Something about 4E

[Tom_Hunters]

I just wonder now that Asmodeus is a God, so can his followers do holy damage?
like if he has a lawful Neutral cleric, can he possibly do Holy smite on the fellow devils?


note: I have no PnP experience, at all

[LordArkan]

4E is a very different game.

[Krag]

There is no "holy" damage in 4E.

[Tom_Hunters]

omg, I never imagined there is no more chaotic good, chaotic neutral. And even the lawful evil is merged into the broader "evil" group...

I often admired the concepts of an CG anarchic humane fighter (which often seems to me some devoted environmentalist), as well as a CN madman.
But now they are not quite available in dnd anymore, how sad...

[Cam_Neely]

In its mass simplification, a ton of stuff was dumbed down. If you are a cleric most of your powers now do Radiant Damage (the new holy), and if you are attacking undead, they typically have vulnerability to Radiant. Likewise many evil priests have powers that do necrotic dmg.

[Diyon]

omg, I never imagined there is no more chaotic good, chaotic neutral. And even the lawful evil is merged into the broader "evil" group...

I often admired the concepts of an CG anarchic humane fighter (which often seems to me some devoted environmentalist), as well as a CN madman.
But now they are not quite available in dnd anymore, how sad...

They are perfectly available, you're just getting caught up on names and official categories. The new alignment scheme in 4e no more prevents you from playing a character that fits CG anarchic human fighter or CN madman any more than the 3.5 did with less clear characters. All they did was change names and relatively arbitrary categories around. It may not have been a great change, but it hardly limits these sorts of characters who will be just as different from each other as they were before.

[dkyle]

I often admired the concepts of an CG anarchic humane fighter (which often seems to me some devoted environmentalist), as well as a CN madman.
But now they are not quite available in dnd anymore, how sad...

The big sign saying "hey everyone, I'm chaotic good" isn't available any more. The character concept is certainly still available.

My campaign pretty much ignores alignment, and I'm glad of it, partly because I honestly have no idea how to classify many of my NPCs according to the classic nine-alignments.

[sainy_matthew]

4E is a very different game.

Little known fact. The working title for 4E was not what we were all told it was on release, 4E actually started as a seperate game called "Magic Sword" which had D&D things shoe-horned in at a later date. So if 4E does not feel like 4E to you, its because it originally wasn't. It wasn't until WotC decided not to try and compete with itself did they turn magic sword into D&D.

Rumor has it that it was originally being developed by a hasbro subsidary using a similiar mechanic to "Tome of Battle" under the name Magic Sword but was pulled just before they revealed that WotC was working on 4E. Many people have hypothesised that Magic Sword was the original working title for 4E & that it was decided later on to pull 3.5 of the warehouse shelves so the new product did not compete with the old, since 3.5 was essentially a stable system (admittedly it had its flaws). Of course this is only educated conjecture by people with to much time on there hands, but its not a bad consensus considering the designs that had been spoken of in Magic Sword are essentially the same as 4E.

-M

[dkyle]

Little known fact. The working title for 4E was not what we were all told it was on release, 4E actually started as a seperate game called "Magic Sword" which had D&D things shoe-horned in at a later date.

[citation needed]

Considering that 4E is clearly an evolution of the Tome of Battle 3.5 splatbook, this seems unlikely.

[sainy_matthew]

They did use a similiar design principle, thats for certain.

[SquelchHU]

[citation needed]

Considering that 4E is clearly an evolution of the Tome of Battle 3.5 splatbook, this seems unlikely.

But without any of the things that make it actually work. Like recovery mechanics. And powers that 1: Actually hurt things. 2: Have added effects you actually care about.

4th edition is based on ToB in the same way that nails on a chalkboard is based on a masterpiece musical performance - they're both entirely audible in nature, but that's about where the similarity ends.

[Krag]

They did use a similiar design principle, thats for certain.

[citation needed]

But without any of the things that make it actually work. Like recovery mechanics. And powers that 1: Actually hurt things. 2: Have added effects you actually care about.

Tell me about weak effects. 1-st level PHB spell can make all creatures in the area unconcious.

[dkyle]

And powers that 1: Actually hurt things. 2: Have added effects you actually care about.

Yeah, yeah, I get it. Obviously, any RPG where the players don't win in a single round with ridiculously overpowered abilities is FAIL.

Now, since we agree that 4E is an evolution (whether it's an improvement is irrelevant) of ToB, I'd be curious where sainy got his "4E wasn't originally supposed to be D&D" notion.

[SquelchHU]

Tell me about weak effects. 1-st level PHB spell can make all creatures in the area unconcious.

Is this sarcasm?

And to kyle: Funny how you try to defend (tiny damage) + (irrelevant effect) vs (massive pile of HP) by arguing for the other extreme of rocket launcher tag. And while it is true that 3.5 effects do things you actually care about, at every level (even a 3.5 fighter makes a joke of any 4th edition character when it comes to actually affecting the battlefield, and the game world in general) it by no means requires rocket launcher tag for you to care. It just has to not be completely trivial. Which, as is the case with most things it does 4th edition fails at.

[Chai]

But without any of the things that make it actually work. Like recovery mechanics. And powers that 1: Actually hurt things. 2: Have added effects you actually care about.

4th edition is based on ToB in the same way that nails on a chalkboard is based on a masterpiece musical performance - they're both entirely audible in nature, but that's about where the similarity ends.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

My keyboard must have dodged the drink coming out of my nose like the matrix, because I didnt get any on it.

[Chai]

Little known fact. The working title for 4E was not what we were all told it was on release, 4E actually started as a seperate game called "Magic Sword" which had D&D things shoe-horned in at a later date. So if 4E does not feel like 4E to you, its because it originally wasn't. It wasn't until WotC decided not to try and compete with itself did they turn magic sword into D&D.

-M

And it should have stayed that way.

My biggest gripe with 4e is it somehow got tagged with the D&D name on its way out the door.

All opinions aside, its just not Dungeons and Dragons, regardless if you love it or hate it.

[Krag]

Is this sarcasm?

Nope. Does it sound like one?

[sainy_matthew]

Yeah, yeah, I get it. Obviously, any RPG where the players don't win in a single round with ridiculously overpowered abilities is FAIL.

Now, since we agree that 4E is an evolution (whether it's an improvement is irrelevant) of ToB, I'd be curious where sainy got his "4E wasn't originally supposed to be D&D" notion.

Got it from the Hasbro Mailing list.

[Krag]

Got it from the Hasbro Mailing list.

In other words you are not going to back up your claim with any substance, right?

[SquelchHU]

Nope. Does it sound like one?

Dunno. Could have been. My sarcasm detector is broken. Which is why I'm also not sure if it is going off on Chai or not.