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="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3912133" data-attributes="member: 18280">Thank you.Would this be the InterWeb if you didn't?   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> Contrary to popular opinion, I prefer to give credit where I see credit to be due.  Returning to supporting exploration is a tremendous improvement over 3e.  Points-of-Light is another very good, old school concept that I am glad to see returning.  If 4e manages to speed combat and make prep easier, for example, that is a good thing.  Of course, the benefits must outweight the costs for the edition itself to be a good thing, IMHO.Planescape, DarkSun, Ghostwalk....all of these things are good examples of building off the existing mythology to create a new version.  However, none of these products unravelled the core rules.  In 2e, no one was forced to play using Spelljammer, Planescape, or DarkSun as the baseline.  In 3e, Oriental Adventures, Ravenloft, and Ghostwalk were not the baseline.There is a difference between additive material and changing the baseline.  Certainly, in some cases, additive material is so good that it becomes part of the baseline through almost a form of osmosis....no one is complaining about that.  The specific complaint is that of attempting to force the fluff of a particular game world (that of the designers) into the pre-existing conceptive framework of those who have played the game through several editions.When Gygax included names like Bigby and Mordy, he used them to name specific items and spells, adding to the mythology of the game.  Of course, this was built upon his own framework, and didn't contradict pre-existent worlds.  How would you have felt, for example, if every feat in 3rd ed was named after a Greyhawk character, and had a name which gave no clue as to its purpose?  In many ways, the Eye and Hand of Vecna are part of a shared mythology that has instant meaning among D&D players from 1e on.  "Tiefling" is not.  And, honestly, not everything from the 1e books really hit the zeitgeist either.  Queen E's Marvellous Nightingale?  I'm sure someone used it, but it never caught on like Vecna.Well, send me $40 each for three core books, $10 a month for my digitial initiative, and keep buying three more books each year, and I'll ship that right out to you.......  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> Some of this is simply putting everything into one spot (3rd party sources, or Unearthed Arcana for example).  Some of this is massive reworking.  Some of this is awfully similar to what WotC seems to be doing with 4e (and posted here on EN World, and/or distributed to some EN World members first!).  Some of this is very different.  Some of this, I think, would be very good for the core game, and some of it only works in a very specific niche campaign setting."Some of this, I think, would be very good for the core game, and some of it only works in a very specific niche campaign setting." is the part that, it seems to me, WotC is overlooking in their own work.Also, keep in mind that I've done racial levels for all races...including human subraces....in my world.  I included options like "humanoid animal" and "talking animal" to the PC roster.  I made elves and gnomes fey.  I made dwarves (small) giants, and included giants in the PC roster (Arcana Evolved, thank you).  If my world was, say, Conan's Hyboria, it would have taken far, far less work!  I am certainly not against additions....how many times must I say that before it sinks in?....incorporating additions is one of the real joys of D&D.  New monsters, new foes, new peoples, new places, new spells, new feats, new magic items........putting all the feats in one place is part of how my house rules grew so large!But "additions" =/= "replacements".Diversity is good.  Additions are good.  More materials = more diversity is good.More materials = less diversity is bad.More materials = more diversity from core experience is good.More materials = required for core experience is bad.RC</blockquote>

Verification