Dear Mike & Monte

Shemeska · Jan 2, 2012

Upper_Krust said:
Hello again!

The Shadowfell IS basically the Gray Wastes.

And the Shadow Plane, and Ravenloft, and etc...

Like chedder bubblegum flounder icecream at times conceptually IMO, but it could have been a decent place for the 'loths if they'd been tied into it from the start, rather than what they actually got being dumped into the Abyss with little to no integration.

Lanefan · Jan 3, 2012

catsclaw227 said:

A few years ago I got a 5-adventure arc out of this one picture.

I set it up such that the picture is of a plane where the gods can't reach, and the party arrive by walking out of a waterfall onto one of those massively long bridges. Then I built a story around how they'd get there, and why, and what they'd be doing...and bang, a whole adventure path in one fell swoop.

Now *that's* what D+D art should do!

Lan-"art for art's sake"-efan

Edit: that link is not my doing...

Upper_Krust · Jan 3, 2012

Hey Shemeska!

Shemeska said:
And the Shadow Plane, and Ravenloft, and etc...

Like chedder bubblegum flounder icecream at times conceptually IMO, but it could have been a decent place for the 'loths if they'd been tied into it from the start, rather than what they actually got being dumped into the Abyss with little to no integration.

I agree the daemons/yugoloths were hard done by in 4E. That said, conceptually they were always the runt of the litter in the demons/devils/daemons triumvirate and needed a severe design rethink.

What did you think of Pathfinder's idea of tying the daemons with the Four Horsemen?

Shemeska · Jan 3, 2012

Upper_Krust said:
What did you think of Pathfinder's idea of tying the daemons with the Four Horsemen?

I liked it rather a lot! So much that I wrote their recent daemon book

Despite my rather severe appreciation of the 2e 'loth material, being unable to mine that material and having to pretty much start over with the daemons for PF, it was pretty refreshing to have as much freedom as I did to make them relevant, involved, and meaningful in their place in the cosmos as equal partners conceptually with demons and devils.

Upper_Krust · Jan 3, 2012

Hello there Shemeska!

Shemeska said:
I liked it rather a lot!

Thats weird, because back in 2006 when I first suggested the idea of tying the Four Horsemen to the daemons on Andy Collins forum, you were totally against the idea. Luckily the internet saves this stuff for posterity.

FIENDISH CODEX 3: Yugoloths in D&D Discussion Forum

Shemeska from 2006 said:
any sort of association of the yugoloths with the 4 horsemen of Christian mythology is somewhat misplaced, and forgive me, but not something that fits into the NE planes of D&D where that sort of mythological basis doesn't really come into play in such an overt manner.

I guess the idea just took time to sink in.

So much that I wrote their recent daemon book

Congratulations.

Despite my rather severe appreciation of the 2e 'loth material, being unable to mine that material and having to pretty much start over with the daemons for PF, it was pretty refreshing to have as much freedom as I did to make them relevant, involved, and meaningful in their place in the cosmos as equal partners conceptually with demons and devils.

Even though I don't play Pathfinder, sounds like something I might be interested in. It was very interesting to read the Pathfinder Bestiary 2 and see that they had tied the Four Horsemen to the daemons and then given each of the Horsemen its own subservient type of daemon. Always amazes me how designers come up with these far reaching ideas. :hmm:

Shemeska · Jan 3, 2012

Upper_Krust said:
Thats weird, because back in 2006 when I first suggested the idea of tying the Four Horsemen to the daemons on Andy Collins forum, you were totally against the idea. Luckily the internet saves this stuff for posterity.

Because we were talking about yugoloths specifically as NE fiends, and their associated decades of lore and development, not another race of NE fiends, or starting over from scratch with a new cosmology which is what I did. That's an exceedingly important distinction here.

Frankly I'm (overly?) obsessed with continuity in anything I work with, and in the circa 2006 discussion that preference was in full force since Collins was asking for information on the 'loths, not anything else. Adding in stuff like the 4 Horsemen on top of the pre-existant material would have made little to no sense with what was already extant.

I guess the idea just took time to sink in.

Jacobs or Mona were the ones who came up with the idea of the Horsemen as titles for the archdaemons, and their association with death. I got to take that and run with it in the campaign setting book, The Great Beyond, and BotD III.

Upper_Krust · Jan 3, 2012

Hello again!

Shemeska said:
Because we were talking about yugoloths specifically as NE fiends, and their associated decades of lore and development, not another race of NE fiends, or starting over from scratch with a new cosmology which is what I did. That's an exceedingly important distinction here.

The Pathfinder daemons are basically the daemons from 3E with the addition of the Four Horsemen (which was basically what I was suggesting).

Your above excuse is pure sophistry.

Frankly I'm (overly?) obsessed with continuity in anything I work with, and in the circa 2006 discussion that preference was in full force since Collins was asking for information on the 'loths, not anything else. Adding in stuff like the 4 Horsemen on top of the pre-existant material would have made little to no sense with what was already extant.

But fast forward a few years an "you really liked the idea". :hmm:

Jacobs or Mona were the ones who came up with the idea of the Horsemen as titles for the archdaemons,

Were they indeed. LOL

I bet you just thought at the time, its such a fresh new idea I've never heard anything quite like it!

and their association with death. I got to take that and run with it in the campaign setting book, The Great Beyond, and BotD III.

I wish the Paizo guys the best of luck*, even though I am not a fan of the Pathfinder system myself, I do think their products are top notch...I mean the Pathfinder Bestiary 2 is simply sensational.

*they certainly know a good idea when they see one.

Shemeska · Jan 5, 2012

Upper_Krust said:
The Pathfinder daemons are basically the daemons from 3E with the addition of the Four Horsemen (which was basically what I was suggesting).

Your above excuse is pure sophistry.

They're very, very different in terms of motivations and desired end results in the long-term scale of things. I went out of my way to try to emphasize that and differentiate Paizo's daemons from the yugoloths of the Great Wheel, both because most of the IP surrounding the 'loths was closed content, and I wanted to make them unique enough on their own so that the oft-repeated criticism of the 'loths as being second fiddle to demons and devils wasn't an issue with the PF daemons (not that I agree with that criticism).

Other than being NE fiends, they're rather different beasts entirely.

Yugoloths were liars and manipulators. They were the oldest of the fiends, the architects of the Blood War, and the paradoxically self-important, utterly selfish -slaves- of the concept of Evil that they served. Mortals didn't matter, not at all, but they would suffer nonetheless. In their own words they wanted only to strive towards perfection and create a perfect multiverse: one which was utterly devoid of mercy.

Daemons are pitiful lost wretches venting their self-loathing on the multiverse. The daemons despise and obsess over mortal life. They want to see the spark of life extinguished from the planes. They don't care about pain, or destruction, or your suffering in the slightest. They just want you dead and to add another soul to the pyre. They aren't the eldest race of fiends, they don't serve baernaloth masters from the primordial earliest days of creation, and in fact they're utterly alone, with no greater masters to serve and at times flailing about as to the philosophical implications and rationale behind what they do. Everything will die, and then what? Perhaps they themselves don't know. There is no plan, there is only an unending hunger.

If you think the PF daemons are just yugoloths plus the 4 Horsemen, I must have failed at some juncture.

EDIT: That's my last on this subject since it's horribly off topic in this thread. Want to talk more, make a thread for it.

Argyle King · Jan 5, 2012

Ten seems to be the generally accepted number for these things, so here's my wishlist.

1) Sooner rather than later. I'm sure this is blasphemous to a lot of people, but I feel ready for a change. I've had fun with 4E, but I burned out on it very quickly. I'd be perfectly fine if 5E were released tomorrow.

2) Re-evaluate what it means to level up. I'd like to see options for horizontal advancement and broader play rather than continuing to inflate numbers and go in a vertical and linear direction.

3) Nod a little more toward realism and consistency. I'm not asking for a huge shift here; just work with me a little bit. I enjoy 4E, but there are too many moments when what the rules say is going on doesn't seem to mesh with what the narrative and story say is going on. Plenty of people love the 4E approach, so I understand taking it further; I'd just like a few concessions to help me feel as though I'm still part of the target audience.

4) Explore more interesting ways of indicated sexual dimorphism with Dragonborn. I get the idea behind 'dragon boobs,' but I think more interesting options are available. See The Elderscrolls and their lizardfolk for some ideas.

5) Keep the idea of racial options as you level up. I think this is one of the few things I like about post-Essentials D&D. In the beginning, it was said that race would be made to matter more; I don't understand why that idea didn't come through until so late.

6) Figure out a way to make mounts not suck. This relates to #2 and taking a second look at what 'levels' mean. There are a lot of cool character concepts I have which involve mounts. Unfortunately, a lot of mounts are only good for a few levels, and then I need to replace them just like I do my magic items. It would be nice to be able to play a knight who keeps the same trusty steed throughout his career.

7) Keep a lot of the 4E cosmology. I like it. I do miss some things from 3rd Edition, and there certainly are some 4E things which I don't like, but -overall- I like the new fluff.

8) Expect a little more out of your players; have faith in the community. I understand the idea of making the game easier to learn. I also understand the ideas of streamlining and lowering the barrier of entry. However, I also believe new players can surprised you with what they're able to understand. RPG elements are more familiar to society as a whole now than they (I assume) ever have been. Plant the seeds of a more educated player now, and reap the rewards later. Use it as a good PR opportunity if that helps; show how a more mentally stimulating game can be used to encourage kids to learn.

9) This spins off of 8. Find a good way to market to kids and parents who would like to teach their kids. The market is there, but I feel as though it has not been handled well. Red Box was not what I had hoped for at all.

10) Support the Beer Hat Movement.

Pour · Jan 5, 2012

Shemeska said:
And the Shadow Plane, and Ravenloft, and etc...

Like chedder bubblegum flounder icecream at times conceptually IMO, but it could have been a decent place for the 'loths if they'd been tied into it from the start, rather than what they actually got being dumped into the Abyss with little to no integration.

Part of me finds the whole idea of a 'multiverse' as much the same thing, an infinite smorgasbord of every kind of world, time, gravity, and occurrence imaginable, like cheese, pickles, cake, pine needles, an old boot, and literally infinite other ingredients on an open faced sandwich. It's so varied, these planar guides even cite worlds you and I can't even imagine! I know there are diehard OSRs who dislike it outright, and that's fair.

I mean the only saving grace of the multiverse in my mind is how much fun can be had inside it, and the space it provides DMs and designers to create in. Once you embrace those most loveable qualities, I find it difficult to berate a Shadowfell or Feywild, or an Elemental Chaos and Astral Sea on the merits of it containing a lot of cool things. They're really just one step away from all the planar organizations of past editions. Couldn't you even shift the placement of a few of these Grey Waste/Shadow/Hades/ Underworld planes in the Great Wheel, draw a black circle around them, and call that region the Shadowfell?

Really, the only thing a person could rightly dislike imo is the distribution of said planes, or how the Shadowfell deviated from the old way of setting things up, or if you dislike the Raven Queen, which I suppose is what you're saying. Fair enough. Just trying to wrap my head around the comment.