D&D General Drow & Orcs Removed from the Monster Manual

[pemerton]

The word phylactery is cool. It is one of the most interesting words used in D&D. I find it a lot more interesting than soul jar or soul amulet. Largely because it has an obscure ring to it (and it is an unusual sounding word)

Also when you are constantly shifting things around, it is confusing to people who already know the system and the settings.

You haven't told me what is being "taken away".

And do you really think that any D&D player who is familiar with the word "phylactery" used in the context of liches will be confused by phrases like "soul jar", "soul amulet", "soul object" etc? I find that concern pretty hard to take seriously.

 

[Maxperson]

By my count, two Jewish posters. I'm not sure that counts as "lots".

Significantly more than that in the other thread on this. Plus a large majority of instances I can find on Google.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You haven't told me what is being "taken away".

I think I just did. Not being facetious. I explained Phylactery was a cool and interesting part of the game(and the language the game uses is part of the game: it helps evoke a sense of place, it gives things a feel, and words like this are one of the reasons I found D&D interesting: it didn't sound dumbed down).

And do you really think that any D&D player who is familiar with the word "phylactery" used in the context of liches will be confused by phrases like "soul jar", "soul amulet", "soul object" etc? I find that concern pretty hard to take seriously.

I am saying that when you add up all the changes it does start to get disorienting.If you don't find it so, fair enough. I do find the volume and speed of change to the game confusing

 

[Maxperson]

Gygax would have known them as phylacteries. Probably via Matthew 23.

Or a thesaurus.

Gygax: "I need another word for amulet. Let's see what I can find."

 

[pemerton]

I think I just did. Not being facetious. I explained Phylactery was a cool and interesting part of the game(and the language the game uses is part of the game: it helps evoke a sense of place, it gives things a feel, and words like this are one of the reasons I found D&D interesting: it didn't sound dumbed down).

This tells me nothing about anything being "taken away". The word still exists. All the books in which it appeared still exist. Your interest in D&D is (apparently) still alive and well.

I can't see what has been taken away. I can see that there is a new book that you seem not to care for - neither do I, although for different reasons - but I don't see how the writing and selling of a new thing is taking anything away.

I am saying that when you add up all the changes it does start to get disorienting.If you don't find it so, fair enough. I do find the volume and speed of change to the game confusing

I have not played any 5e D&D, and have read no rules for it other than the Basic PDF, and stuff that I can Google up if I want to.

But I have had little or no trouble following discussions about D&D for the past 10 years.

The idea that someone will be disoriented because a lich is described as having a soul jar is really a notion that I can't credit. I mean, if someone new to the game asked what a lich's phylactery is, the most straightforward way to explain it would be as a soul object. That's a pretty well known concept in D&D-esque fantasy.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Or a thesaurus.

Gygax: "I need another word for amulet. Let's see what I can find."

I don't think it makes its presence in the game more concerning, but @Sepulchrave II did bring up this part of the AD&D DMG glossary (which I admit I hadn't seen before):

To me that does sound bit more like a tefillin (at least it has the arm wrapping and container for religious writings part)

I do think that doesn't automatically mean he got it from Matthew. It does seem a bit more likely than before though. He still could have found it in a thesaurus or dictionary that had that description, or in a history book dealing with religious objects. When I was a kid we had an encyclopedia of biblical times (I can't remember the name but if you leafed through it, you would often find objects like that, so that kind of book is another possibility). It is also possible he got it from a story where it was described in that kind of detail.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This tells me nothing about anything being "taken away". The word still exists. All the books in which it appeared still exist. Your interest in D&D is (apparently) still alive and well.

I can't see what has been taken away. I can see that there is a new book that you seem not to care for - neither do I, although for different reasons - but I don't see how the writing and selling of a new thing is taking anything away.

This is just a semantic argument. I think you know that when I say 'taken away' I mean something that was in a previous edition I liked is not being carried over into a new edition of the game (and evaluating what they take out, keep in, change and add, is pretty fundamental to judging a new edition). So yes, they aren't going back in a time machine and taking the word out of the DMG. But clearly that isn't what I was saying. I am talking about D&D as an ongoing thing that exists across editions.

I have not played any 5e D&D, and have read no rules for it other than the Basic PDF, and stuff that I can Google up if I want to.

But I have had little or no trouble following discussions about D&D for the past 10 years.

Again, fair enough if that is your experience. I have found the volume of changes to the game confusing.

The idea that someone will be disoriented because a lich is described as having a soul jar is really a notion that I can't credit. I mean, if someone new to the game asked what a lich's phylactery is, the most straightforward way to explain it would be as a soul object. That's a pretty well known concept in D&D-esque fantasy.

Again, I am not saying that one change would make a person confused. I am saying all the changes they keep making, make me confused as a reader and gamer. Sometimes that confusion might be worth it if it is adding something to the game for me. But it often isn't if I don't feel like it is adding anything. To an extent this is unavoidable from one edition to the next. But I prefer when they focus on changes that improve the game mechanically, not simply changes to the language the game uses. The game does have specialized language so when you start changing these terms, for some of us, it feels harder to follow. But this was also just one minor point I made, not the heart of my argument, so I don't really see any value in having an extensive back and forth on it

 

[Maxperson]

That is much more suggestive of a tefillin, so he likely did know what phylactery referred to

The DMG phylacteries were clerical magic items. The lich's phylactery is not as they are generally arcane casters(magic users, wizards, etc.).

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think it makes its presence in the game more concerning, but @Sepulchrave II did bring up this part of the AD&D DMG glossary (which I admit I hadn't seen before):

View attachment 396205

To me that does sound bit more like a tefillin (at least it has the arm wrapping and container for religious writings part)

I do think that doesn't automatically mean he got it from Matthew. It does seem a bit more likely than before though. He still could have found it in a thesaurus or dictionary that had that description, or in a history book dealing with religious objects. When I was a kid we had an encyclopedia of biblical times (I can't remember the name but if you leafed through it, you would often find objects like that, so that kind of book is another possibility). It is also possible he got it from a story where it was described in that kind of detail.

Yeah. I just came across @Sepulchrave II's post. Now that he quotes it, I remember that from the DMG.

 

[Maxperson]

I was a little surprised they published Oriental Adventures for 3.0 in 2001 instead of naming it something else.

To this day you can still find Oriental rugs. I think that a lot of people don't understand the offense of the term.