Not all of themSettings are not edition dependent, though. I have run a 5e campaign using 2e Ravenloft. With no issues.
Some settings are built around or require specific game mechanics.
Not all of themSettings are not edition dependent, though. I have run a 5e campaign using 2e Ravenloft. With no issues.
Dark Sun would be the only problematic one, since it has special classes.Not all of them
Some settings are built around or require specific game mechanics.
Oh. But still, there can be a UA that spells out the suggested lore for the native Dragonborn of the Mere of Dead Men. Greenwood might do it himself a book for DMs Guild. A generic product that covers Dragonborn might mention how Forgotten Realms does it: Tymanther and Mere.My point is that it took them 11 years to get us one more book on the Forgotten Realms. Relying on future Realms books to do stuff isn't the most solid choice.![]()
I was replying to the notion that 5e isnt different enough to warrant a setting built for it.Then maybe I misunderstood your point, I guess. It doesn’t really matter that 3e and 4e are different from 5e at this point. It’s in the past. The most recent edition change was negligibly different in comparison.
The most recent edition change was last year, which is why I say it wasn’t much different.I was replying to the notion that 5e isnt different enough to warrant a setting built for it.
THe most recent edition change was 4e to 5e.
5e is massively different from any edition that has a fully fledged setting built for it. The update to 5e has no particular bearing on that.
Point of order. WotC can't be "lagging behind the mentality of the editions." WotC defines the mentality of the current edition of D&D. If WotC publishes a setting intended for use with the current edition of the rules, then by definition, that setting reflects the mentality of the current edition.And that's the core of my point
Wizards of the Coast is lagging behind in mentality of the editions. That are still in the 2010s.
CounterargumentPoint of order. WotC can't be "lagging behind the mentality of the editions." WotC defines the mentality of the current edition of D&D. If WotC publishes a setting intended for use with the current edition of the rules, then by definition, that setting reflects the mentality of the current edition.
And her DM will be perfectly okay with that. They aren't going to correct her on her assumption.Alice will assume the town has Dragonborn or Goliaths in town.
There is no rule that a DM has to be in lockstep with everything that's in 5.5e. They can pick and choose what they want to use and what they don't want to use. They can throw in some homebrewed material if it works better than what's in 5.5e too.If the DM does not, then they are out of step with 5.5e's assumptions and vibes
Shouldn't it be, 'What I want is for WoTC to stop implying that the Forgotten Realms is a 5.5e style setting'? If WoTC kept the PHB, the DMG and MM setting neutral, would we be debating back-and-forth on this issue? WoTC chose the FR to be default setting for 5.5e, not your fellow players.What I want is for people to stop saying Forgotten Realms is a 5.5e style setting because it doesn't embrace the style of 5.5e