kids," trying to break with established and excellently functioning tradition just for the sake of making changes.

This first sentence here is a completely unfounded statement; I don't know where you're getting this idea, because I've seen many people on both sides of the isle and just as many still in between. The second sentence is an opinion, and while I can understand why you might misconstrue some of what WotC has done in this light, I can't possibly agree with you.

Perhaps everyone you've talked to thinks the changes that we're seeing in the works for 4E are lame, but everyone I've talked to has had pretty much the exact opposite reaction. For instance, one of my friends was incredibly pissed off when WotC came out with 3.5 so soon after the original 3E release -- he saw it as a ploy to make him buy more books while simultaneously obsoleting those he'd already bought, as they wouldn't be completely compatible with the new material. When 4E was first announced, he thought of it in the same light, and was even more angry, vehemently saying things like (and I quote), "I'm so <expletive> pissed off at Wizards of the Coast." However, as WotC began releasing sneak-peaks at the new system, his assessment changed, and now he thinks that 4E is looking quite promising. And, like me, he came to this conclusion completely on his own an independant from outside pressure to accept 4E, simply based on the material that WotC has released for our perusal and scrutiny. And for the record, I'm not an "angsty kiddie-gamer," (I've been playing D&D on an off for damn near 15 years, since the days of 2E), nor am I an apologist for WotC.

I'm a fan of Iron Heroes, and as soon as I heard WotC had brought Mike Mearls on board for 4E, I had hopes that it might not suck completely. I'm reserving final judgment until some time after the rules come out in print, but I'm definitely looking forward to it with, if not high, at least moderate hopes.

From everything I've seen regarding 4E, it seems that their making it exceedingly easy to ignore or change the flavor to suit your tastes without disrupting the mechanics. If that turns out to be the case, that's fantastic. As for the "arbitrary changes" they've made, my gaming friends and I have, I think, a very different perspective from what you'd claim "the vast majority" of gamers have. They're getting rid of gnomes? Good, gnomes are lame. I've never played a gnome nor had any desire to, and the same goes for any of my friends. (And really, what does it matter if the gnome appears in the MM instead of the PHB where it's "supposed to be?" That won't stop anyone who wants to from playing a gnome, I'll wager.) No darkvision for dwarves? Who cares? Frankly, if WotC had said, "We're completely scrapping all the races except humans because they're a collection of tired, overused fantasy cliches that need to be taken out into the quad and shot," I'd have said, "Cool; more power to you for trying to be original instead of pandering to the desires of the cliche-loving masses of gamers." Of course, I'm sure at least in this I'm in the minority, and the new races they came up with could have been equally or more lame, but at least they would be making an effort to think outside the standard fantasy box. And kudos to them anyway for the little changes they have been bold enough to make to the races, as they may manage to breathe some new life into old concepts at the risk of alienating those gamers who are so in love with the tired tropes of fantasy that they can't handle even that small amount of change.

As it is, the games I play with my closest friends usually dispense with the standard fantasy races and tropes anyway and use a setting completely different from the norm. Which is one reason I really like the idea that, potentially, we might end up with a 4E system that allows us to easily separate the fluff form the mechancs without breaking them.

As I said above, I am still reserving my final judgment on 4E until after it's out. But if I had to give a prediction, I'd say I'm likely to enjoy 4E very much, and I wouldn't be surprised if it suprcedes 3.5 as my preferred system.

(By the by, I'm not trying to take sides with Rutee and gang up on you. Just pointing out an alternate take on the situation. I would be loath to put myself in the camp of someone who prefers White Wolf over D&D (*shudder*) -- no offense, Rutee, you're welcome to your preferences, but personally the mechanics and fluff alike of World of Darkness tend to make me want to throw up in my mouth :smallwink: )

Talya
2008-01-29, 12:57 PM
They're getting rid of gnomes? Good, gnomes are lame. I've never played a gnome nor had any desire to, and the same goes for any of my friends. (And really, what does it matter if the gnome appears in the MM instead of the PHB where it's "supposed to be?" That won't stop anyone who wants to from playing a gnome, I'll wager.) No darkvision for dwarves? Who cares? Frankly, if WotC had said, "We're completely scrapping all the races except humans because they're a collection of tired, overused fantasy cliches that need to be taken out into the quad and shot," I'd have said, "Cool; more power to you for trying to be original instead of pandering to the desires of the cliche-loving masses of gamers." Of course, I'm sure at least in this I'm in the minority, and the new races they came up with could have been equally or more lame, but at least they would be making an effort to think outside the standard fantasy box. And kudos to them anyway for the little changes they have been bold enough to make to the races, as they may manage to breathe some new life into old concepts at the risk of alienating those gamers who are so in love with the tired tropes of fantasy that they can't handle even that small amount of change.

I don't understand this attitude. If you don't like the "tired fantasy cliché" of D&D, why do you play it? Because that is D&D. It was made by tolkien fans to make a pseudo-tolkienesque setting for them to play in. That's what it is. So you don't like it...why change it? Why not clammor for something different altogether?

I see many of these changes -- both mechanical and fluff-wise-- as being far too "revolutionary," they no longer feel anything remotely like the system Gygax made popular so many years ago. If it were being published separately as some new fantasy gaming system, I'd probably be fine with it. I might even try it and like it. But it wouldn't be D&D. It's too different to be D&D. It's an entirely different beast, and discontinuing what has worked so well for so long. (And I like a steady supply of "fluff" that I approve of, from official sources.)

Renegade Paladin
2008-01-29, 01:16 PM
Mechanics schmecanics; has no one looked at the lore section? The Dark Eight are the generals of the Blood War; that they're still around means that it's still going on in some capacity.

Reinboom
2008-01-29, 01:24 PM
D&D stopped being D&D when it became Advanced.
Windows stopped being Windows when it no longer ran off of an incarnation of DOS.
James Bond stopped being James Bond when David Niven no longer played 'Sir' James Bond 007.

Wizards of the Coast is getting out of hand here with the name of the product! Changing stuff they own, it's, just not right. It was bad enough when TSR made the move to no longer support Elf as a class. That messed up so many signature, and it's annoying that I have to explain who "Melf" is to new players in this horrid marketing ploy that uses the D&D unjustly!

I don't know how I will ever cope with pit fiends not having a quickened fireball as a spell like ability 3/day now... ugh... :smalleek:

(side note: If Gary Gygax would ever be my DM, I believe I would end up harming him physically after 1 sessi... er... hour. If)

@v
Correction to your analogy:
The ball is the same: d20
The bat is still the same: reaching a target number with that D&D
The idea is still the same: emulate a fantasy setting using a set of rules for the purpose of a game.
Oh, and it's not being called Baseball, no, they aren't calling it the same thing. Nope. Advanced Baseball. It's different. ABB instead of BB.

-edit- another insert to carry my sarcasm.
Every The Legend of Zelda after the first isn't Legend of Zelda. Except number 2, they are all different a different Link! Ugh. They even use a different Zelda, and a different story! >.<

Talya
2008-01-29, 01:26 PM
Let me try another analogy, since the sci-fi vs. medical drama went over everyone's heads.

Let's say you like baseball. (I know, I know. Pretend that you do.)

Imagine if someone said, "You know, baseball isn't cool enough. Let's make a few changes."
"Uh, okay. What do you have in mind?"
"Well, the diamond has to go. Let's make it a rectangular field, 100 yards long, divided into ten yard increments."
"Uh..."
"And the little round ball isn't cool. Let's elongate the ball, and make it pointy. That will be cool. And get rid of bats, nobody likes them. Now, instead of innings, we'll have 4 quarters. Each team can have an unlimted number of possessions during the quarter, and during each possession, they have 4 chances, we'll call them downs, to reset their possession so they keep going, with the goal of carrying the ball across..."
"But that's not baseball!"
"Bah. You can still call it baseball."
"But it's not baseball!"
"Look, just because MLB is going to switch to the new rules, doesn't mean you have to. You can still play the old uncool baseball with your friends."
"..."

ShadowSiege
2008-01-29, 01:33 PM
I see many of these changes -- both mechanical and fluff-wise-- as being far too "revolutionary," they no longer feel anything remotely like the system Gygax made popular so many years ago. If it were being published separately as some new fantasy gaming system, I'd probably be fine with it. I might even try it and like it. But it wouldn't be D&D. It's too different to be D&D. It's an entirely different beast, and discontinuing what has worked so well for so long. (And I like a steady supply of "fluff" that I approve of, from official sources.)

Too bad my post got eaten by the boards. Rutee covered pretty much all of my points anyway, in a slightly more verbose manner.

Gygax hasn't been a part of it for years. And he wasn't the best game designer that's ever graced the tabletop medium. I haven't bothered revisiting 1e rules because I hate them. Game design is a constantly evolving art, and if one tabletop game cribs from another one or apparently gods forbid it take it from a video game, good. Last I checked, games were supposed to be fun. If what Wizards is doing is attempting to make the roll based parts more fun.

In regards to class roles, all they're doing is formalizing what's been around the entire time. They aren't pigeonholing, they're classifying. They're giving each role a single name to sum up what the class does best out of the box.

ShadowSiege
2008-01-29, 01:42 PM
Let me try another analogy, since the sci-fi vs. medical drama went over everyone's heads.

Let's say you like baseball. (I know, I know. Pretend that you do.)

snip


That's a poor analogy. They aren't changing the game whole-cloth, they're modifying the rule set for faster play. A baseball example would be changing the foul ball rule to such that you are out if you foul with 2 strikes already.

spotmarkedx
2008-01-29, 02:03 PM
Squares and Sides... I like it. Sort of like square feet and feet.

"How far away is Waterdeep my good man?"

"Around 5,000 sides to the East sir."Here is quoted a conversation by two blind adventurers waterwalking over the ocean :smallbiggrin: Waterdeep is on the western coast of a continent, and therefore it would be difficult to find someone willing to give directions to it while being 5000 sides to the east of it :smallamused:

Artanis
2008-01-29, 02:04 PM
Let me try another analogy, since the sci-fi vs. medical drama went over everyone's heads.

Let's say you like baseball. (I know, I know. Pretend that you do.)

Imagine if someone said, "You know, baseball isn't cool enough. Let's make a few changes."
"Uh, okay. What do you have in mind?"
"Well, the diamond has to go. Let's make it a rectangular field, 100 yards long, divided into ten yard increments."
"Uh..."
"And the little round ball isn't cool. Let's elongate the ball, and make it pointy. That will be cool. And get rid of bats, nobody likes them. Now, instead of innings, we'll have 4 quarters. Each team can have an unlimted number of possessions during the quarter, and during each possession, they have 4 chances, we'll call them downs, to reset their possession so they keep going, with the goal of carrying the ball across..."
"But that's not baseball!"
"Bah. You can still call it baseball."
"But it's not baseball!"
"Look, just because MLB is going to switch to the new rules, doesn't mean you have to. You can still play the old uncool baseball with your friends."
"..."
You realize that this really is pretty much what happened with Football, right? Only with Soccer instead of Baseball.

Talya
2008-01-29, 02:06 PM
You realize that this really is pretty much what happened with Football, right? Only with Soccer instead of Baseball.

Huh. You're right...

Rutee
2008-01-29, 02:06 PM
The second option was where I said that maybe, then, it's more likely that you like all the gratuitous and unnecessary changes because you hate 3.5, and anything that makes it different is a good thing to you.
That'd be a stupid position though; Different doesn't necessarily mean better. What part of "I initially thought 4e would be as useless as 3.5e" was lost on you?





I like SWSE...for Star Wars. Now, there are some huge balance flaws in Saga, but it sounds like they are, at least, correcting some of those in 4e, such as uneven progression rates between directly opposed BAB/Defenses/Skills.) I'm of the opinion that Jedi need a few tweaks in Saga Edition as well. That may translate to Wizards needing a few tweaks in 4e. I never play a wizard, but I don't think all classes really should be balanced against each other. All classes should fill essential roles, but for sheer combat power, some should outclass others. Wizards are at that top of the list.
.......Why, oh /why/, would you want to support a system where people can outclass each other in sheer combat power, when the game revolves around combat? As Artanis mentioned, if the only truly difficult encounter type is combat, /everyone/ needs to be good at it. Do you know what tends to happen when people feel useless? They get bored, and are unhappy. No, as a general rule, the skill monkey does /not/ want to hide in the back when monsters come out, and only have a use when there's a suspected trap.




A few dozen certainly isn't a scientific sample, but I think it's a good cross section as far as anecdotal evidence goes. The fact is most people who currently use d20 like the things that 4e is changing.
I just went over in detail why you don't have a useful anecdote.


I disagree. If you wanted to make a new system that current d20 gamers don't like, make a new system. Don't gut and destroy one that is currently loved. That's the main problem. D&D without vancian casting, for example, is not D&D. It's been in use for decades. Changes from 1st to 2nd, to 3rd and 3.5 have been "evolutionary, not revolutionary." They didn't gut the system and restart from the beginning They're making a new system that bears almost no resemblance to the past ones.
Hint: They have not destroyed you know and love. They can not possibly destroy your 3.5 .pdfs. Do you not understand that you're not required to play 4e?


This is not true, although there are far fewer of them, admittedly, I can count RL examples on my fingers.
You stated 2 dozen before anyway; This is hardly a useful anecdote. I can quote anecdotes at you too, like all my IRC and RL friends who like DnD going "Wow, they're actually wising up at this thing, aren't they?", but I have avoided doing so until just now, because it's not a /useful/ anecdote. And I sure as hell didn't claim them as representative of all gamers, Because they're not.




See, I'm not interested in those who are not currently interested in DnD. Basing design choices on them and making such radical changes is like saying, "Damn. How can we make this Sci-fi TV show more popular? I know, let's ditch the Sci-Fi, and make it a medical drama!" Yes, you'll get more viewers, but doesn't that kinda ruin the point?
Your point would hold more water if DnD were not still fantasy. You can't compare to genre shift when it isn't doing that.




They're part of our settings and worlds for decades. Some of them (such as dwarves with keen vision in the dark) date back past Tolkien, to Norse Mythology or older (although in these cases "low light vision" might be more appropriate.) Subraces were also inspired by things like Tolkien. The "Woodland Elves" of Mirkwood, though the same species, differed in ability and aptitude than those with distant human blood in the Last Homely House, or those high elves of Lothlorien.
Meh, Tolkien. When I expect quotes from mythology, I expect it to be from something that is interesting based on its story.




It's not the "concepts," it's the pigeonholing of classes into specific roles by design. For example, all blasters in COH did the same thing, regardless of the flavor to them.
All blasters in CoH handled the same role; How they went about that role has a tendency to be very, very different (This, however, is easy to miss unless one has ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME. On their face, different powersets appear to play exactly the same, with the only difference being a different damage type). Notwithstanding that they picked those roles because guess what: DnD is split up into them anyway, Wizards and CoDZilla excepted; they just didn't properly recognize it.




We've had this argument before. Why don't you understand, yet? At the point we break from the metaplot, the world is dead. I want stories and novels to read in the setting. I want the setting to change, subtlely, over time. The more rich the history and world characters are, the more detail there is, the more alive the world is. And constantly providing new history and characters is wonderful. To continue that, I either have to follow the metaplot, or play in a dead world that ends up being as stagnant as Greyhawk, only with more detail in its past.
Emphasis mine; No, it isn't. That's saying a setting ONLY functions with metaplot, which is flat out untrue. A world is not static but for the metaplot; A world is static but for the intervention of the GM. You can't possibly be telling me that your GM is incapable of coming up with their own ideas.

And yes, we did have this argument before, and it was just stuck on the false dichotomy of Metaplot/Dead World as it was now, in your end.


Every decision they've made seems to have been based on what they call "Cool." Gnomes were removed because they weren't "cool" enough. Dragonborn and tieflings are "cool." We did this because it's "Cool." That's their word.
Could it just be that maybe, MAYBE, rather then caterring to someone else's definition, they meant "Cool for them"? You still did not address, btw, that your basic problem is that you don't LIKE DnD 4e, not that it is bad.


(By the by, I'm not trying to take sides with Rutee and gang up on you. Just pointing out an alternate take on the situation. I would be loath to put myself in the camp of someone who prefers White Wolf over D&D (*shudder*) -- no offense, Rutee, you're welcome to your preferences, but personally the mechanics and fluff alike of World of Darkness tend to make me want to throw up in my mouth )
B-but!

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j227/RuteeKatreya/motivatorbfc856eaaac842226a1194e7d1.jpg

What part of that is bad?

In seriousness, The WoD's fluff that can get bad is how Vampires are social outcasts (You people want to talk about 'angsty kid gamers'? VAMPIRE has support for angsty kid-gamers). S'why Vamp's so hard to play; Where are you going to find the people who look at "Cursed with Awesome" and say "Sign me up; I would like to pull off Wuxia stunts" Basically, if you play WoD the emo way, it's terrible. But you don't have to do that, mercifully. oWoD is much worse about it then New though, so without keeping up, I can see a problem (Though oWoD did give us the awesome antagonists known as the Technocracy..)


I don't understand this attitude. If you don't like the "tired fantasy cliché" of D&D, why do you play it? Because that is D&D. It was made by tolkien fans to make a pseudo-tolkienesque setting for them to play in. That's what it is. So you don't like it...why change it? Why not clammor for something different altogether?

Some of us don't play tired medieval fantasy cliches when we play DnD. But you're confusing me: What you're saying is completely counter to your point; You don't like 4e, yet you clamor for changes to it. Bearing in mind that, /to my knowledge/, there was no tide fo OMG CHANGE DND that the developers picked up on (An undercurrent, perhaps, but not some large, overt movement), and you're trying to create one to revert 4e into being 3.52, well..

Actually that analogy does me even more good; You're aware that when people pay for changes, they want to pay for substantial ones. That's part of what made 3.5e a waste of money; They didn't significantly alter the game.

Sweetrein already handled the 'revolutionary' bit. Incidentally, Gygax wanted the party to TPK to a sick kobold that looked at them funny; DnD changed dramatically from that. I sure as hell don't find that fun, but apparently GYGAX's WILL BE DONE.

Morty
2008-01-29, 02:25 PM
You still did not address, btw, that your basic problem is that you don't LIKE DnD 4e, not that it is bad.


And what, praytell, is the difference? Some people like what WoTC said about 4ed, some don't. I don't see how any of these two opinions has more value than other.

Rutee
2008-01-29, 02:27 PM
And what, praytell, is the difference? Some people like what WoTC said about 4ed, some don't. I don't see how any of these two opinions has more value than other.

In the end result of you not playing? I already addressed that: There isn't, and I don't expect there to be. The difference in general is "I don't like it" is utterly subjective, makes no claim to be anything else, and can not be disproven or verified as a whole

Morty
2008-01-29, 02:34 PM
The difference in general is "I don't like it" is utterly subjective, makes no claim to be anything else, and can not be disproven or verified as a whole

Same applies for "I like it". If someone likes something, no amount of complaining will usually make him/her change his/her mind, quite the contrary. There is, however, possibility of discussion about why people like or dislike something.

Rutee
2008-01-29, 02:38 PM
Same applies for "I like it". If someone likes something, no amount of complaining will usually make him/her change his/her mind, quite the contrary. There is, however, possibility of discussion about why people like or dislike something.

Yeah, but in that discussion, you should stick to referring to "I like it" until you have something more substantial to prove the wisdom or idiocy of a change besides "It does/n't suit my tastes"

spotmarkedx
2008-01-29, 03:50 PM
"Hey, dwarves are losing darkvision." - "Uh...why? Lame."
"Gnomes are gone." - "..."
"They're getting rid of subraces." - "But subraces are fun!"
"They're making 'dragonborn' a core race. And tieflings too, but they're no longer fiendspawn." - "Is this even D&D?"
"They've pidgeonholed all classes into design categories that sound like City of Heroes. They aren't called Blaster, Scrapper, Tanker, or Controller, but the concept is the same." - "...WHY?!?"
"You should see what they're doing to the Realms..." - "Noooooo!"
I just wanted to ask a little about this and maybe clear things up. They've actually talked about this a bit. First, regarding dwarves: when you think "dwarf", what do you think of? Hardy tough fighters with a penchant for fighting mining and beer, right? When you think "dwarven city", you think of large stonewark halls on a grand scale, right? Is "being able to see in total blackness" a necessary part of "dwarf" to you?

In some of the design notes, they talk about the switch to lowlight vision for dwarves. First, they felt that special vision was too far the norm and not special. Quick! Which races don't have lowlight or darkvision? Humans and halflings. Anyone else? Secondly, from a world standpoint, for what reason would dwarves use lighting? They can see all their fine stonework edifices without any light anyway, so when the party of adventurers comes into the great hall, all they see is their 30' circle of torchlight. Less room for the DM to describe flying butresses to his heart's delight without making the overall decision that dwarves just like light for some reason. Which they can do, but again, why do the dwarves need darkvision to be dwarves? As far as I can tell, they don't.

Gnomes are gone... except they aren't. A playtester has a gnome character. We know they tried a few different things to give them their own niche characteristics, they just didn't manage to do so for the first phb. In fact they were already doing this in 3.5. Pre 3.5? Gnome bards were rarely heard of. Gnomes were illusionists. Suddenly, mid-edition, they changed the tone of the race completely. Not that I cared. I still like gnome fighters and illusionists the best. Am I happy they don't have gnomes yet? No. But from what I personally understand, they aren't completely axed, just put on the backburner for now.

Getting rid of subraces... perhaps subraces were something that you liked. Personally, I thought the bloat of subraces was aggravating and did little to add to a campaign. Saying "I'm a desert elf" should be enough to be a desert elf. It does not need to have its own "special snowflake" rules of elfy-ness that have different rules than a normal elf. That is personal preference though. YMMV.

Dragonborn and Tieflings. You know... I think I've seen as many tiefling characters as halfling characters in our campaigns. Notably, this is because none of us like halflings, but I think it at least speaks to how the race is at least somewhat compelling to my group of gamers. Also, by making it a race instead of singular individuals (such as the tiefling is in 3rd ed) makes for a way to play the "dark" path of heroism, without necessarily following the Drizzt path of continuing angst with every new town you visit (i.e. "We don't like your kind around here" would be the exception instead of the norm. Thus it can be a plot point, but it wouldn't have to be to the level of interfering with the campaign). Dragonborn? Meh. I prefer more human races, so they don't have much draw for me. I'm not sure why you have a complaint. On one hand you rail against the loss options, and in the very next sentence you complain about the addition of them? In any case, intellectually, I think it is a nice idea, as it adds a very non-human looking race into the mix. I'm actually a little more excited about the art side than the play.

As for the complaint about roles. I think this is a good idea from a design standpoint, as long as the characters aren't locked into place. From a design standpoint, I think it is good, as it means later splats, or whatever they are called, when they introduce new character classes, as they inevitably will, have a sort of framework to work from. It also means that the designers know that a character role should be able to do a certain thing. The mechanics may be completely different (see fighter vs paladin. or warlock vs. rogue), but the focus is still there in some fashion. And if they want to make a class that does something completely different? Perhaps then we can add a 5th role to the list. They have already stated that they left design space for new power sources.

As for the Realms? I don't know what they are doing to it, so I can't complain about it yet :smallyuk:

Talya
2008-01-29, 03:50 PM
.......Why, oh /why/, would you want to support a system where people can outclass each other in sheer combat power, when the game revolves around combat?
The game is about storytelling, and that story generally includes combat, but combat is only part of it. An often essential part, but not the "point" of the game. You're a WoD player, you should recognize that.

Nobody should be "useless" in any situation. But nobody should be "equal" in every situation, either. If you really wanted to do that, you should only have a single class. You like Star Wars Saga as well, right? If you think everyone should be equal in combat, obviously the noble class has no purpose, right?


Hint: They have not destroyed you know and love. They can not possibly destroy your 3.5 .pdfs. Do you not understand that you're not required to play 4e?

And i've gone over this repeatedly...that's not the point. A dead end system with settings that are no longer supported is not what I want to play in. I got into D&D through reading novels. When I read a few that I liked, the setting felt real to me. Then I saw there was a way to play in that setting, and be a part of it. I don't like homebrewed settings, I want to play in worlds I have a pre-existing attachment to. And I want those attachments to be ongoing and live. I don't want the things I know about those settings to require retconning because the new rules don't support the older narrative. Will I probably keep using 3.5? Yes, but by changing it so radically, they've isolated it and taken it away from the ever so interesting continuing plots and stories that were available for it. Both the fluff and mechanics of the new game no longer support the world I was interested in. Interest will also fade without a constant influx of new material I want to read or try.



Your point would hold more water if DnD were not still fantasy. You can't compare to genre shift when it isn't doing that.

It's just as big a change, regardless.





Meh, Tolkien. When I expect quotes from mythology, I expect it to be from something that is interesting based on its story.

Perhaps if you don't like Tolkien, D&D isn't for you. It exists...and indirectly because of it, all RPGs, because of Tolkien. And while I have my own literary criticisms of his writing, it's certainly a great classical work, worthy of being up there with all literary giants.



All blasters in CoH handled the same role; How they went about that role has a tendency to be very, very different (This, however, is easy to miss unless one has ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME. On their face, different powersets appear to play exactly the same, with the only difference being a different damage type).

I played COH a fair bit. As an ice blaster, mostly, that's why I used the example.





Emphasis mine; No, it isn't. That's saying a setting ONLY functions with metaplot, which is flat out untrue. A world is not static but for the metaplot; A world is static but for the intervention of the GM. You can't possibly be telling me that your GM is incapable of coming up with their own ideas.

See above.


Could it just be that maybe, MAYBE, rather then caterring to someone else's definition, they meant "Cool for them"? You still did not address, btw, that your basic problem is that you don't LIKE DnD 4e, not that it is bad.

You know what, I might have liked 4e fine with another name on it. Don't change what I know and love, however, in ways that are incompatible with existing things that I know and love. If i'm reading a novel in a D&D campaign setting that says the wizard had to rest for a time, then reprepare his spells for the day, and the new rules don't have them do that, it's jarring. I don't like retcons, I don't like changes that impact the narrative.


Where are you going to find the people who look at "Cursed with Awesome" and say "Sign me up; I would like to pull off Wuxia stunts" Basically, if you play WoD the emo way, it's terrible.

Wuxia. Heh. You must have liked Tome of Battle.
The eastern genres are always lacking something to me, Wuxia's appeal is limited to me. Anime is utterly evil. I don't mind eastern themes done with a western approach, though. I hate Tom Cruise, but the Last Samurai was an awesome movie.



Some of us don't play tired medieval fantasy cliches when we play DnD.

Some of us consider Anime/wuxia stuff to be tired clichés, but love traditional fantasy.


But you're confusing me: What you're saying is completely counter to your point; You don't like 4e, yet you clamor for changes to it.

Well, I wouldn't clamor for changes to it if they were continue to leave my preferred setting alone, continue to write books (both splatbooks, campaign setting books, and novels) based in the game and setting I currently love. The problem is it's replacing what I have.


Actually that analogy does me even more good; You're aware that when people pay for changes, they want to pay for substantial ones. That's part of what made 3.5e a waste of money; They didn't significantly alter the game.

3.5 made some sorely needed updates to 3e (which was only a minor update from 2e to begin with), that weren't thought out well before release.

ShadowSiege
2008-01-29, 04:39 PM
If i'm reading a novel in a D&D campaign setting that says the wizard had to rest for a time, then reprepare his spells for the day, and the new rules don't have them do that, it's jarring. I don't like retcons, I don't like changes that impact the narrative.

Well, I wouldn't clamor for changes to it if they were continue to leave my preferred setting alone.

Bold emphasis mine. Seems like more than anything you're angry that Forgotten Realms is being changed. It's not being retconned. The novels based in the era of 3.5 will still use 3.5 mechanics, and those written won't be retconned. Novels written after the spellplague will have to incorporate the new mechanics in their story, but There's still a considerable gap for authors to explore the 3.5 mechanics if that is what they want, and the previously written works will not be invalidated.

Starbuck_II
2008-01-29, 04:45 PM
Nobody should be "useless" in any situation. But nobody should be "equal" in every situation, either. If you really wanted to do that, you should only have a single class. You like Star Wars Saga as well, right? If you think everyone should be equal in combat, obviously the noble class has no purpose, right?

Maybe you should check out the Noble again, perhaps?
3/4th bab, decent (most) skills, decent health (d8 I think). Similar to Rogue, but since all weapons are 2d6 or higher (for blasters I mean, slings are just d4, but no reloading).

Heck, even the Princess was not 1/2 bad in the mobies. Was she awesome like Jedi; maybe not, but she wasn't piss poor.

In Saga, non-heroics are 1/2 bab, but all PC classes are 3/4th or full.
The extra action ability of the Noble is a great.


Perhaps if you don't like Tolkien, D&D isn't for you. It exists...and indirectly because of it, all RPGs, because of Tolkien. And while I have my own literary criticisms of his writing, it's certainly a great classical work, worthy of being up there with all literary giants.


Tolkien did not start the fantasy revolution. Other works existed. Yes, some people started as his fans, but not all.
But he had too much a stiffy for elves. Making them super-humans. At least 3.5 made elves retarded till adulthood to lessen this.

Rutee
2008-01-29, 06:14 PM
The game is about storytelling, and that story generally includes combat, but combat is only part of it. An often essential part, but not the "point" of the game. You're a WoD player, you should recognize that.
Actually, I was referring to the system itself, not the act of Roleplaying. 80% of DnD mechanics are combat or dungeon crawling, at minimum. The system is combat-based, and thus, encourages combat as a central form of conflict. Sorry, but that's how it goes; When most of your mechanics focus on combat, everyone needs to be roughly equivalent in combat usefulness.

And on that note, this is sensical from a story perspective too. Most players don't want their PC to be part of the supporting cast. If their characters can't be useful in the game's focus, invariably, they'll end up as such. This can theoretically manifest in DnD, in which case all the combat prowess in the world won't matter in say, a game of spycraft if you can not participate in the lion's share of the game; spying.

Edit: And on that note, it sounds like they're going to start using mechanics to support other kinds of encounters, with the two examples I heard being Social Encounters (About time), and Traps.


Nobody should be "useless" in any situation. But nobody should be "equal" in every situation, either. If you really wanted to do that, you should only have a single class. You like Star Wars Saga as well, right? If you think everyone should be equal in combat, obviously the noble class has no purpose, right?
Heh. Someone else responded on the Noble; And no, I specifically said "In a game (By which I mean system) focused on combat, everyone should be about equal in combat". Already explained that above though.




And i've gone over this repeatedly...that's not the point. A dead end system with settings that are no longer supported is not what I want to play in. I got into D&D through reading novels. When I read a few that I liked, the setting felt real to me. Then I saw there was a way to play in that setting, and be a part of it. I don't like homebrewed settings, I want to play in worlds I have a pre-existing attachment to. And I want those attachments to be ongoing and live.
I hate to say it, but it sounds like you have some issues; Not because of how you're choosing to derive your fun, since fun and taste are inscrutable, but.. something seems wrong with the lack of acceptance. Can't quite put it into words, I suppose.



I don't want the things I know about those settings to require retconning because the new rules don't support the older narrative. Will I probably keep using 3.5? Yes, but by changing it so radically, they've isolated it and taken it away from the ever so interesting continuing plots and stories that were available for it. Both the fluff and mechanics of the new game no longer support the world I was interested in. Interest will also fade without a constant influx of new material I want to read or try.
I actually find this curious. While I /have/ gotten new material for settings I like, I have never once gotten an iota of story changes, and still find those settings enthralling. Now, different tastes, etc, but why is WotC the only people who can create interesting new plots and stories for the FR? I genuinely do not understand this fixation with solely their work, so please, explain it for me. It would seem to me that now that you have the setting, it has plots existing that you can continue with or without new novels, but that isn't the case. Please, just explain why.





It's just as big a change, regardless.
No. No it really isn't. DnD is still going to be traditional medieval fantasy in tastes. Seriously, name for me the RIDONKULOUSLY HUEG LIEK X-BLOCK changes that seperate it from traditional medieval fantasy. And do note, before you begin, that Vancian Magic is in fact, /not/ traditional medieval fantasy, and as a system of magic in fiction, is actually quite rare in 'traditional' fantasy novels.



Perhaps if you don't like Tolkien, D&D isn't for you. It exists...and indirectly because of it, all RPGs, because of Tolkien. And while I have my own literary criticisms of his writing, it's certainly a great classical work, worthy of being up there with all literary giants.
I would contend that, in fact, given that 4e is in fact moving, tastewise, in a direction I find appealing (On top of any /good/ mechanical changes that I've seen), DnD 4e is in fact for me. Perhaps you should consider that DnD 4e isn't for you, and find a system that is. Except you already have it, and it's called DnD 3.5e.




I played COH a fair bit. As an ice blaster, mostly, that's why I used the example.
Then I'm just plain confused, since you picked an example that utterly counters your points.




You know what, I might have liked 4e fine with another name on it. Don't change what I know and love, however, in ways that are incompatible with existing things that I know and love. If i'm reading a novel in a D&D campaign setting that says the wizard had to rest for a time, then reprepare his spells for the day, and the new rules don't have them do that, it's jarring. I don't like retcons, I don't like changes that impact the narrative.
I'm not sure what to say to this. You seem to live for metaplot changes that impact the narrative, offhand, but even then, is "Rest for a time to replenish their reserves of arcane energy" so mind-blowingly different from "Rest for a time to reprepare their arcane spells" in feel?



Wuxia. Heh. You must have liked Tome of Battle.
The eastern genres are always lacking something to me, Wuxia's appeal is limited to me. Anime is utterly evil. I don't mind eastern themes done with a western approach, though. I hate Tom Cruise, but the Last Samurai was an awesome movie.
Have you... actually seen any Wuxia or anime? The themes sometimes differ, and the culture CERTAINLY does, but aside from combat tropes, it's really not that different from anything from the west. I can get not liking them, but I can never quite fathom why people think they're so insanely different. Their combat tropes just involve some agility and acrobatics, but then, I don't think you object to say, Zorro, or Errol Flynn, do you?

Honestly, I don't understand why people construct this enormous bridge between Eurocentric fiction and Asiancentric fiction. It's like ignoring that the last 40 years or more has seen the two borrow from each other extensively.




Some of us consider Anime/wuxia stuff to be tired clichés, but love traditional fantasy.

And that's just super, except I was using /your/ words, so I'm not sure why you're attacking my tastes. I don't play tired cliches without deconstructing them, when I play something. I may draw inspiration from them, but for obvious reasons, I don't play something that doesn't appeal to me.



[quote]Well, I wouldn't clamor for changes to it if they were continue to leave my preferred setting alone, continue to write books (both splatbooks, campaign setting books, and novels) based in the game and setting I currently love. The problem is it's replacing what I have.
They're not replacing what you have, first off; They're /abandoning/ it. Those are different things. Second, you're still being a hypocrite; You're telling me that I can't clamor for changes /I/ want when the designers don't support what I want, but you are perfectly free to do so now that the devs don't support what you want. Guess what, honey: You can't have your cake and eat it too.




3.5 made some sorely needed updates to 3e (which was only a minor update from 2e to begin with), that weren't thought out well before release.
...No, it alterred DR and cut back on some spell durations. While 3.5e added lots of new splats, 3.5e Core compared to 3.0 core was very nearly the exact same product, even down to format and wording. Contrast with 2nd ed - 3rd ed, where they add new classes to the core, pull things off that ridiculous Race X can only be the following Classes, vastly change multiclassing, added feats, added skills in a sensical way (Non Weapon proficiencies... -.-), shifted abilities to something more sensical (18/93? What?), and other things I can't be botherred to think of at the moment. What you're saying is completely not supported by what actually happened.

Talya
2008-01-29, 08:04 PM
Actually, I was referring to the system itself, not the act of Roleplaying. 80% of DnD mechanics are combat or dungeon crawling, at minimum. The system is combat-based, and thus, encourages combat as a central form of conflict. Sorry, but that's how it goes; When most of your mechanics focus on combat, everyone needs to be roughly equivalent in combat usefulness.

And that makes everybody as generic as possible. Why be a wizard if magic gives you no advantage? Why take a prestige class if it doesn't make you a better swordsman? The skillmonkey, the face, frontline combatant, the stealthy thief, the priest, the great mystic...there are in the end only two combat abilities to spread around: killin', and not gettin' killed. That's everything, when it's boiled down to its basics. If you rated everyone on a scale of 1 to 10 on those two things, they should not add up equal, because combat is a tiny part of the game, even when it comes to mechanics. I've made far more skill rolls than attack rolls, cast far more utility spells than combat ones.


And on that note, this is sensical from a story perspective too. Most players don't want their PC to be part of the supporting cast. If their characters can't be useful in the game's focus, invariably, they'll end up as such. This can theoretically manifest in DnD, in which case all the combat prowess in the world won't matter in say, a game of spycraft if you can not participate in the lion's share of the game; spying.

That's why a good campaign plays equal time to all the players strengths. Diversity should win over a bunch of superhuman combat gods, every time.


And on that note, it sounds like they're going to start using mechanics to support other kinds of encounters, with the two examples I heard being Social Encounters (About time), and Traps.

Hey, that's not bad. Not that we don't already have those mechanics, but they could always use more detail.


Heh. Someone else responded on the Noble; And no, I specifically said "In a game (By which I mean system) focused on combat, everyone should be about equal in combat". Already explained that above though.

And most RPGs are not designed to focus only on combat. Especially D&D.






I hate to say it, but it sounds like you have some issues; Not because of how you're choosing to derive your fun, since fun and taste are inscrutable, but.. something seems wrong with the lack of acceptance. Can't quite put it into words, I suppose.

I'm simply not interested in something new as a game system. If I'm playing a game, I want to dive into an existing universe that I know well, be it the Forgotten Realms, Star Wars, Serenity, Azeroth, whatever. I'll learn some new setting over different medium first to get my interest. (know any good Eberron novels?) Then when I'm there I want to see evidence of the people that I've read about, the places I'm familiar with, etc.



I actually find this curious. While I /have/ gotten new material for settings I like, I have never once gotten an iota of story changes, and still find those settings enthralling. Now, different tastes, etc, but why is WotC the only people who can create interesting new plots and stories for the FR? I genuinely do not understand this fixation with solely their work, so please, explain it for me. It would seem to me that now that you have the setting, it has plots existing that you can continue with or without new novels, but that isn't the case. Please, just explain why.

WotC doesn't write anything. They just publish it. If someone wrote something as good as Lisa Smedman's recent stuff, they should get her published anyway...



No. No it really isn't. DnD is still going to be traditional medieval fantasy in tastes.

I didn't say that it's changing genres. I said the changes are just as significant as a genre change would be.


Perhaps you should consider that DnD 4e isn't for you, and find a system that is. Except you already have it, and it's called DnD 3.5e.

I think i've been saying all along that that will likely be the case.



Then I'm just plain confused, since you picked an example that utterly counters your points.

Try to make a COH blaster that can melee as well as blast...and take damage too. I mean, whether i'm freezing stuff, burning stuff, firing electricity, or energy...they all have different flavor. Their secondary abilities were all unique (I loved my ice blaster's easy-lockdown), but they were all filling identical roles.


I'm not sure what to say to this. You seem to live for metaplot changes that impact the narrative, offhand, but even then, is "Rest for a time to replenish their reserves of arcane energy" so mind-blowingly different from "Rest for a time to reprepare their arcane spells" in feel?

Does it ever conflict with the narrative of earlier novels, making them nonsensical in the new ruleset?



Have you... actually seen any Wuxia or anime?

I tried sooo hard. When I was a kid back in the 80s I liked Harmony Gold's rewrite of Macross, "Robotech." I have watched everything disney has rereleased of Hayao Miyazaki's because they seemed the most mainstream, thinking I could find some easy entry way in to learn to like it. I just couldn't do it. I tried watching Appleseed, too. No luck.

For Wuxia, i've had far less experience. I tried with the acclaimed Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. How could it go wrong? Recognition here in the west, an actor I love (Chow Yun Fat rocks), and it even had Michelle Yeoh. But it seemed...corny. Likewise with House of Flying Daggers. And Jet Li's Hero, if it qualifies.


Honestly, I don't understand why people construct this enormous bridge between Eurocentric fiction and Asiancentric fiction. It's like ignoring that the last 40 years or more has seen the two borrow from each other extensively.

And if i could place what it is that jars me out of immersion, I'm sure i could explain it better. I really wanted to like them. Couldn't do it.


They're not replacing what you have, first off; They're /abandoning/ it. Those are different things.

Well, depends on perspective. I want the continuing narrative, they're replacing it. If I don't mind a dead end system, they're abandoning it.


Second, you're still being a hypocrite; You're telling me that I can't clamor for changes /I/ want when the designers don't support what I want, but you are perfectly free to do so now that the devs don't support what you want. Guess what, honey: You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Only the changes for you don't get rid of a system you know and like. For me they all but destroy it. They could easily have released this as a brand new system without dropping support for the previous one.


...No, it alterred DR and cut back on some spell durations. While 3.5e added lots of new splats, 3.5e Core compared to 3.0 core was very nearly the exact same product, even down to format and wording. Contrast with 2nd ed - 3rd ed, where they add new classes to the core, pull things off that ridiculous Race X can only be the following Classes, vastly change multiclassing, added feats, added skills in a sensical way (Non Weapon proficiencies... -.-), shifted abilities to something more sensical (18/93? What?), and other things I can't be botherred to think of at the moment. What you're saying is completely not supported by what actually happened.

The spell durations and DR were the most minor (and unnecessary) changes they made. Major balance changes to some core classes were more important. Amazingly, they actually improved the dual weild mechanic for 3.5 (which says how bad 3.0's was, since in 3.5 it still isn't good.)

Rutee
2008-01-29, 08:52 PM
And that makes everybody as generic as possible. Why be a wizard if magic gives you no advantage? Why take a prestige class if it doesn't make you a better swordsman? The skillmonkey, the face, frontline combatant, the stealthy thief, the priest, the great mystic...there are in the end only two combat abilities to spread around: killin', and not gettin' killed. That's everything, when it's boiled down to its basics. If you rated everyone on a scale of 1 to 10 on those two things, they should not add up equal, because combat is a tiny part of the game, even when it comes to mechanics. I've made far more skill rolls than attack rolls, cast far more utility spells than combat ones.
....You didn't read the 3.5ed book yourself, did you? 'cause.. literally almost all of the mechanics are dedicated to combat or dungeon crawling. If combat's such a tiny part of the game, you /really are/ using the wrong system.

Anyway, you're taking Balance to its illogical extreme. Yes, if everyone was perfectly identical the game would be balanced, the end, but that's not hte only way you can get to it. In the end, there's always going to be a variety of different ways to accomplish "Killing" and "Not killing".


That's why a good campaign plays equal time to all the players strengths. Diversity should win over a bunch of superhuman combat gods, every time.
You call /me/ condescending, yet you never seem to stop attacking my imagined taste. Moving along, notwithstanding that DnD doesn't really support strengths besides combat, you're correct.



Hey, that's not bad. Not that we don't already have those mechanics, but they could always use more detail.
There really aren't mechanics for social encounters, at all. There's Diplomacy, which is hideously flawed beyond belief, and that's literally it. Well, until Magic gets involved, but that's mostly Save or Die.



And most RPGs are not designed to focus only on combat. Especially D&D.
You're going to contest that DnD is combat-focuseed? to quote Dogbert, "Excuse me while I go take a wicked wag."

No, DnD is in fact designed to focus on combat. We've been over this; If it doesn't have a non-combat focus, why are 80% or more of its mechanics devoted to it?



interested in something new as a game system. If I'm playing a game, I want to dive into an existing universe that I know well, be it the Forgotten Realms, Star Wars, Serenity, Azeroth, whatever. I'll learn some new setting over different medium first to get my interest. (know any good Eberron novels?) Then when I'm there I want to see evidence of the people that I've read about, the places I'm familiar with, etc.
That's not the part that I find issue with. It's.. the seeming lack of acceptance that what certainly appears to be your favorite setting is gone, ain't coming back, and that you should simply accept it, rather then, you know, screaming about 4e.





WotC doesn't write anything. They just publish it. If someone wrote something as good as Lisa Smedman's recent stuff, they should get her published anyway...
You have managed to completely dodge the issue. Why is it only the official novels are acceptable storyline advancement? Do you not trust your GM to do a good job of it? If so, why are you playing under them?





I didn't say that it's changing genres. I said the changes are just as significant as a genre change would be.
No, I'm sorry, they're really not that huge a deal objectively. I'll accept that they feel that way to you, but they're nowhere near as important as a change in theme or default setting type.




I think i've been saying all along that that will likely be the case.
Then why are you railing against 4e? Are you trying to convert people away from it? Because that /would/ make sense, at least, except your rhetoric, if that's the case, is very poorly chosen to bring that about.



Try to make a COH blaster that can melee as well as blast...and take damage too. I mean, whether i'm freezing stuff, burning stuff, firing electricity, or energy...they all have different flavor. Their secondary abilities were all unique (I loved my ice blaster's easy-lockdown), but they were all filling identical roles.
...Besides the broken CoDZilla and Batman, who does that in DnD again? Nobody's good at everything in DnD. In fact, I can only think of one system where everyone has the /potential/ to be good at everything and that's /still/ neglected in favor of specialization. What is this magical system you compare everything but DnD to where people can fill every role at the drop of a hat?




Does it ever conflict with the narrative of earlier novels, making them nonsensical in the new ruleset?
You have an irritating habit of addressing the significantly less text within a point. My fault for being verbose, so I'm going to ignore this and reiterate the important question:
Is "Rest for a time to replenish their reserves of arcane energy" so mind-blowingly different from "Rest for a time to reprepare their arcane spells" in feel?




I tried sooo hard. When I was a kid back in the 80s I liked Harmony Gold's rewrite of Macross, "Robotech." I have watched everything disney has rereleased of Hayao Miyazaki's because they seemed the most mainstream, thinking I could find some easy entry way in to learn to like it. I just couldn't do it. I tried watching Appleseed, too. No luck.
I don't really know what to tell you. I have some gap in my experience that makes it almost impossible for me to make more then superficial or thematic distinctions between Eastern and Western fiction. I literally can not fathom how anyone can like one but not the other. A two way street when dealing with the Japanese, believe you me >.<


For Wuxia, i've had far less experience. I tried with the acclaimed Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. How could it go wrong? Recognition here in the west, an actor I love (Chow Yun Fat rocks), and it even had Michelle Yeoh. But it seemed...corny. Likewise with House of Flying Daggers. And Jet Li's Hero, if it qualifies.
Hero's classic Wuxia, yes, though a bit more subtle then normal. If those are corny to you, I really don't know how you stomach anything in Forgotten Realms, or Star Wars, or literally anything else. Like I said, there's a critical lack of empathy here.




And if i could place what it is that jars me out of immersion, I'm sure i could explain it better. I really wanted to like them. Couldn't do it.
I've got nothing that's really examinable over the intertubes. At least, not without even further derailing and i'ts just not worth the effort. The one guess I'll offer on immersion breaking is that the style of stunt (Like I said, combat tropes are pretty different) is so radically different to you then most modern western movies that it breaks suspension of disbelief. Objectively, there's nothing less believable about them, but.. western movies you're used to. I imagine an alien landing on earth would ask us why the villains always shoot at the ground, rather then aiming for the A-Team, if we were to take an extreme example.




Well, depends on perspective. I want the continuing narrative, they're replacing it. If I don't mind a dead end system, they're abandoning it.
Except it's still not a dead end unless nobody at your table can tell stories.




Only the changes for you don't get rid of a system you know and like. For me they all but destroy it. They could easily have released this as a brand new system without dropping support for the previous one.
Could have. Didn't. The end result is still the same: You're allowed to demand changes that would destroy a product I'm liable to like, but I'm not even allowed to enjoy changes that end up destroying a product you like.




The spell durations and DR were the most minor (and unnecessary) changes they made. Major balance changes to some core classes were more important. Amazingly, they actually improved the dual weild mechanic for 3.5 (which says how bad 3.0's was, since in 3.5 it still isn't good.)
I'm still not hearing "They made vast, sweeping changes in 3.5ed that truly warranted a new system, rather then an errata note." Incidentally, DR was actually very necessary for their Living Greyhawk campaign. It also made DR make more sense (So.. magic trumps a Werewolf's classic 'immunity' to non-silver weapons?)

Talya
2008-01-29, 09:43 PM
....You didn't read the 3.5ed book yourself, did you? 'cause.. literally almost all of the mechanics are dedicated to combat or dungeon crawling. If combat's such a tiny part of the game, you /really are/ using the wrong system.

I don't know, works great so far.


You call /me/ condescending, yet you never seem to stop attacking my imagined taste. Moving along, notwithstanding that DnD doesn't really support strengths besides combat, you're correct.

You never seem to stop imagining attacks and slights. Moving along, notwithstanding that D&D supports a whole lot of strengths. Combat has never occupied more than 10% of time spent playing in any campaign I've been in.


There really aren't mechanics for social encounters, at all. There's Diplomacy,

Skills with a social use:
Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Forgery, Gather Information, Intimidate, Knowledge (all), Perform, Sense Motive
Spells with social uses: Dozens.

Skills with other noncombat uses: All except tumble.
Spells with other noncombat uses: Most of them.




You're going to contest that DnD is combat-focuseed? to quote Dogbert, "Excuse me while I go take a wicked wag."
D&D has detailed combat mechanics. That doesn't mean they are the main part of the game. Combat just requires the most detail in order to work.


That's not the part that I find issue with. It's.. the seeming lack of acceptance that what certainly appears to be your favorite setting is gone, ain't coming back

If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be complaining about it, because there would be nothing to complain about.


You have managed to completely dodge the issue. Why is it only the official novels are acceptable storyline advancement? Do you not trust your GM to do a good job of it? If so, why are you playing under them?

Is everyone else who plays there going to read them? Is your DM an accomplished publishable author? Most importantly, is it going to be official? If not, it's like reading fan-fiction. It's not "real." It's not cannon.


Then why are you railing against 4e?
Why does everyone rail against what they disagree with? That's what people do.



...Besides the broken CoDZilla and Batman, who does that in DnD again?

First of all, despite these forums and others like them, CoDZilla and Batman are an invention of people who have ****ty DMs and elevated opinions of what they're actually capable of doing in a game. Balance is not perfect, it's true. But there isn't this huge gulf that everyone claims.

But it's easy to make a character without a single spell or psionic power that can fill the three most important rolls adequately - killin', not gettin' killed, and skill monkey. Yes, a wizard can do that killin' part better than anybody, but they should be able to.



You have an irritating habit of addressing the significantly less text within a point. My fault for being verbose, so I'm going to ignore this and reiterate the important question:
Is "Rest for a time to replenish their reserves of arcane energy" so mind-blowingly different from "Rest for a time to reprepare their arcane spells" in feel?

You have an irritating habit of not realizing when the answer to the question you just asked has been given.

Has any canonical D&D novel in any setting ever referenced the mechanics involved in spellcasting in a way that would be incompatible with "replenishing reserves of arcane energy?" When you learn the answer to that, you have the answer to your question.



Hero's classic Wuxia, yes, though a bit more subtle then normal. If those are corny to you, I really don't know how you stomach anything in Forgotten Realms, or Star Wars, or literally anything else. Like I said, there's a critical lack of empathy here.

I think it's the dialogue, more than anything. Although the "wire-fu" is irritating as hell. If people are defying gravity, there should be at least a storyline explanation for why they are doing so.


Could have. Didn't. The end result is still the same: You're allowed to demand changes that would destroy a product I'm liable to like, but I'm not even allowed to enjoy changes that end up destroying a product you like.


This is a strawman argument. I've never argued that you can't ask for changes. Although I don't know why, when you already don't like the system, and already have other systems you do like, you'd ask for changes to a system that you have stated you have no interest in and so many people already like so much.


I'm still not hearing "They made vast, sweeping changes in 3.5ed that truly warranted a new system, rather then an errata note." Incidentally, DR was actually very necessary for their Living Greyhawk campaign. It also made DR make more sense (So.. magic trumps a Werewolf's classic 'immunity' to non-silver weapons?)

5/silver was still entirely possible in 3.0. 3.5e actually removed DR flexibility, which I don't like. 5/magic is silly, unless you've got it prior to level 5 and upgrade it later. 5/+1 was far better, because it could go up to 5/+5 at the high end. 5/Silver or 5/adamantine would still do what it does now.

Talya
2008-01-29, 10:21 PM
BTW, if you like Wuxia so much, please answer this question.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70776

Rutee
2008-01-29, 10:34 PM
You know, with the exception of the Wuxia explanation, I'm not going to bother. If you refuse to accept the flavor, the rules, the mechanics, the history, and designer notes that all say "Dungeons and Dragons is a combat based system", I don't see how I can explain it to you, nor why I should bother. You're quite content with the wool over your eyes that says "Because we play it this way, it is the system focus". I will, however, try and help with one thing I genuinely do still think I can explain;


I think it's the dialogue, more than anything. Although the "wire-fu" is irritating as hell. If people are defying gravity, there should be at least a storyline explanation for why they are doing so.
As it turns out, this is in fact a gap in your cultural knowledge. It's not explained because as far as the Chinese are concerned, it's a given. Basically, the characters, as they're all martial artists, practice Qinggong, loosely translated as "Light Body" or "Light Foot". It's a technique that /does/ exist in real life, albeit much less exaggerated, which allows the practitioner to make vertical jumps that are significantly greater then one's own height, most notably. In a Wuxia movie, this will typically be exaggerated to supernatural heights, indicating that the martial artist in question has attained a supernatural understanding of the martial arts. (Which can be lost in translation, somewhat, since everyone, seemingly, will be doing it).

Wikipedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuxia) unsurprisingly, possesses a good analysis of Wuxia.

Rutee
2008-01-29, 10:38 PM
BTW, if you like Wuxia so much, please answer this question.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70776

I'll pass. Chinese names have an annoying habit of getting themselves completely mixed up in my mind, and sorting them all out across multiple continuities would be /hard/.

Talya
2008-01-29, 11:04 PM
I'd read that wiki entry before. I have a hard time figuring out still how wearing weights on one's legs for long periods of times teaches one to hover in the air, although it certainly would help one's ability to jump.

Rutee
2008-01-29, 11:08 PM
I'd read that wiki entry before. I have a hard time figuring out still how wearing weights on one's legs for long periods of times teaches one to hover in the air, although it certainly would help one's ability to jump.
The jump is logical, however, between "Being able to jump really high", and "Being able to move through the air as easily as the average person walks on the ground". Within fantasy, anyway. It's really not any less logical then standard western action movies and the stormtrooper training academy/massive plot armor.

horseboy
2008-01-30, 01:05 AM
1: There /seems/ to be a direction towards an established setting. Unless that setting is Eberron or Spelljammer, both of which are highly unlikely, this is badwrongbad for my enjoyment of DnD (As opposed to badwrongfun).
Alright, bonus points to Rutee for being a 'jammer fan.



And most RPGs are not designed to focus only on combat. Especially D&D.

:smallconfused: What? D&D not focused only on combat?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHA!
*breath*
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHA!
*breath*
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHA!


Here's a question that's indicative of just how combat focused it is.
Why are all 1/2 orcs the product of rape?
Why would it be so far fetched that orcs might be able to be in non-threatening contact with the outside world where culture and finances flow back and forth, allowing a mutual building of interpersonal relationships? Why? Because in D&D orcs exist solely in the gaming world to be killed by PC's.
On game boards for things other than D&D it's not at all common to have posts/threads about all the "deprogramming" we have to go through with D&D players to get them to stop killing everything that moves.

huttj509
2008-01-30, 02:03 AM
The jump is logical, however, between "Being able to jump really high", and "Being able to move through the air as easily as the average person walks on the ground". Within fantasy, anyway. It's really not any less logical then standard western action movies and the stormtrooper training academy/massive plot armor.


And actually, the writers of the Superman comics found it logical too. Originally, he could not fly, just jump really high and far. Westerners get power creep too. :smallsmile:

Starbuck_II
2008-01-30, 07:06 AM
You never seem to stop imagining attacks and slights. Moving along, notwithstanding that D&D supports a whole lot of strengths. Combat has never occupied more than 10% of time spent playing in any campaign I've been in.

Never? How long do your combats last? I've had long combats taking hours (castle taking over type with enemy armies). I'd definately never see it it less than 30% if not 40% of any campaign.



D&D has detailed combat mechanics. That doesn't mean they are the main part of the game. Combat just requires the most detail in order to work.

Wait, so they used up so much of D&D to explain combat even though D&D according to you almost never uses it.

Well, maybe your group never does, but I'm pretty sure most people acually use it more.


First of all, despite these forums and others like them, CoDZilla and Batman are an invention of people who have ****ty DMs and elevated opinions of what they're actually capable of doing in a game. Balance is not perfect, it's true. But there isn't this huge gulf that everyone claims.

But it's easy to make a character without a single spell or psionic power that can fill the three most important rolls adequately - killin', not gettin' killed, and skill monkey. Yes, a wizard can do that killin' part better than anybody, but they should be able to.

Everyone does the "not getting killin'" role... unlesss you are casting raise dead alot.

And Batman is not a special build. Just using Core spells smartly. You've look at Logic Ninja's guide, right? Seems to me, you may have missed it. It explains what a Batman wizard is.

It gives general guidelines to good/useful spells.
Now deviating from the list to damage dealing is not disqualify you from Batman. But again it is a guideline.


Has any canonical D&D novel in any setting ever referenced the mechanics involved in spellcasting in a way that would be incompatible with "replenishing reserves of arcane energy?" When you learn the answer to that, you have the answer to your question.

No, they totally pretend to be psionic and have arcane energies to refill not spell slots. Which is again why Psionic= fantasy more than vancian.

Mr. Friendly
2008-01-30, 07:42 AM
Not yay. When I had seen that I though " I hope that all senses are not in this "Perception" together". It's little stupid for me.

This is so true. It makes much more sense for a Barbarian to be able to hear a pin drop 100 yards away, but be unable to see a Dragon 10 feet away on a moonlit evening.

Morty
2008-01-30, 09:03 AM
This is so true. It makes much more sense for a Barbarian to be able to hear a pin drop 100 yards away, but be unable to see a Dragon 10 feet away on a moonlit evening.

Ever heard of blind people with razor-sharp sense of hearing? Or vice versa? Mixing spot and listen into perception does make the game quicker and it's not really bad decision, but it's not realistic in any way.

Reinboom
2008-01-30, 09:15 AM
If you look at the spined devil, you will notice a "Spot" in addition to perception.

I believe they grouped the two together for skill purposes, but, still allow special exceptions yet.

Mr. Friendly
2008-01-30, 09:21 AM
Ever heard of blind people with razor-sharp sense of hearing? Or vice versa? Mixing spot and listen into perception does make the game quicker and it's not really bad decision, but it's not realistic in any way.

Right, but does it make any sense that a Barbarian is unable to see the monster standing a foot away from him, simply because Spot is not a class skill for him?

Talya
2008-01-30, 09:26 AM
Never? How long do your combats last? I've had long combats taking hours (castle taking over type with enemy armies). I'd definately never see it it less than 30% if not 40% of any campaign.


Wait, so they used up so much of D&D to explain combat even though D&D according to you almost never uses it.

I don't say we never use it. I'm saying we usually only spend 10% of our play time actually fighting.



And Batman is not a special build. Just using Core spells smartly. You've look at Logic Ninja's guide, right? Seems to me, you may have missed it. It explains what a Batman wizard is.

I know exactly what "Batman" is. I've read the logic ninja's guide. However, it's theoretical. It does not work to make you overshadow your party, in actual practice, unless your DM is either a buffoon, or likes his wizards being gods. In practice, you rarely have the right spells prepared to trivialize an encounter, because divination or not, the encounters surprise you.


No, they totally pretend to be psionic and have arcane energies to refill not spell slots.

Obviously you haven't read many D&D novels. They don't talk about how much "energy" they have left. They talk about how many and which particular spells they have left. In detail. They talk about memorizing and preparation, they detail studying the spellbook every morning to replace lost spells.

Morty
2008-01-30, 09:27 AM
Right, but does it make any sense that a Barbarian is unable to see the monster standing a foot away from him, simply because Spot is not a class skill for him?

Of course it doesn't. But it's not the fault of spot/listen distinction, but barbarian class design.

Talya
2008-01-30, 09:32 AM
Here's a question that's indicative of just how combat focused it is.
Why are all 1/2 orcs the product of rape?
Why would it be so far fetched that orcs might be able to be in non-threatening contact with the outside world where culture and finances flow back and forth, allowing a mutual building of interpersonal relationships? Why? Because in D&D orcs exist solely in the gaming world to be killed by PC's.


There's a huge non-sequitur there.
Orcs do not make up a huge percentage of the NPC population of most game settings.
Guess who make up most of the populations? Humans, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, elves....generally in about that order. 99% what you encounter in the average setting will be non-hostile. Nearer 100% in cities. Now, obviously, you're adventurers, you go out looking for trouble to fix it. I find most campaigns play like novels, like stories. I don't know many "hack-'n'-slash" players who just kill everything. I don't consider them RPGers, anyway. They're only playing a tactical subset of the game. It's not roleplaying.

Mr. Friendly
2008-01-30, 10:00 AM
Of course it doesn't. But it's not the fault of spot/listen distinction, but barbarian class design.

I disagree though. As long as you are going to have a skill system based on skill points, it will always be unfair for the character with less skill points. It also doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint. Why would a character, who presumably is an adventurer that on a typical day raids an orc lair, kills them and takes their stuff, have unequal spot and listen? Poor hearing? Poor vision? Sure that works for the first 5 or 6 hundred characters that are like that.... but what about someone who has average vision AND average hearing?

It seems to me that it is fairly simple to say "You have a Perception of 12; but you are blind, so you automatically fail any perception test based solely on vision." or "You have (some flaw) that gives you poor hearing, so your Perception is 12, but against any Perception test based solely on hearing you get a (-X) penalty.

Honestly though, how often is a check purely a Spot or Listen? Realistically?

Some Gnolls Hiding behind bushes waiting to ambush you? Don't they need to whisper orders to begin the attack? Or at least shift their weight to get ready to pounce? So shouldn't it be a Spot OR Listen (or both?); why not just make it Perception instead?

Morty
2008-01-30, 10:24 AM
I disagree though. As long as you are going to have a skill system based on skill points, it will always be unfair for the character with less skill points.

Characters with many skill points tend to be rogues or trackers, for whom it's logical to have honed senses.


It also doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint. Why would a character, who presumably is an adventurer that on a typical day raids an orc lair, kills them and takes their stuff, have unequal spot and listen? Poor hearing? Poor vision? Sure that works for the first 5 or 6 hundred characters that are like that.... but what about someone who has average vision AND average hearing?

If someone's got average hearing and sight, then one's got equal ranks in spot and listen. Or equal spot/listen, in case they aren't skills.


It seems to me that it is fairly simple to say "You have a Perception of 12; but you are blind, so you automatically fail any perception test based solely on vision." or "You have (some flaw) that gives you poor hearing, so your Perception is 12, but against any Perception test based solely on hearing you get a (-X) penalty.

It works if someone is blind/deaf. But sometimes, one might just have hearing/sight honed by training to be better than normal senses.


Honestly though, how often is a check purely a Spot or Listen? Realistically?

Some Gnolls Hiding behind bushes waiting to ambush you? Don't they need to whisper orders to begin the attack? Or at least shift their weight to get ready to pounce? So shouldn't it be a Spot OR Listen (or both?); why not just make it Perception instead?

Yes, in some cases you roll both spot and listen. But in other, you doesn't. It's still simpler to just use Perception, but I don't claim that having spot/listen distinction is better, just that it's more realistic. I personally couldn't care less if they're the same skill or separate ones.

Draz74
2008-01-30, 12:06 PM
Right, but does it make any sense that a Barbarian is unable to see the monster standing a foot away from him, simply because Spot is not a class skill for him?

Nope. Which is why it doesn't happen in-game. DC -10 skill check. :smalltongue:

horseboy
2008-01-30, 12:19 PM
There's a huge non-sequitur there.
Orcs do not make up a huge percentage of the NPC population of most game settings.
Guess who make up most of the populations? Humans, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, elves....generally in about that order. 99% what you encounter in the average setting will be non-hostile. Nearer 100% in cities.
Actually? Yeah, they do. Given the #'s that they're slaughtered in and the 50/500 rule for breeding stock there's A LEAST as many as there are elves, gnomes, halflings and dwarfs in your "typical" setting. But since they're "monsters" you don't see their cities unless you're out there to slaughter it. Meanwhile you wander through demi-human city to demi-human city and see all the people there. People aren't hiding their children, or sending non-combatants out of the area because you're in town.

Now, obviously, you're adventurers, you go out looking for trouble to fix it. I find most campaigns play like novels, like stories. I don't know many "hack-'n'-slash" players who just kill everything. I don't consider them RPGers, anyway. They're only playing a tactical subset of the game. It's not roleplaying.
You may not consider them RPGers, but they do. And they're in our hobby, so by association of being into RPGames, they are RPGers. They just don't "live up to" our standards. And when dealing with the D&D subset of this group, you are in the frightful minority. The DMG is full of how to generate random dungeons full of random crap for players to kill. IF there's a section in there about how to put together a coherent story it alluded me. Meaning they spent more room on how to decorate your random dungeon of doom than how to build a good story.

Yes, you can take D&D's combat rules and build an RPG around them. You could do the same thing with Inquisitor. Hell, Inquisitor has better combat rules, so you'd be better off just tacking on Diplomacy to Inquisitor and you'd have a typical D&D game.

Rutee
2008-01-30, 12:30 PM
This is ludicrous. RPGs, including DnD, started with Hack and Slash. They're RPGers as much as anyone else is. It's called a different preference, a different goal from the game. Quite frankly, the entire hobby is pretty ludicrous, if you think about it. There's no reason whatsoever to get arrogant or feel superior to someone else because their reason for playing a game is totally different from yours.

Especially not when the game is designed for their tastes.


And actually, the writers of the Superman comics found it logical too. Originally, he could not fly, just jump really high and far. Westerners get power creep too.
I.. didn't realize he really only started with Super-Jumping. I thought "Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound" was just an evocative way of saying "He could fly" or something >.>

Talya
2008-01-30, 12:31 PM
Actually? Yeah, they do. Given the #'s that they're slaughtered in and the 50/500 rule for breeding stock there's A LEAST as many as there are elves, gnomes, halflings and dwarfs in your "typical" setting. But since they're "monsters" you don't see their cities unless you're out there to slaughter it. Meanwhile you wander through demi-human city to demi-human city and see all the people there. People aren't hiding their children, or sending non-combatants out of the area because you're in town.



No actually, they aren't. For instance, in Faerun, the single most used campaign setting, they're driven into the mountains, the tundra, the deserts, places humans usually don't go. When humans do go there, they drive the orcs out after a short while. For a brief time, Obould unified the orcs against the dwarven city of Mithral Hall and laid siege, but that was the majority of orcs in the world, and they still couldn't handle a single dwarven city. The lands are mostly settled, with competing civilized nations occupying most of the arabale land.


You may not consider them RPGers, but they do. And they're in our hobby, so by association of being into RPGames, they are RPGers. They just don't "live up to" our standards. And when dealing with the D&D subset of this group, you are in the frightful minority.

I've never met anyone who has anything but scorn for the hack'n'slash gamer, to the point I'm not even sure the breed exists.

Person_Man
2008-01-30, 12:33 PM
Let me try another analogy, since the sci-fi vs. medical drama went over everyone's heads.

Let's say you like baseball. (I know, I know. Pretend that you do.)

Imagine if someone said, "You know, baseball isn't cool enough. Let's make a few changes."
"Uh, okay. What do you have in mind?"
"Well, the diamond has to go. Let's make it a rectangular field, 100 yards long, divided into ten yard increments."
"Uh..."
"And the little round ball isn't cool. Let's elongate the ball, and make it pointy. That will be cool. And get rid of bats, nobody likes them. Now, instead of innings, we'll have 4 quarters. Each team can have an unlimted number of possessions during the quarter, and during each possession, they have 4 chances, we'll call them downs, to reset their possession so they keep going, with the goal of carrying the ball across..."
"But that's not baseball!"
"Bah. You can still call it baseball."
"But it's not baseball!"
"Look, just because MLB is going to switch to the new rules, doesn't mean you have to. You can still play the old uncool baseball with your friends."
"..."

Blernsball (http://futurama.overt-ops.com/Blernsball)?

I want to play!!!

Rutee
2008-01-30, 12:33 PM
No actually, they aren't. For instance, in Faerun, the single most used campaign setting, they're driven into the mountains, the tundra, the deserts, places humans usually don't go. When humans do go there, they drive the orcs out after a short while. For a brief time, Obould unified the orcs against the dwarven city of Mithral Hall and laid siege, but that was the majority of orcs in the world, and they still couldn't handle a single dwarven city. The lands are mostly settled, with competing civilized nations occupying most of the arabale land.
...And yet, Faerun is still not the default assumption DnD uses. Do you not understand that the forgotten realms are not taken into account within the DnD base rules?




I've never met anyone who has anything but scorn for the hack'n'slash gamer, to the point I'm not even sure the breed exists.
You have now. I couldn't care less what people's goals are. It's actually rather like religion; Have your fun, but don't you dare start going out of your way to convert people or ridicule them for having a different idea of how it should be done.

Talya
2008-01-30, 12:37 PM
...And yet, Faerun is still not the default assumption DnD uses. Do you not understand that the forgotten realms are not taken into account within the DnD base rules?

We're talking about people who play D&D. FR sells far more than any other setting, it's the most widely used, period.

From what I understand, Eberron is similar in it's world design, if less detailed, for now.

Grayhawk has no detail left, and there are no other WotC supported settings at present.





You have now.

Have I? I didn't get the impression you're a hack'n'slash gamer, but you're not a D&D gamer anyway.

Artanis
2008-01-30, 12:43 PM
I've never met anyone who has anything but scorn for the hack'n'slash gamer, to the point I'm not even sure the breed exists.
That's not surprising, given that you've gone out of your way to describe just how far your group goes to avoid combat.

Just because YOU don't do it doesn't mean nobody does. For that matter, it doesn't mean you're even in the majority.

It's like somebody once said: "How could Reagan win? Everybody I know voted for Mondale!"

Starbuck_II
2008-01-30, 12:43 PM
You have now. I couldn't care less what people's goals are. It's actually rather like religion; Have your fun, but don't you dare start going out of your way to convert people or ridicule them for having a different idea of how it should be done.

But that sounds rather limiting and doing the hypocrit thing. Your words emulate the "religion of can't convert": thus you are stopping others with your "religion".

So while I can agree with the don't ridicule part, I disagree with converting.

Talya:
I play D&D and while I may not be all hack/slash, I do not have a problem if that is their thing.
I like some roleplay/story along with it, but the fighting bits can be fun too. Why can't people like story and get along with people who like combat?

I mean, why must it be all or nothing? Why must people be so intolerate of hack/slashers?

Rutee
2008-01-30, 12:45 PM
We're talking about people who play D&D. FR sells far more than any other setting, it's the most widely used, period.

From what I understand, Eberron is similar in it's world design, if less detailed, for now.

Grayhawk has no detail left, and there are no other WotC supported settings at present.
You think I care what sold best? We are talking about the base system. The base system does not refer to Eberron, FAerun, Greyhawk, or anything else.







Have I? I didn't get the impression you're a hack'n'slash gamer, but you're not a D&D gamer anyway.
Incorrect. You said "I've never met anyone who has anything other then scorn for hack and slash gaming". Yo. It's ludicrous to despise, ridicule, or otherwise denigrate people for playing games with a different purpose then you.

Clearly, we need to reserve that vitriol for the unwashed heathen masses whom think Roleplaying is stupid. :smalltongue:


But that sounds rather limiting and doing the hypocrit thing. Your words emulate the "religion of can't convert": thus you are stopping others with your "religion".

So while I can agree with the don't ridicule part, I disagree with converting.
The idea is, don't preach to people who don't want to be preached at. It is slightly hypocritical of me to say anything, of course, but generally speaking I reserve it for when people start going out of their way on their own.

Talya
2008-01-30, 12:46 PM
I play D&D and while I may not be all hack/slash, I do not have a problem if that is their thing.
I like some roleplay/story along with it, but the fighting bits can be fun too. Why can't people like story and get along with people who like combat?

I mean, why must it be all or nothing? Why must people be so intolerate of hack/slashers?

I don't know. I didn't say they should be. Or shouldn't be. I said every D&D player i've ever talked to has nothing but scorn for the hack'n'slash gamer...to the point where I'm not sure the hack'n'slash D&D gamer even exists. I have not encountered this legendary beast. Nevertheless, hack'n'slash gaming isn't "roleplaying" in any sense of the word. It's tactical gaming. It's like a bunch of guys sitting around a warhammer map or something like that. It gives you no time to actually play a role. You're just fighting everything.

Artanis
2008-01-30, 12:49 PM
Nevertheless, hack'n'slash gaming isn't "roleplaying" in any sense of the word. It's tactical gaming. It's like a bunch of guys sitting around a warhammer map or something like that.
Says you. To many people, "Hack n' Slash" is just roleplaying people who actually fight things. The heroes saving the town from the Orcish invaders, the adventurers braving a Dragon's lair for treasure, etc.

Just because people actually have combat doesn't mean they aren't roleplaying.

Talya
2008-01-30, 12:52 PM
You think I care what sold best? We are talking about the base system.

No, we're not. We're talking about D&D players. The majority of them play FR. A big chunk play Eberron. Therefore, most of the time, D&D settings are mostly civilized and orcs are a fringe race.


Incorrect. You said "I've never met anyone who has anything other then scorn for hack and slash gaming". Yo. It's ludicrous to despise, ridicule, or otherwise denigrate people for playing games with a different purpose then you.

That may be so, I don't presume to criticize people's gaming habits on this board, because doing so is against the rules. Which is why I didn't. You're making another strawman argument. Just because I've never met anyone who has anything other than scorn for hack'n'slash gaming, doesn't mean I personally am criticizing them. My point is, they seem a pretty rare breed.


The idea is, don't preach to people who don't want to be preached at. It is slightly hypocritical of me to say anything, of course, but generally speaking I reserve it for when people start going out of their way on their own.

Right. So who's preaching? Other than you, I don't see anyone.

Talya
2008-01-30, 12:53 PM
Says you. To many people, "Hack n' Slash" is just roleplaying people who actually fight things. The heroes saving the town from the Orcish invaders, the adventurers braving a Dragon's lair for treasure, etc.

Just because people actually have combat doesn't mean they aren't roleplaying.


You're also making a strawman argument. We fight things in my games, both the ones that I DM, and the ones that I play in, almost every session. I never said roleplayers don't fight things. Hack'n'slash gamers aren't the only ones that fight things. However, hack'n'slash gaming is when ALL they do is fight things. That's it. It's just a numbers game, tactical, at that point. The moment they start actually developing a character outside of combat, they're starting to branch away from hack'n'slash gaming.

You guys have to quit reading things into my comments that were not stated.

Rutee
2008-01-30, 01:02 PM
No, we're not. We're talking about D&D players. The majority of them play FR. A big chunk play Eberron. Therefore, most of the time, D&D settings are mostly civilized and orcs are a fringe race.
...I really wish I had your unfounded confidence when I speculate on what most people play based solely on sales numbers. While it certainly means they intended to /play/ it at some point, it hardly means it's the only setting they ever play.




That may be so, I don't presume to criticize people's gaming habits on this board, because doing so is against the rules. Which is why I didn't. You're making another strawman argument. Just because I've never met anyone who has anything other than scorn for hack'n'slash gaming, doesn't mean I personally am criticizing them. My point is, they seem a pretty rare breed.
You have been backhandedly insulting those gaming preferences throughout several threads, so I don't know why you're trying to cover yourself here, now.




Right. So who's preaching? Other than you, I don't see anyone.
With your consistent insulting of gamist gaming, I'd say it'd be you.


You're also making a strawman argument. We fight things in my games, both the ones that I DM, and the ones that I play in, almost every session. I never said roleplayers don't fight things. Hack'n'slash gamers aren't the only ones that fight things. However, hack'n'slash gaming is when ALL they do is fight things. That's it. It's just a numbers game, tactical, at that point. The moment they start actually developing a character outside of combat, they're starting to branch away from hack'n'slash gaming.

No, he's not making a strawman argument. A strawman argument is when you deliberately attack the weaker, less important fragment of someone's point to the exclusion of the more convincing, important one.

Talya
2008-01-30, 01:04 PM
You have been backhandedly insulting those gaming preferences throughout several threads, so I don't know why you're trying to cover yourself here, now.

Read into it what you want. I said nothing of the sort. You seem to like ascribing whatever motives you like to a comment without actually reading the content or getting the intent of it.



With your consistent insulting of gamist gaming, I'd say it'd be you.

I don't even know what "gamist gaming" is. It sounds redundant to me.

Theli
2008-01-30, 01:04 PM
So yeah...how about that 4E Pit Fiend stat block... Hoo boy, that's some stat block...

Rutee
2008-01-30, 01:08 PM
Read into it what you want. I said nothing of the sort.
I read intentions. I'm aware you're careful enough in word choice to have not outright said that they're stupid for doing it or whatnot, but given how often you use that kind of thinking as an objective negative..


I don't even know what "gamist gaming" is. It sounds redundant ot me.
It does, doesn't it? Essentially, you can play roleplay games for many different reasons; Gamist reasons are those relating to the actual mechanical sections; The gameplay, as it were. Often associated with drawing enjoyment from minmaxing and/or 'breaking' the game.

Talya
2008-01-30, 01:11 PM
For the record, Rutee, that's not a strawman. Although you are close.

A strawman argument is when you set up a position which is easy to refute and attribute that position to the opponent in a debate. The strawman can be set up to overstate their position, or be something entirely different that the person didn't say. The strawman succeeds if the opponent actually defends that position, because then it's no longer a strawman, they've actually taken the easily refutable position that you invented. It is a misleading fallacy, otherwise, because you're not arguing your opponent's actual position, but something entirely different.

Talya
2008-01-30, 01:16 PM
It does, doesn't it? Essentially, you can play roleplay games for many different reasons; Gamist reasons are those relating to the actual mechanical sections; The gameplay, as it were. Often associated with drawing enjoyment from minmaxing and/or 'breaking' the game.

In that case, I certainly don't criticize it, as I am, in many respects, a "Gamist" gamer. Looking up the term on Wikipedia, I'm also a Narrativist. And a Simulationist. They are not exclusive to each other. I think all are important and should mesh together. Call me a "holistic" gamer if you will.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-30, 01:18 PM
So yeah...how about that 4E Pit Fiend stat block... Hoo boy, that's some stat block...

Stat block you say? Where?

Ohh yes, there it is. Not sure how I could miss that....



On that note, I think it was Emperor Tippy that mentioned the Dark 8 in the Lore section.

I do not think it will have anything to do with the Blood War, I simply think that they are keeping the old organization.

YPU
2008-01-30, 01:35 PM
you know, in my eyes it seems so much easier then the current edition, and I like it. I always had a bit of trouble with monsters with a lot of special or spell like abilities. Now this does work for me. (but that’s just me) I think that the soldier part is just part of the description of the monster, just like the spine devil is a skirmisher. It just describes what kind of role it performs in battle. So the elite part does more mechanically then the role part. Of course the role part has had a lot of influence on the design of the monster itself. I like the teleport as a movement type, gets rid of the “something teleport” at will, that I might just fail to notice.

Talya
2008-01-30, 01:45 PM
Stat block you say? Where?

Ohh yes, there it is. Not sure how I could miss that....



On that note, I think it was Emperor Tippy that mentioned the Dark 8 in the Lore section.

I do not think it will have anything to do with the Blood War, I simply think that they are keeping the old organization.

Have they said they getting rid of the blood war? Damnit....

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-30, 02:00 PM
Have they said they getting rid of the blood war? Damnit....

Imagine there's no Blood War
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Abyss moved somewhere to fry
Imagine all the Devils
Living for today...

Imagine there's no Blood War
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no Chaos-Law axis too
Imagine all the Demons
Living life in peace...

Imagine no Blood War
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
In a brotherhood of Demons and Devils man
Imagine all the Demons and Devils
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And buy 4th Edition

Talya
2008-01-30, 02:04 PM
Very nice, Silvanos. I love when people do that to music.

(For any of you former EQ players, I became rather famous among EQ bards for a little thing that got posted to EQDiva (http://archives.eqdiva.com/eq/humor/manaman.aspx).)

Theli
2008-01-30, 02:07 PM
That...is...disturbing...

John Lennon...rolling...in...grave...

Can't...stop...ellipses...

horseboy
2008-01-30, 02:30 PM
No actually, they aren't. For instance, in Faerun, the single most used campaign setting, they're driven into the mountains, the tundra, the deserts, places humans usually don't go. When humans do go there, they drive the orcs out after a short while. For a brief time, Obould unified the orcs against the dwarven city of Mithral Hall and laid siege, but that was the majority of orcs in the world, and they still couldn't handle a single dwarven city. The lands are mostly settled, with competing civilized nations occupying most of the arabale land. And yet, they're in the every forest, just outside the lowbie towns, waiting to raid the hapless NPC's cattle, so the PC's can grind them.

I've never met anyone who has anything but scorn for the hack'n'slash gamer, to the point I'm not even sure the breed exists.
*Points to the numerous NPC theads going on.* Particularly those with the "Why does a bartender need a name, let alone stats" arguments.
It's also an extremely common play style amongst new players. Usually they grow out of it, or become trained differently. Though, I do know at least one group nearby that that's their preferred play style.
And since you brought up FR, I'm going to point to the outcry of part of the rewrite that's basically WotC dropping Cara Fahd into the realms. All the "orcs kill stuff, they can't farm!" complaints.

Rutee
2008-01-30, 03:53 PM
In that case, I certainly don't criticize it, as I am, in many respects, a "Gamist" gamer. Looking up the term on Wikipedia, I'm also a Narrativist. And a Simulationist. They are not exclusive to each other. I think all are important and should mesh together. Call me a "holistic" gamer if you will.

You strike me as more of a simulationist, given your inability or unwillingness, seemingly, to craft your own distinctive plot, and that you've stated repeatedly that your real goal is to have an immersive, utterly believable, living world.

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 09:55 PM
You have now.
I thought the point of Hack'n'slash was the tactical combat. You know, almost like a game of minis.

But how fun can that be, if the GM's minis just cheat?

Do you seriously play a game where the GM says, "This week's foes are... Orcs!" and then you start rolling dice and announcing damage? :smallwink:

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 09:57 PM
I read intentions.
Then maybe you shouldn't.

People will offend you plenty enough without your having to go looking for it. :smallbiggrin:



Gamist reasons are those relating to the actual mechanical sections;
:smalleek:

I r confuzed.

Aren't you arguing over in the NPC versimilitude thread that mechanics (specifically of NPC generation) don't matter?

Yahzi
2008-01-30, 10:03 PM
You strike me as more of a simulationist, given your inability or unwillingness, seemingly, to craft your own distinctive plot, and that you've stated repeatedly that your real goal is to have an immersive, utterly believable, living world.
There is absolutely no reason one cannot craft a distinctive plot in a world that is immersive, utterly believable, and living. It's called "fiction," as in the non-fantasy, non-science, non-speculative kind. Entire reams of stories have been written that never once deviate from the utterly mundane and believable world. Some of them have won Pulitzer Prizes.

And Tayla has said nothing about plots, so you have no reason to assume she is not interested in distinctive plots, which you already know since you qualified your charge with "seemingly."

Lighten up, already.