Search results

Another tangent, I just had the idea of basing Slaad off of African hairy frogs, aka “Wolverine Frogs.” They can break the bones in their fingers and pierce them through their skin to use as claws. I think fits well with Slaad, given how they reproduce through their claws. Plus the Wolverine...

Which is a type of nymph

Tangent, the name of Empyrean’s has confused me for a while. The Empyrean is a place, not a type of divine entity. A much more fitting name would be the Nephilim, because that’s basically what they are. Didn’t they used to be called Titans or something like that in previous editions?

23. Same as in 2014. There’s also a CR 1 “Empyrean Iota,” which are those floating eyeball things. They’re not really a new type of Empyrean, more like living divine thoughts and memories.

Ugh, I remember that. It was one of my several complaints with the book. There was seriously a ridiculous amount of them. I remember thinking that there were way too many of them and that it was a bit sexist. One would have sufficed and they should also be of any gender. Tangentially, soon...

There a couple examples in the Theros book. They’re quite good, too. But they play up the elemental nature of them, as there are several types of nymphs in Theros, based on those from Greek mythology.

IIRC, they kidnapped and ate babies and later gave birth to hag version of that child.

Isn’t the main mechanical difference between the two that Gynosphinxes are Clerics and Androsphinxes are Wizards? Maybe they could just change the names to something like Arcanosphinx for the wizard one and, I don’t know, “Deosphinx” for the cleric one? And then let both sphinx be of any gender.

I have no interest in Greyhawk and while I’ll probably use Bastions a lot, I’ll probably drastically alter how they work. I am constantly using the Monster creation rules so I would have liked an update to them. I do not agree with the notion that having bad guidelines is worse than having no...

You have a much more negative view of D&D than I do if you think the bigoted tropes of D&D are so important to D&D that to try to “redeem” it would destroy it and make a fundamentally different game. I do not think that all of D&D is built on bad tropes and I don’t think it’s as fundamentally...

I don’t know. I don’t think anyone knows. But I also think you’re asking the wrong question. It’s not that the villains aren’t allowed to be evil. It’s that they shouldn’t embody bigoted tropes that were used to justify discrimination against real people. For another example of a monster I...

The hot vampires do not look like Twilight vampires, hot vampires have been a thing for a very long time, and not all of the vampires in the book are hot. Unless you find the weird Nosferatu-ish vampire attractive, I guess.

Inclusion isn’t about them being good guys. It’s about not using bad tropes. If there are monsters solely built on racist, sexist, ableist, or other bad tropes, they should be either removed from the game or changed to fix them.

But they didn’t do that. In fact, they did the exact oppose of that with getting rid of Maedar in favor of just making Male Medusas without a unique name (which wasn’t even a change made by this book, there’s a Male Medusa as one of the primary antagonists in Princes of the Apocalypse, which...

How on earth would WotC copyright or trademark “male hags/old witches?” They’re likely doing this for sensitivity reasons. Not trademark reasons.

Yeah. That bearded devil art is easily my least favorite piece of the previewed art precisely because it looks like a 3D digital render, but I don’t see how that’s in any way a “red flag” WotC missed. I just don’t think it looks good.