D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
__________________ Words of wisdom from Gary Gygax:
From my perspective wanting less in the way of rules constraints comes from being a veteran Game Master who feels confident that more good material comes from imagination and player interaction with the environment than from textbook rules material.
more words of wisdom:
Rashness and foolhardiness are harbingers of death, as is timidity, in such adventure setting.
Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing Candyland with their little sister
First and foremost, munchkinism arose as a contemporary of the OD&D game. Nothing in the rules of that or any other version of the game was needed to make it flourish.
There is no relationship between 3E and original D&D, or OAD&D for that matter. Different games, style, and spirit.
[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.
I'm failing to see how the benefits of this move can possibly outweigh the drawbacks.
Retconning creatures that have belonged to a specific type since 1e (or pre-1e) causes numerous problems for anyone wishing to continue campaigns or use materials from past editions.
This is a huge blow to backward compatibility. The Fiendish Codices and Demonomicon series of articles (both wildly popular and well-respected) have just been rendered flawed for reference in 4e.
I don't mind changes to the origin, or what-have-you, but changing creature types is problematic. Why not just leave them out and create something new, achieving the same end result without any of the resulting chaos? Telling me that succubi won't be included will disappoint me, but I can still hold out hope that they will be added later or can convert them myself. Telling me succubi are now devils is far more work to undo.
I'm failing to see how there's any drawback, whether for people continuing an old campaign or newcomers to the game. If you're running an existing campaign, just keep the cosmology you've been using when you switch rules. Is it really that troublesome to just say that the succubus is still a demon in your campaign? Is that really a lot of work? As far as "huge blows to backward compatibility" goes, changes to demon/devil fluff is a pretty damn minor one. Criminy.
__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your informed opinion. If you are not informed on the subject, then your opinion counts for nothing.
I'm failing to see how there's any drawback, whether for people continuing an old campaign or newcomers to the game. If you're running an existing campaign, just keep the cosmology you've been using when you switch rules. Is it really that troublesome to just say that the succubus is still a demon in your campaign? Is that really a lot of work? As far as "huge blows to backward compatibility" goes, changes to demon/devil fluff is a pretty damn minor one. Criminy.
Yeah, it's a heck of a lot of work. First, you have to change the creature type itself from devil to demon. You need to know all the traits of both creature types so it matches up. If the succubi has traits associated with the Hells, such as "hellfire touch" or somesuch, that will need to be removed. If fiends can still summon other fiends in 4e, obviously that would need to be changed. Now I'm real comfortable with monster design, so I'm sure I could pull that off, but since the new version is being geared towards folks who don't want to devote that amount of prep time, this is a real blow to them.
"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." - Batman, Batman Begins "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." - Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight "Yeah, I can fly." - Tony Stark, Iron Man
Inside my hands these petals browned;
dried up falling to the ground,
but it was already too late now.
I pushed my fingers through the earth,
returned this flower to the dirt;
so it could live, I walked away now."
Rise Against - "The Good Left Undone"
It almost seems like the Wizards folks are trying to anger their fans.
Buh-bye Greyhawk.
Don't convert, but that's what we're doing.
We're going to focus on fluff books between now and 4e, but don't count on any of that fluff being accurate because we're throwing it all out with the new edition.
Coming out with the Fiendish Codex and then immediately invalidating the whole thing is kind of a strange thing to do...
The notion of "devils tend to look more human, where demons tend to look more monstrous" is something I though about a while ago, and prefer, but never thought I'd see. I'm glad I get to, now.
And honestly, I'm fine with the new background for devils. I think it's more interesting, and as someone else said, if some people can't tell the difference between the death of one fictional god from a pagan pantheon and an insult against real-world "God," they're going to find stuff in the game to object to no matter what.
As far as questions like "Will Graz'zt still be a demon?" I'm pretty sure the article said that the "devils look more human, demons don't" was a tendency not a hard-and-fast rule.
And frankly, I really don't see how this screws too much with ongoing stories. Sure, if the origins of the devils was vital to your story, that's a problem, but other than that, they still occupy the same basic roll in the multiverse that they used to.
I can see how the rolling of succubi and erinyes into one could impact some folk, though.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
In fact, in one of the GenCon interviews one of the main designers stated they were told to design the game without being concerned about breaking the "sacred cows." Obviously that included the "profane cows."
I always figured "sacred cows" referred to rules items. Changing as many rules items as they seem to be for 4e, as well as tearing down the basic cosmology "fluff" that's been used and expanded on (i.e.: Fiendish Codices), is it still "D&D"? Well. I guess you still roll a d20. :\
I wonder if alignment is getting a real overhaul. The big difference between devils and demons was the law-chaos spectrum. Planar fluff aside, allow me this for brevity, there is a new paradigm in town. If the new morality is shades of grey, you might need to redefine some iconic alignment creatures. Think of the modrons! The Modrons!
I asked about Alignment at the 4e seminar at Gencon, and that, coupled with the devils article, is leading me to believe that 4e won't have Alignments. Which wouldn't be a big loss IMO, it'll just be interesting to see how they do things like paladins (who, from what I have heard, can serve Asmodeus in the new game).
Yeah, it's a heck of a lot of work. First, you have to change the creature type itself from devil to demon.
I doubt "type" will exist in 4e. Remember what they said about monster design : it will all be about what the monster is supposed to do, not about what it is supposed to be.
Are they TRYING to make 4e as unappealing to long-time gamers as possible? Granted, in my games the succubus and Erinyes are both daughters of night hags, by demon and devil fathers respectively.
__________________
My Games
Into the Land of Black Ice (retired) - An arctic PbP adventure in the mysterious frozen lands of Oerth
Penance of the Damned (retired) - A planar chat-based game, set in Hades, where the PCs began as larvae
Beneath the Pinnacles of Azor'alq (retired) - A mid-level PbP campaign set within the Dramidj Ocean Heirs of Turucambi - An entry-level chat-based game set within the waters of Turucambi Reef in the Oljatt Sea Nature of the Beast (in design) - A sylvan adventure where the adventurers are forest animals.
I always figured "sacred cows" referred to rules items. Changing as many rules items as they seem to be for 4e, as well as tearing down the basic cosmology "fluff" that's been used and expanded on (i.e.: Fiendish Codices), is it still "D&D"? Well. I guess you still roll a d20. :\
Well, if a DM runs a 3e campaign using a completely different cosmology and lots of house rules, would you still call that "D&D"?
I think this partly is the outcome of rethinking the alignment system. If there aren't planar niches reserved in the celestial realms for each alignment, or blending thereof (because alignment might work differently that the planes as we know them are arranged), the designers have more freedom to make alterations. Not only that, it may be necessary to clean things up to make some sort of NEW sense according to the new alignment model.
Now I'm real comfortable with monster design, so I'm sure I could pull that off, but since the new version is being geared towards folks who don't want to devote that amount of prep time, this is a real blow to them.
Okay, but note this - the new stuff is, as you've said, geared to folk who don't have the background to pull that off. Meaning that they're likely not familiar with the Planescape/Great Wheel mythos and don't care about it. So it's only a real blow to them if the mythos is demonstrably, factually, better than the new, easy-to-pick-up-devils-as-fallen-angels fluff. And it's obviously not, given the number of folk in this thread alone who like it.
For what it's worth, I'm a huge Planescape fan - in a Planescape game. For more earthbound D&D games, I hate the idea of the Great Wheel - it's only appropriate, I think, in a specific context. So I'm happy that the default - primebound games - is getting a simpler, more accessible system.
__________________ - Terraism
"Say, has anybody seen Terraism's still-beating heart around here anywhere? Thanks!" - Piratecat
Yeah, it's a heck of a lot of work. First, you have to change the creature type itself from devil to demon. You need to know all the traits of both creature types so it matches up. If the succubi has traits associated with the Hells, such as "hellfire touch" or somesuch, that will need to be removed. If fiends can still summon other fiends in 4e, obviously that would need to be changed. Now I'm real comfortable with monster design, so I'm sure I could pull that off, but since the new version is being geared towards folks who don't want to devote that amount of prep time, this is a real blow to them.
Do we know if devils and demons will actually be distinct creature types? Given what's been said about alignments in 4e, I'm doubting that there will be much - if any - difference between lawful evil outsiders and chaotic evil outsiders in terms of stats or game mechanics. I'm guessing the distinction will pretty much be all fluff and no crunch (which would work just fine for me).
I think that the new direction for the game is putting less emphasis on keeping "story" elements consistent with previous editions. Much like there is little emphasis on keeping mechanics elements from a previous edition just for the sake of them being "sacred cows". This not not necessarily a bad thing IMHO, but it is something that needs to be taken into account for ongoing campaigns being converted to 4e.
In a theoretical Planescape 4e supplement, I would expect Baator to be a different place than the Nine Hells being talked about here. The succubus/eriynes merger is also trivially fixed (if you need to) by saying that in the Planescape setting the succubus from the Monster Manual is called an "eriynes" in the setting and that there's this other demon monster called a succubus that it somewhat different over in the Abyss. Personally, I'd probably prefer they just kind of sweep it under the rug and ignore it, but then I'm someone who doesn't care about playing "fast and loose" with gameworld "continuity" and other's mileage will vary.
Much like I wouldn't expect published settings to correspond to the "points of light in darkness" motif of the "implied setting" of the core rules, I don't expect published settings to slavishly follow the "fluff" that is derived from that implied setting in the Monster Manual. What's the point of publishing different settings if they all have the same feel and the same fluff?
True.
Getting rid of the sacred cows in the rules is one thing. A new edition is invariably going to cause some "issues" in conversion. Converting rules is easy to some, annoying to others, but not impossible.
But changing the fluff drastically? That's potentially bigger than changing the rules. Now, when a pre-4E "grognard" runs a campaign with new players, it's not just a couple rules tweaks in their "house rules" document. It's no pages and pages of "my planar cosmology is this way, my devils are this way, my demons are another way" etc.
I like taking things in new directions, but this definitely seems like material you should change in a campaign setting supplement, not in the core rulebooks.
http://dungeon-crawl.blogspot.com
Tools & tips you can apply immediately to your D&D game! Encounters inspired by the movies, suggestions to speed up your game and reduce bookkeeping, and more!
Well, if a DM runs a 3e campaign using a completely different cosmology and lots of house rules, would you still call that "D&D"?
Yeah, I'm really not getting the level of anger over this from some people. Objecting to the change, yes, but to find it so utterly alienating?
And it's not like this is the first time the origins of devils have changed in the game. The Planescape origin, from 2E, was new. 1E didn't really have a default, but the implied origins from the old Dragon articles certainly didn't match up with the Planescape material.
As for alignment, the word from the GenCon seminar was that it would exist, but not as we know it, and would no real mechanical impact on the game.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
I always figured "sacred cows" referred to rules items. Changing as many rules items as they seem to be for 4e, as well as tearing down the basic cosmology "fluff" that's been used and expanded on (i.e.: Fiendish Codices), is it still "D&D"? Well. I guess you still roll a d20. :\
There's been other cosmology fluff out there. I, for instance, like the BECMI planes model. In fact, this new direction along with the "points of light" setting assumptions, feels like WotC is taking some strong pointers from the BECMI days. I'm not saying Mystara the setting, but rather the BECMI rules boxes themselves.
Overall I'm intrigued by those ideas. Sure, they contradict previous material, but this just means that for any given game, I have more background choices... after all, I usually kept the para and quasi elemental planes in my 3e games.
I'm only puzzled about the deal with Erinyes. As others have already pointed out they are spirits of vengeance. In the Oresteia by Aeschylus, Orestes is tormented by the Erinyes for the murder of his mother Clytemnestra.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
