Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Further Future D&D Product Speculation
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="see" data-source="post: 8618955" data-attributes="member: 10531"><p>Your example options are, in fact, what I'd cite in saying that Greyhawk doesn't lend itself to new player options. They're all the sort of thing a writer comes up with when faced with "Okay, it's been assigned that we're doing this setting, how do we fill these pages assigned to player options?" They are not the sort of thing that are suggested when a writer goes "What should players be able to play in this setting that the game does not already adequately support?" And certainly not from a product planner's "What player options highly characteristic of this setting are compelling enough they would sell copies of this setting book to people not planning on playing in this setting, just so they could play that kind of character?"</p><p></p><p>I mean, you tell me you want to play a Knight of the Hart (or any of the other Greyhawk orders) in D&D 5, and as a starting point I can already direct you the Noble background (Knight variant), the Knight of the Order background, the Banneret [Purple Dragon Knight] fighter subclass, the Cavalier fighter subclass, the Samurai fighter subclass, the Oath of the Crown paladin subclass, and now the Krynn UA material. I'm sure that a Knight of the Hart <em>can be</em> differentiated from them, but it would sure look like differentiation for the sake of filling word count.</p><p></p><p>Agent of the Circle of Eight background? Looks like you're straining to differentiate from the existing "Faction Agent" background.</p><p></p><p>Multiple Horned Society subclasses might make sense, if I thought WotC was actually burning to do Player's Option: Evil Characters material, particularly for the same-year release as the 50th Anniversary edition.</p><p></p><p>Cleric domains are easy to proliferate, but that holds for any setting with multiple gods.</p><p></p><p>And the game doesn't differentiate warlocks who have demons patrons from warlocks who have devil patrons, but "Warlock tied to Iuz" is different enough that the Fiend patron doesn't already cover it?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="see, post: 8618955, member: 10531"] Your example options are, in fact, what I'd cite in saying that Greyhawk doesn't lend itself to new player options. They're all the sort of thing a writer comes up with when faced with "Okay, it's been assigned that we're doing this setting, how do we fill these pages assigned to player options?" They are not the sort of thing that are suggested when a writer goes "What should players be able to play in this setting that the game does not already adequately support?" And certainly not from a product planner's "What player options highly characteristic of this setting are compelling enough they would sell copies of this setting book to people not planning on playing in this setting, just so they could play that kind of character?" I mean, you tell me you want to play a Knight of the Hart (or any of the other Greyhawk orders) in D&D 5, and as a starting point I can already direct you the Noble background (Knight variant), the Knight of the Order background, the Banneret [Purple Dragon Knight] fighter subclass, the Cavalier fighter subclass, the Samurai fighter subclass, the Oath of the Crown paladin subclass, and now the Krynn UA material. I'm sure that a Knight of the Hart [I]can be[/I] differentiated from them, but it would sure look like differentiation for the sake of filling word count. Agent of the Circle of Eight background? Looks like you're straining to differentiate from the existing "Faction Agent" background. Multiple Horned Society subclasses might make sense, if I thought WotC was actually burning to do Player's Option: Evil Characters material, particularly for the same-year release as the 50th Anniversary edition. Cleric domains are easy to proliferate, but that holds for any setting with multiple gods. And the game doesn't differentiate warlocks who have demons patrons from warlocks who have devil patrons, but "Warlock tied to Iuz" is different enough that the Fiend patron doesn't already cover it? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Further Future D&D Product Speculation
Top