Search results

I was responding to Scribe's comment about older settings not being changed or retconned. Which I find to be both impossible (if they are supposed to be aligned with the current rules) and futile. To that point, a "5.5" setting would most likely suffer a similar fate when the next edition...

I'm responding to the notion older settings cannot be used if changes to them have to be made to make them compatible with the current edition. IE Greyhawk can never have Dragonborn because Dragonborn didn't exist in 1983.

Right. IMHO there are two different types of settings in D&D: kitchen sink and curated. Greyhawk, Realms, Eberron, Spelljammer, Planescape, and most versions of Ravenloft are kitchen sink and reflect what was in the rules at the time. Dragonlance and Dark Sun are curated and intentionally...

So every edition you throw out all the lore and start fresh? That's IP suicide! I understand you hate D&D, but you're asking an irrational design choice to appease the minuscule amount of player who care that there are no monks on Krynn. Take that to the next level. Elves have changed from...

When Greyhawk was designed, there was no cavalier or barbarian classes. Thus adding them to Greyhawk required a change of design intent. Gary Gygax ruined Greyhawk with Unearthed Arcana, Monster Manual 2 and Oriental Adventure by your reasoning.

It does beg the question: did Greyhawk not have dwarven wizards because that was an intrinsic part of the setting or was it because that was not an option of the rules? Put another way, if the base AD&D rules has allowed such a combo, would Gary have disallowed it because it was important to the...

So hypothetically, people would be happier with 5e having Innistrad instead of Ravenloft, Tarkir instead of Dragonlance, Dominaria instead of Greyhawk and Avishkar instead of Eberron because those settings were designed prior to Goliath being in the PHB? And next edition we will have a new...

Honestly, D&D has too many settings as it stands. Adding more will make that worse. Because fans want their favorite settings "in print" and not replaced by a new setting that is similar (case in point, Ravnica and Radiant Citadel were both supposed to mean we weren't getting Planescape because...

But that loops us back to the original problem Mearls is trying to fix: one shot fight ending spells. Both hold person/monster and banishment remove a foe from combat to focus fire on other targets, then focus fire on it when other threats are neutralized.

Less that we can't imagine what it is like, but our imaginations are still framed in what we understand as humans. Take an elf. A species who lives hundreds of years, maybe immortal depending on the lore. Even the notion that elves are long-lived is based on the framing of a human lifespan and...

Hey,, I'm agreeing with you. I think the fact D&D species are all funny hats is acceptable because I really think that playing a truly alien mind isn't possible, and if it was I don't know if it would be fun. So when people say that a dwarf should not have the same mindset as a human, I find...

I pointed out later on the example of warforged how we can take an absolutely alien life form and still impress upon it certain notions of humanity because we're still humans trying to figure out what a 300 lb magical golem would do in a dungeon filled with traps and monsters. If that's...

I assume it's because they have enough bonuses in resisting all those biological needs and environmental hazards as is. At a certain point, you gotta find some weakness for them!

I think, on a purely meta design level, the most interesting species in D&D is warforged. They are not biological. They have no biological sex, no need for intercourse, no ability to procreate without outside assistance. They do not eat, breathe, or sleep. They have no defined culture except for...

Daggerheart uses ancestry

Well yes, biology shouldn't have any affect on what kind of person you are. Your intelligence, aptitudes, interests, gender role, or culture is not a factor of biology. The same is, in theory, true of other sapient beings. So? There is nothing in the lore of that says that they have any...

It's sorta both. Gruumsh was late to the party, so the other gods picked first . When he got there, he said that since there is no one place for the orcs, they will wander whenever they please. They made it where Gruumsh isn't cheated out of malice, nor does he claim his people will be a blight...

They are on par with the ones in Heroes of Faerun. Make of that what you will. They are flavorful, but many are limited use to 1/rest or prof per day. Most could stand a few more uses per session. I could see using some, but if you are an optimizer, you'll probably pass.

The orcs are reframed as nomads, wandering without a homeland after the bad deal made to Gruumsh. Many are pressed into service by evil rulers or resort to banditry to survive, but others trade, herd, or act as mercenaries.

Well, for starters it creates the biological essentialism argument that a dwarf born an orphan and never having contact with other dwarves would still instinctively speak dwarves, have an affinity for axes and hammers, feel an connection to dwarven gods he's never met, and probably will speak...