Figurines of Wondrous Power!

[frankthedm]

The obvious Hong quote applies here.

A real attack dog doesn't have to balanced in gaming system. Attack dogs created by magic items or summoning spells do.

Tell that to the mount rules.

 

[mattdm]

I'm perplexed by the fact that the text states that the conjured creatures lack basic attacks, while the stat block for the onyx dog lists the bite as a basic attack...

Presumably it's a typo in the stat block. (And hopefully just online, not in the book.)

On another note, I'm liking the "fuel with a healing surge" thing. It reinforces the explanation for daily limits on magic items that item based magic really uses some of one's own power.

 

[Dalamar]

Tell that to the mount rules.

Mount and rider share a single set of actions, including one immediate action between them. That, to me, seems more restricted than the "spend Minor action for each action the conjured creature takes".

Unless you mean the suggestion to give intelligent mounts their own set of actions, in which case it tells the DM to treat it as an extra character and increase the monsters in each encounter.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

The obvious Hong quote applies here.

A real attack dog doesn't have to balanced in gaming system. Attack dogs created by magic items or summoning spells do.

Or, in other words, don't try to picture the scene in your mind as you're playing it out, because it won't make sense. Just concentrate on it as a boardgame, since the rule is contrary to what you'd be imagining -- get rid of your imagination for the duration of the combat, for the sake of the balance.

Kind of an RPG equivalent of "lie still and think of the Empire."

This is the first time that I see the point of the 4th edition critics as being fully valid, of 4e as an immersion-destroying tactical boardgame.

 

[TerraDave]

On the dog: can it bark, or somehow communicate?

Its speed and perception would make it a good scout...but what could it tell you?

 

[drothgery]

Or, in other words, don't try to picture the scene in your mind as you're playing it out, because it won't make sense. Just concentrate on it as a boardgame, since the rule is contrary to what you'd be imagining -- get rid of your imagination for the duration of the combat, for the sake of the balance.

No, I'm saying that an animal produced or controlled by magic just might not act like one that does what it does due to training. Assuming that it must is thinking too hard about fantasy.

 

[Mercule]

Hmmm.. I seemed to have missed that detail. I was taking it as "you spend a minor action, and the creature gets its' three actions". If that's the case, what's the point of using the creature if your own personal attacks are more likely to be better?

I missed that, too. The difference is from "way cool" to "box of rocks". I am, once again, completely unimpressed with the 4e magic item rules and consider them the weakest part of the system.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I missed that, too. The difference is from "way cool" to "box of rocks". I am, once again, completely unimpressed with the 4e magic item rules and consider them the weakest part of the system.

Aw, come on. It's not that bad. You can get a lot of use from the dog, especially with that sweet immediate action that lets it attack anyone who attacks you (with proper positioning). It sticks around a full 8 hours every day (or until destroyed) which means you can even use it for noncombat stuff.

I'm planning to drop one into Keep on the Shadowfell and see what use my players make of it.

 

[Scribble]

Or, in other words, don't try to picture the scene in your mind as you're playing it out, because it won't make sense. Just concentrate on it as a boardgame, since the rule is contrary to what you'd be imagining -- get rid of your imagination for the duration of the combat, for the sake of the balance.

Kind of an RPG equivalent of "lie still and think of the Empire."

This is the first time that I see the point of the 4th edition critics as being fully valid, of 4e as an immersion-destroying tactical boardgame.

I think the idea is to seperate your mind/imagination from the rules.

You as a player have three "actions" you can take in a round. Standard, Move, Minor. Plus an additional Free action.

The character, in D&D land, simply does whatever he/she does. He doesn't see himself with X number of actions. he just does whatever.

It's similar to how you have to divorce the idea of "rounds" and "Initiative" from the action going on. It's not I do something, then sit there while you do something, all the action is happening at once... The game is just set up in rounds and initiative so that it's a playable game.

Similar theme here. Your character hasn't conciously decided to "give up" an action. You the player did. The character just did whatever you had him do that round.

 

[Mercule]

Aw, come on. It's not that bad. You can get a lot of use from the dog, especially with that sweet immediate action that lets it attack anyone who attacks you (with proper positioning). It sticks around a full 8 hours every day (or until destroyed) which means you can even use it for noncombat stuff.

I'm planning to drop one into Keep on the Shadowfell and see what use my players make of it.

Eh, maybe so. I think it'd be better to require, say, a move action to grant the critter all three actions (minor for one, move for all). I should probably see how it works in play, but the level of trade-off rubs me wrong to a point where I say "screw balance".

I still maintain the magic items is possibly the low point of 4e.