# Excerpt: Archons (merged)



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

*Excerpt: Archons*

Here is our Archons: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080521a


----------



## Rechan (May 21, 2008)

*Excerpt: Archons*

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the Astral Sea...

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080521a

So we meet again, Fallen Seraph...


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

> *Frost Shield* (immediate interrupt, when attacked by a ranged, a close, or an area attack; encounter) *✦ Cold*
> The ice archon hailscourge gains resist 20 to all damage against the triggering attack.



I can just imagine arrows freezing and falling to the ground around it.


> *Hail Storm* (standard; recharge     ) ✦ *Cold*
> Area burst 1, 2, 3, or 4 within 20; +21 vs. AC; 2d8 + 4 cold damage. Miss: Half damage. The ice archon hailscourge determines the exact burst radius of the hail storm.



Hmm... That is interesting we can pick Area burst size. Be good for when skirmishers are in the midst of the enemy.


----------



## Crashy75 (May 21, 2008)

Man, wtf happened to the undead.  Jeeze, I want to know the rational behind their lack of immunities!


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

Let the forums decide our threads fates! and have a good read/debate while were at it


----------



## LightPhoenix (May 21, 2008)

*Generic litany of name hating comments*


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 21, 2008)

Why are archons all CE? Are primordials all nasty beggars? Anybody care to give the story in a nutshell


----------



## baberg (May 21, 2008)

This makes me unhappy (emphasis mine):

_We give you three fire archons (at levels 12, 19, and 20) and three ice archons (at levels 16, 19, and 20). But the Elemental Chaos is vast, and fire and ice are only two of the many forms it takes. Now that we’ve (thankfully!) separated the word “elemental” in the D&D sense from the classical Greek elements of earth, fire, air, and water, there’s plenty of room for archons of your own design. (*And I imagine you’ll see more archons from us, too.*)_

It sounds like "Want more Archons?  Get ready to pay $25 in a month for our expanded Book of Archons (tm) for access to even more monster archetypes that we should have included in the Monster Manual!"

...and I'm a 4e fan...


----------



## ForumFerret (May 21, 2008)

Kind of like SubZero in the Mortal Kombat movie - generating his freezing field to defend against his opponent


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

ForumFerret said:
			
		

> Kind of like SubZero in the Mortal Kombat movie - generating his freezing field to defend against his opponent



*Nods* Exactly, it is a nice defence for a controller. I wonder if other Archons will have similar, so arrows bursting into flames for a fire one for example.


----------



## Rechan (May 21, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Why are archons all CE? Are primordials all nasty beggars? Anybody care to give the story in a nutshell



The Earth Titan was CE as well, I believe.



			
				baberg said:
			
		

> This makes me unhappy (emphasis mine):
> 
> _We give you three fire archons (at levels 12, 19, and 20) and three ice archons (at levels 16, 19, and 20). But the Elemental Chaos is vast, and fire and ice are only two of the many forms it takes. Now that we’ve (thankfully!) separated the word “elemental” in the D&D sense from the classical Greek elements of earth, fire, air, and water, there’s plenty of room for archons of your own design. (*And I imagine you’ll see more archons from us, too.*)_
> 
> It sounds like "Want more Archons?  Get ready to pay $25 in a month for our expanded Book of Archons (tm) for access to even more monster archetypes that we should have included in the Monster Manual!"



I figure there'll be more in MM2. 

However, this does make me want to make Smoke and Lightning archons. Mm.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

Well Chaotic Evil from the newest scoop means someone with little regard with who they injure. So I imagine a Archon be the type, where if your a evil guy and you say; "kill off that entire village" it will do it and kill EVERYTHING.

I state this since their: _Archons are useful because of their *single-mindedness*._ Which to me means, they have no qualms with such orders.


----------



## Kaodi (May 21, 2008)

I want to know why it seems all (what would formerly have been) outsiders have mental stats on par with the heroes... I mean, it is not like they all have the leader subtype or anything...


----------



## Korgoth (May 21, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Why are archons all CE? Are primordials all nasty beggars? Anybody care to give the story in a nutshell




I assume that Primordials are Titans of the "want to destroy the gods and smash creation" school.

Hopefully at least one of them looks like the Kraken from "Clash of the Titans".

Man I wish I still had that toy.  It was totally awesome.


----------



## Rechan (May 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well Chaotic Evil from the newest scoop means someone with little regard with who they injure. So I imagine a Archon be the type, where if your a evil guy and you say; "kill off that entire village" it will do it and kill EVERYTHING.



Which seems totally at odds with the Hailscourge's habit of shrinking the hailstorm area burst to accommodate allies.

I mean, if you don't care who you hurt, bugger your allies, aye?


----------



## A'koss (May 21, 2008)

I definitely like the Frost Shield interrupt ability of the Hailscourge, that'll come in handy to weather the first Wizard volley their way. The adjustable burst Hailstorm should also come in handy when mixing and matching them with other wee beasties.

The Rimehammer has a difficult terrain aura as well as a _slowing _Maul. Has it been revealed yet what slow's effects are in 4e?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Which seems totally at odds with the Hailscourge's habit of shrinking the hailstorm area burst to accommodate allies.
> 
> I mean, if you don't care who you hurt, bugger your allies, aye?



But that would mean your less likely to complete the task assigned to you. Since your side is now weaker off. They may be single-minded but they aren't stupid.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Which seems totally at odds with the Hailscourge's habit of shrinking the hailstorm area burst to accommodate allies.
> 
> I mean, if you don't care who you hurt, bugger your allies, aye?



Yeah and something chaotic doesn't sound very singleminded to me, to me that is lawful! 
Edit: I am happy with just having 5 alignments but the naming convention seems confusing. Esp if you have played DnD b4


----------



## Rechan (May 21, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> The Rimehammer has a difficult terrain aura as well as a _slowing _Maul. Has it been revealed yet what slow's effects are in 4e?



Your movement becomes 2. I don't know if you can shift or not.


----------



## Korgoth (May 21, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> I definitely like the Frost Shield interrupt ability of the Hailscourge, that'll come in handy to weather the first Wizard volley their way. The adjustable burst Hailstorm should also come in handy when mixing and matching them with other wee beasties.
> 
> The Rimehammer has a difficult terrain aura as well as a _slowing _Maul. Has it been revealed yet what slow's effects are in 4e?




I believe that it sets your speed to 2.

Also, that maul will lay down some hurt.  5d6+7 while you're slowed.


----------



## Yaezakura (May 21, 2008)

Wow... those archons just seem flat out evil to fight against. And I dunno about anyone else, but I _never_ wanna get sandwiched between two Rimehammers... one attacks and slows you, and before you get a chance to get rid of the slowed effect the other brings its hammer down for an extra 2d6 damage on top of what seems to be already formidable damage potential... Not a pretty picture.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Your movement becomes 2. I don't know if you can shift or not.



According to KoTS you can't, unless you have a power to do so. It also takes 1 more movement to enter Difficult Terrain.

*Edit:* Also just like my idea in the Giants thread. I am very tempted to add elemental appropriate traps and hazards to encounters with Archons.


----------



## Man Of Few Posts (May 21, 2008)

I remember reading on the Archon Ecology that Archons (at least fire archons) are very militaristic and disciplined. Them being chaotic makes no sense. I can see them being evil, since they are basically engines of destruction but they are engines that have a focus and will do their tasks efficiently.


----------



## Rechan (May 21, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Yeah and something chaotic doesn't sound very singleminded to me, to me that is lawful!



As it was commented in some other thread by someone who looked at the books, Chaotic is more "Sociopathic, uncaring, vicious". 

In that mindset, Demons (the epitome of CE) are very singleminded: all they care about is destruction, plain and simple, and work towards the goal of the destruction of everything. 

I don't really see how CE is against singleminded, in any edition. CE to me is just "Doesn't play well with others" and "does what ever the hell they want" of the Evil folk, while LE respect authority, the rules, and abide by certain codes (see: The Mafia). 

(But I hate alignment arguments. )


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> (But I hate alignment arguments. )



Yup, lets not clutter this anymore with alignment issues, lets talk crunch!


----------



## Rechan (May 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> *Edit:* Also just like my idea in the Giants thread. I am very tempted to add elemental appropriate traps and hazards to encounters with Archons.



I remember that post - good stuff!  I definitely want to have elemental hazards with Titans AND Archons. Though the Archons are likely going to engineer the hazards ahead of time, especially if they're guarding something or have a 'home turf' to create, even on the material plane.


----------



## small pumpkin man (May 21, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> This makes me unhappy (emphasis mine):
> 
> _We give you three fire archons (at levels 12, 19, and 20) and three ice archons (at levels 16, 19, and 20). But the Elemental Chaos is vast, and fire and ice are only two of the many forms it takes. Now that we’ve (thankfully!) separated the word “elemental” in the D&D sense from the classical Greek elements of earth, fire, air, and water, there’s plenty of room for archons of your own design. (*And I imagine you’ll see more archons from us, too.*)_
> 
> ...



Uh-huh, because immortal warriors made from earth or smoke are not only so completely different from immortal warriors made from ice or fire that you can't amke your own, but so "Archtypical" that they're complete lack from earlier editions was a complete kick in the teeth for roleplayers everywhere.

Will the ones you have to pay for be better designed? Sure. But you'll see me complaining about multiples of themes (like having both Gricks and Grells), not about the fact the elemental bingo board hasn't been completely filled out.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I remember that post - good stuff!  I definitely want to have elemental hazards with Titans AND Archons. Though the Archons are likely going to engineer the hazards ahead of time, especially if they're guarding something or have a 'home turf' to create, even on the material plane.



Hmm... Group of Archons lead them into a valley where a Ice Titan resides, each swing of his massive arms send them flying into the Archons or the spikes of ice scattered across the valley. With the floor being ice as well (which Archons and the Titan be able to walk fine thanks to Ice Walk).


----------



## tenken (May 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Your movement becomes 2. I don't know if you can shift or not.



Isn't a shift a move action?  If so, I'm not sure what the ability to shift does when you're slowed.


----------



## A'koss (May 21, 2008)

And does anyone know if "ice walk" in their movement rate is just about negating the penalties of walking on ice or is it some kind of quasi-teleport a la shadow-walking?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

tenken said:
			
		

> Isn't a shift a move action?  If so, I'm not sure what the ability to shift does when you're slowed.



According to KoTS you can't shift anyways, unless you have a power to do so. I imagine you be able to shift normal with a power to do so.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> And does anyone know if "ice walk" in their movement rate is just about negating the penalties of walking on ice or is it some kind of quasi-teleport a la shadow-walking?



I'm betting simply negating the penalties of walking on ice. If it was something like teleport I would expect it described, so I think it is a keyword. So if you pick up boots with ice spikes you gain Ice Walk.


----------



## Rechan (May 21, 2008)

tenken said:
			
		

> Isn't a shift a move action?  If so, I'm not sure what the ability to shift does when you're slowed.



A shift is the 4e equivalent of a 5' step.

If you do NOT shift when you move, you incur an opportunity attack.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 21, 2008)

So the big question is how does slow interact with difficult terrain?

Is it only when you ENTER difficult terrain that you have to pay the 2 square movement cost, or is it moving through?

If its the later the icy ground gets pretty nasty. Your slowed, dropping your speed down to 2. You can't shift, meaning if you move away from the archon you would take an AOO. And because of the terrain, you can only move 1 square. Your not going anywhere


----------



## Torchlyte (May 21, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> This makes me unhappy (emphasis mine):
> 
> _We give you three fire archons (at levels 12, 19, and 20) and three ice archons (at levels 16, 19, and 20). But the Elemental Chaos is vast, and fire and ice are only two of the many forms it takes. Now that we’ve (thankfully!) separated the word “elemental” in the D&D sense from the classical Greek elements of earth, fire, air, and water, there’s plenty of room for archons of your own design. (*And I imagine you’ll see more archons from us, too.*)_
> 
> ...




I agree with you, this concerns me.



			
				small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Uh-huh, because immortal warriors made from earth or smoke are not only so completely different from immortal warriors made from ice or fire that you can't amke your own, but so "Archtypical" that they're complete lack from earlier editions was a complete kick in the teeth for roleplayers everywhere.
> 
> Will the ones you have to pay for be better designed? Sure. But you'll see me complaining about multiples of themes (like having both Gricks and Grells), not about the fact the elemental bingo board hasn't been completely filled out.




That's not the point at all - we I'm not complaining about the lack of Archons, I'm worried that WotC is deliberately gimping this Monster Manual to make space for the next ones. To me the first Monster Manual should be generalized, including every monster spectrum, rather than being fit to a single or several themes.

It's not just this reveal, either. A lot of things seem to point to WotC using this (bad, imo) philosophy. Reusing Orcus's art on a full page AND the cover, for instance.


----------



## Rechan (May 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Hmm... Group of Archons lead them into a valley where a Ice Titan resides, each swing of his massive arms send them flying into the Archons or the spikes of ice scattered across the valley. With the floor being ice as well (which Archons and the Titan be able to walk fine thanks to Ice Walk).



Ice Titans would have to create walls of ice. It's just a necessity.  

Another (nasty) trick is to have the ice on a frozen glacier over water. So as the party fights, the Ice titan (or the wizard's fire spells) break the ice, and people have a real threat of falling into the water and taking ongoing cold damage. Meanwhile, the Titan (and archons) can walk over the water, it freezing underneath their feet. (Or if you want to go nice on them, the archon could fall in and get trapped as the water freezes around it).


----------



## humble minion (May 21, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> This makes me unhappy (emphasis mine):
> 
> _We give you three fire archons (at levels 12, 19, and 20) and three ice archons (at levels 16, 19, and 20). But the Elemental Chaos is vast, and fire and ice are only two of the many forms it takes. Now that we’ve (thankfully!) separated the word “elemental” in the D&D sense from the classical Greek elements of earth, fire, air, and water, there’s plenty of room for archons of your own design. (*And I imagine you’ll see more archons from us, too.*)_
> 
> ...




Well, there was ALWAYS going to be a MM2 (and 3, and 4, and...) so I don't really think that's going to be a problem to be honest.  

Love that they're _finally_ stepping beyond the four classical elements though.  About time.  There might be some limitations based on available damage types, but there's some nifty possibilities there.  Blood archons.  Iron archons.  Vomit archons.  Vicious feather archons in the service of Pazuzu.  Book archons.  Thought archons.  Fungus archons.  Probably a really nifty way to make the minions of a demon lord seem unique - give him/her a variety of archons all of their very own...


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Ice Titans would have to create walls of ice. It's just a necessity.
> 
> Another (nasty) trick is to have the ice on a frozen glacier over water. So as the party fights, the Ice titan (or the wizard's fire spells) break the ice, and people have a real threat of falling into the water and taking ongoing cold damage. Meanwhile, the Titan (and archons) can walk over the water, it freezing underneath their feet. (Or if you want to go nice on them, the archon could fall in and get trapped as the water freezes around it).



I am soooo glad they implemented traps and hazards into combat encounters.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (May 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> According to KoTS you can't, unless you have a power to do so. It also takes 1 more movement to enter Difficult Terrain.




Where did you see all that in KotS? I'm assuming not on that page of conditions 'cause I'm looking at it now and it only says that your speed becomes 2 and then goes on to explain that, yes, they really mean 2.


As far as the Archons go: I'm gonna love making more. Quite the small selection, but that's okay, they've got lots more monsters to get in that book.

Fitz


----------



## Sojorn (May 21, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> So the big question is how does slow interact with difficult terrain?
> 
> Is it only when you ENTER difficult terrain that you have to pay the 2 square movement cost, or is it moving through?
> 
> If its the later the icy ground gets pretty nasty. Your slowed, dropping your speed down to 2. You can't shift, meaning if you move away from the archon you would take an AOO. And because of the terrain, you can only move 1 square. Your not going anywhere



Being slowed doesn't stop you from shifting as a move action, it's only moving INTO a difficult terrain square that costs two speed and you can shift out of difficult terrain as well.

So, basically, if you're standing on a lone difficult terrain square while slowed, you could shift out of it or move two squares away from it just fine


----------



## Ten (May 21, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> That's not the point at all - we I'm not complaining about the lack of Archons, I'm worried that WotC is deliberately gimping this Monster Manual to make space for the next ones. To me the first Monster Manual should be generalized, including every monster spectrum, rather than being fit to a single or several themes.
> 
> It's not just this reveal, either. A lot of things seem to point to WotC using this (bad, imo) philosophy. Reusing Orcus's art on a full page AND the cover, for instance.




This viewpoint seems to be prevalent, and I can't help but to disagree with it.  To me, it is a matter of Occam's Razor.  Rather than some insidious plot to relieve fools from their money by deliberately removing monsters from the monster manual for use later...I find it much more simple and much more likely that there were a crapload of monsters, including iconic ones from decades of game history, cool ones they felt needed a time to get in the spotlight, and new ones they wanted to throw out to try the waters, and they had to draw the line somewhere.  Where they drew the line is arbitrary in the end, the point being that they chose a certain book length, filled it with monsters, and then stopped adding more monsters.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> We're did you see all that in KotS. I'm assuming not on that page of conditions 'cause I'm looking at it now and it only says that your speed becomes 2 and then goes on to explain that, yes, they really mean 2.



On page 12, at top of the page under Difficult Terrain it states: 


Rubble, undergrowth... It costs 1 additional square of movement to enter a square of difficult terrain. If you don't have enough movement remaining, you can't enter a square of difficult terrain. You can't shift into a square of difficult terrain unless you have a power to do so.


----------



## small pumpkin man (May 21, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> That's not the point at all - we I'm not complaining about the lack of Archons, I'm worried that WotC is deliberately gimping this Monster Manual to make space for the next ones. To me the first Monster Manual should be generalized, including every monster spectrum, rather than being fit to a single or several themes.
> 
> It's not just this reveal, either. A lot of things seem to point to WotC using this (bad, imo) philosophy. Reusing Orcus's art on a full page AND the cover, for instance.



I agree with the _idea_ that "gimping" the first MM would/is a bad idea. What I get annoyed by are the examples that get thrown around. If you have Ice Archons, a Fire Archons, a Fire Giants and Stone Giants, I don't see how the lack of Earth Archons or Ice Giants is such a big deal, in fact I see it as an efficiant choce of space use. I was also irritated by the Orcus thing, and by the complete lack of Metalic Dragons(since space is a problem, I would have gone with just the Gold for tradition), but to me this and other complaints sound like the people complaining about the lack of water Magi in MM5, which was just unneccessary completionism.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (May 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Rubble, undergrowth... It costs 1 additional square of movement to enter a square of difficult terrain. If you don't have enough movement remaining, you can't enter a square of difficult terrain. You can't shift into a square of difficult terrain unless you have a power to do so.




I thought you were talking about not being able to shift while slowed. I get that you can't shift into difficult terrain. That's why the elf's got a power that says he can.

As far as gimping the MM goes, I think it's all about what's IN the first MM not what's NOT in it. If it's got enough great stuff (and I bet it does), I for one can wait for more. Well, I _can't wait_ but you know what I mean.

Fitz


----------



## tenken (May 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> A shift is the 4e equivalent of a 5' step.
> 
> If you do NOT shift when you move, you incur an opportunity attack.



Not quite from what I understand.  It's an entire move action now, isn't it?  The infamous 5' step was part of another action, yes?  (It's been a while.)


----------



## AllisterH (May 21, 2008)

If I understand correctly, the MM has six archons in the books, 3 for fire and 3 for ice. Seems like a reasonable amount as I rather get more monsters than archons for air and earth.

Something will always be left out of a Monster manual.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> I thought you were talking about not being able to shift while slowed. I get that you can't shift into difficult terrain. That's why the elf's got a power that says he can.



Oh no, I meant simply you know you can't do it anyways if your trying to shift into difficult terrain.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 21, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> I agree with you, this concerns me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Does 288 and 300 (heck, even call it 200 assuming they count two orcs as separate monsters, etc.) monsters for $25 sound like a gimped product?  Seriously, if you are going to judge something, judge the entire product.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (May 21, 2008)

It looks like Elves are very good at fighting Ice Archons.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> Does 288 and 300 (heck, even call it 200 assuming they count two orcs as separate monsters, etc.) monsters for $25 sound like a gimped product?  Seriously, if you are going to judge something, judge the entire product.




I don't think the argument is over how many monsters are in it so much as it is that it almost NECCESITATES you buying a second book.


----------



## Xyl (May 21, 2008)

According to the Ecology of the Fire Archon article, archons reproduce by capturing other elementals and transforming them into archons, essentially destroying the elemental's previous soul. That alone could justify assigning them evil alignment.


----------



## arscott (May 21, 2008)

Hmm.  That burst 1-4 is interesting.

Not especially useful if you're just fighting ice archons, though.  Their cold resistance is high enough that they're always immune to the attack.


----------



## Boarstorm (May 21, 2008)

The first scooper always has the empty thread.  It's sad.  But, at least, when they're merged, glory everlasting shall be yours.


----------



## Korgoth (May 21, 2008)

Rimehammers could be really scary if they flank somebody.  With their ice aura plus the slow effect, not only will they being hitting for 12-37 apiece, but the victim wouldn't be able to get away (he could move only 1 square, and even that would provoke 2 opportunity attacks).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

arscott said:
			
		

> Hmm.  That burst 1-4 is interesting.
> 
> Not especially useful if you're just fighting ice archons, though.  Their cold resistance is high enough that they're always immune to the attack.



Though, if the Ice Archons are fighting alongside say Fire Archons, then it be extremely handy.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I don't think the argument is over how many monsters are in it so much as it is that it almost NECCESITATES you buying a second book.



But the argument for the necessity is that the first book is gimped.  My point is that the first books isnt gimped and that you are getting a fully fledged product and expecting anything more on the basis of "I want it" is ludicrous.

EDIT:  There is nothing what so ever that requires you to buy the MM2.  The only reason to buy the MM2 is to have more monsters.  Lets say they had lightning Archons and they left out creature X, people would complain about the MM not having creature X.  Its really simple, there is only so much they can put in any given product.  You want a lightning archon, fine:

Lightning Archon Rimehammer Level 19 Soldier
Medium elemental humanoid (lightning) XP 2,400
Initiative +15 Senses Perception +12
Static Discharge (Lightning) aura 1; enemies in this aura take 1d6 damage appon entering it.
HP 185; Bloodied 92
AC 35; Fortitude 35, Refl ex 32, Will 31
Immune disease, poison; Resist 30 Lightning
Speed 6
m Short Spear (standard; at-will) ✦ Lightning, Weapon
+25 vs. AC; 2d6 + 7 damage plus 1d6 Lightning damage, and the
target is slowed (save ends). Against a slowed target, the
rimehammer deals an extra 2d6 Lightning damage.
Alignment Chaotic evil Languages Primordial
Str 24 (+16) Dex 18 (+13) Wis 16 (+12)
Con 25 (+16) Int 14 (+11) Cha 15 (+11)
Equipment plate armor, Short Spear


----------



## small pumpkin man (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I don't think the argument is over how many monsters are in it so much as it is that it almost NECCESITATES you buying a second book.



I won't be buying books simply because of Ice Giants or Smoke Archons, in fact I'd be less likely to buy something like that since, again, I have no interest in completionism.

I _might_ spend money to get Metalic Dragons, but I certaintly wouldn't buy the book if there wasn't other Monsters there I was interested in.


----------



## frankthedm (May 21, 2008)

Interesting mention on how elementals will be composites rather than one pure element.


----------



## hong (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I don't think the argument is over how many monsters are in it so much as it is that it almost NECCESITATES you buying a second book.



 It necessitates you buying a second book if you have an obsessive interest in archons. However, nothing necessitates you having an obsessive interest in archons.


----------



## MindWanderer (May 21, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Rimehammers could be really scary if they flank somebody.  With their ice aura plus the slow effect, not only will they being hitting for 12-37 apiece, but the victim wouldn't be able to get away (he could move only 1 square, and even that would provoke 2 opportunity attacks).



 I don't see why not.  Difficult terrain only affects when you step into it, not when you step out of it, and it's only Aura 1.  You could shift and then move without provoking, just like normal; you could even shift and then run, moving a total of 5 squares and not provoking.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Interesting mention on how elementals will be composites rather than one pure element.



Fits in with what they were talking about with just one kind of Genasi.


----------



## small pumpkin man (May 21, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Interesting mention on how elementals will be composites rather than one pure element.



Yes, I'm amused no-one is complaining about that dead cow yet


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> It necessitates you buying a second book if you have an obsessive interest in archons. However, nothing necessitates you having an obsessive interest in archons.




Hey, I didn't say I AGREED with it 

I'm just trying to reword it.  The problem seemed to be "The Monster Manual has a lot of specific info on a small number of monsters, but doesn't give us everything ABOUT those monsters.  So if we DO want things either to be complete or get a good WIDE range of monsters, we need to buy a second book."

...I think.


----------



## Korgoth (May 21, 2008)

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> I don't see why not.  Difficult terrain only affects when you step into it, not when you step out of it, and it's only Aura 1.  You could shift and then move without provoking, just like normal; you could even shift and then run, moving a total of 5 squares and not provoking.




Are you sure?  Let A be a Rimehammer and X be the unlucky target, and * be an ice square:

*****
*AXA*
*****

X cannot shift because all of his options are difficult terrain.  X has a move of 2, so he can at most move 1 square in any direction (provoking 2 OAs in the process).


----------



## Boarstorm (May 21, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm amused no-one is complaining about that dead cow yet




Gah, I certainly won't complain about that one.  Elementals were b-o-r-i-n-g.  I feared the same would be true of archons, but it looks like they took the theme of their powers and developed them in new and interesting ways instead of just giving them all Immune: element, Vuln: "opposite" element, slam attack.


----------



## MindWanderer (May 21, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm amused no-one is complaining about that dead cow yet



 It's because we haven't seen the implementation yet.  I'm generally all on board with the sacred hamburger grinder, but if "true" elementals are blobs of random stuff thrown together, rather than blobs of a single "element" (doesn't have to be a traditional element), then I'll consider it a significant missing... er, element.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Hey, I didn't say I AGREED with it
> 
> I'm just trying to reword it.  The problem seemed to be "The Monster Manual has a lot of specific info on a small number of monsters, but doesn't give us everything ABOUT those monsters.  So if we DO want things either to be complete or get a good WIDE range of monsters, we need to buy a second book."
> 
> ...I think.




BTW, I just want to make it clear that I wasnt aiming my post at you, but towards the argument.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (May 21, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> m Short Spear (standard; at-will) ✦ Lightning, Weapon
> +25 vs. AC; 2d6 + 7 damage plus 1d6 Lightning damage, and the
> target is slowed (save ends). Against a slowed target, the
> rimehammer deals an extra 2d6 Lightning damage.




I'd go with ... and the target is dazed (save ends). Against a dazed target ,,, deals an extra 1D6 lighting damage.

I dropped the extra D6 'cause dazed is a bit nastier than slowed.

Just seems more lightning-y to me.

Fitz


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 21, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Are you sure?  Let A be a Rimehammer and X be the unlucky target, and * be an ice square:
> 
> *****
> *AXA*
> ...




But he could take a double move to get out for a total of 4 spaces.


. . X
. . 3
**2**
*A*A* 
*****


----------



## lutecius (May 21, 2008)

many things not to like...

- They're way too similar to the angels: both elemental, no legs, single minded. And I thought they wanted to eliminate needless symmetry...

- The name of the alignment is confusing. I get that all the servants of the primordials are CE, but a patient, single-minded guardian doesn't sound chaotic or evil. And it doesn't fit what we've heard of the new alignments either.

- "_the archons remain in the service of great powers that reside within the Elemental Chaos: Efreeti pashas, primordial nagas, salamander lords, and not a few demon princes."_
Messy. I don't like the idea of demons being lumped with elementals. If anything, I can imagine efreets having ties to devils. Twisted elemental demons I could see (and I think we will see), but I can't picture demons, especially as described in 4e, being served by these stoic elementals.


----------



## MindWanderer (May 21, 2008)

Yeah, but that would indeed provoke from both.  I see the point now, and yeah, it's ugly, although it relies on an orthogonal flank rather than a diagonal one.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

Well, Demons do reside within the Abyss, which is within the Elemental Chaos. Also Demons once were Elemental beings, so I could see some Archons staying with their master even after it was turned into a Demon.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 21, 2008)

> The name of the alignment is confusing. I get that all the servants of the primordials are CE, but a patient, single-minded guardian doesn't sound chaotic or evil. And it doesn't fit what we've heard of the new alignments either.




Sure it does. Go back and read the alignment descriptions again. Alignments in 4E are more about _what_ you do, not _how_ you do it.

You can have a chaotic evil character who is randomly and wildly destructive. But you can also have a character who is a meticulous, patient planner--and if he shares the self-centered views of CE, and if destruction is still his goal, he can still be CE.

(Of course, this has been true to some extent of prior editions, but it's more explicit here.)


----------



## Boarstorm (May 21, 2008)

I think the magma brute (from Dungeons of Dread) is probably a pretty good meterstick of what we'll be seeing from elementals.


----------



## ZetaStriker (May 21, 2008)

Nice. I can easily see these two being threat even into low epic levels. The Rimehammers form a wall, their rough terrain and slowing OAs preventing the Defenders and Leaders from breaking through their lines. Meanwhile, the Hailscourges rain death upon the party, their allies resistances allowing them to maximize its radius and soften the entire party.

I especially love that the Rimehammers can literally make it impossible to shift. While shifting out of rough terrain might not take extra squares of movement, if you're sandwhiched between two of them, that doesn't matter in the slightest.


----------



## lutecius (May 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well, Demons do reside within the Abyss, which is within the Elemental Chaos. Also Demons once were Elemental beings, so I could see some Archons staying with their master even after it was turned into a Demon.



Yeah it may fit the new fluff. I still find it counterintuitive and messy.
And does everything in 4e have to be elemental? Angels, some devils, titans...



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Sure it does. Go back and read the alignment descriptions again. Alignments in 4E are more about _what_ you do, not _how_ you do it.
> 
> You can have a chaotic evil character who is randomly and wildly destructive. But you can also have a character who is a meticulous, patient planner--and if he shares the self-centered views of CE, and if destruction is still his goal, he can still be CE.
> 
> (Of course, this has been true to some extent of prior editions, but it's more explicit here.)



Then they should have called that aligmnent "destructive". It is not only misleading for those who played prior editions, but also for those who expect a chaotic creature to be, well... chaotic. As for being self-centered, they look more like dedicated servants without much sense of individuality.


----------



## hong (May 21, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> Yeah it may fit the new fluff. I still find it counterintuitive and messy.
> And does everything in 4e have to be elemental? Angels, some devils, titans...
> 
> Then they should have called that aligmnent "destructive". It is not only misleading for those who played prior editions, but also for those who expect a chaotic creature to be, well... chaotic. As for being self-centered, they look more like dedicated servants without much sense of individuality.



 Chaotic evil = cosmologically chaotic, not organisationally chaotic.

Think chaos space marines, not orks.


----------



## TwinBahamut (May 21, 2008)

I still don't like the fact that these guys are called archons. Ignoring that, though, these guys are pretty solid Elementals. Ice bursts and icy ground auras look like they could be a lot of fun. I wonder what future archons will look like.

I am not sure what is up with the hatred for the four classic elements, though... If you want to make cool things like Lightning Archons and Ice Archons, that is perfectly fine, but there is no need to say that you have to give up the four classic elements entirely in order to have them. It honestly reads more like an excuse for something like an inability to come up with good ideas for Wind, Water, or Earth Archons (which should not be hard, since I can easily imagine ways you can make really interesting archons of those types). I also hope the idea of unbinding elements from the classic set isn't used an excuse to turn anything and everything under the sun into an "element". 3E Golems were bad enough (Gloom and Prismatic Golems really stepped over the line), and if someone repeats that mistake by trying to make a "Rope Archon" or "Slime Archon" then I will be severely disappointed. However, as long as they stick to reasonable definition of element (namely, a pure substance that can be found as a component of countless things), then I will be fine.


----------



## Kishin (May 21, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> Lightning Archon Rimehammer




Just a minor quibble. Rime is essentially rapidly frozen water droplets, so its another ice related word. Lightning Archon Stormhammer or the like would make more sense. 

But ForbidenMaster make a good point here. It ain't exactly hard to drum up more archons.

The way I see it, this time around, WoTC is basically coming out and saying "We plan to publish more books with more archons in them' as opposed to in say in 3E, where you have the base demons/devils in the MM, and the numerous other types that appeared in the Fiendish Codices, other Monster Manuals, etc. It's the difference between them wearing their intention on their sleeve or not, that's all. But, however, the natural human reaction to what amounts to "But wait, there's more! Tune in at a later date!" is "But I want it nooooow!" Then, couple  this with feelings of completionism (I -need- all the archons! Need them!) and you get the bitter reactions seen here.

Kinda pointless, if you ask me. Yeah, they're saving more for later. Is anyone really surprised? It's always been this way, and not only that, its this way with other companies, even ones outside the RPG industry. It's really like get offended by the fact that water is wet, to me.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Chaotic evil = cosmologically chaotic, not organisationally chaotic.
> 
> Think chaos space marines, not orks.




Of course, the big flaw here is that this only reinforces the much denied "Chaos = evil" theorem on how 4e alignment works.  I thought you were arguing AGAINST that? 

As for "useless symmetry," that's just a big fluff word that really doesn't mean anything.  You could easily take ANYTHING and argue it as being "useless symmetry."  Nobody says or uses it seriously*

*Now watch me be proven wrong!


----------



## hong (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Of course, the big flaw here is that this only reinforces the much denied "Chaos = evil" theorem on how 4e alignment works.  I thought you were arguing AGAINST that?




WTF?


----------



## lutecius (May 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Chaotic evil = cosmologically chaotic, not organisationally chaotic.
> 
> Think chaos space marines, not orks.



I perfectly understand what it's supposed to mean. And I still think it's a bad name for the reasons already stated.
As an aside, I also think having so many creatures bent on destroying the world, or destruction for its own sake is an overkill  and not that interesting.

Now I don't want to turn this into yet another alignment thread, so i'll leave it at that.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 21, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> But he could take a double move to get out for a total of 4 spaces.
> 
> 
> . . X
> ...



Yes. But has also provoked 2 OAs. If both hit, X has taken 10d6+14 damage, just to get there. And the ice archons can easily go into flanking position again, next round. These are NASTY buggers, if you're soft and squishy.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Rechan (May 21, 2008)

Can someone explain about the chaos space marines and how they're cosmologically evil? Wiki sin't really helpful about their motives.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> WTF?




The Chaos Gods in Warhammer are horribly evil and destructive creatures.  Saying "chaos is just like them!" doesn't lend to the argument "chaos in 4e totally doesn't mean evil" very well ;p


----------



## hong (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> The Chaos Gods in Warhammer are horribly evil and destructive creatures.  Saying "chaos is just like them!" doesn't lend to the argument "chaos in 4e totally doesn't mean evil" very well ;p




"Chaotic evil is just like them" != "Chaos is just like them"


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Let the forums decide our threads fates! and have a good read/debate while were at it




The fates decide.... thread merge go!

Cheers


----------



## Blackeagle (May 21, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Yes. But has also provoked 2 OAs. If both hit, X has taken 10d6+14 damage, just to get there.




I don't know if you've got the damage right.  When characters make OAs, they have to use a basic melee attack (unless they have a power that specifically counts as a basic attack), so I don't know if the Rimehammer could use Maul for an OA.  On the other hand, the entry doesn't list a basic attack for the archon.  I'm guessing they get opportunity attacks and can charge (both of which use basic attacks), but I don't know what they use for that.


----------



## Rechan (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> The Chaos Gods in Warhammer are horribly evil and destructive creatures.  Saying "chaos is just like them!" doesn't lend to the argument "chaos in 4e totally doesn't mean evil" very well ;p



We are discussing CHAOTIC *EVIL* and how CE monsters behave. Not how chaotic people behave (since there isn't a Chaotic alignment outside of CE in 4e).


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> We are discussing CHAOTIC *EVIL* and how CE monsters behave. Not how chaotic people behave (since there isn't a Chaotic alignment outside of CE in 4e).




Whoooh, no bolding needed there, we're relaxed 

I just feel these are all more arguments against the previous statements of "Chaos totally doesn't automatically equate to evil!"  It seems more and more - and let's be fair, I am biased to begin with, so it could be just me - that 4e is pulling more and more towards chaos being evil and horribly destructive inherently.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Can someone explain about the chaos space marines and how they're cosmologically evil? Wiki sin't really helpful about their motives.



What I got from hongs post was that its their intent, not their actions that define alignment.  In other words orcs are CE not because they are ravagely chaotic and evil creatures (using definitions, not the label CE), but because their intent is to be chaotic and evil creatures in that they dont care whether or not they commit what one would define as chaotic or evil deeds to accomplish their goal.

So any creature that doesnt care whether or not they commit a chaotic or evil act to accomplish their goal is labeled as CE.

Now how does that differer from strait evil?  An Evil creature does care about the type of actions it commits.  In other words it can intend to commit "evil" acts and at the same time its intent is not to be chaotic in its actions in that it cares how the evil act is accomplished.


----------



## hong (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Whoooh, no bolding needed there, we're relaxed
> 
> I just feel these are all more arguments against the previous statements of "Chaos totally doesn't automatically equate to evil!"  It seems more and more - and let's be fair, I am biased to begin with, so it could be just me - that 4e is pulling more and more towards chaos being evil and horribly destructive inherently.



 No, this is not how you defend an opinion.


----------



## OakwoodDM (May 21, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> I don't know if you've got the damage right.  When characters make OAs, they have to use a basic melee attack (unless they have a power that specifically counts as a basic attack), so I don't know if the Rimehammer could use Maul for an OA.  On the other hand, the entry doesn't list a basic attack for the archon.  I'm guessing they get opportunity attacks and can charge (both of which use basic attacks), but I don't know what they use for that.




The Maul is a basic attack. It has the circle round its sword icon, which means it is the creature's basic attack.

What makes this tactic more terrifying is the fact that you spend your entire turn (barring minor actions and action points) getting out from between them, take 2 OAs in the process, then on their turn, they move back up to flank you and get attacks. You're dying very quickly unless you have a good deal of help (or a teleport. Presumably they aren't effected by difficult terrain and slowing, or are they?)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> No, this is not how you defend an opinion.




Couldn't care less.  I know my words on these here internets won't be making anyone change their minds, so I see no reason not to just relax and have fun.  Besides, irregardless of what I say, SOMEONE is going to jump up and start beating me with a stick, so why bother making a big deal out of it?


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 21, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> I don't know if you've got the damage right.  When characters make OAs, they have to use a basic melee attack (unless they have a power that specifically counts as a basic attack), so I don't know if the Rimehammer could use Maul for an OA.  On the other hand, the entry doesn't list a basic attack for the archon.  I'm guessing they get opportunity attacks and can charge (both of which use basic attacks), but I don't know what they use for that.



I thought the attack type surrounded by a circle was a basic attack.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 21, 2008)

I can't unzip files at work, so I haven't been able to look at the actual stats, but from what I'm reading they look great. Loving the slowing / does more damage against slowed targets mechanic.


----------



## Sojorn (May 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> "Loving the Slowing" would make an excellent class power name.



In before "Slow Loving" joke.

Or AM I?


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 21, 2008)

I've just deleted a whole lot of meaningless 'lorem ipsum' posts.

Don't derail the thread again please!

Thanks


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 21, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I still don't like the fact that these guys are called archons.




I find myself wondering why they don't just get called elementals - maybe elementals are very different from them in some way? There is that curious comment about elementals being blends of elements.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I find myself wondering why they don't just get called elementals - maybe elementals are very different from them in some way? There is that curious comment about elementals being blends of elements.



I think Elementals will be things that spawn directly from the Elemental Chaos, so they are a mix of all the Elements (perhaps they only spawn when the Elements collide). The "more human-mind" aspect of Elements be another difference, and of course Genasi coming from Elementals.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 21, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> Yeah it may fit the new fluff. I still find it counterintuitive and messy.
> And does everything in 4e have to be elemental? Angels, some devils, titans...



Angels and Devils aren't elemental (except Ice Devils, who apparently are Demons hired by Mephistopheles). Angels are close to being elemental, but instead of the natural elements, they are "philophical" elements - beings of Valor, Vengeance etc.


----------



## FireLance (May 21, 2008)

Based on this preview, and due to problems my character had with difficult terrain in a recent playtest, elf is looking better and better as racial choice.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 21, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I find myself wondering why they don't just get called elementals - maybe elementals are very different from them in some way? There is that curious comment about elementals being blends of elements.




See the key thing is that they are elementals.



> When the primordials saw armies of angels, they developed an army of their own: *elementals-turned-soldiers* called archons, each invested with the power of a specific element.




They are essentially domesticated elementals turned mercenaries with the fall of the perimordials.


----------



## Derren (May 21, 2008)

This preview seems to be at odds with the Fire Archon preview.

The Fire Archon preview had a quite long paragraph about their society, about their military structure, the importance of the number 5 and that they keep slaves to preform work.

That doesn't sound like "they have no culture or society of their own"


----------



## lutecius (May 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Angels and Devils aren't elemental (except Ice Devils, who apparently are Demons hired by Mephistopheles). Angels are close to being elemental, but instead of the natural elements, they are "philophical" elements - beings of Valor, Vengeance etc.



yeah, that's how they're called. But when you look at them...
fire, lightning, cold damage, they turn into pillars of blue flame.
The first thing that comes to mind when you see the art is "elemental".
the pics for angels of valor and vengeance could almost work for fire and ice archons


----------



## Knight Otu (May 21, 2008)

I cannot help but notice that the ice archons do not appear to be vulnerable to fire. Not even vulnerable 1. I do not think that I like that.

Amusing observation: Hailscourges can become liches, and benefit from pretty much all lich powers, with only some overlap in the immunities.

I still don't like them being called archons.

Elementals mix elements and energy types... I'll have to see what that's about before I decide whether I like it.


----------



## Mort_Q (May 21, 2008)

Ten said:
			
		

> This viewpoint seems to be prevalent, and I can't help but to disagree with it.  To me, it is a matter of Occam's Razor.  Rather than some insidious plot to relieve fools from their money by deliberately removing monsters from the monster manual for use later...I find it much more simple and much more likely that there were a crapload of monsters, including iconic ones from decades of game history, cool ones they felt needed a time to get in the spotlight, and new ones they wanted to throw out to try the waters, and they had to draw the line somewhere.  Where they drew the line is arbitrary in the end, the point being that they chose a certain book length, filled it with monsters, and then stopped adding more monsters.




This.



			
				Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Yes. But has also provoked 2 OAs. If both hit, X has taken 10d6+14 damage, just to get there. And the ice archons can easily go into flanking position again, next round. These are NASTY buggers, if you're soft and squishy.




Many PCs have the ability to avoid OAs or shift opponents.  Let's hope if you're stuck in this situation that you do.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> I cannot help but notice that the ice archons do not appear to be vulnerable to fire. Not even vulnerable 1. I do not think that I like that.




I'm not sure it makes sense for them to be vulnerable to fire.  You could easily argue that their cold nature means they can negate the damaging effects of fire better than a fleshy could.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (May 21, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> - "_the archons remain in the service of great powers that reside within the Elemental Chaos: Efreeti pashas, primordial nagas, salamander lords, and not a few demon princes."_
> Messy. I don't like the idea of demons being lumped with elementals. If anything, I can imagine efreets having ties to devils. Twisted elemental demons I could see (and I think we will see), but I can't picture demons, especially as described in 4e, being served by these stoic elementals.




I think it's just a matter of (as the real estate agent said) Location, Location, Location.

Archons make up armies native to the Elemental Chaos.  Most powerful figures living there are going to have some archons bent to their will as a simple matter of convenience.  Demons live in a giant sinkhole in the center of the Elemental Chaos.  If you're a demon lord and you're looking for some servants a little more reliable than your regular demon minions, the archons are a natural choice.


----------



## TerraDave (May 21, 2008)

Archon = Elemental Demon Angel


----------



## Korgoth (May 21, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> But he could take a double move to get out for a total of 4 spaces.
> 
> 
> . . X
> ...




You may be right, but of course that would use up your whole turn and the Rimehammers could just come back at you again next turn and do the same thing all over.

However... can you actually take a double move while Slowed?  I had assumed that you couldn't, but on second thought I don't see why not.  Still, I don't think you'd ever get away from these guys that way.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 21, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> However... can you actually take a double move while Slowed?  I had assumed that you couldn't, but on second thought I don't see why not.  Still, I don't think you'd ever get away from these guys that way.




Yeah, double move is just fine, the question is can you run (making it 4 square move?). I don't think so, because the slow condition drops your speed to 2 regardless of how fast you were before, so I don't think running would help.

I'm starting to respect the ice aura. With one ice archon it doesn't seem to do much, but after all this is 4e, got to get used to groups of monsters. With a couple of these guys around, that aura starts to spread, and suddenly becomes a lot stronger.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 21, 2008)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> I cannot help but notice that the ice archons do not appear to be vulnerable to fire. Not even vulnerable 1. I do not think that I like that.




I could go either way. If someone said they are vulnerable to fire because their cold elemental energy is highly affected by its elemental opposite, then I would buy that.

If someone told me they aren't vulnerable because they are chunks of super cold, and wouldn't be affected anymore than my nice and easily burnable skin, I would buy that.

Heck, if they said they were resistant to fire because they are chunks of super cold, and wouldn't be affected nearly as much as my nice and easily burnable skin, I would buy that.


----------



## Drammattex (May 21, 2008)

So are we still getting an undead preview or what?


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 21, 2008)

I'm most interested to see how archons and demons differ, since both seem to be creations of the elemental chaos.


----------



## Voss (May 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> This preview seems to be at odds with the Fire Archon preview.
> 
> The Fire Archon preview had a quite long paragraph about their society, about their military structure, the importance of the number 5 and that they keep slaves to preform work.
> 
> That doesn't sound like "they have no culture or society of their own"




Yeah, that was weird and annoying.  The idea of intelligent creatures with no culture or society is pretty... wacky... to begin with, especially since they've been independent beings since roughly the dawn of time (back when the gods and primordials fought, and the primies lost).  

Its even more strange when they note in the article itself that they are intentionally more intelligent than elementals so that there can be social confrontations!  If they're supposed to be more than 'Yar, me Ice guardian, you intruder, me kill', than a complete lack of society and culture doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Voss (May 21, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I'm most interested to see how archons and demons differ, since both seem to be creations of the elemental chaos.




I want to see what the point of angels, archons, elementals and demons are, since they're all (apparently) essentially the same thing: servitor-class elemental beings.


----------



## Storminator (May 21, 2008)

OakwoodDM said:
			
		

> The Maul is a basic attack. It has the circle round its sword icon, which means it is the creature's basic attack.
> 
> What makes this tactic more terrifying is the fact that you spend your entire turn (barring minor actions and action points) getting out from between them, take 2 OAs in the process, then on their turn, they move back up to flank you and get attacks. You're dying very quickly unless you have a good deal of help (or a teleport. Presumably they aren't effected by difficult terrain and slowing, or are they?)




I think you should stop running and kill one of 'em. 

Tide of Iron looks like it'll still be great, even at higher levels.

PS


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I want to see what the point of angels, archons, elementals and demons are, since they're all (apparently) essentially the same thing: servitor-class elemental beings.




I have to admit given what we know they all seem a little redundant.  I'm not a huge fan of "opposite sides of the coin" monsters.  That was my problem with devils and demons before.  Now archons/angels may have that same problem.  Possibly elementals as well.


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 21, 2008)

This is all just too much for me.  Angels AND Archons are now nothing more than glorified elementals.  Someone was on too much valium to be imaginative about arch-typical creatures one day at work or something, I don't know.  They're friggin' *celestial beings*, not uber-elementals, dammit.  This is just...  just...  I'm too fresh from sleep to come up with any word but...  stupid.  This approach to the might celestial beings of glory is stupid.  Would have worked really nicely for advanced elementals, though.


----------



## Rechan (May 21, 2008)

I don't think Angels have anything to do with the elements. They might have an energy attack, but that could be the equivalent of having a flaming sword - a flametongue does not make you an elemental.


----------



## Lacyon (May 21, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> This is all just too much for me.  Angels AND Archons are now nothing more than glorified elementals.  Someone was on too much valium to be imaginative about arch-typical creatures one day at work or something, I don't know.  They're friggin' *celestial beings*, not uber-elementals, dammit.  This is just...  just...  I'm too fresh from sleep to come up with any word but...  stupid.  This approach to the might celestial beings of glory is stupid.  Would have worked really nicely for advanced elementals, though.




Um, they weren't explicit about this, but I'm pretty sure Archons aren't Angels in 4E.

Does that help?


----------



## Lurks-no-More (May 21, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Um, they weren't explicit about this, but I'm pretty sure Archons aren't Angels in 4E.



And angels aren't elemental, either.

Sounds like he's stuck with the old meanings of the words.


----------



## Voss (May 21, 2008)

No, he's saying that aside from the fluff that the gods hired the angels and the primordials made the archons, they're essentially the same thing- elemental soldiers, and thats a let down from, well, any concept of angel that has ever been.


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> No, he's saying that aside from the fluff that the gods hired the angels and the primordials made the archons, they're essentially the same thing- elemental soldiers, and thats a let down from, well, any concept of angel that has ever been.




In what sense?


----------



## Voss (May 21, 2008)

A divine manifestation of a god's will isn't some faceless mook with wings that stabs you with lightning.  Its more a matter of raining down brimstone on all your family, friends, and, in fact, your entire home town because you muttered a blasphemy under your breath in the temple.


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> A divine manifestation of a god's will isn't some faceless mook with wings that stabs you with lightning.  Its more a matter of raining down brimstone on all your family, friends, and, in fact, your entire home town because you muttered a blasphemy under your breath in the temple.




According to? Your religion? Your imagination? Science?


----------



## LostInTheMists (May 21, 2008)

Hrm.  Just noticed this bit of fluff from the Rimehammer's Lore area:



			
				Rimehammer Lore said:
			
		

> *DC 25:* These archons are usually found in the service of *frost giants*, ice archon frostshapers, and similar creatures.




Frost Giants?  I thought they didn't make the cut to the 4e Monster Manual.  Did they make it in, or have we been given a monster for which we can't actually play out the situation presented in its write-up?


----------



## Duelpersonality (May 21, 2008)

LostInTheMists said:
			
		

> Frost Giants?  I thought they didn't make the cut to the 4e Monster Manual.  Did they make it in, or have we been given a monster for which we can't actually play out the situation presented in its write-up?




Well, even if frost giants aren't in the MM1, they will likely be in a later MM.  Which would you prefer:  (1) the way they handled it here, by just including it in the lore section of ice archons, or (2) adding a note to the frost giant entry in whatever book they come out in to add this tidbit to the ice archon lore section?


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 21, 2008)

Duelpersonality said:
			
		

> Well, even if frost giants aren't in the MM1, they will likely be in a later MM.  Which would you prefer:  (1) the way they handled it here, by just including it in the lore section of ice archons, or (2) adding a note to the frost giant entry in whatever book they come out in to add this tidbit to the ice archon lore section?




For the laziest DMs among us (i.e., me), I imagine that having Fire Giants deal Cold damage will pretty much take the place of Frost Giants.

If for some reason that doesn't work at all, I'll pick and choose appropriate Cold-based abilities from various monsters.


----------



## Wormwood (May 21, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> For the laziest DMs among us (i.e., me), I imagine that having Fire Giants deal Cold damage will pretty much take the place of Frost Giants.
> 
> If for some reason that doesn't work at all, I'll pick and choose appropriate Cold-based abilities from various monsters.



This right frakkin' here.

The MM is looking to be a big ol' list of powers and bits for me to use on my own monsters.


----------



## Hellzon (May 21, 2008)

Frost Giant in three steps:

1. Take a fire giant.
2. Replace "fire" descriptor with "cold" and "ongoing X fire damage" with "slow". (Sorry GoodKingJayIII, I had to point out the "schtick" that each element seems to have.)
3. Enjoy one or two pages of new and exciting monster that wasn't wasted on writing up a third giant.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 21, 2008)

Hellzon said:
			
		

> 2. Replace "fire" descriptor with "cold" and "ongoing X fire damage" with "slow". (Sorry GoodKingJayIII, I had to point out the "schtick" that each element seems to have.)




Hey, no apology necessary.

While I could easily see myself doing the same thing (the Rimehammer's Maul is perfect for Frosties), I also have no problem with Cold attacks dealing ongoing damage.

Basically, if I am at the game table, and I need frost giants _right now_, no one's going to know the difference if I take some Fire Giants and make all the orange bits blue.

Not to say this couldn't be done in previous editions, I just don't consider the loss of frost giants in the MM1 to be a big deal.


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Basically, if I am at the game table, and I need frost giants _right now_, no one's going to know the difference if I take some Fire Giants and make all the orange bits blue.




Or just lighten them to yellow... Now it's not only a frost giant... but it's disgusting too!


----------



## Voss (May 21, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> According to? Your religion? Your imagination? Science?




I'm referring to most stories about angels, as Wolv0rine was referencing when he brought up the topic, because, as I mentioned, I happen to agree- most material on angels has them as them a Beings of Power, tied directly to a god, not as soldiers that stab people in the face with fire or lightning or whatever.   Now, do you have something to discuss in that regard...?


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I'm referring to most stories about angels, as Wolv0rine was referencing when he brought up the topic, because, as I mentioned, I happen to agree- most material on angels has them as them a Beings of Power, tied directly to a god, not as soldiers that stab people in the face with fire or lightning or whatever.   Now, do you have something to discuss in that regard...?




Yes, I do. I'm stating it appears your view on angels is colored by a particular view on angels. But what should that have to do with anything D&D related. Sure, you can have an opinion, but that dioesn't invalidate the story they chose to go with in D&D.

There are HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of different ideas about angels, what they are, and how they are. For instance, in Hinduism, they're pretty much just viewed as dead people waiting to move on. Not ULTRASUPERPOWERFUL god servants. 

In ealier Jewish works they're just messengers of god. 

In D&D they are soldiers embodying a specific ideal, or action that the PCs can encounter and sometimes fight.


----------



## Voss (May 21, 2008)

Ah.  Good to know.  But you can see why some people might be dissatisfied with 
angels= troops who stab people in the face with lightning.


----------



## DandD (May 21, 2008)

Also, in D&D, there are more than one god... Besides, D&D is a game...


----------



## Felon (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> As for "useless symmetry," that's just a big fluff word that really doesn't mean anything.  You could easily take ANYTHING and argue it as being "useless symmetry."  Nobody says or uses it seriously*
> 
> *Now watch me be proven wrong!



Well, just because some folks use a term incorrectly, that's not a valid indictment against the term iteself.

Certainly the developers use the term deliberately. Throwing in "daemons" just to have a NE analogue to demons and devils was useless symmetry (even detrimental symmetry, since the implication is that guys like Asmodeus and Orcus are diluted incarnations of evil). Setting the ranger up to use a divine power source just to provide the three power sources with equal PHB representation would have been useless symmetry. It's not a hard term to understand.


----------



## Voss (May 21, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Also, in D&D, there are more than one god... Besides, D&D is a game...




Neither point was actually in doubt.  Or indeed, even under discussion.


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Ah.  Good to know.  But you can see why some people might be dissatisfied with
> angels= troops who stab people in the face with lightning.




Yes, I can, hence the part about you being allowed your own opinion. 

I just like to jump in when people seem to be stating that certain type of fluff can't be valid because their own opinion on the fluff differs.


----------



## Voss (May 21, 2008)

Except... no one was saying that.  People were saying that they didn't like it, because it didn't match up with their expectation of what an angel would be.

Just as I don't like it because its uninteresting, and fairly indistinguishable from several similar creatures.


----------



## ryryguy (May 21, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm amused no-one is complaining about that dead cow yet




I'll complain!  It's a specialized complaint, though.

I'm running a 3.5 campaign that is heavily involved with the Elemental Planes.  There have been elementals.  I'd like to be able to convert it to 4e.  Already I have to skip the Elemental Chaos business and stick with my cosmology.  Having crazy mixed-up melange elementals makes that a little bit harder (at least if there are _no_ pure elementals left).

Considered on its own, I think it may not be a bad idea, though of course like most things I can't say for sure until I actually see the implementation.


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Except... no one was saying that.  People were saying that they didn't like it, because it didn't match up with their expectation of what an angel would be.




Well, if thats not what was being said, I appologize? I misunderstood. 

My comments were in relation to the "any concept of angels that has ever been" statement.



> Just as I don't like it because its uninteresting, and fairly indistinguishable from several similar creatures.




Thats fair. What would you like to see instead?


----------



## ryryguy (May 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Ah.  Good to know.  But you can see why some people might be dissatisfied with
> angels= troops who stab people in the face with lightning.




Right.  That should be reserved for lightning camels.


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> Right.  That should be reserved for lightning camels.




Lightning camels are awesome...

Their death throes power rocks... When they die, their hump explodes causing an electric burst 10.


----------



## Voss (May 21, 2008)

I'd rather see beings that are more tied to their respective gods.
Near-perfect looking winged humanoids whose voices carry the words of creation on their lips.  They change the reality around the with a whisper, and this can lead to various effects on those who hear them, from terrible exaltation to ruinous ecstasy.  

The somber harbingers of the god of death would be quite different from the lithe beauties that serve the goddess of love.


----------



## rkanodia (May 21, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Thats fair. What would you like to see instead?



Can't speak for anyone else, but pretty much I'd say, "Anything but what they are now."  Angels could be floating balls of light.  They could be 'holy undead'.  They could be spirits that animate ordinary objects.  They could be cherubs and seraphim.  They could be flowing storms of sand and razors, taking shape to strike and then exploding in bursts of divine glory.

Right now, Archons are 'slightly humanoid-shaped elemental soldiers', and Angels are 'mostly humanoid-shaped elemental soldiers'.  Yawn.


----------



## DandD (May 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I'd rather see beings that are more tied to their respective gods.
> Near-perfect looking winged humanoids whose voices carry the words of creation on their lips.  They change the reality around the with a whisper, and this can lead to various effects on those who hear them, from terrible exaltation to ruinous ecstasy.
> 
> The somber harbingers of the god of death would be quite different from the lithe beauties that serve the goddess of love.



That's modern christianity-inspired. D&D-angels can be more than that, and are different too. Also, the gods of the implied D&D 4th edition-setting didn't create the world. The Primordials did. The gods just took a liking to it, and wanted to preserve it, instead of letting it get destroyed again and again by the ancient masters of the Elemental Chaos. Of course, imaginative gamemaster might use their own setting, and change the background lore for every monster. After all, Eberron Orcs are different to Forgotten Realm Orcs, which are also different to DandD homebrew campaign Orcs. But they will mostly use the same rules as combat obstacles for the player characters, no matter the setting. 
You're paying money for the rules, after all. Setting books are a different purchase. 

If I had my way, angels would be celestial robots from the Astral Realm, utterly loyal to their gods. Devils would then be astral sea robots who did a Skynet-Terminator-thing and are now ruling their own Astral Dominion. Everything's fine and dandy in D&D.


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 21, 2008)

Voss and rkanodia are pretty dead-on with my problems with Angels and Archons.  These should be Celestial Beings, and Celestial Beings shouldn't be - basically - big Elementals.  I don't care if they've changed the meaning of "Elementals" in 4E because if they have then *that's* boneheaded too.  But an Angel shouldn't be a powerful elemental with wings and no legs, and an Archon shouldn't be a powerful elemental in humanoid form.  It's unimaginative, it flies in the face of the general concept of Celestial Beings as possessed by the general consensus of society (okay sure, in the U.S., I'm not from somewhere else so I'm not going to speak for them) regardless of religion.  Celestial Beings are cosmic powers, not high-end elementals.  Angels are generally creatures of light and power (although exact specifications from the Bible, to use one reference once, could be used to make some interesting Angels..  there's a lot of "like onto" in their descriptions which can be taken so many ways).

I'm not even having a problem with Angels not being divine extensions of a diety's will and power, even.  Let them have some independance, I don't care.  It's the nature of what they ARE are I can't accept.  It's like the dev team when through every sort of interesting monster and went "You know, this'd go a lot faster if we just ditch the whole thing and add an elemental descriptor a the beginning of everything's name.  Fire Angels, Ice Angels, Lightning Archons, Ice Archons..   it works man, it's all about the Elemental Whatsis, which man..  I'm really glad Joe in accounting suggested just pouring all the elemental places into one pot and stirring them up, so you get one Plane of Elemental Soup.  Man that took months of work off the table."


----------



## Jer (May 21, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> I'm running a 3.5 campaign that is heavily involved with the Elemental Planes.  There have been elementals.  I'd like to be able to convert it to 4e.  Already I have to skip the Elemental Chaos business and stick with my cosmology.  Having crazy mixed-up melange elementals makes that a little bit harder (at least if there are _no_ pure elementals left).




Actually given what we've seen there ARE pure elementals left.  They're called "archons". 

On another note - I'm not seeing how angels are "elemental" beings myself.  The angels we've seen so far seem to be "energy" beings, not "elemental" beings (at least, not how I think of "elemental" beings at any rate).  I know 3e kind of blurred the distinction between "energy" and "element" by tying different energies to elements, and I know that "fire" ends up being both an "energy" and an "element", but I'm still not seeing angels as elemental beings.  

And, yeah, I understand the argument about angels not being Biblical Angels.  I think there are ways to make the angels more like Biblical angels if that worries you.  Change the fluff so that they're created by the gods instead of pledged to them, tie particular types of angels to particular types of gods (the god of vengeance has only Angels of Vengeance, the god of battle has only angels of Valor, etc.) and you're done.   I think you have to write off a number of different angels as opponents to the PCs if you do this (at least the servitors of the non-evil gods), or you have to rename them (Angels of Valor become Angels of Fury or something for an evil god), but I don't think the tweaking will actually be all that bad.  I can see where the 4e designers are going with this and I'm personally willing to go along for the ride on this one, but I can also see where folks might want a more traditional approach and  might see this approach lacking.


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 21, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> That's modern christianity-inspired. D&D-angels can be more than that, and are different too. Also, the gods of the implied D&D 4th edition-setting didn't create the world. The Primordials did. The gods just took a liking to it, and wanted to preserve it, instead of letting it get destroyed again and again by the ancient masters of the Elemental Chaos. Of course, imaginative gamemaster might use their own setting, and change the background lore for every monster. After all, Eberron Orcs are different to Forgotten Realm Orcs, which are also different to DandD homebrew campaign Orcs. But they will mostly use the same rules as combat obstacles for the player characters, no matter the setting.
> You're paying money for the rules, after all. Setting books are a different purchase.
> 
> If I had my way, angels would be celestial robots from the Astral Realm, utterly loyal to their gods. Devils would then be astral sea robots who did a Skynet-Terminator-thing and are now ruling their own Astral Dominion. Everything's fine and dandy in D&D.



And Christianity stole the concept lock-stock-and-barrel from Gnosticism (_and no, that's not a "religious topic", it's a historically accurate throw-away line, not meant to be responded to, just thrown in there because of what it's responding to, mods_), then filtered it through the art of the dark & middle ages.  Yes I agree that Angels can and *should* come if different types and forms (although for the sake of using the word Angel, I think wings and at least a semi-humanoid appearance is warranted).  I do NOT get why they don't have legs..  did the artist hired not like drawing legs?  It doesn't help that I find the art very, very badly done in any technical form.  It looks like they gave the artist 1 day to do the art, and he just pumped out hat he could manage.  Having been in that situation, that's about the quality that I'd expect from a HUGE rush job.  If the artist had more than 2 days to do the illustration, he wasn't good enough to have gotten the job in my opinion.

Now the trolls, the trolls are turning out to look rather interesting.  Have they not shown the new look for ogres yet or have I missed it or forgotten it?  Be very interested to see what they're doing.


----------



## DandD (May 21, 2008)

Why shouldn't an Archon for the D&D game be powerful elemental in humanoid form? 
Also, angels use flame swords in the bible. Furthermore, in older stories, some angels were described as big coiled snakes sheated in fire (the Seraphim, who today are lovely singing genderless dude(ttes). Of course, a little back further, they were multi-winged freaks with several faces on their head). 

If anything at all, the real world shows that an angel can be anything what your imagination wants it to be. Be it a perfect human with wings, an aberration that shoots deadly laser beams from its many faces, or an elemental snake flying in the sky. 

Also, 4th edition angels simply use some elemental powers for some specific attacks. I doubt that a human wizard using Ray of Frost would be considered to be an elemental, right? And flame-breathing Dragonborn aren't elementals either.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (May 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> A divine manifestation of a god's will isn't some faceless mook with wings that stabs you with lightning.  Its more a matter of raining down brimstone on all your family, friends, and, in fact, your entire home town because you muttered a blasphemy under your breath in the temple.




Giving a monster a "rain brimstone on entire town" ability might end up being a little unbalanced.  Though I guess as long as PCs can still hack it to death with swords, it's all good.

Really, that conception of angel sounds closer to a demigod (or whatever they're calling those things in 4E; I forget).


----------



## Mirtek (May 21, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> If anything at all, the real world shows that an angel can be anything what your imagination wants it to be.



So why chose the most boring way and make them mirror images of the archons? If elemental stuff is the game of the primordials, why not give the deities their own thing?

A&A -> if deities and primevals hadn't enough to war over, they could add copyright violation to their list


----------



## TwinBahamut (May 21, 2008)

In D&D, there are only so many things that can be elemental before it starts getting really redundant. A good list would include classically elemental beings like the old elementals, genies, and things like Salamanders and such (fusing all of these into the same category would have been a good idea), giants (since Fire and Frost giants are classics and giants have mostly been elemental even in 3E), and dragons (of course). If you add too many elemental things beyond that point, the different creature categories start stepping on each others' toes and cease to be very distinct.

This is particularly true for things like Angels which don't really _need_ the elemental aspects in order to be distinct, and Archons that are not even really all that different from things like salamanders or genies in basic concept.

4E has done many great things, but Archons and Angels have really been disappointing.


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 21, 2008)

Jer said:
			
		

> Actually given what we've seen there ARE pure elementals left.  They're called "archons".
> 
> On another note - I'm not seeing how angels are "elemental" beings myself.  The angels we've seen so far seem to be "energy" beings, not "elemental" beings (at least, not how I think of "elemental" beings at any rate).  I know 3e kind of blurred the distinction between "energy" and "element" by tying different energies to elements, and I know that "fire" ends up being both an "energy" and an "element", but I'm still not seeing angels as elemental beings.
> 
> And, yeah, I understand the argument about angels not being Biblical Angels.  I think there are ways to make the angels more like Biblical angels if that worries you.  Change the fluff so that they're created by the gods instead of pledged to them, tie particular types of angels to particular types of gods (the god of vengeance has only Angels of Vengeance, the god of battle has only angels of Valor, etc.) and you're done.   I think you have to write off a number of different angels as opponents to the PCs if you do this (at least the servitors of the non-evil gods), or you have to rename them (Angels of Valor become Angels of Fury or something for an evil god), but I don't think the tweaking will actually be all that bad.  I can see where the 4e designers are going with this and I'm personally willing to go along for the ride on this one, but I can also see where folks might want a more traditional approach and  might see this approach lacking.



See, my problem isn' with the fluff.  I'm actually okay with the fluff.  Okay maybe not the basic boiled down to "They hire themselves out to the gods" instead of "Pledged to serve the gods", but still.  The fluff's fine by me.  It's what they've made Angels INTO.  
Wings>check.  
No face the speak of>Umm..  huh?  Okay kinda, but it's done REALLY badly.  
No legs, just a trail-off like Genie from Disney's Alladin> WTF?!?
And really, you don't see the overtly Elemental nature of these 2 pics?:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/excerpt_4E_angel2th.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/excerpt_4E_angel3.jpg

Sure, the 'pillar of fire' thing is cool and all, but these are glorified elementals only slightly less than Archons turned out to be.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 21, 2008)

Jer said:
			
		

> On another note - I'm not seeing how angels are "elemental" beings myself.  The angels we've seen so far seem to be "energy" beings, not "elemental" beings (at least, not how I think of "elemental" beings at any rate).  I know 3e kind of blurred the distinction between "energy" and "element" by tying different energies to elements, and I know that "fire" ends up being both an "energy" and an "element", but I'm still not seeing angels as elemental beings.




I'm not seeing it either.  The words "element" or "elemental" don't even show up in the Angels excerpt.  Only one out of the four classical elements even shows up as a damage type, and since fire is paired with lighting and cold, it seems like they're using it as an energy type, rather than an element.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 21, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> See, my problem isn' with the fluff.  I'm actually okay with the fluff.  Okay maybe not the basic boiled down to "They hire themselves out to the gods" instead of "Pledged to serve the gods", but still.  The fluff's fine by me.  It's what they've made Angels INTO.
> Wings>check.
> No face the speak of>Umm..  huh?  Okay kinda, but it's done REALLY badly.
> No legs, just a trail-off like Genie from Disney's Alladin> WTF?!?
> ...




Isn't the picture fluff just as much as the description is?


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 21, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Why shouldn't an Archon for the D&D game be powerful elemental in humanoid form?
> Also, angels use flame swords in the bible. Furthermore, in older stories, some angels were described as big coiled snakes sheated in fire (the Seraphim, who today are lovely singing genderless dude(ttes). Of course, a little back further, they were multi-winged freaks with several faces on their head).
> 
> If anything at all, the real world shows that an angel can be anything what your imagination wants it to be. Be it a perfect human with wings, an aberration that shoots deadly laser beams from its many faces, or an elemental snake flying in the sky.
> ...



But on the flip side, why *should* Archons be powerful elementals?  We HAD powerful elementals before, they were...  powerful elementals.  What reason was there to completely redefine the meaning of what an Archon is in D&D in such a radical way?  The fluff?  If you're re-designing classic D&D monsters from the ground up to justify your fluff, you're doing your job backwards.

No, of course using an elemental attack doesn't make you an elemental.  Being made of fire makes you an elemental creature, being made of ice makes you an elemental creature.  Take another look at those angel pics, those are friggin winged elementals.  And yes, "angels" can (and as I said, should) take many forms depending on the diety they serve.  Quetzaquatl (sp) I would expect to have some kind of "big coiled snakes wreathed in fire" as angels, makes perfect sense.  Multi-winged angels with multiple faces, hey I can deal with that.  Fire elementals with wings...  no, just no.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

For those who don't like the element-bent to Angels it is quite easy to change. Just change any element damage into Radiant or Necrotic and your good to go.

For instance:



> *Cloak of Vengeance* (until bloodied) *Cold, Fire*
> Attacks 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*



Becomes:


> *
> Cloak of Vengeance* (until bloodied) *Radiant*
> Attacks 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 2d8 radiant damage*.


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 21, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> Isn't the picture fluff just as much as the description is?



No, pictures are there for a reason.  They not only show you what a creature basically looks like, they give an impression of what the creature IS.  This is the point of illustration, to convey  meaning in a visual/graphic sense.  The picture shows up a creature made of fire, with fire-wings and no face, wielding a sword not wreathed in flames, not a flaming or firey sword, but a sword made of fire.  His torso trails off into a plume of fire.  It's an angel made of fire.  A creature made of fire...  is a fire elemental.


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I'd rather see beings that are more tied to their respective gods.
> Near-perfect looking winged humanoids whose voices carry the words of creation on their lips.  They change the reality around the with a whisper, and this can lead to various effects on those who hear them, from terrible exaltation to ruinous ecstasy.
> 
> The somber harbingers of the god of death would be quite different from the lithe beauties that serve the goddess of love.




Yeah but they've done away with angels serve specific gods. They're mercenaries now. 

How do you illustrate something carrying the word of creation on its lips?

And tying it to a god brings up the whole thing they were trying to move away from... that some angels by nature of the god they served would be all but useless to most players...

Angel of love... to quote the simpsons... "He's bring'n love let's get him!"


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> For those who don't like the element-bent to Angels it is quite easy to change. Just change any element damage into Radiant or Necrotic and your good to go.
> 
> For instance:
> 
> ...



Oh trust me, if I start working on any 4E material, I'll be changing things.  Lots of things.  Angels will be right on that list.  But the fact that you can freely change anything you dislike isn't the point, the point is that THIS is what the professional designers ended up giving us after huge sums of money in development (as Rouse said), a handful of years of work, presumably scads of customer feedback, skulking the internet, and gods know what else.  And this is what they churned out as cannon.  It's just...  these are supposed to be professionals, I expect leagues better.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

It isn't a matter of quality though, it is a matter of personal opinion on what is good fluff. Fluff that I may like, you may detest, and vice versa.

Hell a prime example of this is the cosmology change, some people adore it others abhor it.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 21, 2008)

Sorry, but "angels have some elemental-based attacks" is hardly the same as "angels are elementals."

Moreover, "angel with a flaming sword" is such a part of modern pop culture that Kevin Smith was able to spoof it in _Dogma_.

The first words uttered by every angel that appears in the bible are, roughly, "don't be afraid." Call me nuts, but I hardly think this means they're inoccuous looking.

I have no problem with angels whose natural form is, essentially, "seething energy creature." Now, a particular angel might be sent to the world in another form, but that would be by the power of the god ordering it around, not necessarily due to its own abilities.

Frankly, I can actually see the angels and archons of Fourth Edition getting some real use in play at my table. And that's something I haven't been able to say for a long time. Mostly, I just used them as set-dressing in the past, and I hardly need stats to do _that._


----------



## DandD (May 21, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> So why chose the most boring way and make them mirror images of the archons? If elemental stuff is the game of the primordials, why not give the deities their own thing?



The only thing they have in common in D&D 4th edition is that background-lore wise, they formed the vast armies for their respective masters. Appearance-wise, they look different. Angels have wings, eyes, come from the Astral Sea, have a more metallic-feeling look to them. Archons are standart-3rd edition elementals with fancy elemetal armour from the Elemental Chaos who recruit other inhabitants of the Elemental Chaos by turning them into Borg (We are the Archons. Resistance is futile. Your elemental powers will be added to our own). Although they do have at least personality, unlike the Star Trek-Borg. 

Now, people can and should be able to complain that they don't like the look. But if you're putting up a picture of a 4th edition Angel to a 4th edition Archon side by side, people will be able to tell the difference. 








Those are Ice Archons. And here's an Angel of Vengeance (who by the way uses fire-and-cold attacks. He just looks blue, because flames that are hot and cold at the same time are blue in D&D, appearantly). 

Also, a Fire Archon and the Angel of Valor (he shoots lightning, don't forget that):








They're not the prettiest things around. But they're distinguishable from each another, unless you purposefully try not to be able to see it.


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Oh trust me, if I start working on any 4E material, I'll be changing things.  Lots of things.  Angels will be right on that list.  But the fact that you can freely change anything you dislike isn't the point, the point is that THIS is what the professional designers ended up giving us after huge sums of money in development (as Rouse said), a handful of years of work, presumably scads of customer feedback, skulking the internet, and gods know what else.  And this is what they churned out as cannon.  It's just...  these are supposed to be professionals, I expect leagues better.




I think it's a pretty cool story... Very "oldskool mythology style"

A bunch of chaotic yet all powerfull beings created the world and everything in it out of roiling energy. (We don't know so much about stuff like quantum physics and electromagnestim and stuff but we still know stuff is energy.)

Their creations that were pretty much as powerfull buit not quite so into the chaotic everything decided to gank the world and make it theirs. 

Primordeals created the archons to fight for them, God's created the angels. They're made of the same stuff because they're made pretty much of the stuff of creation. Energy.

it fits the story as a whole. 

Also saying angels are beings of energy opens them up for lots of different builds and powers. 

Even the angel of love.. who shoots hearts out of its chest care bear style.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 21, 2008)

I don't think others are saying that there aren't differences.  They have them.  Likewise, I don't think it's matter of some similarity.

I think the argument is that they're _too_ similar.  I think plenty of evidence has been proffered to make that argument already.  As someone said earlier though, it's a simply a matter of preference.  Some are going to be bothered by it, others are not.

Me, I would've preferred more distinction between the two creature types.  Frankly, the Archon fluff seems a lot more appropriate for Demons, based on what we know about their relationship to the Elemental Chaos.


----------



## lutecius (May 21, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Also, 4th edition angels simply use some elemental powers for some specific attacks. I doubt that a human wizard using Ray of Frost would be considered to be an elemental, right? And flame-breathing Dragonborn aren't elementals either.



Maybe not. But if they looked like they were basically made of an element and their "lower bodies trailed off into flowing energy", and they turned into pillars of flame when bloodied or if you took cold or fire damage when you hit them I would have at least some suspicions.


----------



## Rechan (May 21, 2008)

This angel looks more like, well, steel to me, not ice.

Maybe it's got a cold attack because vengeance is best served cold, or the icy heart of revenge, but it ain't made of coldstuff. 

Besides, Angels were formed of the Astral sea, not the elemental chaos. Fallen Seraph beat me to it: give'm radiant damage, if you're so insistent.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Besides, Angels were formed of the Astral sea, not the elemental chaos. Fallen Seraph beat me to it: give'm radiant damage, if you're so insistent.




Again, changing the abilities is well and good.  I plan to ignore the Archon descriptor entirely and lump in the creatures as elite elemental soldiers.  I expect Demons will take their place as the ultimate Elemental Chaos weapon.  I'm going to have to wait until the books, but that's how I envision things.

But that's just me; it's not what we've been given.


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I don't think others are saying that there aren't differences.  They have them.  Likewise, I don't think it's matter of some similarity.
> 
> I think the argument is that they're _too_ similar.  I think plenty of evidence has been proffered to make that argument already.  As someone said earlier though, it's a simply a matter of preference.  Some are going to be bothered by it, others are not.
> 
> Me, I would've preferred more distinction between the two creature types.  Frankly, the Archon fluff seems a lot more appropriate for Demons, based on what we know about their relationship to the Elemental Chaos.




But that's the point I think... They're SUPPOSED to be similar. They're the elite forces of two sides  in an ancient war. 

If they had been devised in some way that wasn't supposed to have anything to do with eachother and had so many similarities, I could see the point... But as it stands now?


----------



## Sojorn (May 21, 2008)

Well, as long as we're on the topic, what element is this guy?:
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Well, as long as we're on the topic, what element is this guy?:
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> ...




Awesomeium


----------



## Sojorn (May 21, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Awesomeium



"You called for an Angel of Awesome?"

Actually, an Angel of Awe might be interesting. Or just generate way too many jokes at the table. Hm.


----------



## lutecius (May 21, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Awesomeium



some dorkium and uglinum alloy


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 21, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Well, as long as we're on the topic, what element is this guy?:
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> ...



Air, with a bronze fetish.


----------



## Rechan (May 21, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I expect Demons will take their place as the ultimate Elemental Chaos weapon.



I don't know if it's the Ultimate Elemental Chaos weapon. The Abyss is a cancerous growth on the elemental chaos, spreading and melting away the EC. I imagine everything in the EC is scared Shivaless at the Abyss, but would definitely not call them the home team.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I don't know if it's the Ultimate Elemental Chaos weapon. The Abyss is a cancerous growth on the elemental chaos, spreading and melting away the EC. I imagine everything in the EC is scared Shivaless at the Abyss, but would definitely not call them the home team.



Mhmm, also can't forget Demons are warped and twisted Elemental creatures. I imagine creatures of the Elemental Chaos when they see a Demon is simply reminded of what they once were. Which = Kill the abomination!

Hmm... I wonder if any Titans or Primordials have been consumed by the Abyss and become a Demon, could Orcus have once been a Primordial?


----------



## Rechan (May 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Hmm... I wonder if any Titans or Primordials have been consumed by the Abyss and become a Demon, could Orcus have once been a Primordial?



If they haven't, that's a _great_ idea for an adventure. Especially if people from the Elemental Chaos seek help from the PCs. 

It's a shame the EC isn't really tied directly to the Material; a titan or something in the EC being corrupted would effect the material world if they were. Then that sort of story has particular baring. 

However, a Primordial going Demonic is probably something epic in its own right, since the Primordials are... well, weren't they locked away, or dormant, or something? Ergo why they're not up and rattling around?


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> could Orcus have once been a Primordial?



Have they said as-of-yet what exactly Primordials are except in a general "Come on, use your brain, 'PRI-MOR-DIAL'. " drop-the-reference manner?


----------



## The_Fan (May 21, 2008)

I remember when the Lich template first came out and people thought it was weak. Now, apply it to the hailscourge, and that encounter Frost Shield suddenly becomes recharge 5, 6. Scary. Very, very scary.


----------



## Mirtek (May 21, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Appearance-wise, they look different. Angels have wings, [...]



And basically that's it. One is a legless ice guy with wings and eyes, the other is a legless ice guy without wings and a helmet -> how different


----------



## Sojorn (May 21, 2008)

The_Fan said:
			
		

> I remember when the Lich template first came out and people thought it was weak. Now, apply it to the hailscourge, and that encounter Frost Shield suddenly becomes recharge 5, 6. Scary. Very, very scary.



Makes the thing annoyingly resilient perhaps, at least against ranged attacks. If you put it on ice and give it some solid blockers/soldiers, I could see it laying down the hurt.

But what's up with a Shadowfell corrupted Archon? Some powerful necromancer/undead need a lieutenant? I can tell that it probably wasn't in the initial deal.


----------



## Lizard (May 21, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Have they said as-of-yet what exactly Primordials are except in a general "Come on, use your brain, 'PRI-MOR-DIAL'. " drop-the-reference manner?




I get the impression they are much like the Titans, the great powers which predate the gods, possibly with a dollop of Cthulhu thrown in.


----------



## Mirtek (May 21, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Well, as long as we're on the topic, what element is this guy?:
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> ...



Looks like an air archon, but it has wings, so it has to be an angel


			
				Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Hmm... I wonder if any Titans or Primordials have been consumed by the Abyss and become a Demon, could Orcus have once been a Primordial?



Actually I believe that it has been stated somewhere that the primordial that remained alive and free after their defeat by the deities retreated into the Abyss and became the demonlords. So Orcus should indeed be a primordial


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> I get the impression they are much like the Titans, the great powers which predate the gods, possibly with a dollop of Cthulhu thrown in.



I got the impression that they're, as a rule of thumb, are not stronger (or weaker) than the gods. They likely range from exarch (demigod) level to the greater god level, just like the deities.

So if Orcus is indeed a primordial, he would be the example of a powerfull primordil who is also weaker than the deity Moradin.

The primordial who managed to rip Io apart would be a primordial stronager than a deity (at least this particular deity)


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I get the impression they are much like the Titans, the great powers which predate the gods, possibly with a dollop of Cthulhu thrown in.




Primordial

1 Cup flour
2 Cups water
3 Cups Great power that predates god

Cthulu to taste.


----------



## DandD (May 22, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> And basically that's it. One is a legless ice guy



That's wrong, because he's a Fire and Ice guy. 


> *with wings and eyes*,



A very noticeable difference. 


> the other is a legless ice guy



This part is true. Ice Archons only deal cold damage. 







> without *wings and a helmet* -> how different



See? Quite different. I'm glad you saw that too.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (May 22, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> And Christianity stole the concept lock-stock-and-barrel from Gnosticism (_and no, that's not a "religious topic", it's a historically accurate throw-away line, not meant to be responded to, just thrown in there because of what it's responding to, mods_), then filtered it through the art of the dark & middle ages.




No.


----------



## lutecius (May 22, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> That's wrong, because he's a Fire and Ice guy.
> A very noticeable difference.
> This part is true. Ice Archons only deal cold damage. See? Quite different. I'm glad you saw that too.



Was that sarcasm or are you seriously arguing that the new angels don't look somewhat elemental and very similar to archons?


----------



## Hussar (May 22, 2008)

D&D has long survived lots and lots of creatures that look pretty darn similar.  Heck, thirty years of balors and pit fiends that looked pretty much identical wasn't a problem, why is this?


----------



## Yaezakura (May 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> D&D has long survived lots and lots of creatures that look pretty darn similar.  Heck, thirty years of balors and pit fiends that looked pretty much identical wasn't a problem, why is this?



Very true. Heck, if you couldn't find a demon and devil that looked like brothers in earlier editions, you really weren't trying very hard.

I don't really see the Angels and Archons as being similar. They share some minor surface similarities, and Angels _can_ use elemental attacks. If the two are not different enough for your tastes, it would seem every vaguely humanoid creature would need to be redesigned.

Elves, eladrin, dwarves, halflings, all out the door, because they look too human. We can't have more than one species of dragon, otherwise all the dragons start looking alike--they'd all have claws and tails and wings and teeth and scales and breath weapons, after all. In fact, probably 90% of all monsters ever conceived would have to be rebuilt from the ground up to have no similarity whatsoever to any other.

This is, of course, a _horrible_ idea. The point is: Where do you draw the line? How similar is too similar? That line is, of course, in a different place for everyone. But if you're saying Archons and Angels look too much alike, you cannot say differently about Humans and Elves with a straight face (or any of the other humanoid races--by gods, they're even _called_ *human*oid). And I don't hear anyone clamoring for elves to be visually reconcepted.


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> D&D has long survived lots and lots of creatures that look pretty darn similar.  Heck, thirty years of balors and pit fiends that looked pretty much identical wasn't a problem, why is this?



This.



			
				lutecius said:
			
		

> Was that sarcasm or are you seriously arguing that the new angels don't look somewhat elemental and very similar to archons?



Actually, I am having a hard time understanding the argument that the new angels look too much like archons.  They have different abilities, different attack energy types, different appearances, are from different sources and seem to serve completely different sets of beings.  How much more different do you want them?


----------



## pawsplay (May 22, 2008)

Ice Archon Rimehammer is offically the first 4e name that rules.

_Word to your moms I came to drop bombs
I got more rhymes than the bible's got psalms
And just like the Prodigal Son I've returned
Anyone stepping to me you'll get burned
Cause I got lyrics and you ain't got none
So if you come to battle bring a shotgun
But if you do you're a fool, cause I duel to the death
Try and step to me you'll take your last breath
I gots the skill, come get your fill
Cause when I shoot ta give, I shoot to kill
_


----------



## Blackeagle (May 22, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Are you sure?  Let A be a Rimehammer and X be the unlucky target, and * be an ice square:
> 
> *****
> *AXA*
> ...




I think the Leaf on the Wind power from the new Tiefling Warlord pregen provides a nice example of how a power could get you out of this (a first level power, no less).  Leaf on the wind allows you to switch places with an enemy on a successful hit (as well as pasting them for 2d8+3).  So, use Leaf on the Wind to swap places with the archon on the left.  Now that the archon's moved, the leftmost squares are no longer within the radius of the archon's Icy Ground, so shift away.


----------



## hong (May 22, 2008)

Ice, ice archon hammer time!


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 22, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Ice, ice archon hammer time!




My brain cant even process what you just wrote.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (May 22, 2008)

I don't have any problem with the Archons looking a lot like Angels: according to their fluff, they were created as cheap knock-offs of Angels by the Primordials.

I don't think they're really that interesting as monsters, though.


----------



## Yaezakura (May 22, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> I don't have any problem with the Archons looking a lot like Angels: according to their fluff, they were created as cheap knock-offs of Angels by the Primordials.
> 
> I don't think they're really that interesting as monsters, though.



Conceptually, they're not that interesting. They're just elemental humanoids in armor who deal damage of their innate element.

The execution, though, I thought was brilliant. The Ice Archons really seem the epitome of Ice-based soldiers. The Hailscourge's name is all too fitting, between it's Hail Storm spell and the fact it throws icy shurikens, and overall really makes them seem like the incarnation of a biting blizzard. And the Rimehammers just seem cruel, especially if they manage to team up on someone and guarantee one gets the +2d6 damage every turn. And the fact they freeze the ground around them? Both amusing and fitting for their role as front-line warriors. Their mere presence makes it harder for opponents to reach their long-ranged support units like the Hailscourge.

Even if the basic concept behind them is boring and done a million times before, the execution of that concept is amazing. I look forward both to putting them against players and having them come up against me. And it should say something about a monster when it looks like fun from both sides of the table.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 22, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The first words uttered by every angel that appears in the bible are, roughly, "don't be afraid." Call me nuts, but I hardly think this means they're inoccuous looking.



Absolutely! Some of the Old Testament angelic types would fit right in with the D&D creatures from the Far Realms...


----------



## Steely Dan (May 22, 2008)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Some of the Old Testament angelic types would fit right in with the D&D creatures from the Far Realms...




We're talking real wrath of good type stuff!


----------



## Steely Dan (May 22, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> My brain cant even process what you just wrote.




Archon, archon, baby…


----------



## lutecius (May 22, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Archon, archon, baby…



Alright, Stop...


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 22, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> But that's the point I think... They're SUPPOSED to be similar. They're the elite forces of two sides in an ancient war.




Perhaps that would be fun or interesting in a novel, but in a game I want monsters with different backgrounds.  It helps me differentiate when using them, rather than ignore a whole swath of monsters because they're too similar.


----------



## DandD (May 22, 2008)

Well then, fear not. They are different in looks, different in background, different in how you use them.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 22, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Well then, fear not. They are different in looks, different in background, different in how you use them.




What kind of response is that?  Seriously.

Obviously I don't see it that way, or else I wouldn't have posted on the matter.  (And I'm not alone, by the way, though that shouldn't make a difference).

You know, I'm starting to get a sense of how the people who _don't_ like 4e feel.  I'm just engaging in some discussion of some aspects I do not like, have given (or agreed with) concrete reasons why, and the response to my argument:  "nuh uh!"


----------



## AllisterH (May 22, 2008)

I guess it is in the eyes of the beholder (no pun intended), GoodKingJayIII

For me, archons look like humanoids composed of raw elements whereas angels look like humanoids that have been varnished/waxed with an element. Even without the wings, I don't think they look the same at all.

As for their stats, at a glance, I don't think they play the same either.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 22, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> What kind of response is that?  Seriously.
> 
> Obviously I don't see it that way, or else I wouldn't have posted on the matter.  (And I'm not alone, by the way, though that shouldn't make a difference).
> 
> You know, I'm starting to get a sense of how the people who _don't_ like 4e feel.  I'm just engaging in some discussion of some aspects I do not like, have given (or agreed with) concrete reasons why, and the response to my argument:  "nuh uh!"



Well, for me they look different. This seems to be a very subjective matter, so I can't really help you more here.

The common aspects in their background are that they both work as "soldiers" for ancient masters. 
The differences are that the Angels came into being on their own. They represent (for the lack of a better term) "philosophical" concepts or ideals like Vengeance or Valor. They offered their services to those Gods that fit their own ideals.

The Archons were created as a reaction to these armies. The Primordials created them as their soldiers. They might have been inspired by the Angels, but they are made from the elements that make the world (maybe the Angels can be described as made from the elements that make the mind? Hmm...). 

Angels will be used whenever the Gods are involved. They will be messengers or guardians from the Gods. You will encounter many of them while traveling the Astral Sea and exploring Astral Dominions, but you might also find them in Churches or Sacred Sites.

Archons will be find among elementals and demons. They are guardians of Giants or Demons, and they might be part of Demon armies. You will meet most of them in the Elemental Chaos or in the Abyss, others in Giant cities or ancient Giantish sites.


----------



## IanArgent (May 25, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Sure it does. Go back and read the alignment descriptions again. Alignments in 4E are more about _what_ you do, not _how_ you do it.
> 
> You can have a chaotic evil character who is randomly and wildly destructive. But you can also have a character who is a meticulous, patient planner--and if he shares the self-centered views of CE, and if destruction is still his goal, he can still be CE.
> 
> (Of course, this has been true to some extent of prior editions, but it's more explicit here.)




This might be a bit too much Godwin's Law for some; but I could make the argument here that in Nazi Germany, Hilter could be filed as Chaotic Evil, served by mainly Evil (and some Chaotic Evil) lieutenants; but that the majority of Germans were unaligned, with some of military leaders (Rommel and von Runsdedt come to mind) being Good or even Lawful Good; without necessarily violating their own codes of ethics.


----------



## Primal (May 25, 2008)

IanArgent said:
			
		

> This might be a bit too much Godwin's Law for some; but I could make the argument here that in Nazi Germany, Hilter could be filed as Chaotic Evil, served by mainly Evil (and some Chaotic Evil) lieutenants; but that the majority of Germans were unaligned, with some of military leaders (Rommel and von Runsdedt come to mind) being Good or even Lawful Good; without necessarily violating their own codes of ethics.




Nah, that's too 'simulationist' and complex. 4E designers know how things work better than you or me.


----------



## IanArgent (May 31, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Nah, that's too 'simulationist' and complex. 4E designers know how things work better than you or me.




Uh... I was arguing in favor of 4e. Sarcasm or missing my point?


----------

