Recent content by EscherEnigma

In the current Forgotten Realms campaign I'm playing in, we do have a changeling PC†... didn't really bother explaining it. It's the Realms, there's more weird naughty word that's been forgotten then remembered, right? But as said, shifters and changelings are the easy ones and aren't really tied to...

This is my point. Meta-plots, advancing time-line, working the novels into game products, making everything "connected"... that was a TSR thing, not a WotC thing. If/when a 6e comes along, FR will get a new magical apocalypse because that's it's thing. The other campaigns, when/if they get...

I was expecting the complaint to be about Yakfolk themselves. I was all ready with "think of them as an off-shoot of minotaurs". And here it is, complaining about the weather. To which I have to say... eh. It's the Forgotten Realms. Their geography regularly rearranges in their scheduled...

Re: being upset (or not) over a wizard fireballing the party Assuming the players are fine with it, this all depends on how the players want to run with it. It can range from "yeah, my dude's fine with it. Magical healing and all that jazz" to an over dramatic "do it! Fireball them now, while...

The only setting that WotC has published where they've bothered with keeping a metaplot going is Forgotten Realms. All the others they've shrugged and said "don't worry about it". And Forgotten Realms has a pretty stable tradition for explaining new stuff in a new edition: they have a whacky...

Going with the themes above... A test of doctrine. A test of morals. A test of wild card. Now, if this is a monastery that regularly has visitors coming and going, they probably can't get too worked-up for these tests. The test of doctrine should be simple, the test of morals a...

/shrug Your take on the printed material ("mostly gray") and Keith's bitterness (I don't see it) is different from mine. The only book I can think of that skewed darker on the Flame was the "Religions of Eberron" one. I'm pretty sure the 4e book hid the "darker" stuff in the GM's book, not...

Because Gary Gygax thought it was funny. Further, you don't have lists of different options because the writers didn't think it was worth it. You can come up with different in-world explanations if you want, but they are, universally, after-the-fact justifications, and not the "reason". The...

Asserted. You did not show, you asserted. Further, you are confusing correlation (there are no published monsters that have components on psionic abilities) with causation (those monsters don't have components because they're psionic). You are very obviously confusing your preference for the...

I'd say WotC should just shamelessly steal (and streamline) from Paizo's Starfinder: Make explicit an assumption that the PCs will acquire, one-way-or-another, a Spelljammer in short order (by level 3 or so) and then bump it straight outside of the game's economy, saying that while it will be...

Here's his Twitter, go tell him yourself: https://twitter.com/chrisperkinsdnd I'll wait. (no I won't) That said, the point --which you entirely ignored-- is that your baggage on what "psionics" means is both (A) not universal, and (B) not RAW or RAI in D&D 5e. D&D has room for way more...

Amusingly enough, that's part of what made it appeal to the hubby. He likes that kind of randomness, where a bad (or good) roll of the dice can change things up. That said, at least in the options they showed a few months ago, you could 1/long rest use "psi replenishment" to reset your die...

I was responding to one of your posts where you literally pointed to fluff, and only fluff, as the distinction. Not rules. Not mechanics. Not components. 100% fluff. Yeah, that's not actually part of the rules. Page 10 of the Monster Manual: Emphasis is mine.

So the only difference that matters is whether it's got the psionics tag? That brings us right back to it being a fluff distinction, not a mechanics/rules distinction. You know, I started in this thread saying we did still need a dedicated psion class. But y'all are talking me out of it, cause...

Do you mean mechanically unique or narratively unique? Because this tangent about interfaces and material components only makes sense if you're talking about the latter.