4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[WarlockLord]

11. The wizard as boom-mage (excreable)
In 3e, a wizard had many, many interesting options. He could draw forth his opponent's nightmares and use them to attack his foes. He could summon otherworldly creatures to attack. He could ensnare his opponents in spiderwebs, craft illusory images, weaken them, curse them, change into a monster, turn them to toads, petrify them...the list is endless.
Now? Fire. Boom. A one-trick pony. How boring is that? Why must every wizard just throw bolts of flame? Wizards in fantasy stories are flexible with many different powers. Now? Boom. How interesting. A fireball. Again, and again, and again.

3e had wizards, 4e has "wizards"

12. Removal of Save-or-dies (mixed bag)
I'm mixed on this issue. On one hand, one-round fights are kind dumb. On the other, if a guy can wither your limbs with magic, how hard is it to sever an artery?

 

[Doug McCrae]

In 3e, a wizard had many, many interesting options. He could draw forth his opponent's nightmares and use them to attack his foes. He could summon otherworldly creatures to attack. He could ensnare his opponents in spiderwebs, craft illusory images, weaken them, curse them, change into a monster, turn them to toads, petrify them...the list is endless.

That's a bug, not a feature. One class shouldn't be able to do everything.

Now? Fire. Boom. A one-trick pony.

You don't know that. An article talked about siloing abilities such as phantom steed, making them available in addition to damage dealing, which indicates some utility will be still be there. We also know that wizards still have battlefield control, moving opponents around.

 

[Khuxan]

I didn't invent these creatures.

Ok. I'd never heard of a cloud of blood-sucking vapour, but my point still stands: It's not fair to use a creature that should be immune to all damage as an example of something that should be immune to sneak attack damage.

You know what I don't undrtsand about this logic...do these "weak points" damage the creature in a more significant way than striking it anywhere else? I mean honestly...what does a vampire need a heart for, how is hitting him here any different from his arm? Same for zombies and other undead. They aren't living beings, they are animate through magical energy...I can subscribe to the fact that a physical attack can hurt them, I can even subscribe to certain undead having a particular weakness (like a wooden stake through a vampire's heart) what I can't subscribe to is that hitting an undead in any place is more damaging than what it already takes from physical attacks upon any other part of it's body. Otherwise how is an animate corpse with no muscles (skeletons) moving? It isn't physically possible, yet you're telling me you can "sneak attack" him by damaging him physically.

It depends on the creatures. Zombies being vulnerable in the head is a pop culture staple. Stabbing a skeleton in the internal organs won't work, but severing the spine would be an appropriate use of sneak attack.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I'm relatively pro-4e but there are some things that seem too gamist to me. For 24yrs I have been involved in either playing (rarely) or DMing D&D from OD&D to 3.5e and have never seen a player have a problem when their character wasn't particularly effective against a certain kind of monster.

A rogue would suck at fighting undead but a wizard under high level would be useless against an iron golem. A warrior without a magical/silver weapon would be ineffective against a werewolf. I don't see a problem.

Is it really so unfun that a PC runs into a challenge that he cannot smite down. What if the rogue has to trick the golem? What if the warrior has to get his silver coins cast into a silver dagger when he discovers his foe is a werewolf? Every class should have its weaknesses and its strengths. If you want a character who will shine in every combat, play a combat orientated class. It is stupid that a rogue can find the weak spot on a vampire when they don't have weak points besides their hearts which unless punctured by a wooded stake isn't anymore vulnerable than anything else.

Oh maybe 4e is changig that as well. Maybe vampires should be more player kill-friendly. :\

This is the kind of stuff about 4e that bothers me. Everyone has to be equally effective most all the time in a combat situation. With all the "unfun" going around I am surprised that anyone played D&D at all for all the years between OD&D and 3e.

Its as up until now NO ONE played the game for the joy of the game. All those terrible, boring "dead levels" and no power-ups ever other level. How on earth did anyone manage to keep themselves interested in playing D&D? Ah ha, I have it. The players I knew loved role-playing gaming and loved playing their characters as part of an unfolding drama that they helped create. The fun was the joy of the game for the sake of the game. Everyone wanted a kickass character to be sure, but kickass meant more than just an assortment of whup-ass powers, kick ass meant a character who was tough, no doubt, but one that was memorable for what he or she accomplished in the context of the campaign.

The above is what bother me, in part, about 4e (3/3.5e too actually) but I am more behind it than not.

I have to admit that True20 and Runequest are becoming more and more my style. D&D seems to be becoming one gigantic action movie set in a dungeon. I know folks who played like that, but many of us did not and still don't. It seemed that in older editions of the game there was at least lip-service to versimilitude and a bone tossed in that direction from time to time. Now, the chant is "Its a Game why concern yourself with that?" Well if that's the case, just create a game where PC wrestle dragons with their bare hands, don't need weapons to decapitate a foe, where humans (without magic) fly at will, regenerate lost limbs, and where you can be as tall as my thumb and still have 20 strength. And in this game all the furniture is made of diamonds and clouds are made of cotton candy.

Why not its only a game?

Of course a DM could do this, but should nonsense be a part of the official rules and held up on a pedestal as necessary for fun?



Wyrmshadows

 

[Rechan]

You know what I don't undrtsand about this logic...do these "weak points" damage the creature in a more significant way than striking it anywhere else? I mean honestly...what does a vampire need a heart for, how is hitting him here any different from his arm? Same for zombies and other undead. They aren't living beings, they are animate through magical energy...I can subscribe to the fact that a physical attack can hurt them, I can even subscribe to certain undead having a particular weakness (like a wooden stake through a vampire's heart) what I can't subscribe to is that hitting an undead in any place is more damaging than what it already takes from physical attacks upon any other part of it's body. Otherwise how is an animate corpse with no muscles (skeletons) moving? It isn't physically possible, yet you're telling me you can "sneak attack" him by damaging him physically.

You know what I don't understand?

Attacking something with a different kind of material effects it differently. Why would using silver against a werewolf effect it when steel doesn't? Why hitting a fey with cold iron hurts it when adamantite doesn't? Why when you hit a demon or devil with (cold iron or silver, I forget which is which), it somehow hurts them. What GIVES? The elemental composition of various materials shouldn't effect carbon bodies differently!

 

[Wyrmshadows]

You know what I don't understand?

Attacking something with a different kind of material effects it differently. Why would using silver against a werewolf effect it when steel doesn't? Why hitting a fey with cold iron hurts it when adamantite doesn't? Why when you hit a demon or devil with (cold iron or silver, I forget which is which), it somehow hurts them. What GIVES? The elemental composition of various materials shouldn't effect physical bodies differently!

Oh c'mon this isn't chemistry.

Silver effects werewolves because it is the metal of the moon symbolically. Werewolves are a corruption that is tied to the cycles of the moon. Silver represents the moon's purity and therefore destroys the corruption the werewolf represents.

Cold iron is useful against fey because it represents industrialization and the seperation of man from the natural world. Cold iron represents progress and divorce from nature therefore it is bane to creatures as tied to nature as the fey.

In regards to vampires, the sun has in many cultures symbolized the life giving powers of nature as well as rebirth. It is the antithesis of what a vampire represents and therefore it is destructive to these creatures.

These old legends had their own internal consistancy and symbol logic that unfortunately many modern folks cannot understand. Read some Joseph Campbell and it will help you to understand underpinnings of various myths and their symbols. Jung's Mankind and His Symbols is a worthy read as well.

Too often they attempt to pseudo-science things up for modern consumption like making vampirism a retro-virus in the Blade movies when in fact they are just creating a new form of magic ie. science-magic, the use of science to create things that can only exist with involvement of magic. Yeah sure, a retrovirus that makes you into a superhuman killing machine that literally bursts into flame when exposed to the sun. Not sun sensitivity, literally turning to ash in seconds...that'll happen. :\

Its just magic for people without imaginations.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Rechan]

Oh c'mon this isn't chemistry.

I was responding in sarcasm to Imaro.

Imaro asked "I mean honestly...what does a vampire need a heart for, how is hitting him here any different from his arm?"

You know, because it's not like there's tons of lore and legends and pop culture references about staking a vampire in the heart or anything.

So I took it a step further and asked werewolves should be effected by silver.

 

[Hairfoot]

Its just magic for people without imaginations.

I loathe and despise sigs, but if I didn't, I'd sig all that. Well said.

If you want to get real-worldy about it, funnelweb spider venom affects primates but not dogs or cats. Phenylketonurics are at risk from artificial sweeteners. In a fantasy world, it's not hard to surmise that silver disrupts lycanthrope biology, or that cold iron damages the link between fey creatures and the netherworld.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Yes, it's not chemistry. It's sarcasm.



Imaro asked "mean honestly...what does a vampire need a heart for, how is hitting him here any different from his arm?"

You know, because it's not like there's tons of lore and legends and pop culture references about staking a vampire in the heart or anything.

So I took it a step further and asked why metals effect creatures different ways.

LOL

You got me.

Sometimes its hard to tell online whether someone is serious or not. Its that whole lack of vocal inflection, tonality and body language thing. Sorry about that.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I loathe and despise sigs, but if I didn't, I'd sig all that. Well said.

If you want to get real-worldy about it, funnelweb spider venom affects primates but not dogs or cats. Phenylketonurics are at risk from artificial sweeteners. In a fantasy world, it's not hard to surmise that silver disrupts lycanthrope biology, or that cold iron damages the link between fey creatures and the netherworld.

Hey if you ever convert to a sig user...feel free to quote me anytime.



Wyrmshadows