[Rant] Screw Canon!

[Odhanan]

And what about WotC actually using stuff from other d20 publishers/designers and indicate it in the credits?

 

[wingsandsword]

Dude, I'm a planar fanboy, and I LIKED the idea of necromentals.

I'm a planar fanboy myself, and I can easily see how necromentals could fit into the standard Great Wheel cosmology, as a rare creation of some twisted necromancer/elementalist:

You've already got quasielementals, which are elementals tainted with negative energy; salt, smoke, ash and vaccum. Thus Negative energy already mixes with elementals on some occasion.

Negative energy is an inner plane, beings native to Negative Energy are even considered type elemental.

Negative energy can animate a physical form. When this happens to a normally mortal creature you get an undead. When it is attempted with an elemental, it would normally fail. However, just as a True Ressurection could bring an Elemental back to life, a truly powerful animation could use negative energy to animate a destroyed elemental.

Thus, a destroyed elemental could be animated through a bizarre fusion of elementalism and necromancy.

 

[Nightfall]

Pants,

Uhm just curious...but how can you screw a cannon anyway...?

 

[Ranger REG]

Uhm just curious...but how can you screw a cannon anyway...?

Um, make sure the fuse is very, very wet?

 

[Darkness]

Pants,

Uhm just curious...but how can you screw a cannon anyway...?

Technophiles gone wild...

(Well, gun fetishists, actually.)

 

[Starman]

But, I like Pachelbel's Canon. Why the hate? Can't we all get along?

 

[reveal]

Pants,

Uhm just curious...but how can you screw a cannon anyway...?

It involves lots of butter, 3 yards of rope, 14 monkeys, and 2 midgets. You musn't forget the midgets.

As for the gist of this thread, it's the same argument used by people who prefer the original Star Wars to the special editions because it's not "core." Or people who don't like later editions of books because they're not "true to the original."

Everyone has different tastes. Some just happen to be more vociferous in their opinions. I try not to listen to those people if I don't like what they're saying. But I'm not going to try to change their minds because it's just not worth it.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Please, for godsakes stop whining and realize that not everyone plays the same game as you.

There's the best response to most any argument on these boards.

 

[Dragonhelm]

The thing often forgotten where D&D is concerned these days is that rules are just suggestions. There's no Canon Police there, holding a knife to your throat saying you have to use X rules.

I've played D&D long enough now that there doesn't seem to be a lot of new ideas. WotC, in my mind, has hit a point to where they're not putting out much that I really want. What new alternatives they provide just aren't all that inspiring to me. So now I'm looking elsewhere for new and different ideas.

After you play for neary 15 years, it's hard to find something new that you haven't seen or heard of before. Though Arcana Unearthed/Evolved is a bit too rules-intensive for my tastes, I will give it credit in that it provided a lot of neat new options. Magic is certainly a bit different. I'm also fond of the classes from that book. Green Ronin has also been a good company for some new ideas (i.e. True20, Master Class books, etc.). I've found some good stuff here and there as well.

Canon, in your games, is what you make it. If you don't like X rule or X organization, don't use it. If you use an existing setting, feel free to mold it the way you like.

Remember, all those books out there are merely suggestions. The only true rule is that the DM makes the rules.

 

[Odhanan]

Agreed, Dragonhelm.