They should just call Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc."species" since some people get their noses twisted ot of joint over the traditional fantasy name of "race."
They should just call Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc."species" since some people get their noses twisted ot of joint over the traditional fantasy name of "race."
I was actually hoping the Gothic Lineages was announcing a system wide shift from race to lineage. Not sure why it didn't. Especially when, if you think about it the Gothic lineages Hexblood, Damper and Reborn aren't at least in two cases more made than born. Lineages actually seems more appropriate to everything else in the game currently organized under "race." I guess it could still happen.
“Lineage” to my mind traces to culture. But, different species should have different physical characteristics such as dark vision.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
It isn’t for the players. It is for the GM. It helps him add depth to the world.
But, if he wants to say that all dwarves live in gullies rather than caves and don’t have Darkvision than all okay.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
It isn’t for the players. It is for the GM. It helps him add depth to the world.
But, if he wants to say that all dwarves live in gullies rather than caves and don’t have Darkvision than all okay.
It doesn't add anything if the players don't buy into it and engage with the material.
I mean, having race mechanics doesn't dictate that dwarves live in caves or gullies. Never has. But dark vision? Almost every race has it but almost no-one understands what it actually does. So? Get rid of it. The way it works in game is almost like a penalty on playing a race that doesn't have it-- and multiverse is adding it to (some) races that previously didn't. Just make it so everyone needs torches.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
Seriously, I ask. In all honesty, what draws you to D&D?
Gang, we can't do this again here. This debate has been done to death, and killed threads in the process. Let people have their opinions and move on.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
It isn’t for the players. It is for the GM. It helps him add depth to the world.
But, if he wants to say that all dwarves live in gullies rather than caves and don’t have Darkvision than all okay.
It doesn't add anything if the players don't buy into it and engage with the material.
I mean, having race mechanics doesn't dictate that dwarves live in caves or gullies. Never has. But dark vision? Almost every race has it but almost no-one understands what it actually does. So? Get rid of it. The way it works in game is almost like a penalty on playing a race that doesn't have it-- and multiverse is adding it to (some) races that previously didn't. Just make it so everyone needs torches.
It doesn’t make sense for an intelligent species which lives in absolute darkness to not have some means of compensation for lack of normal vision.
As for Darkvision being a penalty for those races that don’t have it, that’s why you give other races something to compensate.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
It isn’t for the players. It is for the GM. It helps him add depth to the world.
But, if he wants to say that all dwarves live in gullies rather than caves and don’t have Darkvision than all okay.
It doesn't add anything if the players don't buy into it and engage with the material.
I mean, having race mechanics doesn't dictate that dwarves live in caves or gullies. Never has. But dark vision? Almost every race has it but almost no-one understands what it actually does. So? Get rid of it. The way it works in game is almost like a penalty on playing a race that doesn't have it-- and multiverse is adding it to (some) races that previously didn't. Just make it so everyone needs torches.
It doesn’t make sense for an intelligent species which lives in absolute darkness to not have some means of compensation for lack of normal vision.
As for Darkvision being a penalty for those races that don’t have it, that’s why you give other races something to compensate.
You completely ignored the part, the core of the argument, that says that people don't understand how dark vision works and make it much more powerfully than it should be. We do not live in a world where design makes sense as adhering to a logical structure. Definitely not since Racial ASIs just became a +2, +1 to any stats you please and now are completely decoupled from "race". Also, which races live in total darkness? The Underdark has glowing fungus and most subterranian races use lights because... you take a lot of penalties walking around in dim light.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
Seriously, I ask. In all honesty, what draws you to D&D?
Maybe the stories of heroics, of people fighting dragons and impossible monsters?
I don't have any problems with people playing out their Tolkein fantasies or parties full of Tabaxi or whatever, but when those characters are just human beings with powers, that's very uninteresting. Tolkein elves, by the way, aren't "Human beings with powers." They are beings with almost alien sensibilities because he took into account how an impossibly long lifespan would affect how people would see the world. Those differences in biology should affect societies and cultures. If it does, great, but in my experience, it rarely does. Seeing as it doesn't work as design, it should be pruned.
Races do little for D&D, in my opinion. An interesting character isn't good because they are an elf or a dragonborn or whatever. They're a good character because of who they are, not what they are. So, we should focus less on min/maxing race/class combinations and worry more about making the character more interesting and fun to play beyond their character sheet.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
Seriously, I ask. In all honesty, what draws you to D&D?
Maybe the stories of heroics, of people fighting dragons and impossible monsters?
I don't have any problems with people playing out their Tolkein fantasies or parties full of Tabaxi or whatever, but when those characters are just human beings with powers, that's very uninteresting. Tolkein elves, by the way, aren't "Human beings with powers." They are beings with almost alien sensibilities because he took into account how an impossibly long lifespan would affect how people would see the world. Those differences in biology should affect societies and cultures. If it does, great, but in my experience, it rarely does. Seeing as it doesn't work as design, it should be pruned.
Races do little for D&D, in my opinion. An interesting character isn't good because they are an elf or a dragonborn or whatever. They're a good character because of who they are, not what they are. So, we should focus less on min/maxing race/class combinations and worry more about making the character more interesting and fun to play beyond their character sheet.
It may not work by design in any games that you’ve played in, but it does in other campaigns - ones that I’ve played in. All the races in the PHB have their own unique cultures (plural) and outlook. So, no, don’t get rid of races. /.species.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
It isn’t for the players. It is for the GM. It helps him add depth to the world.
But, if he wants to say that all dwarves live in gullies rather than caves and don’t have Darkvision than all okay.
It doesn't add anything if the players don't buy into it and engage with the material.
I mean, having race mechanics doesn't dictate that dwarves live in caves or gullies. Never has. But dark vision? Almost every race has it but almost no-one understands what it actually does. So? Get rid of it. The way it works in game is almost like a penalty on playing a race that doesn't have it-- and multiverse is adding it to (some) races that previously didn't. Just make it so everyone needs torches.
It doesn’t make sense for an intelligent species which lives in absolute darkness to not have some means of compensation for lack of normal vision.
As for Darkvision being a penalty for those races that don’t have it, that’s why you give other races something to compensate.
You completely ignored the part, the core of the argument, that says that people don't understand how dark vision works and make it much more powerfully than it should be. We do not live in a world where design makes sense as adhering to a logical structure. Definitely not since Racial ASIs just became a +2, +1 to any stats you please and now are completely decoupled from "race". Also, which races live in total darkness? The Underdark has glowing fungus and most subterranian races use lights because... you take a lot of penalties walking around in dim light.
You are presuming that every table plays like your’s.
As for racial bonuses going to any stat you like, some rules are made to be ignored.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
It isn’t for the players. It is for the GM. It helps him add depth to the world.
But, if he wants to say that all dwarves live in gullies rather than caves and don’t have Darkvision than all okay.
It doesn't add anything if the players don't buy into it and engage with the material.
I mean, having race mechanics doesn't dictate that dwarves live in caves or gullies. Never has. But dark vision? Almost every race has it but almost no-one understands what it actually does. So? Get rid of it. The way it works in game is almost like a penalty on playing a race that doesn't have it-- and multiverse is adding it to (some) races that previously didn't. Just make it so everyone needs torches.
It doesn’t make sense for an intelligent species which lives in absolute darkness to not have some means of compensation for lack of normal vision.
As for Darkvision being a penalty for those races that don’t have it, that’s why you give other races something to compensate.
You completely ignored the part, the core of the argument, that says that people don't understand how dark vision works and make it much more powerfully than it should be. We do not live in a world where design makes sense as adhering to a logical structure. Definitely not since Racial ASIs just became a +2, +1 to any stats you please and now are completely decoupled from "race". Also, which races live in total darkness? The Underdark has glowing fungus and most subterranian races use lights because... you take a lot of penalties walking around in dim light.
You are presuming that every table plays like your’s.
As for racial bonuses going to any stat you like, some rules are made to be ignored.
No, I don't. This thread is about what I would change in D&D. That's what I would change.
I would change two things. I would make it so major NPCs would have character sheets instead of stat blocks (although I think they already have optional rules for this cause in the stat blocks for the rivals in CotN it has in parentheses what class they are) and I would make it that the Domains of Dread in Ravenloft were linked together so people could travel back and forth through the Mists from one to the other.
This thread is not, never has been, and never will be the place to continue building unreadable thousand-post quote chains tearing each other apart for folks hating the Tasha's Cauldron changes or Diversity and Dragons. A hundred threads have been devoted to the subject already, and a hundred threads turned into fifty-page tire fires the mods locked. This never ends well, and the mods have asked more than once that people shut up and stop actively trying to derail the thread and drag it onto the subject of "I hate things Wizards is doing."
Choir said it now too, and he and I rarely see eye to eye. Just like he said, here: stop. It.
The one change I'd make is that WotC writers stop assuming we already know and agree with what they intend. Instead, they should be writing their books with the intent to help us understand clearly where they're coming from. Examples:
1. I've just finished a quest. Prior to the quest, the players were practically lead by the nose to a secret passageway that lead into the manor they're supposed to be clearing out of bad guys. Despite this, the passageway dumps them in the middle of the manor, and then all the descriptions assume they entered via the front door. Just another headache as I try to, on the fly, adjust all the descriptions they want me to read out to account for the fact that they've entered each room from the wrong direction. If you have multiple intended entrances, just use neutral language ("north wall", not "on your right").
2. I still can't make sense of the levelling up language when it describes how to increase your HP. The process makes sense, but if you don’t already know how it works, the wording doesn't make it clear how it works.
3. How many debates have we had over spells etc? The most recent is Control Winds. The name and flavour text says that you control the air, but the description of the effects imply that you just add a wind to the extant conditions. Which is it?
I'd like things to be written without the assumption that the reader knows and understands how things work or that they know what the writer knows or thinks should happen. Be unambiguous in descriptions as to what is intended. Sometimes it feels like the writer writes what makes sense to them, and then no one actually checks it with a fresh mind to see if it is clear to someone who doesn't have knowledge of what it intends.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Ohhhh, that "North instead of 'right'" thing is such a huge pet peeve of mine! We have this super useful compass plot of directions that everybody knows and which eliminates ambiguity, and nobody uses it! That should absolutely be a rule in D&D books - directions are always in regards to compass directions, not subjective 'left/right' directions. That would be a very nice improvement, yes.
Ohhhh, that "North instead of 'right'" thing is such a huge pet peeve of mine! We have this super useful compass plot of directions that everybody knows and which eliminates ambiguity, and nobody uses it! That should absolutely be a rule in D&D books - directions are always in regards to compass directions, not subjective 'left/right' directions. That would be a very nice improvement, yes.
But a lot of people don’t know how to read compass directions. Like I’m sitting here in my room and it takes actual mental effort to remember which way is north. Left and right are easy.
I have the worst sense of direction on the planet. I couldn’t tell you which way is North without stopping to check somehow. 🤷♂️ I know my right from my left.
Maps have compasses and you can be reminded of the directions. "You come in from the southern door, and on the northern wall is a statue of..." or the DM can interpret what's going on and while the description says on the northern wall, he can say "Ahead of you is a statue of...", particularly if its not appropriate for you to know which way is north for whatever reason. Instead, it assumes that you're coming in from the east (but doesn't tell you that) and says it's on your right. As DM, I have to then pause play while I try to figure out exactly where this statue actually is, essentially rewrite the description to make sense and then actually read the new description out. Much easier if they just say a direction and I can easily figure it out from there. Friday night I just gave up an ignored their directions because it was easier just to draw a map and point out where things were.
It's great if you happen to come from the intended direction and everything works effortlessly and easioy, but there is almost always multiple ways in, and what I (and my party apparently) consider the natural way in always seems to be different to what the writers think. Bit of a bugbear of mine, it just disrupts play too much for something so easily fixed by not assuming that the players will pick one of three entrances.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Species works.
Huh, that's a new one to me...
“Lineage” to my mind traces to culture. But, different species should have different physical characteristics such as dark vision.
A bit controversial, but I think, if I was designing a new edition or designing 5e for the first time, I'd get rid of races entirely. Not explicitly say you can't play an elf or dwarf or whatever, but just not give them any mechanical differences and make it up to the players to define those differences. They are never really played correctly, in my opinion, and so often players choose their either for esthetics ("I want to play a devil person" or "I want to play a pretty elf") or solely for mechanical benefits. So, just get rid of them and make them solely cosmetic. Race in these games is just like... the laziest character design. It's a way for people to make their uninteresting characters "interesting".
And I think this way, we'd see a lot more interesting dwarves, elves and, maybe, tieflings.
It isn’t for the players. It is for the GM. It helps him add depth to the world.
But, if he wants to say that all dwarves live in gullies rather than caves and don’t have Darkvision than all okay.
It doesn't add anything if the players don't buy into it and engage with the material.
I mean, having race mechanics doesn't dictate that dwarves live in caves or gullies. Never has. But dark vision? Almost every race has it but almost no-one understands what it actually does. So? Get rid of it. The way it works in game is almost like a penalty on playing a race that doesn't have it-- and multiverse is adding it to (some) races that previously didn't. Just make it so everyone needs torches.
Gang, we can't do this again here. This debate has been done to death, and killed threads in the process. Let people have their opinions and move on.
It doesn’t make sense for an intelligent species which lives in absolute darkness to not have some means of compensation for lack of normal vision.
As for Darkvision being a penalty for those races that don’t have it, that’s why you give other races something to compensate.
You completely ignored the part, the core of the argument, that says that people don't understand how dark vision works and make it much more powerfully than it should be. We do not live in a world where design makes sense as adhering to a logical structure. Definitely not since Racial ASIs just became a +2, +1 to any stats you please and now are completely decoupled from "race". Also, which races live in total darkness? The Underdark has glowing fungus and most subterranian races use lights because... you take a lot of penalties walking around in dim light.
Maybe the stories of heroics, of people fighting dragons and impossible monsters?
I don't have any problems with people playing out their Tolkein fantasies or parties full of Tabaxi or whatever, but when those characters are just human beings with powers, that's very uninteresting. Tolkein elves, by the way, aren't "Human beings with powers." They are beings with almost alien sensibilities because he took into account how an impossibly long lifespan would affect how people would see the world. Those differences in biology should affect societies and cultures. If it does, great, but in my experience, it rarely does. Seeing as it doesn't work as design, it should be pruned.
Races do little for D&D, in my opinion. An interesting character isn't good because they are an elf or a dragonborn or whatever. They're a good character because of who they are, not what they are. So, we should focus less on min/maxing race/class combinations and worry more about making the character more interesting and fun to play beyond their character sheet.
It may not work by design in any games that you’ve played in, but it does in other campaigns - ones that I’ve played in. All the races in the PHB have their own unique cultures (plural) and outlook. So, no, don’t get rid of races. /.species.
You are presuming that every table plays like your’s.
As for racial bonuses going to any stat you like, some rules are made to be ignored.
No, I don't. This thread is about what I would change in D&D. That's what I would change.
I would change two things. I would make it so major NPCs would have character sheets instead of stat blocks (although I think they already have optional rules for this cause in the stat blocks for the rivals in CotN it has in parentheses what class they are) and I would make it that the Domains of Dread in Ravenloft were linked together so people could travel back and forth through the Mists from one to the other.
STOP IT.
STOP. IT.
This thread is not, never has been, and never will be the place to continue building unreadable thousand-post quote chains tearing each other apart for folks hating the Tasha's Cauldron changes or Diversity and Dragons. A hundred threads have been devoted to the subject already, and a hundred threads turned into fifty-page tire fires the mods locked. This never ends well, and the mods have asked more than once that people shut up and stop actively trying to derail the thread and drag it onto the subject of "I hate things Wizards is doing."
Choir said it now too, and he and I rarely see eye to eye. Just like he said, here: stop. It.
Please do not contact or message me.
The one change I'd make is that WotC writers stop assuming we already know and agree with what they intend. Instead, they should be writing their books with the intent to help us understand clearly where they're coming from. Examples:
1. I've just finished a quest. Prior to the quest, the players were practically lead by the nose to a secret passageway that lead into the manor they're supposed to be clearing out of bad guys. Despite this, the passageway dumps them in the middle of the manor, and then all the descriptions assume they entered via the front door. Just another headache as I try to, on the fly, adjust all the descriptions they want me to read out to account for the fact that they've entered each room from the wrong direction. If you have multiple intended entrances, just use neutral language ("north wall", not "on your right").
2. I still can't make sense of the levelling up language when it describes how to increase your HP. The process makes sense, but if you don’t already know how it works, the wording doesn't make it clear how it works.
3. How many debates have we had over spells etc? The most recent is Control Winds. The name and flavour text says that you control the air, but the description of the effects imply that you just add a wind to the extant conditions. Which is it?
I'd like things to be written without the assumption that the reader knows and understands how things work or that they know what the writer knows or thinks should happen. Be unambiguous in descriptions as to what is intended. Sometimes it feels like the writer writes what makes sense to them, and then no one actually checks it with a fresh mind to see if it is clear to someone who doesn't have knowledge of what it intends.
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.
Ohhhh, that "North instead of 'right'" thing is such a huge pet peeve of mine! We have this super useful compass plot of directions that everybody knows and which eliminates ambiguity, and nobody uses it! That should absolutely be a rule in D&D books - directions are always in regards to compass directions, not subjective 'left/right' directions. That would be a very nice improvement, yes.
Please do not contact or message me.
But a lot of people don’t know how to read compass directions. Like I’m sitting here in my room and it takes actual mental effort to remember which way is north. Left and right are easy.
I have the worst sense of direction on the planet. I couldn’t tell you which way is North without stopping to check somehow. 🤷♂️ I know my right from my left.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Maps have compasses and you can be reminded of the directions. "You come in from the southern door, and on the northern wall is a statue of..." or the DM can interpret what's going on and while the description says on the northern wall, he can say "Ahead of you is a statue of...", particularly if its not appropriate for you to know which way is north for whatever reason. Instead, it assumes that you're coming in from the east (but doesn't tell you that) and says it's on your right. As DM, I have to then pause play while I try to figure out exactly where this statue actually is, essentially rewrite the description to make sense and then actually read the new description out. Much easier if they just say a direction and I can easily figure it out from there. Friday night I just gave up an ignored their directions because it was easier just to draw a map and point out where things were.
It's great if you happen to come from the intended direction and everything works effortlessly and easioy, but there is almost always multiple ways in, and what I (and my party apparently) consider the natural way in always seems to be different to what the writers think. Bit of a bugbear of mine, it just disrupts play too much for something so easily fixed by not assuming that the players will pick one of three entrances.
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.