How the game promotes Fantasy Kitchen Sink

[Dr.Samurai]

So instead let's just embrace the idea that Fighters learning different kinds of magic (like runes, echoes, dragons, giants etc) is perfectly okay thematically, and continue exploring that. Which it looks like WotC are doing.

I'm not saying don't make more "tack on x D&D monster/element to y features" subclasses. I generally agree with you that providing them and letting people choose to play them or not is more ideal than not making them.

The problem for me is that as the game evolves and no new mundane options come out, the few mundane options we have won't keep up. Champion is barely a subclass, Berserker was always a problem, and Rogues get 1 feature for the levels where most campaigns live and die. The game now is quite different than what it was when it released and new subclasses are adding a lot more than any of these do. With the exception of the Battlemaster, which makes sense since it is a class turned into a subclass. But even the battlemaster can use some reimagining.

But I also agree with you that there's only so far to go in that direction. Part of the reason for that is how limited (or open ended, depending on your view) combat is, and skills as well. There's not much to grab onto there to have subclasses interact with in new ways without running into "this was left up to the DM before, now this subclass is codifying it".

So the best I can hope for is a revamping of the current mundane subclasses to bring them into the current meta, but that's a long shot too.

Everything Everywhere All At Once, the Michelle Yeoh/Jamie Lee Curtis multiverse movie that dropped earlier this year

Ah, got it. I haven't seen it yet, but need to set some time aside to watch.

Again, I agree, D&D should capitalize on the current trends from a business perspective. But it does, to me, diminish the settings to a degree when they are all in the same multiverse and all dragons are echoes of something or other and all elves come from Corellon, etc. But, that's for the table to hash out anyways.

[False God]

None of these, except the bolded, are required to roleplay.

Nothing is required to roleplay other than your own time and creativity.

But that's my point. D&D doesn't require that time or that creativity at all. It's a fun optional add-on, but completely unnecessary to actually playing the game.

[animorte]

Disclaimer: I don't know if Heroes of Equestria actually exists

I believe it’s called Tails (or tales) of Equestria. Get it? My wife and I tried it out. Not bad for getting our little ones into d&d, very simple.

[Psyren]

So the best I can hope for is a revamping of the current mundane subclasses to bring them into the current meta, but that's a long shot too.

I want this too, and in fact I've previously proposed a simple Champion rework that makes it much stronger while also preserving its identity as the Simple Martial.

Again, I agree, D&D should capitalize on the current trends from a business perspective. But it does, to me, diminish the settings to a degree when they are all in the same multiverse and all dragons are echoes of something or other and all elves come from Corellon, etc. But, that's for the table to hash out anyways.

I don't know that the multiverse = "all elves come from Corellon" any more than it means all drow come from Lolth, which they don't. Certainly it means there's good odds the elf you're talking to in a D&D setting has heard of him, but it's no guarantee. You can still have that level of diversity and variation.

[Catullus64]

Just because every sort of fantasy is accommodated in the rules, does not mean that every table needs to use every sort of fantasy. If everyone in the group decides that that they don't want to play My Little Pony, then you can just choose not to use the Heroes of Equestria supplement. But by the same token, if everyone in the group decides that they do want to play My Little Pony, then you can use HoE, and decide not to use almost everything else.

Part of my fear does come from my usual play environment. I run store games, where I don't know what group I'm running for until we're there. Games are usually stand-alone affairs; maybe a two-parter sometimes, if all the people from one week coincidentally plan to come the next. New faces almost every week.

The kind of coordination required to come to an agreement about which races or class options to use is a luxury in such an environment. Session Zeroes are a dream. There are a few regulars with whom I've chatted enough that they kinda understand my preferences and are willing to play along, but there are just as many who know and don't care. The only real way to cull race or class selection is by fiat, sometimes only declared when someone shows up for the first time. Not only is that contentious and no fun, but the store certainly isn't about to back me up on that: they want to sell the game books, and telling people they can't use options from them runs counter to that.

(And to be frank, even in private groups of friends, the level of trust and like-mindedness needed to cooperate to this degree is far from a given. At some point, the game needs to acknowledge and mediate that social reality; if everybody's trust was absolute and their tastes in agreement, we wouldn't need rules.)

Now, is that the typical DM experience? Probably not. Do I expect the game to overhaul itself to be more accommodating towards my particular situation? Again, no. And this isn't my entire D&D life; I'm also lucky enough to run a private campaign with close friends where I can cultivate things much more naturally. But... maybe some kind of compromise? What I suppose I really want is for the game to promote a culture where people's default expectation isn't to be able to use any option, any time.

In short, I don't think you should always assume the play conditions necessary to extensively cut down the list of options.

[LibraryOgre]

One thing I really liked in Earthdawn is they made it explicit that all PCs were in some way magical. Wizards cast spells, but warriors drew on magic to be amazing warriors, enhancing their own abilities, weapons, and accomplish amazing feats at higher circle... because they WERE using magic.

When reading 4e, I first thought "This is pretty much d20 Earthdawn".

[Psyren]

What I suppose I really want is for the game to promote a culture where people's default expectation isn't to be able to use any option, any time.

Any option, no - but if you're not prepared to at least allow the mainline first-party races, subclasses, and feats, then public DMing in a store may truly not be for you. Accessing their space and their captive audience does indeed come with those kinds of compromises.

[Sorinth]

Part of my fear does come from my usual play environment. I run store games, where I don't know what group I'm running for until we're there. Games are usually stand-alone affairs; maybe a two-parter sometimes, if all the people from one week coincidentally plan to come the next. New faces almost every week.

The kind of coordination required to come to an agreement about which races or class options to use is a luxury in such an environment. Session Zeroes are a dream. There are a few regulars with whom I've chatted enough that they kinda understand my preferences and are willing to play along, but there are just as many who know and don't care. The only real way to cull race or class selection is by fiat, sometimes only declared when someone shows up for the first time. Not only is that contentious and no fun, but the store certainly isn't about to back me up on that: they want to sell the game books, and telling people they can't use options from them runs counter to that.

(And to be frank, even in private groups of friends, the level of trust and like-mindedness needed to cooperate to this degree is far from a given. At some point, the game needs to acknowledge and mediate that social reality; if everybody's trust was absolute and their tastes in agreement, we wouldn't need rules.)

Now, is that the typical DM experience? Probably not. Do I expect the game to overhaul itself to be more accommodating towards my particular situation? Again, no. And this isn't my entire D&D life; I'm also lucky enough to run a private campaign with close friends where I can cultivate things much more naturally. But... maybe some kind of compromise? What I suppose I really want is for the game to promote a culture where people's default expectation isn't to be able to use any option, any time.

In short, I don't think you should always assume the play conditions necessary to extensively cut down the list of options.

It's a stretch to say the game "promotes" something when it's pretty clearly your particular set of circumstances that are really driving factor.


You may have considered this already but one way to maybe get the store/session to is to promote specific setting/book is to present it as a promotion. Make a Ravnica promotion, the book is on sale 10-25%, there's lots of Ravinca themed minis also on sale/displayed prominently, along with posters, MTG stuff like maybe a tournament using only Ravnica block, etc... And of course the D&D game that week is Ravnica themed, that way the PHB+Ravinica only rule is less of a "restriction" you are imposing on potential customers but a way to convince those customers they should buy the Ravinca book by getting them to have fun using it.

[gijoemike]

The proportions change as more and more magical options get added without substantial new mundane ones. Yes, even just the PHB is already heavily leaning towards the all-magic PC roadshow; but if you add, for example, half a dozen new magical Barbarian subclasses without adding any non-magical ones*, you are going to see even fewer non-magical barbarians show up at tables. Likewise with Fighters and Rogues. The sheer number of magical options does create more of a kitchen sink effect when they drastically overtake the nonmagical ones in number.

I talk about the Barbarian a lot because it's a concrete example I can cite in my regular play experience. I play with/DM for different groups almost every week in addition to my 'stable' friend group, so I can see at least some trends emerging and changing in party composition over time, and the Barbarian is the most dramatic instance.

I believe that the design of 5e was a mistake that leads to all magic parties. Magic = more options and more options = good. Mundanes don't get that at the same rate. And taking just 1 class level as a magic class makes you a perfectly capable magic user. Unlike 3.X where being a level 1 wizard or sorc is practically useless as you only get a few spells for at most 10 minutes a day.

If given a choice, take A get maybe get slightly better at what you do, or B and get a dozen new options and be awesome at it, what would you choose? The answer is always B unless the player is specifically nerfing themselves to not outshine another player.

Spirit totem barbs are still barbarians, except with more options. In 3.5 I would compare that to the stupid lion totem barbarian ACF. That nonsense became a staple of builds. More options = better.

[Stangler]

I initially wrote a long post about how I think the game promotes, and increasingly promotes, a Fantasy Kitchen Sink as its setting, and how I think this creates problems for actual groups. But I'm coming to realize that when you want to discuss a complex topic on this site, posting a long tract that people then have to attack piecemeal seldom actually helps the conversation. So I'll just say what that post said in much briefer form. And if I need to further defend or clarify any of these points like I did in the thousand-word version, well, that's why it's a discussion forum.

• The 5e line of D&D products, in responding to the demand for more and more player options, increasingly pushes its game settings, and particularly its PC parties, towards a Fantasy Kitchen Sink.
• "PCs are meant to be exceptional" is, I think, an inadequate response to this criticism.
• "D&D has always been a fantasy kitchen sink", while true, is another common response I find somewhat lacking. There's still a noticeable trend.
• I don't think that the reactionary response, calling for the trimming down of the options which create this phenomenon, is likely, feasible, or a good idea.
• The game should increasingly focus, moving forward, on character and party-building as a collaborative exercise between players and DMs to help parties be reflective of any given setting, rather than the more individualistic process it tends to be now.

Happy discussing!

I would point out the obvious that this issue is meant to be addressed at the table as opposed to in the rules of the game. I totally get that the more WotC adds to the rules the more difficult it can be for a DM to hold back some of the options in order to create a vision of the game that suits them, not to mention create a more consistent feel within the party.

IMO these issues can be addressed in setting books which can help by providing party creation guidelines to fit a specific setting and/or playstyle like you talk about. I feel like that is more likely to be a third party setting because even settings books tend to want to just pile on options without restrictions.

One of the better ideas out there along these lines that I want to try is a Game of Thrones style game where the party starts off as something like the Starks. Very low magical levels, family connection, and a world out to get them and isn't playing fair. Dimension 20 Crown of Candy does this and it is a lot of fun.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One thing I really liked in Earthdawn is they made it explicit that all PCs were in some way magical. Wizards cast spells, but warriors drew on magic to be amazing warriors, enhancing their own abilities, weapons, and accomplish amazing feats at higher circle... because they WERE using magic.

When reading 4e, I first thought "This is pretty much d20 Earthdawn".

I agree that this is something I liked about 4e, and something I've incorporated hard into my worldbuilding. Because it makes so many things make more sense.

[KorvinStarmast]

I agree that this is something I liked about 4e, and something I've incorporated hard into my worldbuilding. Because it makes so many things make more sense.

Have you played Earthdawn?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Have you played Earthdawn?

The reference there was to the "they're all magic" thing. I know of Earthdawn and the basics of the setting, but haven't played it. Did read one of the rulebooks though.

[AdAstra]

The things I'm seeing people complain about and the sorts of things that bring to my mind "kitchen sink setting" seem, completely different in this thread. Since when is "most subclasses are magical" more kitchen sink than having mundane sword-guys standing toe to toe with reality-warping nerds in equal numbers? Magic not being special in no way makes the setting more of a kitchen sink, it just makes the setting more magical, unless the fundamental nature of the magic is different. And right now 5e hasn't really gone beyond Arcane, Divine, Natural, and Psionic magic (except maybe Phantom Rogue, which is more specifically necromantic than fitting neatly into the above).

A kitchen sink is having wildly different expectations used at once. It's Crisis On Infinite Earths and such, Cowboys and Aliens, not just having a bunch of settings and things specific to those settings. DnD certainly supports that style of game, but I don't really see how it promotes it other than having the sorts of products that DnD has always had: different settings, different books, spin-offs and tie-ins. And from what I can tell the overall DnD culture doesn't really have any greater predilection to kitchen sinks than other games.

If there was ever a fantasy kitchen sink setting, it would be Pathfinder's Golarion. The game's default world has a desert full of alien robots (delivered by a crashed alien spaceship) right next to a crusader state still doing witch burnings and embroiled in religious tension between clerical and druidic beliefs (and demons of course). The capital of said crusader state is basically right next to the alien robot desert. In the default setting, railgun-toting android gunslingers, slime wizards, and gritty, grungy human fighters with longswords are all valid character options fully supported within the world, and often don't even need the excuse of being from some faraway land.

I find it pretty neat, but a good example that if DnD is a kitchen sink setting, it's extremely mild compared to its nearest competitors. Most DnD settings don't even prominently feature guns as far as I know.

[KorvinStarmast]

The reference there was to the "they're all magic" thing. I know of Earthdawn and the basics of the setting, but haven't played it. Did read one of the rulebooks though.

One of the reasons I ask is because of an unpublished Earthdawn dragon supplement I read a little over a year ago. The parallels between that and your world's dragon set up was (to me) more similar than it was different.

[KorvinStarmast]

Most DnD settings don't even prominently feature guns as far as I know.

For this blessing I thank the Crossbow Expert feat.

My nephew's campaign (which didn't last all that long) included the use of musket like firearms (kind of a Spanish Conquistador setting, with our party crossing the sea and exploring a mostly wilderness setting...) but none of us was proficient with firearms. (RL got in the way of our progression taking us to where that option would open up).

[PhoenixPhyre]

One of the reasons I ask is because of an unpublished Earthdawn dragon supplement I read a little over a year ago. The parallels between that and your world's dragon set up was (to me) more similar than it was different.

Great minds (citation needed) think alike, I guess. Good thing I never make claims to originality.

[LibraryOgre]

As a note on the "all the subclasses are magical" front:

In 1e AD&D, only two classes did not get some sort of spellcasting (or scroll use): Fighters and Monks (monks had a lot of pseudo-magic, though).

In 2e, that was down to just fighters.

EVERYONE got magic, and pretty much always has.

[Catullus64]

As a note on the "all the subclasses are magical" front:

In 1e AD&D, only two classes did not get some sort of spellcasting (or scroll use): Fighters and Monks (monks had a lot of pseudo-magic, though).

In 2e, that was down to just fighters.

EVERYONE got magic, and pretty much always has.

As I've stated before, the fact that it's been this way more often than not doesn't actually resolve the issue. To me it seems less like a perpetual state and more like a recurring process that follows from the content release cycle of an edition.

[Dr.Samurai]

Did the original barbarians have magic (out of curiosity)?

[KorvinStarmast]

Did the original barbarians have magic (out of curiosity)?

No, the AD&D 1e Unearthed Arcana barbarians were against magic and could not hang out with Magic Users. IIRC, you had to be level 3 to be allowed to use a magic weapon. There were, however, empowered to hit (without using a magical weapon) creatures only hittable by a magic weapon.
And then there was this native ability:

Detect illusion: Barbarians have a 5% chance per level of determining that some sight, sound or other sensory phenomenon is actually an illusion/phantasm spell of some type. This detection takes one round of concentration on the illusion. Regardless of the barbarian’s level, the chance to so detect such spells may never exceed 75%.
Detect magic: Barbarians have a 25% chance of detecting any sort of magic other than the illusion/,phantasm variety. This again takes one round of concentration, and applies to items or spells, but not to persons who are able to effect magic. For each level the barbarian gains beyond the 1st level, the barbarian gains an additional 5% to his or her base chance of detection. However, this chance may never exceed 90% regardless of the barbarian’s level
of experience. The type of magic is never revealed by this ability.

Yes, it was fiddly as all get out.

[Dr.Samurai]

No, the AD&D 1e Unearthed Arcana barbarians were against magic and could not hang out with Magic Users. IIRC, you had to be level 3 or 4 to be allowed to use a magic weapon. There were, however, empowered to hit (without using a magical weapon) creatures only hittable by a magic weapon.
Yes, it was fiddly as all get out.

Sounds just perfect

[KorvinStarmast]

Sounds just perfect

It was a fighter sub class. My favorite part was that unlike all other classes, that had their own names like Warrior, Myrmidon, Seer, Patriarch, etc at different levels, the name of each level, from 1 to 11 was simply
Barbarian.

[JonBeowulf]

The kitchen sink provides options. Options are good for the game.

As a DM, not only is it my prerogative to pick and choose what is allowed in a game, it is my obligation in order for the game world to make sense. If I choose to allow everything, then I am responsible for making it work.

For example, I rarely allow non-PHB races because they don't make sense with my world. I've allowed exceptions when a player brought a concept they were excited about and we found a way to make it work... and it ended up expanding my world, so BONUS!

I'm not a fan of Counterspell mechanics, so nobody gets it. I still can't get my head around this new version of magical darkness so I went back to ball of blackness. I think spell components are stupid so they're gone (with a few exceptions) as long as the caster has a focus. Sorcerers are the source of magic so why do they need an arcane focus? Simple, they don't!

I took the kitchen sink I was given, kept what I wanted, changed a few things, and tossed the rest. It's a good thing.

(Not going to discuss the legal weirdness that can land at an AL table 'cause I don't do AL.)

However, this post has me thinking about creating a new world were I will ban non-monstrous races because I want to flip the script and see how it goes when humans/dwarfs/elves are the outsiders. I can do that 'cause I have options.

[Osopeluche]

I always saw it as a pick and chose type of thing instead of a kitchen sink. Unlike Pathfinder 2e where the lore is so firmly established with that setting.

[Witty Username]

Anyways, isn't the setting kitchen sink by virtue of all the lore saying it's a shared multiverse where everything exists in every setting? Didn't the setting make this shift recently?

That has been a thing since AD&D, most prominently when using the planescape and spelljammer settings. For 5e, it has been leaning on that lore more, and the official bring in of magic the gathering more obvious about it.
--
So, this setting customization stuff should have been a section in the 5e DMG, that is my stance on it.

I will say, personally, a setting that is not somewhat confusing actually hurts my verisimilitude. Usually this is an expression of homogeneousnes and passage of time, but this is kinda in the same vein. Limited options of race or class can contribute to this sense for me, if not handled well.

[Tanarii]

I don't see anything in the OP that actually demonstrates D&D is a kitchen sink.

Mystara was a specific type of kitchen sink setting, with lots of human pseudo-historical cultures slotted in. It's a specific setting that it's possible to point to and explain exactly what about it is kitchen sink-y. But the OP lacks even something as simple as that. The declaration is made, and assumed to be true without any proof offered.

Edit: okay reading onwards and going back, I totally missed the point of the OP. It's about kitchen sink party of PCs. Yes, if a DM doesn't groom the available races especially, but also classes and backgrounds, you can end up with a "kitchen sink" party, although I find "fantasy menagerie" a better term. That's a huge problem in AL and IMX a common complaint against it. Between its high char op and fantasy menagerie tendencies, AL is a rich recruiting ground for anyone willing to put the time into standing up a game store alternative.

And yeah, this has been an issue for pretty much every D&D edition as more and more splat gets released. Personally, I find even Tieflings and Dragonborn and Sorcerers and Warlocks* being added to the core to be an issue in that regard. I'm sure some folks felt the same about 1e Monks/Druids, UA Barbarians (and Cavaliers and Drow), and 2e troubadour Bards for that matter.

*despite warlocks being probably my favorite class.

[Leon]

Having the Options is a good thing, also being able to say No to what options are in any given game is a powerful thing that stops the options from getting silly.

If your DM says "These books are the confines of which we are playing in" the problem doesnt arise. Like the Strixhaven content which causes conniptions in so many people isnt a problem if you don't allow that setting/content to be used in your games

[johnbragg]

Honest Answers, just off the top of my head:

[LIST][*]Recycle 4th-edition Warlord ideas in a more robust fashion than the Battlemaster.

I never played 4E, but my impression of the 4E Warlord is "The barbarian attacks with his axe, the Warlord attacks with his Barbarian." The best way to port that into 5E is with a spellcasting class--probably War Cleric 2.0, focused on buffs and action-economy shenanigans. Add some new domain spells ported from late 3.5--Snakes' Swiftness (single target gets a single attack action), Mass Snakes' Swiftness,

EDIT: Actually don't make those spells, make them subclass features. Otherwise they'll get poached.

I'm not gonna stand by every one of those as the most fecund idea, but it's not too difficult to come up with mechanical toys that can exist in the non-magic sphere and then fit them to a theme. It's just a little bit more difficult than "take existing magical theme (Giants! Psionics! Feywild!) and bolt it onto the base martial class", which seems like WotC's default approach to iterating on these classes. Clearly a matter of different tastes, but "Fighter with a dash of X magic" is the less interesting approach for me.

WOTC's approach is probably easier though, in terms of rolling new books off of an assembly line. Pick a theme, every base class gets a subclass or two related to this year's theme.

For what you're asking, they'd have to decide to roll out a book focusing on a no-magic or very-low-magic world, maybe where spells don't work reliably or cost HP or something.

Maybe it's a thought to keep in the back of their heads when designing D&D 50th Anniversary Edition

[animorte]

For what you're asking, they'd have to decide to roll out a book focusing on a no-magic or very-low-magic world, maybe where spells don't work reliably or cost HP or something.

Maybe it's a thought to keep in the back of their heads when designing D&D 50th Anniversary Edition

I have run a martial-classes only campaign, low-magic setting. It wasn't expected to go very long, but everybody actually had a great time. People really learned to appreciate their spells.

I would like to think that 50th anniversary stuff has been in the works for some time already.