Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinak" data-source="post: 6130877" data-attributes="member: 6694112">No, I'm just saying they shouldn't go around invalidating it.So, if they go around saying frost giants don't live in glacial rifts, aren't ruled by Jarls, and all worship a specific god that isn't Thrym, that's a problem. But instead, their entry in the MM will note that some of them live in glacial rifts... either stay moot on the subject of titles or mention jarls... and hopefully not try to drag the default gods into anyone's campaigns.And, despite not caring at all about Greyhawk, I'd be pretty weirded out by default D&D frost giants never living in glacial crevasses and not having jarls.To more directly answers this question: Not evermore, no.When they're trying to build their inclusive edition of everyone's-one-big-happy-family? Of course stuff needs to be backwards compatible whenever possible.I don't personally like the AD&D/Planescape cosmology. Because, as I imagine you'd agree, there's just too many planes and too few where anything interesting is going on.But, to the extent that they need to talk about cosmologies at all, they should endeavor to tread the line between the Great Wheel and the World Axis. Precisely because both have fans and they're trying to make 5e inclusive.I'd like to have something engaging and new too, but that's not what they're trying to do in 5e. If the thread were "should WotC ignore all the fan groups and just try to make the best game they can?" I'd be for it. Heck, if the question were "should WotC just try to move forward on 4e's lore?" I'd be for it, despite not liking 4e.But that's not what's going on here. The purpose of this thread has been to specifically call out one group of fans to be ignored, which isn't something anyone should be supporting.Cheers!Kinak</blockquote>

Verification