D&D 4E What do you think of the 4E background to demons & devils?

[Branduil]

Määäähhh.

That's what German sheeps say. I don't know what they say in English.

Typically, baaaaaaaahhh, although maaaaaaaahhh could work too.

 

[Nikosandros]

Typically, baaaaaaaahhh, although maaaaaaaahhh could work too.

Beeeh.... beeeh.... So says this Italian sheep.

I find the proposed changes intriguing. I'm glad that a new game is coming out with a new cosmology and I feel no need to maintain continuity. The AD&D manual of the planes, Planescape and all of the excellent 3rd edition material is still available to me to use whenever I like.

 

[Baby Samurai]

It’s really no big deal; you’ve always been able to go with any cosmology you like.

Look at FR, some people still consider it part of the Great Wheel/Planescape (like me) and others implement the new Tree cosmology.

Krynn, I still consider it part of Planescape and Takhisis is merely an aspect of Tiamat, but some people have embraced the new Cosmology that came along in the Dragonlance d20 hardcover.

Now Dark Sun was interesting, because in the Dragon Kings hardcover they suggested that it was in its own Alternate Material plane with its own Elemental planes etc, but the Spacefarers Handbook and Ravenloft suggested that Dark Sun (athas) was part of the Planescape/Spelljammer cosmology in a closed crystal sphere. And in the 3.5 Dark Sun articles in Dragon they separated in into its own cosmology like FR, Krynn and Eberron.

Speaking of Eberron, I consider it part of the Great Wheel/Planescape in my current Planescape campaign, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t run an Eberron campaign and use its particular cosmology.

So the only current official 3.5 campaign setting that uses the Great Wheel is Greyhawk.

This new 4th Ed cosmology is for the Points of Light implied setting – big deal.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Mike: actually, I don't mind the erinyes in general being freed up from being a sex fiend (pun unintended) if it means I get a new one that's more "spirit of vengeance"-like. But I do want an erinyes, because I think the mythological monster is too cool to give up. That's all. Can a guy not feel annoyed by the loss of a particular favorite monster?

In my honest opinion? Not really. They've already said that they've given thought to revisiting the erinyes as a "spirit of vengeance".

In any case, complaining about the loss of the current "sex fiend" erinyes when you'd really rather a "vengeance fiend" erinyes is a little silly.

And likewise, the succubus has a long history outside of D&D. Sex monsters go way back in heroic literature...

Which is, as far as I can tell, the reason why they've altered the succubus for Fourth Edition: to do better justice to the concept of the folkloric succubus according to the nature of fiends in the new edition.

 

[Jack99]

Why?

Seriously, why? Why do the designers owe you an explanation at all?

The internet has seriously spoiled us. Because we now can communicate with the designers, we assume that they must, in turn, tell us everything they're doing, and why.

Nobody explained each and every change from 1E to 2E, or from 2E to 3E.

Nobody explained why some of the changes were made in the remake of the Omen.

Nobody explained why the writers chose to advance the backstory with the Time War when they started Dr. Who back up in 2005.

Creators create, and if they choose to explain why they're doing what they're doing, that's a bonus. The designers owe us exactly one thing: Their best efforts at a game that'll be worth the money we pay to buy it. Period.

They change what they change. I guarantee you they have reasons for those changes. Some may be based on market research. Some may be based on personal taste. Some may be based on earlier playtests that we know nothing about.

And they are required to explain none of it. In fact, if some of the changes are based on market research, it's in their best interests not to explain it, lest they give up an advantage to competing companies.

Seriously, man, you don't like a lot of what you've heard about 4E, that's entirely your right. But claims that the designers are changing things without reason, or demanding that they make every reason known to us, are both short-sighted and ill-conceived.

Thanks Mouse, seems that cant be explained enough these days.

and regarding Sheepgate,

bæææææhh in danish.

 

[Barastrondo]

What I want to know is why there wasn't this much outrage when the 3e setting deliberately left out the iconic critters of D&D that I grew up with such as the thoul, giant robber fly, living statue and devil swine. And blue and white dragons are evil? That was a pretty major setting change!

 

[Baby Samurai]

And blue and white dragons are evil?

Yes, have been since 1st edition as far as I know.

 

[vagabundo]

I like this change (along with most of the other changes announced) as it simplifies things out of the box. I was never that interested in the planar side of things as my players are more casual fantasy types.

They need bold and straightforward concepts to hold on to and these changes would get them interested in Demons, Devils and maybe a little planar travel. I hope enough information is given in the core books to do a little of all three.

 

[Barastrondo]

Yes, have been since 1st edition as far as I know.

My irony is too thickly veiled.

They were neutral in red-box D&D, you see. Plenty of red-box veterans wound up thinking of them as potential friends rather than enemies, and had to make adjustments when they moved to AD&D. Heck, there are people out there for whom gnomes were something "added later" in their experience, and thus the removal of gnomes from D&D makes it more like the D&D of their youth, rather than less.

Thus the perspective of a filthy red-boxer can view these changes to the classic AD&D cosmology as not really all that unprecedented.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Yes. If Aleena and Bargle are not featured in the example of play, It Will Not Be D&D.