D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Flying Toaster]

I love the thri-kreen, but I am 85% sure that they are a rip off of Arduin Grimoire's phraint.

I knew there were similar insectoid beings in science fiction and in the RPG homebrew community of the 70’s, but I could not find anything in Web searches. Gygax thought that everyone else in the early gaming scene was stealing his ideas, and singled out the Arduin Grimoire for particular scorn as the “Vacuous Grimoire” in the DMG chapter on magic items, so it would be particularly ironic (and hypocritical) for TSR to rip off the AG.

 

[cranberry]

Quote from article:
"The sense I get from 5E24, on the other hand, is that the designers began with mechanics they wanted to implement, then came up with narratives to rationalize the mechanics. Which is how you end up with warlocks signing lifetime contracts with supernatural entities whose identities they don’t even learn until they’re level 3."

Yep! It's good to know I'm not the only one who had an issue with that.

 

[saviirkad]

Quote from article:
"The sense I get from 5E24, on the other hand, is that the designers began with mechanics they wanted to implement, then came up with narratives to rationalize the mechanics. Which is how you end up with warlocks signing lifetime contracts with supernatural entities whose identities they don’t even learn until they’re level 3."

Yep! It's good to know I'm not the only one who had an issue with that.

But I'm curious where this issue originates. Was it in playtest material, where fluff and lore text can sometimes be excluded?

But why does that matter when the version they stuck with and went to print explicitly does not say that?

 

[Minigiant]

Quote from article:
"The sense I get from 5E24, on the other hand, is that the designers began with mechanics they wanted to implement, then came up with narratives to rationalize the mechanics. Which is how you end up with warlocks signing lifetime contracts with supernatural entities whose identities they don’t even learn until they’re level 3."

Yep! It's good to know I'm not the only one who had an issue with that.

That was Crawford's explanation.

To me it was like clerics. Low level dose of a deity's or patron's power doesn't display their uniqueness.

It's like seasoning. Until you sprinkle enough dashes and pinches, you won't taste the flavor.

Heck, it could be who patrons came followers. A Fiend can pretend to be a Celestial until you let him in too much.

 

[Marc17]

Quote from article:
"The sense I get from 5E24, on the other hand, is that the designers began with mechanics they wanted to implement, then came up with narratives to rationalize the mechanics. Which is how you end up with warlocks signing lifetime contracts with supernatural entities whose identities they don’t even learn until they’re level 3."

Yep! It's good to know I'm not the only one who had an issue with that.

I'm not sure what the fluff text says*, but it never really bothered me because D&D has always like this. Clerics have always got their 1 & 2 level spells from their own faith and belief. It wasn't till after that until they had to actually associate with messengers and then directly with deities. I figured the same was going on for Warlocks. They're just messing with magics that others do not. They may be pulling extradimensional energies but only at third level do they hit a level where they have to actively deal with anybody to continue farther.

*Currently at work during a very slow pre-holiday week and can't check the books right now.

 

[Mephista]

But I'm curious where this issue originates. Was it in playtest material, where fluff and lore text can sometimes be excluded?

A video by crawford about the playtest. Didn't even make it into the book or playtest proper. Its all just an online thing. What's even odd is that, because of the video, its always warlocks people harp on about. No one cares about dance bards somehow not being dancers before 3, or paladins getting oath-based powers without an oath. Its only warlocks.

 

[Distracted DM]

A video by crawford about the playtest. Didn't even make it into the book or playtest proper. Its all just an online thing. What's even odd is that, because of the video, its always warlocks people harp on about. No one cares about dance bards somehow not being dancers before 3, or paladins getting oath-based powers without an oath. Its only warlocks.

Yeah there are a bunch of things that I don't love about 5e24, but I never had a problem with clerics/paladins/warlocks not picking their deity/oath/patron til level 3. I could rationalize it; maybe WotC could've included their own rationale with a line or two of text in the book? Can't say it's necessary, that seems like a minor nitpick.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I thought people wanted level one/two characters to be regular people without the high fantasy powers taking an oath/representing a god/making a contract/etc. would give them???

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

No one cares about dance bards somehow not being dancers before 3

The first two levels are spent waiting tables.

or paladins getting oath-based powers without an oath.

It takes time to fully radicalize a paladin.