Simplification does not require such simplistic thinking.

I would argue that simplification should start with simplistic thinking. Complexity does not, by default, equal good. I would agree that simplification may not end with simplistic thinking but to ignore it is folly.

I find that having so many variations of dragons reduces their uniqueness, not enhances it. How can they be rare when there are a million different species?

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.

In the core rules, IIRC, there are 5 good dragons and 5 evil dragons. That is a lot of dragons. However, if you take into account age categories, of which I believe there are 9 or 10, you end up with 90 - 100 different dragons. Yeah, that's an awful lot, and it could be reduced and simplified. That being said, there's no logical reason why the change to the succubus implies the exact same change to the dragons. Simplicity can be achieved without such a blunt tool.

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.

That was not my argument. My argument was that the logic you were using (that because the erynies and succubus were consolidated, the dragons should be consolidated) was incorrect and simplistic as applied to dragons. Dragons are a core part of the game (as exemplified by the name of the game), much more so than the planes. As such, there is room in the game for a larger number and variety of dragons than there is for, say, a larger number and variety of etercaps and xorns. And, there is room for more complex rules with regards to dragons because they are so central to the identity of the game. If were talking about Planescape, then yes, changes to the planar structure would be pretty darn important. However, we are not.

Edit: And note, I'm not against reducing the number of dragons. I think the game would be just fine if the good dragons were dispensed with altogether. It's just a weak argument to say that because they did X with the succubus it's hypocritical not to do X with the dragons.

I agree with AZ. Way too many dragons roaming around. If you're going to reduce the number of demon types, why not reduce dragon types, too?

In my homebrew campaign I address the dragon issue by reducing the overall population of dragons so that only 2 very ancient, very powerful versions of each type of dragon exist in the whole world (1 male, 1 female). Each pair has a cache of eggs that they guard jealously. In the event one of the adult dragons is killed, an egg hatches to ensure that species' place in the order of things is still secure. It's not perfect, but it works for my players as the dragons become more like plot points than the BBEG.

Of course, none of this matters as I'm sure the Fiendish Codex 4.0 will reintroduce the Erinyes as a "new" creature somewhere down the road.

I agree with AZ. Way too many dragons roaming around. If you're going to reduce the number of demon types, why not reduce dragon types, too?

I concur. Chromatic only!!! Seriously, I don't think I have ever used metallic dragons; this is just a long standing thing with me. I really don't like them.

Rich replied:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Wow, I'm sort of surprised -- more people were reading than I thought. It looks like I stirred up a real hornet's nest with my comments on the work I'd recently done on devils.

For those of you worried about mashing succubus and erinyes together... I do think there's room in the game for both a fury and a succubus. The problem is, erinyes have rarely been depicted as furies (ironic, given the name of the monster). Even in 3.5--about the most fury-like depiction of the monster in a long time--erinyes have charm monster at will. It's their iconic shtick, really. That's the sort of thing we would like to improve on.

One quick point of clarification I'd like to make... Don't assume that we're going to apply the 'Points of Light' conceit to existing campaign worlds. I think Realms and Eberron would prosper if they got just a little more points-of-lightish, but we're not going to overthrow worlds with that much breadth and history.

So the erinyes may return in a different incarnation. All well and good, but this doesn't address the more far-reaching concern, that the succubi (and reputedly other) demons are being folded into devildom.

So the erinyes may return in a different incarnation. All well and good, but this doesn't address the more far-reaching concern, that the succubi (and reputedly other) demons are being folded into devildom.

I don't have too much of a problem with this. By the Succubi's nature to manipulate and maneuver, a Lawful alignment may better suit the creature.

Now, it may wreak havoc on the established history of the planes, but I think as a concept, it's not bad.

I'm more concerned about eliminating Erinyes by saying they're the same as a Succubus, when they're really not.

And note, I'm not against reducing the number of dragons. I think the game would be just fine if the good dragons were dispensed with altogether. It's just...

Personally, I think that it shouldn't be so much the "good" dragons to be gotten rid of, but "metallic". Or, just go along and make dragons more generic, and not alignment based. Say, one that breathes fire, one that breathes cold, one that breathes acid, and so on. Or something.

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?

It's because WotC is being disrespectful. The current crop of folks at WotC simply doesn't understand that D&D has a long history and tons of tradition. There are thousands, if not millions, of us out there who love the game the way it is. They didn't ask us what we wanted, they didn't ask us what should be changed. They simply stepped in and told us what we can have and what we can't, and they insist that we drink their kool-aid with a smile on our faces.

Of course we can simply change things if we don't like them. But there comes a point when the changes are just too much of a pain. I could change my ford into a chevy, but the effort of switching out all those parts just isn't worth it. If I wanted to drive a chevy I would have bought one.

You have to realize that all the complaints about 4e and it's various changes aren't necessarily based on logic. I'm sure that some of the changes might even be good. But WotC has basically spit in the face of the people who made them a success by making all these changes. Besides, "logical" doesn't necessarily mean "better". Most of the complaints you're seeing on the Internet are emotional, because D&D players in general tend to grow attached to the game. Those of us who have played for a while are taking a pretty hard emotional hit lately, and we don't like it. It's especially hard since it's coming from a company we've loved and supported for years (decades, in my case).

You new folks can have your 4e if that's what you want. I hope you have fun with all the changes. Just understand that you won't be playing the game that started it all. No one has seen 4e in it's complete form yet, but we've all seen enough to know that it's not D&D. I wish WotC the best with their new marketing strategy, but they're not going to have my support. And don't expect me to just sit here and be happy because the game I've loved for almost 30 years has been hijacked by people who no longer give a damn about me in specific or the gaming community in general.

I don't have too much of a problem with this. By the Succubi's nature to manipulate and maneuver, a Lawful alignment may better suit the creature.

Now, it may wreak havoc on the established history of the planes, but I think as a concept, it's not bad.

I'm more concerned about eliminating Erinyes by saying they're the same as a Succubus, when they're really not.

Never followed how "manipulating" is somehow lawful. All the evil alignments deal in control to some extent. Part of the chaotic nature of demonic manipulation would be encouraging betrayal and inconstance. To me, succubi are the soul of chaos, in that they are encourage people to break their commitments to satisfy base lust.

One point I'd like to make here: many people are calling this change for change's sake, but I don't think that's fair. 4E seems to be largely doing away with alignment, and if that's so the Great Wheel must change as well. You can't differentiate between the Hells and the Abyss simply by virtue of alignment anymore -- rather, there have to be qualitative changes that differentiate the two realms, and the nature of their denizens is among the best ways to make this manifest.

Also, while many people seem to be keen on the Great Wheel, some of us have always gnashed our teeth at the thought of a pantheon of deities being forcibly scattered to the four winds, interacting with deities of other pantheons more than those of their own pantheon. Olympus should be the home of the Olympian gods, not Chaotic Good deities. Same for Asgard/Ysgard and all the others. The Great Wheel is at odds with the pantheons of every culture on Earth, and it doesn't really fit in with the way many (if not most) people run their games. Between that and the alignment business change was necessary.

As for the Erinyes: they shouldn't be devils to begin with. These are the Furies we're talking about, not some stupid devil serving the powers of Hell. They're all about protecting the natural order and punishing those who violate natural law, not serving the goals of evil. I say ditch 'em as a devil and remake them as a spirit of vengeance or something.

As for dragons: I say get rid of everything but the chromatics, and give them the option of having any alignment they care to. We don't need metallics, and things like gem and force and prismatic dragons are right out.

Meh...succubi are demons. No, now....they're devils.
Wow. Brilliant deduction that. Thanks 4e. for saving me from such a shlocky premise.[/sarcasm]
What a revolution.

Draconic aside
I use six types: White, Blue - Neutral, Red, Green, Black - Evil, Gold - Good
It has worked for me since the 80's, and I've seen no reason to deviate (OK, so I once used the CN version of the Nickle Dragon for the heck of it. But I'm pretty sure that's it...)

Succubus vs. Erinyes:
I agree with the poster who made the point that the 3.5 erinyes and succubus are pretty different things as it is. Look at that erinyes in the MM - it's not very seductive.

Retaining the name "succubus" but turing what it actually IS into something completely different smacks to me of that time I went into the store and saw a transforming dinosaur (or was it a tank?) called "Megatron." Suddenly Optimus Prime was a gorilla. Come to think of it, Hasbro did that, too...

As for the Erinyes: they shouldn't be devils to begin with. These are the Furies we're talking about, not some stupid devil serving the powers of Hell. They're all about protecting the natural order and punishing those who violate natural law, not serving the goals of evil. I say ditch 'em as a devil and remake them as a spirit of vengeance or something.

If you got rid of every D&D creature that didn't mesh up exactly with the history of its name, you'd be losing a ton of things. Including elves and dwarves. This is a silly reason to devilify the succubus.

BubbaGump . . .I understand your argument and respect the way you present it; I definitely am not going to tell you are right or wrong, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree; and in both cases we can be thankful there is a plethora of 3.5 material for those who want to avoid the change.

Now if only they'd take out schools of magic while they're at it...

Sebastian, (and really, I'm not trying to pick a fight) are you sure that D&D is the game for you? I've read a lot of your posts, spanning numerous threads, and from the number of different parts of the game you'd like changed, I'm thinking you're maybe just playing the wrong game. There are a bazillion other fantasy games out there, many considerably simpler than D&D (and several considerably more complex.)

I always thought Erinyes and Succubi were redundant. Two winged half-naked chicks. The Erinyes is different because it comes packaged with accessories.

Thomas Baxa 2nd edition corset illustration aside, Erinyes have always been wild, scary warrior type devils, and never really had the "seduction" thing going for them as the succubus did. In fact, I think its kind of an indication of how limited the thought process can be when someone sees them portrayed as attractive females and then assumes that that must mean that they are "sex fiends" of some sort.

This whole 4e succubus = erinyes thing gets me to thinking in a "how would I explain the shift mid-campaign" kind of way.

Um, some STAP spoilers follow:

Ok, I admit that still leaves much to explain - like why the succubus change type, assuming types are still kicking in 4e - but rather than b@!!~ about the inevitable, a bit of well crafted fluff could ease the pain and plant some really excellent campaign seeds.

Though I still fail to see how the benefit such niche simplification offers outweighs the loss of history such fundamentally sweeping changes imply.

I hate the fact that there is a 4th edition. That being said, since they are doing one, why not go for some of the sacred cows and if it works better, great. I do think Devils should have seductresses that entice foolish mortals to sign contacts. I think demons should have seductresses that are bad ass warrior ginsu freaks. Since that role is filled by the Type 5 demon, it does seem logical to make the succubus more of a devil. I would have kept the eyrines however. That being said, you just know that in a later supplement they will bring it back again. Am I cynical, I suppose you could say I am.

Anyway, I hope for the people that stick with 4.0 that these changes work. Neither myself(who has been playing D&D since 1980) or my friends have any intention of jumping on this train and being FASA'd to death with more new sourcebooks and online fees.

Thomas Baxa 2nd edition corset illustration aside, Erinyes have always been wild, scary warrior type devils, and never really had the "seduction" thing going for them as the succubus did. In fact, I think its kind of an indication of how limited the thought process can be when someone sees them portrayed as attractive females and then assumes that that must mean that they are "sex fiends" of some sort.

Not at all. Check out their 2e writeup:

Habitat/Society: Erinyes are solitary baatezu, rarely wen in groups of any kind. They are cunning and evil, securing their position amongst the baatezu as tempters of mortals. Even though the erinyes we lesser baatezu, they have a special station in the Nine Hells. As tempters, they report directly to the Dark Eight and are outside the normal chain of command.[snip]

As tempters, the erinyes have a special power that none of the other baatezu-even the great pit fiends-have; the ability to pass into the Prime Material plane for short periods of time. They do this to attempt to trick and lure mortals back to the Nine Hells with them- They cannot bring anyone or anything with them when they pass into the Prime Material plane, and they can only bring one person back with them when they pass back into the Nine Hells- They cannot bring back inorganic matter, so victims will arrive in the Nine Hells without possessions. Once on the Prime Material plane, the Erinyes will seek out a mortal to lure back to the Nine Hells. Using its charm person power and its ability to assume a comely male or female form, the Erinyes will try to seduce the mortal. This done, it can transport the mortal and itself back to the Nine Hells.

Mortals so trapped are doomed to die in the inhuman plains of the Nine Hells unless their own magical strengths can save them. When a mortal dies this way, he will become a lemure and be doomed to serve forever as a soldier of the Nine Hells- It is because of this power to tempt and doom mortals that the Erinyes are respected by all baatezu.

1E and 3E has similar writeups. It was only in 3.5 that they gained a description that acknowledges their mythic roots. IMO, 4E should go for broke and make the things the spirits and/or quasi-deities that they're supposed to be, leaving the temptress angle to the succubus (since they're the ones who were originally supposed to do it anyway).

Sorry about that . . . I did remember the "tempter" aspect, but I also remember it being along the lines as tempting people with power rather than physical pleasures . . .

Sebastian, (and really, I'm not trying to pick a fight) are you sure that D&D is the game for you? I've read a lot of your posts, spanning numerous threads, and from the number of different parts of the game you'd like changed, I'm thinking you're maybe just playing the wrong game.

Why should I change games when wotc is changing the game to suit my preferences? I'm not out here saying the game should be classless, or that it should use dicepools, or any of the other nonesense that is not going to be part of d&d.

I'm the guy who said thieves skills as percentages didn't make sense.

I'm the guy who gave wizards bonus spells for high int like clerics got in 2e.

I'm the guy who didn't like racial level limits or limits on class selection.

I'm the guy who advocated changing stats so that the 7-15 range actually did something.

I'm the guy who thought saves should have some relationship to the caster.

So, in short, I'm the guy advocating for a better game in each edition. Maybe you're playing the wrong game and should stick to 1e. It's people like me that pushed for 3e - make no mistake, it's my game to the core. And I'm glad wotc is listening to us again and making it even better.

I'm sadly with Sebastion on this one.

I'm not sure if the change is going to be good or not, but people are again being reactionary and not giving WotC a chance to explain themselves or anything else. Again, everyone must think that the WotC design team (who came up with the bulk of the 3e rules) are idiots who can't design their way out of a paper bag.

By the way, ever since the beginning of the whole outer/inner planes stuff (with Jeff Grubb in MotP) it has been said that the Great Wheel is simply one of several models that DMs can use. In the 3e MotP they said pretty much the same thing, but expanded the notion. Why do people consider 17 planes in a Great Wheel configuration to be such an untouchable part of D&D? I mean Eberron and FR don't even use the Great Wheel, and neither did Mystara, Athas, Dragonlance or Birthright. Only Greyhawk uses the Great Wheel in its current format, and that's not even Gary Gygax's doing (it was more of a default thing).

Anyone who uses their own Homebrew world or one of the non-Greyhawk campaign worlds listed above have never used the Great Wheel (well maybe the homebrewers, but not me). Also, has anyone ever used Arcadia or Bytopia in one of their games? The answer would be... probably not!

Now the changes to devils and demons are another thing entirely, but I'd prefer to wait and see what they bring out before I vilify them.

Yeah, but if you wait until AFTER it comes out to vilify them, they'll just use it as an excuse to start cranking out 4.5.

I mean Eberron and FR don't even use the Great Wheel, and neither did Mystara, Athas, Dragonlance or Birthright. Only Greyhawk uses the Great Wheel in its current format, and that's not even Gary Gygax's doing (it was more of a default thing).

Without the books in front of me I can't be sure of this, but I recall there being a very simple diagram at the back of one of the 1E three core books (or possibly Legends and Lore/Deities and Demigods) that showed the positions around the Plane of Concordant Opposition. If I'm not making this up then that should (or might, if it is there but was inserted before MotP came out in 1987) give the credit to Gygax (again, maybe, assuming it predated MotP and it wasn't inserted later by another designer).

Also, Planescape established that via Sigil all campaign settings could be reached (definitely Greyhawk, FR, and Dragonlance (a kender got to Faerun in one of the FR novels via Sigil)), and as Sigil sat atop the Great Wheel, the Wheel was, at least until the end of 2E, part of each setting's cosmology.

I actually think that you are completely correct about that. I'm not sure if it exactly followed the Great Wheel laid out in Motp, but it was pretty close in some ways. Thus, it could very well have been Gary Gygax's idea (though, whether he used it for his early Greyhawk stuff is something only those Greyhawk fanatics would know).

I stand corrected on that point alone. ;-)

They had to link the other areas somehow with The Great Wheel (simply for the sake of completeness). Of course, that by itself means nothing.

Anyway, who does use the Great Wheel? If you don't you have no reason to complain (Pathfinder sure can't/won't use it).

Aww, come on. Succubus devil? Succubus devil? It doesn't even sound right. A succubus is a demon. Pure and simple. Great Wheel, Bytopia, doesn't phase me.

They had to link the other areas somehow with The Great Wheel (simply for the sake of completeness). Of course, that by itself means nothing.

I'm actually wanting to go back to your earlier question in which you asked why people are so attached to the seventeen outer planes. This is my two cents (along with a story to explain why I see it this way).

If you're familiar with the history of DC Comics then you know what Crisis on Infinite Earths is. In case you don't, and as briefly as possible, the series took the multitude of alternate Earths that had been used by DC for fifty years and condensed them all into one Earth. Of course, in doing so, they created an endless number of contradictions. Many of those paradoxes (let's just pull one out of the blue- the existence of two Wonder Womans, each having the same essential origin but one coming to Man's World in the 1940s and the other entering in the 1960s) were solved by saying that there had only ever been one Wonder Woman, the newer one, and that the one from the Golden Age had never existed. In each case where there was a conflict between the existence of two heroes who shared an origin but were from different times the newer hero remained and the other was written out of continuity.

When Crisis came out, I was fourteen. I had only been collecting comics for two years, and my knowledge of most of the DC Universe's characters weren't yet from the comics but from the SuperFriends. The versions of each character on the cartoon was the contemporary character. While I would come to love the Golden Age of DC and its characters above all else in comics, at that point there was only one Superman, named Kal-El, and one Green Lantern, named Hal Jordan. So when Kal-L and Alan Scott were removed from DC continuity at the end of the series I couldn't care less. I remember though that so many older fans of DC Comics I'd overhear at the comic book store I went to were outraged and swore that they'd never collect DC Comics again. I didn't get it. I thought they were just overacting the way that geeks do when someone tinkers with the things they love.

In the last few days I've been wondering why the changes in the devils/demons line-up is bothering me so. I'm a perfectly rational adult (or will pretend to be for our purposes here), and while I am a geek at heart I've rarely if ever been driven to the same insane extremes that I've watched other geeks so easily be goaded to. I don't care what color Klingon blood is despite loving Star Trek, and God knows with the thousands of times I watched Star Wars films I am more concerned with how much the plants I keep in the Aerogarden have grown each day than whether Han or Greedo shot first. I was willing to give the 4E stuff a cautious chance until the revelations about the fiends and the plane changes, but that little bit of new is probably 4E's swan song as far as I'm concerned. But why?

Because just like those guys who were so mad when they were told by DC that the things they loved, and the way they knew things were, no longer existed, now something that I've loved is being invalidated.

My response is not rational on any level. I mean, I'm not angered to the point of defenestration, and I'm certainly not going to whine about this to anyone outside of the gaming community (I'd seriously have to consider kicking my own ass if I looked at my girlfriend (who doesn't game) and said, "They're getting rid of the Plane of Concordant Opposition. Boohoo."), but what I'm seeing isn't just changes to the D&D game. It's a deconstruction of much of what D&D is to me. A game in which an gelugon isn't a devil and alignments don't matter is not D&D. Not anymore. Not to me. So I think after the last of the 3.5 stuff comes out from WotC I'm just going to stop buying their product. As long as Paizo supports the system then can have all of my money they want.

I've said it before on these boards and I'll say it again- I wish nothing but the best to WotC. I hope that D&D continues to be a great success and that twenty years from now there are still people gaming (and probably at that point ruing the release of a new edition, invalidating the thousands of dollars they've spent in the last few years for the current rules set). I hope it continues to be a game that people enjoy, something that brings friends together for some laughs and fun, something that ends up being as educational as it is entertaining. Gamers in the future shouldn't be denied that because I don't like the changes I see coming. But I'm good here in 3.5. I think this is where I'll set up camp and watch the gaming world move by.

This reminds me of the "Nissan Fair Lady." Nissan was gonna sell a car in the U.S. in the 70's or something. It was a slick sports car. They thought they oughtta call it the "Fair Lady." Somebody told them, "no. You can't go around selling a sports car in the U.S. calling it the Fair Lady. You gotta give it a name with letters and numbers, like an experimental jet plane." So then they called it the 260zx or whatever.
I'm predicting there will be much gnashing of teeth about this retcon succubus demon=>devil, and when they announce 4.5 in like 3 years, one of the things they'll say is, "oh yeah. We're listening to ya. We're turning succubi back into demons."

When Crisis came out, I was fourteen. I had only been collecting comics for two years, and my knowledge of most of the DC Universe's characters weren't yet from the comics but from the SuperFriends. The versions of each character on the cartoon was the contemporary character. While I would come to love the Golden Age of DC and its characters above all else in comics, at that point there was only one Superman, named Kal-El, and one Green Lantern, named Hal Jordan. So when Kal-L and Alan Scott were removed from DC continuity at the end of the series I couldn't care less. I remember though that so many older fans of DC Comics I'd overhear at the comic book store I went to were outraged and swore that they'd never collect DC Comics again. I didn't get...

You know, not only did you summarize this very well and use what I consider to be an excellent analogy, but I'd just like to point out that young comic book geeks from generations after mine were so interested in the Golden Age heroes and the obscure corners of DC that a lot of the old Multiverse was revisited in Infinite Crisis, and the multiverse again exists in DC since 52.

I wouldn't be surprised to see ten or fifteen years from now, if there is still a D&D, that young people that never even saw 3.5, let alone 1st edition, will be enamored of this outdated, silly stuff that ostensibly only old fogies that remember Jack Vance, Micheal Moorcock, and the like could possibly care about, and they will start wanting the Blood War and alignments and the Great Wheel, and to serve their audience, if D&D is still around, all of the sudden "retro" elements will be huge.

Honestly, I know people much young then me that were so thrilled to read about Kal-L in Infinite Crisis, and these are fairly new people to the comics scene. D&D really isn't much different than this.

You know, not only did you summarize this very well and use what I consider to be an excellent analogy, but I'd just like to point out that young comic book geeks from generations after mine were so interested in the Golden Age heroes and the obscure corners of DC that a lot of the old Multiverse was revisited in Infinite Crisis, and the multiverse again exists in DC since 52.

I was actually sitting at the desk reading the latest issue of Countdown when I saw your post. I love that there's now a Multiverse again and the "New Earth". I only hope that Countdown and the follow-up, Final Crisis, don't do away with either of those.

I wouldn't be surprised to see ten or fifteen years from now, if there is still a D&D, that young people that never even saw 3.5, let alone 1st edition, will be enamored of this outdated, silly stuff that ostensibly only old fogies that remember Jack Vance, Micheal Moorcock, and the like could possibly care about, and they will start wanting the Blood War and alignments and the Great Wheel, and to serve their audience, if D&D is still around, all of the sudden "retro" elements will be huge.

Since I've moved up to NYC after Katrina hit NOLA I've been without a gaming group. It's mostly because I'm horribly picky about who I game with (I was followed to work once many years ago by someone who saw me drive by and recognized me from a game I DMed at a con. Ever since then I've been reluctant to even talk gaming in person with people I don't know.) and I'm almost completely off the deep end of the introvert pool. But if I had a group going right now I'd offer cash to try to get them to play just one good session of First Edition. Nostalgia, plain and simple. We were all too happy to ditch 1E for 2E when it came out, but 1E is where I cut my teeth. Just the thought of hearing a player again introduce his fighter character as "Eldar, the Superhero" or tell me how much his character is carrying in terms of its weight in gold pieces warms my heart.

The new world WOTC is preparing? Conan's world (without all that annoying licensing)

The worlds WOTC are abandoning?
--30 years of Greyhawk lore created overwhelmingly by PCs and DMs in actual RPGs (leading to silly names and stories that other DMs can use to inspire players to imagine how their characters can have their adventures written into history)
--35 years of Forgotten Realms lore created by Ed Greenwood and a host of others that are written as high adventure novels primarily, where every wizard could become a Merlin or more.

What has already been cut by WOTC?
--Planescape, the philosopher's game with a quirk for every worldview.
--Lankhmar and any number of other fantasy-book-based worlds that TSR mined every time they could get a license.
--Ravenloft and the amazing demiplane of dread (is there anywhere a better friend to DMs than the 'mists' and 'corruption points' when in need of a PC correction?)
--Historical world settings from Ancient Rome to swaggering Viking and Pharoanic Egypt, Arabian Nights to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon--all gone.

Why has all this been cut?
So we can find our pallet of imagination reduced to a game that is easily expressed by miniatures combat. Perhaps, at its core, this is really WOTC getting back to the real origin of D&D--tabletop wargaming.

For me though, it is a terrific impoverishment of the game. Rather than a 4th Edition, I would have WOTC fill out their catalog with more setting books and discussions. The Fiendish Codex was a step in the right direction (as was Draconomicon) but this world they are creating will not have room for that kind of detail.

Consider the Erinyes and Succubus. They do not serve the same purpose at all. A Succubus tempts with sex and releases violence through lust, turning nobility into vice by giving license to every repressed desire a character has. With a Succubus, no paladin's virtue is safe and you will know he has succumbed the minute he strikes down an ally to keep his sexual 'fix' available.

An Erinyes is vengeance personified. Springing from ancient Greece, where the Gods would punish any who failed to fulfill their word, the Erinyes is able to claim authority because the mortal gave it to them. They defile by bringing power to obtain the satisfaction of the deepest grudges and hatreds. An Erinyes will tempt a mortal by whispering of the power to be had in revenge, revenge justified by some breach of agreement or contract. Heartless and cruel, they do what they do so that the evil in men's souls does not go undone.

I never had a game where these were confused nor do I find there to be any appeal in making Devils all 'fallen angels'. Dragon magazine's "The Politics of Hell" is such a sublime expression of how the Nine Hells work, the Abyss needs to be different just so it is possible to show players the different flavors of evil.

Just the opinion of a DM who has been at this for a while and happily adopts things that help (racial substitution levels and 4e's 20-level races, for example) regardless of the cost and hates those that don't help (Sorcerers being denied more skill points and metamagic feats, for example).

So, in short, I'm the guy advocating for a better game in each edition. Maybe you're playing the wrong game and should stick to 1e. It's people like me that pushed for 3e - make no mistake, it's my game to the core. And I'm glad wotc is listening to us again and making it even better.

Oh... I didn't realize I was talking to one of the designers of 3rd ed. My bad.

1e was fine. I played the heck out of it.
3.5 is fine. I played the heck out of it, too.
4.0 may be fine. I no longer want to spend $1394775623 on gaming, so I'll be staying where I am, trapped in the tar pits and watching the more evolved cavort on the shore - maybe. Or maybe I'll be the one watching them evolve down a dead-end road. Who knows.

Bur really... thanks for all your hard work on D&D. Explains why you're so gung-ho about the new edition.

Well, I think this is the second time I find myself in Sebastian's camp - which is basaed on the posts I have read disturbing.

I too think that the game has gotten bett in each incarnation.

That said each incarnation has certain elements that I liked - but that don't translate well or at all into the next generation.

My big issues so far are -

Timing: 3.5 doesn't seem like it has been around that long to merit a new edition. Thats not a cost issue, I don't have as much time for gaming (or a lot of other things for that matter) as I would like - learning a new system - especially to the level where I can write about it - will take me a long time. I would of thought that a couple more years of 3.5 with a more polished idea of 4.0 around 2010 would of made more sense.

Time: As a writer (granted one of extremely limited success so far but aspiring nonetheless) I would of liked to have been able to to contribute to the new version - via submissions and discussion on messageboards - I also think from a marketing standpoint that WotC could of gained a lot of momentum by pursuing that kind of player involvement.

Computer: I watched the interviews - the computer stuff leaves me cold - it doesn't bother me that its out there but I want a better/richer tabletop RPG, the online aspect is not an enhancement for me.

I like the emphasis on race and on thte idea that all levels will be more playable - but dont have any evidence that the goal has been realized - but I am prepared to accept that they are.

As to money - doesn't bug me that much - roughly $40 bucks a pop for a book and they laast for several years and many many hours of perusal and use - a new pair of running shoes is about $150 and last for about 6 months, lift tickets for my wife and I for one day about the same, a nice meal out more, etc. - and I spend more time on D&D than running (scary but true) as far as hobbies go D&D, even with a new version every couple of years, is a very inexpensive passtime.

Plus I like new content I though there was plenty of unexplored ground in 3.5 as my many unanswered and rejected query letters attest. But I want new and improved content - If I have to pay for a new set of books to get it so be it. I don't expect the publication of quality material to happen for nothing I think Wizards deserves to make money on the game they support.

I wasn't looking for a new edition - I wanted a new campaign world (not Eberron) and new content - but I honestly don't get all the animosity toward a system that people haven't seen yet. The people writing it are trying to make the game better.

My two cents.

Oh... I didn't realize I was talking to one of the designers of 3rd ed. My bad.

I can't tell if its your reading comprehension that is deficient or of it's just that your witty banter isn't.

But, in any event, I accept the gratitude. You can keep playing the game that people like me gave you (note the use of the word "like" - see if you can figure out what that word means). Or, maybe d&d isn't the right game for you. There are plenty of other systems out there you know - games that don't change, employ the hottest mechanics of 1984, and which don't cost much to collect.

I don't mean to pick a fight with you.

Oh wait, that's right, I don't particulaly care if I pick a fight or offend you. And I don't really see the point of saying I'm not going to pick a fight if that's what I'm going to do.

So, I guess in addition to the deficiencies listed above, we can add honesty to the list.

So there, you've picked your fight. You've got another thing for which you can thank me. I've had better, but good luck with the next one.

So there, you've picked your fight. You've got another thing for which you can thank me. I've had better, but good luck with the next one.

You know Sebastian, you are right about a lot of things, and you may even be right about the fact that a lot of us are going to be acceptable losses in the current marketing scheme. I understand that, and while I'm not happy about it, I'm not going to say that I know for a fact that its the wrong thing for WOTC as a company to do. I, and I suspect many others here, are just frustrated when they see things that do remind them that this edition may not be marketed to them.

However, as much as you have been right, and as much as you have cultivated the "brutally blunt" attitude, its really starting to get old. I've seen you post some really blunt, but well thought out ideas. Now it just seems to be boiling down to you being on the "cutting edge" and many of us that are concerned don't matter. That's fine if its your opinion, but I'd rather not see it posted constantly in slightly varying shades across the boards.

I know, you don't care.

However, as much as you have been right, and as much as you have cultivated the "brutally blunt" attitude, its really starting to get old. I've seen you post some really blunt, but well thought out ideas. Now it just seems to be boiling down to you being on the "cutting edge" and many of us that are concerned don't matter. That's fine if its your opinion, but I'd rather not see it posted constantly in slightly varying shades across the boards.

I know, you don't care.

KEJr. - I'm not being sarcastic when I say that yours is an opinion about which I care. Same for fakey. And each of you have advised me to dial back the aggressiveness. I assure you, I am trying. I'd like to think that in this thread generally, I've been better. I was also trying to make my response at stunty narrow in scope so as not to offend all in the anti-4e camp. Apologies to the extent that I failed in that attempt.

On behalf of you and fakey, I will redouble my efforts at making fewer attacks.

KEJr. - I'm not being sarcastic when I say that yours is an opinion about which I care. Same for fakey. And each of you have advised me to dial back the aggressiveness. I assure you, I am trying. I'd like to think that in this thread generally, I've been better. I was also trying to make my response at stunty narrow in scope so as not to offend all in the anti-4e camp. Apologies to the extent that I failed in that attempt.

On behalf of you and fakey, I will redouble my efforts at making fewer attacks.

I really appreciate that Sebastian, and I'm sorry for that last little jab that I threw into my post.

I find that having so many variations of dragons reduces their uniqueness, not enhances it. How can they be rare when there are a million different species?

And when they are constantly humping anything with a pulse, to create a million-squared kinds of half-dragon, in defiance of all the laws of genetics?

Or is it the larger issue of having the devils be former angels that causes the heartburn?

I have played since 1980, and through every edition of the game, have always assumed the devils were intended to be fallen angels. If this seems Catholic-centric (sic), it has no need to be; many real-world religions have a central concept of a 'war in the heavens', creating an eternal schism between the forces of light and dark.

The very term 'The Nine Hells' is straight from the works of Dante, who proposed there were 'nine circles' of Hell.

And as for the Hells being planes that became cut off from the celestial planes; isn't that exactly what was written for the demi-plane of Occipitus in the Shackled City arc? And yet, the readers seemed to have no problem with this plot element, despite it also not being part of established canon.

So I fail to see how this specific issue is a problem.

However, I can understand James' frustration at finding that, at the same time he was being commisioned to work on a book of fiends by one editor, another group of developers were already planning ways to make much of that work redundant, which does not give me much confidence that there is much communication or 'joined-up thinking' at WOTC. Given that assumption, it is easy to see why many detractors believe (rightly or wrongly) that the next edition will be full of contradictions and will require a book of errata, or a 4.5 edition within a few years. And so, they are quite prepared to avoid 4E until the dust settles, buying 4.5 if and when the bugs are caught. That may seem cynical to some, but you can't blame people for acting on precedent; what else are they expected to act on?

However, I can understand James' frustration at finding that, at the same time he was being commisioned to work on a book of fiends by one editor, another group of developers were already planning ways to make much of that work redundant, which does not give me much confidence that there is much communication or 'joined-up thinking' at WOTC. Given that assumption, it is easy to see why many detractors believe (rightly or wrongly) that the next edition will be full of contradictions and will require a book of errata, or a 4.5 edition within a few years.

I honestly don't mind the way that they're treating devils. It's cool. it's more or less the way I've seen devils in my mind.

What bothered me is the choice of combining erinyes and succubi by removing the erinyes and moving the succubi. It disrupts too much about previous editions for my taste, in the same way that making bulettes aquatic or making hill giants into ogres and getting rid of ogres would bother me. It dilutes the game.

A far better choice, if they were worried about there being too many "seductive fiends" (which again I disagree on: there was room for 2 of them for the past 30 years in which they had significantly different roles), would have been to just remove the succubus and keep the erinyes in her spot. That way, other publishers or gaming groups could retain the succubus in their own games, and it would give WotC the option of bringing back the succubus later.

Doing it the way they're talking about doing it means that they can bring back the erinyes, but she (like the succubus) would have to have her role changed drastically.

And the implications of the switch bother me too. Orcus and Malcanthet and Graz'zt are humanoid demons too. Are they now devils? Or are they just gone? And what about pit fiends and balors; they're closer to filling the same roles than erinyes/succubi were; is one of them going away to be replaced by the other defecting to the other team? AND: Each time they make sweeping changes to established game conventions like this, they run the risk of losing customers AND of creating rifts AND of introducing contradictions between products. Certainly, converting Savage Tide to 4th edition just got a LOT more complicated, since now in addition to reworking stat blocks and encounters, you'd have to rebuild entire plots since succubi as demons play a KEY role in the adventure. Succubi as devils would have no place in Savage Tide, really, but then suddenly a key element of how the campaign is supposed to work is gone. I'm not sure what you'd replace it with. It'd be like filming a Godzilla movie without having him breathe fire, and we all know how that turned out back in the late 90's.

It'd be like filming a Godzilla movie without having him breathe fire, and we all know how that turned out back in the late 90's.

For the record, I liked that Godzilla movie. It was amusing. As for succubi, I always thought they served a different role than erinyes. To me a succcubus was more about sexual interaction and its chaotic elements while erinyes specialised in the art of corruption.

James Jacobs wrote:

It'd be like filming a Godzilla movie without having him breathe fire, and we all know how that turned out back in the late 90's.

For the record, I liked that Godzilla movie. It was amusing.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooo...

I came out of that theater angry enough to punch someone. If they'd called the movie "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" (which is really what it was a remake of), fine.

But a movie about Godzilla where "Godzilla" doesn't knock down a single building and where he doesn't breathe fire is like a movie about a fat lazy James Bond who doesn't use gadgets, or a movie about Batman where he doesn't wear the suit and can't drive.

Grrrr...

Wait a minute.....There was a Godzilla movie in the 90s?

Wait a minute.....There was a Godzilla movie in the 90s?

Ignorance is bliss, dude. ;)

Aberzombie wrote:

Wait a minute.....There was a Godzilla movie in the 90s?

Ignorance is bliss, dude. ;)

Unfortunately, I do know about it. I just failed my Sarcasm Check. I actually had quite the same reaction as Mr. Jacobs.

For the record, I liked that Godzilla movie. It was amusing.

Die, heretic, die!!!!! ;)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooo...

I came out of that theater angry enough to punch someone. If they'd called the movie "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" (which is really what it was a remake of), fine.

Yeah, it was a decent monster flick, but it wasn't the Big G.

Aberzombie wrote:

Wait a minute.....There was a Godzilla movie in the 90s?

Ignorance is bliss, dude. ;)

I worked for a movie theatre when it came out, so I think I ended up seeing it about 15 times in the span of a week. :(

I worked for a movie theatre when it came out, so I think I ended up seeing it about 15 times in the span of a week. :(

I know it was nine years ago, but are you feeling better now?