Codex Anathema changed to... Lords of Madness?

[Pants]

For those interested, Charles Ryan has given an answer for the name change here.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

So that explains why the name was changed, now if they could just explain why they chose such a stupid and misleading name to replace it with.

 

[Psion]

For those interested, Charles Ryan has given an answer for the name change here.

Shades of "sorcerer's stone". Ug.

 

[Chronosome]

Well, I emailed in my opinion. I hope it contributes to a leap back.

 

[FireLance]

So that explains why the name was changed, now if they could just explain why they chose such a stupid and misleading name to replace it with.

I think the problem is that aberrations, as a group, do not have any defining characteristics or unifying traits. I mean, look at what is said in the SRD about the Aberration type:

Aberration Type: An aberration has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three.

In other words, aberrations are just weird. If it doesn't fit anywhere else (not an Outsider, not a Monstrous Humanoid, not a Magical Beast, etc.), it's an Aberration. It's the monster type equivalent of "Miscellaneous". Carrion crawlers and ettercaps and gibbering mouthers and mind flayers and beholders are all iconic D&D monsters, and are all Aberrations simply because they couldn't be classified as anything else. I mean, what else do they have in common?

Eberron has supplied a unifying trait for Aberrations by making them creations of the Daelkyr. Perhaps Lords of Madness will make this the unifying trait in other campaigns too. Mind you, the Daelkyr need not ever be named. "Created by powerful beings from a distant plane of madness" would be sufficient.

 

[Ferrix]

Eberron has supplied a unifying trait for Aberrations by making them creations of the Daelkyr. Perhaps Lords of Madness will make this the unifying trait in other campaigns too. Mind you, the Daelkyr need not ever be named. "Created by powerful beings from a distant plane of madness" would be sufficient.

Bah!

 

[coyote6]

That's what I figured -- it was a "Codex whosis?" situation.

But -- "2/3 drop in sales" -- yikes!

 

[wingsandsword]

Eberron has supplied a unifying trait for Aberrations by making them creations of the Daelkyr. Perhaps Lords of Madness will make this the unifying trait in other campaigns too. Mind you, the Daelkyr need not ever be named. "Created by powerful beings from a distant plane of madness" would be sufficient.

NO!

Keep your Eberron out of my Realms. I don't care for Eberron, and I especially don't want things from it leaking out into core D&D (just like I'd shudder if warforged ever showed up in 4e as a core race and then promptly ban them from any game I ever ran).

 

[Sejs]

In other words, aberrations are just weird. If it doesn't fit anywhere else (not an Outsider, not a Monstrous Humanoid, not a Magical Beast, etc.), it's an Aberration.

To clarify: if it doesn't fit anywhere else and has tentacles, it's an Aberration.

And no, Jester, said tentacles are not neccessarily naughty tentacles.

 

[Sejs]

"In this case, the response we got from the majority of distributors and retailers in the hobby and book channels was a resounding "huh?" Most people, sadly, don't have any idea what a "codex" is or what an "anathema" is, and when you put those words together, you get a name that is totally meaningless to them."


I'm struggling to find a word that adequately conveys just how really, really sad that it.