Scribe
Legend
He exists, he'll be around later.What I have yet to see is any person of mixed heritage say, "Good thing they finally got rid of those offensive half-races!". I wonder if that idea exists, really.
He exists, he'll be around later.What I have yet to see is any person of mixed heritage say, "Good thing they finally got rid of those offensive half-races!". I wonder if that idea exists, really.
You keep saying this. But can you give a good example of this.Lore restricts player freedom and is hard to write, so it seems that WotC is mostly giving up on it.
The lore of 5e that wasn't cribbed directly from previous editions is broad-stroked and sketchy IMO. They have made changes to existing lore for reasons that are motivated solely by financial gain and fear of the public (which also of course goes to financial gain).You keep saying this. But can you give a good example of this.
The only generic lore books are volos and ToF, yes? Both replaced.The lore of 5e that wasn't cribbed directly from previous editions is broad-stroked and sketchy IMO. They have made changes to existing lore for reasons that are motivated solely by financial gain and fear of the public (which also of course goes to financial gain).
This is all IMO naturally, but I see very little lore-wise in 5e's run that is worth keeping.
Growing up, I always wondered what people thought I was. If I ask 5 people what they think I am, I will get 6 answers.I've seen a few people of mixed heritage post that they find the idea of dropping the "half" races as anything from absurd to offensive. While I think that I understand (in theory) why the naming convention of "half-x" to be less than ideal (the main point, I think, being "Why not the other half?" or "What about when the unnamed other half is not human?") I'm not sure that the solution "you only get to take after one parent!" is really ideal either.
What I have yet to see is any person of mixed heritage say, "Good thing they finally got rid of those offensive half-races!". I wonder if that idea exists, really.
Of course, it's also possible, I suppose, that the designers wanted to drop them for reasons other than the desire to remove offensive content, and that theory is just way off base.
That was not an example.The lore of 5e that wasn't cribbed directly from previous editions is broad-stroked and sketchy IMO. They have made changes to existing lore for reasons that are motivated solely by financial gain and fear of the public (which also of course goes to financial gain).
This is all IMO naturally, but I see very little lore-wise in 5e's run that is worth keeping.
The Spelljammer material was extremely lore-light and changed the cosmology for no good reason. The "Ravenloft" setting they wholesale invented bears very little resemblance to any previous version of it, is intended to be as artificial as possible to discourage spending much time there or investing in the setting, and should have just been a different place altogether. Their version of Strixhaven completely misses the meat of the Magic setting, while also being a bad example of the magic school genre in general. The lore in Volo's and Mordenkainen's also made many unnecessary changes, and in particular casts the entire Dwarven species in a particularly bad light vis a vis their interactions with the duergar.That was not an example.
They are not taking a bunch of stuff out though. It mostly a revision a little trim, a little add and a reorganizationYou misunderstand, I mean they are taking a bunch of stuff out, so naturally to keep it fresh they should put something else back in, like to fill that space.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.