What have you mixed and matched between editions? How has it gone? What have you learned? What will you do differently next time? What will you do again?
My party is in the middle of a long campaign that started at level 1 and is now up to level 12. We play at a table and most of the players use paper character sheets, but a few have their characters backed up on a DNDBeyond character sheet as well. When news of 5.5e came out, I initially considered sticking with 5e for the rest of this campaign. But when the books came out, some of the players were exited about some new changes, so we have been incorporating those changes piecemeal on a case by case basis.
I like to do homebrew in my campaign, and I have written tons of homebrew subclasses, spells, magic items, etc, for my players to choose from. Some of those homebrews have been made unnecessary by the new 5.5 rules. For example, it never made sense to me or to my ranger player that Hunter's Mark is a spell. We always thought it should just be an ability. So I had made a homebrew ruling that Hunter's Mark is always automatically active when a ranger is targeting one of their Favored Enemies, but if they want to use it against some other creature type, they have to use a spell slot. The 5.5 rules have incorporated something similar, so we're going with that. Another player wanted to play a druid, but something ocean based. The 5e rules didn't have any options for an ocean based druid, so I wrote a homebrew Circle of the Ocean for that character. When 5.5 came out she switched to the new Circle of the Sea just so she could more easily keep track of the character on DNDBeyond. (But I still think my Ocean subclass is cooler).
My cleric was excited to see that Cure Wounds and Healing Word got boosted, and that change does make sense to me, so we're using that.
My sorcerer was very unhappy to see the changes that have been made to the metamagic feature Twinned Spell. Instead of actually "twinning", it now just upcasts by one level. He is great at buffs and battlefield control, and usually uses Twinned Spell to cast either Enlarge or Haste on two players at once. But the new rules don't allow that. So we're sticking with the old 5e definition of the Twinned Spell metamagic.
I've got a Hexblade in the party, and that subclass has not yet been incorporated into the 5.5 rules set, so she's still a 5e Hexblade.
I think the next campaign we run, whoever happens to be the DM will use exclusively 5.5 rules. But since this campaign is hitting the change midway through, and since I've always preferred a fun and exciting narrative over nitty gritty rules lawyering, we're just kinda winging the transition by addressing details as they pop up. It's a game. We play to relax and have fun. We try not to overthink it.
It's been a mixed bag for me. I am about to start DMing a new game and play in another. I am trying to decide if I want to do 2024 or 2014. The game im playing in we are voting this weekend which we'll do. Both groups use dnd beyond exclusively for character management so that complicates things for us a bit.
Im leaning heavily towards 2014 rules. If I do the things I'm considering moving over are the draconic sorcerer expanded spell list, if anyone plays a draconic sorcerer, a few spells, the ranger using hunters mark as an ability not as a spell, weapon masteries for martials and Im considering using the entire MM. I usually run games and enforce the gritty realism rest rules to make things harder and more swingy. But Im thinking I can ditch that if I use the 2024 MM for higher CR creatures. I'll probably keep using the 2014 MM for creatures under CR5 since it seems like most of them have been nerfed in the 2024 MM but I could be wrong.
The biggest things I don't like about 2024 is the power hike and how limited the options really are. I like the idea of origin feats but there are too few of them. Backgrounds are also too few and limited. If they unbound the stats and origin feats from the backgrounds this would be an easy pill to swallow but it's too hard to make non-optimized builds with the current options. Plus I'm sorry I want half-elf and half-orc as a distinct races. But I want so very badly to like it, I just wish they would have pulled the power hike back alot and either given more initial options or given more freeform backgrounds. Im hoping DDB will eventually support custom 2024 backgrounds, either as homebrew or through the custom background option that already exists.
Nothing. My opinion, and that of the playtest group I've played & run games from a wide range of systems with, is that 5e and 5.5e rulesets do not mix well. The sets are close enough however that you can pretty simply use existing published adventures with very little extra work on the part of the GM - just drop in the 5.5e monster variants where possible.
Given the substantial differences in the tactics used by 5.5e players, given their spells and abilities, it just doesn't seem to make sense to allow subclasses or earlier version feats of be part of the equation. I'm sticking with 5e simply because having played from another GM's 2024 PHB, I don't see a compelling reason to make the switch and lay out another £200 for the books.
That was what we found however...I'm sure other people's mileages vary however.
Jesse brings up a good point. In previous editions it had been assumed (implicitly if not explicitly) that the other "half" of half-elves and half-orcs was human. Then a little while back there was some discussion about freeing that other half up a bit, to allow for a more diverse mixture of the species. I thought that was going to open up a whole new dimension of possibilities in character creation.
Instead we got the opposite. We're back to elf, dwarf, orc, with no mixing of anything allowed anywhere. Maybe they just wanted to get the new books out the door, and maybe they'll come out with some later supplement to address more diverse options. Until then I'll just keep churning out homebrew stuff to cover that gap.
I'm a big fan of the rule of cool - if a 2014 spell is better use that - 2024 use that - I boosted healing years ago we all knew it was not enough. I do not allow anything obviously broken of course but that list is very very small.
I want the players to have fun and I want to have fun -- I do not see the point in not allowing Sorcerous Burst as an example or the new True strike - it makes no difference and its WOTC content. If your balancing is so tight that a few extra D8's mess up your combat you are doing it wrong imho.
As my current campaign is at level 13, I wasn't particularly interested in having players remake their characters, so it's staying on 2014 rules, but I've been intermittently using 2024 monsters. It does make things a bit scarier than using 2014 monsters, but I already ignore the encounter building rules so it doesn't actually make that much difference.
For the campaign I had already at level 6 I’ve stuck with the 2014 rules but have switched to the more powerful healing spells and the 2024 exhaustion rules just because they’re easier to track. For my new campaigns I’ve been using almost entirely 2024 but with one or two things kept from 2014 (can’t remember exactly what but I know my sorcerer is using the old Twin Spell because neither of us was happy the new one doesn’t actually twin a spell)
Jesse brings up a good point. In previous editions it had been assumed (implicitly if not explicitly) that the other "half" of half-elves and half-orcs was human. Then a little while back there was some discussion about freeing that other half up a bit, to allow for a more diverse mixture of the species. I thought that was going to open up a whole new dimension of possibilities in character creation.
Instead we got the opposite. We're back to elf, dwarf, orc, with no mixing of anything allowed anywhere. Maybe they just wanted to get the new books out the door, and maybe they'll come out with some later supplement to address more diverse options. Until then I'll just keep churning out homebrew stuff to cover that gap.
To me, half races never made any sense. Biologically, they are either abominations incapable of reproducing, or the two halves are the same species. Given the name change from races to species, it would've been even more obvious.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
Instead we got the opposite. We're back to elf, dwarf, orc, with no mixing of anything allowed anywhere. Maybe they just wanted to get the new books out the door, and maybe they'll come out with some later supplement to address more diverse options. Until then I'll just keep churning out homebrew stuff to cover that gap.
Working rules for hybrids would take up a lot of page count for something pretty rarely used, unless they just said something along the lines of "ask your DM".
Yeah, that's what I figured. I figured the focus was on getting the fundamentals in print first. If they come out with a supplement to address the diversity possibilities later, cool. If not, that's cool too. Each table can handle that their own way I suppose.
But to address Jurmondur's previous comment on biological incompatibility... "species" is the lowest and narrowest link in the classification chain. Creatures of different species are still very closely related, as long as they're from the same or a closely related genus. Different species reproduce all the time. Ursus maritimus and Ursus arctos horribilis can produce viable offspring. (polar bear and grizzly bear). Sure, they're both bears, but "bear" is their genus, not species. Female ligers can reproduce with male tigers (though not the other way around and I'm not sure why). Also, the game literally has a monster called the Chimera.
We humans have a tendency to think that our uniqueness makes us special. We're not the only species of human to have existed. We're just the only one left. We're not unique, we're just survivors. Heck, there was a period of almost 100,000 years where we were just one of three distinct species of human living at the same time on this planet. And it was almost four, but I'm pretty sure Hiedelbergensis was gone by the time the Denisovans showed up, but only just barely. Now I can't say for certain whether we wiped out the Denisovans and the Neanderthals, or if they passed by "natural causes" (whatever that means), but I'd bet dollars to donuts that there was a fair bit of crossplay between those three distinct species, (nudge nudge wink wink). Apparently my Crohn's Disease, my sensitivity to sunlight, and my tendency to sneeze after eating dark chocolate are all genetic tracers of Neanderthal DNA. Now I'm not saying how that got in there, but I didn't put it in there. Come to think of it... maybe the multiple different species of humans coexisting is what led to the "Uncanny Valley" sensation. You know, that weird psychological creepiness when you see something that's "kinda" human but "not quite" human? Maybe that's a genetic memory of seeing other humans who are similar enough that we know they're human, but different enough to know they're not our kind of human.
Anyway, what we're we talking about? Dang. It happened again. I'm rambling. Sorry.
Yeah, that's what I figured. I figured the focus was on getting the fundamentals in print first. If they come out with a supplement to address the diversity possibilities later, cool. If not, that's cool too. Each table can handle that their own way I suppose.
But to address Jurmondur's previous comment on biological incompatibility... "species" is the lowest and narrowest link in the classification chain. Creatures of different species are still very closely related, as long as they're from the same or a closely related genus. Different species reproduce all the time. Ursus maritimus and Ursus arctos horribilis can produce viable offspring. (polar bear and grizzly bear). Sure, they're both bears, but "bear" is their genus, not species. Female ligers can reproduce with male tigers (though not the other way around and I'm not sure why). Also, the game literally has a monster called the Chimera.
We humans have a tendency to think that our uniqueness makes us special. We're not the only species of human to have existed. We're just the only one left. We're not unique, we're just survivors. Heck, there was a period of almost 100,000 years where we were just one of three distinct species of human living at the same time on this planet. And it was almost four, but I'm pretty sure Hiedelbergensis was gone by the time the Denisovans showed up, but only just barely. Now I can't say for certain whether we wiped out the Denisovans and the Neanderthals, or if they passed by "natural causes" (whatever that means), but I'd bet dollars to donuts that there was a fair bit of crossplay between those three distinct species, (nudge nudge wink wink). Apparently my Crohn's Disease, my sensitivity to sunlight, and my tendency to sneeze after eating dark chocolate are all genetic tracers of Neanderthal DNA. Now I'm not saying how that got in there, but I didn't put it in there. Come to think of it... maybe the multiple different species of humans coexisting is what led to the "Uncanny Valley" sensation. You know, that weird psychological creepiness when you see something that's "kinda" human but "not quite" human? Maybe that's a genetic memory of seeing other humans who are similar enough that we know they're human, but different enough to know they're not our kind of human.
Anyway, what we're we talking about? Dang. It happened again. I'm rambling. Sorry.
I was going by this definition:
A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring.
Do you have a different one?
(Admittedly, biology can be an imprecise science at times)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't feel like every single race should be considered magical in every setting.
You pretty much have to invoke magic to wind up with a setting with multiple sentient species, of very similar capabilities, coexisting in the same area for any extended period of time.
Well, I mean, yeah, you would have to invoke magic to end up with a creature that's half elf and half dwarf. Absolutely. But aren't we already doing that? Isn't that what this game is? If we're willing to accept that elves exist, and dwarves exist, then we're kinda already heading down the magic road. Now we're just deciding which lane we're in. And I didn't mean my last comment to sound like I was disagreeing or anything. I'm just kinda fascinated by all the crazy wondrous stuff that nature can do. Heck, when I started playing D&D, dwarf and elf weren't just species, they were character classes as well. And that was fine way back then, because the whole game felt new. But over the decades it's natural to want to push the boundaries of creativity a bit, just to keep things feeling fresh. So a while back when I saw people discussing the possibilities of exploring the "other half" species options, that sounded cool. But I understand WotC is a business, so the primary concern was to get 5.5e up and running first, and all the extra little side ideas can be dealt with later.
I'm reminded of the story arc in Star Trek: Deep Space 9, when they discovered that humans, and Klingons, and Romulans are all descended from a common ancestor. They're clearly distinct species now, but apparently the same genus. And Worf has a son named Alexander, whose mother is Ambassador K'Ehleyr. Her father was Klingon but her mother was a human. And she had a child. So she was a fertile offspring of an inter-species coupling. Now I know that citing Star Trek genealogies doesn't exactly make an air-tight scientific case (plus it further confirms that I am, in fact, a huge nerd). But if we're willing to suspend disbelief enough to say that our characters can hurl fireballs and read minds and raise people from the dead, then I don't suppose it's too much of an imposition to suggest that there might have been some hairy little feet pitter-pattering around Valinor after Bilbo and Frodo showed up.
And now I'm just wondering what Legolas would've thought about that. I gotta stop browsing these Forums at 2 am.
What have you mixed and matched between editions? How has it gone? What have you learned? What will you do differently next time? What will you do again?
My party is in the middle of a long campaign that started at level 1 and is now up to level 12. We play at a table and most of the players use paper character sheets, but a few have their characters backed up on a DNDBeyond character sheet as well. When news of 5.5e came out, I initially considered sticking with 5e for the rest of this campaign. But when the books came out, some of the players were exited about some new changes, so we have been incorporating those changes piecemeal on a case by case basis.
I like to do homebrew in my campaign, and I have written tons of homebrew subclasses, spells, magic items, etc, for my players to choose from. Some of those homebrews have been made unnecessary by the new 5.5 rules. For example, it never made sense to me or to my ranger player that Hunter's Mark is a spell. We always thought it should just be an ability. So I had made a homebrew ruling that Hunter's Mark is always automatically active when a ranger is targeting one of their Favored Enemies, but if they want to use it against some other creature type, they have to use a spell slot. The 5.5 rules have incorporated something similar, so we're going with that. Another player wanted to play a druid, but something ocean based. The 5e rules didn't have any options for an ocean based druid, so I wrote a homebrew Circle of the Ocean for that character. When 5.5 came out she switched to the new Circle of the Sea just so she could more easily keep track of the character on DNDBeyond. (But I still think my Ocean subclass is cooler).
My cleric was excited to see that Cure Wounds and Healing Word got boosted, and that change does make sense to me, so we're using that.
My sorcerer was very unhappy to see the changes that have been made to the metamagic feature Twinned Spell. Instead of actually "twinning", it now just upcasts by one level. He is great at buffs and battlefield control, and usually uses Twinned Spell to cast either Enlarge or Haste on two players at once. But the new rules don't allow that. So we're sticking with the old 5e definition of the Twinned Spell metamagic.
I've got a Hexblade in the party, and that subclass has not yet been incorporated into the 5.5 rules set, so she's still a 5e Hexblade.
I think the next campaign we run, whoever happens to be the DM will use exclusively 5.5 rules. But since this campaign is hitting the change midway through, and since I've always preferred a fun and exciting narrative over nitty gritty rules lawyering, we're just kinda winging the transition by addressing details as they pop up. It's a game. We play to relax and have fun. We try not to overthink it.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Tayn of Darkwood. Human Life Cleric. Lvl 10.
It's been a mixed bag for me. I am about to start DMing a new game and play in another. I am trying to decide if I want to do 2024 or 2014. The game im playing in we are voting this weekend which we'll do. Both groups use dnd beyond exclusively for character management so that complicates things for us a bit.
Im leaning heavily towards 2014 rules. If I do the things I'm considering moving over are the draconic sorcerer expanded spell list, if anyone plays a draconic sorcerer, a few spells, the ranger using hunters mark as an ability not as a spell, weapon masteries for martials and Im considering using the entire MM. I usually run games and enforce the gritty realism rest rules to make things harder and more swingy. But Im thinking I can ditch that if I use the 2024 MM for higher CR creatures. I'll probably keep using the 2014 MM for creatures under CR5 since it seems like most of them have been nerfed in the 2024 MM but I could be wrong.
The biggest things I don't like about 2024 is the power hike and how limited the options really are. I like the idea of origin feats but there are too few of them. Backgrounds are also too few and limited. If they unbound the stats and origin feats from the backgrounds this would be an easy pill to swallow but it's too hard to make non-optimized builds with the current options. Plus I'm sorry I want half-elf and half-orc as a distinct races. But I want so very badly to like it, I just wish they would have pulled the power hike back alot and either given more initial options or given more freeform backgrounds. Im hoping DDB will eventually support custom 2024 backgrounds, either as homebrew or through the custom background option that already exists.
We’ve gone over to full ‘24 rules. The only exception is some subclasses where we use the ‘14 versions.
It’s gone really smoothly.
Nothing. My opinion, and that of the playtest group I've played & run games from a wide range of systems with, is that 5e and 5.5e rulesets do not mix well. The sets are close enough however that you can pretty simply use existing published adventures with very little extra work on the part of the GM - just drop in the 5.5e monster variants where possible.
Given the substantial differences in the tactics used by 5.5e players, given their spells and abilities, it just doesn't seem to make sense to allow subclasses or earlier version feats of be part of the equation. I'm sticking with 5e simply because having played from another GM's 2024 PHB, I don't see a compelling reason to make the switch and lay out another £200 for the books.
That was what we found however...I'm sure other people's mileages vary however.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Jesse brings up a good point. In previous editions it had been assumed (implicitly if not explicitly) that the other "half" of half-elves and half-orcs was human. Then a little while back there was some discussion about freeing that other half up a bit, to allow for a more diverse mixture of the species. I thought that was going to open up a whole new dimension of possibilities in character creation.
Instead we got the opposite. We're back to elf, dwarf, orc, with no mixing of anything allowed anywhere. Maybe they just wanted to get the new books out the door, and maybe they'll come out with some later supplement to address more diverse options. Until then I'll just keep churning out homebrew stuff to cover that gap.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Tayn of Darkwood. Human Life Cleric. Lvl 10.
I'm a big fan of the rule of cool - if a 2014 spell is better use that - 2024 use that - I boosted healing years ago we all knew it was not enough. I do not allow anything obviously broken of course but that list is very very small.
I want the players to have fun and I want to have fun -- I do not see the point in not allowing Sorcerous Burst as an example or the new True strike - it makes no difference and its WOTC content. If your balancing is so tight that a few extra D8's mess up your combat you are doing it wrong imho.
$.02
As my current campaign is at level 13, I wasn't particularly interested in having players remake their characters, so it's staying on 2014 rules, but I've been intermittently using 2024 monsters. It does make things a bit scarier than using 2014 monsters, but I already ignore the encounter building rules so it doesn't actually make that much difference.
For the campaign I had already at level 6 I’ve stuck with the 2014 rules but have switched to the more powerful healing spells and the 2024 exhaustion rules just because they’re easier to track. For my new campaigns I’ve been using almost entirely 2024 but with one or two things kept from 2014 (can’t remember exactly what but I know my sorcerer is using the old Twin Spell because neither of us was happy the new one doesn’t actually twin a spell)
To me, half races never made any sense. Biologically, they are either abominations incapable of reproducing, or the two halves are the same species. Given the name change from races to species, it would've been even more obvious.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
Working rules for hybrids would take up a lot of page count for something pretty rarely used, unless they just said something along the lines of "ask your DM".
For the group I'm running we're still largely using 2014 rules, but we've incorporated a few things from 2024:
I expect the next thing I run will switch over to 2024 entirely.
pronouns: he/she/they
I've mostly converted to 2024 but things like species and subclasses aren't all 2024 version yet so I allow the 2014 ones.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Yeah, that's what I figured. I figured the focus was on getting the fundamentals in print first. If they come out with a supplement to address the diversity possibilities later, cool. If not, that's cool too. Each table can handle that their own way I suppose.
But to address Jurmondur's previous comment on biological incompatibility... "species" is the lowest and narrowest link in the classification chain. Creatures of different species are still very closely related, as long as they're from the same or a closely related genus. Different species reproduce all the time. Ursus maritimus and Ursus arctos horribilis can produce viable offspring. (polar bear and grizzly bear). Sure, they're both bears, but "bear" is their genus, not species. Female ligers can reproduce with male tigers (though not the other way around and I'm not sure why). Also, the game literally has a monster called the Chimera.
We humans have a tendency to think that our uniqueness makes us special. We're not the only species of human to have existed. We're just the only one left. We're not unique, we're just survivors. Heck, there was a period of almost 100,000 years where we were just one of three distinct species of human living at the same time on this planet. And it was almost four, but I'm pretty sure Hiedelbergensis was gone by the time the Denisovans showed up, but only just barely. Now I can't say for certain whether we wiped out the Denisovans and the Neanderthals, or if they passed by "natural causes" (whatever that means), but I'd bet dollars to donuts that there was a fair bit of crossplay between those three distinct species, (nudge nudge wink wink). Apparently my Crohn's Disease, my sensitivity to sunlight, and my tendency to sneeze after eating dark chocolate are all genetic tracers of Neanderthal DNA. Now I'm not saying how that got in there, but I didn't put it in there. Come to think of it... maybe the multiple different species of humans coexisting is what led to the "Uncanny Valley" sensation. You know, that weird psychological creepiness when you see something that's "kinda" human but "not quite" human? Maybe that's a genetic memory of seeing other humans who are similar enough that we know they're human, but different enough to know they're not our kind of human.
Anyway, what we're we talking about? Dang. It happened again. I'm rambling. Sorry.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Tayn of Darkwood. Human Life Cleric. Lvl 10.
Also, let me point out this concept called 'magic', where you can hybridize an owl and a bear and the result breeds true.
Are you suggesting that owlbears aren't real?
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Tayn of Darkwood. Human Life Cleric. Lvl 10.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't feel like every single race should be considered magical in every setting.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
I was going by this definition:
Do you have a different one?
(Admittedly, biology can be an imprecise science at times)
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
You pretty much have to invoke magic to wind up with a setting with multiple sentient species, of very similar capabilities, coexisting in the same area for any extended period of time.
Well, I mean, yeah, you would have to invoke magic to end up with a creature that's half elf and half dwarf. Absolutely. But aren't we already doing that? Isn't that what this game is? If we're willing to accept that elves exist, and dwarves exist, then we're kinda already heading down the magic road. Now we're just deciding which lane we're in. And I didn't mean my last comment to sound like I was disagreeing or anything. I'm just kinda fascinated by all the crazy wondrous stuff that nature can do. Heck, when I started playing D&D, dwarf and elf weren't just species, they were character classes as well. And that was fine way back then, because the whole game felt new. But over the decades it's natural to want to push the boundaries of creativity a bit, just to keep things feeling fresh. So a while back when I saw people discussing the possibilities of exploring the "other half" species options, that sounded cool. But I understand WotC is a business, so the primary concern was to get 5.5e up and running first, and all the extra little side ideas can be dealt with later.
I'm reminded of the story arc in Star Trek: Deep Space 9, when they discovered that humans, and Klingons, and Romulans are all descended from a common ancestor. They're clearly distinct species now, but apparently the same genus. And Worf has a son named Alexander, whose mother is Ambassador K'Ehleyr. Her father was Klingon but her mother was a human. And she had a child. So she was a fertile offspring of an inter-species coupling. Now I know that citing Star Trek genealogies doesn't exactly make an air-tight scientific case (plus it further confirms that I am, in fact, a huge nerd). But if we're willing to suspend disbelief enough to say that our characters can hurl fireballs and read minds and raise people from the dead, then I don't suppose it's too much of an imposition to suggest that there might have been some hairy little feet pitter-pattering around Valinor after Bilbo and Frodo showed up.
And now I'm just wondering what Legolas would've thought about that. I gotta stop browsing these Forums at 2 am.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Tayn of Darkwood. Human Life Cleric. Lvl 10.