D&D 4E New 4e Info! GAMA Tradeshow Scoop

[Irda Ranger]

Perhaps, but the cleric is the same way. Call down a holy flame, and also give an ally a distance away some unrelated bonus.

I've really liked the martial and arcane powers I've seen so far. But many divine powers seem to be two effects glued together randomly.

I'm not sure this is an answer for you, but I'm picturing Gandalf on the dawning of the third day. Aride Shadowfax, he leads the Rohirrim down the morning mountainside, and he captures the light of dawn that shines behind him; it shines through him like a prism, but becoming brighter and more radiant in the shining. With each blow of his righteous wrath the light shines brighter - the Uruk-Hai are swept before it, and the Rohirrim ride the cresting radiance as though it were a wave with weight and mass giving them momentum and strength greater than they physically possessed. It's as if all of the combatants, Rohirrim and Uruk-Hai alike, are caught up in an ocean current whose tides are driven not by the moon's phase but by the wrath and faith of the White Wizard. The Uruk-Hai, having no Dark Leader among them capable of bringing to bear a tidal force of Shadow, are swept aside and extinguished like any other shadow faced with the coming of dawn.

 

[Revinor]

Daily • Divine, Healing

And I highly doubt that you will be able to turn dailies into at will simply by enchanting a weapon with it

I should probably not use word 'enchant'. I meant just using the the power and go on killing the low level monsters. 'Enchant' is valid till end of encounter.

 

[Revinor]

I think you have played to much WoW (freely replace WoW with any MMORG, really) and forgotten that an RPG actually has a DM that is able to think.

Obviously, I don't expect any DM to allow such misuse of the power. But from what I see currently, it is bit broken (same way as Whirlwind+Great Cleave was in case of bag of rats) and I don't like things which are broken from very start. I still think that many players may pull off 'accidentally' delaying end of combat to get more uses of this power. Yes, it would require metagame thinking, but I strongly prefer in-game rules which are in line with metagame level, not against it.

This is like making a 100 meter race for Olympic games and say to the runners they will get 10000$ for each second spend on track. Some people will run for the win, others will take few hours to reach the goal...

What about enchanting a bow and shooting at regenerating troll kept inside deep pit?

 

[Jack99]

What about enchanting a bow and shooting at regenerating troll kept inside deep pit?

I prefer solid rules too, but I wouldn't mind if a player delayed a current combat a bit, in order to perhaps heal a comrade some more. If the comrade is indeed wounded, it is safe to assume that the monsters that are faced are a challenge, at least to a certain degree, and thus the delay actually has an element of risk involved.

Cheers

 

[tsadkiel]

What about enchanting a bow and shooting at regenerating troll kept inside deep pit?

You could do that, sure. Or you could take an extended rest, and all the characters can recover all their hit points and all their healing surges too.

 

[Zil]

Even if they use the "new cosmology" of the "assumed setting" there's nothing at all that suggests there's only one pantheon. They never specified the number of Gods there really were, beyond the number they put in the PHB strictly for player options, and nothing to do about their world.

Multiple pantheons can exist just fine without the Great Wheel, and it will greatly benefit Planescape if death was left a mystery, rather than the stated Absolute Truth that, "everyone who dies becomes a petitioner to a plane of their appropriate alignment." Instead that previous statement could end up becoming one of the truths that only some believe, while everyone else thinks something else happens and may indeed be right.

No arguments there about multiple pantheons being possible without the Great Wheel. My main concern is that there needs to be a multitude of contradicting pantheons, peoples/worlds and belief structures to give plausibility to what arose in Sigil with the factions. If they go on to shoe horn Sigil into a situation where there is no trade of ideas and room for debate about how the multiverse works, then it won't really ring true anymore. Of course, we're always free to pick and choose what we like from whatever they do put out and ignore the rest so regardless of what they do, so this is something I'll pick up even if I'm not actually playing/running a 4E game.

 

[Zil]

The thing is, the Gods were always outshined in terms of philosophies by the factions and the sects. So much that there even was the Atheist/Agnostic faction the Athar, who clearly decried all Gods as fakes. The Harmonium were the Harmonium because they were the Harmonium, which had nothing to do with the fact that many of them have favoured St. Cuthbert. Just like the Doomguard were who they were because they believed in entropy, which had nothing to do with Shiva.

For the most part which Gods were being used hardly mattered at all in Planescape, nothing was significant about the fact that Duke Rowan Darkwood for example was a cleric of Heimdall. Heimdall never really had a thing to do with what Rowan Darkwood was about. The fact that he was the factol of The Fated (and practically an NPC that resembles a character played by a power-gamer) who was about everything he could take.

I agree completely with this. The actual gods that were used didn't matter at all. The philosophies of the Factions transcended the need to worship any particular god (or gods). Duke Rowan's 'Taker' self-reliant philosophy was a far more defining element of his character than the fact that he was also a cleric of Heimdall. In many ways, the citizens of Sigil are very modern in their philosophizing - not medieval like your typical D&D. One of the exiled factions that I liked to toy around with in my games was the Communals, essentially proto-communists, who were banished from Sigil during an earlier age.

 

[Zil]

Pelor's philosophy is to do good deeds, as you would others do unto you.

Gruumsh's philosophy is to conquer your enemies, drive them before you, and hear the lamentation of their women.

Ioun's philosophy is that the only way to transcend the imperfections of mortal existence is to meditate on the mysteries of the cosmos.

Which is best? Well, that's a matter of debate, yes?

These philosophies are a bit simple and there isn't really a lot to debate. None of them really try to explain existence. They are more just moral outlooks (or lack thereof in the case of Gruumsh). I don't think having these as the main religious based philosophies in the world will lead to an awful lot of debate. If you were a moral person, you would adhere to the teachings of Pelor. If you were immoral, you might lean towards Gruumsh. The first two actually sound more like descriptions of alignment. Is there any kind of metaphysical framework upon which these hang? While there might be something deeper going on with Ioun's philosophy, I don't think these examples would be enough to give rise to the Factions in Sigil.

 

[Irda Ranger]

These philosophies are a bit simple and there isn't really a lot to debate.

But if you ask the crowd "Which is better?", I imagine the debate would be quite vigorous!

None of them really try to explain existence.

Nor do they try to. They're more attempts at answering the observation/question: "Hey, we all exist; now what?"

I don't think having these as the main religious based philosophies in the world will lead to an awful lot of debate.

See first comment above.

I don't think these examples would be enough to give rise to the Factions in Sigil.

Maybe your concept of "debate" doesn't sync with mine? I always thought of the Factions as Eastern Religions such as Taoism; no god, just a way of life. But different people will chose different ways, and there will be debate between the groups that choose different ways. Isn't that debate? Or do you mean something else?

Really, how much difference is there between a Religion and a Faction (other than the fact that Factions' proponents are not granted spells)? Actually, in D&D, a Faction's proponents could be granted spells out of the sheer power of their faith. Core D&D calls than an "Alignment Cleric", but you could also have an "Unaligned Belief System Cleric", couldn't you?

Eh, don't let that last argument distract you, since it depends on your belief as to where Divine Power comes from (does if actually come from the Gods, or merely from your belief in them?).

 

[crash_beedo]

Regarding the Hospitaler Abilities:

In 4E, aren't hit points no longer = physical damage? A lot of the "healing" enabled by leader classes like the Warlord is boosting morale, gaining a second wind, lifting of spirits, etc. So why couldn't the Paladin's ability to restore vitality in a companion be triggered by the Paladin laying the smack down?

It's a little incongruous tying damage to healing (without some life stealer ability) but the whole 4E hit point scheme seems to support these unusual ways to get hit points back. (Of course we could find in the PHB that there is some mystic connection between the target receiving the damage and the ally receiving the healing, and my theory is blown )