# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Devs change - worse content?

## Waazraath

In another thread* it was mentioned that the devs change 5e had with Tasha's (and afterwards) led to worse content. I'm not really sure about it. Personally, I thought the core books to be very good, but most releases since core sub-par. Tasha's is imo a mixed bag, but better than some releases before but enough bad stuff as well. After Tasha's, I think there were a few quite decent releases (Fizban's, Ravenloft). But I mostly stopped buying (and looking at) books after that.

So I was wondering, is this a thing, that content got worse from Tasha's onwards? Does that include the adventure modules? 


*https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...w-do-we-fix-it

----------


## Amnestic

I've not noticed any significant change in the quality of content that's been pushed out between the start of 5e and now.

There has been some power creep with *some* (but not all) subclasses in recent times - Twilight and Peace Clerics are typically the most clear offenders with this, but when PHB dropped there were some subclasses that were clearly better/worse than others. I don't consider power creep 6 years into a game's life cycle to be a sign of degrading standards.

PHB had good subclasses (divination wizard) and not so good (berserker barb, assassin rogue). SCAG dropped not long after 5e's release and had a wide disparity in quality, with some (bladesinger, arcane cleric, long death monk) being solid or even 'really good' and others (banneret fighter, sun soul monk, undead warlock) not so much.

Initial module releases were not great but I'll be honest when I say none of the 5e adventures I've seen really lit a fire under me, new or old. Some of the anthology stuff has some good stuff, which is nice, but I suppose it's hard for it all to be bad when there's so many different writers/ideas, as opposed to a single large module.

Spells continue to run the range from ridiculously good (Silvery Barbs) to just fine (most of the other recent spell releases). PHB likewise did the same with some (Conjure [X] line, Wish, Simulacrum) being nuts and others (Witch Bolt!) being not.

Artificer, the only new class since release that started in Eberron and was reprinted in Tasha's is entirely adequate. It's not overpowered, nor underpowered, and serves a viable role in most any party.

There tends to be fewer bad/"trap" options in recent content, from what I've seen, compared to early in the game's life, but surely that's a sign of good content, not bad?

----------


## Waazraath

> I've not noticed any significant change in the quality of content that's been pushed out between the start of 5e and now.
> 
> There has been some power creep with *some* (but not all) subclasses in recent times - Twilight and Peace Clerics are typically the most clear offenders with this, but when PHB dropped there were some subclasses that were clearly better/worse than others. I don't consider power creep 6 years into a game's life cycle to be a sign of degrading standards.
> 
> PHB had good subclasses (divination wizard) and not so good (berserker barb, assassin rogue). SCAG dropped not long after 5e's release and had a wide disparity in quality, with some (bladesinger, arcane cleric, long death monk) being solid or even 'really good' and others (banneret fighter, sun soul monk, undead warlock) not so much.
> 
> Initial module releases were not great but I'll be honest when I say none of the 5e adventures I've seen really lit a fire under me, new or old. Some of the anthology stuff has some good stuff, which is nice, but I suppose it's hard for it all to be bad when there's so many different writers/ideas, as opposed to a single large module.
> 
> Spells continue to run the range from ridiculously good (Silvery Barbs) to just fine (most of the other recent spell releases). PHB likewise did the same with some (Conjure [X] line, Wish, Simulacrum) being nuts and others (Witch Bolt!) being not.
> ...


Yeah, that's more or less also how I see it. Xanathar's had Hexblades and Shepard Druids, and they are as much out of line as Tasha's clerics. And Arteficer is imo also generally an example of very good class design (though the power differences between the subclasses are too big, the gap between an alchimist on the one hand and artillerist/battlesmith on the other is gigantic).

----------


## Greywander

I find it to be a mixed bag; some stuff is good, some stuff is... not. But it's a little more nuanced than just raw quality. I think the original devs had a certain vision, a certain design direction they wanted to pursue, and that design direction was what brought a lot of people into the game. The new devs have a completely different vision, and it's not just that they're taking the game in a different direction, but in some cases they seem to be actively trying to destroy things the old devs put there on purpose.

Basically, it's a completely different game pretending to be the same game. Or worse, some people are saying it's secretly the alpha test for the next edition. In other words, people joined up for one thing and are now getting another.

----------


## Keravath

TL;DR - Quality has seemed pretty consistent. Audience of folks who would be interested in specific products has varied a lot.

I haven't found any strong variation in quality. I think that often "quality" is equated with the individual reader's preferences, reaction to the content, and how much they will find useful. 

Every book has had a disparity in power between some of the classes and archetypes but it is notable that almost every archetype and class is perfectly playable from 1-20. There are specific "power" builds with some feats and multiclasses that will be less balanced and some archetype features that really are a bit over the top (twilight cleric channel divinity providing significant temporary hit points every round for example) but on average a champion fighter is still fun and playable for someone who wants to play that sort of character in an average party not looking for pure optimization. 

In terms of adventure content, some are better thought out that others. Every adventure has adjustments that a DM has to make for the party that is playing it, for the content those players like and to fill gaps in the adventure since the adventures tend to cover the main plot points and leave spaces between each that the DM needs to string together into a decent narrative and play experience. 

As far as purchasing new content goes ... 
- if someone isn't really interested in detailed dragon lore and more dragonborn options plus a few other pieces, they won't buy it. 
- Ravenloft - setting specific demiplane of dread
- Spelljammer - setting specific and if magic space ships don't fit your world you won't buy it
- Kryn - if you like Dragonlance you'll buy it otherwise not

There seems to have been a focus on new settings books recently and if you aren't into new settings you won't buy it. However, that doesn't affect the "quality" of the publications which seems to me has been reasonably consistent overall with some of the cooler features a bit overpowered at times. 

P.S. Even with some of the overtuned features like the twilight cleric temp hit points - a bit of tweaking would have been all it takes to get a decent feature instead of an OP one. 


For example if twilight sanctuary was d4+proficiency - it would be much more impactful at low level and less so at higher levels. Straight up cleric level temp hit points without the d6 would be a bit low in tier 1 but by late tier 2/3 would be decent. I think the d6+level was an attempt to have something good at low level that remains relevant but the problem is that ends up as too good generally for most folks in actual play. On the other hand, if the monsters are focusing on specific targets, the way player characters usually do then most of the temp hit points don't do anything anyway. The main reason it is so impactful is because most DMs are "nice" so that even intelligent opponents engage in 1:1 fights as opposed to concentrating their attacks. In which case the twilight effect blunts all the attacks.

----------


## JonBeowulf

> I find it to be a mixed bag; some stuff is good, some stuff is... not. But it's a little more nuanced than just raw quality. I think the original devs had a certain vision, a certain design direction they wanted to pursue, and that design direction was what brought a lot of people into the game. The new devs have a completely different vision, and it's not just that they're taking the game in a different direction, but in some cases they seem to be actively trying to destroy things the old devs put there on purpose.
> 
> Basically, it's a completely different game pretending to be the same game. Or worse, some people are saying it's secretly the alpha test for the next edition. In other words, people joined up for one thing and are now getting another.


That describes my feelings better than I could have.

----------


## MrStabby

> In another thread* it was mentioned that the devs change 5e had with Tasha's (and afterwards) led to worse content. I'm not really sure about it. Personally, I thought the core books to be very good, but most releases since core sub-par. Tasha's is imo a mixed bag, but better than some releases before but enough bad stuff as well. After Tasha's, I think there were a few quite decent releases (Fizban's, Ravenloft). But I mostly stopped buying (and looking at) books after that.
> 
> So I was wondering, is this a thing, that content got worse from Tasha's onwards? Does that include the adventure modules? 
> 
> 
> *https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...w-do-we-fix-it




Honestly, its hard to answer this.

I think that the average quality of a set of characters in a game, as determined by their ability to collecively make for a fun game has gone down.  I think that there has also been a lot of high quality content recently.

I think that the low quality content that is breaking previous power ceilings is showing up a lot more frequently than the really great work that has gone out.  If you average over pages in books things don't look too bad.  If you average over impact on games, its certainly a rough patch.

Then the are the things that are fantastic, but deeply flawed at the same time.

Before Tasha's the problem classes/subclasses were probably:

Wizard (though arguably the balance issues are the spells rather than the classes)
Hexblade

And some poor designs like berserker, banneret, purple dragon knight, ranger... which whilst disapoining, were not particularly problematic.

There were some non-class issues.  Spell balance as I mentioned is terrible and the same wih feats (sharpshooter for example).  Most races were OK, with Yuan-ti being a bit much and variant human being a little on the strong side.


Since Tasha's...

Well the clerics have not so much been subjected to power creep as a power avalanche.
Sorcerers have gone from a well designed class with some meaningfull drawbacks to yet another "everything" class
Feats continue to be bad, with the likes of fey touched being released
Spells have got worse not better with the likes of silvery barbs (actually I think the median spell design quality has gone up, but the mean is dragged down by the worst)

Races... well if you allow Tasha's alternative rules and there is an optimiser at the table then the races you will actually see in play are a lot fewer


I feel the need to mention some of the successes as well - beast and wild magic barbarians, stars druids, rune knights, mercy monks, watchers paladins, swarm keepers and fey wanderers, fathomless and undead warlocks.  There is some good, fun content released.

And then the deeply flawed briliance - the phantom rogues and the spirits bards -  the things showcasing potential that doesn't deliver.  Of all of these though, I think the most painful is the alternative class features - having a rich pool of abilities that could be swapped for others would have breathed life into the system and enables a lot of characers to be better differentiated.  As it was it seemed to be more used as a balance patch for classes with very few meaningful choices for a _player_ to make about whether to use one ability or another.

I have lost a bit of faith with the edition, not because of a lack of good stuff, but rather because of the presence of ever more bad stuff that doesn't work well alongside most of the rest of the content.  These design blunders give rise to a kind of chronic toxicity, where these toxic errors build up in a system to the point where it becomes much less viable than its competitors.

----------


## Oramac

> I find it to be a mixed bag; some stuff is good, some stuff is... not. But it's a little more nuanced than just raw quality. I think the original devs had a certain vision, a certain design direction they wanted to pursue, and that design direction was what brought a lot of people into the game. The new devs have a completely different vision, and it's not just that they're taking the game in a different direction, but in some cases they seem to be actively trying to destroy things the old devs put there on purpose.
> 
> Basically, it's a completely different game pretending to be the same game. Or worse, some people are saying it's secretly the alpha test for the next edition. In other words, people joined up for one thing and are now getting another.





> That describes my feelings better than I could have.


I generally agree with this. 

Overall, I actually like Tasha's. I especially like Fizban's. The new Dragonborn race in Fizban's is what it should have been from the beginning. 

That said, I also agree that the new devs have a _VERY DIFFERENT_ view of the game than the original devs, and I'm not convinced it's a good direction for the game to be going.

----------


## Keltest

> I generally agree with this. 
> 
> Overall, I actually like Tasha's. I especially like Fizban's. The new Dragonborn race in Fizban's is what it should have been from the beginning. 
> 
> That said, I also agree that the new devs have a _VERY DIFFERENT_ view of the game than the original devs, and I'm not convinced it's a good direction for the game to be going.


Throwing my voice in with this too. I dont know that I would say any of what theyre doing is low quality, but its not the game that I was promised when they labeled it 5e.

----------


## Amnestic

> That said, I also agree that the new devs have a _VERY DIFFERENT_ view of the game than the original devs, and I'm not convinced it's a good direction for the game to be going.


What different view do you think they have from the original devs?

----------


## Psyren

> In other words, people joined up for one thing and are now getting another.


I at least joined up before Tasha's and am getting what I want post-Tasha's.

I do think there have been some misses (Silvery Barbs comes to mind) - but then, there were misses in the original content too (Conjure Animals comes to mind.)

----------


## Oramac

> What different view do you think they have from the original devs?


{Scrubbed}

----------


## Amnestic

> {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}


Forgotten Realms literally has a nation (Mulhorand) which is Ancient Egypt, complete with their pantheon of gods imported directly from Earth. That's not figurative, that is literally what happened in the canon. From what I can tell this were added to the game in 1990, maybe before. Mulhorand is also not the only one, it's just the one I think most clearly demonstrates that, yes, real world politics has been influencing fantasy world design long, _long_ before post-Tasha's 5e.

I do not believe you are correct.

----------


## Oramac

> Forgotten Realms literally has a nation (Mulhorand) which is Ancient Egypt, complete with their pantheon of gods imported directly from Earth. That's not figurative, that is literally what happened in the canon. From what I can tell this were added to the game in 1990, maybe before. Mulhorand is also not the only one, it's just the one I think most clearly demonstrates that, yes, real world politics has been influencing fantasy world design long, _long_ before post-Tasha's 5e.
> 
> I do not believe you are correct.


{Scrubbed}

Taking influence is fine. I do it all the time. But some things should be left in the real world.

----------


## Tanarii

The design philosophy of the new group that was took over when Mearls was ousted, that brought us Tasha's and later products, has taken a sharp turn for the worse.  And it shows in every product they've released.

Compare:  Volos was the hands down best 5e book to date, and Xan was amazing except for the Hexblade.  Tome of Foes was pretty decent, despite doing elves pretty dirty. Tasha's is flat garbage and should never have seen print.  Fizbans is mostly trash.  

Campaign content:  SCAG and Eberron (both solid good revisionism) vs Ravenloft and Spelljammer both solidly bad revisionism).  Dragonlance looks like it's going to be just as bad as Spelljammer.

Adventures:  More of a mixed bag.  But high points were ToA and Yawning Portal.  Witchlight is definitely _a_ low point, but I don't know that it's the worst low point.

General design direction: 
Original: Pulling in the best parts of D&D history, both thematically and with rules direction.  Evergreen.
New: Screw D&D history, we're going to rewrite it or toss it in the garbage and do our own thing.  Errata for reasons we can't discuss, revising and re-releasing content, and a 5.5 edition.

The difference between the two groups of Devs is clear. 
And I never thought I'd be holding up Mearls as a positive thing for D&D.  :Small Amused:

----------


## Greywander

> I at least joined up before Tasha's and am getting what I want post-Tasha's.


Sure. Some people picked up the game _because_ of the new direction. Other long-time players are pleased with the new direction. And many existing players don't like the new direction. These all exist. Whether this was a good or bad business decision for WotC will depend on the proportion of players that fits into each category.




> What different view do you think they have from the original devs?


The evergreen policy is dead. New "optional" rules have been made mandatory in newer content, and they've been actively suppressing access to older material that is now "out of date". For example, the debacle on DNDBeyond with MotM, Volo's, and MToF.

They have been actively removing lore, and changing the lore to be lighter and softer. See the whole discussion around "evil orcs". People always had the option to homebrew non-evil orcs, but now _everyone_ has to homebrew because a lot of the lore is just gone.

There's been a lot of power creep. Some things needed a buff, but the average power level has been trending upward overall.

And yes, politics. The fact that "Diversity and Dungeons and Dragons" is a real article published on the WotC website, and but one of many articles tackling "current issues", speaks volumes about where WotC's priorities are right now. Many of us just want to roll the funny math rocks and forget about these things for a while.

Those are just the things I can think of off the top of my head.




> Forgotten Realms literally has a nation (Mulhorand) which is Ancient Egypt, complete with their pantheon of gods imported directly from Earth. That's not figurative, that is literally what happened in the canon. From what I can tell this were added to the game in 1990, maybe before. Mulhorand is also not the only one, it's just the one I think most clearly demonstrates that, yes, real world politics has been influencing fantasy world design long, _long_ before post-Tasha's 5e.
> 
> I do not believe you are correct.


What does ancient Egypt have to do with modern politics? It may as well be a fantasy setting with how far removed it is from Current Year.

Fantasy settings can draw inspiration from things in the real world, but those things should be grounded in the setting. If a political issue arises organically because of things happening within the setting, it feels natural and not forced. If an issue is forced in artificially, it feels fake, more like a parody than an earnest exploration of that issue.

----------


## Psyren

> Compare:  Volos was the hands down best 5e book to date, and Xan was amazing except for the Hexblade.  Tome of Foes was pretty decent, despite doing elves pretty dirty. Tasha's is flat garbage and should never have seen print.  Fizbans is mostly trash.  
> 
> Campaign content:  SCAG and Eberron (both solid good revisionism) vs Ravenloft and Spelljammer both solidly bad revisionism).  Dragonlance looks like it's going to be just as bad as Spelljammer.


Volo's was chock full of questionable and retrograde race design, and SCAG was one of the worst splatbooks I've seen in any edition of D&D. It has by far the highest density of bad subclasses of any book in the whole edition. I can credit it for retconning the Spellplague, and little else. (Arcana domain is nice though.)




> Sure. Some people picked up the game _because_ of the new direction. Other long-time players are pleased with the new direction. And many existing players don't like the new direction. These all exist. Whether this was a good or bad business decision for WotC will depend on the proportion of players that fits into each category.


On this much we certainly agree.

----------


## Segev

> I generally agree with this. 
> 
> Overall, I actually like Tasha's. I especially like Fizban's. The new Dragonborn race in Fizban's is what it should have been from the beginning. 
> 
> That said, I also agree that the new devs have a _VERY DIFFERENT_ view of the game than the original devs, and I'm not convinced it's a good direction for the game to be going.


Fizban's Treasury of Dragons had the GALL to declare that there never were such a thing as steel dragons, but they're really other shapeshifting dragons pretending to be steel dragons! Retconning the best dragon type out of existence! Worst book ever!

More seriously, that annoyance aside (I'd have liked to see a 5e-official steel dragon...even if I suspect the reason they left it out is because it was too complicated for the simplified paradigm that they're going for), I do like several things FTD does. I am interested in the breath elementals being a creature, rather than a spell, though some discussion of how dragons learn to make them would be nice, and I have similar mixed positive feelings about the Metallic Guardians (which, as far as I can tell, are wholly new inventions for FTD/5e).

----------


## Oramac

> They have been actively removing lore, and changing the lore to be lighter and softer. See the whole discussion around "evil orcs". People always had the option to homebrew non-evil orcs, but now _everyone_ has to homebrew because a lot of the lore is just gone.
> 
> And yes, politics. The fact that "Diversity and Dungeons and Dragons" is a real article published on the WotC website, and but one of many articles tackling "current issues", speaks volumes about where WotC's priorities are right now. Many of us just want to roll the funny math rocks and forget about these things for a while.
> 
> Fantasy settings can draw inspiration from things in the real world, but those things should be grounded in the setting. If a political issue arises organically because of things happening within the setting, it feels natural and not forced. If an issue is forced in artificially, it feels fake, more like a parody than an earnest exploration of that issue.


Yes. This. You said it much better than I ever could.

----------


## Psyren

> Many of us just want to roll the funny math rocks and forget about these things for a while.


This in itself is a position of considerable privilege, whether or not you see it that way.




> I am interested in the breath elementals being a creature, rather than a spell, though some discussion of how dragons learn to make them would be nice, and I have similar mixed positive feelings about the Metallic Guardians (which, as far as I can tell, are wholly new inventions for FTD/5e).


The trouble with making them spells or feats (even "monster feats," were such a thing to exist in 5e) is that doing so makes it very hard to keep those rules elements as DM-only. But making them monsters makes it easy, you can simply drop them into a dragon fight as needed and say the dragon made them, then adjust the CR of the fight accordingly.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> In another thread* it was mentioned that the devs change 5e had with Tasha's (and afterwards) led to worse content.  I'm not really sure about it.


 I use about 1/3 or less of what's in Tasha's.  It could have used another scrub and the violations to common sense that the sorcerer and priest sub classes brought was a disappointment. 



> Personally, I thought the core books to be very good, but most releases since core sub-par.


 Core was good, SCAG rushed and some of the sub classes were badly done. (But I like Arcana Cleric).  
_Tasha's is imo a mixed bag._ 
Sloppy and bloaty and power creepy (the + Spell Save DC items are in particular a bad idea)  
But I really like the Tattoos.  

Ravenloft book: meh, sorry I bought it. 
Fizban's: like the gem dragons, like the update to dragonborn and a few items, like a few dragon based spells, but I have two players playing dragonborn, so maybe that's why I like it OK.  
That said, their attempt to take ownership of the multiverse was one of its conceptual down sides. 



> politics.


 Yes. The soiling of a leisure activity with {forum rules probably do not permit so I'll stop}. The issue at hand was importing into AL, and future books, a few of the Tasha's unique changes is where quite a bit of the criticism comes from.   



> The design philosophy of the new group that was took over when Mearls was ousted, that brought us Tasha's and later products, has taken a sharp turn for the worse.  And it shows in every product they've released.


 Strixhaven is worse the Witchlight.  :Small Tongue: 



> Compare:  Volos was the hands down best 5e book to date, and Xan was amazing except for the Hexblade.


 Volo's was OK, Xan's was better IMO, excepting the abomination that is hexblade. 



> Tome of Foes was pretty decent, despite doing elves pretty dirty.


Agree. 



> But high points were ToA and Yawning Portal.


 Concur. Salt Marsh is decent to good.  



> General design direction: 
> Original: Pulling in the best parts of D&D history, both thematically and with rules direction.  Evergreen.
> 
> New: Screw D&D... And I never thought I'd be holding up Mearls as a positive thing for D&D.


 Yeah, what I liked about Crawford was countered by his being unable to stay off of his freaking Twitter account long enough to think before answering a question.  :Small Tongue: 



> The evergreen policy is dead. New "optional" rules have been made mandatory in newer content, and they've been actively suppressing access to older material that is now "out of date".


 Yeah, this is a finger in the eye of the players.  it's the D&D version of Newspeak.  "Mords and the MM was always like this new and screwed up version ... in Eastasia ... " 



> There's been a lot of power creep.


 Agruably, Shepherd Druid was egregious enough  in Xan's ... 



> Many of us just want to roll the funny math rocks and forget about these things for a while.


 A fair assessment.  



> SCAG was one of the worst splatbooks I've seen in any edition of D&D. It has by far the highest density of bad subclasses of any book in the whole edition. I can credit it for retconning the Spellplague, and little else. (Arcana domain is nice though.)


 Yeah, the much anticipated SCAG landed with a thud by the time I was done going through it.  And I agree, Arcana Cleric is nice. 



> Fizban's Treasury of Dragons had the GALL to declare that there never were such a thing as steel dragons


 I never liked steel dragons; metal dragons being valuable metals strikes me as a better thematic.

----------


## Segev

> The trouble with making them spells or feats (even "monster feats," were such a thing to exist in 5e) is that doing so makes it very hard to keep those rules elements as DM-only. But making them monsters makes it easy, you can simply drop them into a dragon fight as needed and say the dragon made them, then adjust the CR of the fight accordingly.


I understand. I happen to like making them not DM-only, myself. I see value in it. And honestly... if it takes a chromatic dragon to make the breath elemental, or a metallic dragon to make and use the functions of a metallic guardian, that keeps it pretty DM-facing, anyway. No player CAN do that, unless the DM has already allowed them to make one of those dragons as a PC.




> I never liked steel dragons; metal dragons being valuable metals strikes me as a better thematic.


You're allowed to be objectively wrong, I suppose.

More seriously, I can see why you say that. My liking of steel dragons is both their proclivity for spending more time amongst humanoids and demihumans than in dragon form (and the associated increased time/ability to be in such forms), and also their unique weakness compared to other shapeshifting dragons that they pay for their increased ability to alter form with a "tell" in the form of something made of steel on their persons or steel-colored eyes or teeth or nails or hair or the like. It just struck me as really cool as a package, and I don't see it neatly translating to "oh, it's just silver or gold dragons pretending."

----------


## sandmote

> I'm not going to go too deep into this, but in a word: politics. The new devs are pretty openly using real-world politics to influence fantasy-world game design. Faerun et al. is not Earth, and it should not be designed as such. These worlds _have_ politics, but not _our_ politics. I believe that difference is lost on the current dev team.


 To be honest, I think the new trend has been laziness on the part of the developers, and in a few cases politics has been their excuse for laziness.  

The racial changes should have been rebalanced with additional features, instead of stripping out ASIs. I understand the principle behind "an orc wizard can be as smart as an elven wizard," but features that are less helpful to Str based characters on a race that gets a Strength bonus (and similar cases) were previously part of the balance, and replacing the ASIs with nothing doesn't help the game. Its also kind of hard to "play against type" when all mechanical builds are within "type" for all the racial options. 

In contrast, adding "typically" to alignment descriptions is sort of political, but doesn't do anything to the books. Pretty sure DMs who strictly followed that were in the minority before the change. It feels more like an excuse to not have to put lore into the books. 

MTG has seen similar problems (the excuse for printing Tybalt's Trickery, the Inistrad Double Feature's and lack of functionality, all the treasure in green from New Capenna) that I think support lazyness being a driving force within WoTC. 




> The fact that "Diversity and Dungeons and Dragons" is a real article published on the WotC website, and but one of many articles tackling "current issues", speaks volumes about where WotC's priorities are right now. Many of us just want to roll the funny math rocks and forget about these things for a while.


 So far, they've attempted this by not bothering to include lore (new or old). Which technically does make it easier for me to "roll the funny math rocks and forget about these things for a while," than 2e and 3.5e managed (4e's vaguness was more similar to this), but also adds more things I have to rule zero for a game. And you'll notice requires the least effort for the developers compared to other options.

----------


## Sigreid

I've said it here once before, but I don't think the current team likes D&D at all.  I think they like the idea of the prestige of being attached to D&D.  Much like one comic book writer that admitted she liked the prestige of being attached to top tier super hero comic books but isn't interested in the super hero shtick so the adventure and combat became a lame 1 panel per issue thing.

----------


## Psyren

> I understand. I happen to like making them not DM-only, myself. I see value in it. And honestly... if it takes a chromatic dragon to make the breath elemental, or a metallic dragon to make and use the functions of a metallic guardian, that keeps it pretty DM-facing, anyway. No player CAN do that, unless the DM has already allowed them to make one of those dragons as a PC.


That's definitely valid - but I can also understand them wanting to say "the decision to make these player-facing should be up to the DM" - which keeping them purely as monsters does.




> I've said it here once before, but I don't think the current team likes D&D at all.  I think they like the idea of the prestige of being attached to D&D.  Much like one comic book writer that admitted she liked the prestige of being attached to top tier super hero comic books but isn't interested in the super hero shtick so the adventure and combat became a lame 1 panel per issue thing.


I think they love D&D, so much so that they are not willing to let it stagnate.

----------


## Grod_The_Giant

> This in itself is a position of considerable privilege, whether or not you see it that way.


Yup.

(Can't really say anything more without breaking forum rules on politics.)

----------


## Segev

> I think they love D&D, so much so that they are not willing to let it stagnate.


I'm sure the same can be said of Kurtzman and Star Trek, and Kathleen Kennedy and Star Wars. Gotta love Star Trek Discovery and Picard, and the latest Star Wars trilogy, keeping it from stagnating!

----------


## MrStabby

> I'm sure the same can be said of Kurtzman and Star Trek, and Kathleen Kennedy and Star Wars. Gotta love Star Trek Discovery and Picard, and the latest Star Wars trilogy, keeping it from stagnating!


And Hollywood has a great record for not letting the Halloween franchise stagnate or letting the Die Hard get old by releasing new content.

----------


## Greywander

> This in itself is a position of considerable privilege, whether or not you see it that way.


On the contrary, those with the hardest lives need escapism the most, while those whose lives are safe, secure, and comfortable need to "explore tough questions" in their entertainment because their lives are too easy. In fact, I'd think the type of entertainment/escapism a person prefers likely tends to be the opposite of what their life is actually like.

There's a reason a lot of philanthropists tend to be wealthy people, and having the means to engage in charitable work is only part of it. I suspect some of those with easy lives feel a moral obligation to work to make the lives of others easier. That's certainly not a bad thing, but it can sometimes be misguided. And as of late there's certainly been a lot of misguidance. The most egregious is probably the preaching down to people telling them that they should be more concerned with Current Issue than they are with paying rent or feeding their kids (or worse, that rising rent and food prices is somehow a good thing because it helps with Current Issue). And yeah, we could add rising costs to our D&D games, but that wouldn't actually help us pay our bills and we already have to deal with that in real life. For some of us, our fantasy is being able to afford the things we need.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I've said it here once before, but I don't think the current team likes D&D at all.  I think they like the idea of the prestige of being attached to D&D.  Much like one comic book writer that admitted she liked the prestige of being attached to top tier super hero comic books but isn't interested in the super hero shtick so the adventure and combat became a lame 1 panel per issue thing.


This, with a side of laziness and corporate trying to extract as much money as possible out of things and avoiding anything like controversy from the Twitterati.

Personally, I find the new _lack_ of direction (other than "throw things at the wall and blindly plagarize other games" and "burnish our Twitter credibility") to be the most concerning thing. There has been no vision displayed, no coherent plan other than "more spells! Everything's a spell!.

And it's never failed--any time a corporation (of any kind) makes a big deal out of their commitment to _any ideology on any side of any political spectrum_, quality will decline. Because those statements are designed entirely 100% as cover against criticism. You don't like the way we're going with this? Then you must oppose <thing they've proclaimed as their goal>. It is 100% of the time cynical and self-serving _unless_ it was part of the company from the get go and it's a small private company. Arms of publicly-traded companies have no ideology, morals, or ethics. Because they have a single duty: make money.

----------


## Psyren

> I'm sure the same can be said of Kurtzman and Star Trek, and Kathleen Kennedy and Star Wars. Gotta love Star Trek Discovery and Picard, and the latest Star Wars trilogy, keeping it from stagnating!


Why yes, yes it can  :Small Tongue:  not sure if that was _intended_ to be pejorative, but I can assure you it's not. 




> On the contrary, those with the hardest lives need escapism the most, while those whose lives are safe, secure, and comfortable need to "explore tough questions" in their entertainment because their lives are too easy. In fact, I'd think the type of entertainment/escapism a person prefers likely tends to be the opposite of what their life is actually like.
> 
> There's a reason a lot of philanthropists tend to be wealthy people, and having the means to engage in charitable work is only part of it. I suspect some of those with easy lives feel a moral obligation to work to make the lives of others easier. That's certainly not a bad thing, but it can sometimes be misguided. And as of late there's certainly been a lot of misguidance. The most egregious is probably the preaching down to people telling them that they should be more concerned with Current Issue than they are with paying rent or feeding their kids (or worse, that rising rent and food prices is somehow a good thing because it helps with Current Issue). And yeah, we could add rising costs to our D&D games, but that wouldn't actually help us pay our bills and we already have to deal with that in real life. For some of us, our fantasy is being able to afford the things we need.


Implying Volo's/SCAG is escapism and MPMM/Tasha's isn't is... odd, to say the least  :Small Confused:

----------


## Segev

> Why yes, yes it can  not sure if that was _intended_ to be pejorative, but I can assure you it's not.


With Star Wars, I can only go by how fans seem to receive it. With Star Trek... Discovery is horrifyingly bad and Picard was distressingly disappointing.

Lower Decks is amazing, though, and clearly made by people who actually love Star Trek.

----------


## Greywander

> Implying Volo's/SCAG is escapism and MPMM/Tasha's isn't is... odd, to say the least


I don't think that's what I said, I was responding to what you said about wanting to keep politics out of entertainment being a privileged thing to want. I was saying that it wasn't, and that the privileged position was the one trying to force politics in.

I think it's pretty clear we're not going to convince each other on this or related points, so it's probably best to drop this line of discussion before we run foul of the forum rules. It was getting off topic anyway.

----------


## Sigreid

In the end, sales will determine whether they continue as they have been or course correct.  For me, I've lost all interest in acquiring anything new.  I come to this forum for adventure/character ideas and only pop into these threads out of morbid curiosity.

I will say "privelage" is a weak argument when you have no idea about the people you're talking with or the life they've lived.

----------


## Psyren

> I don't think that's what I said, I was responding to what you said about wanting to keep politics out of entertainment being a privileged thing to want. I was saying that it wasn't, and that the privileged position was the one trying to force politics in.
> 
> I think it's pretty clear we're not going to convince each other on this or related points, so it's probably best to drop this line of discussion before we run foul of the forum rules. It was getting off topic anyway.


You're right, we won't.




> With Star Wars, I can only go by how fans seem to receive it. With Star Trek... Discovery is horrifyingly bad and Picard was distressingly disappointing.


ST aside, for which I blame JJ rather than KK, Kennedy was behind Mandalorian, Rogue One and Obi-Wan/Visions, all of which are largely enjoyed by fans on top of being commercial juggernauts. And for Kurtzman, Discovery is the most successful show on its platform. Picard meanwhile is being renewed for a third season so it must be doing something right.

I'm okay with Lower Decks existing but I have no interest in it personally.

----------


## truemane

*Metamagic Mod*: everyone in this thread take one large step away from the political angle on this whole topic. We all know what it is. We all have our opinions.  This is not the place to discuss it. It's not even the place to indirectly allude to it or vaguely hint at it. Anyone who steps near it after this is getting an Infraction for it.

----------


## Greywander

> In the end, sales will determine whether they continue as they have been or course correct.  For me, I've lost all interest in acquiring anything new.  I come to this forum for adventure/character ideas and only pop into these threads out of morbid curiosity.


I've said it before, but I think the 2024 release of One D&D will make or break things. If it succeeds, they'll keep doing more of the same. If it bombs, I think we'll see a new 6e pop up in a few years that goes in the opposite direction from One. TBH, it would probably be worse if the response was just mediocre, as WotC might interpret that as people simply losing interest in D&D, and they might shelve it for a while.

----------


## Snowbluff

> ST aside, for which I blame JJ rather than KK, Kennedy was behind Mandalorian, Rogue One and Obi-Wan/Visions, all of which are largely enjoyed by fans on top of being commercial juggernauts..


 I don't think Rogue One was good, it's just that the bar for Star Wars has been set so low for so many decades that having something kind of watchable made it the best Star Wars film in so long by default. I don't have anything personally against KK, but I do like Mando and Jon Favreau made a point to be personally involved with it. 

Depending on who you ask, there's maybe 2-4 good Star Wars films. I find it kind of funny, watching a franchise flounder for so long but remain profitable, probably entirely by nostalgia. It's like Bethesda but at 10 times the scale in net worth.  :Small Tongue: 



> I'm okay with Lower Decks existing but I have no interest in it personally.


It is the best, though. Not to rag on them a whole lot, but Kurtzman (Revenge of the Fallen fame, won't put in the 2 minutes of work to make technobabble less stupid) and Abrams (whose mystery boxes are always seemingly empty, failed to put something together for the sequel trilogy) aren't really _good._ I'm surprised that Lower Decks and SNW are at all watchable. I was the most hyped up for Picard, but it was ultimately disappointing. This is kind of the problem with this sort of thing, I'd be happier defending a blank of Kurtzman produced work if it were more consistently good.

I don't think Tasha's content is really any worse of what we've gotten, however. Most of my interest in setting information is superficial at best to begin with, I'm not offended that they put the "not always evil" asterisk that has always been in the game forward, and I don't use default settings in the games I run to begin with. Unlike with Star Wars or Star Trek, I can just write whatever game world I want to play anyway. DnD isn't a TV Show or a video game, you can literally toss out all of the fluff text and still play DnD.

----------


## Psyren

> I've said it before, but I think the 2024 release of One D&D will make or break things. If it succeeds, they'll keep doing more of the same. If it bombs, I think we'll see a new 6e pop up in a few years that goes in the opposite direction from One. TBH, it would probably be worse if the response was just mediocre, as WotC might interpret that as people simply losing interest in D&D, and they might shelve it for a while.


Even in the absolute worst case scenario that D&D is "shelved" - 5e isn't going anywhere. If anything, the likely result of that will be a boom over in the third-party world as the people who want to keep playing and who crave more content for their games will be inclined to go check out less official sources. The strength of 5e as a game engine is the whole reason that 1DnD is building on it rather than doing a massive overhaul in the 3e->4e->5e vein after all.




> I don't think Rogue One was good, it's just that the bar for Star Wars has been set so low for so many decades that having something kind of watchable made it the best Star Wars film in so long by default. I don't have anything personally against KK, but I do like Mando and Jon Favreau made a point to be personally involved with it. 
> 
> Depending on who you ask, there's maybe 2-4 good Star Wars films. I find it kind of funny, watching a franchise flounder for so long but remain profitable, probably entirely by nostalgia. It's like Bethesda but at 10 times the scale in net worth.


I definitely agree with your count. 
*Spoiler: Star Wars Tangent*
Show

What I personally find frustrating is that we had a clear avenue to revitalizing the franchise and finally moving away from the very tiny window of time dominated by Palpatine's Empire (of which the First Order can now be defined as just being an offshoot), but JJ strangled it in its cradle, so now we're right back to mining nostalgia in a holding pattern.

The broader point though is that Kennedy and Kurtzman have been massively successful for their respective companies even with franchise issues. They're not going anywhere.

----------


## Mastikator

> In another thread* it was mentioned that the devs change 5e had with Tasha's (and afterwards) led to worse content. I'm not really sure about it. Personally, I thought the core books to be very good, but most releases since core sub-par. Tasha's is imo a mixed bag, but better than some releases before but enough bad stuff as well. After Tasha's, I think there were a few quite decent releases (Fizban's, Ravenloft). But I mostly stopped buying (and looking at) books after that.
> 
> So I was wondering, is this a thing, that content got worse from Tasha's onwards? Does that include the adventure modules? 
> 
> 
> *https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...w-do-we-fix-it


I haven't been paying a great deal of attention to the newer books. For one I own precisely zero adventure books. But I do own Mp:MotM and I do think it's better than Volo's and Tome of Foes combined. I am very glad that they stripped out much of the (very bad setting) Forgotten Realms specific lore and replaced some of it with more nature over nurture type info.

I think any movement away from hard coding all races, classes, backgrounds and feats to be FR first and anything else a distant forgotten second is a wonderful step in the right direction. Mainly because I hate FR with a fiery passion of a thousand suns. Looking at the UA playtest I see this step being taken even further, many of the changes make me very hopeful for the future of D&D.

To answer your question OP, I think D&D is getting better over time. And will continue to get better in the future.

As for spelljammer I think that's more of an indication of the high variety of quality which has always existed in D&D. After Tasha's we have: (that I own)
Fizban's: good
Mp:MotM: good
Van Richen's: good
Strixhaven: haven't read fully, mixed bag
I'll take this forum's word that Spelljammer is lacking, but it's an outlier from a trend of goodness.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I've said it here once before, but I don't think the current team likes D&D at all.  I think they like the idea of the prestige of being attached to D&D.


 While that may be partly true, I think Perkins is still on the team and I always got the idea that he likes it. A lot.  



> I think they love D&D, so much so that they are not willing to let it stagnate.


 Just like 4e, which was a case of setting the game on fire rather than letting it stagnate.   :Small Cool:  
*ducks as the rock throwing commences from 4e players*  



> Star Trek {snip}  Star Wars


 Both past their sell by date. 



> Arms of publicly-traded companies have no ideology, morals, or ethics. Because they have a single duty: make money.


 That's how it seems to go, but there was a time back before touch tone phones were invented where things were a little different, although factory towns are hardly a great feature ... plenty of problems then too.   



> I will say "privelege" is a weak argument when you have no idea about the people you're talking with or the life they've lived.


 Fair point. 



> star wars stuff


 I liked Rogue One.  The 7,8,9 eps could have been better. And that's about as far as I care to spend time on that topic. 



> ...WotC might interpret that as people simply losing interest in D&D, and they might shelve it for a while.


 Or Hasbro will sell the IP/brand/game.  



> I think D&D is getting better over time. And will continue to get better in the future.


 It has gotten bloated, again. Happens with each edition, eventually.  
Glad you like Von Richten's; I have the book but it didn't move me.

----------


## Psyren

Van Richtens is one of my favorite 5e books ever. Even putting the player options aside, there are so many great hooks strewn throughout the Domains, and the nature of the Mists is that you can plop the party down into one literally any time they camp for the night  :Small Smile: 




> Just like 4e, which was a case of setting the game on fire rather than letting it stagnate.   
> *ducks as the rock throwing commences from 4e players*


4e was a case of them outsourcing their design goals to optimizers rather than having their own vision for the game, and they got exactly what they were looking for. They then proceeded to learn the hard way that optimizers are not the majority of the game's base and never have been.

----------


## Waazraath

> The design philosophy of the new group that was took over when Mearls was ousted, that brought us Tasha's and later products, has taken a sharp turn for the worse.  And it shows in every product they've released.
> 
> Compare:  Volos was the hands down best 5e book to date, and Xan was amazing except for the Hexblade.  Tome of Foes was pretty decent, despite doing elves pretty dirty. Tasha's is flat garbage and should never have seen print.  Fizbans is mostly trash.  
> 
> Campaign content:  SCAG and Eberron (both solid good revisionism) vs Ravenloft and Spelljammer both solidly bad revisionism).  Dragonlance looks like it's going to be just as bad as Spelljammer.
> 
> Adventures:  More of a mixed bag.  But high points were ToA and Yawning Portal.  Witchlight is definitely _a_ low point, but I don't know that it's the worst low point.
> 
> General design direction: 
> ...


Ah, then we rate things differently, I see, at least regarding character options.

Campaign content: I liked both SCAG, Ebberon, Ravnica and Ravenloft - but this was my first Ravenloft, so I couldn't judge the quality of the revisions. If it is worse than its 2e(?) incarnation, I might look at it less favourable, but seeing it for the first time I was happy with it.

Adventures: haven't seen any of the new ones. Having said that: PotA was fun, but also badly edited and required tons of work for me as a DM (even the scale on the maps was off); OotA is great fun, as a player, but the DM complains a lot about extra work which has to be put in. The Dragon Queen books are very meh. Yawning Portal is indeed very nice. So without being able to do the comparison, pre-Tasha's is a mixed bag imo.

Player options: I don't really see much difference between Tasha's and Xanathars. To be a bit more elaborate, I'm annoyed by Tasha's for its items (lots of stuff for casters, little for martials) and spell bloat, but at the same time I applaud the extra options for martials, which is one of the first player options books giving those (as I mentioned in another thread, only SCAG had some totem bbn options). Of course peace and twilight cleric are silly, and it annoyed me that they broke earlier established norms (60 of 120 ft darkvision, and tasha's gave 300; no 18 stat at lvl 1 with point buy, but the 'custom race' did allow it). But it also had very interesting subclasses, new subsystems, fun stuff! While Xanathar also had spell bloat, also had overpowered classes (hexblade and shepard), but also had quite underpowered classes (more than Tasha's imo), only expanded on non-spell options for invocations. 
And I really did not like Volo's, nor tome of foes (Elves part in there was terrible, especially lore but racials were also meh). Lots of racial options, a lot of it overlapping or redundant or obscure, and less (interesting) lore than I would have liked. I did liked Fizban's, but the painful thing is that if I compare almost any 5e book after the core releases with its 3.5 counterpart, the 5e incarnation gets blown away. Even a book like Fizban's, which has interesting new items, the imo best ranger subclass in the game, and useable and good dragonborns - it doen't hold a candle to 3.5's Draconomicon.

At the risk of sounding like a 3.5 fanboy - which I'm really not, I think 5e's core was much better than 3.5. But the decline in quality started unfortunately for me after the release of the PHB/MM/DMG already, even though some nice books were released between the average ones.

----------


## Mastikator

I don't think it's fair to say that 4e was setting D&D on fire rather than letting it stagnate. After all 4e is better than 3.5e.

----------


## Sigreid

> I don't think it's fair to say that 4e was setting D&D on fire rather than letting it stagnate. After all 4e is better than 3.5e.


Wasn't to my taste; but you can't please everyone.  And if you try to, you'll more often than not please no one.

----------


## Oramac

> Wasn't to my taste; but you can't please everyone.  And if you try to, you'll more often than not please no one.


"You can please some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time. But you can't please all the people all the time" - Unknown (would love to know who if anyone knows)

----------


## Sigreid

> "You can please some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time. But you can't please all the people all the time" - Unknown (would love to know who if anyone knows)


Always heard that as fool, not please.  I don't think you can ever please all of the people.

----------


## Oramac

> Always heard that as fool, not please.  I don't think you can ever please all of the people.


Eh. I think it works both ways. Though you're probably right that fooling the people is easier than pleasing them. Of course, then you have to ask, if you fool all the people and they are pleased because of it, have you succeeded at both? Or are you just the villain in your own campaign? :D

----------


## Sigreid

> Eh. I think it works both ways. Though you're probably right that fooling the people is easier than pleasing them. Of course, then you have to ask, if you fool all the people and they are pleased because of it, have you succeeded at both? Or are you just the villain in your own campaign? :D


I'm not the villain of my story.  That guy lives in my mirror. 😁

----------


## Kane0

Quality hasn't really changed (or quantity for that matter), but the direction has.

----------


## Hail Tempus

Some of the new books haven't felt like a great fit, thematically, with D&D in general. Strixhaven and Witchlight, for example. I'm not sure what game those books belong to, but it's not really D&D. 

Part of the problem is that the current system is supposedly based on the three pillars of combat, social encounters, and exploration. But the second two pillars are underbaked in the rules, so any material that leans too heavily into those two areas feels.... anemic?

----------


## Dr.Samurai

Worse content? I don't know. It depends on if you think replacing actual lore with either no lore or bland/samey lore to be better or worse. And if tacking on spell uses/day to every single thing that has mechanics is a good idea. And if revisiting old settings in such a way that the people that want them the most wind up wishing they'd never been touched at all is a success.

----------


## TyGuy

> So I was wondering, is this a thing, that content got worse from Tasha's onwards? Does that include the adventure modules?


I'd say not only has the content gotten worse, the community and discussions have dipped as topics that aren't even allowed on this forum detract from the once primary activity of collective story time in imagination land. 

The books are increasingly sterile. And new-WotC are sanitizing content post hoc, like in multiverse. I happily bought books back when they were loaded with inspirational and time saving content. The amount of such content has been on the decline for me. Since TCoE,  I preview books to see if I'm interested in purchasing. I haven't been since MToF. 
I was gifted Fizban's. There's some gems in there, but overall I wouldn't have bought it with my own money. 
The old books used to pull me in. I would, still do actually, simply flip through the core books, Volos, XGtE, MtoF. They themselves had enough art, inspiration, etc. to be entertaining in a sense. I didn't get that from Fizban's and I haven't gotten it from anything I've previewed. 
I honestly didn't even know there was a team switch and I'm not surprised, because it tracks. It seems to me like the new team is more concerned with avoiding offending people than putting in inoffensive neutral appropriate content like robust ship-to-ship combat rules. 
Which leads me to spelljammer. My favorite D&D setting. I never played/ran it, but it's something I've wanted for years. I simply haven't the time to convert 2e spelljammer, though I've considered it many times. Glossing over the new books, expecting to be wowed, I was very disappointed. It actually motivated me to look up the old books on the high seas. Now those I can get into. Crappy black and white art and all, they pulled me in like the early 5e books. 
And that's when it sunk in. I'm getting distracted but the best I can do to articulate is that up until TCoE, content in D&D has been presented mostly as "a thing" i.e. *something*. Here are orcs, they are quintessential bad guys, here's how/why. And it was understood that the DM and players could hack literally anything they wanted with that content. It wasn't presented as "the canon we must all follow". It was just coherent content presented as-is for our inspiration, we could use anything from the books as-is, tweaked, removed, converted wholesale. Now a part of the fan base and definitely the dev team worry about how things are presented. So the sanitized content is more presented as "anything". And when that anything gets too broad and nebulous it kind of becomes *nothing*. Case in point, the Hadozee debacle.

----------


## animorte

Obviously everybody has varying degrees of preference. I think people like to see some of their real world goals within the game, especially since some of those ideals are accomplished a lot easier. Like, I want to successfully travel the world! Thanks game! 

Different books having different concepts to add really mail it for some people. For example, I love what they did with Strixhaven. It hit a wonderful spot for me. Im sure there are some people that appreciate whatever Spelljammer has to offer.

----------


## Oramac

> It seems to me like the new team is more concerned with avoiding offending people than putting in inoffensive neutral appropriate content like robust ship-to-ship combat rules. 
> 
> And that's when it sunk in. I'm getting distracted but the best I can do to articulate is that up until TCoE, content in D&D has been presented mostly as "a thing" i.e. *something*. Here are orcs, they are quintessential bad guys, here's how/why. And it was understood that the DM and players could hack literally anything they wanted with that content. It wasn't presented as "the canon we must all follow". It was just coherent content presented as-is for our inspiration, we could use anything from the books as-is, tweaked, removed, converted wholesale. Now a part of the fan base and definitely the dev team worry about how things are presented. So the sanitized content is more presented as "anything". And when that anything gets too broad and nebulous it kind of becomes *nothing*. Case in point, the Hadozee debacle.


Well said.

----------


## Segev

> I don't think it's fair to say that 4e was setting D&D on fire rather than letting it stagnate. After all 4e is better than 3.5e.


4e was a perfectly fine fantasy combat simulator with RPG elements that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike D&D.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Jervis

To be honest im still seething about the Tasha create a race rules, whoever thought it was a good idea to power creep variant human should never write for a game again. I also have mixed opinions on the monsters of the multiverse, I think most of the races are a strict downgrade in lore and mechanics. I have zero interest in playing a Hobgoblin of this variety when it was one of my favorites before and removing the lizardfolk ability to turn dead creatures into weapons without putting it anywhere else annoys me. At least make it a background ability for crying out loud. 

The changed ASI rules have been beaten into the ground to the point its not really worth discussing anymore. It meant we had to put up with some balance problems for a while which was annoying and I do wish they at least continued printing default ASIs just to suggest builds like they use too. The next edition is moving ASIs to backgrounds and including some low level feats to give things like armor and weapon profs at low levels which I think is a positive change overall so its a mute point anyway, and honestly I dont think its worth arguing about since the devs moved in the direction everyones been saying they should go with. 

Peace cleric shouldnt exist. Mind Whip shouldnt exist. The new summoning spells are less of a pain even if they got nerfed a bit too much from the conjure line IMO. I detest moving almost everything to Prof/LR uses on principle since it just doesnt work for some things. Thats one of the few issues i have going into the Dndone playtest, it means bard subclasses that relied on inspiration (swords bard in particular) are probably going to need a rewrite even if the mechanic works well for inspiration in a vacuum. 

I dont run first party adventures most of the time so I cant speak personally but Ive been told that the quality has declined. Though I cant attest to the validity of that statement myself so I cant really give any opinions on the matter.

----------


## Leon

Game as a whole is worse than previous iterations mostly thru the streamlining of content ~ its down to a nutrient paste over the hearty meal of 3.5 and the MRE of 4e.
Inside the content is a mixed bag that is largely dependent on who is using what and how they like it.

----------


## Elves

{scrubbed}

----------


## 2D8HP

Right, so to review the books (as I see them):

2015s _Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide_ had the Rogue Swashbuckler sub-class with was AWESOME, the rest of the book seemed lame to me, but since the Swashbuckler was so awesome I say 👍

2016s _Volo's Guide to Monsters_ was a fun read, and the stuff on Hags was awesome 👍

2017s_ Tomb of Annihilation_ the adventure was awesome and the Archeologist background in it rocked! 👍

2017s _Xanathar's Guide to Everything_ had a weaker version of the Swashbuckler, and some other sub-classes that looked cool 👍

2018s _Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes_ the section on Dwarves rocked! I could totally play one!

Elves on the other hand

okay, perfect for a weird NPC culture, but too alien for this human to roleplay as described.

2019s_ Ghosts of Saltmarsh_ AWESOME! Brought back the Greyhawk setting (awesome) had nautical backgrounds, good adventures too 👍

2020s _Tasha's Cauldron of Everything_ umm

look, Im not using any of it in a game, but DAMN!!! The Tasha in the illustrations is a witchy stone fox, so still worth my money.

2021s _Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft_ I enjoyed reading it, but I cant see using it much in a game

----------


## Grod_The_Giant

> I don't think it's fair to say that 4e was setting D&D on fire rather than letting it stagnate. After all 4e is better than 3.5e.


Like it or hate it, it's hard not to admire the 4e designers.  They could easily have churned out something like Pathfinder that addresses common complaints but sticks closely to the same template, and they didn't--they really tried to do something new and evolve the game.  With a decade's worth of hindsight, I think it's fair to say they failed, but they were brave enough to try.


I'd actually argue that they were only one or two iterations away from something truly great, but that's a different thread.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Like it or hate it, it's hard not to admire the 4e designers.  They could easily have churned out something like Pathfinder that addresses common complaints but sticks closely to the same template, and they didn't--they really tried to do something new and evolve the game.  With a decade's worth of hindsight, I think it's fair to say they failed, but they were brave enough to try.


4e is the D&D edition that actively tried to not be D&D.

You can see that in the lore changes, in the visual designs of many recurring beings and monsters, and in the mechanics.

It didn't try to evolve the game, it wanted to be its own thing in spite of having the "D&D" label on it (probably slapped there by corporate suits wanting brand recognition). I can sympathize with how uncomfortable the situation was, but that's not brave. 

5e is the D&D edition that tried to evolve the game. And it succeeded, warts and all.

----------


## Mastikator

4e addressed all of the major flaws of 3.5e, and in turn also showed us which of those flaws should merely be remedied. Sometimes people need to get exactly what they're asking for to realize it's not what they want.

That said if I were to choose a system to play table top out of 3.5e and 4e, I'd pick 4e. The vancian casting, the total lack of balance, the exhausting crunch, it all adds up to an unplayably unfun experience. 4e on the other hand is extremely fast and simple, it's perfectly balanced, anyone can hop it and play. Those are strengths. We've since learned that perfect balance isn't the most fun, and lack of shenanigan-y options really limit creativity. Important lessons were carried over to 5e. And now 8 years since 5e came out extra lessons have been learned, such as the importance clear rules, and that feats are fun actually.

----------


## Dork_Forge

It's lazy work at best, at worst they're deliberately breaking design paradigms to 'make their mark' on the game, which is what new editions are for, not supplements.

Proficiency bonus is one of the most egregious examples of this, shoe-horned into many things nowadays, whilst being a terrible fit for most of it. Or the avalanche of half-feats that are clearly more powerful than their predecessors. 

Spell balance? This was never great, but nowadays is more seems like too much or too meh, not really hitting the sweetspot. 

Subclasses? I like a lot of the ones that have come out, but there are very clear signs of 'what were you thinking' sprinkled through a lot of them. The Twilight Domain is not only a flimsy concept, but it's execution is atrocious. The Watcher's Paladin should have no reason to cling to proficiency bonus and so on. And what they did to the Bladesinger is an atrocity that reeks of Wizard favouritism and poor design.

I don't agree with their treatment of races, but even that is so... all over the place. Even Spelljammer gives you wild swings in design in the same book and who is asking for more elves? I want names darn it.

We would have probably been better off with the designers from before, but ifs and buts aren't candy and nuts.

----------


## Hytheter

> The Watcher's Paladin should have no reason to cling to proficiency bonus and so on.


Now that you've said it, I realise it would have made a lot more sense to use your Charisma bonus, thus putting it in line with the base class aura.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Now that you've said it, I realise it would have made a lot more sense to use your Charisma bonus, thus putting it in line with the base class aura.


Exactly, it needlessly caters to multiclassing whilst paying lip service to their prof bonus paradigm. Even if you had the bare minimum Cha to be a Paladin, it would still be a nice boon for the party.

Prof bonus is good for what it was originally intended for, and terrible for everything else they use it for now.

----------


## Jervis

> Now that you've said it, I realise it would have made a lot more sense to use your Charisma bonus, thus putting it in line with the base class aura.


Five copper says the priest UA changes the basic aura to prof bonus

----------


## rel

I have come to the conclusion that the game works better for me with the PHB, DMG, and MM as the only books in use. 'Nothing published after 2014' to be poetic.
I don't think my issue is with the quality of the products, but rather with the underlying design intent; a shift away from the initial design goal of 5e as a simplified, customisable system.
So to answer the original question, I don't think there has been a change in quality but there has been a change in vision.

----------


## Jervis

> I have come to the conclusion that the game works better for me with the PHB, DMG, and MM as the only books in use. 'Nothing published after 2014' to be poetic.
> I don't think my issue is with the quality of the products, but rather with the underlying design intent; a shift away from the initial design goal of 5e as a simplified, customisable system.
> So to answer the original question, I don't think there has been a change in quality but there has been a change in vision.


Am I to assume you customize it with homebrew or that you run the game as is with those. To be honest im curious how the game runs long term with that amount of content long term

----------


## Sigreid

> Am I to assume you customize it with homebrew or that you run the game as is with those. To be honest im curious how the game runs long term with that amount of content long term


Honestly, it should be fine if the DM and players are down more for RP than a character build simulator.  Played for decades with parties being almost exclusively composed of a cleric, a mage, a fighter and a thief.  It was still a great time because we were still building personalities and exploring worlds and interacting with interesting NPCs.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Exactly, it needlessly caters to multiclassing whilst paying lip service to their prof bonus paradigm. Even if you had the bare minimum Cha to be a Paladin, it would still be a nice boon for the party.
> 
> Prof bonus is good for what it was originally intended for, and terrible for everything else they use it for now.


I disagree, abilities such as Unarmored Defense would be improved, (in my estimation), by switching to being a PB bonus as opposed to being based off an Ability Score Modifier.

Roll well in a Rolled Stats game, (the default option), and Ability Score modifier abilities can be overpowered. Roll poorly or use Point Buy and the abilities are underpowered.

Proficiency Bonus creates a predictable progression.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> I disagree, abilities such as Unarmored Defense would be improved, (in my estimation), by switching to being a PB bonus as opposed to being based off an Ability Score Modifier.
> 
> Roll well in a Rolled Stats game, (the default option), and Ability Score modifier abilities can be overpowered. Roll poorly or use Point Buy and the abilities are underpowered.
> 
> Proficiency Bonus creates a predictable progression.


It removes any kind of investment or control you have over it, and separates it from anything tied specifically your class. Monk's AC based on their martial arts training? Nope, Barbarian's on their natural resilience? Nope. You can fluff it to be whatever, but it strips the identity out the ability. It removes your ability to invest in it or not, and it forces you to start with a lower floor.

Being MAD isn't strictly a weakness, it's thematic *and* a strength.

Your abilities shifting based on your stat line shouldn't be controversial, the differences aren't huge and why should a PC with lower stats have the same raw power/potential as one with higher? It makes no sense.

----------


## Hytheter

> Roll well in a Rolled Stats game, (the default option), and Ability Score modifier abilities can be overpowered. Roll poorly or use Point Buy and the abilities are underpowered.
> 
> Proficiency Bonus creates a predictable progression.


Or, hear me out, maybe the problem is making rolled stats the default.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Or, hear me out, maybe the problem is making rolled stats the default.


Based off anecdotes from the Playground, most posts seem to assume Point Buy is standard.

Regardless, Unarmored Defense is either Feast or Famine, which is why a scaling PB bonus is a better mechanic, in my opinion.

I have no issue, with D&D Re-examining the role of Ability Scores.

----------


## Psyren

> Like it or hate it, it's hard not to admire the 4e designers.  They could easily have churned out something like Pathfinder that addresses common complaints but sticks closely to the same template, and they didn't--they really tried to do something new and evolve the game.  With a decade's worth of hindsight, I think it's fair to say they failed, but they were brave enough to try.
> 
> 
> I'd actually argue that they were only one or two iterations away from something truly great, but that's a different thread.


They made a perfectly fine game; their mistake was calling it D&D. (I forget who made the post that said it should have been called something like "D&D Tactics" instead of "4e" but I think they could actually bring it back that way and have it be a modest success; slim it down and make it a self-contained board game with expansions, that strips out any need for the DM to adjudicate things like open-ended ability checks or illusions or prestidigitation.)




> Sometimes people need to get exactly what they're asking for to realize it's not what they want.


Indeed.




> I disagree, abilities such as Unarmored Defense would be improved, (in my estimation), by switching to being a PB bonus as opposed to being based off an Ability Score Modifier.
> 
> Roll well in a Rolled Stats game, (the default option), and Ability Score modifier abilities can be overpowered. Roll poorly or use Point Buy and the abilities are underpowered.
> 
> Proficiency Bonus creates a predictable progression.





> Or, hear me out, maybe the problem is making rolled stats the default.





> Based off anecdotes from the Playground, most posts seem to assume Point Buy is standard.


Standard Array is also standard, FYI. Unarmored Defense should be viable with that; if not, then it or the classes that use it need buffs.

----------


## Jervis

> Standard Array is also standard, FYI. Unarmored Defense should be viable with that; if not, then it or the classes that use it need buffs.


I was working on a fighter, barbarian, rogue rework to be online with what weve seen so far. I figured its honestly not worth the effort when theyll be remade soon enough and I have bigger fish to fry in my life. One of the changes I was making was to make unarmored AC equal to the larger of 10+Dex+Stat(Con/Wis) or 10+Dex/Stat+Prof so it doesnt scale as slowly.

----------


## Mastikator

> I disagree, abilities such as Unarmored Defense would be improved, (in my estimation), by switching to being a PB bonus as opposed to being based off an Ability Score Modifier.
> 
> Roll well in a Rolled Stats game, (the default option), and Ability Score modifier abilities can be overpowered. Roll poorly or use Point Buy and the abilities are underpowered.
> 
> Proficiency Bonus creates a predictable progression.


Very much agreed! It also releases the pressure to max out your ability scores and frees up ASIs for feats, which is something they want people to be able to use.
The move to use proficiency over ability score mod is something I'm liking more and more as time goes on

----------


## Ignimortis

> This, with a side of laziness and corporate trying to extract as much money as possible out of things and avoiding anything like controversy from the Twitterati.
> 
> Personally, I find the new _lack_ of direction (other than "throw things at the wall and blindly plagiarize other games" and "burnish our Twitter credibility") to be the most concerning thing. There has been no vision displayed, no coherent plan other than "more spells! Everything's a spell!.
> 
> And it's never failed--any time a corporation (of any kind) makes a big deal out of their commitment to _any ideology on any side of any political spectrum_, quality will decline. Because those statements are designed entirely 100% as cover against criticism. You don't like the way we're going with this? Then you must oppose <thing they've proclaimed as their goal>. It is 100% of the time cynical and self-serving _unless_ it was part of the company from the get go and it's a small private company. Arms of publicly-traded companies have no ideology, morals, or ethics. Because they have a single duty: make money.





> I'd say not only has the content gotten worse, the community and discussions have dipped as topics that aren't even allowed on this forum detract from the once primary activity of collective story time in imagination land. 
> 
> The books are increasingly sterile. And new-WotC are sanitizing content post hoc, like in multiverse. *snip*
> 
> And that's when it sunk in. I'm getting distracted but the best I can do to articulate is that up until TCoE, content in D&D has been presented mostly as "a thing" i.e. *something*. Here are orcs, they are quintessential bad guys, here's how/why. And it was understood that the DM and players could hack literally anything they wanted with that content. It wasn't presented as "the canon we must all follow". It was just coherent content presented as-is for our inspiration, we could use anything from the books as-is, tweaked, removed, converted wholesale. Now a part of the fan base and definitely the dev team worry about how things are presented. So the sanitized content is more presented as "anything". And when that anything gets too broad and nebulous it kind of becomes *nothing*. Case in point, the Hadozee debacle.


QFT. 

Frankly, I'm not sure if post-Tasha's is _worse_ content. It's different content and I don't like it. But neither do I like default 5e content all that much, although for different reasons. What I am seeing, however, is indeed this ^. Being non-offensive becomes more important than being interesting and evocative. Being marketable to as wide an audience as possible is more important than making a good game (not product, game). Avoiding criticism is more important than attracting heartfelt praise. Time will show if this works out well for them, but, personally, I hope it doesn't, and instead forces at least some rethinking of priorities.




> Like it or hate it, it's hard not to admire the 4e designers.  They could easily have churned out something like Pathfinder that addresses common complaints but sticks closely to the same template, and they didn't--they really tried to do something new and evolve the game.  With a decade's worth of hindsight, I think it's fair to say they failed, but they were brave enough to try.
> 
> 
> I'd actually argue that they were only one or two iterations away from something truly great, but that's a different thread.


Yes, yes, and yes. 4e was, in a sense, making the game anew, from scratch, with only tangential references to previous editions. If the design were iterated upon, experimented with further, it could've been great. It's not like the first edition of many games is good. They usually iron out the kinks by maybe 3rd or 4th edition anyway - usually carried to that point by the idea rather than ruleset.

And I'd argue that 5e technically is WotC going the Pathfinder route, only in a different manner from Paizo. But it still was sticking to the familiar template instead of doing something radically new.

----------


## Leon

> Standard Array is also standard, FYI. Unarmored Defense should be viable with that; if not, then it or the classes that use it need buffs.


Everything is pretty much viable but people crave the big numbers and thus things get skewed out of proportion.

4e, never played it as a player, ran a game of it when it first came out for a bunch of people who had never played any form of D&D and they all enjoyed it, one guy even became a forever DM because i ran into him later in the game shop he was talking a lot about how my style of DMing resonated with him and how much fun he had with DMing. Wouldn't have minded playing but noone i played with was interested in it so i happily kept on playing 3.P until the start of 2020, kind of oblivious to the other thing that had come along since 4e and then discovered the new current thing was effectively D&D diet.

A lot of the idea's in 4e were good but they took them a bit far with wholesale application rather than selectively inserting fixes into where it was needed.

----------


## Amnestic

4e _might_ have been more misses than hits but it did still have a number of good hits. If it had got the VTT tools it was meant to get I think there's a timeline it saw much wider adoption. I still don't think it would have stood up to 5e in spread or sales, but it would certainly be looked on more fondly than it is.

And 5e might have had a warlord class >:(

----------


## Schwann145

The issue is really just a change in what the community wants/demands from the game. The game adapts to what the buyer demands, and the buyers are demanding a game that has no edges. So lore is suddenly bland. Mechanics are shifting to be much more predictable and/or homogeneous. And, since bigger is always better, power creep will continue to set in (ie: half-feats becoming the standard).

What we'll be left with is a game who's lore will offend no one (and therefore will not be at all interesting or engaging), and mechanics that work like clockwork (and therefore lack any sense of identity - 4e rearing one of it's flaws again).
And for those who don't want to see that happen, there isn't much hope, because these things absolutely appeal to a broader audience/customer base, so these decisions will, on the whole, be profitable... even if a "core" audience loses more interest.

----------


## Zhorn

> Everything is pretty much viable but people crave the big numbers and thus things get skewed out of proportion.


This is very much where a lot of the contention comes from when discussing the design direction, I find.
Players generally enjoy their character being powerful, and that progression towards power is a core function of the game. But the later options coming out are setting that expected baseline of starting power higher and higher, making the lower end of threats less and less relevant unless you really lean heavily into attrition style play, which again is being moved away from with more prevalent 5min adventuring day expectation.

Prior to Tasha's, while the CR system did get a decent amount of criticism, most of that could be attributed to a DMing style that was rendering it meaningless. Now its level of ineffectiveness is being reinforced by that powercreep of the post-Tashas design.
"but it's only a +1/+2 difference" ; which in a bounded accuracy system is actually pretty significant
"It's meant to be a power fantasy" ; which was already achievable in the earlier iterations of this edition
"just run higher monsters at lower levels" ; if the end result is the same values needing to be rolled and the same expected number of rounds per encounter, then the number are just being pointlessly larger while simultaneously negating the value of the lower CR monsters.
"These changes allow for more class/race combinations than before" ; combination that were available prior, and perfectly viable for play before folks started ratcheting up the numbers for no reason beyond _"big numbers go burrr"_
"But this lets players cap out their abilities much sooner" ; and in turn removes the growth potential they would have had over the course of the campaign. Characters whose growth is properly spaced out tend to hold player investment for longer in my experience, and the campaigns more easily last into higher levels rather than fizzling out.
"Starting with high stats allows characters the freedom to spend ASIs on feats" ; There are magic items that can also boost stats, the DMG gives advice on stat boosts as quest rewards, and there's also no reason you cannot have feats offered the same way. The power floor doesn't need to be raised to still offer all those perks by mid-late game. Plus it makes it easier to set up quest rewards that you know the party is truly after.

Nothing that hasn't already been discussed to high-heck and back before...

Anyway; if the number bloat keeps going the way it does then there's a good chance I'll be taking my groups back a an edition or two instead. Experience first hand the prior content posters are advocating the merits of.

----------


## Sigreid

What bothers me most about the new direction is their claims of backward compatibility.  I've invested quite a bit in a licensed virtual table top and I'm concerned that my existing products will be updated on the platform without me being able to opt out.

----------


## Snowbluff

> That said if I were to choose a system to play table top out of 3.5e and 4e, I'd pick 4e. The vancian casting, the total lack of balance, the exhausting crunch, it all adds up to an unplayably unfun experience. 4e on the other hand is extremely fast and simple, it's perfectly balanced, anyone can hop it and play. Those are strengths. We've since learned that perfect balance isn't the most fun, and lack of shenanigan-y options really limit creativity. Important lessons were carried over to 5e. And now 8 years since 5e came out extra lessons have been learned, such as the importance clear rules, and that feats are fun actually.


If I were to choose a system to play table top out of 4e and 3.5e, I'd pick 3.5. AEDU and only AEDU; the total lack of balance, the exhausting crunch, it all adds up to an experience with limited variety. 3.5, on the other hand, is just as fast, and provides a lot more options in a similar decision tree. Those are strengths. I always knew perfect balance isn't the most fun, and I could always tell you that 4e could have probably been skipped in the development. Not a lot was carried over to 5e. Playing 4e a lot, the rules aren't really clear (even something you'll run into regularly is unclear, like "offhand"), 3.5's feats were more fun.

This is my experience from playing 4e a lot lately. I think it's best to not use the major brand to make a pet project with limited mechanical identity of the game. You also can't fix "vancian casting" by not even trying, and at the same time removing all of the other subsystems. 4e is an okay game in its right otherwise.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Wasn't to my taste; but you can't please everyone.


 They almost did with 5e; the 'unify the player base' attempt was mostly successful.   



> The books are increasingly sterile. And new-WotC are sanitizing content post hoc, like in multiverse.


 That was an unfortunate case of changing that which needed no change. 




> The old books used to pull me in. I would, still do actually, simply flip through the core books, Volos, XGtE, MtoF. They themselves had enough art, inspiration, etc. to be entertaining in a sense. I didn't get that from Fizban's and I haven't gotten it from anything I've previewed.


 Good point.  The art style is worse, and in particular the art in Tasha's was just blah/bad. Not sure what it was that annoyed me about that, maybe it was a case of 'too many pastels' or something.  (The cover art is nice, though).  



> ... up until TCoE, content in D&D has been presented mostly as "a thing" i.e. *something*. Here are orcs, they are quintessential bad guys, here's how/why.  And it was understood that the DM and players could hack literally anything they wanted with that content. It wasn't presented as "the canon we must all follow".  It was just coherent content presented as-is for our inspiration, we could use anything from the books as-is, tweaked, removed, converted wholesale. Now a part of the fan base and definitely the dev team worry about how things are presented. So the sanitized content is more presented as "anything". And when that anything gets too broad and nebulous it kind of becomes *nothing*. Case in point, the Hadozee debacle.


 Nice analysis.  Then again, I never liked the Planet of the Apes movies, which I suspect was an original inspiration for inserting the Hadozee in the first place (and of course the flying monkeys from the wizard of Oz) ... 40 years ago... and they never were included in any of the games I ever played.  I won't miss them.  



> 5e is the D&D edition that tried to evolve the game. And it succeeded, warts and all.


 It brought me back to the hobby.  But it is still jarring to me that at higher levels saving throws are not improved like in AD&D ... oh well, I got used to it.  



> It's lazy work at best, at worst they're deliberately breaking design paradigms to 'make their mark' on the game, which is what new editions are for, not supplements.


 Yes, the core design framework is being abandoned bit by bit.  And it leads to power creep and bloat.   



> Spell balance? This was never great


And now they have lost the plot. 



> And what they did to the Bladesinger is an atrocity that reeks of Wizard favouritism and poor design.


 SCAG bladesinger was fine.  Sometimes, if it works it is better not to mess with it. 



> and who is asking for more elves?


 Not me.  We are over elfed as it is. 



> We would have probably been better off with the designers from before


  But change is a thing, which means that WoTC staff are chaotic, which makes a certain sense given how much Crawford has gushed about the feywild being one of his favorite parts of the D&D - scape.  (IIRC, this from a tweet or a youtube interview about 4 ish years ago).  



> Or, hear me out, maybe the problem is making rolled stats the default.


 Nope. 



> The game adapts to what the buyer demands, and the buyers are demanding a game that has no edges.


 Gnolls are demonspawn; one of the best parts of the 5e MM, for my taste, was that decision to go there.  



> - 4e rearing one of it's flaws again).


 Well, Crawford was on the 4e team, you'd expect some of 4e to keep seeping into the edition the longer he stays with the project. 



> What bothers me most about the new direction is their claims of backward compatibility.  I've invested quite a bit in a licensed virtual table top and I'm concerned that my existing products will be updated on the platform without me being able to opt out.


 This.  This is what may well split the fan base, their money grab as regards the VTT aspect.

----------


## Amnestic

> Gnolls are demonspawn; one of the best parts of the 5e MM, for my taste, was that decision to go there.


I thought it was the worst decision in the entire book.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

4th edition to me felt constrained as far as character creation/building goes, and I hated the lore of that edition.

But what's funny to me is that people will decry 4th edition as a grid-based and squad-based tactical game, and in the same breath explain the precise order of actions, with the exact spells and feats, to win an encounter in 5th edition. People decry the system mastery of 3rd edition, but here in 5th edition they tell you exactly how you're playing the game wrong, even if you're making choices allowed by the game. 

It seems to me that there is some portion of the player base that didn't like 4th edition giving everyone at-will and encounter powers they can use every encounter, precisely because it leveled out the playing field. Similarly, the portion that plays wizards were hit in the face with a cold bucket of "this is a team game friendo". Now 5E is the "evolution" of the game, where martials can move 30ft and swing their swords 1 or maybe 2 times a turn! Amazing, the true pinnacle of ttrpg lol.


With regards to vtt, given that this is definitely where we're headed at this point, why wouldn't each book come with a one-time code to unlock the vtt version so that people aren't paying twice? Are they currently purchased at a discount?

----------


## Snowbluff

> It seems to me that there is some portion of the player base that didn't like 4th edition giving everyone at-will and encounter powers they can use every encounter, precisely because it leveled out the playing field. Similarly, the portion that plays wizards were hit in the face with a cold bucket of "this is a team game friendo".


Nice strawman, but this isn't why people hate AEDU. AEDU was bad at creating variety and flexibility and pushed out all other forms of management. You're limited to 2-3 attacks you would use every fight. Your encounter powers could only be used once each encounter, and you couldn't swap them up or down if another would be useful for an encounter. Casters don't exist, full stop, as any such distinction can't be married to an associated distinction in mechanics. Also no more binders, shadowcasters, warblades, truenamers, incarnates, and everything in between and every combination of the above.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

This is my point. The same game experts that say variety and flexibility were key, are the same game experts that tell us combats are supposed to last three rounds, and in those three rounds you're supposed to execute a very precise set of attacks, effectively reducing you to "2-3 attacks you would use every fight", the very thing you're complaining about.

And, again, this is really only true, if it even is true, for casters. Martials have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less variety and flexibility now than they did in 4E. Are casters in 5E really using a myriad of spells each encounter? Or do they have a few go-tos and their at-wills?

----------


## Segev

> They made a perfectly fine game; their mistake was calling it D&D. (I forget who made the post that said it should have been called something like "D&D Tactics" instead of "4e" but I think they could actually bring it back that way and have it be a modest success; slim it down and make it a self-contained board game with expansions, that strips out any need for the DM to adjudicate things like open-ended ability checks or illusions or prestidigitation.)


Exactly! This is exactly the problem with 4e. The board games they released that were dungeon crawls reduced to their essence that used mostly the 4e mechanics and design paradigm were actually quite fun. 4e was good at being a fantasy combat simulator. It just wasn't good at being D&D. It being a "simplified" D&D for board game purposes? It could easily have passed as that. Few would have objected to it being called "D&D" when it was acknowledged that it was really just trying to be a dungeon crawl board game with D&D lore. 

Note: I am not being disparaging when I say "just a dungeon crawl board game." Hero Quest was my first introduction to anything resembling D&D. I loved it. But you can't play D&D with Hero Quest, and 4e did a poor job of being D&D proper, for a number of reasons, mostly centered around...




> Nice strawman, but this isn't why people hate AEDU. AEDU was bad at creating variety and flexibility and pushed out all other forms of management. You're limited to 2-3 attacks you would use every fight. Your encounter powers could only be used once each encounter, and you couldn't swap them up or down if another would be useful for an encounter. Casters don't exist, full stop, as any such distinction can't be married to an associated distinction in mechanics. Also no more binders, shadowcasters, warblades, truenamers, incarnates, and everything in between and every combination of the above.


...this well-said description.

The design paradigm of 4e, in terms of usability as an RPG, would have been equally problematic if literally every class feature of any class was a spell - cantrip or leveled. Some will say, "But 5e did that!" but they're objectively wrong in using that hyperbole. Yes, 5e rolled a lot of things into spells in its efforts to keep things simple. _Eldritch blast_ and _find familiar_ and _find steed_ all went from being 3.5 class features to being 5e spells (a cantrip in one case). And while I will argue that it's fine to do that, I also will not say it ends everything for those to become class features again. But 5e objectively left class features as THINGS, and in many cases, where spells are iconic to a class, either made them exclusive to the class or made the class features modify the spells (_eldritch blast_ and certain Invocations). I think that design is actually good, and I wish they'd done something similar with semi-universally-accessible superority dice + maneuvers, and maybe one or two more subsystems of various sorts. 

For all it flopped, their attempt at a psionics subsystem was not a bad concept, in the sense that trying to make a subsystem for it that was unique was interesting. IT could've opened up a lot of design space in 5e in general if they'd pursued refining it, but I think fan reaction was unhelpful in identifying what the problems were. (The mystic was overpowered, certainly, but I suspect meant to be a test bed for mechanics, not a final implementation. If it was meant as a final implementation, the designers weren't serious about making a psionic subsystem anyway.)

----------


## Grod_The_Giant

> It didn't try to evolve the game, it wanted to be its own thing in spite of having the "D&D" label on it (probably slapped there by corporate suits wanting brand recognition). I can sympathize with how uncomfortable the situation was, but that's not brave.


It's not coming out of nowhere--Wizards released Star Wars Saga Edition a year before, and it introduced a lot of the same ideas that went into 4e.  Attacks instead of saving throws, classes as frameworks for picking specific abilities, skills based on level, no division between "casters" and "mundanes," a magic system that was somewhat separate from base classes... It's all there.  The biggest structural change (aside from resource management stuff and damage scaling, which were much less of a thing in Saga) was the attempt to make the class-based powers entirely active, rather than having a bunch of passive abilities.

And Saga Edition won a bunch of ENies when it came out and is still seen as a solid system, so clearly some of the ideas were good.

----------


## Segev

> It's not coming out of nowhere--Wizards released Star Wars Saga Edition a year before, and it introduced a lot of the same ideas that went into 4e.  Attacks instead of saving throws, classes as frameworks for picking specific abilities, skills based on level, no division between "casters" and "mundanes," a magic system that was somewhat separate from base classes... It's all there.  The biggest structural change (aside from resource management stuff and damage scaling, which were much less of a thing in Saga) was the attempt to make the class-based powers entirely active, rather than having a bunch of passive abilities.
> 
> And Saga Edition won a bunch of ENies when it came out and is still seen as a solid system.


The defenses instead of saves was actually not a problem for 4e. A lot of the core mechanics were fine. It's the class structure and lack of subsystem differentiation that was the problem.

SAGA Edition was a sci-fantasy setting for a totally different kind of genre than D&D is. You can point to the similarities all you like, saying "Jedi are space wizards," but they really aren't. The paradigms they operate in and under are just too different. Jedi would never work as a D&D-like pseudo-vancian spellcaster, and nobody wants them to be. Structuring Jedi powers as discrete things they learn has always been awkward, but accepted as a necessity to game design structure. SAGA Edition making them broader and more like feats or class features works because they don't operate like spells at all. 

The caster/martial disparity still existed, too, in SAGA edition, because the disparity isn't a result of "casters using spells," but rather "guy at the gym / magic can do anything" existing in the same design space. If you can use the Force, you can justify any cool, amazing, over-the-top mechanics. If you can't, then it's "unrealistic" to have your PC doing those cool things.

4e may have taken some core tools from SAGA edition, but it was not in the slightest just "SAGA edition refined." And even if it were, it still wouldn't work as D&D proper. Because SAGA edition wouldn't work as D&D proper.

----------


## Amnestic

> . It's the class structure *and lack of subsystem differentiation* that was the problem.


I aggressively eye every class using spells as the only subsystem in 5e, even knowing that they won't add anything more to it - either in 5e or 5.5e.

----------


## Segev

> I aggressively eye every class using spells as the only subsystem in 5e, even knowing that they won't add anything more to it - either in 5e or 5.5e.


Except they're not. Battle Masters have superiority dice and maneuvers. As limited to specific class features as they are, the two psionic subclasses have a similar paradigm (though I wish it was more unique as a subsystem than "superiority dice by another name"). Four Elements Monks and Totem Barbarians have a nascent, but sadly somewhat stillborn, subsystem in how their pick-your-feature subclass features work. 

Pact Magic may use spells, but it uses them in a notably different way, too; it is a distinct subsystem to the point that things that use "spellcasting" as a requirement need to call it out individually as also included if they want it included.

Ritual casting is also a subsystem.

Several of these interact with spells, but they are their own subsystems.

5e's lack of subsystem development and expansion is a problem, but at least it has ONE subsystem that is well-developed enough to give distinction between the mechanics of some classes and others. 4e did not.

----------


## strangebloke

IMO the quality of published material has not really dipped that hard. When people voice complaints, its almost always related to the flavor, the business model, the design philosophy, or the lore, not the mechanical design. The only real mechanical thing people complain about is "power creep" and to that I say: "No, not really?"

Simulacrum is in the PHB. Conjure Animals is in the PHB. The Moon Druid is in the PHB. The Diviner is in the PHB. Guidance is in the PHB. Force Cage, Maze, Shield, Find Familiar, Life Clerics, Sharpshooter, Arcane Trickster, GWM, PAM, Inspiring Leader.... these are all incredibly strong things that still get discussed all the time. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that at any given table MOST of the line items on everyone's character sheets will be stuff from the PHB.

And yes, Tasha's gave us the twilight and peace clerics, which are very strong, and also the Rune Knight and the Soulknife and Mercy Monk which are, if not overpowered, at the very least strong compared to similar subclasses. But every book has had standouts like that. The Bladesinger was in SCAG, an otherwise pretty unmemorable book. Xanathar's had hexblades and shepherd druids and gloomstalkers. Volos had Yuan Ti. Fizbans had silvery barbs and Raulothim's Psychic Lance.

Basically what I'm saying is, if there's been power creep its been less that every new thing that's published is overpowered, and more that every book adds a few new overpowered things. The only real examples of power creep IMO are the Tasha's ACFs (which mostly benefited martials imo) and the MMOM races. But neither really has me crying.

So has the 'quality' dipped?  IMO, no. At the very least we've yet to have something like That Damned Halfling appear again. _Shudders._ There's been changes, and power creep for specifically races but overall its been a change in design philosophy rather than some objective dip in production value.  That doesn't mean criticism is invalid! Starjammer was a terrible setting book! Everyone I know hated it, left right and center! I hate the strixhaven monsters! I don't like the MMOM reprints! I think the new 'live service' business model is really bad and preferred the old evergreen model (which was doomed but still something I could respect.) I'm very concerned about what an edition built from the ground up by these guys will look like, and the playtest material does not look great to me.

----------


## Segev

I would argue that the problematic power creep people are complaining about is in the areas you mentioned: design philosophy. It's not so much that the power creep exists  - that's just the nature of an ongoing edition. 5e, honestly, has had less of it than 3e and PF1 did, in an absolute sense.

The trouble is where certain kinds of power creep happen. The race change in TCE is a major example. It's power creep by removing limitations that created distinctions. 

Imagine if TCE had included "divine versatility" as a way of making "your" cleric or druid more "your" character. Druids and clerics now may prepare any spell on any spell list, rather than being limited to their own, in order to reflect THEIR specific god or relationship with nature, as a matter of expression. This is major power creep, and obviously a problem because of it, but worse, it's power creep that removes distinctions between clerics, druids, and other casters.

I think that kind of power creep, more than just "this new thing is stronger than previous options" power creep, is what has people marking TCE as a watershed point in the "problem" sphere.

----------


## Mastikator

> This is my point. The same game experts that say variety and flexibility were key, are the same game experts that tell us combats are supposed to last three rounds, and in those three rounds you're supposed to execute a very precise set of attacks, effectively reducing you to "2-3 attacks you would use every fight", the very thing you're complaining about.
> 
> And, again, this is really only true, if it even is true, for casters. Martials have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less variety and flexibility now than they did in 4E. Are casters in 5E really using a myriad of spells each encounter? Or do they have a few go-tos and their at-wills?


I think it's more about the appearance of variety and the possibility of having a DM who has the skill of presenting tactical options in combat. Additionally in 4e there were no utility spells that outright bypass entire obstacles like dispel/detect magic/poison/disease/etc. And you can't break the game with insane builds like reckless mantis leap power attack no-jutsu dealing over 9000 damage with a single attack.

----------


## Ignimortis

> Except they're not. Battle Masters have superiority dice and maneuvers. As limited to specific class features as they are, the two psionic subclasses have a similar paradigm (though I wish it was more unique as a subsystem than "superiority dice by another name"). Four Elements Monks and Totem Barbarians have a nascent, but sadly somewhat stillborn, subsystem in how their pick-your-feature subclass features work. 
> 
> Pact Magic may use spells, but it uses them in a notably different way, too; it is a distinct subsystem to the point that things that use "spellcasting" as a requirement need to call it out individually as also included if they want it included.
> 
> Ritual casting is also a subsystem.
> 
> Several of these interact with spells, but they are their own subsystems.
> 
> 5e's lack of subsystem development and expansion is a problem, but at least it has ONE subsystem that is well-developed enough to give distinction between the mechanics of some classes and others. 4e did not.


5e is, frankly, one step away from being AEDU. The major difference is in presentation and acquisition, not in how it fundamentally works. It just gave some classes access to a Daily-based subsystem called spells, and others got to divvy up the rest. There is still nothing that works outside of AED - no recharge-based powers, no cooldown-based powers, no recoverable "encounter" powers like maneuvers... 

And OneD&D (or D&Done, heh) seems to go even harder in on just making most things daily. I will reserve final judgement on this until I see Warriors' playtests, but thus far it seems like a lot of previously discrete features are going for "if something can be expressed as a spell, we will express it as a spell, even if it's a class feature".

----------


## Oramac

Jeez, I try to get some sleep and the thread gains 2 pages! Anyway, I just want to throw in my 2 cents. 




> It removes any kind of investment or control you have over it, and separates it from anything tied specifically your class. Monk's AC based on their martial arts training? Nope, Barbarian's on their natural resilience? Nope. You can fluff it to be whatever, but it strips the identity out the ability. It removes your ability to invest in it or not, and it forces you to start with a lower floor.
> 
> Being MAD isn't strictly a weakness, it's thematic *and* a strength.
> 
> Your abilities shifting based on your stat line shouldn't be controversial, the differences aren't huge and why should a PC with lower stats have the same raw power/potential as one with higher? It makes no sense.


Overall, I agree. I'm not _entirely_ opposed to using PLR instead of Ability Scores, but I do think features that directly tie into an ability score (such as Unarmored Defense) absolutely should use the ability score. Other features that don't directly tie to an ability (such as the paladin's Divine Sense) are perfectly fine being PLR. 

Basically I say, why not both? 




> I have no issue, with D&D Re-examining the role of Ability Scores.


If everything goes to PLR, then why not just remove ability scores entirely? Hell, even skills could just change to "proficient" or "not proficient". All you have to do is lower the DCs correspondingly. 

Sure, it'd work. But it's boring. Forget class identity. It removes _CHARACTER_ identity. No longer does it matter that Character A is super intelligent and Character B is a dunce. They all progress the same.

----------


## Keravath

> It has gotten bloated, again. Happens with each edition, eventually.  
> Glad you like Von Richten's; I have the book but it didn't move me.


I think this is the nature of the business unfortunately. The basic rules of an edition get published once. The only way this makes money on an on-going basis is to attract more people to the hobby. Otherwise sales of the rules will taper off. 

Player facing books will sell more copies than DM ones (just because there are more players than DMs - though not every player will buy into the expansions and most DMs will buy them anyway - these books just have a broad appeal). This means that PHB and expansions like Xanathar's and Tasha's could be expected to sell more than adventures like Oota, ToA etc. 

DM facing books like the DMG and Monster Manual will sell fewer but many DMs view them as a requirement to run a game. The DMG contains magic items and the Monster Manual has the creatures needed for encounters. 

Monsters of the Multiverse appears to have been deliberately designed to try to attract players for the race options and DMs for the monster options and race options. However, most players won't ever need the monster sections but they may want the text for the race options. 

However, as the market saturates, the publisher has to aim content at subsets of the market to drive sales of "specialty books" - Dragons, Spelljammer, Kryn etc - and we have had a few of those recently. 

IF the publisher can continue attracting new players to the hobby then it can drive sales of everything already published. 5e appears to have been doing better at this than any previous edition, in part due to exposure in popular media like Stranger Things as well as social media and streaming - and in part, at least in my opinion, that 5e is actually better for more people than any of the previous editions. It may not have quite the same cinema/video game feel as 4e or the mechanics heavy detail oriented 3.5e or the "odd" mechanics of 1e/AD&D - but it has a broader appeal because it doesn't have these things as a fundamental part of its design. 

The fundamental problem that WotC currently faces is that they need a new edition to kickstart another generation of sales of the basic rules, expansions and everything that follows - without disrupting the features that have made 5e the most successful edition ever. They also made a statement that the new version will be "compatible" with 5e which may also be an issue since if a new system is compatible with the old one why would anyone play the new one unless it is demonstrably better rather than just a bit different. 

I think this is why there seems to be far more community involvement being sought in terms of feedback for UA on the new version than I have seen in the past. They know what is riding on an updated version but they also have to contend with "don't mess with success" and "the real risk is doing nothing".

P.S. This is also why WotC needs to get their digital strategy right by hiring the right people to run it and executing on their plan. On-going subscriptions for on-line content are likely the easiest way to generate a consistent and continuous revenue stream. There is a reason that most software has moved to a subscription rather than sales model for their licensing. 

However, this also means that they need best in class online tools to support players and DMs that are well executed, work well, provide usable and useful functionality for both in person and on line play. I don't know that WotC has the right executive mix to successfully plan and execute that since the people making the decision need to understand the technology, understand the game play from a first hand perspective, understand the types of use cases both players and DMs would have for their content for both online and in person play. 

As an example of good execution, D&D Beyond has a really usable character creator with an API that allows integration with tools like Beyond20 and thus VTT integration. Perfect no, decent yes. 

On the other hand, the search function provided on their web site is atrocious. It searches full words only, returns hits in a random order rather than prioritizing the sources that are searched, doesn't have an easy way to specify sources to search or ways for more complex searches - it is an example of what a feature should not be if they want to make it useful to a DM or player at a table trying to check a rule. 

Try searching "Vow of Enmity" or even just "Enmity" ... the first gives no result, the second starts with a list of monsters with enmity in their lore descriptions (how many folks would use enmity to search for a specific monster?) ... you won't get the Vengeance paladin channel divinity option at all.

----------


## Amnestic

> Except they're not. Battle Masters have superiority dice and maneuvers. As limited to specific class features as they are, the two psionic subclasses have a similar paradigm (though I wish it was more unique as a subsystem than "superiority dice by another name"). Four Elements Monks and Totem Barbarians have a nascent, but sadly somewhat stillborn, subsystem in how their pick-your-feature subclass features work.


Of those only battlemaster really sticks out to me with their maneuvers as _maybe_ one and that's a single subclass that has had basically zero development space given to it since PHB - though I guess it got a few more maneuver options in the Tasha's (herald of the end, that book).




> Pact Magic may use spells, but it uses them in a notably different way, too; it is a distinct subsystem to the point that things that use "spellcasting" as a requirement need to call it out individually as also included if they want it included.


It's not notably different. It's _marginally_ different. They're ultimately still just using spell slots, still casting spells with V/S/M components, still pulling from a spell list which has very few unique warlock spells with the exact same targeting and interaction system as normal spellcasting. "This class auto upcasts" isn't a new subsystem. 




> Ritual casting is also a subsystem.


You can't say ritual casting, which ties in directly with spells, is its own subsystem in 5e, but then turn around and claim that 4e only had the one system when they not only had rituals but they actually *were* separate from class powers. That just doesn't track?

----------


## strangebloke

> I think that kind of power creep, more than just "this new thing is stronger than previous options" power creep, is what has people marking TCE as a watershed point in the "problem" sphere.


Its never a compelling point when you have to say "this thing is like some dramatically more crazy thing. Wouldn't that crazy thing be bad? That means the other thing is bad too."

The oldschool race design was basically that there were 3-4 really strong generalist races that could be used for anything and be good, possibly the best. Vhumans, warforged, half-elf. Then everything else was either horrifically overpowered (yuan-ti, aaracockra) or "competitive for 1-2 classes, very meh for others" or "objectively terrible" (orcs lol.) A lot of the volo's races in particular were badly designed, and classic archetypes like goblin rogue were simply not supported. Races were a very bland design space overall and speaking for me I saw a LOT of vhumans and half elves at basically every table. In my first campaign we had a dragonborn, a wood elf, a hill dwarf, five vhumans, and three half elves over the course of the campaign.

That's really not a flavorful list of races, no matter how you slice it.

Now most races are generalists but not every race is equally well-suited for every class, which I think is a much healthier place to be in.

----------


## Snowbluff

> I think it's more about the appearance of variety and the possibility of having a DM who has the skill of presenting tactical options in combat. Additionally in 4e there were no utility spells that outright bypass entire obstacles like dispel/detect magic/poison/disease/etc. And you can't break the game with insane builds like reckless mantis leap power attack no-jutsu dealing over 9000 damage with a single attack.


 I need you to know that 4e both had broken build options and also had options that could obviate obstacles. It wasn't terribly well balanced in hindsight. 



> This is my point. The same game experts that say variety and flexibility were key, are the same game experts that tell us combats are supposed to last three rounds, and in those three rounds you're supposed to execute a very precise set of attacks, effectively reducing you to "2-3 attacks you would use every fight", the very thing you're complaining about.
> 
> And, again, this is really only true, if it even is true, for casters. Martials have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less variety and flexibility now than they did in 4E. Are casters in 5E really using a myriad of spells each encounter? Or do they have a few go-tos and their at-wills?


I mean, what do you even mean by martial to begin with? Because only one game in the class can't cast, AFAICT. Even fighter has a fewsubclasses (Echo Knight, Battlemaster, Rune Knight, Eldritch Knight) that add resource management to how it works. Any one of these adds more variety of options as to what you could possible get on a 4e character. This isn't also counting other melee fighters like Paladin or Ranger, or the large variety of gishy guys. 

Also, I also cast of bunch of different spells in 5e. It's pretty common thing to do, given the right circumstance. 



> ...this well-said description.
> 
> The design paradigm of 4e, in terms of usability as an RPG, would have been equally problematic if literally every class feature of any class was a spell - cantrip or leveled. Some will say, "But 5e did that!" but they're objectively wrong in using that hyperbole. Yes, 5e rolled a lot of things into spells in its efforts to keep things simple. _Eldritch blast_ and _find familiar_ and _find steed_ all went from being 3.5 class features to being 5e spells (a cantrip in one case). And while I will argue that it's fine to do that, I also will not say it ends everything for those to become class features again. But 5e objectively left class features as THINGS, and in many cases, where spells are iconic to a class, either made them exclusive to the class or made the class features modify the spells (_eldritch blast_ and certain Invocations). I think that design is actually good, and I wish they'd done something similar with semi-universally-accessible superority dice + maneuvers, and maybe one or two more subsystems of various sorts. 
> 
> For all it flopped, their attempt at a psionics subsystem was not a bad concept, in the sense that trying to make a subsystem for it that was unique was interesting. IT could've opened up a lot of design space in 5e in general if they'd pursued refining it, but I think fan reaction was unhelpful in identifying what the problems were. (The mystic was overpowered, certainly, but I suspect meant to be a test bed for mechanics, not a final implementation. If it was meant as a final implementation, the designers weren't serious about making a psionic subsystem anyway.)


TY  :Small Smile: 

I think 5e definitely could use more subsystem development as well. However, I also like a lot of the extra options classes can get to use what resources they have as well. Bards are a pretty great example of this, since pretty much all of their subclasses get a novel use out of their inspiration. And to what IgnisMortis has said, it's not akin to AEDU, either. AEDU is built on the basis that you can't swap usages of abilities, which is something practically all resources in 5e are able to do. Ki, Channel Divinity, Superiority Dice, Spell slots, Bardic Inspiration, etc, all of these aren't ever locked into one option, even if they sometimes share a recharge timer (which a lot of 3.5 abilities did by being at will, by encounter, or by rest anyway).  

I do think that a lot of people forget that the most broken book is gonna be the PHB. The second most broken book will always be the Psionics Handbook.  This is totally fine. This is just how it's gonna be when you have to lay out a whole new framework for a new subsystem, in particular if it's meant to be an alternative to spellcasting.  The inability to acknowledge this is probably something sacrificed to the altar of balance in a meta sense, I suppose.




> I would argue that the problematic power creep people are complaining about is in the areas you mentioned: design philosophy. It's not so much that the power creep exists  - that's just the nature of an ongoing edition. 5e, honestly, has had less of it than 3e and PF1 did, in an absolute sense.
> 
> The trouble is where certain kinds of power creep happen. The race change in TCE is a major example. It's power creep by removing limitations that created distinctions. 
> 
> Imagine if TCE had included "divine versatility" as a way of making "your" cleric or druid more "your" character. Druids and clerics now may prepare any spell on any spell list, rather than being limited to their own, in order to reflect THEIR specific god or relationship with nature, as a matter of expression. This is major power creep, and obviously a problem because of it, but worse, it's power creep that removes distinctions between clerics, druids, and other casters.
> 
> I think that kind of power creep, more than just "this new thing is stronger than previous options" power creep, is what has people marking TCE as a watershed point in the "problem" sphere.


Indeed, the design goals are gonna change. Almost invariably, the designed determine that the original goals are too limiting and lead to an inappropriate level of variety. There's gonna be changes that will be stronger in some areas. 

The problem with the TCE bonus changes, however, is that the biggest change were purely numerical changes. Again, playing a lot of 4e, it's incredibly limiting to be restricted to a certain set of ability bonuses. Even with the changes to ability scores in 5e, a lot of people still find variant human/metarace to be the best option by far. Options that could provide a flavorful or mechanical distinction to a certain build could be readily discard for not having the right points in the right places. It's immensely frustrating to work under a handicap in more ways than one for trying something different. This point of frustration is probably gonna be different for people, but racial ASI are definitely it for me. In addition, you do still have the option to work without this variant as well.

----------


## Ignimortis

> And to what IgnisMortis has said, it's not akin to AEDU, either. AEDU is built on the basis that you can't swap usages of abilities, which is something practically all resources in 5e are able to do. Ki, Channel Divinity, Superiority Dice, Spell slots, Bardic Inspiration, etc, all of these aren't ever locked into one option, even if they sometimes share a recharge timer (which a lot of 3.5 abilities did by being at will, by encounter, or by rest anyway).


Which is why it's one step removed. Doesn't change the fact that basically every ability is either at-will, SR or LR based, which is just AED under a different coat of paint. The cadence of abilities that had very short functional cooldowns, essentially being usable twice in the same fight but not on two turns in a row, is completely lost, and that is a shame. 

Action economy and short-term (turn to turn) resource management is far more fun (to me) than long-term resource management, and if late 3.5 were not a thing, I would probably not bring those concerns to D&D at all - but since it was a thing, and seemingly never iterated upon, I do feel that it is extremely valuable and could serve the game very well. Somehow neither Pathfinder (ALSO very much locked into at-will or X/day paradigms, and avoiding all the non-core design approaches of 3.5), either edition, nor 4e, nor 5e have ever returned to that design.

----------


## Segev

> You can't say ritual casting, which ties in directly with spells, is its own subsystem in 5e, but then turn around and claim that 4e only had the one system when they not only had rituals but they actually *were* separate from class powers. That just doesn't track?


I can, and do. Though 4e ritual casting is fine, I can point out that 4e needed MORE subsystems like that. 5e could use more, too.

As to the "5e is just 4e with a different coat of paint," then stop trying to strip away the coat of paint that makes it actually feel like D&D. Because 4e didn't. If "spells" (as 5e does them) fall into the AEDU paradigm, stop trying to remove them when you say "we should be doing more AEDU; how could you possibly have disliked AEDU if you like 5e?" 

It winds up pinging the natural instincts one has against being bait-and-switched when somebody says, "What you like is just like this thing you said you don't like, so agree that you like that thing you said you don't like, and then we'll make arguments to change everything around to the thing you don't like." Obviously, there is something different enough that I like what 5e has done more than what 4e did with AEDU. If, to you, it's just a "coat of paint" and therefore "not really different," why do you feel the need to try to convince us that it's not different? Is it to go back to AEDU the way 4e did it? Because if so, obviously it  is not just a "coat of paint" if you want to go back to 4e's paradigm because you're not happy with 5e's. If it is just a "coat of paint," why not be happy that you've hoodwinked those of us who disliked 4e but like the AEDU hiding in 5e, and move forward recognizing that the design you do like from AEDU is there, and now knowing how to make it "fool" those of us who are too unenlightened to recognize that AEDU was the best thing to ever happen to D&D?

----------


## Psyren

> Everything is pretty much viable but people crave the big numbers and thus things get skewed out of proportion.


I'm not even just talking about people craving big numbers. A monk with Standard Array and a favorable +2/+1 race has at best 16 AC and 13 Con, or 15 AC and 14 Con, with a d8 HD; that's their ceiling with this spread, and it's low compared to other melee martial characters. The only one with a similarly low chassis is Rogue, who can also start with 15 AC and 14 Con, but they're not restricted to melee to get the most out of their offensive capability - and even when they are forced into melee, Cunning Action gives them a means of getting in and out safely. And of course Rogues tend to bring a great deal more utility in the other two pillars than monks do.




> IMO the quality of published material has not really dipped that hard. When people voice complaints, its almost always related to the flavor, the business model, the design philosophy, or the lore, not the mechanical design. The only real mechanical thing people complain about is "power creep" and to that I say: "No, not really?"
> 
> Simulacrum is in the PHB. Conjure Animals is in the PHB. The Moon Druid is in the PHB. The Diviner is in the PHB. Guidance is in the PHB. Force Cage, Maze, Shield, Find Familiar, Life Clerics, Sharpshooter, Arcane Trickster, GWM, PAM, Inspiring Leader.... these are all incredibly strong things that still get discussed all the time. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that at any given table MOST of the line items on everyone's character sheets will be stuff from the PHB.
> 
> And yes, Tasha's gave us the twilight and peace clerics, which are very strong, and also the Rune Knight and the Soulknife and Mercy Monk which are, if not overpowered, at the very least strong compared to similar subclasses. But every book has had standouts like that. The Bladesinger was in SCAG, an otherwise pretty unmemorable book. Xanathar's had hexblades and shepherd druids and gloomstalkers. Volos had Yuan Ti. *Fizbans had silvery barbs* and Raulothim's Psychic Lance.
> 
> Basically what I'm saying is, if there's been power creep its been less that every new thing that's published is overpowered, and more that every book adds a few new overpowered things. The only real examples of power creep IMO are the Tasha's ACFs (which mostly benefited martials imo) and the MMOM races. But neither really has me crying.
> 
> So has the 'quality' dipped?  IMO, no. At the very least we've yet to have something like That Damned Halfling appear again. _Shudders._ There's been changes, and power creep for specifically races but overall its been a change in design philosophy rather than some objective dip in production value.


Silvery Barbs was from Strixhaven actually (MTG content) but otherwise, 100% agreed.




> Its never a compelling point when you have to say "this thing is like some dramatically more crazy thing. Wouldn't that crazy thing be bad? That means the other thing is bad too."
> 
> The oldschool race design was basically that there were 3-4 really strong generalist races that could be used for anything and be good, possibly the best. Vhumans, warforged, half-elf. Then everything else was either horrifically overpowered (yuan-ti, aaracockra) or "competitive for 1-2 classes, very meh for others" or "objectively terrible" (orcs lol.) A lot of the volo's races in particular were badly designed, and classic archetypes like goblin rogue were simply not supported. Races were a very bland design space overall and speaking for me I saw a LOT of vhumans and half elves at basically every table. In my first campaign we had a dragonborn, a wood elf, a hill dwarf, five vhumans, and three half elves over the course of the campaign.
> 
> That's really not a flavorful list of races, no matter how you slice it.
> 
> Now most races are generalists but not every race is equally well-suited for every class, which I think is a much healthier place to be in.


This! All of this!

----------


## Ignimortis

> As to the "5e is just 4e with a different coat of paint," then stop trying to strip away the coat of paint that makes it actually feel like D&D. Because 4e didn't. If "spells" (as 5e does them) fall into the AEDU paradigm, stop trying to remove them when you say "we should be doing more AEDU; how could you possibly have disliked AEDU if you like 5e?" 
> 
> It winds up pinging the natural instincts one has against being bait-and-switched when somebody says, "What you like is just like this thing you said you don't like, so agree that you like that thing you said you don't like, and then we'll make arguments to change everything around to the thing you don't like." Obviously, there is something different enough that I like what 5e has done more than what 4e did with AEDU. If, to you, it's just a "coat of paint" and therefore "not really different," why do you feel the need to try to convince us that it's not different? Is it to go back to AEDU the way 4e did it? Because if so, obviously it  is not just a "coat of paint" if you want to go back to 4e's paradigm because you're not happy with 5e's. If it is just a "coat of paint," why not be happy that you've hoodwinked those of us who disliked 4e but like the AEDU hiding in 5e, and move forward recognizing that the design you do like from AEDU is there, and now knowing how to make it "fool" those of us who are too unenlightened to recognize that AEDU was the best thing to ever happen to D&D?


Because I don't like either? 4e did good things, but AEDU itself, as a system, isn't one of them. What it did well was giving non-casters flashy and powerful abilities that were on par with what spellcasters do, but that is not hinging on AEDU in any way, it's just coincidental with it. 

What I'd like is for D&D to acknowledge that there's more to resources than rest-based management, and that several other resource paradigms have already existed in the previous editions, did not break the game, and provided breadth of design options that is, to this day, unmatched by any effort afterwards. However, with the current direction D&D seems to be going in, with both previous and current authors, we'll see 5e with minor patches until there's a major paradigm shift or sales dry up enough that going for another "expansion pack" like D&Done isn't enough.

----------


## Segev

> Because I don't like either? 4e did good things, but AEDU itself, as a system, isn't one of them. What it did well was giving non-casters flashy and powerful abilities that were on par with what spellcasters do, but that is not hinging on AEDU in any way, it's just coincidental with it. 
> 
> What I'd like is for D&D to acknowledge that there's more to resources than rest-based management, and that several other resource paradigms have already existed in the previous editions, did not break the game, and provided breadth of design options that is, to this day, unmatched by any effort afterwards. However, with the current direction D&D seems to be going in, with both previous and current authors, we'll see 5e with minor patches until there's a major paradigm shift or sales dry up enough that going for another "expansion pack" like D&Done isn't enough.


Fair enough. I can get behind more subsystems and resource types that manage off of things other than rest. "You can use this once per minute" would be sufficient in 5e's timing for it to be "per-encounter," even, as long as you care only about limiting it in combat.

----------


## Waazraath

> Fair enough. I can get behind more subsystems and resource types that manage off of things other than rest. "You can use this once per minute" would be sufficient in 5e's timing for it to be "per-encounter," even, as long as you care only about limiting it in combat.


Soulbinding 1/5 rounds was also nice, cause it introduced another timing dilemma: some fights would last more than 5 round, but not all... blowing these abilities in the beginning of the fight might allow for a 2nd use, while waiting might lead using the ability at the best moment, but made the chance of using it twice a lot smaller. I liked it a lot.

----------


## Oramac

> Fair enough. I can get behind more subsystems and resource types that manage off of things other than rest. "You can use this once per minute" would be sufficient in 5e's timing for it to be "per-encounter," even, as long as you care only about limiting it in combat.





> Soulbinding 1/5 rounds was also nice, cause it introduced another timing dilemma: some fights would last more than 5 round, but not all... blowing these abilities in the beginning of the fight might allow for a 2nd use, while waiting might lead using the ability at the best moment, but made the chance of using it twice a lot smaller. I liked it a lot.


Personally not a fan of this sort of thing. I could _maybe_ get with "X per minute" features, but I just don't care for round-based features. For me, they break verisimilitude in a big way, especially since the "round" is happening all at once.

----------


## Grod_The_Giant

> The defenses instead of saves was actually not a problem for 4e. A lot of the core mechanics were fine. It's the class structure and lack of subsystem differentiation that was the problem.
> 
> SAGA Edition was a sci-fantasy setting for a totally different kind of genre than D&D is. You can point to the similarities all you like, saying "Jedi are space wizards," but they really aren't. The paradigms they operate in and under are just too different. Jedi would never work as a D&D-like pseudo-vancian spellcaster, and nobody wants them to be. Structuring Jedi powers as discrete things they learn has always been awkward, but accepted as a necessity to game design structure. SAGA Edition making them broader and more like feats or class features works because they don't operate like spells at all. 
> 
> The caster/martial disparity still existed, too, in SAGA edition, because the disparity isn't a result of "casters using spells," but rather "guy at the gym / magic can do anything" existing in the same design space. If you can use the Force, you can justify any cool, amazing, over-the-top mechanics. If you can't, then it's "unrealistic" to have your PC doing those cool things.
> 
> 4e may have taken some core tools from SAGA edition, but it was not in the slightest just "SAGA edition refined." And even if it were, it still wouldn't work as D&D proper. Because SAGA edition wouldn't work as D&D proper.


I didn't mean to imply that 4e was "SAGA edition refined." You're right that there are major differences, and that mechanics for Jedi wouldn't work well with traditional D&D spellcasting (and vice-versa).  My point was that 4e wasn't as much of a random unrelated system as Unoriginal posited-- when it comes to design philosophies, you can draw a clear line from 3e to Saga to 4e.

(I've been thinking about this mostly because I realized that one of my homebrew systems wound up looking kind of like a level-less iteration of 4e, despite starting from a totally unrelated place)




> As to the "5e is just 4e with a different coat of paint," then stop trying to strip away the coat of paint that makes it actually feel like D&D. Because 4e didn't. If "spells" (as 5e does them) fall into the AEDU paradigm, stop trying to remove them when you say "we should be doing more AEDU; how could you possibly have disliked AEDU if you like 5e?"


Has anyone said that?  It seems more like anything that smacked of 4e was strictly off-limits to 5e designers.




> Personally not a fan of this sort of thing. I could _maybe_ get with "X per minute" features, but I just don't care for round-based features. For me, they break verisimilitude in a big way, especially since the "round" is happening all at once.


Once per 5 rounds being particularly strange, since it's so close to once per minute that in 90% of encounters there will be no difference.

----------


## Oramac

> Once per 5 rounds being particularly strange, since it's so close to once per minute that in 90% of encounters there will be no difference.


One round is 6 seconds, so 5 rounds is only half a minute. That said, I don't disagree and still don't care for round-based features.

----------


## Grod_The_Giant

> One round is 6 seconds, so 5 rounds is only half a minute.


<headdesk>

----------


## KorvinStarmast

13th age fused what the authors thought was 'the best of 4e and 5e 3e' with a few other quirks tossed in, and capped at level 10.  I liked a lot of what I was seeing as we prepared to play, but that group broke up way too soon thanks to the _RL sux_ affliction.  :Small Frown: 

Thanks to PG for the correction!  :Small Smile:

----------


## Tanarii

> Jedi would never work as a D&D-like pseudo-vancian spellcaster, and nobody wants them to be.


Tell that to SW5e: Star Wars 5e.  It even did technological powers (e.g. for engineering) as "spells".  It worked great.

Of course, it could be that it was point based with psuedo-vancian spell "levels" instead of slot based with psuedo-vancian spell "levels", similar to the DMG option in 5e.  That makes all the difference to some folks.

Edit:  it'd be even better in 4e AEDU format, which feel power source agnostic.  Having 9 levels of power just reeks of "magic" to anyone that's played D&D.  Which IIRC was a huge problem for reception of the 3.5e martial book.  It takes a little bit of willingness to accept technological stuff as not magic when it's 9 levels of power.  But for Jedi it shouldn't take any extra willingness.  They're already mystical.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

Thinking about the specific books in more detail--

Adventure/setting books--dunno, don't buy or use them. No comment there.

Volos and Xanathars weren't perfect. They had some stinkers (hexblade, looking at you). Some pieces of them that were mostly meh. But they also had lots of good useful stuff. And they tried, it seemed, to present engaging lore that sparked imagination.

Mordenkainen's was a little worse. Mostly because it focused so much on elves who are very much overdone. And it started to bring in the multiverse concept (more on that later).

Tasha's was, thematically, a trainwreck. Ok, worse than that. Because trainwrecks can be interesting to watch. Of the non-reprinted classes/subclasses/spells, exactly _zero_ felt like they were thematically driven, rather than "here are a bunch of isolated cool abilities we can slap together." And the mechanics ranged from WTF to WTF (in both directions) with little in the middle. The magic items? Boring and mostly "hey casters, have more nice things!". The alternate class features were mostly numbers patches and "more spells for everybody". The racial stuff has been done to death, but was basically more numbers. The rest of the book was eminently forgettable to laughable.

Fizban's was...a slight step up mechanically. But it had one fatal flaw (other than giving every spell to wizards). It doubled and tripled down on the "everything is really a multiverse and no you can't escape it, like it or not" model. Which is an utter hack job both in execution and concept. And always has been. Earlier editions had a default cosmology, but at least they had the "well, this is just one model" excuse and allowed for things like Eberron off on its own cosmology, etc. The 5e multiverse as depicted basically throws everyone into a bed of procrustes created by corporate marketing. Anything interesting is filed off with prejudice, no real diversity is possible, and everything is as bland and inoffensive as possible. The lore in Fizbans was...laughable. Or would be, except there was nothing funny about it. Merely sad. The mechanics were ok though.

I haven't bought MotM, so I'll refrain from commenting on it other than to say that I haven't heard anything that makes me interested in it from a thematic/lore standpoint.

----------


## Jervis

> Tell that to SW5e: Star Wars 5e.  It even did technological powers (e.g. for engineering) as "spells".  It worked great.
> 
> Of course, it could be that it was point based with psuedo-vancian spell "levels" instead of slot based with psuedo-vancian spell "levels", similar to the DMG option in 5e.  That makes all the difference to some folks.
> 
> Edit:  it'd be even better in 4e AEDU format, which feel power source agnostic.  Having 9 levels of power just reeks of "magic" to anyone that's played D&D.  Which IIRC was a huge problem for reception of the 3.5e martial book.  It takes a little bit of willingness to accept technological stuff as not magic when it's 9 levels of power.  But for Jedi it shouldn't take any extra willingness.  They're already mystical.


I disagree that SW5e worked great. It functions. When you actually stop to think about the implications of some of their mechanics (ex technological powers) then it causes problems with gameplay world segregation. Honestly any purpose built Star Wars rpg does it better, same for a lot of generic systems like HERO. Running out of force and having tiered levels of force dont fit the universe at all, and while you can have force powers effectively drain stamina the segregation of mechanics means that you can blow all your force and still be able to use everything else without issue. 

Note this is one of my pet peeves since so many people start with 5e and refuse to try anything else. This leads to the Boss Baby problem where people that have only played 5e assume that all the weird and unintuitive parts of 5e design born from sacred cows get taken as default. Much like how someone whos only seen boss baby will compare every movie to boss baby and make anything they make like boss baby. Just showing where my opinion comes from.

----------


## Tanarii

"Running out of force" makes perfectly fine sense, as does tiered abilities.  Especially when you've got weaker at-will abilities that can use the force all day long, aka cantrips.

Even resource based marital abilities or technological abilities work fine, as long as you've got lower powered at-wills to fill in the gaps.

The idea that Martials, Jedi, or even technology can just spam all their moves any time they want is what doesn't match the fiction, especially if your fiction is based on anything media (film, books, comics, etc).  It's very common in those for special abilities to be used once per scene or even story arc.

----------


## Psyren

RE: running out of force - I think it's a gameplay/story segregation thing. In the movies and shows, characters who overuse the Force become physically fatigued or even fall unconscious (and in at least one case might outright die) - while in the games, when Force is metered at all it tends to not hamper your normal running and jumping etc at all.

Personally I can see the value in a magic system that taxes you physically as you drain your power reserves, and maybe that's part of the key to reining casters in.

----------


## animorte

> Personally I can see the value in a magic system that taxes you physically as you drain your power reserves, and maybe that's part of the key to reining casters in.


I see the value very much as well. Thats why Ive been looking for (and designing) something that attempts to bring this perspective to life.

Despite that and whatever else we can find wrong with it, 5e still feels like home and One currently has my vote.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

We've mostly used published adventures, and in answer to the OP, yes they've gotten worse.  My gripes are as follows:
Newer stuff is generally
A) Lower level, and/ or
B) Anthologies of modules, in many cases re-hashed older material that doesn't form an actual single adventure, and/ or
C) Leans far too heavily into the Social Pillar.

I've stopped buying published adventures.  If they start making something as epic as OotA or DiA again I'll buy it.

----------


## Schwann145

Esper the Bard over on YouTube dropped this today. Seems relevant:

----------


## Amnestic

> RE: running out of force - I think it's a gameplay/story segregation thing. In the movies and shows, characters who overuse the Force become physically fatigued or even fall unconscious (and in at least one case might outright die) - while in the games, when Force is metered at all it tends to not hamper your normal running and jumping etc at all.
> 
> Personally I can see the value in a magic system that taxes you physically as you drain your power reserves, and maybe that's part of the key to reining casters in.


Old+bad: Berserker Barbarians using Frenzy causes exhaustion
New+good: Casting spells causes exhaustion




> I've stopped buying published adventures.  If they start making something as epic as OotA or DiA again I'll buy it.


Considering how bad DiA is as a complete adventure, I hope any future 'epic' modules are nothing like it.

----------


## Jervis

> "Running out of force" makes perfectly fine sense, as does tiered abilities.  Especially when you've got weaker at-will abilities that can use the force all day long, aka cantrips.
> 
> Even resource based marital abilities or technological abilities work fine, as long as you've got lower powered at-wills to fill in the gaps.
> 
> The idea that Martials, Jedi, or even technology can just spam all their moves any time they want is what doesn't match the fiction, especially if your fiction is based on anything media (film, books, comics, etc).  It's very common in those for special abilities to be used once per scene or even story arc.


Yes but do they work exactly a set number of times defined by tiers before becoming unusable, being mutually exclusive with other abilities of the same tier but do not effect uses of higher or lower tier abilities? The answer is no. This is what the boss baby problem does, it makes you bend the setting and logic into a pretzel to justify a sacred cow of the mechanics. Ive run out of cybernetics and I need to rest for exactly 8 hours before I can force again are two things that shouldnt exist. Ammunition yes but for all of those other aspects of the game other balancing and resource mechanics should exist. 

As an aside the caster/martial disparity is uniquely a dnd problem precisely because of the class system and how spell slots are balanced. Fact is Vancian magic is inherently broken as it is currently implemented in the game and its the reason the Adventuring Day is such a unruly and obtuse system.



> Old+bad: Berserker Barbarians using Frenzy causes exhaustion
> New+good: Casting spells causes exhaustion
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how bad DiA is as a complete adventure, I hope any future 'epic' modules are nothing like it.


RE: to the topic of spellcasting making you tired. It works well and a lot of systems do it but slapping it in 5e is Ill advised IMO. The classes are, at least theoretically, balanced against each other at least in a mathematical sense. Most systems that use something like this have Low HP, Low Damage, and dont try to balance around the assumption that someone is going to not use the system but still somehow keep up in every aspect of the game. As just a example from my own work I have one catch all resource called Stamina that goes down when you get hit and can be willingly reduced to fuel abilities. Likewise some abilities can apply penalties for the rest of the scene. 

Note for moth of these cases I dont think the idea is bad, in fact I think using powerful abilities effecting your performance in other areas is a good idea, but not in DnDs class and level based system.

----------


## Waazraath

> Esper the Bard over on YouTube dropped this today. Seems relevant:


Thank you for sharing. I recognize some points, but at the same time it's a bit grognardish, and not in the good sense. There still is (for instance) enough dark and gritty and edgy stuff around in DnD (Rime of the Frostmaiden with cannibalism and all kind of horror and awfulness, Ravenloft setting). There always were part of the game that catered more to younger audiences. He mentions the cartoon himself. I don't think it's all that different. Yes, it got populair, and that automatically means it becomes mainstream and less 'punk', not because the contents changed but because when punk becomes popular it's automatically less punk, even if the music stays exactly the same - to stay in his anology.

As a sidenote: damn I hate video's. Sorry if I'm the grognard now, but I could have read this stuff in 2 minutes and now you have to look at it friggin 17 minutes to get the same info? Like people don't have anything to do these days. And now get off my lawn, all of you.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> As a sidenote: damn I hate video's. Sorry if I'm the grognard now, but I could have read this stuff in 2 minutes and now you have to look at it friggin 17 minutes to get the same info? Like people don't have anything to do these days. And now get off my lawn, all of you.


As a D&D YT creator, I feel you, I really do. The audience (and potential for monetization) is more easily on YT, and that's what drives things. I personally use YT videos as podcast type stuff mostly, typically if you're listening to D&D stuff that aren't animated stories, the video is irrelevant. A lot of the time it's just random images grabbed from the internet and questionable font choices, no help in conveying the message, but sadly the masses are attracted by jump cuts and imagery. 

Entirely tangential, but I do agree, YT is not the best source for low-signal high-value information, because it needs to be entertainment and have necessary patterns in, reading will generally be better for that. Still good to have on the side when you're working though :p

I'll probably get around to the actual video in question... later maybe.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Having 9 levels of power just reeks of "magic" to anyone that's played D&D.


 Chainmail and D&D original had six. One of the best parts of Chainmail was that a given spell might fail.  Complexity (pg 33 chainmail 3rd edition) . I means "Immediate effect" D means "Delayed until next turn" and N means "negated or otherwise non- effective."  Rolls are 2d6.  Resolved in one roll.  
Value
Effect
Seer
Magician
Warlock
Sorcerer
Wizard


I
8
7
6
5
4

1
D
7
6
5
4
3


N
5
4
3
-
-



We've kind of lost that, though saving throws do restore the idea that "it didn't work" or "it didn't work well enough" to the game.  To say the adding level 7 - 9 spells to the game (Greyhawk Supplement) was bloat is a bit of an understatement.  Had those spells remained for NPCs, or for rituals, or for 'can only find on a scroll' or 'takes research to make one scroll to cast once' some of the OPness and 'strategic' stuff after level 11 would not become quite the issue that it is now.   



> As a sidenote: damn I hate video's. Sorry if I'm the grognard now, but I could have read this stuff in 2 minutes and now you have to look at it friggin 17 minutes to get the same info? Like people don't have anything to do these days. And now get off my lawn, all of you.


 Very few are well enough produced to get my thumbs up.  They are mostly more bloated than D&D splat books ...

----------


## Segev

> Personally not a fan of this sort of thing. I could _maybe_ get with "X per minute" features, but I just don't care for round-based features. For me, they break verisimilitude in a big way, especially since the "round" is happening all at once.


I was going to say "but action economy is literally round-based resources," but then I understood better that you meant "things that refresh after X rounds," and yeah, for 5e, that's way too fiddly. If you really, REALLY want that level of granularity, you can go with the recharge mechanic that monsters use. 

In fact, if you're having a lot of trouble with nova-ing and overpowered casters due to too few encounters per day, going to spells having a recharge mechanic rather than a spell slot mechanic (or even having a recharge mechanic in addition to a spell slot mechanic), possibly with higher level spells recharging on rarer results (a 3+ for 1-2 level spells, 4+ for 3-4 level spells, 5+ for 5-6 level spells, 6+ for 7-9 level spells; you can't cast a leveled spell until this recharges) might limit the combat/encounter power of a spellcaster more. I literally just thought of this while writing this post, so I have barely given it any thought, though.




> Tell that to SW5e: Star Wars 5e.  It even did technological powers (e.g. for engineering) as "spells".  It worked great.
> 
> Of course, it could be that it was point based with psuedo-vancian spell "levels" instead of slot based with psuedo-vancian spell "levels", similar to the DMG option in 5e.  That makes all the difference to some folks.
> 
> Edit:  it'd be even better in 4e AEDU format, which feel power source agnostic.  Having 9 levels of power just reeks of "magic" to anyone that's played D&D.  Which IIRC was a huge problem for reception of the 3.5e martial book.  It takes a little bit of willingness to accept technological stuff as not magic when it's 9 levels of power.  But for Jedi it shouldn't take any extra willingness.  They're already mystical.


I was unaware of the system; it sounds like it'd be iffy to me to try to map it to Star Wars, but I am not enough of a Star Wars fan to really be able to say for sure. 

I will say that shifting from slots to spell points can make all the difference in how a "magic system" feels. It made a huge difference in how psionics felt in 3.5, for instance. This isn't to say that one is superior to the other, but rather that the choice of which to use can serve your flavor needs if you use it to do so.

----------


## Tanarii

> As a sidenote: damn I hate video's. Sorry if I'm the grognard now, but I could have read this stuff in 2 minutes and now you have to look at it friggin 17 minutes to get the same info? Like people don't have anything to do these days. And now get off my lawn, all of you.


If it's not in text form, it might as well not exist.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> If you really, REALLY want that level of granularity, you can go with the recharge mechanic that monsters use.


 That might get the accusation of "it's too video gamey" since that looks a lot like 'cool down' mechanics (see Diablo III, WoW, Warcraft III, etc).  



> I will say that shifting from slots to spell points can make all the difference in how a "magic system" feels. .


 I played spell points with Max Wilson in our PbP game, and it 'works well enough' but the DMG limitation on level 6, 7, 8, 9 spells (only 1 per long rest) was fine ... but as I review that scheme I think that the spell point costs for levels 6, 7, 8, 9 need to go up a little bit.

----------


## Tanarii

> Chainmail and D&D original had six.


Excellent grognard-y point sir.  I stand in violation of not caveating properly.  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Segev

> That might get the accusation of "it's too video gamey" since that looks a lot like 'cool down' mechanics (see Diablo III, WoW, Warcraft III, etc).


I mean, the mechanic is already there in 5e, and it's not like just because it's currently limited to monsters, players don't know it exists. 



> I played spell points with Max Wilson in our PbP game, and it 'works well enough' but the DMG limitation on level 6, 7, 8, 9 spells (only 1 per long rest) was fine ... but as I review that scheme I think that the spell point costs for levels 6, 7, 8, 9 need to go up a little bit.


Sure. All I was saying is that it changes the feel of things enough to make a difference. You could have standard spell slots represent "magic" and spell points represent something else that's not magic, for instance, and have that be enough distinction to make the subsystems feel different.

Psionics, some sort of "battery" for "tech tricks," Alchemical Reagent Points.... I'm sure more creative people than I can come up with more options.

----------


## Jervis

> I mean, the mechanic is already there in 5e, and it's not like just because it's currently limited to monsters, players don't know it exists. 
> Sure. All I was saying is that it changes the feel of things enough to make a difference. You could have standard spell slots represent "magic" and spell points represent something else that's not magic, for instance, and have that be enough distinction to make the subsystems feel different.
> 
> Psionics, some sort of "battery" for "tech tricks," Alchemical Reagent Points.... I'm sure more creative people than I can come up with more options.


IMO spell points work best with short rest spell progression like warlock.

----------


## TyGuy

> Considering how bad DiA is as a complete adventure, I hope any future 'epic' modules are nothing like it.


I thought DiA was well received. Could it be said that mad max infernal engines did a lot of the heavy lifting of enjoyment? I only got 2-3 sessions in, skipping the pointless intro in BG & jumping straight down, and I thought it was pretty good. I guess I just brought up a red flag, the fact that the intro is so convoluted and pointless.

----------


## Sigreid

> I thought DiA was well received. Could it be said that mad max infernal engines did a lot of the heavy lifting of enjoyment? I only got 2-3 sessions in, skipping the pointless intro in BG & jumping straight down, and I thought it was pretty good. I guess I just brought up a red flag, the fact that the intro is so convoluted and pointless.


I hated running that adventure so much I gave the party an out and tried to tempt them to take it.

----------


## Amnestic

> I thought DiA was well received. Could it be said that mad max infernal engines did a lot of the heavy lifting of enjoyment? I only got 2-3 sessions in, skipping the pointless intro in BG & jumping straight down, and I thought it was pretty good. I guess I just brought up a red flag, the fact that the intro is so convoluted and pointless.


This isn't really the thread for it but my key problems with it:-

1) Everything before you actually get to hell is kinda pointless, and seemingly exists only to give you low level gameplay to level up high enough to have an excuse to not immediately die in hell, (Cynically: and so they can stick the Baldur's Gate name on the box for marketing purposes).

2) When you're actually *in* hell, the 'path' you're meant to follow with Lulu is a big sequence of time wasting without meaningful story progression, and this makes up a decent chunk of the actual hell playtime as you bounce between locations learning nothing of value. It very much can lead to players feel like they're spinning their wheels instead of accomplishing anything.

Less notably, 3) If your party is full of goody two-shoes who won't be tempted by hellish things then it kinda cuts off the whole temptation aspect. This happened for one of my friend's groups who ran it - they were a capital 'g' Good Paladin and their party held similar views, so the whole soul coin trading aspect was...less productive? This, admittedly, is perhaps something that could have been addressed with a session 0, but on the other hand a team of good guys going to hell _is_ thematically appropriate.

It's not _unsalvageable_ as an adventure by any means, and a DM with sufficient interest _can_ make adjustments to improve upon it, but out of the box it was a big disappointment. DiA did not adequately deliver on the promise of its premise, to me.

(sort of related: neither did Dragon Heist)

----------


## Oramac

> I was going to say "but action economy is literally round-based resources," but then I understood better that you meant "things that refresh after X rounds," and yeah, for 5e, that's way too fiddly. If you really, REALLY want that level of granularity, you can go with the recharge mechanic that monsters use. 
> 
> In fact, if you're having a lot of trouble with nova-ing and overpowered casters due to too few encounters per day, going to spells having a recharge mechanic rather than a spell slot mechanic (or even having a recharge mechanic in addition to a spell slot mechanic), possibly with higher level spells recharging on rarer results (a 3+ for 1-2 level spells, 4+ for 3-4 level spells, 5+ for 5-6 level spells, 6+ for 7-9 level spells; you can't cast a leveled spell until this recharges) might limit the combat/encounter power of a spellcaster more. I literally just thought of this while writing this post, so I have barely given it any thought, though.


The Lich already sort of has this in its Lair Actions. It can roll a d8 and regain a spell slot of the level rolled. It actually works really well, imo. 

It's not so much that I have trouble with nova or casters. Honestly, it's not even the mechanic that bothers me. I count rounds normally. It's using "rounds" as a determinant of recharge or expiration for a feature that breaks verisimilitude for me. Combat has no "rounds". We only break it into rounds to help track it better. So an in-character function using an out-of-character mechanic bothers me. 




> I will say that shifting from slots to spell points can make all the difference in how a "magic system" feels. It made a huge difference in how psionics felt in 3.5, for instance. This isn't to say that one is superior to the other, but rather that the choice of which to use can serve your flavor needs if you use it to do so.


IMO, spell points should have been the default. They work WAY better in my experience, and feel better to boot.

----------


## P. G. Macer

> 13th age fused what the authors thought was 'the best of 4e and 5e' with a few other quirks tossed in, and capped at level 10.  I liked a lot of what I was seeing as we prepared to play, but that group broke up way too soon thanks to the _RL sux_ affliction.


Nitpick: As the brainchild of Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet, 13th Age (my favorite RPG, incidentally) combined the best of 4e and 3e; it actually was published almost exactly a year before 5e was. But yes, it solves a lot of the issues plaguing 5e rather well, and Im sorry that your group broke up before you really got to play it.

----------


## TyGuy

> This isn't really the thread for it but my key problems with it:-


On the contrary, this is the perfect place to bring up the trajectory of module quality. Most the relevant conversation has been on splatbooks. I imagine experience with modules is rarer than splatbooks, and experience with multiple modules before and after the staff changes is rarer still.

----------


## Amnestic

> On the contrary, this is the perfect place to bring up the trajectory of module quality. Most the relevant conversation has been on splatbooks. I imagine experience with modules is rarer than splatbooks, and experience with multiple modules before and after the staff changes is rarer still.


I don't have a full grasp of every module, but of those I've played or read the most glowing description I could give of 5e's adventures is consistently mediocre, with more 'bad' than 'good'. It's hard to say the 'old devs' (if we're taking that to mean 'pre-Tasha's') were better when they were dropping big stinkers like Tyranny of Dragons, Dragon Heist, or DiA.

I haven't heard great things about Call of the Netherdeep or the Spelljammer stuff, but that's not really a surprise to me. Same old, same old. 

Paizo definitely ain't perfect with their PF adventure paths but I'm generally a lot more positive on them than the 5e releases from WotC.

----------


## Psyren

> If it's not in text form, it might as well not exist.





> Very few are well enough produced to get my thumbs up.  They are mostly more bloated than D&D splat books ...


I just crank up the playback speed *shrug* if it's a topic I'm interested in, I have no problem putting one on in the background.




> Thank you for sharing. I recognize some points, but at the same time it's a bit grognardish, and not in the good sense. There still is (for instance) enough dark and gritty and edgy stuff around in DnD (Rime of the Frostmaiden with cannibalism and all kind of horror and awfulness, Ravenloft setting). There always were part of the game that catered more to younger audiences. He mentions the cartoon himself. I don't think it's all that different. Yes, it got populair, and that automatically means it becomes mainstream and less 'punk', not because the contents changed but because when punk becomes popular it's automatically less punk, even if the music stays exactly the same - to stay in his anology.


Yeah his analogy doesn't really make sense here. They were abundantly clear in the devblog that their design goal for Inspiration was for it to be awarded more often so that players would actually use it. If his group finds it meaningful and special to hold a vote at the end of every session to identify that session's "MVP" and award it only to them, that's great, he can still do that. A general rule about inspiration being awarded on a nat 20 or nat 1, or for humans to wake up with it, doesn't havei to change the way his group plays the game, and the same is true for the game in a macro sense. D&D becoming more mainstream and less "punk" is a good thing, and doesn't have to impact the way he plays it at all.

----------


## Segev

> I hated running that adventure so much I gave the party an out and tried to tempt them to take it.


Could you elaborate on why you hated running it? I have not had much interaction with it at all, but you're the first one I've heard hated running it, so I'm curious what made it so unlikable to you.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I don't have a full grasp of every module, but of those I've played or read the most glowing description I could give of 5e's adventures is consistently mediocre, with more 'bad' than 'good'. It's hard to say the 'old devs' (if we're taking that to mean 'pre-Tasha's') were better when they were dropping big stinkers like *Tyranny of Dragons*, Dragon Heist, or DiA.


I have no dog in this fight, as I don't buy or use modules. But one thing to remember is that Tyranny of Dragons was
1) outsourced (ie "licensed 3rd party")
2) mostly written using playtest materials and without access to DMG or MM or even the full PHB (although edited afterward)
3) written before anyone had a good idea how 5e was going to work.

The only module(s) I've played in are
* half of PotA. It was...ok. Not great, but then again it's set in FR and is a module. It was comparable in quality (but way better in organization, based on how much flipping through things the DM had to do) to the first book of Rise of the Runelords (PF), which I also played in.
* two different DDAL modules, one as a DM and one in AL. The one I DM'd was ok. Not great. The one I played in seemed rather pointless. Lots of faffing about, nothing much actually happened. But I understand some of the DDAL modules are not really 1st party.

----------


## Oramac

> I thought DiA was well received. Could it be said that mad max infernal engines did a lot of the heavy lifting of enjoyment? I only got 2-3 sessions in, skipping the pointless intro in BG & jumping straight down, and I thought it was pretty good. I guess I just brought up a red flag, the fact that the intro is so convoluted and pointless.





> I hated running that adventure so much I gave the party an out and tried to tempt them to take it.





> Could you elaborate on why you hated running it? I have not had much interaction with it at all, but you're the first one I've heard hated running it, so I'm curious what made it so unlikable to you.


I'm really trying to avoid these comments, as I'm currently playing DiA and (shockingly) it's one of the few published adventures I haven't read, so I get to see it purely as a surprise. 

Interestingly, as a player at least, I've thus far found it to be quite enjoyable. 

*Spoiler: My Journey in DiA*
Show

For reference, the party has gotten into Avernus and 2-ish sessions ago got to Fort Knucklebone. Currently, we're outside the fort and just got to Harrowman's Hill. Thus far, as far as I know anyway, everyone is quite enjoying the game and story.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> combined the best of 4e and 3e


 Sorry, I spelled that incorrectly, I'll go and fix my post.

----------


## Sception

I just don't see most of the complaints here.  

Maximum cash grabs?  Not with the slow pace of release compared to previous WotC editions, and the commitment that everything official see a published released, instead of tons of key content being available only via paid online products as in 4e.  

Questionable balance?  I mean, tashas had problems there, but so did the sword coast guide, and that was the very first 5e supplement.  honestly, so does the phb.  And overall balance in 5e seems markedly better than in 3e, or even much of 4e, if only thanks to the lack of content glut meaning fewer opportunities for truly broken content to slip through.

Excessive capitulation to left wing identity politics?  WotC has been sanding off the more out of touch corners of D&D - and working to make it if not more appealing then at least less repellant to potential new player demographics since they picked the game up in 3e.  Whether you approve of these changes or not, there's really nothing new here.

Not the best adventure modules?  Again, wizards has struggled with 1st party modules since day 1 of 3e, with only a few real stand outs (eg Red Hand of Doom in 3e, or Curse of Strahd in 5e).  Paizo was able to launch pathfinder in no small part thanks to their already firmly established reputation for making better adventure modules than WotC back in 3e.

I will admit that Campaign Supplements have been unusually sub par by WotC era D&D in 5e, with the very recent Spelljammer set being probably the worst of the bunch so far.  There have been a couple very solid exceptions - Eberron in particular has a very nice 5e campaign book, and the Ravenloft book is decent, albeit more of a 'running adventures of a particular theme' book rather than a 'here is a coherent and detailed fantasy world to adventure in' traditional campaign supplement.  And the Ravnica book isn't too bad, though it does coast a bit too hard on ravnica itself being a cool concept more than the campaign supplement itself bringing the setting to life in a particularly effective way, and while it was probably a marketing mandate rather than a creative choice, it was still a mistake to set the D&D setting for Ravnica in the degenerate last days of the Guild system as per the then contemporary MtG Ravnica release - where several of the guilds had degenerated into parodies of themselves utterly divorced from the guild's initial civic purpose.  This made it much harder than it should have been to come up with good or even neutral aligned character concepts for like half the guilds...

I'm wandering off track.  The point is, I have no idea how anyone would effectively run a Forgotten Realms using purely or even primarily 5e products.  5e Dragonlance isn't out yet, Greyhawk & Darksun aren't even on the horizon, hopes for planescape are through the floor after seeing what they did with spelljammer.  3e and 4e both blow 5e campaign setting content out of the water.  But again, this isn't a new problem that only appeared recently - its a decline since 5e (with, again, a few exceptions), not a decline since Tashas.

And there have been areas of marked improvement, imo.  Despite the the backlash to splitting stat bonuses off from race choice, I still think the overall mechanical design of races in Monsters of the Multiverse is a big step up from what we saw in the early years of 5e.  They just do more interesting things that stay relevant at more levels than most early 5e races, while toning down or replacing some problem features.

I'll admit the lack of cultural, mythological, and narrative background is frustrating.  Yes, that stuff can completely change from setting to setting, so a lore block based on Forgotten Realms might be so much wasted ink for games set in Greyhawk or Dragonlance or Mystara or Eberron or Planescape or Ravenloft or Ravnica or what have you.  But whether its Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, 4e's 'Points of Light', or otherwise - I still liked there being at least some generic grounding so that if the DM is deviating in the overall setting lore or the player in the background of their individual character that at least they have a shared baseline that they're deviating from.

But again, the actual mechanical implementations?  Some of the best in D&D imo.  It's a shame that 5e is nearing its end, because I still have dozens of ideas for characters I wanted to try based on new racial implementations in MotM, and I'm not going to have time to get to more than a few of them.  And it's worth noting that many of those ideas wouldn't have worked nearly as well with fixed racial stat bonuses.

...

So I'm not saying that there aren't valid criticisms to be made of WotC's handling of D&D or of 5e in particular, but most of the complaints I've seen online since Tasha's release either don't seem valid or, if they are valid, they don't reflect anything new that's changed about D&D or WotC since Tasha's.

----------


## Polyphemus

> I will admit that Campaign Supplements have been unusually sub par by WotC era D&D in 5e, with the very recent Spelljammer set being probably the worst of the bunch so far.  There have been a couple very solid exceptions - Eberron in particular has a very nice 5e campaign book, and the Ravenloft book is decent, albeit more of a 'running adventures of a particular theme' book rather than a 'here is a coherent and detailed fantasy world to adventure in' traditional campaign supplement.  And the Ravnica book isn't too bad, though it does coast a bit too hard on ravnica itself being a cool concept more than the campaign supplement itself bringing the setting to life in a particularly effective way, and while it was probably a marketing mandate rather than a creative choice, it was still a mistake to set the D&D setting for Ravnica in the degenerate last days of the Guild system as per the then contemporary MtG Ravnica release - where several of the guilds had degenerated into parodies of themselves utterly divorced from the guild's initial civic purpose.  This made it much harder than it should have been to come up with good or even neutral aligned character concepts for like half the guilds...
> 
> I'm wandering off track.  The point is, I have no idea how anyone would effectively run a Forgotten Realms using purely or even primarily 5e products.  5e Dragonlance isn't out yet, Greyhawk & Darksun aren't even on the horizon, hopes for planescape are through the floor after seeing what they did with spelljammer.  3e and 4e both blow 5e campaign setting content out of the water.  But again, this isn't a new problem that only appeared recently - its a decline since 5e (with, again, a few exceptions), not a decline since Tashas.
> 
> And there have been areas of marked improvement, imo.  Despite the the backlash to splitting stat bonuses off from race choice, I still think the overall mechanical design of races in Monsters of the Multiverse is a big step up from what we saw in the early years of 5e.  They just do more interesting things that stay relevant at more levels than most early 5e races, while toning down or replacing some problem features.
> 
> I'll admit the lack of cultural, mythological, and narrative background is frustrating.  Yes, that stuff can completely change from setting to setting, so a lore block based on Forgotten Realms might be so much wasted ink for games set in Greyhawk or Dragonlance or Mystara or Eberron or Planescape or Ravenloft or Ravnica or what have you.  But whether its Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, 4e's 'Points of Light', or otherwise - I still liked there being at least some generic grounding so that if the DM is deviating in the overall setting lore or the player in the background of their individual character that *at least they have a shared baseline that they're deviating from*.
> 
> But again, the actual mechanical implementations?  Some of the best in D&D imo.  It's a shame that 5e is nearing its end, because I still have dozens of ideas for characters I wanted to try based on new racial implementations in MotM, and I'm not going to have time to get to more than a few of them.  And it's worth noting that many of those ideas wouldn't have worked nearly as well with fixed racial stat bonuses.
> ...


This is kind of where I am, too.
On the mechanics end, I've liked or even loved most of the Tasha's and beyond content, with a few exceptions. Twilight "All That And Both Bonus Proficiencies, Too" Cleric being a big one. ;P
Hell, my biggest problem with the Spelljammer books isn't the content, its the lack of content. I like what I got, but I want _way_ more of it! I appreciate they at least fixed the Giff into having at least one firearm-based racial feature rather than the shapeless mass that was their UA version. 
The Tasha's race stat bonus customization rules I'll defend to my last, since I think it lets races stand more on their actual features rather than their pure stats. Makes some of the PHB races seem a bit bland in comparison to some of the MotM options, but still, extra proficiencies and/or skills are never a bad thing to have, so I still see most of them as being competitive, and certainly more competitive than if they had immovable stats. 

My biggest problem with post Tasha's releases is the lack of lore. Like in general I don't like the concept of removing digital content like they did with Volo's and MToF, it feels like I'm being gaslit by a product line. While most of the MotM renditions of the Volo's races are straight upgrades, I liked having the option to have an old-style Hobgoblin with Tasha's rules'd racial stats, if I wanted the weapon/light armor proficiencies more than the Fey Gift, for whatever reason. I think both should be able to exist. 
But in particular, throwing out both those books entirely, and not reprinting any of their respective lore in MotM? That definitely feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to me. 
Like sure, maybe Not All Orcs/Dwarves/Elves are as described in these lore sections, or have the pantheons described therein, but I like them as jumping off points and inspirations. 
Sure, I can make up my own orc culture, but I could _always_ do that, and I don't always have the time to come up with something wholly original, so maybe I do a variation on the Gruumsh-worshiping orcs where Gruumsh isn't a cruel elf-hating taskmaster and is a more "tough but fair" god, in the vein of Crom in the Conan movies. 
That shared baseline to deviate from I think is an unalloyed good. I like having something to measure my own characters/campaign settings by. 

The one thing in particular that I find the most consistently frustrating of the lack of lore, however, is the increasing abundance of "do it yourself" cop outs. 
Like I read through a few of the adventures/settings in the Radiant Citadel book, and I rather liked them, in fact. My problem is that in crucial areas of the settings they'd cop out and say "*YOU* make the call!", and I'm left sitting there annoyed like, 
"That was always an option for me to do; I'm paying _you_ to tell _me_ what _your_ answer is!"
In particular the second adventure, "Written in Blood" describes the local culture of Godsbreath as venerating a specific pantheon of five gods, and how central this religion is to the local culture, and I was intrigued, like "Ooh, what are these gods like?"
And then the book said ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Which kind of undercut the idea of how important this pantheon is to this culture if you don't have any kind of alignment or even domains for these gods to have. 
It's to the point I'm sorely tempted to try and contact the person who wrote that adventure to ask if they have any ideas about who the five gods would be that were just cut from the book in a misguided attempt at to be more "modular."
Like I still like the setting of Godsbreath as presented, but much like Spelljammer, I want more of it.
Spelljammer had the most egregious case of this, where the section on designing a planetary system it went ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and gestured towards the ones from the adventure book. Which wasn't exactly a satisfying answer.

Like if they could just hand me a couple more tables of like, suggested ideas, then I wouldn't complain about this in particular so much. Fizban's had more than enough inspiration tables for my taste, but the Spelljammer book didn't even give me the tables for suggested characteristics for the presented backgrounds, which smacked of laziness. 

And the weirdest part is, I don't usually run settings 100% as presented myself? I very much follow Keith Baker's idea of "In My [Setting]", where there's the setting as presented in the book, and then there's the setting as you've customized it to your tastes and the needs of your table. But with the recent books, it's like I can't even do this since they're not giving me the whole of the details of the setting to deviate from in the first place! Eugh.

Again, mechanics, I think have generally been pretty great. But the lore and fluff in general seem to have really fallen off in the last couple books in particular, I dunno. Fizban's didn't have this problem, and neither did Ravenloft (which I like most of the new versions of the old settings, for the record, though I do think a Ravenloft Zombie Apocalypse setting could've been its own thing without replacing with the Bleak Dystopic Military Horror the original Falkovnia was doing), so I don't know if they're just not being given enough time for the fluffier parts of the books now or what.

----------


## Sigreid

> Could you elaborate on why you hated running it? I have not had much interaction with it at all, but you're the first one I've heard hated running it, so I'm curious what made it so unlikable to you.


I found Hell boring and uninspired.  A lot of the party just kind of wandering because they had no idea.  The maps were irritating to work at.  And the whole thing ended with a confrontation with a foe that was literally unbeatable by the party that resulted in a party wipe when the D20 was one pip lower than it needed to be.  The whole thing was unsatisfying.

----------


## animorte

> "That was always an option for me to do; I'm paying _you_ to tell _me_ what _your_ answer is!"


Thats pretty funny, I agree.




> The Tasha's race stat bonus customization rules I'll defend to my last, since I think it lets races stand more on their actual features rather than their pure stats.


Ive got your back on that one!




> Again, mechanics, I think have generally been pretty great. But the lore and fluff in general seem to have really fallen off in the last couple books in particular so I don't know if they're just not being given enough time for the fluffier parts of the books now or what.


This. They have put most of their effort into cleaning up mechanics (and maybe balance over time, with One). Lots of people, especially newer players (with exceptions, of course), couldnt care less about whether or not the pantheon of deities is fleshed out as long as they can understand what their PC does.

To be fair, the thing this community argues the most about is by far the mechanics of the game (or the terminology and placement of said mechanics).

----------


## Segev

> I found Hell boring and uninspired.  A lot of the party just kind of wandering because they had no idea.  The maps were irritating to work at.  And the whole thing ended with a confrontation with a foe that was literally unbeatable by the party that resulted in a party wipe when the D20 was one pip lower than it needed to be.  The whole thing was unsatisfying.


Yeah, I can see why that would be miserable. Especially when the party is wandering around without a clue what to do and the maps aren't helping the DM make it any clearer to them, as you described it.

Sorry that was your experience with it, but thanks for sharing it with us.

----------


## Amnestic

> I have no dog in this fight, as I don't buy or use modules. But one thing to remember is that Tyranny of Dragons was
> 1) outsourced (ie "licensed 3rd party")


I confess having mixed feelings on pointing at outsourcing -  you are correct that it's not an 'internal' product, but it was still greenlit by WotC. If it didn't see an editing/quality pass before print by the 'internal' devs, that speaks to poor practice on their part, and if it _did_ see it, then it's hard to blame outsourcing since they were/are happy to sell it for cash money.

It's been a while since I went over ToD but while some of its problems were mechanical, I do recall others being structural/narrative, which is harder to point out for 5e's early life. 

It is a fair point though as a rule we should expect modules/adventures to be better/more tightly designed as the game gets older though.

----------


## Sception

> My biggest problem with post Tasha's releases is the lack of lore.


You know what?  Yeah.  Yeah, this is fair, it is a problem, and it does represent a change from what came before.

I mean, I like ditching proficiencies, especially armor proficiencies, from races, they almost always do exactly the opposite of what they seem to have been intended to do.  "These people have a militaristic warrior culture! So we're giving them features that are utterly redundant for warrior classes and too-valuable for non-warrior classes, ensuring that players exclusively play them with exactly the opposite of the classes they're supposed to favor!"

But that said, while I think removing gear proficiencies from races is the right choice mechanically, it does fall within the larger trend towards stripping explicit lore out of the game, or at least out of core game mechanics supplements, which is I think a mistake.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> But that said, while I think removing gear proficiencies from races is the right choice mechanically, it does fall within the larger trend towards stripping explicit lore out of the game, or at least out of core game mechanics supplements, which is I think a mistake.


It seems they're actually a bit two-faced about this. There's definitely harder (in the sense of "more restrictive", not "more fleshed out") "this is the way the universe works" lore (cf Fizban's and shoving everything into one multiverse that has to be accessible everywhere, like it or not, including MtG properties). But they're not actually going to tell you anything _about_ that in any useful detail. All you know is that it's the same everywhere (maybe different names and slightly different colors of paint, but it's still the same Lada underneath). All elves come from Correllon. Everywhere. All dwarves are connected to Moradin. Everywhere. But what effects does that have? We'll give you some cagey BS but it's mostly cosmetic.

And that's the _worst_ option--for fear of offending/disappointing/etc anyone, they remove all interesting details you could build on. But then for marketing reasons insist that all these disparate properties _must be fundamentally the same and intercompatible_. All that remains is a creeping sense of aggressive universal blandness. Assumptions are locked in harder...but those assumptions don't lead to anything interesting.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> And that's the _worst_ option--for fear of offending/disappointing/etc anyone, they remove all interesting details you could build on. But then for marketing reasons insist that all these disparate properties _must be fundamentally the same and intercompatible_. All that remains is a creeping sense of aggressive universal blandness. Assumptions are locked in harder...but those assumptions don't lead to anything interesting.


 I think that they are still hanging some of their growth designs on public play, hence a desire for greater standardization. (Which to me is antithetical to the game, but that rant belongs elsewhere).

----------


## Psyren

Cultural lore belongs in setting books. There is no monolithic culture that all hobgoblins or elves across the multiverse share; elves in Eberron are very different from elves in FR and elves in Ravnica. 

Now if they have absolutely no cultural information in the Dragonlance book or any supplemental Krynn material, I agree that's a problem. But not including specific cultures in something universal like MPMM or TCoE or the revised PHB is fine.

----------


## Keltest

> Cultural lore belongs in setting books. There is no monolithic culture that all hobgoblins or elves across the multiverse share; elves in Eberron are very different from elves in FR and elves in Ravnica. 
> 
> Now if they have absolutely no cultural information in the Dragonlance book or any supplemental Krynn material, I agree that's a problem. But not including specific cultures in something universal like MPMM or TCoE or the revised PHB is fine.


I strenuously disagree. The core rules, notably, do not include a setting book. Not having any of that lore included in the core rules dramatically increases the barrier to entry for both playing and especially DMing. You either need to buy another (fairly expensive) book or make something up whole cloth, neither of which are trivial things to ask of somebody.

----------


## Psyren

> I strenuously disagree. The core rules, notably, do not include a setting book. Not having any of that lore included in the core rules dramatically increases the barrier to entry for both playing and especially DMing. You either need to buy another (fairly expensive) book or make something up whole cloth, neither of which are trivial things to ask of somebody.


I disagree that it's a barrier to entry. Entry-level players are likely either running a self-contained low-level module, in which case cultures are extraneous faff that doesn't matter (you don't need to know dwarven politics to play a dwarf in Stormwreck Isle or Icespire Peak for example), or they're running a custom campaign, in which case the DM already has setting material or is running their own creation anyway. None of those three scenarios needs the PHB to opine on multiversal dwarven attitudes and mores.

----------


## Keltest

> I disagree that it's a barrier to entry. Entry-level players are likely either running a self-contained low-level module, in which case cultures are extraneous faff that doesn't matter (you don't need to know dwarven politics to play a dwarf in Stormwreck Isle or Icespire Peak for example), or they're running a custom campaign, in which case the DM already has setting material or is running their own creation anyway. None of those three scenarios needs the PHB to opine on multiversal dwarven attitudes and mores.


You dont think a DM having to make up a setting whole cloth to get to play is a barrier to entry? Have you... actually made a setting yourself? Because let me tell you, it is a crap ton of work to do anything bigger than a town.

----------


## Psyren

> You dont think a DM having to make up a setting whole cloth to get to play is a barrier to entry? Have you... actually made a setting yourself? Because let me tell you, it is a crap ton of work to do anything bigger than a town.


They don't have to do any such thing. Starter Sets exist, and are a far better intro for new players and DMs than a full campaign. And Starter Set + Basic is a far cheaper investment than PHB-DMG-MM-makeupsetting anyway.

----------


## Segev

> They don't have to do any such thing. Starter Sets exist, and are a far better intro for new players and DMs than a full campaign. And Starter Set + Basic is a far cheaper investment than PHB-DMG-MM-makeupsetting anyway.


Don't worry, starter sets will also be edited to remove all lore, too, so that nobody* can be offended.

----------


## Psyren

> Don't worry, starter sets will also be edited to remove all lore, too, so that nobody* can be offended.


What cultural lore was in the old starter sets then, since that is apparently the gold standard? I'm looking at my Essentials and 2014 starter and it's not telling me a thing about what all elves think of halflings or how all dwarves view magic.

----------


## Tanarii

> I think that they are still hanging some of their growth designs on public play, hence a desire for greater standardization. (Which to me is antithetical to the game, but that rant belongs elsewhere).


I think so to.  But that is a "still".  5e core has many elements predicated on making it balanced for official play.

I'm curious if 4e was designed with that in mind too, or it just took off in that time because it was wotc hosted for that edition, and maybe because the internet helped raise awareness. "Took off" relative to number of folks willing to play it at all of course.

----------


## Oramac

> Don't worry, starter sets will also be edited to remove all lore, too, so that nobody* can be offended.





> What cultural lore was in the old starter sets then, since that is apparently the gold standard? I'm looking at my Essentials and 2014 starter and it's not telling me a thing about what all elves think of halflings or how all dwarves view magic.


I think the major issue we/they (the devs) are running into is that they don't want to ever say "all [insert race here] believe X thing". In their misguided efforts to never offend anyone, they removed everything that made a dwarf a dwarf, or an elf an elf. 

What they _should_ do (but won't, because it _might_ offend someone) is to use the "all [insert race here] believe X thing" statement, then put in a sidebar or something stating that it is ok and encouraged to break this rule. Which has technically been done, but it wasn't advertised well at all.

----------


## Tanarii

Races aren't ALL anything.  What was in the PHB were usually shared traits to help with roleplaying.  That's critical to helping new players understand how these races usually differ from humans, and also establishing a baseline for the game.

----------


## Oramac

> Races aren't ALL anything.  What was in the PHB were usually shared traits to help with roleplaying.  That's critical to helping new players understand how these races usually differ from humans, and also establishing a baseline for the game.


I mean, I get that. But that's not generally how it's interpreted. Between Adventure League and home games, I've played with dozens of new players, and without fail they all took the descriptions to be "all [race] is like this". I had to explain to them that even if that were true (though it's not), they can still make a character that plays against type.

----------


## Psyren

> I think the major issue we/they (the devs) are running into is that they don't want to ever say "all [insert race here] believe X thing". In their misguided efforts to never offend anyone, they removed everything that made a dwarf a dwarf, or an elf an elf. 
> 
> What they _should_ do (but won't, because it _might_ offend someone) is to use the "all [insert race here] believe X thing" statement, then put in a sidebar or something stating that it is ok and encouraged to break this rule. Which has technically been done, but it wasn't advertised well at all.


Rather than say something like _"Dwarves hate arcane magic, but feel free to not let your PC Dwarf hate arcane magic if you want"_ - I think they should say _"The Axeholm Dwarves who live in the mountains just outside Cormyr hate magic, because their ancestors waged centuries of war with the Netherese empire and suffered untold atrocities at their hands."_ Then the Dwarf player can say "ooh, that sounds interesting, I want my Dwarf to have descended from the Axeholm clan." Whereas another player who wants their Dwarf to be a Sorcerer or Warlock can say "Okay, sounds like my Dwarf isn't an Axeholm Dwarf then" or "maybe they are an Axeholm Dwarf and now I'm an outcast from that clan." You don't need non-setting books to have that information.




> Races aren't ALL anything.  What was in the PHB were usually shared traits to help with roleplaying.  That's critical to helping new players understand how these races usually differ from humans, and also establishing a baseline for the game.


The modern design still has "shared traits to help with roleplaying." Drow have an ancestral connection to the Underdark, whether they are Lolthites or not. Orcs were created by Grummsh to value strength, and some channel that constructively to defend the weak, others destructively to oppress them, and some ignore his mandate entirely and forge their own path. Halflings have uncanny luck whether they are parochial homebodies in Faerun or savage nomads in Eberron. All of that stuff still exists.

----------


## Segev

> What cultural lore was in the old starter sets then, since that is apparently the gold standard? I'm looking at my Essentials and 2014 starter and it's not telling me a thing about what all elves think of halflings or how all dwarves view magic.


If you were not holding up starter sets as having the required lore, then why did you bring them up in response to people complaining that without the lore, they have a lot more work on their hands?  :Small Confused:

----------


## Psyren

> If you were not holding up starter sets as having the required lore, then why did you bring them up in response to people complaining that without the lore, they have a lot more work on their hands?


You said "starter sets will also be edited to remove all lore, too" and I'm asking "what edit, Starter Sets have never had that stuff at any point in 5e, they're not supposed to."

(In other words, I'm disputing the "required lore" premise as a barrier to entry.)

----------


## Keltest

> You said "starter sets will also be edited to remove all lore, too" and I'm asking "what edit, Starter Sets have never had that stuff at any point in 5e, they're not supposed to."
> 
> (In other words, I'm disputing the "required lore" premise as a barrier to entry.)


Ok, but the Starter Sets are incomplete by design. Ots a watered down experience. Thats why the core rules exist as more than just a wordy version of the Starter Set. Do we're back to why you brought it up at all.

----------


## Sception

> And that's the _worst_ option--for fear of offending/disappointing/etc anyone, they remove all interesting details you could build on. But then for marketing reasons insist that all these disparate properties _must be fundamentally the same and intercompatible_. All that remains is a creeping sense of aggressive universal blandness. Assumptions are locked in harder...but those assumptions don't lead to anything interesting.



I wouldn't blame this all on 'not wanting to offend anyone'.  I think there's also at least a big chunk of 'why dedicate 5/6 of the page space of a core book to lore that 5/6 of game tables are going to throw straight in the bin since it doesn't apply to the particular campaign setting - homebrew or otherwise - that they're playing in.

This same reason, and not 'marketing' or whatever, is also I think the bigger part of trying to frame what lore they do print in core books as universal or applying to all settings, generally via a larger multiverse metasetting framing.

But while I don't see the motivation behind the move being anywhere near as negative or objectionable, I do agree that it's not the best move regardless, and prefer the previous 'assume a common generic setting in core books from which individual games and settings can deviate however they want' approach, even if it means printing a lot of text that most users of a given book are not going to use directly.  Again, even if few individual games use that baseline, at least they /have/ a baseline that they can deviate from as they wish.

It just requires a change of perspective on the dev's part.  Feeling bad about players not sticking to the core book lore, like that represents a waste of the effort they put into writing it, is like guy who makes diving boards being disappointed that divers don't stay on the board.  "why bother with the board at all if everyone is just going to jump off of it right away" is missing the point.

----------


## Psyren

> Ok, but the Starter Sets are incomplete by design. Ots a watered down experience. Thats why the core rules exist as more than just a wordy version of the Starter Set. Do we're back to why you brought it up at all.


Because you claimed that without this cultural information in core there is a "barrier to entry" for brand new players/DMs. Yet Starter Sets are the intended entry point for this very audience, so your conclusion does not follow.




> I think there's also at least a big chunk of 'why dedicate 5/6 of the page space of a core book to lore that 5/6 of game tables are going to throw straight in the bin since it doesn't apply to the particular campaign setting - homebrew or otherwise - that they're playing in.
> 
> This same reason, and not 'marketing' or whatever, is also I think the bigger part of trying to frame what lore they do print in core books as universal or applying to all settings, generally via a larger multiverse metasetting framing.


Indeed.




> But while I don't see the motivation behind the move being anywhere near as negative or objectionable, I do agree that it's not the best move regardless, and prefer the previous 'assume a common generic setting in core books from which individual games and settings can deviate however they want' approach, even if it means printing a lot of text that most users of a given book are not going to use directly.  Again, even if few individual games use that baseline, at least they /have/ a baseline that they can deviate from as they wish.
> 
> It just requires a change of perspective on the dev's part.  Feeling bad about players not sticking to the core book lore, like that represents a waste of the effort they put into writing it, is like guy who makes diving boards being disappointed that divers don't stay on the board.  "why bother with the board at all if everyone is just going to jump off of it right away" is missing the point.


My problem with the "assume a core setting" approach is that either that setting will have to be unbelievably bland (Points of Light anyone?) or it will just be more Faerun again (the indisputably "best" setting  :Small Sigh: ). And even if you're totally okay with the latter, there are multiple cultures for each race even just within that one setting, so appending one of those cultures to the race entry _still_ makes no sense. Elves in Evermeet are very different than Elves in the Dalelands and Elves in Chult.

----------


## Sception

You know, I liked points of light.  I think it did its job as I see it - providing a baseline of generic narrative tropes for individual campaigns to deviate from or fill in with detail as they wished - pretty well.  I also continue to prefer the world axis to the celestial spheres, think the feywild and shadowfell were fantastic additions that I'm glad have at least sort of stayed around, Shadowfell: Gloomwrought & Beyond was fantastic, imo on par with some of the best setting/adventure box sets from 2nd edition, etc.

As is so often the case, I think 4th edition had a ton of really great bits to it and it remains a huge shame that it failed /so hard/ in other areas that a lot of those bits ended up getting thrown out with the bad.

----------


## Segev

> You said "starter sets will also be edited to remove all lore, too" and I'm asking "what edit, Starter Sets have never had that stuff at any point in 5e, they're not supposed to."
> 
> (In other words, I'm disputing the "required lore" premise as a barrier to entry.)


Then the response you gave where you brought up the starter sets as an alternative to building your own settings and lore seems not to be a useful response to the complaint they were raising.

"I can't drive a car without instruction in driving."
"Well, you could just buy a smaller car."
"Do smaller cars come with driving instructions?"
"Why would they? Why would they need them?"
"Then how does that help me learn to drive a car?"

----------


## Amnestic

I do think that ideally there should be a 'core' setting for the core books which let you detail lore concepts - and also it shouldn't be FR.

FR is _fine_ but it's also _massive_, with decades and decades of lore and an enormous world that spans everything. I guess you could say "the sword coast is our core setting", and that probably works fine introductory wise. Much as I'd love Eberron to be the core setting it's probably not gonna happen.

But also I didn't hate Points of Light. It wasn't perfect by any means but it was fine enough as an introductory thing.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

I could understand removing lore and keeping it to setting books. But they haven't done that. What they've done is set some really hard rules (certain gods exist and are connected to these races, there must be an underdark, every setting must be part of the multiverse and share particular things)... And then not follow through.

Fizbans is full of lore. It's just offensively and aggressively bland, bad lore (bad in that it sparks no wonder, gives nowhere to go, allows no alterations outside it's limited span).

The issue is that they're fixing some things... While pretending to leave it open. Either way could work. But doing half of each of them? No.

----------


## Psyren

> Then the response you gave where you brought up the starter sets as an alternative to building your own settings and lore seems not to be a useful response to the complaint they were raising.
> 
> "I can't drive a car without instruction in driving."
> "Well, you could just buy a smaller car."
> "Do smaller cars come with driving instructions?"
> "Why would they? Why would they need them?"
> "Then how does that help me learn to drive a car?"


Again, I was specifically addressing the "barrier to entry" objection.

"If they don't make information on building your own car core, how will new drivers learn?"
"New drivers aren't supposed to learn how to drive that way, they're supposed to use this pre-built New Drivers kit."
"But I want to build my own car."
"You already know how to drive, you're not the target audience for the New Drivers kit."
"But I want to build my own car!"




> I could understand removing lore and keeping it to setting books. But they haven't done that. What they've done is set some really hard rules (certain gods exist and are connected to these races, there must be an underdark, every setting must be part of the multiverse and share particular things)... And then not follow through.
> 
> Fizbans is full of lore. It's just offensively and aggressively bland, bad lore (bad in that it sparks no wonder, gives nowhere to go, allows no alterations outside it's limited span).
> 
> The issue is that they're fixing some things... While pretending to leave it open. Either way could work. But doing half of each of them? No.


We haven't gotten any setting books since Tasha's. Dragonlance will literally be the first one. Everything else has either been global/multiversal or an adventure/adventure path.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> We haven't gotten any setting books since Tasha's. Dragonlance will literally be the first one. Everything else has either been global/multiversal or an adventure/adventure path.


And if they'd merely said "hey, we're stripping out the lore because our new way is that that belongs in setting books" _and then actually printed setting books_, I'd be _mostly_ ok with it. But that's not what they've done. What they've done is
1) present new, not-seen-before lore in non-adventure-path books (Fizbans, MotM) that locks down large chunks of the possible settings[1]
2) and do so _badly_ (in my estimation). It's a noxious mix of lore that is
2a) too detailed and specific in all the wrong places (cosmology, racial origins, gods, even some class fictions)
2b) but only provides the surface veneer of lore everywhere where you could actually use some.

It's a false front, a facade of having lore _but then not actually providing the necessary stuff_. What they've given is basically restrictions on how you can build settings _without actually giving any useful tools for setting building_. Or any assistance to even people running adventure paths, unless they're going to do so as super-hard, no-thought, no-life railroads. Because you need to understand the settings' lore to run the adventure path. When someone asks "what are XYZ people like?" or the party meets an otherwise not-well-described person and asks more, you _need_ that underlying lore. Unless you're fine with cardboard settings. I'm not.

I will note that this is mostly just a matter of "professional" pride here--as a worldbuilder who does it out of love for the topic, it annoys me to see someone publish such utter unmitigated _crap_ and call it lore and charge people for it. It's a farce. A deceptive trick. A frosted cardboard box pretending to be a wedding cake. There's no there there. And what little scraps they give are actively noxious and overly concerned with not offending anyone and not actually answering any questions.

They could have done things like
* have sidebars giving examples tied to specific worlds.
* publish _web articles_ giving lore.
* heck, even just explain that they're only going to be writing mechanics and you can go make up whatever lore you want. But that would cut into sales, because they want to "encourage" everyone to buy their paltry excuses for setting books. But then feel free to burn them down and replace them with watered-down overcooked, pre-chewed gruel.

[1] When every world _must_ have arisen from the same First World AND have the same gods (even if by different names) AND have the same planar structure AND have the same relationships and classes AND have the same races (with the same mishmash of cultural and non-cultural traits and origins) AND have the same spells (even with the names of people that don't exist in that setting!)...AND all you have left is a skin. You've already taken away the meat, all you can do is rename the various cultures and shuffle around the deck chairs.

----------


## Jervis

RE: setting problems 
To me dnd does have a serious lore problem precisely because it doesnt have a default setting. Things like race origins, cultural norms, etc are gonna vary a lot between settings. This goes beyond races like Drow and Orcs that have controversial backstories. You really gonna tell me that youre gonna play/run Dragonborn the same was in Eberron that you will in Dragonlance? The game has several settings and publishes adventures in settings but any book that has lore needs a setting to put it in. My biggest issue with MotM is that it leaned too much on setting agnostic lore, which shouldnt exist in the first place. It certainly shouldnt exist for player characters since any player race should ideally have some very established backstory in universe (why is there a semic hibrid in my greyhawk?). 

Touching on some of the more controversial races I think just having a default setting would fix the problems people have better than sweeping lore rewrites. Using Drow as an example regardless of your stance on rewriting the lore I think youll agree that the spider tattoo thing was stupid and that the changes to Lolth lore make a lot of characters really stupid in retrospect. Illestrae had no real purpose in the lore now and Dritz is much less interesting. Just having a different setting removes the problem entirely. A lot of the same people that didnt like the changes to Drow, Orcs, etc really like Eberron. Making a new setting to be the default for books not set in a specific setting instead of making setting agnostic lore that still has to fit every setting is a problem.

----------


## Psyren

@PP: If the Dragonlance book has no cultural information in it then I'll be right there on the battlements with you protesting. I want to know what parts of Ansalon I can find Dwarves, or whether Silvanesti and Qualinesti have mechanical differences, and suggestions for fitting orcs and dragonborn into the world. But I won't be grabbing my pitchfork and torch before it even comes out.

And I'm very in favor of web articles that dive into racial cultures in various settings. I suspect their new cultural review process is going to delay those however, but I agree those could be a great way to provide racial hooks without sweeping generalizations.




> Touching on some of the more controversial races I think just having a default setting would fix the problems people have better than sweeping lore rewrites. Using Drow as an example regardless of your stance on rewriting the lore I think youll agree that the spider tattoo thing was stupid and that the changes to Lolth lore make a lot of characters really stupid in retrospect. Illestrae had no real purpose in the lore now and Dritz is much less interesting. Just having a different setting removes the problem entirely. A lot of the same people that didnt like the changes to Drow, Orcs, etc really like Eberron. Making a new setting to be the default for books not set in a specific setting instead of making setting agnostic lore that still has to fit every setting is a problem.


Eilistraee definitely still has a place; just because it's possible to make good Drow without her, doesn't mean the bad ones don't still need help escaping their cult.

----------


## Oramac

> And if they'd merely said "hey, we're stripping out the lore because our new way is that that belongs in setting books" _and then actually printed setting books_, I'd be _mostly_ ok with it. But that's not what they've done.
> 
> snip


I wish there was a like button on GITP so I could smash the crap out of it for this post. Well said, my friend.

----------


## Oramac

> And I'm very in favor of web articles that dive into racial cultures in various settings. I suspect their new cultural review process is going to delay those however, but I agree those could be a great way to provide racial hooks without sweeping generalizations.


I can almost guarantee they won't do anything of the sort. Why? Because providing a written dive into [fantasy race] culture and providing hooks for it _might_ offend someone somewhere. Worse, someone somewhere _might_ call it cultural appropriation. And of course, we _have to make that one person happy_, nevermind that it completely neuters all the content we publish.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I can almost guarantee they won't do anything of the sort. Why? Because providing a written dive into [fantasy race] culture and providing hooks for it _might_ offend someone somewhere. Worse, someone somewhere _might_ call it cultural appropriation. And of course, we _have to make that one person happy_, nevermind that it completely neuters all the content we publish.


The big issue I've seen with sensitivity readers in other contexts (books, mainly) is that, like editors more generally, they need to find things to change/fix. And if you have more than one to keep happy, you can only publish the intersection of their allowable stuff. Which...isn't much. And you can have mutually incompatible demands--reader A demands you keep X or subtract Y, reader B demands you subtract X or keep Y. So what you get is mush, pre-digested to keep people whose jobs depend on finding things to be offended by happy.

Can this be overcome? Yes. But it definitely makes it much messier.

----------


## Unoriginal

It seems to me that the new devs, or at least the new mandate the devs have to work with, are much more about making the custommer avoid making a specific list of decisions that are deemed bad/wrong/mistakes, rather than guide them on making decisions.

----------


## Oramac

> Can this be overcome? Yes. But it definitely makes it much messier.


I guess I'm just enough of an ahole that I don't see the problem. Write what you (or they, in this case) want and if someone doesn't like it, fine, don't buy it. Which, I suppose, is exactly what they're doing, and we're the people who don't like it.

----------


## Telonius

I'm coming at the conversation from a generally 3.X perspective (started in 3.0, upgraded to 3.5, skipped 4.0 entirely, and am familiarizing myself with 5.0 apparently just in time for it to upgrade again). At least in 3.X, lore in the core books was kept to a pretty bare minimum. Yeah, you had a few paragraphs about the Great Wheel, and some general statements about deities (lifted from Greyhawk, but you won't find the word "Greyhawk" in any of the Big 3 rulebooks). Lack of lore wasn't really a barrier. Either you played in a custom setting; or used one of the many setting books (Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Rokugan ...); or you threw it out the window, didn't bother with the lore, and played in "Vaguely Medieval Setting" where Elves were snooty, Dwarves were Scottish, everything else was details, and you were just there to be silly with friends. 

Lack of lore in the main game wasn't done to refrain from offending people. It was done so they could sell more setting-based sourcebooks. And that tended to work pretty well.

----------


## Jervis

The main reason I suspect we wont get a ton of extra worldbuilding on races is because there isnt any money in putting out stuff you didnt put in the books.

----------


## JadedDM

> We haven't gotten any setting books since Tasha's. Dragonlance will literally be the first one. Everything else has either been global/multiversal or an adventure/adventure path.


If you're talking about Shadows of the Dragon Queen, it's not a setting book, it's an adventure path.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> If you're talking about Shadows of the Dragon Queen, it's not a setting book, it's an adventure path.


Yeah. And the "Spelljammer" books were...adventure paths, mostly.

You can't reasonably say "ok, we'll print the lore in the setting books" _and then not publish setting books_. At least if you want to defend not having lore. Sure, you could just be open about it and say "we're not printing any more lore, you can do whatever you want and we're just giving a mechanical skeleton". But what they're doing now is printing lore without actually _printing lore_. They're making constraints on settings with monsters, classes, races, etc _and then not giving enough information to fill them in_. Or even being clear that that's what they're doing.

----------


## Psyren

> You can't reasonably say "ok, we'll print the lore in the setting books" _and then not publish setting books_.


I agree. I want setting books too. And failing that, articles. 

But that is an entirely separate desire from "the non-setting stuff should contain cultural lore."




> If you're talking about Shadows of the Dragon Queen, it's not a setting book, it's an adventure path.


I'm talking about the Heroes of War section in that book - but yes, you're right, this book won't be a setting book either, so I'm not looking for a ton of information from it. Just a few guidelines on core races in Krynn to tide me over.

----------


## Oramac

> If you're talking about Shadows of the Dragon Queen, it's not a setting book, it's an adventure path.





> Yeah. And the "Spelljammer" books were...adventure paths, mostly.





> You can't reasonably say "ok, we'll print the lore in the setting books" _and then not publish setting books_.





> this book won't be a setting book either (Oramac: I assume you're talking about the upcoming Dragonlance book), so I'm not looking for a ton of information from it. Just a few guidelines on core races in Krynn to tide me over.


Ok, so there's a whole bunch of books that "aren't setting books". So what IS a setting book? What makes a book a setting book instead of [other type]? 

Is Rising from the Last War a setting book? How about Tal'dorei Reborn? 

Basically, what underlying features make a book a _setting_ book instead of some other type?

----------


## Keltest

> Again, I was specifically addressing the "barrier to entry" objection.
> 
> "If they don't make information on building your own car core, how will new drivers learn?"
> "New drivers aren't supposed to learn how to drive that way, they're supposed to use this pre-built New Drivers kit."
> "But I want to build my own car."
> "You already know how to drive, you're not the target audience for the New Drivers kit."
> "But I want to build my own car!"


The problem here is with the assumption that the starter set is adequate to learn the whole game when it decidedly is not. Thus the existence of the Core Books.

----------


## Psyren

> Ok, so there's a whole bunch of books that "aren't setting books". So what IS a setting book? What makes a book a setting book instead of [other type]? 
> 
> Is Rising from the Last War a setting book? How about Tal'dorei Reborn? 
> 
> Basically, what underlying features make a book a _setting_ book instead of some other type?


I would consider RftLW/WGtE a setting book. Also SCAG, GGtR, and VRGtR.




> The problem here is with the assumption that the starter set is adequate to learn the whole game when it decidedly is not. Thus the existence of the Core Books.


The problem _here_ is the assumption that "learning the whole game" is a prerequisite for "entry." Not only is this false, it's perhaps the single worst way to get newcomers engaged at all.

----------


## Polyphemus

> Cultural lore belongs in setting books. There is no monolithic culture that all hobgoblins or elves across the multiverse share; elves in Eberron are very different from elves in FR and elves in Ravnica. 
> 
> Now if they have absolutely no cultural information in the Dragonlance book or any supplemental Krynn material, I agree that's a problem. But not including specific cultures in something universal like MPMM or TCoE or the revised PHB is fine.


I think I can agree with that sentiment; it just bugs me how they've just thrown Volo's and MToF out entirely, instead of errata-ing in some kind of "This lore is only applicable to Forgotten Realms" disclaimer or something along those lines. Hell, they could throw in a "and not even all orcs/goblins/dwarves in Forgotten Realms are like the ones presented here, for the record" disclaimer if they really felt the need to.

Honestly, maybe "lore" is too precise a term, maybe what I'm really talking about is _fluff_, in general. Like sure, it's not necessary, but I like having it, and it feels like we're getting less and less fluff in the recent books, in a bad kinda way. You can certainly make the argument that it's trimming the fat, and people are only really there for the mechanics, but the mechanics feel a little sterile if they don't get a little fluff to go with them, in my opinion, anyhow.

Like for example in Fizban's; while I don't really use the First World stuff (outside maybe saying that's what dragons _believe_ is origin of the multiverse), I adore the tables upon tables giving ideas on how to characterize/customize a given dragon character, how dragons of a certain type generally act, what kinds of adventures you could get up to with dragons, etc. etc. etc. 
I'm well aware that I'm almost certainly the outlier in that the dragon lore/fluff is the stuff that's stuck with me more from Fizban's than the mechanics-focused sections. Not that I don't like the mechanics! Just that I think of the fluff sections more.

Whereas we all know how lean the Spelljammer books were in general, and in terms of fluff in particular. And I feel bad even pointing that out, because I _sincerely like_ the fluff and the lore that _is_ there. The Giff having forgotten their home planet and their creator deity? That's neat, there's things you can do with that. And the fact that the one thing everyone can agree on is "they must've liked guns", because the Giff do? That's just funny. 
But then they punt on things like ideas for designing star systems, or giving us the full tables of characteristics for the backgrounds, and it's like ash in my mouth.

Or like, the one thing that bugs me with the post-Tasha's race descriptions is how they've hand waved Life Span as "Uh, a century. For everyone. Unless we say otherwise." And then they hardly ever say otherwise, except for like, the immediately obvious ones, like dwarves or elves or gnomes. They don't even say otherwise with the Fairy, when IMO a Fairy should be nigh immortal unless killed, since in my mind a fairy is closer to Proper Fey than even an Eladrin is. 
And I realize that's such a small thing that I easily fix on my own with a "just so y'all know" at my table (as DM) or inquiring with my DM about it (as a player), but it just comes off as careless, to me. 
I assume/hope it isn't the intention, but it feels less like an excited "Anything is possible at your table!" and more a disinterested "Meh. Hell if I know. Do whatever." 
Maybe that's more a problem with how I'm reading into it than what the devs are actually doing, but it's how it's coming across to me.

----------


## Amnestic

I dunno if everyone will agree, but here's what wikipedia lists for 5e books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ns_5th_edition

They list 'Campaign Guides' as SCAG, Ravnica, Acquisitions Incorporated, Eberron: RftLW, Wildemount, Theros, Ravenloft, and Strixhaven.

All of these books, except SCAG, include one or more adventures in them.

----------


## Psyren

> I dunno if everyone will agree, but here's what wikipedia lists for 5e books:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ns_5th_edition
> 
> They list 'Campaign Guides' as SCAG, Ravnica, Acquisitions Incorporated, Eberron: RftLW, Wildemount, Theros, Ravenloft, and Strixhaven.
> 
> All of these books, except SCAG, include one or more adventures in them.


Thanks! So it sounds like what we might want more of then are "campaign guides." I can get behind that. Seems like the most recent one of those is Van Richten.

I know technically Strixhaven is more recent, but it has very little information about Strixhaven's _actual_ setting - Arcavios - to make it easier to slot the school itself into multiple other settings.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Ok, so there's a whole bunch of books that "aren't setting books". So what IS a setting book? What makes a book a setting book instead of [other type]? 
> 
> Is Rising from the Last War a setting book? How about Tal'dorei Reborn? 
> 
> Basically, what underlying features make a book a _setting_ book instead of some other type?


That's a good question. In prior editions, the answer would be clear; setting books are identified with "Players Companion" or are clearly DM-facing. But with the current trend (which isn't 100% bad, mind) of making every book be some combination of DM-facing and player facing and doing away with explicitly-labeled "setting books"...I'm not sure. I think I'd mostly key off of a subjective look at how much of it is pure setting material and how much (if any) is setup for a particular adventure.

So SCAG? Setting book. Doesn't even have an adventure in it. RftLW? Dunno. Does it have an adventure path built in? Tal'dorei Reborn...I've paid exactly 0 (maybe negative?) attention to it. So no clue.

But I'd definitely put something like Witchlight as _not_ a setting book, as it doesn't even really attempt to be a guide to the Feywild itself, focusing on one set of adventures. Others are much more in the squishy middle.

----------


## Telwar

Rising from the Last War has several mini-adventures.  It really is a setting book, though.

----------


## Amechra

> Cultural lore belongs in setting books. There is no monolithic culture that all hobgoblins or elves across the multiverse share; elves in Eberron are very different from elves in FR and elves in Ravnica.


I'd personally argue that this is kinda backwards... in the sense that I think that having Elves all across the multiverse is kinda silly in-and-of-itself.

Like, if you look at pre-D&D takes on stuff like Elves, you'll find that they're almost always a monoculture... because they're from _one specific place_. An Elf is an Elf because they're from Elfland where they do Elf Stuff. eat Elf Food, and speak the Elf Language. If you go somewhere else, you're not going to find Elves unless they're, like, an ambassador from Elfland. They're written about in the same general tone that you'd see someone use to describe a culture from Far Away  which is _arguably_ also the reason why it's so easy to compare stuff like Orcs to racist propaganda from the 1800s.

D&D is arguably one of the things that changed that  it tossed in rules for playing stuff out of Tolkien because Tolkien was popular, and then basically grandfathered them into future settings because, hey, the rules are _right there_ and it'd be a _shame_ to waste them. And that ultimately turned into this weird _thing_ where being an Elf is, like, some kind of magical ethnicity that just happens to be _everywhere_? Which you could argue is just an extension of how D&D takes some singular thing from folklore (like, say, Medusa) and then goes "oh, yeah, Medusa's an entire _species_, and you can find them _everywhere_. Can't even throw a rock without hitting a weird snake lady who turns you into stone if you look at her.".

Is there a way to fix this while remaining true to how D&D does things? I have _no_ idea. All I know is that the current state of things is like if, I dunno, the game started off set in Early Modern Europe, and we eventually ended up with there being French people in every setting. But, you know, they had no connection to France _in any way_, and it was considered _gauche_ to have all of your French people share a culture.

----------


## Segev

> Again, I was specifically addressing the "barrier to entry" objection.
> 
> "If they don't make information on building your own car core, how will new drivers learn?"
> "New drivers aren't supposed to learn how to drive that way, they're supposed to use this pre-built New Drivers kit."
> "But I want to build my own car."
> "You already know how to drive, you're not the target audience for the New Drivers kit."
> "But I want to build my own car!"


Except it's not, "I want to build my own car," that's the objection. It's, "I don't want to HAVE to build my own car. I want them to provide me with a car, rather than telling me roughly about how a car might have four doors unless I feel like building it with more or fewer than that, and some cars run on diesel and some on gasoline and some might run on still other fuels; it's all up to me, apparently, and how I build it! Pity they give me nothing to work with to build it."

----------


## Polyphemus

> Is there a way to fix this while remaining true to how D&D does things? I have _no_ idea. All I know is that the current state of things is like if, I dunno, the game started off set in Early Modern Europe, and we eventually ended up with there being French people in every setting. But, you know, they had no connection to France _in any way_, and it was considered _gauche_ to have all of your French people share a culture.


Well you see _my_ Frenchman was _raised_ by _Americans_, so I wanna use the Tasha's rules to switch his racial proficiencies in berets, baguettes, and Jerry Lewis for ones in cowboy hats, hamburgers, and, oh, I dunno, let's say...Robin Williams.
  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Unoriginal

> I'd personally argue that this is kinda backwards... in the sense that I think that having Elves all across the multiverse is kinda silly in-and-of-itself.


D&D as a whole is kinda silly in-and-of-itself. That's one of the reasons why I love it.

----------


## animorte

> I know technically Strixhaven is more recent, but it has very little information about Strixhaven's _actual_ setting - Arcavios - to make it easier to slot the school itself into multiple other settings.


This is one of the reasons I like it. Also has a lot of good inspiration for constructing relationships and hobbies.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> Old+bad: Berserker Barbarians using Frenzy causes exhaustion
> New+good: Casting spells causes exhaustion
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how bad DiA is as a complete adventure, I hope any future 'epic' modules are nothing like it.


You're right in terms of the execution of DiA as an adventure that any DM can just pick up and play, and it should have been so much better.  But, for someone looking for amazing art, characters, and a framework to build on it's got so much.  Yes, I put in a lot of time to add to what was there, and borrowed from one supplement I found on the net in particular to flesh out travel and exploration.  In the end my players loved it.  Some of the new stuff, I don't know what I could do to give them that level of experience.

----------


## Psyren

> Except it's not, "I want to build my own car," that's the objection. It's, "I don't want to HAVE to build my own car. I want them to provide me with a car, rather than telling me roughly about how a car might have four doors unless I feel like building it with more or fewer than that, and some cars run on diesel and some on gasoline and some might run on still other fuels; it's all up to me, apparently, and how I build it! Pity they give me nothing to work with to build it."


Good for you. None of that is a barrier to entry for people _who are not you._




> I'd personally argue that this is kinda backwards... in the sense that I think that having Elves all across the multiverse is kinda silly in-and-of-itself.
> 
> Like, if you look at pre-D&D takes on stuff like Elves, you'll find that they're almost always a monoculture... because they're from _one specific place._ An Elf is an Elf because they're from Elfland where they do Elf Stuff. eat Elf Food, and speak the Elf Language.
> ...
> Is there a way to fix this while remaining true to how D&D does things? I have _no_ idea.


Why _should_ they fix that? Not everyone wants their elves to be noble treehuggers from not-Valinor that are in quiet decline. Some of us like Aerenal elves that mummify and worship their ancestors, or Thedas elves that are marginalized indentured servants, or Talenta elves that are Dothraki in all but name, or Ravnica elves that bounce between mad science and cult membership, or Mirrodin elves that are oppressed freedom fighters, and so on and so on. Originating from the same dimension gives them mechanical (metaphysical) commonalities, not cultural ones.

----------


## Dork_Forge

Since the talk has somewhat turned to races, I'd just like to point out the complete and utter fallacy they're operating under.

No cultural things in the races!

...But they really need these proficiencies so your god gave them you, not your culture


...So a culture that's formed around how your God built you then... That's pretty much the same thing with a different lick of paint.

----------


## Segev

> Good for you. None of that is a barrier to entry for people _who are not you._


It is, however, what the people you were responding to were complaining was being removed. So apparently it is not only "people who are not me."

----------


## Psyren

> It is, however, what the people you were responding to were complaining was being removed. So apparently it is not only "people who are not me."


I have no issue with complaining about it being removed. My issue is calling it a "barrier to entry." As I've said several times now, that belief makes no sense.

You and those complaining in this thread have... you know, entered. D&D.




> Since the talk has somewhat turned to races, I'd just like to point out the complete and utter fallacy they're operating under.
> 
> No cultural things in the races!
> 
> ...But they really need these proficiencies so your god gave them you, not your culture
> 
> 
> ...So a culture that's formed around how your God built you then... That's pretty much the same thing with a different lick of paint.


Most racial skill proficiencies are floating, weapon ones are explained by ancestry, and armor training has been removed entirely.

The skill proficiencies that don't float are usually explained by physiology, e.g. elves getting free Perception proficiency because their eyes and ears work better.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Most racial skill proficiencies are floating, weapon ones are explained by ancestry, and armor training has been removed entirely.
> 
> The skill proficiencies that don't float are usually explained by physiology, e.g. elves getting free Perception proficiency because their eyes and ears work better.


There is no reason to have a set list of skills to choose from as a race perspective, sure you could assign something like Perception to an Elf's senses, but choosing from a list only makes sense as a cultural sample.

And then there's the Giff explicitly having a divine connection to guns. or the 1D&D Dwarf getting those divine tool profs.

They want races to give proficiencies, they've just pivoted from culture to shoving it more through 'becuase your god said so,' which is just culture through divine command.

I really don't see a defense for this, they explicitly tell you it's down to gods, and it's very clearly just a hard pivot from culture, except it only holds up on the surface.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> There is no reason to have a set list of skills to choose from as a race perspective, sure you could assign something like Perception to an Elf's senses, but choosing from a list only makes sense as a cultural sample.
> 
> And then there's the Giff explicitly having a divine connection to guns. or the 1D&D Dwarf getting those divine tool profs.
> 
> They want races to give proficiencies, they've just pivoted from culture to shoving it more through 'becuase your god said so,' which is just culture through divine command.
> 
> I really don't see a defense for this, they explicitly tell you it's down to gods, and it's very clearly just a hard pivot from culture, except it only holds up on the surface.


And it also demands that all X everywhere are tied to the _same_ gods. Period. No setting-dependent deities. IF you have dwarves, then Moradin is their god and he cares about crafting and honor and all that so much that he instilled it in all dwarves everywhere throughout the entire multiverse. But it doesn't really change much except for that, strangely. Sure, he cares about honor...but giving all dwarves everywhere, no matter their culture, supernatural skill with a tool of their choice (even something as non-"dwarfy" as woodcarving, because trees are super common underground) was way more important. He's shaped their culture, but dwarves can have any culture.

It's an insult, really. They think we're stupid to fall for that transparent stupidity.

----------


## Keltest

> I have no issue with complaining about it being removed. My issue is calling it a "barrier to entry." As I've said several times now, that belief makes no sense.
> 
> You and those complaining in this thread have... you know, entered. D&D.


Thats just survivorship bias as an argument. I grew up on D&D and reading the Forgotten Realms books, and frankly I'm still not sure I could tell you where Cormyr is relative to Waterdeep. And this is the main setting for 5e.

----------


## Segev

> Thats just survivorship bias as an argument. I grew up on D&D and reading the Forgotten Realms books, and frankly I'm still not sure I could tell you where Cormyr is relative to Waterdeep. And this is the main setting for 5e.


It's also a terrible argument. "You, who got into it when the lore was there and present, are evidence that the lore not being present would not be a barrier to entry."

----------


## Dork_Forge

> It's also a terrible argument. "You, who got into it when the lore was there and present, are evidence that the lore not being present would not be a barrier to entry."


It's also faulty because a player's lore experience isn't necessarily what they publish. A player might love the lore, not knowing that their DM is being forced to make it up or hunt down 'outdated' lore.

The barrier for entry to DMing is what this largely impacts, and that's the most intimidating role to take on in the game.

----------


## Psyren

> Thats just survivorship bias as an argument. I grew up on D&D and reading the Forgotten Realms books, and frankly I'm still not sure I could tell you where Cormyr is relative to Waterdeep. And this is the main setting for 5e.


_But that's exactly my point!_ You don't need to know anything about Cormyr and Waterdeep to start playing D&D. You never did.

Believing that people need to know these things to start playing the game is sheer gatekeeping, nothing more.




> There is no reason to have a set list of skills to choose from as a race perspective, sure you could assign something like Perception to an Elf's senses, but choosing from a list only makes sense as a cultural sample.
> 
> And then there's the Giff explicitly having a divine connection to guns. or the 1D&D Dwarf getting those divine tool profs.
> 
> They want races to give proficiencies, they've just pivoted from culture to shoving it more through 'becuase your god said so,' which is just culture through divine command.
> 
> I really don't see a defense for this, they explicitly tell you it's down to gods, and it's very clearly just a hard pivot from culture, except it only holds up on the surface.


What's wrong with dwarves having a divine connection to tools? Ever heard of Aulë? Reorx? Moradin? Khaz'goroth?

----------


## Dork_Forge

> _But that's exactly my point!_ You don't need to know anything about Cormyr and Waterdeep to start playing D&D. You never did.
> 
> Believing that people need to know these things to start playing the game is sheer gatekeeping, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with dwarves having a divine connection to tools? Ever heard of Aulë? Reorx? Moradin? Khaz'goroth?


I made my criticism clear. It's culture with a different label.

Naming a bunch of dwarf gods is just a deflection, not actually addressing the criticism.

But hey, nothing wrong with gods giving you these things. Not like settings ever disconnect from the gods. Dark what now? Never heard of it.

----------


## Psyren

> I made my criticism clear. It's culture with a different label.
> 
> Naming a bunch of dwarf gods is just a deflection, not actually addressing the criticism.


They're fantasy races. If you want them to spring forth from mildew at your table, go nuts, but WotC made it clear where they actually came from in their canon.




> But hey, nothing wrong with gods giving you these things. Not like settings ever disconnect from the gods. Dark what now? Never heard of it.


So what? Being disconnected from the gods doesn't change who made them. And Dark Sun isn't even the only setting to do that. Ravenloft anyone?

----------


## Unoriginal

> But hey, nothing wrong with gods giving you these things. Not like settings ever disconnect from the gods. Dark what now? Never heard of it.


Pretty sure Dark Sun has a big "the gods used to give gifts, but then the Bad Thing happened and they left (or else)" lore.

I don't think there was ever an official D&D setting where the gods didn't do their god thing at some point in the past.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> They're fantasy races. If you want them to spring forth from mildew at your table, go nuts, but WotC made it clear where they actually came from in their canon.


So much for _not putting lore in setting-independent books!_ And not including cultural stuff...because if you're _100% destined by the gods to have particular skills, that's going to shape your culture in a massive way_. Unless, of course, you prefer WotC carboard settings where nothing actually matters.




> Pretty sure Dark Sun has a big "the gods used to give gifts, but then the Bad Thing happened and they left (or else)" lore.
> 
> I don't think there was ever an official D&D setting where the gods didn't do their god thing at some point in the past.


Except in this case, you need _very specific gods, giving very specific things to very specific people_. I'd be fine with them saying "generally, races were created by one or more gods and given traits that reflect that deity's nature". But tying _all dwarves everywhere_ to one specific deity and then claiming that they're stripping all of the cultural stuff? That's just a lie. Who a race worships and is beholden to (literally!) is a massive influence on cultures.

----------


## Psyren

> So much for _not putting lore in setting-independent books!_ And not including cultural stuff...because if you're _100% destined by the gods to have particular skills, that's going to shape your culture in a massive way_. Unless, of course, you prefer WotC carboard settings where nothing actually matters.


_Cultural_ lore doesn't belong in setting-agnostic books. Multiversal origins are not culture.

And yes, those origins DO shape culture. _Name one dwarven culture in D&D that doesn't use tools in any way!_




> Pretty sure Dark Sun has a big "the gods used to give gifts, but then the Bad Thing happened and they left (or else)" lore.
> 
> I don't think there was ever an official D&D setting where the gods didn't do their god thing at some point in the past.


Exactly. Origins are origins.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> _Cultural_ lore doesn't belong in setting-agnostic books. Multiversal origins are not culture.
> 
> And yes, those origins DO shape culture. _Name one dwarven culture in D&D that doesn't use tools in any way!_


Do you realize you just contradicted yourself? Origins shape culture. Thus, origin lore _is_ cultural lore. Especially when it's not just some myth but actively affects every single member of the race born anywhere in the universe _uniformly, no exceptions_. Unless you want to pull the "well, adventurers are different." In which case...why the heck do all _adventuring_ dwarves have this god-given effect?

----------


## Psyren

> Do you realize you just contradicted yourself? Origins shape culture. Thus, origin lore _is_ cultural lore.


No, it's really not. "Elves originated from Feywild" explains their common traits, yet Arenei elves, Talenta elves, Evermeet elves, Qualinesti elves, and Simic elves all have _wildly_ different cultures.

Origins shape culture, but origins are still not the same thing as culture.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> No, it's really not. "Elves originated from Feywild" explains their common traits, yet Arenei elves, Talenta elves, Evermeet elves, Qualinesti elves, and Simic elves all have _wildly_ different cultures.


It's a strong influence on cultures. "Where did we come from" is one of the _oldest_ questions that cultures have to answer. And it's a core one, whose answers shape cultures. Origin lore is one part of cultural lore, not something separable at all. And...really...no they don't. They're all basically within a few notches of each other, all recognizably "elf" cultures. A setting where that was _not_ true could have radically different elves. Or heck, nothing recognizable as elves at all. Instead, all settings _must_ have elves, who _must_ be within epsilon of each other physiologically. Because all settings are forced into the same straightjacket.

And take Giff. They have, somehow, a talent for _guns_ of all things. That shapes their culture.

Culture and origin can only be called different in a cardboard world where nothing matters except authorial fiat and mechanics.

If they wanted to truly distinguish culture from physical nature, well...for one thing that's kinda stupid and pointless. Things like lifespan/not having to sleep have enormous effects on culture by necessity. Culture and physical nature, for beings of different species, are tightly tied together.

But if you wanted to do so, you'd have to do something entirely different. Make it so the you'd have *3* things to pick, completely orthogonally. Race (purely physical stuff only, no "god-given traits"), culture (completely shared between all races), and background (your own particular place in that culture). And even then, it'd be _way_ better to put all racial stuff except for utterly generic ones into teh settings. You shouldn't have "elves everywhere" or "dwarves everywhere". You should have elves in settings where elves make sense, dwarves in others, etc.

Instead of forcing the same bland-on-bland with a side of incoherent cosmology and ridiculous origin stories on everybody, allow _true_ diversity.

----------


## Psyren

> That shapes their culture.





> Origins shape culture, but origins are still not the same thing as culture.


I literally covered this. The point is that _origins_ can be setting-agnostic but _culture_ can't. Simic and Selesnya elves are cultures that don't fit in Krynn, not without considerable DM fiat; that's why the former is okay in setting-agnostic books and the latter aren't.

"Elves came from the Feywild" is an origin, not a culture. So is "Giff gods gave them a divine connection to firearms." You can certainly derive cultures or cultural aspects from these things, but they are not cultures themselves.




> If they wanted to truly distinguish culture from physical nature, well...for one thing that's kinda stupid and pointless. Things like lifespan/not having to sleep have enormous effects on culture by necessity. Culture and physical nature, for beings of different species, are tightly tied together.


Just because they have big effects doesn't mean they'll have the same effect everywhere. Ravnica elves don't need to sleep, so they use that to push the limits of mago-scientific study. Evermeet elves don't need to sleep, so they use that to intertwine their magic and artistry and eventually make things like mythals. The same metaphysical trait leads to very different _cultures_, because environment plays a role too.




> But if you wanted to do so, you'd have to do something entirely different. Make it so the you'd have *3* things to pick, completely orthogonally. Race (purely physical stuff only, no "god-given traits"), culture (completely shared between all races), and background (your own particular place in that culture). And even then, it'd be _way_ better to put all racial stuff except for utterly generic ones into teh settings. You shouldn't have "elves everywhere" or "dwarves everywhere". You should have elves in settings where elves make sense, dwarves in others, etc.
> 
> Instead of forcing the same bland-on-bland with a side of incoherent cosmology and ridiculous origin stories on everybody, allow _true_ diversity.


The whole point of having _core races_ in a game, is that they at least should fit into every official setting of that game. Otherwise they wouldn't be _core._ I'm not saying every single D&D race should fit into every single D&D setting, but the _core_ ones at least should.

At worst, they should come up with "this is core race, but altered for this setting" version, kinda like how Kender are the Dragonlance versions of Halflings.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> They're fantasy races. If you want them to spring forth from mildew at your table, go nuts, but WotC made it clear where they actually came from in their canon.


At no point was I dissatisfied with 'created by gods' being an origin for a race. Nor, does that have anything to do with my criticism.




> So what? Being disconnected from the gods doesn't change who made them. And Dark Sun isn't even the only setting to do that. Ravenloft anyone?


Giff have an active connection to a dead/lost god. That is not a 'well we made the mold this way' issue, it's an active connection.

I'm also not really sure why pointing out more settings could have this issue gets you, I never claimed Darksun was the only one, it was the one that came to mind. You seem to keep 'addressing' things I'm not actually saying.




> Pretty sure Dark Sun has a big "the gods used to give gifts, but then the Bad Thing happened and they left (or else)" lore.
> 
> I don't think there was ever an official D&D setting where the gods didn't do their god thing at some point in the past.


Which I have no issue with, my issue is the notion that you can shift cultural things to god-given things/connections to gods, and expect those to be just dandy in settings where the gods don't act the same, if they're even there.




> _Cultural_ lore doesn't belong in setting-agnostic books. Multiversal origins are not culture.
> 
> And yes, those origins DO shape culture. _Name one dwarven culture in D&D that doesn't use tools in any way!_






> I literally covered this. The point is that _origins_ can be setting-agnostic but _culture_ can't. Simic and Selesnya elves are cultures that don't fit in Krynn, not without considerable DM fiat; that's why the former is okay in setting-agnostic books and the latter aren't.
> 
> "Elves came from the Feywild" is an origin, not a culture. So is "Giff gods gave them a divine connection to firearms." You can certainly derive cultures or cultural aspects from these things, but they are not cultures themselves.


This is you drawing arbitrary lines, and your poster child for it is the biggest problem. If Elves came from the Feywild, then they came from a place where they could have/should have shared cultural influence. The Feywild didn't randomly spew elves into different places for the first time one day, they migrated from the Feywild.

That's not an origin like a god creating them, that's the start of their culture and migration. It would be like saying immigrants from one country, that settle in different countries have no real reason to share culture. Of course they do, they came from the same place. That's way more than just having the same traits.

And the Giff are actively connected to their gods... that's an active thing uniting and influencing Giff culture. That's _why_ it's there, to justify them being a spelljamming race. 




> Just because they have big effects doesn't mean they'll have the same effect everywhere. Ravnica elves don't need to sleep, so they use that to push the limits of mago-scientific study. Evermeet elves don't need to sleep, so they use that to intertwine their magic and artistry and eventually make things like mythals. The same metaphysical trait leads to very different _cultures_, because environment plays a role too.


You just described the same darn thing but with different fluff. The only difference there is one form of magic is given a lick of modern scientific paint. They're doing the same thing, with the same reason according to you.




> The whole point of having _core races_ in a game, is that they at least should fit into every official setting of that game. Otherwise they wouldn't be _core._ I'm not saying every single D&D race should fit into every single D&D setting, but the _core_ ones at least should.
> 
> At worst, they should come up with "this is core race, but altered for this setting" version, kinda like how Kender are the Dragonlance versions of Halflings.



...This problem isn't just about core races. It's about how they handle races in general. And your Dragonlance example is terrible, since Halfings, as a core race, are meant to fit in Dragonlance right? But Kender exist, and they're not a Halfling subrace, with explicit lore that they're magic-warped Gnomes.

So now you have two races, that are basically meant to be the same thing (Hobbit stand ins, brave short folk) that have to coexist somehow... even though they're different.

There's no good reason for that, it's just because the author tried to mask that they were ripping off hobbits and the mechanical execution leaves you with two hobbit-descendants.

----------


## Psyren

> At no point was I dissatisfied with 'created by gods' being an origin for a race. Nor, does that have anything to do with my criticism.


I never said you were dissatisfied with that origin. My point is that "racial origin" is okay in non-setting books, "racial culture" isn't.




> Giff have an active connection to a dead/lost god. That is not a 'well we made the mold this way' issue, it's an active connection.
> 
> I'm also not really sure why pointing out more settings could have this issue gets you, I never claimed Darksun was the only one, it was the one that came to mind. You seem to keep 'addressing' things I'm not actually saying.
> 
> Which I have no issue with, my issue is the notion that you can shift cultural things to god-given things/connections to gods, and expect those to be just dandy in settings where the gods don't act the same, if they're even there.
> ...
> This is you drawing arbitrary lines, and your poster child for it is the biggest problem. If Elves came from the Feywild, then they came from a place where they could have/should have shared cultural influence. The Feywild didn't randomly spew elves into different places for the first time one day, they migrated from the Feywild.
> ...
> That's not an origin like a god creating them, that's the start of their culture and migration. It would be like saying immigrants from one country, that settle in different countries have no real reason to share culture. Of course they do, they came from the same place. That's way more than just having the same traits.
> ...


You're drawing a distinction that means less than you think it does. Whether the origin is "their god made them this way", or their origin is "the gods made {plane} which in turn made them this way," there is ultimately little meaningful difference in the origin. In the Giff's case it's the former, in the Elves' case it's the latter.




> You just described the same darn thing but with different fluff. The only difference there is one form of magic is given a lick of modern scientific paint. They're doing the same thing, with the same reason according to you.


It's not the same. Simic Elves pervert nature to devise mutations, Golgari ones pervert it into necromantic hybrids. Neither of those are anywhere close to Tolkien, FR, or even Eberron elven cultures, but they _all_ fit with the mechanical D&D Elf traits. The _results_ are fundamentally different even if the starting points are the same.




> ...This problem isn't just about core races. It's about how they handle races in general. And your Dragonlance example is terrible, since Halfings, as a core race, are meant to fit in Dragonlance right? But Kender exist, and they're not a Halfling subrace, with explicit lore that they're magic-warped Gnomes.
> 
> So now you have two races, that are basically meant to be the same thing (Hobbit stand ins, brave short folk) that have to coexist somehow... even though they're different.
> 
> There's no good reason for that, it's just because the author tried to mask that they were ripping off hobbits and the mechanical execution leaves you with two hobbit-descendants.


I mean, there is indeed a very good Doylist reason, "hobbit" is a race neither WotC nor Weis/Hickman have the rights to.

More importantly, "if you want to be a Halfling, take a look at Kender" requires literally one sentence to explain - the one I just wrote, or a version thereof.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> More importantly, "if you want to be a Halfling, take a look at Kender" requires literally one sentence to explain - the one I just wrote, or a version thereof.


 Face Palm time. 
Kender were, and remain, a crappy variation of hobbits/(AD&D)halflings by Weiss and Hickman in the books, and are at about the level of filth as gully dwarves in terms of world building.  
You are building your argument on a foundation of swampland.

----------


## Sigreid

When I was a kid, starting D&D it was very useful to me to have the MM say "these are your bad guys.  You don't have to worry about whether they're evil or misunderstood, their God made them to be evil".

----------


## Oramac

> I would consider RftLW/WGtE a setting book. Also SCAG, GGtR, and VRGtR.





> Rising from the Last War has several mini-adventures.  It really is a setting book, though.





> So SCAG? Setting book. Doesn't even have an adventure in it. RftLW? Dunno. Does it have an adventure path built in? Tal'dorei Reborn...I've paid exactly 0 (maybe negative?) attention to it. So no clue.
> 
> But I'd definitely put something like Witchlight as _not_ a setting book, as it doesn't even really attempt to be a guide to the Feywild itself, focusing on one set of adventures.





> All of these books, except SCAG, include one or more adventures in them.


I'm coming back to this since it's something we can (hopefully) give to WOTC as feedback when/if the time comes. 

So what _specific things_ make a book a "setting book"? 

Help me out here. 

Includes an adventureIncludes world-specific lore _outside of the adventure_??????

Anything else? Or is there anything that very specifically turns a book into "Not-a-Setting-Book"? Does inclusion of character options make it more or less a setting book? How about a bestiary? Pantheon?

----------


## Psyren

> When I was a kid, starting D&D it was very useful to me to have the MM say "these are your bad guys.  You don't have to worry about whether they're evil or misunderstood, their God made them to be evil".


There are still plenty of monsters like that (see Mindflayers for example.) What WotC _can't and shouldn't do_ is say "their god made them to be evil, no moral ambiguity!" out of one side of their mouth, and then say "these are suitable as player races, enjoy!" out of the other.




> Face Palm time. 
> Kender were, and remain, a crappy variation of hobbits/(AD&D)halflings by Weiss and Hickman in the books, and are at about the level of filth as gully dwarves in terms of world building.  
> You are building your argument on a foundation of swampland.


I'm not defending Kender as a race choice, I personally don't like them (especially when they lost their one chance to be actually interesting during the UA with the hammerspace ability) but they do occupy the same thematic stratum as Halflings. If Halflings are not available to play in Dragonlance games, Kender will be the reason why.




> I'm coming back to this since it's something we can (hopefully) give to WOTC as feedback when/if the time comes. 
> 
> So what _specific things_ make a book a "setting book"? 
> 
> Help me out here. 
> 
> Includes an adventureIncludes world-specific lore _outside of the adventure_??????
> 
> Anything else? Or is there anything that very specifically turns a book into "Not-a-Setting-Book"? Does inclusion of character options make it more or less a setting book? How about a bestiary? Pantheon?


I think it's one of those "I know it when I see it" type of things.

A big thing I look for is a history of the world, as well as how the various races fit into it geographically and socially.

----------


## Keltest

> There are still plenty of monsters like that (see Mindflayers for example.) What WotC _can't and shouldn't do_ is say "their god made them to be evil, no moral ambiguity!" out of one side of their mouth, and then say "these are suitable as player races, enjoy!" out of the other.


Why not? Some people play evil campaigns, and frankly, ive made plenty of Orc and Drow NPCs to fight the party using PC rules, the same as I've made human and wood elf NPCs to fight them, or along side them.

----------


## Psyren

> Why not? Some people play evil campaigns, and frankly, ive made plenty of Orc and Drow NPCs to fight the party using PC rules, the same as I've made human and wood elf NPCs to fight them, or along side them.


Because if they're playable, then clearly they can choose whether to be evil or not (i.e. they have free will just like every other playable race.) So _at best_, the distinction isn't actually doing anything and has no purpose. And that's the most charitable reading.

----------


## Amnestic

> I'm coming back to this since it's something we can (hopefully) give to WOTC as feedback when/if the time comes. 
> 
> So what _specific things_ make a book a "setting book"? 
> 
> Help me out here. 
> 
> Includes an adventureIncludes world-specific lore _outside of the adventure_??????
> 
> Anything else? Or is there anything that very specifically turns a book into "Not-a-Setting-Book"? Does inclusion of character options make it more or less a setting book? How about a bestiary? Pantheon?


It doesn't _need_ an adventure _though I think it helps to have one_. SCAG is a setting book and, as noted, does not have one. I believe it helps because it gives DMs and players an easy "hey, here's a plot you might see in this place!" and lets newbies get to grips with the world. Typically if they're low level, it also serves as a starter 1 or 2 shot sorta deal before they graduate into a 'proper' adventure.

I do think it needs world specific lore. This should ideally include details on core races and classes places (or lack of places!) in the world, along with any setting specific races (eg. warforged) or classes (none yet).

Ideally it would include a dedicated section on the relevant geography of the world and religious beliefs of the cultures in that area of the world.
Ideally if there's any unique or especially thematic creatures these would be given statblocks (eg. living spells)
Ideally it would have a section on typical adventure themes and tone - Ravenloft, and Strixhaven are probably going to have wildly different adventure concepts, and even if the book does or doesn't include an adventure, it's worth taking the time to write out example ideas of adventures and what tone the setting can aim for, to give players and DMs jumping off points for characters.

Setting specific feats, backgrounds, spells, magic items, and subclasses aren't _required_, but potentially appreciated where relevant. You could certainly have a setting book that provides no new player options at all - though I personally think that would be a harder sell in today's market, so we're unlikely to see such a book. 

A setting book may have more or less of the above. It's not a specific checklist where you need to make sure you have them all, and there's probably some things I'd like that I've forgotten, but that's generally what I'd be hoping for. 

Rising from the Last War isn't 'less' of a setting book just because it doesn't have all the information that Exploring Eberron has, or vice versa. They're both setting books that look at different areas, and there's reasonably a 'core' setting book (RftLW) and a 'splat' setting book (Exploring Eberron).

----------


## Keltest

> Because if they're playable, then clearly they can choose whether to be evil or not (i.e. they have free will just like every other playable race.) So _at best_, the distinction isn't actually doing anything and has no purpose. And that's the most charitable reading.


How do you figure? There are plenty of circumstances where a player character doesnt have free will. What's one more?

----------


## Oramac

> snip
> 
> A setting book may have more or less of the above. It's not a specific checklist where you need to make sure you have them all, and there's probably some things I'd like that I've forgotten, but that's generally what I'd be hoping for. 
> 
> Rising from the Last War isn't 'less' of a setting book just because it doesn't have all the information that Exploring Eberron has, or vice versa. They're both setting books that look at different areas, and there's reasonably a 'core' setting book (RftLW) and a 'splat' setting book (Exploring Eberron).


Great assessment!! I'd generally agree. Sounds like a setting book, to most of us, is more about the lore and world in general than about any one specific race or NPC. 

I'm curious, with regards to including adventures, do you think the small adventure in Rising from the Last War is sufficient?

----------


## Psyren

> How do you figure? There are plenty of circumstances where a player character doesnt have free will. What's one more?


When that will is subverted by an outside (and generally temporary) source like a compulsion, sure. Not as a baseline component of their metaphysiology. Even wholly created servile races like Autognomes and Warforged are emphasized as having their own agency when in the hands of a player; after all, players being able to roleplay their characters however they see fit is the heart of D&D.




> It doesn't _need_ an adventure _though I think it helps to have one_. SCAG is a setting book and, as noted, does not have one. I believe it helps because it gives DMs and players an easy "hey, here's a plot you might see in this place!" and lets newbies get to grips with the world. Typically if they're low level, it also serves as a starter 1 or 2 shot sorta deal before they graduate into a 'proper' adventure.
> 
> I do think it needs world specific lore. This should ideally include details on core races and classes places (or lack of places!) in the world, along with any setting specific races (eg. warforged) or classes (none yet).
> 
> Ideally it would include a dedicated section on the relevant geography of the world and religious beliefs of the cultures in that area of the world.
> Ideally if there's any unique or especially thematic creatures these would be given statblocks (eg. living spells)
> Ideally it would have a section on typical adventure themes and tone - Ravenloft, and Strixhaven are probably going to have wildly different adventure concepts, and even if the book does or doesn't include an adventure, it's worth taking the time to write out example ideas of adventures and what tone the setting can aim for, to give players and DMs jumping off points for characters.
> 
> Setting specific feats, backgrounds, spells, magic items, and subclasses aren't _required_, but potentially appreciated where relevant. You could certainly have a setting book that provides no new player options at all - though I personally think that would be a harder sell in today's market, so we're unlikely to see such a book. 
> ...


I'm in agreement that a sample adventure would make campaign books better. GGtR not having one was  a missed opportunity imo; they translated this great world to D&D, complete with a bunch of hooks, and then shrugged and said "now head on over to DMs Guild!"

As for Strixhaven and Ravenloft, I think they could be really interesting to mash together. I could see a Strixhaven campaign that starts out seemingly normally, only for the players and campus to be transported to Darkon and see the entire school frozen at the moment of its cataclysmic destruction, then need to solve a magical mystery to figure out why and stop it from happening.

----------


## Keltest

> When that will is subverted by an outside (and generally temporary) source like a compulsion, sure. Not as a baseline component of their metaphysiology. Even wholly created servile races like Autognomes and Warforged are emphasized as having their own agency when in the hands of a player; after all, players being able to roleplay their characters however they see fit is the heart of D&D.


Thats something to talk about with your DM. A character's race should affect the world in more ways than just their stats, otherwise whats even the point?

----------


## animorte

> Thats something to talk about with your DM. A character's race should affect the world in more ways than just their stats, otherwise whats even the point?


Id wager thats what their features are for. That and whatever role theyve decided to specialize in and how they use it.

----------


## Amnestic

> I'm curious, with regards to including adventures, do you think the small adventure in Rising from the Last War is sufficient?


It's simple and pretty straightforward but it introduces the players to:
Sharn (which is a big location!) and gives you a vibe of its impressions.
Warforged, kalashtar, and some 'monstrous' races all in the city, showing it as a cosmopolitan place.
Some minor interactions with a Dragonmarked House.
Lightning Rails!

What's missing? Honestly, not much. As an introductory adventure it hits a bunch of important notes which players can latch on to. If I had any criticisms it's 
a) they don't do a great job with changelings - there's one, and they're a villain. While shifters do crop up as badguys a fair bit, there is one who's neutral/friendly.
b) you're working for the cops (but I guess someone's gotta hire you, and 'the city watch' are an easy choice to give you permission for people stabbing)

With 13 dragonmarked houses, not trying to cram them all is the right decision, and I liked that they made sure to have a friendly gnoll NPC in there. There's no airships but there is a skycoach and I think trying to include an airship sequence would probably have been excessive with everything else going on - at a certain point of 'density' it stops becoming a story and starts becoming a "this is my campaign setting, here is everything you need to know about it one after another".

The adventure's nothing groundbreaking but it's perfectly solid as an introduction to Eberron.

----------


## Psyren

> Thats something to talk about with your DM. A character's race should affect the world in more ways than just their stats, otherwise whats even the point?


I fail to see how "PCs have free will" somehow translates to "their race choice doesn't affect the world"  :Small Confused:  That's a leap I just can't follow.




> Id wager thats what their features are for. That and whatever role theyve decided to specialize in and how they use it.


Indeed - races do have more than stats, they have features. But there are also elements the players can't control, like NPC attitudes towards them due to that choice, or the incidence of race-specific magic items in the campaign.

----------


## Sigreid

> I fail to see how "PCs have free will" somehow translates to "their race choice doesn't affect the world"  That's a leap I just can't follow.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed - races do have more than stats, they have features. But there are also elements the players can't control, like NPC attitudes towards them due to that choice, or the incidence of race-specific magic items in the campaign.


Always evil races are great for an evil campaign.

But this whole discussion missed my point.  It can be immensely useful for new players, especially young ones; to be told x are objectively the bad guys.  Their God makes them that way.  The DM and players know from an objective, external to the world understanding that when you fight these guys and take their stuff you don't have to feel guilty or agonize over the morality of it.  You're still the good guys.

All the way from 1e, the D&D books have always made it clear that if you don't want it to be that way it doesn't have to be.  And most players I've known move away from that to some extent when they get more comfortable going their own way.  I think it's valuable to put the black cowboy hats clearly on some fantasy races to give easy guidance to new players and DMs that are looking to roll up on the bad guys, beat them down and take their stuff.

----------


## Segev

> There are still plenty of monsters like that (see Mindflayers for example.) What WotC _can't and shouldn't do_ is say "their god made them to be evil, no moral ambiguity!" out of one side of their mouth, and then say "these are suitable as player races, enjoy!" out of the other.


And yet, you named the Mindflayer as your example of something that's fine because it's still there, which WotC has said is evil because it has no choice, and is not suitable as a player character.

If, in 5-10 years, someone comes along and insists that it's unacceptable to portray Mindflayers as anything less than complex, morally-acceptable beings who CAN be PCs, will you draw your line in the sand there to say, "No, they need to remain definitely-evil bad guys?"

----------


## Oramac

> Always evil races are great for an evil campaign.
> 
> But this whole discussion missed my point.  It can be immensely useful for new players, especially young ones; to be told x are objectively the bad guys.  Their God makes them that way.  The DM and players know from an objective, external to the world understanding that when you fight these guys and take their stuff you don't have to feel guilty or agonize over the morality of it.  You're still the good guys.
> 
> All the way from 1e, the D&D books have always made it clear that if you don't want it to be that way it doesn't have to be.  And most players I've known move away from that to some extent when they get more comfortable going their own way.  I think it's valuable to put the black cowboy hats clearly on some fantasy races to give easy guidance to new players and DMs that are looking to roll up on the bad guys, beat them down and take their stuff.


This is a great point. 

Plus, there are people who don't care about long term stories and big overarching campaigns. They just want to show up, sit down, roll dice, and kill those evil sons o' bitches over there.

----------


## Psyren

> Always evil races are great for an evil campaign.
> 
> But this whole discussion missed my point.  It can be immensely useful for new players, especially young ones; to be told x are objectively the bad guys.  Their God makes them that way.  The DM and players know from an objective, external to the world understanding that when you fight these guys and take their stuff you don't have to feel guilty or agonize over the morality of it.  You're still the good guys.





> This is a great point. 
> 
> Plus, there are people who don't care about long term stories and big overarching campaigns. They just want to show up, sit down, roll dice, and kill those evil sons o' bitches over there.


To repeat myself yet again - I have no problem with objectively evil X over there who exist solely to kill or be killed because they're irredeemably evil as a species. (I'm a Whovian for crying out loud, that's basically just Daleks.)

The issue is that once you make X playable, you're saying that they're NOT objectively evil anymore. Because to be a playable character, you need to be able to choose. And once they're not objectively evil, now you are the ones inserting all the ethical quandaries and gray morality you claim to not want. Some people can turn their brains off and just go with that contradiction, and that's fine for them, but WotC can't and shouldn't.




> And yet, you named the Mindflayer as your example of something that's fine because it's still there, which WotC has said is evil because it has no choice, and is not suitable as a player character.
> 
> If, in 5-10 years, someone comes along and insists that it's unacceptable to portray Mindflayers as anything less than complex, morally-acceptable beings who CAN be PCs, will you draw your line in the sand there to say, "No, they need to remain definitely-evil bad guys?"


If they make Mindflayers playable, it will necessitate drastic changes to their very nature. Do you really not see that? 

Thematically, the heroic PCs can't be expected to want to blot out the sun so they can live aboveground, maintain hordes of mind-slaves and subsist on sapient brains. And mechanically, you can't have a playable race that is crammed to the gills with psychic powers at level 1. For this to work, you would have to change Mindflayers so much that they would need to basically become something else entirely, so you might as well _start_ with something else entirely.

----------


## Sigreid

> To repeat myself yet again - I have no problem with objectively evil X over there who exist solely to kill or be killed because they're irredeemably evil as a species. (I'm a Whovian for crying out loud, that's basically just Daleks.)
> 
> The issue is that once you make X playable, you're saying that they're NOT objectively evil anymore. Because to be a playable character, you need to be able to choose. And once they're not objectively evil, now you are the ones inserting all the ethical quandaries and gray morality you claim to not want. Some people can turn their brains off and just go with that contradiction, and that's fine for them, but WotC can't and shouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> If they make Mindflayers playable, it will necessitate drastic changes to their very nature. Do you really not see that? 
> 
> Thematically, the heroic PCs can't be expected to want to blot out the sun so they can live aboveground, maintain hordes of mind-slaves and subsist on sapient brains. And mechanically, you can't have a playable race that is crammed to the gills with psychic powers at level 1. For this to work, you would have to change Mindflayers so much that they would need to basically become something else entirely, so you might as well _start_ with something else entirely.


Not necessarily.  Why can't there be races with player character stats intended specifically for use in evil campaigns?

----------


## gloryblaze

> I'm in agreement that a sample adventure would make campaign books better. GGtR not having one was  a missed opportunity imo; they translated this great world to D&D, complete with a bunch of hooks, and then shrugged and said "now head on over to DMs Guild!"


GGtR did come with an introductory adventure (Krenko's Way). It never really grabbed me so I've never run it and can't really speak on its quality, but it's there!

----------


## Oramac

> The issue is that once you make X playable, you're saying that they're NOT objectively evil anymore. Because to be a playable character, you need to be able to choose. And once they're not objectively evil, now you are the ones inserting all the ethical quandaries and gray morality you claim to not want. Some people can turn their brains off and just go with that contradiction, and that's fine for them, *but WotC can't and shouldn't.*


Emphasis added. 

You have way more confidence in WOTC than I do. 




> Not necessarily.  Why can't there be races with player character stats intended specifically for use in evil campaigns?


Also, this.  EDIT: To add, this would actually make a really good addition to a 5e Book of Vile Darkness.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

Apropos of very little, I actually had a playable "mindflayer" race. Those whose cerebromorphosis was...odd...resulting in a hybrid being that had both minds active. They had player-tuned abilities. Heck, one player-character-turned-god was one--the current god of magic is a mindflayer (or was originally).

But then again, by that point I'd already thrown out alignment for _everyone_. And changed exactly how mindflayers work (from being obligate brain eaters to only needing brains to reproduce and for a psychic supercharge and being able to subsist on animal brains for that purpose, as well as their entire origin story and making them under_water_ creatures originally, not under_ground_ ones). Sure, 99.98% of all mindflayers out there are convinced they're the master race and have no qualms about snacking on humanoid brains and keeping humanoids as cattle. As a default assumption, mindflayers are not your friends. They're "evil" in the sense that the vast majority of them in this particular world have no compunctions about doing things that make demons sick. But that's nurture, not nature. And there are sub-cultures that defy that, including one whole nation that's ruled by mindflayers but harbors one of the largest concentration of arcanists on that particular continent.

----------


## Tanarii

> When I was a kid, starting D&D it was very useful to me to have the MM say "these are your bad guys.  You don't have to worry about whether they're evil or misunderstood, their God made them to be evil".


Helpful to adult DMs with mature players too.  Because more often than not, that's wha players want.  Bad guys, especially bad guys they already know from media are the bad guys.  They don't want morally grey or pre-approved problematic-free.

Not only that, they're willing to tolerate them or even work with them sometimes _even when those guys are the bad guys_. Bad guys doesn't always translate into "kill on sight". They just don't trust them, because bad guys. 

It also has the advantage of saying "these guys aren't appropriate as PCs unless you're playing a bad guys campaign or change the lore."  TBH I wish there were similar signaling for the menagerie races that indicated they weren't appropriate as PC races.

----------


## Psyren

> Not necessarily.  Why can't there be races with player character stats intended specifically for use in evil campaigns?


"Evil campaigns" are at best a variant, not the intended mode of play. Even if you assume WotC is willing to support that playstyle officially, developing always-evil races to do it isn't necessary, when they can simply take existing races and explain why they are evil in that particular setting, or better yet just explain why the PCs are evil and let them be whoever and whatever they want.




> Emphasis added. 
> 
> You have way more confidence in WOTC than I do.


Actually I don't! _You're_ the one who is placing faith that WotC can somehow make a compelling always-evil race that somehow makes sense with the very concept of free will, AND won't run afoul of any of the reductive tropes and clichés that concept tends to run into. _I'm_ the one who doesn't think the myriad ways that would likely go wrong are worth the resources that would be wasted on the attempt.




> Apropos of very little, I actually had a playable "mindflayer" race. Those whose cerebromorphosis was...odd...resulting in a hybrid being that had both minds active. They had player-tuned abilities. Heck, one player-character-turned-god was one--the current god of magic is a mindflayer (or was originally).
> 
> But then again, by that point I'd already thrown out alignment for _everyone_. And changed exactly how mindflayers work (from being obligate brain eaters to only needing brains to reproduce and for a psychic supercharge and being able to subsist on animal brains for that purpose, as well as their entire origin story and making them under_water_ creatures originally, not under_ground_ ones). Sure, 99.98% of all mindflayers out there are convinced they're the master race and have no qualms about snacking on humanoid brains and keeping humanoids as cattle. As a default assumption, mindflayers are not your friends. They're "evil" in the sense that the vast majority of them in this particular world have no compunctions about doing things that make demons sick. But that's nurture, not nature. And there are sub-cultures that defy that, including one whole nation that's ruled by mindflayers but harbors one of the largest concentration of arcanists on that particular continent.


My point exactly, to make this concept work requires such contortions that you're not really playing as a D&D mindflayer anymore, you're playing as something entirely new wearing a nametag or hat.

----------


## Keltest

> It also has the advantage of saying "these guys aren't appropriate as PCs unless you're playing a bad guys campaign or change the lore."  TBH I wish there were similar signaling for the menagerie races that indicated they weren't appropriate as PC races.


Relevant to the conversation about default settings, I cannot begin to tell you the number of tines I have had someone want to play a warforged in Dragonlance or a similar cross setting combination, because 5e says everything is there equally and makes no qualification for whether something is setting inappropriate or not. Which is yet another reason to have a default setting and then note deviations from that when they come up instead of this multiverse stuff.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Relevant to the conversation about default settings, I cannot begin to tell you the number of tines I have had someone want to play a warforged in Dragonlance or a similar cross setting combination, because 5e says everything is there equally and makes no qualification for whether something is setting inappropriate or not. Which is yet another reason to have a default setting and then note deviations from that when they come up instead of this multiverse stuff.


 I'd much prefer an anemic, generic set of races in core (say generic elf, human, dwarf, and halfling) and then let settings define their own, including overriding or ignoring those generic races. They're there for setting free dungeon crawls, starter games, etc. Not some statement about what's always available.

I'd love to see settings be really diverse on that front. In one, elves are eldritch abominations. In another they're fey. In a third they're tolkenien. Etc.

----------


## Psyren

> Relevant to the conversation about default settings, I cannot begin to tell you the number of tines I have had someone want to play a warforged in Dragonlance or a similar cross setting combination, because 5e says everything is there equally and makes no qualification for whether something is setting inappropriate or not. Which is yet another reason to have a default setting and then note deviations from that when they come up instead of this multiverse stuff.


They don't say "everything is everywhere equally" though. What they actually say is that the multiverse exists and D&D worlds are part of it. *I wouldn't want Warforged or Plasmoids or Simic Hybrids in my Dragonlance campaign either* - but some groups would, and having Jim's Warforged character fall through a wild magic portal in the Mournland and crashland in Ansalon isn't going to make his entire gaming group spontaneously combust or anything. Those who find that sort of thing fun can run with it, those who don't can firmly tell Jim "no", and that's ultimately the beauty of D&D.

Moreover, some nonstandard races are justifiable without too many hoops. I could see a magical accident deep in the bowels of Mount Nevermind leading to the creation of a group of Autognomes for instance, or Reborn characters arising from the ranks of the Darken Wood's undead guardians, or Aasimar appearing in the vicinity of the Silver Stair. At the end of the day, D&D settings are magical worlds and the NPCs who live in them see weird stuff fairly regularly, so they're probably not going to dive for the nearest pitchfork just because a single PC chose to play something weird.

----------


## animorte

> I'd much prefer an anemic, generic set of races in core (say generic elf, human, dwarf, and halfling) and then let settings define their own, including overriding or ignoring those generic races.


I agree with this. I like the idea of those additional settings bringing their own standards into play. Entirely new things as well as wild variations of preexisting things.




> At the end of the day, D&D settings are magical worlds and the NPCs who live in them see weird stuff fairly regularly, so they're probably not going to dive for the nearest pitchfork just because a single PC chose to play something weird.


Ive always thought this as well, at least to a certain degree. I believe it to be standard that an NPC be wary of the new weird folk in town, just as likely as some are to be interested in them. Every once in a while, youll have NPCs with a QuickDraw torch/pitchfork dual-wielding combo.

----------


## Sigreid

> "Evil campaigns" are at best a variant, not the intended mode of play. Even if you assume WotC is willing to support that playstyle officially, developing always-evil races to do it isn't necessary, when they can simply take existing races and explain why they are evil in that particular setting, or better yet just explain why the PCs are evil and let them be whoever and whatever they want.


Actually, I doubt they thought farther than "some people like these monster races and I bet we can sell a book".

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I agree with this. I like the idea of those additional settings bringing their own standards into play. Entirely new things as well as wild variations of preexisting things.


And don't forget the _absence_ of preexisting things. When I sit down at a table in a new setting, I *want* to have my prior ideas challenged. If every setting is just a new coat of paint over the same core (which is what happens when you have a bulky core and unified metaphysics), it's boring. This doesn't just go for races, but races are one of the more visible elements.

Personally, putting something into core as a not-a-variant option sets expectations. Really hard ones. It says "these things will exist unless the DM actively locks them out." Putting something in a particular setting says "these are the things that exist here". And it's much harder, at a setting level, to rule out core stuff than it is to include new stuff. And even worse than that is _altering_ core stuff in some fundamental way.

Imagine a setting where elves were more like Terry Pratchett elves.




> Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
> Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
> Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
> Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
> Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
> Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
> The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
> No one ever said elves are nice.
> Elves are bad.


That'd be a setting where _playing_ an elf wouldn't make sense. Nor would a "strong core"/"multiverse" take on things either--once you assume that all elves everywhere are basically the same (modulo cultural garnishes), which is what the multiverse wants you to believe (same traits, same physical descriptors, etc), you simply cannot build a "conforming" setting like that without encountering _tons_ of friction. And that, to me, is a shame.

Or, to be more mild, what about a setting where dwarves aren't underground craftsmen obsessed with clan and honor, but are steppe horse nomads? Them having _racial_ tool proficiencies and Stone Sense just doesn't make sense there.

So having an _explicitly_ anemic core and pushing races mostly into settings would be a good thing. Except...then they'd actually have to publish setting books. Which, because they define cultures, will offend someone. So that's a non-starter.





> Ive always thought this as well, at least to a certain degree. I believe it to be standard that an NPC be wary of the new weird folk in town, just as likely as some are to be interested in them. Every once in a while, youll have NPCs with a QuickDraw torch/pitchfork dual-wielding combo.


I'm totally 100% ok with PCs being "weird." It's actually baked into my setting. And parties tend to be wild and colorful. But sticking entirely alien (to the setting) races in there? No thanks. Because now I have to explain _how_ they're there and can no longer actually tie them into the setting nearly as well. I'm happy to, within reason, homebrew something that's roughly similar but actually fits (in origin and place-in-the-world). Done that lots. Both race and class. But content (especially races) is very much an opt-in, not an opt-out. *All* content, IMO, should be considered opt-in--it doesn't exist unless I explicitly say it does. Shoving more things into core, because of the expectations that sets, complicates that.

I'd love a core set of books that was really content-light. Give me all the rules. But then give me a minimal set of _content_ (classes, races, items, feats, spells, monsters, etc). Then you can make those core books cheaper and smaller (maybe getting it all down into one book) and sell additional, more tightly themed and coherent "Player Options" and "DM Options" books. Push more into the settings and less into core.

Core bloat is a problem. And one they're going the wrong direction on, from what I can tell. More core races, more core classes, making feats even more core (and inevitably printing more of them).

----------


## animorte

> And don't forget the _absence_ of preexisting things. When I sit down at a table in a new setting, I *want* to have my prior ideas challenged. If every setting is just a new coat of paint over the same core (which is what happens when you have a bulky core and unified metaphysics), it's boring.


I can also appreciate my ideas being challenged. I want to experience the learning process involved in discovering a different world, an extra civilization, and a whole new bucket of character templates to encounter.

I dont think its _always_ boring, but the bloated base content can certainly make it often more difficult to simulate that immersive learning experience.




> I'd love a core set of books that was really content-light. Give me all the rules. But then give me a minimal set of _content_ (classes, races, items, feats, spells, monsters, etc). Then you can make those core books cheaper and smaller (maybe getting it all down into one book) and sell additional, more tightly themed and coherent "Player Options" and "DM Options" books. Push more into the settings and less into core.


Alright now, you gather up your belongs and step out of this house with your common sense, yahear?  :Small Tongue: 

Oh, yes. I think that they need to focus on constructing a firm foundation with which to build upon. That foundation should be a tight, structured, reliable mechanical core. With that in place, any additional optional/variant content (some probably in the DMG) will be a lot easier to organize and produce with cheaper DLC. Be careful we dont approach micro-transaction territory

Actually _maybe_ scratch (some probably in the DMG) because it should *really* be more focused on how to run the game which was a heavy topic of contention a few weeks ago in one of these threads. Organize that book a lot better too, please.

I mean, I still love having a variety of options to choose from within that core foundation though. (I.E. The 2014 PHB Fighter giving us a basic improved option, a more decision oriented versatile option, and a caster option. Not saying that those were necessarily _balanced_ options.)

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I can also appreciate my ideas being challenged. I want to experience the learning process involved in discovering a different world, an extra civilization, and a whole new bucket of character templates to encounter.
> 
> I dont think its _always_ boring, but the bloated base content can certainly make it often more difficult to simulate that immersive learning experience.
> 
> 
> Alright now, you gather up your belongs and step out of this house with your common sense, yahear? 
> 
> Oh, yes. I think that they need to focus on constructing a firm foundation with which to build upon. That foundation should be a tight, structured, reliable mechanical core. With that in place, any additional optional/variant content (some probably in the DMG) will be a lot easier to organize and produce with cheaper DLC. Be careful we dont approach micro-transaction territory
> 
> ...


If they feel they need to include all those other options, they should group and mark them as "additional options included table by table" or something else like that.

And yes,, organization could be a lot better.

----------


## Psyren

> Actually, I doubt they thought farther than "some people like these monster races and I bet we can sell a book".


By this logic everything should be playable, as that would surely sell more books, balance be damned. Which is what gave us 3.5 LA. They're clearly not doing that in 5e.




> And don't forget the _absence_ of preexisting things. When I sit down at a table in a new setting, I *want* to have my prior ideas challenged. If every setting is just a new coat of paint over the same core (which is what happens when you have a bulky core and unified metaphysics), it's boring. This doesn't just go for races, but races are one of the more visible elements.
> 
> Personally, putting something into core as a not-a-variant option sets expectations. Really hard ones. It says "these things will exist unless the DM actively locks them out." Putting something in a particular setting says "these are the things that exist here". And it's much harder, at a setting level, to rule out core stuff than it is to include new stuff. And even worse than that is _altering_ core stuff in some fundamental way.
> 
> Imagine a setting where elves were more like Terry Pratchett elves.
> 
> 
> 
> That'd be a setting where _playing_ an elf wouldn't make sense. Nor would a "strong core"/"multiverse" take on things either--once you assume that all elves everywhere are basically the same (modulo cultural garnishes), which is what the multiverse wants you to believe (same traits, same physical descriptors, etc), you simply cannot build a "conforming" setting like that without encountering _tons_ of friction. And that, to me, is a shame.
> ...


I think it's perfectly reasonable to say _"every published setting has humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and orcs in some capacity. Here's where they fit."_ And while they're a bit newer to core, extending that to Dragonborn, Tieflings, and something-opposite-Tieflings (whether that ends up being Aasimar or Ardlings) is not a big stretch either.

Could a setting where elves are eldritch horrors unsuitable for players be interesting to some people? Sure. Does WotC have to devote development time to crafting such a setting, especially when DMs Guild exists? Well, why should they?




> I'd love a core set of books that was really content-light. Give me all the rules. But then give me a minimal set of _content_ (classes, races, items, feats, spells, monsters, etc). Then you can make those core books cheaper and smaller (maybe getting it all down into one book) and sell additional, more tightly themed and coherent "Player Options" and "DM Options" books. Push more into the settings and less into core.


This exists, it's called Basic. And you can't get cheaper than free.

----------


## Keltest

> By this logic everything should be playable, as that would surely sell more books, balance be damned. Which is what gave us 3.5 LA. They're clearly not doing that in 5e.


I mean, they kind of have, just not in a particularly appealing way. Tasha's rules allow you to play whatever race you want, in name. Theyve just been going in the direction of homogenizing all the races anyway, to the point where playing a human is no different than playing a kobold.

----------


## Psyren

> Theyve just been going in the direction of homogenizing all the races anyway, to the point where playing a human is no different than playing a kobold.


If you ignore all their racial traits, sure 🙄

----------


## Amnestic

> Theyve just been going in the direction of homogenizing all the races anyway, to the point where playing a human is no different than playing a kobold.


Didn't MotM buff a bunch of races (eg. bugbear, goliath) so now they're more impactful than ever?

----------


## diplomancer

Mechanically, I don't think things have gotten worse. Are there unbalanced races/subclasses/spells? Sure. From the beginning. 

Having said that, I do think that the newer books are far less inspiring. Races get (deservedly, in my opinion) a lot of flack for that, MPMM has mechanically interesting races, but their fluff is simply boring and bland. The absolute worse change, however, in my opinion, is the way that they are gutting all the background roleplaying traits (to the point of D&D One backgrounds being a shapeless blob of mechanics, though hopefully this will improve once it's officially published in a book...  the Strixhaven backgrounds already suffer from that, however, and if UA is any indication, so will the Krynn backgrounds).

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I'd love to see settings be really diverse on that front. In one, elves are eldritch abominations. In another they're fey. In a third they're tolkenien. Etc.


 Yeah, and of course the flesh eating halflings ...  :Small Big Grin:  



> (to the point of D&D One backgrounds being a shapeless blob of mechanics, though hopefully this will improve once it's officially published in a book...  the Strixhaven backgrounds already suffer from that, however, and if UA is any indication, so will the Krynn backgrounds).


 Yep, they are taking a good feature and messing it up: backgrounds.

----------


## hiptobecubic

> This is a great point. 
> 
> Plus, there are people who don't care about long term stories and big overarching campaigns. They just want to show up, sit down, roll dice, and kill those evil sons o' bitches over there.


I feel like this basically illustrates the problem with this entire thread. There are many kinds of players out there and WOTC is a business trying to balance between them. If an issue doesn't affect you at all then you're annoyed that they would make any changes to accommodate anyone else (e.g. hadozee controversy). If you don't give two #!%@'s about role-playing or storytelling and just want to optimize a munchkin and roll a bunch of dice in an escapist power fantasy then anything that allows players to create a relatively overpowered build is seen as bad or even game-ruining. You need to fix this with your DM, not WOTC.

If you're using D&D as a tool for collective storytelling, as the theory goes, then you can try just *not telling a stupid, boring story* and see how that goes for you. If you can't figure out how to do that then you probably need to find a different DM. My last campaign went all the way to 20 with a lore bard that only used wish once, under extraordinary circumstances, to do something that was completely plot-relevant but not game-breaking. No one made a hexblade vengeance GWM pally that just solo'd everything and didn't need to rest. No one made an army of simulacrums to play the game for them. It's really just not that hard unless you're the kind of person that plays D&D "alone, but in a group" rather than "as a group."

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> And yet, you named the Mindflayer as your example of something that's fine because it's still there, which WotC has said is evil because it has no choice, and is not suitable as a player character.


 Yep.  Enslave entire races, subjugate sentient beings, suck their brains out for a Scooby Snack ... but  what, they are misunderstood?   :Small Yuk: 



> If they make Mindflayers playable, it will necessitate drastic changes to their very nature.


 And hardly worth the effort. And, to unscrew the lore, they'd also need to redo Githzerai and Githyanki from the ground up in the process.

----------


## TyGuy

> You need to fix this with your DM, not WOTC.


Most DMs have enough on their plate before they have to go putting out fires created by the game publisher. If WOTC wants to make money, they have to make products people want to buy. I personally doubt they're maximizing their profits by sending out "fix it yourself" content. 



> If you're using D&D as a tool for collective storytelling, as the theory goes, then you can try just *not telling a stupid, boring story* and see how that goes for you.


You know, there is a game aspect to D&D, the world's most popular table-top role-playing GAME? The gamey part of the system is mostly the combat simulation. Yes?

----------


## hiptobecubic

> Most DMs have enough on their plate before they have to go putting out fires created by the game publisher. If WOTC wants to make money, they have to make products people want to buy. I personally doubt they're maximizing their profits by sending out "fix it yourself" content.


I think this is going in the other direction actually. WOTC is putting out content everyone _can_ use and people are getting upset that their niche abuse-cases like a party of all bards that just spam Silvery Bards eveywhere breaks the game.




> You know, there is a game aspect to D&D, the world's most popular table-top role-playing GAME? The gamey part of the system is mostly the combat simulation. Yes?


This depends a lot on your table. Combat simulation is _part_ of the game, but depending on how you play you can go whole sessions without it as you work on puzzles, investigation etc. Calling modern D&D a "combat simulator" rather that a role-playing game is really selling it short. Even in war-oriented fantasy storytelling, most of the story is not combat. If you really just want to roll dice in an endless dungeon to rack up XP, you can of course do that, but then who cares about any of the lore, really?

----------


## TyGuy

> I think this is going in the other direction actually. WOTC is putting out content everyone _can_ use and people are getting upset that their niche abuse-cases like a party of all bards that just spam Silvery Bards eveywhere breaks the game.


Power creep and blatantly overtuned content are things a DM might want to review and either balance or ban. Enough of this, putting out fires as I referred to it, and it becomes more attractive to ignore entire books and/or pilfer the rare gems. 
Add to that irrelevant or uninspired content for "other types of players" and the books may become even less attractive. 
Ignored content is effectively the same to a table as content that never was. If higher percentages of new books are ignored and irrelevant to higher portions of the consumers, then they're _effectively_ shorter books. 
Making the argument that WoTC is a company trying to make money to a broad audience doesn't change the reality of the above points.

----------


## Psyren

> Power creep and blatantly overtuned content are things a DM might want to review and either balance or ban. Enough of this, putting out fires as I referred to it, and it becomes more attractive to ignore entire books and/or pilfer the rare gems. 
> Add to that irrelevant or uninspired content for "other types of players" and the books may become even less attractive. 
> Ignored content is effectively the same to a table as content that never was. If higher percentages of new books are ignored and irrelevant to higher portions of the consumers, then they're _effectively_ shorter books. 
> Making the argument that WoTC is a company trying to make money to a broad audience doesn't change the reality of the above points.


Silvery Barbs aside, new content is largely tuned _better_ than what came before. Yuan-Ti and Githyanki got nerfed, the Summon X spells are much less annoying in play than the Conjure X spells, Ranger and Monk got much-needed buffs via optional class features etc. And the most powerful spells and feats are still in core, years later.

----------


## hiptobecubic

> Power creep and blatantly overtuned content are things a DM might want to review and either balance or ban. Enough of this, putting out fires as I referred to it, and it becomes more attractive to ignore entire books and/or pilfer the rare gems. 
> Add to that irrelevant or uninspired content for "other types of players" and the books may become even less attractive. 
> Ignored content is effectively the same to a table as content that never was. If higher percentages of new books are ignored and irrelevant to higher portions of the consumers, then they're _effectively_ shorter books. 
> Making the argument that WoTC is a company trying to make money to a broad audience doesn't change the reality of the above points.



You can make the exact same point about the old stuff though. My table doesn't want to play in a game with a bunch of slave monkey-minstrel people, specifically because it's "not cool" in the same way that having all the female characters go adventuring in leather lingerie armor is "not cool." For us, that kind of content might as well not exist because we're not going to use it. I totally get that there are people who are do not think that either of those are a problem and just want to ignore all the implications and roll dice, but WOTC is betting that people who play D&D because it has monkey slave people in it are less numerous than people who _wouldn't_ play D&D because it has monkey slave people in it. You can't satisfy both.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Yep.  Enslave entire races, subjugate sentient beings, suck their brains out for a Scooby Snack ... but  what, they are misunderstood?


One _could_ actually make that argument.

In Real Life we all eat.
As scientific knowledge progresses, it becomes more and more scientifically evident that many animals, (including animals humans  eat), operate emotionally and intellectually, essentially in  the same  manner as we humans do.

Modern Turkeys and Chickens raised to be food, have been breed for generation after generation to the point where they are considerably different, (morphologically), from wild animals.

Even current research on terrestrial plants indicates that incredibly complex interactions occur between trees in their root systems.  Trees have resource markets, (though less profit driven 😉).

Are Humans evil?  We breed plants and animals as food, and modify them to fit our needs and wants.   What Alignment does the practice of Factory Farming fall under?

Mindflayers, presumably, spread certain species far and wide across the multiverse, increasing their numbers beyond what was possible on a single world. Mindflayers made sure all species in their empire had purposeful employment, (see Turkeys), and granted each eaten individual immortality as they join the Illithid Collective Consciousness.

From a certain point of view, that may not qualify as evil.

(I would also state, that being evil may not matter.if Bahumut wants to eat me for The Greater Good, then Bahumut is going to need to be quite persuasive, because my individualistic and selfish self is going to fight like the Dickens).

AD&D Mindflayers were crazy supervillains in 1eMindflayers simply detested sunlight, and wanted to destroy stars.  Sunlight has No deleterious effect on them, they just dont like it.

----------


## Psyren

Whether you can squint your way to making Mindflayers not be all evil is besides the point - doing so would just mean you would still fail to have a sapient, free-willed PC race that IS reasonably all evil, putting the folks like Sigried who are looking for that right back at square one.

----------


## Mastikator

Renegade mindflayers do exist in the lore, once free from the big brain boss's influence they are free to be whoever they want. It's not inconceivable to me that a renegade "good" mindflayer might exist, that they feed on animal brains and in moments of weakness- on people that are going to be dead soon anyway. Basically the mindflayer equivalent of Angel from Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

Further I think you actually CAN play such a character in D&D 5e already. Dhampir lets you pick "_Cerebral spinal fluid_" as a hunger, your origin can be "_A parasite lives inside you. You indulge its hunger._" and if you choose the aberrant mind sorcerous origin, one of the aberrant origins is "_You were implanted with a mind flayer tadpole, but the ceremorphosis never completed. And now its psionic power is yours. When you use it, your flesh shines with a strange mucus_". Such a character would be the Blade version of a mindflayer, they'd be a renegade mindflayer in all but tentacles.

However as a race I don't think mindflayers are appropriate, its powers are too great and their culture is antithetical to what adventurers do. I think that for a race to be a playable race you shouldn't be forced to be a renegade of that race, you should have the option of being a "normal" version without being problematic to the other players. IMO that also puts drow in the danger zone if you play a forgotten realms campaign.

----------


## Waazraath

> Renegade mindflayers do exist in the lore, once free from the big brain boss's influence they are free to be whoever they want. It's not inconceivable to me that a renegade "good" mindflayer might exist, that they feed on animal brains and in moments of weakness- on people that are going to be dead soon anyway. Basically the mindflayer equivalent of Angel from Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
> 
> Further I think you actually CAN play such a character in D&D 5e already. Dhampir lets you pick "_Cerebral spinal fluid_" as a hunger, your origin can be "_A parasite lives inside you. You indulge its hunger._" and if you choose the aberrant mind sorcerous origin, one of the aberrant origins is "_You were implanted with a mind flayer tadpole, but the ceremorphosis never completed. And now its psionic power is yours. When you use it, your flesh shines with a strange mucus_". Such a character would be the Blade version of a mindflayer, they'd be a renegade mindflayer in all but tentacles.
> 
> However as a race I don't think mindflayers are appropriate, its powers are too great and their culture is antithetical to what adventurers do. I think that for a race to be a playable race you shouldn't be forced to be a renegade of that race, you should have the option of being a "normal" version without being problematic to the other players. IMO that also puts drow in the danger zone if you play a forgotten realms campaign.


Concur, this just doesn't work in 5e. 3.5, with all it's elaborate rules and book keeping, did offer this option (even playable mind flayer due to leval adjustment rules) but paid the price in high complexity and lack of balance. 5e shouldn't try this, it doesn't match with the system (and indeed, Dhampir is a fine option for those who want to have the flavour).

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> From a certain point of view, that may not qualify as evil.


 "From a certain point of view" Dracula is a hopeless romantic.  :Small Tongue:   And Sauron was misunderstood.  I could go on.  



> AD&D Mindflayers were crazy supervillains in 1eMindflayers simply detested sunlight, and wanted to destroy stars.  Sunlight has No deleterious effect on them, they just dont like it.


 They were pretty nasty back in the original, before AD&D, given the psychic blast feature.  If you rolled in order 3d6 to make your character, this was a nasty beastie to run into.  
Strat Review #1 {1975}, page 2. 
CREATURE FEATURES
The Mind Flayer
*Spoiler: This is just nasty*
Show

Number Appearing: 1-4
Armor Class: 5
Move: 12"
Hit Dice: 8+3
% in Lair: 50%
Treasure F
Magical Resistance:  90%
This is a super-intelligent, man-shaped creature with four tentacles by its mouth which it uses to strike its prey. If a tentacle hits it will then penetrate to the brain, draw it forth, and the monster will devour it.
 It will take one to four turns for the tentacle  to reach the brain, at which time the victim is dead. A Mind Flayer will I flee if an encounter is going against it. Their major weapon, however, is the Mind Blast, a wave
PSI force with a 6" {60'}directional range and a radius of 5" {50'}. All within the radius must save
as indicated or will suffer the result shown:
Mind Blast:
Intelligence  |-- Saving Throw at Range-- | Effect of Mind Blast
of Opponent-----l - 2"---3 - 4"--- 5 - 6" 
3-4--------------- 19------19---------17----------- Death
5-7--------------- 17----- 16----------15---------- Coma, 3 days
8-10-------------- 15----- 14--------- 13---------- Sleep, 1 hour
11-12------------- 13----- 12--------- 11---------- Stun, 3 turns
13-14------------- 11----- 10---------- 9-----------Confuse, 5 turns
15-16-------------- 9------ 8----------- 7---------- Enrage, 7 turns
17------------------ 7------ 6----------- 5---------- Feeblemind
18------------------ 5------ 4----------- 3---------- Insanity, permanent
Magic users add +1 to their saving throws, and clerics add +2. A Helm of Telepathy adds a +4 to saving throws, and when such saves are made the attacking Mind Flayer is stunned for 3 turns. 

5e Illithids are pretty tame by comparison.

----------


## Sigreid

> Whether you can squint your way to making Mindflayers not be all evil is besides the point - doing so would just mean you would still fail to have a sapient, free-willed PC race that IS reasonably all evil, putting the folks like Sigried who are looking for that right back at square one.


I've actually considered making a setting where there are no half breeds and orcs are Evil 100%.  The twist is that half orcs exist but represent orcs who have turned away from the orc gods and losing that connection became something different; or humans who chose to worship the orc gods and gained some orcish traits.  A similar line of logic would be applied to half elves.

----------


## Segev

> However as a race I don't think mindflayers are appropriate, its powers are too great and their culture is antithetical to what adventurers do. I think that for a race to be a playable race you shouldn't be forced to be a renegade of that race, you should have the option of being a "normal" version without being problematic to the other players. IMO that also puts drow in the danger zone if you play a forgotten realms campaign.


Ah, but you see, including culture in the description of the creatures is unacceptable. Which means it must be removed, so you can in fact play a mind flayer. Which certainly are not dark or scary or spooky in any sense that isn't made up by your DM, who is given complete freedom to make up whatever they want by the removal of all lore about them from all official materials!

----------


## zzzzzzzz414

> Always evil races are great for an evil campaign.
> 
> But this whole discussion missed my point.  It can be immensely useful for new players, especially young ones; to be told x are objectively the bad guys.  Their God makes them that way.  The DM and players know from an objective, external to the world understanding that when you fight these guys and take their stuff you don't have to feel guilty or agonize over the morality of it.  You're still the good guys.


I think this actually points to a more fundamental aspect of DnD that means that the spectre of the "Evil Race" will never truly leave it. Namely, that it is a game whose whole lore and ruleset as presented is built around the construct of "adventuring" - that is, Heroically Going Out and Killing People and Taking Their Things and Maybe Taking Over Their Land If You're Into That Sort Of High-Level Play Instead Of Fighting God Or Something. You can, technically, do other things with it, you can do a social intrigue campaign set entirely in the court of the King of Gorbytonshire if you really like, but the mechanics and class features and items and tables and progression are all very much built around someone, at some point, going out to a "dungeon" of some sort and killing some people and taking some stuff.

This presents a problem on its face, because "going out and killing people and taking their things" is not something anyone is inclined to associate with "heroism". We associate that with like, *******s. And some people want to be *******s but most actually don't, and will get agonized over the morality of this sort of colonial violence. And if the players don't want to go out into the place you've built, kill the people you've presented and take the stuff you've provided, then you're stuck with the King of Gorbytonshire and most of the actual mechanics are invalidated and you're better off playing FATE or Burning Wheel or something. 

The "Evil Race" is a very neat solution to this problem: people so utterly horrible and beneath you and antagonistic to you that it is acceptable, nay, *righteous* to kill and take stuff from them, and that are immediately recognizable as horrible and monstrous and Not Like You, and are completely innately like that from birth with no exception. Something to make a murderhobo even out of the most ardently heroic do-gooder.

It's not *required*, of course. You could have them kill unintelligent non-people things like big wolves or big spiders or zombies. You could have them fight people who have universally *chosen* to do things that are Evil by most metrics, like slavers or cultists of an apocalypse god. But these have their own holes and drawbacks quite often. Non-people entities don't often have weapons or magic or tactics or good Things To Take. And Evil People (not part of an Evil Race) might still run into those moral concerns. Like, they're not *fundamentally* evil, so what if they could be negotiated with? Or are being manipulated, or exploited? Jesus we just murdered like thirty people back there, some of them must have had kids right? I don't know how comfortable my character would be with this. 

Are these issues solvable? Of course. Is it as convenient as just using the narrative of an Evil Race? Not really. Because it is very, *very* convenient as a solution to the issue of "Christ would you all *please just fight and loot it already*" Which is very big issue to have if you are playing DnD, the game about fighting and looting. The narrative must follow the mechanics, or the whole premise of the thing falls apart; and the mechanics and premise very much incentivize the creation of an Evil Race.

So as much as I admire DnD's attempts to finally stamp it out, I have to wonder how successful it's going to actually be; it's a rather intractable problem, and one that doesn't actually originate with DnD.

----------


## Psyren

> So as much as I admire DnD's attempts to finally stamp it out, I have to wonder how successful it's going to actually be; it's a rather intractable problem, and one that doesn't actually originate with DnD.


No one is trying to "stamp out" Always Evil monster races. All they're saying is that those monster races are not, by default, suitable for use by players as heroic PCs. 

Mindflayers, Elder Brains, Beholders, Fiends, Liches, Vampires, Hags, Chromatic Dragons etc. are not going anywhere, and by and large fighting such creatures will nearly always be acceptable, or at least going in expecting to defend yourself is assumed reasonable until proven otherwise. But none of those creatures are intended to be PCs. Some may get "PC versions" that are free-willed where you'll want to ask questions before shooting, like Dhampirs, Dragonborn, or Reborn, but the monsters themselves will still _be monsters._

----------


## Witty Username

The content in the PHB-DMG-MM was full of blunders, terrible lore retcons, and all sorts of balance issues. Ditto with Volo's and Xanathar's.
Recent content has been full of blunders, terrible lore retcons, and all sorts of balance issues.
I legitimately don't understand what people are complaining about.

Tasha's race changes are too small to worry about, all the races have had identity issues since the PHB came out. As for power creep, like half the options were reprints from settings books that were non-specific enough for general use. And most of the other half were solving known issues with Monk, Ranger and Sorcerer. And for some tables we got usable summon spells out of the deal. 
With the exception of the cleric subclasses, the game is better balanced since Tasha's came out, not worse. Much how like the game was better balanced since Xanathar's came out, with the exception of the warlock subclasses.

----------


## Waazraath

> The content in the PHB-DMG-MM was full of blunders, terrible lore retcons, and all sorts of balance issues. Ditto with Volo's and Xanathar's.
> Recent content has been full of blunders, terrible lore retcons, and all sorts of balance issues.


 :Small Big Grin:  good think this community is not too critical about the game we play

----------


## Mastikator

> Ah, but you see, including culture in the description of the creatures is unacceptable. Which means it must be removed, so you can in fact play a mind flayer. Which certainly are not dark or scary or spooky in any sense that isn't made up by your DM, who is given complete freedom to make up whatever they want by the removal of all lore about them from all official materials!


Yes, but unironically. Culture belongs in settings books, not in monster books. Whether mindflayers are appropriate PC race depends on the setting. In my homebrew setting mindflayers are good aligned and only gain their powers by gaining levels, so they're perfectly fine for being player characters. There's nothing you can say or do to prevent it.
But if you play a standard forgotten realms game then it would be almost impossible to play a mindflayer as a player.

----------


## Waazraath

> Yes, but unironically. Culture belongs in settings books, not in monster books. Whether mindflayers are appropriate PC race depends on the setting. In my homebrew setting mindflayers are good aligned and only gain their powers by gaining levels, so they're perfectly fine for being player characters. There's nothing you can say or do to prevent it.
> But if you play a standard forgotten realms game then it would be almost impossible to play a mindflayer as a player.


I don't know... I get what you're saying, but I want the game to be accessible for everybody, and if somebody makes the effort of buying the core books and wants to run a campaign, I would like to have some pointers (lore) in the MM. Without that, you either oblige DM's to either 1) buy more books or 2) make up everything themselves, which is quite an investment of time, especially for new DM's. For that reason I prefer a default lore in the MM, with setting specific deviations in setting books for those that want that. It's also one of the reasons I consider 3.5 monster books as superior to 5e - much more detail and interesting plot hooks. Don't need them, you can ignore them, but they might be helpful and can give inspiration for plot hooks.

----------


## Mastikator

> I don't know... I get what you're saying, but I want the game to be accessible for everybody, and if somebody makes the effort of buying the core books and wants to run a campaign, I would like to have some pointers (lore) in the MM. Without that, you either oblige DM's to either 1) buy more books or 2) make up everything themselves, which is quite an investment of time, especially for new DM's. For that reason I prefer a default lore in the MM, with setting specific deviations in setting books for those that want that. It's also one of the reasons I consider 3.5 monster books as superior to 5e - much more detail and interesting plot hooks. Don't need them, you can ignore them, but they might be helpful and can give inspiration for plot hooks.


The MM and Volo's did that in spades which is very useful if you're running a campaign in the sword coast. So much so that you don't actually need the sword coast book to run a sword coast adventure, but if you want to run literally anything else, you need the book because the cultural info on races may well be completely wrong or backwards, or you need to read the free wiki page on the internet, or you need to invent it yourself. The MM only achieved the goal of making D&D accessible for the least interesting part of D&D. (which is something I don't like)
If Wotc wants D&D to be accessible and sword coast adventures to be the default/standard then they could just release some free lore on dndbeyond with cultural info on each town and race, geopolitical texts to give DMs some plot ideas. They don't need to invent anything to achieve this, it's already written in great agonizing detail.

The salient point here is that if you want to run something other than sword coast adventures, literally anything else, you really do need the *book on that place.


*sometimes the book can come in form of internet pages with similar info, but usually not written in a way to help players make characters and DMs write campaigns.

----------


## Sigreid

> The MM and Volo's did that in spades which is very useful if you're running a campaign in the sword coast. So much so that you don't actually need the sword coast book to run a sword coast adventure, but if you want to run literally anything else, you need the book because the cultural info on races may well be completely wrong or backwards, or you need to read the free wiki page on the internet, or you need to invent it yourself. The MM only achieved the goal of making D&D accessible for the least interesting part of D&D. (which is something I don't like)
> If Wotc wants D&D to be accessible and sword coast adventures to be the default/standard then they could just release some free lore on dndbeyond with cultural info on each town and race, geopolitical texts to give DMs some plot ideas. They don't need to invent anything to achieve this, it's already written in great agonizing detail.
> 
> The salient point here is that if you want to run something other than sword coast adventures, literally anything else, you really do need the *book on that place.
> 
> 
> *sometimes the book can come in form of internet pages with similar info, but usually not written in a way to help players make characters and DMs write campaigns.


What you're missing in my opinion is that the core books should have enough for a brand new group of players to run a game based only on what's in those books.  Maybe not the most nuanced game, but enough to get rolling.  Part of that is having a default description of how certain races to behave and which ones make for default allies and opponents.  Once your group is familiar with role playing games, that's when you take it off the rails and create something new, unique and interesting.  To expect people to get started without that little nudge is not going to go well.
I think a lot of discussion on this board is colored by this not being the average board poster's first rodeo.

----------


## Mastikator

> What you're missing in my opinion is that the core books should have enough for a brand new group of players to run a game based only on what's in those books.  Maybe not the most nuanced game, but enough to get rolling.  Part of that is having a default description of how certain races to behave and which ones make for default allies and opponents.  Once your group is familiar with role playing games, that's when you take it off the rails and create something new, unique and interesting.  To expect people to get started without that little nudge is not going to go well.
> I think a lot of discussion on this board is colored by this not being the average board poster's first rodeo.


You think it should be a part of the core books. I think it should be in the starter kit. I think the core books should be general and for everyone, I think brand new players should choose the starter kit which should specifically cater to brand new players.

----------


## Sigreid

> You think it should be a part of the core books. I think it should be in the starter kit. I think the core books should be general and for everyone, I think brand new players should choose the starter kit which should specifically cater to brand new players.


The core books are and always have been for everyone.  The 1e DMG has whole sections on breaking away from the default and building your own world/flavor.  The current one dies too.  Doesn't mean they shouldn't have the heavy lifting done for those willing to run with a default.

----------


## Unoriginal

> The MM and Volo's did that in spades which is very useful if you're running a campaign in the sword coast. So much so that you don't actually need the sword coast book to run a sword coast adventure, but if you want to run literally anything else, you need the book because the cultural info on races may well be completely wrong or backwards, or you need to read the free wiki page on the internet, or you need to invent it yourself. The MM only achieved the goal of making D&D accessible for the least interesting part of D&D. (which is something I don't like)
> If Wotc wants D&D to be accessible and sword coast adventures to be the default/standard then they could just release some free lore on dndbeyond with cultural info on each town and race, geopolitical texts to give DMs some plot ideas. They don't need to invent anything to achieve this, it's already written in great agonizing detail.
> 
> The salient point here is that if you want to run something other than sword coast adventures, literally anything else, you really do need the *book on that place.
> 
> 
> *sometimes the book can come in form of internet pages with similar info, but usually not written in a way to help players make characters and DMs write campaigns.


Neither the MM nor the Volo's cover anything enough to have Sword Coast (Or Faerun, or Toril) adventures.

The lore of the MM and PHB is the for D&D 5e's default setting, which directly contradict how things are in the Forgotten Realms in many, many ways.

IMO, D&D needs to have its own core identity, even when things are different in some settings. Heck,the fact that things are different depending on the setting IS part of the identity, with the characters able to notice and comment on how X is not the same as in their homeworld, if they start moving around or meet those who do.


And it's not like the Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse showcases no cultural lore for the peoples it describes. There is still universalising (or MULTIversalising, even) cultural lore, it's just way less lore per entry, period.

And that is a problem. We shouldn't have less. If you don't want to provide the same infos as before, fine, but the devs could have easily added an "in combat, creature with this statblock tends to do X, and out of combat they tend to do Y" section.

----------


## Sulicius

Overall the quality does not seem to have decreased. 

For people on forums it is easy to focus on the few things that werent great, especially on superficial things like lore or specific player facing options like the hexblade. 

The team has made their books with clear goals and constraints. Some goals were clearly influenced by the sales department, but thats how it goes.

Tashas was genuinely a good book. The feats published here were useful and flavorful, the subclasses were diverse and they even made patches in the optional class features. These optional class features GREATLY improved the quality of play, mostly by allowing pcs to change options they chose before. Before this was not possible without asking the DM for permission. Its not that different now, since the whole book is optional, but at least it gives clear rules on how to do this. Of Tashas I was personally most disappointed with the puzzles and the parlaying with monsters rules. The puzzles are very contrived, but maybe thats just what puzzles are. Parlaying with monsters is just a couple of tables. It works, but I expected more. Patron rules are great, sidekick rules are alright. I loved the tables for supernatural regions, and I have gotten to use them to great effect. Yes, the cleric subclasses are near broken, but that is such a small bit of the whole book. Then theres the rules for flexible ability bonuses. I dont notice a difference to the game using these rules.

Then came Van Richtens. This one I love. It has everything I wanted to run scary adventures, possibly in the domains of dread. The monsters mostly pack a punch, and the guide for players in horror adventures is very well written. The subclasses and races are alright. The guide on how to make a dark lord is great for making villains in any setting. I have not gotten the chance to use all the different domains, but they are very useful starting points for campaigns, and quite inspiring. 

Then comes Wild Beyond the Witchlight. From what Ive heard, it is a tight adventure that has a lighter tone. A good option after all of the grim adventures we had so far. My personal gripe is a pc background that for some reason is already part of the carnival that does NOT gel with the campaign hook at all. How can you be eagerly awaiting the carnival for your quest, but also work there? The DM then has to change the adventure before it even starts. Not that big of a problem. I wish my players wanted to play this.

Then came Fizbans. If you are a DM who wants more inspiration on dragons and wants to make a campaign centered on dragons, this is your book. Great building blocks for campaigns and quests, giving personality to dragons and giving dragon-themed options to players. None of this is broken or too weak. Except for of course the Greatwyrms, who hit like wet noodles, but thats a systemic CR problem. I have gotten amazing use out of everything in here. I dont care much for canon, so this is a good book from my experience.

Then came Strixhaven, which isnt my jam. I have heard mixed reviews to the adventure, and Silvery Barbs. Cant say it is a good book, but neither can I say it is bad.

Then came MP:MotM, which was a whole situation. Changes to the races that rubbed people wrong, the counterspell cult was enraged and our protectors of lore screamed 1984. I think overall it was a good attempt at consolidating player options and updated monsters from many different sources. Overall I see this book as a step in the right direction, but not necessarily one of great quality.

Then came the Critical Role adventure, which I know even less about. As a DM the idea of running a whole adventuring party alongside the players is a nightmare. Could be a good adventure, the art is great.

Then the new starter set! All I heard is that the adventure is good.

Then Spelljammer, which was something I was hyped about, and wanted to run. From what I heard, it was not featuring the tools to make a great Spelljamming campaign that I was looking for. I also heard the adventure might be so-so. But was the quality bad? Lots of errata within a short time, so maybe not?

I dont really see a trend. 

Oh, and the Theros book was released before Tashas. Its great.

----------


## Psyren

> What you're missing in my opinion is that the core books should have enough for a brand new group of players to run a game based only on what's in those books.  Maybe not the most nuanced game, but enough to get rolling.  Part of that is having a default description of how certain races to behave and which ones make for default allies and opponents.  Once your group is familiar with role playing games, that's when you take it off the rails and create something new, unique and interesting.  To expect people to get started without that little nudge is not going to go well.
> I think a lot of discussion on this board is colored by this not being the average board poster's first rodeo.


Race qualities and behaviors are in the updated descriptions. Even in the Character Origins UA, each race includes an "X of Many Worlds" section that is pure descriptive fluff, and the UA is undoubtedly more slimmed down than the final rulebook will be.

"Default allies and opponents" belongs in a setting book. Saying something like elves distrust dwarves and dwarves hate giants makes absolutely no sense for some settings, even published ones, never mind what a DM might end up doing with their customized one.

----------


## Keltest

> Race qualities and behaviors are in the updated descriptions. Even in the Character Origins UA, each race includes an "X of Many Worlds" section that is pure descriptive fluff, and the UA is undoubtedly more slimmed down than the final rulebook will be.
> 
> "Default allies and opponents" belongs in a setting book. Saying something like elves distrust dwarves and dwarves hate giants makes absolutely no sense for some settings, even published ones, never mind what a DM might end up doing with their customized one.


Ok, but that doesnt address the argument at all. The core rules are supposed to be everything you need to play fully realized D&D, but a setting is part of that too, so why are you arguing that the core rules should exclude a setting? There are some settings where having elves or orcs or even humans doesnt make sense. Should they also not be in the core rules?

----------


## Psyren

> Ok, but that doesnt address the argument at all. The core rules are supposed to be everything you need to play fully realized D&D, but a setting is part of that too, so why are you arguing that the core rules should exclude a setting? There are some settings where having elves or orcs or even humans doesnt make sense. Should they also not be in the core rules?


1) Which published setting is that?

2) You don't need a "fully realized setting" to play D&D. Consider the Starter sets, most of them take place on Generic Island or Generic Mountain Village that can (and indeed are designed to) fit literally anywhere.

----------


## Keltest

> 1) Which published setting is that?
> 
> 2) You don't need a "fully realized setting" to play D&D. Consider the Starter sets, most of them take place on Generic Island or Generic Mountain Village that can (and indeed are designed to) fit literally anywhere.


For example, there are no orcs in Dragonlance. They just dont exist in the setting. I suppose the is technically straining the definition of "published" since it wont formally be release for 5e for a bit yet, but its there.


And sure, you dont "need" the core rules, but thats not the point, and I dont know why you keep bringing up the starter sets. Its like complaining about a fancy restaurant that doesnt give you plates, and responding that you dont need a plate to eat McDonalds fries.

----------


## Psyren

> For example, there are no orcs in Dragonlance. They just dont exist in the setting.  I suppose the is technically straining the definition of "published" since it wont formally be release for 5e for a bit yet, but its there.


Incorrect; they're not from Ansalon, but they exist on Krynn. The _Kendermore_ novel _from 1989_ contains a half-orc character named Denzil, and Hickman also mentions orcs in the annotated Winter Night Chronicle from 2002. They exist. Got another example?




> And sure, you dont "need" the core rules, but thats not the point, and I dont know why you keep bringing up the starter sets. Its like complaining about a fancy restaurant that doesnt give you plates, and responding that you dont need a plate to eat McDonalds fries.


Because *you* keep repeating falsehoods like "you need a fully realized setting to play D&D." Are Starter Sets not D&D? Are they not playable? Do you see the repeated faults in your logic?

----------


## Sigreid

> Incorrect; they're not from Ansalon, but they exist on Krynn. The _Kendermore_ novel _from 1989_ contains a half-orc character named Denzil, and Hickman also mentions orcs in the annotated Winter Night Chronicle from 2002. They exist. Got another example?
> 
> 
> 
> Because *you* keep repeating falsehoods like "you need a fully realized setting to play D&D." Are Starter Sets not D&D? Are they not playable? Do you see the repeated faults in your logic?


I don't think anyone is saying the core books should be a fully fleshed setting.  That's way different than "this is what these guys are like".  I'd bet a good portion of starting groups start with a loose collection of goblin caves, orc rading parties, etc.  Settings are something lots of people build up to.

----------


## JadedDM

> Incorrect; they're not from Ansalon, but they exist on Krynn. The _Kendermore_ novel _from 1989_ contains a half-orc character named Denzil, and Hickman also mentions orcs in the annotated Winter Night Chronicle from 2002. They exist. Got another example?


The novel _Kendermore_ also claims Flint Fireforge, Hero of the Lance, is a mountain dwarf.  Flint is a hill dwarf (Neidar), and canonically hates mountain dwarves.  Overall, that book is not considered canonical because of such errors.  There's lots of early installment weirdness in the first few DL novels because it was written by dozens of different authors with no real communication between them.

Hickman and Weis have both claimed that orcs do not exist on Krynn, largely because they felt they were too Tolkien-esque and wanted to create something unique with the setting.

I know that nowadays most people just think of Orcs as this staple of D&D, but back in the early 80s when Dragonlance was first released, Orcs were very much associated with Tolkien and his works, as were Halflings.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

I personally enjoy flipping through Volo's and reading all the lore on the various monsters.

Lore tying everything to the multiverse strikes me as contrived, and lore that's basically like... "they're just like you and me but with pointy ears" is totally pointless. The lore for orcs in Volo's is FAR SUPERIOR to the lore for orcs in MPMM, as an example. You can replace "Gruumsh" with "Moradin" and "orc" with "dwarf" and you'd never know something was amiss (minus the reference to an ACTUAL bit of lore in Eberron). Super lame, lazy, and valueless.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I personally enjoy flipping through Volo's and reading all the lore on the various monsters.
> 
> Lore tying everything to the multiverse strikes me as contrived, and lore that's basically like... "they're just like you and me but with pointy ears" is totally pointless. The lore for orcs in Volo's is FAR SUPERIOR to the lore for orcs in MPMM, as an example. You can replace "Gruumsh" with "Moradin" and "orc" with "dwarf" and you'd never know something was amiss (minus the reference to an ACTUAL bit of lore in Eberron). Super lame, lazy, and valueless.


I agree. The "current, multiversal" lore combines both the utter bland non-statements of a "generic" (lore-less) system AND the hard-edged, forced homogeneity of a more defined-setting system.

Personally, the introduction of a multiverse into any form of fiction is usually the sign of a cash grab and a strong indicator that quality will decrease substantially. When coupled with sensitivity readers, it's a glaring red flag. In this case, you force all orcs/elves/etc everywhere to be identical except for some cosmetic details (that can't actually tie into the race's origin or nature themselves for fear of offending anyone); all settings must have the same set of cosmological factors, gods, planar forces, spells, even _dragons_ must be shared across all universes. And then they don't provide anything more than just the bare-bones of actual grounding for this--you have the restrictive nature of prescribed similarity, but then only the mechanical framework and the most banal metaphysics possible. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too--present a "uniform setting" _without actually doing the hard work of creating a coherent setting_ while also pretending to allow full flexibility but are actually just being lazy and avoiding offense by not providing anything to build on.

They should either double down on the whole "shared universe" and make an actual setting (like Shadowrun or even Pathfinder did) and build all their stuff for that OR throw off the guise and make an actual generic system with pluggable places for setting designers to plug in settings that can have actual meaningful differences.

No, Eberron (in 5e at least) isn't actually different from FR. It's FR, magitech edition. Dragonlance? Same thing. Same concepts, same structure and core, just different coat of paint. Spelljammer? Yup, FR in space (badly). Or rather, not _FR_, but "generic MtG setting #123473".

By trying to be all things to all people, it becomes nothing to no one.

----------


## Psyren

> I don't think anyone is saying the core books should be a fully fleshed setting.  That's way different than "this is what these guys are like".  I'd bet a good portion of starting groups start with a loose collection of goblin caves, orc rading parties, etc.  Settings are something lots of people build up to.


The core books _do_ allow for "a loose collection goblin caves, orc raiding parties, leading up to a setting." But that's exactly my point, you can play D&D just fine while leading up to that, contrary to Keltest's statement above.




> The novel _Kendermore_ also claims Flint Fireforge, Hero of the Lance, is a mountain dwarf.  Flint is a hill dwarf (Neidar), and canonically hates mountain dwarves.  Overall, that book is not considered canonical because of such errors.  There's lots of early installment weirdness in the first few DL novels because it was written by dozens of different authors with no real communication between them.
> 
> Hickman and Weis have both claimed that orcs do not exist on Krynn, largely because they felt they were too Tolkien-esque and wanted to create something unique with the setting.
> 
> I know that nowadays most people just think of Orcs as this staple of D&D, but back in the early 80s when Dragonlance was first released, Orcs were very much associated with Tolkien and his works, as were Halflings.


1) I get that's how Orcs were seen in the 80s, but shocker of shockers, the 80s were nearly half a century ago at this point. They admit most of their distaste comes from Orcs being overused due to Tolkien being one of the only other recognizable settings in other media at that point, and a chunk of the rest from the horribly dated Rankin-Bass cartoon that barely anyone even remembers. Modern D&D orcs bear no resemblance to either of these influences.

2) Even if I did for some reason lose my marbles and start caring which books "fans" consider to be canon and which they don't, retconning something back in that was originally retconned out is very different than just making something up. From where I sit, it's more than enough rationale for the holders of the IP to be justified in such a move.

----------


## Witty Username

Define FR? Sure it is short hand for Forgotten  Realms, but what does that mean as a setting? In 5e, it means D&D, and as far as I can tell has no traits beyond that, anything can look like FR in 5e, Lord of the Rings, looks like FR but Tolkien.

FR is a setting I remember fondly from AD&D and 3.5, but I see none of it in 5e, apart from names I recognize. 

On the other hand, Eberron looks like Eberron, it has the lore and narrative tension I remember. The Delkyr are different but also familiar, and more fleshed out, their boss monsters with identities, as opposed to a generic aberration that crossed the Bushonen line. The Last War is still a core part of the history and more importantly current events of the world. The High elf, wood elf split makes little sense (it works but you have to squint at it) as their wasn't a race distinction in the previous settings books, but elves were less codified in the PHB in 3.5, so it didn't have to tie anything back to 5e subrace system.

Spelljammer 5e looks not alot like Spelljammer AD&D, but it has some rhyme, it looks like no version of FR that I am aware of.

----------


## Segev

For a multiverse-as-setting default, they could use a combination of spelljammer and planescape lore to define the default lore of creatures, and then note, as they usually do, that variations are vast across the multiverse even though these defaults are what most planar and phlostigon travelers will expect due to the weight of past experience.

----------


## hiptobecubic

Some of the posts here seem to be spectacularly missing the point that the complainers (incl me) have about "problematic" content, to the level where I'm unable to tell if it's serious.

Making the world easy to understand by stereotyping people based on their heritage and not their actions/feelings rubs people the wrong way. Doing it specifically for the sake of making it easier for children and thoughtless adults to justify what would otherwise be easily recognized as evil, heinous behavior makes *worse*, not better. Doing it in a way that mirrors real life negative stereotypes is *even worse*, not "easier to digest and therefore better." If you think people don't internalize this stuff and that we're introducing these topics to them through D&D and ruining their innocence, I have really bad news for you, but even without that, there's still the problem of all the people who are turned away by it. It adds basically nothing unique or irreplaceable and hurts vibes. Why on Earth should WotC keep it?

If you really want things to be simple and not worry too much, just make "evil races" be actual bad people that do bad things that the party wants to stop. It's easy. The tools are right there. It just has to be *possible* for these people not to have been bad. Easy peasy. If your plot hinges on the idea that "evil is who you are, not what you do" without acknowledging the obvious problems with that then it's a bad plot. There's a reason we called them "lawful stupid." Doing "good" things badly might satisfy some god or another, but doesn't make you Good in the "selfless protection of those who need it" sense.

It's inconceivable to me that:

"Hi I'm Theodore! I'm a knight sent by the god of life and love that wants to mindlessly exterminate the filthy <RACE>, because I hate them. I'm lawful good,"

is ok for kids but

"Hi I'm Vaalsh! I'm an outcast Mindflayer that is trying to use my skills to become a brain surgeon, because I'm a smart dude and that's a challenging goal. Someday i will prove myself by curing the king's Parkinson's disease. I'm lawful good,"

hurts the game and confuses everyone.

----------


## Segev

> Some of the posts here seem to be spectacularly missing the point that the complainers (incl me) have about "problematic" content, to the level where I'm unable to tell if it's serious.
> 
> Making the world easy to understand by stereotyping people based on their heritage and not their actions/feelings rubs people the wrong way. Doing it specifically for the sake of making it easier for children and thoughtless adults to justify what would otherwise be easily recognized as evil, heinous behavior makes *worse*, not better. Doing it in a way that mirrors real life negative stereotypes is *even worse*, not "easier to digest and therefore better." If you think people don't internalize this stuff and that we're introducing these topics to them through D&D and ruining their innocence, I have really bad news for you, but even without that, there's still the problem of all the people who are turned away by it. It adds basically nothing unique or irreplaceable and hurts vibes. Why on Earth should WotC keep it?
> 
> If you really want things to be simple and not worry too much, just make "evil races" be actual bad people that do bad things that the party wants to stop. It's easy. The tools are right there. It just has to be *possible* for these people not to have been bad. Easy peasy. If your plot hinges on the idea that "evil is who you are, not what you do" without acknowledging the obvious problems with that then it's a bad plot. There's a reason we called them "lawful stupid." Doing "good" things badly might satisfy some god or another, but doesn't make you Good in the "selfless protection of those who need it" sense.
> 
> It's inconceivable to me that:
> 
> "Hi I'm Theodore! I'm a knight sent by the god of life and love that wants to mindlessly exterminate the filthy <RACE>, because I hate them. I'm lawful good,"
> ...


Part of the problem is that you're ascribing motives and statements to people who haven't made them. The issue isn't that it's okay/desirable to have real-world stereotypes about real-world peoples being applied to fantasy races. The issue is that it simply isn't the case. For every "savage orc" there's a "noble savage" human tribe. The human tribes just don't get fought as much _because they're not inherently evil_ and thus not attacking good and innocent folk. 

I think it a fair question to ask: if you believe that orcs are a problematic stereotype, who are they a problematic stereotype of? What about gnolls? Goblins? Kobolds? Drow? These cultural traits and god-imposed properties that make them predisposed towards evil - who do they remind you of that you think it's "problematic?" And if it's not the bad/evil/unacceptable behaviors that make the associations in your mind, what DO make those associations? Because I'll be honest: drow, orcs, kobolds, goblins, etc. don't inherently remind me of any particular "race" of human in the real world, historically or modern. Neither to elves or dwarves or gnomes or halflings or dragonborn or other PCable races.

*"The Clock King is obsessed with punctuality! This is obviously unfairly stigmatizing teachers as villains!" is the level of ridiculousness I am seeing here.*

----------


## Dr.Samurai

Ah, another post calling people names and accusing them of causing great harm with absolutely ZERO evidence to support it. Nice.

Frankly, there just simply isn't enough provided to justify these changes. That SOME people have complained online, because they are interpreting lore in a certain way, claiming damages on behalf of other people and SOME anecdotal evidence... it's like... okay, noted. It's certainly not a reason to redefine D&D lore, or attack the fans of the game as "thoughtless" and accuse them of perpetuating harm that no one can ever clearly point to or define.




> Some of the posts here seem to be spectacularly missing the point that the complainers (incl me) have about "problematic" content, to the level where I'm unable to tell if it's serious.


Welcome to the party pal. It's hard to know if all of the "concern" and hand-wringing over fictional creatures in a fantasy world is supposed to be taken seriously as well. But here we are.

----------


## Sigreid

> Part of the problem is that you're ascribing motives and statements to people who haven't made them. The issue isn't that it's okay/desirable to have real-world stereotypes about real-world peoples being applied to fantasy races. The issue is that it simply isn't the case. For every "savage orc" there's a "noble savage" human tribe. The human tribes just don't get fought as much _because they're not inherently evil_ and thus not attacking good and innocent folk. 
> 
> I think it a fair question to ask: if you believe that orcs are a problematic stereotype, who are they a problematic stereotype of? What about gnolls? Goblins? Kobolds? Drow? These cultural traits and god-imposed properties that make them predisposed towards evil - who do they remind you of that you think it's "problematic?" And if it's not the bad/evil/unacceptable behaviors that make the associations in your mind, what DO make those associations? Because I'll be honest: drow, orcs, kobolds, goblins, etc. don't inherently remind me of any particular "race" of human in the real world, historically or modern. Neither to elves or dwarves or gnomes or halflings or dragonborn or other PCable races.
> 
> *"The Clock King is obsessed with punctuality! This is obviously unfairly stigmatizing teachers as villains!" is the level of ridiculousness I am seeing here.*


Agreed.  I'd extend it to say that the point of having fantasy races is that they DON'T correlate to any real world people.  That's why we were able to happily play for 40 or so years without anyone ever thinking Orcs = x group of people.  And frankly, every time I hear someone make the argument that that correlation is there I think it's insane.

----------


## Xervous

> Agreed.  I'd extend it to say that the point of having fantasy races is that they DON'T correlate to any real world people.  That's why we were able to happily play for 40 or so years without anyone ever thinking Orcs = x group of people.  And frankly, every time I hear someone make the argument that that correlation is there I think it's insane.


As Ive seen it discussed, the position is not so much that the correlation is there, but that the patterns used match troubling real world statements. The mere possibility that people observe these parallels and be subjected to emotional distress outweighs most potential benefits of employing said patterns.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

Therein lies the fundamental divide. Some people take at face value that emotional distress is being experienced, and do not question whether its reasonable for that distress to occur and if there is another way to remove that distress (such as in building the person up that is experiencing the distress so that they no longer feel it). In addition, some people believe that the "mere possibility" of this "distress" is enough to justify overhauling the lore that everyone else consumes, and do not question if this is an appropriate response, an overreaction, to what degree it is necessary, etc.

It's just different perspectives and different approaches. The irony of course is that the people concerned about "evil races" generally have no problem labeling their detractors as evil. Funny how that works  :Small Amused: .

----------


## Psyren

Can we stop talking about real-world anything? We ALL know where that will lead.

What I'm focusing on is what elements of the game belong in core and which belong in campaign setting books and modules - that's it. "Dwarves hate goblins" is at best an archaic holdover from their relations to one another in the Middle-Earth setting and at worst completely arbitrary, neither of which justify such an element being in core. Such a conflict isn't a necessary or iconic component for either race in modern D&D.

----------


## Sigreid

> Can we stop talking about real-world anything? We ALL know where that will lead.
> 
> What I'm focusing on is what elements of the game belong in core and which belong in campaign setting books and modules - that's it. "Dwarves hate goblins" is at best an archaic holdover from their relations to one another in the Middle-Earth setting and at worst completely arbitrary, neither of which justify such an element being in core. Such a conflict isn't a necessary or iconic component for either race in modern D&D.


In your opinion.  Others have different opinions.

----------


## Psyren

> In your opinion.  Others have different opinions.


Thanks, in 11 pages of bickering I missed that somehow  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Sigreid

> Thanks, in 11 pages of bickering I missed that somehow


You seemed to when you stated it like an obvious fact beyond contestation. :P

----------


## Segev

> The mere possibility that people observe these parallels and be subjected to emotional distress outweighs most potential benefits of employing said patterns.


I do not think I can respond to this without violating forum rules, so I'll instead simply say that I disagree with the assertion that one group's potential and hypothetical emotional distress outweighs that of another's. D&D is being diminished by the removal of lore. It is bad for the game. And it is disingenuous to sell a monster manual full of monsters that allegedly have no lore but still have abilities that predicate on that lore. Why do goblins have bonus action disengage and hide when the very notion that they are habitually cowardly is verboten to share? And if that's not verboten, why not? Where does the line get drawn? The implied default setting of D&D has always been there, even when it was not so specific as to be  Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. It is simply not possible to have a coherent design scheme without that implication.

----------


## Psyren

> I do not think I can respond to this without violating forum rules, so I'll instead simply say that I disagree with the assertion that one group's potential and hypothetical emotional distress outweighs that of another's. D&D is being diminished by the removal of lore. It is bad for the game. And it is disingenuous to sell a monster manual full of monsters that allegedly have no lore but still have abilities that predicate on that lore. Why do goblins have bonus action disengage and hide when the very notion that they are habitually cowardly is verboten to share? And if that's not verboten, why not? Where does the line get drawn? The implied default setting of D&D has always been there, even when it was not so specific as to be  Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. It is simply not possible to have a coherent design scheme without that implication.


Your belief that specific mechanics are predicated on only one possible lore expression is flawed. Why do Bonus Action Hide and Disengage mean you have to be _cowardly?_ Are all Rogues cowards? All monks, especially Drunken Masters? Does casting the Haste spell make you into a coward? That lore you're clinging to falls apart with even a modicum of reason applied to it.

And even focusing just on goblins, that lore still doesn't make sense. Eberron Goblins certainly aren't cowards, and neither are Ravnican ones. And all of the above is without considering that PCs are heroes anyway, so even if for some odd reason WotC wanted to instill racial cowardice into goblins, it would be completely irrelevant to a player anyway - they get to choose whether their character is brave or cowardly, not a monster entry. At best it's a straitjacket and at worst it's nonsense.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

None of that matters.

There has to be SOME explanation for why goblins are better suited to retreating/escaping/hiding from others. And whatever that is, we've already established that the mere possibility of offending someone requires we get rid of it.

So good luck with that.

----------


## Psyren

> None of that matters.
> 
> There has to be SOME explanation for why goblins are better suited to retreating/escaping/hiding from others. And whatever that is, we've already established that the mere possibility of offending someone requires we get rid of it.
> 
> So good luck with that.


I don't need luck, I read the explanation WotC provided. _"Early Goblins thrived in the dangerous fey domain of the Queen of Air and Darkness thanks to a special boon from her - a supernatural knack for finding the weak spots in foes larger than themselves and getting out of trouble. They brought this fey boon with them across worlds to the Material Plane."_ Boom, done, no cowardice needed.

----------


## Witty Username

> Therein lies the fundamental divide. Some people take at face value that emotional distress is being experienced, and do not question whether its reasonable for that distress to occur and if there is another way to remove that distress (such as in building the person up that is experiencing the distress so that they no longer feel it). In addition, some people believe that the "mere possibility" of this "distress" is enough to justify overhauling the lore that everyone else consumes, and do not question if this is an appropriate response, an overreaction, to what degree it is necessary, etc.
> 
> It's just different perspectives and different approaches. The irony of course is that the people concerned about "evil races" generally have no problem labeling their detractors as evil. Funny how that works .


There is also the disagreement on how much this affects the game.
Like is +2 dex really a thing that makes elves stand out from the rest of the races anyway? Some seem to think that the removal of ability bonuses from races removed all distinction from them, this both implies they add distinction and races have no other distinguishing traits.

Like take a look at this array:
Str 5, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 17, Wis 14, Cha 14
At a glance, what race is this?

How about a more obvious one,
Str 10, Dex 17, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 20, Cha 12
Which one is this?

Two more characters from my notebook:
One: Str 12, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 11, Wis 12 Cha 22
Two: Str 12, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 16, Wis 15, Cha 15

Can you glean any thing from this other than that I use rolled stats, and one of these characters found a book once? I am genuinely curious.
Note: all of these characters were made Pre-Tasha's

----------


## Segev

> I don't need luck, I read the explanation WotC provided. _"Early Goblins thrived in the dangerous fey domain of the Queen of Air and Darkness thanks to a special boon from her - a supernatural knack for finding the weak spots in foes larger than themselves and getting out of trouble. They brought this fey boon with them across worlds to the Material Plane."_ Boom, done, no cowardice needed.


How dare they risk offending those who view the fey as friendly with this slander of the Queen of Air and Darkness having a dangerous domain!? This causes me emotional distress as it attacks my heritage and spreads negative stereotypes about my people! It's so problematic; I demand it be removed!

----------


## Psyren

> those who view the fey as friendly


 :Small Big Grin:  :Small Big Grin:  :Small Big Grin:  :Small Big Grin:  :Small Big Grin: 

Pull the other one!

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I don't need luck, I read the explanation WotC provided.


The luck is not for you finding an explanation. It's for the explanation not offending anyone.

"Finding a weak spot" is still a penchant for violence. Not only violence, sneaky violence. It's still offensive and demeaning and a negative stereotype... if you choose to see it that way. Saying that goblins come from dangerous locales and so they have a knack for getting out of trouble isn't made much better by saying "a faerie did it". 

Remember, the orc feature Aggressive was turned to Adrenaline Rush because "aggression" is seen as an offensive trait, despite the fact that we're playing a game where adventurers wander into unknown locales and kill monsters and fight bad guys. Meanwhile, you can easily say _"Early Orcs thrived in the dangerous places of the word, overseen by Gruumsh, thanks to a boon from him  - a powerful build, and an aggressive attitude to preempt the threats all around them. They brought this mighty boon with them across worlds to the Material Plane."_

In other words, it's just words on a page and anyone can read it anyway they want. Hence why this endeavor is doomed to fail from the start.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> But tying _all dwarves everywhere_ to one specific deity and then claiming that they're stripping all of the cultural stuff? That's just a lie. Who a race worships and is beholden to (literally!) is a massive influence on cultures.


 And there is a limit on how deep we can delve into that absurdity - based on forum rules. 



> Origins shape culture. Thus, origin lore _is_ cultural lore.


 From The Hero of A Thousand Faces: _A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man._ The primary world / secondary world structure described in a different way.  In this  model, I see no place for edge lords, but I do see a place for the Grey Mouser. 



> Which I have no issue with, my issue is the notion that you can shift cultural things to god-given things/connections to gods, and expect those to be just dandy in settings where the gods don't act the same, if they're even there.





> There's no good reason for that, it's just because the author tried to mask that they were ripping off hobbits and the mechanical execution leaves you with two hobbit-descendants.


 Also called bad writing.  But as these were some of the first D&D novels (Quag Keep preceded them) a lot of us were quite forgiving.  



> And for some tables we got usable summon spells out of the deal.


 Tasha's also gave us magical tattoos as a magic item that I have found to be a nice insert into our campaigns. 


> the game is better balanced since Tasha's came out, not worse.


 We differ on that. 



> I think a lot of discussion on this board is colored by this not being the average board poster's first rodeo.


 It's like instructors talking about the nuances of flying versus those trying to get their PPL.  


> optional class features GREATLY improved the quality of play, mostly by allowing pcs to change options they chose before.


 But you always need to work with you DM. ALWAYS. 



> Then came Strixhaven, which isnt my jam.


 It's off of my approved list. 




> Then came MP:MotM, which was a whole situation. Changes to the races that rubbed people wrong, the _counterspell cult_ was enraged and our protectors of lore screamed 1984. I think overall it was a good attempt at consolidating player options and updated monsters from many different sources. Overall I see this book as a step in the right direction, but not necessarily one of great quality.


 That's not civil. 




> Then the new starter set! All I heard is that the adventure is good.


 Icewind Peak? Yes, it's a good starter adventure. 


> Oh, and the Theros book was released before Tashas. Its great.


 It's good, but I nixed centaur as a PC race. 



> And whatever that is, we've already established that the mere possibility of offending someone requires we get rid of it.


 If you get rid of the goblin, won't you be accused of goblincide?  :Small Confused:

----------


## Psyren

> The luck is not for you finding an explanation. It's for the explanation not offending anyone.


If the Queen of Air and Darkness unseelie fey lobby starts to protest, I'll be sure to let you know. As far as I know, she and her court are not PCs.




> Remember, the orc feature Aggressive was turned to Adrenaline Rush because "aggression" is seen as an offensive trait, despite the fact that we're playing a game where adventurers wander into unknown locales and kill monsters and fight bad guys.


Because _players_ don't have to be aggressive! 

Let me try one more time to break this down for you. It's not about "offending" or "avoiding offending" or whatever other paper tiger you think the devs are shrinking from. It's about prescribing _one specific way to roleplay a playable race_ being bad. Orcs can still be aggressive and bold and combative. They can also be submissive, pacifist, sedentary and shy. *YOU* as the player have the choice of how to roleplay *YOUR* character, not a loaded word in some feature that was chosen for you. That's it. If you still see a problem with that, feel free to mentally sub words like "aggressive" into whatever feature you think should have them, and the rest of us will happily move on with our lives.

----------


## Mastikator

> The luck is not for you finding an explanation. It's for the explanation not offending anyone.
> 
> "Finding a weak spot" is still a penchant for violence. Not only violence, sneaky violence. It's still offensive and demeaning and a negative stereotype... if you choose to see it that way. Saying that goblins come from dangerous locales and so they have a knack for getting out of trouble isn't made much better by saying "a faerie did it". 
> 
> Remember, the orc feature Aggressive was turned to Adrenaline Rush because "aggression" is seen as an offensive trait, despite the fact that we're playing a game where adventurers wander into unknown locales and kill monsters and fight bad guys. Meanwhile, you can easily say _"Early Orcs thrived in the dangerous places of the word, overseen by Gruumsh, thanks to a boon from him  - a powerful build, and an aggressive attitude to preempt the threats all around them. They brought this mighty boon with them across worlds to the Material Plane."_
> 
> In other words, it's just words on a page and anyone can read it anyway they want. Hence why this endeavor is doomed to fail from the start.


Speaking of making claims without evidence. Is there any evidence that Aggressive was replaced with Adrenaline Rush because it was seen as an offensive trait? To me at least it seems more likely it was changed because Aggressive was a lazy and limited trait that constrained the imagination of the player unnecessarily.

Opening up possibilities for players to try out different things isn't so much about "offensiveness" but about "inclusivity". Which is what the catchphrase "D&D is for everyone" is about. Which also leads to broader market appeal and thus selling more books to more people.
Inclusivity is just good business.

----------


## Tanarii

I want non-playable Bad Guy races to be non-playable Bad Guy races. I don't care what the justification is. Default Bad Guy Races has inestimable value to new DMs and Players, especially for the races everyone already knows are Bad Guy Races from years of exposure to both other gaming and other media.

If some later splat comes along and let's those non-playable Bad Guy races be playable, that's fine. Then the player can either work with the DM to explain why they're one of the exceptions (because as the PHB and MM makes crystal clear in the original printing, no race is actually an All Are Always Bad Guys), or the DM can run a Bad Guys campaign.  IMX players much prefer the latter when they want to play Bad Guy Races.

And of course the DM can change the lore entirely as usual.

----------


## Sigreid

> If the Queen of Air and Darkness unseelie fey lobby starts to protest, I'll be sure to let you know. As far as I know, she and her court are not PCs.
> 
> 
> 
> Because _players_ don't have to be aggressive! 
> 
> Let me try one more time to break this down for you. It's not about "offending" or "avoiding offending" or whatever other paper tiger you think the devs are shrinking from. It's about prescribing _one specific way to roleplay a playable race_ being bad. Orcs can still be aggressive and bold and combative. They can also be submissive, pacifist, sedentary and shy. *YOU* as the player have the choice of how to roleplay *YOUR* character, not a loaded word in some feature that was chosen for you. That's it. If you still see a problem with that, feel free to mentally sub words like "aggressive" into whatever feature you think should have them, and the rest of us will happily move on with our lives.


No player choice has been taken away.  They made the choice to play a given race with any/all associated baggage when they selected the race.  It's part of why everyone isn't just human.

----------


## Psyren

> No player choice has been taken away.  They made the choice to play a given race with any/all associated baggage when they selected the race.  It's part of why everyone isn't just human.


If you want races to have "baggage" at your table, nothing is stopping you. I prefer origins and features.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> If the Queen of Air and Darkness unseelie fey lobby starts to protest, I'll be sure to let you know. As far as I know, she and her court are not PCs.


No idea what you're getting at here but entirely not the point.

And let's be clear... offense-taking is ENTIRELY the point of all of this. Any article or statement you read on these changes is entirely about making sure complainers are mollified. This concept about "choice" is a completely post hoc fabrication, and that's obvious because anyone could always have chosen to play a different type of character despite their race. See one billion Drizz't clones. See all of the orcs and half-orcs I have played. See a gazillion examples that exist, long before you or anyone else thought WotC should do anything to the game, of people choosing an evil race and deciding "but I'll be different". 



> Because _players_ don't have to be aggressive! 
> 
> Let me try one more time to break this down for you. It's not about "offending" or "avoiding offending" or whatever other paper tiger you think the devs are shrinking from. It's about prescribing _one specific way to roleplay a playable race_ being bad. Orcs can still be aggressive and bold and combative. They can also be submissive, pacifist, sedentary and shy. *YOU* as the player have the choice of how to roleplay *YOUR* character, not a loaded word in some feature that was chosen for you. That's it. If you still see a problem with that, feel free to mentally sub words like "aggressive" into whatever feature you think should have them, and the rest of us will happily move on with our lives.


You're just arguing against lore that you don't like. There is nothing here that can't be said about the new direction. The more and more that you dig into this argument to make a point, the clearer it is that there's actually no bedrock to be found underneath. I can play a Volo's Orc with the Aggressive feature and still play a "submissive, pacifist, sedentary and shy" orc. Nothing has changed except some wording has changed on behalf of some people's "vibes". 

BTW, an Adrenaline Rush is a fight or flight response to stressors and danger. You use it in combat. With monsters and bad guys. Assuming that you will be engaging monsters more often than running away, this is exactly an "aggressive" response to enemies. So, one more time, it's just wording. It's just people getting hung up on wording because THEY interpret it a certain way.



> Opening up possibilities for players to try out different things isn't so much about "offensiveness" but about "inclusivity". Which is what the catchphrase "D&D is for everyone" is about. Which also leads to broader market appeal and thus selling more books to more people.
> Inclusivity is just good business.


D&D has always been for everyone. And the notion that this is "more" inclusive is mistaken. You're removing lore that some people like, to validate the "concerns" of others. Not only that, but apologies are trotted out and we're all made to believe that there is something wrong with the way our game is played. That's not inclusive, it's alienating. In the same way I say "I want to play an aggressive orc" and you or Psyren might say "You still can", I can respond in kind when someone says "well I want to play a peaceful orc"... "you always could". No difference; there really is no leg to stand on here.

----------


## Psyren

> And let's be clear... offense-taking is ENTIRELY the point of all of this. Any article or statement you read on these changes is entirely about making sure complainers are mollified.


You read an article/statement about Adrenaline Rush? Got a link?




> You're just arguing against lore that you don't like.


I'm arguing against one-dimensional lore. _"Goblins should be cowardly and that's the only possible explanation for a bonus action Disengage, lalala-Rogues-and-Monks-I-can't-hear-you!"_ is one-dimensional, period.




> D&D has always been for everyone. And the notion that this is "more" inclusive is mistaken. You're removing lore that some people like, to validate the "concerns" of others. Not only that, but apologies are trotted out and we're all made to believe that there is something wrong with the way our game is played. That's not inclusive, it's alienating. In the same way I say "I want to play an aggressive orc" and you or Psyren might say "You still can", I can respond in kind when someone says "well I want to play a peaceful orc"... "you always could". No difference; there really is no leg to stand on here.


As noted above, happy to read your article, but until then:

Adrenaline is something everyone has, it doesn't imply anything about an individual's roleplay or attitude. An aggressive individual and a passive one can both get a rush of adrenaline in a dangerous or imperative moment. It is therefore the superior term for describing such an ability, because it doesn't prescribe an attitude for your character. And orcs, racially, can translate theirs into an extraordinary ability.

----------


## animorte

> And let's be clear... offense-taking is ENTIRELY the point of all of this. Any article or statement you read on these changes is entirely about making sure complainers are mollified.





> Opening up possibilities for players to try out different things isn't so much about "offensiveness" but about "inclusivity". Which is what the catchphrase "D&D is for everyone" is about.





> Let me try one more time to break this down for you. It's not about "offending" or "avoiding offending" or whatever other paper tiger you think the devs are shrinking from.


To all of this, ha.

So, the thing about sensitivity editors and D&D is their lack of real-world reference for research on how to properly include or avoid offense on the matters of goblins, elves, orcs, kobolds, centaurs, mind-flayers, dragons, what-have-you. Essentially, I would wager continuing any further in this direction is three things: Irrelevant, unhelpful, and against the rules.

Going forward, that will be my only note on the topic, if I choose to participate at all.

----------


## Witty Username

> If you get rid of the goblin, won't you be accused of goblincide?


That's what happened to the Spelljammer elves, after the 4th or 5th genocide it turns out people start thinking your evil, for some reason.

That and if I remember right the AD&D book had an aside that the kobolds had the most beautiful Spelljammers ever made before the elves destroyed them all.

----------


## Kane0

My next character is going to be a High Elf Artificer that looks and acts like a tradie, if a clever one. It's deliberately playing against the stereotype that high elves are haughty and sophisticated, while also taking advantage of the elven lifespan to explain how he has picked up so many tool and languages.

Dunno if that has anything to do with the conversation, but i like that those stereotypes exist for me to use if i'm feeling lazy or play with if i'm feeling inspired.

----------


## Mastikator

> D&D has always been for everyone. And the notion that this is "more" inclusive is mistaken. You're removing lore that some people like, to validate the "concerns" of others. Not only that, but apologies are trotted out and we're all made to believe that there is something wrong with the way our game is played. That's not inclusive, it's alienating. In the same way I say "I want to play an aggressive orc" and you or Psyren might say "You still can", I can respond in kind when someone says "well I want to play a peaceful orc"... "you always could". No difference; there really is no leg to stand on here.


Right. Since D&D has always been for everyone, since D&D has never had offensive elements then we can only surmise that changing the aggressive trait to adrenaline rush has nothing to do with political correctness. It must be about something else. My bet is that it's about how aggressive is lazy writing and adrenaline rush is inspired writing.
Why is aggressive lazy? Because it's constrained, limited and predictable. Now if someone wants to play a peaceful orc they have game mechanics that support them, not that that means anything, right?

----------


## Witty Username

> That's not inclusive, it's alienating. In the same way I say "I want to play an aggressive orc" and you or Psyren might say "You still can", I can respond in kind when someone says "well I want to play a peaceful orc"... "you always could". No difference; there really is no leg to stand on here.


I mean, being slapped with an int penalty sucks, if you want to play a peaceful orc wizard as opposed to an aggressive orc barbarian. And with rolled stats losing popularity in favor of point buy that is a concern.
Like seriously, the actual rules changes amount to for the most part to point buy spreads matching closer to rolled stat spreads.

I do think race lore could use less God tomfoolery, but in all honesty that isn't a change so much as what 5e has been doing:
Goblinoids- f'ed by Magulbet
Gnolls -f'ed by a demon lord
Orcs - f'ed by Gruumsh
Drow -f'ed by Loth

That was the lore we had from Volo's and Mordenkienen's.

Gith are like the only weird one, -f'ed by themselves, and mind flayers, and maybe Tiamat(God Damm it)

As for the culture thing, I don't mind that much, I think we could use better backgrounds though with some of that moved in.

Like say with the Giff, I don't much care for blessed by God to have firearms use. But if their was a background Giff mercenary that gave it. Then my human fighter with a gun could hand wave with, raised by Giff. And my Giff fighter could be raised by elves, and not have the cultural connection.

----------


## Waazraath

For me it's remarkable what annoys people in the lore change. I have a lot more sympathy for changes that are made because people consider lore to be problematic due to possible resemblences to real world issues (whether I think it is justified or not), than I have for the needless butchering of elf lore, point in case the lore on Correllan in MToF which is more an evil (probably even lawful evil) god of vengeance punishing all his offspring into the x'th generation for TRANSGRESSIONS while this should be the pinacle of chaotic goodness. Or the nonsense of dragons being the same in multiple multiverses or whatever Fizban's tried to do there. 

Personal preference: skip the term 'races' and replace it with species, make them much more different in abilities than they are now, instead of more alike. Especially outside core (as a supplement) I can live perfectly with -4 or +6 for an ability score, or a higher ceiling than 20, or whatever - probably this will be less impactfull on some levels than 'flight at will'. Have the default (MM) versions have both physical and cultural reasons for these abilities. Have alternative versions exist in setting books (where different cultures leads to a set of different abilities). 

Oh well, that's not the direction the game is going in, as in more area's of the game it seems to be moving into the opposite direction of what I would like.

----------


## Xihirli

I think that Correllon being a huge jerk in that exact way was already the lore.

----------


## Waazraath

> I think that Correllon being a huge jerk in that exact way was already the lore.


Really? I might be misremembering but my memories from 3.x were more of a hippie god who was more about poetics music nature and protecting his folk against evil orcs and all that. Do you have any pointers to similar lore as in 5e MToF for older editions?

----------


## Xihirli

I'm not sure how detailed we had it before now, but the idea that the elves are being endlessly reincarnated until they meet Correllan's standards is in 2E's Demihuman Deities, a 1998 book.

----------


## Segev

My understanding on the Corellon-is-a-jerk thing is more people reading between the lines and playing a hint of a "Lolth was right" card.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I want non-playable Bad Guy races to be non-playable Bad Guy races. I don't care what the justification is. Default Bad Guy Races has inestimable value to new DMs and Players, especially for the races everyone already knows are Bad Guy Races from years of exposure to both other gaming and other media.
> 
> If some later splat comes along and let's those non-playable Bad Guy races be playable, that's fine. Then the player can either work with the DM to explain why they're one of the exceptions (because as the PHB and MM makes crystal clear in the original printing, no race is actually an All Are Always Bad Guys), or the DM can run a Bad Guys campaign.  IMX players much prefer the latter when they want to play Bad Guy Races.
> 
> And of course the DM can change the lore entirely as usual.


 As do I. The esoterica we often discuss here isn't a useful application to the basic game, but as one grows into the game it does offer fertile ground for different approaches to the genre.  



> D&D has always been for everyone. And the notion that this is "more" inclusive is mistaken.


 As to the aggressive trait for the Volo's orc, my Battle Master used that in combat - nice movement bonus.  His RP approach - 8 Cha - I chose to manifest as humble and lacking somewhat in self confidence ... until a fight started. He began play as a freed slave (freed by an adventuring party) during the Giants module and ended up as my PC; it was fun to try out a battle master, and it was interesting for me to role play an orc. Had not done that before.  Martol is alive and well, and we just got that campaign going again after a multi year hiatus.   :Small Smile:  



> My understanding on the Corellon-is-a-jerk thing is more people reading between the lines and playing a hint of a "Lolth was right" card.


 What clever trope subversion: not.  
"Correllon as a jerk" is not lore: it's revisionist lore.    
Correllon first appeared in the AD&D_ Deities and Demigods_ cyclopedia, although I think I first saw that deity in Dragon Magazine.  He was, IIRC, a default deity (of elves and some half elves) in Oerth.  (That's where Greyhawk is).  What has been done to that deity in the past 40+ years I won't comment upon, but I do recall that _androgynous_ was a common descriptive of that deity from the get go.

----------


## Tanarii

> Dunno if that has anything to do with the conversation, but i like that those stereotypes exist for me to use if i'm feeling lazy or play with if i'm feeling inspired.


Its completely relevant to her current direction of the conversation. Fantasy Race stereotypes are a very good and useful thing, and exist for a reason.




> I mean, being slapped with an int penalty sucks, if you want to play a peaceful orc wizard as opposed to an aggressive orc barbarian.


A penalty is a bit too far in terms of 5e starting stat expectations if you want to use it as your primary. But Fantasy Race fixed attribute bonuses or even penalties are a very good and useful thing, and exist for a reason. Especially since class and level restrictions have disappeared.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> A penalty is a bit too far in terms of 5e starting stat expectations if you want to use it as your primary.


 Concur. That decision to use negative mods in Volo's is one of the things I didn't care for, but in general I do not have much taste for monstrous races _at all_ in the game, and firbolg's as PCs are right out.   :Small Tongue:  (And I can do without tabaxi, even though I have one player with a Tabaxi monk and played with a friend whose Nature cleric was Tabaxi).

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I'm arguing against one-dimensional lore. _"Goblins should be cowardly and that's the only possible explanation for a bonus action Disengage, lalala-Rogues-and-Monks-I-can't-hear-you!"_ is one-dimensional, period.


Nothing says you _should_ play goblins as cowards though, that's your insertion.

Player characters are ALWAYS remarkable and standout from the rest of their race/culture. That's true whether they are goblins or humans or elves, etc. You can choose to play a stereotypical goblin that slinks around on the edges of the fray before darting in and out, or you can choose to be a dauntless warrior that squares up with his opponents. Either way you still have Nimble Escape. 

But watering down an ENTIRE race of people to accommodate the singular exceptional PC adventurer doesn't make sense and makes for a worse product overall.



> Adrenaline is something everyone has, it doesn't imply anything about an individual's roleplay or attitude. An aggressive individual and a passive one can both get a rush of adrenaline in a dangerous or imperative moment. It is therefore the superior term for describing such an ability, because it doesn't prescribe an attitude for your character. And orcs, racially, can translate theirs into an extraordinary ability.


Oooohhh, I got it. These changes are just for language precision. Duh, how silly of the rest of us. I hope you didn't type all that with a straight face.



> Right. Since D&D has always been for everyone, since D&D has never had offensive elements then we can only surmise that changing the aggressive trait to adrenaline rush has nothing to do with political correctness. It must be about something else. My bet is that it's about how aggressive is lazy writing and adrenaline rush is inspired writing.
> Why is aggressive lazy? Because it's constrained, limited and predictable. Now if someone wants to play a peaceful orc they have game mechanics that support them, not that that means anything, right?


Did you read the lore in Volo's? How is that lazy? I find it rather inspiring, to the point that I've played a half-orc battle master of Ilneval, and have an orc mercy monk devotee of Yurtrus lined up for a Waterdeep game. And I've played numerous half-orc and orc barbarians. At some point I want to play a Red Fang as well. Aggressive fits right in. 

Now let me read the lore in MPMM... ah, ok, it inspires absolutely nothing. Perfect. Very inclusive.



> As to the aggressive trait for the Volo's orc, my Battle Master used that in combat - nice movement bonus.  His RP approach - 8 Cha - I chose to manifest as humble and lacking somewhat in self confidence ... until a fight started. He began play as a freed slave (freed by an adventuring party) during the Giants module and ended up as my PC; it was fun to try out a battle master, and it was interesting for me to role play an orc. Had not done that before.  Martol is alive and well, and we just got that campaign going again after a multi year hiatus.


That's awesome :).



> What clever trope subversion: not.


Lol, agreed. Very over the "oh, the good guys were bad all along, actually the bad guys are victims" trope at this point.



> Its completely relevant to her current direction of the conversation. Fantasy Race stereotypes are a very good and useful thing, and exist for a reason.
> 
> A penalty is a bit too far in terms of 5e starting stat expectations if you want to use it as your primary. But Fantasy Race fixed attribute bonuses or even penalties are a very good and useful thing, and exist for a reason. Especially since class and level restrictions have disappeared.


Very much agreed (though I'm not a fan of penalties). Nothing wrong with fantasy stereotypes. And as we've seen recently in this thread, people think that removing all this lore is simply benign with no costs, meanwhile there are very much people that appreciate the lore and the simple and easy to use stereotypes. Whereas, once again, the "problematic elements" are generally more fiction than the lore in the books.

----------


## Psyren

> Right. Since D&D has always been for everyone, since D&D has never had offensive elements then we can only surmise that changing the aggressive trait to adrenaline rush has nothing to do with political correctness. It must be about something else. My bet is that it's about how aggressive is lazy writing and adrenaline rush is inspired writing.
> Why is aggressive lazy? Because it's constrained, limited and predictable. Now if someone wants to play a peaceful orc they have game mechanics that support them, not that that means anything, right?


Heh  :Small Amused: 




> My next character is going to be a High Elf Artificer that looks and acts like a tradie, if a clever one. It's deliberately playing against the stereotype that high elves are haughty and sophisticated, while also taking advantage of the elven lifespan to explain how he has picked up so many tool and languages.
> 
> Dunno if that has anything to do with the conversation, but i like that those stereotypes exist for me to use if i'm feeling lazy or play with if i'm feeling inspired.





> Its completely relevant to her current direction of the conversation. Fantasy Race stereotypes are a very good and useful thing, and exist for a reason.


Stereotypes can still exist, but making them culture/setting-based instead of biological imperatives is the superior approach. Instead of "elves across the multiverse are genetically snobs, don't ask why they just are" it would be "Elves on Faerun are snobs" or even "Evermeet Elves are snobs." And then that attitude can be tied into the history of the world.

And note that's just for roleplay attitudes. Things like "elves value sophisticated artistry" _can_ be a universal racial trait, because that affinity for artistry can be expressed in a wide variety of ways. It can refer to Krynn and FR elves seamlessly merging their elaborate artificial cities with natural forests, it can refer to Simic elves expressing themselves through mad science, and it can refer to Aerenei elves painstakingly preserving their ancestors as deathless mummies to shepherd their culture. It's describing a talent elves share due to their origin, not dictating how players should or shouldn't roleplay elf characters.




> Nothing says you _should_ play goblins as cowards though, that's your insertion.


Right, so the "goblins are cowards" thing is either reductive or outright useless. Why keep it? Their skill at hiding and escaping applies regardless of their cowardice or bravery, and now the goblin player can more easily roleplay how they want to.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> Right, so the "goblins are cowards" thing is either reductive or outright useless.


Not what I said at all.



> Why keep it?


Several people have mentioned reasons for why to keep it.



> Their skill at hiding and escaping applies regardless of their cowardice or bravery, and now the goblin player can more easily roleplay how they want to.


Demonstrate how it is "now more easy to roleplay how they want to".

----------


## Psyren

> Not what I said at all.


It's what *I* said.




> Several people have mentioned reasons for why to keep it.


And several people have mentioned reasons to get rid of it  :Small Confused: 




> Demonstrate how it is "now more easy to roleplay how they want to".


If I don't want my goblin to be a coward, how is "goblins are cowards" in any way helpful? Moreover, if the implication is that cowardice = bonus action disengage, what does that imply about literally every rogue ever?

----------


## Mastikator

> Did you read the lore in Volo's? How is that lazy? I find it rather inspiring, to the point that I've played a half-orc battle master of Ilneval, and have an orc mercy monk devotee of Yurtrus lined up for a Waterdeep game. And I've played numerous half-orc and orc barbarians. At some point I want to play a Red Fang as well. Aggressive fits right in. 
> 
> Now let me read the lore in MPMM... ah, ok, it inspires absolutely nothing. Perfect. Very inclusive.
> 
> That's awesome :).


Well in the original version of Volo's orcs had a -2 intelligence, and their traits were more or less adlibbed from their monster entry. The lore stuff is decent, but again is just an expansion on their monster manual entry.

But you're right, they are great at fighter, and barbarian, and then also fighter and barbarian again. And finally monk?

If I'm making an orc that is anything other than a melee martial then I'd feel like I'm playing without traits, unless I use the MPMM of course which has useful traits for every class.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> If I don't want my goblin to be a coward, how is "goblins are cowards" in any way helpful? Moreover, if the implication is that cowardice = bonus action disengage, what does that imply about literally every rogue ever?


Can you clarify... how is it now easier to roleplay?



> Well in the original version of Volo's orcs had a -2 intelligence, and their traits were more or less adlibbed from their monster entry. The lore stuff is decent, but again is just an expansion on their monster manual entry.
> 
> But you're right, they are great at fighter, and barbarian, and then also fighter and barbarian again. And finally monk?
> 
> If I'm making an orc that is anything other than a melee martial then I'd feel like I'm playing without traits, unless I use the MPMM of course which has useful traits for every class.


We're conflating two things here; lore and mechanics.

The MPMM orc has virtually NO lore. So there's nothing inspiring there. You're saying that the Aggressive feature isn't great for all builds. You can change Aggressive to Adrenaline Rush without stripping the race of its lore. You'll note that not only was Aggressive changed, but the lore in MPMM pegs orcs as _tireless guardians_ and _mighty allies_. Quite a departure from the previous lore. No mention of any of the other stuff like raiding, war wagons, hordes, but it does mention that on Eberron they were the first defenders against fiends and other extraplanar threats.

So painting an entire race as "mighty allies" and "tireless defenders" is not limiting, or restrictive, or interferes with roleplaying, etc. But painting them as raiders and barbarians is limiting and excludes people.  :Small Confused: 

As I've said, this line of argumentation makes no sense. This is just a personal preference that some people are trying to justify as necessary and logical, when nothing has demonstrated that to date.

----------


## Mastikator

> We're conflating two things here; lore and mechanics.
> 
> The MPMM orc has virtually NO lore. So there's nothing inspiring there. You're saying that the Aggressive feature isn't great for all builds. You can change Aggressive to Adrenaline Rush without stripping the race of its lore. You'll note that not only was Aggressive changed, but the lore in MPMM pegs orcs as _tireless guardians_ and _mighty allies_. Quite a departure from the previous lore. No mention of any of the other stuff like raiding, war wagons, hordes, but it does mention that on Eberron they were the first defenders against fiends and other extraplanar threats.
> 
> So painting an entire race as "mighty allies" and "tireless defenders" is not limiting, or restrictive, or interferes with roleplaying, etc. But painting them as raiders and barbarians is limiting and excludes people. 
> 
> As I've said, this line of argumentation makes no sense. This is just a personal preference that some people are trying to justify as necessary and logical, when nothing has demonstrated that to date.


But the lore depends on the setting. Or at least, in _my_ opinion it should. Maybe you think it's acceptable that in every setting orcs are always the same, the always have the same kind of society, they worship the same deity and follow the same religion, always play the same role in every campaign, orcs player characters always have the same set of personality traits, bonds and ideals. I don't think so.

I think the Volo's guide lore on orcs is pretty good actually. But, only in forgotten realms. Really, I think Volo's guide to monsters should've been Volo's guide to the Forgotten Realms. That would've fixed _everything_.

----------


## Psyren

> Can you clarify... how is it now easier to roleplay?


Because that dissonance between my desired concept and the biological imperative implied by the fluff has been removed.




> The MPMM orc has virtually NO lore. So there's nothing inspiring there.


That you are not inspired by their entry doesn't mean nobody else is. And the irony is that you go on to claim everyone else is arguing for personal preference while you somehow aren't.




> So painting an entire race as "mighty allies" and "tireless defenders" is not limiting, or restrictive, or interferes with roleplaying, etc. But painting them as raiders and barbarians is limiting and excludes people.


Putting aside that "tireless defenders" has universally positive/heroic connotations while "aggressive"... doesn't (it's practically a dogwhistle), you're missing the larger point. There is a clear difference between "All Orcs are X" and "All EBERRON Orcs are X." Tolkien Orcs are not tireless defenders; hell, I'd even question whether Ravenloft or FR Orcs are. But that label is based on setting-specific history and culture, not implied physiology.



> Really, I think Volo's guide to monsters should've been Volo's guide to the Forgotten Realms. That would've fixed _everything_.


It would have definitely helped.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> But the lore depends on the setting. Or at least, in _my_ opinion it should. Maybe you think it's acceptable that in every setting orcs are always the same, the always have the same kind of society, they worship the same deity and follow the same religion, always play the same role in every campaign, orcs player characters always have the same set of personality traits, bonds and ideals. I don't think so.
> 
> I think the Volo's guide lore on orcs is pretty good actually. But, only in forgotten realms. Really, I think Volo's guide to monsters should've been Volo's guide to the Forgotten Realms. That would've fixed _everything_.


I do in fact think that the game benefits from having a default lore for reasons already mentioned (ease of use, inspiration). 



> Because that dissonance between my desired concept and the biological imperative implied by the fluff has been removed.


Sure, and then the next question is "how much did that dissonance really stop you from roleplaying your concept?".



> That you are not inspired by their entry doesn't mean nobody else is. And the irony is that you go on to claim everyone else is arguing for personal preference while you somehow aren't.


This is actually my entire point. We're going around in circles lol. Just because you experienced "dissonance" doesn't mean everyone else did. In all the years I've been playing D&D, I've played countless orcs that fought against their culture and traditions. Nothing forced me to play "stupid evil murderous orc".

Just because in the default lore race X is a certain way, doesn't mean your player character has to be that way.



> Putting aside that "tireless defenders" has universally positive/heroic connotations while "aggressive"... doesn't (it's practically a dogwhistle), you're missing the larger point. There is a clear difference between "All Orcs are X" and "All EBERRON Orcs are X." Tolkien Orcs are not tireless defenders; hell, I'd even question whether Ravenloft or FR Orcs are. But that label is based on setting-specific history and culture, not implied physiology.


Here's the line from MPMM: _Gruumsh's blessings have made orcs tireless guardians and mighty allies wherever they are found, even when they turn their devotion to other gods._

So, no matter where they are found (Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, etc) or what god they worship (Gruumsh, the Silver Flame, a Sorcerer King, etc) orcs are tireless defenders and mighty allies.

Yeah, there's a ton of flexibility there. So superior to the previous lore. So much room for customization. 

And here's the other part of this... ultimately the DM is going to rain on your parade anyways. This idea of "no lore outside of a campaign setting" is bogus because you're always going to be in a campaign setting one way or another. Your character doesn't exist in the white loading room of the Matrix. I'm in a campaign now where orcs don't exist. I'm applying to another one where the lore in Volo's and MPMM wouldn't fit either way. The DM is always the final say on what lore there is, so this idea that the lore has to be pared down to accommodate people doesn't make sense. The DM is going to make there be lore one way or another.

Lore provides inspiration and ease of use, so it should be kept. You can't protect players from lore, because ultimately a DM is going to be running a game with lore in it.

----------


## Mastikator

> I do in fact think that the game benefits from having a default lore for reasons already mentioned (ease of use, inspiration).


I'd rather have an explicit default setting with all that same lore. Otherwise I think the price is too high.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I'd rather have an explicit default setting with all that same lore. Otherwise I think the price is too high.


I think a lot of the issues I see stem from the devs trying to have their cake and eat it too--

They don't want to come out and say "our default setting is X detailed thing, here are the specifications and lore" because that
a) causes legacy fans to erupt due to "lack of official support" for their favorite settings
b) involves taking firm stands on things which could get them in trouble (not just RL-politics stuff, but just "painted self into corner" issues)

At the same time, they want to create the expectation that anything they build can be used anywhere...because selling books. And they want to publish settings and "lore", because people want it.

So they try to pull the "it's a multiverse but that's not really a defined setting, you can do whatever you want" dodge, which just doesn't work on its own merits. It doesn't provide people who _want_ lore enough meat to bite on and set up and play anything other than cardboard-set-dressing adventures, but it also ends up being prescriptive in all the wrong places. You get all the faults of taking a stand without any of the benefits. Or, you know, actually taking a real stand. It's vague and general where it should be specific and detailed (what are the main gods of that Astral city that are stated to be so important? Dunno, figure that out yourself, no guidance) and specific and detailed when it should be generic (yes, all those settings have exactly the same spells with the same names, including specific people's names, orcs are always protectors and mighty allies and all worlds have <specific planar structure with specific, named individuals in charge>).

They're trying to please all sides, including the bomb-throwers from the sidelines. That never works.

----------


## JadedDM

> 1) I get that's how Orcs were seen in the 80s, but shocker of shockers, the 80s were nearly half a century ago at this point. They admit most of their distaste comes from Orcs being overused due to Tolkien being one of the only other recognizable settings in other media at that point, and a chunk of the rest from the horribly dated Rankin-Bass cartoon that barely anyone even remembers. Modern D&D orcs bear no resemblance to either of these influences.
> 
> 2) Even if I did for some reason lose my marbles and start caring which books "fans" consider to be canon and which they don't, retconning something back in that was originally retconned out is very different than just making something up. From where I sit, it's more than enough rationale for the holders of the IP to be justified in such a move.


I never argued that WotC has no legal right to do whatever they want with Dragonlance.  My argument is with the incredibly misleading statement that you made that orcs have always existed in Dragonlance.  Your first source was a single novel that is riddled with errors and overall considered non-canonical by the fandom (and getting the DL fandom to agree on anything is quite an accomplishment).

Your other source, which forgive me for not addressing sooner but I had to dig through my Annotated Chronicles to actually find it, is if anything, _more_ misleading.  Because you said "Hickman also mentions orcs in the annotated Winter Night Chronicle from 2002. They exist."  And yes, Hickman does mention the word 'orcs' in the Annotated Chronicles on Page 789, but as you did not include the actual quote, allow me to do so for you now.  It reads, verbatim, as follows:

"One of the goals of Dragonlance was to do different things with what were then established D&D concepts.  *No orcs* or lycanthropes.  Minotaurs are an intelligent race.  Kender as more than just Tolkien-clone halflings." (Emphasis added)

So yes, WotC can do whatever they want with Dragonlance, including adding orcs and halflings and dragonborn and tieflings and psionics and lycanthropes and rock gnomes and whatever else.  It is legally their IP.

But the fellow who actually created the setting outright states that orcs were deliberately excluded from it originally, specifically because they clashed with the overall non-Tolkien feel they were going for at the time.

----------


## Psyren

> Sure, and then the next question is "how much did that dissonance really stop you from roleplaying your concept?".


So dissonance has to be a _physical impediment_ to me in order for me to dislike it and consider it worth removing?  :Small Confused: 




> This is actually my entire point. We're going around in circles lol. Just because you experienced "dissonance" doesn't mean everyone else did.


Clearly enough people did or they wouldn't have changed it. That includes the designers themselves.




> Just because in the default lore race X is a certain way, doesn't mean your player character has to be that way.


That's right, so go ahead and make _your_ goblins cowardly if you want.




> Here's the line from MPMM: _Gruumsh's blessings have made orcs tireless guardians and mighty allies wherever they are found, even when they turn their devotion to other gods._
> 
> So, no matter where they are found (Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, etc) or what god they worship (Gruumsh, the Silver Flame, a Sorcerer King, etc) orcs are tireless defenders and mighty allies.


Which I covered in the first part you ignored, that tireless defender is a universal positive while "aggressive" is decidedly not. That's plenty of reason to dump it.




> And here's the other part of this... ultimately the DM is going to rain on your parade anyways. This idea of "no lore outside of a campaign setting" is bogus because you're always going to be in a campaign setting one way or another. Your character doesn't exist in the white loading room of the Matrix. I'm in a campaign now where orcs don't exist. I'm applying to another one where the lore in Volo's and MPMM wouldn't fit either way. The DM is always the final say on what lore there is, so this idea that the lore has to be pared down to accommodate people doesn't make sense. The DM is going to make there be lore one way or another.


So what? Nearly every campaign setting is going to be derivative, whether directly (FR, Golarion) or deliberate subversion (Krynn, Ravenloft). Establishing lore in a campaign setting avoids sweeping negative stereotypes while still allowing DMs to say "okay gang,  OotS dwarves are like FR ones, but..."




> I never argued that WotC has no legal right to do whatever they want with Dragonlance.  My argument is with the incredibly misleading statement that you made that orcs have always existed in Dragonlance.  Your first source was a single novel that is riddled with errors and overall considered non-canonical by the fandom (and getting the DL fandom to agree on anything is quite an accomplishment).


Apparently I wasn't clear enough so let me rephrase - even if you could somehow prove absolute 100% consensus via a scientific poll, what the "DL fandom" considers to be canon or not matters less to me than the contents of a gully dwarf's teakettle. Kendermore is a Dragonlance novel, so that's enough to make it fair game to at least consider if they needed such justification.




> But the fellow who actually created the setting outright states that orcs were deliberately excluded from it originally, specifically because they clashed with the overall non-Tolkien feel they were going for at the time.


Yeah, and as I mentioned, he provided his reasons for doing that at the time too - reasons that don't even begin to hold up today, decades later. So this Appeal to Tradition/Authority doesn't matter to me either.

----------


## JadedDM

> Yeah, and as I mentioned, he provided his reasons for doing that at the time too - reasons that don't even begin to hold up today, decades later. So this Appeal to Tradition/Authority doesn't matter to me either.


I mean, clearly Appeal to Tradition/Authority does matter to you, as you are making the claim that orcs have always existed in Dragonlance canon by citing a single novel written in '89 by Mary Kirchoff.  What is that, if not an Appeal to Tradition/Authority?

You can argue that a single novel written 33 years ago trumps the actual creators of the setting's repeated outright statements if you want, but it's not a terribly consistent position to hold.  If Appeal for Tradition/Authority means nothing, then your argument that orcs are cannon because half of one appeared in one novel falls apart completely.  If Appeal for Tradition/Authority does matter, then I'd argue my appeal (Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weiss) trumps yours (Mary Kirchoff*).

(*Whom I'm sure is a lovely person and I mean no slight against her; she co-created Dark Sun, after all.  But she had no hand at all in the creation of the Dragonlance setting, she just wrote half a dozen novels for it after the fact.)

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> So dissonance has to be a _physical impediment_ to me in order for me to dislike it and consider it worth removing?


Not what I said (I feel like a broken record). Did the dissonance actually prevent you from playing the character you wanted? Or are you just complaining that you wanted to play a race that had lore that didn't fit with your concept?



> Clearly enough people did or they wouldn't have changed it. That includes the designers themselves.


No, that's not actually clear. SOME people being noisy doesn't mean "enough people want this that it's the right path forward". 



> That's right, so go ahead and make _your_ goblins cowardly if you want.


Sure, in the SAME EXACT WAY that you could make your goblins however you wanted while they had "cowardly" lore. Amazing how the dissonance was a problem for you, but somehow you assume it won't be a problem for me now going forward...



> Which I covered in the first part you ignored, that tireless defender is a universal positive while "aggressive" is decidedly not. That's plenty of reason to dump it.


So the standard here is "dump" anything that isn't "positive", and then we have to rely on people's opinion about what is "positive". I think Aggression is an immensely useful and beneficial trait to have and I consider it a positive if someone can be Aggressive when they feel they need to it. A shy, passive, pacifist person, in my eyes, is not inherently superior to someone that can be called "aggressive", despite how unseemly people think it sounds or seems online. I can assure you that it will be VERY difficult to be a tireless defender without aggression. So trying to mask it or cover it up with different terms is entirely meaningless, and in the same way you call into question or dismiss what people think, I honestly don't care what you think is positive or not and I don't think that people's sensitivities should determine D&D lore.



> So what? Nearly every campaign setting is going to be derivative, whether directly (FR, Golarion) or deliberate subversion (Krynn, Ravenloft). Establishing lore in a campaign setting avoids sweeping negative stereotypes while still allowing DMs to say "okay gang,  OotS dwarves are like FR ones, but..."


There's nothing wrong with negative stereotypes. It's fiction. It's fantasy. These people aren't real and don't map to anything real. Get out of your head and just enjoy the game like the rest of us.



> Apparently I wasn't clear enough so let me rephrase - even if you could somehow prove absolute 100% consensus via a scientific poll, what the "DL fandom" considers to be canon or not matters less to me than the contents of a gully dwarf's teakettle. Kendermore is a Dragonlance novel, so that's enough to make it fair game to at least consider if they needed such justification.
> 
> Yeah, and as I mentioned, he provided his reasons for doing that at the time too - reasons that don't even begin to hold up today, decades later. So this Appeal to Tradition/Authority doesn't matter to me either.


These are incredibly weak arguments and different from what you said previously.

----------


## Psyren

> Not what I said (I feel like a broken record). Did the dissonance actually prevent you from playing the character you wanted?


I answered your question with a question because your implication doesn't make sense. How could something written on a piece of paper _prevent_ me from doing anything? I don't have to be _prevented_ to not like something.




> No, that's not actually clear. SOME people being noisy doesn't mean "enough people want this that it's the right path forward".


The burden of proof is on you that your point of view represents some silent majority. 




> Sure, in the SAME EXACT WAY that you could make your goblins however you wanted while they had "cowardly" lore. Amazing how the dissonance was a problem for you, but somehow you assume it won't be a problem for me now going forward...


I know it will actually.




> So the standard here is "dump" anything that isn't "positive",


The standard is that heroic PCs are assumed to have heroic traits. You can have a cowardly, aggressive, sociopathic etc player race at your table if you want, but WotC is under no obligation to establish such for you.





> You can argue that a single novel written 33 years ago trumps the actual creators of the setting's repeated outright statements if you want,


I'm saying a 30+ year old _justification_ for something is not sacrosanct no matter who it came from.

----------


## JadedDM

Your original argument, in response to someone saying that orcs do not exist in Dragonlance canon was:




> Incorrect; they're not from Ansalon, but they exist on Krynn. The _Kendermore_ novel _from 1989_ contains a half-orc character named Denzil, and Hickman also mentions orcs in the annotated Winter Night Chronicle from 2002. They exist. Got another example?


You were in fact making the argument that orcs exist in Dragonlance because of a single book written 30+ years ago and citing Hickman outright stating orcs do not exist but in such a vague and ambiguous way as to imply he was actually agreeing with you.  You made an authority appeal twice, one of which was outright wrong.

If you cannot admit you made a mistake, that's fine, but it means there's no longer any reason for me to continue arguing with you in good faith.  Have a good day.

----------


## Psyren

> Your original argument, in response to someone saying that orcs do not exist in Dragonlance canon was:
> 
> 
> 
> You were in fact making the argument that orcs exist in Dragonlance because of a single book written 30+ years ago and citing Hickman outright stating orcs do not exist but in such a vague and ambiguous way as to imply he was actually agreeing with you.  You made an authority appeal twice, one of which was outright wrong.


Right, and your justification for declaring that novel to not be canon was based on a decades-old statement that doesn't hold up. As I said.

----------


## Witty Username

> I honestly don't care what you think is positive or not and I don't think that people's sensitivities should determine D&D lore.


So like, for example we should just use the old lore for kender, and everyone that complained about table problems related to the behavior it enabled are simply being overly sensitive?

----------


## Brookshw

> Right, and your justification for declaring that novel to not be canon was based on a decades-old statement that doesn't hold up. As I said.


Pfft. One bad book that goes against canon with no authority can safely be discarded. See: Pages of Pain.

----------


## Psyren

> Pfft. One bad book that goes against canon with no authority can safely be discarded. See: Pages of Pain.


It can be, sure, or it might not be. Not up to us.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I answered your question with a question because your implication doesn't make sense. How could something written on a piece of paper _prevent_ me from doing anything? I don't have to be _prevented_ to not like something.


Very clever my friend, except that wasn't the claim I was addressing. You specifically said that with the lore change it will be "easier" to roleplay a goblin. When I pressed you on how this would be the case, you said that a "dissonance" was removed.

Let's try to keep the goalposts from shifting every response.



> The burden of proof is on you that your point of view represents some silent majority.


The burden is on anyone making the claim, actually. And that person is you, claiming that the devs and "enough people" wanted this change. And the evidence is "the change occurred". That doesn't cut it. I don't need proof because I'm not resting on a "silent majority" for my argument. I'm flat out saying that delicate sensitivities should not dictate D&D lore. Your "dissonance" shouldn't become every D&D players' problem. 



> I know it will actually.


Still not getting it lol. Still avoiding the argument being made to get in a snarky response.

It's not going to bother me because I've already been playing against type for decades. The lore is inspiration but it doesn't rule my character. My character is part what I would like to play, and part what my DM is looking to have as part of their campaign world. And that will always be the case no matter what online pearl clutchers convince WotC to do with the game.

YOU, on the other hand, need the game to change to accommodate your sensitivities. So it's not me that might be bothered going forward.



> The standard is that heroic PCs are assumed to have heroic traits. You can have a cowardly, aggressive, sociopathic etc player race at your table if you want, but WotC is under no obligation to establish such for you.


More arguments against claims that were never made. Boy this is tiring. 

You just said that switching to something "positive" is reason enough to dump the original lore.

You are lumping in "aggressive" with "cowardly" and "sociopathic". In a game where 80% of what you do is kill stuff. You are implying that aggressive people are bad. And this is the problem. I don't want D&D influenced by really bad ideas.



> I'm saying a 30+ year old _justification_ for something is not sacrosanct no matter who it came from.


*shifts goalpost back to original position* You said orcs exist in Krynn. It's pretty obvious they don't, despite you apparently finding a reference to a reference in one source.



> So like, for example we should just use the old lore for kender, and everyone that complained about table problems related to the behavior it enabled are simply being overly sensitive?


No.

Firstly, table behavior is a different beast. If something in the game is leading to bad behavior, it may need to be addressed. However, there are many aspects of the game discussed on this forum that essentially wind up at "you need to talk with your group as adults", and sometimes that is exactly what needs to happen. Finally, you can include two takes on Kender if you want, allowing tables/DMs to go with one that is better for their table if the other is problematic.

Of course, the changes we're discussing are not motivated by these types of table problems and so this isn't really relevant. You can see in the other poster's post (forget their name) where they complained about ruining vibes, and in Psyren's posts, where he's saying negative things should be replaced with positive things. This is all just a matter of some people feeling bad about stuff, and the lore getting totally gutted to help them not feel bad. It's pretty obvious to me that this is not a tenable approach to these feelings. Like... I can't control what makes someone have bad vibes. We're basically saying that if a person feels a certain way, it's our responsibility to inoculate them from that thing. That's not the right approach. If someone says "well I can't control how this makes me feel", I can make the same protest in the opposition, and we're back at square one. Then we just make a determination that "people that feel bad take precedence over people that don't", and that seems like a road to nowhere good. The primary driver of D&D lore should be things like is it interesting, fun, inspiring, consistent, simple to use, etc., not "might this ruin a person's vibe?".

----------


## Brookshw

> It can be, sure, or it might not be. Not up to us.


Agreed and disagreed in part. WoTC can certainly decide what is canonically true at a given time, it's also correct that we can review previous content to establish canon prior to a new decree, through commonalities over editions, novels, direct statements, etc. See: phlogiston. 

Incidentally, it's not universally correct that WoTC can change canon however they want, a prime example being, topically, Lord Soth, where in respect of Weis and Hickman's expressed desires, writers and editors refused to engage with Soth in Ravenloft after he was moved there, and eventually he was returned to his rightful place in Dragonlance.

----------


## Psyren

> Very clever my friend, except that wasn't the claim I was addressing. You specifically said that with the lore change it will be "easier" to roleplay a goblin. When I pressed you on how this would be the case, you said that a "dissonance" was removed.


Yes, and? I explained what I meant by that. Which part are you not clear on?




> The burden is on anyone making the claim, actually. And that person is you, claiming that the devs and "enough people" wanted this change. And the evidence is "the change occurred". That doesn't cut it.


If that doesn't cut it for you, that's perfectly fine by me, we can agree to disagree.




> You are lumping in "aggressive" with "cowardly" and "sociopathic". In a game where 80% of what you do is kill stuff. You are implying that aggressive people are bad.


_Aggression_ isn't bad; _biologically mandated_ aggression is bad. Player races should have free will, they're not NPCs.




> You said orcs exist in Krynn. It's pretty obvious they don't, despite you apparently finding a reference to a reference in one source.


One official source, yes, regardless of any wishes to the contrary.




> It's not going to bother me because I've already been playing against type for decades. The lore is inspiration but it doesn't rule my character. My character is part what I would like to play, and part what my DM is looking to have as part of their campaign world. And that will always be the case no matter what online pearl clutchers convince WotC to do with the game.
> 
> YOU, on the other hand, need the game to change to accommodate your sensitivities. So it's not me that might be bothered going forward.


So you're posting repeatedly in these threads to demonstrate how unbothered you are?

----------


## Witty Username

> Of course, the changes we're discussing are not motivated by these types of table problems and so this isn't really relevant.


Well we kinda are, alot of this mirrors problems with alignment, for example.
It is known, or at least people say alot, that that alignment has all sorts of issues when included in the game:
-citations of adversarial relationships between DMs and players on what constitutes their characters personality
- encouraging negative player behavior, usually Evil and sometimes Lawful alignments
- mechanical upsides and downsides to particular options (that one is mostly excised from 5e)

And the common counter arguments are often:
-not a problem at my table
-this is a problem with the players not the game

And the new race rules amount to:
-you don't have to use this stuff if you don't want to - Tasha's
- do we actually need this? - post-Tasha's
Much like some people's stance on the alignment question

What does race lore constitute:
Hobgoblin's - you hate elves and will abandon tactical advantages if it causes them harm, also your a battle hardend military veteran regardless of your background and chosen vocation
Orcs- you have an int penalty of 2, effectively restricting particular class/sub-class options, also you hate elves and elves hate you
And this is contrasted with Teiflings:
You are descended from literal Devils, but it has no effect on your personality in any way, and you can be any alignment you want) you can even be all sorts of different in stats and abilities based on what Devils you are descended from if you use MTOF
People still hate you though.

Things that can affect the table in similar ways to alignment, they can "ruin the vibe." Like a Kender constantly stealing from everyone.

--
Unrelated to much,
Krynn, monstrous humanoids. It happens that, at least in the novels, most d&d setpiece monsters are less common than the krynn specific (like draconians, for example). Orcs are referenced a couple times but I don't think ever appear (Kendermoor: included a Half-Orc, and it was a plot point as I recall that the main character was the only Kender as far as he knew to have seen an Orc in person, everyone else thought the half-orc was a normal human). And goblins I don't think ever appear (Hobgoblins do, including the dragon high lord Toad, Master of Few).
Drow I know specifically don't exist, Dark elves are a, title? (I feel that has a positive meaning that isn't the case), given to any elf in exile from the greater community, MTOFs references this, as Krynn appears to be a prior to Loth's existence version of elves according to Mordenkienen.

As for the intentions of the original adventure designers, I believe we are long past that, especially since the novels and the adventure contradict in some pretty fundamental ways (for the better IMO, the adventure read as pretty railroady, and some major setpiece moments in the Novels are actually impossible in the adventure, damm unwinnable boss fights)

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> Well we kinda are, alot of this mirrors problems with alignment, for example.
> It is known, or at least people say alot, that that alignment has all sorts of issues when included in the game:
> -citations of adversarial relationships between DMs and players on what constitutes their characters personality
> - encouraging negative player behavior, usually Evil and sometimes Lawful alignments
> - mechanical upsides and downsides to particular options (that one is mostly excised from 5e)
> 
> And the common counter arguments are often:
> -not a problem at my table
> -this is a problem with the players not the game
> ...


I'm not really seeing it.

You're talking about players arguing with the DM or engaging in bad behavior.

We're talking about people reading a piece of lore and getting hurt by it.

The former is someone doing something bad. The latter is someone feeling bad.

5E has done a lot to avoid some of the pitfalls of alignment. But a misunderstanding of alignment is still something that can be explained to someone. Disagreements can be adjudicated. A person being so offended by a sentence of lore that it needs to be excised from the game is not a similar thing. There's nothing we can do about that. The only thing to be done is simply to remove it to make someone not feel bad. (Or those people can get over their interpretations... but apparently that's not an option.)



> What does race lore constitute:
> Hobgoblin's - you hate elves and will abandon tactical advantages if it causes them harm, also your a battle hardend military veteran regardless of your background and chosen vocation
> Orcs- you have an int penalty of 2, effectively restricting particular class/sub-class options, also you hate elves and elves hate you
> And this is contrasted with Teiflings:
> You are descended from literal Devils, but it has no effect on your personality in any way, and you can be any alignment you want) you can even be all sorts of different in stats and abilities based on what Devils you are descended from if you use MTOF
> People still hate you though.
> 
> Things that can affect the table in similar ways to alignment, they can "ruin the vibe." Like a Kender constantly stealing from everyone.


The funny thing is you're deliberately being hyperbolic here and reducing the lore dramatically, and yet it is still more lore than what's in MPMM.

Actually that's not funny, it's totally depressing.



> Unrelated to much,
> Krynn, monstrous humanoids. It happens that, at least in the novels, most d&d setpiece monsters are less common than the krynn specific (like draconians, for example). Orcs are referenced a couple times but I don't think ever appear (Kendermoor: included a Half-Orc, and it was a plot point as I recall that the main character was the only Kender as far as he knew to have seen an Orc in person, everyone else thought the half-orc was a normal human). And goblins I don't think ever appear (Hobgoblins do, including the dragon high lord Toad, Master of Few).
> Drow I know specifically don't exist, Dark elves are a, title? (I feel that has a positive meaning that isn't the case), given to any elf in exile from the greater community, MTOFs references this, as Krynn appears to be a prior to Loth's existence version of elves according to Mordenkienen.


To go back to my point about "lore without campaign settings", let's take Drow...

I want to play a drow. Sorry, there are none in Krynn.

I want to play a drow. Sorry, there are none in Dark Sun.

I want to play a drow. Sorry, they are pretty much attacked on sight in Faerun.

I want to play a drow. Sorry, they are pretty much attacked on sight in Greyhawk.

I want to play a drow. Sorry, this adventure doesn't take place in Xen'drik, and drow are very rare anywhere else in Eberron.

And so on and so forth. Limiting the lore to campaign setting doesn't make race selection "more inclusive". At some point the ball has to drop somewhere and you're going to be hit with lore constraints. 

Also, I really don't see the difference between "you're a battle hardened veteran despite whatever your background is" and "you're a tireless defender and mighty ally despite whatever your background is". As I keep saying over and over again, you're never going to have something that isn't the same as the thing you're railing against. There's no principle here that is being adhered to. It's literally just "I don't like this, but I'm okay with that".



> As for the intentions of the original adventure designers, I believe we are long past that, especially since the novels and the adventure contradict in some pretty fundamental ways (for the better IMO, the adventure read as pretty railroady, and some major setpiece moments in the Novels are actually impossible in the adventure, damm unwinnable boss fights)


I don't think we're long past that. I don't see why it HAS to change, so maybe we can start there. Why _should_ orcs now be a thing in Dragonlance? And I don't know where you stand on the lore/campaign setting bit, but would you agree it's a bit disingenuous to claim lore should only be found in campaign settings, and then simultaneously argue that the lore for campaign settings should also be watered down?

People are arguing "leave lore to the campaign settings". Okay, Dragonlance doesn't have orcs. "Well... it should include orcs too so let's change that lore!"

Sure, this is totally not a case of people just wanting their own personal desires imposed on everyone else with sweeping changes to lore and campaign settings. There's really some deeper principle at work here. Something like... _I literally don't care about what's come before, I want everything to be unrestrained or unlimited by lore, including campaign settings._

And hey, that's certainly an opinion someone can have. But people should be honest about it.

----------


## Xihirli

> I want non-playable Bad Guy races to be non-playable Bad Guy races. I don't care what the justification is. Default Bad Guy Races has inestimable value to new DMs and Players, especially for the races everyone already knows are Bad Guy Races from years of exposure to both other gaming and other media.
> 
> If some later splat comes along and let's those non-playable Bad Guy races be playable, that's fine. Then the player can either work with the DM to explain why they're one of the exceptions (because as the PHB and MM makes crystal clear in the original printing, no race is actually an All Are Always Bad Guys), or the DM can run a Bad Guys campaign.  IMX players much prefer the latter when they want to play Bad Guy Races.
> 
> And of course the DM can change the lore entirely as usual.


You've still got Gnolls, Kuo-Toa, and Sahuagin in 5e as, if not "default 5e races," then "non-playable humanoid that is often an enemy to fight in modules." At least Gnolls from that list I'd say definitely fit "non-playable Bad Guy race." 
If we're willing to venture outside of the Humanoid line we've still got hags, mind flayers, some of the were- creatures, vampires, zombies, various types of dragon, all fiends, various fey, and plenty of other undead that are, as of now, still unplayable and basically only ever seen in modules as evil. 
And if you're willing to accept splatbooks coming out later, then according to announcements in this new PHB we STILL won't have goblinoids, kobolds, yuan-ti, or minotaurs as playable races in either version of the player's handbook. Rules for them came out in Volo's and... the Greek one?, sure, but that's a later splatbook. 
You've still got some non-playable Bad Guys by any definition and by the definition you allow later you've got PLENTY.

----------


## JadedDM

> And goblins I don't think ever appear (Hobgoblins do, including the dragon high lord Toad, Master of Few).


Goblins do appear in Dragonlance, quite a few times.  In fact, Tanis, Tas and Flint fight a bunch of them just as they arrive in Solace in Dragons of Autumn Twilight.  There's also a group of civilized, good aligned goblins that live in Northern Ergoth known as the Sikk'et Hul.

----------


## Amnestic

> At least Gnolls from that list I'd say definitely fit "non-playable Bad Guy race."


Except in Eberron :D

----------


## Segev

> So you're posting repeatedly in these threads to demonstrate how unbothered you are?


If the fact that some players might be bothered by something is enough reason to change / remove lore, isn't the fact that some players are definitely bothered by the change/removal enough reason not to change it?

Why is Dr. Samurai's emotional disturbance, assuming for sake of argument that you have accurately called him out on here, so much less important than the hypothetical emotional disturbance of other people who are bothered by the lore existing? Why is Dr. Samurai less important as a human being than these others?

When you use "but some people are offended!" as your justification, you already lose the justification for the change the moment anybody else says they're offended by the change. Unless, of course, you are declaring one person's offence as more important than another's, and, by extension, their emotional well-being, happiness, and worth as a person of greater importance than the other's.

----------


## SpanielBear

> If the fact that some players might be bothered by something is enough reason to change / remove lore, isn't the fact that some players are definitely bothered by the change/removal enough reason not to change it?
> 
> Why is Dr. Samurai's emotional disturbance, assuming for sake of argument that you have accurately called him out on here, so much less important than the hypothetical emotional disturbance of other people who are bothered by the lore existing? Why is Dr. Samurai less important as a human being than these others?
> 
> When you use "but some people are offended!" as your justification, you already lose the justification for the change the moment anybody else says they're offended by the change. Unless, of course, you are declaring one person's offence as more important than another's, and, by extension, their emotional well-being, happiness, and worth as a person of greater importance than the other's.


Well ideally it shouldnt be an either or, right? It should be the case that we can find a compromise that fits both- and thats not just me being pithy. If we actually extend the good faith towards both parties that they are both finding something injurious here (and not, in either case, assuming that the offence/hurt is invalid or doesnt exist) then the answer isnt we must do my one or even we must do nothing its we do something different.

And I am aware you cant please all of the people all of the time, but we can probably make something work when what is at stake is, after all, a game we have fun playing.

So again, assuming good faith, I want to believe thats what WoTC are doing- trying to make a game where the most number of people enjoy playing it and keep buying their stuff. Doesnt mean theyll succeed, but Im all for them trying.

----------


## Segev

> Well ideally it shouldnt be an either or, right? It should be the case that we can find a compromise that fits both- and thats not just me being pithy. If we actually extend the good faith towards both parties that they are both finding something injurious here (and not, in either case, assuming that the offence/hurt is invalid or doesnt exist) then the answer isnt we must do my one or even we must do nothing its we do something different.
> 
> And I am aware you cant please all of the people all of the time, but we can probably make something work when what is at stake is, after all, a game we have fun playing.
> 
> So again, assuming good faith, I want to believe thats what WoTC are doing- trying to make a game where the most number of people enjoy playing it and keep buying their stuff. Doesnt mean theyll succeed, but Im all for them trying.


Ideally, yes, but unfortunately, there's no acceptable middle ground to at least one side. Note that Psyren's position - if I understand it correctly - is "no lore at all outside of setting-specific books," which, aside from being literally impossible while having races have any traits whatsoever, is specifically undesirable and offensive to the people defending existing lore and saying it shouldn't be removed.

Lore changes will always be controversial, but they can happen and gradually become accepted. See: kobolds becoming dragonspawn creatures in 3e. Prior to that, they were "dog-like" rather than "scaly lizard creatures." And I'm sure there are some who preferred them in the original form.

The issue here is that the entire Library of Alexandria is being burnt down with a promise that they'll recreate some of it in other places, just stop whining and accept that having the Library at Alexandria was bad and having liked going to it makes you a bad person. Daring to defend it from being burnt down makes you a bad person, too. Can't you see how offensive it is to the people who want to burn it down? 

"But that's a bad analogy! The old books are all still out there for you to use!" you might say in response. Sure, they are. But they're now invalidated by the updates, and nothing made going forward will support them, and besides, we've been told we're awful people for liking and daring to use them. 

And, if the mere existence of the previous lore was offensive, then it still existing is going to continue to be offensive, is it not? So how does eliminating it even solve the alleged problem in the first place?



Printing alternate lore would probably not offend nearly as much, though it may make people roll their eyes if they think it's worse than what it replaces. (I do think the elf lore in Mordenkainen's is stupid, personally, regardless of whether it has precedent in earlier editions or not, for example.) But they're not doing that. They're actively making the game less accessible without spending more money and having more time to research in more places in the name of "inclusivity" and "creativity," forgetting that a blank canvass is often less conducive to genuine creativity than a canvas with some prompts associated with it. Working within constraints is good for creativity. 

OotS makes fun of how every drow is a CG rebel against his oppressive evil culture of birth. (That this turns out to be a subversion is cool, but the joke stands on its own.) With no lore, you can't have half-orcs and drow PCs rebelling against their cultures of birth. And the moment a DM introduces lore that makes that possible, we're right back to that wicked, horrible DM offending people with his characterization of fictional fantasy races as having bad guy tendencies, because of whatever reasons the lore being ripped out is offensive. Make it "cultural" and refuse to associate it with a race, and you have to ask, "Why can't I play a gnome who is rebelling against his evil kin?" Well, you can, but there's just something lacking  in the fantasy vibes, there, unless the DM reshapes his entire world to allow gnomes to be the wicked culture and recognizably so to others...at which point we're right back to the "problematic stereotypes" that are so apparently offensive, just now gnomes instead of orcs are the alleged stand-in for whatever it is that is unacceptable to have problematic stereotypes about.

I actually am fine with, and even support to an extent, making culture and race not inherently linked, but culture being strongly influenced by (fantasy) racial traits is still important. 

I have no problem with gnolls literally being created by Yeenoghu to ravage and destroy, and still having a PC gnoll who somehow escapes this overriding urge to be a more independent person. Or even not as a PC, but as an important NPC, possibly without even abandoning his gnollish brethren, but instead becoming a terrifying mastermind who leads the pack by directing their destructive urges to allow him to sculpt the world to his own liking. I think this leads to far more interesting PCs and NPCs than "gnolls? They're just hyena-people in appearance, but have no distinct lore, and their traits are all positive, and really, whatever those traits are, we should not infer anything about gnolls from them lest we offend."

----------


## Mastikator

> If the fact that some players might be bothered by something is enough reason to change / remove lore, isn't the fact that some players are definitely bothered by the change/removal enough reason not to change it?


It depends on _why_ people are bothered by it. If someone is bothered by nono-topics it may be a reason, if someone is bothered by change or lack of "edgyness" then frankly they need to suck it up. Expecting a corporation who's headline is "D&D is for everyone" to be edgy and challenging for the sake of... bravery? rudeness? (I don't even know the reason, or care to frankly) is downright lunacy. The only way D&D can be for everyone is if it's not edgy.


*And by edgy I don't mean edgy, I mean the other thing that upsets people

----------


## Segev

> It depends on _why_ people are bothered by it. If someone is bothered by nono-topics it may be a reason, if someone is bothered by change or lack of "edgyness" then frankly they need to suck it up. Expecting a corporation who's headline is "D&D is for everyone" to be edgy and challenging for the sake of... bravery? rudeness? (I don't even know the reason, or care to frankly) is downright lunacy. The only way D&D can be for everyone is if it's not edgy.
> 
> 
> *And by edgy I don't mean edgy, I mean the other thing that upsets people


So, "What I think is okay to be offended by should be treated as a good reason, while if I don't think it's okay, they can suck it up."

Remember that "nono-topics" and "edginess" can be applied as labels in exactly the opposite way you want to apply them, and have exactly the same response given as to why the group whose offense you feel should be treated as sacrosanct should instead be told to "suck it up," and the people you want to have to "suck it up" should be treated as sacrosanct.

All you've done is assert that your viewpoint is superior to others' because, you feel, it is superior.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> If the fact that some players might be bothered by something is enough reason to change / remove lore, isn't the fact that some players are definitely bothered by the change/removal enough reason not to change it?


This is precisely the point. No reasons given can't simply be turned around and imposed on the other side. They simply think they're position should dominate over everyone else's.



> Why is Dr. Samurai's emotional disturbance, assuming for sake of argument that you have accurately called him out on here, so much less important than the hypothetical emotional disturbance of other people who are bothered by the lore existing? Why is Dr. Samurai less important as a human being than these others?
> 
> When you use "but some people are offended!" as your justification, you already lose the justification for the change the moment anybody else says they're offended by the change. Unless, of course, you are declaring one person's offence as more important than another's, and, by extension, their emotional well-being, happiness, and worth as a person of greater importance than the other's.


Well... this is exactly what is being done. In a sense, someone that isn't offended simply hasn't figured it out yet. Someone that is offended is enlightened and thoughtful. If you don't get their position, it's because you're either ignorant of it and need to be educated, or you don't mind it and are a bad person. Once we've moralized it like this, then it's easy to prioritize one person over another.

And to clarify, I'm bothered that the hobby is being hijacked by bad ideas that can't be defended. For me, it's a big ask to reshape D&D lore around some people complaining that some things offend them. That doesn't meet the standard for me to change the product for everyone else. 

Does the new lore bother me the way the old lore bothers some people? Absolutely not lol. For that to happen I'd have to map D&D fantasy creatures to real world people and... well, that just seems really wrong and terrible so it's never occurred to me to do it.



> It depends on _why_ people are bothered by it. If someone is bothered by nono-topics it may be a reason, if someone is bothered by change or lack of "edgyness" then frankly they need to suck it up.


Ah, then we have found common ground. Because I too believe that people that are bothered should just "suck it up" as well. So much for that good faith stuff.

But seriously, right back at you with the "why". WHY is the change happening? That depends too right? Psyren experienced "dissonance" before. Did that stop them from roleplaying how they wanted? No, by their own words. But there was "dissonance". So now we have to change the lore. Yeah, I have a problem with that. The _why_ does matter, as you say. So far, reasons given are not good enough to abandon the lore.

----------


## Mastikator

> So, "What I think is okay to be offended by should be treated as a good reason, while if I don't think it's okay, they can suck it up."
> 
> Remember that "nono-topics" and "edginess" can be applied as labels in exactly the opposite way you want to apply them, and have exactly the same response given as to why the group whose offense you feel should be treated as sacrosanct should instead be told to "suck it up," and the people you want to have to "suck it up" should be treated as sacrosanct.
> 
> All you've done is assert that your viewpoint is superior to others' because, you feel, it is superior.


Yes. Do you believe that all reasons to be offended are perfectly equal? Is there no difference in your mind between being offended at bigotry vs being offended at the request to shut up with bigoted speech? You obviously must think that a request to not say something bigoted is_ just as offensive as saying something bigoted_ right?

Of course I think some people's (mine) view points are superior to others. Based on your response I think I have a greatly superior viewpoint to you for example. I mean wow. How can I not?

----------


## SpanielBear

> Yes. Do you believe that all reasons to be offended are perfectly equal? Is there no difference in your mind between being offended at bigotry vs being offended at the request to shut up with bigoted speech? You obviously must think that a request to not say something bigoted is_ just as offensive as saying something bigoted_ right?
> 
> Of course I think some people's (mine) view points are superior to others. Based on your response I think I have a greatly superior viewpoint to you for example. I mean wow. How can I not?


How does this help?? How does this make anything better? I love that the game is more open now, I love that people are feeling more included, its kept me sane during that last three years of utter worldwide misery and then some. Its easy to say, not all orcs are evil but this cult is sacrificing innocent civilians, go nuts. So even as someone who is on the side of the changes being made, when I can see doing it badly loses support and interest- why seek a fight that goes nowhere and everyone loses???

I mean it was inevitable this thread gets closed because this same argument goes round in circles happens again, but Im so sick of it because it turns everyone into a villain to the other side and nothings ever going to change or be agreed upon! Whats the point of winning like this, of arguing like this? Who wins? No one gets to play D&D, which is stupid, no one thinks or develops any empathy, its just empty words that do absolutely nothing!

I like D&D. I like that lots more people play it now. Its a friendly thing. This argument isnt.

----------


## Segev

> Yes. Do you believe that all reasons to be offended are perfectly equal? Is there no difference in your mind between being offended at bigotry vs being offended at the request to shut up with bigoted speech? You obviously must think that a request to not say something bigoted is_ just as offensive as saying something bigoted_ right?
> 
> Of course I think some people's (mine) view points are superior to others. Based on your response I think I have a greatly superior viewpoint to you for example. I mean wow. How can I not?


I believe that, when you start to simply assert that YOUR viewpoint is superior, and therefore all things must go your way, you've lost any ability to persuade people that they should do what you want. You reduce the discussion to, "Nuh-uh!"/"Uh-huh!"

At best, you're now name-calling, asserting that those who don't agree with you are bad people because they don't agree with you.

To make the case that the changes are good and worthwhile, you actually have to be able to defend that the offense being taken is of greater value than the offense taken at the changes being made to accommodate it. And so far, that hasn't been done.  The mere fact of "some people are offended" is meant to be "enough."  Actually discussing why it is allegedly offensive material is not possible on this board, of course, but worse, it is not 'allowed' to be engaged in (generally) outside this forum, either, without first requiring all to agree with the assertion that it is definitely offensive, because, again, any attempt to deny it being offensive is met with name-calling. "You're a bad person if you don't agree that it's offensive; don't you DARE tell us that what we're seeing isn't there."

This, admittedly, makes it hard to discuss on these boards at all. But I will go ahead and say that the reason I do not agree that the material being removed is offensive in the same way that I would disagree with this statement that I made before: *"The Clock King is obsessed with punctuality! That means he's a negative stereotype of teachers!"* To be clear, if this were held up as a reason to remove the Clock King as a Batman villain, or to change him so that he no longer is obsessed with punctuality, I would find it to be a terrible reason, because I don't see how his obsession with punctuality in any way relates to teachers.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

*Player:* Oh, thank goodness the lore for orcs has been changed. It was so terrible and offensive how they were portrayed as savage barbarians that went around raiding and pillaging all the other "goodly" races, and were basically this monolithic culture that worshiped an evil god of war and hatred. Just gives me the creeps. I'm so glad WotC caved in to our demands and made them default "tireless defenders and mighty allies". LOVE IT! Can't wait to play an orc now. Anyways, what campaign setting are we playing in?

*DM:* ... Forgotten Realms.

----------


## truemane

*Metamagic Mod*: You've all been here long enough to know better than this. Most of you have been here long to have these exact same discussion in exactly the same way, with the same result. Just because someone throws you a pitch, doesn't mean you have to take a swing at it. Anyway, thread closed, almost certainly for good.

----------

