Recent Posts
What happens to Malcanthet?It's on another post. JJ said something to the effect that she is 3.5 and nothing is changed.
But hey, lets wait and see now that she has returned to the Wizards.
And my 2 cents: the planes have always been a mess. Someone needs to clean them up.
Malcanthet has always belonged to WotC. I'm honored to have been able to be the one to help invent her (she was Rob Kuntz's initially) and define her, and worried that she might not have a home once 4th edition comes along.
BUT: The planes were a mess, but I liked it that way. Order belongs in mechanus. It can stay there.
At least in 3rd edition, Balors and Pit Fiends have somewhat a somewhat similar appearance, vaguely similar abilities and a comparable role in the game. Will they be merged into the one being for 4E? How about Imps and Quasits? How about Yugoloth? Will WotC decide that three major types of fiend is too much, and either scrap the ‘loths or re-assign them as devils or demons depending on how they look?
I’m not trying to be alarmist and say that these things will happen, but it seems to be in keeping with the decision they have made on succubus / eryines.
Malcanthet has always belonged to WotC. I'm honored to have been able to be the one to help invent her (she was Rob Kuntz's initially) and define her, and worried that she might not have a home once 4th edition comes along.BUT: The planes were a mess, but I liked it that way. Order belongs in mechanus. It can stay there.
Very quotable, dude.
Malcanthet will always have a home as long as people pick and choose for their own campaigns, because she's a fantastic creation.
I understand why you like the planes, but I can only understand it because I have some old school background from my teens--the last year of playing is not enough. I can't imagine how confusing it is for anyone new coming in.
I think people who know what they are doing can create the chaos they want, but for those coming into D&D for the first time need an easier way to figure out what the hell is going on, no pun intended.
I don’t know, this proposed succubus change just messes with continuity too much for my liking. Maybe the designers will come up with an awesome way to explain it, but it kind of seems like they’re just going to say “pretend this is the way it always was.”
Well, the thing is, succubi are a fairly iconic d&d monster, and have been demons since – I don’t know, well before I started playing twenty years ago. There’s a lot of back story / lore / significant adventures that revolve around succubi, and them being chaotic evil demons! This change seems like it will invalidate all of that. It seems disrespectful to what has come before.
Sure, I know this isn’t the first time we’ve been asked to “pretend this is the way it always was”, particularly in regards to edition changes and campaign settings, and maybe this is just another one of those things that everyone will get all pissed off about for a while, and then they’ll come to accept or even appreciate the change.
But this really seems like change for the sake of change – or change for the sake of oversimplification – rather than change for a good reason.
I think particularly with the recent Fiendish Codex’s, there has been further definition of both the succubus and erynies (as well as demons and devils in general) roles and origins that has served to further separate the two creatures. Argh, I don’t know, this just really annoys me. I’ve really been wanting to wait and see what 4E has to offer before a prejudge it, but decisions like this which seem almost designed to alienate long time players (or maybe just to let new designers ‘put their mark on the game’, I don’t know) make it really difficult to do that.
I guess I should just wait and see the final outcome of these sort of changes, and how they are handled.
Personally? I really hate this. It's disrespectful of the past 30 years of D&D devil/demon tradition, for one thing. For another, it invalidates a lot of the Fiendish Codex I and the Demonomicon and a lot of other stuff I've worked on. It's hard for me not to feel insulted a little by this decision.
Plus, I suspect it's going to create a barrier for established D&D players that didn't need to exist.
QFT
I couldn't have said it any better. If this is the direction they go with the flavor of the game, I don't care how great the new mechanics are. I have been very openminded about the changes of 4th edition and even looking forward to them. This though crosses the line. It's like some yahoo up with the suits decided his idea for the game is so much better than the established traditions of the last 30 years, that he would just get rid of all that stuff he didn't like. This sort of screwing with what came before is what will make me not move on to 4th edition.
I obviously don't. A campaign doesn't NEED to have all of its outer planes interact with any particular adventure or campaign, after all. 17 is not an arbitrary number. As I said in my last post, it breaks down pretty well and pretty elegantly, in a way that all 17 are justified. I happen to really like the way they do that.
Yeah, and 12 is not an arbitrary number of inner planes. Neither is 16. In fact, why stop at 17 outer planes? We could also have planes that overlaped between alignment and element. With just the standard 4 elements, that would give us an additional 4 elements x 17 planes = 68 more planes. We could have Spicy-tastic, the plane of chaotic good fire and Wet-my-bed-topia, plane of neutral with evil tendancies water.
3) Arcadia: Place for lots of dwarves to hang out, realm of the einheriar.
Then why are dwarves typically lawful good if their optimal afterlife is in a neutral good plane?
10) Acheron: An eternal battlefield where the breakdown of law begets evil, a realm of constant war
Yet goblins, orcs, and kobolds are chaotic. Why are they on a lawful plane?
Players certainly can't keep them straight. In my experience, most players have touble keeping the current adventure's plot straight. Players play D&D for different reasons than GMs do, though, so it doesn't matter if most players can't or don't care about the planes.
I guess I figured that players having trouble keeping things straight was, outside of DM of the Rings, not a desirable situation at the gaming table.
I love the planes. I'd love to use them more. But every time I start bringing them in, my players eyes glaze over. They don't understand how they get there, why they are the way they are, or how they are going to be able to survive. I may well have the worst players ever, but my sense is that if the planes were simpler and more accessible, I could have more adventures there because they would be familiar enough to try it out. Right now, they need to learn 17 different sets of rules, plus the general mechanics of planar travel, to get the planes.
This isn't the same as character classes, which players encounter from the beginning of their play experience and with which they quickly become familiar. This is an esoteric backwater of the game, which, while very cool, is arcane and difficult to communicate. Also, unlike character classes, players don't generally encounter the planes until mid to high levels. Does the game really need such a highly developed intricate cosmology when the majority of players of the game don't even interact with it due to either not reaching the appropriate levels or not understanding the basic mechanics?
I guess in a way, this is one of those things 3e did better than 3.5. 3e relegated the planes out of the core rules and allowed for an overly complex explanation for those who liked that kind of thing. 3.5 brought them back into the core due to things like summoning spells. If the planes are going to be part of the core, they need to be simpler.
I really don't like the Eberron planes, (SHOCK!), but I wouldn't advocate changing how they work in the next version of the campaign setting, because that'd just annoy fans of that setting.
Maybe. It really depends on your assumptions. If, as is my experience, most players can't be bothered to care about the planes, then changing the planes isn't going to affect their feelings regarding the setting. Perhaps my players are the exception, I can't say for sure, but I won't shed any tears if they axe the Great Wheel.
Now if only they'd take out schools of magic while they're at it...
Personally? I really hate this. It's disrespectful of the past 30 years of D&D devil/demon tradition, for one thing. For another, it invalidates a lot of the Fiendish Codex I and the Demonomicon and a lot of other stuff I've worked on. It's hard for me not to feel insulted a little by this decision.
Plus, I suspect it's going to create a barrier for established D&D players that didn't need to exist.
For what it's worth I totally agree with, James.
I see this as part of a revision of the Great Wheel, which is something that has been wonky and old school for too long... planes fail in their primary task of being the place from which gods hail (why would a lawful neutral god like (IIRC) Boccob be on the machine plane of Mechanus? What's Loki doing in pandemonium? How does a lawful evil god do anything without stepping on the toes of 16 devil lords).
Just so you know, there is someone who agrees with you. The fact that Odin and Bragi get exiled to different planes, when the mythology puts them both in Asgard, for example, always grated at me.
For over 25 years I've been playing with no organized "wheel," just an infinite number of planes. Mythologies are grouped together logically. Pantheons we don't use are reasoned to be "farther afield" in the infinite Multiverse. This setup has the advantage that we could even incorporate Zelazny's idea of Shadow into out without any trouble. So, if they change the official party line, it won't bother me in the least.
I respect Dr. Jacobs' opionions tremendously, and I do agree with what he said about needlessly alienating old-time gamers (which seems to be the whole point of 4e: annoy the old guys), but I just can't share his love of the Wheel.
3) Arcadia: Place for lots of dwarves to hang out, realm of the einheriar.Then why are dwarves typically lawful good if their optimal afterlife is in a neutral good plane?
Uhh, Arcadia's lawful good with neutral tendencies, not neutral good.
I personally don't care what they do in regards to the Great Wheel, I never understood exactly why there had to be 17 planes, and explaining how Acheron isn't quite as Evil as the Nine Hells can get pretty difficult.
However, I think making all devils fallen angels is a bad idea (what do LE mortals become?), as is merging the erinyes and succubus, with the latter shifting camp to Hell.
It does seem like they're doing this simply for the sake of change.
Unless they aren't planning on actually making those changes, and are putting the information out like they are to test gamer reaction to changes that completely upset and abandon established D&D lore. It's possible (though may not be probable) that this is only a "potential" change, and if the majority of people seem to not like it that WotC will wisely (I can dream, can't I?) not make those changes because it's obviously an unpopular decision.
Personally? I really hate this.
I don't think WotC really care that you hate this, or any of the old school D&D players for that matter. I think its being made perfectly clear that WotC is designing the game of the future. (done in my best "look at me, I'm a D&D game designer and you want my table scraps" podcast voice)
For the record, I am not a traditional D&Der, so the fact that there are 'devils' and 'demons' is irrelevant to me....they're just evil outsiders to me. Devils are from hell and Demons from the Abyss. ***shrug*** Shuffle them up, whatever.
Their intentions are good. But the proverb goes: The road to hell is paved by good intentions.
Mothman, it's a fair assumption that it'll get scrapped or so altered that it will not resemble the original enough to tie it in with the older canon. Something I was reminded of over on EN World was the fact that the game designers for 4E have been specifically instructed to create this new system without worrying about "sacred cows" or in this context, traditional D&D. In fact, it seems they have been encouraged to completely disregard them in an effort to create their "better" game. Yet the whole "the game remains the same" repeated over and over is so bafflingly contradictory to everything they're doing. ???????????????????
Edit: Oops! I was going to just shut up and work. :?
Mothman, it's a fair assumption that it'll get scrapped or so altered that it will not resemble the original enough to tie it in with the older canon. Something I was reminded of over on EN World was the fact that the game designers for 4E have been specifically instructed to create this new system without worrying about "sacred cows" or in this context, traditional D&D. In fact, it seems they have been encouraged to completely disregard them in an effort to create their "better" game. Yet the whole "the game remains the same" repeated over and over is so bafflingly contradictory to everything they're doing. ???????????????????
Edit: Oops! I was going to just shut up and work. :?
But they're not just changing the system, they are throwing out the history that makes Dungeons and Dragons unique. Furthermore, they are doing it in the core books, not in an optional supplement. It makes both fluff AND crunch from older products incapatable with the new edition, and many players, myself included, have invested heavily in those source books.
One more (partially on-topic) thought on this.
If this whimsical change to the canon/mythos of the D&D universe is more than just rumor, it creates (at least) two additional problems.
As previously mentioned, it invalidates a lot of quality work developed during 3rd Ed. Let me emphasize "invalidates", again, because so much creative work (Fiendish Codex I&II, Draconomicon, Lords of Madness, etc) has been disregarded. This holds true from an aesthetic point of view, as well. I'm thinking of the conceptual art and detail that accompanied these books (particularly Draconomicon) that may very well be ignored. A glance at the 4th Ed green dragon strikes me as generic and dull, whereas--artistically--the dragons of the Monster Manual (further detailed in the Draconomicon) received unparalleled attention. Not just as experience and treasure boons, but as elements of a role-playing world, to which their image and likeness became cemented in as an iconic part of that realm of fantasy.
The second problem is that with a game like Dungeons & Dragons, generally more is more. Really, each plane is a whole new world to explore. Tired of the same old "save the princess" or "kill the dragon" experience? Try saving the "Eight Legendary Asura" from their crafy prisons haunted over by the "Tarterian Dragons of Carceri". Even as a similar scenario, the setting evokes a brand new sense of adventure, refreshes the stale, and highlights why D&D is the best role-playing game--infinite possibilities. Ripping away possibilities from such a highly customizable, inventive, and imaginative game destroys it.
Being a decidedly crusty old Fart when it comes to D&D and Gaming (27 years of play to be precise) I have seen editions come and go. As I did when I got my first hardback book of AD&D (The players handbook with the idol and the HUGE ruby eyes) I read through it, took what I liked and ignored the rest. This has gone on now through four boxed sets and three and a half editions. I do this because the simple facts are this is MY game not theirs. They print the books, they find more ways to twist the results but in the end I claim what I want and move on. Setting on my bookshelf is the 1st edition Monster Manual II (For the list of Demon Lord names primarily) The old blue Expert D&D book (For the map in the back, The Black Eagle Barony and the von Hendricks family have been villains in my campaigns for decades)and the list goes on. This is how I've always seen D&D.
That being said I doubt anything from 4th edition will end up on my shelf. Thus far It doesn't seem that the designers truly grasp the legacy they're dealing with. 3.5's addition to my shelf has come in the form of Dungeon Magazines and Paizo has proven to have a firm understanding of the legacy that is theirs to craft upon. This game of course must Evolve and Grow but thus far (and I'm quite capable of being proven wrong, thus I sit firmly in the wait and see catagory) 4th edition seems to me to be an attempt to erase that legacy for the sake of the bottom line.
James Jacob's articles on Demons, and the Fiendish Codexes (Codexi?) set firmly on my shelf and will remain regardless what is done to the Outer Planes. Changing a Succubi to a devil because they don't fit a nice little homgenized view? Nope not gonna happen in my multiverse. It might be fine for others but not me.
Retcon, cha-cha-cha.
Personally, I'm still reeling a bit from the 2nd to 3rd Ed transition with all the Modrons' stuff getting handed over to Ant-Centaurs & T-800s on the plane of Law.
I guess what I'm saying is... and my roommate's the one who pointed this out to me, so I can't take full credit... They've always changed stuff between editions, because they thought drow & Lolth were the cool new hotness, or that fat halflings are dumb (and lawsuits waiting to happen,) or whatever. I dunno that I can say it's right. I generally don't like retcons. And I am annoyed that all James & others' contributions to the Demonomicon & Fiendish Codexes are already being rebooted out of the picture. I just know this isn't the first time things have been re-imagined/re-assigned/whatever.
Man... I really miss those cool, lil', geometrical, clockwork dudes. *Sniff* Thanks for letting them in one last time, eh, Paizo-folks.
James, if you're reading this (and I think you are), please go back to the T-rex mini avatar. It was so you, man! I don't know who this new armored cartoon dinosaur is. With all the changes going on, I need to know that Dr. Jacobs hasn't!
/end drama queen rant ;)
No prob! You ask, I comply! T-REX IS BACK!
While I think this is probably a mistake (and invalidates some of JJ's previous work on FC I) it actually made me sit up and take notice because their reasoning is something I have used in my homebrew ice age campaign. In my homebrew demons and devils are all fiends and share the same language (fiendish). They are separated into the izralvar (fiends that are generally humanoid in appearance and create the bulk of half-fiends and tieflings in the world) and the uzthavar (hideous inhuman fiends that are generally chaotic evil).
It was almost like they reached in and plucked it out of my brain!!!!
*WARNING* SLIGHT THREADJACK COMMENCING (but it kinda makes sense)
By the logic of some folks on this thread, the Great Wheel is broken and needs fixing. There are too many planes, and some of them are redundant. I Don't necessarily agree with that, and actually fall into James camp, but I think that sums up the argument pretty well.
Now, if the above is correct, then I have to ask - What about dragons? How many different types of dragons are there, and what is the reason for all of them? Why not just have one color? If 4E is all about simplification, and that would be the reason for a re-organizing of the Great Wheel, then WotC would be hypocrites if they didn'at also do something about the needless plethora of dragons.
I have a nagging feeling that this change should irritate me, but in truth it doesn't. Not in the slightest.
The tradition that everyone finds irritating that this is breaking is non-existent to me anymore. 3.5e has already broken the tradition of classic D&D in feel and scope and power. While it carries the name, it is a completely different game. Not that it is a bad game mind you, it's just not classical D&D nor does it resemble it anymore with the 1,000,001 feats and seemingly hundreds of classes.
So, with them even further moving from "tradition" what does it matter? Yeah, its kind of irritating that it appears that the only thing the 4th edition will have in common with D&D is the actual name D&D but meh....it hasn't really been the same game for more than a few years now.
So, that being said. 4e could still totally rock as a game and I might actually even try to play it. I just really wish they'd change the name.
And all this before they've even finished writing 4e.
Which does therefore imply that it's not too late. Much of it is still in flux (heck, the implication of the post was that this change was just written most likely in the past week or something). Monsters are an active area of development right now and they are responding to customer feedback. So let's let them know that we prefer our succubi demonic, or at the very least if they are only going with one, and it's a devil, call it a erinyes for pity's sake!!
It's not too late! Save the succubus!
rokeca
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
James: Does Erik share your sentiment regarding these changes?
'Cuz, ya know, if you guys want to keep making products that fit in with the great wheel cosmology, it won't hurt my feelings. :)
Good question. And is the Great Wheel OGL? If it is, and companies like Paizo (who have great respect and regard for the grand cosmology of the game) can continue to support it, I'll be happy. If if this means the Great Wheel gets stuck in the 'WotC do not touch' vault with Greyhawk, than I'm really miffed.
I'm beginning to wonder if any of the 4e developers even like D&D...
Another "dumbification"... ehrm, streamlining design move.
This thing smells of "the kiddos can't tell which enemy is what solely on their appearance, and my inbox is always full of e-mails asking what are the differences between an erynies and a succubus, or why the gelugon is insectoid".
We Paizonians are lucky. Pathfinder and the GameMastery Adventures can use great resources such as the Book of Fiends, Tome(s) of Horrors and other OGL creatures.
The 4.0 grass is not greener.
DitheringFool
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, GameMastery Cards Subscriber)
FWIW, if anyone wants to give feedback on this topic, this seems to be the most active place:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=205929&page=1&pp=40
As Morrus pointed out, ENWorld has more 4e forum activity than WotC's own site.
By the logic of some folks on this thread, the Great Wheel is broken and needs fixing. There are too many planes, and some of them are redundant. I don't necessarily agree with that, and actually fall into James camp, but I think that sums up the argument pretty well.
Well, maybe Sebastian thinks there are "too many." I just think alignment planes are silly, because if you put the LE greater gods in the Nine Hells the way you're supposed to, then Asmodeus would be VERY quickly deposed. Norse Mythology has its own set of planes, but we've ripped the gods and creatures from them and flung them willy-nilly across the cosmos, then bused in some gods from other pantheons just to fit the "alignment wheel" cosmos.
Greek gods were anything but "good" in Greek mythology--CN would be a much better descriptor. Why not leave them all on Olympus, and let their alignments vary a bit as needed? And give the Elven gods their own plane, instead of sticking them in with gods from a mythology they never shared? (In Norse mythology, the elves lived in Vanaheim; they're allies of the Norse gods. Why not leave them there?)
Yes, I know it's a fantasy world. And if all we had were fantasy gods (Pelor, etc.), the Great Wheel would be fine. But trying to take gods from real mythologies and then force them to fit into a newly-inveted mythology just makes no sense.
I have to truly ask all of you a simple question: Does making succubi devils truly affect your next game so much, or are you just raging against the machine because you see tradition being played with?
Secondly, he mentioned succubi, they never mentioned anything about the Great Wheel.
Thirdly, if you are upset about tradition, why? It is just flavor after all, and is something that is usually quite controllable by DM's. Where is all this hate coming from?
DitheringFool
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, GameMastery Cards Subscriber)
FWIW, if anyone wants to give feedback on this topic, this seems to be the most active place:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=205929&page=1&pp=40
As Morrus pointed out, ENWorld has more 4e forum activity than WotC's own site.
You have been spoiled by Paizo's forums...WotC does not care about the community (and I don't care that they say they do - prove it). Go give your pro/con feedback where ever you want. It doesn't matter. The Great Hasbro Wheel is already rolling. You will get what Baker wants.
While I'm still tentative at best about Fourth Edition (I suspect I'll look over the 4th Ed. SRD and adopt a number of the better rules changes into house rules for my 3.0/3.5 campaign.)...
...I like the dynamics of this change. It puts a history behind the devils, it gives Hades a different feel from the Abyss, and it attaches the powerful outer planes monsters to particular deities.
(That, I think, is going to be the widest ramification.)
It puts a history behind the devils....
Yeah, because they never have done that before.
Once again, I say that if they are concerned about two or more monsters looking the same and having similiar roles (i.e. Succubi and Erinyes) then they need to consider getting rid of the mutlitude of dragon types and going with just a single one.
I have to truly ask all of you a simple question: Does making succubi devils truly affect your next game so much, or are you just raging against the machine because you see tradition being played with?
Yes. My campaigns have always been (and will continue to be) heavily rooted in the Great Wheel. The evil outsiders always play a large role. Something that seems as small as chaning a succubi to a devil has a ripple effect. Now Malcanthet is no longer a demon, or no longer the demon queen of succubi. Now the Maures went from demon-worshipers to devil-worshipers. Now the Savage Tide makes less sense.
Secondly, he mentioned succubi, they never mentioned anything about the Great Wheel.
True, this is just inference at this point, but if the alignment-based outsiders are being rolled into interchangeable races, and alignment is playing a smaller role, then it follows that big changes are coming to the planes.
Thirdly, if you are upset about tradition, why? It is just flavor after all, and is something that is usually quite controllable by DM's. Where is all this hate coming from?
For many of us, tradition *is* D&D. Really, the ruleset is only second to the flavor. Ask most people what they think of when they think of D&D, and I suspect it will be largely D&D intellectual property, like Tiamat, Orcus, the Abyss, Vecna, mind flayers, slaad, the Keep on the Borderlands, and so forth. Any fantasy game can have wizards, rogues, spells, and longbows. D&D's strength is its rich history and shared experience. Losing that, why call it "D&D" anymore? Why not make a "D&D killer" for the folks who don't like the system and please both crowds?
(although why Frog People are the chaotic neutral exemplar race I'm not sure... but I still like them nonetheless)
Not just frog people ... frog people easily sortable by color. Why such a standardized form? I guess it's just limbo messing with us. Go chaos imps!
James, I feel for you. I'm a big Demonomicon fan, who is actually considering purchasing an ONLINE ARTICLE (ugh) just to see Grazzt. I think you've done a great job with that series. The fact that they just spit on it (and FC1 and FC2) is probably a bitter pill.
Not in my campaign they don't.
Long live the sweet 17.
Just to point out something here . . . half-assed measures cause more angst and hurt feelings than full blown ones. Seriously. If you are going into 4th edition saying that no sacred cow is left untipped, then do it full bore.
Don't still use the Nine Hells and the Abyss but divorce them of alignment. Don't still use Succubi and Gelugons, but switch what kind of outsider they have been since the beginning of the game. If you are going to rethink demons, then rethink them, and build them from scratch.
Sure, they could actually come up with some cool ideas based on creating "fallen angel" style outsiders and also have "Cthulu-esque" unspeakable horrors as another category of outsiders. I might even kind of like it. But don't make the majority of them things I already know as something else.
Does this mean there isn't any room for slight adjustments of thinking, or clarifications? Not at all. Does it bother me, in other media, for example, that Spider Man got his power from a genetically engineered spider versus a radioactive one? Not really. Does it bother me that Batman in the movies runs into Scarecrow before Joker? Not really, as long as Joker and Scarecrow are essentially the same guys. But this strategy, to me, is kind of like having a hairy, short guy with claws that heals fast that you call Wolverine, but instead of being a mutant, he was a cyborg, and he has a malfunctioning personality chip that makes him go berserk.
In other words, sometimes you can move the building blocks around to make the whole stronger, but you should still pretty much be using the same building blocks.
But it seems to be the same mindset of what they are doing to the Realms. Trash the setting, rebuild it to address the complaints of people that never liked the setting, slap the FR logo on it and tell everyone that Drizzt and Elminster are still there, but essentially make it a Dark-Ages-meets-Post-Apocalypse style setting now.
I'd be less upset if they just put the Realms on the back burner for a while and introduced their "Points of Light" implied setting and see how it works out for them. It could be great if they built it from the start using their internal game rule logic, and it would avoid doing what James mentioned for D&D fans, creating a rift between "new" and "old" Realms fans.
I know in the end they really do want as many people checking out 4th edition as they can get, and I know that they need this to sell, and to catch on. But it seems like they are using names like "The Nine Hells, The Abyss," and "The Forgotten Realms," to rope people in on name recognition that they might not otherwise wow with good solid innovations and designs.
Keep in mind, I'm not taking shots at any individual designers, and I really do like some of the changes that I've heard about, from a mechanical perspective, but that doesn't mean that I like all of the changes, or the level of the "cuts" that they are making to what has felt like traditional D&D to me.
No prob! You ask, I comply!
Hmmm....
Hey James! If you are still reading this, can you please provide updated maps to some of those extra levels of Castle Greyhawk? Maybe the Hungry Halls and the Silent Barracks. Or the Derro Mines? Or all the unmapped levels?
Also, can you use your influence with those WotC people to convince them that a D&D Icons: Gargantuan (or Colossal) Tarrasque should be the next big mini (right after Cyan Bloodbane as the green dragon, of course)?
And while you're at it, can you do something about that whole "World Peace" thing.
Once again, I say that if they are concerned about two or more monsters looking the same and having similiar roles (i.e. Succubi and Erinyes) then they need to consider getting rid of the mutlitude of dragon types and going with just a single one.
Simplification does not require such simplistic thinking.
Setting aside the issue of whether dragons could or should be simplified, and assuming that the only way one could simplify dragons is to get rid of the color variations (as opposed to the various age categories, or slimming down abilities, etc), there are still other reasons why dragons should be treated differently from other monsters (hint: take a look at the game's name.)
It's like saying that McDonald's, which also focuses on the simplicty of making its products, is a hypocrite because they offer a wide variety of hamburgers but only one fish sandwhich.
Once again, I say that if they are concerned about two or more monsters looking the same and having similiar roles (i.e. Succubi and Erinyes) then they need to consider getting rid of the mutlitude of dragon types and going with just a single one.
Simplification does not require such simplistic thinking.
Setting aside the issue of whether dragons could or should be simplified, and assuming that the only way one could simplify dragons is to get rid of the color variations (as opposed to the various age categories, or slimming down abilities, etc), there are still other reasons why dragons should be treated differently from other monsters (hint: take a look at the game's name.)
It's like saying that McDonald's, which also focuses on the simplicty of making its products, is a hypocrite because they offer a wide variety of hamburgers but only one fish sandwhich.
I'm pretty sure they have two different fish sandwiches, actually. Of course, one of them just adds another fillet to the sandwich.
But anyways, I never quite understood how the succubi and the erinyes get mixed up, apart from being evil winged babes. I thought it was pretty clear that the succubi were behind the scenes seductresses and the erinyes were fallen warriors... or am I missing something?
And I have no comment on the Great Wheel issue, as I've only been on one plane in my D&D career, and that was the Plane of Shadows for about four and a half seconds (didn't want to get eaten).
Once again, I say that if they are concerned about two or more monsters looking the same and having similiar roles (i.e. Succubi and Erinyes) then they need to consider getting rid of the mutlitude of dragon types and going with just a single one.
Simplification does not require such simplistic thinking.
Setting aside the issue of whether dragons could or should be simplified, and assuming that the only way one could simplify dragons is to get rid of the color variations (as opposed to the various age categories, or slimming down abilities, etc), there are still other reasons why dragons should be treated differently from other monsters (hint: take a look at the game's name.)
While it is true that my original call for a single dragon type is a bit of overkill, I don't really think a reduction in the number of dragon types is simplistic. Currently there are, what, about 30+ dragon types. There really is no need for that many.
I have seen folks talking about a move to a more generic setting so that "real world" deities (Norse, Greek, etc) can be incorporated into the game. Following that logic, why not reduce the number of dragon types to something resembling those found in myth. They could have a four-legged, ground-based dragon, a winged variety of the same, a legless, serpent-type (like Fafnir), and finally an oriental-type.
And what, just because they share their name with half the game they should be untouchable for anything other than a cursory change? I'm sorry, but that seems to be a very similar argument to those who would object to radical changes to the Great Wheel just because it has been around since the beginning, changes I believe you supported.