Warforged: MM vs Dragon Magazine

[Rechan]

Although having the tentacle as a normal attack with a bloodsucking & healing followup would be neat, too.

I think I'd tack that onto a brute dolgaunt. Although, given the amount of hitpoints a brute has and how much damage it dishes, giving it a vampiric power like that could be really, really vicious.

 

[Rechan]

4E is specifically avoiding making mechanics "fundamentally different" for no reason other than it "feels" right.

Hm? I thought the 4e design philosophy was "Exception-based"? Or is that monsters?

 

[Rechan]

A paragraph was referenced earlier, but I wanted to point everyone to Keith Baker's huge blog post on the Warforged.

 

[Blackeagle]

Spend feats, yes; give up something from your class, no, unless I'm forgetting something (entirely possible).

When you take a feat that gives you a racial power it replaces a class power, just like a multiclass feat (for the Warforged at least, I assume it will work the same way for other races)

 

[Spatula]

"Silly" isn't a logical argument.

Take it up with the 4e design team, seeing as I was specfically referring to their statements regarding layering armors.

 

[Mort_Q]

A paragraph was referenced earlier, but I wanted to point everyone to Keith Baker's huge blog post on the Warforged.

That was actually from a similar post at the WotC forums, not his blog...

... if you're talking about the one I put up.

Regardless, thanks!

 

[Regicide]

Ridiculous. The Monster Manual entry is specifically created for making NPCs. The Dragon edition is for players. Nothing is superceded at all.

Anyone else having trouble logging in to D&D Insider right now?

Since I'm not paying WotC's DnD tax for something I'd have to pay even more money to print out to actually use when I go gaming, yes. Yes I am. I do however have this handy hard bound book that is SUPPOSED to be the rules on the warforged. But since DDI is newer it superscedes the MM. Whee.

 

[Vempyre]

... that is SUPPOSED to be the rules on the warforged.

That's where opinions diverge. The MM entries are clearly for NPCs, and can be used for players if you really want to and don't have access to the proper player description that might exist elsewhere in another product.

So no, the MM entries are not design with players in mind. Even though they can be used by them if the DM allows it. Like all 4E NPCs, npc stuff is always less than player stuff, details-wise. That's the MM entries are as they are.

Edit : in short they not THE rules for warforged, they are the rules for NPC warforged. The rules for PC warforged are in DDI and the upcoming Eberron books. Remember, NPC and players follow a different set of rules in 4E and the MM is for NPCS. Thinking 3E-like about this will only put your brain on fire.

 

[ForumFerret]

Really, since the embeded components cost no premium to purchase, if you want your Warforged to have 'plating' by default, just buy him the appropriate armor and embed it during character creation. Then you don't even need to spend the feat on it. Burn that saved feat on Ritual Caster and Enchant Item so you can upgrade your own plating as you find stuff. Problem solved!

 

[Vempyre]

Here's the MM p.276 entry (in my own words because of copyright issues) to help you realize that more fully :

"/snip In general these traits and powers are provided to help DMs create NPCs. This information can also be used as GUIDELINES for creating PCs versions of these creatures. Note that these traits and powers are more in line with monster powers that PC powers."