Give me a competent arguement that WotC is "changing rules for the sake of change"

[Roger]

I haven’t seen any reasonable evidence that WotC are “changing things for the sake of change”.

Have you seen any evidence that they're not?

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, etc etc.

This isn't a proof, of course, but merely the suggestion that both the thesis and the anti-thesis are equally unverifiable at this time.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Rechan]

I still don't like the kobold change.

Different strokes; I prefer it. And I also see the reason for it. They gave the Kobold a little bit more legitimacy and better flavor, imho, and also to spotlight the Sorcerer class, and give DMs an extra took in their kobold box: magic.

The monk is an excellent example... a lot of people did not feel the Oriental monk fit into D&D, and he got kicked out. I'm not saying that's good or bad. I happen to like monks, but I feel there are cultural touchstones that have to be present for them to make sense.

And would you say his addition to the PHB was done "For the sake of change"? After all, there were monks in 1e.

Sure, I can not use tieflings. But it's significant to me to say, "Okay, we're playing D&D. Since we're playing something other than Forgotten Realms, I should warn you one of the core races is not available. And gnomes are NPC only since we have only limited stats for them, so leave all those AD&D and D&D 3e gnome minis at home."

In 1e, Races were classes. In 2e, Race X could only be Class A B or C. In 3e, any race could be any class. So someone in your exact position in 2000 could have said "Okay, we're playing D&D. So I should warn you that Dwarves can only be Clerics or Fighters, Halfings can only be clerics, thiefs or fighters, and gnomes can only be theifs, clerics or illusionists."

Just so you know, Gnomes have been said to be in the 4e MM, and it's been said that there will be PC race options in the MM.

And just because tiefs are present doesn't mean that people are Planeshifting to go hump a succubus on their day off. There are other options. As it was hinted at, Tiefs are also related to Demonic Pacts; so it could be that "My dad was a Warlock, and when he made a pact with that devil for the power, it infused his very being, including his blood, and that carried over when he impregnated mom". Eberron's creator Keith Baker has proposed several reasonable and legitimate sources for Tieflings, namely tieing tieflings to births when the planes are touching in specific areas, and radiation from various malignant sources.

It's the same reason that the fluff of the Sorcerer says "Blood of Dragons" but you can have sorcerers with any number of reasons for their power, from fey or demonic heritage to magical radiation.

A decision was made to include this race and not that one, but the issue of this thread is this: was that decision made for the hell of it, or do you believe there was a reason for that change beyond "this is different"?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

"Gnomes are filthy!"

Or -- and I say this as a gnome player and the DM of gnome players -- "not many people end up using these column inches in the PHB. Let's try something else there that might get more use for more groups."

"You know what this game needs?... more orbs!"

"People either ignore or micromanage spell components, and no one seems happy with the situation. Let's try something different."

"Vast empires are boring."

"The game, especially in 2nd edition, implied peaceful fantasy kingdoms, and yet armed mercenaries were also supposed to be able to go rooting around in people's basements, killing intelligent beings and looting the bodies without reprisal. The latter is the important part of the game. Let's change the former so that the two make sense together by default."

None of those are capricious changes.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In 1e, Races were classes.

You're thinking of BD&D.

 

[Rechan]

You're thinking of BD&D.

So the elf and dwarf weren't classes in 1e D&D?

 

[Rechan]

IMO the only real "Change for the sake of Change" that I have seen is Devils/Demons and their origins/background. But I fully admit to only having seen the initial quote about the changes done to the Devils' background, so if a Reason for that change was given I don't know it.

 

[Wolfspider]

So the elf and dwarf weren't classes in 1e D&D?

No, they weren't.

EDIT: Ahh, I see. You are using different terminology than I'm used to. When I see 1st edition, I immediately think of 1st edition ADVANCED Dungeons and Dragons.

You are talking about the 1st published version of Dungeons and Dragons. That is usually abbreviated OD&D in my experience.

 

[Wolfspider]

OK, I will revise my stance a bit.

I'm sure the designers can and have given reasons to support each one of the changes we've seen so far.

So there is no "change for the sake of change." They have reasons, even if they have to invent them.

I just happen to think that many of the reasons they have given are somewhat lame, and so are many of the changes, especially the flavor-based ones that will actually impact the rules.

 

[Rechan]

You are talking about the 1st published version of Dungeons and Dragons. That is usually abbreviated OD&D in my experience.

I only started to get interested in D&D until 1997-8 and aside from one or two hour-long ventures, didn't even start gaming until 3rd edition was out. So I couldn't tell you the difference between the blue box versus the red box, etc. I just know a little bit of trivia about 1e. Forgive me.

 

[Wolfspider]

I only started to get interested in D&D until 1997-8 and aside from one or two hour-long ventures, didn't even start gaming until 3rd edition was out. So I couldn't tell you the difference between the blue box versus the red box, etc. I just know a little bit of trivia about 1e. Forgive me.

Nothing to forgive at all. Just making sure we're all on the same page as far as terminology goes.