Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 3784283" data-attributes="member: 35788">I don't mean this response to be flippant, either, but why have really tall and pointed mountains?  Or why have really deep oceans?  They make really lame adventure sites, too.Personally, I don't think every place in a game world/cosmology should be accessible by default.  I want high mountains in my campaign world, but I don't necessarily want to adventure up them.  I want oceans in my campaign world, but I probably don't want to campaign in their depths.  Just because I don't want to go there doesn't mean I don't want them.In other words, I can understand having an elemental plane of fire like Frank suggests.  In fact, by my understanding of what an elemental plane of fire should be, Frank's assertion is probably the purest ideal.  But it doesn't make a great adventure site.As such, I think that WotC designers are saying that they want playable places.  So, I don't think they should be called the elemental plane of fire ... because a "fire-themed" plane would not be the elemental plane of fire to me.  It might be a legitimately fun plane to adventure on, but it isn't the plane of fire. If WotC designers are smart, they'll make the elemental planes more capable of sustaining adventures AND change their names to something more believeable, too.</blockquote>