Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8651467" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Waaay back in 3.5, the PHB2, I think it was, published a Feat called Robilar's Gambit.&nbsp; I had to explain to my group who that even was, and why he had a Feat named for him (amusing, really, since the character existed in an era where Feats weren't even a twinkle in a game designer's eye).WotC is constantly mining older sources for content.&nbsp; That's why we have books named for Mordenkainen and Tasha, and why spells are properly attributed to their creators.&nbsp; The PHB doesn't have Elminster's Simulacrum, but it sure does have Bigby's Hand.&nbsp; And like I mentioned before, they have no problems taking things that rightly belong in Greyhawk and dropping them in somewhere else, like Acererak's schemes moving to Chult, of all places.But despite these name drops, presumably kept in to make D&amp;D 'feel' like D&amp;D, WotC quickly moves onto other settings.&nbsp; Funny how that works.You have people in the Forgotten Realms casting Leomund's Tiny Hut without even a &quot;Leomund who?&quot;.*Basically, they know that the majority of people who play D&amp;D, their customers, don't know enough of Greyhawk lore to want the setting- but they also know that everyone knows about the Hand and Eye of Vecna.*I do recall the old 2e Netheril boxed set tried to rectify this by giving lore-friendly names to all spells.&nbsp; Never really took off.&nbsp; Nor have attempts to take the names of the creator's off their spells.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8651467, member: 6877472"] Waaay back in 3.5, the PHB2, I think it was, published a Feat called [I]Robilar's Gambit[/I]. I had to explain to my group who that even was, and why he had a Feat named for him (amusing, really, since the character existed in an era where Feats weren't even a twinkle in a game designer's eye). WotC is constantly mining older sources for content. That's why we have books named for Mordenkainen and Tasha, and why spells are properly attributed to their creators. The PHB doesn't have [I]Elminster's Simulacrum[/I], but it sure does have [I]Bigby's Hand[/I]. And like I mentioned before, they have no problems taking things that rightly belong in Greyhawk and dropping them in somewhere else, like Acererak's schemes moving to Chult, of all places. But despite these name drops, presumably kept in to make D&D 'feel' like D&D, WotC quickly moves onto other settings. Funny how that works. You have people in the Forgotten Realms casting [I]Leomund's Tiny Hut[/I] without even a "Leomund who?".* Basically, they know that the majority of people who play D&D, their customers, don't know enough of Greyhawk lore to want the setting- but they also know that [B]everyone[/B] knows about the Hand and Eye of Vecna. *I do recall the old 2e Netheril boxed set tried to rectify this by giving lore-friendly names to all spells. Never really took off. Nor have attempts to take the names of the creator's off their spells. [/QUOTE]

Verification