Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4482136" data-attributes="member: 7635">Which begs a separate discussion: How much should the core rules support "generic d20 Fantasy" and how much should it support "Dungeons & Dragons" brand fantasy?Sure, 4e introduced eladrin and tieflings to the default assumptions. Much like how 3e introduced the barbarian and monk, or how 2e assumed specialty priests and bards, or 1e assumed humans and orcs can cross-breed, or how dwarves NEVER learned arcane arts (despite Norse myth to the contrary) and paladins ONLY served LG gods (and no other alignment had such champions) or how ALL rangers were good and could cast druid/arcane magic. You get my point. D&D has never supported "generic" fantasy well, from spell slots to half-elves. Dragonborn and warlocks are the next evolution of "rule-inspired fluff" the game has given us. Frankly, its what keeps D&D seperate from games like GURPS fantasy or True d20, its unique IP and default assumptions. and thats ok by me.</blockquote>