PDA

View Full Version : 4e excerpt: Angels



Pages : [1] 2

wodan46
2008-04-28, 08:39 AM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080428a

The gist of it is that Angels are messengers/soldiers of the Gods, but furthermore are just as commonly servants to neutral or evil gods as good gods. They are more abstract and in appearance, humanoid but not human, reflecting that they are more avatars of vengeance, or loyalty, and other abstract things. The lowest ranking ones are level 9 and worth 350 exp, and thus could theoretically be taken on by a party of level 1s as a boss encounter.

I think they look cool, and its nice that you can fight them without having your party being the kick puppies type.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-28, 08:43 AM
And quoted for those of you who can't see it...


We've introduced devils; this time, we wanted to take a look at angels. We asked R&D's Jennifer Clarke Wilkes how 4th Edition angels are different from any ever seen before--in both appearance and backstory.

Her response:


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

When was the last time your party took on an angel? For most players, the answer is probably “never”. Even the least of them, the astral deva, is a very powerful opponent—and, of course, there’s that sticky problem of their being good-with-a-capital-G creatures. D&D characters are supposed to be heroes, and heroes don’t fight the good guys, right?

Not only angels, but a variety of other good divine servants populated the Great Wheel of earlier editions. An urge toward symmetry produced an Outer Plane for every shade of alignment, and that meant planar denizens of matching alignment. Thus, archons were lawful good, guardinals were neutral good, and eladrins were chaotic good. (In fact, until the 3.5 version of the Monster Manual, the word “angel” did not appear in the game.)

Meanwhile, evil gods were served by . . . nobody. Sure, there were demons and devils, but they had their own agendas and paid little attention to what the gods were up to—whether good or evil. This left the evil gods with assorted minions and cultists, unless they made alliances with fiends. What would stand against adventurers who dared Hextor or Vecna on his home turf? Evil creatures might live in Pandemonium, but they had nothing to do with Erythnul. In a strange way, this arrangement meant that a demon lord such as Orcus or an archdevil such as Asmodeus could muster an army of servants and actually present a greater challenge to high-level characters than gods. Something was wrong with that picture.

Reconcepting some of the iconic monsters of the D&D game went hand in glove with our intent to revamp the setting, in addition to the game mechanics, so as to maximize playability and fun. One of the goals of monster development for the new edition was to better distinguish monster groups. All those shades of niceness didn’t do much to clearly identify the various servants of good, nor did those creatures embody specific principles in the way that different sorts of fiends often did. We decided that every god needed to have servants, and making angels those servants seemed the logical step. (Demons and devils might still work with evil gods, but they do not serve them.)

Removing alignment restrictions from angels also meant that they could embody new ideas. The word “angel” means “messenger”—why couldn’t one bring a message of war, or pain, or vengeance, as well as those of hope or protection? (And, of course, snuggles.) A god of generally good alignment might still have need of an angel to bring death to enemies; an evil god could require an envoy to inspire loyalty and bravery. Now an angel can lead any deity’s armies, whether of lesser angels, immortal creatures or powerful mortal champions, and can project its divine will into other realms. The weaker angels are heroic-tier monsters, suitable as temple guardians and mortal commanders. The more powerful are effective challenges at the paragon and epic tiers, standing by the side of their deities. (Along the way, some things that were once angel-like changed their natures, most notably the eladrin, who now are the lords of the Feywild.)

The change in angels’ nature paved the way to a change in appearance as well. Angels became less humanoid in appearance, more like impartial embodiments of immortal power. They are faceless, sometimes metallic or stonelike in form, trailing into Astral essence. No halos here—these are beings created by the gods for a purpose, rather than anthropomorphic images of comfort and purity. They are uncaring and relentless, and their new look reinforces that aspect.

Most deities have angel servants. Although their appearances can vary, all angels are vaguely humanoid in form, with masculine or feminine features and lower bodies that trail off into flowing energy.

Angels exist as expressions of the Astral Sea, sentient energy in humanoid form. They most often serve the gods, so some believe that the gods created them. In reality, angels are powerful astral beings who appeared during the first moments of the creation of the Astral Sea. Different types of angels have different callings; they are literally manifestations of celestial vocations. Perhaps it was the needs of the gods that caused the astral stuff to spew them forth, but it was not a conscious act of creation. During the great war between the gods and the primordials, angels offered themselves as warriors to the gods that best encompassed their callings, and today they continue to act as mercenary forces for anyone willing to meet their price—be it wealth, or power, or a cause worthy of their attention.

Angels are more involved in the world and other planes than deities and exarchs. They act both openly and secretly, often acting as emissaries, generals, and even assassins.

Angel of Valor
Angels of valor, though courageous and fierce, are the weakest and the most numerous of angels called to serve a given deity.

Angel of Valor
Level 8 Soldier
Medium immortal humanoid (angel)
XP 350
Initiative +10
Senses Perception +6
Angelic Presence Attacks against the angel of valor take a –2 penalty until the angel is bloodied.
HP 88; Bloodied 44
AC 24; Fortitude 22, Reflex 20, Will 19
Immune fear; Resist 10 fire, 10 radiant
Speed 6, fly 9 (hover)
Longsword (standard; at-will) Weapon+13 vs. AC; 1d8 + 6 damage.
Dagger (standard; at-will) Weapon+13 vs. AC; 1d4 + 6 damage.
Blade Fury (standard; at-will) Weapon; The angel of valor makes a longsword attack and a dagger attack.
Lightning Strike (standard; encounter) Lightning; Close burst 1; targets enemies; +11 vs. Fortitude; 1d8 + 4 lightning damage, and the target is dazed until the end of the angel of valor’s next turn.
Fiery Blades (minor, usable only while bloodied; at-will) Fire; Until the start of the angel of valor’s next turn, the angel of valor’s weapons deal fire damage and attack the target’s Reflex defense instead of AC.
Alignment Any
Languages Supernal
Skills Intimidate +12
Str 23 (+10) Dex 18 (+8) Wis 14 (+6) Con 16 (+7) Int 11 (+4) Cha 16 (+7) Equipment chainmail, longsword, dagger

Angel of Vengeance
Angels of vengeance strike down those who wrong a deity. They also punish disloyalty and failure among the devout.

Angel of Vengeance
Level 19 Elite Brute
Large immortal humanoid (angel)
XP 4800
Initiative +13
Senses Perception +16
HP 446; Bloodied 223
AC 34; Fortitude 33, Reflex 29, Will 33; see also cloak of vengeance
Immune disease, fear; Resist 15 cold, 15 fire, 15 radiant; see also coldfire pillar
Saving Throws +2
Speed 8, fly 12 (hover); see also sign of vengeance
Action Points 1
Longsword (standard; at-will) Cold, Fire, Weapon; Reach 2; +25 vs. AC; 1d10 + 9 damage plus 1d8 fire damage plus 1d8 cold damage.
Double Attack (standard; at-will) Cold, Fire, Weapon; The angel of vengeance makes two longsword attacks.
Sign of Vengeance (minor; encounter) Teleportation; Ranged sight; the angel of vengeance places an invisible sign upon the target. Until the end of the encounter, as a move action, the angel can teleport adjacent to the target.
Coldfire Pillar (free, when first bloodied; encounter) Cold, Fire, Polymorph; The angel transforms into a 30-foot-high pillar of blue flame. Close burst 2; +23 vs. Reflex; 1d8 + 9 cold damage plus 1d8 + 9 fire damage. The angel of vengeance is immune to all damage until the start of its next turn.
Cloak of Vengeance (until bloodied) Cold, Fire; Attacks against the angel of vengeance take a –2 penalty until the angel is bloodied. While cloak of vengeance is in effect, a creature that makes a successful melee attack against the angel takes 1d8 fire damage and 1d8 cold damage.
Alignment Any
Languages Supernal
Skills Insight +21, Intimidate +22
Str 27 (+17) Dex 18 (+13) Wis 25 (+16) Con 23 (+15) Int 19 (+13) Cha 26 (+17)
Equipment plate armor, 2 longswords

Angel of Vengeance Tactics
An angel of vengeance focuses on a single target. It evokes its sign of vengeance at the start of battle, then teleports to the target and spends an action point to use double attack against the foe. The angel continues its relentless pursuit of the target, paying little heed to events around it.

Angel of Vengeance Lore
A character knows the following information with a successful Religion check.

DC 20: Deities send angels of vengeance to punish those who have defied or angered them. A god might also send an angel of vengeance to test one who is in danger of falling off the deity’s path, showing no mercy for failure.
DC 25: Influential members of a clergy use a ritual to call forth their deity’s wrath in the form of one of these angels.
Encounter Groups
Angels of vengeance appear alone or in pairs, sometimes aided by angels of valor or angels of battle.

Level 19 Encounter (XP 13,600)
2 angels of vengeance (level 19 elite brute)
5 angel of valor legionnaires (level 21 minion)

SamTheCleric
2008-04-28, 08:46 AM
My favorite is on the Angel of Vengeance.

1 - He has an Action Point.

2 - Sign of Vengeance is BRUTAL. Move action to teleport next to your "signed" target... and the sign is a range of SIGHT. You do not get away from the Angel of Vengeance. :smallbiggrin:

kamikasei
2008-04-28, 09:03 AM
This all looks good to me.

I wonder to what extent the Angel of Vengeance will be taking over the Inevitables' role?

SamTheCleric
2008-04-28, 09:10 AM
Edited the paste... reformated the stat blocks to make them easier to read.

Oh.. and... THIS...


DC 25: Influential members of a clergy use a ritual to call forth their deity’s wrath in the form of one of these angels.


Intrigues me. Cleric Ritual hopefully :smallbiggrin:

RTGoodman
2008-04-28, 09:11 AM
I already knew about the "re-fluffing" of angels and whatnot, but I do like the stat blocks and stuff. Particularly, the Angel of Vengeance is awesome, because not only can he mark anyone he sees and then teleport to them, he can turn into a towering pillar of flame.

I also like how creatures, and not just angels, have abilities that work until they're bloodied, and then ones that kick in after their bloodied. I mean, with the angels, your awed by their presence at first, but once their bloodied they can turn into aforementioned pillars of flame or hit you back harder with flaming weapons. Sounds fun to me.


Intrigues me. Cleric Ritual hopefully :smallbiggrin:

Sounds sort of like the 4E version of gate to me. Making it a ritual should curb abuse (though we'll have to wait a month or two to see that).

EDIT: Also, I just noticed that the pillar of flame ability has the [polymorph] descriptor. If polymorph stuff is still common, hopefully WotC at least learned its lesson with 3.x and will limit it like they did at the end of 3.5 with spells that only let you take a specific shape.

Morty
2008-04-28, 09:17 AM
Hm. Nothing really new here. They just took the "angel" name and put it on all divine servants instead of embodiments of Good. However, I hope there will be some good outsiders to counter Demons and Devils.

EvilElitest
2008-04-28, 09:55 AM
Hm. Nothing really new here. They just took the "angel" name and put it on all divine servants instead of embodiments of Good. However, I hope there will be some good outsiders to counter Demons and Devils.

Meh, yet again a total loss of fluff. Angle now means "Any divine servant" rather than "servant of good" 4E keeps up the trend of revamping old concepts

Bah
from
EE

Nerd-o-rama
2008-04-28, 10:49 AM
Well, it does look on the surface like another change for the sake of change (just like the demon/devil refluff. Bah.) But as noted in the article, this one actually does serve a purpose, in that it makes Angels more viable for actual in-game combat use. Plus, as any casual student of angelology, viewer of anime, or player of Nippon Ichi video games can tell you...angels were never exactly nice.

I'm in favor, if only because the particular examples sound cool, and it fits within the larger context of the new fluff.

For the record, though, when I thought about servants of evil deities in earlier editions, I assumed they just recruited devils or demons, or other Evil Outsiders that fel outside those hierarchies. By the same token, I assumed there was a hiearchy of Angels outside of servitors for good deities, mostly going by the fluff in the Book of Exalted Deeds. The change is less to make things more "even" between the good and evil sides as it is to make angels more varied.

Inyssius Tor
2008-04-28, 10:52 AM
I can't speak much about crunch (though I like what I see), but this is exactly how I think angels should be (except better, because I'm not as good a writer as whoever does the 4e stuff is). I thought I would have to homebrew them later, but apparently now that won't be necessary.

Excellent.

(Well, there is one thing: this is actually how I had envisioned my ideal archons--so what are the archons going to be like?)

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-28, 11:08 AM
Wow. Weren't they toning down the damage and HP of enemies? The angel of vengeance appears at 2/3's of your career, and he is freakin' unkillable. If we go by the rogue's SA, you'll be barely tickling him each round.

Valairn
2008-04-28, 11:16 AM
Meh, yet again a total loss of fluff. Angle now means "Any divine servant" rather than "servant of good" 4E keeps up the trend of revamping old concepts

Bah
from
EE

I'm hesitant to respond to this, but it honestly is not a loss in fluff, its simply a change in fluff.

Maerok
2008-04-28, 11:44 AM
Psh, forget World of Warcraft. Now they're after Magic: TG!!! :smalltongue:

Seems interesting. I'd prefer to have angels of specific deities and then have other outsiders (or whatever they've become) handle personifying concepts, such as Inevitables have been doing.

If this is the way they'd been doing it from the start and decided to change to what 3.5 is doing now, people would be in an uproar either way.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-28, 12:42 PM
Wow. Weren't they toning down the damage and HP of enemies? The angel of vengeance appears at 2/3's of your career, and he is freakin' unkillable. If we go by the rogue's SA, you'll be barely tickling him each round.

Not only that... but every time you hit him, you take 2d8 damage. Yeah, he's definately one of my favorite stat blocks so far... just because he proves that not everything is "easy mode".

Starsinger
2008-04-28, 02:03 PM
Not only that... but every time you hit him, you take 2d8 damage. Yeah, he's definately one of my favorite stat blocks so far... just because he proves that not everything is "easy mode".

Not to mention it's Elite, which means you're supposed to fight them in pairs?

EvilElitest
2008-04-28, 02:06 PM
I'm hesitant to respond to this, but it honestly is not a loss in fluff, its simply a change in fluff.

Its the same thing really.


Now the idea of divine beings that act as servants or mercenaries to all of the gods/ clerics isn't a bad one. But i also liked teh idea of devil and demon's opposites being good versions of them. So it is annoying new changes. Now if they, say, made a new style of creature i'd be fine.
from
EE

Edit
That being said, if you ignore the fact they are changing angles from what they were, the fluff is pretty good. The evil radical knight templar angle is generally consistent idea
from
EE

Crow
2008-04-28, 02:14 PM
Wow. Weren't they toning down the damage and HP of enemies? The angel of vengeance appears at 2/3's of your career, and he is freakin' unkillable. If we go by the rogue's SA, you'll be barely tickling him each round.

Yes, and rogues are supposed to be "Strikers". :smallfrown:

RukiTanuki
2008-04-28, 02:52 PM
If this is the way they'd been doing it from the start and decided to change to what 3.5 is doing now, people would be in an uproar either way.

I enjoy the discussions where people talk about whether the new stuff is good, instead of that it's different, far more. I mean, we all have existing campaigns, we've all done things according to how they were, and everyone who uses 4e will probably find themselves making changes. Some, certainly, won't be happy about it. We're all pretty aware of this, but I've been a little disappointed about how frequently it came up.

But then again...


[...] if you ignore the fact they are changing angles from what they were, the fluff is pretty good.

I can always be pleasantly surprised by the occasional contributing comment. :)


I just noticed that the pillar of flame ability has the [polymorph] descriptor. If polymorph stuff is still common, hopefully WotC at least learned its lesson with 3.x and will limit it like they did at the end of 3.5 with spells that only let you take a specific shape.

I believe there's already been comments to that effect. Any polymorph powers severely limit the forms available.


(Well, there is one thing: this is actually how I had envisioned my ideal archons--so what are the archons going to be like?)

I believe Worlds and Monsters revealed Archons to be something similar, but elemental themed... picture a creature of flame, in the same general shape, wearing armor, and you've got a good idea of the Flame Archon they had pictured.

Starsinger
2008-04-28, 08:01 PM
Yes, and rogues are supposed to be "Strikers". :smallfrown:

I think, unlike in 3.5 where Sneak Attack is the main source of a rogue's damage, Sneak Attack is meant to be a bonus that's nice but not "Well I'm not doing any noticable damage because I can't get flank/sneak attack this monster."

Jayngfet
2008-04-28, 08:09 PM
yet another reason I can't update my world to 4.0

Reel On, Love
2008-04-28, 08:12 PM
At level 19, a Rogue might be doing... let's say 24 dex (goes up with levels, I'd assume)... 4*weapon die for a power, call it a d6, 4d6... then a plus, oh, 3? weapon... 2d6 sneak attack... +9 for level...

6d6+19, an average of 40 points. If even two people hit it that hard a round, each archon will go down not-so-slowly. And then there's Daily powers on top of that, extra attacks due to action points, critical hits... maybe some ongoing damage from a Divine challenge...

With rounds going by faster than they did before, this should be just fine.

Xefas
2008-04-28, 08:12 PM
I like 'em. There's one way I would change the concept though: Allow them to switch between having those elemental trails as their bottom half and having vaguely elemental legs/feet at will; kind of like the Genie in Aladdin.

Because, sometimes, it's just cooler if you kick someone.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-28, 08:13 PM
I believe Worlds and Monsters revealed Archons to be something similar, but elemental themed... picture a creature of flame, in the same general shape, wearing armor, and you've got a good idea of the Flame Archon they had pictured.

You're right. This is an Ice Archon from the Dungeons of Dread D&D minis, all of which will be in the 4e Monster Manual. (I kinda splurged on a few boxes of them)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/pawnoffate/icearchon.jpg

Dervag
2008-04-28, 08:28 PM
Meh, yet again a total loss of fluff. Angle now means "Any divine servant" rather than "servant of good" 4E keeps up the trend of revamping old concepts

BahWell, the fluff on angles hasn't changed a bit. They're still measured in the same old degree and radian systems as ever...

Seriously, if you want anthropomorphic winged angels with halos, that's fine. You can just change the fluff. Even most of the angels' abilities here would work perfectly well for feather-winged, halo-bedecked angels.

I can certainly see why a good deity would have such servants in addition to these terrifying, semi-humanoid messengers. Someone needs to be the 'face', after all.

On the other hand, I think this really works. Evil deities should have some kind of servitor beings, right? Or do you disagree with that proposition?


Its the same thing really.

Now the idea of divine beings that act as servants or mercenaries to all of the gods/ clerics isn't a bad one. But i also liked teh idea of devil and demon's opposites being good versions of them. So it is annoying new changes. Now if they, say, made a new style of creature i'd be fine.
fromOK, here's the thing. Angels are supposed to be divine messengers. In real life they are drawn entirely from Hebrew and Judeo-Christian lore. Since that lore has only a single (good-aligned) deity, the angels are mostly good by default.

If we are to have literal "angels" (divine messengers) in a polytheistic setting where some angels are good and some are evil, it stands to reason that some of them are good and some are evil.

Note that the angels do not need to be the only beings that could possibly be for good. I don't know what they might call a hypothetical group of feather-winged, halo-bedecked outsiders that I would call angels. But they could quite easily have them, right?


Edit
That being said, if you ignore the fact they are changing angles from what they were, the fluff is pretty good. The evil radical knight templar angle is generally consistent ideaOK, and what I'm trying to say is that the change is entirely justified. It fills a real need, and it eliminates the problem that all the cool abilities you assign to angels never get used in combat because angels are good guys.

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be feather-winged, halo-bedecked beings that look like angels of medieval Catholic iconography. But there's no obvious reason why the entire category of 'angels' should include those beings and only those beings.

EvilElitest
2008-04-28, 09:05 PM
I can always be pleasantly surprised by the occasional contributing comment. :)

almost all of my comments contribute. What varies is weather i'm being positive or negative


Well, the fluff on angles hasn't changed a bit. They're still measured in the same old degree and radian systems as ever...

Yes it has. In the old edition they are teh opposate of Demons and devils and serve as the embodyments of good where they serve as the embodyments as evil. Now htey are simply divine servants, a lot more simple and less interesting


Seriously, if you want anthropomorphic winged angels with halos, that's fine. You can just change the fluff. Even most of the angels' abilities here would work perfectly well for feather-winged, halo-bedecked angels.

1) Anthropomorihic? Now all of them were. Solars dude, Devas, lantans.
2) And i hate this argument most of all, change the fluff. I'm sorry but its so, so...., simplistic, even close minded. Just as the mechanics are part of the game, the fluff are an essential part of the game and the game's feel/enjoyment. Part of the fascination with the game comes from the fluff, the mechanics are just for playing the game. They are both part of the system. So simply saying "change the fluff" as a solution is just like saying "change the diplomacy system if you don't like it" Sure it is do able, but that doesn't make it good anyways. Just as mechanical changes need to be justified, so to do fluff.

WotC said their goal was to make needed changes and add cool elements and they wouldn't fix that which wasn't broken


I can certainly see why a good deity would have such servants in addition to these terrifying, semi-humanoid messengers. Someone needs to be the 'face', after all.

Well angles don't normally directly serve gods, because they are like Demons and devils and serve good itself. Divine servants would be something different.


On the other hand, I think this really works. Evil deities should have some kind of servitor beings, right? Or do you disagree with that proposition?
Evil gods should yes. so do good. But you forget

Angles/Demons/Devils/Archons ect aren't gods servants. They are embodiments of the aligments, not servators of any particular aligment. Divine servants are fine


OK, here's the thing. Angels are supposed to be divine messengers. In real life they are drawn entirely from Hebrew and Judeo-Christian lore. Since that lore has only a single (good-aligned) deity, the angels are mostly good by default.
um, yeah but D&D isn't Christian in any way. It borrows some elements, as it does from many other elements. I mean in essence it is extremly pagan. I mean, in Judeo-Christian lore Demons and devils are the same things and serve a supreme evil.

In D&D however They are both lords are certain alignment.



If we are to have literal "angels" (divine messengers) in a polytheistic setting where some angels are good and some are evil, it stands to reason that some of them are good and some are evil.

I'm fine with servants for gods, just not under the angle name or the angle concept. Call them something else. I'm sure you could find one among the many human pantheons in existence


Note that the angels do not need to be the only beings that could possibly be for good. I don't know what they might call a hypothetical group of feather-winged, halo-bedecked outsiders that I would call angels. But they could quite easily have them, right?

True, but why not called those good only beings angles, as that is their general proper place in the D&D world.


OK, and what I'm trying to say is that the change is entirely justified. It fills a real need, and it eliminates the problem that all the cool abilities you assign to angels never get used in combat because angels are good guys.
Ok this is the second most annoying complaint thing, i'm sorry


It is never a waste to state good beings simply because the average PC is good. WotC handled Angles very badly in 3E i admit, because they didn't see the need to explore the details of angles in detail simply because they didn't think that hte PCs would fight them. That is no excuse however. You can explain the details of heaven the same way they did for the nine hells or the Abyess. You can have the angles assist the PCs. The PCs could come into conflict with Angles, misunderstandings, or maybe the PCs are neutral/evil. We should know how Angles fight Demons/devils (i mean we don't want another dretch/Lemure problem right)

Just because something is good, it is close minded to assume that it isn't important.
from
EE

ahammer
2008-04-28, 09:08 PM
Bloodied 44

is it just me or is putting this on monsters just a waste of space..
it is always 1/2(from the notes we have seen)
... can people realy not do the math?

unless they are planing to have monsters with more then or less then 1/2 as bloodied. then it is a good idea

Starsinger
2008-04-28, 09:34 PM
Bloodied 44

is it just me or is putting this on monsters just a waste of space..
it is always 1/2(from the notes we have seen)
... can people realy not do the math?

unless they are planing to have monsters with more then or less then 1/2 as bloodied. then it is a good idea

Or it might be nice for a DM running a bunch of monsters, so instead of having to mental math it all the time to see when a monster's bloodied, they were nice enough to put the number down. I know I'd appreciate it some days.

ahammer
2008-04-28, 09:40 PM
Or it might be nice for a DM running a bunch of monsters, so instead of having to mental math it all the time to see when a monster's bloodied, they were nice enough to put the number down. I know I'd appreciate it some days.

it not like it is hard math thou.. 50%

(guess I can kind of see you point but can you realy gm a good game at the point where you can not do that kind of math?)

if it was like 33% I could understand.. beside if you are putting there hp on a diffrent sheet would you not just put it down there.

Starsinger
2008-04-28, 09:43 PM
it not like it is hard math thou.. 50%

(guess I can kind of see you point but can you realy gm a good game at the point where you can not do that kind of math?)

if it was like 33% I could understand.. beside if you are putting there hp on a diffrent sheet would you not just put it down there.

Yes, because if I'm running something with 244 hp, 184 hp, 350 hp, and 216 hp and listening to my 7 players and trying to figure out what the monsters are going to do on their turns, I might sometimes forget that they're each bloodied at 122, 92, 175, and 108 respectively.

Falkus
2008-04-28, 09:47 PM
Yes it has. In the old edition they are teh opposate of Demons and devils and serve as the embodyments of good where they serve as the embodyments as evil. Now htey are simply divine servants, a lot more simple and less interesting

I honestly don't see what makes it less interesting.

Draz74
2008-04-28, 09:52 PM
Angles/Demons/Devils/Archons ect aren't gods servants. They are embodiments of the aligments, not servators of any particular aligment. Divine servants are fine
[snip]
In D&D however They are both lords are certain alignment.

Only, since WotC determined that alignment was a messed-up system and decided to de-emphasize it, they totally dropped this concept. Gone. Bye-bye. If you stop clinging to the "outsiders are embodiments of alignments" principle, I think it will prevent a lot of your other dissatisfactions with the game.

(And "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" surely doesn't apply; hundreds of people said that Alignment was the #1 thing they would change about 3e if they were designing 4e.)

Devils are no longer necessarily associated with Lawful Evil behavior. The Succubus can now be a devil because devils, instead of being associated with Law, are now associated with less mechanical concepts like corruption, pacts, and fallen-ness.

Demons are, I guess, still pretty unilaterally chaotic and evil in their destructive behavior. But they're not that way for its own sake; they're embodiments of "destruction and rage and elementalism" more than embodiments of "Chaos and Evil."

And angels are messengers. There doesn't necessarily have to be a monster that's an embodiment of Good, with the de-emphasized role of alignment. If there is, it's no longer called an "angel," and there's nothing wrong with the name change when you accept that 4e is simply a (slightly) different, separate fantasy setting.

The_Snark
2008-04-28, 09:53 PM
it not like it is hard math thou.. 50%

(guess I can kind of see you point but can you realy gm a good game at the point where you can not do that kind of math?)

if it was like 33% I could understand.. beside if you are putting there hp on a diffrent sheet would you not just put it down there.

Well, when you have 4 different types of monsters and 8 different HP totals, it's nice to have a number listed somewhere rather than trying to keep track of all of them in your head; remember, most encounters are designed for multiple monsters now. Sure, it takes all of a second to calculate it when you realize you need to, but if you keep forgetting to check when the creatures should be bloodied...

I both like and don't like this. On the one hand, I think there should be a sort of good counterpart to demons and devils. (Hopefully, they'll introduce something suitable; just because most PCs won't fight them doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.)

On the other hand, I have always liked the idea of outsiders embodying concepts and emotions, very much like a god only on a much smaller scale. Demons in my games generally aren't just demons—they'd be representations of suffering or anger. An angel might embody mercy, or compassion, or protectiveness. So I sort of like what they've done here, although completely divorcing devils and demons from this idea annoys me a little bit.


Yes it has. In the old edition they are the opposite of Demons and devils and serve as the embodyments of good where they serve as the embodiments as evil. Now they are simply divine servants, a lot more simple and less interesting

He was referring to the spelling. Angel, rather than angle (http://www.leonelearningsystems.com/images/angles.gif).

Starsinger
2008-04-28, 09:53 PM
EE, you know that Dervag was funning you because Angles are those things formed when two line segments intersect like < that shape? It was merely a typo joke.

Crow
2008-04-28, 10:26 PM
Yes, because if I'm running something with 244 hp, 184 hp, 350 hp, and 216 hp and listening to my 7 players and trying to figure out what the monsters are going to do on their turns, I might sometimes forget that they're each bloodied at 122, 92, 175, and 108 respectively.

AND trying to look and see which monsters are within a certain number of squares of which character(s), taking varying amounts of automatic damage from which sources...

EvilElitest
2008-04-28, 10:26 PM
Only, since WotC determined that alignment was a messed-up system and decided to de-emphasize it, they totally dropped this concept.

Sign. The aligment system wasn't actually bad. It was badly handled, but the system itself was in fact an extremly well rounded one. WotC didn't handle it well and because of this most people don't understand it because of WotC's actions. however the system itself was good


Gone. Bye-bye. If you stop clinging to the "outsiders are embodiments of alignments" principle, I think it will prevent a lot of your other dissatisfactions with the game.
Except it isn't gone. There are two possible alignment extreme
1) Everything is divied between good and evil, which is objective. 3.5 system
2) there are no morals at all. Good and evil are up to you to decide.
4E still has alignment system, just it is even worst than 3E because it is even more ill defined



(And "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" surely doesn't apply; hundreds of people said that Alignment was the #1 thing they would change about 3e if they were designing 4e.)

And hundreds more defended it. The system itself is sound, the methods are not


Devils are no longer necessarily associated with Lawful Evil behavior. The Succubus can now be a devil because devils, instead of being associated with Law, are now associated with less mechanical concepts like corruption, pacts, and fallen-ness.

Demons are, I guess, still pretty unilaterally chaotic and evil in their destructive behavior. But they're not that way for its own sake; they're embodiments of "destruction and rage and elementalism" more than embodiments of "Chaos and Evil."


alignment system are still around actually, devils and demons are still being assocated with their given alignment

from
EE

Edit
Starsinger, i acknowledge my spelling mistake, but my point does still stand
from
EE

holywhippet
2008-04-28, 10:56 PM
I'd have thought that some creatures, like constructs or elementals, might not have a bloodied value or something other than 1/2 max HP since they aren't as adversely affected by damage.

I'm envisioning the new angels as being something akin to tools. A God will call upon a particular type of angel to perform a particular task. The angels themselves aren't committed to any given alignment, they just execute their duty.

Collin152
2008-04-28, 11:01 PM
I'm envisioning the new angels as being something akin to tools. A God will call upon a particular type of angel to perform a particular task. The angels themselves aren't committed to any given alignment, they just execute their duty.

Yes, they sail the ocean blue,
No longer unused beauties,
They're now sober monsters, true,
Apt to execute their duties.

tyckspoon
2008-04-28, 11:23 PM
Yes, they sail the ocean blue,
No longer unused beauties,
They're now sober monsters, true,
Apt to execute their duties.

I would like to take a break from this thread to mention that I love these forums so much. Like a kitten loves its captioned thread macro.

Now back to your regularly scheduled text.

Rutee
2008-04-28, 11:32 PM
Yes, and rogues are supposed to be "Strikers". :smallfrown:

I thought Sneak Attack was damage added onto one attack, per turn, where you have combat advantage. Not just normal attacks, but /all/ attacks?


I'd have thought that some creatures, like constructs or elementals, might not have a bloodied value or something other than 1/2 max HP since they aren't as adversely affected by damage.
Constructs are losing their immunities. I don't know about elementals, but it follows. Constructs having those immunities oftentimes never made sense; The damn things /have/ anatomical structures, they're just not /humanoid/ ones..

Collin152
2008-04-28, 11:35 PM
I would like to take a break from this thread to mention that I love these forums so much. Like a kitten loves its captioned thread macro.

Now back to your regularly scheduled text.

Were my parodied lyrics that entertaining?
I should do that for a living or something...

Mewtarthio
2008-04-28, 11:40 PM
I thought Sneak Attack was damage added onto one attack, per turn, where you have combat advantage. Not just normal attacks, but /all/ attacks?

The exact wording is as follows:

Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a light blade, a crossbow, or a sling, your attacks against that enemy deal extra damage. As you advance in level, your extra damage increases.
It's not the best wording they could have used, but since people apparently won't use mundane "Str vs AC deal 1 [W] damage" normal attacks that often, I'd say it's a fair bet that it works with powers.


Constructs are losing their immunities. I don't know about elementals, but it follows. Constructs having those immunities oftentimes never made sense; The damn things /have/ anatomical structures, they're just not /humanoid/ ones..

Well, immunity to poison, disease, and mind control made sense. Immunity to critical hits and precision damage didn't, since constructs logically should have weak points (if only by smashing their knees out from under them).

Talya
2008-04-28, 11:48 PM
One more nail in the coffin.

HoopyFrood
2008-04-28, 11:49 PM
**APPROVAL, SEAL OF**

angel, from the Greek "αγγελος" meaning messenger.

yay for classics!

and stream of consciousness posts.

Rutee
2008-04-28, 11:56 PM
It's not the best wording they could have used, but since people apparently won't use mundane "Str vs AC deal 1 [W] damage" normal attacks that often, I'd say it's a fair bet that it works with powers.
Yeah, that's wording that needs improvement, but it seems to say "Any offensive power"..


Well, immunity to poison, disease, and mind control made sense. Immunity to critical hits and precision damage didn't, since constructs logically should have weak points (if only by smashing their knees out from under them)
Poison and Disease, yes. They're not exactly Player mainstays anyway. But Mind Control? No subverting the control of someone else's golem? :3

Reel On, Love
2008-04-29, 12:13 AM
One more nail in the coffin.

Uh?

Even EE can barely manage to twist this into something negative.

Talya
2008-04-29, 12:20 AM
Uh?

Even EE can barely manage to twist this into something negative.

Fluff changes, again. Where's the good-aligned-only celestials, now? First they took my eladrin, making them from CG celestials to a core race of elvish wizards. (I haven't seen, have they taken archons out yet?) They flip around a few fiendish species just for the err...hell of it. Now angels are unaligned??? Where are my beings of pure goodness, paragons of light, now?

Evil aligned deities all have their outsider servants already. They didn't need to take angels and plaster them equally across the pantheon.

I don't care about the mechanics of them. I haven't been following 4e mechanics, gratuitous constant fluff changes have been enough to make me hate every new announcement they've made. "Ooooh, what staple of the game have they changed, this time?"

Xefas
2008-04-29, 12:22 AM
Uh?

Even EE can barely manage to twist this into something negative.

I'll point out that she technically didn't say anything negative, either. All she said was "One more nail in the coffin." which isn't really specific enough to mean anything without an explanation.

For instance, I'm obliged to believe she meant "It's one more badass nail in the coffin of awesome that will finally bury the convoluted morass of pain that was 3rd edition once and for all. Yay 4th edition!"

Did the rest of you not get that vibe?

EDIT:
Maybe not.


I don't care about the mechanics of them. I haven't been following 4e mechanics, gratuitous constant fluff changes have been enough to make me hate every new announcement they've made. "Ooooh, what staple of the game have they changed, this time?"

Look, I hate 99% of the 4th Edition fluff too, but the mechanics are great so far. And, which one is easier to change?

My campaign world will probably be 3rd Edition Greyhawk with 4th Edition Mechanics. It's a simple thing, really.

Talya
2008-04-29, 12:24 AM
Some of us love 3rd edition. For all its flaws. What it seems to me is that 4e is taking everything I like about 3.5, removing it, and replacing it with suckage.

Last time I checked, there were all of 2-3 changes they'd mentioned for 4e that I thought were good ideas. I can only currently remember one of them.

SurlySeraph
2008-04-29, 12:34 AM
Evil deities already HAVE their servants. If you don't want to use the appropriately-aligned outsiders or clerics with templates slapped on them, you use these rules:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineMinions.htm

Not to be obstructionist, but my view of 4E is increasingly becomingThey Changed it, Now it Sucks. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks) Really, it does.

I want the old planar cosmology back, not this vaguely angsty Points of Light crap. I want less rambling about how the player characters have to be absolutely unique in the world. I want the devils to be squabbling, Machiavellian, Pact Primeval-manipulating geniuses, not flavorless demons. I want racial stat penalties, because they made balancing races so much easier. I want Succubuses that actually can drain the life force out of you.

I want the alignment system back.

Xefas
2008-04-29, 12:37 AM
Some of us love 3rd edition. For all its flaws. What it seems to me is that 4e is taking everything I like about 3.5, removing it, and replacing it with suckage.

Last time I checked, there were all of 2-3 changes they'd mentioned for 4e that I thought were good ideas. I can only currently remember one of them.

I love 3rd edition, too. It's sooo much better than 2nd edition, and it's cosmology is fantastic. As someone who used the Blood War in 90% of their games in some meaningful way, I can understand why its fluff was so great.

But the mechanics are, well, bad. Better than 2nd edition, but worse than what 4th edition is shaping up to be.

However, the best part about 4th edition is that you don't have to change cosmologies. All of 3rd edition's fluff is still there. Get rid of Eladrin as a race, make Angels look and act like they used to and it doesn't impact how well the mechanics work at all.

Also, see above edit.

It's like getting a new car that's better than your old one, but painted the wrong color. You can just paint it back- it's no reason not to drive the new one.

Mewtarthio
2008-04-29, 12:38 AM
Not to be obstructionist, but my view of 4E is increasingly becomingThey Changed it, Now it Sucks. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks) Really, it does.

Er, unless you were intentionally going for irony, I think you meant Adaptation Decay (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AdaptationDecay). :smallsmile:

SurlySeraph
2008-04-29, 12:42 AM
@^: Well, I meant to be slightly ironic, befitting my complaining, sleep-deprived, crotchety-old-man-in-a-too-young-body personality. But yes, Adaptation Decay might be a better term.

Draz74
2008-04-29, 12:45 AM
Actually there are some things about 3e mechanics that I will really miss. Still, if you don't want a simulationist-style game at all, 4e looks like it will be a fun and easy system to play in.


It's like getting a new car that's better than your old one, but painted the wrong color. You can just paint it back- it's no reason not to drive the new one.

But this is a great analogy. Explains why I'm not upset about fluff changes that 4e is making, even if they disagree with my view of how a good fantasy setting should go: because they're making the fluff easy to change.

Talya
2008-04-29, 12:47 AM
But the mechanics are, well, bad. Better than 2nd edition, but worse than what 4th edition is shaping up to be.




So far, I've loved 3.5 mechanics. Admittedly, of the 2 or 3 changes in 4e I've seen that I liked, they were all mechanical. But a lot of the stuff I don't like is mechanical changes as well.

For example: Part of how you can properly make a spellcaster out-power a melee type and keep him balanced is by limiting his number of spells per day, so he's got to be careful and conserve during encounters. That wizard only has 5 spell slots on his money-level, and each one gets a different spell. He's got 3-4 more encounters after this one, and no idea what's coming. Does he use this spell now? Or later? In 4e, this is no longer an issue. Most of his abilities are "per encounter," and some are even "At will!" So much for spell-economy. But because he has no worries about when he'll need to rest next, he can go all out. This means he needs to be nerfed, to ensure he can't outshine the fighter-types. So we've gone from being balanced on a necessity of economy, to being balanced by making everyone carbon-copy equal. I don't like it.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-29, 12:52 AM
Fluff changes, again. Where's the good-aligned-only celestials, now? First they took my eladrin, making them from CG celestials to a core race of elvish wizards. (I haven't seen, have they taken archons out yet?) They flip around a few fiendish species just for the err...hell of it. Now angels are unaligned??? Where are my beings of pure goodness, paragons of light, now?
Those would be the angels serving the good deities--and various other good-aligned creatures, which they aren't gonna spend too much time on, since parties are by and large non-evil and the game's focusing on heroics.


Evil aligned deities all have their outsider servants already. They didn't need to take angels and plaster them equally across the pantheon.
Like what? Various Monster Manual 69 critters?

Archons are still around, but with an elemental theme.

They called high elves Eladrin. Furthermore, your Eladrin are still around--the PC Eladrin race is just the very lowest kind, weakest and closest to mortals.


I don't care about the mechanics of them. I haven't been following 4e mechanics, gratuitous constant fluff changes have been enough to make me hate every new announcement they've made. "Ooooh, what staple of the game have they changed, this time?"
They aren't sticking to established 3E things. That's good. They're redesigning the game from the top down, basically, and improving things. Now, players can fight awesome glowing angels. Before? Well, I've been playing for years. I've encountered some Eladrins, even a Trumpet Archon, but planetars, solars, all that jazz? Never. Demons aplenty, but never high-level good outsiders.

If they were sticking to as much 3E fluff as possible, they couldn't possibly make 4E do what they're designing it to do. It's like the new World of Darkness compared to the old.

Think of 4E as a new game, if you like. They aren't changing your fluff; if you really like overpowered druids and angels being non-deity-related alignment-embodiments you rarely see and demons having Greater Teleport at will, keep on keepin' on. They're making a new game, more tightly designed, along the same lines. The fluff stands up just fine in its own right, and the mechanics look good.
If you can run an interesting game with the 3.5 cosmology, I'm sure you'll be able to run one with the 4E cosmology. Give it a shot or, you know, don't... but they're not reaching into your 3.5 and changing your angels. I'm not sure why changing fluff is such a bad thing.

Cyclone231
2008-04-29, 01:00 AM
For example: Part of how you can properly make a spellcaster out-power a melee type and keep him balanced is by limiting his number of spells per day, so he's got to be careful and conserve during encounters. That wizard only has 5 spell slots on his money-level, and each one gets a different spell. He's got 3-4 more encounters after this one, and no idea what's coming. Does he use this spell now? Or later? In 4e, this is no longer an issue. Most of his abilities are "per encounter," and some are even "At will!" So much for spell-economy. But because he has no worries about when he'll need to rest next, he can go all out. This means he needs to be nerfed, to ensure he can't outshine the fighter-types. So we've gone from being balanced on a necessity of economy, to being balanced by making everyone carbon-copy equal. I don't like it.Truly, ammo starvation is the pinnacle of gaming strategy and balance. Especially ammo starvation which can be cured by sitting down at any time to take a nap.

The Warlock is a blatant rip-off of the Fighter anyway. Just look at it - both of them can use their class abilities infinite times per day. The swordsage is the same as the crusader is the same as the warblade: they all have per-encounter abilities. And the Druid and Cleric are such generic rip-offs of eachother: they both cast preparatory vancian Wis-based spells.

And then you've got the blatant ripoff of the Paladin: the Favored Soul. Okay, actually I can't keep going off like this. Seriously though, unified underlying mechanics ≠ everyone is a carbon-copy equal.

I can't say I like the whole "lower legs of energy" thing. It just sounds aesthetically displeasing. Mine will definitely have lower legs of flaming coal or ice or stone or something cool like that.

EDIT: Oh, and why does a Angel of Vengeance's Longsword deal Cold and Fire type damage? Is this some weird thing I've never heard about?

Xefas
2008-04-29, 01:03 AM
For example: Part of how you can properly make a spellcaster out-power a melee type and keep him balanced is by limiting his number of spells per day, so he's got to be careful and conserve during encounters. That wizard only has 5 spell slots on his money-level, and each one gets a different spell. He's got 3-4 more encounters after this one, and no idea what's coming. Does he use this spell now? Or later? In 4e, this is no longer an issue. Most of his abilities are "per encounter," and some are even "At will!" So much for spell-economy. But because he has no worries about when he'll need to rest next, he can go all out. This means he needs to be nerfed, to ensure he can't outshine the fighter-types. So we've gone from being balanced on a necessity of economy, to being balanced by making everyone carbon-copy equal. I don't like it.

While I can see that the 'carbon-copy' impression might be a sensible first reaction, I think you should look at it from this perspective instead: "Which part is the carbon copy?"

The only part that is being copied is "Always have something useful to contribute". Yes, in that way, they are copies of each other. However, *what* is being contributed is completely different.

It's like complaining that we, as the human race, are boring because we all have skin. You're completely ignoring the fact that, regardless of all having skin, we're all different.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-29, 01:05 AM
So far, I've loved 3.5 mechanics. Admittedly, of the 2 or 3 changes in 4e I've seen that I liked, they were all mechanical. But a lot of the stuff I don't like is mechanical changes as well.

For example: Part of how you can properly make a spellcaster out-power a melee type and keep him balanced is by limiting his number of spells per day, so he's got to be careful and conserve during encounters. That wizard only has 5 spell slots on his money-level, and each one gets a different spell. He's got 3-4 more encounters after this one, and no idea what's coming. Does he use this spell now? Or later? In 4e, this is no longer an issue.
in 3e, it stops being an issue pretty fast, either. Few games and parties can accommodate more than 4 encounters a day anyway, and the wizard winds up with lots and lots of spell slots. The wizard I mentioned above ran kinda low on spells occasionally, but by that point the rest of the party were pretty beat. Sure, the Warblade and Swift Hunter could keep going if we chewed through our remaining Cure Light wand, but without debuffs on the enemy, buffs on them, and healing, they wouldn't have done so well.

What's more, the 4-encounter model suffers. A lot. Let's start with the fact that a lot of the time, forcing four encounters a day is hard. It just doesn't make sense in a lot of circumstances. Then let's move on to resting--very safe resting, with Rope Trick and even rotating watches (plus sleping in light or Restful--500 gp!--armor, etc) being an option most of the time. You can pressure the characters with time-critical missions, enemies who hunt them down and can both see invisible and dispel, etc, but you can't do that all the time. In fact, you can only do it so often.


Most of his abilities are "per encounter," and some are even "At will!" So much for spell-economy. But because he has no worries about when he'll need to rest next, he can go all out. This means he needs to be nerfed, to ensure he can't outshine the fighter-types. So we've gone from being balanced on a necessity of economy, to being balanced by making everyone carbon-copy equal. I don't like it.
Carbon-copy? Because the wizard's Sleep daily power and the fighter's "Reliably Stab'Em'Hard" daily power are totally the same?
Everyone has per-encounter, at-will, and per-day powers. This is good in so many ways: it prevents the narcoleptic party. It retains the wizard's resource management, and in fact gives some of it to everyone. It kills the issue that playing a wizard who's out of spells sucks, and that playing a fighter beside the wizard who's throwing high-level spells around round after round, decimating the enemy, kinda sucks, too. So instead of constantly sucking for somebody, the game stops sucking for everyone. And it becomes able to handle a 1-encounter day with the same kind of balance--but losing daily powers, healing surges, and HP gives you the feeling of being worn down, too.
This is good game design. It improves how the game will play, in broad, effective ways. Most of what they're doing is along the same lines.

Starsinger
2008-04-29, 01:06 AM
EDIT: Oh, and why does a Angel of Vengeance's Longsword deal Cold and Fire type damage? Is this some weird thing I've never heard about?

Sounds to me like Rimefire. Which, if you aren't in the know, is this... cold fire from Frostburn that uhh.. does cold and fire damage with its flamey chill or somethin like that.

Artanis
2008-04-29, 01:08 AM
So Tayla, why not just...you know...keep playing 3e? I mean, you seem to want to keep playing either 3e or something virtually identical to 3e, so why not just...keep playing 3e?

Xefas
2008-04-29, 01:16 AM
Can we tone down the sarcasm and hostile defensiveness?

Talya has a legitimate concern, and being passive aggressive won't miraculously sway them to your point of view.

I'm not a big fan of the "If joo don't like it dern joo can GIT ERT"! philosophy (reference to South Park). People who post in 4e threads are obviously at least curious about it, and if you take that stance, it only serves to put them off to it.

Rutee
2008-04-29, 01:19 AM
I'm not a big fan of the "If joo don't like it dern joo can GIT ERT"! philosophy (reference to South Park). People who post in 4e threads are obviously at least curious about it, and if you take that stance, it only serves to put them off to it.

No, there comes a point where one has to ask "WTF are you doing?" If you bitch about every, or nearly every, change, there comes a point where, assuming good faith from all involved, you are genuinely being masochistic in getting into arguments that even you consider pointless because 4e sucks period.

Quite frankly, I ask myself the same question every time I post in a 4e thread.

Artanis
2008-04-29, 01:22 AM
Every single 4e-related post I've seen Tayla make was complaining about how it's different from 3e in <insert whatever's being discussed here> terms. So I can't help but wonder why she doesn't just stick with 3e and be done with it.

Cyclone231
2008-04-29, 01:23 AM
Can we tone down the sarcasm and hostile defensiveness?Sarcasm is one of the clearest ways to make a point since it generally involves a nonverbalized explanation of the opponent's lack of sense in a particular regard. It generally involves the application of the opponent's logic to a nonsensical degree. For example, if someone were to say that a particular behavior is okay because it's natural, I could easily point out that mercury, cyanide, opium and so forth are all "natural" too. And I could point it out by saying "cyanide is okay!" which makes the point all the more clearly.

Can we cut down on the condemnations disguised as questions?

(note: that last bit was sarcastic)

The_Snark
2008-04-29, 01:24 AM
Personally, I think looking at 4e as replacing 3rd edition is a bad way of looking at it. I can easily look at some of the changes they're making and go, "Aww, I liked that bit they just took out."

But then, I suspect I'll be playing a good bit of 3rd edition anyway. So now, rather than looking at this as a change they are making to all our existing games, I'm looking at it as a new game. Completely new. In fact, pretend it's a different company making it. Is it the same game? Of course not. They're trying to do something new, not clone an older game or publish a rules update for it.

My personal opinion is that 3rd edition has been pretty thoroughly covered in sourcebooks, and that if they went on much longer they'd be running out of material. That's not to say I don't sort of wish there were a few books they'd gotten around to writing...

... like maybe an equivalent to the Fiendish Codices for good outsiders. And a sourcebook for fey, you bastards! You did dragons, undead (neither my favorite, but both really iconic), demons and devils (both good), even abberations (not that I object, it was a neat book), now where are my fey? So much material!

Ahem. But in any case, material for players is pretty vast already. If there's a concept you want, there's probably a base class for it, a prestige class, a couple multiclassing combos that work, and three other classes that would work if you rewrite some of the flavor. There are way too many spells, five systems of alternative magic plus psionics, five Monster Manuals full of monsters plus the aforementioned books that cover iconic enemies in detail, and dozens of LA +0 playable races. They're kind of tapped out. They need to publish something. They decided that rather than just change the rules and keep all the fluff the same, they wanted to write something new, and so 3rd edition is being set aside and kept the way it was.

Except Forgotten Realms. That, for some reason, is being lobotomized to fit into 4th edition, which I feel is a bad idea. At least Eberron will get to keep its cosmology.

But I digress... again. Back to my point—don't judge it like it's going to be replacing all your games. Judge it like you would a completely new game, which just so happens to have a similar name and a few inspirations taken from D&D. Try thinking about it like that and you might like it a bit more.

ShadowSiege
2008-04-29, 01:45 AM
Except Forgotten Realms. That, for some reason, is being lobotomized to fit into 4th edition, which I feel is a bad idea. At least Eberron will get to keep its cosmology.

Eberron gets to keep its cosmology because it is awesome*. Or, more likely because of the aim to limit settings to three books (Or so I read that a developer posted it on his blog, if someone would confirm and link to this, I'd be grateful). Eberron doesn't have nearly the amount of stuff to cover, being only a few years old in comparison to Forgotten Realms' 23 years of publication.




*except for the magic trains.

Khanderas
2008-04-29, 01:45 AM
(And "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" surely doesn't apply; hundreds of people said that Alignment was the #1 thing they would change about 3e if they were designing 4e.)
And hundreds more defended it. The system itself is sound, the methods are not.I think more people have issues with the current alignment system then there are people who think it is the best way possible. An overwhelming amount just ignores alignments, except for class requisites.
It was good for sparking discussions though. :smallwink:

And even IF there are more gamers who think that the current system of alignment works just fine, does not mean that it cannot be improved. When all is said and done, it may or may not work for you, but don't say it's crap because it is not the alignment system you have now. Fact is, balance (as in everyone is useful at almost all times) and alignments are the top two issues active players have with the current system.
Not everyone has those issues, true. But I'm glad they are both looked over when they are shaping up 4e.

Xefas
2008-04-29, 01:48 AM
Sarcasm is one of the clearest ways to make a point since it generally involves a nonverbalized explanation of the opponent's lack of sense in a particular regard. It generally involves the application of the opponent's logic to a nonsensical degree. For example, if someone were to say that a particular behavior is okay because it's natural, I could easily point out that mercury, cyanide, opium and so forth are all "natural" too. And I could point it out by saying "cyanide is okay!" which makes the point all the more clearly.

I disagree. Sarcasm does not make the point more clear. "Cyanide is okay!" is not as clear as "Mercury, cyanide, and opium are harmful natural substances. Ergo, it is nonsensical for you to believe that everything natural is harmless."

Sarcasm, especially on the internet where ones tone of voice cannot be heard, only obfuscates the point in favor of a little humor at the expensive of whomever you're talking to.



Can we cut down on the condemnations disguised as questions?

(note: that last bit was sarcastic)

Considering you actually answered the question with the equivalent of "No", I fail to see how it was something else in disguise.



Every single 4e-related post I've seen Tayla make was complaining about how it's different from 3e in <insert whatever's being discussed here> terms. So I can't help but wonder why she doesn't just stick with 3e and be done with it.

I can't claim to know her motivations, and I don't know the circumstances of her previous posts, but in this instance, I think she had a perfectly valid concern. All the classes now work on the same resource system, which, at first glance, looks to be a massive downgrade from the previous edition's plethora of resource styles.

However, if one looks only a little deeper into the system, they'll discover this isn't the case. Being hostile won't convince her to look that little bit deeper.

Talya
2008-04-29, 01:54 AM
So I can't help but wonder why she doesn't just stick with 3e and be done with it.

You think i have any intention of using 4e? Of course I don't, unless something sways me between then and now. 3.5 is great fun. Notice I said "one more nail in the coffin." That implies there's a coffin, and it's already partially nailed shut.

Talya
2008-04-29, 01:56 AM
And even IF there are more gamers who think that the current system of alignment works just fine, does not mean that it cannot be improved.


The current alignment system is pretty darn good. I love it. That said, i wouldn't have issues with improvements. I don't see 4e providing any.

Talya
2008-04-29, 01:57 AM
Eberron gets to keep its cosmology because it is awesome*. Or, more likely because of the aim to limit settings to three books (Or so I read that a developer posted it on his blog, if someone would confirm and link to this, I'd be grateful). Eberron doesn't have nearly the amount of stuff to cover, being only a few years old in comparison to Forgotten Realms' 23 years of publication.




*except for the magic trains.

Eberron's cosmology is easy to ignore. On the one hand, that's great for 4e. On the other hand, I rather like a very divinely oriented campaign.

Rutee
2008-04-29, 01:58 AM
You think i have any intention of using 4e? Of course I don't, unless something sways me between then and now. 3.5 is great fun. Notice I said "one more nail in the coffin." That implies there's a coffin, and it's already partially nailed shut.

Then why in gods name do you bother? Why even look at 4e threads?

Talya
2008-04-29, 02:03 AM
Then why in gods name do you bother? Why even look at 4e threads?

A system no longer being developed is a dead system. If 4e was evolutionary, rather than a total rewrite, I could "upgrade" to it and keep getting updates, even convert old material i like with ease. As it stands, 3.5 is pretty much over, with not the slightest bit of compatibility between them, either fluff-wise or crunch-wise. So i've got things to complain about...sourcebooks that were never written and never will be now.

Khanderas
2008-04-29, 02:04 AM
Originally Posted by Khanderas
And even IF there are more gamers who think that the current system of alignment works just fine, does not mean that it cannot be improved.The current alignment system is pretty darn good. I love it. That said, i wouldn't have issues with improvements. I don't see 4e providing any.
I like your attitude. You state your opinion, but let others have their own. Too litte "my opinion" and too much "this is how you should think" on the internet in general... or so I feel :smallredface:

Reel On, Love
2008-04-29, 02:09 AM
A system no longer being developed is a dead system. If 4e was evolutionary, rather than a total rewrite, I could "upgrade" to it and keep getting updates, even convert old material i like with ease. As it stands, 3.5 is pretty much over, with not the slightest bit of compatibility between them, either fluff-wise or crunch-wise. So i've got things to complain about...sourcebooks that were never written and never will be now.

...You're right. No one ever plays AD&D anymore (and they certainly didn't for a few years after 3.5 came out!), much less stuff like Nobilis (obscure, no support), Rolemaster, etc.

I can't imagine dearth of sourcebooks being a real issue. There's already more books than the game needs, most of their crunch full of suck.

Rutee
2008-04-29, 02:16 AM
A system no longer being developed is a dead system. ... So i've got things to complain about...sourcebooks that were never written and never will be now.
Okay, Reel On handled the dead system and sourcebooks, so that leaves me to ask;

How is fuelling your own anger/irritation/whatever by reminding yourself vividly of that which you feel sucks, through constant and in depth exposure, making you feel better?

See, I was in your sort of situation, except in theory, I could actually make the game designers listen to me and make them stop sucking (Which your complaints will never do). Even /then/ I eventually had to say "Okay this is stupid of me" and just walked away from the system. Why don't you walk away?

Cyclone231
2008-04-29, 02:17 AM
I disagree. Sarcasm does not make the point more clear. "Cyanide is okay!" is not as clear as "Mercury, cyanide, and opium are harmful natural substances. Ergo, it is nonsensical for you to believe that everything natural is harmless."No, what you'd say is: "wow, natural things are okay? Hey dudes, find me some cyanide, because this guy says it's okay!"
Sarcasm, especially on the internet where ones tone of voice cannot be heard, only obfuscates the point in favor of a little humor at the expensive of whomever you're talking to.If your sarcasm isn't clear just from your word choice, then you've failed to properly use sarcasm in the context of the internet. And if the flaw in the opponent's reasoning is so blatant as to allow a blatantly nonsensical extrapolation of that reasoning, perhaps they should pause to consider the rationality of their idea before posting it on the internet. And if your extrapolation was not a logical extrapolation? Then they can tell you so and you're just as wrong as you would have been if you posted without the sarcasm.
Considering you actually answered the question with the equivalent of "No", I fail to see how it was something else in disguise.Considering your original question was a blatant attack on people who were using sarcasm and/or hostile defensiveness (whatever that means), I agree that there's no disguise here so let's just ask the following question:

Can we stop asking rhetorical questions which question the character of others on the internet?

Xuincherguixe
2008-04-29, 02:38 AM
In theory, this would be a good direction to go in. However being that this is wizards of the coast and I have basically no faith in them my thought is that everything will just end up dumb and confusing.

Angels as agents of gods, rather than just being a kind of good outsider is an interesting direction to go in. But I kind of have to say that, since I'm doing something similar in my own campaign setting.

But that's kind of the thing. It's my own setting. I'm not changing already existing metaphysics. Or doing some earth shaking event so that the rules of the universe are different than they were just a short time ago.


It may well have a good set of mechanics, in the end that's the most important thing. Regardless of those hatted bearded men residing near the water feel about the matter, people can always change the fluff.

In fact lets go a bit further than just ignoring the heavy handed comic book style changing everything to reflect the changes you feel are questionable. Pretend that all the super wizards and another annoying NPCs never existed. Sure you can give them all brutal deaths and give them truely nightmarish afterlifes ("Elminster? You're going to be trapped in maze composed of your own flesh for all eternity" "Wait, how is that possible?" "With a lot of agony.")


I also think they shouldn't make setting depressing by default. There should just be enough that if the DM wants everything to be depressing that it can be. If you want to run a game where everything is fine but villains grow out of holes in the ground you should be able to. It doesn't make sense, but maybe that's one of the themes. Maybe it's a farce. Maybe you want to make such a world seem more natural. Conflicts are more to do with resources than good and evil. Or maybe everything is evil and the characters have to work extra hard to accomplish anything against it.

The DM needs to be comfortable with the theme of the game. That's a lot easier to do when they have some control over it.

If 4th edition is more adaptable, then I would say that it would be superior.

But then, I still might not buy it anyways because the books are expensive and it's really not my game.

Talya
2008-04-29, 02:47 AM
...You're right. No one ever plays AD&D anymore (and they certainly didn't for a few years after 3.5 came out!), much less stuff like Nobilis (obscure, no support), Rolemaster, etc.

I can't imagine dearth of sourcebooks being a real issue. There's already more books than the game needs, most of their crunch full of suck.

Sourcebooks are the sources for ideas. Throw enough of them around in my head and they start to congeal into something unique.

Somebody mentioned a few earlier I'd love to have seen: something like the fiendish codices for celestial beings, and an all fey sourcebook, among others. Neglected creatures!

Seems everyone thinks if you're not going to fight it much, you shouldn't dwell on it. I hate that approach...things that you fight are not "onscreen" very long. It's the stuff that you don't get to kill that ends up mattering more.

Xefas
2008-04-29, 02:52 AM
Considering your original question was a blatant attack on people who were using sarcasm and/or hostile defensiveness (whatever that means).

I'm sure there's a better term for it. To make an example:

"I don't think these rules are as good as the ones they're meant to replace."

"They aren't as horrendously terrible as you make them out to be! Your big ugly face is dumb as a butt!"

As in being 'hostile' while being 'defensive'.



Can we stop asking rhetorical questions which question the character of others on the internet?

I never questioned your character. I always assumed it was Mr.Game&Watch looking at the moon.

Rutee
2008-04-29, 03:43 AM
Sourcebooks are the sources for ideas. Throw enough of them around in my head and they start to congeal into something unique.
How does complaining about it help? How does keeping the fact that you're not getting new source books vividly in mind helping you deal with it? If anything, it sounds like it's making you dwell; Why not just push past it, believe in the you who believes in you, and /make your own/?

Oslecamo
2008-04-29, 06:05 AM
See, I was in your sort of situation, except in theory, I could actually make the game designers listen to me and make them stop sucking (Which your complaints will never do). Even /then/ I eventually had to say "Okay this is stupid of me" and just walked away from the system. Why don't you walk away?

Actually, WOTC cares a lot about their customers.

There were people who complained about the spellcasting system and Wotc gave them psionics, tome of magic and Magic of Incarnium.

There were people who complained about the current melee system and Wotc gave them ToB.

There were people who complained the game still wasn't broken enough and WotC gave them the complete series and Unhearted Arcana.

Therer were people complaining that they wanted a completely mad seting with everything and anything remotely related to fantasy and Wotc gave them Eberron.

There were people complaining that they wanted a completely new edition and they gave them 4e. Seriously, before the first oficial 4e spoilers, the Wotc boards was swarming with 4e speculation threads.

The CO boards created a thread with the biggest rules questions of 3e and alas, Wotc actually started answering them directly this week on their site.

So by all means whine if you don't like the system. I bet that if you could get enough people to join you, 4.5 e will have solars as a starting race, all dices replaced by d10s and characters automatically glowing the stronger they get.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-29, 06:29 AM
Meh, I consider the complainers perfectly valid. I mean, taking out the blood war, or the vancian system which, flawed or not, has accompanied us for three and a half editions hurts a bit. It brings nostalgia.

However, I'm making the jump to 4th anyway. There will be the return of Planescape's factions, which have given birth to one of the most beautiful pieces of art known to man (In case you don't know what I'm talking about, it's Planescape Torment). Wizards will no longer grow quadratically while fighters grow linearly, at least in theory. Healbots will have options that do not overshadow everyone else, so my hippocratic healer will be able to smite the wicked without making the paladin go emo. Our beloved dragons and dungeons will still be there, and if we can trust the spoilers, the battles will be even more epic and awe-inspiring than before.

So yes. I'll be taking the leap of faith to 4th. And I'll be proud of it.

And for those who don't WANT to jump? Hey, there's Paizo's new attempt at D&D. Sure, it can use some tweaking, but it's promising to be much better than our classic core rules.

So, perhaps maybe we're doing it wrong? Talya and the others took a wrong approach, entering in a defensive and derisive stance, which naturally, provoked a wave of angry counterposts. Perhaps we should start again?

Here, lemme attempt a rephrase, summing up a few ideas of those against the new system:

"Hmm...this changes ain't too good. Angels are no longer our lovable cuddly wuddly good guys. Hey, they're even serving the evil gods now! What happened to the lovely fluff we had? 4th Ed. has some interesting parts, but this...this is nasty. This is big. It's a hard change. I don't know if it would be worth it to go with 4th anymore. Can anybody explain the pros of this, please, so that I may take an informed decision?"

hamishspence
2008-04-29, 07:09 AM
in Diablo Sin War trilogy angels are far more lawful than they are good, and as ruthless as they come. So its not that big a conceptual leap for me. Plus there are those non-good winged servitors: ToB's Valkyries, MM3 Justicator, and MM4 Concordant Killer. So we have had warning that not everything that looks angelic is friendly.

I do think angel servitors of diferent deities should have some differences, but the DM can describ them differently without needing new models: maybe have them wear symbol of deity on breastplate, or glow different colours (angels: colour coded for YOUR convenience) But thats a case of verbal description, and new models for each should not be necessary.

hamishspence
2008-04-29, 07:15 AM
added to which, the alignemnt bit in the statblock said Any, not unaligned, so you can justify good angels gravitating to the various good deities, evil ones joining the evil deities, and neutral ones joining the neutral deities, yet most not being attached to specific deities, but a resource the deities can call on when needed.

Starbuck_II
2008-04-29, 07:53 AM
EDIT: Oh, and why does a Angel of Vengeance's Longsword deal Cold and Fire type damage? Is this some weird thing I've never heard about?

Dude, Flaming Frost +X weapons were common for rogues in 3.5. Why would that be strange for 4th?

Saph
2008-04-29, 08:12 AM
This strikes me as a really stupid idea.

"Hey, let's make it so that some angels are evil so that PCs have an excuse to kill them!" It didn't occur to them that creatures in a D&D world might have some other reason for existence except to be killed by the PCs?

There were already plenty of neutral- and evil-aligned outsiders developed in previous D&D settings. There's no reason to decide that all of a sudden, every servant of a god has to be called an 'angel'.

- Saph

GeneralTacticus
2008-04-29, 08:31 AM
Meh, I consider the complainers perfectly valid. I mean, taking out the blood war, or the vancian system which, flawed or not, has accompanied us for three and a half editions hurts a bit. It brings nostalgia.

However, I'm making the jump to 4th anyway. There will be the return of Planescape's factions, which have given birth to one of the most beautiful pieces of art known to man (In case you don't know what I'm talking about, it's Planescape Torment). Wizards will no longer grow quadratically while fighters grow linearly, at least in theory. Healbots will have options that do not overshadow everyone else, so my hippocratic healer will be able to smite the wicked without making the paladin go emo. Our beloved dragons and dungeons will still be there, and if we can trust the spoilers, the battles will be even more epic and awe-inspiring than before.

So yes. I'll be taking the leap of faith to 4th. And I'll be proud of it.

And for those who don't WANT to jump? Hey, there's Paizo's new attempt at D&D. Sure, it can use some tweaking, but it's promising to be much better than our classic core rules.

So, perhaps maybe we're doing it wrong? Talya and the others took a wrong approach, entering in a defensive and derisive stance, which naturally, provoked a wave of angry counterposts. Perhaps we should start again?

Here, lemme attempt a rephrase, summing up a few ideas of those against the new system:

"Hmm...this changes ain't too good. Angels are no longer our lovable cuddly wuddly good guys. Hey, they're even serving the evil gods now! What happened to the lovely fluff we had? 4th Ed. has some interesting parts, but this...this is nasty. This is big. It's a hard change. I don't know if it would be worth it to go with 4th anymore. Can anybody explain the pros of this, please, so that I may take an informed decision?"

There will still be lovable cuddly angels on the side of good. It's just that there will now also be other varieties of angels serving neutral and evil deities, which puts said deities on a more equal footing. Furthermore, since individual angels are now supposed to reflect a particular concept, there's more scope for them to differ from one another, and angels serving evil gods will still look very different from those serving good gods - Pelor might have angels of mercy, charity, justice and compassion (and probably lots of others too), while Bane has angels of obedience, devotion and ruthlessness. Probably any god that has any martial leanings will have angels of valour and such, but even they will still differ based on which deity they fight for.

If you're mainly worried about the expansion of the term "angel", consider that as the article itself says, the original meaning of the term was "messenger". The only reason it was associated with goodness was because the Abrahamic tradition had all of them serving a single deity who was defined as being perfectly good; the D&D religious setup, needless to say, runs rather differently. And even back then, there was hardly a requirement that angels be nice; the Angel of Death is from the Book of Exodus, and it delivered exactly what the name suggests, thoroughly and mercilessly. (Plus there was that whole business with Lucifer...)

If you dislike the move to angels serving gods at all as opposed to serving the alignment of Good, then I'm afraid I can't help you. I despise 3.5's attempt at objective morality, so I can't help but be happy every time they decouple something from it. All I can say is that if you want there to be an objective force of Good in your setting, there's no reason why it couldn't spawn/attract angels to serve it in the same way that gods and more ephemeral concepts apparently do.

Bottom line: I can't see how expanding the role of angels in the cosmology takes anything away from the setting. The old varieties of angels are still there, embodying whichever good-associated concepts you want them to. It's just that there are new varieties that you can also do interesting things with.

(For the record, I'm not overly fond of angels being generated spontaneously and choosing to sign on with gods, as opposed to being generated by the gods themselves, but that's trivially easy to alter. Much more so than the current planar system.)

Talya
2008-04-29, 08:43 AM
It's just that there will now also be other varieties of angels serving neutral and evil deities, which puts said deities on a more equal footing.

Was that necessary? Gods already had their outsider servants, both evil and neutral. Look how many varieties of outsiders existed already.


If you dislike the move to angels serving gods at all as opposed to serving the alignment of Good, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

The previous fluff already had fallen angels...but they did have to fall. Furthermore, they ceased to be angels after falling. That's what devils actually were. If you're going to go with biblical mythology, the fallen angels became the demons, and there was only one devil, but that's again the fluff that's always existed with angels...they ceased being angelic when they fell.

Now, this new version would fit more with an Islamic approach to angels, which are basically automatons without free will that do the will of God. In a setting with multiple gods of various alignments, these new angels fit that idea rather well. But if you're going to do that, better start making really heavy use of Djinn and Efreet.

Morty
2008-04-29, 08:46 AM
This strikes me as a really stupid idea.

"Hey, let's make it so that some angels are evil so that PCs have an excuse to kill them!" It didn't occur to them that creatures in a D&D world might have some other reason for existence except to be killed by the PCs?


Apparently, it didn't. Really, I don't care much about this particular fluff change, but lack of Good outsiders because PCs won't kill them very often is really stupid reason on the whole.

hamishspence
2008-04-29, 08:57 AM
Outsiders which are Neutral aren't very common. The rilmani in Fiend Folio. Not sure if there were any others.

Evil had a wider range, but they tended to be very plane-specific. Demodands from tartarus, yugoloths from gehenna, etc.

Generic angel creatures needed a bit of searching out: devas in Fiend Folio, Protectar in Miniatures Handbook, and a few things in Exalted Deeds.

Pronounceable
2008-04-29, 09:09 AM
I like the concept very much. Explicitly tying angels to divinity is good. Angel of X stuff is indeed much more DMable than old celestials. I’m also very much in favor of deanthromorphization. The mercenarism I don’t like, it tarnishes their dedication and weakens their ties to the divine. But I can see that the angel bodyguards (and let’s not forget hitmen) of a mob boss is far too cool to pass.

But the stated motive behind it is far too idiotic for me to swallow:
Hey, there’s a whole lot of critters that aren’t being slaughtered. What good is a critter if it’s not providing XP, eh? What, players hesitate to fight them cos they’re incarnations of Good? We can’t be having with that! Fluff it, let the clouds run red with blood!

4E has had my eternal enmity for wrecking the Great Wheel. And I hate 4E even more now. But it won’t stop me from yoinking this concept.


EDIT: Having now read the thread, I'm quite surprised the amount of derailing it suffered. Has there ever been a 4E preview thread that didn't get derailed?

Talya
2008-04-29, 09:45 AM
Outsiders which are Neutral aren't very common. The rilmani in Fiend Folio. Not sure if there were any others.




Outsiders in 3.5 Monster Manual 1
Angel - Astral Deva, Planetar, Solar (any G)
Archon - Lantern, Hound, Trumpet (LG)
Arrowhawk (N)
Azer (LN, Fire)
Barghest (LE)
Celestial Creature (any G, template)
Chaos Beast (CN)
Coatl (LG)
Demon - Babau, Balor, Bebilith, Dretch, Glabrezu, Hezro, Marilith, Nalfeshnee, Quasit, Succubus, Vrock (CE)
Devil - Barbazu, Bezekira, Cornugon, Erinyes, Gelugon, Hamatula, Imp, Kyton, Lemure, Osyluth, Pit Fiend (LE)
Eladrin - Bralant, Ghaele (CG)
Fiendish creature (any E, template)
Djinni (CG, Air)
Efreeti (LE, Fire)
Janni (Usually N)
Guardinal - Avoral, Leonal (NG)
Half Celestial (Any G, template)
Half Fiend (Any E, template)
Hell Hound (LE, Fire)
Howler (CE)
Lillend (CG)
Mephit - Air, Dust, Earth, Fire, Ice, Magma, Ooze, Salt, Steam, Water (usually N)
Night Hag (NE)
Nightmare (NE)
Planetouched - Tiefling, Aasimar (Any)
Rakshasa (LE)
Rast (usually N)
Ravid (N)
Shadow Mastiff (NE)
Slaad - Red, Blue, Green, Gray (usually CN)
Titan (any C)
Tojanida (N, Water)
Triton (usually NG, Water)
Vargouille (NE)
Xill (LE)
Xorn (usually N)
Yeth Hound (NE)



(I'm tempted to include inevitables, but they are extraplanar constructs rather than outsiders. They do serve the same role as LN outsiders, however.)

That's all from one book. It's a small fraction of those available.

EvilElitest
2008-04-29, 10:31 AM
Uh?

Even EE can barely manage to twist this into something negative.

I just did actually, very well if i do think so my self. If you have a problem with it fine, but don't whine and pretend i didn't say anything, counter what i wrote.


My personal opinion is that 3rd edition has been pretty thoroughly covered in sourcebooks, and that if they went on much longer they'd be running out of material. That's not to say I don't sort of wish there were a few books they'd gotten around to writing...
At first glance yes. But if you looked closly, there is a lot that hasn't been covered. And a lot they could have fixed, and not hte way 4E is doing it


Those would be the angels serving the good deities--and various other good-aligned creatures, which they aren't gonna spend too much time on, since parties are by and large non-evil and the game's focusing on heroics.

PC centrisim at work again



Like what? Various Monster Manual 69 critters?

Archons are still around, but with an elemental theme.
[QUOTE]
1) Um, have you read the MMs? There are plenty of evil deity monesters servants. Blood Golem of Hexor from FF
2) I like the Archon creatures, just not hte name
[QUOTE]
They called high elves Eladrin. Furthermore, your Eladrin are still around--the PC Eladrin race is just the very lowest kind, weakest and closest to mortals.
no, Pc Eladrin are Fey, others were outsiders



They aren't sticking to established 3E things. That's good. They're redesigning the game from the top down, basically, and improving things. Now, players can fight awesome glowing angels. Before? Well, I've been playing for years. I've encountered some Eladrins, even a Trumpet Archon, but planetars, solars, all that jazz? Never. Demons aplenty, but never high-level good outsiders.
1) And the problems with 4E come from the fact they aren't stickign to established 3E tings.
2) No it isn't good, because it goes against their stated goal of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
3) You can fight angles in D&D games. Neutral or evil party members, or mis understandings.
4) or make a divine servant for all beings not just angles

If they were sticking to as much 3E fluff as possible, they couldn't possibly make 4E do what they're designing it to do. It's like the new World of Darkness compared to the old
no, instead we would have a better game, because it would be a non broken 3E




Think of 4E as a new game, if you like.
Except it isn't, its a new edition, not a new game.


They aren't changing your fluff; if you really like overpowered druids and angels being non-deity-related alignment-embodiments you rarely see and demons having Greater Teleport at will, keep on keepin' on. They're making a new game, more tightly designed, along the same lines. The fluff stands up just fine in its own right, and the mechanics look good.
1) Actually, we want change and balence, just not the way they are doing it
2) And the 4E fluff isn't good in its own right, because its breaking already existing game


from
EE

Artemician
2008-04-29, 11:06 AM
I'm kinda meh about this change. It's not a particularly jarring change, or whatever. So they made a generic base for Divine Messengers. Big deal. Still don't stop DMs from giving their Gods whatever kinds of messengers they feel like giving them.

It's generic. You can always add on here, take a little there, etc. Slap on a bit of pointy ears and call them Eladrin. Glue on horns and call them Demons. Whatever. Install prosthetic snouts and call them Hound Archons. Maybe add a few SLAs here or there.

At the end of the day, you don't have to follow WotC's given fluff, especially as they're now taking steps to divorce it from the mechanics for easy removal. You don't have to follow mechanics faithfully as well, given how stupidly generic they are.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-29, 12:05 PM
I'm not particularly thrilled or appaled by the change. Celestials, and demons, saw very little play in my games as it was and Gods tended to be only very indirectly involved in anything, if they were at all. So, practically speaking, this doesn't effect me. I'm not thrilled with the continuation of the 'if it's in the MM, it's there for killing' mentality though.


sourcebooks that were never written and never will be now.

You are incorrect madam. There are currently additional 3.5 sourcebooks being developed as I write this. They just aren't being developed by WotC.


There's already more books than the game needs, most of their crunch full of suck.

Actually, I would say that because there are many source books that suck, good ones still have a market. But then I have a vested interest in this.


How does complaining about it help? How does keeping the fact that you're not getting new source books vividly in mind helping you deal with it? If anything, it sounds like it's making you dwell; Why not just push past it, believe in the you who believes in you, and /make your own/?

It can be cathartic to vent...


Apparently, it didn't. Really, I don't care much about this particular fluff change, but lack of Good outsiders because PCs won't kill them very often is really stupid reason on the whole.

Agreed.


At the end of the day, you don't have to follow WotC's given fluff, especially as they're now taking steps to divorce it from the mechanics for easy removal. You don't have to follow mechanics faithfully as well, given how stupidly generic they are.

I haven't noticed these 'easy removal' steps. Did I miss an article or something?

FinalJustice
2008-04-29, 12:08 PM
Why didn't they call these Heralds, Messengers or whatever and let the the Angels be... well.... Angels?

I don't really care about the origin of the word Angel. The main concept of angel is, yes, a totally good winged anthropomorphic one with a halo. Don't get me wrong, I loved the concept of Angel that WoTC brought up, I really find those interesting monsters. I just think that having to refluff or homebrew to have a classic Angel in my games is just borderline nonsense. It may not be nonsense on a 'if players can't kill we won't bother' level, but it's pretty damn close.

Starsinger
2008-04-29, 12:29 PM
The main concept of angel is, yes, a totally good winged anthropomorphic one with a halo. Don't get me wrong, I loved the concept of Angel that WoTC brought up, I really find those interesting monsters. I just think that having to refluff or homebrew to have a classic Angel in my games is just borderline nonsense.

A. Who's to say that that Angel won't be part of the Angels in 4e? "Angel of Tidings" or something. Afterall, if the gods want to get across a message requiring actual words, they'd probably pick a form that's not scary so someone would listen.

B. If your players aren't going to kill it, do you need stats for it? Does something only exist if you stat it out?

Cyclone231
2008-04-29, 12:39 PM
Sourcebooks are the sources for ideas. Throw enough of them around in my head and they start to congeal into something unique.
If you're just using sourcebooks to get ideas, then you don't need to buy 3.5e sourcebooks. You could pick up interesting 4e sourcebooks, interesting 1e sourcebooks, interesting WoD sourcebooks, interesting Hero System sourcebooks, interesting GURPS sourcebooks, et cetera.

Morty
2008-04-29, 12:48 PM
B. If your players aren't going to kill it, do you need stats for it? Does something only exist if you stat it out?

No offense, but that's utter nonsense for three reasons. First one being, players do end up fighting Good outsiders from time to time, even if WoTC tries to tell us otherwise. Second one being, even if your players are Good, which admitedly happens more often than players being Evil or Neutral(Unaligned in 4ed) celestials can fight alongside them or fight demons & devils on their own. Third one being, "if players don't kill it, ignore it" philosophy makes the gameworld a shallow, blurred backgroun to players, which isn't fun.

Rutee
2008-04-29, 12:54 PM
No offense, but that's utter nonsense for three reasons. First one being, players do end up fighting Good outsiders from time to time, even if WoTC tries to tell us otherwise
I have never seen Good Outsiders get fought; Even when the party was all evil. I know I'm not the most experienced DnD player, but they have an incidence of less then 1 in oh, 10 games, at least, as far as I'm concerned, and 2 of them had every reason to beat down Good.



Second one being, even if your players are Good, which admitedly happens more often than players being Evil or Neutral(Unaligned in 4ed) celestials can fight alongside them or fight demons & devils on their own.

So.. the stats don't matter /unless it enters combat/? I'll agree with that; Players don't need to be killing something for it to have stats, it just needs to be opposing something that you don't want to just auto-pass/fail each time.


Third one being, "if players don't kill it, ignore it" philosophy makes the gameworld a shallow, blurred backgroun to players, which isn't fun.
No, it prevents games from being all about crap the players aren't a part of, which is even /less/ fun. The world can be developed if you're focusing on the players; I suspect 4e Planescape and Forgotten REalms and whatnot will still have a good deal of actual setting information that players aren't really expected to kill. But it's good to keep that stuff out of theoretically setting neutral core books.


Passive aggressive flaming attempt via my favorite system
Welcome back to ignore.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-29, 12:57 PM
No offense, but that's utter nonsense for three reasons. First one being, players do end up fighting Good outsiders from time to time, even if WoTC tries to tell us otherwise. Second one being, even if your players are Good, which admitedly happens more often than players being Evil or Neutral(Unaligned in 4ed) celestials can fight alongside them or fight demons & devils on their own. Third one being, "if players don't kill it, ignore it" philosophy makes the gameworld a shallow, blurred backgroun to players, which isn't fun.

There's a fourth reason also. Having stats even on monsters that the Players are not expected to try to kill has it's own uses. It helps set a concrete ability level for those critters within the game world. In many games, Players and DM's alike don't want to have the impression that much of the world is ad-hoc and having defined stats, abilities, etc. helps to provide this.

Now obviously, DM's still have the ability to homebrew or modify the statistics to make the monster fit whatever role the DM wants them to play but that doesn't undermine the idea that players want to know they are dealing with concrete things with concrete abilities. In the end, as a DM, there really isn't an important reason to stat out anything that is not directly in the players control beyond this reason. The game can function just fine with the DM just deciding, or picking a cinematically appropriate moment, for a monster to bite it, for example, without there even being concrete hit points.

Morty
2008-04-29, 01:07 PM
I have never seen Good Outsiders get fought; Even when the party was all evil. I know I'm not the most experienced DnD player, but they have an incidence of less then 1 in oh, 10 games, at least, as far as I'm concerned, and 2 of them had every reason to beat down Good.

Nevertheless, they should exist to balance out the Evil outsiders and give DM and players general impression on what they can expect.


So.. the stats don't matter /unless it enters combat/? I'll agree with that; Players don't need to be killing something for it to have stats, it just needs to be opposing something that you don't want to just auto-pass/fail each time.

See below.


No, it prevents games from being all about crap the players aren't a part of, which is even /less/ fun. The world can be developed if you're focusing on the players; I suspect 4e Planescape and Forgotten REalms and whatnot will still have a good deal of actual setting information that players aren't really expected to kill. But it's good to keep that stuff out of theoretically setting neutral core books.

Sure, it's bad to clutter up books with crap that'll never get used. But I wouldn't qualify armed forces of one of the main powers in the multiverse as such.

hamishspence
2008-04-29, 01:12 PM
yes, but very few of those are of Neutral (aka true neutral) alignment. Or "alignment: any" of the neutral ones, most are from elemental or energy planes. And the Rilmani are apparently not that friendly to the deities: they deliberately base themselves at the Spire, below Sigil, according to the novels.

Rutee
2008-04-29, 01:20 PM
Nevertheless, they should exist to balance out the Evil outsiders and give DM and players general impression on what they can expect.
Why? If you're never going to interact with them, then it's irrelevant what they expect, because it won't be confirmed or denied either way.


Sure, it's bad to clutter up books with crap that'll never get used. But I wouldn't qualify armed forces of one of the main powers in the multiverse as such.

I would, as I've never seen them in use. It's the sort of thing you might logically expect to see in theory, but I've never actually seen one in practice.


There's a fourth reason also. Having stats even on monsters that the Players are not expected to try to kill has it's own uses. It helps set a concrete ability level for those critters within the game world. In many games, Players and DM's alike don't want to have the impression that much of the world is ad-hoc and having defined stats, abilities, etc. helps to provide this.
You don't need stats for this, though. You just need a list of "About as powerful as X", really.

Morty
2008-04-29, 01:27 PM
Why? If you're never going to interact with them, then it's irrelevant what they expect, because it won't be confirmed or denied either way.

Why assume players won't interact with them? If WoTC is worried about Celestials not getting any spotlight they should give them one, as world where there are Evil outsiders but no Good outsiders looks strange.


I would, as I've never seen them in use. It's the sort of thing you might logically expect to see in theory, but I've never actually seen one in practice.

Then perhaps Wizards should focus on making theory work in practice instead of cutting off things they see as "irrelevant" because they screwed them up in 3ed?
Then again, I'm a Planescape fan, and 4ed cosmology is moving far away from it.

Rutee
2008-04-29, 01:31 PM
Why assume players won't interact with them? If WoTC is worried about Celestials not getting any spotlight they should give them one, as world where there are Evil outsiders but no Good outsiders looks strange.
That's solipsism. "I don't see it, therefore, it doesn't exist". And it's not much of an assumption; It's experience.



Then perhaps Wizards should focus on making theory work in practice instead of cutting off things they see as "irrelevant" because they screwed them up in 3ed?
Then again, I'm a Planescape fan, and 4ed cosmology is moving far away from it.
I'd rather Wizards not focus on forcing me to include Good Outsiders just so there's an excuse to stat them, as per your wishes. Notwithstanding that they don't actually get, within the core books, that many fewer chances to appear. They're just not found in games on anywhere near the basis as demons are. I wonder if they cut all the monsters that seemed underused..

hamishspence
2008-04-29, 01:39 PM
yes, some monsters are getting cut, according to Worlds and Monsters. The acherai, and the delver, were citied specifically. It also suggested that some monsters will be heavily reconcepted, almost unrocognizable from what they once were.

Morty
2008-04-29, 01:41 PM
That's solipsism. "I don't see it, therefore, it doesn't exist". And it's not much of an assumption; It's experience.

Maybe for you. But from my view, utter lack of Good outsiders in 4ed will be even worse than their absence from spotlight in 3ed.


I'd rather Wizards not focus on forcing me to include Good Outsiders just so there's an excuse to stat them, as per your wishes. Notwithstanding that they don't actually get, within the core books, that many fewer chances to appear. They're just not found in games on anywhere near the basis as demons are. I wonder if they cut all the monsters that seemed underused..

Demons and devils don't have to appear in your games either. Noone's forcing you do include them, and you might happily ignore them, yet they are in the rules and are statted out. Which means that Good outsiders should be there to counterbalance them and to oppose Evil epic-tiered characters.

Rutee
2008-04-29, 01:49 PM
Maybe for you. But from my experience, utter lack of Good outsiders in 4ed will be even worse than their absence from spotlight in 3ed.
Why? If they don't get interacted with, then them not being in the books is a non-change; Their stats weren't getting used anyway. And I'm pretty sure that's the case for most people.



Demons and devils don't have to appear in your games either. Noone's forcing you do include them, and you might happily ignore them, yet they are in the rules and are statted out. Which means that Good outsiders should be there to counterbalance them and to oppose Evil epic-tiered characters.

Why would Good outsiders be there to counterbalance them? If they're present (in game) and statted, they're clearly intended for a PC challenge. It does not follow from this that angels would be on the side of players; I'm sure they are in spirit, but including them in the fight itself means additional bogging down of that fight, and that there will be critical moments of boredom (NPC on NPC action) for more selfish players.

Morty
2008-04-29, 02:00 PM
Why? If they don't get interacted with, then them not being in the books is a non-change; Their stats weren't getting used anyway. And I'm pretty sure that's the case for most people.

Again, I don't see any reasons Good oustiders shouldn't be interacted with if they're done right. And they're needed for cosmology to be internally consistent.


Why would Good outsiders be there to counterbalance them? If they're present (in game) and statted, they're clearly intended for a PC challenge. It does not follow from this that angels would be on the side of players; I'm sure they are in spirit, but including them in the fight itself means additional bogging down of that fight, and that there will be critical moments of boredom (NPC on NPC action) for more selfish players.

Angels being challenge for players and helping them aren't mutually exclusive, you know. In one campaign a group might fight alongside forces of Good against devil/demon invasion, and in the next one they might be helping demon lords attack the mortal plane and be opposed by celestials. NPCs are statted out yet players don't always fight against them.

Citizen Joe
2008-04-29, 02:00 PM
I don't see it so much as some Angels being evil, or Alignment: Any... I see it more like they are aligned for their task or diety or religion they are serving. One of the primary points about Angels is that they do NOT have Free Will, and that is a gift given to mortals. So Angels would very much be Alignment: Specific ideology. So the Angel of Vengeance might be considered Alignment: Retribution against being X. That is the sole guiding logic behind his deeds. It doesn't matter if you are good or evil, you've been targeted for termination and that Angel won't stop until one or the other of you is destroyed. Angels of War may be tasked with protecting a location or slaughtering the 'enemy'. It doesn't matter what the task is, as soon as they are assigned said task, that is pretty much their sole reason for existence.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-29, 02:13 PM
You don't need stats for this, though. You just need a list of "About as powerful as X", really.

In terms of page space in a book there is little to no difference bettween having a statblock and having a list of 'about as powerful as x' abilities and the like. Given that it costs very little in ink and paper to give them a block and keep the entires consistant throughout the system, they might as well do it.


Why would Good outsiders be there to counterbalance them? If they're present (in game) and statted, they're clearly intended for a PC challenge. It does not follow from this that angels would be on the side of players; I'm sure they are in spirit, but including them in the fight itself means additional bogging down of that fight, and that there will be critical moments of boredom (NPC on NPC action) for more selfish players.

Well, they need not be a combat encounter either. Also, they could be summoned. I agree with you though that no monsters (or NPC's) should be a primary focus in combat.

Speaking of which, as regards NPC's, the 'if they aren't an enemy then they don't need stats' theory would also apply. Would the FRCS be better off without stats for Elminster and Drizzt?

hamishspence
2008-04-29, 02:22 PM
One good reason to have stats for npcs: so players can save them when they have lost a lot of health and are surrounded by monsters. "Drizzt Do'Urden owes me a favour" sounds like a fun thing to say.

Because angels have alignment Any, you can use the creature for more things than you would with just Alignment good. Using them as an ally is OK, but DMPC syndrome can be a problem: the more roles a creature can have in game, the more use can be gotten out of it.

Terraoblivion
2008-04-29, 02:22 PM
I personally believe that Forgotten Realms would be better without stats for those two guys. Would give you more room to make them just the way it fits your own personal game. And it would save space to not fill it up with stats for them so they can either be described better or have more space devoted to something that isn't Drizzt and Elminster.

Rutee
2008-04-29, 02:24 PM
Again, I don't see any reasons Good oustiders shouldn't be interacted with if they're done right. And they're needed for cosmology to be internally consistent.
You don't need stats to exist. You only need stats to be interacted with by players in an opposed fashion.




Angels being challenge for players and helping them aren't mutually exclusive, you know. In one campaign a group might fight alongside forces of Good against devil/demon invasion, and in the next one they might be helping demon lords attack the mortal plane and be opposed by celestials. NPCs are statted out yet players don't always fight against them.
You're contriving circumstances to force them to have stats; I already ahndled "Fight alongside Good"; That bogs down the game and combat on things that are only being done for your sake of verisimilitude; As far as I'm concerned, Angels as allies is no different then having an army of mortals as an ally; They're friends, and it's assumed that you're fighting similar enemies, but having them onscreen (Where they need their stats) is counterproductive.


In terms of page space in a book there is little to no difference bettween having a statblock and having a list of 'about as powerful as x' abilities and the like. Given that it costs very little in ink and paper to give them a block and keep the entires consistant throughout the system, they might as well do it.

I didn't mean an expansive list of abilities. There's no way a list that consists of
Avoral: Level 11 Controller
Guardinal: Level 11 skirmisher
Solar: Level 22 Solo

Etc, takes as much room as more then a statblock or two.

And page space is always a concern; It may not 'cost' much, but they're going to reach a maximum at some point. If they ahve to choose between having angels, and having something that will see use...


Well, they need not be a combat encounter either. Also, they could be summoned. I agree with you though that no monsters (or NPC's) should be a primary focus in combat.
I'm not sure if many appear on summoning lists, but those that do definitely need stats, yes. But if they're a non-combat encounter, then it depends on how they're interacting with the PCs; if it's in an opposed fashion, yes, they need stats. But how common is that? Not terribly, in my (admittedly limited) experience.


Speaking of which, as regards NPC's, the 'if they aren't an enemy then they don't need stats' theory would also apply. Would the FRCS be better off without stats for Elminster and Drizzt?
Well, FR would be better without Ed Greenwood Elminster at all, so definitely yes, on Elminster. I don't see how Drizzt's stats help anything either, so yeah, I'd say FR would be better off, if only slightly, to not have Ed Greenwood Elminster or Drizz'l statted out at all.


It can be cathartic to vent...
Assuming it's cathartic, all it's doing is releasing vitriol that entering that thread /created/. You still turn out spending a lot of time with the only net result being you're souring the mood of others, at best.

hamishspence
2008-04-29, 02:30 PM
elminster is not going to be quite as powerful anymore: all that power cannot be used safely: spellplague problems. mind you, I like the idea of statting out own versions. First thing I thought of for 4th ed was: Elminster: 30th level wizard, fighter, thief, cleric training feats, epic destiny: Chosen. then I was told about his powers being unusable: annoying.

Baseline characters can be useful if fit well with novels: i actually liked the fighter/barbarian/ranger version of Do'Urden.

Entreris weapons, however, did not fit. I figured I would replace his defending dagger with a vampiric one, using vampiric weapon property from Unapproachable East.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-29, 02:36 PM
I didn't mean an expansive list of abilities. There's no way a list that consists of
Avoral: Level 11 Controller
Guardinal: Level 11 skirmisher
Solar: Level 22 Solo

Etc, takes as much room as more then a statblock or two.

And page space is always a concern; It may not 'cost' much, but they're going to reach a maximum at some point. If they ahve to choose between having angels, and having something that will see use...

Thing is, a list like the one you just gave, isn't going to be nearly enough to satisfy the kind of desire for the appearance of consistancy I'm talking about. Party role and CR are not sufficent information, particularly for monsters whose abilties will not be primarily used in combat but in 'plot' and 'support'.

A block that has
Solar
Level 22 Solo
SLA: ....
Immunities: .....
Skills: ...... (big here for interaction are Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Intimidate)
Saves: (same reason as above. I've had players try to 'suggest' things to NPC's on their side before).

Really isn't that much shorter. Also, typically, the WotC plan has been one monster per page. And if the creature is not expected to see use at allthey shouldn't be in the book, at all. As I said, I rarely use angels or involve to gods in any really meaningful way. For my own games they probably could have just cut angels totally but obviously other people use them.

Edit: Hey! No fair adding stuff when I'm in the middle of replying!



I'm not sure if many appear on summoning lists, but those that do definitely need stats, yes. But if they're a non-combat encounter, then it depends on how they're interacting with the PCs; if it's in an opposed fashion, yes, they need stats. But how common is that? Not terribly, in my (admittedly limited) experience.

Gate and Planar Ally. I have used clestials as a player many times as a result of those spells. Also, in my games, any interaction with an NPC is somewhat opposed. Maybe that's just because they are so darn suspicious of what I'm usually setting them up for...


Well, FR would be better without Ed Greenwood Elminster at all, so definitely yes, on Elminster. I don't see how Drizzt's stats help anything either, so yeah, I'd say FR would be better off, if only slightly, to not have Ed Greenwood Elminster or Drizz'l statted out at all.

Fair nuff. I disagree, since they are in the setting and the PC's may very well seek out their help.


Assuming it's cathartic, all it's doing is releasing vitriol that entering that thread /created/. You still turn out spending a lot of time with the only net result being you're souring the mood of others, at best.

I didn't find Tayla's comments to be all that vitriolic, personally. These things do tend to get out of hand quickly though.

Rutee
2008-04-29, 02:42 PM
Thing is, a list like the one you just gave, isn't going to be nearly enough to satisfy the kind of desire for the appearance of consistancy I'm talking about. Party role and CR are not sufficent information, particularly for monsters whose abilties will not be primarily used in combat but in 'plot' and 'support'.


There's a fourth reason also. Having stats even on monsters that the Players are not expected to try to kill has it's own uses. It helps set a concrete ability level for those critters within the game world. In many games, Players and DM's alike don't want to have the impression that much of the world is ad-hoc and having defined stats, abilities, etc. helps to provide this.

A level, if the 4e monster system turns out as well as promised (Unlikely, given that this is WotC we're talking about) is a concrete ability level. Having levels and roles is sufficient for what you asked for first, which I've taken as the more important concern. "Plot" powers don't need statting; They're going to work as the plot wants it to work. Support? What support would they give?


Gate and Planar Ally. I have used clestials as a player many times as a result of those spells. Also, in my games, any interaction with an NPC is somewhat opposed. Maybe that's just because they are so darn suspicious of what I'm usually setting them up for...
Except that those are broken spells that very well may be removed.


Fair nuff. I disagree, since they are in the setting and the PC's may very well seek out their help.

Their help would still be done offscreen, as far as I'm concerned. NPC focus is /bad/.



I didn't find Tayla's comments to be all that vitriolic, personally. These things do tend to get out of hand quickly though.
the thread is only, at best, removing anger that the thread itself created. It leaves the question on why you don't just stay the hell out. Again, speaking from experience; If a topic is only going to engender aggravation, /why are you enterring it/?

bosssmiley
2008-04-29, 02:44 PM
Hm. Nothing really new here. They just took the "angel" name and put it on all divine servants instead of embodiments of Good. However, I hope there will be some good outsiders to counter Demons and Devils.

So 'angel' now equates more or less to what Planescape used to call 'proxies'. Am I reading the WotC blurb right?

I suppose there are precedents for this going all the way back to the Deva, Planetar and Solar write-ups in the AD&D1 MM2, but it still seems a bit too...generic, especially given the relative richness and complexity of what went before. :smallconfused:

Pass.

Morty
2008-04-29, 02:52 PM
You don't need stats to exist. You only need stats to be interacted with by players in an opposed fashion.

And why, praytell, can't Good outsiders oppose players?


You're contriving circumstances to force them to have stats; I already ahndled "Fight alongside Good"; That bogs down the game and combat on things that are only being done for your sake of verisimilitude; As far as I'm concerned, Angels as allies is no different then having an army of mortals as an ally; They're friends, and it's assumed that you're fighting similar enemies, but having them onscreen (Where they need their stats) is counterproductive.

You're ducking the question here. I can see why you don't need detailed stats for celestials as PC's allies, although I'd rather have them, but what if PCs are fighting celestials?

Rutee
2008-04-29, 02:54 PM
And why, praytell, can't Good outsiders oppose players?



You're ducking the question here. I can see why you don't need detailed stats for celestials as PC's allies, but what if PCs are fighting celestials?

How often does any of that happen in reality though? If it's a terribly uncommon occurence, why bother printing stats for it? (I feel the same about any underused monster, before you ask.)

I'm not ducking your question, I just feel you haven't sufficiently answered mine. "Well, what happens when they /are/ opposed by good" "Sure, you need stats, but /how often does that happen/?"

kc0bbq
2008-04-29, 02:55 PM
If the party is fighting celestials, choose the appropriate angels and be done with it.

hamishspence
2008-04-29, 02:55 PM
players are the Cast, NPCs are the Supporting Cast, they are needed, but should not take over. And what disappears from the spell list will likely reappear in the ritual list: angel of vengeance is said to be callable by a ritual in the excerpt.

Just as long as it doesn't go "Hail, hail, fire and snow..."

Although I was told elsewhere that this wasn't the Summon Angel ritual, it was the Summon Insurance Salesman in Bad Costume ritual.

hamishspence
2008-04-29, 03:00 PM
Putting a celestial on guard of the MacGuffin the PC's are after seems a typical example "Only those who are worthy may pass!"

Besides this, they might crop up in the more interesting evil campaigns.

Morty
2008-04-29, 03:00 PM
How often does any of that happen in reality though? If it's a terribly uncommon occurence, why bother printing stats for it? (I feel the same about any underused monster, before you ask.)

I'm not ducking your question, I just feel you haven't sufficiently answered mine. "Well, what happens when they /are/ opposed by good" "Sure, you need stats, but /how often does that happen/?"

Is the fact that PCs fighting evil are more common than PCs fighting good or both enough reason to limit those who don't want to be good guys all the time? I don't think so, yet that's what WoTC is doing.
Also, this discussion is a little bit pointless, as by the looks of it 4ed won't have any Good outsiders, statted out or not. Damn you WoTC, for producing good mechanics and horrible fluff.

Rutee
2008-04-29, 03:03 PM
Is the fact that PCs fighting evil are more common than PCs fighting good or both enough reason to limit those who don't want to be good guys all the time? I don't think so, yet that's what WoTC is doing.
Also, this discussion is a little bit pointless, as by the looks of it 4ed won't have any Good outsiders, statted out or not. Damn you WoTC, for producing good mechanics and horrible fluff.

If you have produced a decent system with which to create monsters, are you really limitting players from producing monsters of a given type by not creating monsters of a different type?

That is, if I have given you the tools to build Good Outsiders, and then proceed to not make them myself, have I limitted you from building Good Outsiders?

AKA_Bait
2008-04-29, 03:05 PM
A level, if the 4e monster system turns out as well as promised (Unlikely, given that this is WotC we're talking about) is a concrete ability level. Having levels and roles is sufficient for what you asked for first, which I've taken as the more important concern.

I apologize if I was unclear at that point, but what I meant was not CR or a general numeric comparison but a list of what the thing can actually do.


"Plot" powers don't need statting; They're going to work as the plot wants it to work.

See, this was my point. Depending upon the group, they do or they will feel like ad hoc DM fiat. In the games I run, DM fiat is avoided at all costs for exactly that reason. Basically, this comes down to if you prefer a rules heavy or rules light system. WotC tries to straddle the line, because of that, it would be well served to supply the stat block and allow players to ignore it if they want rather than not provide it at all.


Support? What support would they give?

A solar can cast Miracle as a cleric and use Greater Restoration as an SLA, for example. I could easily see PC's asking one they come across to do so for them if they are on their side. In the game I play in set the FR we have asked Elminster to teleport us places and give us items, for example.


Except that those are broken spells that very well may be removed.

Gate can be broken yes. I've never found Planar Ally to be broken since you need to pay the thing and negotiate with it and I doubt it's going anyplace.


Their help would still be done offscreen, as far as I'm concerned. NPC focus is /bad/.

In the examples above it would be done on screen. NPC focus is bad, but so is breaking versimilitude by denying the PCs the help of an NPC who is on their side if the PCs actually ask for it unless there is some good in game reason to do so.


the thread is only, at best, removing anger that the thread itself created. It leaves the question on why you don't just stay the hell out. Again, speaking from experience; If a topic is only going to engender aggravation, /why are you enterring it/?

You never scratch mosquito bites or played with loose teeth?

hamishspence
2008-04-29, 03:05 PM
Angels are Alignment: Any, not unaligned. Archon now applies to elementals, eladrin to fey, and I am not sure whether or not guardinals wil make it into 4th ed.

it seems that the Evil Gods will not be quite as adversarial as in last edition: they all dwell on Astral plane, they all fought agianst the primordials, though the Unknown God (tharizdun?) defected when he went mad. It states Bane, evil as he might be, is a feasible deity for adventurers, god of soldiers, not just tyranny.

Morty
2008-04-29, 03:09 PM
If you have produced a decent system with which to create monsters, are you really limitting players from producing monsters of a given type by not creating monsters of a different type?

That is, if I have given you the tools to build Good Outsiders, and then proceed to not make them myself, have I limitted you from building Good Outsiders?

Yeah, right, I can always make up my own stuff no matter the system -although in 4ed it might be easier to do so. But the fact that I can make them myself doesn't change the fact that certain parts I expect to be in the system are lacking. And that's bad, no matter how hard WoTC tries to convince me that my style of playing is wrong and irrelevant.

Rutee
2008-04-29, 03:13 PM
I apologize if I was unclear at that point, but what I meant was not CR or a general numeric comparison but a list of what the thing can actually do.
Thats more specific then what you requested. You already know 3.5, if you can't make stuff up yourself; Transfer the ideas behind the old Celestials if you need new ones.




See, this was my point. Depending upon the group, they do or they will feel like ad hoc DM fiat. In the games I run, DM fiat is avoided at all costs for exactly that reason. Basically, this comes down to if you prefer a rules heavy or rules light system. WotC tries to straddle the line, because of that, it would be well served to supply the stat block and allow players to ignore it if they want rather than not provide it at all.
If you needed to stat the power because you actually will roll it, and you do not then proceed to assure it's auto-success via modifiers, You are not actually making a 'plot' power.



A solar can cast Miracle as a cleric and use Greater Restoration as an SLA, for example. I could easily see PC's asking one they come across to do so for them if they are on their side. In the game I play in set the FR we have asked Elminster to teleport us places and give us items, for example.
So by the time you can get either to acknowledge you, they're not providing services you can't provide for yourself? Not a convincing argument.


Gate can be broken yes. I've never found Planar Ally to be broken since you need to pay the thing and negotiate with it and I doubt it's going anyplace.
Planar Ally can be used for the same abuse Gate can, no?


In the examples above it would be done on screen. NPC focus is bad, but so is breaking versimilitude by denying the PCs the help of an NPC who is on their side if the PCs actually ask for it unless there is some good in game reason to do so.
No, it is in fact, not breaking verisimilitude. It's breaking verisimilitude to not have those Deus Ex Machina sit back, actually; They're far more capable then PCs 99% of the time, and if they didn't have more important matters to attend to, why /didn't/ they fix all that crap before the players even got involved? This is why uber NPCs in a setting is bad.



You never scratch mosquito bites or played with loose teeth?
Playing with loose teeth, if we're talking about kids, is useful, if perhaps painful; You gotta loosen that sucker enough to get it out. And no, I tend to pop mosquito and ant bites and try to get their saliva out of my system, to make the problem go away. Failing that, I get some hydrogen peroxide. I probably did scratch when I was younger, but that wouldn't have made it smart.


Yeah, right, I can always make up my own stuff no matter the system -although in 4ed it might be easier to do so. But the fact that I can make them myself doesn't change the fact that certain parts I expect to be in the system are lacking. And that's bad, no matter how hard WoTC tries to convince me that my style of playing is wrong and irrelevant.
If they make it easy to make your own stuff, then what you want isn't really lacking in your games. And you have the added benefit of not having players capable of cracking open a book at some point and figuring all their stuff out OOC.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-29, 03:26 PM
If you needed to stat the power because you actually will roll it, and you do not then proceed to assure it's auto-success via modifiers, You are not actually making a 'plot' power.

This also goes to style of play. I always roll it since I want my players to feel like there is nothing in the game world utterly beyond their control. Even the uber NPC can roll a 1 on their save against dominate person. It might make me tear my hair out and down a quick scotch but I always allow my PC's the possibility of it working.

That it may move the plot in a direction I didn't expect doesn't mean it didn't have plot power. We are talking semantics again here though as to what exactly 'plot power' means.


So by the time you can get either to acknowledge you, they're not providing services you can't provide for yourself? Not a convincing argument.

I think I missed the point of this reply. One can encounter Elminster or a Solar before you can do the things you are asking them to do for you as a part of the overall story or setting. Also, you can ask them to do something you can't do because of class abilities, not knowing a spell, having used your spells that day, or any number of other reasons including that it is a smaller drain on their overall resources to do it for you than do it yourself.


Planar Ally can be used for the same abuse Gate can, no?

HD cap and the monster can refuse the service. They are much harder to abuse.


No, it is in fact, not breaking verisimilitude. It's breaking verisimilitude to not have those Deus Ex Machina sit back, actually; They're far more capable then PCs 99% of the time, and if they didn't have more important matters to attend to, why /didn't/ they fix all that crap before the players even got involved? This is why uber NPCs in a setting is bad.

Depends upon how the setting is arrainged. If the uber NPC's are constrained in some manner from doing so themselves (as I'm told they are in FR, if poorly) then it's not a problem. Also, I wouldn't call a Solar a Deus Ex Machnia NPC...

Besides, this point isn't just about Deis Ex Machina NPC's, it's about having stats for any NPC, uber or otherwise, that the PC's might want to ask for help from. They don't need to be uber to be able to do something the PCs cannot.


Playing with loose teeth, if we're talking about kids, is useful, if perhaps painful; You gotta loosen that sucker enough to get it out. And no, I tend to pop mosquito and ant bites and try to get their saliva out of my system, to make the problem go away. Failing that, I get some hydrogen peroxide. I probably did scratch when I was younger, but that wouldn't have made it smart.

Just saying most people do. I know I do. There is a part of human nature, the strange and oft crazy and immature species that we are, that actually enjoys that.

KIDS
2008-04-29, 04:05 PM
This is very nice, the statblock is very definite yet with a lot of options, and I like the fluff! It's a huge improvement in my opinion and I can easily see myself using these in my adventures as compared to the existing angels which sat collecting dust in my MM...

fendrin
2008-04-29, 04:11 PM
I'm glad they took angels back to their roots (i.e. they are divine messengers, not goody-two-shoes schmuckedy-schmucks).

However, WOTC did fail to answer one extremely important and burning question:

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I just can't switch to 4e without an answer to that being in core.

[/sarcasm]

Seriously...
M0rt, why can't you take an appropriate level demon or devil, change it.'s alignment, and be done with it? In fact, you can even rename these new-fangled angels (or drop them altogether), and call your 'goodified' demons angels.

Is that really so hard?

(also, who says a cosmology has to be balanced to be internally consistent? I would venture to say that most real-world religious cosmologies are far from balanced, but that doesn't make them internally contradictory...)

Tiki Snakes
2008-04-29, 04:38 PM
I'm glad they took angels back to their roots (i.e. they are divine messengers, not goody-two-shoes schmuckedy-schmucks).

However, WOTC did fail to answer one extremely important and burning question:

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I just can't switch to 4e without an answer to that being in core.

[/sarcasm]

Seriously...
M0rt, why can't you take an appropriate level demon or devil, change it.'s alignment, and be done with it? In fact, you can even rename these new-fangled angels (or drop them altogether), and call your 'goodified' demons angels.

Is that really so hard?

(also, who says a cosmology has to be balanced to be internally consistent? I would venture to say that most real-world religious cosmologies are far from balanced, but that doesn't make them internally contradictory...)

None! They don't have any Shrink-Person abilities? >_> (That I noticed)

fendrin
2008-04-29, 04:45 PM
None! They don't have any Shrink-Person abilities? >_> (That I noticed)

Actually, it depends. On an infinitely sized pinhead, an infinite number of angels can dance. The angels' don't have to be able to change size of the world around them changes... of course now I'm on the verge of applying physics to metaphysics, and that is rather dangerous...

Citizen Joe
2008-04-29, 04:48 PM
Note that angel feet actually just trail off into nothingness. Thus, their feet take up no space and thus any number can be on the pin at one time dancing.

Edit:
Actually, now that I think of it... Since angels are dedicated to one idea, pinhead dancing is not a valid skillset within their goal. Thus most angels cannot pinhead dance. However, some angels are messengers similar to the Muses. Of the Muses one inspires dance. So, of the divine entities known as Muses, some may send specially trained angels to teach a specific dance. Of all those, there is only one with the skill and thus role of "Pinhead dancer". So the answer is that there is only one angel that can dance on the head of a pin.

http://www.hellraiserthemovie.com/images/pin3off.jpg

Tiki Snakes
2008-04-29, 04:50 PM
Actually, it depends. On an infinitely sized pinhead, an infinite number of angels can dance. The angels' don't have to be able to change size of the world around them changes... of course now I'm on the verge of applying physics to metaphysics, and that is rather dangerous...

So, None in the case of a normal, medium-creature-created pin, but possibly more depending on the scale of the pin, and any particular dimensional quirks of the particular plane that the dancing is taking place on, such as an infinate amount of creatures being able to inhabit the same space in time. Right?

Talya
2008-04-29, 04:59 PM
the thread is only, at best, removing anger that the thread itself created. It leaves the question on why you don't just stay the hell out. Again, speaking from experience; If a topic is only going to engender aggravation, /why are you enterring it/?

So these threads are only open to praise? We must all kiss the pasty-white asses of WotC and their new wonder-game or else keep our mouths shut?

If a thread is posted about a new game feature that I think is stupid, I'm going to post in it. The threads aren't just for sycophants.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-29, 04:59 PM
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


The answer is one, because angels don't know how to dance (with the exception of Aziraphael, who can manage a jig if he has to...)

Black Mage
2008-04-29, 05:40 PM
Looks like they're turning Angels into planar mercenaries.

I just hope they keep something to balance out Demons and Devils.

Citizen Joe
2008-04-29, 06:35 PM
I just hope they keep something to balance out Demons and Devils.
They have... they are called adventurers.

Dervag
2008-04-29, 06:46 PM
Well, I share the hope that there will be some good outsiders that are not directly associated with the deities to balance the evil outsiders who are likewise not directly associated with the deities. And even if they're dropping alignment or deemphasizing it, you know what I mean. I'm not obsessed with reserving the term 'angel' for that, though.

Citizen Joe
2008-04-29, 06:58 PM
Well, there is always the souls of deceased good adventurers.

But you're getting into the discussion of "Is there an objective good?" Does good exist outside of people performing acts? Or is good defined by a deity? What would a coalesced goodness being look like? Why would it need combat stats? I'd think it would only shoot rainbows out of its belly and make creatures feel warm and fuzzy inside.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-29, 07:47 PM
Seriously...
M0rt, why can't you take an appropriate level demon or devil, change it.'s alignment, and be done with it? In fact, you can even rename these new-fangled angels (or drop them altogether), and call your 'goodified' demons angels.

Is that really so hard?

(also, who says a cosmology has to be balanced to be internally consistent? I would venture to say that most real-world religious cosmologies are far from balanced, but that doesn't make them internally contradictory...)

Seriously, dude, one can be more than capable of correcting a problem but still be annoyed that the problem exists in the first place. That there is a remedy for something doesn't mean it wasn't bad in the first place.


So these threads are only open to praise? We must all kiss the pasty-white asses of WotC and their new wonder-game or else keep our mouths shut?

If a thread is posted about a new game feature that I think is stupid, I'm going to post in it. The threads aren't just for sycophants.

See, and there I went, opening my big mouth and saying that I didn't really detect much vitriol in your comments...


The answer is one, because angels don't know how to dance (with the exception of Aziraphael, who can manage a jig if he has to...)

This made me happy.

wodan46
2008-04-29, 07:58 PM
its awfully presemptous to say that because angels have alignment any, that means that all formally good aligned outsiders are alignment any. My presumption is that it applies only for Angels, who are the basic astral footsoldiers, and Archons, who I think are supposed to become the basic elemental entities. Outside of that, things like Devas and Planetars and what not will probably continue to exist in a manner similar to their old form.

Furthermore, I've noticed that the naysayers keep assuming that because a few details of an aspect of the game taken from the previous edition has been revealed and changed, that is all there is and any other components of that aspect are either removed or also irrevocably changed.

Furthermore, stop whining about how 4th edition should be compatible with 3.5 rather than something new. 1st and 2nd weren't compatible, nor were 2nd and 3rd, why should 3rd and 4th? Just because 3.5 was released and was compatible doesn't mean there's been a permanent shift to making the systems always compatible with each other.

Terraoblivion
2008-04-29, 08:04 PM
While it is true that it is annoying to have to solve a problem even if you can easily do it, that does not mean it applies to this situation. Because the new fluff for angels is not a problem. It is merely a different view of what angels should be like than the one you have. And it seems to me to be awfully presumptuous and fundamentally impossible to make a game where every single element is just the way any given player wants them. And even if it happens then that would still only be one player. A problem would be if it was internally inconsistent fluff that made people completely and utterly confused or if the fluff didn't match the crunch or if the crunch was unplayable and so on. Just having it be different than what your subjective preference say is the most interesting is quite simply counterproductive.

In short i really just think you need to accept that they don't share your view on this specific topic and either conform or make something that fits your view. And if too many parts of the game does not fit your view then it is not the game for you.

EvilElitest
2008-04-29, 08:09 PM
You don't need stats to exist. You only need stats to be interacted with by players in an opposed fashion.
Don't be absurd. Stats are how creatures interact with the world around them. Medusias turn things to stone cannonly, so one asks ones self "how do they possible interact with other beings on a regular basis"
Demons and Devils are mortal enemies, and yet Dretchs and Lemures can't even hurt each other

In order to determine the consistency of the world and how creatures effect it, you need consistectent stats. other wise the world is static

If stats only work in combat, then 3E isn't broken you realize



B. If your players aren't going to kill it, do you need stats for it? Does something only exist if you stat it out?
Yes damn it, yes. Because creatures don't simply interact with the world only by killing things. just because you players aren't going to kill it (netural and good players don't exist apperently) doesn't mean it isn't going to effect the world around it. Look at the Lemure/Dretch problem



I have never seen Good Outsiders get fought; Even when the party was all evil. I know I'm not the most experienced DnD player, but they have an incidence of less then 1 in oh, 10 games, at least, as far as I'm concerned, and 2 of them had every reason to beat down Good.

1) They should still be stated even if they don't fight hte PCs. Allies for example
2) You haven't fought a single good outsider. I certiantly have, even with good groups. Hell we have WotC Published adventures that have angles fight good characters


No, there comes a point where one has to ask "WTF are you doing?" If you bitch about every, or nearly every, change, there comes a point where, assuming good faith from all involved, you are genuinely being masochistic in getting into arguments that even you consider pointless because 4e sucks period.

Quite frankly, I ask myself the same question every time I post in a 4e thread.
Here is the thing however, the people who complain about 4E want change. They really do. But they don't want 4E change. And they liked 3E. As of such, they want every change to be justified


Every single 4e-related post I've seen Tayla make was complaining about how it's different from 3e in <insert whatever's being discussed here> terms. So I can't help but wonder why she doesn't just stick with 3e and be done with it.
its very simplistic to simply sum up the anti 4E people as, well, just that anti 4E. Focus on the changes themselves



I think more people have issues with the current alignment system then there are people who think it is the best way possible. An overwhelming amount just ignores alignments, except for class requisites.
It was good for sparking discussions though.

More doesn't equal right. As i said, the system itself was very sound, the way it was handled was not



And even IF there are more gamers who think that the current system of alignment works just fine, does not mean that it cannot be improved. When all is said and done, it may or may not work for you, but don't say it's crap because it is not the alignment system you have now. Fact is, balance (as in everyone is useful at almost all times) and alignments are the top two issues active players have with the current system.
Not everyone has those issues, true. But I'm glad they are both looked over when they are shaping up 4e
here is the thing however. Alignments were not a bad system, the way WotC Handled them was bad. They should have made them really clear from the get go, not waited until sources books came out to clarify.

And i really have mistrust towards WotC, because after 3E, i am rather doubtful they know how the game works



...You're right. No one ever plays AD&D anymore (and they certainly didn't for a few years after 3.5 came out!), much less stuff like Nobilis (obscure, no support), Rolemaster, etc.

Nice way to contribute to a dicussion there. The fact taht she plays 3E doesn't make the flaws in 4E any less apperent




I can't imagine dearth of sourcebooks being a real issue. There's already more books than the game needs, most of their crunch full of suck.

That is what a new edition is for, fixing hte crunch while maintaining the spirt of the old game.





Actually, WOTC cares a lot about their customers.

There were people who complained about the spellcasting system and Wotc gave them psionics, tome of magic and Magic of Incarnium.

There were people who complained about the current melee system and Wotc gave them ToB.

There were people who complained the game still wasn't broken enough and WotC gave them the complete series and Unhearted Arcana.

Therer were people complaining that they wanted a completely mad seting with everything and anything remotely related to fantasy and Wotc gave them Eberron.

There were people complaining that they wanted a completely new edition and they gave them 4e. Seriously, before the first oficial 4e spoilers, the Wotc boards was swarming with 4e speculation threads.

The CO boards created a thread with the biggest rules questions of 3e and alas, Wotc actually started answering them directly this week on their site.

So by all means whine if you don't like the system. I bet that if you could get enough people to join you, 4.5 e will have solars as a starting race, all dices replaced by d10s and characters automatically glowing the stronger they get/QUOTE]
So WotC has the spirt, just not the methods? That makes sense i suppose.

Also i a just imaging that most of those changes came from vocal minorities or is that too hopeful
[QUOTE]
No, it prevents games from being all about crap the players aren't a part of, which is even /less/ fun. The world can be developed if you're focusing on the players; I suspect 4e Planescape and Forgotten REalms and whatnot will still have a good deal of actual setting information that players aren't really expected to kill. But it's good to keep that stuff out of theoretically setting neutral core books

Because statics inconsistent worlds are loads of fun as we all know:smallsigh:

Why? If you're never going to interact with them, then it's irrelevant what they expect, because it won't be confirmed or denied either way
Why would players only interact with voilence? There are other methods, 3E diplomicy system aside

I thought you said you weren't going to be doing that to people who disagree with you any more?


yes, some monsters are getting cut, according to Worlds and Monsters. The acherai, and the delver, were citied specifically. It also suggested that some monsters will be heavily reconcepted, almost unrocognizable from what they once were
see main complaint about 4E





Why would Good outsiders be there to counterbalance them? If they're present (in game) and statted, they're clearly intended for a PC challenge. It does not follow from this that angels would be on the side of players; I'm sure they are in spirit, but including them in the fight itself means additional bogging down of that fight, and that there will be critical moments of boredom (NPC on NPC action) for more selfish players.
So you argument is that PC shouldn't be bogged down or even bothered with consistency. As i said, that plays like a video game, sort of like FF10

from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-04-29, 08:15 PM
Also about this thing with plot powers. Don't be silly. It is bad form to assume taht a game has a super central plot because each game is different. I run mine in a sandbox like style.

Now you can have plot powers that don't follow the rules for the sake of drama yes. But that should be the exception to the rule, not hte rule itself
From
EE

Rutee
2008-04-29, 08:30 PM
This also goes to style of play. I always roll it since I want my players to feel like there is nothing in the game world utterly beyond their control. Even the uber NPC can roll a 1 on their save against dominate person. It might make me tear my hair out and down a quick scotch but I always allow my PC's the possibility of it working.

That it may move the plot in a direction I didn't expect doesn't mean it didn't have plot power. We are talking semantics again here though as to what exactly 'plot power' means.
Honestly? You're playing DnD; That means that if you want to play RAW, you /do/ have to deal with Save-or-Loses. But what I meant was 'powers that exist for the sake of the plot'. Yes, all abilities have the ability to alter the plot.



I think I missed the point of this reply. One can encounter Elminster or a Solar before you can do the things you are asking them to do for you as a part of the overall story or setting. Also, you can ask them to do something you can't do because of class abilities, not knowing a spell, having used your spells that day, or any number of other reasons including that it is a smaller drain on their overall resources to do it for you than do it yourself.
Yeah.. but it's about as likely as encountering Asmodeus before you're equipped to handle it. Well, the Solar is much more likely, Ed Greenwood Elminster not so much. At any rate, it still comes back to, you know, what are these NPCs doing wandering around where you can reach them.. if you actually /can't/ handle those sorts of services yourself?



HD cap and the monster can refuse the service. They are much harder to abuse.
Fair enough, though I'm pretty sure the HD cap is less then helpful; after all, the most abusive things are SLAs...



Depends upon how the setting is arrainged. If the uber NPC's are constrained in some manner from doing so themselves (as I'm told they are in FR, if poorly) then it's not a problem. Also, I wouldn't call a Solar a Deus Ex Machnia NPC...
Solars get Cleric Casting at CL 18 or some ridiculous crap, right? Including all the SLAs? Though I more meant the canon sues.


Besides, this point isn't just about Deis Ex Machina NPC's, it's about having stats for any NPC, uber or otherwise, that the PC's might want to ask for help from. They don't need to be uber to be able to do something the PCs cannot.
What sort of services are being offered that stats affect? ABout the only thing you really find NPCs capable of that PCs aren't is going to be.. crafting.


Just saying most people do. I know I do. There is a part of human nature, the strange and oft crazy and immature species that we are, that actually enjoys that.
Yeah, that's true, but it still begs the question "Why are you doing it?" I mean, scratching an itch is instinctual. Searching a forum?


See, and there I went, opening my big mouth and saying that I didn't really detect much vitriol in your comments...
Yeah I didn't think that would take long.


So these threads are only open to praise? We must all kiss the pasty-white asses of WotC and their new wonder-game or else keep our mouths shut?

If a thread is posted about a new game feature that I think is stupid, I'm going to post in it. The threads aren't just for sycophants.
Oh yes. That's why I'm totally telling everyone to gtfo if they won't praise it. Puh-leeze. I'm asking you why you're visiting these threads, when they're increasing your levels of irritation or anger. If all it's doing is making you mad, it's better for you if you leave. Spend the effort on something that makes you happy.

fendrin
2008-04-29, 08:34 PM
The answer is one, because angels don't know how to dance (with the exception of Aziraphael, who can manage a jig if he has to...) :smallcool:


Seriously, dude, one can be more than capable of correcting a problem but still be annoyed that the problem exists in the first place. That there is a remedy for something doesn't mean it wasn't bad in the first place.
This is true, however, it is also true that you (and others) not liking something does not make it a problem.

For instance, I do not like that the psion was not included as a core class. Does that make it a problem that the psion is not a core class? No. An imperfection, perhaps, but we do not live in a perfect world, neh?

Cyclone231
2008-04-29, 08:48 PM
If stats only work in combat, then 3E isn't broken you realizeI do not think I can accurately state how nonsensical this statement is, but I'll try:

3E is broken for all sorts of reasons. Most of them are based upon combat.

CoDzillas. Batman Wizards. The utterly horrific weakness of the Monk, and the Fighter. The sheer power of character constructs which are simply idiotic, like the Diplomancer.
So WotC has the spirt, just not the methods? That makes sense i suppose.

Also i a just imaging that most of those changes came from vocal minorities or is that too hopefulWhat, only minorities know that Fighters are horrifically underpowered and Clerics, Druids and Wizards reign supreme? Do you honestly think that any one of those three classes cannot completely obsolete a Fighter by level five?

Here is the thing however, the people who complain about 4E want change. They really do. But they don't want 4E change. And they liked 3E. As of such, they want every change to be justified
What change?

The sort of fluff change which allows a single stat-block to be spread across several different archetypes, some of which can be divinely-blessed goody-two-shoes allies and some of which can be amoral and sadistic enemies? The sort of fluff that enables a single stat-block to serve a purpose outside of the rare occasion you're going head to head with good-aligned creatures, rather than shoe-horning itself into a single character concept? Oh wait, that's called the new Angel, but you're complaining about it.

There's absolutely no reason you couldn't use these new stat-blocks to refer to a community of bright, fluffy good guys who dwell on another plane and are a bunch of independent secular liberal freethinkers. EVEN THE FLUFF would still fit.

See here:

They most often serve the gods, so some believe that the gods created them.Most often, not always.

EvilElitest
2008-04-29, 09:43 PM
I do not think I can accurately state how nonsensical this statement is, but I'll try:

3E is broken for all sorts of reasons. Most of them are based upon combat.

CoDzillas. Batman Wizards. The utterly horrific weakness of the Monk, and the Fighter. The sheer power of character constructs which are simply idiotic, like the Diplomancer.

You misunderstand. If you rely on "Plot magic" as Rutee says, IE magic that only works for the good of the plot, then 3E is hardly broken, because stats make no difference if your aiming for drama. AKA, the wizard isn't overpowerd, because coolness comes before stats.



What, only minorities know that Fighters are horrifically underpowered and Clerics, Druids and Wizards reign supreme? Do you honestly think that any one of those three classes cannot completely obsolete a Fighter by level five?


I was actually refering to the other stuff on that list, not brokeness of 3EW


The sort of fluff change which allows a single stat-block to be spread across several different archetypes, some of which can be divinely-blessed goody-two-shoes allies and some of which can be amoral and sadistic enemies? The sort of fluff that enables a single stat-block to serve a purpose outside of the rare occasion you're going head to head with good-aligned creatures, rather than shoe-horning itself into a single character concept? Oh wait, that's called the new Angel, but you're complaining about it.
Nice misquote there, because almost all of that shows that you ether haven't read what i've been writing, or can't be bothered to try to understand
1) Angles are the dopplegangers of Devil and demons, they follow the alignment itself, not a gods indivisual god, through they would often ally with indivisual gods
2) If you want creatures who's sole purpose is to directly serve gods fine, but don't call them angles. They would be something different. Angles serve the cause of good itself, not one particular god's whim
3) And the idea of angles being amoral goes against their general D&D concept, so i'd call that a bad change. As i said, most anti 4E people want change, just better handled change than this.
4) Um, why are you accusing me of being a hypocrite, when i've made it clear i don't like the change.


There's absolutely no reason you couldn't use these new stat-blocks to refer to a community of bright, fluffy good guys who dwell on another plane and are a bunch of independent secular liberal freethinkers. EVEN THE FLUFF would still fit.

1) yes there is, because they things aren't angles, they are something else entirely
2) Actually the fluff wouldn't fit, because these guys aren't tied to the Good alignment



See here:
Most often, not always.
You point? They don't serve any particular cause, they are divine servants, hell one could call them sell swords. Not angles
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-04-29, 09:50 PM
Honestly? You're playing DnD; That means that if you want to play RAW, you /do/ have to deal with Save-or-Loses. But what I meant was 'powers that exist for the sake of the plot'. Yes, all abilities have the ability to alter the plot.

Except the game shouldn't work under the assumption of a vast overarching plot in every game. I tend to run sandbox styles. Now if a DM is happening to use a massive plot and wishes to alter the rules for the sake of the plot, fine, that is called plot magic. However it shouldn't be the devault assumption. this isn't a drama game



Yeah.. but it's about as likely as encountering Asmodeus before you're equipped to handle it. Well, the Solar is much more likely, Ed Greenwood Elminster not so much. At any rate, it still comes back to, you know, what are these NPCs doing wandering around where you can reach them.. if you actually /can't/ handle those sorts of services yourself?

Depends on the situation. If hte PCs go to the seven heavens, not that hard considering the magical requirement,s or the use gate, or if they are fighting the enemies of a solar and happen to run upon one (remember angles activilly fighting evil, not just sitting around) then it would make perfect sense.

It is good to stat out Elminister (who isn't that good stat wise) so people know how he would effect the world around him




Solars get Cleric Casting at CL 18 or some ridiculous crap, right? Including all the SLAs? Though I more meant the canon sues.
Being powerful doesn't make you a Deuis ex machina or a cannon sue, because they are one of the most powerful angles, it makes sense for them to be uber powerful. A deus ex machina is when one comes out of non where to recuse the PCs because the PCs are in trouble, not encountering one when it would logically happen.



What sort of services are being offered that stats affect? ABout the only thing you really find NPCs capable of that PCs aren't is going to be.. crafting.


Effecting the world around them. Very important one there



Oh yes. That's why I'm totally telling everyone to gtfo if they won't praise it. Puh-leeze. I'm asking you why you're visiting these threads, when they're increasing your levels of irritation or anger. If all it's doing is making you mad, it's better for you if you leave. Spend the effort on something that makes you happy.
Fighting for what she believes in?:smallconfused:
i'm out of ideas
from
EE

Roland St. Jude
2008-04-29, 10:51 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This is a general warning to please follow the Forum Rules. That includes not: insulting others, characterizing their opinions as whining or the like, or telling others to leave/ stop posting/shut up. In general, be nice and treat others with respect, no matter what you think of others' opinions or statements.

Cyclone231
2008-04-29, 11:47 PM
You misunderstand. If you rely on "Plot magic" as Rutee says, IE magic that only works for the good of the plot, then 3E is hardly broken, because stats make no difference if your aiming for drama. AKA, the wizard isn't overpowerd, because coolness comes before stats. There's nothing wrong with playing with "cool" characters. What's the matter with the CoDzilla and the Wizard is that they completely marginalize all the other characters, thus making them Not Cool (or fun).

Nice misquote there, because almost all of that shows that you ether haven't read what i've been writing, or can't be bothered to try to understand
1) Angles are the dopplegangers of Devil and demons, they follow the alignment itself, not a gods indivisual god, through they would often ally with indivisual godsOkay...?

The stat-block can be used to apply to a group which include people who follow the Generic Good, just like a Cleric or Paladin can follow the Generic Good. The fact that that same group includes followers of the God of Spiky Black Armor doesn't make those people any less good.

It's not as though angels couldn't be evil in 3E, anyway.

It seems like what you want is for 100% of all angels to be good and unaligned with deities so you can... I don't know. What story opportunities with angels do you gain by making it 100% certain that every angel is Good, versus allowing for evil angels? Large-scale conflict between devils and angels? Why couldn't there be any just because some angels serve the God of Spiky Black Armor? It's not as though there can't be any large-scale conflicts between human paladins (who are of a race which is not all good) and devils in 3E D&D.

2) If you want creatures who's sole purpose is to directly serve gods fine, but don't call them angles. They would be something different. Angles serve the cause of good itself, not one particular god's whimThat's not the sole purpose of angels. They choose to serve gods, and that's something they do frequently, but that doesn't mean that's their sole purpose. Heck, every single human eats food, but that doesn't mean that humanity's sole purpose is to eat food.

3) And the idea of angles being amoral goes against their general D&D concept, so i'd call that a bad change. As i said, most anti 4E people want change, just better handled change than this. The angels are amoral? Where are you getting this? I guess this is the same way that the humans are amoral, since not every single one of them behaves the same way?

4) Um, why are you accusing me of being a hypocrite, when i've made it clear i don't like the change. ? When did I do that?

1) yes there is, because they things aren't angles, they are something else entirely
2) Actually the fluff wouldn't fit, because these guys aren't tied to the Good alignment So would you say that a monastery comprised solely of LG Paladins isn't "tied to the Good alignment" because the characters aren't genetically forced to adhere to a particular ideology?

You point? They don't serve any particular cause, they are divine servants, hell one could call them sell swords. Not anglesOnce again, we come back to "angels aren't genetically forced to adhere to a particular ideology, thus I can't have large groups of secular liberal freethinking angels."

Also, please stop saying "angles". I mean if it was an occasional thing, that'd be one thing, but you haven't spelled it right once.

purepolarpanzer
2008-04-30, 12:03 AM
And since when is double posting cool? I remember when people used to get smacked on this forum for it, and now in every 4th Ed. thread I go in someone posts five times in a row bickering against different people. And I know some of us live to fight, but I get tired of the same three people posting five messages in a row just to repeat themselves.

Citizen Joe
2008-04-30, 02:39 AM
Not to bring real world religion into this, but angels don't have free will. Free will was a gift given to mortals.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 02:44 AM
Not to bring real world religion into this, but

And then you proceed to bring real-world religion into this.

http://ui04.gamespot.com/2051/mariopwnt_2.jpg

Xefas
2008-04-30, 02:54 AM
Not to bring real world religion into this, but angels don't have free will. Free will was a gift given to mortals.

That would explain all the rebellion.

And I'm not just talking Lucifer. I'm also talking the Falco-to-his-Fox Iblis.

The former caused 1/3 of the angels to revolt. The latter, I don't know enough about, but probably had a similar number.

I think this whole thing would work better if they just lumped Devils into the Angels category so you could have hideously deformed Good Guys (like the grotesque chimera-ish creatures in Revelations) and also pristine, statuesque Bad Guys (like my first examples).

GeneralTacticus
2008-04-30, 04:24 AM
Was that necessary? Gods already had their outsider servants, both evil and neutral. Look how many varieties of outsiders existed already.

I looked through the list you provided in post #94. I can't find any that would fill the "generic divine servitor" niche that angels are now apparently supposed to fill. Unless I missed one, I think that pretty much proves my point - evil deities need servants too, and as the article points out, it's extremely odd to have devils and demon lords capable of mustering more forces than gods that are supposed to be more powerful than them.


The previous fluff already had fallen angels...but they did have to fall. Furthermore, they ceased to be angels after falling. That's what devils actually were. If you're going to go with biblical mythology, the fallen angels became the demons, and there was only one devil, but that's again the fluff that's always existed with angels...they ceased being angelic when they fell.

To "fall" in this sense requires one to have been in a state of grace beforehand. That particular religious concept doesn't exist in D&D, so it would be rather odd to have fluff elements that relied on it.


Now, this new version would fit more with an Islamic approach to angels, which are basically automatons without free will that do the will of God. In a setting with multiple gods of various alignments, these new angels fit that idea rather well. But if you're going to do that, better start making really heavy use of Djinn and Efreet.

Why? Purely to emphasise the Islamic/Arabic flavour? Not that there's anything wrong with doing that if it suits the game, but I don't see why it's necessary. If you like the Islamic take on angels better than the current D&D one and decide to use it, why should you be required to adopt other aspects of that mythology along with it?

JBento
2008-04-30, 05:46 AM
I'm sure that if I gave a damn about Psychology I'd have Doctorate material in these forums just analysing what makes people annoyed/angry :smallwink:

I don't really see what's getting so many people worked up about this. I mean, I can understand when 4E shot the Great Wheel (which I'll STILL be using in 4E) or the FR remake (though I find it a detestable, unplayable setting, but to each his own), but this? I don't get it.

Notice, please, that it isn't that your angels are no longer good. The good angels are STILL around. Only now, they're joined by their lawy... er, polit... er, evil cousins. They're not removing the old angels, they're adding new ones - or at least new uses for the old ones, which is actually a valorisation (is that the term? not a native speaker) of the stat block and therefore the book. It is, in fact, more bang for your buck, which is a good thing. Right?

Btw, EE pleeeeeeease stop saying angles, please? They're angELs. For someone who is so concerned about their fluff changes, you seem to eager to change what they're called...:smallfrown:

Also, before someone does THAT, roUGe is a cosmetic. The class is called roGUe. It's right there in the PHB of ANY edition...

Oslecamo
2008-04-30, 06:21 AM
I'm sure that if I gave a damn about Psychology I'd have Doctorate material in these forums just analysing what makes people annoyed/angry :smallwink:


Well, actually half the reason why I bother to talck in internet boards at all is to learn more about human psychology and what makes people angry/happy.

The things I have learned so far in the last five years are really fascinating.

And now I notice I still didn't added anything to the original topic. Knew I was forgeting something...

Well, like all other monsters, angels seem to have become more combat fodder. Except this time they don't even seem to care wich side they fight for. Wich kinda makes sense if you consider all the relgions corrupt. I once had a DM who claimed that all the gods basicaly wanted more power. The only real diference between them was their looks, but the methods ended up being the same(kill the other side).

So having mercenary angels wich worck for whoever pays more makes kinda sense if we assume all religion being corrupt and power hungry.

Artemician
2008-04-30, 06:50 AM
Well, like all other monsters, angels seem to have become more combat fodder. Except this time they don't even seem to care wich side they fight for. Wich kinda makes sense if you consider all the relgions corrupt. I once had a DM who claimed that all the gods basicaly wanted more power. The only real diference between them was their looks, but the methods ended up being the same(kill the other side).

So having mercenary angels wich worck for whoever pays more makes kinda sense if we assume all religion being corrupt and power hungry.

Not really. Expanding the ways which Angels can run by no means invalidates your regular old Divine Herald of the Good Gods angels. They're still there. It's just that the stats that can be used to describe them can also be used to describe other forms of creatures.

Oslecamo
2008-04-30, 07:39 AM
Not really. Expanding the ways which Angels can run by no means invalidates your regular old Divine Herald of the Good Gods angels. They're still there. It's just that the stats that can be used to describe them can also be used to describe other forms of creatures.

That's precisely my complain.

In 3e good and evil weren't just diferent alignments. Each side had diferent powers. Celestials were really good with defensive stuff, and demons and devils had an arsenal of dirty tricks.

In 4e, it doesn't matter if you're good or evil, they all fight the same. This is, if good and evil both use the same weapons and methods, then what's the diference between them? They both want to eliminate the other side, and they both are using the same tools to do so. This is too much gray. What hapened to black and white?

Artemician
2008-04-30, 07:53 AM
That's precisely my complain.

In 3e good and evil weren't just diferent alignments. Each side had diferent powers. Celestials were really good with defensive stuff, and demons and devils had an arsenal of dirty tricks.

In 4e, it doesn't matter if you're good or evil, they all fight the same. This is, if good and evil both use the same weapons and methods, then what's the diference between them? They both want to eliminate the other side, and they both are using the same tools to do so. This is too much gray. What hapened to black and white?

I agree that over-genericization is a possible problem, and it's a big one too. But establishing a baseline for the creation of creatures on both sides is a good start; after that it's just a matter of changing SLAs. Okay fine, not really.

I'm hoping for two things that can alleviate this problem:


A proper way of calculating Monster CR so as to facilitate all the custom SLAs and Powers required to create a truly unique Angel/Demon dichotomy
Failing that, specific Outsider entries printed in the FR Sourcebook. I forsee lack of space being a problem here.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-30, 07:59 AM
Yeah.. but it's about as likely as encountering Asmodeus before you're equipped to handle it. Well, the Solar is much more likely, Ed Greenwood Elminster not so much. At any rate, it still comes back to, you know, what are these NPCs doing wandering around where you can reach them.. if you actually /can't/ handle those sorts of services yourself?

Practically speaking, I don't think that's the case. Perhaps it should be that characters like Elminster aren't accessable at low levels but because of the OMG hez kewl! effect some of those characters have on DMs I'm betting that they actually show up a lower levels more often than you would think.


Fair enough, though I'm pretty sure the HD cap is less then helpful; after all, the most abusive things are SLAs...

Yes but the DM picks which creature you get:


By casting this spell, you request your deity to send you an elemental or outsider (of 6 HD or less) of the deity’s choice. If you serve no particular deity, the spell is a general plea answered by a creature sharing your philosophical alignment. If you know an individual creature’s name, you may request that individual by speaking the name during the spell (though you might get a different creature anyway).

If Planar Ally gets abused then the DM really has no one to blame but themselves.



What sort of services are being offered that stats affect? ABout the only thing you really find NPCs capable of that PCs aren't is going to be.. crafting.

I don't really think this is true. I can have a 16th level party in which no one can cast Teleport, for example, without it being weird (Say, Sorc, Druid, Fighter, Rogue).


Yeah, that's true, but it still begs the question "Why are you doing it?" I mean, scratching an itch is instinctual. Searching a forum?

You underestimate the power of habit and socialization... Give in to your itchyness... let the hate flow through you...

Wait, no, don't do that.

hamishspence
2008-04-30, 08:28 AM
its not so much Good vs Evil as Gods vs Demons. gods have enough in common that they are not at each other's throats they may compete, but the other gods are rivals, whereas the demons/elementals are outright enemies.

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 10:08 AM
There's nothing wrong with playing with "cool" characters. What's the matter with the CoDzilla and the Wizard is that they completely marginalize all the other characters, thus making them Not Cool (or fun).
Okay...?

In a normal game yes, but in a game, as Rutee claims, where the plot magic negates stats, then they aren't overpowered at all. However that isn't a compatable system, which is my point



It's not as though angels couldn't be evil in 3E, anyway.

Not normal angels, fallen yes


It seems like what you want is for 100% of all angels to be good and unaligned with deities so you can... I don't know.
Because that is what angles are, as with most outsiders, they are embodiments of ideals, beliefs, causes, or in this case, alignments. They are good, they are the very essence of good, in the same way Demons and devils are the essence of evil (and yugloths, but lets face it, nobody cared about them)


What story opportunities with angels do you gain by making it 100% certain that every angel is Good, versus allowing for evil angels? Large-scale conflict between devils and angels?
Because the concept of angels is one of beings literally made by goodness, the same with Demons and Devils. What makes them interesting is that they are totally absolute in their alignment. Fallen angels are just that, fallen, they have lost the powers of their being.

now having a race of divine servants that can be good or evil and have angel like qualities is fine. But not angels





Why couldn't there be any just because some angels serve the God of Spiky Black Armor?
Oh angles can serve gods, as allies. But they aren't bound to them and they don't serve them by default. Some serve good deities out of shared interest or admiration, but they aren't by nature divine servants


It's not as though there can't be any large-scale conflicts between human paladins (who are of a race which is not all good) and devils in 3E D&D.
Devils yes, but paladins can't. It goes against the nature of good. Misunderstandings, but no large scale paladins vs. paladin wars deliberatively


That's not the sole purpose of angels. They choose to serve gods, and that's something they do frequently, but that doesn't mean that's their sole purpose.
In 3E yes. in 4E they are like divine sell swords. Different concepts. in 3E all angles are beings of pure good



The angels are amoral? Where are you getting this? I guess this is the same way that the humans are amoral, since not every single one of them behaves the same way?
amoral in that they aren't bound to any particular morality. It is comforting to know that in 3E, all non fallen angles won't kill innocents for hte greater good, but in 4E, anything goes. They have lost their outsider unique relationship with an alignment are simply a race now


? When did I do that?

Oh wait, that's called the new Angel, but you're complaining about it
To imply that i'm preaching something but not noticing the 'advantages" of the new angle implies that i wanted that change in the first place. Which i didn't


So would you say that a monastery comprised solely of LG Paladins isn't "tied to the Good alignment" because the characters aren't genetically forced to adhere to a particular ideology?
Humans have free will, as do many morals. However paladins who hope to keep their class features will be tied to the good alignment.


Once again, we come back to "angels aren't genetically forced to adhere to a particular ideology, thus I can't have large groups of secular liberal freethinking angels."

Good is an extremly broad ideoligy. I don't see how secular liberalism is evil actually. they are limited to good ideals, because they are super good beings.



looked through the list you provided in post #94. I can't find any that would fill the "generic divine servitor" niche that angels are now apparently supposed to fill. Unless I missed one, I think that pretty much proves my point - evil deities need servants too, and as the article points out, it's extremely odd to have devils and demon lords capable of mustering more forces than gods that are supposed to be more powerful than them.

Um, angels aren't good divine servants, at least not by default. They often ally with them but they certianly aren't always nothing more than good divine servants. Evil gods, have servants, dragonspawn for example

To "fall" in this sense requires one to have been in a state of grace beforehand. That particular religious concept doesn't exist in D&D, so it would be rather odd to have fluff elements that relied on it.

Paladins anyone? Devils. Fiend folio II? Falling is actually part of D&D


Notice, please, that it isn't that your angels are no longer good. The good angels are STILL around. Only now, they're joined by their lawy... er, polit... er, evil cousins. They're not removing the old angels, they're adding new ones - or at least new uses for the old ones, which is actually a valorisation (is that the term? not a native speaker) of the stat block and therefore the book. It is, in fact, more bang for your buck, which is a good thing. Right?

No because they are destroying what made angels unique. That they were the embodiments of good ideals, the same way devils and demons are for evil ones. Now a race of divine beings what can serve any ideal if fine, but this one is destroying already existing concepts


Btw, EE pleeeeeeease stop saying angles, please? They're angELs. For someone who is so concerned about their fluff changes, you seem to eager to change what they're called...

i've been taking geometry, i'll try to stop


Not really. Expanding the ways which Angels can run by no means invalidates your regular old Divine Herald of the Good Gods angels. They're still there. It's just that the stats that can be used to describe them can also be used to describe other forms of creatures.
angels weren't heralds of good gods as a race, through they often worked with them

on the topic, the 3E alignment system allows grey actually, it is just more subtle
i wish 4E would just drop the alignment system all together or maintain it properly

from
EE

hamishspence
2008-04-30, 10:22 AM
Archons, eladrins, and guardinals were indeed independant. But as written in MM (and Faerun) in 3.5, angels are tied to the gods.

3.5 ed angels had strong Good tendencies, plus honorable traits (no lying, cheating, or stealing, whether Lawful or Chaotic)

Valkyries were CN: not exactly good. They filled the role of angel-like creature for more warlike, less Good deities.

Angels of all alignments are like paladins of all alignments: very much a 4th ed thing, since non-good paladins were variants, in Dragon mag or Unearthed Arcana, not mainstream.

Angel is shorter than Divine Servant, and if they are always "winged servants of deities" the fact that they come in all alignments won't affect the new theme: of all gods using the same basic agents.

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 01:23 PM
Archons, eladrins, and guardinals were indeed independant. But as written in MM (and Faerun) in 3.5, angels are tied to the gods.

3.5 ed angels had strong Good tendencies, plus honorable traits (no lying, cheating, or stealing, whether Lawful or Chaotic)

Actually Manual of the planes, DMG, players handbook and Book of Exalted Deeds makes it clear they are all seperate beings


Valkyries were CN: not exactly good. They filled the role of angel-like creature for more warlike, less Good deities.
I know



Angels of all alignments are like paladins of all alignments: very much a 4th ed thing, since non-good paladins were variants, in Dragon mag or Unearthed Arcana, not mainstream.
And i'm against taht concept as well, See the thread why evil paladins don't work.



Angel is shorter than Divine Servant, and if they are always "winged servants of deities" the fact that they come in all alignments won't affect the new theme: of all gods using the same basic agents.
1) It is a new them actually, because it abandions the old angels
2) also you can have angle like divine servants of all alignments, call them Cruxis or something like that
from
EE

SamTheCleric
2008-04-30, 01:31 PM
2) also you can have angle like divine servants of all alignments, call them Cruxis or something like that
from
EE

I feel like quite the nerd for doing this... but I'm going to quote The Bard here...

"A rose by any other name..."

Call them what you want!

Talya
2008-04-30, 01:40 PM
I feel like quite the nerd for doing this... but I'm going to quote The Bard here...

"A rose by any other name..."

Call them what you want!

No fair. Bill used Diplomancer cheese.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-30, 01:43 PM
No fair. Bill used Diplomancer cheese.

Talya - 1
Internet - 0

:smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2008-04-30, 01:47 PM
Remember the term Angel is only used in 3.5: in 3rd ed they are grouped with the other celestials.

Manual of the Planes; People sometimes refer to guardinals and eladrins as angels:
Exalted Deeds: nothing with the angel subtype listed, but archons are described as "angelic intermediaries" of lawful good deities. Also:
"while angels such as planetars and solars are the most powerful servitors of good deities, the celestial paragons are independant."

The other two Devas, in Fiend Folio, should probably have the angel subtype added, and are described as "Proactive messengers of the gods of weal"

Angel is really strongly themed around Agents of Deities. Its a jump to make them agents of ALL deites, but maybe the game needed that jump,

Rutee
2008-04-30, 02:01 PM
Practically speaking, I don't think that's the case. Perhaps it should be that characters like Elminster aren't accessable at low levels but because of the OMG hez kewl! effect some of those characters have on DMs I'm betting that they actually show up a lower levels more often than you would think.
Oh, no. I'm /sure/ he shows up more often then he's /likely/ to. But you're the one who minds verisimilitude; I mind the Uber NPC focus, which is different, but not related to his actual likeliness to show up.


Yes but the DM picks which creature you get:

If Planar Ally gets abused then the DM really has no one to blame but themselves.
Kinda. The "DM Chooses" does make it far less abusable in general though.



I don't really think this is true. I can have a 16th level party in which no one can cast Teleport, for example, without it being weird (Say, Sorc, Druid, Fighter, Rogue).
Er... you have a Sorc. How's it not weird again?


You underestimate the power of habit and socialization... Give in to your itchyness... let the hate flow through you...
No, that's okay, my net happiness increased a bootload when I started staying away from /my/ '4e threads' :P

AKA_Bait
2008-04-30, 02:12 PM
Oh, no. I'm /sure/ he shows up more often then he's /likely/ to. But you're the one who minds verisimilitude; I mind the Uber NPC focus, which is different, but not related to his actual likeliness to show up.

Well, going back to why this started, since it is somewhat likley in games that those NPCs will show up before it otherwise might make sense for them to, it is also possible that the PCs will ask for help from them. Given that instance, for the versimilitude reasons, I'd rather there be defined abilities of the NPC.

A game designer can't controll if the people using the game will make bad decisions about when to introduce powerful NPC's to the party. No aspect of game design can solve that. Other issues, like my versimilitude one, can be mitigated.


Er... you have a Sorc. How's it not weird again?

I'm postulating that the Sorc doesn't have some particular spell, say Greater Teleport, among his spells known. Therefore the party may very well ask an NPC to cast it for them.

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 02:20 PM
Remember the term Angel is only used in 3.5: in 3rd ed they are grouped with the other celestials.

Manual of the Planes; People sometimes refer to guardinals and eladrins as angels:
Exalted Deeds: nothing with the angel subtype listed, but archons are described as "angelic intermediaries" of lawful good deities. Also:
"while angels such as planetars and solars are the most powerful servitors of good deities, the celestial paragons are independant."

The other two Devas, in Fiend Folio, should probably have the angel subtype added, and are described as "Proactive messengers of the gods of weal"

Angel is really strongly themed around Agents of Deities. Its a jump to make them agents of ALL deites, but maybe the game needed that jump,
Your right actually, angels, are in fact a group term. So actually, a compromise could be reached, angle could be a different race and devas and what not are the old concept

However, 4E certainly isn't doing this sadly.

Also in BoED the angles are described as serving the celestrial pargons
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-04-30, 02:20 PM
I was a bit miffed when the Worldwalk spell, and Melf's Minute Meteors, disappeared in to 2nd to 3rd ed transition. the fact that book characters can do things game ones cannot due to rule changes is one we just have to grin and bear.

i would probably stat most major NPCs out as pCs between 4th ed and FRCS coming out. Depending on the quality of the later book version over the homebrew one, I might revert, or keep using homebrew one for consistancy.

I saw big NPCs more as people to talk to more that fight alongside, or against, when using 3.5. A bit like elminster in Baldur's Gate game: just cos he appears doesn't mean he has to DO much: a few Words of Wisdom can make for a nice usage without having the NPC take over.

Rutee
2008-04-30, 02:24 PM
A game designer can't controll if the people using the game will make bad decisions about when to introduce powerful NPC's to the party. No aspect of game design can solve that. Other issues, like my versimilitude one, can be mitigated.
Except that in that statting, your verisimilitude issue is mitigated, and NPC Focus is exacerbated. If you don't need him in combat, you only need a very general idea of what they can do.. and you have that already. He's a Wizard, he's level Plot. What can a Wizard do? He can do that.



I'm postulating that the Sorc doesn't have some particular spell, say Greater Teleport, among his spells known. Therefore the party may very well ask an NPC to cast it for them.

Alright.. and you need to stat the NPC in its entirety to know whether ot not it has one service? Especially since it's a Wizard and can easily know any spell you the DM want them to know, within the rules, without a break of verisimilitude?

hamishspence
2008-04-30, 02:35 PM
We do not know if devas, etc will make a reappearance in 4th ed, or be subsumed.

But it does say the solars and planetars are among the most powerful servants of the gods, whereas paragon celestials are independant from the gods, on page 121 BoED. Nearly every reference I see to angels puts them as servants of divinities: Shards; planetars of Selune. Resounding Justice: planetar of Tyr. they can serve causes as well as gods though: MotP has one solar guarding the Illuminated Heaven.

Its possible to summon guardinal, angel, and eladrin all at once with the Armageddon spell in BoED. Definitly an exception to the usual idea of them being independant groups.

Might be handy to examine each for origins: Angel of Valor might fit well with Justice ArchonMovanic Deva: fiery sword wielder, winged, weakest of the Devas, very soldierly.
Miniatures handbook had the Protectar, a bit like a very weak angel, but I suspect the Angel of protection will have a lot more oomph, since Valor is the weakest angel and is CR8.

EDIT: and by MM, angels come from all good aligned planes, not just Celestia, and by MotP, a few devas come from the non-good upper planes: Arcadia and Ysgard

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 02:44 PM
We do not know if devas, etc will make a reappearance in 4th ed, or be subsumed.

Other angels are already different


But it does say the solars and planetars are among the most powerful servants of the gods, whereas paragon celestials are independant from the gods, on page 121 BoED. Nearly every refernece I see to angels puts them as servants of divinities: Shards; planetars of Selune. Resounding Justice: planetar of Tyr. they can serve causes as well as gods though: MotP has one solar guarding the Illuminated Heaven.

Its possible to summon guardinal, angel, and eladrin all at once with the Armageddon spell in BoED. Definitly an exception to the usual idea of them being independant groups.
1)Summoned from the heavens
2) Sure they often works with gods, because unlike evil, good doesn't fight itself as much, and so angels will often be working with other good. However their place of orgin, the seven heavens is not affilated with any particular deity. Devils serve evil gods at times as well, but they are by default creatures of hte nine hells

from
EE

AKA_Bait
2008-04-30, 02:56 PM
Except that in that statting, your verisimilitude issue is mitigated, and NPC Focus is exacerbated.

I don't see how you can maintain that there is some sort of causal link bettween stats existing for an NPC/monster and NPC/monster focus being increased. Earlier on, you said that Solars should count on the Deis ex NPC scale. If that's so, and they are not used much because they are not expected to fight the PC's, then that very scarcity of use runs against your argument since in 3.5 they are statted out. If there was a link bettween the two, Solars would have seen more use, if only as annoying NPC's that steal the focus from the players.

Bad DM's don't focus on an NPC because they have stats or not, they do it because they are bad DM's who think the NPC is really cool. They will use the 'really cool' ubernpc just as much if there are no stats, and possibly be even more spotlight stealing from the PC's as a result. Remember that stat blocks also serve by having the psychological effect on many DMs of making them feel constrained by the rules.


Alright.. and you need to stat the NPC in its entirety to know whether ot not it has one service? Especially since it's a Wizard and can easily know any spell you the DM want them to know, within the rules, without a break of verisimilitude?

It needn't be a Wizard, this discussion got started because we were talking about Angels. If the monster/npc in question does have the capacity to do whatever thing the PC's are going to ask about is something that needs to be listed. In the case of Elminster you can get away with saying 'Wizard. Knows all arcane spells.' but in the case of the SLA's for a particular breed of critter, those need to be laid out since they are an enumerated number and not just 'everything arcane!'.

As for knowing it in it's entirelty, no, no I don't. I already said what I'd need. The powers the thing has (SLAs. Ex Ablilites, Spot, Listen, Bluff, Sense Motive, Will Save, etc.). I don't need to know if it has 30 ranks in Perform: Underwater basket weaving.

Rutee
2008-04-30, 03:08 PM
I don't see how you can maintain that there is some sort of causal link bettween stats existing for an NPC/monster and NPC/monster focus being increased.
It's really freaking easy, when we're talking about Setting Piece NPCs. By statting them, you /tacitly approve their use in games/. It /enforces/ the idea that the setting piece should /be present in a capacity that necessitates their stats/. We've been over this, twice, in different threads. When you stat a monster, you enable and encourage its use. When you stat an NPC, you further enable and encourage their use. This is bad when you get to the Deus Ex Machina NPCs, and the books are unlikely to stat the ones that just appeared in /your/ games anyway.



It needn't be a Wizard, this discussion got started because we were talking about Angels. If the monster/npc in question does have the capacity to do whatever thing the PC's are going to ask about is something that needs to be listed. In the case of Elminster you can get away with saying 'Wizard. Knows all arcane spells.' but in the case of the SLA's for a particular breed of critter, those need to be laid out since they are an enumerated number and not just 'everything arcane!'.

As for knowing it in it's entirelty, no, no I don't. I already said what I'd need. The powers the thing has (SLAs. Ex Ablilites, Spot, Listen, Bluff, Sense Motive, Will Save, etc.). I don't need to know if it has 30 ranks in Perform: Underwater basket weaving.

Except statblocks /are/ for the entirety (Unfortunately). That aside, we still come back to two seperate issues.

1: If there's an easy system to build monsters with and you decide you need stats for them? *Use the easy system to build monsters*

2: If they're not commonly used period, let alone in a capacity that /needs/ their stats, do we really need to stat them? Even /if/ you would need the stats for them, most won't.

hamishspence
2008-04-30, 03:15 PM
2nd ed beginner AD&D game resisted urge to stat major NPC out (maybe cause it WAS a beginner game) the town wizard, Netheril, is said simply to be "far too powerful for the heroes to challenge, you CANNOT beat him"

On the other hand, ancient copper dragon was statted, but no XP listed, its sidebar said: This is not supposed to be fought. Maybe same principle could apply, with elmnster described as "should be talked to, not fought" and his abilities only come into play if players are chased into his rooms by monsters.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-30, 03:32 PM
It's really freaking easy, when we're talking about Setting Piece NPCs.

See, I recall starting down this road not talking about setting peice NPC's but monsters. Hence, my solar point.


By statting them, you /tacitly approve their use in games/. It /enforces/ the idea that the setting piece should /be present in a capacity that necessitates their stats/. We've been over this, twice, in different threads.


When you stat an NPC, you further enable and encourage their use. This is bad when you get to the Deus Ex Machina NPCs

Sigh, yes we have. I still maintian that it's not the presense or absence of the stat block that encourages their use in game. It's giving them a full page, or more, of description, background and color in the campagin setting book. It's giving them a series of poorly written novels which star the NPC.

It's by giving that amount of focus on an NPC that encourages their use. If they had the same amount of focus and a no stat block, do you really think bad DM's would not use them and steal spotlight from their players? It's just that instead of having a stat block to reference that cruddy DM will just make up what ever uber thing they want the NPC to do on the spot by DM fiat, which, when coupled with over focus on the NPC can tick off players (read: me) even more than if the player could at least look at some stats and say 'ok, so that's why trying to dominate the annoying sob didn't work'.

If you want to argue that charcters like Elminster, Drizzt their ilk should have less focus placed upon them in their campagin settings and other publications, I'm going to agree with you wholeheartedly. I just don't think having a stat block one way or another is anything more than a sneeze in the wind.


When you stat a monster, you enable and encourage its use.

No more than if you stat any monster, any place, in the MM and frankly, if a monster is expected to be used enough to be worthy of a place in the MM at all, then WotC should be enabling and encouraging it's use, regardless of if that use is primarily combat focused or not.


the books are unlikely to stat the ones that just appeared in /your/ games anyway.

Well, unless your last name is Greenwood or Salvatore. :smallbiggrin:


1: If there's an easy system to build monsters with and you decide you need stats for them? *Use the easy system to build monsters*

No. I'm paying $30 for a Monster Manual and if a monster is common enough that I can expect to need statistics for them on a semiregular basis, as either foe or friend for the PC's, I darn well want WotC to do the work for me. It's why I'm paying them.


If they're not commonly used period, let alone in a capacity that /needs/ their stats, do we really need to stat them? Even /if/ you would need the stats for them, most won't.

If they aren't commonly used period, then they don't belong in the MM in the first place. Keep them in the fiend folio or what ever focused splatbook they belong in and don't clutter up even a sentence of my MM with them.

Note, this is why, as I said, I don't particularly care about the change to Angels that this thread is supposed to be about.

fendrin
2008-04-30, 03:34 PM
My take on the whole Deus ex NPC thing:

In my games, if the party requests assistance from an NPC (whether wizard solar, god/dess, or whatever), I think to myself:
Is this going to make the game more fun or less fun?

If it is more fun, then i make it happen, even if it comes down to said NPC just happening to have a thingamabob that does what the party asks (or more likely, will know of a place they can go to do it themselves).

If it is less fun, then no, they can't or won't for some reason.

Example1: PCs go to Elminster asking for a teleport.
If it would be more fun to skip the random travel stuff then yes, sure he can teleport them.
If I think it would be better for the travel to not be skipped (say I want to have a specific encounter in the middle that becomes plot important later), then Elminster just happens to be out of town, as is explained to the PCs by his housekeeper.

Example2: PCs request a teleport from a Non-Divine-Affiliated-Good-Outsider:
If it would be more fun:
NDAGO tells the PCs a tale of a an ancient place of power, which an ancient wizard enchanted to act as a conduit for rapid travel back and forth from a similar location near the parties' destination. The PCs then go to said location, have a minor puzzle/trap/combat challenge and then are on their way.
If less fun: NDAGO does not have any means with which to move the party that far.

Note that neither require the NPC to be statted.

Artanis
2008-04-30, 03:37 PM
Heh, I imagine if somebody like Elminster actually was statted out, it'd look something like this:

Elminster
Level: Plot

Stats: Plot

Skills and Feats: Plot

Powers and properties:

1) Immune to anything the players, monsters, or anything else in the setting tries to do to him. Seriously, anything. If something says it gets past this, then it's a filthy, filthy liar.

2) Free action, at-will: choose a target within however many the squares the DM wants. It dies. Period. If something says it keeps it from dying, it's a filthy, filthy liar.

3) Can cast any and all Wizards spells. Ever. Anywhere. Even from previous editions.


There we go :smallbiggrin:

AKA_Bait
2008-04-30, 03:52 PM
Note that neither require the NPC to be statted.

Note that the first example needs Elminster to be statted out at least to the degree where it is know that he can cast 'Teleport'.

Also, note that in the second example, you as DM are forced to use DM fiat and ad hoc the capabilties of the Non-Divine-Affiliated-Good-Outsider. Better write down that you said the Outsider has no way of doing it, if you ever intend to use that kind of creature again in your setting. In fact, you'd best do that for every ability you have had it be demonstrably able or unable to use, if you want to be consistant throughout the game. Hey, what do you know? Do it enough and going to end up with what is basically a stat block... I'd rather just have WotC do that book keeping for me before I decide to use the critter in the first place. At least then I won't have to keep track myself.


Heh, I imagine if somebody like Elminster actually was statted out, it'd look something like this:

You do realize that Elminster has been statted out several times in various source books and editions?

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 04:05 PM
You do realize that Elminster has been statted out several times in various source books and editions?

Yes... with an explicit "Plot" clause.

"Lulz, Mystra makes him win. PWNED!"

fendrin
2008-04-30, 04:05 PM
Note that the first example needs Elminster to be statted out at least to the degree where it is know that he can cast 'Teleport'.

"Elminster: level 30 Wizard"
Not exactly a stat block. It's not even a complete sentence. but it does tell me that if i want him to be able to use a particular wizard spell, I can do that.


Also, note that in the second example, you as DM are forced to use DM fiat and ad hoc the capabilties of the Non-Divine-Affiliated-Good-Outsider. Better write down that you said the Outsider has no way of doing it, if you ever intend to use that kind of creature again in your setting. In fact, you'd best do that for every ability you have had it be demonstrably able or unable to use, if you want to be consistant throughout the game. Hey, what do you know? Do it enough and going to end up with what is basically a stat block... I'd rather just have WotC do that book keeping for me before I decide to use the critter in the first place. At least then I won't have to keep track myself.

Assuming that all creatures of said type always have the same powers, and
assuming that I don't do something a little more creative than "sorry, no can do, try the wizard down the street", and
assuming that I would ever let my PCs get so dependent on NPC aid that they think to ask twice, yes, a stat block would help.


Otherwise, not so much.

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 04:14 PM
2nd ed beginner AD&D game resisted urge to stat major NPC out (maybe cause it WAS a beginner game) the town wizard, Netheril, is said simply to be "far too powerful for the heroes to challenge, you CANNOT beat him"

That is however extremly limiting to the players however. This isn't a plot drama game



On the other hand, ancient copper dragon was statted, but no XP listed, its sidebar said: This is not supposed to be fought. Maybe same principle could apply, with elmnster described as "should be talked to, not fought" and his abilities only come into play if players are chased into his rooms by monsters.
That is also rather limiting for the same reasons and very simplistic


How many books do you have dude? Your like a spring of knowlage



"Elminster: level 30 Wizard"
Not exactly a stat block. It's not even a complete sentence. but it does tell me that if i want him to be able to use a particular wizard spell, I can do that.
Except that isn't consistent. Even level 30 wizards (Isn't he level 21 actually?) have limits. I mean not every spell in the book is on his spell book, there are things he can't do




Assuming that all creatures of said type always have the same powers, and
assuming that I don't do something a little more creative than "sorry, no can do, try the wizard down the street", and
assuming that I would ever let my PCs get so dependent on NPC aid that they think to ask twice, yes, a stat block would help.
1. That is a base assumption of D&D actually
2. The people have consistent limits to their powers
3. Don't be so PC centric. The NPC's limits are more than just ways to annoy them when they are asked to do stuff
from
EE

AKA_Bait
2008-04-30, 04:16 PM
"Elminster: level 30 Wizard"
Not exactly a stat block. It's not even a complete sentence. but it does tell me that if i want him to be able to use a particular wizard spell, I can do that.


You would actually need something more like Elminster: Level 30 Wizard. Knows all Wizard Spells.

Not that it's a whole lot more, but I already conceded that above with regard to some NPC's.



Assuming that all creatures of said type always have the same powers, and
assuming that I don't do something a little more creative than "sorry, no can do, try the wizard down the street", and
assuming that I would ever let my PCs get so dependent on NPC aid that they think to ask twice, yes, a stat block would help.


*If they don't have the same inherent powers, as distinct from class levels, are they really the same creature type?
*Huh? If you give any explanation of why the creature is incapable of helping them you are going to need a record of it, regardless of how creative it is.
*PC's don't need to be dependant upon reoccuring NPC's to ask them for things more than once. They just need to be reoccuring NPC's that might be useful to the PCs at any given moment. Also, that's not just about when the PC's ask, it's about what you want to use the critter for in the first place. When you tell the PC's a critter can't do x thing you can't very well have it do x thing later when it suits your purposes without hurting versimilitude.

Artanis
2008-04-30, 04:28 PM
You do realize that Elminster has been statted out several times in various source books and editions?
*shrug*

Just a funny thought trying to lighten the mood a bit.

Talya
2008-04-30, 05:19 PM
A creature's not alive/doesn't exist until you give it a statblock. (Although that stat-block may only exist in your head.)

Rutee
2008-04-30, 05:25 PM
Sigh, yes we have. I still maintian that it's not the presense or absence of the stat block that encourages their use in game. It's giving them a full page, or more, of description, background and color in the campagin setting book. It's giving them a series of poorly written novels which star the NPC.
I don't think so; I think people include them anyway, books be damned, frankly. Stats may not be /much/.. but the stats in the book is a message to a GM who /doesn't/ know the novels as well as the one who /does/.


No more than if you stat any monster, any place, in the MM and frankly, if a monster is expected to be used enough to be worthy of a place in the MM at all, then WotC should be enabling and encouraging it's use, regardless of if that use is primarily combat focused or not.
But what if that monster /isn't/ expected to be used that much? Again, I have quite frankly /never/ seen Good Outsiders be used, summon fodder inclusive.


Well, unless your last name is Greenwood or Salvatore. :smallbiggrin:
Well, you need some compensation for being made of Fail and Lose.


No. I'm paying $30 for a Monster Manual and if a monster is common enough that I can expect to need statistics for them on a semiregular basis, as either foe or friend for the PC's, I darn well want WotC to do the work for me. It's why I'm paying them.
They're not, which you're evidently aware of.


A creature's not alive/doesn't exist until you give it a statblock
You have far more time on your hands then I could ever dream of, if you have the time to stat out every freaking commoner in the entire world.

Either that or you live a life of solipsism.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 05:29 PM
A creature's not alive/doesn't exist until you give it a statblock. (Although that stat-block may only exist in your head.)

So every forest animal, every butcher, baker, and candlestick maker, every person in the world, every NPC who does something offscreen (the messenger who gets to the king, the royal vizier of a country the PCs aren't even in but who determines national policy, etc) has a stat-block in your head? Really?

Talya
2008-04-30, 05:34 PM
So every forest animal, every butcher, baker, and candlestick maker, every person in the world, every NPC who does something offscreen (the messenger who gets to the king, the royal vizier of a country the PCs aren't even in but who determines national policy, etc) has a stat-block in your head? Really?

The moment the players interact with somebody or something, or the NPC is described to them, a rudimentary stat block forms in my head. The rest of them don't exist yet because they haven't played a part in the game.

Rutee
2008-04-30, 05:39 PM
Ah, then it is solipsism. The rest of us will continue to run games without needing to stat the hell out of every freaking peon and red shirt.

Talya
2008-04-30, 05:45 PM
Ah, then it is solipsism. The rest of us will continue to run games without needing to stat the hell out of every freaking peon and red shirt.

Peon statblocks are simple:
2-3 hit points, +0 to hit/grapple/damage, 8 skill points, +0 to all saves. Add a feat if appropriate.

Cyclone231
2008-04-30, 05:55 PM
Because that is what angles are, as with most outsiders, they are embodiments of ideals, beliefs, causes, or in this case, alignments. They are good, they are the very essence of good, in the same way Demons and devils are the essence of evil (and yugloths, but lets face it, nobody cared about them)

Because the concept of angels is one of beings literally made by goodness, the same with Demons and Devils. What makes them interesting is that they are totally absolute in their alignment. Fallen angels are just that, fallen, they have lost the powers of their being.

now having a race of divine servants that can be good or evil and have angel like qualities is fine. But not angelsYou did not answer the question. What does angels being "literally made by goodness" give you in terms of story opportunities? What is there that you get by limiting the angelic stat-block to a very small subset of possible behaviors?

Oh angles can serve gods, as allies. But they aren't bound to them and they don't serve them by default. Some serve good deities out of shared interest or admiration, but they aren't by nature divine servants And neither are the new angels.

Devils yes, but paladins can't. It goes against the nature of good. Misunderstandings, but no large scale paladins vs. paladin wars deliberatively No, I mean large scale paladins vs. devils conflict.

In 3E yes. in 4E they are like divine sell swords. Different concepts. in 3E all angles are beings of pure good By your "logic," 3E clerics are like divine sell swords.

amoral in that they aren't bound to any particular morality. It is comforting to know that in 3E, all non fallen angles won't kill innocents for hte greater good, but in 4E, anything goes. They have lost their outsider unique relationship with an alignment are simply a race now Sigh. You definition of "amoral" includes humans as well. Does it hurt your game to not know, as 100% truth, that that barkeeper isn't going to murder you for an unholy sacrifice to Karrnath, the Blood God?

To imply that i'm preaching something but not noticing the 'advantages" of the new angle implies that i wanted that change in the first place. Which i didn't No, the point is that you want "every change to be justified". This change is justified.

Humans have free will, as do many morals. However paladins who hope to keep their class features will be tied to the good alignment. Exactly. Despite not being genetically forced to be moral, paladins are still tied to the good alignment. And so Angels of Good, despite not being genetically forced to be moral, are still tied to the good alignment.

Good is an extremly broad ideoligy. I don't see how secular liberalism is evil actually. they are limited to good ideals, because they are super good beings.I... I was talking about "good" in the D&D sense. ie just because Angels aren't genetically forced to act that way doesn't mean you can't have Good Angels Fighting The Good Fight Against The Devils & Demons.

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 06:21 PM
You did not answer the question. What does angels being "literally made by goodness" give you in terms of story opportunities? What is there that you get by limiting the angelic stat-block to a very small subset of possible behaviors?

1) It gives me a unique flavor of the outsider nature. Outsiders, or at least a lot of the pure ones (not like Githyanki) are in fact not mortals and don't follow morals rules. Many of them are in fact the souls of the dead reborn. They aren't morals and they in fact embody some sort of cause or belief. They are good, as demons are chaotic evil. unlike mortals, who have shades of grey, outsiders live in the world of absolutes.
2) Good is hardly a small subset of possible behaviors. It is a very broad catagory
3) the same thing i get from having always evil demons and devils.



And neither are the new angels.
Except hte new angels aren't bound to 'any' cause or belief what so ever, they are basically divine sell swords



No, I mean large scale paladins vs. devils conflict.
:smallconfused:, why couldn't paladins fight devils on a large scale?


By your "logic," 3E clerics are like divine sell swords.
Not quite. Clerics draw their powers directly from the gods, and are their servants, because cleric is a class not a race.


Sigh. You definition of "amoral" includes humans as well. Does it hurt your game to not know, as 100% truth, that that barkeeper isn't going to murder you for an unholy sacrifice to Karrnath, the Blood God?
1) Yes, humans are armoral, because they aren't bound to any set morality. Thats why there moral. Mortals, unlike outsiders, are in fact given the gift of free will. They can choose to be good, evil, or neutral, they can choose their fate for themselves. That is their unique gift. Part of what defines outsiders (and still defines Demons and Devils i might add) is that they don't have the freedom to choose
2) Why would it hurt my game? He is human, he has the choice of his alignment. Where have i protested against humans having alignments.


No, the point is that you want "every change to be justified". This change is justified.
Except it isn't justified, its going against hte very nature of angels. That they are in fact the wholesome followers of good in truth. Now they are simply some sort of planar mercenary


Exactly. Despite not being genetically forced to be moral, paladins are still tied to the good alignment. And so Angels of Good, despite not being genetically forced to be moral, are still tied to the good alignment.
See difference between race and class. A paladins i still human choosing to fight evil as a paladin is part of his class.



I... I was talking about "good" in the D&D sense. ie just because Angels aren't genetically forced to act that way doesn't mean you can't have Good Angels Fighting The Good Fight Against The Devils & Demons.
1) But they have lost their unique relationship to the ideal of good
2) Why is it that we have evil followers of alignment, but not good? Ergo, bad change justification
from
EE

AstralFire
2008-04-30, 06:21 PM
I read up to about 5 pages of what amounted to "they're using the word 'Angel' more broadly now" and I couldn't take it anymore.

These things look Cool. All they did was refit terminology. No actual fluff about cosmologies was really altered.

"BWAHAHAHAHA IM IN UR REALITY KILLIN UR GODS TOO EFFIN MANY OF EM" - That is a fluff change.

"IM IN UR COSMOLOGY CALLIN UR PROXIES ANGELS" - That is a terminology change.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 06:23 PM
The moment the players interact with somebody or something, or the NPC is described to them, a rudimentary stat block forms in my head. The rest of them don't exist yet because they haven't played a part in the game.

That's... one way of doing it, I guess. I have no idea why you feel that it is The Only Way.

I'd much rather not stat that vizier out as soon as the players hear of him. If three months later they've gained a bunch of levels and are in conflict with him, I can give him whatever class and etc fits, as long as he could still have done what he did.
You could revise your stat block later (after, of course, looking at your party wizard's spell list, to make sure you've made him immune to each specific spell without getting his AC or melee abilities to high), but then what's the point of having made it in the first place?

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 06:25 PM
Also Rutee, stating something out is simply, the DMG says how to do it. Just make some generic stats and apply it to the adverage commoner in games who isn't special




These things look Cool. All they did was refit terminology. No actual fluff about cosmologies was really altered.

Apart from the quote "The Great Wheel is dead" of course


"BWAHAHAHAHA IM IN UR REALITY KILLIN UR GODS TOO EFFIN MANY OF EM" - That is a fluff change.
A bad one at that


"IM IN UR COSMOLOGY CALLIN UR PROXIES ANGELS" - That is a terminology change.

It isn't terminology, they are changing the very nature of hte champions of good. I wouldn't mind a name change, i always though clesestrial was better from good beings, but with no mention of them.....


from
EE

AstralFire
2008-04-30, 06:33 PM
Also Rutee, stating something out is simply, the DMG says how to do it. Just make some generic stats and apply it to the adverage commoner in games who isn't special



Apart from the quote "The Great Wheel is dead" of course

A bad one at that


It isn't terminology, they are changing the very nature of hte champions of good. I wouldn't mind a name change, i always though clesestrial was better from good beings, but with no mention of them.....


from
EE

The Great Wheel has been dead; that change was not announced in this article. Further, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is fantastically easy and not at all inconceivable for the "Angel of Redemption" or w/e to call itself a Solar. Celestial or Abyssal depends on their origin.

Moreover, given that angels are personifications of ideologies, etc, to gods I would be very surprised if there were not dramatic consequences to them changing their alignment and affiliation.

I do not get the uproar on this one at all. The FR God change, sure. This, on the other hand...

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 06:39 PM
The Great Wheel has been dead; that change was not announced in this article.

And yet its death does still effect teh fluff changes in Angels



Further, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is fantastically easy and not at all inconceivable for the "Angel of Redemption" or w/e to call itself a Solar. Celestial or Abyssal depends on their origin.

1) Considering other normally celestrial beings are being revamped (into interesting beings just with bad names) the old concept seems pretty dead
2) Demons and devils aren't included under the angel title


Moreover, given that angels are personifications of ideologies, etc, to gods I would be very surprised if there were not dramatic consequences to them changing their alignment and affiliation.

in 3E they became devils or fallen angels (kinda the same thing)
In this they seem to just being a generic outsider who can serve good or evil



I do not get the uproar on this one at all. The FR God change, sure. This, on the other hand...
Poor poor FR, it was ruined

from
EE

AstralFire
2008-04-30, 06:51 PM
in 3E they became devils or fallen angels (kinda the same thing)
In this they seem to just being a generic outsider who can serve good or evil

Highly doubtful. My interpretation of this text is that they are generically applicable to any singular god, but that an affiliation change would be... drastic. Just as a Fallen Solar would have black wings, for example, a similar phenomena would not be unimaginable here.


Poor poor FR, it was ruined

from
EE

To speak from a personal perspective, I always hated FR, I just can understand why people who did like it would object to the changes. I think it's been made the better for the changes, but something is probably pretty wrong if they're attracting people who hated the setting (like me) and driving away people who DID love it.

I reiterate, however, that this is a minor point at best and even if there are fluff implications further, it won't be particularly hard to adapt back to 3.x and prior Great Wheel stuff.

It's a lot like the "is altruism real?" argument

Whether or not you label all humans as ultimately selfish or with the possibility for selflessness, it does not change that those acts exist nor really provide you with any useful information on how to react to them, rendering it, in my view, a pointless argument.

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 07:00 PM
Highly doubtful. My interpretation of this text is that they are generically applicable to any singular god, but that an affiliation change would be... drastic. Just as a Fallen Solar would have black wings, for example, a similar phenomena would not be unimaginable here.

Um, it makes it rather clear in the article that the Angels aren't servitors of any particular god or cause, but rather outsiders who can choose who they serve. in 3E they were tied to a concept.


To speak from a personal perspective, I always hated FR, I just can understand why people who did like it would object to the changes. I think it's been made the better for the changes, but something is probably pretty wrong if they're attracting people who hated the setting (like me) and driving away people who DID love it.
FR is most likely the best 3E (planescape non withstanding, as it wasn't offical) D&D had. except for Elminister



I reiterate, however, that this is a minor point at best and even if there are fluff implications further, it won't be particularly hard to adapt back to 3.x and prior Great Wheel stuff.

Actually considering the amount of fluff changes, it would require a good deal of work to get the right balence. But back on topic, the point remains that while I could change it (as i've change my edition to suit my own fancies) it doesn't make WotC's any less annoying
from
EE

Cyclone231
2008-04-30, 07:03 PM
1) It gives me a unique flavor of the outsider nature. Outsiders, or at least a lot of the pure ones (not like Githyanki) are in fact not mortals and don't follow morals rules. Many of them are in fact the souls of the dead reborn. They aren't morals and they in fact embody some sort of cause or belief. They are good, as demons are chaotic evil. unlike mortals, who have shades of grey, outsiders live in the world of absolutes. BS. Mortals live in the exact same "world of absolutes" as outsiders do. A mortal has an alignment, it is a part of the universe and anyone with the right tools can detect it.

2) Good is hardly a small subset of possible behaviors. It is a very broad catagoryThere's more ways to be evil than there are to be good. There's more ways to be neutral than there are to be good. There's more ways to be lawful than there are to be good. There's more ways to be chaotic than there are to be good.

3) the same thing i get from having always evil demons and devils. A clear antagonist race you don't need to feel bad about mowing down in large numbers? Because that's what you get from always evil demons and devils.

Except hte new angels aren't bound to 'any' cause or belief what so ever, they are basically divine sell swordsNeither is any class other than the Paladin. Does that mean wizards are arcane sell swords?

:smallconfused:, why couldn't paladins fight devils on a large scale? There's no reason. So why can't good angels fight devils on a large scale?

Not quite. Clerics draw their powers directly from the gods, and are their servants, because cleric is a class not a race. Goal posts... vrooom on by! Come on. How exactly a clerics any less divine sell swords than angels?

1) Yes, humans are armoral, because they aren't bound to any set morality. Thats why there moral. Mortals, unlike outsiders, are in fact given the gift of free will. They can choose to be good, evil, or neutral, they can choose their fate for themselves. That is their unique gift. Part of what defines outsiders (and still defines Demons and Devils i might add) is that they don't have the freedom to chooseSigh. Even in 3E, angels still have free will. Otherwise they couldn't fall. And ever read that Succubus Paladin?

2) Why would it hurt my game? He is human, he has the choice of his alignment. Where have i protested against humans having alignments. Why does it hurt your game to have an angel have real freedom of choice?

Except it isn't justified, its going against hte very nature of angels. That they are in fact the wholesome followers of good in truth. Now they are simply some sort of planar mercenary No, you just hate it because it's a change. Answer me this: other than the fact that it's new, is there any disadvantage to it? Oh, right, now angels don't have all this mirror match crap going on.

See difference between race and class. A paladins i still human choosing to fight evil as a paladin is part of his class.And as a "good Angel," you're still a powerful divine creature choosing to fight evil. In fact, the new Good angels are more moral because the actually have a choice.

1) But they have lost their unique relationship to the ideal of goodHow does their "unique relationship to the ideal of good" change anything?

If you've really got such a hardcore hard-on for Pure Good outsiders, why not just make there be a set of angels in your game who are born Pure Good?

2) Why is it that we have evil followers of alignment, but not good? Ergo, bad change justification We both know why: players are much more likely to interact with evil followers of an alignment than good ones. This is the sort of dumb mirror-match requirements that created the duergar.

Talya
2008-04-30, 07:14 PM
That's... one way of doing it, I guess. I have no idea why you feel that it is The Only Way.

I'd much rather not stat that vizier out as soon as the players hear of him. If three months later they've gained a bunch of levels and are in conflict with him, I can give him whatever class and etc fits, as long as he could still have done what he did.
You could revise your stat block later (after, of course, looking at your party wizard's spell list, to make sure you've made him immune to each specific spell without getting his AC or melee abilities to high), but then what's the point of having made it in the first place?


This is part of how I don't get when Rutee says fluff and crunch are completely separate. For me, a character's ability scores, training, basically, the things that comprise their stat block are inseparable from the person of the character themselves. The stat block is the skeleton upon which the every other peice of the character hangs. It needs to support the personality, person, and abilities of the character who is defined by it. Your stat block needs to reflect the background you give them...a cloistered, academic type shouldn't have abilities that would reflect expertise and experience in combat. A socially clumsy, shy person shouldn't have a charisma of 14. I believe they're all linked. This is also how I don't get how someone can ignore what their character would do in order to better "optimize."

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 07:24 PM
BS. Mortals live in the exact same "world of absolutes" as outsiders do. A mortal has an alignment, it is a part of the universe and anyone with the right tools can detect it.

Except they can choose their alignment as they see fit


There's more ways to be evil than there are to be good. There's more ways to be neutral than there are to be good. There's more ways to be lawful than there are to be good. There's more ways to be chaotic than there are to be good.
But there are still many of possibilities for good, many. Limiting seems rather short sited


A clear antagonist race you don't need to feel bad about mowing down in large numbers? Because that's what you get from always evil demons and devils.
No, zombies fit that role. Demons and devils, as seen in the fiendish codex is that there is something inherently disturbing and yet fascinating by a being who's very nature is simply the powers of evil. Something so sickeningly immoral that its very nature is an affront to morality. in the same way, angels inspire a sense of awe


Neither is any class other than the Paladin. Does that mean wizards are arcane sell swords?
Certainly. They fight for a cause depending on their belief, nothing inherent in the class that tells them what to fight for


There's no reason. So why can't good angels fight devils on a large scale?
Goal posts... vrooom on by! Come on. How exactly a clerics any less divine sell swords than angels?
Angels are a race, they are beings who's very nature is that of pure good.

Clerics are servants of hte gods.


Sigh. Even in 3E, angels still have free will. Otherwise they couldn't fall. And ever read that Succubus Paladin?
1) Angels in 3E who commited evil acts would cease to be angels. Ergo, their race would change
2) a major except to the rule is that paladin



Why does it hurt your game to have an angel have real freedom of choice?
No, you just hate it because it's a change.
How many times do i have to say this before you people actually read what i write and not make presumptions based upon what makes you feel more confident about your stance. I am not against change. I am not against an new edition. When 4E was first announced, i argued for the need of a new edition. I am against unnecessary and badly handled change that ruins perfectly good concepts that could be easily avoided if WotC posses some basic respect for their fluff.


Answer me this: other than the fact that it's new, is there any disadvantage to it? Oh, right, now angels don't have all this mirror match crap going on.
Yes. Angels are being reduced from beings of good, embodiments of the pure ideal of goodness, to simple divine mouthpieces. The reason is of course, because WotC is stupid and can't imagine the idea that stating or even focusing their energies upon good creatures if they can help it, and so they are trying to make everything they can evil in order to allow players to fight it, as well as going along with the "evil angel" theme

Evil fallen normally good creatures are fine, but it is nice to have a race of beings are are good and the true immortal care takers of goodness itself

And the mirror thing was amazingly thoughtful and well fleshed out.


And as a "good Angel," you're still a powerful divine creature choosing to fight evil. In fact, the new Good angels are more moral because the actually have a choice.
How does their "unique relationship to the ideal of good" change anything?
Because not the angel has been simplified from a more complex good ideal to simply another of the gods foot troops



If you've really got such a hardcore hard-on for Pure Good outsiders, why not just make there be a set of angels in your game who are born Pure Good?
We both know why: players are much more likely to interact with evil followers of an alignment than good ones.
1)Because its like an order of good fighters, niffty, but not unique. The angels as a race of always good creatures was unique
2) no, WotC is closed minded and thinks that players only interact with things they can fight. Yet again, a case of "the players are morons" and so good creatures rarely get any focus



This is the sort of dumb mirror-match requirements that created the duergar.
Not really, demons and devils are bound to an alignment the same way Slaadi are. Duergar are just "evil dwarves" who aren't that generic in some settings
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 07:25 PM
This is part of how I don't get when Rutee says fluff and crunch are completely separate. For me, a character's ability scores, training, basically, the things that comprise their stat block are inseparable from the person of the character themselves. The stat block is the skeleton upon which the every other peice of the character hangs. It needs to support the personality, person, and abilities of the character who is defined by it. Your stat block needs to reflect the background you give them...a cloistered, academic type shouldn't have abilities that would reflect expertise and experience in combat. A socially clumsy, shy person shouldn't have a charisma of 14. I believe they're all linked. This is also how I don't get how someone can ignore what their character would do in order to better "optimize."

thats actually what the game is based upon, this isn't a drama game
from
EE

Rutee
2008-04-30, 07:28 PM
I don't even know how you do that. I don't usually have anything more then a ponderance on the mechanics until I finish the character's base. Stats are nothing more then an abstraction of the character, useful so that we can play the game's rules. The character can exist without those rules. IT's /easy/. It happens all the time in the media (Including FR Novels and OotS). That's part of what makes this so ridiculous; You keep saying you want to do things like they do it in the stories. How can you /possibly/ use the stats as a basis? It's not like.. oh I'll pick on someone I know you like, Tolkien did.


I don't get how someone can ignore what their character would do in order to better "optimize."
The most convincing argument I've seen is "The characters are intimately aware of the danger; Why /wouldn't/ they optimize, when it's 'their' 'life' on the line?"

Terraoblivion
2008-04-30, 07:29 PM
There is a difference between fluff and crunch fitting together and crunch being needed, Talya. Unless you need to roll the stats for some reason there is no need to know if the shy person has a charisma of 8 or 9 or if the cloistered fellow has a penalty to hit with a dagger or not. The important thing is the concept "shy" for the first and "physically untrained" for the second. Those can be expressed in stats but you don't have to and often that will be an added bit of work for something that isn't needed.

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 07:30 PM
I don't even know how you do that. I don't usually have anything more then a ponderance on the mechanics until I finish the character's base. Stats are nothing more then an abstraction of the character, useful so that we can play the game's rules. The character can exist without those rules. IT's /easy/. It happens all the time in the media. That's part of what makes this so ridiculous; You keep saying you want to do things like they do it in the stories. How can you /possibly/ use the stats as a basis? It's not like.. oh I'll pick on someone I know you like, Tolkien did.

Because D&D isn't a book, don't mix mediums. Stats are how people effect the world, that is an D&D truth. A person with 6 chrisma, can't persuade any army to fight for free. A person with 4 strength can't lift boulders.
from
EE

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 07:33 PM
Because D&D isn't a book, don't mix mediums. Stats are how people effect the world, that is an D&D truth. A person with 6 chrisma, can't persuade any army to fight for free.

Sure he can. A person with 6 Charisma can even be attractive (Charisma =/= beauty), and have cranked Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. He'd have a total bonus of 4 less than someone with 16 charisma, but the results can still be very high.

Rutee
2008-04-30, 07:35 PM
Sure he can. A person with 6 Charisma can even be attractive (Charisma =/= beauty), and have cranked Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. He'd have a total bonus of 4 less than someone with 16 charisma, but the results can still be very high.

Yeah.. that's kinda like the "Orcs are dumber then humans" argument.. In general, I think of Stats more like natural talent, with other bits being training.

Also, apparently EE is saying some wrong crap like "Roleplaying games can't be like stories"? I just have to wonder how he can possibly "It's impossible" /when people do it/.

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 07:38 PM
Sure he can. A person with 6 Charisma can even be attractive (Charisma =/= beauty), and have cranked Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. He'd have a total bonus of 4 less than someone with 16 charisma, but the results can still be very high.

Bluff and diplomacy are still depending on chrisma. I know that chrisma doesn't equal beauty (see my avater) but more to the point you right with intimidate, However that would certainly effect the nature of his men's control, because armies that are led by fear are in fact far different than those that follow out of love
from
EE

Dervag
2008-04-30, 07:51 PM
thats actually what the game is based upon, this isn't a drama gameIf you want to go that way, then the game is actually based upon tactical wargaming. Everything else got started when Gygax and the boys were around a table wargaming Celts vs. Romans and the Celt player said "my druid conjures up a lightning bolt and kills your war elephant!" In which case all this nonsense about "alignment" is just about as secondary to the real core of the game as "drama."

Of course, that's a silly, foolish way to interpret the game. The game is what it is, not what it was. And what it is is a mechanism for roleplaying characters, using the statistics provided. If you want to bend the statistics to get better roleplaying, that is fine, just as if you were to bend any other tool in order to make it more useful for its purpose.


No, zombies fit that role. Demons and devils, as seen in the fiendish codex is that there is something inherently disturbing and yet fascinating by a being who's very nature is simply the powers of evil. Something so sickeningly immoral that its very nature is an affront to morality. in the same way, angels inspire a sense of aww You know, misspelling "awe" as "aww" really does change the meaning of the word, now that I think about it.

Just goes to prove that Mark Twain was right when he said "the difference between the right word and the almost right word is as large as the difference between a lightning bug and a lightning bolt."


Angels are a race, they are beings who's very nature is that of pure good.Not anymore they're not...


Yes. Angels are being reduced from beings of good, embodiments of the pure ideal of goodness, to simple divine mouthpieces. The reason is of course, because WotC is stupid and can't imagine the idea that stating or even focusing their energies upon good creatures if they can help it, and so they are trying to make everything they can evil in order to allow players to fight it, as well as going along with the "evil angel" themeI don't think you follow the reasoning very well here.

You see, it was never about Wizards being "stupid." Angels can be good (servants of good gods) just as easily as they can be evil (servants of evil gods). The point of the exercise is that an angel is a servant of a god, not a freestanding being.

This is in fact more true to the original root of the concept, not less. Angels in Judeo-Christian lore (the place angels come from) are not freestanding independent beings. As far as we can tell, they weren't freestanding independent beings even back when the Hebrews thought that there were other supernatural things God didn't make. Angels have always been servants of godhood.

Then 3rd Edition D&D decided that they didn't want angels to be servants of godhood. Instead, they wanted to create two completely separate cosmologies- one of the gods and their mortal followers, and one of the supernatural outsiders. Thus, angels and demons were totally separate from deities.

That isn't the way most mythology works. It isn't normal. It isn't the only way for things to be that makes sense, the way you pretend.

And yet, when they turn around and change things, your mental horizon is drawn so close to your own experiences with 3rd Edition that you can't imagine things making sense or being good any other way.

Did you ever look at a 1st Edition monster manual? No angels. Plenty of demons and devils, but no angels, because Gary Gygax wasn't really interested in creating lots of good creatures. He set up a demonology for his characters to fight, but no angelology to back them up.

In the expansions to 1st Edition (Monster Manual II and Fiend Folio), some 'angels' got statted out- devas, solars, and planetars. There may have been some others I don't know about. But angels were pretty much an afterthought to the original version of the game as we know it (I don't count anything before AD&D as "as we know it.")

Ever since 1st Edition, the role played by "angels" has been in flux. In 1st Edition, the "angels" (not called such, you'll notice) were servants of the gods. It just so happened that they were good-aligned servants, but the monster descriptions very clearly tied them to the will of the gods.

Now, in 3rd Edition, Wizards decided to change that and detach the angels from the gods. You apparently fell in love with this idea, such that you can't imagine it working any other way. Such that you regard it as a matter of fact that angels simply are the way they are in 3rd Edition, and that doing them any other way is somehow inauthentic and inferior.

In 4th Edition, they're restoring the attachment and the traditional role of angels as divine messengers. You do not like that. But can you try to step outside of yourself for a moment and look at how it seems to other people? Could you bring yourself to crack open some of the older sourcebooks, before 3rd Edition, and look at how much wizards had to change the concept of angels to make them into what you like?


Because not the angel has been simplified from a more complex good ideal to simply another of the gods foot troopsElitist, that's what they are. Angels are the gods' foot soldiers. Or their captains of foot soldiers. Or their heralds. Or their provincial governors. You can look it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelic_hierarchy).

It so happens that in the mythos that angels are drawn from, they're good. The reason they're good is that their boss is good. In a polytheistic universe that (as you once pointed out) isn't Judeo-Christian, there's no reason to expect all angels to be good, any more than all clerics are.


2) no, WotC is closed minded and thinks that players only interact with things they can fight. Yet again, a case of "the players are morons" and so good creatures rarely get any focusBefore you call someone closed minded, you really ought to check up on the background of the subject you're talking about. In this case, the subject is angels and the way angels have been portrayed in D&D. You argue that there is only one right way to do this, and any change is bad. You seem to ignore the fact that in the original sources that the idea of angels come from, they aren't treated the same way. And the fact that they weren't treated the same way before Wizards made a fluff change. And the fact that tons of people think the new fluff change is a great idea, which suggests that it isn't a case of Wizards doing something dumb.

Believe me, when Wizards does something dumb (like polymorph), people notice. You don't get lots of people sticking up for it. This isn't one of those times.

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 08:13 PM
If you want to go that way, then the game is actually based upon tactical wargaming. Everything else got started when Gygax and the boys were around a table wargaming Celts vs. Romans and the Celt player said "my druid conjures up a lightning bolt and kills your war elephant!" In which case all this nonsense about "alignment" is just about as secondary to the real core of the game as "drama."

The game it was based upon was a tatical war gaming. Be 2E it was clearly something else


Of course, that's a silly, foolish way to interpret the game. The game is what it is, not what it was. And what it is is a mechanism for roleplaying characters, using the statistics provided. If you want to bend the statistics to get better roleplaying, that is fine, just as if you were to bend any other tool in order to make it more useful for its purpose.

One of hte fundamental concepts of D&D is that you effect the game through mechanics, not through drama like a story telling game.


You know, misspelling "awe" as "aww" really does change the meaning of the word, now that I think about it.

thanks, edited


Just goes to prove that Mark Twain was right when he said "the difference between the right word and the almost right word is as large as the difference between a lightning bug and a lightning bolt."

can't argue with that man


Not anymore they're not...

Ergo, why i don't like 4E destroying perfectly good fluff points


I don't think you follow the reasoning very well here.

You see, it was never about Wizards being "stupid." Angels can be good (servants of good gods) just as easily as they can be evil (servants of evil gods). The point of the exercise is that an angel is a servant of a god, not a freestanding being.
I was referring to
1) That the angels have been changes from servants of good itself to simply divine troops, subtle difference
2) WotC being stupid, i am referring to their tendency to disregard good beings in D&D
3) An angel as a servant of gods is a very different concepts that the prior one. in this one they are simply divine servants, not powerful beings who embody a belief the way devils are




This is in fact more true to the original root of the concept, not less. Angels in Judeo-Christian lore (the place angels come from) are not freestanding independent beings. As far as we can tell, they weren't freestanding independent beings even back when the Hebrews thought that there were other supernatural things God didn't make. Angels have always been servants of godhood.
Stop there. This is D&D, not christain ideals. In Christianity, demons and devils are the same creatures. I'm not referring to Chrsitain definitions, because this isn't a christain game. This is D&D


Then 3rd Edition D&D decided that they didn't want angels to be servants of godhood. Instead, they wanted to create two completely separate cosmologies- one of the gods and their mortal followers, and one of the supernatural outsiders. Thus, angels and demons were totally separate from deities.
Yes. And demons and devils still are to an extent.



That isn't the way most mythology works. It isn't normal. It isn't the only way for things to be that makes sense, the way you pretend.
I'm against unneeded sloppy changes that could be easily avoided by Wotc Simply choosing another name



And yet, when they turn around and change things, your mental horizon is drawn so close to your own experiences with 3rd Edition that you can't imagine things making sense or being good any other way.
Ug, dervage i expected better from you, don't be dense. I haven't condemned every 4E change. I've applauded some. I've also condemned 3E for many reasons, just not as much as 4E


Did you ever look at a 1st Edition monster manual? No angels. Plenty of demons and devils, but no angels, because Gary Gygax wasn't really interested in creating lots of good creatures. He set up a demonology for his characters to fight, but no angelology to back them up.

In the expansions to 1st Edition (Monster Manual II and Fiend Folio), some 'angels' got statted out- devas, solars, and planetars. There may have been some others I don't know about. But angels were pretty much an afterthought to the original version of the game as we know it (I don't count anything before AD&D as "as we know it.")

And the game evolved from there, the first real definition came about. And now a perfectly good concept is being ditched for faulty reasons that could be easily avoided.


Now, in 3rd Edition, Wizards decided to change that and detach the angels from the gods. You apparently fell in love with this idea, such that you can't imagine it working any other way. Such that you regard it as a matter of fact that angels simply are the way they are in 3rd Edition, and that doing them any other way is somehow inauthentic and inferior.
You insult by your attempts define a hidden motive, instead of excepting real reasons. Before 3E, there was no real defined angel role, and now there is. And it is being changed. And this isn't like the wizards change where the necessary is evident to everybody, but one simply don't dispite WotC claim that they "won't fix that which isn't broken"


In 4th Edition, they're restoring the attachment and the traditional role of angels as divine messengers. You do not like that. But can you try to step outside of yourself for a moment and look at how it seems to other people? Could you bring yourself to crack open some of the older sourcebooks, before 3rd Edition, and look at how much wizards had to change the concept of angels to make them into what you like?
See second post on this thread before you make judgments. And that doesn't diminish my point. I've already offered a compromise. as i always do in 4E thread. Make Angels the same, and create some new divine servant race rather than destroying a perfectly good concept out of WotC's annoying idea that only evil creatures deserve stats


Elitist, that's what they are. Angels are the gods' foot soldiers. Or their captains of foot soldiers. Or their heralds. Or their provincial governors. You can look it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelic_hierarchy).
This isn't a Christian game, we aren't held to such ideals



It so happens that in the mythos that angels are drawn from, they're good. The reason they're good is that their boss is good. In a polytheistic universe that (as you once pointed out) isn't Judeo-Christian, there's no reason to expect all angels to be good, any more than all clerics are.

Other than the reasons established in 3E, perfectly good reasons that the devils are still abidding by


Before you call someone closed minded, you really ought to check up on the background of the subject you're talking about. In this case, the subject is angels and the way angels have been portrayed in D&D. You argue that there is only one right way to do this, and any change is bad. You seem to ignore the fact that in the original sources that the idea of angels come from, they aren't treated the same way. And the fact that they weren't treated the same way before Wizards made a fluff change. And the fact that tons of people think the new fluff change is a great idea, which suggests that it isn't a case of Wizards doing something dumb.
Before you accuse me of hypocisy, then you should actually investigate my claims the throughout the thread.

As for numbers, in a debate numbers are meaningless. Many people don't like it, many do like it, but that isn't relevant, what s relevant is the point.



Believe me, when Wizards does something dumb (like polymorph), people notice. You don't get lots of people sticking up for it. This isn't one of those times.
Yes it is, see Rich's comic on the matter
from
EE

Edit
Odd, i'm arguing meritocracies, Christianity, American Educational reform, German history and my political ambitions at the same time. odd

fendrin
2008-04-30, 08:22 PM
<long, detailed, well-written, 100% accurate post>

Wow. Well done. Of course, you might as well have been talking to a wall, for all the good it will do you.

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 08:23 PM
Wow. Well done. Of course, you might as well have been talking to a wall, for all the good it will do you.

Ignoring the fact i countered it, you do realize the thread where you deiced to ignore me was actually a mis understand and i apologized in my next post right?
from
EE

Cyclone231
2008-04-30, 08:26 PM
Except they can choose their alignment as they see fit As can angels, even in 3E.

But there are still many of possibilities for good, many. Limiting seems rather short sited And you can still have unallied good angels. Your idea of Pure Good guys limits them.

No, zombies fit that role. Demons and devils, as seen in the fiendish codex is that there is something inherently disturbing and yet fascinating by a being who's very nature is simply the powers of evil. Something so sickeningly immoral that its very nature is an affront to morality.Yes, thus I can mow it down without feeling bad. It does also have interesting themes, but the thing is it's a monster race. That's why it exists.

Certainly. They fight for a cause depending on their belief, nothing inherent in the class that tells them what to fight for You have a terrible definition of sell sword, then.

Angels are a race, they are beings who's very nature is that of pure good.Haven't you read the articles? Angels are a race of energy beings who frequently align themselves with deities.

Clerics are servants of hte gods. As are the new angels.

1) Angels in 3E who commited evil acts would cease to be angels. Ergo, their race would changeSource?

How many times do i have to say this before you people actually read what i write and not make presumptions based upon what makes you feel more confident about your stance. I am not against change. I am not against an new edition. When 4E was first announced, i argued for the need of a new edition. I am against unnecessary and badly handled change that ruins perfectly good concepts that could be easily avoided if WotC posses some basic respect for their fluff. "I am not against change," you say.

But this change shows that WotC doesn't "posses some basic respect for their fluff." Why? Because they changed something.

This just in: basic respect for your fluff doesn't mean complete unwillingness to change it.

Yes. Angels are being reduced from beings of good, embodiments of the pure ideal of goodness, to simple divine mouthpieces. The reason is of course, because WotC is stupid and can't imagine the idea that stating or even focusing their energies upon good creatures if they can help it, and so they are trying to make everything they can evil in order to allow players to fight it, as well as going along with the "evil angel" themeNot all angels are evil. Try realizing that not every outsider has to behave in exactly the same way.

And the mirror thing was amazingly thoughtful and well fleshed out.Ah, the oldest trick in the book: annoy your opponent enough so he says something that can be vaguely construed as rude and then hold it over his head. This isn't politics, bucko. Hardly going to convince this guy with that sort of dishonest debate tactic.

Because not the angel has been simplified from a more complex good ideal to simply another of the gods foot troops"A more complex good ideal"? "A race of 100% good outsiders" is "more complex" than "a race of outsiders who have wildly varying views"?

1)Because its like an order of good fighters, niffty, but not unique. The angels as a race of always good creatures was uniqueAh, yes, the "there can only be one type of angel in my games or It Doesn't Work" crap. Why do you loathe the idea of reduction of redundancy in monsters so much? All this is is adding overlap between "divine servants" and "generic good guys."

2) no, WotC is closed minded and thinks that players only interact with things they can fight. Yet again, a case of "the players are morons" and so good creatures rarely get any focusNewsflash: most players don't have extensive relationships with 3E angels. Do you know why? It's not because they're morons. It's because 3E angels live on another goddamn plane and don't generally migrate over here to come beat the **** out of anyone, good or evil. They don't come kick the **** out of some devil prince because then the players couldn't kick the **** out of some devil prince.

Talya
2008-04-30, 08:36 PM
Change is okay.

Retconning is always bad.

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 08:39 PM
As can angels, even in 3E.

They are called "Always good" for a reason you know.


And you can still have unallied good angels. Your idea of Pure Good guys limits them.
You mean 3E's idea of pure good, i didn't write D&D


Yes, thus I can mow it down without feeling bad. It does also have interesting themes, but the thing is it's a monster race. That's why it exists.
And in the same way they are beings of pure evil, angels are t good


You have a terrible definition of sell sword, then.
Somebody who fights for money. A wizard fighting for any cause can be a sell sword. My point remains, nothing ties the wizard to any particular cause, because it is a class not a race.


Haven't you read the articles? Angels are a race of energy beings who frequently align themselves with deities.
In 4E changes, which would be fine if they just used their own damn name


As are the new angels.
I know, but clerics are a class, angels are a race, ergo problem


Source?
Fiendish Codex II, BoED
that is how devils were formed



"I am not against change," you say.

But this change shows that WotC doesn't "posses some basic respect for their fluff." Why? Because they changed something.

This just in: basic respect for your fluff doesn't mean complete unwillingness to change it.
I'm not against change, i support some of 4E's changes. Angels isn't one of them


Not all angels are evil. Try realizing that not every outsider has to behave in exactly the same way.
Being good doesn't limit you to acting exactly teh same. I mean O'Chul and Hinjo are very different in nature


Ah, the oldest trick in the book: annoy your opponent enough so he says something that can be vaguely construed as rude and then hold it over his head. This isn't politics, bucko. Hardly going to convince this guy with that sort of dishonest debate tactic.

WFT are you talking about? How is


And the mirror thing was amazingly thoughtful and well fleshed out.
an attack on you? What? I've already backed that point, i fail to see how i'm insulting you in any way here. My calling you paranoid however.


"A more complex good ideal"? "A race of 100% good outsiders" is "more complex" than "a race of outsiders who have wildly varying views"?
As a concept yes. A race who's very nature is in fact following a limited code is a rather complex idea actually if handled well. Divine servants can exist (see below) but not as angels



Ah, yes, the "there can only be one type of angel in my games or It Doesn't Work" crap. Why do you loathe the idea of reduction of redundancy in monsters so much? All this is is adding overlap between "divine servants" and "generic good guys."
1) they aren't simply generic good guys, those are just good mortals. They are the living essence of good
2) because each concept is unique and has its own niffty aspects. Divine servants can exist

Here a compromise

WE make two creatures. We make this distenction clear from teh get go

We have clelestrials , servants of good and all that

And angels who are simply divine servants

Then everybody is happy, a solution i've already offered a few times




Newsflash: most players don't have extensive relationships with 3E angels. Do you know why? It's not because they're morons. It's because 3E angels live on another goddamn plane and don't generally migrate over here to come beat the **** out of anyone, good or evil. They don't come kick the **** out of some devil prince because then the players couldn't kick the **** out of some devil prince.
you losing focus it seems, and you temper.

I don't seen how having alliance with a powerful good being somehow makes the player a moral

And angels are established to fight demons and devils a lot, it just that there are a lot of evil beings to fight, plenty for the players and the much fewer angels
from
EE

Rutee
2008-04-30, 08:40 PM
...It's only a Retcon in established settings. You can't retcon the setting neutral parts.

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 08:41 PM
...It's only a Retcon in established settings. You can't retcon the setting neutral parts.

They are however changing established generic fluff, or at least changing it in a simliar manner
from
EE

ahammer
2008-04-30, 09:26 PM
the good things about rpgs are you can change them however you see fit.

dont like angels change them
call them angles (in honor of ee) and restat them.

when I look for a rpg I look for the system that most closly help my playing style then (if im not being lazy) change what I dont like with house rules.

somtimes I feel like some of us talk about rpg more then we spend playing them (myself inculeded)

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 09:35 PM
the good things about rpgs are you can change them however you see fit.

dont like angels change them
call them angles (in honor of ee) and restat them.

when I look for a rpg I look for the system that most closly help my playing style then (if im not being lazy) change what I dont like with house rules.

somtimes I feel like some of us talk about rpg more then we spend playing them (myself inculeded)
oh that certainly, is true, but i must remind you, that just because i can change things ( and i intend to) but i am still expressing my distaste in these changes.
from
EE

Dervag
2008-04-30, 09:48 PM
The game it was based upon was a tatical war gaming. Be 2E it was clearly something elseExactly.

The game evolves. That's OK. And even as early as 1st Edition, it wasn't about mechanics over roleplaying. There was plenty of stuff in 1st and 2nd Edition that didn't even have rules, or had rules so sketchy that the users ignored them and roleplayed it out (diplomacy, anyone)?

That proves that while mechanics are important to the game, they aren't king over all. The point of even buying the game in the first place is to roleplay. That takes precedence over mechanics. If I wanted a game where mechanics are more important than roleplaying, I'd play Yahtzee.


Ergo, why i don't like 4E destroying perfectly good fluff pointsThing is, that fluff is still there. You can make the "angels" of good gods into halo-bedecked, feather-winged beings of justice and light, while the "angels" of evil gods are terrifying apparitions that look vaguely demonic, or don't have the right number of body parts, or whatever.

In fact, you should. I wouldn't be surprised if they include that in the final version of the fluff. And I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they include good outsider races not aligned with deities to "balance" the demons and devils.


I was referring to
1) That the angels have been changes from servants of good itself to simply divine troops, subtle difference
2) WotC being stupid, i am referring to their tendency to disregard good beings in D&D
3) An angel as a servant of gods is a very different concepts that the prior one. in this one they are simply divine servants, not powerful beings who embody a belief the way devils areThing is, the idea that angels are servants of gods is the prior prior concept. They're not changing the fluff; they're changing it back. Likewise, they're not "failing" to stat out good angels here. They're statting angels, which may be good or evil. It doesn't matter; they have the same stat block. Does that mean they have the same fluff? No. Does that mean that "angels" are the only supernatural beings that can come to the world from the good-aligned parts of the Outer Plane(s)? Heck, no, any more than they're the only ones that can come from evil places.


Stop there. This is D&D, not christain ideals. In Christianity, demons and devils are the same creatures. I'm not referring to Chrsitain definitions, because this isn't a christain game. This is D&DNo. You stop there. Think about it for a minute.

Almost every creature in the D&D mythos comes from somebody's mythology. Some of them are the creations of modern 'mythology' (like Tolkien). Others have undergone lots of adaptation in the process of going from real mythology to modern fantasy creatures.

But the roots of the original mythology are still there. For example, dryads come from Greek mythology, where they're spirits associated with individual trees. Imagine that D&D had 'Warcraft' dryads, who look and act little or nothing like the old Greek dryads. Now imagine that in 4e, Wizards was changing dryads into humanoids who were associated with individual trees, instead of ditzy centaur-women who wandered around at random.

I could reasonably say "originally, dryads were Greek nature spirits associated with individual trees, so this is a reasonable change to the fluff. They're not making dryads into something new; they are undoing recent changes and adapting the old concept into their game."

That is exactly what I am doing with regard to angels in 4e. I have specifically said that I know D&D isn't a Christian or Judeo-Christian setting. But whether it is or not, angels come from the Judeo-Christian mythos. So if we want to know what angels really ought to be like, we should at least READ that mythos a bit so we know what the Heaven we're talking about. Otherwise, we're going to run around saying dumbass stuff that's equivalent to saying "no, dryads have the torso of a woman and the body of a horse and they're immune to magic and they throw poisoned javelins because that's the way they are in Warcraft." Which is idiotic, because that's the way they are in Warcraft, but not the way they were in the minds of their makers or in almost every single work of fiction about them ever made.

Likewise, in almost every single work of fiction about them ever made until very recently, and even in most of the works made recently, angels are divine servants.


Ug, dervage i expected better from you, don't be dense. I haven't condemned every 4E change. I've applauded some. I've also condemned 3E for many reasons, just not as much as 4EDon't you go dense on me either. I'm talking about this change. I neither know nor care what else you've said on some other thread. I'm saying that I don't think you've done your homework on this one. You seem to have only one idea of what angels are supposed to be- the one drawn from 3rd Edition D&D. That does not give you a broad enough base of knowledge to be an authority on what angels should be.

Now, it does give you every right to say "I liked the way they were." But that is a subjective argument, and it can't overrule someone else's argument along the lines of "I like the way they are going to be after the change." If you want to be an authority, look up the relevant background and take it into consideration before you make extreme statements about how Wizards is doing it 'wrong'.


Before 3E, there was no real defined angel role...Sure there was.

1st Edition Monster Manual II, p. 42, entry "Deva:"

The race of devas inhabit the upper Outer Planes of Good. Devas are servants and messengers of the various deities of good alignment.
Same book, p. 101, entry "Planetar:"

A planetar is one of a powerful spirit group, numbering not fewer than 100, who serve the deities of good alignment. One or more will typically serve as the right hand of a minor deity, while numbers of planetars will attend a major deity.
Same book, p. 111, entry "Solar:"

A solar is the most powerful of spirits, usually directly serving a greater deity of good alignment and typically as his or her marshal, steward, etc. On rare occasions, a solar will be found attending a lesser deity.I did not fabricate those quotes. I had the book practically in my lap, and I typed them verbatim from the monster entries. Do not take my word for it. Get a second opinion, by all means. Remember, the book is "Monster Manual II," by Gary Gygax, published by TSR in 1983.

The defense rests.:smallamused:

Wooter
2008-04-30, 09:56 PM
I like you, Dervag. You say what I want to say except much more articulately, and with significantly less cursing and oddly specific threats.

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 10:16 PM
Exactly.

The game evolves. That's OK. And even as early as 1st Edition, it wasn't about mechanics over roleplaying. There was plenty of stuff in 1st and 2nd Edition that didn't even have rules, or had rules so sketchy that the users ignored them and roleplayed it out (diplomacy, anyone)?

And some 4E changes are understanding, but the game shouldn't discard things simply for the sake of change.


That proves that while mechanics are important to the game, they aren't king over all. The point of even buying the game in the first place is to roleplay. That takes precedence over mechanics. If I wanted a game where mechanics are more important than roleplaying, I'd play Yahtzee.
I'm preaching fluff dude


Thing is, that fluff is still there. You can make the "angels" of good gods into halo-bedecked, feather-winged beings of justice and light, while the "angels" of evil gods are terrifying apparitions that look vaguely demonic, or don't have the right number of body parts, or whatever.
The fluff isn't there. Angels, are now divine divine servants. I don't want Angels, or at least clesestrials to be divine servants, because the 3E concept was perfectly fine. Make another divine servant beings (see my solution above). However a concept that worked in 3E and there was no reason why it shouldn't work is being ditched. Any thing can be changed in theory, but WotC isn't doing that


In fact, you should. I wouldn't be surprised if they include that in the final version of the fluff. And I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they include good outsider races not aligned with deities to "balance" the demons and devils.
We have seen no sign of them sadly. My compermise is something WotC should have thought of rather than reckless changing


Thing is, the idea that angels are servants of gods is the prior prior concept. They're not changing the fluff; they're changing it back. Likewise, they're not "failing" to stat out good angels here. They're statting angels, which may be good or evil. It doesn't matter; they have the same stat block. Does that mean they have the same fluff? No. Does that mean that "angels" are the only supernatural beings that can come to the world from the good-aligned parts of the Outer Plane(s)? Heck, no, any more than they're the only ones that can come from evil places.

But they are going back to a less developed concept rather than a well thought out concept. Why not make a new breed of divine servants rather than changing an already existing one


No. You stop there. Think about it for a minute.

Almost every creature in the D&D mythos comes from somebody's mythology. Some of them are the creations of modern 'mythology' (like Tolkien). Others have undergone lots of adaptation in the process of going from real mythology to modern fantasy creatures.

And the massive amount of them are not even recognizable. We can use source material only so far.

Also, technically, if Christian angels are good, then they fit the good concept more than any old god concept.


But the roots of the original mythology are still there. For example, dryads come from Greek mythology, where they're spirits associated with individual trees. Imagine that D&D had 'Warcraft' dryads, who look and act little or nothing like the old Greek dryads. Now imagine that in 4e, Wizards was changing dryads into humanoids who were associated with individual trees, instead of ditzy centaur-women who wandered around at random.
[/QUOTE]
1) Actually Dryads are now tree people who resemble the bog monesters from WoW, fun fact
2) true, but one must also consider ones own fluff in teh game. Dryads (until 4E) made the transition pretty well. But Angels couldn't because they are too tied into the Christian mithos. So instead they are now beings of pure good, which is kinda close. Changing that is rather bad form


That is exactly what I am doing with regard to angels in 4e. I have specifically said that I know D&D isn't a Christian or Judeo-Christian setting. But whether it is or not, angels come from the Judeo-Christian mythos. So if we want to know what angels really ought to be like, we should at least READ that mythos a bit so we know what the Heaven we're talking about. Otherwise, we're going to run around saying dumbass stuff that's equivalent to saying "no, dryads have the torso of a woman and the body of a horse and they're immune to magic and they throw poisoned javelins because that's the way they are in Warcraft." Which is idiotic, because that's the way they are in Warcraft, but not the way they were in the minds of their makers or in almost every single work of fiction about them ever made.
However Angels at least when they became a well organized force were their own unique concept. Which is different from the current one.


Likewise, in almost every single work of fiction about them ever made until very recently, and even in most of the works made recently, angels are divine servants.
Um, Tales of Symphonia. And this is a debate, don't break out wide catagories of fiction


Don't you go dense on me either. I'm talking about this change. I neither know nor care what else you've said on some other thread. I'm saying that I don't think you've done your homework on this one. You seem to have only one idea of what angels are supposed to be- the one drawn from 3rd Edition D&D. That does not give you a broad enough base of knowledge to be an authority on what angels should be.

Why not? Ignoring the fact that Angels has very little fluff in 1E and were even in 2E due to fear of law suit, and so the first time they were ever explained in detail was in 3E. And in there they took a very unique role. As 4E is an update to 3E, it bothers me that instead of creating a perfectly normal compromise they instead destroy a good 3E concept.



Sure there was.

1st Edition Monster Manual II, p. 42, entry "Deva:"

Same book, p. 101, entry "Planetar:"

Same book, p. 111, entry "Solar:"
Nice catch. I don't have 1E books, but i'm asking. Isn't that all they have on them, like at all? Any books, manual of the planes, any explanation of heaven. Because these things seem like Yugloths in 3E, really no fluff for them at all. I don't complain about Yugloth change, because there wasn't any real change, WotC made it clear they didn't care abotu the Yugloth fluff and so there isn't really any difference when it was changed.
Sadly, that seems to be the case in 1E, where WotC didn't put much effort into Angels, so you have a very vague and unsupported concept. The new updated versions didn't change that much actually, except that the angels served the gods as allies, not servants. Both are still Good outsiders much like Demons and Devils

Now i'm not against a new servant race, maybe in tribute to old concepts. But don't destroy the 3E concepts as well



I did not fabricate those quotes. I had the book practically in my lap, and I typed them verbatim from the monster entries. Do not take my word for it. Get a second opinion, by all means. Remember, the book is "Monster Manual II," by Gary Gygax, published by TSR in 1983.

I generally assume people aren't faking you know, i haven't accused you.


From
EE

Yahzi
2008-04-30, 10:46 PM
Why? If you're never going to interact with them, then it's irrelevant what they expect, because it won't be confirmed or denied either way.
Maybe this is what bugs me about per-encounter powers. I don't know how they affect the game world.

Right a 5th level priest can cure disease twice a day. But what if cure disease is an encounter power? How many times a day can he do it then? (If anybody says 4, I'm gonna smack 'em :smalltongue: )

Now Rutee doesn't care: in her world, a plague is a problem if the plot calls for it, and it's not if it doesn't. But in my world, if I toss a plague onto a city, the first thing my players ask is, "Why doesn't the local priest just cure it?" Because the next thing they'll ask is, "How much can I get for a Cure Disease potion?"

And as long as they're changing names, any chance they'll make Hobgoblins smaller than Goblins? :smallbiggrin:

illathid
2008-04-30, 11:04 PM
Maybe this is what bugs me about per-encounter powers. I don't know how they affect the game world.

Right a 5th level priest can cure disease twice a day. But what if cure disease is an encounter power? How many times a day can he do it then? (If anybody says 4, I'm gonna smack 'em :smalltongue: )

Now Rutee doesn't care: in her world, a plague is a problem if the plot calls for it, and it's not if it doesn't. But in my world, if I toss a plague onto a city, the first thing my players ask is, "Why doesn't the local priest just cure it?" Because the next thing they'll ask is, "How much can I get for a Cure Disease potion?"

And as long as they're changing names, any chance they'll make Hobgoblins smaller than Goblins? :smallbiggrin:

Thing is effects like that will most likely be handled under the rules for rituals, of which we have heard next to nothing about. However, I'm fairly confident when I say that 4e will not have "cure disease" as a per encounter power.

Yahzi
2008-04-30, 11:56 PM
Thing is effects like that will most likely be handled under the rules for rituals, of which we have heard next to nothing about. However, I'm fairly confident when I say that 4e will not have "cure disease" as a per encounter power.
Ya, they'll dodge that bullet.

But I bet you a sack of Illithids that they'll hand out some minor at-will power, like say Frost Ray, and within days the boards will be talking about how a 2nd level warlock can recreate the Arctic.

:smallbiggrin:

Dervag
2008-05-01, 12:00 AM
The fluff isn't there. Angels, are now divine divine servants. I don't want Angels, or at least clesestrials to be divine servants, because the 3E concept was perfectly fine. Make another divine servant beings (see my solution above). However a concept that worked in 3E and there was no reason why it shouldn't work is being ditched. Any thing can be changed in theory, but WotC isn't doing thatYou misunderstood me, with good reason.

What I mean is that the 'old' fluff is already published. You have all the old fluff- if you didn't, you wouldn't be upset about the change because you wouldn't know anything had changed. If you didn't have it, say because you've lost your sourcebooks in a fire, you could come up with it off the top of your head. It's easy.

The real challenge is in the stat block. And I'm betting that there will be stat blocks in the 4th Edition monster manual that will lend themselves immediately to the kind of creature you want. They just won't be called angels. For that matter, there may even be 'good mirrors' of demons and devils... just not called angels. Maybe they'll keep the name archon or guardinal or something. If you want, you can switch the names. No problem.

Even 1st Edition Monster Manual I, which had no angels in the sense of winged humanoids with halos, had a variety of good-aligned extraplanar beings.


We have seen no sign of them sadly. My compermise is something WotC should have thought of rather than reckless changingHave you seen the whole monster manual? If you have not, and have seen only a handful of excerpts and articles, as I have... how do you know what creatures they have and haven't put in? Maybe this article will give them some feedback: "We want good outsiders!" Maybe they forgot to mention that they're keeping phoenixes and ki-rin and such.

[/QUOTE]1) Actually Dryads are now tree people who resemble the bog monesters from WoW, fun fact[/quote]I was thinking of Warcraft III; you know what I mean.

2) true, but one must also consider ones own fluff in teh game. Dryads (until 4E) made the transition pretty well. But Angels couldn't because they are too tied into the Christian mithos. So instead they are now beings of pure good, which is kinda close. Changing that is rather bad formI think they wanted to fill a real role (generic servants of the gods who fill roles like "lead the worshippers in battle," or "avenge transgressions") that had not been filled before. So they shifted a creature type away from one role to cover another.

They had to fix something broken- gods in 3rd Edition had very few supernatural beings under their direct control unless you sat down and gave each diety its own group of servants "Pelor has solars, Gruumsh has giant demons that look like orcs, and Kord has... umm...?"

They pulled a piece out of another machine to fix it. Maybe that wasn't the best choice, but they were trying to fix something broken.


Um, Tales of Symphonia. And this is a debate, don't break out wide catagories of fictionUm, Neil Gaiman's Sandman series. Paradise Lost.

The whole point here is that you think they're doing the wrong thing with angels, and I think they're doing an OK thing. How are we to prove who's right? Angels are fictional characters. D&D is fiction. If we want to know how to use angels in fiction correctly, we have to look at other fiction.


Why not? Ignoring the fact that Angels has very little fluff in 1E and were even in 2E due to fear of law suit, and so the first time they were ever explained in detail was in 3E. And in there they took a very unique role.Ahem? Quotations?


Nice catch. I don't have 1E books, but i'm asking. Isn't that all they have on them, like at all? Any books, manual of the planes, any explanation of heaven. Because these things seem like Yugloths in 3E, really no fluff for them at all. I don't complain about Yugloth change, because there wasn't any real change, WotC made it clear they didn't care abotu the Yugloth fluff and so there isn't really any difference when it was changed.My point is that all the stats there were on angels tied them to dieties.

Why? Because the deities played a bigger role in the 'good' side of D&D cosmology. Evil was mostly run by demons and devils and yeah, some evil gods, about like it is in 3E. Only without the Blood War, which hadn't been invented. Good was mostly run by the deities. There was no vast hierarchy of archons or guardinals as there was of demons and devils. Therefore, the 'angels' of 1st Edition were specific entries in the Monster Manual- described as divine servants. With reason. Angels are traditionally servants of a deity.


Sadly, that seems to be the case in 1E, where WotC didn't put much effort into Angels, so you have a very vague and unsupported concept. The new updated versions didn't change that much actually, except that the angels served the gods as allies, not servants.Damn straight Wizards didn't put much effort into angels in 1st Edition, or anything else about it. TSR was running the show back then- they sold the rights to Wizards around 2000 when they went out of business. The first thing Wizard ever touched was Edition 3.0.

More seriously, the concept wasn't vague at all. Every place you saw anything like an angel in 1st Edition, it was described as a divine servant. There may not have been a lot of pages about them, but what there was was very consistent on what angels were supposed to be.

ShadowSiege
2008-05-01, 01:10 AM
*snip*

The only bad thing about reading your posts Dervag is that I'm subjected to EE as a result. You'd be best to simply ignore him as others have done. Your hard work, research, and grammatically and syntactically correct posts are wasted rebuffing him, as were mine.

As for the angels, I like their new place as messengers of the gods/catch-all embodiments of ideas. The removal of the onerous symmetry that has pervaded D&D since 1e is truly a blessing, though others are of the "They Changed It, Now it Sucks" camp. The fallen angel idea is worth toying around with once and a while, but considering it is one of the oldest ones in the book, it tends to come off as cliched. As an any-alignment creature, and less visually reminiscent of the goody-two-shoes angels of Judeo-Christian mythology (exempting Lucifer, obviously), the new angels will likely see greater use, in combat and out.

Jerthanis
2008-05-01, 04:17 AM
Hey, I really like this change, especially if there end up being no Good side counterbalance to Demons and Devils in the cosmology. Angels as the metaphysical answer to Demons and Devils makes all of existence into a Zero Sum game. If 4th edition works out like it sounds like, it'll be a lot like the Berserk cosmology, where there are demons lurking in the shadows, ready to tear you in half and rape your sister, but there's no supernatural Goody Two-Shoes whose job it is to intercede on your behalf. Instead, you've got to save yourself with your own two hands, either holding a sword, conjuring magic, or clasped in prayer.

Of course, I hate the idea of objective good as a direct force, almost elemental, at work on reality and welcome any step away from it. The idea of objective evil sits better with me only because I can imagine it as reality reacting to the subconscious fears of humankind, or as Lovecraftian monsters which are more unknowable than truly evil, or as the completely natural state of things. Make every single day a struggle to keep the dead from rising, keep the world together at its seams, to avoid the notice of those creatures who would destroy all of civilization for fun. That's a dynamic setting, that's putting the struggle in the hands of the player.

Xefas
2008-05-01, 05:06 AM
They are called "Always good" for a reason you know.

I know it isn't technically important to the argument anymore, but I'd like to add that you just brought up a good point. This simple statement proves that there were Angels of all alignments in 3rd edition.

You see, "Always Good" did not mean that a race was always good. The Monster Manual actually says that it simply means that individuals of other alignments are very rare "one in a million" I believe are their actual words.

The Upper Planes are infinitely large, so given this information, 3rd edition had an infinite number of Angels of every alignment.



Fiendish Codex II, BoED
that is how devils were formed

Also, the Fiendish Codex actually says that the original devils were angels who fell and became devils. All the devils after that are specifically stated to be souls who are tortured until they become Lemures, who then grow into the new devils.

An Angel who ceases to be good is still an Angel. In fact, they still have the Good subtype, which makes them even Detect as good for the purposes of spells. But, they're still neutral or evil.


Maybe this is what bugs me about per-encounter powers. I don't know how they affect the game world.

Right a 5th level priest can cure disease twice a day. But what if cure disease is an encounter power? How many times a day can he do it then? (If anybody says 4, I'm gonna smack 'em :smalltongue: )


I believe a per encounter power can be used once every 5 minutes outside of battle.

Muyten
2008-05-01, 07:11 AM
One of hte fundamental concepts of D&D is that you effect the game through mechanics, not through drama like a story telling game.


Well I'd argue that you do it through both. When I play I don't say "I go up to the orc chieftain and make a diplomacy roll to convince him to aid us" I say " I go up to the orc chieftain and say: "Please great leader our group is in need of aid from your mighty warriors, we will give you lots of gold in return..."

Usualy how well that speech goes will give me a bonus (or penalty) on a diplomacy roll or sometimes I wont even need to roll.

So in the games I play at least drama is as important for affecting the game as mechanics are.

EvilElitest
2008-05-01, 11:38 AM
You misunderstood me, with good reason.

What I mean is that the 'old' fluff is already published. You have all the old fluff- if you didn't, you wouldn't be upset about the change because you wouldn't know anything had changed. If you didn't have it, say because you've lost your sourcebooks in a fire, you could come up with it off the top of your head. It's easy.

Explain in detail plese



The real challenge is in the stat block. And I'm betting that there will be stat blocks in the 4th Edition monster manual that will lend themselves immediately to the kind of creature you want.
And the fact that they have something entirely different now. Divine beings, not good beings


They just won't be called angels. For that matter, there may even be 'good mirrors' of demons and devils... just not called angels. Maybe they'll keep the name archon or guardinal or something. If you want, you can switch the names. No problem.

We haven't seen any sign of this actually. If the normal species of divine beings aren't around....,


uch.
Have you seen the whole monster manual? If you have not, and have seen only a handful of excerpts and articles, as I have... how do you know what creatures they have and haven't put in? Maybe this article will give them some feedback: "We want good outsiders!" Maybe they forgot to mention that they're keeping phoenixes and ki-rin and s
Maybe, but maybe not. Optimistic speculations doesn't prove anything sadly. No such good beings were mentioned in the articles



I think was thinking of Warcraft III; you know what I mean.


No, in 4E they are tree people, see picture in worlds and monsters


they wanted to fill a real role (generic servants of the gods who fill roles like "lead the worshippers in battle," or "avenge transgressions") that had not been filled before. So they shifted a creature type away from one role to cover another.
[/QUOTE
Ergo, the problem. If they had made something new, there wouldn't be a problem here. Or made it clear the old stuff still existed


They had to fix something broken- gods in 3rd Edition had very few supernatural beings under their direct control unless you sat down and gave each diety its own group of servants "Pelor has solars, Gruumsh has giant demons that look like orcs, and Kord has... umm...?"

Most of the gods actually did have their own servants, but i see your point
But they should of used their creative genius and made new ones. Then everybody would be very happy



The whole point here is that you think they're doing the wrong thing with angels, and I think they're doing an OK thing. How are we to prove who's right? Angels are fictional characters. D&D is fiction. If we want to know how to use angels in fiction correctly, we have to look at other fiction.
Except within D&D they have their own fiction. We we want to get technical, new Angels aren't right via Christian ideals, because they don't serve the one true god and all that


Ahem? Quotations?

Weren't Angels and demons not used out of fear of offending people in 2E? Am i wrong?:smallconfused:


My point is that all the stats there were on angels tied them to dieties.

But the new editon to first simply cut out demons and angels entirely. So 3E was really bringing back and expanding upon an new concept. In 4E, they are somewhat reinvented a new concept, but 3E is closer to 1E than 1E to 4E. In 4E, angels are simply any alignment creatures. In both 3E and 1E they are always good, the particular nature of this goodness varies, but they are still super good outsiders.





Damn straight Wizards didn't put much effort into angels in 1st Edition, or anything else about it. TSR was running the show back then- they sold the rights to Wizards around 2000 when they went out of business. The first thing Wizard ever touched was Edition 3.0.

TSR, you get the idea. My Yugloth point remains


More seriously, the concept wasn't vague at all. Every place you saw anything like an angel in 1st Edition, it was described as a divine servant. There may not have been a lot of pages about them, but what there was was very consistent on what angels were supposed to be.

Didn't explain much where they came from however, but hte point remained that they were still good outsiders. These new guys are not. 4E/3E/1E are three very different angels, with 3E and 1E still sticking to the fundementals of angels.

Considering in 4E demons and devils still follow the outsider thing, i call foil

More later, out of connection



The only bad thing about reading your posts Dervag is that I'm subjected to EE as a result. You'd be best to simply ignore him as others have done. Your hard work, research, and grammatically and syntactically correct posts are wasted rebuffing him, as were mine.

1) What hard work? you lied to attempt to prove a point. I don't think that classifies as hard work
2) Actually, Drevag does well because he doesn't rely of zealotry to prove a point, as do you. Just because you lack ether the will or the ability to argue you point in a logical manner doesn't mean he doesn't. By wasting time attacking me prove the hypocrisy in your statements.
3) Ignoring me doesn't actually accomplish anything actually.


As for the angels, I like their new place as messengers of the gods/catch-all embodiments of ideas. The removal of the onerous symmetry that has pervaded D&D since 1e is truly a blessing, though others are of the "They Changed It, Now it Sucks" camp.
Case in point. Why did the symmetry suck? It was quite a nice development, it gave a feel of a well thought out universe.

[QUOTE]
The fallen angel idea is worth toying around with once and a while, but considering it is one of the oldest ones in the book, it tends to come off as cliched. As an any-alignment creature, and less visually reminiscent of the goody-two-shoes angels of Judeo-Christian mythology (exempting Lucifer, obviously), the new angels will likely see greater use, in combat and out.
1) What is wrong with good beings. Really back up your statements. What is wrong with the idea of a real good race. "Goody two shoes" hardly, they certainly had competence in BoED
2) The angels in Judeo-Christian, particularly in the old testemont were hardly good two shoes you realize.

Pro 4E people who simply hang onto other's shoulders and simply insult or use unbacked statements are a burden to everyone, and make hte pro 4E who actually do some damn research h look bad in comparison.
from
EE

kc0bbq
2008-05-01, 12:50 PM
Nice catch. I don't have 1E books, but i'm asking. Isn't that all they have on them, like at all? Any books, manual of the planes, any explanation of heaven. Because these things seem like Yugloths in 3E, really no fluff for them at all. I don't complain about Yugloth change, because there wasn't any real change, WotC made it clear they didn't care abotu the Yugloth fluff and so there isn't really any difference when it was changed. There is an absolute ton of Yugoloth fluff before 3E, and in fact most of the demon and devil fluff was flushed until recently except for the most basic framework.

Yugoloths were bastardized 1E -> 2E -> 3E than angels have been 3E -> 4E. They were slaughtered in the PC filter that created Baatezu and Tanari. But the reasons are kind of evident even reading this forum. Some people like to try to make themselves look clever and use "daemon" when they mean "demon", when they're not the same thing. It's as grating as the "bonii" garbage. Fluff was destroyed to defend people from their own ignorance.

The biggest difference, though, is that the players didn't need to be spoonfed fluff in the beginning, because D&D was a niche inhabited by people who liked world creation. The game audience has shifted to video game minded people and munchkins, 3E has made it into more of a combat simulation than an RPG. That in and of itself isn't necessarily bad, especially in marketing terms, but people become totally reliant on fluff.

As for the fallen angel concept in Judaism/Christianity, it was not evil that caused the fall, but the politics of free will. There were angels of evil, angels that went around killing lots of people - Michael was an 11 mile tall killing machine. They didn't have a free will, they just did what they were meant to do. If that meant torturing humans to make a point, that's what they did. They were unaligned, or at best Lawful Stupid.

Like it or not, this brings them closer to the original source in concept, obviously excluding the overarching monotheistic god at the top, but these concepts were planted when the Middle East was still polytheistic, anyway.

And your percieved behavior of 4E defenders doesn't change the fact that you have assumed a victim mentality, assert opinion as fact, and can't let go of something that's nothing more than an issue of semantics.

hamishspence
2008-05-01, 01:31 PM
EE, I may own beginner D&D ed rules, beginner 2nd ed AD&D rules, and most of 3rd ed and 3.5 books, but I am a bit behind on 2nd and 1st ed main rules.
So not a "found of knowledge"

I have read 2nd ed rulebooks (Players, DMG, Monsters, FF, MOTP, Deities, etc, but do not own them: tended to read other peoples copies, or in second hand shops. Kinda wish i had gotten them cheap when I had chance.

I have every handbook non-setting specific 3rd and 3.5 ed rulebook, and most of the softbacks (didn't get a few of the supplements since I started collected in Late 3rd ed, and 3.5 came out, so I figure the softbacks (Sword and Fist, etc) were being replaced by the Complete series. Also did not get the softback adventures (Red Hand of BoomDoom, Bastion of Broken souls)

I have every 3rd and 3.5ed Faerun and every Eberron book that isn't an adventure, and some of the adventures that had new content (City of the Spider Queen, Wrath of the Lich Queen)

I did not however get any Dragonlance rules.

I also have nearly every 3.5 ed Dragon maagazine, and some 3rd ed ones.

so when it comes to 3rd and 3.5, I do have some of the answers, and can confirm the suggestions that even then, the Angels were commonly represented as divine agents and messengers. Not always, but enough to show a theme.

ahammer
2008-05-01, 01:45 PM
As for the fallen angel concept in Judaism/Christianity, it was not evil that caused the fall, but the politics of free will. There were angels of evil, angels that went around killing lots of people - Michael was an 11 mile tall killing machine. They didn't have a free will, they just did what they were meant to do. If that meant torturing humans to make a point, that's what they did. They were unaligned, or at best Lawful Stupid.


I like to think of it more what is in innomine selfishness vs selflessness
insted of free will vs non free will. (that fact that some could make the couse to not have free will is still need free free will)(dont know how best to put this sorry not very clear)

EvilElitest
2008-05-01, 05:57 PM
Hey, I really like this change, especially if there end up being no Good side counterbalance to Demons and Devils in the cosmology.

Wait, why? From the logic of 4E, we should be seeing good demons and devils.


Angels as the metaphysical answer to Demons and Devils makes all of existence into a Zero Sum game. If 4th edition works out like it sounds like, it'll be a lot like the Berserk cosmology, where there are demons lurking in the shadows, ready to tear you in half and rape your sister, but there's no supernatural Goody Two-Shoes whose job it is to intercede on your behalf. Instead, you've got to save yourself with your own two hands, either holding a sword, conjuring magic, or clasped in prayer.
Meh, i see your point, and it does somewhat tie into the points of light theory, but i really don't think your protraying angels right. Remember, 3E was rather bleak actually. There were more demons and devils than any good beings, by a massive amount. They were held in check through the efforts of all of the united good creatuers and the blood war alone.



Of course, I hate the idea of objective good as a direct force, almost elemental, at work on reality and welcome any step away from it. The idea of objective evil sits better with me only because I can imagine it as reality reacting to the subconscious fears of humankind, or as Lovecraftian monsters which are more unknowable than truly evil, or as the completely natural state of things. Make every single day a struggle to keep the dead from rising, keep the world together at its seams, to avoid the notice of those creatures who would destroy all of civilization for fun. That's a dynamic setting, that's putting the struggle in the hands of the player.

1) Important to remember that while good and evil in 3E is objective, morals are subjective.
2) Also, while i see your point, 4E doesn't tie into the kinda "Bleak world" kinda setting, with the way PCs are treated



I know it isn't technically important to the argument anymore, but I'd like to add that you just brought up a good point. This simple statement proves that there were Angels of all alignments in 3rd edition.

You see, "Always Good" did not mean that a race was always good. The Monster Manual actually says that it simply means that individuals of other alignments are very rare "one in a million" I believe are their actual words.

................damn it i always forget this point

Ok, always means that 99.9% of the creature is LG. Even fewer are different if the creature's subtype is good. most of the odd angels will be a different type of good. Some one or too will be neutral, and the extremly rare few will be evil. However the evil angels are always defined as fallen which seems to be some special situation


The Upper Planes are infinitely large, so given this information, 3rd edition had an infinite number of Angels of every alignment.


I don't think that they had an infinite number of non good angels, but that might explain some of the devils. Fallen angels exist, they are, well, fallen




Also, the Fiendish Codex actually says that the original devils were angels who fell and became devils. All the devils after that are specifically stated to be souls who are tortured until they become Lemures, who then grow into the new devils.

Not quite, all, the, damn can't spell their names, the devil succubus creatures, Eiryes or something are described as newly fallen angels

Also devils are made in mutiple ways
Some are like you mentioned, LE souls or those in pacts
Some are created through the power of Asmodeous,
But some are still fallen angels


An Angel who ceases to be good is still an Angel. In fact, they still have the Good subtype, which makes them even Detect as good for the purposes of spells. But, they're still neutral or evil.


The ones i've seen are decribed as fallen, which is think is some special case. I mean the good succubus was said to be the exception to the rule.




Well I'd argue that you do it through both. When I play I don't say "I go up to the orc chieftain and make a diplomacy roll to convince him to aid us" I say " I go up to the orc chieftain and say: "Please great leader our group is in need of aid from your mighty warriors, we will give you lots of gold in return..."

Usualy how well that speech goes will give me a bonus (or penalty) on a diplomacy roll or sometimes I wont even need to roll.

So in the games I play at least drama is as important for affecting the game as mechanics are.


I'll explain
1) I don't mean D&D can't have drama, however drama isn't a mechanical thing that guides the mechanics like in story telling games.
2) Well i think with diplomacy 2E had it right with not having such a system


There is an absolute ton of Yugoloth fluff before 3E, and in fact most of the demon and devil fluff was flushed until recently except for the most basic framework.

I thought they were Daemons. Mind you I only have 6 2E books, four of which are adventure books (MMII and DMG), the latter of which inspired me against 4E


Yugoloths were bastardized 1E -> 2E -> 3E than angels have been 3E -> 4E. They were slaughtered in the PC filter that created Baatezu and Tanari. But the reasons are kind of evident even reading this forum. Some people like to try to make themselves look clever and use "daemon" when they mean "demon", when they're not the same thing. It's as grating as the "bonii" garbage. Fluff was destroyed to defend people from their own ignorance.

I thought Daemons were something slightly different from Yugloth. I rather liked them. Yugloths certainly weren't supported in 3E



The biggest difference, though, is that the players didn't need to be spoonfed fluff in the beginning, because D&D was a niche inhabited by people who liked world creation. The game audience has shifted to video game minded people and munchkins, 3E has made it into more of a combat simulation than an RPG. That in and of itself isn't necessarily bad, especially in marketing terms, but people become totally reliant on fluff.
So you agree with my 4E/Video game mentality idea (not it becoming WoW, that is a mis quote)



Judaism/Christianity, it was not evil that caused the fall, but the politics of free will. There were angels of evil, angels that went around killing lots of people - Michael was an 11 mile tall killing machine. They didn't have a free will, they just did what they were meant to do. If that meant torturing humans to make a point, that's what they did. They were unaligned, or at best Lawful Stupid.
however in Christianity , and i'm a little afraid of getting to into religion, the angels were always ether fallen or soundly good, because they were on the side of God. As of such, the idea of them being good has moved into 1E and 3E angels.



And your percieved behavior of 4E defenders doesn't change the fact that you have assumed a victim mentality, assert opinion as fact, and can't let go of something that's nothing more than an issue of semantics
Actually it was some few 4E people who have bothered me, most are fine actually

And my complaints come from needless changes despite WotC's claim that they won't fix that which isn't broken. I admit i see the irony in that one of my more minor complaints has become an argument over something i've already admitted was petty, but my stubborn like that. It doesn't make the change any less annoying

Also i'm actually not really using a victim mentality, more exasperation with certain posters who make the other ones look bad through association.


EE, I may own beginner D&D ed rules, beginner 2nd ed AD&D rules, and most of 3rd ed and 3.5 books, but I am a bit behind on 2nd and 1st ed main rules.
So not a "found of knowledge"
I meant to write "Fountain of knowledge" sorry

however on every thread i've seen you one you tend to provide a lot of evidence from a lot of sources.


I have read 2nd ed rulebooks (Players, DMG, Monsters, FF, MOTP, Deities, etc, but do not own them: tended to read other peoples copies, or in second hand shops. Kinda wish i had gotten them cheap when I had chance.

I have every handbook non-setting specific 3rd and 3.5 ed rulebook, and most of the softbacks (didn't get a few of the supplements since I started collected in Late 3rd ed, and 3.5 came out, so I figure the softbacks (Sword and Fist, etc) were being replaced by the Complete series. Also did not get the softback adventures (Red Hand of Boom, Bastion of Broken souls)

I have every 3rd and 3.5ed Faerun and every Eberron book that isn't an adventure, and some of the adventures that had new content (City of the Spider Queen, Wrath of the Lich Queen)

I did not however get any Dragonlance rules.

I also have nearly every 3.5 ed Dragon maagazine, and some 3rd ed ones.
PM if you get hte time, i think i could arrange a very interesting proposal.



so when it comes to 3rd and 3.5, I do have some of the answers, and can confirm the suggestions that even then, the Angels were commonly represented as divine agents and messengers. Not always, but enough to show a theme.

But there is also a theme of always (or at least 99.9% of the time) being good. And in 3E it is clear that while they often work with and serve gods, by nature they are beings from the seven heavens.

Yet again, my compromise comes into play. WHy not make too different creatures, one for generic divine servant, one for opposate of Demons/devils
then everybody is happy
from
EE

Tren
2008-05-01, 06:31 PM
Yet again, my compromise comes into play. WHy not make too different creatures, one for generic divine servant, one for opposate of Demons/devils
then everybody is happy
from
EE

For one, the designers of 4E are taking a stance against 'bogus parallelism' which I find completely refreshing. That said, how do you know there are no Good outsiders anymore? It seems quite possible (even likely) that there are creatures on the Astral Sea, living in the domains of Good aligned gods that aren't angels.

EvilElitest
2008-05-01, 07:02 PM
For one, the designers of 4E are taking a stance against 'bogus parallelism' which I find completely refreshing. That said, how do you know there are no Good outsiders anymore? It seems quite possible (even likely) that there are creatures on the Astral Sea, living in the domains of Good aligned gods that aren't angels.

The parallelism certainly isn't bogus in 3E, with the except of WotC's incompetence . It is rather mystical. 4E doesn't give any reasons why this is bogus nor a bad idea, nor why it should be gone, at least backed ones


If there were angel like beings, i would have thought we would have heard of them in this article
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-05-02, 06:25 AM
I am rather attached to my collection, but am happy to use it to answer questions. point to be made is someof us have a lot more reason to be miffed about setting changes, yet see them as something to be expected over time.

WaM tells us daemons were made yugoloths in 3rd ed. And they can be found in some 3rd ed books (MotP, MM2 MM3, MM4). Some support, though not a lot.

I am wondering if 4th ed will bring back interesting 2nd ed content that has not been heard from for a while. Have to wait and see. Bahamut and Tiamat were not gods in the 2nd ed Dracomicon (Faerun-centric) they were very powerful unique dragons. This continued to MotP where they are statted out without divine ranks, and only in Deities and Demigods did we get shown them as full gods.

From edition to edition, you can rely on things changing in some way.

kc0bbq
2008-05-02, 02:29 PM
however in Christianity , and i'm a little afraid of getting to into religion, the angels were always ether fallen or soundly good, because they were on the side of God. As of such, the idea of them being good has moved into 1E and 3E angels.This varies with the flavor of Christianity, but I guess in the most general sense, I agree, this is how it is described after the BC -> AD changeover. It's not as interesting as the older writings, especially the more juicy apocryphal and heretical stuff. Even in canon - God giving Metatron a fiery spanking to prove to Elisha that angels were just tools and not anything to give any notice to comes to mind.

Lots of cool stuff there - Lillith, etc. Makes it easier to enjoy the concept of angels as alignment: any.

Personal mindset really flavors what you want from fluff, anyway. I always thought the great wheel was a bit contrived, and that was before they even added concordant opposition. The parallelism has been bogus since 1st ed core, when it was laid out in the appendices of the PHB. It doesn't need to be there. It was inelegant, and it has always bothered me.

If there are no archon equivalents I'll even be happier. I don't need every side to be the same except for the flavor text.