Search results

Thank goodness for the Internet Archive: Wayback Machine

Of course. The movie is an example of this, relying mainly on tabletop lore, but also bringing in the 80s cartoon characters, which were from a different "expression". The policy basically establishes this as a one-way street, where you can only count on what's presented affirmatively in each...

It's fascinating to me that it would be counterintuitive to them - that was the blatantly obvious result when I first heard about floating ASI...

This is pretty much what they did with 5e Planescape, FWIW. Though I'd expect 2024 5e Greyhawk to be vastly less detailed than that...

Eh, that's not really a contradiction. The argument would be that the film novel tie-ins are also their own canon, one that includes the film itself, but not necessarily vice versa. And the version of the cartoon characters in the film would be a version for that canon, different from the one in...

I wholeheartedly agree in principle, but digital music is generally an exception to this problem - you can download and keep MP3s (and other formats). Even purchases from Amazon... though they'd much rather you use their streaming. They may disappear from where you bought them, but you can still...

Theoretically I would have allowed stacking different subclasses from the same class as epic boons, but players never got that far in our last 5e campaign. But not mixing and matching at lower levels. (All homebrew of course.)

I'm rather fond of the lossless FLAC format, available on places like Bandcamp. But that's overall much harder to find than MP3 (and doesn't play on as many non-desktop platforms by default).

Interesting if modern sensitivities were their reason for renaming the "Barbarian" regions, when the updated core rules still contain a "Barbarian" class. Maybe they just prefer naming locations on the map for nations rather than groups of people? (Might also explain the Scarlet Brotherhood...

IMHO "character build diversity" is a strong argument against floating ASI by default. But has Wizards hinted that this is their reason for this rather unexpected change? It's plausible, but I wasn't aware that they'd addressed it.

I admit I'm pretty surprised they didn't use the Vecna adventure to reboot the Realms and other settings for the 2024 era, much as they already had Ravenloft and Spelljammer and Dragonlance and Planescape (albeit in progressively smaller degrees). Though I guess we also haven't yet seen any...

Eh, they've made some notable changes from previous editions' canon since the policy was revealed, on things that had a history in the game and weren't problematic (such as Spelljammer's cosmology). They do seem to have become more conservative since then (Dragonlance and Planescape hew much...

Which doesn't mean they default to old canon unless they have a reason not to. It means that if some piece of old canon is well-established and not problematic, they're simply less likely to change it. Combined with the official stance that every edition has its own canon, nothing can be assumed...

(Sidenote on the canon policy - I notice the direct link now redirects to DDB. And I can't find a replica of the policy on their site offhand. Their June 11 community update suggests it may come back, but we'll see.)

They very definitely don't. The policy has a whole section on "Why not adopt the canon of earlier editions and be done with it?" Also: Older canon is not used by default in current 5e products. The only "canon" is what meets their current standards. And only what we see published in the...

That would be a smart move!

You really can't deduce anything. Wizards has been pretty clear that only what you see in the current core rulebooks can be counted on as "official". If it's not explicitly stated there, it's a blank slate. And isn't that the point? They're not bringing any version of Greyhawk back. They're...

This isn't a version of 1e or 2e or 3e Greyhawk, or some continuation thereof, but a new Greyhawk for a new edition. Finding the origins of these Easter eggs is certainly interesting, but folks shouldn't make the mistake of relying on them to tell you anything else about the 2024 5e version of...

Maybe it's a clue that rebooted 2024 5e versions of these dungeons are on the way in the near future.

I tend to assume people aren't lying when they say something upsets them, even if I find their reasons questionable, but you do you.