• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)


log in or register to remove this ad

I'm still left curious as to how something like Warforged and Tieflings can't be in D&D, but crashed spaceships, gelatinous cubes, Remo Williams monks, baby balrogs as PCs, and mechanical robot submarines can be. :)
Because back when they were introduced, they didn't have the internet to tell them they were doing it wrong? ;)

Occasionally, I think that sticking with 4e would be worth it just to ensure that people who can't stand the idea of warforged and dragonborn in D&D would automatically exclude themselves from my games. :] (#13 on the list of things to thank 4e for? :p)
 

I'm still left curious as to how something like Warforged and Tieflings can't be in D&D, but crashed spaceships, gelatinous cubes, Remo Williams monks, baby balrogs as PCs, and mechanical robot submarines can be. :)
I know I don't get to decide things for the hobby, but I do at my table, and the only thing I see there that has a moderte chance of seeing play is a tiefling. But, yeah, those things are definitely part of D&D, as long as you count every adventure module, setting, and homebrew that's ever been used.

Which, really, I'm kind of okay with in one sense. I just don't want those defining "D&D" in a general statement. Then again, some people do, and I get why they do. I just come at things from my own biased viewpoint, based on my likes and dislikes. Heck, I'll never use dinosaurs, naga, vampires, werewolves, etc. in my D&D either. Do I think they should be left out? Naw. Baby balrogs probably should be; there's no actual "tradition" there, even if it was used as homebrew at certain tables (Old Geezer was the one that mentioned it, I think?).

But, again, that's just my own biases and preferences bleeding through. But, personally I'd be totally cool with no warfoged, crashed spaceships, Remo Williams monks, baby balrogs as PCs, and mechanical robot submarines. They just don't scream "D&D" to me (I leave off gelatinous cubes because they do, even if I would probably never use one, and I find them pretty ridiculous).

Why am I writing this? I dunno; everyone is talking about their preferences, so I thought I'd throw mine in. I just think maybe explicitly saying "this is why I'm biased" might be productive somehow. And, for the record, it has nothing to do with munchkinism :p As always, play what you like :)
 

I'm still left curious as to how something like Warforged and Tieflings can't be in D&D, but crashed spaceships, gelatinous cubes, Remo Williams monks, baby balrogs as PCs, and mechanical robot submarines can be. :)
Crashed spaceships? Take or leave as a one-time diversion, depends on the campaign.
Gelatinous cubes? Part of the game, along with a bunch of other whimsical critters.
Remo Williams? Who's he?
Baby balrogs as PCs? Where'd that one come from? No thanks.
Mechanical robot submarines? Same category as the spaceships, campaign-dependent as a one-time diversion.
Mechanical robot PCs? No thanks.
Part-demons as a kindred race? No thanks.

Lan-"there's stranger creatures in D&D than gelatinous cubes, many of which are just as traditional"-efan
 

Crashed spaceships? Take or leave as a one-time diversion, depends on the campaign.
Gelatinous cubes? Part of the game, along with a bunch of other whimsical critters.
Remo Williams? Who's he?
Baby balrogs as PCs? Where'd that one come from? No thanks.
Mechanical robot submarines? Same category as the spaceships, campaign-dependent as a one-time diversion.
Mechanical robot PCs? No thanks.
Part-demons as a kindred race? No thanks.

Lan-"there's stranger creatures in D&D than gelatinous cubes, many of which are just as traditional"-efan
Which are all perfectly fine choices to make at your table. I was more or less adddressing the "40-year tradition" comments which seem to imply that D&D has always been about a fairly straight-laced Tolkien/high-fantasy universe when the early days were basically the opposite.

The submarine's just the Apparatus of Kwalish - in the 1e DMG. The baby balrogs are from Mike Mornard's (Old Geezer's) threads on RPG.net. Basically, we can't let a bunch of guys whose main goal was making up a bunch of fun stuff dictate what fun stuff is or isn't allowed 40 years later.

Oh, and I missed: Old West, sixgun-toting Paladin ascended to deity status (which is Murlynd from Greyhawk).

-O
 

I missed: Old West, sixgun-toting Paladin ascended to deity status (which is Murlynd from Greyhawk).
What sort of munchkin would play a gunfighting paladin? Oh, that's right, one of the founders of the game! (Don Kaye, according to Canonfire.)

And what sort of spineless GM would permit such a PC? Oh yeah, Gary Gygax in his original Greyhawk campaign.
 

Oh, and I missed: Old West, sixgun-toting Paladin ascended to deity status (which is Murlynd from Greyhawk).

-O

What sort of munchkin would play a gunfighting paladin? Oh, that's right, one of the founders of the game! (Don Kaye, according to Canonfire.)

And what sort of spineless GM would permit such a PC? Oh yeah, Gary Gygax in his original Greyhawk campaign.

Look. You guys are talking madness here. Heresy even. Just assimilate into the collective already. Let go of your munchkin and kewl powerz urges. They lead to fear. And fear leads to hate. And hate leads to the Dark Side of D&D...where submarines, six-shooters and tieflings congregate in their Orwellian mission that is...THE TYRANNY...OF...FUN.

And dissociated mechanics.

Or something.
 

Again, simplicity. Call the Vancian class "Magic User", call the spell-point class "Wizard", call the spontaneous caster "Sorcerer". Three classes, three mechanics, one for each.

This has been talked about this before, Lan...

4E proved pretty conclusively that a good percentage of the D&D population doesn't WANT to have to use "another class", because the name of the class is important to them.

They want to play Fighters who are archers, not Rangers who are refluffed to be Fighters. And no matter how many times you tell them to just refluff, they'll says "screw it, I ain't playing!"

So what we will have in your scenario is a whole heap of people who say "I want to play a Wizard!" but then follow it up with "I want to use spontaneous casting because the other spellcasting methods suck!" And if you tell them "Well, play a Sorcerer!", they'll return with "No, I want to be a Wizard! I want to be a technician-like spellcaster. I want a spellbook and find spells to add to it, and memorize spells and the whole nine yards!" And then you'd ask them why aren't they playing a Magic-User, since the Vancian casting system has traditionally been used to represent that? And they'll respond with "I don't WANT to use Vancian casting! I want to play a Wizard, and I want to use spontaneous casting!"

Regardless of how "simple" something is... if most people don't like the rule, they aren't going to play it, or more to the point, won't even bother playing the game.

So making the same mistake in 5E that was one of (out of many) reasons given why people refused to play 4E is not the best way to do it.
 

So what we will have in your scenario is a whole heap of people who say "I want to play a Wizard!" but then follow it up with "I want to use spontaneous casting because the other spellcasting methods suck!" And if you tell them "Well, play a Sorcerer!", they'll return with "No, I want to be a Wizard! I want to be a technician-like spellcaster. I want a spellbook and find spells to add to it, and memorize spells and the whole nine yards!" And then you'd ask them why aren't they playing a Magic-User, since the Vancian casting system has traditionally been used to represent that? And they'll respond with "I don't WANT to use Vancian casting! I want to play a Wizard, and I want to use spontaneous casting!"
I just want to take a moment to say that I'm so glad I don't play with these people. We had this exact situation come up in our last Pathfinder game and it was handled basically like this:

Player: It makes sense for my character to be a wizard, but I don't like wizards. Could I be a sorcerer with Int as my casting stat?
Me: Go ahead. Say it's a feature of the arcane bloodline and call it a day.
Player: Great!

If WotC wants to appease the whiners, that's on them. For my part, I probably wouldn't buy any 5th Edition. I'll save my money for games that aren't transparently focused on attracting people I don't want to play with.

Cheers!
Kinak
 

If WotC wants to appease the whiners, that's on them. For my part, I probably wouldn't buy any 5th Edition. I'll save my money for games that aren't transparently focused on attracting people I don't want to play with.

Cheers!
Kinak

Really, Kinak? Aren't you just as much of a whiner as any other player?

Which method of healing do you like? Do you like the 4E healing surge mechanic? Or can you not stand that and only play the 3E style healing spell formula? So if Wizards includes rules that are reminiscent of BOTH styles of healing... one of which is specifically catering TO YOU and your needs... seems to me they're appeasing a whole heap of "whiners" that include you in their circle.

You basically would become a living example Groucho Marx's quotation...

"I wouldn't want to be a part of any group that would have me as a member."
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top