4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Imaro]

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.

Actually the lore and legends are about staking a vampire through the heart with a wooden stake. It's a specific mystical weakness and I already stated I could get behind those. It's when any average joe can stab a vampire "in the heart" with a butterknife and score a critical for more damage that I find it well, not to my tastes. No vampire lore supports that.

All of the examples you gave are specific weaknesses...how do you not see the difference between that and a monster being affected in a detrimental way by any smuck who can roll a 20? or sneak up behind him and stab him in one of those non-working organs to cause more damage. I would actually put more stock in this approach if the undead in D&D were the virus made me into it, not really undead but feral humans we've seen become so popular lately.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm relatively pro-4e but there are some things that seem too gamist to me.

Same here.

A rogue would suck at fighting undead but a wizard under high level would be useless against an iron golem.

Nope. I can beat one at mid-level. By myself. Provided, of course, that by "beat" you mean "bypass". The thing has an Int of 0, so I don't see it as a monster, but as an obstacle. Glitterdust is low level and gives you plenty of time to bypass one. If you can cast it two or three times you can blind it again on the way out of the dungeon/castle/whatever.

A warrior without a magical/silver weapon would be ineffective against a werewolf. I don't see a problem.

Less effective.

In my games, morality and ethics have consequences. It's important.

However, this has nothing to do with alignment. The character was acting badly, and so he was punished. This is not a surprise. He could have done the same thing if there were alignment in the game. (Even if he stated he was good, the DM tells him after a while that his alignment is changing.)

 

[Silvergriffon]

Here's my opinions on these things (in red). Looking at this list has made me realize that there are a lot of changes I am looking forward to.

1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN Good.
2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN Good.
3. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS Good.
4. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING Leaning towards good. But I may require players to explain how they are getting the extra damage in some cases.
5. FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION Good.
6. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS Good.
7. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING Good.
8. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS Good.
9. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP Unsure. I need to see more.
10. BASIC RACES CHANGES Neutral. Not a big deal for me as I can make whatever else I want.

 

[Imaro]

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.

See and IMHO, the undead in D&D wouldn't be affected by this. There has never been a precedent for D&D zombies going the whole destroying my head stops me thing. But, I will readily admit, this is a purely aesthetic thing and I don't feel there is a right or wrong answer. As a compromise I would still like ot see some of the more powerful undead with immunity to criticals and sneak attacks.

 

[Odysseus]

I'd agree with all of Spinachcat reply.
The only area that also bothers me is the racial changes for the forgotten realms, and how they will be handled. I'm certainly not keen on the changes they've made to races being applied to the realms. And I can't see them reversing the changes for the FRCS, so are they going to do something different?

 

[Wormwood]

1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN Losing levels sucks and is a bookkeeping chore. Good
2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN Simpler. Better. Good
3. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS Loooong overdue. +Good
4. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING Good.
5. FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION ++Good
6. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS ++Good
7. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING ++Good
8. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS Never cared for them. Let's try something new. Good
9. FOCUS ITEMS Flavorful. Neutral Optimistic.
10. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP They didn't go far enough---hell, even I managed to house rule the d20 skill list down to ten. But a step in the right direction, so +Good.
11. BASIC RACES CHANGES Enough with the Fellowship races, and I've only seen one gnome in ~30 years. Dragonborn and Tieflings (hate that name) are a breath of fresh air. ++Good.

I don't have a homebrew to protect, nor am I attached to D&D 'canon'---so the fluff changes are totally fine with me.

 

[Lackhand]

Actually the lore and legends are about staking a vampire through the heart with a wooden stake. It's a specific mystical weakness and I already stated I could get behind those. It's when any average joe can stab a vampire "in the heart" with a butterknife and score a critical for more damage that I find it well, not to my tastes. No vampire lore supports that.

Aaactually... Van Helsing and Harker off Dracula with a Bowie Knife to the heart (after cutting his throat, which also seems to have been a telling blow), in Bram Stokers' novel.

So I'd say there's some lore behind the point being weak. I know the sources you're referencing with the stake thing, but there's so much conflicting vampire lore that I'd say that's just one take on the vampire's weakness, and not the canonical one in D&D: how many of those vampires get bat form? Mist form? Wolf-o-kinesis? Hypnosis eyes? Spiderclimb? Level-draining fists?

 

[Imaro]

Aaactually... Van Helsing and Harker off Dracula with a Bowie Knife to the heart (after cutting his throat, which also seems to have been a telling blow), in Bram Stokers' novel.

So I'd say there's some lore behind the point being weak. I know the sources you're referencing with the stake thing, but there's so much conflicting vampire lore that I'd say that's just one take on the vampire's weakness, and not the canonical one in D&D: how many of those vampires get bat form? Mist form? Wolf-o-kinesis? Hypnosis eyes? Spiderclimb? Level-draining fists?

See, you know what I'd like to see...A way to customize undead so that yes they have a weakness, but it's not just to a general attack and not the same one for each. Something like White Wolf Antagonist book. Anyway, like I said earlier it is purely an asthetic thing and not something I will argue or try to convince others to my viewpoint about. For me general criticals and normal sneak attacks affecting the undead in general just don't feel right. But to each his own.

 

[Mercule]

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.

....

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.

If there is a single potential "feature" of 4E that would cause me to drop it in a heartbeat, this would be it.

Yes, everyone should have something to do, most of the time. No, they should not always have something equally effective to do. And, yes, there should be a few situations in which a given class will be totally out of their element and act as cheerleaders, look-outs, meat-shields, or just crazy desperate while one or two people get to have dedicated "hero-time".

The goal should be to have every class equally important over the course of a campaign or adventure. It should not be similar results with interchangeable methods.

 

[Lackhand]

See, you know what I'd like to see...A way to customize undead so that yes they have a weakness, but it's not just to a general attack and not the same one for each. Something like White Wolf Antagonist book. Anyway, like I said earlier it is purely an asthetic thing and not something I will argue or try to convince others to my viewpoint about. For me general criticals and normal sneak attacks affecting the undead in general just don't feel right. But to each his own.

I don't think it's just undead that could benefit from something like that