Mouseferatu
Hero
Quickleaf, I'm really glad you like the product as a whole. We put a great deal of thought into interweaving elements of Egyptian history and culture with D&D and fantasy, and every time I hear from someone who appreciates the result, it makes it that much more worth it. (Yes, that sounds cheesy; I mean it anyway. 
)
As far as your specific issues...
I think I know the reason this wasn't done, but let me double-check with C.A. before I go into it, just to make sure I'm not giving false info. I'll come back to this one, okay?
Well, a lot of the classes were changed mechanically and drasticaly, such as the wildwalker (as you mentioned), the ghaffir, and the hekai. Others changed subtly, such as the bahati and the khasti. And all of them had flavor changes. We felt that to have presented some of them in complete write-ups, and others in abbreviated format, would have made for a very haphazard, slap-dash production.
Given that our mandate was to basically make a 3.5-compatible Egyptian settting, though, introducing mechanics from D20 Modern wouldn't really have fit. And there are benefits to sharing your true name; they're just largely mystical in nature.
Interesting. I have to admit, those specific details didn't occur to me. (Whether or not they occurred to C.A. or not, I couldn't say.) That said, we come back to the same issue that shaped a lot of our decisions--space. For everything we could have added, something else would have had to go. I'm all for detailed settings--and in fact, if we're ever able to do a supplement in which this sort of thing is appropriate, I'll definitely push to include it. But at the end of the day, when forced to choose between one or the other due to space limitations, a D20 setting should (IMO, of course) always present the material that makes for solid adventures, over the material that fills in the mundane details.
Before anyone misquotes or misunderstands me, I'm not saying that such things aren't important. They are. I'm just saying that the ability to make an exciting epic tale is more integral.
Another interesting idea. I like the 100 adventure ideas myself, and I'm glad they're there--but again, this is the sort of thing I'd love to see (write) in future works.
We gave that some real thought. The phoenix, the mummy, the griffon... All of them are, indeed, quite Egyptian.
They're also, at the end of the day, familiar material. There's nothing about the "average" mummy in Khemti (if such a thing truly exists) to separate it from the mummy presented in the Monster Manual. We felt it better to devote the limited space we had to new creatures, or to those (like the sphinxes) whose Khemtian incarnations were very different from those normally presented. (That's also why we've got the chart specifying which MM critters are appropriate in Khemti.) I'd have loved to have seen more monsters, including slightly altered takes on the classics, but at the end of the day (I'm using that expression a lot, it seems), I'd have pushed for the same choice we made. It ultimately results in the most usable material, all told.
As you say, it breaks the D20 spell/class system, and we really needed to keep that.
However, there is no reason whatsoever not to use the incantations concept, introduced in Unearthed Arcana, in a Hamunaptra campaign. In fact, one could argue that there are good reasons to do so. Yet again, something I'd like to consider for future works, but just not something we felt vital to the core product.
(Incidentally, I did make a point in the magic chapter of saying that non-spellcasters still practice mystic rites and superstutions. They believe these have an impact on their lives, and while it may not be measurable in D20 mechanical terms, who's to say they're wrong?)
I can't really speak to the layout/artistic decisions, except to say that I believe them all to have sound economic motives. Boxed sets are pricey to begin with; it may simply not have been feasible to include any more in the way of maps.
You're very welcome.
You've raised some interesting points. I hope that those on which I disagree with you don't come across as me being snarky; my intent is purely to explain why we made the choices we did--as every one of them was carefully considered--not to try to convince you that you're "wrong" about your viewpoints here.
If I can explain anything further, please feel free to ask.
)As far as your specific issues...
Quickleaf said:
I think I know the reason this wasn't done, but let me double-check with C.A. before I go into it, just to make sure I'm not giving false info. I'll come back to this one, okay?
2. I felt the setting changes to the core classes could have been reduced to five pages simply detailing how they are viewed in society and simple modifications. Entirely rewriting the core classes was wasted space. However, if all of the classes had received a treatment like the wildwalker, i.e. power-lists-now-chose (like Szatany's ultimate classes on the wizards of the coast website), that would have been really hot and worth it!
Well, a lot of the classes were changed mechanically and drasticaly, such as the wildwalker (as you mentioned), the ghaffir, and the hekai. Others changed subtly, such as the bahati and the khasti. And all of them had flavor changes. We felt that to have presented some of them in complete write-ups, and others in abbreviated format, would have made for a very haphazard, slap-dash production.
Given that our mandate was to basically make a 3.5-compatible Egyptian settting, though, introducing mechanics from D20 Modern wouldn't really have fit. And there are benefits to sharing your true name; they're just largely mystical in nature.
Interesting. I have to admit, those specific details didn't occur to me. (Whether or not they occurred to C.A. or not, I couldn't say.) That said, we come back to the same issue that shaped a lot of our decisions--space. For everything we could have added, something else would have had to go. I'm all for detailed settings--and in fact, if we're ever able to do a supplement in which this sort of thing is appropriate, I'll definitely push to include it
. But at the end of the day, when forced to choose between one or the other due to space limitations, a D20 setting should (IMO, of course) always present the material that makes for solid adventures, over the material that fills in the mundane details.Before anyone misquotes or misunderstands me, I'm not saying that such things aren't important. They are. I'm just saying that the ability to make an exciting epic tale is more integral.
Another interesting idea. I like the 100 adventure ideas myself, and I'm glad they're there--but again, this is the sort of thing I'd love to see (write) in future works.
We gave that some real thought. The phoenix, the mummy, the griffon... All of them are, indeed, quite Egyptian.
They're also, at the end of the day, familiar material. There's nothing about the "average" mummy in Khemti (if such a thing truly exists) to separate it from the mummy presented in the Monster Manual. We felt it better to devote the limited space we had to new creatures, or to those (like the sphinxes) whose Khemtian incarnations were very different from those normally presented. (That's also why we've got the chart specifying which MM critters are appropriate in Khemti.) I'd have loved to have seen more monsters, including slightly altered takes on the classics, but at the end of the day (I'm using that expression a lot, it seems), I'd have pushed for the same choice we made. It ultimately results in the most usable material, all told.
As you say, it breaks the D20 spell/class system, and we really needed to keep that.
However, there is no reason whatsoever not to use the incantations concept, introduced in Unearthed Arcana, in a Hamunaptra campaign. In fact, one could argue that there are good reasons to do so. Yet again, something I'd like to consider for future works, but just not something we felt vital to the core product.
(Incidentally, I did make a point in the magic chapter of saying that non-spellcasters still practice mystic rites and superstutions. They believe these have an impact on their lives, and while it may not be measurable in D20 mechanical terms, who's to say they're wrong?
)I can't really speak to the layout/artistic decisions, except to say that I believe them all to have sound economic motives. Boxed sets are pricey to begin with; it may simply not have been feasible to include any more in the way of maps.
You're very welcome.
You've raised some interesting points. I hope that those on which I disagree with you don't come across as me being snarky; my intent is purely to explain why we made the choices we did--as every one of them was carefully considered--not to try to convince you that you're "wrong" about your viewpoints here.
If I can explain anything further, please feel free to ask.
