4th ED Questions

[Meadyaon]

Why did the Monster Manuals for 4th Ed have only the combats stats and other stats relate to fighting them but none of the physcial inform such what the monster look and other such that would help you out with running the monster?

Why where the angels changed from looking less like humanoids more like humanoid from the waist only? Why is the art work for the angel IMO terrible in 4th? Why did they make the evil deities have there own angels? Evil deities should should have fiends as their servants not angel unless they are fallen angels.

Why did they change the alignment system in 4th ed? The change to the alignment system in 4th basically IMHO got rid of the Yugoloth. That means the Yugoloth are now are now demons which they should not have very been in the first place.

Why did they change the Planes from something somewhat like the planes where in Planescape but with some changes in 3rd ed?

Why do some people think 4th ed was trying to MMO-like?

 

[RangerWickett]

The short answer: Because they thought it would make for a better game.

I personally think a lot of the changes had their hearts in the right place, but the player base generally did not like how much Wizards changed stuff.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why did the Monster Manuals for 4th Ed have only the combats stats and other stats relate to fighting them but none of the physcial inform such what the monster look and other such that would help you out with running the monster?

I think they actually gave tactics for a few monster types. (3.0 did the same thing, and even in 3.5 only complicated monster types like mind flayer got a lot of tactical support.) In part this is due to monster roles. You should be able to tell from a monster's role and powers what it's going to be doing. You generally use your encounter/recharge/daily (?) abilities first, and check the move/minor/triggered action powers for anything else you can do.

Soldiers "block" or force a squishier target like a wizard or warlock to stick to them. Brutes do high damage. Skirmishers slip past the defender and gank somebody in the rear rank. Lurkers deflect attacks and dish out high damage when "available". Artillery stay behind brutes or soldiers and dish out the hurt. Controllers freeze opponents in place, wall them off, blind them, force them into traps, etc. I find I only need tactics notes if I'm running a solo, and even then only if it's a controller or possibly a leader.

Why where the angels changed from looking less like humanoids more like humanoid from the waist only? Why is the art work for the angel IMO terrible in 4th?

That's completely subjective.

Why did they make the evil deities have there own angels? Evil deities should should have fiends as their servants not angel unless they are fallen angels.

Mainly because most campaigns don't have evil PCs, so having angels all good-aligned renders them useless as opponents. (They're effectively turned into companions, but the companion rules didn't exist when the MM1 was published.) Same reason why "good" dragons are instead neutral-aligned.

Note that alignment is just flavor text. You can always make angels good-only if you feel like it.

Why did they change the alignment system in 4th ed? The change to the alignment system in 4th basically IMHO got rid of the Yugoloth. That means the Yugoloth are now are now demons which they should not have very been in the first place.

They pretty much had to. Take a look at this description of Lawful Evil. This is flat-out superior than any description I've seen previously. I only agree with a few of the interpretations, but they're clearly spelled out, so I could competently debate why I like or dislike an interpretation.

TSR and WotC consistently failed to pull this off; turns out only the crowd-sourcing nature of TVTropes can begin to tackle this complex problem. Alignment created a problem when you had DMs and players disagreeing over alignment (which is something that's inevitable[/], as no two people ever agree on an alignment) and can result in what seems to be a DM punishing a PC for an "alignment infraction" (paladin being the worst example, but there's others out there).

Some alignments, such as lawful evil and chaotic neutral were so poorly explained that nobody actually knew what they stood for, which is why they're eliminated. There probably never needed to be 9 alignments.

I personally feel that in a 3.x campaign I would simply write "neutral" on my character sheet, even if I felt like playing a lawful good character, and have the DM determine what the actual alignment is. Why is that even on my character sheet when it's really a DM thing? Even better, just leave it blank and have the DM fill it in later, if they even notice!

Why did they change the Planes from something somewhat like the planes where in Planescape but with some changes in 3rd ed?

Like art, this is kind of subjective. Planar "rules" aren't really game rules. You can use whatever planar system you like. 4e won't interfere with this anymore than 3e interferes with 2e planes or 2e interferes with 3e or 4e planes. You won't suddenly render ritualists overpowered or underpowered if you split the elemental planes apart again, for instance.

Why do some people think 4th ed was trying to MMO-like?

Because of the roles, especially some of the mechanics (such as "marking"). Personally I'm glad of these mechanics, in part because prior to 4e, not having roles rendered numerous classes "unfocused".

Various 4e roles map, to a greater or lesser extent, onto MMO roles.

The defender maps onto the tank. In newer MMOs, tanks frequently "draw aggro" from enemies, causing the enemy to target the tank rather than a squishier target. Drawing aggro is necessary in a game with a computer, which would otherwise just target the squishiest opponent (as in Warcraft III) or the closest one. This isn't necessary in an RPG where a DM's brain is vastly superior to any CPU.

Defenders instead tend to mark (or do something similar) to their opponents. This gives the opponent an incentive to attack the defender, but it's not mind control. You can ignore the -2 penalty to hit (and any punishment that comes with the mark) if it's a better idea to kill that warlock standing behind the fighter that keeps sapping your hit points. This also gives defenders the ability to, well, defend their charges. In previous editions, only attacks of opportunity and "mook chivalry" let the fighter guard the squishies.

The controller resembles the "crowd control" role in MMO. Of course, most crowd control monsters just seem to slow or immobilize large numbers of opponents rather than breaking out the bag of tricks a wizard or invoker has available, but the similarity was enough to provoke outrage among some segments of the game player populace.

In addition, most classes have few abilities that go beyond their class role. As one example, wizards could be the best at dishing out damage (or instant death), dishing out status effects, and using a variety of spells (such as Greater Invisibility) to become unkillable - no more. Now wizards focus on control, which they're better at than pretty much anyone else, and aren't competing for the "king of damage" with the rogue.

Another instance, fighters (and rogues, and wizards) used to do the most damage, which created uncomfortable competitions between them. Now the fighter's role is clear. He's tougher than everyone else, and he uses those abilities to protect everyone else (instead of just trying to be more powerful by being unkillable). If you're looking for a tough guy who kicks a lot of butt but isn't so great at guarding others, the slayer class (a fighter subclass) probably matches your expectations better. Unfortunately the slayer wasn't in the PH1.

The cleric got "fixed" in a similar way - they were no longer weak wizards at low-levels (using spells like Cause Fear, which IIRC is also a wizard spell, or Hold Person), out-fighting the fighter at mid-levels with buffs and back to insta-kill wizards at higher level (but with more hit points, better AC, better saves, somewhat worse invincible spells)... instead the cleric's non-healing role is pretty specific. Nearly every cleric ability comes with a micro-buff, which means you're not wasting rounds buffing the party, but also the cleric isn't going to cast a trio of buff spells and outfight the fighter. (The cleric's healing also got far better, but that's not something you were discussing.)

 

[underfoot007ct]

Why did the Monster Manuals for 4th Ed have only the combats stats and other stats relate to fighting them but none of the physcial inform such what the monster look and other such that would help you out with running the monster?

Why where the angels changed from looking less like humanoids more like humanoid from the waist only? Why is the art work for the angel IMO terrible in 4th? Why did they make the evil deities have there own angels? Evil deities should should have fiends as their servants not angel unless they are fallen angels.

Why did they change the alignment system in 4th ed? The change to the alignment system in 4th basically IMHO got rid of the Yugoloth. That means the Yugoloth are now are now demons which they should not have very been in the first place.

Why did they change the Planes from something somewhat like the planes where in Planescape but with some changes in 3rd ed?

Why do some people think 4th ed was trying to MMO-like?

Did you just start playing 4e ?

 

[Meadyaon]

Here is explanation of CN alignment. i think a person with a CN alignment does what ever they want when they want to. The Alignment System - Chaotic Neutral

Why do we still have alignment? Also why do you think D&D probably never needed 9 alignments?

I love evil PC!

I have look at some of the books for 4th is all. I was turned off by the fact the MMs where just combat stats and where not what I thought the 4th MM should be. I like my description of monster to have a physical description of the monster and its race and stuff that previous edition MM had. I remember the Habitat/Society and Ecology section of the monsters found the MMs for 2nd. I felt stuff like that was missing from the 4th MMs. I feel stuff like can actually help the DMs when run the monsters

I also remember the first 2nd MM I bought was a package of three hole punched black and white monster sheets you put into a three ring binder that had color picture of the Displacer Beast, Beholder, and the UMber Hulk on the front of the three ring binder (http://www.waynesbooks.net/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=368682)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Here is explanation of CN alignment. i think a person with a CN alignment does what ever they want when they want to. The Alignment System - Chaotic Neutral

...

Chaotic neutrals can also be completely random and unpredictable. They may shift allegiances at a moment's notice

That would mean more if it had been written by TSR or WotC. I note that parts of that were. However, it just pastes the previous interpretations together, including/along with stuff like the quote above (completely random) which just results in disruptive gameplay. However, even with the good job done by TVTropes, I don't think CN is needed. Keep the random stuff out, unless you're playing a slaad.

Why do we still have alignment?

Why do we have gold coins?

Also why do you think D&D probably never needed 9 alignments?

Because WotC and TSR have never done a good job of explaining "law" (that should be called "order") versus chaos.

I love evil PC!

That's fine. Play evil or chaotic evil, fight good-aligned angels, clerics and paladins.

I have look at some of the books for 4th is all. I was turned off by the fact the MMs where just combat stats and where not what I thought the 4th MM should be. I like my description of monster to have a physical description of the monster and its race and stuff that previous edition MM had. I remember the Habitat/Society and Ecology section of the monsters found the MMs for 2nd. I felt stuff like that was missing from the 4th MMs. I feel stuff like can actually help the DMs when run the monsters

Take a look at the Monster Vault. It's much more modern, and comes with loads of flavor text. Also Threats to the Nentir Vale. See here: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (June and Beyond)

Here's a portion of Calastryx's combat tactics:

Three Heads, One Plan: Each of Calastryx's three heads came to an agreement long ago about how they would work together during combat. Preferring to take out the most obvious threat, Calastryx will go out of her way to ensure that her enemies are effectively terminated.

Most often, Calastryx sends the lesser forces serving her to the front to take the brunt of attacks while she uses her reach to slash, bite, and immolate foes. Fearing little because of her size and might, Calastryx slays allies with her blazing breath if it is tactically advantageous to do so (such as when few or none of her allies are in the area it affects).

Calastryx attempts to herd her enemies into a tight group so that each of her heads has an opportunity to unleash its breath. If an opponent survives such an onslaught, Calastryx stays back from it, using her reach to shred the offender. If any enemy tries to flee or gain a tactical advantage over her, Calastryx moves that enemy into a more vulnerable location with a bite attack.

If you're still having trouble with monster tactics, it just means you're not that familiar with the edition yet. It's not at all complicated. It helps to run a combat or two; it'll all make sense at that point.

 

[fba827]

i make up the habit and society information for monsters as i need. it's actually somewhat freeing to me to be able to use them as needed for any given campaign, rather than always feeling urged to use it a certain specific way that might not necessarily fit with a particular campaign setting.
yes i can always change descriptive information if it is published, but there is a little more social pressure from those at the table with you to keep things as published.
so, personally, is it helpful if it's there? "sometimes" But is it helpful when it's not there? "sometimes" so it is what you make of it and if it doesn't work for you, then you might want to consider another game system (or use previous edition habit and society information if you already have that information) with the stats.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why did the Monster Manuals for 4th Ed have only the combats stats and other stats relate to fighting them but none of the physcial inform such what the monster look and other such that would help you out with running the monster?

Because when it comes to the physical attributes a picture is worth a thousand words. And they all have colour pictures. They also generally have motivations, lore, and backstories.

Why where the angels changed from looking less like humanoids more like humanoid from the waist only?

More etheriel and otherworldly while at the same time more humanoid which better fits the myths. Win in both directions.

Why is the art work for the angel IMO terrible in 4th?

Pass.

Why did they make the evil deities have there own angels? Evil deities should should have fiends as their servants not angel unless they are fallen angels.

Because it differentiates angels from demons by behaviour. Angels are servants who carry out divine bidding. And when you see an angel, especially a dark angel you know one thing. just got real. Demons on the other hand are always looking out for number 1. Using an angel as a messenger means that the evil powers have messengers you can trust - and that's a far, far scarier thing than a demon who might be lying through its teeth about being sent by Lolth or Mugablyet.

Why did they change the alignment system in 4th ed?

Because the new one is much more likely to be shared between different people at the table. That you can do this for one character shows the problem in applying it to motivations.

The 4e alignment system has a central core of Good/Neutral/Evil based on how self-serving you are and how much you help people. Most people can instinctively grasp this in a way they can't e.g. Chaotic Good. But the Good/Neutral/Evil axis is all people working within the system and just a general marker. Then you have the two 'outsider' alignments. Lawful Good - the alignment of Paladins unwilling to compromise with the world. And Chaotic Evil that just wants to watch the world burn. Both these alignments are important and deserve to be put to one side rather than on the 3*3 grid and treated as just another alignment.

Why did they change the Planes from something somewhat like the planes where in Planescape but with some changes in 3rd ed?

Because the 4e planes are much more of an adventurers' cosmology. You start off on the Prime Material plane - with access to Faerie and some aspects of the Unseelie section of Faerie (the Feywild and the Shadowfell respectively). More stories, and a wider range of mythology that can be brought in.

Also the old Great Wheel encompasses everything and is intended to. The 4e cosmology has a Far Realm that is outside mortal ken. It has demons and primordials outside creation and wanting in to tear it down.

The Great Wheel cosmology is good for Planescape - a setting about philosophers with clubs. But honestly, who cares about e.g. Bytopia. Or for that matter the difference between Tartaerus, Hades, and Gehenna.

But the picking out of the Primordials' prison, the demons trying to break into and rend reality, and the Far Realm? Mmm, yes. The cosmology directs you to plots.

Why do some people think 4th ed was trying to MMO-like?

Because of the language used - a conscious decision was made to make the language more MMO like and less tabletop wargame like. Things like the defender and striker role (which had existed forever). And because everyone got to do cool things from their character sheet.

Basically you're finding things about 4e - the early monster manuals were designed to be reference books at the gaming table (there's as much fluff in them as the 2e MM, but a lot of it is contained in the knowledge boxes) - and organisation and tactics is implied by the monster selection. 2e reads better but I can flip to the 4e monster and find exactly what I want to know.

As for law vs chaos not being explained, the law vs chaos axis predates the good vs evil one. And is best described by an Islamic proverb "Better a thousand days of tyrrany than one day of anarchy."

Edit: I've just realised how to summarise the replacing of the Great Wheel. The very name "The Great Wheel" implies that the whole system is orderly - and D&D is a game about conflict. Even the Blood War is ultimately orderly and has rules - and the conflicts are always faction vs opposite faction. "Keeping the balance between good and evil" is a moral good in a Great Wheel setting.

The 4e cosmology is built on a conflict-laden core. Faerie overlapping with the material plane. The Primordials and demons forcing their way in. The Far Realm threatening to knock over everything. Demons trying to corrupt. And the PCs are there not as pawns in a chess game between Good and Evil and one between Law and Chaos, but they are instead the people on site with buckets to bail with and duct tape to try to patch the whole craft back together.

The Great Wheel rolls ever onwards. The World Axis is threatening to topple over.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

...

What's your first language?

 

[GreyICE]

Why do some people think 4th ed was trying to MMO-like?

I don't know. I think that they most likely haven't played the game very much if they think that. Perhaps some are merely internet trolls trying to start an edition war.