Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Riastlin" data-source="post: 5709377" data-attributes="member: 94022">While I realize I could be completely wrong here (and only time will tell if I am or not), I think a lot of people are reading way too much into the few paragraphs the weekly column provides.  Sure, there's certainly meaning to what he writes.  He's not going to write about something and then absolutely refuse to take those words into consideration when designing future material.  However, I don't think anything he's written should be taken as saying "Going forward, we're only going to be looking at doing what was done in previous editions and hasn't made the cut into the current edition." Rather, what I think he's getting at is that perhaps in some respects, WotC has tried too hard to please all the people all the time with some of their inclusions.  In other words, he knows that monsters like the peryton will be largely ignored by many DMs, yet others will find a use for them.  But, just because there are plenty of DMs, or groups, that won't consider using a particular monster, feat, power, item, etc., doesn't mean that the material in question shouldn't be considered.  Even if I don't see a use for the peryton, perhaps something about it will trigger a different monster or encounter idea for example.  A prime example for me is that I have never been all that fond of gricks, grells, and chuuls.  They just don't inspire me.  That being said, I have friends who absolutely love these critters.  Just because I don't use them doesn't mean they don't belong in the books. As for the Hat of Disguise, [MENTION=10021]kamikaze[/MENTION]_Midget has it right in that all Monte is saying is that rather than creating something new that does almost exactly the same thing a previous item did, just update the old item to fit into the current rules framework.  Functionally, what's the difference between an Ointment of Disguise and a Hat of Disguise?  Sure, there's a slight story difference, but by and large as a practical matter, the two are the same, so why bother designing something new when the wheel already exists? Put another way, if I designed a monster that writhing serpents for hair and a gaze that could turn a creature to stone instantly, and then said it was called "Statue Maker", few people would agree.   [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]:  I love your idea for the future of DDi.  It actually would not surprise me at all if this is indeed what WotC intends to do down the road -- particularly as storage costs continue to drop.  Even sorting them for official and home brew stuff would be easy (and is already in place).  When you create a new creature with the Monster Builder, it's name shows up in green in the monster list, clearly marking it as a home brew.  It would be easy to do the same with an item builder, power builder, feat builder, etc.  Even the tag that is used to designate the item as home brewed could then be used as a filter in the Character Builder.  The CB already classifies new characters by type of campaign and I would think (though I am not a programmer) that it would be relatively easy to designate the "LFR" character to not allow any home brew material.  Of course, it would still be up to the DM to ensure that all the players are abiding by the rules, but really, that's no different than it is now.</blockquote>

Verification