D&D 5E Free 60+ page Guide to Sword & Sorcery for 5E D&D

[Weiley31]

I'm probably gonna use the Courtier bard in my DND 5E games. For some reason, Like the idea and all three archetypes.

 

[sunrisekid]

Great writing, I love it! If only my players were as enthusiastic for S&S.

 

[xoth.publishing]

Again, with respect, an instance of not truly embracing 5E, like the difference between a foreigner speaking English really well, and a native.

A conversion product that is truly brought up to par with 5E sensibilities retains alignment, since it it no longer anything tangible in-game: it is truly only the role-playing crutch it was originally conceived as. (Don't mistake this for me actually defending alignment! I still think it is a crude and blunt tool. Here I am merely arguing for the line "actually, with 5E you don't need to remove alignment from a S&S setting any longer")

As I've said before, even though there is no longer any real "crunch" related to alignment, the whole concept needs to go, because words and terms such as "lawful good" and "neutral evil" have no meaning in an S&S setting.

Why are you opposed to removing something that you yourself say is "a crude and blunt tool", which serves no purpose other than to remind/confuse players that perhaps this is a world with some kind of grand alignment conflict like in typical D&D settings?

Instead, the straight-forward approach, that truly works within a 5e context, here would be to feature a Roper whose type has simply been changed to aberration or fiend, since "cosmic evil monstrosity" is precisely what those two terms are made to be used for!

There is no need to invent a new game term when 5E already provides the tools you need, or your conversion product comes off as "non-native", as it were.

Until you want to, say, invent some new spells that target "cosmic evil" entities... oh, you can't, because you lumped these together with all other aberrations or fiends.... When 5E has subtypes as specific as "humanoid (grimlock)", I certainly don't see the problem in using "monstrosity (cosmic evil)" as a subtype.

As an aside: The "evil" in "cosmic evil" is of course only when seen from a humanocentric point of view, in reality these creatures are more "alien" or "unfathomable" than "evil". (See Cosmicism - Wikipedia - "Lovecraft never conceived of them as supernatural, but extraterrestrials who understand and obey a set of natural laws which to human understanding seem magical. These beings — though dangerous to humankind — are portrayed as neither good nor evil, and human notions of morality have no significance for these beings".)

Yes, the difference might be considered subtle.

Subtle indeed...

But we're not providing feedback because your product is a broken mess that needs fixing. We're providing feedback to polish off those few remaining stains from the sparkling jewel you have produced!

Thank you, that is a great compliment!

 

[CapnZapp]

As I've said before, even though there is no longer any real "crunch" related to alignment, the whole concept needs to go, because words and terms such as "lawful good" and "neutral evil" have no meaning in an S&S setting.

Why are you opposed to removing something that you yourself say is "a crude and blunt tool", which serves no purpose other than to remind/confuse players that perhaps this is a world with some kind of grand alignment conflict like in typical D&D settings?

Because you're basing this particular incarnation of your world on 5E rules, and there removing alignment comes off mostly as a protest against alignment rather than serving a purpose useful to current gamers, your intended audience.

I feel each and every optional rule in a supplement like yours should be carefully weighed so only the truly essential rule changes are included. Sure, removing alignment used to be perhaps the #1 rule you needed to take out. Now it doesn't even break the Top 10. It simply is no big deal any longer.

(You asked, I answered. I still can't force you remove it)

Until you want to, say, invent some new spells that target "cosmic evil" entities... oh, you can't, because you lumped these together with all other aberrations or fiends.... When 5E has subtypes as specific as "humanoid (grimlock)", I certainly don't see the problem in using "monstrosity (cosmic evil)" as a subtype.

As an aside: The "evil" in "cosmic evil" is of course only when seen from a humanocentric point of view, in reality these creatures are more "alien" or "unfathomable" than "evil". (See Cosmicism - Wikipedia - "Lovecraft never conceived of them as supernatural, but extraterrestrials who understand and obey a set of natural laws which to human understanding seem magical. These beings — though dangerous to humankind — are portrayed as neither good nor evil, and human notions of morality have no significance for these beings".)

Now you're just grasping for straws. Unless you're prepared to argue the World of Xoth needs and depends up on a game rule concept of "cosmic evil", why not just accept that "aberration" and "fiend" ARE the intended 5E game terms for cosmic evil?

I mean, can you find a single example where on Xoth it would be useful to distinguish a non-cosmic aberration? What spell that targets cosmic evil entities can't be allowed to also target regular backyard aberrations because that would mess with your carefully built-up world? (Just teasing you here )

Thank you, that is a great compliment!

You're welcome. Thank you for having the patience to deal with this.

 

[CapnZapp]

@xoth.publishing
Honestly, I wonder why you didn't include (among your select number of variants) a stamina point option (or similar) since that feels very S&Sy, and I would love to know if you did consider such rules, and your reasons to ultimately not go there.

 

[CapnZapp]

From the Baldur's Gate reveal thread:

Solidifying my concerns is the moment when Swen Vicke says: "WotC, told us to tone down the alignment system, because it is basically non existant in 5e anymore."

Just placing that here

 

[DwarfHammer]

Thanks! Credit where it's due: The artists are Mark Allen, Kent Burles, Storn Cook, Tommaso Galmacci, and Steve Lines.



I fully agree with everything you said there and in the following paragraphs. That said, I think that GMs and players could (and should) shake up the genre stereotypes if they feel like it. Every barbarian doesn't have to be healthy and wholesome, you could have evil barbarians and good sorcerers for that matter. As long as the table is having fun, run with it.



I actually think it was a pretty good movie, although it would of course have been totally awesome if they made it something like "Game of Thrones in Space"... ! Same with the Tarzan movie from a few years ago, so much opportunity lost by not making it more true to Burroughs. And don't get me started on the Conan movies (all of them, actually), it really bothers me that they can't just make a Conan movie based on an original Howard story. Instead they just take the name and replace the content with some BS written in Hollywood, and it predictably bombs every time. Imagine Peter Jackson using the name "Lord of the Rings", but replacing the story, do you think it would be a success? All right, I think I have to end my little movie rant here...

Loved John Carter of Mars. Great movie. Everyone should watch it.

 

[Weiley31]

I'm tempted to play as a Courtier in regular DND 5E. Just to see how it would work.

I may allow some of the other class variants in it as options too.

 

[xoth.publishing]

I'm tempted to play as a Courtier in regular DND 5E. Just to see how it would work.

I may allow some of the other class variants in it as options too.

Cool, let us know how it goes!

Which courtier archetype would you choose?

 

[Weiley31]

Cool, let us know how it goes!

Which courtier archetype would you choose?

Honestly any of the three archetypes.