Open Grave Excerpt: Rituals and Artifacts

[JoeGKushner]

D'oh!

Curse you lack of sleep. Curse you.

Yes, I was misunderstanding what the Shroom was saying.

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?

 

[Jack99]

I am glad they didn't fall into the pitfalls of the previous editions of: Oh look at me, I just got rich, let me go raise an army that can follow me around and do as I wish. Do not get me wrong, I love when my NPC's do it, but players.. no way, let them handle what I throw at them by themselves, not by hiring or creating canon/trap fodder.

I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!

About time

 

[fba827]

I'm wondering why people are comparing this ritual to older editions' animate dead at all.

Yeah, I'm wondering that too.

The 4e ritual is for animating an undead servant (not a "generic undead" to do with as you will). It's a cool little servant to pick up and take care of minor things for you... kind of a permanent mage hand/weak-tensors floating disc/prestidigitation/butler without pay all rolled in to one (sort of). Sure, not as great for PCs who are in frequent combat situations, but it would be remiss not to have something of this type available for that necromancer-flavored character that you visit who should have an undead butler, carriage handler, and maid!

Rituals don't have combat applications, if there is going to be an undead warrior to help you in combat, I'd imagine it will be released as a power or class feature. Heck, it could even be in Open Grave if you look at the Table of Contents in that same preview, there is something starting on p220 for Alternative Powers. Not saying it will be in there, but that is the type of section to look at rather than the ritual section to find the niche that you're looking for in undead army powers.

Plus, could they (WotC) really get away with releasing an undead warrior type ritual so soon after releasing the very similar mechanic in martial power (see beastmaster ranger power set)? People might start saying that WotC is just recycling martial within a couple months of the previous release. You could easily make an undead warrior by taking the ranger beastmaster powerset, replacing all instances of the word beast with animated undead, and then tack it on to the wizard (or cleric or warlock or paladin, whatever) with a couple minor adjustments to what would be lost for the exchange in that power build.

I'm just not seeing the reason for the previewed ritual (that has a different name and function) to be compared so heavily to a previous edition's spell.

Just my take on it anyway.


Edit: in case it matters, I'm not some hardcore 4e fanboy. I've played pretty much every edition of D&D. I just enjoy the game whatever the edition as long as the group I'm with is good.

 

[Korgoth]

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.

OK. You don't see why people are comparing a spell for animating zombies in previous editions with a spell for animating a zombie in this edition. Well, if it's true that you really can't see the reason then there's no point in me trying to discuss it any further.

 

[CardinalXimenes]

OK. You don't see why people are comparing a spell for animating zombies in previous editions with a spell for animating a zombie in this edition. Well, if it's true that you really can't see the reason then there's no point in me trying to discuss it any further.

I don't think your comparison was on those terms. Your comparison, as I read it, was between animating generic zombies in 3.x and this particular ritual's animation of a zombie in 4e. My understanding of your objection was that all undead minions ought to be combat-capable because 3.x created combat-capable undead minions. Given that 4e is a different edition and this ritual is pretty explicitly _not_ the ne plus ultra of undead minion creation, I think people are justified in finding it a weak comparison.

 

[Korgoth]

I don't think your comparison was on those terms. Your comparison, as I read it, was between animating generic zombies in 3.x and this particular ritual's animation of a zombie in 4e. My understanding of your objection was that all undead minions ought to be combat-capable because 3.x created combat-capable undead minions. Given that 4e is a different edition and this ritual is pretty explicitly _not_ the ne plus ultra of undead minion creation, I think people are justified in finding it a weak comparison.

Strange... that wasn't my objection at all. In fact I specifically said:

Now, I wouldn't have minded if they said zombie flunkies don't fight.

That might have been someone else's objection, though.

My objection is that it's completely pointless and boring. The whole thing seems so airtight that neither the DM or the other players will ever be caught off guard by it... it will probably never be the cause of an "amazing story" because it is yet another avatar of absolute accountancy.

I'm sure when they do make a "Necromancer" class it will be exactly the same: you'll cast a spell that makes skeletons pop up from the dirt near your enemy, claw the guy for some damage and then pop back down into the dirt. It will be: use Power X do to Y Damage plus Z Effect. Nothing whatsoever about the world will in any way be affected, however.

It's the same with the Warlock. A big monster mouth materializes, bites somebody and then goes away. Wowzers. So your Lovecraftian cultist type does what exactly? He casts Icy Tentacle of Dread: a tentacle reaches down from outer space and does 2d8+3.14 damage to foe and foe is Stunned (Save ends). The point is that you don't actually ever summon Cthulhu. It's just that your power uses tentacles to do Generic Damage Plus Effect rather than using, say, fire or laser beams or a swirling nimbus of Lucky Charms (tm) brand cereal.

I'm surprised you're even allowed to kill monsters, given how sacred the Status Quo seems to be in that game.

 

[CardinalXimenes]

Strange... that wasn't my objection at all.

Then it seems I mistook the pre-4e parallels your argument was drawing.

My objection is that it's completely pointless and boring. The whole thing seems so airtight that neither the DM or the other players will ever be caught off guard by it... it will probably never be the cause of an "amazing story" because it is yet another avatar of absolute accountancy.

The ritual turns a corpse into an animated servitor perfectly obedient to your will and capable of normal movement. It does this for 150 gold and an hour of your time- relatively minor costs at 6th level, when you can first use this ritual. You really can't think of any creative, DM-surprising ways to use this ability?

The Duke is dead in his tent the night before the great battle, poisoned by his enemies. At dawn, the entire army sees him riding tall and waving to the troops, flanked on one side by the ranger who's surreptitiously guiding the Duke's horse and on the other side by the wizard who's using Ghost Sound to provide appropriately heroic shouts of encouragement.

The poncy courtier of the Evil King marches ahead of the group, a perfumed handkerchief held to his face against their noisome reek and a newly-Prestidigitation-cleaned doublet concealing the gaping wounds in his torso. If a guard challenges him, the wizard Ghost Sounds a reply, trusting in the handkerchief to conceal the lack of lip movement.

Tanner Hoskins is looking awfully pale as he marches into the den of the gangsters who drowned him in his own vats yesterday. They've got just enough time to look up from their card games before the dead man's lantern lights the sack full of alchemical explosives he's carrying.

The pirate galley lay becalmed, littered with the corpses the party had made. The half-dozen adventurers were too few to hope to move it by oars, but after rendering down the warrior's prized greatsword into raw magic, the party wizard was able to create five ritual scrolls. An hour later, six dead men pulled tirelessly at the oars, inching the ship onward day and night.

Those are just a few random ideas that struck me. I really can't imagine that a party of Old School adventurers can't come up with a creative and DM-plaguing way to use a totally obedient, human-appearing servant.

 

[Glyfair]

The ritual turns a corpse into an animated servitor perfectly obedient to your will and capable of normal movement. It does this for 150 gold and an hour of your time- relatively minor costs at 6th level, when you can first use this ritual.

Indeed, it's a 4E variation on Unseen Servant. Instead of an invisible servant, you have a visible zombie.

 

[Sir Brennen]

My objection is that it's completely pointless and boring. The whole thing seems so airtight that neither the DM or the other players will ever be caught off guard by it... it will probably never be the cause of an "amazing story" because it is yet another avatar of absolute accountancy.

I think CardinalXimenes satisfactorily demonstrated that, with just a modicum of imagination, this is not the case at all (especially if the DM uses some of these tricks to mess with the player's heads. Thanks, Cardinal!)

I'm sure when they do make a "Necromancer" class it will be exactly the same: you'll cast a spell that makes skeletons pop up from the dirt near your enemy, claw the guy for some damage and then pop back down into the dirt. It will be: use Power X do to Y Damage plus Z Effect. Nothing whatsoever about the world will in any way be affected, however.

So, your complaint extends to material not yet published? Do you know for a fact that the necromancer isn't going to be a controller like the wizard, able to create more lasting effects in a fight? Do you assume that the necro class will not take advantage of the door opened by the Ranger's pet rules in Martial Power to have more permanent undead creations? Or perhaps summoning abilities like the invoker to conjure shadows from the Shadowfell?

It's the same with the Warlock. A big monster mouth materializes, bites somebody and then goes away. Wowzers. So your Lovecraftian cultist type does what exactly? He casts Icy Tentacle of Dread: a tentacle reaches down from outer space and does 2d8+3.14 damage to foe and foe is Stunned (Save ends). The point is that you don't actually ever summon Cthulhu. It's just that your power uses tentacles to do Generic Damage Plus Effect rather than using, say, fire or laser beams or a swirling nimbus of Lucky Charms (tm) brand cereal.

Well, that giant maw appearing out of nowhere and vanishing again evokes more of a horror movie feel to me than one which prances around the battlefield like a sock puppet. It's all a matter of perspective, really.

You're typical Lovecraftian cultist doesn't summon Cthulhu in combat. That's what rituals are for (which adheres much more closely to the source material you're trying to invoke.) Plus, the warlock's shtick is quick, massive damage, not lingering environmental effects. He's given personal power to rain pain down on his enemies, not to bother the boss to come in and do it for him.

Now a wizard... a wizard can crack open the space between the dimensions and let the tentacles of squamous things slip through for a significant amount of time (Evard's Black Tentacles).

And really... it's a game - the majority of combat spells in previous editions or even other game systems can be boiled down to their base mechanics of "Damage + Effect". When you get down to it, everything is just an "effect". What's wrong with a side of damage to go with it?

The warlock, because of his role, has a larger number of these in his repertoire, sure, but that doesn't mean that it's all interchangeable. The "effects" can vary widely, and the type of damage is still significant, and not just generic - the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man has Resist Marshmallow Bits 10, Vulnerable Fire 5, so your Lucky Charms attack won't be as useful. And the different pacts have some nice, consistent effects that add flavor to their powers - fey have more charm, star has more teleports. And that doesn't even get into Utility powers, which definitely have other outcomes than "Damage + Effect".

___________________________________

Anyway, back on topic, I commented way back when in the thread that my own disappointment with Open Grave isn't that the Zombie ritual described doesn't allow the corpse to attack, just that there isn't also a ritual included to animate a combat-ready undead. I think that's where many of the other complaints stem from, not a comparison to animate dead of previous editions. We're just wondering when the equivalent of that spell will show up.

Now it could be that there will never be such a ritual, and having these type of undead is completely a necromancer feature, whether a class ability or a power. It might be that necros have one build focusing on corporeal undead and necrotic spells, and another focusing on shadows and spirits. Who knows?