It is up on Wiz's site. Interesting; deals with the fluff behind it. I, being an unabashed 4e lover, think it is a decent article if a bit open-ended.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
R.I.P. the Great Wheel.
Edit: And, as much as I'm not a fan of the Great Wheel, it's starting to dawn on me that the multiverse could be worse. The new and improved planar structure sounds way too much like the old and busted White Wolf umbra. I particularly hate that there are creation myths built into the core rules for the abyss/hells. Oh well, I guess I will be one of the people retconning back to the Great Wheel if this is what we're getting. I suppose I could make up my own cosmology, but that's way too much work.
I swear to god, Brittany Spears is doing a better job managing her career and fanbase than WotC.
I'd love to hear the reasoning behind these changes to the planar cosmology, as well as the rationale for swiping the Greyhawk-specific god Tharizdun and shoe-horning him into this new set-up. Given that the designers of 4E have thus far shown few, if any, scruples about abandoning 30+ years of D&D history, why use Tharizdun at all? He's not an iconic element of "generic" D&D, so what's to be gained by swiping his name?
Bah.
*sigh*
yeah that wont work at all with the way my game world works. Especially since Succubi aren't Tanari anymore.
What does a clearer distinction between the two major species of fiends mean for your game? If you need a devious fiend that cares about souls and works on long-term schemes, use a devil. However, wholesale slaughter, pointless suffering, and terrifying devastation call for a demon. A villain or even a player character might bargain with devils, but those who conjure demons do so only to wreak havoc on their enemies. In short, the unambiguous division of the fiends is another way 4th Edition makes the game easier to design for and to play.
Wow, that's nothing like what was said in the 1st edition Manual of the Planes, the 2nd edition Outer Planes Monstrous Compendium and various Planescape products, or in the Fiendish Codex series. I'm really glad that they needed to swap around fiends and change established D&D lore to explain this, because NO ONE has explained this point before ever.
Nice job guys. I can't wait to see more Forgotten Realms stuff. Maybe they can explain to me why Drizzt is a good drow righting wrongs on the surface. Hope is nothing lame like some kind of father/hero worship thing. They may have to shoot the timeline 100 years forward to really explain this well too . . .
|
Argh! Why do I have to sign in to read this article?
Why isn't the password I got last time I had to sign in to read something working?
Why is it taking more than 20 minutes to send me a new activation code or whatever it is Im supposed to do?
/rant.
Sorry. Suffice to say I can't read the article. Wizards has just missed an opportunity to wow me with what they have planned for 4E and win my gaming dollar (cos yeah, I know, they really need MY gaming dollar...)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Here, let me repost it. I'm probably not supposed to, but my attitude is f!+! Wizards when they are being this incompetent. It's ridiculous that they can't be bothered to turn off their stupid digital initiative long enough to give free content to attempt to persuade such people that they are, in fact, not incompetent:
In the real world, "demon" is synonymous with "devil." "Abyss" and "hell" have a similar relationship. D&D designers have struggled with these facts since 1977 when the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game depicted demons and devils, the Abyss and the Nine Hells. The original basis for the division was alignment. Aligned planes existed to provide a meaningful afterlife for similarly aligned characters, and a need to fill those planes with natives resulted in demons being distinct from devils. As the game evolved, the original division remained, but too many similarities persisted. The advent of 4th Edition lets us accentuate the differences between the two primary species of fiends.Throughout demons' and devils' existence in the D&D game, resemblances between them have been stronger and more numerous than differences. Both species are extraplanar forces of evil that seek souls to supplement their numbers. Each breed has wretched and implike creatures at the bottom of the hierarchy and godlike archfiends at the top. Each member of both species has a wide array of similar (and often superfluous) supernatural powers. Most demons and devils are superior to members of typical PC races in every way, including incredible intelligence. Their purposes in the material world have always been similar.
In the original AD&D Monster Manual, Gary Gygax admitted that devils “somewhat resemble the demons both in their characteristics and abilities.” AD&D 2nd Edition kept the planar structure of the original game. Demons and devils became tanar’ri and baatezu, respectively, but little made them distinct other than their categorical names. Only a conflict called the Blood War kept them from overrunning the material world. However, this evil-on-evil fight didn’t expand the possibilities for typical D&D play. On the contrary, the Blood War brought the motivations and hierarchy of demons and devils closer together. The 3rd Edition of D&Dretained so many of 2nd Edition’s concepts that it did little to clarify the situation until the release of Fiendish Codex I. Fourth Edition changes all that.
In 4th Edition, the Nine Hells are an astral dominion among other deific abodes in the Astral Sea (more on that in an upcoming Design & Development column). The resident deity is Asmodeus, who as an angel in primeval times, led an army of his fellows against his celestial master and murdered that god. Although Asmodeus gained divine might from his foul deed, he and his followers also suffered their victim’s dying curse. Under the power of that malediction, all the rebellious angels twisted in form and became devils. Worse still, the murdered god’s words transformed Asmodeus's dominion into a nightmarish place and bound the newborn devils to it. To this day, devils plot to escape their prison, weaving lies and corruption to ensure their eventual freedom and to seize even greater power.
Asmodeus rules Hell with despotic pride, and all devils conform to his strict hierarchy or face destruction. Within the chain of command, lesser devils use whatever power they have to mimic their ultimate leader. Devils work to gain influence in the cosmos, especially among mortals in the world. They eagerly respond to any summons and readily form cleverly worded pacts. They plan and build to meet their needs, making and using all sorts of devices, tools, and weapons. A devil might be supernaturally potent, and it might possess incredible magic items, but its greatest assets are its shrewdly calculating mind and eternal patience. Devils want to impose a sort of order -- specifically theirs -- on the cosmos.
Not so with demons.
In the Abyss, which gapes like a festering wound in the landscape of the Elemental Tempest, demons teem, eternally divided among themselves simply by their insatiable lust for ruin. Legend says that the Chained God, Tharizdun, found a seed of evil in the young cosmos, and during the gods’ war with the primordials, he threw that seed into the Elemental Tempest. There, the evil seed despoiled all that came into contact with it (some say it tainted Tharizdun himself) and created the Abyss as it burned a hole in the very structure of the plane. Elemental beings that came too close to the Abyss became trapped and warped. Any desire they have turns to the longing to obliterate the gods, creation, and even one another. They became demons.
Most demons are savage and fearless engines of annihilation. Although sometimes driven by unspeakable yearning or by horrifying demon lords to gather in groups, demons have no real organization and no singular aim. Demons don’t negotiate, and they build nothing lasting. Most use tooth and claw rather than artificial weapons. They care little or nothing for souls. Even the mightiest demon lords manipulate other demons by using threats, direct violence, or the promise of more destruction through affiliation. Although the lords of the Abyss that veteran D&D players know and love to hate still exist, no monolithic hierarchy supports any demon’s influence. Although a demon might want to destroy another creature and take that creature’s power, success only results in the winning demon using and squandering what it has seized. Demons have no regard for the responsibilities of authority, and they care little for keeping what they acquire. They’re forces of unmaking, and a universe under them would reflect the horror that is the Abyss, if that universe survived at all.
What does a clearer distinction between the two major species of fiends mean for your game? If you need a devious fiend that cares about souls and works on long-term schemes, use a devil. However, wholesale slaughter, pointless suffering, and terrifying devastation call for a demon. A villain or even a player character might bargain with devils, but those who conjure demons do so only to wreak havoc on their enemies. In short, the unambiguous division of the fiends is another way 4th Edition makes the game easier to design for and to play.
Personally I think it's a decent article. Of course, I speak as a person who never played D&D back in the old days of 1st and 2nd edition and really only started playing D&D with 3.5 ed, so I don't really have a reason to get angry with them switching around fluff. I suppose as long as their new fluff is separable from the crunch (in order to play in Golarion!) I won't mind a bit. The whole wizard traditions (Emerald Frost?! *barf*)thing kinda flies in the face of that, of course...
|
R.I.P. the Great Wheel.
Well, you got confirmation of the death of the Wheel. It wasn't hard to see this planar realignment coming after the succubus/erinyes debacle. To some degree, I envy your anticipation of these changes & your interest in 4ed.
Unfortunately for me, I see this as just another (and larger) continuity change for no discernible valid reason. The butchering of the Realms, discarding the game's core cosmology, and the embracing of mechanics similar to Tome of Battle lower the likelihood that I'll buy any of Wizards 4ed books. System reference docs (if I use the edition at all) will be it for me.
It's starting to seem to me that the mechanics (so far hinted at) of this edition sound like they've been distilled from 1000's of man hours playing Final fantasy WoW and other video games (talent trees, fighter "spells"). As for the fluff, it seems to me to be the results you could expect from the overuse of a magic 8ball.
"Magic 8ball, should we throw out 30 years of gaming history, shuffle in a bunch of new crap, and basically turn the game into a roleplaying version of Tragic the Garnering?"
Answer: "Seems likely."
This whole thing make me sorta depressed.
I understand their reasons for wanting to clarify the difference between demons and devils.
However, I thought the explanations given in the prefaces of the Fiendish Codices made the distinction between demons and devils perfectly clear. Being as I only ever run campaigns in my own world, I'll stick with the cosmology and mythologies I'd already been using.
I swear to god, Brittany Spears is doing a better job managing her career and fanbase than WotC.
I'm waiting for a 4th edition fan to post a video on You Tube defending WOTC.
Thanks for that posting Sebastian.
I must be in the minority, but changes to decades of continuity & fluff mean more to me than changes in game mechanics. Why do they feel the need to throw out the baby w/ the bathwater? To make the 3rd/4th edition break the sharpest ever?
For every game mechanic change I read about and get a little excited about, they throw in something like this and piss me off royally. Are they trying to antagonize all the people who liked the Great Wheel cosmology?! Or do they honestly think it's too complex for new, younger players to get their minds around?
What about all the hard work that went into Fiendish Codices I-II? Why wantonly disregard all that quality work, so recently done?
Yes, yes, I know the argument, "you can ignore their fluff...", but that stuff can be interwoven into crunch, and I'd rather not have to buy a book and start mentally redlining all the offending portions. Kind of cuts down on the overall enjoyment of said product...
I liked the part about the distinction between devils and demons being weak... until Fiendish Codex.
You know, that cool sourcebook that came out last year, full of all the nice fluff.
Oh yeah, throw it out for 4th edition play. :-(
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm waiting for a 4th edition fan to post a video on You Tube defending WOTC.
It sure the hell won't be me. I think I'm getting out of the arguing for 4e's merits game as well. At this point, I really can't blame anyone for not buying what WotC is (very poorly) selling. They really couldn't be handling this release any better, unless they dug up the old TSR management and asked them how to sue their customers.
I like the Great Wheel cosmology, but I'm not bothered by the changes. It sounds like an interesting new setup, and that's why it works for me (and why the Forgotten Realms cosmology doesn't, or at least wouldn't if I ever used that setting).
To me, these changes strengthen the case for a Greyhawk campaign setting which makes the Great Wheel the specific cosmology of that setting, or perhaps even a Planescape sourcebook.
R.I.P. the Great Wheel.
Edit: And, as much as I'm not a fan of the Great Wheel, it's starting to dawn on me that the multiverse could be worse. The new and improved planar structure sounds way too much like the old and busted White Wolf umbra. I particularly hate that there are creation myths built into the core rules for the abyss/hells. Oh well, I guess I will be one of the people retconning back to the Great Wheel if this is what we're getting. I suppose I could make up my own cosmology, but that's way too much work.
I swear to god, Brittany Spears is doing a better job managing her career and fanbase than WotC.
btw, this had me literally laughing at the computer. Nice analogy.
|
I bet it is no surprise that I think this blows. But why? Well here WotC goes messing around with stuff best left to settings. There is too much flavor. I play in the Realms but we do not adhere to its cosmology. I don't play in Eberron but I am familiar with its cosmology. I wouldn't use it either.
The Wheel is the Wheel. It just is D&D. Why screw with it?
Here is what they should have considered doing: break the three core books into 4 - PHB, DMG, MM, and the generic setting with all their points of light, mixed up demons and devils, Monte Cook style Astral Seas (good book by the way), and all the happy go lucky core-tiefling warlocks.
Then us old-timers can have our gnomes and demonic succubus by ignoring the Generic Setting book and everyone else can bask in Baker's cosmology.
Is it just me, or does that article tell us that Demons just went to animal intelligence? (Or damn close to it.)
|
|
I'm waiting for a 4th edition fan to post a video on You Tube defending WOTC.
I'm sorry, what is this 4 ed fan you speak of ? This is purely conjecture and theory on your part i assume.
At this point, I really can't blame anyone for not buying what WotC is (very poorly) selling. They really couldn't be handling this release any better, unless they dug up the old TSR management and asked them how to sue their customers.
At this point if they screwed it up even further there will be class action law suites in short order.
Is it just me, or does that article tell us that Demons just went to animal intelligence? (Or damn close to it.)
Yeah, somehow I'm thinking no more plots like the Savage Tide from Demogorgon. I guess he is now limited to going "Hulk Smash"
*Actually, can he even argue with himself anymore in 4th edition?
I think I'm getting out of the arguing for 4e's merits game as well. At this point, I really can't blame anyone for not buying what WotC is (very poorly) selling. They really couldn't be handling this release any better, unless they dug up the old TSR management and asked them how to sue their customers.
I've been on this board more often since the 4e announcement, and I have to admit, I find it slightly humorous how Sebastian has gone from '4th Edition is the greatest thing since sliced bread', to a more down to Earth realization that is may not be totally good.
I don't mean any insult here, its just that I myself have been reading most of the development notes on Wotc's site, and as they move further and further along, I'm becoming less and less impressed at what 4th Edition will be. I'm trying to keep an open mind towards the upcoming changes, but they just don't look that great.
Not saying I won't try it, but for now I still plan on sticking with 3.5 for now. At best, which I'm sure I posted here before, it will just be the new core books. To hell with rebuying suppliments.
If anything, I truly expect a 4.5, and will wait for that! (seriously too - I don't see why it won't happen).
As for the demons and devils thing, I never really gave a darn if it was not totally perfect. I don't picture a system that ever could be, and what they have shown now really is not that impressive. Sorry guys, but you are not impressing this long time D&D player/DM at all.
This takes the depth right out of one of the components of the D&D role-playing environment. It portrays demons and devils as two-dimensional, which, in fact, reduces their ease to design with any meaningful creative input.
Really, they should just release a Monster Manual pamphlet that reads: "Umm...it's a monster, so kill it. Ecology: who cares?"
Considering that Dragons, Demons and Devils have always been the upper echelon, ultimate bad guys, it does seem rather peculiar that they would effectively "dumb down" when You should use one or the other. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, none of those three monster categories should be of the sort that once just decides to add on-the-fly. If a DM is going to put a dragon or devil into a session, there had better be a damn good reason for it.
Also, considering the levels at which a party should be encountering any of these creatures, I'd hope that the DM at least has a good enough handle on how the game works to be able to tell the difference.
On the bright side, at least WotC is leaving room for our 3rd party friends to fill the gaps in terms of satisfying setting material. ;)
Is it just me, or does that article tell us that Demons just went to animal intelligence? (Or damn close to it.)
It does seem as if they are making demons very feral.
So I guess there are an awful lot of Balor selling off their large sized vorbal longswords.
And the Marilith are going to be making a tidy bundle from selling their six large weapons (1d4 of which are magical).
Both demons will of course spend the gold on brain surgery to reduce their intelligence (from 24 and 18 respectivly) to something more appropriate.
|
|
"Magic 8ball, should we throw out 30 years of gaming history, shuffle in a bunch of new crap, and basically turn the game into a roleplaying version of Tragic the Garnering?"
Answer: "Seems likely."
Whoa, hey now! Don't you go insulting the Great and Powerful Magic Eightball that way. Magic Eightball is a giver of knowledge and enlightenment. It decrees cosmic fate. What those, as Ash would say, "primitive screw-heads" over at WotC do with the knowledge Magic Eightball gives them is totally up to them. Blame not the Billiardly Messenger lest his righteous followers smite thee with their wantonly vindictive anger.
Aberzombie, High Priest of the Magic Eightball*
*see Aberzombie's Profile under Deity
I'm ambivalent about this one. On the one hand, I also feel the knee-jerk reaction that several of this thread's posters feel about radical alterations of existing fluff. Revamping faulty mechanics is one thing, but reimagining long-entrenched source material is quite different.
On the other hand, consider that the Great Wheel Cosmology is already not employed by either Forgotten Realms or Eberron, and the latter already made over devils and demons far more drastically than the alterations outlined here. In my own homebrew campaign, I use all fiends pretty much interchangably (and all celestials too). These changes don't make the game the suck.
So lets look at the reasoning for the change. Are 1-3 Ed. demons and devils very similar? I'd say yes. There is a certain sameness to most fiends of whatever race. Is that problematic? Yes and no. A big list of monsters with trivial differences is a bit unwieldy and loses some zest, but if you were to prioritize problems, I don't see that as being very high on the list. This alteration seems to me to be a "it ain't exactly broke, but let's make it cooler" change. Obviously this steps on the toes of traditionalists.
Do the specific changes actually make the monsters cooler? Hard to say at this point. Maybe. In 3rd Edition, certain mechanical distinctions between demons and devils are important. Lightning works well against devils but is useless against demons. Cold iron weapons work well against demons but poorly against devils. If similar mechanics are carried over into 4e, there is a certain cool factor to savvy players being able to encounter something brand new and say "Hmmm... a human looking dude with bat wings and horns? Lets try a lightning bolt first" or "A thing with cloven hooves, six arms, a ram-horned bear's head on top and a wolf's head where his butt ought to be? Would you hand me the cold iron mace, please?"
So, all told, I think this might be a legitimate improvement.
Not surprisingly there is a lot of 4e hate here. It is not my job nor even my inclination to persuade you; but let me state resistance is futile. All you know and love will be assimilated; everything that was pure and good about 3.5 will be thrown under the heels of the juggernaut that is 4e.
Of course, you will continue to fight. You and your ever-diminishing allies will huddle in dim basements flipping through your library of 3.5 books trying to capture the 'good ole times', but you will know. You will make weak attacks on messageboards, your opinions limited, of course, to the oft-ignored 3.5 threads.
Slowly but surely, people will find your ranting about 3.5 to be purely the raving of some antediluvian curmudgeon.
It is not my intention to offend anyone here -- I am merely an oracle -- the future is upon us.
didnt we learn from star trek next gen that resistance is not futile?
didnt we learn from star trek next gen that resistance is not futile?
Dude we both know Star Trek is total fiction. C'mon I am talking real life here.
|
|
Not surprisingly there is a lot of 4e hate here. It is not my job nor even my inclination to persuade you; but let me state resistance is futile. All you know and love will be assimilated; everything that was pure and good about 3.5 will be thrown under the heels of the juggernaut that is 4e.
Of course, you will continue to fight. You and your ever-diminishing allies will huddle in dim basements flipping through your library of 3.5 books trying to capture the 'good ole times', but you will know. You will make weak attacks on messageboards, your opinions limited, of course, to the oft-ignored 3.5 threads.
Slowly but surely, people will find your ranting about 3.5 to be purely the raving of some antediluvian curmudgeon.It is not my intention to offend anyone here -- I am merely an oracle -- the future is upon us.
Hey, how'd you know my group plays in a basement?
Of course, not a dim one, and the only reason we are down there is because it was the only room big enough to hold the game table the DM built. And we don't exactly huddle, we sit on stools.
And more than likely the "good old times" of 3.5 will be alive and kicking for some of us, while you are putting your 4E books away and purchasing 4.5 books
And more than likely the "good old times" of 3.5 will be alive and kicking for some of us, while you are putting your 4E books away and purchasing 4.5 books
In your heart of hearts, you and I both know there will be no 4.5. A fifth edition eventually, of course, but no 4.5.
Been thinking about how they are simplifying D&D to make it easier for new gamers to understand and I think I have finally worked out WotC's plan.
They will release Advanced Dungeons and Dragons instead!
For those of us that want a more complex game.
In your heart of hearts, you and I both know there will be no 4.5. A fifth edition eventually, of course, but no 4.5.Of course, it isn't like they haven't set a precedence for it. Oh wait, they have....
My point exactly. As 4e shows why would they possibly stick to tradition. It is time to think outside of the box Aberzombie, trust me they may make mistakes, there is no such thing as a perfect game, but they will not make the same gaffe as they did with 3.0--3.5. They are aware the stand on tenuous ground, and a quick revision in the form of 4.5 would be disastrous. It will not happen.
I agree. No 4.5 edition.
They've said that very clearly.
But 4th edition Revised?
Yeah.. I'd put money on that.
Every customer knows that is the same thing. It will not happen. WoTC may make new mistakes, but I sincerely doubt they will repeat mistakes of the past in such an obvious manner.
Been thinking about how they are simplifying D&D to make it easier for new gamers to understand and I think I have finally worked out WotC's plan.
They will release Advanced Dungeons and Dragons instead!
For those of us that want a more complex game.
A quicker game, methinks. A simpler game would fly in the face of, to some degree, their target audience. People who understand the variations of WoW, and other online games, and computers have little to no problems understanding D&D -- when they speak of simplifying I think they mean streamlining useless rules or poorly worded or oddly mechanized rules. This is of course up to interpretation.
|
|
My point exactly. As 4e shows why would they possibly stick to tradition. It is time to think outside of the box Aberzombie, trust me they may make mistakes, there is no such thing as a perfect game, but they will not make the same gaffe as they did with 3.0--3.5. They are aware the stand on tenuous ground, and a quick revision in the form of 4.5 would be disastrous. It will not happen.In your heart of hearts, you and I both know there will be no 4.5. A fifth edition eventually, of course, but no 4.5.Of course, it isn't like they haven't set a precedence for it. Oh wait, they have....
Well, I'm glad to know that 4E will be the perfect game with the perfect rules, capable of pleasing everyone. No errors or mistakes to be had. Everything will work as intended and there won't be any unforeseen effects or rule combos to cause any kind of unbalance.
It is good to know that in just 8 months, they will bring the game from the point where, as Dave Noonan wrote recently "this iteration of the rules is fiendishly complex" to a system that will in no way require any tweaking.
Thank you so much for opening my eyes! How could we ever have doubted you?
Rather than 4.5 or a revised rules they can make changes through D&D Insider.
All they need to do is update the SRD and post a PDF of the modified rules on the website to fix it.
And that might encourage more to subscribe to D&D Insider. Which is something they want.
Of course with the number of mistakes they are likely to make (there are plenty of errata for 3.5) it might be an idea to dismantle the rule books and put them in a ring binder.
|
|
I'd love to hear the reasoning behind these changes to the planar cosmology, as well as the rationale for swiping the Greyhawk-specific god Tharizdun and shoe-horning him into this new set-up. Given that the designers of 4E have thus far shown few, if any, scruples about abandoning 30+ years of D&D history, why use Tharizdun at all? He's not an iconic element of "generic" D&D, so what's to be gained by swiping his name?
Bah.
Yep, it seems to me that 4.0 is the anti-D&D fan edition, or is it the make money even if it destroys the game edition? WotC bites. That's it in a nutshell.
|
Actually, while I find some of the proposed changes a little shocking, they do kind of make sense. I get the impression that the development process for 4e has decided to consider no aspects of the game as sacrosanct. In some ways it is quite a brave thing to do, and probably the right thing to do as well. Tradition is all well and good, but it is healthy to pull up the floorboards and look at the foundations once in a while.
I was never a great fan of the Wheel, as only about three planes were actually terribly interesting. I think that the simplicity vs nuance approach they are taking generally could be a little overdone, but overall I can see the logic (though it is a logic that was explained within 3.5E and the Great Wheel cosmology in the two Fiendish Codices, but hey-ho). Cunning devils and mad, psycho demons seems a good way to differentiate between the two, which was never very clear in the past.
But I do agree that there is a problem in communication. I don't think too many would object to changes in the rules mechanics, provided they are cool and good, other than on the "Man, do I have to spend more money on rulebooks?" aspect. But changing key elements of the fluff is possibly a bigger deal, because it has grown up over time and is part of the D&D scenery. There is a strong element of these changes being imposed in a "We know best" sort of way, which grates slightly. Not the say that changes like these haven't happened before. But a series of cataclysmic changes in the settings, as well as changes to the core rules, is a lot to take in.
I suspect I will get used to it. But I can understand the upset too.
I agree. No 4.5 edition... But 4th edition Revised? Yeah.. I'd put money on that.
Every customer knows that is the same thing. It will not happen. WoTC may make new mistakes, but I sincerely doubt they will repeat mistakes of the past in such an obvious manner.
Why would you think that?
Have they, to date, ever exercised such good judgement? History has taught me that history has never taught WotC (under Hasbro).
Regards :)
I come at this from a different direction (and this will be a little redundant for those who follow the Pathfinder discussions).
To sum this up quick: I completely skipped 3rd edition, utterly and totally. No DnD period.
I came to 3.5 to run the RothRL campaign. I was loaned a big stack books and bought a couple cheap used 3.5 core books. My investment is low. I have these rule books because I'm running Pathfinder (meaning: I don't have Pathfinder because I have these rule books). I haven't looked at Forgotten Realms in 15 years. I've never looked at Shackled City, or anything Eberron.
HAVING SAID THAT...
The article looks utterly reasonable to me. Or rather.. it sounds great if you are creating an entirely new RPG and you want to explain your cosmology.
<<shrug>>
I'm not passing judgment on anyone's opinions. I'm hoping no one will pass judgment on my observation. But I am drawing attention to the fact that investment (whether financial or time and effort) plays a part in the reaction.
On a side note: What is my opinion?
These days, I actually look at the campaign material and determine if it suits me, and then I worry about the 'rules'. That's a sort of reversal of the old paradigm where you bought the rules and hoped somebody published adventure material that wasn't crap.
I swear to god, Brittany Spears is doing a better job managing her career and fanbase than WotC.
Truer words were never spoken :/
Thank you so much for opening my eyes! How could we ever have doubted you?
LOL. . .no reason to get nasty or sarcastic, Zombie. It is not my intention to put forth 4e as perfect, only to offer an opinion. Just like you do when you oppose 4e. Is my opinion so invalid that you must make mocking comments this soon? Is my opinion less valid than yours?
Look, I do not want to cause an uproar. I started this thread in hopes some fellows would have interesting things to say about the article. While obviously I do not know more about the next edition than you, it is coming. It is inevitable. I gain no benefit from raging against the machine in this case, so instead of putting my creative energies into hating a thing I have not seen yet, I push forward with optimism and look for the silver linings.
Yes, my initial post about the juggernaut of 4e was a bit tongue in cheek, but I was just balancing out the ant-4e block which is much larger on these threads. I remain positive about 4e, I never said it was perfect, I remain optimistic because it is an infinitely more enjoyable position than complaining, for me anyways.
I agree. No 4.5 edition... But 4th edition Revised? Yeah.. I'd put money on that.Every customer knows that is the same thing. It will not happen. WoTC may make new mistakes, but I sincerely doubt they will repeat mistakes of the past in such an obvious manner.Why would you think that?
Have they, to date, ever exercised such good judgement? History has taught me that history has never taught WotC (under Hasbro).
Regards :)
Um I could be wrong but as much as we 'hate' hasbro . . .they have made the most successful iteration of D&D. They are a very successful business and know how to make money. They know how to get customers, and it is not their intention to drive customers away as that is a poor business model. So yes Hasbro has made good judgments, trust me D&D has not thrived in spite of WoTC and Hasbro . . .that is an illogical argument.
Well, I don´t like the idea of that new cosmology. Presenting demons as only so much more sword fodder does not appeal to me in the least. The abyssal intrigue shown in the APs is much more interesting to me than mere raging beasts dwelling in a hole in the astral plane. What´s more, a conflict spanning several planes and probably countless aeons like the Blood War sounds more like the stuff to write adventures from than the "new" devils and especially demons. Yes they were somewhat similar in the editions up to 3.5, but this idea to make them different is not a hit with me.
Stefan
Well, I'm glad to know that 4E will be the perfect game with the perfect rules, capable of pleasing everyone. No errors or mistakes to be had. Everything will work as intended and there won't be any unforeseen effects or rule combos to cause any kind of unbalance
I said IN THE POST YOU QUOTED that 4e would not be perfect. Nothing is. I said there would be no 4.5 . . .if, if serious revisions are needed (I trust the amount of playtesting going into this, you may not . . .that is an argument we cannot not truly debate intelligently as we don't know) they will use DDI. There will be no 4.5. I never mentioned anything else you talked about up there. AS a matter of fact as more splatbooks are added of course the game will suffer an imbalance here and there. It is up to DM's then to decide, just like now, how they want to handle that.