D&D 4E Notes from the 4E Corebooks: Alignment, Monsters, Artifacts and More

[Rechan]

I picked up a 2nd ed MM off of CL just to respect the elders and all. The MM is actually reasonably well illustrated and laid out. Each entry stops at the bottom of a page, every entry includes a illustration of the creature (even the invisible strangler). There's a detailed ecology section, etc. Aside from the surprisingly unusable stat blocks and the occasional habit of hiding really important abilities or combat info in the text of the entry, the 2e MM is pretty good on having illustrations and lay out in general. The quality of those illustrations is pretty varied though.

Aye, the layout of the 2e MM is good. While the illustrations were always too cartoony for me, I really miss the Ecology/Habitat and Society sections.

 

[Blackeagle]

P.S. 2e was a TSR product, 3e was a WotC product. I imagine there may have been issues with copying art between the two as they belong to different companies, but what do I know?

I doubt it. Wizards bought TSR lock stock and barrel in 1997. As far as I'm aware, they got all of TSR's assets. Wizards even published the 2e MM from 1997 until 3e came out in 2000. If they didn't have the rights to the art, they couldn't have done that.

 

[Spatula]

Yes, but how many monster illustrations and how many monsters were in the old edition monster manuals?

1e had about a 60% illustration rate. 2e had an illustration for every monster (in a layout similar to 4e where each monster gets its own page or pages). 3e illustrated almost everything (entries that covered many monsters, like demons & devils, didn't have all of them depicted) and the 3.5 MM had pictures for everything, excepting vermin, animals, and most dire animals.

P.S. 2e was a TSR product, 3e was a WotC product. I imagine there may have been issues with copying art between the two as they belong to different companies, but what do I know?

WotC bought TSR in its entirety. The issue would be that monster illustrations in 1e & 2e were B&W line drawings, which would look rather shabby compared to the full-color pictures that we've gotten since 3e.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Alignment: This is the first thing I went to, given the controversy that's been swirling around it. First off: IT IS NOT A LINEAR SYSTEM--at least, no more than the old 3x3 grid. The alignments are listed in this order: Good, Lawful Good, Evil, Chaotic Evil, Unaligned. The definitions for Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are very much what we are familiar with, and Good and Evil are similar to Neutral Good and Neutral Evil. The difference between Good and Lawful Good is that LG characters tend to think more about order and social structure, and while they recognize that authority figures can be corrupt and laws can be evil, they prefer to work within the system. Good characters can work with authority, but recognize that power tends to corrupt. The two alignments get along pretty well, but good characters think lawful good characters think too much about order and not enough about helping people. Evil characters want to do whatever they have to in order to get ahead, while chaotic evils just do what they want regardless of who it hurts. The two evil alignments share a distaste for good, but don't generally get along that well.

So it's confirmed that you can't be chaotic good or lawful evil? Ugh. This pretty much just cements my ill thoughts towards the new alignment system - it's the same as the old, only they removed a bunch of alignment squares for no given reasons.

 

[pukunui]

Sure. But then again, I haven't heard very many stories about Wights one way or the other.

The first one that springs to mind is the bit in LOTR when the hobbits find themselves trapped in a barrow wight mound. I don't think the wight slaps them around though ...

The quality of those illustrations is pretty varied though.

You can say that again!

 

[Wolfspider]

The issue would be that monster illustrations in 1e & 2e were B&W line drawings, which would look rather shabby compared to the full-color pictures that we've gotten since 3e.

I seem to recall some beautiful color artwork in a little ol' book called the Monstrous Manual from 2nd edition D&D....

 

[Rechan]

As for alignment, I honestly don't care. Alignment looks to have be divorced from the rule system, so I shall not include it in my game.

 

[pukunui]

I seem to recall some beautiful color artwork in a little ol' book called the Monstrous Manual from 2nd edition D&D....

Emphasis on "some". I seem to recall some particularly atrocious color artwork in that very same book (eg. the gith pics).

 

[vladbat]

I wonder with Artifact rules, if you could have a Artifact at level 1, and progressively become more intune with it overtime and unlock more powers.

For a evil Artifact that be a fun way to show the person being corrupted by it.

I love this idea. In the campaign I'm playing in now three of us have weapons that are scaling like this. The Sun Sword and Amulet of Ravenkind from Ravenloft are two great examples based this on.
I liken it to Elric's swords or Gotrick's Axe. They have always had them and just learn to access more and more abilities as they go.
DMG 1e had an artifact that was a set of teeth you could keep collecting to gain more powers (were they Vecna's? Damn that books in the attic......)

 

[Fallen Seraph]

As for alignment, I honestly don't care. Alignment looks to have be divorced from the rule system, so I shall not include it in my game.

I am already figuring out how to convert Virtue/Vice system into 4e.

Though as an alignment system, this is in my eyes alot nicer then previous ones. So if I play with someone else who DMs RAW I will still be happy with it.