PDA

View Full Version : 4E pros and Cons A review ofRaces and Classes by EE. Please read



EvilElitest
2008-01-01, 06:36 PM
This project i'm doing is far to big for the thread i started it on so i'm making a new thread for it

Basically, I bought 4E races and classes as I was open to 4E and I wanted to see where D&D was going. After reading the book I am now going to write Everything that I liked and disliked about the book. I will be updating as long as my internet allows, please comment as much as you want. If anyone knows a person from WOTC who I can contact, please do so I want them to read this
Enjoy, forgive its length, this is a page by page thing, but feel free to just read parts


Alright, this is my absurdly sized rant, it is so big, and I知 going to have to cut it into parts

I am going to critique this book page by page alright (by the by, if anyone from WOTC is reading this, please PM me I want a job as a writer for the new book, trust me you will get your money's worth)


Alright

Cover page, cool but simple, kind of basic, almost like SE books. The pictures are cool, but two out of proportioned for my tastes, the fighter dude is wearing armor that look like WOW and the tiefling's daggers make no sense what so ever
Cool pictures inside though, 2,3,5 are all cool

Alright, now I知 getting really started, p.6 the discussion of the rules, here is where it pisses me of

p. 7 the reasons for 4th edition are discussed, two complaints

1. They admit to flaws in 3.5, and yes we are aware of them. However instead of doing what they sort of did for SE to 3E, they are revamping the system in ways that aren't needed (see complaints in detail later) and changing things aren't even broken.

2. D&D insider? What is that (note, even if I find out later in the book, they should have explained that on the first page)
also, digital is not a good idea, because not enough people can afford access to the computer and their own gaming table, I could understand a digital version (same as table top but for people who just like digital) that goes along side table top but merging them together just makes both pro digital and pro table top, as well as those who lack the people to play with in person and the people who lack the finance, time, or access to computers who will feel left out. This might be addressed later, but I wanted to know from page one
We see advertising for Wizards Presents Worlds and Monsters, so I feel the need to make a disclaimer

As people might have noticed, I love fluff, or as I call it meat (stolen term) over crunch. But I know the importance of crunch and I use it as much as possible to fit the story. The five things I love the most in D&D are
1. Playable Races
2. Classes
3. Worlds, Champion settings ect
4. Monsters
5. Alignments and morality

So this is my element they are preaching to me. I may or may not read the second book depending on my first glance
Anyways in the next paragraph, three notes
1. They are still making this. I really hope this essay reaches some of the writing staff because I really hope they change some of these ideas before it gets realized, because most likely I will no be buying 4E

2. This is only a sample, so I will still be open to the possibility of it being really cool
3. Can't imagine playing D&D anyone other way? Eh?

4. Good luck with the champion
5. they are still play testing, yet again please hire me, I have no qualifications other than a bloated ego and a lot of gaming experience, as well as an uncanny ability of getting what I want (no threats intended)
There is thank a rather nice thank you saying how we have and still are helping them make a better game
Then on p. 7 we have a cool dwarf picture (I know this I subjective) I liked the sketch and the finished product, the red looked nice with the dagger and I found the beard cool, but I知 not artist

I feel the need to make one thing clear at this time, I have always been a bit fan of WOTC, I致e defending them against most attacks (except wizards being overpowered, even I couldn't argue against that one) and I greatly prefer D&D to other RPGs. I am also a massive fantasy fan, and I love seeing and creating games related to the genre

I'm going to skip the design timeline on pages 8 and 9 as it doesn't really interest me as well as p.10 and most of p. 11 but the final article, where the artist talk, I must say "Good job" as I found most of the art very good quality in these books, I think they have done a very good job
The below section is personal option

Big fan of the art, one two things bother me (and by that is out of all the pictures I致e seen

1. I wish the weapons and armor looked more realistic, but that is just me
2. Only real complaint, Please, Please, Please, I beg of you, stop showing lewdly clad women, please. This book doesn't do it so much) but really, this has been bugging me for years
I just turned 16 (male) and I know most teens are extremely immature in matters of women (Way too many just go "Hmmmmmmmmmm, Boobs" and leave it at that) but really, I知 just asking you to cut back, your so much better than many other companies. This is just an important point here that I really just want to make a few bullets (I know I知 getting off topic but still)
A- I can't take them seriously. I can accept magic and super human strength (realistically most people go down after one sword wound via infection), I can accept fantasy races, and I don't mind dragons flying ect. But when adventures run around on admittedly dangerous journeys fighting stuff, but when all the elves all run around wearing volleyball girl outfits? And I mean Vollyball dead and alive. Really, please, that just screams "Stab me" as chain-mail bikinis offer no protection and they would just die of exposed. This prevents me from being drawn into the world and looking at the said characters in any sort of realistic manner, it just kills the spirit for me. Considering this is a mid-evil styled game this makes even less sense. I know it sells but please.

B- Sexism, I know that is not intentional, but when all the female look like fashion models and dress showing off as much of their bodies as possible? I just can't judge them as human beings. I just feel like they are soulless fashion models who I can't even start to judge as real characters. If the smartest, bravest and toughest wizard wears an outfit that exposes her stomach and breasts, I just am thinking "So does she sleep around a lot or what? Why is she wearing such a useless outfit?" D&D doesn't have enough female players as it is (this saddens me greatly) and I think WOTC should open out to girls more by treating them equally, not as sex symbols. Exception exist for pictures of girls who are suppose to dress that way (a seducer for example, or a succubus ect) but really

C- Every time a see a male dude wearing armor and a female wearing next to nothing in the mid section, I feel so, out of it, I just feel no connection to the female character and it kills the fantasy mood I have been experiencing. So please, I admit I am american (in the prude sort of way) and that I am rather straight laced in said matters but please stop

D- I am not ashamed of the fact I play D&D, I have no problem brining books like the Players hand book to school, however when my friends (non gaming) are interested in the game an I try to explain it to them, when the see a half naked girl they just assume the worst and no longer take me seriously. I've stopped bringing most books because it embarrasses me.


Other than that, I love WOTCS artwork, makes the books worth the buy

Back on topic (sorry about that, I notice I am taking to much room, so I might cut this up) we move onto the new logo, that feels, well, boring. The old one (with the sword running through the middle) kind of set the mood of epic fantasy, while this one I pretty, well, plain. I don't mind a new logo, but please make a cooler one. They do list the reasons for why the didn't like the old one, but I feel that should motivate them (I really think a new one would be cool) to make one that is cooler, not plainer

Alright, on p. 13 we have the Orcus Design Tenets.
1. Must be Medieval Fantasy Role Playing
Me- Hurray, keep it that way, total agreement
2. Dungeon Master as Story teller
Me- you have my total support there
3. Cooperative Play Experience
Me- Good job, two thumbs up
4. Base Mechanics
It is worth noting in this book they go against this in some ways but in general, I support that whole heartily. After all, I play D&D for a reason, not Gurps or something else
5. Three - Dimensional tactics
Me- I don't use miniatures, but I have problem with them and as long as you can still play without them keep up the good work
6. Options not Restrictions
Me- This is the thing that makes me still open to D&D forth edition, and what I love most about this game, please, keep this rule true
7. Improve the Game
Me- I hope you improve it mechanically but don't fix want wasn't broken
8. Make the Game Easy to Design or, Develop, and Edit
Me- Oh gods, thank you, but keep the essential rules the same
So I am pretty supportive of what they are trying to do
Their email is also on p. 13, I might email them to apply for a job
Alright, I can't take anymore, I have plenty more to say, and I値l most likely finish EE's essay part two tonight but I need to eat dinner

from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-01-01, 06:38 PM
Part 2, the real problem with 4E

P. 11 we have heroes of the world.

In the very first paragraph they make it quite clear that the PCs are the heroes of the world by default. I would like to point out that this seems a lot like WOW, with every single PC being a "hero" simple because they chose a PC class. More later.
The writers move onto talk about the "sweet spot" the levels 4-15 where the characters are very powerful and are having a good time. I would like to point out this really varies from class to class, for the fighter the 'Sweet spot" lasts until the wizard get high enough level to be useful, then he is useless
The Thief doesn't really have a sweet spot
The Druid and Cleric's sweet spot start to kick in around 7-9 ish levels and last forever
The wizard's goes from 8-20 (at best)
The monk doesn't have a sweet spot, ever. I mean ever
you get the idea, i think what WOTC should have focused upon is making all the classes have the same "sweet spot" first before trying to expand it

Then the book gets absurd
In 3E, monsters are modeled in the same way as PCs, so that monsters are following the same rules as the PCs. This opens a lot of options
1. Monsters can be suitable challenges for PC, such as rivals, allies, comrades, enemies, and hunters ect.
2. The PCs get a sense that the monsters is more than a random encounter and a person in its own right, leading to many interesting situation and cool role playing options. The races also feel more "real" and integrated into the world
3. Evil Champions are open, players playing as monsters are an option, and monster cohorts are around, pretty cool. The webomic Goblins is a good example of this
4. The monsters follow the same rules as the PCs, useful for both role-playing and for combat
5. The world makes more sense

D&D now has a chance to change itself from the black and white "You vs. them" sort of persona and go instead to launch itself instead into a geo political realistic fantasy world, with hundreds of different fantasy races struggling for survival and existence. The many different fantastical creatures all of which have their own agenda, many of them fight for good or evil. Others still live in a grey area between the two. The PCs can play as the champions of good, live in an anti-hero gray area, or tyrants for the forces of darkness and evil. The players will be immersed in a world, not a basic came of "See the monster, stab the monster, loot its body, and move on. I could play WOW for that. WOTC could publish more culture book on the many monsters (thus making lots of money) and increasing the sense of "realism" in the D&D world
So close


And they promptly ruin it

"The PC s are going to be the center stage for the life of the campaign"
That...doesn't make any sense
1. Sounds like a video game, where everything evolves around the PCs. That is an awful idea. If you want the PCs to be engrossed in the world, then you have to make the world realistic and amazing. The PCs will have no interest if some NPCs are being killed if they think the world revolves around them. They will not have any sort of interest in anything really, it will just be kind of "Kill it, get money, kill it, and get money. Their is no longer any sense that they are inside a fantastical Tolkien like (or Martin like if you enjoy Song of Fire and Ice, Eddings like ect) world, it will be more like they are inside a video game, where everything is about you, and in sort, i think video games will always be able to do that better. Save the Final Fantasy sort of attitude for video games
2. The above sort of world leads to PC hubris, as seen in the comic DM of the Rings, trust me, if the PCs don't care about the world they are in, then why will they ever bother to save it
3. Why do the PCs deserve such power? Think about it, within the game world, most Parties start out level 1, pretty normal guys; all around them there are NPCs that are the same level and higher who do more. The PCs eventually become heroes, epic legends however why? They are good at what they do, they fight, they struggle, they level up, they work together and after all their hard work they become level 15! They are legends, most normal people look up to them in awe, they are praised as heroes, songs are written about them ECT, everybody loves them. And the players earned it
and in 4E they start out amazing. WTF? Why? What have they done to earn all this super power? What
4. It will kill FR. Think about it, FR is crawling with PCs, and in their world they have earned their high-level prestige, wealth and fame. Now every single PC in FR will suddenly be super powered? It doesn't make any sense. FR is already a high magic setting, do this and the world will fall apart
5. It is like the Exalted Champaign settings. However, i don't like Exalted for that reason, so i play D&D. Broaching of territory i gather

"and deserve all the power options and customization features that the system can bear"
no, just no. I don't want to play with a bunch of guys who just destroy everything that comes in their path; i want a bunch of guys who use wit, strength, skill, and intelligence to rise about the normal people, not to a bunch of superheroes. This is why i don't like Mary Sues, they start out super, i want characters to earn their fame and prestige and reap the rewards of their good work
"Monsters and most NPCs are lucky to appear in appear more than once, particularly if they are encountered in combat situations."
So 4E is a video game. That痴 it? Dear gods, did Baldur's Gate teach you people nothing?
If the NPCs are flat and emotionless and the monsters just die like fodder, the players are automatically super; this seems more like Resident Evil than anything else. Dear gods don't do this, i can play Diablo for a good video game, and I play D&D for the cool gaming combined with a realistic role-playing setting. 3.5 supported this, you lose nothing by having 4E do so as well

"The new system is not overly concerned with simulating interactions between monsters and non player characters when the PCs are not on stage"
1. Ok, how will my world make any f**king sense then? If everything revolves around six dudes for no good reason, how does my plot even make sense? Why should my player痴 care about my world if they aren't told to, what痴 to keep them from just rampage the land killing as they please? Thank you for bringing D&D back to the old black and white and boring world that doesn't make sense. Thank you so much
2. Why are we spoiling the PCs so much?
Also, why shouldn't monsters have the same powers as everybody else? It makes the world more uniform and more interesting

/End rant

from
EE
Comments, questions, pointed out mistakes? Please post.

Edited for mistakes

Reinboom
2008-01-01, 08:01 PM
This write up sounds to me more like a boundless request, at least at first, for a career at WotC. Although, confidence in your ability is admirable, especially given the age, trying to throw out the request is a distraction to read a work, or rant in this case, and detracts from the quality of it.
Further, you may wish to take more writing, grammar, and journalism classes. Your writing does need work, especially if you are considering serious employment.

Also, a general requirement of Wizards of the Coast is for a person to be eighteen years of age before being hired in any of their creative departments. This is mostly due to the immense amount of intellectual property that would be restrictive against someone who can not legally hold an agreement without a parent or guardian's permission. It would be too distracting and troublesome to call an employee's guardian every other day in order to rely on the employee to properly contain intellectual property.

Your writing could also serve well with more focus, and less stream of conscious. Less claims that lead nowhere could also help. An example would be "I am going to critique this book page by page alright". Although this does not directly state you are going to critique every page, it at least implies it. It also serves as an opening to the reader to guide them into believing this is more of a direct book commentary and critique, which was lightly done. For focus, many parts of your rant I simply could not follow or find a point to. I believe many of your objectives was left out in your stream of conscious and has directly affected the information that you have given.

For the rant itself, you focus in certain areas too much and you provide many arguments without substantial backing or reference. You argue a sexist view against females by posting your views against the artwork, as an example, and this envelopes much of your rant rather than an actual focus on the book itself. Another example is the commentary on World of Warcraft, which, I find to be biased or simply unsupported enough and appears as an argument hinting towards the feeling of social pressure which claims the same, rather than a substantial argument.

Now, on the rant, and a reply to certain points:
On the "lewdly clad" women. This is, unfortunately, popular media and marketing focused art. I do not find it offensive or detracting however since this is not at all what defines the game. Wizards also has a tendency to do extremes with men as well, the women just get more attention due to this being a more male populated game.
I agree in that I prefer more reasonably dressed females characters, but it doesn't bother me enough otherwise to make a point out of it.
Also, country of origin doesn't matter.

For the PCs are the center stage...
Well, they are. I can not think of a group of players I've ever played with that enjoys watching the GM role play with themselves. A GM can set up the backbone however the GM wants, this is true with any RPG. The player characters however, are the players of this campaign world. They play in it. If they are not playing, then they are not playing, and thus, you are truly removing a significant component from the game.
Also, think about the statement for a moment please, and then think about what the game is. The game is a system of mechanics intended to be used by many in order to support the fantasies and enjoyment of all. The main point? Mechanics.
I can not conceive how WotC will, mechanically, force a party to be the center of a campaign world. WotC can not send ninjas into every house who tries to play 4e and force the GM to make the players the center of the GM's campaign. It doesn't work like that.
The reason why Final Fantasy, and similar, are like that is because their "GM" made them that way. SquareEnix being their GM. This is not something that can be controlled by the mechanics alone, however. I, for one, can easily imagine taking a Final Fantasy engine and changing the storyline that SquareEnix, the GM, has set so the players aren't the center of the world. Easily.
Mechanics don't control focus.

Forgotten Realms power will only change, I would imagine, however the stories will stay the same otherwise it wouldn't be the Forgotten Realms and it's the stories that dictate if the who is the focus or not. Not the mechanics.

For power, if power and balance is your concern, get a new GM. Once again, there is nothing stating that players automatically fight "appropriate level" creatures. If there was, then the game wouldn't require a GM to create the game itself. I've heard they're still releasing a dungeon master's guide, after all.

Starsinger
2008-01-01, 08:07 PM
Now, on the rant, and a reply to certain points:
On the "lewdly clad" women. This is, unfortunately, popular media and marketing focused art. I do not find it offensive or detracting however since this is not at all what defines the game. Wizards also has a tendency to do extremes with men as well, the women just get more attention due to this being a more male populated game.
I agree in that I prefer more reasonably dressed females characters, but it doesn't bother me enough otherwise to make a point out of it.
Also, country of origin doesn't matter.


I enjoyed your entire post, but this in particular I feel warrants a direct response...

There should be more attractive and scantily clad men in the artwork. A beefcake for every stripper ninja or something...

Also, I like your new avatar. :smallsmile:

Cuddly
2008-01-01, 08:09 PM
You should really clean up your writing. Until you learn how to use punctuation, EE, I'm not going to read anything from you over a paragraph in length.


I enjoyed your entire post, but this in particular I feel warrants a direct response...

There should be more attractive and scantily clad men in the artwork. A beefcake for every stripper ninja or something...

Also, I like your new avatar. :smallsmile:

Are you kidding? Ever single male character is extremely well muscled. Even the mage guy brewing potions in the 3.0 DMG is stacked. The only fat character I've ever seen in a D&D book was the cook in the DMG in front of a sign that says "No Spellcasters".

Reinboom
2008-01-01, 08:18 PM
I enjoyed your entire post, but this in particular I feel warrants a direct response...

There should be more attractive and scantily clad men in the artwork. A beefcake for every stripper ninja or something...

Also, I like your new avatar. :smallsmile:

I would prefer more pretty-boys myself, but alas, they aren't that popular it seams... :smalltongue:
And thank you. Serpentine is a great avatarist. :smallsmile:

Starsinger
2008-01-01, 08:21 PM
I would prefer more pretty-boys myself, but alas, they aren't that popular it seams... :smalltongue:
And thank you. Serpentine is a great avatarist. :smallsmile:

Beefcake was just the first word to pop into my head. I'd much rather prefer pretty boys as well.

GryffonDurime
2008-01-01, 08:27 PM
I would prefer more pretty-boys myself, but alas, they aren't that popular it seams... :smalltongue:
And thank you. Serpentine is a great avatarist. :smallsmile:

Have you even looked at Hennet? He's got that nice, exotic kind of look to him. And Gimble's got a kind of scruffy cuteness too.

...On other topics, I really didn't enjoy the heavy hubris of your evaluation, EE. Your tone on a lot of things leads the reader to believe that your view is the superior one, rather than actually stating your view and then building up supporting evidence. Likewise, a more careful pass of editing might be helpful. There are some decent points in there, but no one will notice if they're not well expressed and supported by evidence.

Prophaniti
2008-01-01, 09:08 PM
"The new system is not overly concerned with simulating interactions between monsters and non player characters when the PCs are not on stage" This is the quote from WotC that really caught me. The system may not be concerned with it (ie no written mechanics for how this should proceed, which is fine), but I sure am. Having NPCs and monsters that only act when the PCs show up is a quick way to create a dead, boring world of grinding and endless body-looting just like, as EE says, a video game. I do not want my table-top gaming to become like my computer gaming. I want the world of my table-top game, being limited only by my imagination, to do what my computer games cannot. This includes hosting a vibrant, breathing, changable world where NPCs and monsters have the same ability as you do to change the world as you do. Great Lords and mighty dragons should NOT sit idle merely because the focus of the story is elswhere. You're running heroes, not gods of their own little sandbox, where only they have the power to shape things.

This is not to say that the DM should give a running 'news bulletin', or spend lots of the game session on it, or anything like that. More like, if the party comes upon a valley that is violently contested by rival tribes, then leaves for a year and comes back, they should find that something has actually happened! One side or the other has won out, they made peace, they were both defeated by yet another side, SOMETHING. They should not get there to find them still in exactly the same state, which this quote strongly implies will be the standard take on things.

The PCs may be the center of the story, but they shouldn't be the center of the universe. If interesting things only happen when they show up, if things only change when they show up, it will be as he said, they will lose interest in the world. I know I would.

In this at least, EE, we are in agreement. You really should work on your writing skills, though. It was far too difficult to follow in many places. I don't have a problem with your tone, I already understand you have a big ego, as you said, and take everything you write accordingly. Just work on the mechanics so it's more reader-friendly.:smallsmile:

GryffonDurime
2008-01-01, 09:19 PM
This is the quote from WotC that really caught me. The system may not be concerned with it (ie no written mechanics for how this should proceed, which is fine), but I sure am.


I think this quote may be causing unneeded problems. It says the system isn't concerned with simulating these interactions. Is 3.5 concerned with simulating interactions when the PCs aren't around? I've never known a DM to roll a Diplomacy check for distant NPCs who are setting up a war that just may catch the players off-guard. He just does it.

I don't read this quote to mean that the system somehow discourages a living world...I can't even imagine, mechanically, how Wizards would accomplish such a feat. This is no different then the theory behind 3.5 or any other RPG for that matter. The system isn't made for the DM to play against himself. It's made for the players to inhabit the world the DM has created.

Reinboom
2008-01-01, 09:22 PM
I'm not currently aware of rules for such things in place as it is for 3.5e, at least, not in core.
There really doesn't need to be rules for this either; that's a GM thing, not a mechanics thing.

As I stated before, if the game is working like that, and you don't like it, complain to your GM, not Wizards of the Coast. The game is a tool, a system, not an absolute.

Edit:
Simu'd by GryffonDurime. This statement is in agreement with him.

Prophaniti
2008-01-01, 09:32 PM
I think this quote may be causing unneeded problems. It says the system isn't concerned with simulating these interactions. Is 3.5 concerned with simulating interactions when the PCs aren't around? I've never known a DM to roll a Diplomacy check for distant NPCs who are setting up a war that just may catch the players off-guard. He just does it.

I don't read this quote to mean that the system somehow discourages a living world...I can't even imagine, mechanically, how Wizards would accomplish such a feat. This is no different then the theory behind 3.5 or any other RPG for that matter. The system isn't made for the DM to play against himself. It's made for the players to inhabit the world the DM has created.
True. I mostly meant that I disagree with the 'PCs should be the center of everything' attitude it conveys. The PC's are the people we focus on in the grand scheme, but that doesn't mean nothing outside their view matters, which seems like the vibe I'm getting. Also, I don't like the thought track that PCs should be super-powerful either. Of course I want to play a hero, but it sounds like they're building the system specifically to be power-gamed, which I don't like at all.

It may turn out that having a system designed to be power-gamed will balance in the end, as everyone can easily create a mechanically viable character. Thus no one feels like the 'monk' of the party despite putting the most work into their in-depth backstory. I hope this is the case, rather than only serving to widen the gap between role-players and power-gamers. We'll see.
EDIT:
As I stated before, if the game is working like that, and you don't like it, complain to your GM, not Wizards of the Coast. The game is a tool, a system, not an absolute.

Whole-heartedly agreed, I point it out a lot on threads about different game mechanics. It is nice, though, the less change is necassary in a system to get what you want.

EvilElitest
2008-01-01, 09:39 PM
This write up sounds to me more like a boundless request, at least at first, for a career at WotC. Although, confidence in your ability is admirable, especially given the age, trying to throw out the request is a distraction to read a work, or rant in this case, and detracts from the quality of it.
Further, you may wish to take more writing, grammar, and journalism classes. Your writing does need work, especially if you are considering serious employment.

Actually, that was a joke, but a if you know any WOTC people show them here please
Your comments are noted, though examples would help


Also, a general requirement of Wizards of the Coast is for a person to be eighteen years of age before being hired in any of their creative departments. This is mostly due to the immense amount of intellectual property that would be restrictive against someone who can not legally hold an agreement without a parent or guardian's permission. It would be too distracting and troublesome to call an employee's guardian every other day in order to rely on the employee to properly contain intellectual property.

Understandable, by the way i'm 16


Your writing could also serve well with more focus, and less stream of conscious. Less claims that lead nowhere could also help. An example would be "I am going to critique this book page by page alright". Although this does not directly state you are going to critique every page, it at least implies it. It also serves as an opening to the reader to guide them into believing this is more of a direct book commentary and critique, which was lightly done. For focus, many parts of your rant I simply could not follow or find a point to. I believe many of your objectives was left out in your stream of conscious and has directly affected the information that you have given.

Alright, i'll try to do that more in the future


For the rant itself, you focus in certain areas too much and you provide many arguments without substantial backing or reference. You argue a sexist view against females by posting your views against the artwork, as an example, and this envelopes much of your rant rather than an actual focus on the book itself. Another example is the commentary on World of Warcraft, which, I find to be biased or simply unsupported enough and appears as an argument hinting towards the feeling of social pressure which claims the same, rather than a substantial argument.

1. The artwork has been bugging me for ages, as this is the first time i've ever seen the artist make a commentary on their work, i thought i should bring it up. As i said, whenever i see a female character in any D&D book, i just can't view them as human beings, the dress is just far to stupid. The males are buff to the point of absurdity i know, but at least they wear clothes. If all the women were amazedly good looking but wore only slightly revealing clothing then i would feel like that person could be a real adventurer.
2. Can you go into a tad bit more detail about the WOW thing?


Now, on the rant, and a reply to certain points:
On the "lewdly clad" women. This is, unfortunately, popular media and marketing focused art. I do not find it offensive or detracting however since this is not at all what defines the game. Wizards also has a tendency to do extremes with men as well, the women just get more attention due to this being a more male populated game.
Popular media is a reason, not an excuse



For the PCs are the center stage...
Well, they are. I can not think of a group of players I've ever played with that enjoys watching the GM role play with themselves. A GM can set up the backbone however the GM wants, this is true with any RPG. The player characters however, are the players of this campaign world. They play in it. If they are not playing, then they are not playing, and thus, you are truly removing a significant component from the game.
But in a good champaign setting the players should feel like they are in a living breathing world, not a world that's sole purpose is to provide loot and exp for them. If the world exists only as a place for the PCs to kill and loot generally mindless monsters and NPCs, it sound remarkable like WOW actually, except without the benefit of having thousands of people to play with.
The PCs will still be important people on the world of course, who wants to be a random dude? But they earns their prestige and honor via hard work, not simple by being created.

In a lot of my games the PCs start out as normal people who have taken to adventuring, thus why they are level 1 X. The wizard who has left her mentor in search of new magics, the Druid who just left her glade for the first time to restore the balance, a mercenary who has taken to the road again, a small time crook who joined up with an adventuring party, they are novices. As they fight and adventure together, the develop team tactics and gain exp (aka, they become better wizards, fighters ect). Their power increases, and they fight bigger monsters and do more epic deeds. Eventually the common people praise them as heros and they are powerful enough to take truly powerful evil creatures. And when they all die because forgot they were carrying a keg of gun powder while charging a red dragon (true story) at level 17-19 they will be remembered throughout the land an the player's new characters will hear of their deeds. And the players will smile and wipe cheese off their faces as they reflect they earned this (well, except for the fighter who felt underpowered and never got most of the glory but after that i nerfed wizards but you get the idea)


Also, think about the statement for a moment please, and then think about what the game is. The game is a system of mechanics intended to be used by many in order to support the fantasies and enjoyment of all. The main point? Mechanics.
D&D is a role playing game. It is a game of fantasy and glory, of epic glory an fantastical joineries, where you play as brave adventures in a fantastical land
In contrast, Diablo is a game where you have magic, and you kill a lot of monsters. They die, you kill bigger ones. You get exp and loot the monster's bodies, then kill some more. See where i'm going with this?


I can not conceive how WotC will, mechanically, force a party to be the center of a campaign world. WotC can not send ninjas into every house who tries to play 4e and force the GM to make the players the center of the GM's campaign. It doesn't work like that.

It is stated in the book that the players will be more powerful than NPCs from the Get Go and that is the general theme as stated by WOTC. Also, even if WOTC didn't send ninjas (they can but i have only three against their dozen:smalltongue:) if the new focus of the game is just PCs killing lots of monsters, looting them, killing more ect and they make no supplements or focus upon roleplaying ect, then the people like me who love that sort of thing will not longer be the focus of the game.



The reason why Final Fantasy, and similar, are like that is because their "GM" made them that way. SquareEnix being their GM. This is not something that can be controlled by the mechanics alone, however. I, for one, can easily imagine taking a Final Fantasy engine and changing the storyline that SquareEnix, the GM, has set so the players aren't the center of the world. Easily.
But WOTC has made it clear that both crunch and fluff, hell the game itself is focused upon the players as the center of the world
Also final fantasy with a realistic world would be awsome



Forgotten Realms power will only change, I would imagine, however the stories will stay the same otherwise it wouldn't be the Forgotten Realms and it's the stories that dictate if the who is the focus or not. Not the mechanics.

Wait think this through
In FR there are maybe a few thousand "PCs" or "adventures" who travel around the world on adventures. Now the NPC follow the same rules as the PCs so a Level 12 wizard who lives in a tower (NPC) and a parties' level 12 wizard can be about equal (varies but you get the idea). Suddenly, following said change, all of the "PCs" in the world will double in power, for not logically explained reason. Now FR has thousands of PCs all running around who are more powerful than everybody else, i simple doesn't make sense for a coherent world


For power, if power and balance is your concern, get a new GM. Once again, there is nothing stating that players automatically fight "appropriate level" creatures. If there was, then the game wouldn't require a GM to create the game itself. I've heard they're still releasing a dungeon master's guide, after all.
I am the DM, that isn't the issue here. Also, viewing the monsters (even the more intelligent ones like Goblins) as things to kill and loot for gold and exp is remarkable video game like

..On other topics, I really didn't enjoy the heavy hubris of your evaluation, EE. Your tone on a lot of things leads the reader to believe that your view is the superior one, rather than actually stating your view and then building up supporting evidence. Likewise, a more careful pass of editing might be helpful. There are some decent points in there, but no one will notice if they're not well expressed and supported by evidence.
I call foul here, double standard

You accuse me of hubris (i deny nothing) but you
1. Don't give examples
2. Don't bother stating examples
3. Don't respond to points
The editing thing is a good point however
Just to point something out though, regardless of the fact that i am an insane egomaniac, that doesn't change the points of the essay


Oh Prophanti, you are a good person I agree with you totally


I think this quote may be causing unneeded problems. It says the system isn't concerned with simulating these interactions. Is 3.5 concerned with simulating interactions when the PCs aren't around? I've never known a DM to roll a Diplomacy check for distant NPCs who are setting up a war that just may catch the players off-guard. He just does it
One time the PCs passed by a wizard who was creating a new material (mithral). The PCs gave him a book that helped them then left. A year later they came back to the tower. Eairler i rolled to see how well the wizard/artifacter was able to work with, sell, and produce the mithril. It turned out he was able to equip a private army and had taken over a good deal of land. Had the PCs not returned when they did, they would have heard about his conquests later
Now i'm going to work on part three, be back soon, thank you for the comments
from
EE

Talya
2008-01-01, 10:41 PM
As a woman in her thirties, let me just say, I am all in favor of more attractive pictures of barely clad adventurers, of either sex.

Thank you.

EvilElitest
2008-01-01, 10:49 PM
As a woman in her thirties, let me just say, I am all in favor of more attractive pictures of barely clad adventurers, of either sex.

Thank you.

why might i ask.

Or maybe i'm better off not knowing
from
EE

GryffonDurime
2008-01-01, 10:55 PM
I call foul here, double standard

Not so much, I think. I'm not the one creating an aggressive assertion here. I was merely pointing out how the format of your argument could have been improved, not making a claim for or against the system which you are describing; the sole exception to this being when I tackled the PCs-at-center-stage issue, when I did discuss examples and analyze.


You accuse me of hubris (i deny nothing) but you
1. Don't give examples
Covered above, but I'll tackle it later as well.


2. Don't bother stating examples
Was this intentional, or do you draw some distinction between them that I don't?

3. Don't respond to points
I wasn't intending to respond to specific points, save of course for the specific point I responded to. I was responding to your analysis as a whole. Ergo, I don't see why this is even an issue.

Just to point something out though, regardless of the fact that i am an insane egomaniac, that doesn't change the points of the essay

But it does, I'm afraid. It colors so much of your argument as being centered solely on yourself and how you perceive that the game should be whilst you make broad proclamations that would effect everyone based solely on your desires. Therefore, ego not only changes your points, but defines them.

If you'd like examples, then there will be examples:



also, digital is not a good idea, because not enough people can afford access to the computer and their own gaming table
Unfounded assertion, what are you basing this on? Note the phrasing here, indicative of the main problem in your analysis: you state things as unequivocal without providing any kind of substantiation. Hedging though it may be, this statement would have been considerably more acceptable with only the qualifier "I don't think that there are enough people who can afford..." because you've provided up with no reason to take it as more than your opinion.

They are still making this. I really hope this essay reaches some of the writing staff because i really hope they change some of these ideas before it gets realized, because most likely i will no be buying 4E
Joke or not, these kind of statements are pretty much an instant turn-off to anyone looking through your analysis, throwing questionable weight to your intentions.

B- Sexism, i know that is not intentional, but when all the female look like fashion models and dress showing off as much of their bodies as possible? I just can't judge them as human beings
Shameless joke alert: how many of them are supposed to be human? We've got a whole gambit of beings to be, maybe they were working at being some other, non-human being.

"and deserve all the power optons and customization features that the system can bear"
no, just no. I don't want to play with a bunch of guys who just destroy everything that comes in their path, i want a bunch of guys who use wit, strength, skill and intelligence to rise about the normal people, not to a bunch of superheros.
Again, I question the reading of the intent of the material here, if your quote is indeed apt: "power options" does not imply any kind of superheroesque overpowerdness to me. Customization features doesn't mean overpowered. It means choices. "Power options" is especially vague when you consider that all classes have maneuver-style options called powers: the sneaky skills of a rogue, the strong fighting styles of a warrior...I fail to see how your assertion is grounded in the material as presented.

"Monsters and most NPCs are lucky to appear in appear more than once, particularly if they are encountered in combat situations."
So 4E is a video game. Thats it? Dear gods, did Baldur's Gate teach you people nothing?
If the NPCs are flat and emotionless and the monsters just die like fodder, the players are automatically super, this seems more like Resident Evil than anything else
Again, here it is, you seem to be a fan of the black-or-white fallacy. Either roleplaying, or rollplaying; power or story. The material offers only the suggestion that battle will be, by default, brutal. You assert, in return, that this makes it a video game. As a question, how many times do you fight any given orc that waylays you on the side of the road? How often do you fight any one specific character, for that matter? Generally, once: they're either dead, diplomacized, or otherwise dispatched. It's rather illogical to keep fighting something after you've finished battle: you're obviously in combat for a specific reason, most likely because all other avenues of discourse have failed you. I again fail to see how you can assert, from the evidence provided, that this intent is anything new...because it isn't.


I could continue on in this manner, but I don't particularly care to. Please, don't feel that this critique is directed against you in anyway; my intent is only to point out areas of your analysis that could be strengthened. I wouldn't be investing this much time if I didn't feel that you had some valid points and concerns in there that could be better served by a more supported system of argument. Keep up the effort, it's quite impressive.

EvilElitest
2008-01-01, 10:57 PM
Alright part three, i took the comments into consideration, but sadly nobody gave any example on what they wanted to see, just semi vague things about what annoyed me (except for sweet rain) so i'll just plow on and not get side tracked

Part 3, return of the EE and his massive inflated ego

Right after a massive rant we are now

..... still on page 11, ok
Well then, here we go
The writer goes on to talk about power sources. here i am in agreement with them when he says that they haven't payed as much attention to them as the should have, and i am glad they are doing so now. By the by, power sources are things like "Clerics draw their magic from the gods, while Druids pull their magic from the raw power of nature, differences between arcane divine and pionic magic ect) and it is about time WOTC made those things clears. WOTC intends to
A) Make the differences between Arcane and Divine (and the different types of each) very clear).
B) Pions no longer will just have a different version of wizard spell, they will now have their unique powers AND casting system (the latter is already true but more so). As a psi fan, this is good
C) New types of magic, more unique casters like Shadow-casters or binders (I don't know what will happen to them by the way) and classes like Wu jen or hexblades might have a different type of magic/casting system.
things is hope for and seem likely
1. ToB's classes have their own magics
2. Varients arcane and divine casters still exists
So generally this is a good thing (my positive posts are a lot shorter)
There is a cool halfling picture with a weird sword
And then it is revealed to use that the Star Wars Roleplaying game influenced D&D a lot (i've never played SW games so this came as a shock to me). Some fun facts about both systems, none important enough to include here, and then this quote
"... First test of 4th Edition: to se how many of its core concepts could be adapted into a role-playing game of different stripes"
I will return to this later
Right, well so much for p.11-12. we non move onto the the important stuff, the races
P.13, Choosing the iconic races
"one of the long unchallenged assumptions of the Dungeons and Dragons games is that the world is populated by a variety of different fantasy races-elves, dwarves, halflings, and so on. Naturally, one of the first things we examined for the new edition was the purpose and mechanic of character race. What were character races doing for our game.? were we creating compelling stories with our races? What more could we do to make our vision for some of the more familiar fantasy races uniquely our own? And finally, what races should we include in the game"
now i took this with a grain of salt. I can understand why they want to look this over, but i think this goes back to "Don't fix what wasn't broken". 3.5 had a multitude of races, the "Core races" the sub races, the massive number of monsters, the added races in the "Races" series, and the champion specific races. They should be good race wise, i don't thin anyone would be crying if they didn't change the races at all. But their choice, however this caught me eye.
"What more could we do to make our races uniquely our own"?
When i first read this i thought they were adding no new races and instead focusing on developing the already existing culture of their races, which would be cool, them building off what they already stated in the "races" books, going more into races we know little off (goblins for example) and making their world more diverse (I was wrong in fact, but that comes later).
Then it gets weird.
"We decided very early in the process that we wanted character race to play a more important role in describing your character."
:smallconfused: It does. In every game i've been in in my six years of gaming and at current running six different game in the same world, race has always played a big part in the character's personality. I never seen it not play a major role in your character? Unless they are speaking from a mechanical view point, in which race is not as important but WOTC wouldn't be so shallow would they?
"Your race pick bestowed a whole collection of static, unchanging benefits at 1st level"
well yeah, that is because it makes sense, a dwarf can see in the dark, has high con, high strength, low charisma, stone sense ect. How can a dude become "More dwarven" Racial levels make sense for some races but how can i become "More human"? It just doesn't add up.
"(many of which were useless clutter on your character sheet"
Not really, i'm sorry WOTC but the only cluttered racial ability that i can recall was the gnomes "speak with underground animals" ability that i never used but most racial traits are the same.
"A 20th level dwarf had the exact same amount of facial characteristics as a 1st level dwarf"
yet again, that is because it makes sense. Lets use an example

Harold Thunder-beard is a a level 20 dwarf cleric. He became so powerful through the blessing of his god and through years of adventuring. He worked hard to become the cleric that he is now, and is honored as a high priest
Bob is a level 1 dwarf cleric, he has just started his journey to fame and prestige. Harold is far greater than him in clerical power, due to years of experience. However, he isn't racially greater than him, they are the same race. Why would a more powerful cleric be racially greater, it doesn't make any sense

WOTC's "New" system, and by new i mean i saw one exactly the same in a long dead Champaign setting (Dawnforge, before you ask, but it might be a chance) is that all the races gain racial traits as they level up
edit-actually, Dawnforge is similar but different, sorry about that
Basically, you choose you race (Dwarf) and get one or two racial abilities (medium sized, strength bonus ect) then you can choose racial abilities in the same way classes choose feats


Now while i am wary of this system, i've used it myself and it does in fact work. I just wish it was an option, now absolute.
In my game, every different racial dwarf is a different race, because when a race has different powers (aka, one dwarf choose the racial feat "Turn into a sheep" while another chose "light thing on fire" they are essentially a different race. So if i ever use 4E, i'll just make every possible racial combination and make them all different races.
the racial system is really up to personal choice
Then WOTC wanted to choose the new iconic races. It turns out they have 135 PC races in rule books alone. That is not counting monsters with level adjustment and dragon magazine.
here is the thing, Richard Bake acts like this is surprising. As any one who has over seven non RAW books knows, there are tons of PC races. My word has at current 500 i think. The fact that he is startled make me wonder how organized they are in WOTC, they really should have kept their facts straight (though it does explain a lot)
He then talks about what races should be iconic. Hard choice, i sympathize with him (no sarcasm there). But i am very annoyed that they want some races to "Quietly disappear, bad form that"
Apparently they went through every single race in the game, i think they should publish a series of book one the lesser races describing them in more detail, almost like the monster manual for PC races, they could make a good deal of money. Now i won't say more because it is covered in later chapters

Oh, i notice i cover very little ground so my new years resolution is to say less cover more topics
from
EE

Talya
2008-01-01, 10:58 PM
why might i ask.

Or maybe i'm better off not knowing
from
EE

Boris Vallejo, the Hildebrandts, Keith Parkinson (R.I.P.), you name a great fantasy artist, they have a wonderful appreciation for the sexuality inherent in the human form. So do I, even though I'm not much an artist.

EvilElitest
2008-01-01, 11:08 PM
Boris Vallejo, the Hildebrandts, Keith Parkinson (R.I.P.), you name a great fantasy artist, they have a wonderful appreciation for the sexuality inherent in the human form. So do I, even though I'm not much an artist.

how... ancient greek of you.

I prefer outfits that make sense
from
EE

Mojo_Rat
2008-01-01, 11:27 PM
One thing id like to coment on is the bit about Pc's and them being the Heroes of the world. first off Why is this a bad Idea? Players and characters should always be Center stage or the Heroes (or villains) of their own story. It also was not invented as a concept by WoW.

Alot of people who read about 4rth edition seem to be confusing modern game design concepts with references to Wow or MMORPG in general.

However the best example of the Pc's as heroes or villains concept is probably the various incarnations of the Star wars game. (at least the d20 versions) Which have all had the seperation of heroic and non heroic characters.

Tren
2008-01-01, 11:55 PM
I think Mojo Rat hit it on the head, the PC's should aways be the stars of their own story. For the default setting of 4E, that just happens to also make them the stars of the world, the "points of light". That's not a fault of the mechanics as much as the flavor of the new core setting (though I happen to like that myself). Forgotten Realms and other settings will still exist with their high-powered high-profile characters in place and the game world will only revolve around the PC's as much as the DM chooses to make it so.

Swordguy
2008-01-02, 12:30 AM
I prefer outfits that make sense
from
EE


What? Like wearing a noose around one's neck, wearing a garment that deforms ribs, or wearing shoes that deform the arches of the feet? What about full-body garments that the wearer can barely see out of? Do those make sense to you?

Clothing is a function of culture. The in-game culture clearly allows for such garments to exist (unlike in some modern countries), so you have no valid argument there.

And I'm with Talya. Sexuality is nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about, in any media. If you can't deal with that, than I feel sorry for you. If you don't want it in your games, fine, but be aware that kvetching about it isn't EVER going to make a difference - sex sells. Always has, always will. My fight direction business flyers are covered in pics of my wife fighting in corsets and things - and it gets sales. Seriously, our contracts per month went up 40% and have stayed constant at that level after we redesigned the flyers that way. If you ever start running a business yourself, you'll find that you aren't in a position to complain about such things.

And for the love of god, will you PLEASE start running your posts through MS Word and its attendant grammar check function?

Ozymandias
2008-01-02, 12:30 AM
You really need to clean up your prose. My hypercritical meter registered a few hits ("ect" was the most egregious but things like 'who' versus 'whom' bother me more than they have any right to), but far more prevalent and pertinent are the myriad run-on sentences, use of commas as a replacement for periods, lack of proper capitalization, abrasive formatting, et al, which make your writing very difficult to read.

Apropos your points, I disagree with some of them, although I admit I've not read the item in question (or all of your essay; I couldn't slog through it).

E.g. one of your statements on chain-mail bikinis and similar:


B- Sexism, i know that is not intentional, but when all the female look like fashion models and dress showing off as much of their bodies as possible? I just can't judge them as human beings. I just feel like they are soulless fashion models who i can't even start to judge as real characters. If the smartest, bravest and toughest wizard wears an outfit that exposes her stomach and breasts, i just am thinking "So does she sleep around a lot or what? Why is she wearing such a useless outfit?"

To be honest, that's largely your fault. If you think of attractive, suggestively clad women as automatically being promiscuous sex objects, it's because you're a shallow person. Some of media today tries to demean physical beauty
by portraying characters with it as shallow, superficial, promiscuous etc, but it's really a neutral (on a moral or ethical scale) trait, and the aesthetics would contend that it's better to demonstrate beauty (via hot chicks with little clothing) than to cloister it away. I mean, yes it's unrealistic, but DnD is so unrealistic anyway that it's sort of a petty and arbitrary thing to get upset over.

In summation, I think you need to loosen up, man. You can say that you'd prefer that the women in the book wore more clothes, but I'd hesitate before accusing people of sexism because of your own stereotypes.

horseboy
2008-01-02, 12:37 AM
I enjoyed your entire post, but this in particular I feel warrants a direct response...

There should be more attractive and scantily clad men in the artwork. A beefcake for every stripper ninja or something...

Also, I like your new avatar. :smallsmile:

Like that guy getting sodomized by that tree in the 2nd edition MM? Vallejo for the wig!

Crow
2008-01-02, 01:35 AM
While EE's writing leaves much to be desired, I am only going to jump in on one portion.

I would also like to see less "skin" on the women. Mind you, I love the female body (I mean really, really love it...and well, just women in general), but when every woman looks like she is headed to rocky horror, it just detracts from the mood in my opinion. If she is a cunning infiltrator (Rogue) or a sultry and dangerous tavern singer (Bard) it's all good. But if she is getting ready to delve into an ancient tomb filled to the brim with the living dead, I'd prefer to see a little more coverage.

Also, I have known some rough women in my time. Real-life "adventurers" who you would like to have backing you up in a bar brawl. A good deal of them were not superstar knockouts like many of the women characters in WotC's latest artwork. I don't feel that every adventuring female should look like she's on holiday after shooting her latest film. As much as Mialee was derided in 3.5 for her appearance, I found her to be rather refreshing (and admittedly, not very attractive... A wizard, must have dumped her charisma stat). I am fine with beautiful women, but a woman doesn't need to look like a plastic hollywood doll to be interesting.

Also, I would like to see some more realistic representations of the male body as well. As much as I love the way Krusk displays his rippling pectorals, I can't help but think of all the bull**** "fitness" magazines I see on the newstand. This, and only this, is the ideal man. Buy my magazine and supplements. Purchase my drug to enhance your throbbing manhood. Do my "real man's" workout or you are doomed to be weak, helpless, and invisible to women until the end of your days. Let's see some art that shows the male athlete as he really is (and those who dedicate their lives to combat are certainly athletes, make no mistake). Popular culture has driven itself so far from the "Greek Ideal" that it is sick.

Draz74
2008-01-02, 01:45 AM
Now, while I am wary of this system, I've used it myself and it does in fact work. I just wish it was an option, not absolute.

Fixed up your typing so people could tell what I was responding to ...

I think in later development of 4e, they did decide to make racial features after 1st level optional, just like you're asking for. Read the second Design and Development article they ever put out for 4th Edition (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816a). It goes through the history of their thoughts, and how they made this very change.

I do support your desire for more modestly dressed artwork, though. For one thing, I agree it's embarrassing to try to introduce anyone to the hobby when they will draw conclusions about the hobby based on such artwork. Not very professional. For another thing, as far as the "D&D isn't realistic anyway" argument ... I don't see why "it's broken, so let's break it more" is a good idea. I see fantasy heroes as more heroic when they have to actually deal with the ordeals of daily medieval life (at least in the artwork, if not at the game table), and an adventurer that puts their appearance ahead of their survival should be an unusual statement, not the norm.

shadowdemon_lord
2008-01-02, 05:32 AM
Well, this thread seems to have derailed into correcting EE"s grammar and talking about the portrayal of women (and men) in the WotC books, as this is a topic I'm fairly well educated in, I think I'll throw in my two copper pieces. I'd like to see less ussage of the ideal hollywood body period. Not every guy has to look like they could compete in the Worlds Strongest Man competition, not every girl has to look like she belongs in the top ten percent of what's humanly possible. Yes I know why it's done, it sells. People love eye candy, and people tend to be extremely oblivious when it comes to realizing the effects of this hyper exposure to extremes on themselves and others. This combined with general lack of media literacy and the fact that most people don't seem to know what an eating disorder looks like on the surface or how to deal with one makes this hyper exposure to extremes an extremely destructive force. WotC artwork is just one example of the almost invisible meme that permeates our culture that all girls should have a waist size zero and that all guys should be strong and pretty, which is generated almost solely by the media.

Swordguy
2008-01-02, 05:48 AM
WotC artwork is just one example of the almost invisible meme that permeates our culture that all girls should have a waist size zero and that all guys should be strong and pretty, which is generated almost solely by the media.

Out of curiosity, would it be a BAD thing for all people to look like that?

I'm not saying starve themselves or anything, but everyone be required to honestly work as hard as they can toward that ideal image, and let the ones that can't make it through genetics or whatever reason die off as they can't find mates?

It's an ideal because its hardwired into people to like certain body types - which the media capitalizes upon in order to sell product. You've got the cart before the horse here. The media doesn't create that image - they just exploit it. After all, which figure in this pic is more attractive?

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/euro_vs_america.jpg

If you said the one on the right - there's something wrong with you, just to be clear.

Side note: we're not correcting his grammar. We're just saying it sucks, and that it needs to improve if he wants people to be able to read and honestly comment on his posts.

Side note the second: I speak from personal experience in this: eating disorders are, in my experience as a counselor at a local college back in the late 90s, 9 times out of 10 a load of crap. Show some damn self-discipline, exercise, and eat less, and you won't get fat. If you ARE fat, eat less and exercise even more, and the weight will go away. People saying that "they can't help it" are, as noted, 9/10 times simply playing the part of the helpless victim of circumstances that are beyond their control. It's crap. Getting rear-ended in an auto is beyond your control. Being in a plane crash is beyond your control. Having my leg shattered by a land mine was beyond my control. How much food somebody shoves in their mouth is NOT beyond their control. Oh, and that 10th time I'm wrong? The world is overpopulated anyhow.

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-02, 06:02 AM
Not every guy has to look like they could compete in the Worlds Strongest Man competition, not every girl has to look like she belongs in the top ten percent of what's humanly possible.

They don't, all the world's strongest men look fat.

Witch
2008-01-02, 06:12 AM
Out of curiosity, would it be a BAD thing for all people to look like that?

I'm not saying starve themselves or anything, but everyone be required to honestly work as hard as they can toward that ideal image, and let the ones that can't make it through genetics or whatever reason die off as they can't find mates?
They call this Social Darwinism. Apparently, it's had some rather rough effects in the first half of the twentieth century, and got dropped as an ideal.




It's an ideal because its hardwired into people to like certain body types - which the media capitalizes upon in order to sell product. You've got the cart before the horse here. The media doesn't create that image - they just exploit it. After all, which figure in this pic is more attractive?

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/euro_vs_america.jpg

If you said the one on the right - there's something wrong with you, just to be clear.
Have you ever heard of Peter Paul Rubens? The Renaissance artist that painted beautiful women, which were, apparently, not as skinny as your ideal? I'll agree that huge women may be ugly, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to be tiny, and that all cultures have considered being a bit less skinny as a bad thing.

Side note the second: I speak from personal experience in this: eating disorders are, in my experience as a counselor at a local college back in the late 90s, 9 times out of 10 a load of crap. Show some damn self-discipline, exercise, and eat less, and you won't get fat. If you ARE fat, eat less and exercise even more, and the weight will go away. People saying that "they can't help it" are, as noted, 9/10 times simply playing the part of the helpless victim of circumstances that are beyond their control. It's crap. Getting rear-ended in an auto is beyond your control. Being in a plane crash is beyond your control. Having my leg shattered by a land mine was beyond my control. How much food somebody shoves in their mouth is NOT beyond their control. Oh, and that 10th time I'm wrong? The world is overpopulated anyhow.
You have a good point about the 9/10, but not about #10. Abandoning someone because they have an illness is horridly immoral. It'd be like saying "Cancer? Oh, sorry. The world is overpopulated anyway."

Athaniar
2008-01-02, 06:26 AM
Just so you know, EE, I agree with you to 100%.

Swordguy
2008-01-02, 06:42 AM
They call this Social Darwinism. Apparently, it's had some rather rough effects in the first half of the twentieth century, and got dropped as an ideal.


Cute.

So, social darwinism is bad as compared to the "everybody's a special unique snowflake" thinking that rots our society from the inside now?

You're also deliberately and horribly misrepresenting my point. The POINT is not go go off and actively kill people who don't look like you want them to (which is what happened in the early 20th century). The point is to not offer governmental assistance for people too fat to get a job or what-have-you. If they're genetically too fat or ugly to find a mate, that's the luck of the gene pool, and they'll be weeded out of it.

For those people without the genetic problems, the requirement would be to have some sort of positive reinforcement, like a tax credit or something, for staying under a given BMI. Start paying people to be healthy, and you'll see health rates shoot up.



Have you ever heard of Peter Paul Rubens? The Renaissance artist that painted beautiful women, which were, apparently, not as skinny as your ideal? I'll agree that huge women may be ugly, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to be tiny, and that all cultures have considered being a bit less skinny as a bad thing.


Yeah, I know him. He painted quite beautiful women. I'm not saying Callista Flockhart skinny. I'm not even saying that chick on the left IS my ideal (though she's a hell of a lot closer than the chick on the right). I'm talking healthy. There's a difference. If you're going to say that artwork needs to reflect American reality, then more than 50% of the art subjects in D&D books need to be clinically obese. Nobody wants to see that - and it would hurt sales. People want to look at pretty, healthy, virile people. People like looking at pretty, healthy, virile people. What's the best way to show that (and increase sales)? Show them in skimpy clothing. (You all do have a point with armor, though - I don't like seeing skimpy protective gear, just regular clothing.)



You have a good point about the 9/10, but not about #10. Abandoning someone because they have an illness is horridly immoral. It'd be like saying "Cancer? Oh, sorry. The world is overpopulated anyway."

(This is going to come across as very blunt, and I can't think of a way to tone it down. Fair warning. Also, it's not IMmoral. It's Amoral, as in "divorced from morality". Bear with me; soldiers get that way.)

Y'know, it is overpopulated. And yeah, people need to die to fix that, through old age, stupidity, war, disasters, or being removed from the gene pool because there's stuff wrong with them. There isn't an alternative. There's no magical happy camp that we can transport people to somewhere off-planet. A little sociopathic? Sure. Propose another solution. I'll wait. I'd rather the people with stuff horribly wrong with them that can't be fixed (mental disorders, genetic issues) were the ones to go rather than seriously talented, brilliant folks with less stuff wrong with them. If these were deer we were talking about, you'd agree that the ones with - say (*does a search for a random genetic defect*) - sickle-cell were the ones that ought to die if the species is to get stronger, instead of the ones that are genetically defect-free. Consider it triage.

Gah, rant over. Back to the point, about that 10th person? If they care enough about the problem, they'll find treatment, or not. What ISN'T okay is to sit around being a victim and pouting that it isn't your fault while collecting paychecks and mussing the toilet every time you eat. Get help or die. Those are the only mature options.

Witch
2008-01-02, 06:53 AM
Cute.

So, social darwinism is bad as compared to the "everybody's a special unique snowflake" thinking that rots our society from the inside now?
"Everybody's a unique little snowflake" is a silly way of thinking, because it generally promotes unworkable relativism. So don't demean my point to that.


You're also deliberately and horribly misrepresenting my point. The POINT is not go go off and actively kill people who don't look like you want them to (which is what happened in the early 20th century). The point is to not offer governmental assistance for people too fat to get a job or what-have-you. If they're genetically too fat or ugly to find a mate, that's the luck of the gene pool, and they'll be weeded out of it.
So basically: "You got born with a genetic defect? Too bad, we're not helping you." This is morally offensive to me.


(This is going to come across as very blunt, and I can't think of a way to tone it down. Fair warning. Also, it's not IMmoral. It's Amoral, as in "divorced from morality". Bear with me; soldiers get that way.)
No, actually, it's immoral. Having people be denied happiness because of a genetic condition while being aware that you can do something to counter it (as in, you're not a mindless event that triggers a genetic mutation, you are a human being that can help people) is directly related to morality, and cannot be cut off from it.


Y'know, it is overpopulated. And yeah, people need to die to fix that, through old age, stupidity, war, disasters, or being removed from the gene pool because there's stuff wrong with them. There isn't an alternative. There's no magical happy camp that we can transport people to somewhere off-planet. A little sociopathic? Sure. Propose another solution. I'll wait. I'd rather the people with stuff horribly wrong with them that can't be fixed (mental disorders, genetic issues) were the ones to go rather than seriously talented, brilliant folks with less stuff wrong with them. If these were deer we were talking about, you'd agree that the ones with - say (*does a search for a random genetic defect*) - sickle-cell were the ones that ought to die if the species is to get stronger, instead of the ones that are genetically defect-free. Consider it triage.
But it'd be better if no deer died. This is what distinguishes human morality from blind natural selection. Incidentally, there is still sufficient room on the planet, and sufficient food (not properly divided, obviously) for everyone. The challenge is to stop the population exploding even more.


Gah, rant over. Back to the point, about that 10th person? If they care enough about the problem, they'll find treatment, or not.
It could be untreatable. They could be too poor to do it without government benefits. Etcetera.

Swordguy
2008-01-02, 07:02 AM
"Everybody's a unique little snowflake" is a silly way of thinking, because it generally promotes unworkable relativism. So don't demean my point to that.


Sorry, no demeaning was intended.



So basically: "You got born with a genetic defect? Too bad, we're not helping you." This is morally offensive to me.

No, actually, it's immoral. Having people be denied happiness because of a genetic condition while being aware that you can do something to counter it (as in, you're not a mindless event that triggers a genetic mutation, you are a human being that can help people) is directly related to morality, and cannot be cut off from it.

But it'd be better if no deer died. This is what distinguishes human morality from blind natural selection. Incidentally, there is still sufficient room on the planet, and sufficient food (not properly divided, obviously) for everyone. The challenge is to stop the population exploding even more.

It could be untreatable. They could be too poor to do it without government benefits. Etcetera.

See, we're just going to have agree to disagree. I simply don't care if people die. I care if a PERSON dies (there's a Stalin quote coming to mind right now), and it depends on the person. It's to do with going sandy places and shooting people and having to decide on a regular basis which of my friends is too badly hurt to get medical aid, I think. In any case, can you rationally argue that the human species would be better off if genetic flaws (such as chronic obesity) were NOT eliminated? (Note: I wouldn't mind if it was done with medicine - but until that happens...) And do you have another way of eliminating said flaws until genetic medicine gets its act together and solves all the flaws in the human genome?

Witch
2008-01-02, 07:13 AM
I'm not sure if chronic obesity is serious enough - I don't know that many people that are that fat - I live in Europe ;) But for serious genetic disorders? I'm not necessarily against chemical sterilisation. Not for minor things, ofcourse, but for people whose lives are seriously, seriously affected by their problems, and of whom it is known that their childrens' will be as well. If they want children, there's always adoption. But stopping a certain condition from spreading further shouldn't mean we stop helping those who already suffer from it.

Kioran
2008-01-02, 07:19 AM
I thought I might pitch in - I support large portions of Swordguysエ points, mainly that while he might be a bit cynic, heエs also intelectually honest with himself. Heエs not in denial about this being a cruel world, unfurtunate things happen and such. I contend someone who acknowledges their darker sides(like me acknowledging I have the potential to kill another human being and thus serving my time in the military, instead of becoming a conscious objecotr for better pay - thatエs germany for you btw.) is less dangerous, because that person is in control.

The world is a cruel place. People die. Disabled or genetically inderior people die faster. Thatエs the way it is. We can cussion some of the effects, but if we actually encourage growth of a problem, we have delayed and worsened it - instead of limited suffering now, we have greater suffering ater on, and all the while pay for it. Thatエs unreasonable.

Witch
2008-01-02, 07:22 AM
There's a difference between being intellectually honest with yourself and realizing the horror the world can produce, or even what you or I can become - the Milgram experiments prove that beyond any doubt - and being a cynic that doesn't believe society can improve in any way. The latter is indefensible: it is a form of cultural pessimism that forgets to realize that our society has grown a lot better to live in over the past couple of millennia (although there have ofcourse been setbacks as well).

Kioran
2008-01-02, 07:29 AM
There's a difference between being intellectually honest with yourself and realizing the horror the world can produce, or even what you or I can become - the Milgram experiments prove that beyond any doubt - and being a cynic that doesn't believe society can improve in any way. The latter is indefensible: it is a form of cultural pessimism that forgets to realize that our society has grown a lot better to live in over the past couple of millennia (although there have ofcourse been setbacks as well).

Still, one has to realize that humanism and welfare are luxuries of a wealthy society - one should have these if one can afford it, but the survival of society and itエs healthy members should come first, because they are the pillar on which these things are erected and stand. As soon as you harm society for short-term benefits (for example by encouraging the spread of disabling conditions) you are undermining future generationsエcapabilities to even live in a good world. Thatエs realism for me.

Anyway, we are derailing thee thread into real world politics - we shoudnエt, and Iエll shut it. We can continue the discussion per PM if you like.


On topic: I think writing down, in square writing, "the PCs are the center of the universe" is dangerous, because, even though thereエs little change mechanically, DMs could get very wrong ideas

Swordguy
2008-01-02, 07:30 AM
There's a difference between being intellectually honest with yourself and realizing the horror the world can produce, or even what you or I can become - the Milgram experiments prove that beyond any doubt - and being a cynic that doesn't believe society can improve in any way. The latter is indefensible: it is a form of cultural pessimism that forgets to realize that our society has grown a lot better to live in over the past couple of millennia (although there have ofcourse been setbacks as well).

Where on earth in my arguments did you get THAT from? I mean, society on a macro scale would improve if people with major genetic defects were no longer in it - and I'm supporting the removal of them.

BTW, thank you, Kioran. By not allowing "broken" people to be culled (as they used to be through disease, accidents, etc.), are we not weakening the mass genetic structure? Divorce yourself from morality for a second and answer honestly.

Anyway, we're far afield from EE's essays. People in any sort of mass media will always be disproportionately good-looking, because people like looking at pretty people. Need a source? Google "hot women" and see how many results you get. Now do it for "ugly women". (I got 30.6 million to 553,000.)

Cuddly
2008-01-02, 07:34 AM
If you said the one on the right - there's something wrong with you, just to be clear.

Unless you're from one of the many, many pre-industrialized cultures that values women with some meat on their bones.


In any case, can you rationally argue that the human species would be better off if genetic flaws (such as chronic obesity) were NOT eliminated? (Note: I wouldn't mind if it was done with medicine - but until that happens...) And do you have another way of eliminating said flaws until genetic medicine gets its act together and solves all the flaws in the human genome?

My roommate is really, really fat. Enormous. It's likely a combination of diet and genetics, and his complete lack of exercise. He's fat, and he doesn't care. Being skinny doesn't matter to him. He's also one of the smartest people I know, and that's not a meaningless statement. I go to a college where the incoming freshman class has an average GPA of 4.0. He's in the upper 5% of the upper 5%.

Are you suggesting, because his appearance is aesthetically displeasing, that we shouldn't let him pass on his genes? He'll likely never be able to kill people in sandy places as well asyou can, but then, if natural selection had acted on who was the strongest ape, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

Social engineering is stupid. There is no way a person, or even many people, could ever determine what would be optimal for such a complex system. At least, not until we have computers and robot overlords. It's why the free market works better than centralized ones, or why introducing cane toads into Australia was such a bad idea. We lack the predicative power. I find such hubris and ignorance of one's own ignorance rather repugnant. Maybe we should cut your pecker off?

Witch
2008-01-02, 07:34 AM
Where on earth in my arguments did you get THAT from? I mean, society on a macro scale would improve if people with major genetic defects were no longer in it - and I'm supporting the removal of them.
That would be Kioran's point of

The world is a cruel place. People die. Disabled or genetically inderior people die faster. Thatエs the way it is. We can cussion some of the effects, but if we actually encourage growth of a problem, we have delayed and worsened it - instead of limited suffering now, we have greater suffering ater on, and all the while pay for it. Thatエs unreasonable.
Being only able to cushion the effects of evil in the world implies not being able to actively improve, and hence, cynicism.

But yes, this is getting offtopic, so we'll stop discussing.

Swordguy
2008-01-02, 07:54 AM
Are you suggesting, because his appearance is aesthetically displeasing, that we shouldn't let him pass on his genes? He'll likely never be able to kill people in sandy places as well asyou can, but then, if natural selection had acted on who was the strongest ape, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?


Ok, I'll answer this, and then I'm dropping the topic.

If he's as fat as you say, then yes, if he's able to do so (ie, finding a willing partner), he gets to breed. The trick is that he doesn't get governmental disability assistance (which morbidly obese people can get in the US and IIRC the UK), or help because he's fat. I'm not saying society ties his tubes or something. If the advantages granted by his intelligence outweigh that of his size, he'll breed, his genes will be passed on, and all is right with the world. If they don't, than he wont, and his genetic code (including the part that predisposes size) will be lost, and there won't be a bunch of fat kids running (lumbering?) around to pass on their genes in an expanding cycle. This is how darwinism works. Since being fat and/or ugly isn't an advantage, the people with those predispositions are less likely to breed, and their genetic markers won't be passed on. However, society has recently (and I mean in about the last 75 years of so) decided that people with inborn disadvantages should be helped up to they have a better chance in life (and therefore of passing on their genetic flaws). That's bad.

Evolution selects based on what advantages are useful right now. So, right now, it's okay to be really fat, so people who would otherwise not be able to breed are able to pass on their genetic strain, whereas if they lived in a different time they wouldn't. This will shape future generations for the next long time, and has the potential to be really bad if the environment changes in such a way as to make being really fat a marker for bad things (equate it to a woolly mammoth that had a brief period where is was well adapted for the environment, and then the environment changed suddenly around it. Bang! Instant extinction).

Oh, and no culture that I'm aware of valued morbidly obese people as anything other than sacrifices, food, or the privilege of being wealthy (which is a granted thing rather than an inherent thing). That woman is morbidly obese. Not "plump". Not "zaftig" (like Ruben's women). Certainly not "healthy". She's a dammed beached whale, a great white beast such as Ahab might hunt down. Perhaps she can still walk, but I'd wager she find it difficult, and waddles along with a rolling gait that might make John Wayne green first with envy, and then just green.

Finally, I'm curious why people keep thinking I'm actively campaigning for squads of people to go around killing those with flawed genetic codes. Since it clearly didn't take the first time:



...but everyone be required to honestly work as hard as they can toward that ideal image, and let the ones that can't make it through genetics or whatever reason die off as they can't find mates?

Operative word "let". Not "go kill them".

Prophaniti
2008-01-02, 09:44 AM
Just one minor point on the socio-political debate going on... If you take issue with it, please PM me.

Darwinism is a load of crap. The theory (I can't emphasize the word enough) itself makes a lot of unprovable assumtions. Yes, I have actually read On the Origin of Species but it's been a while, so I can't cite specific examples right now (again, if you want them please PM me). Social Darwinism is even worse. Taking his theory at face value, even assuming it's true, does not change our circumstances. We, as humans, are in a unique position- however nature's laws would normally affect us we have the knowledge and ability to bypass them. We are no longer truly subject to 'natural selection' and this can only be a good thing, IMO.

Swordguy- I actually agree with most points in your first post, mostly about the self-control thing. I know a few people who are very fat, and for most of them it's entirely because they don't try to control themselves. We Americans are quite good at that. However, it should be pointed out that the difference between 'let them die' and 'kill them' is a small one, merely the difference between an active approach and a passive one. It's a thin line to walk.

Anyway, that's my 2cp on that subject. Now for 4E.

As far as the scimpy outfits go, my only complaint is about scimpy armor. As mentioned, clothing is a product of culture, so this doesn't bother me. Armor, on the other hand, serves a definitive purpose. If it leaves big areas of chest/midriff/thigh exposed, it doesn't do it's job, and shouldn't provide as much in-game protection.

Races are one of the few things where I actually think the system could use cleaning up. I don't think it needs redesigned, which is what they're doing, but definitely cleaned. There's too many inconsequential, arbitrary subraces out there, only different from their parent race in what stats they get bonuses to. Stat bonuses should not be the reason you pick a race, or at least only a minor part of it.

I agree with EE, I don't like racial abilities that advance as you level. One dwarf should be just as 'dwarvish' as another dwarf, even with vast disparities in level.

So that's my opinion on EE's 3rd chapter. And keep it up, EE, it's actually getting noticable more ledgible.

kamikasei
2008-01-02, 09:47 AM
So... trying to drag the thread back towards, if not quite the OP, at least a slightly earlier tangent...

Sexiness.

(I had an longer, better-worded post on this ready, but it was eaten. I've tried not to miss any point I made there below.)

I think it needs to be recognized that there are multiple things people object to in regards to the depiction of men and women in the books and their relative "sexiness", and objecting to one does not necessarily entail the others.

The first is the complaint that the books are biased towards depicting "pretty" or conventionally good-looking characters, and that the art should include a wider range of body types, etc.; that we should have handsome men, pretty men, average men, and ugly men, manly men and girly men, bishies and bodybuilders, as well as gorgeous women, Rennaissance beauties, girls-next-door, plain and homely women, willowy nymphs and lean athletes and bruisers and babushkas. While I agree with this, I think it's pretty much independent of the other arguments in play. Voicing one of the other objections I'll address does not mean you think there should be no attractive iconic characters.

Second is the complaint that there shouldn't be any "sexy" characters depicted at all, either because kids play the game or because their presence makes the books look targeted at horny adolescent males. I don't think anyone has directly voiced this opinion here, but a few people seem to be confusing their opponent's arguments with it. Personally I reject it; there's certainly a place for characters and iconics who show some skin or otherwise take advantage of an attractive form. It can be sexist if only/overwhelmingly female characters are depicted this way, of course.

Third is the complaint of impractical dress. This I think is probably the most valid. Quite simply, while any character may be more or less good looking and may dress more or less revealingly/provocatively/attractively, their dress should at least seem somewhat practical in line with their class, role, and/or personality. Hennet dresses extremely impractically but that's fine because he's a showy, pretty-boy sorcerer who can't wear armor anyway. Lidda's armor is form-fitting but entirely practical. Regdar and Jozan, while their armor may be unrealistic in absolute terms, do look like they're wearing heavy armor picked with dungeon-crawling and battle in mind.

Now, I can't speak to which particular images anyone's objecting to. I do think it's clear, though, that a female Fighter built along the same lines as Regdar should not wear significantly more revealing armor - a chainmail bikini or plate corset or the like. If someone's supposed to be wearing heavy armor, then the armor should look heavy, as in designed to cover and protect all the vulnerable spots and not leave cleavage, midriff, groin, thighs etc. exposed. (The female fighter-type on the prototype 4e PHB cover art is an example of what doesn't make sense here.) Obviously a female rogue will have less armor, but unless she's a social-skill-using people-player (and not necessarily even then! Women + diplomacy != seduction!) it should still be leather armor, not fetish wear. In general, if female characters tend much more than males to wear impractical clothing that shows off their physique at the expense of the protective or practical functions it's supposed to fulfil, that's pretty clearly sexist and breaks the game's verisimilitude by implying that otherwise supposedly competent warriors/thieves/casters are nonetheless total idiots when it comes to their wardrobe choices.

kamikasei
2008-01-02, 09:53 AM
Just one minor point on the socio-political debate going on... If you take issue with it, please PM me.

Darwinism is a load of crap. The theory (I can't emphasize the word enough) itself makes a lot of unprovable assumtions. Yes, I have actually read On the Origin of Species but it's been a while, so I can't cite specific examples right now (again, if you want them please PM me). Social Darwinism is even worse. Taking his theory at face value, even assuming it's true, does not change our circumstances. We, as humans, are in a unique position- however nature's laws would normally affect us we have the knowledge and ability to bypass them. We are no longer truly subject to 'natural selection' and this can only be a good thing, IMO.

"Social Darwinism" has pretty much nothing to do with Darwin and is contradicted by the biological theory of evolution. Perhaps you have issues with the latter, but the invalidity of the former has no bearing on it.

The real problem is that undesireable social traits are not cleanly biologically linked. You can't breed stupidity, or poverty, or illness, or madness out of the gene pool simply by denying the stupid, poor, sick or mad access to reproduction, in some cases not at all, in others not without other undesirable side effects (negative genetic traits being linked to positive, for example).

Swordguy
2008-01-02, 10:04 AM
Now, I can't speak to which particular images anyone's objecting to. I do think it's clear, though, that a female Fighter built along the same lines as Regdar should not wear significantly more revealing armor - a chainmail bikini or plate corset or the like. If someone's supposed to be wearing heavy armor, then the armor should look heavy, as in designed to cover and protect all the vulnerable spots and not leave cleavage, midriff, groin, thighs etc. exposed. (The female fighter-type on the prototype 4e PHB cover art is an example of what doesn't make sense here.) Obviously a female rogue will have less armor, but unless she's a social-skill-using people-player (and not necessarily even then! Women + diplomacy != seduction!) it should still be leather armor, not fetish wear. In general, if female characters tend much more than males to wear impractical clothing that shows off their physique at the expense of the protective or practical functions it's supposed to fulfil, that's pretty clearly sexist and breaks the game's verisimilitude by implying that otherwise supposedly competent warriors/thieves/casters are nonetheless total idiots when it comes to their wardrobe choices.

Agreed.

This is good female armor:

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/shroud1_lo-res.jpg
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/shroud3_lo-res.jpg


This is not:

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/0109_001-redsmooth3.jpg
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/bm_shyla_queen_l07.jpg
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/0102084571900.jpg


To be fair, all of the above are hot, though. Sexism be dammed, I likes looking at pretty women.

*Ahem*...Anyway, I think we can all agree without reservation that typical fantasy depictions of women's armor tends to leave something to be desired. Like coverage. Or being there at all.

Prophaniti
2008-01-02, 10:21 AM
And my brothers think I'm strange for finding women like the 'good' armor pic incredibly more attractive than any of the other ones. I guess I just like intelligence and practicality to be in equal measure with raw sexuality, which certainly explains why I married who I did! Incidently, on the fat topic, my wife is not a size 0 or even a 6, but she's much healthier than the woman on the right in swordguy's pic. Healthy and skinny need not go hand-in-hand, but healthy and fat are mutually exclusive.

@kamikasei: I was actually referring to evolution (Darwin's theory) and Social Darwinism as seperate things, sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that Social Darwinism is even worse than the biology theory as far as holes and fallacies go.

Talya
2008-01-02, 10:26 AM
We're talking about a setting where people bend or break the rules of physics by will alone.

We're talking about a setting where wearing platemail makes you harder to hit and kill in single combat. (Hint: Nobody would ever wear platemail in a duel...it served two purposes alone (1) protecting the mounted combatant who relied on his horse for mobility, and (2) protecting the battlefield officer from random hazards such as stray arrows and weapons. In single combat, heavy armor was a liability to the wearer.)

We're talking about a setting where women (before you say "SEXIST!", I'm a woman) are just as physically powerful as men. Or even more unbelievable, where men are just as mentally powerful as women! :wink: (Now you can say "Sexist!")

The chainmail lingerie thing doesn't bug me much. Realism obviously isn't a priority here. Humans are primarily sexual creatures, and we have different ways of showing it. In the end, the prime psychological motivations for everything we do relates, in some way or another, to sex.

Swordguy
2008-01-02, 10:31 AM
We're talking about a setting where wearing platemail makes you harder to hit and kill in single combat. (Hint: Nobody would ever wear platemail in a duel...it served two purposes alone (1) protecting the mounted combatant who relied on his horse for mobility, and (2) protecting the battlefield officer from random hazards such as stray arrows and weapons. In single combat, heavy armor was a liability to the wearer.)


Take that to the RW Weapons and Armor thread. I (or Matthew, or Dervag, or Whiteharness) will debunk it in extreme depth later.

Just for starters, though a man named Hans Talhoffer (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/talhoffer.htm") wants a word with you. Look at chapter II (illustration plates are listed under chapter 1).

kamikasei
2008-01-02, 10:34 AM
The chainmail lingerie thing doesn't bug me much. Realism obviously isn't a priority here. Humans are primarily sexual creatures, and we have different ways of showing it. In the end, the prime psychological motivations for everything we do relates, in some way or another, to sex.

Honestly, it's not a question of realism entirely. It's that I find it simply puerile to put women in impractical, sexualized outfits that can't do the job they're nominally designed for, when men get to dress like they have half a brain.

If my female fighter's going to be unrealistic it'll be because she's got an enchanted greatsword that's not quite like any real historical weapon, because her wizard buddy uses magic to double her height or let her fly unaided, or because she fights giant fire-breathing flying reptiles, not because she dresses like a fetish model and calls it full plate.

At its base: if a character's not sexual, he/she shouldn't be sexualized. Royo and Vallejo should not set the tone for the core books.


@kamikasei: I was actually referring to evolution (Darwin's theory) and Social Darwinism as seperate things, sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that Social Darwinism is even worse than the biology theory as far as holes and fallacies go.

I guess we can leave it at an agreement that Social Darwinism is bunk, and leave it at that, and get back to the point of this thread, which is grammar nits and chainmail bikinis.

Prophaniti
2008-01-02, 10:38 AM
We're talking about a setting where wearing platemail makes you harder to hit and kill in single combat. (Hint: Nobody would ever wear platemail in a duel...it served two purposes alone (1) protecting the mounted combatant who relied on his horse for mobility, and (2) protecting the battlefield officer from random hazards such as stray arrows and weapons. In single combat, heavy armor was a liability to the wearer.)

The chainmail lingerie thing doesn't bug me much. Realism obviously isn't a priority here. Humans are primarily sexual creatures, and we have different ways of showing it. In the end, the prime psychological motivations for everything we do relates, in some way or another, to sex.

Agreed for the most part. After all, I believe that when we invent advanced enough VR technology, ie a holodeck, society will be in very real danger of total collapse. Think about it, why would people keep trying the dating scene when they can just go into the holodeck and have whatever they want without the risk and awkwardness?

I only disagree about realism not being a priority. That depends on the group. My own group likes plenty of realism and often get into debates about just how effective 'X' would be, like the long-winded discussion on the accuracy of Renaissance-era firearms. Glad that's over with. Our next campaign kinda frightens me though... We're trying some future tech stuff and I can already see the endless debates about theoretical physics...:smalleek:

I guess we can leave it at an agreement that Social Darwinism is bunk, and leave it at that, and get back to the point of this thread, which is grammar nits and chainmail bikinis.

Hooray! Back to grammar bikinis! ... Wait... what?

Swordguy
2008-01-02, 10:39 AM
At its base: if a character's not sexual, he/she shouldn't be sexualized. Royo and Vallejo should not set the tone for the core books.

Ahhh...now there's an issue. There's a pervasive school of thought that says that every character is inherently and unavoidably sexual to a specific and varying degree, and it does affect everything they do, even if only at the subconscious level.

I see nothing wrong with either view. If you feel embarrassed to carry around a book with scantily-clad women inside it, then either don't carry it and remain true to your principles, or loosen up a bit and understand that humans really are sexual creatures and some (including the subjects of the "portraits") will choose to emphasize that. For myself, as long as that sexualization doesn't come at the expense of verisimilitude, I'm happy. It's everyone for themselves on this score. *shrug* Art is subjective...

kamikasei
2008-01-02, 11:01 AM
Ahhh...now there's an issue. There's a pervasive school of thought that says that every character is inherently and unavoidably sexual to a specific and varying degree, and it does affect everything they do, even if only at the subconscious level.

I see nothing wrong with either view. If you feel embarrassed to carry around a book with scantily-clad women inside it, then either don't carry it and remain true to your principles, or loosen up a bit and understand that humans really are sexual creatures and some (including the subjects of the "portraits") will choose to emphasize that. For myself, as long as that sexualization doesn't come at the expense of verisimilitude, I'm happy. It's everyone for themselves on this score. *shrug* Art is subjective...

I agree that any given human-like character is a sexual being just like any real-world human, but I think it should go without saying that unless, say, an NPC's personality is described as prioritizing appearance and sexuality to a high degree then that NPC should not sacrifice the practicality of their dress for the sake of emphasizing sexuality. If the mercenary captain is supposed to be a no-nonsense, tough-as-nails fighter and leader then why the hell is she wearing a plate corset? That's not being a sexual being, that's being the subject of an artist's flight of fancy. I suppose as you put it that would come under the heading of "sexualization doesn't come at the expense of verisimilitude", in my judgement if not in yours.

I'm not advocating any sort of prudery and am not embarrassed by the books because of any revealing clothing within them. I don't find the MM embarrassing because of the nymph illustration, for example. I'm perfectly happy to see characters with no reason to wear armor wearing realtively revealing clothes. In modern terms, on your average commoner/wizard/monk, I don't consider short skirts or tube tops or bare midriffs or shoulders or whatever to be inappropriate because they're showing off skin. I do think it's daft to have the default mode of dress for female art approaching thongs and bikinis... which stage hasn't been reached, but there are certainly elements of it. And when it comes to characters who are supposed to be armored, I do object to their armor being a mere gesture, just like I'd find a d20 Modern female police officer ridiculous if she wore riot gear but had left off the trousers in favour of hot pants (it's OK, she kept the boots!) and cut the bulletproof vest to bare her stomach and flatter her mammoboobs.

I think the root of my problem is that objectionable "chainmail bikini" art doesn't look like it's a sexual being whose wardrobe choices have been influenced by their sexuality. They look like a male artist has dressed them up like a doll in outfits that have nothing to do with their abilities, activites, or motivations.

Swordguy
2008-01-02, 11:10 AM
I agree that any given human-like character is a sexual being just like any real-world human, but I think it should go without saying that unless, say, an NPC's personality is described as prioritizing appearance and sexuality to a high degree then that NPC should not sacrifice the practicality of their dress for the sake of emphasizing sexuality. If the mercenary captain is supposed to be a no-nonsense, tough-as-nails fighter and leader then why the hell is she wearing a plate corset? That's not being a sexual being, that's being the subject of an artist's flight of fancy. I suppose as you put it that would come under the heading of "sexualization doesn't come at the expense of verisimilitude", in my judgement if not in yours.
...
I think the root of my problem is that objectionable "chainmail bikini" art doesn't look like it's a sexual being whose wardrobe choices have been influenced by their sexuality. They look like a male artist has dressed them up like a doll in outfits that have nothing to do with their abilities, activites, or motivations.

Again, I'm right there with you for protective gear that operates at a protective level (so if a fighter has on +16 bracers or something, I don't care if she's wearing next to nothing - it's a moot point). I don't like seeing functional combat gear covering less than stuff from bikini-girls.net* or something without a really good justification, like the bracers above. For non-combat gear? Whatever the character wants to wear (or artist wants them to wear).

My wife also brings up the point that the easiest clothing outside of "none" to move around and fight in is a non-sleeved dance leotard. That's gonna show a lot of skin, but it maximizes your mobility. No point, just saying...

*Disclaimer: I have no idea if this is an actual site.

kamikasei
2008-01-02, 11:16 AM
Again, I'm right there with you for protective gear that operates at a protective level (so if a fighter has on +16 bracers or something, I don't care if she's wearing next to nothing - it's a moot point). I don't like seeing functional combat gear covering less than stuff from bikini-girls.net* or something without a really good justification, like the bracers above. For non-combat gear? Whatever the character wants to wear (or artist wants them to wear).

My wife also brings up the point that the easiest clothing outside of "none" to move around in is a non-sleeved dance leotard. That's gonna show a lot of skin, but it maximizes your mobility. No point, just saying...

I pretty much agree. I guess the other side of my issue with "sexy" art is that the outfits don't feel like a "non-sleeved dance leotard" level of revealing or mobile. It's probably fair to say that the tendency of artists to draw ever-more elaborate and impractical outfits just to stretch their skills is as big a factor as their desire to make the subject sexy.

I'm feeling pretty hobbled in this discussion as I'm posting from work and thus can't find any art examples to illustrate what I mean. Nor is my home connection in working order at the moment so I can't edit them in when I get back later. Therefore I might as well leave it at that; I think my point's been communicated.

Roland St. Jude
2008-01-02, 11:31 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Get thee back to gaming and away from socio-political-ethics discussion. Thanks.

Swordguy
2008-01-02, 11:36 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Get thee back to gaming and away from socio-political-ethics discussion. Thanks.

Is talking about the chainmail bikini syndrome in D&D artwork still okay?

horseboy
2008-01-02, 11:58 AM
And my brothers think I'm strange for finding women like the 'good' armor pic incredibly more attractive than any of the other ones.Nah, sometimes it's what's not shown that makes things sexy.

For myself, as long as that sexualization doesn't come at the expense of verisimilitude, I'm happy. It's everyone for themselves on this score. *shrug* Art is subjective...
Like this (http://vallejo.ural.net/1978/show.php?004) one? "Remember dear, we're going to the arctic today, be sure and bring your white slave girl out fit, and don't bother packing me a shirt." I'm a polar bear, but man, just no... I mean really, shouldn't he at least be wearing gloves? "Ah! My sword is stuck to my hand!"
As for her, oh, I don't know, a sweater, fur-lined skirt and thigh-high boots. (It was the 70's they were everywhere else) would at least put it into the realm of believability. That's one thing I will give 3.x. They didn't use Vallejo for their art again.

Edit: EE, Foxfire has a spell check mod. it saves my bacon all the time.

Swordguy
2008-01-02, 12:04 PM
Like this (http://vallejo.ural.net/1978/show.php?004) one? "Remember dear, we're going to the arctic today, be sure and bring your white slave girl out fit, and don't bother packing me a shirt." I'm a polar bear, but man, just no... I mean really, shouldn't he at least be wearing gloves? "Ah! My sword is stuck to my hand!"

To be fair, it's equal-opportunity exploitation.

Talya
2008-01-02, 12:07 PM
Hey, there was always my Sublime Chord (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45529) build.

Swordguy
2008-01-02, 12:11 PM
Hey, there was always my Sublime Chord (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45529) build.

...yes. THAT is a valid rationale to use Vallejo as a character portrait.

Tormsskull
2008-01-02, 12:16 PM
If there is a PM circle going around about the earlier stuff I'd like to be included in it as I have some interesting questions to bring up to some of the posters. Other than that, I wasn't able to read the first or second post too well as it seemed very fractured in thought.

Hitting upon some of the other issues:

I think that anything an artist wants to draw should be just fine. I would never dream of trying to censor an artist if they want to draw super-warriors wearing nothing but g-strings. The same way as I aggressively fight against anyone trying to censor my writing if I happen to include a bigot or a racist or whatever else kind of person in it.

That being said, if we are trying to somewhat model a realistic world, the female fighter wearing only a g-string better not have much of an armor bonus (or one at all) from that piece of equipment, as it would seriously break my ability to remain immersed in the game.

EvilElitest
2008-01-02, 12:42 PM
Edit: EE, Foxfire has a spell check mod. it saves my bacon all the time
Getting that actually, my lab top hates it, but it seems to be working on my desktop, so hope to get back to you there

Right, sense we are leaving the political scheme of things and i am at school so i am unable to finish part four but just a few general points

First On chain mail Bikini's aspects
1. Do i hate nudity in general
Answer, not really, i am American (prude i know) but it depends on where i see it. When i go into the met and i see nude pictures, i don't mind as it is extremely good artwork. However, when i see a drawing on something i expect it to make sense.
For example, somebody hands me a picture of a female fighter. If she is wearing chain mail that leaves most of her mid section for all to see then i'm not going to like it, it is just eye candy for the reader and makes me unable to respect said character (who is dumb enough to wear that as armor? WFT?). Now should every female character in the books show off their breasts for all to see now i'm thinking "What?" To be more detailed, if i see most of the female elves not wearing full shirts or pants.
Now I'm thinking "Ok, ether A) they are an extremly open culture with no problem with flaunting their bodies and have a cultural/religionists reason for this, though mind you i hope they don't live in a cold climate
B) They have some environmental reason for this, lack of clothing materials or i don't know what
C) Boobs=money, throw them in:smallbiggrin:
Now if the book explains why all the females don't wear pants and show off their chest then i'm cool, there is a reason
For examble, in MM1 there is a succubus who wears next to nothing. However their is a perfectly good reason for that (think hard, it will come to you) thus it doesn't bother me really. Now i saw the nudist priest thing earlier , so there is a reason why she walks around in the nude (i didn't read the entire article) but do they address the problems about being an adventure? Exposer, lack of armor, cutting your feet on sharp rocks to say the least? If you going to have scantly clad girls in your book, explain why or at least acknowledge it in some manner.
2. Everyone is super attractive
This i don't mind so much, but it is a personal peeve. When i watch American shows everybody is extremely good looking, and i never feel drawn into the show. When i watch some English shows, the dudes have bad teeth, their skin is weird, they have funny accent, but they are good actors (those English, with their better actors i feel sad) and it seems very real, i can imagine such people existing in real life. So i really don't mind the fact that Every single women looks stunning and every single man looked buffed to the point of absurdity (though i really do wish they would explain how they work out so much) it doesn't bother me, though i would imagine some overweight role models wouldn't hurt.
3. The essay itself, can we focus on what you agree/disagree with other than the scanty women?
4. My grammar/ego, if it is literally preventing you from reading the essay, quote what bothers you and i will try to fix it (hard because of my limited time). As for ego, its an editorial, you don't like it, counter it or don't read it.
from
EE

horseboy
2008-01-02, 12:52 PM
Now i saw the nudist priest thing earlier , so there is a reason why she walks around in the nude (i didn't read the entire article) but do they address the problems about being an adventure? Exposer, lack of armor, cutting your feet on sharp rocks to say the least? If you going to have scantly clad girls in your book, explain why or at least acknowledge it in some manner.

In addition, they have the following:
Armor Class: 36 (Flatfooted: 32, touch: 19)
Saves: Fort +18, Ref +16, Will: +26
BAB: +14, Ranged Touch: +24
Freedom of Movement, Energy Resistance (all) 15, Regeneration, Sustenance/Greater Sustenance, Permanent Trueseeing, Endure Elements, most manufactured weapons used against her shatter on contact (Vow of Peace), calming aura, damage reduction 10/evil, greater spell focus (enchantment) + spell penetration on spells with verbal components, creature type: Fey (fey transformation is a 10th level heartwarder bonus)

That'd have to be an EEEEVVIILL rock to cut her foot.

Semidi
2008-01-02, 12:56 PM
I at first agreed with EE's opinion that having half-naked women was stupid (forgive the paraphrasing, that's the general bent no?). Then I got to thinking...

Anyhow, let's look at what Wizard's D&D is: It's a romanticized adventure. It's not gritty if played right out of the rulebooks. If a poisoned arrow hits the hero they lose 1D4CON until cured and 1d6-8 damage until healed; the wound won't fester, nor will they die a slow agonizing death at the hands of a battlefield surgeon. Heck, they won't even lose a limb like they might have back in the day. They drink a magic potion and they're back in a fight (it's just a scratch!). Hell, this game makes warfare look like a fun experience compared to the mud encrusted blood soaked reality.

I see no reason why the women shouldn't be wearing a chain mail bikini in an environment such as this. Maybe Joan of Arc didn't... but we all know the 100 Years War weren稚 D&D. The adventurers are the idealized and heavily romanticized. Let's compare any first level fighter to a soldier in the 100 Years war. I'm guessing your fighter isn't suffering from dysentery and covered by flees and ticks.

Hell, let's look at the movie The 300. Those guys went to go fight a war dressed up like WWF macho men; they weren't using a phalanx, they had unlimited numbers of spears, and none of them feared death or suffered any battlefield diseases. That would be the idealized male form in war in the imagination of a comic book writer. Another example comes to mind of Zula from the movie Conan the Destroyer. She had on a leather bikini and styled herself a warrior woman (Played by Grace Earl Jones).

In the D&D rulebooks are dealing with the same romantic themes, therefore why wouldn稚 the men all be hulking tanned men with twelve inch... Daggers, and the women be petite, half dressed, and have enormous... long swords.

What I mean to say is, chain mail bikinis are silly. Just about as silly as D&D, the 300, and just about every interpretation of war as romantic. It痴 part our culture to have idealized heroes so if anything it would seem out of place for the women to be fully clothed.

kamikasei
2008-01-02, 01:01 PM
I think that anything an artist wants to draw should be just fine. I would never dream of trying to censor an artist if they want to draw super-warriors wearing nothing but g-strings. The same way as I aggressively fight against anyone trying to censor my writing if I happen to include a bigot or a racist or whatever else kind of person in it.

Who's suggesting censoring an artist? I'm suggesting that WotC might want to choose or commission its art according to different criteria. That's hardly censorship. I don't object to the existence of Boris Vallejo prints by any means, I just don't think they should be the basis for iconic characters.

Roog
2008-01-02, 01:04 PM
I think that anything an artist wants to draw should be just fine. I would never dream of trying to censor an artist if they want to draw super-warriors wearing nothing but g-strings. The same way as I aggressively fight against anyone trying to censor my writing if I happen to include a bigot or a racist or whatever else kind of person in it.

There is a big difference between censoring an artist and giving them a brief for the work you want (and paying them to produce it).

Talya
2008-01-02, 01:05 PM
I at first agreed with EE's opinion that having half-naked women was stupid (forgive the paraphrasing, that's the general bent no?). Then I got to thinking...

Anyhow, let's look at what Wizard's D&D is: It's a romanticized adventure. It's not gritty if played right out of the rulebooks. If a poisoned arrow hits the hero they lose 1D4CON until cured and 1d6-8 damage until healed; the wound won't fester, nor will they die a slow agonizing death at the hands of a battlefield surgeon. Heck, they won't even lose a limb like they might have back in the day. They drink a magic potion and they're back in a fight (it's just a scratch!). Hell, this game makes warfare look like a fun experience compared to the mud encrusted blood soaked reality.

I see no reason why the women shouldn't be wearing a chain mail bikini in an environment such as this. Maybe Joan of Arc didn't... but we all know the 100 Years War weren稚 D&D. The adventurers are the idealized and heavily romanticized. Let's compare any first level fighter to a soldier in the 100 Years war. I'm guessing your fighter isn't suffering from dysentery and covered by flees and ticks.

Hell, let's look at the movie The 300. Those guys went to go fight a war dressed up like WWF macho men; they weren't using a phalanx, they had unlimited numbers of spears, and none of them feared death or suffered any battlefield diseases. That would be the idealized male form in war in the imagination of a comic book writer. Another example comes to mind of Zula from the movie Conan the Destroyer. She had on a leather bikini and styled herself a warrior woman (Played by Grace Earl Jones).

In the D&D rulebooks are dealing with the same romantic themes, therefore why wouldn稚 the men all be hulking tanned men with twelve inch... Daggers, and the women be petite, half dressed, and have enormous... long swords.

What I mean to say is, chain mail bikinis are silly. Just about as silly as D&D, the 300, and just about every interpretation of war as romantic. It痴 part our culture to have idealized heroes so if anything it would seem out of place for the women to be fully clothed.

Yeah, I was sorta saying this same thing earlier, but the example of "300" is perfect.

Dragonmuncher
2008-01-02, 01:18 PM
Sheesh...

Anyway, I had a question about the whole


"The new system is not overly concerned with simulating interactions between monsters and non player characters when the PCs are not on stage"

thing.
How, exactly, would that be different from now?

Hear me out. Yes, your game may be a highly developed world, where civilization is not merely a thing to create taverns for adventurers to relax in. (That is a GOOD thing, btw. Yay developed worlds!) But what in Core 3.5 is aiding in that?

Ignoring rules for organizations and such that came out in later supplements, 3.5 doesn't really focus on non-PC stuff. It's all classes, and spells, and equipment. Yet that doesn't seem to hamper anyone's well-developed campaign world, right?


It really seems like one of those quotes that sounds a lot more ominous than it is.

Arbitrarity
2008-01-02, 01:25 PM
Yeah, unlike something like...


Rule -1:
You can't houserule anything, and must use everything from this book unaltered. Fiat is not allowed. This supercedes all other rules, such as Rule 0, and also supercedes rules designed to supercede it, such as a hypothetical Rule -2. It is also impervious to house-ruling, and other alterations. Any alteration to this rule, despite its protection, voids your warranty.

Talya
2008-01-02, 01:26 PM
It's the design attitude more than the mechanics.

You'll probably find the attitude approved of by Eberron players, and hated by Forgotten Realms players.

Some people want the world and universe you play in to be bigger than your characters...epic level NPC heroes and villains, while not exactly common, exist, to aspire to. The Gods are truly powerful and matter. There is a rigid and immutable history and a lot of legacy in the setting, a richly detailed world, that your character has become a part of.

Some want the world to revolve around their characters from the get-go.

I fall into the former. A lot of players prefer the latter. 4e appears to be catering to the latter, and even moving the FR setting along those lines.

Thrythlind
2008-01-02, 03:17 PM
For the PCs are the center stage...
Well, they are. I can not think of a group of players I've ever played with that enjoys watching the GM role play with themselves. A GM can set up the backbone however the GM wants, this is true with any RPG. The player characters however, are the players of this campaign world. They play in it. If they are not playing, then they are not playing, and thus, you are truly removing a significant component from the game.
Also, think about the statement for a moment please, and then think about what the game is. The game is a system of mechanics intended to be used by many in order to support the fantasies and enjoyment of all. The main point? Mechanics.
I can not conceive how WotC will, mechanically, force a party to be the center of a campaign world. WotC can not send ninjas into every house who tries to play 4e and force the GM to make the players the center of the GM's campaign. It doesn't work like that.
The reason why Final Fantasy, and similar, are like that is because their "GM" made them that way. SquareEnix being their GM. This is not something that can be controlled by the mechanics alone, however. I, for one, can easily imagine taking a Final Fantasy engine and changing the storyline that SquareEnix, the GM, has set so the players aren't the center of the world. Easily.
Mechanics don't control focus.


Very true.

Here's the thing. The world might not revolve around the six guys camping in the wilds while traveling from town to town, but the game does.

During the game, you only describe what the player characters see. Sure, an army might be toppling the kingdom as they camp in the rain two thousand miles away, but unless the party has a divination and use it to look back at the army toppling the kingdom, they won't know about it.

Remember, the party is both the audience and the main characters, they are always center stage. It's like one of those plays were the entire story happens and is told within one room of one building...no scene changes are ever made. Only instead of the scene not changing the central cast doesn't change.

Wherever you describe events happening, at least one of those six guys will be there watching or interacting with it, otherwise you wouldn't be describing it, because they'd have no reason to know.

What goes on while the party ISN'T there, is entirely up to the DM and is stuff that goes on while he's planning for that week's game.

EvilElitest
2008-01-02, 03:55 PM
There is a big difference between censoring an artist and giving them a brief for the work you want (and paying them to produce it).

wait, who am i paying


on the subject of 300, that movie was awful, but sadly relevant to the way 4E could be headed. Hoards of mindless vicous cruel heartless enemies who the player (the Greeks) kill en mass, with the audience feeling no sympathy or human compassion for the slaves who are being killed. If we throw grey guards into the mix then killing already defeated dudes, killing messages and killing the deformed is A-ok.
Thus reducing the potential for a complex and realistic world to a black and white world (literally sadly in the case of the movie)
Also not wearing armor to a big battle is simply stupid, i'm glad they finally got killed
For the record, 300 is basically a video game

Hear me out. Yes, your game may be a highly developed world, where civilization is not merely a thing to create taverns for adventurers to relax in. (That is a GOOD thing, btw. Yay developed worlds!) But what in Core 3.5 is aiding in that?

Not enough, but they aren't hindering it, and in fact if you read some of their books (Cityscape, Races of X, FR Champaign settings) it has plenty of pro world building options. The fact that the monesters follow the same rules as the PCs is a great help, the PCs simple being better is crazy
from
EE

GryffonDurime
2008-01-02, 03:55 PM
While Races and Classes contains a great deal of artwork that may or may not represent Wizards trying to find which artists will be given the heavy task of creating the Fourth Edition's iconic artwork. I trust Wizards to not fall prey to the Chainmail Bikini thing in the actual Player's Handbook. What do I base this on? Experience. Let's examine the iconics of Player's Handbook 3.5, and the Player's Handbook II:


Krusk: Large, burly, but not to an absurd amount: he's both an orc and a barbarian, so this is completely acceptable.
Gimble: Scrawny even for a halfling, a bit disheveled. Certainly not a beefcake, despite the rampant claims that those are the only male characters presented.
Jozan: Stern, athletic...not absurdly burly, largely because we don't know what he looks like under his completely appropriate mail. Let's keep it that way.
Vadania: A fully armored woman? Surely there must be some mistake...granted, she's a bit disproportionate, but you'd have to examine her so closely to notice that you'd fail to note that she's a woman. Wearing a complete set of armor.
Tordek: I've got nothing to say here. Looks like a pretty standard dwarf to me.
Regdar: Maybe this could be considered an unrealistic male depiction. Given the fact that the fighter is supposed to be a trained athlete of the sport of war, though, I don't find Regdar to be in anyway dissonant with what one would expect of fighters.
Ember: By no means a voluptious beauty; sure, she might be showing some skin, but it's for a class feature. Likewise, Ember presents a very fit, athletic woman as opposed to a voluptuous maneater. Good on them.
Alhandra: Another woman showing almost no clevage and appropriately armored for combat. Not even what I would consider a striking woman.
Soveliss: Scrawny elven ranger...surely no one feels this is a completely unrealistic male form?
Lidda: Petit in every sense of the word, determined-looking, well-covered, and yet another woman who isn't just a pair of breasts. Lidda's a fairly realistic standard for a "healthy" woman if you ask me.
Hennet: He's showing more skin than most of the women! Athletic without being beefy, they were probably just playing up the Charisma = Beauty joke.
Mialee: I'm not sure what I can add to Mialee. She's scrawny. She's got hair that would make most pine trees look smooth and silky. She's not that pretty. And yet here she is, an iconic female who, despite showing off more than some of the others, doesn't scream fanservice. It's like if Hermione was an elf. And not Emma Watson.
Nebin: Small, skinny, soulpatched gnome. With a ponytail.
Anastria and Korrik, the iconic beguilers of Player's Handbook II: Korrik...well, he's basically XXX all over again. Anastria is healthy-looking, has no visible clevage, and is clothed as if Russian winter were descending all around her. No problem.
Thane and Iskara, the Dragon Shamans: Thane is a bit of the beefy side, but I've yet to see it become a prevalent trait that seems indicative of Wizards as a whole. Iskara...I'm not even sure what he/she is. Definately not my idea of a sex kitten.
Tele and Halia, the Duskblades: Look! Another fully-armored woman! In plate-mail! And a skinny warrior! Where's the beef?
Sir Agravail and Lady Sorra: A fairly standard male knight, and yet another completely armored woman, not showing an inch of inappropriate skin.


I don't doubt that there are pictures in the whole of Wizard's products that reflect this sexualizing principle. I merely wish to assert that their core products, and the key characters that they create to identify with the very core of this game, don't seem to have be suffering from delusions of platemail bikini grandeur.

ShadowSiege
2008-01-02, 04:07 PM
Darwinism is a load of crap. The theory (I can't emphasize the word enough) itself makes a lot of unprovable assumtions. Yes, I have actually read On the Origin of Species but it's been a while, so I can't cite specific examples right now (again, if you want them please PM me).

Sorry to derail the topic again, albeit momentarily. I can't let this slight go in public. You're thinking of theory as the popular definition, where it amounts to the scientific definition of a hypothesis, an educated guess. Well, you're just wrong in this case. A scientific theory is supported by considerable if not overwhelming evidence in favor of it. Relativity is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. Evolution is also a theory (Only it's opponents refer to it as Darwinism). All three have been confirmed repeatedly, have cases where they can be falsified, and are for all intents and purposes, fact. Calling evolution "just a theory" is a creationist tactic meant to take advantage of public misunderstanding of science, and greatly undermines your credibility on the topic.

Back to the topic, I'm not particularly fond of chainmail bikinis or "breast"-plates, but they're here and it's probably going to stay. I'll absolutely agree that they're unrealistic, but then again so is magic, gods, dragons, etc. It's fantasy, it's supposed to be unrealistic.

As for the races, I've been working under the assumption that it's more along the lines of racial substitution levels such that a dwarven fighter will be different from an elven fighter and both are different from a human fighter (focus on toughness, grace, or flexibility respectively). As for other racial abilities, it could be viewed as working towards becoming a paragon of the race, fully realizing the potential of inherent traits. This could be incorrect as I have not read Races and Classes.

ShadowSiege
2008-01-02, 04:13 PM
on the subject of 300, that movie was awful, but sadly relevant to the way 4E could be headed. Hoards of mindless vicous cruel heartless enemies who the player (the Greeks) kill en mass, with the audience feeling no sympathy or human compassion for the slaves who are being killed. If we throw grey guards into the mix then killing already defeated dudes, killing messages and killing the deformed is A-ok.
Thus reducing the potential for a complex and realistic world to a black and white world (literally sadly in the case of the movie)
Also not wearing armor to a big battle is simply stupid, i'm glad they finally got killed
For the record, 300 is basically a video game


300 was an adaptation of a comic book which was loosely based on the actual Battle of Thermopylae. It wasn't historically accurate, nor did it claim to be. It was meant to be eye candy and a fun movie. If you want historically accurate, you're better off not looking to Hollywood. The History Channel did an interesting documentary on the battle.

EvilElitest
2008-01-02, 05:41 PM
300 was an adaptation of a comic book which was loosely based on the actual Battle of Thermopylae. It wasn't historically accurate, nor did it claim to be. It was meant to be eye candy and a fun movie. If you want historically accurate, you're better off not looking to Hollywood. The History Channel did an interesting documentary on the battle.
I never said anything about historical accuracy, though i imagine the history channel did a good job. It was just a bad insulting movie




Anyways, onto part four (also, for anyone who likes the rate and agree with anything please comment on what you like

In our last essay we talk about the nature of racial traits (correction, I talk and you lot mostly went on about the nature of nudity with a few exceptions but anyways) now lets get down to the races themselves

HUMANS (that is us in case you don't know)
The writer talks about the iconic nature of humans, they are free spirited, they are extremely varying in nature, they have shady pasts, they are fast paced, ambitious, ect, all of which i generally agree with and hasn't changed They mention some "proud nation" of Nerath, of which i know nothing (is it from Greyhawk, then don't mention anything about it and basically go over everything races of destiny already told us, so not much changed except they are recovering from the fall of some city
Then there is an explanation of the human creation myth ideas that were bounced around earlier that are pretty cool, cool enough that i'm not going to spoil them for you

Then we move onto the mechanics of humans. The writer states that Humans are always very hard to stat because they are two broad of a race, other races represent a specific aspect of humanity. In 3E humans were shown as an extremely variable race, and 4E seems to build on that, making them more adaptable and customizable via feats ect. So humans are looking good, they took the good qualities about them that made them unique and focused more upon that. Also the had whole article on Human flaws, as the writer seemed to think their portrayal in 3E was to positive and stated in 4E the "evil" negative aspect of humanity was the dark side of ambitous and their easily corruptible nature. I thought this was already apperent in 3E but what ever, it is a nice trait
from
EE

horseboy
2008-01-02, 05:53 PM
Also the had whole article on Human flaws, as the writer seemed to think their portrayal in 3E was to positive and stated in 4E the "evil" negative aspect of humanity was the dark side of ambitious and their easily corruptible nature. I thought this was already apparent in 3E but what ever, it is a nice trait
from
EE

Oh man, there's a warning flag. How long was this article on human flaws? That coupled with the whole tiefling "renegade bad boy" is sounding like an awfully high wangst level.

Thinker
2008-01-02, 05:55 PM
I never said anything about historical accuracy, though i imagine the history channel did a good job. It was just a bad insulting movie

You can't appreciate mindless action.



Anyways, onto part four (also, for anyone who likes the rate and agree with anything please comment on what you like

In our last essay we talk about the nature of racial traits (correction, I talk and you lot mostly went on about the nature of nudity with a few exceptions but anyways) now lets get down to the races themselves
That part was by far the most entertaining.



HUMANS (that is us in case you don't know)
The writer talks about the iconic nature of humans, they are free spirited, they are extremely varying in nature, they have shady pasts, they are fast paced, ambitious, ect, all of which i generally agree with and hasn't changed They mention some "proud nation" of Nerath, of which i know nothing (is it from Greyhawk, then don't mention anything about it and basically go over everything races of destiny already told us, so not much changed except they are recovering from the fall of some city
Then there is an explanation of the human creation myth ideas that were bounced around earlier that are pretty cool, cool enough that i'm not going to spoil them for you

You could just add spoiler blocks.



Then we move onto the mechanics of humans. The writer states that Humans are always very hard to stat because they are two broad of a race, other races represent a specific aspect of humanity. In 3E humans were shown as an extremely variable race, and 4E seems to build on that, making them more adaptable and customizable via feats ect. So humans are looking good, they took the good qualities about them that made them unique and focused more upon that. Also the had whole article on Human flaws, as the writer seemed to think their portrayal in 3E was to positive and stated in 4E the "evil" negative aspect of humanity was the dark side of ambitous and their easily corruptible nature. I thought this was already apperent in 3E but what ever, it is a nice trait
The never really emphasized the negative aspects of any of the PHB races. Please try to avoid using homophones of the wrong words and proof read your posts. That will make them easier to read and might get more replies. How different are they from other classes at various levels?



from
EE
I think we know its from you. You posted it.

EvilElitest
2008-01-02, 06:15 PM
Oh man, there's a warning flag. How long was this article on human flaws? That coupled with the whole tiefling "renegade bad boy" is sounding like an awfully high wangst level.
Ummm, a little more than a page. Oh, suddenly i'm very scared.


You can't appreciate mindless action.

I could play Red Dead Revolver for mindless actions and the story would still be better



You could just add spoiler blocks.

But then i'd have to quote an entire article that doesn't really add to the essay except in a sort of "fun fact" sort of way, and people already complain i get off topic so i'll make it short, and leave it to people who buy the book to learn a generally interesting but not very fascinating topic (It doesn't affect humans in any major way)



The never really emphasized the negative aspects of any of the PHB races.
yes they did
Dwarves are stubborn, greedy, and closed minded
Elves are flighty and Arrogant
Gnomes are, well gnomes
Halflings are rougish and untrustworthy
Half Elves are unloved
Half orcs are brutish and dumb
Humans are ambitious


Please try to avoid using homophones of the wrong words and proof read your posts. That will make them easier to read and might get more replies. How different are they from other classes at various levels?

1. Sure
2. They didn't offer any mechanical data, just said that they are more corruptible and adaptable than other races.



I think we know its from you. You posted it.
It is a calling card
from
EE

Thinker
2008-01-02, 06:24 PM
yes they did
Dwarves are stubborn, greedy, and closed minded
Elves are flighty and Arrogant
Gnomes are, well gnomes
Halflings are rougish and untrustworthy
Half Elves are unloved
Half orcs are brutish and dumb
Humans are ambitious


That's not really emphasis. That's acknowledgment. Emphasizing is showing ways it happens and the effects of it.

Prophaniti
2008-01-02, 06:28 PM
Sorry to derail the topic again, albeit momentarily. I can't let this slight go in public. You're thinking of theory as the popular definition, where it amounts to the scientific definition of a hypothesis, an educated guess. Well, you're just wrong in this case. A scientific theory is supported by considerable if not overwhelming evidence in favor of it. Relativity is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. Evolution is also a theory (Only it's opponents refer to it as Darwinism). All three have been confirmed repeatedly, have cases where they can be falsified, and are for all intents and purposes, fact. Calling evolution "just a theory" is a creationist tactic meant to take advantage of public misunderstanding of science, and greatly undermines your credibility on the topic.

Didn't I say PM me if you have any issues with it? Also that was the least important part of my post, my main point was that even if factual it no longer truly applies to humans. Jeez and people think that only creationists get rabid when you disagree with them... disagree with any part of evolutionary theory and you're nothing but a closed-minded reactionary, apparently.

Anyway, please PM me or start another thread if you wish to continue, I'm sure EE would appreciate it if we didn't end up getting his thread locked.

Well, EE, what you've said of the Humans article is pretty much what I expected. If they did anything else with humans in the game I'm sure they'd tick off someone. Besides that's exactly what we are anyway, highly variable describes us better than anything else.

Dragunov
2008-01-02, 06:35 PM
I'm sorry but I skipped reading the atrocious text right after I spotted your fifth plea for work at WotC snuck between poorly-constructed denounces of a poor job.

D&D is not D&D. You want to play Dungeons & Dragons? Go grab a 30 year old book. D&D is a brand. A trademark. 3e/3.5e is a whole new system from 2e and 4e will be completely different from 3.5e. And 5e will be different from 4e. It's just the way things go. Of course you're complaining - you want more and better familiar material. But that just ain't gonna happen.

You know who'll buy 4e? The new kids. The kids that grew up with $300 computers from Dell. Kids whose idea of RPG revolves around a computer and a WoW account. This isn't to say that tabletop gaming is turning into MMORPGs where people gather around to get phat lewt and pwn some orc noobs. Not that it is wrong - they should know better than hang around a lvl50 mob spawn site, rite? LoLolllOloloOL!
But then in five years, they'll be complaining about how 5e is all wrong. Why did they have to replace the Warlord? And why's Bard an Augmented Class now? It's way too powerful!

Even to this day, there are people playing AD&D. It's what they like. 4e is a whole new system. It says Dungeons & Dragons, yeah, but that's a brand. If you like 3.5e, dude, stick with it. You don't have to buy 4e to continue playing D&D. D&D is a game and merely a system for you and your group to share stories. Nothing more.

And I also couldn't read really make sense, you know, of really big sentences, with alot of commas, that went on, and on, and on, and on, and then I reached the part at which you said you were 16 and a male and you were soooo, like, shocked about girls and boobies, so you could look more adult, and then you went and made another entry about sexism because the fantasy women in a fantasy game had fantasy clothes and fantasy weapons, but said nothing of big, muscled, hairy, oiled-up barbarians with 12ft axes, but what really got to me was when, like, you didn't use a period at the end of a sentence and just pressed enter

Ozymandias
2008-01-02, 06:36 PM
Ummm, a little more than a page. Oh, suddenly i'm very scared. The thing about defining negative aspects of a race is that it casts them automatically into that role, or forces them to rebel against it. Spending a page to say "all humans are whatever" is probably bad, although I guess it could be "humans can sometimes be" followed by a bunch of negative adjectives.


I could play Red Dead Revolver for mindless actions and the story would still be better

Well, that's your opinion. Herodotus might be offended, though. I, for one, liked the choreography of 300.


But then i'd have to quote an entire article that doesn't really add to the essay except in a sort of "fun fact" sort of way, and people already complain i get off topic so i'll make it short, and leave it to people who buy the book to learn a generally interesting but not very fascinating topic (It doesn't effect humans in any major way)

Your tirade about how you disapprove of immodesty was far more tangential (and probably longer), so I fail to see why this an issue.
It's 'affect', by the way[/pedant]


yes they did
Dwarves are stubborn, greedy, and closed minded
Elves are flighty and Arrogant
Gnomes are, well gnomes
Halflings are rougish and untrustworthy
Half Elves are unloved
Half orcs are brutish and dumb
Humans are ambitious

These qualities aren't emphasized just because they're mentioned. Much more about each race is left open to interpretation than is stated, and positive (and neutral) characteristics outweigh negative ones.



1. Sure
2. They didn't offer any mechanical data, just said that they are more corruptible and adaptable than other races.

Also, I'd suggest you avoid run-on sentences and capitalize the first person singular subjective case pronoun (I).
"More corruptible" is ominous, but it could pan out alright.



It is a calling card
from
EE

It's also ever so pretentious.

This wonderful dissertation is brought to you by the courtesy and grace of
Ozymandias, Esq.

Thrythlind
2008-01-02, 06:58 PM
The block on "Human Frailty" in Races and Classes doesn't go too much into angst material, though angsty emos can draw angst material from Hello Kitty, so what's to stop them.

What it does is establish that they going on the Tolkien/Christian model of where Good Intentions can lead you. It's nothing more than the same theme they've had for their fallen hero types as far back as Lord Soth and beyond.

EvilElitest
2008-01-02, 07:37 PM
I'm sorry but I skipped reading the atrocious text right after I spotted your fifth plea for work at WotC snuck between poorly-constructed denounces of a poor job.

Wait, let me guess here before reading the essay, you are
1. Not going to quote anything, and simple rant on

2. Your going to follow this up by making claims such as 的ts change, Accept it

3. And then resort to badly worded attempts at personal attacks, well lets see


D&D is not D&D. You want to play Dungeons & Dragons? Go grab a 30 year old book. D&D is a brand. A trademark. 3e/3.5e is a whole new system from 2e and 4e will be completely different from 3.5e. And 5e will be different from 4e. It's just the way things go. Of course you're complaining - you want more and better familiar material. But that just ain't gonna happen.

1. Completely? No, the impression I got from 1E to 2E, 2E to 3E, 3E to 3.5 is taking already existing good qualities and working off them, while still maintaining the same general rules and themes of the games while improving the game. I知 not against a new edition, I知 just extremely skeptical of some of these changes and of this book
2. Ain稚 gonna happen? So I should shut up, sit down, and accept it? So I shouldn稚 talk about what annoys me in this book and should instead stay part of a silent minority? No thanks, I致e never been a fan of the defeatist way



You know who'll buy 4e? The new kids. The kids that grew up with $300 computers from Dell. Kids whose idea of RPG revolves around a computer and a WoW account. This isn't to say that tabletop gaming is turning into MMORPGs where people gather around to get phat lewt and pwn some orc noobs. Not that it is wrong - they should know better than hang around a lvl50 mob spawn site, rite? LoLolllOloloOL!

And this is a good thing? Wow, that is certainly a strange view on things


But then in five years, they'll be complaining about how 5e is all wrong. Why did they have to replace the Warlord? And why's Bard an Augmented Class now? It's way too powerful!

3E had problems. 3.5 fixed some but not all. 3.5 still had problems. 4E should create a system that maintains the good aspects of 3.5 but fixes the essential problems while bringing new material to the table. Not everything will be good, but now everything


Even to this day, there are people playing AD&D. It's what they like. 4e is a whole new system. It says Dungeons & Dragons, yeah, but that's a brand. If you like 3.5e, dude, stick with it. You don't have to buy 4e to continue playing D&D. D&D is a game and merely a system for you and your group to share stories. Nothing more.

3.5 is flawed. 4E could very well be flawed. I知 pointing out what I (remember this is an editorial) consider flawed in the book


And I also couldn't read really make sense, you know, of really big sentences, with alot of commas, that went on, and on, and on, and on, and then I reached the part at which you said you were 16 and a male and you were soooo, like, shocked about girls and boobies, so you could look more adult,

Wow, personal attacks with no basis, how mature
1. I致e stated my complaints about the artwork relevant to the product, I don稚 have anything against nudity itself.
2. I haven稚 tried to censor it, stop it, or hinder it (I really doubt I have that much power) in anyway, I知 just voicing complaints
3. So I could look more mature. Has it occurred to you that I actually don稚 drool over every lewdly clad women? An attempt to look more mature, please if your doing a personal attack at least try to make an effective one


but what really got to me was when, like, you didn't use a period at the end of a sentence and just pressed enter

And what pisses me off is that your are a rude, uncouth and generally unhelpful poster who is resorting to badly attempted personal attacks.
The irony here is you didn稚 use a period in that last sentence.


Also ozymandias,Equ, your comments are duly noted
From
EE

Tweekinator
2008-01-02, 07:45 PM
And what pisses me off is that your are a rude, uncouth and generally unhelpful poster who is resorting to badly attempted personal attacks.
The irony here is you didn稚 use a period in that last sentence.

I believe that was intentional, as the entire last paragraph appears to parody your writing style, though with fewer spelling and grammatical errors.

That's also a poor way to welcome a fellow poster (who seemed pretty couth to me) to these wondrous boards. By the way, Dragunov, welcome.

EvilElitest
2008-01-02, 07:57 PM
I believe that was intentional, as the entire last paragraph appears to parody your writing style, though with fewer spelling and grammatical errors.

That's also a poor way to welcome a fellow poster (who seemed pretty couth to me) to these wondrous boards. By the way, Dragunov, welcome.

and then I reached the part at which you said you were 16 and a male and you were soooo, like, shocked about girls and boobies, so you could look more adult,
pretty insulting i find it
from
EE

Prophaniti
2008-01-02, 07:59 PM
Yeah, EE, he was mocking you with the last paragraph. In truth, I thought it a good, albeit unkind, example of your writing. I have seen some improvement, however, so keep it up.

Salutations from me as well, Dragonov, although I hope all your posts won't be in the same spirit. It's ok to point out what someone is doing, but it's not very classy to parody them like that... especially when they don't get it :smallamused: Sorry, EE, but I really don't see how you could have missed the deliberate satire there...

Back on topic: Anything else EE? I don't have access to the book, so I'm actually interested in any account of what it says. What other races are they including for certain? How are they changing them? Are half-orcs still gimped?

Ozymandias
2008-01-02, 08:04 PM
pretty insulting i find it
from
EE

He was a little negative but you did partition a gratuitous amount of time to something which you simply find distasteful, and a lot of it did come off as tentative and immature. By the way, Americans aren't actually known for being overly uptight about sexuality so you can stop saying that.


It's ok to point out what someone is doing, but it's not very classy to parody them like that... especially when they don't get it :smallamused: Sorry, EE, but I really don't see how you could have missed the deliberate satire there...

Hey, it was classy when I did it. Esquire? It doesn't get much classier than that. Plus, I don't think he got it either (or at least misspelled a three letter-sequence, possibly winning an award).


Back on topic: Anything else EE? I don't have access to the book, so I'm actually interested in any account of what it says. What other races are they including for certain? How are they changing them? Are half-orcs still gimped?

Amen. I actually want a new race included, as long as it's well-thought out and executed (which isn't likely, the iconic races are too ... iconic).

Dragunov
2008-01-02, 08:14 PM
Wait, let me guess here before reading the essay, you are
1. Not going to quote anything, and simple rant on

2. Your going to follow this up by making claims such as 的ts change, Accept it

3. And then resort to badly worded attempts at personal attacks, well lets see


Yeah, I'll read your post and then divine on its contents as well.



1. Completely? No, the impression I got from 1E to 2E, 2E to 3E, 3E to 3.5 is taking already existing good qualities and working off them, while still maintaining the same general rules and themes of the games while improving the game. I知 not against a new edition, I知 just extremely skeptical of some of these changes and of this book


But none of these qualities are really a staple of D&D nor are they even constant. And what kind of improvements do you think have been done? Every time something changes, people go crazy. People ranted for weeks about spell durations were changed from 3e to 3.5e, completely changing the dynamics of a few classes.


2. Ain稚 gonna happen? So I should shut up, sit down, and accept it? So I shouldn稚 talk about what annoys me in this book and should instead stay part of a silent minority? No thanks, I致e never been a fan of the defeatist way


And this is a good thing? Wow, that is certainly a strange view on things

3E had problems. 3.5 fixed some but not all. 3.5 still had problems. 4E should create a system that maintains the good aspects of 3.5 but fixes the essential problems while bringing new material to the table. Not everything will be good, but now everything

3.5 is flawed. 4E could very well be flawed. I知 pointing out what I (remember this is an editorial) consider flawed in the book


You talk of it as if there was a choice of any sort. As if WotC was asking your permission or having a contest of wits with you to see what they could publish. They'll make 4e however they see fit and people are going to buy it. Why? Because it is Dungeons and Dragons and, you'll see, the new system will make sense and be profitable.
The majority who complains now is the same majority that'll create immense revenue once the books comes out and everyone buys them.

The system will always be flawed. It has to be. Have you noticed how all splatbooks are filled with delicious new mechanic-related treats and fluff? All the yummy feats and prestige classes and variant rules and all that? Sure, they could just elaborate a simple and elegant point-buy system where you were given a certain number of points at character creation and proceeded to buy whatever traits you thought best, but then they'd be giving you the keys to the kingdom. Why would you buy any splatbook if all it would show you would be combinations of basic elements you could already built with the source materials?
Also, rigid character creation through classes and preset bonuses in the form of feats gives the gamer community structure. It keeps people interested, showing off their builds, discussing mechanics, fixes, showing their homebrewed material, thus forming a means through which new products can be dissiminated.

It's not an improvement - it's a new system. Which are 3.5e's flaws then? What are those horrible, horrible things that kept you and your group from enjoying that amazing medieval fantasy campaign?
They say it is an improvement so it gives a sense of continuation. It's your good old D&D 3.5e with some better fixes. And you do want the best, don't you?



Wow, personal attacks with no basis, how mature
1. I致e stated my complaints about the artwork relevant to the product, I don稚 have anything against nudity itself.
2. I haven稚 tried to censor it, stop it, or hinder it (I really doubt I have that much power) in anyway, I知 just voicing complaints
3. So I could look more mature. Has it occurred to you that I actually don稚 drool over every lewdly clad women? An attempt to look more mature, please if your doing a personal attack at least try to make an effective one


But no one asked you to be mature. Just civil. OH MY GOODNESS! Nigh-naked girls? On my D&D? That's got to be a first! Come on, the genre is rippling with almost-bare-breasted nymphs and Frank Zetta-worthy barbarians with rippling, oiled bodies. It always had. It brings the atmosphere of the genre and the appeal to younger crowds together. Lets admit it: everyone likes eyecandy.


And what pisses me off is that your are a rude, uncouth and generally unhelpful poster who is resorting to badly attempted personal attacks.
The irony here is you didn稚 use a period in that last sentence.

I'm unhelpful? You've been ranting about how WotC is ruining your precious and holy D&D by daring to mix things around, hoping to depart from the way-too-moldy Tolkienesque tradition by forging their own mythos in a way that is both familiar and yet, new.
I've been just trying to tell you that change is inevitable. 4e is going to be different and, yes, you will accept it, no matter what you say right now.

By the way, that whole last paragraph? If the only thing wrong you saw in it was the purposeful lack of a full stop at the end, you really need to learn how to build sentences.
I usually don't complain about someone's sentence building or grammar. That's really beneath me, but you are sixteen. You should already know how to write properly, with pace and purpose. Not only does it lend you credibility, it might also lead people to read your whole texts.

EvilElitest
2008-01-02, 08:28 PM
I did get the mocking, it just wasn't funny, nor worth responding to


Back on topic: Anything else EE? I don't have access to the book, so I'm actually interested in any account of what it says. What other races are they including for certain? How are they changing them? Are half-orcs still gimped?
Tieflings and dragonborn, both are coming up soon. Also, what half orcs? (Half elves, gnomes and half orcs are dropped, sorry)
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-01-02, 08:38 PM
New Race, Dragon Born

As many of you might have noticed, gnomes, half orcs and half elves have been dropped as the iconic races in D&D. Gnomes are explained later but we already know the reasons for half orcs and half elves, they weren稚 cool enough. Well WOTC used some of the more 妬nteresting aspects of the crossbreed races in tieflings, the other newly added race, and Dragon Born, the other new race, WOTC is going for the visually cool approach. Half elves have the angst factor which is now held be tieflings, while Half orcs were just the big ugly guys who hit things. Now we have the more visible cool races and who needs those guys right lads
In the first paragraph we have an introduction to Dragon Born, which is
1. They look like dragons
2. They honor dragons
3. A rather close knit family society
4. They are arrogant
5. They are honorable and proud warriors
6. They can eventually breath fire and fly
7. They have a clan society
8. They come from a lost city that I致e never heard of
9. Courage and loyalty is very important to them.
Ok lets be honest, they are dragons, thus they are cool, so who cares about their culture, they are freaking dragons. Oh they uses katanas, I mean come on. In fact WOTC acknowledges this by saying that they were created for the coolness factor. Fun fact, I know they share the name with Dragon born from Races of Dragon books, but no it isn稚 them, these guys are a whole new species, not reborn dragon people. Personally, we should have see this coming with the dragon races realized in earlier editions, but I don稚 really mind, they are cool. My only real complaint is that they should have made them a different species from Dragon born (maybe dragon kin, or dragon folk or something?) But other than that, I just miss half elves, half orcs and gnomes.
Are dragon born interesting culture or personality wise? Not really. Do they look cool? Hell yes and that all that matters:smallwink:
Next up, Dwarves
From
EE

Tren
2008-01-02, 08:44 PM
Actually half-elves are still in, they just dropped the essay concerning them from Races and Classes for time constraints.

EvilElitest
2008-01-02, 08:47 PM
Actually half-elves are still in, they just dropped the essay concerning them from Races and Classes for time constraints.

Really, i didn't know that


meh, they don't deserve an essay anyways

Oh edited my second essay, hope to move on to the rest
from
EE

Crow
2008-01-02, 08:58 PM
New Race, Dragon Born

As many of you might have noticed, gnomes, half orcs and half elves have been dropped as the iconic races in D&D. Gnomes are explained later but we already know the reasons for half orcs and half elves, they weren稚 cool enough. Well WOTC used some of the more 妬nteresting aspects of the crossbreed races in tieflings, the other newly added race, and Dragon Born, the other new race, WOTC is going for the visually cool approach. Half elves have the angst factor which is now held be tieflings, while Half orcs were just the big ugly guys who hit things. Now we have the more visible cool races and who needs those guys right lads
In the first paragraph we have an introduction to Dragon Born, which is
1. They look like dragons
2. They honor dragons
3. A rather close knit family society
4. They are arrogant
5. They are honorable and proud warriors
6. They can eventually breath fire and fly
7. They have a clan society
8. They come from a lost city that I致e never heard of
9. Courage and loyalty is very important to them.
Ok lets be honest, they are dragons, thus they are cool, so who cares about their culture, they are freaking dragons. Oh they uses katanas, I mean come on. In fact WOTC acknowledges this by saying that they were created for the coolness factor. Fun fact, I know they share the name with Dragon born from Races of Dragon books, but no it isn稚 them, these guys are a whole new species, not reborn dragon people. Personally, we should have see this coming with the dragon races realized in earlier editions, but I don稚 really mind, they are cool. My only real complaint is that they should have made them a different species from Dragon born (maybe dragon kin, or dragon folk or something?) But other than that, I just miss half elves, half orcs and gnomes.
Are dragon born interesting culture or personality wise? Not really. Do they look cool? Hell yes and that all that matters:smallwink:
Next up, Dwarves
From
EE

Maybe Dragonborn are a WotC inside joke. They must spend time at the WotC forums (or Gleemax or whatever it's called now).

I for one am sick of hearing about half-dragons with katanas, and find them neither interesting or cool.

EvilElitest
2008-01-02, 09:01 PM
Maybe Dragonborn are a WotC inside joke. They must spend time at the WotC forums (or Gleemax or whatever it's called now).

I for one am sick of hearing about half-dragons with katanas, and find them neither interesting or cool.

So crow, do you agree with most of my essay?
And i don't hang out on the WOTC forums so what inside joke is this
Also Dragon born are made for the sole purpose of being cool, katanas give + 3 cool for anybody.
from
EE

Prophaniti
2008-01-02, 09:03 PM
Tieflings and dragonborn, both are coming up soon. Also, what half orcs? (Half elves, gnomes and half orcs are dropped, sorry)
from
EE
Wha?!:smalleek: Man, you can't just drop things on me like that... not nice. I'd have though it'd piss you off more, too...:smallconfused: Adding Dragonborn, IMO, is gonna suck. Too many people liked the PrCs that gave draconic properties, as well as the current dragonborn, so they're just making half-dragons a playable race with scaling (no pun intended) abilities. I fail to see how this can't unbalance the game. A base race that gets wings and fire-breath? It'd better have some significant disadvantages(though I know it won't)! Everyone will play them! We'll have parties of nothing but dragon-people!* And what'dya mean 'half-orcs ain't cool enough'? Come say that to my green friend here and his disproportionately large axe!:smallfurious:


*Incidentaly, when I say things like 'everyone's gonna do this' and 'it's going to unbalance this' I'm referring to my group. I have no notion how other groups will handle it, could be the perfect thing for them. Just not for mine.

EvilElitest
2008-01-02, 09:07 PM
Wha?!:smalleek: Man, you can't just drop things on me like that... not nice. I'd have though it'd piss you off more, too...:smallconfused:

It did, i was being sarcastic. I like half orcs, i just felt then needed a fluff crunch boost

Adding Dragonborn, IMO, is gonna suck. Too many people liked the PrCs that gave draconic properties, as well as the current dragonborn, so they're just making half-dragons a playable race with scaling (no pun intended) abilities. I fail to see how this can't unbalance the game. A base race that gets wings and fire-breath? It'd better have some significant disadvantages(though I know it won't)! Everyone will play them! We'll have parties of nothing but dragon-people!*
1. But they look cool and that is all that matters:smalltongue:
2. Oh come one, everybody will play them, that is like saying that there are a lot of good duel scimitar wielding drow rangers

...
I'm going to hid under my desk now
Sorry about breaking the bad news


And what'dya mean 'half-orcs ain't cool enough'? Come say that to my green friend here and his disproportionately large axe!:smallfurious:


Yeah, but they are ugly, so they have to go. Sorry:smallmad:


*Incidentaly, when I say things like 'everyone's gonna do this' and 'it's going to unbalance this' I'm referring to my group. I have no notion how other groups will handle it, could be the perfect thing for them. Just not for mine.

If dragon born are like Drow in terms of coolness they will be everywhere. However they are cool, so it is still ok for now but i can see a lot of splat books being made for them
from
EE

Tren
2008-01-02, 10:21 PM
Wha?!:smalleek: Man, you can't just drop things on me like that... not nice. I'd have though it'd piss you off more, too...:smallconfused: Adding Dragonborn, IMO, is gonna suck. Too many people liked the PrCs that gave draconic properties, as well as the current dragonborn, so they're just making half-dragons a playable race with scaling (no pun intended) abilities. I fail to see how this can't unbalance the game. A base race that gets wings and fire-breath? It'd better have some significant disadvantages(though I know it won't)! Everyone will play them! We'll have parties of nothing but dragon-people!* And what'dya mean 'half-orcs ain't cool enough'? Come say that to my green friend here and his disproportionately large axe!:smallfurious:

It was implied that breath attacks and wings would only be available from high-level racial feats, so it's not a default feature.

When I first heard about Dragonborn I had pretty much the same reaction, but after reading their rationale and some of the race fluff I'm pretty sold. They talk about the Dragonborn as one of their main attempts to push beyond straight Tolkien medieval European influence, and bring a more "cosmopolitan" flavor to D&D.

EvilElitest
2008-01-02, 10:24 PM
It was implied that breath attacks and wings would only be available from high-level racial feats, so it's not a default feature.

When I first heard about Dragonborn I had pretty much the same reaction, but after reading their rationale and some of the race fluff I'm pretty sold. They talk about the Dragonborn as one of their main attempts to push beyond straight Tolkien medieval European influence, and bring a more "cosmopolitan" flavor to D&D.

i just hope the pull it off, it can be great if done well


Alright, no more time wasting, i'm going to do part five
from
EE

illathid
2008-01-02, 11:11 PM
Gnomes are explained later but we already know the reasons for half orcs and half elves, they weren稚 cool enough.

Thats false information, at least regarding the half-orc. What they actually say in Races & Classes is that they were uncomfortable with idea of having an entire core race that is large the result of rape.

This is also why the changed the fluff around tieflings, so that now they are no longer the progeny of fiendish outsiders and humans. Now they are a people who bear a physical manifestation of the pact their ancestors made for infernal power. It's closer now to a curse passed through bloodlines than it is a result of ones ancestors creating a 2-backed beast with a Baatezu (:smallamused:).

EvilElitest
2008-01-02, 11:16 PM
Alright, my connection is really faulty so i don't have time to finish dwarves, so i'll just say what i do like about them
I will cover this in more detail later
Female dwarves, its been hinted at but finally female dwarves who don't have beards, aren't ungly (In fact their rather good looking in a petite sort of way, though i flinched when the writers kept calling them sexy) and great badass potiental. Quite good overall, i must say a great improvment and answers a lot of questions

Bad news is, dwarves loose darkvision



Thats false information, at least regarding the half-orc. What they actually say in Races & Classes is that they were uncomfortable with idea of having an entire core race that is large the result of rape.

ah of course
from
EE

Talya
2008-01-02, 11:18 PM
Thats false information, at least regarding the half-orc. What they actually say in Races & Classes is that they were uncomfortable with idea of having an entire core race that is large the result of rape.

This is also why the changed the fluff around tieflings, so that now they are no longer the progeny of fiendish outsiders and humans. Now they are a people who bear a physical manifestation of the pact their ancestors made for infernal power. It's closer now to a curse passed through bloodlines than it is a result of ones ancestors creating a 2-backed beast with a Baatezu (:smallamused:).

So, they're kiddifying it, taking out all real substance in an attempt to be politically correct.

My words for this strategy and those that would follow it would mostly be filtered out.

EvilElitest
2008-01-02, 11:20 PM
So, they're kiddifying it, taking out all real substance in an attempt to be politically correct.

My words for this strategy and those that would follow it would mostly be filtered out.

I have to agree, but i'll cover more on tieflings after i finish dwarves (tommorow, promise)
from
EE

illathid
2008-01-02, 11:58 PM
So, they're kiddifying it, taking out all real substance in an attempt to be politically correct.

My words for this strategy and those that would follow it would mostly be filtered out.

I don't really know how to respond to this if you think the horrific and very real atrocity that is rape can somehow be equated to a matter of "substance".

However, if you are rather saying, as I think you are, that your disappointed that they seem to be limiting your ability to create evocative stories, that's a somewhat different matter. My take on it is this, D&D is a system that so many different types of people use it has to be able to at appeal to a common denominator. For instance, I started DMing for my little sisters when they were as young as 8. In situations like that, mature themes are really best left out of the picture. But having them prominently displayed in the core rules makes that really hard to do.

Don't think, however, that I'm saying these themes should be categorically left out the game, because I'm not. I've been known to enjoy games with a darker theme myself. I just think that if they are going to be mature aspects of the game, they should be placed into a book that is clearly labeled as such (like the BoVD).

Also, I don't think the most iconic aspect of D&D, killing things & taking their stuff, will ever be politically correct. :smallwink:

ObsidianRose
2008-01-03, 12:07 AM
Mr. Original Poster, with what you're saying, this game will never satisfy you. You're demanding things that WoTC can't and shouldn't give. If you want this degree of realism, I recommend actually living a little. In real life, there is no allignment, and you can be an NPC.

But I play this game for a reasons.

This game is fantasy, and as such the impossible should happen, because the possible just isn't that beautiful. I want my fireballs to produce ridiculous explosions, just like I want every character to be sexilicious and exposed, unless the call to be ugly comes in. I can step out every day for normal, boring fires and plain looking people bundled up in Columbia ski jackets.

I like that diplomacy is just a skill I roll for. Because if I want to placate the dumbbloops of the world, I step outside my door. Because I am not an eloquent speaker, but my character is. I quite simply can't roleplay that 18 charisma, and I don't want to bother. So let me roll my dice and giggle at how clever I am for pumping that skill. Let my dice rolls and character sheets do the talking

I don't want to scrounge for money unless it gives me an excuse to do something awesome within the next five minutes.
I don't want to die of pneumonia.
I don't want to deal with stupid, obnoxious soccer moms
I don't want to die from one sword wound
I don't want to conserve ammunition
I don't want to ambush every kobold just to have a chance of winning
If I did, I wouldn't stop by every Friday, I'd just go get a job at a convenience store.

I game because I want to be a one-man war machine, mowing down god and demon alike.

In real life, I am another NPC, doomed to retire to a life of basket weaving. But my character doesn't have to be. My character will fight until he dies or drops. A force like his is not to be stopped.

I will sling planets.

And so to close this counter-rant, I'd like to say.

The NPCs will not run my character's life. That's reality and that's not why I game. NPCs will do the following and only the following, be they man, titan, or shrew:

1) Be physically abused by my character
2) Be emotionally abused by my character
3) Trade with or be used by my character
4) Fall in love with my character
5) Amuse me (and maybe my character)
6) Be awesome and badass until replaced by my character.

And I will be no man's NPC, unless revenge is swift and sweeter because of it.

So give me my unrealistic game of big swords and sexy women. If you want reality, go live.

-ObsidianRose

Thrythlind
2008-01-03, 12:24 AM
So, they're kiddifying it, taking out all real substance in an attempt to be politically correct.

My words for this strategy and those that would follow it would mostly be filtered out.

That's standard for D&D, it tries to maintain a certain level of acceptability to the mainstream community. Including a period of time in which the terms "God" "Demon" "Devil" and "Angel" were all taken out of use and where we instead got "Power" "Tanar'Ri" "Baatezu" "Archon" and "Celestial"

kind of find it odd to be surprised. this trend goes way back to the original dieties and demigods book in which the first few printings had stats for God and, I believe but am not sure, Jesus. Very few were printed before they gave in to public outcry to take those stats out. And they've been very careful to avoid doing that again and have even implied (or outright shown) settings where the Gods were not the highest power in existence.

horseboy
2008-01-03, 12:38 AM
In the first paragraph we have an introduction to Dragon Born, which is
1. They look like dragons
2. They honor dragonsHouse Syrtis

6. They can eventually breath fire and flyK'stulaami


3. A rather close knit family societyAropagoi

4. They are arrogant
5. They are honorable and proud warriors
haropas

7. They have a clan societyIs it female dominate?

9. Courage and loyalty is very important to them.

Jik'harra
Dear sweet Jebus they really are brining t'skrang into d20.

Edit:


kind of find it odd to be surprised. this trend goes way back to the original dieties and demigods book in which the first few printings had stats for God and, I believe but am not sure, Jesus. Very few were printed before they gave in to public outcry to take those stats out. And they've been very careful to avoid doing that again and have even implied (or outright shown) settings where the Gods were not the highest power in existence.
I don't recall that. I know they had to pull them once because they violated copy rights printing Elric, Cthulthu and Conan before they got rights to them. Never heard of anyone other than Mr. Nexx Mark Hall ever stating him. (Sorry, that's going to take some getting used to. :smallwink:

Conjurer
2008-01-03, 12:39 AM
I don't think we can discount Half-Elves just yet.

Races & Classes barely mentions them at all, true (a line or two saying that they had 'legacy value' or some such).

However Richard Baker mentions Half-Elves as a possibility for a character of his during a playtest, not so long ago. He said that he considered the Half-Elf because it Multiclassed well. Here's the link. (http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=17944&pagemode=2&blogid=4142)

It's not much, but if you like Half-Elves, there's hope.

an kobold
2008-01-03, 01:22 AM
Part 2, the real problem with 4E

P. 11 we have heroes of the world.

In the very first paragraph they make it quite clear that the PCs are the heroes of the world by default. I would like to point out that this seems a lot like WOW, with every single PC being a "hero" simple because they chose a PC class.

How is this any different from 3.0 and 3.5? One might not automatically be considered a hero for being a level 1 base class, but they are certainly better than the npc warrior, adept, expert, and last, but not least, the commoner. Mechanically they are better, being able to hold their own against a house cat and what have you, why not simply acknowledge that in the design process? Nowhere does it say that the PCs aren't allowed to coexist with other characters who have levels in "heroic" classes. In fact, the rogue section discusses how one of those lovable scoundrels could serve as a villain.
If anything, it sounds like a fantasy expansion to the Star Wars SAGA edition.



"The PC s are going to be the center stage for the life of the campaign"
That...doesn't make any sense

I read that quote differently. While you seem to take it to mean that the whole world revolves around the PCs, I read it as a strict interpretation solely pertaining to "the campaign." (I was raised in a family of lawyers, the way something is phrased is VERY important to me.) I think the designers meant that the players are the center of the game session run by the DM, not the game world or the events in it planned out by the DM. Especially later in the book(I know, I'm skipping ahead), when the designers talk about the different "tiers," it goes into detail how for the first ten levels characters are "localized" to a specific town/region and have very little impact on the larger world, where DM knows what is going on without the players having a clue or butterfly effect on.


"and deserve all the power options and customization features that the system can bear"
no, just no. I don't want to play with a bunch of guys who just destroy everything that comes in their path; i want a bunch of guys who use wit, strength, skill, and intelligence to rise about the normal people, not to a bunch of superheroes. This is why i don't like Mary Sues, they start out super, i want characters to earn their fame and prestige and reap the rewards of their good work

Once again, we're reading the quote differently. I think the emphasis is on "options and customization features," not "power." They wanted to give players more ways to have numerous effective "builds" instead of constantly retreading the same tired, overtly powerful builds of 3.5 (divine metamagic, natural spell, and polymorph all come readily to mind.) Sure, 3rd offers a lot of variety, but vary too far and your character easily nerfs themselves, not to mention those empty class levels where you got nothing special.



"The new system is not overly concerned with simulating interactions between monsters and non player characters when the PCs are not on stage"
1. Ok, how will my world make any f**king sense then? If everything revolves around six dudes for no good reason, how does my plot even make sense? Why should my player痴 care about my world if they aren't told to, what痴 to keep them from just rampage the land killing as they please? Thank you for bringing D&D back to the old black and white and boring world that doesn't make sense. Thank you so much

I think this is just taking the DM in the direction of the storyteller vs. the rolller/effective monster builder. The DM does not roll to determine whether or not a band of robbers successfully attack and loot a caravan, it just happens in the world. Sure, you point out your example of an NPC wizard rolling a high skill check, but he's not actually interacting with anyone in that one roll. Did you roll to see how every battle in that war went offstage? Maybe compare the attack bonus compared to armor bonus and see on average what would happen. Once again, nowhere does it say your world revolves around the pcs, you are choosing to read it that way.
As for your monsters spiel, it looks like racial progression over levels ties in with getting rid of LA for more powerful critters that PCs like to play. While the 4.0 MM monsters might not have the same abilities or rules as PCs do, it definitely looks like PC monster races are in the future.

Anyway, all of this is speculation without any concrete rules, though I'd pick up a copy of SAGA and Tome of Battle if I were you for an idea for how the new game works since they were developed alongside 4th ed. Having experience with both of those rule sets definitely influenced my reading of "Races and Classes" for the better.

Tough_Tonka
2008-01-03, 01:56 AM
This is the quote from WotC that really caught me. The system may not be concerned with it (ie no written mechanics for how this should proceed, which is fine), but I sure am. Having NPCs and monsters that only act when the PCs show up is a quick way to create a dead, boring world of grinding and endless body-looting just like, as EE says, a video game. I do not want my table-top gaming to become like my computer gaming. I want the world of my table-top game, being limited only by my imagination, to do what my computer games cannot. This includes hosting a vibrant, breathing, changable world where NPCs and monsters have the same ability as you do to change the world as you do. Great Lords and mighty dragons should NOT sit idle merely because the focus of the story is elswhere. You're running heroes, not gods of their own little sandbox, where only they have the power to shape things.

This is not to say that the DM should give a running 'news bulletin', or spend lots of the game session on it, or anything like that. More like, if the party comes upon a valley that is violently contested by rival tribes, then leaves for a year and comes back, they should find that something has actually happened! One side or the other has won out, they made peace, they were both defeated by yet another side, SOMETHING. They should not get there to find them still in exactly the same state, which this quote strongly implies will be the standard take on things.

The PCs may be the center of the story, but they shouldn't be the center of the universe. If interesting things only happen when they show up, if things only change when they show up, it will be as he said, they will lose interest in the world. I know I would.

In this at least, EE, we are in agreement. You really should work on your writing skills, though. It was far too difficult to follow in many places. I don't have a problem with your tone, I already understand you have a big ego, as you said, and take everything you write accordingly. Just work on the mechanics so it's more reader-friendly.:smallsmile:

I知 pretty sure that statement is about how NPC interaction will just be determined by the decision of the DM. The results of NPC interactions might be based on the DM sense of logic or it might depend on how the DM wants the plot to go, but in the end what happens when the PCs aren稚 involved will more or less be up to the DM.

Of coarse I know few DM actually make sure all their NPC痴 interactions follow the Diplomacy rules to the letter.

For Example:

Let痴 say an important part of the plot of an adventure involves the negotiations between two factions to deteriorate and nothing is done by the PC to prevent this. Do you think the DM is going to roll the diplomacy checks for the representatives or is he just going to say that the negotiations did not go so well?

I imagine Wizards is doing this because they know most DMs don稚 bother making social skill checks between monsters and NPCs when the heroes aren稚 involved. Also it takes the pressure of DMs to make sure that members of nobility have significant skill modifiers for diplomacy when the NPCs cannot even use these stats to influence PCs.

Tough_Tonka
2008-01-03, 02:01 AM
Mr. Original Poster, with what you're saying, this game will never satisfy you. You're demanding things that WoTC can't and shouldn't give. If you want this degree of realism, I recommend actually living a little. In real life, there is no allignment, and you can be an NPC.

But I play this game for a reasons.

This game is fantasy, and as such the impossible should happen, because the possible just isn't that beautiful. I want my fireballs to produce ridiculous explosions, just like I want every character to be sexilicious and exposed, unless the call to be ugly comes in. I can step out every day for normal, boring fires and plain looking people bundled up in Columbia ski jackets.

I like that diplomacy is just a skill I roll for. Because if I want to placate the dumbbloops of the world, I step outside my door. Because I am not an eloquent speaker, but my character is. I quite simply can't roleplay that 18 charisma, and I don't want to bother. So let me roll my dice and giggle at how clever I am for pumping that skill. Let my dice rolls and character sheets do the talking

I don't want to scrounge for money unless it gives me an excuse to do something awesome within the next five minutes.
I don't want to die of pneumonia.
I don't want to deal with stupid, obnoxious soccer moms
I don't want to die from one sword wound
I don't want to conserve ammunition
I don't want to ambush every kobold just to have a chance of winning
If I did, I wouldn't stop by every Friday, I'd just go get a job at a convenience store.

I game because I want to be a one-man war machine, mowing down god and demon alike.

In real life, I am another NPC, doomed to retire to a life of basket weaving. But my character doesn't have to be. My character will fight until he dies or drops. A force like his is not to be stopped.

I will sling planets.

And so to close this counter-rant, I'd like to say.

The NPCs will not run my character's life. That's reality and that's not why I game. NPCs will do the following and only the following, be they man, titan, or shrew:

1) Be physically abused by my character
2) Be emotionally abused by my character
3) Trade with or be used by my character
4) Fall in love with my character
5) Amuse me (and maybe my character)
6) Be awesome and badass until replaced by my character.

And I will be no man's NPC, unless revenge is swift and sweeter because of it.

So give me my unrealistic game of big swords and sexy women. If you want reality, go live.

-ObsidianRose

HERE HERE!!!

Kioran
2008-01-03, 06:01 AM
I for one never understand what is so cool about dragons - but then, Iエm of the school that thinks that giant flying, fire-breathing lizards have no need for brains(no competition/natural predators), and are thus stupid as wood. So Dragonborn arenエt even cool.
A huge, very masculine Half-Orc grabbing something and repeatedly slugging it in the face is - honestly, Katanas are cool, but one of the most awesome, if underrated things on the planet is brute strength and testosterone running amok (as opposed to elven prettyboys with Thinblades and flowers in their hair). Being a violent, if well meaning Half-Orc is several times more interesting than a Draconic Pseudo-Klingon. Half-Orcs just should have gotten some mechanical boost.
Same with Tieflings. I mean, come on - there wasnエt even necessesarily rape involved, as most Baatezu for one possess huge force of personailty or animal magnetism (huge Charisma), and either look good or are capable of polymorphing - also, the maternal side of the ancestry could be the Outsider.. So thatエs little reason - but hey, theyエre making the Tiefling Evil-lite "Kickahhs Wolocks" anyway, so there......

I just think that, in an attempt to make their own unique flavor, they are ruining much of the good stuff from prior editions.

Witch
2008-01-03, 06:07 AM
I just think that, in an attempt to make their own unique flavor, they are ruining much of the good stuff from prior editions.
Almost all of it - a large change from previous edition transitions, where flavor was changed, but not as extremely. Personally, I find it helps to look at 4E as a new game rather than a new version of an existing game.

NakedCelt
2008-01-03, 06:51 AM
Mr. Original Poster, with what you're saying, this game will never satisfy you. You're demanding things that WoTC can't and shouldn't give. If you want this degree of realism, I recommend actually living a little. In real life, there is no allignment, and you can be an NPC.

But I play this game for a reasons.

This game is fantasy, and as such the impossible should happen, because the possible just isn't that beautiful. I want my fireballs to produce ridiculous explosions, just like I want every character to be sexilicious and exposed, unless the call to be ugly comes in. I can step out every day for normal, boring fires and plain looking people bundled up in Columbia ski jackets.

I like that diplomacy is just a skill I roll for. Because if I want to placate the dumbbloops of the world, I step outside my door. Because I am not an eloquent speaker, but my character is. I quite simply can't roleplay that 18 charisma, and I don't want to bother. So let me roll my dice and giggle at how clever I am for pumping that skill. Let my dice rolls and character sheets do the talking

I don't want to scrounge for money unless it gives me an excuse to do something awesome within the next five minutes.
I don't want to die of pneumonia.
I don't want to deal with stupid, obnoxious soccer moms
I don't want to die from one sword wound
I don't want to conserve ammunition
I don't want to ambush every kobold just to have a chance of winning
If I did, I wouldn't stop by every Friday, I'd just go get a job at a convenience store.

I game because I want to be a one-man war machine, mowing down god and demon alike.

In real life, I am another NPC, doomed to retire to a life of basket weaving. But my character doesn't have to be. My character will fight until he dies or drops. A force like his is not to be stopped.

I will sling planets.

And so to close this counter-rant, I'd like to say.

The NPCs will not run my character's life. That's reality and that's not why I game. NPCs will do the following and only the following, be they man, titan, or shrew:

1) Be physically abused by my character
2) Be emotionally abused by my character
3) Trade with or be used by my character
4) Fall in love with my character
5) Amuse me (and maybe my character)
6) Be awesome and badass until replaced by my character.

And I will be no man's NPC, unless revenge is swift and sweeter because of it.

So give me my unrealistic game of big swords and sexy women. If you want reality, go live.

-ObsidianRose

Well, if that's the way you want to play, I'm not going to argue. But, for myself, I'll chip in on the other side of the argument.

Yes, it's fantasy. Yes, it has deliberate unrealism. But push the unrealism too far, and it becomes boring. When I play D&D, I want an adrenalin rush every so often, and you can't get an adrenalin rush from squashing baddies if squashing baddies is something your character can do without raising a sweat.

For me, the strategy of making all the baddies über-baddies gets old in much less than the lifespan of the average campaign, too. It's like The Matrix Reloaded. That would have been a not-too-bad film... except there was no way in all the Nether Planes combined that it could have topped the concept of "the entire world as you knew it is a simulation", and sequels are always compared against originals. The biggest it could have got was "the 'real' world is a simulation too", and... well, y0rnz0rz, right? Similarly, "Another monster like the last one only he's got tentacles and a fiery sword" doesn't cut it.

Thing is, I have a very... inconvenient imagination. I'm sure we've all had the I Am Legend daydream where we're the only human being left on earth, wandering around all the familiar places doing whatever we please 'cause there's no-one to watch us; well, in my case, it falls apart in five minutes because I can't help wondering what I'll eat once all the food in all the supermarkets has gone bad. I have the same problem with overpowered D&D. I'm picturing the scene in my head the whole time, and if it doesn't work I can't believe the fantasy any more. I objected rather strenuously once when a fellow player's character started chopping an assassin vine with a flail he'd forgotten what weapon he was carrying, for him it was just roll attack, roll damage, is baddy dead? yes > stop attacking, no > repeat. For me it spoiled the mental picture. Getting stabbed sixteen times and shrugging it off does the same.

Actually, that's a particular large goblinoid of mine. For some reason, in D&D, hit points go up at every level, so you can shrug off more wounds... but, unless you're a monk, Armour Class only goes up if you get new stuff. No matter how experienced you are, you're no better in yourself at dodging blows aimed at you than a rookie. Um. What?

So #1 on my wish list for future editions would be: AC rises with level, hp doesn't, or not so much, or you can only take a certain amount of damage before you start losing Constitution, or something.

Some card players insist there has to be some real-world stake in the game, even if it's only the next round of drinks, because otherwise people won't take it seriously enough to make it fun. A skilfully crafted D&D campaign can substitute a fantasy stake for a real-world stake... but only if the challenges are genuinely and believably challenging.
==================
As for the chainmail bikinis: on this one I can agree with points on both sides. As you'll quickly have guessed from my username and the "Naturist" homebrew PrC linked to in my sig, I don't have any problem with the human body at all. And for that very reason, I don't like chainmail bikinis. They don't work as armour, and as frank displays of human beauty they're anything but by covering only small parts of the anatomy, they emphasize the forbiddenness of those parts far more than either sensible clothing or simple nudity would.

I can't believe in a fantasy setting with chainmail bikinis. For one thing, it's a peculiarity of modern Western culture that you're allowed to see at a woman's thighs, but not her breasts. In most cultures, it's both or neither, or else the breasts are more acceptable. And I can't believe in the Frazetta/Vallejo fantasy universe either. It's not the shape of the heroes and heroines that bugs me, it's how clean they are and the way they're posed it never looks like they're actually doing anything, they're just frozen in a heroic pose for ever and ever.

This problem doesn't admit of easy fixes. Americans (and other English-speakers, but especially Americans) won't accept simple nudity in a product that children can buy, but the marketing power of near-nudity for the role-playing demographic is such that it's here to stay.

My suggestion? Learn to draw, and make your own illustrations.

kamikasei
2008-01-03, 07:10 AM
Actually, that's a particular large goblinoid of mine. For some reason, in D&D, hit points go up at every level, so you can shrug off more wounds... but, unless you're a monk, Armour Class only goes up if you get new stuff. No matter how experienced you are, you're no better in yourself at dodging blows aimed at you than a rookie. Um. What?

So #1 on my wish list for future editions would be: AC rises with level, hp doesn't, or not so much, or you can only take a certain amount of damage before you start losing Constitution, or something.

That's its own, whole, hideous mess: the mix of HP, AC, and DR, and the fact that a "hit" isn't a "hit" but an attack that deals "HP damage", which may or may not be an actual wound or injury. The short version is that a 1d4 dagger at level 1 and a 1d4 dagger at level 20 aren't producing the same injury which the higher level character can ignore, but rather the level 20 guy has a greater ability to turn it into a nick, graze or near miss, as opposed to dodging it altogether or having it clatter harmlessly off his armor (which is what AC represents) or hit more or less solidly but be cushioned or immediately healed (DR).

Of course, you probably know this already, and it doesn't really add up to greater realism... but part of what those higher HP are supposed to represent is indeed being better at dodging blows. Just... a different sort of dodging, somehow, than an actual Dodge Bonus to AC. :smallfrown:

Tormsskull
2008-01-03, 07:36 AM
In real life, I am another NPC, doomed to retire to a life of basket weaving.




That's reality and that's not why I game.




So give me my unrealistic game of big swords and sexy women. If you want reality, go live.


Honestly, it sounds to me that you are using RPGs to escape what you consider your depressing real life. You might want to seek professional counseling for something like that.

DeathQuaker
2008-01-03, 08:20 AM
General comments on the discussion:

Chainmail Bikinis, Scantily clad women, etc.:

Like Talya, I am a 30+ woman who likes to see some sexily, beautifully drawn men AND women.

HOWEVER, I also expect to see a bit of equality. If we have, say, a Boris Vallejo pic, where a half-naked barbarian girl is standing alongside a half-naked barbarian guy posing in their awesome fantasy-body-ness, that's fine.

If we have, say, a picture depicting "an example of two knights," and the guy is covered head to foot in metal, standing with his hand on his sword in a gruff manner, while the woman is wearing tin pasties and a thong, licking the hilt of her sword, that's not equal, and that's not cool--especially if that's the artistic norm for an entire publication. THAT shows sexism, that shows that male heroes are to be taken seriously, and female heroes are intended to be eye candy only. HOWEVER, to WotC's credit, they don't often do this. Heck, they/Hasbro/and/or Atari have been lambasted by the NWN community for taking out the few "showing skin" armor models in NWN2. In D&D books, most of the art shows people fairly sensibly dressed, and there's both male and female eye candy. I only flipped through "Races and Classes" so I didn't see the offending picture, though what I did see, nothing popped out to me as offensive.

I still appreciate EvilElitest's concern, however. If I did see more of a trend of dumb-looking bikini babes alongside serious warrior-men (or, in fact, the opposite), I'd definitely be a lot less likely to buy WotC's products (though I'm less likely to buy their products anyway, as what they've been putting out lately hasn't been incenting me to buy, but that's a whole other discussion). And I definitely agree with a number of posters that if you're going to draw a picture of what a "typical" given adventurer looks alike to provide examples for your reader, I'd prefer more realism in armor design than body-fantasy.

(Note the avatar is a depiction of an anime character who in fact parodies the "scantily clad evil sorceress" look)

"PCs are the focus"

Since when in roleplaying were PC's NOT the focus? The only thing that bugs me about the statement is the seeming need to state the obvious. That does hint at some kind of weirdness that WotC's done something odd in the mechanics to reflect this, but I can't see how, so I'll have to wait and see.

New Races, Ditching Old Races
Look, Tieflings are my favorite race, probably, and the Dragonborn could be interesting. What bothers me about the switching of races is that it reflects a dramatic alteration of fluff--they are apparently switching over some very, very long-standing campaign worlds into 4E.... does that mean Lantan in the Forgotten Realms is being obliterated (or populated by idiot fey with badgers named "Francis")? Does that mean it's going to be a pain in the ass for me to convert my largely-core-based homebrew world into a 4E world, and willl that therefore make me more likely to stick to 3E so I can continue development of my campaign as I see fit? It worries me... again, I'll wait and see, but it's not the mechanics that bothers me more than how they'll attempt to fix the gameworld fluff that wasn't broken.

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-03, 08:55 AM
I read the dwarf PDF thing, I think it said that thier main goal with dwarf woman was making them sexy.

Talya
2008-01-03, 09:43 AM
New Races, Ditching Old Races
Look, Tieflings are my favorite race, probably, and the Dragonborn could be interesting. What bothers me about the switching of races is that it reflects a dramatic alteration of fluff--they are apparently switching over some very, very long-standing campaign worlds into 4E.... does that mean Lantan in the Forgotten Realms is being obliterated (or populated by idiot fey with badgers named "Francis")? Does that mean it's going to be a pain in the ass for me to convert my largely-core-based homebrew world into a 4E world, and willl that therefore make me more likely to stick to 3E so I can continue development of my campaign as I see fit? It worries me... again, I'll wait and see, but it's not the mechanics that bothers me more than how they'll attempt to fix the gameworld fluff that wasn't broken.

I mostly agree.

Nothing bugs me more than a retcon. Ever. They cannot change any fluff at all within a campaign setting unless there is a bonafide, storyline reason for it that doesn't mess with history. For instance, it's okay to kill a god and put in a new one, because it doesn't change that the old god existed at one point and had worshippers. But to simply remove, say, Erinyes and make Succubi into devils rather than demons plays havoc with world history and requires massive retconning. Even small retcons are bad, bad things.

Now, on Tieflings: Changing the tiefling background is bad, but small. Making them a core race is not advisable. Part of what makes a tiefling appealling is its rarity...a bit of recessive genetic activity revealing a fiendish ancestry long dormant, now awoken in a new child. Aasimar are equally appealling, for the same reasons. That said, they are a core race in my favorite campaign setting already in 3.x, so this is a minor thing.

On dragonborn, personal opinion-the flavor of this utterly sucks. I hope they do not make it into FR as a major race.

Gnomes, Half-orcs: Need 'em both. Bastards.

Tweekinator
2008-01-03, 09:48 AM
OH MY GOODNESS! Nigh-naked girls? On my D&D?

It's more likely than you think.

DeathQuaker
2008-01-03, 09:52 AM
Now, on Tieflings: Changing the tiefling background is bad, but small. Making them a core race is not advisable. Part of what makes a tiefling appealling is its rarity

Well said--the reason planetouched weren't "core" was because you weren't supposed to encounter one very often. And I keep forgetting they're changing the tieflings' background enough they may as well not be the tieflings I know and love. Again--as you put it--retcons suck.

Starsinger
2008-01-03, 10:20 AM
But to simply remove, say, Erinyes and make Succubi into devils rather than demons plays havoc with world history and requires massive retconning. Even small retcons are bad, bad things.

You keep bringing this up. I understand that somehow or another this offends you greatly. But seriously, it's not that big of a deal, and noone really is going to be bothered by it. If you really wanted Succubi to be demons, nothing stops you.

And in response to your claim that they're making changes to a campaign setting. No. They're. Not. These are all core PHB things, effecting Greyhawk, if anything. Although Greyhawk is dead. It's no more "Living Greyhawk" it's "apocalypse happened, everyone died, get a new material plane Greyhawk". These core changes have little to no impact on the fluff of Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, My Pretty Pony d20, etc. etc. Because you see, campaign settings come with their own fluff. Faerun will be the exact same terrible place it was before, just with different mechanics. There will be 3 types of elves mechanically, but still over 1 billion sub races served I'm sure.

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-03, 10:22 AM
Actually thy said they were goung to mess with forgotten realms.

GunMage
2008-01-03, 10:25 AM
DeathQuaker- Isn't your avatar Naga from the Slayers anime?

On Topic
The big reason I see the half races being removed is that they're a holdout from the Gygax era of DnD. You know, where the DMG had a random prostitute table?

From what I've read and heard about 4e, WotC seems to be trying to distance themselves from that era of the game by removing many things that were present in it(vancian magic, core half races, etc.).

I don't think this is inherently bad, but like others have posted, the changes will make a lot of characters and settings invalid, and that's just going to suck.

Talya
2008-01-03, 10:29 AM
DeathQuaker- Isn't your avatar Naga from the Slayers anime?

On Topic
The big reason I see the half races being removed is that they're a holdout from the Gygax era of DnD. You know, where the DMG had a random prostitute table?

From what I've read and heard about 4e, WotC seems to be trying to distance themselves from that era of the game by removing many things that were present in it(vancian magic, core half races, etc.).

I don't think this is inherently bad, but like others have posted, the changes will make a lot of characters and settings invalid, and that's just going to suck.



And yet that era is D&D. Distancing themselves from the core that made D&D what it is, is a bad thing.

Starsinger
2008-01-03, 10:33 AM
And yet that era is D&D. Distancing themselves from the core that made D&D what it is, is a bad thing.

Things like a random prostitute table, the game being a competition to see how long players can survive before the DM kills them, randomly dying if you cast a certain spell/got hit by one (other than spells that are designed to do this)... I can see why you'd want to keep that around...

DeathQuaker
2008-01-03, 10:40 AM
And in response to your claim that they're making changes to a campaign setting. No. They're. Not.

Unless I missed a previous post of Talya's, I was the one who talked about the changes in core and how it might affect campaign settings, and I was putting it in the form of a question: will it affect D&D campaign worlds?

You say they won't; you may be right. But unless you have some inside connection to WotC I'm not aware of, you might be wrong, too. If they go through all this effort to change races and make new ones, but then the first campaign book they come out with completely changes what the core rules say, that actually works against them a little bit.

I say this because the Forgotten Realms guide is confirmed to be the first book released after the three core rulebooks. If people--I'm talking largely new players here--are just getting used to the new rules and then get the first campaign book comes out only to contradict everything the player's handbook says about major races, that's going to confuse or even just irritate new players. Frex, the Forgotten Realms we know and love has no Warforged; in D&D4, if I am not mistaken, Warforged are becoming a core race. So what happens when a new D&D4 player makes a Warforged character, gets the new campaign book, and sees he can't play the character he just made in this campaign world? That's unlikely--that's not a good sales/marketing decision for WotC. Core races were usually available in most major D&D settings--usually additional campaign worlds just added races in addition to core. That means that if Warforged (and Dragonborn, and the new Tieflings, etc.) are core, then they will probably add or change fluff to incorporate them into the game's major settings.

And the adding and changing fluff is where some people will get irritated, especially those used to decades of certain fiction being established as standard, and moreover directly affects how a particular GM's gameworld works.

I've had game companies' "fluff" changes actually screw over my campaigns before--once upon a time, I built this lovely campaign world for White Wolf's World of Darkness 2nd Ed that fit within the rules perfectly, but when 3rd Ed came out, they made fluff changes (the Shadowlands blew up) that ended up changing mechanics and certain character abilities (certain magical abilities changed and an entire supernatural race was effectively wiped out--too bad I extensively used this supernatural race in my own campaign, huh?). Suddenly I had to houserule stuff if I and/or my players wanted to use the new books (which still had some useful stuff in it), and it became too much of a pain to run the game. I stuck with it with the old rules, but pretty much White Wolf lost me as a customer for their new materials at that point. I can see the possibility of WotC doing something similar with their new edition. If it's easy to convert my campaigns with the new editions, great--but if suddenly core changes make my once-core world require tons of houserules or fluff adaptations I don't feel are necessary, I'm probably not going to switch.

That said, I know that what I fear may still not happen--we're still months away from release--but it is possible and is a source of worry and frustration for some people. That is all.

PS: GunMage: Yes, it's Naga, hence the quote in my sig. Some scantily-clad adventurers are worth keeping. :smallbiggrin:

GryffonDurime
2008-01-03, 02:04 PM
Actually, Wizards has stated that Core crunch will not universally govern different campaign settings. As has been stated, while Faerun will have only the two elven races presented in the Player's Handbook in terms of mechanics, storywise they will represent all the many and various subraces: those aren't Eladrin, they're Sun Elves and what have you.

Likewise, I fail to see how the Succubus becoming a devil is world-changing. It's a small creature that, while iconic, really shouldn't be making such a huge splash. The difference between a demon and a devil is, afterall, a nonissue to all but a very minor portion of most worlds.

Likewise, the Succubus Switch is occuring in the Core Setting thanks to a change in the planar setup. Wizards has stated that this Core Planar Setup will not extend to inappropriate campaign settings; ergo Faerun will still have its standard planar configuration.

And Warforged -are not- a core race for Fourth Edition. I don't know where you got that information, but every source official and unofficial I've seen runs counter to that.

EvilElitest
2008-01-03, 02:07 PM
Mr. Original Poster, with what you're saying, this game will never satisfy you. You're demanding things that WoTC can't and shouldn't give. If you want this degree of realism, I recommend actually living a little. In real life, there is no allignment, and you can be an NPC.

wait a second
1. I haven't asked anything that WOTC can't give. To the contrary, i've asked for something that i know they can give, and interesting semi belivable fantasy world.
2. You do realized that "Oh your just complaining because the game will never satisfy you" is a horrible argument, it is like yelling at book critics for being "Jealous". I've named what i like (humans, some traits of dragon born, some of the magic system ect) and what I don't like




But I play this game for a reasons.

This game is fantasy, and as such the impossible should happen, because the possible just isn't that beautiful. I want my fireballs to produce ridiculous explosions, just like I want every character to be sexilicious and exposed, unless the call to be ugly comes in. I can step out every day for normal, boring fires and plain looking people bundled up in Columbia ski jackets.

Alright, and i want a coherent alignment system, monster races that have real goals and motivations (not just the sort of existing to be killed video game ideal), realistic character interactions, and a fantasy world that follows one system, not two different ones for PCs and NPCs


I like that diplomacy is just a skill I roll for. Because if I want to placate the dumbbloops of the world, I step outside my door. Because I am not an eloquent speaker, but my character is. I quite simply can't roleplay that 18 charisma, and I don't want to bother. So let me roll my dice and giggle at how clever I am for pumping that skill. Let my dice rolls and character sheets do the talking
1. That is a pretty anti role play philosophy there
2. And it doesn't make sense. Currently in 3.5 a bard with a high diplomacy can walk out side, tell a random crowd of people to work for him and they will. It will be like 3:10 to Yuma all over again, without Russel Crow


I don't want to scrounge for money unless it gives me an excuse to do something awesome within the next five minutes.
I don't want to die of pneumonia.
I don't want to deal with stupid, obnoxious soccer moms
I don't want to die from one sword wound
I don't want to conserve ammunition
1. I never mentioned any requests of dying of pneumonia, soccer moms or one hit kills
2. Unlimted amo? Somewhat power gaming that.


I don't want to ambush every kobold just to have a chance of winning
If I did, I wouldn't stop by every Friday, I'd just go get a job at a convenience store.

What?


I game because I want to be a one-man war machine, mowing down god and demon alike.

Play God of War, you pretty much are and don't need to bother with roleplaying ether.


In real life, I am another NPC, doomed to retire to a life of basket weaving. But my character doesn't have to be. My character will fight until he dies or drops. A force like his is not to be stopped.

Yet again, Video games, learn them, love them, accept them.


And I will be no man's NPC, unless revenge is swift and sweeter because of it.

So give me my unrealistic game of big swords and sexy women. If you want reality, go live.
And if you want total pwnaged, i suggest Devil May Cry or Resident evil, that works


-ObsidianRose
I've started a trend it seems



House Syrtis
K'stulaami
Aropagoi
haropasIs it female dominate?
Jik'harra
Dear sweet Jebus they really are brining t'skrang into d20.

Edit:

Forgive me for my ignorence but i don't know what your talking about?
There are hints of female dominates but nothing explicatly said
Wait, are dragon born based off something?
Can you explain


I don't recall that. I know they had to pull them once because they violated copy rights printing Elric, Cthulthu and Conan before they got rights to them. Never heard of anyone other than Mr. Nexx Mark Hall ever stating him. (Sorry, that's going to take some getting used to. :smallwink:

I know nothing about this sorry

It's not much, but if you like Half-Elves, there's hope.
Ok, there is still hope


How is this any different from 3.0 and 3.5? One might not automatically be considered a hero for being a level 1 base class, but they are certainly better than the npc warrior, adept, expert, and last, but not least, the commoner. Mechanically they are better, being able to hold their own against a house cat and what have you, why not simply acknowledge that in the design process? Nowhere does it say that the PCs aren't allowed to coexist with other characters who have levels in "heroic" classes. In fact, the rogue section discusses how one of those lovable scoundrels could serve as a villain.
In 3.5 a warrior/solider is more a miltia man, or basic dude. PCs are still powerful, but they aren't super from the get go. In a typical NPC kindom you can expect to the government will have a lot of commoner, warriors acting as local militia, a temple with plenty of clerics and lesser adepts, fighters are professionals solders, and the kindoms will most likely have a wizard or two. Npc classes are more like untrained PC classes, there will still be plenty of NPCs who share the same class as the PCs. They specifically stated that NPCs will hold a lesser role, that monsters will not longer use the same system as PCs, and PCs will be inherently better than NPCs. This strikes me like a video game, where instead of fighting "Level 3 Goblin warrior" you just fight "Goblin" or "Goblin mage" "goblin chief" ect. In a video game, the PC(s) are the center of the attention, and NPCs aren't so much other guys as creatures, each one has a generic state and that is it. Bob the wizard is bob the wizard, not "Bob level 12 human wizard"

I read that quote differently. While you seem to take it to mean that the whole world revolves around the PCs, I read it as a strict interpretation solely pertaining to "the campaign." (I was raised in a family of lawyers, the way something is phrased is VERY important to me.) I think the designers meant that the players are the center of the game session run by the DM, not the game world or the events in it planned out by the DM. Especially later in the book(I know, I'm skipping ahead), when the designers talk about the different "tiers," it goes into detail how for the first ten levels characters are "localized" to a specific town/region and have very little impact on the larger world, where DM knows what is going on without the players having a clue or butterfly effect on.
1. My family vary from business men, lawyers and diplomats i know what your talking about
2. But they eliminated the system where NPCs and PCs
3. PCs are expected to not only equal but to replace gods on a regular basis, how more PCs centered can you get?


Did you roll to see how every battle in that war went offstage? Maybe compare the attack bonus compared to armor bonus and see on average what would happen.
I just rolled a D-percent, but the results of the battles will affect the NPCs. Or using a video game example, it is like in the witcher, their actions come back to haunt them in the long term or Morrowind, where you feel like you are in a real world, instead of a world that revolves around you



Anyway, all of this is speculation without any concrete rules, though I'd pick up a copy of SAGA and Tome of Battle if I were you for an idea for how the new game works since they were developed alongside 4th ed. Having experience with both of those rule sets definitely influenced my reading of "Races and Classes" for the better.
Don't know what saga is but i've had ToB for a while (I mention it in the essay)



Let痴 say an important part of the plot of an adventure involves the negotiations between two factions to deteriorate and nothing is done by the PC to prevent this. Do you think the DM is going to roll the diplomacy checks for the representatives or is he just going to say that the negotiations did not go so well?
I'd role, just have a high percent for my plot advancing but i like having unexpected things happening.



I just think that, in an attempt to make their own unique flavor, they are ruining much of the good stuff from prior editions
That really does strike me actually, also with gnomes dwarves and elves

Oh nackedcelt, wonderful post



it falls apart in five minutes because I can't help wondering what I'll eat once all the food in all the supermarkets has gone bad.
also gas and oil would no longer work after three years
My motto has always been that Fantasy needs to try to be more realistic than real life, because in real life when miracles do happen they are amazing, in fantasy they are cliche.


As for the chainmail bikinis: on this one I can agree with points on both sides. As you'll quickly have guessed from my username and the "Naturist" homebrew PrC linked to in my sig, I don't have any problem with the human body at all. And for that very reason, I don't like chainmail bikinis. They don't work as armour, and as frank displays of human beauty they're anything but by covering only small parts of the anatomy, they emphasize the forbiddenness of those parts far more than either sensible clothing or simple nudity would.

I can't believe in a fantasy setting with chainmail bikinis. For one thing, it's a peculiarity of modern Western culture that you're allowed to see at a woman's thighs, but not her breasts. In most cultures, it's both or neither, or else the breasts are more acceptable. And I can't believe in the Frazetta/Vallejo fantasy universe either. It's not the shape of the heroes and heroines that bugs me, it's how clean they are and the way they're posed it never looks like they're actually doing anything, they're just frozen in a heroic pose for ever and eve

thank you, for the record i don't have a problem with nudity when it is explained. My games are R rated, so when the PCs go to places like a Brothel, it makes sense for people to be rather lewd. However adventures, and people who fight on a regular basis will wear proper clothing.


(Note the avatar is a depiction of an anime character who in fact parodies the "scantily clad evil sorceress" look)
duly noted


New Races, Ditching Old Races
Look, Tieflings are my favorite race, probably, and the Dragonborn could be interesting. What bothers me about the switching of races is that it reflects a dramatic alteration of fluff--they are apparently switching over some very, very long-standing campaign worlds into 4E.... does that mean Lantan in the Forgotten Realms is being obliterated (or populated by idiot fey with badgers named "Francis")? Does that mean it's going to be a pain in the ass for me to convert my largely-core-based homebrew world into a 4E world, and willl that therefore make me more likely to stick to 3E so I can continue development of my campaign as I see fit? It worries me... again, I'll wait and see, but it's not the mechanics that bothers me more than how they'll attempt to fix the gameworld fluff that wasn't broken.
Most likely in my world i'll just steal what i like from 4E (totally taking the female dwarfs) and use them differently. For example, in my game tieflings are caused by cross breeds and only have minor demonic features. The 4E tieflings will be called something else and have a more general apperience
3E dragon born and 4E dragonborn (I'm thinking dragonfolk, has that been taken yet?:smallconfused: ) are different races. Some of the more radically changed classes will be separate classes instead.


I read the dwarf PDF thing, I think it said that thier main goal with dwarf woman was making them sexy
they didn't strike me as sexy but they did look cool, so good enough


I mostly agree.

Nothing bugs me more than a retcon. Ever. They cannot change any fluff at all within a campaign setting unless there is a bonafide, storyline reason for it that doesn't mess with history. For instance, it's okay to kill a god and put in a new one, because it doesn't change that the old god existed at one point and had worshippers. But to simply remove, say, Erinyes and make Succubi into devils rather than demons plays havoc with world history and requires massive retconning. Even small retcons are bad, bad things.

Now, on Tieflings: Changing the tiefling background is bad, but small. Making them a core race is not advisable. Part of what makes a tiefling appealling is its rarity...a bit of recessive genetic activity revealing a fiendish ancestry long dormant, now awoken in a new child. Aasimar are equally appealling, for the same reasons. That said, they are a core race in my favorite campaign setting already in 3.x, so this is a minor thing.

On dragonborn, personal opinion-the flavor of this utterly sucks. I hope they do not make it into FR as a major race.

Gnomes, Half-orcs: Need 'em both. Bastards


I hate recons, oh so much, seconded

from
EE

GunMage
2008-01-03, 02:09 PM
PS: GunMage: Yes, it's Naga, hence the quote in my sig. Some scantily-clad adventurers are worth keeping. :smallbiggrin:

You 'd think I would have noticed the quote.:smalleek:

ObsidianRose
2008-01-03, 04:30 PM
You, Mr. EE have asked me to go play a video game, while I've asked you to go live real life. We're not going to get here with this kind of logic.

I do apologize for throwing the first stone.

However, there is room in D&D for senseless hack and slash. I may not have been clear, but the NPCs needn't be weaker than me. I'd like to defeat and/or surpass them, but I never said I didn't want it to be a challenge. I want this to be a heroic fantasy, not a sandbox fantasy.

And I could play a video game, but most video games don't encourage about 8 of my buddies gathered around a dinner table BSing around. Quite simply, I get lonely in a video game, even an MMO. And I'd rather picture the game in my mind, since no graphics engine will be able to ever handle that.

Plus, my DM gives me a lot more options than any game. Try getting a computer to let me do some of the stupid things we've pulled off.

And finally, yes, this is an escapist attitude. Because quite frankly, I'm human, and I've got enough ambition (our great evil) that I want to shoot laser beams out of my eyes and vomit cobras. So I highly doubt I need mental counseling. This is my catharsis, and I rather enjoy it. Perhaps not all of us can be happy, constrained by the laws of physics.

And for those of you who say that the game is too PC-centric, did you ever happen upon first edition D&D? Have you people never played a good dungeon crawl? Remember the excitement you had, despite the low level of PC to monster conversation? Remember how happy the black and white world made us, imagined in our minds?

So forget reality, I've got a time-freezing wizard, an Eiffel tower-swinging barbarian, and the motherf**king pied piper of Hamlin in my party. I think we can have a little more fun than all the Profession (Farmer) commoners with d4 hit dice and a single weapon proficiency.

-ObsidianRose (is taking a nod from EE and signing it, in case you guys forgot who you were reading halfway through)

Thrythlind
2008-01-03, 07:06 PM
Heh, in my homebrew world, I dumped all the races (made 14 of my own) and alignment. So Core to me is just a suggestion anyway.

Tura
2008-01-03, 09:22 PM
And for those of you who say that the game is too PC-centric, did you ever happen upon first edition D&D? Have you people never played a good dungeon crawl? Remember the excitement you had, despite the low level of PC to monster conversation? Remember how happy the black and white world made us, imagined in our minds?
It was 2nd Edition when I first played (if it matters), and indeed the world was black and white, for one and only reason: we were all newbs. It was exiting because it was the first time. But black and white tends to get awfully boring after a while. At least for some people.

It's not "wrong" to play D&D for escapism, but:
1) Escapism isn't necessarily mindless like a pop-corn movie.
2) It's not obligatory. Some may have other priorities for their game, which actually exclude a PC-centric setting.

The important thing is that 4E, and any set of rules for that matter, must work equally well with any approach the players want. From pure hack&slash in a series of random dungeons to complicated roleplaying in a concrete world. From super-powerful builds that can alter the course of history with a nod, to people who continually struggle in a world that surpasses them. And anything in between.

Can 4E pull this off? I'm not sure. I share many of EE's worries. Until now, it was very easy for a DM to flesh out a world that doesn't revolve around PCs. I agree that Core is "just a suggestion" for many great games. If you find NPCs too weak and/or 2-dimensional, you can simply not use NPCs, use generic classes from UA, or add a couple of class levels or whatever you wish. If you don't want your PCs to own the world in 12th level, define the social structure of the setting and make it practically impossible for them, without meddling with the mechanics at all. Normally, that would work for any set of rules. But when the designers state explicitly that they want the PCs to be the center of the world, it worries me.

That said, unlike EE, I haven't seen yet any rule, official or unofficial, that makes such games (non-PC-centric) impossible. So I'm not overdramatic: it could work out fine after all. Sure, the "become a demi-god" sounds ridiculous, but that's only if you decide to run a game that takes you all the way. That happens now too. If you play Epic, you certainly change history with a nod, almost by definition. It's a matter of balance: the ideal (for me, at least) would be to be able to play interesting builds, prestige classes and what not, without automatically becoming invincible by anything but super-monsters and ultra-casters. Let's see if 4E can do that...

EvilElitest
2008-01-03, 09:30 PM
Heh, in my homebrew world, I dumped all the races (made 14 of my own) and alignment. So Core to me is just a suggestion anyway.

i'd be very interesting in seeing that, do you have those on homebrew?

from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-01-03, 11:14 PM
Now to you, my generally passive an slightly interested fans, I must say sorry for taking so long , I just got and Xbox 360 that I didn稚 expect and I致e been playing it all day.
Sorry. Now let痴 tackle Dwarves. Now the writers of 4E wanted to give their dwarves a unique flavor and change them from the stereotypical dwarves that we know, love and/or despise (you can love and hate at the same time). However there is one problem with this. The fact that most of the Dwarven stereotypes were started by D&D! (contrary to some WOW fans, D&D did not rip off Warcraft). However, to be fair, stereotypes get old (and not all came from D&D, some came from older writings.) So it is understandable that WOTC wishes to bring a new perspective on dwarves. In 3.5 whenever they wanted to make a different or unique sort of dwarf (or elf, dear gods the elves) they would just create a new sub race or in a specific adventure or campaign setting there will a group of 電ifferent dwarves. However it seems WOTC wishes to change the iconic dwarf, for better or worst. Well, I don稚 like it, but to be fair, I like the ironic dwarf/sub race system and it is an essential part of my world, so I will be a bit bias there. Anyways, lets see what they did.
In the first page they change the dwarves creation myth again. However to my eternal annoyance, it was actually better than mine (I never focused on creation myths much) and tied the dwarf giant hatred together quite well. Short version, Moradin makes the dwarves, the Giant gods ask for his design plans, Moradin says yes, the Giants are not good enough smiths to mimic his orginal design plan so they make enlarge their creatiosn to make giant dwarves (Giants in case you didn稚 catch on) who enslave normal dwarves. Moradin is so busy making magic weapons that it takes him a while to notice his people have been enslaved, he gets the dwarf gods together, free his people and dwarves and giants have hated each other ever sense.
Culture wise, the dwarves are miner race (no they don稚 get darkvision, see below). They live in a massive underground cities that 鼎ut clear through a mountain to emerge on the other side. In fact there is whole paragraph on why dwarves live underground and not on the surface (no they don稚 get darkvision). Apparently mining and digging vast cities, forts, and vaults underground is second nature to them, and even their surface cities often have massive underground complexes and tunnels (and they still don稚 get darkvision, no I知 not bitter). Oh, they live in clans, are brave, stubborn, honorable, short, tough, hard working, lawful, thick necked, group focused and hardy dudes with large beards (only the men) who live underground (but can稚 see down their), fight with axes, enjoy working, make weapons and armor, love creating art, amazing architects and hate giants. When WOTC takes a new spin on something they really change it, I can hardly recognize them after playing 3.5 dwarves. Oh but dwarves apparently can be effective wizards now.
Darkvison, apparently WOTC has gotten ride of all of the race痴 seeing in the dark skills, for rather trivial reasons. Basically, they didn稚 like a lot of different races with radically different physical characteristic to see things differently. Also, apparently they didn稚 like the DM having to describe things differently to people. Is it just me, or has this jus never come up in my games as a complaint? Here I値l quote the section.
展hen we designed the 4th Edition of the D&D game, we knew we needed to improve how the game handled special kind of vision. Out of the three 3rd Edition core rulebooks, only Humans, Halflings and lizard folk needed a light to see normally at night. Every other creature possesses some special sight that allows it to see in dim light or even darkness. That seemed a little bit crazy, and we thought about it, the inequality of special vision also complicated the game. To pay appropriately, the DM has to describe a big dark room one way for the drow (who has darkvision 120 feet), one way for the dwarf (who ahs darkvision 60 feet), another way for the elf (who has low light vision) and still another for the human holding the torch.
Now call me lucky, but I致e never seen or heard of any problems involving dark vision. In my games the worst I致e had is me still using heat vision (or infa-vision) and when humans lose their torches. Personally I think the darkvision thing is very fun, as it forces the party to work differently and react differently. Oh and here is a sentence I didn稚 get.
鄭nd there痴 one more problem with many creatures having darvision: The PCs don稚 get to see the scenery in caves or large dungeon rooms
Wait, wouldn稚 taking away the seeing in the dark abilities cause them to not be able to admire the scenery? Am I missing something?
Oh orcs and dwarves hate each other. The text makes it clear that the orcs consider the dwarves slaves and fools, while the dwarves consider the orcs bullies and cowards. However, they don稚 go to out right war. Why? Don稚 ask me, it is rather strange.
Then there is a section on clanless dwarves. Sometimes dwarves will be without a clan. And they will be alone. And this will upset them greatly. And they will be very sad, because clans are important to dwarves. And this makes them sad. And they might try to make a new clan out of their adventuring party. And then they will be happy because they trust and share a blood bond with everyone in the clan (except the Halfling ranger, little bastard). And that is about it.
The dwarves have an alphabet that looks likes the runes from Tolkien to the untrained eye. However a trained master of the ways of writing can easily find all the flaws and discrepancies in this made believe language. But I am not a trained professional, so with my untrained eye I知 just going to assume the letters are as well drawn out as the Eragon languages and move one. Sorry.
And now dwarves live on the surface. This annoys me because like the loss of darkvision, there doesn稚 seem to be a need for it? Need surface cities? Humans, elves, halflings, gnomes (whoops forgot) and dragon born all live on the surface and have cities (not sure about the last one though). There is no real reason Dwarves no longer live underground (or do they? An earlier paragraph seems to disagree.) despite the fact that has been an accepted part of their fluff from the very beginning of their creation. It just seems silly.
On good note, female dwarves. Its great. But I kinda said everything about that, but anyways, great job WOTC.

From
EE

Inyssius Tor
2008-01-04, 12:34 AM
Culture wise, the dwarves are miner race (no they don稚 get darkvision, see below). They live in a massive partially underground cities. that Some of the really massive ones, built when they still worked for giants 田ut clear through a mountain to emerge on the other side, although most of these cities have gone mostly unused ever since they kicked the giants out. In fact there is whole paragraph on why dwarves live underground and not on the surface some of the time. (no they don稚 get darkvision). Apparently mining and digging vast cities, forts, and vaults underground is second nature to them, and even their surface cities often have massive underground complexes and tunnels (and they still don稚 get darkvision, no I知 not bitter). Oh, they live in clans, are brave, stubborn, honorable, short, tough, hard working, lawful, thick necked, group focused and hardy dudes with large beards (only the men) who live underground (but can稚 see down there without torches or sunlit areas), fight with axes, enjoy working, make weapons and armor, love creating art, amazing architects and hate giants. When WOTC takes a new spin on something they really change it, I can hardly recognize them after playing 3.5 dwarves. Oh but dwarves apparently can be effective wizards now.

*snip*

展hen we designed the 4th Edition of the D&D game, we knew we needed to improve how the game handled special kind of vision. Out of the three 3rd Edition core rulebooks, only Humans, Halflings and lizard folk needed a light to see normally at night. Every other creature possesses some special sight that allows it to see in dim light or even darkness. That seemed a little bit crazy, and we thought about it, the inequality of special vision also complicated the game. To pay appropriately, the DM has to describe a big dark room one way for the drow (who has darkvision 120 feet), one way for the dwarf (who ahs darkvision 60 feet), another way for the elf (who has low light vision) and still another for the human holding the torch.
Now call me lucky, but I致e never seen or heard of any problems involving dark vision. In my games the worst I致e had is me still using heat vision (or infa-vision) and when humans lose their torches. Personally I think the darkvision thing is very fun, as it forces the party to work differently and react differently. Oh and here is a sentence I didn稚 get. I disagree with you completely, but meh.
鄭nd there痴 one more problem with many creatures having darvision: The PCs don稚 get to see the scenery in caves or large dungeon rooms. Wait, wouldn稚 taking away the seeing in the dark abilities cause them to not be able to admire the scenery? Am I missing something? Despite the stuff immediately preceding that sentence, a lot of PC races don't have darkvision. When they visit those great big underground dwarven cities, they miss a lot of stuff, and the whole atmosphere is changed--no matter how massive and awe-inspiring the dwarven city is supposed to be, it's just claustrophobic in complete darkness.

Oh orcs and dwarves hate each other. The text makes it clear that the orcs consider the dwarves slaves and fools, while the dwarves consider the orcs bullies and cowards. However, they don稚 go to out right war. Why? Actually, it says that their opposing views "ensure ongoing clashes if not outright war." That doesn't mean they're never at war, it just means they're never at peace. Don稚 ask me, it is rather strange.

Then there is a section on clanless dwarves. Sometimes dwarves will be without a clan. And they will be alone. And this will upset them greatly. And they will be very sad, because clans are important to dwarves. And this makes them sad. And they might try to make a new clan out of their adventuring party. And then they will be happy because they trust and share a blood bond with everyone in the clan (except the Halfling ranger, little bastard). And that is about it.
(:biggrin:)
*language* Yeah, Nordtastic runes always look like that. Not much to be said about them. They don't look obviously wrong, although someone pointed out that those serifs would be a bitch to carve.


Responses in blue, 'cuz I'm too lazy to cut your great big post into chunks.

an kobold
2008-01-04, 12:35 AM
I just rolled a D-percent, but the results of the battles will affect the NPCs. Or using a video game example, it is like in the witcher, their actions come back to haunt them in the long term or Morrowind, where you feel like you are in a real world, instead of a world that revolves around you.


The point of my argument was not whether or not the result of the battles affect the world, and thus the PCs (which I agree with you one hundred percent, they should), but whether or not WotC needs to focus on out of session NPC/monster interaction in their rules. Most DMs, from what I can tell, either have the story of the world planned out or choose the percentile system of events, neither of which need to be addressed by 4th Ed rules (at least not for the players, anyway.)

I still think you're too concerned with the world revolving around the PCs and whether or not they are "Mary Sues." They only become/fight/replace gods at epic levels, which they already do now. Whether or not PCs are uber powerful starting at level 1 compared to the rest of the DnD world has yet to be seen (unless, of course, WotC read this and did hire you as a playtester. In which case, could you forward me a copy of the rules :smallwink: .)

Anyway, I should have written out that SAGA meant Star Wars Saga Edition. It operates on the D20 system and was released during 4th Ed planning. It introduces the concept of "Heroic" and "Non-heroic" classes. Heroic classes, of course, are the PCs and class levels alternate between bonus feats, class features, and talent trees. Essentially, a level up has more to offer than just the boosts to HP, BAB, skills, and saves. Non-heroic classes, on the other hand, get 3 feats at first level, gain an extra feat every 3rd level, the traditional skills, saves, etc., and nothing else. "Beasts," the monsters of Star Wars, a la banthas, dewbacks, and those CGI things from Attack of the Clones, are handled in a similar manner with their own level progression except with higher HP. Main villains, contemporary NPCs, and essentially any npc you want can still have "Heroic" levels, a lot like 3rd. I'm hoping that's what they did with 4th ed.

What struck me as ominous about "Races and Classes" was the absence of commentary about action points. Amongst people I play with, they are among one of the most polarizing issues that come up with 3rd ed and Eberron, and making them canon for all settings will drive a few of them away from the game.

Anyway, keep up the good work on the review/op ed. And good luck with a family of lawyers AND business men. And I thought my family arguments were rough with two lawyers involved. . .:smalleek:

horseboy
2008-01-04, 12:56 AM
Forgive me for my ignorance but i don't know what your talking about?
There are hints of female dominates but nothing explicitly said
Wait, are dragon born based off something?
Can you explain

T'skrang are a race of "lizard folk" from FASA's old Fantasy RPG "Earthdawn". Do they still live on the river?
They "borrowed" heavily from the setting and ran it through a d20 filter to create Eberron. It appears that it's continued.

In case you're curious:
House Syrtus: Was created when a female t'skrang seduced a great dragon then out witted his wife.
k'stulaami: mutantant t'skrang born with membranes, allowing it to glide through the air.
Aropagoi: Extended family unit of the t'skrang.
haropas: hard to explain. Basically it's their philosophy of trying to balance the desires of the individual vs the needs of their extended clan. Makes them come off more as full of bravado and very loyal to their families.
Jik'harra: "Brave passion" Part of the philosophy of haropas. T'skrang constantly go out of their way to put themselves in scary situations, so that they can overcome their fears.

Crow
2008-01-04, 01:11 AM
T'skrang are a race of "lizard folk" from FASA's old Fantasy RPG "Earthdawn". Do they still live on the river?
They "borrowed" heavily from the setting and ran it through a d20 filter to create Eberron. It appears that it's continued.

In case you're curious:
House Syrtus: Was created when a female t'skrang seduced a great dragon then out witted his wife.
k'stulaami: mutantant t'skrang born with membranes, allowing it to glide through the air.
Aropagoi: Extended family unit of the t'skrang.
haropas: hard to explain. Basically it's their philosophy of trying to balance the desires of the individual vs the needs of their extended clan. Makes them come off more as full of bravado and very loyal to their families.
Jik'harra: "Brave passion" Part of the philosophy of haropas. T'skrang constantly go out of their way to put themselves in scary situations, so that they can overcome their fears.

Shadowrun's metaplot was so close to reintroducing T'skrang you could taste it. Luckily, the new edition and subsequent slow death of that game (still not quite there yet) headed that one off.

marjan
2008-01-04, 01:18 AM
On the darkvision thing: I think you misunderstood them a bit. If none of the races has darkvision that means that they need light sources in their towns to see, so the when other races without darkvision visit those cities they will be able to see most of it.
Currently dwarves have little use for light sources so they don't bother with them. And when some other races visit them barring torches with 20 ft. radius illumination they aren't going to see much of it.

horseboy
2008-01-04, 01:18 AM
Shadowrun's metaplot was so close to reintroducing T'skrang you could taste it. Luckily, the new edition and subsequent slow death of that game (still not quite there yet) headed that one off.
Well, they are one of my favorite races. :smallwink:

ShadowSiege
2008-01-04, 05:06 AM
On the darkvision thing: I think you misunderstood them a bit. If none of the races has darkvision that means that they need light sources in their towns to see, so the when other races without darkvision visit those cities they will be able to see most of it.
Currently dwarves have little use for light sources so they don't bother with them. And when some other races visit them barring torches with 20 ft. radius illumination they aren't going to see much of it.

I had written a long post in response to EE, with my own impressions on Races and Classes (2 or 3 paragraphs, fairly short). In brief, my impression is that it's going to be a good generic setting, and that the class and race changes are going to be for the better. The world doesn't revolve around the PCs, and it never says it does. It says the campaign will, as well it should. NPC interactions don't need mechanics, they are at the whim of plot or apparently percentile dice in some cases. It seems like a lot of EE's criticisms are based off of his own understanding of the book, which in some cases are just wrong.

kamikasei
2008-01-04, 06:24 AM
Most likely in my world i'll just steal what i like from 4E (totally taking the female dwarfs)

Okay people, what gives? Why are people talking about the female dwarves of 4e as if they were some kind of revelation? Okay, they're mentioned in R&C, but you know what? There was a female dwarf right there in the PHB alongside all the other male/female race examples, she didn't have a beard, and there wasn't any suggestion that she should. Is the 4e art for dwarf women better? Yeah, it looks cool. But is there any conceptual change here? Not that I can see...

Fixer
2008-01-04, 07:34 AM
Okay people, what gives? Why are people talking about the female dwarves of 4e as if they were some kind of revelation? Okay, they're mentioned in R&C, but you know what? There was a female dwarf right there in the PHB alongside all the other male/female race examples, she didn't have a beard, and there wasn't any suggestion that she should. Is the 4e art for dwarf women better? Yeah, it looks cool. But is there any conceptual change here? Not that I can see...
When I built my female dwarven rogue I tried to find pictures on the Internet of female dwarves to use as a description for her (and to see if they actually were supposed to have beards or not). I did not have much success.

I found one in Looking for Group (which I selected). I found a lot from WoW (which sucked). The others were mostly porn of 'real' dwarf women having sex and, of course, not what I was looking for.

kamikasei
2008-01-04, 07:46 AM
When I built my female dwarven rogue I tried to find pictures on the Internet of female dwarves to use as a description for her (and to see if they actually were supposed to have beards or not). I did not have much success.

I found one in Looking for Group (which I selected). I found a lot from WoW (which sucked). The others were mostly porn of 'real' dwarf women having sex and, of course, not what I was looking for.

Okay, so female dwarves are scarce in art. They're still present on the Race chart in the PHB.

I'm all for the fact that their depiction in 4e looks to be more prominent and more flattering, but I don't get how you would "steal" female dwarves from 4e to use in a home setting, which is what EE had said.

Sebastian
2008-01-04, 10:17 AM
Actually, Wizards has stated that Core crunch will not universally govern different campaign settings. As has been stated, while Faerun will have only the two elven races presented in the Player's Handbook in terms of mechanics, storywise they will represent all the many and various subraces: those aren't Eladrin, they're Sun Elves and what have you.

What about the fey step ability? It is something the sun elves have in any form? Because the ability to dimension door almost at will (and that is just one of the eladrin abilities and they get it probably at low level) is not exactly a minor abiity to add to a race.

EvilElitest
2008-01-04, 10:25 AM
Okay people, what gives? Why are people talking about the female dwarves of 4e as if they were some kind of revelation? Okay, they're mentioned in R&C, but you know what? There was a female dwarf right there in the PHB alongside all the other male/female race examples, she didn't have a beard, and there wasn't any suggestion that she should. Is the 4e art for dwarf women better? Yeah, it looks cool. But is there any conceptual change here? Not that I can see...

i've never seen any cool uses of female dwarves, they were always kinda "just there" sort of thing, it is nice to see them be a bit more apparent. I've never seen a female dwarf PC so this is an improvement, we finally have female dwarves who are designed to look cool. So in my world, Female dwarves look like that now and are going to be more important

Inyssius Tor, never ever do quotes like that every again. Ever


Despite the stuff immediately preceding that sentence, a lot of PC races don't have darkvision. When they visit those great big underground dwarven cities, they miss a lot of stuff, and the whole atmosphere is changed--no matter how massive and awe-inspiring the dwarven city is supposed to be, it's just claustrophobic in complete darkness.

I've never seen this problem or heard of it ever. Most PCs races have some sort of darkvision/low light vision, the other dudes have torches or some sort of spell to see in the dark. I've just never even heard of this complaint ever

Actually, it says that their opposing views "ensure ongoing clashes if not outright war." That doesn't mean they're never at war, it just means they're never at peace
The orcs also view the dwarves as slaves and dwarves view the orcs as raiders and cowards, why wouldn't they go to war? Wish then went into more detail


I still think you're too concerned with the world revolving around the PCs and whether or not they are "Mary Sues." They only become/fight/replace gods at epic levels, which they already do now. Whether or not PCs are uber powerful starting at level 1 compared to the rest of the DnD world has yet to be seen
But it has been stated that PCs will be more powerful than NPCs by nature as they follow a different set of rules. I imagine it as NPCs only getting lesser vesions of PC classes but it could be more exact, as PCs are not only allowed but encourage to make their characters as optimized as possible. NPCs not longer follow the same rules as PCs (Aka, a goblin is no longer a level 3 goblin fighter but instead its own article like in SE).


(unless, of course, WotC read this and did hire you as a playtester. In which case, could you forward me a copy of the rules .
We don't talk about that:smallwink:



Anyway, I should have written out that SAGA meant Star Wars Saga Edition. It operates on the D20 system and was released during 4th Ed planning. It introduces the concept of "Heroic" and "Non-heroic" classes. Heroic classes, of course, are the PCs and class levels alternate between bonus feats, class features, and talent trees. Essentially, a level up has more to offer than just the boosts to HP, BAB, skills, and saves. Non-heroic classes, on the other hand, get 3 feats at first level, gain an extra feat every 3rd level, the traditional skills, saves, etc., and nothing else. "Beasts," the monsters of Star Wars, a la banthas, dewbacks, and those CGI things from Attack of the Clones, are handled in a similar manner with their own level progression except with higher HP. Main villains, contemporary NPCs, and essentially any npc you want can still have "Heroic" levels, a lot like 3rd. I'm hoping that's what they did with 4th ed.

1. They did mention star wars yes
2. But i have no idea if they will use it
3. Would their be a lot of NPCs who follow the same rules as PCs?


What struck me as ominous about "Races and Classes" was the absence of commentary about action points. Amongst people I play with, they are among one of the most polarizing issues that come up with 3rd ed and Eberron, and making them canon for all settings will drive a few of them away from the game.
Hmmmm? Go into more detail please


Anyway, keep up the good work on the review/op ed. And good luck with a family of lawyers AND business men. And I thought my family arguments were rough with two lawyers involved. .
Don't forget the diplomats, nothing gets more confusing in a trade argument like bringing up Germany's and China's laws into the fray, as well as inter-trade relationships.


T'skrang are a race of "lizard folk" from FASA's old Fantasy RPG "Earthdawn". Do they still live on the river?
They "borrowed" heavily from the setting and ran it through a d20 filter to create Eberron. It appears that it's continued.

In case you're curious:
Spoiler

House Syrtus: Was created when a female t'skrang seduced a great dragon then out witted his wife.
k'stulaami: mutantant t'skrang born with membranes, allowing it to glide through the air.
Aropagoi: Extended family unit of the t'skrang.
haropas: hard to explain. Basically it's their philosophy of trying to balance the desires of the individual vs the needs of their extended clan. Makes them come off more as full of bravado and very loyal to their families.
Jik'harra: "Brave passion" Part of the philosophy of haropas. T'skrang constantly go out of their way to put themselves in scary situations, so that they can overcome their fears.

That is very interesting, out of interest how close do you think these guys are to Dragon born out a scale of 1-10, 10 being same dudes just different setting with 1 sharing a few similarities that are most likely a coincidence


On the darkvision thing: I think you misunderstood them a bit. If none of the races has darkvision that means that they need light sources in their towns to see, so the when other races without darkvision visit those cities they will be able to see most of it.
Currently dwarves have little use for light sources so they don't bother with them. And when some other races visit them barring torches with 20 ft. radius illumination they aren't going to see much of it.
I've always rather liked that, as it required to party to be extremely organized and forced them to work together, with the dwarven character's guiding the other ones through the darkness, measuring the length of the torch ect.



I had written a long post in response to EE, with my own impressions on Races and Classes (2 or 3 paragraphs, fairly short).
where? Did i not counter it?

In brief, my impression is that it's going to be a good generic setting, and that the class and race changes are going to be for the better. The world doesn't revolve around the PCs, and it never says it does.
1. We don't know nothing about this generic setting except for the tiniest of details
2. I haven't gotten to class changes
3. I've already pointed out what i dislike about some race changes (elves are next by the way)
4. It explicitly says that the world does evolve around the PCs

It seems like a lot of EE's criticisms are based off of his own understanding of the book, which in some cases are just wrong.
The same can be said of yours, except i have sited what annoys me



As has been stated, while Faerun will have only the two elven races presented in the Player's Handbook in terms of mechanics, storywise they will represent all the many and various subraces: those aren't Eladrin, they're Sun Elves and what have you.
This annoys me, because FR already has the states for almost a dozen elven sub races with distinct abilities suddenly lost them? I hate recons

Next, elves
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-01-04, 10:32 AM
Fix this thread, gopt to fix it.

They might not go to war as thier's nothing to gain.

Gopt to fix it? Do you mean got?
Except both races have armed conflicts and don't like each other, they never explain why they don't fight
from
EE

Sebastian
2008-01-04, 10:45 AM
also gas and oil would no longer work after three years
My motto has always been that Fantasy needs to try to be more realistic than real life, because in real life when miracles do happen they are amazing, in fantasy they are cliche.

from
EE

how they say, real life will be always stranger than fiction because fiction had to remain believable. :)

Thinker
2008-01-04, 10:49 AM
thank you, for the record i don't have a problem with nudity when it is explained. My games are R rated, so when the PCs go to places like a Brothel, it makes sense for people to be rather lewd. However adventures, and people who fight on a regular basis will wear proper clothing.

So you mix porn with DnD? Bleah. That doesn't seem very appropriate for people under 18 :smallyuk: Children shouldn't be able to play in such a lewd situation.

Think About It!
-T

Helgraf
2008-01-04, 10:51 AM
Firstly you're assuming he plays with anyone underage.

Tweekinator
2008-01-04, 11:01 AM
Gopt to fix it? Do you mean got?

Physician, heal thyself!


And to Helgraf: Actually, he does. He himself is 16 and we can only assume that he plays with his peers who would also be at a similar age.

Thinker
2008-01-04, 11:07 AM
Firstly you're assuming he plays with anyone underage.

I'm just assuming he plays with people his own age, which he has stated numerous times that he has just turned 16.

Think About It!
-T

Witch
2008-01-04, 11:14 AM
So you mix porn with DnD? Bleah. That doesn't seem very appropriate for people under 18 :smallyuk: Children shouldn't be able to play in such a lewd situation.

Think About It!
-T
When you become 18, it becomes magically acceptable to suddenly think or talk about sex. Before that, it can't be done. A 16-year old thinking about his own body and about the body of naked women - it's simply an intolerable idea.

Thinker
2008-01-04, 11:20 AM
When you become 18, it becomes magically acceptable to suddenly think or talk about sex. Before that, it can't be done. A 16-year old thinking about his own body and about the body of naked women - it's simply an intolerable idea.

I know, that's what I've been saying. As someone who's been there I think its better to bottle up such emotions so that no one is hurt by them. We need to be a clean-cut society if we hope to persevere. :smallsmile:

Think About It!
-T

Tweekinator
2008-01-04, 11:20 AM
When you become 18, it becomes magically acceptable to suddenly think or talk about sex. Before that, it can't be done. A 16-year old thinking about his own body and about the body of naked women - it's simply an intolerable idea.

Wow, that seems a little out of touch there, but ok. To each his own, I suppose(unless his age is under 18). :smallamused:

Talya
2008-01-04, 11:34 AM
*cough*
I was fourteen. Didn't hurt me in the slightest.

I think we're overly hung up on such things, as a culture.

Thinker
2008-01-04, 11:46 AM
*cough*
I was fourteen. Didn't hurt me in the slightest.

I think we're overly hung up on such things, as a culture.

If something is immoral why should we subjugate other people to it? This is why there should be restrictions in place to halt the progression of the vile, immorality of our culture. DnD is a good example of this. You play the game to be a beacon of light against the immorality inherent in the world. We need to shield people from these desolate acts.

Think About It!
-T

Tweekinator
2008-01-04, 11:57 AM
If something is immoral why should we subjugate other people to it? This is why there should be restrictions in place to halt the progression of the vile, immorality of our culture. DnD is a good example of this. You play the game to be a beacon of light against the immorality inherent in the world. We need to shield people from these desolate acts.

Think About It!
-T

Well, if you consider human sexuality a "desolate act", there may be some issues at hand. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what else would be a desolate act in dire need of repression?

Talya
2008-01-04, 11:58 AM
I sense sarcasm.

Thinker
2008-01-04, 12:01 PM
Well, if you consider human sexuality a "desolate act", there may be some issues at hand. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what else would be a desolate act in dire need of repression?

Human sexuality should only be used by a married couple to further humanity. Things that romanticize illicit behavior such as drug use, robbery, murder, etc. should really be restricted. It leads to other people thinking such acts are ok. We should also eliminate any "art" that has sexuality or other immoral behavior in it. There's no reason for us to tolerate such behavior. Sift through the rubbish!


I sense sarcasm.

What would give you that idea? :smalltongue:

Think about it!
-T

Talya
2008-01-04, 12:06 PM
What would give you that idea? :smalltongue:

Call it a hunch.

EvilElitest
2008-01-04, 12:08 PM
So you mix porn with DnD? Bleah. That doesn't seem very appropriate for people under 18 :smallyuk: Children shouldn't be able to play in such a lewd situation.

Think About It!
-T

1. Dn't say porn, eww. Think of it more like Song of Fire and Ice. (No the characters are not allowed to describe having sex with others, describe things in a graphic manner, or anything like that)
2. 16-21 accually.
3. Don't deliberately misinterpret me, it is rude an unsophisticated
4. For the record, they were in the brothel to gather information.


Human sexuality should only be used by a married couple to further humanity. Things that romanticize illicit behavior such as drug use, robbery, murder, etc. should really be restricted. It leads to other people thinking such acts are ok. We should also eliminate any "art" that has sexuality or other immoral behavior in it. There's no reason for us to tolerate such behavior. Sift through the rubbish!
That is a religionists doctrine not a legal one


from
EE

Thinker
2008-01-04, 12:12 PM
1. Dn't say porn, eww. Think of it more like Song of Fire and Ice. (No the characters are not allowed to describe having sex with others, describe things in a graphic manner, or anything like that)
2. 16-21 accually.
3. Don't deliberately misinterpret me, it is rude an unsophisticated
4. For the record, they were in the brothel to gather information.


That is a religionists doctrine not a legal one


from
EE

1. Sorry, I don't mince words with the sex industry. Just call them as I see them.
2. So how graphically do you describe it for the young ones?
3. I was unaware that's what I was doing.
4. What sort of information would they have at a brothel? :smalleek:

Maybe that doctrine should be more widely held?

Think about it!
-T

Tweekinator
2008-01-04, 12:15 PM
I think the point is that our characters should be able visit and even patronize brothels in a mature, adult manner. This is allowed in my games, but not the kind of kiddy stuff such as the wizard saying,"I cast Enlarge Person on my wang and do her!"(though the actuality was much less appropriate) or the fighter describing how he slew the lady of the night with his +5 sword of wenching(again, much more graphic), or perhaps even the sorcerer describing his polymorph antics; I could go on, sadly, but I will stop there in the interests of good taste.

Back to my original point, the blatant, across-the-board repression of our characters' sexuality(expressed in a mature manner) hinders their growth as characters and our own growth as roleplayers.

Trog
2008-01-04, 12:20 PM
PRO: Troglodytes get a significant increase in power. :smallcool:

Maetugi
2008-01-04, 12:44 PM
If Thinker is so concerned about human sexuality, perhaps he should remove his sexy, naked man sitting on a toilet seat picture from his avatar.

But really, let the joke drop and talk about D&D instead.


We can't judge anything until the final product comes out, but removing darkvision makes me want to bang my head into the wall. Arguing that Dwarves would simply never have lights underground is doesn't make sense. If Dwarves relied only on their darkvision, they wouldn't make a crossbow with a range greater than 60'. Dwarves may not use light sources all the time, but they would certainly keep some around in case they needed it. Besides, that's a part of roleplaying and D&D. Not everyone is equal and as a party you balance each others strengths and weaknesses. It sounds to me that they're dumbing it down, so players and DM's don't have to think.

ShadowSiege
2008-01-04, 02:07 PM
But it has been stated that PCs will be more powerful than NPCs by nature as they follow a different set of rules. I imagine it as NPCs only getting lesser vesions of PC classes but it could be more exact, as PCs are not only allowed but encourage to make their characters as optimized as possible. NPCs not longer follow the same rules as PCs (Aka, a goblin is no longer a level 3 goblin fighter but instead its own article like in SE).
EE

Has anyone seen a shred of evidence that supports that monsters will no longer be advanced other than elites, or that humanoids typically used as enemies won't be in possession of classes? Have PC classes ever not been better than NPC classes/progressions (except excellent racial types such as dragons)? Worlds & Monsters will be giving us a sneak peak into those mechanics, but that isn't until next month. Right now though, you're speculating without base.

JaxGaret
2008-01-04, 02:44 PM
Are you kidding? Ever single male character is extremely well muscled. Even the mage guy brewing potions in the 3.0 DMG is stacked.

That's on page 244, if anyone was wondering.

He looks more like a Sorcerer to me, what with the dragon tattoos.


I think the point is that our characters should be able visit and even patronize brothels in a mature, adult manner. This is allowed in my games, but not the kind of kiddy stuff such as the wizard saying,"I cast Enlarge Person on my wang and do her!"(though the actuality was much less appropriate) or the fighter describing how he slew the lady of the night with his +5 sword of wenching(again, much more graphic), or perhaps even the sorcerer describing his polymorph antics; I could go on, sadly, but I will stop there in the interests of good taste.

Back to my original point, the blatant, across-the-board repression of our characters' sexuality(expressed in a mature manner) hinders their growth as characters and our own growth as roleplayers.

One of my characters regularly makes skill checks to "Diplomacize himself some womens" for the evening. He's quite successful at it, too, being a Marshal :smallsmile:

@ Witch and Thinker: Great job with the sarcasm there guys! You've even got people believing you were serious. :smallbiggrin: Kudos.

EvilElitest
2008-01-04, 03:52 PM
1. Sorry, I don't mince words with the sex industry. Just call them as I see them.
2. So how graphically do you describe it for the young ones?
3. I was unaware that's what I was doing.
4. What sort of information would they have at a brothel? :smalleek:

Maybe that doctrine should be more widely held?

Think about it!
-T
1. There is a difference between going into a brothel and having sex i hope you realise
2. Meh, just depressed women who are wearing exposing clothing, i leave it mostly up to their imaginations
3. I never said they were invovled in any pornographic activities
4. In the current champain they were asking locals about a local gang, they found the leader's ex-girlfriend here
from
EE

Tweekinator
2008-01-04, 04:08 PM
It's campaign. <--- Right there, bam; the correct spelling.

JaxGaret
2008-01-04, 04:26 PM
champain

I like drinking that stuff too, but it's spelled champagne.

ShadowSiege
2008-01-04, 04:28 PM
1. There is a difference between going into a brothel and having sex i hope you realise
2. Meh, just depressed women who are wearing exposing clothing, i leave it mostly up to their imaginations

1.) Yes, going into a brothel is where you go to go a-whoring, and having sex is what you do while a-whoring (A bit of levity does a world of good). Of course, there are other things to do in a brothel. Drink, carouse, get into way awesome fights like something out of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, gather information about those who are known to go a-whoring, meet a contact, etc.

2.) Actually, you're depicting this improperly, perhaps even naively. Brothels usually have cheery women (who are wearing exposing clothing). Prostitutes aren't necessarily or even often forced into their trade. It's easy, good money that has the additional benefit of being fun with the right customer. Additionally, being mopey isn't exactly good for such business if you think about it, so if nothing else they'd at least don the customer service smile of the millions employed in food services and retail.

Sebastian
2008-01-04, 04:33 PM
Has anyone seen a shred of evidence that supports that monsters will no longer be advanced other than elites, or that humanoids typically used as enemies won't be in possession of classes? Have PC classes ever not been better than NPC classes/progressions (except excellent racial types such as dragons)? Worlds & Monsters will be giving us a sneak peak into those mechanics, but that isn't until next month. Right now though, you're speculating without base.

Yes, PCs were always more powerful than NPCs, but what change is the scale, in 2nd, at 1st level PCs were only slightly stronger than npcs, and not always, they had the same attribute (character generation was the same)the main difference between then was that (most) NPC had smaller hit dice, PCs could level and (most) NPCs could not, must on the average a, i.e. 0 level city guard was not so different from a 1st level fighter.

in 3rd things changed, PCs were better than NPC (elite vs standard stat array, full hit point at 1st level vs roll for hit point, pcs vs NPCs classes) but things were still comparable. I'd say that PCs were around 1.5-2 times as stronger than NPC, more or less.

Apparently in 4th pcs start with 4 times the normal hit points, (which I doubt is true also for the average peasant and merchant) plus they same to start with some really nifty power (one particolarry impressive seems to be the Eladrin "fey step", a racial, per-encounter "dimension door"-like power that apparently can be pick around 2nd level, it is reasonable to assume that other races and classes will have comparable powers. it is equally reasonable to assume that the average person will not have them. Now, you say that, as long monster and PCs will be equally upgraded it will make no difference, well, I have to disagree with that. It make a big difference to me if the difference between PCs and NPCs is just that PCs have the potential to become a hero (level up) or if it is than PCs are four times thougher and can short-teleport almost at will almost the beginning or something equally impressive and NPCs don't. It make for two very different kind of games The the idea of a marvel-like setting and game of fantasy superheroes is not really appealing to me. If I want superheroes there are better games to play.

Witch
2008-01-04, 04:46 PM
2.) Actually, you're depicting this improperly, perhaps even naively. Brothels usually have cheery women (who are wearing exposing clothing).
I wouldn't exactly call it cheery either =) But naturally moreso than depressed.

ShadowSiege
2008-01-04, 04:48 PM
Except PCs aren't like the ordinary person in their world. They represent training, skill, inherent ability, and potential. All men are created equal is a means of recognizing that everyone should be treated equally by the law, not that everyone should be on equal footing when it comes to physical or mental abilities. They're the Olympians, the super-scientists, the cat burglars that don't get caught. Farmer Bob doesn't have the training, knack, or in D&D terms, the stats to be a PC because he is common. At heroic levels, the PCs are exceptional, at paragon they're some of the best alive today, and at epic they are living legends, the stuff of myths. And there are others like them. They aren't unique, but they are far and above the ordinary man.

ShadowSiege
2008-01-04, 04:49 PM
I wouldn't exactly call it cheery either =) But naturally moreso than depressed.

Hence why I added the customer service smile sentence at the end. I suppose faux-cheery would be a better term?

Talya
2008-01-04, 04:51 PM
The NPC vs. PC power distinction is pointless, as the DM just ends up increasing encounter power to compensate.

For instance, in SW Saga, first level heroic characters often face 5th or 6th level non-heroics.

In 3.5, how many of you DMs really use NPC classes for much other than cannon fodder? Most named NPCs end up being PC classes anyway.

Sebastian
2008-01-04, 05:06 PM
Except PCs aren't like the ordinary person in their world. They represent training, skill, inherent ability, and potential. All men are created equal is a means of recognizing that everyone should be treated equally by the law, not that everyone should be on equal footing when it comes to physical or mental abilities. They're the Olympians, the super-scientists, the cat burglars that don't get caught. Farmer Bob doesn't have the training, knack, or in D&D terms, the stats to be a PC because he is common. At heroic levels, the PCs are exceptional, at paragon they're some of the best alive today, and at epic they are living legends, the stuff of myths. And there are others like them. They aren't unique, but they are far and above the ordinary man.

I never said that PCS should be equal to NPCs, but if PC/NPC strength ratio is 2 to 1 (pcs are twice as strong as NPC, it make a different game than if the same ratio is 20 to 1. And even at higher levels power was different in the different version of DND, a 20 level in 2nd edition is not the same than a 20 level in 3rd (imho the 3rd edition one is more powerful a 2nd edition 20 level against i.e 100 0th level soldiers for example , I'm not saying that should be afraid but should be a little careful, I don't think the same could be said of a 3rd editon 20 level something against 100 1st level Warriors)

And when I say NPC I don't meant enemies, I mean the average Joe, how much your PCS is more powerful than the average person change what kind of game you are playing because change the setting you are playing in. If you are playing a trained soldier it is different game than if you are playing Spiderman.

DeathQuaker
2008-01-04, 05:11 PM
2.) Actually, you're depicting this improperly, perhaps even naively. Brothels usually have cheery women (who are wearing exposing clothing). Prostitutes aren't necessarily or even often forced into their trade. It's easy, good money that has the additional benefit of being fun with the right customer. Additionally, being mopey isn't exactly good for such business if you think about it, so if nothing else they'd at least don the customer service smile of the millions employed in food services and retail.

Um, what? Are you being sarcastic, 'cause it's hard to tell.

Prostitution risks severe disease, unwanted pregnancy, mistreatment, etc. It's not something most people do unless they feel they have no other alternatives.

JaxGaret
2008-01-04, 05:18 PM
Apparently in 4th pcs start with 4 times the normal hit points, (which I doubt is true also for the average peasant and merchant) plus they same to start with some really nifty power (one particolarry impressive seems to be the Eladrin "fey step", a racial, per-encounter "dimension door"-like power that apparently can be pick around 2nd level, it is reasonable to assume that other races and classes will have comparable powers. it is equally reasonable to assume that the average person will not have them. Now, you say that, as long monster and PCs will be equally upgraded it will make no difference, well, I have to disagree with that. It make a big difference to me if the difference between PCs and NPCs is just that PCs have the potential to become a hero (level up) or if it is than PCs are four times thougher and can short-teleport almost at will almost the beginning or something equally impressive and NPCs don't. It make for two very different kind of games The the idea of a marvel-like setting and game of fantasy superheroes is not really appealing to me. If I want superheroes there are better games to play.

You can take what little information we have now and make irrational rants on what you think 4e is going to be like, or you can wait until 4e comes out and then make a rational decision.

I'm willing to bet that if Eladrins get a Fey Step ability at level 2, it will be similar to the Boots of Swift Passage from MIC, not at-will DD.

Witch
2008-01-04, 05:22 PM
Um, what? Are you being sarcastic, 'cause it's hard to tell.

Prostitution risks severe disease, unwanted pregnancy, mistreatment, etc. It's not something most people do unless they feel they have no other alternatives.
Note that all of this is obviously dependant upon the circumstances of the prostitution. But generally, the prostitutes will still keep smiling or try to be enticing, because not doing that will either result in less money for them, or less money for someone else, who will take it out on them.

Tweekinator
2008-01-04, 05:24 PM
Um, what? Are you being sarcastic, 'cause it's hard to tell.

Prostitution risks severe disease, unwanted pregnancy, mistreatment, etc. It's not something most people do unless they feel they have no other alternatives.

What about the often-encountered "hooker with a heart of gold"? They never have STDs or pregnancies. I confess, I have no idea where you're getting this information.

DeathQuaker
2008-01-04, 05:28 PM
What about the often-encountered "hooker with a heart of gold"? They never have STDs or pregnancies. I confess, I have no idea where you're getting this information.

*lol* Of course. I must have forgotten. :smalltongue:

Prophaniti
2008-01-04, 05:29 PM
:smallfrown:
Honestly, it sounds to me that you are using RPGs to escape what you consider your depressing real life. You might want to seek professional counseling for something like that.

I'm reminded of a quote that I really like...

I have claimed that Escape is one of the main functions of fairy-stories, and since I do not disapprove of them, it is plain that I do not accept the tone of scorn or pity with which 'Escape' is now so often used. Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home? Or if he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls? -J.R.R. Tolkien, on fairy-storiesYes, D&D is escapism, a game with elves, fairies and dragons that's played primarily by adults can't really be called anything else. Like so many other attitudes and habits, there is nothing wrong with it unless taken to extremes. Now, I disagree with what Obsidianrose was saying, because I like my escapism to be at least based in reality, ie this is what reality would be like with dragons and dwarves and ancient ruins full of undead. Obviously he likes his escapes to be more out there, more over-the-top and, well, fantastic. It's really more of a personal preference thing...

However, if you think you don't play D&D (or any other fantasy game) at least partly for some measure of escape you should more honestly re-examine your motives for playing.

Sebastian
2008-01-04, 06:42 PM
You can take what little information we have now and make irrational rants on what you think 4e is going to be like, or you can wait until 4e comes out and then make a rational decision.

I'm willing to bet that if Eladrins get a Fey Step ability at level 2, it will be similar to the Boots of Swift Passage from MIC, not at-will DD.

well, all I can say is that I've read a recent playtest session, there was a Eladrin, unless I misread it was 2nd level and he had a per-encounter short range teleport ability. If I find the link I'll post it here.
Of course they could still change it, but that is true of EVERYTHING they say, so what is the point of discuss, or even make previews?

thanks for the irrational BTW.

EDIT: Found it, judge yourselfs.

http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=27100&pagemode=2&blogid=2100

EvilElitest
2008-01-04, 07:33 PM
Has anyone seen a shred of evidence that supports that monsters will no longer be advanced other than elites, or that humanoids typically used as enemies won't be in possession of classes?

The evidence that i showed you and you ignored

"On of 3rd edition's advances was to model monsters using the same tools used to model players characters. 3rd Edition player characters and monsters calculate ability scores, hit points, saves, attack bonuses, and skill ranks using the same mechanical structure. 4th Edition recoginizes the value of using the same tools for PCs and monsters, but opts to turn the tools for a new pupose.
The Parameters and basic game mechanics for 4th edition player characters are no identical to the rules and powers used by the world's monesters and non player charcters The Pcs are going to be on the center stage for the life of the campaign and deserve all the power options and customization features that the system can bear.Monsters and most NPCs are lucky to appear more than once, particularly if they're encountered in combat situations.
So we've made 4th Edition simpler to run andplay by simplifying monsters and NPCs. The new systems is not overly concered with stimulating interactions between monsters and nonplayer characters when PCs are not on stage. 4th Edition orients monester design (and to some extent, NPC design) around whats fun for the players to encounter as challenges. Intricate lists of abilities and multiple significant exceptions-based powers are reserved for teh PCs rather than handed out to every monest"


Have PC classes ever not been better than NPC classes/progressions (except excellent racial types such as dragons)? Worlds & Monsters will be giving us a sneak peak into those mechanics, but that isn't until next month. Right now though, you're speculating without base.
1.PC and NPC classes, not NPCs and PCs themselves. An NPC class (like adept) repersented a person who didn't fully train as much as PCs did, but NPCS still followed the machanics of PCs and often had PC classes
2. Speculate based upon what i just showed you

1.) Yes, going into a brothel is where you go to go a-whoring, and having sex is what you do while a-whoring (A bit of levity does a world of good). Of course, there are other things to do in a brothel. Drink, carouse, get into way awesome fights like something out of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, gather information about those who are known to go a-whoring, meet a contact, etc.
But they weren't goint a-whoring


2.) Actually, you're depicting this improperly, perhaps even naively. Brothels usually have cheery women (who are wearing exposing clothing). Prostitutes aren't necessarily or even often forced into their trade. It's easy, good money that has the additional benefit of being fun with the right customer. Additionally, being mopey isn't exactly good for such business if you think about it, so if nothing else they'd at least don the customer service smile of the millions employed in food services and retail.
Well the brothel people were slaves and the PCs were police who arrested most of them (for smuggling) so i can see them being mopey

From
EE

Mike_G
2008-01-04, 10:00 PM
I really don't have a problem with the monsters, who will probably survive 5 rounds, being simpler and less developed than the PCs who will be around for 30 levels.

Seriously, running a high CR creature in 3.5, with class levels, SLA's, magic items, and especially the ability to summon more monsters is an organizational nightmare to do well. You can still have a PC-classed BBEG to do this once, but not go through it for every henchman battle.

And every such monster provides a new door to hell through the Shapechange line of spells.

I doubt that the basic stats, AC, and so on will use different mechanics, but the abilities could well be streamlined

ShadowSiege
2008-01-05, 03:03 AM
First, the 'tutes subject:


Um, what? Are you being sarcastic, 'cause it's hard to tell.

Prostitution risks severe disease, unwanted pregnancy, mistreatment, etc. It's not something most people do unless they feel they have no other alternatives.

As Witch pointed out, that is all dependent upon the circumstances of prostitution. Where it is legalized and regulated (as I assumed (incorrectly as EE clarified) was the case with the brothel), their situation tends to be much better and hence they tend to be less mopey as EE said. In cases where it is prohibited by law and tradition, yes, a prostitutes straits are far more dire.

As for PCs vs NPCs, I'm going to start my rebuttal with the following:


4th Edition orients monster design (and to some extent, NPC design) around whats fun for the players to encounter as challenges. Intricate lists of abilities and multiple significant exceptions-based powers are reserved for the PCs rather than handed out to every monster"

Please note, the emphasis is my own. The text to me indicates that it will be much faster to create a one-off NPCs. This is not the case with all NPCs. Your BBEG or other outstanding NPC will still most likely have PC classes to make him a threat above and beyond the normal NPC. Hopefully monster HD advancement will not be gotten rid of, it's a useful mechanic in 3e, but streamlined.

JaxGaret
2008-01-05, 03:24 AM
well, all I can say is that I've read a recent playtest session, there was a Eladrin, unless I misread it was 2nd level and he had a per-encounter short range teleport ability. If I find the link I'll post it here.
Of course they could still change it, but that is true of EVERYTHING they say, so what is the point of discuss, or even make previews?

thanks for the irrational BTW.

EDIT: Found it, judge yourselfs.

http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=27100&pagemode=2&blogid=2100

Sorry about the dig. It just annoys me when I see all of these posts in which people judge a system that hasn't even come out yet.

On the link you posted: the Fey Step ability was used once by the character, not at will. At the end of the blog the poster noted that "I used every trick at my disposal". I would take this to mean that they used all of their strongest powers in that fight. Seems possible or probable that the Fey Step ability is a short range teleport perhaps usable 1/encounter.

Definitely not DD at will strong.

Also, the character has at least two feats. If they left the feat structure the same in 4e, that means that the character is at least 3rd level, perhaps higher.

multilis
2008-01-05, 03:56 AM
On R rated gaming...


That is a religionists doctrine not a legal one


from
EE

Teenage pregnancy, rape, single parent family, divorce, std have non-religious detrimental affects to society.

Whether people believe in "monkey see, monkey do" seems to depend on the topic. For example the same people who are ok with nasty rap lyrics may protest (want taken off air/banned/fired) a radio entertainer who calls homosexuals "perverts".

What is considered taboo/wrong/harmful to society depends on culture/political correctness at times. Eg currently it is considered exploitation for an old person to have sex with a young teenager, where in times past respected older people occasionally married young teenagers in some cultures.

EvilElitest
2008-01-05, 10:21 AM
First, the 'tutes subject:



As Witch pointed out, that is all dependent upon the circumstances of prostitution. Where it is legalized and regulated (as I assumed (incorrectly as EE clarified) was the case with the brothel), their situation tends to be much better and hence they tend to be less mopey as EE said. In cases where it is prohibited by law and tradition, yes, a prostitutes straits are far more dire.


That is pretty much it, brothels were illegal in that city


As for PCs vs NPCs, I'm going to start my rebuttal with the following:



Please note, the emphasis is my own. The text to me indicates that it will be much faster to create a one-off NPCs. This is not the case with all NPCs. Your BBEG or other outstanding NPC will still most likely have PC classes to make him a threat above and beyond the normal NPC. Hopefully monster HD advancement will not be gotten rid of, it's a useful mechanic in 3e, but streamlined.
But isn't that like a video game? You big bad as a set of super stats, but your random mooks are just that, mooks? If 90% of the monesters, even monesters such as goblins, orcs, hobgoblins ect are inheritly lesser than the PCs, with a few Big Bads who are equal to them in strength, isn't that like the Bad Guy of a video game with a lot of weaker mooks. I liked the NPCs following the same rules, it gave me a feeling of the PCs being in a world were everybody is on the same page, the best are those who work hardests (PCs presumable).
from
EE

Sebastian
2008-01-05, 12:36 PM
Sorry about the dig. It just annoys me when I see all of these posts in which people judge a system that hasn't even come out yet.

On the link you posted: the Fey Step ability was used once by the character, not at will. At the end of the blog the poster noted that "I used every trick at my disposal". I would take this to mean that they used all of their strongest powers in that fight. Seems possible or probable that the Fey Step ability is a short range teleport perhaps usable 1/encounter.

Definitely not DD at will strong.

Also, the character has at least two feats. If they left the feat structure the same in 4e, that means that the character is at least 3rd level, perhaps higher.
In the comments it say 2nd level at least twice and is never denied, I don't have the time or the wish to read the whole blog for a confirmation. So I'm going to keep assuming 2nd level until further proof

I'm sure to have read somewhere else that fey step was a racial, per encounter power that Eladrin could pick, again, if I can find it I'll post the link, maybe it was in some Race & classes book review, Someone could confirm/deny this? EE? anyone?

The "I used every trick" say nothing if is a per encounter or per day nor in a way or the other. Personally I would not use a per day power only to not waste a full round (expecially a power that can be used to pull me out of a bad situation), but maybe it is just me.

EDIT: searched around, found some reference to it being a per-encounter ability but nothing official. Maybe I just got it mixed up.

Starsinger
2008-01-05, 12:48 PM
But isn't that like a video game? You big bad as a set of super stats, but your random mooks are just that, mooks? If 90% of the monesters, even monesters such as goblins, orcs, hobgoblins ect are inheritly lesser than the PCs, with a few Big Bads who are equal to them in strength, isn't that like the Bad Guy of a video game with a lot of weaker mooks. I liked the NPCs following the same rules, it gave me a feeling of the PCs being in a world were everybody is on the same page, the best are those who work hardests (PCs presumable).

Is it really such a bad thing if most NPCs are just mooks? I mean, as it is, enemies tend to fall to casters in a turn or two anyways, why bother making them complex if they're just going to die before their second initiative (or possibly their first). If I can churn out an NPC that will die in 2 turns in 5 seconds with a new system, or take a few minutes to churn the same NPC out with the existing one, why bother with the current?

EvilElitest
2008-01-05, 03:36 PM
Is it really such a bad thing if most NPCs are just mooks? I mean, as it is, enemies tend to fall to casters in a turn or two anyways, why bother making them complex if they're just going to die before their second initiative (or possibly their first). If I can churn out an NPC that will die in 2 turns in 5 seconds with a new system, or take a few minutes to churn the same NPC out with the existing one, why bother with the current?
in your games do PCs just kill everything they see? Just asking




I'm sure to have read somewhere else that fey step was a racial, per encounter power that Eladrin could pick, again, if I can find it I'll post the link, maybe it was in some Race & classes book review, Someone could confirm/deny this? EE? anyone?
Elves are next (when i get my book back, it should be here in an hour) so i'll check then and let you know
from
EE

Starsinger
2008-01-05, 03:39 PM
in your games do PCs just kill everything they see? Just asking

No dear, they don't. If something's not supposed to be killed they don't tend to kill it, in which case I really don't need to stat them out, especially in a complex manner. Why? Do you have this problem with your PCs?

Sincerely,
Starsinger

EvilElitest
2008-01-05, 03:45 PM
No dear, they don't. If something's not supposed to be killed they don't tend to kill it, in which case I really don't need to stat them out, especially in a complex manner. Why? Do you have this problem with your PCs?

No, in my games i create all NPCs are people, and i leave it up to the PCs to see if the fight it or not. Should the PCs be attacked by a hoard, then i give them all the same stats, but if they meet a group of goblins i tend to just make them all level X warriors, adepts or thieves (NPC Rogue) with a few clerics, fighters and Rangers with them. I don't make them all a single generic goblin. the NPCs and the PCs are both people trying to live in a dangerous world.



Sincerely,
Starsinger
Soon all Playgrounders will have their own sig, and my evil plan will be furfilled
from
The guy with the sig

Starsinger
2008-01-05, 03:47 PM
*stuff*

Except monsters are not people. Anymore so than familiars or animal companions... :smallamused:

EvilElitest
2008-01-05, 03:53 PM
Except monsters are not people. Anymore so than familiars or animal companions... :smallamused:

Nope, according to WOTC, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, Bugbears ect are all monsters. Also normal NPCs are included in the power neurf
from
EE

Kioran
2008-01-05, 04:17 PM
Is it really such a bad thing if most NPCs are just mooks? I mean, as it is, enemies tend to fall to casters in a turn or two anyways, why bother making them complex if they're just going to die before their second initiative (or possibly their first). If I can churn out an NPC that will die in 2 turns in 5 seconds with a new system, or take a few minutes to churn the same NPC out with the existing one, why bother with the current?

That depends on the kind of NPC - If theyエre soldiers/Guardsmen/Goblins, welll then, yes, Iエll use one of three sheets I prepared for these kinds of NPCs if theyエre relatively common. But then, these are mooks, third row NPCs. They could be monsters.
Buth everything above it? Lina, Tiefling Maidservant/Bodyguard, allthough certainly not capable of matching any of the PCs, the Fishmonger in the Market square, or maybe even the four honor guards of the LE captain, should all be similiar to PCs in mechanics, even if some of them might use NPC Classes and most of them are not to powerful. Even if most of them(well, maybe not the Fishmonger) will die.
Because yes, there needs to be a reason for them to be that way. Maybe Lina isnエt that much of a Fighter because sheエs too busy looking innocuous and actually being a competent servant (Craft(cooking) +12 at ECL 2 for example), despite her being a PC class of the same lvl and with the same Point buy as the PCs. Maybe Rellen, the third guard of the ECL 5 evil captain is actually a lvl 6 Warrior - an old, disillusioned and bitter veteran, who, despite his experience, never really got a hold on his stuff because he never saw at as a calling, but as an alternative to starvation.........
Both are weak. Both cannot match the PCs, and are only second row NPCs who will never have a major impact on the campaign. But still, theyエre persons, and fighting them is definitely interesting from time to time.

Making anyone but the first row of NPCs, the party real enemies, just Monsters or stat blocks will not necessesarily guarantee more shallow personalities, but itエs certainly tempting to throw in another "Hobgoblin Lancer, level 4", and play him like the last 3.

Gorbash
2008-01-05, 04:20 PM
Well, gnomes will be monsters in 4ed, since they won't be in the core rulebook... Does that justifies killing them for no apparent reason?

No, they are sentient beings all of them. Bugbears, goblins, orcs, and although as a race they tend to be more wicked/evil than an average human (or not?), they don't deserve to die just because they were so unfortunate to run into PCs on a random road...

EvilElitest
2008-01-05, 04:21 PM
That depends on the kind of NPC - If theyエre soldiers/Guardsmen/Goblins, welll then, yes, Iエll use one of three sheets I prepared for these kinds of NPCs if theyエre relatively common. But then, these are mooks, third row NPCs. They could be monsters.
Buth everything above it? Lina, Tiefling Maidservant/Bodyguard, allthough certainly not capable of matching any of the PCs, the Fishmonger in the Market square, or maybe even the four honor guards of the LE captain, should all be similiar to PCs in mechanics, even if some of them might use NPC Classes and most of them are not to powerful. Even if most of them(well, maybe not the Fishmonger) will die.
Because yes, there needs to be a reason for them to be that way. Maybe Lina isnエt that much of a Fighter because sheエs too busy looking innocuous and actually being a competent servant (Craft(cooking) +12 at ECL 2 for example), despite her being a PC class of the same lvl and with the same Point buy as the PCs. Maybe Rellen, the third guard of the ECL 5 evil captain is actually a lvl 6 Warrior - an old, disillusioned and bitter veteran, who, despite his experience, never really got a hold on his stuff because he never saw at as a calling, but as an alternative to starvation.........
Both are weak. Both cannot match the PCs, and are only second row NPCs who will never have a major impact on the campaign. But still, theyエre persons, and fighting them is definitely interesting from time to time.

Making anyone but the first row of NPCs, the party real enemies, just Monsters or stat blocks will not necessesarily guarantee more shallow personalities, but itエs certainly tempting to throw in another "Hobgoblin Lancer, level 4", and play him like the last 3.

Thank you, also Hobgoblin lancer can't be used as a PC sadly
from
EE

Starsinger
2008-01-05, 04:32 PM
Well, gnomes will be monsters in 4ed, since they won't be in the core rulebook... Does that justifies killing them for no apparent reason?

No, they are sentient beings all of them. Bugbears, goblins, orcs, and although as a race they tend to be more wicked/evil than an average human (or not?), they don't deserve to die just because they were so unfortunate to run into PCs on a random road...

Gnomes are not sentient beings.. they are a blight on the face of whatever campaign setting they're in. So, yes. Although, to be fair to me, I did not say that they didn't deserve rights. I said they weren't People.

EvilElitest
2008-01-05, 04:34 PM
Gnomes are not sentient beings.. they are a blight on the face of whatever campaign setting they're in. So, yes. Although, to be fair to me, I did not say that they didn't deserve rights. I said they weren't People.


Well it is time they are treated as people, their leader had a dream
from
EE

Starsinger
2008-01-05, 04:35 PM
from
EE

The unflattering implication of that is not appreciated. :smallannoyed:

EvilElitest
2008-01-05, 04:37 PM
The unflattering implication of that is not appreciated. :smallannoyed:

wait what now?
from
EE

ShadowSiege
2008-01-05, 06:29 PM
But isn't that like a video game? You big bad as a set of super stats, but your random mooks are just that, mooks? If 90% of the monesters, even monesters such as goblins, orcs, hobgoblins ect are inheritly lesser than the PCs, with a few Big Bads who are equal to them in strength, isn't that like the Bad Guy of a video game with a lot of weaker mooks. I liked the NPCs following the same rules, it gave me a feeling of the PCs being in a world were everybody is on the same page, the best are those who work hardests (PCs presumable).
from
EE

Ugh, EE, pay attention: Monster. M-o-n-s-t-e-r. Inherently. If you don't have Firefox, run your post through a spell checker.

As for the actual substance of your post, 90+% of the population of the player races are mundane. It's common game design, not just video games, to only have relatively few truly powerful opponents unless the setting calls for something to the contrary (such as Call of Cthulhu where the PCs are mundane and facing cosmic horrors so powerful and hideous that even gazing upon their visage causes one's sanity to break). As is, 4e is changing combat encounters to have multiple opponents filling different roles, so it won't just be a horde of easily beaten down goblin warriors. I'm looking forward to seeing how such encounters work out in Worlds & Monsters.


Making anyone but the first row of NPCs, the party real enemies, just Monsters or stat blocks will not necessarily guarantee more shallow personalities, but itエs certainly tempting to throw in another "Hobgoblin Lancer, level 4", and play him like the last 3.

That's a valid point. If we think of a campaign as something like a movie, the mooks would be the nameless extras, the PCs and villains the stars, and the supporting cast would be other NPCs. The temptation to have premade NPCs such as "Hobgoblin Lancer, level 4" act the same as the last is something that will have to be guarded against. The supporting cast can't be 1 dimensional characters or the rest of the movie will suffer for it, as is the case in many B movies where you actually cheer when the bad guy kills of "That Guy with the Annoying Trait B."

Wordmiser
2008-01-05, 07:03 PM
EE, I can't understand your complaint about NPCs "becoming" weaker than the PCs with the 4E transition.

See, there are three possibilities for NPC power in a level-based system.

1. NPCs are mostly low-level NPCs. Players quickly become much more powerful than anybody else who they encounter. This is the approach which has been encouraged since D&D's creation. Keeping it in 4.0 really shouldn't be much of a surprise.

2. NPCs are mostly much more powerful than the player characters. This is awkward in its implications--Most people are better trained in battle than the players, who are expected to be in a constant battle throughout their adventures. I don't understand this approach, but it might work in some comic book-styled settings. Maybe.

3. NPCs become more powerful as players gain levels. This makes as little sense as #2--Because your Fighter has trained, his neighbor, the bumpkin farmer, has finally become strong enough to fend off the roaming herds of fearsome housecats.

I'm assuming that you follow #2 or #3 if the average townperson is a threat to your players' characters (who are entirely comfortable telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up, as they say). Most people don't.

EvilElitest
2008-01-06, 01:22 AM
adress questions later, elves part 1, which i confess i ramble because I'm so exhausted



EE痴 Essay

Elves, oh gods the elves

Before I cover elves, lets get a few thing straight about the elves. Lets be honest, elves are always the center of attention in D&D, I think it痴 the ears. In every role-playing game they are always the coolest, eldest, bravest ect. Everybody loves elves. My theory is that they are human enough for people to like them, but they also have the super beauty and super coolness that makes them appealing. So no matter what the game, elves will always be great. I値l talk about sub races later but trust me, major rant their

In the first column it is made apparent that they are
Fun loving
handsome/beautiful (skinny)
agile
Impulsive
Good fighters
Good
Brave
Amazing archers
Good casters
Good nature people
Good sneaky people
Keen sense
Woodcraft skills
Animal love
Live in forests that are almost invisible.
Elder
Age old
And that is one paragraph, who is getting all of the love in this game?
The second paragraph addresses the nature of subraces, see later. The rest of the page is stuff I will ether address later or we have all heard before. Oh, elves don稚 like dwarves, big news that.
How do they look?
Basically we have a few changes. The general stuff is the same, elves are graceful, amazing, beautiful, athletic and amazing. Oh they make a big point mention that they were athletic, no emaciated. Eh? Also they made them taller, they are now taller than humans. Now personally, I think the whole tall elves things is boring, everybody does it, started in legends, used in LOTRS, WOW, FF 11 (Elvaan pretty much), and pretty much ever fantasy genre. I really liked short elves, they just seem to want to make them a bit more typical and change a normal element in the game. Call me paranoid, but are video games becoming the D&D influences now?
Elven Alphabet, it is all Greek to me
Alright, the subraces
Lets be frank here, elves had plenty of subraces. And by plenty I mean and ungodly number. Off the top of my head (Some are the same thing under different names but still)
High elves
Wood elves
Wild Elves
Green Elves
Moon Elves
Silver Elves
Gold Elves
Sun Elves
Grey Elves
Copper Elves
Wood Elves
Star Elves
Valley Elves
Drow
Deep Drow
Dark Elves
Deep Elves
Shadow Elves
Shadowed Elves
Sylvan Elves
Fey Elves
Snow Elves
Frost Elves
Psion Elves
And in other sources we have
Blood Elves
Black Elves
Tree Elves
Forest Elves
Dawn Elves
Twilight Elves
Cave Elves
Tainted Elves
Earth Elves
Stone Elves
Night Elves
Now this is slightly absurd don稚 you think, though I admit this is just all the elves I use in my world. Yes, ever single on of these breeds exist in my world. Anyways, people seem to love subraces (FR, I知 looking at you). So while I use them all in my games, I have a good reason, but it is absurd. Now WOTC seems to think that we should get rid of them. Now in my games I just make every sub race represent a different element of the elven legends, but I can certainly see were WOTC is coming from.
So 4E takes a tip from Ebberon and makes the subraces cultural not mechanical. Personally I don稚 like this, but I like subraces, as my world is huge an I like all the different cultures. It seems a waste to get ride of all these perfectly good sub races who I feel add to the whole fantasy element but what ever. Now let痴 get ride of them. That痴 right, we now two types of Elves. Eladrin are the High magic wielding elves, while Wood Elves are the forest dudes. As for the rest of this lot, let痴 just get ride of them, wipe them out, all of them, all of them, no more. Let痴 wipe them out, integrate them into the others, or forget them. That痴 right, this has gotten too far, lets just get ride of the whole lot once and for all. Have I made those clear, no more sub elves!....

Except for Drow. Yeahmixed messages eh? Drizzt clones can heave a sign of relief now.

TempusCCK
2008-01-06, 01:35 AM
May I just add that this is a terrible format for presenting your analysis. Now, for someone who doesn't check this thread every single second, they must sift through eight whole pages of stuff, just to read your scant posts...

My suggestion, Geocities... or something. Eight pages is just way too much, no one wants to look through that all to see what you have to say.

Inyssius Tor
2008-01-06, 02:05 AM
*holy crap a massive list*

*snip*

Eladrin are the High magic wielding elves, while Wood Elves are the forest dudes. As for the rest of this lot, let痴 just get ride of them, wipe them out, all of them, all of them, no more. Let痴 wipe them out, integrate them into the others, or forget them. That痴 right, this has gotten too far, lets just get
ride of the whole lot once and for all. Have I made those clear, no more sub elves!....

Except for Drow. Yeahmixed messages eh? Drizzt clones can heave a sign of relief now.

Well, the thing about--wait a second. Good god, man, that's a horribly distended ellipse (series of three dots) there. More than three (or four at the end of a sentence, unless combined with other sentence-ending marks) does not indicate a longer pause, it just looks stupid and ugly. If you want a really long pause, try one ellipse (three dots) and then hit the Enter key twice.
You're usually really good about this (and your spelling and grammar have clearly improved since the first page, by the way, and that's awesome), so sorry to start ranting about this. It's just that there are some people on these forums that use an ellipse every three damn words, without any other punctuation or capitalization, and just spam a million of them when they actually want to indicate a pause. :smallfurious:

Anyway. The thing about that horrible list is that those subraces can really be sorted almost perfectly into Eladrin, Elves, and Drow.

Wood Elves, Wild Elves, Green Elves, Copper Elves (?), Wood Elves, Valley Elves, Sylvan Elves, Tree Elves, and Forest Elves are all just regular Elves.

High Elves, Moon Elves, Silver Elves, Gold Elves, Sun Elves, Grey Elves, Star Elves, Fey Elves, Blood Elves, Dawn Elves, and Twilight Elves are pretty much all Eladrin.

Drow, Deep Drow, Dark Elves, Deep Elves, Shadow Elves, Shadowed Elves, Black Elves, Tainted Elves, and Cave Elves all seem quite a lot like Drow.

(I don't know about some of these, but it's a pretty fair bet).


Snow Elves
Frost Elves
Psion Elves
Earth Elves
Stone Elves
Night Elves
...the hell? Okay, these all really need some genocide--yeah, wipe them out.

ShadowSiege
2008-01-06, 04:30 AM
Good riddance to subraces. Humans, the most flexible, variable race in the game, and yet elves have something like 20+ subraces, some of which are redundant. Trimming it down to three keeps it simple, reduces bookkeeping and redundancy, and you can still have all the cultural variation you want due to separate elven communities holding separate traditions.

As for the change in look of the elves, the writer said that they were pretty much 12 year olds. Making them taller and heavier allows them to still retain the look of elven grace (lightweight boxer is the example he gave, strong but lithe). It's a good change in my opinion.

Ne0
2008-01-06, 07:00 AM
I think the main thing that Wizards is trying to do is make an end to the real crazy optimization. (I'm looking at the "thousands of damage per turn" chargers now)
I'd say that the subraces aren't the only thing that are going to get cut off. It's just that, if you combine all published material and the dragon magazines, you can create nearly anything. They just want to start over, and place some limits on optimization, while expanding the options in another direction.

Talya
2008-01-06, 10:42 AM
Anyway. The thing about that horrible list is that those subraces can really be sorted almost perfectly into Eladrin, Elves, and Drow.

Wood Elves, Wild Elves, Green Elves, Copper Elves (?), Wood Elves, Valley Elves, Sylvan Elves, Tree Elves, and Forest Elves are all just regular Elves.

High Elves, Moon Elves, Silver Elves, Gold Elves, Sun Elves, Grey Elves, Star Elves, Fey Elves, Blood Elves, Dawn Elves, and Twilight Elves are pretty much all Eladrin.

Drow, Deep Drow, Dark Elves, Deep Elves, Shadow Elves, Shadowed Elves, Black Elves, Tainted Elves, and Cave Elves all seem quite a lot like Drow.



Moon Elves are forest-dwelling types. Hard to say with them.

My issue with removing these is there are some mechanical differences (that are explained in the fluff.)

Some elves are feral and wild, with bonuses to strength and dexterity, penalties to constitution, intelligence, and charisma. Other more civilized wilderness-type elves have standard racial bonuses (+2 dex, -2 con.)

Star Elves are way outside the average -- they are otherworldly (outsiders!) who automatically ghost-touch all equipment they wear or weild, and are unnaturally charismatic and beautiful (+2 cha, -2 con).

What about Averiel? Where do those +3 level adjustment winged elves fit into the above?

Now, if the new racial types allow you to customize on the fly (I get the impression you get to choose various racial abilities as you level up), you could simulate some of those, which would help.

Ne0
2008-01-06, 11:18 AM
What about Averiel? Where do those +3 level adjustment winged elves fit into the above?

Probably the ones that deserve a genocide. Seriously, who plays those? Just take a half-fey elf or something, and call it a day.

Morty
2008-01-06, 11:46 AM
Probably the ones that deserve a genocide. Seriously, who plays those? Just take a half-fey elf or something, and call it a day.

Not many people, but they're part of FR nevertheless.
That said, I find throng of elven subraces annoying, and I'm glad it disappears in 4ed. But avariels are likely to be impossible to represent by either elves nor feldarin.
Bleh. As long as they give me PC stats for goblinoids and orcs one way or another, I'll just happily ignore tieflings and dragonborn.

Tren
2008-01-06, 12:18 PM
Well I think some of those subraces are actually deserving of their own specific stats, such as the avariel. There's a difference between a "subrace" that is theoretically identical save for cultural and minor physical differences and a distinct creature. I think avariel would qualify as it's own distinct creature, as well as some of those other obscure ones like tainted elves and "psion elves." Btw, are those in XPH?

Thinker
2008-01-06, 12:18 PM
It's just that there are some people on these forums that use an ellipse every three damn words, without any other punctuation or capitalization, and just spam a million of them when they actually want to indicate a pause. :smallfurious:

I...don't know...what...you're talking...about. :smalltongue:

Starsinger
2008-01-06, 12:23 PM
I think avariel would qualify as it's own distinct creature, as well as some of those other obscure ones like tainted elves and "psion elves." Btw, are those in XPH?

There are too many types of elves, stop resisting. Also, Avariel are easy, assuming templates still exist, just slap the Winged templated on an Elf/Eladrin.

FirstAdam
2008-01-06, 07:57 PM
As a woman in her thirties, let me just say, I am all in favor of more attractive pictures of barely clad adventurers, of either sex.

Thank you.

Whoo Hoo. Preach it, Sister! Love your Avatar, by the way.

EvilElitest
2008-01-07, 05:05 PM
Right, due to lack of time because of Mid terms, it is going to take a while for me to post the next part, so my plans are

1. Edit everything
2. Put everything on the first post, though note i will post new ones on the current page and send a copy back to the first page
3. Sleep, maybe watch blood diamond
from
EE

Charity
2008-01-07, 08:06 PM
I believe it has been suggested in D&D there are more Dwarves. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=697653)
Playable LA 0 races at least.

Hurlbut
2008-01-07, 08:24 PM
I believe it has been suggested in D&D there are more Dwarves. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=697653)
Playable LA 0 races at least.That's if you don't count the half elves :P

EvilElitest
2008-01-07, 09:04 PM
I believe it has been suggested in D&D there are more Dwarves. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=697653)
Playable LA 0 races at least.

Damn thats a lot
from
EE

Kaerou
2008-01-08, 07:12 AM
I'm really excited about the Dragonborn.

I wasn't at first.. i thought they were the absurdity that was presented in races of the dragon, but after reading up on how they are a Species of their own right, I am so excited. Really excited to see a proper non-human race in the base races. At some points I was feeling like I was playing in some kind of medieval star trek.

Halfling: "No, really, i'm not human.. see, i'm.. short."
Dwarf: "No really, not human. Short, beard.. see?"
Elf: "Not human either? Cant you see, funny ears?"
Gnome: "Yeah, i'm with Halfling.. in fact, why am I even here if you have hallfings?" (good riddance imo! never seen one played and i've been playing since 2nd ed)
Half Orc" "I'm/ half a human, half orc.. i'm not even a race. I'm supposed to be rare, why am I even an option?"
Half Elf: "Half human! Half.. human with funny ears. I think i'm supposed to be even rarer than that greenish guy?"

Thats how I always felt about the majority of the base races in 3.0/5. I'm really excited about the possibility Dragonborn and Teiflings represent. I know Tieflings kind of fall under the same bandwagon as the other half races, but they're sufficiently different for me to really offer more.

Personally, I wanted Kobolds but i'll make do with Dragonborn, they're sufficiently awesome for me. Though I'm still going to probably play a Kobold..!

Tren
2008-01-08, 10:08 AM
That's part of the new Tiefling lore though is that they're not so rare, because they're no longer the end result of nasty nasty Glabrezu sex. As for half-orcs and half-elves-- on one hand I agree with you that they should be fairly rare and therefore not really suitable for a core race option, but on the other it's a fair to say that outcast races of disenfranchised bastard children are probably the likely to have a high percentage of marauding adventurers amongst their ranks.

EvilElitest
2008-01-08, 10:32 AM
For the record, i've always viewed elven sub races a bit like Dogs. You lots of radically different types, each with different traits (terriers, bull dogs, Husky s ect) then you have even more (A welsh terrier or an Airedale) then you have even more breeds who come from the larger ones (Pugs to bull dogs for example) ect.
frm
EE

Nebo_
2008-01-09, 05:36 AM
Well, the thing about--wait a second. Good god, man, that's a horribly distended ellipse (series of three dots) there. More than three (or four at the end of a sentence, unless combined with other sentence-ending marks) does not indicate a longer pause, it just looks stupid and ugly. If you want a really long pause, try one ellipse (three dots) and then hit the Enter key twice.
You're usually really good about this (and your spelling and grammar have clearly improved since the first page, by the way, and that's awesome), so sorry to start ranting about this. It's just that there are some people on these forums that use an ellipse every three damn words, without any other punctuation or capitalization, and just spam a million of them when they actually want to indicate a pause. :smallfurious:


Ellipsis

Otherwise, I agree.

I've looked at this thread a couple of times and each one, I've been put off by EE's spelling, grammar, writing style and overall arrogant, for lack of a better word, reviews of 4e.

Fixer
2008-01-09, 07:15 AM
Until someone else decides to review the 4e Classes and Races book on their own, I would like to ask that those who dislike his misspellings, horrible grammar, and various personal habits/preferences to simply stop reading the thread instead of filling it with your disdainful prose.

EvilElitist is definitely not a professional reviewer. He lacks several characteristics necessary. He does, however, possess one quality which many of the rest of you do not: the willingness to continue on in the face of a multitude of pedantic criticisms.


For those with smaller vocabularies: stop dissin' the man who is givin' something for nothin'. Until you start puttin' out you ain't nothing but a hater.

Thank you.

EvilElitest
2008-01-10, 05:22 PM
thank you fixer, thanks a lot


Also nebo, is arrogance

Anyways, i'm staring the editing process, and if my connection doesn't fail me i will be able to be done by tonight or tomorrow
from
EE

marjan
2008-01-10, 05:34 PM
I don't really see what's all that wrong with getting rid of all those elves. Only thing that bothers me is that it is not achieved through genocide :smallmad: (I guess I'm more of dwarf-person).:smallbiggrin:

EvilElitest
2008-01-10, 07:43 PM
I don't really see what's all that wrong with getting rid of all those elves. Only thing that bothers me is that it is not achieved through genocide :smallmad: (I guess I'm more of dwarf-person).:smallbiggrin:

here is the deal, they took the time to make that massive number of elves, and some people liked a lot of them. I think they should have just made them optional and stopped making any more. Still only two main elves, and the rest of them are champion specific or only mentioned in the MM, they lose pratically nothing and makes the people who use those races happy. Same with dwarves
from
EE

marjan
2008-01-10, 08:07 PM
here is the deal, they took the time to make that massive number of elves, and some people liked a lot of them. I think they should have just made them optional and stopped making any more. Still only two main elves, and the rest of them are champion specific or only mentioned in the MM, they lose pratically nothing and makes the people who use those races happy. Same with dwarves
from
EE

Don't put my dwarves in the same sentence as foul elves. Arrrrgggghhh :smalltongue:

On topic: Are all those subraces really needed. For example Grey Elves are usually smarter than other elves and they are better suited wizards (they have wizard as favored class), so just putting their highest score in int giving them class levels in wizard would be enough to represent those differences mechanically. Add in some flavor to their culture from your current campaign setting and they are still different than most of the elves.

So many subraces gives me a headache.

Wordmiser
2008-01-10, 08:20 PM
here is the deal, they took the time to make that massive number of elves, and some people liked a lot of them. I think they should have just made them optional and stopped making any more. Still only two main elves, and the rest of them are champion specific or only mentioned in the MM, they lose pratically nothing and makes the people who use those races happy. Same with dwarves
from
EE
You use that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Seriously, enough people have spelt out the word "campaign" that it isn't unreasonable to expect you to pick up on it.

EvilElitest
2008-01-10, 08:22 PM
You use that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Seriously, enough people have spelt out the word "campaign" that it isn't unreasonable to expect you to pick up on it.

Now play nice


On topic: Are all those subraces really needed. For example Grey Elves are usually smarter than other elves and they are better suited wizards (they have wizard as favored class), so just putting their highest score in int giving them class levels in wizard would be enough to represent those differences mechanically. Add in some flavor to their culture from your current campaign setting and they are still different than most of the elves.

So many subraces gives me a headache.

It varies from person to person, i like lots of different subraces, i allows me to use them all differently in my campaign as different fractions and cultures. However nothing has ever forced you to use them


from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-01-10, 10:04 PM
Right, editing started, you'll notice some changes to the essays over time
from
EE

Nyarlethotep
2008-01-11, 11:19 AM
Also nebo, is arrogance
EE

ummm, no EE, if you read his post again you'll see that his "arrogant" belongs to the "writing style", and isn't a direct comment against you (which would be "arrogance")

Thinker
2008-01-11, 11:34 AM
Now play nice



It varies from person to person, i like lots of different subraces, i allows me to use them all differently in my campaign as different fractions and cultures. However nothing has ever forced you to use them


from
EE

Why does each culture need to be represented with a different race or subrace? A different race shouldn't just be a funny mask on a human body that has a culture loosely based on one from earth. A single race should have a different outlook on the world when compared to humans and possibly even be hardwired to think differently. The latter is probably a bit difficult to expect people to play out, but the former seems reasonable.

In short, if you want to do elves as Asian cultures you don't need a subrace for the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. You could just use one race and give them different perspective.

EvilElitest
2008-01-11, 08:20 PM
Why does each culture need to be represented with a different race or subrace? A different race shouldn't just be a funny mask on a human body that has a culture loosely based on one from earth. A single race should have a different outlook on the world when compared to humans and possibly even be hardwired to think differently. The latter is probably a bit difficult to expect people to play out, but the former seems reasonable.

In short, if you want to do elves as Asian cultures you don't need a subrace for the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. You could just use one race and give them different perspective.

Who ever said i just copy and pasted human cultures. I borrow elements, but each subrace has its own unique culture with elements borrowed from real cultures

I also like the subraces because it offers more diversity and more fantasy to the world. More different crunch and cultures. Every subrace is rather unique in his own way, the same way Drow are. If you don't like subraces, than make Drow dark skinned elves ect. But i like subraces and it seems a waste to get ride of them.
from
EE

Aimbot
2008-01-12, 03:48 AM
You should really clean up your writing. Until you learn how to use punctuation, ee, I'm not going to read anything from you over a paragraph in length.

Fixed that for you. :v:

Dhavaer
2008-01-12, 07:05 AM
*Disclaimer: I have no idea if this is an actual site.

It is. Although while it is definately NSFW, there is nary a bikini to be seen.

Nebo_
2008-01-12, 07:44 AM
ummm, no EE, if you read his post again you'll see that his "arrogant" belongs to the "writing style", and isn't a direct comment against you (which would be "arrogance")

Thank you, you are right. That wasn't intended as an attack on EE, but I can see how he made the mistake. EE, your writing needs work, here's some advice.

1) Use a word processor or something to pick up spelling mistakes

2) Re-read what you've written. You'll be surprised what you pick up.

EvilElitest
2008-01-13, 10:02 PM
Thank you, you are right. That wasn't intended as an attack on EE, but I can see how he made the mistake. EE, your writing needs work, here's some advice.

1) Use a word processor or something to pick up spelling mistakes

2) Re-read what you've written. You'll be surprised what you pick up.

It is a slow process, as i suffer from extreme lazyness, but we are getting there when mid term studies don't slow me down
from
EE