So, Dark Sun: It's officially out. What do you think of it?

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Just saying you don't like 4e or you don't like 4e DS is one thing. You're saying that cover art has to totally and accurately depict something in the book and you dont like it because of that? That's absurd.

Its not absurd at all. That isn't about "total accuracy," its about misrepresentation- intentional or negligently.

I'm saying that since their introduction, Bugs have been fully able to use their 4 limbs, no qualifiers. They could use 4 weapons, they could use 2 2hd weapons, a 2hd weapon and shield, etc. Someone like myself who has experienced them in that form thinks "Cool- the Thri-Kreen remain unchanged!"...only to find that they get nerfed.

Half of the old DS stuff didn't do that either.

I just checked my DS inventory and didn't see anything that showed someone doing something disallowed by the rules. If you know of such, point it out to me.

If you see an auto brochure with a bikini-clad woman leaning on a car, most people are bright enough to realize that the woman doesn't come with the car. She's there to attract your attention.

Ah, but context matters!

Having had zero cars with bikini-clad models on them, I don't have any such expectation of finding one anywhere near my car...unless I'm giving one a ride to/from the pool or beach. (Besides, I buy "boring" cars- if a model were on one, most people would go "Car? What car?")

Having seen numerous ranged/melee, 4-weapon or double 2Hd fighting Thri-Kreen in action in Dark Sun, I had a genuine expectation that the one on 4Ed's cover would be representative of the fact that this had not changed.

 

[Stumblewyk]

IMHO, the Thri-Kreen depicted on the cover art (repeated in the Races chapter) is not "holding" his weapon- it is clearly in a 2-handed grip readied for a horizontal striking. IOW, wielding.

I just looked at the piece in question, and I know this is just my interpretation (but that goes to show you that not everyone who looks at the piece is going to see it the same way), but it looks to me like the Thri-kree is holding a 2h axe in his lower arms which are far too short to swing the axe in the first place.

As a viewer of the piece without a proverbial horse in this race, I have to say the art holds up with the description of the Thri-kreen's lower arms in the text. =/

But that's just me.

Edit: However, having known of Thri-kreen capable of attacking with weapons in their lower arms in previous editions, I can absolutely see how someone expecting a Thri-kreen to still be capable of doing so would see the art differently. It depends on what you expect to see, methinks.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And I'm not asserting that my way is the only way to see it.

This, to me, is no different than the change in the alignment system- some think its great, to others its an abomination, and to others, its meh. IOW, its a change that will be perceived differently by different gamers depending upon their expectations, their likes & dislikes from previous editions.

For me, the Thri-Kreen nerf is yet another change I don't like. It isn't in and of itself enough to turn me off from the game, but arrayed with other changes, makes 4Ed into a game I'll play in from only one side of the screen.

Its like Stumblewyk says- its a matter of expectations. Dark Sun didn't live up to mine.

 

[Scribble]

And I'm not asserting that my way is the only way to see it.

I don't think the fact that you see the picture as inaccurate is really a problem. Everyone sees whatever they see in art... (Lord knows there's been a TON of artwork throughout the editions, that seems inaccurate to me if based purely on the rules... Don't even get me started on the books..)

For ME at least it's this part:

There is simply no excuse for an RPG to have cover art depicting a PC or NPC doing something that cannot be done in the rules. ESPECIALLY when it involves a rules change from previous editions.

It raises certain expectations and then negates them in a fairly negative way. That's NOT good marketing, and it shows a lack of respect for your consumers.

Dislike art, dislike the game, whatever to each his own... But to say that because your view of the artwork doesn't match what can be done by the rules in the game mean WoTC is lacks respect for its customers...

This just smacks of someone grasping at straws for any way possible to make WoTC look bad in some way.

If that's REALLY your view... Color me mystified man.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Dislike art, dislike the game, whatever to each his own... But to say that because your view of the artwork doesn't match what can be done by the rules in the game mean WoTC is lacks respect for its customers...

This just smacks of someone grasping at straws for any way possible to make WoTC look bad in some way.

If that's REALLY your view... Color me mystified man.

My MBA is in marketing of Sports & Entertainment...from the USA's #2 program. One of the things we talked about ad nauseam is consumer psychology.

Advertising and product packaging is designed with the very specific purpose of attracting consumers. Everything about it is a conscious effort to manipulate your psyche into making a purchase. Otherwise, Dark Sun would have had a B&W cover with something like "Dark Sun for 4ED D&D" on its cover and nothing else. (As would basically every other product.)

So when you advertise or package your product in such a way that it is misleading- intentionally or negligently- it means you don't care enough about your customers' potential reaction to said strategies as long as you continue to sell product. IOW, the bottom line is more important to you than what we call "corporate goodwill."

I know how much time it takes to do pro-level artwork and how much it costs- its a sideline for me (print/logo/physical objects). While the cost of commissioning a new piece of art (or asking for a fix of the original) with a Bug with, say, one or more implements in its secondary hands would be non-trivial, it was also eminently recoupable, a drop in the proverbial bucket.

WotC saw the art and knew or should have known there was a divide between the perception the cover could generate and the game's actual mechanics, at least in terms of Dark Sun legacy consumers. Instead of paying that (or another) artist for more a cover piece more congruent, they moved forward. $$$ won; expectations were manipulated and they reaped the financial benefit.

 

[Aegeri]

You are being obscenely silly.

The rules say he can hold a weapon in those arms. The art shows them holding weapons in those arms. The rules allow you to rapidly change weapons (free actions happen VERY fast) and so he can quickly change to attack with any weapon he wants.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You are being obscenely silly.

You're being insulting. My opinion is my opinion. To my eyes- not yours, obviously- that axe is not being "held", it is being "wielded."

And for those who worship RAW:

Dark Sun p22
In combat, thri-kreen hold weapons or shields in their upper limbs, since the middle pair lacks the strength for this purpose and using both sets of limbs would be awkward and unwieldy."

The only phrase there for "for this purpose" to refer to is "hold weapons <snip>..."...meaning per that sentence, the Bugs cannot even "hold" weapons or shields in combat with those secondary arms.

 

[Aegeri]

You're being insulting.

It's my opinion that you are being over dramatic and obscenely pedantic - especially because the rules IMO fully support the art anyway. You're being obscenely silly because you're trying to claim this is some kind of "false advertising", which implies deliberate deception on Wizards part. That is honestly a really hilarious claim, because we've known for some time exactly how they were going to handle Thri-kreen and multiple weapons. Also there is always the point that holding a weapon =/ attacking with it. But it doesn't mean by fluff it doesn't absolutely nothing, it's just not used to make primary attacks with.

Admin here. Even more than insulting, you're in violation of "Wheaton's Rule." Everyone on this site should read their posts and ask themselves, "Will someone reading this reasonably think I'm being a dick if I post it?" If the answer is yes, don't hit submit. Fairly simple. In this case, you're deliberately being insulting and trying to get away with it. We don't have a lot of patience for that passive aggressive nonsense. I don't care if you (or anyone else) are correct or you think another poster is wrong; discuss the topic with them politely, or don't post.

If this is in any way unclear, PM me.

- Piratecat

To my eyes- not yours, obviously- that axe is not being "held", it is being "wielded."

"Wielded" means attacking with in 4E. In the particular art in question he is not attacking with the axe, he is attacking and hence "wielding" the bow only. If anyone came close with a simple flick of his arms he would put the bow into the safer smaller arms and be prepared to whack anything that came near easily. Then he would axe them straight to the face. This is what the rules clearly and in a perfectly balanced manner completely support. There is no false advertising.

You would have a valid point only if he was hitting someone else with the axe AND attacking with the bow. But that is not happening, hence only one weapon is being 'wielded'.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's my opinion that you are being over dramatic and obscenely pedantic - especially because the rules IMO fully support the art anyway.

I disagree.

Not only do I think the art does not reflect the rules, I just pointed out that the rules state that Thri-Kreen cannot hold weapons in their secondary arms.

You're being obscenely silly because you're trying to claim this is some kind of "false advertising", which implies deliberate deception on Wizards part.

No, not at all.

I actually said that they could have been negligent as well. As in, there is no deliberate deception on their part, but they could still be culpable for the misperception- negligently misleading advertising is also considered "false advertising" in certain jurisdictions.

Not that I'd sue over something like this.

"Wielded" means attacking with in 4E.

That is wrong by RAW. "Wielding" is used in the sense of having a weapon ready to attack, just like in previous editions. And in addition, they occasionally conflate "wielding" and "holding." For example:

PHB1, p270
Simply wielding a weapon in each hand doesn't allow you to make two attacks in a round. If you hold two melee weapons, you can use either one to make a melee attack.

In this example, "wielding" and "attacking" are clearly 2 different things...but "wielding" is used interchangeably with "holding." Note: this does not mean that "wielding" = "holding", only that WotC gets sloppy with language on occasion and sometimes uses the terms interchangeably.

 

[Aegeri]

That is wrong by RAW.

Nope. "Wield" means attacking with, hold does not. For example, I can hold two staffs at once by RAW. They are two handed weapons, so I cannot "wield" either as a weapon to attack with. Due to the fact the staff as an implement doesn't require me to hold it with two hands, I can still wield it as an implement and attack through it - despite the fact I can't actually use it as a weapon. Here we see how the RAW completely proves my point. To "Wield" the staff I need two hands if I want to use it as a weapon. I can HOLD it as much as I feel like. To "wield" the staff as an implement, it doesn't matter if I have two hands and so I can happily do so one handed. Here we can see where the clear distinction in the rules between "wield" and attacking with a weapon is different to simply holding it.

So I can hold two staffs perfectly, when I attack with it I am wielding the implement for purposes of effects (like getting the damage bonus from staff of ruin). I cannot use the weapon as a staff, as I do not have two hands but - yep - I can hold the thing as much as I like.

So "Wield" and "Hold" in 4E do actually mean different things. Also the text you quoted is in reference to attacking, where they use the term "wield" and then they put out if you hold two weapons you need to choose the weapon you are actually attacking with. Either way, I am going to talk about the awesome things that I'm doing in my dark sun game and ceasing with this. Feel free to sue wizards for their terrible false advertising.

-------------------------

So in my Dark Sun game I have planned for the PCs to actually be present both during and in the aftermath of the period where Kalak is killed. To give it a suitably "gritty" feeling and get right into things, I've arranged for the PCs to be in the gladitorial arena of Tyr. They're about to be executed by horrible monsters for affronts to Kalak, a particular Templar and other individuals they've crossed. I've made multiple ways they can get out from being chained up as delicious lunch for the hungry monsters in the arena and in the interest of amusement, the Templar overseeing things decides to just let things run their course.

What happens during this is that Kalak is killed and all hell truly breaks loose all over the city. This suddenly puts the templar in the position where he's no longer quite so invulnerable, as arena prisoners rebel and elements from other city states (even some of the arena's monsters) decide to take advantage of the chaos to make a play for power. This leads of course to the PCs direct escape, having to battle their way through several 3 and even a couple of 4 way fights (though it is possible to ally themselves with different sides if they can be convincing enough). Until finally running down their executioner and giving him a nice hammer or similar to the face.

I then intend to have a "break" between this very combat heavy and fast paced beginning between after Kalak dies and when the campaign begins properly later. The PCs can organize various things they want to do and the players can even change/introduce new characters - the opening of the game is pretty brutal to say the least. From there I am not sure if I want to have a sort of Dark Sun cliche "You are going on a caravan..." sort of affair or not. I have a few ideas, but it would be neat to get them into the desert with a more interesting and compelling reason than that. Then again, it is a very classic Dark Sun element and while I played it in 2E, for most of them I think it's the first time they've played Dark Sun so maybe it is okay.

Either way, I really love the flavor/mechanics of making the environment just as much as an enemy as anything else. So I'm going to emphasize just how horrible and deadly the desert is - even before you throw ravenous undead and psychic tentacle monsters at them.