I don't get you guys. We're contributing to the forums like everyone else and posting our take on this edition. Then you guys get offended and make a big production about it. That's just not right.
See, I'd call it threadjacking. This discussion originally had nothing to do with killing gods, the subject should not have come up. But how many pages worth of discussion did we do on it? That is called threadjacking. The thread is about something completely different, and it was hijacked into a subject that was already discussed on another thread.
When the thread is about... I dunno,... how to play a cleric of the Raven Queen, coming on there and posting how much you hate the new pantheon is not contributing. It's threadjacking. Just how when the thread is about the wisdom/foolishness of class roles, coming on and talking about whether or not gods are killable is not actually contributing meaningfully to the discussion. It's threadjacking. It's derailing the discussion. Guilty of it myself, as I just love to argue. Though in this case I was mostly just curious about what Maxperson's argument actually was. I still have no idea, and have given up on it.
Now, on the topic: I think that the raising thing could definitely be a working bit, and it even explains the death god being able to bypass it.
Resident jark. Resident Minister of Education and Misinformation.
Maxperson - I'd like to start out with a request to try and tone back the insults here. I know you are capable of having a civil discussion - you've shown as much earlier in the thread, where you engaged in debate without anyone getting upset, and with an obvious willingness to acknowledge others points and reconsider based on new information.
I'll try and make my own comments as clear as I can. I will try and lay things out as directly as possible to minimize confusion. If I have made any statements that were unclear, I apologize - it was not my intent to do so. My goal here is to genuinely try and pin down exactly what your criticism is of the planned role of gods in 4E, and how precisely that criticism does not apply to the gods in 3rd Edition.
No more, no less - insults should not have any place here, and while this discussion is tangential and somewhat mindless, I'm willing to try and keep it as a reasonable intellectual discussion if you are.
And, uh, to everyone else - my apologies for the length of this post, and for continuing this tangent. In my defense, as far as I can tell, the original topic seems to have been resolved relatively successfully, pretty early in the thread.
It's MY fault that you can't speak clearly and stated that I think all of 3ed rules are flawless? I think not.
My original quote: "if the core of your argument rests on an individual interpretation of a single rule, I think this again indicates the rules were not designed as flawlessly as you believe them to have been in 3rd Edition."
My apologies for not being as clear as I could have been. Allow me to try and clarify. "The rules" I was referring to were the ones for gods in 3rd Edition, which you have indicated you thoroughly approve of. I was not trying to indicate you beleived any rules aside from these were flawless.
My specific statement was trying to state the following: Much of your argument about the 'unkillable' nature of the 3rd Edition gods has involved stating how the gods do not engage in direct confrontations with PCs, and have a variety of methods of avoiding conflict - often using potentially debatable interpretations of certain rules (such as Remote Sensing) in order to explain the gods ability to avoid conflict.
My feeling is that, if the gods were actually intended to be unkillable, such things would be unneeded - they would actually make the gods powerful enough such that no party of PCs could provide a threat to them in direct combat. Given that isn't the case, I feel that, if the intention actually was to make the gods unkillable, the fact that they are vulnerable to a deadly enough group of PCs would indicate a clear flaw in their design.
No, that's a very stupid and childish mindset to be in. If they're doing it at high levels, the did it at low levels.
I'm not referring to a method of play, but rather to a specific use of resources. The characters did not play in this fashion at low levels because they option was not there. Of course it would be foolish to randomly cast Divine Favor at the start of the day, and watch it run out moments later. It is not, however, foolish to cast a Persistent Divine Favor at the start of the day, and have it available throughout the day.
At high levels, characters have access to the following: -Persistent Spell, which allows 1min/level and 1rd/level spells to last throughout the day. -High caster levels and Extend Spell, which allows 10min/level and 1hr/level spells to last throughout the day.
As such, it is a perfectly legitimate tactic to ensure that their most powerful buffs are available throughout the day. As characters get higher level, and have more ability to rely on buffs, they do so. This isn't invalidated because they did not do so at lower levels; at lower levels, the option was not there.
Because you obviously think you're asking a question that you aren't asking. Nothing in that question indicates that you mean SOMEONE ELSE being different from me being the one to cause me harm. First you screw up your question, then you screw up your statement that I think all of 3ed rules are perfect. Learn how to speak.
My original quote: "Also - if an entire group sits down with the intention of playing a epic game with the goal of picking fights with gods, and you have a DM on hand who does not already have a seperate campaign / epic storyarc he plans to run, where is the harm to your game that the group is able to go and hunt down some gods?"
Given that neither you would not quality as either the players or DM of such a game, I thought it a reasonable interpretation that it was not referring to yourself. However, clearly I could have stated it better, so my apologies for the confusion.
You have indicated that one of the key concerns about the presence of 'killable' gods in 4E is that, even if the core rules do not present them as being designed to be 'hunted down like dogs', there will be players who demand to kill them anyway, who pressure DMs into allowing them to do so.
Note that this is only likely to happen in a game where the DM does not already have a fully developed epic storyline, since 'godhunting' is not something likely to be easily tossed into a single session. It is also only going to happen for a DM who has no major objections to killing gods - as you have demonstrated, if they feel strongly enough about it, they will say no.
My question is this: In what way are you harmed by the opportunity of a seperate group of gamers to, with a willing DM, play in a campaign designed around fighting and defeating the gods?
As a follow-up question: If you do find this a bad situation, what about 3rd Edition prevented the same scenario from occuring, especially with other optional rules they could request the use of (such as the Epic rules), which would allow them to trivialize the gods entirely?
If it isn't hard to design balanced encounters, why do they have a book of monsters in the first place? Sure, it is a lot more feasible in 4E than in previous editions - but the entire purpose of buying WotC material is so I don't have to design the game myself! There is a distinct tangible benefit for them producing the stats for gods. There is no such benefit for them making gods unkillable.
I think I'm just going to respond with "I don't know, tell me." to all of your responses that don't have much to do with what I said. So....I don't know, tell me.
My apologies if my point wasn't clear - I'll try to rephrase this.
As far as I can tell, you are stating that it is a trivial task to design monsters and encounters, even for something intended to be the most challenging fight of a campaign. While I definitely find 4E much better in this regard than 3rd Edition, it still requires some amount of work to put together an interesting foe - and for a foe designed to be a true challenge, the line between difficult and impossible can be a hard one to walk.
In all editions of D&D, they have produced stats for monsters, often in the form of "Monster Manuals" or similar products. The purpose of them putting together these stats is to make it easy for DMs to run combats without having to design each foe from the ground up. Clearly, DMs desire having a resource of premade monsters that are already fully designed, as well as (in theory) balanced for use.
If they are going to put stats into the game for a god, having stats that the DM can use is clearly a tangible benefit. It allows them to use those stats without any work on their part - and, based on what we've heard about 4E gods, those stats will also likely include guidance on running quests and adventures building up to the fight with the god, which will allow the party to fully challenge them.
If you include stats for an unkillable god, on the other hand, the stats are largely useless - especially since 4E encourages the DM to be more freeform with the use of NPC abilities and powers that don't need to be rolled out. If a god is simply too powerful for the PCs, the DM can just decide that - they do not need stats telling them that this is the case.
More than that, If a DM wants to have an unkillable god, and has the stats for a killable one, it takes no time at all to make that god unkillable - they can simply decide that it is so. But if a DM wants to have a killable god, and has the stats for an unkillable one, they will likely have to redesign the stats for the encounter from the ground up. This is not an insurmountable challenge - but it is clearly an inconvenience, and counters the very purpose of buying a book filled with usable stats for NPCs and monsters.
You seem to be stating that, because you would like unkillable gods in your home game, they should print them as such in 4E. What precisely, do you feel, is the benefit of doing so?
I'm sorry you and most people lack creativity Your players must be sad.
I have nothing against freeform or diceless roleplaying, personally. But it is clearly a different game than D&D, and I don't think it fair to criticize myself - or any others - who play D&D using dice and stats to resolve encounters. That has been the norm since the beginning of the game, and it remains the norm in every edition since.
One of the benefits of D&D, in fact, is in granting players a chance to feel like they have truly accomplished something - this is why they fight enemies, and use complicated rules involving rolling dice when they do so. A DM could, certainly, just tell them how they win each battle, without using dice at all - but that isn't how D&D is normally played.
Why do you feel the final encounter of a campaign should be any different? If you are willing to do that for the final battle, why not do so for all other combats in the game?
If you believe this is how D&D is meant to be played, and that to use dice and stats as a mechanism for resolving challenges is to play 'without creativity', do you uphold this sentiment throughout the entire game, removing dice and stats entirely?
I don't mind my opinions being questioned, at least not by people who can actually get them right before responding.
My apologies if I misinterpreted you in some fashion. I have tried to sum up the situation, as I understand it, here - if you could respond to that with a specific confirmation of where your opinion differs from what I stated, that might reduce any further confusion on the topic.
It would never happen. You present an impossible situation. My players aren't that stupid. Any idiot can find a ludicrously hard situation that "proves" someone wrong, except such situations don't prove squat. But to answer your question. They lose initiative, since it's virtually impossible for even most of them win it, 5 more copies of him show up, and they die. And you do realize, that even your absurd scenerios could only POSSIBLY work on lesser Gods, right? An intermediate or higher God would know of the attack weeks in advance.
My scenario doesn't seem that impossible to me - it is merely one of a number of possible situations. But let me try and clarify things a bit further.
I am setting forward three premises for this scenario, and other ones I have come up with: 1) The PCs will have some opportunity to interact with a god directly. 2) If the PCs interact with a god, they may decide to attack the god. 3) If a god is engaged in direct combat, due to having listed stats with specific defenses and finite hitpoints, that god can be defeated by powerful enough PCs. Powerful enough, in this case, either refers to those naturally powerful through high levels, or lower-level PCs who are optimized enough to overcome foes outside their normal power range.
You seem to disagree with points 1 and 2. If that is the case - that either the PCs never interact with a god, or that they never decide to attack a god - please clarify how the stats for the gods themselves are relevant. Regardless of which edition it takes place in, your argument would remain the same - if you have a 4E deity, and prevent the PCs from interacting with it, they will never have the opportunity to fight it. If they do encounter it, but never decide to attack it, it will never be defeated.
Point number 3 is one you have hesitated to argue. You now are indicating disbelief that PCs could have high enough initiative modifiers to win initiative, and that they are not capable of doing enough damage to kill a god even if they went first - am I correct that you believe no PC, of level 20 or 30, can be designed to accomplish such a thing?
Your argument has been based around the idea that the god will never interact with the PCs, and will run far away as soon as they know the PCs are coming for them, or will arrange for a team of other deities to provide backup for him when confronting the PCs.
I don't know, tell me.
Are you stating that your argument has not involved the claim that PCs will never engage a god on equal footing, and that this element is what renders 3rd Edition gods unkillable?
The facts are these: If a group of min/maxed PCs is presented with an opportunity to be in the same room as a deity, they have the potential - based on the stats of the deities as presented in 3rd Edition D&D - to initiative combat, win initiative, and kill the deity.
No, not really. At least not if they're 30th or lower.
Ok, you now do seem to be indicating that you don't believe a 3rd Edition deity can be defeated in direct combat by a group that is 30th level or lower. Is that correct?
And Gods can't do these things, and with much better stats and abilities?
Not the ones I see in the Deities and Demigods books. Looking at, say... Moradin, I see a +11 initiative modifier, giving him a 31 initiative due to rolling a 20. It is not that difficult an effort for a group of PCs to beat that score.
Gods are optimized too.
I had understood, from your original statement, that you believed the listed stats for gods in Deities and Demigods to have been done in such a fashion as to make the gods unkillable. Are you stating that in order to make them capable of surviving a direct combat with a group of PCs, you will need to fully overhaul them and make significant changes to their listed stats, feats, equipment and spells?
And, if you do need to do so, doesn't that indicate that the gods are not 'designed' to have been unkillable?
Look, the main reason we are having this debate is because you stated that "ANY" group of PCs will be unable to kill any of the gods. This is simply false. If you want to amend your statement to "your average group of level 20 PCs"... then yeah, that is much more reasonable, and I suspect we won't need to have this argument at all.
Nope. I'll stick to 30th and under.
But just to confirm, you are amending your original statement by including the "30th and under" clause, correct?
I looked up the release dates. Epic came out after.
You do seem to be correct; I concede I was mistaken in claiming Epic came out first. However, the fact they came out within a couple months of each other, and that Deities and Demigods specifically references material in the Epic Handbook, certainly indicates they were each designed with the other book in mind.
Have you even looked at the epic spell casting feats? You need to be higher than 30th to have enough of them to be truly sick, because they need to work in conjuction with eachother to be the most useful. At 30th level, you'll have 7 epic feats, which is just enough to start really being obscene. 3 epic feats at 24th level is not all that much better than 20th.
Except that those feats include "Epic Spellcasting", which lets you perform some completely absurd activities. Other feats do stack together dangerously - Improved Spell Capacity and Improved Metamagic being some key ones. However, what precisely makes them 'manageable' at 30th and 'absurd' at 40th?
The biggest absurdity at Epic levels is Epic Spellcasting - the rest is just bigger and bigger numbers. Why do you find those numbers manageable at 30th, but not at 40th? What specifically can 40th level characters do that is so absurd as to be unusable?
Two epic campaigns. I don't recall the exact number of times I've used the Gods, but it isn't often. They aren't playthings for the PCs.
I was more trying to get a sense of how useful you found the stats of the gods, as presented in Deities and Demigods.
As far as the epic campaigns - did your PCs pressure you into using them, given that you have a low opinion of the epic rules? Or did you play with them to try them out, before deciding they were poorly designed?
No one is arguing for them being treated casually. That was simply how they were treated in 3rd Edition, due to the abysmal epic rules. I much prefer 4E, where the gods are beings at the ultimate level of power, and only challengable by PCs as the greatest challenge of an epic campaign.
Except that it isn't, unless you try to go above 30th level which = epic fail.
Putting aside the reference of gods being treated casually in higher level epic games, I'll reiterate the point I was trying to make - I am not arguing for gods to be treated casually in 4E. The vast majority of people are not arguing for this. We are looking for gods as potential figures to be fought as the ultimate challenge of an epic campaign.
The idea that level 21 characters are anywhere NEAR as absurd as level 41 characters.
Please indicate precisely what you feel a level 41 character can do that is completely absurd. I will be glad to show a level 21 character who can do something in the same level of absurdity, likely via Epic Spellcasting.
The OPTIONAL rules? The OPTIONAL rules that they screwed up royally on?
But they are just as optional as the rules for Deities and Demigods, and both involve creatures in the same level of power. If you similarly ignore the rules for Epic play in 4E, the gods will be equally as difficult/impossible for normal PCs to overcome.
Other than all the references in Deities and Demigods to specific rules and feats from the Epic Level Handbook? Such as page 26, for example.
Yep. Those FEW references.
Except you stated that there was nothing linking the two together aside from a few similarities. I've clearly shown that is not the case.
More than that, you have outright ignored the final point of my previous post, which included a listed page number for the rules on assigning xp to players who legitimately take on and kill a god.
The presence of such rules would seem to clearly disprove your statement that the designers intended the 3rd Edition gods to be unkillable. Are you willing to at least concede that point?
Does anyone else feel like we're going to be seeing "I know you are but what am I?" and "I'm rubber and you're glue…" soon?
Heh. I've pretty much decided that I'm just going to toss that sentance out to all the crap that ignores what I'm saying and responds to something else, or is just plain too stupid to warrant a real response.