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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DarkKestral" data-source="post: 3795823" data-attributes="member: 40100">Aye, but if the fact that both LE and CE have 'seducers', one option that's better than just saying 'screw it, we're just getting rid of one type' is.. rebuilding the other to fit a role it's been given in earlier editions that's separate from the role you don't need. And when that second role ALSO fits with the mythology the monster's based on, and the role you want to get rid of doesn't... why not go the second route? That's what sticks in my craw. And 3rd ed. DID give them their martial bent back. So their raison d'etre was there. And AFAIK, they had something of that role in 2nd ed. in some settings. So it's not completely devoid of tradition, either.But that's the thing. I'd much rather have the planes be rather undetailed than detailed in a way that seemingly completely breaks with the history of the core cosmologies. Assuming I decide to buy the books and then GM for a 4th ed game in a demo type situation or something, (because it looks like the only way to get a group, at the moment) I might well do it as a core game to show off the rules (after all, it looks like they're likely to rock, mostly) and I'd like a cosmology that sticks with the history or at least looks like it will at least not contradict it. Mind you, I admittedly hate a LOT of the 4th ed. fluff, so some of it certainly is a sour grapes situation going on, but I'm looking at it as "if I have a old 2nd ed gamer in the group and I'm trying to show off the core books + fluff to him, will he recognize the game based on the core setting material?" and getting the answer "probably not, which means it'll have to be on the rules alone... which may be difficult." A player of 3.0 or 3.5 will probably recognize the ruleset, but might get thrown off by the setting. It breaks so strongly with the current core that some of us don't get the feeling that it follows with what's gone before. So my core only game (including, to some degree, the setting) may not feel very core to a player who hasn't read the 4th edition's books beforehand and wants to learn the new rules, but has read those of prior editions and understands those quite well. So now I have to convert the devils and demons' power structures back to what the previous editions have had them like, get rid of Asmo as a god, and generally hack off bits and pieces of fluff all over the place, or I have to avoid planar adventuring like the plague, even at high level.So from my perspective it really IS "change for change's sake", because it is change without a necessary reason for change. Because it seems to break with history without reasonable backup. Making demons and devils mechanically less similar to each other than they now are is a good reason to change the mechanics of devils and demons. It's not a good reason to change the entire planar structure, necessarily. The second doesn't necessarily follow from the first, in my mind. The designers had better give me more reasoning before they do that than they've given.So far, the only things I'm dead on happy with is "Core is points of light in a dark world" and "Wizards use staves, wands, and orbs in combat to aid their spellcasting." The implementation of that second idea hasn't thrilled me, though. Right now, I'd probably not buy the books if I were just getting into RPGs, because I hate a lot of the fluff. I'm just really annoyed that I have to wait 2 years or more to get some work done on the demons and devils that I'll like (I hate FR, and I'm ambivalent about Eberron. It sounds OK, and has cool setting elements, but somehow feels bland too so that's the first 2 years of 4th ed. setting material down the drain, since WotC will only be releasing 1 setting per year.)</blockquote>

Verification