Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6122990" data-attributes="member: 95493">No, you aren't the only one noticing it. That is exactly what I was thinking. They mentioned the Grimlocks (right?) when talking about the githzeri. Haven't seen any articles on them, no medusa, kracken, hydras, remoraz, howler, unicorn, vargouille, etc. We almost certainly won't unless there is something controversial about them. But I think that is the key. They need to get feedback on the things they changed (especially with 4e and sometimes with 3e). Throughout most editions most creatures remained very similar, changing only to accomodate minor fluxes in rules changes. With the creatures they have discussed there have been much bigger and more noticible changes; especially the demons and archons a little while back. Those were more than updates they were large concept alterations. They are the things that people will disagree about how they should work. What I don't understand, and why I agree with SD, is how much time they are looking at and focusing on these corner cases, why do we need to do only 2 at a time? In general most people seem to be siding with planescape/great wheel/pre-4e ideas most of the time, to one degree or another. Why not start with that as an assumption (or outright ask them) and then move onto corner cases, like how modrons should look, but then do this for like 10 creatures at once instead of 2.Example of what they could write: Of the (alignment) exemplars, which of these do you prefer (give example of 1e,2e,3e,4e, then concept 5e)? I prefer the insane nature of the 4e design, mixed with the skirmishing element of 2e and this random bit of lore from 3e.Instead we are getting 2 creatures at a time and we are focusing on the niche cases, and by in large using a single older version and asking how well that one version applies to the concept that people have in their heads now. How well would it work to use the 1e version of goblin and asking the kinds of questions we are asking about Slaadi and Gith?I mean this article series is supposed to primarily be about the intangibles right? Or did I miss something along the way?I don't see this very much except in the questions. "By the gods this design is great, please stop giving me [expletive removed <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />]" or "Decent, but the other gods would be jealous so rethink." I think that has more to do with being playful with questions that could otherwise get very boring and representative, more than it has to do with being brainwashy. Then again who knows as maybe I've been brainwashed.</blockquote>

Verification