JEB
Legend
I can guarantee you they're also getting feedback that dislikes the change, or at least with certain particulars. Though as it hasn't rolled back after about a year, clearly not enough to undo it entirely (unlike with alignment).
D&D 5E Heroes of Krynn UA Survey is up
- Thread starter darjr
- Start date
LuisCarlos17f
Legend
Maybe "kender ace" as racial trait could be useful for a feytouched subrace, but it is not coherent with the standard or "classic" kender.
humble minion
Legend
Kender Ace (or a beefed up version of it) is exactly the sort of thing that should be made into a racial feat, imho. Give people who want to lean hard into the whole Tasselhof thing a way of doing so, but without shoving every other kender PC in the same direction.
The defining trait of kender should be curiosity in my opinion. Allied with the fearlessness that turns that curiosity into something that gets them into trouble all the damn time. That leaves plenty of room for non- thief kender. That sort of character of course can exist, but they’re not the be-all and end-all. Curious kender can be in-theme, and consistent with the lore, without being jerks. The curiosity doesn’t always have to be aimed at the contents of your friends’ wallets. I’d like to see an archaeologist/historian lender who is FASCINATED by pre-cataclysm krynn and desperately wants to ask Soth a whole bunch of questions about it, cos he was there. Or a beastmaster ranger kender entranced by the insect world, whose beast companion is a giant ant, and who enthusiastically points out the cool anatomical adaptations of his slavering, venom-dripping best friend to strangers at every opportunity, no matter how hard they try to change the subject.
You can do ‘childlike innocent curiosity’ in a number of ways that doesn’t involve wandering off with people’s precious heirlooms, is what I’m saying.
Having said all that, while I like the way it’s been done, this version of the kender seems to be very much mechanically weaker than, for instance, any phb halfling subrace. While fear immunity is a bigger deal in a dragonlance campaign where dragonfear is going to be flying all over the place, I still don’t think it quite measures up. Another minor feature might be in order too, I think.
What does "in print" mean? Would a sidebar that says "In earlier editions of D&D, membership in these groups was tied to character alignment and so if your game wants to use alignment restrictions white robes should be restricted to be any non-evil alignment and black robes restricted to any non-good alignment" be sufficient?
Paul Farquhar
Legend
One would expect that a DM who wanted to do a traditional Dragonlance would also require High Sorcery Wizards to actually take the wizard class! There are several things you would expect old time fans to do differently to those who come to this book fresh, and it's fine to leave it to the DM rule on that.
I mean, I agree that it can be up to each individual table as to how to handle those things, and if I wanted to run Dragonlance the way it was "meant" to be run to capture the original feel I'd pull out my 1e books and run it that way (and also I wouldn't because I played in a 1e Dragonlance game as a teenager and much like High School I don't need to relive that experience). But I'm trying to understand the position of folks who don't think like me - I'm perfectly happy to look at whatever Wizards puts out, say "nope" and do it my own way, especially with things that aren't related to any kind of mechanical "balance" in the game like alignment. But other folks like Scribe clearly aren't so I'm trying to figure out their position.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
interesting take... so would all warlocks be renegades then?
If you're going for traditional Dragonlance wouldn't you also want to ban warlocks? Folks making pacts with entities for power is in the setting, but it's wizards doing it (like in 5e you could see Raistlan as a wizard/warlock multiclass from a story point of view, though from a mechanical point of view it doesn't fit).
Similar Threads
