Ecology of the Deathknight up

[Irda Ranger]

So again I ask, and this is really pertinent when the mag starts costing money, why am I paying for an ecologies article I would change everything in.

Which is why I haven't subscribed to Dragon in years. I emphatically don't want new rules every month, and 95% of the time I can write fluff better suited to my tastes in an afternoon. The value just isn't there for me.

Which is why I'll probably never use the DDI Gaming Table. Even if my entire group used Windows XP/Vista (which they don't), $9.95 a month is just a rip-off once you realize I get somewhere around 50 cents of value per month from Dungeon and Dragon (together).

 

[Reynard]

Okay, so you meant that there are two diametrically opposed schools of thought in the current fan base, and that this makes it count as a split fan base only if the designers side with one as opposed to the other?

No. What I am saying is that the announcement -- which amounts to "This ain't your daddy's D&D" -- and the impending release of 4E will galvanize many people into to basic opposing points of view: one side that thinks sacred cows should be slaughtered and there's little value in the even the "fluffy" traditions of D&D, and another that thinks feels that D&D has a specific quality or set of qualities to it, qualities that have been a part of every edition because that, more than how ability scores are rated or how saving throws are made, define D&D. So, unless 4E manages to reach the "non-gamer" audience (not likely) WotC's pool of potential customers just got cut in half.

People tend to forget that, whatever the changes in the core mechanics, 3E, at launch, was a back to basics approach that embraced 90% of D&D-isms. In fact, it returned a lot of D&D-isms to prominence after 2E abolished them or downplayed them. 3E devolped some problems over its life, and those problems are what are becoming 4E, but the fact was it was very close in spirit to AD&D (which, I think, is "more" D&D than OD&D to most people, as few are truly familiar with OD&D, as its had a reltively short publishing life and AD&D 1E lived a good long time, well into 2E's early years).

What I wonder is who is WotC listening to that makes them think the majority of D&D players or potential D&D players want all these changes -- both mechanical and fluff -- to Core D&D? It certainly wsn't me or anyone I game with (well, one guy, maybe, but he just informed me that his scout in my MWP DragonLance campaign can move at 80, so that should tell you something).

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Answering Cadfan from back on page 1

2) Long pointy ears are NOT "anime." Or if they are, there are a LOT of american artists that someone needs to get on the phone.

While I have seen Western artists who use those very long ears, far more appear to use a subtly pointed ear. I have yet to see a single elf image from Japanese art or works inspired by their style that DOESN'T use the uber-pointy spear ears. They're a defining feature of elves in anime and seems so in my limited experience of manga. Regardless of who draws it that's a style I simply don't like, and if I identify it with anime it's not because anime=bad it's because within anime the trait seems ubiquitous and defining.

 

[Wormwood]

I say this as a friend, so don't take it the wrong way ...

... but you out-fanboy F4NBOY.

No offense taken. Quite the opposite, in fact (since my enthusiasm for 4e is without any pretense or irony)

I maintain that my opinion of 4e is---and has always been---reasonable and considered. As the previews came, I found that the majority of them fell neatly into one of two categories:

1. Something I was already doing in my game.
2. Something I wished I had thought of myself.

Of course there are a few odd bits that I may disagree with---but my main concern at this point is that as the process continues the designers may yield to timidity and convention.

Come on MAY!

 

[Reaper Steve]

Hmmm...
On one hand, I love the article. Very creative undead.
On the other, I wish they would have used it for a new undead (a martial dude so obsessed with perfecting his weapon technique that his soul transfers to it) and done something else with the Death Knight.

I think the martial = Death Knight, arcane = Liche is the good analogy. Even better would be that a Death Knight is an undead Warlord (based on what the collective community has surmised about the martial leader role.)

I'm glad they sought to focus the Death Knight's powers, but I would like Death Knights wielding whatever magical weapon I want to give them. When the PCs fight the Death Knight for the Sword of Unimaginable Power, I want the Death Knight to be using it!

I can definitely see myself using this creature, just not as a Death Knight. Easy enough to call the Death Knight as written by a different name, but at the same time, had WotC done so then they would win twice:
1) cool new weapon-based undead ('Soulsword'?)
2) They could then use the new Warlord class to re-envision the Death Knight. THAT would be cool. Give it power over (and maybe ability to create) undead, some flavor of abyssal blast, and rules that would let it crush PCs in social challenges (due to its overwhelming presence), as well as melee.

In summary:
Good: awesome fluff describing what appears to be equally awesome mechanics
Not so good: Should be a new creature as this does not capture what i view as the essence of a Death Knight.

 

[Dire Bare]

I'm glad they sought to focus the Death Knight's powers, but I would like Death Knights wielding whatever magical weapon I want to give them. When the PCs fight the Death Knight for the Sword of Unimaginable Power, I want the Death Knight to be using it!

The "soul weapon" concept seems to be fluff only, with no rules component. There's nothing saying that a particular death knight's soul weapon isn't the Sword of Unimaginable Power that will eventually make its way into the PCs hands. The PCs just can't use it until they kill off said death knight.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

No. What I am saying is that the announcement -- which amounts to "This ain't your daddy's D&D" -- and the impending release of 4E will galvanize many people into to basic opposing points of view: one side that thinks sacred cows should be slaughtered and there's little value in the even the "fluffy" traditions of D&D, and another that thinks feels that D&D has a specific quality or set of qualities to it, qualities that have been a part of every edition because that, more than how ability scores are rated or how saving throws are made, define D&D. So, unless 4E manages to reach the "non-gamer" audience (not likely) WotC's pool of potential customers just got cut in half.

Again, I'm not seeing how this is different from the current setup. People buy D&D then throw out alignment, Vancian casting, the Great Wheel, and so on and so forth all the time. Why is it different for the blue team to get what they want in the next edition and the red team to need to reinsert alignment and toss refreshable abilities and the Astral Sea?

I'm glad they sought to focus the Death Knight's powers, but I would like Death Knights wielding whatever magical weapon I want to give them. When the PCs fight the Death Knight for the Sword of Unimaginable Power, I want the Death Knight to be using it!

Friend, what you're buying and what they're selling can pretty easily be one and the same. And it's been done (strikingly well) before. Consider reading up on the Soul Reaver.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Friend, what you're buying and what they're selling can pretty easily be one and the same. And it's been done (strikingly well) before. Consider reading up on the Soul Reaver.

Thanks for the link... I'll read up on it. But that's part of my point: it's a great enough concept to stand alone and let the Death Knight be something else.

But doesn't this still apply even after the Death Knight is destroyed?

However, no other creature can wield a death knight’s soul weapon without feeling despair, so few can withhold a soul weapon from a death knight indefinitely.

More specifically, I'd like to design a scenario/have a recurring villian that is a Death Knight who possesses and uses a weapon that doesn't have his soul in it.

 

[UndeadScottsman]

So again I ask, and this is really pertinent when the mag starts costing money, why am I paying for an ecologies article I would change everything in. I guess I just feel that this representation of the Deathknight is very trite and cliched. Someone who wants power and does a nasty ritual to become an undead immortal. I'm sorry, what's the difference between a Deathknight and a Lich again?

One is primarily a combat character who uses his soul as a weapon and once he's destroyed, he's gone for good. The other is primarily a magic character who uses his soul as a tool to ensure his immortality and will continue to come back unless you go the further step and track down and destroy his phylactory.

 

[JohnSnow]

Again, I'm not seeing how this is different from the current setup. People buy D&D then throw out alignment, Vancian casting, the Great Wheel, and so on and so forth all the time. Why is it different for the blue team to get what they want in the next edition and the red team to need to reinsert alignment and toss refreshable abilities and the Astral Sea?

That's easy. The difference is that the red team has never had to do that much work before. They also believe that the flavor which is being tossed is "what makes D&D D&D."

I think they're wrong, but then I am:

- a proud member of the blue team.