D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[TwoSix]

If you are playing dragons seriously, not for laughs, how often do you think they have sex and procreate with himanoids?

The bard rolls to seduce the dragon is a tired, silly cliche, and dragons are immensely powerful egotistical beings. Why would there be a large amount of half-dragons around?

Because half-dragon was a really strong template in 3E.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Do not make that assumption. "He is strong" or "he is a good fighter" is all the explanation they give for frankly ridiculous feats. Like that last one, normal high school student, without good form, beats the world record by 7 meters by throwing a shot-put like a baseball. No special training, no special origin, he's just... a naturally inhuman athlete.

And that’s how you get Krillan.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Its far more nuanced than that.

Right. I wouldn’t expect the rule book to say what everything in the game is not. I would expect it to tell me what they are. If it doesn’t say they are something then I’d expect they are not that something.

As an example. The game doesn’t say a level 1 Fighter can cast Wish once per day. Does anyone believe that means the game is ‘silent’ about whether a level 1 Fighter can cast wish once per day (because he is a Fighter)?

What is the quote you have in mind?

So much more nuanced that no additional explanation is warranted?

The absence of a positive statement isn't a negative statement. Heck even on this board we've had at least one person treat battle master maneuvers as magical even without the explicit description. And most all of their current abilities could already be interpreted this way. The text doesn't support or contradict such interpretations.

As far as the quote..it's the first bit in the Creating a Fighter section..
"As you build your fighter, think about two related elements of your character's background: Where did you get your combat training, and what set you apart from the mundane warriors around you?"

 

[FrozenNorth]

Because half-dragon was a really strong template in 3E.

Which does suggest this isn’t a problem in 5e. Which makes sense, since the OotS comic is modeling a 3.5 game, not a 5e game.

You know, I think these discussions would go smoother in people didn’t drag in their experience and lore from previous editions into the discussion of the current one.

 

[Gammadoodler]

If you are playing dragons seriously, not for laughs, how often do you think they have sex and procreate with himanoids?

The bard rolls to seduce the dragon is a tired, silly cliche, and dragons are immensely powerful egotistical beings. Why would there be a large amount of half-dragons around?

Procreation can also be an act of egotism.

 

[FrogReaver]

So much more nuanced that no additional explanation is warranted?

The explanation was my next paragraph…

The absence of a positive statement isn't a negative statement. Heck even on this board we've had at least one person treat battle master maneuvers as magical even without the explicit description. And most all of their current abilities could already be interpreted this way. The text doesn't support or contradict such interpretations.

So you think the rules are silent on whether wizards make 1 extra attack per level? Whether bards get eldritch invocations? Whether sorcerers get ki and patient defense?

Really?

As far as the quote..it's the first bit in the Creating a Fighter section..
"As you build your fighter, think about two related elements of your character's background: Where did you get your combat training, and what set you apart from the mundane warriors around you?"

PC Fighters are far more extradionary than most warriors around them. Doesn’t make them magical. They are still mundane as we mean it. Mundane can mean different things in different context… not really a surprise.

 

[Remathilis]

As far as the quote..it's the first bit in the Creating a Fighter section..
"As you build your fighter, think about two related elements of your character's background: Where did you get your combat training, and what set you apart from the mundane warriors around you?"

So we can get past the idea that fighters are mundane finally?

 

[FrogReaver]

So we can get past the idea that fighters are mundane finally?

No. Mundane in that context is different than its meaning in the context we are using it.

 

[TwoSix]

Which does suggest this isn’t a problem in 5e. Which makes sense, since the OotS comic is modeling a 3.5 game, not a 5e game.

You know, I think these discussions would go smoother in people didn’t drag in their experience and lore from previous editions into the discussion of the current one.

That's kinda impossible, though, unless you're new to the game and 5e was your introductory edition.

What this discussion shows is that people don't really do their mental world-building based right off the books. They already know how a D&D setting should work, and then it becomes a question of how closely do the books actually match their preferred mental model.

No one in this thread has actually changed their mind about the cosmology of their own settings based on something somebody found in the PHB.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which does suggest this isn’t a problem in 5e. Which makes sense, since the OotS comic is modeling a 3.5 game, not a 5e game.

You know, I think these discussions would go smoother in people didn’t drag in their experience and lore from previous editions into the discussion of the current one.

And if this discussion was occurring primarily between folks with no previous edition experience (WotC's prime marketing targets) I'm sure it would be smoother. But of course, it isn't.