D&D 5E Do you think they will go back to driders being a curse instead of a blessing?

[Alzrius]

Especially with how well Mr. D's books sell

Is that R. A. Salvatore's "street" name among gamers?

 

[Sunseeker]

Is that R. A. Salvatore's "street" name among gamers?

Nah the D'man is the Big Drizz himself.


Yo.

 

[Alzrius]

Nah the D'man is the Big Drizz himself.

Yo.

Ah, you just say that because he's black.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

One of RAS's latest books had a pair of driders as supporting characters. They were a couple (one male, one female). Nothing was said of childbearing, but I doubt driders can't mate.

They both seemed happy and respected, too. If the curse is to remain a curse, something must clearly state why it's a bad thing. (I'm talking about from the PoV of NPCs.)

 

[Hussar]

Pulling back a bit from driders I really have to wonder at the reasons behind wanting to roll things back as it were.

How come no one seems to want to roll kobolds back. After all they've gone from dog men pests to tiny dragon men sorcerers. Dragons have radically changed across editions. Orcs went from pig faced LE to almost gorilla shaped and hugely muscular and CE. When succubus did the same alignment shift in reverse we say years of complaints. But orcs seem to pass muster.

What is the motivation behind wanting driders to go back and excise later developments?

 

[Savage Wombat]

For the same reason we ignore Highlander 2.

 

[billd91]

Pulling back a bit from driders I really have to wonder at the reasons behind wanting to roll things back as it were.

How come no one seems to want to roll kobolds back. After all they've gone from dog men pests to tiny dragon men sorcerers. Dragons have radically changed across editions. Orcs went from pig faced LE to almost gorilla shaped and hugely muscular and CE. When succubus did the same alignment shift in reverse we say years of complaints. But orcs seem to pass muster.

What is the motivation behind wanting driders to go back and excise later developments?

Not all change is bad. Bad change is bad. Good change is good. You seem to be projecting the idea that all change must be bad because there are a lot of people who think a particular change was a bad idea. That's not and never has been the case.

 

[Hussar]

Not all change is bad. Bad change is bad. Good change is good. You seem to be projecting the idea that all change must be bad because there are a lot of people who think a particular change was a bad idea. That's not and never has been the case.

What lot of people? I see a pretty even split here, same as usual. Yet, the argument only seems to apply in rather specific cases.

IOW it's edition warring with a set of funny glasses and a fake nose.

 

[billd91]

What lot of people? I see a pretty even split here, same as usual. Yet, the argument only seems to apply in rather specific cases.

IOW it's edition warring with a set of funny glasses and a fake nose.

SO you're saying there aren't a lot of people who like the drider change? Is it not possible for there to be a lot on either side of that coin?

And of course it's not edition warring. Criticism of changes in an edition do not equal edition warring. And of course specific arguments apply in specific cases but a bit of good observation will notice a few trends about them. How orcs look - that's pretty much cosmetic. The look of orcs has varied considerably throughout D&D history depending on who's doing the art. Everyone's got their favorites, but the look very rarely defines the essence of the creature. Shifting from lawful evil in 1e to "often CE" in 3e isn't that much of a change either. They're still evil and still bullies. The specifics of their philosophical approach to violence and bullying is of relatively minor importance, particularly since the qualifier "often" is a weak one.

Whether or not the drider is a curse - that's a more substantial matter. That aspect even made it into one of RA Salvatore's drow novels. A more fundamental aspect of the creature has been changed than just how it looks and what philosophy of evil it espouses.

Frankly, I find the whole idea of lumping all changes together as if they're all the same or of the same significance to be intellectually dishonest. There aren't that many people out here approaching the game that way.

 

[Hussar]

I find most of this pretty intellectually dishonest. If there were repeated calls to roll back changed from all editions from certain parties then fine. But it's broken record time yet again. Anything 4e did is automatically bad in some circles.

Heck there have been several perfectly good compromises in this thread alone but that's never good enough. We must turn back the clock to 2006 and nothing else matters.