On the WOTC site they were discussing the issue of charisma bonus inflicting damage. Exactly how charisma fit in was offered as the follows:
1. Magic, apparently it didn't need any further explanation.
2. Charisma bonus is a representation of the individual's willpower.
3. An excuse to use other ability scores other than STR when dealing with combat.
4. Divine power channeled through the character.
5. And this quote from someone named Kuroikami
"Fear flew into the hearts of Harold's enemies as the divine power surged through his arms and he struck them down, smiting them through their shields as they cowered in terror. Praying, crying, and cowering, one and all, they neither fought nor flew as the sword, hungry, came biting for their flesh."
If it was simply divine power, then I would say the more charisma the paladin has, the more power the deity gives them, thus more damage. Personally, I think WOTC went for flash rather than plausability. Hopefully they will provide an explanation when the time comes.
I guess (note: just guessing) what irks most people here (again) is that this power of the paladin breaks the way the abilities were in previous editions - smite and heal were both part of the paladins abilities as long as the class existed, but they were distinct. Now they are rolled into one ability (disclaimer:we know nothing about laying on hands now for 4e), so you have to accept that the way the paladins abilities work are changed fundamentally for 4e. (this seems to be true for many other parts of the game as well.)
If you can accept that 4e has little to do with previous editions of the game, then it might be easier to accept the new way. But as long as you view 4e through your "3e glasses", it might be troublesome, as it is (to me) fundamentally different. We all have accepted a certain way the game works and how the rules interact, but 4e apparently changes some basic conventions accepted for decades by game designers and audience (3e tried to keep these conventions while changing the mechanics of the game). That may be the reason for the furiousness these changes are discussed.
Stefan
|
Did I miss something? Am I just dense? What is line of effect? Is it line of sight? Is it the ability to use a power? What is it?
...Throwing out terms without a context is just frustrating.Page 310 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook:
"Line of effect tells you whether an effect (such as an explosion) can reach a creature. Line of effect is just like line of sight, except line of effect ignores restrictions on visual ability. For instance, a fireball's explosion doesn't care if a creature is invisible or hiding in darkness."When I read the article, I knew exactly what he was talking about when he used the term. It also seems fairly self-explanatory, especially if you are familiar with "line of sight." I don't think it is unfair to assume the reader would understand it without a definition.
Its not a phrase I use often even though I am quite familiar with the rule you referenced. In fact, after you referenced it I knew exactly what he was talking about and it all made sense. I find it odd I didn't recognize it immediately since I DM all the games around here. I blame it on the day, I was admittedly multitasking when I read the article and I think my mind was occupied on a thousand different things I couldn't make the leap for some reason.
In retrospect I should have thumbed through the SRD before I posted. I can admit that. It is doubly frustrating for me because I think I have been more than fair in my personal judgments of the material WotC has released so far. When something appeals to me I express that thought clearly. When something throws me I am usually able to express why it does in a logical and intelligent manner. I failed in that regard when it comes to this thread.
I am on the fence about 4e but I am not discarding it out of hand. And while I have had my opinions about how preview info is being presented I have stated I think the designers are doing the best they can and have no ill will towards D&D fans, being big fans themselves. I try to avoid making unrealistic demands of the WotC crew since to do so would presumptuous. I also normally avoid being picky about little details that aren't meant to be misleading or malicious.
So I guess my question was answered, I was just being dense and silly to boot. And as I think on it more, the smites might just grow on me. Even the healing one. :)
|
...
I just don't get it.
I don't understand how someone like me - who owns probably 95% of all D&D products ever made - could be so turned off by each new tidbit for 4e.
I know some of you are liking this and similar changes, so I apologize for my tone, but man this is awful stuff (IMO).
They are making it so easy for me to give 4E a pass.
You and me both. Soemtimes, I almost wish some of the 4E stuff would appeal to me so I could use it to speed up my 3.5 games. Then I read something like this. Horrid mechanics like this make it difficult to like 4.0 even if I really wanted to like it. They aren't just firing us. They are having security escort us out of the buliding at gunpoint.
You and me both. Soemtimes, I almost wish some of the 4E stuff would appeal to me so I could use it to speed up my 3.5 games. Then I read something like this. Horrid mechanics like this make it difficult to like 4.0 even if I really wanted to like it. They aren't just firing us. They are having security escort us out of the buliding at gunpoint....
I just don't get it.
I don't understand how someone like me - who owns probably 95% of all D&D products ever made - could be so turned off by each new tidbit for 4e.
I know some of you are liking this and similar changes, so I apologize for my tone, but man this is awful stuff (IMO).
They are making it so easy for me to give 4E a pass.
No offense in the following question, but how long have you been playing D&D? I can tell you that when 3ed was being announced, I had bought a few dragon magazines, read some of the 3ed "preview" article, and was effectively unimpressed. It didn't "offend" me (as so many people seem to be with the 4e offerings that are coming out) but it didn't knock my socks off. I was happy with 2ed and as far as I was concerned, my group would keep playing 2ed as long as we had material to play.
Then two friends and I made our one and only GenCon road trip in 2000. Since that was when they were selling the PHB for the first time, we all thought, "what the hell, it's worth a read" - still assuming we would continue playing 2ed. Well, over the course of the next few days, we had a good look at the rules (in their proper context) and were so impressed that we made the decision to migrate as soon as we had all three core books.
So, I guess the moral of my story is: wait. If you read the PHB and don't like it, then stick with your game. If you do like it, and want to play the game, then play it. But don't base your decisions on piecemeal information you get on the web. It's never going to be in the proper context until you get the whole book in your hands.
Greg
P.S. For what it's worth, I probably won't be going to 4e, but not because of anything related to the rules. It's purely a financial/time thing. We just went to 3.5 a year ago, so I've invested a lot of money in 3.5 over the last year. Plus I have a boatload of 3.5 adventure to run my party through to last several years. However, I reserve final judgment until I've actually read the PHB.
|
I guess that's really the point. The way this works feels too much like a blatant game mechanic first and foremost. It can be explained "in game," but it just feels a little weak.
In fact, it reminded me of some of the comments on rejected items in the RPG Superstar contest. It was alright for an item to fulfill a basic "need" in the game, but if it didn't feel like a magic item that made sense "in game" beyond its mechanical aspects, it wasn't as highly regarded.
But I totally agree with sympathetic damage from groin hits . . .
WotC seems to have the paradigm of "Fluff serves Crunch". Fluff is an add-on to explain the mechanics. What is important in this paradigm is really cool mechanics. With that paradigm in mind, you can see why smite is going this way. It IS a cool mechanic. Since spells are fading away in favor of powers it seems this fits in the context of 4E. You Call upon deific might and unleash your Smite. You hit and a shockwave of divine power emanates from you, bringing with it the golden light of heaven, the sound of silver trumpets, and healing energy to the tune of 12hps. Its certainly more of the "High-Fantasy" that 4E is going and less of the "Gritty Fantasy" D&D has traditionally been in. (I know, I know, its hardly gritty in the way Warhammer is, but its been in that category)
I am *NOT* a fan of this paradigm. I am of the "Crunch serves Fluff" school. You start with a story, and idea, a theme, what-have-you, THEN build mechanics to fit. From this paradigm my first question is:
"A god grants his servant the power to heal if he is able to smite his enemies. Why? Does he expect his Paladin servant to be in the thick of battle at all times surrounded by allies. Do Paladins of <insert Aphrodite-like deity here> exist? Are they expected to wage war? If not, why the powers?
It's just a game. I am not overly bothered by this. I am sure it will be fun. But the more it resembles a video game, the more likely I am to just play a video game. Which reminds me...I better read the walk-thru for Kara again, its been a while and heroic mode sounds fun.
So, I guess the moral of my story is: wait. If you read the PHB and don't like it, then stick with your game. If you do like it, and want to play the game, then play it. But don't base your decisions on piecemeal information you get on the web. It's never going to be in the proper context until you get the whole book in your hands.
My thoughts exactly. There are things I've seen so far that I really don't like and others that I think are interesting, but in the end one has to conclude that everything we see now lacks context.
I like the increased focus on the paladin's smite ability and I can see either side of the "healing side effect" discussion. But I'm going to need more information, regardless.
WotC seems to have the paradigm of "Fluff serves Crunch".
One could argue that the job of WotC is to provide the "Crunch" and it's the DM's job to provide the "Fluff". Obviously there are significant exceptions to this, but I'm sure there are a lot of DMs out there who have completely rewritten the WotC-provided fluff in favour of their own.
Me personally, I use pre-published adventures and settings, so I don't personally provide my own fluff. But I don't actually rely on the PHB to provide it either.
Greg
My thoughts exactly. There are things I've seen so far that I really don't like and others that I think are interesting, but in the end one has to conclude that everything we see now lacks context.
Thing is, when 3E was in the same stage as 4E is now, we were also hearing tidbits. I don't remember those tidbits turning me off at all. In fact, I remember each new tidbit convincing me that 3E was really going to be better than 2E.
However, you are correct that context could make all the difference. In previews, however, it shouldn't have to - it should be enticing regardless of context. A preview should make the reader go "wow! I want to see more!".
These previews make me want them to stop showing us previews.
My thoughts exactly. There are things I've seen so far that I really don't like and others that I think are interesting, but in the end one has to conclude that everything we see now lacks context.Thing is, when 3E was in the same stage as 4E is now, we were also hearing tidbits. I don't remember those tidbits turning me off at all. In fact, I remember each new tidbit convincing me that 3E was really going to be better than 2E.
However, you are correct that context could make all the difference. In previews, however, it shouldn't have to - it should be enticing regardless of context. A preview should make the reader go "wow! I want to see more!".
These previews make me want them to stop showing us previews.
A lot of the criticism has been (and not just in this thread) "these rules don't make sense" or even "these rules ruin D&D" not "I wish this preview was a bit more informative". In response to the first two, I would say context makes a big difference. I can agree with the latter, however. Broad changes (like doing away with saving throws) would be a better preview subject that would give a better perspective of the new edition rather than a preview of one set of class features with no explanation of terminology or the big picture.
For example, in the 3rd edition transition articles, a discussion of the new skill mechanic prompted a brief explanation of Difficulty Classes. I agree with you that that is a much stronger preview.
Love it when "realism" is brought into the arguments... I can have the rogue in the center of a fireball and he makes his save and isn't even singed. That's real. (Of course ignoring the reality of a fireball in the first place.) Maybe it does seem a stretch that the attack heals someone else. Mechanics wise there really isn't any difference.
To be fair, I think it's a matter of internal consistency, rather than "realism." Let's look at winged boots. Your fighter gains a pair of boots with little wings so he can fly; they're magic, they can do that. This isn't realistic, but it fits the concept of a game in which magic items can do stuff like that. Now imagine in 4th edition, instead of magic boots doing it, it's an optional ability for fighters, etc. to fly "x" rounds/day. Assume they gain it at a level appropriate to the gp cost of the boots. Mechanically, there's no difference at all. But in terms of internal consistency, nothing else in the game favors magically flying fighters, except spells and magic items; there's nowhere else that says their "fighter-ness" makes them able to fly.
In the movie Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, everyone who's good at kung fu can also fly; it's part of the setting, it's internally consistent (within the film in specific and the genre in general), so no one has a problem with it. But Conan can't fly just because he's a mighty barbarian, Elric can't fly without summoning air elementals to do it for him, etc. Flying fighters who don't need boots or spells (or weird racial features, I guess) are alien to the game, and to the genre.
Same deal with healing smites. Mechanically, you're combining two rounds worth of actions (smite, lay hands) into 1 round, which is consistent with non-iterative fighter attacks for greater damage--combat gets compressed in terms of play time needed. But in terms of internal consistency of "fluff," it lacks precedent in any previous edition, or in the literature the game borrows from, etc. The FLAVOR is consistent with the way video games work, but not with the weight of precedent for sword & sorcery pulp novels and previous editions of D&D. And that's what rubs the wrong way; adding it to D&D, while potentially useful in terms of game play, just seems contrived at this point. Mechanics can be changed, but the "feel" of the game shouldn't be radically altered without a reason.
Thing is, when 3E was in the same stage as 4E is now, we were also hearing tidbits. I don't remember those tidbits turning me off at all. In fact, I remember each new tidbit convincing me that 3E was really going to be better than 2E.
One thing people really need to remember is that WotC didn't have nearly the web presence they do now. All the info on 3e came through print. Maybe publishing through a print medium caused them to be more "careful" and "selective" and maybe the web release causes them to be more sloppy. Don't know. But it certainly ain't like it was 7 years ago.
Greg
|
|
WotC seems to have the paradigm of "Fluff serves Crunch".One could argue that the job of WotC is to provide the "Crunch" and it's the DM's job to provide the "Fluff". Obviously there are significant exceptions to this, but I'm sure there are a lot of DMs out there who have completely rewritten the WotC-provided fluff in favour of their own.
Me personally, I use pre-published adventures and settings, so I don't personally provide my own fluff. But I don't actually rely on the PHB to provide it either.
Greg
I think WotC SHOULD provide the crunch. When i say "fluff" I don't mean the names and domains of deities for example, but whether or not deities exist and give powers to followers. The fluff WotC should provide is more generalized.
They are providing some fluff with 4E. It's clearly a "fantasy" game and not a "modern" game.
You can't completely divorce fluff from crunch. The sort of Fluff WotC needs to provide isn't whether or Not Bane is a core deity. But the role of deities in the game. They don't need to provide a setting, but the sort of framework that a D&D setting should have.
Points of Light is a great bit of fluff that they should provide. As long as the mechanics of the game support points of light, I am fine with it. But once the mechanics assumes you can "teleport" to any other point of light, then its not really points of light. This is how crunch serves fluff. If the fluff is points of light, then I need to maintain that by making sure that the mechanics don't invalidate points of light. If the fluff is "Gods are Simply Extraordinary Individuals with Great Powers" then the mechanics should allow a character who has great powers challenge a god in combat. If the fluff is "Gods are beyond the ken of mere mortals" then the mechanics should prevent a character from challenging a god in combat (or at least prevent the slim hope of succeeding).
I think many people confuse setting with fluff. The analogy is to cereal. If Crunch is Flakes and Fluff is Marshmallows, the setting is the Brand. Do you Like Post raisin bran or Kellogs raisin bran? Of course there is some overlap. Settings often offer crunch (new feats, prestige classes, etc) as well as fluff (Dark Sun and Dragon-God-Kings). And of course even crunch offers fluff (core deities in 3E PHB).
Its not the presence of these other elements thats problematic. Its when these things are presented together and are not cohesive.
IF WotC is going to present fluff, the rules better support it. Otherwise its useless white noise. Fluff cannot support the Crunch simply because it is so easily (and usually is) disposable. It may be that people think I mean Crunch < Fluff. I don't mean that at all. I mean Crunch is the foundation upon which the house (fluff) is built. If you want a house to look like a roman villa, complete with courtyard, you wouldn't lay the foundation of a Classic American Tract Home.
Basically, it appears WotC is laying down a foundation and THEN trying to define what kind of house it is that results. It may very well be a cool house, but I think you run the risk of being a Winchester Mystery Mansion where all kinds of weird things result. I think this has been the problem WITH ALL D&D EDITIONS. Its always been a matter of cleaning up the rules without any real regard as to what kind of game they want to make (and for people to play).
I want to play a gritty, sword and sorcery game. Some want to play a High Fantasy Game. Some want to play a Rainbows and Unicorns Care Bear game. These are not just settings. The crunch determines this. Grimcleaver has a very gritty approach to hit points. This is beyond setting. He has to tweak a a few rules to make it work. It becomes a new mechanic. The mechanics (his hp rules) serve his fluff (gritty).
|
|
When I read the article, I knew exactly what he was talking about when he used the term. It also seems fairly self-explanatory, especially if you are familiar with "line of sight." I don't think it is unfair to assume the reader would understand it without a definition.
I agree with that and I had a pretty good idea what the article was talking about just from the context. However, saying "you don't need the books to realize..." still feels a bit condescending. Not necessarily a good way to get people on board with what they are trying to sell.
Some want to play a Rainbows and Unicorns Care Bear game.
I really prefer Care Bears vs Ghost Busters.
Contributor
|
Again --...how is that any different than the paladin/cleric that had the close wounds spell memorized (Spell Compendium). Mechanics wise there really isn't any difference.The "new" mechanics are remarkably similar to the "old" mechanics. Ok so now it's packaged into one action rather than two actions that happen at the same time -- but it is the same effect.
Let's see -- on one hand you have a paladin doing a smite attack and then heals someone at a distance -- This is believable. On the other hand, you have a paladin doing a smite attack and then heals someone at a distance -- which "shatters suspension of disbelief to a degree that I just can't get over".
There are two major differences.
1) Close wounds is a spell that the paladin has to cast.
2) Close wounds is not a byproduct of the paladin making an attack.
I'm not sure if you are misreading close wounds or the smite power, but close wounds is cast in response to an ally being hit by an enemy, and the smite power generates healing when the paladin strikes an enemy.
Without further support from the fluff the smite attack seems like two unrelated rules ideas jammed together. Maybe that support text will be in the final rules and make it work we'll see.
Close wounds is different. It is a spell that fits a specific logical game-world need to heal allies as they are hit in order to stop them from dying.
|
|
To be fair, I think it's a matter of internal consistency, rather than "realism."
I understand what you are saying. Of course the assumption is that there isn't going to be text explaining why smite works the way they are designing it. I still feel like too many people are making judgements based on half-assed information. I really don't feel like we have enough information to determine whether or not it is internally consistent. It might be the worst idea since Eve asked Adam if he wanted some fruit. Or it might be the best idea any designer has ever come up with and players all over the world will be saying "this makes so much sense now -- how did we even bear doing things with that crappy 3.5 version?"
People were saying that mechanically it didn't make sense. When truthfully, "mechanically" it can be done with 3.5.
I guess that all I'm saying is that people need to stop being so whiny when all they are looking at is one leaf from the entire tree and saying that it looks a little funny so that must mean that the entire tree is made out of poo. (of course this is true with far more than the subject at hand and I better stop before I get on my soapbox...)
|
|
There are two major differences.
1) Close wounds is a spell that the paladin has to cast.
2) Close wounds is not a byproduct of the paladin making an attack.
I'm not sure if you are misreading close wounds or the smite power, but close wounds is cast in response to an ally being hit by an enemy, and the smite power generates healing when the paladin strikes an enemy.
Without further support from the fluff the smite attack seems like two unrelated rules ideas jammed together. Maybe that support text will be in the final rules and make it work we'll see.
Close wounds is different. It is a spell that fits a specific logical game-world need to heal allies as they are hit in order to stop them from dying.
Not exactly.
Close Wounds --
1 immediate action
This spell cures 1d4 points of damage +1 point per caster level (max +5). If you cast this spell immediately after the subject takes damage, it effectively prevents the damage. blah blah blah.
Close Wounds is not cast in response to an ally being hit. It is cast whenever the caster feels like it. Because of that, it can be done when the paladin smites something.
You are right in that close wounds is not a byproduct of the smite, but then so what. What difference does it really make. The way I read the article, it looks to me like the paladin will eventually have a number of different smite abilities to choose from at the time. Really just looks like a modified form of spell-casting to me.
|
Contributor
|
You are right in that close wounds is not a byproduct of the smite, but then so what. What difference does it really make. The way I read the article, it looks to me like the paladin will eventually have a number of different smite abilities to choose from at the time. Really just looks like a modified form of spell-casting to me.
I would turn this around; you are right that you can cast close wounds immediately after smiting an enemy, but so what? That doesn't generate any connection between the spell and the smite. They are two unconnected events. This new smite ability ties them causally to each other in a way that makes no sense without further information.
Your argument does not address the concern that there is no justification given as to how hitting your enemy with your weapon spontaneously heals someone on the other side of the room, because in your example, hitting your opponent is not the trigger for healing, casting the spell is.
Now personally, I accept that we can't fully judge this information until we have the full story. Maybe it will make sense when we have the book. But that means it was a poor choice of info to release without giving the whole story.
There is a difference between accepting something as fantasy and accepting something that has no comprensible causal connection.
...
I just don't get it.
I don't understand how someone like me - who owns probably 95% of all D&D products ever made - could be so turned off by each new tidbit for 4e.
I know some of you are liking this and similar changes, so I apologize for my tone, but man this is awful stuff (IMO).
They are making it so easy for me to give 4E a pass.
You and me both! 4e is WoW with miniatures!
|
|
Your argument does not address the concern that there is no justification given as to how hitting your enemy with your weapon spontaneously heals someone on the other side of the room, because in your example, hitting your opponent is not the trigger for healing, casting the spell is.
Ok, but my argument is strictly to show that the mechanics are virtually the same. I'm not trying to justify the logic behind it. I was only trying to show that mechanically the same thing can be done in 3.5.
And again, maybe they have gotten rid of spellcasting with paladins entirely and the smite ability is kind of their new spellcasting. I really don't know. Nor do I really want to say if it is going to be good or bad given the incredibly limited amount of information we have.
|
Now personally, I accept that we can't fully judge this information until we have the full story. Maybe it will make sense when we have the book. But that means it was a poor choice of info to release without giving the whole story.
Seems like everything we learn of 4E is stuff that we can't fully judge until we have the full story. I don't trust that.
They REALLY need to hire (or fire) a PR guy and start looking at the stuff that they want to "show off" from the stance of a gamer and not as a game designer.I really think that D&D is heading into a very bad place, and I feel sad for it.
Seems like everything we learn of 4E is stuff that we can't fully judge until we have the full story. I don't trust that.
They REALLY need to hire (or fire) a PR guy and start looking at the stuff that they want to "show off" from the stance of a gamer and not as a game designer.
I really think that D&D is heading into a very bad place, and I feel sad for it.
"Where did they touch your D&D? Can you point to the parts for the jury?"
Is there a logic to magic?
Historically and across cultures, yes there is -- traditionally, magic is not viewed by human beings as "anything can happen." Magic comes about as a result of certain methods and assumptions that turn out to be unscientific, but are there nonetheless.
So what are these rules of magic? I will use examples from D&D and real life. The list is not exhaustive.
Sympathism - Look at the material components for the spider climb and jump spells. In spider climb, the caster swallows a spider. The spider has the quality the caster wants, so the caster takes the spider into himself (swallowing it) to gain that quality. Life is sacrificed for a brief gain of power.
Ritual - A Native American rain dance is an example. Superficially, dancing has little to do with rain. However, dance is a common ritual method in Native shamanism, and the act of correctly and authentically completing the dance leads to more rain. Note that you can't dance just any old way. Purity of heart and correct methods are required, suggesting you must put in time and energy to receive a result.
Pattern Recognition - Romans viewed animal entrails, others view tea leaves and even the pattern of coffee remains in a cup. The assumption is that a properly trained person, and/or a person with an innate gift of "sight", can see the hidden patterns that connect (and reflect) all things.
Power of Belief - In the Matrix, Neo is introduced to the idea that the world as he knows it doesn't exist. Just hearing this isn't enough. He must "believe." As he gains belief, he gains more power. In magic, if one "truly" believes, then normal limitations can be crossed. If one doesn't truly believe, then failure can be disastrous (the person trying to fly falls and dies). The "power of love" is an old staple in fantasy as well (The Princes Bride, among others).
Pact / Contract Magic - The character bargains something away in order to gain magical ability in return, usually from a supernatural creature such as a genie or devil. As with Faust, souls are the main trade for magic, although in mythology we often see mortals completing quests for gods in order to "pay respect" or "pay homage" to the god, to gain a benefit in return (such as a loved one returned to life). Interestingly, gaining magical ability can be viewed as a curse. In Ann Rice's stories (if I recall correctly), Marius was cursed by God for eternity to be a vampire. Although Marius gained great power, it was at a terrible price.
Supernatural Inheritance - The character is born with power due to a bloodline or tampering with his or her birth by a supernatural being. There is an X-Files episode with an autistic half-celestial girl.
Enlightenment / Gnostic Knowledge - This is most common among Eastern cultures, where practitioners of magic must undergo years of hardship and training (often within a particular school under a master) in order to "realize their higher nature" or otherwise unlock some form of secret human or spiritual potential.
Divine Intervention - A popular one in modern Western religions. You pray that your football team will win. If you have good intentions and pray hard enough and god/gods have your best interests in mind, then the result will happen. In Catholicism you can pray to saints to ask them to go to God on your behalf (note that the saints can't grant divine magic; instead, there is an assumption of a celestial court of some sort and a patronage system).
Advanced Technology - There is a modern saying that if something is technologically advanced enough from what we understand, then it seems to be magic. For example, a caveman encountering a TV, car, or stereo system. In this view, magic is actually technology or use of scientific knowledge. In Apocalypto, the astrologers use their astronomy knowledge to time a series of human sacrifices with a solar eclipse, so the people will believe that divine magic is at work.
Blood Energy - This refers to vital fluids like blood or... you get the idea. The blood carries the spark of life (the soul). Although ritual may be involved, the ritual is technique (which can be improved upon) that maximizes the concentration or exchange of energy within or between people.
I could go on.
There are several principles in mind throughout all of these. One is a "conservation of magical energy." This might sound silly -- after all, doesn't a teleport spell defy conservation of energy? But we need to discard our modern scientific definition of energy to understand what magical energy is. Something is always exchanged or taken (a soul, time, pride) in order to transcend normal limitations.
Over the years, D&D has shifted to some extent. The recent Eastern influence is magic that comes from enlightenment and gnostic knowledge, as well as the appeal to supernatural inheritance. This lends itself to "cool powers" which differ in tone and style (and consequences) typical of sympathetic magic, divine intervention, pacts/contracts, and pattern recognition, which are staples of traditional Western views of the supernatural (whether ancient or medieval).
The point: D&D has traditionally attempted to appeal to several laws of magic, whether sympathism or divine intervention or what-not. A purely gamist version of D&D can dispense with laws of magic, but I suspect there are many folks who prefer to keep this quality of the game.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Of course the assumption is that there isn't going to be text explaining why smite works the way they are designing it. I really don't feel like we have enough information to determine whether or not it is internally consistent.
I still believe that even the presence of such text will feel tacked on at this point, because it contradicts 30+ years of established "fluff." There are magic boots in fantasy literature, in mythology, and in D&D all the way back to 1e. There are no flying fighters in any of these sources (off the top of my head, anyway). There are smiting paladins all the way back to Le Chanson de Roland (and in-game as well of course, back to 1e), but there are no established sources that make healing a by-product of smiting. Even if the mechanics support a similar combo (use smite evil and use a lesser metamagic rod to cast a quickened cure light wounds spell in the same round), it's clear that's a special case, not part of the new "flavor" of the game.
I apologize now if any of my posts today are a bit hostile. I seem to have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed today.
Heh. I think your "hostile" quotes are nicer than my "nice" ones! That's one of the things I've always respected about you, Moff.
Thing is, when 3E was in the same stage as 4E is now, we were also hearing tidbits. I don't remember those tidbits turning me off at all. In fact, I remember each new tidbit convincing me that 3E was really going to be better than 2E.One thing people really need to remember is that WotC didn't have nearly the web presence they do now. All the info on 3e came through print. Maybe publishing through a print medium caused them to be more "careful" and "selective" and maybe the web release causes them to be more sloppy. Don't know. But it certainly ain't like it was 7 years ago.
Greg
Actually, I got most of my 3E info from Eric Noah's site back then. Of course, it was a little different because some insiders were sending him anonymous tidbits you couldn't get anywhere else. (It was quite cool.)
Different times for sure.
|
|
You and me both! 4e is WoW with miniatures!...
I just don't get it.
I don't understand how someone like me - who owns probably 95% of all D&D products ever made - could be so turned off by each new tidbit for 4e.
I know some of you are liking this and similar changes, so I apologize for my tone, but man this is awful stuff (IMO).
They are making it so easy for me to give 4E a pass.
ROFL. Surprised no one has mentioned this.
Smite looks to have the same 'mechanic' or flavor of Judgement abilities for paladins in Worlds of Warcraft...
In WoW, a pally judges a target after triggering one of his many seals, then while staying in melee, there is a chance after every hit that the members of his party will be healed somewhat or regain mana, etc...
Yup, the designers are trying to recreate WoW on paper it seems.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I must've gotten up in an alternate dimension that coexists next to my bed, because I think this smite ability is total h%~$@#$%~ also.
I appreciate that you can do the exact same thing mechanically in 3.5, but I think there is a distinct difference between correlation and causation. Yes, you can use two distinct abilities that mimic this ability. You are not required to use those abilities together.
I can appreciate that this smite + heal is probably good from a game perspective. No one wants to waste time healing - you want to be in the thick of the battle having fun. And who knows, maybe that value in play exceeds the h~+$*#$%$ factor, it's completely possible (hell, even very likely).
But it's still h#%&%!+~*. And clunky. It feels like they ripped off a video game mechanic and bluntly hammered it into the game.
(and for the serious part, sorry if I'm hostile. I just thought it was funny that you were into this element of 4e and making the arguments I would expect myself to make, and here I am b!&~*ing and moaning about it. I should check to see if I have a goatee now. Maybe I've been replaced with the evil (good?) me from the alternate dimension).
|
|
I still believe that even the presence of such text will feel tacked on at this point, because it contradicts 30+ years of established "fluff." There are magic boots in fantasy literature, in mythology, and in D&D all the way back to 1e. There are no flying fighters in any of these sources (off the top of my head, anyway). There are smiting paladins all the way back to Le Chanson de Roland (and in-game as well of course, back to 1e), but there are no established sources that make healing a by-product of smiting. Even if the mechanics support a similar combo (use smite evil and use a lesser metamagic rod to cast a quickened cure light wounds spell in the same round), it's clear that's a special case, not part of the new "flavor" of the game.
So what we are saying is "The way we are doing it now is better because it is the way it has always been done".
Why is coming up with new ideas a bad thing? 3.0 definately changed the "flavor" of the game. Not only did it change it, but it gave us 31 more "flavors" that worked within the system. So apparently adding "flavors" in 3.0 is good but adding "flavors" in 4e is bad.
My grandparents didn't need a microwave oven -- I don't know why I need one now. Those newfangled gadgets... Next thing you know people will be talking on the phone without a cord attached.
(And here I thought that I was the "old dog" on these boards.)
|
|
(and for the serious part, sorry if I'm hostile. I just thought it was funny that you were into this element of 4e and making the arguments I would expect myself to make, and here I am b%~%%ing and moaning about it. I should check to see if I have a goatee now. Maybe I've been replaced with the evil (good?) me from the alternate dimension).
I needed the laugh. (Oh, wait -- I'm supposed to be learning new tricks...)
I think it goes -- LOL or is it ROTFLMFAO?
Whatever...
Seriously -- "You are not required to use those abilities together". I didn't feel like you were required with the new paladin either. It really felt to me like it was an option. Still feels like smite is the new paladin spell-casting abilities.
At the same time...
Dear WotC,
Your current PR sucks. Please try again.
Sincerely
Moff Rimmer.
.
.
.
And Sebastian -- shave -- quick.
|
|
It's not so much that "this is the way it's always been." It's that one (smiting and casting close wounds, which by the way isn't even a paladin spell)is something I can visualize in my head and is believeable in the context of how things work in D&D. The other (hitting something with weapon charged with holy energy, and my buddy standing 20 ft away spontaneously heals his injuries) is too absurd for me to accept. I can possibly see him being inspired by the smite and getting some morale bonuses to AC, hit, or saves, or maybe even some temporary hit points. Spontaneously healing his injuries is taking it too far.
|
|
Why is coming up with new ideas a bad thing? 3.0 definately changed the "flavor" of the game. Not only did it change it, but it gave us 31 more "flavors" that worked within the system. So apparently adding "flavors" in 3.0 is good but adding "flavors" in 4e is bad.
If I order fish, there are a wide variety of fish flavors that I will find acceptable. Changing the flavor to beef would be strange.
3.0 changed the flavor only subtly. It took the old heritage and enriched it. Yes it added but in the end we still had 6 ability scores, nine alignements and Vancian Magic.
I can take my old OD&D modules and figure out how to use them with 3.x. The game designers have, if I have been informed right, said that the game will be so changed there will be little use in trying to upgrade old material.
That is more than adding flavor. That's throwing out the fish and killing a cow in its place and then trying to sell it as what was ordered.
Coming up with new ideas is not a bad thing. But making the new ideas the only ideas is not always the way to go. I like my microwave, but I greatly prefer cooking with gas. When the microwave was invented no-one threw out the stove just because there was something new on the market.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Seriously -- "You are not required to use those abilities together". I didn't feel like you were required with the new paladin either. It really felt to me like it was an option. Still feels like smite is the new paladin spell-casting abilities.
Okay, for some reason framing it like that makes it vaguely more palatable. Maybe the flavor text can make it seem less like h#&*$~@@+...
Which of course, reinforces the truth of:
At the same time...Dear WotC,
Your current PR sucks. Please try again.
Sincerely
Moff Rimmer.
[Edit out my feelings for WotC because they are probably too graphic. Let's say I'm less than happy.]
Damn, I'm pissed off about this smite thing. I'm sure I'll have cooled off tomorrow and your words will have sunk in further.
I really think that D&D is heading into a very bad place, and I feel sad for it.
I think those who are scared about 4e need to head over to places like dragonsfoot.org to see that the rules aren't nearly as important as the people that play them. And the fact that there are still people playing OD&D, AD&D, AD&D 2ed, 3.0 and 3.5 should tell everybody that D&D is doing just fine, thankyewverymuch, regardless of the current state of the rules.
Greg
3.0 changed the flavor only subtly.
This shows that the word "subtly" has a different meaning depending on who you are. The addition of feats, skill points, prestige classes, some core classes (re: sorcerer), monster advancement, and class levels for monsters (one of the big selling points of 3.0 in the beginning) - to name but a few - changed the flavour of D&D drastically, IMHO. This D&D was unlike anything that had come before. (Compared to 3ed, the differences between 1st and 2nd ed are virtually imperceptible.)
I happen to like these changes, but to call them "subtle" is really not accurate.
Greg
|
|
3.0 changed the flavor only subtly.This shows that the word "subtly" has a different meaning depending on who you are. The addition of feats, skill points, prestige classes, some core classes (re: sorcerer), monster advancement, and class levels for monsters (one of the big selling points of 3.0 in the beginning) - to name but a few - changed the flavour of D&D drastically, IMHO. This D&D was unlike anything that had come before. (Compared to 3ed, the differences between 1st and 2nd ed are virtually imperceptible.)
Maybe subtle isn't the best word.
The biggest of those changes in my opinion was the inclusion of sorcerors and I must admit that I still don't like them as well as wizards.
But the rest didn't much change the world of DnD for me. There were always boss monsters with more powers and hitpoints. The Orc chieftian was always a better fighter for instance than his minions. Now there were just consistant rules for these facts.
The inclusion of feats made it easier to broaden your character but the paladin of 3.0 was clearly the child of the 2.0 and 1.0 paladin. Skill points merely made it easier to do things that were doable under the old rules but in a clunkier way. Rogues could always climb walls, now the skill check replaced the percentage roll is all.
|
|
Damn, I'm pissed off about this smite thing.
For as long as I have played D&D (quite a while at this point), I have felt like the Paladin class was a waste of space, paper, and resources. Either he had to have stats that rivaled the god he worshipped or his additional abilities were so worthless that no one would play one anyway. (So let's see -- 1/day I might be able to do a whole 3 extra points of damage? -- "kewl".) I see more and more threads on how to house rule paladins to make them better. In the past 7 years of playing 3.X, I have had one person play a paladin -- and he died 3 sessions in. Probably iconically (is that even a word) the character class that should be the most powerful is one of the lamest classes out there.
WotC appears to be trying to address this. So they take one of the iconic attacks of a paladin and make it more than simply an additional 3 points of damage. So now when your paladin smites, flowers grow out of the opponent's ears. Doesn't necessarily make sense, but then neither does fireball coming from bat poop.
Making smite more than a bonus 3 points of damage a day is a good thing. Making the smite so that it heals a comrade at distance makes about as much sense as half the feats in PHB2. But for some reason those feats make sense because it is 3rd edition.
Damn those goatees...
Compared to 3ed, the differences between 1st and 2nd ed are virtually imperceptible.
I happen to like these changes, but to call them "subtle" is really not accurate.
That´s very much the way I see it as well - with 2nd Ed, you could still use 1st Ed (or even BD&D) stuff and not change much, if anything, to use it, and make it fit on the fly. I would not recommend taking older stuff and try to use it on the fly for 3.x. It can be used, but should be reworked.
Now, 4e seems so far to be a wholly different beast in many regards. According to the designers, making older stuff fit is not even worth the bother - "just start over". The paladin smite/heal example seems to support the notion of fundamental differences. This is not only a different flavor, but some other meal entirely.
Stefan
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For as long as I have played D&D (quite a while at this point), I have felt like the Paladin class was a waste of space, paper, and resources.
You may want to dust off your 1e and 2e phb and compare the pally against the fighter before making such a claim...
Either he had to have stats that rivaled the god he worshipped or his additional abilities were so worthless that no one would play one anyway. (So let's see -- 1/day I might be able to do a whole 3 extra points of damage? -- "kewl".) I see more and more threads on how to house rule paladins to make them better. In the past 7 years of playing 3.X, I have had one person play a paladin -- and he died 3 sessions in. Probably iconically (is that even a word) the character class that should be the most powerful is one of the lamest classes out there.
Agreed.
WotC appears to be trying to address this. So they take one of the iconic attacks of a paladin and make it more than simply an additional 3 points of damage. So now when your paladin smites, flowers grow out of the opponent's ears. Doesn't necessarily make sense, but then neither does fireball coming from bat poop.
Agreed.
Making smite more than a bonus 3 points of damage a day is a good thing.
Agreed.
Making the smite so that it heals a comrade at distance makes about as much sense as half the feats in PHB2. But for some reason those feats make sense because it is 3rd edition.
Disagree. There are many ways to improve the smite ability, or give the paladin abilities consistent with the smite ability, which do not involve effects that are so unrelated. The fact that you could theoretically set up your paladin to do this in 3e is not really the point. This sounds a hell of a lot like the default paladin. This isn't some bizzare amalgamation of unrelated options strung together to combine two different and unrelated effects (which is what you would need to do under 3e).
There are many ways the paladin could have been improved, there is absolutely no disagreement that the class needs improving. But the way they have chosen is about as clunky and stupid as save points in video games. The other two smite examples they provide are perfectly acceptable and much less clunky than this kill-and-heal effect.
|
|
You may want to dust off your 1e and 2e phb and compare the pally against the fighter before making such a claim...
This is true, but what were the stat requirements for being a paladin in 1e and 2e? Nearly god-like. Of course that was back in the day when stats were largely meaningless.
I agree with your disagreement (does that make sense). They should have left it with some form of vampiric smite or something similar.
WotC appears to be trying to address this. So they take one of the iconic attacks of a paladin and make it more than simply an additional 3 points of damage. So now when your paladin smites, flowers grow out of the opponent's ears. Doesn't necessarily make sense, but then neither does fireball coming from bat poop.
Well bat poop does have properties to make explosives, the fireball to me always does more to rearrange it quickly. (of course most other spells make no sense). Which could be argued that the damage the Paladin is doing is fueling the healing of his allies. However, dont know if I like the idea of Vampiric paladins.
Of course is there a restriction on who you smite? The paladin does need to be buffed up, but Im not sure this is the right way.
I have to agree that many of these ideas are in 3rd expansions. The beauty of the expanion is that its not part of the core rules.
I do find it funny that a major complaint (fair or not) about 4e is how similar it is to videogames. Then the second crunch containing article enforces that idea. Please higher PR people Wizards.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I agree with your disagreement (does that make sense). They should have left it with some form of vampiric smite or something similar.
And I agree with you that the abilities in context may be a lot easier to swallow. Also, come to think of it, the turning substitution feats did similar things, though I believe nearly all of them required an action (and, did not require a smite).
Pally heals as free action: okay.
Pally smites: okay.
Pally smites and uses free action ability: okay
Pally gets a free heal action because he smote: huh? Wtf does one have to do with the other?
Edit: One other comment on just the conceptual issues. I think a big part of this is the idea of ranged healing. Almost all healing in D&D is touch based, and the exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are bursts of healing targeted on the caster, not directed at a particular ally. So maybe this will also be easier to accept once ranged healing is accepted.
Moff, I agree with most of what you’ve been saying, but the thought of a holy warrior using a vampiric smite strikes me as both amusing and bizarre. I just love it when D&D terminology results in statements that appear incongruous.
|
|
Moff, I agree with most of what you’ve been saying, but the thought of a holy warrior using a vampiric smite strikes me as both amusing and bizarre. I just love it when D&D terminology results in statements that appear incongruous.
I was just using an established term. But you get the idea anyway -- suck life out of your evil opponent and heal yourself.
Please higher PR people Wizards.I think that they have the "higher" people at Wizards doing the PR. ;)
(It's "hire".)
Oops! I think your right they are using the higher people at Wizards instead of hiring new people. :)