| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11993 Posts |
 Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 20:34:41
|
<<And *this* (the elimination of all the mechanical sacrifices) is the primary reason
<<why I think that (from my and my friends' perspective) WoTC is going the wrong way with
<<4E, and most likely it is going to be an edition of D&D we don't want to play.
You know, people keep comparing MMORPG's to the new 4e. I'd just like to point out that one of the reasons I quit playing D&D online was they never implemented the ability for me to take feats to craft items. I thought to myself, this would be great, I could just take a feat and be able to make my items... of course, I'd have to give up xp, which would mean I'd have to re-earn the xp. Also, to make the better items, I'd have to be higher in level. But I wouldn't have to do a stupid crafting grind like you see in all the other games. In the end, I was figuring only those people who really loved this sort of thing would do it (unlike how it is in other games, where they do it in order to make money). But, the designers didn't see how having a sacrifice system could make the game actually better... ironic, aye?
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
 |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 20:44:04
|
Actually, I crafted items all the time in WoW - in fact, I had a damn lucrative business doing it. The system they implemented was very balanced and staight forward, so if they can come up with something akin to that it might work.
Although, it was all based on the drop-rates of certain rare items, so a lot of 'farming' was required. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 20 Sep 2007 20:44:30 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 23:59:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
The D&D cosmology — largely unchanged since 1st Edition — is receiving its share of scrutiny as well. We're making revisions to the cosmology so that the planes work better as adventure sites.
Interestingly, I remember Monte Cook saying something very similar when PLANESCAPE was still a published setting from TSR. One of the main points of the setting's development designers where expected to focus on for future PS sourcebooks, was to make the Planes, or the Outer Planes in particular, more than just the celestial homes of the deities associated with the D&D core setting. It was also about making them adventuring "worlds" unto themselves.
So long as the Great Wheel remains, I don't think I'll have too much problem with this new 4e development. More focus on the planes in the core setting is definitely neato in my book! 
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 21 Sep 2007 00:01:22 |
|
|
|
Darkmeer
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 01:41:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
A new journal entry from Christopher Perkins.
Everyone Has Opinions
Chris Perkins
Design Manager, RPGs and Miniatures
Wizards of the Coast, Inc."
Snipped. Y'know, I like the idea of fleshing out the outer planes. I don't, however, like the idea of removing even more from the elemental planes. I was upset when the para and quasi elemental planes were gone before, now I'm enrages, as they have (IMO) poo-pooed some of my favorite planes (Vacuum actually was one of my favorite planes, just so you know).
The Tiefling & Warlock kinda make sense, but I'll be disappointed by what they remove, I'm sure. The psionics thing might make a few of folks happy, too.
I will check 4e out, but in all likelyhood I'll be sticking with 3.5. I'm just not happy with the way they are presenting this info... Which makes me sad, because as Chris Perkins said, they're all storytellers. On another note, I actually like Chris Perkins as a designer (So that's what makes this so sad for me).
/d |
"These people are my family, not just friends, and if you want to get to them you gotta go through ME." |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 02:45:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Edit: A funny thought occurred to me just awhile ago, while I was busily going over my maps. When they decided to do 3e, someone got it into their head that there was too much empty space on the map, so the map was twisted, and parts of it shrank, bringing all the civilized regions closer together.
Now, with 4e and 'points of light', they tell us there is too much civilization close together, so they need to destroy a bunch of it to create 'wide open spaces' once again.
WTF? They created the problem, and now we get 'nuked' because of their lack of forsight?
Just thought I'd share my latest epiphany. 
I didn't even think of that--that's actually a very pertinent point. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 02:50:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Edit: A funny thought occurred to me just awhile ago, while I was busily going over my maps. When they decided to do 3e, someone got it into their head that there was too much empty space on the map, so the map was twisted, and parts of it shrank, bringing all the civilized regions closer together.
Now, with 4e and 'points of light', they tell us there is too much civilization close together, so they need to destroy a bunch of it to create 'wide open spaces' once again.
WTF? They created the problem, and now we get 'nuked' because of their lack of forsight?
Just thought I'd share my latest epiphany.
I didn't even think of that--that's actually a very pertinent point.
Actually that occurred to me fairly soon after I was reassured that "points of light" didn't apply to FR.
Another irony . . . mentioning that more of the Faerunian pantheon should be demigods serving the greater gods . . . which many of them were before getting promotions across two different editions.
Actually, the more I think about this, the more frustrated I get. I don't think the fans were clamoring to promote a bunch of the demigods when 1st/2nd edition transition came, but now that "intermediate" gods were part of the mix, they wanted to give some promotions to flesh out the ranks.
What's really bothersome is that the gods and the map changes are indicative of what is going on now. Some designer does something new to promote a new feature of the new edition, thus precipitating a change that doesn't have a reason for being other than to promote the new rules.
So now, here we are with another new ruleset upon us, and here we are with yet more drastic changes (moreso than before) to promote new features, even as we have designers saying, "gee, some of this is to fix the rules changes we did in the past."
I really wish that someone would take a "minimalist" approach and only change what really, absolutely needs to be changed to be able to use the new rules (which should have been almost nil 1st/2nd and next to nil 2nd/3rd), and leave the rest of the setting alone. |
Edited by - KnightErrantJR on 21 Sep 2007 02:58:10 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 03:40:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darkmeer
Y'know, I like the idea of fleshing out the outer planes. I don't, however, like the idea of removing even more from the elemental planes. I was upset when the para and quasi elemental planes were gone before, now I'm enrages, as they have (IMO) poo-pooed some of my favorite planes (Vacuum actually was one of my favorite planes, just so you know).
So what gods lived in the plane of Vaccum? Hoover, Electrolux, Kirby, and Eureka?
Sorry... I just couldn't resist that... |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 03:49:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darkmeer
(Vacuum actually was one of my favorite planes, just so you know).
So, you are saying Vacuum doesn't suck?
Man, I'm so going to pay for that one aren't I? |
|
|
|
Darkmeer
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 04:54:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
quote:
Originally posted by Darkmeer
(Vacuum actually was one of my favorite planes, just so you know).
So, you are saying Vacuum doesn't suck?
Man, I'm so going to pay for that one aren't I?
Well, Orecks don't suck... But that's only one, I'm sure that Eureka, Hoover, and that little pink puffball Kirby will suck enough for it. (Thanks Markustay & KEJR, I needed that laugh).
Seriously, I usually used vacuum as a place for wraiths & shadows, a "Prison Plane" of sorts. It filled in a place where I used as punishment, and the inhospitable environment made it ideal for a few special fiends in my campaigns. Oddly, I have zero problems with the great wheel of 2e, matter of fact, I prefer it. |
"These people are my family, not just friends, and if you want to get to them you gotta go through ME." |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 07:24:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
quote:
Originally posted by Darkmeer
(Vacuum actually was one of my favorite planes, just so you know).
So, you are saying Vacuum doesn't suck?
Man, I'm so going to pay for that one aren't I?
Yes you are, and heavily at that. You wont see it coming, but you can never hide my friend, such a joke must have consequences. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 20:20:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darkmeer
Seriously, I usually used vacuum as a place for wraiths & shadows, a "Prison Plane" of sorts. It filled in a place where I used as punishment, and the inhospitable environment made it ideal for a few special fiends in my campaigns. Oddly, I have zero problems with the great wheel of 2e, matter of fact, I prefer it.
Interesting... almost like the 'neutral zone' from DC comics (sans the giant spinning mirror from the movie). Sort of an interdimention prison camp.
I like it, you've actually come up with a way to make something that is 'nothing' seem more game-worthy. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11993 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 22:07:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Actually, I crafted items all the time in WoW - in fact, I had a damn lucrative business doing it. The system they implemented was very balanced and staight forward, so if they can come up with something akin to that it might work.
Although, it was all based on the drop-rates of certain rare items, so a lot of 'farming' was required.
Yep, I play EQ2 and I have 6 crafters, 4 of whom are max level. Its the same thing, you have to harvest for rares, and you spend hours at a table crafting junk that you sell back to the vendor because noone wants it. You can craft rares for people, but you'll never reach top level ONLY doing rares.
How much better would it have been for me to take a feat in D&D Online and suddenly I can make whatever I need.... oh, except I can't make a really powerful item that I need a higher character level for.... oh, gosh darn, you mean I have to play the game and level as a character instead of whiling away hours at a crafting table! Someone wants an item made, so I make it at a HEFTY price because it costs me XP.... and I have to go earn that xp back that I used to make it by doing what? Playing the game? Oh, and I want an item that I can't make myself, well, I did make a good deal of cash on that other item, let me find a person who makes rings, etc.... Or, I have a +3 sword, but I wish it had flame... someone can just add that.
In the end, most people would make do with the dropped items, and there would probably be a decent trade in selling dropped items so that not so much enhancing has to happen (i.e. selling a +2 or +3 piece of armor that someone puts ghost touch on, etc..). Ironically that plus a few prestige classes that would make multi-classing more viable would have kept me there instead of returning to eq2.
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11993 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 22:11:39
|
>>On another note, I actually like Chris Perkins as a designer
same here. Now, who was the guy who wrote the dungeon mag module based in a swamp, with an old man followed by little mushrooms called campestris. God, that was fun. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 22:27:57
|
Markustay: My inner geek (which is pretty much my entire personality, really) compels me to point out that you are actually referring to the Phantom Zone, where the planet Krypton imprisoned its worst criminals.
The Neutral Zone is the sector of outer space that divided the Federation and the Romulan Empire in the original (Kirk/Spock/McCoy) Star Trek series. |
|
|
|
Darkmeer
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2007 : 05:42:14
|
Begin temporary threadjack:
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Darkmeer
Seriously, I usually used vacuum as a place for wraiths & shadows, a "Prison Plane" of sorts. It filled in a place where I used as punishment, and the inhospitable environment made it ideal for a few special fiends in my campaigns. Oddly, I have zero problems with the great wheel of 2e, matter of fact, I prefer it.
Interesting... almost like the 'neutral zone' from DC comics (sans the giant spinning mirror from the movie). Sort of an interdimention prison camp.
I like it, you've actually come up with a way to make something that is 'nothing' seem more game-worthy.
Yep. That's what got me about removing para and quasi elemental planes from the cosmology, their alien nature and certain (read: their actual weaknesses) magical spells didn't function on opposed planes. It didn't take much for me to use the plane, and I was sad (and subsequently ignored the false rumors) that vacuum was eliminated from the game.
One of my favorite fiends, that I never got to use fully, was one trying to recreate the Mazes created by the Lady using the plane of Vacuum as the housing. Bunch of primes from Toril almost found out the plot, then the game fell apart.
So, I'm sad that they're messing with the planes... again. *Deep Sigh* Oh well, I'll just ignore it all like I have before. Oddly, planar rules haven't changed very much between 2e to 3.x, and I have a plethora of useless knowledge and DM's inspiration/deviousness that I can use from the planes. I especially like Faerie, Shadow, and the Far Realm.
completely Off topic:
Mr. Byers, I don't recall the Neutral Zone in the old Star Trek series, but I do remember it fondly from Next Generation & DS 9. Was it set up in the series? (I haven't seen all of the original series, while I have seen everything NG & DS9)
/completely off topic off topic
/end temporary threadjack
I think I'll shut up now.
/d
*crawls back under the rock from where I came* |
"These people are my family, not just friends, and if you want to get to them you gotta go through ME." |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2007 : 09:06:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darkmeer
completely Off topic:
Mr. Byers, I don't recall the Neutral Zone in the old Star Trek series, but I do remember it fondly from Next Generation & DS 9. Was it set up in the series? (I haven't seen all of the original series, while I have seen everything NG & DS9)
The [Romulan] Neutral Zone was originally referenced in "The Original Series" episode -- Balance of Terror. It's actual origins lay almost a century in the past of TOS history, however.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 22 Sep 2007 09:08:00 |
|
|
|
Lady Kazandra
Senior Scribe
Australia
921 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2007 : 10:13:34
|
All this "geekiness . . ." Phew! Has it suddenly become warm in here?
|
"Once upon a time the plural of 'wizard' was 'war'." -- The Last Continent, by Terry Pratchett |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36874 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2007 : 14:44:43
|
Well, I've never been all that much into Star Trek. I like Star Wars a hell of a lot better, but I'm not even a huge devotee of that setting. Other than toys and the Zahn books, I've barely ventured beyond the movies.
But we certainly have strayed from the topic, haven't we?  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Warrax
Learned Scribe
Canada
128 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2007 : 16:16:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
Markustay: My inner geek (which is pretty much my entire personality, really) compels me to point out that you are actually referring to the Phantom Zone, where the planet Krypton imprisoned its worst criminals.
The Neutral Zone is the sector of outer space that divided the Federation and the Romulan Empire in the original (Kirk/Spock/McCoy) Star Trek series.
I feel compelled to point out that the Neutral Zone was present in The Next Generation, DS9 and there may even be references to it in Voyager as well. It's certainly present in the movie First Contact (though that's unrelated to Voyager). |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2007 : 19:53:37
|
I believe that the episode of Voyager in which the doctor is 'beamed' back to Federation Space (through communication relays) takes place in the Romulan neutral zone. The entire episode was about the Romulans stealing a prototype Federation vessel (think Star Trek meets Transformers), and the doctor working with that ship's EMH to steal it back.
And yes, now that I have mentioned giant robots, we have entered into full-blown geekdom. 
@Richard Lee Byers - thanks for the correction - I couldn't remember the name aside from 'Zone', so I checked the web... and wouldn't you know it, the first site I refernced had it wrong -
http://www.helium.com/tm/327783/anyone-knows-history-christopher
look down at 'Case #3' - it refers to it as the neutral zone - my bad. 
Never trust the 'net.
Back on Topic:
Since there is some discussion in someone's blog (I forget who)about developing the outer planes better in 4e for adventuring purposes, we can perhaps hope to see a return to a more 'multi-spheric' cosmology with the new edition.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 22 Sep 2007 19:55:27 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2007 : 01:28:54
|
The question I ask myself now is: is it (4e) necessary or just a way to make a new buck?
Certainly, WotC is part of a corporation who values only one thing: profit. Oh, and satisfying the shareholders. WOW's success in attracting non-gamers to play is tremendous, and it shows, Blizzard is well known for releasing quality products. In a world where every other company is releasing flawed products, using the players/users as beta-testers, Blizzard tests, tests, and retests the retests.
Even 3e received a whole lot of playtesting before being released. Now, as far as I understand it, the entire 4e set-up is still a work in progress being playtested in-house with no real concern about the players. Playtests begin now, with only a few months of betatesting ahead, which will, in all likelihood, not change much of the outcome in the finished product, because Wizards nowadays doesn't seem that concerned with what people think.
Games evolve, sure, but instead of evolving into the next generation of a RPG that learned from the mistakes of the past, it learned from a computer game, which is all in all still somewhat anti-community building in regards to people chatting and laughing, and gaming, and ordering pizza... hell, today at our gaming session we joked about Wizards possibly including a pizza ordering gateway so that you could enjoy pizza with your friends while gaming in a virtual environment.
In the top German RPG DSA (Das Schwarze Auge aka the Dark Eye), which was in its origins a mixture of Midgard (another German RPG) and D&D/AD&D, the current edition (also 4th) is still somewhat compatible to the stuff from 20 years back (if I'm not mistaken). The gameworld is consistent.
With 4e everything people have collected and known for countless years will become utterly useless. With 2nd to 3rd you could at least utilize the old stuff, and even though the conversion guide couldn't solve everything, at least it gave us gamers the chance to still use the old stuff.
With 4e, spells, NPCs, adventures, even source-material, will be somewhat obsolete. You can use it as a guideline, but the work you'll have to put into the reworking is in all likelihood harder than it ever was before.
The bottom line is this: 4e is all about money, and not about the gamers at all.
If they merely wanted to fix things they could have released a Fix-It-Compendium and then produce stuff for that... they didn't |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2007 : 05:12:40
|
Something I'm wondering about is what their plan for products will be, exactly. It seems to be the direction that they are going with the wizard is that there seem like there may actually be fewer spells, but that those spells do different things when cast at different levels.
So, if there is a basic, scaling "cold," and a basic scaling "fire" spell, etc., they have effectively cut off what tends to be one of the "no brainer" sales for a D&D edition, i.e. books that have new spells in them.
I know they are already planning on having a PH II and MM II in 2009, with new classes and races each year, but I'm wondering if this will work out for them.
I guess part of what I'm wondering is how much are they depending on D&D Insider to provide income to keep the line going, as opposed to putting out a steady stream of books.
Nothing pro or con to me in this regard, just a curiosity thing in this case. |
|
|
|
Mumadar Ibn Huzal
Master of Realmslore
1338 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2007 : 09:06:04
|
0- lvl: spark
1st - level: lesser fire ball
2nd - level: fire ball
3rd - level: improved fire ball
4th - level: lesser improved fire ball
5th - level: greater improved fire ball
...
etc
...
xxth - level: uber-improved all engulfing fireball of doom and destruction |
Edited by - Mumadar Ibn Huzal on 23 Sep 2007 09:09:38 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2007 : 11:21:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mumadar Ibn Huzal
0- lvl: spark
1st - level: lesser fire ball
2nd - level: fire ball
3rd - level: improved fire ball
4th - level: lesser improved fire ball
5th - level: greater improved fire ball
...
etc
...
xxth - level: uber-improved all engulfing fireball of doom and destruction
You forgot Fire ball - nuclear winter |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36874 Posts |
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2007 : 16:01:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Mumadar Ibn Huzal
xxth - level: uber-improved all engulfing fireball of doom and destruction
Oh, I know what that one is: Bigby's Crushing Tactical Nuke!
Well, they did say they wanted to still use some D&D proper names . . . |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 25 Sep 2007 : 04:45:20
|
Hey everyone . . . they have a new article on Demons and Devils up, and after explaining that the Nine Hells is some kind of domain in the Astral and the Abyss is some kind of rift outside of the Elemental Planes that has to do with Tharizdun tossing magic beans into a really deep hole and having the Abyss sprout out, they say this:
quote:
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.
I'm really glad that 4th edition is going to explain this. This doesn't sound anything like how demons and devils were explained in the 1st edition Manual of the Planes, the 2nd edition Planescape products, or the Fiendish Codex series in 3rd edition. I'm really glad they destroyed the Great Wheel structure so that they could make this clarification.
Oh, the link is here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070924 |
Edited by - KnightErrantJR on 25 Sep 2007 04:53:53 |
|
|
|
Darkmeer
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 25 Sep 2007 : 05:35:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Hey everyone . . . they have a new article on Demons and Devils up, and after explaining that the Nine Hells is some kind of domain in the Astral and the Abyss is some kind of rift outside of the Elemental Planes that has to do with Tharizdun tossing magic beans into a really deep hole and having the Abyss sprout out, they say this:
quote:
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.
I'm really glad that 4th edition is going to explain this. This doesn't sound anything like how demons and devils were explained in the 1st edition Manual of the Planes, the 2nd edition Planescape products, or the Fiendish Codex series in 3rd edition. I'm really glad they destroyed the Great Wheel structure so that they could make this clarification.
Oh, the link is here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070924
KEJR... I cannot speak my utter and complete anger at what I just read. Thanks for the read. The've destroyed the wheel. Or broken it, more likely.  Too bad for them, this is yet another proud nail I loved about D&D. They don't seem to like what I like, then... Mind you Modrons have the attractiveness of a Toaster... 
/d |
"These people are my family, not just friends, and if you want to get to them you gotta go through ME." |
|
|
|
Mkhaiwati
Learned Scribe
USA
252 Posts |
Posted - 25 Sep 2007 : 07:05:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
The question I ask myself now is: is it (4e) necessary or just a way to make a new buck?
My own opinion is money. The bigger issue is that the business model seems to be that to make money in RPGs, the company needs to redesign every few years. (which I really hate)
I base this off of the fact that:
1. if they knew parts of 3.0 were broken (like grapple), then why not fix them with 3.5? Wasn't that the point of 3.5?
2. When 3.5 came out, all players in RPGA were required to purchase new books to continue. A few friends were going to GenCon that year and had to buy new books to play there. 3.0 was obsolete for just a few changes?
3. When 3.5 came out two years after 3.0, a designer of 3.0 said that WotC screwed up the 5 year plan. ... 5 year plan?!!? 2003 + 5 years equals 2008. I have to wonder if they have another 5 year plan after 4e. They started 4e two years after 3.5 in 2005. When is 5e getting started?
If WotC redesigns D&D every 5 years or so, it is based off of money. If that is the only way WotC can make money, something is seriously wrong with the gaming industry. |
"Behold the work of the old... let your heritage not be lost but bequeath it as a memory, treasure and blessing... Gather the lost and the hidden and preserve it for thy children."
"not nale. not-nale. thog help nail not-nale, not nale. and thog knot not-nale while nale nail not-nale. nale, not not-nale, now nail not-nale by leaving not-nale, not nale, in jail." OotS #367 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
