PDA

View Full Version : 4e some random bits of info from En World



wodan46
2008-05-17, 07:01 PM
seen at top of http://www.enworld.org/
which in turn is taken from http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=226375&page=1&pp=15
* Nearly every class has 4 At-Wills available to chose from at 1st level, Wizard has 5. Same goes for Encounters. Fighter, Paladin and Rogue have 3 Dailys, everyone else has 4. More become available at higher levels.
* The Dragonborn breath type is chosen at character creation. Also, Dragonborn Females do have boobs, at least in the picture.
* Multi-Classing requires a related Stat of 13+. Each class has an Initiate Feat associated with it. Get to pick 1 Skill from class, also get 1 specified power. There are also 3 Power Swap Feats starting at 4th level. Swap any (Encounter Attack, Utility, Daily) Power you have for one of equal or lower level from your chosen Multi-Class. The 3 feats are of different levels, one for each power type (Encounter, Utility, Daily.)
* 2-weapon fighting is a feat, but just gives a damage bonus, not an extra attack. The ranger can take an at-will that gives him an extra attack.
* Shifters are actually cool. Once the hit bloodied, they get an ability that kicks in and last the last of the encounter that adds +2 spd and I believe + dmg (for shifter: razorclaw). The other shifter had another + ability that kicked in at bloodied and lasted the whole time.
* Rogues are AMAZING. Like seriously, damn near Op. At 3rd level they get a utility power that lets them re-roll any bluff check (Trigger: when player rolls bluff, and doesn't like the look of the roll.) They also have a nice garrotte ability that does 7w and can be held for a bit...fun thing about holding it is that attacks on the rogue have a possibility of hitting the person you're choking). They get auto-escpape grapple abilities, and lots of things playing off Combat advantage (including one that we figured could add 7W dmg +10d8 +dex mod). Very sick.
* Starpact warlocks can throw you into the stars and bring you back bent...and infernal pact locks can banish someone to hell for a time (keeping them there for up to 3 rounds with a minor action).
* If you take multiclassing paragon path option, you get an at will ability of your new class at 11, and a new encounter and daily at upper levels.
* Minotaurs are a MM race, and get a fun per encounter charge attack, and +2str and +2 con.
* Doppelgangers get a "look like another humanoid" ability that's at will effectively.
* Gnomes. GNOMES. Gnomes are insane. Gnomes can *turn invis* once per encounter after they've taken dmg. They can also choose to roll "hide" instead of intialtive at the start of an encounter. Hello Gnome Rogue. And by "hello" I mean, "Please, for the love of god, stop stabbing me in the back." My friends quote was "Man, I hate gnomes! They're stupid! But now I can't stop picturing a pack of gnomes sitting in the trees doing the clicking noise that the Predators make in the alien movies. Stupid stealth gnomes. I'm going to have to play one."
* Bugbears get a dmg bonus for combat advantage I believe.
* Rituals: range from cheap to learn and cast to expensive. As an example: Raise Dead costs 650GP to learn uses a 500gp reagent, and "scales" at levels. At lowever levels, it's "free" except for the reagent cost." At medium levels it's 5,000gp. And at epic levels it's 50,000. Oh, and the raised person gets a penalty of -1 until you've passed "3" milestones.
* Oh, and another interesting/weird feature....there is an easy to cast ritual that clears 1 status ailment (curse, disease, etc) each time it's cast, but with a catch. You make a heal check, and your result ='s how much dmg the TARGET sick player takes while being healed. SO, a low roll can kill outright, or can do dmg. A high roll causes very little dmg.
* Timestop is a spell in 4e. Gives you 2 extra actions, neither of which can be used for attack.
* Trapfinding is part of thievery.
* Tumbling is a Rogue Utility power. Once per encounter, shift half your base move.
* +1 to each of two different stats at about every 4th level, but there are a few levels (I think 11 and 21) where every stat gets a +1 bonus.
* Star Pacts - One ability throws the person into "A dark and twisted area of space", for 7d10 dmg (and this could be off, I didn't write it down) where they float for a bit then fall down "mad"...considering everyone there enemy. They take Opportunity Attacks on everyone, and consider everyone an enemy. I honestly got a psudonatural flavor...not in the "weird tentacle" way, but in the "things man was not meant to know kind of way."
* Warforged were in the book too, but stripped down a bit. Less immunities. And their encounter ability felt to me a bit meh...once per encounter when blodied you heal con mod + 1/2 level. Still, not a bad race...but not so zomg overpowered as they once were.
* The following monsters were listed with some info for use as playable character races: Bugbear, Doppleganger, Drow, Githyanki, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Kobold, Minotaur, Orc, Shadar-Kai, Shifter (2 types), Warforged.
* These are the listed Dragons: Black, Blue, Green, Red, White.
* There are 5 Alignments: Good, Lawful Good, Evil, Chaotic Evil, Unaligned. Among the gods I did not see any evil or CE listed.
* I did get a bit on the Warforged: +2 STR, +2 CON, Speed 6, Vision Normal, +2 to Endurance Skill, Can wear armor.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-17, 08:42 PM
Interesting, only 5 alignments.

I love the gnomes. They rock.

The Faceless
2008-05-17, 08:57 PM
Man, i love that Gnomes now get super sweet Gninja powers as racial abilities. And star pact looks awesome.

Sir_Dr_D
2008-05-17, 09:01 PM
I am dissapointed there only four 1st level at-will abilities for each class. I hope they add more abilities in supplements. Especially wizards. I don't want every wizard to have magic missile.

Glawackus
2008-05-17, 09:09 PM
Warforged wearing armor? Meh.

Gnome as uberstealthers? Color me interested.

Predator-style feral gnomes making clicking noises at the party from the depths of the jungle?

Oh, man, I might have to steal that.

Edit: Shadar-Kai? :smallconfused:

Xefas
2008-05-17, 09:20 PM
Alignment is dumb but easily changeable.

Everything else, awesome++.

Rutee
2008-05-17, 09:22 PM
Alignment is dumb but easily changeable.

Everything else, awesome++.

Yeah, I saw that. I facepalmed. I'd rather just have Good and Evil, or just Law and Chaos, in any given game.

Xefas
2008-05-17, 09:29 PM
Yeah, I saw that. I facepalmed. I'd rather just have Good and Evil, or just Law and Chaos, in any given game.

Those would be preferable for me as well, though I'm tempted to simply not have alignment spelled out in my game. At first, it sounds like a Great Wheel game with no alignment wouldn't work, but maybe it would actually work better if you just relied on the personality of each planar inhabitant to give them weight, rather than alignment.

Demons eat babies.
Devils trick nuns into eating babies and then laugh.
Inevitables check the devils for their baby-eating permits, see that their papers are in order, and then go beat up a nearby jaywalker.
...and so forth.

TSGames
2008-05-17, 09:33 PM
I don't want every wizard to have magic missile.

How else are we supposed to attack the darkness?

Skyserpent
2008-05-17, 09:34 PM
I'm a little irritated with the whole: Law=Good and Chaos=Evil concept...

I mean... Law/Chaos is a part of the alignment system I'm most fond of, because it's spectrum allows for a lot more freedom than "Good-Evil" With different interpretations. Communism, Fascism, and all that...

hell that was the whole premise of Marvel Civil War... Law v. Chaos! In a really really summarized sorta way.

Anyway, other than that, I'm stoked...

Wait...

Being a BETTER Healer means I do MORE damage when I commit to dangerous surgical rituals!?

The Faceless
2008-05-17, 09:34 PM
Oh wow, i just saw that alignment thing. That's just dumb. apparently lawful is automatically good and chaotic is automatically evil now? Ignoring totalitarian oppressive 1984 style states and the freedom fighters that oppose them utterly, are we?

holywhippet
2008-05-18, 04:00 AM
Oh wow, i just saw that alignment thing. That's just dumb. apparently lawful is automatically good and chaotic is automatically evil now? Ignoring totalitarian oppressive 1984 style states and the freedom fighters that oppose them utterly, are we?

That's not how I'm reading it. You have good or you have lawful good. A lawful good type strives to uphold the laws and do the right thing by all. A generally good person isn't tied into any particular code of conduct, they just do good in whatever way presents itself.

Morty
2008-05-18, 08:59 AM
Dear God, they managed to make alignment even dumber than in 3ed. Truly, I'm impressed. Good thing it's allegedly easy to ignore. Lack of evil gods is even worse.
Goblins as a playable race is a good thing, but Warforged being core isn't. Well, whatever, I'll just ignore them like Dragonborn.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-18, 09:42 AM
The good
Rogues sound cool. So do warlocks, but there's something... off... about the apparent fact that if you're sent to hell, you will automatically pop back within a few seconds. I'm sure someone will angrily post a convoluted piece of fluff in response that handwaves this because a wizard did it, but logically it should be easier to send someone on a one-way trip than to also get them back.

Well, looks like they found a niche for gnomes, after all their explanations that they removed gnomes from the PHB because they couldn't find a niche for them :smallbiggrin: But I must say I don't really like the concept of warforged, except in specific technomagical settings. And how exactly does an animated suit of armor wear armor?

Playing a shifter or doppel is nice (although an ability that gives +2 speed and +1 damage, while useful, is not very high on my scale of "cool"). Anyway, lots of playable races can only be a good thing.

It's funny that they cure disease by bloodletting now, but slightly weird that the same method works on curses. Still, as we know, bloodletting cures everything. Sometimes terminally. Also, it's good that raise dead has a consequence, but I wonder what a milestone is?

The bad
A selection of four or five different powers at level one. That's not all that much choice, and I wouldn't be surprised if certain powers were simply better or not worth it. By comparison, 3E warlocks get their pick out of fifteen straight out of the book.

Apparently classes other than rangers can't dual wield, or at least, can't make two attacks. While I'm sure that speeds up combat, it's also one less option. Likewise, non-rogues can't tumble any more. I'm not too fond of this segregation, actually.

Timestop doesn't sound interesting. It gives 2 actions, but spells cost an action to activate, do they not? Also, we haven't seen any self-buffing or summoning actions yet that weren't attacks. Then again, time stop as written in 3E deserves some nerfing.

The ugly
Lizards with boobs. Predictable but stupid. Likewise, alignment is still silly, but presumably still easily ignored.

Wanna bet that Black, Blue, Green, Red and White dragons are all evil antagonists, and breathe acid, lightning, gas, fire and frost respectively? :smallbiggrin:

wodan46
2008-05-18, 11:00 AM
From a technical standpoint, alignments are being more or less removed altogether. Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are kept because they are extreme cases with mechanical differences, as do Good/Unaligned/Evil. Any mechanical differences that used to exist between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good are probably long gone, same goes for Lawful/Neutral Evil, and all 3 Neutrals.

In short, players are no longer compelled to simplify a complex character into a simple alignment. The alignments that remain are only the distinct categories that have mechanical properties. The players are being given the freedom to make their character how they wish without having to worry about acting arbitrarily according to the alignment.

Granted, if you prefer the alignment system as it was before, you can keep it, as it doesn't mechanically do much now anyway.

Weiser_Cain
2008-05-18, 11:30 AM
OK I hate 4e with a passion just because they killed off multiplayer (then rolled the corpse in 2e rules) and I hate the 'powers' system. Martial is a power, really? My arm is a power?
I... don't mind lizards with boobs at all. It's the only welcome change. Yes I'm single.

Sir_Dr_D
2008-05-18, 11:48 AM
If I was DM, I would have the code of conduct of religious characters such as clerics, Paldins and rangers defined by the god that they follow. Palidins would lose their Paladin powers for isntance when theys tray too far from the path of their god, and not too far from lawfull good. from that perspective there would be at least as many alignments as their are gods.

role pklaying wise hyou can have whatever alignment you want. mechaniscal wise PC alignment will have no effect on the game. There will not be items only usable by evil characters for instance, and the players will not need to be worried about being exposed to spells that only effect good aligned creatures.

Learnedguy
2008-05-18, 02:01 PM
OK I hate 4e with a passion just because they killed off multiplayer (then rolled the corpse in 2e rules) and I hate the 'powers' system. Martial is a power, really? My arm is a power?
I... don't mind lizards with boobs at all. It's the only welcome change. Yes I'm single.

Well, err, yes. Haven't you read any courses in physics:smallconfused:?

Leliel
2008-05-18, 02:24 PM
...Lack of evil gods...

BZZT! They exist.

There's a reason Angels can be any alignment, you know.

ShadowSiege
2008-05-18, 02:41 PM
BZZT! They exist.

There's a reason Angels can be any alignment, you know.

No joke. Vecna and Asmodeus are confirmed as gods in 4e. And they're both Evil. I think Tharizdun is in as well, as the deity that created the abyss.

Morty
2008-05-18, 02:46 PM
In this case what does this:
Among the gods I did not see any evil or CE listed. statement do in OP? Either OP's informations are incomplete or evil gods aren't listed as possible for PCs to worship, only for cultists whom PCs fight.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 02:49 PM
...It means exactly what it says. "I didn't see it". There are Evil Gods in the core books, dood.

Or at least, the previews have made it clear that there will be evil gods.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-18, 02:52 PM
I am dissapointed there only four 1st level at-will abilities for each class. I hope they add more abilities in supplements. Especially wizards. I don't want every wizard to have magic missile.

I think you counted wrong.

If you have 5 choices (wizard have 5): you get to choose or 3 if human.

If you don't want; magic missile don't take it. You still have 4 choices than.
Remember, you never get anymore at will powers (you do get to trade them in for higher level ones like 3.5 Sorcerors). You only get additional slots for Encounter and Daily as you level.

The OP didn't say you had to take it.

A Milestone is 2 encounters (same time as when you get Action point).

Morty
2008-05-18, 02:59 PM
...It means exactly what it says. "I didn't see it". There are Evil Gods in the core books, dood.

Or at least, the previews have made it clear that there will be evil gods.

It would seem, then, this thalamin fellow from ENWorld forums, from whom this quote originates, has overlooked something.
I wouldn't rule out evil gods not being listed as possible for PCs to worship, though. It fits with WoTC's "PCs are the good guys" philosophy presented so far.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 03:06 PM
I think you're confusing protagonist with good guy, really..

Morty
2008-05-18, 03:14 PM
I think you're confusing protagonist with good guy, really..

I don't think so. So far, we've seen that angels won't be purely Good creatures because PCs are supposed to be the good guys so they wouldn't fight them very often. We have also seen PCs being referred to as "heroes" or "soft-hearted scoundrels" and fighting villains and monsters. Sure, it might be just regular raqmbling, but this thing with angels makes me a bit more suspicious.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-18, 03:28 PM
I don't think so. So far, we've seen that angels won't be purely Good creatures because PCs are supposed to be the good guys so they wouldn't fight them very often. We have also seen PCs being referred to as "heroes" or "soft-hearted scoundrels" and fighting villains and monsters. Sure, it might be just regular raqmbling, but this thing with angels makes me a bit more suspicious.

Check out 3.5, where evil parties are very much in the minority. You get the occasional evil character, but I've seen very few evil games. Creatures that only evil parties can expect to fight really don't see much use.

Morty
2008-05-18, 03:43 PM
Check out 3.5, where evil parties are very much in the minority. You get the occasional evil character, but I've seen very few evil games. Creatures that only evil parties can expect to fight really don't see much use.

Nevertheless, the option should be here. Just because a type of character is a minority doesn't mean it should be completely ignored.
And anyway, I'm not so much speaking about parties and characters who are Evil with a capital E, but rather about more petty evil, i.e characters being armed thugs using their extraordinary prowess to gain wealth and fame. That's how my D&D group looks like, but I fear such type of character might be neglected in 4ed in favor of PCs being dashing action heroes.
It might be a moot point since Evil gods might very well still be in core books ready for PCs to worship, but for now, I remain suspicious.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 04:37 PM
If all you're concerned with is petty evil, isn't evil deity worship counter to that? Regardless, I suspect that at worst, it'll be in the DMG or MM, ready to adapt for players.

purepolarpanzer
2008-05-18, 05:23 PM
Nevertheless, the option should be here. Just because a type of character is a minority doesn't mean it should be completely ignored.
And anyway, I'm not so much speaking about parties and characters who are Evil with a capital E, but rather about more petty evil, i.e characters being armed thugs using their extraordinary prowess to gain wealth and fame. That's how my D&D group looks like, but I fear such type of character might be neglected in 4ed in favor of PCs being dashing action heroes.
It might be a moot point since Evil gods might very well still be in core books ready for PCs to worship, but for now, I remain suspicious.

Yah. Cause it's not a simple job to jerry rig an evil campaign with current rules. At all.

But seriously, simple little rewrite on that, and you've got an evil game. Easy as killing kobolds.

Weiser_Cain
2008-05-18, 06:32 PM
Well, err, yes. Haven't you read any courses in physics:smallconfused:?

Making my arm with a stick attached akin to a reshaping of the raw essences of the creation just seems to, I don't know, diminish the power of magic.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 06:36 PM
Making my arm with a stick attached akin to a reshaping of the raw essences of the creation just seems to, I don't know, diminish the power of magic.

And...who gives a rats ass about that?

One of the members of the party uses powerful esoteric formulas to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up. The other party member is so badass the laws of physics are his fangirls who want to have sweet hot love with him and obey his commands. Seems fair, in fact.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 06:40 PM
You may have a few cross words for Gilgamesh and the Yellow Emperor then.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 06:46 PM
If it was for Weiser, zat zis proffafly kewrrekte. If it was for me, I'm a fanboi of those two and have their T-shirts.

Weiser_Cain
2008-05-18, 06:56 PM
And...who gives a rats ass about that?


Magic users.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-18, 06:57 PM
You may have a few cross words for Gilgamesh and the Yellow Emperor then.

And Cuchulainn... who was a Super Saiyan (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=12570833#post12570833).



The Warp-Spasm overtook him: it seemed each hair was hammered into his head, so sharply they shot upright. You would swear a fire-speck tipped each hair. He squeezed one eye narrower than the eye of a needle; he opened the other wider than the mouth of a goblet. He bared his jaws to the ear; he peeled back his lips to the eye-teeth till his gullet showed. The hero-halo rose up from the crown of his head.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 06:58 PM
Your definition of magic having to be extra special while Melee aren't, however, treads on melee's toes. If your fun is predicated on having to be better, or more special, then I flatly don't care about it. Why shouldn't the melee be just as special?

While you could argue that by everyone being special, nobody is, I find that silly. You don't say Cyclops isn't special just because you can't spit without hitting a superpowered being in the marvel verse :P

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 07:00 PM
Magic users.

En too werds: SKA-ROO-THEM! Everyone else is going to enjoy not having Linear Warriors and Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards), thank you very much.

Sir_Dr_D
2008-05-18, 07:03 PM
I think you counted wrong.

If you have 5 choices (wizard have 5): you get to choose or 3 if human.

If you don't want; magic missile don't take it. You still have 4 choices than.
Remember, you never get anymore at will powers (you do get to trade them in for higher level ones like 3.5 Sorcerors). You only get additional slots for Encounter and Daily as you level.

The OP didn't say you had to take it.

A Milestone is 2 encounters (same time as when you get Action point).

What I meant about magic misile is it is your primary ranged attack, and thus seems like more of a nessecity then the other abilities.

I was worried a about lack of options, but now that i think about it there will still be penty of ways to customize the wizard.
- race
- magical implement
- at-will powers
- encounter powers
- daily powers/spells
- feats

Its enough to make different wizards seem distinct enough.

EvilElitest
2008-05-18, 07:09 PM
And...who gives a rats ass about that?

One of the members of the party uses powerful esoteric formulas to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up. The other party member is so badass the laws of physics are his fangirls who want to have sweet hot love with him and obey his commands. Seems fair, in fact.

Because the latter seems almost insecure at times sadly
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 07:11 PM
Because the latter seems almost insecure at times sadly
from
EE

I know, Women are harsh mistresses. But it tend to pay off when they burst into joy tears as you greet their entrance with Aznavour's "She".

Of course, if you're foolish enough to greet a woman with Cherry Pie, you deserve to be left.

EvilElitest
2008-05-18, 07:17 PM
I know, Women are harsh mistresses. But it tend to pay off when they burst into joy tears as you greet their entrance with Aznavour's "She".

Of course, if you're foolish enough to greet a woman with Cherry Pie, you deserve to be left.

1) WFT?
2) I said to stop confusing me
3) I meant to say insincere actually
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 07:20 PM
1) WFT?
2) I said to stop confusing me
3) I meant to say insincere actually
from
EE

Aah, a slight case of misunderstanding, then, if you meant insincere.

So now, please 'Splain. WHAT is almost insincere?

EvilElitest
2008-05-18, 07:25 PM
Aah, a slight case of misunderstanding, then, if you meant insincere.

So now, please 'Splain. WHAT is almost insincere?

The whole badass justification, and 4E's
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 07:28 PM
Well, I firmly believe 4th will NOT, in fact, be like that. That's just my little sweet dream.

horseboy
2008-05-18, 08:06 PM
Making my arm with a stick attached akin to a reshaping of the raw essences of the creation just seems to, I don't know, diminish the power of magic.It's okay, your arm just doesn't observe the world, therefore, the laws of it don't exist for it. :smallwink:

One of the members of the party uses powerful esoteric formulas to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up. The other party member is so badass the laws of physics are his fangirls who want to have sweet hot love with him and obey his commands. Seems fair, in fact.It's true, fangirls ruin everything.
Though I really haven't seen anything out of martial that's really that unbelievable. Course, we've only seen low level stuff. As to high level, well, you're dealing with stuff on the demi-god plane anyway...

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 08:09 PM
It's okay, your arm just doesn't observe the world, therefore, the laws of it don't exist for it. :smallwink:
It's true, fangirls ruin everything.
Though I really haven't seen anything out of martial that's really that unbelievable. Course, we've only seen low level stuff. As to high level, well, you're dealing with stuff on the demi-god plane anyway...

Shonen. 'Nuff said.

Or when people start leveling mountains for training.

EagleWiz
2008-05-18, 08:24 PM
Well mostly it sounds good. Mostly. I still have one big problem.
The allignments. Devils are LE. Ok people? LE! And yes there are CG people. In fact CG is one of the most popular pc alignments! Such a pain. And what are Sladdi! (Ok maby CE) or Inevitables (Dont even try to tell me they are LG)

Rutee
2008-05-18, 08:26 PM
No, 3e Devils are LE. Demons or Devils (Whichever one they wrap things up under) in 4e won't be. I prefered just having Good, Neutral, and Evil (Or Law, Neutral, and Chaos, but not both axes in a particular game).

EvilElitest
2008-05-18, 08:33 PM
No, 3e Devils are LE. Demons or Devils (Whichever one they wrap things up under) in 4e won't be. I prefered just having Good, Neutral, and Evil (Or Law, Neutral, and Chaos, but not both axes in a particular game).

Which brings us back to "If it ain't broke don't fix it"

Also known as WotC doesn't give a damn about what made their fluff interesting
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 08:34 PM
Which brings us back to "If it ain't broke don't fix it"

Also known as WotC doesn't give a damn about what made their fluff interesting
from
EE

Yeah. How come we didn't get spelljammer until we were THREE editions in? Or two and a half editions, whichever your prefer.

EvilElitest
2008-05-18, 08:35 PM
Yeah. How come we didn't get spelljammer until we were THREE editions in? Or two and a half editions, whichever your prefer.

I'm not sure how spelljammer will work out in 4E, but i think it should have come out for 3E a long time ago
from
EE

xirr2000
2008-05-18, 08:37 PM
Interesting, only 5 alignments.

I love the gnomes. They rock.

Oh sure, NOW people love gnomes :smallsmile:

Weiser_Cain
2008-05-18, 08:39 PM
En too werds: SKA-ROO-THEM! Everyone else is going to enjoy not having Linear Warriors and Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards), thank you very much.

Already read this, thing is the point is that magic users end up way more powerful provided they survive. They use magic.

Oh sure, NOW people love gnomes :smallsmile:

No, I still don't like small races

Rutee
2008-05-18, 08:54 PM
Already read this, thing is the point is that magic users end up way more powerful provided they survive. They use magic.

...Why should magic users be more powerful?

Cuddly
2008-05-18, 09:19 PM
We get Spelljammer in 4e!?!?!?!?!!!

Rutee
2008-05-18, 09:23 PM
That's the scuttlebutt, to say the least.

EvilElitest
2008-05-18, 09:27 PM
...Why should magic users be more powerful?

I never said it shouldn't be balanced, i however am a fan of Separate but equal when it comes to a concept of classes
from
EE

wodan46
2008-05-18, 09:53 PM
Gnomes are cool now cause they're not core. That and their hoarding of active camo. On that basis, Drow should be made a core race with ranger as favored class, and they will immediately become passe and we'll never hear or see them again.

Starsinger
2008-05-18, 09:59 PM
I never said it shouldn't be balanced, i however am a fan of Separate but equal when it comes to a concept of classes
from
EE

If you're referring to the mythical state of seperate but equal then by definition it should be balanced but over there. If you're referring to how seperate but equal has shown to be in practice, as seen in the fabulous segregated schools and the totally equal institution of civil unions then 3.5's magic system is seperate but equal.

EvilElitest
2008-05-18, 10:04 PM
If you're referring to the mythical state of seperate but equal then by definition it should be balanced but over there. If you're referring to how seperate but equal has shown to be in practice, as seen in the fabulous segregated schools and the totally equal institution of civil unions then 3.5's magic system is seperate but equal.

Don't pull a strawman. I've never said 3E was a perfect system, and if you recall way back when when 4E was first announced, i supported then and now the idea of a new edition. I just don't like 4E from all indications and its video game qualities
from
EE

Starsinger
2008-05-18, 10:13 PM
Don't pull a strawman. I've never said 3E was a perfect system, and if you recall way back when when 4E was first announced, i supported then and now the idea of a new edition. I just don't like 4E from all indications and its video game qualities
from
EE

Don't hide behind accusatory phrases like "don't pull a strawman." Regardless of whether I "pulled a strawman" or not, or whether or not I meant to, saying that I did just makes you sound arrogant. If you must stroke your epeen that way, I'd prefer you do it to someone else. I never said you said it was perfect, nor did I bring up (in this thread) any 'video game' qualities of 4e. I was however pointing out that 3.5 is seperate but equal already. Just like segregated schools and civil unions. And mentioned that something being literally seperate but equal doesn't happen. It's a dream and a myth, like theoretical communism.

xirr2000
2008-05-18, 10:17 PM
Dear God, they managed to make alignment even dumber than in 3ed. Truly, I'm impressed. Good thing it's allegedly easy to ignore. Lack of evil gods is even worse.
Goblins as a playable race is a good thing, but Warforged being core isn't. Well, whatever, I'll just ignore them like Dragonborn.

I think that alignment has always been intended for flavor, has delved into messing with game mechanics, and has been taken way to seriously by some while others think it is just another character detail stat like height or weight. I've rarely seen something cause more of a ruckus than alignment and its intended or desired use in the game.

Personally I think my campaign will do what we've always done and that is to keep alignment and its affect in the game pretty light. This can be hard though as some scenarios call for a hero with a pure and virtuous heart for purposes of the story. Often that role will have to be filled by an NPC though in my neck of the woods as very few of the folks I game with are interested in playing that type of one sided character. Although it is nice when I see someone take a role like that and make it interesting. I think it actually shows more roleplaying skill than someone playing a less defined archetype with shades of grey, which i often feel is their attempt at just keeping their behavioral options open in game :) Alignment has undergone several big changes just about every edition of D&D in an attempt to make it palatable and interesting to players, but it often seems to divide as many people as not no matter what they do. I doubt that will change with 4e but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

I'll reserve full judgment on it when the books come out and I can read the full intent of the designers and their view of alignment in 4e. Its hard (for me at least) to be too critical of what i read so far as it's just bits and pieces of an unrevealed whole at this point.

Rutee
2008-05-18, 10:20 PM
Not to mention, Starsinger, but Strawman accusations are pretty much a logical Godwin on these boards, with how annoyingly common it is to claim it inaccurately.

EvilElitest
2008-05-18, 10:25 PM
Don't hide behind accusatory phrases like "don't pull a strawman." Regardless of whether I "pulled a strawman" or not, or whether or not I meant to, saying that I did just makes you sound arrogant. If you must stroke your epeen that way, I'd prefer you do it to someone else. I never said you said it was perfect, nor did I bring up (in this thread) any 'video game' qualities of 4e. I was however pointing out that 3.5 is seperate but equal already. Just like segregated schools and civil unions. And mentioned that something being literally seperate but equal doesn't happen. It's a dream and a myth, like theoretical communism.

1) I was the one who brought up the video game 4E thing i'm not accusing you
2) What i'm referring to is your response, where you point out that separate but equal doesn't work, with 3E being hte example. I never said 3E was a perfect system, and i'm aware of its flaws. I apologize for my tone, but that doesn't change the fact that i am not defending 3E as a perfect system, just a better ideal
3) thats the problem, 3E is certainly not separate but equal. Monk and wizards? Certainly not. It goal might be that, but its balence sucks. That doesn't mean the ideal is bad, just the way of going about it
4) Oh don't be absurd now. Separate but equal with classes is perfectly possible. We've seen it on these very boards, classes or fixes that make all of the classes. WotC's way of going about it is horrible i admit easily, but that doesn't make the idea bad. It certainly isn't idealistic, it is just isn't perfect
5) While bringing up Communism and Schools might make your point sound better, it actually has pretty much no real bearing in terms of evidence. If you want a better example, it is like democracy. just because it didn't work in France at first doesn't mean the system is bad.
from
EE

edit


Not to mention, Starsinger, but Strawman accusations are pretty much a logical Godwin on these boards, with how annoyingly common it is to claim it inaccurately
Rutee, if you have a problem, say it directly to me, don't waste time commenting without actually countering the issue. Starsinger, despite disagreeing with me, actually backs up his points, which on it own is admirable far more than simply wasting time

xirr2000
2008-05-18, 11:22 PM
I'm surprised to hear people think that you had more options for 1st level characters in 3.x. Sure maybe mages could choose between 15+ spells at first level to have in their book, but what did they all get: Magic Missile, Shield and Sleep. And you could only pick 1 (usually sleep cuz that took out the most), and guess what, you could only use it once per day until you leveled. Then you could throw a party cuz then you could use it twice, or once and cast shield, or once and cast magic missile......woo frickin' hoo.

And melee classes could only ever do one thing. Swing a weapon or shoot from range. That's it. Now when you do that you get to choose something interesting to happen, like move the opponent, or help a friend or whatever. In 3.x EVERYTHING was a daily power. Now magic missile is an at will thing, so mages can do mage things every round instead of hurling daggers in a very un-magelike way cuz they were out of spells.

And can someone spell it out for me how this is like a video game? I'm sure some design ideas came from video games, but didn't every video game that simulated this genre for the last 2 decades take its cues from the pen and paper version in the first place? They both appeal to the same crowd so it only stands to reason they are going to influence each other, I don't see that as taking away from either though. But that's me.

If you ask me 4e has made it interesting to play 1st level toons instead of me dreading the do or die nature of early levels. I had several cool characters who just didtn' make it to 3rd level cuz a mob actually landed a hit in accordance with the laws of averages. I'm sure there will still be deaths of beloved character concepts at the early stages, but it will be more interesting cuz it won't be because he was out of spells.

Cuddly
2008-05-18, 11:34 PM
Rutee, if you have a problem, say it directly to me, don't waste time commenting without actually countering the issue. Starsinger, despite disagreeing with me, actually backs up his points, which on it own is admirable far more than simply wasting time

You're not the only one to toss around "strawman" without knowing what it means, though. A bunch of you kids like to do that, without really knowing what the term means.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-18, 11:38 PM
Really, at this point, it's long since we've stopped caring about what the other one really says. We just throw barbs around in the same way boys hit themselves to show friendship, only our way is cooler. And you can beat that as soon as I finish playtesting 4th ed., I'm going to make a PbP game and damn sure as hell it's going to include you guys.

Sir_Dr_D
2008-05-19, 12:09 AM
I am going to guess that the alignment system is now similar to a scale of 1 to 5, saying how good you are. Lawfull good would be at one end, and chaotic evil at the other. It is a simpler to understand system . It would be easy to place your character somewhere in that scale, without it controling your characters personality.


There is too much problems with the previous system. For example what does chaotic good mean? If it means you are a rebel, it could just mean your belief system is incompatible with the society you are in. A person who could seem lawfull in one society,could suddenly seem chaotic in another when they disagree with their leaders values. If you are a wanderer like a ranger, does that mean that you are chaotic, or just that you like nature, or have bad people skills. People who like camping or traveling can be perfectly lawfull, so why can't rangers be considered lawfull good? And why is stealing from enemies generally considered chaotic, but killing them outright is considered lawfull? There is so many problems with that alignment system. I do like the new one better.

EvilElitest
2008-05-19, 06:04 AM
You're not the only one to toss around "strawman" without knowing what it means, though. A bunch of you kids like to do that, without really knowing what the term means.

that may be true, but that doesn't mean i'm using it wrongly

As i said before, i never, ever claimed 3.5 was a perfect system or that it didn't have flaws
from
EE

Kurald Galain
2008-05-19, 09:56 AM
I'm surprised to hear people think that you had more options for 1st level characters in 3.x. Sure maybe mages could choose between 15+ spells at first level to have in their book, but what did they all get: Magic Missile, Shield and Sleep. And you could only pick 1 (usually sleep cuz that took out the most), and guess what, you could only use it once per day until you leveled.

Heh. When was the last time you played a caster? They get three or four spells per day at first level, not counting cantrips / orisons. The 1st-level spell list has 37 choices, including such gems as protection from evil, grease, obscuring mist, true strike, charm, color spray, disguise self, enfeeblement, enlarge, exp retreat, silent image, and reduce. So your statement that they all pick those three spells is simply dead wrong.

Aside from that, I was talking about warlocks, who get infinite uses per day and get to pick out of over a dozen abilities, plus eldritch blast for free.

Rutee
2008-05-19, 10:12 AM
that may be true, but that doesn't mean i'm using it wrongly.
Sigh. You were.

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

"1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y
3. Person B attacks position Y
4. Person B draws the conclusion that X is incorrect, etc"


I never said it shouldn't be balanced, i however am a fan of Separate but equal when it comes to a concept of classes


If you're referring to the mythical state of seperate but equal then by definition it should be balanced but over there. If you're referring to how seperate but equal has shown to be in practice, as seen in the fabulous segregated schools and the totally equal institution of civil unions then 3.5's magic system is seperate but equal.

Starsinger's rebuttal at no point infers that you argue that 3.5 is perfect, which you claim is his misrepresentation of your point. Starsinger's rebuttal puts forth the notion that 3.5 is seperate but equal, and it /didn't work/. One could go on to look at history (Either RL or DnD's) and point out that seperate but equal didn't quite work out there either, and in fact he does this. You can argue that he's incorrect, but he directly attacks your position, the position that one can be "balanced by Seperate, but equal." In directly attacking your position, he has shown demonstrably that he is not constructing a straw man, because the basic definition of a straw man argument is to attack a position your opponent has never actually argued.

Starsinger
2008-05-19, 10:16 AM
Really, at this point, it's long since we've stopped caring about what the other one really says. We just throw barbs around in the same way boys hit themselves to show friendship, only our way is cooler. And you can beat that as soon as I finish playtesting 4th ed., I'm going to make a PbP game and damn sure as hell it's going to include you guys.

That sounds pretty fabulous. Please say that I'm included in that vague "you guys".

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-19, 10:45 AM
'Course you are. I've even got my list with me.

Also, on a related announcement, HOLY ****, ATTACK OF THE GIANT STUPID COUNTERPOINTS!

http://www.thenomc.org/images/NOMC_Spring_2007_Straw_Man.jpg

http://www.gitsiegirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/lost%20red%20herring.gif

http://irestidelcarlino.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/david-hasselhoff-07.jpg

http://malcolm816.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/56334472_62836b2094_o.jpg

PS: Not a giant stupid counterpoint, just plain awesome.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b60/timmyab1/Epic_fail_guy.gif

Starsinger
2008-05-19, 10:56 AM
'Course you are. I've even got my list with me.

Also, on a related announcement, HOLY ****, ATTACK OF THE GIANT STUPID COUNTERPOINTS!


I get the strawman and the red herring, but then I get lost at the speedo...
Also who else is on the list? You can PM it to me if you'd like if you want it to be something of a surprise or something.

Charity
2008-05-19, 10:59 AM
Heh. When was the last time you played a caster? They get three or four spells per day at first level, not counting cantrips / orisons. The 1st-level spell list has 37 choices, including such gems as protection from evil, grease, obscuring mist, true strike, charm, color spray, disguise self, enfeeblement, enlarge, exp retreat, silent image, and reduce. So your statement that they all pick those three spells is simply dead wrong.

Aside from that, I was talking about warlocks, who get infinite uses per day and get to pick out of over a dozen abilities, plus eldritch blast for free.

And your choices as a non caster are?

hit it
run away
...

4e models itself on the warlock/ToB style of play... odd.

3e is broken as hell in favour of prepared casters, feel free to stick your head in the sand and ignore this. When you finally stop playing ostrich (yes I know they don't really do this) you can look up and find us all somehow managing to enjoy 4e.

Scintillatus
2008-05-19, 11:02 AM
Really, at this point, it's long since we've stopped caring about what the other one really says. We just throw barbs around in the same way boys hit themselves to show friendship, only our way is cooler. And you can beat that as soon as I finish playtesting 4th ed., I'm going to make a PbP game and damn sure as hell it's going to include you guys.

Uh, room for one more? >.>

EvilElitest
2008-05-19, 11:34 AM
Really, at this point, it's long since we've stopped caring about what the other one really says. We just throw barbs around in the same way boys hit themselves to show friendship, only our way is cooler. And you can beat that as soon as I finish playtesting 4th ed., I'm going to make a PbP game and damn sure as hell it's going to include you guys.

So are arguments have evolved to total apathy, i'm in



I am going to guess that the alignment system is now similar to a scale of 1 to 5, saying how good you are. Lawfull good would be at one end, and chaotic evil at the other. It is a simpler to understand system . It would be easy to place your character somewhere in that scale, without it controling your characters personality.

So the alignment system is going Fable style?



There is too much problems with the previous system. For example what does chaotic good mean? If it means you are a rebel, it could just mean your belief system is incompatible with the society you are in. A person who could seem lawfull in one society,could suddenly seem chaotic in another when they disagree with their leaders values. If you are a wanderer like a ranger, does that mean that you are chaotic, or just that you like nature, or have bad people skills. People who like camping or traveling can be perfectly lawfull, so why can't rangers be considered lawfull good? And why is stealing from enemies generally considered chaotic, but killing them outright is considered lawfull? There is so many problems with that alignment system. I do like the new one better.

The current alignment system is perfectly fine, just badly handled (see a pattern)
1) A CG personal does not have to be a rebel actually, nor randomly fight society. They simply have very open ended view towards good
2) Sign, not this one again. Its been made clear, lawful alignment doesn't =lawful society. Just because you camp or travel, doesn't mean you can't be lawful, nor disobeying unjust laws chaotic
3) Stealing is chaotic because of the moral implications



Sigh. You were.

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

"1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y
3. Person B attacks position Y
4. Person B draws the conclusion that X is incorrect, etc"

Starsinger's rebuttal at no point infers that you argue that 3.5 is perfect, which you claim is his misrepresentation of your point. Starsinger's rebuttal puts forth the notion that 3.5 is seperate but equal, and it /didn't work/. One could go on to look at history (Either RL or DnD's) and point out that seperate but equal didn't quite work out there either, and in fact he does this. You can argue that he's incorrect, but he directly attacks your position, the position that one can be "balanced by Seperate, but equal." In directly attacking your position, he has shown demonstrably that he is not constructing a straw man, because the basic definition of a straw man argument is to attack a position your opponent has never actually argued.

1) Alright, fair enough, i'm sorry starsinger. That being said i wasn't using strawman, i just misunderstood Starsinger
2) Real life Separate but equal has absolutely no bearing in terms of a roleplaying game, as they are two different issues
3) Also pointing at 3E's methods of separate but equal doesn't mean the system isn't sound in theory. In 3E it is clear that WotC simply was utterly incompetent, as they were with many of their actually rather good ides. Being on these boards should make that clear, i mean the amount of fixes that have come about and all....
4) See, actually responding to somebody does produce results, who would have known :smallwink:



Charity, just because something is claimed to be better, doesn't make it so. As i said, ToB is fine, but i don't like it replacing the fighter, because magic losses its mystic

Also
1) I'm also lost at hte speedo
2) What is the list made up of?
from
EE

Trog
2008-05-19, 11:59 AM
Only the alignment thing has me a bit worried though I would imagine their rationale for eliminating CG, the Neutrals, and LE has something to do with CG ultimately being about the good and LE ultimately being about the evil. CG usually are against a lawful structure they view as being bad but deep down they are still good. And LE may use laws to further their own ends but in the end those ends are evil. In eliminating or combining a lot of the grey areas of the alignment grid into unaligned it allows for more nuances within that, by nature of their complexities, defy being pigeonholed. So I'm down with that.

Oh and enworld updated their site to note that there are no evil deities in the PHB, they, instead, appear in the DMG. Which I guess I am okay with. I never really had players that were gung-ho to be villains anyway. I find the idea of an evil campaign to be somewhere between repulsive and laughable. :smalltongue:

SamTheCleric
2008-05-19, 12:07 PM
I find the idea of an evil campaign to be somewhere between repulsive and laughable. :smalltongue:


Amen, brutha Trog.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-19, 12:15 PM
3e is broken as hell in favour of prepared casters, feel free to stick your head in the sand and ignore this. When you finally stop playing ostrich (yes I know they don't really do this) you can look up and find us all somehow managing to enjoy 4e.

Except that I wasn't saying "4e sucks", I was simply pointing out that your previous statement contained holes large enough to drive a truck though. It is unfortunate that you are apparently unable to tell the difference, but then I'm afraid that it's quite common for netizens (or small children) to assume that (1) anybody who doesn't share their opinion must therefore hold the diametrically opposed opinion, and (2) heavy-duty flaming is therefore the appropriate reaction.

Anyway, getting back on topic - people make a good point about "chaotic good" and "lawful evil" no longer being a possibility. But then, I seem to recall that 1E used only one alignment axis (law - chaos), and the "axis of evil" being added in 2E. I do believe that "law" was traditionally equated to "good". So effectively we're back to one sliding scale, which perhaps could be labelled "saintly - friendly - normal - nasty - diabolic", or something like that.

To which I say "meh". Alignment was never a big deal except in internet debates, and has traditionally been one of the easiest parts of the rulebook to completely ignore if it bothers you.

wodan46
2008-05-19, 12:41 PM
God forbid a game that revolves around a combat system make an effort to have the combat system be mechanically balanced and fun, rather than let it be broken in the name of minor fluff that represents about 10% of the details in the core books.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-19, 01:01 PM
Well, now we know the secret behind the "points of light".
Gnomes were kicked out of the normal society, and, bend on revenge, they now stalk the wilderness, waiting for their prey, the other humanoid races, once allies, now just walking targets.
People are not afraid of monsters. They are afraid of gnomes.

And the pact that sends people literally to hell made me think of Akuma from Street Fighter. Shun Goku Satso anyone?

Oh, ye gods! Can rogues get warlock powers through power swap? Ninja predator gnomes hunting down travelling humanoids and sending them literally to hell!

"Ok, guys, we are here. These damn gnomes may strike at a momment's notice. So, keep your guard up.... guys? Bob? Joe? Ann? Where are y... AHHH! IT BURNS!"

EvilElitest
2008-05-19, 01:11 PM
God forbid a game that revolves around a combat system make an effort to have the combat system be mechanically balanced and fun, rather than let it be broken in the name of minor fluff that represents about 10% of the details in the

Nobody is saying 3E is perfect, they just don't like 4E


Only the alignment thing has me a bit worried though I would imagine their rationale for eliminating CG, the Neutrals, and LE has something to do with CG ultimately being about the good and LE ultimately being about the evil. CG usually are against a lawful structure they view as being bad but deep down they are still good. And LE may use laws to further their own ends but in the end those ends are evil. In eliminating or combining a lot of the grey areas of the alignment grid into unaligned it allows for more nuances within that, by nature of their complexities, defy being pigeonholed. So I'm down with that.

It seems fable like actually

A CG person might resent law, but deep down he is still good. As you said, a LE might use evil means, but the ends don't have to be evil



Oh and enworld updated their site to note that there are no evil deities in the PHB, they, instead, appear in the DMG. Which I guess I am okay with. I never really had players that were gung-ho to be villains anyway. I find the idea of an evil campaign to be somewhere between repulsive and laughable. :smalltongue:
1) Why not include all of the gods together. More convenient
2) I think your coming from a very large mis understanding of evil . An evil game is perfectly valid. A group dedicated to a god for example, or zealots o are all about ends justifies the means. Nothing keeps evil people from working together or having friends
from
EE

Trog
2008-05-19, 02:50 PM
It seems fable like actually

A CG person might resent law, but deep down he is still good. As you said, a LE might use evil means, but the ends don't have to be evil


1) Why not include all of the gods together. More convenient
2) I think your coming from a very large mis understanding of evil . An evil game is perfectly valid. A group dedicated to a god for example, or zealots o are all about ends justifies the means. Nothing keeps evil people from working together or having friends

Unfamiliar with fable.

1) Dunno. Though it might be a way to subtly nudge inexperienced players towards the side of good. Or at least non-evil. *shrug* Remains to be seen why.

2) Nope. And I never said an evil game wasn't valid. I just said I find the idea of an evil campaign to be somewhere between repulsive and laughable. Repulsive because I honestly feel no urge to play an evil character myself and laughable because, if I did, it would probably have to be done in total non-roleplaying-Snidely-Whiplash-mustache-twirling-munchkin-style. Hence laughable. On top of the problems you run into with players getting upset at one another when they begin to take the backstabbing seriously.

EvilElitest
2008-05-19, 03:17 PM
Unfamiliar with fable.

1) Dunno. Though it might be a way to subtly nudge inexperienced players towards the side of good. Or at least non-evil. *shrug* Remains to be seen why.

2) Nope. And I never said an evil game wasn't valid. I just said I find the idea of an evil campaign to be somewhere between repulsive and laughable. Repulsive because I honestly feel no urge to play an evil character myself and laughable because, if I did, it would probably have to be done in total non-roleplaying-Snidely-Whiplash-mustache-twirling-munchkin-style. Hence laughable. On top of the problems you run into with players getting upset at one another when they begin to take the backstabbing seriously.
Fable is an Xbox RPG, and a lot of elements (along with element from other video games) seem to be prevalent in 4E, hence my main complaint, including but not limited too a very shallow and simplistic RPG style

1) It seems very silly, gods should be in the god section
2) I think this touches upon another issue, why does everybody assume the players have to be totally immature. Maybe this whole player entitlement thing might lend it some credence, but even so, evil PCs can be handled in a perfectly normal mature manner. Evil parties make perfect sense, i mean look at over zealous crusaders as one example
from
EE

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-19, 03:21 PM
Really, at this point, it's long since we've stopped caring about what the other one really says. We just throw barbs around in the same way boys hit themselves to show friendship, only our way is cooler. And you can beat that as soon as I finish playtesting 4th ed., I'm going to make a PbP game and damn sure as hell it's going to include you guys.

You used a an ad baculum fallacy!And damn, that failed. You kinda did as well.

Trog
2008-05-19, 03:56 PM
Fable is an Xbox RPG, and a lot of elements (along with element from other video games) seem to be prevalent in 4E, hence my main complaint, including but not limited too a very shallow and simplistic RPG style

1) It seems very silly, gods should be in the god section
2) I think this touches upon another issue, why does everybody assume the players have to be totally immature. Maybe this whole player entitlement thing might lend it some credence, but even so, evil PCs can be handled in a perfectly normal mature manner. Evil parties make perfect sense, i mean look at over zealous crusaders as one example
from
EE
I understand your complaint but I myself do not feel that having simple rules precludes one from running a complex game. The interface with the computer-based RPG is what is limiting. Not being able to role-play one's character but instead being forced to choose, at best, between a few limited rail-roaded responses is what I feel limits the enjoyment of these sorts of games. Being players at the table with no such rules limiting how you role-play your character is what will always make tabletop RPGs superior to their electronic counterparts IMO.

1) quite possibly.
2) Well I, for one, do not assume this. I merely would choose to play an evil PC as "immature" for comedic effect or else not at all. Not everyone would chose that but I do. And certainly a over-zealous crusader is a good example of how not to do it. Or, for that matter, playing like that huge bandage-covered guy in Sin City as another angle on an evil character using evil means to, in the end, do good. But, again, I'd find it laughable for me to do so and would probably cheese it up a bit because the character is so over-the-top.

Starsinger
2008-05-19, 04:27 PM
2) I think this touches upon another issue, why does everybody assume the players have to be totally immature. Maybe this whole player entitlement thing might lend it some credence, but even so, evil PCs can be handled in a perfectly normal mature manner. Evil parties make perfect sense, i mean look at over zealous crusaders as one example

Because serious immersion style role playing with a truly evil character is repulsive? And if you're just being a jerkass with Evil for your alignment, then you're not really evil are you?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-19, 04:29 PM
Yeah, only a truly vile individual, or an Oscar winning actor could desensitize him or herself enough from a truly dastardly character to play the kind that eats the children, rapes the women, and dedicates years to crushing your dreams and hopes.

EvilElitest
2008-05-19, 04:37 PM
Starsinger, what are you saying? In D&D is is far far easier to be evil than good. Evil doesn't mean your Charlie Manson or Joseph Stalin. Cortez, Christopher Columbus and Nathan Bedford Forest are all examples of by D&D standards evil people. I don't like any of them, but they aren't simplistic sociopaths



I understand your complaint but I myself do not feel that having simple rules precludes one from running a complex game. The interface with the computer-based RPG is what is limiting. Not being able to role-play one's character but instead being forced to choose, at best, between a few limited rail-roaded responses is what I feel limits the enjoyment of these sorts of games. Being players at the table with no such rules limiting how you role-play your character is what will always make tabletop RPGs superior to their electronic counterparts IMO.

However i feel the game's attitude towards its players is important. IE, it is a shallow one, in a video game style, that seems to be like player entitlement and a a sort of hack and slash war game mix



2) Well I, for one, do not assume this. I merely would choose to play an evil PC as "immature" for comedic effect or else not at all. Not everyone would chose that but I do. And certainly a over-zealous crusader is a good example of how not to do it. Or, for that matter, playing like that huge bandage-covered guy in Sin City as another angle on an evil character using evil means to, in the end, do good. But, again, I'd find it laughable for me to do so and would probably cheese it up a bit because the character is so over-the-top.
1) I don't think any of Frank MIller's characters can ever be described as good, even in ends. I think despicable
2) Alright, but evil games themselves aren't doomed to failure
from
EE

Rutee
2008-05-19, 04:42 PM
Yeah, only a truly vile individual, or an Oscar winning actor could desensitize him or herself enough from a truly dastardly character to play the kind that eats the children, rapes the women, and dedicates years to crushing your dreams and hopes.

I don't recall if she won an Oscar, but I know Sharon Stone had to go to therapy after Basic Instinct, because the character she played was so vile, it made her feel like crap.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-19, 04:47 PM
Makes sense. I'm famous for being very detached from any role I might choose to play, but I imagine taking the role of Mason Verger for a long while would cause nasty effects.

Indon
2008-05-19, 04:49 PM
2) Nope. And I never said an evil game wasn't valid. I just said I find the idea of an evil campaign to be somewhere between repulsive and laughable. Repulsive because I honestly feel no urge to play an evil character myself and laughable because, if I did, it would probably have to be done in total non-roleplaying-Snidely-Whiplash-mustache-twirling-munchkin-style. Hence laughable. On top of the problems you run into with players getting upset at one another when they begin to take the backstabbing seriously.

Envision this, if you will:

A party of holy warriors, fighting to champion their deity. At every turn, they stress independence from authority and self-sufficiency. They assist others, but prefer to work as facilitators rather than as simple blades-for-hire. They work together well, but like with every adventurer group are quick to strike against someone who acts hostile towards them.

They are worshippers of a chaotic or neutral evil deity (I'm specifically thinking of Thamar, from Iron Kingdoms): They stress independence from authority because authority is oppressive, and self-sufficiency because strength is the highest of virtues. They would rather help people get on their feet than just fixing problems for them, but they don't work for free and they generally don't get people out of jams they inflict upon themselves - at least, not without additional fees.

As a party, they work together just fine - but they're evil.

MartinHarper
2008-05-19, 05:12 PM
Yes there are CG people. In fact CG is one of the most popular pc alignments!

I guess Chaotic Good in 3.5 maps to Good in 4.0. You might almost say that Chaotic Good is the default type of Good, with Lawful Good as a special case.

Trog
2008-05-19, 07:17 PM
Alright, but evil games themselves aren't doomed to failure
I never said they were. You are inferring that.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-19, 09:19 PM
I guess Chaotic Good in 3.5 maps to Good in 4.0. You might almost say that Chaotic Good is the default type of Good, with Lawful Good as a special case.
You could also say, for simplicity, that you don't have "neutral good", "neutral evil", "chaotic neutral", and "lawful neutral". Only the 4 extremes, and the true neutral. But the chaotic good and lawful evil are being called just good and evil.
If they had different names for lawful good and chaotic evil, things would be easier, with single names.

And I'm totally making a gnome ninja camp of DOOOOOOM when/if I stard DMing 4E.

Grey Watcher
2008-05-19, 09:26 PM
...There are 5 Alignments: Good, Lawful Good, Evil, Chaotic Evil, Unaligned. Among the gods I did not see any evil or CE listed....

So, based on the linkage the author got a look at the PHB? I find it odd that they'd retain Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, but simply all the rest into simply Good, Evil, and Unaligned. Are we sure that isn't just a collection of the alignments seen so far in the various preview materials? Heck, if you have Unaligned in addition to, rather than instead of, Neutral (which is what I originally thought they were going to do, since otherwise it's just a name change), you can have no less than 16 alignments (LG, NG, UG, CG, LN, LU, NN, NU, UN, UU, CN, CU, LE, NE, UE, CE), which, to me, at least was exciting. To only partially eliminate the Law/Chaos axis is just plain screwy.

Trog
2008-05-20, 07:49 AM
So, based on the linkage the author got a look at the PHB? I find it odd that they'd retain Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, but simply all the rest into simply Good, Evil, and Unaligned. Are we sure that isn't just a collection of the alignments seen so far in the various preview materials? Heck, if you have Unaligned in addition to, rather than instead of, Neutral (which is what I originally thought they were going to do, since otherwise it's just a name change), you can have no less than 16 alignments (LG, NG, UG, CG, LN, LU, NN, NU, UN, UU, CN, CU, LE, NE, UE, CE), which, to me, at least was exciting. To only partially eliminate the Law/Chaos axis is just plain screwy.
I think they wanted to eliminate it all down to good, unaligned, and evil... but then there would only be 2 possible configurations for the minis game. This way there would be four [/cynical speculation]

Project_Mayhem
2008-05-20, 08:12 AM
I don't think any of Frank MIller's characters can ever be described as good, even in ends. I think despicable

Fair does for Marv and the like, but what about Detective John Hartigan?? He's certainly good - Unless you include hitting perps from behind.

As for the main discussion point at the moment, I agree at first the new alignment system sounded a bit wierd. However, what if the only reason LG and CE are listed seperately, is because there is some mechanical difference? Like certain spells. Or alternatively, some requirements to play them? For example something analogous to the Paladin's code now. Maybe you won't have to follow it to be lawful and good, but to be Lawful Good, you do.

Dunno.

And Dude, I'm totally going to quote this.


Well, now we know the secret behind the "points of light".
Gnomes were kicked out of the normal society, and, bend on revenge, they now stalk the wilderness, waiting for their prey, the other humanoid races, once allies, now just walking targets.
People are not afraid of monsters. They are afraid of gnomes.

And the pact that sends people literally to hell made me think of Akuma from Street Fighter. Shun Goku Satso anyone?

Oh, ye gods! Can rogues get warlock powers through power swap? Ninja predator gnomes hunting down travelling humanoids and sending them literally to hell!

"Ok, guys, we are here. These damn gnomes may strike at a momment's notice. So, keep your guard up.... guys? Bob? Joe? Ann? Where are y... AHHH! IT BURNS!"

Edit: Jeez, how tiny are the amount of words we're allowed in sigs now??

That was rhetorical.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-20, 08:16 AM
I think they wanted to eliminate it all down to good, unaligned, and evil... but then there would only be 2 possible configurations for the minis game. This way there would be four [/cynical speculation]

The minis game only has Evil, Unaligned and Good now... but warband building isn't based off of Alignment anymore. Now its by "faction"... the four factions are Civilization, Underdark, Wilderness and ... I forget what they call it... like between Civilization and Wilderness... war torn area. Fringe maybe.

If you have a Good mini in your warband, you cannot have any evil... and vice versa. 75% of all the minis are unaligned. There are FIVE total "Good" and like 15 "evil".