The house rule read that characters die when their negative hit point total reaches -10 or one-quarter of their full normal hit points, whichever is a larger value, so the mage isn't quite that bad off.alhoon wrote: Second note: poor mage. 3d4+3xcon, and con won't probably be high. 12 hp, dies at -6. You better invest in con or toughness.
Comments on the 4th Ed fact thread
"No, but evil is still being — Is having reason — Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-
Rotipher of the FoS
- Thieving Crow
- Posts: 4683
- Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:18 pm
Actually, the threshold for death is apparently -(1/2 total hp) or -10, whichever is lower. For low-hp PCs, that part'll be no different than in 3E.alhoon wrote: Second note: poor mage. 3d4+3xcon, and con won't probably be high. 12 hp, dies at -6. You better invest in con or toughness.
Some folks on the WotC and ENworld forums have evidently crunched the numbers, and a sub-0 hp PC who's just left there to bleed reportedly has (roughly) a 28% chance of reviving on their own, and a 72% chance of dying without waking up. That's assuming they're not eaten by one of the monsters, caught in a Fireball's radius, suffering continuous damage, etc.
"Who [u]cares[/u] what the Dark Powers are? They're [i]bastards![/i] That's all I need to know of them." -- Crow
-
alhoon
- Invisible Menace
- Posts: 9081
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:46 pm
- Location: Chania or Athens // Greece
Hmmm? Where did we got that from? It's not bad IMO. But I know my players love rolling their hp so even if it's very helpful, I don't think it will see much use. A pity since I agree that it helps to follow a trend.Jester of the FoS wrote:
Hitpoints in 4E shape up to be less random, following a trend. Point buy for stats and likely a straight # each level. Likely less than average rolls in 3E but with a higher starting total.
So it might be 30 + 4/level for fighters and something like 15+2/level for wizards.
"You truly see what a person is made of, when you begin to slice into them" - Semirhage
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!
-
Jester of the FoS
- Jester of the Dark Comedy
- Posts: 4536
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:19 am
- Location: A Canadian from Canadia
Educated guess.alhoon wrote:Hmmm? Where did we got that from? It's not bad IMO. But I know my players love rolling their hp so even if it's very helpful, I don't think it will see much use. A pity since I agree that it helps to follow a trend.Jester of the FoS wrote:
Hitpoints in 4E shape up to be less random, following a trend. Point buy for stats and likely a straight # each level. Likely less than average rolls in 3E but with a higher starting total.
So it might be 30 + 4/level for fighters and something like 15+2/level for wizards.
It's a trend of the game to minimize randomness in character creation. You phase out rolling for stats and hp to avoid uber and weak characters. Because there's nothing worse than partying with someone who didn't roll below a 15 when you didn't roll above a 13 or having the fighter end up with less hp than the wizard because he kept rolling 1s.
They want more play over more levels with a mid-level feel. That also means you start out with more hitpoints and gain fewer each level for a total around the average for a lvl20 at around lvl30, but probably on the higher end.
Fighters will still probably max out at 180hp or so, with a crazy Con.
So that's -75.
-
Rotipher of the FoS
- Thieving Crow
- Posts: 4683
- Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:18 pm
Or maybe everyone could gain 1d4 + X hp per level (value of X being determined by class), rather than a fixed number. That'd provide a nice safety net against handicapping by 1s, yet it would still allow for a bit of variation in PC and NPC hit points. That could come in handy, if they want to discourage rules-lawyer-y remarks like, "He just used class ability A, guys, and it did B points of damage! That means he's gotta be level B as well, so he can't have more than C hit points left...". 
"Who [u]cares[/u] what the Dark Powers are? They're [i]bastards![/i] That's all I need to know of them." -- Crow
-
Jester of the FoS
- Jester of the Dark Comedy
- Posts: 4536
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:19 am
- Location: A Canadian from Canadia
-
Jester of the FoS
- Jester of the Dark Comedy
- Posts: 4536
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:19 am
- Location: A Canadian from Canadia
For the sake of balance and fairness there are somethings about 4E that I'm not fond of.
First is the timing. It's too damn soon for a new edition, even if you count 3.0 and 3.5 as a single edition. It will have been less than a decade, probably closer to eight and a half years (between PHBs and less between other books).
There's lots of life left in 3E with easily a half-dozen books and products for the line even a layman can think of. Books like Heroes of Intrigue (the political and social equivalent of Battle and Horror) or Races of the Goblin or the remaining Complete Warrior (as we had two for everything else and the first CW was teeny-tiny) plus other monster and environment books. The line could have easily eeked out another year or two. Of course, the problem with this is there wouldn't have been enough products for WotC's insistent book-a-month schedule. That alone probably shaved a couple years off 3E's lifespan as regular books of declining quality (as the A-talent, and even likely the B-talent, moved to developing 4E) meant sliding sales which further pushed the 'necessity' of 4E to boost sales.
I'm a little hopefully (although probably naively so) that 4E will correct this vicious cycle. Fewer products of better quality released less often would probably yield better total sale numbers. People would save-up and anticipate the new books and with less filler and more usable material more people would be interested in the books. And books covering less-specific and more broad topics (new classes and races with new feats, options for old) will appeal to larger audiences. A PHB2 is a much more interesting book than any single Complete X book.
What don't I like about the new edition so far?
Firstly, the removal of saves irks me.
It makes sense from a player perspective as there is little worse than wasting your turn using an ability just to have the opponent nail their save. Making an attack roll gives the power to you. That I like. If you botch the roll it's still you're bad luck, but you also have the opportunity to employ re-rolls, feats, bonuses, abilities, favours, etc.
However the reverse is disturbing. It does remove "save or die" results (scary but never fun) instead having someone make the roll for you with nothing you can do to affect it. Saving against some old red dragon's breath weapon was bad, but having it roll to attack is worse (ancient dragons never miss) and brings in the painful possibility of criticals. This is rather backwards and leads to such oddness as a pit trap making an attack roll against your reflex defense. A better way would be to have the player make attack rolls against a monsters defense while making their own saves. More rolls for the player but fewer for the DM, which is good because they're usually doing 3x as much anyway.
Alot of systems do this anyway. Dragonlance SAGA had the player doing all the random rolls (or rather card pulls), and Vampire has long emphasized player's attacking and dodging over Storyteller rolling. Most modern systems try to minimize the DM's randomness and extra rolls, making the players roll more. It seems like a step backwards.
I also do not like the removal of all stat-effecting mechanics. Ability damaging or draining monsters were just a scary threat and things like con drain equaling blood loss just made sense (and made vampires frightening). Straight damage won't be as effective.
It's a case of overkill: there were too many things affecting stats with items, spells, multiple monsters, damage, drain, etc. It's a pain having to recalculate damage, attack bonus, skills, etc. They give the example of someone being enlarged and having bull strength cast on them before being hit by a shadow and describing the exaggerated descent into bookkeeping. But that's a reason to downplay the mechanic's use, not eliminate it altogether. Or, and this is a drastic, radical idea, simplify it.
I also don't really like how they're treating older editions of the game. Especially in the YouTube ads. They went with the worst and simplest of stereotypes too, they didn't even try hard. Old, tired, weary jokes that had been recycled through Order of the Stick and a dozen similar sites and comics years ago.
My favorite is the one where they're mocking 1st or 2nd Edition (I forget which) and getting confused with what the make-shift minis represent. I've seen that joke done better in Full Frontal Nerdity and OotS as well, only they targeted collectible mini games.
Yeah, I get that you want to make the new, shiny version of the game look good, but there are better ways than tarnishing the old. Yeah, the grappling rules are a tad clunky but they're hardly the worst mechanic and most broken problem in the game.
Mostly this is the marketing department at work, but it's also the designers themselves. Of course WotC has a pretty teeny-tiny marketing dept and budget. You only every really see adds in comics, gaming mags, online, and in their own products. And the writers are, well, writers so I shouldn't expect them to have tact.
I'm also disappointed with the apparent non-change in ability bonuses themselves. An odd-stat is such a let-down. Thankfully stat-boosts seem to be 2 every four levels, like SW Saga, so the pain of adding your hard-earned boost for no benefit should be diminished. And with point-buy you can avoid a series of odd numbers.
The online options seem overpriced and not worth it. Yeah, for somewhere between $10-$15 you get a subscription to Dungeon and Dragon magazines, book updates (formerly known as the free web enhancements and errata) and the online table.
The two magazines seem like a nice draw until you consider they've been publishing for five months and have only released an issue and a half. And there won't be any real contributions for the new game until August or likely September.
Of course, there are also archives. So why pay monthly when you can just subscribe once a year and get all the back issues?
Of course there are already a dozen options for online play that you only need a single $15-25 fee to use. It'd be cheaper to have everyone use NWN, a dice roller, and a voice chat program.
The option to make characters online is also attractive, so you can make and update characters with new books registering those with serial numbers or the like, and then use them to play online. But this introduces a whole mess of other concerns. What if a group gets together and buys a book? Can my wife use my copy? What if I buy a used book?
And so far the online table looks like a 3D (and flat) version of Dungeon Tiles. Can it do exteriors? Castles? Houses?
WotC also hasn't impressed me with their in-house tech team. Their website's updates have been sporadic and troublesome, their message boards slow and lacking features, and their other online programs (mostly RPGA module ordering and character trackers) glitchy and useless. Prior projects were handled elsewhere and outsourced but still less than stellar (DM Tools springs to mind).
The lack of options for all archetypes is also a let-down. There are three options for striker, and two of those martial, while only a single choice for controller. This seems needless, especially when there are so many classes from 2E or 3E that could have been placed in that role. Instead they're holding back traditional races, classes, monsters (and like abilities and spells) for later books.
Which is probably my largest pet peeve and outright dislike.
Iconic classes, races, monsters -and likely spells, items and abilities- being deliberately held back; not because they're not ready, but because they're wanted to pad later releases to make those seem more important and "Core" and less optional.
But fine, we'll assume they just have simply too many cool ideas, rules and such to squeeze into a single book and not enough time to make everything perfect, so only the unready stuff gets bumped. I'll be alright with a regular annual release of solid material if it's all been as thoroughly tested and playtested and balanced and thought-out as the main three books. But we all know that ain't going to happen. PHB2 might be awesometastic with a held-back and perfected gnome, half-orc, bard, druid, psionic power source, magic item creation rules, etc. And they might even be able to pull a good PHB3 out of their collective sun-don't-shine-holes with something like a draconic power source and revamped sorcerer and dragaonic shaman and even more. But we're still left waiting for a PHB4 or 5 pulled from a dry and tapped well. And you can bet the new ideas and options in those books won't have been tested and toyed with for two years prior like the current rules. And after that much tapping even the fluff will begin to fall apart. Let's face it, most of the 'new' monsters, classes, races and the like just haven't been as interesting as the ones that have slowly grown over the past 30 years. Every now and then something newish really clicks (PC dragonmen, warlocks) but most the other new options (kalashar, dolomites, raptorians, illuminums, duskblades, hexblades, marshalls, spirit shamans) are just crud and as forgettable as 90% of 2E kits.
But I suppose they could just go with more and more monster races and the like, adding player orcs and goblins and such.
But more than likely around PHB4 or 5 we'll start to get new "optional" rules that are testing new mechanics for 5E.
First is the timing. It's too damn soon for a new edition, even if you count 3.0 and 3.5 as a single edition. It will have been less than a decade, probably closer to eight and a half years (between PHBs and less between other books).
There's lots of life left in 3E with easily a half-dozen books and products for the line even a layman can think of. Books like Heroes of Intrigue (the political and social equivalent of Battle and Horror) or Races of the Goblin or the remaining Complete Warrior (as we had two for everything else and the first CW was teeny-tiny) plus other monster and environment books. The line could have easily eeked out another year or two. Of course, the problem with this is there wouldn't have been enough products for WotC's insistent book-a-month schedule. That alone probably shaved a couple years off 3E's lifespan as regular books of declining quality (as the A-talent, and even likely the B-talent, moved to developing 4E) meant sliding sales which further pushed the 'necessity' of 4E to boost sales.
I'm a little hopefully (although probably naively so) that 4E will correct this vicious cycle. Fewer products of better quality released less often would probably yield better total sale numbers. People would save-up and anticipate the new books and with less filler and more usable material more people would be interested in the books. And books covering less-specific and more broad topics (new classes and races with new feats, options for old) will appeal to larger audiences. A PHB2 is a much more interesting book than any single Complete X book.
What don't I like about the new edition so far?
Firstly, the removal of saves irks me.
It makes sense from a player perspective as there is little worse than wasting your turn using an ability just to have the opponent nail their save. Making an attack roll gives the power to you. That I like. If you botch the roll it's still you're bad luck, but you also have the opportunity to employ re-rolls, feats, bonuses, abilities, favours, etc.
However the reverse is disturbing. It does remove "save or die" results (scary but never fun) instead having someone make the roll for you with nothing you can do to affect it. Saving against some old red dragon's breath weapon was bad, but having it roll to attack is worse (ancient dragons never miss) and brings in the painful possibility of criticals. This is rather backwards and leads to such oddness as a pit trap making an attack roll against your reflex defense. A better way would be to have the player make attack rolls against a monsters defense while making their own saves. More rolls for the player but fewer for the DM, which is good because they're usually doing 3x as much anyway.
Alot of systems do this anyway. Dragonlance SAGA had the player doing all the random rolls (or rather card pulls), and Vampire has long emphasized player's attacking and dodging over Storyteller rolling. Most modern systems try to minimize the DM's randomness and extra rolls, making the players roll more. It seems like a step backwards.
I also do not like the removal of all stat-effecting mechanics. Ability damaging or draining monsters were just a scary threat and things like con drain equaling blood loss just made sense (and made vampires frightening). Straight damage won't be as effective.
It's a case of overkill: there were too many things affecting stats with items, spells, multiple monsters, damage, drain, etc. It's a pain having to recalculate damage, attack bonus, skills, etc. They give the example of someone being enlarged and having bull strength cast on them before being hit by a shadow and describing the exaggerated descent into bookkeeping. But that's a reason to downplay the mechanic's use, not eliminate it altogether. Or, and this is a drastic, radical idea, simplify it.
I also don't really like how they're treating older editions of the game. Especially in the YouTube ads. They went with the worst and simplest of stereotypes too, they didn't even try hard. Old, tired, weary jokes that had been recycled through Order of the Stick and a dozen similar sites and comics years ago.
My favorite is the one where they're mocking 1st or 2nd Edition (I forget which) and getting confused with what the make-shift minis represent. I've seen that joke done better in Full Frontal Nerdity and OotS as well, only they targeted collectible mini games.
Yeah, I get that you want to make the new, shiny version of the game look good, but there are better ways than tarnishing the old. Yeah, the grappling rules are a tad clunky but they're hardly the worst mechanic and most broken problem in the game.
Mostly this is the marketing department at work, but it's also the designers themselves. Of course WotC has a pretty teeny-tiny marketing dept and budget. You only every really see adds in comics, gaming mags, online, and in their own products. And the writers are, well, writers so I shouldn't expect them to have tact.
I'm also disappointed with the apparent non-change in ability bonuses themselves. An odd-stat is such a let-down. Thankfully stat-boosts seem to be 2 every four levels, like SW Saga, so the pain of adding your hard-earned boost for no benefit should be diminished. And with point-buy you can avoid a series of odd numbers.
The online options seem overpriced and not worth it. Yeah, for somewhere between $10-$15 you get a subscription to Dungeon and Dragon magazines, book updates (formerly known as the free web enhancements and errata) and the online table.
The two magazines seem like a nice draw until you consider they've been publishing for five months and have only released an issue and a half. And there won't be any real contributions for the new game until August or likely September.
Of course, there are also archives. So why pay monthly when you can just subscribe once a year and get all the back issues?
Of course there are already a dozen options for online play that you only need a single $15-25 fee to use. It'd be cheaper to have everyone use NWN, a dice roller, and a voice chat program.
The option to make characters online is also attractive, so you can make and update characters with new books registering those with serial numbers or the like, and then use them to play online. But this introduces a whole mess of other concerns. What if a group gets together and buys a book? Can my wife use my copy? What if I buy a used book?
And so far the online table looks like a 3D (and flat) version of Dungeon Tiles. Can it do exteriors? Castles? Houses?
WotC also hasn't impressed me with their in-house tech team. Their website's updates have been sporadic and troublesome, their message boards slow and lacking features, and their other online programs (mostly RPGA module ordering and character trackers) glitchy and useless. Prior projects were handled elsewhere and outsourced but still less than stellar (DM Tools springs to mind).
The lack of options for all archetypes is also a let-down. There are three options for striker, and two of those martial, while only a single choice for controller. This seems needless, especially when there are so many classes from 2E or 3E that could have been placed in that role. Instead they're holding back traditional races, classes, monsters (and like abilities and spells) for later books.
Which is probably my largest pet peeve and outright dislike.
Iconic classes, races, monsters -and likely spells, items and abilities- being deliberately held back; not because they're not ready, but because they're wanted to pad later releases to make those seem more important and "Core" and less optional.
But fine, we'll assume they just have simply too many cool ideas, rules and such to squeeze into a single book and not enough time to make everything perfect, so only the unready stuff gets bumped. I'll be alright with a regular annual release of solid material if it's all been as thoroughly tested and playtested and balanced and thought-out as the main three books. But we all know that ain't going to happen. PHB2 might be awesometastic with a held-back and perfected gnome, half-orc, bard, druid, psionic power source, magic item creation rules, etc. And they might even be able to pull a good PHB3 out of their collective sun-don't-shine-holes with something like a draconic power source and revamped sorcerer and dragaonic shaman and even more. But we're still left waiting for a PHB4 or 5 pulled from a dry and tapped well. And you can bet the new ideas and options in those books won't have been tested and toyed with for two years prior like the current rules. And after that much tapping even the fluff will begin to fall apart. Let's face it, most of the 'new' monsters, classes, races and the like just haven't been as interesting as the ones that have slowly grown over the past 30 years. Every now and then something newish really clicks (PC dragonmen, warlocks) but most the other new options (kalashar, dolomites, raptorians, illuminums, duskblades, hexblades, marshalls, spirit shamans) are just crud and as forgettable as 90% of 2E kits.
But I suppose they could just go with more and more monster races and the like, adding player orcs and goblins and such.
But more than likely around PHB4 or 5 we'll start to get new "optional" rules that are testing new mechanics for 5E.
Hmm, seems like you and I agree strongly on this point. So... um... "brilliant arguments! Fine points! Every word a rapier swift riposte to the flabby underbelly of woolly thinking!"Jester of the FoS wrote:I also don't really like how they're treating older editions of the game. Especially in the YouTube ads. They went with the worst and simplest of stereotypes too, they didn't even try hard. Old, tired, weary jokes that had been recycled through Order of the Stick and a dozen similar sites and comics years ago.
My favorite is the one where they're mocking 1st or 2nd Edition (I forget which) and getting confused with what the make-shift minis represent. I've seen that joke done better in Full Frontal Nerdity and OotS as well, only they targeted collectible mini games.
Yeah, I get that you want to make the new, shiny version of the game look good, but there are better ways than tarnishing the old. Yeah, the grappling rules are a tad clunky but they're hardly the worst mechanic and most broken problem in the game.
-
Jester of the FoS
- Jester of the Dark Comedy
- Posts: 4536
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:19 am
- Location: A Canadian from Canadia
I'm a little less hard in my opinion of game designers and the writers slagging the old, because they're pretty much doing what the players are. We're all dudes who play a game and bitch about what we don't like.HuManBing wrote:Hmm, seems like you and I agree strongly on this point. So... um... "brilliant arguments! Fine points! Every word a rapier swift riposte to the flabby underbelly of woolly thinking!"Jester of the FoS wrote:I also don't really like how they're treating older editions of the game. Especially in the YouTube ads. They went with the worst and simplest of stereotypes too, they didn't even try hard. Old, tired, weary jokes that had been recycled through Order of the Stick and a dozen similar sites and comics years ago.
My favorite is the one where they're mocking 1st or 2nd Edition (I forget which) and getting confused with what the make-shift minis represent. I've seen that joke done better in Full Frontal Nerdity and OotS as well, only they targeted collectible mini games.
Yeah, I get that you want to make the new, shiny version of the game look good, but there are better ways than tarnishing the old. Yeah, the grappling rules are a tad clunky but they're hardly the worst mechanic and most broken problem in the game.
(Okay... there are dudettes too. I married one, I should know.)
The calculated marketing in the YouTube adds and the cartoons... that seems much more "out new game is good because it doesn't do X or have Y". Yes, thank you. I'll decide if a game system is good based on what it does more than what it does differently from the old.
-
Bluebomber4evr
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:08 pm
- Location: United States of Whatever
- Contact:
It's not so much the game mechanics that bother me (though I can understand why it bothers many people)--I only learned about half of 3.X's rules myself--but the "fluff" changes they've made are actually a big turnoff. Things like devils being fallen angels and living in the Astral and there no longer being an ethereal and drow are now fey and gnomes are evil and so on (and yes, these are all actual changes in 4th ed., I've checked)...it just doesn't feel like D&D to me anymore.
Bluebomber4evr: The Justice, not you, since 2002.
Ravenloft: Prisoners of the Mist Persistent World for Neverwinter Nights: www.nwnravenloft.com
Ravenloft: Prisoners of the Mist Persistent World for Neverwinter Nights: www.nwnravenloft.com
-
Rotipher of the FoS
- Thieving Crow
- Posts: 4683
- Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:18 pm
I hadn't heard that gnomes were going to be evil. They're monsters for now -- that is, they'll be in the MM instead of the PHB1 -- but they'll almost certainly be returning to PC-race status in 2009.
Drow will evidently be fey, but they'll still be humanoids. "Fey" is going to be more like a subtype than a creature-type. (That change seems like an improvement, IMO: it'll let us apply it to fairy-tale-ish magical beasts, like unicorns, and save fey critters from automatically being wimps.)
Devils won't actually live in the Astral: they still live in Hell. Hell, and the other Great Wheel planes they're keeping, simply aren't locked onto one another in a big circle anymore, but are free to drift around. That's a lot like how the OD&D cosmology used to work, FWIW, so it actually has a precedent that pre-dates the Planescape products, albeit not the 1E Manual of the Planes.
Drow will evidently be fey, but they'll still be humanoids. "Fey" is going to be more like a subtype than a creature-type. (That change seems like an improvement, IMO: it'll let us apply it to fairy-tale-ish magical beasts, like unicorns, and save fey critters from automatically being wimps.)
Devils won't actually live in the Astral: they still live in Hell. Hell, and the other Great Wheel planes they're keeping, simply aren't locked onto one another in a big circle anymore, but are free to drift around. That's a lot like how the OD&D cosmology used to work, FWIW, so it actually has a precedent that pre-dates the Planescape products, albeit not the 1E Manual of the Planes.
"Who [u]cares[/u] what the Dark Powers are? They're [i]bastards![/i] That's all I need to know of them." -- Crow
-
Bluebomber4evr
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:08 pm
- Location: United States of Whatever
- Contact:
The 4e preview book Races and Classes says they'll be evil or at least "tainted" or something like that.Rotipher of the FoS wrote:I hadn't heard that gnomes were going to be evil.
This article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dn ... /20080117a claims otherwise:Devils won't actually live in the Astral: they still live in Hell. Hell, and the other Great Wheel planes they're keeping, simply aren't locked onto one another in a big circle anymore, but are free to drift around. That's a lot like how the OD&D cosmology used to work, FWIW, so it actually has a precedent that pre-dates the Planescape products, albeit not the 1E Manual of the Planes.
andJennifer Clarke Wilkes: Five planar realms are known to exist, with another mysterious region hinted at in dark whispers. The known planes are: the world (what used to be called the Material Plane); two reflections of the world, the grim and dangerous Shadowfell, and the magical but equally dangerous Feywild; the Elemental Chaos (including the Abyss, home of demons) below; and above, the shining Astral Sea, home of the gods’ Dominions. Scholars of the arcane and bizarre hold that a strange, extraplanar space called the Far Realm also exists, home to weird and incomprehensible horrors.
Devils, on the other hand, are beings of the Astral Dominions. They control realms and are well-organized, tactical masters, the soldiers and controllers of combat.
Bluebomber4evr: The Justice, not you, since 2002.
Ravenloft: Prisoners of the Mist Persistent World for Neverwinter Nights: www.nwnravenloft.com
Ravenloft: Prisoners of the Mist Persistent World for Neverwinter Nights: www.nwnravenloft.com
-
Rotipher of the FoS
- Thieving Crow
- Posts: 4683
- Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:18 pm
Okay, I hadn't heard that the gnomes were tainted. Thanks for the tip.
"Astral Dominions" are what the Hells and other retained Great Wheel planes are becoming. They'll drift in the Astral, but have their own unique environments, metaphysics, and inhabitants ... not unlike how Ravenloft drifts in the Ethereal, come to think of it.
"Astral Dominions" are what the Hells and other retained Great Wheel planes are becoming. They'll drift in the Astral, but have their own unique environments, metaphysics, and inhabitants ... not unlike how Ravenloft drifts in the Ethereal, come to think of it.
"Who [u]cares[/u] what the Dark Powers are? They're [i]bastards![/i] That's all I need to know of them." -- Crow
-
Bluebomber4evr
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:08 pm
- Location: United States of Whatever
- Contact:
That could just mean that the gnomes are more "fey" now than they were in 3.5, much like the satyr is now.
"No, but evil is still being — Is having reason — Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."