+ Log in or register to post
Results 41 to 50 of 154
Thread: D&D Next Blog: Tone and Edition
Saturday, 28th April, 2012, 12:41 AM #41"Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose"
- EN World
- has no influence
- on adverts that
- are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Saturday, 28th April, 2012, 12:52 AM #42
Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)
As I read topics here and in other places, I am beginning to think DMs are afraid to tell players "No".
And the more I read these topics, the more I think we need an official campaign sheet for DMs.
I know many DMs have campaign primers but the amount of variation that can happen between games, players and DMs will need something simple to start conversation between them when finding groups.
You hand them the sheet that says "Races: Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Halfings. Classes: Clerics, Fighters, Rogues, Wizards."
You two talk and decide if you will make any changes to accommodate them. Then you two play D&D together or not.
My beard is hairy.
Saturday, 28th April, 2012, 12:57 AM #43
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
Saturday, 28th April, 2012, 12:59 AM #44
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
Maybe to you, but I certainly don't consider it fantasy is there's only humans and monsters, it's kinda a dumb duality.Yes, this is certainly true. That's why the monster manuals are filled with these kinds of things. That's why rules for playing monsters are important. That's not a statement that these things are ever going to be the primary PC races. Trying to make them that radically changes the game away from being classic fantasy and away from being grounded in humanity. There is one primary PC race: human. Really, everything else is optional.
As for "monstrous PCs" I think this evokes a bit of soft racism, much like "demi human" that I really can stand to live without. Aside from setting books, the "core books" should be written from a perspective neutral view, not from a humanocentric one. Dragonborn and Tieflings are only monstrous if we assume that humanity is not. That's why I argue for racial neutrality, in a setting populated primarily by elves and gnomes(both fey descendants), humans are likely to be the "savage species" and I'm sure many elves would consider dwarves "monstrous" with those short, fat, hairy bodies.
Is it? Since when? 2nd edition? There hasn't been an edition of D&D I've played that has regarded the "Core four" as generic. In 3e and 4e(the editions I'm most familiar wit and played the most of), they go to pretty great lengths to give each race it's own particular favor and styling. I'd hardly call them "generic".Perhaps you should try another rpg. There are plenty that don't make this assumption, but D&D is not one of them.
Saturday, 28th April, 2012, 01:01 AM #45
Superhero (Lvl 15)
God in Heaven I hope they go with traditional tieflings with variation to their form and a diversity of possible fiendish heritage rather than the homogenous one form fits all "tiefling" from 4e.
If they kill off the classic tiefling in 5e in favor of only the 4e tiefling, without providing both as options, my interest is going to seriously crater.
Last edited by Shemeska; Saturday, 28th April, 2012 at 01:14 AM.
Freelance Writer 5 / Scientist 5 / Yugoloth 10
Coming soon Laughing Fiend.com, my freelancing page. Awaiting art. ETA I have no idea, but if not soon the Tindalos hounds will be eating artist for dinner.
Visit Shemeska's Planescape Storyhour and Shemmy's 2nd Planescape Storyhour
Saturday, 28th April, 2012, 01:02 AM #46
Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)
Saturday, 28th April, 2012, 01:10 AM #47
Magsman (Lvl 14)
"If you die first, we're splitting up your gear" - SkidAce
""If you don't like it, change it! If it doesn't exist, make it up!" - Gygax
"So, even when everyone thinks they are on the same page it's quite plausible that they really aren't." - Hussar
"Just because you don't like it, don't understand it, and can't explain it, doesn't mean that it doesn't work."- Celebrim
"D&D is amazingly flexible, so there is no one well-accepted set of expectations there, and I've seen no evidence that there ever were." - Umbran
"I usually describe "Record of Lodoss War" as the D&D game you want to run. Whereas Slayers is what actually happens at your table." - Andor
Saturday, 28th April, 2012, 01:18 AM #48
Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)
Saturday, 28th April, 2012, 01:26 AM #49
Eh. This seems harmless, but not particularly useful. Inevitably, I will use some classes and not use others.
The principle advantage is psychological. I think there are people who would freak out if Dragonborn were core again, who won't freak out if they're "optional, rare".
But ultimately all races are optional so it doesn't matter to me much either way.
I'll say this though: I'd be super happy if they added Changeling, Shifter, and Warforged to the set of races they support in the initial set of books. (Maybe in the Monster Manual?) I get more use out of those classes than a bunch of the core/common races.
Saturday, 28th April, 2012, 01:46 AM #50
Guide (Lvl 11)
Of course, I also think they should dump the "common-uncommon-rare" categorization. That just seems to fuel the misunderstanding. I've suggested "Basic - Expert - Advanced" for historical reasons, and because one of the writers suggested that rare and uncommon might be home to more complicated mechanical stuff.
Of course, I could be wrong.