Home » Forums » Out Of Character Talk » RPG Discussion » 4e I Has It, Is Garbage!

4e I Has It, Is Garbage!

264 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tue, 2008-07-01 13:15
(Reply to #251) #252
jareddm
jareddm's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-12-12
4e I Has It, Is Garbage!

When it comes to demiplanes, I never understood while they could only be formed in the ethereal in 2e and astral in 3e?

Wouldn't it make sense for demiplanes to be able to form in both, but to be made of different materials? Kind of like building your house from either cement or brick. Each one would work but produce different results.

Also, I feel that certain demiplanes fit more appropriately into one or the other, and lose flavor if they are all converted in one direction. The observatorium, for example, fits well in the astral but would seem out of place on the ethereal. On the other hand, the isle of black trees would make more sense sitting in the ethereal. Additionally, the mazes would benefit greatly if they were diverse enough to be spread across both planes.

Tue, 2008-07-01 16:18
(Reply to #252) #253
Felenthir Enthelion
Felenthir Enthelion's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-12-18
4e I Has It, Is Garbage!

Quote:
Wouldn't it make sense for demiplanes to be able to form in both, but to be made of different materials? Kind of like building your house from either cement or brick. Each one would work but produce different results.

Download Dragon Magazine # 353.
There is a big retcon of the Manual of the Planes. Demiplanes can exist in deep ethereal like in the Astral void. It depends form the specific demiplane.
They also say something I find absurd: you can cast gate to reach ANY demiplane... what an idiocy.

In 2nd ed demiplanes were only in the deep ethereal because that is the plane of potential and of creation. Astral isn't.

Tue, 2008-07-01 16:48
(Reply to #253) #254
Kobold Avenger
Kobold Avenger's picture
Offline
factotums
Joined: 2005-11-18
4e I Has It, Is Garbage!

'Felenthir Enthelion' wrote:
Quote:
Wouldn't it make sense for demiplanes to be able to form in both, but to be made of different materials? Kind of like building your house from either cement or brick. Each one would work but produce different results.

Download Dragon Magazine # 353.
There is a big retcon of the Manual of the Planes. Demiplanes can exist in deep ethereal like in the Astral void. It depends form the specific demiplane.


Actually the 3.5 Manual of Planes said that demiplanes can exist in any plane.

Tue, 2008-07-01 19:45
(Reply to #254) #255
ripvanwormer
ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
4e I Has It, Is Garbage!

'Felenthir Enthelion' wrote:
Cool Where did you find all this info about this hyperspace? And about the astral use of teleport similar to flight?

That's from the Dungeons & Dragons Immortals Set by Frank Mentzer. It was a gold-colored boxed set published in 1987 (the same year as the 1e Manual of the Planes) for the OD&D game.

Tue, 2008-07-01 19:48
(Reply to #255) #256
ripvanwormer
ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
4e I Has It, Is Garbage!

'Stix' wrote:
There's a map in the original boxed set (my image search skills fail me) that displays the Astral touching only the Prime and the Great Ring.

I've always taken that map to be metaphorical to some extent; it's hard to present the multi-dimensional planar relationships in two-dimensional form.

Tue, 2008-07-01 19:52
(Reply to #256) #257
ripvanwormer
ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
4e I Has It, Is Garbage!

'Jem' wrote:
I've always thought that map rocked.

I've also wondered what "Penumbra" means. Is that a term for the view one has approaching a crystal sphere, or is it some particular interesting place in the Multiverse?

Penumbra is an artificial world created by the illithids at the height of their empire. It's shaped like a disc with a hole in the center for the sun (making it a very, very, very large world, far larger than Larry Niven's Ringworld).

The crystal sphere in which it exists is known as Truespace.

It's detailed in Dawn of the Overmind by Bruce Cordell, which also contains some more info on the ether gaps from A Guide to the Ethereal Plane.

Wed, 2008-07-02 03:31
(Reply to #257) #258
Robyn Hood
Robyn Hood's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2008-06-23
Defence of the nine alignment system.

WOTC objection to nine alignments:

Quote:
1. A character’s alignment, chosen at character creation, can become a straight-jacket on that character’s actions. Consider the paladin we’ve all seen in play, “I had to attack the rogue, I’m lawful good,” or the rogue, “I’m chaotic good! That means sometimes I push you off the bridge; come on, don’t get mad!” or some similar sentiment when presented with a role-playing choice. For this reason, many characters stuck with neutral: a nebulous self-serving alignment (as was then defined), a “me first” mentality that didn’t necessarily promote party cohesion either.
I agree that the alignment system could become a straight-jacket to role playing. But this was not caused by having nine alignments. I think the biggest problem was silly interpretations of what being lawful or chaotic meant for the character. This can be mostly solved if player characters simply don't have to think about playing alignments. Some characters (for example those following gods or belonging to organisations) will have to think about following a code but only the GM should have to think about where that code fits into the alignment system.

Quote:
2. In 3rd Edition, choosing an alignment usually had the unfortunate mechanical repercussion of making the aligned player vulnerable to an opposing aligned attack of a foe. It’s not really ideal that being good made you more vulnerable to demonic attacks, for instance. Another reason some players stuck with the neutral alignment of previous editions.
If it is indeed true that it is not ideal for a good character to be hurt more by demonic attacks (and vice versa) then this can be fixed without making any changes to the number of alignments.

Quote:
3. The alignment system was tied to game cosmology, in ways that sometimes translated to physical effects that didn’t lead to fun gameplay.
I disagree. The way the system was tied to cosmology added a great deal of fun to the game. The thing I look for most of all in a story is poetic balance, and this is exactly what the Great Wheel provided.

Archdukechocula has made several points about why he dislikes alignment in general:

    1 Not all ideologies seem to fit into the alignment system:
'Archdukechocula' wrote:
To give an offhand example, you can't model something like nationalism very well with alignment. Nationalism can be a sort of contingent set of behaviors that are dependent upon who you are dealing with. You may lavish your own with goodness, but have no compunction about commiting heinous acts against your innocent enemies. But, in essence, these things are mutually exclusive with alignment. You have to start simplifying the concept in some way. "The guy isnt legitimately good. He is actually neutral evil, since he favors his own kind over all others." Ignoring the possibility that the person may very well be compassionate in one context and brutal in another, without there being any inherent contradiction in philosophy. In essence, our desire to label people evil or good is based mostly on our tendency to favor our own ideologies, and associate that with goodness. It is not 100% relativistic, but it is most certainly not so clearly delineated as D&D would make it out.

The alignment system itself does not have to be reduced to 'good characters never do evil' and 'evil characters never do good.' I would agree that alignment has many times been interpreted in a way that is too restrictive but this is not a fault of the system.
    2 It creates in internal contradiction in the Planescape setting:
'Archdukechocula' wrote:
Now, where this whole thing starts bothering me is actually with settings like Planescape. Planescapes central appeal is that beliefs are living breathing things that shape the universe.
Planescape reflects this relativism of belief halfway, by saying the shape of the world is just a reflection of thoughts, borrowing from James Derrida. But alignment challenges that very notion by saying that, contrary to this, there is an objective overlay to the universe, in the form of alignment, that can never be changed by belief.

I agree; there is a contradiction between saying that you shape the world because of your belief and that the world shapes you because of your belief. But that beliefs are living breathing things that shape the universe is not the central appeal of Planescape for me. Poetic balance is. I like the way alignment creates this balance so it is the other side of the contradiction that has to give in my game: For example, I do not give priests or faction members special powers merely because of their convictions.
    3 It imposes a value judgement on a world where characters (or players) may have different values:
'Archdukechocula' wrote:
With alignment, this conflict is non-existent. Alignment gives us a clear reference point for what is right and what is wrong, and therefore, the conflict is between Good and Evil according to specific person's interpretation of what that is (Which necessarily must be the DM, which means players who disagree are simply wrong)...

The fact that one end of the scale is labelled 'good' and the other 'evil', does indeed imply a judgement about which is better. But in fact, the labels are the only things that imply a value judgement, and labels can easily be changed. The games mechanics do not indicate which ideologies are better, only which ones are similar.
    4 It removes the mystery of discovering what is right and wrong:
'Archdukechocula' wrote:
To me, this very much limits how you can play around with these issues because on one level it replaces a legitimate spirtual and intellectual problem (how do we determine what is right and wrong, and what do we do in the face of that determination) with a quick and dirty answer in the form of alignment.

Without the labels, alignment tells you that there is a standard of something, and one end is opposed to the other, but it is does tell you that this standard has anything to do with right and wrong.
Even with the labels, it does not remove the grey areas. Knowing that there is a standard does not necessarily make it easy to know what that standard is. Those who inhabit Mt Celestia are not necessarily perfect in their pursuit of law and good; they are simply lawful enough and good enough. There is still room for debate about whose interpretation of lawfulness and goodness is better.
In practice the labels have no affect on games mechanics, so they should really be considered to come out of role playing: The upper planes are called 'good' and lower planes 'evil' because that is what the characters call them. An in game character could object to those labels and nothing in the games mechanics says that he is wrong.

There were plenty of particular alignment rules that I was not happy with. I do not like penalising alignment changes and I think some of the alignment restrictions on classes were arbitrary but I don't think that the nine alignment system itself was ever the problem.

You can play the game without alignments, but you would those the symmetry of the Great Wheel. WOTC call it 'needless symmetry'. Yes, you can cut interesting things out of a story because a story doesn't need to be interesting, but it's more fun when the interesting things are left in.

Wed, 2008-07-02 13:25
(Reply to #258) #259
Anime Fan
Anime Fan's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-06-13
3E/4E Manual of the Planes

The 3rd Edition Manual of the Planes did leave out most of the Elemental sub-planes (except for rules for a "Plane of Cold", AKA the Elemental Plane of Ice), but provided rules for building such planes if you just had to have them in your game. 4E Manual of the Planes may do the same, but most of these planes can be simulated by just using the Planescape description and providing appropriate enviromental damage for the plane in question (i.e. unprotected characters on the Plane of Fire suffer x amount of Fire damage per round while on the plane, and the Positive and Negative Energy planes can use Radiant and Necrotic damage to simulate the effects of the now-defunct positive and negative energies (undead hurt by Radiant, healed by Necrotic, I guess, and reverse for living beings!)

Fri, 2008-07-11 05:08
#260
Calmar
Calmar's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-06-07
I think especially in

I think especially in Planescape there can be big differences between the outlooks of persons who technically share the 'same' alignment.

__________________

"La la la, I'm a girl, I'm a pretty little girl!"

--Bel the Pit Fiend, Lord of the First (in a quiet hour of privacy)

Thu, 2008-07-31 04:30
#261
Zimrazim
Zimrazim's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2007-01-14
For those who actually 1)

For those who actually 1) bought 4e, 2) have been playing 4e, what do
you think of 4e after playing several games/sessions with it?

__________________

BoGr Guide to Missile Combat:
1) Equip a bow or crossbow.
2) Roll a natural 1 on d20.
3) ?????
4) Profit!

Fri, 2008-08-01 03:04
(Reply to #261) #262
Dunamin
Dunamin's picture
Offline
Factor
Joined: 2006-06-13
Zimrazim wrote:For those

Zimrazim wrote:
For those who actually 1) bought 4e, 2) have been playing 4e, what do you think of 4e after playing several games/sessions with it?

Overall, my opinion is mildly positive, though there are some clear strong and weak points. A few things off the top of my head:

Pros: The mechanical framework feels solid and reliable. Classes are fun and flexible - warriors can make a diverse number of martial tricks (some of which are influenced by which weapon you wield), wizards have an assortment of minor spells they always can cast, and clerics are not tied down doing nothing but healing allies. All classes are much more self-reliant. Disease is interesting with a track of stages you go through as you get closer or farther from recovery. DMing is much more manageable and less time-consuming. Less reliance on magic items.

Cons: Little to no flavour on monsters. I use my trusty 2nd Ed AD&D Monstrous Manual to consult on natural habitats and ecology of critters, but the 4E MM only gives a few lines to explain what the creature is about. Combat progression is very narrowed into depletion of hit points - sure you can dominate, disarm, and put opponents to sleep, but in the end it usually comes down to bringing your foe's hp down before yours.

Sat, 2008-08-02 15:45
#263
Evil
Evil's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2005-11-12
I preordered my DnD 4th ed.

I preordered my DnD 4th ed. core rulebook set. But since I live in Turkey, and since I was in Morocco for working for 40 days, I could only skim through the books yesterday.

 I'm not disappointed, because I didn't have very high expectations from the start. As soon as I read worlds and monsters and races and classes, I knew I was getting into a shallow game. Reading the rules did not change my idea at all. 

 The whole feel of the system make 3.5 look proud. Orcus appears in the monster manual. I understand and approve you on adding high to epic level monsters to the monster manual. But orcus is not a monster. It is a driving force behind the setting. I always hated dnd 3.5 filling pages upon pages with needles skills and abilities for every damn creature in the game, every npc, every encounter. It was a waste of paper because somethings should be left to the DM. 4th ed scorned at this too, but what they did was not stop giving stats for everything, but instead cut down the stat block of every creature to its combat stats.This in my eyes means that now every creature except the pcs is just a piece of flesh to chop away.

Also, were there really so many creatures with names like "sth+sth" or "sth+averb" or "randomverb"? I don't remember sorrowsworn, and I don't care. almost every other creature in the game seems enshrouded in flames. If its not flames, its shadows. If its not made of magma, its made of ice or shadow. I'm not saying anything about lamia. Well at least the art looks fine. 

Dragonborn (another "sth+averb" name) is not such a bad idea. In a way they are like kobolds, but *bigger* and *better*. "You can play a dragonborn if you want to look like a dragon." Well. Where are my wings? Again, idea: not so bad. Representation: not so good.

Eladrin. I don't see why we need them. We have elves, right? Just make them another subtype of elves. Call them fey-elves. Failing that, create a fey race that doesn't look so much like elves and give them another name.

I don't like warlord because its like eladrin: too similar to another thing and too bland.  

I will not talk about the planes, it is not good and we all know it. It can be altered to look better though. It just needs a lot of work.

I couldn't play test the game so I can't speak about the rules. I will miss the old spell casting system, though new PC advancement has some merits too. Combat does seem improved by the mechanics, but a little too dependant on the tiles and minis. I leave this to players.

Art is good 90% of the time. It should be, this is dnd. Also this is the 4th ed so every female looks hot. Even dwarfs. Seriously.

I admit that I don't regret getting this set because I ordered it for my club and we divided the price betwwen us. I will put this to the club library and hopethat somebody puts it to good use. Because I won't.

Mon, 2008-08-04 06:17
(Reply to #263) #264
HeavenShallBurn
HeavenShallBurn's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2008-04-09
Back in October of last year

Back in October of last year somebody on EN World created a macro that created monster and martial maneuver names that might as well have come right out of the 4e core.  I think that's probably pretty accurate far as naming goes.  They probably have a database with tagged and sorted nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc that have been deemed appropriate by marketing and they run them through a filtered random generator when naming various spells, powers, creatures, etc.

Planescape, Dungeons & Dragons, their logos, Wizards of the Coast, and the Wizards of the Coast logo are ©2008, Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro Inc. and used with permission.