D&D 5E Dragon+ Issue 33 out now!

[Parmandur]

Are the Orc of Eberron and Orc of Exandria entries separated because they have campaign-specific lore associated with each page?

In point of fact, yes, they do have different Lore write-ups, which you can read if you get them on D&DB.

 

[Parmandur]

They're identical to each other and are in line with what WotC have said they intend the Orc to be. It's a frustrating mistake of DDB.

As for my Wikia comment, I know, it's a more recent buy. I'm still upset that Zelda Wiki, one of the founders of the Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance, sold out to Fandom and still claims it can be part of NIWA. Wikia/Fandom is the 300-lb orangutan (vs Wikipedia's 600-lb gorilla), that is eating up all of the independent companies in the geek-o-sphere, and it's almost entirely aligned with a decline in quality, to boot.

It's less a mistake precisely speaking, and more a kludgey solution to an "emergent feature" of the way the database was designed early on.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They're identical to each other and are in line with what WotC have said they intend the Orc to be. It's a frustrating mistake of DDB.

It's not a mistake, though. It's just a decision that you don't like.
One I thing makes sense.

Are the Orc of Eberron and Orc of Exandria entries separated because they have campaign-specific lore associated with each page?

Yep. The way they're separate means that if you get one book but not the other, you've got the writeup relevant to the book you got.

 

[Wishbone]

In point of fact, yes, they do have different Lore write-ups, which you can read if you get them on D&DB.

Yep. The way they're separate means that if you get one book but not the other, you've got the writeup relevant to the book you got.

I have access to the Orcs of Eberron and not Orcs of Exandria on DDB so that's good to know. Since they have different lore that seems to entirely make sense as an approach. If they had a combined Orcs page with partially locked content I would personally find that frustrating and unintuitive.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

As far as I can tell, almost no one wants to play the Battlerager, regardless of gear.

Which is the problem - because the potential for a wide range of cool (and magical) spiked gear isn't made explicit, no one dares take it because they don't want to be stuck with the same lousy armour at level 20 and they don't trust the DM to create better stuff that isn't in the book.

It's similar to the lack of explicitly non-metallic medium armour for druids, but for a much more important class feature.

 

[rgoodbb]

Y’all are going to make me post pictures to prove it if it happens, aren’t you?

I believe Danny and Zard have come up with some very interesting recipes for sandwiches on another thread. You might want to post your pictures on there...

 

[Marandahir]

It's not a mistake, though. It's just a decision that you don't like.
One I thing makes sense.

Yep. The way they're separate means that if you get one book but not the other, you've got the writeup relevant to the book you got.

I have access to the Orcs of Eberron and not Orcs of Exandria on DDB so that's good to know. Since they have different lore that seems to entirely make sense as an approach. If they had a combined Orcs page with partially locked content I would personally find that frustrating and unintuitive.

Sure, but the lore write up for EVERY OTHER ancestry either ignores the flavour text from other books or mushes them all together.

Tiefling itself is particularly egregious, since it acts like Feral Tieflings can't use the options from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and is an entirely different "race." Feral is just a variant ancestry feature that changes your ability score bonuses.

Heck, I mentioned Triton already too - the D&D Beyond write up uses the stats from Mythic Odysseys of Theros but the flavour text from Volo's Guide to Monsters. The only way to the the Triton flavour text for MOT is to go into your digital copy of MOT and flip to the Triton page. Similarly, there's no "Centaur of Theros" or "Minotaur of Theros" page; they're stuck with the flavour text from Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica.

It's a decision I don't agree with, but it's also a dumb*** decision. They should be striving for consistency and end-user friendliness. This isn't that.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure, but the lore write up for EVERY OTHER ancestry either ignores the flavour text from other books or mushes them all together.

Tiefling itself is particularly egregious, since it acts like Feral Tieflings can't use the options from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and is an entirely different "race." Feral is just a variant ancestry feature that changes your ability score bonuses.

Heck, I mentioned Triton already too - the D&D Beyond write up uses the stats from Mythic Odysseys of Theros but the flavour text from Volo's Guide to Monsters. The only way to the the Triton flavour text for MOT is to go into your digital copy of MOT and flip to the Triton page. Similarly, there's no "Centaur of Theros" or "Minotaur of Theros" page; they're stuck with the flavour text from Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica.

It's a decision I don't agree with, but it's also a dumb*** decision. They should be striving for consistency and end-user friendliness. This isn't that.

Their problem is that they are chasing WotC analog design decisions, and WotC is not limited by digital resources (literally one of the number one advantages of the game).

 

[Marandahir]

Their problem is that they are chasing SotC design decisions, and WotC is not limited by digital resources (literally one of the number one advantages of the game).

Shadow of the Colossus? I'm probably reading that abbreviation wrong.

 

[Parmandur]

Shadow of the Colossus? I'm probably reading that abbreviation wrong.

Fat fingers, edited now.