Fomorians article on DDI

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think he meant that 4E "hardwires" a lot of these assumptions into the game mechanics. For example, I'm certain that the Fomorians in MM reflects the "fluff" from this article in the game mechanics ('Evil Eye', 'the Curse', 'Summon Dryad Minions') and if you choose to ignore the "fluff" you *also* need to adjust the mechanics. Which is the same as you've got with the magical 'traditions' of the wizard class -- if you don't want Golden Wyverns et al. in your game, you need to rewrite the whole class plus a plethora of Feats.

All in all I'd say that 4E makes a lot of assumptions on the DM's behalf, and all of this "fluff" is more than just assumptions. Therefore, in my opinion it may be far easier to keep running 3E if you don't like this 'Points of Light'-stuff, because I'm not sure whether the effort to change all the bits I don't like is worth it (i.e. it'd be too much trouble).

You mean hardwiring fluff like Beholders shooting disintegrating rays from their eyes, dragons coming color-coded for your convienience, or Mind Flayers eating brains, or a bug-like creature eating metal?

Yes, I know we shouldn't use previous editions to point that something criticized for 4E existed before 4E, since 4E could try to change things.
But I still think that the fluff that is used to describe something that should have a reasonable effect on game statistics (like powerful magical abilities that could be used in a combat) should better be described within the mechanics, too.

 

[DandD]

Wait, so you're complaining that the new 4th edition Fomorians who are more true to the real-world mythologies are going to replace the substandart D&D-Fomorians that we had before?
Also, why would you even need to rewrite them at all. In the end, all you do is using the feat, and not care about the name. Sheesh, some people make games look like they have to work.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

Interesting article. I enjoyed it, but was initially disappointed it was about formORians, and not formians. I love the formians. . . they're the Borg of D&D.

 

[Michele Carter]

Which is the same as you've got with the magical 'traditions' of the wizard class -- if you don't want Golden Wyverns et al. in your game, you need to rewrite the whole class plus a plethora of Feats.

Golden what now?

Nothing like that in my PH.

Oh, topic! Man, that formorian art was sweet, huh?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Golden what now?

Nothing like that in my PH.

Oh, topic! Man, that formorian art was sweet, huh?

Lol, sure was

 

[Lackhand]

Golden what now?

Nothing like that in my PH.

Oh, topic! Man, that formorian art was sweet, huh?

...
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.

Make my day complete: Emerald Frost. Current status? Slushee or Slush Pile?

 

[Primal]

Wait, so you're complaining that the new 4th edition Fomorians who are more true to the real-world mythologies are going to replace the substandart D&D-Fomorians that we had before?
Also, why would you even need to rewrite them at all. In the end, all you do is using the feat, and not care about the name. Sheesh, some people make games look like they have to work.

Oh yes -- as I'm a FR DM who has never liked about the "proto-Celtic" feel of the Moonshaes, I'd definitely like to keep any Celtic myths out of FR in the future, too. Sadly, it appears that the Fomorians already are featured in the latest FR articles, so their presence in 4E FR is part of the canon now.

If I wanted to have non-fey, non-Feydark ruler Fomorians without any "vast magical powers" or 'Evil Eye', I'd practically have to rewrite the stat block, right?

 

[The Little Raven]

Oh yes -- as I'm a FR DM who has never liked about the "proto-Celtic" feel of the Moonshaes, I'd definitely like to keep any Celtic myths out of FR in the future, too. Sadly, it appears that the Fomorians already are featured in the latest FR articles, so their presence in 4E FR is part of the canon now.

If I wanted to have non-fey, non-Feydark ruler Fomorians without any "vast magical powers" or 'Evil Eye', I'd practically have to rewrite the stat block, right?

You not wanting fomorians in Forgotten Realms is nowhere near a satisfactory reason to keep them out of the D&D core.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Oh yes -- as I'm a FR DM who has never liked about the "proto-Celtic" feel of the Moonshaes, I'd definitely like to keep any Celtic myths out of FR in the future, too. Sadly, it appears that the Fomorians already are featured in the latest FR articles, so their presence in 4E FR is part of the canon now.

If I wanted to have non-fey, non-Feydark ruler Fomorians without any "vast magical powers" or 'Evil Eye', I'd practically have to rewrite the stat block, right?

Use hill giants, then.

*Not* wanting distinctive flavor is about the poorest justification for changing monster descriptions that I can think of.

 

[Primal]

Use hill giants, then.

*Not* wanting distinctive flavor is about the poorest justification for changing monster descriptions that I can think of.

Really? I thought it was probably the *best* reason if it contradicts your own sense of good flavour or your setting's flavour. What if the 4E Fomorians had been modeled after, say, Scandinavian myths -- would you have kept Thor and Odin and all? What if their abilities also had the Scandinavian flavour?