D&D General Wildly Diverse "Circus Troupe" Adventuring Parties

[Thomas Shey]

Those people ignore it like they ignore Golarion or Midguard. But the game itself builds upon that lore and everything is compatible with itself rather than contradicting itself.

Though the degree of moving parts and special-casing in D&D components can make it more than trivial to ignore those settings even if you want to. I like PF2e, but I'd find it a chore to use it for a non-Golarian based setting because there are so many assumptions from that baked into it.

 

[TiQuinn]

In less than a month, D&D released two player facing books (Heroes of Faerun and Forge of the Artificer) that, while mechanically are compatible, are miles apart as far as lore compatibly. I cannot build a kalashtar spellfire sorcerer with the mark of finding and is a member of the Harpers. Mechanically I can, but that is smashing conflicting lore all over the place. So it falls to the DM and player to figure out how those two books work together, if they are even both allowed. That shouldn't be necessary.

Why shouldn’t that be necessary?

Setting specific classes, spells, and options are a good thing because they match the lore of those settings, make for a better roleplaying experience, and can do things that are thematically appropriate for that setting. If a DM likes an idea and wants to add it to another setting, what is necessary beyond making it mechanically feasible? Lore is always going to vary from setting to setting, not to mention the large number of homebrew campaigns.