D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[ThiagoMartell]

Which is the reason so many people dislike Faerun.

It's alsto the reason many people like Faerun. You're basically equating you not liking something with it being bad. It just means you don't like it.

Do you really, honestly think that it takes some sort of universal system in order to make more than a handful of concepts viable?

No, and that's not what I said.

Your example flawed in more ways than one, though. There's nothing about the tone or themes of D&D that justifies any of my example concepts being shafted.

There is. Cats are not as powerful as dragons. Wyverns are not as fast as pegasi. Wizards are not as good weapon users as Fighters. If you want a "wizard, just as good with weapons as a fighter is" your concept does not fit the system.

Why shouldn't a fighter who's deadly with a pair of shortswords be possible to play? Why shouldn't a rogue who's a crossbow sharpshooter? Or a rogue who relies on throwing daggers with uncanny precision? So far, the only argument you've put forward is that they never have been, so they shouldn't be now. Which kind of makes me wonder what's the point of having a new edition in the first place.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be. I'm saying they are worried about iconic concepts first and after that is covered they will worry about other stuff. And I think they are completely right.

This is incredibly circular. If you define the D&D genre as "stuff that was around in the earliest editions of D&D," you're completely ignoring the immense creativity, innovation, and outright theft of ideas that marked D&D's early life.

That was not my intention so I obviously did not make my point clearly enough. For that I apolofize.

D&D - all before 1982 - had crashed spaceships, balrogs as player characters, monsters invented from plastic dinosaurs, robotic submarines with arms, gunslinger paladins from Earth, Remo Williams monks, and so on. Marking an endpoint and saying, "This is the extent of innovation in the genre" is completely antithetical to D&D's own history.

I don't think I ever said that, but OK.

(And you can't disregard or bypass the Grey Mouser as being inappropriate for D&D. Lieber's Lankhmar books are part of Appendix N.)

I never did