One D&D

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Endless Flight said:
I read a lot of that press conference transcript on enWorld and I gotta say…

Click to expand...

AFAIK Gordon Ramsey is only lovely with children and women with flat tires (personal story) so if neither of those apply, we need to apply a Ramseyist critical lens to the 5.5e bullshit.
 
TJS said:
What is? Who are you actually responding to here?
Click to expand...
Everyone it applies to.

Edit: And since I don't really care to get all into it with you since reading through this thread and playing catch up with it. You come off like you've got some personal investment/grudge or something in regards to this topic.

My point was exactly as stated there has been some form of gun(s) available as an option since 1st edition AD&D. With it actually in some form making in a appearance in various official TSR documents. I don't care to trade chimpanzee shit tossing with you over this. It's just the fact, which was my point toward those who act liked like TSR had never done anything in regards to DnD and guns, whether high tech or low tech varieties. Good enough for you TJS?
 
Last edited:
Necrozius said:
Also the claim that firearms have been part of most D&D settings since the beginning. Is that true?
Click to expand...

Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, and Ravenloft, yes; Greyhawk (so I'm told), Dragonlance, and Dark Sun, no. Don't really know anything beyond those.
 
Gringnr said:
When I was a kid, my peer group was excited every time a new game, especially a TSR game, came out. We bought them all. I remember buying many games before I ever bought any D&D stuff. I figured my friends already had that stuff, so I could play D&D with them amd spend my money on games we hadn't played yet.

I never remember anyone saying that such-and-such game should use D&D rules, or complaining about learning new systems. When did this become a thing?

I remember schoolmates showing me their copies of Recon and Space Opera. I'm literally flabbergasted that there are people who aren't excited about new systems.
Click to expand...


Same we were jazzed anytime we got a new game. Some only lasted a few sessions, some went into regular rotation, but nobody was like "hey guys can we just stick to one set of rules?".

I liked fantasy well enough but I wanted guns. We got Arduin, I wanted to play a Techno, and the GM let me, but then he never put any guns in the game so I had a techless techno (the GM was just being a dick).

We got Traveller and the first PC I ever rolled up was a Marine, rolled really good stats and he was a master with the cutlass but I rolled no gun combat skills.

Finally Boothill, yes guns! My PC was promptly cut down by an arrow in a basically throw away encounter to help us figure out how combat works.

:clown:

Gringnr said:
Oh, come on, everyone knows the Goddess of Firearms is named Enaray...
Click to expand...

Please, there is only one and his name is John Moses Browning. :tongue:
 
Gringnr said:
When I was a kid, my peer group was excited every time a new game, especially a TSR game, came out. We bought them all. I remember buying many games before I ever bought any D&D stuff. I figured my friends already had that stuff, so I could play D&D with them amd spend my money on games we hadn't played yet.

I never remember anyone saying that such-and-such game should use D&D rules, or complaining about learning new systems. When did this become a thing?

I remember schoolmates showing me their copies of Recon and Space Opera. I'm literally flabbergasted that there are people who aren't excited about new systems.
Click to expand...

Most people I've played with have been kinda "meh" about systems per se (they may have liked the idea behind various games, but conceptually speaking more than from a mechanics PoV), and some people in my gaming circle back in the day even refused to play anything but Basic D&D. One time one of their guys was gunna run Shadowrun, and he basically B/X-fied the system and we basically played a D&D version of SR, but only for like one session. I was the only one in my game circle who could understand the actual SR rules, though, I only got the books and read them like a year or two later.

I was also the only one who was truly systems oriented and interested in tinkering with the rules. Everyone else tended to play the games as is (except for that one guy who tried to make a D&D version of SR), and usually just accepted and rolled with whatever issue they may have had with the system (mostly D&D or Palladium RIFTS and Robotech). But in the odd event that they tweaked them, it was usually to add some overpowered thing inspired by video games that they tacked onto the existing rules without a second thought for game balance or consistency.
 
Armchair Gamer said:
Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, and Ravenloft, yes; Greyhawk (so I'm told), Dragonlance, and Dark Sun, no. Don't really know anything beyond those.
Click to expand...

Greyhawk has lazerguns so I can't see complaining too much about flintlocks.

I do recall some module, or maybe a magazine adventure, that had a cowboy character in it but can't recall if it was set in GH.
 
Last edited:
Armchair Gamer said:
Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, and Ravenloft, yes; Greyhawk (so I'm told), Dragonlance, and Dark Sun, no. Don't really know anything beyond those.
Click to expand...
Greyhawk is a no. Even when Myrlynd (from Gary’s first campaign) went to the Old West and later made it to Greyhawk, his weapons were revolver-shaped wands that shot missiles. Gunpowder just didn’t work in Gary’s Greyhawk.
 
Acmegamer said:
Everyone it applies to.

Edit: And since I don't really care to get all into it with you since reading through this thread and playing catch up with it. You come off like you've got some personal investment/grudge or something in regards to this topic.

My point was exactly as stated there has been some form of gun(s) available as an option since 1st edition AD&D. With it actually in some form making in a appearance in various official TSR documents. I don't care to trade chimpanzee shit tossing with you over this. It's just the fact, which was my point toward those who act liked like TSR had never done anything in regards to DnD and guns, whether high tech or low tech varieties. Good enough for you TJS?
Click to expand...
Except the phrase in question wasn’t “there has been some form of gun(s) available as an option since 1st edition AD&D”.
The phrase in question was “Every classic D&D setting has at least pistols and muskets.” Objectively, provably false, unless your definition of Classic is “contains pistols and muskets.”
 
Gringnr said:
I never remember anyone saying that such-and-such game should use D&D rules, or complaining about learning new systems. When did this become a thing?
Click to expand...

Toadmaster said:
Same we were jazzed anytime we got a new game. Some only lasted a few sessions, some went into regular rotation, but nobody was like "hey guys can we just stick to one set of rules?".
Click to expand...
I believe this is a combination of age (being resistant to change) and scarcity/novelty (when we were young a new system was likely new territory).

My group has resisted new systems a bit. I have to be the fire in that if I want to try something new and I don’t want to teach everyone :smile: I jammed Mythras down their throats and by repeated exposure they now have internalized it.

new I look at new systems with a very critical eye and if I see new mechanics I am asking why and what it is bringing to the table pretty hard. What are the design goals of the mechanic as is, did they do any of the math on it and so on. I know many of us are like that.
Voros said:
Not a 100 percent but I believe that Kara-Tur started off as its own thing but was later integrated into FR.
Click to expand...
Yep. I think that’s accurate. No mention of forgotten realms in any of 1e OA. if I remember correctly it was the same with Al-qad
 
Akrasia said:
Based on threads like this one, I sometimes wonder about the dynamics of a lot of gaming groups out there.

Saying "x, y, and z don't exist in my setting" has never been a big deal for me. Granted, I mainly play with friends these days. But even when I gamed with people I didn't know that well in the past, I'd be upfront about what was "in" and what was "out" in the campaigns I wanted to run, including D&D campaigns. Players who weren't interested in that just passed. I never struggled to find enough players willing to work within the settings as I spelled them out.

Whenever I read a thread like this I am genuinely puzzled as to who all these whiny, entitled players are -- and why anyone bothers with them. :quiet:
Click to expand...
When I advertised a game of Dragon Warriors on Myth-Weavers, I said it's A Knightly Tale, so I want people that would fit this setting.
I got 3 players who wanted to play knights, one who wanted to play a Barbarian (kinda), and 1 who wanted to lead an anti-feudal revolution, possibly inventing firearms (and joining the Templars) along the way.

...that wasn't the reason this game failed, the reason was GM burnout. But it might have contributed slightly to that:shade:.

Vile Traveller said:
'Fracture the market' sounds like corporate talk for 'consumer choice'.
Click to expand...
"No sir, we can't allow it":evil:!

Ladybird said:
I conceptually like half-races because I think "between two groups" makes for a good story hook. However, removing them mechanically and replacing them with "pick one" as the general rule solves any mechanical issues and moves the potential entirely to the RP side, which I think does the job entirely fine.


Alternate, better, explanations:
* With fairly easy access to magic and exceptional individuals armed with composite weapons, and personal armour not having massively eclipsed them in capability, there was no incentive for military strategists to explore the potential of gunpowder
* Tymora hates the idea of firearms, so personally twists fate in such a way they never work
* Everyone agrees that they're generally unsporting and leaves them at home
* Potassium doesn't exist. This has a lot of strange implications, down to the makeup of blood and piss
* Blacksmiths haven't learnt the level of precision required to produce the complex moving parts of small firearms yet
* Big Wizard hunts down any alchemists who show signs of getting close to inventing gunpowder, to keep their monopoly on ranged heavy weapons
Click to expand...
OK, I like 1, 2, 6 and kinda 4 (but not if you have a chemist in your group, which I kinda do:tongue:). But we all know that "unsporting" never stops anyone in a war, and the concept of changing that has far too...reaching...implications for me to be comfortable. As in, it would probably need to impact how NPCs behave in other areas as well...
Also, any blacksmith that can produce a jointed full plate would probably find firearms even easier:thumbsup:.
Personally, I'd make them about 1&6, with some amount of Tymora interference, if a PC group starts using them too much.
 
I for one am glad that they’re removing half elves because that was the only race I would pick god damn it. Now I can be more varied.
 
Necrozius said:
I for one am glad that they’re removing half elves because that was the only race I would pick god damn it. Now I can be more varied.
Click to expand...
I can't for the life of me figure out exactly why and I guess we can't really discuss it here (although as far as I can see it's based on a logic of association rather than...well logic), but it really doesn't need to be a seperate race/lineage/ancestry/species/flavour of tomato chutney.

The sort of thing that could easily be covered by a feat really.
 
IDK, I think the question of how exactly do you cover "half" races is a complicated issue that depends a lot on which races are involved and what abilities do they have. I'm not sure a feat alone would cut it and it would vary a lot on a case by case basis.

As for why get rid of half races or how exactly are half races what they're now claiming they are? Yeah...that's the sort of thing that's beyond the scope of discussion on this forum, and backed by the sort of logic that isn't.
 
Armchair Gamer said:
Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, and Ravenloft, yes; Greyhawk (so I'm told), Dragonlance, and Dark Sun, no. Don't really know anything beyond those.
Click to expand...

I remember the arquebus causing a lot of debates at the table.

Ravenloft had a Blunderbuss in feast of Goblyns in an encounter at a homestead. I think those were invented in the 1600s, but I could be wrong. Ravenloft at least was always pushing up against the 1600s, 1700s and sometimes even the 1800s in fashion and tech to emulate the source material (there was a lot of debate about that before they put out the cultural levels-I think in Domains of Dread is when that first started). I know the entry on Dementlieu mentions firearms. Anything Chivalric has the arquebus, and anything listed as Renaissance has more advanced firearms (and I would argue there are lots of domains that really should be classified as modern periods). Before Domains of Dread, you assumed based on the things described and I think there was a lot of room to discuss what period a given domain reflected (and to debate if the inclusion of a particular thing that came from a later period was an anachronism or if it reflected the overall technology level).
 
TJS said:
I can't for the life of me figure out exactly why and I guess we can't really discuss it here (although as far as I can see it's based on a logic of association rather than...well logic), but it really doesn't need to be a seperate race/lineage/ancestry/species/flavour of tomato chutney.

The sort of thing that could easily be covered by a feat really.
Click to expand...
In Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, they had Racial Feats (obviously, those will likely get the chopping block), but they could be re-worked to cover "ancestries" or "bloodlines" easily!
 
VisionStorm said:
IDK, I think the question of how exactly do you cover "half" races is a complicated issue that depends a lot on which races are involved and what abilities do they have. I'm not sure a feat alone would cut it and it would vary a lot on a case by case basis.

As for why get rid of half races or how exactly are half races what they're now claiming they are? Yeah...that's the sort of thing that's beyond the scope of discussion on this forum, and backed by the sort of logic that isn't.
Click to expand...

Elven heritage:
Prerequisite: Variant Human (Half-human would be a different feat I guess).
  • Increase your Charism score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
  • Darkvision. Thanks to your elven heritage, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.
  • Fey Ancestry. You have advantage on saving throws against being charmed, and magic can't put you to sleep.
  • Skill Versatility. You gain proficiency in one skill of your choice*.
  • Languages. You can read, speak, and write Common, Elven.
It's just a seperate way to represent the same rules result as what exists now. It's probably too good for a feat, but I think it's generally recognised that Half-elf is probably too good in 5e anyway. As it is, everything above is what it gets on top of the Variant human that only gets a feat.

I'd probably drop either the +1 Charisma or the Darkvision (because fuck Darkvision), or drop both and add something else like access to one of the elven subrace abilities.

Of course, that doesn't mean it would work, as how things are presented, and the element of illusion matters. People complain about Cypher system all the time because non-humans don't get too choose a descriptor because the race choice replaces it.

*Variant Humans already get one.
 
Necrozius said:
I for one am glad that they’re removing half elves because that was the only race I would pick god damn it. Now I can be more varied.
Click to expand...

Half orcs were one of my favorite races in the game.

I understand not liking the logic of half races, or disliking them as an option (i.e. why are there half elves but no half-halflings?). I really don't understand the reasons they seemed to be employing here. A character that lives in two worlds like that, is relatable for a lot of people and also an interesting trope that has been in the genre forever in a variety of ways.

Long live Tanis!
 
Media: "Dungeons and Dragons will be removing races and species from their game because it's outdated and bad design"

Other game companies, including Paizo:

blank-meme-template-092-look-away-puppet.jpg
 
Here are the various mentions of firearms across different editions of the core rules.

AD&D Conversion from Boot Hill Page 113
1680782909745.png

AD&D 2e, PHB, Page 68, 73 Arquebus
1680783050291.png
1680783108417.png
1680783124498.png

No mentions of gunpowder weapons in 3.0, 3.5, or 4.0.
 
Gringnr said:
Why aren't there quarter elves tho
Click to expand...
Why can't I play a Quarter Dwarf, Quater Orc, Quarter Half-Elf, Quarter Tiefling?*

Also can he be a vampire with lycanthropy too (Were-ferret/polecat cross)?

*Or more accurately 1/4 Dwarf, 1/4 Orc, 1/4 Human, 1/8 Elf 1/8 Demon - but who's keeping score?
 
Last edited:
TJS said:
Elven heritage:
Prerequisite: Variant Human (Half-human would be a different feat I guess).
  • Increase your Charism score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
  • Darkvision. Thanks to your elven heritage, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.
  • Fey Ancestry. You have advantage on saving throws against being charmed, and magic can't put you to sleep.
  • Skill Versatility. You gain proficiency in one skill of your choice*.
  • Languages. You can read, speak, and write Common, Elven.
It's just a seperate way to represent the same rules result as what exists now. It's probably too good for a feat, but I think it's generally recognised that Half-elf is probably too good in 5e anyway. As it is, everything above is what it gets on top of the Variant human that only gets a feat.

I'd probably drop either the +1 Charisma or the Darkvision (because fuck Darkvision), or drop both and add something else like access to one of the elven subrace abilities.

Of course, that doesn't mean it would work, as how things are presented, and the element of illusion matters. People complain about Cypher system all the time because non-humans don't get too choose a descriptor because the race choice replaces it.

*Variant Humans already get one.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I was talking about. Almost every one of those features is basically one feat by itself. I wouldn't mind building races by picking feats (that's basically what I'm doing in a game I've been working on), how many feats to give them (and which) is the issue.

I don't think you can have 1:1 parity in number of feats when building a race that way without artificially limiting them, though. But in the case of half races I suppose you could just say "pick X amount of racial feats from each parent race". Still it should probably be more than one feat, cuz one feat alone won't cut it. And every race would need a feat list, PF2 style.
 
SmallbutVicious said:
The correct term is 'quaterlings'.
Click to expand...

jabba-the-hutt-laugh.gif
 
Gringnr said:
Why aren't there quarter elves tho
Click to expand...

Complexity and balance I think. Race and class are pretty big simplifications but they work well for a game (pick race, class, and that helps set a lot about your character). I think a lot GMs thought would be open to ruling something if a player wanted to do a character who was a quarter elven, a quarter orc and fifty percent human or something.
 
TJS said:
Also can he be a vampire with lycanthropy too (Were-ferret/polecat cross)?
Click to expand...

After character creation, antagonize some werewolves, then go tick off a vampire and see if you get lucky
 
Panzerkraken said:
3.0 DMG pg 162
3.5 DMG pg 145

Tangentially related: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Yeah, they were basically technology-wands, but they were sort of in there.
Click to expand...
Thanks here is the excerpt from 3.5
1680790730824.png

Panzerkraken said:
Tangentially related: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Yeah, they were basically technology-wands, but they were sort of in there.
Click to expand...
I was only trying to count core books as that was the most recent annoucment was about.
 
Panzerkraken said:
3.0 DMG pg 162
3.5 DMG pg 145

Tangentially related: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Yeah, they were basically technology-wands, but they were sort of in there.
Click to expand...

The biggest thing gun powder introduces IMO isn't guns, but opportunity for players to blow things up. In my experience, if gun powder is present, players will try to use it to blow up the bad guys headquarters a good chunk of the time (this is how Ivan Dilisnya bit it in one of my Ravenloft campaigns---gunpowder and a fireball down the chimney---and in my wuxia campaigns, where gunpowder is pretty common, I've had players use them to take out fleets of ships. Obviously depends on how 'high action movie' you are going for that logic to work.
 
BedrockBrendan said:
The biggest thing gun powder introduces IMO isn't guns, but opportunity for players to blow things up. In my experience, if gun powder is present, players will try to use it to blow up the bad guys headquarters a good chunk of the time (this is how Ivan Dilisnya bit it in one of my Ravenloft campaigns---gunpowder and a fireball down the chimney---and in my wuxia campaigns, where gunpowder is pretty common, I've had players use them to take out fleets of ships. Obviously depends on how 'high action movie' you are going for that logic to work.
Click to expand...
In D&D, lamp oil is napalm, and gunpowder is TNT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top