|
As the title suggests the lastest Excerpt is up.
For those of you with no care to link:
Not only angels, but a variety of other good divine servants populated the Great Wheel of earlier editions. An urge toward symmetry produced an Outer Plane for every shade of alignment, and that meant planar denizens of matching alignment. Thus, archons were lawful good, guardinals were neutral good, and eladrins were chaotic good. (In fact, until the 3.5 version of the Monster Manual, the word “angel” did not appear in the game.)
Meanwhile, evil gods were served by . . . nobody. Sure, there were demons and devils, but they had their own agendas and paid little attention to what the gods were up to—whether good or evil. This left the evil gods with assorted minions and cultists, unless they made alliances with fiends. What would stand against adventurers who dared Hextor or Vecna on his home turf? Evil creatures might live in Pandemonium, but they had nothing to do with Erythnul. In a strange way, this arrangement meant that a demon lord such as Orcus or an archdevil such as Asmodeus could muster an army of servants and actually present a greater challenge to high-level characters than gods. Something was wrong with that picture.
Reconcepting some of the iconic monsters of the D&D game went hand in glove with our intent to revamp the setting, in addition to the game mechanics, so as to maximize playability and fun. One of the goals of monster development for the new edition was to better distinguish monster groups. All those shades of niceness didn’t do much to clearly identify the various servants of good, nor did those creatures embody specific principles in the way that different sorts of fiends often did. We decided that every god needed to have servants, and making angels those servants seemed the logical step. (Demons and devils might still work with evil gods, but they do not serve them.)
Removing alignment restrictions from angels also meant that they could embody new ideas. The word “angel” means “messenger”—why couldn’t one bring a message of war, or pain, or vengeance, as well as those of hope or protection? (And, of course, snuggles.) A god of generally good alignment might still have need of an angel to bring death to enemies; an evil god could require an envoy to inspire loyalty and bravery. Now an angel can lead any deity’s armies, whether of lesser angels, immortal creatures or powerful mortal champions, and can project its divine will into other realms. The weaker angels are heroic-tier monsters, suitable as temple guardians and mortal commanders. The more powerful are effective challenges at the paragon and epic tiers, standing by the side of their deities. (Along the way, some things that were once angel-like changed their natures, most notably the eladrin, who now are the lords of the Feywild.)
The change in angels’ nature paved the way to a change in appearance as well. Angels became less humanoid in appearance, more like impartial embodiments of immortal power. They are faceless, sometimes metallic or stonelike in form, trailing into Astral essence. No halos here—these are beings created by the gods for a purpose, rather than anthropomorphic images of comfort and purity. They are uncaring and relentless, and their new look reinforces that aspect.
ANGEL
Most deities have angel servants. Although their appearances can vary, all angels are vaguely humanoid in form, with masculine or feminine features and lower bodies that trail off into flowing energy.
Angels exist as expressions of the Astral Sea, sentient energy in humanoid form. They most often serve the gods, so some believe that the gods created them. In reality, angels are powerful astral beings who appeared during the first moments of the creation of the Astral Sea. Different types of angels have different callings; they are literally manifestations of celestial vocations. Perhaps it was the needs of the gods that caused the astral stuff to spew them forth, but it was not a conscious act of creation. During the great war between the gods and the primordials, angels offered themselves as warriors to the gods that best encompassed their callings, and today they continue to act as mercenary forces for anyone willing to meet their price—be it wealth, or power, or a cause worthy of their attention.
Angels are more involved in the world and other planes than deities and exarchs. They act both openly and secretly, often acting as emissaries, generals, and even assassins.
Angel of Valor
Angels of valor, though courageous and fierce, are the weakest and the most numerous of angels called to serve a given deity.
Angel of Valor Level 8 SoldierMedium immortal humanoid (angel)XP 350Initiative +10 Senses Perception +6
Angelic Presence Attacks against the angel of valor take a –2 penalty until the angel is bloodied.
HP 88; Bloodied 44
AC 24; Fortitude 22, Reflex 20, Will 19
Immune fear; Resist 10 fire, 10 radiant
Speed 6, fly 9 (hover)
Longsword (standard; at-will) Weapon+13 vs. AC; 1d8 + 6 damage.Dagger (standard; at-will) Weapon+13 vs. AC; 1d4 + 6 damage.Blade Fury (standard; at-will) WeaponThe angel of valor makes a longsword attack and a dagger attack. Lightning Strike (standard; encounter) LightningClose burst 1; targets enemies; +11 vs. Fortitude; 1d8 + 4 lightning damage, and the target is dazed until the end of the angel of valor’s next turn. Fiery Blades (minor, usable only while bloodied; at-will) FireUntil the start of the angel of valor’s next turn, the angel of valor’s weapons deal fire damage and attack the target’s Reflex defense instead of AC.Alignment Any Languages Supernal Skills Intimidate +12 Str 23 (+10) Dex 18 (+8) Wis 14 (+6) Con 16 (+7) Int 11 (+4) Cha 16 (+7) Equipment chainmail, longsword, dagger
Angel of Vengeance
Angels of vengeance strike down those who wrong a deity. They also punish disloyalty and failure among the devout.
Angel of VengeanceLevel 19 Elite BruteLarge immortal humanoid (angel)XP 4800Initiative +13 Senses Perception +16
HP 446; Bloodied 223
AC 34; Fortitude 33, Reflex 29, Will 33; see also cloak of vengeance
Immune disease, fear; Resist 15 cold, 15 fire, 15 radiant; see also coldfire pillar
Saving Throws +2
Speed 8, fly 12 (hover); see also sign of vengeance
Action Points 1
Longsword (standard; at-will) Cold, Fire, WeaponReach 2; +25 vs. AC; 1d10 + 9 damage plus 1d8 fire damage plus 1d8 cold damage.Double Attack (standard; at-will) Cold, Fire, WeaponThe angel of vengeance makes two longsword attacks.Sign of Vengeance (minor; encounter) TeleportationRanged sight; the angel of vengeance places an invisible sign upon the target. Until the end of the encounter, as a move action, the angel can teleport adjacent to the target. Coldfire Pillar (free, when first bloodied; encounter) Cold, Fire, PolymorphThe angel transforms into a 30-foot-high pillar of blue flame. Close burst 2; +23 vs. Reflex; 1d8 + 9 cold damage plus 1d8 + 9 fire damage. The angel of vengeance is immune to all damage until the start of its next turn.Cloak of Vengeance (until bloodied) Cold, FireAttacks against the angel of vengeance take a –2 penalty until the angel is bloodied. While cloak of vengeance is in effect, a creature that makes a successful melee attack against the angel takes 1d8 fire damage and 1d8 cold damage.Alignment Any Languages Supernal Skills Insight +21, Intimidate +22 Str 27 (+17) Dex 18 (+13) Wis 25 (+16) Con 23 (+15) Int 19 (+13) Cha 26 (+17) Equipment plate armor, 2 longswords
Angel of Vengeance Tactics
An angel of vengeance focuses on a single target. It evokes its sign of vengeance at the start of battle, then teleports to the target and spends an action point to use double attack against the foe. The angel continues its relentless pursuit of the target, paying little heed to events around it.
Angel of Vengeance Lore
A character knows the following information with a successful Religion check.
DC 20: Deities send angels of vengeance to punish those who have defied or angered them. A god might also send an angel of vengeance to test one who is in danger of falling off the deity’s path, showing no mercy for failure.
DC 25: Influential members of a clergy use a ritual to call forth their deity’s wrath in the form of one of these angels.
Encounter Groups
Angels of vengeance appear alone or in pairs, sometimes aided by angels of valor or angels of battle.
Level 19 Encounter (XP 13,600)
2 angels of vengeance (level 19 elite brute)
5 angel of valor legionnaires (level 21 minion)
When was the last time your party took on an angel? For most players, the answer is probably �never�. Even the least of them, the astral deva, is a very powerful opponent�and, of course, there�s that sticky problem of their being good-with-a-capital-G creatures. D&D characters are supposed to be heroes, and heroes don�t fight the good guys, right?
In which case holy wars between good groups and rival good religeons would never happen. The potential for conflict with angelic servitors of good gods is an awesome way to inject some moral ambiguity and plot complexity into a campaign. It might also be important to note that "angels" (or aasimon if you prefer) aren't personifications of abstract good: they're personifications of their deific patron's will. A good deity might have goals that require morally questionable actions, or its servitors might lose track of (or even not care, or be able to distinguish) the difference between good actions and actions done in service to their creator.
In a strange way, this arrangement meant that a demon lord such as Orcus or an archdevil such as Asmodeus could muster an army of servants and actually present a greater challenge to high-level characters than gods. Something was wrong with that picture.
IMO there was absolutely nothing wrong with that picture, depending on circumstances. Archfiends and other planar lords were personifications of their planes in many ways, and as such they should be expected to be capable of mustering more servitors and minions than a god who while they might reside on a plane, had no more of a connection to it than a random PC. Inside a god's deific domain however the situation was very much the opposite.
Of course, if you're viewing archfiends as big monsters to kill, and gods as automatically more powerful than them in all cases (as WotC seems to prefer for 4e), there's not as much of a problem. But there's some rather selective amnesia going on here with a false dichotomy being presented between gods and planar lords that didn't really exist during large periods of D&D's history.
Also, I have to say that it's completely false that evil gods never had servitors except for cultists and fiends they bargained with. -False- Demonstrably false. It's true that there was never a distinct group of evil outsiders that served no purpose than to serve evil gods in the same way that angels/aasimon served good deities. They had servitors, but rather than a single monolithic race of evil godly servitors they tended to each have their own unique ones. Apomps had the gehreleths/demodands, Sung Chiang had the linqua, Set had the Minions of Set, Cegilune had the Night Hags (to a degree), and there were many more examples.
But isn't 4e's stance on needing evil angels to serve evil gods just more "needless symmetry"?
-but on that note, I don't have a problem with angels being of any alignment. I just find WotC's reasons to be either disengenuous or lacking much knowledge of how things worked prior to this point.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Last time I took on an angel would be a Living Greyhawk module, last year. Last time my Age of Worms party took on an angel would be last year, due to events in one of the adventures.
"Never" is pretty short these days?
I don't know if I can meld the "devils as fallen angels" idea with "angels are of all alignments" idea. Also, the devil articles note that devils already serve the evil gods, so I'm not sold on the idea that evil angels were needed to "fill in the gaps" of divine servants for the darker powers. Seems like the fluff contradicts a bit there. If devils are just fallen GOOD angels, why are they so different from non-fallen evil angels?
Said to say, I think this grew out of a desire to have everything in the MM be "fightable".
I'd like to add a positive closing thought, but the angels are a decided no-vote for me. I want my devas back :)
Edit: Ok, I like the idea of rank-and-file angels that aren't just tied to certain group of planar missions (like movanic devas and the prime material, for example).
Alright, so this is basically a semantics deal? Evil servitors that aren't demons or devils are a fine addition to the game, but I don't know that there is anything especially noteworthy in calling them "angels". At least, not unless its going to result in all the gods having fundamentally similar servants, which seems unlikely to be a good idea.
Well, that's somehow the idea. I don't think it's a bad idea, however. One of the precepts of 4th edition is to make alignment less crucial to the game, so deities' servants are classified by "concept" rather than "alignment".
Anyway, I can't say that I buy the core concept that "if the players don't fight it, its a waste of space" which seems to behind this name game.
4th edition, as the designers mentioned, is more gamist and less simulationist than the previous edition. In a gamist perspective, putting statblocks that won't be used is clearly a waste of space.
In which case holy wars between good groups and rival good religeons would never happen. The potential for conflict with angelic servitors of good gods is an awesome way to inject some moral ambiguity and plot complexity into a campaign.
As Bleach pointed out, tradional D&D fluff never implied any good vs. good battle. Sometimes (like on Book of Exalted Deeds), it was mentioned that such things may occur; but I don't recall any official material in which this actively happens. Except on Eberron, but Eberron doesn't use classic D&D fluff.
And of course, good vs. good is still a possibility on 4th edition. Probably even more than before, since alignments aren't as important.
But isn't 4e's stance on needing evil angels to serve evil gods just more "needless symmetry"?
-but on that note, I don't have a problem with angels being of any alignment. I just find WotC's reasons to be either disengenuous or lacking much knowledge of how things worked prior to this point.
It's not about symmmetry. It's about things making sense and be easy to understand for those who don't know the "30 years of D&D history". It's about making things that can be easily integrated into anyone's game.
You give a pretty good example. On previous editions, evil deities had specific creatures working as their servants.
However, a typical DM doesn't have that knowledge, and typically doesn't have the material needed to run such creatures. I myself have no idea of who is Apomps, Ceguiluine or Sung Chiang. Yeah, Set uses minions of set, but honestly I doubt that a 6-HD monster will satisfy all my "divine servant" needs.
Most DM's lives will probably be easier if the Monster Manual give them a plethora of divine servants, rather than obligating them to buy some obscure supplement or having to create one from scratch.
I understand that for you, and for those who enjoy the "30 years of D&D history", these changes may seem illogical or unnecessary. But keep on mind that these changes are not aimed to satisfy this group, but the more gamist D&D fan base and potential new DMs.
Alright, so this is basically a semantics deal? Evil servitors that aren't demons or devils are a fine addition to the game, but I don't know that there is anything especially noteworthy in calling them "angels". At least, not unless its going to result in all the gods having fundamentally similar servants, which seems unlikely to be a good idea.
Anyway, I can't say that I buy the core concept that "if the players don't fight it, its a waste of space" which seems to behind this name game.
According to the article, this basically means that all gods WILL have the same servants that just serve different ideals. An angel of valor for one god is the same as an angel of valor for another god. This allows them to publish stats for monsters that are more likely to get used.
I like this idea because it means I can more readily use angels in encounters of various types, even combat ones.
Last time I took on an angel would be a Living Greyhawk module, last year. Last time my Age of Worms party took on an angel would be last year, due to events in one of the adventures.
"Never" is pretty short these days?
I don't know if I can meld the "devils as fallen angels" idea with "angels are of all alignments" idea. Also, the devil articles note that devils already serve the evil gods, so I'm not sold on the idea that evil angels were needed to "fill in the gaps" of divine servants for the darker powers. Seems like the fluff contradicts a bit there. If devils are just fallen GOOD angels, why are they so different from non-fallen evil angels?
As far as I recall, W&M mentions that devils are "fallen angels" but not "fallen good angels".
They weren't punished because they were evil. They were punished because Asmodeus committed some kind of crime, even among deities, when he slew his master.
Devils don't serve evil gods on 4th edition - in the sense that they are not loyal to them. It was mentioned that devils sometimes make contracts with evil deities and work for them for a while. They are kinda mercenaries, but their true loyalty is to Asmodeus only.
Last time I took on an angel would be a Living Greyhawk module, last year. Last time my Age of Worms party took on an angel would be last year, due to events in one of the adventures.
"Never" is pretty short these days?
I don't know if I can meld the "devils as fallen angels" idea with "angels are of all alignments" idea. Also, the devil articles note that devils already serve the evil gods, so I'm not sold on the idea that evil angels were needed to "fill in the gaps" of divine servants for the darker powers. Seems like the fluff contradicts a bit there. If devils are just fallen GOOD angels, why are they so different from non-fallen evil angels?
Said to say, I think this grew out of a desire to have everything in the MM be "fightable".
I'd like to add a positive closing thought, but the angels are a decided no-vote for me. I want my devas back :)
Edit: Ok, I like the idea of rank-and-file angels that aren't just tied to certain group of planar missions (like movanic devas and the prime material, for example).
I've never actually had any DM throw an angel at us, and likewise have never included one to fight.
Partly its because many celestial creatures are pretty powerful things to fight, and partly because I wanted to avoid the cliche of a fallen angel, and partly because I wanted to avoid the cliche of a misinformed angel.As far as I'd read, devils do their own thing with Asmodeus and might occasionally help out evil gods as part of a bargain, but mostly evil gods will just utilize their own angels.
Now to make my own post instead of a response...
I really like the new direction that angels have gone. Though I'm not especially happy with the minis thus far, I DO like that they are of varied enough power to make them much more usable in a campaign, and that since they can serve any cause that I can more readily use them, period.
This means that I can still have an angel harass the players due to misinformation if I so choose, but I can just as easily use the same stat block to represent a servant of an evil deity. Its more flexible, which makes it more useful, which means less wasted space.
I'm sure that a LOT of groups have used celestial creatures from time to time, but I think that many groups use them rarely, if ever due to their alignment and power level. Does this mean that you HAVE to use angels as part of encounters?
Not at all. You can still have devils serving evil gods if you want, and I doubt anything is going to suffer for it.
3. Deities WERE more powerful than planar lords at least in 1e/2e. Not only was the goal of planar lords was to become gods but this was referrenced in text in that they could NOT grant spells. When did 3E change it so that planar lords >>> Deities?
Archfiends could grant spells to worshippers (but only up to a limit compared to those who had also embraced godhood). See "Hellbound". It may have been described differently during an earlier period of 2e (and in 1e the situation changed over time through a few books).
In 1e there wasn't any flavor text to address the topic really, so the stat blocks were the only measure of power (and yes, in 1e gods had better stats). 2e was a mixed bag, depending on what source you looked at. But for example, Gruumsh and Maglubiyet were forcibly exiled from the 9 Hells by the archdevils, the yugoloths killed at least one god by literal starvation by corrupting its pool of worship, and collectively the fiends ended deific participation in the Blood War (through means not fully known, but which resulted in the death of one god and the near death of many multiple others).
As far as 3e, if you wanted to get picky, technically gods had set stats, while archfiends had undefined stats except for aspects/avatars (though I'm fairly sure that Erik and James might feel differently from me on the archfiends / gods debate in general even as I support my argument using a source they wrote). ;)
As far as 3e, if you wanted to get picky, technically gods had set stats, while archfiends had undefined stats except for aspects/avatars (though I'm fairly sure that Erik and James might feel differently from me on the archfiends / gods debate in general even as I support my argument using a source they wrote). ;)
BoVD explictly mention that archdevils had a divine rank of zero. And BoVD had statblocks for the actual archdevils, not "aspects/avatars", which were uncomparably weaker than deities. The idea of "avatars" introduced by Fiendish Codex II was to provide weaker versions of devils which could be used against non-epic PCs. Remember that deity avatars from Deities & Demigods were completely unkillable for non-epic PCs.
|
Last time I took on an angel would be a Living Greyhawk module, last year. Last time my Age of Worms party took on an angel would be last year, due to events in one of the adventures.
"Never" is pretty short these days?
Yes, and the podcast about the Monster Manual had a quip about never seeing dryads as monsters in adventures.
It is things like that that make me question where exactly all the problems with using 3.5 are - in the rules or in the imaginations of people using those rules.I don't know if I can meld the "devils as fallen angels" idea with "angels are of all alignments" idea. Also, the devil articles note that devils already serve the evil gods, so I'm not sold on the idea that evil angels were needed to "fill in the gaps" of divine servants for the darker powers. Seems like the fluff contradicts a bit there. If devils are just fallen GOOD angels, why are they so different from non-fallen evil angels?
Said to say, I think this grew out of a desire to have everything in the MM be "fightable".
Exactly.
In the quest to make everything in the MM just a monster to fight, they are tripping themselves up on their flavor text.|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
1. Nowhere in the devils excerpt does it actually say that Asmodeus is a fallen angel.
All it says is that Asmoseus was a leader of similar servants.
2. I've never understood how in D&D cosmology you can get two sides of good actually fighting each other. Good wasn't something you could see in the eye of the beholder. In Eberron, hjell yeah. In Forgotten Realms, no.
1. Yes, but it does say they are fallen angels in the World and Monsters book. To address another poster, while it doesn't say they were good as such, it does refer to a "celestial master".
2. There are other issues to fight about than good and evil, at least in prior editions. I've certainly heard of elves and dwarfs fighting each other, though generally that is as background material.
1. Yes, but it does say they are fallen angels in the World and Monsters book. To address another poster, while it doesn't say they were good as such, it does refer to a "celestial master".
Now that you mention it, you're right. However, it happens that Chris Sims already clarified this:
n 4th Edition, the Nine Hells are an astral dominion among other deific abodes in the Astral Sea (more on that in an upcoming Design & Development column). The resident deity is Asmodeus, who as an angel in primeval times, led an army of his fellows against his celestial master and murdered that god. Although Asmodeus gained divine might from his foul deed, he and his followers also suffered their victim’s dying curse. Under the power of that malediction, all the rebellious angels twisted in form and became devils. Worse still, the murdered god’s words transformed Asmodeus's dominion into a nightmarish place and bound the newborn devils to it. To this day, devils plot to escape their prison, weaving lies and corruption to ensure their eventual freedom and to seize even greater power.
So, probably Asmodeus and the other devils were once angels serving a good aligned deity, as you stated. But they didn't become devils because they became evil, they became devils because of the curse worded by the murdered god.
When was the last time your party took on an angel? For most players, the answer is probably “never”. Even the least of them, the astral deva, is a very powerful opponent—and, of course, there’s that sticky problem of their being good-with-a-capital-G creatures. D&D characters are supposed to be heroes, and heroes don’t fight the good guys, right?
Um, WotC, not everything in D&D was meant to kill and loot. Did you forget it's a ROLE PLAYING GAME already!?
And, yes, with good story the heroes can, and should at some point, end up fighting the good guys. Are you insulting our creativity here?
Not only angels, but a variety of other good divine servants populated the Great Wheel of earlier editions. An urge toward symmetry produced an Outer Plane for every shade of alignment, and that meant planar denizens of matching alignment. Thus, archons were lawful good, guardinals were neutral good, and eladrins were chaotic good. (In fact, until the 3.5 version of the Monster Manual, the word “angel” did not appear in the game.)
As it should always be. That was the D&D mythology, which you should've left alone. Instead, you tore it apart and made it so unlike D&D, you have some nerve still calling it D&D.
Meanwhile, evil gods were served by . . . nobody. Sure, there were demons and devils, but they had their own agendas and paid little attention to what the gods were up to—whether good or evil. This left the evil gods with assorted minions and cultists, unless they made alliances with fiends. What would stand against adventurers who dared Hextor or Vecna on his home turf? Evil creatures might live in Pandemonium, but they had nothing to do with Erythnul. In a strange way, this arrangement meant that a demon lord such as Orcus or an archdevil such as Asmodeus could muster an army of servants and actually present a greater challenge to high-level characters than gods. Something was wrong with that picture.
These guys are fresh, new blooded, suits. They know NOTHING about D&D's long history. The evil deities were served by demons and devils, their own creations, or whatever. Who says demons and devils can't be servants of the deities? Tiamat did it with the abishai. Evil creatures lived in Pandemonium but had nothing to do with Erythnul? Then the simple solution would've been to give Erythnul his own servants! Not destroy the concept of angels/celestials in D&D for your own greed!
Reconcepting some of the iconic monsters of the D&D game went hand in glove with our intent to revamp the setting, in addition to the game mechanics, so as to maximize playability and fun. One of the goals of monster development for the new edition was to better distinguish monster groups.
You mean to maximize profit and to maximize hack&slash gaming.
All those shades of niceness didn’t do much to clearly identify the various servants of good, nor did those creatures embody specific principles in the way that different sorts of fiends often did. We decided that every god needed to have servants, and making angels those servants seemed the logical step. (Demons and devils might still work with evil gods, but they do not serve them.)
Maybe in your campaign, not the rest of ours.
WotC, the more excerpts I read, the more I wonder if you have any sense of dignity left with the D&D brand name. I prefer WotC&Dragons or maybe Wizards&Dragons. Because this is NOT Dungeons&Dragons as we all know it to be.
|
When was the last time your party took on an angel?
The last time we had a Planescape game going?
And it's not like it's hard to come up with that scenario outside the "everything goes" setting either. And then there's the matter that you could wind up fighting alongside too, which was more likely anyway.
So are Devas out entirely or are they a separate group from the new Angels?
Because planetars are still what come to my mind first when I think "angel" in D&D terms.
My concern isn't some much with the change in background to angels. I like that hexter might have angels of war that serve him. I was a little disappointed with the actual game stats for the creatures. I just thought they seemed a little bland. The 19th level angel brute, doesn't have much beyond a single melee attack, a little teleport power, and a ranged electrical strike (I think that's what it was). I was hoping for some cool s+$@ that it could lay down, but there doesn't seem to be that much.
I realize that they are attempting to simplify the monsters a little to make them easier to play, but I don't want too much water in my beer.
I also undestand that these monsters are supposed to be used along with other monsters and not just on their own, so I assume the idea is that keeping them simple will make it easier to run a fight with a host of angels, and that different angels will have different roles, which will allow them to do different things in a fight. I suspect that the design logic is that combining a few brute angels with some angels that have more artillery or ambush powers could make for an interesting fight that is still manageable. Thus, the simplification of the stats might be a good thing- the thought of running a battle with a host (ie 8+) of powerful 3E angels against a party is a little daunting, given all the different options at their disposal. However, if the 19th level angel brute is intended to be used as some kind of solo opponent, then I think we are in trouble, as he doesn't look like he has the bag of tricks needed to make that kind of a fight interesting.
I'm interested to see what kind of options the books offer dms who wish to beef up monsters like this to make them more suitable to run as boss villains. For instance, I understand that Orcus is in the MM, I'd like to see his stat block, and see what kind of options he still has at his disposal, because his 3E stats (particularly the CR 32 ones presented in the dungeon and dragon mags) still give him lots of options and punch.
I also undestand that these monsters are supposed to be used along with other monsters and not just on their own, so I assume the idea is that keeping them simple will make it easier to run a fight with a host of angels, and that different angels will have different roles, which will allow them to do different things in a fight. I suspect that the design logic is that combining a few brute angels with some angels that have more artillery or ambush powers could make for an interesting fight that is still manageable. Thus, the simplification of the stats might be a good thing- the thought of running a battle with a host (ie 8+) of powerful 3E angels against a party is a little daunting, given all the different options at their disposal. However, if the 19th level angel brute is intended to be used as some kind of solo opponent, then I think we are in trouble, as he doesn't look like he has the bag of tricks needed to make that kind of a fight interesting.
The 19th level angel is an elite, so it's not supposed to be used as a solo opponent, but to handle 2 PCs instead.
As for an option to make elite monsters being able to be used as solo monsters, I believe that the mentioned "class templates" will be exactly what you are looking for.
Um, WotC, not everything in D&D was meant to kill and loot. Did you forget it's a ROLE PLAYING GAME already!?
And, yes, with good story the heroes can, and should at some point, end up fighting the good guys. Are you insulting our creativity here?
Which just tells me that you either do not know what role-playing actually means, or you only consider that part of the game when you talk to be role-playing.
As it should always be. That was the D&D mythology, which you should've left alone. Instead, you tore it apart and made it so unlike D&D, you have some nerve still calling it D&D.
If you liked the old D&D mythology, you are well within your rights to continue using that. Whining that they changed some story doesnt carry any weight since you can easily keep doing what you were doing and just ignore it.
Get over it, its D&D.
These guys are fresh, new blooded, suits. They know NOTHING about D&D's long history. The evil deities were served by demons and devils, their own creations, or whatever. Who says demons and devils can't be servants of the deities? Tiamat did it with the abishai. Evil creatures lived in Pandemonium but had nothing to do with Erythnul? Then the simple solution would've been to give Erythnul his own servants! Not destroy the concept of angels/celestials in D&D for your own greed!
You probably would have complained that they gave evil gods their own servants, or something. You dont seem particularly conducive to change. I find it strange that you accuse them of allegedly "destroying" the game over greed: they could have just as easily kept rehashing old concepts and material if they just wanted money out of the relationship.
You mean to maximize profit and to maximize hack&slash gaming.
No, they meant what they said. I know you want to think that they are somehow removing all elements from the game aside from combat (even though its a majority shareholder when it comes to game time) and accuse them of being greedy, or appealing to moronic children, or whatever reason pops in your head at the time, but the fact is that you can still talk to other characters, and I dunno, weave baskets.
Maybe in your campaign, not the rest of ours.
WotC, the more excerpts I read, the more I wonder if you have any sense of dignity left with the D&D brand name. I prefer WotC&Dragons or maybe Wizards&Dragons. Because this is NOT Dungeons&Dragons as we all know it to be.
Actually, I like this idea. I'm sure a LOT of other people do as well, Razz. It would have been more accurate to say, "Not in MY campaign, and perhaps not in other peoples' campaigns, either." It sounds like that you are trying to be a kind of universal voice for "the people". Not everyone agrees with you, even here.
Not that I expected any action from Wizards of the Coast, aside from declaring the whole thing a hoax and reprinting old books, to satisfy you.
I'm sorry to say that many of us, even those who dont play World of WarCraft and can do basic addition, are looking forward to the new edition.
My concern isn't some much with the change in background to angels. I like that hexter might have angels of war that serve him. I was a little disappointed with the actual game stats for the creatures. I just thought they seemed a little bland. The 19th level angel brute, doesn't have much beyond a single melee attack, a little teleport power, and a ranged electrical strike (I think that's what it was). I was hoping for some cool s@&& that it could lay down, but there doesn't seem to be that much.
I realize that they are attempting to simplify the monsters a little to make them easier to play, but I don't want too much water in my beer.
I also undestand that these monsters are supposed to be used along with other monsters and not just on their own, so I assume the idea is that keeping them simple will make it easier to run a fight with a host of angels, and that different angels will have different roles, which will allow them to do different things in a fight. I suspect that the design logic is that combining a few brute angels with some angels that have more artillery or ambush powers could make for an interesting fight that is still manageable. Thus, the simplification of the stats might be a good thing- the thought of running a battle with a host (ie 8+) of powerful 3E angels against a party is a little daunting, given all the different options at their disposal. However, if the 19th level angel brute is intended to be used as some kind of solo opponent, then I think we are in trouble, as he doesn't look like he has the bag of tricks needed to make that kind of a fight interesting.
I'm interested to see what kind of options the books offer dms who wish to beef up monsters like this to make them more suitable to run as boss villains. For instance, I understand that Orcus is in the MM, I'd like to see his stat block, and see what kind of options he still has at his disposal, because his 3E stats (particularly the CR 32 ones presented in the dungeon and dragon mags) still give him lots of options and...
Having play tested a simple 1st-level game using the kobold stats and 1st-level delve pregens, even monsters that only have a couple options are surprisingly dynamic and fun to run as a DM. Its really like having your own little mini-party, but I also like to think of it like this:
A DM is only one person. Before in 3rd Edition, it was assumed that you would have only a couple of monsters at a time, if that (and many monsters dont really have that much aside from mundane melee attacks, either).
Now that you are supposed to use many more monsters at a time (at least as many as the party, if not more), you have to understand that EACH of these guys has a handful of options to fallback on, so its really not like you are getting less things to decide each round (the options might be smaller, but the number of monsters is overall higher).
Now factor in that some monsters have reactions and immediate actions to take (goblins shifting whenever you miss them, getting smacked by a dragon's tail when you miss them, etc), and you have plenty to do and track each round.
So, if I want the party to fight a small host of angels, I'm glad that I'm not getting bogged down with pointless spells that wont really contribute at all (such as detect magic or light): for a fight, I need fightin' stats.
If I want to use them for something else, then I wont need the stats at all. Well, maybe their skills, if they happen to be relevant to what I need them for.
As for the sample angel of vengeance? He's an elite guy. However, I'm not so sure how encounter building works in paragon tier because apparently a balanced encounter at level 19 includes two elites and five 21st-level minions. I had enough fun with a whopping five kobolds in a 1st-level battle, so I'm eager to see how fun it is later in the game.
Fluff wise, everyone has angels is pretty lame but its a lot easier for the game designers in a setting neutral situation. The reality is that unique servitors ought to be developed for each god or group of closely related gods. But you can't do that except in the context of a Campaign Setting book and its probably not considered a good use of space in such anyway.
I'm curious as to why every god (good or evil) having unwavering servitors to their cause is a lame idea?
Also, why should every god have completely unique servants?
Overall, the new monster stats are bland because the core idea is to make every monster simplistic. After all, a monster typically just needs to do "five cool things before it dies" according to WotC's game play research.
I want to make a question for the DMs round there. What do you prefer - a monster than is fun to read or a monster that is fun to use?
Yeah, I admit that 3.5 high-level and epic monsters are incredibly complex and look far more awesome on paper, when compared to their "bland" 4E conterparts. Then you put them against a high-level or epic party, and they are obliterated in 1 round by the PCs' bombardment of multiple attacks and spells. Then the DM gets angry and increases a "bit" the power of the next monster. But now, because the players are no so lucky with the dice, they are TPKed in 1 round instead and the campaign has a melancholic end.
Yeah, the 4E angel of vengeance has just 4 tricks, where the 3.5 planetar has a gazillion of spells and spell-like abilities. But how many the 3.5 planetar will actually USE before it's anihilated by the party, or anihilates the party instead? As for the angel of vengeance... well, he has 445 HP, and as there aren't iterative attacks anymore and even a 16th-level daily wizard spell can't do more than a few dozens of points of damage, I at least know than he can do some pretty good mess before being destroyed.
For those of you who are simulationists, you may actually prefer that a monster has these tons of abilities written in the book simply because they make sense, and I respect your opinion. I myself have a simulationist side.
But, as I'm primarily as gamist, I'd rather prefer a monster than can do 3 cool things and will do these 3 cool things, than a monster than can theorically do 150 cool things but will be sent to oblivion before acting on his initiative.
If the /only/ consideration is what the monster will do in combat against the PCs, I suppose there is nothing wrong with just setting them up to be knocked down without a lot of wasted space. But that's not the only use for "monsters", particularly high level ones like angels and demons. Monsters also can be used multiple times and in a wide variety of situations. Obviously, the 4e solution is to create different monsters for each of these situations instead of creating monsters flexible enough to be used different ways.
It seems 4E's intepretation is that even high-level heroes or monsters have a somewhat narrow focus (the so-called "role"), and with exception of solo monsters, they depend on teamwork and cooperation from the others to reveal their true power.
Was that much different on 3.5E? Clerics and wizards can do all sorts of cool stuff? Yes, they can. But about fighters, rangers or rogues? Even a 20th-level fighter can't fly or teleport without help, heal his allies, summon demons, or blast his enemies with falling meteors. Why would every high-level monster be able to do nearly everything when a high-level PC clearly can't?
Saying that an angel or demon "can't do anything besides combat" because he doesn't have the abilities of 14th-level cleric anymore, is like saying that a 3.5E 20th-level fighter can't do anything besides combat. Just like a good player can make this fighter an extremly interesting character - when not fighting, of course - I'm sure that a creative DM can do the same thing with an angel of vengeance, even without adding new abilities to him. Heck, some of the most memorable NPCs from my campaign didn't even had stat blocks!
Also, remember that most non-combat powers (including interplanar travel) will be accomplished through rituals, which as already mentioned, monsters like devils will be able to use.
I guess there is little point in echoing the rest of them here, but I agree. The only thing needed in the stat block is the combat stats. Other abilities/skills will vary from creature to creature by DM whim, which is a better situation all around, in my mind.
When was the last time your party took on an angel? For most players, the answer is probably “never”. Even the least of them, the astral deva, is a very powerful opponent—and, of course, there’s that sticky problem of their being good-with-a-capital-G creatures. D&D characters are supposed to be heroes, and heroes don’t fight the good guys, right?
This explains so much -- they really have no idea what people do in their games.
Reconcepting some of the iconic monsters of the D&D game went hand in glove with our intent to revamp the setting, in addition to the game mechanics, so as to maximize playability and fun.
Let me translate: "Pasting the names of iconic monsters of the D&D game on superficially-related new creatures with went hand in glove with our intent to trash the setting, ratchet up the power-gaming mechanics, so as to maximize revenue and profit."
I've been off the boards for a while, and I'm feeling angry and spiteful.
Sorry.
If all the gods are closely related and essentially on the same team, then they would likely have some similarity in their servants. But if the gods are distinct in origin, opposed to each other (or divided into some number of opposing teams), the idea that they have the same servants is extremely boring.
Angels are creations of the Astral Sea that serve whomever best fits the ideals that they encompass. It was explained in the article that many gods have need for servants that essentially do the same thing (fight, defend, lead, etc), and it makes a lot of sense, especially considering the fact that the gods didnt create angels themselves.
Bane and Bahamut ought not both have the same sort of 'angels of retribution' for punishing wrongdoers. Its uninteresting and makes them less distinctive. Arguably, an Inevitable and a Retriever both do the same thing: go deal with someone who has offended a god (or principle) of the relevant alignment. But there is substantial flavor added by them not both being functionally identical (except possibly for personality, if that comes up)
Do you think that angels that serve Bane should go about dealing retribution in a different style than the ones that serve Bahamut? Or that they should just look different?
But D&D generally botches religion anyway and 4e is striving to go further down the flavorless path. But that probably works for them, since quite likely the majority of players couldn't care less about anything actually religious and just want a name of a god to shout in battle. Worlds like Glorantha and Tekumel, where they actually put some thought into the religion as opposed to lists of gods, are few and far between. And don't have particularly interesting market shares.
Eh, Tekumel doesnt seem to be a sandbox RPG, but a game that uses a pre-established world, so it makes sense that they can cram in more background. D&D usually has group-specific settings, so its not really worthwhile to go into finer detail on those sorts of things. Thats what Dragon articles and campaign settings are for.
This explains so much -- they really have no idea what people do in their games.
Are you saying that MOST groups DO fight angels?
Let me translate: "Pasting the names of iconic monsters of the D&D game on superficially-related new creatures with went hand in glove with our intent to trash the setting, ratchet up the power-gaming mechanics, so as to maximize revenue and profit."
I've been off the boards for a while, and I'm feeling angry and spiteful.
I disagree, but only because I'd rather not purchase the same books with the same story and background as the last edition. If I wanna use that stuff, I can just run 3rd Edition.
Are you saying that MOST groups DO fight angels?
No, but my sense is that WotC is stereotyping gamers and their games inaccurately.
Players certainly, in my experience, don't conform to standard roles and behaviors that WotC seems to be assuming.
Are you saying that MOST groups DO fight angels?No, but my sense is that WotC is stereotyping gamers and their games inaccurately.
Players certainly, in my experience, don't conform to standard roles and behaviors that WotC seems to be assuming.
My sense tells me that what they are doing is catering to the majority of D&D players, seeing as they have access to surveys, message boards, email messages, letters, and personal discussions with D&D players, and thus are a pretty good authority figure on what the mainstream likes and dislikes of D&D are.
*sigh*. WotC lost me on 4th Edition a long time ago, and this article pretty much embodies everything that I disagreed with: needless changes to long established game lore, monsters that only serves as something to test your new and cool(tm) power on, and a general disregard for the tradition and flavour of D&D.
The thing that saddens me the most is that the new players 4E will inevitably attract will think this is all D&D is, not realising what a full and rich metastory D&D used to have. Sure, that might be just how I feel, but with a game that becomes as personal as D&D such things need to be taken into account.
*sigh*. WotC lost me on 4th Edition a long time ago, and this article pretty much embodies everything that I disagreed with: needless changes to long established game lore, monsters that only serves as something to test your new and cool(tm) power on, and a general disregard for the tradition and flavour of D&D.
You might think thats its "needless", but I think that introducing new background material is a great thing. Certainly better than rehashing what we already knew three editions ago.
I dont get where you are drawing the conclusion that monsters are somehow less conducive to non-combat situations, but it seems to be a popular misconception.
The thing that saddens me the most is that the new players 4E will inevitably attract will think this is all D&D is, not realising what a full and rich metastory D&D used to have. Sure, that might be just how I feel, but with a game that becomes as personal as D&D such things need to be taken into account.
The thing that saddens me is that a few people think that the old D&D story was just sooo great and perfect, and at the same time think that all Wizards should be doing is repeating it again and again with every new edition. Of course, this is done all the while failing to realize that if you think its a great and wondrous tapestry that you can just, you know, KEEP USING IT.
Antioch,
HOw is your argument not just "make it all up yourself"? And if it is, why do I even need to buy the new book? Obviously, an experienced DM knows how to change stats or make things up to use monsters in different situations. But where is there any evidence that the game is supporting new DMs in doing that or providing examples?
Since we dont have the books, I can only go off of the rave review that Nick gave us about the DMG. From the sounds of things, its got heaps of great advice for running a game.
Actually, the article on monsters explains how to pretty easily and quickly modify and level-up monsters.
Finally, many monsters have two or more stat blocks that make them ideal for differing situations (such as a monster geared for sniping the party, and another stat block that makes the same guy ideal at being a more fighter-ish type).
If the game only stats out combat for the monsters and only shows examples of using monsters in combat, don't you think that most folks not already familiar with a broader playstyle are going do end up with a combat intensive campaign?
I think that 4th Edition actually emphasizes using monsters for more than XP grinds, seeing as it now includes rules and inherent XP awards for skill challenges of various stripes. Basically, your fear sounds completely unwarranted.
However, I will point out that combat does encompass the lion's share of most D&D adventures. I would point out 150 issues of Dungeon magazine and numerous published modules as proof of this.
They can make up new background and story if they want. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with them recycling names and using them for fundamentally different concepts, because that's going to lead to confusion in conversation between players of different editions (something that's not been an issue before). In 1/2/3e Eladrin and Archon mean one thing; in 4e they mean something substantially different.
So, would you have preferred them remove specific things from the game that made it seem too artificial and generate a list of words that they could never, EVER use again for fear of confusing players?
The fact is that they were going to remove all of the symmetry from the background anyway. Some of the terms and names are pretty neat, and I'm glad that they applied them after giving some things the axe.
There are things in 3rd Edition that worked a lot differently than in 2nd Edition that already give rise to stories of, "I remember back in the day when..."
I do wish that they spent more effort on being creative in their new stuff instead of going down the path of least resistance.. like using gods from existing campaign worlds, making all angels generic, and so on. Some of the stuff they are doing is great, like the Feywild and the Shadowfell (though I'm not sold on the names, especially). A lot of stuff isn't.
I dont see making angels generic as the easy way out. I think they wanted to ensure that published material would get used as often as possible. To me, thats more bang for my buck.
Frankly, I like virtually all of the stuff I've heard thus far.
And no matter how many times you tell me that I don't need to use the new material that still won't become a valid rebuttal to criticism of the new material's quality.
The quality is certainly your opinion, but its just that. From the sounds of things, most people seem to prefer the new stuff.
Most of those changes between older editions were mechanics. Mechanics changes are not a problem. And yes, I would have preferred that they didn't turn eladrin into a type of elf and archons into a type of elemental and so on. If they were similar things with different mechanics it would have been better.
I disagree. I think when it comes to mechanics and background, that mechanics pose a larger problem during transition between editions, as it requires players to learn new things, forget old things, and can cause problems as players attempt to remember the "right version" of the rules they are dealing with.
We still poke fun at some 2nd Edition rules, when you had a bend bars/lift gates percentage, as well as the fighter iterative attacks.
The reason I dont have a problem with altering background material is because D&D is a sandbox game. Many groups run their own campaign settings that deviate from the implied setting of the books themselves, or use published campaign settings that ALSO deviate from the implied setting.
People are upset about the Great Wheel cosmology getting the axe? I used it during my Planescape days, not that the arrangement actually mattered (for all I cared, it could have been a neat, orderly row and nothing would really change except for the map of the planes that is allegedly not accurate anyway).
People are upset that the angel-formerly-known-as-archon got the axe? Well, we dont know if the monster themselves got the axe, but certainly a name-change (which is easy enough to fix, just change it BACK).
Eladrin didnt actually go anywhere. They got a noble prefix, and thats it. They still exist, looking and acting much like they did before, if my bralani mini and stat card is any indication of this.
It just really sounds like people are griping because they arent re-publishing the same implied setting in this new edition.
And it may well prove that they have all this cool non combat stuff hidden away. I just find it very odd that after all this time and all these revelations, next to none of it has made an appearance anywhere. That strikes me as speaking volumes about what they think is important.
They're doling out various crunchy bits that we are familiar with, to give a good comparison. They threw out the rogue class so we could compare and contrast to the old rogue class. The same goes with feats, paladin abilities, and monster stats. This gives us an idea of how things will differ from the old edition.
Now, they have mentioned rules that arent for combat before, and people have were able to check those out during D&D XP. They just havent posted the fine details as part of a preview article (perhaps due to it taking up too much space/revealing more than what they want with a preview).
This does go right back to the fact that D&D is an action-oriented game, so giving us small reveals of the action bits makes perfect sense.
I'm well aware that most people prefer to play D&D as a combat intensive game. Its one of the reasons that I hardly ever buy D&D modules and don't subscribe to Dungeon magazine.
Well, since 4th Edition openly supports non-combat challenges right out of the gate, then it should appeal to you moreso: you could more easily design entire adventures without combat and still accurately challenge and reward players.
However, I think you have no basis for saying that "most" people seem to like the changes. Neither of us knows what the majority of folks think about that. Most of the folks still posting on this forum after the pathfinder announcement maybe... Not really sure what your point is.. I should shut up because you claim to have majority support? What else is there to express about fluff except opinion?
Assuming you are just referring to the story changes (cosmology, appearance of monsters, names of monsters, etc), I'm sure that if the majority rule had a problem that it would have been changed. We know that a fighter exploit got its named changed (Dragon Tail Cut) due to being "too lame", or whatever.
Background material is very easy to change, names even more so, and if people didnt like that the name archon got reapplied to a different creature that they could have just called them something else.
If most of the people were clamoring for a symmetrical, unified existence, then I'm sure Wizards could have just puts some polish on the material that some players grew up on for 30 or so years and just called it good.
Unless there is a lot of information in the DMG or somewhere else in the MM to guide folks in expanding the monsters or using them in non combat ways, I think its going to have an adverse affect on gameplay in the long run. Beyond some vague comments, they aren't giving us much reason to believe the game is designed for anything beyond 'delves'.
That's a good point, but could you really say that the previous editions did something different?
Check again the description of the pit fiend on AD&D 1st Monster Manual, AD&D 2nd Monstrous Manual, and D&D 3.5 Monster Manual.
See? All of them gave a pretty bland description for the greatest of non-unique devils. The most "detailed" of them is AD&D 2nd edition, which provides this stuff:
Pit fiends are spawned from the powerful gelugons of the Nine Hells' eighth layer. When those icy fiends are found worthy they are cast into the Pit of Flame for 1,001 days after which they emerge as pit fiends.
Cool right? But I doubt a newbie DM will think on a thousand ways of using the pit fiend in non-combat situations only through this text.
3.5 edition? Uhhh... let's see:
Pit fiends are the undisputed lords of the baatezu, masters of creating fear in mortals and devils alike.
That's right! Awesome TWO LINES of non-combat description!
I completely agree with you that would be nice if the Monster Manual could give a more detailed role-playing description for every monster. But please don't say that 4th edition is not doing a thing that previous editions were doing.
As curiosity, the role-playing information for the succubus in the various editions:
1st edition
These female demons are usually not found in numbers, for they prefer to act alone. Succubi rule lower demons through wit and threat.
2nd edition
??? (I don't know where they are)
3.5 edition
Succubus are the most comely of the tanar'i (perhaps of all demons), and they live to tempt mortals.
4th edition:
Succubi tempt mortals into performing evil deeds, using their shapechanging abilities to appear as attractive men and women. Although seduction and betrayal are their forte, succubi are also practiced spies and assassins. Succubi serve more powerful devils as scouts, advisors, and even concubines. Because of their guile and shapechanging ability, they are frequently chosen to serve as infernal emissaries to important mortals.
What edition provides the best insight of how to use the succubus outside combat?