Primal Power Excerpt - Stonefire Rager

[MrGrenadine]

The Powers That Be have apparently declared that videogames and anime are not valid mediums for expression or influence of the fantasy genre.

Actually, the problem is that this more modern, flashier stuff just doesn't appeal to everyone who plays D&D. And this shouldn't be a problem for anyone, because playing a more tolkien-esque, low magic, story based game is a perfectly valid way to play the game, (and has been since the games inception), as well as a million other styles--some of which just aren't compatible with a pc having with molten rock arms.

The problem is that only the modern, flashy stuff is being supported by the current copyright owner of the game. So, to each his own, but for now some folks are in the lucky position of liking the current style being sold, while the rest of us wait for features that *will* fit into the style we like to play--whatever that may be.

 

[ferratus]

I don't know if it is all about new and flashy.

I don't particularly like this paragon path for barbarians either, but I wouldn't mind playing something similar for a gensai swordmage.

I also don't mind the direction of barbarians as "animist noble savages" with "totem powers" but I guess I don't particularly like overt magical effects like this with the primal power source, though the druid would get the most leeway.

Of course, I thought the Goth subtext made Shadar-Kai unplayable for me, but my next character is going to be one. Of course, he is called "Teodhar the Unscarred" because he doesn't "cut himself to feel", but I am liking shadow powers with the Swordmage, with a hefty dose of assassin multiclass (a class I don't particularly feel like playing by itself). So I guess never say never about playing a molten dwarf.

 

[Fifth Element]

I seriously doubt any of my players would be excited playing a dwarf barbarian with a magma arm.

I don't think that's an answer to the question. If one of your players were excited about it, would you deny it because you just don't like it?

 

[avin]

I don't think that's an answer to the question. If one of your players were excited about it, would you deny it because you just don't like it?

You want me to answer something that, really, won't happen. But let's say somebody falls in love with the path and ask me to play it. Answer is: it depends.

It depends on the campaign and the player.

On my Planescape, with a solid background, for a good player, yes.

On my more feet on the ground games, with some metagamey player, who won't provide any details beyond "a wizard did it!", no.

I'll return the question: do you allow anything a player is excited about even if it goes against the tone of the campaign?

PS. That would be my second exception (bugbears with large weapons are the first, 'cause Mearls said it's going to be fixed if they get a pc treatment). My rule is: it's on CB you can use it.

 

[gribble]

I am liking shadow powers with the Swordmage, with a hefty dose of assassin multiclass (a class I don't particularly feel like playing by itself).

You're out of luck then - there is no assassin multiclass feat.

 

[Rechan]

The problem is that only the modern, flashy stuff is being supported by the current copyright owner of the game. So, to each his own, but for now some folks are in the lucky position of liking the current style being sold, while the rest of us wait for features that *will* fit into the style we like to play--whatever that may be.

D&D has always followed what's popular at the time.

1e had the Monk because Gary took inspiration from Kung Fu the TV show, which was popular at the time. Barrier Peaks was an exploration into Sci Fi because that was picking up at the time (and a test balloon for Traveler). Psionics were added to 1e due to the popularity of Firestarter and other Psionic inspirations.

But all that there was to go on as far as low fantasy was things that had come out before 1e. Tolkein, Conan, Leiber, etc.

Unless new things are coming out which are Low Magic, Gritty fantasy... then there's not going to be a swing back from the Modern, Flashy stuff - because there's just more Modern Flashy stuff out there, being churned out year by year, inspiring people.

You can only go back to Tolkein and Conan so many times before you've mined all you can.

To put it another way:

A recent poll on this board asked those who were under 25, "What of this list have you read". The list consisted primarily of the stuff in Apendix N (Tolkein, Lovecraft, Leiber, Howard, Moorcock, etc), and some new stuff (Harry Potter, etc). Very few people under 25 had read more than 3 of the above. But many had read the new stuff.

Along with WotC's market research which says the older gamers are, the less likely they are to buy new books, the easiest conclusion to draw is:

The New Gamers aren't reading the Low Fantasy, they clamoring for gritty, the old stuff isn't popular now of days.

To put it a third way:

WotC is going to go where the money is. Right now, the money is with modern and flashy. They would have to be shown that there is a large hunger for low magic low fantasy gritty 4e stuff. If it isn't popular, then they're not going to waste ink on it.

 

[Dannager]

You want me to answer something that, really, won't happen. But let's say somebody falls in love with the path and ask me to play it. Answer is: it depends.

It depends on the campaign and the player.

On my Planescape, with a solid background, for a good player, yes.

On my more feet on the ground games, with some metagamey player, who won't provide any details beyond "a wizard did it!", no.

I'll return the question: do you allow anything a player is excited about even if it goes against the tone of the campaign?

PS. That would be my second exception (bugbears with large weapons are the first, 'cause Mearls said it's going to be fixed if they get a pc treatment). My rule is: it's on CB you can use it.

I'm not sure I get where you're coming from here.

On the one hand, you say that you wouldn't allow it due to flavor concerns, but on the other hand you say you allow everything else from the Character Builder. Are you saying that magma dwarves is the only character option that somehow violates your campaign sensibilities?

But, yes. If a player was excited about a new option, I'd let that player use it, even if it ran against the tone of the campaign. It is not difficult to adjust the flavor of any rule element to mesh with the campaign setting. "No, the flavor is wrong," has always struck me as an enormous cop-out highlighting a complete unwillingness of the DM to meet the player's desire halfway.

I don't mean to rag on you for your preferences, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with not liking the idea of a magma dwarf. Denying your players the ability to make use of it does seem a little off, though.

 

[AllisterH]

Here's the funny thing.

I don't even LIKE the art (I've never really like the partial elemental transformation schtick --not a fan of the genasi art either)

However, I would never have compared it to Magmaman (seriously, Avin, Magmaman? I'm looking at that picture and I'm not even sure how you get that)

re: MrGrenadine
Actually, there _ARE_ lots of classic fantasy elements in 4e. The whole primordial, fey, shadowfell and Asmodeus betrayal is definitely more closer to what people would call "classic" fantasy than before.

It just gets ignored for some reason by people and in fact, people that DO notice it complain that it is too derivative of classic fantasy tropes.

 

[Minigiant]

A thunderborn barbarian is surrounded by a cloak of thunder spirits; a whirling barbarian, armed with two weapons

two weapon means one handed weapons.
One handed weapons means SMALL HALFLING BARBARIANS!

 

[Destil]

Surprised at all the controversy over the art. Yeah, it's not particularly good. The concept isn't even that great, if you had a dwarf with simple rocky skin and seething veins glowing with magma underneath, waiting to erupt into a rage of smoldering rock, that would be much better... what do you want to bet I could find a magic card with a better illustration for this guy?

But it's also not very video-gameish. Games don't often do transforming models unless they're a central part of the game because of the reality of art resources being very expensive, especially in modern games. WoW's actually a pretty big leader here with their druids and shadow priests and demon forms and worgen, very few games do a lot of this sort of thing unless it's a central game mechanic.

If anything it reminds me of comic book art.