Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shemeska" data-source="post: 3011469" data-attributes="member: 11697">And it's also a bit off to reject a more detailed source from 2e rather than something from 1e based on a 3e design conceit of 'core' versus 'non-core'.To use your Illithid example 3.x has certainly drawn on the spelljammer material on them, and likewise the neogi, the arcane/mercane, and the clockwork horrors, etc. If it's a relevant source that elaborates on a creature, it has tended to be used by later sources. Should FR be unable to use Yochlol's because they first appeared in conjunction with drow on Greyhawk, then appeared in Planescape and FR sources later on? Of course not, there was cross pollination of material from settings at the time as 1e matured the idea of a common multiverse which carried on throughout all of 2e.Just because the most detailed source of information happens to be published under one product line or not shouldn't matter in this case. The material is relevant and it should be considered in what is presented. Whether you like the source or not is something else entirely I suppose. I don't care for many things in 'Warriors of Heaven' from late 2e, but if I'm talking about Aasimon and to a lesser extent Archons, I'll be taking a look at what it has to say on the subject along with its own source material, some of which covers topics in more detail and on other topics in less detail.Again, what 'core' D&D are you talking about, because no such notion existed at the time. The majority of the more detailed information on the githyanki appeared in the PSMC I and then the sourcebook on the Astral plane, building upon the much earlier but also often brief 1e sources. I'll have to look and compare the sources across the editions later on tonight and see where 3e draws from preferentially, though off the top of my head the bulk of the material on their race and its history is still going to be from the 2e sources.*clears throat*Ahem, but in any event the MMIV was, despite its brevity, decently faithful to prior lore, even giving the first explicit reference to Zerthimon that I believe that we've had in 3.x from WotC. But reverting to 'core' or non-core classes rather than psionic based ones is a bit of a pickle. It's not something that totally cheeses me off mind you, but I will agree that it's mildly annoying to have two versions of iconic psionic monsters floating around (though I can also understand the point of view saying that it might be semi-impractical to reference something from a radically different ruleset).Of course were I mean, I'd be tempted to say something along the lines of "screw 'em, you want to use psionic monsters you can buy the psionics book for the rules on them because your hand won't be held by having those rules reprinted across multiple books whenever illithids/githyanki/psurlons/etc are mentioned".</blockquote>

Verification