Unpopular opinions go here

[Reynard]

I guess we need more elven sub-races, then, too

Just make them elf subraces based on new dragon types. Win-win.

"Chasm-dragon-elf" has a nice ring to it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I definitely still find it vaguely offensive. I've become less fussed about process, but I'd still like the result to be understandable in the same terms.

I just don't think doing that and engaging with all of D&D's bits and bobs is a case of two pieces of rope that don't meet in the middle.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think there's a miscommunication going on; I'm referring to a single individual as having been part of the cadre I outlined previously. (The "they" in my previous post was singular.)

Heh, agreement as to number. A real thing that aids clarity. Xe/Xer, anyone?

There's another unpopular opinion.

"Y'all" should be proper English, because agreement as to number. And we need a new non-gendered pronoun to use for an individual human.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think there's a miscommunication going on; I'm referring to a single individual as having been part of the cadre I outlined previously. (The "they" in my previous post was singular.)

Ah, yes, that was not clear.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just make them elf subraces based on new dragon types. Win-win.

"Chasm-dragon-elf" has a nice ring to it.

If half-elf can't be a race anymore, make it a template, like 3.5 half-dragon or half-celestial.

 

[Reynard]

If half-elf can't be a race anymore, make it a template, like 3.5 half-dragon or half-celestial.

Half chasm half elf half dragon?

 

[Alzrius]

You know, I was really hostile to that when I first saw it; I came from a background of a number of games like RuneQuest and Fantasy Hero where opponents were fundamentally not built any different than PCs (other than the obvious matter of degree in some places).

But D&D, particularly post-3e D&D had too many moving parts to make that possible, especially as you got to advanced opponents for representing them all in the same detail to go well (I saw that at the end of the 3e campaign I ran), and trying to still capture some of the more exotic things required some corner cutting.

I don't still particularly like it, but I understand the virtual necessity.

For what it was worth, there were innovations later on which helped with that, at least in part. While I could swear I saw a prior take on it somewhere, Pathfinder's simple class templates, for instance, helped to offload some of the issues with adding PC abilities to monsters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

People have done even without the license.

At the level of Paizo and Pathfinder, with an open license? Maybe. Matt Colville might have lead that charge personally.

Yeah, it would be nice if there was a legit 4e retroclone on the order of Pathfinder or an OSR game. It's not legally possible (ORCUS apparently worked very hard to be legal, and, as a result, is definitely not a clone on the order of Pathfinder). But, if WotC ever put 4e in the CC, and someone ripped it & spit out a clone, it would put disgruntled 4e fans whining for 4e stuff to be added to 5e on the same plane as disgruntled 3.5 & OSR fans whining for their stuff to be added to 5e some 11-15 years ago...

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah, it would be nice if there was a legit 4e retroclone on the order of Pathfinder or an OSR game. It's not legally possible (ORCUS apparently worked very hard to be legal, and, as a result, is definitely not a clone on the order of Pathfinder). But, if WotC ever put 4e in the CC, and someone ripped it & spit out a clone, it would put disgruntled 4e fans whining for 4e stuff to be added to 5e on the same plane as disgruntled 3.5 & OSR fans whining for their stuff to be added to 5e some 11-15 years ago...

I await the day when your preferred edition is no longer the new hotness and your desire for new content is described as whining.

 

[Hussar]

I believe that was "4e D&D isn't D&D"

"D&D isn't a TTRPG" OTOH, that's an unpopular opinion (at least, here at ENWorld, which, we recall, started as a news site for the upcoming, brand-new, 3rd edition of D&D). And, the point? Liberation? Thinking outside the Red Box? trying something new & better... well, less than 45 years old & better? Imagining the hobby without D&D?

What's the point of posting an unpopular opinion, anyway?

I dunno. There’s a rather large forum that refused to acknowledge 3e as part of DnD. Largely for the same sort of reasons for rejecting 4e.

The question of why would any deny DnD is an rpg is pretty easy to answer, regardless of whether it’s one specific edition or DnD as a whole - to gatekeep the hobby and declare your preferred game/edition/whatever to be the superior.