Fix one thing about D&D [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

windgate

2023-12-11, 06:54 PM

Rebalance proficiency and abilities to make characters less reliant on ability scores.

Heh, I derailed another thread by advocating that ability scores should matter even more.

Assuming expertise (and pumping the relevant stat)

Level 1:
Minimum check result: 8
Maximum Check result: 27

Level 20:
Minimum check result: 17
Maximum check result 37

Thats only a 37% increase in maximum potential.

In combat, that same character, using a fighter as an example) is gaining more than 4x the damage output and a staggering amount of resilience (via HP) to things that could kill that level 1 such as falling or standing in fire.

I acknowledge that creating parity would create problems (and some people hate numbers bloat). a 1:1 correlation would certainly be too much. But as my character gains levels, I want to experience my investment choices actually growing.

You want to bring in critical success (nat 20 rolls) for skill checks, fine. But at some point/level the character rolling a 19 (with a -1 modifier) shouldn't be able to outperform the dedicated specialist.

I have heard other people recommend having strength and dexterity determine your speed. I don't see how that could be implemented in 5e with its focus on simplicity but I like the concept.

Taking stats the other way.. Dump stats don't really have a significant mechanical impact on characters (except really low levels with constitution). (edit: compared to setting it to "10"). AFAIK, the players handbook doesn't even provide useful advice for people to roleplay them.

Edit: Current system: Max your primary stat, keep a decent constitution (and dexterity if you are not wearing heavy armor), dump everything else. Positive modifiers in the others don't really matter so there in no point in having the variety of small +'s... How about Giving some form of mechanical reward to the player that wants multiple positive mental stats?

stoutstien

2023-12-11, 07:05 PM

Write and present a useable DMG. Everyone else is noise imo.

GeoffWatson

2023-12-11, 07:15 PM

Move all the "plot maker/plot breaker" spells, like teleport and raise dead, to 4E style rituals, available to everyone.

JonBeowulf

2023-12-11, 07:26 PM

The creators.
I was gonna say "Sell it to someone who cares for it as much as we do", but this works too.

Spriteless

2023-12-11, 07:30 PM

Write and present a useable DMG. Everyone else is noise imo.

Woah good choice. I chose one rule you chose the book of rules. You are a true min maxers.

Brookshw

2023-12-11, 08:02 PM

Pick a lane. No more one size fits demigods, wuxia, mythos, heroic, etc. variations. If you want to have that kinda broad appeal, actually segment your game to align to the different fantasy types.

clash

2023-12-11, 08:26 PM

Witty Username

2023-12-11, 08:52 PM

Heh, I derailed another thread by advocating that ability scores should matter even more.

So my issue is that assuming no expertise (and applies to attack rolls saving throws, etc.) is that Max Prof is +6 and advances very slowly. Meanwhile, Ability scores account for +5 at max and grow rather quickly.

This means for, most of the game, what a character is good and bad at is determined by their ability scores rather than proficiency (or rather class).

Take say a swordsman, with a longsword
One a strength 16 wizard,
And one a strength 10 fighter

Even accounting for proficiency the wizard will be a better swordsman than the fighter, until mid levels ish, Also, the game seems to assume one has a prime stat of at least 16 to function.
Monk is my go to here, where 14-5s in Dex and Wis (which was pretty reasonable prior to Tasha's since that was what you could get with point buy, race agnostic) would put alot of stuff from AC to attack rolls to save effects middling to bad.
I personally think Proficiency should be worth more on its own, to reduce the need to grind up the primary score.

--
Reasonable DMG is a better answer to this question though.

I am still playing with numbers though on what I suspect to be fair.

Rukelnikov

2023-12-11, 09:02 PM

Remove all classes, levels, and xp, turn all the features into feats players can choose at milestones or get via questing.

paladinn

2023-12-11, 11:37 PM

Remove all classes, levels, and xp, turn all the features into feats players can choose at milestones or get via questing.

Wow, what a mess that would be

Zhorn

2023-12-11, 11:59 PM

Pack the design team with past-edition grognards with creative control and are free to disregard anyone who joined the company after 2014.

titi

2023-12-12, 12:12 AM

Make the low levels reasonable to play a full campaign at, rather than 'tutorial' levels

How do you define "low levels"?
Level 1 to 5? 1 to 3? Or 1 to 2?

JNAProductions

2023-12-12, 12:14 AM

How do you define "low levels"?
Level 1 to 5? 1 to 3? Or 1 to 2?

For 5E, I'd assume it to either be all of Tier One, so 1-4, or Tier One with one level of Tier Two as a capstone, so 1-5.

Psyren

2023-12-12, 12:29 AM

Are people not able to do full campaigns from 1-5? I certainly have.

Pack the design team with past-edition grognards with creative control and are free to disregard anyone who joined the company after 2014.

Good grief...

Amechra

2023-12-12, 12:35 AM

Make it so that the early 2000s version of D&D that 5e pulls from is Dragonfist, not 3e.

(Dragonfist was an interesting experiment from before WotC really figured out what they wanted to do with the D&D IP. There were three really notable differences between it and other versions of D&D: first off, everyone got kung-fu powers as they leveled up. Secondly, ability score bonuses were dice instead of being static bonuses. Thirdly, and perhaps most weirdly... you didn't add your ability scores to stuff automatically. Instead, you'd get one "stunt" per turn that let you pick one ability score to actually add to stuff that turn. You could still roll for damage if you, say, made a Constitution stunt (which healed you for 1dCon hp if I'm remembering things correctly), you just wouldn't get to add your Strength bonus.)

Leon

2023-12-12, 12:47 AM

5e is unfixable with only one thing, it needs many many things to fix it.

But one thing that D&D as a whole has needed is for magic to have a actual cost.

Rukelnikov

2023-12-12, 12:52 AM

Ignimortis

2023-12-12, 12:56 AM

Scrap bounded accuracy and concepts that are directly related to it. There are other ways to make lower-level enemies relevant for longer, and half the problems bounded accuracy solves are not problems, they're issues GMs have with their players acquiring "too much" power in their world.

Pack the design team with past-edition grognards with creative control and are free to disregard anyone who joined the company after 2014.
Isn't that how we GOT 5e?

Eldan

2023-12-12, 01:02 AM

I'm just going to stretch the definition of "one thing" beyond any reasonable breaking point and say "a Binder class, including subclasses, and about three times as many (rebalanced) vestigates as the one in third edition had, so it fills its own book".

Eldan

2023-12-12, 01:04 AM

Get rid of both wizards and fighters to leave some design space for classes that actually have flavor. Niether guy who magics or guy that deals damage fits in a game with a dozen unique and flavorful classes.

Wizard has flavour! They just don't use it. In a game where all other classes (bard, sorcerer, warlock, cleric) just wave their hands and magic happens (or their sugar daddy makes it happen for them), they are the ones who actually buckle down and study magic. Learn how magic functions and then actually learn how to use it. They are the only ones who put any actual work into it and that's a design space that should be included.

Zhorn

2023-12-12, 01:37 AM

Isn't that how we GOT 5e?
It's not perfect; but I'm still fond of the underlying core of 5e.
I just find the later additions and more recent design direction has lost sight of what d&d was.
It's a collection of over-corrections
- Too survivable
- Too sanitized
Things can't be evil any more, nor ugly or scary.

When I say to pack the design team with past edition-grognards, I'm not saying just more of the same designers that were at 5e's inception, I'm saying the long time players that stuck with the game long-term from past editions.
Actual fans of the hobby that weren't swayed to become a tourist because of some tv show or podcast.
Bring in people who understood the appeal of deathly encounters.
Revive the mechanics for executing a proper dungeon crawl.
Target an audience more concerned with having fun than they are with finding things to be offended over.

Batcathat

2023-12-12, 02:32 AM

Wizard has flavour! They just don't use it. In a game where all other classes (bard, sorcerer, warlock, cleric) just wave their hands and magic happens (or their sugar daddy makes it happen for them), they are the ones who actually buckle down and study magic. Learn how magic functions and then actually learn how to use it. They are the only ones who put any actual work into it and that's a design space that should be included.

I'm not sure how much can be done with that flavour. "Having to actually work to learn what you do" is generally the rule rather than the exception, even if it's not always true of casters. Though I suppose really leaning into them being the academics of the magical world could add at least some flavour.

Speaking of casters, I suppose my one thing would be forcing casters to actually specialize in a meaningful way, hopefully improving both flavour and balance.

Kane0

2023-12-12, 04:14 AM

By "top half" do you mean the first ten levels? Or the last ten?

Levels 11-20. More specifically, reduce the level range from 1-20 to 1-12.

Squish class features down to fit
Casting progression left largely as is, maxing out at 6ths and 7ths
Prof bonus progressing every 3 levels instead of 4
ASIs at 2, 5, 8 and 11 split from Feats at 3, 6, 9, 12 and Talents* at 1, 4, 7, 10
*A different selection of Feats, strictly NOT for combat

But obviously that's far beyond a single change.

Derges

2023-12-12, 04:33 AM

Change that 5 to a 4.

Eldan

2023-12-12, 06:02 AM

I'm not sure how much can be done with that flavour. "Having to actually work to learn what you do" is generally the rule rather than the exception, even if it's not always true of casters. Though I suppose really leaning into them being the academics of the magical world could add at least some flavour.

Speaking of casters, I suppose my one thing would be forcing casters to actually specialize in a meaningful way, hopefully improving both flavour and balance.

I mean, if it was down to me, I'd rewrite the magic system for every class from the ground up. Wizards should be far more studious and tactical, mechanically. Really flex that high intelligence.

Brookshw

2023-12-12, 06:45 AM

It's not perfect; but I'm still fond of the underlying core of 5e.
I just find the later additions and more recent design direction has lost sight of what d&d was.
It's a collection over over-corrections
- Too survivable
- Too sanitized
Things can't be evil any more, nor ugly or scary.

When I say to pack the design team with past edition-grognards, I'm not saying just more of the same designers that were at 5e's inception, I'm saying the long time players that stuck with the game long-term from past editions.
Actual fans of the hobby that weren't swayed to become a tourist because of some tv show or podcast.
Bring in people who understood the appeal of deathly encounters.
Revive the mechanics for executing a proper dungeon crawl.
Target an audience more concerned with having fun than they are with fining things to be offended over.

What I'm hearing is give it back to TSR.

And I'm okay with that.

Lvl 2 Expert

2023-12-12, 07:04 AM

If you could fix/add one thing to D&D 5e/One, what would it be?

I'd give me the copyrights, for the purpose of royalties.

What?

paladinn

2023-12-12, 07:18 AM

da newt

2023-12-12, 08:31 AM

Scrap the D&D next project (nothing gained just change for the sake of change) and just rewrite the 5.0 stuff with clearly defined terms and rules without ridiculous implications - tell us explicitly what the rule is/does. Make the books into really good references and include a bit of WHY.

I'd keep the ideal of rulings over rules (feel free to change stuff to suit your needs / tastes), but ensure the baseline is explicitly defined so folks know where to start as they tweak things.

If I could get greedy and get a second thing I'd nerf full caster spell slots about 25%.

Beelzebub1111

2023-12-12, 08:34 AM

Make the low levels reasonable to play a full campaign at, rather than 'tutorial' levels

Conversely, balance high level play.

Rukelnikov

2023-12-12, 08:47 AM

I mean, if it was down to me, I'd rewrite the magic system for every class from the ground up. Wizards should be far more studious and tactical, mechanically. Really flex that high intelligence.

Thing is, Wizard's casting WAS studious mechanically*, you as the player had to plan beforehand much more precisely, 5e removed that aspect when they turned every preped caster into Spirit Shamans. Also spell prepping times are basically irrelevant now, end up being part of the early morning routine of the party.

*Whether it's tactical or not will depend on spell selection, a blaster that only picks damage spells is not very different tactically from an archer aside from available ammo, a battlefield controller will be completely different, and that's good.

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-12, 09:59 AM

Alternatively, if we're gonna keep it, use it. Actually write material for high-level play, like it's expected to be used +1 - Need better Tier 4 adventures.

The creators. The dev team has wandered off into the ethereal plane ...

Write and present a useable DMG. Everyone else is noise imo. The DMG needs a tutorial for new DMs; how to runn a session. Examples of play.

Pack the design team with past-edition grognards with creative control and are free to disregard anyone who joined the company after 2014. 13th Age called, they already exist. :smallbiggrin:

But one thing that D&D as a whole has needed is for magic to have a actual cost. YES!

Scrap bounded accuracyIsn't that how we GOT 5e? Please don't.

Target an audience more concerned with having fun than they are with fining things to be offended over. But our sales would plummet! (One needs to deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it were).

Thing is, Wizard's casting WAS studious mechanically*, you as the player had to plan beforehand much more precisely, 5e removed that aspect when they turned every preped caster into Spirit Shamans. Return to Vancian casting for Wizards. Agree. To do that, though, more spells needs to be rituals.

But honestly, I'd offer an either or:

Stop using Charisma as a spell casting stat.
or
Go back to the original saving throw scheme such that at higher level you tend to have a better chance to make a saving throw.
That TSR piece is for me a glaring fubar.

But, with that said, I do get how having higher spell salve DCs and risks at high level to keep the risk and lethality present at higher levels.
Would need another scrub.

JackPhoenix

2023-12-12, 10:14 AM

What I'm hearing is give it back to TSR.

And I'm okay with that.

Are you familiar with the current TSR?

Eldan

2023-12-12, 10:51 AM

Thing is, Wizard's casting WAS studious mechanically*, you as the player had to plan beforehand much more precisely, 5e removed that aspect when they turned every preped caster into Spirit Shamans. Also spell prepping times are basically irrelevant now, end up being part of the early morning routine of the party.

*Whether it's tactical or not will depend on spell selection, a blaster that only picks damage spells is not very different tactically from an archer aside from available ammo, a battlefield controller will be completely different, and that's good.

Oh, I know. I've written essays about this. Several. Long ones.

GloatingSwine

2023-12-12, 11:02 AM

Levels 11-20. More specifically, reduce the level range from 1-20 to 1-12.

ASIs at 2, 5, 8 and 11 split from Feats at 3, 6, 9, 12 and Talents* at 1, 4, 7, 10

If you're going to have 12 level max (and that would probably be correct) deliver features on multiples of 3 and 4. It's the sensible thing to do.

It does mean that 7-8 and 9-10 are a big stretch between New Toys, so you deliver big toys at 6 and 9.

Dalinar

2023-12-12, 11:03 AM

Teach WOTC's design team how to do math.

A more serious answer might be to muck with the balance of saving throw effects a bit. We made our DM feel bad recently because we had a really cool boss fight against someone we were trying not to kill, and I guess he didn't have LR, because somebody got off a Hold Person on him round 1 and he just failed the save over and over while we dispatched the lackeys and made a break for it. On the player side of things, it really sucks losing control of your character because of the same thing--a player paralyzed for several rounds is not only not having fun, but is probably gonna die, too. And then on the flip side of that, it sucks as a player if you blow a limited resource and get nothing out of it--though the choice to cast something that isn't all-or-nothing instead is there, and of course concentration provides a way to overcome the obstacle with teamwork.

It feels a lot to me like you either invest in better saving throws (Resilient feat being the only semi-cheap way to do that, or I guess Lucky), which causes you to feel less effective in situations where these very scary saving throw effects don't come up, or you skimp on that and become very vulnerable when they do.

Maybe this means the real problem is the DCs? I dunno.

clash

2023-12-12, 11:41 AM

Remove all classes, levels, and xp, turn all the features into feats players can choose at milestones or get via questing.

I've actually done most of this in my homebrew system 😂 except the primary form of progression is more similar to something like path of exile

Atranen

2023-12-12, 11:57 AM

How do you define "low levels"?
Level 1 to 5? 1 to 3? Or 1 to 2?

Haha, I was thinking 1 to 4. Tier 1 is where the game is still capable of telling a low power heroic (not superheroic) fantasy, like LotR. Tier 2 and beyond are different kinds of stories.

Are people not able to do full campaigns from 1-5? I certainly have.

I have as well, but there is a feeling that you are fighting the system, especially at levels 1&2. Because these are designed as "tutorial" levels (even more so in OneD&D), there is an awkward power spike at 3rd, and 1st/2nd level characters don't fully feel their role. Other systems do this better, and 5E should learn from them.

I'd give me the copyrights, for the purpose of royalties.

We have a winner!

Conversely, balance high level play.

Also this!

But our sales would plummet! (One needs to deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it were).

Sad, but true. People very much like the superheroic fantasy with lots of options at each level up and a wide range of levels.

Teach WOTC's design team how to do math.

Sorely needed.

saucerhead

2023-12-12, 12:01 PM

Cap all class hit point maximum at 50

Brookshw

2023-12-12, 12:15 PM

Are you familiar with the current TSR?

Original flavor, not New Coke. The game's lethality and difficulty has been on a downward trajectory since WoTC took it over.

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-12, 12:21 PM

Original flavor, not New Coke. The game's lethality and difficulty has been on a downward trajectory since WoTC took it over. Interestingly, when 5e first came out, some people were surprised that PCs could die again. Not sure what has happened since, , but a bugbear hitting a wizard can kill the wizard outright at level 1. (See lost mines of Phandelver ...)
Flame Skulls are also potential low level party killers, depending on how many HP the party have lost before encountering the flame skull.

ToA is also a bit of a character killer (or can be).

Atranen

2023-12-12, 12:25 PM

Cap all class hit point maximum at 50

Why blue text? Something like this (say cap hp growth at level 10) is a great idea.

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-12, 12:36 PM

Why blue text? Something like this (say cap hp growth at level 10) is a great idea.
Or just cap the Con bonus for HP on any non-Martial at @2. They did that in AD&D. (But that's a bit fiddly).

Brookshw

2023-12-12, 12:38 PM

Interestingly, when 5e first came out, some people were surprised that PCs could die again. Not sure what has happened since, , but a bugbear hitting a wizard can kill the wizard outright at level 1. (See lost mines of Phandelver ...)
Flame Skulls are also potential low level party killers, depending on how many HP the party have lost before encountering the flame skull.

ToA is also a bit of a character killer (or can be).

True, but compare that to D&D/AD&D's day, anything could kill a wizard with one hit, just about anyone could get one shot at level 1, no death saves, going to negative 10hp was optional, no reactions, skills didn't exist and you had to always be on guard, etc. The difficulty between BECMI and 5e are miles apart.

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-12, 12:40 PM

True, but compare that to D&D/AD&D's day, anything could kill a wizard with one hit, just about anyone could get one shot at level 1, no death saves, going to negative 10hp was optional, no reactions, skills didn't exist and you had to always be on guard, etc. The difficulty between BECMI and 5e are miles apart. Yes. No question.

Pex

2023-12-12, 12:54 PM

Example DC tables for all skills all in one place easily found.

Theodoxus

2023-12-12, 12:57 PM

If you could fix/add one thing to D&D 5e/One, what would it be?

I would try to come up with some stuff to replace some of the (Kinda boring) flat bonuses

Remove multiclassing, balance as well as you can with that in mind. Any iconic multiclasses (I really can't think of anything, but say, Barbarian/Rogues who use Reckless Attack to generate nigh always-on Advantage... make a subclass of Barbarian that gets some sneak dice. Make a subclass of Rogue that gets Reckless Attack (that would be quite interesting without anything more than Uncanny Dodge to defray the enemy advantage!)

From other threads/discussions, one of the biggest complaints is the ease of full casters (Wizards, primarily) to get access to armor. Well, if you need to burn 3 feats (4 if you want HAM) instead of a single class level (and with Cleric, not even the loss of spell slots!) it very much becomes a critical choice, not just a no-brainer.

Ditch multiclassing completely and give the rules for it in the DMG as an option. It'll make the game so much easier to mod.

InvisibleBison

2023-12-12, 01:09 PM

A minimal fix: Increase the number of spell slots warlocks get to be equal to their proficiency bonus (or what their proficiency bonus would be if they only had warlock levels, for multiclass warlocks). I feel warlocks should be able to cast one or two spells every fight, and maybe one between fights, which is not really possible currently unless you're resting after every fight.

A much bigger "fix": Remove attrition. Make all resources come back after five minutes of calm activity or one minute of rest. I don't find long-term resource management to be an interesting form of gameplay.

Ditch multiclassing completely and give the rules for it in the DMG as an option. It'll make the game so much easier to mod.

Making the game easier to much mod at the cost of making it much less interesting to play is a bad tradeoff.

Rukelnikov

2023-12-12, 01:14 PM

I've actually done most of this in my homebrew system 😂 except the primary form of progression is more similar to something like path of exile

I never went all the way, mainly because we stopped playing 5e like 2 or 3 years ago, but the last times I DM'ed I removed leveling, and players just gained feats or features for doing stuff, I really like how it worked, one the players was new to DnD and she seemed to like how that worked (its much more organic IMO), the others both had been playing for 20+ yers, one had no prob with it, he's usually more into roleplaying aspects of the the game, the other didn't like it too much, but she likes being able to plan her characters beforehand knowing from character creation what feature she'll be getting 16 adventures in.

Luccan

2023-12-12, 01:27 PM

Oh, actually, I'd make it so that D&D was no longer beholden to shareholders and executives who don't care about or understand the hobby

Theodoxus

2023-12-12, 01:31 PM

Making the game easier to much mod at the cost of making it much less interesting to play is a bad tradeoff.

Maybe. It would make it much easier to run though, which I think would ultimately make it more fun. Interesting, and fun, are both quite subjective though. But hey, that's what putting the MC rules in the DMG would allow you to explore :)

137beth

2023-12-12, 01:44 PM

Make a setting where there is no correlation between alignment and species, and make that the default setting.

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-12, 01:59 PM

Oh, actually, I'd make it so that D&D was no longer beholden to shareholders and executives who don't care about or understand the hobby Good luck with that.

Rukelnikov: 5e version of E6?

Put MC in the DMG? I guess, but honestly just rescrubbing MC a bit to plug a few holes wold solve a lot of it.

Rukelnikov

2023-12-12, 02:23 PM

Rukelnikov: 5e version of E6?

Kinda, characters started as regular lvl 3 PCs, and then gained features they were striving for depending on what they did, one for instance was wild sorc, but he started studying magic under tutelage of a red dragon (who was interested in his blood and regularly drained him of it as payment for study), and he eventually also got dragon sorcs lvl 1. After about 15 sessions all charas ended up roughly 5-ish in terms of features and a bit higher in HP (~60 HP all of them a Druid a Lock and a Sorc).

Lalliman

2023-12-12, 02:28 PM

Ditch multiclassing completely and give the rules for it in the DMG as an option. It'll make the game so much easier to mod.
The problem is, multiclassing is already an optional rule. No one treats it that way because it's been an iconic and beloved part of the game for decades. People will still treat it as a core game mechanic even if you hide it in the DMG.

Sigreid

2023-12-12, 02:34 PM

The problem is, multiclassing is already an optional rule. No one treats it that way because it's been an iconic and beloved part of the game for decades. People will still treat it as a core game mechanic even if you hide it in the DMG.
I've considered experimenting with a multiclass rule that your first class has to be your highest level class and your extra classes don't count as levels towards things like cantrip damage or proficiency bonus. The idea being that the more you fragment for versatility the the less capable you are at anything compared to someone with the luxury of specialization.

Rukelnikov

2023-12-12, 02:40 PM

I've considered experimenting with a multiclass rule that your first class has to be your highest level class and your extra classes don't count as levels towards things like cantrip damage or proficiency bonus. The idea being that the more you fragment for versatility the the less capable you are at anything compared to someone with the luxury of specialization.

You could make it so your highest class is the only one that counts, that way you don't force the players to be on railroads.

Sigreid

2023-12-12, 02:47 PM

You could make it so your highest class is the only one that counts, that way you don't force the players to be on railroads.

I could, but I was also thinking of things like taking one level of a class to get x thing you only get from this class at level 1 such as fighter at 1 just for heavy armor with no intention to grab level 2. But right now it's nothing more than a thought experiment.

Rukelnikov

2023-12-12, 02:59 PM

I could, but I was also thinking of things like taking one level of a class to get x thing you only get from this class at level 1 such as fighter at 1 just for heavy armor with no intention to grab level 2. But right now it's nothing more than a thought experiment.

Oh, ok, well the real problem there IMO is asymmetric features depending on when you take the levels. As I've been saying for a while I think DnD should go back to 2e style combat proficiencies, so classes would get a set amount of proficiencies which could be spent on armor and shield proficiencies, or weapon proficiencies, or fighting styles, Fighters would get the most, wizards would get the least. I think it even plays well with subclass design allowing for more combat oriented subclasses to grant bonus combat proficiencies.

Batcathat

2023-12-12, 02:59 PM

Make a setting where there is no correlation between alignment and species, and make that the default setting.

On that topic, I think my one change might just be to rip out alignments entirely, possibly replacing them with a more literal version which only describes what (if any) cosmic forces the character is aligned with and has nothing to do with their morality.

Sigreid

2023-12-12, 03:07 PM

On that topic, I think my one change might just be to rip out alignments entirely, possibly replacing them with a more literal version which only describes what (if any) cosmic forces the character is aligned with and has nothing to do with their morality.

May as well since the metaphysical backdrop of the game hasn't been the struggle between the alignments for the prime material plane in a long time. Since choosing an alignment is no longer picking a side and allies in a war, it's mostly just meaningless now.

137beth

2023-12-12, 03:56 PM

On that topic, I think my one change might just be to rip out alignments entirely, possibly replacing them with a more literal version which only describes what (if any) cosmic forces the character is aligned with and has nothing to do with their morality.

I wouldn't be opposed to that, but I still feel like I'd need a new default setting. Even if you completely remove alignment game mechanics, and remove the words "good" and "evil," Forgotten Realms still tells you that you know who to kill based on whether they have green skin. I'm skeptical that it would be possible to completely remove the concept of "enemy species" from Faerun and still have it be recognizable as FR.

Batcathat

2023-12-12, 04:18 PM

I wouldn't be opposed to that, but I still feel like I'd need a new default setting. Even if you completely remove alignment game mechanics, and remove the words "good" and "evil," Forgotten Realms still tells you that you know who to kill based on whether they have green skin. I'm skeptical that it would be possible to completely remove the concept of "enemy species" from Faerun and still have it be recognizable as FR.

I'm not sure a new setting (whether default or not) would help with that either, since most of the traditional D&D races are so entrenched in pop culture. Even if your setting had the vast majority of, say, goblins as civilized, honorable and kind to puppies, I suspect most people would still consider that an exception to "normal" goblins, at least in the foreseeable future. Having a setting with completely original species might work better, but at that point it might be better to just switch to another fantasy RPG.

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-12, 04:18 PM

Atranen

2023-12-12, 04:19 PM

Example DC tables for all skills all in one place easily found.

Agreed.

Remove multiclassing, balance as well as you can with that in mind. Any iconic multiclasses (I really can't think of anything, but say, Barbarian/Rogues who use Reckless Attack to generate nigh always-on Advantage... make a subclass of Barbarian that gets some sneak dice. Make a subclass of Rogue that gets Reckless Attack (that would be quite interesting without anything more than Uncanny Dodge to defray the enemy advantage!)

From other threads/discussions, one of the biggest complaints is the ease of full casters (Wizards, primarily) to get access to armor. Well, if you need to burn 3 feats (4 if you want HAM) instead of a single class level (and with Cleric, not even the loss of spell slots!) it very much becomes a critical choice, not just a no-brainer.

Ditch multiclassing completely and give the rules for it in the DMG as an option. It'll make the game so much easier to mod.

Also agreed. It distorts the game too much as is, and everything has to be balanced with it in mind. And there are several noteworthy failures, in that regard.

JackPhoenix

2023-12-12, 04:34 PM

Original flavor, not New Coke. The game's lethality and difficulty has been on a downward trajectory since WoTC took it over.

So that's why necromancy is never considered a good act... it's a WotC conspiracy to keep Gygax from coming back!

Thane of Fife

2023-12-12, 06:19 PM

I'm skeptical that it would be possible to completely remove the concept of "enemy species" from Faerun and still have it be recognizable as FR.

Really? I feel like you could excise nonhuman people from the Realms entirely (maybe excepting elves and dragons) and still have it feel like the Forgotten Realms.

GooeyChewie

2023-12-12, 07:02 PM

Making the game easier to much mod at the cost of making it much less interesting to play is a bad tradeoff.

Removing multiclassing would make the sub-game of theory-crafting characters less interesting. And while I do love that aspect of D&D, I don’t think removing multiclassing would make the game less interesting during actual play. And not having to worry about multi-class cheese potential means the classes could get their core features and even subclasses at level 1, which to me would make the game more interesting to play.

Psyren

2023-12-12, 07:30 PM

The DMG needs a tutorial for new DMs; how to runn a session. Examples of play.

I'm on board with this too.

Things can't be evil any more, nor ugly or scary.

False :smallsigh:

Original flavor, not New Coke. The game's lethality and difficulty has been on a downward trajectory since WoTC took it over.

True, but compare that to D&D/AD&D's day, anything could kill a wizard with one hit, just about anyone could get one shot at level 1, no death saves, going to negative 10hp was optional, no reactions, skills didn't exist and you had to always be on guard, etc. The difficulty between BECMI and 5e are miles apart.

I genuinely don't understand the difficulty complaint. More difficulty is easy to do, just add more monsters. Or stronger monsters. Or unfavorable conditions/terrain. Or use a grittier rest variant. There are so many ways for groups who want a harder game to get that; of course the base game is tuned to be more accessible, for a lot of people D&D is their first (and in some cases only) TTRPG they'll ever play.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-12-12, 07:38 PM

Removing multiclassing would make the sub-game of theory-crafting characters less interesting. And while I do love that aspect of D&D, I don’t think removing multiclassing would make the game less interesting during actual play. And not having to worry about multi-class cheese potential means the classes could get their core features and even subclasses at level 1, which to me would make the game more interesting to play.

And lets you do all sorts of new interesting things within the context of a class. And potentially makes making new subclasses (especially) way easier, because you don't have to compete with "well, I can get that but better by dipping X levels of Y..."

greenstone

2023-12-12, 07:39 PM

Remove Bonus Actions.

On your turn you can Move and Act, in any order.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-12-12, 07:46 PM

Remove Bonus Actions.

On your turn you can Move and Act, in any order.

Personally, I'm fine with Bonus Actions...but not Bonus Action attacks and (offensive) spells, specifically. Because those distort the playing field, becoming "must have this or go home" entries. Bonus actions should be reserved for things like
* Class-based mobility options (ie Cunning Action's Disengage/Dash)
* Buffs that are consumed on use (like smite spells). Not healing though.
* Auxiliary "nice things". If you're a pet class, interacting with your pet. If you summon areas/cast spells that are movable, interacting with those. Etc.

Brookshw

2023-12-12, 08:14 PM

I genuinely don't understand the difficulty complaint. More difficulty is easy to do, just add more monsters. Or stronger monsters. Or unfavorable conditions/terrain. Or use a grittier rest variant. There are so many ways for groups who want a harder game to get that; of course the base game is tuned to be more accessible, for a lot of people D&D is their first (and in some cases only) TTRPG they'll ever play.

True, though it's not a complaint but instead an observation of the changing baseline D&D has adopted. There's also the stylistic difference between D&D today and OSR approaches which arose from Original Flavor and can't be as easy adjusted for without substantive revisions. At a certain point variants aren't worth it and you're better off seeking a different system entirely.

InvisibleBison

2023-12-12, 08:27 PM

Removing multiclassing would make the sub-game of theory-crafting characters less interesting. And while I do love that aspect of D&D, I don’t think removing multiclassing would make the game less interesting during actual play.

Removing multiclassing would reduce the range of characters a person could play, which makes the game less interesting in the long run. It's true that in a given game you're only going to be playing one character at a time, but you're not just going to be playing one game for the entirety of your life (hopefully, anyway). Having a more diverse set of options to choose from when making characters keeps the game interesting for longer.

And not having to worry about multi-class cheese potential means the classes could get their core features and even subclasses at level 1, which to me would make the game more interesting to play.

Sure, but you can get much the same effect by actually designing the game to accommodate multiclassing. For instance, divide class features into primary and secondary features, and limit multiclass characters to the primary features of one of their classes, with their other class either not giving the primary feature at all or giving a much weaker version of it. A paladin/sorcerer, for example, would have to choose between normal smites but greatly reduced sorcerer spell progression and far fewer sorcery points, or normal amounts of sorcerer spellcasting and sorcery points but much weaker smites.

Psyren

2023-12-12, 08:57 PM

True, though it's not a complaint but instead an observation of the changing baseline D&D has adopted. There's also the stylistic difference between D&D today and OSR approaches which arose from Original Flavor and can't be as easy adjusted for without substantive revisions. At a certain point variants aren't worth it and you're better off seeking a different system entirely.

I agree that a point like that exists but like... "harder fights" doesn't feel like the throw-up-your-hands-and-whip-out-GURPS rubicon to me.

LibraryOgre

2023-12-12, 08:58 PM

No by-level multiclassing.

Atranen

2023-12-12, 09:01 PM

I genuinely don't understand the difficulty complaint. More difficulty is easy to do, just add more monsters. Or stronger monsters. Or unfavorable conditions/terrain. Or use a grittier rest variant. There are so many ways for groups who want a harder game to get that; of course the base game is tuned to be more accessible, for a lot of people D&D is their first (and in some cases only) TTRPG they'll ever play.

It's the changing assumptions that Brookshw mentioned. It's also the ease of healing and coming back from 0hp. For characters to die at low levels, they either need to 1) roll a 1 on the death save AND have no one wirh healing word; 2) have the DM kill them while they're down, which feels adversarial; or 3) go down and have the players beaten so soundly they lose access to the body/have to retreat without healing.

Compare to the OSR, where a player can die on a single unlucky roll even for combats that are going well for the players.

It plays very differently at the table, and leads to a different experience. You can like or dislike that, but you can't replicate it just by adding more monsters.

Psyren

2023-12-12, 09:17 PM

It's the changing assumptions that Brookshw mentioned. It's also the ease of healing and coming back from 0hp. For characters to die at low levels, they either need to 1) roll a 1 on the death save AND have no one wirh healing word; 2) have the DM kill them while they're down, which feels adversarial; or 3) go down and have the players beaten so soundly they lose access to the body/have to retreat without healing.

Compare to the OSR, where a player can die on a single unlucky roll even for combats that are going well for the players.

It plays very differently at the table, and leads to a different experience. You can like or dislike that, but you can't replicate it just by adding more monsters.

"More monsters" was only one suggestion. You can throw in the Massive Damage/System Shock rules, or Lingering Injuries, or Gritty Rest, or all of the above, on top of moe monsters, and harder ones.

JNAProductions

2023-12-12, 09:18 PM

It's the changing assumptions that Brookshw mentioned. It's also the ease of healing and coming back from 0hp. For characters to die at low levels, they either need to 1) roll a 1 on the death save AND have no one wirh healing word; 2) have the DM kill them while they're down, which feels adversarial; or 3) go down and have the players beaten so soundly they lose access to the body/have to retreat without healing.

Compare to the OSR, where a player can die on a single unlucky roll even for combats that are going well for the players.

It plays very differently at the table, and leads to a different experience. You can like or dislike that, but you can't replicate it just by adding more monsters.

I'll agree with that.
And I'll express a preference for the more heroic-feeling modern-day D&D.

I like making characters-both mechanically and personality.
I like playing characters-and if they can die to an unlucky crit in an encounter that's going well, there's a very good chance that they'll end up dead at some point.

I don't think I'm saying anything exceptional when I say that which you prefer is subject to taste. It's not a universal "(Non-) Lethal games are better," it's just whichever you favor. (Which is likely influenced by what your entry point was into RPGs.)

PhoenixPhyre

2023-12-12, 09:29 PM

I'll agree with that.
And I'll express a preference for the more heroic-feeling modern-day D&D.

I like making characters-both mechanically and personality.
I like playing characters-and if they can die to an unlucky crit in an encounter that's going well, there's a very good chance that they'll end up dead at some point.

I don't think I'm saying anything exceptional when I say that which you prefer is subject to taste. It's not a universal "(Non-) Lethal games are better," it's just whichever you favor. (Which is likely influenced by what your entry point was into RPGs.)

Yeah. I'm of your preference here as well.

Another thing OSR does that I'm not fond of and an glad 5e has minimized is the "narrative free dungeon crawl" where the only real goal is to extract as much treasure as possible.

Atranen

2023-12-12, 09:39 PM

"More monsters" was only one suggestion. You can throw in the Massive Damage/System Shock rules, or Lingering Injuries, or Gritty Rest, or all of the above, on top of moe monsters, and harder ones.

These end up with a different hard game, but don't really do what the OSR does. Massive damage requires checking 1) did it do half your HP, 2) rolling CON, 3) rolling on a table, to get a fiddly effect. More difficult at the expense of slowing down gameplay. Lingering injuries are closer, especially if you take when whenever you're at 0. Resting is more about pacing than difficulty.

Anyway, you can hack on these sorts of elements, but ultimately you are playing a game with different assumptions. Even when you do hack them on, it clashes with the prewritten mods. In OSR, combat is hard (= deadly) to incentivize problem solving outside of combat with the goal of avoiding combat. 5e is all about combat, so the players are expected to win most combats intact.

Zhorn

2023-12-12, 09:50 PM

Things can't be evil any more, nor ugly or scary.
False :smallsigh:

Drow engage in the slave trade
Orcs are culturally barbaric savages
Goblins enjoy torturing people because they are evil by nature
A beholder's mind is filled with madness and insanity

^ All aspects that are being downplayed and removed from current official d&d.
And while such things can still be mentioned in passing; if the topic starts talking about them specifically threads will be locked as the newer player base feigns a moral outrage with insisting allegory to the real world rather than letting fiction be fiction.
Even now; someone WILL use something from that list to push some real-world stance on moral superiority. Please don't, it'll just derail the thread and get it locked.

@moderators: I'll draw my line here not wanting to actually push any of these topics as ongoing discussions.

Brookshw

2023-12-12, 09:58 PM

I agree that a point like that exists but like... "harder fights" doesn't feel like the throw-up-your-hands-and-whip-out-GURPS rubicon to me.

Fair, it's a flavor thread, I wouldn't expect everyone to have the same desires, or even the same desire for every meal. Also, there's lots of reasons to try out different systems, it's sort of a shame to think some people may only play one ttrpg as their total experience.

Another thing OSR does that I'm not fond of and an glad 5e has minimized is the "narrative free dungeon crawl" where the only real goal is to extract as much treasure as possible.

Don't know about that, no reason there can't be a story around OSR games, it's more about approach I'm my mind.

Psyren

2023-12-12, 10:08 PM

Atranen

2023-12-12, 11:02 PM

So you need those specific attributes applied to playable races in order to have things in the game that are "evil, ugly, and scary?" That just seems like a failure of imagination to me, on top of disregarding a good 80% of the monster manual.

They certainly help!

I think you can arrive at "dangerous combat that is best avoided" just fine in 5e. As far as player expectations vis-à-vis peril and victory, managing those is what session zero is for.

I disagree. Other systems do that better. I wish 5e made it easier. (Also, slipping towards the Oberoni fallacy...)

Psyren

2023-12-12, 11:41 PM

They certainly help!

I don't think they help at all, especially compared to the harm they can do, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I disagree. Other systems do that better. I wish 5e made it easier. (Also, slipping towards the Oberoni fallacy...)

Ah yes, the "fallacy" that states that the DM taking up their intended role in the system is somehow a bad thing.

That other systems do peril better than 5e doesn't mean 5e can't be used that way.

DammitVictor

2023-12-13, 12:09 AM

I'm not going to limit myself to just one, so whichever one of these you like least is my favorite.

Tome of Battle, integrated into all classes and subclasses-- with class and subclass (and maybe race) determining your martial progression and your access to maneuvers.

Make Spelljammer the default setting. With all that entails. Raid the Forgotten Realms subsettings hard for more diverse cultures.

Publish a supplement that's nothing but humanoids and monster races for PCs, give at least the common humanoids and the Spelljammer species the full "PHB PLUS" treatment. Do the rest of the aliens from Star Frontiers, throw in the aliens from Star•Drive, even the bhruu. Especially the bhruu.

Make the levels go up to 36 again. Publish a new Immortals set.

Keep Bounded Accuracy, give martial characters meaningful weapon masteries and skilled characters PF-style Skill Unlocks.

Bring psionics back in a big way. This may or may not mean "psionic classes", but it sure as hell means at least one psionic subclass for every non- or half-caster class, and maybe some for some of the full casters. More psionic feats.

Stop using Proficiency for Saving Throws and fix the saving throw math.

Atranen

2023-12-13, 12:39 AM

That other systems do peril better than 5e doesn't mean 5e can't be used that way.

Nobody is arguing that...

Mastikator

2023-12-14, 05:04 AM

So you need those specific attributes applied to playable races in order to have things in the game that are "evil, ugly, and scary?" That just seems like a failure of imagination to me, on top of disregarding a good 80% of the monster manual.

I think the failure of imagination lies squarely in the hands of the wizards of the coast. Consider this, what are goblins? Violent tribal raiders who are enslaved and worship an evil god.
What are orcs? Violent nomadic raiders. They worship/are enslaved by an evil god.
Gnolls? Violent hungry raiders. They worship/were created by a demon.
Drow? Violent advanced raiders. Enslaved by evil god again.
Ogres? Violent hungry raiders again, but this time bigger. Do they even have a history?
Trolls? Exactly the same as ogres except they have regeneration.
Bugbears? Violent lazy raiders. Except they worship/are enslaved by a different evil god than the goblins.
Lizardfolk? Violent hungry raiders but this time they get no joy from raiding. This time they worship evil dragons.
Githyanki? Violent raiders FROM SPACE! Worship/enslaved by a lich pretending to be an evil god.
Duregar? Violent raiders but this time they're dwarves oooo. Worship the evil dwarven god and were enslaved by mindflayers. They half a point.
Kobolds? Cowardly raiders. Worship dragons. They're just tiny lizardfolk with more feelings.
Hobgoblins? They were once a noble empire building race NAH JUST KIDDING, RAIDERS AGAIN BABY! They're less sneaky more fighty bigger goblins.

Sure, each has great lore, except 90% of the time the lore is the same story: some evil deity or godlike fiend enslaved them and turned them evil, or created them to be evil. Some of them don't even have that. And Zhorn is right, WOTC is changing this bad status quo, and one of the consequences of that is that the poorly written monster of the week evil races are getting less evil. What remains to be seen is if the current WOTC team can write orcs to have something interesting, merely making them less evil isn't more interesting.
IMO the problem with orcs isn't that they're problematic, it's that they're boring.

Batcathat

2023-12-14, 05:23 AM

IMO the problem with orcs isn't that they're problematic, it's that they're boring.

Agreed. I think I've never quite gotten over being disappointed by the Drow. A society of underground, amoral, matriarchal elves? That's a potentially really interesting concept. But most depictions of Drow mainly come of as "MOHAHA! Look how EVIL we are! Why do we do things the way we do? Because it's the most EVIL way, of course!".

Kane0

2023-12-14, 05:29 AM

Agreed. I think I've never quite gotten over being disappointed by the Drow. A society of underground, amoral, matriarchal elves? That's a potentially really interesting concept. But most depictions of Drow mainly come of as "MOHAHA! Look how EVIL we are! Why do we do things the way we do? Because it's the most EVIL way, of course!".

Either that or spiders. Which is a personality quirk, but cant hold everything up on its own.

Mastikator

2023-12-14, 06:08 AM

Either that or spiders. Which is a personality quirk, but cant hold everything up on its own.

Spiders are a fine aesthetic, but it doesn't give the drow something to do. Their story should generate campaign plots. The problem is that so many races have exactly the same story and same plot hook: raiders. Every time it's raiders who steal stuff, kill people and take slaves.

That could be one of the aspects of drow society. I mean imagine this: there are 3 pillars of drow society, the monarchy, the temple and the arcane.
The monarchy is made up of a tyrannical despotic queen, her court are filled by the noble women who support her rule. They are all xenophobic, misandric slavers who seek out new creatures to enslave. Any creature that refuse to be enslaved, refuse to submit to their rule, refuse to be controlled by the queen is a threat to be killed. This is basically the default drow already. The queen is anointed and blessed by Lolth because she furthers Lolth's goal. More on that later. This produces raiders and slavers. Standard D&D quest stuff.

The temple of Lolth is ruled by the high priestess and has equal standing with the queen, the high priestess raison d'etre is Lolth and to further her very specific goal: to kill all elves who refuse Lolth. That's right, they're genocidal and more xenophobic than the monarchy. They tolerate the existence of non-elven slaves within their society, but the precense of a non-drow, non-lolth following elf, either as a slave or not, is not something they are willing to accept. And the high priestess feuds with the queen over this sometimes. The temple is constantly trying to exterminate elves wherever they find them, they seek them out and kill them. This produces drow spies on the surface that seek out elves, and when elves are found, drow controlled murder-armies are sent. Noir/intrigue and war quests are produced by this.

The arcane are made up of male drow, they are firmly under the thumb of the monarchy and not popular in the temple. Their goal is to use magic to give power to the monarchy and sometimes aid the temple. The male wizards are given higher status and respect. They seek out magical artifacts and perform magical experiments on enslaved creatures to turn them into obedient monsters. This generates drow wizard/magebread monster adventuring parties seeking out the very mcguffin the players are after.

Within drow society there are also drow who secretly reject Lolth and want to dethrown the queen and the high priestess. They have to bide their time, hide their secret and covertly undermine the three pillar's efforts. Anyone who is caught being a part of this secret society are turned into a drider. This generates good drow that give the players quests, help them in limited ways. Revolution style D&D quests.

-
Note that I haven't taken anything away from drow, and they're still extremely evil. And I added very little, drow lore already evokes what I just wrote. But because how I spelled out the way their society works, a DM can use it as a set piece for a side quest, or use it for a campaign. And there can be different genres of quests. Do you want standard kill raiders? Or intrigue? Or war? Or revolution? Or a rival adventuring party? Or escort a NPC from point A to point B?

I also gave them a reason to be evil. The queen is evil as a means to an end. The high priestess is a true believer. The wizards are mad scientists. There's no need for a "mohaha I am evil" moment.

Theodoxus

2023-12-14, 09:45 AM

These last few posts have pointed out exactly why disparate races wouldn't last to the point that they've developed technologies above sticks and rocks, and certainly not magic.

At best, I could see two rising out of the primordial race war: the physically strongest, that just dominated and decimated the others, and the most cunning, who hid away from said strongest and let that tribe wipe out the others. It's essentially what happened here on Earth; it just so happened that we were also genetically close enough to interbreed with the last standing - LONG before we developed any tech at all.

The singular advantage the races of D&D have are gods backing them up; presumably even creating them whole cloth when their forces get depleted. I mean, how many DMs delve into the past ages of a monstrous race to figure out a generational ecology; the Adam and Eve of Bugbears, so to speak, and how they propagated, where they grew their tribe, traveled about from environmental pressures, etc. Maybe 1 in a million DM's have done that. Most just create the NPCs they need, in the moment, to let their PCs kill, and never think about the ramifications, pre or post battle.

All this to say, fantasy, completely made up, non-Earth-historical creatures can be anything your imagination wants them to be. WotC, but really, the wholly ignorant masses who are pressuring WotC to make these fantasy, completely made up, non-Earth-historical creatures "less evil" are to blame, full stop.

Stop catering to the lowest denominator that just rail against the dying of the light. Whatever the popular social media post of the day that is comparing any non-human fantasy race to real-life humans needs to die in a fire.

WotC could stop this insanity with a blurb simply stating "Any likeness to any person or persons is wholly coincidental and probably your overactive imagination."

Amnestic

2023-12-14, 09:49 AM

I'd make Eberron the "core" setting instead of FR :)

Stop catering to the lowest denominator

How do you know that the lowest denominator are the people you dislike, and not the people that think like you do?

JackPhoenix

2023-12-14, 09:57 AM

I'd make Eberron the "core" setting instead of FR :)

I wouldn't, because it would inevitably meant dumbing and deflavoring it to turn it into the bland crap WotC wants. I certainly wouldn't keep FR as the core setting, though, but create something actually made to accomodate the system, like Nentir Vale/PoL did with 4e.

How do you know that the lowest denominator are the people you dislike, and not the people that think like you do?

That's simple: he doesn't like the result.

Batcathat

2023-12-14, 10:03 AM

All this to say, fantasy, completely made up, non-Earth-historical creatures can be anything your imagination wants them to be.

Indeed, and it seems like quite a few people prefer their fantasy creatures to be a little more three-dimensional than mustache-twirling cartoon villains whose one goal in life is to be eeeeeevil to the best of their ability.

GooeyChewie

2023-12-14, 10:08 AM

Not the biggest change in the world, but I would add plant-based playable species. Why don’t we have Myconids at the very least?

Amnestic

2023-12-14, 10:13 AM

I wouldn't, because it would inevitably meant dumbing and deflavoring it to turn it into the bland crap WotC wants. I certainly wouldn't keep FR as the core setting, though, but create something actually made to accomodate the system, like Nentir Vale/PoL did with 4e.

That is...a fair assessment. I do just wish there was more Eberron content, but then I suppose that's true for every non-FR setting in 5e.

Zhorn

2023-12-14, 10:22 AM

Indeed, and it seems like quite a few people prefer their fantasy creatures to be a little more three-dimensional than mustache-twirling cartoon villains whose one goal in life is to be eeeeeevil to the best of their ability.
So I don't really want to push into this topic because it will inevitably lead to areas that will get this thread locked. But it is a bit reductionist frame it like that.
For example: the narrative Mastikator's suggested for drow is very capital E evil, but also offers depth for questing and building a narrative. It's not mustache-twirling evil, it is built on cultural behaviours and built up lore.
The Wotc direction as they been treating the property isn't about making more interesting stories, but censoring out those types of evil, or isolating them off as "this is only a small group, where every other example will be all sunshine rainbows and happy fun times"
The case is less of "we can't tell stories unless [x] is only evil" but rather "some of us liked the prior stories using these fictions of evil, and we're not fond of being told we're bad for doing so"

I wouldn't, because it would inevitably meant dumbing and deflavoring it to turn it into the bland crap WotC wants. I certainly wouldn't keep FR as the core setting, though, but create something actually made to accomodate the system, like Nentir Vale/PoL did with 4e.
This is a much preferable outcome. Rather than try and rewrite the existing settings to be wholly different; make a new setting that matches tot he ideals and themes that Wotc wants.
The crowd who wants good drow, civilized orcs, peaceful goblins and sane beholders can have that all in the new setting.
Make that the flagship setting for all future products, have at it.
Those of the community that liked the old lore can stay in the settings we already have without the retcons.

That is...a fair assessment. I do just wish there was more Eberron content, but then I suppose that's true for every non-FR setting in 5e.
I too would like to see that. I also enjoy FR and would like to get more content away from the Sword Coast... Not from the current design team. I want them to, as said above, focus on a new setting suited to the world they want to represent. Leave Eberron and FR to be written by fans who don't want it to be something completely different to how it's been established already.

stoutstien

2023-12-14, 10:36 AM

That is...a fair assessment. I do just wish there was more Eberron content, but then I suppose that's true for every non-FR setting in 5e.

You picked up KB's material yet? He is also updating his blog with tons of material frequently.

TurboGhast

2023-12-14, 10:36 AM

Juice up weak late game martial levels with new, powerful abilities; the first example that comes to mind is giving level 13 Monks the ability to fly in addition to the Tongue of the Sun and Moon. This single fix (albeit one in performed in multiple parts) would solve three problems at once:

Multiclassing becomes more of a tradeoff since you have more high level things to look forward to.
Martial-caster disparity is lessened by the buffs to martials.
The new strength makes it clear that high level martials are more than just a guy at the gym.

Amnestic

2023-12-14, 10:44 AM

You picked up KB's material yet? He is also updating his blog with tons of material frequently.

The latest piece from him I've really looked at was Exploring Eberron (which I thought was pretty good!), not really looked at anything since though.

stoutstien

2023-12-14, 10:54 AM

The latest piece from him I've really looked at was Exploring Eberron (which I thought was pretty good!), not really looked at anything since though.

For the money both ExE and Chronicles are solid buy and his blog is a massive source of material that is 90% free.

Batcathat

2023-12-14, 11:17 AM

So I don't really want to push into this topic because it will inevitably lead to areas that will get this thread locked. But it is a bit reductionist frame it like that.
For example: the narrative Mastikator's suggested for drow is very capital E evil, but also offers depth for questing and building a narrative. It's not mustache-twirling evil, it is built on cultural behaviours and built up lore.
The Wotc direction as they been treating the property isn't about making more interesting stories, but censoring out those types of evil, or isolating them off as "this is only a small group, where every other example will be all sunshine rainbows and happy fun times"
The case is less of "we can't tell stories unless [x] is only evil" but rather "some of us liked the prior stories using these fictions of evil, and we're not fond of being told we're bad for doing so"

Sure, I don't doubt that WotC's motives and my own are quite different, but if it leads to less creatures whose entire personality can be summed up as "is Evil", I don't mind it much since I don't really see much value to having creatures like that (I don't deny that other people do, however). Of course, I find the entire concept of alignments and objective morality in general equal parts unrealistic and uninspiring, so any step away from that is likely to win my approval.

This is a much preferable outcome. Rather than try and rewrite the existing settings to be wholly different; make a new setting that matches tot he ideals and themes that Wotc wants.
The crowd who wants good drow, civilized orcs, peaceful goblins and sane beholders can have that all in the new setting.
Make that the flagship setting for all future products, have at it.
Those of the community that liked the old lore can stay in the settings we already have without the retcons.

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like the practical difference between this and groups who like the old ways just saying "anything published after book X is non-canon" is rather minimal.

Psyren

2023-12-14, 11:20 AM

I think the failure of imagination lies squarely in the hands of the wizards of the coast. Consider this, what are goblins? Violent tribal raiders who are enslaved and worship an evil god.
What are orcs? Violent nomadic raiders. They worship/are enslaved by an evil god.
Gnolls? Violent hungry raiders. They worship/were created by a demon.
Drow? Violent advanced raiders. Enslaved by evil god again.
Ogres? Violent hungry raiders again, but this time bigger. Do they even have a history?
Trolls? Exactly the same as ogres except they have regeneration.
Bugbears? Violent lazy raiders. Except they worship/are enslaved by a different evil god than the goblins.
Lizardfolk? Violent hungry raiders but this time they get no joy from raiding. This time they worship evil dragons.
Githyanki? Violent raiders FROM SPACE! Worship/enslaved by a lich pretending to be an evil god.
Duregar? Violent raiders but this time they're dwarves oooo. Worship the evil dwarven god and were enslaved by mindflayers. They half a point.
Kobolds? Cowardly raiders. Worship dragons. They're just tiny lizardfolk with more feelings.
Hobgoblins? They were once a noble empire building race NAH JUST KIDDING, RAIDERS AGAIN BABY! They're less sneaky more fighty bigger goblins.

Sure, each has great lore, except 90% of the time the lore is the same story: some evil deity or godlike fiend enslaved them and turned them evil, or created them to be evil. Some of them don't even have that. And Zhorn is right, WOTC is changing this bad status quo, and one of the consequences of that is that the poorly written monster of the week evil races are getting less evil. What remains to be seen is if the current WOTC team can write orcs to have something interesting, merely making them less evil isn't more interesting.
IMO the problem with orcs isn't that they're problematic, it's that they're boring.

That staid, one-dimensional status quo you just rattled off for all these races/species is WotC's fault (and TSR's) but that's exactly why they're now trying to change it. Shouldn't that be supported?

Stop catering to the lowest denominator that just rail against the dying of the light. Whatever the popular social media post of the day that is comparing any non-human fantasy race to real-life humans needs to die in a fire.

WotC could stop this insanity with a blurb simply stating "Any likeness to any person or persons is wholly coincidental and probably your overactive imagination."

The irony here is that the folks "railing(sp) against the dying of the light" the most are usually the ones trying to return to the one-dimensional status quo for orcs and drow and goblins and githyanki etc.

I wouldn't, because it would inevitably meant dumbing and deflavoring it to turn it into the bland crap WotC wants. I certainly wouldn't keep FR as the core setting, though, but create something actually made to accomodate the system, like Nentir Vale/PoL did with 4e.

FR isn't the core setting, that would be the Multiverse. If any pre-existing setting could claim that title, it would probably be Planescape, functioning as the multiverse's Backstage.

Mastikator

2023-12-14, 11:45 AM

That staid, one-dimensional status quo you just rattled off for all these races/species is WotC's fault (and TSR's) but that's exactly why they're now trying to change it. Shouldn't that be supported?

Changing ogres to be "big" instead of "fat" isn't a change with any weight behind it. Give ogres an extra dimension like a belief system that they become what they eat and some of them do, at least temporarily and that's why they eat people. That's just an idea off the top of my head. Give them something.

Atranen

2023-12-14, 11:47 AM

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like the practical difference between this and groups who like the old ways just saying "anything published after book X is non-canon" is rather minimal.

Well, it comes down to respecting the canon established by older authors. Imo, it's a very unclassy move to buy someone else's IP, muck around with it until it's unrecognizable, and then sell it as your own. Wizards has a history of not recognizing some of the pioneers here...see Ed Greenwood not being credited in the D&D movie, for example. Sure, they have every right to do it, and no, it's not the biggest issue of the day...

...but, it's indicative of a general lack of respect for the products they are "stewarding".

Plus, practically, I can say "I don't recognize any of this new stuff as canon", but with them selling all these products, it's only so long that I can hold out. I'll have to run AL games in the new canon, players will hear "Forgotten Realms" and expect the new canon, and likewise. If you want to change a settings core assumptions, at a certain point it is just easier to make your own setting.

JackPhoenix

2023-12-14, 11:52 AM

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like the practical difference between this and groups who like the old ways just saying "anything published after book X is non-canon" is rather minimal.

Until you run into people who never read book X and are only familiar with the new retconned version.

FR isn't the core setting, that would be the Multiverse. If any pre-existing setting could claim that title, it would probably be Planescape, functioning as the multiverse's Backstage.

No, "Multiverse" is a stupid, meaningless buzzword that got some traction lately thanks to Marvel movies. It's not a setting. And it's definitely not Planescape. No matter how much will WotC lie and try to push that narrative.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-12-14, 11:57 AM

Changing ogres to be "big" instead of "fat" isn't a change with any weight behind it. Give ogres an extra dimension like a belief system that they become what they eat and some of them do, at least temporarily and that's why they eat people. That's just an idea off the top of my head. Give them something.

Yeah. I don't hold any love for the old lore in particular, but the change they've done is pure surface shoving things under the rug in the laziest, least meaningful, most white-washed (in the old sense) way possible. Don't actually change the parts that were bad, just assign new synonyms that will (temporarily) mollify the Twitterati.

I want them to actually take the lore and settings seriously and try to make something that's coherent, complex (where it needs to be[1]), and doesn't do lazy stereotypes. But that takes too much effort and thinking for modern WotC. Instead they pander while not actually fixing anything broken. Both mechanically and lore-wise.

[1] there's a lot of value in variety. Having some groups--not races, but up to and including cultures and nations--that are just plain evil-because-evil helps. If every villain has a tragic sob story and a reasonable reason, it becomes muddy really fast and hard to justify the slaughter-fests that characterize a lot of D&D campaigns. Having some "yeah, those guys/culture/nation are just jerks who are trying to take over everything for the sake of power and have to be stopped or are just trying to burn down the world out of nihilism/racism/whatever" groups to kick around makes that a lot easier. Especially when those are ideologically-based groups and cultures, not genetically or hereditarily-based groups. Some drow are Llolth-worshipping, evil SOBs who crave subjugation or destruction of anything that isn't them. Some aren't. And there are non-drow in that first category as well (oppressed by the evil drow because that's how they work--if they have power they oppress the evil drow as well!)

1) Until you run into people who never read book X are only familiar with the new retconned version.

2) No, "Multiverse" is a stupid, meaningless buzzword that got some traction lately thanks to Marvel movies. It's not a setting. And it's definitely not Planescape. No matter how much will WotC lie and try to push that narrative.

1) Yeah. I'm really glad I run my own setting exclusively. This only affects me from a "professional pride" stance, not a "I have to deal with this crap in my games" stance.
2) Amen to this. The "multiverse" is just an excuse to be lazy and not actually build real settings that have meat on them.

Psyren

2023-12-14, 12:04 PM

Changing ogres to be "big" instead of "fat" isn't a change with any weight behind it.

hehehe :smallbiggrin:

Give ogres an extra dimension like a belief system that they become what they eat and some of them do, at least temporarily and that's why they eat people. That's just an idea off the top of my head. Give them something.

I think focusing on the playable races first is the right thing for them to do. Monsters being one-dimensional isn't nearly as much of a problem as PCs.

Until you run into people who never read book X and are only familiar with the new retconned version.

The old books still exist. Hell, I was able to read the Illithiad for the first time not too long ago.

No, "Multiverse" is a stupid, meaningless buzzword that got some traction lately thanks to Marvel movies. It's not a setting. And it's definitely not Planescape. No matter how much will WotC lie and try to push that narrative.

You're welcome to write your own D&D if you don't like what they're doing with theirs. (As long as you don't try to publish it, anyway.)

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-14, 12:20 PM

Drow engage in the slave trade
Orcs are culturally barbaric savages
Goblins enjoy torturing people because they are evil by nature
A beholder's mind is filled with madness and insanity

^ All aspects that are being downplayed and removed from current official D&D.
And while such things can still be mentioned in passing; if the topic starts talking about them specifically threads will be locked as the newer player base feigns a moral outrage with insisting allegory to the real world rather than letting fiction be fiction.
Even now; someone WILL use something from that list to push some real-world stance on moral superiority. Please don't, it'll just derail the thread and get it locked. And of course people could not resist ... and beholders in Volo's double down on the insanity bit from the MM.

@moderators: I'll draw my line here not wanting to actually push any of these topics as ongoing discussions.

Don't know about that, no reason there can't be a story around OSR games, it's more about approach I'm my mind. Most of ours developed a story - a few stayed pure dungoen crawos - and all of them involved a quest for something valuable deep in the dungeon: you had to survive the layers above to get to the legendary thing that stories had been told about. And of course, the stuff guarding it was nastier the deeper you went.
Modules were now and again run, but most DMs did their own stuff.

So you need - This is the kind of hostile rhetoric that poisons a conversation which could otherwise be productive. It is an accusation of {something} preceded by the word "so" - I see it all over the internet, it's a virus or a cancer at this point. In this case it was finished off with "you lack imagination." This presentation doesn't sell your point, it obscures it.

Which takes me to the useful part of your post:

I think you can arrive at "dangerous combat that is best avoided" just fine in 5e. Indeed, the DMG could go a bit further in expanding on ways to award XP (Xanathar's added a bit) for non combat accomplishments.
(Though use of milestone or "after x sessions we level up" gets past a lot of that) For old DMs not needed, but for new DMs the DMG ought to go into a bit more detail on how to reward non slaughter XP. It would be a boon to many DMs.

You are correct, though, in that it's doable. I've seen it, done it, and played it.
As an example: in our current Vault of the Drow campaign (we finished the Giants from TftYP at long last, RL is a reall bear) has already included us engaging in parley with some of the drow we have run into. (We killed a bunch of them in the Fire Giant module, though, since their aim was to kill us so that we not disrupt their evil plot to have the giants run amok).
We've begun to understand, as a party, that there are different families and feuds and factions to deal with as we get closewr to their homeland. Our aim is to convince whomever it is down there in the deep dark to stop the major curce/thing that is doing damage to the surface dwellers Steirich. It's a Tier 3/4 campaign, and the DM is conversant enough with the lore, material, and most D&D editions to be able to make this workl. I am enjoying it, when RL allows us all to play.

Tome of Battle, integrated into all classes and subclasses-- with class and subclass (and maybe race) determining your martial progression and your access to maneuvers. Fighters, in particular, ought to get an additional fighting style whenever their proficiency bonus increases. If you read up on the Fighter class in the 5e PHB, that would fit the narrative.

Make Spelljammer the default setting. With all that entails. Raid the Forgotten Realms subsettings hard for more diverse cultures. Hard pass.

Publish a supplement that's nothing but humanoids and monster races for PCs, give at least the common humanoids and the Spelljammer species the full "PHB PLUS" treatment. Do the rest of the aliens from Star Frontiers, throw in the aliens from Star•Drive, even the bhruu. Especially the bhruu.
Better yet, publish Star Frontiers.

Make the levels go up to 36 again. Publish a new Immortals set. I'll pass.

Keep Bounded Accuracy, give martial characters meaningful weapon masteries and skilled characters PF-style Skill Unlocks.
Weapons specialization per AD&D 1.5 might be worth reviving. THe piercer/slasher/crusher feats leave me cold.

Bring psionics back in a big way.
Only for non spell casters, please. I'd rather see a psion class than the Artificer. They had a few good UAs going and never quite got across the finish line.

Stop using Proficiency for Saving Throws and fix the saving throw math. Not a bad idea.

I think the failure of imagination lies squarely in the hands of the wizards of the coast. Consider this , what are goblins? Violent tribal raiders who are enslaved and worship an evil god.
What are orcs? Violent nomadic raiders. They worship/are enslaved by an evil god.
Gnolls? Violent hungry raiders. They worship/were created by a demon.
Drow? Violent advanced raiders. Enslaved by evil god again.
Ogres? Violent hungry raiders again, but this time bigger. Do they even have a history?
Trolls? Exactly the same as ogres except they have regeneration.
Bugbears? Violent lazy raiders. Except they worship/are enslaved by a different evil god than the goblins.
Lizardfolk? Violent hungry raiders but this time they get no joy from raiding. This time they worship evil dragons.
Githyanki? Violent raiders FROM SPACE! Worship/enslaved by a lich pretending to be an evil god.
Duregar? Violent raiders but this time they're dwarves oooo. Worship the evil dwarven god and were enslaved by mindflayers. They half a point.
Kobolds? Cowardly raiders. Worship dragons. They're just tiny lizardfolk with more feelings.
Hobgoblins? They were once a noble empire building race NAH JUST KIDDING, RAIDERS AGAIN BABY! They're less sneaky more fighty bigger goblins.

Sure, each has great lore, except 90% of the time the lore is the same story: some evil deity or godlike fiend enslaved them and turned them evil, or created them to be evil. Some of them don't even have that. But they don't all even need to be in the same game world. Pick one or two and just don't use the rest. Go back to humans as antagonists, and stop it with the 'humans wearing masks and ears' as a tool.

...the poorly written monster of the week evil races are getting less evil. What remains to be seen is if the current WOTC team can write orcs to have something interesting, merely making them less evil isn't more interesting. IMO the problem with orcs isn't that they're problematic, it's that they're boring. Hmm, I can make orcs interesting, but I've got a lot of experience under my belt.

Spiders are a fine aesthetic, but it doesn't give the drow something to do. Their story should generate campaign plots. The problem is that so many races have exactly the same story and same plot hook: raiders. Every time it's raiders who steal stuff, kill people and take slaves. In our Vault of the Drow campaign, they are causing a severe magical blight in an area on the surface, and they had convinced the giants to start raiding and destroying uman settlements on the surface.
I do like your 'three pillars thing, and I may steal it.

I also gave them a reason to be evil. The queen is evil as a means to an end. The high priestess is a true believer. The wizards are mad scientists. There's no need for a "mohaha I am evil" moment. And no need for Drzzt.

The singular advantage the races of D&D have are gods backing them up Which makes evolution moot. And that's fine, we aren't playing Spore.

WotC could stop this insanity with a blurb simply stating "Any likeness to any person or persons is wholly coincidental and probably your overactive imagination." But they lack the guts.

Mastikator

2023-12-14, 12:24 PM

hehehe :smallbiggrin:

I think focusing on the playable races first is the right thing for them to do. Monsters being one-dimensional isn't nearly as much of a problem as PCs.

Fair. I think Eberron did really good with Hobgoblins by leaning into their vibe, basically saying yes the thing that they should be doing is what they are doing. But this is true for many of the non-evil races too, what does the harengon do? If I want to play a dwarf and just make them super dwarfy, make their personality "is a dwarf" it will still have a personality. But if I try that for harengon, what is that? Are we entirely sure it wouldn't just be a halfling with bunny ears?

Psyren

2023-12-14, 12:24 PM

This is the kind of hostile rhetoric that poisons a conversation which could otherwise be productive.

Your opinion is noted.

Indeed, the DMG could go a bit further in expanding on ways to award XP (Xanathar's added a bit) for non combat accomplishments.
(Though use of milestone or "after x sessions we level up" gets past a lot of that) For old DMs not needed, but for new DMs the DMG ought to go into a bit more detail on how to reward non slaughter XP. It would be a boon to many DMs.

Sure but you don't even need that. Milestone leveling already covers "solving the problem however you wish is rewarded."

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-14, 12:35 PM

Fair. I think Eberron did really good with Hobgoblins by leaning into their vibe, basically saying yes the thing that they should be doing is what they are doing. But this is true for many of the non-evil races too, what does the harengon do? If I want to play a dwarf and just make them super dwarfy, make their personality "is a dwarf" it will still have a personality. But if I try that for harengon, what is that? Are we entirely sure it wouldn't just be a halfling with bunny ears? Yes, it's pointless (harengon). It's as bad as the garbage, heck, I think it's a prime cause of the garbage, that was the animal things as celestial PC races/origins/
To improve D&D, get rid of:

Tabaxi: for personal reasons I dislike them (a CJ Cherryh overdose back in the 80's) but I have played and DM'd with them in a campaign.
Kenku: as presented, badly done
Gnomes or halflings: we don't need both, pick one.

But that's likely not going to happen any time soon.

Sure but you don't even need that. Milestone leveling already covers "solving the problem however you wish is rewarded." Please lay off what other people don't need for their D&D.
Some people like to use XP. It's a core thing as presented.
The answer to them isn't "just use milestone leveling" (it's an option, and I've used it) but instead, per this Thread's Topic, it would be an improvement to offer better guidance on XP for non combat stuff in the DMG - particularly for newer DMs, as with my other improvement desire for the DMG.

Atranen

2023-12-14, 12:39 PM

Sure but you don't even need that. Milestone leveling already covers "solving the problem however you wish is rewarded."

But there are many options besides milestone...XP for GP for example. They could describe these.

Psyren

2023-12-14, 12:44 PM

Fair. I think Eberron did really good with Hobgoblins by leaning into their vibe, basically saying yes the thing that they should be doing is what they are doing. But this is true for many of the non-evil races too, what does the harengon do? If I want to play a dwarf and just make them super dwarfy, make their personality "is a dwarf" it will still have a personality. But if I try that for harengon, what is that? Are we entirely sure it wouldn't just be a halfling with bunny ears?

Part of the goal, I would say, is to challenge the notion of a rigid "racial personality" in the first place. Whether you want your Haregon to be a comedic trickster like Bugs Bunny, a scholarly aloof noble mage like Meloku, or a more serious and skilled warrior like Usagi Yojimbo, should be up to you as the player.

Where I think species can help you craft a character is by explaining where the character came from as well as how their natural abilities might color their approach to problem-solving. The Harengon on your team is probably going first in a fight and highly values positioning, but whether they're doing that to keep enemies at a safe distance or leap into the fray is up to you.

Please lay off what other people don't need for their D&D.
Some people like to use XP. It's a core thing as presented.
The answer to them isn't "just use milestone leveling" (it's an option, and I've used it) but instead, per this Thread's Topic, it would be an improvement to offer better guidance on XP for non combat stuff in the DMG - particularly for newer DMs, as with my other improvement desire for the DMG.

I'm just pointing out that other options exist, if XP for leveling presents problems at a given table. That's a true statement. I'm totally fine with XP for noncombat accomplishments, if the DM is willing to put in the work to make those rewards equitable.

But there are many options besides milestone...XP for GP for example. They could describe these.

That too.

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-14, 12:59 PM

I'm just pointing out that other options exist, if XP for leveling presents problems at a given table. That's a true statement. I'm totally fine with XP for noncombat accomplishments, if the DM is willing to put in the work to make those rewards equitable.
The point I was making, within the context of this thread, is that the DMG could use a bit more treatment/help in this specific area: it would improve D&D (by helping DMs) without the burden being on them as much (which you correctly identify as a shortcoming, even if indirectly).

Mastikator

2023-12-14, 01:54 PM

Atranen

2023-12-14, 01:57 PM

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-14, 02:01 PM

That's not what I'm talking about. If I make a harengon from a standard traditional harengon culture, what would their cultural baggage be? If I wanted the cultural baggage to be their a big part of their character.What is the harengon's cultural baggage assuming I'm not making up any cultural baggage but only drawing from the setting lore? It's a silly thing made for a module, at best. (And it fits that module's tone well enough).

Setting lore existing is a dire threat to the power of the player You made me laugh, thank you. :smallsmile:

Theodoxus

2023-12-14, 02:37 PM

Psyren

2023-12-14, 02:44 PM

That's not what I'm talking about. If I make a harengon from a standard traditional harengon culture, what would their cultural baggage be? If I wanted the cultural baggage to be their a big part of their character.
Yes, I can make it up, but if I'm playing a dwarf I don't have to. What is the harengon's cultural baggage assuming I'm not making up any cultural baggage but only drawing from the setting lore?

You don't have to come up with that for Dwarves because they've been around for decades, and their role in each D&D setting they've been a part of has been fleshed out extensively. Harengon are brand new and their presence in other worlds is similarly less known. There is no "cultural baggage" yet. They can show up in any setting that has a connection to the Feywild, which is just about all of them, but that doesn't mean they have things like settlements.

Setting lore existing is a dire threat to the power of the player

What setting is that? The Feywild?

Which dwarf lore are you talking about though? I mean, in the 5E PHB there isn't a whole lot. But if you're pulling from different settings and systems, then sure - but which one?

Exactly.

Ignimortis

2023-12-14, 03:02 PM

You don't have to come up with that for Dwarves because they've been around for decades, and their role in each D&D setting they've been a part of has been fleshed out extensively. Harengon are brand new and their presence in other worlds is similarly less known. There is no "cultural baggage" yet. They can show up in any setting that has a connection to the Feywild, which is just about all of them, but that doesn't mean they have things like settlements.

That sound a lot like the other extreme of the "no, you can't play a charismatic good-natured dwarf because it says here in the book that dwarves are surly and standoffish" argument. Having something as an expected "base" is good for beginners who might not be able to make a highly compelling character from scratch. Fictional stereotypes are not bad, especially when they're not used by stupid people to project something onto real folks. And if harengon are somehow "not for beginners by design", then there's something fishy going on with that design.

Brookshw

2023-12-14, 03:10 PM

Setting lore existing is a dire threat to the power of the playerI will be adding this to my sig shortly.

No, "Multiverse" is a stupid, meaningless buzzword that got some traction lately thanks to Marvel movies. It's not a setting. And it's definitely not Planescape. No matter how much will WotC lie and try to push that narrative.

I'm calling shenanigans. Jargon hating aside, yes, PS and SJ in their original, pre-WoTC form were absolutely settings in their own right with factions, politics, unique (to an extent) races, rules, etc., while also functioning as metasettings to tie all the other settings together; its not like SJ had "Realmspace" and other traditional settings as supplements on a whim, and PS adventures weren't shy about dropping you on Faerun or Oerth, or pulling in DS elves and tossing them out into the planes, etc. If your argument is that under WoTC's stewardship they don't qualify, I can see something in that argument, but I don't think WoTC deserves credit for actually supporting those settings.

Most of ours developed a story - a few stayed pure dungoen crawos - and all of them involved a quest for something valuable deep in the dungeon: you had to survive the layers above to get to the legendary thing that stories had been told about. And of course, the stuff guarding it was nastier the deeper you went.

Yeah, I can't recall any established campaign where a dungeon didn't have some kind of connection to the world or a narrative function, at best it was one shots where they were just there to be raided, which, ya know, one shot.

S
Oh sure, I never said I was in favor of people only playing one - but you and I both know it's true.

Sigh,...yeah, I can't argue that.

The way that the OGL has impacted the industry is always interesting, especially to see all the different things people do using D&D as a base model for alteration, sometimes they come up with kind of boring 'now with lime'* alterations, sometimes its something a bit more interesting like L5R's revamp of martial classes. What really surprises me is how 3PP which have their own systems in their own right still want to cuddle up to 5e, for example, Rocket Age has its own mechanical set which is absolutely fine, but, they also released a '5e' version so people have a choice of which mechanics to use, and can stick with what's likely more familiar. I know that the strategic value of the OGL was to create an 'all roads lead to D&D' approach, but its interesting to see how companies can also use it to also lead away from it.

*Granted, I still picked up Animal Adventures for my kids so they could RP as cats and dogs. Did I need to? No! absolutely not, it would have been no problem to reskin existing races. But they have really cute miniatures

Batcathat

2023-12-14, 03:10 PM

JackPhoenix

2023-12-14, 03:12 PM

Part of the goal, I would say, is to challenge the notion of a rigid "racial personality" in the first place. Whether you want your Haregon to be a comedic trickster like Bugs Bunny, a scholarly aloof noble mage like Meloku, or a more serious and skilled warrior like Usagi Yojimbo, should be up to you as the player.

And having an actual proper writeup for the race prevents that how exactly...? Only an utter moron would think that writting how a typical member of a race behaves somehow forces every character of the race to behave exactly the same way.

Where I think species can help you craft a character is by explaining where the character came from as well as how their natural abilities might color their approach to problem-solving. The Harengon on your team is probably going first in a fight and highly values positioning, but whether they're doing that to keep enemies at a safe distance or leap into the fray is up to you.

That's why WotC removes (or doesn't include in the first place) most fluff about races, and turns racial abilities into bland, inoffensive crap, right? If the (half?)orc racial description says the evil got that created their ancestors keeps urging them to commit violence, they have a racial ability called "aggressive" that is designed to help close in with the enemy, and they have bonuses to strength and constitution, it tells you something, and gives you the choice to either lean into or push against that. If the half-orc racial description is two paragraphs that tells you exactly nothing meaningful, their racial ability is "Adrenaline Rush" that doesn't really tell you anything either, and you have no idea what they are like, they may have as well save the space and don't include the sorry excuse for a race at all.

Boci

2023-12-14, 03:22 PM

That's why WotC removes (or doesn't include in the first place) most fluff about races, and turns racial abilities into bland, inoffensive crap, right? If the (half?)orc racial description says the evil got that created their ancestors keeps urging them to commit violence, they have a racial ability called "aggressive" that is designed to help close in with the enemy, and they have bonuses to strength and constitution, it tells you something, and gives you the choice to either lean into or push against that. If the half-orc racial description is two paragraphs that tells you exactly nothing meaningful, their racial ability is "Adrenaline Rush" that doesn't really tell you anything either, and you have no idea what they are like, they may have as well save the space and don't include the sorry excuse for a race at all.

Whilst fluff/lore is a big reasons to play a race, there's also mechanics and aesthetic. Mechanics for a D&D race are unlikely to be a primary inspiration, they rarely have something scream character concept, but I know myself and some friends have had character concepts that was basically "Cool picture, I want to make them", and if there's no half-orc race, that a good chunk of fantasy pictures that cannot be as directly recreated as characters.

Psyren

2023-12-14, 03:33 PM

That sound a lot like the other extreme of the "no, you can't play a charismatic good-natured dwarf because it says here in the book that dwarves are surly and standoffish" argument. Having something as an expected "base" is good for beginners who might not be able to make a highly compelling character from scratch. Fictional stereotypes are not bad, especially when they're not used by stupid people to project something onto real folks. And if harengon are somehow "not for beginners by design", then there's something fishy going on with that design.

Where did I say "harengon are not for beginners by design?" :smallconfused:

It seems like an obvious solution would be to provide a bunch of different examples of how dwarves (or whatever) can be like. Just like there's not really a standard human personality in real life, it seems odd that there would be a standard dwarf personality in D&D, even if it's possible to deviate from it.

Which they've done and are continuing to do - see SCAG Ch. 3, WGtE Ch. 3, SotDQ Ch.1 (the latter of which came out just a year ago) etc. But I wouldn't expect them to go back and do that for Harengons, Fairies, Satyrs etc. You can play a PC from one of those species without having a rigidly defined culture in the world to draw from, particularly since they're explicitly not from a given world.

JackPhoenix

2023-12-14, 03:40 PM

You can play a PC from one of those species without having a rigidly defined culture in the world to draw from, particularly since they're explicitly not from a given world.

They still come from *somewhere*. Apparently, that somewhere is the character creator.

Boci

2023-12-14, 03:43 PM

They still come from *somewhere*. Apparently, that somewhere is the character creator.

You could ask the DM, depending on their style they may have an answer, or come up with one on the spot and work that into their world notes.

JackPhoenix

2023-12-14, 03:48 PM

You could ask the DM, depending on their style they may have an answer, or come up with one on the spot and work that into their world notes.

Sure, because the DM doesn't have enough things to do without being forced to create an entire culture out of nowhere for some random pointless race due to WotC's laziness and/or incompetence.

Boci

2023-12-14, 03:55 PM

Sure, because the DM doesn't have enough things to do without being forced to create an entire culture out of nowhere for some random pointless race due to WotC's laziness and/or incompetence.

The game isn't played in a vacuum. There's no guarantee the DM would be using an cultural notes given in the book for an single race, and "random pointless" is not a strong argument when talking about half-orcs, which have been in the game for a while and have a lot of stuff they pull from. Lord of the rings, warhammer, warcraft, or you know, previous editions of D&D. The fluff hasn't been retroactively erased from our minds, its just no longer presented as the default.

Brookshw

2023-12-14, 04:00 PM

JackPhoenix

2023-12-14, 04:09 PM

The game isn't played in a vacuum. There's no guarantee the DM would be using an cultural notes given in the book for an single race, and "random pointless" is not a strong argument when talking about half-orcs, which have been in the game for a while and have a lot of stuff they pull from. Lord of the rings, warhammer, warcraft, or you know, previous editions of D&D. The fluff hasn't been retroactively erased from our minds, its just no longer presented as the default.

We're talking about Harengon, not half-orcs. Half-orcs won't exist anymore, anyway.

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-14, 04:12 PM

We're talking about Harengon, not half-orcs. Half-orcs won't exist anymore, anyway.
Nor will half elves. :smallcool:

Boci

2023-12-14, 04:13 PM

We're talking about Harengon, not half-orcs.

Okay, so you feel if Harengon would be better if the were given the older treatment for races in D&D? But what is that exactly. Because looking at tabaxi in Volos, culturally I "tribe folk from a distant homeland", which kinda feels like something most DMs could come up with on the spot.

Half-orcs won't exist anymore, anyway.

Yes they will, just like they are still around in PF2. It will be a human with orc heritage instead of a half-orc, which is the same thing with a different name.

Psyren

2023-12-14, 04:19 PM

They still come from *somewhere*. Apparently, that somewhere is the character creator.

You're actually not far off. That *somewhere* is the Feywild; so your background is likely to be as varied as the motivations of a Feywild creature coming to the Material to begin with. In short, asking what kind of "cultural baggage" a Harengon character has, is the wrong question, and treating them as identical to an established/native species like Dwarves is the wrong approach.

Okay, so you feel if Harengon would be better if the were given the older treatment for races in D&D? But what is that exactly. Because looking at tabaxi in Volos, culturally I "tribe folk from a distant homeland", which kinda feels like something most DMs could come up with on the spot.

Yes they will, just like they are still around in PF2. It will be a human with orc heritage instead of a half-orc, which is the same thing with a different name.

Indeed.

Kane0

2023-12-14, 04:44 PM

Or just cap the Con bonus for HP on any non-Martial at @2. They did that in AD&D. (But that's a bit fiddly).

Just to go back an touch on this.

Level 1 HP: Class die + Con Score
Level 2+ HP: Class die

Rolling for hit die during rests: Class die + con bonus (unchanged)

Blends together the 4e and oldskool hp methods, meaning you start with a bit more at the really low levels (you can survive an orc, and thus more comfortably spend additional time at those low levels rather than getting hurried through them), have more or less the same in Tier 2 (where the meat of gameplay currently is and works the best already) and tapering off at higher levels (where bloat becomes more noticeable). You also still have a good reason to want Con, but it's less of a 'default 14' situation now.

JackPhoenix

2023-12-14, 04:56 PM

Okay, so you feel if Harengon would be better if the were given the older treatment for races in D&D? But what is that exactly. Because looking at tabaxi in Volos, culturally I "tribe folk from a distant homeland", which kinda feels like something most DMs could come up with on the spot.

Excusing crap writting by pointing out another example of crap writting is not as clever retort as you may think it is.

Yes they will, just like they are still around in PF2. It will be a human with orc heritage instead of a half-orc, which is the same thing with a different name.

No, it's not. A cosmetic skin is not a race.

You're actually not far off. That *somewhere* is the Feywild

I am aware of that. However, that's still a non-answer. Unless they just popped into existence the moment you started playing, they should still have something resembling society and culture there. It doesn't matter where they move from there, nobody cares about that.

so your background is likely to be as varied as the motivations of a Feywild creature coming to the Material to begin with

And those motivations are...? I fail to see any suggestions in the Harengon's failure of a description.

In short, asking what kind of "cultural baggage" a Harengon character has, is the wrong question

There are no wrong questions, only wrong answers. Like yours.

and treating them as identical to an established/native species like Dwarves is the wrong approach.

Yes, it is clearly wrong to expect WotC to provide anything resembling a decent background for the race. That would take some effort, and they are incapable of that. It doesn't matter, there will be people defending that anyway.

Atranen

2023-12-14, 05:09 PM

I will be adding this to my sig shortly.

:smalltongue:

What setting is that? The Feywild?

What settings are Harengon available to play in? If "Harengon" is a playable option, there should be lore about them, to frame their background. If I am paying for books that will help me run a setting, I want that kind of information.

The game isn't played in a vacuum. There's no guarantee the DM would be using an cultural notes given in the book for an single race, and "random pointless" is not a strong argument when talking about half-orcs, which have been in the game for a while and have a lot of stuff they pull from. Lord of the rings, warhammer, warcraft, or you know, previous editions of D&D. The fluff hasn't been retroactively erased from our minds, its just no longer presented as the default.

There's no guarantee, but it's much easier to have a default set of assumptions, because then the different people who get together have the same expectations. That is the reason why we have rules at all. There is no guarantee the DM is playing RAW; many (most?) DMs have some house rules. But the rules being codified in a central location makes it easy for them to say "We are running 5e, but..."

In the same way, "We are playing in the FR, but in my FR, elves work like this". Ok, we're up and running.

In contrast to: "There is no lore information about Harengons. I've decided that I want Harengons to look like..." (DM provides a lore dump and the players have to learn it all for a dozen different species).

Just to go back an touch on this.

Level 1 HP: Class die + Con Score
Level 2+ HP: Class die

Rolling for hit die during rests: Class die + con bonus (unchanged)

Blends together the 4e and oldskool hp methods, meaning you start with a bit more at the really low levels (you can survive an orc, and thus more comfortably spend additional time at those low levels rather than getting hurried through them), have more or less the same in Tier 2 (where the meat of gameplay currently is and works the best already) and tapering off at higher levels (where bloat becomes more noticeable). You also still have a good reason to want Con, but it's less of a 'default 14' situation now.

Great rule.

Kane0

2023-12-14, 05:10 PM

There are quite a few races with little to no context. Either make some, or merge their mechanics into other races that do.

I chose the latter for my gameworld.

Boci

2023-12-14, 05:17 PM

Excusing crap writting by pointing out another example of crap writting is not as clever retort as you may think it is.

But its not crap writing, its brief/concise, and those are not the same. How much lore do you want on an exotic race that won't be played too often and when it is at least a few players will skip over to the picture and stats? I've played a tabaxi, and I've played catfolks in PF, and I didn't read the lore on either, because that was generic and these were specific character for specific games and settings.

No, it's not. A cosmetic skin is not a race.

And if orc heritage has no mechanical effect, then sure, that could be a reasonable thing to say, but has that been confirmed? Plus now you seem to be ignoring fluff and lore in favour of mechanics.

There's no guarantee, but it's much easier to have a default set of assumptions, because then the different people who get together have the same expectations. That is the reason why we have rules at all. There is no guarantee the DM is playing RAW; many (most?) DMs have some house rules. But the rules being codified in a central location makes it easy for them to say "We are running 5e, but..."

There is a need and expectation that rules be more consistent between games than fluff and ,ore. I won't blink at 20+ pages of lore for a DM's personal setting, but 20 pages of house rules and I might need to rethink joining.

JackPhoenix

2023-12-14, 05:29 PM

But its not crap writing, its brief/concise, and those are not the same. How much lore do you want on an exotic race that won't be played too often and when it is at least a few players will skip over to the picture and stats? I've played a tabaxi, and I've played catfolks in PF, and I didn't read the lore on either, because that was generic and these were specific character for specific games and settings.

Enough to justify the space wasted by the picture and stats.

And if orc heritage has no mechanical effect, then sure, that could be a reasonable thing to say, but has that been confirmed? Plus now you seem to be ignoring fluff and lore in favour of mechanics.

What fluff and lore? You're playing a human (or orc) who looks like an orc (or human). It's just a cosmetic skin, nothing more. It is, in the best tradition of the current WotC, the laziest solution possible.

Boci

2023-12-14, 05:34 PM

Enough to justify the space wasted by the picture and stats.

Yeah, because that's totally not a subjective amount that will vary wildly from person to person. I feel tabaxi had enough lore, I like them enough to have played them at least once, more times if you count catfolk from PF. You apparently would have preferred a more detailed cultural write up. Its personal preference.

What fluff and lore? You're playing a human (or orc) who looks like an orc (or human). It's just a cosmetic skin, nothing more. It is, in the best tradition of the current WotC, the laziest solution possible.

We don't know this do we? Its possible orc heritage human will have mechanical effects, like it does in PF2.

Zevox

2023-12-14, 05:42 PM

We don't know this do we?
Unless they radically change their plans from the original UA that included it, yes, we do. Their blurb about it back then said:

CHILDREN OF DIFFERENT HUMANOID KINDS
Thanks to the magical workings of the multiverse, Humanoids of different kinds sometimes have children together. For example, folk who have a human parent and an orc or an elf parent are particularly common. Many other combinations are possible.

If you’d like to play the child of such a wondrous pairing, choose two Race options that are Humanoid to represent your parents. Then determine which of those Race options provides your game traits: Size, Speed, and special traits.
You can then mix and match visual characteristics—color, ear shape, and the like—of the two options. For example, if your character has a halfling and a gnome parent, you might choose Halfling for your game traits and then decide that your character has the pointed ears that are characteristic of a gnome.

Finally, determine the average of the two options’ Life Span traits to figure out how long your character might live. For example, a child of a halfling and a gnome has an average life span of 288 years.
So they've essentially reduced Half-Elves/Orcs to a blurb pointing out that refluffing is a thing you can do.

Boci

2023-12-14, 05:48 PM

Unless they radically change their plans from the original UA that included it, yes, we do. Their blurb about it back then said:

So they've essentially reduced Half-Elves/Orcs to a blurb pointing out that refluffing is a thing you can do.

Ah okay, didn't know that. That is indeed disappointing and I hope that gets changed for half-elves and orcs at least. Good general permission to have though.

Atranen

2023-12-14, 06:01 PM

There is a need and expectation that rules be more consistent between games than fluff and ,ore. I won't blink at 20+ pages of lore for a DM's personal setting, but 20 pages of house rules and I might need to rethink joining.

Sure, but "lore can be less consistent between games" does not imply "there should be no standard lore".

Psyren

2023-12-14, 06:04 PM

I am aware of that. However, that's still a non-answer. Unless they just popped into existence the moment you started playing, they should still have something resembling society and culture there.

They could have popped into the material when you started playing. Or as long before that as you want. Or your parents did. The Feywild touches every material plane, usually but not always in its more natural places, so trying to ascribe a single culture to them is silly.

And those motivations are...? I fail to see any suggestions in the Harengon's failure of a description.

Have you tried using a thing called imagination? Fleeing predators, wanting to see a metropolitan society firsthand, being a chosen emissary of a fey entity, falling through a faerie ring completely by accident, seeking treasure or renown, for the lulz...

There are no wrong questions, only wrong answers. Like yours.

Back at you.

What settings are Harengon available to play in? If "Harengon" is a playable option, there should be lore about them, to frame their background. If I am paying for books that will help me run a setting, I want that kind of information.

Given that they're in MPMM - all of them, just like every other race in that book, unless your DM feels otherwise.

Boci

2023-12-14, 06:11 PM

Sure, but "lore can be less consistent between games" does not imply "there should be no standard lore".

How much lore? As I said, there's lore for tabaxi in Volos, its just very minimal. Which is enough for me, but not enough for other people apparently.

Atranen

2023-12-14, 06:14 PM

Given that they're in MPMM - all of them, just like every other race in that book, unless your DM feels otherwise.

That's right, according to WotC they are available everywhere. And the extent of the lore is:

Harengons originated in the Feywild, where they spoke Sylvan and embodied the spirit of freedom and travel. In time, these rabbitfolk hopped into other worlds, bringing the fey realms exuberance with them and learning new languages as they went.

That's the heart of the problem, really. What am I as a DM or a player supposed to do with that? Make it all up myself?

Have you tried using a thing called imagination?

I suppose so. But that is not what I want out of a published product. I don't need WotC to use my imagination, I can do that all on my own. I am not going to spend money on a product that says "do whatever you want".

How much lore? As I said, there's lore for tabaxi in Volos, its just very minimal. Which is enough for me, but not enough for other people apparently.

More than the above :smallannoyed:

Boci

2023-12-14, 06:18 PM

More than the above :smallannoyed:

Glad we're setting specific, reasonable requirement for how much cultural lore a new race should come with.

LibraryOgre

2023-12-14, 06:26 PM

That's the heart of the problem, really. What am I as a DM or a player supposed to do with that? Make it all up myself?

When you get down to it, halflings and elves and dwarves have 90 years of pretty consistent characterizations... anything that doesn't fall into those gets called a deconstruction or whatever. Orcs, goblins, and the like have a bit less; drow have about 40ish.

Harengon are from what, two years ago? Folks don't have a way to play harengon because harengon don't have any stereotypical characters to work from.

Psyren

2023-12-14, 06:27 PM

That's the heart of the problem, really. What am I as a DM or a player supposed to do with that? Make it all up myself?

There's a whole passage in the DMG about the Feywild (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/creating-a-multiverse#Feywild), and no matter which setting your campaign is set in the trappings of it are going to be pretty recognizable. Whether you're playing a Harengon, a Changeling, a Fairy or a Satyr, there should be enough there for you to figure out that character's upbringing or that of their parents. Or ancestors.

There was also that Feywild supplement they released not too long ago whose name I forget.

I suppose so. But that is not what I want out of a published product. I don't need WotC to use my imagination, I can do that all on my own. I am not going to spend money on a product that says "do whatever you want".

And that's fine, no one is saying you have to spend your money on anything. Not everyone is going to want every product they put out.

Atranen

2023-12-14, 06:31 PM

When you get down to it, halflings and elves and dwarves have 90 years of pretty consistent characterizations... anything that doesn't fall into those gets called a deconstruction or whatever. Orcs, goblins, and the like have a bit less; drow have about 40ish.

Harengon are from what, two years ago? Folks don't have a way to play harengon because harengon don't have any stereotypical characters to work from.

Agreed. I would like to see a standard of "any new species has clearly defined lore for how their culture and society manifests in the setting they were introduced to".

Boci

2023-12-14, 06:33 PM

Harengon are from what, two years ago? Folks don't have a way to play harengon because harengon don't have any stereotypical characters to work from.

I imagine the stereotypical way to play a herengon would be "Imagine a rabbit human", much like tabaxi and catfolk will often be played as cat-human, which they basically are.

Psyren

2023-12-14, 06:45 PM

I'd like to think that if they released a new FR sourcebook today, it would include either a section for all the MPMM races and where they fit in, or at the very least namedropped them briefly in certain locations, e.g. Harengon and Satyrs popping up in Cloakwood or Evermeet. Again though, I really don't see that as being necessary. Want to know where your Harengon is from? Pick a place in {setting} that is likely to have Feywild Crossings and stick them there, that's probably what WotC themselves would have done.

Kane0

2023-12-14, 06:48 PM

Glad we're setting specific, reasonable requirement for how much cultural lore a new race should come with.

I like to go with three parts. Physiology is the most basic and important, then you move on to ecology and finally the conceptual stuff like culture and society, beliefs and habits.

It's not so much about a word count for me, I just want enough to understand the needs of a race, how they fit into their environment and how they act/react to others they come into contact with. The stuff that gives them texture and a sense of place.

Of course by writing down what they ARE and DO, you are also defining what they ARE NOT and DO NOT, which is fine. Those things can be changed by the DM for their setting if they want something different, and is easier to do than making it all up themselves. Also we are talking about a purchased product here, so there's that.

Boci

2023-12-14, 07:02 PM

Those things can be changed by the DM for their setting if they want something different, and is easier to do than making it all up themselves.

I'm not too sure I agree with that. People often make assumption about races that they know from the book. One major cities in my setting has elves basically as doc and waterfront hospitality workers, to the point where Baedi elven is consider a polite, informal dialect of the elvish language. But players will sometimes still imagine the elves of Baedun ancient, graceful and high society. Its can be easier to implement the stuff you make up when your players haven't read a book telling them lore they will have to unlearn.

Brookshw

2023-12-14, 07:06 PM

Harengon are from what, two years ago? Folks don't have a way to play harengon because harengon don't have any stereotypical characters to work from.

Ahem (https://youtu.be/LyKI1CHPMNw?si=R79fmkPGcnZ2kLQe). False (https://youtu.be/XEIJpS26aAw?si=XJovdMHq1i_LL4tK)!

I'd like to think that if they released a new FR sourcebook today, it would include either a section for all the MPMM races and where they fit in, or at the very least namedropped them briefly in certain locations, e.g. Harengon and Satyrs popping up in Cloakwood or Evermeet.

D&D has a long tradition of making next to no effort in incorporating new races into its setting, I would be very surprised to see that change in any significant way.

Boci

2023-12-14, 07:07 PM

Ahem (https://youtu.be/LyKI1CHPMNw?si=R79fmkPGcnZ2kLQe). False (https://youtu.be/XEIJpS26aAw?si=XJovdMHq1i_LL4tK)!

Rabbits wielding weapons have been around for quite a while: https://cdn8.openculture.com/2019/03/28210227/rabbit-1.jpg

Brookshw

2023-12-14, 07:10 PM

Rabbits wielding weapons have been around for quite a while: https://cdn8.openculture.com/2019/03/28210227/rabbit-1.jpg

See? Plenty of inspiration to work from for a player :smallwink:

Psyren

2023-12-14, 07:15 PM

D&D has a long tradition of making next to no effort in incorporating new races into its setting, I would be very surprised to see that change in any significant way.

If it doesn't, it's probably because the vast majority of their playerbase don't actually care.

"I can be a rabbit-person, cool! Oh, where am I from? Says here they're from the Feywild, so I guess is there a forest near to where we're starting? Great, thanks!"

Brookshw

2023-12-14, 07:23 PM

If it doesn't, it's probably because the vast majority of their playerbase don't actually care.

"I can be a rabbit-person, cool! Oh, where am I from? Says here they're from the Feywild, so I guess is there a forest near to where we're starting? Great, thanks!"

I suspect it's somewhere between that and the Sysiphisian (sp?) task of constantly updating all settings everytime there's a new race glimmering in a devs eye, coupled with a narrative disconnect to suddenly be throwing in new cities and cultural elements in places that were previously defined.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-12-14, 07:32 PM

I suspect it's somewhere between that and the Sysiphisian (sp?) task of constantly updating all settings everytime there's a new race glimmering in a devs eye, coupled with a narrative disconnect to suddenly be throwing in new cities and cultural elements in places that were previously defined.

Hmm...it's almost like the idea that every race needs to be in every setting has negative effects on setting consistency, lore, workload, etc. Who knew.

Not blue because it's so very true. Individual settings should explicitly define the allowable races, with anything beyond that being DM fiat (which is always an option), with the DM explicitly on the hook to come up with how they fit. And should provide lore for those races. Which can utterly contradict anything in core or in other settings. Setting > core wherever they're in conflict, because settings are more specific than core.

Of course, this militates for having the bare minimum number of races in core. Only those that are pretty much guaranteed to exist in some more or less similar form in most, if not all settings. Or at least explicitly separating the truly core races from the less common ones.

Psyren

2023-12-14, 07:34 PM

I suspect it's somewhere between that and the Sysiphisian (sp?) task of constantly updating all settings everytime there's a new race glimmering in a devs eye, coupled with a narrative disconnect to suddenly be throwing in new cities and cultural elements in places that were previously defined.

The word you're thinking of is Sisyphean (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Sisyphean) :smallsmile:

And while I agree with you that that would be undesirable - again, there's no reason most of these new races even need "cities and cultural elements in previously defined places" to begin with. A small colony of Harengon or Satyrs etc wouldn't even merit a blip in the High Forest, or the Evermoors, or Chult.

Hmm...it's almost like the idea that every race needs to be in every setting has negative effects on setting consistency, lore, workload, etc. Who knew.

Not blue because it's so very true.

It's not, as per above. A place like Faerun (for example) can accommodate all kinds of playable races that people didn't always know about. Hell, just look at Dragonborn and Tieflings.

Brookshw

2023-12-14, 08:33 PM

Hmm...it's almost like the idea that every race needs to be in every setting has negative effects on setting consistency, lore, workload, etc. Who knew.

Well, no one knew. As you properly acknowledged, it's a table level issue, some will be bothered by it, for other's it's not a blip. Their current approach of offering some mild suggestions of how to add things while leaving it to the table to color in details seems like the most practical in my mind.

The word you're thinking of is Sisyphean (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Sisyphean) :smallsmile: Ah, thanks! :smallbiggrin:

And while I agree with you that that would be undesirable - again, there's no reason most of these new races even need "cities and cultural elements in previously defined places" to begin with. A small colony of Harengon or Satyrs etc wouldn't even merit a blip in the High Forest, or the Evermoors, or Chult.

I get where you're coming from and agree there can be ways to make it work, though as I mentioned to Phoenix I feel it's a table level issue. Like, 'hey, I'm from this little known colony off in the corner' works in a lot of cases, but sometimes the follow ups then become 'okay, but how do you maintain a stable population? What are your relations with the neighbors like? How do you manage to protect yourselves in that dangerous area, or get enough food for your community', and so on. All of which in turn are solve-able matters, it just starts to build out sometimes.

Ignimortis

2023-12-15, 01:42 AM

It seems like an obvious solution would be to provide a bunch of different examples of how dwarves (or whatever) can be like. Just like there's not really a standard human personality in real life, it seems odd that there would be a standard dwarf personality in D&D, even if it's possible to deviate from it.
Since humanity is our baseline, unless we assume that all intelligent races are, mentally, just humans, and think like humans, and aren't affected in any mental way by their unique biology and living conditions, I'd expect other races to at least be "humans, but different in these ways".

Where did I say "harengon are not for beginners by design?" :smallconfused:
You did not. I must have preempted a common argument I've seen in discussions like these. I apologize.

Batcathat

2023-12-15, 02:15 AM

Since humanity is our baseline, unless we assume that all intelligent races are, mentally, just humans, and think like humans, and aren't affected in any mental way by their unique biology and living conditions, I'd expect other races to at least be "humans, but different in these ways".

Sure, the other races should be different than humans but – based on the one example we have in real life – they would likely still have a wide array of possible personalities rather than some sort of general species personality with occasional exceptions.

LibraryOgre

2023-12-15, 11:02 AM

Ahem (https://youtu.be/LyKI1CHPMNw?si=R79fmkPGcnZ2kLQe). False (https://youtu.be/XEIJpS26aAw?si=XJovdMHq1i_LL4tK)!

I stand corrected. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZsY2i0Cz_k&t=1s)

Brookshw

2023-12-15, 11:26 AM

I stand corrected. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZsY2i0Cz_k&t=1s)

You shouldn't overlook classics (https://youtu.be/mbOrjtaqcZA?si=zIo5-gBZW5UwqnOS)

Your move Mark

Psyren

2023-12-15, 11:50 AM

You did not. I must have preempted a common argument I've seen in discussions like these. I apologize.

No worries!

Since humanity is our baseline, unless we assume that all intelligent races are, mentally, just humans, and think like humans, and aren't affected in any mental way by their unique biology and living conditions, I'd expect other races to at least be "humans, but different in these ways".

The other benefit to anthropomorphic races is that we can use the associated animals as inspiration too - just like WotC did for their racial traits. Rabbits tend to be alert, skittish, curious, silly/whimsical and... are known for being quite amorous. Plenty there to work with for a character even without a formal Harengon society on every world they could show up in. (I mean, their name is literally a pun, of course they're whimsical.)

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-15, 03:37 PM

Just to go back an touch on this.

Level 1 HP: Class die + Con Score
Level 2+ HP: Class die

Rolling for hit die during rests: Class die + con bonus (unchanged)

Blends together the 4e and oldskool hp methods, meaning you start with a bit more at the really low levels (you can survive an orc, and thus more comfortably spend additional time at those low levels rather than getting hurried through them), have more or less the same in Tier 2 (where the meat of gameplay currently is and works the best already) and tapering off at higher levels (where bloat becomes more noticeable). You also still have a good reason to want Con, but it's less of a 'default 14' situation now.
Workable.

What settings are Harengon available to play in?
None. It was an add on to a module. WotC mailed it in.

There are quite a few races with little to no context. Either make some, or merge their mechanics into other races that do. Making context is more work, but (like the Warforged in Eberron) worth doing if you want to do it right.

When you get down to it, halflings and elves and dwarves have 90 years of pretty consistent characterizations... anything that doesn't fall into those gets called a deconstruction or whatever. Orcs, goblins, and the like have a bit less; drow have about 40ish.

Harengon are from what, two years ago? Folks don't have a way to play harengon because harengon don't have any stereotypical characters to work from. +1.
No. Watership Down doesn't count.

Psyren

2023-12-15, 04:39 PM

None. It was an add on to a module.

Followed by being reprinted outside that module.

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-15, 05:10 PM

Followed by being reprinted outside that module.
In the book of hot garbage?

Psyren

2023-12-15, 08:31 PM

In the book of hot garbage?

I don't own a book by that name, so you tell me.

Kane0

2023-12-16, 05:36 AM

Bouncing Lightning Bolt

tokek

2023-12-16, 06:00 AM

Harengon are from what, two years ago? Folks don't have a way to play harengon because harengon don't have any stereotypical characters to work from.

White Rabbit (Alice in Wonderland)
Br'er Rabbit stories
Peter Rabbit
etc

Anthropomorphic rabbits/hares have a deep and rich history in fantastical storytelling and myth. Which is why they were so appropriate to put into a feywild supplement.

More modern interpretations
Bugs Bunny
Roger Rabbit
etc

I'm not sure D&D needs nearly as many races as it has but there is nothing wrong with one of those races being based on what is a pretty global archetype (it covers African, Native American and European traditions at the very least)

Pooky the Imp

2023-12-16, 11:27 AM

White Rabbit (Alice in Wonderland)
Br'er Rabbit stories
Peter Rabbit
etc

Anthropomorphic rabbits/hares have a deep and rich history in fantastical storytelling and myth. Which is why they were so appropriate to put into a feywild supplement.

More modern interpretations
Bugs Bunny
Roger Rabbit
etc

I'm not sure D&D needs nearly as many races as it has but there is nothing wrong with one of those races being based on what is a pretty global archetype (it covers African, Native American and European traditions at the very least)

The problem is that virtually all of these (I can't speak for Br'er Rabbit stories as I know nothing about them) are loners. That's not necessarily a bad thing personality-wise, but it means that you never get a sense of rabbit culture.

The closest would be Peter Rabbit, but even then the culture is basically just human culture, except that they're rabbit-sized and trying to live in a human-sized world - something that doesn't work with Harengon. :smallconfused:

Regardless, I think it might help to reframe things a bit. Forget Harengon player characters for a moment - imagine instead that the player characters walk into an average Harengon settlement. What would they find?

Would they see an organised town with sturdy walls and stone architecture? Would they see a simpler settlement of mud-huts? Or perhaps a group of wagons where the Harengon have set up camp for a while, before they inevitably move on? Or maybe a giant, underground rabbit-warren?

Who would be leading the settlement? A strong warrior who is also the town's champion? A noble-born Harengon dressed in jewels and finery? An aged rabbit who can barely hop but who is valued for years of wisdom? A priest? A sorcerer? An expert miner? An adventurer with tales of exploits from strange and foreign lands?

How do they interact with neighbouring settlements? Would they seek to trade and co-operate? Would they be quick to go to war for territory and resources? Would they simply try to avoid interacting at all?

What would be their first instinct on seeing the PCs? Would they welcome them? Allow them in but treat them with suspicion? Attempt to attack or imprison them?

What do they value? What would irk them? Are there any notable cultural/religious practices the players might observe?

etc.

These things are useful to a DM in terms of defining the race and building it into his world (even if he decides to tweak certain aspects). They are also useful for player characters who might want some more inspiration for where their character is coming from.

For example, would a 'loner' Harengon who goes off on an adventure be something of an outcast who abandoned anotherwise largely close-knit community, or would it be common for young Harengons to undertake solo journeys and travel far from home as a ritual to achieve personal growth? Would a Harengon who develops sorcerous powers be treated with respect? Fear? Indifference? etc.

Theodoxus

2023-12-16, 11:40 AM

Yes to all of that.

The nice thing about not having a WotC pre-determined culture is the DM (if so inspired) or the player, or ideally both in collaboration, can make that determination for themselves, for their world.

And since basically everything you described is for the most part, already asked in the DMG when setting up a background for a town, it would be exceedingly easy to create a template of questions like you propose for every PC race available to play. So, instead of every dwarf being "solid and enduring like the mountains they love, weathering the passage of centuries with stoic endurance and little change. They respect the traditions of their clans, tracing their ancestry back to the founding of their most ancient strongholds in the youth of the world, and don't abandon those traditions lightly. Part of those traditions is devotion to the gods of the dwarves, who uphold the dwarven ideals of industrious labor, skill in battle, and devotion to the forge." as described in the PHB, DMs and dwarven players can determine for themselves what their specific type of dwarves are like.

(And given the move away from static attribute bonuses to Constitution, the 'solid and enduring like the mountains' makes less sense anyway. Some dwarves will be anemic. Others will eschew the stoic and embrace gregariousness.)

LibraryOgre

2023-12-16, 11:45 AM

Anthropomorphic rabbits/hares have a deep and rich history in fantastical storytelling and myth. Which is why they were so appropriate to put into a feywild supplement.

Joking aside, this is a key point to me: While there's a lot of types of anthropomorphic rabbits (heck, I even wrote a game where you can play them (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/461853/Mutant-Dawn?affiliate_id=315505)), they are not harengon. They are not an established stereotype of a harengon, just an anthropomorphic rabbit character. You could play harengon based on Watership Down; you could play them based on Usagi Yojimbo. But the harengon, as a species, don't have the degree of cultural weight that is carried by "dwarf". There is no type for harengon to play against, because they don't have a stereotype, just a lot of examples of anthropomorphic rabbit, unassociated with harengon.

Boci

2023-12-16, 12:57 PM

There is no type for harengon to play against, because they don't have a stereotype, just a lot of examples of anthropomorphic rabbit, unassociated with harengon.

Sure you do. Play in a way that doesn't seem rabbit or fey like. Fey are not new to D&D or fantasy.

But the harengon, as a species, don't have the degree of cultural weight that is carried by "dwarf".

Whilst this is true, its weird to specify. Not even gnomes have the cultural weight of dwarves or elves, and they're core. Harengon are hardly unique in being a splat book race that has less developed culture than fantasy dwarves.

Psyren

2023-12-16, 01:49 PM

Joking aside, this is a key point to me: While there's a lot of types of anthropomorphic rabbits (heck, I even wrote a game where you can play them (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/461853/Mutant-Dawn?affiliate_id=315505)), they are not harengon. They are not an established stereotype of a harengon, just an anthropomorphic rabbit character. You could play harengon based on Watership Down; you could play them based on Usagi Yojimbo. But the harengon, as a species, don't have the degree of cultural weight that is carried by "dwarf". There is no type for harengon to play against, because they don't have a stereotype, just a lot of examples of anthropomorphic rabbit, unassociated with harengon.

Sure you do. Play in a way that doesn't seem rabbit or fey like. Fey are not new to D&D or fantasy.

Whilst this is true, its weird to specify. Not even gnomes have the cultural weight of dwarves or elves, and they're core. Harengon are hardly unique in being a splat book race that has less developed culture than fantasy dwarves.

I don't think you two are actually that far apart or in true disagreement. They're a species that can explicitly show up anywhere in any world where there's a fey crossing, so the idea that they should have a singular stereotypical species-wide culture in a given setting the same way a species like dwarves do is indeed silly. But Boci is right too; just because they don't have a long and storied history like dwarves do doesn't mean a harengon player has absolutely nothing to go off of either. Rabbit personality traits are easy to imagine, and failing those, the more general baseline of "whimsical, PC-sized feywild creature who takes up adventuring" is there too.

In other words, if you're really at a loss, you have a number of options: either make them act how you think a rabbit person would act, pick a fictional rabbit person to base them off, or just align them with how some other feywild inhabitant would approach adventuring, or even mix all three together. No matter which you go with, you're probably not going to be wildly at odds with whatever the designers had in mind; "problem" solved.

Pooky the Imp

2023-12-16, 05:32 PM

Yes to all of that.

The nice thing about not having a WotC pre-determined culture is the DM (if so inspired) or the player, or ideally both in collaboration, can make that determination for themselves, for their world.

No, a nice thing is when WotC actually bothers to write decent lore. That was I don't have to put in the same amount of work for an official race as I would for a homebrew one.

Psyren

2023-12-16, 08:07 PM

No, a nice thing is when WotC actually bothers to write decent lore. That was I don't have to put in the same amount of work for an official race as I would for a homebrew one.

Well I'd rather have the race first, and then they can figure out whether and how they live in Cormyr or Chult or Evermeet etc later + whatever changes the Eberron and Ravenloft and Ravnica versions need as well, than hold them hostage until they can have an 8-page wiki entry ready to go. If you don't feel like putting any of the work in yourself, nobody is forcing you.

Atranen

2023-12-16, 09:12 PM

Well I'd rather have the race first, and then they can figure out whether and how they live in Cormyr or Chult or Evermeet etc later + whatever changes the Eberron and Ravenloft and Ravnica versions need as well, than hold them hostage until they can have an 8-page wiki entry ready to go. If you don't feel like putting any of the work in yourself, nobody is forcing you.

Think of all those poor species, held hostage in a closet somewhere because they can't get enough lore :smalltongue:

Psyren

2023-12-16, 09:25 PM

Think of all those poor species, held hostage in a closet somewhere because they can't get enough lore :smalltongue:

Right? Barbaric!

137beth

2023-12-18, 12:33 PM

Right? Barbaric!

New house rule: All races WITH lore are only allowed to be Barbarians until they stop holding the other races hostage.

Psyren

2023-12-18, 12:43 PM

New house rule: All races WITH lore are only allowed to be Barbarians until they stop holding the other races hostage.

Nothing is being held hostage now though, that's the point :smallamused: If WotC were only allowed to print a new race once it had unique lore for every major setting, that would be the issue. (And we'd have a lot fewer races in 5e.)

JackPhoenix

2023-12-18, 01:02 PM

Nothing is being held hostage now though, that's the point :smallamused: If WotC were only allowed to print a new race once it had unique lore for every major setting, that would be the issue. (And we'd have a lot fewer races in 5e.)

You're the only one repeating that nonsense about "unique lore for every major setting". Does the dragonborn (because dragonborn are another new race without the long history dwarves or elves have, so you can't use the same argument with them) entry in PHB have unique lore for every major setting? Of course not. But it DOES have lore. There isn't much of it, about half a page, but it's still a lot better than the two short paragraphs you're defending so vehemently. WotC is lazy (and incompetent), and you and people like you are the reason why they can get away with that laziness.

And no, even being "allowed to print a new race once it had unique lore for every major setting" wouldn't be an issue, unless you're a lazy writter who expects to be paid for subpar work. It would be a boon for the people paying for WotC's products.

Atranen

2023-12-18, 01:15 PM

Nothing is being held hostage now though, that's the point :smallamused: If WotC were only allowed to print a new race once it had unique lore for every major setting, that would be the issue. (And we'd have a lot fewer races in 5e.)

That's, uh, not the standard that people were suggesting. To pull my own statement:

Agreed. I would like to see a standard of "any new species has clearly defined lore for how their culture and society manifests in the setting they were introduced to".

Psyren

2023-12-18, 01:19 PM

You're the only one repeating that nonsense about "unique lore for every major setting". Does the dragonborn (because dragonborn are another new race without the long history dwarves or elves have, so you can't use the same argument with them) entry in PHB have unique lore for every major setting? Of course not. But it DOES have lore. There isn't much of it, about half a page, but it's still a lot better than the two short paragraphs you're defending so vehemently. WotC is lazy (and incompetent), and you and people like you are the reason why they can get away with that laziness.

I'm flattered that you think my opinions have any impact whatsoever on WotC's publishing practices. If that's truly the case, pardon me while I revel in my unchecked power. *cackles maniacally from a nearby parapet*

Regarding Dragonborn, they do have unique entries in WGtE (pg 83), SCAG (pg 112), and even mentions in SotDQ and VRGtR. That's what I was referring to. You're right that core races should get a detailed write-up in the PHB, but that's because the PHB is designed for players for whom the very concept of a non-human race might be completely new.

And no, even being "allowed to print a new race once it had unique lore for every major setting" wouldn't be an issue, unless you're a lazy writter who expects to be paid for subpar work. It would be a boon for the people paying for WotC's products.

I would have no problem living in the ideal world you seem to think they do. Until that day, I'll gladly accept species with planar/multiversal origins like the Harengon, Plasmoid and Genasi.

EDIT:

That's, uh, not the standard that people were suggesting. To pull my own statement:

I would like to see a standard of "any new species has clearly defined lore for how their culture and society manifests in the setting they were introduced to".

That's not a realistic baseline for all 50+ races that could feasibly appear in a given setting. I'm in favor of them doing as many of those as possible, but not "any new species."

JackPhoenix

2023-12-18, 01:26 PM

I'm flattered that you think my opinions have any impact whatsoever on WotC's publishing practices.

Of course it does. You (and people like you) are paying for stupid lazy crap, WotC sees it can get away with selling stupid lazy crap, and thus continues to do so and will until people stop giving them money.

Atranen

2023-12-18, 01:29 PM

That's not a realistic baseline for all 50+ races that could feasibly appear in a given setting. I'm in favor of them doing as many of those as possible, but not "any new species."

Then 50+ species is too many for a given setting.

Batcathat

2023-12-18, 01:30 PM

Of course it does. You (and people like you) are paying for stupid lazy crap, WotC sees it can get away with selling stupid lazy crap, and thus continues to do so and will until people stop giving them money.

It must be neat having your personal opinion be an objective fact like that.

Psyren

2023-12-18, 01:37 PM

Of course it does. You (and people like you) are paying for stupid lazy crap, WotC sees it can get away with selling stupid lazy crap, and thus continues to do so and will until people stop giving them money.

Whereas I think your expectations for these products are substantially out of step with publishing realities. There likely isn't much else we can say to one another on this subject.

GooeyChewie

2023-12-18, 02:05 PM

Psyren

2023-12-18, 02:12 PM

Half a page per species in the book in which that species originally appears is not out of step with publishing realities.

For a core race in the core book that serves as an onramp to the hobby as a whole, certainly not. For all 50+ of them though, I'd push back on that.

Keltest

2023-12-18, 02:17 PM

For a core race in the core book that serves as an onramp to the hobby as a whole, certainly not. For all 50+ of them though, I'd push back on that.

If the race isnt interesting enough to warrant that much lore, why are you including it in the book then? Giving this lore is literally the point of the setting book.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-12-18, 02:21 PM

If the race isnt interesting enough to warrant that much lore, why are you including it in the book then? Giving this lore is literally the point of the setting book.

I strongly agree. Race lore is the single most important thing you can give in a setting book, because all the other important setting stuff like cultures, politics, nations, etc has at least some dependence on race.

And for the races that don't have their own particular cultures, nations, etc, you can mostly get away with a single "<race> is generally found in <cultures> and acts like other members of those cultures" sentence. But I'd say that if they're at that level, if there's nothing but a mechanical box, it's not worth having a separate race at all and you should just disallow them from that setting or say "use <X> race with <Y> race's stats."

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-18, 02:23 PM

Joking aside, this is a key point to me: While there's a lot of types of anthropomorphic rabbits (heck, I even wrote a game where you can play them (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/461853/Mutant-Dawn?affiliate_id=315505)), they are not harengon. They are not an established stereotype of a harengon, just an anthropomorphic rabbit character. You could play harengon based on Watership Down; you could play them based on Usagi Yojimbo. But the harengon, as a species, don't have the degree of cultural weight that is carried by "dwarf". There is no type for harengon to play against, because they don't have a stereotype, just a lot of examples of anthropomorphic rabbit, unassociated with harengon. Thanks for saying what I was thinking better than I could have.

Think of all those poor species, held hostage in a closet somewhere because they can't get enough lore :smalltongue: There are too many already.

Regarding Dragonborn, they do have unique entries in WGtE (pg 83), SCAG (pg 112), and even mentions in SotDQ and VRGtR. That's what I was referring to. You're right that core races should get a detailed write-up in the PHB, but that's because the PHB is designed for players for whom the very concept of a non-human race might be completely new. As to your last sentence: agree on part one, disagree on part two. The devs have been mailing it in since about Volo's - that's the problem. (The original MToF gave us some detailed treatment of some iconic D&D races/NPCs which was useful. It also had its share of bloat...)

I'll gladly accept species with planar/multiversal origins like the Harengon, Plasmoid and Genasi. And I only find Genasi, of those three, to fit the basics of D&D metaphysics, which is based on A/E/F/W or A/E/F/W/S depending on which edition and which supplement.

Will not repost my rant about Genasi needing to be core ....

Then 50+ species is too many for a given setting. QFT.

Atranen

2023-12-18, 02:34 PM

For a core race in the core book that serves as an onramp to the hobby as a whole, certainly not. For all 50+ of them though, I'd push back on that.

I strongly agree. Race lore is the single most important thing you can give in a setting book, because all the other important setting stuff like cultures, politics, nations, etc has at least some dependence on race.

And for the races that don't have their own particular cultures, nations, etc, you can mostly get away with a single "<race> is generally found in <cultures> and acts like other members of those cultures" sentence. But I'd say that if they're at that level, if there's nothing but a mechanical box, it's not worth having a separate race at all and you should just disallow them from that setting or say "use <X> race with <Y> race's stats."

Let me expand on this idea a bit: Psyren, you are interested in there being mechanical information in the absence of lore, because that gives players more options. But, PhoenixPhyre's idea is a good one: if it is so important to a player to be a rabbit-person (or whatever), why can't they repurpose an existing species? Or, what do we think about a book including a table for 'non-standard species', which says:

Your fantastical world may include species beyond those in this book. Talk with your DM about what the species looks like and how it exists in the world. Then, build traits for a custom species by choosing from this table. You get 10 points, different abilities cost different points. You can work with your DM to define new traits.

That gives players the flexibility they want, and DMs a veto if they want.

This gets more into another complaint I have with 5e: hostility towards the DM. We all know there is a DM shortage in 5e, and imo this is part of why. The publisher gets to write all of this spcies with a modicum of support, and gets to defend that with "we, the people whose job it is to write lore, find it too difficult to do for all these species". But then, if a player shows up at a table, they can pick any of the 50+ species, and it's on the DM to work them into the world. Player flexibility shouldn't come with an ever-growing DM workload.

Half a page per species in the book in which that species originally appears is not out of step with publishing realities.

Yeah. Loads of other companies do it.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-12-18, 02:37 PM

Yeah. Loads of other companies do it.

But that would impede them from splatting out loads of races on a whim! How dare you!

More seriously, one thing here is that races are easy if you don't have to care about consistency with settings or integrating them anywhere. But races are also popular. So the business side doesn't want them impeded. Same with spells--writing new spells is easy because they're disconnected from the rest of the system in a way that makes them atomic. So we get a flood of badly-considered, half-baked spells and many fewer feats, class features, etc. Fewer of the things that take more effort to make even a half-hearted job at.

GooeyChewie

2023-12-18, 02:44 PM

For a core race in the core book that serves as an onramp to the hobby as a whole, certainly not. For all 50+ of them though, I'd push back on that.

Any given book only introduces at most a handful of new species. To get to 50+ species, we’re talking 10+ books, minimum. Even if we assume 5 new species per book and every book at 192 pages, we’re talking 25 pages of species lore out of 1920 pages of books, or 1.3% of the page count. In reality it would be lower as some books are 256 pages and not all books have 5 new species (or even any new species). It’s not nothing, but it’s little enough to be a matter of what WotC prioritizes rather than a matter of publishing realities.

Psyren

2023-12-18, 02:45 PM

If the race isnt interesting enough to warrant that much lore, why are you including it in the book then? Giving this lore is literally the point of the setting book.

I reject the "isn't interesting" framing (we'll get back to that), but two reasons:

1) The only races setting books need entries for the most typical races in that setting. Take SCAG for example - as we clearly saw via media like Baldur's Gate 3 and Neverwinter Nights 2, Gith are very present in FR and are a rich source of story hooks in that world, but the vast majority of peoples and stories there nevertheless view them as little more than feverish myths. Indeed, it wasn't until years after SCAG that Gith got the beginnings of such fleshing out. Which leads to point #2:

2) Books are point in time and can't rewrite history. If SCAG comes out in 2015 but they come up with some cool race years later that they want people to use in their FR games, they can't go back in time and put that race into SCAG even if they want to, but it might not make economic sense to do SCAG2 either. In those cases, "Hey, this race can show up in any setting that has a Feywild connection" or "Hey, this race is all over the Astral and can enter the Wildspace of {insert worlds} as a result" is officially Good Enough.

Or for you, it might not be Good Enough, and that's perfectly okay, don't buy their book then.

JackPhoenix

2023-12-18, 03:15 PM

Whereas I think your expectations for these products are substantially out of step with publishing realities. There likely isn't much else we can say to one another on this subject.

It's funny, because the same argument was made by some video game developer when Baldur's Gate 3 was released. A quality product with clear effort put in by the developers is an anomaly, not realistic expectation. The reality is that corporations will put in as little effort as they can while still getting paid. And when the sales drop, they'll blame the customers.

Atranen

2023-12-18, 03:27 PM

2) Books are point in time and can't rewrite history. If SCAG comes out in 2015 but they come up with some cool race years later that they want people to use in their FR games, they can't go back in time and put that race into SCAG even if they want to, but it might not make economic sense to do SCAG2 either. In those cases, "Hey, this race can show up in any setting that has a Feywild connection" or "Hey, this race is all over the Astral and can enter the Wildspace of {insert worlds} as a result" is officially Good Enough.

Perhaps they should sell books as a subscription service, so they can easily update the pdfs and introduce additional lore information

It is easy to see how one bad idea leads to another.

KorvinStarmast

2023-12-18, 03:28 PM

Psyren

2023-12-18, 03:32 PM

Perhaps they should sell books as a subscription service, so they can easily update the pdfs and introduce additional lore information

It is easy to see how one bad idea leads to another.

Errataing out a few dated portrayals from an existing race is one thing, dropping entirely new entries into an existing book is another. But I'm glad you agree it would be a bad idea :smalltongue:

Keltest

2023-12-18, 03:34 PM

1) The only races setting books need entries for the most typical races in that setting. Take SCAG for example - as we clearly saw via media like Baldur's Gate 3 and Neverwinter Nights 2, Gith are very present in FR and are a rich source of story hooks in that world, but the vast majority of peoples and stories there nevertheless view them as little more than feverish myths. Indeed, it wasn't until years after SCAG that Gith got the beginnings of such fleshing out. Which leads to point #2:

That sounds like they poorly prioritized their product then. This is a problem that could be avoided if they just released a better product the first time.

2) Books are point in time and can't rewrite history. If SCAG comes out in 2015 but they come up with some cool race years later that they want people to use in their FR games, they can't go back in time and put that race into SCAG even if they want to, but it might not make economic sense to do SCAG2 either. In those cases, "Hey, this race can show up in any setting that has a Feywild connection" or "Hey, this race is all over the Astral and can enter the Wildspace of {insert worlds} as a result" is officially Good Enough.

Or for you, it might not be Good Enough, and that's perfectly okay, don't buy their book then.

They don't need to re-write history, they just need to put out a complete product. "They live in the feywild, make it up yourself." is not a complete product.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-12-18, 03:45 PM

They don't need to re-write history, they just need to put out a complete product. "They live in the feywild, make it up yourself." is not a complete product.

Not only that, but this is trivially solved.

1. Setting books are closed--they declare what races they officially support and provide lore for those ones. And then have a "other races may exist at the DM's judgement--how they fit into the world is up to the DM" blurb at the front.
2. Non-setting books that introduce races include material both for the generic case and a short recommendation blurb for all existing (at time of writing) settings they may exist in by default.

No one has to go back and add anything to Eberron:RFTLW just because <race #32> was introduced 10 years later. But that race's introduction blurb should either mention Eberron or not--if they don't, that race doesn't exist in the setting until and unless the DM adds it.

This doesn't restrict DMs--they're always explicitly free to add stuff. But it means that every race that has a "canon" (as much as that exists) role in any given setting has appropriate lore. It does restrict players from insisting that their special-snowflake race from some random adventure must exist in the DM's home setting because it got officially published. But that's a feature, not a bug.

In general, settings declare race availability, DMs can override. Generic books can suggest other races, but can't change the default. The setting book is the only authority (short of the DM) on the matter.

Psyren

2023-12-18, 04:00 PM

That sounds like they poorly prioritized their product then.

From where I'm sitting they prioritized things just fine. Gith not being in SCAG didn't stop millions of players including D&D neophytes from learning their deal and how they fit into FR, despite the book that let them do so not coming out until a year ago (i.e. 7 years later.)

They don't need to re-write history, they just need to put out a complete product. "They live in the feywild, make it up yourself." is not a complete product.

But it is a complete product. Just like "I am" is a complete sentence. That there is potentially room to augment them further down the line doesn't change that.

Atranen

2023-12-18, 04:25 PM

But it is a complete product. Just like "I am" is a complete sentence. That there is potentially room to augment them further down the line doesn't change that.

Sure, and the title page is a "complete product" by some standard of "complete". It's just not a useful one.

Psyren

2023-12-18, 04:33 PM

Sure, and the title page is a "complete product" by some standard of "complete". It's just not a useful one.

If they were only selling the title page that would be relevant.

But that race's introduction blurb should either mention Eberron or not--if they don't, that race doesn't exist in the setting until and unless the DM adds it.

Eberron is connected to the Feywild last I checked, even if they have a different name for it (Thelanis I believe).

PhoenixPhyre

2023-12-18, 05:11 PM

If
Eberron is connected to the Feywild last I checked, even if they have a different name for it (Thelanis I believe).

And? That only means anything under the exact assumption I'm opposing here--that any and every race should be presumed to exist everywhere no matter what unless the DM specifically says otherwise (in which case he's a meanie).

My position is the other way around: only those races that meet any of the following exist in a particular setting:
1. Mentioned by name and given lore in the setting book(s). These require explicit DM disapproval to remove.
2. Has lore in the race entry for that setting AND DM approved
3. DM explicitly authorized with DM authorized lore.

The DM has the final say, of course, but barring that, the setting book is the only one that can presumptively authorize a race in a setting.

Kane0

2023-12-18, 05:29 PM

Then 50+ species is too many for a given setting.

I'm only using 9 plus a smattering of 'templates' for my setting.

Boci

2023-12-18, 05:42 PM

And? That only means anything under the exact assumption I'm opposing here--that any and every race should be presumed to exist everywhere no matter what unless the DM specifically says otherwise (in which case he's a meanie).

My position is the other way around: only those races that meet any of the following exist in a particular setting:
1. Mentioned by name and given lore in the setting book(s). These require explicit DM disapproval to remove.
2. Has lore in the race entry for that setting AND DM approved
3. DM explicitly authorized with DM authorized lore.

The DM has the final say, of course, but barring that, the setting book is the only one that can presumptively authorize a race in a setting.

Whilst you are entitled to your opinion about how the game would be better for you personally, surely you can understand the above approach does not work that well as a kitchen sink approach that D&D has been using for, well quite a while now. editions 3-5 (and possibly 1 and 2 as well, I wouldn't know) certainly have had more races than can be given lore in the setting specific books, and the current approach is to have more options not less. WotC doesn't want groups to choose between a cool race a player likes and and an official setting the DM / group likes. This has been the trend since 4th ed DarkSun has suggestion for how to play the genocided races (I believe a portal from another realm was one of them).

PhoenixPhyre

2023-12-18, 06:27 PM

Psyren

2023-12-18, 07:26 PM

And? That only means anything under the exact assumption I'm opposing here--that any and every race should be presumed to exist everywhere no matter what unless the DM specifically says otherwise (in which case he's a meanie).

But I don't understand why you're opposing that assumption, beyond perhaps the latter label you are invoking rather than me. If they wanted the Feywild, Astral, Elemental Planes etc to only be in one setting they'd have said so. Since they clearly are not, then any race originating in or otherwise intertwined with those planes have a clear avenue into any published setting they touch, which it just so happens is all of them.

And even then - in conjunction with that, not only have they been sure to add in "ask your DM if these are allowed at your table" every step of the way, 5e is the most "everything outside core is at your DM's sufferance" baseline the game has ever been. It's not like this edition has a "PHB2" and "PHB3" like the last two did for example.

My position is the other way around: only those races that meet any of the following exist in a particular setting:
1. Mentioned by name and given lore in the setting book(s). These require explicit DM disapproval to remove.
2. Has lore in the race entry for that setting AND DM approved
3. DM explicitly authorized with DM authorized lore.

The DM has the final say, of course, but barring that, the setting book is the only one that can presumptively authorize a race in a setting.

As per above, again, MPMM isn't saying "these races are presumptively authorized." It says the opposite:

Gathering together fantastical races from throughout the D&D multiverse, this chapter offers the following races for player characters, supplementing the race options in the Player’s Handbook:

{list}

Many of these races are based on creatures that appear in the Monster Manual or the bestiary of this book. Consult with your DM to see whether an option here is appropriate for your campaign.

If bold is somehow not enough ammunition for you to be able to say you don't want these options to be playable, all I can do is recommend that you restrict your gaming sessions to mature adults like yourself who know what "appropriate" means on a go-forward basis. (And "consult with your DM" for that matter.)

PhoenixPhyre

2023-12-18, 07:41 PM

But I don't understand why you're opposing that assumption, beyond perhaps the latter label you are invoking rather than me. If they wanted the Feywild, Astral, Elemental Planes etc to only be in one setting they'd have said so. Since they clearly are not, then any race originating in or otherwise intertwined with those planes have a clear avenue into any published setting they touch, which it just so happens is all of them.

And even then - in conjunction with that, not only have they been sure to add in "ask your DM if these are allowed at your table" every step of the way, 5e is the most "everything outside core is at your DM's sufferance" baseline the game has ever been. It's not like this edition has a "PHB2" and "PHB3" like the last two did for example.

As per above, again, MPMM isn't saying "these races are presumptively authorized." It says the opposite:

If bold is somehow not enough ammunition for you to be able to say you don't want these options to be playable, all I can do is recommend that you restrict your gaming sessions to mature adults like yourself who know what "appropriate" means on a go-forward basis. (And "consult with your DM" for that matter.)

Then your entire point about them needing to go back in time to fix older books is moot--they can provide lore for the settings they have at the time they introduce each new race. Exactly what I said and you were opposing (or so it seemed) by your response.

My point in this subthread is that later books that introduce new races don't have to, but can modify previous setting books additively. But if they do so, they should do so explicitly and introduce lore somewhere for the things they introduce. And I'd strongly prefer if that lore had specific call-outs for specific settings where the default they provide (and yes, they do need to provide a default) doesn't fit. THAT'S THEIR JOB AS SETTING OWNERS. Throwing code into the wild and refusing to support and maintain it as things get added is utterly bad behavior.

Because introducing new mechanical bits in a player-facing book and then not providing lore or any help for DMs is throwing an additional burden on DMs. Yes, I consider it a basic part of competence to provide at least default lore for every mechanical bit you include. Anything less than that is actively DM-hostile behavior. The whole point of rule text is to provide defaults. The mechanical part is the least important, easiest to come up with part of a new race. The rest is the hard part. So providing the easy part without the hard part is bad behavior.

Boci

2023-12-18, 07:47 PM

Yes, I consider it a basic part of competence to provide at least default lore for every mechanical bit you include.

Every mechanical bit? So new spells, feats, archetypes and magical items too? That...doesn't seem viable.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-12-18, 07:49 PM

Every mechanical bit? So new spells, feats, archetypes and magical items too? That...doesn't seem viable.

Seems perfectly viable to me. Doesn't take much. But if you can't write at least a sentence describing how something might fit into a world, that thing didn't need to exist. If that means you can't splat out crap from a fire hose, GOOD.

Boci

2023-12-18, 07:59 PM

But if you can't write at least a sentence describing how something might fit into a world, that thing didn't need to exist.

Its not that you can't, its that its awkward and pointless. Take spells for example. People often read spell entries to figure out what the spell does, not see a default suggestion for how its fits into the world. So now the spell sections in books will be split into 2 parts, one having the spell entries now, and then a section before it on where the spell is cast (that now isn't "most places with spell casters"?) And which setting? Just forgotten realms, or all of them? Eberron, dragon lance, ravenloft too?

Really not seeing how this will improve splatbook quality.

JackPhoenix

2023-12-18, 08:07 PM

Eberron is connected to the Feywild last I checked, even if they have a different name for it (Thelanis I believe).

Thelanis isn't Feywild, despite any potential similarities (and it's been around for longer).

PhoenixPhyre

2023-12-18, 08:11 PM

Its not that you can't, its that its awkward and pointless. Take spells for example. People often read spell entries to figure out what the spell does, not see a default suggestion for how its fits into the world. So now the spell sections in books will be split into 2 parts, one having the spell entries now, and then a section before it on where the spell is cast (that now isn't "most places with spell casters"?) And which setting? Just forgotten realms, or all of them? Eberron, dragon lance, ravenloft too?

Really not seeing how this will improve splatbook quality.

Some things need more explanation than others. Most spells can get away with a generic catch-all, although some spells (especially those that are "world changing" or imply things about the nature of the world) need more explanation. Same with a lot of feats. But the devs need to consider "how does this change the settings that exist" whenever they introduce anything. Otherwise you end up with shattered, incoherent settings. Dark Sun with effortless interplanar and inter-setting travel (plane shift, etc) is a very different setting. As is Ravenloft with those active. A new spell or common item that obviates, say, water or food issues radically changes a setting, usually making portions of the setting that suffer from famine or insufficient water moot. Etc.

Races always need maximum explanation, because races are critical to settings. Switch out the races of a setting and you have a different setting! Races and cultures and nations and all that DM-side stuff are tightly intertwined, along with history. Adding new things or changing out things can utterly invalidate the setting's core concepts and so must be handled with care. It has far-reaching knock-on consequences.

Atranen

2023-12-18, 08:30 PM

Whilst you are entitled to your opinion about how the game would be better for you personally, surely you can understand the above approach does not work that well as a kitchen sink approach that D&D has been using for, well quite a while now. editions 3-5 (and possibly 1 and 2 as well, I wouldn't know) certainly have had more races than can be given lore in the setting specific books, and the current approach is to have more options not less. WotC doesn't want groups to choose between a cool race a player likes and and an official setting the DM / group likes. This has been the trend since 4th ed DarkSun has suggestion for how to play the genocided races (I believe a portal from another realm was one of them).

Huh. I wonder if there's anything we could fix about D&D.

As per above, again, MPMM isn't saying "these races are presumptively authorized." It says the opposite:

If bold is somehow not enough ammunition for you to be able to say you don't want these options to be playable, all I can do is recommend that you restrict your gaming sessions to mature adults like yourself who know what "appropriate" means on a go-forward basis. (And "consult with your DM" for that matter.)

Personally I like the text here. But there are perhaps two separate issues:

1) what the text explicitly says

2) the kind of gaming culture that the text encourages.

Generally speaking, when more options are published and available, that encourages players to want to use those options (look up builds for those options, build characters around those options), and can contribute to a culture where players expect to be able to use characters they spent time and money creating. If those are a poor fit for a campaign, then it can lead to disappointment. Of course in an ideal group with ideal players, it doesn't matter; nothing wizards does matters then, because the ideal group can come up with the ideal fixes. In a less than ideal group...

Boci

2023-12-18, 08:32 PM

Some things need more explanation than others. Most spells can get away with a generic catch-all, although some spells (especially those that are "world changing" or imply things about the nature of the world) need more explanation. Same with a lot of feats. But the devs need to consider "how does this change the settings that exist" whenever they introduce anything. Otherwise you end up with shattered, incoherent settings. Dark Sun with effortless interplanar and inter-setting travel (plane shift, etc) is a very different setting. As is Ravenloft with those active. A new spell or common item that obviates, say, water or food issues radically changes a setting, usually making portions of the setting that suffer from famine or insufficient water moot. Etc.

ANY D&D setting is different if its inhabitant realize the potential of magic, you don't have to anywhere near full trippyverse to realize that. You're asking for a level of thought the majority of players and DMs are simply happy to handwaive for their games. If that's not enough for you, that's fine, but you need to do the work, or borrow some notes for someone else whose made more realistic / versimultitude magic systems and consequences for D&D.

Huh. I wonder if there's anything we could fix about D&D.

Fix requires something to be broken. A little self-awareness that what fixes stuff for you could well make the game worse for other people never hurt.

Psyren

2023-12-18, 08:34 PM

Thelanis isn't Feywild, despite any potential similarities (and it's been around for longer).

WGtE 170: "Thelanis, the Faerie Court. This plane serves the role of the Feywild in Eberron."
Close enough for me.

And I'd strongly prefer if that lore had specific call-outs for specific settings where the default they provide (and yes, they do need to provide a default) doesn't fit. THAT'S THEIR JOB AS SETTING OWNERS. Throwing code into the wild and refusing to support and maintain it as things get added is utterly bad behavior.

They can't spend eternity chasing down every stray DM who personally thinks a default doesn't fit. There aren't enough hours in the day.

Personally I like the text here. But there are perhaps two separate issues:

1) what the text explicitly says

2) the kind of gaming culture that the text encourages.

Generally speaking, when more options are published and available, that encourages players to want to use those options (look up builds for those options, build characters around those options), and can contribute to a culture where players expect to be able to use characters they spent time and money creating. If those are a poor fit for a campaign, then it can lead to disappointment. Of course in an ideal group with ideal players, it doesn't matter; nothing wizards does matters then, because the ideal group can come up with the ideal fixes. In a less than ideal group...

Similarly, they can't let themselves be paralyzed by every group that disregards what the text explicitly says. That text was them fulfilling their obligation. Groups who won't listen to them wouldn't have done so no matter what they wrote.