D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[ccs]

1. No Canon. The dm has the phb, mm, dmg and maybe read or download a map of FR but then make various changes. Modules/adventures are stuck in willy nilly.
2. Box Canon. Dm has the books, and bought box supplement/book which fleshed out part of FR. This would be Sword coast, the hardback adventure etc.
3. Canon All around. This all the printed supplements, GAME books, modules from all edition. Trouble here is if FR history was changed between editions or supplements.

My DMing style goes from 1 ---> 2 ---> 3. The fainter it is, the less important....
TSR, WoTC, every other game company, books, comics, movies, TV, myth, my imagination, my players imaginations, your imaginations? They're ALL providing me ingredients. It's like looking at a well stocked spice cabinet.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=40171]Shashara[/MENTION]k is of course pedantically and technically correct.

And that's obviously the best kind of correct.

But now I'm confused. It was bad for 4e elves to have innate magic because it changed canon. But apparently it doesn't because earlier DND had elves with innate magic.

So what was the big change? It satisfies canon just like 5e. The only change now is a proper noun.

Funny how canon is only important when it can be weaponized.

And just to clarify. In my post I talked about how the issue with 4e elves was, apparently, their at will magic and not just magic in general. Which of course 5e elves as well.

Of course stripping away context does change my point, which is where Shasharak steps in and tries to score internet points by pointing to Basic DND. Granted if elves in basic had at will spells his point would be spot on.

Unfortunately it's far more common in these threads to argue the poster rather than the post.

 

[Hussar]

This little post from a Star Trek thread I think is pretty apropos.

The position of the tech manuals and other "non-fiction" works for Trek is... vague.

They've never been declared non-cannon. They were authorized by Paramount. Gene considered them to be part of the background of Trek. The manuals were given to episode writers to use as guides.

Ronald Moore says they aren't canon. Viacom (that owns Paramount) Senior Director Harry Lang said he considers them canon in posts on Trek's official web forums.

That works about as well as a poorly documented, "Gene said at some point." Especially when Gene, being reasonable, occasionally changed his mind on things. It isnt' as if a 50 year old fictional property is going to remain particularly consistent. That a thing is canon and $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee.



Ah, well, that point was not at all clear.

 

[Shasarak]

@Shasharak is of course pedantically and technically correct.

And that's obviously the best kind of correct.

But now I'm confused. It was bad for 4e elves to have innate magic because it changed canon. But apparently it doesn't because earlier DND had elves with innate magic.

So what was the big change? It satisfies canon just like 5e. The only change now is a proper noun.

Funny how canon is only important when it can be weaponized.

And just to clarify. In my post I talked about how the issue with 4e elves was, apparently, their at will magic and not just magic in general. Which of course 5e elves as well.

Of course stripping away context does change my point, which is where Shasharak steps in and tries to score internet points by pointing to Basic DND. Granted if elves in basic had at will spells his point would be spot on.

Unfortunately it's far more common in these threads to argue the poster rather than the post.

As far as I am aware, except for 4e when "Elves" were replaced by Eladrin, Elves have always been at least a little bit magic. If you look at ADnD they advance furthest in Magic user and of course can multiclass Magic user with Fighter and Thief (and frankly why would you not). Basic has all Elves being Fighter/Magic Users and even 3e has Elves favoured class as being Wizard.

So unless you started in 4e with no idea of the Elven history in DnD and pre-DnD source material, why it blow anyones mind to find out that in 5e all High Elves can cast a cantrip? You may as well get upset that an underground mining race like Dwarves use Axes.

 

[Hussar]

As far as I am aware, except for 4e when "Elves" were replaced by Eladrin, Elves have always been at least a little bit magic. If you look at ADnD they advance furthest in Magic user and of course can multiclass Magic user with Fighter and Thief (and frankly why would you not). Basic has all Elves being Fighter/Magic Users and even 3e has Elves favoured class as being Wizard.

So unless you started in 4e with no idea of the Elven history in DnD and pre-DnD source material, why it blow anyones mind to find out that in 5e all High Elves can cast a cantrip? You may as well get upset that an underground mining race like Dwarves use Axes.

But here's the part that confuses me. What is so different about 4e elves then? Why are 4e elves a complete rewrite of elves in D&D, but, 5e elves are just business as usual?

4e changes the name, gives them an at-will spell, and makes them fey.
5e leaves the name, gives them an at-will spell, and makes them fey.

But, 4e is the massive rewrite of the race? Bwuh?

And, since we're being exactingly specific here, actually, you are mistaken about AD&D elves. They advance furthest at thieves, as all races (IIRC) were unlimited in levels of thief. Actually did a little fact checking. I apologize, I made a mistake. Half orcs were limited to 8th level thieves (with the possibility of higher levels with higher stats). Note, apparently as well, elves make great assassins, since their third highest limit at only one level less, was assassin. So, elves were unlimited as thieves, limited to 11th as magic users (if they had an 18 Int) and 10th as assassins.

So, basically, the only real difference between a 4e eladrin and a 5e elf is the name.

Now, @Imabanana, this is what I'm holding up as proof of people only claiming the importance of canon when it's convenient.

I mean, look, if lore and canon was as important as you say, 3e should have been crushed. It radically changed EVERY setting. Two changes in 3e rewrite every setting - every race can be every class with no restrictions, and the magic item economy. Those two changes have enormous implications on every single setting. But, people liked the change. They though (by and large) that this was a pretty good idea.

So, what did they do? They retconned every single setting to allow for these changes. You now have halfling clerics running around in Forgotten Realms. You have wildmage gnomes in Dragonlance. So on and so forth. And most people, by and large, have no problems with any of this despite the fact that they've now retconned and rewritten EVERY SINGLE SETTING. And that's okay. Because we like that change. And players in 3e expected to be able to buy magic items. The write-ups for towns come with GP limits and the advice in the DMG to allow the players to buy anything they like under that limit. Poof, magic item economy, which didn't exist in the game previously is now slotted into the settings. One day I can't buy a +1 sword anywhere in Waterdeep and next day, poof, magic item stores all over the place.

But, apparently, canon isn't an issue? Because... reasons?

Canon only matters when people want to tell other people how to play the game.

 

[Shasarak]

Ah, I see. Of course you are correct it says : "a thief, or an assassin (maximum of 10th level)" which of course does not limit the thief at all. That was my mistake I should have used the table instead.

But really why would anyone complain about allowing any race to be any class or removing the level limits that no one really used at all?

And how does allowing Dwarves be Wizards compare to making Elves into Not Elves?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've played in several over the decades. Playing thieves/rogues and trying to start a guild is a common idea.

Can confirm. Also, we have done Leverage/Robin Hood as an all rogue party. I've never tried to start a guild, but we have used thievery in a mostly rogue (all "rogueish) game to run a small pirate "armada", and later build a trade/smuggling company from the ground up.

In another game we we were all scoundrels (Star Wars game) as explorers and "tomb raiders".

 

[Elderbrain]

EVERY edition of D&D beyond the very first material has featured some kind of a change, whether it be to races, classes, monsters, or campaign settings. For instance, you originally had to gain experience as a Fighter and a Thief before you were allowed to become a Bard - now you don't (and Bards now get healing spells and Raise Dead!!!). Kobolds used to look more like dog/rats than reptiles. "Elf" was a class, not just a race. And sometimes whole classes got killed off, such as the Barbarian, the Monk, and the Assassin, only to be revived in a later edition.

That said, not all changes are equally disruptive to an ongoing game. If you are playing in a campaign setting where particular classes and monsters feature prominently (i.e. a Monk in Kara-Tur, or Archons and Eladrin in Planescape), removing or significantly altering such makes playing such a game much harder, or even impossible. And of course, Planescape uses the Great Wheel, which 4e killed off (and 5e revived.) While most campaigns do not rely heavily on a particular cosmology, Planescape certainly does. And moving the Forgotten Realms campaign 100+ years into the future (and making massive changes) greatly annoyed many FR fans. Nobody who was running a FR campaign in 2e and 3e who picked up the 4e FR books was delighted to read that they either needed to start over with new PCs or find some implausible excuse such as their PCs going into suspended animation for 100 years!

 

[Hussar]

Ah, I see. Of course you are correct it says : "a thief, or an assassin (maximum of 10th level)" which of course does not limit the thief at all. That was my mistake I should have used the table instead.

But really why would anyone complain about allowing any race to be any class or removing the level limits that no one really used at all?

And how does allowing Dwarves be Wizards compare to making Elves into Not Elves?

'scuse me? "No one" used level limits or racial limits? Umm, considering how much time you've just spent correcting me that not everyone plays D&D the same way, isn't that a bit ironic?

I won't speak for anyone else, but, we certainly used race restrictions and level limits.

And, "allowing dwarves to be wizards" directly compares to "making elves into not elves". You've made a HUGE revision to the race. One that had not appeared in the game before. That's why they are the same. Now Dwarven societies have access to arcane magic on a daily basis. Are you seriously suggesting that this has no campaign implications?

But, you've also kinda missed the point. If 4e elves are making elves into not elves, why are 5e elves suddenly all elf again? The only difference between 4e Eladrin and 5e High Elves is a proper noun. That's it.

Which pretty much serves as very good evidence for my point. Canon only matters when it can be used to tell other people they are playing wrong. 4e Eladrin make "elves into not elves" because they rewrite how elves were portrayed, apparently. But, 5e High Elves are pretty much word for word exactly the same as Eladrin, save the proper noun, and suddenly nothing is being rewritten, this is how elves have always been.

Canon is only important when it can bludgeon people.

 

[Shasarak]

'scuse me? "No one" used level limits or racial limits? Umm, considering how much time you've just spent correcting me that not everyone plays D&D the same way, isn't that a bit ironic?

I won't speak for anyone else, but, we certainly used race restrictions and level limits.

And I am sure you did for all those games that ever reached high enough levels for those level caps to ever "mean" something. An Elven Fighter/Magic-user needed 250,000 XP to max out his Fighter Levels and then 1.5 million xp to max out his Magic-user levels and a Fighter?Magic-user/Thief needed half as much more to get there.

So how many max-level characters did you manage to accumulate?

And, "allowing dwarves to be wizards" directly compares to "making elves into not elves". You've made a HUGE revision to the race. One that had not appeared in the game before. That's why they are the same. Now Dwarven societies have access to arcane magic on a daily basis. Are you seriously suggesting that this has no campaign implications?

Of course it has campaign consequences and on the other hand an additive one has much less inherent problems then a subtractive one. The change from ADnD to 2e was huge FU if you were playing an Assassin character just like if you were playing a Gold Elf going into 4e. Its just a "I am a what now?" derpy moment that does not apply by allowing Dwarves to be Wizards.

But, you've also kinda missed the point. If 4e elves are making elves into not elves, why are 5e elves suddenly all elf again? The only difference between 4e Eladrin and 5e High Elves is a proper noun. That's it.

So then what is your concern if the only difference is a proper noun? Just call your high elves "Eladrin" and use the rules from the DMG.

Which pretty much serves as very good evidence for my point. Canon only matters when it can be used to tell other people they are playing wrong. 4e Eladrin make "elves into not elves" because they rewrite how elves were portrayed, apparently. But, 5e High Elves are pretty much word for word exactly the same as Eladrin, save the proper noun, and suddenly nothing is being rewritten, this is how elves have always been.

Canon is only important when it can bludgeon people.

So who or what do you want to bludgeon with the Canon? It seems like you have a vested interest?