If the devils are how monsters will be....I am so happy

[Plane Sailing]

This commented wasn't directed at anyone. The sarcasm was intended as criticism of rules mechanics and design philosophy. In particular, I was pointing out that anyone could reasonably believe the notion of a 100 Legions of devils explosively committing suicide should, under the rules, be a vision of apocalyptic destruction, but that in following a particular design philosopy, the designers had written the rules such that they explicitly forbid 'terrain deformation' as too complicated. It certainly was no criticism of anyone for expecting Legions of devils going 'boom' to have the logically expected results.

If you have a problem with the comment, please email me to explain why.

You responded to Mighty Veil, and ended up by saying "go to town with your fantasy of apocalyptic conflict whether the rules support it or not."

That's snark directed at another person.

You know the rules. If you've got a question about moderation, you email us. You don't take it up in the thread.

Since you apparently need a bit of time to think about that, you're suspended for 3 days.

 

[The Little Raven]

I used them because they were exactly appropriate for what I was talking about.

Then you're unfamiliar with things called "mythology" and "epics," where great heroes accomplished impossible deeds without charging up their power for half an episode or connecting to an authentication server.

What are you talking about?

Something you can't seem to accept: that the spellcaster is a spoiled child that needs some of it's toys taken away so it learns to share. I have no problem with wizards throwing fire, or flying, or other magical things, but I do mind him upstaging the fighter at his own game, or the rogue at his, while neither of them can return the favor and upstage the wizard at his.

You seem to want D&D to remain exactly as it is... so you probably want to stay with 3rd Edition since it's changing into what I want and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[JLXC]

Something you can't seem to accept: that the spellcaster is a spoiled child that needs some of it's toys taken away so it learns to share. I have no problem with wizards throwing fire, or flying, or other magical things, but I do mind him upstaging the fighter at his own game, or the rogue at his, while neither of them can return the favor and upstage the wizard at his.

You seem to want D&D to remain exactly as it is... so you probably want to stay with 3rd Edition since it's changing into what I want and there's nothing you can do about it.

So, does the evidence so far point towards this in your opinion? Wizards and Clerics will be limited to let's say, a dozen or less spells, by 10th level or so, and at the same time the other classes will have "spells renamed powered skills so they sound different" of about the same amount? This "fairness" you speak of? I really curious.

 

[The Little Raven]

So, does the evidence so far point towards this in your opinion? Wizards and Clerics will be limited to let's say, a dozen or less spells, by 10th level or so, and at the same time the other classes will have "spells renamed powered skills so they sound different" of about the same amount? This "fairness" you speak of? I really curious.

All classes will have powers available to them at each level that help them achieve their role (as well as some that will allow variety outside of their role). This means that fighters will have abilities to engage their targets in melee combat and keep them tied up (through "stickiness:" opportunity attacks, movement disabling capabilities, etc) while dealing solid melee damage. Rogues will have abilities to keep mobile, while taking advantage of flanks and combat advantage (similar to flat-footed enemies) in order to deal heavy damage to single targets. Rangers operate as ranged strikers. Wizards have abilities that allow them to control the battlefield through alteration (walls of fire, etc.) and area of effect spells (fireball, lightning bolt). Clerics have abilities that allow them to heal and buff, without having to spend all their actions healing and buffing. In addition, classes will have a number of elements traditionally associated with them... rogues will be good with traps and skills... wizards will have rituals that allow teleportation, flight (higher level now), and quirks like phantom steed... clerics will have rituals to resurrect people... rangers will have tracking, and nature-related stuff (but no spellcasting)... paladins use smites to fill a similar role as fighters (protect the squishy guys), with varied secondary effects. There's a lot going on in the system for everyone (and it all appears thematically appropriate for each class), rather than just spellcasters.

Then, there's the "new" classes: warlord and warlock. And that's just scratching the surface.

But yeah, overall, the impression from the preview books is that I'm getting my game of balanced classes with powers for everyone and more solid niche protection, with implied setting that is internally consistent.

 

[JLXC]

Seriously? Wow, I had no idea that this severe of a change was coming. So the Pit Fiend goes from many options, to a very few. The spellcasters go from hundreds of options, to a very few? And fighters get to kick more butt, which they could have without these kinds of changes, and now it's balanced?

I'm nearly speechless.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's not D&D, it has never been D&D, and I really hope 4E is not like that. In a game based on Magic, the magic is important.

THe game is called "Dungeons and Dragons", not "Heroes of Might & Magic" or "Magic: The Gathering". This doesn't mean magic is not important, but there is no need for it the "ultimate" solution to everything. It is an important part of D&D, and without it, it would suffer.

But don't confuse "nerfing" spellcasters with removing magic.

"Traditionally", D&D villains and heroes always needed loads of magic. Because their is nothing magic can't do, and nothing to counter magic except other magic. But that doesn't have to be this way. Magic not following the rules of our world doesn't mean it doesn't follow rules at all. In a fantasy world, magic can achieve things "physical" things cannot. But why can't the opposite be also true? Is there even a need for such a clear distinction? If magic can get in the way with mundane things, maybe the other way also works?

There are also a lot of indications that D&D 4 will have very strong presence of magic.
The Feywild and the Shadowfell both seems a lot more prominent then the 3.x Astral, Shadow and Ethreal Planes, and they are also not as empty as those seemed to be.
It's also noteworthy that the power sources from the core rules are divided into arcane, divine and martial. But not in magic, divine and martial. This means that every power source might have (quasi)-magical elements (yes, even martial. It might not be as obvious as flaming fists or holy smites, but a fighter going toe-to-toe with a Dragon or "just" a T-Rex _and_ surviving the whole thing is not a mundane event! )

 

[FourthBear]

Seriously? Wow, I had no idea that this severe of a change was coming. So the Pit Fiend goes from many options, to a very few. The spellcasters go from hundreds of options, to a very few? And fighters get to kick more butt, which they could have without these kinds of changes, and now it's balanced?

I believe that the Pit Fiend's stat block is intended as a baseline for DMs using it straight out of the book. You will note that it does have other abilities, as they note that every 99 years, they can grant a wish to a mortal. From the sounds of ritual magics and monster customization, there will be plenty of ways to have *specific* Pit Fiends with powers for non-combat applications and to give Pit Fiends more tricks. Frankly, I've never liked the lists of spell-like abilities that previous editions gave so many monsters. They always seemed like the lazy way of design. I don't think the baseline Pit Fiend write-up should be considered a limitation of individual Pit Fiends any more than the baseline Orc writeup should be considered the be-all and end-all of Orc villains.

As to spellcaster power, this is also a change that I think will be positive. It is definitely also one that I anticipate is going to piss off a lot of spellcaster fans. However, previous editions only had balance between classes in one specific set of scenarios: a set of tightly timed, sequential combat heavy encounters, where the spellcasters must conserve their magic spells and dedicate a sizable portion of them to combat options. Out of combat or in campaigns where the pacing of encounters is such that they can release a greater fraction of their powers and make greater use of the nearly unlimited scope of magic?

So I anticipate that magic using characters *will* be able to take spells that will have the same scope of previous editions. But they will now have to make actual *choices*, rather than simply waiting around to fill up their spellbooks with all of the spells they desire. If they want the best necromancy spells, they will have to actually devote character resources to necromancy, instead of just running up to the spell buffet. If the rogues and fighters managed to be playable while having to make real choices in their class related ability selections that limited them, I think that wizards and clerics will be able to muddle through somehow.

 

[med stud]

The demons lost way too much if that's a real stat block for them. The Pit Fiend is pathetic in it's options, seriously. With those simple combat only abilities how the heck could they rule demons?

Counter argument 1) IRL, Stalin wasn't a huge threat in combat. He was 5 ft tall with a crippled arm. Yet he ruled one of the superpowers with an iron fist. All authority doesn't have to come from being personally dangerous in combat.

Counter argument 2) The argument above isn't necessary. A pit fiend can, at will, kill another devil. That alone is enough to have authority over other devils.

 

[Derren]

Counter argument 2) The argument above isn't necessary. A pit fiend can, at will, kill another devil. That alone is enough to have authority over other devils.

Only if the devil is willing (an ally). The power does not work on devils which are enemies.

 

[Simon Marks]

Who or What defines a Devil as an Ally?

Maybe it requires the Devil to be willing.

These, being devils, I'm guessing more like (forced) oaths of servitude or pacts signed in blood (and under the threat of extreme violence). And once agreed, the bond lasts until the Pit Fiend releases it.