MindWanderer
First Post
Yeah, but that would indeed provoke from both. I see the point now, and yeah, it's ugly, although it relies on an orthogonal flank rather than a diagonal one.
Excerpt: Archons (merged)
- Thread starter Fallen Seraph
- Start date
Fallen Seraph
First Post
Well, Demons do reside within the Abyss, which is within the Elemental Chaos. Also Demons once were Elemental beings, so I could see some Archons staying with their master even after it was turned into a Demon.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Sure it does. Go back and read the alignment descriptions again. Alignments in 4E are more about what you do, not how you do it.
You can have a chaotic evil character who is randomly and wildly destructive. But you can also have a character who is a meticulous, patient planner--and if he shares the self-centered views of CE, and if destruction is still his goal, he can still be CE.
(Of course, this has been true to some extent of prior editions, but it's more explicit here.)
ZetaStriker
First Post
Nice. I can easily see these two being threat even into low epic levels. The Rimehammers form a wall, their rough terrain and slowing OAs preventing the Defenders and Leaders from breaking through their lines. Meanwhile, the Hailscourges rain death upon the party, their allies resistances allowing them to maximize its radius and soften the entire party.
I especially love that the Rimehammers can literally make it impossible to shift. While shifting out of rough terrain might not take extra squares of movement, if you're sandwhiched between two of them, that doesn't matter in the slightest.
I especially love that the Rimehammers can literally make it impossible to shift. While shifting out of rough terrain might not take extra squares of movement, if you're sandwhiched between two of them, that doesn't matter in the slightest.
lutecius
Explorer
Yeah it may fit the new fluff. I still find it counterintuitive and messy.Fallen Seraph said:
And does everything in 4e have to be elemental? Angels, some devils, titans...
Then they should have called that aligmnent "destructive". It is not only misleading for those who played prior editions, but also for those who expect a chaotic creature to be, well... chaotic. As for being self-centered, they look more like dedicated servants without much sense of individuality.Mouseferatu said:
TwinBahamut
First Post
I still don't like the fact that these guys are called archons. Ignoring that, though, these guys are pretty solid Elementals. Ice bursts and icy ground auras look like they could be a lot of fun. I wonder what future archons will look like.
I am not sure what is up with the hatred for the four classic elements, though... If you want to make cool things like Lightning Archons and Ice Archons, that is perfectly fine, but there is no need to say that you have to give up the four classic elements entirely in order to have them. It honestly reads more like an excuse for something like an inability to come up with good ideas for Wind, Water, or Earth Archons (which should not be hard, since I can easily imagine ways you can make really interesting archons of those types). I also hope the idea of unbinding elements from the classic set isn't used an excuse to turn anything and everything under the sun into an "element". 3E Golems were bad enough (Gloom and Prismatic Golems really stepped over the line), and if someone repeats that mistake by trying to make a "Rope Archon" or "Slime Archon" then I will be severely disappointed. However, as long as they stick to reasonable definition of element (namely, a pure substance that can be found as a component of countless things), then I will be fine.
I am not sure what is up with the hatred for the four classic elements, though... If you want to make cool things like Lightning Archons and Ice Archons, that is perfectly fine, but there is no need to say that you have to give up the four classic elements entirely in order to have them. It honestly reads more like an excuse for something like an inability to come up with good ideas for Wind, Water, or Earth Archons (which should not be hard, since I can easily imagine ways you can make really interesting archons of those types). I also hope the idea of unbinding elements from the classic set isn't used an excuse to turn anything and everything under the sun into an "element". 3E Golems were bad enough (Gloom and Prismatic Golems really stepped over the line), and if someone repeats that mistake by trying to make a "Rope Archon" or "Slime Archon" then I will be severely disappointed. However, as long as they stick to reasonable definition of element (namely, a pure substance that can be found as a component of countless things), then I will be fine.
ForbidenMaster said:
Just a minor quibble. Rime is essentially rapidly frozen water droplets, so its another ice related word. Lightning Archon Stormhammer or the like would make more sense.
But ForbidenMaster make a good point here. It ain't exactly hard to drum up more archons.
The way I see it, this time around, WoTC is basically coming out and saying "We plan to publish more books with more archons in them' as opposed to in say in 3E, where you have the base demons/devils in the MM, and the numerous other types that appeared in the Fiendish Codices, other Monster Manuals, etc. It's the difference between them wearing their intention on their sleeve or not, that's all. But, however, the natural human reaction to what amounts to "But wait, there's more! Tune in at a later date!" is "But I want it nooooow!" Then, couple this with feelings of completionism (I -need- all the archons! Need them!) and you get the bitter reactions seen here.
Kinda pointless, if you ask me. Yeah, they're saving more for later. Is anyone really surprised? It's always been this way, and not only that, its this way with other companies, even ones outside the RPG industry. It's really like get offended by the fact that water is wet, to me.
hong said:
Of course, the big flaw here is that this only reinforces the much denied "Chaos = evil" theorem on how 4e alignment works. I thought you were arguing AGAINST that?
As for "useless symmetry," that's just a big fluff word that really doesn't mean anything. You could easily take ANYTHING and argue it as being "useless symmetry." Nobody says or uses it seriously*
*Now watch me be proven wrong!
