Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ColonelHardisson" data-source="post: 2925817" data-attributes="member: 363">You are so right. It's OK for people to gripe, but it undermines their point when they toss out those ridiculous combos as examples of what is out there for modern D&amp;D. Really, how many such combos has anyone seen used for a non-parody adventure or setting?Further, you make an even more cogent point when you mention the &quot;Dungeonland&quot; modules of Gygax. Weird and oddball stuff has always been part of D&amp;D - uh, the beholder, a floating beach ball with eyestalks, is now considered &quot;classic fantasy&quot;? Owlbears? Don't get me wrong; I like these critters. But quite often when this kind of topic comes up, the weirdo stuff from earlier versions of the game is somehow overlooked while the half-fiend/half-dragon/vampiric/tauric black pudding gets trotted out as an example of how egregious the current edition is with its oddities.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ColonelHardisson, post: 2925817, member: 363"] You are so right. It's OK for people to gripe, but it undermines their point when they toss out those ridiculous combos as examples of what is out there for modern D&D. Really, how many such combos has [i]anyone[/i] seen used for a non-parody adventure or setting? Further, you make an even more cogent point when you mention the "Dungeonland" modules of Gygax. Weird and oddball stuff has always been part of D&D - uh, the beholder, a floating beach ball with eyestalks, is now considered "classic fantasy"? Owlbears? Don't get me wrong; I like these critters. But quite often when this kind of topic comes up, the weirdo stuff from earlier versions of the game is somehow overlooked while the half-fiend/half-dragon/vampiric/tauric black pudding gets trotted out as an example of how egregious the current edition is with its oddities. [/QUOTE]

Verification