MM2 sneak peak / new warforged art

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by Kishin

Because the entire point is to provoke people. He knows every time, at least one someone will bite.

Originally Posted by doctorhook

Derren, the idea is that you don't need STATS for things you don't fight.

Anyway, why have you two got to be on about this in every thread? We know you don't like 4E, but why do you need to provoke?

Originally Posted by ferratus

Except Derren hasn't said anything (in this forum at least) that was in the slightest way positive for months. So I think to be that single minded you have to be here simply for trolling.

That's why he's on my ignore list.

Derren is participating in this thread.

You guys, on the other hand, are attacking him.

Stop it unless you want to be suspended.

[avin]

Originally Posted by doctorhook

Derren, the idea is that you don't need STATS for things you don't fight.

Anyway, why have you two got to be on about this in every thread? We know you don't like 4E, but why do you need to provoke?

You should read my posts more carefully before posting things such as this.

I run 3 fourth edition games.

I like 4E but I don't agree with some design decisions (elemental chaos, cartoonish art for frightening monsters, etc). By now I have been ignored at least for one people who thinks I'm just a 4E basher, which is really not the case

Back to the train: my point is I think there should be good monsters there. Why prevent a party of attacking a good creature by mistake or even en purpose?

[avin]

Originally Posted by vagabundo

If you run a 4e game is it really that big a deal to change the alignment for the dragons in your world to whatever you want it to be? I'd guess most 4e DM/player probably agree with the change or don't care either way. I know I agree.

I think the point is why Wotc doesn't put any GOOD creatures to fight? Why the civilized races described as monsters at MM, If my memory serves me, are described as renegades or thugs?

MM4E is "GOOOOOOOOOOD vs evil" and only masters who wan't to play some grey or dark campaigns need to adapt. If people care or don't care, like it or not, doesn't matter, that's a fact. Core 4E is points of light, good parties against evil dudes.

I dislike it and wish my three fourth edition games, my Dragon and Dungeon subscriber articles provided me some more mature motivations than "kill because it's evil", which ultimately has been.

Yes, this is probably an ALL EDITION D&D problem, but 4E pushes it a bit more

[OchreJelly]

Originally Posted by avin

Yes, this is probably an ALL EDITION D&D problem, but 4E pushes it a bit more

And this is because of two of 4E's stated design goals.
1) that the player characters are heroes battling against the darkness.
2) that the implied setting takes place in a traditional fantasy world.

Yes all these renegades in a POL setting will be traditional fantasy types like humans, elves dwarves etc. The heroes are protectors of these sorts. Asking for anything different is going to lead to frustration since WoTC are sticking to these goals. Sure, individual campaign settings may shake things up a bit, but ultimately you're going to get heroes battling monsters in published materials.

All of this is moot, really, considering that there are plenty of published stats for humans, elves, dwarves etc. if you want to run an evil campaign that battles these types of creatures there's really nothing stopping you.

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Originally Posted by avin

Why the civilized races described as monsters at MM, If my memory serves me, are described as renegades or thugs?

Your memory is not serving you correctly:

1) Human guard
2) Human rabble
3) Human lackey
4) Dragonborn soldier
5) Dragonborn gladiator
6) Dragonborn champion
7) Dwarf bolter
8) Dwarf hammerer
9) Elf archer
10) Elf scout
11) Halfling slinger
12) Halfling stout
13) Eladrin fey knight
14) Eladrin twilight incanter
15) Bralani of autumn winds
16) Ghaele of winter

Here's over a dozen examples of civilized humanoids that have no implied background as a renegade or thug. And these are just MM entries, there are many more examples in the Compendium.

Being Unaligned doesn't mean that you can't be a "good guy."

[Kishin]

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

Derren is participating in this thread.

You guys, on the other hand, are attacking him.

Stop it unless you want to be suspended.

With the utmost respect to you, PS, I disagree with the implied definition of 'participation' therein. I'm speaking with complete honesty when I say I simply cannot see how that line of commentary can be construed as anything short of thinly veiled edition war threadcrapping. So, with that said, I'll take that suspension on point of honor.

Folks, if you disagree with a moderator or an admin, the right thing to do is to drop them an email. Which is what I'm going to do with Kishin right now, since I'm around and PS isn't. ~ PCat

[Derren]

Originally Posted by OchreJelly

And this is because of two of 4E's stated design goals.
1) that the player characters are heroes battling against the darkness.
2) that the implied setting takes place in a traditional fantasy world.

Yes all these renegades in a POL setting will be traditional fantasy types like humans, elves dwarves etc. The heroes are protectors of these sorts. Asking for anything different is going to lead to frustration since WoTC are sticking to these goals. Sure, individual campaign settings may shake things up a bit, but ultimately you're going to get heroes battling monsters in published materials.

All of this is moot, really, considering that there are plenty of published stats for humans, elves, dwarves etc. if you want to run an evil campaign that battles these types of creatures there's really nothing stopping you.

I see several disadvantages with this approach.

1. D&D Is, and always was a toolbox, especially now as the default setting is very vague. A PCs vs. everyone approach might fit a PoL setting, but there are many different types of setting in which this wouldn't be appropriate.

2. It adds to the "4E = combat" impression. With its heavy empathize of tactical combat 4E creates this impression among many people, even those who like this system very much. This is especially "problematic" as 4Es stated goal is to attract new players, and what impression would they get of PnP RPGs when the world resembles a giant arena where its the PCs vs. everyone else not in a city wall?

3. If WotC, instead of making good monsters unaligned simply does not publish good monsters it makes it harder to do some scenarios. For example what if the PCs want to team up with an angelic host or other good "monsters"? The DM has to create the stats from the scratch. (Also that monsters are not really able to fight other monsters is also a problem. But that is a different issue). That would only be a problem in a few games, but as I said in 1, D&D is a toolbox and imo should support as many different styles as possible.

4. It breaks the D&D lore. For example metallic dragons have always been good. Sure, 4E is about slaying sacred cows, but that cow didn't needed to be killed. If someone wanted the PCs to fight against metallic dragons he would have simply have such a dragon attack the party.

That metallic dragons are unaligned isn't the real issue. That is easily houseruled. The problem is that this is just a symptom of the real problem which is the design decision of not having (many) good monsters as there is no need for them. Imo there is.
I simply see no advantage in making traditional good monsters unaligned, but several disadvantages. No huge, gamebraking disadvantages, but (small, annoying) disadvantages nonetheless.

[avin]

Originally Posted by Vyvyan Basterd

Being Unaligned doesn't mean that you can't be a "good guy."

I wrote a long answer but my connection timed out and was losr... *sigh*

TLDR: thanks for pointing the "normal" guys (my MM is gathering dust with compendium), but that doesn't change the fact they are unaligned, not good. Good is a force to stay forever safe in 4E core, you gotta fight evil. That's one of the aspects I despize on this edition, but that doesn't prevent me to take another route and play.

I just ignore some 4E assumptions I think are immature and keep my 4E games moving like there's no alignment around

[avin]

Originally Posted by Derren

I simply see no advantage in making traditional good monsters unaligned, but several disadvantages. No huge, gamebraking disadvantages, but (small, annoying) disadvantages nonetheless.

That's something I'd write in portuguese, but english's not my native language so I keep posting like some school boy

It's comfortable to DMs who just trow enemies because "they are evil".

It's not that comfortable to DMs who build motivations and situations where good people are mislead to fight, have to fight each other to survive, etc.

[Rechan]

So... anyone know when the next update is coming?

[Kwalish Kid]

Originally Posted by Derren

No, the idea is that you don't need things you don't fight. (What I call Diablo world design. If it moves, kill it).

If you're not going to fight it, why spend the time, effort, and space on including it in a book of things to fight? I mean, seriously, it's like some DMs out there aren't bright enough include a "monster" for interacting with the PCs unless it is also going to be involved in a fight.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by avin

That's something I'd write in portuguese, but english's not my native language so I keep posting like some school boy

It's comfortable to DMs who just trow enemies because "they are evil".

It's not that comfortable to DMs who build motivations and situations where good people are mislead to fight, have to fight each other to survive, etc.

But unaligned monsters are not evil. They haven't made any decision regarding evil or good. If you get into conflict with them, then you might find a way to bring them over to the good side, before you lose them to the bad side!

If for some reason good or lawful good characters come in conflict with each other without either side changing alignment, it should be far easier to find a compromise - you already have the common ground, believing in helping other people and not valuing yourself higher than others.

But you don't have that commmon ground with an unaligned creature. Negotiating a conflict with them is far harder, since you first need to find the common ground!

From the perspective of a good-aligned cleric - when you fight with an unaligned creature, the fight might be about its immortal soul!

[Kamikaze Midget]

Originally Posted by OchreJelly

I'll agree with you on much of this. Celestials in general (and I do consider the Solar iconic) have their place. Although you would have to admit that any edition of DND MMs have been strongly slanted toward things to kill.

And I do think it's totally fine to have that heavy slant. Most D&D encounters are about fighting monsters, and 4e, with it's focus on additional toys like minis, has a real incentive to focus on that. That's OK, but that shouldn't be the only thing out there.

Now you lost me. Why can't unaligned fey be mischievous fey? If anything that's the alignment that most fits the idea of unpredictable and possibly hazardous creatures. And Ents, to me, embody unaligned. You have a group of entities (no pun intended) that don't want to get involved with any part of the war that are mysterious and not necessarily friendly to humanity -- that require much convincing by charismatic hobbits to get involved. Doesn't sound like "good" to me. And good allied NPCs exist everywhere in published adventures. They just don't usually have stat blocks unless they can be recruited by the PCs.

Good points, but I'm not really arguing specifics. Those are just examples of things that 4e's focus on "only things you can kill!" in MM's makes problems for. They might not've been particularly good examples, but there are no NPC's in the MM, and there are no allies in the MM, and there are no tricksters in the MM -- there are no creatures where fighting isn't the answer. This is less about alignment and more about encounter diversity (though alignment plays into that).

Well to be fair, the design team was pretty up-front with their 4E tenant that the game was all about heroic good characters.

Which is part of the problem, I think. What my game of D&D is about should be up to ME to decide, not up to WotC to decide. That's why a breadth of challenges and creatures is important: I get to choose what to use and how to use it. Not them.

Originally Posted by Vyvyan Basterd

The new celestials make much more sense to me. They are servants of the gods.

OK, but they aren't "celestials" in the sense that I was using the term (as outsiders of pure Good like demons are outsiders of pure Evil). The game is missing that concept. That concept is interesting and useful to many gamers, in actual play, and that's not what 4e's angels are.

Originally Posted by Vyvyan Basterd

They can make for interesting non-combat encounters

And the concrete advice and stats for using, say, the new angels in a non-combat way is....where? Certainly not in the MM entry on them.

The adventures I have run so far from the "4E team" have had plenty of opportunities outside of combat and give some good advice and background to make those opportunities interesting.

Skill challenges and narrative assumptions are not up to the standards of what I need or am interested in, I'm afraid. It's sorely underwhelming.

The issue is that outside of combat things are boundless and trying to bind those ideas would require authors to cover infinite ground.

This is a strawman. There's no combat in Monopoly, but the board doesn't have to be infinite. There's no combat in dramatic movies, but they manage to not be infinite as well. It's entirely possible (and entirely enjoyable) to cover ground that doesn't have to do with stabbing things.

I will be kind of sad if the MM2 is just another statvomit like the MM1.

[Victim]

A lot of metallic dragons were good only by the alignment entry and not by described behavior. I seem to recall some of them kidnapping people for their amusement...

[Hellzon]

Originally Posted by Victim

A lot of metallic dragons were good only by the alignment entry and not by described behavior. I seem to recall some of them kidnapping people for their amusement...

Not only dragons. Lots of "good" creatures were good only because they had white hats.

Much like some PC:s, really.

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

They might not've been particularly good examples, but there are no NPC's in the MM, and there are no allies in the MM, there are no creatures where fighting isn't the answer.

Patently false statement. NPCs/Allies:
1) Human guard
2) Human rabble
3) Human lackey
4) Dragonborn soldier
5) Dragonborn gladiator
6) Dragonborn champion
7) Dwarf bolter
8) Dwarf hammerer
9) Elf archer
10) Elf scout
11) Halfling slinger
12) Halfling stout
13) Eladrin fey knight
14) Eladrin twilight incanter
15) Bralani of autumn winds
16) Ghaele of winter

Plus 17) Celestial charger

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

And the concrete advice and stats for using, say, the new angels in a non-combat way is....where? Certainly not in the MM entry on them.

The DMG.

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

Skill challenges and narrative assumptions are not up to the standards of what I need or am interested in, I'm afraid. It's sorely underwhelming.

Pot, kettle. I don't like throwing strawman claims out, but since you did. Diverting the topic to the quality of non-combat support when I was addressing claims of its absence...

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

This is a strawman. There's no combat in Monopoly, but the board doesn't have to be infinite. There's no combat in dramatic movies, but they manage to not be infinite as well. It's entirely possible (and entirely enjoyable) to cover ground that doesn't have to do with stabbing things.

So you want to be bound to limited and random actions in your non-combat D&D scenes like the limited and random actions available in Monopoly? I don't. Or maybe you'd like your non-combat D&D scenes bound to a script like a dramatic movie? Not me.

It is definitely possible and enjoyable to cover ground that doesn't have to do with stabbing things. The DMG and written adventures guide the DM in how to handle those scenes. But unlike Monopoly a D&D non-combat scene is driven by player actions, not a rigidly set form of rules. And unlike dramatic movies, players write the "script" as they go and the DM has to adapt. There is no way that an author can anticipate EVERY possible action a human being can devise in a non-combat situation, that is why those areas are left more open and the DM is given guidance.

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

I will be kind of sad if the MM2 is just another statvomit like the MM1.

While I admit there isn't alot of fluff in the MM1, there are still some hidden gems of creativity in the Lore section of each creature. So again your claims of "statvomit" are a gross (pun intended) overexaggeration, IMO, of what really exists within the book.

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Originally Posted by Derren

I see several disadvantages with this approach.

1. D&D Is, and always was a toolbox, especially now as the default setting is very vague. A PCs vs. everyone approach might fit a PoL setting, but there are many different types of setting in which this wouldn't be appropriate.

IMO, D&D is not a toolbox. It is not the Generic FRPG that people claim it is. You admit in your own point #4 that there is lore attached to the game. This wouldn't exist in a toolbox. d20 Modern was a toolbox. It had no implied setting. IMO that lack of implied setting is what made the game less popular (not to say that it is an inferior game, just not as popular as D&D). Being non-generic doesn't mean the system can't be used for other settings. Other setting merely require a setting guide that explains how the setting differs from the default.

Originally Posted by Derren

2. It adds to the "4E = combat" impression. With its heavy empathize of tactical combat 4E creates this impression among many people, even those who like this system very much. This is especially "problematic" as 4Es stated goal is to attract new players, and what impression would they get of PnP RPGs when the world resembles a giant arena where its the PCs vs. everyone else not in a city wall?

The MM and DMG provides stats and guidance for people "inside the city walls." NPCs, both good and evil are available for the DM to use as enemies and allies. The only people adding to the "4E = combat" impression are those who refuse to sway their opinion based on the experience of actual 4E DMs and Players or those who enjoy hack and slash campaigns (which can be fun if that's what you're into).

Originally Posted by Derren

3. If WotC, instead of making good monsters unaligned simply does not publish good monsters it makes it harder to do some scenarios. For example what if the PCs want to team up with an angelic host or other good "monsters"? The DM has to create the stats from the scratch. (Also that monsters are not really able to fight other monsters is also a problem. But that is a different issue). That would only be a problem in a few games, but as I said in 1, D&D is a toolbox and imo should support as many different styles as possible.

Why would the DM have to create from scratch? Take an Angel. Change Unaligned to Good or Lawful Good. There you go. Nowhere in the books does it state or imply that the DM can't choose the alignment of NPCs in the game. A creature being labelled as Unaligned just means that a typical member of that race is that alignment, individuals can vary. Nowhere is a creature labelled Always Good as in a prior edition. [I also think that the flavor of the new angels being servitors of their deity works well as Unaligned. They act in a manner befitting their master. They didn't choose to act that way, they are obligated to do so.]

Originally Posted by Derren

4. It breaks the D&D lore. For example metallic dragons have always been good. Sure, 4E is about slaying sacred cows, but that cow didn't needed to be killed. If someone wanted the PCs to fight against metallic dragons he would have simply have such a dragon attack the party.

The new alignment system doesn't equal the old. The kept some terms the same, that's all. Unaligned beings can be just as good in life as any Good creature in previous editions. And as others have pointed out, metallic dragons may have been color-coded to Good in previous edition, but their backgrounds didn't match their alignment very well.

Originally Posted by Derren

That metallic dragons are unaligned isn't the real issue. That is easily houseruled. The problem is that this is just a symptom of the real problem which is the design decision of not having (many) good monsters as there is no need for them. Imo there is.
I simply see no advantage in making traditional good monsters unaligned, but several disadvantages. No huge, gamebraking disadvantages, but (small, annoying) disadvantages nonetheless.

If it's just a small annoyance then I don't understand your vehemance on the subject.