What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 1 to 10 of 154
Thread: D&D Next Blog: Tone and Edition
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 09:30 PM #1
Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Canton, MA
- Read 0 Reviews
- Blog Entries
ø Ignore Elodan
D&D Next Blog: Tone and Edition
Have to admit I like the idea of tagging the races with common, uncommon, rare as it applies to what a DM allows in his or her campaign:
Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible
Last edited by Elodan; Friday, 27th April, 2012 at 09:31 PM. Reason: spellingCertainty of death, small chance of success. What are we waiting for!
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 09:38 PM #2
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
That idea was pretty much what I've been saying about the "class (and race) rarity" system since the idea was first floated over our heads -- it's an excellent shorthand for world-building (or perhaps world-defining).
Your signature contains too many lines and must be shortened.
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 09:41 PM #3
Guide (Lvl 11)
Put rules / guidelines for creating races / classes into the DMG. That way you can A) put a "core" set in without muddying the waters and still allow people to create their own stuff to bring their old campaign or settings along with them and B) give incentives for the more creative players to pick up a traditionally "DM only" book. The DM can still have approval over what goes into their campaign and modify the player's creation, but they'll know if the guidelines were followed, then the race / class should be playable.
D&D has always been about home-brewing stuff. If someone really wanted Tiefling in their game, they can always make it. Giving guidelines makes it explicit that you're expected to homebrew stuff.
As for the rarity system, I like it. You can even define setting stuff using it. "Dragonborn are considered Common in this region of the world."
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 09:46 PM #4
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
Dragonborn and Tieflings in the core PHB is good news. I forsee a lot of player vs DM trying to talk the DM into allowing things.
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 09:51 PM #5
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
I think, instead, names that reflect the style of fantasy those races are associated with:
Classic (Human, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings)
Traditional (Half-elves, Half-orcs, Gnomes, High Elves, Drow)
Modern (Dragonborn, Tieflings, Deva, Warforged, Wilden, etc.)
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 09:53 PM #6
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
They're mad for monstrous PCs down my way. We've played a couple of 3E Savage Species campaigns that saw air elemental, drider, rakshasa, medusa, slaad and stone giant PCs, among others. My friends tend to be quite a bit more open-minded about that kind of thing than I am. And I'm open-minded by ENWorld standards.
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 09:54 PM #7
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
A more useful division of races would be:
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 10:00 PM #8
Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)
Works for me. Glad to see some nontraditional races in the player handbook.
Wont be touching a common only game for for a year or so after the game comes out.
Make it two years.
My beard is hairy.
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 10:02 PM #9
Defender (Lvl 8)
Sure, I can live with that. I initially wanted those rare races to appear in supplements, but I'm sort of leaning to a core where everyone gets the races they want.
It's easier to just say 'no dragonborn' for the group that doesn't want them than for the group that does want them to have to stat them up themselves.
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 10:25 PM #10
Defender (Lvl 8)
Not a fan. I don't need lizards with chesticles or poor misunderstood emo-tieflings.
I hope they reconsider and modulize them.