Even WotC thinks D&D has too many spells!

[Schwann145]

When the official D&D movie has made the executive decision to remove spellcasting from the Bard and the Druid characters because, and I quote the directors:

"Magic is so powerful and can solve so many problems that we decided we really wanted to limit it to certain characters, because then it forces them to find other ways through." (https://mashable.com/article/dungeons-dragons-honor-among-thieves-why-bard-edgin-doesnt-use-magic)

...I think it's safe to say they know they've created a monster by relying so heavily on spells. A shame they definitely won't do anything about it. :smalltongue:

[Marcloure]

One thing that I like about Dungeon World's druid is that it doesn't cast spells. Their magic is a lot more open and wild, they speak with nature and convince the spirits instead of having a spell list.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm sure it saved on the VFX budget too making only one of the spellcasters actually cast spells

I mean, yeah, it probably wouldn't have been all that entertaining a watch if the 3 full casting classes just threw magic at the problem.

[Rynjin]

WotC has a lot of really dumb ideas, I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that they had another one for the movie.

[Psyren]

You know WotC didn't make the movie right?

[ProsecutorGodot]

WotC has a lot of really dumb ideas, I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that they had another one for the movie.

There's no indication I can find to suggest that this was a choice made by WotC, the quote is from the directors of the movie, people otherwise unaffiliated with WotC.

[Rynjin]

You know WotC didn't make the movie right?

I'm sure it's not the first dumb idea the people who made the movie have had either.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm sure it's not the first dumb idea the people who made the movie have had either.

Which part is dumb then, WotC having too many spells that can trivialize certain types of encounters or the directors thinking having too many spells would have made certain encounters trivial?

I'd love your insight on this, you seem to be the arbiter of dumb ideas.

As an aside - this threads premise is misleading, OP seems to have also misattributed this quote to WotC designers.

[Rynjin]

I'm just tired of this trend of "we're adapting something...but we actually think this thing is bad so we're changing a bunch of stuff about it!"

Why bother? Just make your own ****ty fantasy movie, coward.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm just tired of this trend of "we're adapting something...but we actually think this thing is bad so we're changing a bunch of stuff about it!"

Why bother? Just make your own ****ty fantasy movie, coward.

The only thing they did wrong was calling them a Bard and a Druid. Mastermind and Were(owl)bear, boom, problem solved.

I'm not aware of them changing all that much aside from limiting the spellcasting ability of these two characters. It's not that big a deal either way.

[Rynjin]

TBF, yeah the point is pretty moot, because I wasn't gonna watch it anyway.

[Dork_Forge]

Whilst WotC didn't make the movie, they certainly have input on it, it is after all their property. It would be weird if they were more involved in Onward than their own shot at capturing movie audiences.

I'm looking forward to the movie, I'm curious how Chris Pine's Bard will not appear completely useless or bumbling in combat since he lacks magic and inspiration is a hard thing to visualise.

My personal gripe with the movie is the 'tiefling' just make her an elf or something if you don't want to put the actress in make up :smallsigh:

[Schwann145]

I was fully aware the directors of the movie are not affiliated with WotC or Hasbro when I quoted them in the OP.

But the brand name is plastered all over this thing. It would be wildly naive to think WotC and/or Hasbro execs didn't have hands all over this production.

(For what it's worth, it was a really fun movie! I'd recommend anyone go see it, all my personal nitpicks notwithstanding.)

[Dork_Forge]

I imagine it probably helps with character identity in a movie, when you can boil down people to 'this one strong, this one shapeshifts, this one magic, this one wiley' etc. it gives clear expectations of the characters abilities. The problem with multiple characters having magic is that you need to show or tell that the magic is different, like how we all know that Wizards aren't healers as players of the game, but that is not an intuitive assumption for fantasy as a whole when magical healing does exist.

[Unoriginal]

I imagine it probably helps with character identity in a movie, when you can boil down people to 'this one strong, this one shapeshifts, this one magic, this one wiley' etc. it gives clear expectations of the characters abilities. The problem with multiple characters having magic is that you need to show or tell that the magic is different, like how we all know that Wizards aren't healers as players of the game, but that is not an intuitive assumption for fantasy as a whole when magical healing does exist.

Plenty of animation works, including cartoons and animatef movies, manage to showcase both "those characters have different powersets" and "those characters have different powers even if their powers come from the same source". Plenty of live-action works managed as well before Honor Amont Thieves' writers and directors and producers even started their careers.

It's not a problem. Especially when the movie deliberately went for a "jockingly lampshading the setting" humor.

[Drascin]

I mean, yes, "magic is defined by being able to do anything and every character has an Everything List of spells with answers for every kind of situation and no thematic coherence" is bad and is not how competent fiction writing works. That they immediately pared that down speaks well to the basic ability of the film's writers.

The Everything List is already poison to the ability of characters to feel distinct in play in the actual game as is, honestly. You could find/replace 90% of wizards in tabletop D&D - a Wizard is a Wizard is a Wizard. So imagine in a movie where you only get two hours with these characters instead of an entire campaign.

[Rynjin]

Magic does very distinct things, thematically, across each list. At least in most editions; given complaints I gather 5e has evolved more of an identity crisis?. It does not particularly speak well of their abilities that they couldn't find a way to make nature magic, Wizard magic, and "guile magic" feel different from each other.

If the Wizard casts Fireball, the Druid casts Speak with Animals, and the Bard casts Charm Person, for example, no reasonable person would get these confused.

[Unoriginal]

I'm curious how Chris Pine's Bard will not appear completely useless or bumbling in combat since he lacks magic and inspiration is a hard thing to visualise.

Spoilers, obviously, but

I'm pretty sure they made Pine's character useless amnd bumbling during fights.

and also

I'm pretty sure he does not have inspiration at all. Those who have access to his official statblock can correct me.



My personal gripe with the movie is the 'tiefling' just make her an elf or something if you don't want to put the actress in make up :smallsigh:

Yeah, that is pretty puzzling. My guess is that on top of not wanting the actress in heavy makeup, they did not want a devil-looking protagonist.

Maybe it's because the last Hellboy movie flopped, so corporate suits went "audiences do not want protagonists looking like devils".

[Anymage]

Yeah, that is pretty puzzling. My guess is that on top of not wanting the actress in heavy makeup, they did not want a devil-looking protagonist.

Maybe it's because the last Hellboy movie flopped, so corporate suits went "audiences do not want protagonists looking like devils".

Devil people worked okay in Nentir Vale, but the older style of planetouched tieflings (who were more subtly otherworldly/diabolical) seems like something gamers prefer. The tieflings in the 1DD playtest were already cut from that mold.


Magic does very distinct things, thematically, across each list. At least in most editions; given complaints I gather 5e has evolved more of an identity crisis?. It does not particularly speak well of their abilities that they couldn't find a way to make nature magic, Wizard magic, and "guile magic" feel different from each other.

If the Wizard casts Fireball, the Druid casts Speak with Animals, and the Bard casts Charm Person, for example, no reasonable person would get these confused.

The bard is naturally charming without needing to have sparkles and obvious magical effects. What would explicit magic add? Similarly, the druid does use the supernatural power to turn into an owlbear. How does her also having the ability to also create healing berries add to the narrative?

The deeper problem is that most of D&D, and here I'm looking firmly at the wizard, assumes that having a knack for magic means having a wide variety of tricks up your sleeve. Giving everybody that broad a bag of tricks will get tricky for both the audience and the writers to keep track of everything.

[Millstone85]

My country still has to wait until April 12th and it is killing me.


I'm looking forward to the movie, I'm curious how Chris Pine's Bard will not appear completely useless or bumbling in combat since he lacks magic and inspiration is a hard thing to visualise.
Spoilers, obviously, but I'm pretty sure they made Pine's character useless amnd bumbling during fights.
and also I'm pretty sure he does not have inspiration at all. Those who have access to his official statblock can correct me.Not sure why this needs the spoiler tag, actually, butInspiring Words (3/Day). When a creature Edgin can see within 60 feet of himself fails an ability check, an attack roll, or a saving throw, Edgin grants the creature magical encouragement. The creature can roll a d8 and add the number rolled to the total, potentially turning the failure into a success.
FurthermoreDisorienting Words. Edgin magically taunts up to three creatures he can see within 60 feet of himself. Each creature must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom saving throw or take 10 (3d6) psychic damage and have disadvantage on the next attack roll it makes before the start of Edgin’s next turn.

Spellcasting. Edgin casts one of the following spells, using Charisma as the spellcasting ability (spell save DC 15):
At will: friends, message
3/day each: charm person, disguise self
1/day: suggestion

My personal gripe with the movie is the 'tiefling' just make her an elf or something if you don't want to put the actress in make up :smallsigh:
Yeah, that is pretty puzzling. My guess is that on top of not wanting the actress in heavy makeup, they did not want a devil-looking protagonist.Maybe they weren't sure of WotC's current take regarding female satyrs but really wanted one anyway.

[animorte]

There's a reason each of those characters have stat-blocks. They're NPCs that had their own adventure, their own stories.


Maybe they weren't sure of WotC's current take regarding female satyrs but really wanted one anyway.
Taylor Swift?

[Unoriginal]

There's a reason each of those characters have stat-blocks. They're NPCs that had their own adventure, their own stories.


I mean, true, but from what I can see the statblocks don't fit what's portrayed in the movie either. At least for Edgin.

[warty goblin]

D&D statblocks and ability sets are absolutely awful things to build a story around in any other medium than a tabletop RPG when taken unaltered. This is a fact so basic Weis & Hickman were aware of it back in 1984. Nobody should be remotely surprised that a big budget movie released fifty years later has reached the same realization.

[Mastikator]

My personal gripe with the movie is the 'tiefling' just make her an elf or something if you don't want to put the actress in make up :smallsigh:

She looks like a 3e tiefling. In my opinion that's totally fine, never liked the way 4e portrayed them, didn't like that it carried over to 5e.

[Amnestic]

I understand why some people are dissatisfied by the tiefling appearance in the movie, but this was my introduction to the race, so personally not a big deal to me.


https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/baldursgategame/images/4/4f/Haer%27Dalis_NHAER_Portrait_BG2.png/revision/latest?cb=20180925155705

[Thunderous Mojo]

When the official D&D movie has made the executive decision to remove spellcasting from the Bard and the Druid characters because, and I quote the directors:

"Magic is so powerful and can solve so many problems that we decided we really wanted to limit it to certain characters, because then it forces them to find other ways through." (https://mashable.com/article/dungeons-dragons-honor-among-thieves-why-bard-edgin-doesnt-use-magic)

...I think it's safe to say they know they've created a monster by relying so heavily on spells. A shame they definitely won't do anything about it. :smalltongue:

Avast!!! There be spoilers ahead:

The movie plot makes the Heroes dependent upon three particular magic items, each of which replicates a particular spell.

Whenever they are stumped the Party resorts to Magic.

Also, the Writer/Directors of Honor Amongst Thieves did not just remove spells from they Druid, they also removed, (or did not provide), lines of dialogue, or a character beyond: Exotic, lithe woman whom transforms into Beasts and Owlbears.

The Druid character in the movie, is essentially set up as the romantic mcguffin for the hero that can cast spells. If the Druid actually cast spells, the Writer/Directors would have to actually write for the character…..and it would not seem that was a priority.

[Hurrashane]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm just glad there's a D&D movie that looks entertaining and (at least from the trailers) seems a hell of a lot closer to D&D than the previous attempts.

[Zevox]

I was fully aware the directors of the movie are not affiliated with WotC or Hasbro when I quoted them in the OP.

But the brand name is plastered all over this thing. It would be wildly naive to think WotC and/or Hasbro execs didn't have hands all over this production.
It would also be a mistake to think that what makes a good game and what makes a good movie are necessarily the same thing, and that thinking that not having two characters in this movie cast spells was good for the film means anything for what would be good for the game. This isn't like adapting even a book into a film, the game is a medium with very different goals from just telling a story. Characters having a variety of abilities are a good thing in a game because it leads to more varied, less repetitious gameplay, where in a movie that already has to split screen time between 4-5 main characters it would just add more need for exposition to explain all of the things that they can do (and potentially why they sometimes can't do them) to an audience that isn't already familiar with the source material. So instead their talents are more focused: the Bard is charming and clever, and the Druid can Wild Shape. Makes it easier to keep the narrative flowing.

[Rafaelfras]

The movie certainly had room for more spellcasting from the druid and the bard, you can see a couple of scenes that you could say they should do the casting instead of the sorcerer. But it's nothing that take your enjoyment of the movie
Also a bard focused and enchantment, buffs and debuffs is a very discreet caster and don't generate any visual cues or special effects so they really had room for it of they want it.
But the movie is great go watch it

[firelistener]

I'll just add it to the pile of reasons I have rock-bottom expectations of the movie. If it's any good, then that's wonderful, but I always anticipate adaptations to be both disrespectful to the source and outright awful in their own right. Whenever a movie adaptation isn't just horrendous, I'm pleasantly surprised.

[Composer99]

The movie is polished and a fine watch. In any event it's more important for it to be good on its own terms and accessible to wider audiences than to be a perfectly faithful adaptation of D&D mechanics. Fortunately it delivers.

[Rafaelfras]

I'll just add it to the pile of reasons I have rock-bottom expectations of the movie. If it's any good, then that's wonderful, but I always anticipate adaptations to be both disrespectful to the source and outright awful in their own right. Whenever a movie adaptation isn't just horrendous, I'm pleasantly surprised.
I feel you but this movie is neither. It's a very respectful for D&D AND Forgotten Realms, so yeah shocking as it is, it delivered a very fun experience for both players and non players

[Psyren]

Which part is dumb then, WotC having too many spells that can trivialize certain types of encounters or the directors thinking having too many spells would have made certain encounters trivial?

I'd love your insight on this, you seem to be the arbiter of dumb ideas.

As an aside - this threads premise is misleading, OP seems to have also misattributed this quote to WotC designers.

My point exactly.


Whilst WotC didn't make the movie, they certainly have input on it, it is after all their property. It would be weird if they were more involved in Onward than their own shot at capturing movie audiences.

Perkins explicitly stated they statted up the characters (and the items) after the script was written, not before.



Also, the Writer/Directors of Honor Amongst Thieves did not just remove spells from they Druid, they also removed, (or did not provide), lines of dialogue, or a character beyond: Exotic, lithe woman whom transforms into Beasts and Owlbears.

The Druid character in the movie, is essentially set up as the romantic mcguffin for the hero that can cast spells.

...What? Not only did she have plenty of motivations of her own, she was probably the most effective member of the team :smallconfused:

And as far as "romantic macguffin":
She agreed to one date in the movie's denouement.

[J-H]

I don't see their relationship going anywhere, based on the dynamics. I don't care though, as adding a detailed romance subplot would have made the movie worse, as Hollywood often does.

There was at least once, maybe twice, where Simon the sorcerer says "You can't just solve everything with magic!"
Magic items were more significant to solving most problems than spells were.

[KorvinStarmast]

When the official D&D movie has made the executive decision to remove spellcasting from the Bard and the Druid characters because, and I quote the directors:

"Magic is so powerful and can solve so many problems that we decided we really wanted to limit it to certain characters, because then it forces them to find other ways through." (https://mashable.com/article/dungeons-dragons-honor-among-thieves-why-bard-edgin-doesnt-use-magic)

...I think it's safe to say they know they've created a monster by relying so heavily on spells. A shame they definitely won't do anything about it. :smalltongue: Good post, even if WotC might not have said that.

I'm just tired of this trend of "we're adapting something...but we actually think this thing is bad so we're changing a bunch of stuff about it!"

Why bother? Just make your own ****ty fantasy movie, coward. The movie works well enough, I'd recommend it. And the pacing is very good. Very few scenes where I just went "get on with it!" - which these days is very rare as movies are far too long anymore.

TBF, yeah the point is pretty moot, because I wasn't gonna watch it anyway. I think you'll like it.

My personal gripe with the movie is the 'tiefling' just make her an elf or something if you don't want to put the actress in make up :smallsigh: It's a better tiefling IMO (tastes differ)

Taylor Swift? Here I am wiping coffee off of the counter...

She looks like a 3e tiefling. In my opinion that's totally fine, never liked the way 4e portrayed them, didn't like that it carried over to 5e. Concur.

I'll just add it to the pile of reasons I have rock-bottom expectations of the movie. If it's any good IT is. Good pacing.

I don't see their relationship going anywhere, based on the dynamics. I don't care though, as adding a detailed romance subplot would have made the movie worse, as Hollywood often does. Amen.

There was at least once, maybe twice, where Simon the sorcerer says "You can't just solve everything with magic!" Yes, I loved that. :smallsmile:

[Thunderous Mojo]

...What? Not only did she have plenty of motivations of her own, she was probably the most effective member of the team :smallconfused:


Effectiveness wasn’t a critique of mine. Turning into an owlbear, apparently works in pen and paper, on the screen, and in the imagination.🃏

The Druid’s motivations were:
1) She does not like humans…(which has no impact on the film).
2) She is a member of the Emerald Enclave.
The Emerald Enclave, as an organization is so fuzzily defined, in actual D&D, that being told a character is a member, does not illuminate much for me.

If a character states they are a part of the CIA or KGB, people would have an easy time imagining what that might mean in context of the film, or book, or other creative product.

The Emerald Enclave sounds like a housing development in the Emerald City of Oz, and less like the Sierra Club. In terms of the movie…it is classic fantasy gibberish.

[Rynjin]

I think you'll like it.

Honestly, I'm sure I would. I even liked the old, cheesy D&D movie as a "so bad it's good" flick and was prepared to watch this one for the same reasons, and the trailers made it look quite a bit better than that. But when I said a couple of months ago that Wizards wasn't getting my support anymore, I meant it.

I'm sure the movie is fine despite my genuine annoyance with things getting "dumbed down" for general audiences in adaptations. But I ain't watching it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Effectiveness wasn’t a critique of mine. Turning into an owlbear, apparently works in pen and paper, on the screen, and in the imagination.🃏

The Druid’s motivations were:
1) She does not like humans…(which has no impact on the film).
2) She is a member of the Emerald Enclave.
The Emerald Enclave, as an organization is so fuzzily defined, in actual D&D, that being told a character is a member, does not illuminate much for me.

If a character states they are a part of the CIA or KGB, people would have an easy time imagining what that might mean in context of the film, or book, or other creative product.

The Emerald Enclave sounds like a housing development in the Emerald City of Oz, and less like the Sierra Club. In terms of the movie…it is classic fantasy gibberish.

I think you missed a lot. Her motivation is pretty clearly stated and more than that.


The villain is in the process of killing her friends and adopted family and cutting down the forest she lives in.


---------------

Personally, I think the movie shows exactly that the affordances needed for a good movie and those for a good game are different. If they'd tried to mimic the rules directly, it would have failed as a movie. For a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that it'd require you to be up on all the details to follow the reasoning.


And most importantly, they bowed to reality and made the real ultimate villain a wizard.

[Rafaelfras]

And most importantly, they bowed to reality and made the real ultimate villain a wizard.


She just wanted to build a better world where everyone is happy

[Schwann145]

I think my response to a lot of (very valid) disagreements so far is simply this:

They didn't make "Honor Among Thieves."
They didn't even make "Forgotten Realms: Honor Among Thieves."

They made "Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves," and they pushed that D&D connection hard throughout all of the promotion. It's just weird to say, "This is the D&D movie" and then drastically alter pretty fundamental aspects of the D&D-side of it, when that didn't need to happen (multiple spellcasters makes for harder storytelling? Harry Potter disagrees :smalltongue:).

Heck, they could have called Edgin a Rogue and solved half the issue, but they insisted that he's a Bard. Why? (Questions I'd love to ask but will never get the chance to, lol).

[Tanarii]

They kind of had to. 5e casters are dumping a spell every 6 seconds, so 3-5 per fight. It'd look like a game of World of Warcraft in a raid boss fight or an arena battle otherwise.

Or this viva La dirt league skit:
https://youtu.be/8NbwizzxQ_s?t=96

RPGs/video games and books/movies are very different media and have totally different goals. Making the latter from the former requires gutting the rules in pursuit of storytelling (characterization, plot and setting). Making the former from latter means gutting the characters and plot and setting in pursuit of playable rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think my response to a lot of (very valid) disagreements so far is simply this:

They didn't make "Honor Among Thieves."
They didn't even make "Forgotten Realms: Honor Among Thieves."

They made "Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves," and they pushed that D&D connection hard throughout all of the promotion. It's just weird to say, "This is the D&D movie" and then drastically alter pretty fundamental aspects of the D&D-side of it, when that didn't need to happen (multiple spellcasters makes for harder storytelling? Harry Potter disagrees :smalltongue:).

Heck, they could have called Edgin a Rogue and solved half the issue, but they insisted that he's a Bard. Why? (Questions I'd love to ask but will never get the chance to, lol).

The rules are UI conventions. They are not the fundamental physics of the underlying world. Classes (in the restrictive PC sense) are a meta construct, not an in-universe thing.

[Rynjin]

They kind of had to. 5e casters

Thankfully they did not make "Dungeons and Dragons 5e: Honor Among Thieves", and so were free to pull from one of the several editions and settings where casters are not 5e casters.

More to the point, it's not an all or nothing thing. Removing spells from Bards and Druids is a purely utilitarian move, not a narrative one. There's a thousand different ways to make that fun and useful in a movie, but they didn't want to bother doing it or put the budget into the VFX for stuff using Warp Wood to stop the guards pursuing them from coming through a door or having the Bard use Suggestion to Jedi Mind Trick somebody.

There's a middle ground between "casting a spell every 6 seconds" and "we're removing most of the magic from the setting".

[Jervis]

Yeah making the bard and Druid noncasters kinda made me angry watching this. The way they handed spells in general annoyed me. The main character was a bad fighter mechanically, the Druid was level 17+ because of the number of wild shapes she used so the fact she didn’t cast any spells annoyed me, the sorcerer having wildly inconsistent spellcasting abilities gave me a headache (one minute he’s struggling to cast shield and the next he’s casting reverse gravity and crushing hand). But all of this pales in comparison to the fact they had Elminster in the movie and, as far as i’m aware, didn’t even ask Ed Greenwood to cameo. Come on the dude looks exactly like every depiction of Elminster. Elminster was basically his PC. It would have been fantastic fan service. Yeah I know Ed doesn’t look anything like the actor that played the sorcerer, but he’s a half elf anyway and he's Elminster’s distant descendant.

[Rafaelfras]

I don't think this was D&D light though. They went as far as giving the sorcerer a wild magic surge, all the spells followed their mechanics or at least good enough to be recognized on screen, with that last few rounds of the final battle being very action heavy with a lot of spells flying by.
As an above poster pointed above is not all or nothing. The druid and the bard didn't cast spells because the producers choose not to. Another movie, or even a sequel could feature spells from the both of them, another druid/ bard or neither and still would be just a choice to not use said ability, not removing it from the system.
Would I liked to see a bard mind trick, a disguised Edging changing forms and the druid healing some wounds after the gelatinous cube? Sure. But it's not a breaking deal and the movie isn't less D&D because of that.

[Schwann145]

But all of this pales in comparison to the fact they had Elminster in the movie...

I don't think that was actually Elminster, but rather just the (sentient?) artifact playing on Simon's insecurites. However, I think the movie did a pretty bad job of portraying it that way so that, yeah, it does look like they just threw Elminster in there for some in-realms cameo/name recognition.

[Psyren]

That wasn't Elminster, though you were indeed meant to think that at first.


I think you missed a lot. Her motivation is pretty clearly stated and more than that.


The villain is in the process of killing her friends and adopted family and cutting down the forest she lives in.


This. I'm fine with criticizing a film, but doing so for things the film clearly stated is more of a reflection on the person making the critiques.

[Willowhelm]

I’m confused by the comments about “the Bard” and “the Druid” not having spellcasting being an issue.

What’s the issue with saying a character is, or describing a character as, a bard (sings, plays an instrument, charismatic), or a druid (strong faith/bonds with nature), without them being a Bard (class), or Druid (class)?

I’m pretty sure the “Bard of Avon” never cast a literal spell in his life. Are we going to complain he wasn’t a bard too?

[JackPhoenix]

I’m pretty sure the “Bard of Avon” never cast a literal spell in his life. Are we going to complain he wasn’t a bard too?

Nobody ever claimed Shakespeare was a D&D bard. But this IS supposed to be a D&D movie....

[KorvinStarmast]

But when I said a couple of months ago that Wizards wasn't getting my support anymore, I meant it.
Ah, voting with your dollars. Got it.

Heck, they could have called Edgin a Rogue and solved half the issue, but they insisted that he's a Bard. Why? (Questions I'd love to ask but will never get the chance to, lol).
I have played a Warlock with the Entertainer background and a rogue with the entertainer background. And in both cases, he presented himself to the world as a bard/minstrel, when he was really something else.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I’m confused by the comments about “the Bard” and “the Druid” not having spellcasting being an issue.

What’s the issue with saying a character is, or describing a character as, a bard (sings, plays an instrument, charismatic), or a druid (strong faith/bonds with nature), without them being a Bard (class), or Druid (class)?

I’m pretty sure the “Bard of Avon” never cast a literal spell in his life. Are we going to complain he wasn’t a bard too?

I agree with this.


Nobody ever claimed Shakespeare was a D&D bard. But this IS supposed to be a D&D movie....

But nothing says that all bards in D&D are Bards. In fact, the PHB is clear that only a few are. PC classes are an abstraction for game purposes, not statements about the nature of the fictional world. There are lots of people that in fiction would be bards or paladins or even wizards or druids without the full panoply of PC powers. Or possibly with different constraints (more wild shape, no spells).

[Jervis]

That wasn't Elminster, though you were indeed meant to think that at first.


I know it’s not technically Elminster but the character’s appearance is presumably the same as this version of the Forgotten Realm’s Elminster. The projection didn’t look like the sorcerer that much either and he presumably knows what Elminster looks like. I just think it would have been a nice nod to the fans to offer that role to Ed Greenwood. He’s a pretty distant ancestor from the sounds of it so the lack of a family resemblance wouldn’t be that much of a big deal.

Also that raises another question now that I think of it. What kind of sorcerer way he anyway? The bit in his introduction implies wild magic while people expecting him to heal the end of the movie implies divine soul. He’s related to Elminster so divine soul isn’t out of the question so maybe that’s it?

[Jervis]

I’m confused by the comments about “the Bard” and “the Druid” not having spellcasting being an issue.

What’s the issue with saying a character is, or describing a character as, a bard (sings, plays an instrument, charismatic), or a druid (strong faith/bonds with nature), without them being a Bard (class), or Druid (class)?

I’m pretty sure the “Bard of Avon” never cast a literal spell in his life. Are we going to complain he wasn’t a bard too?

I agree that the main character is probably just a rogue with a entertainer background that makes him bard (profession) and not bard (class) but the druid has wildshape. Granted it’s probably way to many daily uses of wildshape, unless she’s already level 20, but still.

[Schwann145]

In a world where being a Bard is a distinct magical tradition, I'd imagine those folks who don't actually qualify would be called "entertainer," "musician," etc.

Just the same as I'd imagine a street performer skilled in sleight of hand who called themselves a wizard would, eventually, rub the wrong *actual* wizard the wrong way and end up paying for it. :smallwink:

[Gignere]

I agree that the main character is probably just a rogue with a entertainer background that makes him bard (profession) and not bard (class) but the druid has wildshape. Granted it’s probably way to many daily uses of wildshape, unless she’s already level 20, but still.

Could be a level 17 Druid using the spell points variant and dumping all her slots and spell points into shape change that’s why she can turn into an Owlbear and also explains why she can’t cast anything else.

[Jervis]

In a world where being a Bard is a distinct magical tradition, I'd imagine those folks who don't actually qualify would be called "entertainer," "musician," etc.

Just the same as I'd imagine a street performer skilled in sleight of hand who called themselves a wizard would, eventually, rub the wrong *actual* wizard the wrong way and end up paying for it. :smallwink:

It’s not out of character for him to lie about being a bard to be fair.


Could be a level 17 Druid using the spell points variant and dumping all her slots and spell points into shape change that’s why she can turn into an Owlbear and also explains why she can’t cast anything else.

I guess. Doesn’t that rule prevent multiple castings of 9th level spells through? Regardless we know the instance where she spams 6 changes in a row was wildshape, unless the wizard just assumed it was wildshape and didn’t detect the 9th level spell in place. That would also raise the question why she didn’t turn into a beholder or something.

[tokek]

Yeah making the bard and Druid noncasters kinda made me angry watching this.

They didn't. There is one point where they clearly state the druid has spells. I could spoiler tag and stuff but just go watch the movie and pay attention - that comment has significance later for reasons.

The bard does not appear to have any spells that we could really tell. It fails to spoil the fun of the movie in any way.

It captured the feel of a really fun D&D session, it had that crazy energy. My DM came out chuckling and saying "That bit is the sort of dumb plan you guys would do" and he was right, also its the sort of dumb plan he would let us try and it would work if the dice were right. Rule of cool.

Was it true to the tabletop rules of any one edition of D&D? No, nor would I expect it to be. It captured the spirit of the game quite well.

[Unoriginal]

They kind of had to. 5e casters are dumping a spell every 6 seconds, so 3-5 per fight.

I see no issue with that, personally.

So long as the spells fit the combat choreography.

[Rafaelfras]

I see no issue with that, personally.

So long as the spells fit the combat choreography.

The last battle is very spell heavy. We see a good number of then tossed at a short time

[Dork_Forge]

The different edition talk feels a bit odd to me, the point of the movie is to increase interest in the IP, to create new players to spend money whilst getting more money out of the existing fan base.

And the current version of the game is 5E, they don't have to make it 1:1, but ideally it should resemble the game people will then start to play (which is why I'm not thrilled about the owlbear thing).

I also don't get the 'not all bards are Bards' and so on, this is true, but the lower case bards aren't the one that go on adventures*.

*and before anyone says about entertainer background or refluffing, that would necessitate other features being present.

Sounds like they made a fantasy movie with D&D window dressing, but I'll reserve full judgement until after seeing it.

[Unoriginal]

Sounds like they made a fantasy movie with D&D window dressing, but I'll reserve full judgement until after seeing it.

They did a lot of efforts to make it D&D 5e. For example, some characters and places from 5e modules are translated 1:1 on the screen. It also follow the 5e aesthetic in general.

It's just weird to me that the one area where they didn't want to do that was the main characters' abilities.

[Dork_Forge]

They did a lot of efforts to make it D&D 5e. For example, some characters and places from 5e modules are translated 1:1 on the screen. It also follow the 5e aesthetic in general.

It's just weird to me that the one area where they didn't want to do that was the main characters' abilities.

But aren't most characters and places just FR content anyway? And iirc they used Rime of the Frost Maiden to introduce a location in prep for the movie.

What's weirder is that the official blocks they then gave include casting for the 'bard' character, and I forgot to ask this before since everyone else is human or half elf, but does the tiefling even show racial casting? They reflect it in her block with the Hellish Rebuke analog.

[Jervis]

But aren't most characters and places just FR content anyway? And iirc they used Rime of the Frost Maiden to introduce a location in prep for the movie.

What's weirder is that the official blocks they then gave include casting for the 'bard' character, and I forgot to ask this before since everyone else is human or half elf, but does the tiefling even show racial casting? They reflect it in her block with the Hellish Rebuke analog.
She doesn’t use any Tiefling features to my recollection. Her only use of class features in the movie are wildshape to a minimum of 6 uses in a day (probably more but passage of time isn’t extremely clear). That combined with the owlbear shape means she’s probably using 6E playtest rules. Minus the lack of spellcasting I mean.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I'm fine with criticizing a film, but doing so for things the film clearly stated is more of a reflection on the person making the critiques.

Happy Saturday to you too. This is an uncharitable statement, in my view,
which is a bit uncharacteristic for you, Psyren.

Rather than ascribing my initial impression to be a result of my character traits, it is probably more helpful to do as P.P. did and point out that I might have missed some scenes….

W.H. Auden, famously thought Hamlet was a poor play.
Is that also a character defect?

A kind person would just chalk differences in aesthetic opinions up to the nature of aesthetic judgments….not to defects of character.

In regards to a D&D movie being 100% accurate to actual D&D; that seems to high a bar for me. It might have been nice to hear a classic Forgotten Realms, “Well Met”, but the absence of such a detail didn’t hurt my enjoyment of the film.

I like the notion of Ed, being a Mastermind Rogue, as a counterpoint to Forge’s style of being a Mastermind Rogue….even if WotC claims Ed is actually a Bard in terms of character class.

[False God]

I don't think this is on WotC, so much as an obvious critique by anyone who takes even a passing glance at D&D. The game lends itself to high power fairly quickly, with magic being fairly easy, accessible and often the superior way to resolve problems.

WotC may not want to admit it, or maybe they're just fine with that. But I think moreover what this statement means is that this sort of "Wow that magic let things get out of hand really fast!" is plain to see from even an unexperienced observer.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sounds like they made a fantasy movie with D&D window dressing, but I'll reserve full judgement until after seeing it. I think that you'll enjoy it.

W.H. Auden, famously thought Hamlet was a poor play.
Is that also a character defect? Perhaps it's an indication of elitism. :smallcool:
Truman Capote
....agreed to appear on David Susskind’s “Open End” show, with Norman Mailer — who kept praising the Beat-Generation writers. Capote thought their product worthless. “It’s nothing,” he said. “That’s not writing; that’s just typewriting.” Often rendered as "that's not writing, that's just typing"

Did Honor Among Thieves capture the feel of a D&D party trying, and often getting things a bit wrong, to head off or fend off some great villain/evil/nefarious plot?
Yes.

[Jervis]

I don't think this is on WotC, so much as an obvious critique by anyone who takes even a passing glance at D&D. The game lends itself to high power fairly quickly, with magic being fairly easy, accessible and often the superior way to resolve problems.

WotC may not want to admit it, or maybe they're just fine with that. But I think moreover what this statement means is that this sort of "Wow that magic let things get out of hand really fast!" is plain to see from even an unexperienced observer.

The amount of spells isn’t the issue, it’s the number of slots. If warlock was the default casting chassis I think the game would be much healthier. Hot take admittedly but that’s my opinion on the game

[Thunderous Mojo]

Truman Capote Often rendered as "that's not writing, that's just typing"


I actually believe that critique can be applied to many works as well.
Naked Lunch by Burroughs, is a bunch of lovely typing…but not really a structured piece of literature.

The same critique can absolutely be leveled against Thomas Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow, and against James Joyce.

Capote was also known to enjoy stirring up trouble.
Am I really stirring up trouble, by commenting that the Druid could have used more lines of dialogue?

Actually, you all have convinced me. My opinion was compromised, by my weak bladder, because I went to the restroom during the Emerald Enclave scene that showed the devastation caused by Neverwinter.

Indeed I feel prey to the character flaw of having to urinate.
Luckily, I saw the movie again, and have compensated for my bladder.🃏

[False God]

The amount of spells isn’t the issue, it’s the number of slots. If warlock was the default casting chassis I think the game would be much healthier. Hot take admittedly but that’s my opinion on the game

See, I'm the reverse, I take issue with the sheer number.

For starters, there are a lot of unnecessary duplicates or so-similar-they-might-as-well-be-duplicates. 5E made some progress there, but more work needs to be done. Secondly, there's just a whole lot of options. A skillful spellcaster can stack themselves as nearly any one of the other classes with some clever play, several of the other classes.

A caster who can cast the same spell a lot is no different in my mind than a fighter who can swing the same sword a lot. But your average caster has access to multiple swords, and multiple fighting styles, and can readily switch between them as the flow of the game dictates.

But, a caster should be able to cast spells 90% of the time. That's their THING, that's what they DO.

So I don't take issue with the number of times they can cast, honestly because I favor using spell points, I'd probably fall into "they should be able to cast more", but what they shouldn't have is a key to every door.

[kazaryu]

I mean, true, but from what I can see the statblocks don't fit what's portrayed in the movie either. At least for Edgin.

that weird...because it matches it pretty well from what i saw. i mean...no, edgin never cast disguise self...

but genuinely so much of what he did was exactly whats on his statblock...just flavored to appear to be due to mundane charm. exactly as someone like edgin would want his magic to appear. IDK, i feel like a lot of people are getting hung up on the mechanics of 5e rather than focusing on dnd as a whole, and how the world itself actually functions...rather than the abstraction that we use to play in it.

[Envyus]

TBF, yeah the point is pretty moot, because I wasn't gonna watch it anyway.

Missing out Movie is great.

[Zuras]

I mean, the movie also only had one effective weapon-wielding character at any given time, and no archery. Does that mean the directors think ranged weapons suck?

Fundamentally, a tabletop game and a movie are very different in terms of producing tension and maintaining narrative clarity. The players are familiar enough with the rules to know what magic can or can’t do, but you’re going to waste a lot of time in pointless exposition if you want to cover the difference between the Druid and Sorcerer spell lists.

As presented, I doubt the audience would have trouble accepting the Druid casting Plant Growth or Speak with Plants to slow down the party’s pursuers as they fled through the forest, but they’d balk at casually throwing around Moonbeams or Flaming Spheres.

Cinematic logic is simply different from RPG logic. For example, the audience won’t go for the heroes summoning an earth elemental or chucking around lightning bolts at the beginning of a fight, but after the evil wizard gives a speech about how “the power of nature is nothing against my magic”, and blasts the Druid off-screen into a bush once, they will accept pretty much anything up to conjuring an elder elemental to bring the beat down.

[Schwann145]

I mean, the movie also only had one effective weapon-wielding character at any given time, and no archery. Does that mean the directors think ranged weapons suck?

I'd say it's more like they went out of their way to tell us there was archers in the movie, but then the movie never gave them a bow or crossbow and so they spent all their time doing non-archery things.

[Tanarii]

The amount of spells isn’t the issue, it’s the number of slots. If warlock was the default casting chassis I think the game would be much healthier. Hot take admittedly but that’s my opinion on the game
In terms of toning down magic in the game, I agree, warlock chassis where they have lots options but limited uses per time frame is probably a better path.

In terms of storytelling, I'd feel the other was better for many (but not all) spells. Being a few-trick pony with frequent uses would be far more in terms of creating signature characters.

Otoh it's hard to say. Because movies are even more limited on time to expound than books, and are far more visual for non-dialog, so they tend to have their own special scene-based and plot-based requirements/logic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The amount of spells isn’t the issue, it’s the number of slots. If warlock was the default casting chassis I think the game would be much healthier. Hot take admittedly but that’s my opinion on the game

I basically agree, but I'd still cut down the number of spells. More magic items that create (what are now) spell effects for anyone who uses them, more "rituals" that anyone can learn. Make the world a magical place, but spread that magic around. I've got some thoughts on how I'd rebuild magic if I were going to, but it's along the lines of splitting things along the lines of how you wield power, not what source your power comes from. Things like (names TBD)

* "Sorcery" is quick and dirty, mostly throwing around elemental/other energy. Blasts of fire, pillars of ice, throwing objects. No real finesse or subtlety, but mostly raw power. Limited only by personal stamina.
* "Thaumaturgy" is ritualistic, relying on the laws of sympathy and contagion. Slow, but can have long-lasting, wide-ranging consequences. You might have a few rituals "hanging" (mostly pre-cast), but very limited ammo.
* "Spiritualism" involves beseaching and making (short-duration) pacts with various entities and powers. Very quid pro quo, asking their intervention. You'd have to cultivate relationships, and your "spell list" would depend on which spirits you've made deals with. In general, you'd be acting as a living channel, letting the spirit take over your body and act through you. Each pact would have its own costs--actions you'd have to take or refrain from, cooldowns, sacrifices (monetary or otherwise), self-damage, etc.
* "Enhancement" would involve channeling power into yourself and your gear. Sort of the adept from Shadowrun. Mostly not very limited use except for a "spell pool" or so.


Because movies are even more limited on time to expound than books, and are far more visual for non-dialog, so they tend to have their own special scene-based and plot-based requirements/logic.

I agree. Movie needs are very different than book needs (which is why books often have to be highly changed to make good movies) and very different even from video games, with TTRPGs even more distant. I'm totally fine with how they did it.

In fact, I'd love to have a "shapeshifter" class that focused entirely on wild shape and basically got to use it freely (or mostly so).

I do think I'm going to reclassify owlbears as beasts and let my moon druid shift into one if (when) she sees one in game. Their power level isn't so much different than other CR 3 creatures.

[tokek]

I also don't get the 'not all bards are Bards' and so on, this is true, but the lower case bards aren't the one that go on adventures*.



The bard being “useless” is a running gag. They even address it in the film.

[Witty Username]

I'm looking forward to the movie, I'm curious how Chris Pine's Bard will not appear completely useless or bumbling in combat since he lacks magic and inspiration is a hard thing to visualise.


Hm, I thought he was a rogue, I don't think he is referred to as bard at any point in the movie.

I won't go further than that, as no need to spoil the movie.
--
As for the druid, they only use wild shape, clearly aping the play pattern of every moon druid. I have some thoughts otherwise, I feel the druid is generally underutilized from a character writing perspective, but that will require more getting into the weeds than I care too at this point.

[tokek]

Hm, I thought he was a rogue, I don't think he is referred to as bard at any point in the movie.

I won't go further than that, as no need to spoil the movie.
--
As for the druid, they only use wild shape, clearly aping the play pattern of every moon druid. I have some thoughts otherwise, I feel the druid is generally underutilized from a character writing perspective, but that will require more getting into the weeds than I care too at this point.

Edgin's class is not mentioned in the film or important to the film. His membership of the Harpers is a big deal from the very outset but his class never matters.

I have said before in this thread - it has the energy of a fun D&D session. Not everyone is playing optimally, far from it in fact. But most groups are like that and most groups are having damn good fun. That is the spirit I think they were trying to capture and I think they did a pretty good job of it.

Exception is the paladin who is the character acting like he's played by an optimiser - and who overshadows the other characters as a result.

[Nadan]

I have said before in this thread - it has the energy of a fun D&D session. Not everyone is playing optimally, far from it in fact. But most groups are like that and most groups are having damn good fun. That is the spirit I think they were trying to capture and I think they did a pretty good job of it.

Exception is the paladin who is the character acting like he's played by an optimiser - and who overshadows the other characters as a result.
I remember director said that Edgin represent casual players that "heard bard is cool and want to play one but never bother try to learn spell's rule"
And try to make magic Simon's main thing so normal audience can easy understand each character. Xenk is the exception who represent optimiser understand paladin's full capability (both holy magic and martial power) and like you said, will overshadow others if he overstay his welcome.

[warty goblin]

In fact, I'd love to have a "shapeshifter" class that focused entirely on wild shape and basically got to use it freely (or mostly so).

I do think I'm going to reclassify owlbears as beasts and let my moon druid shift into one if (when) she sees one in game. Their power level isn't so much different than other CR 3 creatures.

My GF, who likes fantasy stuff but doesn't really know D&D, really liked the druid. Person who changes into cool animals to do stuff is a great character concept, and open to all sorts of cool creative uses, which I thought the movie did a great job of showcasing. Also a really flavorful classic fantasy or even folktale sort of feel, shapechange duels are a staple after all. Much more interesting than whether or not they cast Cure Moderate Wounds.

[CMCC]

The game and the movie are not the same thing, or made by the same people, as others have pointed out.

Removing spell casting abilities from 2 characters was the right decision as it would have muddied the waters, interfered with storylines, and gave too many answers to problems that needed more interesting solutions.

[noob]

WOTC will not stop adding spells to everything until there is only magic users.
The magic user team goes to a magic user bar, they talk about spellcraft then they decide it is time to go duel people with their magic the gathering cards while screaming magic and having glowing enchanted haircuts.
This is likely not what people excepted from dnd so a movie derived from it toning down the magic use makes sense.

[Witty Username]

The amount of spells isn’t the issue, it’s the number of slots. If warlock was the default casting chassis I think the game would be much healthier. Hot take admittedly but that’s my opinion on the game

I personally find warlock to be more frustrating, because it is the most likely to directly overshadow a martial. It is not more powerful than say, a sorcerer, but because eldritch blast is just sorta a basic attack but better and they use fighter scaling, it leads to them having more feel bads in play.

A wizard spaming something like hypnotic pattern is very likely much more powerfu, but it forms a relationship, the fighter and the barbarian do damage while the wizard distrupts the opponent and everyone has something to do.

Warlock does both and makes people feel worse over it. If warlock is the new balance point, I would remove eldritch blast.

[Schwann145]

Are people simply of the opinion that D&D is bad for storytelling?
If good storytelling requires stripping D&D down, then that must be the case, right?

Also, if everything is magic, then why isn't that showcased in the depiction of a D&D world? We just saw Faerun in action, and clearly everything was not magic. :smallconfused:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Are people simply of the opinion that D&D is bad for storytelling?
If good storytelling requires stripping D&D down, then that must be the case, right?

Also, if everything is magic, then why isn't that showcased in the depiction of a D&D world? We just saw Faerun in action, and clearly everything was not magic. :smallconfused:

Good MOVIE storytelling requires that. Good GAME storytelling does not, necessarily, require that. What works for movies generally does not work for other media and vice versa.

[Schwann145]

Ehh...

Once again, Harry Potter. Everyone is a spellcaster. Magic is overwhelmingly everywhere. One of the most successful movie franchises ever.
I feel like the, "what works for games doesn't work for movies" is nowhere near as black and white as all that. It's a much more nuanced conversation.
(For example, having the spellcasters all dropping a spell "once a round," or roughly every six seconds? Yeah, that doesn't translate very well at all between mediums. But having the Druid and Bard be spellcasters? Significantly different translation and definitely doable.)

[Zevox]

Ehh...

Once again, Harry Potter. Everyone is a spellcaster. Magic is overwhelmingly everywhere. One of the most successful movie franchises ever.
I feel like the, "what works for games doesn't work for movies" is nowhere near as black and white as all that. It's a much more nuanced conversation.
Magic and wizards being the focus of everything is kind of the whole premise of Harry Potter. It's not with D&D. Magic is present, but only certain people can do it, and you want to have those that can't do it in the story as well, since they're also an important part of the setting. And again, the more different abilities each character displays, the more need for explaining what they can do, the more the movie gets bogged down in exposition, and too much of that is never good for a movie.

[Mastikator]

You can easily do good storytelling in D&D, and D&D does not have a "too many spells" problem, or a "too many spell slot" problem. It has a "people haven't read the Tiers of Play chapter from the DMG" problem, conventional fantasy stories can be told in D&D, in T1. In T2 it slides into Naruto territory where everyone except that weird guy has magic. In T3 you're fighting kaijus as the avengers, in T4 you're fighting gods.

The movie brings some elements from T2 and T3 into an otherwise T1 story. I think that's fair, and I think it's far more important that the movie brings the feel of a really good D&D game than the precise mechanics. Complaining that Ed isn't using magic is giving me the same vibes I got 20 years ago when people on the internet were furious that Legolas was blond in the movie. Give me a break. It's a good D&D movie.

[Amechra]

I personally find warlock to be more frustrating, because it is the most likely to directly overshadow a martial. [...]

Honestly, that's more a result of the Agonizing Blast/Eldritch Blast/Hex package being overtuned for "casual" tables than an actual issue with the Warlock chassis itself.

Given that the 5e Warlock was based off of the playstyle for the 4e Warlock (which was a striker that placed a damage-increasing curse on an enemy 1/encounter and then spammed Eldritch Blast), it's not surprising that the Warlock is a good damage dealer... except that 5e otherwise doesn't really do the whole "this is a heavy damage class, this is a tank class, this is what you play if you want to play support..." thing.

4e's class roles were a stupidly good idea and scrapping them for 5e was a big mistake. Why? Because they meant that designers had to sit down before making a class and go "how does this work well with others?" and "what can't we give this class?"

Because you can justify basically anything with a class fantasy and theme — being able to go "oops, I can't give this spell to the Wizard because it deals more damage than the Rogue can, and dealing BIG DAMAGE is the Rogue's thing" is a useful design tool, and having little buckets to stick stuff into instead of coming up with a set of limitations from scratch every single time is also useful. It also helps when you know what you're getting into when you try a new class — when you pick up the Paladin the game tells you that you're going to be taking hits on the chin and providing openings for your buddies to capitalize on.

It's a shame that the Internet Hate Machine has echo chambered 4e from "decent enough take on the game with good ideas but some poor execution (especially initially — it took them a surprisingly long time to realize that people preferred shorter dynamic fights vs. wailing on a meat sponge, which makes it all the more impressive that they had to relearn that with 5e) and some iffy choices when naming stuff" to "it's the Worst Game Ever, and anything that even vaguely reminds us of it is unclean and must be avoided at all costs". Because you know the dirty secret between the "class roles" with their overly-MMO-y names?


Striker = "plays like you'd expect a rogue to in a fight — assassinating big single targets."
Defender = "plays like you'd expect a fighter to in a fight — fighting on the front line and anchoring the fight."
Leader = "plays like you'd expect a cleric to in a fight — keeping all of these lovable idiots alive."
Controller = "plays like you'd expect a wizard to in a fight — crowd control, AoEs, and debuffs, bay-bee!"


That's literally all they were — they were a way that you could get that sweet "D&D fight" feel despite not having any of the traditional classes in your party. The problem was presentation and (to some extent) the execution (if I remember correctly, Warlocks kinda sucked at their job because they were overly MAD and didn't get good splat support), not the basic premise.

[Unoriginal]

Magic and wizards being the focus of everything is kind of the whole premise of Harry Potter. It's not with D&D. Magic is present, but only certain people can do it, and you want to have those that can't do it in the story as well, since they're also an important part of the setting. And again, the more different abilities each character displays, the more need for explaining what they can do, the more the movie gets bogged down in exposition, and too much of that is never good for a movie.

You don't need much exposition, thoug, if at all.

Ben Kenobi showing he has mind-control powers was demonstrated in one scene and with one sentence to explain the limits afterward. And the fact Force users have telekinesis was never given any exposition, period.

Yet the moments where those powers were shown remain iconic and oft-quoted decades later.

[Rafaelfras]

You can easily do good storytelling in D&D, and D&D does not have a "too many spells" problem, or a "too many spell slot" problem. It has a "people haven't read the Tiers of Play chapter from the DMG" problem, conventional fantasy stories can be told in D&D, in T1. In T2 it slides into Naruto territory where everyone except that weird guy has magic. In T3 you're fighting kaijus as the avengers, in T4 you're fighting gods.

The movie brings some elements from T2 and T3 into an otherwise T1 story. I think that's fair, and I think it's far more important that the movie brings the feel of a really good D&D game than the precise mechanics. Complaining that Ed isn't using magic is giving me the same vibes I got 20 years ago when people on the internet were furious that Legolas was blond in the movie. Give me a break. It's a good D&D movie.

Yeah I agree with some of this.

D&D can do good story telling and this movie is proof of that. Its a good D&D movie and as I said in another post, the bard and the druid not using a spell in this movie doesnt mean it was removed. It can be featured in a sequel, It can be featured in the prequel books (I didnt read them) and all it will mean is that they just choose not use it (Or as it is common on tables forgot they could do it ).

Also I agree that as the game progress DMs and players have to adapt to the growing powers of their characters and dont expect the game continue to be the same as it was in levels 1-4. And I am not even saying you cant do the same stories or some scenarios but dont expect the same outcome. My group is at lvl 17 now. Me as a DM and we as a group dont feel that neither we have too many spell slots or spells know, there are things we can now easly overcome and some other things that we still go the old way either because we dont have or dont want to spend spells on it.

In our last session our go to tavern was attacked by doppelganger bandits, so a robbery, a very T1 conventional story. They tried stealthy, got spotted, tried hostages, opur initiative was higher so we where able to save them, they tried fog to cover up we dispelled it and finally they mixed into the crowd but our monk was able to beat the DC 30 from the doppelganger (who got 19 dice +11 bonus on his hide check) and we where able to capture them. So the outcome was way different because the group now is super powerful ( And I as DM didnt expected anything less from them) and they found super refreshing something mundane after the conclusion of our last campaign. I will throw T4 stuff at then in the near future and they will struggle against that, just not now and I dont expect then to struggle against the more mundane stuff that happens in big cities that are prosperous and dont have much problems (yet) the number of spells/slots is just fine as it is because my expectations are aligned to what T4 characters can do

[False God]

Are people simply of the opinion that D&D is bad for storytelling?
If good storytelling requires stripping D&D down, then that must be the case, right?

Also, if everything is magic, then why isn't that showcased in the depiction of a D&D world? We just saw Faerun in action, and clearly everything was not magic. :smallconfused:

*raises hand* Yes I generally think D&D is bad for storytelling. It puts very little energy into the social and exploration pillar and has a very low roleplay requirement. It has strong roots in wargaming (an inherently non-storytelling style of gameplay) and dungeon-crawling meatgrinders (also not very storytelling). The game is highly random at low levels allowing the dice to negatively impact narrative flow, and overly powerful at high levels allowing the players to easily trump storytelling flow.

I don't think stripping D&D down will make it better for storytelling. It needs substantial building up in the social and exploration pillar and greater limitations (not reductions) on caster versatility.

[Anymage]

Apropos of nothing, the official character stats have 16 -21 HD while the main party tends towards CR 5. What that says about character building and the expected power level for the movie is open for interpretation.

And while the main character being a bard and not having any supernatural powers is a little off, the idea that the druid "isn't magical" because she doesn't show traditional spellcasting and instead uses shapeshifting strikes me as overly fixated on game terms. D&D has a hard time making such liberal shapeshifting a balanced mechanic, but it is both a popular and very magical trope.

[GooeyChewie]

You don't need much exposition, thoug, if at all.

Ben Kenobi showing he has mind-control powers was demonstrated in one scene and with one sentence to explain the limits afterward. And the fact Force users have telekinesis was never given any exposition, period.

Yet the moments where those powers were shown remain iconic and oft-quoted decades later.

I think the difference is that Harry Potter and Star Wars are both soft magic systems, whereas D&D as a game is a very hard magic system. (At least, it is for the players. The DM can soften the magic for enemies, NPCs and the world at large.) If the D&D movie followed all the crunchy bits that make the game a game, then those crunchy bits would need explanation. HP and SW don’t have those crunchy bits in the first place, which is why they can get away with little to no exposition on how their systems operate.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the difference is that Harry Potter and Star Wars are both soft magic systems, whereas D&D as a game is a very hard magic system. (At least, it is for the players. The DM can soften the magic for enemies, NPCs and the world at large.) If the D&D movie followed all the crunchy bits that make the game a game, then those crunchy bits would need explanation. HP and SW don’t have those crunchy bits in the first place, which is why they can get away with little to no exposition on how their systems operate.

Agreed. Especially such things as spell slots and spell levels. "No, I can't cast that spell because I've already cast N other spells of that level today".


The big bad casts at least 2 9th level spells in that last battle--time stop and what was surely the worst-aimed meteor swarm ever.

[Dork_Forge]

I think the difference is that Harry Potter and Star Wars are both soft magic systems, whereas D&D as a game is a very hard magic system. (At least, it is for the players. The DM can soften the magic for enemies, NPCs and the world at large.) If the D&D movie followed all the crunchy bits that make the game a game, then those crunchy bits would need explanation. HP and SW don’t have those crunchy bits in the first place, which is why they can get away with little to no exposition on how their systems operate.

I mostly agree with this, but would say HP is a soft system masquerading as a hard magic system. There are rules, and they are expositioned through the tool of Harry being smuggle raised and going through magic school, however, her story telling is basically introducing new magic to solve problems when needed.

I think dnd magic can work, you just have to show the types of magic each can cast, but it does add more work for the movie makers.

[Unoriginal]

I think the difference is that Harry Potter and Star Wars are both soft magic systems, whereas D&D as a game is a very hard magic system. (At least, it is for the players. The DM can soften the magic for enemies, NPCs and the world at large.) If the D&D movie followed all the crunchy bits that make the game a game, then those crunchy bits would need explanation. HP and SW don’t have those crunchy bits in the first place, which is why they can get away with little to no exposition on how their systems operate.


Agreed. Especially such things as spell slots and spell levels. "No, I can't cast that spell because I've already cast N other spells of that level today".


But you don't need to show/explain all the crunchy bits.

They could have a joke about spell slots too, if they wanted, but that's neither there nor there.

Point is, if they had the Bard do some signature Bard magic, they wouldn't had to do more than a line of exposition, and there would have been no problem time-wise or cluttering-the-scenes-wise

It's a choice they made when they had room to do something else. It is not adapting around an obstacle out of necessity

[PhoenixPhyre]

But you don't need to show/explain all the crunchy bits.

They could have a joke about spell slots too, if they wanted, but that's neither there nor there.

Point is, if they had the Bard do some signature Bard magic, they wouldn't had to do more than a line of exposition, and there would have been no problem time-wise or cluttering-the-scenes-wise

It's a choice they made when they had room to do something else. It is not adapting around an obstacle out of necessity

They didn't have to, sure. Nothing was done out of necessity. But I'd say that the more you lean on the exact game mechanics, the more you make it feel like a game. And the more background you need as a viewer to really figure it out. They wanted to avoid making it a "fan movie" (ie a movie designed for those who are already hardcore D&D folks, full of in-jokes and references you'd need to know the game to figure out). And said as much. The more you lean into the mechanics, the more likely that becomes.

And as far as "signature Bard magic"...I'm struggling to come up with any in universe or in the game. Especially that doesn't require a heavy knowledge of D&D to know that it's signature. The signature bard ability is Bardic Inspiration, not magic anyway. Bards have always been a weird fit as a full caster, especially one that steals spells from everyone else. Having the bard cast spells would be really really easy to confuse with the sorcerer casting spells, conflating the archetypal roles of the two characters. Especially in what's intrinsically a heist movie, where hard roles are kinda expected. The Bard is the face, the barbarian is the muscle, the druid is the infiltrator and backup muscle, and the sorcerer is the tech guy. In a heist movie, if the Face is pulling out the gatling guns, something's gone horribly wrong with the design of things.


Additionally, one of the major themes was that the party was bad at adventuring and especially combat. There's even a line to that effect, aimed at the paladin. That's very intentional. And, I think, well done. They're designed to be a party that wins by trickery and fast thinking, not an optimized combat machine.

Another strong theme that would have been ruined by most people casting spells as their primary interaction was that magic can't solve all the problems. That it's up to people to solve problems by thinking and acting, not relying on spells. And if 3/4 of the party were all about spells, especially at the levels needed to really represent going up against an archmage-style caster, then that message goes out the window. All the plot tension goes away when you've got a group of T4 characters with 3 full casters in that plot.

[Unoriginal]

The signature bard ability is Bardic Inspiration, not magic anyway.

Bardic Inspiration isn't a spell, but it's magic.



Having the bard cast spells would be really really easy to confuse with the sorcerer casting spells, conflating the archetypal roles of the two characters. Especially in what's intrinsically a heist movie, where hard roles are kinda expected. The Bard is the face, the barbarian is the muscle, the druid is the infiltrator and backup muscle, and the sorcerer is the tech guy. In a heist movie, if the Face is pulling out the gatling guns, something's gone horribly wrong with the design of things.

Bard spells do not have to be gatling guns.



They're designed to be a party that wins by trickery and fast thinking, not an optimized combat machine.

Yeah, because Bard spells having anything to do with

trickery

is just out of the question.



Another strong theme that would have been ruined by most people casting spells as their primary interaction was that magic can't solve all the problems. That it's up to people to solve problems by thinking and acting, not relying on spells.


But... using powers you have is thinking and acting. And spells are cast by people.

"Magic will solves all the problems anyway, let's not do anything" does not work, but "magic can't solve a problem, people need to do it" does not work either.

Also it's not a question of "primary interaction". It's just that Bards have always used *some* magic in D&D, so they could have shown the Bard use *some* magic to reinforce he's a Bard.

Even if it was just playing the luth to make someone else succeed a task better.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Do they even ever call the "Bard" a bard on-camera (like they do with the druid and sorcerer)? And even if they did, why should we presume that means he has PC class levels in Bard?

In-universe, someone called a bard might be anything along the lines of any of
a) a completely non-magical regular guy who plays an instrument
b) a vaguely shady character (sorta-kinda-rogue-like) guy who plays instruments (which totally fits that character)
c) a cleric (or priest, not all clergy are clerics) of a music-associated deity
d) an actual PC-class Bard
e) or beyond

"PC Bards cast spells and do flashy magic, therefore someone who plays an instrument must be a Bard and cast spells and do flashy magic" is, well, just not very well founded. Classes are NOT a world-thing. They're a game-level thing, designed for player convenience. And PC power sets (and the whole instrumentation around those) is a game-level conceit, not a world-level conceit. And this was a world-level movie, not a game-level movie.

[tokek]

Bardic Inspiration isn't a spell, but it's magic.



I'd say he was using bardic inspiration a lot in that film. Eloquence bard style.

But really I think this misses the point - which is that it captures the spirit of the game as experienced by players. It has the goofy energy of a really fun campaign where you have a real mix of players.

You have the fun player who always brings snacks, always has loads of ideas on the night but who is just never going to read the rulebook or learn the spells. They picked the class because it looked cool and fun, without ever reading the rules.

A player who wants their character to suffer, to have angst, to have lots of difficult character growth. So they have to fail a lot before they can be awesome and powerful

A player who loved part of their chosen class and dives deep into making the absolute most of that aspect but regularly forgets another whole part of the class. And when they do remember its the one it can't work. They never bother trying again because the campaign is nearly over anyway.

And the player who just wanted a classic fantasy character who is simple and fun to play and who is living their best game life

Then there is their good friend who is usually out of town but managed to make a couple of sessions. This is the one player who reads forums like this, who checks out optimisation guides. They sort of overshadow the rest of the players but everyone is cool about it - but honestly not that super-upset when they get dragged out of town on business again and they can return to their usual goofy bad plans that make the DM chuckle

Its a good expression of the fun experience of playing the game, not an accurate representation of any particular edition of the rules. It really is how a lot of casual games are run, if not how players who hang around here normally play. We are typically a bunch of

Xenk Yendar players

[Dork_Forge]

Do they even ever call the "Bard" a bard on-camera (like they do with the druid and sorcerer)? And even if they did, why should we presume that means he has PC class levels in Bard?


Because it's a D&D movie that focuses on a band of adventurers? It's the natural assumption.

[GooeyChewie]

Bardic Inspiration isn't a spell, but it's magic.


There were several moments in the movie that my buddy or I turned to the other and said “I’m pretty sure he used Bardic Inspiration.” They just didn’t grind the movie to a halt to point it out.

[Unoriginal]

There were several moments in the movie that my buddy or I turned to the other and said “I’m pretty sure he used Bardic Inspiration.” They just didn’t grind the movie to a halt to point it out.

That's good, no need for more.

Thanks for informing me of that.

[tieren]

I thought they went out of their way to include mechanical pieces for players in a way that wouldn't disrupt the narrative of the story.


1. The sorcerer's component pouch.
2. The sorcerer downplaying the reverse gravity spell as wild magic without feeling a need to explain what that meant
3. A slingshot breaking the wizard's concentration to stop the animated statue without explaining concentration was a thing.
4. Line of sight issues with Arcane Gate
5. The barbarian raging without stooping to the "you won't like her when shes angry" line

[Willowhelm]

I thought they went out of their way to include mechanical pieces for players in a way that wouldn't disrupt the narrative of the story.


1. The sorcerer's component pouch.
2. The sorcerer downplaying the reverse gravity spell as wild magic without feeling a need to explain what that meant
3. A slingshot breaking the wizard's concentration to stop the animated statue without explaining concentration was a thing.
4. Line of sight issues with Arcane Gate
5. The barbarian raging without stooping to the "you won't like her when shes angry" line


About 5… how many rages per day? Where is all the outrage about the barbarian over using their abilities? Or is it just the Druid that has to conform to their viewer-decided class limitations do you think?

[Draconi Redfir]

Agreed. Especially such things as spell slots and spell levels. "No, I can't cast that spell because I've already cast N other spells of that level today".


The big bad casts at least 2 9th level spells in that last battle--time stop and what was surely the worst-aimed meteor swarm ever.


i've always had a similar complaint to this in that Spells as they are are very limited in what you can do. you can only do something if there is a spesific spell for that task.

You can make a fireball, a floating disk, a giant hand, a lightning bolt, But what if i want to make a sculpture of Will Smith out of water and have it walk around inside of a cube?

Why can't my magical wizard character have various tomes, writing utensils, and his tea all floating around him, drifting to and from their destination's as he pleases?


Like it just feels really limiting. you can have a million different spells, but if you want to do something that explicitly isn't doable with any of them? Simply can't do it.

I don't know what the solution would be, but something more flexible would be nice. Something less like "these are the spells you can cast" and more like "this is how much strength you have and the elements / effects you have to work with. combine those and determine how difficult they would be depending on the situation" or something.

[Schwann145]

Do they even ever call the "Bard" a bard on-camera (like they do with the druid and sorcerer)? And even if they did, why should we presume that means he has PC class levels in Bard?

In-universe, someone called a bard might be anything along the lines of any of
a) a completely non-magical regular guy who plays an instrument
b) a vaguely shady character (sorta-kinda-rogue-like) guy who plays instruments (which totally fits that character)
c) a cleric (or priest, not all clergy are clerics) of a music-associated deity
d) an actual PC-class Bard
e) or beyond

"PC Bards cast spells and do flashy magic, therefore someone who plays an instrument must be a Bard and cast spells and do flashy magic" is, well, just not very well founded. Classes are NOT a world-thing. They're a game-level thing, designed for player convenience. And PC power sets (and the whole instrumentation around those) is a game-level conceit, not a world-level conceit. And this was a world-level movie, not a game-level movie.

Because this is the D&D movie, not the Forgotten Realms movie, or the generic fantasy movie.
Also, because when the producers, and directors, and actors are all telling me over and over again that X character is a Bard (and I understand what a Bard is through a D&D lens), I tend to believe them.

[Jophiel]

I saw the movie tonight and enjoyed it. It had enough D&D things for me to regularly be "That's a..." or "That's because..." without feeling like I needed character sheets in front of me. I didn't really care about the bard & druid not casting. There was a moment where the bard's music was important to a plan and some Inspiring moments and that was good enough for me. We already threw out druid rules with the owlbear so whatever. Her bajillion shapechanges were in the service of entertaining cinema and I felt like it worked. I mean, I didn't think it was a fantastic movie but I thought it was worth my couple hours and an evening out of the house. Not as great as I might have hoped but far better than I feared.

More importantly, perhaps, is that my non-D&D playing wife also enjoyed the film and said that she liked it before I had the chance to ask.


I did dislike the "So can I woo you now?" bit at the end since the two had zero chemistry and the movie didn't even really try. "I tried to date her once and she said I made her sad" was enough to establish that he's a yutz without trying to shoehorn it into an actual plot point in the final seconds of the film. It just felt like "Here's two young people of different genders so I guess we gotta make it a romance thing"

So... is the Underdark just flooded now or what?

[Witty Username]

In-universe, someone called a bard might be anything along the lines of any of
a) a completely non-magical regular guy who plays an instrument
b) a vaguely shady character (sorta-kinda-rogue-like) guy who plays instruments (which totally fits that character)
c) a cleric (or priest, not all clergy are clerics) of a music-associated deity
d) an actual PC-class Bard
e) or beyond


So, the bard is never referred to as a bard in the movie, so my point will be kinda moot but:
That isn't how terms are used in the movie
- sorcerer and wizard are discussed as separate things (the sorcerer is a sorcerer from a family of wizards)
- druid and wild shape are specifically called out by name, as a thing druids are known to do

So bard isnt an abstract thing from the movie's perspective. The classes are recognized in the world as those things with specific abilities.

If they didn't use the terms, that would be fine, but that isn't how the movie goes about it.

My solve is they never bring it up, I would presume next session the bard would be asked by the DM if he would be happier with thief rogue.

[Amechra]

I honestly approve of this decision — while both the Bard and Druid are magical, D&D spellcasting has always been an awkward fit for their class fantasies, since they're more about being magic than using magic.

If you look at the meme!Bard and the meme!Druid, you're wildly unlikely to see them cast leveled spells (I draw that line because the meme!Bard loves to cast Vicious Mockery). As far as pop culture is concerned, Bards run around using bardic inspiration and high Charisma to get in and out of trouble, while Druids are all wildshape and Disney Princess-style "nature loves me!", with spells maybe getting mentioned sometimes? Contrast this with the other full casters, whose meme versions all cast spells as their defining "thing" (and even then, the spells that meme!Casters cast generally don't have much to do with what "optimal" casters cast — meme!Clerics cast healing spells all the time, while meme!Sorcerers/Wizards tend to be blasters with an unhealthy love for Fireball).

A more "pop culture D&D"-accurate Bard would probably just be a skill monkey class that gets to use Charisma skills in more and more improbable ways as it levels up, while the Druid would just be Shapeshifter McShapeshifterson with the ability to speak to and befriend animals (and eventually plants/the spirits of inanimate terrain features) as a default thing that they can just do all the time.

(And before you scoff and go "well those are just ignorant internet peasants who are not familiar with the rules for 5e"... yes, that's kinda the thing. I've played with plenty of people who sat down to play a Bard and immediately ran into problems because they tried to play it like a meme bard and ignored their spellcasting or assumed that it had "weak spellcasting", despite the Bard being a full caster).

...

Long story short — if they made the movie and tried to make the Bard and Druid "rules accurate" and focused on their spellcasting, they wouldn't have felt right. It's like how you essentially have to make the Wizard a dude in a robe, because a Hobgoblin Iron Wizard isn't part of the mental image that the meme!Wizard conjures up. If you did go with the Iron Wizard, you'd make a few dozen people in the audience smile at the reference and confuse everyone else (who would probably go "is there some kind of arcane paladin class I don't know about?" or something to that effect).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I honestly approve of this decision — while both the Bard and Druid are magical, D&D spellcasting has always been an awkward fit for their class fantasies, since they're more about being magic than using magic.

If you look at the meme!Bard and the meme!Druid, you're wildly unlikely to see them cast leveled spells (I draw that line because the meme!Bard loves to cast Vicious Mockery). As far as pop culture is concerned, Bards run around using bardic inspiration and high Charisma to get in and out of trouble, while Druids are all wildshape and Disney Princess-style "nature loves me!", with spells maybe getting mentioned sometimes? Contrast this with the other full casters, whose meme versions all cast spells as their defining "thing" (and even then, the spells that meme!Casters cast generally don't have much to do with what "optimal" casters cast — meme!Clerics cast healing spells all the time, while meme!Sorcerers/Wizards tend to be blasters with an unhealthy love for Fireball).

A more "pop culture D&D"-accurate Bard would probably just be a skill monkey class that gets to use Charisma skills in more and more improbable ways as it levels up, while the Druid would just be Shapeshifter McShapeshifterson with the ability to speak to and befriend animals (and eventually plants/the spirits of inanimate terrain features) as a default thing that they can just do all the time.

(And before you scoff and go "well those are just ignorant internet peasants who are not familiar with the rules for 5e"... yes, that's kinda the thing. I've played with plenty of people who sat down to play a Bard and immediately ran into problems because they tried to play it like a meme bard and ignored their spellcasting or assumed that it had "weak spellcasting", despite the Bard being a full caster).

...

Long story short — if they made the movie and tried to make the Bard and Druid "rules accurate" and focused on their spellcasting, they wouldn't have felt right. It's like how you essentially have to make the Wizard a dude in a robe, because a Hobgoblin Iron Wizard isn't part of the mental image that the meme!Wizard conjures up. If you did go with the Iron Wizard, you'd make a few dozen people in the audience smile at the reference and confuse everyone else (who would probably go "is there some kind of arcane paladin class I don't know about?" or something to that effect).

I strongly agree with all of this. And have experienced the same things when playing with new players (which I do frequently). Especially with druids, who are almost uniformly moon subclass and focus on wild shape until they have more experience and start to grok spells.

Magic =/= spells. Spells are one, fairly minor form of magic in a lot of people's eyes. It's only D&D fanatics, in my experience, who conflate the two or give spells primacy.

[Witty Username]

I can get some of that with bard, it being a full caster is still a pretty recent thing, and even alot of media based on d&d goes with something closer to the AD&D bard, which was a lot less caster, or magic in general.

Druid less so, since them being a shapechanger is kinda only a d&d thing (well and Warcraft)

[Tanarii]

meme!Druid
I usually see Druid thought of as a Beastmaster (aka the 80s movie) more than a shapeshifter. Still not casting "spells" in a VSM way, but plenty of animal communicating / seeing through their eyes / calling them from afar to help fight. Otoh I don't follow D&D specific memes that closely, because they're far too focused on post-3e/World of Warcraft Druids. But I can't tell you how many brand new players I've had confused by Druids being shapeshifters, while not having an Animal companion option.

Personally I'd be happy if they dropped Wildshape entirely and focused on two facets of Druidism: the hippy animal friend and the destructive elementalist

[Schwann145]

I honestly approve of this decision — while both the Bard and Druid are magical, D&D spellcasting has always been an awkward fit for their class fantasies, since they're more about being magic than using magic.

If you look at the meme!Bard and the meme!Druid, you're wildly unlikely to see them cast leveled spells (I draw that line because the meme!Bard loves to cast Vicious Mockery). As far as pop culture is concerned, Bards run around using bardic inspiration and high Charisma to get in and out of trouble, while Druids are all wildshape and Disney Princess-style "nature loves me!", with spells maybe getting mentioned sometimes? Contrast this with the other full casters, whose meme versions all cast spells as their defining "thing" (and even then, the spells that meme!Casters cast generally don't have much to do with what "optimal" casters cast — meme!Clerics cast healing spells all the time, while meme!Sorcerers/Wizards tend to be blasters with an unhealthy love for Fireball).

A more "pop culture D&D"-accurate Bard would probably just be a skill monkey class that gets to use Charisma skills in more and more improbable ways as it levels up, while the Druid would just be Shapeshifter McShapeshifterson with the ability to speak to and befriend animals (and eventually plants/the spirits of inanimate terrain features) as a default thing that they can just do all the time.

(And before you scoff and go "well those are just ignorant internet peasants who are not familiar with the rules for 5e"... yes, that's kinda the thing. I've played with plenty of people who sat down to play a Bard and immediately ran into problems because they tried to play it like a meme bard and ignored their spellcasting or assumed that it had "weak spellcasting", despite the Bard being a full caster).

...

Long story short — if they made the movie and tried to make the Bard and Druid "rules accurate" and focused on their spellcasting, they wouldn't have felt right. It's like how you essentially have to make the Wizard a dude in a robe, because a Hobgoblin Iron Wizard isn't part of the mental image that the meme!Wizard conjures up. If you did go with the Iron Wizard, you'd make a few dozen people in the audience smile at the reference and confuse everyone else (who would probably go "is there some kind of arcane paladin class I don't know about?" or something to that effect).

Not sure how you could come to this conclusion about either the Bard or the Druid, tbh.

Bard has gone through a lot of changes over the years, certainly, but one thing it has always been is a spellcaster. Whether it's casting as a Druid, or "picking things up along the way" like a budget-variety Wizard, or taps into some intrinsic power of the universe related to sound or Words of Power or what have you, it has always been a spellcaster. Being a full caster is new to the current edition, but it's worth noting that this is the direction the company has taken the Bard, and it would be very strange for the company, trying to promote their game, to use outdated sources for character inspiration.
As it stands, the Bard is as much of a primary spellcaster as a Wizard or Sorcerer, and having that character have zero spellcasting feels very very weird.

The Druid has also always been a spellcaster. Whether we're talking about when it was simply an example of what you could do as a "specialty Priest" or when it has had it's own class mechanics separate from Priest/Cleric, regardless it has always been a primary spellcaster. What Druids haven't always been is shapeshifters. That has been only part of their history.
Regardless, the Druid as it exists today, which is what is relevant, is a spellcaster in no uncertain terms. However, this portrayal is less egregious than the Bard because "Moon subclass" Druids do tend to ignore their casting in favor of their Wild Shape.
What's unfortunate for the portrayal of the Druid is that they still relied on magic to solve the problem(s) - they just opted to significantly improve her Wild Shaping ability and cut her spellcasting ability entirely out. Regardless, it's still magic solving the day. IMO, it would have been nice to see a Druid spell or two thrown instead of 100% reliance on shapeshifting that should have been well beyond her means, but that's a personal gripe.


Personally I'd be happy if they dropped Wildshape entirely and focused on two facets of Druidism: the hippy animal friend and the destructive elementalist

Would be nice! Let someone else be the dedicated shapeshifter so it isn't stuck playing second fiddle to the more primary Druid-y theme.

[Segev]

I'll just throw out there that Doric must've been a level 18 Moon Druid, but nothing says only Bards can play musical instruments.

The movie was legitimately good, D&D or not, and despite some definite differences in mechanics (attunement is portrayed as difficult, for example), it captured the feeling of it in this medium.

The barbarian and bard were particularly not really representing their classes so much as narrative archetypes that vaguely shared some parts of the Venn Diagram. "Strong warrior" and "clever leader." Where "clever" may or may not deserve scare quotes, Depending on the circumstances.

[Lucas Yew]

Or make 6E Druid an even more dedicated Wild Shaper, ditching slot spells some or all.

The movie showcased and convinced me that the WS feature by itself can scale well into T3+ campaigns...

---

Anyway, the movie was indeed surprisingly good, albeit because of its good quality it added even more fuel to my personal rage against Hasbro's T$R movement early this year...

[Amechra]

Not sure how you could come to this conclusion about either the Bard

I've gotten this impression from all the D&D-related memeing I've seen over the past 15-ish years I've been into this hobby, from stuff like Gamers: Dorkness Rising to the stuff I see people post on Twitter (and TikTok, thanks to having some friends who use it). :smalltongue:

In that context (which is essentially D&D's pop culture), people usually emphasize the Bard's musical and social skills (and horniness) and very rarely bring up them explicitly casting a spell. Heck, I can think of quite a few examples of jokes that more-or-less hinge on the Bard benefiting from Glibness where the emphasis is on the Bard just being a good liar by default (like the classic "I am the moon!" "He is the moon!" gag from back in 3e).

I've seen more proposals for meme parties consisting of a bunch of half-humans tracking down their Bard father for alimony payments (that's a surprisingly old joke) than I've seen memes acknowledging that Bards can cast spells other than Vicious Mockery.

And, again, that might not be accurate to the Bard-as-written-in-the-rulebook, but that's not what someone making a D&D movie is aiming for. They're aiming for something that feels like D&D, which means that they're going to be looking at how people talk about D&D first and the books second.

[tokek]

My solve is they never bring it up, I would presume next session the bard would be asked by the DM if he would be happier with thief rogue.

Oh totally. The DM would be like

"Hey that was a really fun campaign but I've noticed you still don't know what any of your spells do and never use them. Maybe a full caster class is just not for you, I will give you a change into rogue class without any penalty, I think it fits your character and you will be happier playing it"

Any long term DM has had that conversation sometime.

[tokek]

Bard has gone through a lot of changes over the years, certainly, but one thing it has always been is a spellcaster. Whether it's casting as a Druid, or "picking things up along the way" like a budget-variety Wizard, or taps into some intrinsic power of the universe related to sound or Words of Power or what have you, it has always been a spellcaster. Being a full caster is new to the current edition, but it's worth noting that this is the direction the company has taken the Bard, and it would be very strange for the company, trying to promote their game, to use outdated sources for character inspiration.
As it stands, the Bard is as much of a primary spellcaster as a Wizard or Sorcerer, and having that character have zero spellcasting feels very very weird.

.

I am that mad lad who actually tried to play a 1e Bard back in the day. Theoretically they were a spellcaster but that only came in after you had at least 10 levels combined in Fighter and --Rogue-- Thief. The character in the film is exactly as useless as my Bard felt for pretty much the whole campaign - which of course ran out of energy and died before he ever got proper bard magic to play with.

Plus the central fact of the character is he is terrible at everything, he's a complete loser. That's the point. Even he says it.

[Segev]

The bard character in the movie is the high-charisma, leader-of-the-party type. He gives inspirational speeches, he makes plans and convinces people to follow him and those plans, he puts together the team, and he serves as the party face. Most of this is wrapped up in high Charisma and a couple of proficiencies, in 5e. There is one point where it looked to me like he'd...

...cast enthrall, but it's revealed a few moments later that it's actually JUST a distracting major image, cast by a different character.

This was, I think, a missed opportunity for playing across a nearly-invisible D&D mechanic, but they did turn it into a humorous moment and it still did more or less what it needed to.

It should be noted that the barbarian doesn't ever really exhibit "rage." She's violent, but she's frank and nonchalant about it rather than having an obvious "blargle" moment. In fact, for the first 20-30 minutes of the movie, I wasn't sure what she was supposed to be; I was thinking "strength monk" based on how she fought until she picked up a battleaxe and I caught the second mention of her "leaving the Elk tribe" as part of her backstory, and it finally registered.

The Paladin behaves like you'd expect a pre-4e paladin to if he were actually living up to the LG paragon image, and he has an obviously holy sword. He also exhibits an ability to detect evil, once. The only other magic he does, I can't identify as a Paladin spell or class feature, but is clearly meant to show he has mystical "saintly" type powers. He definitely doesn't have a holy steed. He is also a hilarious straight man.

The sorcerer is perhaps the closest to being represented solidly as matching mechanics. He has what is probably a spell component pouch that is a neat bit of creative innovation by the props and direction departments. By one brief line, we eventually learn he's a Wild Magic sorcerer, which explains several things that happen when he tries to cast magic. He's got confidence issues and is noted to be "a terrible sorcerer" several times; it sounds like he's got a low Charisma and yet is a Sorcerer, so that tracks, though of his problems casting, only one instance can be attributed to that if you adhere to mechanics rather than extending it to other storytelling.

The druid only ever wild shapes, and she wild shapes seemingly at will. Arguably, she might cast magic stone, because she uses a wrist-mounted sling as her weapon when in tiefling form. They do a reasonable job of very quickly encapsulating the typical tiefling backstory into hers, and then bringing it up at only appropriate moments later on as they define aspects of her reactions. But if she's mechanically faithful, she's (a) at least 18th level and a moon druid, and (b) the DM let her fluff her bear form as an owlbear, and (c) her player is criminally underusing her spellcasting, as she never once obviously casts a spell (unless she's lower level and some of her shapeshifting was actually casting polymorph).


Overall, you couldn't really play a module or campaign the way these characters were represented, not with 5e rules, but it was closer than I've seen in most fiction about D&D. They definitely were going for making the PCs seem lower level/underdog-ish compared to the villains.

The primary antagonist casts time stop, so we know she's at least 17th level. She also detects the druid in Wild Shape, which I can't identify her power she used for that. No spell I know of, and she isn't a Warlock. My best guess is that she passed a Perception check to determine that there was something in the room that wasn't "right," an arcana check to identify that she was hearing a spying form, and got lucky in saying it was a wild shape and not a familiar. Then she probably cast true seeing and that's how she recognized the druid for the rest of that chase scene.

The druid is what I think they took the most liberties with, since I doubt she's supposed to be 4th tier. (I will also say that her forms were way, way more useful than the UA generic stat blobs would make them. Just saying. :smalltongue:)

From a storytelling and characterization standpoint, it was just plain a good movie. If you didn't know it was a D&D movie, and had no idea what D&D or the Forgotten Realms were, you'd think it was a pretty decent generic fantasy movie. At least, that's my assessment, corroborated by the fact that my brother, who doesn't know D&D except peripherally through my mentioning of things, thought it was a good movie. Not "good for a D&D movie," but actually "quite good."

[Unoriginal]

She also detects the druid in Wild Shape, which I can't identify her power she used for that. No spell I know of, and she isn't a Warlock.

Liches have 120ft of truesight.

[Segev]

Liches have 120ft of truesight.

That would do it, yes! Weird that she sensed it before she could point it out, but that's just dramatic timing, I suspect.

[Witty Username]

From a storytelling and characterization standpoint, it was just plain a good movie. If you didn't know it was a D&D movie, and had no idea what D&D or the Forgotten Realms were, you'd think it was a pretty decent generic fantasy movie. At least, that's my assessment, corroborated by the fact that my brother, who doesn't know D&D except peripherally through my mentioning of things, thought it was a good movie. Not "good for a D&D movie," but actually "quite good."

I think Honor Amongst Thieves, is better than the average MCU movie certainly, and I did enjoy it. I think we are a bit low on high fantasy movies (the last one I recall is the Hobbit movies, but that feels wrong) so that we got one at all feels good. I feel like it was enjoyable but not great.

Then again I may just prefer longer form storytelling at this point, all my preferred stuff is TV shows at this point.

[Segev]

I think Honor Amongst Thieves, is better than the average MCU movie certainly, and I did enjoy it. I think we are a bit low on high fantasy movies (the last one I recall is the Hobbit movies, but that feels wrong) so that we got one at all feels good. I feel like it was enjoyable but not great.

Then again I may just prefer longer form storytelling at this point, all my preferred stuff is TV shows at this point.

A lot of TV and even movies these days seem to be adaptations of printed works. I think the longer form of a streamable series or miniseries does a lot better at adapting such things, and movies tend to suffer from trying to compress too much into the time they have.

Honor Among Thieves is a wholly original story written specifically to be a movie, which is, I think, to its benefit in terms of being able to deliver all of its content in a well-packaged way.

[warty goblin]

It should be noted that the barbarian doesn't ever really exhibit "rage." She's violent, but she's frank and nonchalant about it rather than having an obvious "blargle" moment. In fact, for the first 20-30 minutes of the movie, I wasn't sure what she was supposed to be; I was thinking "strength monk" based on how she fought until she picked up a battleaxe and I caught the second mention of her "leaving the Elk tribe" as part of her backstory, and it finally registered.


I liked the lack of blargle rage, but I've never really found the D&D barbarian to be a good rendition of the trope. The S&S barbarians its sort of pulling from aren't generally defined by crazed rage fits, and if anything are generally more cunning warriors than the Hulk. Viking berserker are generally a stock bad guy, not a hero, probably because even in a society as insanely violent as that, uncontrollable killing fury is not a desirable personality trait.

Which I think segues into a broader point, namely D&D classes are really weird, extremely limiting, and often do not jive with standard character concepts from the wider world of fantasy media. D&D classes aren't great at emulatin characters from fantasy novels 30 years ago, and given how the field has evolved are completely hopeless now. Films and TV are a bit more conservative, but still pretty far away from D&D. Videogames are closer, but videogames generally suck at stories, and are also generally either more flexible in their building options, or else have set protagonist abilities that D&D is going to struggle to emulate.

This doesn't mean that D&D classes are bad for D&D the tabletop RPG. It means they are bad for things that aren't D&D the tabletop RPG. So they are flinging to get changed when D&D is adapted to other things, and this isn't new. The books have changed stuff since pretty much forever, the videogames have changed stuff, even (so help me God I've watched all of them) the previous movies changed stuff.

So yeah, when translated to a modern big budget film, stuff gets changed. This is good because it results in a better, more watchable movie. As I said upthread, my non- D&D literate GF really liked the druid, because turning into animals is awesome and inventive and feels really magical and is a clearly and vividly distinct power from everybody else's. After that sequence, it not being true to the class is a bigger ding on the class than the movie in my book.

Similarly, you really can't go giving the protagonist mind altering or controlling magic, because everywhere outside of RPGs (and even in a lot of RPGs) that's a bad guy power. Ditto uncontrolled berserk rage, particularly on a character who needs to be sympathetic. A whole lot of stuff reads very differently in a movie that takes place entirely inside the secondary world than it does as a fun combat challenge around the kitchen table with your friends.

[Unoriginal]

Similarly, you really can't go giving the protagonist mind altering or controlling magic, because everywhere outside of RPGs (and even in a lot of RPGs) that's a bad guy power.


https://youtu.be/532j-186xEQ

Should have known the old bearded wizard was a bad guy.

[Amnestic]

Should have known the old bearded wizard was a bad guy.

Well yeah, he's a wizard.

[Psyren]

I think "rage = blargle/loss of control" is a very narrow conception of that ability. If you want your Barbarians to only work that way, that's fine, but mine are trained warriors, they're not frothing and lashing out at random.

[False God]

I think "rage = blargle/loss of control" is a very narrow conception of that ability. If you want your Barbarians to only work that way, that's fine, but mine are trained warriors, they're not frothing and lashing out at random.

Not to mention I've seen examples of this being used against the player, that they are so uncontrollable while "raging" the DM mandates they start attacking their comrades. This is of course no more called out than requiring a paladin to be lawful stupid in any edition, but the presentation is very important.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think "rage = blargle/loss of control" is a very narrow conception of that ability. If you want your Barbarians to only work that way, that's fine, but mine are trained warriors, they're not frothing and lashing out at random.


Not to mention I've seen examples of this being used against the player, that they are so uncontrollable while "raging" the DM mandates they start attacking their comrades. This is of course no more called out than requiring a paladin to be lawful stupid in any edition, but the presentation is very important.

I agree with both of those. Rage isn't a total loss of control, even for a Berserker Barbarian who is using Frenzy. At least not by default. It's not described as such anywhere.

Another case where people read into abilities stuff that isn't there. Usually to the detriment of non flashy magic and to the benefit of flashy magic. Stupid psychology...:smallsmile:

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I would also point out that when she gets into bigger fights, specifically the two times against groups, her screams become a lot louder and more punctuated and tend to result in her bodily tossing people around one handed. I think that's every bit as much showing of raging as Grogg's bigger points in Vox Machina.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would also point out that when she gets into bigger fights, specifically the two times against groups, her screams become a lot louder and more punctuated and tend to result in her bodily tossing people around one handed. I think that's every bit as much showing of raging as Grogg's bigger points in Vox Machina.

And she takes quite a bit of punishment and shrugs it off and keeps going. All in all, I think it worked very much as "I'm raging" if you knew that that was a barbarian thing. And if you didn't, it didn't shove mechanics in your face. For a movie aimed at a broad audience, I think that's the right decision.

[Segev]

I think "rage = blargle/loss of control" is a very narrow conception of that ability. If you want your Barbarians to only work that way, that's fine, but mine are trained warriors, they're not frothing and lashing out at random.

While I'm generally fine with that, my point was that there is no time where I could definitively say, "Holga was using her Rage class feature, there." Maybe she was? Maybe she wasn't? Hard to tell. And a feature like "Rage" sounds like something you should be able to recognize kicking into gear.

This isn't a criticism of the movie, either, just a comment.

[Psyren]

I get that, but personally - unless the rage is tied to something explicit and visually overt like Rune Knight's size change or Storm Herald's aura, I don't think how apparent the binary state is to outside observers is all that important. Does that introduce a bit of ambiguity to some fight scenes, sure, but does it detract from any of them either, for me at least the answer is no.

As a counterexample, we have Legend of Vox Machina where Grog yells that he's raging every single time he does - not only is that on the cartoony side even for him, and definitely would not fit with Holga's much more measured take on the class, it also more readily invites ludonarrative dissonance/"plothole" accusations. For example, how Grog ended up dominated during his rage when fighting the Briarwoods when his rage is supposed to make him immune to that.

[Hurrashane]

Just occurred to me, still haven't seen the movie - got tickets for tomorrow, that the druid could just be using all her spell slots to heal herself when shaped.

Not the most optimal use of them, but if I wanted to play a druid who shapeshifts and nothing but that's how I'd use them.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

While I'm generally fine with that, my point was that there is no time where I could definitively say, "Holga was using her Rage class feature, there." Maybe she was? Maybe she wasn't? Hard to tell. And a feature like "Rage" sounds like something you should be able to recognize kicking into gear.

This isn't a criticism of the movie, either, just a comment.

Fighting the Guards where she obtains her axe she launches herself through the air at distances only Doric ever manages as a beast, grabs people in Platemail by one hand and tosses them like rag dolls. That reads very much like a 19 Strength with Athletics and Advantage to me. Know you're not critiquing, just seemed like the appropriate response to address that too.

[tokek]

Just occurred to me, still haven't seen the movie - got tickets for tomorrow, that the druid could just be using all her spell slots to heal herself when shaped.

Not the most optimal use of them, but if I wanted to play a druid who shapeshifts and nothing but that's how I'd use them.

I have absolutely played alongside another player who pretty much did that with their Moon Druid.

[Saelethil]

I would expect that this Druid is spending all 3rd level and lower spell slots on healing herself in Wildshape and all 4th level and higher spell slots on Polymorphing herself.

[Segev]

I would expect that this Druid is spending all 3rd level and lower spell slots on healing herself in Wildshape and all 4th level and higher spell slots on Polymorphing herself.

That'd make sense. She's a low-op level 18+ moon druid, then, if that's what she's doing, though, given how freely she wild shapes.

[Saelethil]

That'd make sense. She's a low-op level 18+ moon druid, then, if that's what she's doing, though, given how freely she wild shapes.

Unless she’s using the Pell point variant and just pumping all points into Polymorph. Then by level 10 she would effectively have 10 4th level slots. I’m not sure exactly how many would have been needed (I wasn’t keeping count between rests) but that should more than cover what I remember seeing.

[Rafaelfras]

It's funny to think this movie respects the rules way more than vox machina on some aspects.
There is no spell casting disfunction which annoys me to no end (casters shouldn't struggle to cast level appropriate magic) Simon speaks his verbal components in every single time ( you can hear him speaking every time he cast a spell in the final battle).there is no floating circles or runes besides the ones engraved on the floor / door.
I liked the fact that Holga rage is implied but not explicit. And for Edgin an "I suggest you untie me" would be great. But I think in a sequel we will have room for that.
The people who made this movie proved to me they are capable of writing a good D&D movie so they have my trust to do a worthy sequel.

I would expect that this Druid is spending all 3rd level and lower spell slots on healing herself in Wildshape and all 4th level and higher spell slots on Polymorphing herself.


Yeah it seems reasonable for me too.
Also in my head cannon that last slingshot was enchanted

[Gignere]

Unless she’s using the Pell point variant and just pumping all points into Polymorph. Then by level 10 she would effectively have 10 4th level slots. I’m not sure exactly how many would have been needed (I wasn’t keeping count between rests) but that should more than cover what I remember seeing.

You need shapechange to account for the shifts into an Owlbear though. Polymorph doesn’t allow Owlbear.

I haven’t seen the movie yet but from the trailer it just looks like she is using Shapechange the spell instead of wildshape. Or maybe in an idealized moon Druid that is what they should be using instead.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'll just add it to the pile of reasons I have rock-bottom expectations of the movie. If it's any good, then that's wonderful, but I always anticipate adaptations to be both disrespectful to the source and outright awful in their own right. Whenever a movie adaptation isn't just horrendous, I'm pleasantly surprised.
It's not horrendous. I don't think it is as good as a lot of people and reviews are claiming it is. It's serviceable. I didn't regret the expense, and I laughed throughout the movie.

That doesn't make it a good movie. It was fine. But it's certainly flawed, and while it had some nice ideas, the execution could have been better. Chris Pine was on point for humor.

I agree with Schwann as well; a lot of the explanations here sound more like justifying the comment in the OP for the sake of justifying it. It sounds like there could never be a D&D movie with a good story where the bard is also a spellcaster and the druid also casts spells. That doesn't strike me as necessarily true.

You can have a D&D movie with D&D magic that doesn't obsolete the story or the characters.

Especially in the Hanging City scene. Instead of having Simon just carelessly trigger the bridge trap, have something like this:

Simon: I can cast Find Traps to see how the bridge mechanism works.
Ed: Great, do that then.
Simon: The problem is... my magic is wild and uncontrollable. It could cause greater harm than good, I don't want to chance it.
Ed: *grabs Simon by both arms* Buddy, you have to get over this. I've seen you do some pretty incredible things, you just have to believe in yourself. Besides, I don't think we have any other options and we're running out of time.
Simon: Ok *scrunches his face in fear, casts Find Traps*
*Rolls 47 on the Wild Surge table, and a glorious unicorn magically appears before the party in a celestial display of light and music*
*party is visibly stunned by this impressive and magnificent beast*
Xenk: *wide-eyed* Blessed are we to find ourselves in the celestial light of a unicorn, a creature of pure good and joy.
Simon: *opens his eyes* Oh my... did... did I do that?
Ed: *puts his arm around Simon's shoulder* See pal? When you're willing to take the chance and risk it, you can do some amazing things.
*unicorn neighs and runs forward, directly over the trap now highlighted by the spell, the bridge collapses and the unicorn plummets into the lava below*

(((I know Sorcerer's don't get Find Trap, but they don't get Speak with Dead either, nor can druids wildshape into owlbears. So... give him a trinket for Find Trap like with Speak with Dead and let it still trigger Wild Surge.)))

A chain of inefficient but ultimately successful Command spells cast by Ed to get a bad guy to do something might have been funny as well.

Playing up Simon's normal insecurity with Enhance Ability (Charisma) cast by the Druid would have been hilarious as well with Simon saying self-conscious things in a confident way, or vice versa.

I think there are plenty of ways to keep the light-heart tone of the movie and allow the bard and druid and sorcerer to cast spells (the sorcerer casting more spells) without steamrolling every scene. I don't think delaying the undead minions with a Spike Growth spell before the dragon appears would have obsoleted anything, as an example. And if the undead was going to just rise again, why not throw a Smite in there?

The Speak with Dead scene was perfection, and I am so happy it wasn't spoiled for me in a trailer. But there's plenty of fodder in D&D to do stuff like that.

[Segev]

Unless she’s using the Pell point variant and just pumping all points into Polymorph. Then by level 10 she would effectively have 10 4th level slots. I’m not sure exactly how many would have been needed (I wasn’t keeping count between rests) but that should more than cover what I remember seeing.Yeah, if she's 18th level and spending spell slots on polymorph and shapechange only ... actually, if she's cast shapechange, that covers most of them.


I liked the fact that Holga rage is implied but not explicit. And for Edgin an "I suggest you untie me" would be great. But I think in a sequel we will have room for that.
The people who made this movie proved to me they are capable of writing a good D&D movie so they have my trust to do a worthy sequel.The rage didn't seem present, to me, but if it was subtle I guess I just missed it. YEs, seeing Edgin use suggestion that way would be cool in a future movie, if they make one.

One nice thing about the development of this movie is that apparently the producers, writers, and directors were focused on leaving it all on the floor with this one: they wanted to make this a good stand-alone movie rather than focusing on setting up any sequels. I hope that, if they make a sequel, they treat it the same way. The movies can be episodic, and be good as such.


You need shapechange to account for the shifts into an Owlbear though. Polymorph doesn’t allow Owlbear.

I haven’t seen the movie yet but from the trailer it just looks like she is using Shapechange the spell instead of wildshape. Or maybe in an idealized moon Druid that is what they should be using instead.I, personally, could see a DM granting a druid owlbear if she can do a large bear. Even using the owlbear stats directly, it's no tougher than a beast of the same CR; using a bear's stats for an owlbear would also work.

But yes, her using shapechange for it also works!

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Unless she’s using the Pell point variant and just pumping all points into Polymorph. Then by level 10 she would effectively have 10 4th level slots. I’m not sure exactly how many would have been needed (I wasn’t keeping count between rests) but that should more than cover what I remember seeing.

It's only the middle scene that breaks her rules. Her Official Stat Block has 5 Wildshapes a day that can do Tiny-Large beasts and the Owlbear.

Watching close it seems like she ran through 7-8 forms in the one scene, but honestly, it's flavor and some of those forms don't actually matter in the grand scheme of the mechanics behind the action.

[Segev]

It's only the middle scene that breaks her rules. Her Official Stat Block has 5 Wildshapes a day that can do Tiny-Large beasts and the Owlbear.

Watching close it seems like she ran through 7-8 forms in the one scene, but honestly, it's flavor and some of those forms don't actually matter in the grand scheme of the mechanics behind the action.

So she's a custom NPC, gotcha.

[Psyren]

So she's a custom NPC, gotcha.

They all are. Speak With Dead isn't on the Sorcerer list, and Reverse Gravity isn't on the Wild Magic table either.

[Zevox]

They all are. Speak With Dead isn't on the Sorcerer list, and Reverse Gravity isn't on the Wild Magic table either.
To be fair with the former, he was using a magic item for Speak With Dead, and not a scroll or wand, so it not being on his class list wouldn't necessarily disqualify him from doing that in-game either.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

So she's a custom NPC, gotcha.

In case it got missed elsewhere:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/tg/thieves-gallery

By Proficiency Bonus they're meant to be level 5-8, with Xenk at level 9-12. Safina oddly enough is level 16 or less by the Prof Bonus but clearly and specifically has TimeStop so...

Also, not everything's perfect, Simon clearly casts Scorching Ray in the last battle but doesn't have it here, they also give him Bigby's hand when he uses Maximillian's

[Psyren]

To be fair with the former, he was using a magic item for Speak With Dead, and not a scroll or wand, so it not being on his class list wouldn't necessarily disqualify him from doing that in-game either.

1) His statblock (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/tg/thieves-gallery#SimonAumarStatBlock) isn't clear on that front - it states he needs the deathly token to cast it, but not that the spell is coming from the token specifically. It could go either way.

2) Another non-sorcerer spell we know he has (both on the statblock, and canonically per the movie) is Bigby's Hand. Well, not unless they get the Tasha's optional spells anyway.

[Rafaelfras]

The rage didn't seem present, to me, but if it was subtle I guess I just missed it. YEs, seeing Edgin use suggestion that way would be cool in a future movie, if they make one.

One nice thing about the development of this movie is that apparently the producers, writers, and directors were focused on leaving it all on the floor with this one: they wanted to make this a good stand-alone movie rather than focusing on setting up any sequels. I hope that, if they make a sequel, they treat it the same way. The movies can be episodic, and be good as such.

shapechange for it also works!

Totally agree I think episodic will go a long way for then to do as many of those movies they want,

Also on the druid there is a prequel novel for her
https://www.amazon.com.br/Dungeons-Dragons-Honor-Thieves-Druids/dp/0593598164
It is said they explain why she can change to an ownbear

[Saelethil]

You need shapechange to account for the shifts into an Owlbear though. Polymorph doesn’t allow Owlbear.

Yeah, RAW she would need Shapechange. However, we’re already asked to accept that she can transform into an Owlbear using Wildshape so I’m willing to accept that it would work for Polymorph as well. As long as they’re breaking RAW they might as well be consistent. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Totally agree I think episodic will go a long way for then to do as many of those movies they want

If they are at all intelligent that's exactly what they'll do.

There's a reason the MCU succeeded beyond anyone's expectations and the DCU failed.

There were people seeing trailers for Avengers legitimately going "What a weird team up, why is the God teaming up with that Sci Fi hero and the guy from the WW2 movie?"

[Segev]

1) His statblock (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/tg/thieves-gallery#SimonAumarStatBlock) isn't clear on that front - it states he needs the deathly token to cast it, but not that the spell is coming from the token specifically. It could go either way.

2) Another non-sorcerer spell we know he has (both on the statblock, and canonically per the movie) is Bigby's Hand. Well, not unless they get the Tasha's optional spells anyway.

They may well have the TCE options, but I don't recall him using Bigby's hand in the movie; he did use Maximilian's Earthen Grasp with a lot more flexibility than the spell actually allows, but that's forgiveable in a movie format, I think (and useful for arguing with your DM that you should be able to stretch it)!

It is very clear in the movie that he attributes the use of speak with dead to the token. Moreover, it's an at-will item (or has such a ridiculous number of uses / charges that it may as well be). One of Simon's schticks seems to be having a fair number of magic items, on top of being a "so-so sorcerer." (And his bloodline is definitely Wild Magic.)

[Psyren]

They may well have the TCE options, but I don't recall him using Bigby's hand in the movie; he did use Maximilian's Earthen Grasp with a lot more flexibility than the spell actually allows, but that's forgiveable in a movie format, I think (and useful for arguing with your DM that you should be able to stretch it)!

Nah, it was Bigby's Hand, just using the spell thematics that everyone can do in 5e to have a unique appearance (gravelly in his case.)

On Speak With Dead, I'll rewatch it, but even if that came purely from an item it doesn't change my point - they each have unique traits that would make building them 1:1 using the PC rules require a houserule or two along the way.

[Jerrykhor]

If there's one thing D&D have too many of, its not spells, its Elves!

[Schwann145]

Fun video from Ed. #2 got a particular chuckle from me. :smalltongue:

(SPOILERS, obviously!)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEZH1wwj1oU

[Segev]

Nah, it was Bigby's Hand, just using the spell thematics that everyone can do in 5e to have a unique appearance (gravelly in his case.)I can buy that. He kept it extending up from the ground, but that's not unreasonable for flavor.


On Speak With Dead, I'll rewatch it, but even if that came purely from an item it doesn't change my point - they each have unique traits that would make building them 1:1 using the PC rules require a houserule or two along the way.

I think this is true. Certainly, unless Doric was, in fact, a 17th level or higher druid using shapechange, the DM had to give Doric permission to use the Owlbear form, either via unique feature or by expressly extending wild shape and polymorph to cover owlbears, monstrosities in general, or converting owlbears to beasts. Or just letting her call her "bear" form an "owlbear." In any event, I'm agreeing with you that that qualifies as house rules, and your broader point that they are not built as bog-standard vanilla PCs.

I've been in a few games where house rules, custom items, unique races, or other special permissions have been granted to allow PCs to do - not exactly this stuff, but - similar things. If I were to try to write the meta-story of the DM and the players for this campaign, I'd definitely treat the DM as being cooperative on rule of cool and granting house rules and cool items to enable concepts to work out.

[False God]

Nah, it was Bigby's Hand, just using the spell thematics that everyone can do in 5e to have a unique appearance (gravelly in his case.)

On Speak With Dead, I'll rewatch it, but even if that came purely from an item it doesn't change my point - they each have unique traits that would make building them 1:1 using the PC rules require a houserule or two along the way.

And I think it's important to recognize that from literary and visual standpoints, having 1-3 "signature abilities" is better for that medium than a game.

However, a "Signature Spell" or "Signature Attack" would be a neat feature to have at the table. Even if you needed some meta reinforcement in order to ensure that people aren't doubling up.

[sethdmichaels]

i liked the movie and i like the game but trying to map the game rules perfectly on the movie? that way lies madness. games and movies are different media with different narrative needs. if anything, the movie reflects the fact that the rules are a guideline and the tone, flavor, lore and subject matter can vary wildly from table to table. for 90%+ of the movie's audience, there's no mismatch between the movie content and the game rules.

[Sir Chuckles]

Honestly, the game rules map pretty well to the characters. Obviously not perfectly and some liberties are taken, but it's a good amount of faithfulness. Far, faaaar more than the previous movies.

One note that I enjoy from these conversations is the annoyance at a non-red/purple tiefling. Which is one of those oddities that proves that nobody reads the race's write-up. And that those who do probably don't care. I think our example here was a bit muted, but people tend to forget that the Nightcrawler-esque Tiefling is not actually the norm. Doric here is closer to the norm than if she did have red skin and cloven hooves.

[Tanarii]

One note that I enjoy from these conversations is the annoyance at a non-red/purple tiefling. Which is one of those oddities that proves that nobody reads the race's write-up. And that those who do probably don't care. I think our example here was a bit muted, but people tend to forget that the Nightcrawler-esque Tiefling is not actually the norm. Doric here is closer to the norm than if she did have red skin and cloven hooves.
The problem 5e write up is at odds with the 5e art.

This is not the only race that holds true for of course.

[Theodoxus]

One note that I enjoy from these conversations is the annoyance at a non-red/purple tiefling. Which is one of those oddities that proves that nobody reads the race's write-up. And that those who do probably don't care. I think our example here was a bit muted, but people tend to forget that the Nightcrawler-esque Tiefling is not actually the norm. Doric here is closer to the norm than if she did have red skin and cloven hooves.

Eh... she didn't have a tail (outside of her wildshape), nor canine teeth, sharply pointed or not, nor were her eyes solid colored sans sclera or pupil, and her red hair is lighter than the PHB says it should be... so, yes, her pale human skin is fine, the rest, well, I didn't know she was a tiefling until I noticed the horns... and they were pretty subtle too.

[RedWarlock]

Eh... she didn't have a tail (outside of her wildshape), nor canine teeth, sharply pointed or not, nor were her eyes solid colored sans sclera or pupil, and her red hair is lighter than the PHB says it should be... so, yes, her pale human skin is fine, the rest, well, I didn't know she was a tiefling until I noticed the horns... and they were pretty subtle too.

She did have a tail, actually. It was visually highlighted in a few shots.

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/7/72/Doric_boxart.png/revision/latest?cb=20230306174615
https://www.hasbro.com/common/productimages/en_US/235B65C85E0D44229DA87115EEE9BE50/56deb40aa8dfcd8da56370535578b174629c846e.jpg
https://bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Whitley-3-1200x900.jpg
https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/4611c9e/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2980x1676+0+0/resize/880x495!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F 2023%2F03%2F29%2Fdd-ff-182r-i_wide-47e7fd9e50fcdfa5957b4b34ec9a2ee0e529c91d.jpg

[Barbarian Horde]

Not getting Veteran Dungeon Masters to give you advice on your multimillion encounter.... they could of come to the forum for suggestions on how to deal with "to many casters"

[Willie the Duck]

One note that I enjoy from these conversations is the annoyance at a non-red/purple tiefling. Which is one of those oddities that proves that nobody reads the race's write-up. And that those who do probably don't care. I think our example here was a bit muted, but people tend to forget that the Nightcrawler-esque Tiefling is not actually the norm. Doric here is closer to the norm than if she did have red skin and cloven hooves.
If you go out on reddit, you'll find that that tieflings (and orcs) look like dang well whatever the artist wants them to look like, from fangs and tails and hooves to basically any-hued (but usually non-human-norm) elves.

Also agree with Tanarii -- when the books contain a single paragraph saying X looks like Y, but dozens of pieces of art saying they look like Z, I don't really call this a misconception on peoples' part.


Eh... she didn't have a tail (outside of her wildshape), nor canine teeth, sharply pointed or not, nor were her eyes solid colored sans sclera or pupil, and her red hair is lighter than the PHB says it should be... so, yes, her pale human skin is fine, the rest, well, I didn't know she was a tiefling until I noticed the horns... and they were pretty subtle too.
She could easily have been declared a faun or satyr or heck just druid that had some of her shapeshiftery-ness stuck as a normal feature.


Not getting Veteran Dungeon Masters to give you advice on your multimillion encounter.... they could of come to the forum for suggestions on how to deal with "to many casters"
Y'know, I like it here, but I can't think of a worse idea than for them to have gone to message boards and asked our opinions on how best to make their movie. We've consistently shown that we don't resemble the average D&D player, much less the sought-after audience in total. Worse yet, we don't resemble the polar opposite of it either (just non-representative), so they can't just do the opposite of what we'd suggest.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Y'know, I like it here, but I can't think of a worse idea than for them to have gone to message boards and asked our opinions on how best to make their movie. We've consistently shown that we don't resemble the average D&D player, much less the sought-after audience in total. Worse yet, we don't resemble the polar opposite of it either (just non-representative), so they can't just do the opposite of what we'd suggest.

I completely agree with this.

[Tanarii]

Y'know, I like it here, but I can't think of a worse idea than for them to have gone to message boards and asked our opinions on how best to make their movie. We've consistently shown that we don't resemble the average D&D player, much less the sought-after audience in total. Worse yet, we don't resemble the polar opposite of it either (just non-representative), so they can't just do the opposite of what we'd suggest.
Not to mention that every movie / book / TV show / Stream that's tried to hew too closely to actual WotC D&D casting frequency and/or model has been a disaster. Because what makes good media and what makes good TTRPGs are often complete opposites.

[Psyren]

It's difficult for any enthusiast community to see themselves as the fringe rather than the mainstream, even when they (we) are.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Y'know, I like it here, but I can't think of a worse idea than for them to have gone to message boards and asked our opinions on how best to make their movie. We've consistently shown that we don't resemble the average D&D player, much less the sought-after audience in total. Worse yet, we don't resemble the polar opposite of it either (just non-representative), so they can't just do the opposite of what we'd suggest.

Ayuppp. Plus, what's this community gonna do? Not go see the DND movie starring Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez and Hugh Grant, because Sophia Lillis doesn't have to spend three hours each filming day getting into makeup? I mean, I like practical effects as much as the next movie guy, but that's a bit much.

[Beelzebub1111]

I think this is true. Certainly, unless Doric was, in fact, a 17th level or higher druid using shapechange, the DM had to give Doric permission to use the Owlbear form, either via unique feature or by expressly extending wild shape and polymorph to cover owlbears, monstrosities in general, or converting owlbears to beasts. Or just letting her call her "bear" form an "owlbear." In any event, I'm agreeing with you that that qualifies as house rules, and your broader point that they are not built as bog-standard vanilla PCs.
Or she is a wild order druid from pathfinder 2e and all of her spell slots were dedicated to the various "Form" spells on top of her focus spells.


The party does seem to be pretty high level anyway considering how the Imperial Bloodline Wellspring Sorcerer can counterspell Time Stop, a 9th level spell. He would have to be at least 12th level if he needed a critical success, 15th for a regular success.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Not getting Veteran Dungeon Masters to give you advice on your multimillion encounter.... they could of come to the forum for suggestions on how to deal with "to many casters"

Or they could have focused each character on what the class is primarily known for and not been a slave to the game mechanics.

Which appears to be what they did.

[Dork_Forge]

Ayuppp. Plus, what's this community gonna do? Not go see the DND movie starring Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez and Hugh Grant, because Sophia Lillis doesn't have to spend three hours each filming day getting into makeup? I mean, I like practical effects as much as the next movie guy, but that's a bit much.

I mean it feels like a weird thing, because they chose to make her a tiefling.

They could have just made her a wood elf or something if they didn't want to do much with cosmetic effects/make up.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I mean it feels like a weird thing, because they chose to make her a tiefling.

They could have just made her a wood elf or something if they didn't want to do much with cosmetic effects/make up.

Or they're just acknowledging that the Super Demon looking Tiefling is actually a later edition deal and they're giving a nod to older players.

Let's remember the original Tiefling Description back in Planescape. "They can be described as humans who've been plane-touched. A shadow of knife-edge in their face, a little too much fire in their eyes, a scent of ash in their presence - all these things and more describe a tiefling. No planar would mistake a tiefling for a human, and most primes make the mistake only one."

They originally weren't even physically distinguishable from a normal human immediately.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or they're just acknowledging that the Super Demon looking Tiefling is actually a later edition deal and they're giving a nod to older players.

Let's remember the original Tiefling Description back in Planescape. "They can be described as humans who've been plane-touched. A shadow of knife-edge in their face, a little too much fire in their eyes, a scent of ash in their presence - all these things and more describe a tiefling. No planar would mistake a tiefling for a human, and most primes make the mistake only one."

They originally weren't even physically distinguishable from a normal human immediately.

Yeah. That's my preference as well. My own setting does more of the "touched" motif, so all of the plane-touched variants (aasimar, tieflings, genasi, etc) are similar to, but only slightly different from (usually a single "tell") their parent race. The super cartoony exaggerated "I'm a devil!" look...meh.

[Dork_Forge]

Or they're just acknowledging that the Super Demon looking Tiefling is actually a later edition deal and they're giving a nod to older players.

Let's remember the original Tiefling Description back in Planescape. "They can be described as humans who've been plane-touched. A shadow of knife-edge in their face, a little too much fire in their eyes, a scent of ash in their presence - all these things and more describe a tiefling. No planar would mistake a tiefling for a human, and most primes make the mistake only one."

They originally weren't even physically distinguishable from a normal human immediately.

I really doubt that they would choose to model a teifling off an older edition, that seems like a really oddly specific decision that doesn't jive with the game that people would actually go from the movie and try.

[Lord Raziere]

I really doubt that they would choose to model a teifling off an older edition, that seems like a really oddly specific decision that doesn't jive with the game that people would actually go from the movie and try.

Agreed. I doubt the decision is anything more than just "we don't want do the make up and costuming for that when we're already doing so much everywhere else, lets just go minimalist for this"

[Psyren]

Agreed. I doubt the decision is anything more than just "we don't want do the make up and costuming for that when we're already doing so much everywhere else, lets just go minimalist for this"

I'm sure that was part of it, maybe even most of it, but so what? It just so happens that by making her a minimalist tiefling they hit both the cost and historical authenticity buttons. Isn't that a win-win?

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Going to back Psyren there. Sorry, I'm looking at a situation I don't know the specific and exact details to, I'm not automatically writing in the way that appeals to cynicism and let's me dismiss people I don't know as being completely uncaring.

I'm sure there were price decisions in it. Also maybe Makeup decisions. There's a reason Paul Bettany was constantly "out of costume" in WandaVision and it had nothing to do at the end with the "tone they were going for." Doesn't change that him looking human repeatedly WAS a good tone.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Yeah. That's my preference as well. My own setting does more of the "touched" motif, so all of the plane-touched variants (aasimar, tieflings, genasi, etc) are similar to, but only slightly different from (usually a single "tell") their parent race. The super cartoony exaggerated "I'm a devil!" look...meh.

I think it's funny that the PHB tiefling is, like, lavendar-skinned, but the PHB description of skin color is 'normal human, or shades of red'. Please, Wizards! Better art direction!

[Dork_Forge]

Making them seem uncaring seems harsh, there are plenty of reasons why they would want to do it, that doesn't mean coming up with a tie to old editions doesn't remain a stretch.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Making them seem uncaring seems harsh, there are plenty of reasons why they would want to do it, that doesn't mean coming up with a tie to old editions doesn't remain a stretch.

Hate to be argumentative, but in general, if I can come up with an idea and reasoning in two seconds of stray thought, the idea that someone, anyone else that's actually involved in the project couldn't come up with the same thoughts is a bit silly.

Of course, as a fun aside we could also acknowledge what quickly just said and that Doric is 100% accurate to the 5e PHB too.

[OvisCaedo]

I don't think she's 100% accurate to the 5e PHB's description of tieflings, if the art posted in the previous page is accurate. She has normal eyes, and her tail isn't really thick. Not sure about whether she has sharply pointed canine teeth or not.

but i'm also of the opinion that the 5e phb's tiefling is really dumb and overly specific with what traits they all have, as well as asserting that they're all influenced specifically by Asmodeus. ((and unrelated to all of that goes on at length about how everyone hates and distrusts them and then says that this is why they have a charisma bonus for charming people))

I definitely vastly prefer Doric to what 5e says every tiefling should look like

[Dork_Forge]

Hate to be argumentative, but in general, if I can come up with an idea and reasoning in two seconds of stray thought, the idea that someone, anyone else that's actually involved in the project couldn't come up with the same thoughts is a bit silly.

Just because you can make a reason fit, doesn't mean that is the reason. Given all we can do is guess, out of the list of reasons why they did that, appealing to a version of the tiefling that is as old as I am and that 99.9% of viewers wouldn't know seems unlikely.



Of course, as a fun aside we could also acknowledge what quickly just said and that Doric is 100% accurate to the 5e PHB too.

And Theodoxus pointed out that she isnt...

She has horns and a tail, the PHB describes the former as large and the latter as thick. Hers are neither. Her eyes and teeth don't resemble the description and her hair is too light.

For whatever reason they went with a version of the tiefling that doesn't match the art and that doesn't match the PHB description.

They have plenty of reasons to do so, but there comes a point when they may as well have just made her something else to suit those reasons. After all, if she exhibits none of the features of the race and doesnt match the appearance of the race...

And I'm well aware this comes across nitpicky, but that's kind of just how forums go especially when two views differ.

[Psyren]

Just because you can make a reason fit, doesn't mean that is the reason. Given all we can do is guess, out of the list of reasons why they did that, appealing to a version of the tiefling that is as old as I am and that 99.9% of viewers wouldn't know seems unlikely.

I'd wager 99.9% of the movie's viewers can't even spell tiefling, much less know what they're supposed to look like. It's just a weird hill to die on.



And I'm well aware this comes across nitpicky, but that's kind of just how forums go especially when two views differ.

I know I live in a glass house here but should typical forum discourse really be the bar we sink to all the time?

[Dork_Forge]

I'd wager 99.9% of the movie's viewers can't even spell tiefling, much less know what they're supposed to look like. It's just a weird hill to die on.

Its my opinion, in the grand scheme of my feelings on dnd stuff it's miniscule and it doesn't even register on my day to day life. 'Hill to die on' is an odd way to put it in a very specific conversation about something.

Personally I prefer there not be needless discrepancy, because that's less jarring for new players the movie creates with a plus of not being minutely irksome to people that are aware and not a fan.



I know I live in a glass house here but should typical forum discourse really be the bar we sink to all the time?

I mean... We are talking on a forum and some folks feel the need to defend the costuming/choice.

After all, it's possible to just acknowledge others preference and opinion on a situation without it becoming back and forth and nit picky, but we are on a forum and that clearly didn't happen. This is like asking should we really be drinking when the room is already spinning.

[Psyren]

'Hill to die on' is an odd way to put it in a very specific conversation about something.
...
After all, it's possible to just acknowledge others preference and opinion on a situation without it becoming back and forth and nit picky, but we are on a forum and that clearly didn't happen. This is like asking should we really be drinking when the room is already spinning.

Noted - I'll close out my tab then (in more ways than one.)

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Just because you can make a reason fit, doesn't mean that is the reason. Given all we can do is guess, out of the list of reasons why they did that, appealing to a version of the tiefling that is as old as I am and that 99.9% of viewers wouldn't know seems unlikely.

Thank you for acknowledging that you can only guess. Again, I'm not claiming a perfect answer, only a possibility. Psyren already touched on the other issue here.


She has horns and a tail, the PHB describes the former as large and the latter as thick. Hers are neither. Her eyes and teeth don't resemble the description and her hair is too light.

Considering "Large" and "Thick" are subjective terms that only have meaning in relation to other steps, can't say that's a valid stance. Also "Too light" Brown is one of the options and Doric's hair is red tinged brown, nothing out of the range of the PHB.


For whatever reason they went with a version of the tiefling that doesn't match the art and that doesn't match the PHB description.

But does match various bits and pieces across the lore. Human skin is allowed by the PHB and by older editions. A "thin" tale is allowed by Exandria, which is D&D Canon (Both Molly and Jester have thin tails). The "Thick" horns are the only potential sticking point, and as already pointed out, that's subjective in any event. Doric's horns appear to be about 2 inches thick at the base.


They have plenty of reasons to do so, but there comes a point when they may as well have just made her something else to suit those reasons. After all, if she exhibits none of the features of the race and doesn't match the appearance of the race...

Except no, they don't, because she does match a Tiefling under a number of ways and without issue unless you specifically look for something to argue about.

Edit: Thanks for the heads up, Forge, not sure how that happened, I recalled typing it all.

[Dork_Forge]

Thank you for acknowledging that you can only guess. Again, I'm not claiming a perfect answer, only a possibility. Psyren already touched on the other issue here.



Considering "Large" and "Thick" are subjective terms that only have meaning in relation to other steps, can't say that's a valid stance. Also "Too light" Brown is one of the options and Doric's hair is red tinged brown, nothin



But does match various bits and pieces across the lore. Human skin is allowed by the PHB and by older editions. A "thin" tale is allowed by Exandria, which is D&D Canon (Both Molly and Jester have thin tails). The "Thick" horns are the only potential sticking point, and as already pointed out, that's subjective in any event. Doric's horns appear to be about 2 inches thick at the



Except no, they don't, because she does match a Tiefling under a number of ways and without issue unless you specifically look for something to argue about.

Before I reply I'm just going to say it looks like you just drop off mid sentence multiple times.

In case this affects anything I will give you time to edit your post or repost with what you wanted to say.

[Dr.Samurai]

This is just a case of "it doesn't matter what the text says" because some things can overpower the text. If you search "tiefling" on google, the images will inundate you with reds, blues, and purples. That's just how they're depicted most of the time and that's what a lot of people have in their mind when they think tiefling. No one's fault really, unless you want to blame WotC for not putting out more art of tieflings with normal skin tones.

Seems like a waste to make tieflings look like satyrs though.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

This is just a case of "it doesn't matter what the text says" because some things can overpower the text. If you search "tiefling" on google, the images will inundate you with reds, blues, and purples. That's just how they're depicted most of the time and that's what a lot of people have in their mind when they think tiefling. No one's fault really, unless you want to blame WotC for not putting out more art of tieflings with normal skin tones.

Gonna be honest, any argument that stems from "Who cares what it says, public opinion is" is not really a worthwhile point to push IMO.


Seems like a waste to make tieflings look like satyrs though.

I don't get Satyr. The horns are similar but Satyr and Tiefling have always shared that. Looking Satyr would have been a lot of changes to the lower half.

[Dork_Forge]

Considering "Large" and "Thick" are subjective terms that only have meaning in relation to other steps, can't say that's a valid stance. Also "Too light" Brown is one of the options and Doric's hair is red tinged brown, nothing out of the range of the PHB.

Large and thick are subjective, but if you think her horns and tails match those descriptors then we have such differing views that we just won't agree.



But does match various bits and pieces across the lore. Human skin is allowed by the PHB and by older editions. A "thin" tale is allowed by Exandria, which is D&D Canon (Both Molly and Jester have thin tails). The "Thick" horns are the only potential sticking point, and as already pointed out, that's subjective in any event. Doric's horns appear to be about 2 inches thick at the base.

Exandria doesn't, or at least shouldn't, matter when we're talking about a forgotten realms movie.

You don't seem to address the eyes or teeth at all.


Except no, they don't, because she does match a Tiefling under a number of ways and without issue unless you specifically look for something to argue about.

Again, no racial features and her appearance differs greatly enough that this conversation is even a thing. Though I don't want to come across like I'm looking for something to argue about, I posted my opinion and the replies happened, you yourself apologised as part of that for being argumentative.



Edit: Thanks for the heads up, Forge, not sure how that happened, I recalled typing it all.

No problem.

[Dr.Samurai]

Gonna be honest, any argument that stems from "Who cares what it says, public opinion is" is not really a worthwhile point to push IMO.
I don't mean it doesn't matter in the argument. I mean that wotc can print the description to say anything, but the picture in many people's minds will be largely informed by the artwork that's out there. And that will inform how people describe the tiefling to other people, etc., which will inform their character descriptions and more artwork, etc.

I don't get Satyr. The horns are similar but Satyr and Tiefling have always shared that. Looking Satyr would have been a lot of changes to the lower half.
I can't even recall what her lower half looked like. But I know if I just see an image of her face, she looks like a fawn. Something more nature oriented, woodland creature, etc. She looks like a child of the forest, as opposed to someone with hellish lineage.

[Psyren]

I can't even recall what her lower half looked like.

Like a human's/plantigrade - RedWarlock's post contains relevant art and screencaps. A Satyr's lower half meanwhile looks caprine/digitigrade. There's no real chance of confusing the two.

Link added (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?655328-Even-WotC-thinks-D-amp-D-has-too-many-spells!&p=25764158&viewfull=1#post25764158)

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Large and thick are subjective, but if you think her horns and tails match those descriptors then we have such differing views that we just won't agree.

I suppose we'll just disagree then. Because a "Thin" tale is going to be mouselike to me, and that's more like Nightcrawler's or the like, which is perfectly solid in my mind. Same with the Horns, for me tiny or thin horns would be more decorative jewelry styled or little nubs. That they are 2 inches across and sweep back past the back of her head are solid to me. Glad we agree on the hair and skin tone.


Exandria doesn't, or at least shouldn't, matter when we're talking about a forgotten realms movie.

Sure it should. It's all the same cosmic existence. The fact that Vecna exists across realms or that Arkahn is from Exandria and can be interacted with by folks from Baldur's Gate tells me there's no reason to assume one places Tieflings are super unique.


You don't seem to address the eyes or teeth at all.

I'll agree and admit to not caring on the eyes. The teeth aren't an issue, we don't casually see her canines on a steady basis.


I don't mean it doesn't matter in the argument. I mean that wotc can print the description to say anything, but the picture in many people's minds will be largely informed by the artwork that's out there. And that will inform how people describe the tiefling to other people, etc., which will inform their character descriptions and more artwork, etc.

That is fair, but that's more for overall pop culture vs being able to say "This was done wrong" (Not saying you're pushing that argument).


I can't even recall what her lower half looked like. But I know if I just see an image of her face, she looks like a fawn. Something more nature oriented, woodland creature, etc. She looks like a child of the forest, as opposed to someone with hellish lineage.

Mr Tumnus in Narnia is a good onscreen Satyr. Or if you watched Carnival Row on Amazon Prime. As for her face, are you sure you honestly think Fawn or the knowledge full on that she is a druid and nature protector which we knew before we knew her race at all kind of paints it for you? Let's be honest, have we had a Tiefling Druid of note before her?

[Dr.Samurai]

I know I didn't know what she was and when I saw images of her that's what I thought. But also I figured she was an elf with some sort of antler crown or something. Never once did I think "tiefling" until I read it online.

[Dork_Forge]

I suppose we'll just disagree then. Because a "Thin" tale is going to be mouselike to me, and that's more like Nightcrawler's or the like, which is perfectly solid in my mind. Same with the Horns, for me tiny or thin horns would be more decorative jewelry styled or little nubs. That they are 2 inches across and sweep back past the back of her head are solid to me. Glad we agree on the hair and skin tone.

Proportionate to her body it pretty much is mouselike, but given the thickness we see in Tiefling art (which is more Frieza-esque) I will point out that the PHB says a thick tail. You can argue that her tail isn't 'thin' but it certainly doesn't scream thick, at times it seems positively whip-like in motion.

The horns are also just plain hard to notice at first glance, which is part of why I'd refute it but you again seem to be arguing that they're not small. Both the tail and horn arguments sound to me like you're saying they're not small, the problem is they're meant to be the opposite end of the spectrum. The horns are described as large, the examples we are given are curled ram's horns, tall gazelle horns, or a spiral like antelope horns. Both in general and proportionate to her body the horns (much like the tail) can't really be called large.

I'll also wager that production is part of this, where they are on her head makes it easy to use and conceal a headband, vs a more prominent position, which also just takes away from the overall effect of the horns.


Sure it should. It's all the same cosmic existence. The fact that Vecna exists across realms or that Arkahn is from Exandria and can be interacted with by folks from Baldur's Gate tells me there's no reason to assume one places Tieflings are super unique.

No it shouldn't, this is a movie that is set in the Forgotten Realms, we have no reason to assume something from an entirely different setting unless we are told so.

So, given that she is born and raised in the FR to human parents, there's no reason to reach to Exandria from a story perspective, it just feels like a reach to justify the design.

I'd rather it just be they preferred how it looked/was produced (which is likely the answer) instead of constructing justifications that are so out there and unlikely that we have no real reason to dwell on them.


I'll agree and admit to not caring on the eyes. The teeth aren't an issue, we don't casually see her canines on a steady basis.


You keep not addressing the features portion of this, but if she doesn't have the features, and she doesn't match the description (The horn and tail suitability are at the very least debatable given the descriptions and art we have, you concede the eyes, and the teeth aren't 'casually shown' because they didn't do anything to them, if they did then they'd be in shots) then she's not really a tiefling in the 5e sense and since nothing I'm aware of seems particularly important regarding her race, she could have literally just been something else rather than a fairly poor version of a tiefling as a token 'exotic' race.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

No it shouldn't, this is a movie that is set in the Forgotten Realms, we have no reason to assume something from an entirely different setting unless we are told so.

So, given that she is born and raised in the FR to human parents, there's no reason to reach to Exandria from a story perspective, it just feels like a reach to justify the design.

I did not clearly state my point. I apologize. My point is that if the D&D Universe has Tieflings without super thick tails in one world where they are created and influenced by the Nine Hells and Asmodeus, then there is no fundamental reason to assume that they are super unique to that world only and that tieflings on other worlds from the same source would not be similar.

IE, I can name existing people with not super thick tails in D&D, thus I have no issue with Doric also not having a super thick tail.

[OvisCaedo]

Come to think of it, what does Mordenkainen's say about Tieflings? The PHB acts like all tiefling are descendents of Asmodeus, but Mordy's book added a bunch of other lineages. Does it actually talk about more varied appearances in that book?

edit: Oh, SCAG also did have an aside of "alright well they're not ALL asmodeus-based, and here's a little list of other visual traits you might choose instead of being what the PHB describes"

[Waterdeep Merch]

I personally disliked the change to tieflings (and aasimars) from having a varied appearance related to their heritage to a generic, uniform look, a change which started in 4e.

Doric happens to look like Neeshka, another tiefling from the Forgotten Realms that I've got some nostalgia for. Whether modern lore I hate happens to align with that look is something I'm more than happy to disregard. I hope it's a sign of things to come. Asmodai tieflings are fine, universally Asmodai tieflings are a stupid idea that should be buried.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

edit: Oh, SCAG also did have an aside of "alright well they're not ALL asmodeus-based, and here's a little list of other visual traits you might choose instead of being what the PHB describes"

Thank you, went and looked up the specific passage and it says:

"Your tiefling might not look like other tieflings. Rather than having the physical characteristics described in the Player’s Handbook, choose 1d4 + 1 of the following features: small horns; fangs or sharp teeth; a forked tongue; catlike eyes; six fingers on each hand; goat-like legs; cloven hoofs; a forked tail; leathery or scaly skin; red or dark blue skin; cast no shadow or reflection; exude a smell of brimstone.|

So, even by generic rules listed above, Human skin tone with a different tail and small horns is perfectly reasonable. As a side note, the picture of a tiefling in SCAG has a thinner tail like Doric's and their skin is red tinged but more human.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I personally disliked the change to tieflings (and aasimars) from having a varied appearance related to their heritage to a generic, uniform look, a change which started in 4e.

Doric happens to look like Neeshka, another tiefling from the Forgotten Realms that I've got some nostalgia for. Whether modern lore I hate happens to align with that look is something I'm more than happy to disregard. I hope it's a sign of things to come. Asmodai tieflings are fine, universally Asmodai tieflings are a stupid idea that should be buried.

IMO, universally anything is a stupid idea that should be buried. Tieflings in setting A should be different than those in setting B. Or even regions of those settings. As should humans, orcs, and everybody else. And that's the RFC 2119[1] definition of "should", ie just short of MUST. The idea that all the races across the multiverse are homogenous (physically or especially culturally) is anathema to me.

[1]


RFC 2119 gives the following definitions:

* must This word, or the terms "required" or "shall", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
* must not This phrase, or the phrase "shall not", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
* should This word, or the adjective "recommended", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
* should not This phrase, or the phrase "not recommended" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label.
* may This word, or the adjective "optional", mean that an item is truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item. An implementation which does not include a particular option must be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the same vein an implementation which does include a particular option must be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the option provides.)

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Come to think of it, what does Mordenkainen's say about Tieflings? The PHB acts like all tiefling are descendents of Asmodeus, but Mordy's book added a bunch of other lineages. Does it actually talk about more varied appearances in that book?

edit: Oh, SCAG also did have an aside of "alright well they're not ALL asmodeus-based, and here's a little list of other visual traits you might choose instead of being what the PHB describes"

I don't think it changes the ALL TIEFLINGS LOOK OVER-THE-TOP WEIRD description from the PHB in any meaningful way.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I don't think it changes the ALL TIEFLINGS LOOK OVER-THE-TOP WEIRD description from the PHB in any meaningful way.

It does really. The description is that they have 2-5 of the following weird traits: small or large horns, fangs or sharp teeth, a forked tongue, catlike eyes, six fingered hands, Goat legs, cloven hooves, a tail of some sort, leather or scaly skin, weird collored skin, no shadow or reflect, smell of brimstone.

By SCAG Doric is actually 100% valid.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It does really. The description is that they have 2-5 of the following weird traits: small or large horns, fangs or sharp teeth, a forked tongue, catlike eyes, six fingered hands, Goat legs, cloven hooves, a tail of some sort, leather or scaly skin, weird collored skin, no shadow or reflect, smell of brimstone.

By SCAG Doric is actually 100% valid.

And, if anything, SCAG is the controlling authority for the Sword Coast (and faerun generally), overriding the more generic pronouncements in the PHB.

[Witty Username]

It does really. The description is that they have 2-5 of the following weird traits: small or large horns, fangs or sharp teeth, a forked tongue, catlike eyes, six fingered hands, Goat legs, cloven hooves, a tail of some sort, leather or scaly skin, weird collored skin, no shadow or reflect, smell of brimstone.

By SCAG Doric is actually 100% valid.

Didn't the tiefling look in Faerun to the 4e stuff (Er, horns, colored skin, tail) by Asmodeus? I remember some lore blurp from SCAG about the mark of Asmodeus and stuff to that effect. Its a book I don't own so I don't recall the specifics.


I am more interested in esoteric lore stuff. How the particulars of a fantasy creature is portrayed in a movie is pretty small to me.

[Psyren]

Didn't the tiefling look in Faerun to the 4e stuff (Er, horns, colored skin, tail) by Asmodeus? I remember some lore blurp from SCAG about the mark of Asmodeus and stuff to that effect. Its a book I don't own so I don't recall the specifics.


I am more interested in esoteric lore stuff. How the particulars of a fantasy creature is portrayed in a movie is pretty small to me.

SCAG is more recent than all of 4e, so even if we're going with a books-above-all viewpoint, its description trumps. Doric fits.

[PhoenixPhyre]

SCAG is more recent than all of 4e, so even if we're going with a books-above-all viewpoint, its description trumps. Doric fits.
I agree. And sources from other editions always are lower priority, even if newer. If this was a 4e movie, the 4e design would be the one that matters. But it's a 5e movie and so 5e sources have precedence. And since SCAG is more FR specific of the two 5e books, it wins over the more general PHB. Specific beats general doesn't just apply to "crunch".

[Theodoxus]

I know I didn't know what she was and when I saw images of her that's what I thought. But also I figured she was an elf with some sort of antler crown or something. Never once did I think "tiefling" until I read it online.

Yeah, at the very first blush, I thought it was something akin to Keyleth's deer antler's esthetic.

The SCAG discussion is interesting. Another idea is maybe she's like 1/10th fiend, maybe a great great grandparent was the original planetouched, and the only remaining vestiges are small horns and a thin tail (that I honestly never saw in the movie - but I accept the screencaps... sadly, my brain doesn't work that way.)

Would explain the lack of racial features and more human-like eyes and teeth.

Sadly, that's 100% homebrew, since diluted legacies aren't a thing in RAW.

OTOH, maybe she's Custom Lineage, built around the idea of a tielfling, and she chose a 1st level feat of "Monstrous Druid" allowing her to pick one monstrous creature to emulate, and she picked Owlbear. More homebrew for that, but it sounds fun.

[Psyren]

I know I didn't know what she was and when I saw images of her that's what I thought. But also I figured she was an elf with some sort of antler crown or something. Never once did I think "tiefling" until I read it online.


Yeah, at the very first blush, I thought it was something akin to Keyleth's deer antler's esthetic.

I'm not sure what to tell you two, people had her pegged as a Tiefling since the very first trailer thread a year ago. (Granted, people were complaining about her look back then too.) But anyway, no dilution or custom lineage etc is needed.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not sure what to tell you two
Did anyone ask you to? Stand down. WotC is going to survive a couple of people on the internet confusing Doric for an elf or fey :smallamused:.

people had her pegged as a Tiefling since the very first trailer thread a year ago.
{Scrubbed}.

[Willie the Duck]

This reminds me of either late 2e or sometime in 3e, when one or the other books described high elves as being super-pale, but not sickly (more like fresh cream), and wild elves as 'bronzed' and the like and people bickering on whether that was attempts at describing something within-real-human-phenotype skin tones or if they were actual face-paint white or bronze colored.

[Jophiel]

I only noticed the tail in the scene where they rise up into the arena. I trust it was there in other scenes. I don't really care if she meets the canonical description or not though. I assume the studio paid Sophia Lillis and they wanted the audience to see Sophia Lillis, not her under a bunch of tiefling makeup/prosthetics.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The SCAG discussion is interesting. Another idea is maybe she's like 1/10th fiend, maybe a great great grandparent was the original planetouched, and the only remaining vestiges are small horns and a thin tail (that I honestly never saw in the movie - but I accept the screencaps... sadly, my brain doesn't work that way.)

Just as an FYI, all Tieflings are 1/10th or less or some. Tiefling, Genasi, Aasimar, etc are plane touched. A Full half whatever would be more potent and close to their powerful parent.

[Tanarii]

This reminds me of either late 2e or sometime in 3e, when one or the other books described high elves as being super-pale, but not sickly (more like fresh cream), and wild elves as 'bronzed' and the like and people bickering on whether that was attempts at describing something within-real-human-phenotype skin tones or if they were actual face-paint white or bronze colored.
Nowadays, the answer for elf appearance is clearly "real-human ran after it's been run through photoshop":smalltongue:

[Schwann145]

Another idea is maybe she's like 1/10th fiend, maybe a great great grandparent was the original planetouched, and the only remaining vestiges are small horns and a thin tail

Sadly, that's 100% homebrew, since diluted legacies aren't a thing in RAW.

On the contrary, Tieflings are all assumed to be "diluted legacies." You have fiendish influence tainting your line somewhere, maybe many generations back, maybe hundreds.
You aren't a Cambion (half-fiend), and you certainly aren't a full-blooded fiend.

[Theodoxus]

Just as an FYI, all Tieflings are 1/10th or less or some. Tiefling, Genasi, Aasimar, etc are plane touched. A Full half whatever would be more potent and close to their powerful parent.


On the contrary, Tieflings are all assumed to be "diluted legacies." You have fiendish influence tainting your line somewhere, maybe many generations back, maybe hundreds.
You aren't a Cambion (half-fiend), and you certainly aren't a full-blooded fiend.

If that works at your tables, fine. But if you're saying that having 1 drop of fiendish blood means you're always capable of Hellish Rebuke and having resistances, I have issues with that.

It makes far more sense to me that Doric didn't use tielfling racials because she didn't have them, rather than she forgot. So, despite Psyren's irascible response, yes, Custom Lineage is very much needed. Or Doric is more like Dory, and just forgot to use Hellish Rebuke against the dragon.

[OvisCaedo]

Or hellish rebuke just... isn't really worth doing, or depicting, in higher level adventures anyhow. I guess in play you might use it because it's free, even if its effect will be pretty whatever. But bothering depicting a throwaway action in a movie? Ehhh.

[Hurrashane]

If that works at your tables, fine. But if you're saying that having 1 drop of fiendish blood means you're always capable of Hellish Rebuke and having resistances, I have issues with that.

It makes far more sense to me that Doric didn't use tielfling racials because she didn't have them, rather than she forgot. So, despite Psyren's irascible response, yes, Custom Lineage is very much needed. Or Doric is more like Dory, and just forgot to use Hellish Rebuke against the dragon.

Could also be a one D&D half-tiefling half-elf. Looks like an elf but with a few tiefling features. Given she's likely using the 1D&D druid wildshape this would fit.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

If that works at your tables, fine. But if you're saying that having 1 drop of fiendish blood means you're always capable of Hellish Rebuke and having resistances, I have issues with that.

It makes far more sense to me that Doric didn't use tielfling racials because she didn't have them, rather than she forgot. So, despite Psyren's irascible response, yes, Custom Lineage is very much needed. Or Doric is more like Dory, and just forgot to use Hellish Rebuke against the dragon.

You're... welcome to have whatever at your table, We were just commenting on the actual lore in the game. Change whatever you want. Heck, I used a Fire Genasis to play a full on child of a noble efreeti and a human and played it as a full genie, no big deal, flavor and fluff are mutable. But by the "Lore" of the generic D&D setting, plane touched are not half anything, they are influenced by the plane or have a drop of blood somewhere in the past.

[Psyren]

Did anyone ask you to? Stand down.

Only because you asked so nicely :smallwink:


I only noticed the tail in the scene where they rise up into the arena. I trust it was there in other scenes. I don't really care if she meets the canonical description or not though. I assume the studio paid Sophia Lillis and they wanted the audience to see Sophia Lillis, not her under a bunch of tiefling makeup/prosthetics.

I noticed it fairly prominently in the Hither-Thither wagon scene with the rotating camera trick.


If that works at your tables, fine. But if you're saying that having 1 drop of fiendish blood means you're always capable of Hellish Rebuke and having resistances, I have issues with that.

Not "always." The potential to give birth to a tiefling is there if you have that drop in your line. You also have a lot more potential to give birth to a human.


It makes far more sense to me that Doric didn't use tielfling racials because she didn't have them, rather than she forgot. So, despite Psyren's irascible response, yes, Custom Lineage is very much needed. Or Doric is more like Dory, and just forgot to use Hellish Rebuke against the dragon.

There was no irascibility - "you don't need custom lineage to explain Doric" is a factual statement. To say otherwise is just not understanding how tieflings work in FR, or possibly anywhere else.

[Witty Username]

SCAG is more recent than all of 4e, so even if we're going with a books-above-all viewpoint, its description trumps. Doric fits.


I agree. And sources from other editions always are lower priority, even if newer. If this was a 4e movie, the 4e design would be the one that matters. But it's a 5e movie and so 5e sources have precedence. And since SCAG is more FR specific of the two 5e books, it wins over the more general PHB. Specific beats general doesn't just apply to "crunch".

Apologies, I believe I was misunderstood, I was not intending to appeal to 4e. I was asking about a lore bit I recall somewhat from SCAG. My thoughts on it being the 4e look, is more how I see where the 5e art design and the lore referenced in SCAG came from.

[Amechra]

If I had to guess... what ended up happening is that they looked into making a lore-accurate Tiefling, and then ended up realizing that "Sophia Lillis, but as an accurate Tiefling" would look incredibly goofy with their budget, and would've impaired her ability to emote to boot.

Like, she'd basically be in a Hellboy get-up, except her hair would be bright fire-truck red and she'd be wearing the equivalent of mirror-shades with backlighting (to give her the "solid, one-color eyes" look). That sound ridiculous​.

[Segev]

She could easily have been declared a faun or satyr or heck just druid that had some of her shapeshiftery-ness stuck as a normal feature.

Not without a moderately extensive rewrite of much of her character and character arc. She and Holga are the only two whose racial background had any impact on their backstory. (Holga's because of the mixed-race marriage causing some problems with her barbarian tribe, though even that's likely more class-as-culture based than really race-as-culture based.) Doric had a LOT of bitterness towards humans specifically because of things unique to being a tiefling, and this came up repeatedly.

It could've been written out, sure. Even just edited out. But it's still a big part of her characterization, so editing it out would've made her have even less screen time that wasn't just going owlbear on some baddies. Putting in a different backstory for her as an elf or whatnot would've made her a notably different character with different underlying motivations, even if the surface "they polluted/attacked the forest" ones remained intact.

[Dr.Samurai]

I thought Doric was bitter because they were destroying the forest/druids. I didn't catch that it's because she's a tiefling. (Not that that particular story bit really went anywhere. Just sort of like window dressing.)

[Witty Username]

I thought Doric was bitter because they were destroying the forest/druids. I didn't catch that it's because she's a tiefling. (Not that that particular story bit really went anywhere. Just sort of like window dressing.)

That was why she agreed to help stop the con artist, hating humans is why she is living with the elves.

I thought she might be a forest gnome when she first appeared, I didn't even notice the horns until she said she was a tiefling in the backstory drop.

[Segev]

That was why she agreed to help stop the con artist, hating humans is why she is living with the elves.

I thought she might be a forest gnome when she first appeared, I didn't even notice the horns until she said she was a tiefling in the backstory drop.

Definitely too tall for a gnome!

[Dr.Samurai]

That was why she agreed to help stop the con artist, hating humans is why she is living with the elves.
Ah, got it, I missed that. Thanks!

[Willie the Duck]

Not without a moderately extensive rewrite of much of her character and character arc.
Visually. Visually she could have been just about anything from druid with horns because shapeshifter to faun (excepting, as others pointed out, no digitigrade legs, which I didn't think of).

She and Holga are the only two whose racial background had any impact on their backstory. (Holga's because of the mixed-race marriage causing some problems with her barbarian tribe, though even that's likely more class-as-culture based than really race-as-culture based.) Doric had a LOT of bitterness towards humans specifically because of things unique to being a tiefling, and this came up repeatedly.

It could've been written out, sure. Even just edited out. But it's still a big part of her characterization, so editing it out would've made her have even less screen time that wasn't just going owlbear on some baddies. Putting in a different backstory for her as an elf or whatnot would've made her a notably different character with different underlying motivations, even if the surface "they polluted/attacked the forest" ones remained intact.
But now that you mention it, while she needed to be an outsider, her story would work with being many things other than tiefling. She hated humans (or really, a specific group of humans), and was protecting a group of forest elves and their forest. Those work just fine with tiefling, elf, faun, barbarian, or even just druid.

[Dr.Samurai]

Visually. Visually she could have been just about anything from druid with horns because shapeshifter to faun (excepting, as others pointed out, no digitigrade legs, which I didn't think of).

But now that you mention it, while she needed to be an outsider, her story would work with being many things other than tiefling. She hated humans (or really, a specific group of humans), and was protecting a group of forest elves and their forest. Those work just fine with tiefling, elf, faun, barbarian, or even just druid.
Agreed, and that's why I said it's mostly window dressing. I mean... that's part of the disconnect too. She doesn't have purple skin, pupil-less eyes, fangs, flames at her fingertips, etc. Humans hate her because... she has two little horns? And a tail, in some scenes? Meanwhile a full blown bird person is ok? Doesn't make too much sense.

Anyways, this is sort of getting off-topic. I'm not arguing she doesn't look like a tiefling according to the books, so please put the pitchforks down.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Agreed, and that's why I said it's mostly window dressing. I mean... that's part of the disconnect too. She doesn't have purple skin, pupil-less eyes, fangs, flames at her fingertips, etc. Humans hate her because... she has two little horns? And a tail, in some scenes? Meanwhile a full blown bird person is ok? Doesn't make too much sense.

Answering as delicately as I can. I've seen people who can accept people of any ethnicity, but freak out if they're LGBTQIA+ or a different Religion or a different Political spectrum.

The idea that people could accept those "Other People" are birds or cats but one of OURS can't be having Horns from devil blood. Yeah, I have no trouble buying that.

[Schwann145]

Humans hate her because... she has two little horns? And a tail, in some scenes? Meanwhile a full blown bird person is ok? Doesn't make too much sense.

I think pop culture has a lot to do with that coming off weird.
Things that are horrible and evil have been getting seriously sterilized lately. "It's not really evil, it's just misunderstood. The devil is nice to it's pet can, aw, how cute!" Etc.
Fiends have a (very earned) reputation that bird people don't, so two little horns and a flimsy tail should be incredibly troubling to most, at first glance.

The flip side is, of course, that bird people (and the like) are incredibly rare, and D&D has just... been entirely handwaiving that. Every D&D game/world/etc is full-on "kitchen sink" and accepting of everyone in a way that, while wholesome, isn't even following what the game itself says about species that are much more rare than others.

[Hurrashane]

The flip side is, of course, that bird people (and the like) are incredibly rare, and D&D has just... been entirely handwaiving that. Every D&D game/world/etc is full-on "kitchen sink" and accepting of everyone in a way that, while wholesome, isn't even following what the game itself says about species that are much more rare than others.

I don't know about that one. In most media it's always tons of humans, few elves+dwarves, occasional halfling/gnome, and then a sprinkling of others. The D&D movie is this way, like 90% human, small enclave of elves, few dwarfs here and there, couple halflings or gnomes, then like 1 aracora, 1 dragonborn (maybe a couple more?), 1 Tabaxi family

and why wouldn't they be accepting? Something like a Tabaxi isn't burning down their village. D&D commoners have bigger things to worry about, like mimics, mindflayers, dragons, bullettes, undead, demons, evil overlords, etc. Some like, cat or bird man stopping through is pretty harmless.

[Psyren]

Answering as delicately as I can. I've seen people who can accept people of any ethnicity, but freak out if they're LGBTQIA+ or a different Religion or a different Political spectrum.

The idea that people could accept those "Other People" are birds or cats but one of OURS can't be having Horns from devil blood. Yeah, I have no trouble buying that.

Adding to this, Forgotten Realms in particular has deep-rooted stigma against Tieflings and Drow (and a few others like Duergar and Svirfneblin) because of their history in the setting. It doesn't have to be based in rationality (and in fact it definitely isn't, given the inherent diversity of the world they live in), it's simply there. Doric's parents straight-up abandoning her because of what the neighbors might think is entirely plausible for a Sword Coast community.

[Dr.Samurai]

The idea that people could accept those "Other People" are birds or cats but one of OURS can't be having Horns from devil blood. Yeah, I have no trouble buying that.
I do, because the whole point is that everything is waaaaaay far in the past of this person's bloodline. That's what has been said in this very thread. Plus... there is no predisposition toward any behavior. Everyone is just normal and chill. That's the new sanitized lore. No baddies among the races.

So... how many generations are we talking about here? Generations of tieflings just being normal people, not doing anything, looking like humans but for some pointed ears and a couple of little horns. Not nearly as monstrous as the dragonborn.

If tieflings are like humans and elves and dwarves but for a couple of horns... why are humans persecuting them? Humans don't persecute dwarves or elves.

Really my issue is that it seems out of place for the tone of the movie. It's a very light and modern attitude that the characters have. Couple that with "tieflings are just like you and me and look really human", having there be this persecution seems out of place.

I think pop culture has a lot to do with that coming off weird.
Things that are horrible and evil have been getting seriously sterilized lately. "It's not really evil, it's just misunderstood. The devil is nice to it's pet can, aw, how cute!" Etc.
Fiends have a (very earned) reputation that bird people don't, so two little horns and a flimsy tail should be incredibly troubling to most, at first glance.

The flip side is, of course, that bird people (and the like) are incredibly rare, and D&D has just... been entirely handwaiving that. Every D&D game/world/etc is full-on "kitchen sink" and accepting of everyone in a way that, while wholesome, isn't even following what the game itself says about species that are much more rare than others.
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. It's weird to have an "everything goes" setting, where also people have a pretty modern attitude, but then also have this old school persecution, of people that aren't evil and don't look monstrous at all, especially when there are monstrous creatures running around.

You don't get to be like "having bad races is bad, let's get rid of that" but then keep "these people are still persecuted anyways".

[Hurrashane]

Really my issue is that it seems out of place for the tone of the movie. It's a very light and modern attitude that the characters have. Couple that with "tieflings are just like you and me and look really human", having there be this persecution seems out of place.



I don't recall her getting persecuted in the movie. Her parents abandoned her, I don't remember if it was even said that that happened because she was a tiefling. I know that no other humanoid treated her any different nor called attention to her being a tiefling. But there doesn't seem to be any wide persecution of Tieflings happening in the movie version of FR, anyway.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I don't recall her getting persecuted in the movie. Her parents abandoned her, I don't remember if it was even said that that happened because she was a tiefling. I know that no other humanoid treated her any different nor called attention to her being a tiefling. But there doesn't seem to be any wide persecution of Tieflings happening in the movie version of FR, anyway.

You don't ever see casual interaction with anyone that wouldn't accept her.

The Elves clearly already accept her, the Adventuring Party Accepts her. The Villains want her dead the same as the rest and so don't specifically treat different.

Who else does she interact with for any length that we see? More to the point, how many bigoted people are openly bigoted when they don't have numbers or guaranteed safety? It's a reason it was always so comically stupid when some smuck walks up to Cyclops and smacks his glasses off. It's Darwinism.

[Dr.Samurai]

I didn't recall it either, but I thought others were saying she was persecuted and that's why she hates humans.

[Luccan]

I wish Doric looked more fiendish, but I'm in agreement that we don't really see her interact with anyone beyond her allies or people who are already enemies, so it's hard to say. The movie (which I liked a lot) already seemed to barely have space for her characterization, so I just don't think we got a good look at her background experience. Maybe if it gets a sequel we'll see more. Of course, there's another option: she hates humans because they abandoned her... And also she was raised by elves, who act all superior to humans all the time anyway.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Of course, there's another option: she hates humans because they abandoned her... And also she was raised by elves, who act all superior to humans all the time anyway.

That's fair, WHEN was she abandoned? If she hit 15 and got told to beat it, she might have direct resentment. But if they left her to die at level 3 or something and the Elves found her an took her in..

[Dr.Samurai]

And also she was raised by elves, who act all superior to humans all the time anyway.
Lol, that tracks :smallbiggrin:

[Dork_Forge]

Wiki says that when she was born her parents locked her in the attic, when she was 6 her parents had a human daughter that Doric grew increasingly bothered by how well they treated her in comparison.

The first time she came face to face with her sister her parents drugged her and abandoned her to die in Neverwinter Wood.


So she's definitely old enough to have that hate, but at the same time she didn't really need to be a Tiefling to hate humans, especially since it's barely a point in a the movie.

[Hurrashane]

Wiki says that when she was born her parents locked her in the attic, when she was 6 her parents had a human daughter that Doric grew increasingly bothered by how well they treated her in comparison.

The first time she came face to face with her sister her parents drugged her and abandoned her to die in Neverwinter Wood.


So she's definitely old enough to have that hate, but at the same time she didn't really need to be a Tiefling to hate humans, especially since it's barely a point in a the movie.

Damn, there's always one in the party with an edgy backstory, huh?

[Dr.Samurai]

Damn, there's always one in the party with an edgy backstory, huh?
Lol, this is a D&D truism.

That is a messed up backstory :smalleek:.

Good to see she came out relatively well adjusted.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

So she's definitely old enough to have that hate, but at the same time she didn't really need to be a Tiefling to hate humans, especially since it's barely a point in a the movie.

Nothing has to be anything, but we need a reason for her parents to abandon her. Tiefling tracks.

[Psyren]

Wiki says that when she was born her parents locked her in the attic, when she was 6 her parents had a human daughter that Doric grew increasingly bothered by how well they treated her in comparison.

The first time she came face to face with her sister her parents drugged her and abandoned her to die in Neverwinter Wood.


So she's definitely old enough to have that hate, but at the same time she didn't really need to be a Tiefling to hate humans, especially since it's barely a point in a the movie.

Being a Tiefling explains* why her parents treated her that way when they clearly don't hate all children in general (as evidenced by her sister.)

*not justifies of course


Nothing has to be anything, but we need a reason for her parents to abandon her. Tiefling tracks.

^