June Survey is out. What do you think?

[Rfkannen]

http://sgiz.mobi/s3/D-D-5e-Elements-Survey-5

What do you think? I like that they are awesome for asking us, how much do you this could actualy effect anything? What did you pick? What option are you the least interested in/want the least? What option do you want the most?

ps. Anyone have the list of classes they said? I forgot.

[SharkForce]

depends what you mean by "can we effect anything".

this is useful marketing information for them. if 500 people take the survey and 400 people tell them they want to see bullywug PCs, and 5 people tell them they want kobold PCs, they're going to introduce bullywugs and largely ignore kobolds.

you on an individual basis are unlikely to be the tipping point; they're unlikely to treat it much differently if there were only 399 votes for bullywug, or 6 votes for kobolds. collectively, however, the D&D community definitely has the ability to make them strongly consider making a change. if they think birthright is not a popular setting (which is probably true), but 75% of the people surveyed are excited about birthright... then they're definitely going to push birthright farther up on their priority list.

now, you may look at that and think that your vote doesn't matter at all. that is to some extent true. having said that, there is a lot of difference between 0% and 20% (one of those things is basically "avoid at all costs" and the other is "niche market that should not be a primary focus but is worth considering in some form after the most profitable stuff is done" i would guess, possibly even licensing them out to third parties), and if you just don't vote for the things you like because you assume they aren't the most popular, well, you're pushing the stuff you like closer to 0% which is not a place you want them to be if you also want WotC to ever look at them.

[CantigThimble]

Regardless of how much say people have individually this is still a system in which our desires are directly communicated to the makers of products we want, which can only be a good thing. Personally I voted for spelljammer because I would only really try to bother with a campaign setting if it was really special. I didn't vote for any races because I don't much care for exotic or bizzare character races. I don't even like dragonborn or teiflings.

[GiantOctopodes]

I think they have a Psionics book in the works. Note that Elans, Maenads, Xeph are not on the Races list, and Psions, Soulknives, Wilders, etc are not on the classes list. Basically, other than Dark Sun as a campaign setting, Psionic based options aren't on here at all. Which either means they have no intention of doing it and no interest in whether or not we're interested, or, far more likely in my opinion, don't see the need for polling data regarding it because it's already in the works.

So I'll take it as great news!

[Easy_Lee]

I think they have a Psionics book in the works. Note that Elans, Maenads, Xeph are not on the Races list, and Psions, Soulknives, Wilders, etc are not on the classes list. Basically, other than Dark Sun as a campaign setting, Psionic based options aren't on here at all. Which either means they have no intention of doing it and no interest in whether or not we're interested, or, far more likely in my opinion, don't see the need for polling data regarding it because it's already in the works.

So I'll take it as great news!

I didn't see Acrobats on there. I wish I could be as hopeful.

[Troacctid]

ps. Anyone have the list of classes they said? I forgot.


Alchemist
Artificer
Cavalier
Hexblade
Martial Adept (warblade, swordsage, crusader)
Runepriest
Samurai
Scout
Seeker
Shaman
Warden
Warmage
None of the above


Personally I'd be psyched if they brought back None of the Above. I played a Human None of the Above 10/Fighter 2 in my very first campaign, and it would be super-nostalgic if I could bring that character over to 5e.

[Easy_Lee]

Personally I'd be psyched if they brought back None of the Above. I played a Human None of the Above 10/Fighter 2 in my very first campaign, and it would be super-nostalgic if I could bring that character over to 5e.

I know that feel.

[pwykersotz]

Personally I'd be psyched if they brought back None of the Above. I played a Human None of the Above 10/Fighter 2 in my very first campaign, and it would be super-nostalgic if I could bring that character over to 5e.

*Sensible chuckle*

[Flashy]

Personally I'd be psyched if they brought back None of the Above. I played a Human None of the Above 10/Fighter 2 in my very first campaign, and it would be super-nostalgic if I could bring that character over to 5e.

Why the Fighter dip?

[MeeposFire]

Why the Fighter dip?

Bonus feats of course why else would anybody take only two levels of fighter in 3e (AD&D combos do not usually use that nomenclature)?

[CantigThimble]

Why the Fighter dip?

Because the coward guacamole smelled kinda old.

[TheOOB]

I'd love to see the some of the races and classes they mentioned. The classes they mentioned are boring, save the martial adepts, who I'd love to see come back.

[T.G. Oskar]

Curious: Cavalier (AD&D 1e Unearthed Arcana) is in, Hexblade (3.5/4Essentials) and even the Martial Adepts (3.5) are in, but no Marshal/Warlord (3.5/4e)? Apparently they're insisting that the Battlemaster is *the* replacement for it, since it wasn't even considered... Heck, even the Artificer, of all classes, is being considered, even if it already had a (nefarious, IMO) treatment in Unearthed Arcana.

Question: in which edition was the Alchemist a class concept? 2e? Otherwise: are we seeing WotC showing a wink at Paizo? (IMO, a WotC-version of the Alchemist, if 3.5 rules still existed, would have been pretty close to the Artificer; if the Artificer is turned into its own class, with Infusions working different from typical magic as Warlock's Pact Magic does (in principle, not in practice), the Alchemist (Savant!) could be a subclass of the Artificer. Still; kinda mystified, since it's not a 1e class...or maybe it is, and I forgot? Gonna lean with the latter; mind's playing tricks on me, since I can swear I saw it once (alongside the Oriental Adventures classes of Courtier, Ninja, Samurai, Shukenja and Yakuza).

[noce]

Sad that Dragon Shaman and Beguiler didn't make it in the list. :smallfrown:

[Gwendol]

The arcane trickster kind of covers the beguiler (and spell thief).

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, but Evoker Wizard covers Warmage, so there's really no point to that either.

I agree with OOB. I voted just for the Martial Classes and no races. Do we really need official PC variants for races? Extrapolating out of the MM is easy enough - and monstrous races are nearly 100% of the time used for power options rather than RP ones - from my experience.

Why be a halfling, when you can be a goblin with 10 (now 5) extra move and darkvision? If there were social reasons to not be one, I can see that - but most tables have some level of no-PvP, forced cooperation regardless of class/race/alignment makeup.

There's too many races as is, in my opinion. I'd of been much happier with a generic Human, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling, with defined racial traits and open attribute allotment (+2 to 1 stat, +1 to 2 stats, player's choice.

Then, maybe a smidge of Pathfinderesque Advanced Race Guide to further customize your subrace. Humans would get Aasimar, Tiefling, Dragonborn and Halforc. Elves get Half, Drow, High, Wood. Dwarves get Mountain, Hill, Rock & Deep Gnome. Halflings get Stout, Lightfoot, and Forest Gnome.

[Steampunkette]

Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun... Ravenloft.

Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun... Planescape.

Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun... Spelljammer.

[KorvinStarmast]

I didn't vote for any races because I don't much care for exotic or bizzare character races. I don't even like dragonborn or teiflings.
Seconded.
I'd like to see Cavalier, Runepriest, and Shaman.
(The discussion on Psionics is elsewhere on this forum.)

Another comment from above ...

There's too many races as is, in my opinion
Agreed, but it appears that wider diversity in character origin is something the game's fans as whole prefer.

[Person_Man]

If anyone feels like doing me a favor, please vote for Spelljammer. I love that setting, ad would love to see it updated to 5E.

On the flip side, I didn't vote for any of the classes. I'm fine with new setting specific races and backgrounds and Feats (for campaign specific things like Dragonmarks). But 3.5/PF soured me on class bloat. Each new class is inevitably more slightly powerful then the classes that came before it, which inevitably leads to the core non-full-caster classes being rendered obsolete. Similarly, I hope that they only publish new spells when they're required for the setting, as they tend to be the largest source of game breaking material. Not just high fantasy plot powers. Just strait up more powerful raw numbers that ruin any semblance of balance for non-full casters).

[EggKookoo]

Yeah, I'm a little timid on additional classes at this point, too. As I said in the comment field in the survey, new classes should be heavily playtested (preferably public), as they have the biggest potential to alter the fundamental feel of the game, for good or bad.

Regarding how they'll use this info, I wouldn't worry about 400 people asking for bullywugs. I produce and analyze surveys like this all the time for my job. If WotC acts like most companies, they just use this information to reinforce ideas they already have. So it's not like they say "oh, BUILD ALL THE BULLYWUGS!" It's more like some of the devs have mused over the idea of adding bullywugs and they're using the survey to see if it's a good idea or not.

Think of the survey as asking "we are thinking about some of these ideas, what do you think?" Not so much "we'll do whatever you vote for."

[KorvinStarmast]

If anyone feels like doing me a favor, please vote for Spelljammer. I love that setting, ad would love to see it updated to 5E.

On the flip side, I didn't vote for any of the classes. .
What, you don't want to play
Junior birdman? (Aarakocra)
Steroid fed barbarians? (Goliaths).
Half elemental brewers? (genasi cream ale)
Extraneous gnomes? (Svirfnoselongs).

I don't either.

At the risk of offending some of our friends here, I could do without Tieflings at all. But it isn't about me.

Flavor is good, but the concern you present I share: each "new and exotic class" tends to be a bit too cool, a bit extra powerful, and leaves the standard archetypes stranded on the Group W bench.

Kind of like what happens to some well balanced champions in LoL when hew champions (Gnar! for example) come out.

For those not sure about brewing and cream ale, this is the reference (https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRATFXZIrmN7so1UGiUUeOgbfyFeRvM L9K7FqQTeTt-SnkF_IAZQ).

[Ralanr]

What, you don't want to play
Junior birdman? (Aarakocra)
Steroid fed barbarians? (Goliaths).
Half elemental brewers? (genasi cream ale)
Extraneous gnomes? (Svirfnoselongs).

I don't either.

At the risk of offending some of our friends here, I could do without Tieflings at all. But it isn't about me.

Flavor is good, but the concern you present I share: each "new and exotic class" tends to be a bit too cool, a bit extra powerful, and leaves the standard archetypes stranded on the Group W bench.

Kind of like what happens to some well balanced champions in LoL when hew champions (Gnar! for example) come out.

For those not sure about brewing and cream ale, this is the reference (https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRATFXZIrmN7so1UGiUUeOgbfyFeRvM L9K7FqQTeTt-SnkF_IAZQ).

Eh. Having the options is nice and they have to make it so it goes beyond being a ribbon since if the race has no effect then a lot of people will see no point to it (other tabletops probably don't have this problem. I suspect GURPS doesn't, but I've only read about it. D&D on the other hand has had this engrained since second edition (since 1st had them as classes) so to change it would be changing core for D&D. Whether the core should be changed is a different discussion all together).

Plus some people don't even take abilities into account. I once played with someone who forgot the advantage to saves against magic that gnomes had. He just liked gnomes.

It really falls down to, "don't like, don't play" mentality. Though if someone is playing a race or class you don't like, it's best to take into account their enjoyment as well as your own. It's a group game after all, communication both ways can go a long way.

[Rfkannen]

Alchemist
Artificer
Cavalier
Hexblade
Martial Adept (warblade, swordsage, crusader)
Runepriest
Samurai
Scout
Seeker
Shaman
Warden
Warmage
None of the above



Ah cool thanks! Gosh I want a runepriest, I think I forgot to check that one, but in hindsight some rune magic would be awesome. Also in hindsight I am not sure why I voted for the scout, seems like it would just basically be a spell-less ranger

actually here is my annalist.

Alchemist- already exists as a wizard school, but it does deserve it's own non-caster class
artificer- same, maybe same class as alchemist
cavalier- really just a fighter path would suffice
hexblade- isn't that what blade-locks are?
martial adepts- God I want these, but it also seems like it might step on battle-masters toes, but I waaaant it!
runepriest- ah hell yeah new magic systems for the win. I really really want this now.
samurai- not really necessary but could make a cool path for some class I suppose. Would rather just have kensei
scout- why was this ever needed?
seeker- I guess a ranger path with more spell casting powers might be cool, not a new class though
shaman- a 4e style one would be awesome, and absolutely nothing like a druid.
warder- isnt that what ancient paladins are?
warmage- isn't this literally just a evocation wizard with a level of fighter? Like seriously is there anything about this class that isn't covered by that?
none of the above- of course this is the best class, the one we need most. I think it should be a full in based caster.


oh also PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIXIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gosh I want pixies.

[EggKookoo]

It really falls down to, "don't like, don't play" mentality.

There's something to be said for cognitive load and perceived penalties, though. Too much splat and the game loses any sense of shape. It starts to look... well... splat-shaped. I hope WotC learned the lessons of 3/3.5e.

Any artist, writer, musician, or the like will tell you that restrictions encourage creativity. Too many options devalues each of those options.

[mephnick]

On the flip side, I didn't vote for any of the classes. I'm fine with new setting specific races and backgrounds and Feats (for campaign specific things like Dragonmarks). But 3.5/PF soured me on class bloat. Each new class is inevitably more slightly powerful then the classes that came before it

You can already see this in the articles they've been putting out for 5e, like swashbuckler and favoured soul. I have no doubt a book of new classes would be an overpowered mess.

[PoeticDwarf]

Darksun?

Yeah, that's just the thing I want for 5e.

[Person_Man]

Also, its a shame we couldn't down-vote ideas. I'd like another opportunity to express how much I hate Kender.

[Inevitability]

I like how there are a lot of 4th edition-inspired options in the survey. It seemed like they had been mostly marketing to 3.5 fans, it's good to see 4e hasn't been forgotten.

[Ralanr]

There's something to be said for cognitive load and perceived penalties, though. Too much splat and the game loses any sense of shape. It starts to look... well... splat-shaped. I hope WotC learned the lessons of 3/3.5e.

Any artist, writer, musician, or the like will tell you that restrictions encourage creativity. Too many options devalues each of those options.

I agree on that opinion, it's one of the positives of not playing a caster (in my opinion. The amount of options I get with spells and my, "save until needed" mentality often slows down my creative process when playing casters. Instead of being versatile, I become bound to my limits that I can clearly see since my effectiveness dwindles immensely when I'm out of slots).

With races though? I think it's the lack of customization within a race that makes it so my creativity isn't dwindled.

Idk. I'm just a fan of dragonborn, though I know races can be broken. My friend's homebrew slime race was a prime example. Making potions with bubbles (alchemist) and kept hiding in cracks in the floor.

[SharkForce]

you know, if the things that you wanted to see were not on that list, or there was something you really wanted to not see, i'm pretty sure that's what the text box at the bottom was for. want to see dragon shaman and it isn't on the list? well guess what, you can just write that in the box at the bottom.

[EggKookoo]

With races though? I think it's the lack of customization within a race that makes it so my creativity isn't dwindled.

It's less of an issue with races, IMO. Races are much less influential on gameplay than classes are.

[Ralanr]

It's less of an issue with races, IMO. Races are much less influential on gameplay than classes are.

As they should be.

[Xetheral]

Any artist, writer, musician, or the like will tell you that restrictions encourage creativity. Too many options devalues each of those options.

I disagree. Too many options devalues the ability to choose only when some of them are false choices (e.g. mechanically-incompetent prestige classes). If the options are all similarly competetive, an increase in available options to thematically and mechanically model a concept drastically increases the fidelity of the model, permitting many more such concepts to be realized.

(I also disagree with the first point. Artificial restrictions may require creativity to bypass, but that doesn't make the end result inherently more creative.)

[EggKookoo]

I disagree. Too many options devalues the ability to choose only when some of them are false choices (e.g. mechanically-incompetent prestige classes). If the options are all similarly competetive, an increase in available options to thematically and mechanically model a concept drastically increases the fidelity of the model, permitting many more such concepts to be realized.

What's your favorite color? Having trouble choosing? Why? There's only an infinite number of them.

What's the value of having so many colors to choose from that your favorite color and my favorite color are all but indistinguishable because their frequencies are so close to each other. The question "what's your favorite color?" can only have a sensible meaning if you impose limits on the colors you can choose from, such as breaking it down into the traditional spectrum. You may consider the traditional spectrum too limited but even if you wanted one at three times the resolution it's still a limiting structure that exists to provide value to the question.

Same deal with player options in a RPG.


(I also disagree with the first point. Artificial restrictions may require creativity to bypass, but that doesn't make the end result inherently more creative.)

It does if you look at creativity as something you do rather than something that you make. The creativity I'm talking about is exactly that thing you need to invoke to bypass the limit.

If you and I have to bypass a wall, and you are forced to make a "creative" approach due to various limits, and I can just teleport myself past it, we both get the same "end result" but you were forced to come up with a solution which enriches your experience. Your process is harder but arguably more fun, especially if the creative challenge is balanced for your abilities.

[squiggit]

I voted for all the monster races because I like them and it's always a shame how little support they get.

Also it's kind of weird they have hexblades and artificers which are already pretty well covered by the blade lock and the... artificier... but no mention of the Warlord, the one 4e class even my friends who hate 4e admit is cool.

Alchemist is a curious inclusion too, because I don't remember any Alchemist type class outside Pathfinder's and Pathfinder's alchemist always felt more or less like a poor man's artificier (not that that's a bad thing, 3.5 artificer was silly).


If you and I have to bypass a wall, and you are forced to make a "creative" approach due to various limits, and I can just teleport myself past it, we both get the same "end result" but you were forced to come up with a solution which enriches your experience. Your process is harder but arguably more fun, especially if the creative challenge is balanced for your abilities.

You're half right. Getting from one end to the room is boring and easy if there's nothing there and you just walk across the room. It's when it's full of obstacles that you have to come up with a creative solution despite the former being more free. The problem though is that a character in an RPG is the end result, not the process and I'm really not sure forcing a player to perform mental gymnastics/begging the DM for leeway/twisting rules is really a good thing in that aspect of the game.

Once the game actually starts, yeah, constrain them and make them come up with clever solutions to problems, but that's a whole different animal.



I hope WotC learned the lessons of 3/3.5e.
I don't think any of 3.5's problems has anything to do with the amount of splat it had and the success of pathfinder seems to do a good job agreeing with that.


Each new class is inevitably more slightly powerful then the classes that came before it

This however, is complete nonsense.

[SharkForce]

What's your favorite color? Having trouble choosing? Why? There's only an infinite number of them.

What's the value of having so many colors to choose from that your favorite color and my favorite color are all but indistinguishable because their frequencies are so close to each other. The question "what's your favorite color?" can only have a sensible meaning if you impose limits on the colors you can choose from, such as breaking it down into the traditional spectrum. You may consider the traditional spectrum too limited but even if you wanted one at three times the resolution it's still a limiting structure that exists to provide value to the question.

Same deal with player options in a RPG.

on the other hand, i can also ask you whether your favourite colour is mauve, purple, plum, violet, magenta, or lavender.

artificial restriction might help get better results, or it might not.

after all, who are you to tell me that i can't choose "blue" even in that infinite spectrum? yes, there are infinite colours. that doesn't mean i have to consider all of them, or even most of them.

[zinycor]

a: WHO DO I HAVE TO KILL TO GET DARK SUN!!!

b: A sorcerer king...

a: I'll see myself out

[LordVonDerp]

Hopefully we'll see more classes that use the warlock spell casting style.

[EggKookoo]

You're half right. Getting from one end to the room is boring and easy if there's nothing there and you just walk across the room. It's when it's full of obstacles that you have to come up with a creative solution despite the former being more free. The problem though is that a character in an RPG is the end result, not the process and I'm really not sure forcing a player to perform mental gymnastics/begging the DM for leeway/twisting rules is really a good thing in that aspect of the game.

Once the game actually starts, yeah, constrain them and make them come up with clever solutions to problems, but that's a whole different animal.

I disagree. Creating your character is as much a creative challenge as anything else. "How do I make the concept I want with this proscribed option set?"

If I can make my character be anything I want or have anything I want, it's easy to get the concept I'm going for but that's nowhere near as rewarding as getting my concept while overcoming the limits of the system. Even just getting close to my concept this way is more rewarding than getting exactly my concept with no challenge.

What's even better is that if I try to come close to my concept while working within the game limits, the fact that I have to make compromises might actually expose me to something new that I might have never considered if I could just build my character exactly to my whims without pushback.

Of course, there's a lot of YMMV with this. Some people don't like to grow out of their boxes and just want things handed to them. I won't say it's not legit if you only really enjoy playing games using cheat codes, but I don't think I'd want a game designed around the assumption that you do.

[Once a Fool]

I don't think any of 3.5's problems has anything to do with the amount of splat it had and the success of pathfinder seems to do a good job agreeing with that.

The fact that Pathfinder is successful does not exclude the possibility that it shares 3.5's problems. 3.5 also was successful.

[EggKookoo]

on the other hand, i can also ask you whether your favourite colour is mauve, purple, plum, violet, magenta, or lavender.

artificial restriction might help get better results, or it might not.

My reaction? "I want red. How can I enjoy a color that isn't exactly the one I want?"

Then I would "research" the impact of the various available colors on what I want to do and pick the one that works best. Who knows, I might end up liking it more than the color I thought I wanted.


after all, who are you to tell me that i can't choose "blue" even in that infinite spectrum?

In this context, I'm the guy supplying the paint. I supply paint of a certain spectrum. If you want a color outside this spectrum, that's the guy across the hall.


yes, there are infinite colours. that doesn't mean i have to consider all of them, or even most of them.

There comes a point where the benefit of having all these color options is overwhelmed by the burden of managing them.

[Once a Fool]

Each new class is inevitably more slightly powerful then the classes that came before it, which inevitably leads to the core non-full-caster classes being rendered obsolete.

This model isn't a given, though. 4e put out a lot of classes and they were all roughly comparable in power to other classes with the same role. In fact, their are some instances where splatbooks were used to correct previously published imbalances, such as with the added Paladin options in Divine Power.

[obryn]

I don't believe they have received any positive feedback on Dragon+. :smallsmile: It's terrible, usage- and content-wise.

As for classes, I wrote in Warlord. Can't believe it wasn't on the list, frankly.

[Hyena]

The moment I saw the seeker class, I went all "huh". Weren't 4e seekers basically 3.5e rangers fluffwise?

[mr_odd]

Regardless of how much say people have individually this is still a system in which our desires are directly communicated to the makers of products we want, which can only be a good thing. Personally I voted for spelljammer because I would only really try to bother with a campaign setting if it was really special.

Our group with multiple Dms/campaigns have never used a typical setting. We create our own worlds. While they are based on a setting (the closest was we took a ton from Greyhawk because we did not know anything about D&D at the time), they are their own and unique worlds. The only reason I would ever buy anything involving a particular setting is if it offered something special that would be difficult for me to create.

[obryn]

The moment I saw the seeker class, I went all "huh". Weren't 4e seekers basically 3.5e rangers fluffwise?
Seeing Seekers and not Warlords was just very bizarre. Seekers were a class in search of a reason to exist. They were more druids who cast spells with arrows.

[mephnick]

I don't think any of 3.5's problems has anything to do with the amount of splat it had and the success of pathfinder seems to do a good job agreeing with that.



This however, is complete nonsense.

Seriously? Pathfinder is rife with power creep.

[Ralanr]

Seeing Seekers and not Warlords was just very bizarre. Seekers were a class in search of a reason to exist. They were more druids who cast spells with arrows.

Basically Green Arrow if he knew nature magic.

Can't say I liked it's theme when I looked at it. There was already Druid and Ranget, the Seeker felt like a forced range combat hybrid.

[DracoKnight]

Why the Fighter dip?

Obviously for Action Surge. That way he can take the Action "None of the Above" twice.

[obryn]

Basically Green Arrow if he knew nature magic.

Can't say I liked it's theme when I looked at it. There was already Druid and Ranget, the Seeker felt like a forced range combat hybrid.
Yeah; the concept ended up being done better (IMO) with the Essentials Hunter.

[Flashy]

Obviously for Action Surge. That way he can take the Action "None of the Above" twice.

Wow, that's just stupid overpowered. I can't believe it didn't get fixed in an errata.

[squiggit]

If I can make my character be anything I want or have anything I want, it's easy to get the concept I'm going for but that's nowhere near as rewarding as getting my concept while overcoming the limits of the system. Even just getting close to my concept this way is more rewarding than getting exactly my concept with no challenge.
Maybe it's not. And while there are some of us who enjoy the character creating minigame I'm going to be bold and say that I think most people aren't looking to struggle against the system to play the character they want.

I could be completely wrong, but I'd wager a lot of people who want to play a certain archetype only to find out they have to beg their DM to let them be lenient with refluffing/homebrew or play a specific mesh of classes that only kind of sort of comes close and doesn't function until level 8 and so on aren't going to be happy with that, regardless of how creative the build may or may not be.


The fact that Pathfinder is successful does not exclude the possibility that it shares 3.5's problems. 3.5 also was successful.

The fact that both are successful seems to indicate that the supposed failing we're talking about isn't actually that much of a failing.


Seriously? Pathfinder is rife with power creep.

Two separate thoughts. Firstly, that 3.5 "failed" because it had too much splat. Secondly, that new splats necessitates power creep. Two separate ideas.

The latter is complete nonsense both in theory and in practice. In theory because nothing about making new material "necessitates" that it's better than anything and in practice the strongest stuff in 3.5, 4e and Pathfinder is core or near core. Hell, in 4e classes got worse as the development cycle progressed, not better.

[mr_odd]

Let's just bombard the survey with votes for Spelljammer. Who's with me?

[DracoKnight]

Wow, that's just stupid overpowered. I can't believe it didn't get fixed in an errata.

Right? Wish is such a pansy option next to "None of the Above."

[squiggit]

Let's just bombard the survey with votes for Spelljammer. Who's with me?

They advertised 5e before it released saying there was going to be spelljammer material. So I'd be annoyed if that didn't happen.

[EggKookoo]

Maybe it's not. And while there are some of us who enjoy the character creating minigame I'm going to be bold and say that I think most people aren't looking to struggle against the system to play the character they want.

I could be completely wrong, but I'd wager a lot of people who want to play a certain archetype only to find out they have to beg their DM to let them be lenient with refluffing/homebrew or play a specific mesh of classes that only kind of sort of comes close and doesn't function until level 8 and so on aren't going to be happy with that, regardless of how creative the build may or may not be.

The other problem with endless choice is that it becomes nearly impossible to know if a given option is gimped or OP. If I have 12 classes to go through, I only need to look through those 12 classes to see if anything jumps out at me, and at most I'm comparing a class to 11 others. If I have 36 classes, my workload is well more than tripled, and there's always this nagging thought that I missed something somewhere.

I'm probably in the minority but I really prefer 2e's system of four base classes and everything else is just a subclass of one of those. It helps keep things organized.

[Easy_Lee]

Let's just bombard the survey with votes for Spelljammer. Who's with me?

As someone who doesn't care about Spelljammer one way or the other, I voted for it anyway to support my forum bros.

[Vogonjeltz]

•Alchemist
•Artificer
•Cavalier
•Hexblade
•Martial Adept (warblade, swordsage, crusader)
•Runepriest
•Samurai
•Scout
•Seeker
•Shaman
•Warden
•Warmage
•None of the above


Personally I'd be psyched if they brought back None of the Above. I played a Human None of the Above 10/Fighter 2 in my very first campaign, and it would be super-nostalgic if I could bring that character over to 5e.

Isn't Artificer in the Eberron pdf they put out?

And can't you basically do the Cavalier, Hexblade, Martial Adept, and Samurai just using the Fighter's current subtypes? (Eldritch Knight isn't basically a Hexblade or Warmage...or an Evoker? Battlemaster isn't the Martial Adepts?) A transmuter is an Alchemist, so it's kind of weird that they'd even consider it a distinct class / subclass.

I'm not clear that there's a niche remaining for any of those.

[squiggit]

Isn't Artificer in the Eberron pdf they put out?
Yep


And can't you basically do the Cavalier, Hexblade, Martial Adept, and Samurai just using the Fighter's current subtypes?
More or less. Hexblade can be covered by blade lock too.


I'm not clear that there's a niche remaining for any of those.

Warmage is weird because the warmage class is literally just a dedicated evoker which... can be covered by an evoker specialist wizard.

Runepriest is more or less a battle cleric, favored soul or paladin with an emphasis on support magic.

I could see a niche for seeker or warden. Both of them are similar to the ranger and eldritch knight respectively but different enough to maybe be workable.

Martial Adept I could see voting for simply because I want more options for the Battlemaster and possibly more battlemaster archetypes rather than new classes entirely.


The biggest thing I see, with the mention of hexblade, runepriest, seeker and warden is that one of 5e's holes is combatants that actively weave magical and martial stuff together. It does traditional gish pretty well and eldritch knight lets you weave in offensive magic a bit, but the 4e classes (I know there was a 3.5 hexblade but it was just an ugly mess) mentioned all actively combine magic with physical attacks in a way that's hard to model in 5e.

[Mr.Moron]

Also, its a shame we couldn't down-vote ideas. I'd like another opportunity to express how much I hate Kender.

For what it's worth I put my downvotes (Pixies, Kobolds) in the extra comments section.

[SharkForce]

Isn't Artificer in the Eberron pdf they put out?

most of what i saw was people who don't like eberron or the artificer and were satisfied with it being a wizard subclass, and the people who like both and hate it as a wizard subclass.

so while they've got a (untested and poorly balanced) artificer, i would imagine if they don't have their heads in the sand they're not planning on going that route any more. not much point in making something for people who don't really want it, not much point in making something to appeal to the people who don't want that something in any form.

[Steampunkette]

I kinda downvoted Mystara, FR, Greyhawk, and Nentir. I expressed my frustration in the focus on "Core High Fantasy" without much expression of Horror/Sword and Sorcery/Sci-Fantasy.

I pushed for Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, and of course Dark Sun in the comment section.

Because while the game is based in High Fantasy, we need other styles and genres to expand it and give it more life and variety.

[Hawkstar]

I voted that we definitely need Catfolk, Gnolls, Hobgoblins, and a few of the other races to come back. To me, D&D is best when it has a lot of races and lot of monsters everywhere, all of them being awesome in their own way.

I wish I used the comment section to request Warlord like Obyrn did. I liked Warlords in 4e, Pathfinder(DSP), and to an extent 13th Age's Commander (Except that system is almost complete garbage)

I voted for Spelljammer(D&D IN SPACE!) and Greyhawk(The setting I grew up with in 3.5) as settings.

Planescape can go choke on a crumpet.

[Ralanr]

I voted Eberron. Magic trains and dungeon punk.

[Vortling]

Isn't Artificer in the Eberron pdf they put out?


Yes. The Artificer wizard subclass works fine, as long as you don't use it in Eberron. The subclass is balanced around the default 5e setting assumptions of magic item availability. This renders it mostly useless in Eberron where magic marts are a canon part of the setting. This version of the Artificer was clearly created without taking the concepts that make Eberron Eberron into account. I would say there is still plenty of room to expand on the Artificer concept.



And can't you basically do the Cavalier, Hexblade, Martial Adept, and Samurai just using the Fighter's current subtypes?

Speaking specifically to the Martial Adepts here's a list of things that a single school of Warblade maneuvers can do that the Fighter's battlemaster subclass can't

- Take a penalty to your AC for better damage
- End a spell or condition affecting you, without rolling a save or ability check
- Strike every enemy adjacent to you
- Throw your weapon to attack every creature in a 30 ft line
- Redirect an attack against you to another adjacent creature
- Apply conditions other than frightened
- Parry any attack roll against you, including spell attacks

That's just one single school from the Warblade class. This doesn't even touch on the other schools the Warblade has or the ones for the Crusader or Swordsage. One of the most common complaints I hear about the battlemaster fighter is the lack of good maneuvers or maneuvers with higher level effects.

I would say there's plenty of room for martial adepts to have a niche.

In regards to the survey I definitely want to see Artificers, Martial Adepts, Eberron, Spelljammer, Aasimar, Catfolk, Devas, and Thri-Kreen. With additional write in notes saying we still need a Warlord class and a Dragonfire Adept class.

[Ralanr]

Hmm...you know, I think a campaign about the magic economy crashing in Eberron would be pretty interesting.

[SharkForce]

Hmm...you know, I think a campaign about the magic economy crashing in Eberron would be pretty interesting.

sounds like an unwise idea.

people that like eberron don't want it to be made into not-eberron.

people that don't like eberron, well, there's plenty of stuff out there that isn't eberron already, and they shouldn't be the target market for eberron material.

(and on a side note, there are a few broken things in the wizard artificer, including the ability to get 2 level 9 spells in a day).

[Ralanr]

sounds like a stupid idea.

people that like eberron don't want it to be made into not-eberron.

people that don't like eberron, well, there's plenty of stuff out there that isn't eberron already, and they shouldn't be the target market for eberron material.

(and on a side note, there are a few broken things in the wizard artificer, including the ability to get 2 level 9 spells in a day).

Forgive me, I've never played Eberron, I've only heard certain things about it that I find interesting (magic robots and good, Druidic orcs are the biggest). But considering 5e's supposed take on magic item distribution, the setting wouldn't work.

Was thinking about how an adventure path would work.

[Zilzmaer]

Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun... Ravenloft.

Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun... Planescape.

Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun Dark Sun... Spelljammer.

This. Precisely this. I even left a comment in the box at the bottom saying these settings were the things from the survey I'd be most interested in seeing.

[SharkForce]

Forgive me, I've never played Eberron, I've only heard certain things about it that I find interesting (magic robots and good, Druidic orcs are the biggest). But considering 5e's supposed take on magic item distribution, the setting wouldn't work.

Was thinking about how an adventure path would work.

the whole point of settings is that they are different. if it's just gonna be the same as before, what's the point?

also, the whole "magic item distribution" thing pretty much always winds up being a load of BS eventually in just about any published setting that WotC comes out with. i think the only setting that i've seen any modules for that doesn't explicitly include magic item shops is birthright. their established fluff for every official D&D world i'm aware of except for that one has included magic item shops all over the place, pretty much; dark sun has them in elven quarters, often several of them. greyhawk i've only seen one of the temple of elemental evil things, but there's like 2-3 shops and several otherwise regular townsfolk own magic gear in a little town in the middle of nowhere. forgotten realms is one of the worst offenders, with magic shops all over the place. spelljammer has them all over in published material.

now, granted, i don't know every setting perfectly. maybe dragonlance doesn't have anything like that (i've read dragonlance books, but never actually played in the setting). maybe ravenloft doesn't.

and i'm not just talking about 3.x/4e, or video games either. i'm talking official published adventure modules and campaign setting information from 2nd AD&D when they also insisted that magic items were super rare and nobody would sell them for mere gold.

i remember reading a spelljammer module once where an entire enemy navy with hundreds of ships had every single ship crewed by a level 17 transmuter/level 10 fighter, each possessing a staff of power (note, you'd need at least 2 to power the helm full time) and something like 40 super-werewolfs with +2 swords or something crazy like that. as in, every single one of them had a +2 sword.

now, that one was particularly egregious. but seriously, just about every setting that people have liked has been practically drenched in magic items all over the place. i have very little confidence that it won't basically come back.

i mean, look at how many items you're supposed to have for different campaigns in the DMG. that isn't remotely close to what you get from random rolls, and it isn't remotely close to what they give in their modules from what i hear.

so yeah, quite frankly, i don't expect them to follow their guidelines for any setting, and they especially should not follow those guidelines in settings that are explicitly different from those guidelines. if you're gonna make 5e eberron, then make 5e eberron, not some lazy standard fantasy world clone with a few different names.

[Xetheral]

forgotten realms is one of the worst offenders, with magic shops all over the place

I think I asked this last year, but I don't remember the resolution, if there was one. What's the official in-game fluff explanation for where all those shops went now that magic items aren't buyable anymore in Forgotten Realms?

[Steampunkette]

Eberron can have ubiquitous magic without having a bunch of +3 swords on the table of every magic shop. Remember, the Magewrights aren't full fledged casters. Their magic items are mostly convenience based, not combat use. Feather Fall tokens all over Sharn. Heatstones for your sleeping bag during an Argonessen Winter. Bullseye lanterns with Continual Light keeping the dark at bay without oil.

And, of course, airships, submarines, and trains powered or supported by bound elementals.

[Ralanr]

Eberron can have ubiquitous magic without having a bunch of +3 swords on the table of every magic shop. Remember, the Magewrights aren't full fledged casters. Their magic items are mostly convenience based, not combat use. Feather Fall tokens all over Sharn. Heatstones for your sleeping bag during an Argonessen Winter. Bullseye lanterns with Continual Light keeping the dark at bay without oil.

And, of course, airships, submarines, and trains powered or supported by bound elementals.

I didn't know most of that. Thank you.

[SharkForce]

I think I asked this last year, but I don't remember the resolution, if there was one. What's the official in-game fluff explanation for where all those shops went now that magic items aren't buyable anymore in Forgotten Realms?

dunno. i honestly don't like forgotten realms that much as a setting to follow it that closely. to put it in perspective, i know vaguely about some thing called the spellplague that was a big deal in 4e, and i know some people who were pretty upset about it, but i don't really know much of anything more than that, either, and that was (from what i gather) a rather dramatic change.

if i had to take a guess, there isn't an explanation. yet, at least. we don't have any 5e FR setting books.

[Steampunkette]

In 4e the Weave got screwed up, royally (again) and a bunch of magic items either stopped working or changed. I expect 5e will shake it up, similarly, or roll back the timeline to pre-spellplague. Like how 4e Dark Sun rolled back the 2e novels that destroyed a bunch of Sorceror Kings and introduced an ocean to Athas ruled by insane psychic ghosts.

[T.G. Oskar]

Eberron can have ubiquitous magic without having a bunch of +3 swords on the table of every magic shop. Remember, the Magewrights aren't full fledged casters. Their magic items are mostly convenience based, not combat use. Feather Fall tokens all over Sharn. Heatstones for your sleeping bag during an Argonessen Winter. Bullseye lanterns with Continual Light keeping the dark at bay without oil.

And, of course, airships, submarines, and trains powered or supported by bound elementals.

You forgot to mention the "Dragonshard" factor.

Dragonshards are essentially the cornerstone of the magical item economy. Siberys Dragonshards are necessary for any magic item related to the Dragonmarked Houses (and also for Quori-related magic items); you could have, for example, a Defender sword made by traditional means, and a Sentinel Sword which has the same properties, can be crafted en masse, but only works in the presence of a Deneith Blademark with the Mark of Sentinel. Likewise, most of the elemental items are made easier through bound elementals, which require Khyber Dragonshards; a Flametongue found in a shop may be constructed with a bound elemental, making it a bit more prestigious but also insanely more expensive (and thus difficult to get unless you're an adventurer). The most typical magic item can be made easier through Eberron Dragonshards, which have a much broader application.

This is a plausible explanation of why Eberron could work on a system that's generally tight in magic items while its lore makes it a bit more ubiquitous; Dragonshards provide this "revolution", but the DM can still control its movement to an extent, and many adventures can be made regarding Dragonshards.

[Soular]

DAAAAARRRRK SUUUUNNNNN!!!!

And I guess Dragonlance...

And a vote for Spelljammer, for Person_man.

[Ralanr]

In 4e the Weave got screwed up, royally (again) and a bunch of magic items either stopped working or changed. I expect 5e will shake it up, similarly, or roll back the timeline to pre-spellplague. Like how 4e Dark Sun rolled back the 2e novels that destroyed a bunch of Sorceror Kings and introduced an ocean to Athas ruled by insane psychic ghosts.

I once read (a joke but it looked like an interesting idea) about the flow of magical power throughout the editions by the god Vecna. Namely that 4e's perfect balance went just as planed, cushing the weave to break. 5e is the weave slowly coming back in, with casters no longer as powerful due to the difficulty to pull magic from the newly forming weave.

I'm missing a few details, but the idea of 5e being affected by a weaker version of the weave as it is rebuilding itself could be interesting.

[Sigreid]

I asked for Spelljammer since I prefer homebrew campaigns to their campaign worlds. I think it's FR that put me off published campaigns because I started to hate that no matter what the party tried "Simpsons (Elminster) did it" first. I also strongly dislike the whole death of a god thing they like to do because what else is a self respecting group of adventurers going to do but target gods if they know they are vulnerable.

In the comment I indicated I prefer resources I can use for my adventures to their campaign paths and asked them to please not power drift with everything they release this time.

[Zevox]

In 4e the Weave got screwed up, royally (again) and a bunch of magic items either stopped working or changed. I expect 5e will shake it up, similarly, or roll back the timeline to pre-spellplague. Like how 4e Dark Sun rolled back the 2e novels that destroyed a bunch of Sorceror Kings and introduced an ocean to Athas ruled by insane psychic ghosts.
I'd be pretty happy if they went with a full retcon to get 4e's nonsense out of the Realms entirely. If they do that I might actually buy whatever new books they put out for the Realms in 5e. (If they don't, I probably won't - I don't have much more interest in a Realms that's in the process of recovering from 4e than I do in 4e's Realms themselves. I'll just stick with my old 3e Realms sources if that's the way things go.)


I also strongly dislike the whole death of a god thing they like to do because what else is a self respecting group of adventurers going to do but target gods if they know they are vulnerable.
Um, gods dying in the Realms tends to require other gods or extraordinary circumstances (the Time of Troubles, specifically). Even a very powerful group of adventurers is not going to be able to just kill a god.

[Steampunkette]

I'd be good with a retcon to kill the current events of FR... I would also be happy to have the story of the realms jump forward far enough that Driz'zt, Elminster, and some other prominent characters are dead. Perhaps a ne Time of Troubles wherein the gods must choose new Chosen and have direct influence as godkings of some of the prominent nations of the world.

[Ralanr]

I'd be good with a retcon to kill the current events of FR... I would also be happy to have the story of the realms jump forward far enough that Driz'zt, Elminster, and some other prominent characters are dead. Perhaps a ne Time of Troubles wherein the gods must choose new Chosen and have direct influence as godkings of some of the prominent nations of the world.

If we get so far in the furture that the elf is dead and they realms don't advance in technology, people may call BS.

Unless it wasn't an old age death. But I doubt wizards would kill off Driz'zt

[SharkForce]

I'd be good with a retcon to kill the current events of FR... I would also be happy to have the story of the realms jump forward far enough that Driz'zt, Elminster, and some other prominent characters are dead. Perhaps a ne Time of Troubles wherein the gods must choose new Chosen and have direct influence as godkings of some of the prominent nations of the world.

again, this comes right back to my observations about other settings.

the reason FR *became* the popular setting is that the setting, as it was, is what people liked. they didn't just say "oh wow that name is ten times cooler than ravenloft", it was the setting as presented that people liked.

now, i personally don't care much for forgotten realms. i wouldn't be terribly sad if it was largely ignored. but, i am not the target market for forgotten realms products. the people who like forgotten realms more or less as it was before it got borked are the target market, and any FR products should be aimed at them, not at me.

i mean, i don't like having a million high-level characters in the setting myself. but that isn't a good reason to try and rewrite the forgotten realms to please me. i already have settings i like (if these boards are a good representation of actual setting popularity, i'm in pretty good company on dark sun and spelljammer... birthright not so much :P ), and it makes far more sense to target the settings that i like at me, because you already know exactly what i'm looking for.

after all, what's the point in owning an IP with an already-loyal fan base if you're not going to take advantage of already knowing what they like? you'd be better off making an entirely new setting if you want to make something new, because at least then you won't make everyone angry about the changes you've made.

(on a side note, i suspect that the dark sun revised box set didn't only make people mad because of the setting changes... there were some imo pretty questionable rules decisions in there too).

[Steampunkette]

Oh, sure. But did you see the backlash from the Realms Grognards over the Spellplague and resulting adherence to a Points of Light campaign setting style in the venerable Realms?

People were livid that Wizards slaughtered so many gods, replaced various kingdoms, reimagined magic, and removed what stability Faerun had in favor of making the story more focused on the specific, and narrow, storytelling methods that were dujour for 4e.

Getting the setting back to 3e or even 2e Realms would probably improve sales. While killing off E and D and moving forward with an eye to the old FR storylines and style would end so much fanboy frustration with how the setting has bent over backwards to make Salvatore king of the world and Elminster into a far more interventionist Fizban.

Also, as it bears repeating: DARK SUN

Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the (olive tinted) sky from me!

[S_Dalsgaard]

Oh, sure. But did you see the backlash from the Realms Grognards over the Spellplague and resulting adherence to a Points of Light campaign setting style in the venerable Realms?

People were livid that Wizards slaughtered so many gods, replaced various kingdoms, reimagined magic, and removed what stability Faerun had in favor of making the story more focused on the specific, and narrow, storytelling methods that were dujour for 4e.

Getting the setting back to 3e or even 2e Realms would probably improve sales. While killing off E and D and moving forward with an eye to the old FR storylines and style would end so much fanboy frustration with how the setting has bent over backwards to make Salvatore king of the world and Elminster into a far more interventionist Fizban.

Also, as it bears repeating: DARK SUN

Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the (olive tinted) sky from me!

Well, HotDQ is set in the year 1489 DR, so no retcon back to pre-Spellplague times, but on the other hand, most (if not all) of the dead gods are back.

[Anlashok]

Hopefully if they bring back Dark Sun they get rid of all that desert and 'no metal' crap. It'd also be helpful if they add a bunch of gods and make the sorcerer kings really nice. Replace Thri Kreen with hobgoblins and dump all that psionic nonsense while we're at it.

[zinycor]

Hopefully if they bring back Dark Sun they get rid of all that desert and 'no metal' crap. It'd also be helpful if they add a bunch of gods and make the sorcerer kings really nice. Replace Thri Kreen with hobgoblins and dump all that psionic nonsense while we're at it.

Am guessing that was a joke, but I would be so angry if they were to do that

[Ralanr]

Am guessing that was a joke, but I would be so angry if they were to do that

I'm sure everyone would, even if they only removed psionics.

I get it. My previous idea for fitting eberron into low magic didn't work with the setting.

[Shining Wrath]

I put "NO KENDER" in the comments block.

I didn't vote for very many things - the martial adepts, runepriest, warden, almost none of the races.

[mephnick]

I think I picked like...3 things. Dark Sun, Spelljammer (though I 've never played it), and Hobgoblins because my campaign setting uses them heavily.

As I was going through the classes all I could think to myself was "I..really don't care if any of these ever exist again."

[GiantOctopodes]

I'm sure everyone would, even if they only removed psionics.

I get it. My previous idea for fitting eberron into low magic didn't work with the setting.

Eh, I wouldn't get that far. I think it could be very cool to do an Eberron where the economy is crashing, and everything is fubar'd. Just, you know, on your own rather than as a published campaign setting :smallsmile:

I am personally of the opinion that taking existing campaign settings and then bending and breaking them into something new is an absolutely valid way of doing things. You end up with a bunch of published content you can cherry pick from to incorporate elements you like, reducing prep time, you break the mold sufficiently that players end their idea that you must be slavishly adherent to the setting ("NO, we're in the wrong year for him to be King!" or similar complaints in a fantasy setting is not my personal favorite 'discussion' to be having), and by having an Eberron inspired world rather than Eberron, it gives free reign to incorporate elements and plots from other settings you like as well.

Not saying there's anything wrong with slavishly adherent pseudo-realism based on the setting as published, or with creating entirely new homebrews, just saying that there is a middle ground as well. But yeah, it'd probably annoy a LOT of folks if they did that in the "official" representation of Eberron.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I see these surveys as more of a PR stunt than anything else. It helps boost hype and awareness of what might be in the player's mind and not what might be from the company's point of view.

If 9k people said they want Incarnum back, and the company has no plans for it, I don't see them changing their stance on Incarnum because the survey has already done its part in getting people excited.

That being said, I hope I'm wrong about it. I would love to see the 4e Artificer, 3.5 Tome of Battle, Incarnum, 4e Warden, 4e Fighter, Dragon Fire Adept, and many many many others come back. I even added a note about dragon breath feats (via 4e) that I think 5e Dragonborn desperately need.

And another part of me just .might give up on 5e and start DMing 3.5/4e again but use 4e/5e ideologies on the monsters rather than all the crap that you have to deal with in 3e when you set up encounters.

[SharkForce]

I see these surveys as more of a PR stunt than anything else. It helps boost hype and awareness of what might be in the player's mind and not what might be from the company's point of view.

If 9k people said they want Incarnum back, and the company has no plans for it, I don't see them changing their stance on Incarnum because the survey has already done its part in getting people excited.

That being said, I hope I'm wrong about it. I would love to see the 4e Artificer, 3.5 Tome of Battle, Incarnum, 4e Warden, 4e Fighter, Dragon Fire Adept, and many many many others come back. I even added a note about dragon breath feats (via 4e) that I think 5e Dragonborn desperately need.

And another part of me just .might give up on 5e and start DMing 3.5/4e again but use 4e/5e ideologies on the monsters rather than all the crap that you have to deal with in 3e when you set up encounters.

if there are 10k voters and 9k want incarnum, they'll change their minds unless they're idiots. at the very least, it'll lead to further market research to confirm those results, and then if they find it is accurate, they'll do it. when an overwhelming majority of your active fan base wants something, you really need to listen to them.

if there are 100k voters and 9k want incarnum, then yeah, fair chance it won't be fast-tracked.

[Ralanr]

And another part of me just .might give up on 5e and start DMing 3.5/4e again but use 4e/5e ideologies on the monsters rather than all the crap that you have to deal with in 3e when you set up encounters.

When I first saw the dragonborn racials, I assumed that there was a dragonborn only splatbook in the works like they did in 4e for them and tieflings. Though I think they didn't make more because they didn't sell well.

I wouldn't mind seeing more racial feats though. Like Aa...bird people being able to summon a wind elemental when five of them get in formation. Not a good example of a feat, but it's an example of an ability the NPC has over the PC.

I'd imagine dragonborn would get a recharge mechanic. I'd also like to see the 4e dragonfear ability come back as an option for dragonborn if you don't want the breath attack. Fearful presence!

[ThermalSlapShot]

if there are 10k voters and 9k want incarnum, they'll change their minds unless they're idiots. at the very least, it'll lead to further market research to confirm those results, and then if they find it is accurate, they'll do it. when an overwhelming majority of your active fan base wants something, you really need to listen to them.

if there are 100k voters and 9k want incarnum, then yeah, fair chance it won't be fast-tracked.

Multitude of reason why they wouldn't.

1: They don't know how many of those people are people who would actually buy the product or just likes Incarnum being in splat.

2: They don't know how many of the people who didn't take the survey that will hate Incarnum and be mad for the inclusion. 5e's tagline should be "D&D 5e, oh god please don't be mad at us".

3: They might not know how to get Incarnum into the 5e system or think it will be to big of a hassle to implement and it will take away from stuff they want to do that they know will be OK with a majority of the fans.

I can think of more but I need to go.



When I first saw the dragonborn racials, I assumed that there was a dragonborn only splatbook in the works like they did in 4e for them and tieflings. Though I think they didn't make more because they didn't sell well.

I wouldn't mind seeing more racial feats though. Like Aa...bird people being able to summon a wind elemental when five of them get in formation. Not a good example of a feat, but it's an example of an ability the NPC has over the PC.

I'd imagine dragonborn would get a recharge mechanic. I'd also like to see the 4e dragonfear ability come back as an option for dragonborn if you don't want the breath attack. Fearful presence!

Yeah, recharge or at-willwould have been the way to make the base dragonborn but... I'm no sure why they didn't.

4e did right by dragonborn.

[Ralanr]

Multitude of reason why they wouldn't.

1: They don't know how many of those people are people who would actually buy the product or just likes Incarnum being in splat.

2: They don't know how many of the people who didn't take the survey that will hate Incarnum and be mad for the inclusion. 5e's tagline should be "D&D 5e, oh god please don't be mad at us".

3: They might not know how to get Incarnum into the 5e system or think it will be to big of a hassle to implement and it will take away from stuff they want to do that they know will be OK with a majority of the fans.

I can think of more but I need to go.




Yeah, recharge or at-willwould have been the way to make the base dragonborn but... I'm no sure why they didn't.

4e did right by dragonborn.

I think it's because of their role in 4e and how the community reacted to them is what brings them to their current status. Tieflings aren't hurt as badly though (considering on how much more art they seemed to be featured in).

The race that's stereotyped as the emo or anti-hero race moves along fine. An entire humanoid race with devil blood in them? That's fine. Humanoid dragon people that are not the result of a dragon mating with a humanoid? Woah now, we can't have that.

I hate how people claim it's an unoriginal race, when most draconic humanoids are direct children of dragons. Or they blame the name, which I guess could be changed.

Drakogen maybe?

[SharkForce]

haven't noticed a ton of dragonborn hate. i mean, they're mechanically super weak in this edition, and that's a problem, but i haven't seen people hating the dragonborn just for being dragonborn.

[Ralanr]

haven't noticed a ton of dragonborn hate. i mean, they're mechanically super weak in this edition, and that's a problem, but i haven't seen people hating the dragonborn just for being dragonborn.

It's pretty much gone in 5e, thankfully. I noticed it a lot in 4e though.

Though maybe it was just the extremes being the most vocal.

[squiggit]

The only real dragonborn hate I remember in 4e were people grumbling about how strong they were and how great their stat spread(especially with kapak) was. Don't really remember people hating them for their fluff, at least not any more than tieflings or devas etc.

[mephnick]

I thought people hated the dragonborn because they changed them into a stupid, boring, warrior race instead of extremely rare and powerful individuals devoted and reborn to dragonkind like they used to be.

That's why I hate dragonborn, anyway.

[ThermalSlapShot]

The only real dragonborn hate I remember in 4e were people grumbling about how strong they were and how great their stat spread(especially with kapak) was. Don't really remember people hating them for their fluff, at least not any more than tieflings or devas etc.

The only thing I recall hearing hate about was female dragonborn mammal style chest issues...

[Ralanr]

The only thing I recall hearing hate about was female dragonborn mammal style chest issues...

And then the backlash when wizards explained that they, like dragons, are mammals.

The backlash was for the dragons being mammal. This was probably retconed if it was ever made canon.

[CantigThimble]

I don't like dragonborn and teiflings because they seem super cheesey to me. Fluffwise, not mechanically.

[eastmabl]

I thought people hated the dragonborn because they changed them into a stupid, boring, warrior race instead of extremely rare and powerful individuals devoted and reborn to dragonkind like they used to be.

That's why I hate dragonborn, anyway.

There's nothing that stops you from using 5e dragonborn stats with 3.5 RotD fluff.

That's what I do, anyways.

[Ralanr]

Heck changing dragonborn fluff isn't hard. The only real thing people tend to keep is that they are connected to dragons in some way.

[zinycor]

I thought people hated the dragonborn because they changed them into a stupid, boring, warrior race instead of extremely rare and powerful individuals devoted and reborn to dragonkind like they used to be.

That's why I hate dragonborn, anyway.

I don't think many people really cares about that.

[ThermalSlapShot]

There's nothing that stops you from using 5e dragonborn stats with 3.5 RotD fluff.

That's what I do, anyways.

I keep the 3.5 Dragonborn fluff, they aren't their own race but a template more or less. You go in X and come out as a dragonborn.

I also allow a player to choose +2 Con and then a choice between +1 Str or +1 Cha. You are reborn with a purpose and this shows that.

Note: All other racial features are replaced by this dragonborn. I would allow a permanent transformation to dragonborn at a later level if the player worshiped or was in good favor of dragons deities.


I don't like dragonborn and teiflings because they seem super cheesey to me. Fluffwise, not mechanically.

Cheese comes from mechanics, not fluff.

Also this is a fantasy game and dragonborn and tiefling are quite tame when it comes to fantasy (and quite iconic).

{scrubbed}

[pwykersotz]

I didn't like the 3.5 Dragonborn fluff, to be honest. I kind of prefer their current incarnation.

[mephnick]

Also this is a fantasy game and dragonborn and tiefling are quite tame when it comes to fantasy (and quite iconic).

I wouldn't say they're iconic. I can't think of many other fantasy worlds with emo half-devils.

[CantigThimble]

Cheese comes from mechanics, not fluff.

Also this is a fantasy game and dragonborn and tiefling are quite tame when it comes to fantasy (and quite iconic).

{scrubbed}

Only game mechanics can be cheesey? You've never seen sharknado then. And those are not remotely iconic fantasy. And you're making baseless assumptions about me, thanks.

[Ralanr]

Well to be fair, most draconic humanoid races are half-dragon or really human looking.

An entire race of basically humans with a few scales and wings are not very interesting in my opinion.

Your opinion may vary.

[squiggit]

I wouldn't say they're iconic. I can't think of many other fantasy worlds with emo half-devils.

Tieflings are neither emo nor half devils(and quite possibly not related to devils at all) though.

[GiantOctopodes]

Yeah, Dragons are iconic. Half dragons, less iconic. Dragonborn, not so iconic. In fact, I'd argue Kobolds are the far more iconic "descended from dragons" race compared to Dragonborn.

The idea of Tieflings is somewhat iconic by now (emo dark hero (or not) struggling (or not) against the evil that courses through their blood, fighting the legacy of their ancestors (or not)), but the specific version presented in D&D seems pretty tied to D&D for me. That being said, they are at least far more iconic than Dragonborn, having made their debut in AD&D instead of Dragonborn's debut in 3.5

[Ralanr]

Dragonborn are still in their awkward teenage phase, trying to find where they fit in.

I enjoy them. Glad they were in the core book. Glad I'm not the only one who enjoys them.

[Steampunkette]

I prefer the 3.5 and earlier tieflings, myself. As for dragonborn I could take 'em or leave 'em.

Though if they had been "Dragonborn Kobolds" as small flying creatures I'd probably be more inclined to play one.

Also if they were described as having more variety. I'd rather play

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs4/i/2004/204/9/9/Sayda__New_and_Improved.jpg

or

http://pre05.deviantart.net/6f44/th/pre/i/2014/356/b/e/lightbringer_by_corndoggy-d8av3zs.jpg

for my female dragonborn instead of

http://th04.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2010/050/8/e/Zenobia_____Dragonborn_by_Katgotclaws.jpg

[zinycor]

I prefer the 3.5 and earlier tieflings, myself. As for dragonborn I could take 'em or leave 'em.

Though if they had been "Dragonborn Kobolds" as small flying creatures I'd probably be more inclined to play one.

Also if they were described as having more variety. I'd rather play


or


for my female dragonborn instead of


where was it said that the third is the canonical for this edition, as far as I know, the female dragonborn would be nearer to the second image you posted

[Easy_Lee]

@Steampunkett I agree. Partial dragons and Lizardfolk in general are hit or miss in fantasy, and are rarely done well IMO. Thinking about a race based on lizards, we can draw a few logical conclusions:

Being cold blooded means they ought to be vulnerable to cold. But it also means they don't need to eat nearly as much (less energy spent on homeostasis) and should be prone to basking in the sun.
Many types of clothing could rub on scales and either cause irritation or tear. They should favor light clothing and warm environments. They should also have a higher base unarmored AC due to the scales.
Greater possibility of gills and such.
They shouldn't have mammaries, since they're not mammals.

EverQuest's Iksar will always be my favorite lizardfolk race.
URL, since the image is too big (http://img14.deviantart.net/0ab9/i/2004/12/6/c/iksar_monk.jpg).

[Ralanr]

I prefer the 3.5 and earlier tieflings, myself. As for dragonborn I could take 'em or leave 'em.

Though if they had been "Dragonborn Kobolds" as small flying creatures I'd probably be more inclined to play one.

Also if they were described as having more variety. I'd rather play

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs4/i/2004/204/9/9/Sayda__New_and_Improved.jpg

or

http://pre05.deviantart.net/6f44/th/pre/i/2014/356/b/e/lightbringer_by_corndoggy-d8av3zs.jpg

for my female dragonborn instead of

http://th04.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2010/050/8/e/Zenobia_____Dragonborn_by_Katgotclaws.jpg


where was it said that the third is the canonical for this edition, as far as I know, the female dragonborn would be nearer to the second image you posted

If the second image is the closest, then good. That's the best one in my opinion.

Edit: I don't mind lizard boobs, I just want the face to not be very humanoid. Though they do look better without the boobs.

[zinycor]

If the second image is the closest, then good. That's the best one in my opinion.

Edit: I don't mind lizard boobs, I just want the face to not be very humanoid. Though they do look better without the boobs.

I Just imagine that the difference on genders would be more fun if they had different tones on the colors, kinda like on birds, or maybe horns on different places of the face.

However if someone wants to play a dragonborn with boobs, fine with me.

[Sigreid]

Um, gods dying in the Realms tends to require other gods or extraordinary circumstances (the Time of Troubles, specifically). Even a very powerful group of adventurers is not going to be able to just kill a god.

Seems to happen a bit often for it to be that hard. In any event I can only answer their survey's with my opinion which they theoretically combine with the other input in an attempt to make as many people happy as possible. At least happy enough to buy. :smile:

[Steampunkette]

I Just imagine that the difference on genders would be more fun if they had different tones on the colors, kinda like on birds, or maybe horns on different places of the face.

However if someone wants to play a dragonborn with boobs, fine with me.

See... I'd rather have all dragonborn look very similar, even in coloration. And have it be less human-centric identifiers.

Like Male dragonborn having 3 spines at the back of the jaw rather than a female's 4. Or 14 brow spines instead of 12, like a woman's.

Instead, fantasy tends to add in human gender dimorphism to make things work for the artists and conceptualizers who like big boobs in tiny tops.

[Telwar]

Seems to happen a bit often for it to be that hard. In any event I can only answer their survey's with my opinion which they theoretically combine with the other input in an attempt to make as many people happy as possible. At least happy enough to buy. :smile:

"Dammit, Tyr's dead."

"...it's Tuesday again?"

[Kurt Kurageous]

Idk. I'm just a fan of dragonborn, though I know races can be broken. My friend's homebrew slime race was a prime example. Making potions with bubbles (alchemist) and kept hiding in cracks in the floor.

LOL! He missed the chance to play rogue. Couldn't keep him out of anywhere, wouldn't trip any trap, spread thin, he'd just look like a freshly washed floor...silly. :mitd:Thanks for the laugh.

[Sigreid]

See... I'd rather have all dragonborn look very similar, even in coloration. And have it be less human-centric identifiers.

Like Male dragonborn having 3 spines at the back of the jaw rather than a female's 4. Or 14 brow spines instead of 12, like a woman's.

Instead, fantasy tends to add in human gender dimorphism to make things work for the artists and conceptualizers who like big boobs in tiny tops.

It's probably intended to make it easier for the reader to identify with the creature as well.

[Zevox]

Seems to happen a bit often for it to be that hard.
Only reasons I can think of why you'd think that are the Time of Troubles, which was a very exceptional circumstance where the gods were explicitly temporarily rendered mortal, and the 3e-to-4e transition, which was just poorly handled all around. And even in that event the gods dying was the result of other gods' actions: Cyric and Shar killed Mystra, whose death caused Savras' death when her divine domain collapsed around him, and Tyr killed Helm over some misunderstanding. Tyr himself was apparently killed by demons, but only after giving up his divine status and power to another god, Torm. Again, not saying any of that was good writing, nor that I understand why WotC went on a divine killing spree going into 4e (I very much so don't), but even when they did it was gods killing other gods. God-slaying has never been any more realistic a goal for adventurers in the Realms than it is in any other setting.

[DracoKnight]

"Dammit, Tyr's dead."

"...it's Tuesday again?"

"How many Tuesdays have you lived through Sammy?"

"Enough."

[Lord Raziere]

Also if they were described as having more variety. I'd rather play

*half dragon pic*

or

*boring and unrelatable pic*

for my female dragonborn instead of

*the one I actually like pic*



sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. the 2nd pic just makes the Dragonborn feel all samey and without variety while the first is an entirely different story from dragonborn all together.

I actually like the third one best, I never really cared for scientific accuracy when it comes to biology in my games, I mean its fantasy man, there is no biological reason for anything and I'd rather have dragonfolk like that then the boring thing you advocating.

I mean, there just doesn't seem to be any value I can discern from making things alien for alien sake.

[GiantOctopodes]

sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. the 2nd pic just makes the Dragonborn feel all samey and without variety while the first is an entirely different story from dragonborn all together.

I actually like the third one best, I never really cared for scientific accuracy when it comes to biology in my games, I mean its fantasy man, there is no biological reason for anything and I'd rather have dragonfolk like that then the boring thing you advocating.

I mean, there just doesn't seem to be any value I can discern from making things alien for alien sake.

For some folks, being alien is the desirable end goal. Some people *want* to play as "the other". I play Zerg in starcraft, Tyranids and Orks in Warhammer, and so on. In every game where I'm given an option other than human, I don't play humans. So, if your desire is to play something totally foreign to our ways and as inhuman as possible, can you see why it would suck if the only non-human options were humanized? I mean, it's not like you can't play as a human, or elf, or pixie, or any of a myriad of other near humanoids. Why does *every* option need to be that way? Why can't we have at least one race that's totally different? Anyhoo, that's my 2cp on the topic and why I think the middle picture is best. I'm fine with the first, as well, for half dragons or whatever which are cool in their own right. The 3rd one is not my personal cup of tea.

[Lord Raziere]

For some folks, being alien is the desirable end goal. Some people *want* to play as "the other". I play Zerg in starcraft, Tyranids and Orks in Warhammer, and so on. In every game where I'm given an option other than human, I don't play humans. So, if your desire is to play something totally foreign to our ways and as inhuman as possible, can you see why it would suck if the only non-human options were humanized? I mean, it's not like you can't play as a human, or elf, or pixie, or any of a myriad of other near humanoids. Why does *every* option need to be that way? Why can't we have at least one race that's totally different?.

I want to play as the other as well, I never play a human if I can help it.

I just don't see why the other has to be so unreasonable, insane and evil. a lot of this "alien" mindset you speak of just seems to be evil in different clothing. or pointlessly making the race boring and unfun to roleplay.

[Steampunkette]

So not having human gender dimorphism is evil, now? 'Cause that was the issue on the table. Not Orks, Tyranids, and Zerg as PCs.

Though calling the Zerg or Tyranids evil is just plain misguided. Survival and evolution are their goal, not cruelty or wickedness.

[Ralanr]

So not having human gender dimorphism is evil, now? 'Cause that was the issue on the table. Not Orks, Tyranids, and Zerg as PCs.

Though calling the Zerg or Tyranids evil is just plain misguided. Survival and evolution are their goal, not cruelty or wickedness.

Well that had been one easy way to characterize evil. Or just make it look as far from human as possible.

That's not as big now.

[Lord Raziere]

So not having human gender dimorphism is evil, now? 'Cause that was the issue on the table. Not Orks, Tyranids, and Zerg as PCs.

Though calling the Zerg or Tyranids evil is just plain misguided. Survival and evolution are their goal, not cruelty or wickedness.

OR BORING. I also said: OR. BORING. don't pay attention to one and ignore the other! :smallmad:

if you define "survival" and "evolution" as "killing and eating everything that isn't them" YES IT IS EVIL. because thats what they do: EAT EVERYTHING THATS NOT THEM. survival by killing everyone else, is pretty much the Evil mindset in a nutshell!

[EggKookoo]

OR BORING. I also said: OR. BORING. don't pay attention to one and ignore the other! :smallmad:

Not sure you can enforce that. If you say "it's A or B" and B is perfectly reasonable but A isn't, I would expect people to pick apart A.

By putting the "or" in there you're conceptually separating them, and they can each be addressed individually.


if you define "survival" and "evolution" as "killing and eating everything that isn't them" YES IT IS EVIL. because thats what they do: EAT EVERYTHING THATS NOT THEM. survival by killing everyone else, is pretty much the Evil mindset in a nutshell!

Of course, most animals work this way. Bison don't stop eating all the grass in the plain because of some kind of moral sense or awareness of limited resources. They stop because their stomachs are full and it flips chemical switches in their brains, which temporarily shuts off their sense of hunger. If they didn't have those switches and they had stomachs of holding, they'd eat up every last blade of grass in existence.

[xroads]

My vote...


Birthright & DarkSun because they are classics. Plus DarkSun has Thrikeens & cannibal Halflings.
Shamans because spirit attack beasts are cool.
Aasimar because they already included Tieflings, so might as well include the opposite (like Yin & Yang).
Goblins, Kobolds, Lizardmen, and Thrikeens because they all sound fun to play.






Also if they were described as having more variety. I'd rather play

**winged dragonborn with a tail**

or

**heavily metal armored dragon born**

for my female dragonborn instead of


I'd vote for the second one myself. The first one appears to human IMO. But the second one looks ready to kick butt and take names. :smallbiggrin:

[Ralanr]

As long as it's not "slightly scaly humans with wings" then I'll be happy.

That's basically what a high level human sorcerer with a draconic bloodline is anyway

[zinycor]

OR BORING. I also said: OR. BORING. don't pay attention to one and ignore the other! :smallmad:

if you define "survival" and "evolution" as "killing and eating everything that isn't them" YES IT IS EVIL. because thats what they do: EAT EVERYTHING THATS NOT THEM. survival by killing everyone else, is pretty much the Evil mindset in a nutshell!

Boring is a very bad argument, since it's completely up to you what you find boring or fun.

[Dienekes]

sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. the 2nd pic just makes the Dragonborn feel all samey and without variety while the first is an entirely different story from dragonborn all together.

I actually like the third one best, I never really cared for scientific accuracy when it comes to biology in my games, I mean its fantasy man, there is no biological reason for anything and I'd rather have dragonfolk like that then the boring thing you advocating.

I mean, there just doesn't seem to be any value I can discern from making things alien for alien sake.

Must, respectfully, disagree. The only one of the three that actually looked interesting was the middle picture. That's a dragon person. I like it. The others are just people with scales.

Though I will say, I agree with you on the zerg. Don't know what a Tyranid is, but the Zerg have shown they have intelligence and the ability to understand that other creatures have sapience and just don't care. Nothing is making them attack the Terrans and Protoss except their desire to eat them specifically instead of the numerous other hospitable planets they could have gone toward. Well until you get into the Dark One stuff in the new game which seems to imply they're all being mind controlled into it. But, until that gets cleared up or definitively put one way or the other, they're evil.

[Lord Raziere]

Boring is a very bad argument, since it's completely up to you what you find boring or fun.

ha-ha! but is it not completely up to you whether or not its a bad argument? therefore is it not, a very bad argument to argue against it, on the grounds that it is a very bad argument? you provide no reason for why, therefore you are just as a guilty by your own logic. :smallamused:


Must, respectfully, disagree. The only one of the three that actually looked interesting was the middle picture. That's a dragon person. I like it. The others are just people with scales.

I don't see the difference. they're all dragon people. what are the other two just not good enough for you? don't be dragon essentialist, they can be as dragon as all they like.

[Dienekes]

I don't see the difference. they're all dragon people. what are the other two just not good enough for you? don't be dragon essentialist, they can be as dragon as all they like.

If you don't see the difference why do you find the middle one boring?

[Lord Raziere]

If you don't see the difference why do you find the middle one boring?

why do people not like the taste of certain foods? there is no reason for it, people just taste things differently. I'm just honest about my tastes in that there is no reason for my tastes.

[Ralanr]

why do people not like the taste of certain foods? there is no reason for it, people just taste things differently. I'm just honest about my tastes in that there is no reason for my tastes.

Usually people make reasons if they don't already have one.

Like how I've told my reason for not liking the first picture, it's too human. I'm seeing a scaly human with wings and a tail. That's not what I think of when I think of draconic humanoid. I think of dragon head on a humanoid body at least. Makes it less of a copied human.

[Dienekes]

why do people not like the taste of certain foods? there is no reason for it, people just taste things differently. I'm just honest about my tastes in that there is no reason for my tastes.

That's entirely against your original post, where you did try to explain your tastes. That alien for alien's sake was bad, that scientific accuracy was not important to your fantasy, and that the second is without variety (though I have no idea how that can even be argued when we only see one of them, lizards can actually have a wide variety of dimorphism based on colors, head shape, size, and the like).

And my taste is that I like when aliens are alien. I like when realism is applied to fantasy as I think in specific cases it can provide a wider variety of situations and styles than what seems a pretty lazy method of putting a vaguely cow-like head, with hair that was color swapped to look like horns on a human body and call it done.

[zinycor]

ha-ha! but is it not completely up to you whether or not its a bad argument? therefore is it not, a very bad argument to argue against it, on the grounds that it is a very bad argument? you provide no reason for why, therefore you are just as a guilty by your own logic. :smallamused:.

sorry what? my english isn't very good so i don't really get what you are trying to say... It seems as you are trying to use some kind of retoric to win an argument that I don't even get.

[Dienekes]

sorry what? my english isn't very good so i don't really get what you are trying to say... It seems as you are trying to use some kind of retoric to win an argument that I don't even get.

That's because it doesn't make sense and ignores part of your response.

Your post: Boring is a bad argument, because it means something different to different people.

Raz's response: You determine what is and what isn't a bad argument (incorrect assertion based on a logical fallacy), so therefore you can't argue against my assertion that it is boring. You also give no evidence as to why my assertion is a bad argument (ignoring that saying boring is subjective is in your post which is a reason why it's a bad argument).

I have a feeling Raz is trying to be funny.

[Hawkstar]

Though I will say, I agree with you on the zerg. Don't know what a Tyranid is, but the Zerg have shown they have intelligence and the ability to understand that other creatures have sapience and just don't care. Nothing is making them attack the Terrans and Protoss except their desire to eat them specifically instead of the numerous other hospitable planets they could have gone toward. Well until you get into the Dark One stuff in the new game which seems to imply they're all being mind controlled into it. But, until that gets cleared up or definitively put one way or the other, they're evil.It's an alien morality. Humans have true individuality, and have a 'stewardship of the land' as their inherent purpose, and it's reflected in their morality as they consider it Good to protect and preserve other things. Zerg have absolutely no reason to see value in individualism or preservation - their inherent purpose is Assimilation. Zerglings and Hydralisks are purpose-driven and disposable. Why should they see individual humans and Protoss as any more valuable than their own lives? The important thing to them is that those species ultimately get assimilated into their hive. A zerg idea of an atrocity would be extinction of a species (Natural or otherwise) without a chance of that species being absorbed and recorded in the Zerg Swarm... so in a sense, they also have a bit of Stewardship going on, but it's a completely radical take on it, fit for their own means of biology, propagation, and ambitions.

Prior to Kerrigan coming around, the Zerg probably had no idea what sapience even was, or why it's something inherently worth protecting.

Humans just happen to treat anything that doesn't think like them and treat them as the Moral Authority Of The Everything as Evil.


See... I'd rather have all dragonborn look very similar, even in coloration. And have it be less human-centric identifier.So... how about we get rid of the plantigrade stance, bipedal skeletal structure, human hip and rib shapes, structures, and proportions... possibly remove or redesign the clavicles, change the shape of the viscerocranium to be nonhuman as well (Including ditching the 90* joint between the skull and cervical vertebrate).

Personally, I accept human chest structures on dragonborn not as 'mammal', but as part of adopting/using the humanoid body structure (No other animal in the world has human-style chest structure).

[zinycor]

So... how about we get rid of the plantigrade stance, bipedal skeletal structure, human hip and rib shapes, structures, and proportions... possibly remove or redesign the clavicles, change the shape of the viscerocranium to be nonhuman as well (Including ditching the 90* joint between the skull and cervical vertebrate).


If that's what you want, fine with you :D

[Anlashok]

You know I get taste and all, that makes sense.

But it feels weird to me to argue that one version is or is not more accurate/more correct and that they should/shouldn't have certain features because they don't make sense.

Because it's a completely made up fantasy race and how much they draw from one species or another for inspiration and what they look like is ultimately totally arbitrary. So saying they should look a certain way for physiological reasons doesn't seem to really make any sense to me.

[Ralanr]

You know I get taste and all, that makes sense.

But it feels weird to me to argue that one version is or is not more accurate/more correct and that they should/shouldn't have certain features because they don't make sense.

Because it's a completely made up fantasy race and how much they draw from one species or another for inspiration and what they look like is ultimately totally arbitrary. So saying they should look a certain way for physiological reasons doesn't seem to really make any sense to me.

Welcome to online forums. Where people discuss topics they don't get the opportunity to offline.

Personal opinions don't make sense to other people. Everyone is different and even similar people don't understand each other.

I cannot count how many times I've gotten into an argument with a friend of mine, only to be told by others that we're both arguing the same thing.

[Anlashok]

Welcome to online forums. Where people discuss topics they don't get the opportunity to offline.

Personal opinions don't make sense to other people. Everyone is different and even similar people don't understand each other.

I cannot count how many times I've gotten into an argument with a friend of mine, only to be told by others that we're both arguing the same thing.

Like I said. Personal opinions are cool. But arguing that something doesn't "belong" or "make any sense" on a made up thing with arbitrary anatomy still feels weird to me.

I mean there's a lot of things I don't like, but I think it'd be a stretch for me to argue that they're objectively flawed or illogical based on a premise that might not even be true in the first place.

[Ralanr]

Like I said. Personal opinions are cool. But arguing that something doesn't "belong" or "make any sense" on a made up thing with arbitrary anatomy still feels weird to me.

I mean there's a lot of things I don't like, but I think it'd be a stretch for me to argue that they're objectively flawed or illogical based on a premise that might not even be true in the first place.

You'd be surprised how many people do that. I'm surprised of how many times I've done it.

I'm not proud of it.

[goto124]

It's probably intended to make it easier for the reader to identify with the creature as well.

'So erm... is it the male with 14 brow spikes?'
'No, that's the female. Males have 12.'
'Can't you just put boobs on the girls' chest? Heck, flowers in their hair! Feathers!'

Though I personally like the 'males are smaller and more colorful' take on birdpeople. They must find humans kinda weird.

About the pics: Armor hides body anatomy. It's a bit hard to judge. :smalltongue:

[Susano-wo]

See... I'd rather have all dragonborn look very similar, even in coloration. And have it be less human-centric identifiers.

Like Male dragonborn having 3 spines at the back of the jaw rather than a female's 4. Or 14 brow spines instead of 12, like a woman's.

Instead, fantasy tends to add in human gender dimorphism to make things work for the artists and conceptualizers who like big boobs in tiny tops.

First off, let me join in the Dark Sun chorus (I marked it as well as mentioning it in the additional comments space along side my "Oh, please, God, no Kender!" comment). I love Dark Sun, and I don't think any other edition is as fir for running Dark Sun as 5E.

As far as non-humans, I definitely like the idea of getting away from assigning human dimorphism, though I think coloration works just fine(since that's not an aspect of human sexual dimorphism, and is one of some animals). I would especially like some races go with the females being larger than the males, just because I think it would mess with people's heads.:smallamused:

[Ralanr]

Technically female gnolls should be larger than males. If they're based off of spotted hyenas.

[allenw]

If they're based off of spotted hyenas, female gnolls should have other unusual physical traits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotted_hyena#Female_genitalia) as well.


Technically female gnolls should be larger than males. If they're based off of spotted hyenas.

[Ralanr]

If they're based off of spotted hyenas, female gnolls should have other unusual physical traits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotted_hyena#Female_genitalia) as well.

Loincloths should deal with that.

[Reality Glitch]

Am I the only one who wants Psionics and Incarnum to return in fifth edition?

[ThermalSlapShot]

Am I the only one who wants Psionics and Incarnum to return in fifth edition?

Tome of Battle, Psionics, and Incarnum would be fantastic.

[Vortling]

Am I the only one who wants Psionics and Incarnum to return in fifth edition?

I would say clearly not on the Psionics front as they've got an Unearthed Arcana article on it (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/awakened-mystic).

[Sigreid]

'So erm... is it the male with 14 brow spikes?'
'No, that's the female. Males have 12.'
'Can't you just put boobs on the girls' chest? Heck, flowers in their hair! Feathers!'

Though I personally like the 'males are smaller and more colorful' take on birdpeople. They must find humans kinda weird.

About the pics: Armor hides body anatomy. It's a bit hard to judge. :smalltongue:

This is similar to my liking the original depiction of the Aarakocra.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Aarakocra.JPG/200px-Aarakocra.JPG

[Reality Glitch]

While a prefer the "nonmammalian women don't have breast" because it's more scientifically accurate (though, in my opinion, reptiles can kind of get away with it a little more) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid), I'm not as bothered by the human centric variant as long as it isn't over sexuallized, which seems to happen a lot independent of whether their a mammal or not.

[Ralanr]

I think wizards said that dragons and dragonborn were like pangolins.

I think they should have been silent on the matter