D&D 5E Recent Errata clarifications

[Cadence]

I'm saying because of the articles, the issue exists. I'm not saying most people have the issue. When I talked about "most people", it was in the context that most people will see a rule as defined as X, and treat it as the default without automatically wanting to modify the rule. That's how rules work.

Do you think most people see a rule, and change it? Or do you think most people read a rule and implement it as it was defined? Because the latter is what I'm arguing.

That makes sense. It isn't how I read your post #112. Thank you for the clarification!

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, its still needed.

You dont change things retroactively, just because people for any number of reasons either.

1. Never read the product.
2. Dont understand the product.
3. Cannot fathom that they are free to update the product in a way that suits them.

If you get no value from Alignment, fantastic, do without it. Its FAR easier to ignore a single line, that it is to go through and add it back every time.

So basically, you want your preference to be the default, and screw everyone else? It seems like a lot of people don't want alignment to be a default. I don't. It's too limiting. Any time you set something as X, you're shutting the door.

I also find it disingenuous that you're chastising people for not reading a disclaimer that most don't even see, but don't want to get rid of it in the statblock despite the flavor text on the same page telling you want you want to know. Practice what you preach. If you don't like how "not all orcs are evil", then by all means you "are free to update the product in a way that suits" you.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yep. It's kind of like D&D's Intellect Devourers, but if your brain wasn't eaten when they took over your mind, but instead you were a prisoner inside your own body that was endlessly tormented by the parasite that resided inside your brain.

It would actually be an interesting monster to add into D&D, but also probably way too powerful for what CR they would end up being.

Oh, and don’t forget the part where the brain slug has to leave your body to eat once every three days. So, it’ll pilot you to the secret location where they eat, make you physically restrain yourself so you can’t escape while it’s eating, and then hand control back over to you for a few hours before crawling back into your brain.

This series’ target age range was 9-12.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't know. People will act like people. If you tell them the most important part of the book is the monster entry, that's what most of them will read. Designers end up having to understand that and design around human behavior.

Yeah, fair point.

 

[Bolares]

If you get no value from Alignment, fantastic, do without it. Its FAR easier to ignore a single line, that it is to go through and add it back every time.

Well, it depends. Are you ok with the barebones alignment 5e has? If you are, sure that one is easy enough to ignore and I don't mind it existing for people who want it. But 3e's alignment, that is a pain in the ass to remove.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You talking about the Alignment section on page 122 of the PHB?

And it's equivalent in earlier editions, yes.

 

[ersatzphil]

Which is just one of the many reasons Forsaken is a way better game than Apocalypse

takes cover

 

[Cadence]

So basically, you want your preference to be the default, and screw everyone else? It seems like a lot of people don't want alignment to be a default. I don't. It's too limiting. Any time you set something as X, you're shutting the door.

I also find it disingenuous that you're chastising people for not reading a disclaimer that most don't even see, but don't want to get rid of it in the statblock despite the flavor text on the same page telling you want you want to know. Practice what you preach. If you don't like how "not all orcs are evil", then by all means you "are free to update the product in a way that suits" you.

It feels like their point was "Its FAR easier to ignore a single line, that it is to go through and add it back every time.". Disputing that seems like it would be more useful than calling them selfish and disingenuous.

 

[Scribe]

So basically, you want your preference to be the default, and screw everyone else? It seems like a lot of people don't want alignment to be a default. I don't. It's too limiting. Any time you set something as X, you're shutting the door.

I also find it disingenuous that you're chastising people for not reading a disclaimer that most don't even see, but don't want to get rid of it in the statblock despite the flavor text on the same page telling you want you want to know. Practice what you preach. If you don't like how "not all orcs are evil", then by all means you "are free to update the product in a way that suits" you.

When your book comes out, with a disclaimer/warning, as we have discussed, and if you get blasted by X number of people for being insensitive, or triggering, or whatever.

Who's fault will that be?

If I need to add an alignment for 10 distinct creatures, and you need to remove alignment for 10 distinct creatures which is easier.

LG, NE, CN, LE, ....

or

DELETE x 10

?

I dont have an issue WHATSOEVER with good orcs, or good drow, we have had them for decades.

 

[Scribe]

Well, it depends. Are you ok with the barebones alignment 5e has? If you are, sure that one is easy enough to ignore and I don't mind it existing for people who want it. But 3e's alignment, that is a pain in the ass to remove.

No, I want more. I want it on spells, I want it on classes, I want it on races, I want it on planes.

I certainly dont want LESS.