安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
This is pretty much it. Same reason why Doric or Edgin don't actually cast any spells as to not distract from Simon's role, though Edgin could just be a rogue with lute proficiency.
Except that he was clearly using Bardic Inspiration throughout the movie.
This was one of my biggest gripes with the movie - Edgin and Doric never cast any spells and Xenk only uses Lay on Hands.
Honestly they maybe should have just not gone for bard, but it's more funny and good-feeling than rogue.
Edgin could have just as easily been a Mastermind Rogue since he keeps coming up with all the plans.
I'm pretty sure you are correct on this... I vaguely remember the same.
If OP would fix the link, it would work fine -- https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Doric
But then it's not D&D, and there's the rub...is it a D&D movie or not? Bards, Druids, and Paladins are all spellcasters in D&D.
That could have made sense as well...except for the obvious Bardic Inspiration being thrown around.
Edit: the same as WotC has allowed Larian to make changes for a PC game.
i like larians version, especially with the upside-down cross belly button, which i have no clue who thought of that but that is an amazingly small detail and i love it. (even if it doesn't make sense since that is a Christianity thing)
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2985463785&fileuploadsuccess=1
~5E Player's Handbook on Tieflings
Larian's interpretation of 5E's Tieflings is pretty much spot-on. As for canon:
Fifth edition’s canon includes every bit of lore that appears in the most up-to-date printings of the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master’s Guide. Beyond these core rulebooks, we don’t have a public-facing account of what is canonical in fifth edition because we don’t want to overload our fellow creators and business partners.
~Chris Perkins, a Principal DnD Game Architect, on DnD canon (https://dnd.wizards.com/news/dnd-canon)
The only "definitive" canon that exists for 5E are the core rulebooks. Ergo, Honor Among Thieves is not an authorative source on 5E canon any more than BG3 is. Until something is written in a core rulebook, it has no bearing on DnD beyond its own self-contained story.
Of course, being picky about what lore is canon is kind of missing the point. As Chris Perkins states in the same article:
canon is less about your enjoyment of the game and more about us being internally consistent.
Tieflings have horns and tails, and pretty much all DnD media depict that. If you ran across one Tiefling in BG3 that had blue skin and actual pupils, would it affect your enjoyment of the game? Chances are, you'd still know they were a Tiefling.
Today's tieflings basically have bullboards screaming, "look at me, I'm a MF'ing tiefling!" so everybody knows what they are instantly.
That's the difference - the details don't matter.
The rulebooks actually state they can have hooves and wings ... and those are the real cannon.