4th EDITION

Tharivious said:

Archons and Guardinals don't even exist at this point, and with the opinions of the WotC staffers as of Worlds and Monsters, never will.

Click to expand...

I thought they were making elemental-type archons -- didn't I see a stat-block and write-up somewhere for a "fire archon"? Unless you just mean archons as in the celestial-type. These are more of the "same name, totally different being", like what Eladrins are.

The Modrons were effectively dead thanks to 3E because someone "Thought they were too goofy" (not saying they weren't, but they still had history to them, and were far better examples of LN than the Formians or the Inevitables).

Click to expand...

I still mourn the loss of the modrons and the once-greatness of Planescape. Heck, what they did to the Planes was part of why I almost didn't even upgrade from 2nd Ed back in the day. haha. Not to mention codifying in the "Clueless" names for the fiends and Planes. Baatezu and Tanar'ri might be harder to say, but they sound so much more... unique and creative from a writers' point of view. And more sinister and evil. "devil" and "demon" just sound so ... generic. boring. dull. Everyone knows what they are, to the point of "ooh. big deal". or at least imo. *shrugs*

~~ KC

Yep, there are chaotic evil (apparently, anything elemental related is chaotic evil now if it's intelligence is past a certain level, at least from my look over the material) Ice and Fire archons, because WotC thought that a "cool name" like Archon was better used on something other than the exemplars from Mount Celestia. Also worth noting, is that those are the only single-element Elementals in the Monster Manual, because they felt the Fire/Air/Earth/Water elementals were too boring. Frankly, I find the elemental archons more boring than the old monoliths any day, considering that the main purpose of the monolithic-style elementals was to serve summoners, not as sapient masterminds. So instead, we get two types of slightly more intelligent monoliths that wear armour for some reason.

Go figure.

On a random nitpicky note:

Resh, leave WoW outta this, or so help me! *fist shake!*

4e is no way like WoW.

As for settings, the FR campaign setting book hasn't even came out yet, so I've hold my judgement til it does. As for old school FR, I ran a few campaigns in that setting and the main focus of any campaign should be the PCs. You're telling the story, they're the key characters of the stories, the NPCs are just guest stars that are making a cameo in your story.

Most of the time, half of the players won't even know who the NPC is, unless they're a certain drow with two scimitars with a alignment issue or a old sage from a little farming town that has a harem of seven silver haired ladies that he helped raised and had a little something something with.

The deities of the FR setting are pretty much like the Greek Gods of old, watch lots of Zena or the Adventure of Hercules for inspiration, and ya got the FR Pantheon pretty much.

There are tons of adventures and stories that can be told in the FR setting, despite the other group of adventurers running amok. Like Bard's Tale, The future of the town hung in the balance. And who was left to resist? Only a handful of unproven young Warriors, junior Magic Users, a couple of Bards barely old enough to drink, and some out of work Rogues. You are there. You are the leader of this ragtag group of freedom fighters. Luckily you have a Bard with you to sing your glories, if you survive.

________________________________________

As for the design philosophy behind some of the monsters. I understand the direction they went with. The elemental archons are pretty much the followers of the fallen Elder Elemental God of Evil (*cough, Greyhawk reference, cough*) or evil elemental princes of old lore. The reason why they're included in the monster manual and CE, is mainly because they're adversaries and they want to keep things simple. Compare to some of the more odd elemental monsters that had really bizarre ecologies and backgrounds (planescape monstrous compendium 2, and you understand what im talking about).

As for the other monsters, its up to you as the DM to make up their origins and fluff about them in my opinion, because whatever you make up will more likely than else be better than what is provided for you. The monster manual is pretty much a guideline, the rest is up for the DM to design for his setting or to modify if he/she purchases modules to run.

As for Eladrin being PCs, they're always been PC playable. 3e Savage Species/Planar's Handbook to 2e Warriors of Heaven. It should only irk DMs that prefer their setting to be Tolkien (they only want hobbits, pretty elves, scottish accent dwarves, tanis half-elven, 101 flavor human who is the dominate race of the campaign, travelosity gnome, and the questionable half-orc with its non-PG birth) compare to the DM that allows a adventuring party consisting of two dragon hatchlings, a half-dragon half-diamond golem mongrel, a trumpet archon, a whisper gnome, a planar displaced elf, and the 101 flavor human who always carries a towel with him and never panics.

And like any edition, what you don't like, you bring back and update for the setting. (examples include: all the 3e fansites out there of old settings) Or stick with the edition your happy with.

For technical DMs that like design, they're going to dissect it and take it apart and use what they like. For the campaign/follow the novels/diehard DM, they're going to wait until better story fluff is developed or develope their own story fluff.

If you still have your 4th edition books, I do hope that you take them back and get a refund. I also hope that the opposition to 4th edition doesn't let their shortsightedness and selfishness get in the way of new players coming to the genre and scaring them off with their fanatical and vehement enthusiasm against the updated 4E Realms and other components of 4th edition.

I dislike the high level NPCs who just sat there stagnant out of fear of the other high level NPCs (which is what I got mostly from their flavor text, and the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and the Player's Guide to Faerun), the only one I really liked was the guy from Undermountain just because he was crazy. I disliked the deities, for much of the same reasons and the more there are the more overlap you have and the more cumbersome the entire cosmology gets, with the removal of so many deities from there, it allows for more growth both in history and gameplay for the remaining deities. Now as far as the depth of the actual setting for Forgotten Realms, if it didn't rely as heavily as it does on Novels as it does to have depth and history, in my opinion, it would have made it more appealing since the story telling part (to give depth) is the job of the DM, the history could have (and was in part) written more in the actual setting books and the various other splat/accessory books for the setting. Now about that bad news, how's it bad?

I am also wondering how much of the changes to 4E realms will actually happen without having anything physical to hold and read with the release date sometime in August for the actual book reather than listening to speculation after speculation of what might be coming and what might not be coming in the near or distant future for any particular product until previews and the actual product are released. I could have missed articles relating to the 4E realms, I might have assumed that anything that is out before the actual product would just be speculation and what could be, an example of this would be the release of the rules and a few other paperback books released to tell people what might happen in 4th edition a few weeks before the actual release of the product.

Now as for 4E being a money grab, I'll also quote Ed.

Ed Greedwood said:

The cheap and easy answer to what I'd like to see from Realms fans is of course that you folks buy everything, in ever-increasing numbers, so that everyone ends up rich (uh, except your wallets), and TSR continues to publish the Realms with enthusiasm forever.

Click to expand...

That was the short version, this is a little bit more to what he wants from the Realms

Ed Greedwood said:

The real answer is that I'd like to go to my grave (preferably a long time from now) knowing the Realms will outlive me and carry on giving enjoyment to many people after I'm gone. I desire this not out of a deep need for immortality (I don't care if folks remember ME, just that they go on using the Realms), but to know that a creation intended purely to give joy is soldiering on...because that means an ongoing fellowship of shared joy, a Good Thing to brighten the lives of some folks, in a way that gives imaginations fire and workouts, not (for instance) being a fan of a sports team, where one just watches and pays money to do so, and can't really participate actively.

Click to expand...

That was just to be fair.

Could you site the source for that quote by Ed "Those aren't my gods", I have spent about nearly an hour in all of article searches, even went to wiki and D&D wiki without much luck, it would be nice to see if there is any more to that article, thanks in advnace.

Shifting Demographics, the article here within is interesting to say the least, it mentions the same opposition from 2E to 3E amoung other things

Tharivious said:

Unfortunately, WotC has made that impossible to do (especially as it concerns a free-form community like this), by committing so much of the old flavour text into hardlined rules and using the new edition to mangle one of the topselling settings in their catalog. This is the heart of the problem with the changes: In many cases, what used to be flavour has been turned into rules, and those rules are often contrary to the original flavour that has existed for up to 30 years. So, yes, the new edition will cause problems between existing players, and new players who only know 4E, because 4E players won't know what the hell players of old editions are talking about.

Click to expand...

Just to make sure, how and where do you mean they changed fluff into hard-lined rules? Besides the complete overhaul of how the general new world was created between the primordial forces of untamed elemental nature and the ordered gods and beings of the astral sea, with the new creation myth the monsters of older editions needed new beginnings as well with the abyss sitting at the center and bottom of the swirling chaos and the nine hells thrown else where in the astral sea.

----------

Now then, I will begin to wonder how long it will take for a few things to sink into everyone's skull. 4th Edition is D&D, a newer and more stream-lined D&D, but D&D just the same. With the new rule set, system changes, and the new creation myth behind the general setting with civilization being point's of light in a world of darkness, people will be afraid to take the plunge into the new edition's waters and test them out because they are so set in the ways of the old edition and want to call the new edition witches and have another Salem Witch trial happen, perhaps the new edition are heretics and the old guard wants to have a crusade/jihad against it, frankly I say "Bollocks to that!" What I have just wrote may or may not get your blood boiling, take it in measure and ask yourselves what makes Dungeons and Dragons, Dungeon and Dragons. Is it the edition that makes D&D? No, what makes D&D is the illusion of fantasy that everyone can get into after a long hard day of work, sitting around a table eating cold/warm pizza and drinking soda. It is having fun with a group of friends or strangers, being someone or thing that you are not and having (generally) a good time as you sit back and listen to the narration of the Dungeon Master behind his screen with suspense hanging in the air, the thrill of excitement, the dread of almost certain defeat, and the long lasting memories of a good time with friends or strangers who are now friends after one session of gameplay.

We all know that D&D is a fantasy Roleplaying Game, this means that the campaign settings, any of them are not D&D. We could argue that point if you'd like, but its a fact that a campaign setting does not make D&D, it helps with the story since it gives you a setting for which you can tell your story, it can give you characters/places with which to populate your with. With that said, if one does not like the new edition than stay in the old edition that you are most comfortable with (which is repeating what a few others have stated). Now as far as more flagrant disruptions and cries against 4th Edition, its like disrupting a movie, if you don't like it, why hang around? Is it so that you (those against 4E) can ruin the experience for anyone else?

Now if you still don't believe that 4E is not D&D, that means that any edition after 1E is not D&D, since every edition after would not keep to the original to a T, my arguement goes with this list: Specific Differences. The list is of course the differences both in rules and in the general outline of the game. I care more about the cohesion of rules to gameplay than fluff to gameplay, since fluff does not a d20 system make.

----------

Now to tackle this WoW issue, D&D is not WoW, that's completely wrong in so many respects. World of Warcraft is Dungeons and Dragons made online and interactive. Its based on the same principles of D&D, it is a game that bases itself around equipment, experience points, dungeons (and it even has dragons!), magic, and a fantasy setting. WoW has random encounters littering its world (they even respawn so you can farm to your hearts content), its every critter that can be attacked and every person that you can talk to in towns (yes, there can be noncombat random encounters). WoW has dungeons that players can form parties with and go crawling into, with rogues there to disable traps, paladins and clerics to heal the party, fighters to take damage and keep the enemies attention on them, as the mage/warlock/hunter pelts them from afar, in the end the party comes out on top and goes back to town to talk about their done deeds with their friends. (How does this not sound or resemble D&D?)

----------

What else can I include about 4th edition, I have yet to DM a session with 4E, still reading the rules on water and combat therein and referencing back to Stormwrack.

I am currently playing a Human Wizard, now level 2 who travels around with a Dwarven Paladin of Bahamut. We've faced many a Kobold together with two fire beetles and a stirge.

Our latest battle, at level 1 (the encounter brought us up to level 2) was against a 3rd level elite brute whom we called OJ (due to it being an Ochre Jelly, tastes just like marmalade). As combat ensued, it took the dwarven pally a little over 4 rounds of combat to succumb to the wounds inflicted by OJ, my wizard was hanging back and pounding the creature with Freezing Cloud, Icy Terrain, and Ray of Frost. It took it a few rounds and a lot of move actions to get close enough, but then with Thunderwave I moved it out of the way so I could rescue the dwarf with our last remaining potion.

The ensuing battle got even more confusing when another paladin rushed in and was summarily taken out of battle with two critical hits. In the end, our group won the battle and got a safe cave to sleep in for the night. We all had fun and still talk about the encounter.

I like the static (mostly anyways) defenses and how they simplified the saving throw and armor class system, since now all saves are made when a 10 or higher is rolled and failed when you roll below a 9, this gives you a 55% chance of success on saves with different abilities and items changing this number for better or worse. Fortitude (Str or Con), Reflex (Dex or Int), and Will (Wis or Cha) defenses are now more like an Armor Class with the higher values of two ability scores determining which one you use, not only that but with light armors or no armor at all a character can add either their Dex or their Int modifiers to the total value.

With Blast X, Burst X, its now easier to figure out which squares and how many squares are affected since you no longer count two diagnal moves as two squares (example of diagnal movement before 4E: 5, 10-15, 20, 25-30). Combat is now more stream-lined and much faster, more along the lines of how combat is in D&D miniatures.

Shasf, you are a bit confusing..in the beginning you say you hope everyone takes thier 4E books back. then towards the end you are defending 4th Edition..lol..anyways, i hope this post soon gets closed because i would very much like it to be closed since everyones opinion seems to be highly fanatical as the one before it.. ..

Infernal Scribe said:

As for the design philosophy behind some of the monsters. I understand the direction they went with. The elemental archons are pretty much the followers of the fallen Elder Elemental God of Evil (*cough, Greyhawk reference, cough*) or evil elemental princes of old lore. The reason why they're included in the monster manual and CE, is mainly because they're adversaries and they want to keep things simple. Compare to some of the more odd elemental monsters that had really bizarre ecologies and backgrounds (planescape monstrous compendium 2, and you understand what im talking about).

Click to expand...

Oh, I understand it, too. But what I don't like (and what bothers me) is the hypocrisy of "Elementals that are just walking walls of a single element are boring" turning into "Here are elemental archons that are walls of a single element wearing armour and are really cool". I don't even have a problem with the whole Tharizdun thing... in its context, I can even admit that I kind of dig it. I'm not big on the angle that everything needs to be adversary-ready for every sort of party, but that's a flaw in the thinking of the writers

Shasf said:

{Realms stuff}

Click to expand...

And you continue to miss the point. If you don't like the major aspects that made the setting what it was, then look for another setting. It's no different from the people that complain because they can't play their eight-armed, dragon-winged, avatar of heavy metal incarnate in the CRT when Sigil is right next door. The setting isn't for you - the ones that the setting is already suiting just fine shouldn't have to lose the setting that they've followed for decades as a result. WotC fail to understand that the changes they've made will only gain an infinitesimally small segment of the anti-Realms crowd while losing a far great part of the pro-Realms crowd. If they had taken a more thoughtful route, they'd have put all the effort that they did into mangling the Realms into its current state, and put it into a core setting that stood alone, rather than forcing its flavour on everything else that will be printed in 4E.

As far as doubting the changes, I don't have the time to explain how I've been watching them like a hawk since August, so I'll just link you to where others who have been doing the same have collected the confirmed changes:
Convenient FAQ at Gleemax. It covers everything confirmed thus far, including many spoilers. Unless you doubt what has been confirmed by WotC articles, novels, and staffers, in which case, I'm sorry to hear that. And this is just what's been confirmed, mind you - far, far more is expected based on the answers of writers such as Rich Baker in other threads.

Now as for 4E being a money grab, I'll also quote Ed.

Click to expand...

And? He wants to see the business thrive, just like anyone else would in his position. He also knows that the odds of the liscence ever returning to his hands are slim to none, and that even if it did, he'd be unable to publish on his own at this point. He knows which side his bread gets buttered on, and he always has.

Could you site the source for that quote by Ed "Those aren't my gods", I have spent about nearly an hour in all of article searches, even went to wiki and D&D wiki without much luck, it would be nice to see if there is any more to that article, thanks in advnace.

Click to expand...

It was part of an "Ask Ed" thread on Candlekeep last August/September, where Ed Greenwood was answering letters sent to him by his fans asking about the final events of A Grand History of the Realms (the Mystra/Shar/Cyric incident and the Sune/Tyr/Tymora/Helm/Ilmater debacle). I honestly have neither the time, energy, or motivation to dig through a site that I don't frequent for it, nor the bog that is the Gleemax forums for the initial 4E reaction threads in the Realms section. It was highly publicized there, however. If I stumble across the link (it might be kicking around somewhere), I'll get it forwarded to you somehow.

Just to make sure, how and where do you mean they changed fluff into hard-lined rules? Besides the complete overhaul of how the general new world was created between the primordial forces of untamed elemental nature and the ordered gods and beings of the astral sea, with the new creation myth the monsters of older editions needed new beginnings as well with the abyss sitting at the center and bottom of the swirling chaos and the nine hells thrown else where in the astral sea.

Click to expand...

I've addressed this already. The lengths to which they went were too far of a reach for what is meant to be the "generic default setting" when it means that it will then impose on every release of an existing setting to come after it. Evidence is already shown in the Realms of the cosmology shifting yet again, this time to suit the core setting, it's logical to expect it in every other setting as well. Even something as seemingly minor as the changes to demons and devils starts a ripple effect.

Now if you still don't believe that 4E is not D&D, that means that any edition after 1E is not D&D, since every edition after would not keep to the original to a T, my arguement goes with this list: Specific Differences. The list is of course the differences both in rules and in the general outline of the game. I care more about the cohesion of rules to gameplay than fluff to gameplay, since fluff does not a d20 system make.

Click to expand...

A d20 system, no; a d20 System is a generic set of rules that can apply to generic fantasy games, and therefore has no 30 years of publishing history establishing a context for the games it supports. Dungeons & Dragons, a game built on the backs of successful settings that have comprised a more than healthy amount of their sales, yes, yes the flavour does make a difference (hence why I refuse to use the term fluff - it implies that the flavour and context of the game is meaningless, empty filler, which it should never be seen as outside of pure hack and slash FPS style gaming). Even homebrew settings still had an understanding that "These are not necessarily the expected nature of things" if they diverted from what was printed.

Devoted fan-speak aside (witch hunts, crusade/jihad, and other inflammatory remarks - yes, clearly anyone who opposes 4E is a religious fanatic out to cleanse a region in the name of a holy war and a murderer that targets anyone the least bit different! We kick puppies too! Consider the weight of those comments before using them again, please - such exaggeration is uncalled for), you've cited a list of changes that shows nothing regarding flavour text, but only regarding the rules. So once again, I will say this:

I don't care about the new game's rules. They are not for me, as I have explained elsewhere. I do, however, care about consistency that should transcend editions of the rules - the flavour and the context of the game that no longer syncs up.

From 1E on to 3E, even as WotC tried to split up the cosmologies, there was consistency (Eberron aside - but that was an entirely new setting, and entitled to being distinct as it didn't force a time jump or a retcon on the existing players of a world with 30 years of publishing history). Metallic dragons were agents of good, instead of being made morally ambiguous just so they're more likely to be fought. There were distinct groups of outsiders that had diversity in their motivations instead of arbitrary "Those outsiders act this way, these outsiders act this way" that sounds like a Carlos Mencia skit about racial stereotypes.

While it may seem small and insignificant to you, this is the heart of the problem: Those inconsistencies will lead to problems in any environment where players of 1E-3E and players of 4E attempt to discuss the basics. They may seem innocuous, but think about how people react to characters that break stereotype in ISRP, and put that onto a scale where both sides claim canon. And I'm not just talking about ISRP, there, but in general - players of previous editions prior to 3E could still discuss and blend flavour text between editions with relative ease, because the names still meant the same thing, even when names changed, you could still recognize the conversion; not so with the changes to 4E.

And just to be extra clear: I don't care to hear about 4E's game play. It's irrelevant in the context of this thread, and in the context of ISRP where stats have never mattered.

henceforth..close the thread already..i started it,i want it closed..thanks

Thezdemeus said:

Shasf, you are a bit confusing..in the beginning you say you hope everyone takes thier 4E books back. then towards the end you are defending 4th Edition..lol..anyways, i hope this post soon gets closed because i would very much like it to be closed since everyones opinion seems to be highly fanatical as the one before it.. ..

Click to expand...

The first part means that "if you don't like the books, no need to have them". Also, on closing the thread, I'd ask why? I mean, 'hot' arguments or not, some really interesting things are being posted. So far it's a debate - which is good, 'cause, we all learn from a good debate. At least I am learning from both sides's posts