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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8308688" data-attributes="member: 6704184">I think leaning into romantic fantasy undertones of the setting would be a really good idea. And Crawford worked on Blue Rose, so he knows Romantic Fantasy. I think giving optional rules for doing more with personality traits is agreat idea, and DL is a perfect setting to introduce the idea.Thanks! And I agree with both your points here.Hell yeah. The gods and alignment and the cosmology is different in DL, and that should be leaned into, not avoided.That is a great idea, yeah.I can't believe I didn't mention kender and irda and draconians in the OP...Yes, definitely that. And yeah rules for pairing up with dragons, for sure. I think a really good DL book could expand the game at least as much as the Eberron book did.Interesting. I'd go a different way, but that is really interesting. I really wish 5e had given more weight to spellcasting focus items like staves.I don't see mass combat rules as needing to have anything to do with domain management. That's a separate thing, IMO. To me, part of DL is being able to gather forces and lead them. To become a Captain of a band, or even a general of an army. But also to effect the outcome of large battles through individual actions. dYeah I think that group quests are a good place to have the group level up as a group. I totally forgot to list expanded Personality Traits, but yes, agreed.I feel like that is something that is more likely to be left up to each group, with only the traditional DL races given any pagespace. I would be fine if they added firbolgs, though. They would fit in just fine with some of what else is in the setting.I'd love a multiple-classes subclass for the Knights, as well.</blockquote>

Verification