Your choices are Kill, or ... Kill

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Because thats all they've shown...kill, kill or be killed.

Why are you assuming there's something else without any evidence?

Add in they've removed many of teh good aligned, or rather arent stating them, becuase they arent opponents, or some such as they have said....and its not looking good.

Okay, I challenge you to prove to me and the other pro-4e people that the Sleep spell in its current incarnation is a lethal spell.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, yeah, that too. Maybe I'm being naive, but that seemed like a simple mistake more than a clumsy attempt at disinformation.

In the context of my above post, I don't see a big difference. I expect that a 4e supporter would have stopped, realized it didn't make sense, and checked the write-up of the power. A 4e detractor would (and did, I will hazard a guess) stop, realize it doesn't make sense, and then use it as evidence that 4e doesn't make sense.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Why are you assuming something doesn't exist merely because you haven't seen it? There are two sides to that coin, and you'd be better served not to pull at that thread.

How about we discuss things we know are going to be part of 4th ed rather than speculating (without evidence) what may or may not be in the rules?

Also, "it was in 3e" is in many cases good evidence. Especially when the feature in question is "interacting with monsters without killing them." Why would they take that out? That is not a rhetorical question, and in many other places where something was changed or removed, we have a designer comment justifying the change (eg. save-or-die, Vancian casting, PC-standard statblocks for monsters). Without such a commentary, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think it's an entirely reasonable position to assume that an unmentioned feature of the game functions more or less like it did in 3e, or at least has not been excised. This is particularly true at this late stage, since they've been taking pains to reveal changes, even if we don't have the rules yet, and those reveals function as teasers. We know, for example, that social skills are different, but we're not yet sure how they function.

 

[carmachu]

Why are you assuming something doesn't exist merely because you haven't seen it? There are two sides to that coin, and you'd be better served not to pull at that thread.

How about we discuss things we know are going to be part of 4th ed rather than speculating (without evidence) what may or may not be in the rules?

Because at the moment, the absence of evidence isnt evidence.

They havent talked about ANY roleplaying aspects much at all. Only defined roles, and killing stuff. Alot.


How about not? Speculation can be fun to you know. I find it odd that they removed good creatures becuase you are suppose/shouldnt kill them.....Points to a certain mentality, no?

 

[Insight]

I'm making this argument from my observations, not in order to "get back at" anyone for some kind of perceived slight.

Same here. I'm trying to look at things from a logical perspective, based on what is actually known (or demonstrably proven to be highly likely) as opposed to wild speculation. I have no "anti-3rd ed agenda", although I should admit that, after playing 4E at D&DXP, I am biased towards 4E.

 

[Insight]

Because at the moment, the absence of evidence isnt evidence.

They havent talked about ANY roleplaying aspects much at all. Only defined roles, and killing stuff. Alot.


How about not? Speculation can be fun to you know. I find it odd that they removed good creatures becuase you are suppose/shouldnt kill them.....Points to a certain mentality, no?

I see. So the fact that WOTC hasn't released any RP specific information about 4E leads you to believe that there will be absolutely no RP in 4E. That strikes me as very odd, but if that's what you truly believe, so be it.

 

[carmachu]

Okay, I challenge you to prove to me and the other pro-4e people that the Sleep spell in its current incarnation is a lethal spell.

well I dont know about your group, but mine usual slit their throats AFTER they were unconcious.....


Sleep was fairly lethal.

 

[carmachu]

I see. So the fact that WOTC hasn't released any RP specific information about 4E leads you to believe that there will be absolutely no RP in 4E. That strikes me as very odd, but if that's what you truly believe, so be it.

They spend an awful amout of time on how to kill and what to kill. And almost no time on the RP aspects of the game.

You dont find any of that odd?

I'm sure there are some, but its completely take a back seat to who, how, and when to kill things and loot stuff.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

well I dont know about your group, but mine usual slit their throats AFTER they were unconcious.....


Sleep was fairly leathal.

If you have a paladin in the group, it is often "we must wait until after they wake up before we murder them," but yes, point taken.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

They spend an awful amout of time on how to kill and what to kill. And almost no time on the RP aspects of the game.

You dont find any of that odd?

No.

I'm sure there are some, but its completely take a back seat to who, how, and when to kill things and loot stuff.

These are things that need a well-developed system in order to function, and as such are (and always have been) the focus of discussions about the game. How many RP threads are there usually in the Rules forum? How much text in 1st ed. was devoted to the mechanics of role-playing? Compared to the amount of text pertaining to exploring dungeons and killing things? I remember having no trouble roleplaying in 1st ed. regardless of the lack of rules for doing so. Heck, I had no trouble making my dwarf a blacksmith despite the lack of non-weapon proficiencies.

Discussion of the actual system they have in place to facilitate roleplaying--the first of its kind in D&D--is being held back for some future date. Perhaps there will be a Dragon article. But we know it is there, and we know it's not necessary for roleplaying.