Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mathew_Freeman" data-source="post: 3905238" data-attributes="member: 1846">I disagree with this - I have no particular interest in Greyhawk, or indeed the FR. The only setting I'd like to hang on to is Planescape, and given that was never officially converted to 3e I can't see that 4e is going to cause any problems. And I also don't see anything in 4e that indicates that Greyhawk won't work with. If you don't like warlocks, then don't include any (or don't include them in large numbers) until you're happy with it - keep all the changes small scale.If you're running a big complicated game with lots of planar interaction and so on at the moment, then yes, you're going to have some problems changing it over, but I would suggest that you are in the minority. I would imagine that 'most' groups are either playing homebrew stuff or are able to start new campaigns. I don't know this, but I suspect it.And if they are the majority, the WotC are right to be marketing to them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mathew_Freeman, post: 3905238, member: 1846"] I disagree with this - I have no particular interest in Greyhawk, or indeed the FR. The only setting I'd like to hang on to is Planescape, and given that was never officially converted to 3e I can't see that 4e is going to cause any problems. And I also don't see anything in 4e that indicates that Greyhawk won't work with. If you don't like warlocks, then don't include any (or don't include them in large numbers) until you're happy with it - keep all the changes small scale. If you're running a big complicated game with lots of planar interaction and so on at the moment, then yes, you're going to have some problems changing it over, but I would suggest that you are in the minority. I would imagine that 'most' groups are either playing homebrew stuff or are able to start new campaigns. I don't know this, but I suspect it. And if they are the majority, the WotC are right to be marketing to them. [/QUOTE]

Verification