Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2925418" data-attributes="member: 18280">There has to be widespread industrial magic in order to ignore its effect.  Until 3E, the RAW rather discouraged widespread industrial magic due to hoop-jumping.  Since we have discussed in the past the difficulties of item creation pre-3E, I feel certain you'd agree that this sort of thing wouldn't have cropped up under the magical "rules" of those worlds.No, but neither is it entirely accurate.  Earlier editions of the game didn't simply sweep those questions under the carpet; they left them on the dining room table.  The rules were designed to allow you to play in numerous play styles.  Simply put, the rules were abstractions of genre, and acknowledged to be so.As a simple example, in 1e, magic users couldn't weare armor.  Why?  Because in most fantasy and folklore wizards didn't wear armor.  Not wearing armor was the genre rule, and hence the rule of the game.In 3e, wizards can wear armor, but they have a chance that their spells fail when doing so.  Why?  Ultimately, and past a lot of handwaving that many folks find questionable, the same reason as in 1e.I don't think that these questions are any more addressed in 3e than 1e.  What 3e has supplied for some folks is the illusion of addressing them (just as The Next Generation changed the technobabble of Star Trek to make the handwaving a little less obvious).  The real difference is that, when Star Trek came out, the audience was more willing to acknowledge that handwaving, but by the time of TNG, they viewed themselves as being more "sophisticated" and wanted to pretend that the handwaving had lessened or ceased.  Same amount of handwaving, different ways of dealing with it.In any event, though, magitech has nothing to do with the effects of the RAW on the world; it is an interpretation of how the RAW could affect a world.  It is only one interpretation, requires as many unanswered questions, and requires as much suspension of disbelief.  Eberron is an interesting campaign setting, and it wouldn't have worked very well under 1e or 2e because those rulesets didn't have the complexity required (IMHO) for dealing well with industrialism or post industrialism.  They also didn't deal well with the idea of moderns travelling to a fantasy world ala Narnia because of the class limitations.  This, more than anything, is why we didn't see it long ago in D&D.  The D20 ruleset is far more flexible.By all means, take your shot at the kitty.  Just don't think you've escaped the influence of sacred fallacies.RC</blockquote>

Verification