I just got this books today from An Amazon delivery. And I got a quick glance through it.
I'm saying this straight up. I love this book! It has so much useful information in it for D&D campaigns. Stretching from lower levels to high levels; This book does not disappoint.
5th Edition has been something I have really enjoyed. It has me energized and enthusiastic.
I got this about a week ago.
There's lots of High level stuff for demonic, Devilish forces , which I'll find useful.
The Elven background stuff not so much.
The extra Bestiary material on the last half is a fun, good read and overall, I'm glad I bought it.
Xanamthar's guide is probably better though.
The couple of games I've done in pbp have petered out around 10th lvl, so the high end stuff is less useful for me, but more halfling stuff is always welcome.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1041956The couple of games I've done in pbp have petered out around 10th lvl, so the high end stuff is less useful for me, but more halfling stuff is always welcome.
The DnD games I run max out at about lvl 7 characters. But the high level (Demonic/devilish ) stuff is still useful for RP background and scaring the pants off PCs.. heh...
Quote from: danskmacabre;1041941The Elven background stuff not so much.
Is it hard to revert to the "old" elves? Or are there any mechanical reasons to include it?
Quote from: AsenRG;1042009Is it hard to revert to the "old" elves? Or are there any mechanical reasons to include it?
Well I could paint a big 666 on my car, and it doesn't affect it mechanically either. But for some reason... it seems to signal something that doesn't sit well with me. I guess I could just ignore it.
:)
Quote from: tenbones;1042010Well I could paint a big 666 on my car, and it doesn't affect it mechanically either. But for some reason... it seems to signal something that doesn't sit well with me. I guess I could just ignore it.
:)
You're just 6 times the fan of Route 66 than anyone else!
Quote from: AsenRG;1042009Is it hard to revert to the "old" elves? Or are there any mechanical reasons to include it?
Simple to revert. There's no mechanical bits to it other than rules for PC Sea Elves and Drow.
Quote from: tenbones;1042010Well I could paint a big 666 on my car, and it doesn't affect it mechanically either. But for some reason... it seems to signal something that doesn't sit well with me. I guess I could just ignore it.
:)
Yes, I get the analogy.
What I asked is whether the number painted on the car is in inscrubably fluorescent paint and whether a simple layer of black paint would be enough:).
Quote from: KingCheops;1042017Simple to revert. There's no mechanical bits to it other than rules for PC Sea Elves and Drow.
OK, thank you, so at least it's not hopeless!
Though with the contemporary tendency for treating rulebooks like Holy Writ, it might still be a problem for less assertive GMs;).
Quote from: AsenRG;1042055OK, thank you, so at least it's not hopeless!
Though with the contemporary tendency for treating rulebooks like Holy Writ, it might still be a problem for less assertive GMs;).
There's literally no rules for the shape changing and it is specifically called out as something the DM decides. Worries and hand-wringing were vastly overblown. It's even a sidebar so you'd have to really be a non-assertive DM.
Also I forgot that Eladrin are a playable subrace now.
Quote from: KingCheops;1042080There's literally no rules for the shape changing and it is specifically called out as something the DM decides. Worries and hand-wringing were vastly overblown. It's even a sidebar so you'd have to really be a non-assertive DM.
Bingo: It was 100% a nonissue.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;1042090Bingo: It was 100% a nonissue.
Unless it was not included, am I right? :cool:
Quote from: Ras Algethi;1042106Unless it was not included, am I right? :cool:
If it wasn't included, I would have never noticed. There is no offense, because nothing really in the book is offensive, with or without that entry. I do like it myself, and think it is a good step as far as acknowledging non-gender conforming individuals, and a cool, thematic ability tied to Corellan Larethian.
But again, you know that, you are just trying to play at being a clever troll.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;1042125If it wasn't included, I would have never noticed. There is no offense, because nothing really in the book is offensive, with or without that entry. I do like it myself, and think it is a good step as far as acknowledging non-gender conforming individuals, and a cool, thematic ability tied to Corellan Larethian.
But again, you know that, you are just trying to play at being a clever troll.
You wouldn't have noticed it? So this, and other posts, where you are waging your own personal war for inclusion wouldn't have noticed it? It's almost like you lie.
It's really too bad this isn't in Pundit's forum. If it was, at least it might be locked sometime soon.:rolleyes:
The only annoying thing I found in the book that *might* be some SJW nonsense (but, more likely, is just a re-imagining I think is stupid) is this:
QuoteTo a devil, gender is insignificant. Devils can't create new life through physical means; a new devil comes into being only when a soul is corrupted or claimed in a bargain, and the gender of the mortal that provided the soul is immaterial. Devils that represent themselves to mortals are likely to adopt an appearance (including an apparent gender) that conforms with what those mortals believe to be true. Gender (and the assumptions that mortals make about it) is just another tool for devils to use to get what they want.
It then specifically mentions Glasya, who I remember pretty well from my old Monster Manual. Sure, I can ignore this sidebar, but it really changes just what devils are, fundamentally, and I don't like it. This seems like it'd be much more applicable to demons who never seemed to have any sort of sex; devils, however, were definitely tied to male or female in the old D&D books.
Again, change for a nefarious reason or just a stupid ass one? Why not make this explicit statement about demons instead?
Quote from: AsenRG;1042009Is it hard to revert to the "old" elves? Or are there any mechanical reasons to include it?
You can use and/or ignore any content you want regarding race backgrounds. There's no "DnD police" to enforce you use the fluff content.
The campaigns I run are not in any official DnD setting, but even so, the extra monsters and stuff make buying the book worth it for me.
Quote from: Brad;1042157It then specifically mentions Glasya, who I remember pretty well from my old Monster Manual. Sure, I can ignore this sidebar, but it really changes just what devils are, fundamentally, and I don't like it. This seems like it'd be much more applicable to demons who never seemed to have any sort of sex; devils, however, were definitely tied to male or female in the old D&D books.
Again, change for a nefarious reason or just a stupid ass one? Why not make this explicit statement about demons instead?
Actually. Some of this stuff existed in 3rd edition and 4th edition. It's not altogether new. Just expanded on a little.
I remember some of that contained in The Book Of Vile Darkness for 3rd edition..
Quote from: danskmacabre;1042166You can use and/or ignore any content you want regarding race backgrounds. There's no "DnD police" to enforce you use the fluff content.
The campaigns I run are not in any official DnD setting, but even so, the extra monsters and stuff make buying the book worth it for me.
It's the type of book for D&D I really like. Every bit of its contents are modular. You can easily do anything you want with it.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1042172Actually. Some of this stuff existed in 3rd edition and 4th edition. It's not altogether new. Just expanded on a little.
I remember some of that contained in The Book Of Vile Darkness for 3rd edition..
Can you tell me where in BoVD? I'm curious to see how much it's been expanded.
Quote from: Brad;1042174Can you tell me where in BoVD? I'm curious to see how much it's been expanded.
Page 173 on.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1042173It's the type of book for D&D I really like. Every bit of its contents are modular. You can easily do anything you want with it.
Yeah it's a fun read. I'll be importing some of the Demonic and Devilish politics/creature stat blocks etc into my campaign.
The Halfling, Elvish etc stuff I'll glance over, but probably not use, although it was an interesting read.
The long list of monsters int he second half I'll defo use.. All fun stuff... can't have too many monster books... :)
And yeah, I like how they're making these content books, fun to read and easy to integrate if you want to.
Quote from: Brad;1042157The only annoying thing I found in the book that *might* be some SJW nonsense (but, more likely, is just a re-imagining I think is stupid) is this:
It then specifically mentions Glasya, who I remember pretty well from my old Monster Manual. Sure, I can ignore this sidebar, but it really changes just what devils are, fundamentally, and I don't like it. This seems like it'd be much more applicable to demons who never seemed to have any sort of sex; devils, however, were definitely tied to male or female in the old D&D books.
Again, change for a nefarious reason or just a stupid ass one? Why not make this explicit statement about demons instead?
It would definitely fit the CE demons, including succubi/incubi, much better than the LE devils, I agree. The 1e devils seem to have equivalents to human societies; demons don't.
Quote from: S'mon;1042205It would definitely fit the CE demons, including succubi/incubi, much better than the LE devils, I agree. The 1e devils seem to have equivalents to human societies; demons don't.
Devils have an ordered society, but I'd hardly call it one equivalent to human societies anymore than I'd make that comparison to a colony of ants.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1042218Devils have an ordered society, but I'd hardly call it one equivalent to human societies anymore than I'd make that comparison to a colony of ants.
In the 1e MM & MM2 the higher devils have a pretty clear feudal society, including something analogous to marriage and parenting. Dunno about Planescape+.
Quote from: AsenRG;1042055Yes, I get the analogy.
What I asked is whether the number painted on the car is in inscrubably fluorescent paint and whether a simple layer of black paint would be enough:).
I would say it's an engraving. I mean honestly, we sit here on this forum arguing about editions that are *decades* out of print, this and many other things will become attributed to to this edition just like silly stuff from other editions that we individually ignored, or changed, at our tables. But it'll be there to remind us, forever, that yes, it was a thing.
The perennial questions are: why was it a thing? And did it *need* to be there in the first place?
and ultimately you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. And thus here we are.
Quote from: Brad;1042157The only annoying thing I found in the book that *might* be some SJW nonsense (but, more likely, is just a re-imagining I think is stupid) is this:
It then specifically mentions Glasya, who I remember pretty well from my old Monster Manual. Sure, I can ignore this sidebar, but it really changes just what devils are, fundamentally, and I don't like it. This seems like it'd be much more applicable to demons who never seemed to have any sort of sex; devils, however, were definitely tied to male or female in the old D&D books.
Again, change for a nefarious reason or just a stupid ass one? Why not make this explicit statement about demons instead?
Where do Tieflings come from? C'mon do you really think they did this for non-ideological reasons? Binary-gender relations is eeeevil. Ask the Drow.
Okay that's pretty stupid. Devil spunk/procreating is a pretty big feature of occultism and occult horror.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1042218Devils have an ordered society, but I'd hardly call it one equivalent to human societies anymore than I'd make that comparison to a colony of ants.
That depends on how you view the planes. Are they the meta reality of the universe, where concepts and ideas exist? Are they Heaven and Hell? Or are they just basically alien worlds with separate laws of nature and their own unique ecologies? If you view it as the latter, then sure, say whatever you want about their biology. If not, then how they relate to, or diverge from, mortals matters quite a lot.
Quote from: KingCheops;1042080There's literally no rules for the shape changing and it is specifically called out as something the DM decides.
Good enough for me, then. (Also makes it look like someone adding his pet houserule to a book, but I can definitely live with that).
QuoteIt's even a sidebar so you'd have to really be a non-assertive DM.
No idea. I'm a Referee who says "no Wizards or demihumans in this campaign", and expects nobody will make a character with any occult powers or non-human heritage when they bring me characters...:D
But I've also seen GMs online almost apologizing for deciding some book or another is off-limits. Because one player was unhappy.
When there were 20+ applications:).
So I was thinking about those guys, and they might still have an issue requesting changes in a character sheet - even to preserve their own setting. But you can't help everyone...
As I said, good enough for me. (And also because it helps setting the elves apart from humanity...now if we could get something equally weird - but not the same - for the other demihumans!)
Quote from: Brad;1042157The only annoying thing I found in the book that *might* be some SJW nonsense (but, more likely, is just a re-imagining I think is stupid) is this:
It then specifically mentions Glasya, who I remember pretty well from my old Monster Manual. Sure, I can ignore this sidebar, but it really changes just what devils are, fundamentally, and I don't like it. This seems like it'd be much more applicable to demons who never seemed to have any sort of sex; devils, however, were definitely tied to male or female in the old D&D books.
Again, change for a nefarious reason or just a stupid ass one? Why not make this explicit statement about demons instead?
I don't know about their reasons, and neither do I care...
It makes incubus and succubus the same demon. Which they were, in the historical myths:D! (And they still managed to procreate).
So I'm fine with that when it comes to incubi/succubi.
I'm not sure I'm fine with it when it concerns other demons, though. Is that a sidebar as well?
Quote from: danskmacabre;1042166You can use and/or ignore any content you want regarding race backgrounds. There's no "DnD police" to enforce you use the fluff content.
You mean they were disbanded:p?
(Yeah, thank you, I know I can. See above).
Quote from: tenbones;1042248I would say it's an engraving. I mean honestly, we sit here on this forum arguing about editions that are *decades* out of print, this and many other things will become attributed to to this edition just like silly stuff from other editions that we individually ignored, or changed, at our tables. But it'll be there to remind us, forever, that yes, it was a thing.
Depends on how we use it, though.
To me, that could and should help make it clear that playing an elf=/=playing an agile human who sees in the dark better than others...
Is it going to be used like this? No idea.
QuoteThe perennial questions are: why was it a thing? And did it *need* to be there in the first place?
Shrug.
No, it didn't. But a lot of other content didn't
need to exist, either.
It's there because someone wanted to see it there;).
Quote from: tenbones;1042249Where do Tieflings come from? C'mon do you really think they did this for non-ideological reasons? Binary-gender relations is eeeevil. Ask the Drow.
Well, you can make a Doylian argument for that, indeed.
But let me be the Devil's Advocate, and ask you this - if binary-gender relations are evil, why do demons get non-binary, while humans and halflings are still as they are in our world;)?
Quote from: AsenRG;1042397You mean they were disbanded:p?
(Yeah, thank you, I know I can. See above).
I really don't see why a DM should feel obliged to use content just because WotC published content. OR even feel pressured to use it to avoid disappointment from players.
ALL content (including the 3 core books) are optional. As a GM you can use or not use what you want.
I personally ban all evil alignments in an open table setting I ran and strictly enforce only PHB classes and races.
But I also run stuff that allows lots of the books in a non-open table setting which is more flexible.
Look, I get it's important to consider players wishes, as a GM with no players isn't much good, but I certainly don't think you should feel pressured to use all content either.
And a lot of the added content would simply not be suitable for many DnD campaigns.
And yeah the DnD were disbanded... due to a scandal of brutality charges with a dice bag... *shudder*
Quote from: danskmacabre;1042407I really don't see why a DM should feel obliged to use content just because WotC published content. OR even feel pressured to use it to avoid disappointment from players.
I don't get it either. It's not their right to demand specific mechanics:).
All of those people that I've talked with answered something like "I want them to have fun". Further explanations showed that their players at the home table feel sorely disappointed when they're not allowed to use a certain exploit...I mean, a certain class/rass/skills/spells combo.
QuoteAnd a lot of the added content would simply not be suitable for many DnD campaigns.
Agreed.
QuoteAnd yeah the DnD were disbanded... due to a scandal of brutality charges with a dice bag... *shudder*
Yeah, I remember that one! Did they ever manage to pull the dicebag out of there:D?
The elephant in the room here is that specifying gender fluidity as being a special power granted by a deity implies that gender is biologically based, and not merely a personal choice. Otherwise, why would one require "the blessing" in order to change gender every morning?
Quote from: Zalman;1042581The elephant in the room here is that specifying gender fluidity as being a special power granted by a deity implies that gender is biologically based, and not merely a personal choice. Otherwise, why would one require "the blessing" in order to change gender every morning?
It doesn't say "gender" it says "sex" and it implies that am elf's sex is magically altered, so I don't think your line of reasoning is relevant at all.
Quote from: Brad;1042157The only annoying thing I found in the book that *might* be some SJW nonsense (but, more likely, is just a re-imagining I think is stupid) is this:
It then specifically mentions Glasya, who I remember pretty well from my old Monster Manual. Sure, I can ignore this sidebar, but it really changes just what devils are, fundamentally, and I don't like it. This seems like it'd be much more applicable to demons who never seemed to have any sort of sex; devils, however, were definitely tied to male or female in the old D&D books.
Again, change for a nefarious reason or just a stupid ass one? Why not make this explicit statement about demons instead?
Succubi create incubi from the frozen emissions of men they boff by night.
Not my idea., of course.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1042603It doesn't say "gender" it says "sex" and it implies that am elf's sex is magically altered, so I don't think your line of reasoning is relevant at all.
Mea Culpa. In that case, since sex and gender are entirely separate concepts (in particular to those applauding the "inclusion" of this move), I'm confused as to who this addition is supposed to "represent" ... biological hermaphrodites?
There is, ironically, somewhat of a historical/mythological precedent for the idea of demons being genderless.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1043310There is, ironically, somewhat of a historical/mythological precedent for the idea of demons being genderless.
Unclean spirits and fallen angels, right.
Quote from: Ewan;1043333Unclean spirits and fallen angels, right.
Yeah, it's generally thought that humans have genders. Angels and devils don't, not really.
Quote from: Ewan;1043333Unclean spirits and fallen angels, right.
Actually, the fallen angels should be an argument for them having genders:). They did take the daughters of the human kin, and propagated through them, after all.
Now, incubi and succubi (or rather, incubi/succubi) can be seen as argument against demons having genders, but I'd rather treat them as a special case of demon who needs humans for what it cannot get by itself;).
Quote from: AsenRG;1043873Actually, the fallen angels should be an argument for them having genders:). They did take the daughters of the human kin, and propagated through them, after all.
Now, incubi and succubi (or rather, incubi/succubi) can be seen as argument against demons having genders, but I'd rather treat them as a special case of demon who needs humans for what it cannot get by itself;).
There's been a lively, if rather obscure, debate about Genesis 6:1
Some scholars think that the passage is metaphorical and the 'sons of God' referred to in the verse were human descendants of Seth, while the 'daughters of men' descended from Cain.
But I am inclined to agree with you. I think it refers to some kind of celestial beings.
The thing about angels, as you likely know, is that angel is the office and not the nature. An angel is a messenger. It could be a spirit or a human being (most often a spirit). When we talk about angels now, we almost always mean spirits.
My remarks on succubi, frozen semen, constructed bodies, etc have to do with something from a much\ more recent, extra biblical, and definitely non-authoritative (even condemned) source: The Malleus Maleficarum. IIRC. It's been a while. I'm not seriously suggesting that there's any truth in that strange notion. But it seems relevant to the game topic in question. It rather supports the Hasbro idea of genderless or sexless demons/devils who can take on sex as a guise.
Any thing else in the book other than speculations on the plumbing of elves and devils?
Wemic feature prominently in my setting and I need stats for 'em. The most recent ones I have are 2nd ed.
Quote from: Headless;1043909Any thing else in the book other than speculations on the plumbing of elves and devils?
Wemic feature prominently in my setting and I need stats for 'em. The most recent ones I have are 2nd ed.
Yes, there is stuff in the book other than navel-gazing over demons, elves, and gender. No, there is nothing related to wemics.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1043923Yes, there is stuff in the book other than navel-gazing over demons, elves, and gender. No, there is nothing related to wemics.
Or wemic dicks.
The unasked but important question. Do they have barbs like cats?
;)
Quote from: AsenRG;1043873Actually, the fallen angels should be an argument for them having genders:). They did take the daughters of the human kin, and propagated through them, after all.
Now, incubi and succubi (or rather, incubi/succubi) can be seen as argument against demons having genders, but I'd rather treat them as a special case of demon who needs humans for what it cannot get by itself;).
I have always assumed that the gender of such entities was covered succinctly by Ghostbusters. The good one.
Winston: "I thought Gozer was a man."
Egon: "It's whatever it wants to be."
Not that I consider Ghostbusters to be an authoritative source on anything, it just covers the idea that these things appear as they want to appear - male, female, terrifying, alluring. Whatever gets the job done.
Quote from: Ewan;1043906There's been a lively, if rather obscure, debate about Genesis 6:1
Some scholars think that the passage is metaphorical and the 'sons of God' referred to in the verse were human descendants of Seth, while the 'daughters of men' descended from Cain.
But I am inclined to agree with you. I think it refers to some kind of celestial beings.
The thing about angels, as you likely know, is that angel is the office and not the nature. An angel is a messenger. It could be a spirit or a human being (most often a spirit). When we talk about angels now, we almost always mean spirits.
Well, since the Fallen Angels are demons, too...obviously at least some demons would be human beings. Which has always been how it worked in my games, too:).
QuoteMy remarks on succubi, frozen semen, constructed bodies, etc have to do with something from a much\ more recent, extra biblical, and definitely non-authoritative (even condemned) source: The Malleus Maleficarum. IIRC. It's been a while. I'm not seriously suggesting that there's any truth in that strange notion. But it seems relevant to the game topic in question. It rather supports the Hasbro idea of genderless or sexless demons/devils who can take on sex as a guise.
Good catch, but I don't like quoting Malleus Malleficarum (a.k.a. the original MM:D) for
anything! Basically, whatever is in it, might only be true in my games if it already was this way, or if other non-gaming non-pop sources corroborate.
In this case, it contradicts my reading on Genesis, so guess who wins?
Quote from: Thornhammer;1043942I have always assumed that the gender of such entities was covered succinctly by Ghostbusters. The good one.
Winston: "I thought Gozer was a man."
Egon: "It's whatever it wants to be."
Not that I consider Ghostbusters to be an authoritative source on anything, it just covers the idea that these things appear as they want to appear - male, female, terrifying, alluring. Whatever gets the job done.
Possibly. I don't like this interpretation to extend to all demons, though. Shapeshifting should be a special power of the shrewd ones, not a default ability that goes with the badge of office.
And let's be honest, as soon as we're quoting Ghostbusters, we're firmly in the realm of "what do you prefer". I'm pretty sure there are other movies where demons are shown as capable, sometimes more than capable, of procreative activities on their own;).
I recall some old 2e books about devils I picked up from the store once that I vaguely recall mentioning them essentially being formless creatures that only take whatever form is most useful or understandable for their purposes at the time.
Quote from: AsenRG;1043873Actually, the fallen angels should be an argument for them having genders:). They did take the daughters of the human kin, and propagated through them, after all.
Now, incubi and succubi (or rather, incubi/succubi) can be seen as argument against demons having genders, but I'd rather treat them as a special case of demon who needs humans for what it cannot get by itself;).
Technically, Incubi and Succubi are not original demons, they were fairy folks from the Isle of Man.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044034Technically, Incubi and Succubi are not original demons, they were fairy folks from the Isle of Man.
Oh?
Do tell. This is interesting!
Quote from: Ewan;1044041Oh?
Do tell. This is interesting!
If I remember my high school research project right, the originated on the Isle of Man, along with the Leanan Sidhe, which is a single creature that feasted the creativity of artists shortening their lives but giving them inspiration.
The Succubi and Incubi were sexual predators, that came during the night, had relations with their victim. They would suck the life out of their victims during it. There's not much else that I remember.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044042If I remember my high school research project right, the originated on the Isle of Man, along with the Leanan Sidhe, which is a single creature that feasted the creativity of artists shortening their lives but giving them inspiration.
The Succubi and Incubi were sexual predators, that came during the night, had relations with their victim. They would suck the life out of their victims during it. There's not much else that I remember.
I'm pretty sure the succubus and incubus come from Sumeria (which I guess is where demons and such originally were from in general). And I dunno about the Leanan Sidhe, but Sidhe is an Irish word, they have a different form of Gaelic in the Isle of Man, so it would likely be called something else.
Quote from: JeremyR;1044043I'm pretty sure the succubus and incubus come from Sumeria (which I guess is where demons and such originally were from in general). And I dunno about the Leanan Sidhe, but Sidhe is an Irish word, they have a different form of Gaelic in the Isle of Man, so it would likely be called something else.
True, although a cursory glance (http://www.isleofman.com/welcome/history/mythology-and-folklore/)suggests that their folklore is sufficiently similar, so I'm sure they have a Sidhe analogue, albeit with a slightly different name. Succubi/Incubi I guess it depends on if you mean the name or the concept (the words are latinate, but the earliest conceptual analogue known comes from the Sumerian King's List (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr211.htm)).
Quote from: JeremyR;1044043I'm pretty sure the succubus and incubus come from Sumeria (which I guess is where demons and such originally were from in general). And I dunno about the Leanan Sidhe, but Sidhe is an Irish word, they have a different form of Gaelic in the Isle of Man, so it would likely be called something else.
Well, the reason we mention them is that originally, the succubus and incubus were different forms of the same demon;).
Different cultures, speaking different languages, might describe and name the same beings in different ways.
Quote from: Ewan;1044128Different cultures, speaking different languages, might describe and name the same beings in different ways.
And even different beings in the same way, for that matter;).
But I prefer to consider demons "different beings" if they're described differently, even if the name is the same. It's unlikely that they were working off a real model, after all:D!
Quote from: JeremyR;1044043I'm pretty sure the succubus and incubus come from Sumeria (which I guess is where demons and such originally were from in general). And I dunno about the Leanan Sidhe, but Sidhe is an Irish word, they have a different form of Gaelic in the Isle of Man, so it would likely be called something else.
They don't speak pure Gaelic, they mixed with the Celtic and I believe Scandinavian? It's its own dialect that I believe is called... Manx? I'm doing this from memory, I don't have my notes, and every thing on the net about the Isle's folklore is all fanfiction or fantasy stories.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044145They don't speak pure Gaelic, they mixed with the Celtic and I believe Scandinavian? It's its own dialect that I believe is called... Manx? I'm doing this from memory, I don't have my notes, and every thing on the net about the Isle's folklore is all fanfiction or fantasy stories.
It is Manx.
A Leannan Sidhe is a cross between a muse and a vampire.
Quote from: HorusArisen;1044157It is Manx.
A Leanna Sidhe is a cross between a muse and a vampire.
Technically, Incubi and Succubi are also vampire like in nature. I remember wondering if there was a link between them.
Quote from: AsenRG;1044144And even different beings in the same way, for that matter;).
But I prefer to consider demons "different beings" if they're described differently, even if the name is the same. It's unlikely that they were working off a real model, after all:D!
Not sure about that last bit ...
I agree that notable differences in descriptions strongly suggest we are talking about different types or kinds of supernatural being or monster.
But there are creatures from folklore that are pretty clearly related types, known by different names in different regions.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044159Technically, Incubi and Succubi are also vampire like in nature. I remember wondering if there was a link between them.
As I recall if the Leannan Sidhe manages to make to make her target fall in love with her she drains him as he goes through a mad rush of creativity. If she fails she's forced into his service...something like that anyway.
Quote from: HorusArisen;1044186As I recall if the Leannan Sidhe manages to make to make her target fall in love with her she drains him as he goes through a mad rush of creativity. If she fails she's forced into his service...something like that anyway.
Yes, I remember that too! I never added that to my paper, cuz my dad thought it was inappropriate. He was actually right.
Leanan Sidhe is an Irish myth. She's a sad soul doomed to never know lasting love.
As I recall, badly, the earliest mention of an Incubi is Mesopotamia but I can't recall where I've read that.
Leannán is an old word for a lover, with romantic more than sexual connotations (we'd rarely use it now), the closest English word is probably "sweetheart".
A Leannán Sidhe is then simply a lover who is a Sidhe. However a Sidhe is anything that is not a human, an angel or a demon in hell. So can include the dead, other underground races, wind spirits, demons on earth or virtually anything.
So really Leannán Sidhe can refer to quite a broad range of things.
There's a lot of debate relating to that line in Genesis, but even if we assume those were spiritual beings of some kind, the fact that they reproduced doesn't necessarily mean they have a gender in the same sense as humans.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1044646There's a lot of debate relating to that line in Genesis, but even if we assume those were spiritual beings of some kind, the fact that they reproduced doesn't necessarily mean they have a gender in the same sense as humans.
Indeed.
Chalk me up as in favor of the 'genderless' devils of 5E. I think it sounds fun.
Though, as others have suggested, I might instead apply it to demons, and leave the devils as they are presented in other editions.
--------
How useful is the book to people not playing 5E? Is it very crunchy?
So is it time to genocide Tieflings and Cambions?
Quote from: tenbones;1044736So is it time to genocide Tieflings and Cambions?
Yep, and all the Aasimar and Elemental-kin also. Time to de-freak the fucking Freak Show. Toss Dragonborn on the Pyre too.
Cambions from MM2 can stay as monsters though.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1044748Yep, and all the Aasimar and Elemental-kin also. Time to de-freak the fucking Freak Show. Toss Dragonborn on the Pyre too.
Cambions from MM2 can stay as monsters though.
Oh sign me up. Just let's keep the Alu-Demon from MM2 too. Strictly as a monster though.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1044748Yep, and all the Aasimar and Elemental-kin also. Time to de-freak the fucking Freak Show. Toss Dragonborn on the Pyre too.
Cambions from MM2 can stay as monsters though.
I'm onboard for this. My biggest gripe with 5th edition is the inclusion of all sorts of stupid races in the core rules. It just opens the door for "special snowflake" gaming that I have no stomach for anymore.
I had hope that 5th edition would have gotten rid of all that shit.
Quote from: tenbones;1044736So is it time to genocide Tieflings and Cambions?
Yes.
https://goo.gl/images/jdjpi2
Why not kill all the races other than humans, like Gygax originally wanted? Keep it pure!
Quote from: tenbones;1044736So is it time to genocide Tieflings and Cambions?
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/713/095/207.gif
Purge!
You can have nonhuman races. Just not snowflake freak mary sue shit super races.
All that must die!
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1044773You can have nonhuman races. Just not snowflake freak mary sue shit super races.
All that must die!
So Elves must die. Dwarves must die. Definitely Gnomes... But Halflings aren't that special snowflake, in fact they don't have much anymore... But why keep them when everything else must die? SKORCHED EARF!
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044777So Elves must die. Dwarves must die. Definitely Gnomes... But Halflings !
I was being facetious but tell me what you wish to play and I'll add it to the list of death.
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1044781I was being facetious but tell me what you wish to play and I'll add it to the list of death.
So am I. To be fair, we've all heard stories of how 'special' Elves are compared to all the other races, especially for those who love the Tolkienized/Demigod like versions. :D
Personally, I'm cool with anyone playing with whatever, because if the player is going to be a disruptive 'speshul snoflak' it won't matter what they play. I've had Dwarven Female characters who were... Pretentious, to say the least. :)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044784So am I.
My bad. I thought you'd taken me the wrong way but I guess I got it wrong instead.:o
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044784To be fair, we've all heard stories of how 'special' Elves are compared to all the other races, especially for those who love the Tolkienized/Demigod like versions. :D
That is often sadly the case, but I always make it clear in tolkienesque campaigns that to get the kewl powarz you have to play the role of warden/martyr for the world or become something evil and shady.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044784Personally, I'm cool with anyone playing with whatever, because if the player is going to be a disruptive 'speshul snoflak' it won't matter what they play.
Agreed, although there are some clear favourites: Feral Tiefling, Gith, Dragonborn ad yawniem
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044784I've had Dwarven Female characters who were... Pretentious, to say the least. :)
Sounds like a sociology teacher I once had. Even down to the whiskers.
As it happens, my wife's playing a Chaotic Neutral female dwarf who is violent greedy but loyal and brave. She rocks!
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1044761I had hope that 5th edition would have gotten rid of all that shit.
It was meant to be with certain races being classified as uncommon or rare but everything gets sacrificed at the altar of Adventurer's League and special snowflakes. The Tomb of Annihilation game I'm running started as a 1 shot until the players all voted to play it instead of Planescape so I got stuck with a Kenku and a Dragonborn.
Quote from: KingCheops;1044843It was meant to be with certain races being classified as uncommon or rare but everything gets sacrificed at the altar of Adventurer's League and special snowflakes. The Tomb of Annihilation game I'm running started as a 1 shot until the players all voted to play it instead of Planescape so I got stuck with a Kenku and a Dragonborn.
Well there is always the Girdle of Humankind.
Well, at least there is now.
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1044761I had hope that 5th edition would have gotten rid of all that shit.
I would have liked to have had just the four core races. But it was not to be.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1046359I would have liked to have had just the four core races. But it was not to be.
It would seem to go against the 'modularity' and 'D&D for everyone' pillars of the design.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1046389It would seem to go against the 'modularity' and 'D&D for everyone' pillars of the design.
Yeah but it's generated a situation of tons of people playing not only non-humans, but races that aren't classic archetypes. Instead they're playing these blue things or quasi-furries and it's all just ridiculous.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1047228Yeah but it's generated a situation of tons of people playing not only non-humans, but races that aren't classic archetypes. Instead they're playing these blue things or quasi-furries and it's all just ridiculous.
Is the table having fun?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047259Is the table having fun?
Can't he express a preference?
I also would have preferred to keep the races to the classic archetypes since 5th edition seemed to be very much a return to D&D roots.
Having said that, I have absolutley nothing against
setting-specific races because there is no obligation for the DM to include them in his campaign.
Of course the DM can always say "there are no XYZ races from the PHB in this campaign" but that is a recipe for whines like "No fair! it's inthe PHB!"
You know the type: whiney bitches who want their own way just because they grace your dining chairs with their arse.
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047263Can't he express a preference?
He's making a blanket statement that anyone playing anything but his way is somehow ridiculous.
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047263I also would have preferred to keep the races to the classic archetypes since 5th edition seemed to be very much a return to D&D roots.
Having said that, I have absolutley nothing against setting-specific races because there is no obligation for the DM to include them in his campaign.
Then you're one up on most people here.
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047263Of course the DM can always say "there are no XYZ races from the PHB in this campaign" but that is a recipe for whines like "No fair! it's inthe PHB!"
You know the type: whiney bitches who want their own way just because they grace your dining chairs with their arse.
Never had them, so I honestly wouldn't know. Maybe I did, but they'd be in AL and that allows quite a few race/class combo, so I've not heard anything.
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047263You know the type: whiney bitches who want their own way just because they grace your dining chairs with their arse.
Having encountered these players far more frequently in the last couple of years, as a GM, I've gotten real good at filtering these people out before they ruin my fun.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047316Maybe I did, but they'd be in AL and that allows quite a few race/class combo, so I've not heard anything.
And here I was thinking that Alabama still had issues with allowing certain race/class combos...
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047316Then you're one up on most people here.
I would be surprised if anybody objected to the idea of new races for a new setting. Now, whether the setting is to their taste, is another question.
I have seen people on this site write about how they like Dark Sun, Talislanta and Jorune. The latter two I have fond memories and good copies of. These games have been around since the 80s iirc. {ETA: Dark Sun 1991}
One game that I had always wanted to play but had nevere been able to get my hands on is Lace & Steel.
(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lace_and_steel_box_cover.png)
Another 1980s game, this one. but an Australian game apparently, with cards for combat. All about courtly politics and swashbuckling adventure. Oh and PC centaurs and fauns.
I have a box set now, 30 years too late, but I have not got round to playing it yet.:o
Moreover, the very "retro" DCC, a darling of the OSR, has some bizarre races in its settings Hubris and Tales of the Fallen Empire. Hubris features Crow-like-Men (Avarian), Half-Demons and Living Constructs while Tales of the Fallen Empire has Ape-men (Ooruk) Lizard Men (Draki) and no elves, hobbits or dwarves in either of them.
Now I like Tales and I really really like Hubris but had they put any of those races in the DCC core rules I would have been pissed off.
As much as I liked the core races I am quite frankly bored with them. Not the point of never playing say a Elf or Dwarf ever again. If given a choice I would play a non-standard race. If the DM refuses I either play with the choices I am given. Or find another table to cater to my own needs. If one side is unhappy or both neither side is forced to play or deal with the other. I don't know why it seems to me at least here where everything must be a absolute.
Is anyone bored with humans in their games? Has anyone gone so far as to remove them as a playable option? I'm not referring to games that are human-free by intent, but instead to those where humans are normally represented (and usually the majority).
Well it's anecdotal yet some players at my table are bored with humans. Coupled with being penalized with absurd level limits for demi-humans pre-3E (which almost no one enforced since I began playing mid to late 1980s.) How about instead of penalizing players for taking demi-humans the designers actually did their jobs and made humans interesting. I could understand for 1E D&D. they could have added more to humans as a race in terms of game rules with 2E instead of a penalty for demi-humans.
Quote from: sureshot;1047340Well it's anecdotal yet some players at my table are bored with humans. Coupled with being penalized with absurd level limits for demi-humans pre-3E (which almost no one enforced since I began playing mid to late 1980s.) How about instead of penalizing players for taking demi-humans the designers actually did their jobs and made humans interesting. I could understand for 1E D&D. they could have added more to humans as a race in terms of game rules with 2E instead of a penalty for demi-humans.
What do you suggest for adding interest to humans? It seems to me that the allure of being Human is that it's a wide open palette, and that any attempt to add flavor will make the race increasingly specific. I do like very generic advantages to being Human, i.e. a +1 bonus a stat, or something.
I agree that level limits are absurd, but there are other limitations that can be imposed on demi-humans that are less absurd. Stat penalties, saving throw penalties, certain disallowed abilities. For example, the dwarvish race in my campaign can't use bows because their shoulder sockets are unsuited to the motion.
I think it's also important to avoid attempts to make races equally playable in all ways, unless you're aiming for a perfectly equal distribution. To wit, the elvish race in my game gets advantages in spellcasting but fewer hit points, which makes that race a rare choice, and a non-spellcasting member of that race even rarer. In that way I get a world where elves are rare, and almost ubiquitously magical, just as intended. Perfect. Similarly, dwarves and clerics are especially tough in my game, which helps get people to actually take these less romantic options occasionally. In my experience, trying to
balance classes or races is anathema to getting the mix I'd like to see.
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047263Of course the DM can always say "there are no XYZ races from the PHB in this campaign" but that is a recipe for whines like "No fair! it's inthe PHB!"
You know the type: whiney bitches who want their own way just because they grace your dining chairs with their arse.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047316Never had them, so I honestly wouldn't know. Maybe I did, but they'd be in AL and that allows quite a few race/class combo, so I've not heard anything.
I'm going to agree with Chris on this one (with the same caveat I put in another recent thread (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39198-Stuff-They-Taught-You-Wrong-About-D-amp-D-quot-You-Must-use-PC-Backstories-in-Your-Game-quot&p=1046898&viewfull=1#post1046898) that of course those of us who started as kids or teens have indeed seen every bad behavior), these fabled whiney, demanding players seem to pop up in forum discussions a lot more than I've seen them in the wild.
IRL, I think most groups can work fine with a DM saying, "there are no Dragonborn in my game world" or "half-elves and half-orcs are treated like one parent or the other, instead of their PHB stats" or the like.
I do like that the 5e PHB has the original core races (human, elf, dwarf, Halfling) first, and then the other added races afterwards, in a defacto 'additional/optional' section.
Quote from: Zalman;1047343I agree that level limits are absurd, but there are other limitations that can be imposed on demi-humans that are less absurd. Stat penalties, saving throw penalties, certain disallowed abilities. For example, the dwarvish race in my campaign can't use bows because their shoulder sockets are unsuited to the motion.
I think it's also important to avoid attempts to make races equally playable in all ways, unless you're aiming for a perfectly equal distribution. To wit, the elvish race in my game gets advantages in spellcasting but fewer hit points, which makes that race a rare choice, and a non-spellcasting member of that race even rarer.
There were so many things wrong with level limits. From the fact that the level limits limited halflings over dwarves over elves, yet the power curve went the other direction, to the fact that no two people seemed to be able to agree on what the normal levels of play are, to things like BECMI going back and giving the demihumans level advancement (but not quite) after the fact when they decided the levels would go up to 36. I'm sure someone else really loved them, but to me they were a grand failure to their purpose and to playability.
I do like the idea of races not be perfectly equal for all game choices (ex. Halfling polearm fighters), or at least if you are going to do that, make them genuinely equal mechanically and make their differences social. I'm not usually a fan of things like making elves not only hp unsuited for nonspellcasters and have a spellcasting advantage, though, since that means that playing an elf and playing a mage become the same experience all too often (very subtly non-overlapping Venn diagrams, if you will).
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1047406I'm not usually a fan of things like making elves not only hp unsuited for nonspellcasters and have a spellcasting advantage, though, since that means that playing an elf and playing a mage become the same experience all too often (very subtly non-overlapping Venn diagrams, if you will).
Well, so far in the few years we've been playing with these rules no symmetry has developed. That is, human wizards are at least as common as elvish wizards, and the players are keenly aware of the differences between the two. So that hasn't been an issue in this case. It does keep playing an
elf synonymous with "better at magic than melee fighting", which again I'm OK with because that fits my world vision. If the elf mechanics were somehow made equally playable for all classes, then I suspect we'd have a lot more elven thieves and fighters (we've had one cleric).
I agree in general about the overlapping Venn fields, which is why I'm very careful to avoid any repetition of advantages between race and class (or anywhere else really).
There's no problem with specific settings having blue-skinned half-elementals or cutesy-poo tieflings or adorable dragonborn or whatever.
The mistake was putting these races in the Main Rules, because this creates a default assumption that these races should be included, that they're the 'standard'. The result is game worlds all ending up looking the same, the same bland corporate brand of Seattle-Fantasy.
Gnomes used to be standard, I used to cut them out of my games day 1. Now, I'm in AL so I have to allow them, but very few people play them.
Whaaaaat?
You cut gnomes out?
Are you a racist?
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047668Whaaaaat?
You cut gnomes out?
Are you a racist?
Gnomes were redundant. They're metal workers and live in burrows. Like Dwarves and Hobbits. They had nothing unique to them except illusion magic aptitude and we didn't see the point to it. So we dropped them like a dirty habit.
I've also ran games that cut out everything except humans, elves and dwarves as playable races.
OMG what a nazi!
Rise up Gnomes! you have nothing to lose but you illusions!
I am going to run a one-off with an all gnome party in 1st edition and the theme will be hunting down tielfings and dragonborn.
Gnomes should be excised in all cases, wherever they are found.
No!
The Kron Hills will be free!
Remember the Lormil purges!
The Hateful Wars: Never again!
Gnomes are terrorists.
Gnomes are Freedom Fighters.
And creepy lawn ornaments.
The only versions of gnomes I'm willing to accept nowadays are the ones based off the classical gnomes-as-elementals. None of this garden gnome bullshit.
The web content for this book is actually all about characters brewing beer as potions, with their feet.
It's called "Mordenkainen's Foam of Toes."
Quote from: RPGPundit;1047882Gnomes should be excised in all cases, wherever they are found.
Agreed. With the same level of compassion one shows a fire ant.
I do wish that "rock gnomes" were not the standard version as I agree that they fall too far into the space between dwarves and halflings. I can better tolerate "forest gnomes," but even then they don't really offer anything unique apart from being overly tall and not blue Smurfs.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1048035Gnomes are terrorists.
Cool idea for a party of CN gnomes: Thief-lllusionists rage havoc!
No mercy.
Quote from: Franky;1048039Gnomes are Freedom Fighters.
And creepy lawn ornaments.
He gets it:cool:
In my DCC gonzo world of the Last Sun, the Gnomes are the true masters of the Dark Ones, who fucked up the entire world.
Quote from: KingCheops;1042080There's literally no rules for the shape changing and it is specifically called out as something the DM decides. Worries and hand-wringing were vastly overblown. It's even a sidebar so you'd have to really be a non-assertive DM.
Also I forgot that Eladrin are a playable subrace now.
Finally got my copy after a huge delay.
You are totally right. This was was not a storm in a teacup. It was a storm in a thimble.
This whole gender change thing is
A: Totally Optional.
B: Not something every elf gets. It is a very rare thing.
C: Drow can get it too. But normal drow do not like it as is messes with the matriarchy. :D
The entry basically says Correllon can be whatever he wants to be and the original elves could change genders but lost this feature at some point. A rare few elves are born with the ability. Even Drow. This feature is optional and up to the DM to allow or disallow.
Quote from: Brad;1042157The only annoying thing I found in the book that *might* be some SJW nonsense (but, more likely, is just a re-imagining I think is stupid) is this:
It then specifically mentions Glasya, who I remember pretty well from my old Monster Manual. Sure, I can ignore this sidebar, but it really changes just what devils are, fundamentally, and I don't like it. This seems like it'd be much more applicable to demons who never seemed to have any sort of sex; devils, however, were definitely tied to male or female in the old D&D books.
Again, change for a nefarious reason or just a stupid ass one? Why not make this explicit statement about demons instead?
Havent got that far in the book yet but this is a valid point as well. But this is part of some weird larger agenda WOTC has with inserting demons and devils into things that werent before, or overwriting somethings established backstory for sometimes what feels like "just to add demon to it!"
Lower plane being having no outlook on gender goes counter to whats been established prior. But. There are some lower plane beings that have indeed posed as male or female as it suits them. Others are male or female or nothing at all.
The whole "demons dont procreate" also rather contradicts the various examples allready in 5e alone that oh yes they do get it on and can sire or birth offspring.
Quote from: Omega;1050404Finally got my copy after a huge delay.
You are totally right. This was was not a storm in a teacup. It was a storm in a thimble.
This whole gender change thing is
A: Totally Optional.
B: Not something every elf gets. It is a very rare thing.
C: Drow can get it too. But normal drow do not like it as is messes with the matriarchy. :D
The entry basically says Correllon can be whatever he wants to be and the original elves could change genders but lost this feature at some point. A rare few elves are born with the ability. Even Drow. This feature is optional and up to the DM to allow or disallow.
Yes, totally rare, like 18/00 strength. I'm sure it will never come up.
What I'm still confused about though is the idea that only special people can change "gender". I thought SJWs were strongly in the camp that espouses
anyone can change gender, any time they want to, just by saying so. Does the text actually say "gender" or does it say "biological sex"?
It is a shapeshifting power and explicitly says "sex" so you are changing all your tackle. Gender is still as fluid as the number of gender/woman's studies courses you've taken.
As I explained before: should have been a Feat.
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1050451As I explained before: should have been a Feat.
I don't know if I would put it in a feat. Not just the straight "change your sex" ability. I'd have "change your sex" replace one of the Elf abilities and make a feat be something like "your Elf can cast Alter Self 1/day immediately after taking a long rest."
Quote from: KingCheops;1050454I don't know if I would put it in a feat. Not just the straight "change your sex" ability. I'd have "change your sex" replace one of the Elf abilities and make a feat be something like "your Elf can cast Alter Self 1/day immediately after taking a long rest."
A few years ago I reread Left Hand of Darkness and decided to to incorporate the sex-changing stuff. Elves could change their biological sex by deciding on the new moon that they were gonna change. Then, over the next 2 weeks (until the full moon) they would undergo a gradual shift from one to the other. As far as societal and gender stuff goes, elves don't really give a shit whether someone is male or female. Really the only difference is who's gonna bear the child.
I don't really like the way Tome of Foes makes it a daily thing so I won't be incorporating that into my game. Given that the sex change in my game happens mostly of-screen during down time between adventures I just added it to the elven abilities without worrying about balancing anything out.
What does this add to the game as already established? Is it really that meaningful? The mere fact people are confused about its implementation here and the ramifications thereof sort of implies the obvious truth: it wasn't necessary. To the effect that one might differ, while Omega is here saying it's no big deal, then why have it at all?
We all know why it's been inserted in there.
I'd rather have them create new race of Fae-blooded Elf that shift their genders and sex at will and make it an optional race (Corellon's Chosen or whatever). At least that might be useful and more interesting to design around culturally, as opposed to this weak attempt at giving a wink to the SJW crowd.
The irony that the low-expectations of this gesture would satisfy those concerned speaks volumes.
I wonder if elves have the magical ability to change the pronouns others use when referring to them?
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1050451As I explained before: should have been a Feat.
Since this is something you are born with I'd say more likely either a background, or a racial option only available at chargen. Feats are too few gained and too broad to waste on this.
Quote from: tenbones;1050471What does this add to the game as already established? Is it really that meaningful? The mere fact people are confused about its implementation here and the ramifications thereof sort of implies the obvious truth: it wasn't necessary. To the effect that one might differ, while Omega is here saying it's no big deal, then why have it at all?
We all know why it's been inserted in there.
1: As it stands its just one of many many little options that have been added to use or not. Like the new racial feats for example. That they dont impact overall gameplay or lore is a good thing. This isnt retconning manticores and minotaurs into demon cursed humans. Which overwrites existing established lore.
Now had they said "all elves can change gender and allways could!" then that would be a problem.
2: Probably yes. But considering how small it is in actuality. It may have just been a callback to those old Dragon articles.
3: That I think would be going too far. We do not know if this addition was a SJW concession or not. The odd entry on demons though suggests a possible agenda. But even that may be otherwise.
I am though curious. What is the origin of the Raven Queen and the Shadar-kai elves? Never heard of them before. But they get several pages devoted to them in the book?
Quote from: Omega;1050482I am though curious. What is the origin of the Raven Queen and the Shadar-kai elves? Never heard of them before. But they get several pages devoted to them in the book?
The Raven Queen is 4th Edition's God of Death. She was a mortal sorceror who became Nerull's consort, then killed him and became the new Goddess of Death...and Fate, Winter, Ravens, etc.
Shadar-Kai are elves who worship the Raven Queen and live on the same plane she does, the Shadowfell.
TSR lore could get iffy, but Christ, every aspect of WotC lore sounds like a bad D&D fanfic.
Shadar Kai?
I suggest Shaba Ranks Elves.
With Jamiacan accents!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dwBBKDAm8c
Quote from: KingCheops;1050450It is a shapeshifting power and explicitly says "sex" so you are changing all your tackle. Gender is still as fluid as the number of gender/woman's studies courses you've taken.
Excellent, thanks.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1050488The Raven Queen is 4th Edition's God of Death. She was a mortal sorceror who became Nerull's consort, then killed him and became the new Goddess of Death...and Fate, Winter, Ravens, etc.
It's like...how much more Goth could she be?
The answer is none. None more Goth.
She's
so Goth that the medieval version of The Cure follows her around, playing fucking "Burn" on lutes and shit.
Quote from: Thornhammer;1050506It's like...how much more Goth could she be?
The answer is none. None more Goth.
She's so Goth that the medieval version of The Cure follows her around, playing fucking "Burn" on lutes and shit.
I should find that ridiculous, but instead I find it strangely awesome.
Quote from: Gabriel2;1050508I should find that ridiculous, but instead I find it strangely awesome.
The Dawn War setting had some awesome stuff. The Raven Queen made some sense in the setting but is pretty corny when tacked onto Forgotten Realms.
Heres some stuff from the book noted so far.
The section on demons and devils adds some new things like teifling traits specific to certain origins and a few hellish boons as well as some stuff on cults
Eladrin elves are now divided into 4 seasonal types and after a long rest can change their current season. The season just alters their skin and hair colour, and how their fey step ability works. Also adds some personality traits and flaws for each.
A footnote that dwarves drink to remember past deeds. They arent fond of non-divine magic.
Duregar dont drink much for risk of awakening racial memories of theur time as illithid slaves. Also much more fleshed out background.
A section on the Gith and a bit on spelljammers, without calling them spelljammers. Also opened as a PC race.
The rest is monsters with some classics returning like the astral Dreadnought, abishai, Giff, meazels, Nagpa, and Tortles (who do not get a PC race entry.) And a fair amount of pages devoted to demons, devils and yugloths. Not sure but think at least two Planescape creatures are in there too.
Overall its an interesting book.