I walk in and survey the bloody shambles left in the wake of the two combatants. With a heavy heart I look towards the sky, shake my head in dismay, and turn away.
At least I know the gaming community will move on past your pathetic squabbles.
I'll jump on with James in my love of the 17 spoked wheel of greatness. I'll freely admit I've never used all 17 planes in a campaign. Best I ever had was 12, and that game was a planar scavenger hunt, and half of them were the various elemental planes (quasi and demi included).
But over the span of my DMing career, I've used just about EVERY plane. I've used each of the outers, all of the expanded elementals (even Dust and Vacuum) the positive and negative, astral, ethereal, and even a fair chunk of demiplanes, like Neth and Moil.
I like having the backstory of the planes behind me, this huge repository of delicious adventure ideas that I can churn into working adventure plots on the fly if my players do something stupid with spell turning or a staff of power. Am I being a lazy DM? No more than any other DM who uses a prepublished setting.
I suppose thats what it is: The Great Wheel is the campaign setting that I love the most, and don't want to see chewed up into something unrecognizable. Would FR fans enjoy a FR where Drizzt is a girl, Elminster is evil, and Waterdeep sunk into Undermountain? Maybe, it could be interesting, but it sure wouldn't be the FR we've known till now.
If this 4e change supports the previous material, like much of what was done in 3/3.5 supported Planescape, then I'm totally cool with it. But if it invalidates it, and by proxy the work of the authors I hold as examples of excellence like James and company, then WotC may loose my 4e vote yet.
Wow, I start posting after reading page 2, and all of a sudden I wonder if Im in a different thread.
Ah, the heated emotions of 4e. Similar to some of the heated emotions of 3e, 8 years ago. Second verse, same as the first.
So what do we know? Sebastian is overly blunt, and Stumpy is overly sharp.
If they could just get along, we'd have the Nutella of Paizo, and we could bask in the gloriousness of their "you got your chocolate in my peanut butter/you got your peanut butter in my chocolate" banter.
Become our Chosen of Nutella!
*Edit* I know that Nutella is Hazlenut and Chocolate, but I figured using the origional CornNuts version could be offensive. See how PC im being?
Ok, no more posting right after waking up. Too many leprechauns.
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.
Of course the easiest way to convert Savage Tide to 4e is to ignore their new descriptions of the outer planes and the Succubi's alignment, and play such flavor-text the way you want to. The Outer Planes always felt like it was one of those fringe rules and not necessarily the maker or breaker of the game system.
I think they are going for new gamers rather than old gamers. I don't know if this is the right decision, but they've made it and they've got to stay true to it.
I understand from a publisher's point of view such changes can be annoying because in order to stay "official" D&D you've got to conform. But for people sitting around a table, people can just play the way they want to.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
*Edit* I know that Nutella is Hazlenut and Chocolate, but I figured using the origional CornNuts version could be offensive. See how PC im being?
If I must be some degenerate European spread, I'd choose Marmite. I don't what the hell is in that stuff, but man, it is foul beyond imagining.
And, for what it's worth, I've hated on the Great Wheel and the schools of magic since well before 4e was announced. I think every gamer had a 4e wishlist (though for many, it would be a single wish saying "no"), and for me, the planes, vancian spellcasting, and the schools of magic have always been near the top.
Ultimately though, I really view the planar stuff as fluff and am not sure why it raises so much emotion. Eberron has a different planar structure; FR has had one since 3e as well. And, it's relatively easy to fix that sort of thing at the individual DM level (go to the succubus entry, cross out "devil", write in "demon"). There aren't any real core mechanics plugged into the planes beyond their existence and a few traits of the uber-planes (astral, ethereal, *shudder* shadow).
My latest pet theory though is that WotC will realize how many sacred cows they are slaughtering and, to appease that player base, they will offer the Greyhawk setting as the first of their "one setting per year" type ideas. Said setting will do things like bring back the Great Wheel and any other elements that were classicly part of D&D but not necessarily part of a good game.
I know it was nine years ago, but are you feeling better now?
Matthew Brodrick's career isn't.
Marmite nothing. Vegemite, all the way to the bank.
|
So, Erinyes are being scrapped and Succubi are replacing them as devils. It’s already been speculated on another thread that aasimar are being renamed to eladrin (and presumably, eladrin in turn are either scrapped or renamed) – of course, this is speculation at this point, but it may well turn out to be true. It’s already been pointed out in this thread that the same (seemingly weak) rationale for changing / merging the erinyes and the succubus could be used to merge the pit fiend and the balor, the imp and the quasit, and probably half a dozen others. Graz’zt, maybe Orcus and several other demons and demon lords are looking in doubt, as they may be too “human” looking to remain as demons. Conversely, there’s probably a few current devils destined for demonhood.
So why stop with outsiders? Using similar rationale, let’s look at kobolds and goblins. Both are small sized humanoids with fairly similar abilities, similar habitats (usually found underground) and a similar role in most adventures – fodder for low level adventurers. So, to stop the kiddies getting confused between the two (and to stop that other horrible confusion of having a monster called “goblin” and another one called “hobgoblin”), lets just keep kobolds and scrap goblins. But kobolds have changed appearance to some degree with every edition anyway, and that whole ‘kobolds devolved from dragons’ thing was a bit of a 3rd edition schtick anyway, so we’ll make the new kobolds look like goblins.
Now, having ‘goblinoids’ without goblins is a bit stupid – goblinoids will not continue through to 4E. Hobgoblins aren’t really that much different from orcs when you think about it – well, similar role in most games anyway, so we’ll scrap them in favour of the more recognisable orcs. Bugbears have confused the kiddies for years anyway, and they’re not so different to gnolls, so gnolls can continue to fill the ‘largish, hairy, brutal humanoid’ role, and Bugbears will be a new type of monster, an aberration (if we still have aberrations) that is a cross between an insect and a bear. Sort of like an Owlbear. But while we’re getting rid of sacred cows, maybe we should scrap the Owlbear too…
Now these are obviously some facetious and rather stupid suggestions, but the rationale is really not that different to the example we already have from WotC. I wonder how people would react to drastic changes to other ‘sacred cow-like’ monsters, without the smoke screen of ‘change to Outsiders = Great Wheel is stupid / Great Wheel is Greyhawk only’ ?
---
Mechanical / rules type changes don’t bother me so much. As has been pointed out, mostly, every edition of the game has gotten “better” rules-wise (in the majority opinion). What frustrates me is the seeming disregard for the history and traditions of the game, and “fluff” changes that make a whole lot of the previous fluff irrelevant or wrong. Stuff that means people not only have to learn a new rule-set, but have to learn a whole new mythology. I love when things that came about in previous editions are updated, developed, tweaked, improved – but not so much when they are changed whole-sale.
|
Let's listen in into the first meeting of the demons after they here about the changes happening to them in 4th edition:
Grazzt: "I don't like this... it ruins my looks."
Malcanthet:"You and your looks! I've have a whole realm to pack up and get ready for moving..."
Demogorgon: "QUIET! As far as I am dead and incognito here... Savage Tide an all... What defines us demons?"
Orcus:"Our demonic looks?"
Demogorgon: "Yes, and everywhere we turn up, we have no chance to convert anybody, because of our inhuman appearance, except for those few who want to destroy everything..."
Tharizdun: "We want to destroy everything."
Orcus: "But in order to do that we need more followers, more power"
Demogorgon: "Exactly. Since our most successful corruptor has turned out to be a devil after all, we need to find another solution...."
Malcanthet: "Thanks for the compliment and not thanks for that devillish blasphemous.."
Grazzt: "We can always create another type of demon..."
Orcus: "Woudn't that be a great idea..? We need someone who can change shape to infiltrate the mortal realms... and tries to succumb hapless vitims through passion into following us..."
Tharizdun: "They took it away from us..and we can... But I want to destroy, not create."
Demogorgon: "They would help us destroy everything in the end. We will create a new species of demons tailored to dwell on the passions of mortals..."
Tharizdun: "Good!"
Malcanthet: "And where would that leave me and my succubi? We did that previously."
Grazzt: "Say, would you mind a little spying mission through the Nine Hells?"
|
|
Sorry, if I got some names wrong: I am writing this from work.
And basically the Erinyes situation is the thing that cries out louder.
Basically: The demons would create a shapechanging humanoid demon to help them increase their number of followers, if none were available.
So, why deprive them of the existing type of demons for that role?
|
So, Erinyes are being scrapped and Succubi are replacing them as devils. It’s already been speculated on another thread that aasimar are being renamed to eladrin (and presumably, eladrin in turn are either scrapped or renamed) – of course, this is speculation at this point, but it may well turn out to be true. It’s already been pointed out in this thread that the same (seemingly weak) rationale for changing / merging the erinyes and the succubus could be used to merge the pit fiend and the balor, the imp and the quasit, and probably half a dozen others. Graz’zt, maybe Orcus and several other demons and demon lords are looking in doubt, as they may be too “human” looking to remain as demons. Conversely, there’s probably a few current devils destined for demonhood.
So why stop with outsiders? Using similar rationale, let’s look at kobolds and goblins. Both are small sized humanoids with fairly similar abilities, similar habitats (usually found underground) and a similar role in most adventures – fodder for low level adventurers. So, to stop the kiddies getting confused between the two (and to stop that other horrible confusion of having a monster called “goblin” and another one called “hobgoblin”), lets just keep kobolds and scrap goblins. But kobolds have changed appearance to some degree with every edition anyway, and that whole ‘kobolds devolved from dragons’ thing was a bit of a 3rd edition schtick anyway, so we’ll make the new kobolds look like goblins.
Now, having ‘goblinoids’ without goblins is a bit stupid – goblinoids will not continue through to 4E. Hobgoblins aren’t really that much different from orcs when you think about it – well, similar role in most games anyway, so we’ll scrap them in favour of the more recognisable orcs. Bugbears have confused the kiddies for years anyway, and they’re not so different to gnolls, so gnolls can continue to fill the ‘largish, hairy, brutal humanoid’ role, and Bugbears will be a new type of monster, an aberration (if we still have aberrations) that is a cross between an insect and a bear. Sort of like an Owlbear. But while we’re getting rid of sacred cows, maybe we should scrap the Owlbear too…
Now these are obviously some facetious and rather stupid suggestions, but the rationale is really not that different to the example we already have from WotC. I wonder how people would react to drastic changes to other ‘sacred cow-like’ monsters, without the smoke screen of ‘change to Outsiders = Great Wheel is stupid / Great Wheel is Greyhawk only’ ?
---
Mechanical / rules type changes don’t bother me so much. As has been pointed out, mostly, every edition of the game has gotten “better” rules-wise (in the majority opinion). What frustrates me is the seeming disregard for the history and traditions of the game, and “fluff” changes that make a whole lot of the previous fluff irrelevant or wrong. Stuff that means people not only have to learn a new rule-set, but have to learn a whole new mythology. I love when things that came about in previous editions are updated, developed, tweaked, improved – but not so much when they are changed whole-sale.
I made the same point earlier about dragons. There are so many different types, that I thought they should get rid of some. Apparently though, since dragons are "a core part of the game" (their name is on it after all) then they can be left alone.
Your points about the goblinkin, orcs, etc make even more sense. Why not pair all that down so that it makes a little more sense. Especially the whole hobgoblin/orc thing. I have thought for a while that orcs should be any evil alignment not just CE. And if you do that, then the hobgoblin becomes a moot point.
Not sure I agree, though about kobolds and goblins. I think there is more difference between the two in 3E/3.5E as opposed to 2E.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This is the argument you made:
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.
Not sure why it's hard to understand that this logic is extremely weak.
I agree, dragons could use simplification (as I've said multiple times). I just disagree with assertions such as the above, which are ridiculous. I also disagree with the logic that because they simplified X they must simply Y, particularly when the suggestion is that they must be simplified in the exact same way. The two things are independent; the game can have multiple types of dragon but, as I stated earlier, a single type of xorn or ettercap, and be just fine.
|
|
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.
I can appreciate James' personal concern. It does raise a larger concern on how much of 3e and 3.5e is going to be changed by a small group of paid-to-game creators because of what THEY think. If you are a customer who (a) blindly follows or (b) willingly accepts that whatever WotC thinks is "gospel", then you will be an easy sell. The question here concerns all those others who didn't see 3e and/or 3.5e as necessarily broken or the changes as needed.
Frankly, I've accepted that succubi are different than erinyes. So what if they look alike. Their personalities are quite different and I intend to keep them that way.
Back to James' response - devils and demons are DIFFERENT.
|
|
This is the argument you made:
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.
Not sure why it's hard to understand that this logic is extremely weak.
I agree, dragons could use simplification (as I've said multiple times). I just disagree with assertions such as the above, which are ridiculous. I also disagree with the logic that because they simplified X they must simply Y, particularly when the suggestion is that they must be simplified in the exact same way. The two things are independent; the game can have multiple types of dragon but, as I stated earlier, a single type of xorn or ettercap, and be just fine.
My main concern here is how a handful of people can arbitrarily change the gaming tradition that the consumer base loves. While they may have logic, we may disagree (or granted - agree). But it still goes to my question of whether they really even need playtesters. It seems that WotC has already decided what IT wants 4e to be, regardless consumer wants and needs.
The central issue here is how much does WotC need to change to make a useful transition to 4e. Game mechanics? Fine. The history and lore of D&D? Not so fine.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My main concern here is how a handful of people can arbitrarily change the gaming tradition that the consumer base loves. While they may have logic, we may disagree (or granted - agree). But it still goes to my question of whether they really even need playtesters. It seems that WotC has already decided what IT wants 4e to be, regardless consumer wants and needs.
I guess ultimately, I'm not strongly committed to the D&D history, so changes to the fluff don't bother me. To the extent I use the Great Wheel, I use it because I know it and because it's easier than figuring out the complications of changing it (particularly given that PCs interact with it infrequently). I play D&D as a toolbox game; I don't really go for games that have a huge canon like White Wolf.
I also suspect that the playtesting is as much about determining whether the rules are easy for outsiders to understand as anything else. I doubt many changes are being implemented.
But, setting aside what D&D should do, a question upon which there can be substantial disagreement, I can't stand bad logic, and that's what my quoted post was about.
|
|
This is the argument you made:
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.
Not sure why it's hard to understand that this logic is extremely weak.
I agree, dragons could use simplification (as I've said multiple times). I just disagree with assertions such as the above, which are ridiculous. I also disagree with the logic that because they simplified X they must simply Y, particularly when the suggestion is that they must be simplified in the exact same way. The two things are independent; the game can have multiple types of dragon but, as I stated earlier, a single type of xorn or ettercap, and be just fine.
And I'm not sure why the above quote from me can't be seen as plain old common sense. If they are going to be consolidating certain types of monsters, as seems to be the case with erinyes and succubi, in order to reduce confusion as to monster types, then it would make some sense for them to consider reducing the number of dragons. True, as I stated earlier, going with one type would be a bit of overkill. However, a reduction down to 3 or 4 basic types would seem logical. I don't think they have to do it, but if it is simplification they are looking for, then they should at least think about it.
In much the same way, I think they should take Mothman's above comments about goblins and some of the other monstrous humanoids into consideration and get rid of some of the redundancy. And while they are at it, maybe they can do something about the seemingly endless variations on undead. I like them as much as the next guy, but there might just be a tad too many.
Bear with me as this may take a while.
The Fiendish Codex II has a preface that gives an origin of the D&D universe. It's called the Pact Primeval.
It desribes how the universe was first chaos and demons spontaneously appeared. If Succubi were still demons you might call it the 'Big Bang Theory' (sorry, could not resist).
Gods of law came into existence and did not like the chaos of the demons and made the angels to fight them.
Time passed and extremist angels began to punish mortals for consorting with demons and built a place called hell to punish the most serious transgressers.
Eventually things got to a breaking a point with hell and heaven having a disagreement that resulted in banishment for the 'bad angels'.
Admitedly that's a simiplication of two pages of flavour text from the Fiendish Codex II, but it's also a book published Dececember 2006.
In May 2008 that is being erased to simplify things.
I do agree that 17 outer plans is confusing at times, but 9 would simplify matters. Making Succubi into devils hints at more simplification, perhaps reducing it to three planes (good, neutal, evil) or five (add chaos and law to the previou three).
My original impressions of 4E from the promo videos and press releases was one of omptimism, but each new bit of imformation released by WotC makes me more wary.
They can abandon the great wheel. They can make it a smaller wheel.
They can say Succubi are pleasure devils (a role current filled by Brachina from the Fiendish Codex II).
But if I buy 4E, the succubi will be served an eviction notice, told to pack their bags (which won't long given what they wear) and move in to the Abyss.
The problem is, WotC want to "simplfy" things they themseves have made complex in the first place, if only to sell more books.
But, that said, I would rather downsize a world from a "complex" version to one more fitting to my gaming needs, than buy a simple on, and than clobber onto that whatever I need. Simply because I like to use my creative energy to adapt, shape and expand or cut to size something complex, rather than laying entirely new foundations.
DnD has compelxity and options in spades, basically, that is IMHO its very central strength. You have options andand rules for almost every eventuality, but need to use only those you want - I mean, who has ever used all the entities from MM I-V, the three environment books, FC I+II, FF and whatever else ? Noone, I guess. But everyone uses different stuff, so everything has its place and time. Plus, you never are really sure what you are facing, which is satisfying on a simple, tactical level. What sort of golem ? What sort of outsider ? Or is it just an illusion to hide something "normal" ?
I like the interesting, often genius creations, tactics and gambits my (co-)players come up with from the complex system that is DnD 3.5. I love the roleplaying opportunities when interacting with "monsters", because one never knows just if everything is what it appears to be, not to mention its motives etc...
And if I wanted "easy to sort" villains and opoosition, I would play Pokemon.
Oh, and as an afterthought - change, while not a bad thing inherently, should serve a purpose. If 4E does away with Vancian magic yet keeps the numerous options of the remaining Magic system I feel an interest. To change "canon" facts for the purpose of just making the opposition easier to tag and catalogue (ever had a look at biology ? Species categories are FAR from clean-cut !), that is something I just don't care about. I like my succubi demonic, chaotic and without hierachy but with lots of selfishness - just the way FC-I portrayed them.
This is a very interesting thread, and in fact, incorporates what could be a few related threads into one. In no particular order, as I'm still juggling everyone's comments in my little head...
Erinyes: I'm ok w/ removing the Erinyes completely from the fiends. Growing up w/ Classical mythology, it always bothered me that D&D took the 3 Furies and made them a fiendish race. Keeping a little closer to their roots, you could have used them as Hades-based entities and possibly expanded them beyond their trio roots. Maybe the 3 Virgil et al. named were just the most powerful exemplars. Anyway, if the new "core" world for 4th ed. D&D is going to be more Earth-central, then you could actually bring them back into the Greek sphere of things.
Succubus: Here I'm of two minds. I agree that they ultimately make more sense as Devils, representing the temptation of mortals as their primary agenda, and had D&D originally made them Devils and not introduced the Erinyes at all, we'd all be fine. Sadly, they made them Demons from the get-go, and that's lead to some very interesting takes in recent times (e.g., Paizo's work, and the Fiendish Codices, and of course--the kicker--the central role Malcanthet plays in the STAP). So now you have the problem of shaking up what's come before; in this case, uprooting it entirely. The likely reason this is so upsetting is that while some people shake off "fluff" as not that important, for others it's too intimately tied up w/ what's considered "canon" to be tampered w/ so easily.
The Great Wheel: This has become a sub-thread, but admittedly based on speculation. I haven't heard they're throwing out this planar arrangement just b/c they're tinkering w/ demons & devils. But for the sake of argument, let's say they're going to re-think this arrangement. As a player, I can agree w/ Sebastian that the 17 planes might be a little much, given that most players are lucky to visit more than a few over the course of a lifetime. On the other hand, as a DM, I love the variety found in the GW, and have written extensively about them w/ NPCs in my own homebrew setting. Maybe if WOTC hadn't dropped support for Planescape, we wouldn't have so many players indifferent about the GW. I don't know.
A larger issue of course is how much is 4th edition going to offend the old-timers like myself. Yes, we don't all agree on everything, but when we read that "sacred cows" are up for grabs for 4th edition, I think those of us who have played the longest get the most nervous. And react negatively and defensively. Maybe I'm generalizing too much. I'm going to keep an open mind until I actually get to see 4th edition. Early indications have me a little worried but I'll withhold judgment until the packaging is unwrapped.
A final comment. Someone posted that it didn't make sense to have gods from one pantheon spread around several different planes. Actually, in "real-world" mythologies, it happens all the time, and D&D was good (Planescape) about recognizing this. I can give specific examples if you need me to, but at the very least, gods of the sky, underworld, and sea were typically in different realms altogether; the most accessible example for most of you would be how Zeus, Hades & Poseidon ruled 3 different domains. In D&D terms, this comes out to different planes.
|
|
Here's the reason it bugs me, and it's probably stupid. I was playing Eberron, and I said, "hey, I'll pop for 200 gold so the wizard can pull out his identify spell and identify these magic items."
The rogue goes, "s'okay, I can do it with my tattoo."
I'm over here, "oh, yeah. The thief has a tattoo. It's Eberron. Duuuh...."
So, now you're gonna do that on a grand scale. Effin' wonderful. Hope my damn cleric remembers what spell to blast that succubus with.
And all you little kids laughing at me, mark my words. It'll happen to you too.
|
|
In much the same way, I think they should take Mothman's above comments about goblins and some of the other monstrous humanoids into consideration and get rid of some of the redundancy. And while they are at it, maybe they can do something about the seemingly endless variations on undead. I like them as much as the next guy, but there might just be a tad too many.
Get rid of undead? From you Aberzombie?!
My comments on the humanoids were actually meant to be facetious, BUT, yes, it's actually kind of logical when you think about it using the same rationale as the erinyes / succubus.
I DON'T think they'll get rid of goblinoids (or par down the number / types of "core" dragons), - nor do I think they should, necessarily. But my point is, if they're concerned about multiple monsters filling a similar role and having a similar look, there's a LOT of fat to trim in the game, and it's not just confined to Outsiders.
Erinyes: I'm ok w/ removing the Erinyes completely from the fiends. Growing up w/ Classical mythology, it always bothered me that D&D took the 3 Furies and made them a fiendish race. Keeping a little closer to their roots, you could have used them as Hades-based entities and possibly expanded them beyond their trio roots. Maybe the 3 Virgil et al. named were just the most powerful exemplars. Anyway, if the new "core" world for 4th ed. D&D is going to be more Earth-central, then you could actually bring them back into the Greek sphere of things.
By that logic we should change a huge number of monsters. The idea of changing the creatures to match mythology could easily get out of hand. Also should we only change greek myths back or all the other ones writers have used for ideas?
I hope they don't try to redo DD to match myths. Especially if only one mythology is considered.
|
|
That's what makes undead scary from a metagame p.o.v. Are they zombies? Or are they wights? Or....are they some bastard from the Libris Mortis with some mad powers? Aww, hell. Let's chop them and see what the hell happens.
Yeah Heath, you and I think that’s kinda cool, but the kiddies who are used to each of the monsters in their computer games having a different, distinctive look might not like it.
Oh, why are they dumbing everything down? I liked the nuances of the game, the complexities. I liked having different races with unique cultures, even if the races served the same function or looked similiar. It was cool to extrapolate on how 'x' race do if subjected to 'y' variable sociological, environmental, or pyschological factors. I like monsters with depth and complexity, not relegating them to video game roles of fodder, footsoldier, sub-boss, boss. I feel like someone who has been told that his perfect game of chess has been revised into checkers. I'm sure the system will be easier to run...it's the change of flavor that's leaving a bitter taste.
I'm illiterate.
I play D&D as a toolbox game;
This statement, I think, is getting to the heart of the matter. One of the few things I've griped about with 3e/3.5e is that they left out the idea that you're supposed to take what you want and leave the rest. 1e books and articles were filled with that philosophy, and the 1e DMG even stated it explicitly. The game was originally designed to be a toolbox of rules, and 2e didn't change that.
But I've never seen a statement to that effect in 3e/3.5e books. There have been several works that speak of variant or optional rules, but that's it. That which used to appear as fluff now appears under the banner of "unbreakable, official decree" and you're not playing "official D&D" if you do something else. At least, that's the attitude I often encounter. Of the hundreds of gamers I've personally spoken with, all those familiar with older editions take it for granted that they can change the rules. Most of those who've never played those editions spend all their time working on character builds and looking for loopholes - or worse, becoming rules lawyers. Many don't seem to ever consider the fact that they can tweak what they find in the PHB.
I get the impression that 4e is trying to bring back the old "tweakable" philosophy to some extent, and IMO that's a good thing. But why do they have to change so many time-honored concepts to do it? If the designers think succubi should be devils, then why not just leave them out of the new MM and let the players use them as they like? Make a generic evil outsider that tempts people to do evil and leave it at that. If the designers don't like the great wheel, then why even write about it? Why not just make a book someday about extraplanar adventures and present a variety of options? I use that method to good effect in my own game; if I don't like a monster, the players never encounter one. It's that simple. If I don't like some aspect of the campaign setting, it simply never appears.
Granted, anyone who doesn't like the changes can easily put them back into the game. But who wants to go to all that effort? Why do they have to deliberately make people feel like they've had something taken away? As I said before, I could "easily" tweak my Ford into a Chevy, but there comes a point at which changing out all those parts becomes more trouble than it's worth. WotC should just design a nice, workable game system and leave the fluff in setting-specific books where it belongs. Or better yet, put out a book or two that tells everyone how to design the fluff themselves. But LEAVE MY GAME THE HELL ALONE!
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.
AH, somebody who knows the truth of it all. So, you work with baker or is this just so obvious to everyone that even psionics haters can figure it out...
Yeah Heath, you and I think that’s kinda cool, but the kiddies who are used to each of the monsters in their computer games having a different, distinctive look might not like it.
hmm, you mean like in FF-VII - FF XII ? Like 30 graphic models overall (excluding bosses ), just clad in differently coloured skins
Or in WoW ? Same phenomenon.... Or Vanguard ? etc etc etc.
More like some Designer's oversized ego trying to leave a mark (and possibly PR-related reasons to stir up debate, thereby raising awareness in 4E )
but I fully agree with you - the mystery is half the fun. Or maybe even more...
All I got to say is this: if they try to retool monsters to match the real-world myths of them, I am out of the hopeful 4th edition bandwagon so fast that you'll see my skid marks flaming their way to 1985, so I can ask the Doc to send me back to the future.
My favorite all time monster is the tarrasque. Be it the 2nd edition Diterzli Tarrasque, or the 3rd edition WTF American Godzilla tarrasque, I don't mind. I love me my living engine of destruction, my planet scouring behemoth, my possible key to the prison of Tharzidun.
They try to turn it back into a lion headed snapping turtle with a weakness for virgin saints packing holy water, with a caveat in its regeneration entry of "can easily be killed by stoning it to death with rocks next to the town well", then I wash my hands of 4th.
You have been warned, WotC. Not that you'll listen. Or care. But you have been warned.
|
|
I DON'T think they'll get rid of goblinoids (or par down the number / types of "core" dragons), - nor do I think they should, necessarily. But my point is, if they're concerned about multiple monsters filling a similar role and having a similar look, there's a LOT of fat to trim in the game, and it's not just confined to Outsiders.
Exactly! There is, indeed, a great deal of fat to trim in this game. Outsiders, Dragons, monstrous humanoids, and yes, even undead.
After all, I'd like to reduce the competition. Do you know how hard it is to get good, quality brains to munch on these days?
From Rich Baker's blog:
- Devils are angels who rebelled. They rose up against the deity they served and murdered him. The crime of deicide is unimaginably perverse for angels, and hence devils were cursed and imprisoned in the Nine Hells.
Cool read this before fiendish codex II
- The Nine Hells are what became of the murdered deity's divine realm after his death. The Hells are the devils' prison, and it is difficult for them to get out without mortal aid.
Cool
- We've re-sorted demons and devils a bit, since we want these two categories of monsters to make a little more sense. Devils tend to be more humanoid in form, usually fight with weapons, and often wear armor. Most have horns, wings, and tails.
Like a balor? OK?
One consequence of this: the erinyes and the succubus were holding down pretty similar territory, so we've decided that they're the same monster, called the succubus, and it's a devil.
What? THAT SUCKS
- Ice devils don't look like other devils. We've decided that they are actually a demonic/yugoloth race... one that was entrapped by Mephistopheles long ago in an infernal contract. So ice devils hate other devils, retain their insect-like appearance, and have a special loyalty to Mephistopheles. It's one of the reasons why Asmodeus has never chosen to move against Mephistopheles. Asmodeus would of course win if he did, but that would let the ice devils out of their contract. .
Cool
-----------------------------------------------------------------------<sigh>
One consequence of this: the erinyes and the succubus were holding down pretty similar territory, so we've decided that they're the same monster, called the succubus, and it's a devil.
What? THAT SUCKS. I mean really that sucks.
Erinyes: I'm ok w/ removing the Erinyes completely from the fiends. Growing up w/ Classical mythology, it always bothered me that D&D took the 3 Furies and made them a fiendish race. Keeping a little closer to their roots, you could have used them as Hades-based entities and possibly expanded them beyond their trio roots. Maybe the 3 Virgil et al. named were just the most powerful exemplars. Anyway, if the new "core" world for 4th ed. D&D is going to be more Earth-central, then you could actually bring them back into the Greek sphere of things.By that logic we should change a huge number of monsters. The idea of changing the creatures to match mythology could easily get out of hand. Also should we only change greek myths back or all the other ones writers have used for ideas?
I hope they don't try to redo DD to match myths. Especially if only one mythology is considered.
Arelas, I didn't mean to imply from my one example that I wanted WOTC to move all their real-world derived monsters back to their origins. Far from it. I was just pointing out my one problem w/ the Erinyes, and extrapolating from hints that real-world mythology will play a larger role in 4th edition. Even though I'm a fan of many real-world mythologies, I'm quite content w/ how they're treated in D&D by and large.
I agree that my logic could be taken to an uncomfortable extreme, and like you, I don't want them to retool D&D to match existing myths any more than they already do. Just to be clear.
Yeah Heath, you and I think that’s kinda cool, but the kiddies who are used to each of the monsters in their computer games having a different, distinctive look might not like it.hmm, you mean like in FF-VII - FF XII ? Like 30 graphic models overall (excluding bosses ), just clad in differently coloured skins
Or in WoW ? Same phenomenon.... Or Vanguard ? etc etc etc.
Palette swapping FTW.
I'm surprised that Sebastian hasn't brought it up in this thread, but allow me to summarize WotC's 4e strategy: If we change X and lose Y players but gain Z, as long as Z >= Y, let's make the change. Individually, we mean nothing to the bottom line if we can be replaced by at least a like number of new players. The crux of the issue, naturally, is accurate estimation of Y and Z, known in the financial industry as "risk management."
Each designer will have his own agenda (favorites and "proud nails"), but the sum total of 4e will be judged against this standard. It's just good business.
Check out WotC's site.
Anyone else get the impression that eladrins are now simply high/sun elves?
The hits just keep on comin'. :(
I don't know, the I can deal with Eladrins being the who-ho, mystical, inscurutable high powered elves of LotR and other mystical lore, while regular elves are more "accessible".
This change alone "works" for me, and I may bring it into my home game very shortly.
Arelas, I didn't mean to impely from my one example that I wanted WOTC to move all their real-world derived monsters back to their origins. Far from it. I was just pointing out my one problem w/ the Erinyes, and extrapolating from hints that real-world mythology will play a larger role in 4th edition. Even though I'm a fan of many real-world mythologies, I'm quite content w/ how they're treated in D&D by and large.I agree that my logic could be taken to an uncomfortable extreme, and like you, I don't want them to retool D&D to match existing myths any more than they already do. Just to be clear.
I didnt think you did and your argument makes sense. Just hope its a little step not huge. Im also curious if they use real world mythos for the God etc will they make Odin the good guy modern version or the Wotan/Odin causing havoc with Loki.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Gods above I've wanted to literally explode with the rage I've felt reading not only this post but the many I've been involved in on the wizards 4E boards. Atom bomb levels of anger.
I am without a doubt a HUGE fan of Planescape. However the only reason I really got into that wonderful setting was because I had already been introduced to the Planes in general playing 1E with my Uncle when I was 9 back in '85. I then pulled all my friends into D&D with 2E and after graduating we stepped into the City of Doors and have never really left. '99 came with TSR's downfall and the Limbo that year brought (not to mention Faction War) and I thought D&D was D-E-A-D. Down for the Count.
Then came along WotC, the Magic folks (a game I never could get into) and they brought about all these wonderful changes to the mechanics of the game and a few minor tweaks to the Cosmology of D&D. Moving Gruumsh of the Orcs to the Abyss was no biggie... it worked out with the orcs new place as the natural Barbarian race. Cool. Last month however we hear that the inevitable 4th edition was on it's way. This however was presaged by much deception and much destruction. The Dungeon was bricked up and the Dragon was slain. A new version of the dungeon was being built in some extradimensional realm called cyberspace and the petitioner of Dragon seems to dwell there too. Then the mighty Wizards decided that Demons and Devils were too complex and needed to be simplified for the XBOX generation and shuffled the fiends about....
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BBBBBOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I feel you James, I wanna scream at the heavens and shake my fist at the sky. 30 years of D&D history is being crapped on, history that I grew up on. I was wholly on the fence about 4E thinking that if they could fix the mechanical glitches I'd be happy. The videos said the game that'd emerge from this process "would still be D&D." We'd be able to "instantly recognize it." I don't know about you, but the landscapes looking pretty morphic to me.
--Vrocked and Outraged!
I find this concept interesting, since combining creatures who look and act alike is something I've used in creating my own campaign world, but its not something I welcome in classic dungeons and dragons, given its long history of continuity of monsters. Sorry it had to be this way.
|
|
Yeah, not sure what is truth and what is rumour, but if Eladrin are changing from Outsiders to a subrace of elves ... not a fan.
Are the designers of 4E aware that they are potentially alienating a large portion of their fan base? Or are they confident that the mechanics / rules changes will be so fantastic that they'll far outweigh the so called "fluff" changes and slaughtering of all the sacred cows? (Or, are they focused simply on attracting a new audience, rather than catering to the varied whims of the established players?)
|
|
In the newest preview for the Desert of Desolation Minis set, they show 4E Fire Archons as possible servants of Imix. If memory serves me correctly, Imix was the evil Prince of Elemental Fire, and Archons were good. Seems like they might either be doing away with alignment for the most part, or maybe they are reclassifying a lot of outsiders as being either good or evil.
|
|
Yeah, not sure what is truth and what is rumour, but if Eladrin are changing from Outsiders to a subrace of elves ... not a fan.
Are the designers of 4E aware that they are potentially alienating a large portion of their fan base? Or are they confident that the mechanics / rules changes will be so fantastic that they'll far outweigh the so called "fluff" changes and slaughtering of all the sacred cows? (Or, are they focused simply on attracting a new audience, rather than catering to the varied whims of the established players?)
It seems to me that they are saying that elves and eladrin came from the same source, but elves went the "let's live on the material plane" route, while eladrins stayed outsiders.