Username Password
  or Create an Account
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Greyhawk Wiki

#greytalk-discord
    JOIN THE CHAT
    Canonfire :: View topic - Tharizdun and 4E
    Tharizdun and 4E
    Goto page 1, 2  Next
     
       Canonfire Forum Index -> Greyhawk- D&D 4th Edition
    View previous topic :: View next topic  
    Author Message
    Terjon
    Apprentice Greytalker


    Joined: Sep 20, 2007
    Posts: 6

    PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:22 pm    Post subject: Tharizdun and 4E Reply with quote

    Based on this Design & Development article, it looks like 4E is not only messing with the conception of demons, devils, and the Outer Planes, but also throwing a strange version of Tharizdun into the mix, a version that's seemingly "generic" and not tied to Greyhawk, since we already knew that even the bastardized Greyhawk that existed in 3E will not carry over to the new edition.

    Not sure what to say except this makes me even less inclined to buy 4E than I already was and that's saying something.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
    EileenProphetofIstus
    Master Greytalker


    Joined: Jun 28, 2007
    Posts: 725
    Location: Montevideo, Minnesota, US

    PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Read the post, here's my take.

    Little has changed....they game demons and devils origin stories, which in itself is fine (except the Tharizdun part). You want souls to corrupt, use devils, you want chaos and mayhem, use demons, isn't that what we started with in 1st edition?

    More frosting, no cake....

    Employing Greyhawk deities into core 4th edition is in my opinion the wrong thing to do. So we have Obad-Hai (I think Vecna), and now Tharizdun running around with a promoted Asmodeus (another mistake), along with Thor, Zeus, and who knows else who. Yep, good solid pantheon, lets take from real world religions (different ones) mix them with fictional religions, and use that.

    Athena, Heironeous, and Loki must really be pleased!
    _________________
    Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
    Terjon
    Apprentice Greytalker


    Joined: Sep 20, 2007
    Posts: 6

    PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
    Employing Greyhawk deities into core 4th edition is in my opinion the wrong thing to do. So we have Obad-Hai (I think Vecna), and now Tharizdun running around with a promoted Asmodeus (another mistake), along with Thor, Zeus, and who knows else who. Yep, good solid pantheon, lets take from real world religions (different ones) mix them with fictional religions, and use that.


    Very much agreed. As much as I hated the frequent misuse of Greyhawk lore in 3E, there was at least enough thematic consistency that it felt coherent. Now, with this picking and choosing of deities and other elements from various sources, it feels slapdash and even amateurish.

    I'm trying very hard not to lapse into my curmudgeonly old man persona, but every time I see stuff like this, it takes a lot of mental strength to contain myself. It's as if no one at WotC R&D either knows or cares about the 30+ years of history attached to some of these names and concepts. To them, they're just convenient monikers they can swipe for their own creations, the past be damned.

    Such a shame -- and such a lost opportunity.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
    EileenProphetofIstus
    Master Greytalker


    Joined: Jun 28, 2007
    Posts: 725
    Location: Montevideo, Minnesota, US

    PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Terjon:

    One word....YEP!
    _________________
    Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
    DavidBedlam
    Journeyman Greytalker


    Joined: Mar 30, 2007
    Posts: 161
    Location: Yorkshire, Britain

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Look on the bright side:

    When 4.0 hits the shelves, your copies of the 1983 boxed set will not burst into flame and be destroyed. And given that, I must assume that Greyhawk must be safe.

    I'm still on the fence on whether or not to jump on the 4.0 bandwagon, but if I do I see no reason why I can't use it for proper Greyhawk stuff.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Ragr
    Master Greytalker


    Joined: Apr 13, 2006
    Posts: 654
    Location: Frinton on Sea England

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Can honestly say that I or my fellow players have never had any problems distinguishing between devils and demons.

    This is just another pointless pile of fluffy ideas by someone trying to justify their last order of paperclips.

    To quote a great man; "Why sometimes I could............" Mad
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
    Terjon
    Apprentice Greytalker


    Joined: Sep 20, 2007
    Posts: 6

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    DavidBedlam wrote:
    I'm still on the fence on whether or not to jump on the 4.0 bandwagon, but if I do I see no reason why I can't use it for proper Greyhawk stuff.

    A lot depends on how much the 4E rules changes have unexpected setting implications. If, for example, magic is changed is significant ways, I can easily seeing it do violence to the way Greyhawk has been described through three editions. At this stage, we don't know for certain, but my feeling, based on what we've seen so far, is that, while it might be possible to run a Greyhawk game using the 4E rules, those rules will bring baggage with them that will necessitate either a) changing the rules to bring them into line with Greyhawk or b) changing Greyhawk to bring them into line with the rules. Neither prospect strikes me as worth the effort.

    But we shall see next spring.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
    EileenProphetofIstus
    Master Greytalker


    Joined: Jun 28, 2007
    Posts: 725
    Location: Montevideo, Minnesota, US

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    We should take a poll on how many Greyhawkers plan on going with 4th edition at this point in time then try it again once 4th edition has been on the shelves for about 6 months. It would be interesting to see the differance. In addtion we could then start up forums discussing how to make 4th edition more compatible with greyhawk in regards to rule and fluff changes.
    _________________
    Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
    Terjon
    Apprentice Greytalker


    Joined: Sep 20, 2007
    Posts: 6

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
    We should take a poll on how many Greyhawkers plan on going with 4th edition at this point in time then try it again once 4th edition has been on the shelves for about 6 months. It would be interesting to see the differance. In addtion we could then start up forums discussing how to make 4th edition more compatible with greyhawk in regards to rule and fluff changes.

    At present, I have no interest in upgrading to 4E. I'll stick with my house-ruled v.3.5 for Greyhawk and any other settings I run. While the current edition is far from perfect, it possesses enough continuity with previous editions, coupled with plenty of options, that I can run a Greyhawk campaign without the need for extensive changes. It may be that 4E will in fact be similar in this regard, but, so far, I see little evidence of that. The Design & Developments articles posted to date have stressed the discontinuity with past editions rather than continuity and I think, for a variety of reasons, that this will be the watchword for 4E -- or Dungeons & Dragons 2.0, as I like to call it.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
    Ragr
    Master Greytalker


    Joined: Apr 13, 2006
    Posts: 654
    Location: Frinton on Sea England

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Great idea Eileen, count me in.

    Terjon, I feel the same as you at this point in time.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
    EileenProphetofIstus
    Master Greytalker


    Joined: Jun 28, 2007
    Posts: 725
    Location: Montevideo, Minnesota, US

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    How do we start a poll on Canonfire? Who do we leave a message with or does the staff pick it up when they read the forum...I'm to new to the site to know for certain how these things work.
    _________________
    Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
    MichaelSandar
    Journeyman Greytalker


    Joined: Jan 05, 2003
    Posts: 138
    Location: Midwood in Geoff

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    I'm still definitly on for Greyhawk in 4e. I think - especially the points of light theorum really fits my style and feel of GH. It my campaign, much of GH has fallen into discord, having been initiated by the Race War (elves and dwarves pissed about all the humans sucking up 'their' land). Basically, all the bad guys are having really good days at the same time. Shocked

    But, I understand that things will be different, and that's a big change to make. I've described it this way before . . . it's like reading a different series of books. Like going from Terry Brooks' Shannara series, with it's elves, dwarves, and vicious gnomes to Raymond Feists' Riftwar books. The different races are still there, and it still feels like you are reading a D&D campaign, but the backgrounds are very different.

    That said, when 4e hits, I will probably not continue my current story arc in the new edition. GH will start over, so to speak, with all of the 'fluff' changes.

    ymmv

    Edited for crappy spelling. . .
    _________________
    Michael Erin Sandar Bard of Midwood
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    MikelAmroni
    Journeyman Greytalker


    Joined: Nov 14, 2005
    Posts: 221

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Count me in for that poll and "converting" 4E to work with Greyhawk.

    In all honesty, I don't see the fuss. Even if you use Greyhawk, there are certain modifications you have to make to the 3.5 rules and fluff to make them work for any sigle part of Greyhawk. Take warmages as an example. I use them in my current Keoland game. They are trained in Niole Dra along side other noble military types, and have station the same as any knight. I've also done the same with wizards, since it makes sense as far as I can see with everything written for Keoland. Its not a war-college of wizardly type folks like the class description. I changed the fluff to match my campaign.

    I have never seen a campaign where I have not had to do that. My best friend runs a home brew world, where elves are laden with draconic blood and have sorcerer as favored class, and have more in common theme-wise with the Eldar of Tolkien than the Olve of Greyhawk or the Sun/Moon/etc elves of Forgotten Realms. No book is ever going to make everyone happy. Don't like the names they've chosen for their wizarding styles - change or ignore them all together. That is part of DMing. They have already said they are going for setting neutral in the core books, and I for one don't see that as bad. Even the generic Greyhawk mentality was very hard to get over when I first started playing Ebberon. As someone who plays in multiple settings, I don't see why a generic setting lite rules system is a bad thing. Sure add in some fluff, if nothing else but to show me how you present the classes in setting. But no fluff should ever be so tied to system that I cannot get rid of it when it suits me.

    Of course I have a good head for mechanics, so I will likely be porting forward anything that was left behind that I want to use (say Demons and Devils?). I will be upgrading, to 4E, that much is certain, but I would hardly turn down a 3.5 game if a friend decided to run one. But I have never had an issue adapting. If nothing else the new cosmology will make it easier for me to integrate my Paladium Fantasy campaign into a slightly less clunky rules system. (I have been referred to as the Mikey of gaming before, simply because I love trying out new things.)


    I dunno, I ramble a lot and generally can run with anything I'm given if I have half a clue. Who knows, we may LOVE the new setting, once its released completely. You can't know until such time as it is in front of you done. I'll quit for now, since I am fairly certain I've repeated myself at least 4 times this post, and don't feel like going back to edit Confused Happy
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    GVDammerung
    Grandmaster Greytalker


    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    I despise this apparent use of Tharizdun. People thought 3X stripmined GH? Seems like 4e will be the real deal. This is beyond bad.
    _________________
    GVD
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
    Terjon
    Apprentice Greytalker


    Joined: Sep 20, 2007
    Posts: 6

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    What bothers me most about these changes, aside from their seeming arbitrariness (I say "seeming" because I am very certain they aren't and were in fact with a clear plan in mind), is that it's another nail in the coffin of the common vocabulary that D&D players have had for over 30 years, regardless of edition. The edition wars of the past were fought by combatants who were at least all speaking the Common Tongue. With the advent of 4E, we'll add a new faction to the mix and they'll be effectively speaking a different language, now that "devil" and "demon" don't mean what they used to.

    This saddens me.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
    GVDammerung
    Grandmaster Greytalker


    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Terjon wrote:
    What bothers me most about these changes, aside from their seeming arbitrariness (I say "seeming" because I am very certain they aren't and were in fact with a clear plan in mind), is that it's another nail in the coffin of the common vocabulary that D&D players have had for over 30 years, regardless of edition. The edition wars of the past were fought by combatants who were at least all speaking the Common Tongue. With the advent of 4E, we'll add a new faction to the mix and they'll be effectively speaking a different language, now that "devil" and "demon" don't mean what they used to.

    This saddens me.


    This is a really, really good point!
    _________________
    GVD
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
    Vormaerin
    Master Greytalker


    Joined: Jan 05, 2004
    Posts: 666

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Yeah, I can rewrite fluff with the best of them. Do a lot of it. I just don't like the mindset behind the development staff here. They apparently think that DMs are morons who can't figure this stuff out without their help. We need some "scientific" encounter design system, which will be completely useless because its based on arbitrary standards of character power... which will vary from campaign to campaign based on group composition and DM generosity.

    We can't figure out how demons and devils work differently, we can't find a use for the elemental planes in adventuring... Oh, and my favorite: DMs get confused when a monster has too many powers, so all those special powers demons have are "superfluous". Well, I suppose so.. if all they are are things to kill. What was the quote from the monster manual design article? Something like "monsters only last 5 rounds, so they really only need 5 cool things to do.." Yeah, right.. No one ever uses a monster except as a combat..

    I just don't get this whole mindset. And why make so many non mechanics changes.. Elves are entirely different from *any* existing D&D version. Demons and devils are now, too. Gnomes are apparently gone (?). Tieflings and warlocks common enough to be 'core' player options.

    GH used to be the world that matched the rules as written and the FR and Ebberon needed pages and pages of house rules and exceptions. That's definitely NOT the case now. Now any Greyhawk Campaign Setting is going to need a strong 'house rules' section of its own. Or be radically altered.

    None of this will affect my campaign, of course. I might use 4e if its mechanically superior and I'll write my own fluff to replace theirs. I just don't understand the mindset of their developers in this.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    EileenProphetofIstus
    Master Greytalker


    Joined: Jun 28, 2007
    Posts: 725
    Location: Montevideo, Minnesota, US

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    I think this is the mindset:

    It's our (WOTC) game, we can do what we want. We want to make a new game but retain the title Dungeons and Dragons in order to market it. The younger audience will do as we tell them. The older audience are nothing more than relics of days gone by.

    That's the mindset.
    _________________
    Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
    Saracenus
    Adept Greytalker


    Joined: Nov 28, 2006
    Posts: 336
    Location: Barony of Trellwood, The Great Kingdom

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Vormaerin wrote:

    <SNIP>
    I just don't like the mindset behind the development staff here. They apparently think that DMs are morons who can't figure this stuff out without their help. We need some "scientific" encounter design system, which will be completely useless because its based on arbitrary standards of character power... which will vary from campaign to campaign based on group composition and DM generosity.
    <SNIP>


    Vormaerin,

    It not that they think DMs are morons, they don't. Its that the current rule set , 3e, requires a lot of prep time to run. It puts a huge load on the DM. For those of us that have been playing/DMing since late 70s/early 80s, this seems weird and condescending.

    However, as someone who played, judged and organized 3e games on a bi-weekly basis for 5+ years in the RPGA. I can tell you that it was hard to recruit new judges. There is a wall of knowledge that can and does intimidate new judges. I remember having to hand hold 4 of my new judges for a convention I ran. And that was really the most I could handle at a time. Fortunately, I had a good crew of experienced DMs that could take care of themselves while I encouraged the next gen of judges. Of the 4 that I helped out, half kept at it.

    So, if the changes to the game reduce my prep time, lessen barriers to entry for new judges, and wax my car on the weekends, I will be happy. I don't see it as a slight on my abilities. I see it as freeing up my time to work on more important things in my campaign like background fluff...

    My Two Coppers,

    Bryan Blumklotz
    AKA Saracenus
    Old School/New School Gamer... can't we all just get along...
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
    Vormaerin
    Master Greytalker


    Joined: Jan 05, 2004
    Posts: 666

    PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    That is covered by simplifying *the rules*. Not by dumbing down the "fluff."

    If monsters are dumbed down to "five cool things" that's means every DM who wants to do more than have a five round combat needs to make it up from scratch. Harder, not easier. Why can't they say "This is what the monster typically does in a combat encounter. This is the sort of thing a monster might do in a non combat encounter? Oh right, there are no non combat encounters....

    Yeah, some of the elemental planes are pointless for adventuring. They exist to explain elements of the cosmos. But I guess that's too hard to understand. Some folks can't grasp that Slaadi aren't funny demons, so lets make them demons. Oh, and get rid of Limbo anyway it seems.

    DMs are going to do with this 'encounter design system' exactly what they did with 3e CRs: pretty much ignore them after the first dozen or so encounters don't work because their party is a ranger, a bard, two rogues, and a warlock or something else that doesn't meet the FOUR OFFICIAL ROLES (tm). Or loot varies. Or character builds are "optimized" or very not optimized. Or any of the innumerable things that distinquish one campaign from the next.

    Getting refs who could run games was hard when I was doing tournaments 20 years ago with 1 and 2e rules. The current rules and, perhaps, lower overall participation doubtless makes it harder. But I'd have to wander from room to room helping adjudicate things for about half the DMs of any given opening round. Subsequent rounds usually were small enough to stick to the folks with more experience.

    Advice on how to do things, suggestions, etc. That's all good. Trying to create formulae to be followed, the "Five cool things this monster does," and jettisoning anything that suggests there's more kinds of adventures than dungeon crawls on the fringe of civilization's points of light is not a formula for developing new, competent DMs. Its a method for pigeon holing gaming into hack and slash.

    That crap about Asmodeus as Lucifer renamed and even demon lords being brute force entities is going to help gaming? DMs learn how to DM from examples and from the seat of their pants. The examples in the early 80s were dungeon crawls with a heavy mix to background intrigue: Innumerable factions in and around the ToEE. Lots of background and intrigue around the dungeon crawls in Slavers, Giants, and Drow. Even the Keep on the Borderland talked about wider issues than just the dungeon and had lots of non combat options in the "dungeon crawl". Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth was set up as a multinational 'race to the loot" almost.

    Now it seems like they just want to set up their little combat adventures designed for minis and screw the background. "Umm, its a small town somewhere where no one important is or cares about."

    Even if most folks build their own campaign world.. which is generally what I've done in my career... they look at examples from published stuff. Especially when they are first learning. And the mindset these designers are showing really doesn't inspire much hope in my mind that they'll produce gamers who are trying to do more than replicate a computer game at the tabletop.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    DavidBedlam
    Journeyman Greytalker


    Joined: Mar 30, 2007
    Posts: 161
    Location: Yorkshire, Britain

    PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Like Saracenus, I've been finding that most of the stuff I don't like about 4.0 is fluff related, and what I do like the sound of is crunch related.

    And that being said, I think that fluff errors should be easier to fix than crunch errors. And since I'm looking to make the leap from Player to DM at some point, anything that drops prep time is a-okay by me.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Saracenus
    Adept Greytalker


    Joined: Nov 28, 2006
    Posts: 336
    Location: Barony of Trellwood, The Great Kingdom

    PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Vormaerin wrote:
    That is covered by simplifying *the rules*. Not by dumbing down the "fluff."

    If monsters are dumbed down to "five cool things" that's means every DM who wants to do more than have a five round combat needs to make it up from scratch. Harder, not easier. Why can't they say "This is what the monster typically does in a combat encounter. This is the sort of thing a monster might do in a non combat encounter? Oh right, there are no non combat encounters....
    <SNIP>


    Vormaerin,

    Lets get something straight right away. There will be no simplifying of the D&D rules. Anyone that tells you that 4e is going to be "simpler" is drinking the GenCon koolaide. Its not going to be a stripped down rule set.

    The intent is to streamline the rules so that whatever you want to do, you can do it quicker. So, the "dumbed down" 5 things a monster can do is a part of this mantra. But its not just striping down a monster, its making the monsters coherent and usable.

    In hindsight, Mike Mearls' column Monster Makeover was all about 4e development. Here is his thoughts on the Ogre Mage:
    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060721a

    I agree with him the Ogre Mage suffers from a lack of focus. This monster is the problem with 3e monster design writ large. While its great that the Ogre Mage can cast sleep its fluff that doesn't help it do its job and makes the listing for the creature more "complex" and larger... not in a good way.

    So, where you see dumb, I see clarity of purpose. Where you see condensation, I see them delivering me from confusion.

    My Two Coppers,

    Bryan Blumklotz
    AKA Saracenus
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
    GVDammerung
    Grandmaster Greytalker


    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446

    PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    I substantially agree with Vormaerin.

    Simplification, clarification particularly, and streamlining to avoid rules barriers and huge prep time are all fine but I sense 4e goes much farther than it needs to in order to accomplish these goals. Nothing better exemplifies this than the "roles" into which all PCs and monsters are being forced. If you like or agree with the roles, that's great but if you do not you will have to fight the rules to do more than fulfill your or a monster's "role."

    On the fluff side, we see a similar "channeling" taking place in support of the crunchy side "roles." Demons are mindless engines or destruction while devils are the clever ones. That is clearer, and simplier but much more confining to a DM, particularly a Greyhawk DM. Grazzt is a mindless engine of destruction? No. Just the opposite. And he is not lawful evil, at the same time. Clever chaotic lower planar types apparently won't exist in 4e. This is simplier but much more confining, to say nothing of messing with Greyhawk canon.

    I get what Wotc wants to accomplish but they are going about it with a blunt instrument when a scapel would have been sufficient.

    YMMV
    _________________
    GVD
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
    Vormaerin
    Master Greytalker


    Joined: Jan 05, 2004
    Posts: 666

    PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Guess it just depends on what you think a monster's job is. If its only real purpose is to be a temporary storage container for gore the PCs get to spread around after a few rounds, then the new design philosophy is spot on.

    If you want to be able to use creatures outside of that box, then its nice that they already come with "superfluous" abilities that suit such alternative uses. About the only thing I agreed with about that article was that its CR was wrong. But then I think CRs are almost totally worthless already.

    Comparing by how long a fighter takes to beat down a troll? Don't need another humanoid because we can just use orcs for everything? If the party of lvl 6 types can't counter invis in some way, the ogre mage will be annoying and might not turn into a gore pinata in the specified time frame so we better nerf the creature?

    Whatever.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    DavidBedlam
    Journeyman Greytalker


    Joined: Mar 30, 2007
    Posts: 161
    Location: Yorkshire, Britain

    PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

    Just because the powers that be say that a monster has to be used in a certain way doesn't mean that we have to use it that way. Last I heard we have free will. Wink

    So demons apparently have no concept of long range planning? Pffft! To the bin with that. (I always saw demon plans as being a series of short term goals and inspired improvisation anyway)

    So far with 4.0, I think the rules are going to be pretty good, but the fluff will be less than to out tastes.

    Now if only Wizards could show use some of the new rules.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic   Reply to topic    Canonfire Forum Index -> Greyhawk- D&D 4th Edition All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Goto page 1, 2  Next
    Page 1 of 2

    Jump to:  

    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum


    Canonfire phpBB2 theme by Jakob Persson (http://www.eddingschronicles.com).
    Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
    All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Stone textures by Patty Herford
    Ported for PHP-Nuke by nukemods.com
    Forums ©


    Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.32 Seconds