| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 05 May 2008 : 19:32:42
a powergamer's dream come true?
I just skimmed over the article in Pseudo-Dragon magazine... this ain't a Dragon, not by a long shot! 
We have come full circle it seems. Back in the day we had the Immortals Set for D&D, now we got epic destinies.
Is this the core D&D experience? Getting more powerful? I thought the path was the journey... have I been playing the game wrong the entire time????
Or have WotC's designers inhaled too much paint-thinner and other fun stuff????
Too tired to rant on this, and if I decide to do...it won't be nice, it won't be pretty. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 02 Jun 2008 : 00:25:58
No, I didn't know that I could do that, Wooly Rupert, but now I do. I'm sure Wizards will slam that back door very soon lest Hasbro lose even one cent of egregiously unjustified profit.
I have looked at the "Epic Destinies" page. Gosh! Can anyone say, "D&D Master Rules"? How about "Runequest"? Maybe ... "HeroQuest"?
Hasbro tells hundreds of thousands of thousands of people, who have collectively paid tens of millions of dollars for their products, that all D&D products (which Wizards was still happily selling as the "core rule books" and accesories seven months ago) are permanently and irrevocably obsolete, and the best they can do for an "upgrade" is to rip off game rules written 20+ years ago?! Gee whillickers, that "Wizards Design Team" sure stretches the limits of credibility creativity!
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 May 2008 : 22:17:49
You know, you can sidestep the login requirement simply by clicking the Printer Friendly link down at the bottom of each page... |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 31 May 2008 : 16:49:50
Thank you, Zanan. I have a dial-up connection and I have had a lot of difficulty getting through to Candlekeep recently.
The link to "Epic Destinies in D&D 3.5," for those who missed it is http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080428. Be certain to utilize its secrets today, so that you may enjoy your Epic character until Wizards tells you that he died a hundred years ago or is a drooling, raving, psychotic mutant.
Oh, and fellow Senior Scribes, Masters, and other learnèd folk: I can see why whole articles are being reproduced in full here and elsewhere. Simply reading (so-called) "Dragon" articles requires signing in to "D&D Insider," and some folk (secret Deneirath, I suppose) realize that other people (such as I) think that our e-mail addresses and other personal information is no damned business of Wizards of the Coast, and they are kind enough to freely provide us with information which is supposed to be free. I have tried for a quarter hour to get the above page to load, and it wasn't until I turned off my modem that I received this message: "Dragon articles require that you sign-in to D&D Insider to view the content." Wizards also demands this information (which they can sell to other companies or give to the government) before they give us the crucial parts of books such as Anauroch (for which we have already given them US $30), which they did not include include in the book (nor have available online when the book went on sale) a fact mentioned only in a small box and of which the casual bookstore browser (and every Internet shopper) would be unaware.
Frankly, I have come to the opinion that there is nothing Hasbro is offering now (and forever more) that is worth that much trouble on my part, particularly since they want me to kill off all of my characters and make obsolete the THOUSANDS of dollars which I have already spent on their products. Some of my characters are older (by the Gregorian calendar) than Wizards of the Coast itself, so I fart in the general direction of WotC.
|
| Zanan |
Posted - 26 May 2008 : 20:53:18
Swung my scourge. The link should lead anyone to the article.
NB: Before you start and create a new "Insider" account, just use both your e-mail adress and the login password of your WotC messageboards account and you are there. |
| Arkhaedun |
Posted - 26 May 2008 : 04:11:13
Thanks for the update on EN World's policy, Kuje. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 26 May 2008 : 03:57:13
Arkhy, and others, ENWorld has also implimented a policy that they don't want articles posted and if they do find that that is the case, the post will be deleted.
Especially so when WOTC articles are from the pay site because it does get into a VERY gray area about fair use. Publishing things, as I've said repeatedly, on the net is STILL publishing it and WOTC owns those rights. It concerns me a lot, which is also why I was a hard arse about my material being republished elsewhere. |
| Arkhaedun |
Posted - 26 May 2008 : 01:19:49
I've noticed that several sites such as EN World and Paizo have members that have reposted articles wholesale from WOTC's site, ostensibly in response to the comments that some of the members of those boards have made about the fact that the material is "free," and that some members of the site aren't enrolled at WOTC's site.
Despite this fact, its always been our policy to avoid reposting large tracts of information, and I think its a good policy to retain. The article may be "free," but its still the property of WOTC, and its well within their rights to decide if they want it disseminated in a manner that they choose.
While this information is free, there is no doubt that WOTC would like the site trafic, and I don't think anyone should begrude them that. I know I would much rather that people interested in information from Candlekeep come to Candlekeep in order to get that information, rather than finding it reposted elsewhere, so we should afford WOTC the same courtesy. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 26 May 2008 : 01:08:54
I'm inclined to agree with Brian. In the past, the link itself to a particular article has almost always been enough. And I think it's probably best that we stick to that policy. |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 26 May 2008 : 00:04:15
I think it best if we Candlekeepers get out of the habit of posting WotC articles wholesale from the wizards site, less we draw unwanted scrutiny from corporate lawyers and other unsavory types. |
| Dart Ambermoon |
Posted - 25 May 2008 : 23:12:58
Well...yes, some ideas are quite nice and yes, others seem uninspired, yet...how do I word this correctly...I couldn´t see myself GMing such chars beyond a) solo adventures/mini-campaigns, mainly to try some out-there high levelish stuff and reward a player or just have some fun by granting a friend a grand story now and then or b) using people with epic destinies as one off guest characters during a campaign. And really, I´m not quite sure why we need rules on that. I mean I´ve turned one of my player´s char into a mythic shadow sort years ago, another one into something similar to a legendary hero awoken only in times of dire crisis. But then, if I need stats, I´ll crunch something together *shrugs*. For me, chars of such legendary status are more about fluff, than crunch. As I said, there are some nice ideas, but I´m doubtful as to how useful those are for a regular campaign. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 24 May 2008 : 14:04:30
Epic Destinies in D&D 3.5
by Logan Bonner, Art by Eric Deschamps and John Moriarty
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080428
... scourged down to acceptable size, I hope. |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 24 May 2008 : 06:23:22
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
a powergamer's dream come true?
I just skimmed over the article in Pseudo-Dragon magazine... this ain't a Dragon, not by a long shot!
We have come full circle it seems. Back in the day we had the Immortals Set for D&D, now we got epic destinies.
Is this the core D&D experience? Getting more powerful? I thought the path was the journey... have I been playing the game wrong the entire time????
Or have WotC's designers inhaled too much paint-thinner and other fun stuff????
Too tired to rant on this, and if I decide to do...it won't be nice, it won't be pretty.
Will someone please post a link to this article for the benefit of those of us who have already ceased to give a damn about Hasbro's D&D, but are curious to see how they are now turning back to Gygax's work?
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 20 May 2008 : 14:08:11
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
Please keep in mind that the text you cite, like everything in Core D&D, described the generic point-of-light setting not the Forgotten Realms.
I am aware of that, but my question of how it works still applies (I asked Rich Baker). I'm interested in the "core setting", not just the 4E Realms. In fact, I'm more interested in the core setting.
Also, there's really no reason for me to assume off-the-bat that something in the core material won't apply to the Realms, either. After all, WotC wants all D&D material (even setting-specific material) to be easy to use no matter what setting a group of players want to use, or at least that's the impression I've been getting. |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 20 May 2008 : 04:19:42
Please keep in mind that the text you cite, like everything in Core D&D, described the generic point-of-light setting not the Forgotten Realms. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 20 May 2008 : 01:53:57
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Well, there usually is only one mage within an adventurers' group, right?! ;)
Usually, but not always.
Indeed, I ran a group of all wizards once...it was a great amount of fun!
More on topic though, I have NEVER liked restricted progression. I first ran into it when a Druid wanted to advance in 1st Edition...and I've never liked having the idea that only one person can hold a particular position of power...
Sure, only one person can hold a title, but I never thought it should be equated with character level. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 20 May 2008 : 01:28:31
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Well, there usually is only one mage within an adventurers' group, right?! ;)
Usually, but not always. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 19 May 2008 : 19:53:56
Well, there usually is only one mage within an adventurers' group, right?! ;) |
| Daviot |
Posted - 19 May 2008 : 19:45:10
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
What struck me about the Archmage ED (and I mentioned this on the WotC boards as well) is how the text more or less states outright that there can only be one person of that caliber in the world at any given time.
Which kind of reminds me of the 18th level Fighter feat "Weapon Supremacy" from the PHBII. On the Wizards site, on one of the "how to use PHBII things in existing settings", it was mentioned in the Realms, it could be found among master swordsmen. For Eber-whats-it, it was mentioned that no one in the world had that caliber, and that any PC attaining said feat would be a singularity and gain instant worldwide fame. -_- |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 19 May 2008 : 14:57:51
What struck me about the Archmage ED (and I mentioned this on the WotC boards as well) is how the text more or less states outright that there can only be one person of that caliber in the world at any given time. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 19 May 2008 : 08:58:48
Well, a couple of points. First, this for once does not strike me as power play, but a useful tool for characters beyond 20th level, characters not simply looking for world-shattering spells and over-kill abilities. It rather makes those more distinct from people below 20th level, gives them that little bit extra without getting up to demigod status.
Second, I actually never managed to get a group beyond 20th level in D&D 3,x. I doubt I ever will. So much of these Epic Rules have yet to be tried. Though, as usual, I rather have more options than less. |
| Quale |
Posted - 19 May 2008 : 07:47:08
I've checked the archmage, pathethic, recalling spells, really that's all they've come up with !? this system seems so unflexible |
| scererar |
Posted - 07 May 2008 : 04:19:52
[quote]Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
a powergamer's dream come true?
We have come full circle it seems. Back in the day we had the Immortals Set for D&D, now we got epic destinies.[quote]
I thought the same when I read the article. I still have my immortals boxed set too.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 07 May 2008 : 00:38:48
quote:
Originally posted by Aravine
Now, to be fair, they are seperate Links, they are not all the same person.
Err, I know that, and that was my point. The 4E "eternal hero" has lived past lives as a hero, and a PC with that epic destiny is just the "latest version". |
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 May 2008 : 21:23:28
4th edition being invaded by Mace's 4th Reich? 
Sounds like I've discovered Mace's 'Epic Destiny'.  |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 06 May 2008 : 20:17:02
quote:
Originally posted by Kajehase
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Too tired to rant on this, and if I decide to do...it won't be nice, it won't be pretty.
Good to hear. Some of the rest of us Europeans get a little nervous when Germans start ranting
LOL so bad am I? |
| Aravine |
Posted - 06 May 2008 : 17:42:39
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
The eternal hero option is also neat--if Link could be the eternal hero of Hyrule, one of my PCs could have the same destiny. ;) I just hope there are more options than the ones that were listed in the article.
So yeah, this is one of the 4E options I do like.
Now, to be fair, they are seperate Links, they are not all the same person.
Aside from that, I really can't comment on this topic, as I haven't read the article aforementioned. |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 06 May 2008 : 16:11:16
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Too tired to rant on this, and if I decide to do...it won't be nice, it won't be pretty.
Good to hear. Some of the rest of us Europeans get a little nervous when Germans start ranting |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 06 May 2008 : 16:10:55
I have to admit it: I AM interested in some of the choices in that article (not all, but some, which is to be expected). It might be fun to end one PC's story with apotheosis, for example. However, that doesn't mean I would want to use that option all the time or even most of the time (I'm the type of person who thinks godhood probably isn't all it's cracked up to be, anyway).
The eternal hero option is also neat--if Link could be the eternal hero of Hyrule, one of my PCs could have the same destiny. ;) I just hope there are more options than the ones that were listed in the article.
So yeah, this is one of the 4E options I do like. |
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 06 May 2008 : 00:26:46
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
a powergamer's dream come true?
I just skimmed over the article in Pseudo-Dragon magazine... this ain't a Dragon, not by a long shot!
We have come full circle it seems. Back in the day we had the Immortals Set for D&D, now we got epic destinies.
Is this the core D&D experience? Getting more powerful? I thought the path was the journey... have I been playing the game wrong the entire time????
Or have WotC's designers inhaled too much paint-thinner and other fun stuff????
Too tired to rant on this, and if I decide to do...it won't be nice, it won't be pretty.
I can't go into any details beyond what you've already seen, but I can say that the purpose of epic destinies has nothing to do with power gaming. Power gaming involves choosing the best combination of choices to make your character the "best." The purpose of epic destinines is to help bring your character to a point they'd probably be at anyway if you played to epic levels, but with a bit more oomph. Both epic destinies and paragon paths are far more low key than prestige class or epic rules were in 3ed. Please don't quote me on any of this. |
| Snotlord |
Posted - 05 May 2008 : 23:26:31
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
I've never had any goal in mind when running campaigns, I just let the PCs' decisions influence the story and that was fine enough.
Epic destinies, IMO, is just another way to serve the munchkins.
Each to his own I guess. Now if you DID have a goal, maybe Epic destinies would have a purpose other than serving munchkins.
I rather enjoyed this article. Elric, the source of the Eternal Hero, is a fantasy icon as much as Frodo. Fantasy gaming can be many things, not just Orcs & Merchants. |
|
|
