Strixhaven Subclasses Scrapped

[jaappleton]

https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-strixhaven-subclasses-cancelled/

Discuss. I’ve had two hours of sleep, to character limits. I’ll chime in when I’m alive.

[P. G. Macer]

In my opinion, good riddance! I think the idea of subclasses applicable to more than one class could theoretically work, but one thing I suspect Crawford is unwilling or not permitted to admit is that the dev team didn’t leave enough time for themselves to take in more constructive feedback (not that they look at it for public playtesting anyway). If they had released the UA a few months before the point at which they did, they likely would have had enough time to rejigger the subclasses to be specific to one class and still publish them, but they didn’t. I can only think of one other case where WotC released a UA for an already-announced product like they did here, and that is the Races of Ravnica UA from 2018, and the general consensus among homebrewers that I’ve seen is that races are easier to make than subclasses.

Now that I think about it, they may have waited for the product announcement to release the UA because they wanted players to know what the subclasses were for, to prevent another Brute Fighter/School of Invention Wizard incident.

[Millstone85]

And nothing of value was lost.

More seriously, it looked very complicated to balance or to use.

[Theodoxus]

Christian Hoffer needs a better editor. Or maybe he only got 2 hours of sleep.

Or heck, as it was a direct quote "5E fans also want subclasses to be usable in as many subclasses as possible..." Maybe it's Crawford who has a lack of sleep... Because uh, no, we apparently only want subclasses to be usable in a single subclass. Dur. Or a single class. But in as many settings as possible.

Though the dude did spell Curriculum incorrectly. Twice. ugh, How hard is to use an actual word editor for semi-professional composition. Jebuz, he could have type it here at the Playground and got happy red underlines...

[jaappleton]

Christian Hoffer needs a better editor. Or maybe he only got 2 hours of sleep.

Or heck, as it was a direct quote "5E fans also want subclasses to be usable in as many subclasses as possible..." Maybe it's Crawford who has a lack of sleep... Because uh, no, we apparently only want subclasses to be usable in a single subclass. Dur. Or a single class. But in as many settings as possible.

Though the dude did spell Curriculum incorrectly. Twice. ugh, How hard is to use an actual word editor for semi-professional composition. Jebuz, he could have type it here at the Playground and got happy red underlines...

I cut Christian some slack here; the D&D live event is happening this weekend and he’s cranking out articles like nobodies business as info is coming out.

We all understand how the internet works: If your article / video / whatever isn’t up first, it’s pretty much up last. Clicks drive everything.

“Get the article up and fix it later” is an unfortunate side effect of this reality.

Still…. An editor should’ve given it a pass within 30-ish minutes of putting it up, at least for the spelling mistakes.

[Hael]

Losing content that makes or breaks a good portion of a books sale is surely a big blow to them. The reaction must have been abysmal if they were willing to completely axe all content without even trying to rework things.

Its also not like the result wasn't completely obvious. A veteran DnD player spots the glaring problems with the material in about thirty seconds.

My guess is that this was a rush project, and someone likely had to make these subclasses in a hurry, which is why many of the features feel so random, as if they were copy/pasted from some other class.

[Luccan]

A friend pointed out the subclasses could be backgrounds to represent your focus and that reminded me Ravnica backgrounds are already on a different power scale than normal backgrounds since they're setting specific and the focus of most games in that setting. Maybe they'll do something similar with Strixhaven.

Edit: In fact, I think it makes way more sense to just add some separate features you can pick from for this one setting than trying to kludge something that doesn't work for the basics of 5e. So Strixhaven PCs would be more powerful, but who cares? Some of the subclasses were already ridiculous anyway and they'd be balanced to each other, which is all that matters. At least this way you can get a consistent amount of benefit from you Strixhaven stuff rather than having to pick between higher level features like the Bard did in the UA.

Edit 2: Finished the article, they're doing them as feats. I feel like making them feats presents a problem in 5e because feat acquisition is very limited and humans can get access to most feats earlier than other races.

[Amnestic]

I'm not that surprised. While I do think there's some space for shared subclasses, these ones seemed like...a lot. The change they seem to have settled on with the college stuff as feats instead of subclasses does sound better - especially since DMs can just grant characters the appropriate college feats as freebies at relevant levels.

I hope they don't drop the idea entirely and try to iterate on it, but I think putting forward so many shared subclasses all at once probably didn't help reception.

[Telwar]

TBH, I can see what they were going for with those, I just don't think the idea worked with the system as it is.

[Kane0]

I didnt care for the subclasses all that much apart from the attempt at cross-class subclasses, which was interesting and i hope gets further attention

[Millstone85]

Maybe they should go back to what they tried with the School of Theurgy (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/MJ320UAWizardVF2017.pdf). It let a wizard choose a cleric subclass, with adjustments.

I would be particularly interested in a sorcerous origin that makes you the descendant of a warlock, or otherwise related to an otherworldly patron.

[Unoriginal]

All I hope is that this remind the suits that you cannot demand a team to produce more with the same means and *not* expect a drop in quality.

WotC needs to re-learn this lesson every so often.

[J-H]

So, more new magic items for casters...just like in Tasha's. Mundane classes get the short end of the stick when it comes to new magic items, it seems.

[Unoriginal]

So, more new magic items for casters...just like in Tasha's. Mundane classes get the short end of the stick when it comes to new magic items, it seems.

I was so, so hopeful when I saw something online claiming the Tasha's would have magic items for all classes...

[Theodoxus]

A friend pointed out the subclasses could be backgrounds to represent your focus and that reminded me Ravnica backgrounds are already on a different power scale than normal backgrounds since they're setting specific and the focus of most games in that setting. Maybe they'll do something similar with Strixhaven.

Edit: In fact, I think it makes way more sense to just add some separate features you can pick from for this one setting than trying to kludge something that doesn't work for the basics of 5e. So Strixhaven PCs would be more powerful, but who cares? Some of the subclasses were already ridiculous anyway and they'd be balanced to each other, which is all that matters. At least this way you can get a consistent amount of benefit from you Strixhaven stuff rather than having to pick between higher level features like the Bard did in the UA.

Edit 2: Finished the article, they're doing them as feats. I feel like making them feats presents a problem in 5e because feat acquisition is very limited and humans can get access to most feats earlier than other races.

A problem with this take, which I think is what Crawford was alluding to in that horrendous "quote" I mocked, is that if you look at builds around here, a LOT of them treat Ravnica and Eberron as agnostic and generic. How often is a guild background a go to option when someone says "I want a caster than can also X". If I didn't know better, halfings must be the only race in Eberron, and apparently dragonmarked ones have somehow managed to make their way onto every world in the multiverse.

I'm a little shocked there hasn't been a push to make dragonmarks race agnostic ala the Bladedancer. "I want to heal really well, but, I also really want to be GWM... so, can I be a dragonmarked Kor?" Post-Tasha's, why the f' not?

[TrueAlphaGamer]

He did share the design team’s positive takeaways though, which were two lessons. Firstly, he mentioned how people love a subclass that speaks to the distinctiveness of the core class. Second he explained how people like game content usable in many settings rather than material tied to one specific setting.
(source: https://nerdarchy.com/strixhaven-a-curriculum-of-chaos-expands-what-5e-dd-can-be/ - i assume this is along the lines of what was meant to be said)

Did they just figure this out now? Seven years after release?

I lament the loss of the subclasses somewhat, mainly since subclass releases are quite few and far between.

[Kuulvheysoon]

(source: https://nerdarchy.com/strixhaven-a-curriculum-of-chaos-expands-what-5e-dd-can-be/ - i assume this is along the lines of what was meant to be said)

Did they just figure this out now? Seven years after release?

I lament the loss of the subclasses somewhat, mainly since subclass releases are quite few and far between.

Honestly, the fewer new subclasses that we get the happier I am, in a weird way.

Power creep is absolutely a thing, and 5E has been falling victim to it since XGtE (SCAG weirdly bucked the trend, giving out largely inferior subclasses to core). I mean, compare Genielock or Hexblade to any PHB subclass, for example (I'm purposefully ignoring the low-hanging fruit that is Twilight Domain).

[Hael]

Honestly, the fewer new subclasses that we get the happier I am, in a weird way.

Power creep is absolutely a thing, and 5E has been falling victim to it since XGtE (SCAG weirdly bucked the trend, giving out largely inferior subclasses to core). I mean, compare Genielock or Hexblade to any PHB subclass, for example (I'm purposefully ignoring the low-hanging fruit that is Twilight Domain).

TBF, you could argue that Genielock and Hexblade are more balanced with respect to the rest of the games classes/subclass rankings than say the Archfey.

[Thunderous Mojo]

A problem with this take, which I think is what Crawford was alluding to in that horrendous "quote" I mocked, is that if you look at builds around here, a LOT of them treat Ravnica and Eberron as agnostic and generic. How often is a guild background a go to option when someone says "I want a caster than can also X".

Ravinica backgrounds seemingly don't get the same traction as Eberron Dragonmarks...Ravinica backgrounds seem gauche to some people.
WotC has decided to lean in hard to "all Material Plane Game Worlds exist simultaneous on the Material Plane, and one only needs a Teleportation Circle or Teleport or Blue Veil spell, to travel from world to world."

This means chocolate getting into your peanut butter, which is then spread on Sardines, is an ever more likely outcome.

Prior to adopting this rule, the implication was that each "Game World" had it's own Cosmology...now each world shares a common Origin...this 'Primal One World that spawned the Multiverse" that is being teased by in Fizban's Guide to Gem Dragons, early press releases, ensures cross setting pollination.

Just as what happened in 2e AD&D, with Planescape, SpellJammer, and all the myriad worlds created.....official 'crossovers' become common place, and DMs and Players that want Power Games allow everything.

To me, the end of the 2e, the game was made rather dull, in part due to this very reason.

Just look at the new Ravenloft book....a person could travel the Dread Domains, picking up Dark Gifts, and then moving on to the next Domain, and potentially leaving Ravenloft entirely.

I liked the idea of Subclasses that worked for multiple classes. Why shouldn't an organization such Knights of Solamnia, (post the return of the Gods),or the Knightly orders of the Forgotten Realms be open to both Fighters and Paladins, thematically it works.

I canceled my Pre-Order. I'm not hating on Strixhaven, I just want a clearer idea of what will be in the book, before I buy it.

If Strixhaven has a decent assortment of Creature Stat Blocks...I will likely wind up buying it..

[Ralanr]

So, more new magic items for casters...just like in Tasha's. Mundane classes get the short end of the stick when it comes to new magic items, it seems.

Given the setting we're dealing with, I actually can't fault them.

It still sucks though. Can't shake the feeling how awkward it'll be to play in a Strixhaven campaign and decide not to play a caster.

[loki_ragnarock]

Whelp, it's one of the few survey responses I gave them a long form response on, so I can't be alone in disliking the content enough to have commented.

I'm glad they're moving away from that content. I did not like how it fit in.

Theros gave PCs a couple extra thing that're clearly meant to only be setting specific. Emulate that solution if'n you need something specific. Instead of Divine Gifts, give them sorting hat pronouncements or whatever. Does the same thing without introducing and setting precedent for a bad mechanic.

[verbatim]

If they had released the UA a few months before the point at which they did, they likely would have had enough time to rejigger the subclasses to be specific to one class and still publish them, but they didn’t.

This seems likely, the turnaround time between UA going up and release was much shorter than most previous examples, almost certainly for reasons outside of the dev team's control.

It's good to see the playtest process working as intended.

[Unoriginal]

If I had to guess, someone wanted to publish the subclasses as they were without UA, then someone else put their foot down saying they can't take that risk.

[Thunderous Mojo]

A faster product release schedule likely will mean that existing game elements are re-used, or slightly tweaked, and then combined with other pre-existing game features, in a combination that was previously unavailable.

That was certainly the case 3e for Prestige Classes. None of the Strixhaven subclasses had ground breaking new abilities....even the Lorehold statue ability is derivative.

Now those same features will be packaged into feat like School Awards that function similarly to Dark Gifts from Ravenloft...maybe some new feats....honestly Feat crunch is real...so I hope they don't rely too heavily in making the powers feats.

[Dork_Forge]

A faster product release schedule likely will mean that existing game elements are re-used, or slightly tweaked, and then combined with other pre-existing game features, in a combination that was previously unavailable.

That was certainly the case 3e for Prestige Classes. None of the Strixhaven subclasses had ground breaking new abilities....even the Lorehold statue ability is derivative.

Now those same features will be packaged into feat like School Awards that function similarly to Dark Gifts from Ravenloft...maybe some new feats....honestly Feat crunch is real...so I hope they don't rely too heavily in making the powers feats.

Feat bloat hasn't become much of an issue yet, but this is because feats have seen a lot of racial restriction and haven't been published in consistent quantities. Their overall impact is somewhat limited by the limited amount of ASIs too, I don't particularly mind new feats, I just hope they don't go overboard with what they offer in them compared to the existing options.

[Hael]

Feat bloat hasn't become much of an issue yet, but this is because feats have seen a lot of racial restriction and haven't been published in consistent quantities. Their overall impact is somewhat limited by the limited amount of ASIs too, I don't particularly mind new feats, I just hope they don't go overboard with what they offer in them compared to the existing options.

Agreed. Most builds have 2 or 3 must have feats, but so far thats usually left room for at least one luxury feat like actor etc. A few more feats with the same quality and powerlevel as GWM/SS or Warcaster and you'll start pricing those luxury RP picks out of the market.

[Dork_Forge]

Agreed. Most builds have 2 or 3 must have feats, but so far thats usually left room for at least one luxury feat like actor etc. A few more feats with the same quality and powerlevel as GWM/SS or Warcaster and you'll start pricing those luxury RP picks out of the market.

As long as RP picks come as half feats I think there will always be room to include them, it's much harder to justify something like Actor on a build where it's purely RP and they don't need Cha at all.

I'd personally have preferred a minor and major feat system to accumulate more ribbon and RP abilities without having to trade off the more functional choices, but ah well.

[MaxWilson]

A problem with this take, which I think is what Crawford was alluding to in that horrendous "quote" I mocked, is that if you look at builds around here, a LOT of them treat Ravnica and Eberron as agnostic and generic. How often is a guild background a go to option when someone says "I want a caster than can also X". If I didn't know better, halfings must be the only race in Eberron, and apparently dragonmarked ones have somehow managed to make their way onto every world in the multiverse.

Er, well, I'm a little bit guilty of evangelizing dragonmarked races (especially Lyrandar half-elves, Jorasco halflings, and Phiarlan elves) without explicitly qualifying "if you are playing Eberron." But that's partly because Eberron is so well-designed and so much fun that you SHOULD play Eberron at least some of the time. :)

[LudicSavant]

Er, well, I'm a little bit guilty of evangelizing dragonmarked races (especially Lyrandar half-elves, Jorasco halflings, and Phiarlan elves) without explicitly qualifying "if you are playing Eberron." But that's partly because Eberron is so well-designed and so much fun that you SHOULD play Eberron at least some of the time. :)

Eberron is my favorite published D&D setting -- Keith Baker in particular does good work. So I'm all for encouraging people to play it.

However, I also think it's perfectly fine -- a good idea, even -- to use Eberron races outside of Eberron. They are both easy to adapt, and each provide interesting story opportunities (like, I can tell fundamentally different types of stories with a Changeling or Warforged than I can with the usual "humans in hats" races).

The dragonmarked houses are, at their core, just people with magical heritages. It can be justified with any of the same flavor routes you'd use for things like Magic Initiate or the like.

Warforged are golem-people, and golem-people are ubiquitous throughout the fantasy genre... there's about a thousand thousand ways to fit them into a setting, and so people do. Like... a lot (seriously, Warforged appear to be really popular, regardless of edition or mechanics. You see people posting Warforged OCs everywhere, and very frequently they're not for Eberron).

Changelings are half-doppelgangers, Shifters are half-lycanthropes. Neither of those concepts seem particularly setting-specific, given that so many D&D settings seem to have "humans can breed with basically everything" as a thing that works in-world.

The dual-souled Kalashtar are a bit more setting specific, as they tie in with the quori. But the quori themselves are something I've exported to other settings.

[Theodoxus]

It's kind of a chicken/egg thing though. Not that I have a fundamental problem with the concept of Ravnica guilds and Eberron races sprouting up everywhere. Ludic has a point in that they (races, at least, I'm still iffy about the backgrounds being quite a bit more powerful than your standard fare) are at least as balanced as anything else WotC has created.

But, are races being played agnostically because WotC is ok with it, or is WotC becoming ok with it because the people are playing them agnostically in home games?

Be that as it may, I'm still waiting for the "is it OP if my (non-halfling) gets the Jorasco dragonmark?" thread. I used Kor above because they get 80% of the halfling schtick on a medium sized body - but why not humans or goliaths or yuan-ti? Or... Custom Lineage?

[Sigreid]

I'd be more interested in the book overall if it were more of a source book of how to build and run magical academies anyway. Not really that interested in running Hogwarts with D&D rules. :smalltongue:

[Gyor]

Losing content that makes or breaks a good portion of a books sale is surely a big blow to them. The reaction must have been abysmal if they were willing to completely axe all content without even trying to rework things.

Its also not like the result wasn't completely obvious. A veteran DnD player spots the glaring problems with the material in about thirty seconds.

My guess is that this was a rush project, and someone likely had to make these subclasses in a hurry, which is why many of the features feel so random, as if they were copy/pasted from some other class.

In some cases, but not in this case, they had a solid plane B, somekind of College based faction system mixed with feats and spells. You get a free College feat when you join a college for example. This is a huge improvement over the subclasses as the feats will be much more broadly usable for more classes. You can even take feats from other colleges, which was likened to taking a course from another college then your own in RL.

Huge improvement.

[MaxWilson]

Eberron is my favorite published D&D setting -- Keith Baker in particular does good work. So I'm all for encouraging people to play it.

However, I also think it's perfectly fine -- a good idea, even -- to use Eberron races outside of Eberron. They are both easy to adapt, and each provide interesting story opportunities (like, I can tell fundamentally different types of stories with a Changeling or Warforged than I can with the usual "humans in hats" races).

Well, okay, but my opinion is different: trying to use powerful setting-specific elements outside their native setting {Scrubbed}. I'm not really talking about Warforged here but dragonmarked races are definitely in the "powerful" bucket already.

I don't buy the "tell different stories" logic. If a player tells me they need to play a House Jorasco halfling to "tell different stories," I'd laugh. They're free to play a halfling bard in any setting, but without Houses and Daelkyr, Dragonmarked races aren't different in story terms, only in mechanical terms. And there are already unlimited numbers of stories you can tell anyway. No. If you want to play a Dragonmarked race for story reasons, do it on Eberron. If you want to play one for mechanical reasons (such as enjoying the game more when it's on easy mode), at least admit it to yourself and to me and then we'll talk about whether and how a Dragonmark could be here in this other setting and what the connection to Eberron is. But I don't buy the "fundamentally different stories" rationale in this case. If you want different stories, play a lizardfolk or something.

[LudicSavant]

Well, okay, but my opinion is different: trying to use powerful setting-specific elements outside their native setting {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} I'm not really talking about Warforged here but dragonmarked races are definitely in the "powerful" bucket already.

I don't buy the "tell different stories" logic. If a player tells me they need to play a House Jorasco halfling to "tell different stories," I'd laugh.

But I don't buy the "fundamentally different stories" rationale in this case. If you want different stories, play a lizardfolk or something.

So first of all, the ones I said I can tell fundamentally different kinds of stories with are Warforged and Changelings. I said the others present interesting opportunities.

Second, people have been chomping at the bit to use Eberron races outside of Eberron in every edition since those races were introduced -- both when those races were strong, and when those races were weak.

{Scrubbed}

[Kuulvheysoon]

I was going to say, I can understand that opinion about the dragonmarked races, but something like kalashtar are a wholly unique story on their own that can only really be matched by a super-absent 5E aasimar guiding spirit.

And the concept behind them is Very Cool.

[MaxWilson]

So first of all, the ones I said I can tell fundamentally different kinds of stories with are Warforged and Changelings. I said the others present interesting opportunities.

Second, people have been chomping at the bit to use Eberron races outside of Eberron in every edition since those races were introduced -- both when those races were strong, and when those races were weak.

It's seriously not cool to start accusing people of being "munchkins" because they are more interested in Warforged than Lizardfolk, which do not in any way allow you to tell the kinds of stories that you can with construct people.

{Scrubbed} If you're not asking to play powerful, setting-specific elements outside of their native settings, you have no reason to take offense.

(2) Even if you are asking for that, unless I'm your DM, why do you care if I would decline the request to play one {Scrubbed}

Do you need approval from strangers on the Internet?

{Scrubbed}

[LudicSavant]

I was going to say, I can understand that opinion about the dragonmarked races, but something like kalashtar are a wholly unique story on their own that can only really be matched by a super-absent 5E aasimar guiding spirit.

And the concept behind them is Very Cool.

Yeah, Eberron races were specifically designed to present unique narrative opportunities.

Changelings raise all kinds of questions involving transient identities. Warforged embody many of the fantasy narratives about artificially constructed people. Kalashtar have the myriad issues of dealing with their dual souls.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, Eberron races were specifically designed to present unique narrative opportunities.

Changelings raise all kinds of questions involving transient identities. Warforged embody many of the fantasy narratives about artificially constructed people. Kalashtar have the myriad issues of dealing with their dual souls.

But they do so in their own context. Taken out of context and thrown into another world which is not built around that, it's not quite the same.

I'm most resistant to setting specific races. Because races are the player facing piece that's most heavily tied to the setting--adding yet another race requires coming up with a coherent reason for them and may require adjusting other races stories to fit. Classes, spells, and feats have way less impact, being more abstract-able since they're more game-level anyway.

[LudicSavant]

But they do so in their own context. Taken out of context and thrown into another world which is not built around that, it's not quite the same.

Yes and no. In the context of Eberron, Warforged come with all kinds of themes of post-war veterans trying to integrate into a world that they don't really have a place in. But outside of Eberron, there's still a whole lot of stories you can tell about artificial metal men that you can't tell with any PHB race.

Eberron races were designed to create interesting narrative opportunities even outside of Eberron itself. Often Eberron content would include notes for using it in other settings, too. This was something the Eberron designers always seemed to be keen on.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Yes and no. In the context of Eberron, Warforged come with all kinds of themes of post-war veterans trying to integrate into a world that they don't really have a place in. But outside of Eberron, there's still a whole lot of stories you can tell about artificial metal men that you can't tell with any PHB race.

Eberron races were designed to create interesting narrative opportunities even outside of Eberron itself. Often Eberron content would include notes for using it in other settings, too. This was something the Eberron designers always seemed to be keen on.

I can definitely tell you that Keith would tell you to go for it if you wanted to use changelings, shifters or warforged outside of Eberron.

Or kalashtar. Absolutely kalashtar. The man is downright fascinated by dreams in any and all ways.

[Theodoxus]

I prefer Kobold Press's Midgard for a less... specific... take on new and interesting races. Including their Gearforged take on Warforged. YMMV.

[LudicSavant]

I can definitely tell you that Keith would tell you to go for it if you wanted to use changelings, shifters or warforged outside of Eberron.

Or kalashtar. Absolutely kalashtar. The man is downright fascinated by dreams in any and all ways.

Absolutely. He also would tell you to go for it when incorporating non-Eberron races into Eberron :smallsmile:

[Ralanr]

I was going to say, I can understand that opinion about the dragonmarked races, but something like kalashtar are a wholly unique story on their own that can only really be matched by a super-absent 5E aasimar guiding spirit.

And the concept behind them is Very Cool.


This is kind of why I don't care for the Gith. Their entire backstory feels so tied to the specific setting that putting them in another setting feels wrong.

Stuff like Warforged, Shifters, Changlings, and even Minotaurs can be pushed to several settings because they're a bit generic enough to fit anywhere while also being unique. Hell, you can reflavor Kalishtar as people trapped in possession or something.

But Gith? Nah.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes and no. In the context of Eberron, Warforged come with all kinds of themes of post-war veterans trying to integrate into a world that they don't really have a place in. But outside of Eberron, there's still a whole lot of stories you can tell about artificial metal men that you can't tell with any PHB race.

Eberron races were designed to create interesting narrative opportunities even outside of Eberron itself. Often Eberron content would include notes for using it in other settings, too. This was something the Eberron designers always seemed to be keen on.

The base concept, yes. The implementation and especially backing lore (ie the important parts of the race)? Not so much.

I've created my own soul-forged race to fill much of the same story, but the backing lore is quite different. They're not weapons, created for a past war (that slot is filled by dragonborn among other things), but instead they're mysteries. Constructs of many types, shapes, and sizes started awakening about 40 years ago. No one's quite sure why.

I'm of the strong opinion that if you want something that's setting-locked, the best thing to do is homebrew a replacement that actually fits the world in question. Because the most important thing to me is setting consistency. Just filing off the identifying marks doesn't cut it for me, personally.

[MaxWilson]

This is kind of why I don't care for the Gith. Their entire backstory feels so tied to the specific setting that putting them in another setting feels wrong.

Stuff like Warforged, Shifters, Changlings, and even Minotaurs can be pushed to several settings because they're a bit generic enough to fit anywhere while also being unique. Hell, you can reflavor Kalishtar as people trapped in possession or something.

But Gith? Nah.

FWIW I think the Eberron, Daelkyr-flavored backstory for Githyank/Githzerai is even better than the Mind Flayer Empire version.

[Pex]

I'm playing a warforged in a DM's homebrew setting. I was created for a war hundreds of years earlier but wasn't activated for an unknown reason. I was activated by the party. I call myself a living magic item. I accept I am alive because I can choose. What I didn't know was whether I had a soul because I was artificially created, and that became my personal quest. I would consult with clerics and other religious people. I admired the faith and dedication of the party's paladin even though I don't adhere to his particular tenets. (Ilmater. In this world Ilmater is an almost forgotten belief.) Eventually I concluded I did have a soul because I was able to care about the welfare of complete strangers whom I just met accompanying us to slay a dragon and mourn those who did not survive. I formally joined a Church, not to Gond the deity of the Forge despite me also being an Artificer, but to Bahamut the deity of Justice. Artificer is what I do, but it's not who I am. I can choose.

I have no objection if a DM doesn't want to introduce the Dragonmarked into his gameworld, but the possibilities are open if he does. He can change what they're called if he wants. In Eberron it is up to the DM to decide if he wants to make a big deal about the Marked. He can ignore them just as he could ignore what caused the Mournland. For his homebrew world to introduce the Dragonmark is the opportunity to introduce Something Special into his gameworld. He can make them a Big Deal as part of the Campaign Plot or a sidebar of Something Interesting to deal with for that particular PC's downtime personal time activities. It's a roleplaying hook. That a player gets to enjoy a mechanical benefit is beside the point, but if the player doesn't want to bother with the Big Deal or Something Interesting to only enjoy the mechanical benefit the DM is not wrong to say never mind, no Dragonmark for anyone.

[J-H]

I'll use or allow Warforged in most games/settings. The other stuff with races/backgrounds that give free spells? Nope. You'll never see a Dragonmarked PC or Ravnica Guild Member in any of my games.

[Sception]

So, more new magic items for casters...just like in Tasha's. Mundane classes get the short end of the stick when it comes to new magic items, it seems.

Well, I mean, considering how much of the core magic item selection consists of weapons and armor, one could argue that martial classes got the long end of the stick to start. But yeah, I'd also like to see more class-specific items tied to the martial classes.



Power creep is absolutely a thing, and 5E has been falling victim to it since XGtE (SCAG weirdly bucked the trend, giving out largely inferior subclasses to core). I mean, compare Genielock or Hexblade to any PHB subclass, for example (I'm purposefully ignoring the low-hanging fruit that is Twilight Domain).

Eh. Tasha's Mech and Mind sorcerers are stronger than any PHB sorcerers, but are they stronger than Diviners? Mercy Monks are stronger than any PHB Monks, but are they stronger than Eldritch Knights? Gloomstalker rangers might be stronger than any PHB rangers, but are the stronger than Vengeance Paladins? Genie, Dead, and Hex locks are stronger than any PHB locks, but are they stronger than clerics, sorcerers, or wizards generally?

The most broken thing in the game at level 2 is still the PHB Moon Druid, and nothing published in any later book even comes close. The most broken thing in the game at level 20 is still any old wizard with the PHB spells Wish and Simulacrum. Chronurgists might be enough stronger than Enchanters or Illusionists to warrant the accusation of power creep, but once you have Wish and Simulacrum it hardly matters what Wizard subclass you have.

There are problematic examples - like the Chronurgist, like the Tasha clerics. But the overwhelming bulk of 5e expansion material falls well within the balance threshhold set by the PHB, enough so that I don't really feel accusations of runaway power creep in 5e are justified.



Can't shake the feeling how awkward it'll be to play in a Strixhaven campaign and decide not to play a caster.

Yeah. At the same time, though, it isn't called "Swordplay the Gathering".

[Sception]

I'll use or allow Warforged in most games/settings. The other stuff with races/backgrounds that give free spells? Nope. You'll never see a Dragonmarked PC or Ravnica Guild Member in any of my games.

I mean, they're worth allowing within the context of their specific settings, and both settings can make for some compelling and enjoyable campaigns. Just look at the art for the original Ravnica block's lands, and tell me you don't feel the call to exploration and adventure. Yes, the guild rules reward casters over non-casters, but not by so much that non-casters aren't enjoyable to play, and again, the source game isn't called 'swordplay the gathering'.

As for dragonmarked, I've played a bunch of eberron games, and dragonmarked races never felt out of line in practice from the non-dragonmarked options. I also would generally allow warforged, changelings, etc in other campaigns but not dragonmarked races, but for me it's more a flavor thing than anything else. The dragonmark races just feel more setting specific.

[Keltest]

I came here to read about peoples opinions on the idea of subclasses being shared across classes, and instead discovered that i am apparently in a pretty distinct minority of people who believe that Warforged, rather than being a really simple concept to add to a setting, inherently come with vast setting-wide implications that shouldnt be casually glossed over? Ive had campaigns crash and burn because one player wanted to play a warforged and their inclusion absolutely destroyed all suspension of disbelief for the rest of the plot and setting, because, you know, fully sapient artificial life.

[KorvinStarmast]

In my opinion, good riddance!
Yep: high noise, low signal.

All I hope is that this remind the suits that you cannot demand a team to produce more with the same means and *not* expect a drop in quality.

WotC needs to re-learn this lesson every so often. One would hope, but Hasbro suits will keep putting on the pressure.

I was so, so hopeful when I saw something online claiming the Tasha's would have magic items for all classes... I agree, but also note: tattoos are for all classes. :smallbiggrin: The more I see them in play the more I like them.


However, I also think it's perfectly fine -- a good idea, even -- to use Eberron races outside of Eberron. They are both easy to adapt, and each provide interesting story opportunities (like, I can tell fundamentally different types of stories with a Changeling or Warforged than I can with the usual "humans in hats" races).

The dragonmarked houses are, at their core, just people with magical heritages. It can be justified with any of the same flavor routes you'd use for things like Magic Initiate or the like.

Warforged are golem-people, and golem-people are ubiquitous throughout the fantasy genre... there's about a thousand thousand ways to fit them into a setting, and so people do. Like... a lot (seriously, Warforged appear to be really popular, regardless of edition or mechanics. You see people posting Warforged OCs everywhere, and very frequently they're not for Eberron).
Maybe, in my campaigns.

Changelings {snip} Kalashtar Never, in my campaigns.

[Amnestic]

Ive had campaigns crash and burn because one player wanted to play a warforged and their inclusion absolutely destroyed all suspension of disbelief for the rest of the plot and setting, because, you know, fully sapient artificial life.

Does the Awaken spell not exist in your settings as baseline?

[KorvinStarmast]

Not really that interested in running Hogwarts with D&D rules. :smalltongue: Likewise, but to be fair, I am an old fart and there's a large Harry Potter fan base to cater to, kids (my son's age) who grew up with those books and movies.

Well, okay, but my opinion is different: trying to use powerful setting-specific elements outside their native setting smells munchkin. Yep. First time I was in a D&D game with a warforged monk, it was a terrible fit. The player did a terrible job getting the warforged to fit into a pirate campaign. (We were fellow players, and I am still playing with him in two other games, but sometimes, if it looks like a duck ...)

I decline your implicit demand to withdraw my opinion. I do think demanding to play Dragonmarked races outside Eberron smells munchkin. Concur, for my campaigns, but some DM's will find the idea appealing and fold it into their game world.


...races are the player facing piece that's most heavily tied to the setting--adding yet another race requires coming up with a coherent reason for them and may require adjusting other races stories to fit. Nicely put, I am stealing that for future reference.

This is kind of why I don't care for the Gith. Their entire backstory feels so tied to the specific setting that putting them in another setting feels wrong.
In most game worlds, a Gith would need to start as an exile from home (though maybe in Dark Sun they don't have to?) I have a DM who adopted the Gith into his world, but we've only encountered them on the periphery of their 'zone' in the game world up to now. (other than a notorious story arc boss)

I've created my own soul-forged race to fill much of the same story, but the backing lore is quite different. They're not weapons, created for a past war (that slot is filled by dragonborn among other things), but instead they're mysteries. Constructs of many types, shapes, and sizes started awakening about 40 years ago. No one's quite sure why. And I am stealing that for my brother's world.

I'm playing a warforged in a DM's homebrew setting. I was created for a war hundreds of years earlier but wasn't activated for an unknown reason. I was activated by the party. I call myself a living magic item. I accept I am alive because I can choose. What I didn't know was whether I had a soul because I was artificially created, and that became my personal quest. I would consult with clerics and other religious people. I admired the faith and dedication of the party's paladin even though I don't adhere to his particular tenets. (Ilmater. In this world Ilmater is an almost forgotten belief.) Eventually I concluded I did have a soul because I was able to care about the welfare of complete strangers whom I just met accompanying us to slay a dragon and mourn those who did not survive. I formally joined a Church, not to Gond the deity of the Forge despite me also being an Artificer, but to Bahamut the deity of Justice. Artificer is what I do, but it's not who I am. I can choose.
Love This! :smallsmile:

[Keltest]

Does the Awaken spell not exist in your settings as baseline?

It does, but taking something thats already alive and making it smarter is kind of a different scale than creating a soul whole cloth. Also, its not like Awaken is a trivially done anyway. Its a 5th level spell. most NPCs wont ever see that kind of power.

[Amnestic]

It does, but taking something thats already alive and making it smarter is kind of a different scale than creating a soul whole cloth. Also, its not like Awaken is a trivially done anyway. Its a 5th level spell. most NPCs wont ever see that kind of power.

I dunno, I don't really see that much of a difference between "this golem is sapient" and "this dandelion is sapient (and now can also talk, learned a language, and can walk around)" with regards to creating animate life. Awaken being rare shouldn't matter either - if he was the only Warforged running around then presumably he was also the result of rare magic.

There'll be campaigns and settings where they don't fit as well as others, sure, but it's not like constructs are all low intelligence automatons. Just from the MM, Flesh Golems are at 6, Shield Guardians at 7 and Homunculus are at 10 - as smart as any commoner.

[J-H]

In my current campaign, any Warforged PCs are going to come from the remnants of an attack force found on a crashed Illithid UFO. The attackers all died, but any that turn into a PC actually ended up having a very, very slow self-repair mechanism that brought them back to consciousness dozens of years later.

Just because it's a PC doesn't mean it's something that's actually common in the setting.

I think the party is more likely to use the rocket engine from the Warforged boarding craft to speed up an airship than to have someone come back as a Warforged proper.
Assuming they don't wake up the 8 illithid in cryogenic sleep and suffer a TPK.

[neonchameleon]

I came here to read about peoples opinions on the idea of subclasses being shared across classes, and instead discovered that i am apparently in a pretty distinct minority of people who believe that Warforged, rather than being a really simple concept to add to a setting, inherently come with vast setting-wide implications that shouldnt be casually glossed over? Ive had campaigns crash and burn because one player wanted to play a warforged and their inclusion absolutely destroyed all suspension of disbelief for the rest of the plot and setting, because, you know, fully sapient artificial life.

As mentioned the Awaken spell has long been a thing. I've used Warforged in the past for a few "a wizard did it" sentient golem types. And there isn't actually a need to create intelligent life; you can easily play an elemental bound into a metal body.

[Telwar]

Just because it's a PC doesn't mean it's something that's actually common in the setting.



^ This. One- or two-offs generally shouldn't be a problem. If it's not normally an available race in your setting, make the player justify it.

I played a warforged paladin in our 13th Age Primeval Thule game...but he was actually a minor Atlantean deity, who, when he tried to manifest long after Atlantis sank, wound up inhabiting a statue from his last surviving temple (long abandoned) in Thule. In this case, I was very much using the GM's love of Terry Pratchett's Small Gods to get him to approve the concept.

[Keltest]

The attempts to justify it within the setting, even as a unique thing, are one of the major contributing factors to my last campaign falling apart. Its one of those things that kind of doesnt hold up to close scrutiny unless you specifically build around it. In this case, the question was "how can they have robots, but no other magictech?"

[KorvinStarmast]

In this case, the question was "how can they have robots, but no other magictech?" A reasonable answer to that is "Iron Golems" at some tables. Warforged can be folded into the magic game world as an early attempt that didn't work out as well for the wizard/cleric/inventor as golems later did. Had too much free will, perhaps?

Most of the attempts at them were turned off, and when they were found/woke back up, that's where your PC's story begins. (The warforged variant Phoenix used by one of my fellow PCs in that campaign had a background something like that. Cleric, War Domain).

[Kuulvheysoon]

...

Eh. Tasha's Mech and Mind sorcerers are stronger than any PHB sorcerers, but are they stronger than Diviners? Mercy Monks are stronger than any PHB Monks, but are they stronger than Eldritch Knights? Gloomstalker rangers might be stronger than any PHB rangers, but are the stronger than Vengeance Paladins? Genie, Dead, and Hex locks are stronger than any PHB locks, but are they stronger than clerics, sorcerers, or wizards generally?

The most broken thing in the game at level 2 is still the PHB Moon Druid, and nothing published in any later book even comes close. The most broken thing in the game at level 20 is still any old wizard with the PHB spells Wish and Simulacrum. Chronurgists might be enough stronger than Enchanters or Illusionists to warrant the accusation of power creep, but once you have Wish and Simulacrum it hardly matters what Wizard subclass you have.

There are problematic examples - like the Chronurgist, like the Tasha clerics. But the overwhelming bulk of 5e expansion material falls well within the balance threshhold set by the PHB, enough so that I don't really feel accusations of runaway power creep in 5e are justified.

See, my issue here is that you're comparing apples to oranges instead of like with like. Diviner wizards to the TCoE sorcerors? Power creep needs context. You're saying "overall, the power level hasn't truly changed", which I can agree with. There's some bonkers stuff in the PHB, always has been. I'm not denying that.

What I am saying is that within each class, the average power level for each subclass has been rising with the number of books. There's a few stinkers, like the Oath of Glory, but it's still a trend.

Take Rogue. In the PHB, we have the admittedly-lacklustre-from-day-1 Assassin, the truly excellent AT and the Thief (which is better than a lot of people give it credit for). In TCoE, we have them contending against the Phantom and Soulknife. It's not even close. AT still holds up, but the assassin and thief? Not so much.

Power creep is inevitable, though. It's just the nature of the thing. Does it suck? Well, kinda, but it's going to happen as the designers get more and more comfortable working within the system.

[Amnestic]

The attempts to justify it within the setting, even as a unique thing, are one of the major contributing factors to my last campaign falling apart. Its one of those things that kind of doesnt hold up to close scrutiny unless you specifically build around it. In this case, the question was "how can they have robots, but no other magictech?"

You've not gone into great deal on the setting but I'd still wager they can fit into most things other than the most low magic settings.

Back onto the Strixhaven stuff and the wider question of setting-specific things in general, I definitely view the dragonmarked races on a different 'level' of permissability to the ravnica backgrounds. I look at Mark of Detection half-elf vs. normal half-elf and could realistically still see picking normal half-elf even as a spellcaster. Ditto for V.human vs. dragonmarked humans, or halflings vs. dragonmarked halflings.

Not always, no, they're not "weaker", but they've not obsoleted all other racial variants either by any stretch (or indeed other races).

[P. G. Macer]

You've not gone into great deal on the setting but I'd still wager they can fit into most things other than the most low magic settings.

Back onto the Strixhaven stuff and the wider question of setting-specific things in general, I definitely view the dragonmarked races on a different 'level' of permissability to the ravnica backgrounds. I look at Mark of Detection half-elf vs. normal half-elf and could realistically still see picking normal half-elf even as a spellcaster. Ditto for V.human vs. dragonmarked humans, or halflings vs. dragonmarked halflings.

Not always, no, they're not "weaker", but they've not obsoleted all other racial variants either by any stretch (or indeed other races).

I’m not too sure of that, at least in all cases. The main counterexamples that come to mind for me are Halflings. In the case of the Lightfoot Halfling versus the House Ghandalla Mark of Hospitality Halfling, in a majority of builds that utilize Charisma, I’d choose the latter in an instant, as a d4 to Persuasion + the expanded spell list handily outclasses Naturally Stealthy, the main counter-counterexample potentially being Swashbuckler Rogues. Likewise, the Jorasco Mark of Healing Halfling blows the Ghostwise Halfling from SCAG out of the water IMHO.

[Damon_Tor]

It does, but taking something thats already alive and making it smarter is kind of a different scale than creating a soul whole cloth. Also, its not like Awaken is a trivially done anyway. Its a 5th level spell. most NPCs wont ever see that kind of power.

I mean, take a tree, carve it into the shape of a dude, bolt some stone and/or metal plating to it and cast awaken on it. The result would be very much like a warforged. I don't understand the difference. And nobody says making warforged is or needs to be "trivially done" to be a viable character. He would absolutely turn heads, but there are a ton of game worlds where a minotaur or drow or goliath or tiefling or even a dwarf would alarm and confuse people.

To make a narrative comparison, think of Data from Star Trek. He's a part of the "party" despite being a (mostly) one-of-a-kind creation using mostly unheard of technology. But we accept that he finds a place on the Enterprise because the Enterprise has an exceptional crew. He turns heads all the time. His unique nature and the moral and practical problems it causes are frequent plot points. His mysterious origins are often explored and his lore expanded upon.

Now, a character like Data could well exist in a world where sentient artificial life forms are common. In the Star Wars universe, for example, droids are ubiquitous. If you wrote Data as a Star Wars character great stories like Measure of a Man couldn't be told in that context, because in that universe the issue of artificial intelligence as property is already settled, there's nothing new about it in that world. You can tell plenty of other stories of course. Droid rebellions for example, or any of the various the challenges of going through a universe that treats you as an object, where your memories and personality can be erased on a whim. But Measure of a Man and stories like it requires a world that doesn't quite know how to handle this new thing.

I guess what I'm saying is: let your PCs be unique in your world. Make it a part of your story telling.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess what I'm saying is: let your PCs be unique in your world. Make it a part of your story telling.

That attitude causes all sorts of special snowflake setting consistency issues. For instance, there are no PHB-drow in my setting. Period. Full stop. There are elves with dark skins, but their cultures, physiology, and basic reason for existence is completely different. If someone wants to play Drizzt, the only setting-consistent answer is no.

Same with gunpowder--there is no such thing in my setting and never will be. Or even any reasonable facsimile--guns just don't exist. That's a setting constraint I put in place a long time ago and have no desire to re-examine. So someone who wants to play a gun-slinging warrior just can't happen. There is no explanation that can be created that explains it.

Or someone who came from another world. Due to the nature of the setting, that cannot happen as written. Full stop. Those are stories I will not tell.

Saying no to players isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not all concepts and stories work with all worlds. Characters should be built with the setting in mind.

[loki_ragnarock]

Those are stories I will not tell.

Fair enough.

Others will.

[Pex]

The attempts to justify it within the setting, even as a unique thing, are one of the major contributing factors to my last campaign falling apart. Its one of those things that kind of doesnt hold up to close scrutiny unless you specifically build around it. In this case, the question was "how can they have robots, but no other magictech?"

I'm running Dragonheist in my own homebrew world. At this time warforged don't exist. A player cannot play one. I'm using the Nimblewright as the genesis of the warforged for my world, available for play in my hypothetical next campaign.

[Arkhios]

Well, if anything, that should've pulled the rug under 6th Edition Enthusiasts' feet.

[Amdy_vill]

personally, I loved the idea but I needed massive work both in the base mechanics and in the presented subclasses. I am sure we will see this idea pop up in third-party content.

[Theodoxus]

I think I ruined automatons in my homebrew... the first time the players met one, was the opening scene of the campaign, and I went full robotic with it... I'd been trying to get any of my players to try one out (as I was trying to ascertain their balance via gameplay) and one guy finally took the bait... and went full robotic too... which kinda killed the whole premise.

I guess my advice is, if you don't want something in your campaign but just can't quite muster the gumption to say "no" to good friends... roleplay an example really badly.

[PhantomSoul]

I think I ruined automatons in my homebrew... the first time the players met one, was the opening scene of the campaign, and I went full robotic with it... I'd been trying to get any of my players to try one out (as I was trying to ascertain their balance via gameplay) and one guy finally took the bait... and went full robotic too... which kinda killed the whole premise.

I guess my advice is, if you don't want something in your campaign but just can't quite muster the gumption to say "no" to good friends... roleplay an example really badly.

I kinda love this. Do people still give internets anymore? If so, you've earned one! :P

[Luccan]

In the interest of defending my earlier point, I really don't think "theoretical builds on a forum ignore setting restrictions" is a good enough reason not to include a separate mechanic that won't eat into build resources. The whole point of my idea is so everyone gets an equal chance to use Strixhaven mechanics without having to worry about ASIs.

Besides which, do people really take Ravnica guild backgrounds for granted? They just assume settings without the guilds of Ravnica have those options? Of those, how many assume you can get the other half of guild goodies: the reputation/rank bonuses? Have there been builds I'm missing that assume the Piety system from Theros? That seems much more applicable to a wider number of games. I don't buy that special mechanics are being assumed usable at a level where Strixhaven backgrounds or free bonus features or whatever will suddenly pop-up at a large number of tables. Races are a bit different, most of them already follow the same format/power-scale of the PHB.
And if you're already banning stuff as simple as race options at your table, why would this proposed optional rule for a specific setting be any different? Because some tables might use it outside that setting?

I didn't like the multiple-class subclasses because I figured they would start trying to make them the standard by for future releases outside Strixhaven, but if I were sure they wouldn't then I would not care. Probably wouldn't buy the book, but it would remain a silly optional rule that I would feel free to ignore. And if your players are demanding to use material that you don't think fits your setting, that's a separate matter that has nothing to do with the exact presentation of said mechanics in the book.

[Dork_Forge]

In the interest of defending my earlier point, I really don't think "theoretical builds on a forum ignore setting restrictions" is a good enough reason not to include a separate mechanic that won't eat into build resources. The whole point of my idea is so everyone gets an equal chance to use Strixhaven mechanics without having to worry about ASIs.

Besides which, do people really take Ravnica guild backgrounds for granted? They just assume settings without the guilds of Ravnica have those options? Of those, how many assume you can get the other half of guild goodies: the reputation/rank bonuses? Have there been builds I'm missing that assume the Piety system from Theros? That seems much more applicable to a wider number of games. I don't buy that special mechanics are being assumed usable at a level where Strixhaven backgrounds or free bonus features or whatever will suddenly pop-up at a large number of tables. Races are a bit different, most of them already follow the same format/power-scale of the PHB.
And if you're already banning stuff as simple as race options at your table, why would this proposed optional rule for a specific setting be any different? Because some tables might use it outside that setting?

I didn't like the multiple-class subclasses because I figured they would start trying to make them the standard by for future releases outside Strixhaven, but if I were sure they wouldn't then I would not care. Probably wouldn't buy the book, but it would remain a silly optional rule that I would feel free to ignore. And if your players are demanding to use material that you don't think fits your setting, that's a separate matter that has nothing to do with the exact presentation of said mechanics in the book.

I think separate systems are the best way to approach setting specific powers and boons. The problem with Ravnica backgrounds is that they took an existing gaming mechanic, and then applied a mechanical benefit it was never meant to house.

Since the normal procedure for backgrounds tends to be: take whatever you want, make one if none fit, this was problematic.

I've never seen any complaints about Piety or Dark Gifts, and I don't have any problems with them, because they're entirely divorced from a normal build as setting specific mechanics.

[Luccan]

I think separate systems are the best way to approach setting specific powers and boons. The problem with Ravnica backgrounds is that they took an existing gaming mechanic, and then applied a mechanical benefit it was never meant to house.

Since the normal procedure for backgrounds tends to be: take whatever you want, make one if none fit, this was problematic.

I've never seen any complaints about Piety or Dark Gifts, and I don't have any problems with them, because they're entirely divorced from a normal build as setting specific mechanics.

Maybe the issue is I originally proposed it as backgrounds, but again I really don't think I've ever seen someone suggest using Ravnica backgrounds outside Ravnica in a serious context. That seems to be the sticking point and I just flat out don't agree that they've been a system wide problem.

[Dork_Forge]

Maybe the issue is I originally proposed it as backgrounds, but again I really don't think I've ever seen someone suggest using Ravnica backgrounds outside Ravnica in a serious context. That seems to be the sticking point and I just flat out don't agree that they've been a system wide problem.

I don't think that they're a system wide problem for two reasons:

1) They're so egregious that most DMs have no problem saying no, where as they may have had trouble saying no to certain races, spells etc.

2) They're the only example of breaking the background mold like that, if there was more sources of OP backgrounds then I think it'd be more of an issue

However I have seen builds assume it (or discussion at least mention it) fairly frequently, and unlike setting specific systems (which you wouldn't expect to use outside of that system) they seem to be something to say no to, rather than something to ask permission for.

If the Ravnica backgrounds were instead turned into a setting specific faction system, then I think the game as a whole would have been better off.

[Kane0]

Could have had it function like the common level 1 feat houserule.

Default (any setting): level 1 feat
Ravnica: house spells
Eberron: dragonmark
Ravenloft: Dark Boon
And so on

That way there is some uniformity in terms of strength, doesnt overwrite other aspects and can be expanded on

[Dork_Forge]

Could have had it function like the common level 1 feat houserule.

Default (any setting): level 1 feat
Ravnica: house spells
Eberron: dragonmark
Ravenloft: Dark Boon
And so on

That way there is some uniformity in terms of strength, doesnt overwrite other aspects and can be expanded on

Doing it this way can lead to discrepencies between party members though, for example if you change Dragonmarks to feats, layered on top of the existing race benefit, what about people that don't want to play a Dragonmarked PC or non eligible race?

If you give it as any feat, but this is how you'd get those setting specific things, then that could work but be a little wonky. If it's just for the setting benefits, then there will be a significant and noticeable powergap between the have and have nots.

[Theodoxus]

I don't think that they're a system wide problem for two reasons:

1) They're so egregious that most DMs have no problem saying no, where as they may have had trouble saying no to certain races, spells etc.

2) They're the only example of breaking the background mold like that, if there was more sources of OP backgrounds then I think it'd be more of an issue

However I have seen builds assume it (or discussion at least mention it) fairly frequently, and unlike setting specific systems (which you wouldn't expect to use outside of that system) they seem to be something to say no to, rather than something to ask permission for.

If the Ravnica backgrounds were instead turned into a setting specific faction system, then I think the game as a whole would have been better off.

IDK, I didn't have to dig too far into LudicSavant's Eccletic build thread to start finding Guild after Guild background. When effective builds are using them as a premise for decidedly not Ravnica games, and that thread is barreling down on half a million views... it'd be kind of disingenuous to say they're not at least being considered system wide - if not actually played.

And sure, DMs have final say of course - but they are official backgrounds, not UA and if the whole table is wanting to use them, it gets harder to say no.

OTOH, I personally hope 6E uses them as a style choice. Perhaps with even more expanded options as you level (as was noted in the "What do you hope to see in 6E" thread). If every background is special and powerful, no background is special and powerful (as little sense as that turn of phrase has ever made).

[Dork_Forge]

IDK, I didn't have to dig too far into LudicSavant's Eccletic build thread to start finding Guild after Guild background. When effective builds are using them as a premise for decidedly not Ravnica games, and that thread is barreling down on half a million views... it'd be kind of disingenuous to say they're not at least being considered system wide - if not actually played.

And sure, DMs have final say of course - but they are official backgrounds, not UA and if the whole table is wanting to use them, it gets harder to say no.

OTOH, I personally hope 6E uses them as a style choice. Perhaps with even more expanded options as you level (as was noted in the "What do you hope to see in 6E" thread). If every background is special and powerful, no background is special and powerful (as little sense as that turn of phrase has ever made).

I don't really see your argument, just because they are prevalent in one powergaming thread on one D&D Forum (of many) doesn't mean anything about their effect on the system as a whole, especially when said thread's builds are largely by one person (and likely contributions are influenced to some degree by the readers going through those builds). Nor does the view count particular mean anything, case in point I have looked at that thread and followed links there to understand what someone was referring to. However I have zero interest in any of the builds there and would never use a Ravnica background.

They're the lowest hanging wedge power gaming cheese tree, you can cram them onto any build because by and large backgrounds don't really matter in power builds unless for some reason you're really stretched on skills. Personally I find this distasteful because, well I'm not a fan of that much cheese in my D&Diet and I think they're an abomination in 5e design.

Though I'd wager that the majority of the player base doesn't know they even exist, it's a MtG setting book and the player facing stuff that's worthwhile was reprinted in TCoE.

As for DMs having the final say - when one book does something so differently that all of your players are clamouring to use them outside of the setting, then that is a lighthouse sized red flag. And if said DM was pressured into allowing it, ime that's something that happens to a DM once, as they tend to learn to say no after they learn what happens when they let things run riot.

If this was a thing in 6E then it'd be fine, because the system would be built around backgrounds having that level of mechanical impact.

[Kane0]

Doing it this way can lead to discrepencies between party members though, for example if you change Dragonmarks to feats, layered on top of the existing race benefit, what about people that don't want to play a Dragonmarked PC or non eligible race?

If you give it as any feat, but this is how you'd get those setting specific things, then that could work but be a little wonky. If it's just for the setting benefits, then there will be a significant and noticeable powergap between the have and have nots.

Maybe I wasn't that clear. Instead of race/subrace, class/subclass, background when making a character you have an additional, optional category: Boon.

Ravnica backgrounds are stripped out and are replaced with boons that expand your spell list, available for the setting.
Dragonmarked subraces are stripped out and are replaced with boons that have (some of) those features, available for the setting.
edit: Strixhaven subclasses are stripped out and replaced with boons that have (some of) those features, available for the setting.
Dark gifts are categorized as boons, available for the setting.
And a feat (perhaps from a shortened list) is the alternative if none of the setting-specific options appeal to you (eg playing a noncaster in ravnica) or the setting doesn't have any of those options available but the DM still wants to have the optional boon category available.

Then it's just a matter of roughly balancing boons against one another, so that they are roughly equal to an ASI (well, about as equal as the current feat options are which is a wide margin).

[Dork_Forge]

Maybe I wasn't that clear. Instead of race/subrace, class/subclass, background when making a character you have an additional, optional category: Boon.

Ravnica backgrounds are stripped out and are replaced with boons that expand your spell list, available for the setting.
Dragonmarked subraces are stripped out and are replaced with boons that have (some of) those features, available for the setting.
edit: Strixhaven subclasses are stripped out and replaced with boons that have (some of) those features, available for the setting.
Dark gifts are categorized as boons, available for the setting.
And a feat (perhaps from a shortened list) is the alternative if none of the setting-specific options appeal to you (eg playing a noncaster in ravnica) or the setting doesn't have any of those options available but the DM still wants to have the optional boon category available.

Then it's just a matter of roughly balancing boons against one another, so that they are roughly equal to an ASI (well, about as equal as the current feat options are which is a wide margin).

Ahh I see now, I think that could work, but you'd have a time balancing some of the more potent ones, off the top of my head the Mark of Healing and Passage would be very up there for a feat comparison. Doable, just some work.

[Deathtongue]

I think the idea was doomed from the start. D&D has a mix of strong classes balanced with weak subclasses (fighter, wizard in theory, paladin) and weak classes balanced by strong subclasses (bard, rogue, monk, etc.). Rune Knight is face-meltingly awesome on a Fighter or Paladin, but it's kind of pants on a Ranger or a Barbarian. Similarly, Tasha's Beastmaster or Way of Mercy (if the features worked outside of FoB) would be OMG busted on a Fighter or Paladin.

The Strixhaven classes had to be OP so they wouldn't simultaneously be too weak for a wizard to take while still being decent on a Sorcerer. Quandrix would be my go-to for Sorcerers from now on, but I'd never pick it as a wizard.

It might be able to work if the devs sat together and came up with two columns of 'strong subclasses/weak base class' and 'weak subclasses/strong base class' and didn't allow these options to mix.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Well said Deathtongue!

[BerzerkerUnit]

This is kind of why I don't care for the Gith. Their entire backstory feels so tied to the specific setting that putting them in another setting feels wrong.

Stuff like Warforged, Shifters, Changlings, and even Minotaurs can be pushed to several settings because they're a bit generic enough to fit anywhere while also being unique. Hell, you can reflavor Kalishtar as people trapped in possession or something.

But Gith? Nah.

To me, the idea that dimension hopping pirates with a racial enmity toward their former interdimensional psychic alien overlords (that fled to different times and universes) aren’t absurdly easy to transpose into other settings seems like a very basic misunderstanding of the Gith’s general concept.

Gith are literally one of the few races a new player can take to join mid campaign and just fall out of the sky without it being a stretch.

[PhantomSoul]

To me, the idea that dimension hopping pirates with a racial enmity toward their former interdimensional psychic alien overlords (that fled to different times and universes) aren’t absurdly easy to transpose into other settings seems like a very basic misunderstanding of the Gith’s general concept.

Gith are literally one of the few races a new player can take to join mid campaign and just fall out of the sky without it being a stretch.

And the possibility of coming from the future or from a plane with more magical capacities means you don't have to "corrupt" your (player-experienced) setting with very different assumptions about the level of magic (and/or items and/or psionics and/or other).

[Ralanr]

To me, the idea that dimension hopping pirates with a racial enmity toward their former interdimensional psychic alien overlords (that fled to different times and universes) aren’t absurdly easy to transpose into other settings seems like a very basic misunderstanding of the Gith’s general concept.

Gith are literally one of the few races a new player can take to join mid campaign and just fall out of the sky without it being a stretch.

The thing is they are literally tied to the dimension hopping parts. Which means if you want to include them, you'd need to make a whole justification for it.

And I'm just not a fan of them in all honesty. Never really have been. No offense.

[loki_ragnarock]

Maybe I wasn't that clear. Instead of race/subrace, class/subclass, background when making a character you have an additional, optional category: Boon.

Ravnica backgrounds are stripped out and are replaced with boons that expand your spell list, available for the setting.
Dragonmarked subraces are stripped out and are replaced with boons that have (some of) those features, available for the setting.
edit: Strixhaven subclasses are stripped out and replaced with boons that have (some of) those features, available for the setting.
Dark gifts are categorized as boons, available for the setting.
And a feat (perhaps from a shortened list) is the alternative if none of the setting-specific options appeal to you (eg playing a noncaster in ravnica) or the setting doesn't have any of those options available but the DM still wants to have the optional boon category available.

Then it's just a matter of roughly balancing boons against one another, so that they are roughly equal to an ASI (well, about as equal as the current feat options are which is a wide margin).

That's what they did in Theros. It's clearly gated as a specific thing for the setting and does some interesting things for characters while injecting a little flavor. They even added a list of bonus feats themed around the Gods should the specific boons not be to the player's liking. I think that's the best way to go forward for all setting specific weirdness. They already produced an ideal solution; interesting, flavorful, and - crucially - self contained.

The only reason to deviate substantially from that model is because the designers *want* this stuff to be used outside the setting, which pivoting to feats cements for me. They want this to be broadly applicable outside of the setting it's designed for. Which makes sense, for a business; the more broadly applicable, the more broadly appealing, the less niche the sales numbers for this specific product. And if they want to do it that way... then I'm more comfortable with them using feats to that end than I am their initial offering, for sure. Feats are options, ones that may or may not be used. Lazy, non-specific subclasses are a pollution that could contaminate other design space.

If it's not going to be self contained, it needs to at least not be toxic, you know?

[KorvinStarmast]

The Strixhaven classes had to be OP so they wouldn't simultaneously be too weak for a wizard to take while still being decent on a Sorcerer. Quandrix would be my go-to for Sorcerers from now on, but I'd never pick it as a wizard.

It might be able to work if the devs sat together and came up with two columns of 'strong subclasses/weak base class' and 'weak subclasses/strong base class' and didn't allow these options to mix. *golf clap*


Gith are literally one of the few races a new player can take to join mid campaign and just fall out of the sky without it being a stretch.
"I just flew in from the Astral Plane, and boy are my arms tired!" {pause}
"I'll be hear all week, try the veal and don't forget to tip your waitress!"
{hears a heckler in the crowd}
"And knock it off with the nose jokes, already!" :smallfurious:

. Feats are options, ones that may or may not be used. Lazy, non-specific subclasses are a pollution that could contaminate other design space.

If it's not going to be self contained, it needs to at least not be toxic, you know? Concur.

[Deathtongue]

The only reason to deviate substantially from that model is because the designers *want* this stuff to be used outside the setting, which pivoting to feats cements for me. They want this to be broadly applicable outside of the setting it's designed for. Which makes sense, for a business; the more broadly applicable, the more broadly appealing, the less niche the sales numbers for this specific product. And if they want to do it that way... then I'm more comfortable with them using feats to that end than I am their initial offering, for sure. Feats are options, ones that may or may not be used. Lazy, non-specific subclasses are a pollution that could contaminate other design space.

1.) Well-thought out, specific subclasses contaminate design space more than lazy and generic ones. I do think there is some more work to be done in this space, as 5E D&D lacks support for archetypes I find foundational to the archetype (i.e. the 4E Warlord) but once you fill those out, you get options like the Psi Warrior and even the Great Old One Patron. Which, even if flavorful, can intrude on certain campaigns in a way tables can find thematically unwelcome. Lazy or not, Champion and Samurai Fighters fit into unusual campaigns like Dark Sun and Urban Arcana better than subclasses like, oh, the Echo Knight.

2.) 5E Feats are a pretty poor option for expanding design space, especially thematically. A lot of characters don't get them until level 4, there's only so much power and flavor you can pack into a feat, and they compete in both a gameplay and thematic set with existing options. Actually, 5E D&D kind of screwed itself all around in its basic foundation. If the game designers wanted to introduce, say, an Avatar-style elemental manipulator as a player archetype their only option is with the class system. It's too powerful for a feat or, if it's not too powerful for a feat, too weaksauce to make the archetype come to life. Magical items aren't assured in this edition. Races, even if you introduced a Revenant-style generic racial variant, just aren't that strong in 5E D&D. Even spells are gated by the concentration mechanic.

[Ralanr]

The only way you get to really have fun with feats is if you're rolling well for stats imo. Too many players (including me) want to get at least an 18 in their main stat, and/or a 16 in their secondary stat. If you're using standard array, this means you hold off until your first feat until level 8 (or 6 for fighters).

And since their module design doesn't go past 10 in most cases, this means at max people would have three to four feats (if a variant human fighter didn't bother adjusting their stats). While I liked how powerful 5e feats are, as I despise feat chains, it is frustrating to never gain access to one because you feel the need to amp up your base stats.

I feel like instead of feats, they should just do the Ravnica backgrounds or more **** like Piety and Dark Gifts.

[BerzerkerUnit]

The attempts to justify it within the setting, even as a unique thing, are one of the major contributing factors to my last campaign falling apart. Its one of those things that kind of doesnt hold up to close scrutiny unless you specifically build around it. In this case, the question was "how can they have robots, but no other magictech?"

This is not a thing. Warforged are by lore basically animated trees wrapped in metal armor. For all the clockwork affectation players like to drape on them (which does fit in almost every setting as readily as a gelatinous cube), a Prestige Class from 3.5 makes it clear: They’re plants. And even more simply could be animated armors with souls.

You’re welcome to your opinion though, groundless and limited as it may be.

[BerzerkerUnit]

You've not gone into great deal on the setting but I'd still wager they can fit into most things other than the most low magic settings.

Back onto the Strixhaven stuff and the wider question of setting-specific things in general, I definitely view the dragonmarked races on a different 'level' of permissability to the ravnica backgrounds. I look at Mark of Detection half-elf vs. normal half-elf and could realistically still see picking normal half-elf even as a spellcaster. Ditto for V.human vs. dragonmarked humans, or halflings vs. dragonmarked halflings.

Not always, no, they're not "weaker", but they've not obsoleted all other racial variants either by any stretch (or indeed other races).

Seeing the new Lineage/heritage rules and the ability to freely place your stat ups, I think raw power wise, Dragonmark races do stand at the front of the line for power. However, you’re generally talking about a fractional percentages in performance when comparing 1 optimized PC vs another.

[BerzerkerUnit]

personally, I loved the idea but I needed massive work both in the base mechanics and in the presented subclasses. I am sure we will see this idea pop up in third-party content.

I was really looking forward to it.

[Deathtongue]

This is not a thing. Warforged are by lore basically animated trees wrapped in metal armor. For all the clockwork affectation players like to drape on them (which does fit in almost every setting as readily as a gelatinous cube), a Prestige Class from 3.5 makes it clear: They’re plants. And even more simply could be animated armors with souls.

You’re welcome to your opinion though, groundless and limited as it may be.

They're plants in only the most pedantic and cynical sense. The Warforged clearly evokes Artificial Lifeform tropes only seen in post-Industrial Revolution media like Star Trek, Frankenstein, Bicentennial Man, etc.. Which is a trope that only existed meaningfully after the Industrial Revolution for a reason. They also don't behave like plants, or plant people for that matter, except in aesthetics. They do not need to eat, drink, or BREATHE. They do not need to take in nitrogen or phosphorus. They don't reproduce like plants. They don't even grow over time. If you go back to 3E/4E rules, they implanted metal objects and even machines into their body with no special adaptation like Fleshcrafting.

They're frickin' robots.

Look, the wood aesthetic was there as an artifact of 3.0E rules where being a construct gave waaaaay too many advantages for an ECL +0 character. So they had to come up with an excuse nerf to explain why THESE robots aren't immune to poison, disease, mind control, death effects, etc.. If 3.0E had designed its inheritance rules correctly, I guarantee you Warforged would be all-metal, since other than justifying the creation of the 'Living Construct' archetype they don't use the 'wood' part of their body in any meaningful roleplaying or gameplay sense.

[MaxWilson]

The only way you get to really have fun with feats is if you're rolling well for stats imo. Too many players (including me) want to get at least an 18 in their main stat, and/or a 16 in their secondary stat. If you're using standard array, this means you hold off until your first feat until level 8 (or 6 for fighters).

IMO delaying feats so long is usually a mistake. Your first couple of feats usually have more impact than stats would, although of course it depends on what you choose and how you use them.

I roll for stats but even when I roll absolutely garbage stats (like 3d6 in order, and all stats 9 or below) I still look first at feats, and in fact in those cases I look even harder at feats than usual because I'm NEVER going to bring Int 9 up to Int 20, so I might as well focus on something else like being the Mobile, Moderately Armored, someday-Tough hobgoblin wizard who makes do with a spell DC of "only" 11 by focusing on save-for-half and no-save offensive spells plus party-helping spells like Rope Trick, Magic Circle, Stone Shape, Conjure Minor Elementals, and Polymorph.

[Sception]

See, my issue here is that you're comparing apples to oranges instead of like with like. Diviner wizards to the TCoE sorcerors? Power creep needs context. You're saying "overall, the power level hasn't truly changed", which I can agree with. There's some bonkers stuff in the PHB, always has been. I'm not denying that.

What I am saying is that within each class, the average power level for each subclass has been rising with the number of books. There's a few stinkers, like the Oath of Glory, but it's still a trend.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. While Chronurgist does exist as an outlier, for the most part Wizard Subclasses have remained at about the same level, if not somewhat declined from the strongest PHB options. Vengeance paladin is still probably the strongest paladin. No post-PHB druid has at any level been anything like as insanely overpowered as moon druid is from levels 2 to 4. Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are still on the stronger end of fighter and rogue subclasses respectively - there are admittedly slightly stronger options for each, but nothing that blows those two out of the water. Bearbarian is still competitive with Zealot.

Tasha's clerics are a mess and I absolutely won't defend them, but I also don't see them as part of a wider trend, especially from a book that also included relative duds like alchemist, jojomonk, and glorydin.

I only see an upward trend in subclasses of classes that were already generally understood to have problems. I'd certainly have preferred the designers to just /fix/ those classes via errata, bringing up all their sub-par subclasses with them, but WotC made a design decision that the confusion cost of having multiple versions of the same content running around the ruleset wasn't worth the benefits of fixing even obvious, admitted problems. I disagree with that decision, but it's the game we're playing in now. And given that starting point, I personally have no problem with subclasses that fix the problems in the core class design going forward even if it leaves phb subclasses behind. Pretending otherwise doesn't stop already lackluster PHB options from being lackluster, it would just be following up accidentally bad design with /deliberately/ bad design.

There's no point complaining about Tashas sorcerers eclipsing PHB sorcerers when PHB wizards did so from day one. That's not comparing apples to oranges. Player options are player options. They're all apples.

[LudicSavant]

Outperforming a weak option isn't power creep, raising the competitive power curve is. (https://youtu.be/M3b3hDvRjJA?t=117)

[micahaphone]

Has anyone ever seen in an actual game someone use the Ravnica guild backgrounds in a non-Ravnica game?
I could easily see fitting a warforged (or most other setting specific races) into a typical D&D fantasy world with a bit of DM collaboration - for one example:
ancient long forgotten wizard's laboratory aka a nice intro dungeon, a metallic man with zero memory wakes up in a tube when one of the traps/automated defenses of the lab triggers a magical power surge, boom you've got a one-of-a-kind PC walking about, discovering who they are. Loads of backstory plot hooks to be used there, it's great.
Much later on, players could even investigate the animating magic, take some time to recreate the spell that allows such creation. Should be 5th level or higher to match Awaken.

But using the Ravnica Guild background requires the game world to have the Ravnica guild in it, and the way most of them are structured it'd be difficult to have one guild without the others. The guilds that would work on their own in other settings are also represented by other backgrounds, like Dimir agent is really just a type of spy.

[Telwar]

Anecdotally, my group hasn't touched the Ravnica backgrounds. Not so much that we ban them, just that we haven't used them. Maybe if we played a Ravnica game...but I don't think we will.

[Ralanr]

I haven't seen anyone try to use the Ravnica backgrounds outside of Ravnica either. Though I'll admit, I didn't play much 5e between 2017 and 2021.

[micahaphone]

I have my beef with the Ravnica backgrounds (they give almost nothing to martials in a setting where there's plenty of reason to play a martial) but I feel like the minmaxing doomsayers are only looking at online forum postings.

I do think the loss of these subclasses is a bit sad - yes the UA was out of wack but I don't mind the concept. Maybe it's one of those things that would work best outside of the DnD system. I like the idea of an all mage party having magic boarding school adventures, and the party having players from the same major but with different mechanical classes behind them.

I'm curious what the feats will be. Maybe I'm being overly dour but I expect the bardic elemental college to just get Elemental Adept with an extra flavor bullet point, the math college to get one of the Tasha telekinesis feats with an extra flavor bullet point, etc.

[Azuresun]

They're plants in only the most pedantic and cynical sense. The Warforged clearly evokes Artificial Lifeform tropes only seen in post-Industrial Revolution media like Star Trek, Frankenstein, Bicentennial Man, etc.. Which is a trope that only existed meaningfully after the Industrial Revolution for a reason.

https://i.imgur.com/HJbRz6x.jpg

[LudicSavant]

The Warforged clearly evokes Artificial Lifeform tropes only seen in post-Industrial Revolution media like Star Trek, Frankenstein, Bicentennial Man, etc.

People have been telling stories of automata for thousands of years, across many cultures.

[Kane0]

People have been telling stories of automata for thousands of years, across many cultures.

Case in point the origins of the term 'Golem'

[P. G. Macer]

People have been telling stories of automata for thousands of years, across many cultures.

While definitely true, as far as I know pre-industrial stories of automata did not have them be mass-produced for the purpose of open warfare, instead being either unique creations, products of literal divine handiwork, or both. Meanwhile, robot armies are a common sci-fi trope.

[Kane0]

Well yeah, mass produced anything wasnt a thing until mass production was.

[loki_ragnarock]

Well yeah, mass produced anything wasnt a thing until mass production was.

But mass production also happened much earlier than alot of people realize.

Also, I'm treading into real life, so I'll just tread myself back out.

[KorvinStarmast]

But mass production also happened much earlier than alot of people realize.

Also, I'm treading into real life, so I'll just tread myself back out.Farmers, mass producing crops for 13,000 years.
Brewers, mass producing beer for 13,000 plus a few years, which is why farmers started planting crops - to brew more beer! :smallbiggrin:

This isn't just me yakking, this is based on research at Stanford. (https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2018/09/12/crafting-beer-lereal-cultivation/#:~:text=September%2012%2C%202018-,An%20ancient%20thirst%20for%20beer%20may%20have%2 0inspired%20agriculture%2C%20Stanford,underlying%2 0motivation%20to%20cultivate%20cereals.)
I think that Natufian means "dwarf" in ancient Assyrian, but I may be mistake. :smallcool:

‘Oldest record of man-made alcohol’

Evidence suggests that thousands of years ago, the Natufian people, a group of hunter-gatherers in the eastern Mediterranean, were quite the beer connoisseurs.

Liu and her research team analyzed residues from 13,000-year-old stone mortars found in the Raqefet Cave, a Natufian graveyard site located near what is now Haifa, Israel, and discovered evidence of an extensive beer-brewing operation.

“This accounts for the oldest record of man-made alcohol in the world,” Liu said.

[Dork_Forge]

Well yeah, mass produced anything wasnt a thing until mass production was.

Things were mass produced pre-industrial revolution and some of the hallmarks of mass production didn't arise until well after the industrial revolution.

[LudicSavant]

But mass production also happened much earlier than alot of people realize.

Also, I'm treading into real life, so I'll just tread myself back out.

An awful lot of things happened earlier than a lot of people realize, TBH. For example, there are ancient Roman-era creations that are basically animatronics.


While definitely true, as far as I know pre-industrial stories of automata did not have them be mass-produced for the purpose of open warfare, instead being either unique creations, products of literal divine handiwork, or both.

There are stories from cultures like ancient India about armies of automatons.

You can find numerous examples of ancient stories of robots on the Wikipedia page for the history of robotics. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_robots) And that's really just a small introductory sampling.

People have been telling all kinds of stories about robots for a long, long time. Ancient philosophers would even argue about stuff like, say, the idea that the development of automata would end human slavery ((IIRC Aristotle talks about it, for instance)).

[P. G. Macer]

An awful lot of things happened earlier than a lot of people realize, TBH. For example, there are ancient Roman-era creations that are basically animatronics.



There are stories from cultures like ancient India about armies of automatons.

You can find numerous examples of ancient stories of robots on the Wikipedia page for the history of robotics. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_robots) And that's really just a small introductory sampling.

People have been telling all kinds of stories about robots for a long, long time. Ancient philosophers would even argue about stuff like, say, the idea that the development of automata would end human slavery ((IIRC Aristotle talks about it, for instance)).

I stand corrected. Thank you for that information!