D&D 5E Evil characters material not going to be in the PHB

Should evil character material be in the PHB or out?

  • All of it or as much as possible should be in the PHB

    Votes: 51 33.8%
  • A mix: some of it in the PHB, some of it in the DMG

    Votes: 35 23.2%
  • All of it or as much as possible should be in the DMG

    Votes: 65 43.0%

Pagecount is a real world limitation. It requires some things being left out of the PHB. It's not really a subjective opinion - they have no choice in leaving some things out, if they want this edition to succeed, because it cannot succeed if they charge what Monte Cook charged for Ptolus (a book that was of adequate size to include everything that the PCs use).

So if you choose to put extensive coverage of evil PCs in the PHB, you're also choosing to leave something out of the PHB that someone else wants, just as much as you want extensive coverage of evil PCs in the PHB.

I agree, up to a point.

I have no problem with some "evil" being put in other player-primary resources, like "PHB2" and PHB3", for instance. But in all honesty, there isn't much in the game that is exclusively "evil"- IOW, used only by evil characters. Toxins, poisons...even necromancy may be used by non-evil or even good PCs.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I agree, up to a point.

I have no problem with some "evil" being put in other player-primary resources, like "PHB2" and PHB3", for instance. But in all honesty, there isn't much in the game that is exclusively "evil"- IOW, used only by evil characters. Toxins, poisons...even necromancy may be used by non-evil or even good PCs.

Well, I think there should be extensive stuff used primarily or exclusively by evil characters, and I think the bulk of it should be in it's own book. A Book of Vile Darkness, done well.
 

Pagecount is a real world limitation. It requires some things being left out of the PHB. It's not really a subjective opinion - they have no choice in leaving some things out, if they want this edition to succeed, because it cannot succeed if they charge what Monte Cook charged for Ptolus (a book that was of adequate size to include everything that the PCs use).

So if you choose to put extensive coverage of evil PCs in the PHB, you're also choosing to leave something out of the PHB that someone else wants, just as much as you want extensive coverage of evil PCs in the PHB.

As I tried to argue in post 104, evil options, fully supported (including spells and necromancy), integrated throughout the book, need add no more than a page -- and it could be even less.
 

Well, I think there should be extensive stuff used primarily or exclusively by evil characters, and I think the bulk of it should be in it's own book. A Book of Vile Darkness, done well.

Well, I'm not sure what "primarily or exclusively" stuff it would be, but a BoVD-type sourcebook- clearly intended for use by players for PCs as opposed to placement in a DMG/MM type book(see prior posts)- would be fine with me. I'd see that the same way as a PHB2.
 

Well, I never paid for a DDI subscription during D&D4, and it was practically required.

I'm confused. Did you run 4e games extensively without a DDI subscription? If so, it obviously wasn't much of a requirement if you got by without it. If not, why do you feel confident enough in your experience with 4e to know whether you need a subscription to play?

Speaking as someone who has run a tremendous number of 4e games over the last five years, with and without access to DDI, a subscription is in no way required. It just makes the whole exercise easier on me, the DM. And, as a player, the Character Builder makes managing my PC much, much easier.

So I'll ask: what makes a subscription a requirement? What fundamental difference does the 4e system have from earlier systems that necessitates the subscription?

D&D5 doesn't look like it is going to have the same geometric complexity,

What geometric complexity? Geometric complexity is leveling spellcasters in 3.5. 4e is almost entirely linear in its growth of complexity. In fact, at some points, it actually slows in growth of complexity, replacing powers instead of adding them, and selecting groups of powers/abilities in large groups rather than piecemeal (paragon paths and epic destinies).

Frankly, I wouldn't pay for a subscription to D&D on principle.

Perhaps your principles are in need of reexamination. I can't think of very many defensible principles that would require one to not pay for a service.

I buy the books -- that is my "price of admission."

No, it isn't. That's the price of the books. You got the books. You can run D&D. If you want the rest - the convenience features that the subscription provides you with - you need to pay for them. And that's only fair. They spent significant resources developing their software suite (a huge deal for a company division that, until now, had not really dealt with consumer software development in an in-house capacity), that suite costs money to update and maintain, and having it makes both running and playing the game significantly easier. Why shouldn't you pay for it?

This is plainly the same sense of gamer entitlement that we've seen emerging for the past few years rearing its head.

Even the original full-price DDI plan, with the virtual tabletop, was a colossal ripoff when compared to other online services.

Nonsense. A Fantasy Grounds license that lets your players participate runs you $150. A Hero Lab license with full Pathfinder support will cost you north of $200!
 

As I tried to argue in post 104, evil options, fully supported (including spells and necromancy), integrated throughout the book, need add no more than a page -- and it could be even less.

I think a page or so would be fine as well. I just don't want much more than that in the PHB, as it's a niche issue that is best served by a more fully focused chapter or book on it.
 

I'm confused.

I overstepped the thread's topic with that last statement in my post. Sorry. Responding to the remainder of your post would be further derailing the discussion -- especially as we seem to agree that requiring DDI to play D&D should be unnecessary.

I'd be happy to discuss the points you raise via private message, but admittedly I will mostly be trolling you.
 


I overstepped the thread's topic with that last statement in my post. Sorry. Responding to the remainder of your post would be further derailing the discussion -- especially as we seem to agree that requiring DDI to play D&D should be unnecessary.

I'd be happy to discuss the points you raise via private message, but admittedly I will mostly be trolling you.

I'll take a rain check on that one.
 

As I tried to argue in post 104, evil options, fully supported (including spells and necromancy), integrated throughout the book, need add no more than a page -- and it could be even less.

My guess is that it isn't about page count or complexity, but rather a Hasbro boss somewhere concerned about Concerned Parents.
 

Remove ads

Top