Xenonnonex
Hero
But DMs are comfortable with using adventure books as adventure books.DMs who aren't comfortable with using ToA as a Setting book won't want a normal Setting book.
But DMs are comfortable with using adventure books as adventure books.DMs who aren't comfortable with using ToA as a Setting book won't want a normal Setting book.
No, it's only reaching according to the definition you picked to determine what a mini-setting entails. The phrase isn't one with a set definition though, and your thoughts on the matter don't get preference over anyone else's. I was just pointing out that different definitions were at the heart of the disagreement here. There's no judgement of those differing definitions mind you, I'm just pointing them out.Which is fine. Your emphasis is more on the experienced DMs. Your coverage is skewed there. To claim the adventure books are mini-settings is still reaching. Especially as some of us do not feel it meets our definition.
We need a 5e Lands of Intrigue. And subclasses that play to intrigue and subterfuge.I'm going to rephrase my actual opinion here because I'm starting to come off as if I hate the Realms, which I actually don't I think they're great, I just really don't like the idea of a new setting book for FR.
Point 1 is fairly easy why; FR already has a setting book while I number of settings do not, so I don't really want to see FR get a second when other like the Planes, Greyhawk or Dark Sun don't have one.
Point 2 is more nuanced. I quite like the Realms, but it also happens to be way more expansive than any other D&D setting, including MtG ones. There is an INSANE amount of material all over the place. The only way to cover it all is through a book like the 3E FRCS, and even that really only cover Faerun, with the eastern regions getting a single page.
And I'll be frank, the FRCS is not a good book for 5E. It is in effect an encyclopedia, that covers the geography in broad strokes. If you're a good DM you'll be able to find material useful, but overall it is a tome that only FR fans really love.
I VASTLY prefer the SCAG, as it gives a lot more detail and material useful for building adventures. Even more than the SCAG, I love books like Tomb of Annihilation which include a great adventure, but also serve as a far better guide to the region Chult than the 4 pages it would get in a FRCS.
I fully expect that FR remains the default setting for 5E, and that the annual adventures will continue to publish material that fleshes out more and more material for the Forgotten Realms. I find this material far more superior to a remake of the FRCS, which I can get right now (and don't like much anyway). Yes it's a slow drip-drip of new material, but it's GOOD material, useful material, that is digestible for new DMs and old alike. It is also, IMO, the reason why FR remains the most popular setting for 5E.
This year, hints point to Lantan being the subject of the 2020 adventure.
What if 2021 covers Cormyr? And 2022 covers Amn? And 2023 Calimshan? 2024 Kara-tur?
That is, in the long-run, far more material, and far BETTER material than a complete FRCS. And FR is the only setting with enough material to feed quality annual adventures in this way.
We need a 5e Lands of Intrigue. And subclasses that play to intrigue and subterfuge.
I am not saying my thoughts on the matter get preference. To claim so is being bizarrely disingenuous. I am disagreeing with the premise of the concept. Along with a few others.No, it's only reaching according to the definition you picked to determine what a mini-setting entails. The phrase isn't one with a set definition though, and your thoughts on the matter don't get preference over anyone else's. I was just pointing out that different definitions were at the heart of the disagreement here. There's no judgement of those differing definitions mind you, I'm just pointing them out.
If you want to call my coverage skewed you may want to reread some of my posts above. My emphasis on bricolage certainly indexes veterans over new DMs, as I was at pains to point out, but that's not the same as saying whether or not ToA serves as a mini-setting for Chult generally, which I think it does.
Okay. Great.Need =/= Want
Also you're describing the rogue.
1. No Death Curse in my game.....when a PC dies they die using the normal rules.You are ignoring the question of what will happen if they die.
Some undead are directly tied to Acecerak and the atropal.
His eventual master Acecerak?
It’s a super tiny font!
So you agree changing the Death Curse death effects to core rule book death effects is a substantial change.
So you agree that removing the Death Curse in that way is not "literally nothing much changes".
The ties to the Death Curse are still there.
Which is what adventure books provide.