Why do ..... a thread to ask questions about why things are the way they are.

[8wGremlin]

A thread to ask questions on why are things the way they are in D&D. I know that some are sacred cows from previous editions.
Some are odd quirks of design and some are just wrong. So to get the ball rolling I have this question:

Q: Why do High elves get access to Wizard cantrips, and not Druid cantrips that perhaps better beholds to their fluff



Hidden Woodland Realms

Most elves dwell in small forest villages hidden among the trees. Elves hunt game, gather food, and grow vegetables, and their skill and magic allow them to support themselves without the need for clearing and ploughing the land. They are talented artisans, crafting finely worked clothes and art objects. Their contact with outsiders is usually limited, though a few elves make a good living by trading crafted items for metals (which they have no interest in mining).

[PloxBox]

To answer the elf question, from my own interpretation, is that high elves are generally seen as scholar-y when it comes to magic.

As an example, the barbarian class (iirc) states that not all barbarians are woods folk, and could be pit fighters and the like. Typically, we might view barbarians as outlander type people, but that doesn't mean they're exclusively that.

[Mortis_Elrod]

As a high elf, you have a keen mind and a mastery of
at least the basics of magic.

Keen mind. Higher int. Seems wizardly.

[Honest Tiefling]

I would argue that Wood Elves would have a better reason to get a free druid cantrip. I think that the issue is two-fold: One, the fluff is badly presented as it is trying to represent several different campaign settings and probably gets confusing. The second being that High Elves (Moon and Sun in Forgotten Realms) are more likely to be wizards then not. They might live in the woodlands, but they practice arcane magic. Their society is so focused on this that they know a cantrip automatically.

There's a bit more to getting druid magic then dancing around naked and hugging trees, after all.

[Millstone85]

Coming from 4e, I see high elves as very nostalgic of their eladrin ancestors in the Feywild.

They like nature, but not quite as druids do. They like rain to fall because the lady of the land was brought to tears by a poem about an ancient forbidden love, not because of cycles agreed upon by elemental forces and primal spirits.

[BeefGood]

Why are gnomes a PC race?
Why do gnomes make clockwork things--better question, why does anyone care about a clockwork thing?
I figure maybe there's a famous gnome trilogy that everyone's read but me, because I just don't get it.

[Hrugner]

Why are gnomes a PC race?
Why do gnomes make clockwork things--better question, why does anyone care about a clockwork thing?
I figure maybe there's a famous gnome trilogy that everyone's read but me, because I just don't get it.

Gnomes were made a player race to fill the role of the small magical type race as opposed to the small martial type role filled by halflings. Gnomes make clockwork things as a call back to the apparently very popular tinker gnome from dragon lance.

[JumboWheat01]

Just why don't Dragonborn get Darkvision? Is it to make Humans and Halflings feel better about their "deficiency?"

[Mortis_Elrod]

Just why don't Dragonborn get Darkvision? Is it to make Humans and Halflings feel better about their "deficiency?"

Probably. I'd have made dragonborn with at least a bite attack or claw. maybe a cool elemental bite instead of he cone attack. Anything to make it at least as good as the other lizard race.

[Hrugner]

Why are ribbons part of class fluff rather than background fluff?

[danksteel]

Why are ribbons part of class fluff rather than background fluff?

What are ribbons?

[Foxhound438]

Why are ribbons part of class fluff rather than background fluff?

a ranger who was originally a noble but was thrust into the wild by some kind of family tradition will still end up getting some kind of knowledge about traversing the area in which they are if they don't immediately die. Or a paladin who started out as an urchin still has to abide by the tenants of his oath. Basically, it allows for big "turnaround" points in your backstory to make for a slightly more interesting character.

[Hrugner]

What are ribbons?

Abilities that provide some lore at best but aren't mechanically significant; like Thieves' Cant or student of war.

[Cybren]

Why are ribbons part of class fluff rather than background fluff?

They're not part of any fluff. They're part of mechanics. They're mechanics being used to tell a particular story about a particular thing. Which is, ideally, all of them. It just so happens they're not applicable to combat.

[Zalabim]

They're not part of any fluff. They're part of mechanics. They're mechanics being used to tell a particular story about a particular thing. Which is, ideally, all of them. It just so happens they're not applicable to combat.
Ribbons go beyond just non-combat effects. They're things that may not be applicable to anything at all. A ribbon is a mechanic that fits the description of "it doesn't matter if it doesn't get used." It's there as a decoration for the package. The right ribbon can change a Christmas present into a birthday present or wedding present, but you're still getting a toaster. The Ranger's Favored Enemy is considered a ribbon. I believe the UA version is still considered a ribbon.

[Cybren]

Ribbons go beyond just non-combat effects. They're things that may not be applicable to anything at all. A ribbon is a mechanic that fits the description of "it doesn't matter if it doesn't get used." It's there as a decoration for the package. The right ribbon can change a Christmas present into a birthday present or wedding present, but you're still getting a toaster. The Ranger's Favored Enemy is considered a ribbon. I believe the UA version is still considered a ribbon.
Favored Enemy is largely a non-combat ability. Pretty much all the ribbons are non-combat abilities.

[mgshamster]

Why does it take longer to recover from being exhausted than it takes for being physically injured?

HP does represent some portion of fatigue, but it also represents physical injury. Especially when that involves falling from some height, or getting hit by a poisoned dagger (poison wouldn't effect you if the dagger didn't actually cut you), or being caught in the middle of a fireball, etc.

[Ursus the Grim]

A thread to ask questions on why are things the way they are in D&D. I know that some are sacred cows from previous editions.
Some are odd quirks of design and some are just wrong. So to get the ball rolling I have this question:

Q: Why do High elves get access to Wizard cantrips, and not Druid cantrips that perhaps better beholds to their fluff

Why do we still have Alignment?

Why can't druids wear metal if clerics can draw blood?

Why are humans superior? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8BljF9em8yU#t=150)

Why does my DM hate me?

[JumboWheat01]

Why do we still have Alignment?
At this point it's pretty much a legacy option, and it can help others focus their roleplay a bit more.



Why can't druids wear metal if clerics can draw blood?
Druids CAN wear metal, but choose not to. At least according to some Crawford tweets.



Why are humans superior? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8BljF9em8yU#t=150)
Because humans made the game, not dwarves or elves.



Why does my DM hate me?
Because you keep shedding fur all over the house and it's next-to-impossible to get out.

[Logosloki]

Why do we still have Alignment?

Why can't druids wear metal if clerics can draw blood?

Why are humans superior? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8BljF9em8yU#t=150)

Why does my DM hate me?

Some cows are too sacred apparently, though they made headway with backgrounds.

Druids can't because thems the rules (that is the only reason, so like any rule, talk to your DM and if you can get it, get an exception), Clerics don't have a rule against drawing blood so they can (and I don't think this has ever been a thing in D&D rules).

Humans have had an interesting track record in D&D history but for 5th they standard human is not superior on anything other than being slightly below mediocre and the variant human is in the upper quartile for superiority (Half-Elf is the superior being).

Because they fear you.

And onto my why: Why isn't the DMG actually a DMG an instead a Tabulated table guide?

[Tanarii]

Why are Dragonborn and Tieflings a PHB Core Race?


Why are ribbons part of class fluff rather than background fluff?

They're not part of any fluff. They're part of mechanics. They're mechanics being used to tell a particular story about a particular thing. Which is, ideally, all of them. It just so happens they're not applicable to combat.

Ribbons go beyond just non-combat effects. They're things that may not be applicable to anything at all. A ribbon is a mechanic that fits the description of "it doesn't matter if it doesn't get used." It's there as a decoration for the package. The right ribbon can change a Christmas present into a birthday present or wedding present, but you're still getting a toaster. The Ranger's Favored Enemy is considered a ribbon. I believe the UA version is still considered a ribbon.

Favored Enemy is largely a non-combat ability. Pretty much all the ribbons are non-combat abilities.
Yeah. I find it weird the things some people call ribbons. Like Favored Enemy. That's not fluff, and it's not weak nor 'doesn't get used' in any way. It *is* situational but only because the ability is intentionally designed to apply to specific sub-set of all creatures. But it's a very powerful mechanical benefit. It's just not very useful in a combat-focused CaS game.

[LeonBH]

Why does it take longer to recover from being exhausted than it takes for being physically injured?

HP does represent some portion of fatigue, but it also represents physical injury. Especially when that involves falling from some height, or getting hit by a poisoned dagger (poison wouldn't effect you if the dagger didn't actually cut you), or being caught in the middle of a fireball, etc.

Ha. Good question.

[Ursus the Grim]

At this point it's pretty much a legacy option, and it can help others focus their roleplay a bit more.

But you shouldn't be roleplaying your alignment. Your alignment should describe your roleplay.


Druids CAN wear metal, but choose not to. At least according to some Crawford tweets.

Here we go again. :smalltongue:


Because you keep shedding fur all over the house and it's next-to-impossible to get out.

I don't like fur. It's itchy and warm and irritating and it gets everywhere.


Druids can't because thems the rules (that is the only reason, so like any rule, talk to your DM and if you can get it, get an exception), Clerics don't have a rule against drawing blood so they can (and I don't think this has ever been a thing in D&D rules).

It was a thing in AD&D. Unless their ethos specifically allowed it, clerics couldn't use edged weapons (including arrows).



Humans have had an interesting track record in D&D history but for 5th they standard human is not superior on anything other than being slightly below mediocre and the variant human is in the upper quartile for superiority (Half-Elf is the superior being).

Half-elf is superior for many classes, but V.Human is reliably a strong pick for anything. I think only the Yuan-Ti Pureblood really hangs out with the three of them.


Why are Dragonborn and Tieflings a PHB Core Race?

Because a Dark Elf Warlock isn't edgy enough.

[Iamcreative]

Because a Dark Elf Warlock isn't edgy enough.

Ill be honest, at all tables Ive played at dragonborn were never seen as edgy. If anything theyre the nerdy goodie-goodies of the group.

[Tanarii]

But you shouldn't be roleplaying your alignment. Your alignment should describe your roleplay.That seems totally back to front, but I'm not sure I'm reading it right. Your alignment provides a tool which gives the player one motivation/aspect of their characters personality, which they can then use to inform their in character decision making (aka roleplay). In other words, Alignment + Personality Traits --> in-character decisions. Not in-character decisions --> Alignment.


Because a Dark Elf Warlock isn't edgy enough.I was originally going to add "why is Warlock a core PHB class?" but left it out because I already knew that was the answer. :smallwink:

[Unoriginal]

But you shouldn't be roleplaying your alignment. Your alignment should describe your roleplay.

Yes, that's what alignment is, this edition. Some people keep getting it wrong, though


That seems totally back to front, but I'm not sure I'm reading it right. Your alignment provides a tool which gives the player one motivation/aspect of their characters personality, which they can then use to inform their in character decision making (aka roleplay). In other words, Alignment + Personality Traits --> in-character decisions. Not in-character decisions --> Alignment.

Alignment is a simplified description of your habitual behavior. Like "my character is generally courageous, and like helping people, but can't stand authority figures and arbitrary rules" "Sounds like a chaotic good character to me."


Same thing with NPCs. Calling the hobgoblin lawful evil is just a shorthand for "generally want to enforce their imperialistic tyranny on the world, and have no troubles ruthlessly slaughtering thousands to achieve their goals", and a great Paladin being lawful good doesn't mean they can't have troubles not becoming violent when a killer walks out of the courthouse without any consequences for their actions.

[DragonSorcererX]

Why are Dragonborn and Tieflings a PHB Core Race?

Because Tieflings are Edgy and Dragonborn is the MASTER RACE...

Now, seriously, Dragonborns, Dragon Sorcerers, Tieflings and Warlocks are a 3.0/3.5 thing (even though Tieflings appeared for the first time in Planescape) that were really popular at that time, that's why they became Core in 4e and still are Core in 5e.

DRAGONBORN MASTER RACE!


Why, Tolkien, are Werebears and Giant Eagles Good?

Why blue dragons live in the desert even though they use lightning?

[Millstone85]

But you shouldn't be roleplaying your alignment. Your alignment should describe your roleplay.
That seems totally back to front, but I'm not sure I'm reading it right. Your alignment provides a tool which gives the player one motivation/aspect of their characters personality, which they can then use to inform their in character decision making (aka roleplay). In other words, Alignment + Personality Traits --> in-character decisions. Not in-character decisions --> Alignment.It is a back-and-forth. For the purpose of character creation, a player should write an alignment on their sheet much like they write bonds and flaws. For the purpose of determining whether that character can attune to certain holy or unholy items, the DM is not just going to read what's on the sheet.

[Honest Tiefling]

Hrm. On the tiefling thing...I think because they got so popular. Planescape, NWN, NWN2, and BGII all had a tiefling companion. Forgotten Realms, which has become the standard setting, I think might have a few tieflings here and there. Wasn't there a set of novels about a tiefling wizard, or am I hallucinating?

I guess it might also serve to separate DnD from the various clones a bit, even if only visually.

[TripleD]

Why blue dragons live in the desert even though they use lightning?

Maybe the timelines, don't match up, but I thought it was a computer joke. Deserts->sand->silicon.

[chainer1216]

why are Oath of the Crown abilities so lackluster compared to other oaths?

[Zene]

Why can I cast a spell as a bonus action, and cast a cantrip as an action, in one round; but not cast a cantrip as a bonus action, and a spell as an action, in one round?

Why are bards? ;)

[mephnick]

Why are bards? ;)

My question is why are bards full casters now? I think it completely ruined the class conceptually (though they're very good mechanically).

They used to be jack of all trades but now they're masters of magic and also master at all trades. They're better at magic than wizards! They can actually steal spells from other classes?! Why?

I feel like there was room for half-caster skill monkey that wasn't ranger. I think they really dropped the ball on the Bard despite everyone loving them.

[Matticusrex]

Why is the Ranger a half caster? Was it to separate them from rogues?

[Tanarii]

Why is the Ranger a half caster? Was it to separate them from rogues?Probably because they've been casters since approx 1e. (Not including 4e, which made them spell-less for some bizarre reason.)

[jitzul]

Why does stunning strike not have a limit on how many times it can be used during a attack round. And why does it not cost 2 ki.

[Iamcreative]

Why does stunning strike not have a limit on how many times it can be used during a attack round. And why does it not cost 2 ki.

For this one its probably because you have to hit the attack and then they have to fail the save. Both of these key off different abilities as well so you can't just max dex or else your save dc will be low. And it fits the idea of a 'flurry' better to be able to use them as much as you want. (Within reason)

[Honest Tiefling]

Why are bards? ;)

I assume because of the prevalence of bards within norse/celtic mythology. Bards DO show up in Greek Mythology, but I would argue that since they didn't typically fight or get into adventures they probably weren't the concept stolen for DnD.

[Ruslan]

Why does the Soldier background grant proficiency in Athletics, Intimidation and a Gaming Set, but does not grant proficiency in any kind of weapon? Is it standard for armies in D&D-verse to run around and scare off people unarmed all day and play cards all night?

[TripleD]

Why does the Soldier background grant proficiency in Athletics, Intimidation and a Gaming Set, but does not grant proficiency in any kind of weapon? Is it standard for armies in D&D-verse to run around and scare off people unarmed all day and play cards all night?

The background does give a bunch of options that aren't combat related. A medic, a cook, and an infantry unit could all sit around playing cards at night but may not have equal combat progress.

"Military personal" doesn't roll off the tongue as well as "soldier" though.

[Honest Tiefling]

Why does the Soldier background grant proficiency in Athletics, Intimidation and a Gaming Set, but does not grant proficiency in any kind of weapon? Is it standard for armies in D&D-verse to run around and scare off people unarmed all day and play cards all night?

Also, many armies were full of people given basic weapons, such as our old friend, the spear due to costs and simplicity. The only classes, IIRC, who don't get that automatically are the Sorcerer and the Warlock. One would assume that these two in an army would do something other than train with a pointy stick.

[Tanarii]

Why does the Soldier background grant proficiency in Athletics, Intimidation and a Gaming Set, but does not grant proficiency in any kind of weapon? Is it standard for armies in D&D-verse to run around and scare off people unarmed all day and play cards all night?Why does it grant intimidation at all? That might be appropriate for an infantry specialist or standard bearer, but not for a cavalryman (animal handling), healer (medicine), scout (stealth), support staff (persuasion or deception), or officer (history).

IMO the answer is: because they hadn't started using select from a list of options like they did in SCAG when they wrote the PHB.

[Millstone85]

Also, many armies were full of people given basic weapons, such as our old friend, the spear due to costs and simplicity. The only classes, IIRC, who don't get that automatically are the Sorcerer and the Warlock. One would assume that these two in an army would do something other than train with a pointy stick.Sorcerer and wizard.

But yeah, I can see a war wizard never needing additional weapon training.

[Beelzebubba]

Because a Dark Elf Warlock isn't edgy enough.

I can't stop laughing.

Let's draw a parallel, shall we?

When D&D first came out, the edgiest possible music was Black Sabbath. Oh, they talked about the devil in their music! It was so raw, so dark, so taboo!

Now? Hah! Heard of Gorgoroth (https://youtu.be/Cv4tEUqKAeI?t=1m27s)? Mayhem (https://youtu.be/7fk_v2SRUSM?t=22s)? Mayhem literally wraps people in barbed wire so they bleed all over the stage. They burned down a church they were playing in. They have been connected to suicides and murders. They play for keeps.

Black Sabbath compared to the stuff now is like The Osmonds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iVWg5T7fXM) compared to Sabbath.

Time moves on. What was edgy is now boring. The stakes are higher.
I can't wait to see what 'edgy' is in D&D 9. :smallbiggrin:

[mgshamster]

Why does the Soldier background grant proficiency in Athletics, Intimidation and a Gaming Set, but does not grant proficiency in any kind of weapon? Is it standard for armies in D&D-verse to run around and scare off people unarmed all day and play cards all night?

I was in the army. No matter what our profession was (infantry, artillery, cook, lawyer, doctor, police, clerk, logistics, etc) we were all soldiers. All of us had a minimal physical fitness standard (Athletics). And I have never met a single soldier who didn't know some sort of game, be it cards, bones, dice, chess, or heck even D&D. I played all of those regularly while I was in the army. There is a lot of down time, and every solider can tell you what "hurry up and wait" means.

As for intimidate, I don't know. That doesn't fit for every soldier. That's one that should be traded out for whatever your profession was while you were a soldier.

As for weapon usage, that's two-fold. First, every PC already starts as trained in a set of weapons (simple weapons at a minimum). Second, backgrounds don't give combat related stuff.

[Beelzebubba]

I was in the army. No matter what our profession was (infantry, artillery, cook, lawyer, doctor, police, clerk, logistics, etc) we were all soldiers. All of us had a minimal physical fitness standard (Athletics). And I have never met a single soldier who didn't know some sort of game, be it cards, bones, dice, chess, or heck even D&D. I played all of those regularly while I was in the army. There is a lot of down time, and every solider can tell you what "hurry up and wait" means.

That's hilarious!


As for intimidate, I don't know. That doesn't fit for every soldier. That's one that should be traded out for whatever your profession was while you were a soldier.

As for weapon usage, that's two-fold. First, every PC already starts as trained in a set of weapons (simple weapons at a minimum). Second, backgrounds don't give combat related stuff.

The rules explicitly say to tweak these based on character concept, so that sounds legit.

[Cybren]

Soldier has intimidate for the very common medieval practice of armies extorting money out of peasants. Look up "schwedentrunk"

[FinnS]

Clerics don't have a rule against drawing blood so they can (and I don't think this has ever been a thing in D&D rules).



Actually, it was ALWAYS a thing.

Basic, 1E and 2E all disallowed a Cleric from using weapons capable of drawing blood.
Exception being that in 2E there were some Ethos' that removed this restriction.

The restriction wasn't lifted across the board until 3E.

[Dudewithknives]

Why does a quarterstaff get all the uses out of Polearm Master, and yet the spear, the most common and we'll known polearm in history can't be used for any of it?

[Ruslan]

Why does a quarterstaff get all the uses out of Polearm Master, and yet the spear, the most common and we'll known polearm in history can't be used for any of it?I agree a spear should benefit from PAM, and it's an oversight that it doesn't.

Why do Half-Elves (descended from Elves) have darkvision, but Dragonborn (descended from Dragons) do not?

[Honest Tiefling]

Actually, here's a question: Why is the halfing art so...Weird? 3e seemed to be moving into a direction of making them look bad***, which 4e continued. 5e hits, and halflings...Look ugly, I'm sorry. Yeah, not every race should be pretty, but WHY!?

[JumboWheat01]

Actually, it was ALWAYS a thing.

Basic, 1E and 2E all disallowed a Cleric from using weapons capable of drawing blood.
Exception being that in 2E there were some Ethos' that removed this restriction.

The restriction wasn't lifted across the board until 3E.

Something along the lines of this.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ae/e4/a2/aee4a2ed9917a3c95faabee2312c298e.jpg

I guess internal bleeding doesn't count.



Actually, here's a question: Why is the halfing art so...Weird? 3e seemed to be moving into a direction of making them look bad***, which 4e continued. 5e hits, and halflings...Look ugly, I'm sorry. Yeah, not every race should be pretty, but WHY!?

Because 5e is going back more towards the theme and feel of 1e and 2e, where halflings were not serious, amazingly badass characters. The artwork reflects that.

[Tanarii]

Actually, it was ALWAYS a thing.

Basic, 1E and 2E all disallowed a Cleric from using weapons capable of drawing blood.
Exception being that in 2E there were some Ethos' that removed this restriction.

The restriction wasn't lifted across the board until 3E.
The point of the restriction was to limit Clerics from the best weapons, Swords.

Still holds true in 5e. Edit: okay, conditionally true, depending on Domain.

[Honest Tiefling]

Because 5e is going back more towards the theme and feel of 1e and 2e, where halflings were not serious, amazingly badass characters. The artwork reflects that.

Of all the things 4e did, this was probably one of the better ones. Screw complaints about tieflings, I don't want kender or Tom Bombadil showing up at my gaming table.

[DragonSorcererX]

Maybe the timelines, don't match up, but I thought it was a computer joke. Deserts->sand->silicon.

Oh Bahamut... another Gygaxian Joke? Well, at least WotC fixed that by saying that they also live in Coastal Areas in the newer editions...


Of all the things 4e did, this was probably one of the better ones. Screw complaints about tieflings, I don't want kender or Tom Bombadil showing up at my gaming table.

Yeah, me neither! If there is a race that I wouldn't mind setting the whole Abyss out in the world just to genocide them, it would be these hobbit clones! LoTR would be much more enjoyable if instead of these dip****s we got more dwarven and elven badasses like Legolas and Gimli...

[Tanarii]

Of all the things 4e did, this was probably one of the better ones. Screw complaints about tieflings, I don't want kender or Tom Bombadil showing up at my gaming table.
Halflings (and 3e halflings) are a mix of Kender and traditional Halflings/Hobbits. It was moving more in the direction of Kender that made Halflings so damn baddass. Even now Lightfoot halflings have a lot of Kender heritage in them. It's Stout that are more Hobbit-like.

[Honest Tiefling]

Halflings (and 3e halflings) are a mix of Kender and traditional Halflings/Hobbits. It was moving more in the direction of Kender that made Halflings so damn baddass. Even now Lightfoot halflings have a lot of Kender heritage in them. It's Stout that are more Hobbit-like.

No. I don't think I agree with this, because Kender are insane morons because the authors couldn't figure out how to make a race of good aligned thieves, so they made utterly annoying ones. In my opinion, a sterotypical bad*** halfling knows their way around the underworld, can lift a pocket without anyone noticing they were ever there, and can slip a knife into a kneecap as easily as sliding a knife into hot butter. Three traits that kender LACK.

[Beelzebubba]

I thought 3.x were what made halflings bad-ass. The art was awesome - little leather-clad dreadlocked assassins.

[Tanarii]

In my opinion, a sterotypical bad*** halfling knows their way around the underworld, can lift a pocket without anyone noticing they were ever there, and can slip a knife into a kneecap as easily as sliding a knife into hot butter.That does sound pretty cool. I'm curious where these halflings came from though, because that's not 3e or 4e halflings.

[Cybren]

It's very hard to ague that kender haven't been subsumed into modern halflings. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's willful denial of reality.

[Honest Tiefling]

That does sound pretty cool. I'm curious where these halflings came from though, because that's not 3e or 4e halflings.

1) Lidda, the iconic halfling rogue of 3e was probably meant to be something like this. She seems pretty invested in sneaking and attacking.
2) A lot of halfling art is like that, including the art for the Master Thrower prestige class from Complete Warrior.
3) I have misplaced my books, but honestly, from what I remember it's pretty hard NOT to find artwork of a halfling that isn't this.

It's so common that as someone who came into DnD in 3e, I was actually quite surprised that halflings were anything like hobbits in earlier editions, as opposed to their butt-kicking kin.

[jitzul]

Why are both haflings and gnomes both a thing. My first deep dive into any type of fantasy property was wow so my perception of gnomes are tiny tinkerers and the only one feeling in the small guy role of the cliche fantasy player races. So I kinda have a hard time understanding why there are 2 small races and what makes both of the different enough from each other to not be subraces.

[Cybren]

Why are both haflings and gnomes both a thing. My first deep dive into any type of fantasy property was wow so my perception of gnomes are tiny tinkerers and the only one feeling in the small guy role of the cliche fantasy player races. So I kinda have a hard time understanding why there are 2 small races and what makes both of the different enough from each other to not be subraces.

???? I honestly can't conceive of how you could confuse gnomes and halflings, or how you think they are similar in any way besides height.

alternatively: gnomes are to dwarves as halfings are to humans (which is both reductive and wrong but that's okay)

[Dudewithknives]

Why are there so many kinds of wands, rods, and staves that give so many different bonuses, and yet not a simple +1 to hit and damage with ranged spell attacks. You can use a +1 weapon to gain effective bonus bonus when you use booming blade or green flame blade, but nothing for flame bolt or such.

[Beelzebubba]

Why are both haflings and gnomes both a thing. My first deep dive into any type of fantasy property was wow so my perception of gnomes are tiny tinkerers and the only one feeling in the small guy role of the cliche fantasy player races. So I kinda have a hard time understanding why there are 2 small races and what makes both of the different enough from each other to not be subraces.

IIRC they were meant to be the 'magic using' class of the small races.

So, we have
'Standard' : Magic : Warrior
Humans : Elves : Half Orcs
Halflings : Gnomes : Dwarves

Back in AD&D, they were highly magical, had innate magic resistance, and made fantastic illusionists. This was when Dwarves and Halflings couldn't even be spellcasters. Over time, as the class restrictions for the races disappeared, they became the 'tinkerers' and more steampunk.

They never really were that popular. I'm trying to remember if any PC in any game I've been in, over my entire gaming life, was a Gnome - and I can't remember one.

[Honest Tiefling]

They never really were that popular. I'm trying to remember if any PC in any game I've been in, over my entire gaming life, was a Gnome - and I can't remember one.

I was going to say that I've personally seen gnomes...But then I remembered they were in 4e and Pathfinder, where they took on a very magical/fey flavor instead of the steampunk angle.

[DragonSorcererX]

Why are there so many kinds of wands, rods, and staves that give so many different bonuses, and yet not a simple +1 to hit and damage with ranged spell attacks. You can use a +1 weapon to gain effective bonus bonus when you use booming blade or green flame blade, but nothing for flame bolt or such.

Wand of the War Mage +1, +2, +3...

[Mith]

IIRC they were meant to be the 'magic using' class of the small races.

So, we have
'Standard' : Magic : Warrior
Humans : Elves : Half Orcs
Halflings : Gnomes : Dwarves

Back in AD&D, they were highly magical, had innate magic resistance, and made fantastic illusionists. This was when Dwarves and Halflings couldn't even be spellcasters. Over time, as the class restrictions for the races disappeared, they became the 'tinkerers' and more steampunk.

They never really were that popular. I'm trying to remember if any PC in any game I've been in, over my entire gaming life, was a Gnome - and I can't remember one.

I think that was only worthwhile if you rolled up an Illusionist, and what I am remembering, that was difficult enough.

Granted, I have only played 1e a few times, and that was a while ago. (more recent the it's heyday though).

[Tanarii]

They never really were that popular. I'm trying to remember if any PC in any game I've been in, over my entire gaming life, was a Gnome - and I can't remember one.
Really? That's halflings for me. Well, not none, but IMX Halfling PCs are very rare. Whereas it seemed like Gnomes were goddamn everywhere in 1e-3e, and again in 5e. Despite being awesomefied, and I absolutely agree Halflings were awesomefied in 3e, Halflings seem to have some wierd stigma attached to them as weak and small. Whereas Gnome spellcasters are apparently some kind of special magic.

Not to imply I dislike Gnomes. Except tinker gnomes and whiny voice gnomes. :smallannoyed:

[Honest Tiefling]

Whereas Gnome spellcasters are apparently some kind of special magic.

Because when you attack with sheep, illusions and summoning demons, any actual penalties to attack don't end up mattering, while that AC bonus really is quite nice. Add to the fact that they get an awesome illusionist prestige class that is powerful, hilarious and flavorful, well...

Then you add in Whisper Gnomes, which are basically the tiefling of the short races and mechanically good.


Not to imply I dislike Gnomes. Except tinker gnomes and whiny voice gnomes. :smallannoyed:

No one likes tinkergnomes. Just set them on fire and let the healing begin.

[DragonSorcererX]

No one likes tinkergnomes. Just set them on fire and let the healing begin.

Weird, I like Rock Gnomes (I know nothing about Dragonlance Tinker Gnomes though), because in D&D, Technology is not MUNDANE, and anything that isn't mundane is a plus for me! (DIE MUNDANE HUMANS! DIE! AASIMAR MASTER HUMAN RACE!)

[Cybren]

Mondain IS a jerk, always crafting gems of immortality and terrorizing sosaria

[Tanarii]

Weird, I like Rock Gnomes (I know nothing about Dragonlance Tinker Gnomes though), because in D&D, Technology is not MUNDANE, and anything that isn't mundane is a plus for me! (DIE MUNDANE HUMANS! DIE! AASIMAR MASTER HUMAN RACE!)
Rock gnomes are not tinker gnomes, any more than lightfoot halflings are kender. I mean, the heritage is there, in both cases. But they aren't the same thing. Thankfully, in both cases.:smallamused:

[mgshamster]

I've played both halflings and gnomes in 2e and 5e.

Didn't play enough 3.X to get into too many characters (mostly DM'd), and only ever played 4e once.

[JumboWheat01]

Rock gnomes are not tinker gnomes, any more than lightfoot halflings are kender. I mean, the heritage is there, in both cases. But they aren't the same thing. Thankfully, in both cases.:smallamused:

Does not the PHB say that that Rock Gnomes INCLUDE Tinker Gnomes?

[Honest Tiefling]

Does not the PHB say that that Rock Gnomes INCLUDE Tinker Gnomes?

That might be the RAW, but I think the RAI is to presume that any mention of Tinker Gnomes or Kender is the result of hard drug use at WOTC.

[VoxRationis]

It's so common that as someone who came into DnD in 3e, I was actually quite surprised that halflings were anything like hobbits in earlier editions, as opposed to their butt-kicking kin.

Eh, about half of the halfling lore in the PHB for 3rd was the old hobbit-based stuff. The other half got moved to gnomes (especially the living under the hills bit).

[Honest Tiefling]

Eh, about half of the halfling lore in the PHB for 3rd was the old hobbit-based stuff. The other half got moved to gnomes (especially the living under the hills bit).

I am not so sure...The parts of them preferring trouble to boredom and being nomadic don't seem to fit the whole hobbit thing.

Also, I can't believe I never noticed that Halflings are supposed to be collectors of exotic goods in 3rd edition. How the crap does that work with being a nomad?

[mgshamster]

Also, I can't believe I never noticed that Halflings are supposed to be collectors of exotic goods in 3rd edition. How the crap does that work with being a nomad?

Why, you carry it around with you!

[DragonSorcererX]

I am not so sure...The parts of them preferring trouble to boredom and being nomadic don't seem to fit the whole hobbit thing.

Also, I can't believe I never noticed that Halflings are supposed to be collectors of exotic goods in 3rd edition. How the crap does that work with being a nomad?


Why, you carry it around with you!

They were basically gypsies? (I know that this is racist, and i'm sorry if you are a gypsy)

[Dudewithknives]

Wand of the War Mage +1, +2, +3...

That gives you a bonus for to hit but not damage.

I just want a +1hit, +1 damage wand/rod/staff for spell attacks.

[DragonSorcererX]

Why are all Vampires basically a copy of Dracula? (Warrior Vampire = Dracula from the past, Spellcaster Vampire = Dracula from the present)

[Mortis_Elrod]

Why are all Vampires basically a copy of Dracula? (Warrior Vampire = Dracula from the Past, Spellcaster Vampire = Dracula from the Present)

Are there any other kind of vampire? You don't change greatness.

[Asmotherion]

This is really a rhytorical question, but if anyone can give me some insight, I'd apreciate it.

Why can't Dragon Sorcerers polymorph themselves into Dragons (of their ancestry) in any way that does not involve Wish (and a high stake of never be able to use Wish again thereafter), wile the Bard, Warlock, Wizard and Druid all have a way to do so with a 9th level spell (either True Polymorph or Shapechange)? I mean, if there was a class tied enough to Dragons to do so, it's the Dragonic Blood Sorcerer, but oddly, it's the only full-caster one (besides the cleric) excluded. O_O??? I always felt confused about that.

[DragonSorcererX]

Are there any other kind of vampire? You don't change greatness.

Skyrim Vampire Lords for example, who transform themselves into a fiendish monster with bat-like features and get a huge bump on magical power (yeah, I know that those are only the ones with Harkon's vampiric bloodline)

[Mortis_Elrod]

Skyrim Vampire Lords for example, who transform themselves into a fiendish monster with bat-like features and get a huge bump on magical power.

i have been corrected. We should have both of these. Nothing else though. maybe some manbat pets.

[DragonSorcererX]

i have been corrected. We should have both of these. Nothing else though. maybe some manbat pets.

But take the wolf and rat stuff away, these are lycanthrope things... so unless you have a wererat or werewolf vampire, they make no sense. (It makes sense for the OG Dracula, because he is a devilish undead, so controlling vermin and becoming beasts make sense for him)

[Asmotherion]

Skyrim Vampire Lords for example, who transform themselves into a fiendish monster with bat-like features and get a huge bump on magical power (yeah, I know that those are only the ones with Harkon's vampiric bloodline)


Technically could be a Dragon Bloodline Sorcerer Lich with a high STR/CON score :3 Who can use Alter Self to look more Humanoid when interacting socially, wile that is his true form ^_^

Or a Winged Variant Tiefling Lich...

Quite ironically, both fit thematically, the first specific to the Dragonborn PC becoming a "Vampire", wile the other, more generalised, is indeed a "Demonic/Devilish Gift" from a Daedra :3

[DragonSorcererX]

Technically could be a Dragon Bloodline Sorcerer Lich with a high STR/CON score :3 Who can use Alter Self to look more Humanoid when interacting socially, wile that is his true form ^_^

Or a Winged Variant Tiefling Lich...

Quite ironically, both fit thematically, the first specific to the Dragonborn becoming a "Vampire", wile the other is indeed a "Demonic/Devilish Gift" from a Daedra :3

Someone give this man a cookie! :smallwink:

[LordCdrMilitant]

Skyrim Vampire Lords for example, who transform themselves into a fiendish monster with bat-like features and get a huge bump on magical power (yeah, I know that those are only the ones with Harkon's vampiric bloodline)

Marked by one problem: the Dragonborn, whether spellcaster, melee fighter, or sniper, is weaker as a Vampire Lord than in her default state. So, it's most definitely not a bump in magical or physical power. I wish there was an option to laugh at Harkon when we says "behold the power!" and then respond with "behold the power of my: 2x Super-Legendary Dragonbone Enchanted Handaxes/Infinite Stagger with No Magicka Cost/Enhanced Enchanted Super-Legendary Dwarven Crossbow with Explosive Bolts!"

Also, when transformed, you lose access to the ability to send enemies flying across the room.

That's not to say being a Vampire is always bad, since there are definitely builds that benefit from being a Vampire, but I can't think of a set up where using the Vampire Lord transformation increases your power, except maybe at starting level.


Why are all Vampires basically a copy of Dracula? (Warrior Vampire = Dracula from the past, Spellcaster Vampire = Dracula from the present)

And with regards to playing vampires, I played a Dread Vampire Sorceress Pathfinder] who lived on a space fortress and solved every problem with rocks catapulted from the permanent demiplane of hyperaccelerated large stones. She never hid the fact she was a vampire, and was highly optimized for diplomacy, and was generally a public and friendly figure to the people of the kingdom she had a vested interest in supporting. She wasn't a good person in the least, and helped orchestrate the takeover of the rest of the world by the kingdom she supported, but she was nice to people and open about being a vampire. I'm not actually sure how much like Dracula this is, but it was fun.

[danksteel]

But take the wolf and rat stuff away, these are lycanthrope things... so unless you have a wererat or werewolf vampire, they make no sense. (It makes sense for the OG Dracula, because he is a devilish undead, so controlling vermin and becoming beasts make sense for him)

The wolf and rat stuff were powers of Dracula in Bram Stoker's novel.

[DragonSorcererX]

Marked by one problem: the Dragonborn, whether spellcaster, melee fighter, or sniper, is weaker as a Vampire Lord than in her default state. So, it's most definitely not a bump in magical or physical power. I wish there was an option to laugh at Harkon when we says "behold the power!" and then respond with "behold the power of my: 2x Super-Legendary Dragonbone Enchanted Handaxes/Infinite Stagger with No Magicka Cost/Enhanced Enchanted Super-Legendary Dwarven Crossbow with Explosive Bolts!"

Also, when transformed, you lose access to the ability to send enemies flying across the room.

That's not to say being a Vampire is always bad, since there are definitely builds that benefit from being a Vampire, but I can't think of a set up where using the Vampire Lord transformation increases your power, except maybe at starting level.

This is the problem with Skyrim, the first time I fought Harkon I went invisible while he was talking and killed him with my x30 Sneak Attack +50% Power Attack using two Legendary Dragonbone Dagger (that damage probably went beyond 1000), I would never be able to do that in Vampire Lord form...


And with regards to playing vampires, I played a Dread Vampire Sorceress Pathfinder] who lived on a space fortress and solved every problem with rocks catapulted from the permanent demiplane of hyperaccelerated large stones. She never hid the fact she was a vampire, and was highly optimized for diplomacy, and was generally a public and friendly figure to the people of the kingdom she had a vested interest in supporting. She wasn't a good person in the least, and helped orchestrate the takeover of the rest of the world by the kingdom she supported, but she was nice to people and open about being a vampire. I'm not actually sure how much like Dracula this is, but it was fun.

I'm not talking about your vampire, I'm talking about the Monster Manual Vampires from 5e and older editions.


The wolf and rat stuff were powers of Dracula in Bram Stoker's novel.

That's why I said og Dracula...

[LordCdrMilitant]

This is the problem with Skyrim, the first time I fought Harkon I went invisible while he was talking and killed him with my x30 Sneak Attack +50% Power Attack using two Legendary Dragonbone Dagger (that damage probably went beyond 1000)...



I'm not talking about your vampire, I'm talking about the Monster Manual Vampires from 5e and older editions.



That's why I said og Dracula...

I worked out the math of Skyrim to optimize the game one time. It was kind of funny, and I was told I was playing Skyrim wrong. Admittedly, I would also say that if your spreadsheet out the optimized build you might be missing the point of Roleplay Game, but it's an interesting exercise.

All vampires are Dracula because D&D is generic fantasy, and Dracula is the generic vampire. When a player or GM searches for a vampire, s/he expects a dracula-expy, and gets a dracula expy, and it's up to the GM or player to make it different.

[DragonSorcererX]

I worked out the math of Skyrim to optimize the game one time. It was kind of funny, and I was told I was playing Skyrim wrong. Admittedly, I would also say that if your spreadsheet out the optimized build you might be missing the point of Roleplay Game, but it's an interesting exercise.

I wasn't optimizing, I just realized how powerful my character was while I was in the middle of the proccess to get her to that level of power... and I did what my character would do against a powerful enemy, stealth out and kill him as fast possible, but when I am fighting weak enemies like that woman from Windhelm that Muiri asks you to kill, I like to have fun, and I pickpocketed a Lotus Extract coated Iron Dagger to her mother's pocket, and then I casted some fury spell on both of them... the mother killed her daughter with one slash of the dagger.


All vampires are Dracula because D&D is generic fantasy, and Dracula is the generic vampire. When a player or GM searches for a vampire, s/he expects a dracula-expy, and gets a dracula expy, and it's up to the GM or player to make it different.

I know, but it is weird, because D&D mixes it's own tropes and intern jokes with generic fantasy stuff... and these things look wacky sometimes.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I wasn't optimizing, I just realized how powerful my character was while I was in the middle of the proccess to get her to that level of power... and I did what my character would do against a powerful enemy, stealth out and kill him as fast possible, but when I am fighting weak enemies like that woman from Windhelm that Muiri asks you to kill, I like to have fun, and I pickpocketed a Lotus Extract coated Iron Dagger to her mother's pocket, and then I casted some fury spell on both of them... the mother killed her daughter with one slash of the dagger.



I know, but it is weird, because D&D mixes it's own tropes and intern jokes with generic fantasy stuff... and these things look wacky sometimes.

That's nasty. I think I wiped out the Dark Brotherhood in all but one playthrough, and I know I didn't kill Nilsine Shatter-Shield.

Anyway, away from the way we play Skyrim, D&D is only really funky when it crosses genres and you get an elder vampire from a pocket dimension living in a space station, Azer staging a communist revolution, Cthulhu rising from the ocean amidst a rebellion against a genocidal empire, and Shadowfolk with chemical guns and hovertanks waging a cold war with the Eladrin with the material realm as the third-world equivalent..

[2D8HP]

Elves and Humans can breed, and Faerun has half-elf families.

Humans and Orcs can breed, and they are likewise half-orc families.

This suggests that Elves, Humans, and Orcs are all the same species!

And it seems to me that there should be Elf/Orc hybrids, but since they aren't any distinct ones, that suggest that Humans are actually descended from Elves and Orcs, or share a common ancestor.

Elves have Darkvision.

Half-elves have Darkvision.

Half-orcs have Darkvision.

Orcs have Darkvision.

Humans do not have Darkvision.

What's up with that?

[gooddragon1]

Why would a dragon ever agree to allow someone to ride on them?

[LordCdrMilitant]

Why would a dragon ever agree to allow someone to ride on them?

Because the d*** scaly lizard thing doesn't have a choice. It can serve me or be slaughtered [and possibly serve me in undeath]!

Wait? Why am I letting it live anyway?

[danksteel]

That's why I said og Dracula...

Ah. To be honest, I stopped reading after 'remove summon wolves and rats from vamps'.

[gooddragon1]

Because the d*** scaly lizard thing doesn't have a choice. It can serve me or be slaughtered [and possibly serve me in undeath]!

Wait? Why am I letting it live anyway?

Duress I can understand, but why would they allow it without duress or otherwise subjugated will?

[Dappershire]

Duress I can understand, but why would they allow it without duress or otherwise subjugated will?

Because it wants to adventure too? It gets first dibs on jewel appropriate treasure? Because youre slow and soft and cant fly, like an unhatched nestling. You literally have all the skills, defenses, and intelligence of an egg.

[Zalabim]

This is really a rhytorical question, but if anyone can give me some insight, I'd apreciate it.

Why can't Dragon Sorcerers polymorph themselves into Dragons (of their ancestry) in any way that does not involve Wish (and a high stake of never be able to use Wish again thereafter), wile the Bard, Warlock, Wizard and Druid all have a way to do so with a 9th level spell (either True Polymorph or Shapechange)? I mean, if there was a class tied enough to Dragons to do so, it's the Dragonic Blood Sorcerer, but oddly, it's the only full-caster one (besides the cleric) excluded. O_O??? I always felt confused about that.
The cleric could also pull it off with Divine Intervention, when appropriate. So no, I really can't tell you.

[DracoKnight]

The cleric could also pull it off with Divine Intervention, when appropriate. So no, I really can't tell you.

Arcana Cleric can also get access to true polymorph.

Short answer: WotC really hates the sorcerer.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Short answer: WotC really hates the sorcerer.

Well, they're not called Sorcerers of the C- *explodes for being the millionth person to say this*

[DracoKnight]

Well, they're not called Sorcerers of the C- *explodes for being the millionth person to say this*

*sighs and starts casting cure wounds, muttering to myself* They really need to stop spontaneously combusting.

[DragonSorcererX]

Why would a dragon ever agree to allow someone to ride on them?

Because Bahamut/Tiamat said so? (This is how the Githyanki got their hands on those Red Dragons)

Because the rider raised it as if he was his mommy?

Because it was captured, tortured and broken?

[Elderand]

Elves and Humans can breed, and Faerun has half-elf families.

Humans and Orcs can breed, and they are likewise half-orc families.

This suggests that Elves, Humans, and Orcs are all the same species!

And it seems to me that there should be Elf/Orc hybrids, but since they aren't any distinct ones, that suggest that Humans are actually descended from Elves and Orcs, or share a common ancestor.

Elves have Darkvision.

Half-elves have Darkvision.

Half-orcs have Darkvision.

Orcs have Darkvision.

Humans do not have Darkvision.

What's up with that?

Actually, you're thinking backward.

Human and elf can mate and produce viable ofsprings, human and orcs can do the same thing. Elf and orcs can't. That doesn't suggest humans are descended from elves and orcs. It suggest Elves and orcs are both descendant of humans.

Humans came first, branched into elves and orcs. The two subspecies share enough with human to still be fertile with them but are too different from each other to breed together.

Clearly darkvision is a trait that was developped separately by both elves and orcs separately or that there is a missing like. A proto elforc thing that was 99% human but had darkvision and evolved into both elves and orcs but disappeared, while normal humans persisted.

[JumboWheat01]

Well, as far as we know, elves and orcs can't intermix. An elf would probably perform ritual suicide if such a thing occurred. The only thing that hates orcs as much as dwarves, as we know, are elves.

Could you imagine a half orc, half elf combo anyway? Think of the poor children.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not talking about your vampire, I'm talking about the Monster Manual Vampires from 5e and older editions.



That's why I said og Dracula...

Why do you think it's ridiculous for a vampire to have classical vampire powers?



Elves and Humans can breed, and Faerun has half-elf families.

Humans and Orcs can breed, and they are likewise half-orc families.

This suggests that Elves, Humans, and Orcs are all the same species!

And it seems to me that there should be Elf/Orc hybrids, but since they aren't any distinct ones, that suggest that Humans are actually descended from Elves and Orcs, or share a common ancestor.

Elves have Darkvision.

Half-elves have Darkvision.

Half-orcs have Darkvision.

Orcs have Darkvision.

Humans do not have Darkvision.

What's up with that?


Actually, you're thinking backward.

Human and elf can mate and produce viable ofsprings, human and orcs can do the same thing. Elf and orcs can't. That doesn't suggest humans are descended from elves and orcs. It suggest Elves and orcs are both descendant of humans.

Humans came first, branched into elves and orcs. The two subspecies share enough with human to still be fertile with them but are too different from each other to breed together.

Clearly darkvision is a trait that was developped separately by both elves and orcs separately or that there is a missing like. A proto elforc thing that was 99% human but had darkvision and evolved into both elves and orcs but disappeared, while normal humans persisted.


The explanation in the books is that the elves, the humans and the orcs were created separately by their respective gods.


It just happens that the humans were made to be compatible with a pretty big number of beings. Only the dragons can reproduce with more beings than the humans.

[Dr. Cliché]

What's with the weird alignments for were-creatures? And it gets worse when, if you embrace the curse, you're then forced to switch to that alignment even though no actual change in personality has taken place.

- "Oh, I've turned into a werewolf. Guess I'd better start wantonly slaughtering people in exactly the same way that wolves don't."
- "Hmm, I've turned into a weretiger. Guess I'll embrace it and just become really apathetic about the whole morality thing."
- "It seems I've become a werebear. Guess I'd better dedicate my life to helping others and overthrowing oppressive regimes. Just like a real bear."
:smallconfused:

I'm also puzzled as to why no were-creatures - not even the werewolves - have Regeneration. Isn't that the classic werewolf ability?

Finally, why are were-creatures called 'lycanthropes'? Lycanthrope comes from the word 'lycan' which means 'wolf'. i.e. Lycanthrope specifically refers to werewolves. :smallfurious:
Why not just call them 'were-creatures'? Or use 'Therianthropes' if you want a more technical name that's actually accurate?

[Elderand]

The explanation in the books is that the elves, the humans and the orcs were created separately by their respective gods.

It just happens that the humans were made to be compatible with a pretty big number of beings. Only the dragons can reproduce with more beings than the humans.

That's the boring explanation however. Imagine the enormous impact it would have on any setting if archeological evidence came to light that showed human appeared first and elves and orcs evolved from them. The orcs wouldn't really care, but elves? Their whole schtick is being the old wise better than everyone race, to realize they are younger than humans and descend from them would be a huge kick in the butt for their ego. They couldn't even claim they're better because they're somehow more evolved than humans since, hey, orcs are on the same evolutionary layer.

Disclaimer: none of this is my idea, it all comes from Arcanum.

Still, I think it make for an interesting and unusual bit of setting that is different in a different way than usual.

[Elderand]

I'm also puzzled as to why no were-creatures - not even the werewolves - have Regeneration. Isn't that the classic werewolf ability?

No, it's not. It's a very recent thing, like, within living memory recent.
So recent in fact it can be traced directly back to white wolf.

One of the very oldest myth about werewolves is about how they don't regenerate. The wound you inflicted on the wolf is suddenly on the kind old lady next door, that's a classic.

[mgshamster]

Actually, you're thinking backward.

Human and elf can mate and produce viable ofsprings, human and orcs can do the same thing. Elf and orcs can't. That doesn't suggest humans are descended from elves and orcs. It suggest Elves and orcs are both descendant of humans.

Humans came first, branched into elves and orcs. The two subspecies share enough with human to still be fertile with them but are too different from each other to breed together.

Clearly darkvision is a trait that was developped separately by both elves and orcs separately or that there is a missing like. A proto elforc thing that was 99% human but had darkvision and evolved into both elves and orcs but disappeared, while normal humans persisted.

That's still not quite right.

It means that orcs and humans share a common ancestor. Likewise humans and elves share a common ancestor. And more technically, all three share a common ancestor, but orcs and elves are separated far enough to no longer have compatible genes for off spring.

Since both elves and orcs have darkvision, then it's more likely that they both inherited it from their common ancestor, while humans lost the ability over time.

One might also claim that since the two species can interbreed with viable offspring, they're technically not different species.

However, even with all that, I prefer to think orcs, elves, and humans are the product of creationism. The gods made some or all of the races, and then the elf and orc gods, in a war with each other and trying to bring the humans to their side, made it so they could breed together. :)

[Dr. Cliché]

No, it's not. It's a very recent thing, like, within living memory recent.
So recent in fact it can be traced directly back to white wolf.

No more recent than the whole 'bitten by a werewolf causes you to turn into one' aspect.


One of the very oldest myth about werewolves is about how they don't regenerate. The wound you inflicted on the wolf is suddenly on the kind old lady next door, that's a classic.

I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure many of the old werewolf stories would completely disagree with you on that point.

[Unoriginal]

What's with the weird alignments for were-creatures? And it gets worse when, if you embrace the curse, you're then forced to switch to that alignment even though no actual change in personality has taken place.

- "Oh, I've turned into a werewolf. Guess I'd better start wantonly slaughtering people in exactly the same way that wolves don't."
- "Hmm, I've turned into a weretiger. Guess I'll embrace it and just become really apathetic about the whole morality thing."
- "It seems I've become a werebear. Guess I'd better dedicate my life to helping others and overthrowing oppressive regimes. Just like a real bear."
:smallconfused:

Embracing the curse results in modifying your personality. A nice person who becomes a werewolf and embrace the curse will become malevolent and slaughter-happy.

Sure, the alignment has little relation to the animal in question, but it's a curse, not a transformation into a normal animal.



I'm also puzzled as to why no were-creatures - not even the werewolves - have Regeneration. Isn't that the classic werewolf ability?

Nope. Actually, seeing the wounds the person got while transformed is one of the classical ways to find what the werewolf's human form is.



Finally, why are were-creatures called 'lycanthropes'? Lycanthrope comes from the word 'lycan' which means 'wolf'. i.e. Lycanthrope specifically refers to werewolves. :smallfurious:
Why not just call them 'were-creatures'? Or use 'Therianthropes' if you want a more technical name that's actually accurate?

I think they've did it because the writers decided werewolf is the "main" one, and then the others are variants. Not the smartest move, but eh.

[Dr. Cliché]

Embracing the curse results in modifying your personality. A nice person who becomes a werewolf and embrace the curse will become malevolent and slaughter-happy.

I can get behind the evil part. What I don't get is why embracing the curse makes you a good person if you were bitten by a bear. Or apathetic if you were bitten by a tiger. :smallconfused:

[Tanarii]

I can get behind the evil part. What I don't get is why embracing the curse makes you a good person if you were bitten by a bear. Or apathetic if you were bitten by a tiger. :smallconfused:
Because cats are lazy? :smallamused:

[Elderand]

No more recent than the whole 'bitten by a werewolf causes you to turn into one' aspect.

Yes, much more recent than that. Turning into a werewolf because you've been bitten by one is at least as old as 1935 with the werewolf of London.
Regeneration? Not really a thing until 1992 with Werewolf the apocalypse.



I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure many of the old werewolf stories would completely disagree with you on that point.

You can check, sympathetic wounds (or reprecussion) is a huge clue as to who the werewolf is. Shows up all the time in stories and werewolf trials.

[Tanarii]

Not really a thing until 1992 with Werewolf the apocalypse.
Um. I've been reading fantasy since I was a kid in the mid-80s, and this one isn't even remotely correct. Werewolves regenerating instantly from anything except silver wounds is an old fantasy trope.

[Cybren]

No, it's not. It's a very recent thing, like, within living memory recent.
So recent in fact it can be traced directly back to white wolf.

One of the very oldest myth about werewolves is about how they don't regenerate. The wound you inflicted on the wolf is suddenly on the kind old lady next door, that's a classic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_Man_(1941_film)
While 1941 is within living memory, it's certainly older than white wolf
(which isn't to say that this originated the trope, it seems to be at least about a century older, as it's in some victorian fiction about werewolves)

[mgshamster]

In this edition, instead of regenerating from non-silver (and non-magical) attacks, they're just flat out immune to them.

[Dr. Cliché]

Regeneration? Not really a thing until 1992 with Werewolf the apocalypse.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. In terms of mythology, it's likely to go back to at least 1640 with the tale of werewolves attacking the town of Greifswald, where all attempts to fend off the werewolves with conventional weapons failed. It was only when a group of students melted down silver t make musket-balls that they were able to kill the beasts.

There is also a similar legend regarding the slaying the Beast of Gévaudan in 1760, which was also killed with silver bullets (this time from a melted chalice that had also been blessed by a priest).


YYou can check, sympathetic wounds (or reprecussion) is a huge clue as to who the werewolf is. Shows up all the time in stories and werewolf trials.

No, you are right with this one.


Because cats are lazy? :smallamused:

Now I'm imagining someone being bitten by a weretiger. "Yes! With the power this new form will give me, I'll rule this wretched world!"

Cut to a fat weretiger sitting on a sofa eating crisps. "Meh, I'll rule it tomorrow."

:smallwink:

[Elderand]

Sorry, but that's simply not true. In terms of mythology, it's likely to go back to at least 1640 with the tale of werewolves attacking the town of Greifswald, where all attempts to fend off the werewolves with conventional weapons failed. It was only when a group of students melted down silver t make musket-balls that they were able to kill the beasts.

There is also a similar legend regarding the slaying the Beast of Gévaudan in 1760, which was also killed with silver bullets (this time from a melted chalice that had also been blessed by a priest).

But that's not quite the same thing as regeneration. It's more of a "if it's not silver, it doesn't even hurt." Also the beast of gevaudan was not seen as a werewolf. Just a beast.

And while it is a feature of some stories it is by far the exception rather than the norm until the 1940 and even then, even today silver being necessery to kill a werewolf is roughly a 50/50 and when it is, more often than not you don't see the sort of insane healing speed you'd get if you had dnd regeneration. it's generaly quite a bit slower than that.

So no, I don't think regeneration is a defining characteristic of werewolves.
In fact....there isn't a defining characteristic to werewolves.
Vampires at least we can all agree on the need to drink blood (barring some very very very rare exception)

Werewolves? it's a crapshoot. Does it turn into a wolf or some wolf/human hybrid? Is at will or under a full moon? is it a disease, a curse, a spell, a magical artifact that cause the transformation? Do they heal or not?

Werewolves are a lot like porn, you can't easily define it, but you know it when you see it.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Werewolves are a lot like porn

Quick, someone sig this bit

[Dr. Cliché]

But that's not quite the same thing as regeneration. It's more of a "if it's not silver, it doesn't even hurt."

Eh, I think it's debatable, given that the stories rarely give details either way (it could be immunity, but it could also be near-instantaneous healing/recovery).

At the very least, it is evidence of unnatural resilience, even if you don't consider it regeneration specifically.


Also the beast of gevaudan was not seen as a werewolf. Just a beast.

I've certainly seen at least some tales refer to it as a werewolf, but fair enough.



And while it is a feature of some stories it is by far the exception rather than the norm until the 1940 and even then, even today silver being necessery to kill a werewolf is roughly a 50/50 and when it is, more often than not you don't see the sort of insane healing speed you'd get if you had dnd regeneration.

Sure. But, again, why then do we use the 'bitten by a werewolf turns you into a werewolf'?

If the reason for them not having regeneration is that it isn't common in mythology, how do you justify something which didn't exist in their mythology at all? That aspect was entirely invented by Hollywood (and it's hardly universal even in media), and yet that's what D&D werewolves use. :smallconfused:



In fact....there isn't a defining characteristic to werewolves.
Vampires at least we can all agree on the need to drink blood (barring some very very very rare exception)

Werewolves? it's a crapshoot. Does it turn into a wolf or some wolf/human hybrid? Is at will or under a full moon? is it a disease, a curse, a spell, a magical artifact that cause the transformation? Do they heal or not?

Yeah, that's very good point actually.

It just seems like the current D&D ones are a really weird mix of traits, but maybe I'm in the minority for thinking that.


Werewolves are a lot like porn, you can't easily define it, but you know it when you see it.

Now that's just begging to be someone's signature. :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

Sure. But, again, why then do we use the 'bitten by a werewolf turns you into a werewolf'?

If the reason for them not having regeneration is that it isn't common in mythology, how do you justify something which didn't exist in their mythology at all? That aspect was entirely invented by Hollywood (and it's hardly universal even in media), and yet that's what D&D werewolves use. :smallconfused:Give that "entirely invented by Hollywood" accounts for a large source of influences in D&D specifically, and fiction tropes in general, there's no particular reason to dismiss it with 'why is X a thing'.

In other words 'Hollywood' is a legitimate answer. Just like 'Tolkein', 'Leiber', 'Vance', 'Wargaming', etc etc.

[mgshamster]

why then do we use the 'bitten by a werewolf turns you into a werewolf'?

I know you weren't specifically answering this question, but for those who are curious, it's because werewolves have roots in rabies. And that's how rabies transfers.

Similarly, that's also the reason why vampirism and zombies have "if you're bitten you become one."

Source (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/bodyhorrors/2013/07/11/the-bestial-virus-rabies/#.WPI5ltBlDqA)

[Dr. Cliché]

Give that "entirely invented by Hollywood" accounts for a large source of influences in D&D specifically, and fiction tropes in general, there's no particular reason to dismiss it with 'why is X a thing'.

In other words 'Hollywood' is a legitimate answer. Just like 'Tolkein', 'Leiber', 'Vance', 'Wargaming', etc etc.

Oh, I get that. I don't object to Hollywood being used as a source.

I was just puzzled with the idea that regeneration doesn't get used because it's too recent or not part of their core mythology, since that should also rule out the whole 'bitten by a werewolf turns you into one' aspect.

[Unoriginal]

I can get behind the evil part. What I don't get is why embracing the curse makes you a good person if you were bitten by a bear. Or apathetic if you were bitten by a tiger. :smallconfused:

I think the good werebear comes from Tolkien's Beorn. No clue about the tiger.


Oh, I get that. I don't object to Hollywood being used as a source.

I was just puzzled with the idea that regeneration doesn't get used because it's too recent or not part of their core mythology, since that should also rule out the whole 'bitten by a werewolf turns you into one' aspect.

I'm imagining the designers thought it was too bothersome to add a rule that goes "they regenerate from everything except silver".

Having them be immune to everything but silver is an alternative take on the idea. It could very well be they instantly regenerate any wound before it has the time to count.

[Elderand]

Eh, I think it's debatable, given that the stories rarely give details either way (it could be immunity, but it could also be near-instantaneous healing/recovery).

At the very least, it is evidence of unnatural resilience, even if you don't consider it regeneration specifically.

That I can agree on, werewolves can be unnaturaly resilient, or they can not be, it's a crapshoot.


I've certainly seen at least some tales refer to it as a werewolf, but fair enough.

Those tends to be more recent visiting of the story. The general populace feared it was some supernatural beast and more learned people thought it was a wolf, a pack of wolf or something like that.



Sure. But, again, why then do we use the 'bitten by a werewolf turns you into a werewolf'?

If the reason for them not having regeneration is that it isn't common in mythology, how do you justify something which didn't exist in their mythology at all? That aspect was entirely invented by Hollywood (and it's hardly universal even in media), and yet that's what D&D werewolves use. :smallconfused:

I think it's because being bitten is something that show in nearly all modern version, baring rare exceptions were werewolves are a separate specie entirely. It's exceedingly rare for modern stories to include spell, curses, or artefacts that turn you into a werewolf.

Likewise, being only hurt and killed by silver equate in most people mind to just being invulnerable to anything else rather than healing. So that's what dnd went with.



It just seems like the current D&D ones are a really weird mix of traits, but maybe I'm in the minority for thinking that.

They are a weird mix, but then again, nothing is quite right in dnd.



Now that's just begging to be someone's signature. :smallbiggrin:

If anyone want to use it in their signature they can go right ahead ^^

[Dr. Cliché]

I think the good werebear comes from Tolkien's Beorn. No clue about the tiger.

See, that would be fine if werebears were just a separate race.

Where it breaks down is that they're supposed to be a curse in the same way that werewolves are. This just makes no sense to me.

If giving in to the curse is an evil act, then why does it matter what bit you? Why does embracing the *curse* of a werebear actually turn you good (or let you keep your alignment if you were already CG)? Why is embracing the curse of a werebear a good act, whilst embracing the curse of a werewolf is an evil act?

If they wanted good bear-people, then it really seems like they should have made them a separate race - rather than lumping them in with werewolves (or just make them druids :smalltongue:).

[Unoriginal]

I know you weren't specifically answering this question, but for those who are curious, it's because werewolves have roots in rabies. And that's how rabies transfers.

Similarly, that's also the reason why vampirism and zombies have "if you're bitten you become one."

Source (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/bodyhorrors/2013/07/11/the-bestial-virus-rabies/#.WPI5ltBlDqA)

Yeah, no, there is no proof for saying that those legends have "roots" in rabies. Zombies transmitting their condition by biting is an even more modern idea than werewolves doing it.

[Naanomi]

Part of the problem is that in old myths there isn't much distinction between vampires, ghosts, werewolves, demons, etc... 'monster' folk mythology was pretty much a grab bag of whatever thrown together for each story. It wasn't until fairly recent (again mostly, but not exclusively, Hollywood driven) that we really started talking about the 'difference' between 'types' of monsters

[Unoriginal]

See, that would be fine if werebears were just a separate race.

Where it breaks down is that they're supposed to be a curse in the same way that werewolves are. This just makes no sense to me.

If giving in to the curse is an evil act, then why does it matter what bit you? Why does embracing the *curse* of a werebear actually turn you good (or let you keep your alignment if you were already CG)? Why is embracing the curse of a werebear a good act, whilst embracing the curse of a werewolf is an evil act?

If they wanted good bear-people, then it really seems like they should have made them a separate race - rather than lumping them in with werewolves (or just make them druids :smalltongue:).

A curse is a curse because it compels you to do something or force a change in you, regardless of your wishes.

Making an evil mass murderer a werewolf wouldn't change much, and maybe they'd like the power it gives them, but it's still something they have no control of.

Same way that cursing someone to transform their mind to make them act like decent persons is still a pretty horrible thing to do.

Now, the "were"curses have two "levels": being inflicted by the curse, regardless of your wishes and usual mind, and jut embracing it, which is done according to your wishes and make your mind into something you want. Embracing the curse of werewof is evil because you're willingly going to go around and commit slaughters and maimings just for the hell of it. I can only suppose that embracing the bear curse only happens if you're already a good person, or if you're sincerely trying to become one.


Not saying it's the best idea, still, but it's not outlandish.

[TripleD]

Where it breaks down is that they're supposed to be a curse in the same way that werewolves are. This just makes no sense to me.


The curse isn't an alignment shift. The curse is that you are forced to change into an animal. "Embracing" the curse means taking on the traits of the animal.

Keep in mind the traits are more symbolic than rooted in biology (as suits a magic curse). Wolves are viscious predators out to eat little red riding hood. Bears are noble hearted kings of the forest. Tigers are noble but aloof. Etc. You basically become a fairy tale version of the animal.

[War_lord]

I like the way Vampires are in D&D, it preserves the idea of them as monstrous predatory Vermin. A fine resistance to the lamentable growth of the "cool Vampire" in modern fiction.

[Unoriginal]

"Cool vampires" have their places in some fictions, but it's true I'm happy that they went the way they did for this edition.

It's a return to the vicious beast in the night.

[mgshamster]

Yeah, no, there is no proof for saying that those legends have "roots" in rabies. Zombies transmitting their condition by biting is an even more modern idea than werewolves doing it.

At this point, I'm choosing to trust two of the world experts in rabies history who have thoroughly studied and written books on the subject rather than some guy on the net.

[DragonSorcererX]

I like the way Vampires are in D&D, it preserves the idea of them as monstrous predatory Vermin. A fine resistance to the lamentable growth of the "cool Vampire" in modern fiction.


"Cool vampires" have their places in some fictions, but it's true I'm happy that they went the way they did for this edition.

It's a return to the vicious beast in the night.

What is a "cool vampire"?

For me the best vampire ever is Vlad from Dracula Untold! That motherfluffer killed a whole army, and he could call a colossal+++ swarm of bats and wield that colossal swarm of bats in the most over the top ways! Oh my god, just thinking about it makes me tremble with happiness... I love these overkill god level magical murderhobo characters!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIJMz1YGkno

[mephnick]

I make the true vampires in my setting pretty much Alucard from Hellsing, about on par for power with an ancient red dragon.

I like me some "cool" vampires.

[Dr. Cliché]

Part of the problem is that in old myths there isn't much distinction between vampires, ghosts, werewolves, demons, etc... 'monster' folk mythology was pretty much a grab bag of whatever thrown together for each story. It wasn't until fairly recent (again mostly, but not exclusively, Hollywood driven) that we really started talking about the 'difference' between 'types' of monsters

That's a good point. Hell, vampires used to bear much more resemblance to the creatures we now think of as zombies.


A curse is a curse because it compels you to do something or force a change in you, regardless of your wishes.

That might be how you see it, but that certainly isn't the standard definition of 'curse'. :smalltongue:



Making an evil mass murderer a werewolf wouldn't change much, and maybe they'd like the power it gives them, but it's still something they have no control of.

Except that they have full control over it. If they embrace the curse, then they can shift at will between human and wolf forms.



Same way that cursing someone to transform their mind to make them act like decent persons is still a pretty horrible thing to do.

I agree. But, again, this is assuming that they were bad to start with. If you "curse" a CG person to become a werebear, you've literally done nothing but make them stronger at no cost whatsoever. That's simply not a curse.

Same goes for a neutral character who gets turned into a weretiger or a CE character who gets turned into a werewolf.

If it's going to be called a 'curse', surely it should be a curse for *every* character - not just the ones who don't match the alignment of the were-creature?


and jut embracing it, which is done according to your wishes and make your mind into something you want.

That last part doesn't make sense. When you shape your mind into something else, you cease to be the one who did the shaping in the first place. You are choosing to embrace the form with your current mind, but that mind then gets changed into a second, entirely different mind - making the choice itself worthless (since, for all intents and purposes, you're now a different person).

The were-creature might as well have just turned you into an exact copy of itself, Agent Smith style.


Embracing the curse of werewof is evil because you're willingly going to go around and commit slaughters and maimings just for the hell of it.

But *why*? Why can't a good person embrace their werewolf powers and use them for good? Why can't a bad person embrace their werebear powers and use them for evil?

It just doesn't make sense.


The curse isn't an alignment shift.

If you embrace it (which was what I was talking about), then it absolutely is an alignment shift.


The curse is that you are forced to change into an animal. "Embracing" the curse means taking on the traits of the animal.

Except that as soon as you remove the alignment shift (or if it doesn't affect you), then it ceases to be a curse at all. Having the option to change into an animal or hybrid at will, gaining resistance to most weapons as well as increased physical ability is literally nothing but upside.

[Beleriphon]

Now I'm imagining someone being bitten by a weretiger. "Yes! With the power this new form will give me, I'll rule this wretched world!"

Cut to a fat weretiger sitting on a sofa eating crisps. "Meh, I'll rule it tomorrow."

:smallwink:

Doubly true if the couch is a sunny spot.

[Honest Tiefling]

Why would a dragon ever agree to allow someone to ride on them?

Back on this topic...The first reason is the same people people let pets like parrots or rats ride them. They are small and cute!

Secondly, efficiency. Do you value not being ridden over pragmatic combat maneuvers? Put a whole team of humans onto your back, and you suddenly have a whole new tool to play with.

Thirdly, because the reverse doesn't work so well.

[TripleD]

If you embrace it (which was what I was talking about), then it absolutely is an alignment shift.


...yes? I'm not really sure what your argument is here. "Person who gives in to the urge to do evil is regarded as evil".



Except that as soon as you remove the alignment shift (or if it doesn't affect you), then it ceases to be a curse at all. Having the option to change into an animal or hybrid at will, gaining resistance to most weapons as well as increased physical ability is literally nothing but upside.

Once again: the curse is that you are forced to change into an animal. Most people, like the 99% of people who do not live as wandering adventurers and do not measure their worth entirely by combat abilities, do not want that.

[Dr. Cliché]

...yes? I'm not really sure what your argument is here. "Person who gives in to the urge to do evil is regarded as evil".

But that's the whole point - why is embracing the curse of some werebeasts 'giving in to the urge to do evil' whilst embracing a different werebeast is 'giving in to the urge to do good' or 'giving in to the urge to be apathetic'?

The reason for embracing the curse should be based on your character and personality and on what you actually do with your newfound abilities, not on which type of werebeast bit you.


Once again: the curse is that you are forced to change into an animal.

Except that that's completely untrue. If you embrace the "curse", you're not forced to do anything except change your alignment.

You can 'embrace the curse' and then freely live out the rest of your days without ever transforming if you so choose.


Most people, like the 99% of people who do not live as wandering adventurers and do not measure their worth entirely by combat abilities, do not want that.

I think you're really underestimating the appeal of being able to turn into an animal or human-animal hybrid at will with no drawback. At worst, you can simply ignore it and live your entire life as a human without ever transforming. At best, you can see the world in a whole new way, you can better understand animals, and many people can probably think of a lot of other creative uses for these shapes. Hell, do a pantomime where no one needs costumes. :smallbiggrin:

The only way it becomes a curse is when you factor in the alignment change - which strips you of all alignment and personality.

[TripleD]

But that's the whole point - why is embracing the curse of some werebeasts 'giving in to the urge to do evil' whilst embracing a different werebeast is 'giving in to the urge to do good' or 'giving in to the urge to be apathetic'?

The reason for embracing the curse should be based on your character and personality and on what you actually do with your newfound abilities, not on which type of werebeast bit you.


I explained that in my first post of this chain. Different animals have different stereotypes associated with them in folklore, thus different werebeasts give you different urges. For werewolves, this involves becoming the bad guy in Little Red Riding Hood.



Except that that's completely untrue. If you embrace the "curse", you're not forced to do anything except change your alignment.

You can 'embrace the curse' and then freely live out the rest of your days without ever transforming if you so choose.
[\Quote]

That's the point though, once you have "embraced" the curse you're going to keep doing it. That's why it's called "embracing" and not "tolerating for a set period of time before shamefully hiding the rest of your life".

[QUOTE=Dr. Cliché;21918690]
I think you're really underestimating the appeal of being able to turn into an animal or human-animal hybrid at will with no drawback. At worst, you can simply ignore it and live your entire life as a human without ever transforming. At best, you can see the world in a whole new way, you can better understand animals, and many people can probably think of a lot of other creative uses for these shapes. Hell, do a pantomime where no one needs costumes. :smallbiggrin:

The only way it becomes a curse is when you factor in the alignment change - which strips you of all alignment and personality.

I think you're vastly underestimated the power of social stigma and mob mentality. You could make the the same argument about any "curse" really. That if the world completely accepts and tolerates you then the curse isn't that bad (and before you bring up the thousand flavours of body-horror out there, if the Internet has taught me anything it's that somewhere out there, there's somebody who wants that done to them).

That's leaving aside the fact that it's still a change against their will. Even if not outright debilitating I can still see it as a giant pain in the ass for someone who's position in no way benefits from becoming an animal hybrid.

[Dr. Cliché]

I explained that in my first post of this chain. Different animals have different stereotypes associated with them in folklore, thus different werebeasts give you different urges. For werewolves, this involves becoming the bad guy in Little Red Riding Hood.

I understand the premise, I just think it's a really crap idea.

What's more, the werebear's alignment in particular is contradictory - we have a "good" animal which bites people and curses them - stripping their personality and/or forcing them to transform against their will.

Hell, I'm really curious to know what the "urges" of weretigers are. "Must . . . resist . . . urge . . . to do nothing." :smallconfused:

Also, on a more personal level, I'd rather D&D had werebears like this:

http://orig14.deviantart.net/bd90/f/2010/266/2/4/werebear_by_ridvan-duak1l.jpg

As opposed to this:

http://gallery.yopriceville.com/var/resizes/Free-Clipart-Pictures/Cartoons-PNG/Winnie_the_Pooh_and_Piglet_PNG_Picture.png?m=14408 46022

I appreciate that this is personal preference, but still.



That's the point though, once you have "embraced" the curse you're going to keep doing it. That's why it's called "embracing" and not "tolerating for a set period of time before shamefully hiding the rest of your life".

So what is even the point of this? As I said, you might as well just have the were-creature turn you into a complete copy of itself (mind and all). Your character's personality, goals and desires are being thrown out of the window anyway, what difference does it make?

Furthermore, this seems like a really backward direction for D&D to go in. Shouldn't it be encouraging (or at the very least allowing) players to create their own characters - rather than forcing them into the same dull stereotypes?

"You're a werewolf now - that means you have to be a mindless psychopath with no desires or ambitions beyond murdering everyone in sight. Because werewolves with actual personalities are for other franchises."



I think you're vastly underestimated the power of social stigma and mob mentality.

This is entirely dependant on the society though. There have been many societies that would revere people who were able to turn into were-creatures.


You could make the the same argument about any "curse" really.

No, you really couldn't. The only reason you can make this argument about lycanthropy is that you're choosing to ignore the actual curse part.


That if the world completely accepts and tolerates you then the curse isn't that bad (and before you bring up the thousand flavours of body-horror out there, if the Internet has taught me anything it's that somewhere out there, there's somebody who wants that done to them).

You know that there are curses that don't involve body-horror, right? :smalltongue:



That's leaving aside the fact that it's still a change against their will.

I don't know, you could always ask a were-creature to bite you. :smallbiggrin:

Joking aside, that is a fair point.


Even if not outright debilitating I can still see it as a giant pain in the ass for someone who's position in no way benefits from becoming an animal hybrid.

But, again, if you don't benefit from being an animal or human-animal hybrid you can simply choose to stay human for as long as it suits you.

[Vorok]

Why would a dragon ever agree to allow someone to ride on them?

Why wouldn't they agree to someone riding them?

They could be a Gentle Giant trope going on, it could be more pragmatic, if the little people don't have any other handy means of transportation... As long as the little people are respectful/cute enough, why not?

[Tanarii]

I fail to see the problem with embracing the were-curse coming with an alignment change. This isn't difficult to do. Change your alignment, make note of the new Alignment behavior sentence, and start incorporating it into your in-character decision making (aka roleplaying) along with your Personality Trait, Ideal*, Bond and Flaw. Viola, new alignment but otherwise the same personality. Done.

It also works conceptually too. Your character has willingly embraced the attitudes and associated behavior that goes hand in hand with controlling the power. Some, but not all, of his personality has changed as a result.

Now if a player is unwilling to accept the change to their character and play it willingly, now there's an issue. That's when the character just became an NPC, which is explicitly within the DMs power for lycanthrope.

(*Although it might also be a good time to revisit your Ideal too, as that might change along with it.)

[Unoriginal]

Except that they have full control over it. If they embrace the curse, then they can shift at will between human and wolf forms.

They can either fight it, in which case they don't have control over it, or accept it and be turned into a being with a different mindset.



I agree. But, again, this is assuming that they were bad to start with. If you "curse" a CG person to become a werebear, you've literally done nothing but make them stronger at no cost whatsoever. That's simply not a curse.

[...]
If it's going to be called a 'curse', surely it should be a curse for *every* character - not just the ones who don't match the alignment of the were-creature?

Curses in DnD are for things that are inflicted on you, change you, and you cannot remove by yourself, or an effect that does not obey to your wishes. Like if someone found boots that turned them into a High Elf and couldn't be removed unless magic, it'd be a curse, even if they think being a High Elf is awesome.

A neutral person becoming a weretiger, and embracing the curse, will have their mind modified, even if their alignment stays the same. Alignments are just the most "visible" part of the mental change, when it swift into something else.





That last part doesn't make sense. When you shape your mind into something else, you cease to be the one who did the shaping in the first place. You are choosing to embrace the form with your current mind, but that mind then gets changed into a second, entirely different mind - making the choice itself worthless (since, for all intents and purposes, you're now a different person).

The choice to become someone different is still a choice. If you decided to remove the memories of your last five years of life and replaced them with someone else's, you'd be a different perston, but it wouldn't make the choice worthless.

But now you've put the finger on why it's a curse.



But *why*? Why can't a good person embrace their werewolf powers and use them for good? Why can't a bad person embrace their werebear powers and use them for evil?

It just doesn't make sense.


Because a werewolf's mind is modified to be vicious, violent and malevolent, and a werebear's mind is modified to be benevolent and the like.

[Beelzebubba]

But *why*? Why can't a good person embrace their werewolf powers and use them for good? Why can't a bad person embrace their werebear powers and use them for evil?

It just doesn't make sense.

Read up on the myth and folklore for Werewolves. Theories abound - some people even think it came from how people behave when infected by rabies. The fact that crime goes up in a full moon even now. The occasional case of ongenital Hypertrichosis might be part of it too.

The idea of the curse (and this is from antiquity) is that powers beyond your control consume you. You can't control how you act. You have no choice. You will murder the ones you love. Your animal side takes over. This was a lot more powerful hundreds of years ago when people lived grimy, suffering-filled lives a lot closer to animals and death in general.

Werebears? They come from Beorn, a noble and good character from Tolkien. Full stop. They have nothing to do with anything else.

And, you want D&D to make *sense*? Where's the fun in that?

[Asmotherion]

Because the d*** scaly lizard thing doesn't have a choice. It can serve me or be slaughtered [and possibly serve me in undeath]!

Wait? Why am I letting it live anyway?

That's racism towards my people! O_O Go cast your fancy necromancy spells on humanoids and leave my Dragon brothers alone!!!


BTW, a Dragon Sorcerer or Bard (others as well, but I mention only those as they usually have the charisma to pull this), can actually intimidate a dragon into riding it... just sayin' :3

[Unoriginal]

That's racism towards my people! O_O Go cast your fancy necromancy spells on humanoids and leave my Dragon brothers alone!!!


BTW, a Dragon Sorcerer or Bard (others as well, but I mention only those as they usually have the charisma to pull this), can actually intimidate a dragon into riding it... just sayin' :3

You don't intimidate a dragon, you impress them.

[Jorgo]

Why do warlocks and sorcerers cast spells with Charisma. How the hell do you even cast a spell with your Charisma? Charisma is PERSUASIVENEss for crying out loud.

[mgshamster]

Why do warlocks and sorcerers cast spells with Charisma. How the hell do you even cast a spell with your Charisma? Charisma is PERSUASIVENEss for crying out loud.

Charisma is much more than that. It's also your confidence, how commanding you are, and even the strength of your conviction.

For sorcs, I see it as self confidence to cast spells. For warlocks, I see it as how commanding they are of their contract. For paladins, the book flat out says it's their conviction.

[2D8HP]

And, you want D&D to make *sense*? Where's the fun in that?

:biggrin:

That's a Sig!

[Beelzebubba]

Why do warlocks and sorcerers cast spells with Charisma. How the hell do you even cast a spell with your Charisma? Charisma is PERSUASIVENEss for crying out loud.

Charisma is your ability to make your internal 'story' about the world become everyone else's too.

Look at every horrifying dictator in history. They reshaped the world in their image, through the effort of other people harnessed to their vision. In a world of magic, don't you think that a powerful enough personality can convince a great power to 'give me your awesome power, I'll make use of it in ways that fulfill your ends as well'?

Charisma is the ability to control others via force of will. That's power!

[JumboWheat01]

On the Charisma note, why are Paladins the only Charisma caster that's allowed to prepare their spells, and why are Rangers the only Wisdom caster stuck learning their spells "for good?"

[Asmotherion]

Why do warlocks and sorcerers cast spells with Charisma. How the hell do you even cast a spell with your Charisma? Charisma is PERSUASIVENEss for crying out loud.

Charisma represents force of personality. A Sorcerer or Warlock actually tell physics, natuaral laws and science to screw themselves, and the cosmos obeys :P

Paladins get spells through the power of their convinctions... the stronger they believe into something, the more they make it happen... if they belive there is no spoon, (or that their god will punish the "evil" spoon) they can bend it. :P

Bards interact with the weave through art, music and hidden lore. By expressing and comunicating their will and emotions through art, the cosmos rearanges according to their art and emotions. The more beutyful something is, the more the very laws of physics will love them for it. This explains a lot about how the cosmos works :P

For a Wizard, Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight, profound knowlage of the inner workings and mechanics of the cosmos (aka Int) allows the to tap (or "hack") into those mechanics and temporarily or even permanently reprogram them according to their will through spells.

Finally, Clerics, Druids and Rangers have an intuitive (aka Wis) understanding of Nature/Their Deity's will and can chanell this energy to product results according to their will.


On the Charisma note, why are Paladins the only Charisma caster that's allowed to prepare their spells, and why are Rangers the only Wisdom caster stuck learning their spells "for good?"

Probably to balance off the fact they are the worst casters out of all Cha casters, and give more motivation to a paladin to actually cast spells instead of spending all their slots on Divine Smite.

[Millstone85]

Why do warlocks and sorcerers cast spells with Charisma. How the hell do you even cast a spell with your Charisma? Charisma is PERSUASIVENEss for crying out loud.I like to imagine sorcerers and warlocks do not cast spells with their Charisma, they persuade others with their spellcasting ability.

They just have this alien/draconic/fey/fiendish charm about them.

[Nicrosil]

why are Oath of the Crown abilities so lackluster compared to other oaths?

I think it's because the designers were scared of power creep when making SCAG, and were very conservative when making the new archetypes. I mean, look at the Battlerager or the Bannerette. Of course, the effectiveness of an archetype depends wildly on your build and the campaign.

[Honest Tiefling]

Why do warlocks and sorcerers cast spells with Charisma. How the hell do you even cast a spell with your Charisma? Charisma is PERSUASIVENEss for crying out loud.

In earlier editions, charisma was your will power, but somehow unrelated to your will save. A lot of features, such as Divine Might/Shield were charisma, despite usually designed for two classes with access to wisdom based casting. Smite was usually seen as being tied to will power instead of divine understanding as well.

This is probably why in 4e, either one could be used to determine your will saving throw.

Come 5e, and there are hints that it is still will power (the description mentions confidence, which I assume would be related in most cases), but does not explicitly mention will power. I assume there's some inkling that it is still related to that, but its a bit fuzzy.

[gooddragon1]

That's racism towards my people! O_O Go cast your fancy necromancy spells on humanoids and leave my Dragon brothers alone!!!


BTW, a Dragon Sorcerer or Bard (others as well, but I mention only those as they usually have the charisma to pull this), can actually intimidate a dragon into riding it... just sayin' :3

He's just envious of dragons is all.


Back on this topic...The first reason is the same people people let pets like parrots or rats ride them. They are small and cute!

Secondly, efficiency. Do you value not being ridden over pragmatic combat maneuvers? Put a whole team of humans onto your back, and you suddenly have a whole new tool to play with.

Thirdly, because the reverse doesn't work so well.

The second one is more reasonable, but a Dragon is not a horse. Pride is a bit of a thing.

[Dimers]

I think the good werebear comes from Tolkien's Beorn.


Werebears? They come from Beorn, a noble and good character from Tolkien. Full stop. They have nothing to do with anything else.

Bear is a healer and protector in the average Native American myth, and I've never heard of a tribe that considered Bear a murderous rage-machine. So that fits. Probably not related to why D&D has werebears being good-aligned, but ...

[DragonSorcererX]

He's just envious of dragons is all.

The second one is more reasonable, but a Dragon is not a horse. Pride is a bit of a thing.

I hope you never get your hands in Tales from the Yawning Portal... you would be so triggered...

[Naanomi]

Bear is a healer and protector in the average Native American myth, and I've never heard of a tribe that considered Bear a murderous rage-machine. So that fits. Probably not related to why D&D has werebears being good-aligned, but ...
True, World of Darkness played up werebears as 'good guys' for this reason as well.

[Mortis_Elrod]

So um.... Why can't dragonborn have scales like lizardfolk? is it because sorcerer? give sorcerer something else like a mini frightful presence of 5ft? OR GIVE THAT TO DRAGONBORN? TAKEAWAY MY BREATH WEAPON FOR A ELEMENTAL BITE.
WHY IS GATORMAN BETTER LIZARD THAN DRAGON MAN?

[DragonSorcererX]

So um.... Why can't dragonborn have scales like lizardfolk? is it because sorcerer? give sorcerer something else like a mini frightful presence of 5ft? OR GIVE THAT TO DRAGONBORN? TAKEAWAY MY BREATH WEAPON FOR A ELEMENTAL BITE.
WHY IS GATORMAN BETTER LIZARD THAN DRAGON MAN?

It is because the Dragonborn are made to be Paladins and Fighters, so they don't have Natural Armor because they would use Full Plate, in 3.5 Fighter was their Favored Class, and in 4e they were made to be Paladins (even though Dragon Sorcerers gained a Strenght Bonus to Damage), and their Breath Weapon was basically a minion killer (it still works that way at high levels in 5e).

[Honest Tiefling]

The second one is more reasonable, but a Dragon is not a horse. Pride is a bit of a thing.

Remember that adventurers are people who argue about the best way to make enemies into fashionable luggage and other useful items and how to best optimize it. 100% of people I have encountered treat dragons as a loot pinata, a romantic interest, or a pet.

So, pick your fate.

[Mortis_Elrod]

It is because the Dragonborn are made to be Paladins and Fighters, so they don't have Natural Armor because they would use Full Plate, in 3.5 Fighter was their Favored Class, and in 4e they were made to be Paladins (even though Dragon Sorcerers gained a Strenght Bonus to Damage), and their Breath Weapon was basically a minion killer (it still works that way at high levels in 5e).

hrmm... i wonder if all races are designed for specific classes. i then follow that up with is that a good thing? i think a mini frightful or charming presence is good for a fighter or paladin, (i'd push for elemental bite but i think i'm already alone enough with these ideas)

[gooddragon1]

Remember that adventurers are people who argue about the best way to make enemies into fashionable luggage and other useful items and how to best optimize it. 100% of people I have encountered treat dragons as a loot pinata, a romantic interest, or a pet.

So, pick your fate.

They can treat dragons however they want, but it's important to remember that not every adventure is successful. And sometimes just because it has stats doesn't mean the party can kill it.

[Vorok]

Why do warlocks and sorcerers cast spells with Charisma. How the hell do you even cast a spell with your Charisma? Charisma is PERSUASIVENEss for crying out loud.

For warlocks, in their official backstory, they make a pact with something powerful by persuading them. This lends them the powers they have. So I think it's more of a 'more persuasive = given more powerful spells' thing.

For sorcerers... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[LordCdrMilitant]

That's racism towards my people! O_O Go cast your fancy necromancy spells on humanoids and leave my Dragon brothers alone!!!

Dragons don't deserve to live. Existence is a luxury we grant them only because the return on smoking them out of the wildlands isn't worth the cost. Damn druids too. I don't know why we still let them crawl around hugging trees.


He's just envious of dragons is all.

The second one is more reasonable, but a Dragon is not a horse. Pride is a bit of a thing.

A Dragon is a scaly, winged, spellcasting, firebreathing, scourge of the skies! It can tear men to shreds in melee, or incinerate them at range with ease!

But, a dragon cannot outrun or outrange a 90mm gun, nor can it weather the punishing blows of our war machines! And most importantly, there's few of them, but many of us, and it can be killed! All gun batteries, lock on, set fuses, and fire at will!

But that's besides the point.

A dragon, by "standard" D&D dragon lore, would be ridden only because it had no choice. Not providing the ride in some way threatens its hoard, life, and schemes, and therefore it must move the party from point A to point B.

[Unoriginal]

I think it's pretty anthropocentric to think that a Dragon would find being ridden to be shameful.


Dragons would not accept to be given orders unless extreme circumstances, true. But having the punny lesser species be forced to rely on the dragon's natural might and awesomeness to get **** done? THAT is up the dragons' alley.

A dragon carrying someone would be all "Ah! I bet you wish you were a beautiful flying death machine right now".

Letting a human ride you doesn't mean you're submitting to them, it means you're granting them an incredible privilege.

[DeathEatsCurry]

Why do warlocks and sorcerers cast spells with Charisma. How the hell do you even cast a spell with your Charisma? Charisma is PERSUASIVENEss for crying out loud.

It's your force of personality. Everything about, not just how persuasive you are. That is covered by a skill called Persuasion or Diplomacy or Negotiation or whatever the heck it's called this edition.

[Unoriginal]

Note that force of personality is not the same as force of will.

[Asmotherion]

Dragons don't deserve to live. Existence is a luxury we grant them only because the return on smoking them out of the wildlands isn't worth the cost. Damn druids too. I don't know why we still let them crawl around hugging trees.



A Dragon is a scaly, winged, spellcasting, firebreathing, scourge of the skies! It can tear men to shreds in melee, or incinerate them at range with ease!

But, a dragon cannot outrun or outrange a 90mm gun, nor can it weather the punishing blows of our war machines! And most importantly, there's few of them, but many of us, and it can be killed! All gun batteries, lock on, set fuses, and fire at will!

But that's besides the point.

A dragon, by "standard" D&D dragon lore, would be ridden only because it had no choice. Not providing the ride in some way threatens its hoard, life, and schemes, and therefore it must move the party from point A to point B.

Holy Behamut, and Tiamat with Asmodeus' beard on all 5 heads! I feel so offended! How would you hairless apes feel if our people decided to randomly burn your cities if we decided you don't deserve to live. Wile you have some notable exceptions, your average adult specimen barelly deals 1d6 damage, wile our average adult specimen can literally breath on like 15 of you and kill you all. So if we go on Survival of the Featest aproach, we win by default. Most of the Magic artifacts and items you people collect so eagerly were made by Dragons as gifts to your pathetic selves out of kindnesss, wile your people can barelly scribe scrolls and brew potions as testament of their magical powers, so that's one more point for spellcasting. Unlike you, we don't polute or destroy our environment, we merely eat a cow or two, and then we leave our environment be. Our evil specimens (chromatics) are happy with sitting in their home and count their coin most of the time, really goint on a serious mission only if bribed... guess by who? humanoids. Your evil guys on the other hand keep ploting, and manipulating and disturbing kingdoms, and will sell out their own mother if the coin is high enough... We protect our eggs and children till they are old enough to fend for themselves. We are aware of our power, smarter than you, stronger than you, bigger than you, can take more blows, have the Wisdom of the hundreads of years we live and, if we so chose, have the charismatic personality to intimidate or otherwise convince/manipulate most of your kind to do our bidding. We just chose not to, most of the time, to allow you humanoids a better, happier life.

Now tell me human, who is it again that does not deserve to live U_U

[JumboWheat01]

Some of these conversation trains are long. Hard to worm in something else here or there.


hrmm... i wonder if all races are designed for specific classes. i then follow that up with is that a good thing?

For ease of character creation, it is nice to, say, point at a gnome and go "there's a wizard," or point at a mountain dwarf and go "there's a fighter/barbarian." 5e is very beginner friendly, so having some races that pretty much stand out as expies for certain classes makes it even easier to pick-up and play.

On the flip-side, making a character that completely goes against the grain, like, say, a Tiefling Cleric or a Half-orc Wizard, also allows for fun, because we all know Half-orcs are much better front-line characters like barbarians.

So yes, it's a good thing for both new players and veterans alike. The former for ease of playing, the latter for ease of going against the grain.

[Beelzebubba]

Bear is a healer and protector in the average Native American myth, and I've never heard of a tribe that considered Bear a murderous rage-machine. So that fits. Probably not related to why D&D has werebears being good-aligned, but ...

Whoah, today I learned something. Thanks!

[Naanomi]

hrmm... i wonder if all races are designed for specific classes. i then follow that up with is that a good thing? i think a mini frightful or charming presence is good for a fighter or paladin, (i'd push for elemental bite but i think i'm already alone enough with these ideas)
There are a few races without an obvious class fit (those oddball INT/CHA) races... or whose racial abilities don't match their Stats (mountain Dwarf medium armor) arguably used as balancing points

[LordCdrMilitant]

Holy Behamut, and Tiamat with Asmodeus' beard on all 5 heads! I feel so offended! How would you hairless apes feel if our people decided to randomly burn your cities if we decided you don't deserve to live. Wile you have some notable exceptions, your average adult specimen barelly deals 1d6 damage, wile our average adult specimen can literally breath on like 15 of you and kill you all. So if we go on Survival of the Featest aproach, we win by default. Most of the Magic artifacts and items you people collect so eagerly were made by Dragons as gifts to your pathetic selves out of kindnesss, wile your people can barelly scribe scrolls and brew potions as testament of their magical powers, so that's one more point for spellcasting. Unlike you, we don't polute or destroy our environment, we merely eat a cow or two, and then we leave our environment be. Our evil specimens (chromatics) are happy with sitting in their home and count their coin most of the time, really goint on a serious mission only if bribed... guess by who? humanoids. Your evil guys on the other hand keep ploting, and manipulating and disturbing kingdoms, and will sell out their own mother if the coin is high enough... We protect our eggs and children till they are old enough to fend for themselves. We are aware of our power, smarter than you, stronger than you, bigger than you, can take more blows, have the Wisdom of the hundreads of years we live and, if we so chose, have the charismatic personality to intimidate or otherwise convince/manipulate most of your kind to do our bidding. We just chose not to, most of the time, to allow you humanoids a better, happier life.

Now tell me human, who is it again that does not deserve to live U_U

You, filthy reptilian horror! Come within 17 kilometers of our cities and our gunnery will swat you from the skies! The fires of our industry burn day and night to make the tools of our global conquest! Our researchers forge ever mightier engines of destruction by day! What we have that your miserable kind lack is creativity, the drive to invent, and the anatomical arrangement to make use of its products! Let's see you make and use a cannon or pilot an airship when you're 40 feet long and only have clawed feet without useful thumbs as manipulators! Individually, we may be soft, weak, and stupid, but outfitted with the products of our foundries and laboratories and standing together with a thousand-thousand of our comrades, we're each a greater threat and you could ever hope to be! You had the power to end us at your fingertips when we were banging rocks together, but you squandered it, and now it's too late for you! Your failure, your fatal mistake, your final defeat! Your day is past, now is our time, today is our victory day!


On the subject of gunnery: I find it unbelievable that, in a setting in which airships, dangerous flying monstrous creatures, and rudimentary magitek airplanes exist, there is no significant deployment of antiaircraft artillery. Even if it's a setting in which hand-held firearms and cannons don't exist yet, I would be surprised if a fortified city possessed no defense against aerial attackers.

[Asmotherion]

You, filthy reptilian horror! Come within 17 kilometers of our cities and our gunnery will swat you from the skies! The fires of our industry burn day and night to make the tools of our global conquest! Our researchers forge ever mightier engines of destruction by day! What we have that your miserable kind lack is creativity, the drive to invent, and the anatomical arrangement to make use of its products! Let's see you make and use a cannon or pilot an airship when you're 40 feet long and only have clawed feet without useful thumbs as manipulators! Individually, we may be soft, weak, and stupid, but outfitted with the products of our foundries and laboratories and standing together with a thousand-thousand of our comrades, we're each a greater threat and you could ever hope to be! You had the power to end us at your fingertips when we were banging rocks together, but you squandered it, and now it's too late for you! Your failure, your fatal mistake, your final defeat! Your day is past, now is our time, today is our victory day!


On the subject of gunnery: I find it unbelievable that, in a setting in which airships, dangerous flying monstrous creatures, and rudimentary magitek airplanes exist, there is no significant deployment of antiaircraft artillery. Even if it's a setting in which hand-held firearms and cannons don't exist yet, I would be surprised if a fortified city possessed no defense against aerial attackers.

And I ask you, human:
-Why need an airship, when I can fly tirelessly with my own wings?
-Why need a canon, when I can breath elemental havock as easyly as I breath air?
-Why bother with mundane stuff, when I can have minions do it for me?
-Why need industries when arcane might runs in my very blood, and I can re-shape the cosmos to my will, with a couple words, gestures and thoughts?
-Why even bother bringing the oposing thumbs arhuement, when I can take the appearance of each and every one of you as easyly as I walk?
-Finally, your guns do sting... like a bee or possibly a wasp at worse. In the rare case they manage to penetrate my steel-hard scales.

The biggest mistake you make is that you think you've actually progressed from that point when you were still banging rocks together. Now you're just banging bigger, fancier rocks, but don't fool yourselves: We are still the masters of fire (both in this metaphor and quite literally btw).

To us dragons, your miniscule lives are no diferent than an ant's to you. We have to be extra careful not to crush you by accident, and usually only bother activelly doing so if you get into our homes uninvited.

[Beelzebubba]

This suddenly became the best thread

[Coffee_Dragon]

To us dragons, your miniscule lives are no diferent than an ant's to you. We have to be extra careful not to crush you by accident, and usually only bother activelly doing so if you get into our homes uninvited.

B-but keep making this "coffee" thing and bring it to us.

As, as tribute. Yeah! Bring it now!

Will it help if I give you gold in return

[Honest Tiefling]

They can treat dragons however they want, but it's important to remember that not every adventure is successful. And sometimes just because it has stats doesn't mean the party can kill it.

Your parties optimize badly. Never forget the Lord British Postulate.

[Asmotherion]

B-but keep making this "coffee" thing and bring it to us.

As, as tribute. Yeah! Bring it now!

Will it help if I give you gold in return

Fear not brother! We will soon find the secrets to their brown-black potion. Then we will never have to sleep for 6 months after a full 15 cow course meal, ever again! Muahahahaha!

Our research and development team of Dragons with Druid Class levels is experimenting with a plant currently, that they think might contain traces of that famous "Cafeine" O_O

My team of Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass Dragons is researching a conjuration spell that will summon coffee from the Astral plane... We brought a dead god's tentacle with it, but no coffee was found on it, just a lot of hentai DVDs and magazines... for whatever reason...? O_O

[Honest Tiefling]

Fear not brother! We will soon find the secrets to their brown-black potion. Then we will never have to sleep for 6 months after a full 15 cow course meal, ever again! Muahahahaha!

Our research and development team of Dragons with Druid Class levels is experimenting with a plant currently, that they think might contain traces of that famous "Cafeine" O_O

Aren't dragons reptiles? Because I've heard that caffiene can be toxic to reptiles.

I mean here, try this latte. Where's your hoard again?

[Asmotherion]

Aren't dragons reptiles? Because I've heard that caffiene can be toxic to reptiles.

I mean here, try this latte. Where's your hoard again?

Well, a quite valid question, but that's really a misconception. Technically, reptiles are cold bloodied, wile our blood is warm, and we do not need a heat source to keep our body temperature at the desired level.

We do have things in common with reptiles, such as a Scaly Skin and laying eggs, but so do Dinausaurs and Birds. The quick answear would be that Dragons are Dragons, as a ceparate species. We can breed with all humanoid races, were our Dragonic gene is stronger, thus making them Dragon-Humanoid Hybreeds. We're not mamals (we lay eggs, and have very diferent genomes), not fish, not birds, and definitelly not insects or protozoids. We're Dragons.

Also, have you seen our Constitution score? Also some of our kind literally live in Poisonous Swarms and Acid pools. I doubt a little cafeine would even give us a stomachacke XD

[Honest Tiefling]

Oh wait. The Monstrous Manual says they are plainly reptiles. So go ahead, drink up dragons~

Also, the warm blood thing may not matter, as dinosaurs are reptiles and there is debate of them being warm blooded or not.

[Asmotherion]

Oh wait. The Monstrous Manual says they are plainly reptiles. So go ahead, drink up dragons~

Also, the warm blood thing may not matter, as dinosaurs are reptiles and there is debate of them being warm blooded or not.

Dinosaurs could not cast spells or breath elemental furry... Most of them could not even fly, much less speak. I am quite certain that, if we really are somehow related to reptiles and Dinosaurs, it's probably the equivalent of the humanoid's relation to rackoons. U_U Dinosaurs might be the Humanoid equivalent to a Gorrilla I guess.

Also, reptiles literally mean ""creeping or crawling animal," in old French, thus I doubt Dragons (or Dinosaurs for that matter) quallyfy, as we either walk or fly, not crawl. However, for lack of a better definition, I suppose one could claim that, although I personally see us as a ceparate fammily.

[DragonSorcererX]

I'm not in the mood to quote whole walls of text from the 3.5 Draconomicon, but I think WotC disagrees with you guys.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm not in the mood to quote whole walls of text from the 3.5 Draconomicon, but I think WotC disagrees with you guys.

3.5 Draconomicon is by definition, 3.5. The 5th edition Monsters Manual literally starts with "True dragons are winged reptiles..."

[Mortis_Elrod]

Coffee Dragons are immune to coffee.

You could make coffee be only 'eventually toxic' to dragons, they are not MERELY reptiles, though reptiles they may be.

like it slowly destroys their liver and kidneys.

[DragonSorcererX]

3.5 Draconomicon is by definition, 3.5. The 5th edition Monsters Manual literally starts with "True dragons are winged reptiles..."

There is no 5e Draconomicon, and even if 4e has two Draconomicons, 4e is basically "The Prequels" or The Hobbit, so I say that 3.5 Draconomicon is still valid.

[LordCdrMilitant]

And I ask you, human:
-Why need an airship, when I can fly tirelessly with my own wings?
-Why need a canon, when I can breath elemental havock as easyly as I breath air?
-Why bother with mundane stuff, when I can have minions do it for me?
-Why need industries when arcane might runs in my very blood, and I can re-shape the cosmos to my will, with a couple words, gestures and thoughts?
-Why even bother bringing the oposing thumbs arhuement, when I can take the appearance of each and every one of you as easyly as I walk?
-Finally, your guns do sting... like a bee or possibly a wasp at worse. In the rare case they manage to penetrate my steel-hard scales.

The biggest mistake you make is that you think you've actually progressed from that point when you were still banging rocks together. Now you're just banging bigger, fancier rocks, but don't fool yourselves: We are still the masters of fire (both in this metaphor and quite literally btw).

To us dragons, your miniscule lives are no diferent than an ant's to you. We have to be extra careful not to crush you by accident, and usually only bother activelly doing so if you get into our homes uninvited.

In your own self-assured superiority, you spell your own doom though lack of innovation! Airships today, starships tomorrow! You breath fire with ease, but lack even a fraction of the range required to contest our artillery! Let's see how high-explosive shrapnel stings when your wings are shredded by a hail of metal and fire, and how your steel-hard scales stand up to armour-penetrating capped shells! It's not the rare case: your scales are not 15mm, much less 150+mm of RHAe! We will fire at will, and there will be nothing left of you to pick up! And these guns today aren't good enough for us, tomorrow we will have faster firing, more precise, more destructive, and more mobile guns! And steel is so yesterday, tomorrow there will be composites that put adamantine to shame for a fraction of the price.

It takes centuries for a dragon to mature, but only one "good enough" shell from a sufficiently big or rapid-firing gun, forged by the hundreds on a daily basis, crewed by a team of 11 conscripted two weeks ago and raised for a mere 18 years, to kill one! Even our small weapons are dangerously lethal to you, able to, in skilled hands, outright demolish a dragon, or in unskilled hands, blast holes in your wings and scales and send you plummeting to the ground! Fire free, and flock to the front! We have reserves!

And, if you think you can "reshape the cosmos" with your magic, your impression of the cosmos is pitifully small. Perhaps, one day, we will give the husk of this world back to you, for we will have worlds uncountable. We already do, but magic is weak and unreliable! Your laxity and complacency is your undoing, you are content to live with caves in remote locations, accepting the dictates of nature and the world, but our drive and ingenuity allow us to achieve standards of production and technologies you could not even hope to match, not even with the most powerful of magics, and bend and break the world upon our knee! Ask yourself, if, in our "ant's existence", we have engineered the means of the world's demise, have we not also engineered yours?

And finally, if you acknowledge the requirement to change yourself into an imitation of our "oh so small and pitiful" forms, are you not outright acknowledging the superiority of the holy humanoid shape?

Your only respite comes from the fact that we are as good at destroying ourselves as we are at destroying you, and there are a lot more of us around to shoot at. If you were to become more than a minor inconvenience for small bands of wanderers to eliminate, there would be naught left of you but tales to tell!



Now, to provide to the conversation in a way that isn't roleplayed posturing: why, with access to Teleport that has infinite range, [or Interplanetary Teleport in Pathfinder], why have the empires of the world not conquered the stars already? With a bit of magic, we have rudimentary-but-functional spacesuits and a somewhat-unreliable-but-none-the-less-semifunctional-twice-per-day way to reach other planets that may be less safe but is far cheaper than current real-life means, so why haven't the kingdoms of D&D at least colonized the local system?


This suddenly became the best thread

This posturing has become fun. I hope I haven't offended anyone.

From a mechanical perspective, dragons have been "solved". So far, the only character I've played who can't fight an at-CR dragon without significant difficulty is my current one, because she's mostly a bureaucrat and only has spells that can only affect humanoids and never do damage, and the rest of the party is equally poorly optimized for battle. Other characters, and parties I've run for, need dragons at a CR above their level by a bit, and sometime by a lot, to actually be a mechanical challenge. And as far as being an interesting fight goes, dragons don't really do anything interesting in their out-of-the-box state. But that's also a symptom of D&D's combat system being not-so-great.

[gooddragon1]

Coffee Dragons are immune to coffee.

You could make coffee be only 'eventually toxic' to dragons, they are not MERELY reptiles, though reptiles they may be.

like it slowly destroys their liver and kidneys.

Ah the benefits of getting free cleric spells... like regenerate. And besides, coffee isn't for young dragons anyways.

No need to burn down towns. Dragons have an indefinite lifespan and only get stronger. Living well is the best way to get even. As for optimized parties... I like to think that punpun is partial to dragonkind.

As for the occasional death. A use activated item of true creation for 25 gp, a true resurrection spell with 25000 gp worth of diamonds, and keeping in touch every so often works fine for most circumstances.

Note: 3.5 mechanics.

[RossN]

Why are the Drow a theocracy rather than ruled by sorcerers, warlocks or bards (or rogues)?

I know the Drow being ruled by priestesses is a very strong part of their lore and I don't have any problems with that ethos, but Drow don't actually make very good divine spellcasters - they have no Wisdom bonus and their innate magic runs off Charisma (for which they do have bonus.) Equally male Drow are apparently pushed to be warriors and wizards - while the former is perfectly viable given their excellent Dexterity they again lack an Intelligence bonus.

So... why aren't the Drow ruled by Charisma focused spellcasters? Are many Drow 'priestesses' actually Favoured Soul type Sorceresses rather than Clerics?

[Naanomi]

Why are the Drow a theocracy rather than ruled by sorcerers, warlocks or bards (or rogues)?

I know the Drow being ruled by priestesses is a very strong part of their lore and I don't have any problems with that ethos, but Drow don't actually make very good divine spellcasters - they have no Wisdom bonus and their innate magic runs off Charisma (for which they do have bonus.) Equally male Drow are apparently pushed to be warriors and wizards - while the former is perfectly viable given their excellent Dexterity they again lack an Intelligence bonus.

So... why aren't the Drow ruled by Charisma focused spellcasters? Are many Drow 'priestesses' actually Favoured Soul type Sorceresses rather than Clerics?
The stats that drow have had changed over the editions, as has the importance of stat boosts. Drow culture was established editions ago after all.

As for charisma casters... in the 3e drow book they mentioned that some drow priestesses are actually warlocks bound to demons in Lolth's service

[Dudu]

i have been corrected. We should have both of these. Nothing else though. maybe some manbat pets.
Take a glance at Vampire Masquerade then. Or the more recent Vampire Requiem.

[mgshamster]

Why are the Drow a theocracy rather than ruled by sorcerers, warlocks or bards (or rogues)?

Because you don't have to be a Cleric PC class to be a theocratic tyrant, nor do you have to be a divine caster to have religious belief or religious devotion.

[Unoriginal]

Why are the Drow a theocracy rather than ruled by sorcerers, warlocks or bards (or rogues)?

I know the Drow being ruled by priestesses is a very strong part of their lore and I don't have any problems with that ethos, but Drow don't actually make very good divine spellcasters - they have no Wisdom bonus and their innate magic runs off Charisma (for which they do have bonus.) Equally male Drow are apparently pushed to be warriors and wizards - while the former is perfectly viable given their excellent Dexterity they again lack an Intelligence bonus.

So... why aren't the Drow ruled by Charisma focused spellcasters? Are many Drow 'priestesses' actually Favoured Soul type Sorceresses rather than Clerics?

Because Lloth doesn't care about efficiency. She's objectively hindering the Drow in many, many ways, and this is only a small exemple of it.

Lloth doesn't want Drow to have magical powers they can freely use and be very good at. She wants the Drows to be dependent on her for power. She doesn't care that they have more potential elsewhere, she wants them to serve *her* and play their parts in her convoluted, cruel and nonsensical game.

[DragonSorcererX]

Because Lloth doesn't care about efficiency. She's objectively hindering the Drow in many, many ways, and this is only a small exemple of it.

Lloth doesn't want Drow to have magical powers they can freely use and be very good at. She wants the Drows to be dependent on her for power. She doesn't care that they have more potential elsewhere, she wants them to serve *her* and play their parts in her convoluted, cruel and nonsensical game.

Technically having a +2 Dex and a +1 Cha is good for the backstabbing politics of the Drow...

[Honest Tiefling]

As for charisma casters... in the 3e drow book they mentioned that some drow priestesses are actually warlocks bound to demons in Lolth's service

Too bad UA is still...UA. I think the favored soul would do nicely here flavor wise.

And if it is really as OP as people say, well, drow don't play fair. Want power? Don't be a dude.

[RossN]

Too bad UA is still...UA. I think the favored soul would do nicely here flavor wise.

And if it is really as OP as people say, well, drow don't play fair. Want power? Don't be a dude.

Actually there is a revised more recent UA Favoured Soul (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/sorcerer) which seems a lot less OP. It seems to be very divisive though because it drops the armour, weapons and wings making it less 'holy warrior angel' and more of a 'sorcerer who can use Divine Magic'.

(I actually much prefer the new version because I like the idea of an unarmoured, non-melee focused priestly type distinct from the cleric but I realise why people who prefer more of a fighty type are unhappy.)

There is a divine focused UA Warlock (Pact of the Seeker) but unfortunately the theme and build are pretty far from the sort of deity Lloth seems to be.

[JumboWheat01]

Another "Why is" thing that popped in my head. Why isn't the Morningstar Versatile?

[dejarnjc]

Another "Why is" thing that popped in my head. Why isn't the Morningstar Versatile?

My glib answer is that's because WOTC thinks the sword and quarterstaff are the greatest melee weapons ever in existence.

My serious answer is because the morning star is mechanically inferior to the quarterstaff, handaxe, spear/trident, shortsword/scimitar, and javelin.

Considering that in reality, a good number of morningstars were actually 2H. My opinion is that D&D 5e's morningstars are basically clubs with nails jutting out of them (the peasant version of morninstars in real life). Especially since they only offer a single damage die higher than a club.



EDIT: I totally confused the stats of the morningstar and mace haha. A morningstar is 1d8 so please ignore much of the above.

That being said, a mornin star should definitely be able to be wielded two handed. I dunno any reason why it shouldn't be "viable" though.

[Dudewithknives]

Why is there no fighting style specifically for using a Versatile weapon?

There is one for using 1 weapon, using a heavy weapon, using 2 weapons, 2 of them for archers depending on if you are up close or just a better archer, one for holding ground, and 2 technically for using a shield, but not one for someone who just wants to use a versatile weapon that is sometimes 1 handed but sometimes 2 handed.

Also, as a follow up:Monks

Monks are supposed to be the unarmored martial artists who get by on fighting skills and KI in place of armor and weapons and yet:

Every class that gets a form of unarmored defense gets a better version than the monk:
Barbarians get to use 2 stats to AC but keep a shield.
Redemption Paladins get a flat 16 and can still add DEX, that would be like a monk with a 22 Wisdom at level 3.
Stone Sorcerer's can still use a shield and only need Con.
Monks get to add 2 stats, but no bonus from using a shield.

Also no martial arts fighting styles?

[JumboWheat01]

Great Weapon Fighting does work with Versatile weapons. And Heavy's not a requirement for it, just two-handed or versatile. Great Clubs aren't heavy, after all, and it's probably set up that way for Small characters to use it if they so desire.

Though yeah, nothing specifically for Versatile weapons alone. Maybe Wizards considers the option of using it one or two handed special enough.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why are gnomes a PC race? Because they were banished from the garden. :smallcool:

Why are Dragonborn and Tieflings a PHB Core Race? I ask the same thing.

Maybe the timelines, don't match up, but I thought it was a computer joke. Deserts->sand->silicon. Nope, the blue dragon's lightning well preceded the computer mania that struck in the 80's and 90's. Monsters and Treasure, page 11, 1974 TSR, Blue Dragons had lightning (which was different from the white, black, green, red, and golden dragons that had cold, Acid, Chlorine Gas, Fire, and Fire or Gas respectively). Each color had a different breath weapon.

Soldier has intimidate for the very common medieval practice of armies extorting money out of peasants. Look up "schwedentrunk" That's what I had assumed.

Basic, 1E and 2E all disallowed a Cleric from using weapons capable of drawing blood.
Technically incorrect. OD&D and 1e both disallowed *edged* weapons, with the Cleric Sub Class of Druid being allowed a scimitar: You could use a mace or a morning star, which are both quite capable of drawing blood.

... Kender are insane morons because the authors couldn't figure out how to make a race of good aligned thieves, so they made utterly annoying ones. Yeah. The only kind of genocide that is easily justifiable is Kender genocide.

Why are both haflings and gnomes both a thing. My first deep dive into any type of fantasy property was wow so my percep Randy Newman's song comes to mind.

[Tanarii]

Another "Why is" thing that popped in my head. Why isn't the Morningstar Versatile?Also war pick. I'd say it cearly anti-piercing discrimination, but rapier shows they don't have that ...

[solidork]

In my high school game, there was this one guy who almost always played the same gnome bard, even down to the same name.
Somehow, his character's name is one of the suggested names for male gnomes in the PHB. I don't ever expect to find out how or why this happened. Was it chance? They did do open play testing for 5e, maybe they asked for suggestions at some point? The origin of the name was related to me as resulting from an actual in game event from before I had joined the game, so a reference seems unlikely.

[Honest Tiefling]

If the name is Boddyknock, that was an NWN NPC and I think a recommended name for a few editions now.

[solidork]

If the name is Boddyknock, that was an NWN NPC and I think a recommended name for a few editions now.

Oh, it is actually one of the nicknames, not a first name: Stumbleduck.

[Honest Tiefling]

Oh, it is actually one of the nicknames, not a first name: Stumbleduck.

I looked at my Player's Handbook for 3rd...And both are there, so I don't think they ever updated the lists, at least not for gnomes.

[solidork]

I looked at my Player's Handbook for 3rd...And both are there, so I don't think they ever updated the lists, at least not for gnomes.

Huh, I guess I was deceived about the origin of the name. Thanks!