PDA

View Full Version : What's up with Liches (4e)?



Pages : [1] 2

Realms of Chaos
2008-07-01, 04:48 PM
In 4e, one of the more impressive aspects, at least to me, is just how equal everything is. Every class follows the same guidelines and even the creatures are designed to be played at the same level.

However, with the lich, there seems to be a bit of a hiccup in this perfect world. Namely, the Lich Transformation ritual. I know that there has always been a way for humans to become liches (where else would they be coming from otherwise?). However, in 4e, the process has become unbalanced.

Back in 3e, to become a Lich, you had to go through some obscure magic ritual, create your phylactery, and spend some cash. However, the moment that you acquired your template, you'd have the massive weight of level adjustment upon your shoulders, helping to keep you in line with everyone else by keeping your caster level and hit points (especially considering that you would have no Con score) down.

Now, there is a ritual that allows lichdom, a ritual that only requires only 100k gp, 10 days and 1 hour, and (presumably) worship of Orcus.

Once more, to give WotC its proper dues, it did isolate the ritual in one book and the template itself in another, limiting the odds of players knowing about it. Unfortunately, the ritual isn't that all secret, only requiring a DC 20 religon check to have heard about it.

I understand that there have always been some items (like the Deck of Many Things) that players weren't really meant to acquire on a whim. However, in such cases, the denial of the item was usually either due to a lack of market price (read, artifact) or logical lack of that item (such as with magical locations). However, not only is the ritual given a price, meaning that others can buy it, but the wizard can add it to their spellbook for free at 15th level (by RAW, it is never stated that the wizard must select rituals from the PHB. Furthermore, although the isolation of the ritual does say something, WotC never even discourages use of that ritual by PCs in any of the core rule books). With all of this in mind, there is no reason to deny the wizard their ritual other than the typical rule 0 (read, because I say so).

As for the few of you who are wondering by now why I am only complaining about the Lich, and not the Vampire, which possesses a similar ritual, take a closer look. If you'd be so kind to observe, only a vampire can cast the ritual to make another vampire. However, any humanoid can cast the lich transformation ritual. In my mind, this was the last nail in the coffin.

But is the lich template really so bad? Yes, yes it is. Let's go ahead and list the benefits for, oh, let's say a level 15 human wizard. You gain darkvision, some bonuses to your defenses, a couple of immunities, necrotic resistance, a bonus to your saving throws, your hit points more than double, you gain a constant regeneration 10, you can reclaim encounter powers, you gain a necrotic aura, and you can make any attack power necrotic. Oh, yeah, and you come back whenever you're killed. Even if this human was required to forego both their paragon path and epic destiny (which nothing suggests they would be required to do), they would still be far overpowered compared to their companions.

Although I admire how they were able to eliminate level adjustment, I feel slightly bad realizing that Wizards apparently never gave a second thought to the concept of a player becoming an elite, an occurance that Wizards does not seem to forbid or even warn against, and an occurance that appears to have no drawback for them.

Even now, however, I know that there must be some podcast, wizards announcement, or warning in the DMG or MM against this. If you have found one, please let me know.

P.S. I know very well that the answer to my quandry lies in placing up a houserule against it, explaining gently to any players who would want to become liches how it would end up overpowered. However, as the few remaining critics of 4e have come to say quite often in recent days, the core rule books should not have to be houseruled.

Moff Chumley
2008-07-01, 04:54 PM
I think there are some things that they assume that you'll know... :smallconfused:

Artanis
2008-07-01, 05:08 PM
Where is this ritual to become a Lich? Because I can't find it. In fact, the only mentions of said ritual I can find would require the Air Bud clause for a PC to use, so I'm interested in where this ritual can be found.

WrstDmEvr
2008-07-01, 05:14 PM
[snip]

I understand that there have always been some items (like the Deck of Many Things) that players weren't really meant to acquire on a whim. However, in such cases, the denial of the item was usually either due to a lack of market price (read, artifact) or logical lack of that item (such as with magical locations). However, not only is the ritual given a price, meaning that others can buy it, but the wizard can add it to their spellbook for free at 15th level (by RAW, it is never stated that the wizard must select rituals from the PHB. Furthermore, although the isolation of the ritual does say something, WotC never even discourages use of that ritual by PCs in any of the core rule books). With all of this in mind, there is no reason to deny the wizard their ritual other than the typical rule 0 (read, because I say so).

...

(emphasis added)
The thing is, the functional templates(of which the lich is part of) description is "Functional templates adapt a monster or a nonplayer character to a given purpose in an adventure" By RAW, player characters cannot add that template. Still, you bring up a valid concern. They should have been more clear in forbidding this.

EDIT: Lich template on 179 in DMG

kc0bbq
2008-07-01, 05:15 PM
Templates are for monsters, not PCs.

EDIT: beaten. :P

Artanis
2008-07-01, 05:23 PM
EDIT: Lich template on 179 in DMG
Yeah, I found that part (which is another of the "Air Bud Clause" bits), but where did the OP find the "100K gp, 10 days 1 hour, and Orcus Worship" part?

Realms of Chaos
2008-07-01, 05:30 PM
The ritual, on page 177 of the MM, requires 100,000gp to cast, 10 days (for phylactery creation) and 1 hour (for the casting), and, although optional, worship of Orcus (as, according to fluff, Orcus can destroy any phylactery with a thought).

Anyways, going by the a combination of the fact that the ritual is open to PCs but that the template granted isn't, is it a safe assumption that a PC becomes an NPC when they use the ritual?

Prophaniti
2008-07-01, 05:34 PM
Well, whether it can be used by the PCs is up to the DM, and therefore not really a matter of debate. Regardless of what RAW says, it's up to the DM to decide whether he wants PCs to be able to become Liches, and what connotations that should hold.

However, I have no issue whatsoever with them being 'overpowered'. A lich is more powerful than a regular mage, given the same character level. That's the way it should be. Keeping the same degree of power to the template but losing the LA makes perfect sense to me. If you think it's too much, it's quite a simple thing to remove or limit the possibility of players becoming liches. We are talking about an arcane ritual that grants immortality in exchange for your soul. It's not like they should be able to pick it up off a street-vendor's cart.

Anyways, going by the a combination of the fact that the ritual is open to PCs but that the template granted isn't, is it a safe assumption that a PC becomes an NPC when they use the ritual?
That's up to the DM, and how badly he feels the game will fall apart if one of the PCs is a Lich.

MartinHarper
2008-07-01, 05:34 PM
As other folks have said, templates can't be applied to PCs. They can only be applied to monsters. If a PC uses the ritual, you'll need to houserule something. Sorry, can't be helped.

Sample House Rules:

Feat: Liched
I'm more emo than a tiefling
Character is well on the way to becoming a lich. Replace all racial bonuses with the following:
+4 Cha
+2 Int
-4 Wis
Size: as before
Type: Undead.
Speed: as before
Vision: low-light
Languages: as before
Skill Bonuses: as before
Resist: 10 necrotic
Vulnerable: 10 radiant
Alignment: Evil
Special: +5 racial bonus to saving throws vs poison or disease. Any powers that cause radiant damage now cause necrotic damage.

Then replace any racial feats for the character with lich racial feats:

Feat: Lich Senses [Lich]
I can see in the dark with my glowing red eyes
Benefit: you gain darkvision

Feat: Poison Immunity [Lich]
I don't have a circulatory system any more
Benefit: you are immune to poisons

Feat: Disease Immunity [Lich]
Internal Organs are for losers
Benefit: you are immune to diseases

The prospective Lich needs to acquire a 100,000gp phylactery to perform the ritual. This becomes a level 20 magic item on completion of the ritual:

Magic Item: Lich Phylactery - Level 20
A sealed metal box containing magical runes written in your own blood
When you die, your body reforms over 1d10 days within 1 square of this item. You return with a death penalty (per Raise Dead) and your soul must be free and willing (per Raise Dead). Recharging your phylactery after each use costs 500gp of arcane ritual components. This increases to 5,000gp in the Paragon tier and 50,000gp in the Epic tier.

Antacid
2008-07-01, 05:37 PM
where did the OP find the "100K gp, 10 days 1 hour, and Orcus Worship" part?
It's in the fluff.

Actually the part about needing to ask Orcus is the worst part (as there's no way any PC gets to become a lich without a DM lapse of judgement). Shouldn't it be Vecna? Duh.

Prophaniti
2008-07-01, 05:39 PM
Tieflings are more emo than anyone... except a Tiefling Lich!

Artanis
2008-07-01, 05:42 PM
There it is.


The ritual "makes you a lich and applies the lich template". PCs can't gain templates. Thus while a character can presumably know the ritual, going through with it wouldn't do anything noteworthy.

Prophaniti
2008-07-01, 05:50 PM
There it is.


The ritual "makes you a lich and applies the lich template". PCs can't gain templates. Thus while a character can presumably know the ritual, going through with it wouldn't do anything noteworthy.

See, now that's the kind of attitude that seems extremely silly to me. You're holding RAW (PCs can't gain templates) up as a more important concept than the actual players, and their actions at the table. Of course going through the ritual would do something noteworthy. It will turn them into a Lich! That's what it does! Whether the PCs are able to complete the ritual, or even aquire it in the first place, and what happens to the character after they become a Lich is why the game has the position of the DM! That's his job. The only possible purpose of invoking the 'PCs can't gain Templates' clause is to silence the grumbling of Rules Lawyers who hold a similarly distorted view of how important RAW is, when you don't want them to become Liches. After you've already screwed up enough to allow them to gain and complete the ritual in the first place.

Erk. Sorry if that sounds really worked up. Just a little venting.

Artanis
2008-07-01, 06:02 PM
See, now that's the kind of attitude that seems extremely silly to me. You're holding RAW (PCs can't gain templates) up as a more important concept than the actual players, and their actions at the table. Of course going through the ritual would do something noteworthy. It will turn them into a Lich! That's what it does! Whether the PCs are able to complete the ritual, or even aquire it in the first place, and what happens to the character after they become a Lich is why the game has the position of the DM! That's his job. The only possible purpose of invoking the 'PCs can't gain Templates' clause is to silence the grumbling of Rules Lawyers who hold a similarly distorted view of how important RAW is, when you don't want them to become Liches. After you've already screwed up enough to allow them to gain and complete the ritual in the first place.

Erk. Sorry if that sounds really worked up. Just a little venting.
I'm doing nothing of the sort.

The OP made the claim that now the PCs could gain an extremely powerful template, and he claimed they could do so by RAW. I (and most of the people who responded to this thread) replied that no, they could not do so by RAW. This is a discussion of RAW, not the players' and DM's wishes.

Now, if you feel that your players should be allowed to gain the template, getting all the effects that it would have on a monster or NPC in the process, then go ahead and let them. But if you do so, you cannot claim that it is allowed by RAW. And claiming exactly that is precisely what the OP did.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-07-01, 06:09 PM
RAW: Players cannot gain templates
RAW: This ritual can give a character a template
RAW: This ritual is castable by the player
RAW: Breaks down. 1+1=3. THE END IS NIGH!

Or, maybe, WotC still doesn't know how to build a decent game, or even edit properly. :smallmad:

Feralgeist
2008-07-01, 06:15 PM
you know what you could do though?? scribe the ritual onto a scroll and make an NPC ally use it, assisting with your oh-so-high arcana rollz. Hurrah, you now have a meat-shield that you wont be able to get rid of.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-01, 06:16 PM
There it is.


The ritual "makes you a lich and applies the lich template". PCs can't gain templates. Thus while a character can presumably know the ritual, going through with it wouldn't do anything noteworthy.

If you couldn't apply the template, why would you need the ritual? DMs don't need to use a ritual to give an NPC a template, it doesn't make sense to print it if you can't apply it to players. I would say this is an example of specific trumping general in applying templates to players.

(They know how to edit just fine, you're just forgetting a more basic rule.)

ShadowSiege
2008-07-01, 06:25 PM
As a template, they obviously cannot be applied to players. Presumably, the lich ritual could be used to create a paragon path or epic destiny for those that fulfill the requirements at some later point in time. I'd wager epic destiny would be the most appropriate due to the cost and the benefits (growing into your lichdom so to speak), though I could just as easily see it as a paragon path with a daily utility ability to return from destruction.

The inclusion of the ritual that cannot be used at this point in time without house ruling may be a bit of a poor judgment call on Wizards' part, as players will inevitably want to try the lich thing. The inclusion is also odd when considering that the 4e base books makes the assumption that you will be playing a heroic party rather than antiheroic or villainous party, and as such would presumably find the idea of becoming an undead abomination abhorrent.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-07-01, 06:28 PM
{Scrubbed}

Prophaniti
2008-07-01, 06:41 PM
Now, that's not quite fair, IS. I may not like the new ruleset at all, but most of it is fairly simple to follow, and rarely contradictory.

Chronicled
2008-07-01, 06:56 PM
you know what you could do though?? scribe the ritual onto a scroll and make an NPC ally use it, assisting with your oh-so-high arcana rollz. Hurrah, you now have a meat-shield that you wont be able to get rid of.

And why stop at 1? You could have an elite bodyguard of liches, all more than willing to take an deadly blow for you.

Xuincherguixe
2008-07-01, 06:57 PM
They also may not have even considered that PCs would want to become Liches. Though, it's more likely that they just went with the Template thing.

Collin152
2008-07-01, 06:59 PM
And why stop at 1? You could have an elite bodyguard of liches, all more than willing to take an deadly blow for you.

Because its rather expensive?

Realms of Chaos
2008-07-01, 07:02 PM
It's in the fluff.

Actually the part about needing to ask Orcus is the worst part (as there's no way any PC gets to become a lich without a DM lapse of judgement). Shouldn't it be Vecna? Duh.

technically, all that we know Orcus can do (actually, the book merely hints that he is rumored to have this ability) is break the phylactery after you become a lich, denying you of not-dying-ness but still making you quite overpowered. Whether Orcus can withold the power necessary to use the ritual in the first place is beyond the realms of even the fluff, alas.

Anyways, the problem, as I see it, is a contradiction.

Namely, the basic contradiction of the general rule (PCs cannot have templates) vs. the exception (a ritual, usable by PCs, to gain a template). In this case, the exception always takes priority.

However, in this particular case, the exception-beats-rule law contradicts the entire intention of 4e for everyone to stand on equal footing.

We have been told, at one point in our gaming lives or another, to respect both the exception-beats-rule law, which is telling us yes Lich, and R.A.I, which is telling us no Lich.

Has there ever been precedence for contradiction between these two unwritten principles? :smalleek:

Collin152
2008-07-01, 07:06 PM
Has there ever been precedence for contradiction between these two unwritten principles? :smalleek:

Just use the force.
Trust your feelings.

Admiral_Kelly
2008-07-01, 07:15 PM
The idea of player becoming a lich in a roleplaying game is absurd. They are suppose to be the BBEGs.

DMfromTheAbyss
2008-07-01, 07:17 PM
I have a couple of conclusions to draw from this discussion.

There are a frightening number of people on this forum who assume that if you can sell your soul and sacrifice your life for additional power as an undead fiend, then it's a no duh style decision.

What if there is no Contradiction...

Given that :The rules say a PC can use the the ritual, and that the ritual gives you a template. AND the rules also say Templates cannot be given to PC's.

SO... Looks like a player can become a lich and become powerful... but then he's not a PC, so the player just made the DM a cool villian that his next character might get to fight against.

Just my interpretation of how this could work. I'll admit that the rules could certainly be better written, but given my interpretation I actually like this more than the silly add a template stuff in 3rd ed.

Realms of Chaos
2008-07-01, 07:26 PM
Actually, upon closer reading (missed it earlier), it turns out that turning the player into an NPC does not quite remove the contradiction.

According to the DMG, "You can also add a functional template to a nonplayer character" (emphasis mine).
Therefore, in order for the rules to not trip over themselves, you would've had to be an NPC before you cast the ritual (so that it can be added to an NPC), something not required by RAW.

Also, remember that there is indeed precedence for being a lich back in 3.5. To see for yourself, please read the description of the Dread Necromancer, a base class (not an NPC class).

By the way, I'm not selling my soul. I'm shoving it into a box. :smallbiggrin:

Siosilvar
2008-07-01, 07:39 PM
Turn them into an NPC when they start casting the ritual. Apply the template at the end.

Does that fix your semantics problem?

Chronicled
2008-07-01, 07:42 PM
Because its rather expensive?

That's why you complain to the DM that your WBL is way underneath everyone else's. :smallwink:

Alchemistmerlin
2008-07-01, 07:45 PM
Turn them into an NPC when they start casting the ritual. Apply the template at the end.

Does that fix your semantics problem?

No, because you're still telling the player "Sorry, you can't do that with your character. It's mine now"

So while the semantics may work out, you (Read: The Hypothetical DM, not the poster) are still being a bastard.

As someone who played a 15th level Necromancer Lich in one of my campaigns, I noticed some of the issues raised in this thread. The friends in that game are considering converting to 4e which means, without about 40 lbs of house rules (Due to Necromancy being gone and Lich being a bit out of the question), I'll have to re-roll.

Oh well, I guess I can still play my bard...barbaria...drui...

*sigh* Fighter.

At least they won't be republishing those classes in a different book and charging me for it...:smallfrown:

Arakune
2008-07-01, 07:55 PM
Why every time RAW comes people think it means "just because it's not forbidden then it's allowed by RAW". As far I seen, most of the RAW doesn't say that you can do these things either, so it could be "just because it's not allowed then it's forbidden by RAW".

Let's call it Schrödinger's rules. Since what can tell from it's quantum state (RAW) from macroscopic state (actual use) it's the DM, I don' think this use of rule 0 are against this discussion.

Chronos
2008-07-01, 07:55 PM
I think that "the character becomes an NPC" is the only logical interpretation, here. Otherwise, you end up with the evil necromancer asking, "Hey, how come everyone else in the history of the world who ever used this ritual turned into a cool undead monstrosity, but nothing happens when I do it?".

A question, though... If, in 4e, templates can only be applied to NPCs, not PCs, how are they handling lycanthropy? Are PCs categorically immune to it, or is the DM supposed to take away the character sheet as soon as someone gets bitten, or what?

SamTheCleric
2008-07-01, 07:59 PM
I think that "the character becomes an NPC" is the only logical interpretation, here. Otherwise, you end up with the evil necromancer asking, "Hey, how come everyone else in the history of the world who ever used this ritual turned into a cool undead monstrosity, but nothing happens when I do it?".

A question, though... If, in 4e, templates can only be applied to NPCs, not PCs, how are they handling lycanthropy? Are PCs categorically immune to it, or is the DM supposed to take away the character sheet as soon as someone gets bitten, or what?

According to the Monster Manual entry for Lycanthropes, Lycanthropy is hereditary, not treated as a disease. There is a disease spread by Lycanthropes called "moon frenzy" that causes the target to fly into a rage and attack the nearest person.

Arakune
2008-07-01, 08:00 PM
I think that "the character becomes an NPC" is the only logical interpretation, here. Otherwise, you end up with the evil necromancer asking, "Hey, how come everyone else in the history of the world who ever used this ritual turned into a cool undead monstrosity, but nothing happens when I do it?".

A question, though... If, in 4e, templates can only be applied to NPCs, not PCs, how are they handling lycanthropy? Are PCs categorically immune to it, or is the DM supposed to take away the character sheet as soon as someone gets bitten, or what?

As you already said, roll another char. It makes sense at least that way and I prefer that way, making the PCs go after a cure before the party member become a monster.

Collin152
2008-07-01, 08:00 PM
I think that "the character becomes an NPC" is the only logical interpretation, here. Otherwise, you end up with the evil necromancer asking, "Hey, how come everyone else in the history of the world who ever used this ritual turned into a cool undead monstrosity, but nothing happens when I do it?".

A question, though... If, in 4e, templates can only be applied to NPCs, not PCs, how are they handling lycanthropy? Are PCs categorically immune to it, or is the DM supposed to take away the character sheet as soon as someone gets bitten, or what?

"It hit you?"
"Yeah-"
*snatch*
"No PC for you!"

ArmLion
2008-07-01, 08:12 PM
It seems to clearly state that "Lich" is a template that can be applied to NPCs. I assume they give you ritual information because NPCs follow most of the same rules as PC's do, and so you could house rule it in for PCs if you want to.

It doesn't seem shocking that there would be high level rituals that PCs can't cast unless they want to turn to the darkside and forgo control of their own character unless the DM and group allow it.

As far as lycanthropes... it's hereditary according to the MM, so no a PC can't become one by being bitten.

EDIT: I should also say that I'm glad this came up since I had never thought of a "Mind flayer Lich" before looking at the template. That might be a little too high a concentration of EVIL for my tastes though.

Prophaniti
2008-07-01, 08:13 PM
With Lycanthropes, I usually just say that when they transform, since they can't control it, I control the character during the shifts. After waking up in enough gore-filled rooms and being chased by enough angry mobs, guards, bounty hunters, and so forth, being a werecreature tends to lose it's appeal. 'Course, this issue hasn't come up much... and the only time Lichdom has come up was me wanting to put my Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer/Dragonheart Mage through the ritual. He said no. I can't imagine why...:smallbiggrin:

mikeejimbo
2008-07-01, 08:19 PM
You have to be evil to be a lich, and PCs aren't allowed to be evil in 4e.

Oh by RAW they supposedly are, but Wizards strongly implies that PCs are supposed to be good. "Most parties will be good", "worshiping an evil deity is usually only appropriate for NPCs", etc. Makes me sick. Where's my evil?

Actually, I prefer Neutral. On my alignment line, I write "N/A"

RTGoodman
2008-07-01, 08:20 PM
I've been thinking about this a bit, and I might have a houseruled solution that could be used for slightly high-powered campaign.

First, what does adding a template do? It just bumps a creature up from "normal" status to "Elite" status, meaning it counts as two critters. From that, maybe we can figure out a way to implement that for PCs.

Perhaps at 20th level (at the same time they pick their Epic Destinies), let each PC grab one of the templates. For NPCs that don't get full access to everything classes get, they count as Elites, or two normal critters. For a party of PCs, it seems like you might be able to just give them sort of a "party LA" (to use semi-3.x terms) where their considered a level or two higher when determining encounters. (Of course, you could just break it down even more and use the standard creatures of their level with the same +1 or +2 to everything as if you were just "bumping" them up 2 levels.)

It's not the most elegant system, but it might work. Characters would level faster, but I guess you could just gives them less XP per creature or require them to have more XP to level. If I remember correctly, there are at least enough different templates where each PC should find one that suits him.

Also, adding templates would only give the save bonuses, skill bonuses, and powers, not extra HP or anything. (I'm on the fence about ability increases.) Now that I go through the functional templates, they apparently don't have any with ability score increases. They don't all have completely equal benefits, but I don't think there's too much to worry about just giving everything (except, of course, additional HP and probably Action Points).


Any thoughts on this? It's a little bit of a niche idea, but then again not every party Wizard/Warlock wants to be a Lich.

Collin152
2008-07-01, 08:20 PM
Actually, I prefer Neutral. On my alignment line, I write "N/A"

I usually write "F*** this!"

Alchemistmerlin
2008-07-01, 08:21 PM
*snip* Makes me sick. Where's my evil?
*Snip*

"Now available! Evil Players Handbook! Own yours for only 40 more dollars!"

mikeejimbo
2008-07-01, 08:32 PM
"Now available! Evil Players Handbook! Own yours for only 40 more dollars!"

Haha, well you could make that argument about the BoVD, though I've also heard that that was supposed to be for the Bad Guys too.

Alchemistmerlin
2008-07-01, 08:35 PM
Haha, well you could make that argument about the BoVD, though I've also heard that that was supposed to be for the Bad Guys too.

There is a distinct difference between "extra content" and "Content intentionally left out for later sale"

It's part of what's causing a thousand different problems in the Video Game market these days.

Jarlax
2008-07-01, 09:46 PM
ok the ritual has been included in the MM and with good reason, somewhere at some point someone is going to ask "can i become a lich" and that ritual is presented there for the DM to use for those players.

that said the DMG and MM both represent DUNGEON MASTERS RESOURCES. in the same spirit as exemplars of evil and elder evils these books contain resources not meant for PCs to use. PC's cannot take the class templates from the DMG, they have their own multiclassing system. they cant become bodyguards or deathknights or any of the other functional template from the DMG because 4e makes the reasonable assumption that everything a player needs is in the Players Handbook.

there is no need for Rule 0 because the ritual is presented in the MM, its meant to be the Exception not the rule. if the ritual was intended for players it would be found in the back of the PHB in the rituals chapter.

TheOOB
2008-07-01, 10:31 PM
Due to specific beats general, a player cannot become a lich. The rule that players cannot aquire templates is a very specific rules, it's spelled out quite clearly. In order for any template to bypass this it would have to specifically say a player can acquire the template.

Becoming a lich requires a ritual that theoretically anyone with the skills/money can perform, anyone can do this, except players, who explicitally cannot gain templates.

SadisticFishing
2008-07-01, 11:06 PM
How 'bout this. Let them get the Phylactery thing, and become undead (immune to poison and disease). No elite-ness, as that's something just for NPC's. That'd be like saying the Brutal Rogue should gain life as a Brute because they're a brute.

4e leaves a lot more up to the DM than 3.5 did.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-02, 12:58 AM
Due to specific beats general, a player cannot become a lich. The rule that players cannot aquire templates is a very specific rules, it's spelled out quite clearly. In order for any template to bypass this it would have to specifically say a player can acquire the template.

Becoming a lich requires a ritual that theoretically anyone with the skills/money can perform, anyone can do this, except players, who explicitally cannot gain templates.

No thats like the exact opposite of specific beats general.

General Rule: No player can acquire any template. (Applies across the board to all players and templates)
Specific: This ritual gives this template. (Applies specifically to one player (caster) and one template)

Furthermore, the rules for the lichdom ritual are useless to the DM, as the NPCs have whatever resources you decide to give them and you need not manage their money or ritual book or any such things.

Draz74
2008-07-02, 01:00 AM
I think the real answer is that assuming "PCs won't want to become liches" follows logically from 4e's more fundamental assumption that "PCs are (mostly) on the side of Good in the great Good vs. Evil conflict."


RAW: Players cannot gain templates
RAW: This ritual can give a character a template
RAW: This ritual is castable by the player

RESULT: A PC that becomes a lich, since he has a template, has obviously suddenly become an NPC. Logical, no? :smallbiggrin:

Chineselegolas
2008-07-02, 01:55 AM
PCs won't want to become liches

PCs are (mostly) on the side of Good in the great Good vs. Evil conflict

Wait... I must be playing this game wrong...
Every RP game I've played RL someone has been evil or works towards evil goals. Saga 'heroic' campaign... All of us had several dark side point by end of the first mission... DnD, Slight of hand all round...

Mjoellnir
2008-07-02, 04:39 AM
HOUSERULE: Every player may take one template, but without the additional hitpoints, action points or the +2 on saving throws (and with some adjustments to make them on par with the lich template).
He has too fulfill prerequisites set by the rules (lich) or his DM (all others).

At the moment I'm working on an "Eladrin Ascension" ritual to transform eladrin into ghaele, bralani or firre.

Dausuul
2008-07-02, 09:17 AM
Technically, by RAW, I think PCs can use the ritual. As someone said earlier, specific trumps general, so the specific ritual trumps the general rule that you can't put templates on PCs.

That said, it was clearly not the intent of the designers for PCs to be able to use this ritual, and I'm rather surprised the ritual was included at all.

Krrth
2008-07-02, 10:04 AM
Technically, by RAW, I think PCs can use the ritual. As someone said earlier, specific trumps general, so the specific ritual trumps the general rule that you can't put templates on PCs.

That said, it was clearly not the intent of the designers for PCs to be able to use this ritual, and I'm rather surprised the ritual was included at all.
I'm not sure, as the book specifically says that the template is applable to npcs. Since it says that, and nothing about pc's, I'd say that it doesn't work for pc's. Of corse, that's just my opinion.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-02, 10:17 AM
It's in the fluff.

Actually the part about needing to ask Orcus is the worst part (as there's no way any PC gets to become a lich without a DM lapse of judgement). Shouldn't it be Vecna? Duh.

Yeah, this struck me as odd. Orcus can destroy any phylactery with a thought... what about Vecna? He's a full fledged lich god for crying out loud.


(They know how to edit just fine, you're just forgetting a more basic rule.)

In this case you may be correct, but generally speaking you could not be more wrong. WotC has notoriously bad editing.


They also may not have even considered that PCs would want to become Liches. Though, it's more likely that they just went with the Template thing.

If they didn't, that's just silly. PC's have wanted to become liches since 1e.


The idea of player becoming a lich in a roleplaying game is absurd. They are suppose to be the BBEGs.

What if I'm playing an evil game? Why can't I be the BBEG myself and be thwarting the plans of those rotten kids and that dog? If I want to poison some scooby snacks I bloody well will!


You have to be evil to be a lich, and PCs aren't allowed to be evil in 4e.

Oh by RAW they supposedly are, but Wizards strongly implies that PCs are supposed to be good. "Most parties will be good", "worshiping an evil deity is usually only appropriate for NPCs", etc. Makes me sick. Where's my evil?

Actually, I prefer Neutral. On my alignment line, I write "N/A"

Well, most parties are good, and always have been. Nothing in the rules, rather than their stated suggestions (note the 'usually' even there), stops you from playing an evil character?


"Now available! Evil Players Handbook! Own yours for only 40 more dollars!"

This will actually be an interesting question, given some of the language about community standards in the GSL.


there is no need for Rule 0 because the ritual is presented in the MM, its meant to be the Exception not the rule. if the ritual was intended for players it would be found in the back of the PHB in the rituals chapter.

This is true.


HOUSERULE: Every player may take one template, but without the additional hitpoints, action points or the +2 on saving throws (and with some adjustments to make them on par with the lich template).
He has too fulfill prerequisites set by the rules (lich) or his DM (all others).


There may also be other ways to adjust this. I remember calculating with Jax Garet that an Elite Monster was roughly equal to a PC of the same level. I'll need to ponder it more, but there is probably some ratio conversion possible to Solo's too, given that equivalency. That could then be compensated for with xp loss or LA of some kind.

Hunter Noventa
2008-07-02, 10:36 AM
I've never DMed before, but if I were to DM a game where a PC wanted to become a Lich, part of the 100k gp cost would be something that you couldn't simply buy. It would have to be part of a massive quest that the other PCs would have to help with.

By making it a quest reward that requires the other players to go along, you make it a lot harder to become a Lich, since the one player has to convince the others to help them. The aspiring Lich may whine a little bit, but it's less Rule 0 than just saying they can't.

Gralamin
2008-07-02, 10:40 AM
Working backwards from the creating elite creature rules, and the lich template (as well a bit of balance), I’ve come up with this:

Lich
(undead)
Senses Darkvision
Defenses +2 Fortitude, +2 Will
Immune disease, poison
Resist 5 + 1/2 level necrotic
Necromantic Aura (Necrotic) aura 5
Any living creature that enters or starts its turn in the aura takes 5 necrotic damage. This ability may be suppressed if the lich wishes it.
Necrotic Master
The lich can convert any attack power it has to necrotic. Change a power’s energy keyword to necrotic, or add necrotic energy to an attack power that doesn’t normally deal energy damage.

Blackfang108
2008-07-02, 10:48 AM
It's in the fluff.

Actually the part about needing to ask Orcus is the worst part (as there's no way any PC gets to become a lich without a DM lapse of judgement). Shouldn't it be Vecna? Duh.

I would have figured it'd be the Raven Queen. She's in charge of the dead, after all.

But...

*thinks*

Yeah, probably Orcus or Vecna.

Mjoellnir
2008-07-02, 11:11 AM
There may also be other ways to adjust this. I remember calculating with Jax Garet that an Elite Monster was roughly equal to a PC of the same level. I'll need to ponder it more, but there is probably some ratio conversion possible to Solo's too, given that equivalency. That could then be compensated for with xp loss or LA of some kind.

Well, I generally dislike the concept of doubling HP simply through a role template. I had too much of that in WoW, where a team of two elite axethrowers and one elite witch doctor can hold a raid of twenty players at bay. There's absolutely no reason why nature should create such freaks that are twice as enduring as HEROES especially now where heroes are already set apart from common folk. I like my villains powerful but believable, so that the heroes can aspire to be someday as mighty, I don't want a hero who gets his ass kicked in a duel with a ghost who fights with a broken bottle and doesn't even have a name, just because he has a template.

RebelRogue
2008-07-02, 11:12 AM
You have to be evil to be a lich, and PCs aren't allowed to be evil in 4e.

Oh by RAW they supposedly are, but Wizards strongly implies that PCs are supposed to be good. "Most parties will be good", "worshiping an evil deity is usually only appropriate for NPCs", etc. Makes me sick. Where's my evil?
Sigh... Another misinterpretation of the good (pun somewhat intended) intents of 4th ed. The PHB states:

If you choose an alignment for your character, it should be either good or lawful good. Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all the characters are evil or chaotic evil, playing an evil or chaotic evil character disrupts an adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players angry at you.
Tell me how that is not common sense? In previous editions it's been an unwritten rule. It's not really a rule now, but it's an explicitly stated piece of good advice, mostly aimed at immature and/or beginner players.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-02, 11:13 AM
{Scrubbed}

{Scrubbed}

Lapak
2008-07-02, 11:14 AM
I would have figured it'd be the Raven Queen. She's in charge of the dead, after all.

But...

*thinks*

Yeah, probably Orcus or Vecna.I'm pretty sure one of her specific directives is 'Destroy Undead', so I'm guessing asking her to make you a Lich would be... less than productive.

Orcus has been the demon who classifies as lord of the undead for a while, IIRC, so it makes sense that he's be involved in creating the unholy things.

RebelRogue
2008-07-02, 11:19 AM
{Scrubbed}

Starsinger
2008-07-02, 11:25 AM
I don't want a hero who gets his ass kicked in a duel with a ghost who fights with a broken bottle and doesn't even have a name, just because he has a template.

Then that's your fault for applying a template to a nameless ghost with a broken bottle and no name and then having a player duel them. Take responsibility for your monsters and things like that won't happen unless you want them to.

Alchemistmerlin
2008-07-02, 11:25 AM
Because clearly, wanting to play an uber-powered undead sorcerer is the height of mature role-playing...

I was mostly aguing against the "They're supposed to be the bad guys" part.

And no where did I say that I wanted to be "uber-powered" but rather that I wanted to have the option to become a lich as it is the next logical step after becoming a powerful necromancer.

{scrubbed}

Leewei
2008-07-02, 11:28 AM
This is a good example of how the notion of NPC-only features is screwed up. PCs should be able in theory to develop any ability that an NPC has. The limiting factor should be game balance, i.e. a PC should obtaining a template should be giving up enough to make the template balanced against that PC without a template.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-02, 11:39 AM
I was mostly aguing against the "They're supposed to be the bad guys" part.

And I was mostly arguing against the "they're watering down D&D" part.


And no where did I say that I wanted to be "uber-powered" but rather that I wanted to have the option to become a lich as it is the next logical step after becoming a powerful necromancer.

Since in 4E your powerful necromancer has the option to become an honest to goodness god, one might suggest that aiming for Lichdom is setting your sights rather low...


{scrubbed}

{Scrubbed}

Starsinger
2008-07-02, 11:41 AM
{scrubbed}

I think there's supposed to be more to that sentiment.


This is a good example of how the notion of NPC-only features is screwed up. PCs should be able in theory to develop any ability that an NPC has. The limiting factor should be game balance, i.e. a PC should obtaining a template should be giving up enough to make the template balanced against that PC without a template.

A good way to do that, would to make Lich a paragon/epic path for PCs who perform the ritual.

SamTheCleric
2008-07-02, 11:43 AM
So... I decided to ask Customer Service about it.


Subject
Can PCs acquire the Lich Template?

Discussion Thread
Response (Support Agent) 07/02/2008 09:39 AM

Thank you for writing.

That will be up to your DM to decide whether or not they would allow that in their game.

Good Gaming!



So the "official" response is... "Your DM decides".

AKA_Bait
2008-07-02, 11:48 AM
Well, I generally dislike the concept of doubling HP simply through a role template. I had too much of that in WoW, where a team of two elite axethrowers and one elite witch doctor can hold a raid of twenty players at bay. There's absolutely no reason why nature should create such freaks that are twice as enduring as HEROES especially now where heroes are already set apart from common folk.

I'm not talking about adding any more HP than the template allows normally. But given the elite=PC equivalency then adding a template to a PC should make them roughly equivalent to a solo monster. I haven't run the numbers so I'm not sure how that transition stacks up with class levels etc. It might not work at all, but it seems possible.


I like my villains powerful but believable, so that the heroes can aspire to be someday as mighty, I don't want a hero who gets his ass kicked in a duel with a ghost who fights with a broken bottle and doesn't even have a name, just because he has a template.

Well that seems to be a problem with choosing when to use a template and describe a scene. A ghost that can kick but with a broken bottle should have some sort of interesting backstory explaining why. Put in a cool context, I don't see any problem with a hardcore bottle weilding ghost.


{scrubbed}

Of course, you can want to be a lich for other reasons too... also, obsession with power when playing in an evil game doesn't really say anything about the maturity level of the players. Plenty of bad guys are that way in myth and literature.


This is a good example of how the notion of NPC-only features is screwed up. PCs should be able in theory to develop any ability that an NPC has. The limiting factor should be game balance, i.e. a PC should obtaining a template should be giving up enough to make the template balanced against that PC without a template.

Agreed, and as I said before, it might be possible to balance those out with a little rolled up sleves homebrewing. I'm not saying the system works without it, quite the contrary, but that is the design of 4e and the overall design works better than I, for one, expected.


Since in 4E your powerful necromancer has the option to become an honest to goodness god, one might suggest that aiming for Lichdom is setting your sights rather low...

Godhood seems like the next step after lichdoom. Worked for Vecna...


{scrubbed}

Why is that a descent? Some of the most interesting and well fleshed out characters I've played have been evil. Just because you worship Hextor doesn't mean you can't have a deep and interesting character. He's just not a nice guy.


A good way to do that, would to make Lich a paragon/epic path for PCs who perform the ritual.

That works too, and potentially better. I'd think a paragon path.


So the "official" response is... "Your DM decides".

Yeah. I've gotten that response from Custserv a few times now about 4e questions. They are so amazingly helpful. :smallmad:

Kurald Galain
2008-07-02, 12:05 PM
Godhood seems like the next step after lichdoom. Worked for Vecna...

And it only took him a couple of editions to get there... :smallwink:

AKA_Bait
2008-07-02, 12:06 PM
And it only took him a couple of editions to get there... :smallwink:

Pretty quick imho. What's 30 something years in the life of a lich? :smallbiggrin:

Alchemistmerlin
2008-07-02, 12:08 PM
You mean, the crowd that has enough creativity to come up with interesting character concepts without descending to "also I am evil"?

{Scrubbed}

Chronos
2008-07-02, 12:14 PM
If you choose an alignment for your character, it should be either good or lawful good. Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all the characters are evil or chaotic evil, playing an evil or chaotic evil character disrupts an adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players angry at you.It worries me that they think this is true. Writing the word "evil" on your character sheet doesn't disrupt anything, and doesn't make anyone angry at you. Playing evil does those things, and the sort of fellow who doesn't mind disrupting the game also won't have any problem writing down "good" and then playing evil. Who hasn't heard of the so-called "paladin" who says "OK, I'm lawful good, so I'm obligated to slaughter the village, because there might be some evil people in it. Hey, don't blame me, that's what the class requires!"?

batsofchaos
2008-07-02, 12:17 PM
While I agree that playing an evil campaign can be a very rewarding experience, I can't help but agree with the sentiment based on how many people play evil characters as Chaotic Stupid.

marjan
2008-07-02, 12:23 PM
While I agree that playing an evil campaign can be a very rewarding experience, I can't help but agree with the sentiment based on how many people play evil characters as Chaotic Stupid.

Stupid can also be applied to Chaotic Neutral characters and some Lawful Good ones.

batsofchaos
2008-07-02, 12:25 PM
True, but the specific flavor of Chaotic Stupid I'm referring to is "I'm evil, so that means it's against my alignment to NOT stab every NPC we meet."

In other words, playing evil characters like Belkar.

RebelRogue
2008-07-02, 12:29 PM
It worries me that they think this is true. Writing the word "evil" on your character sheet doesn't disrupt anything, and doesn't make anyone angry at you. Playing evil does those things, and the sort of fellow who doesn't mind disrupting the game also won't have any problem writing down "good" and then playing evil. Who hasn't heard of the so-called "paladin" who says "OK, I'm lawful good, so I'm obligated to slaughter the village, because there might be some evil people in it. Hey, don't blame me, that's what the class requires!"?
I think it's excellent advice, at least for novice players. Experienced players/group able to handle this, and being mature about it all the while may of course look past it, but seriously in my experience this is rare. Since the books are for all, beginners included, I think it's a great place to start.

Anyway, an evil character who is not evil makes little sense to me. And nothing can save you from people who don't understand what alignments represent and/or fail to see them as guidelines rather than straightjackets (which is what I'd say the paladin behaviour you mention is!)

AKA_Bait
2008-07-02, 12:34 PM
True, but the specific flavor of Chaotic Stupid I'm referring to is "I'm evil, so that means it's against my alignment to NOT stab every NPC we meet."

In other words, playing evil characters like Belkar.

I've heard about my fair share of Paladins that feel like every time something pings their evil-o-meter it would be against their alignment not to immediatley cut their head off.

Does an evil alignment mean people will be stupid evil sometimes? Sure. I'll point out though, sometimes that kind of game, although not particularly mature, can still be fun. Sometimes folks just want to blow off some steam and feed their team mates a potion of Magic Missile or take out some pent up agression from the real world on an inn full of commoners and there's nothing wrong with that so long as everyone playing is cool with it. Belkar, for example, works well as a member of the Order of the Stick most of the time, despite his murderous tendencies.

Indon
2008-07-02, 12:37 PM
...your hit points more than double...

This isn't how Lich health works. The same HP formula is followed for class templates, but NPC's with class levels don't have double health. (Seriously, just look at the class templates - template HP is clearly meant to function as a replacement)


Templates are for monsters, not PCs.

Magic Item Creation and Epic Spellcasting both required explicit DM approval (by the RAW, as in it said things like, "Your DM has final say here") for players to work with. And yet, people still consider them broken aspects of 3'rd edition D&D.


{scrubbed}

I should think it'd be better, in general terms, to be able to play more things than it would be to be able to play less things.

Now admittedly, being able to play more things at the cost of balance (which the Lich template clearly violates), might not be such a good thing - but that's a matter of poor implementation of templates for PC's, because apparently PC's aren't meant to use templates.

RebelRogue
2008-07-02, 12:38 PM
Isn't Belkar actually a parody of that badly-played Chaotic Stupid PC we're talking about here. Hilarious in a comic. At a real-world gaming table, not so much!

Antacid
2008-07-02, 12:51 PM
I would have figured it'd be the Raven Queen. She's in charge of the dead, after all.

But...

*thinks*

Yeah, probably Orcus or Vecna.

The reason I think it's so weird for Orcus to be in charge of lichdom, is it feels like a holdover from the previous edition's idea of Demons, where Demon Lords were essentially 'just' Evil Gods and were only Chaotic Evil by default (Orcus always seemed more Neutral Evil to me).

If Demons are now psychotic uncontrollable killing machines (which I like), the idea of them having human cults, accruing power, answering prayers, making plans and granting lichdom doesn't make a lick of sense. It's much too calculating and logical. By the new definition of Demons, Orcus should hypothetically destroy the phylactory of every lich in the multiverse one day just because one looked at him funny.

Lapak
2008-07-02, 01:12 PM
If Demons are now psychotic uncontrollable killing machines (which I like), the idea of them having human cults, accruing power, answering prayers, making plans and granting lichdom doesn't make a lick of sense. It's much too calculating and logical. By the new definition of Demons, Orcus should hypothetically destroy the phylactory of every lich in the multiverse one day just because one looked at him funny.Demons in general are killing machines, beings formed of the corrupted Elemental Chaos that makes up the Abyss. But I think at least some of the Demon Lords (Orcus in particular) are corrupted Primordials, aren't they? I thought that was mentioned somewhere, and it makes him a different class of being altogether than your typical demon.

Antacid
2008-07-02, 01:15 PM
And no where did I say that I wanted to be "uber-powered" but rather that I wanted to have the option to become a lich as it is the next logical step after becoming a powerful necromancer.

{scrubbed}
I'd bet my ass that WotC are planning a "become a lich" Epic Destiny for a later supplement, almost certainly the one with the Shadow source classes in it. Every Epic destiny gets a de-facto immortality power; avoiding death but having to regenerate from your phylactery after being destroyed seems equivalent to the Archmage's Arcane Spirit power and the Demigod's Divine Recovery.

Yeah, you'll have to pay for it. That's not a deal-breaker in itself, surely. Let's not let this thread become another war of the editions.


Demons in general are killing machines, beings formed of the corrupted Elemental Chaos that makes up the Abyss. But I think at least some of the Demon Lords (Orcus in particular) are corrupted Primordials, aren't they? I thought that was mentioned somewhere, and it makes him a different class of being altogether than your typical demon.

It says this of Demogorgon, Baphomet and Orcus in the background of the Abyss in the MM. But my interpretation was that all Demons are corrupted Primordials, just like Devils are all corrupted Angels. I don't know whether Orcus and Demogorgon being older than the Abyss itself should logically make them different than other Demons. Maybe it's the best explanation we're going to get :smallconfused:

The New Bruceski
2008-07-02, 01:16 PM
[...] but I suspect you're just trying to get under my skin.
How can he do that? You're a lich!

RebelRogue
2008-07-02, 01:17 PM
Orcus is chaotic and evil, but he's not stupid! Destroying phylacteries would diminish the power of his minions, which would be a pretty stupid thing to do. With the constant threat of him being able to destroy phylacteries at will, he can essentially command any lich about as he wishes.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-02, 01:22 PM
Orcus is chaotic and evil, but he's not stupid! Destroying phylacteries would diminish the power of his minions, which would be a pretty stupid thing to do. With the constant threat of him being able to destroy phylacteries at will, he can essentially command any lich about as we wishes.

Indeed. Orcus might snuff out a particular lich because he's having a cruddy day, and to keep all the other ones on their toes (tricksy liches!) but he's nto going to destroy them all in one fell swoop on a whim.

Antacid
2008-07-02, 01:47 PM
Orcus is chaotic and evil, but he's not stupid! Destroying phylacteries would diminish the power of his minions, which would be a pretty stupid thing to do. With the constant threat of him being able to destroy phylacteries at will, he can essentially command any lich about as he wishes.
Fine, but that changes the essential concept of liches, doesn't it? They've gone from being autonomous undying Evil Wizards who achieved immortality to being a specific Demon Prince's bitch. It makes lichdom specific to a particular cult, which is my problem with the whole idea of having to ask Orcus if you want to be one.

And Vecna's a Lich God. How come he's more powerful than Orcus if Orcus controls all liches? Is he older than the Abyss too? Meh.

I think I'll change my campaigns version of the cosmology so that Undead are exclusively Shadow Realm-powered, and becoming a Lich is a process involving Evil use of Shadow power that requires permission from no one more powerful than the wannabe lich himself. Orcus is a corrupted Primordial from a a part of the Elemental Chaos that already bordered the Shadow Realm at the time it was transformed into part of the Abyss. So he might control some liches who became such using power he granted them, but he's not the Sugar Daddy of all lichkind.

Inyssius Tor
2008-07-02, 01:55 PM
It says this of Demogorgon, Baphomet and Orcus in the background of the Abyss in the MM. But my interpretation was that all Demons are corrupted Primordials, just like Devils are all corrupted Angels. I don't know whether Orcus and Demogorgon being older than the Abyss itself should logically make them different than other Demons. Maybe it's the best explanation we're going to get :smallconfused:

That's not... quite right. It's like this: Angels are a specific sort of astral being, like (say) Fire Archons, or Slaad (right?), are a specific sort of elemental being.

Primordials are the lords of the Elemental Chaos, like the Gods are the lords of the Astral Sea (except way more powerful).

A whole range of elemental beings, from the tiniest little Water Elementals through the behelmeted Fire Archons to the each-stronger-than-three-gods-put-together Primordials, were caught in the blast-zone of Tharizdun's Mega-Evil Nuke Thing. All of those within the radius were corrupted, driven mad with rage and hatred and intense greed.

The relevant question here is, how much of his past intelligence and wisdom did Orcus maintain? I'm guessing that the answer is "not much"--maybe, with all his arcane power, smarter than a human in terms of INT (unlike Yeenoghu), but totally bat**** nuts in terms of WIS (like Yeenoghu).

(and please don't bring the MM stat-blocks into this, because all of the monster ability scores are totally ridiculous and ungrounded in anything like verisimilitude or fluff or reality.)

RebelRogue
2008-07-02, 01:56 PM
Fine, but that changes the essential concept of liches, doesn't it? They've gone from being autonomous undying Evil Wizards who achieved immortality to being a specific Demon Prince's bitch. It makes lichdom specific to a particular cult, which is my problem with the whole idea of having to ask Orcus if you want to be one.

And Vecna's a Lich God. How come he's more powerful than Orcus if Orcus controls all liches? Is he older than the Abyss too? Meh.
Hmm, that is a genuinely good question! Perhaps Vecna was a particularly powerful lich (still a minion of Orcus) that somehow achieved Immortality and broke free of Orcus' control. Now, considering how little Orcus actually like undead (at least according to some 3.5 sources he sees them as useful tools, although he personally despises them) that would explain why the two do not get along well. Hmm... it still is a bit fishy!

Inyssius Tor
2008-07-02, 02:02 PM
It says this of Demogorgon, Baphomet and Orcus in the background of the Abyss in the MM. But my interpretation was that all Demons are corrupted Primordials, just like Devils are all corrupted Angels. I don't know whether Orcus and Demogorgon being older than the Abyss itself should logically make them different than other Demons. Maybe it's the best explanation we're going to get :smallconfused:

That's not... quite right. It's like this: Angels are a specific sort of astral being, like (say) Fire Archons, or Slaad (right?), are a specific sort of elemental being.

Primordials are the lords of the Elemental Chaos, like the Gods are the lords of the Astral Sea (except way more powerful).

A whole range of elemental beings, from the tiniest little Water Elementals through the behelmeted Fire Archons to the each-stronger-than-three-gods-put-together Primordials, were caught in the blast-zone of Tharizdun's Mega-Evil Nuke Thing. All of those within the radius were corrupted, driven mad with rage and hatred and intense greed.

The relevant question here is, how much of his past intelligence and wisdom did Orcus maintain? I'm guessing that the answer is "not much"--maybe, with all his arcane power, smarter than a human in terms of INT (unlike Yeenoghu), but totally bat**** nuts in terms of WIS (like Yeenoghu).

(and please don't bring the MM stat-blocks into this, because all of the monster ability scores are totally ridiculous and ungrounded in anything like verisimilitude or fluff or reality.)

batsofchaos
2008-07-02, 02:03 PM
I've heard about my fair share of Paladins that feel like every time something pings their evil-o-meter it would be against their alignment not to immediatley cut their head off.

Does an evil alignment mean people will be stupid evil sometimes? Sure. I'll point out though, sometimes that kind of game, although not particularly mature, can still be fun. Sometimes folks just want to blow off some steam and feed their team mates a potion of Magic Missile or take out some pent up agression from the real world on an inn full of commoners and there's nothing wrong with that so long as everyone playing is cool with it. Belkar, for example, works well as a member of the Order of the Stick most of the time, despite his murderous tendencies.

While I can agree with you on both fronts (although Pally-psychosis has in my experience been described as either Lawful Stupid or Lawful Jackass, not Chaotic Stupid), I have found that the majority evil characters that I've heard about, dealt with, seen in play, etc. are a detriment rather than an enrichment to the game. Exceptions exist, in the form of "evil hack-and-slash" games, and well-rounded, dark campaigns. Just as there are games with good characters and campaigns that are detrimental to the game, the general alignment of the game does not inherently affect how well the game plays out. It just seems to go sour a lot more often with evil PCs.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-02, 02:15 PM
It just seems to go sour a lot more often with evil PCs.

No argument there. It's harder to run an evil game, in part because many folks have trouble wrapping their head around the idea of playing someone who's a bad person but can still be loyal to the other party members or work in groups.

I'm mainly arguing here, on this long derailment, that just because a character is evil does not mean the player is immature, powerhungry or playing Chaotic Stupid as some other posters have intimated.

batsofchaos
2008-07-02, 02:24 PM
Agreed. There is still a greater chance of it happening, though.

Collin152
2008-07-02, 02:41 PM
I'm mainly arguing here, on this long derailment, that just because a character is evil does not mean the player is immature, powerhungry or playing Chaotic Stupid as some other posters have intimated.

Yeah.
My best roleplayed character happened to be a Lawful Evil Magnificent Bastard.

Jayabalard
2008-07-02, 03:16 PM
The idea of player becoming a lich in a roleplaying game is absurd. They are suppose to be the BBEGs.Not everyone plays the good guys when they play D&D; some people like to play characters with some darkness in their soul, though that can mean anything between out and out villains all the way to just slightly morally ambiguous characters.

Even in games where you're playing all good characters, you can wind up in a situation where you make a bad choice because you think that the result will be "for the greater good"


Tell me how that is not common sense? In previous editions it's been an unwritten rule. It's not really a rule now, but it's an explicitly stated piece of good advice, mostly aimed at immature and/or beginner players.There's nothing common about sense.

There's nothing in that text that's been quoted that says anything about being aimed strictly at immature or beginner players.

The language there is pretty strong to be just called "a piece of good advice" ... if all they wanted to do was give advice to D&D newbies, they could have done a MUCH better job at writing it so that it doesn't come across the way that it does.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-02, 03:21 PM
The language there is pretty strong to be just called "a piece of good advice" ... if all they wanted to do was give advice to D&D newbies, they could have done a MUCH better job at writing it so that it doesn't come across the way that it does.

To be entirely honest... I don't think that the authors expect long time players to do more than quickly glance at sections like that.

Alchemistmerlin
2008-07-02, 03:22 PM
There's nothing common about sense.

There's nothing in that text that's been quoted that says anything about being aimed strictly at immature or beginner players.

The language there is pretty strong to be just called "a piece of good advice" ... if all they wanted to do was give advice to D&D newbies, they could have done a MUCH better job at writing it so that it doesn't come across the way that it does.

Wizards of the Coast? Good writing? That's kind of like expecting candy at a waste treatment plant.

Honestly, have you read any of the Eberron books?

*Statler and Waldorf DOHOHOHOHOHO*

Jayabalard
2008-07-02, 03:28 PM
Honestly, have you read any of the Eberron books?Not really; I skimmed enough to know tat I have no interest in the setting.

Keep in mind that my point is that that section is poorly written; since they made a rather major change to the alignment system in 4e, they have no excuse for not taking a little extra time to make sure that those sections were better written.


To be entirely honest... I don't think that the authors expect long time players to do more than quickly glance at sections like that.That seems like a silly expectation; the alignment system in 4e is the first major change to the alignment system since 1e AD&D. I would expect most grognards to read it specifically because it's a change to something that hasn't been changed in 30 years.

Edit: Sure, it's going to get ignored by veteran players, but that doesn't make it a good idea to say "don't play evil characters".


Fine, but that changes the essential concept of liches, doesn't it? They've gone from being autonomous undying Evil Wizards who achieved immortality to being a specific Demon Prince's bitch. It makes lichdom specific to a particular cult.It does indeed. It seems to be a rather senseless change to me.

Artanis
2008-07-02, 03:29 PM
Man, I go to bed, and when I get up, there's another two and a half pages...


I'm just going to respond to the "general vs. specific" arguement, because I seem to be reading things differently than many people. You have to hear me out for this post to all add up, so I ask for your patience...

I don't see anything that contradicts the general rule when I read it and add things up. The MM and the DMG are DM tools, and as such, do not have to make sense in-character. All the baddies in the MM look to me like they follow a pattern of "Has X because Is Y." For instance, "a minion has 1hp because it's a minion", and NOT "a minion is a minion because it has 1hp". The characters see no difference: a baddy Has X, and a baddy Is Y, and when you're stabbing them, it doesn't matter which causes which.

Now, with this in mind, take another look at the Lich stuff, but view through the lens of it being a DM tool that does not have to follow causality that makes sense in-character:

1) "Lich" is a template. Since it's a template, it can only be applied to monsters and NPCs.
2) The DMG entry says that some Liches know a ritual to become a Lich.
3) Thus something that knows the ritual knows it because it is a Lich.

Where does this lead?

4) Even a PC that is tutored by a Lich (or finds its spellbook or whatever) does NOT automatically gain access to the ritual. There are other ways to become a Lich that are not mentioned, and thus not available to PCs except through DM fiat.

5) This means that if a character can become a Lich, it is because, and ONLY because, the DM allows him to do so. It is NOT the other way around (which would be "the DM may allow a character to become a Lich because a character theoretically has a way of doing so").

Does it make sense in-character? Not a chance. But that doesn't matter because the characters do not see the chain of causality. If there is a ritual to become a Lich and if the DM decides to let (or not let) a character become a Lich are all that is seen by the player, and which leads to which is hidden and really, rather irrelevant.

It makes sense mechanically, and it makes sense to the DM, and it does not have to make sense in-character because it does not matter whether or not it does.

All this in turn leads to the conclusion that the specific rule of the existence of the Lich-making ritual does not contradict the general rule of PCs not being allowed to gain templates.



...I hope that made some sense. Even I find it a little hard to wrap my mind around it that way, but that's what it looks like to me.

Alchemistmerlin
2008-07-02, 03:30 PM
Not really; I skimmed enough to know tat I have no interest in the setting.

Keep in mind that my point is that that section is poorly written; since they made a rather major change to the alignment system in 4e, they have no excuse for not taking a little extra time to make sure that those sections were better written.

It does indeed. It seems to be a rather senseless change to me.

A) I was making a joke, note the DOHOHOHOHOHO

B) I meant the Eberron Novels, not the setting books.

Man, I must be losing my edge.

"Said the Spoon! DOHOHOHOHOHO!"
Damn you Waldorf!

AKA_Bait
2008-07-02, 03:59 PM
I would expect most grognards to read it specifically because it's a change to something that hasn't been changed in 30 years.

Yeah, but they have to know that most long term players are going to do whatever the heck they want in terms of character concepts regardless of anything they say.

Jayabalard
2008-07-02, 04:09 PM
Yeah, but they have to know that most long term players are going to do whatever the heck they want in terms of character concepts regardless of anything they say.Oh, certainly... but, I wouldn't be surprised if the wording there didn't cause people to play less-than-heroic characters out of sheer indignation.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-02, 04:10 PM
Oh, certainly... but, I wouldn't be surprised if the wording there didn't cause people to play less-than-heroic characters out of sheer indignation.

Reverse psychology at work! They're really just setting us all up to buy the book with the Shadow power source... :smallwink:

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-02, 04:12 PM
Wizards of the Coast? Good writing? That's kind of like expecting candy at a waste treatment plant.

Honestly, have you read any of the Eberron books?

*Statler and Waldorf DOHOHOHOHOHO*

Eberron is great and very well written, I have no idea what you're talking about. Be careful, by the way, Eberron beat Rich Burlew's entry and I'm sure that was just terrific.

Edit: Ahh, talking about novels. I've never even touched one of those...wouldn't expect much.

RebelRogue
2008-07-02, 04:12 PM
There's nothing in that text that's been quoted that says anything about being aimed strictly at immature or beginner players.

The language there is pretty strong to be just called "a piece of good advice" ... if all they wanted to do was give advice to D&D newbies, they could have done a MUCH better job at writing it so that it doesn't come across the way that it does.
Nobody like to be labeled as immature, so clearly it will not be directly targeted as such. While it may have been worded differently that's what I read into. I agree it's somewhat subjective. No matter how you read it, it's not a rule as such, just a suggestion, however harsh anyone may think it is.

Jayabalard
2008-07-02, 04:15 PM
Reverse psychology at work! They're really just setting us all up to buy the book with the Shadow power source... :smallwink:Yes, because they're planning on having multiple phb, all of which are supposed to be part of "Core". Multiple, slightly specialized core books will make them more money than a single general core book along with highly specialized "non-core" books... as long as they can convince everyone to buy into that.

hamishspence
2008-07-02, 04:23 PM
Vecna: God first, lich second. 3rd ed version does not say much about his phylactery. Maybe thats the whole point of the Hand and Eye, could be why he was trapped in Vestige-land for a while, with Kas, instead of being destroyed, until he broke free (dragon magazine Tomb of Magic article on Kas) Not sure how it fits into main Vecna storyline.

4th ed: whole new setting. With Vecna in it. Not sure if it automatically retcons everything, but I don't think so. Therefore:

Vecna and Orcus's histories in Greyhawk are unchanged.

Vecna and Orcus's histories in POL setting may be different.

Alchemistmerlin
2008-07-02, 04:23 PM
Yes, because they're planning on having multiple phb, all of which are supposed to be part of "Core". Multiple, slightly specialized core books will make them more money than a single general core book along with highly specialized "non-core" books... as long as they can convince everyone to buy into that.

The really sad part is that most of us will.

I'm kicking and screaming and refusing to buy 4th edition but eventually my group will convert over, I'll want to DM, etc etc. and I'll wind up throwing money at WotC and hating myself for it.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-02, 04:23 PM
I should think it'd be better, in general terms, to be able to play more things than it would be to be able to play less things.


That's fair, I disagree with that design philosophy. I think it's better to have a game that lets you play one or two things really well than that sort of lets you play a whole bunch of things.

Exalted is, of course, a prime example of this. The core rules are built with the assumption that the PCs are playing Solar Exalted and not other sorts of Exalted (for which you need a splatbook) or normal humans, or any of the other weird and wonderful inhabitants of Creation.

Roland St. Jude
2008-07-02, 04:31 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread seems to have sorted itself out a bit, but just for the record: please don't insult other posters or whole groups of posters. That includes both blatant name calling and more passive-aggressive suggestions of immaturity. Please address your disputes to the material, not the other poster(s). Finally, if you have any questions about what is considered flaming or trolling here, please consult the Forum Rules.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-02, 04:35 PM
I'm mainly arguing here, on this long derailment, that just because a character is evil does not mean the player is immature, powerhungry or playing Chaotic Stupid as some other posters have intimated.

That's fair.

All I was arguing was that the removal of evil PCs as a default assumption isn't "dumbing down" or "watering down", and that wanting to play an evil character does not de facto make you a good or mature roleplayer.

There are some extremely good reasons to have a side which is, by default, PC and a side which is, by default, NPC, the most obvious of which is that otherwise you can't give the NPCs anything you aren't also happy with the PCs having.

If you assume that the PCs can get whatever the NPCs have got then you can't, for example, include an ancient race of reptilian shaper-beings who have the power to transform the lesser races to their liking, because somebody can always come along playing a Kobold psion.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-07-02, 04:46 PM
That's fair.

All I was arguing was that the removal of evil PCs as a default assumption isn't "dumbing down" or "watering down", and that wanting to play an evil character does not de facto make you a good or mature roleplayer.

There are some extremely good reasons to have a side which is, by default, PC and a side which is, by default, NPC, the most obvious of which is that otherwise you can't give the NPCs anything you aren't also happy with the PCs having.

If you assume that the PCs can get whatever the NPCs have got then you can't, for example, include an ancient race of reptilian shaper-beings who have the power to transform the lesser races to their liking, because somebody can always come along playing a Kobold psion.Whereas I think you have to plan for the players to get their grubby little hand on anything you introduce to the setting. I'm currently planning on teaching my DM why that is in the form of a kidnapped and mindraped former lutenant of the BBEG.
The players, upon seeing something cool, will want that coolness. Accept that and plan for them to try to get anything awesome or powerful you use. Anything else is just fooling yourself.

Jayabalard
2008-07-02, 04:49 PM
All I was arguing was that the removal of evil PCs as a default assumption isn't "dumbing down" or "watering down", and that wanting to play an evil character does not de facto make you a good or mature roleplayer.Evil PCs aren't removed as a default assumption; they can still be played, and there's even a specific race that is set up with that fluff. The game just doesn't support it very well, since they haven't published all of the 4e core books yet, and the support that does exist is contradictory (hence, the existence of this thread)

I'll agree that wanting to play an evil character does not say anything at all about the roleplaying ability of the person in question... it doesn't mean anything as far as being more or less mature of a roleplayer. But someone who is capable of playing both good and evil characters well... that certainly does say something about their maturity as a roleplayer.

Alchemistmerlin
2008-07-02, 04:55 PM
That's fair.

All I was arguing was that the removal of evil PCs as a default assumption isn't "dumbing down" or "watering down", and that wanting to play an evil character does not de facto make you a good or mature roleplayer.


You are correct in that it does not say ANYTHING about the roleplayer if he or she wishes to play an evil character.

However, I feel that removing evil PCs IS watering down because it is
A) Limiting player options further. There is no opinion on this, that is mathematically 1 less option.
B) It is asking players NOT to try and play an evil character. It has been pointed out in this thread that evil characters are harder to play well, and so removing that option takes a personal challenge away as well.

And I never said "dumbing down" in this thread I think. I actively attempted to avoid that phrase.



I don't know, it all makes sense to me. *shrug* I give up.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-02, 04:55 PM
The players, upon seeing something cool, will want that coolness. Accept that and plan for them to try to get anything awesome or powerful you use. Anything else is just fooling yourself.

The thing is, there are some cool things which it is simply not reasonable for them to acquire.

There's absolutely no reason to assume that every wizard who takes a fancy to it should be able to turn themselves into a Lich on a whim. There's certainly no reason to assume that a polymorphed Kobold should actually acquire the legendary life-crafting powers of the lost Sarrukh.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-02, 05:03 PM
The thing is, there are some cool things which it is simply not reasonable for them to acquire.

I agree. I disagree that the system should be what keeps those players from getting it. That should be a DM decision on a case by case basis, not a system design decision that makes it impossible for them to do or acquire whatever ability we are talking about without homebrewing.


There's absolutely no reason to assume that every wizard who takes a fancy to it should be able to turn themselves into a Lich on a whim.

Sure. But it also shouldn't be impossible for any given wizard who takes a fancy to it, puts in a lot of effort and time, has some luck in finding the right information, and sacrifices some kittens to become one.


There's certainly no reason to assume that a polymorphed Kobold should actually acquire the legendary life-crafting powers of the lost Sarrukh.

Not a polymorphed Kobold no. But for really enormous powers... and epic destiny perhaps? Our little 4e pun-pun is going to have to work long and hard to get that ability, but that doesn't mean it should be outside the scope of the system to have it happen.

Jayabalard
2008-07-02, 05:05 PM
The thing is, there are some cool things which it is simply not reasonable for them to acquire.Why not? There's no reason to have that as a system limitation.


There's absolutely no reason to assume that every wizard who takes a fancy to it should be able to turn themselves into a Lich on a whim. I don't think that anyone has claimed that every wizard should be able to becoem a lich, or that ones that do become a lich should be able to do so on a whim.


There's certainly no reason to assume that a polymorphed Kobold should actually acquire the legendary life-crafting powers of the lost Sarrukh.The polymorphed kobold that you're referring to is abusing the abilities of the Sarrukh because the ability (and several other rules) are poorly worded. The actual intended ability of the Sarrukh itself is not the problem, nor is the fact that the kobold (or human) can acquire that ability with no effort.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-02, 05:12 PM
I agree. That should be a DM decision on a case by case basis, not a system design decision that makes it impossible for them to do or acquire whatever ability we are talking about without homebrewing.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that one of "put it in" or "leave it out" is a "neutral" decision. They're not.

If the ritual for becoming a Lich isn't in the PHB, PC wizards can't become liches without homebrewing.

If the ritual for becoming a Lich is in the PHB, DMs can't stop PC wizards becoming liches without homebrewing.

The inclusion or non-inclusion of particular options creates a set of default assumptions, and those sorts of assumptions have to be set at a design level.


Sure. But it also shouldn't be impossible for any given wizard who takes a fancy to it, puts in a lot of effort and time, has some luck in finding the right information, and sacrifices some kittens to become one.

But to my mind that's exactly the sort of thing that DMs should be homebrewing. Anything that requires a player to actually do something in character (rather than just invoking game mechanics) should be handled primarily as a DM call.


Not a polymorphed Kobold no. But for really enormous powers... and epic destiny perhaps? Our little 4e pun-pun is going to have to work long and hard to get that ability, but that doesn't mean it should be outside the scope of the system to have it happen.

I think there's an important difference between "beyond the scope of the system" and "not a default option". Personally, I'd model lichdom as a Paragon Path (that way it kicks in at around the right level) with the Demigod option open to those who want to pull a Vecna.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-02, 05:21 PM
I think you're making the mistake of assuming that one of "put it in" or "leave it out" is a "neutral" decision. They're not.

If the ritual for becoming a Lich isn't in the PHB, PC wizards can't become liches without homebrewing.

If the ritual for becoming a Lich is in the PHB, DMs can't stop PC wizards becoming liches without homebrewing.

The inclusion or non-inclusion of particular options creates a set of default assumptions, and those sorts of assumptions have to be set at a design level.



You could, you know, put that stuff where it belongs... in the DMG as a list of options DM's might want to allow. You can be neutral... you just need to think about it during design and placement.


But to my mind that's exactly the sort of thing that DMs should be homebrewing. Anything that requires a player to actually do something in character (rather than just invoking game mechanics) should be handled primarily as a DM call.

You can do it either way. Personally, as a DM, I'd rather mechancis exist for me to tweak than need to make them up from whole cloth.


I think there's an important difference between "beyond the scope of the system" and "not a default option". Personally, I'd model lichdom as a Paragon Path (that way it kicks in at around the right level) with the Demigod option open to those who want to pull a Vecna.

I would do that too, frankly. In that sense though, no particular goal is unattainable with homebrewing. However, since I see lichdom being something at least a fair number of players are going to want, I'd lke there to be a premade one.

Somehow... I think we have had this conversation before...

Mewtarthio
2008-07-02, 05:28 PM
There's nothing in that text that's been quoted that says anything about being aimed strictly at immature or beginner players.

The language there is pretty strong to be just called "a piece of good advice" ... if all they wanted to do was give advice to D&D newbies, they could have done a MUCH better job at writing it so that it doesn't come across the way that it does.

Well, if they'd phrased it to say that "immature or novice players should only play the Good guys," then immature and novice players would read it as "only the cool kids get to be Evil." By strongly cautioning against Evil across the board the way they did, they ensured that only people mature enough to disregard their advice would play Evil characters. Let's face it: Mature, experienced roleplayers who want to run an Evil game won't exactly be dissuaded just because WotC tells them not to.

marjan
2008-07-02, 05:30 PM
The game just doesn't support it very well, since they haven't published all of the 4e core books yet, and the support that does exist is contradictory (hence, the existence of this thread)


The only part where evil PCs fall short is Chanel Divinity feats. Aside from that they have same number of options as good PCs (even more if you consider infernal pact warlocks to be evil).

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-02, 05:31 PM
Why not? There's no reason to have that as a system limitation.

There are plenty of reasons to have that as a system limitation. Plausibility (how come your PC just managed to pick up that ability that the other guy worked his entire life for?), balance (powers that are cool for NPCs are game wrecking for PCs) and focus (there's a reason that Vampire only contains rules for playing ... well ... Vampires).


I don't think that anyone has claimed that every wizard should be able to becoem a lich, or that ones that do become a lich should be able to do so on a whim.

That's exactly it though, if there was a ritual in the PHB that made you into a Lich, Wizards would be able to take it by default.


The polymorphed kobold that you're referring to is abusing the abilities of the Sarrukh because the ability (and several other rules) are poorly worded. The actual intended ability of the Sarrukh itself is not the problem, nor is the fact that the kobold (or human) can acquire that ability with no effort.

No, he's abusing the ability because what's a cool, flavourful power for NPCs is totally broken in the hands of a PC.

An ancient race of shapers who possess the power to fashion their subjects according to their whim is cool, but even if you don't go for full on pun-pun ascension, it's completely unsuitable for a player character. No matter what they need to achieve, they can just shape a minion for the purpose.

If you assume that PCs must be able to do everything the NPCs can do, all you do is limit the options you can give to the NPCs.

batsofchaos
2008-07-02, 05:35 PM
I think you're making the mistake of assuming that one of "put it in" or "leave it out" is a "neutral" decision. They're not.

If the ritual for becoming a Lich isn't in the PHB, PC wizards can't become liches without homebrewing.

If the ritual for becoming a Lich is in the PHB, DMs can't stop PC wizards becoming liches without homebrewing.

The inclusion or non-inclusion of particular options creates a set of default assumptions, and those sorts of assumptions have to be set at a design level.

But see, it's NOT in the PHB, but it IS in the DMG, so it doesn't fit into this little box. It's non-inclusion in the PHB would suggest the former, namely that hoembrewing is required for a PC to become a lich. It isn't. The template is in the DMG and the ritual is described and loosely statted in the MM. By RAW, templates are for NPCs and not PCs, but choosing to ignore that stipulation is not a "homebrew." Homebrew implies creature, stat, and hard rules creation from whole cloth or modification. Removing a suggestion on how a specific rule is to be implemented is not homebrewing.

Thus we arrive at the reality: Access to Lichdom is available with the rules described, but whether or not it is available to the PCs is entirely up to the DM. This option is the best of both worlds because:

1) It does not render the option unavailable to players without homebrewing.
2) It does not render the option required by RAW.

Chronos
2008-07-02, 05:58 PM
To clarify the alignment question, I do think it's wise to advise players to play good characters. But that's not what that note in the PHB is saying. It's advising players to call their characters good. At least, that's the way it reads to me: It may well be that there's more context in the book that makes it clearer.

Even so, though, it would have been much better to advise something like "Your character should have a clear motivation which meshes with the goals of the rest of the party, because otherwise it leads to people having less fun". If a character is hoping to become an evil overlord himself some day, and is going along with the quest to defeat the current arch-tyrant for purposes of cutting down the competition, that can work just fine in a party, despite being evil. If a character thinks that it's a sin for anyone to keep wealth for themselves, and is always nagging all of the other characters to give all of their dragon loot to widows and orphans, that's a drag on the party (and on the other players' enjoyment of the game), despite being good.

RebelRogue
2008-07-02, 06:33 PM
To clarify the alignment question, I do think it's wise to advise players to play good characters. But that's not what that note in the PHB is saying. It's advising players to call their characters good. At least, that's the way it reads to me: It may well be that there's more context in the book that makes it clearer.
To be fair, it's actually suggesting that most characters are unaligned, but should you choose to pick an alignment (other than unaligned), good or lawful good are recommended. But I don't see where you get the "good by name only" thing from, to be honest.


Even so, though, it would have been much better to advise something like "Your character should have a clear motivation which meshes with the goals of the rest of the party, because otherwise it leads to people having less fun".
I agree! That would be a clearer wording.

BurnHavoc
2008-07-02, 07:03 PM
Well I got about halfway through this thread before I decided to go look up the specific rules...

Seeing as the ritual is in the Lich section in the Monster Manual, and the template is in the DMG... I'd say players don't really have access to it. Yeah it's a DC of 20 to know the ritual exists, but considering theres no DC for the players to find out where to actually LEARN the ritual, I think it's pretty much out of the players reach at the moment. I'm sure later we'll see a Paragon path for a lich that reqquires you to find out how to do the ritual and... well, do it, and maybe even an Epic path for something stronger, but thats in future Wizard releases... So basically yeah, cash-cowing.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-02, 07:04 PM
To clarify the alignment question, I do think it's wise to advise players to play good characters. But that's not what that note in the PHB is saying. It's advising players to call their characters good. At least, that's the way it reads to me: It may well be that there's more context in the book that makes it clearer.

Even so, though, it would have been much better to advise something like "Your character should have a clear motivation which meshes with the goals of the rest of the party, because otherwise it leads to people having less fun". If a character is hoping to become an evil overlord himself some day, and is going along with the quest to defeat the current arch-tyrant for purposes of cutting down the competition, that can work just fine in a party, despite being evil. If a character thinks that it's a sin for anyone to keep wealth for themselves, and is always nagging all of the other characters to give all of their dragon loot to widows and orphans, that's a drag on the party (and on the other players' enjoyment of the game), despite being good.
It can, but more often than not won't.

Experienced, advanced roleplayers don't need advice on how to be told how to do so, but new players playing evil characters is a recipe for disaster.

Yes, badly played paladins of course exist, but now that detect evil and the old views on paladin have changed so I'd wager it's no longer a problem.

ArmLion
2008-07-02, 08:35 PM
As an aside, the new concept of a Paladin is one of my favorites things about 4e.


It's non-inclusion in the PHB would suggest the former, namely that hoembrewing is required for a PC to become a lich. It isn't. The template is in the DMG and the ritual is described and loosely statted in the MM. By RAW, templates are for NPCs and not PCs, but choosing to ignore that stipulation is not a "homebrew." Homebrew implies creature, stat, and hard rules creation from whole cloth or modification. Removing a suggestion on how a specific rule is to be implemented is not homebrewing.

I would suggest that simply allowing PC's to take monster templates with no additional rules would be... a "risky" choice, at the very least, if you were hoping for game balance. They strike me as a ridiculously powerful addition to your standard character. Obviously, anyone can run any kind of campaign they want, but I really think "homebrewing", while using what's described in the DMG and MM as a guide is what you want to do.

hamishspence
2008-07-03, 05:32 AM
elite templates combined with NPCs might give a rough idea of how much an NPC can contribue to a party, in the rare cases when the PCs have an NPC with them.

Elite creature might be roughly equivalent to PC.

Interestingly the ritual doesn't correspond exactly with the template. You need to be level 14 with Ritual Casting to turn yourself into a lich with a phylactery. But liches using the template can be level 11 or higher, and might not need the ritual.

Possibility: ritual-less liches are ones who have had it bestowed upon them: like Lossarwyn the Ice Lich from Champions of ruin, who was transformed into a lich at the time of his death by "Dark forces" Or Gotha, the dragon transformed by Talos into a dracolich, in the second Moonshae trilogy. However this would be applying a template to a solo monster: a slight expansion of the rules, justifiable by the wording: You apply the template to "a monster" to make it elite.

Jayabalard
2008-07-03, 07:45 AM
The only part where evil PCs fall short is Chanel Divinity feats. Aside from that they have same number of options as good PCs (even more if you consider infernal pact warlocks to be evil).I'm referring to the fact that they don't have mechanical support traditional evil character types (necromancers, etc). I'm sure that more specialized support will be available once they publish the rest of of the 4e core player handbooks.


If the ritual for becoming a Lich isn't in the PHB, PC wizards can't become liches without homebrewing.

If the ritual for becoming a Lich is in the PHB, DMs can't stop PC wizards becoming liches without homebrewing.Homebrewing refers to the creative process where a GM creates new things for thier game, so referring to what a GM does to stop PC wizards from becomming liches as "homebrewing" and inferring that the GM is doing the same thing that they would do in order to allow PC wizards to become liches is ludicrous. We should have a different word for that since it's something totally different; if you want to make alchohol production references, call it distilling, since that's what your'e doing, removing what you consider impurities. It takes very little if any creativity to remove rules or say "you can't do this" ... certainly nothing on the scale of actually homebrewing well designed mechanics and fluff for sometihng like lichcraft.


Plausibility (how come your PC just managed to pick up that ability that the other guy worked his entire life for?), then don't let them pick it up instantaneously, or even implausibly fast. Nothing I've said implies that I think that that you should give abilities to the PCs without cost.


balance (powers that are cool for NPCs are game wrecking for PCs) If you really care about balance (which I don't) then counterbalance those abilities with drawbacks that prevent them from being game breaking. Combine that with the previous, and those game breaking powers don't become available to PCs without a big investment, so they only show up late in the game, so they wind up no more "game breaking" than any other high powered ability.


and focus (there's a reason that Vampire only contains rules for playing ... well ... Vampires).This is circular; you're saying it's good to have a narrow band of character types (ie, be focused) because it lets you be focused.


Well, if they'd phrased it to say that "immature or novice players should only play the Good guys," then immature and novice players would read it as "only the cool kids get to be Evil."I didn't claim that it was aimed at immature or novice players (I'm quoting someone else's wording while I disagree with them), so you're arguing with the wrong person about that particular wording.


By strongly cautioning against Evil across the board the way they did, they ensured that only people mature enough to disregard their advice would play Evil characters. Nah, they also ensure that immature people who chafe at being how to play their characters will people evil just out of sheer contrariness.


Experienced, advanced roleplayers don't need advice on how to be told how to do so, but new players playing evil characters is a recipe for disaster.I disagree completely. New does not mean stupid. There's nothing more inherently disastrous about a newbie playing an evil character than there is about that same newbie playing a stick up the ass self riteous character that is labeled good.

the important piece of advice to give newbies is exactly what Chronos said:


it would have been much better to advise something like "Your character should have a clear motivation which meshes with the goals of the rest of the party, because otherwise it leads to people having less fun". Absolutly, and like you say, that has nothing to do with labeling yourself "good". This is the advice that they should have given in the alignment section, since it's much more useful to true newbies.

hamishspence
2008-07-03, 08:04 AM
Disallowing, as in "I disallow Epic spellcasting"

I think the problem is the assumption that if it doesn't say you can't, you can. Bad assumption.

Its like assuming Genesis lets you alter Time trait of you demiplane, when it only gives a few things listed that you can do, and thats not on the list. But Psionic version of Genesis explicitly says can cannot change time trait. Concluding from that that Genesis does allow you to, is not a good idea:

better to say "If it doesn't say you can, you can't"

nepphi
2008-07-03, 08:04 AM
RAW: Players cannot gain templates
RAW: This ritual can give a character a template
RAW: This ritual is castable by the player
RAW: Breaks down. 1+1=3. THE END IS NIGH!

Or, maybe, WotC still doesn't know how to build a decent game, or even edit properly. :smallmad:

RAW: Specific Beats General. General; templates don't apply to PCs. Specific; this ritual allows PCs to acquire a template.

Read the rules more closely.

hamishspence
2008-07-03, 08:07 AM
does Specific beat Specific? Lots of cases where two rules are both exceptions: what happens when they clash?

And why assume that anyone can cast the ritual, not just NPCs?

Jayabalard
2008-07-03, 08:08 AM
RAW: Specific Beats General. General; templates don't apply to PCs. Specific; this ritual allows PCs to acquire a template.

Read the rules more closely.As I recall, the specific rule does not say "PCs" so this isn't really a valid general vs specific argument.

At that point, it becomes a general vs general argument: General: Templates don't apply to PCs; General: This ritual adds the template. Combined: This ritual adds the template to anything other than a PC.

SamTheCleric
2008-07-03, 08:09 AM
Or, you know, look at that answer I got from Customer Service that says its Up to your DM to allow/disallow the ritual for PC use. :smallwink:

marjan
2008-07-03, 08:11 AM
I'm referring to the fact that they don't have mechanical support traditional evil character types (necromancers, etc). I'm sure that more specialized support will be available once they publish the rest of of the 4e core player handbooks.


Neither do they have support for the good guys. Paladins are now merged Paladin and Blackguard with the possibility of being neutral.

Jayabalard
2008-07-03, 08:12 AM
Or, you know, look at that answer I got from Customer Service that says its Up to your DM to allow/disallow the ritual for PC use. :smallwink:People like arguing over meaningless stuff, so you take your the logic and reason elsewhere.:smallbiggrin:

More seriously though, ther are a group of people that get off on citing "I can do this by RAW!" and if they're going to get that much enjoyment out of making that sort of claim, you might as well just let them.

unedit

hamishspence
2008-07-03, 08:14 AM
You can play evil just fine, you just can't start evil. You could play a CE Paladin of Moradin if you wanted, but they would have to drift to CE from starting LG alignment.

SamTheCleric
2008-07-03, 08:14 AM
People like arguing over meaningless stuff

No they don't!



More seriously though, ther are a group of people that get off on citing "I can do this by RAW!" and if they're going to get that much enjoyment out of making that sort of claim, you might as well just let them.

Yeah, there is always someone who will find the loophole. I mean, if we didn't have that type of person... we wouldnt have Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, A, B, A, B, Select, Start.

:smallbiggrin:

Jayabalard
2008-07-03, 08:15 AM
Neither do they have support for the good guys. Paladins are now merged Paladin and Blackguard with the possibility of being neutral.I don't disagree; we get generalized blah instead of flavorful extremes, though the generalized blah tends to fall on the goodish side of things.

I'm pretty sure that they think that this sort of packaging will sell more books; only time will tell.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-03, 09:13 AM
I'm referring to the fact that they don't have mechanical support traditional evil character types (necromancers, etc). I'm sure that more specialized support will be available once they publish the rest of of the 4e core player handbooks.

By "necromancers etc" I take it you mean "necromancers".

The 4E rules reduced the options for wizards because wizards had too many options.

Assassins are a core option, so are evil warriors, evil cultists and evil wizards. You just don't get to summon zombies.


Homebrewing refers to the creative process where a GM creates new things for thier game, so referring to what a GM does to stop PC wizards from becomming liches as "homebrewing" and inferring that the GM is doing the same thing that they would do in order to allow PC wizards to become liches is ludicrous. We should have a different word for that since it's something totally different; if you want to make alchohol production references, call it distilling, since that's what your'e doing, removing what you consider impurities. It takes very little if any creativity to remove rules or say "you can't do this" ... certainly nothing on the scale of actually homebrewing well designed mechanics and fluff for sometihng like lichcraft.

I'll concede that "homebrewing" was a bad choice of words, would you prefer "houseruling"?

The point is that if the rules say "PCs can become liches" you have to houserule to prevent it, if the rules say "PCs can't become liches" you have to houserule to allow it. The rules for Liches are there and perfectly functional.


then don't let them pick it up instantaneously, or even implausibly fast. Nothing I've said implies that I think that that you should give abilities to the PCs without cost.

But if you put them in the main rules as a default option, then the default assumption is that "Lich" is no more demanding a path than "Battle Wizard".


If you really care about balance (which I don't) then counterbalance those abilities with drawbacks that prevent them from being game breaking. Combine that with the previous, and those game breaking powers don't become available to PCs without a big investment, so they only show up late in the game, so they wind up no more "game breaking" than any other high powered ability.

I didn't say "powerful" I said "game breaking". There's a big difference.

Immortality isn't that powerful: your character can't die, so what? But in a game where the risk of death is supposed to be a major factor, an immortal PC unbalances things.


This is circular; you're saying it's good to have a narrow band of character types (ie, be focused) because it lets you be focused.

How is that any more circular than the opposite: it's good to have a wide variety of character types (ie, be flexible) because it lets you be flexible?

Jayabalard
2008-07-03, 10:59 AM
I'll concede that "homebrewing" was a bad choice of words, would you prefer "houseruling"?

The point is that if the rules say "PCs can become liches" you have to houserule to prevent it, if the rules say "PCs can't become liches" you have to houserule to allow it. The rules for Liches are there and perfectly functional.Not so. If the rules say "PCs can become liches" you have to houserule to prevent it, if the rules say "PCs can't become liches" you have to homebrew PC usable lich mechanics to allow it. The NPC lich mechanics are not balanced and usable for PCs. In one case you take 3 seconds and write down "PCs cannot become liches" in the other you have to be at least a little creative, and do playtesting on your own in order to add something that is not supported.


Immortality isn't that powerful: your character can't die, so what? But in a game where the risk of death is supposed to be a major factor, an immortal PC unbalances things.There are other immortality options in the game already, so one more is not game breaking.


How is that any more circular than the opposite: it's good to have a wide variety of character types (ie, be flexible) because it lets you be flexible?It's not more circular than the opposite... but I don't recall anyone making that particular claim.

There were people who said that they prefer having more options and feel they would have gotten more value for their money if there had been more options in the phb. There have even been some that seemed to be saying that they felt kind of cheated since the 4e phb is shorter than the 3.5e phb, since the prefer to have more options over having less options.

Artanis
2008-07-03, 11:44 AM
RAW: Specific Beats General. General; templates don't apply to PCs. Specific; this ritual allows PCs to acquire a template.

Read the rules more closely.
And I see that I am being totally ignored, as usual.


...why do I bother?

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-03, 01:05 PM
As I recall, the specific rule does not say "PCs" so this isn't really a valid general vs specific argument.

At that point, it becomes a general vs general argument: General: Templates don't apply to PCs; General: This ritual adds the template. Combined: This ritual adds the template to anything other than a PC.

No it does not say PCs, but it does not need to as PCs are the only ones who would conceivably use a ritual.


Also, Specific v General means that a specific Ritual/Power/Feat that contradicts a rule which applies to all Rituals/Players/Templates than the specific ritual trumps.

It does not mean that whichever rule is more grammatically specific trumps the other.

Artanis
2008-07-03, 01:11 PM
No it does not say PCs, but it does not need to as PCs are the only ones who would conceivably use a ritual.
I have to disagree with this. NPCs could definitely be ones who use the ritual because rituals tend to take a long time and (especially in this case) be hideously expensive. You could build a whole adventure around the PCs trying to stop the BBEG from getting the peace and quiet and the reagents necessary to lich-ify himself.

Jayabalard
2008-07-03, 01:12 PM
No it does not say PCs, but it does not need to as PCs are the only ones who would conceivably use a ritual.You're making an assumption there; there's nothing that actually says that it can be used by PCs; it's not in the phb, so there is no reason to assume that it is usable by PCs.

Obviously, the only ones who would conceivably use that ritual are NPCs.

SamTheCleric
2008-07-03, 01:13 PM
... am I the only one who sees the topic of this thread as "What's Up My Liches?" ...

Anyway.

Has anyone actually ever played a lich in a D&D game? How'd it work out? I'm curious how the party dynamic was and what the general opinion on playing it was.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-03, 01:15 PM
You're making an assumption there; it's not in the phb, so there is no reason to assume that it is usable by PCs.

Obviously, the only ones who would conceivably use that ritual are NPCs.

This was a common misunderstanding in 3.x as well. Just because something is included in one of the core books does not mean that it was intended to be used by PC's. If it was in the players handbook, yes, but if it was in the DMG or MM it was there as an option for DM use not as consent by the system for any pc to use it whenever they please.

Krrth
2008-07-03, 01:16 PM
... am I the only one who sees the topic of this thread as "What's Up My Liches?" ...

Anyway.

Has anyone actually ever played a lich in a D&D game? How'd it work out? I'm curious how the party dynamic was and what the general opinion on playing it was.

Yes, I have. However, it was in "Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil", so it's not like we took it seriously. Even so, it got a little overpowered.

Jayabalard
2008-07-03, 01:21 PM
... am I the only one who sees the topic of this thread as "What's Up My Liches?" ... I didn't ... until now.



Has anyone actually ever played a lich in a D&D game? How'd it work out? I'm curious how the party dynamic was and what the general opinion on playing it was.It was pretty much the end of the campaign, but we usually ended the game when it got to that power level, so that wasn't really a surprise.

marjan
2008-07-03, 01:38 PM
This was a common misunderstanding in 3.x as well. Just because something is included in one of the core books does not mean that it was intended to be used by PC's. If it was in the players handbook, yes, but if it was in the DMG or MM it was there as an option for DM use not as consent by the system for any pc to use it whenever they please.

In 3.5 all magical equipment was in DMG and it was intended to be used by PCs.

Gwain
2008-07-03, 01:38 PM
Liches are cold, scheming creatures that hunger for ever
greater power, long-forgotten knowledge, and the most terrible
of arcane secrets.
“Lich” is a monster template that can be applied to nonplayer
characters. See the Dungeon Master’s Guide for rules on
creating new liches using the template.


Some liches know a ritual that sustains them
beyond destruction by tying their essence to a phylactery.

Here's how i read that:

1)Lich is an NPC template.
2)Not all of the liches have a phylactery
3)The liches with a phylactery are either listed in the MM or a Lich template using the ritual in the MM.

I don't find any evidence of it being allowed for PC, not there, at least

AKA_Bait
2008-07-03, 01:45 PM
In 3.5 all magical equipment was in DMG and it was intended to be used by PCs.

Um, no, actually. In 3.5 magical equipment was there so that it could be used by the PC's, if the DM wanted to give them access to the item. That's why it wasn't just under the 'equipment' section of the PHB along with it's nonmagical counterparts.

You really think that things like the Apparatus of Kwalsh (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#apparatusoftheCrab)were intended to be items that PC's could jusy buy willy nilly?

marjan
2008-07-03, 02:06 PM
Um, no, actually. In 3.5 magical equipment was there so that it could be used by the PC's, if the DM wanted to give them access to the item. That's why it wasn't just under the 'equipment' section of the PHB along with it's nonmagical counterparts.


Actually no. Availability of the item was determined by the size of community. DM does have a final word on what is and what isn't available to PCs, but that is also the case with mundane equipment.



You really think that things like the Apparatus of Kwalsh (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#apparatusoftheCrab)were intended to be items that PC's could jusy buy willy nilly?

It is quite reasonable for Alchemist Fire to be unavailable for purchase in fishing village, even if it is listed in PHB.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-03, 02:09 PM
Actually no. Availability of the item was determined by the size of community. DM does have a final word on what is and what isn't available to PCs, but that is also the case with mundane equipment.

Um, no. Maximum value of items avaliable were determined by the size of the community. The specific items available were not.


It is quite reasonable for Alchemist Fire to be unavailable for purchase in fishing village, even if it is listed in PHB.

True, but it was a default option and it's a houserule to take it away as an option. That's different than the DM having the choice off the bat if it is in or out without the rules doing anything but saying 'here are some options for Magical items, and here are some guidelines to make your own".

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-07-03, 02:48 PM
This was a common misunderstanding in 3.x as well. Just because something is included in one of the core books does not mean that it was intended to be used by PC's. If it was in the players handbook, yes, but if it was in the DMG or MM it was there as an option for DM use not as consent by the system for any pc to use it whenever they please.Try playing a Druid without the MM1. It just makes a lot more work for everyone.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-03, 02:52 PM
Try playing a Druid without the MM1. It just makes a lot more work for everyone.

Sure, it was more work if the DM wanted to play the cards close and not use many of the options he could make available to PC's, but that doesn't show that it was intended for free access to PC's whenever they wanted.

Gwain
2008-07-03, 02:56 PM
Try playing a Druid without the MM1. It just makes a lot more work for everyone.

Well, the druid should say "i want to transform to a ..." not "let me check the MM, i need something that can fly and has darkvision".

the MM should be off-limit for any player.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-07-03, 03:21 PM
Well, the druid should say "i want to transform to a ..." not "let me check the MM, i need something that can fly and has darkvision".

the MM should be off-limit for any player."I transform into an Owl so I can see in the dark and fly."
"That's great, but you can't see in the dark as an owl."
:smallconfused: "I have a +12 on my Knowledge: Nature checks, and OoC I'm pretty sure owls can see in the dark and fly, so why don't you tell me what I can turn into that can do that."
"Fine. Turn into an X"
"Okay, and what are my stats now?"
"Well, with your ongoing buffs, and that monk dip, you should have..."
Other players: "Just give him the book and LET US PLAY!!!"

Jayabalard
2008-07-03, 03:28 PM
"I transform into an Owl so I can see in the dark and fly."
"That's great, but you can't see in the dark as an owl."
:smallconfused: "I have a +12 on my Knowledge: Nature checks, and OoC I'm pretty sure owls can see in the dark and fly, so why don't you tell me what I can turn into that can do that."
"Fine. Turn into an X"
"Okay, and what are my stats now?"
"Well, with your ongoing buffs, and that monk dip, you should have..."
Other players: "Just give him the book and LET US PLAY!!!"/shrug
I've never had those problems; forms I would take as a druid were always fairly consistent (since they were picked to fit the theme/background of my character) so 99% of the time I had already talked with the DM and gotten that information ahead of time.

And if we ever ran into something silly like "owls can't see in the dark" .... that would be corrected pretty quickly.

mikeejimbo
2008-07-03, 03:33 PM
... am I the only one who sees the topic of this thread as "What's Up My Liches?" ...

Anyway.

Has anyone actually ever played a lich in a D&D game? How'd it work out? I'm curious how the party dynamic was and what the general opinion on playing it was.

I was a half-fiend doppelganger lich cleric once, in a gestalt game where one of our 'classes' was for LA and racial hit dice and the other for class levels.

Good times, good times.

Gwain
2008-07-03, 03:37 PM
/shrug
I've never had those problems; forms I would take as a druid were always fairly consistent (they fit the theme of my character) so 99% of the time I had that information I needed ahead of time from talking with the DM.


Quoted for truth, also you were wasting 5 minutes of any player's time, with that discussion (and that shouldn't be done so often), I say that you can let the player to write down the stats of an owl when he turns into one.

DMG and MM shouldn't be read by players (even if anyone knows that, after a while, they become public domain anyway, pretty much spoiling the fun of the unknown).

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-03, 03:58 PM
You're making an assumption there; there's nothing that actually says that it can be used by PCs; it's not in the phb, so there is no reason to assume that it is usable by PCs.

Obviously, the only ones who would conceivably use that ritual are NPCs.

NPCs don't need a statted out ritual...the DM can just slap whatever template he wants on anything. If it was for NPCs, all that the DMG would need is to say that the ritual exists.

Furthermore, the actual RAW says "This template can be applied to NPCs."
It does not say "Can be applied only to NPCs" or "and not PCs."


Well, the druid should say "i want to transform to a ..." not "let me check the MM, i need something that can fly and has darkvision".

the MM should be off-limit for any player.

And if the druid doesn't have the stats for his shape prepared then you're going to be sitting for a while while the DM works out the stat changes on his own for every time the druid becomes a new animal.

Jayabalard
2008-07-03, 04:11 PM
Furthermore, the actual RAW says "This template can be applied to NPCs."
It does not say "Can be applied only to NPCs" or "and not PCs."
The rules also don't say that fighters don't get an innate laser eye attack that unerringly hits any target in sight at will.

If the rules say who can do something or who does get something, then arguments of the form "The rules don't say that I can't do this." are pretty obviously invalid.


And if the druid doesn't have the stats for his shape prepared then you're going to be sitting for a while while the DM works out the stat changes on his own for every time the druid becomes a new animal.nope. Somewhere between 10 and 60 seconds. We never let silly meta-game details bog us down like that.

RukiTanuki
2008-07-03, 04:36 PM
Going back to the original idea, here's a potential take on it:

* Adding a template turns a normal monster into an Elite, or an Elite into a Solo creature.
* Elite creatures of a given level have 2x the XP of a normal creature of that level. A level (x) Elite is worth the same XP as a level (x+4) normal creature.
* Solo creatures of a given level have 2.5x the XP of an Elite creature of that level. A level (x) Solo creature is worth the same XP as a level (x+5) Elite creature.

So, one could possibly say that a template provides the equivalent of a +4/+5 level adjustment.

I'd have to run the math, though, to see if a PC with the template is still a viable member of a team four or five levels beyond them. My suspicion is that something won't quite line up, specifically going to be because the template wasn't designed to be applied to PCs.

(Incidentally, mark me down as part of the anti-Airbud camp, i.e. I don't believe in the "ain't no rule" argument. I resolve the two statements as "this is the ritual used to create a lich. It gives a template, and PCs should not acquire templates." I treat "this ritual gives a creature the template" as general and "PCs cannot acquire templates" as specific.)

I'd try to head this off at the pass, however. I would ask the player to not run a character who wants to become a lich, unless the player intends to lose the character upon doing so. I think of liches as characters so obsessed with personal power that they shed their humanity without a thought, so it's not hard to rule that they're not a good fit for heroic parties. (Yes, even though evil characters can occasionally find their goals coinciding with those of a heroic party, even for a short while.)

Besides, very few players I've seen ever pursue lichdom for the roleplay elements; they're after power, same as their character. The PC isn't becoming a lich in order to win over people at parties. :)

mikeejimbo
2008-07-03, 04:41 PM
I'd have to run the math, though, to see if a PC with the template is still a viable member of a team four or five levels beyond them. My suspicion is that something won't quite line up, specifically going to be because the template wasn't designed to be applied to PCs.


Ewww, math. Wouldn't it be more fun to test it out in actual gameplay?

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-03, 04:47 PM
The rules also don't say that fighters don't get an innate laser eye attack that unerringly hits any target in sight at will.

If the rules say who can do something or who does get something, then arguments of the form "The rules don't say that I can't do this." are pretty obviously invalid.
Fighters with laser eyes are obviously the same thing...touche!

I'm not saying "A player can gain a template because nothing says it can't", I'm saying "A player can gain the lich template because nothing says it can't AND this ritual says it can".


nope. Somewhere between 10 and 60 seconds. We never let silly meta-game details bog us down like that.

How? Your druid says he's polymorphing into a Dire Lion, and you've never done that and he didn't prepare. In 60 seconds, you can recalculate his size, AC, his 5 new attacks, saves, HP, and damage?

That's pretty amazing, but for those players without such incredible speed in the group will have a much harder time.

chiasaur11
2008-07-03, 04:49 PM
The rules also don't say that fighters don't get an innate laser eye attack that unerringly hits any target in sight at will.


Next campaign is going to be VERY interesting.
There's no rule against the laser eyes being 90d6, is there?

Yahzi
2008-07-04, 01:05 AM
No, he's abusing the ability because what's a cool, flavourful power for NPCs is totally broken in the hands of a PC.
See, I don't even get that. Are NPCs retarded? Do they all sign a contract not to be abusive, power-mad freaks? Even the BBEGs?

I just can't understand how an NPC can have a power and not use it as intelligently as a player. Heck, I'm the DM. My NPCs should be smarter than the players (at least, the ones with 20+ INT).


If you assume that PCs must be able to do everything the NPCs can do, all you do is limit the options you can give to the NPCs.
But limiting the options you give NPCs is necessary. Otherwise the game isn't fair. And if it's not fair, then you can't kill the players. And if you can't kill the players, there's no risk. And without risk... there's no game.

There might be a story, but there's no game.

marjan
2008-07-04, 05:31 AM
I just can't understand how an NPC can have a power and not use it as intelligently as a player. Heck, I'm the DM. My NPCs should be smarter than the players (at least, the ones with 20+ INT).


Because power is relative. NPC doesn't have to worry about over-shadowing someone who chose to not use that ritual.

Gwain
2008-07-04, 07:32 AM
Because power is relative. NPC doesn't have to worry about over-shadowing someone who chose to not use that ritual.

and because, usually, an NPC isn't supposed to fight 4 PC groups in a day, while the opposite is true.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-04, 10:19 AM
See, I don't even get that. Are NPCs retarded? Do they all sign a contract not to be abusive, power-mad freaks? Even the BBEGs?

No, but they sign a contract which says "we understand that we are fictional characers who do not know that we exist as playing pieces in an abstract resource-allocation game".


I just can't understand how an NPC can have a power and not use it as intelligently as a player. Heck, I'm the DM. My NPCs should be smarter than the players (at least, the ones with 20+ INT).

90% of "intelligent" uses of abilities, in my experience, are some form of metagaming.

Take the Wraith's "Create Spawn" ability (still present in 4E, FWIW), the standard method of creating a huge Undead Army despite the fairly harsh minion-limits set by the game is to "chain" wraiths, commanding the one wraith you control to command all of its spawn to be loyal only to you, and to pass on this same command to their spawn. The thing is, that's totally metagaming, the "Create Spawn" ability is designed to provide a sense of "oh my god we're screwed" when the wraith cuts down your ally and you find yourself facing another wraith. It isn't intended to be a literal representation of the mechanics of undead-management.

Lich's phylacteries are similar. Putting your phylactery inside an immovable rod inside a bag of holding in the lower stratosphere isn't "clever" it's metagaming. It's taking rules-flexibility designed to give DMs the freedom to design NPCs however they like and using it to gouge for power.

Plus, as others have pointed out, NPCs have a fundamentally different job to PCs.


But limiting the options you give NPCs is necessary. Otherwise the game isn't fair. And if it's not fair, then you can't kill the players. And if you can't kill the players, there's no risk. And without risk... there's no game.

There might be a story, but there's no game.

Umm ... I don't understand that paragraph. Why is it "not fair" if NPCs can have things the players can't? Is it "unfair" that birds can't breathe underwater and fish can't fly? Is it "unfair" that David Beckham is a millionaire professional footballer and I'm not?

And how does things being "unfair" stop you from killing the players (I assume you mean player *characters* incidentally, unless your games are seriously messed up)?

Starsinger
2008-07-04, 11:09 AM
And how does things being "unfair" stop you from killing the players (I assume you mean player *characters* incidentally, unless your games are seriously messed up)?

Blackleaf, no!!

BardicDuelist
2008-07-04, 11:34 AM
While this may have been brought up before, in 4e specific trumps general, right? Well then the specific rule stating the the caster of the ritual gains the template trumps the general rule of PCs can't gain templates.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-04, 12:19 PM
While this may have been brought up before, in 4e specific trumps general, right? Well then the specific rule stating the the caster of the ritual gains the template trumps the general rule of PCs can't gain templates.

Indeed, aside from the fact that the general rule just states that "NPCs can gain templates", and doesn't even explicitly ban players.

(And, before people make absurd statements about laser eyes, I realize that the lack of a ban on something is different than allowing it. But, a ritual specifically allowing it trumps a pretty vague general)

Artanis
2008-07-04, 12:59 PM
Indeed, aside from the fact that the general rule just states that "NPCs can gain templates", and doesn't even explicitly ban players.
Air Bud Clause


And I explained earlier (and was totally ignored) why I feel that the ritual is NOT a specific rule that trumps the general "PCs can't get templates" rule.

shadow_archmagi
2008-07-04, 01:48 PM
Air Bud Clause


And I explained earlier (and was totally ignored) why I feel that the ritual is NOT a specific rule that trumps the general "PCs can't get templates" rule.

The ritual IS specific. If we're going to rule that magic isn't specific, can we just also assume that the Fly ritual doesn't grant Fly Speed, because PCs do not have a Fly Speed unless they have Monster Race?

EDIT: I read your post again. Your argument is that it isn't intended for players, so the DM should not give it to them. I misunderstood, thought you were a different poster.

Obviously, this is what most DMs will do. They'll just quietly shuffle the ritual off to the side, and maybe use it as a plot hook.

Indon
2008-07-04, 03:11 PM
That's fair, I disagree with that design philosophy. I think it's better to have a game that lets you play one or two things really well than that sort of lets you play a whole bunch of things.

Exalted is, of course, a prime example of this. The core rules are built with the assumption that the PCs are playing Solar Exalted and not other sorts of Exalted (for which you need a splatbook) or normal humans, or any of the other weird and wonderful inhabitants of Creation.

While I agree that it's more of a design philosophy thing, I might point out that in this aspect Exalted isn't really a good example, but instead has the best of both worlds, being a skill-based, rather than a level-based system, and thus having high flexibility to play different characters simply as a result of that - Solars alone offer more archetype options than many class-based games do.

MartinHarper
2008-07-04, 04:55 PM
No it does not say PCs, but it does not need to as PCs are the only ones who would conceivably use a ritual.

The DMG specifically calls out rituals as something that it is often appropriate to give to NPCs.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-04, 05:02 PM
Man, I go to bed, and when I get up, there's another two and a half pages... Okay, fine, allow me to respond.


I'm just going to respond to the "general vs. specific" arguement, because I seem to be reading things differently than many people. You have to hear me out for this post to all add up, so I ask for your patience...

I don't see anything that contradicts the general rule when I read it and add things up. The MM and the DMG are DM tools, and as such, do not have to make sense in-character. All the baddies in the MM look to me like they follow a pattern of "Has X because Is Y." For instance, "a minion has 1hp because it's a minion", and NOT "a minion is a minion because it has 1hp". The characters see no difference: a baddy Has X, and a baddy Is Y, and when you're stabbing them, it doesn't matter which causes which.The minion role specifically grants 1 HP, that doesn't mean that any coincidence is necessarily a cause.


Now, with this in mind, take another look at the Lich stuff, but view through the lens of it being a DM tool that does not have to follow causality that makes sense in-character:
A DM has no need for a ritual granting a template...DMs do not need to have their NPCs cast a ritual to become a lich any more than he needs to work out every monster an NPC ever fought to level up to his current position.


1) "Lich" is a template. Since it's a template, it can only be applied to monsters and NPCs.Again, the rule only says that a template can be applied to NPCs, not only to NPCs. Again, this doesn't by itself mean a PC can gain a template, but it doesn't mean that there is a specific rule barring them from it that would void a ritual granting it to them.

2) The DMG entry says that some Liches know a ritual to become a Lich.
3) Thus something that knows the ritual knows it because it is a Lich.

1) Brownings are a type of rifle used in WWII soldiers by American soldiers.
2) History states that some American soldiers possessed brownings.
3) Therefore, if someone owns a Browning it is because they are an American soldier.

This logic is flawed in the same way that yours was...coincidence does not equal causality.


4) Even a PC that is tutored by a Lich (or finds its spellbook or whatever) does NOT automatically gain access to the ritual. There are other ways to become a Lich that are not mentioned, and thus not available to PCs except through DM fiat.

5) This means that if a character can become a Lich, it is because, and ONLY because, the DM allows him to do so. It is NOT the other way around (which would be "the DM may allow a character to become a Lich because a character theoretically has a way of doing so").If a wizard uses Ray of Frost it is because the DM allows them to do so. That doesn't make this rule special for any reason other than because the DM may be less likely to allow this.

This doesn't change the fact that there is a very real rule presented which theoretically exists for the character to gain the template, the DM has the power to accept or deny it just like the DM can accept or deny the Raise Dead ritual.


Does it make sense in-character? Not a chance. But that doesn't matter because the characters do not see the chain of causality. If there is a ritual to become a Lich and if the DM decides to let (or not let) a character become a Lich are all that is seen by the player, and which leads to which is hidden and really, rather irrelevant.

It makes sense mechanically, and it makes sense to the DM, and it does not have to make sense in-character because it does not matter whether or not it does.

All this in turn leads to the conclusion that the specific rule of the existence of the Lich-making ritual does not contradict the general rule of PCs not being allowed to gain templates.
The conclusion you offer is that "Lichdom is weird, so the rules work different"
It relies on flawed logic and disregard of core rules.
Ultimately it comes down to "DM fiat", which is a non-answer.



The DMG specifically calls out rituals as something that it is often appropriate to give to NPCs.

But it's unnecessary, as an NPC would never use this in combat, or would have to work out the mechanical problems of casting a ritual in order to gain a template.

I guess this could function as a guideline for the DM to know what kind of resources an NPC would need to become a lich, but in that case it would be needless and very sloppy writing.

mikeejimbo
2008-07-04, 05:09 PM
Wait... what if it was included in case the DM wanted to allow his players to become liches? Like it's not the default, but it's there as an option.

MartinHarper
2008-07-04, 05:23 PM
A DM has no need for a ritual granting a template...DMs do not need to have their NPCs cast a ritual to become a lich any more than he needs to work out every monster an NPC ever fought to level up to his current position.

It has applications if the players are attempting to interrupt an NPC who has started the Lichdom ritual. It also provides the DM with information about the hit points and resistance of a typical phylactery, which might come up in a game.

There are rules for applying a template for a monster, explaining how this is achieved. There are no rules stating how to apply a template to a PC. Even if you rule that the ritual overrides the definition of a template as something that is applied to a monster, you then need to house-rule a way of applying a template to a PC. As a simple example, how do action points work with a PC with a template? I don't know, and the DMG doesn't tell me.

MartinHarper
2008-07-04, 05:28 PM
It's unnecessary, as an NPC would never use this in combat, or would have to work out the mechanical problems of casting a ritual in order to gain a template.

It depends. If you want to create a Lich, apply the template. If you want an NPC to become a Lich, apply the template. If want an NPC to attempt to become a Lich, and the PCs to interact with the NPC during this process, use the ritual.

shadow_archmagi
2008-07-04, 06:52 PM
It depends. If you want to create a Lich, apply the template. If you want an NPC to become a Lich, apply the template. If want an NPC to attempt to become a Lich, and the PCs to interact with the NPC during this process, use the ritual.

Yes, but it seems odd that they wouldn't just put a note in the Lich entry like

"In order to become a Lich, WotC suggests having it cost something like 9,000,000 gold worth of magical junk and take two hours to cast. Phyalcteries, in addition to their usual object properties, have an extra ---- hp and hardness"

or even

"Becoming a lich should be a long and expensive process, and not to be undertaken lightly. Treat the final transformation as using a Ritual."

JaxGaret
2008-07-05, 09:33 PM
So you're paying 150,000 gp (100,000 ritual + 50,000 phylactery) to become a Lich, gaining a fair bit of power...

and Orcus can end your (un)life at any moment. The character is basically Orcus' servant at that point. That sounds like either a) the character is now an NPC, or b) probably the entire party needs to be Liches for the campaign to go on.

I see no problem with either outcome.

mikeejimbo
2008-07-05, 11:25 PM
No problem with everyone becoming liches. They don't have to be spellcasters anymore, right? Because anyone can pick up the Ritual Casting feat?

JaxGaret
2008-07-05, 11:27 PM
No problem with everyone becoming liches. They don't have to be spellcasters anymore, right? Because anyone can pick up the Ritual Casting feat?

Correct.

One needs only to be a Humanoid of least level 11 and have an Intelligence of at least 13 to become a Lich.

hamishspence
2008-07-06, 05:34 AM
Not stictly true, you do not even have to be humanoid. "Any intelligent creature" fitting the two prerequisites: level and intelligence, can become a lich.

There is a disparity in the ritual requirements and the template requirements.

Solution: Template is for being turned into a lich (by a god, a pact, DM fiat)

Ritual is for beings who wish to turn themselves into liches.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-07-06, 07:30 AM
Ok.. first, about the:

"Players cannot have a template", I find it ridiculous. And I mean the rule itself is ridiculous. What, I want to become a powerful undead, and the rules disallow me to? That's poor-written game rules, I'd say. We are talking about a Role-Playing game, where the POINT of this medium is "our imagination's the limit", not a video game where you have to fit the mold to play.

At least, please, Wizards, try to find a way to allow players to fit their character's dream into. Make it hard, I don't care. Give vague instructions, or hints, or plot hook about it. But don't leave anything out

Then, I would like to comment on the: Why have they put the darn ritual price, requirement etc... if it's only NPCs who are supposed to use it??? What is the point? What is the difference between an 1-hour ritual and a 30-minutes ritual and a 10-hour ritual when the PCs are supposed to interrupt the BBEG? "A PC is never late, Frodo. Nor is he early. He arrives precicely when the plot dictates him to?".

Oracle_Hunter
2008-07-06, 09:47 AM
Ok.. first, about the:

"Players cannot have a template", I find it ridiculous. And I mean the rule itself is ridiculous. What, I want to become a powerful undead, and the rules disallow me to? That's poor-written game rules, I'd say. We are talking about a Role-Playing game, where the POINT of this medium is "our imagination's the limit", not a video game where you have to fit the mold to play.

At least, please, Wizards, try to find a way to allow players to fit their character's dream into. Make it hard, I don't care. Give vague instructions, or hints, or plot hook about it. But don't leave anything out

Then, I would like to comment on the: Why have they put the darn ritual price, requirement etc... if it's only NPCs who are supposed to use it??? What is the point? What is the difference between an 1-hour ritual and a 30-minutes ritual and a 10-hour ritual when the PCs are supposed to interrupt the BBEG? "A PC is never late, Frodo. Nor is he early. He arrives precicely when the plot dictates him to?".

Your dream is to be an undead abomination completely beholden to Orcus? :smallconfused:

Also, we need to make a new "rule:" Just because a game isn't designed to produce a given character build does not mean it is a failure.

JaxGaret
2008-07-06, 11:20 AM
Not stictly true, you do not even have to be humanoid. "Any intelligent creature" fitting the two prerequisites: level and intelligence, can become a lich.

There is a disparity in the ritual requirements and the template requirements.

Solution: Template is for being turned into a lich (by a god, a pact, DM fiat)

Ritual is for beings who wish to turn themselves into liches.

Right. I was talking about a PC who wished to turn themself into a Lich, which includes all of the requirements, including being a Humanoid. To become a Lich one only needs the level and intelligence requirement; to cast the Ritual itself, one also needs to be a Humanoid.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-07-07, 06:00 AM
Your dream is to be an undead abomination completely beholden to Orcus? :smallconfused:

Also, we need to make a new "rule:" Just because a game isn't designed to produce a given character build does not mean it is a failure.

If, in a computer game, I was told: "Sorry, you can't be a [insert whatever you want], the game wasn't programmed for that", I'd understand. There is a limit to the amount of options programmers can include into a game.

If, in a role-playing game, I was told: "Sorry, you can't be a [insert whatever you want], the game rules don't allow it", I'd say it's a bad role-playing game. And I am not talking about stupid ambitions fluffwise (ex: I want to become a demon!!!), we are talking about a Lich. The point of a lich is a MORTAL spellcaster (well.. not totally spellcasting anymore, it seems) that turns himself into an intelligent undead to trick death out of his schedule.

The fluff is supposed to allow this. Why forbid anyone from doing it? Bad writing, I say.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-07, 10:05 AM
The fluff is supposed to allow this. Why forbid anyone from doing it? Bad writing, I say.

Good game design, I say.

The fluff is supposed to allow people to become Liches, Gods, Kings, Princes, the leaders of major religions and the lovers of immortal demon-queens.

The rules however, do not support any of these things, because they are focused on the things that everybody will be doing (adventuring) instead of the things that some people might be doing (everything else).

If I had a PC who wanted to become a Lich, I would take it as a point of pride to come up with rules for it myself. A PC's personal ambitions should not be reducible to the simple application of game mechanics.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-07, 12:10 PM
If, in a computer game, I was told: "Sorry, you can't be a [insert whatever you want], the game wasn't programmed for that", I'd understand. There is a limit to the amount of options programmers can include into a game.

If, in a role-playing game, I was told: "Sorry, you can't be a [insert whatever you want], the game rules don't allow it", I'd say it's a bad role-playing game. And I am not talking about stupid ambitions fluffwise (ex: I want to become a demon!!!), we are talking about a Lich. The point of a lich is a MORTAL spellcaster (well.. not totally spellcasting anymore, it seems) that turns himself into an intelligent undead to trick death out of his schedule.

The fluff is supposed to allow this. Why forbid anyone from doing it? Bad writing, I say.

First off, the rules do allow becoming a lich.

Second, the game rules can't reasonably include EVERY possibility that a player wants, unless they're made to be so generic that none of the options are any more significant than the others.

"I want to be a five-headed badger that breaths fire but he's from space and can turn into a minotaur when the stars are properly aligned."

This is the kind of situation where you work with the DM and make something that works for you, rather than expecting the sourcebooks to have provided it already.

Indon
2008-07-07, 12:15 PM
"I want to be a five-headed badger that breaths fire but he's from space and can turn into a minotaur when the stars are properly aligned."

It's a shame 3'rd edition can't pull that off. Closest thing I can think of is a two-headed half-dragon anthropomorphic pseudonatural badger with a contingencied Polymorph.

I might note that you could easily have significant diversity in character options - you just couldn't have balance between all of those options.

hamishspence
2008-07-07, 12:15 PM
A somewhat vicious DM interpretation would be: when you change (assuming no multiclass or epic destiny weirdness) your powers are cut to the NPC version of your class. So, you go from being a PC to being an Elite Monster. From then on, you increase in power as a monster does.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-07, 12:25 PM
It's a shame 3'rd edition can't pull that off. Closest thing I can think of is a two-headed half-dragon anthropomorphic pseudonatural badger with a contingencied Polymorph.

I might note that you could easily have significant diversity in character options - you just couldn't have balance between all of those options.

I was thinking "of legend" rather than pseudonatural, but both work.

Still, they couldn't do that until there were quite a few splatbooks and web enhancements around.

If a similar number of books come out for 4e, I'll accept the criticism.


Of course, in 3e those options were mostly unplayable because of the way that level adjustment worked. 4e has made monster races much more balanced by making player versions of them without LA...we're still waiting on the number of options 3e ultimately offered, but I think 4e has better potential.

Starsinger
2008-07-07, 12:32 PM
"I want to be a five-headed badger that breaths fire but he's from space and can turn into a minotaur when the stars are properly aligned."

Celestial multi-headed half-dragon badger with a homebrewed version of Lycanthropy.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-07, 12:36 PM
A somewhat vicious DM interpretation would be: when you change (assuming no multiclass or epic destiny weirdness) your powers are cut to the NPC version of your class. So, you go from being a PC to being an Elite Monster. From then on, you increase in power as a monster does.

Might not work that well, considering that monsters are designed in the MM not to be advanced or reduced by more than 5 levels. It's not a bad notion though, especially considering one elite roughly equals one PC.


4e has made monster races much more balanced by making player versions of them without LA...we're still waiting on the number of options 3e ultimately offered, but I think 4e has better potential.

I agree. I think that the use of race specific feats and powers that can be selected as time goes on provide a very fertile ground for non-standard race PC creation. Sort of like savage species but hopefully done right.

hamishspence
2008-07-07, 12:46 PM
like I said, player isn't advanced or reduced, he simply loses all the Player Only special traits.

If someone was that keen on being a Vampire or lich, they might be prepared to put up with losing PC features. Like, for example, action points above 1. He'd be stuck with max 1 action point, which regenerates with milestones as normal.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-07, 01:19 PM
like I said, player isn't advanced or reduced, he simply loses all the Player Only special traits.

If someone was that keen on being a Vampire or lich, they might be prepared to put up with losing PC features. Like, for example, action points above 1. He'd be stuck with max 1 action point, which regenerates with milestones as normal.

Right, but I'm pointing out that as the player advances in level, it could be a problem.

hamishspence
2008-07-07, 01:32 PM
If they were a monster (troglodyte, lizardman, etc) yes.

If not, just level them up if they were an NPC: swapping powers for powers of higher levels. You are effectively replacing 15th level lich wizard with 16th level lich wizard, for example. NPC classes still scale all the way up to 30th level.

Tormsskull
2008-07-07, 02:39 PM
I'd say the way that the rules are set up, it is clear that the Ritual to become a Lich is intended for NPCs only. Everyone who is saying "Why do you need to know how much it costs or how much time it takes when you can just say it happened" is forgetting that just because the PCs are the "on camera" all the time does not mean the world revolves around them.

The DM can always choose to ignore any rule in any book, and as such could let an NPC caster become a lich if they wanted to without needing the ritual. If a DM thought that a PC lich would be good for the game, then he could easily allow the PC lich to use the NPC lich Ritual rules.

I think this debate is simply coming down to an entitlement argument. Some players want to have the option without having to ask the DM. But simply put, everything is up to the DM. A DM may be less likely to ban something that the books specifically say is for players, but it doesn't mean they can't.

hamishspence
2008-07-07, 03:19 PM
Even DMG 3.0 said that using races other than the core ones was DM's discretion.

A good recommendation would be: be aware you aren't using the rules as written, so don't get annoyed if they are tricky to use.

That said, if elite monsters or NPCs are the approximate equal of PCs, using an NPC with a template, while it might be less versatile than a PC, it should be workable, with a group of players who know what they are doing.

Same would apply to evil campaigns: discuss it ahead of time, find out what players are comfortable with. You are there to enjoy yourselves.

Realms of Chaos
2008-07-07, 04:03 PM
Just judging from how this arguement has evolved, it seems that some players are upset that many traditional "gimmes" of the game have been taken from them.

For example, for as long as anyone can remember, there have always been those who let themselves get bitten by werewolve or who let vampires kill them before the rest of the party can kill the vampire (letting the player rise with free will).

Back in 3.5, whenever one of these situations would come up and DMs would turn to boards like this on how to prevent the game from getting out of hand, the normal replies would involve getting creative (making the templates seem more like curses than gifts), homebrewing (As the vampire template is EL +8, I'm going to make you earn the template's abilities through taking 8 levels in vampire), or simply denying (yes, that lycanthrope bit you. No, you did not catch the disease).

Now, in 4e, all of the "gimmes" of the old game have been taken away, annoying many of the players who prefered the previous system of "allowed unless specifically banned (in a creative fashion)" over the current "banned unless specifically allowed (in a creative fashion)".

In truth, however, this merely takes away some of the factors that DMs had a bit of trouble facing in the past, now requiring careful thinking on the DMs part and explicit DM permission in order to access such factors. I, for one, expect to see mid-high level 4e PbP games where everyone gains a template.

I do admit that it would've been nice for WotC to take the same road that they did with the leadership feat in 3e, describing how an item works but specifically stating that DM permission is required.

Starsinger
2008-07-07, 04:19 PM
Back in 3.5, whenever one of these situations would come up and DMs would turn to boards like this on how to prevent the game from getting out of hand, the normal replies would involve getting creative (making the templates seem more like curses than gifts), homebrewing (As the vampire template is EL +8, I'm going to make you earn the template's abilities through taking 8 levels in vampire), or simply denying (yes, that lycanthrope bit you. No, you did not catch the disease).

You forgot "Fine, your character becomes an NPC Were-Badger roll up a new character."

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-07, 07:01 PM
I'd say the way that the rules are set up, it is clear that the Ritual to become a Lich is intended for NPCs only. Everyone who is saying "Why do you need to know how much it costs or how much time it takes when you can just say it happened" is forgetting that just because the PCs are the "on camera" all the time does not mean the world revolves around them.
The world definitely revolves around them. They are the protagonists, the heroes, the world is created specifically so that they can have a grand adventure in them.

Moreover, NPCs don't use the same rules as PCs. The NPCs are built differently than NPCs and function differently.


I think this debate is simply coming down to an entitlement argument. Some players want to have the option without having to ask the DM. But simply put, everything is up to the DM. A DM may be less likely to ban something that the books specifically say is for players, but it doesn't mean they can't.
I think you're right here. People say that these abilities are DM's Discretion as though that's specific to one rule. Every rule in the game is DM discretion, regardless of what book it's in.

In 3.5 your average DM would be much more likely to accept an Arcane Archer from the DMG than the Polymorph spell.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-07-08, 12:45 AM
Good game design, I say.

The fluff is supposed to allow people to become Liches, Gods, Kings, Princes, the leaders of major religions and the lovers of immortal demon-queens.

The rules however, do not support any of these things, because they are focused on the things that everybody will be doing (adventuring) instead of the things that some people might be doing (everything else).

If I had a PC who wanted to become a Lich, I would take it as a point of pride to come up with rules for it myself. A PC's personal ambitions should not be reducible to the simple application of game mechanics.

I think Shamus Young nailed it in his recent article (Shamus Young's Website (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1748#comments)): D&D 4e is giving us less flexibility. It concentrate on the Adventuring part of Role Playing. I know it was what the game originally was meant to, but it grew so much in the past 30 years into a ruleset for Fantastic Simulation. If I don't want to have an "adventuring game", I should play another ruleset altogether?

So, D&D merely becomed "we get into a dungeon, kill monster, take their loot, and try to have a story around it"? I don't have any problem with that kind of game, to tell the truth. It's fun, I have to admit it. But now the game has been designed for that, and nothing else?

Cuddly
2008-07-08, 01:39 AM
And I can give my friends infinite oregano. :smalltongue:

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-08, 02:06 AM
I think Shamus Young nailed it in his recent article (Shamus Young's Website (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1748#comments)): D&D 4e is giving us less flexibility. It concentrate on the Adventuring part of Role Playing. I know it was what the game originally was meant to, but it grew so much in the past 30 years into a ruleset for Fantastic Simulation. If I don't want to have an "adventuring game", I should play another ruleset altogether?

So, D&D merely becomed "we get into a dungeon, kill monster, take their loot, and try to have a story around it"? I don't have any problem with that kind of game, to tell the truth. It's fun, I have to admit it. But now the game has been designed for that, and nothing else?

I only know Shamus Young from my biggest dissappointment in webcomic history.

This is an argument that has gone on since 4e came out, but it's not one that holds water.

There is nothing, nothing, in the 4e rules that demands that your story be a straightforward dungeon crawl.

The claim that 4e restricts flexibility comes from a general design change that moved away from 3.5's 'interchangeable parts' design, where each level, feat, skill point was like a building block that you built together in any combination you chose.
The problem is that only gave the illusion of flexibility. In truth, although yes, you could build a Bard 3/Wizard 2/Druid 2/Monk 5, that character would be awkward and function poorly.
And it wasn't just because of the individual rules themselves were badly designed, it was because the theory was flawed, as it created a system where the differences between the different pieces necessarily meant that combining them would either-A. Cause a clash in which both choices detracted from each other, or B. Combined in a degenerate abusive way.

All 4e did is put everything on the same playing field, so things work and you no longer need to worry about your choices leading to unplayability because the system didn't support itself.
People have called this a lack of flexibility, but the flexibility they claim to have lost was never really there.

FoE
2008-07-08, 02:40 AM
If I don't want to have an "adventuring game", I should play another ruleset altogether?

... Yes?

I mean, what the hell else is Dungeons and Dragons for? You don't have to have a dungeoncrawl, necessarily, but the game is and has always been focused on adventuring.

Tormsskull
2008-07-08, 06:27 AM
The world definitely revolves around them. They are the protagonists, the heroes, the world is created specifically so that they can have a grand adventure in them.


Honestly, if as a DM you have the world revolve around the PCs, I would never want to play in your campaigns. That would remind me of a video game, and I have plenty of those under the TV.

And, call me a bad DM, but I never create a world so that the players can have grand adventures in them. Designing a world as such encourages your players to metagame. And metagaming detracts from roleplaying, so should be avoided unless you just want to play hack n slash.

Indon
2008-07-08, 09:03 AM
There is nothing, nothing, in the 4e rules that demands that your story be a straightforward dungeon crawl.
The point is, there's nothing that implies it could be anything else. And there's not really anything to help it be anything else.

You could nail the 4'th edition non-combat game, within I'd say about 95% accuracy, in less than one page of text. So if you're playing 4'th edition, and you aren't dungeon crawling, how is it worth the money you spent to buy this game?

This isn't a lack of 'versatility'. This is a lack of support, a lack of features.

The Mormegil
2008-07-08, 11:17 AM
OR, you could use the support they give to fighting for the fighting part, and use the lack of support they give to RP to shut down those ***ing players that always want to use RULES. Now there aren't any! How d'ya feel? Hah!

Artanis
2008-07-08, 11:32 AM
There is nothing, nothing, in the 4e rules that demands that your story be a straightforward dungeon crawl.
I feel that I should quote this because it is something that many people need to see, because many people either fail to see this or REFUSE to see this.

Starsinger
2008-07-08, 11:41 AM
This isn't a lack of 'versatility'. This is a lack of support, a lack of features.

What support? I don't need WotC to hold my hand and tell me how to role play. I'm an adult, and I am fully capable of role playing on my own. Rules need to cover and support things that need rules that's why mechanics rules are good.

Indon
2008-07-08, 11:59 AM
What support? I don't need WotC to hold my hand and tell me how to role play. I'm an adult, and I am fully capable of role playing on my own. Rules need to cover and support things that need rules that's why mechanics rules are good.

What about combat specifically makes it need rules any more than any other part of the game?

Starsinger
2008-07-08, 12:11 PM
What about combat specifically makes it need rules any more than any other part of the game?

Combats, skills, conflict resolution. I suppose, the inverse, what about roleplaying specifically makes it need rules, period?

Jayabalard
2008-07-08, 12:20 PM
Combats, skills, conflict resolution. I suppose, the inverse, what about roleplaying specifically makes it need rules, period?So, how is "combat needs rules because of skills, conflict resolution" different than "non-combat needs rules because of skills, conflict resolution" ?

Sure, we understand, it's your preference to have rules to cover combat mechanics and not have rules for non-combat mechanics. People are asking "why?" and expecting you to back it up with some sort of reason that isn't just circular logic.

Prophaniti
2008-07-08, 12:21 PM
OR, you could use the support they give to fighting for the fighting part, and use the lack of support they give to RP to shut down those ***ing players that always want to use RULES. Now there aren't any! How d'ya feel? Hah!

In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.
This is an excerpt from The Giant's article on his Diplomacy skill fix for 3.5. Does no one else understand what he's saying here? I want tools to arbitrate roleplaying scenarios just like I want tools to arbitrate combat. The tools are not to tell me how to roleplay, but to resolve conflicts and situations that arrise during the course of my roleplaying.

No, I don't need them, in the same way I don't need any rules and could sit around the table and play make-believe with my group. Rules for non-combat resolution are just as necessary for a good RPG system as rules for combat resolution. When the books only have one or the other, it feels like I got half an RPG and am expected to handwave the other half. The books are a bit expensive to only be half an RPG...

Starsinger
2008-07-08, 12:21 PM
So, how is "combat needs rules because of skills, conflict resolution" different than "non-combat needs rules because of skills, conflict resolution" ?

Sure, we understand, it's your preference to have rules to cover combat mechanics and not have rules for non-combat mechanics. People are asking "why?" and expecting you to back it up with some sort of reason that isn't just circular logic.

Sorry, I did not aptly make myself clear and thus you have misconstrued what I meant, through no fault of your own. I had intended on saying that Combat, Skills, and Conflict resolution need rules.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-08, 12:23 PM
What about combat specifically makes it need rules any more than any other part of the game?

Because, everyone has experience with talking to each other, with seeing plots in action, and with planning a course of action.

Swinging swords in combat and using magic, however, is not something the average person would have experience with, and is something that it is important to have rules to demonstrate.

Furthermore, it's hard to freeform combat.
"I swing my sword and cut the goblin in half"
"Well, no, it only grazes his arm, now he stabs you in the foot"
"But I thought I grazed his arm, he can still attack?"
"I guess so."


Finally, combat, unlike roleplaying, can be limited to a few basic goals:
"Slay the foe, capture the foe, delay the foe, or run from the foe" with some slight variations on that.
It is much easier to have a ruleset that supports those options, than it is to have something that tries to model the infinitely complex social interactions that are possible in life.


In addition, the most important of the 'social' skills that were in 3.x are still in 4e: Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight. We've lost forgery (Which is folded reasonably into theivery), disguise (Stealth), and craft/profession.

As far as I can see, those two skills are the only thing that means you have to dungeon crawl; of course all that it means is that you don't have somewhere to write "I like fishing" on your sheet.


This is an excerpt from The Giant's article on his Diplomacy skill fix for 3.5. Does no one else understand what he's saying here? I want tools to arbitrate roleplaying scenarios just like I want tools to arbitrate combat. The tools are not to tell me how to roleplay, but to resolve conflicts and situations that arrise during the course of my roleplaying.

No, I don't need them, in the same way I don't need any rules and could sit around the table and play make-believe with my group. Rules for non-combat resolution are just as necessary for a good RPG system as rules for combat resolution. When the books only have one or the other, it feels like I got half an RPG and am expected to handwave the other half. The books are a bit expensive to only be half an RPG...Of course, you do have tools, aforementioned bluff, diplomacy, and insight.

This idea of noncombat as being a category is problematic in that it's incredibly vague. "Noncombat" is a very complex thing in real life and RPGs, and rules that try to turn it into a challenge limit actual roleplaying by forcing your actions into the system that it offers, rather than allowing RP to function naturally.

Jayabalard
2008-07-08, 12:26 PM
The claim that 4e restricts flexibility comes from a general design change that moved away from 3.5's 'interchangeable parts' design, where each level, feat, skill point was like a building block that you built together in any combination you chose.
The problem is that only gave the illusion of flexibility. In truth, although yes, you could build a Bard 3/Wizard 2/Druid 2/Monk 5, that character would be awkward and function poorly.Just because you won't use a particular combination does not make the flexibility an illusion. It just means that you prefer to have less flexibility than someone who would use such a combination.

Which makes your lack of understanding of why some people complain about the lack of flexibility in 4e pretty understandable.


Sorry, I did not aptly make myself clear and thus you have misconstrued what I meant, through no fault of your own. I had intended on saying that Combat, Skills, and Conflict resolution need rules.You still haven't actually answered the question; you're just asserting that combat skills and conflict resolution need rules rather than saying anything about why they need rules, and specifically, why they need rules more than roleplaying needs rules.

Indon
2008-07-08, 12:34 PM
Because, everyone has experience with talking to each other, with seeing plots in action, and with planning a course of action.

Your argument that combat has detailed rules and everything else doesn't because people don't have experience with combat, and do have experience with everything else, is poorly formed, and you basically contradict it later in your post anyway, so I'm going to ignore it.


Swinging swords in combat and using magic, however, is not something the average person would have experience with, and is something that it is important to have rules to demonstrate.
Then do what a LARP does and resolve everything with Rock-Paper-Scissors.


Finally, combat, unlike roleplaying, can be limited to a few basic goals:
"Slay the foe, capture the foe, delay the foe, or run from the foe" with some slight variations on that.
Player (paraphrased): "I attempt to accomplish our objective in combat."
DM: "Rock-Paper-Scissors-SHOOT!"
Player: "Wait, RAW doesn't say there's a fourth beat, you're supposed to take your shape on the count of Scissors!"


This idea of noncombat as being a category is problematic in that it's incredibly vague. "Noncombat" is a very complex thing in real life and RPGs, and rules that try to turn it into a challenge limit actual roleplaying by forcing your actions into the system that it offers, rather than allowing RP to function naturally.

A fair argument. But if you're going to have a ridiculously simple system for almost all concievable actions your character can take anyway, why not just lump combat into it and be done with it?


Combats, skills, conflict resolution. I suppose, the inverse, what about roleplaying specifically makes it need rules, period?

Yeah, this is rather my point. If you don't get a benefit from rules, then don't buy a tabletop game. Play freeform, or homebrew an exceedingly simple system that can do everything 4'th edition can while simultaneously giving you even more freedom.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-08, 12:35 PM
Just because you won't use a particular combination does not make the flexibility an illusion. It just means that you prefer to have less flexibility than someone who would use such a combination.

Which makes your lack of understanding of why some people complain about the lack of flexibility in 4e pretty understandable.
Multiclassing, PRC Spellcasting progression, Feats, Skills, Spell Choices, Templates, LA. All of these things, which were supposed to give you 'versatility', worked monstrously in 3.5. Don't take my word for it, just go into the back logs of this forum and see how ugly they were.

My point had nothing to do with the 'particular combinations' being bad, what I said was that the very design structure of these combinations led to an inherently flawed system wherein the choices that are offered to you don't function the way they were intended to.

Rather than being able to mix and match to create something of your own design, the different puzzle pieces you used didn't fit, and only worked when used abusively.


So, yes, you could, by the rules, be a five-headed half-dragon werebadger, the game would punish you severely for doing it. Also, multiclassing as a sorcerer/fighter wouldn't allow your mage to be a 'war-mage', only an inferior mage and an inferior warrior.


So, no, I don't lack understanding of the 'versatility' of 3.5, I see it very clearly as a flawed system that punished players and DMs alike for using the versatility it flouted.


A fair argument. But if you're going to have a ridiculously simple system for almost all concievable actions your character can take anyway, why not just lump combat into it and be done with it?

Because combat is a life or death thrilling enterpries, that, unlike roleplaying, functions very well with a more rigid ruleset. Itcan be very exciting, and a 'miniatures wargame' style combat ruleset is something that is very fun and has always been part of D&D.

Starsinger
2008-07-08, 12:38 PM
You still haven't actually answered the question; you're just asserting that combat skills and conflict resolution need rules rather than saying anything about why they need rules, and specifically, why they need rules more than roleplaying needs rules.

Because not having rules for such things devolves the game into a "nuh-uh! yes-huh!" sort of game, reminiscent of cops & robbers as a child.

On the other front, I challenge you to give an example of a rule for role playing that is not just enforcing fluff.

Prophaniti
2008-07-08, 12:40 PM
Swinging swords in combat and using magic, however, is not something the average person would have experience with, and is something that it is important to have rules to demonstrate.
I have more experience swinging a sword (or my fists) than I do negotiating a treaty between two feuding nations, or fast-talking my way past a security guard, or wooing fair maidens (ask my wife, I'm lousy at that), or many, many more social and non-combat actions. Mechanics to assist me with the finer points of these activities are a great help, since one cannot (successfully) roleplay what is outside one's understanding. That's why actors spend so much time and effort 'getting into character'.

If my character needed to woo said maiden or negotiate said treaty, and I had to do it all through direct, unstructured roleplaying, I'd probably say something wrong and screw it all up, even though my character is supposed to be both intuitive, charismatic, and very good with people. Now, maybe my DM would be nice and say it worked just because I put the effort into it, but it would make more sense, in my situation, to have some rules to govern and adjudicate these interactions, based on the abilities of my character instead of my own skills. Thus my roleplaying will define the general direction of my efforts and actions, the parts I understand, and the rules would help with the finer points, the gritty details if you will, which I do not.

Yes, I like having detailed rules to assist in social interaction.

Indon
2008-07-08, 12:44 PM
Because combat is a life or death thrilling enterpries, that, unlike roleplaying, functions very well with a more rigid ruleset.
But all that ruleset is doing is getting in the way of how awesome your characters can be in combat.

Why not just make an attack, describe it however you want, and if you roll above, let's say a 10, you deal X damage based on your level? That way, you can have a much more exciting game because the rules aren't getting in your way, right?


Itcan be very exciting, and a 'miniatures wargame' style combat ruleset is something that is very fun and has always been part of D&D.

It's certainly true that miniatures wargaming is a long-standing D&D tradition - but some time back they tried to get away from that, because a miniatures wargame isn't an RPG - it's just a miniatures wargame that has the recommendation you RP tacked on.

Starsinger
2008-07-08, 12:47 PM
But all that ruleset is doing is getting in the way of how awesome your characters can be in combat.

Why not just make an attack, describe it however you want, and if you roll above, let's say a 10, you deal X damage based on your level? That way, you can have a much more exciting game because the rules aren't getting in your way, right?

There are games that do that. I can't help but think, somewhere in there, you have a point.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-08, 12:49 PM
I have more experience swinging a sword (or my fists) than I do negotiating a treaty between two feuding nations, or fast-talking my way past a security guard, or wooing fair maidens (ask my wife, I'm lousy at that), or many, many more social and non-combat actions. Mechanics to assist me with the finer points of these activities are a great help, since one cannot (successfully) roleplay what is outside one's understanding. That's why actors spend so much time and effort 'getting into character'.

If my character needed to woo said maiden or negotiate said treaty, and I had to do it all through direct, unstructured roleplaying, I'd probably say something wrong and screw it all up, even though my character is supposed to be both intuitive, charismatic, and very good with people. Now, maybe my DM would be nice and say it worked just because I put the effort into it, but it would make more sense, in my situation, to have some rules to govern and adjudicate these interactions, thus my roleplaying will define the general direction of my efforts and actions, the parts I understand, and the rules would help with the finer points, the gritty details if you will, which I do not.

Yes, I like having detailed rules to assist in social interaction.

Once there are detailed rules, it becomes a die roll. What's the point of thinking up something clever or witty to say, or coming up with a good plan? At most, you're looking at a +2 circumstance bonus, and the only person who'll ever do the talking is the paladin trained in diplomacy with the high Charisma, even if his player is a total boar.

Pen and Paper DnD has always been a game of thought over physical action. You use rules for combat because that is not something you act out or talk out. You don't use rules as strongly for social situations because you do act and talk it out.
That is not a new thing for 4e.

Indon
2008-07-08, 12:56 PM
There are games that do that. I can't help but think, somewhere in there, you have a point.

That point is, specifically, the table on page 42. You could practically run all combat and non-combat in 4'th edition D&D using page 42 of the 4'th edition DMG. No powers, classes give you HP and skills, remove the per-encounter limit on Second Wind, and you have a working game.

Prophaniti
2008-07-08, 12:59 PM
Once there are detailed rules, it becomes a die roll. What's the point of thinking up something clever or witty to say, or coming up with a good plan? At most, you're looking at a +2 circumstance bonus, and the only person who'll ever do the talking is the paladin trained in diplomacy with the high Charisma, even if his player is a total boar.
Speaking as a DM now, what kind of modifier the player gained through coming up with a witty remark is very circumstantial, and I can easily see situations (and have had them occur at the table) where the remark is witty enough that I feel no die roll is necessary. The die roll is there for the person who can't come up with a witty remark. It's there for the person who can't speak convincingly, or negotiate tactfully. Yes, I appreciate and encourage my players to try, but how is it fair to handicap them for not being able to? They can't fell giants with big swords, either, but I don't penalize their characters for this. You say that with detailed rules, only the maxed-out dimplomancer will do the talking. I say without them, only the players who are good at such interaction IRL will do the talking. Likely the truth lies with a happy medium, but I'll stand by my viewpoint for now.

Starsinger
2008-07-08, 01:03 PM
That point is, specifically, the table on page 42. You could practically run all combat and non-combat in 4'th edition D&D using page 42 of the 4'th edition DMG. No powers, classes give you HP and skills, remove the per-encounter limit on Second Wind, and you have a working game.

Is that really a problem? It seems to me, having a working game within the rules makes it a better deal. Like 3.5 and that E6 malarkey.

Indon
2008-07-08, 01:08 PM
Is that really a problem? It seems to me, having a working game within the rules makes it a better deal. Like 3.5 and that E6 malarkey.

The problem is, why are we even paying for this?

Edit: In retrospect, my God I am off topic.

mikeejimbo
2008-07-08, 01:13 PM
Speaking as a DM now, what kind of modifier the player gained through coming up with a witty remark is very circumstantial, and I can easily see situations (and have had them occur at the table) where the remark is witty enough that I feel no die roll is necessary. The die roll is there for the person who can't come up with a witty remark. It's there for the person who can't speak convincingly, or negotiate tactfully. Yes, I appreciate and encourage my players to try, but how is it fair to handicap them for not being able to? They can't fell giants with big swords, either, but I don't penalize their characters for this. You say that with detailed rules, only the maxed-out dimplomancer will do the talking. I say without them, only the players who are good at such interaction IRL will do the talking. Likely the truth lies with a happy medium, but I'll stand by my viewpoint for now.

Our DM solves this problem by making us have the skills and come up with witty remarks. So I never get to pretend to be more charismatic than I am. :smallfrown:

Jayabalard
2008-07-08, 02:07 PM
Once there are detailed rules, it becomes a die roll. Not true; you can have detailed rules where the resolution does not come down to a die roll.

Tormsskull
2008-07-08, 02:19 PM
So, um, Liches, yeah. I'm thing my BBEG is going to have a lieutenant wizard who will eventually start seeking for this ritual. Possibly down the road have the ritual fall into the hands of the PCs, just to tempt them and see what they do.

hamishspence
2008-07-08, 02:22 PM
Now that 4th ed liches, unlike their ancestors of 3rd ed, do not have to be spellcasters of any kind, are we likely to start seeing lich fighters, rangers, rogues? Could make for interesting slat on your typical lich. Mighty Warrior seeks immortality and finds it....not what he expected.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-08, 02:33 PM
I think Shamus Young nailed it in his recent article (Shamus Young's Website (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1748#comments)): D&D 4e is giving us less flexibility. It concentrate on the Adventuring part of Role Playing.

It concentrates on the parts of role playing the system actually models well, and not on the parts it models really, really badly. I see this as a step up.


I know it was what the game originally was meant to, but it grew so much in the past 30 years into a ruleset for Fantastic Simulation. If I don't want to have an "adventuring game", I should play another ruleset altogether?

Over the past 30 years it grew into a ruleset for really really bad Fantastic Simulation. 3.X was about as flexible as a Class Based system can get, which is to say "not very flexible at all, actually". The whole system was, in fact, based around dungeoncrawling, but it tried to apply those rules to everything else in the world as well, making worldbuilding impractical and time consuming, and leading to nonsense like worlds where farmers make as much money as lawyers, or rock is impossible to break with a pick.


So, D&D merely becomed "we get into a dungeon, kill monster, take their loot, and try to have a story around it"? I don't have any problem with that kind of game, to tell the truth. It's fun, I have to admit it. But now the game has been designed for that, and nothing else?

The game has now been designed with the assumption that the PCs will be heroes having adventures, instead of Carpenters making and selling their goods for exactly the same amount of money as jewelers or mud-sculptors.

batsofchaos
2008-07-08, 02:57 PM
I'm curious as to how in the heck 4e has fewer non-combat rules than 3.5 did. I mean, what skills got tossed that were important to non-combat? Craft? Please. If anything, the inclusion of Skill Challenge rules makes non-combat work better than 3.5. And don't give me that "skill challenges delegates real role-playing to a die-roll" garbage. It wasn't true with bluff/diplomacy in 3.5, why should it be true here?

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-08, 04:44 PM
Speaking as a DM now, what kind of modifier the player gained through coming up with a witty remark is very circumstantial, and I can easily see situations (and have had them occur at the table) where the remark is witty enough that I feel no die roll is necessary. The die roll is there for the person who can't come up with a witty remark. It's there for the person who can't speak convincingly, or negotiate tactfully. Yes, I appreciate and encourage my players to try, but how is it fair to handicap them for not being able to? They can't fell giants with big swords, either, but I don't penalize their characters for this. You say that with detailed rules, only the maxed-out dimplomancer will do the talking. I say without them, only the players who are good at such interaction IRL will do the talking. Likely the truth lies with a happy medium, but I'll stand by my viewpoint for now.

The difference is that DnD is a mental, social activity, not a physical one. A players physical ability to fell beasts never comes into a play in any facet, unless he throws the dice to hard and kills someone. But I've yet to see that happening.

Social interaction skills conflict with your RL social skills, that's why it's so hard to come up with a system for them.

It'd be great if someone had an amazing system to model these interactions without demanding RL charisma, but I've yet to see one that doesn't stifle roleplaying.

I'll wait for a good one, but until I see it I'll settle for freeform social RP.

RebelRogue
2008-07-09, 08:00 AM
You could nail the 4'th edition non-combat game, within I'd say about 95% accuracy, in less than one page of text.
Have you actually read the 4th ed DMG? There's an entire chapter dedicated to non-combat encounters. Yes, they're still called encounters. If you don't like that, call them "scenes" or whatever instead. All the social skills from 3.5 are essentially there, but now you have skill challenges as an option to enhance and/or help roleplaying these situations out instead of the old "single roll resolutions" of such situations.

Jayabalard
2008-07-09, 08:38 AM
And don't give me that "skill challenges delegates real role-playing to a die-roll" garbage. It wasn't true with bluff/diplomacy in 3.5, why should it be true here?Actually, for many people it was true with bluff/diplomacy in 3.5... which is one of the reasons why so many people just threw those rules out. Just like skill challenges will cause die-rolles to replace real role-playing for many people.

It doesn't bother me that people do that... whatever floats their boat. I'm not going to say that they're playing the game wrong, or that they shouldn't be enjoying what they enjoy. The only thing I get irritated about is that some of them really are convinced that what they are doing actually is roleplaying and they get confused when someone tries to explain that what they are doing isn't. "what are you talking about... I role-play my character all the time. I try to convince the king to do X ... (rolls die)... yay I succeeded!"

The problems is not a new one, which is why some (not all) of the arguments about how 4e hurts roleplaying are ludicrous, but 4e hasn't done anything to improve the situation from 3e; quite the contrary, handling roleplaying mechanically with skill challenges is just another step in the wrong direction.

hamishspence
2008-07-09, 08:41 AM
doing it pure mechanics is annoying: I roll X, king agrees to help me"
Doing it pure imagination tends to penalise the shy and may lead to overpowering.

Whats needed is a balance of both: maybe appropiate circumstance bonuses secretly awarded by DM for very good characterisation in skill checks or challenges.

Indon
2008-07-09, 09:33 AM
Have you actually read the 4th ed DMG? There's an entire chapter dedicated to non-combat encounters. Yes, they're still called encounters. If you don't like that, call them "scenes" or whatever instead. All the social skills from 3.5 are essentially there, but now you have skill challenges as an option to enhance and/or help roleplaying these situations out instead of the old "single roll resolutions" of such situations.

There are multiple chapters indeed dedicated to advice on how to build good encounters and environments - the DMG's version of fluff. It's not bad, but it's certainly not the core mechanic.

Prophaniti
2008-07-09, 10:15 AM
Actually, for many people it was true with bluff/diplomacy in 3.5... which is one of the reasons why so many people just threw those rules out. Just like skill challenges will cause die-rolles to replace real role-playing for many people.

It doesn't bother me that people do that... whatever floats their boat. I'm not going to say that they're playing the game wrong, or that they shouldn't be enjoying what they enjoy. The only thing I get irritated about is that some of them really are convinced that what they are doing actually is roleplaying and they get confused when someone tries to explain that what they are doing isn't. "what are you talking about... I role-play my character all the time. I try to convince the king to do X ... (rolls die)... yay I succeeded!"

The problems is not a new one, which is why some (not all) of the arguments about how 4e hurts roleplaying are ludicrous, but 4e hasn't done anything to improve the situation from 3e; quite the contrary, handling roleplaying mechanically with skill challenges is just another step in the wrong direction.
First off, roleplaying does not mean one must say everything the character is saying, just as it is not required to describe exactly what your character is doing when he's, say, fighting someone. One can indeed be roleplaying perfectly without ever actually saying anything 'in character'. It would be unusual, but it would still be roleplaying. The actions are what matters with roleplaying, whether the player is able to have their character act as their character would, rather than how the player would. That's what roleplaying means, not attempting to personally act it out. That's called LARPing. Saying "I try to convince the King of the severity of the situation. *rolls relevant check* Ok, looks like he believes me." is, in fact, roleplaying, so long as the character would actually take that course of action, rather than another. As I said earlier, I would encourage the player to at least give a rough outline of exactly what he was saying, but I would not force it.

Secondly, in 3.5 by RAW, none of the social skills could convince anyone to actually do anything. All diplomacy did was change the target's 'attitude' toward you. It was still up to the DM and the specifics of the situation whether that changed their actions. Bluff merely checks whether someone believes your lies, which, IMO, is a necessary mechanic even if you always say every word that comes out of your character's mouth. If the DM has the NPC do exactly what the character wanted just because of a high diplomacy check, then he's the one guilty of not roleplaying, not the player who rolled the check.

batsofchaos
2008-07-09, 10:37 AM
Although plenty of people have been in games with/been guilty of delegating RP to a die-roll (which as Prophaniti said is a perfectly acceptible way to roleplay), it is not the mechanic's doing. It was just as easy and acceptible to use the mechanic as a way to base the NPC's reaction to what was said, requiring what was said to be specifically spelled out. There's nothing, in either the rules or in play, that makes one method better than the other. However, if the players and DM want to play in an acting-heavy game, the latter should be chosen over the former. Frankly, I think the rules are a good thing, because at the least the shy players are not penalized for not wanting to ham it up.

I think the social-interaction skills are perfectly workable and have been very successful in my games. However, I think the biggest success for it is using the successes/failures solely as a tool for how the NPC regards PC's statement. The players succeed at a diplomacy check, the NPC takes what they say favorably. PCs botch a bluff, and the NPC suspects that they are lying. That way, the rolls are entirely independent of what the PCs do, and are simply a tool for shaping the affect on the non-player-controlled world.

An alternate take, which has been fairly successful in light-hearted games, is for the players to loosely describe what they're going to attempt, roll for success or failure, and then describe what they do based on the result.

Player: "(OOC)I'm going to try and intimidate the judge." *rolls intimidate check, fails* "(IC)*clears throat* So judge....I'm not sure you're going to be wanting to make that sentence....if you, uh, catch my, uh, my meaning. *scratches arm*"

Definitely needs to be a lighthearted game to work, though. Since it's kind of silly and will almost certainly cause PCs to act glaringly out of character.

Tormsskull
2008-07-09, 11:01 AM
One can indeed be roleplaying perfectly without ever actually saying anything 'in character'.


This is an interesting statement. I've always thought of roleplaying as 'First-Person'. You take on the role of the character, and act them out as if you were an actor on a stage playing a role.

Your statement would tell me that you think people can roleplay in 'Third-Person'.

To paint a picture, a character to me is a like a shell. You create the shell, mold it how you want, color it, etc, etc. Then, when it is done, you step inside the shell.

Using the same idea, a third-person roleplayer would never actually get inside the shell. They would pick the shell up and move it from place to place, but I can't help but think that the roleplaying experience would not be the same.

Maybe the level of attachment that a first-person roleplayer has to their character generates roleplaying, or encourages roleplaying, I couldn't say for sure, but it would seem to me that a third-person roleplayer would be detached from the experience.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-09, 12:38 PM
Secondly, in 3.5 by RAW, none of the social skills could convince anyone to actually do anything. All diplomacy did was change the target's 'attitude' toward you. It was still up to the DM and the specifics of the situation whether that changed their actions. Bluff merely checks whether someone believes your lies, which, IMO, is a necessary mechanic even if you always say every word that comes out of your character's mouth. If the DM has the NPC do exactly what the character wanted just because of a high diplomacy check, then he's the one guilty of not roleplaying, not the player who rolled the check.
Yes, you can indirectly describe what your character says in general terms. I've seen it in play, and it leads to a very unsatisfying game where nobody can become immersed in their characters.

You mentioned the L-Word as though only in LARPs is it necessary to speak as your character. However, any serious roleplaying has to include actual playing of the role and not just describing it.
The standard argument of "I'm not charming, but I want my character to be", falls apart once it gets to the point of "I say something witty" takes the place of actual character and nobody can actually experience this charming person.
What if you're dumb but you want to play a wizard, can you just say "I do something smart" every time there's a problem?

It's one of the main reasons why there's a system for combat: You can't reasonably act out

As for RAW 3.5 social skills: changing a dragon from hostile to friendly with a successful diplomacy check is BETTER than convincing him to do something.

Bluff is a necessary mechanic, that's why it's still in 4e.

Jayabalard
2008-07-09, 12:54 PM
First off, roleplaying does not mean one must say everything the character is saying, just as it is not required to describe exactly what your character is doing when he's, say, fighting someone. I didn't claim otherwise; it's not necessary to do that all the time, though some people enjoy it.


One can indeed be roleplaying perfectly without ever actually saying anything 'in character'. It would be unusual, but it would still be roleplaying. I disagree completely. If you NEVER step into the role, first person, then you are not roleplaying.

I'm not saying that you're wrong for enjoying that style of gaming, or that there is anything wrong with that type of gaming... but I am saying that you're mislabeling it.