Open Grave Excerpt: Rituals and Artifacts

[Mouseferatu]

I'm wondering why people are comparing this ritual to older editions' animate dead at all. Yes, they both work by raising a corpse, but it seems obvious to me that they're not even remotely intended to accomplish the same thing.

It's already been heavily implied that we'll see a necromancer class at some point in the futre (probably with the shadow power source). The ability to conjure/animate/create undead warriors would certainly be held off for that class. Anything we see before then--especially a ritual, which almost by definition is not intended for combat--isn't meant to accomplish the same thing.

I mean, I don't know what the design mandates were--I didn't work on Open Grave, much as I wish I had--but that's certainly how it appears from where I'm sitting.

 

[Shroomy]

Wow, the monsters, the undead hall of fame, and the templates are really making me look forward to this book. Mid January cannot come soon enough.

 

[Korgoth]

I'm wondering why people are comparing this ritual to older editions' animate dead at all. Yes, they both work by raising a corpse, but it seems obvious to me that they're not even remotely intended to accomplish the same thing.

Yeah, why would I expect to see necromancy, necromancers or a spell for animating the dead in a book called Open Grave. Silly me.

Well, it's not like it's a big deal or anything. I keep trying to be interested at least in some small, limited aspect of 4E and it keeps not happening (or anti-happening, usually). That's more money to spend on war games and regular books. Still... Open Grave seems like a missed opportunity to me... but what do I know, since just about everything I hear about this game makes it sound like it comes from Bizarro World? Maybe not having necromancy is fun for some blokes.

 

[Phaezen]

Yeah, why would I expect to see necromancy, necromancers or a spell for animating the dead in a book called Open Grave. Silly me.

Well, it's not like it's a big deal or anything. I keep trying to be interested at least in some small, limited aspect of 4E and it keeps not happening (or anti-happening, usually). That's more money to spend on war games and regular books. Still... Open Grave seems like a missed opportunity to me... but what do I know, since just about everything I hear about this game makes it sound like it comes from Bizarro World? Maybe not having necromancy is fun for some blokes.

As the mouse pointed out, they are leaving the majority of the PC Necromancer stuff for the upcomming Necromancer class although that will only be in 2010 or 2011 with PHB III or IV.

As for NPC necromancers, they can have all the undead servants and miniions the DM desires.

I, personaly, don't mind waiting for a decent Necromancer type class (Shadow Controller?) which can work within the group and the rules of 4e, rather than a donzen half baked attempts at tacking necromancy onto an existing class.

Phaezen

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yeah, why would I expect to see necromancy, necromancers or a spell for animating the dead in a book called Open Grave. Silly me.

Oh, please. I didn't say you couldn't have whatever expectations you wanted. Once the ritual was revealed, however, it was pretty clear that it wasn't in any way, shape, or form meant to be the equivalent of the spells you're talking about.

I didn't say "You're not allowed to dislike what you've seen of the book." Of course you are, if it's not what you were hoping.

What I said was "I don't see why people are comparing ritual X to spell Y." And I stand by that; despite both animating a corpse (or more), they're clearly not meant to serve the same purpose.

 

[Shroomy]

Yeah, why would I expect to see necromancy, necromancers or a spell for animating the dead in a book called Open Grave. Silly me.

Well, it's not like it's a big deal or anything. I keep trying to be interested at least in some small, limited aspect of 4E and it keeps not happening (or anti-happening, usually). That's more money to spend on war games and regular books. Still... Open Grave seems like a missed opportunity to me... but what do I know, since just about everything I hear about this game makes it sound like it comes from Bizarro World? Maybe not having necromancy is fun for some blokes.

WoTC has changed their design philosophy when it comes to sourcebooks, so we're not going to see lots of player focused content in DM-centric books like Open Grave.

 

[WarlockLord]

Wow, more of the stuff I expected from 4e. Dividing the older core classes into the inflexible things we've all come to know and love? Check. Overly arbitrary restrictions on things for the sake of balance? Check. Wow, look, an animated corpse apparently too stupid to beat things over the head despite being extremely strong. Yep, this makes perfect sense. Plus, waiting for more splatbooks for something that's always been in the core rules of earlier editions? YAY! I want to spend all my money on this edition now!

 

[Rechan]

Points at Martial Power, PHB 2 and scads of material from the DDI.

Uh... no.

They're casting that old wide net.

As they've done with every edition.

Either you misunderstood what Shroomy is saying, or I misunderstand your point.

Shroomy is saying that Player material (powers, feats Paragon Paths, class info) is not to be found in a book that is for a DM, and DM material is not found in a book a Player would be buying for PC stuff. I.e. magical items and paragon paths (the equivalent of PrCs) are in the PHB not the DMG, no real player info in Draconomicon (no PPs, no powers, no feats), the feats and powers for FR are in the Player's guide, not the Campaign guide. There's no DM stuff in Martial Power, either.

The exception to this is Manual of the Planes (It had magical items and Paragon Paths), and Adventurer's Vault (because it really isn't a book specific to either).

What is your point, exactly?

 

[Fifth Element]

Wow, more of the stuff I expected from 4e. Dividing the older core classes into the inflexible things we've all come to know and love? Check. Overly arbitrary restrictions on things for the sake of balance? Check. Wow, look, an animated corpse apparently too stupid to beat things over the head despite being extremely strong. Yep, this makes perfect sense. Plus, waiting for more splatbooks for something that's always been in the core rules of earlier editions? YAY! I want to spend all my money on this edition now!

Posts complaining about 4E without any real content? Check...

 

[Campbell]

Points at Martial Power, PHB 2 and scads of material from the DDI.

Uh... no.

They're casting that old wide net.

As they've done with every edition.

Player's Handbook 2, Martial Power, Adventurer's Vault, and a good deal of Dragon articles are all supplementary material that is largely aimed at players, not DMs. The point is that supplements that are made with DMs in mind will no longer include a slew of material meant for player use in order to cross sell that material to players like the themed monster books did in 3e.