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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6136079" data-attributes="member: 22779">Wait, what?I believe you have completely misunderstood my point.I am not against lore in the game.  Not in the slightest.  I am against keeping lore simply because it happens to be what was written before.  I'm against lore for lore's sake.  I do not want a dry, boring SRD style Monster manual with all the flavour stripped out.  I thought I'd made that pretty clear all the way along, but, apparently not.  It's not about lore in core books.  I don't mind lore in core books at all to be honest.  What bothers me is that any proposed change to the lore of Planescape is immediately rejected, not on the merits of the idea, but solely on whether or not it's Planescape compatible.  If people were trying to shoot down any proposed change because it happened to contradict 4e canon, I'd react the exact same way.  But, no one ever does.  Or, at least, I haven't seen it if it does happen.  But, every single time Planescape is discussed, continuity seems to be the primary concern.-----------See, the reason I actually liked a lot of the 4e lore is because they deliberately rejected elements that I didn't like.  It fit much better with stuff that I did like, so, yeah, I liked it.  They took a ridiculous trap monster like a Dryad and made it into something I would actually use in the game.Now, did that make everyone happy?  No, of course not.  But, I will say that IMO, the 4e dryad is a much better designed creature than a 3e one.  If 5e goes back to the trap monster Dryad, I will be kinda disappointed.  Not terribly, since it just goes back on the shelf as one of those monsters that I will never use, but, yeah, I would be disappointed.  I was rather happy that the 5e rust monster kept many elements of the 4e rust monster, though beefed up a bit with permanent effects.  Good compromise.But, back when these creatures were being discussed, in the run up to 4e, there were many comments that the monsters are so iconic that they can never be changed.  Changing them changes the lore and thus invalidates people's campaigns.  I don't care to be honest.  I see clinging to the past simply because it happened to be done a certain way in the past as being incredibly lazy in design.  It means that whatever they did before was perfect and cannot be improved upon.  And I never believe that.</blockquote>

Verification