Spelljammer Dark Sun confirmed? Or, the mysterious case of the dissappearing Spelljammer article...

[Maxperson]

In a section titled literally The Weave of Magic. So Forgotten Realms fluff.

Clearly you didn't read it, because it's explicitly NOT just FR stuff.

 

[Maxperson]

Two things:

One: an instrument isn't an arcane focus. It's a bardic magic focus--wizards can't use an instrument to cast spells, and bards can use an instrument only to cast bard spells. A multiclassed bard/wizard would still need to use an arcane focus to cast a wizard spell, as would one who took the Magic Initiate feat for wizard spells. Bards, who are well-known for being jacks of all trades and for (in meta terms) taking bits from other classes--can also use arcane foci for their bard spells.

I was referring to it as a specialized arcane focus for bards. It is a focus, and foci focus one of two types of magic, arcane or divine. Since bards are not divine, it must focus arcane spells, but in a way that only they are able to use.

Two: I now want to play a bard who is a conductor, not a musician, and who waves a "wand"/baton around as their focus. Reminds me of that scene from The Phantom Tollbooth.

LOL That's awesome. RAW would say no, but I'd allow it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, they have, pretty consistently. You are just as likely to see people complaining about how 5E bends over backwards to accommodate older players. Keep in mind that the key people actually making the game are all older edition fans, some of whom have been working on D&D longer than I've been alive, and I'm a father of four. Alienating old fans is neither a goal or an accomplishment of 5E.

I didn't say it was a goal. I said they don't care and have no respect for them or their experience. All they care about is what their new fans and those who already agree with them like. Since you think that's great and correct, I'm sure you're good with that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nothing like derisive laughter to make your point for you. You know, if don't agree with something in a forum, I either respond with a post or I don't respond at all. I certainly don't push the "ha ha" button.

 

[Parmandur]

I didn't say it was a goal. I said they don't care and have no respect for them or their experience. All they care about is what their new fans and those who already agree with them like. Since you think that's great and correct, I'm sure you're good with that.

Thst simply isn't true, as any perusal of ilder fans who are happy with the current direction will show. WotC isn't worried about pleasing absolutely everyone, no, nor should they be. But they are doing a good job pleasing as many as they can at the same time, as they should.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Very little, which is why from the get go I have described it as very weak mechanically like alignment.

that was my thought too... we make up catagories half the time "Warlocks are channeling not arcane, artificers are this not that, pala..."you get the idea.... and we love the old Primal power source form 4e and keep that for our druids and some rangers (and some paladins) we even did that with a fet pact warlock once

 

[Micah Sweet]

Thst simply isn't true, as any perusal of ilder fans who are happy with the current direction will show. WotC isn't worried about pleasing absolutely everyone, no, nor should they be. But they are doing a good job pleasing as many as they can at the same time, as they should.

That is exactly what I said, they care about new fans and people who agree with them anyway, like you.

 

[Parmandur]

That is exactly what I said, they care about new fans and people who agree with them anyway, like you.

Chicken and egg: do they care about people because they "agree" with them, or do they cater their product to meet customer demand?

 

[Synthil]

Clearly you didn't read it, because it's explicitly NOT just FR stuff.

The section is about fluff. Pure, unadultered fluff with literally no bearing on mechanics. Less so than the existence of specific planes. Eberron uses different planes. For my settings I mostly use the Otherworld version for the planes, described in the DMG.
Likewise the distinction between arcane and divine (with the exclusion of primal and psionic) is fluff. Fluff for the standard 5E setting, yes, but fluff nonetheless.

 

[Maxperson]

The section is about fluff. Pure, unadultered fluff with literally no bearing on mechanics.

So your contention is that something that mechanically removes your ability to cast spells with its absence has no bearing on mechanics? Really?

 

[Synthil]

You mean the Weave? I'm playing D&D for eleven years now and didn't even know about this "Weave" until a few hours ago. So yes, absolutely.

 

[TwoSix]

I didn't say it was a goal. I said they don't care and have no respect for them or their experience. All they care about is what their new fans and those who already agree with them like. Since you think that's great and correct, I'm sure you're good with that.

You can respect people's preferences while simultaneously choosing not to cater to them.

You can continue to feel aggrieved in as public a manner as you choose, of course, but I see no compelling argument that WotC has any moral obligation to reference previous material in their new designs. The only reason they would choose to do so is because they believe familiarity with the published material will sell more books.

 

[Parmandur]

You can respect people's preferences while simultaneously choosing not to cater to them.

You can continue to feel aggrieved in as public a manner as you choose, of course, but I see no compelling argument that WotC has any moral obligation to reference previous material in their new designs. The only reason they would choose to do so is because they believe familiarity with the published material will sell more books.

I mean, they do actually care about not alienating fans, a lot: 4E taught them a valuable lesson on balance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You can respect people's preferences while simultaneously choosing not to cater to them.

You can continue to feel aggrieved in as public a manner as you choose, of course, but I see no compelling argument that WotC has any moral obligation to reference previous material in their new designs. The only reason they would choose to do so is because they believe familiarity with the published material will sell more books.

They're not morally obligated, I think it would have been a gesture of goodwill and respect that they chose not to engage in. They don't have to make all their choices based on $.

And don't bring out the shareholders argument again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, they do actually care about not alienating fans, a lot: 4E taught them a valuable lesson on balance.

Show me evidence that they give one wit about not alienating fans. An actual example, not a logic argument.

 

[Parmandur]

Show me evidence that they give one wit about not alienating fans. An actual example, not a logic argument.

Concretely, just about every book published for 5E. Callbacks to old lore a kind everywhere, even in the newest books. They don't treat it as sacrosanct, but there isnreal affection in how Witcight treats Tasha and the LJN action figure characters, for example.

You, individually, may bot like everything WotC does. That does not.translate.to older fans in general being disaffected or left in the cold.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Concretely, just about every book published for 5E. Callbacks to old lore a kind everywhere, even in the newest books. They don't treat it as sacrosanct, but there isnreal affection in how Witcight treats Tasha and the LJN action figure characters, for example.

You, individually, may bot like everything WotC does. That does not.translate.to older fans in general being disaffected or left in the cold.

Mangling their old IP to keep making money off it is not respecting fans of the original material. The fact that some older fans still like what they're doing doesn't change that. There were good, useful things in Van Richten's Guide, but the book in general represents everything wrong with the modern WotC to me.

 

[Parmandur]

Mangling their old IP to keep making money off it is not respecting fans of the original material. The fact that some older fans still like what they're doing doesn't change that. There were good, useful things in Van Richten's Guide, but the book in general represents everything wrong with the modern WotC to me.

But not to everyone. And I dare say the designers like Perkins, Crawford Winninger et al respect themselves, and they have legit old school credentials. Perkins has produced work for every edition of D&D.

 

[TwoSix]

Mangling their old IP to keep making money off it is not respecting fans of the original material. The fact that some older fans still like what they're doing doesn't change that. There were good, useful things in Van Richten's Guide, but the book in general represents everything wrong with the modern WotC to me.

Personally, I would rather trust creators to do what feels right, then to put together focus groups of age 50+ gamers to arbitrate exactly how much change is "too much".

Maybe to you it's patently obvious as to what amount of change crosses the line from "respectful" to "disrespectful", but I assure you it is not so obvious to most of us.

 

[Parmandur]

Personally, I would rather trust creators to do what feels right, then to put together focus groups of age 50+ gamers to arbitrate exactly how much change is "too much".

Maybe to you it's patently obvious as to what amount of change crosses the line from "respectful" to "disrespectful", but I assure you it is not so obvious to most of us.

I mean, they fo work fastidious on customer feedback. But just because some are dissatisfied doesn't mean they failed to respect older customers.