Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 3929312" data-attributes="member: 54843">These are really good points. I'm not at all choked up to be exchanging the Great Wheel cosmology with something less complex and rigid (although I'm not sure the 4e cosmology will necessarily be a huge improvement).Tquirky, are you complaining about the inclusion of clerics and tanglefoot bags in THIRD edition? Dude, that battle's lost. I mean, I feel your pain to some degree. I'd rather have a 3.5 warlock flavor than be tied to all the &quot;spooky&quot; interplanar deal-brokering that seems to be the core of the 4e warlock, not because the 4e version sounds &quot;bad,&quot; but because the 3.5e version was open enough to allow me to play more character-types out of the box.That said...I honestly DO look to the core rulebooks for character/RP ideas sometimes. For example, the fluff we've gotten about the warlord really makes me want to play one, more than I've ever wanted to play, say, a bard. If WotC can pull it off (and that's an important &quot;if&quot;), I'd have no problem with them insinuating some cool ideas like wizardly traditions into the core rules, and just asking DMs who don't like it to excise it from their campaigns.The key point is that the type of groups who are playing well-developed homebrew settings don't NEED hand-holding. They're perfectly capable of renaming abilities and overriding some fluffy rule elements without WotC's permission, just like basically every DM I've had has just gotten rid of mundane spell components. It's the newbies and the lazy who will benefit from having easily-adaptable fluff aspects embedded into the PHB, and as a religiously lazy player, I support this proposition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZombieRoboNinja, post: 3929312, member: 54843"] These are really good points. I'm not at all choked up to be exchanging the Great Wheel cosmology with something less complex and rigid (although I'm not sure the 4e cosmology will necessarily be a huge improvement). Tquirky, are you complaining about the inclusion of clerics and tanglefoot bags in THIRD edition? Dude, that battle's lost. I mean, I feel your pain to some degree. I'd rather have a 3.5 warlock flavor than be tied to all the "spooky" interplanar deal-brokering that seems to be the core of the 4e warlock, not because the 4e version sounds "bad," but because the 3.5e version was open enough to allow me to play more character-types out of the box. That said... I honestly DO look to the core rulebooks for character/RP ideas sometimes. For example, the fluff we've gotten about the warlord really makes me want to play one, more than I've ever wanted to play, say, a bard. If WotC can pull it off (and that's an important "if"), I'd have no problem with them insinuating some cool ideas like wizardly traditions into the core rules, and just asking DMs who don't like it to excise it from their campaigns. The key point is that the type of groups who are playing well-developed homebrew settings don't NEED hand-holding. They're perfectly capable of renaming abilities and overriding some fluffy rule elements without WotC's permission, just like basically every DM I've had has just gotten rid of mundane spell components. It's the newbies and the lazy who will benefit from having easily-adaptable fluff aspects embedded into the PHB, and as a religiously lazy player, I support this proposition. [/QUOTE]

Verification