D&D General A paladin just joined the group. I'm a necromancer.

[Aldarc]

I gave you my friendly advice, Max, and I was genuine in giving it to you. You are free to ignore it or call what I said "deflection." If you choose not to heed it, then that's your call. Feel free to continue your argument and see where that gets you. Goodbye.

 

[Maxperson]

I gave you my friendly advice, Max, and I was genuine in giving it to you. You are free to ignore it or call what I said "deflection." If you choose not to heed it, then that's your call. Feel free to continue your argument and see where that gets you. Goodbye.

Ciao!

 

[Prakriti]

A setting can add or remove anything from the base game as it needs. It is in that sense that I consider an official setting as homebrew.

People use "homebrew" the same way they use "homemade." You wouldn't call a McDonald's hamburger "homemade" just because the McDonald brothers made the first McDonald's hamburger in their kitchen 70 years ago, would you?

 

[Maxperson]

People use "homebrew" the same way they use "homemade." You wouldn't call a McDonald's hamburger "homemade" just because the McDonald brothers made the first McDonald's hamburger in their kitchen 70 years ago, would you?

Yes, but a hamburger is a hamburger. If the default is a cheesburger, then it doesn't matter if both McDonalds and I have removed the cheese, they are both functionally the same.

 

[Helldritch]

Especially if you bought the BigMac sauce that is sold... Both burgers will be the same. Just as if I bought Wildemount (which I did) and decided to remove the new dragonborn races the Wildemount of Matt Mercer would become the Wildemount of Helldritch. If calling an Offical Setting homebrew is so distasteful to some, at least they should acknowledge that a setting is or can be very different than the base game. A setting will change such and such rules in a way that what applies to the base game might not be true anymore. Just as the use of undead in the base game is evil, it might not be in an other setting where the base undead are not necessarily evil. Official or not, homebrew or not, a setting can change a lot about what the base assumes.

This is why I prefer to refer to the core rule books. This is the common reference by which we can all have common grounds to discuss about the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Especially if you bought the BigMac sauce that is sold... Both burgers will be the same. Just as if I bought Wildemount (which I did) and decided to remove the new dragonborn races the Wildemount of Matt Mercer would become the Wildemount of Helldritch. If calling an Offical Setting homebrew is so distasteful to some, at least they should acknowledge that a setting is or can be very different than the base game. A setting will change such and such rules in a way that what applies to the base game might not be true anymore. Just as the use of undead in the base game is evil, it might not be in an other setting where the base undead are not necessarily evil. Official or not, homebrew or not, a setting can change a lot about what the base assumes.

This is why I prefer to refer to the core rule books. This is the common reference by which we can all have common grounds to discuss about the rules.

Especially since I used to use the term house rule for when rules were changed from default for a setting, but I got told by "people" here that "people" don't use the term house rule that way, that it was really homebrew. Now when I'm using the term homebrew the way that "people" told me it should be used, "people" are telling me that "people" don't use the term homebrew that way.

I'm beginning to think that "people" don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Helldritch]

Especially since I used to use the term house rule for when rules were changed from default for a setting, but I got told by "people" here that "people" don't use the term house rule that way, that it was really homebrew. Now when I'm using the term homebrew the way that "people" told me it should be used, "people" are telling me that "people" don't use the term homebrew that way.

I'm beginning to think that "people" don't know what they are talking about.

People are not always ready to accept the idea(s) of others. My view on necromancy might not be what they want, but it is what is. From the beginning I said I see nothing wrong as necromancer being "homebrewed" into accpetability but that it is not the base game. Some reacted by just stretching words and references to say that the base games did find animating the dead ok by the core rules (which it is not, obviously). But for their games, it is quite fine. It is their game after all. I do understand their position, I do play Diablo and the necromancer is one of my favourite character. As much as I would like the base game to assume that a Diablo style necromancer being good, it is not so. But I see nothing wrong in homebrewing it into acceptability. But it would be just that, homebrew (or a specific wizard's setting).

 

[Umbran]

I'm beginning to think that "people" don't know what they are talking about.

Mod Note:

You may be frustrated, but how about you walk away and regain your cool instead of getting snippy at "people", hm? Thanks.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The claim is that the stat block shows evil, so the ones encountered are evil by default. Unless you want to argue that orc infants have a 16 strength, the stat block is for adults.

So, we are supposed to look at the statblock as applying only to the orcs encountered.

Therefore the Statblock only applies to Orcs encountered in Raiding groups, it does not apply to any other orc. Correct?

In that case, why must we assume that the Zombie and Skeleton statblocks apply to all of those undead? Not just the ones encountered as enemies?

If the statblock does not apply to all orcs, only the orcs likely to be encountered as warriors, why is the flip side that it must apply to all zombies or skeletons?

All of this assuming the DM doesn't choose to change it of course, because we keep repeating that point but it makes the rest of the discussion a little difficult to follow since I have to keep stopping and adding that exception after every line.

Same way you can add a bunch of neutral ingredients to a recipe and produce something poisonously vile without intending to.

With constructs, if you can program an alignment into them it can be anything. With undead, it's always going to end up Evil no matter what you do - just the nature of the beast.

But, this isn't always true. Even in the 5e Monster Manual, we have undead that are not evil. Ghosts.

So nothing about the state of undead itself makes it a requirement to be evil. Even before going back to the list of good undead from the various sources.

People are not always ready to accept the idea(s) of others. My view on necromancy might not be what they want, but it is what is. From the beginning I said I see nothing wrong as necromancer being "homebrewed" into accpetability but that it is not the base game. Some reacted by just stretching words and references to say that the base games did find animating the dead ok by the core rules (which it is not, obviously). But for their games, it is quite fine. It is their game after all. I do understand their position, I do play Diablo and the necromancer is one of my favourite character. As much as I would like the base game to assume that a Diablo style necromancer being good, it is not so. But I see nothing wrong in homebrewing it into acceptability. But it would be just that, homebrew (or a specific wizard's setting).

You know, I'm not going to get offended if you use my name.

I also don't care what you do with undead or necromancers in your game, I have said that repeatedly. However, I see enough RAW to challenge that your assumptions of what is RAW is absolutely correct. It seems to be that RAW is much more lenient, barring a single sentence that almost seems out of place considering the rest of the game.

I mean, under Deception you didn't get "Lying is wrong and only Evil people do so frequently" or under Sleight of Hand "Stealing is against the law and only Evil people do so frequently". Enchantment spells literally steal people's free will, and no note about "And only Evil people do so frequently"

We could go down a rather substantial list, how about stealing people's souls with Soul Jar? Using Dream to give people Nightmares until they die? Using Poison to kill people?

Why is it that only Animate Dead is called out this way? Especially when the evidence within the spell itself, is lacking on that explanation. Only the Monster Manual statblock gives any indication, and every time I bring up Orcs or a different monster, that statblock seems to cover a smaller and smaller portion of the population. But it always should cover all of the undead? Even when it doesn't match what the spell actually says?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Especially if you bought the BigMac sauce that is sold... Both burgers will be the same. Just as if I bought Wildemount (which I did) and decided to remove the new dragonborn races the Wildemount of Matt Mercer would become the Wildemount of Helldritch. If calling an Offical Setting homebrew is so distasteful to some, at least they should acknowledge that a setting is or can be very different than the base game. A setting will change such and such rules in a way that what applies to the base game might not be true anymore. Just as the use of undead in the base game is evil, it might not be in an other setting where the base undead are not necessarily evil. Official or not, homebrew or not, a setting can change a lot about what the base assumes.

This is why I prefer to refer to the core rule books. This is the common reference by which we can all have common grounds to discuss about the rules.

So tell me. What is the functional difference between, "Wizards creates a setting with changes to the rules default" and "I create a setting with changes to the rules default."?

Reference materials is actually a big difference.

Let me ask you this question as a counter: "What is the functional difference between me writing a slashfic of Spider-Man dating Green Goblin and Marvel writing a slashfic of Spider-Man dating Green Goblin."

Even if we wrote identical stories, the impact on the character is different.

And, remember, if we take your definition of homebrew to its extreme, then everything is homebrew. There is zero official content at all. Because, what was the Mind Flayer if not a homebrew monster Gygax threw together for his home game?

I mean, the entire game was made by a small group of people in their spare time, for their own enjoyment. Then they decided to share it. So, if all settings are homebrew because functionally they all work the same, then all content is homebrew, because functionally, someone created first.

And that is not a useful definition.