Search results

I'm not sure it's even particularly realistic, because stilettos were specifically carried around for coup de graces on fallen armoured knights, from memory.

Irrelevant, because Vampire and the rest use WOD. In D&D, a key draw is worldbuilding. It's core should reflect that, not compromise it.

No, it comes across as "4E isn't the only edition I don't think got everything right with regard to core races." Unlike certain others, I don't go pro-everything or anti-everything a given edition has to offer. And I don't pretend to be 100% objective - no-one can be about subjective stuff...

Not quite true - the paladin and monk (mystic) were OD&D prestige classes, and I think the druid too. Gnomes are indeed a new addition, but fit the overall theme of demihumans, and critically aren't monsters (ala dragonborn) or D&Disms (ala "eladrin"). "Eladrin", being a contrived D&Dism of a...

I know it's subjective, but so far as I'm concerned: Yes really. Very much really. Tweaking the flavour of some established races does not even begin to compare with dumping in several new, potentially unwelcome ones into the core. It simply doesn't.

Minor tweaks, akin to removing level limits. Dragonborn, eladrin, and so-called-"warlords" in the core are in a completely different league to the examples you cite.

This is definitely preferable to what they're doing IMO. Who cares if M:tG and WH use it too? It's a good idea - flexible, unobtrusive, and immune to aesthetic brain farts, and easy to put a new spin on (like WH has).

Yes, good start, but I think it needs more "wahoo" factor. Can we arm it with a sentient dancing spiked chain, have it riding a diplodicus, and have it be a paragon ninja/pirate/warlord? Getting there. Still not 4E enough, though - needs more trademarkable IP. Okay, riding a forestravager...

Traditionally, a duel with pistols at dawn, but I think you're too far away for a glove slap to get proceedings underway. And too far away for roh sham bo, tiddlywinks, mud wrestling or rock-paper-scissors...hmmm...

They'll turn up as NPCs all through published material anyway, even if you ban them. The core permeates the game.

If they're not going to get decent names and archetypes in the core, then yes, that will be annoying and difficult to overlook IMO.

It's a matter of screentime. Core races and classes will turn up in all campaigns, whereas there are hundreds of monsters to choose from. Beholders are thus much easier to ignore (if you choose) than a core class, which NPCs will belong to in published materials even if you go to the bother of...

And pretend not to read them in the PHB and tens of other books? I'd really rather they just got it right the first time and not harm D&D's IP in an attempt to humour lawyers, but whatever.

Never disputed that. Note that when Gygax trotted out his "warlords" like the paladin and cleric, he at least had the sense to redefine a disused english word rather than jar by trying to use one still in mainstream use (i.e. warlord) or contrived (i.e. "eladrin"). No. It just means try and...

I know.

I'd be fine with high elf and cambion. That would effectively un-D&Dism them, IMO, and think they'd be much more appropriate in the core were that the case.

It shouldn't - it has an implied setting that does a lot of the work for us. There's such a thing as implying too much, though, and so far most of what it's implied has had mythological resonance, which works in many worlds. It's shades of grey, but 4E seems to be reaching a tipping point.

If you think in terms of semantics rather than meaning, I suppose it could.

No, I'm just saying that they ideally should be minimised in the core. That's all. 4E is piling them on by the look of it.

The core should preferably keep the number of D&Disms in it to a minimum, because too many D&Disms alienate D&D from the generic fantasy worldbuilding which is it's core strength. I am almost certain that WOTC don't understand or don't agree with this argument because of setting design...