Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 8040475" data-attributes="member: 7635">Large changes to the game, be it for good or ill, are radical. Third edition made the radical change of removing level limits and race/class restrictions from the game. These are both both viewed today as good changes by many, but they are still Radical ones. They changed the lore and the worldbuilding. Suddenly, dwarves could be wizards, gnomes could be bards, half-orcs could be paladins. That is RADICAL for a game that spent 20 years prior justifying why those things couldn't happen. Sometimes a radical change is accepted, like with race/class restriction. Sometimes it's not, like with class roles. Open is another loaded term though. I'm speaking primarily to a 6e. 5e will make some minor course corrections, but any changes of this level has to be with an edition change. As I brought up prior, Elven society is strongly CG. Orc society is strongly CE. We are doing away with that. Does this imply the evil and good live together in the same villages, or that their are good orc tribes and evil elf villages? What does it mean to be an evil elf village or a good orc tribe? I wish Eberron would quit being the example though; it's a world very different culturally than Faerun, Oerth, and the traditional assumptions. It works because a single continent-wide empire ruled everything for centuries and then fought a century-long war over it. I love Eberron (running it now) but its not a good model for core assumptions, unless you want necromancer elves, dino-rider halflings, aberrant-wearing dwarves, humanoid golems are part of the core rules.</blockquote>

Verification