Another Big Playtest Post from Michele Carter

[med stud]

I thought an intersting comment in the blog was



To me this seems to strongly imply that some healing may work on "Bloodied" status targets, while other healing (like a Warlord's inspirational healing) may not.

That's a very interesting thought. Maybe "Bloodied" is a descriptor of when real physical damage has been taken (other than bruises/scratches)? That way you wouldn't have to try to describe how good morale makes you conscious after going down.

 

[sidonunspa]

Long before I want to see aggro managment, I'd like to see the return of monster morale.

OMG Yes, funny I was talking about morale last night

 

[Imp]

You're trying to solve this problem in completely the wrong way. It's a player issue, not a rules issue. When speaking in character the players need to refrain from using any rules-only language such as 'hit points', 'armour class', 'fighter' and so forth.

New rules require new terms to describe them. You're putting a ban on new rules, which is effectively a ban on new editions, just cause your players can't roleplay.

Oh yap yap. I'm not putting a ban on anything yet, the books AREN'T THERE YET, I'm not here to proudly announce my abstention from 4th edition on the basis of a few vague blog posts, when I see the books, I'll decide if I want to play them. That said, I would be happier if the books did not make things harder by providing more terms of art for me to forbid. Cumulative, not binary.

 

[PeterWeller]

Again though, thats letting the paladin have the glory. Screw that. Until the fighter gets to be important out of combat, no one should be showing him up once initiative is rolled.

Eh, not really. I think I've been very clear that it would be a slight distinction (if such distinction even exists). It's not like I'm saying the fighter is only good at whack-a-kobold, and the paladin is only good at fighting demons and dragons and such; I'm just saying, a fighter might be at his best when you're fighting against multiple opponents, while a paladin might be at his best when fighting just one powerful opponent. No one is showing anyone else up; no one is getting the glory; there are just situations where one class might be (ever so slightly) better equipped than another.

 

[Stalker0]

Long before I want to see aggro managment, I'd like to see the return of monster morale.

Hungry critters do not fight to the death. (Although starving ones might.) Cowardly goblins should not fight to the last man like Leonides vs the Persians. There should be a difference between fighting fierce Orcs and cunning Gnolls. And Zombies are scary because they don't stop comming.

We might see this in 4e with the bloodied condition.

For example an entry for animals: "An animal typically runs from a fight once it reaches the bloodied condition, unless its protecting its young or is desperately hungry."

 

[Stalker0]

But that's the point. To me, there's no reason the class fluff should limit the class in the way it seemingly does. I don't understand why there shouldn't be room for pacts with various good-aligned creatures.

Completely agree. Come on guys, pretty much everyone agrees that alignment restrictions on core classes was a bad idea. Even the beacon of good paladin is now allowed for different alignment.

The warlock class seems fine to make a pact with a good diety or an evil devil. Yet all we hear about are the infernal pacts and the feral powers. Its a core class, it should be flexible. I'm sure lots of players want to sell their souls to the devil and then play the character whose trying to redeem himself. But there are plenty who just want good powers from a good diety and go kick butt with them!!

 

[JohnSnow]

But that's the point. To me, there's no reason the class fluff should limit the class in the way it seemingly does. I don't understand why there shouldn't be room for pacts with various good-aligned creatures.

Completely agree. Come on guys, pretty much everyone agrees that alignment restrictions on core classes was a bad idea. Even the beacon of good paladin is now allowed for different alignment.

The warlock class seems fine to make a pact with a good diety or an evil devil. Yet all we hear about are the infernal pacts and the feral powers. Its a core class, it should be flexible. I'm sure lots of players want to sell their souls to the devil and then play the character whose trying to redeem himself. But there are plenty who just want good powers from a good diety and go kick butt with them!!

Because "Good" creatures don't make pacts. It's not in their nature.

Good is altruistic, not selfish. A good creature that wanted to give you power would just "give it" to you, not cut some quid-pro-quo deal for it.

Frankly, I don't understand this theory that good entities would make these kind of deals. It's just not in their nature. The closest you'd get is creatures that are selfish but not overtly evil, like fey.

Altruism involves giving, not trading favors.

 

[WhatGravitas]

About the +1 sword problem: our group came up with a way of dealing with this stuff in character, we just said "this sword was enchanted once, this sword was enchanted twice"
I guess it sounds a bit better in german...

Let me guess, Ein-, zwei-, dreifache Verzauberung usw.? If yes, it could be translated as one-, two-, threefold enchantment. Which is nice, IMHO (but then, I'm usually playing with a German group, so YMMV).

Cheers, LT.

 

[Bishmon]

Because "Good" creatures don't make pacts. It's not in their nature.

Good is altruistic, not selfish. A good creature that wanted to give you power would just "give it" to you, not cut some quid-pro-quo deal for it.

I'm not even going to get into the real world and religious implications of that. This isn't the time or place. I'll just stick to D&D.

Look at the Shield of the Sun, an artifact in the DMG. It's a shield powered by incredible lawful good energy. In exchange for the powers granted, the bearer must undertake a quest once a year at the behest of a lawful good deity.

Even more simply, look at the 3e paladin. Should he cease being lawful good, nearly all of his class abilities are taken from him, presumably by the same source of divine power he originally got the powers from.

I just don't see the basis for your comments. In anything.

 

[JohnSnow]

I'm not even going to get into the real world and religious implications of that. This isn't the time or place. I'll just stick to D&D.

Look at the Shield of the Sun, an artifact in the DMG. It's a shield powered by incredible lawful good energy. In exchange for the powers granted, the bearer must undertake a quest once a year at the behest of a lawful good deity.

Even more simply, look at the 3e paladin. Should he cease being lawful good, nearly all of his class abilities are taken from him, presumably by the same source of divine power he originally got the powers from.

I just don't see the basis for your comments. In anything.

Well, I'll use a combination of D&D definitions and real-world ones.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, Core Rulebook I, v. 3.5, p. 104.

"Altruism - Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; Selflessness." - American Heritage Dictionary.

On the subject of Paladins...

"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good...loses all paladin spells and abilities." - 3.5 PHB, p. 44.

Loses. Not "has (them) taken away by her deity for failing to follow her oaths." After all, what is the deity getting from the Paladin?

As far as the Shield of the Sun, I interpret that as a way for "the powers that be" to make sure it hasn't fallen into the wrong hands. The quest is a test to consistently prove your worthiness.

Quite frankly I'm floored you can ascribe any motivation but selfish to a quid-pro-quo pact for powers.

And yes, I realize that in the real-world, "good" people make these kind of deals all the time. That doesn't mean that the deal itself isn't motivated by selfish concerns. Doing something for someone else and expecting them to pay you back is NOT selfless. Ergo, it's not good.

On the other hand, if you're one of those people who believes all acts are either "good" or "evil," then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.