Search results

I feel, given the Fiends video, that the current team doesn't understand what makes yugoloths interesting aside from "they're not demons or devils." To me, yugoloths are a few things. Dangerously Secretive. Yugoloths are creatures of conspiracy. Not many people know much about yugoloths...

Yeah, aarakocra have been sunset/sunrise colors since 2e at least. Parrot-people more than generic bird-people. Though given that we've got Athasian aarakocra as vulture-people, the precedent is there.

They aren't calibrated for a 2024 character's power level, so they aren't going to work as well. I mean, if you're trying to convince me that this isn't important to me, you're doomed to failure. It is important to me. That isn't really up for debate. Which is why the most effective reasoning...

I'm sympathetic to two main concerns I've seen. The creation rules are not newbie friendly, and they wanted to target newbies more. This makes some sense to me, and is something I can get behind in principle. This still ruins how I use D&D, but I'm definitely a pretty elite user. I do wish WotC...

Given how light the '24 species traits are, this isn't so much a logical fallacy as it is a tautology. It's just true of how the chosen design works out. Take an axe-wielding berserker and give 'em Orc traits, and it isn't going to impact the fight much. One could desire more impactful species...

Wait, do cultists get a few different stat blocks in 2024? That's neat. Doesn't exactly fix the issue, but it's a bit of a salve.

THANK YOU. I wonder how these interact with the encounter building rules in Xanathar's. I use those pretty exclusively (since I ain't got time for math, but I can do 1 PC : X Monsters OK!), and I'm a bit concerned about 2024 monsters being too tough given those rules.

Yeah, this is why I will loudly complain about this glaring omission until it's been rectified. It's honestly exceptionally disappointing that they didn't include an updated CR chart for 2024 at least. They have these numbers.

"Other people can fix it," sure. But other people shouldn't have to fix it. These are pretty iconic villains. FWIW, I think D&D 5e has a (lesser) version of the 3e problem of "we're never fighting people, we're always fighting monsters." Eyes of Gruumsh, Priestess of Lolth, Necromancers of...

I'm generally in favor of the new approach to "orcs of different types," but I think this is a pretty fair point. An Eye of Gruumsh probably shouldn't just be a generic "berserker," and a Priestess of Lolth probably sohuldn't just be a generic "cultist." I mean, they can be. It's just kind of...

Tautologies are indeed tautological, but if I dropped a pack of motorcycle-riding orcs into the postapocalyptic wasteland of Old Waterdeep and had them fought by train-building elves who only live for 1 month and die like mayflies, I wouldn't say it's FR lore, even if I went through all the...

Except that's not the lore. Like, sure, you can add it, but you don't get anything FR-specific there if you're just overwriting the current setting with something you like better. FWIW, this subclass is thematically very similar to the 3e dracolyte prestige class in that its main power is...

I'd be curious to see what a brand spankin' new setting from this team would be like. We've got a lot of flavors of D&D out there, even officially-sanctioned. What would we add? The Radiant Citadel civilizations were all pretty interesting, but those were also contracted out. I wonder if...

The FR book is meant for a general D&D audience, so.... There's a place for generic. I wouldn't expect it to be exciting to a lot of posters here, but for all those kids new to the setting from BG3, it's a good bit of setting kit. Eh, feels a little like someone's a bit jealous of...

So it's a failed design. That's OK. We don't need to be committed to doing something with the name that has nothing to do with the setting. We can just not use the name. Eh, opinions vary. But even granting it, "being cool" is only part of the goal of a D&D design. D&D has a history and a...

The broader point that I'm using this in support of is that it's not unreasonable to expect a general audience to learn about the thing. We don't have to meet their expectations in a vacuum. We can expect people to learn that the Holy Roman Empire really was. This is a setting book. People want...

And "Wizard" makes it sound like Gandalf could be a Hufflepuff, unless you know the settings better. And why do we have dragons with colors, while we're at it, aren't dragons all just green nasty things that breathe fire? And why don't rangers capture outlaws and speak in Texan and know how to...

In general, I'm not a fan of marketing-led design, specifically because it gives people exactly what they say they want, without regard to creating new wants. The whole "if I'd asked people what they wanted, they'd say a faster horse!" thing. A well-done FR book doesn't need to appeal to the...

There is a product that could be too niche, but I don't think FR would be it. Spelljammer, I'd understand. I don't think they'd sell fewer books by having a more lore-accurate PDK. A charismatic military leader is not exactly a niche concept. If you can over look the "spellfire" name and the...

So, one way this could go is by making a subclass that works for FR's Purple Dragon Knights and just calling it something else (the "Banneret" option). Another way this could go is by augmenting FR's Purple Dragon Knights by, idk, making them the pre-eminent group of military leaders in the...