Comments on the 4th Ed fact thread

[alhoon]

Still, it's more powerful attack is the dominate and it's most powerful defence it's the kiss.

[alhoon]

Raise dead at 9 level... again!

You can't fly, you can't turn invisible. You just bring back people from the dead. All the while being killed is far more difficult.

[Jester of the FoS]

All attack-type actions (offensive stuff) is a standard
All movement-type actions is a move action including the 5-foot step
Everything else tends to be minors.

Plus it's right there in the text "(standard; at-will)".

Anyhoo, check out the downloadable mini statcards here. Dread has RPG stats up, which can give you an idea of more monsters and PCs.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mi/20080410a

The level 8 cleric of pelor has an AC 24 and will of 19. Succy needs a "10" and a "7" to land the kiss, so she has a 50/50 chance of blowing the move.
Meanwhile, the level 7 paladin has an AC 26 and a will of 17 so a "12" and "5" are needed, so an even harder first hit on a lower opponent.
Lastly, the emerald orb wizard has an AC 20 so succy has a good chance of landing that first hit needed a "6" but his will is 21 so she needs a "9" for the follow-up.

Reliable but not unstoppable.

[alhoon]

That's for minis. Minies are harder to hit and easier to die.

[Lord Soth]

Raise dead at 9 level... again!

You can't fly, you can't turn invisible. You just bring back people from the dead. All the while being killed is far more difficult.

Well, according to Keith Baker...

The "PCs are special" comes out in other ways. I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I don't imagine it's a vital thing, and it's one of my favorite points: Raise Dead. In 4E, it's specifically called out that you can't raise most people from the dead. By and large, when the fates cut your thread, it's over - you are sent to whatever your final fate may be. You can only be raised if you still have an unfulfilled destiny - and as it turns out, that's something most PCs (and presumably, many major villains) happen to have. This is a HUGE thing for me in terms of dealing with the logical impact of raise dead on a civilization. I've always been bothered by the basic issue of "If raise dead exists, how do wealthy people ever die of anything except old age?" 4E gives the answer: raise dead is a divine gift that can only call back those touched by destiny; while when King Jarot is assassinated, that IS destiny. Bringing him back simply isn't an option.

So look on the bright side. If you don't want to see a whole lot of Raise Dead used in the campaign, you can simply state "Sorry, Charlie. But Bolvar Wyvernstar has fulfilled his destiny. He was, as a matter of fact, meant to be eaten by a Bulette. Tough break". The ritual essentially comes down to DM fiat. Does the DM want the character raised? If so, then the character is raised. But if he wants him to stay dead, then he stays dead.

[alhoon]

Hmmm... Not bad indeed. In case something bad happens to a PC mid campaign, you can bring him back. However it's the power level that incenses me.

IMO The best cleric in these parts (i.e 9th level) shouldn't be able to bring back dead with unfulfilled destinies... the same way the best wizard in these parts (i.e 9th level) should be able to throw large chunks of damage, far more than the best warriors in these parts together. Balance? He should be more fragile than the best (insert class here) in these parts.

[Lord Soth]

IMO The best cleric in these parts (i.e 9th level) shouldn't be able to bring back dead with unfulfilled destinies...

Well, it's definitely an improvement over prior editions, as now it's not guaranteed. It all depends on whether the character has an unfulfilled destiny or not. And if your DM decides that the character fulfilled his destiny, then he's as dead as a door nail.

the same way the best wizard in these parts (i.e 9th level) should be able to throw large chunks of damage, far more than the best warriors in these parts together. Balance? He should be more fragile than the best (insert class here) in these parts.

What does this have to do with Raise Dead?

At any rate, why should Wizards be able to throw out more damage then all the best warriors around combined? Because that was the case in prior editions? That's certainly not the case in a great deal of fantasy fiction. Conan, for instance, regularly beat up powerful Wizards and took their stuff. Merlin wasn't an unstoppable killing machine who could throw down more damage then all of the Knights of the Round Table combined (Hell, did he ever get into a fight? It's been years since I've read Le Morte D'Arthur or The Once and Future King). Gandalf didn't even rely on magic most of the time when he got into a fight.

To top it off, this is D&D. It's a cooperative game, where every character is supposed to contribute something to the success of the party. That whole concept is completely undercut when one class can outdo nearly every other class in what they do. Need to be stealthy and break into places? Why bother being a Rogue when a Wizard can do your job? Need to deal out damage? Why bother being a Fighter when a Wizard can do that job? Nevermind that Wizard fragility was pretty much non-existent at high levels, depending on his spell choice. With the right spells, a Wizard could not only outdo the warrior types in damage output, but he could also make himself pretty much immune to their attacks in return. Where's the balance in that? That's hardly a world where a man like Conan could thrive, or where a Wizard like Merlin would need to gather 150 knights to defend the kingdom.

[Jester of the FoS]

That's for minis. Minies are harder to hit and easier to die.

There's D&D RPG stats on the backs of the cards. The older sets only have updated downloadable cards for the DDM game, but the newest have the RPG stats. That's what I was referring to, although some of them are technically monsters and not characters.

[alhoon]

The monster stats don't seem right Jester. The "Elf Artillery" as a 2nd lvl artillery with 12 con should have 30 hp. Instead it has only 20.
(lvl+1) x 6 + con
Same goes with orc raider. 32 hp for a level 3 soldier with 14 con instead of 46 hp.
(lvl +1) x 8 +con

Same goes with all monsters there Jester. I don't trust these cards. The stats presented there seem to be for some other version of minis, one closer to D&D rules, but still with minis.

About the level advancement:
So power progression seems it goes like that:

2nd level: +1 feat, utility
3rd level: +1 encounter
4th level: feat
5th level: +1 daily
6th level: feat, utility
7th level: +1 encounter
8th level: feat
9th level: +1 daily
10th level: +1 utility
11th level: +1 paragon feat, +1 paragon encounter power
etc

So more or less, you get something at every level. Still, 4th and 8th level seem weak levels compared with the 5th level or the 9th.
Why? Because the kick-butt powerz are the dailies. I know that with my wizard I'll be waiting to get to 5th and 9th again.

On the other hand, classes like the fighter that care more about their bonus to hit rolls and defences will be far more enthusiastic about that +1 AC and +1 to (basically everything) at even levels.

Cudos to WotC. They came very close to the goal of "You'll be getting excited about each new level"

[Rotipher of the FoS]

4th and 8th are when you'd get to raise an ability score, assuming that's still a factor in the game. That might be why there's less payoff at those levels, in terms of powers and/or feats gained.

[Jester of the FoS]

The monster stats don't seem right Jester. The "Elf Artillery" as a 2nd lvl artillery with 12 con should have 30 hp. Instead it has only 20.
(lvl+1) x 6 + con
Same goes with orc raider. 32 hp for a level 3 soldier with 14 con instead of 46 hp.
(lvl +1) x 8 +con

Same goes with all monsters there Jester. I don't trust these cards. The stats presented there seem to be for some other version of minis, one closer to D&D rules, but still with minis.

Where do you get the numbers for monster hp? It seems similar to advancing monsters meshed with PC creation, but I don't know if base monster hps use the same numbers.
I can imagine WotC screwing up stats for some of the cards. But all of them?!

[alhoon]

From most of the already published monsters.
Check the skeleton soldier or the chuul. Not the cards, the threads.

Edit: From the lich: 8 hp/lvl for controller 6 hp/lvl for artillery.

More proof that the cards are not like the monstrous manual:
Vampire visier:
- WIth the blood bite he deals 2d12+2 instead of 2d12+10. Also the ability recharges at 5 while the DM one is usuable 1/encounter. The target isn't enervated as per the card but weakened.
- In the card, the vampire visier is supposed to get +5 vs bloodied opponents. That's not true for the vampire template.
- Also dominating gaze works completely differently in the card. It doesn't dominate from the beginning, it goes: dazed, stun, dominate while in the DM template it's just dominate.
- The card vampire lord turns to mist when reduced to 0 hp while the DM one can only turn to mist once per encounter as a standard action, not when reduced to 0 hp.

So, no. I don't trust the cards. The monsters are different.

[Jester of the FoS]

Good points.
Of course, the card/minis were produced quite a while ago so the most likely explanation is that the RP stats reflect the game at that time, late in the playtesting, while the excerpt is from the newest version. Or that a "vampire vizier" is different from a vampire lord.

Still gives a good idea of AC/save values though.

[Isabella]

I have a sneaking suspicion that Carnival isn't going to make the switch to 4e very well.

[Jester of the FoS]

Why?
Because Isolde suddenly becomes an angel of indeterminant alignment, no longer bound to an enforced moral code? Because she is suddenly a powerful and mysterious figure that could be good or evil or good but not merciful?