Comments on the 4th Ed fact thread

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Why couldn't they include something like the shadow fey for the feywild underdark? ! ? Are they so difficult to imagine or conceive?

Actually, they're evidently bringing back the shadar-kai (sp?) to fill a role very much like that. They're from the Shadowfell, not the Feywild, which is why they weren't mentioned in the exerpt.

About the yugoloths, I'm a bit disappointed. Yugo-demons? What's so wrong with the name "Mezzoloth" that it needed to be changed to "Mezzodemon"? I also don't agree with the concept of the demon-mercenary.

They'd been mezzodaemons to start with. I think they're deliberately excising terms like "tanar'ri" and so on, that'd been brought in during the No-Really-We're-Not-Satanists 2E era.

[Jester of the FoS]

No "Neutral evil plane"? So? Throw them in the astral! It's a big place.

Because there's no more neutral evil.

There's good, law, evil, and chaos and a character chooses what they want to follow (and likely in what order). The closest to neutral is "unaligned".
Or at least that's what it was at the early stages.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Have they said Law and Chaos are still alignments? I'd gotten the impression that that alignment-axis was gone altogether, and any description of demons as "chaotic" (for example) only meant it in the standard-English-dictionary sense.

[Jester of the FoS]

I was looking at the 1st Edition Manual of the Planes this morning. And in the into the author pretty much says, and I'm paraphrasing, the planes were pretty much done as a place to throw adventures that didn't fit. So the characters went to plane X while a different adventure went to plane Y.

So the current plane system pretty much evolved organically, growing as new things were added and just thrown into the mix by new authors and adventures.

It wasn't done as a clear artistic vision. There wasn't a single intent. It just happened and was done the way it was to not contradict earlier books.

[alhoon]

I was looking at the art.
General: It seems less fantasy to me. The monsters have a bizzare, disturbing and inhuman streak on them as they are. I'm mildly in favor of that, although I wonder what the parents of those 12 year old kids will say when they bring home then "new" game that captivated their fantasy...

Angel: Wow, unless I'm mistaken and that legless blank faced guy isn't an angel (he looks like it) the new angels will be distant and inhuman.

Devils: Where are they? I only saw the pit fiend. And he didn't look humanoid at all. Even less than in his article. I also think that I saw the hamatula but I'm probably mistaken since the devils are supposed to be more humanlike.

Hydra: Seems better now. Closer to the myth and answering questions like "Wow! These are terribly looking claws! How much damage they deal again?"

Archons: If these guys aren't more interesting than simple lumbs of element, then I don't know what would be. Very impressed.

Wyvern: Still has hind legs while all other wyverns I have seen (in medevial crests etc) only have front legs and they drag the rest of their body about.

[Coan]

The art of the worlds is pretty cool. Much better than other art from 3E in my mind.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Devils: Where are they? I only saw the pit fiend. And he didn't look humanoid at all. Even less than in his article. I also think that I saw the hamatula but I'm probably mistaken since the devils are supposed to be more humanlike.

"Humanlike" may be a relative term, here. By "human-like", they might just mean humanoid, in which case any of the fiendish-looking critters in the middle rows of black-and-white pics could be devils, not demons.

If that's the case, then 4E demons may look even less like humans than those elemental archons do. Not necessarily Cthulhu-style tentacular freaks (that'd be poaching on Far Realms turf ), but the new demons may look more like ferocious, rabid animals, poisonous insects, or something else non-bipedal.

[Jester of the FoS]

Well that's some crunchy rogue stuff. Called the hp and I'm impressed by how many are at first level.
And I like how some skills are just freebies for rogues. That was my biggest problem with SWS: that if you took scoundrel at second level you couldn't do anything scoundrely as you wouldn't have any new skills. It was also a problem in 3e; a fighter/rogue would have a handful more hp and no skills while a rogue/fighter would have slightly fewer hp and almost no skills.

[The Giamarga]

So the current plane system pretty much evolved organically, growing as new things were added and just thrown into the mix by new authors and adventures.

It wasn't done as a clear artistic vision. There wasn't a single intent. It just happened and was done the way it was to not contradict earlier books.

I think the Planescape folk would strongly disagree with that.

[DocBeard]

Angel: Wow, unless I'm mistaken and that legless blank faced guy isn't an angel (he looks like it) the new angels will be distant and inhuman.

I remember it being mentioned that angels are the preferred agents of the gods. All of the gods; Bane might make deals with devils or even demons, but his direct servents are as angelic as Bahumut's.

[Jester of the FoS]

So the current plane system pretty much evolved organically, growing as new things were added and just thrown into the mix by new authors and adventures.

It wasn't done as a clear artistic vision. There wasn't a single intent. It just happened and was done the way it was to not contradict earlier books.

I think the Planescape folk would strongly disagree with that.

Yeah...
First layout of the planes: 1980 in Deities and Demigods
First real description of all the planes: 1986 in Manual of the Planes
Planescape: 1994

They were all positioned, named and loosely described 14 years before Planescape.

[JinnTolser]

Just saw the new preview about rogues. They can only sneak attack now with light blades, crossbows, and slings? WTF?

[Jester of the FoS]

Rogues can only use: Dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling, short sword
So it's like saying rogues can only use rogue abilities while using rogue weapons.

Makes sense.

[alhoon]

About Rogue:

It makes the 3rd edition rogue seem so ... hollow. You have to have this guy in your party! It's not the locks, it's not the traps. Even at 1st level he can either deal hell of a damage or save the wounded guy by throwing back the enemy 10-15 ft!

[alhoon]

About the 4th edition at D&DE 2008:
Mildly disappointed.

Biggest problem: "Attack actions involve a “to hit” roll against any and all targets, so a power that targets all enemies within 1 square requires a
separate attack roll against each enemy affected."


I thought the main reason to remove the saves was so that you could roll once for the power of the fireball and check to see which Reflex you beat!

Other problem: "Some powers (like some cleric prayers) will also heal you your healing surge value, and you’ll tick off your healing surges for them as well."
You tick off healing surges from healing prayers?! Very funny. I hope there are some cleric powers that restore healing surges, or the low AC guys will get the shaft!

"An extended rest is akin to “camping” and lasts 6 hours. After an extended rest, you’re fully healed, you have a full compliment of healing surges, you have your daily powers back, and you reset your action points to 1. "
Too much neverwinter in there.
That's certainly something I'll rule out as soon as I have my hands on the book.

Good point: Healing surges are tied to constitution. When I discussed with a couple of friends about the rogue we all went: "So the difference between a 15th level rogue with 10 con and a 15th level rogue with 18 con is just 8 hp. "
No... the difference is that the 18 con one can heal 10 times instead of 6, so at the end, he can endure far more damage. Just not in the same combat.