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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Little Raven" data-source="post: 3932198" data-attributes="member: 10095">Not really. It always comes down to "I don't consider that to be a big change, therefore you're wrong."Fat, comfort loving midgets with hairy feet becoming slender, nomadic midgets with athletic qualities is minor? Bilbo is a minor change away from being Tasslehoff? Dwarves being completely unable to use arcane magic at all, then suddenly having wizards among them is minor?This changes in no way the fact that the complaint was that changing the races (for 4e) sunders the verisimilitude in settings, while not acknowledging that substantial changes were made in the previous edition, but they're just ignored as "minor," because it suits the person's argument.While I love the Riftwar, I don't call a setting based on a D&D campaign classic fantasy. Interesting, that this D&D-derived setting is okay for influencing the design of 4e, but official D&D material doesn't seem to be (eladrin, tieflings, etc.)Wholesale introduction of gnomes and half-orcs occurred after D&D's inception. New things get added.D&D isn't allowed to use it's own terminology, one that invokes the very type of elf they are emulating (the Eldar)? Is this going to turn into one of those "D&Disms are bad in a game called D&D" arguments?Rogue and Barbarian are both terms that D&D uses without regard to it's real-world definition.  D&D Rogue = highly skilled character with thieving abilities, which doesn't match the definition in any dictionary. And D&D's Barbarian = angry guy that can't read is quite distant from the real-world definition.All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.</blockquote>

Verification