Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 3793914" data-attributes="member: 18">For me, I think the big difference is if they make this material optional stuff that's simply easy to add in or "implied mandatory".For example, if the PHB2 comes out and  says "The FR now has Raptorians", they can get bleeding bent, frankly, unless they already clearly laid out that they would be appearing in the 4E FRCS. I could be even worse with more irritating/setting-breaking races and classes.What I fear for most, though, isn't the FR, but rather Eberron, with it's whole "everything that's in D&D is in Eberron" mandate. Through 3.5E, thats' not actually been true, thankfully. Eberron has no "Eastern" area that I'm aware of, nor does it features Samurai, Wu Jen, etc. If we see that each and every PHB update includes classes which are forcefully jammed into Eberron, well, I don't think that would be a good thing.Similarly, if an adventure module REQUIRES PHB2 or DMG6 or what have you (how you could do, say, six DMGs and still have meaningful content in them I find hard to fathom, but hey, after six years, thats where they're implying we'll be), it'd better bloody say on the back, just like the "System Specs" for computer game.I think, to be honest, though, WotC are just talking smack. If we see the new PHB, DMG, etc. as anything other than "PHB2: Eberron Races and Psionics", "PHB3: Oriental Adventures", "DMG3: City Campaigns" and so on, I'm going to be pretty darn surprised.</blockquote>

Verification