I have to agree here. It may be touchy, but while i think Save-or-Die spells suck for a number of reasons, i resent that opinion being shoved down my throat like this.
Its patronizing. If they had phrased this as "we think save-or-die situations occur much too frequently in high levels, because so much hangs in the balance. So we are looking into a way to not make you lose days, or even months of play time over a bad roll." it would have gone down slick as oil. This... not so much.
I always loved those save or die moments my self, it's a matter of game style. But in my experience new players casting spells want to role the d20. So I am sure they are right on spell casting attack roles being more intuitive, but don't patronize me and tell me it's drama I don't want. That just left me feeling sour.
Really I think the developers commenting have been couched on how to say things. They are using the same type of language politicians use to spin thier agendas. It's like they are trying to use some jedi mind tricks on the D&D public. Maybe if they just drop the spin and speak frankly concerning the issues. But they don't, they just dismiss any concerns, hjust say things like, It's going to be better. You will like the edition. The new edition is going to be way cooler. stop spinning and start explaining.
I'm not in the 3.x for ever crowd. I'm lookign forward to a new edition. But man the developers are leaving a sour taste in my mouth with all the spin.
I'm dizzy i need to get off this merri go round
As I see it, I don't feel that WotC are intentionally insulting anyone. If they are, it's directly because they have a severe negative modifier to their Diplomacy checks and are rolling 1's.
I suspect this is a fairly accurate portrayal. I think they are really trying hard.... they just need to stop rolling ones on that diplomacy check pronto.
- Ashavan
As I see it, I don't feel that WotC are intentionally insulting anyone. If they are, it's directly because they have a severe negative modifier to their Diplomacy checks and are rolling 1's.
That sums it up quite nicely.
Stefan
I don't know if they are all over-worked, lazy, sloppy or what but missing simple details like informing everyone that a guest would be writing the first digital Dragon editorial just doesn't sit right. I think 4E has a lot of potential but I just can't shake the feeling that they either don't think about or proofread what they write for the articles, don't care, or are intentionally trying to put up a smoke screen. None of those sit right with me from a customer stand point and I don't have any particular attachment to 3E since most of what I have played over the last 5 years has been 2nd edition AD&D (I seem to be the only one with interest in 3E that I know personally).
|
As I see it, I don't feel that WotC are intentionally insulting anyone. If they are, it's directly because they have a severe negative modifier to their Diplomacy checks and are rolling 1's.I suspect this is a fairly accurate portrayal. I think they are really trying hard.... they just need to stop rolling ones on that diplomacy check pronto.
- Ashavan
Makes you wonder why they don't just 'take 10' on their roll
;)
Makes you wonder why they don't just 'take 10' on their roll
;)
Because that would involve looking at what they wrote twice instead of handing it off to some PR robot to publish and would like involve them having to push back the launch date.
Besides, if you 'take 10' and still fail it would look worse than rolling a natural 1 and failing.
"Damn dice!"
|
"Highly insulting and infuriating" might be a little strong for me, but here's one I saw on enworld from the new DI editor that was amusingly irritating.
I'm a fan of adventure paths, and you'll see something like them starting next year after 4th Edition is out. We don't want to do one now, because we wouldn't really have time to wrap it up, and we also don't think most people are starting new 3E campaigns right now.
Really? We're all assumed to be putting new games on hold so that we can eagerly jump into 4E the minute it hits the shelves? That's not at all the idea I get from browsing around various sites. If he had just left it at "wouldn't really have time to wrap it up" I would have agreed that was a perfectly good explanation and looked forward to seeing what they spin out when it comes around. But instead... the first thing I thought about was the title of this thread. : )
**I should note I snipped off the rest of his comments. He says they plan to do stand alone adventures until then and won't do an AP till they are ready to "leverage the technology." Also he mentions that he has other plans than the traditional AP big monthly installments, but isn't ready to talk about it yet.
Really? We're all assumed to be putting new games on hold so that we can eagerly jump into 4E the minute it hits the shelves? That's not at all the idea I get from browsing around various sites.
I myself don't plan on starting a new campaign until 4E is out. Of course, I also don't play on being an idle DM until 4E drops.
In the meanwhile, I'll simply be extending the current 3.5 game I'm running with some homebrew adventures after the main campaign has been completed. Thus I expect my group's current game to continue until all 3 of the 4E core books have been published at which time I'm going to get a new campaign going for the guys and gals.
If there are many things that are in need of fixing in 3.5 (and I'd say there are certainly some), then has WoTC been Surveying or polling regular, average d&d groups/players? Or are only the designers deciding what to keep and what to discard? I think much of this is mere PR to attempt to justify the decision to release the new edition and all the products the company hopes to sell.
For what it is worth, I am for 4th edition, albeit about 3 years later than it is coming. The 3.5 game is overly bogged down with endless rules expansions and watered down product; that it is time to start over. I hope that WoTC will pace the game this time, and not need to add another 100 suplemental books to this wonderful system they are so eager to Sell to us, or release 5.0 in less than 10 years from now.
If there are many things that are in need of fixing in 3.5 (and I'd say there are certainly some), then has WoTC been Surveying or polling regular, average d&d groups/players? Or are only the designers deciding what to keep and what to discard?
If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have asked for a better horse.
|
|
WotC not trying to insult us???!
I usually try to avoid posting on these 4E Threads but this is just ridiculous. There's a number of little things -- oft repeated -- that WotC is (or is not) doing that could only be insulting. And considering the delicate nature of making this large a change in their business model...
But, Bill standing on the stage and trying to sell us, "the sweet spot is going to be levels 1 - 30!": how can anyone with a mentality greater than a ten year old not be offended at the implication of thier naivety and stupidity?!
-W. E. Ray
|
I'm a fan of adventure paths, and you'll see something like them starting next year after 4th Edition is out. We don't want to do one now, because we wouldn't really have time to wrap it up, and we also don't think most people are starting new 3E campaigns right now.
I know I'm about to start a new 3E Pathfinder campaign, but then I guess I'm not "most people".
|
|
"Ever faced one of those life-or-death saving throws? Hours, weeks, or even years of play can hang in the balance. It all comes down to that one roll. There’s drama in that moment, but it’s drama you didn’t create, and you don’t want."-Mathew Sernet
In a game with raise dead/resurrection, etc; it's hardly the end of the world if you fail a save here or there.
Let's face it; if it weren't for some of those 'save-or-die' effects, and the 'natural 1 always fails' rule, there'd be damn few PC deaths at all...
And it just goes to show what immature, spoilt-brat bedwetters the designers must play with, if they think that a player's going to storm off in a huff or throw his books on the floor, over a failed save.
I had my SCAP Wizard 11 disintegrated (30d6 damage!) a few months ago, after just such a 'natural 1'. The DM (DMDemon) went a bit pale, and asked me if I was OK, but I was actually unable to speak because I was laughing my ass off! He still felt sorry for me, as I had been single-handedly trying to rescue the plot, while the others played with an irrelevant lich...so he ruled that, since I had been in cover, there were still a pair of smoking feet stumps, which the Striders could reincarnate into a new body.
None of this spoilt my game, and I'd have been OK with creating a new PC, if necessary. But the way it played, it is one of those sessions that will be remembered for years; far more than if I'd never been in any danger in the first place, due to a mollycoddling babysitter at WOTC.
As I see it, I don't feel that WotC are intentionally insulting anyone. If they are, it's directly because they have a severe negative modifier to their Diplomacy checks and are rolling 1's.
Ha ha! Yeah - and to stick to that analogy - my gripe was that we start out as "unfriendly" and assume the worst...
I chatted once with Monte Cook! He said that he felt, that you cannot write good roleplaying material unless you play - and play as much as you can. Monte himself gamed at least once a week at that time. And that's more than I can normally manage.
My point is, he played with Mike Mearls at the time - so I know that Mike is an avid gamer. Some people remarked that they felt WotC sounded like sales-robots (or whatever). But I tell you, they are gamers!
Think about what you (not you DarkArt... but "you" in general) would say, if you met these people in person! Just because we communicate over the net, and in written form (as DarkArt pointed out), we should not forget that there are people out there on the other side of the screen. Ask the good questions...
I am not saying you should not voice your oppinions, but if you ascribe some evil intend to WotC - you are doing yourself a disservice.
|
|
I'm a fan of adventure paths, and you'll see something like them starting next year after 4th Edition is out. We don't want to do one now, because we wouldn't really have time to wrap it up, and we also don't think most people are starting new 3E campaigns right now.I know I'm about to start a new 3E Pathfinder campaign, but then I guess I'm not "most people".
I plan on starting a new 3.5E adventure sometime in the next few months. I'm going to string together an adventure from Dungeon, the DD series (Barrow of the Forgotten King, The Sinister Spire, and Fortress of the Yuan-ti), and the short version of Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. This would bring the PCs from 1st level through at least 10th or 11th level. I figure, the way my group plays, we could get a year or more out of something like that.
So I guess I'm not "most people" either, which is just fine with me. When 4E comes out, and if I don't like it, I can tell Weasels of the Coast to piss off.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
If there are many things that are in need of fixing in 3.5 (and I'd say there are certainly some), then has WoTC been Surveying or polling regular, average d&d groups/players? Or are only the designers deciding what to keep and what to discard?If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have asked for a better horse.
Feedback and suggestions from those who use your product should never be dismissed. In fact, ignoring your customer base because you "know best" is usually a sure way for a business to fail.
Ford's quote was relevant to his situation because he invented an entirely new product. People would have asked for a better horse because they couldn't envision anything remotely like the automobile.
WOTC is revising an existing product, so I would hope feedback from their customer base would be important to them prior to making any changes. I'm hoping playtesting sessions and feedback from their customers has been taken into account as they launch 4E, but from their releases it sure seems like they're taking a "my way or the highway" approach.
|
I'm a fan of adventure paths, and you'll see something like them starting next year after 4th Edition is out. We don't want to do one now, because we wouldn't really have time to wrap it up, and we also don't think most people are starting new 3E campaigns right now.I know I'm about to start a new 3E Pathfinder campaign, but then I guess I'm not "most people".
Nor am I. I'm sticking with 3.5 from now into the foreseeable future. Ironically, it was all the hoopla around the DDI VTT that got me interested in the Fantasy Grounds VTT. So now I can hook up with my old players in TX, AZ and CT to DM my old gang. That's the only good thing that has come out of this whole 4th Ed debacle for me.
Yeah, I think WOTC really needs to brush up on their PR skills. So far, I think they've rolled a '1' on every single step of this rollout.
I just recently started a new original 3.5 campaign. I plan on running at least 2 more Pathfinder campaigns using 3.5 rules. I think Hasbro is hoping most folks aren't starting new 3.5 campaigns. Them hoping it don't necesarily make it true though
Think about what you (not you DarkArt... but "you" in general) would say, if you met these people in person! Just because we communicate over the net, and in written form (as DarkArt pointed out), we should not forget that there are people out there on the other side of the screen. Ask the good questions...
I am not saying you should not voice your oppinions, but if you ascribe some evil intend to WotC - you are doing yourself a disservice.
Ask the good questions... and they still won't be answered? It must be because they don't want to "waste our time" ;-)
None of this spoilt my game, and I'd have been OK with creating a new PC, if necessary. But the way it played, it is one of those sessions that will be remembered for years; far more than if I'd never been in any danger in the first place, due to a mollycoddling babysitter at WOTC.
A failed save followed by character death has never ruined any game I played. It's part of the game, it's about taking risks you would never dare in real life. There are lots of OOOH, sighs on the game table when a character dies like that.
Oh boy what a thrill when that save or die moment comes and a PC makes his save. I have seen a game table errupt with shouts of glee with a made "do or die save".
A good D&D game should bring out your emotions, that was what I loved of the "do or die saves.
Yet I am willing to give it up and 4e a try.
|
|
Save or DIe is part of the game. There are plenty of ways to counter them (counterspelling, Raise dead, ready actions to interrupt, etc) that are part of the game.
Its insulting when you are told: That part of the game sucks. We are getting rid of it.
uh...of course it sucks. It was designed to suck. No one, monsters included, want to get the finger of death. Because it sucks. But when you are able to face that and emerge victorious, aww...how sweet it is!
My "favorite" DM snarky remark is:
Ok...Your first level characters killed the orc. Each of you gets a million XP and all the treasure you want. Game over.
We NEED things that suck, so we can overcome them. Not just in the story, but in the mechanics as well. Its fun to look for loopholes in the rules. and its fun to patch them.
|
|
"Ever faced one of those life-or-death saving throws? Hours, weeks, or even years of play can hang in the balance. It all comes down to that one roll. There’s drama in that moment, but it’s drama you didn’t create, and you don’t want."-Mathew Sernet
Now you still get the same drama, but it's when the DM rolls to critical on the dragon's breath weapon... except the drama really wasn't yours...
Here's another example I can see happening: Trapbait steps into the corridor, DM rolls a secret d20 versus Trapbait's Reflex save...20! Automatic hit with the instant death falling block trap...
Here's another conundrum, if the new system is so great, why are they talking about removing "slay Living"? Does this mean all insta-death spells will be removed?
|
|
I just recently started a new original 3.5 campaign. I plan on running at least 2 more Pathfinder campaigns using 3.5 rules. I think Hasbro is hoping most folks aren't starting new 3.5 campaigns. Them hoping it don't necesarily make it true though
Yup, I'm mid Savage Tide, and plan on running Shackled City, then Age of Worms, then Eyes of the Lich Queen, then the Eberron 3 module campaign...then the pathfinder campaigns!
They should be on 4.5E by the time I'm done with all those...
|
I have not weighed in much on any of these 4e topics, but this post in the "Save my Game!" article regarding player cheating in the new online Dungeon (no italics for the word "Dungeon" anymore, they haven't earned the right) has compelled me to post:
... That said, this player is your friend, you obviously think highly of him, and I am guessing that the last thing you want to do is call him out on the carpet over his ability rolls. But you do have options. The best solution is to start the point-buy method described on page 169 of the v3.5 Dungeon Master’s Guide. Now some D&D grognards may frown on this—after all it’s not any of the four methods described by Gary Gygax in the original Dungeon Master’s Guide. But the fact is, most folks who like random rolls like them because they have a chance to roll higher than everyone else. Yes, there are the dye-in-the-wool roleplayers who enjoy playing the less-than-optimal characters every so often, but point-buy lets them do that… all they have to do is put their good stats in crappy places (and don’t worry, they won’t). Point buy makes sure everyone can play the character they want and sidesteps the whole cheating thing. It really is the best of both worlds. Just can’t shake the traditionalist need to roll for stats? (That’s a pity.)...
For those unfamiliar with the term, you can find a definition for "grognard" here.
I have kept silent on the 4e transition for the most part, assuring myself that there is no sense of getting worked up over what's been presented so far because what has been available has amounted to mostly nothing. But finding this paragraph really turned my stomach. I can't believe they would be so incredibly, stupefyingly condescending to their core customer base. I am not here to argue over the pros and cons of point buy verses rolling methods, but more at the meanspiritedness of these comments and the sea change this sort of attitude represents towards the way the game has always been played.
Since it's inception, this game has been about choices. The rules have always been guidelines and players and DM's encouraged to make things up as they go along. No methods of playing were wrong, regardless of what actually happened at the table as long as the DM and players were having fun and telling a good story. Nowhere in any publication regarding this game (and I go waaaaaay back) have I ever read anything so blatantly rude concerning what amounts to a relatively minor personal choice at the gaming table. To think that D&D is in the hands of people with the philosophy that they somehow hold the golden key to game enjoyment and understanding and that anyone that doesn't it see it their way is some kind of dinosaur leaves me with with a feeling I can only describe as nausea.
Well , I have never thought of myself as a "grognard", I am far too progressive a gamer for that label. But since you like labeling people who's opinion differs from yours, then you can can call me and my fat gaming budget "highly disinterested".
I have not weighed in much on any of these 4e topics, but this post in the "Save my Game!" article regarding player cheating in the new online Dungeon (no italics for the word "Dungeon" anymore, they haven't earned the right) has compelled me to post:
Yeah, that article pushed my buttons too.
|
|
I have not weighed in much on any of these 4e topics, but this post in the "Save my Game!" article regarding player cheating in the new online Dungeon (no italics for the word "Dungeon" anymore, they haven't earned the right) has compelled me to post:
I have some other names for those people at WotC...
Since I'll be a person who prefers an out of print edition, Grognard it is...Though I will steal some ideas from 4E for my game, the fighter changes for example.
I have not weighed in much on any of these 4e topics, but this post in the "Save my Game!" article regarding player cheating in the new online Dungeon (no italics for the word "Dungeon" anymore, they haven't earned the right) has compelled me to post:
... That said, this player is your friend, you obviously think highly of him, and I am guessing that the last thing you want to do is call him out on the carpet over his ability rolls. But you do have options. The best solution is to start the point-buy method described on page 169 of the v3.5 Dungeon Master’s Guide. Now some D&D grognards may frown on this—after all it’s not any of the four methods described by Gary Gygax in the original Dungeon Master’s Guide. But the fact is, most folks who like random rolls like them because they have a chance to roll higher than everyone else. Yes, there are the dye-in-the-wool roleplayers who enjoy playing the less-than-optimal characters every so often, but point-buy lets them do that… all they have to do is put their good stats in crappy places (and don’t worry, they won’t). Point buy makes sure everyone can play the character they want and sidesteps the whole cheating thing. It really is the best of both worlds. Just can’t shake the traditionalist need to roll for stats? (That’s a pity.)...For those unfamiliar with the term, you can find a definition for "grognard" here.
I have kept silent on the 4e transition for the most part, assuring myself that there is no sense of getting worked up over what's been presented so far because what has been available has amounted to mostly nothing. But finding this paragraph really turned my stomach. I can't believe they would be so incredibly, stupefyingly condescending to their core customer base. I am not here to argue over the pros and cons of point buy verses rolling methods, but more at the meanspiritedness of these comments and the sea change this sort of attitude...
Ok. Personally I found more insulting comments here. I'm am suprised you didn't quote his claims that the person was cheating, because that is insulting. This is getting sad with people list every percieved insult.
I think that if that statment was made in a thread by someone else there wouldn't be this response. There would people that say that it isn't real roleplaying or that the person was uncreative, but that is normal for forums. I believe the only reason that this comment is called insulting is that it was said by a WotC employee.
My wife's about to have a baby next week.
Congratulations on your litter-to-be.
I can't believe they would be so incredibly, stupefyingly condescending to their core customer base. I am not here to argue over the pros and cons of point buy verses rolling methods, but more at the meanspiritedness of these comments and the sea change this sort of attitude represents towards the way the game has always been played.
I 'm sure I've been more mean spirited in the debate of point by v. dice rolling. But your point is well taken.
I believe the only reason that this comment is called insulting is that it was said by a WotC employee.
Actually I think the bigger issue is that it was said in an article from their official magazine. As a whole I don't remember being told it was a pity or your too traditionalist if you play one way in an official article before. If it was said on a forum/blog then it be just a WOTC employee.
Then again maybe the new dragon/dungeon is no diffrent than a blog in wizard's eyes.
I believe the only reason that this comment is called insulting is that it was said by a WotC employee.
Actually I think the bigger issue is that it was said in an article from their official magazine. As a whole I don't remember being told it was a pity or your too traditionalist if you play one way in an official article before. If it was said on a forum/blog then it be just a WOTC employee.
Then again maybe the new dragon/dungeon is no diffrent than a blog in wizard's eyes.
I think that if he had said that in his blog that the statement would still be quoted in this thread.
I think that if he had said that in his blog that the statement would still be quoted in this thread.I believe the only reason that this comment is called insulting is that it was said by a WotC employee.
Actually I think the bigger issue is that it was said in an article from their official magazine. As a whole I don't remember being told it was a pity or your too traditionalist if you play one way in an official article before. If it was said on a forum/blog then it be just a WOTC employee.
Then again maybe the new dragon/dungeon is no diffrent than a blog in wizard's eyes.
Possibly, but it wouldn't have further convinced me I don't like the new direction of dungeon. To me it's more justified to complain about the statement when it's an offical release than just a blog opinion.
I love how I'll get to pay more for dungeon, then get to print it out, and be told my group has something wrong with us for rolling our chracters. Then again, just like a lot of people on these boards I'm not their target.
My wife's about to have a baby next week.
Congratulations -- and I'm so sorry :P
Jack
father of two, no money left, no sanity left
Forget 4th Edition! For that matter, forget 3.x! I'm gonna make my own game, with blackjack, and hookers! In fact, forget the game!
Hmm. It seems not only the members over at the WotC boards are still a&*$@&~s, but the staff too.
I'm a lovin' me mah' Paizo over here. Kudos to Sebastian.
|
|
I think that if he had said that in his blog that the statement would still be quoted in this thread.
No. I quoted it because it was printed in Dungeon. Blogs are blogs, they are obviously the opinion of and reflect the biases of the writer. Dungeon is, or at least was, an official D&D game component; its contents are (or were) 100% official. The only point I make in my post is that this sort of ridicule reflects a change I have not seen before in any official publication, even in the editorials.
|
|
Yeah, thats the part that sticks in my craw too. I am all for the editors/developers having blogs, posting on messageboards, etc and for them to go ahead and be honest about what a bunch of nutcase wack-jobs they are.
But when it comes to the product, keep your opinion out of it. Publish it without the self-congratulatory hubris these guys are displaying. Editorials are the appropriate place for garbage like that...we don't need "articles" doing the same thing.
...Then, once we saw the concept art Bill O'Connor provided for tieflings, we knew that we had to commit to including tieflings as a PC race, rather than just hopeful it would work out (more on that in a future Design & Development column). And what class would tieflings naturally gravitate to? A class that acquired scary powers by negotiating , pacts with shadowy, infenral, or feral patrons? That worked for us. But what we didn't know at the time was how dramatically the warlock class would improve as we progressed through design....
I don't find this insulting or infuriating so much as worrisome. What I take from the above statement is that the only reason why the tiefling (and consequently the warlock class) is being included in the initial Player's Handbook as a PC race is because they thought the tiefling art was cool. Ummmmm, what??!! And here I thought they might have actually had a good reason for making the changes they are making. I guess not. Apparently all it takes is a really nice picture.
Maybe that future Design & Development article will shed more light but so far this just looks bad.
**SIGH**
**shakes head and shrugs shoulders**
**shuffles off with head hanging low**
<snip bothersome logic behind tiefling addition>I don't find this insulting or infuriating so much as worrisome.
Where was Mr. Heinsoo's passage taken from, if I might ask? I am curious to read this in its original context.
I am also not terribly surprised that they did this because something looked "cool" to them. I personally think that is the reasoning behind a great deal of the changes in the latest edition.
I've mostly tried to avoid posting on the 4e discussions (it makes me angry and even more cynical about big corporations) but this one caught my eye.
I was highly insulted by that retarded promo video of that idiot with the fake accent. UThat pissed me off. Here is some a!$ h*&$ who is being payed to put on a retarded accent to try to tell us why we love the game and how much more we'll be love 4e. I don't even get why they scripted the guy to have the damned accent.
Personally I like the save or die rolls. I like that element of danger. If your character dies you b#**! and moan about it for a little while and lament his loss but then you move on and create a new character.
I'm probably rehashing what others have said and I'm just driving my blood pressure up so I'll stop now.
Viva la 3.5! Viva la Paizo!
While the statement I'm about to make smokes of paranoid conspiracy theories, I am truly not convined that 4e even HAS really been in the works that long. That, ot WotC better start fessing to to outright deceiving us every chance they got.Again, no physical evidence, just words I heard still echoing through my head at the GenCon 2006 "Getting Kids Into D&D" seminar hosted by James Wyatt. He was asked about 4E and just shook his head, and quoted nearly thus:
"We at WotC would be just as happy if 3.5 outlived both previous edition's lifetimes. Sales and interest are great, it's doing fine. 4E is a long, long way off."
Yes, that could be read a couple of different ways, which is no doubt how it was chosen, but it still has some strange ring to it.
-DM Jeff
It's funny you mention this, because the feeling I've gotten from reading things like the play tests, developer blogs, and posts from 3rd party publishers over the last month is that WotC is rushed to get 4e out and the 4e rules are no where near being completed. I actually think you're right and 4e hasn't been in development for very long and some of those developers may have really believed 3.5 would be around for awhile.
Maybe I'm jumping to the wrong conclusions about the things I've read, but then again maybe not.
|
|
My biggest problem with the 4E guys is the arrogance.
They don't have any use for Gnomes, Bards or Elemental planes and so they assume no one else does. To me this is a lack of imagination on their part. I can think of a half dozen ways to use Gnomes and if the musical Bard doesn't work, use the Factotem, Archivist or Healer (ver 2.0).
And this brings me to another problem, in the 3rd edition change, if a monster did not fit their "theme", they created an all new monster to fill that role (see Piercer to Darkmantle). But for 4E, any monster that does not fit their role is completely changed into something else; Bone Devils become Daemons, Erinyes and Sucubui are now the same creature and Death Knights have been downgraded into Skeletal Warriors. Why do that? The Skeletal Warrior is allready there with his bony hand up screatching "Pick me! Pick Me!"
But possibly the worst aspect of their arrogance is the "Well you really can't convert from 3E to 4E, so you might as well just scrap your PCs, your campaign, your whole damn homebrewed world. Oh and you Forgotten Realms players? We just advanced the setting 100 years so everyone not playing an elf, you're dead. And if your elf was a mage, he is too insane to play now. What? You have a cleric of Mystra? Sorry, she's dead too!"
...Then, once we saw the concept art Bill O'Connor provided for tieflings, we knew that we had to commit to including tieflings as a PC race, rather than just hopeful it would work out (more on that in a future Design & Development column). And what class would tieflings naturally gravitate to? A class that acquired scary powers by negotiating , pacts with shadowy, infenral, or feral patrons? That worked for us. But what we didn't know at the time was how dramatically the warlock class would improve as we progressed through design....I don't find this insulting or infuriating so much as worrisome. What I take from the above statement is that the only reason why the tiefling (and consequently the warlock class) is being included in the initial Player's Handbook as a PC race is because they thought the tiefling art was cool. Ummmmm, what??!! And here I thought they might have actually had a good reason for making the changes they are making. I guess not. Apparently all it takes is a really nice picture.
Maybe that future Design & Development article will shed more light but so far this just looks bad.
**SIGH**
**shakes head and shrugs shoulders**
**shuffles off with head hanging low**
I bet a lot of cool ideas started with a simple picture. I would bet some of our illustrious writers and editors at Paizo have been inspired with great ideas from looking at cool pictures. I have now problem with that.
I like tieflings but please keep the gnomes.