Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 prodigyduck Nov 14, 2008 23:18:34	I am curious why WotC decided to run a Demonomicon article on Baphomet. Sure, it is nice to have a 4.0 article for the demon princes, but I was expecting to see them in the Manual of the Planes. In truth, I am actually infuriated at this article. Baphomet was covered in issue #341 of Dragon, and now here he is again. This is the first serious re-treading of old ground I have seen Dragon Magazine perform. They have never re-written "Ecology of" articles, so why was this done. There are so many demon princes that have yet to be featured in their own Demonomicon article. Orcus Juiblex Miska the Wolf-Spider Obox-Ob Just to name a few. I hope this is not done again in the future. It would be a bad sign of the direction of Dragon Magazine to constantly rewrite old articles.
#2 Dragoloth Nov 14, 2008 23:36:20	So your infuriated that they updated a previous article. I fail to see the problem with updating their demon princes to 4th edition. With the new edition I hope to see all of the great articles revised, so that I have edition appropiate crunch to go with the fluff.
#3 kouk Nov 15, 2008 0:27:34	Yeah, 341 was 3.5 still. Now he's 4e compatible. I think that's an OK reason to do it, if that's the guy they like to write about.
#4 serphet Nov 15, 2008 0:29:49	orcus doesn't really need an article, all the others are fitting. Baphomet was likely thrown in because of the minotaur article and theme.
#5 Dragoloth Nov 15, 2008 1:13:11	Ya, the table of contents for Dragon 369 states, and I quote, "What good are minotaurs without the Horned One? Featured in December's release Manual of the Planes, Baphomet's goals, history, and allies are explored in detail." Being the issue that released minotaurs it makes sense. It would be nice if they stay in this direction andrelease the corresponding god/demon for each race they flesh out.
#6 Lord_Ventnor Nov 15, 2008 1:30:34	I am curious why WotC decided to run a Demonomicon article on Baphomet. Sure, it is nice to have a 4.0 article for the demon princes, but I was expecting to see them in the Manual of the Planes. In truth, I am actually infuriated at this article. Baphomet was covered in issue #341 of Dragon, and now here he is again. This is the first serious re-treading of old ground I have seen Dragon Magazine perform. They have never re-written "Ecology of" articles, so why was this done. There are so many demon princes that have yet to be featured in their own Demonomicon article. Orcus Juiblex Miska the Wolf-Spider Obox-Ob Just to name a few. I hope this is not done again in the future. It would be a bad sign of the direction of Dragon Magazine to constantly rewrite old articles. As I am rather new to DnD as a whole, the info on Baphoment was rather useful for me. Not all of us have access to Dragon 341, ya know.
#7 rhianni32 Nov 17, 2008 23:11:32	ecology articles are for the most part systemless and geared towards flavor text and atmosphere. the Baphomet updated mechanics to 4ed. Were you equally as infuriated when they put dragons into the monster manual?
#8 Shemeska_the_Marauder Nov 18, 2008 1:38:52	the Baphomet updated mechanics to 4ed. Were you equally as infuriated when they put dragons into the monster manual? Then they might have been better putting updated mechanics in the MotP rather than almost completely rehashing (in seemingly less detail) a relatively recent Demonomicon article from the magazine's print run. And the conspicuous absence of certain mechanics adds an awkward sales pitch for the MotP into the piece.