Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 3856548" data-attributes="member: 15538">It would mean I would have to convert a lot of creatures that have appeared in my recent campaign if I wanted to keep running it. Which the designers have basically said, "Don't bother, it won't work." The succubi issue is not so big, since I can simply state that their are lawful succubi in my world on the other time, but the other changes are annoying.So you consider making elves less magical an improvement? You think it's better that many if not most pre-4e elven fighter-mages would make more sense as eladrin in the new edition?True, true. Of course, I cut my teeth on BECMI D&D, so elemental planes are the last things I would get rid of. I don't find the new cosmology fresh, since with:- Devils being fallen angels hiding out in their special sanctuary- Demons being forces of destruction- Elementals coming from a place of primal elemental energythe new cosmology bears a marked resemblance to the Talislanta cosmology which I have been familiar with for some twenty years now.I didn't even mention the Great Wheel.Stereotype much? Should I mention I've played dozens of non D&D games and I'm a semi-pro game designer? I don't need your encouragement to "do what I want."... in bad fantasy. Seriously, even Jedi can't keep the same trick going all day. What have I read? Oh, how about Corum, Lord of the Rings, Simarillion, Rhialto the Marvelous, Three Hearts and Three Lions, the Broken Sword, Swords Against Deviltry, The Deed of Pakenarrion, The Hero and the Crown, the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Warlock in Spite of Himself, the Compleat Enchanter, the Unbeheaded King, With a Single Spell, ...Perhaps I should mention I used to be a columnist at RPG.net and wrote this:<a href="http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre31mar03.html" target="_blank">http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre31mar03.html</a><a href="http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre24apr03.html" target="_blank">http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre24apr03.html</a><a href="http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre26nov03.html" target="_blank">http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre26nov03.html</a><a href="http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre04aug04.html" target="_blank">http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre04aug04.html</a>so don't patronize me with "read a book sometimes."That's an easy one... balor aren't trained in Use Rope. But if I needed to know, I'd hope I'd be able to come up with the ansswer.Maybe the new 2008 model looks like a clunker, that has replaced a steel frame with unibody construction. Whatever. I think a better metaphor would be a car company phasing out a model you know and like, and simultaneously debuting a new model, which is nothing that appeals to you in concept.Oh, right. Because I don't know how to have fun, right? Good one, there.Once again I seem to be doing something wrong. Not only do I like mind flayers and ogre mages as written in the MM and use them in my games, but I'm still playing 3.5 and enjoying it. I don't find it to be a "clunker" at all. It has its flaws, but 3.5 is a classic game. For 4e to out-do it, 4e would have to first attempt to do the things 3.5 does. This tielfling-warlock-Nine Swallows Drunkenly Lolling Emerald Whisper Strike-gnomes and frost giants will be included in exciting new EXPANSION SOURCEBOOKS which will all be core (even Monster Manual XII) stuff... just is not a continuation of the game I became interested in. I simply cannot imagine dropping 3.5 for 4e as it currently appears to me. If I play 4e, it will definitely be as a new game on its terms, and despite, not because of, most of the changes I have heard about so far.</blockquote>

Verification