Seminar Transcript - Reimagining Skills and Ability Scores

LurkAway · Feb 2, 2012

AbdulAlhazred said:
Not only that but the whole 4e deva is nothing like a theme. Devas don't have any overlap with other races. They are a 'race' of beings (admittedly not a culture and not a biological race exactly) that stands alone. It would make ZERO sense to talk about a 'human deva' or an 'elf deva'. What if I wanted to be a deva pirate or a deva knight too? It simply doesn't make sense except as a race.

Well, to each their own, but when I first read the deva fluff, I imagined it was a deva soul being reincarnated, and the body was merely a new shell. In that sense, a deva elf and deva dwarf makes just as much sense as the idea of karmic reincarnation and being reborn in any new body, male, female, human, animal. IMO having a deva soul is a wonderful theme, like having dragon blood or being fey-touched.

For the sake of unity, I'd be OK with a compromise in which there's a Deva race like in 4E, and the Deva theme is used when a Deva soul is reborn in a non-deva body.

IIRC, the tiefling was initially created in 2e/Planescape, then tweaked in 3e, then reimagined in 4e. Considering that some consolidation must occur, I don't know that any D&D element, including those from 4e, is going to survive unchanged into 5e. And if one doesn't want to let go of 4Eisms, then 4E will still be supported anyway as a viable alternative.

Zustiur · Feb 2, 2012

AbdulAlhazred said:
So, sorry, "I don't like DB and they're in 4e so they're unpopular crap that should be dropped" is just the worst kind 'reasoning' there is.

I agree with you, but I still don't want them in the first players handbook.
I think that's what people are forgetting here. You can't fit everything in the first book. Unless you make it like say, The Encyclopaedia Britannica 'book'.
I love devas and dragonborn, even if they did take a while to grow on me. But I don't want them right at the start. They always felt like really rare races to me. Common races need to be available first. The same applies to tieflings.
We all have to bear in mind that somethings will not be available at the start - It just can't be done. SOMETHING has to be left out. It is logical therefore to leave out the things which appear in the fewest editions. Devas and Avengers only appeared in 4E, and even there they weren't in the first PH.

The community is a bit too focused on the extremities right now. WotC are trying to unite a very large group of disparate people. That's no easy task, especially when 4E put many of those people in a very anti-WotC mindset. We, and they, need to focus on the actual core of the game first. Whether devas or avengers play a big part in your games or not is not a criterion for putting them in the initial release on 5E. If they play a big part in EVERYONE's games, then we need to look at it.

2E started with 6 races. 3E started with 7. 4E started with 8. If 5E continues the trend and starts with 9, that's still only a very small portion of the available player races we've seen across all editions. People get too caught up in forming an opinion on an edition before it is 'complete'. The first 3 books simply cannot contain everything. The sooner we accept that the better. There is really no point in judging 5E by the races we see in PH1.

Also, please bear in mind that some of the things people are picking up on are just random thoughts thrown out by the developers - they haven't categorically said avengers would be a theme, they just suggested it as an option.

To me personally, having a deva soul in a reincarnated body as a theme make perfect sense. That doesn't mean this is the option they will go with though.
As for Avengers, I always saw them as an alternative to paladins. Turning them into a kit or prestige class or some other variant form of paladin makes perfect sense to me. If that's called a 'theme' now, then so be it.

Every edition of DND takes common English words and twists them a bit. In this instance it looks like theme is going to be one of those words. From what we've heard thus far (which is very little!) 5E theme is very different from 4E theme.

merelycompetent · Feb 2, 2012

What Zustiur said.

I'm a big fan of the various old school subraces of elves - sylvan, grey, grugach - and dwarves (mountain, hill), and halflings (tallfellow, hairfoot). But I don't want them all in the core PHB for 5E. I don't want them excluded from the game, either. Same for tieflings, devas, dragonborn, and other 4E races. I'd be OK with a Greyhawk Sourcebook, focusing on 1E-style play, or a Shadowfell Sourcebook focusing on 4E-style play, that includes these respective races.

Heck, if 5E core scratches my gaming itch well enough, I'm more likely to buy *both* those sourcebooks and harvest the Shadowfell for ideas to use in my 1E-style campaign.

Hmmm... Shadowfell farming and mining... gives me ideas...

(Edit: Trying to clarify that I'd rather see the subraces in a sourcebook, not in a core, for my old school style of play)

Agamon · Feb 2, 2012

Unfortunately, uniting the fans can't mean every single thing from every single book from every edition in the 5e PHB.

Hopefully there will be advice on DIY classes, races, etc in the DMG for everyone that absolutely must have something that's not in the PHB for their particular game.

AbdulAlhazred · Feb 2, 2012

Zustiur said:
I agree with you, but I still don't want them in the first players handbook.
I think that's what people are forgetting here. You can't fit everything in the first book. Unless you make it like say, The Encyclopaedia Britannica 'book'.
I love devas and dragonborn, even if they did take a while to grow on me. But I don't want them right at the start. They always felt like really rare races to me. Common races need to be available first. The same applies to tieflings.
We all have to bear in mind that somethings will not be available at the start - It just can't be done. SOMETHING has to be left out. It is logical therefore to leave out the things which appear in the fewest editions. Devas and Avengers only appeared in 4E, and even there they weren't in the first PH.

The community is a bit too focused on the extremities right now. WotC are trying to unite a very large group of disparate people. That's no easy task, especially when 4E put many of those people in a very anti-WotC mindset. We, and they, need to focus on the actual core of the game first. Whether devas or avengers play a big part in your games or not is not a criterion for putting them in the initial release on 5E. If they play a big part in EVERYONE's games, then we need to look at it.

2E started with 6 races. 3E started with 7. 4E started with 8. If 5E continues the trend and starts with 9, that's still only a very small portion of the available player races we've seen across all editions. People get too caught up in forming an opinion on an edition before it is 'complete'. The first 3 books simply cannot contain everything. The sooner we accept that the better. There is really no point in judging 5E by the races we see in PH1.

Also, please bear in mind that some of the things people are picking up on are just random thoughts thrown out by the developers - they haven't categorically said avengers would be a theme, they just suggested it as an option.

To me personally, having a deva soul in a reincarnated body as a theme make perfect sense. That doesn't mean this is the option they will go with though.
As for Avengers, I always saw them as an alternative to paladins. Turning them into a kit or prestige class or some other variant form of paladin makes perfect sense to me. If that's called a 'theme' now, then so be it.

Every edition of DND takes common English words and twists them a bit. In this instance it looks like theme is going to be one of those words. From what we've heard thus far (which is very little!) 5E theme is very different from 4E theme.

As far as classes go I didn't get any big thrills from the Avenger concept myself either, or even ever seen one played. Some people do apparently like them a lot for their sort of anime big-sword-guy concepts I guess.

Obviously not every race is going to make it into the PHB, but notice that gnomes and half-orcs didn't even rate a mention in 2e until a good bit later either, so its not like 4e's racial mix was that odd, they just added a couple of fun new races. I have seen a lot of players seem to like Dragonborn. Tiefling, not so much, but DB would be real nice to keep right off.

Basically though 3e and 4e intersect at a set of races that are clearly in. The rest are up for debate, but with 9 races you can have what, human, elf, dwarf, half-elf, halfling, gnome, half-orc, dragonborn, and one other (could be eladrin, but doesn't have to be). Truthfully that doesn't leave a lot of the really basic stuff behind. Clearly there's going to have to be another book with more races pretty fast. There will need to be one with more classes too. They're sure not going to wedge in every good one even if some are turned into themes. 4 editions has a lot of stuff in it.

Zustiur · Feb 2, 2012

Exactly. While I quoted your post, I was reacting more to the people making statements like, "If Deva isn't in, 5E isn't for me".

Also, I cannot award you XP at this time.

Khaalis · Feb 2, 2012

Zustiur said:
Every edition of DND takes common English words and twists them a bit. In this instance it looks like theme is going to be one of those words. From what we've heard thus far (which is very little!) 5E theme is very different from 4E theme.

Agreed. What it looks like is more akin to “Specialties” from Fantasy Craft, where you have a Race, Class and Specialty. Some example specialties… acrobatic, adventurer, archer, aristocrat, cavalier, fencer, etc.

In this same vein, something like the Avenger or Assassin could be seen as themes or classes. It depends on if they have a role that is niche enough to carve out a class, or if they are a broad stroke idea that could be applied to many classes. For instance FC has an Assassin class that is Not a typical ninja style, but more a secret agent style. That makes for a unique class niche. Otherwise anyone who kills for money is an assassin.

On a side note, another option that WotC could/may look at is something like species feats, such that you have a base race, say Elf, and then species feats that create all of the sub-races like wood elf, drow elf, etc. It allows for a potentially huge selection of races with a LOT less overhead (page count) etc.

Aehrlon · Feb 2, 2012

AbdulAlhazred said:
As far as classes go I didn't get any big thrills from the Avenger concept myself either, or even ever seen one played. Some people do apparently like them a lot for their sort of anime big-sword-guy concepts I guess.

I play in a 3.5 game where one player runs one; it's an OK class & he seems to enjoy it. The basics in a Core Rulebook seems most likely, whether it's race or class (or "theme"). Also, we're way off topic as this thread is entitled "Re-imagining Ability Scores". I wonder if they will stay with the classic 6??

Kalontas · Feb 2, 2012

Zustiur said:
Exactly. While I quoted your post, I was reacting more to the people making statements like, "If Deva isn't in, 5E isn't for me".

Also, I cannot award you XP at this time.

If you're talking about me, it's not an instant "If Deva isn't in PHB1, 5E is not for me". It's more of a "right in the first seminars they're talking abour DEGRADING Deva to a theme". It's one thing to just not touch a subject and leave the possibility of its conversion later; it's another telling that one of the iconic concepts of a certain edition is degraded right off. It also personally stung me more because it's my personal favourite.

TrickyUK · Feb 2, 2012

Kalontas said:
If you're talking about me, it's not an instant "If Deva isn't in PHB1, 5E is not for me". It's more of a "right in the first seminars they're talking abour DEGRADING Deva to a theme". It's one thing to just not touch a subject and leave the possibility of its conversion later; it's another telling that one of the iconic concepts of a certain edition is degraded right off. It also personally stung me more because it's my personal favourite.

I don't see any degrading. Just re-classifying. There have been many comments on race/class bloat in 4e. A bit of rationalising would be welcomed.