Search results

My condolences to the team that put their work into this and to the players and DMs who aren't getting what they hoped for.

See that one makes sense to me, as was done for Dark Sun in previous editions since everything is different. I'm guessing it went into some detail on Greek-specific creatures, provided setting-specific differences for intelligent species, and discouraged the use of things outside of those?

I was responding to a specific position on where monster lore should be instead of the Monster Manual. You can eliminate basically all of the lore and play the game. "I use my d6 two square math against the four square opponent with the red math cone" "You have reduced the opponent to no math...

Most settings include all creatures from the MM and then put setting-specific monsters in setting books. But hey, what setting books identify which monsters are appropriate to the setting and then give all the setting-specific lore for them?

It would be pretty funny to see entries for ochre jellies in every setting book, plus a supplement for every setting for every new monster book that came out.

Which setting books have monster lore for the whole monster manual?

One of the nice things about Pathfinder 2E's three action system is that it allows combos of actions of the same weight (rather than a standard and a bonus/minor action). You increase the variety of rounds without needing to pile on new bonus actions. Stronger abilities use up more actions, but...

Combat is entirely optional. You can always use skill challenges instead.

I'm sure the designers are doing their best within the constraints, my curiosity is about how much of this is constraints and how much of it is design philosophy that would apply even without constraints. How would things differ if the designers were making indie projects, etc. Edit: And for...

Money is basically what conflicts with design. Focus testing, determination that the number of monster statblocks increases sales, hoping to sell lore seperately, page count, people love to roll dice so give them tables instead of commas, CEOs saying kids hate words these days, etc. Vs...

There is probably an interesting study or two that could be derived from the changing role of story in RPGs over the years. Media saturation and commoditification of fantasy, attention span and time changes, the changing levels of interest in history and mythology, the shift from invention to...

While it doesn't matter because 5.5E doesn't care about lore, amethysts are an odd choice compared to other gem dragons. Sapphires were the notably militaristic ones more fitting for an order of knights. Amethysts were the more royal/lofty sort, so it's like a queen being a soldier's sidekick...

It's such a weird way to go about things. Even with all the wacky and unnecessary cataclysms FR has gone through to force it to meet the new mechanics, those were at least events and in response to the game itself changing. This is a half edition and they're just peeling the label off and...

All the various deities books of 2E, while very much of their time, are fascinating reads. The writers really got to dig into deific mischief.

And the ripoff of a novel from the 1960s needs a dusty old tear-stained name?

Uh huh. Why are you crying about people wanting to keep their fake history again?

Citation needed for this claim. I'm pretty sure there are people who started playing D&D before 2024 who are still alive

What is gained by calling something new by the name of an old thing you find boring?

Strawmanning is not useful. Change by adding or evolving unless something is actually a problem like that Spelljammer species depiction, or if it breaks the core mechanics somehow. Leave retconning to Star Wars

It would be preferable for them to just ignore old lore and create new lore than to wear the old lore's skin. Amethyst Riders of Pren is perfectly fine as its own new order.