Hitpoints have a mechanical effect on a creature. Alignment no longer does since all the alignment-related powers and spells from previous editions no longer exist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
HP are a measure of balance. Doesn't mean you can't change them, but if WotC told you they didn't want to influence your decision regarding how resilient monsters are and dropped monster hit points, there'd rightly be some disgruntlement about getting unfinished content. Alignment tends to be fairly clear anyway, insofar as behavior is concerned anyway. If I've read the beholder's descriptive text or even just the roleplaying suggestions, I don't think I need to be told what alignment they typically are anymore. For all practical purposes, that's still covered.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Hitpoints have a mechanical effect on a creature. Alignment no longer does since all the alignment-related powers and spells from previous editions no longer exist.
That's not entirely true. Descent into Avernus has Lulu and the Soul Coins that both care about alignment, and there are several artifacts that care about it also, like the Book of Vile Darkness, which are specifically holdovers from previous editions.
But I don't see how any of this is relevant. You can't really play a monster without some description of it (False Hydras, perhaps, notwithstanding). It's just as necessary as the stat block, arguably more necessary in fact. Now you could argue that the alignment specifically isn't very important and I'd agree, but I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say I guess. "The stats weren't affected, thus the changes are minor"?
Hitpoints have a mechanical effect on a creature. Alignment no longer does since all the alignment-related powers and spells from previous editions no longer exist.
That's not entirely true. Descent into Avernus has Lulu and the Soul Coins that both care about alignment, and there are several artifacts that care about it also, like the Book of Vile Darkness, which are specifically holdovers from previous editions.
But I don't see how any of this is relevant. You can't really play a monster without some description of it (False Hydras, perhaps, notwithstanding). It's just as necessary as the stat block, arguably more necessary in fact. Now you could argue that the alignment specifically isn't very important and I'd agree, but I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say I guess. "The stats weren't affected, thus the changes are minor"?
Robe of the Archmagi also comes in tree different alignments.
Snickersnack can't be attuned to evil characters. There are several magic items that have some relationship with alignment in the magic item card deck
Alignment still has some role in mechanics, but saying that alignment is divorced from the mechanics, even if it were true, is a strawman anyway. As Choir said, the description is just as important when they sell me a "monster" as the stat block because I need that develop the monster. As I said, alignment is a small thing, but it's a step in the wrong direction when they're already lacking in that area.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I would have no problem removing alignment from the game entirely except that the Outer Planes would collapse without it. And I kinda like the Outer Planes. Maybe make alignment something that only has effect in that particular region of the multiverse?
I would have no problem removing alignment from the game entirely except that the Outer Planes would collapse without it.
It's a pretty easy fix to say "the only creatures that align properly with the axes of law, chaos, good and evil are outsiders."
Some creatures act in ways that noticeably advance the agendas of said outsiders, but that doesn't make them [insert alignment here]. Some creatures idealize and strive towards behaving and thinking like outsiders, but it's literally unachievable for all but the absolute most unhinged of mortals.
I would have no problem removing alignment from the game entirely except that the Outer Planes would collapse without it.
It's a pretty easy fix to say "the only creatures that align properly with the axes of law, chaos, good and evil are outsiders."
Some creatures act in ways that noticeably advance the agendas of said outsiders, but that doesn't make them [insert alignment here]. Some creatures idealize and strive towards behaving and thinking like outsiders, but it's literally unachievable for all but the absolute most unhinged of mortals.
Something like that, anyway.
I was just thinking something like that! But you said it much more articulately.
I would have no problem removing alignment from the game entirely except that the Outer Planes would collapse without it. And I kinda like the Outer Planes. Maybe make alignment something that only has effect in that particular region of the multiverse?
Honestly I think the Outer Planes would be more mysterious, wondrous, alien, and terrifying if we didn't know how they were compelled to act upon such understandable and arbitrary axes. They could still be what they are and you could use descriptions like, "Angels tend to act in ways that mortal find benevolent and orderly, but occasionally they will descend upon the Prime Material wearing forms of maddening beauty and wreak changes that mystify even the most learned of scholars." I think they would benefit from being less understandable on a mortal level.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I would have no problem removing alignment from the game entirely except that the Outer Planes would collapse without it. And I kinda like the Outer Planes. Maybe make alignment something that only has effect in that particular region of the multiverse?
Honestly I think the Outer Planes would be more mysterious, wondrous, alien, and terrifying if we didn't know how they were compelled to act upon such understandable and arbitrary axes. They could still be what they are and you could use descriptions like, "Angels tend to act in ways that mortal find benevolent and orderly, but occasionally they will descend upon the Prime Material wearing forms of maddening beauty and wreak changes that mystify even the most learned of scholars." I think they would benefit from being less understandable on a mortal level.
Hitpoints have a mechanical effect on a creature. Alignment no longer does since all the alignment-related powers and spells from previous editions no longer exist.
That's not entirely true. Descent into Avernus has Lulu and the Soul Coins that both care about alignment, and there are several artifacts that care about it also, like the Book of Vile Darkness, which are specifically holdovers from previous editions.
But I don't see how any of this is relevant. You can't really play a monster without some description of it (False Hydras, perhaps, notwithstanding). It's just as necessary as the stat block, arguably more necessary in fact. Now you could argue that the alignment specifically isn't very important and I'd agree, but I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say I guess. "The stats weren't affected, thus the changes are minor"?
Robe of the Archmagi also comes in tree different alignments.
Okay, forgot about all those. But still, that's all pretty niche compared to 3rd Edition where you could have a fight start with the Glabezru casting Chaos Hammer that does full damage to the Lawful Neutral wizard, half damage to the Neutral Good cleric, and no damage to the Chaotic Good ranger while the party then has to deal with the fact that only the paladin can overcome the demon's DR10/Good protection.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Stop this nonsense. Nobody is angry that they have modified the digital material. That is a straw man because you cannot openly defend the real reason for your anger. It would be interesting to hear your real arguments, and to be able to refute them if necessary. But all this loss of value bullshit just isn't credible. And besides, it is noise for nothing more than wasting time. It is so absurd that you seem like a parody of yourself.
I can only speak for my self but I have argued for archival of older versions and I even have issues with other sites/services doing away with archives or access to older builds/versions. (Namely steam with older builds and organizations changing away from gplv(2/3) and removing public access to old code)
Stop this nonsense. Nobody is angry that they have modified the digital material. That is a straw man because you cannot openly defend the real reason for your anger. It would be interesting to hear your real arguments, and to be able to refute them if necessary. But all this loss of value bullshit just isn't credible. And besides, it is noise for nothing more than wasting time. It is so absurd that you seem like a parody of yourself.
I can only speak for my self but I have argued for archival of older versions and I even have issues with other sites/services doing away with archives or access to older builds/versions. (Namely steam with older builds and organizations changing away from gplv(2/3) and removing public access to old code)
Retaining multiple versions of the ruleset is a terrible idea from WotC's point of view. It's never going to happen, never was an option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Stop this nonsense. Nobody is angry that they have modified the digital material. That is a straw man because you cannot openly defend the real reason for your anger. It would be interesting to hear your real arguments, and to be able to refute them if necessary. But all this loss of value bullshit just isn't credible. And besides, it is noise for nothing more than wasting time. It is so absurd that you seem like a parody of yourself.
I can only speak for my self but I have argued for archival of older versions and I even have issues with other sites/services doing away with archives or access to older builds/versions. (Namely steam with older builds and organizations changing away from gplv(2/3) and removing public access to old code)
Retaining multiple versions of the ruleset is a terrible idea from WotC's point of view. It's never going to happen, never was an option.
Not the point. They stated noone was upset they modified the digital version well I am cause of no archive.
But keep using WOTC as a toxic dismissive hammer to try and make me shut up and leave(you remind me of TSAsuperman from the Xbox forums who would use M$ viewpoint as why we couldn't just install any 2.5 in HDD in your 360)
Stop this nonsense. Nobody is angry that they have modified the digital material. That is a straw man because you cannot openly defend the real reason for your anger. It would be interesting to hear your real arguments, and to be able to refute them if necessary. But all this loss of value bullshit just isn't credible. And besides, it is noise for nothing more than wasting time. It is so absurd that you seem like a parody of yourself.
I can only speak for my self but I have argued for archival of older versions and I even have issues with other sites/services doing away with archives or access to older builds/versions. (Namely steam with older builds and organizations changing away from gplv(2/3) and removing public access to old code)
Retaining multiple versions of the ruleset is a terrible idea from WotC's point of view. It's never going to happen, never was an option.
Not the point. They stated noone was upset they modified the digital version well I am cause of no archive.
But keep using WOTC as a toxic dismissive hammer to try and make me shut up and leave(you remind me of TSAsuperman from the Xbox forums who would use M$ viewpoint as why we couldn't just install any 2.5 in HDD in your 360)
How is it not the point? I understand you would have liked archived versions of the previous text whenever errata are applied, but that's a terrible business idea for WotC. Not because they're toxic or dismissive of your concerns, but because it genuinely sends the wrong message to potential new customers. You don't have to believe me and you don't have to agree with me and you certainly don't have to stop posting your opinions, but that's a two way street - the exact same applies to me and everyone else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Stop this nonsense. Nobody is angry that they have modified the digital material. That is a straw man because you cannot openly defend the real reason for your anger. It would be interesting to hear your real arguments, and to be able to refute them if necessary. But all this loss of value bullshit just isn't credible. And besides, it is noise for nothing more than wasting time. It is so absurd that you seem like a parody of yourself.
I can only speak for my self but I have argued for archival of older versions and I even have issues with other sites/services doing away with archives or access to older builds/versions. (Namely steam with older builds and organizations changing away from gplv(2/3) and removing public access to old code)
Retaining multiple versions of the ruleset is a terrible idea from WotC's point of view. It's never going to happen, never was an option.
Not the point. They stated noone was upset they modified the digital version well I am cause of no archive.
But keep using WOTC as a toxic dismissive hammer to try and make me shut up and leave(you remind me of TSAsuperman from the Xbox forums who would use M$ viewpoint as why we couldn't just install any 2.5 in HDD in your 360)
How is it not the point? I understand you would have liked archived versions of the previous text whenever errata are applied, but that's a terrible business idea for WotC. Not because they're toxic or dismissive of your concerns, but because it genuinely sends the wrong message to potential new customers. You don't have to believe me and you don't have to agree with me and you certainly don't have to stop posting your opinions, but that's a two way street - the exact same applies to me and everyone else.
I for one do not like the precedent of people changing, not to make corrections, content that I have paid for. By such a precedent, they certainly could create an errata that completely erases the 5e books as an incentive for us to buy new ones. Is it likely? No. But does this ability to unilaterally deprive us of content that we paid money for make it possible? Certainly does.
Besides, multiple version, in this instance refers to flavour texts and not mechanics. So, I'm not really sure how that substantiates a nightmare of administration.
Stop this nonsense. Nobody is angry that they have modified the digital material. That is a straw man because you cannot openly defend the real reason for your anger. It would be interesting to hear your real arguments, and to be able to refute them if necessary. But all this loss of value bullshit just isn't credible. And besides, it is noise for nothing more than wasting time. It is so absurd that you seem like a parody of yourself.
I can only speak for my self but I have argued for archival of older versions and I even have issues with other sites/services doing away with archives or access to older builds/versions. (Namely steam with older builds and organizations changing away from gplv(2/3) and removing public access to old code)
Retaining multiple versions of the ruleset is a terrible idea from WotC's point of view. It's never going to happen, never was an option.
Not the point. They stated noone was upset they modified the digital version well I am cause of no archive.
But keep using WOTC as a toxic dismissive hammer to try and make me shut up and leave(you remind me of TSAsuperman from the Xbox forums who would use M$ viewpoint as why we couldn't just install any 2.5 in HDD in your 360)
How is it not the point? I understand you would have liked archived versions of the previous text whenever errata are applied, but that's a terrible business idea for WotC. Not because they're toxic or dismissive of your concerns, but because it genuinely sends the wrong message to potential new customers. You don't have to believe me and you don't have to agree with me and you certainly don't have to stop posting your opinions, but that's a two way street - the exact same applies to me and everyone else.
I was calling out this false statement " Stop this nonsense. Nobody is angry that they have modified the digital material. That is a straw man because you cannot openly defend the real reason for your anger."
The word nobody implies 0 persons. Or are you saying it is a true statement and I'm not human, I'm not a person
There's a few different arguments colliding in this chain, Orthusaku.
Feykiller was upset that people are hiding behind the 'loss of value' argument as a smokescreen to try and make their real stance more tolerable. Very few people complaining about this errata from Wizards are doing so because they value the content lost, especially as so little content was actually lost. Most people arguing against it are doing so purely from a reactionary "anti-wokeness" standpoint and a knee-jerk need to defend the game's lore/tradition/history from interlopers. They refuse to acknowledge this save in a few notable cases however, and try to couch their arguments in terms of "losing value."
You're one of the few people who's arguing the 'Losing value' thing in good faith. From what I can tell you really are just upset that older versions of content isn't archived and available, the way good code revisions and the like should be, as both a historical record and a failsafe. That's a valid view to have, especially in the digital age, and a worthwhile argument to be made, but unfortunately your more reasonable arguments are being lost in the noise of other people getting their Twitterati outrage jockey on.
Pangurjan is addressing your argument specifically, however - he's telling you that Wizards of the Coast will never authorize public, 'legal' archived copies of older editions of the ruleset because it would actively detract in a big way from their business. The core product, the thing D&D is, is a unified ruleset they can sell to anyone who wants to run a Cool Fantasy Adventure Game for their friends. Having dozens/hundreds of different versions of that ruleset floating around actively sabotages their product and makes it drastically less appealing to customers. It is in their best interests, in a big way, to effectively black-box older revisions of the text and present their game as a single, unified product. Companies like DDB no doubt keep older revisions archived in the pursuit of their business, but Wizards will revoke the license before they allow anyone to sell multiple different iterations and versions of D&D. They can't be having that, which unfortunately means that as reasonable as your desire is, it cannot be accomodated from a business perspective.
I for one do not like the precedent of people changing, not to make corrections, content that I have paid for. By such a precedent, they certainly could create an errata that completely erases the 5e books as an incentive for us to buy new ones. Is it likely? No. But does this ability to unilaterally deprive us of content that we paid money for make it possible? Certainly does.
Besides, multiple version, in this instance refers to flavour texts and not mechanics. So, I'm not really sure how that substantiates a nightmare of administration.
Come now. There's no point in complaining about something WotC can do, when they haven't done so and haven't shown any indication they will. We'll see what happens when it's time for a new edition, but even 4E's digital content repositories where only closed down years after the launch of 5E and only due to technical reasons outside WotC's scope.
And it's not about a nightmare of administration. It's about showing new players a stack of versions and telling them to pick what they like best, rather than committing to a single official ruleset. Which has been changed already, multiple times, both in terms of flavour text and mechanics.
Hitpoints have a mechanical effect on a creature. Alignment no longer does since all the alignment-related powers and spells from previous editions no longer exist.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
HP are a measure of balance. Doesn't mean you can't change them, but if WotC told you they didn't want to influence your decision regarding how resilient monsters are and dropped monster hit points, there'd rightly be some disgruntlement about getting unfinished content. Alignment tends to be fairly clear anyway, insofar as behavior is concerned anyway. If I've read the beholder's descriptive text or even just the roleplaying suggestions, I don't think I need to be told what alignment they typically are anymore. For all practical purposes, that's still covered.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That's not entirely true. Descent into Avernus has Lulu and the Soul Coins that both care about alignment, and there are several artifacts that care about it also, like the Book of Vile Darkness, which are specifically holdovers from previous editions.
But I don't see how any of this is relevant. You can't really play a monster without some description of it (False Hydras, perhaps, notwithstanding). It's just as necessary as the stat block, arguably more necessary in fact. Now you could argue that the alignment specifically isn't very important and I'd agree, but I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say I guess. "The stats weren't affected, thus the changes are minor"?
Robe of the Archmagi also comes in tree different alignments.
Snickersnack can't be attuned to evil characters. There are several magic items that have some relationship with alignment in the magic item card deck
Alignment still has some role in mechanics, but saying that alignment is divorced from the mechanics, even if it were true, is a strawman anyway. As Choir said, the description is just as important when they sell me a "monster" as the stat block because I need that develop the monster. As I said, alignment is a small thing, but it's a step in the wrong direction when they're already lacking in that area.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I would have no problem removing alignment from the game entirely except that the Outer Planes would collapse without it. And I kinda like the Outer Planes. Maybe make alignment something that only has effect in that particular region of the multiverse?
It's a pretty easy fix to say "the only creatures that align properly with the axes of law, chaos, good and evil are outsiders."
Some creatures act in ways that noticeably advance the agendas of said outsiders, but that doesn't make them [insert alignment here]. Some creatures idealize and strive towards behaving and thinking like outsiders, but it's literally unachievable for all but the absolute most unhinged of mortals.
Something like that, anyway.
I was just thinking something like that! But you said it much more articulately.
Honestly I think the Outer Planes would be more mysterious, wondrous, alien, and terrifying if we didn't know how they were compelled to act upon such understandable and arbitrary axes. They could still be what they are and you could use descriptions like, "Angels tend to act in ways that mortal find benevolent and orderly, but occasionally they will descend upon the Prime Material wearing forms of maddening beauty and wreak changes that mystify even the most learned of scholars." I think they would benefit from being less understandable on a mortal level.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I like it!
Okay, forgot about all those. But still, that's all pretty niche compared to 3rd Edition where you could have a fight start with the Glabezru casting Chaos Hammer that does full damage to the Lawful Neutral wizard, half damage to the Neutral Good cleric, and no damage to the Chaotic Good ranger while the party then has to deal with the fact that only the paladin can overcome the demon's DR10/Good protection.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I can only speak for my self but I have argued for archival of older versions and I even have issues with other sites/services doing away with archives or access to older builds/versions. (Namely steam with older builds and organizations changing away from gplv(2/3) and removing public access to old code)
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Retaining multiple versions of the ruleset is a terrible idea from WotC's point of view. It's never going to happen, never was an option.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Not the point. They stated noone was upset they modified the digital version well I am cause of no archive.
But keep using WOTC as a toxic dismissive hammer to try and make me shut up and leave(you remind me of TSAsuperman from the Xbox forums who would use M$ viewpoint as why we couldn't just install any 2.5 in HDD in your 360)
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
How is it not the point? I understand you would have liked archived versions of the previous text whenever errata are applied, but that's a terrible business idea for WotC. Not because they're toxic or dismissive of your concerns, but because it genuinely sends the wrong message to potential new customers. You don't have to believe me and you don't have to agree with me and you certainly don't have to stop posting your opinions, but that's a two way street - the exact same applies to me and everyone else.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I for one do not like the precedent of people changing, not to make corrections, content that I have paid for. By such a precedent, they certainly could create an errata that completely erases the 5e books as an incentive for us to buy new ones. Is it likely? No. But does this ability to unilaterally deprive us of content that we paid money for make it possible? Certainly does.
Besides, multiple version, in this instance refers to flavour texts and not mechanics. So, I'm not really sure how that substantiates a nightmare of administration.
I was calling out this false statement " Stop this nonsense. Nobody is angry that they have modified the digital material. That is a straw man because you cannot openly defend the real reason for your anger."
The word nobody implies 0 persons. Or are you saying it is a true statement and I'm not human, I'm not a person
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
There's a few different arguments colliding in this chain, Orthusaku.
Feykiller was upset that people are hiding behind the 'loss of value' argument as a smokescreen to try and make their real stance more tolerable. Very few people complaining about this errata from Wizards are doing so because they value the content lost, especially as so little content was actually lost. Most people arguing against it are doing so purely from a reactionary "anti-wokeness" standpoint and a knee-jerk need to defend the game's lore/tradition/history from interlopers. They refuse to acknowledge this save in a few notable cases however, and try to couch their arguments in terms of "losing value."
You're one of the few people who's arguing the 'Losing value' thing in good faith. From what I can tell you really are just upset that older versions of content isn't archived and available, the way good code revisions and the like should be, as both a historical record and a failsafe. That's a valid view to have, especially in the digital age, and a worthwhile argument to be made, but unfortunately your more reasonable arguments are being lost in the noise of other people getting their Twitterati outrage jockey on.
Pangurjan is addressing your argument specifically, however - he's telling you that Wizards of the Coast will never authorize public, 'legal' archived copies of older editions of the ruleset because it would actively detract in a big way from their business. The core product, the thing D&D is, is a unified ruleset they can sell to anyone who wants to run a Cool Fantasy Adventure Game for their friends. Having dozens/hundreds of different versions of that ruleset floating around actively sabotages their product and makes it drastically less appealing to customers. It is in their best interests, in a big way, to effectively black-box older revisions of the text and present their game as a single, unified product. Companies like DDB no doubt keep older revisions archived in the pursuit of their business, but Wizards will revoke the license before they allow anyone to sell multiple different iterations and versions of D&D. They can't be having that, which unfortunately means that as reasonable as your desire is, it cannot be accomodated from a business perspective.
Please do not contact or message me.
Come now. There's no point in complaining about something WotC can do, when they haven't done so and haven't shown any indication they will. We'll see what happens when it's time for a new edition, but even 4E's digital content repositories where only closed down years after the launch of 5E and only due to technical reasons outside WotC's scope.
And it's not about a nightmare of administration. It's about showing new players a stack of versions and telling them to pick what they like best, rather than committing to a single official ruleset. Which has been changed already, multiple times, both in terms of flavour text and mechanics.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
@Orthusaku I apologize. I overreacted.