PDA

View Full Version : 4E Atmosphere



Dausuul
2007-09-26, 06:53 PM
One thing that I've noticed about 4th Edition, particularly with today's article on the new standard cosmology (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070926a), is a distinct shift in the overall "atmosphere" of D&D, away from the original, slightly science-fictiony, cosmopolitan flavor of Gygaxian D&D and toward a more mystical, high-fantasy feel. Fey, which were something of an afterthought in previous editions, now get a whole plane of their own. Likewise, the dead no longer traipse off to be distributed about the Great Wheel, but linger in a stygian shadow world for a while before they fade away forever. Elves are getting a makeover with a lot more forest wildness and a lot less secret door detection (at least, I'll be highly surprised if that bizarre 1E relic carries over). Pure elemental and energy planes are out, the Elemental Tempest is in. The whole "points of light" thing is very much at odds with heavily populated settings like the Forgotten Realms. And Vancian magic, with its quasi-technological overtones, is being, if not entirely eliminated, then scaled way the hell back.

Personally, I'm ecstatic over this. It's the exact feel I've been trying, with varying levels of success, to achieve in my own games for the last twenty years. For the first time ever, I'm planning to use the standard D&D cosmology for my game worlds instead of a homebrew one, and I might even keep the D&D races, too.

My personal feelings aside, it occurs to me that this may be an effort to broaden the appeal of the game. The old-school D&D setting and cosmology don't mesh thematically with much of anything outside of D&D. In fact, they don't even mesh with themselves, since so many people have tried to jam so many different themes into them over the years. The 4E setting seems like it may be a lot more accessible to people who love fantasy fiction (a HUGE demographic, at least judging by book sales) but who haven't tried RPGs.

What do other people think?

Dhavaer
2007-09-26, 06:55 PM
I like the sound of what you describe. I'll have ot have a look at the cosmology article.

Tallis
2007-09-26, 07:04 PM
I think they're heading in the right direction. I like the more mythological feel of it. I also think it should be less intimidating to newer players. Smaller realms within the 5 larger planes might also make it easier to mesh your own realms into the basic cosmology.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2007-09-26, 07:06 PM
I think I'm going to use both 3.5e and 4e in my Homebrew setting, but a different times.

Sorta, pre- and post-apocoliptic.

Green Bean
2007-09-26, 07:07 PM
I think they're heading in the right direction. I like the more mythological feel of it. I also think it should be less intimidating to newer players. Smaller realms within the 5 larger planes might also make it easier to mesh your own realms into the basic cosmology.

I agree. It seems more familiar somehow. People who have never heard of DnD will be familiar with the basics of mythology, and that'll make things easier for new players.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-26, 07:08 PM
It makes more sense too.

DraPrime
2007-09-26, 07:09 PM
I have to say that I definitely like the new atmosphere. The only thing that really annoys me about the cosmology is that the Abyss isn't a separate plane on it's own. It just makes them seem kind of...unequal to devils.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-26, 07:11 PM
I have to say that I definitely like the new atmosphere. The only thing that really annoys me about the cosmology is that the Abyss isn't a separate plane on it's own. It just makes them seem kind of...unequal to devils.

The devils may have their own home, but they are forever under house arrest too. Personally, I'd rather have freedom.

WaterToFire
2007-09-26, 07:15 PM
Devils don't have their own plane either, just a portion of the Astral Sea.

I'm hoping that there are at least a few other planes, as this cosmology looks a little bare. Also, I don't really like the way they seem to be handling the afterlife. I mean, the description they gave looks kind of depressing.

KIDS
2007-09-26, 07:15 PM
Reading the article I have to say that I like it and that your original post sums it up very good. More mystical, less defined, I hope that means more room for individual imagination amongst a collective idea. Overall I view this as a solid plus to 4E's side!!!

Mewtarthio
2007-09-26, 07:21 PM
True, the default 3.5 cosmology is a bit like some crazy soft sci-fi show, with "planes" replacing "planets."

Question, though: If somebody erects a structure in the Prime Material (if it even retains that name), what happens in Shadowmeld? I get this mental image of a horde of ghoulish construction workers carefully arranging bricks to make an analagous building that looks as desolate as possible ("Alright, guys, the lifeys are opening a new port by the delta, so I'll need a ruined lighthouse on that hill, some ominous empty port authority buildings over here, and a few shipwrecks out at sea").

Starsinger
2007-09-26, 07:23 PM
True, the default 3.5 cosmology is a bit like some crazy soft sci-fi show, with "planes" replacing "planets."

Question, though: If somebody erects a structure in the Prime Material (if it even retains that name), what happens in Shadowmeld? I get this mental image of a horde of ghoulish construction workers carefully arranging bricks to make an analagous building that looks as desolate as possible ("Alright, guys, the lifeys are opening a new port by the delta, so I'll need a ruined lighthouse on that hill, some ominous empty port authority buildings over here, and a few shipwrecks out at sea").

I rather imagine it just appears there as the building is constructed.

Dausuul
2007-09-26, 07:27 PM
I rather imagine it just appears there as the building is constructed.

My guess would be that the buildings appear in the Shadowfell some time after their counterparts are completed in the material plane. If I were DM, you'd never actually see a building pop into existence; you'd just turn your back and when you looked around again, it would be there. A watched plane never boils. :smallbiggrin:

Mike_Lemmer
2007-09-26, 07:27 PM
I'd say the Shadowmeld just starts manifesting potential futures in which everything around that place goes wrong.

Bassetking
2007-09-26, 07:32 PM
The devils may have their own home, but they are forever under house arrest too. Personally, I'd rather have freedom.

Oh... Oh this is SCRUMPTIOUS!

Don't you see?!

This separation... This distancing... It will END THE BLOOD WAR.

No more! No more Blood war! Hahahahha! Oh this is BRILLIANT! We can drop the Blood war whole cloth, and make way for the wars between Summer and Winter, as backed by the Dragons of Xorvintaal!

*Giant, idiotic, goofy grin*

This is a fantastic step in the right direction.

Mewtarthio
2007-09-26, 07:34 PM
Okay, I wasn't serious about the construction workers, but now that I think about it, the answer could be tied in to the whole "echo of our world idea." Maybe once a building's constructed, it sends "echoes" into the Shadowmeld, and an analogous building pops up there, too. Of course, the Shadowmeld is the land of death, and nothing's there to properly mantain the building (I imagine the plane's even got some sort of "hyper-entropy" power), so it quickly falls into disrepair. So, if you built a castle, you could hop on over to the Shadowmeld and see an ominous, empty castle (the whole "nothing alive here" schtick really helps, too). Hang around for a few weeks, and you can watch as the drawbridge rots away, towers crumble, and floors collapse before your very eyes.

The only downside is that engineers travelling to Shadowmeld to figure out flaws in their construction really hurts the mood.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-26, 07:34 PM
I hate saying this, but I'm starting to become vaguely optimistic about Fourth Edition.



*Starts banging fist against cheap wooden desk*

Starsinger
2007-09-26, 07:35 PM
Oh... Oh this is SCRUMPTIOUS!

Don't you see?!

This separation... This distancing... It will END THE BLOOD WAR.

No more! No more Blood war! Hahahahha! Oh this is BRILLIANT! We can drop the Blood war whole cloth, and make way for the wars between Summer and Winter, as backed by the Dragons of Xorvintaal!

*Giant, idiotic, goofy grin*

This is a fantastic step in the right direction.

YAY! I was never particularly fond of the blood war.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-26, 07:37 PM
Actually, that means a new encarnation of the war, with guerilla tactics. And I really couldnae care less about the planes, but about the hints dropped:

1) An eladrin's tower....This more or less settles the dispute. Eladrins are gonna be the magicky race, simply.

2) A shadar kai lord... what could they be?

3)A raven queen.... bye bye lloth, possibly? there can only be one queen, as things have gone.

4) The elemental chaos and shadowland. Common elemental planes and postive are merged, and shadow and negative are merged too. Good idea, they were kinda redundant. And githzerai'll be back, but not Limbo.


5)The tower of........VECNA! HELL YEAH! The greatest Lich returns. I can't wait to create a shadow Kas to recreate that epic battle. Something tells me we're gonna see a new superpower 'round the parts.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-26, 07:39 PM
Also, I don't really like the way they seem to be handling the afterlife. I mean, the description they gave looks kind of depressing.

At least it's not WoD. "Depending on which supplements you're using, you're either permanently dead without hope of resurrection, are now a slavering member of the undead, or doomed to be sucked into a horrible void of Oblivion after having your psyche devoured by your Id."

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-26, 07:45 PM
Eeh, but that gives a time limit for resurrection. And it also means the explanation for the numbers of outsiders not rapidly waning will be fishy. What do they do, venture to shadowland to get souls?


BTW, what d'you guys think about Vecna and points 3 and 4 of my previous post?

Kyeudo
2007-09-26, 07:48 PM
I worry how the new mechanics and style will alter Eberron. Eberron has alot of magic tech that just doesn't jive with the new "points of light" style. I'm hopeful that they can mesh the two though, as fluff is infinitely mutable and I don't see the crunch protesting.

As for construction on the Shadowfell, I see it something like this: On the real world, construction worker lays first brick. On Shadowfell, when no one is particularly looking or caring about the equivalent location, a brick pops up, only its as worn and degraded as if its spent 50 years at the spot, so it shows up crumbled into unrecognizability. As the real world building is built, the Shadowfell alters, each time presenting a mirror of the real building, only aged into decriptitude.

Starsinger
2007-09-26, 07:48 PM
Eeh, but that gives a time limit for resurrection. And it also means the explanation for the numbers of outsiders not rapidly waning will be fishy. What do they do, venture to shadowland to get souls?


BTW, what d'you guys think about Vecna and points 3 and 4 of my previous post?

There always was a time limit for resurrction? I mean sure.. a cleric with like a million epic levels could resurrect someone who died centuries ago.. but that's hardly practical.

As for Vecna, I'm glad he's back. He was my favorite of the D&D pantheon, but I hope Pelor steps up as the head of the evil deities, like he obviously is in 3.5

Dhavaer
2007-09-26, 07:50 PM
2) A shadar kai lord... what could they be?

Shadar-kai are shadow fey.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-26, 07:56 PM
Cool. Shadowfey. Best of both worlds.

My beef with the "fade to black" (sorry, Metallica connosieur) idea, is that it doesn't seem like "You wait X years till some superpowerful cleric revs you". It seems more like "you have 3 days till death. You better get whopping rich, 'cause no one will pay your rez if you don't".


And by the way, the outsider thing seems fishier the more I look at it. But maybe.....Outsiders can finally reproduce? Between themselves, of course. But I imagine a cross of the new demons and a human will be truly frightening and...ACK! the thought of a demon and human mating has entered my head!

Kyeudo
2007-09-26, 07:58 PM
There always was a time limit for resurrction? I mean sure.. a cleric with like a million epic levels could resurrect someone who died centuries ago.. but that's hardly practical.

As for Vecna, I'm glad he's back. He was my favorite of the D&D pantheon, but I hope Pelor steps up as the head of the evil deities, like he obviously is in 3.5

The simplest way around the ressurection time limit is that meat locker in Races of the Dragon. Things placed in there don't decay, so they effectively haven't had a single day pass for the purposes of ressurection.

Vecna was always the coolest evil diety, as he had the most believable portfolio.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-26, 08:00 PM
That, and he was Vance. JACK VANCE, the guy who invented the prismatic spray. And the problem with rez is, even with that locker, your SPIRIT will fade away and there's no recovering that. That, and D&D seems to be turning darker, emoish.

Draz74
2007-09-26, 08:03 PM
Yeah, I like what they're doing here ... except for how much it "copies" what I was already planning for my homebrew setting cosmology. :smalltongue: Oh well, I can still do some things differently ...

Dhavaer
2007-09-26, 08:04 PM
Doe anyone else think that ressurection will open a portal to the shadow-world, allowing your party members to go in and rescue you? That sounds like more fun than just spell+diamonds, and it could scale with level.

Hurlbut
2007-09-26, 08:05 PM
I worry how the new mechanics and style will alter Eberron. Eberron has alot of magic tech that just doesn't jive with the new "points of light" style. I'm hopeful that they can mesh the two though, as fluff is infinitely mutable and I don't see the crunch protesting.

The points of light is just for the "default" settings of the 4E.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-26, 08:06 PM
That's actually a faux pass. If you have to rescue dead guys, things'll go like this:

"Well, Mirier is dead, we gotta go rescue him. Ready to spend two sessions on a quest we'll have to do a massive amount of times? *players groan*".

PMDM
2007-09-26, 08:07 PM
This is great. The etheral plane and the shadow plane were having a hard time being different. So they took out the etheral. The Nature plane is something many DMs have wanted for years. Now they have it. It represents the life/death dualitiy with the shadow plane really well. I can see 1 big elemental plane working. Let's face it, many times the borderline elemental planes (lightning, ice, vacuum, etc.) were an easy way to allow physical travel to another plane, without a stupid hole in the sky/wall. I'm glad they adapted Limbo to a different plane. I think it works better than the other pure chaos plane. I need to have my out planes though. If I don't have a good alternative to Limbo, I will explode. Overall, this doesn't have many impacts in my game. Yet. I have to read the whole cosmology write up to be sure.

Tren
2007-09-26, 08:16 PM
The way I see their statements about the dead fading away doesn't necessarily preclude the setup that currently exists, where souls of the dead lose their sense of identity and are reborn as outsiders on their respective deity's plane of existence. Or I suppose in this case their deity's domain on the astral sea.

Fizban
2007-09-26, 08:20 PM
Doe anyone else think that ressurection will open a portal to the shadow-world, allowing your party members to go in and rescue you? That sounds like more fun than just spell+diamonds, and it could scale with level.

"Alright troops, let's go in there and get that soul! GO GO GO GO GO!"

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-26, 08:23 PM
Actually, that might be the long awaited noncheesy use of leadership.

"hokay, 169 peasants, head for shadowland. You'll be slaughtered, but one of you'll manage to bring Mirier back and we'll be able to skip two fruitless sessions!"

"aye aye, cap'n!".

Starsinger
2007-09-26, 08:24 PM
Like the Void card from the deck of many things?


The Void

This black card spells instant disaster. The character’s body continues to function, as though comatose, but her psyche is trapped in a prison somewhere—in an object on a far plane or planet, possibly in the possession of an outsider. A wish or a miracle does not bring the character back, instead merely revealing the plane of entrapment. Draw no more cards.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-26, 08:31 PM
Like this:

The Void

This black card spells instant disaster. The character’s body continues to function, as though comatose, but her psyche is trapped in a prison somewhere—in an object on a far plane or planet, possibly in the possession of an outsider. A wish or a miracle does not bring the character back, instead merely revealing the plane of entrapment. You have a week to get the psyche back, else, it's lost forever. Draw no more cards.


Look after entrapment.

Tallis
2007-09-26, 08:36 PM
Also, I don't really like the way they seem to be handling the afterlife. I mean, the description they gave looks kind of depressing.

I would say it's based largely on Greek mythology. That's pretty much the way they saw it.

Tallis
2007-09-26, 08:39 PM
3)A raven queen.... bye bye lloth, possibly? there can only be one queen, as things have gone.

I didn't notice anything that connected the Raven Queen with the drow. I see no reason to think one would have any effect on the other.

Tren
2007-09-26, 08:42 PM
I'd imagine Lolth would have her own domain on the astral sea.

Tallis
2007-09-26, 08:48 PM
I worry how the new mechanics and style will alter Eberron. Eberron has alot of magic tech that just doesn't jive with the new "points of light" style. I'm hopeful that they can mesh the two though, as fluff is infinitely mutable and I don't see the crunch protesting.

Didn't Eberron already have a seperate cosmology from the rest of the D&D settings already? Don't see why a change in the base cosmology would matter.

I have to say I'm perfectly happy to see the Blood War go. I never used it anyway though, so I guess it won't really have an impact on my game regardless.

kpenguin
2007-09-26, 08:54 PM
I would say it's based largely on Greek mythology. That's pretty much the way they saw it.

Well, maybe for the general area where the dead went, but I seem to remember that the really vile people were locked away in Tartarus and the really good people were rewarded with Elysium. Also, I remember some sort of well where people would drink to lose their memories and return to life.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-26, 08:55 PM
I have to say I'm perfectly happy to see the Blood War go.

"Don't make me separate you two! I swear to Gygax, Orcus, I will put you on the elemental planes if this fighting keeps up."

Rockphed
2007-09-26, 08:56 PM
Although I have exactly 1, yes 1, use for the blood war, I really don't mind that it is leaving. If I need that scenario to happen, I will just get a bunch of Balors cheesed off at some Pit fiends. Nice and easy...

Mewtarthio
2007-09-26, 09:10 PM
If I need that scenario to happen, I will just get a bunch of Balors cheesed off at some Pit fiends. Nice and easy...

Wouldn't that be like a gang walking into a prison to beat up the inmates?

Mephisto
2007-09-26, 09:32 PM
And by the way, the outsider thing seems fishier the more I look at it. But maybe.....Outsiders can finally reproduce? Between themselves, of course. But I imagine a cross of the new demons and a human will be truly frightening and...ACK! the thought of a demon and human mating has entered my head!

So tieflings and half-fiend humans are spontaneously generated? I think cross-breeding was always possible.

Guildorn Tanaleth
2007-09-26, 09:34 PM
Well, maybe for the general area where the dead went, but I seem to remember that the really vile people were locked away in Tartarus and the really good people were rewarded with Elysium. Also, I remember some sort of well where people would drink to lose their memories and return to life.

After spending a thousand years in Hades, one's soul drank from the river Lethe, forgot everything (making the previous millenium essentially pointless), and became reincarnated. At least, that's how it went in the Roman version.

Rockphed
2007-09-26, 09:35 PM
Wouldn't that be like a gang walking into a prison to beat up the inmates?

More like some inmates breaking out of prison just to beat up a gang that has been throwing rotten produce at the bars.

Bosh
2007-09-26, 10:08 PM
It seems that 4e is killing off a lot of the idiosyncratic D&D flavor and replacing it with more standard mythological/high fantasy flavor. For me this is a great thing since I always homebrew a lot of new stuff in and I'd rather have stuff that matches the mythologies I'm drawing from rather than Gygax's brain.

I like it that death is a bit more depressing in this edition, it makes there be more of a reason for people to go to extreme lengths to avoid it (liches). It seems that there are also ways for exceptional people to live on the nature, elmental and astral planes. Maybe great heroes would live in he astral plane after their death, kind of like the separation between Hel and Asgard in Viking mythology?

For shadowfel construction, I'd probably have a mix of ruined cities that were long ago rebuilt and hideous mockeries of current buildings. For example for the real world, Hiroshima would look just like it did after the atomic bomb was dropped, San Francisco right like it was after the big earthquake etc. etc.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-26, 10:10 PM
Or you can go the old way, and starting from level 15, there's a chance that, if you get inside a mage tower, you might find the infamous "scrolls of eternity", which give eternal youth and clinical immortality.

Bosh
2007-09-26, 11:42 PM
Or you can go the old way, and starting from level 15, there's a chance that, if you get inside a mage tower, you might find the infamous "scrolls of eternity", which give eternal youth and clinical immortality.

Bah, that's too easy. Much much too easy.

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-27, 12:02 AM
Oh... Oh this is SCRUMPTIOUS!

Don't you see?!

This separation... This distancing... It will END THE BLOOD WAR.
And the fiends will take over the multiverse. Brilliant.

There's no good reason to change it. The Blood War was fine where it was and the planes were fine how they were. Changing things because you can with no other reason is stupidity at its worst.

Bosh
2007-09-27, 12:31 AM
And the fiends will take over the multiverse. Brilliant.

There's no good reason to change it. The Blood War was fine where it was and the planes were fine how they were. Changing things because you can with no other reason is stupidity at its worst.

Well the old wheel cosmology is sort of a strangely twisted Moorecock cosmology. And Moorecock, while a fairly interesting writer, isn't too popular anymore so the sort of Law vs. Chaos stuff that D&D took from his writings don't really resonate with players so much. Basically D&D cosmology doesn't fit at all with the sort of fantasy most D&D players read these days or the sort of homebrew that most people cook up. Basically what WotC seems to be doing is taking a lot of stuff that people were playing with anyway or homebrewing anyway and make it canon, which I'm liking more and more. Basically home many people would like to adventure in some kind of fey dimension vs. a plane of pure law with lots of dice-shaped critters? One fits the sort of things that a lot of D&D players think about when it comes to fantasy, one doesn't.

illathid
2007-09-27, 12:33 AM
Woah, woah, woah... Slow down. People don't like the Blood War? Really? When I started getting into the planar adventures (not necessarily planescape) I thought the Blood War was one the cooler things that was given mention.

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-27, 12:36 AM
Woah, woah, woah... Slow down. People don't like the Blood War? Really? When I started getting into the planar adventures (not necessarily planescape) I thought the Blood War was one the cooler things that was given mention.
That's because it is. I don't know what's the matter with all these jokers.

:smalltongue:

Driderman
2007-09-27, 12:55 AM
I think the Blood War is positively awesome and most of the (rather few) games I DM involve it, or repercussions of it, in one form or another.
That being said, the old D&D cosmology was rather screwed up so this 4E sounds like a nice change, a good way of streamlining it and giving it a more "realistic" feel. If I need a Blood War, I got it all in my head anyway :)

As for the afterlife being depressing.... Well how would you feel about being dead?

Bosh
2007-09-27, 01:01 AM
That's because it is. I don't know what's the matter with all these jokers.

:smalltongue:

I think what's going on is that I'm loving these changes because its making D&D cosmology more generic and you're hating these changes because its making D&D cosmology more generic.

For example:

I'm going to run a Norse campaign with 4ed. OK Feywild = Alfar, Elemental Maelstorm = Muspelheim and Niflheim, Hel = Shadowfell, Asgard can be off in the astral with the rainbow bridge. All I got to homebrew is a big old tree to stick it all together.

I'm going to run a Norse campaign in 1/2/3ed. OK, what the hell am I going to do with this wheel? Gah!

Zincorium
2007-09-27, 01:03 AM
The bloodwar was awesome....

...In a planescape campaign. My 2nd edition group never used it anywhere else, because it didn't make much sense unless you were looking at the big picture, which is what planescape did well. We also didn't have the plane of mechanus and slaads pop up except as summoned creatures.

In 3.5, they for some reason decided to keep it as the standard way of going about things, regardless of the fact that it fundamentally doesn't matter for the average game. I welcome a new way of looking at it that does not require explaining half of an out-of-print campaign setting to explain what's going on.

Bassetking
2007-09-27, 01:16 AM
And the fiends will take over the multiverse. Brilliant.

There's no good reason to change it. The Blood War was fine where it was and the planes were fine how they were. Changing things because you can with no other reason is stupidity at its worst.

So, you've got the Prime Material Plane, which directly connects to, and is surrounded by a twelve-pointed sphere which bisects two additional planes. The sphere is comprised of the four elemental planes: Air, Water, Fire, and Earth. These form the four main "Quadrants" of the sphere surrounding the prime material. These are further divided as they interact with each other, giving rise to the paraelemental planes of Smoke (Air and Fire), Ice (Air and Water), Ooze (Earth and Water), and Magma (Fire and Earth).

Now, beyond that, the sphere comprising the four elemental spheres and the Prime Material sphere is further divided; bisected, by the Positive and Negative energy planes, giving rise to a primary six.

Where these energy planes interact with the representitive elemental planes, an additional eight planes are added, as the Quasielemental planes. At the intersection of the Positive Energy Plane and the planes of Air, Earth, Fire, and Water are Lightning, Minerals, Radiance, and Steam. Around the Negative Energy Planes are Vacuum, Dust, Ash, and Salt.

(1) Prime Material + (4) Elemental + (2) Energy + (4) Paraelemental + (8) Quasielemental =...

Nineteen planes, and we're not even getting started yet...

Moving onward! The outer planes! Physical representations of the domains of ideas and gods, home to outsiders, and primarily hinging on the four-spoked alignment system to give rise to their positions, and are arranged along a sliding scale upon each axis of the scale. There are seventeen in all, including the neutral realm of the Outlands, home to the hub of the wheel, Sigil, city of doors. Clockwise from the upper Right, starting with the extreme LG:

Celestia, Bytopia, Elysium, Beastlands, Arborea, Ysgard, Limbo, Pandemonium, Abyss, Carceri, Hades, Gehenna, Baator, Archeron, Mechanus, Arcadia.

Each of these planes is divided further into realms and layers.

Nineteen and Seventeen... Thirty six planes, and we're not done yet.

We have the Far Realm, we have the Astral Plane, we have the Ethereal Plane, we have the Shadow Plane, we have the Mirror Plane, we have the Temporal Plane, and we have the Phlogiston.

43, and still going!

We have Demiplanes! Most notably, the Demiplane of Dread, Ravenloft, but there are others! We'll just count Ravenloft, as I'm feeling generous on that account.

44.

44 planes, not including or counting the realms or layers there within.

Now, we move on to the fun bits.

Some of these planes are Coterminous. There's a defined border between the Elemental Plane of Fire, and the Elemental Plane of Earth. Some of these planes, however, are Coexistant. See the Prime Material and the Ethereal. Some are Coterminal on one side of a Coexistant plane, and Coexistant on the other side. This segues us tidily into the last portion here...

Portals.

See, each and every plane has a way to get there. Some realms, layers, and demiplanes have distinct and unique means to reach them, or certain specific portions of them; many of which are only accessable to individuals who are already on a specific access plane. The only way to get to the second layer of Graz't's three layer domain is to approach from the layer above.

So, we have 44 different planes, all of which have separate and unique rules of physics, magic, divinity, energy use, food consumption, not to mention social culture and interaction. All of which require unique and specific methods and means to gain entry not to mention freely traverse.

And the simplification of this snarled jumble multi-generational mish-mash is bad because we're "Changing it just for the sake of change"?

The chance to toss out the hopelessly entrenched and tangled Planar Cartography that has encumbered D&D is reason enough!

The ability to simplify Planar layouts to the point that GMs and Players are readily able and enthusiastic about making use of the existing model? Another BRILLIANT reason.

The ability to move beyond material written ten to twenty years ago and finally see some new, fresh ideas and core storylines be introduced? Something tasty and sharp, not re-hashing the Drow, or the Age of Worms, or the Tearing of the Weave... Something that can let 4th ed. Stand up and say "THIS... THIS is what you're going to think of when you say my name." Best reason I've heard yet to chuck the blood war out on its ear and make a fresh start of things.

Starsinger
2007-09-27, 01:24 AM
*planar spiel*

BRAVO!! Also I like your new sig

illathid
2007-09-27, 01:36 AM
Ok, so I get that you don't like the "snarled jumble multi-generational mish-mash" that is the great wheel, as it's overly complicated. But that still doesn't explain why you don't like the Blood War. What exactly is it about the Blood War that you don't like? I'm mean an eternal war fought between two groups of fiends, that is encouraged by interested other parties for fear that were the fiends to work together, it would mean doom for the entirety of creation, whats not to like? :smallwink:

Bosh
2007-09-27, 01:45 AM
Ok, so I get that you don't like the "snarled jumble multi-generational mish-mash" that is the great wheel, as it's overly complicated. But that still doesn't explain why you don't like the Blood War. What exactly is it about the Blood War that you don't like? I'm mean an eternal war fought between two groups of fiends, that is encouraged by interested other parties for fear that were the fiends to work together, it would mean doom for the entirety of creation, whats not to like? :smallwink:
Its plenty cool for a specific setting like Planescape but I don't think it belongs in the default setting. Too specific and doesn't really resonate with much non-D&D fantasy. It'd rather have D&D be more easily portable and less idiosyncratic.

Equlan
2007-09-27, 01:49 AM
I, for one, am going to miss the Planescapey feel I would occasionally get from 3.x... *sniffle*

However, I agree that, judging from what has been said here (I have yet to read the article), there is a lot of potential in this new stuff. And also that it most likely be easier for new players to get into. Still, I managed to get into the old cosmology, and I've only been interested in D&D since I bought Baldur's Gate II, and subsequently 3rd ed.

Edea
2007-09-27, 01:53 AM
As for the afterlife being depressing.... Well how would you feel about being dead?

My opinion: It's not so much that, more like "Since there's so little chance of this character being revived if killed, and there's a more-than-even chance that he'll die before getting very far in his/her career, I'm not going to waste any time writing a backstory for him/her, and play as if this was just a collection of numbers and abilities."

I also would always play an evil character in that system; who cares, since all souls end up disappearing anyway? Let's kill and loot at will!

It's the metagame that suffers IMO. SO, I get the feeling Shadowfell isn't going to become quite what the article writer is making it out to be. Perhaps all -evil- souls go there to disappear, or perhaps worse :smallbiggrin: .

AslanCross
2007-09-27, 01:53 AM
This does feel like it makes more sense, and I find the idea of the Abyss being in a specific place more believable than 666+ layers floating in a large amount of evil nothing. I'm not really too fond of the afterlife, though--I did like the idea of petitioners.

illathid
2007-09-27, 01:59 AM
Its plenty cool for a specific setting like Planescape but I don't think it belongs in the default setting. Too specific and doesn't really resonate with much non-D&D fantasy. It'd rather have D&D be more easily portable and less idiosyncratic.

You never read any of Moorcock's Eternal Champion series then? Granted that's somewhat different, as it's just law versus chaos, but still.

So it's too setting specific? Then should we not have any interaction among the various monsters in D&D? For example, should we toss out the whole "the githyanki/zerai are the former slaves/experiments of the mind flayers" shtick as well? Thats pretty specific and idiosyncratic as well.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to say that's anyone's personal preferences are bad or anything, I'm just try to get at the underlying reason why you believe as you do. So I apologize if I seem overly argumentative. I'm reading some articles on Pyrrhonian skepticism right now, and it's seeping into my writing.

ASCIISkull
2007-09-27, 02:10 AM
Something tasty and sharp, not re-hashing the Drow, or the Age of Worms, or the Tearing of the Weave... Something that can let 4th ed. Stand up and say "THIS... THIS is what you're going to think of when you say my name."

"THIS... THIS is world of darkness for the pokemon crowd!"

Driderman
2007-09-27, 02:13 AM
My opinion: It's not so much that, more like "Since there's so little chance of this character being revived if killed, and there's a more-than-even chance that he'll die before getting very far in his/her career, I'm not going to waste any time writing a backstory for him/her, and play as if this was just a collection of numbers and abilities."

I also would always play an evil character in that system; who cares, since all souls end up disappearing anyway? Let's kill and loot at will!

It's the metagame that suffers IMO. SO, I get the feeling Shadowfell isn't going to become quite what the article writer is making it out to be. Perhaps all -evil- souls go there to disappear, or perhaps worse :smallbiggrin: .

Well that all depends on your style of play I suppose. Even though I've played D&D since 2nd edition, I have never seen a character raised, resurrected or reincarnated in any of the games I've played in. We've always dealt with death much more permanently, to 'keep it real' so to speak.
This didn't mean that we didn't write background stories or we all played evil characters, it meant that we were genuinely careful and attached to our characters, since we had to keep them alive by our own wits, not by paying generic NPCs to 'respawn' them, making their accomplishments all the more impressive.
As for the evil part... I'm not sure I understand your reasoning: You feel it would be more fun playing an evil character because you know as a player that dead people don't go to "heaven"?

Bosh
2007-09-27, 02:27 AM
You never read any of Moorcock's Eternal Champion series then? Granted that's somewhat different, as it's just law versus chaos, but still.
Right a 1st edition was largely a mix of Moorcock, Vance, Gygax's brain, whatever was popular in the 70's, Tolkien, history and myth. This mix is very unique which often makes it hard for D&D to emulate any kind of fantasy aside from D&D fantasy. 4ed designers seem to be jettisoning a lot of the Gygaxian/D&D-specific stuff and giving Moorcock, Vance and the 70's stuff the boot as well because they're really not as popular any more (despite being interesting writers) and they're really not the sort of thing that people who get into RPGing are looking for. I like Moorcock, but none of my players have any real interest in sitting down and playing a part in a multiverse-spanning war between Law and Chaos. I think this can be seen in how contentious the definitions of Law and Chaos have become, you can't just say, "Its just like in the Elric books" because most people haven't read them.

Basically if 4ed reduces the influence of Gygax, Moorcock, Vance and Tolkien (to at least some extend, it'd be impossible/undesireable to fully de-Tolkienize D&D) and instead focus on the basic common mythological/historical underpinnings of fantasy I'd be more happier since those sources of inspiration are much more generic and much easier to port into a variety of homebrew settings. This is what I see the Cosmology article doing and that's why I'm liking it a lot. Things like primeveal chaos, fey and shadowy land of the dead are vastly easier to port into different settings than para-elemental planes, blood wars and cosmic wheels.


So it's too setting specific? Then should we not have any interaction among the various monsters in D&D? For example, should we toss out the whole "the githyanki/zerai are the former slaves/experiments of the mind flayers" shtick as well? Thats pretty specific and idiosyncratic as well.
I've never had githyanki/zerai or mindflayers in my games or much else in the way of D&D-specific critters, like the more generic/mythological ones better. But then monster selection isn't a big deal, its very easy to choose which monsters to include and which not to include in your campaign, its a good bit harder to choose how the universe is structured.


Disclaimer: I'm not trying to say that's anyone's personal preferences are bad or anything, I'm just try to get at the underlying reason why you believe as you do. So I apologize if I seem overly argumentative. I'm reading some articles on Pyrrhonian skepticism right now, and it's seeping into my writing.
Well we're looking for different things. You're looking for D&D rules that are tied into D&D flavor. I don't much like D&D flavor and would rather write my own so I want rules that fit with generic/mythological/universal concepts in fantasy rather than more specific ones. When I play D&D I want the players to feel like they're having a fantasy adventure, not be playing D&D if that makes any sense.


I also would always play an evil character in that system; who cares, since all souls end up disappearing anyway? Let's kill and loot at will!
Well until quite late in the classical era the afterlife wasn't really the focus of religion AT ALL. Why did a lot of Greek not go around killing and looting at will despite believing that pretty much everyone would go to Hades no matter what?

Jack Mann
2007-09-27, 02:29 AM
I also would always play an evil character in that system; who cares, since all souls end up disappearing anyway? Let's kill and loot at will!

The implication of this statement is that there is no reason to be "good" beyond the system of reward and punishment. I do not agree. I believe that ethical behavior (and a functional society that comes with it) is reward enough. I think that most people would agree with me. Would you really be evil if there was no one watching you? Is a fear of divine (or earthly) retribution the only thing keeping you in check?

Unless you mean only in the context of your characters. In which case I have to wonder why fear of a fictional afterlife would sway your character design choices.

For my part, I don't think that the souls cease existing, based on the article. They're simply "beyond all ken." To me, it implies a situation much like our own, real world, situation. We don't know where we end up when we die (though naturally we have many theories and beliefs on the subject). I suspect it will be much the same in this new cosmology.

Matthew
2007-09-27, 02:31 AM
I'm not really seeing it, guys. It just looks like they added on 'the land of winter' and 'the land of summer'. Where are people getting the additional information about dwindling souls ([Edit]Ah right, found it, but disappearing beyond all ken doesn't mean much) and the end of the Blood War? Is it on a blog somewhere or did they change the articles again?

Oh well, looks like they stole some of my ideas (kidding, but eerily close to my home brew cosmology), mixed it up with some ideas I don't like and some bad art from WoW. Anyway, they must be doing something rightto get all these positive reactions!

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of distinguishing clearly between Devils and Demons. I always wanted to do away with the distinction and make the Blood War even more chaotic in nature, which was relatively easy prior to this. Still, it's no big deal, it's not like my Home Brew cosmology is going to change any and if I play 4e with 4e Adventures and Settings, I'll just conform to the guidelines.

Jack Mann
2007-09-27, 02:34 AM
I'm not really seeing it, guys. It just looks like they added on 'the land of winter' and 'the land of summer'. Where are people getting the additional information about dwindling souls and the end of the Blood War? Is it on a blog somewhere or did they change the articles again?

They mentioned the Blood War as something that muddied the waters on demon/devil distinction, and have mentioned that devils are trapped in the Nine Hells, which suggests that the Blood War won't be part of the standard cosmology. Of course, nothing prevents people from rekindling the Blood War in their own campaigns.

As for the dwindling of souls, it says in the cosmology article, "the spirits of the deceased linger for a time in a dark reflection of their previous lives before silently fading beyond all ken."

Matthew
2007-09-27, 02:36 AM
Yeah, I see that bit about disappearing beyond all ken, now, but I don't think that means much, except we don't know their ultimate fate for certain. Ambiguous afterlife is my guess.

Starsinger
2007-09-27, 02:39 AM
Yeah, I see that bit about disappearing beyond all ken, now, but I don't think that means much, except we don't know their ultimate fate for certain. Ambiguous afterlife is my guess.

Indeed. Perhaps, there are still after-life planes, but like in real life, you don't know they exist, it's a faith thing.

Also.. presumably, unlike standard D&D where it's possible to pop off to Celestia and say hi to your dead great-great-great-grandmother, in this place, the after-life planes aren't mentioned because the living cannot travel there.

And Hey Matthew! I haven't seen your name around here for a bit (as far as I remember). :smallsmile:

Jack Mann
2007-09-27, 02:58 AM
Yeah, I see that bit about disappearing beyond all ken, now, but I don't think that means much, except we don't know their ultimate fate for certain. Ambiguous afterlife is my guess.

Indeed. That's my conclusion as well. *Points to his earlier post*

Bosh
2007-09-27, 03:44 AM
The way I'd homebrew the afterlife is for Shadowfell to be the default afterlife but there be a variety of different options for exceptional people.

Become a god's champion in life? Get taken to his astral hideout by his minions when you die to spend the after life partying.

Make too many deals with devils? Get dragged off to spend eternity in the Nine Hells.

Spen to long in the feywild? You can never go home again.

Etc. Etc.

Matthew
2007-09-27, 04:03 AM
Indeed. Perhaps, there are still after-life planes, but like in real life, you don't know they exist, it's a faith thing.

Also.. presumably, unlike standard D&D where it's possible to pop off to Celestia and say hi to your dead great-great-great-grandmother, in this place, the after-life planes aren't mentioned because the living cannot travel there.

Yeah, probably all for the good.


Indeed. That's my conclusion as well. *Points to his earlier post*

Oh yeah, a page of posts appeared between my pressing the Reply and Post buttons for this Thread and I have to admit I skimmed over some segments... well, in any case, great minds think alike and all that!


And Hey Matthew! I haven't seen your name around here for a bit (as far as I remember). :smallsmile:

I'm pretty busy at the moment, so I have had to cut back my on my Forum habit for the forseeable future. I'm also frequenting Dragonsfoot (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/index.php?sid=2f1e8eae8421254150bdec8c774cccaf) and Knights & Knaves (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/index.php) a bit more these days, as the OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord Licenses are supporting the bulk of my D&D interest. They'll never have much in the way of market penetration, but I can't deny my preferences.
Actually, I have been in London this week and I was thrilled to see two OSRIC compatable Adventures in Forbidden Planet - The Red Mausoleum and The Curse of the Witch's Head. I would love to see more indie stuff like that happening.
Anyway, I'm still popping into GitP now and again, even if just to check out the latest responses to 4e!

Dausuul
2007-09-27, 05:33 AM
You never read any of Moorcock's Eternal Champion series then? Granted that's somewhat different, as it's just law versus chaos, but still.

Actually, I think the old cosmology would have worked better if it were genuinely and exclusively Law versus Chaos, the way it was in Classic D&D. The problem is that AD&D tried to cram in Good versus Evil as well, and you can't really have two supreme all-encompassing philosophical conflicts in the same setting.

I kind of liked the Blood War, but if sacrificing it is the price of getting rid of the Great Wheel, I'll pay it happily.


So it's too setting specific? Then should we not have any interaction among the various monsters in D&D? For example, should we toss out the whole "the githyanki/zerai are the former slaves/experiments of the mind flayers" shtick as well? Thats pretty specific and idiosyncratic as well.

It is, but it's also limited to those specific critters. Mind flayers and the gith races are a self-contained element. If you don't like mind flayers in your world and decide to take them out, it doesn't affect anything else. However, demons/devils/the Lower Planes are much harder to just take away, because they have roots sunk into the whole system.

Mind you, I'll bet mind flayers get a major makeover too.


Yeah, I see that bit about disappearing beyond all ken, now, but I don't think that means much, except we don't know their ultimate fate for certain. Ambiguous afterlife is my guess.

It's addressing the problem of "Oh, my friend is dead and can't be resurrected? Okay, well, I'll just pop off to the Seven Heavens and bring him back with me, then." 3E had the same thing with the petitioners and the slow absorption into the plane, but I think the Shadowfell is a more elegant solution. What actually happens to the souls after they vanish from the Shadowfell? Nobody knows, all anyone knows is they go away and don't come back.

One thing I do wonder about is whether there will be an effort to make resurrection more of an optional element in 4E campaigns. In 3E, it's hard to excise resurrection from a high-level campaign, because so many things just flat-out kill you on a single failed save. Kind of irritating if you're not a fan of the revolving door afterlife.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-27, 05:58 AM
Here's the funny thing. They're trying to make the planes-hopping element more appealing. To people who really wouldn't have gone to the planes in the first place. I really don't have much argument with that. What I do have an argument with, is making the demons and devils so distinct as to be identifiable on sight. The similarities between them were what made the Blood War more intriguing. "I looked into the eyes of mine enemies, and I saw myself in them." "There but for the grace, go I." All that sort of jazz. It works. Or as they say, "If it ain't broke, don't bankrupt it.":smalltongue:

Starsinger
2007-09-27, 06:02 AM
Here's the funny thing. They're trying to make the planes-hopping element more appealing. To people who really wouldn't have gone to the planes in the first place. I really don't have much argument with that. What I do have an argument with, is making the demons and devils so distinct as to be identifiable on sight. The similarities between them were what made the Blood War more intriguing. "I looked into the eyes of mine enemies, and I saw myself in them." "There but for the grace, go I." All that sort of jazz. It works. Or as they say, "If it ain't broke, don't bankrupt it.":smalltongue:

But the blood war is sort of an excuse for why demons and devils aren't rampantly invading the material plane, isn't it? "Well.. most demons and devils are busy beating each other up... so there's not that many here."

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-27, 06:20 AM
But the blood war is sort of an excuse for why demons and devils aren't rampantly invading the material plane, isn't it? "Well.. most demons and devils are busy beating each other up... so there's not that many here."

Naw. Plenty of Demons and Devils are busy winning the "hearts and minds"(sometimes literally) of mortals on the PMP. Demons especially, while formed from the "stuff of the Abyss", require more souls to form said "stuff of the Abyss". You do of course need some behind to defend, but that's besides the point. If you bring things to such a state that it's literally Hell on Abeir-Toril/Eberron/Oerth, it will become near impossible to acquire new souls, since it's much harder for a Demon to convert a Devil(and vice versa), compared to a mortal.

Edit: That and the demons, especially, enjoy mixing it up every now and then, thereby forcing the Devils to devote at least a little effort to defense.

mostlyharmful
2007-09-27, 06:25 AM
I never really got the whole "if they weren't fighting each other they'd take over the universe" idea, they're all evilllll. meaning they naturally don't play well together, just look at devil and demon internal politics. So what we really needed was a reason why all the naturally good and powerful and infinate outsiders don't grow up, team up whatever their Chaos-Lawful breakdown and conquer the universe.

For all those who still want the blood war it's very easy to add in that the "seed of evil" that was thrown into the maelstrom is the powersource Asmodeus used to overthrow his devine supperior, which means there's an enduring connection between the Abyss and the Nine Hells, which means slavering loons turn up in the nice tidy confines of the Devils prison to mess up the furniture and scuff the carpet:smallfurious:

Dausuul
2007-09-27, 07:15 AM
What I do have an argument with, is making the demons and devils so distinct as to be identifiable on sight. The similarities between them were what made the Blood War more intriguing. "I looked into the eyes of mine enemies, and I saw myself in them." "There but for the grace, go I." All that sort of jazz. It works. Or as they say, "If it ain't broke, don't bankrupt it.":smalltongue:

I never saw that in the Blood War--I got no sense that demons and devils had a sense of being akin to one another, and they wouldn't care if they did. Demons slaughter their own kind just as enthusiastically as they slaughter everyone else, and cooperation among devils is the result of political expediency, not any sort of fellow feeling.

On the other hand, now that devils are explicitly fallen angels, I can very much see that "there but for the grace go I" element in wars between the Heavens and the Hells.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-27, 07:20 AM
I never saw that in the Blood War--I got no sense that demons and devils had a sense of being akin to one another, and they wouldn't care if they did. Demons slaughter their own kind just as enthusiastically as they slaughter everyone else, and cooperation among devils is the result of political expediency, not any sort of fellow feeling.

On the other hand, now that devils are explicitly fallen angels, I can very much see that "there but for the grace go I" element in wars between the Heavens and the Hells.

I'm not saying that they feel empathy for one another. What I mean is that it gives the sense of "Woah, the two sides are so similar in some goals, yet fight on opposite sides."

Morty
2007-09-27, 07:34 AM
I'm starting to dislike the 4ed atmosphere. I liked Vancian casting, Great Wheel and Blood War. I don't equalize blandness, genericness and simplicity with quality, and I utterly fail to see how compatibility with real-world mythologies makes cosmology any better; I'd say it makes it worse. I don't like the look of new elves, even though I favor fey-like elves over 3.x magical elves. I just hope The Great Wheel cosmology will appear in some books, possibly FR ones. And I hope new mechanics will be good enough to be worth bothering with scrapping the flavor and loss of Vancian casting. Or that next parts of flavor that appear will be better.

Mewtarthio
2007-09-27, 08:53 AM
My opinion: It's not so much that, more like "Since there's so little chance of this character being revived if killed, and there's a more-than-even chance that he'll die before getting very far in his/her career, I'm not going to waste any time writing a backstory for him/her, and play as if this was just a collection of numbers and abilities."

If you're playing a tenth-level campaign in 3.5 and you die, you've only got ten days to get yourself raised before becoming unrecoverable (as far as your teammates are concerned). Remember, Raise Dead and Reincarnate have time limits.

Pronounceable
2007-09-27, 09:18 AM
I'm not certain about this...

DnD becoming "generic fantasy" instead of "DnD" is financially a good decision. DnD has a traditional "fluffy niche" it fills in overall roleplaying community. This flavoral genericizing is Wizards' way of trying to expand its niche and (of course) to make more profit.

But it also lessens "DnDness" of DnD, which might be good or bad from a player perspective. If you are a fan of DnD feel (Vancian, Great Wheel and such) you'll not like this. But the potential customer loss from the changes is much less than potential customer gain from genericizing. So I'm positive Wizards will stick with this.


Moving on to less objective statements:

No Blood War? Designers must be crazy. That is the single most greatest thing from the Planescape. What next, they'll throw away the Great Wheel? Oh, wait... They did.

But they'll include Sigil, and her Ladyship. Oh yes, they will. SHE shall not be denied!

I LOVED the Great Wheel. Sure, it was a "snarled jumble multi-generational mish-mash", but it was OUR "snarled jumble multi-generational mish-mash". It had a texture, a flavor, a certain atmosphere about it. I can't really express it, but it was SOLID. Nevermind the fact that no one knew everything there is to know about it. I ain't no filthy determinist, ya know?


Originally Posted by ASCIISkull:
"THIS... THIS is world of darkness for the pokemon crowd!"

:xykon: Amen, brother! Preach it!

4e seems to be getting darker, gother, emoer, WoDlier. At least about afterlife. Bah! If I want it WoDly, I'll play WoD.


I may sound unjust here, on account of them amputating the effing best parts of DnD, but they've also done things I approve of. Like removing Vancian, adding fey and the best thing since Dragonlance novels: sacking of the effing gnomes. Good riddance to freeloading bastards, I hope they fry...


I still don't know wheter I'll bother to learn fully 4e or not. I'll definitely look it up though.

KoDT69
2007-09-27, 10:13 AM
I never really liked Vancian casting anyway. I've always just used a homebrew spell point system similar to the 3.5 variant. I did like the Blood War very much, although it was only used in rare higher level games. The Great Wheel is no big loss to me either. I understand that making 4e more generic should mean that it will be more popular and more acceptable as a gaming system on the whole, but I disagree.

Here's a math equation for ya:
D&D != Generic Fantasy RPG

When I play D&D, it's D&D, not Final Fantasy or whatever else. Integrating some elements is fine, but I prefer the real D&D feel. Face it, if you base a tabletop RPG on a fantasy video game, you still have to apply D&D standards to it or it seems contrived. That whole random encounter in video games is so much different than D&D. I also disagree with simplifying the planes. The whole point of the multiverse concept is massive and intricate. You don't have to use every plane because a book says it exists. Use what you like, but they shouldn't get rid of 95% of them by default to pander to those with ADD. Yay mixed feelings!

I am supportive of the changes to some extent. WotC is a business that needs to sell a product and develop new things and evolve to stay in the game (pun intended :smalltongue:) and going more generic and easier to understand can open the target audience to include more people. I just don't agree with them trying to make it too much different in some respects. The original founders of D&D should not be forgotten, no matter how long it's been or how the gaming trends unfold. So in conclusion, I reluctantly support the change, even tho some of it makes kittens cry. :smalleek:

Starbuck_II
2007-09-27, 10:44 AM
Well until quite late in the classical era the afterlife wasn't really the focus of religion AT ALL. Why did a lot of Greek not go around killing and looting at will despite believing that pretty much everyone would go to Hades no matter what?

Because Hades was Heaven and Hell.
The good were rewarded in Hades. Some say given wine to drink forever (he thought liquor would be a good end), others say other good things.

The evil dead are buried in the mud. Sufferings await.

Read The Republic by Plato.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-27, 10:49 AM
I am somewhat puzzled as to why people care about the cosmology. It really has nothing to do with 4th edition itself- all it is is the default setting. Maybe I'm biased because I never use the default setting, but it seems an odd thing to be up in arms about.

zOMG! there isn't a Blood War!

DM: If I want a blood war, there is one. If I don't, then there isn't. If it does not matter, then it does not matter.

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-27, 11:06 AM
*Rant about inability to handle moderately complex concepts.*
The planes are not hard to keep straight. In fact, it is very easy. The thing that's annoying me the most about 4e is that their whole selling point is that they're dumbing everything down and treating us all like children, and expect everyone to think of such patronization as a good thing. :smallannoyed:

kamikasei
2007-09-27, 11:09 AM
I am somewhat puzzled as to why people care about the cosmology. It really has nothing to do with 4th edition itself- all it is is the default setting. Maybe I'm biased because I never use the default setting, but it seems an odd thing to be up in arms about.

zOMG! there isn't a Blood War!

DM: If I want a blood war, there is one. If I don't, then there isn't. If it does not matter, then it does not matter.

Well, the default setting influences the default magic and other options. If there's no Ethereal Plane then spells which use it are going to change. If you then want to restore the plane in your own game you're going to have to change those spells again. Some would simply like to continue playing "default D&D" in terms of flavor and feel and have the improved rules support that, rather than having to homebrew back in all the fluff they've been playing with so far - fluff that was built in to the default assumptions of the game - just to take advantage of what's better in 4th edition.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-27, 11:22 AM
The planes are not hard to keep straight. In fact, it is very easy. The thing that's annoying me the most about 4e is that their whole selling point is that they're dumbing everything down and treating us all like children, and expect everyone to think of such patronization as a good thing. :smallannoyed:

Look at it that way if you like, or you can look at it as "making it easier for you to make the game into what you want it to be." I do.

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-27, 11:22 AM
I think what's going on is that I'm loving these changes because its making D&D cosmology more generic and you're hating these changes because its making D&D cosmology more generic.
Well, yeah. If I wanted to play a generic quasi-real world mythology, I'd bust out GURPS. After all, if you want to play a game of boring generic blandness, might as well be honest and use the system with that in the name. :smallannoyed:

Look at it that way if you like, or you can look at it as "making it easier for you to make the game into what you want it to be." I do.
I look at it that way because that's exactly what it is. I was sitting in Sagamore Ballroom at GenCon during the announcement presentation. That is precisely their whole deal; "We're making it easier because the 3e systems are just too complex to worry your little heads with." Excuse me? I'm sorry, but if they, the designers, can't figure out the grapple rules, then that's a problem with them, not the rest of us. The entire tone of the announcement presentation ranged between patronizing and the tone of a parent trying to get his children excited about something. That tone is not something to make me happy.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-09-27, 11:36 AM
"there but for the grace go I"

Grace of what? Peanutbutter?

Fax Celestis
2007-09-27, 11:36 AM
I look at it that way because that's exactly what it is. I was sitting in Sagamore Ballroom at GenCon during the announcement presentation. That is precisely their whole deal; "We're making it easier because the 3e systems are just too complex to worry your little heads with." Excuse me? I'm sorry, but if they, the designers, can't figure out the grapple rules, then that's a problem with them, not the rest of us. The entire tone of the announcement presentation ranged between patronizing and the tone of a parent trying to get his children excited about something. That tone is not something to make me happy.

So, wait, you think that the designers, by making up a bunch of new stuff and trying to fit what we have as an existing D&D paradigm within those new boundaries is easy? What they're doing is making the game into what they see it should be--they're the designers, after all--and if their view of the game says that "the game should be easily modifiable and capable of being enjoyed by everyone straight out of the book," then what's wrong with that? Regardless of what they do to the game, people will "fix" it in their own sphere of influence--by homebrew or houserule--until the game looks like they think it should. And if the designers can somehow hope to make 4e closer to what the majority of the market wants, then why shouldn't they do that?

Fax Celestis
2007-09-27, 11:37 AM
Grace of what? Peanutbutter?

Well, a devil can't really say "but for the grace of god."

Rex Blunder
2007-09-27, 11:44 AM
"We're making it easier because the 3e systems are just too complex to worry your little heads with."

In design and engineering, decisions that simplify the system are usually considered good decisions. They make things easier to work on and maintain, and cut down on bad interactions between the various parts. (D&D has plenty of these bad interactions.)

There's a reason that the aphorism isn't "Keep it complex, stupid."

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-27, 11:49 AM
In design and engineering, decisions that simplify the system are usually considered good decisions. They make things easier to work on and maintain, and cut down on bad interactions between the various parts. (D&D has plenty of these bad interactions.)

There's a reason that the aphorism isn't "Keep it complex, stupid."
This isn't engineering; it's a game. If I wanted simple games, I'd be playing Monopoly, not Dungeons & Dragons.

Dausuul
2007-09-27, 12:04 PM
Well, the default setting influences the default magic and other options. If there's no Ethereal Plane then spells which use it are going to change. If you then want to restore the plane in your own game you're going to have to change those spells again. Some would simply like to continue playing "default D&D" in terms of flavor and feel and have the improved rules support that, rather than having to homebrew back in all the fluff they've been playing with so far - fluff that was built in to the default assumptions of the game - just to take advantage of what's better in 4th edition.

True. By the same token, however, some of us have had to homebrew 3E all to hell and gone to make it fit what we wanted it to be, and we're extremely happy at the prospect of not having to do it again in 4E.


This isn't engineering; it's a game. If I wanted simple games, I'd be playing Monopoly, not Dungeons & Dragons.

The same principle applies to games, and indeed to pretty much any human endeavor. The more complicated a system is, the more prone it is to breaking down, the harder it is to modify, and the more effort is required to keep it running smoothly. The trick is to simplify the mechanics while keeping the same depth of play.

The problem is not that the 3E systems are too complex for players. The problem is that they are needlessly complex. D&D is about playing fantasy heroes (or villains). Number-crunching is a distraction from that. Therefore, if the system can reduce number-crunching without affecting the quality of the play experience, it should absolutely do so.

I am perfectly capable of handling the complexities of the 3E systems. I just don't want to, because imitating a calculator and/or a lawyer does not entertain me.

mostlyharmful
2007-09-27, 12:24 PM
The more complicated a system is, the more prone it is to breaking down, the harder it is to modify, and the more effort is required to keep it running smoothly. The trick is to simplify the mechanics while keeping the same depth of play.

The problem is not that the 3E systems are too complex for players. The problem is that they are needlessly complex. D&D is about playing fantasy heroes (or villains). Number-crunching is a distraction from that. Therefore, if the system can reduce number-crunching without affecting the quality of the play experience, it should absolutely do so.

I am perfectly capable of handling the complexities of the 3E systems. I just don't want to, because imitating a calculator and/or a lawyer does not entertain me.

So completely true, just because you can write the grapple rules to use four rolls a round doesn't make it a good thing.

nocker
2007-09-27, 12:48 PM
My opinion: It's not so much that, more like "Since there's so little chance of this character being revived if killed, and there's a more-than-even chance that he'll die before getting very far in his/her career, I'm not going to waste any time writing a backstory for him/her, and play as if this was just a collection of numbers and abilities."

I also would always play an evil character in that system; who cares, since all souls end up disappearing anyway? Let's kill and loot at will!

It's the metagame that suffers IMO. SO, I get the feeling Shadowfell isn't going to become quite what the article writer is making it out to be. Perhaps all -evil- souls go there to disappear, or perhaps worse :smallbiggrin: .

Would this imply that you're an evil person, since we can't know for sure what happens to us when we die? This setting is awesome because if it's well-done, it'll emulate the mystery that makes real world religions thrive: nobody is actually sure of what's happening with souls, so people will have to resort to...

faith.

Faith is not currently supported by the current D&D rules. Informed people have means to know with certainly the final destination of souls, so there's not much in terms of mystery or doubt regarding afterlife.

So unless they go for a nihilistic version where the souls are actually seen dissolving, then what you have is mystery again. Informed people know that souls keep around for a while in a depressing realm, and then... *poof*. Maybe the gods know what's happening with them, but they're certainly not telling.

Seriously, this is THE aspect of the new cosmology that won me.

kamikasei
2007-09-27, 01:00 PM
True. By the same token, however, some of us have had to homebrew 3E all to hell and gone to make it fit what we wanted it to be, and we're extremely happy at the prospect of not having to do it again in 4E.

Well, there's two ways that 4E could be friendly to people who had to homebrew 3E to their preference. The first is that it has fewer built-in assumptions and is simply easier to alter, in any direction. The second is that it has lots of built-in assumptions but that they happen to jibe with what players like you wanted out of 3E. The latter is what I would be worried about, and I think it's part of what Renegade Paladin doesn't like, too.

Edea
2007-09-27, 01:08 PM
Would this imply that you're an evil person, since we can't know for sure what happens to us when we die? This setting is awesome because if it's well-done, it'll emulate the mystery that makes real world religions thrive: nobody is actually sure of what's happening with souls, so people will have to resort to...

faith.

Faith is not currently supported by the current D&D rules. Informed people have means to know with certainly the final destination of souls, so there's not much in terms of mystery or doubt regarding afterlife.

So unless they go for a nihilistic version where the souls are actually seen dissolving, then what you have is mystery again. Informed people know that souls keep around for a while in a depressing realm, and then... *poof*. Maybe the gods know what's happening with them, but they're certainly not telling.

Seriously, this is THE aspect of the new cosmology that won me.

Clerics. You can't emulate real-world religions when you have people walking around casting commune, planar ally, resurrection, and miracle. I would be far more religious if I saw divine magic on a daily basis. In D&D you are always going to have informed people (and a good number of them) unless you get rid of arcane and divine spellcasters. "Disappear beyond all ken" = for all intents and purposes, erased. If you were to end up in another plane (say, the Astral Sea), someone else would know about it (likely the demon who now owned said soul, for example, or the party wizard who decided to use a wish to determine your location so you could be revived), and thus "all ken" is in grievous error. And of course you'll be able to actually see them disappearing, just plane shift to Shadowfell and set up a base there. Then, watch someone disappear, use a spell that restores them to life, and see what happens. Like I said, I feel the description for Shadowfell is misleading.

Dausuul
2007-09-27, 01:16 PM
Clerics. You can't emulate real-world religions when you have people walking around casting commune, planar ally, resurrection, and miracle. I would be far more religious if I saw divine magic on a daily basis. In D&D you are always going to have informed people (and a good number of them) unless you get rid of arcane and divine spellcasters. "Disappear beyond all ken" = for all intents and purposes, erased. If you were to end up in another plane (say, the Astral Sea), someone else would know about it (likely the demon who now owned said soul, for example, or the party wizard who decided to use a wish to determine your location so you could be revived), and thus "all ken" is in grievous error. And of course you'll be able to actually see them disappearing, just plane shift to Shadowfell and set up a base there. Then, watch someone disappear, use a spell that restores them to life, and see what happens. Like I said, I feel the description for Shadowfell is misleading.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions about the availability and functionality of resurrection magic. Once a soul vanishes beyond all ken, I read that as "you can't resurrect it any more." Likewise, I would not expect any mortal magic to be effective at locating a departed soul. Maybe, maybe, it ends up somewhere in one of the astral realms, but good luck finding it.

Counterspin
2007-09-27, 02:20 PM
Certainly the planes are far too complex in comparison to their value to me, which is pretty much zero. I've never used them, and don't find the current versions interesting. Burn it down and bring me something I might use, I say.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-27, 02:27 PM
Devils don't have their own plane either, just a portion of the Astral Sea.

I'm hoping that there are at least a few other planes, as this cosmology looks a little bare. Also, I don't really like the way they seem to be handling the afterlife. I mean, the description they gave looks kind of depressing.

Honestly, the shadowmeld doesn't really seem like an afterlife for more than a little bit. According to the article it's more like the bus stop on the way to the afterlife.


Okay, I wasn't serious about the construction workers, but now that I think about it, the answer could be tied in to the whole "echo of our world idea." Maybe once a building's constructed, it sends "echoes" into the Shadowmeld, and an analogous building pops up there, too. Of course, the Shadowmeld is the land of death, and nothing's there to properly mantain the building (I imagine the plane's even got some sort of "hyper-entropy" power), so it quickly falls into disrepair. So, if you built a castle, you could hop on over to the Shadowmeld and see an ominous, empty castle (the whole "nothing alive here" schtick really helps, too). Hang around for a few weeks, and you can watch as the drawbridge rots away, towers crumble, and floors collapse before your very eyes.


This reflection idea is really interesting. I have this picture in my head now of a Necromancer who dwells in the shadowfell invading the prime material where a town just went up because they messed up his view.

Belteshazzar
2007-09-27, 02:29 PM
This disappearing beyond all kin thing was already integrated into my campaign as the result of most sentient deaths. Excepting the souls of Fae, Elves, Dragons, Dwarven, and Ithilids who were bound to reality and perhaps eventually recycled. This of course made death a scary idea because deities were some of the few powerful enough to keep your soul from a wandering state after death by protecting or imprisoning you in their own sanctums. Even many deamons were willing given souls with full knowledge of their fate simply to avoid the eventual drifting into oblivion and the unknowns it held.

bosssmiley
2007-09-27, 02:39 PM
This separation... This distancing... It will END THE BLOOD WAR.

No more! No more Blood war! Hahahahha! Oh this is BRILLIANT! We can drop the Blood war whole cloth, and make way for the wars between Summer and Winter...

Wars between Summer and Winter? Wars between the seasons? Am I the only one who got flashes of Agone (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_5848.html) here?

Heck, I might drag that that odd (French, naturally) game out of storage and see if I can't get some inspiration for making the Feywild something more than a fairytale 'Otherland'. Oh oh oh, Tad Williams books...

*Eggy wombles off to experiment with unholy cosmological meldings*

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-27, 02:51 PM
If you're playing a tenth-level campaign in 3.5 and you die, you've only got ten days to get yourself raised before becoming unrecoverable (as far as your teammates are concerned). Remember, Raise Dead and Reincarnate have time limits.If you've got a Cleric, you're fine. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gentleRepose.htm) And not just in the sense that Clerics are awesome.

illathid
2007-09-27, 03:17 PM
True. By the same token, however, some of us have had to homebrew 3E all to hell and gone to make it fit what we wanted it to be, and we're extremely happy at the prospect of not having to do it again in 4E.


But what about those of us that enjoy the D&D meta-setting? I really enjoy the gith, the mind flayers, the beholders, and the great wheel. With the OGL and SRD any publisher or group of people could come out with any supplement that they want, whether it's about classical mythology or whatever. However I seriously doubt that WotC is going to let anyone touch any of those things I really enjoy as they are a valuable IP.

I know there is the example of Planewalker.com (http://www.planewalker.com/index.php), but WotC still retains the license and the people working there are contractually disallowed to make an profit from it. That alone seriously hampers the amount of time/effort that is going to be put into the site as whole.

I guess what I'm saying is that I understand that these changes fit with your personal preferences, but for those of that it doesn't we are going to have a much harder time with this than you did under the older standards of D&D. That doesn't seem very fair does it?

And who knows, maybe I'm completely wrong, and maybe WotC has a secret plan to re-release planescape some time in the future. But can you understand why we are not very happy about the announced changes to the standard atmosphere?

Starsinger
2007-09-27, 03:34 PM
Clerics. You can't emulate real-world religions when you have people walking around casting commune, planar ally, resurrection, and miracle. I would be far more religious if I saw divine magic on a daily basis. In D&D you are always going to have informed people (and a good number of them) unless you get rid of arcane and divine spellcasters. "Disappear beyond all ken" = for all intents and purposes, erased. If you were to end up in another plane (say, the Astral Sea), someone else would know about it (likely the demon who now owned said soul, for example, or the party wizard who decided to use a wish to determine your location so you could be revived), and thus "all ken" is in grievous error. And of course you'll be able to actually see them disappearing, just plane shift to Shadowfell and set up a base there. Then, watch someone disappear, use a spell that restores them to life, and see what happens. Like I said, I feel the description for Shadowfell is misleading.

My dear Sorceress Edea, let us look at clerics in 3e. It's true that a Clerics can cast spells without deities, and that beings who aren't deities have clerics (the demon lords).

If 4e makes a religious system like Eberron where the religions are more vague and y'know religions instead of "We follow Hextor, he's lawful evil and hates Heironeous, that's the entire dogma of the church", then who's to say for sure if the religions are real or not, since clerics can cast spells without affiliation with any of the churches. And that of course means it boils back down to faith. Sure those lunatics in who go around spouting nonsense about Ehlonna could be telling the truth, and Ehlonna is a real goddess, or she could be a false god louded about by zealous clerics who're enthralled by a cult leader. That's up to Faith, and not the irritating surety of 3e.

Speaking of Faith, I think there are after-life planes in 4E, or atleast there will be when I run it. And the souls sit in Shadowfell for a while, sort of like catholic Limbo. Afterwords they're whisked away to the "heaven" or "hell" plane, which mortal magic cannot reach which is why it's "beyond all ken".

Morty
2007-09-27, 03:37 PM
If 4e makes a religious system like Eberron where the religions are more vague and y'know religions instead of "We follow Hextor, he's lawful evil and hates Heironeous, that's the entire dogma of the church", then who's to say for sure if the religions are real or not, since clerics can cast spells without affiliation with any of the churches. And that of course means it boils back down to faith. Sure those lunatics in who go around spouting nonsense about Ehlonna could be telling the truth, and Ehlonna is a real goddess, or she could be a false god louded about by zealous clerics who're enthralled by a cult leader. That's up to Faith, and not the irritating surety of 3e.


And it won't make any difference. What you described here is perfectly possible in 3.x D&D. There only difference would be that what was Eberron-specific thing would be now default. I personally prefer settings where it's unsure if gods exist at all, and it is possible in 3ed as well.

Starsinger
2007-09-27, 03:40 PM
And it won't make any difference. What you described here is perfectly possible in 3.x D&D. There only difference would be that what was Eberron-specific thing would be now default. I personally prefer settings where it's unsure if gods exist at all, and it is possible in 3ed as well.

In 3E you can call Pelor on the phone, pop over to the Abyss and hang out with Lolth, visit your (dead) friends in Celestia, get smote by Heironeous... etc etc

Morty
2007-09-27, 03:44 PM
In 3E you can call Pelor on the phone, pop over to the Abyss and hang out with Lolth, visit your (dead) friends in Celestia, get smote by Heironeous... etc etc

If you play in Greyhawk or FR, yes, you can. But if you play in, let's say, Eberron, you can't, as if I recall correctly Eberronian gods may very well not give a damn about what's going on down in the world. So the only difference would be that in 3ed Eberron was non-standard in this regard, while in 4ed it'd be default.

Starsinger
2007-09-27, 03:49 PM
If you play in Greyhawk or FR, yes, you can. But if you play in, let's say, Eberron, you can't, as if I recall correctly Eberronian gods may very well not give a damn about what's going on down in the world. So the only difference would be that in 3ed Eberron was non-standard in this regard, while in 4ed it'd be default.

What you say, is indeed true puddin. However, the thing is, if you're playing a campaign setting, the standard system doesn't mean anything.

Morty
2007-09-27, 03:56 PM
What you say, is indeed true puddin. However, the thing is, if you're playing a campaign setting, the standard system doesn't mean anything.

That's true, but Eberron-style is quite original among D&D settings, as most others have acting gods, including "default" one, i.e Greyhawk. Blurred alignments and non-acting gods are mentioned as Eberron-unique things. However, that doesn't affect the rules much- and if 4ed will have blurred alignments(and I damn hope it will) and silent gods as default, it will simply mean that FR is non-standard this time with gods walking the earth and getting killed by mortals. People are creating Eberron-like cosmologies and pantheons for 3ed after all. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that "default" setting of 4ed will be just vague framework.
Overall, changes in basic cosmology aren't all that important. Unless thee don't incorporate FR cosmology into 4ed, in which case I'll be preety disappointed.

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-27, 04:24 PM
So completely true, just because you can write the grapple rules to use four rolls a round doesn't make it a good thing.
Different colors of d20s, designate which are for what roll, roll them all at once, and go. Not hard, not time-consuming.

If you've got a Cleric, you're fine. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gentleRepose.htm) And not just in the sense that Clerics are awesome.
Incorrect. Decomposition isn't the issue; raise dead has a hard time limit that applies no matter what measures are taken to preserve the corpse.

Yakk
2007-09-27, 04:39 PM
The current grapple rules are silly -- they are hacked onto the rules system.

The fact that full attacks are a quantum change compared to other kinds of attacks are silly. The phase change that starts at L 6 (at L 5, a simple attack and a full attack are very similar), and the cascading increase in number of attack roles expected per round... not good.

To make a system better, you find the junk that doesn't make the system better, pare it off, then add on new features. If you just keep on adding new features without paring down, you end up with the ridiculousness that was AD&D first edition.

And yes, when a major revision of the game appears, one should expect things to be cut out. There where entire fantasy plot lines involving world-changing god-wars developed to explain the changes from AD&D to D&D 3.0.

Heck, compare the multiclass rules of AD&D to the multiclass rules of D&D -- in AD&D, a 10th level wizard/11th level fighter is the "same level" as a 12th or 13th level fighter. The change to 3.0 style multiclassing for everyone was a mechanics change that did cause problems for players -- but cleaning up the game rules was worth it.

I am aware, and they are aware, that many people will stay with 3.5, or play a hybrid 3.5 and 4.0 game, after the game changes. And the 3.0 and 3.5 sourcebooks will become sources and inspiration of lots of home brew rules. And people will choose to play using the "old" canon, even if they use the new rules -- all of this is perfectly OK.

But D&D should change. They should introduce new defaults, and smooth over rough bits. The new elemental maelstrom is a better place to have adventures than the old elemental planes. The new Shadow and Fay lands are better places to have adventures than the old positive/negative elemental planes. These are all improvements to the game's core fluff.

Jack Mann
2007-09-27, 04:39 PM
Reread the description of Gentle Repose. It explicitly works to extend the time needed for spells like raise dead or resurrection.

Zaeron
2007-09-27, 05:18 PM
The planes are not hard to keep straight. In fact, it is very easy. The thing that's annoying me the most about 4e is that their whole selling point is that they're dumbing everything down and treating us all like children, and expect everyone to think of such patronization as a good thing. :smallannoyed:

I have been playing, and DMing, D&D since before 3.5 came out. At least five years in total.

I can't even name all the primary planes. Well, I can, but only because Basset listed them in this thread. I'm still not really sure how the Positive and Negative energy planes interact with the 4 elemental planes, and until this thread I never even knew there were intermediary planes between the varying elemental planes.

Now, maybe this is just because I've never read the Manual of the Planes. But I have read the section in the DMG devoted to the planes several times over. I used to read it fairly often because I liked the descriptions given of specific locations within the planes.

My knowledge of the planes could basically be summarized roughly as: The Astral plane is all over the place (I think) (here thar be Githiyanki (or Githerazi or whatever). The Shadow plane is near the Material plane, cuz it's a reflection of the material plane. Gods have private planes. The Abyss has a lot of layers. The good aligned planes make people explode.

In my opinion, the simplification of the Planes will certainly make my job easier. The planes listed so far seem much more coherent and clearly defined than the cosmology I've been using.

OTOH, I will miss some aspects, even if I never really used them. The Blood War was wicked cool, IMO, and I sometimes had portions of it involve the Material plane so that I could bring my players into it. I had always wanted to run a higher level game with the PCs actively involved in the Blood War, but I simply never felt I understood the various planes involved well enough to run it effectively. Perhaps my games will continue to involve a Blood War type thing. It isn't that hard to do. Instead of announcing "planes don't exist, but spells that interact with them function as normal" at the start of my game, I can just announce "demons and devils don't like eachother".

Actually, that's the biggest advantage of 4E that I'm seeing so far. The changes they're making are really great if you didn't like the old way of doing things, but fairly easy to change if you do like the old way. Adding to a cosmology is so much easier than having to ditch the whole thing and start over. I don't think it's been dumbed down, exactly. Maybe made slightly easier to impliment, and easier to alter as well.

But that's just my take on it. :)

Kyeudo
2007-09-27, 05:31 PM
I think that with the Blood War over, we'll start to get interesting cross mixes, like a powerful devil who has bound brutish but stupid demons to his cause as bodyguards and bouncers.


With the Abyss now located as a sort of distructive vortex at the bottom of the Elemental Nexus, does that mean that there will be a creative vortex opposing it, or is the Elemental Nexus already creative and so naturaly counters the expansion of the Abyss?

kamikasei
2007-09-27, 05:59 PM
Incorrect. Decomposition isn't the issue; raise dead has a hard time limit that applies no matter what measures are taken to preserve the corpse.

Further to Jack Mann:


You preserve the remains of a dead creature so that they do not decay. Doing so effectively extends the time limit on raising that creature from the dead (see raise dead).

psychoticbarber
2007-09-27, 06:33 PM
Personally, losing the great wheel never bothered me too much. I'm poor and cheap, so I either ignored it or made it up.

The new cosmology is simpler and hails back to classic mythologies (stuff I have read, unlike planescape).

Speaking solely for myself, I like the looks of the new cosmology.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-27, 08:40 PM
Mostly, what happens 'round the people's minds is this: Great wheel, very complicated (and I CAN give the full name of all the planes. Starting from my beloved Elysium: The blessed fields of Elysium, The Twin paradises of Bytopia, The seven mounts of Celestia [including Cronias, the seventh heaven, in which I developed the closing battle of my greatest campaign, which involved a DC 2050 save before the battle. And I know Cronias' name, GOTCHA!], The peaceful lands of Arcadia, The Mechanic Nirvana of Mechanus, The Infernal battlefield of Acheron, The Nine Hells of Baator, The Tarterian Depths of Carceri, The Grey Wastes of Hades, The desolate eternity of Gehenna, The Infinite layers of the Abyss, The Windswept depths of Pandemonium, The changing chaos of Limbo, The heroic domains of Ysgard, The Forest filled glades of Arborea, The Lands of the Wild Beasts.), Blood war goooood. New rez system crappy and bad idea, new astral superplane nice. 'Nuff said.

psychoticbarber
2007-09-27, 09:28 PM
New rez system crappy and bad idea, new astral superplane nice. 'Nuff said.

As far as I can see, by what I've read from the Wizard's site, the "new rez system" is only thus far in the minds and imaginations of the people on this forum. Fading in and out of the land of Shadowfell does not necessarily describe how resurrection is going to work.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-27, 09:42 PM
Out, sure. In, nope. As said before, if we go for the literal and most of the other likely interpretations for fading beyond all ken, it means you are on a very tight time limit to bring back dead party members. Which sucks, since it means you need to do very demanding things for a single death.

Starsinger
2007-09-27, 10:00 PM
Out, sure. In, nope. As said before, if we go for the literal and most of the other likely interpretations for fading beyond all ken, it means you are on a very tight time limit to bring back dead party members. Which sucks, since it means you need to do very demanding things for a single death.

Actually puddin, "beyond all ken" doesn't imply that the time limit is tight, only that there is no leniency. If you don't resurrect someone before the limit (whatever it is) is up, you're SOL

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-27, 10:08 PM
I DO doubt, however, that the timer is lenient enough so as to give you years. It looks like the kind of thing that gives you days, weeks, mebbe, and after that, you're screwed, m'friendly cupcake (My fanbase of my duelist side screams: harmless touchè!).

Jack Mann
2007-09-27, 10:09 PM
So long as they've taken out a lot of the insta-death effects, I'm all for resurrection being a bit more difficult. I don't like a revolving-door afterlife. I just find it necessary in 3.5, given the difficulty in keeping a character alive for any great length of time.

Dausuul
2007-09-27, 11:05 PM
Further to Jack Mann:

...if that spell even exists in 4E.

Bassetking
2007-09-27, 11:16 PM
...if that spell even exists in 4E.

Yeah, seriously, folks. It's not like we can base assumptions on previous experiences or material or anything.

What I'd CERTAINLY doubt is whether or not 4th ed. contains any Dragons and or Dungeons. :smallamused:

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-27, 11:24 PM
Yep, the way things are going, we'll end up with no clerics, emo rogues, save feral fighters, and somber mages (NWoD, anyone? rogues represent the common vamp)

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-27, 11:52 PM
...if that spell even exists in 4E.The original reference was to 3.5 campaigns. I hope we don't end up with spells like that for 4E.

KoDT69
2007-09-27, 11:59 PM
To all those using the arguement " a simpler more generic setting is easier to modify and homebrew" I would just like to state that is crap. If you are experienced enough to be changing the base game you should know it's just as easy to modify a difficult game as it is to change a simple one. The overly complex game gets more simplified, and the overly simple game will gain more complexity.

If the goal is to make the game more easily adaptable or easier to homebrew anyway, why not just have a Rules Compendium, a Magic Item Compendium, and a Monster Manual and that's it? All you really need under this assumption is a list of basic game mechanics for character creation and combat, a list of available equipment or magic items, and some examples of monsters with special attack methods.

In all of my v3.5 games, I continue to use old school D&D as a base for everything. I could care less if one god is campaign specific, or one campaign setting has a specific race featured, if it's in print it's possible you'll encounter it in MY generic D&D setting.

Bosh
2007-09-28, 12:52 AM
why not just have a Rules Compendium, a Magic Item Compendium, and a Monster Manual and that's it
I would like that.
I have never read a 3.0/3.5ed DMG. Never saw any need to.


To all those using the arguement " a simpler more generic setting is easier to modify and homebrew" I would just like to state that is crap.
I disagree.

With the great wheel if you draw inspiration from pretty much ANY source aside from D&D its fit with the great wheel tends to be pretty contrived.

For example if I want to play a Norse mythology inspired campaign I could just say:

Hel= Shadowfell
Alfarheim = Feywild
Muspelheim/Niflheim/various Jotun = Elemental Tempest
Asgard and Vanirheim would be in the Astral plane with rainbow bridges and whatnot

All I'd have to homebrew is a big tree.

With 1-3ed cosmology I'd have to throw the whole thing in the garbage and start over and homebrew everything.

Same goes with every real world mythos that I can think of, they all fit better with 4ed than 1-3ed and every fantasy book/movie/tv show that I can think of would be easier to convert to 4ed than 1-3ed (with the exception of Vance, Moorcock and media specifically based on 1-3ed D&D).

The new setting is based on giving universal themes a D&D twist instead of giving us idiosyncratic concepts that are found nowhere else, are inflexible and difficult to port to other settings.

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-28, 12:58 AM
Actually, that's the biggest advantage of 4E that I'm seeing so far. The changes they're making are really great if you didn't like the old way of doing things, but fairly easy to change if you do like the old way. Adding to a cosmology is so much easier than having to ditch the whole thing and start over. I don't think it's been dumbed down, exactly. Maybe made slightly easier to impliment, and easier to alter as well.
It is far harder to re-homebrew something with a modicum of complexity like the Great Wheel or Faerun's planar system than it is to rip off widespread real-world mythology. If you just want your game to be like Norse mythology then hey, you already have all the material right there. Just make it into a cosmology and you're done.

Starsinger
2007-09-28, 01:10 AM
It is far harder to re-homebrew something with a modicum of complexity like the Great Wheel or Faerun's planar system than it is to rip off widespread real-world mythology. If you just want your game to be like Norse mythology then hey, you already have all the material right there. Just make it into a cosmology and you're done.

Why are you so attached to the (not so) Great Wheel? I mean do you actually like it or is it "That's the D&D I play, so I don't want to see it go?" I personally hate the great wheel. Especially the fact that like all the planes are infinite in size... Draws the line between plane and whole other campaign setting that you can visit to an irritatingly close place for me.

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-28, 01:16 AM
Why are you so attached to the (not so) Great Wheel? I mean do you actually like it or is it "That's the D&D I play, so I don't want to see it go?" I personally hate the great wheel. Especially the fact that like all the planes are infinite in size... Draws the line between plane and whole other campaign setting that you can visit to an irritatingly close place for me.
Because it isn't the generic folklore and myths that I've been reading or read to from since I was five. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with them, but it's fun to do something else.

I personally don't much use the Great Wheel either, but that's mainly because I play in the Realms and use that cosmology. I'm against summarily tossing it out because it's been the standard for so long that it'll force a lot of people to retcon a lot of game worlds if they want to convert without doing massive homebrewing. I know a lot about not wanting to do massive homebrewing; while it's fun, I have this arcane activity known as "work" that I have to do in order to meet this other strange concept called "living expenses," so I can't afford to sit around and homebrew for the hours every day it would take to create and run my own in-depth campaign setting. :smallannoyed:

Bosh
2007-09-28, 01:28 AM
Because it isn't the generic folklore and myths that I've been reading or read to from since I was five. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with them, but it's fun to do something else.
Wanting "something else" is perfect for a creative niche campaign world. "The generic folklore and myths that I've been reading or read to from since I was five" is better suited (after being given a D&D twist) for Core. For should be something that players can easily get their teeth into and the closer its connected with the sort of timeless themes that pop up in myths all over the world the easier it is to do that. D&D is the closest to mass market that PnP RPGing gets. Timeless mythology + medieval history is a far better fit for that than "something else."

I'm not asking for dwarves with bird feet because they have bird feet in Norse myths. What I'm asking for is for the designers to look through myths/folklore/literature for common themes that appear all over the world because they resonate so strongly with people. Basically going to myths for the big picture and using D&D to fill in the details.

And this seems like exactly what WotC is doing. Joseph Campbell would be proud :)

illathid
2007-09-28, 01:35 AM
Wanting "something else" is perfect for a creative niche campaign world. "The generic folklore and myths that I've been reading or read to from since I was five" is better suited (after being given a D&D twist) for Core. For should be something that players can easily get their teeth into and the closer its connected with the sort of timeless themes that pop up in myths all over the world the easier it is to do that. D&D is the closest to mass market that PnP RPGing gets. Timeless mythology + medieval history is a far better fit for that than "something else."



*snip*

Then how do you respond to the comments that I voiced in the above post, as no one has seen fit to address them yet?

Bosh
2007-09-28, 01:45 AM
But what about those of us that enjoy the D&D meta-setting?
I think the best way is to have the outlines be based on Joseph Campbel-type broad mythical themes but use D&D tradition to fill in the details.

For example:

Big picture: there is a seething mass of elemental chaos.
Details: Githzerai live there.

Just keep the big picture adaptable/extendable/universal rather than idiosyncratic and complete. "Dieties exist in the astral plane" is much better than "dieties are sorted by alignment in the Great Wheel" especially since you can stick the later inside the former.

Alternatively, keep Greyhawk as a published campaign setting and keep all of the old meta-setting stuff there for people to enjoy.


I know there is the example of Planewalker.com, but WotC still retains the license and the people working there are contractually disallowed to make an profit from it. That alone seriously hampers the amount of time/effort that is going to be put into the site as whole.
I'm not sure how this relates to what I've been talking about.


but for those of that it doesn't we are going to have a much harder time with this than you did under the older standards of D&D. That doesn't seem very fair does it?
Well the new setting would necessitate a rather massive overhaul of Planescape. I'll definately grant you that. But aside from Planescape I'm not seeing much of a downside.

Bosh
2007-09-28, 01:46 AM
I'm also liking the Astral Sea since, at least for me, it evokes much more of a sense of mystery, exploration and grandeur than the Great Wheel. And it would be an awesome place to stick Spelljammer :)

For example White Ship by Lovecraft. For some reason that story's images always really stick in my mind. That sort of story doesn't really fit with 1.3ed but now we have the astral sea which fits it like a glove :)

illathid
2007-09-28, 02:03 AM
I'm also liking the Astral Sea since, at least for me, it evokes much more of a sense of mystery, exploration and grandeur than the Great Wheel. And it would be an awesome place to stick Spelljammer :)

For example White Ship by Lovecraft. For some reason that story's images always really stick in my mind. That sort of story doesn't really fit with 1.3ed but now we have the astral sea which fits it like a glove :)

I too think the astral sea is a cool idea, but that isn't my criticism of the new cosmology.


I think the best way is to have the outlines be based on Joseph Campbel-type broad mythical themes but use D&D tradition to fill in the details.

However, I think we can both agree that there are aspects of the traditional D&D cosmology that run counter to "broad mythical themes". My criticism is that it would be easier for people who want "broad mythical themes" to find a supplement that gives them that from a non WotC publisher than for people who want the Great Wheel. Anyone can homebrew any thing they like, but for those of us that want or need supplements for whatever reason, with 4e there will be little hope that we will be able to use an updated version of the great wheel.

Thats why I included the caveat about the Planewalker site.

Jack Mann
2007-09-28, 02:10 AM
Presumably, Wizards believes that there are more people who will like this new cosmology than people who would prefer the Great Wheel.

I suspect they're right. This new cosmology is more evocative, more resonating with common themes. It's a bit more universal. I understand that this is a negative for you, but I think it will be a good thing for many more. And pleasing the greatest number of people possible... Well, that sounds about as fair as you're going to get.

Bosh
2007-09-28, 02:23 AM
However, I think we can both agree that there are aspects of the traditional D&D cosmology that run counter to "broad mythical themes". My criticism is that it would be easier for people who want "broad mythical themes" to find a supplement that gives them that from a non WotC publisher than for people who want the Great Wheel. Anyone can homebrew any thing they like, but for those of us that want or need supplements for whatever reason, with 4e there will be little hope that we will be able to use an updated version of the great wheel.
Think of it this way: is it easier to stick D&D cosmology into the context of broad mythical themes or vice versa.

If you want the Great Wheel, then break out your old edition supplements and stick that stuff in the middle of the 4e astral sea. Not too hard. If you want to do it the other way 'round you have to throw out all of the cosmology and start again from stratch. One is a lot more flexible and easier to add stuff to than the other, which makes the current cosmology a lot more suitable for Core than the other.


but for those of us that want or need supplements for whatever reason, with 4e there will be little hope that we will be able to use an updated version of the great wheel.
Planes of Greyhawk supplement?

illathid
2007-09-28, 02:42 AM
Presumably, Wizards believes that there are more people who will like this new cosmology than people who would prefer the Great Wheel.

I suspect they're right. This new cosmology is more evocative, more resonating with common themes. It's a bit more universal. I understand that this is a negative for you, but I think it will be a good thing for many more. And pleasing the greatest number of people possible... Well, that sounds about as fair as you're going to get.

But utilitarianism has been shown time and time again to be an unfair ethical system! :smallwink:

I don't know, it's not even that I don't like the new cosmology, I just find it sad, as it has been the great wheel that has fueled my interest in D&D. I doubt I would still like D&D after picking it up when I was ten, had I not discovered the intricacies of the great wheel. I mean there are lots of RPG's out there that can pull off a more mythological cosmology, but I can only get the Great Wheel in D&D.

And Bosh, that might be true, but some of us don't even have time for homebrewing that.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-28, 02:45 AM
Actually, the reason we want the great wheel to BE a part of things (at least a big portion of the astral sea, and at least me) is simple: A pc game. Planescape:torment. Best RPG ever. "what can change the nature of a man?"

Artemician
2007-09-28, 03:57 AM
I personally don't much use the Great Wheel either, but that's mainly because I play in the Realms and use that cosmology. I'm against summarily tossing it out because it's been the standard for so long that it'll force a lot of people to retcon a lot of game worlds if they want to convert without doing massive homebrewing. I know a lot about not wanting to do massive homebrewing; while it's fun, I have this arcane activity known as "work" that I have to do in order to meet this other strange concept called "living expenses," so I can't afford to sit around and homebrew for the hours every day it would take to create and run my own in-depth campaign setting. :smallannoyed:


Actually, the reason we want the great wheel to BE a part of things (at least a big portion of the astral sea, and at least me) is simple: A pc game. Planescape:torment. Best RPG ever. "what can change the nature of a man?"



If you want the Great Wheel, then break out your old edition supplements and stick that stuff in the middle of the 4e astral sea. Not too hard. If you want to do it the other way 'round you have to throw out all of the cosmology and start again from stratch. One is a lot more flexible and easier to add stuff to than the other, which makes the current cosmology a lot more suitable for Core than the other.

Planes of Greyhawk supplement?

Bosh is 100% correct. If you are really attached to the cosmology of the Realms/Greyhawk so much.. all you need to do is just reuse the fluff from your 3rd ed sourcebooks. Nothing simpler. Just the same way as I use the fluff from my homebrew universe to replace the Great Wheel, except it's much easier because the cosmology has been drastically simplified.

It shouldn't take too much effort because the thing is already there. There's no need to dig up Planescape:Torment, or Baldur's Gate, or Icewind Dale, or whatever. All you need are your 3rd ed sourcebooks, which you already have.

Although frankly, I think this issue will never come up. WotC will probably release alternate sourcebooks which expound the different cosmologies in detail, ala SpellJammer, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, etc etc.

Equlan
2007-09-28, 05:50 AM
I think the sad thing, for those of us who love/like the Great Wheel, Planescape etc. is that the implication is that it will no longer be supported, or built upon. WotC generally, to me, seem only to support a very limited number of systems - to support both this new one and occasionally release a Great Wheel book would clash with that business strategy, I think.

As I said before, I can definitely see merits in the cosmology, and I am sure it will be awesome to play in... That doesn't mean I will be very sad to see support for the old one go, which I am afraid it will.

Of course I can still play in the Great Wheel, and I expect to do so, it's just not the same, you know.

hewhosaysfish
2007-09-28, 07:49 AM
The only problem I have with the new cosmology is that they seem to be implying that the Astral Sea is mostly composed of empty space (like the current Astral Plane) whereas I would be looking to fill it with monsters, demons and other hazards to reflect the Material Plane's "points of light" style. As above so it is below and all that. Well, there's Giththingy pirates, of course. Here's to hoping the new MM dredges up all the obscure and bizarre astral monsters out of the Planescape and Spelljammer setting and sets them loose. Space whales ahoy!

Dausuul
2007-09-28, 07:58 AM
Here's to hoping the new MM dredges up all the obscure and bizarre astral monsters out of the Planescape and Spelljammer setting and sets them loose. Space whales ahoy!

Heh, I hadn't even thought of that. Will there be ships that sail on the Astral Sea? Space is an ocean (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceIsAnOcean), after all...

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-28, 12:19 PM
Suddenly, the thought of a truly mirror match between humans and Vashar who live in the astral sea has sprung to my mind. Niiiiiiiiiiiice. Finally a race that will have base class blackguards, assasins, etc.

Artemician
2007-09-29, 01:05 AM
Heh, I hadn't even thought of that. Will there be ships that sail on the Astral Sea? Space is an ocean (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceIsAnOcean), after all...

The Astral Sea is awesomeness incarnate. Astral Pirates ahoy!

I mean.. floating through a (really boring) silvery sky... versus skimming on a layer of mist ala The Neverending Story.. I sure know what I'll pick.


Suddenly, the thought of a truly mirror match between humans and Vashar who live in the astral sea has sprung to my mind. Niiiiiiiiiiiice. Finally a race that will have base class blackguards, assasins, etc.

What does the Astral Sea have to do with Prestige-classing mechanics? :smallconfused:

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-29, 02:03 PM
Vashar, unless I'm mistakin' them, are the drow equivalent of humans, only eviler.

Artemician
2007-09-29, 08:41 PM
No, as in, you mentioned "Base Class Assassins and Blackguards". That's the part I was confused about, not Vashar. Although admittedly, I didn't know what Vashar were either :smallredface:

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-29, 09:08 PM
Aaah. Well, lemme summarize Vashar quicko:


Vashar were (noticed the grammatically wrong but fitting time) the first human, who tried to attack the gods, showing great skill and tenacity. He was to be destroyed, but a fiend saved him, created a similar female pair, and left 'em atop a gigantic mountaintop. Over time, they became an odd society, were all birth's happen through rape, everyone backstabs, and well, it's the kind of society you wouldn't ever expect to work, but it does. They're functionally like humans, but are always evil (as in, ALWAYS, no exceptions, no ones in a million), and can only take a vile feat as the 1st level bonus feat.