What do i mean? Well, most of the people try to just keep balance (stat wise) over the different races, which i must say i think its a little... i dont know... dumb?
I don't think that DS is about balance at all, i mean, a half giant can eat 4 humans for breakfast, so i look at some adaptations with a +2 STR and they just doesnt make sense at all... the use to have a +4 when the maximun STR was 25... so if i think about a half giant stat i would at least think of a +8 to really show the might and power of this race. Of course we have the racial power, but seriously, an encounter power isnt the reason why Sorceror-Kings have half giant armies. Same with the Thri kreens.
And i must say that i miss the negatives atributes... well, they dont affect your defenses at all (cause prolly you will have another stronger atribute to choose for your defense), but in my campaigns i do use stats checks and others thing (skill checks) where the stat is relevant, not only defense-wise.
I dont think DS is about balance at all... thats why i wanted to share my thoughts with people around the forum so maybe i can use something you guys already use =).
Thanks, and sorry for the english, its a bit rusty.
I dont think DS is about balance at all... thats why i wanted to share my thoughts with people around the forum so maybe i can use something you guys already use
The problem is your desire for "realism" is crashing against the "game" component of D&D, which requires what you are calling "balance" in order to keep the game fun for everyone involved at the various power levels in play.
DS as a setting has nothing to do with being about or not being about "balance". Balance is strictly something that is a component of a game. DS, as a setting, IS about a harsh and dangerous world that is difficult to survive in, which can be expressed by utilizing the rules to balance encounters such that they are all built to be just on the side of dangerous/deadly, rather than kept balanced to the characters' levels and abilities.
I think 4e is the greatest system released to date. I hated 3e. I currently hate Pathfinder. WotC gets respect from me for trashing a system that deserved to be trashed and moving on with a system worth playing.
Actually i think that if you want balance you shouldnt allow your players to play a thri kreen or a half giant, because they are races that are historically superior in combat (that is an important part of the new D&D). But downgrading a half giant takes one of the most important characteristics of them (The big bad ugly big guy that can crush you with one blow, haha. Well i know that the "imitation" is like the most roleplaying wise important aspect of a half giant, but i think that you know what i meant)
I have to agree that balance is desired in a game. But the thing is that downgrading certain things (like races as my example) many of the arguments and fun thing of DS go to the trash. There is nothing to fear from a army of half giants... and the templars that have thri kreens bodyguards doesnt intimidate as they use to. This may sound "silly" to try to preserve this things, but many of the "feeling" that DS did to the players will be washed away.
Actually i think that if you want balance you shouldnt allow your players to play a thri kreen or a half giant, because they are races that are historically superior in combat (that is an important part of the new D&D). But downgrading a half giant takes one of the most important characteristics of them (The big bad ugly big guy that can crush you with one blow, haha. Well i know that the "imitation" is like the most roleplaying wise important aspect of a half giant, but i think that you know what i meant)
And as I said, I wholeheartedly disagree, and think that the argument is ridiculous to boot. The NPC minotaur ranges from medium to large size, and has a strength of 22-24. The PC minotaur race only gains a +2 bonus to strength and is medium sized. The benefits of choosing a race as a player have only vague correlations to how the race is stated as an NPC. A PC races stat benefits nod to the abilities of the NPC, so that they feel the same in flavor. They are not, however, the same mechanically. There is no reason why "armies of (NPC) half-giants" can not have "fearsome strength" in comparison to NPC mobs of similar level. NPC minotaurs certainly do. However, if you want to be a PC minotaur and have strength in the 20+ range, you need to choose strength as one of your highest stats. You don't automatically gain this strength as a benefit for choosing the race via a +8 strength bonus. Moreover, with only a +2 benefit to two stats, both the half-giant and the thri-kreen can give a nod to the races "power" in certain forms of combat without actually mechanically overpowering the race. A +2 to Strength/Con and appropriate racial benefits can make the half-giant an extremely hardy and 'optimal' defender combat choice without totally making the choice an overpowered no brainer for all PC fighters. Likewise, a +2 to Dex/Strength, or Dex/Wis, with the appropriate racial beneifts, can do the same for a thri-kreen striker. Just look at what they did with the warforged and the goliath, or the half-orc and the shifter. There is no reason why the relationship between NPC half-giant and PC half-giant/NPC thri-kreen and PC thri-kreen racial benefits should not be the same. This does not detract from the fun of Dark Sun. Indeed, imbalance was never part of the "fun" of Dark Sun. It was part of the "not fun" of 2e.
When Half-Giant stands out with a +8 bonus to Strength, he is effectively 3 levels higher than the rest of the party... When the Thri-kreen gets 4 attacks a round at level 1, he effectively acts as 4 characters each round...
When characters are unbalanced like the examples above, they outshine the rest of the party. Thus, either a) the challenge rating of the party skyrockets making the rest of the party totally useless or b) make the game completely un-challenging (DM has no fun...).
However, equating balance with boring is plain wrong! But making the game unbalanced does make it difficult to run - wouldn't you rather your DM spent his/her time planning cool storylines and interesting obstacles instead of ways to challenge the party in a fight?
The thing is that if i play a Half giant, i dont wanna be the weak half giant ( as you would be if you had only certain part of the strenghs of the race, and still be as much competent as other races), in therms of game mechanics balance is very important, and too, a thri kreen character doesnt have to be just like the killing machine the NPC thri kreen is.
But i dont think its quite fun to play de weak version of a more powerfull race... at least i would like to be the fun of every NPC half giant haha.
Dont you guys agree with that? Doesnt it seems wierd tha "ok i am a halfgiant, but erm... no i cant move that rock... way too heavy for me" ... i know that in terms of game mechanics is pretty good, but how would you put in game terms... "Well i was the weaker of my tribe and i was cast awat" or something like that? or you guys got another idea?
The NPC minotaur ranges from medium to large size, and has a strength of 22-24. The PC minotaur race only gains a +2 bonus to strength and is medium sized. The benefits of choosing a race as a player have only vague correlations to how the race is stated as an NPC. A PC races stat benefits nod to the abilities of the NPC, so that they feel the same in flavor. They are not, however, the same mechanically.
The balance issue is only half of it; the PC/NPC double standard is the other half. In 2e, it's perfectly fine to have a half-giant or thri-kreen with ridiculous strength or a poisonous bite because they're balanced in other ways (delaying the bite until 9th level, making all half-giant gear cost double, etc.). It's not perfectly numerically balanced, but it's close enough that it's a real trade-off, and the other drawbacks are really felt.
In 4e, there's no other way to balance it. Monsters can have whatever the heck they want in terms of abilities, but races must have two +2s, one racial power, etc. You can't say "Well, yes, half-giants get good Strength, but as PCs they'd obviously take a huge wealth hit for their equipment, and a martial character needs gear just as much as +4 Strength" or "Well, yes, thri-kreen have a poison bite, but they don't get that until level 9 when they're fully mature; all NPC thri-kreen have a poison bite because they don't normally leave their home until they mature, unless they're PCs (who have left early for whatever reason) or young encountered in the lair." Having the same flavor as an NPC race is about the best you can ask for, because the rigid mold of PC races leaves no room for mechanical originality aside from the racial power (and that only sometimes).
I agree that 4e Dark Sun just won't be the same, but not because of the imbalance; the races are well-balanced in general and only need a few tweaks (such as removing the thri-kreen's Matrix-like missile dodging skillz). Rather, it's because half-giants, thri-kreen, defilers, psionicists, and pretty much all the rest of the iconic things would only be pale imitations of their former selves.
The thing is that if i play a Half giant, i dont wanna be the weak half giant ( as you would be if you had only certain part of the strenghs of the race, and still be as much competent as other races), in therms of game mechanics balance is very important, and too, a thri kreen character doesnt have to be just like the killing machine the NPC thri kreen is.
Then don't be a weak half-giant. Start out with a 16-18 in your strength stat, before racial modification, giving you a stat of 18-20 after modification. Then play a class that relies on strength, and make strength that you pump with your level bonuses. End game you will end up with a strength of 26-28. There is nothing weak about that. And all it required, in terms of a racial bonus to strength, is a +2.
But i dont think its quite fun to play de weak version of a more powerfull race... at least i would like to be the fun of every NPC half giant haha.
Except, you are not a weak version of a more powerful race. The race is not designed to be leveled. It is a mob. It doesn't gain PC powers, not at-will, per encounter, or per day. It doesn't gain PC feats. A PC race doesn't need all the exact same benefits as the NPC, because the PC racial bonuses are designed to supplement and enhance already existing PC level mechanics, not exist as a stand alone set of abilities to challenge PCs. Just because a NPC stat block for a race has a strength score of 24 doesn't mean that a PC needs a +8 strength bonus to represent his membership as a member of that race. A +2 to strength, and choosing to make strength one of their heist stats, in combination with a class who's primary stat is strength, will already represent (and result in) a racial character with a strength of 24 (or even higher end game).
Dont you guys agree with that? Doesnt it seems wierd tha "ok i am a halfgiant, but erm... no i cant move that rock... way too heavy for me" ... i know that in terms of game mechanics is pretty good, but how would you put in game terms... "Well i was the weaker of my tribe and i was cast awat" or something like that? or you guys got another idea?
No, I don't think it is weird. And if you choose to play a half-giant with a low strength, then yes, you are a weaker member of the tribe. On the other hand, there is no reason for you to need to do so. As I pointed out above, only gaining a +2 bonus to strength doesn't mean you cant end up with a strength score higher than what the NPC racial stat block has. You can choose whether you want to be a stronger member of the tribe, or a weaker one. In the end, its up to you.
I agree that 4e Dark Sun just won't be the same, but not because of the imbalance; the races are well-balanced in general and only need a few tweaks (such as removing the thri-kreen's Matrix-like missile dodging skillz). Rather, it's because half-giants, thri-kreen, defilers, psionicists, and pretty much all the rest of the iconic things would only be pale imitations of their former selves.
And I don't agree with you. Between racial feats, abilities, stat bonuses, and existing PC leveling mechanics, I think that it is possible to represent the flavor of any NPC with a parallel PC build. Likewise, I think it would be very easy to introduce new feats to represents defiling (and to assume that all characters are preservers unless they take defiling feats). Are the mechanics exactly the same? No, but I don't feel they need to be. I feel that the 4e mechanics can model the fluff of Dark Sun just as well as any prior edition can. I also feel that a 4e mechanical modeling of Dark Sun fluff would definitely be closer to my personal definition of "fun mechanics."
A 4e Dark Sun won't be the same. It will be a 4e game, not a 2e game. But it won't be a "pale imitation" of anything. It will be a different mechanical product, the same product in terms of fluff, and a product of at least equal (and superior in my personal opinion) quality. I don't find my experience playing 4e to be a pale imitation of 2e. I don't find it to be a pale imitation of playing 3e. I find it to be a superior, more fun, experience. I would find my experience of playing a 4e Dark Sun to be the same (as long as fidelity of fluff was maintained).
And I don't agree with you. Between racial feats, abilities, stat bonuses, and existing PC leveling mechanics, I think that it is possible to represent the flavor of any NPC with a parallel PC build.
You can have a somewhat-passable representation, but you can never get it completely there. This is a problem both in 2e and 4e, but it still makes no sense to have PCs be the only members of their race that are different from the monsters. Once in a while, yes, it certainly works, but not by default. My favorite aspect of 3e (and one of the few that convinced me to switch) was the fact that 3e monsters use the same mechanical chassis as the PCs, so a PC goblin or githyanki or whatever can do the same things as an NPC goblin or githyanki or whatever and vice versa.
For instance, take a look at the eladrin entry in the Monster Manual (because that's the first PC race monster I found). The fancily-named Twilight Encanter has an ability called Teleporting Bolt that lets you teleport the target of your attacks. Now, what class is the Encanter? So far as I know, there's no wizard, swordmage, warlock, sorcerer, or bard power that lets you do that, so it must be some special eladrin racial power. Great, so how do you pick that up--a feat? Um...no. Paragon path? Nope. Alternate racial power of some sort? No. It's some mystical power that Joe NPC Eladrin can get at level 8 but Heroic PC Eladrin can't get.
Now, you could make a feat/PP/etc. for that ability, of course you could, but that still leaves tons of examples of this PC-NPC double standard where you can give the NPCs whatever the heck you want but PCs' racial abilities are constrained in a particular way, the class abilities follow the same format, etc.
Likewise, I think it would be very easy to introduce new feats to represents defiling (and to assume that all characters are preservers unless they take defiling feats). Are the mechanics exactly the same? No, but I don't feel they need to be. I feel that the 4e mechanics can model the fluff of Dark Sun just as well as any prior edition can.
Alright, so: defiling. In the most basic sense, defiling lets you turn the area around you into dead terrain (and eventually drain creatures) while becoming more personally powerful. How do we do that in 4e? Well, the "more personally powerful" thing is right out, because everyone advances on the same experience track.
We could add a free "turn the area within close burst X to difficult terrain and inflict a -Y initiative penalty" rider effect to wizard powers--except that would be a bit overpowered to add that on to every wizard or warlock power, don't you think? Free life draining stuff...well, the warlock's dark pact kind of does that, but all kinds of warlocks and wizards should be able to defile. Free metamagic/bonuses/whatever? Nope, too powerful.
2e defilers are balanced by having a good chance of gaining fewer spells per day, gaining an increasing Charisma penalty for interactions, and a bunch of other impediments. You can't take away spells per day, since everyone has to have the same number of powers and they're few enough as-is relatively speaking. Ability penalties don't exist in 4e, and the other impediments make no sense in 4e's system.
A 4e Dark Sun won't be the same. It will be a 4e game, not a 2e game. But it won't be a "pale imitation" of anything. It will be a different mechanical product, the same product in terms of fluff, and a product of at least equal (and superior in my personal opinion) quality. I don't find my experience playing 4e to be a pale imitation of 2e. I don't find it to be a pale imitation of playing 3e. I find it to be a superior, more fun, experience. I would find my experience of playing a 4e Dark Sun to be the same (as long as fidelity of fluff was maintained).
Keep in mind, I'm not saying at all that I think 3e did this better with Athas.org's conversion--far from it. The most basic flavor of "joining the Dark Side for quick easy power" doesn't work in either edition, and the solution of tacking on free metamagic is something any wizard can do with Incantatrix if he really wants to. I'm just saying that when it comes to 2e campaign settings, 4e (and often 3e) just can't get the same feel. A similar feel, sure, but a feat for difficult terrain in a burst 1 does not a defiler make.
4e should stick to what it does best, providing a streamlined, fast-paced, engaging, tactical game--not trying to recreate old settings and doing them a disservice (old FR, I'm looking at you). Don't turn this into a "3e is better than 4e" discussion, because I'm not complaining about 4e as a system (except the PC-NPC thing, which I hated in 1e and 2e as well). I'm saying that a 4e Dark Sun will inevitably disappoint. FR was nuked into oblivion to fit into the 4e mold, Eberron had some "minor cosmetic fluff changes" made that messed with the underlying setting assumptions, and a 4e Dark Sun would most likely be the same way.
Forget the Gray, since that would rule out shadow classes and immortals and such and that's not going to happen, and now that I think about it that makes eladrin make no sense unless they do what they did in Eberron and plunk down eladrin towers in the middle of the desert. Forget the elemental priests, since one little Channel Divinity feat doesn't compose an entire sect of priests that eventually transform into elementals. Forget the whole "arcanists are hunted down and priests don't worship gods and druids are recluses" thing, because I guarantee you WotC wouldn't make druids (and shamans and invokers and avengers and...) minor parts of the setting when there's a chance to add more arcane, primal, and shadow material.
[/rant]
Warning: Rant ahead.
Warning: You are about to receive a rant of my own.
You can have a somewhat-passable representation, but you can never get it completely there.
I don't agree. You can not, in all cases, get the mechanics completely 100% there. You can, however, fully capture the feel and flavor. For example, lets look at your example of the Eladrin entry. Teleporting bolt is pretty much a ranged magical attack that teleports a target 3 squares. So is the warlock spell summons of khirad. I found that one by just cracking my book open to the warlock chapter. Are the mechanics for teleporting bolt and summons of khirad exactly the same? No. But they are similar enough that one can invoke the flavor of the other. I am certain that if I was not too lazy to search through my books some more, I could find you a few other examples of powers that would do the same. This is not a case of all PCs being the only members of the race that are different from the NPCs. They are not "different" in terms of fluff. They are different in terms of the mechanical rules that dictate the statistical growth of players and the statistical entries of NPCs. This is because NPCs don't need to feature statistical growth. All that is required is an entry to achieve successful encounter resolution when that NPC is engaged in combat.
Now, its totally fair that your favorite aspect of 3e was the fact that 3e monsters use the same mechanical chassis as the PCs. I can see the appeal. But it is not a problem that 4e chose to go with a route that divorces the mechanics of player characters from non player characters. I can also see the appeal of this divorce, as it allows DMs to build encounters and foes in a far faster and easier manner than would be required if monster building was as complex as player character building. I HATED building encounters in 3e. The encounter building mechanics of 3e were part of the reason I ended up not playing 3e, long before 4e was announced, or evidence of 4e was even on the horizon. Building encounters in 3e was incredibly time consuming. And for what? For encounters that would be resolved in a fraction of the time it took me to prepare them? No thanks. The simplicity and speed of the encounter building mechanics in 4e is one of the things that convinced ME to pick up D&D again. When I finally get a chance to start DMing again (little to busy at this point in time in the year, unfortunately) that will be a huge lifesaver for me. Because really, a player never needs to see exactly how the mechanics of a monster works, and my narrative descriptions for the resolution of a monsters mechanics don't need to be any different then the narrative descriptions that could potentially be used to describe the resolution of certain PC mechanics, even if the actual mechanics between the two are slightly different.
Alright, so: defiling. In the most basic sense, defiling lets you turn the area around you into dead terrain (and eventually drain creatures) while becoming more personally powerful. How do we do that in 4e?... 2e defilers are balanced by having a good chance of gaining fewer spells per day, gaining an increasing Charisma penalty for interactions, and a bunch of other impediments. You can't take away spells per day, since everyone has to have the same number of powers and they're few enough as-is relatively speaking...
I already told you how you model defiling in 4e, via feats. As for what those feats do, it is easy to have them work in a manner that directly evokes the flavor of 2e, specifically the flavor of having "less spells per day." The DDI article on assassins (not the new class, but the mechanics for all classes) would be an ideal place to look for a model of defiling mechanics. Included in that article are some new "multiclass" feats that allow for power swaps. Some of the power swap "multiclass feats" give new powers that are used to make improved attacks with the powers a character already possess instead of providing complete new powers. For example, some of them allow you to use a daily power, but with a significant boost in that daily power's damage dice, or with an added (save ends) effect. So, some defiling "multiclass" feats that allow you to swap a per encounter power, utility power, and per day power, with a power that basically lets you use one of your other existing powers (daily or otherwise), but with added bonus effects or damage dice, perfectly models a defilers "increased power" at the cost of their "spell slots" (without actually removing any of the character's power slots).
I'm just saying that when it comes to 2e campaign settings, 4e (and often 3e) just can't get the same feel. A similar feel, sure, but a feat for difficult terrain in a burst 1 does not a defiler make.
And I disagree with you.
4e should stick to what it does best, providing a streamlined, fast-paced, engaging, tactical game--not trying to recreate old settings and doing them a disservice (old FR, I'm looking at you).
And again, I disagree with you. I think what 4e does best is run ANY D&D setting from ANY era of D&D's history, 2e, 3e, or otherwise. It is certainly much better for resolving fast-pasted, engaging, tactical combat resolution. But I find it better as a role-playing engine as well. I also don't find what was done to FR to be a disservice. I finally like FR again! But I hated the old realms, so... It should also be noted that what was done to FR has nothing to do with rules changes, and everything to do with fluff alterations.
Don't turn this into a "3e is better than 4e" discussion, because I'm not complaining about 4e as a system (except the PC-NPC thing, which I hated in 1e and 2e as well).
You are absolutely complaining about 4e as a system. You are just trying to cloak that complaint behind the disingenuous statement that "4e is great at running fast-paced engaging tactical combats, so that is what it should stick to." You are pretty much saying that its not an RPG, but a tactical combat game. Thing is, I think its a great RPG. It is my system of preference for running ALL fantasy role-playing encounters, combat or otherwise. And 4e can absolutely be used to resolve encounters in older 2e campaign settings. This use will not be a pale imitation of those older settings, but a new way to model encounter resolution in those older settings. A way that I personally find more fun.
I'm saying that a 4e Dark Sun will inevitably disappoint. FR was nuked into oblivion to fit into the 4e mold, Eberron had some "minor cosmetic fluff changes" made that messed with the underlying setting assumptions, and a 4e Dark Sun would most likely be the same way.
And I am saying that when you make statements like this, you are full of it. FR was drastically changed. Its true. But its changes have nothing to do with them being needed to fit the 4e mold. 4e could just as easily be used to model a FR setting closer to that presented in the 3e era of FR. The designers, for whatever reasons, chose to make drastic fluff changes as well as mechanical changes. Personally, I am happy they did. I now find the new FR setting more playable. I undersand that the majority of FR fans on the FR boards disagree ,though.
But Eberron really does have only minor cosmetic changes. Trying to trumpet Eberron as a setting undergoing massive game breaking changes that mess with the underlying setting assumptions is totally bologna and disingenuous. The majority of Eberrons fans over on the Eberron boards disagree with you. And I certainly disagree with you! Eberron 4e looks pretty much the same as Eberron 3e. One of the biggest changes made to the setting is probably its inclusion of Eladrin... and quite frankly, as Keith Baker has pointed out, these changes add to the setting and enhance it, they don't detract from it. Virtually every change made to the Eberron setting in some way directly ties to the older 3e Eberron lore in an interesting and exciting way. They feel like unearthed facts, and not a change in the settings underlying assumptions. That is the opinion of the majority of Eberrons fans. That is the opinion of Eberron's creator, Keith Baker. So, your claim that taking and old setting and using it to write a 4e version of the setting will inevitably result in that setting being a disappointment (to the majority of that setting's fans) is totally bogus.
Perhaps you personally would be disappointed by such a setting. But this doesn't mean that such a setting would inevitably be a disappointment. What this means is that such a setting would inevitably be a disappointment TO YOU, because you hold a particular predisposed perspective of/grudge against 4e.
Your list of "problems that can't be worked out" using the 4e system is not actually a list of "problems that can't be worked out." Its a list of places where you have a conceptual block, and refuse to see how 4e could be used to model that aspect of Dark Sun. 4e would be a perfectly workable engine to run a Dark Sun setting. Personally, I pray and hope that Dark Sun is the 2010 setting released. If it isn't, I hope we see it in 2011. A 4e Dark Sun would make me very, very happy. It would not be a "pale imitation" of anything. From my perspective, it would be a new and improved version. I am sure quite a few others feel the same way.
For example, lets look at your example of the Eladrin entry. Teleporting bolt is pretty much a ranged magical attack that teleports a target 3 squares. So is the warlock spell summons of khirad. I found that one by just cracking my book open to the warlock chapter. Are the mechanics for teleporting bolt and summons of khirad exactly the same? No. But they are similar enough that one can invoke the flavor of the other. I am certain that if I was not too lazy to search through my books some more, I could find you a few other examples of powers that would do the same.
Okay, I conceed this example; no one I know has played a warlock, so I'm not familiar with all of their powers offhand.
This is not a case of all PCs being the only members of the race that are different from the NPCs. They are not "different" in terms of fluff. They are different in terms of the mechanical rules that dictate the statistical growth of players and the statistical entries of NPCs. This is because NPCs don't need to feature statistical growth. All that is required is an entry to achieve successful encounter resolution when that NPC is engaged in combat.
But here's the thing--they are different in terms of fluff as well. That example eladrin? Sure, I missed the warlock power, so maybe the eladrin is a warlock. But then why is the entry not a base NPC eladrin to which you can apply class templates? Why is the ability not "choose a single warlock power of level X or lower"? Can all of his other powers be gained by a warlock (whether from warlock or multiclassing or whatever)? Probably not.
Another difference that everyone emphasizes is the HP-to-damage ratio. PCs have high damage and low health, with a bunch of healing surges to recover HP; monsters have high health and low damage, with token healing surges that never get used. Why is that? Why is it that, if monsters are meant to go 1-on-1 with PCs, they can't have similar health and damage values?
Now, its totally fair that your favorite aspect of 3e was the fact that 3e monsters use the same mechanical chassis as the PCs. I can see the appeal. But it is not a problem that 4e chose to go with a route that divorces the mechanics of player characters from non player characters. I can also see the appeal of this divorce, as it allows DMs to build encounters and foes in a far faster and easier manner than would be required if monster building was as complex as player character building.
Monsters using the same system as PCs shouldn't affect encounter building; if you use monsters right out of the MMs, the math is all done for you. What using the same system does is (A) put PCs and monsters on the same number scale for HP, damage, etc. and (B) ensure uniformity so that PCs and monsters can both use the same resources (feats, spells, etc.).
If you're homebrewing monsters, that's not "encounter creation" per se (though I realize it can be time-consuming). In either system, you still pull numbers off a chart to see what's right for a given level, except that in 3e you say "Here's what a monster of this type and HD gets" and in 4e you say "Here's what a monster of this role and HD gets"--same level of complication there--and making up abilities is about the same as well.
I HATED building encounters in 3e. The encounter building mechanics of 3e were part of the reason I ended up not playing 3e, long before 4e was announced, or evidence of 4e was even on the horizon. Building encounters in 3e was incredibly time consuming. And for what? For encounters that would be resolved in a fraction of the time it took me to prepare them? No thanks. The simplicity and speed of the encounter building mechanics in 4e is one of the things that convinced ME to pick up D&D again.
I've seen this before, and I don't quite understand it. 4e is supposed to drastically improve the encounter creation time...yet in both of them, you say "Here's a bunch of monsters whose [numbers] add up to the right value" (where [numbers] is CR in 3e and XP in 4e) and you're good to go. Now, I am a vocal proponent of the opinion that CR is borked and has been for a while, but if you know your group is more or less powerful you simply use a higher or lower target CR until you get the right one, just as you'd increase the XP budget if your 4e party is steamrolling encounters.
If you're talking about monster abilities, well, it's no harder to say "Hmm, my wizard likes fire spells, let's throw in a (Fire) monster" than it is to say "Hmm, my wizard likes fire powers, let's throw in a fire-resistant monster," or [insert tactic and counter-tactic] here.
I already told you how you model defiling in 4e, via feats. As for what those feats do, it is easy to have them work in a manner that directly evokes the flavor of 2e, specifically the flavor of having "less spells per day." The DDI article on assassins (not the new class, but the mechanics for all classes) would be an ideal place to look for a model of defiling mechanics. Included in that article are some new "multiclass" feats that allow for power swaps. Some of the power swap "multiclass feats" give new powers that are used to make improved attacks with the powers a character already possess instead of providing complete new powers. For example, some of them allow you to use a daily power, but with a significant boost in that daily power's damage dice, or with an added (save ends) effect. So, some defiling "multiclass" feats that allow you to swap a per encounter power, utility power, and per day power, with a power that basically lets you use one of your other existing powers (daily or otherwise), but with added bonus effects or damage dice, perfectly models a defilers "increased power" at the cost of their "spell slots" (without actually removing any of the character's power slots).
I don't have access to DDI, but that sounds a heck of a lot like metamagic feats in 3e. As I said before, the Dragon "defiling = free Empower and Maximize" doesn't quite feel right. How about some initiative/Reflex penalties, life draining, difficult terrain, that sort of thing? Any wizard or warlock can make powers do more damage.
And again, I disagree with you. I think what 4e does best is run ANY D&D setting from ANY era of D&D's history, 2e, 3e, or otherwise. It is certainly much better for resolving fast-pasted, engaging, tactical combat resolution. But I find it better as a role-playing engine as well.
Yes, it can do combat and roleplaying. But can it do fluff? Sort of. Older editions have crunch and fluff intertwined. It wasn't a case of "Well, he does more damage, but we can flavor it as...." The mechanics supported the flavor and vice versa. 4e (and again, 3e to a lesser extent) don't do Dark Sun defiling, Al'Qadim sha-ir, Planescape divine connections, and other such "trademark" mechanics justice--slapping on free metamagic, or re-fluffing spell preparation, or imposing caster level penalties just isn't the same. Workable, yes; faithful, no.
I also don't find what was done to FR to be a disservice. I finally like FR again! But I hated the old realms, so...
That's exactly the problem. If you don't like FR, why would you ever run it? If you never ran it, why would you care what happens to it? WotC alienated the old FR fans in hopes of getting new FR fans. That worked, to a degree, but why not just keep FR as-is and make a new setting? They're doing 3-books-and-out for 4e settings, so doing a different setting isn't committing them to anything.
It should also be noted that what was done to FR has nothing to do with rules changes, and everything to do with fluff alterations.
Reeeeally. Every single edition change has been accompanied by a Realms-Shaking EventTM, a fluff change to justify rules changes. Every RSE is, without a doubt, rules-motivated. Yet after every prior RSE (and there were many of them), the continent was left intact, the races were basically the same, and things worked as before for the most part.
Killing off tons of gods and "neatening up" the pantheon? Rules change; no god means no Channel Divinity feat. Wiping out countries? Rules change; no nation-specific Paths from there, or regional feats or whatever. Spellplague? Rules change; introducing a Dragonmark ripoff. Destruction of the Weave? Rules change; explains the at-will/encounter/daily vs. Vancian gap. And so on.
You are absolutely complaining about 4e as a system. You are just trying to cloak that complaint behind the disingenuous statement that "4e is great at running fast-paced engaging tactical combats, so that is what it should stick to." You are pretty much saying that its not an RPG, but a tactical combat game.
Excuse me? Saying 4e does combat well is complaining? 3e does fast-paced tactical combats too. D&D came from a tactical wargame, and doing tactical combat well is a good thing--I'm not going to tout it as an amazing, in-depth storytelling experience, because all of the free-form/storyteller/White Wolf games do it better.
And I am saying that when you make statements like this, you are full of it. FR was drastically changed. Its true. But its changes have nothing to do with them being needed to fit the 4e mold.
Needed to explain the powers vs. spells concept, which the 2e-3e transition did not.
Needed to explain why dragonborn, Primordials, et al. exist, which the 2e-3e transition did not.
Needed to justify the Dragonmarks ripoff, which the 2e-3e transition did not.
Needed to explain the reduced divine variety, which the 2e-3e transition did not.
2e to 3e kept Vancian magic, kept the same divine and arcane spells, etc., and kept the Weave, Mystra, and all of the older lore. 3e to 4e ditched Vancian magic, rewrote all the spells, etc. and clumsily killed Mystra, nuked the Weave, and collided and fused with a parallel-universe Material Plane. Looks like a 4e mold to me.
But Eberron really does have only minor cosmetic changes. Trying to trumpet Eberron as a setting undergoing massive game breaking changes that mess with the underlying setting assumptions is totally bologna and disingenuous. The majority of Eberrons fans over on the Eberron boards disagree with you. And I certainly disagree with you! Eberron 4e looks pretty much the same as Eberron 3e. One of the biggest changes made to the setting is probably its inclusion of Eladrin... and quite frankly, as Keith Baker has pointed out, these changes add to the setting and enhance it, they don't detract from it. Virtually every change made to the Eberron setting in some way directly ties to the older 3e Eberron lore in an interesting and exciting way. They feel like unearthed facts, and not a change in the settings underlying assumptions. That is the opinion of the majority of Eberrons fans. That is the opinion of Eberron's creator, Keith Baker. So, your claim that taking and old setting and using it to write a 4e version of the setting will inevitably result in that setting being a disappointment (to the majority of that setting's fans) is totally bogus.
You'll notice I only said they messed with the underlying setting assumptions, not that they wrecked it or anything so dramatic. Dragonmarks went from being race-specific to be generic for PCs (since we don't have to know or care how NPCs work), so the assumption went from "X race has X dragonmark. Dont't like it? Well, houserule it; the Houses are that way for a reason" to "Oh, yeah, normally you have to have X bloodline for X dragonmark, but PCs are special and prophesied so they can have whichever they want." The former makes it actually rare and unusual for a PC to sport the wrong dragonmark; the latter makes it more likely that any given PC you run into with a dragonmark will just pick the one that fits his build. A fundamental change? Yes. A setting-wrecking change? No.
I do realize that some may like this formalization of the PCs-are-special-and-different aspect; I just prefer the 3e Eberron paradigm of the PCs being the heroes but not necessarily being unique prophesied saviors of the world. I never claimed that the Eberron changes were bad, anymore than I suggested the FR changes were good. The fact remains that they are changes, and that they're not going to be the same as the old version. I, personally, hate new FR. I, personally, don't mind new Eberron. I, personally, think that trying to shoehorn 2e settings into the 4e rules is a mistake, just as it was often a mistake to shoehorn them into 3e rules.
Perhaps you personally would be disappointed by such a setting. But this doesn't mean that such a setting would inevitably be a disappointment. What this means is that such a setting would inevitably be a disappointment TO YOU, because you hold a particular predisposed perspective of/grudge against 4e.
Your list of "problems that can't be worked out" using the 4e system is not actually a list of "problems that can't be worked out." Its a list of places where you have a conceptual block, and refuse to see how 4e could be used to model that aspect of Dark Sun.
It's not a matter of grudges or not; it's a matter of things that just won't work.
Elemental clerics cannot be done as they were in 2e; all of the noncombat abilities will either be turned into combat powers (negating their purpose) or turned into rituals (in which case any ol' PC can pick them up), and the transformation into an elemental can only be worked into an epic destiny because you don't get class features after 1st level (in which case a cleric can take a different destiny, which changes "Experienced elemental priests turn into elementals" into "Experienced elemental priests can turn into elementals, if they really want to. Oh, and anyone who multiclassed cleric at or before 20th level.").
Thri-kreen cannot be done as they were in 2e; they have too many racial abilities to gain them all immediately and their advanced abilities are too potent for feats. That leaves racial multiclassing feats like the dhampyr, which then prohibits thri-kreen from otherwise multiclassing, and if you tell a thri-kreen he's no longer allowed to become a fighter/cleric he'd probably bite you.
Whether you mind these changes or not (and you apparently don't, whereas I feel that it is these small details which really make the setting more than "people on a dying desert world"), the fact remains that these things can't be done in 4e unless you really stretch the system and/or change the rules and/or restrict character choice to make them work.
4e would be a perfectly workable engine to run a Dark Sun setting. Personally, I pray and hope that Dark Sun is the 2010 setting released. If it isn't, I hope we see it in 2011. A 4e Dark Sun would make me very, very happy. It would not be a "pale imitation" of anything. From my perspective, it would be a new and improved version. I am sure quite a few others feel the same way.
Yes, there are very many people who want a 4e Dark Sun. There were also very many people who wanted 4e FR. Now there remain many people who want 4e Dark Sun, and many people who are wishing they could throttle their former selves.
Elemental clerics cannot be done as they were in 2e; all of the noncombat abilities will either be turned into combat powers (negating their purpose) or turned into rituals (in which case any ol' PC can pick them up), and the transformation into an elemental can only be worked into an epic destiny because you don't get class features after 1st level (in which case a cleric can take a different destiny, which changes "Experienced elemental priests turn into elementals" into "Experienced elemental priests can turn into elementals, if they really want to. Oh, and anyone who multiclassed cleric at or before 20th level.").
Clerics never had to become advanced beings; they had a choice.
As for the requirements for such an epic destiny... I imagine they'll be something like the requirements for the martial archetype epic destiny from Martial Power. Something like...
Prerequisites: 21st level, any elemental class, paragon multiclassing in a psionic class.
(Replace "elemental" with "divine" if a reflavored divine power source is used instead of the elemental power source.)
But here's the thing--they are different in terms of fluff as well. That example eladrin? Sure, I missed the warlock power, so maybe the eladrin is a warlock. But then why is the entry not a base NPC eladrin to which you can apply class templates? Why is the ability not "choose a single warlock power of level X or lower"? Can all of his other powers be gained by a warlock (whether from warlock or multiclassing or whatever)? Probably not.
Because it makes no difference. I already proved that a character can take a power which evokes the flavor of that particular NPC build. I already mentioned that NPCs and PCs will not have exactly the same mechanics (which I consider preferable for a wide variety of reasons). I already stated it makes no difference, because very similar abilities do exist, and players can create builds which evoke the flavor of their NPC counterparts. Its your shtick that flavor equals same mechanics. But, that is your conceptual block/personal perspective, not a reality.
Is a twilight encanter necessarily a warlock? No. But a PC trying to build a twilight encanter probably would be, at least from a point of view of mechanics.
Another difference that everyone emphasizes is the HP-to-damage ratio. PCs have high damage and low health, with a bunch of healing surges to recover HP; monsters have high health and low damage, with token healing surges that never get used. Why is that? Why is it that, if monsters are meant to go 1-on-1 with PCs, they can't have similar health and damage values?
Again, this is an issue of your personal conceptual block, and not some essential quality which actually stops 4e from replicating any prior campaign settings to the satisfaction of the majority of a particular setting's fans.
But if you really want to know why it is designed that way, this is why: because it makes the DMs life easier, and the PCs life more fun. PCs require a wide set of diverse and tactical capabilities. They need complex (tactically speaking) characters, because they only play one single character. The tactical fun of playing that character comes from a characters ability to interact with the complex (from a tactical point of view, not from a rules point of view) aspect of that characters mechanics. Low hit points and lots of healing surges means that a character needs to think about when they should heal. As healing usually comes from a party member, this results in tactical (fun) group dynamics. A DM, however, controls not a single character but a host of NPCs. Usually, the less complexity that DM needs to think about, the better. He already has to work on a more complex/tactical level then the players on the simple grounds that he has to control not a single PC, but an entire "war band" of monsters. So, each monster having few healing surges but lots of HP makes the DMs life easier.
This is why a rift between PC mechanics and NPC mechanics can work very well, and does in 4e.
Monsters using the same system as PCs shouldn't affect encounter building; if you use monsters right out of the MMs, the math is all done for you. What using the same system does is (A) put PCs and monsters on the same number scale for HP, damage, etc. and (B) ensure uniformity so that PCs and monsters can both use the same resources (feats, spells, etc.).
Yes, having monsters use the same system does do that. In practice, 3e proved that it also makes encounter building more of a pain in the backside. I know. I built encounters both in 3e and 4e. Hell, like I said, I understand why having monsters and PCs on the same system appeals to you. I understand your logic. I love SAGA edition, and I like that in SAGA edition NPCs and PCs are built the same way. But, the fact is, that practice does make encounter building more of a pain.
The way 4e chooses to do things is not better or worse. It is different. From the perspective of a DMs ease of use, its better. From the perspective of a desire for mechanical simulation, its worse. But the thing is, from the perspective of a desire for "simulation," you only make the 4e way of doing things "worse" if you choose to gravitate on simulation equaling game mechanics, fluff equaling game mechanics. If you don't, and you choose to instead gravitate on the narrative outcome of the encounter resolution mechanics, there is no problem. If you choose not to, the issue is not with the game, but your your perspective/conceptual block. 4e might not appeal to your tastes, and I can understand that, but that doesn't mean that it can not model Dark Sun in a perfectly acceptable manner to someone who does not gravitate to the details as you.
If you're homebrewing monsters, that's not "encounter creation" per se (though I realize it can be time-consuming). In either system, you still pull numbers off a chart to see what's right for a given level, except that in 3e you say "Here's what a monster of this type and HD gets" and in 4e you say "Here's what a monster of this role and HD gets"--same level of complication there--and making up abilities is about the same as well.
I've seen this before, and I don't quite understand it. 4e is supposed to drastically improve the encounter creation time...yet in both of them, you say "Here's a bunch of monsters whose [numbers] add up to the right value" (where [numbers] is CR in 3e and XP in 4e) and you're good to go. Now, I am a vocal proponent of the opinion that CR is borked and has been for a while, but if you know your group is more or less powerful you simply use a higher or lower target CR until you get the right one, just as you'd increase the XP budget if your 4e party is steamrolling encounters.
Except, the level of complication is NOT the same. In theory, perhaps you pull numbers off "charts" in both systems. Indeed, if you break it down to the simplest description, in both systems you build monsters by cracking open a book and writing numbers on a piece of paper. But in practice, the two systems are not equally difficult to use. 4e is far simpler/quicker to navigate in terms of monster creation. Again, I know, I have built monsters for both systems. Building monsters for 4e is incredibly easy. Part of the reason it is easy is because you don't use the same complex method of building monsters that PCs use to build their characters. The way they are built if far more simple in practice.
This is simple fact. If you don't understand it, you have either not used the 4e system to regularly build encounters (as well as had prior experience regularly building monsters using the 3e system), or you are intentionally deluding yourself. 3e had many strengths. Those strengths, by and large, don't appeal to my tastes, but they existed. A quick monster creation system was not one of them. It is a bonus of 4e.
If you're talking about monster abilities, well, it's no harder to say "Hmm, my wizard likes fire spells, let's throw in a (Fire) monster" than it is to say "Hmm, my wizard likes fire powers, let's throw in a fire-resistant monster," or [insert tactic and counter-tactic] here.
And this paragraph just proves that you really have no idea how 4e works. The notion of throwing in monsters with immunity to counter characters is exactly what 4e is NOT about. That was an aspect of 3e. It is an aspect of 3e that was largely removed.
I don't have access to DDI, but that sounds a heck of a lot like metamagic feats in 3e. As I said before, the Dragon "defiling = free Empower and Maximize" doesn't quite feel right. How about some initiative/Reflex penalties, life draining, difficult terrain, that sort of thing? Any wizard or warlock can make powers do more damage.
And again, what you think does or doesn't feel quite right is really a little irrelevant. All that matters is that it please the majority of the fans of Dark Sun. In the old Dark Sun, characters had more powerful spells, but less spell slots. The mechanic I named would perfectly model that. Also, there is nothing to stop the "power enhancing powers" of the defiler from creating difficult terrain, or imposing Reflex penalties. Hell, perhaps the use of these powers requires an action that is not part of the primary action used... this in itself would model the "slower casting" of such powers. Feats, a paragon path and/or epic destiny could also add further defiling mechanics.
Yes, it can do combat and roleplaying. But can it do fluff?
Yes, and your argument to the contrary is hollow. Every epic destiny I have read comes with fluff. So does every class. So do campaign settings. If you personally happen not to like the way the fluff and mechanics of 4e interact, this is your personal problem, not an actual problem with the game. I love the way 4es fluff and mechanics interact. You might personally say "4e dosn't do defiling, divine connection, and other 'trademark' mechanics justice," but I say that this statement is full of it. 4e absolutely can do such mechanics justice. It absolutely can be faithful to the fluff of such abilities. This does not require that it be faithful to the mechanics of how these abilities were modeled in 2e.
Reeeeally. Every single edition change has been accompanied by a Realms-Shaking EventTM, a fluff change to justify rules changes. Every RSE is, without a doubt, rules-motivated. Yet after every prior RSE (and there were many of them), the continent was left intact, the races were basically the same, and things worked as before for the most part.
Killing off tons of gods and "neatening up" the pantheon? Rules change; no god means no Channel Divinity feat. Wiping out countries? Rules change; no nation-specific Paths from there, or regional feats or whatever. Spellplague? Rules change; introducing a Dragonmark ripoff. Destruction of the Weave? Rules change; explains the at-will/encounter/daily vs. Vancian gap. And so on.
Yes, really. Your argument to the contrary is ridiculous. Killing a god is a rules change?
There is nothing that requires the setting to provide channel divinity feats for all gods. Indeed, as is, a number of the existing gods in the FR 4e pantheon do not gain channel divinity feats. Killing a god is the very definition of a fluff change. Any argument to the contrary is untenable. Wiping out a country is a rules change? There is nothing that requires the setting to provide nation specific paths or regional feats or backgrounds for all countries. As is, a number of countries receive no such mechanics, and are present in 4e only as fluff. Destroying a country is the very definition of a fluff change. Any argument to the contrary is untenable. Spellplague is a rules change? They may have added a some new mechanics based on the fluff of the spellplague, but the choice to include a spellplague is the very definition of a fluff change. Even if some mechanics were added to model this fluff change, any argument that the change is based primarily on mechanics rather than fluff is completely untenable (it should also be noted that the mechanics of the spellplague and dragonmarks are nowhere near similar). Destruction of the weave is a rules change? Sorry, why didn't they just choose to describe the new magic system as a result of the weave? They didn't need to create a meta fictional description to describe why the mechanics of the game changed. They chose to do so. This choice is the very definition of a fluff change. What is more, they chose a drastic fluff change. They didn't need to do this either. They could have chosen a meta fictional description that left Mystra alive, and altered the fiction to a much lesser degree.All of these are fluff changes. You can claim otherwise, but your claim just sounds ridiculous. Choosing to remove THACO is a rules change. Choosing to destroy gods, countries, and the fictional description for the power behind the use of magic, are all the very definition of fluff changes.
Excuse me? Saying 4e does combat well is complaining? 3e does fast-paced tactical combats too. D&D came from a tactical wargame, and doing tactical combat well is a good thing--I'm not going to tout it as an amazing, in-depth storytelling experience, because all of the free-form/storyteller/White Wolf games do it better.
This is a disingenuous argument. You are claiming that older editions of D&D did fluff better than 4e. You are claiming that 4e is better at fast passed tactical combat. This is a classing anti-4e rant: "4e is not an RPG, its a tactical miniatures wargame." Also, for the record, I do not feel that White Wolf games offer a better storytelling experience. I personally prefer the Saga system and 4e for my storytelling experiences. This is not to say I dislike White Wolf products! They are amazing. But I have never been very happy with the mechanics of their game.
Needed to explain the powers vs. spells concept, which the 2e-3e transition did not.
Except, they didn't need to explain this concept. They didn't need to explain "martial powers," they can simply be waved away as attacks. They didn't need to explain the different mechanics of spells, they could have simply said that they were spells. Even if they wanted to explain the different mechanics, they could have chosen a less drastic way to do so.
Needed to explain why dragonborn, Primordials, et al. exist, which the 2e-3e transition did not.
They didn't need to include either primorials or dragronborn in the settings. They could have chosen to leave these things as aspects of 4e that are not included in the FR setting.
Needed to justify the Dragonmarks ripoff, which the 2e-3e transition did not.
1) Its not a dragonmarks ripoff.
2) They didn't need to include that mechanic at all. That mechanic is an aftereffect of new fluff, not vice versa.
Needed to explain the reduced divine variety, which the 2e-3e transition did not.
1) Reduced divine variety? I count plenty of divine classes, with more on the horizon.
2) No they did not. Nothing needed to be said about it at all. They already have channel divinity feats tied to gods. They could have released new "domain" feats in the future. And not every god necessarily requires such a feat. There choice was a choice to alter fluff. It was a choice that did not need be made.
2e to 3e kept Vancian magic, kept the same divine and arcane spells, etc., and kept the Weave, Mystra, and all of the older lore. 3e to 4e ditched Vancian magic, rewrote all the spells, etc. and clumsily killed Mystra, nuked the Weave, and collided and fused with a parallel-universe Material Plane.
And aside from the Vancian magic and rewriting of spells bit, everything you just named deals not with rules but with fluff. The change of magic could have been ignored in a 4e version of the Realms. They could have simply said that the mechanics behind spells are now different, but the fluff behind them the same. They chose to explain the rules change with drastic meta fiction. It was not a necessary change. It was a choice of fluff change.
You'll notice I only said they messed with the underlying setting assumptions, not that they wrecked it or anything so dramatic.
I noticed what you said, and what you said was false. Allowing any character to take any dragonmark does not change the setting's underlying assumptions. In 3e, as is, various Eberron products features characters who had a dragonmark not tied to their race. 3e simply chose to model this possibility as a DMs or quest designers choice to break to the rules (or rather invoke rule 0). 4e chose to model this possibility by not including any rule on the player feats which stops any character from taking any dragonmark, and instead featuring fluff which states that dragonmarks are specifically tied to particular races, though very rare exceptions do happen. These exceptions should be restricted to players, and can have drastic consequences on the game played. A dragonmark occurring on the wrong race is likely to lead to attempts to assassinate said character. It is now up to the DM to enforce restrictions in his game if he wants to, instead of making it up to the DM to allow deviations if he wants to. The "underlying assumptions" of the setting, however, are the same. Dragonmarks exist. Dragonmarks are usually tied to specific races. Exceptions to the rule sometimes exist. What is more, this is a perfect example of an older edition of a setting being redone using 4e mechanics and appealing to the vast majority of the setting's fans here on the boards.
I do realize that some may like this formalization of the PCs-are-special-and-different aspect; I just prefer the 3e Eberron paradigm of the PCs being the heroes but not necessarily being unique prophesied saviors of the world.
That is pretty much what characters in Eberron always were, even in 3e. PCs would very quickly out-level the NPCs of Eberron, and be forced to deal with world altering, planes shifting, events in order to be challenged. If you shifted the focus away from this in YOUR Eberron games, that does not mean that this was not always the focus of the typical Eberron game.
I never claimed that the Eberron changes were bad, anymore than I suggested the FR changes were good. The fact remains that they are changes, and that they're not going to be the same as the old version.
And a new Dark Sun will not be mechanically identical to the 2e version either, and will probably have a few pieces of fluff altered here or there. That does not mean it will not be a product of equal quality. A 4e Dark Sun would not be a "pale imitation" of anything, whether it appealed to your tastes or not.
I, personally, hate new FR. I, personally, don't mind new Eberron. I, personally, think that trying to shoehorn 2e settings into the 4e rules is a mistake, just as it was often a mistake to shoehorn them into 3e rules.
And I personally really like the new FR, LOVE the new Eberron, and think re-releases of old 2e settings in 4e formats would be a great idea. I think you are wrong on all counts.
It's not a matter of grudges or not; it's a matter of things that just won't work.
It is totally a matter of grudges and perspectives. Just because you don't think something will work doesn't mean it won't. Hell, even if it were released, and you didn't think that it worked, that doesn't mean you would be correct. Each individual will have their own subjective opinion. And if the majority of those subjective opinions don't match yours, you would be empirically wrong in regards to everything but your own personal preferences.
Elemental clerics cannot be done as they were in 2e; all of the noncombat abilities will either be turned into combat powers (negating their purpose) or turned into rituals (in which case any ol' PC can pick them up), and the transformation into an elemental can only be worked into an epic destiny because you don't get class features after 1st level (in which case a cleric can take a different destiny, which changes "Experienced elemental priests turn into elementals" into "Experienced elemental priests can turn into elementals, if they really want to. Oh, and anyone who multiclassed cleric at or before 20th level.").
Epic destinies, rituals tied to specific classes (ala the Bard rituals), rituals in general, paragon paths, and feats, could perfectly model Elemental clerics, whether you like the idea of this modeling or not.
Thri-kreen cannot be done as they were in 2e; they have too many racial abilities to gain them all immediately and their advanced abilities are too potent for feats. That leaves racial multiclassing feats like the dhampyr, which then prohibits thri-kreen from otherwise multiclassing, and if you tell a thri-kreen he's no longer allowed to become a fighter/cleric he'd probably bite you.
A base race, racial paragon paths, and racial feats, can perfectly model a thri-kreen, whether you like the idea of this modeling or not.
Whether you mind these changes or not (and you apparently don't, whereas I feel that it is these small details which really make the setting more than "people on a dying desert world"), the fact remains that these things can't be done in 4e unless you really stretch the system and/or change the rules and/or restrict character choice to make them work.
Whether you mind these changes or not (and apparently you do) the fact remains that changes in the rules with 4e does not stop the system from evoking the fluff of a 2e setting in a completely satisfactory (if slightly different) manner.
Yes, there are very many people who want a 4e Dark Sun. There were also very many people who wanted 4e FR. Now there remain many people who want 4e Dark Sun, and many people who are wishing they could throttle their former selves.
And there are also many people who wanted a 4e Eberron, and are very happy with the result. What is your point? Dark Sun isn't FR, and nothing says it will be released in the same way.
But if you really want to know why it is designed that way, this is why: because it makes the DMs life easier, and the PCs life more fun. PCs require a wide set of diverse and tactical capabilities. They need complex (tactically speaking) characters, because they only play one single character. The tactical fun of playing that character comes from a characters ability to interact with the complex (from a tactical point of view, not from a rules point of view) aspect of that characters mechanics. Low hit points and lots of healing surges means that a character needs to think about when they should heal. As healing usually comes from a party member, this results in tactical (fun) group dynamics. A DM, however, controls not a single character but a host of NPCs. Usually, the less complexity that DM needs to think about, the better. He already has to work on a more complex/tactical level then the players on the simple grounds that he has to control not a single PC, but an entire "war band" of monsters. So, each monster having few healing surges but lots of HP makes the DMs life easier.
I'm a DM also, so I know how running a combat works, thank you. Why is monster healing such a big chore? Really, there's no reason healing makes it more complex; in fact, it makes things easier, because instead of dealing with attack rolls and defenses and all that, you simply target an ally and roll some dice (or don't roll if it's just a healing surge with no bonuses).
The way 4e chooses to do things is not better or worse. It is different. From the perspective of a DMs ease of use, its better. From the perspective of a desire for mechanical simulation, its worse. But the thing is, from the perspective of a desire for "simulation," you only make the 4e way of doing things "worse" if you choose to gravitate on simulation equaling game mechanics, fluff equaling game mechanics. If you don't, and you choose to instead gravitate on the narrative outcome of the encounter resolution mechanics, there is no problem. If you choose not to, the issue is not with the game, but your your perspective/conceptual block. 4e might not appeal to your tastes, and I can understand that, but that doesn't mean that it can not model Dark Sun in a perfectly acceptable manner to someone who does not gravitate to the details as you.
I make no secret of the fact that I prefer internal consistency over things that exist just for the sake of the story. I just think you can take a cinematic approach ("narrativist," if you insist) and still maintain internal consistency.
If you want a creature who drops in one blow, you use a minion, and if you want an exceptionally powerful creature you use a solo. Why should mooks and bosses have completely different mechanics? Mooks are usually the incompetent horde and bosses the individually powerful and competent masters, so why can't that be represented by simply having lower HD and ability scores for mooks and higher HD and ability scores for bosses?
There are many threads in Homebrew about how people want tougher minions, so obviously letting minions survive one or two hits isn't something people would really complain about despite the increased bookkeeping; the other major advantage cited is that minions can have level-appropriate attack and damage while still being easy to hit and kill, which can just as easily stem from a low Con and a high attack stat rather than unilaterally declaring that some monsters die in one hit.
I've also seen people describe how minions make things more cinematic by, for instance, having a gate guard be a minion if you get the drop on him and a real monster if you don't. This nicely models books and movies, where the hero's fate is already decided. However, D&D isn't a book or movie, it's a game where you can win or lose combats without the story ending or without winning or losing the game. You wouldn't declare that the PCs have 1 hit point if enemies attack them in their sleep, would you? So why do that to the NPCs? Having a cinematic style is one thing, trading consistent mechanics for cinematic mechanics when they both work just about as well as each other is another.
Except, the level of complication is NOT the same. In theory, perhaps you pull numbers off "charts" in both systems. Indeed, if you break it down to the simplest description, in both systems you build monsters by cracking open a book and writing numbers on a piece of paper. But in practice, the two systems are not equally difficult to use. 4e is far simpler/quicker to navigate in terms of monster creation. Again, I know, I have built monsters for both systems. Building monsters for 4e is incredibly easy. Part of the reason it is easy is because you don't use the same complex method of building monsters that PCs use to build their characters. The way they are built if far more simple in practice.
This is simple fact. If you don't understand it, you have either not used the 4e system to regularly build encounters (as well as had prior experience regularly building monsters using the 3e system), or you are intentionally deluding yourself. 3e had many strengths. Those strengths, by and large, don't appeal to my tastes, but they existed. A quick monster creation system was not one of them. It is a bonus of 4e.
Once again: please explain what exactly makes monster creation quicker in 4e. Maybe I'm just a fast 3e monster creator or a slow 4e monster creator, but I haven't noted an appreciable difference in creation time. In both systems, you grab the numbers off a chart and it's the special abilities that take the most work. In 4e, you take a monster, look up its expected attack values, and write that down--tweaking it somehow, of course, since many MM monsters don't precisely follow the rules, so you can tweak to taste; in 3e, you take a monster, look up whether its type has 1/1, 3/4, or 1/2 BAB, multiply by hit dice, and add Strength. In 4e it's role and type, in 3e it's HD and Strength. If you want to tweak the values in 3e, give it a bonus Weapon Focus or reduce its Strength or make it a special ability; just because you pull the numbers out of thin air in 4e and follow a structure in 3e doesn't mean determining what the final value should be is any easier.
In terms of special abilities, there's no single amount of time it will take. "Melee attack, 2d6 fire damage and push 2" is just as complicated to think up and write as "Melee touch, 2d6 fire damage, Reflex or knocked prone." Conversely, coming up with bunches of special abilities for Orcus is the same difficulty whether you're giving out spell-like abilities or making up auras from scratch. Again, I'm not seeing the huge timesavers in 4e.
And this paragraph just proves that you really have no idea how 4e works. The notion of throwing in monsters with immunity to counter characters is exactly what 4e is NOT about. That was an aspect of 3e. It is an aspect of 3e that was largely removed.
Screwing players over isn't an aspect of 3e any more than it is of 4e; if you want to **** with your players, you can do it in any edition. That was simply an example, and meant to illustrate that the tactical implications are largely the same in both editions--you look for (A) synergies among monsters, (B) foils for player ability, whether irritating or very challenging, and (C) an interesting location.
Yes, really. Your argument to the contrary is ridiculous. Killing a god is a rules change?
The very definition of a fluff change? Your argument was that it was solely fluff and didn't impact mechanics; if you have mechanics based on a god in one edition, and then remove that god in the next edition, you cannot by definition have any mechanics associated with that god.
Any argument to the contrary is untenable. Wiping out a country is a rules change?
Exactly. Present only as fluff. The mechanics from prior editions are no longer present. Personally, I coudn't care less about regional feats or their equivalent but the fact remains that there were rules for it in prior editions and none in 4e.
Spellplague is a rules change?
Not similar to the 4e dragonmarks, but "take 1-4 feats, gain a fancy power" is exactly what 3e dragonmarks are. Once again, whether it was inspired by the fluff change or vice versa, the Spellplague was not solely a fluff change; there are rules attacked.
Destruction of the weave is a rules change?
So if the Weave disappearing is a 100% fluff change, all of those feats, prestige classes, items, and such related to the Shadow Weave are no longer in existence because...?
All of these are fluff changes. You can claim otherwise, but your claim just sounds ridiculous. Choosing to remove THACO is a rules change. Choosing to destroy gods, countries, and the fictional description for the power behind the use of magic, are all the very definition of fluff changes.
Sure, they may be fluff changes by themselves, but my point was that they were there to justify the rules changes.
"These thingies called plague-somethingorothers give characters special abilities; what are those for?" "Well, there was this thing called the Spellplague...."
"Hey! What the Hells happened to the Shadow Weave magic? I wanted to make a wizard worshiping Shar who used it!" "Well, Mystra was killed (in a very contrived way), and...."
If the regional/Shadow Weave/etc. rules had been kept, or even just altered slightly, there would be no reason for the fluff changes.
This is a disingenuous argument. You are claiming that older editions of D&D did fluff better than 4e.
On the contrary--I claim that older editions better entwine flavor and mechanics, which is a benefit if you prefer internal consistency over cinematics and a detriment if not. The quality of flavor-qua-flavor, taken in a vacuum, is irrelevant.
You are claiming that 4e is better at fast passed tactical combat.
And so are you. "Monster creation is much faster"..."The DM needs a simpler system to make the encounters more tactical"...and so on. I said it did it well, which every single edition of D&D has done to a greater or lesser extent.
This is a classing anti-4e rant: "4e is not an RPG, its a tactical miniatures wargame."
You know what? I like tactical miniatures wargames. D&D started as a mod for a tactical miniatures wargame. If I thought it was a waste of time to play a tactical miniatures wargame, I wouldn't play any edition of D&D!
Also, for the record, I do not feel that White Wolf games offer a better storytelling experience. I personally prefer the Saga system and 4e for my storytelling experiences. This is not to say I dislike White Wolf products! They are amazing. But I have never been very happy with the mechanics of their game.
They do storytelling better in the sense that their games are focused on the narrative aspects, just as D&D does better combat than White Wolf games because the mechanics are focused on combat. I don't like WW games any more than you do, but I do acknowledge that if you want a system that mechanically supports storytelling over combat (rather than a system which simply does storytelling well), WW games are more popular.
They didn't need to include either primorials or dragronborn in the settings. They could have chosen to leave these things as aspects of 4e that are not included in the FR setting.
So why didn't they? They could have, but they did not. Thus, the only reason to add the fluff of impacting with an alternate material plane is to introduce those mechanics.
1) Reduced divine variety? I count plenty of divine classes, with more on the horizon.
I should have been more clear. "Reduced divine variety" in the sense of reduced variation of gods, not divine classes. They went from a diverse pantheon, with a realistic set of regional, bickering, overlapping gods to a much smaller pantheon, because the old setup was "just too cluttered." There are many redundant religions in the real world; is it "too messy" that we have both Zeus and Jupiter?
2) No they did not. Nothing needed to be said about it at all. They already have channel divinity feats tied to gods. They could have released new "domain" feats in the future. And not every god necessarily requires such a feat. There choice was a choice to alter fluff. It was a choice that did not need be made.
Once again: my point precisely. They did not need to make it. If they weren't going to make Channel Divinity or other god-related feats, why not simply keep the old pantheon, give a bullet-point summary of them, and leave it alone?
And aside from the Vancian magic and rewriting of spells bit, everything you just named deals not with rules but with fluff. The change of magic could have been ignored in a 4e version of the Realms. They could have simply said that the mechanics behind spells are now different, but the fluff behind them the same. They chose to explain the rules change with drastic meta fiction. It was not a necessary change. It was a choice of fluff change.
A fluff change to back mechanics. As you said, they could have easily kept the old fluff, tweaked a bit, to explain the new mechanics, as they always did before. There was no reason to kill off Mystra except to destroy the Weave and explain why magic is different.
That is pretty much what characters in Eberron always were, even in 3e. PCs would very quickly out-level the NPCs of Eberron, and be forced to deal with world altering, planes shifting, events in order to be challenged. If you shifted the focus away from this in YOUR Eberron games, that does not mean that this was not always the focus of the typical Eberron game.
There is a difference between the PCs being the go-to beings for help because they worked their way up from itinerant Last War veteran or minor Dragonmarked healer to powerful warriors and clerics, and the PCs being the go-to beings for help because they are destined for it. Yes, the draconic prophecy exists in Eberron, but it doesn't influence the world to the extent that every set of heroes is different just because they're the heroes.
All of the NPCs that had different dragonmarks specifically broke the rules; making dragonmarks PC-selectable only as the correct race meant that a DM was perfectly justified in saying "You're not some mythic being just because you're a PC; the last person who thought that was Vol and look what happened to her." The simply change from allowing PCs to break the mold through houseruling and encouraging PCs to break the mold by emphasizing their specialness does in fact change assumptions--you're not Joe, veteran of the Last War trying to make his way in the world, you're Joe, legendary fighter destined to kill the evil threatening the land.
Epic destinies, rituals tied to specific classes (ala the Bard rituals), rituals in general, paragon paths, and feats, could perfectly model Elemental clerics, whether you like the idea of this modeling or not.
So now everyone can pick up these abilities? A wizard can snatch a multiclass feat and draw on the power of an elemental just like the cleric who's been serving faithfully since level 1?
And there are also many people who wanted a 4e Eberron, and are very happy with the result. What is your point? Dark Sun isn't FR, and nothing says it will be released in the same way.
My point is that pretty much every FR fan was looking forward to a 4e release, saying "Well, yeah, every time there's an edition change they pull a RSE" and "Well, yeah, of course they're going to make some changes; why wouldn't they?" The book came out and ruined the setting. Yes, Eberron wasn't ruined or anything of the sort, but that doesn't mean that 4e Dark Sun is going to model 2e Dark Sun well at all. I guess I meant "be careful what you wish for."
I'm a DM also, so I know how running a combat works, thank you. Why is monster healing such a big chore?
Because it adds one extra mechanic that a DM has to keep track of. There are quite a few of those already. One less is usually a good thing.
I make no secret of the fact that I prefer internal consistency over things that exist just for the sake of the story. I just think you can take a cinematic approach ("narrativist," if you insist) and still maintain internal consistency.
You can. Saga edition did. But in doing so you will give up certain benefits from an approach that does not attach itself to internal consistency. The question is, how important are those benefits to you? Perhaps they are not important to YOU, but many others find them VERY important. I am not disputing that 4e is not your system of preference, and I am not saying it should be. But, just because it isn't your system of preference doesn't mean that its mechanics are not perfectly acceptable. Because really, the only person who ever has to "know" that something is not internally consist is the DM. He is the only one who should ever really be looking at all the rules. The rules hide behind narrative description, and narrative description is consistent. If this bothers you, this is YOUR problem, not the systems. This means that YOU should play another system, not that the system is poor, or that it can't model older settings in a perfectly acceptable manner. If people want it to model older settings, then it should. End of story.
If you want a creature who drops in one blow, you use a minion, and if you want an exceptionally powerful creature you use a solo. Why should mooks and bosses have completely different mechanics?
Because it works well as a set of encounter resolution mechanics from a point of view of modeling the a narrative of combat. You might not like it, but that doesn't mean it is not perfectly acceptable. If you want tougher minions, house rule them into existence. If you don't like the system, use a different one. But that does not mean that the system is not perfectly acceptable. Indeed, I really like the monster "type" (minion, brute, solo, etc.) mechanics. Many others do as well.
the other major advantage cited is that minions can have level-appropriate attack and damage while still being easy to hit and kill, which can just as easily stem from a low Con and a high attack stat rather than unilaterally declaring that some monsters die in one hit.
Yea. A low con and a high attack stat is another way to achieve a similar effect. However, it is not a better way. It is just a different way, and one that can potentially result in a number of problems all of its own. For example, why should all minions have a low con? Maybe a NPC fills the narrative role of a minion, should die easily in combat (because the NPC is not important and is space filler to the narrative), but represents someone who is extremely hardy/resistant to 'non combat dangers' (such as consumed poisons, sleeping agents, and the like)? The minion mechanic certainly models this type of character better than your low con/high attack stat mechanic. Also, what if you want a NPC to die in one hit, but you want it to have an easy time of hitting? A super low Con/a super high Strength might achieve this, but eventually someone is going to ask, "why does this minion have a Con of 2, or a strength of a giant?" Personally, I think your mechanic would strain believability for me much worse then the current 4e mechanics do. The point, our tastes are not going to match up. The fact that they don't doesn't mean that 4e versions of older settings will be a "pale imitation" of those older settings. I would probably enjoy the 4e versions more than I enjoyed the older versions. That fact that you wouldn't, that you prefer the older versions, doesn't say anything about what 4e can and cannot achieve. It says something only about what you personally prefer or don't.
I've also seen people describe how minions make things more cinematic by, for instance, having a gate guard be a minion if you get the drop on him and a real monster if you don't. This nicely models books and movies, where the hero's fate is already decided.
It also nicely models games, where you sometimes want to run an encounter in the style of something like Assassins Creed. Again, the fact that you don't like this encounter resolution mechanic is irrelevant. Nobody said you have to like the mechanic. That doesn't mean that these mechanics are not perfectly acceptable methods of modeling encounters in D&D.
Having a cinematic style is one thing, trading consistent mechanics for cinematic mechanics when they both work just about as well as each other is another.
No, its not. Its all a matter of perspective and taste. Some people prefer consistent mechanics. For them, 3e was the best game there is. For them, it seems like its "another thing" that 4e swung so far in the direction of cinematic mechanics, often at the expense of internal consistency. Others prefer cinematic mechanics, and for them 4e is a huge improvement over 3e. For them, internal consistency is irrelevant.
As for D&D, over the course of its lifetime it has dabbled in cinematics, and in consistency. This time around it gave up some of its consistency in favor of a stronger dose of cinematics. This might not appeal to you, but that doesn't make anything in 4e a "pale imitation" of anything else. There are others who find 4e a vast improvement. If it doesn't appeal to you, it doesn't appeal to you. That doesn't mean that its not a perfectly acceptable, and even preferable (to some), method of modeling something like Dark Sun.
Once again: please explain what exactly makes monster creation quicker in 4e.
I don't need to worry about ensuring that a monsters abilities are consistent with player abilities, or follow the complex formulas used to create interesting and dynamic player characters. The rules for building monsters are simple.
When building monsters, I need to look only at the tables for building monsters. I don't need to look at a complex mix of monster tables, class tables, monster abilities, and class abilities. If I want to transform a monster into a monster with a class, I need only use something as simple as the "class template," which nods to the flavor of a class without forcing me to replicate its abilities exactly.
When stating monsters I only need to stat what will actually be used in an encounter. I don't need to stat out every minute detail of the monster in order to try and simulate its existence. What I am creating is a character in a narrative, not a simulation of a living thing.
I don't know what to tell you. Monster building, and encounter building in general, is far easier in 4e than I ever did in 3e. This is not something specific to me. This is a widely experienced phenomenon. This is one of the major selling points that has convinced many DMs to switch to 4e. You might not "see the huge timesavers," but you are also holding a grudge against the system. You are trying to look at it from a negative point of view. The fact is, those who use it unanimously agree, its an easier system in which to build monsters and encounters.
Screwing players over isn't an aspect of 3e any more than it is of 4e; if you want to **** with your players, you can do it in any edition. That was simply an example, and meant to illustrate that the tactical implications are largely the same in both editions--you look for (A) synergies among monsters, (B) foils for player ability, whether irritating or very challenging, and (C) an interesting location.
Except, the tactical implications are not anywhere near the same in both editions. Once again, you are trying to boil things down to the simplest theoretical description in order to create a disingenuous argument that ignores the practical reality. 4e players unanimously agree that their experience involves far more group oriented tactical consideration than 3e ever did. The way powers are designed, the way they synergize with the powers of other characters, results in a game all about dynamic movement and action. Meanwhile, 3e usually resulted in a game where some spell casters used dynamic movement and action, and most weapons oriented characters stood in one place and used full-round action over and over again.
The very definition of a fluff change? Your argument was that it was solely fluff and didn't impact mechanics; if you have mechanics based on a god in one edition, and then remove that god in the next edition, you cannot by definition have any mechanics associated with that god.
And yet, the choice to remove that god is the very definition of a fluff change. The removal of fluff, and thus the lack of a "need" to include any mechanics that evoke that fluff, does not change the fact that it is a fluff change. Because really, that "need" never existed in the first place. They could have kept that god and not included mechanics associated with that god as well. They have done that with the Blood of Vol in Eberron. They have done that with a number of gods that still exist in Forgotten Realms as well. Whether a god stays or goes is nothing but a fluff change.
Exactly. Present only as fluff. The mechanics from prior editions are no longer present. Personally, I coudn't care less about regional feats or their equivalent but the fact remains that there were rules for it in prior editions and none in 4e.
Again, another disingenuous argument. Nobody has ever said that the exact mechanics from prior editions would be present. In fact, I flat out said that they do not need to be. But in this case, you are still wrong. There are a set of mechanics that evoke "regional feats and their equivalent" in 4e. They are called backgrounds and regional feats. They exist in Forgotten Realms 4e. However, not every region needs to be given such mechanics. A number of regions that STILL exist in Forgotten Realms 4e, but have not been given any backgrounds or feats in relation to those regions. Indeed, not all regions in 3e were given such benefits either. There was no "need" to remove regions just to avoid giving such regions backgrounds or feats. The choice to remove a region or not was nothing but a fluff choice, and ultimately a fluff change.
Not similar to the 4e dragonmarks, but "take 1-4 feats, gain a fancy power" is exactly what 3e dragonmarks are. Once again, whether it was inspired by the fluff change or vice versa, the Spellplague was not solely a fluff change; there are rules attacked.
Pretty much all feats work on the premise of take "1-4 feats, gain a fancy power." And the concept of magical marks on the body that result in magical power is nothing new to dragonmarks. This notion has been present in fiction for quite a while. What makes dragonmarks dragonmarks is the fact that they are letters in a draconic prophesy, the fact that they usually appear on a specific member of a race, and the fact they have resulted in magical resources and a mercantile guild economy centered around these marks. The rules for spellscars, and the fluff of spellscars, in no way mirror any of these defining qualities. At most, spellscars and dragonmarks are inspired by the same fictional conventions. Even that is potentially arguable, as spellscars seem to have a lot to do with the tropes of mutation in postappocalyptic societies, and dragonmarks have nothing to do with these tropes. What is more, the choice to add the spellplague was not "required" by any of the 4e rules. New rules were written to model the mechanical effects of this fluff. The choice to include the spellplague or not was a fluff choice, and a fluff change. The new 4e mechanics that this fluff change produced is but an aftereffect of a fluff change. This is not a case of needing to mold the Forgotten Realms setting to match 4e mechanics. Indeed, 4e mechanics needed to be molded to mirror this change in setting. Not including the spellplague would have fit the basic 4e mechanics with less work.
So if the Weave disappearing is a 100% fluff change, all of those feats, prestige classes, items, and such related to the Shadow Weave are no longer in existence because...?
1) 4e is a different game system, so the mechanics of the older edition are not present.
2) The designers chose to use a metafictional reason to describe the disappearance of certain elements of the older rules instead of creating new feats/paragon paths designed to evoke the flavor of the older edition of the setting. But the choice to go with new flavor as opposed to old flavor is nothing but a flavor choice. Really, they could have just created a few new feats to evoke the flavor of something like the shadow weave. They could have tied the upcoming shadow power source to the fluff of the shadow weave. They could have created a paragon path designed to model the shadow weave. They chose not to. That choice was a fluff choice.
Sure, they may be fluff changes by themselves, but my point was that they were there to justify the rules changes.
In some cases. In others, they were not tied to much of anything (the inclusion of the spellscarred characters doesn't justify anything but the inclusion of new 4e mechanics not present until the fluff of spellscarred characters was introduced). In all cases, fluff changes to justify rules changes was never required in the first place. They chose to use such fluff changes. The choice to use such fluff changes is nothing but an alternation of fluff. They could have instead gone the route of Eberron, and released a setting that is virtually identical to its older counterpart.
On the contrary--I claim that older editions better entwine flavor and mechanics, which is a benefit if you prefer internal consistency over cinematics and a detriment if not. The quality of flavor-qua-flavor, taken in a vacuum, is irrelevant.
Flavor and mechanics are still entwined. There is a reason why clerics use the divine power source, and have a large number of powers with the radiant keyword. You just prefer the way flavor and mechanics were entwined in the past, and that is neither here nor there...
And so are you. "Monster creation is much faster"..."The DM needs a simpler system to make the encounters more tactical"...and so on. I said it did it well, which every single edition of D&D has done to a greater or lesser extent.
Take my words in context. I certainly agree that 4e is more tactical in nature. I also think it makes a great role-playing system, and is a very adept system at modeling non-combat encounters, and evoking the fluff of settings. Its not "just" a tactical miniatures wargame.
You know what? I like tactical miniatures wargames. D&D started as a mod for a tactical miniatures wargame. If I thought it was a waste of time to play a tactical miniatures wargame, I wouldn't play any edition of D&D!
Fair enough. But what you are claiming 4e can not do it can. You just don't like the way it does it. And that is neither here nor there. Your issue is not a problem with the setting, its a matter of your very personal and subjective tastes in regards to encounter resolution mechanics. You don't know how to take the 4e mechanics in the context of 4e, and so they bother you. You prefer the older edition's paradigm. But that doesn't mean that the older edition's paradigm was superior, it just means you prefer it.
They do storytelling better in the sense that their games are focused on the narrative aspects, just as D&D does better combat than White Wolf games because the mechanics are focused on combat. I don't like WW games any more than you do, but I do acknowledge that if you want a system that mechanically supports storytelling over combat (rather than a system which simply does storytelling well), WW games are more popular.
Fair enough. Though I have to say, I personally prefer the Saga system and 4e even for their mechanics in regards to storytelling.
So why didn't they? They could have, but they did not. Thus, the only reason to add the fluff of impacting with an alternate material plane is to introduce those mechanics.
1) Primordials are not a mechanic. With the exception of their stat blocks, they are ONLY fluff, even in the core 4e game. The same is true of dragonborn. In neither case are they a mechanic upon which the rest of the game rests (such as powers, or spellcasting).
2) I don't know why they did. They decided they wanted to make 4e FR a little closer to the core 4e fluff. They decided that they wanted all aspects of the 4e game to have a place in FR. Maybe this is a good thing. Maybe this is a bad thing. Whatever it is, its a thing that deals with the fidelity of fluff, not the fidelity of mechanics.
Once again: my point precisely. They did not need to make it. If they weren't going to make Channel Divinity or other god-related feats, why not simply keep the old pantheon, give a bullet-point summary of them, and leave it alone?
Again, I don't know. They felt there were too many gods I guess. But whatever the reason is, the reason deals with the fidelity of fluff, not mechanics.
A fluff change to back mechanics. As you said, they could have easily kept the old fluff, tweaked a bit, to explain the new mechanics, as they always did before. There was no reason to kill off Mystra except to destroy the Weave and explain why magic is different.
As YOU just pointed out, they could easily tweaked things a bit to explain mechanics as they always did before. The choice not to deals with the fidelity of fluff, not mechanics.
There is a difference between the PCs being the go-to beings for help because they worked their way up from itinerant Last War veteran or minor Dragonmarked healer to powerful warriors and clerics, and the PCs being the go-to beings for help because they are destined for it. Yes, the draconic prophecy exists in Eberron, but it doesn't influence the world to the extent that every set of heroes is different just because they're the heroes.
Except, the heroes always were different just because they were the heroes. This has always been the case in Eberron. The very fact that the PCs are PCs and not NPCs has always made them different, it has always made the storyline focus on them. Eberron has always been self reflexive about this. That is the reason why things like the "draconic prophesy" exist.
All of the NPCs that had different dragonmarks specifically broke the rules; making dragonmarks PC-selectable only as the correct race meant that a DM was perfectly justified in saying "You're not some mythic being just because you're a PC; the last person who thought that was Vol and look what happened to her." The simply change from allowing PCs to break the mold through houseruling and encouraging PCs to break the mold by emphasizing their specialness does in fact change assumptions--you're not Joe, veteran of the Last War trying to make his way in the world, you're Joe, legendary fighter destined to kill the evil threatening the land.
Except, you were always "Joe, legendary fighter, destined to kill the evil threatening the land." The Eberron setting, and Keith Baker, have been fairly explicit about that. You just started out wearing the trappings of "Joe, veteran of the Last War trying to make his way in the world." That is never who you were though. You never settled down as a farmer, you became a hero. Sometimes, in the process, you developed a dragonmark not appropriate for your race. I remember something about one of the Eberron quests specifically having this featured as something that happened to players as a result of the events in the quest. All 4e did was slightly change the mechanics of this event. In 3e, the mechanics of this event required DM fiat and rule zero. In 4e, the mechanics of this event are modeled via dragonmark player feats that don't have race restrictions, and fluff that still describe race restrictions. The fidelity of the fluff has been maintained. The specifics of the mechanical modeling has shifted slightly. Your example is not proving what you wanted it to.
So now everyone can pick up these abilities? A wizard can snatch a multiclass feat and draw on the power of an elemental just like the cleric who's been serving faithfully since level 1?
In the older edition, a multiclass character with one of his classes gaining that ability would eventually gain that ability. There is no reason the same should not be true in the newer edition, even if the mechanics of multiclassing have changed. Furthermore, it is always possible to add additional requirements to an epic destiny (such as, requires a paragon path tied to a specific class, or power source, or some such).
My point is that pretty much every FR fan was looking forward to a 4e release, saying "Well, yeah, every time there's an edition change they pull a RSE" and "Well, yeah, of course they're going to make some changes; why wouldn't they?" The book came out and ruined the setting. Yes, Eberron wasn't ruined or anything of the sort, but that doesn't mean that 4e Dark Sun is going to model 2e Dark Sun well at all. I guess I meant "be careful what you wish for."
1) You are barking way up the wrong tree. I am one of those that really likes the new Forgotten Realms.
2) You are right, the fact that Eberron turned out really well doesn't mean that a 4e Dark Sun will turn out well too. But it doesn't mean it wont. Likewise, the fact that 4e Forgotten Realms was a disappointment to many traditional Forgotten Realms fans doesn't mean that Dark Sun will also be a disappointment. The fact is, there is nothing to suggest that Dark Sun cannot turn out to be an amazing product if it is released. As for whether it will be an amazing product or not, that really depends on what the developers do with it. Unless they try, we will never know one way or another. I would rather they try to release it, and fail, then they not try at all. Hell, even if they try and release it, and you say they fail, chances are I will consider it a success. We see things from very different points of view.
Dont you guys agree with that? Doesnt it seems wierd tha "ok i am a halfgiant, but erm... no i cant move that rock... way too heavy for me" ... i know that in terms of game mechanics is pretty good, but how would you put in game terms... "Well i was the weaker of my tribe and i was cast awat" or something like that? or you guys got another idea?
Bonuses to attributes are too much blanket statements. Giving the half-giant a bonus to strength lets the giant also hit a fast moving target with more ease, lets him climb better, etc... Is the Half-Giant really more athletic than elves? No, not really. They pick up and throw rocks better and definitely "stronger"... so how could this work?
The Goliath has some abilities that highlight his/her strength-related talents: climbing and jumping, swinging simple 2-handed weapons, etc... In effect, they "feel" bigger and stronger than the rest of the camp without actually making encounters less challenging. Whenever the party runs into a challenge that requires the goliath's expertise, guess who they turn to...!
Just remember: Little bonuses grouped together yield a big effect!
Give the half-giant a sweet bonus when wielding a simple two-handed weapons (maybe equal to STR?? double [W] damage?? Reach vs foes with reach?? Or always critical hits against inanimate objects?? at-will attacks against Reflex instead of AC??).
You'll find that players following the half-giant path will select these talents and group them together for a big cumulative effect. That half-giant might hardly ever hit, but when he does: CRUNCH! Not very effective against the fast skirmishers but excellent against brute enemies.
Eventually... that 18-20 strength barbarian half-giant will be standing toe to toe with dune freaks, athasian giants, or the physical attacks of a dragon and dealing equal damage while the rest of the party does their regular dance. There's a sense of awe from the other players when you pick up 6d6 damage dice at level one.. then add a comfortable 10 to the damage! Yes, it happens, and enemies get scared. The DM will start trying to out-muscle the half-giant... which is particularly challenging.
But just make sure that Strength (with a capital "S") isn't unbalanced: long distance running requires a high strength... but that half-giant should just be an average runner. Against the Athasian Sun you need a high endurance: the half-giant shouldn't be able to stand with the Dwarf so don't give him more Constitution than the Dwarf. He's isn't a climber like halflings, nor can he use that spear with as much precision as a Thri-kreen. Is the half-giant really that good against poison? What about as a Sorcerer?
I used to whip up 1st and 2nd ed adventuers largely on the fly, knowing the stats by heart of most monsters, it was easy.
but 3rd ed hell no. I bought E Tools just to save me the drudgework, 'cause what you forget is making NPCs = working out skill points etc, ugh UGH!!
3.5 is great simulationist D&D, but the pits for DMs because of that. Best to leave it to a CPU to thrash it out, and CR and ECL was indeed,very borked.
You also couldn't throw in large numbers of enemies, because of complexity and lethality.
Minions = awesome.
Each to his own though
Dark Sun 4th ed could be great fun. at first It oo thought half giants should have mega strength, then I grokked what 4th ed is about, I do think they should be Large, though.
thrikreen, easy, racial power encounter, you evade a ranged attack, simple!
Defiling feat gain +1 hit with any spell when you use defiling, further feats improve it, but at cost.
I agree with Skegevic. 4e doesn't do a great job of expressing the differences between species. Really, IMO,4e is the result of Magic:the Gathering bonejacking D&D and taking away all the sensible mechanics of 3.5E. 3.5 is better able to express the differences in power between different PC species,and is an all-around superior system to 4E. In short, the problem with 4e is 4e. Paizo finally gets respect from me, for keeping 3.5 alive as Pathfinder.
You know whats funny? On the MTG boards they are calling the upcomming set the "DnDification" of Magic lol.