paradox42's crazy cosmology

Hey there Raithe the Dreamer! :)

Let me just clarify; I'm talking about the creation of opponents from the perspective of the DM/Game Designer in that you must create multiple such opponents. Not from the perspective of the Player who only needs to look after a single character (for most players).

Design of the game at a certain point felt less rewarding and more of a chore. Many of the shortcuts I created (maven and omnicompetent for example) were an attempt to reduce the grind (for myself and DMs).

See, as a DM, I want that complexity too. Generally, I only DM about half as much as I play, but my world is like a giant character to me, and I'm the sort that loves spending hours precisely statting up my deities and epic level NPCs. I also actually rather dislike the hard schism in 4E between monsters and characters in terms of mechanics. I prefer to play by the same rules as my players when I DM.

It might look boring but it plays brilliantly.

Other than a few snags, I always felt 3.x played brilliantly too, and thankfully, Pathfinder has addressed most of those snags. I'd rather have a game that is exciting mechanically and plays pretty well, and has room for varied playstyles and mechanical options, even with a few snags, than a game that *only* plays brilliantly.

I think WotC have and are addressing the class diversity issue with the 2nd and 3rd Players Handbooks. While I agree a lot of the mechanical fundamentals of the Classes are similar in 4E, the clearer definition of their roles is refreshing. Added to which the vastly superior balance of 4E both in terms of classes and combat.

2nd PHB, I'd disagree, though the 3rd one is finally starting to play within the design space, finally, with the Psion. I also despise classes being hard-wired with roles. It's nicer for newer players, I suppose, but I don't want to *have* to play my Fighter as a Defender. It should be perfectly viable to play a Ranger with a sword and shield that acts as the party's frontliner, or a Fighter with two big old longswords that's just a damage machine. One of the roles (battlefield controller) means almost nothing and has left the Wizard with an identity crisis, too. I don't think 4E's designers understood what battlefield control really was, since they eliminated most of the spells that actually got used for it.

They really needed it. Casters were far too dominant in 3E.

Yes, they were. The whole of the game didn't need to be neutered and reubuilt from the ground up to narrow that gap, either. Pathfinder's classes are much more balanced than the original 3.x ones. Fighters are absolute powerhouses again, and all melee characters have options available to them via feats that give the benefits of maneuvers without having to design sixty powers for each class.

Are the casters still ahead? In terms of raw power, yes. In some sense, they should be--a 20th-level wizard has mastered the fabric of reality. It's boring if the only thing he can do is do the same +10d6 (or whatever) that a Fighter can do with some high level maneuver. The balance is achieved in different ways. No one can match a Pathfinder Fighter in terms of raw damage output, but the Wizard's versatility is his strength. CoDzilla is a thing of the past, and while Clerics and Druids are still powerful, they can't do everything at once anymore.

Seems to me, what you are saying is that if you want diversity in 3E play a caster and if you want no diversity play any other class.

Well, if we're taking the whole of 3E into account here, you can play any number of classes, such as those from Tome of Battle, if you want a melee character with varied options. The nice thing about that book was it let players who like that style of play for their warriors have the option, while still leaving the simplified style for others.

In Pathfinder, combat maneuvers (bull rush, trip, disarm etc) are much easier to use and therefore provide a lot more options for non-casters at the table, and other feats let them diversify their combat styles as well.

4E is different in that all the classes have a measure of diversity existing somewhere in between the 3E caster - non-caster paradigm.

For the most part, the 4E classes don't feel diverse to me at all, with the recent exception of the Psion, and even that's still very much within 4Es narrow paradigm.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

paradox42

First Post
It's interesting how Gnostic a lot of computer/information technology people can sound ... there's a strong analogy between some of the transhumanist strands and the Gnostic notions of transcendence. The same idea of physical matter as something bad to be escaped, etc.
I've never gone for that idea that matter is "bad," though. To me, that's shortsighted and elitist, perhaps even pretentious or arrogant. Matter is a part of our existence: and since time is a dimension, that means that no matter how far we transcend, it always will be part of it. :) But we can certainly grow past/beyond our current limitations. It's just as (if not more) shortsighted to say that because we're limited, we always will be- or worse yet, always should be. Few things get my goat faster than a traditionalist arguing one of the variations of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Cool. Makes me think of E. E. Smith's "pure intellectuals" in the Skylark of Space series, but that's because I read too much early science fiction ;)

(In that series, there are six "orders" of energies; ordinary electromagnetic radiation is the first, cosmic rays [they didn't know that they were high-energy particles in the 20s] are the second, third and above are entirely hypothetical energies, with the highest order being pure thought; the "pure intellectuals" are beings entirely of thought that can 'transcend' humans into their own state.)
Never heard of that series before today. I may check that out in the near future, thanks.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if all this sort of speculation really is drawing on Jung's "collective unconscious" and therefore coming to us from some greater Entity in our own universe's future. Or one of our own futures, to be more precise. ;) It'd be pretty cool, in my view, if such a being really were trying to get us to comprehend it (and perhaps even join it) by telling us about itself that way.

It also occurs to me that in that Sci-Fi thread, we only had one race of superbeings mentioned who were Eternals (or better) beyond any possible doubt or argument: the Downstreamers. And having read the three Manifold entries in that series, I know that the best way to describe what those beings actually are, is to say that they're processes of pure information running on a universe-spanning computer at the (effective) end of time. So there again, the idea that Eternals are really pure information in their "true bodies" comes up.

So even the most basic Demiurge would have 120 + 26 x 6 + 1 x 36 = +312 divine bonus? Wow.

What Stage demiurge was it?
I put those two quotations together because- yep, DABBATIALDABAOTH would have come onto the game stage as a Stage I Demiurge with a +312 bonus. :D See, it was just waking up, so there was no reason to suggest it should be anything but the lowest possible Demiurge status.
 

I've never gone for that idea that matter is "bad," though. To me, that's shortsighted and elitist, perhaps even pretentious or arrogant.


I agree entirely; I was not saying that this is a good idea, merely that I see strong similarities. IMO this is one of the worst trends in Western thought, in fact.

But this is a bit off topic...
 

paradox42

First Post
Loot! ...er, Artifacts and Soul Objects

As has been mentioned in several other threads over the years, my campaign used different terminology for items than the "core" IH. There were several reasons for this, mostly stemming from the fact that my setting was designed from the days of 2nd Edition to allow PCs to (at least potentially) create artifacts; if you've read all of the above posts in this thread then you know already that I always did my utmost to preserve as much of my old games as possible when bringing the setting into new rules systems. I write this explanation now because it will be relevant to discussions about the powerful artifacts that shaped my game, as well as the setting it took place within.

So, to begin: in 2nd Edition the only official explanations which were offered for how items get created made it inordinately difficult and time-consuming to do so- it was essentially intended that PCs should not be given the ability to make items of their own, as far as I could tell. Characters were required to undertake quests for incredibly rare ingredients, up to and including physically impossible objects such as "essence of love" or the "heart of a cloud." Often, to construct even a fairly low-powered item such as Wings of Flying, multiple quests would be necessary. In addition, and this was the real killer, the Enchant An Item spell required the caster to actually sacrifice CON points to cast it and make an item- meaning that a PC would be making himself less healthy and more prone to die, and thus less suitable for adventuring in the first place, to make even one item. Finally, only Wizards had the Enchant spell- priests or other caster-types couldn't make items at all without a Wizard's help. Of course, all of this then begs the question: if these things are so hard to create, why the Hells would anybody actually go to the trouble of doing it? Clearly examples of such items already exist, so where did they come from? Something was badly missing.

3rd Edition solved the problem in what I considered an elegant and satisfying manner: rare ingredients were still assumed to be required, but it was all abstracted into a simple gp cost, which was directly tied to how powerful the spells were for making the item. Also, although a personal sacrifice was still necessary for the item crafting, it now cost XP rather than CON- which meant that not only was the cost much less severe in the short term (since most characters in a position to actually craft items would have lots of XP), but it wasn't a permanent loss, since more XP could be gained through adventuring. I wholeheartedly embraced the new approach and started figuring out how to translate my old items into the new edition's mechanics.

But I encountered a problem when it came to translating one of my critical 2nd Edition innovations into 3rd: the Enchant An Artifact spell. See, in 2nd Edition, I came up with rules to allow casting of 10th-level (and a few higher) spells; one of these was the artifact-creation spell. I was doing this translation before the Epic-Level Handbook was even a mote in WotC's collective eye, let alone announced, so I had to make my own system of beyond-9th-level spells and incorporate the artifact rules in with that somehow. That system of magic, which I called Ultramagic, was an integral part of my campaign, but it's not relevant here except in that I clearly couldn't make an Enchant An Artifact Ultraspell since the 3E paradigm had eliminated its lower-level antecedent. 3E item crafting was done through feats- so clearly I needed to make one.

But along with this a new snag reared its ugly head: artifacts were no longer a singular category! We now had Minor and Major Artifacts to deal with. What was the difference between these categories? Well, in the DMG, there apparently wasn't one, except that Minor Artifacts exist as multiple copies and Major ones don't. That was a most unsatisfying way to operate, for me, so I needed to come up with a proper definition between the categories- and not just that, but one which would let me decide how many new feats to make! My eventual solution was to define a "Minor" artifact as being simply an item that breaks the arbitrary limits of non-artifacts- that is, a +6 or better weapon, a wondrous item using a metamagicked 9th-level spell, and so on. A "Major" artifact would then be an item which really contained greater-than-mortal level power, in the form of an Ultraspell or psionic Ultrapower. I then created two new feats, Craft Minor and Craft Major Artifact, which would be "meta-feats" that affected how the character's other item crafting feats worked. That is, Craft Minor allows the character to break the limits of basic items, while Craft Major allows the character to put real earth-shaking powers into an item (like that cute little Nuke spell I've mentioned in other threads). Finally, every single Major Artifact- whether its crafter wants it to be or not- is sentient. They don't always (or even usually) communicate with people around them, even their own wielders, but they can use their own powers if it suits them, and they have a funny way of refusing to work or Just Going Away when their purposes call for such.

Enter the ELH. When that came along, it defined a new system for greater-than-9th-level spells which was radically different from my system of Ultraspells, and furthermore defined ways to create "epic" items which was fundamentally at odds with my own Craft Artifact feats. There was also the slight issue that the ELH actually defined a new category of items which were not artifacts (because PCs still couldn't make those) and yet were greater than normal items. I resolved the essential conflict by noting the congruence between these new "Epic Items" and my own definition of Minor Artifacts- basically, my Minor Artifacts were exactly what WotC was now calling an Epic item. So for my game, I postulated that the "Craft Epic [X]" feats were unnecessary, and that Craft Minor Artifact would still be used in the place of all of them; furthermore, because my rules for artifact crafting said that Minor Artifacts cost 5 times what a regular item cost, and Major Artifacts cost 10 times as much, I kept my cost multipliers in place instead of using the ELH ones- which suddenly meant that most of the ELH items cost only about half as much in my game. But I clearly needed a system, now, to deal with these newfangled Epic spells in items, since it would make no sense to allow Ultraspells to be made into items but not Epics (most of which were less powerful than most Ultraspells). Eventually I adapted the system of mitigating factors and reverse-engineered it based on spell-level equivalence, to come up with the new rules for putting Epic spells into items.

Now, enter the Immortal's Handbook. UK promised to eventually deliver rules for PCs crafting artifacts, and more importantly, put the rule in place to limit gods to only four items. Well, since I had my own system already, the artifact rules would clearly be irrelevant until I had them to compare with mine; of course, we never did see the rules he had in mind for 3.X, since that was to be part of Grimoire which was never released. But the second rule put a new snag into things- my own Epic NPCs and NPC deities already featured lots of items, in many cases already going way beyond the limit of 4. Clearly something had to change. Again.

The resolution to this conflict came when I saw the rules for Resonance- which among other things discuss items called "soul objects" which contain portions of the creator's power in the form of QP. Given my already-discussed pseudoscientific paradigm for what gods are, coupled with the fact that in UK's system the god's artifacts grow with the god as it gains DR and HD, it was immediately clear that the only possible way items could do that in my setting was if the "artifacts" were really part of the deity all along.

And so, the term "Soul Object" was redefined in my game to mean something quite different from what UK meant when using it: a Soul Object would specifically be an item that a deity crafted out of part of its own soul, which took the physical form of a Major Artifact with powers defined by the deity at creation time, and which would be capable (via the connection to the living deity) of growing and changing its power set as the deity itself grew and changed. Deities would be limited to having four Soul Objects, just as the IH specified, but there would be no limit on items or artifacts crafted in the usual manner with the preexisting rules. Furthermore, every deity would be capable of crafting Soul Objects for itself, but only those deities who had the standard feats would be capable of crafting items or artifacts that were not Soul Objects. Since Soul Objects were invariably Major Artifacts regardless of what powers they contained, they'd all be sentient and capable of independent action when necessary, but since they were literally part of the creator's own soul, they would never act against their creator under any circumstances.

So, to summarize the end result of all these years of cobbling stuff together: Magic Items < Minor Artifacts < Major Artifacts < Soul Objects. There's some overlap, power-wise, between the various categories, but over the long term that's how things work out. This was proven quite well in my divine game, wherein the majority of PCs after reaching a certain level of power never bothered with regular items, or even Minor Artifacts for that matter, but instead came to rely almost exclusively on their own Soul Objects and a few extra-powerful items (often Soul Objects of other gods or still greater beings) picked up on their travels.

Next post, now that I've explained the concept of Soul Objects in my game, I'll detail some of the most important ones that cropped up in the actual campaign. See, the most interesting part about Soul Objects or other artifacts is considering what happens when a being like the First One of Entropy crafts one. :)
 
Last edited:

Next post, now that I've explained the concept of Soul Objects in my game, I'll detail some of the most important ones that cropped up in the actual campaign. See, the most interesting part about Soul Objects or other artifacts is considering what happens when a being like the First One of Entropy crafts one. :)

Dare I hope for the full capabilities of the Initial Enabler? :p
 

Hiya mate! :)

paradox42 said:
I've never gone for that idea that matter is "bad," though. To me, that's shortsighted and elitist, perhaps even pretentious or arrogant.

Well matter in and of itself is not necessarily evil, but matter = energy and energy = power and power ultimately corrupts. Though I suppose you could add the caveat that its Matter + Sentience that ultimately leads to evil (not matter alone), and thus since elementals are matter with sentience they would be (more often than not) predisposed towards evil.
 

Howdy Raithe! :)

Raithe the Dreamer said:
See, as a DM, I want that complexity too. Generally, I only DM about half as much as I play, but my world is like a giant character to me, and I'm the sort that loves spending hours precisely statting up my deities and epic level NPCs. I also actually rather dislike the hard schism in 4E between monsters and characters in terms of mechanics. I prefer to play by the same rules as my players when I DM.

For me it just looks like a lot of complexity for its own sake rather than for any benefit to the fun.

Other than a few snags, I always felt 3.x played brilliantly too, and thankfully, Pathfinder has addressed most of those snags. I'd rather have a game that is exciting mechanically and plays pretty well, and has room for varied playstyles and mechanical options, even with a few snags, than a game that *only* plays brilliantly.

Having witnessed first hand the progress of D&D noobs (even if they were RPG gamers for some years) getting to grips with (low level) 3E showed me that the game has too many working parts,many of which are redundant.

These problems are only compounded at the high end of the game. Does 3E play well when die rolls are basically inconsequential...not sure it does.

2nd PHB, I'd disagree,

Well from what I have been told (and I'll state I haven't tried these classes myself) is that some of the primal classes (in particular the warden and shaman) play quite a bit differently in practice.

though the 3rd one is finally starting to play within the design space, finally, with the Psion. I also despise classes being hard-wired with roles. It's nicer for newer players, I suppose, but I don't want to *have* to play my Fighter as a Defender. It should be perfectly viable to play a Ranger with a sword and shield that acts as the party's frontliner, or a Fighter with two big old longswords that's just a damage machine. One of the roles (battlefield controller) means almost nothing and has left the Wizard with an identity crisis, too. I don't think 4E's designers understood what battlefield control really was, since they eliminated most of the spells that actually got used for it.

Not sure I understand the mentality of playing a class outside its given role...why not just play a different class, or multiclass if you want to spread yourself out a bit.

If you want to play a Fighter who is primarily a leader, just play a Warlord. If you want to play a Fighter with some leadership ability occasionally multiclass into Warlord.

Yes, they were. The whole of the game didn't need to be neutered and reubuilt from the ground up to narrow that gap, either. Pathfinder's classes are much more balanced than the original 3.x ones. Fighters are absolute powerhouses again, and all melee characters have options available to them via feats that give the benefits of maneuvers without having to design sixty powers for each class.

Well thats weird because the reports I have read suggest that all the classes were equally boosted so while fighters might be slightly more powerful than their 3E counterparts they are still as weak, relatively speaking, when compared to casters.

In the build I saw (upon Pathfinder's release) the Fighter looked about the same as a 3E Fighter (I think it was a Level 14 Pathfinder Fighter).

Are the casters still ahead? In terms of raw power, yes.

Ah.

In some sense, they should be--a 20th-level wizard has mastered the fabric of reality.

Should they though? If it takes x amount of time to become a great fighter or a great wizard, yet the great wizard is notably more powerful, why would people become fighters?

In 1E AD&D Wizards were pound for pound more powerful (after the first few levels). But this was tempered by notably higher EXP totals.

3E maintains the power disparity per level, but makes EXP required the same for all classes.

4E just reddresses that disparity.

It's boring if the only thing he can do is do the same +10d6 (or whatever) that a Fighter can do with some high level maneuver.

The difference being of course that the Wizard can generally attack multiple targets at once at range. Whereas the Fighter is generally attacking one target in melee.

The balance is achieved in different ways. No one can match a Pathfinder Fighter in terms of raw damage output, but the Wizard's versatility is his strength. CoDzilla is a thing of the past, and while Clerics and Druids are still powerful, they can't do everything at once anymore.

I'd be interested to see what the damage outputs are for Level 20 Pathfinder Wizards vs. Fighters...I mean don't they still even use iterative attack bonuses in Pathfinder?

Well, if we're taking the whole of 3E into account here, you can play any number of classes, such as those from Tome of Battle, if you want a melee character with varied options. The nice thing about that book was it let players who like that style of play for their warriors have the option, while still leaving the simplified style for others.

The Tome of Battle was of course a trial run for 4E martial class ideas. :)

In Pathfinder, combat maneuvers (bull rush, trip, disarm etc) are much easier to use and therefore provide a lot more options for non-casters at the table, and other feats let them diversify their combat styles as well.

I sort of like the 4E method that marries combat maneouvers to attacks.

For the most part, the 4E classes don't feel diverse to me at all, with the recent exception of the Psion, and even that's still very much within 4Es narrow paradigm.

Well I don't have the PHB 3 yet, I am very interested to see the Monk.
 

Howdy Raithe! :)

For me it just looks like a lot of complexity for its own sake rather than for any benefit to the fun.

Complexity is fun for some folks, though. I happen to be one of them that enjoy a more complex system because that means you can do more with it. I'm also a rather simulationist player, and I like having rules for weird situations and the like. 4E is a rather gamist system, and it's very much not my cup of tea.

Having witnessed first hand the progress of D&D noobs (even if they were RPG gamers for some years) getting to grips with (low level) 3E showed me that the game has too many working parts,many of which are redundant.
I think that's going to depend on the individual players. I've introduced several people to 3E that had no trouble getting used to it and a number that at the same time had trouble with it. It's just not a game for everyone (and nor should it be).

These problems are only compounded at the high end of the game. Does 3E play well when die rolls are basically inconsequential...not sure it does.

Die rolls only become inconsequential in the higher tiers of epic, from what I've seen. 3E's epic system by and large had a ton of problems, which I'll be the first to admit (and I'm sure paradox42 remembers many times where I went on a rant about it, too!).

Pathfinder doesn't have Epic rules yet (other than a brief section on how to go beyond 20 if you want to, which isn't really supported or intended to be balanced), but they've already suggested that they won't have an entirely open-ended approach and will probably have a level cap (of perhaps 30th or 36th--for the nostalgia factor--level).

It was partly the attempt at making 3E's epic system entirely open ended that caused so many problems for it, and WotC learned from that with 4E in capping the game at 30th.

4E's epic play has other problems that are different, and some that are similar (from everything I've seen, once you get into the Epic tier, characters are nigh unkillable, much as they were in 3E).

Well from what I have been told (and I'll state I haven't tried these classes myself) is that some of the primal classes (in particular the warden and shaman) play quite a bit differently in practice.
I had heard that about the shaman at least. But that's still only a handful of classes, and you have to buy extra books for it to start getting interesting. The base game itself is so narrow it's saddening for me personally.

Not sure I understand the mentality of playing a class outside its given role...why not just play a different class, or multiclass if you want to spread yourself out a bit.

If you want to play a Fighter who is primarily a leader, just play a Warlord. If you want to play a Fighter with some leadership ability occasionally multiclass into Warlord.
Classes should have roles, but they should be suitably generic. A fighter's role should mostly be "does damage with weapons," and how the character decides to do damage with those weapons should be their own choice. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a Fighter-based Archer, for instance, but in 4E, you have to be a Ranger to be an Archer. That means a wilderness focus for the character and other things.

Well thats weird because the reports I have read suggest that all the classes were equally boosted so while fighters might be slightly more powerful than their 3E counterparts they are still as weak, relatively speaking, when compared to casters.

In the build I saw (upon Pathfinder's release) the Fighter looked about the same as a 3E Fighter (I think it was a Level 14 Pathfinder Fighter).
Spell selections for casters was pretty heavily nerfed in places. Divine Power doesn't turn Clerics into Fighters with full casting anymore. Polymorph provides bonuses to stats instead of replacing them, so a Wizard can't just dump physical stats if he wants to focus on Polymorphing and wading into battle. The Fighter itself doesn't look much different from the 3.5 fighter, but nothing can really stand up to it in raw combat/damage anymore. With the Weapon Training ability, his iteratives become very likely to hit, and the newer Fighter only feats are quite nice. Fighters are also the only class that can use two Critical Feats at once (your criticals can gain additional effects like causing Bleed damage, Staggering, or Stunning the foe).

Should they though? If it takes x amount of time to become a great fighter or a great wizard, yet the great wizard is notably more powerful, why would people become fighters?
Because they don't have the Intelligence for it? D&D is about playing characters in a world, and not everyone is "born" with the Intelligence to be a Wizard, just as not everyone is "born" with the Strength to be a Fighter. Yes, Wizards still have a handful of show-stopper spells, and they rock at battlefield control. Save or Dies have largely been nerfed across the board, and a Wizard all on his own is going to be in trouble if he doesn't have his front-liners to let him be "god," (as Treantmonk likes to say).

The powers that Wizards and spellcasters in general possess comes from their versatility, and 7th-9th level spells, mostly. The spells jump up in power there, but they're never optimally used for damage.

The difference being of course that the Wizard can generally attack multiple targets at once at range. Whereas the Fighter is generally attacking one target in melee.
In theory, sure. The Wizards only going to be able to do so a few times per day if he's even remotely trying to diversify his spell selection, and a Wizard that does nothing but prepare blasting spells *should* be good at it. He's still not going to outpace, say, a Fighter-based bowman, generally, in terms of damage per round.

Statistically, Wizard damage is cut about in half over time (whether it's from Spell Resistance, successful saves, or misses on attack rolls), whereas Fighters are mostly contending with DR, which they can now bypass with enhancements to weapon alone again (a weapon counts as a special material if it has a high enough enhancement value). With Weapon Training, Fighters hit far more frequently with their attacks than they used to (their base full attack at 20th is at +25/+20/+15/+10 before enhancements and ability scores).

It's true that the Wizard has more AoE capabilities than a Fighter does, but there's not really much of a way around that. In return, the Fighter's much tougher, will generally have higher AC, and the Wizard can even make him better at everything he does. Spells are often most useful when using them to make the specialists do better at what they specialize in.

Haste, in a group with a few people making regular attacks, is almost always going to outdamage a Fireball for a Wizard.

I'd be interested to see what the damage outputs are for Level 20 Pathfinder Wizards vs. Fighters...I mean don't they still even use iterative attack bonuses in Pathfinder?
They do, yes. It has to do with a lot of things, but Fighters got some rather nice boosts. Power Attack adds a useful amount of damage without actually killing chance to hit that much (with a two-hander, it's -1/+3, with a one-hander -1/+2), and there's actually a ranged equivalent in core in the game. The Vital Strike chain even allows them to get a single attack roughly equivalent to a full attack as a Standard Action, allowing them to remain mobile (not *quite* there because they don't get to multiply Str bonuses and such with the attack).

It's honestly completely all right for a caster that focuses on AoE damage to shine in those situations, though. The Fighter gets to keep his damage per round whether it's an AoE situation or a single-target one. The Wizard's is generally going to drop off quite a bit.

The Tome of Battle was of course a trial run for 4E martial class ideas. :)
Correct. What was nice about it was that it was compatible with everything else we owned, and gave people more options. What 4E alone does is give people *only* the Tome of Battle option, which is a poor way to go.

I sort of like the 4E method that marries combat maneouvers to attacks.
I don't. I hate the dissociative nature of 4E's power system. Why can a Fighter only (for instance--I don't have a power to directly correlate here) Bull Rush or Trip once per encounter? That's ridiculous in my mind. I can put up with it to an extent, but when martial maneuvers start having Daily limits, I have to throw my hands up and walk away.
 
Last edited:

paradox42

First Post
Well matter in and of itself is not necessarily evil, but matter = energy and energy = power and power ultimately corrupts. Though I suppose you could add the caveat that its Matter + Sentience that ultimately leads to evil (not matter alone), and thus since elementals are matter with sentience they would be (more often than not) predisposed towards evil.
Now, now. No need to defend Gnosticism in my thread. I've already said what matter and energy are to me in the posts on physics. Platitudes like "power corrupts" are excuses, not explanations- I know what Evil really is, and power is just a derivative of it, not the actual "animal" (so to speak). The fact of the matter is, true Evil is a function of the universe (or more precisely, consequence of living in it) that's far more fundamental even than concepts like matter or energy. Matter and energy are tools, nothing more. The correct question is not whether a tool is inherently evil (no tool is, in fact) but rather how they get used. Evil comes, ultimately, from sapience that does not properly respect other sapience.
 

DamienWilacoth

First Post
Very cool thread, all around, paradox42. I know you've posted several things from your campaign in the custom powers/porfolios, so is there a chance that we can see the rest of the stuff you and your group came up with?
 

Remove ads

Top