|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 12:38PM
#81
|
|
|
And I hate the Deva, but if it were as broadly popular an archetype as what the tiefling represents, I'd still advocate it's presence in the PHB. :P
Out of curiosity, why do you prefer the vryoloka over the shadar-kai? Also, do you disagree that the Shadar-kai is more well known?
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 1:33PM
#82
|
|
|
I do not disagree that the shadar kai is more known. II just dont like it. its a cocnept off the shade from 3.x and even if it isnt, thats what it is to me which means they were better off just calling it Shade from the begining.
as for why I like the Vryoloka... Blood RAyne and blade fan.( the video game blood rayne not the adult movie version) best way to say part undead without being undead
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 1:48PM
#83
|
|
|
I do not disagree that the shadar kai is more known. II just dont like it. its a cocnept off the shade from 3.x and even if it isnt, thats what it is to me which means they were better off just calling it Shade from the begining.
as for why I like the Vryoloka... Blood RAyne and blade fan.( the video game blood rayne not the adult movie version) best way to say part undead without being undead
huh. Never thought of them as related to the shade. i always thought of them more as "shadow fey", although teven that doesn't cover it really.
fair enough, though.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 1:53PM
#84
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2005
|
I do not disagree that the shadar kai is more known. II just dont like it. its a cocnept off the shade from 3.x and even if it isnt, thats what it is to me which means they were better off just calling it Shade from the begining.
And here, i thought the shadar-kai were based off the shadar-kai from 3.x. 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 3:15PM
#85
|
Date Joined:
May 20, 2011
|
But old tiefling and 4th edition tiefling are just two different concept. New tiefling is cool, but I like just as much the planetuched. So there can be both tipes of tiefling, just as two subraces of a same race, somthing like gray, forest, high elfs and drows. They both are tiefling but of different origin and maybe some little different ability.
As for the warforged I strongly hope to see them just in eberron. If you like them so much than is no problem to give an adaptation, but warforged as a player handbook race could bring too much change in other settings just to make warforged existing in there as well.
False assumption.
"Presence in the first PHB" does not force "Presence in all campaign settings".
And that would be bad. Player handbook is the basis. Is the core of all games. Is something I take and look at it, imagin things in it and need not to see if it fits in different settings, because every single edition is built arround player handbook. So putting something in the player handbook means that if a player is going to like something there has all reason to want to play it, no matter the campain setting. That unless some previous decision between players and master, but that's escemptional. A campaign setting is general, and stripping some player handbook material from the campaing setting is just... gross.
So, even if I like the warfarged concept, it's too deeply bound to eberron setting. Sure, someone can still make some adaptation and have a warforged walkin down rashmen, but it needs to be a single, exceptional event. Forgotten realsms have been raped too much in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 3:19PM
#86
|
|
|
Uh, no, not at all.
Wouldn't take more than a line or two in a campaign setting to say 'the standard (place) world has no (whatevers).' Not a big deal, at all.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 3:32PM
#87
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2007
|
Hey, divine classes were in the PHB and yet Dark Sun had none if I understood it correctly 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 3:33PM
#88
|
|
|
I've been saying :
The races presented in this book may or may not be represented the same way in each setting and nor do all the races show up in each setting.
or a smiliar line for a while now.
the phb is the basis yes, it is at it s core as to what goes in each setting, which blows and is also why I say leave out the racial history and the deities from the phb as well.
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 3:34PM
#89
|
|
|
Hey, divine classes were in the PHB and yet Dark Sun had none if I understood it correctly
Another fine example.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 18, 2012 - 5:14PM
#90
|
Date Joined:
Nov 12, 2005
|
And that would be bad. Player handbook is the basis. Is the core of all games. Is something I take and look at it, imagin things in it and need not to see if it fits in different settings, because every single edition is built arround player handbook. So putting something in the player handbook means that if a player is going to like something there has all reason to want to play it, no matter the campain setting. That unless some previous decision between players and master, but that's escemptional. A campaign setting is general, and stripping some player handbook material from the campaing setting is just... gross.
So, even if I like the warfarged concept, it's too deeply bound to eberron setting. Sure, someone can still make some adaptation and have a warforged walkin down rashmen, but it needs to be a single, exceptional event. Forgotten realsms have been raped too much in my opinion.
Except that they've been saying since they announced 5e that they're planning on modularity - the option to make your game feel like 1e, or 2e/3e/4e, or a mix/something new. That necessitates that the Player's Handbook be full of options that the designers assume will be excluded from a significant portion of games. In fact, I'd be surprised if 5e didn't have mutually exclusive options. They're designing it so we have options A through Z, and the group decided to use A, B, C, J, Q, and X, excluding all the rest. I'd be suprised if they didn't have cases where say J and K are two different approaches to the same rule, and therefore it's not possible to choose both J and K. Point being, you'll have to either get over your distaste for excluding stuff from PHB from your games, or else convince WotC that they're making a horrible blunder and need to rethink the basic assumptions of 5e.
|
|
|
