Why is D&D still Medieval?

[quinron]

But even when there isn't an advance in time and all the adventures happen in a few consecutive years and in the same country, D&D settings tend to be a mishmash of traits from many pre-industrial societies, and even some from industrial societies.

Like, you have a walled village that is an independent city-state, similar to Iron Age oppida settlements, only the village head is voted by all adult citizens and has a position similar to the mayor of a Far West settlement, but the main religion has an authority close to the medieval Catholic Church, there are Druids living in the nearby forest (save these "druids" are more like Native American Medicine Men combined with Central Asian Shamans), Bards have a privileged status similar to Celtic Ovates, there are banking companies similar to Renaissance Italian ones, the architecture is inspired in the Tudor style save the temple, which is of Greco-Roman style, they have XVIII level clocks, their clothes are similar to XVII century Slavic ones, their weapons and armor are of Renaissance level, they grow potatoes, tomatoes, maize, rice, tobacco and cotton, and glass is common and cheap...

I've never really had much interest in D&D's settings, but the fact that they really lean into the historical mishmash - which I've gathered is what older D&D used to do - is why I find the Pathfinder setting really charming. Especially because they decided to put "Stone Age nomads" and " robot aliens from beyond the stars" in the same 100-mile radius.

[Nifft]

Which provides one possible answer to OP's question: the technology in the game hasn't progressed because they haven't made rules for it, and they haven't made rules for it because most things that can be accomplished with advanced technology either a) are already accomplished more easily with magic, or b) would invalidate now-classic magical elements to a degree that you'd be fundamentally re-evaluating the whole system.

There were firearms rules in the 3e DMG.

The absence had nothing to do with a lack of rules.

But even when there isn't an advance in time and all the adventures happen in a few consecutive years and in the same country, D&D settings tend to be a mishmash of traits from many pre-industrial societies, and even some from industrial societies.

Like, you have a walled village that is an independent city-state, similar to Iron Age oppida settlements, only the village head is voted by all adult citizens and has a position similar to the mayor of a Far West settlement, but the main religion has an authority close to the medieval Catholic Church, there are Druids living in the nearby forest (save these "druids" are more like Native American Medicine Men combined with Central Asian Shamans), Bards have a privileged status similar to Celtic Ovates, there are banking companies similar to Renaissance Italian ones, the architecture is inspired in the Tudor style save the temple, which is of Greco-Roman style, they have XVIII level clocks, their clothes are similar to XVII century Slavic ones, their weapons and armor are of Renaissance level, they grow potatoes, tomatoes, maize, rice, tobacco and cotton, and glass is common and cheap...

... and then you're thrown into a slave gladiatorial coliseum, and you have to pilot a crab-robot submarine to escape through 20th century sewer pipes ...

[quinron]

There were firearms rules in the 3e DMG.

The absence had nothing to do with a lack of rules.

There are firearms and laser guns in the 5e DMG, but that doesn't mean you should expect to see them in a game. Firearms have always been heavily gated: they're placed in the DMG, not the PHB; they're usually prohibitively expensive; and they always come with disclaimers saying "be careful about deciding whether you want to include these in your game because they'll screw the balance," unlike other things (i.e., magic items) gated by cost and DM approval. The reason for the proliferation of firearms was that they're more functional and easier to train in and maintain than bows or melee weaponry, but in D&D they're usually considered "exotic" or "advanced" weapons.

Which all suggests - and I'm far from the first to make this observation - that the rules for firearms introduced into D&D games weren't given a lot of balance consideration and thus firearms aren't expected to be used by most players. Maybe amend my prior post from "they haven't made rules for it" to "they haven't prioritized rules for it."

[Gnoman]

There are firearms and laser guns in the 5e DMG, but that doesn't mean you should expect to see them in a game. Firearms have always been heavily gated: they're placed in the DMG, not the PHB; they're usually prohibitively expensive; and they always come with disclaimers saying "be careful about deciding whether you want to include these in your game because they'll screw the balance," unlike other things (i.e., magic items) gated by cost and DM approval. The reason for the proliferation of firearms was that they're more functional and easier to train in and maintain than bows or melee weaponry, but in D&D they're usually considered "exotic" or "advanced" weapons.

Which all suggests - and I'm far from the first to make this observation - that the rules for firearms introduced into D&D games weren't given a lot of balance consideration and thus firearms aren't expected to be used by most players. Maybe amend my prior post from "they haven't made rules for it" to "they haven't prioritized rules for it."

The 3.5e DMG, at least, stated that there was no reason not to include firearms if that's what you wanted. They just weren't included in the basic setup because that's not what most people want, so they're part of the "setting variations" chapter.


The "cheap and easy to train with" bit is mostly myth. Early handgonnes were fairly expensive, powder was more so, and they were difficult to use. Proper matchlock arquebuses and muskets were easier to use, but still expensive.

[Pex]

Firearms can be more unbalancing than magic items precisely because they are non-magical. Being non-magical means anyone can make them or learn how to, but even if cost and secret knowledge are a factor in the making anyone can use them. They aren't too expensive to get. Farmer Joe will have a rifle to use against the bard wooing his daughter. A proliferation would make the game The Old West. Some people may want that, but it alters the prevalent atmosphere of D&D; hence they're gated.

[Nifft]

the technology in the game hasn't progressed because they haven't made rules for it

There are firearms and laser guns in the 5e DMG

It's great that you've abandoned the (obviously untrue) claim that "they haven't made rules" for higher tech.

Can you believe that some people are unable to admit being wrong?

Firearms can be more unbalancing than magic items precisely because they are non-magical. Being non-magical means anyone can make them or learn how to, but even if cost and secret knowledge are a factor in the making anyone can use them. They aren't too expensive to get. Farmer Joe will have a rifle to use against the bard wooing his daughter. A proliferation would make the game The Old West. Some people may want that, but it alters the prevalent atmosphere of D&D; hence they're gated.

It wouldn't be any default setting, but a lot of Western tropes could find a home in many D&D games.

Off the top of my head...

Dirty Hennet: "I know what you're thinking: `Did he spend six first-level slots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a magic missile spell, the most accurate spell in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, Monk?"

[Anonymouswizard]

Firearms can be more unbalancing than magic items precisely because they are non-magical. Being non-magical means anyone can make them or learn how to, but even if cost and secret knowledge are a factor in the making anyone can use them. They aren't too expensive to get. Farmer Joe will have a rifle to use against the bard wooing his daughter. A proliferation would make the game The Old West. Some people may want that, but it alters the prevalent atmosphere of D&D; hence they're gated.

A lot of this also applies to magic items, the real game changing factor is that guns are generally an order of magnitude cheaper. Even if we assume that they're Exotic rather than Simple or Martial weapons, if we're being honest most people in-setting probably aren't proficient in any weapons.

It's also not hard to turn D&D into a Western in a silly hat. You already have the PCs as the drifters who'll get into the gunfight at noon, so it's just a case in focusing on the untamed Wonderbra and associated press level threats like bandits (and increasing the focus on horses and wagons). If the setting is a frontier for a relatively prosperous nation you could even get cowboys driving herds to their new homes.

[Mechalich]

D&D designers like to pretend that D&D worlds actually look like E6 worlds - quasi-medieval with relatively little magic where everyone's running fetch quests all the time. From that perspective firearms absolutely are destabilizing. That's not what D&D worlds embracing the full spectrum of 1-20 actually look like, but I can see where the impulse originates.

[quinron]

It's great that you've abandoned the (obviously untrue) claim that "they haven't made rules" for higher tech.

Can you believe that some people are unable to admit being wrong?

If this is meant to be as sarcastic as it's reading, I did admit I was wrong; I specifically amended the first statement you quoted at the end of the second post that you clipped a quote from. If that feels insufficient, take this as an admission: I was wrong and there are in fact rules for firearms. It just seems to me that there wasn't a lot of consideration given to making them feel balanced alongside the weapons on the basic equipment lists in the PHB.

Firearms can be more unbalancing than magic items precisely because they are non-magical. Being non-magical means anyone can make them or learn how to, but even if cost and secret knowledge are a factor in the making anyone can use them. They aren't too expensive to get. Farmer Joe will have a rifle to use against the bard wooing his daughter. A proliferation would make the game The Old West. Some people may want that, but it alters the prevalent atmosphere of D&D; hence they're gated.

At least in 3.5, 5e, and Pathfinder - i.e., the games I'm familiar with - I've always been a little annoyed by how powerful guns have been made relative to other weapons. Particularly in Pathfinder, where they've been given the most attention, firearms deal significantly more damage than comparable weapons and target touch AC and have a x4 crit multiplier; I'm just dubious as to whether a person shot in the head by a pistol is really going to be roughly twice as grievously injured as someone shot in the head with a bow or crossbow or stabbed in the head with a longsword. That said, I'm no ballistics or physical trauma expert, so I could be totally wrong.

A lot of this also applies to magic items, the real game changing factor is that guns are generally an order of magnitude cheaper. Even if we assume that they're Exotic rather than Simple or Martial weapons, if we're being honest most people in-setting probably aren't proficient in any weapons.

It's also not hard to turn D&D into a Western in a silly hat. You already have the PCs as the drifters who'll get into the gunfight at noon, so it's just a case in focusing on the untamed Wonderbra and associated press level threats like bandits (and increasing the focus on horses and wagons). If the setting is a frontier for a relatively prosperous nation you could even get cowboys driving herds to their new homes.

Tonally, I already tend to run my games like Westerns in silly hats. I don't use magitech, I just let magic stand in for technology - sendings are telegraphs, fire bolts are pistols, etc.

[Darth Credence]

A lot of this also applies to magic items, the real game changing factor is that guns are generally an order of magnitude cheaper. Even if we assume that they're Exotic rather than Simple or Martial weapons, if we're being honest most people in-setting probably aren't proficient in any weapons.

It's also not hard to turn D&D into a Western in a silly hat. You already have the PCs as the drifters who'll get into the gunfight at noon, so it's just a case in focusing on the untamed Wonderbra and associated press level threats like bandits (and increasing the focus on horses and wagons). If the setting is a frontier for a relatively prosperous nation you could even get cowboys driving herds to their new homes.

I have no idea what happened here, but "focusing on the untamed Wonderbra" is outstanding. I am trying to figure out ways to plan an adventure that does so.

[Anonymouswizard]

I have no idea what happened here, but "focusing on the untamed Wonderbra" is outstanding. I am trying to figure out ways to plan an adventure that does so.

The autocorrect on my phone is weird. Or well, what it guesses I want when typing via SwiftKey is weird. Wonderbra should be wilderness.

And I think it's the key component for a brassiere of fire elemental summoning.

[DrewID]

The autocorrect on my phone is weird. Or well, what it guesses I want when typing via SwiftKey is weird. Wonderbra should be wilderness.

And I think it's the key component for a brassiere of fire elemental summoning.

And here I thought "focusing on the untamed Wonderbra" was funny. <tips hat>

DrewID

[Destro2119]

DnD itself isn't medieval. DnD worlds aren't even medieval even as far as serfdom, feudal lords etc go. In truly medieval times you did not have nation states like you always do in the standard fantasy world; you have people who just vaguely live on "Lord Ollie's land" or whatever. You also would not have the friggin nigh universal literacy you see in the standard fantasy worlds like FR or Greyhawk for the simple reasons that it is *beyond* tedious to play out illiteracy with even a GM of average skill.

DnD worlds are meant to be consistent only insofar as you can go adventure in them and convenient for a GM to run them. It's that simple. In this respect, we can see that Starfinder/d20 Modern are basically identical to Greyhawk. When all is said and done, they are essentially theme parks, and the "average fantasy world" is theme park lands within a theme park. Otherwise, yeah, I agree with the current state of technology/education/magic/high level characters of the "average fantasy setting" is sufficient that the world would advance quickly enough that the published setting would be a relic in a matter of decades.

EDIT: Not even getting into the completely ****ed settlement tables. Paris in medieval times had average of 200000 people. Nanjing (for the inevitable Asia expy) had a population of 400000 in medieval times. London in the year 1700 had a population of 500000 (accounting for the fact that most tech in DnD worlds is basically at least 1700s level except for guns).

[False God]

I mean, it is isn't...It's some weird mash up of about 1000+ years worth of fantasized IRL history, ranging from the 500's to the 1500's, with it's fingers stretching out far beyond that in both directions.

But the answer is: D&D is what it is because that's what people want from it. More or less.

It's not a "real world" with a constantly advancing timeframe parallel to ours that we're only witnessing through the books.

[Destro2119]

If you want Sci-Fi in your D&D, you really should just go play Starfinder.

Exactly. Honestly, if you think about it, there are so many things that the very societal structure of Starfinder should make obsolete that it's almost laughable. Wandering encounters/random monster attacks should be no more with the presence of a well armed police force.

Yet, because it's an adventure game, the game inevitably needs people who are "high level" to go and kill the Big Bad when they easily just have the capability to just nuke them or something.

The very concept of Starfinder should not be, since progress IRL is built off the backs of a billion people innvating and pooling their knowledge, yet in SF it is done by a few 15th level people.

[Destro2119]

I've never really had much interest in D&D's settings, but the fact that they really lean into the historical mishmash - which I've gathered is what older D&D used to do - is why I find the Pathfinder setting really charming. Especially because they decided to put "Stone Age nomads" and " robot aliens from beyond the stars" in the same 100-mile radius.

Golarion is THE definition of "theme park fantasy." And yes, it often makes no sense.

[Anonymouswizard]

Golarion is THE definition of "theme park fantasy." And yes, it often makes no sense.

Meanwhile I prefer at least the pretense of realistic technological progression and adoption, and highly dislike things like 'technology has been basically unchanged for 1000 years'.

I think of it as 'stage play fantasy'. Yes we know that the throne room set is lit by modern lights carefully positioned and angled, but as long as no actor is checking social media on their phone I'm willing to buy into the illusion.

It tends to invoice things like having especially high and low tech cultures exist behind some kind of barrier, or have them be affected by proximity, but for some of us it's just a much, much easier buy-in. And then you can start bringing in such things as a renegade set of dwarves who refuse to use any technology not mentioned in their millennia old holy book.

[LibraryOgre]

Meanwhile I prefer at least the pretense of realistic technological progression and adoption, and highly dislike things like 'technology has been basically unchanged for 1000 years'.

I have a semi-answer to that.. basically, tech is stagnant because magic is there. You don't need as much technological development because magic meets many of the needs that would otherwise come from technological advancement.

[Telok]

I have a semi-answer to that.. basically, tech is stagnant because magic is there. You don't need as much technological development because magic meets many of the needs that would otherwise come from technological advancement.

People keep saying this but in most cases even the levels of magic knowledge and ability is stagnant too. Even RL alchemy, our closest analog to actual d&d working magic, which started as mostly mysticisim and philosophy kept consistently advancing as its practioners experimented and tried to understand what was happening.

[Nifft]

People keep saying this but in most cases even the levels of magic knowledge and ability is stagnant too. Even RL alchemy, our closest analog to actual d&d working magic, which started as mostly mysticisim and philosophy kept consistently advancing as its practioners experimented and tried to understand what was happening.

D&D magic wasn't originally static.

If your games have static magic, you might want to talk to your DM.

See, most of those "named" spells you know about in D&D? Those names came from characters in a campaign.

Melf's Acid Arrow was created by a Magic-User named "Melf". Otto's Irresistible Dance was created by a Magic-User named ... wait for it ... "Otto".

If your games don't allow you to immortalize your PC's name by creating new magic, then you should talk to your DM -- and if you are the DM, you should take this lesson from the early editions.

PC names on setting elements feels awesome.

[KineticDiplomat]

It is also worth noting that the idea of constantly evolving technology is a very, very modern one. Even the idea that you fundamentally should be driving change is way less common back in the day.

Take chain mail. It was in use in the BCs. It was still in use into the early renaissance, and until the Hundred Years’ War it was arguably the premier armor. Or the plow, which was invented several thousand years BC, and basically only had three major changes (the mould board, adding wheels, and engineering heavier metal shod blades) prior to the industrial revolution. Let’s be clear on that: in over 5000 years the single most important tool in human agriculture, the basis of all societal wealth, got wheels, a heavier blade, and a few extra divots.

The holy trinity of capital/easy credit-large scale management-innovator that has driven so much modern development is not a granted part of societies for a long time...and the cultural mindset that men of science would immediately be turning about their inventions into immediately practical tools as a natural part of society’s advancement definitely wasn’t there.

———

And, you know, because no one wants machineguns cutting down their wizards. (Or they play shadowrun)

[Mechalich]

People keep saying this but in most cases even the levels of magic knowledge and ability is stagnant too. Even RL alchemy, our closest analog to actual d&d working magic, which started as mostly mysticisim and philosophy kept consistently advancing as its practioners experimented and tried to understand what was happening.

Not really. Most D&D settings are post-apocalyptic. There was, at some point in the past, a massive magitech empire or regime that pushed capabilities far above what is presently known, and the current generations are struggling to redevelop these achievements. Additionally, in some cases the current powers-that-be are engaged in restricting on-going development for some reason.

This is common even beyond D&D. The Wheel of Time, for example, is explicitly set in a society recovering from what was actually two different apocalypses that destroyed its magitech utopia, and the recovery has been extremely slow both to ongoing oppression by the forces of evil in the form of both the corrupt of one half of magic and active aggression (Jordan smartly made the point that on the continent where active aggression was largely absent the society developed considerably further, if in some uncomfortable ways). When these oppressive forces are removed during the series the path towards restoration of a magitech utopia is laid bare, something a brief hypothetical flash forward makes clear.

That said, there's no reason why magical development should allow infinite advancement any more than there's no reason for science to do the same (modern physics has been pretty could at crushing some of the dreams of science fiction actually, like FTL travel). If development of magical systems to support society occurs instead of technological change, then the development of the fictional society caps at whatever point the full extent of the magic system allows. That's totally arbitrary, because magic systems are themselves arbitrary.

It's possible to imagine a magic system were maximized application of magic produces a quasi-medieval world with some quirks. E6, depending on how you structure it, gets you at least partway there.

[Tanarii]

Not really. Most D&D settings are post-apocalyptic. There was, at some point in the past, a massive magitech empire or regime that pushed capabilities far above what is presently known, and the current generations are struggling to redevelop these achievements. Additionally, in some cases the current powers-that-be are engaged in restricting on-going development for some reason.

Definitely the setting is post apocalyptic in Birthright, Darksun, Dragonlance, Eberron, Mystara (three times in history; once after Wrath), and even Spelljammer. But while I don't feel that Birthright or Dragonlance had the "magitech aspect", the other three definitely did. Although technically Darksun's was bio-psionic tech. Also Birthright is more "collapse of continent-wide empire" than post-apocalyptic.

I honestly don't know if that's an accurate way to describe Forgotten Realms, unless you want to count the Elven Kingdoms, then definitely. Not sure about Greyhawk or Rokugan, I don't know them very well. And definitely not for Planescape, it's got its whole own thing with the Blood War.

[Pex]

D&D magic wasn't originally static.

If your games have static magic, you might want to talk to your DM.

See, most of those "named" spells you know about in D&D? Those names came from characters in a campaign.

Melf's Acid Arrow was created by a Magic-User named "Melf". Otto's Irresistible Dance was created by a Magic-User named ... wait for it ... "Otto".

If your games don't allow you to immortalize your PC's name by creating new magic, then you should talk to your DM -- and if you are the DM, you should take this lesson from the early editions.

PC names on setting elements feels awesome.

Yep

In 2E it was specifically discussed in the DMG how a player could create his own spells. I've made quite a few, and by personal happiness coincidence 3E published their own version of the same effect. In 3E/Pathfinder every new splat book had new spells. You could call that advancement but people soon complained about the spell bloat. It's unfair to blame current D&D for lack of advancement when it's the players themselves who yelled "STOP!". Again, though, there is Eberron which is precisely magic as technological advancement. Planes, trains, and robots. You can go all goth punk if you care about tatoos/dragon marks. You can have a full on alien invasion if you care about kalashtar/quori. Have warforged terminators springforth from the Mournland.

[DrewID]

That said, there's no reason why magical development should allow infinite advancement any more than there's no reason for science to do the same (modern physics has been pretty could at crushing some of the dreams of science fiction actually, like FTL travel). If development of magical systems to support society occurs instead of technological change, then the development of the fictional society caps at whatever point the full extent of the magic system allows. That's totally arbitrary, because magic systems are themselves arbitrary.

It's possible to imagine a magic system were maximized application of magic produces a quasi-medieval world with some quirks. E6, depending on how you structure it, gets you at least partway there.

This is something to consider. It takes a fairly advanced society, one with resources to spare, to engage in research to research's sake. If technology has reached level, let's call it 3, when magitech becomes a viable alternative, and then magitech advances to what would have been, say, level 5 and then stagnates, there is not a lot of impetus for non-magical technology to advance, since it (in many fields) has to advance in steps, and what is the benefit of creating and expanding on level 4 technology (which is what comes after 3) when level 5 magitech is still better.

[Mechalich]

This is something to consider. It takes a fairly advanced society, one with resources to spare, to engage in research to research's sake. If technology has reached level, let's call it 3, when magitech becomes a viable alternative, and then magitech advances to what would have been, say, level 5 and then stagnates, there is not a lot of impetus for non-magical technology to advance, since it (in many fields) has to advance in steps, and what is the benefit of creating and expanding on level 4 technology (which is what comes after 3) when level 5 magitech is still better.

Right.

A simple example here is lighting.

In D&D lighting is super easy. You gather up tens of thousands of pebbles, and then you cast Lesser Planar Ally to bring forth a Lantern Archon. It has Continual Flame as an at will ability. It casts the spell every round for seven days at the cost of 500 gp (longer if the caster is higher level). That produces just over 100,000 torch-level lights that require no power and never burn out. With the rare exception of certain specialized needs, this method will take care of all artificial lighting needs on the cheap, forever.

The level of technology needed to surpass this is 20th century minimum, and because Continual Flame cheats the laws of thermodynamics for many uses it will always be superior to technology based lights (it would easily replace 90% of the bulbs in the houses and workplaces of everyone reading this right now).

[Anonymouswizard]

I have a semi-answer to that.. basically, tech is stagnant because magic is there. You don't need as much technological development because magic meets many of the needs that would otherwise come from technological advancement.

I fully believe that in z Eberron, less so in the settings where magic is pretty of the tech of must people.

Also, I can easily accept it for a couple of hundred years, but when it becomes thousands? My brief is in very shaky supports.

Melf's Acid Arrow was created by a Magic-User named "Melf".

I thought it was created by an unnamed male elf?

But yeah, things shouldn't be static. I'm in a Warhammer based have right now where the elves* are soon going to get very annoyed that humans and dwarfs have both begin to reverse engineer Waystones.

* Who seem to be in technological stasis but might be advancing magically

[Willie the Duck]

I fully believe that in z Eberron, less so in the settings where magic is pretty of the tech of must people.

Also, I can easily accept it for a couple of hundred years, but when it becomes thousands? My brief is in very shaky supports.

Once we get 'thousands of years after the a society with magic was conceived' it pretty much becomes random speculation, in my book.

I thought it was created by an unnamed male elf?

According to the lore, Ernie Gygax named the elf character Melf, meaning 'male elf,' at a time when you went through characters like tissue paper and who knew that the characters that would gather enough lasting survivability to influence the game world would be 'Melf,' 'Fighter #45,' 'Ben Dover,' and 'Killroy Washere.'

[Anonymouswizard]

Once we get 'thousands of years after the a society with magic was conceived' it pretty much becomes random speculation, in my book.

It's more of a gripe against unnecessarily 'epic' timescales, as much as eternal stasis. Many D&D settings have had a thousand year status quo, in many cases longer, with only the occasional new spell as a development.

And as 3.5's Complete Arcane pointed out, only the spells the creator distributes to others create a setting change.

Eberron in a thousand years will, if it continues it's current trend of development, look very weird. This is a good thing.

My settings tend to operate on a shorter time scale than many, individual pieces of technology may be around for centuries but there are both incremental improvements and major developments in other areas. Generally full gothic plate is less than a century old, although I'm considering for my next game pulling back and having it appear mid-campaign.

Also can we please get gambesons that are actually worthwhile?

According to the lore, Ernie Gygax named the elf character Melf, meaning 'male elf,' at a time when you went through characters like tissue paper and who knew that the characters that would gather enough lasting survivability to influence the game world would be 'Melf,' 'Fighter #45,' 'Ben Dover,' and 'Killroy Washere.'

I heard that the character wasn't named, so at the top of the character sheet were the words 'M elf'.

[Destro2119]

It's more of a gripe against unnecessarily 'epic' timescales, as much as eternal stasis. Many D&D settings have had a thousand year status quo, in many cases longer, with only the occasional new spell as a development.

And as 3.5's Complete Arcane pointed out, only the spells the creator distributes to others create a setting change.

Eberron in a thousand years will, if it continues it's current trend of development, look very weird. This is a good thing.

My settings tend to operate on a shorter time scale than many, individual pieces of technology may be around for centuries but there are both incremental improvements and major developments in other areas. Generally full gothic plate is less than a century old, although I'm considering for my next game pulling back and having it appear mid-campaign.

Also can we please get gambesons that are actually worthwhile?



I heard that the character wasn't named, so at the top of the character sheet were the words 'M elf'.

This timescale problem isn't even restricted to 3.X. In Starfinder, we are led to believe that it took a colony of highly advanced magical and technological peoples thousands of years to get off planet.

The "Complete Arcane" thing is presumably not the assumption for all spells, otherwise we would have basically none of the "name" spells. Plus, wizards can redevelop spells too.

Eberron demonstrates advancements are possible. Any sort of "medieval permanency" is just pure fantasy in more ways than one.