• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Obscure elements of D&D you would love to rescue

Ainamacar

Adventurer
In the lead up to the playtest we're thinking a lot about big mechanical and thematic elements. How classes work, what a theme contains, how skills and abilities tie into task resolution, what we love or hate about hit points, etc.

That's all well and good, but I want to ask a more personal question. What are one or two obscure (or just neglected) game elements would you like to see return in 5e because they really grabbed you? It could be a thematic element, monster, race, a tiny little subsystem, one of the more colorful tables in the early editions, whatever. If it needs a little polish or a complete overhaul, what would you do? If it's a little embarrassing, all the better. :) Maybe you want it to shine in one of the big 3 books, but more likely you just want it to get a little sun. Basically, tell us about something you loved that never really made it into the wider consciousness as important to or characteristic of D&D.

---

I'll start off with my favorite fairly obscure D&D race, illumians, which were introduced (I'm almost certain) in the 3.5 book Races of Destiny. They also made a small appearance in 4e as a disappeared planar race (Dragon 392). The principal conceit behind them I find fascinating: the idea of a language made flesh. In a fantasy setting where "power words" are a thing, it seems like there should be plenty of room for such an exploration, to say nothing of Tolkienesque ideas about the Black Speech of Mordor, etc. The mechanical execution of the race was so-so, but I enjoyed the idea of sigils even though I could have done without the eponymous glowing and the idea that illumians were otherwise basically human.

How might I rehabilitate them? The idea of how language affects how we think is of interest to me in the real world, but for illumians language might be almost akin to DNA -- not determinative, but fundamentally influential. An illumian that is "composed" of only a single language, particularly a mundane one, might be an object of pity by illumian standards, with an unlucky birth or perhaps the child of illumians that are themselves composed of only a single language. For an illumian learning a new language is a deeply spiritual and impactful event, more existential exploration than high school spanish. They don't "learn" a language, it "becomes" them. Illumians suitable as player races might start being composed of a handful of fairly mundane languages, and would be somewhat psychologically or even physically oriented toward the ideas those languages express most readily. For the most part, though, they function in everyday life quite like the other PC races.

The Illumian mythic ideal might be "to become the multiverse's thoughts", incorporating all possible expressions of meaning into oneself without going mad. Learning Abyssal might make very potent abilities available, but it would also mean incorporating frightful influences. The greatest illumian villains might be akin to demons, perhaps initially benevolent individuals pursuing dark languages without the restraint of wisdom, and eventually losing all desire to become other then what they are. (The fall from grace is obviously a standard archetype, but illumians could walk that path with a unique twist.) Likewise, some illumians might achieve an almost angelic aspect. Not all illumians would embrace the mythic ideal, and even adventurous ones might find they function well enough without needing to risk the essence of their personhood.

Others in my gaming group have gone "whatever, dude" about this concept, especially the language as DNA bit. But this thread isn't about specific ideas being good or bad, it's about sharing the small inspirational elements we find in the nooks of the game and would like to see again. What are yours?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

rkwoodard

First Post
1/2 Elves

I think I have mentioned this in other threads, but I would love a return to the mysterious, maybe dangerous, 1/2 elf.

I AD&D 1st edition, 50% of all 1/2 elves were neutral and the remaining 50 was split even between good and evil.

I like that. That is something I could sink my teeth into as player or DM.

RK
 

Lwaxy

Cute but dangerous
Not really obscure, but I'd like to see thieves and assassins as separate classes again.The rogue is more of a swashbuckling/street fighter type for me.

I agree the Illumians were never explored well enough (also interested in language and cognition here). I think I will add them into my next campaign.
 


I don't even know if I would want this to actually stay, but I thought it was really cool in AD&D when the monk had to fight another monk of the level he was attaining after level 8 I think it was. It was kind of cool, especially if Monks were rare, and he had to seek one out to even fight. It was deadly and could mean someone lost a character they'd put a ton of work into advancing that high.

When it came time for the monk to go find his person to fight, all the other characters would always be a little freaked out.
 

slobster

Hero
I liked the stronghold builder's guidebook from 3E. It was unbalanced as heck and full of ridiculousness, but I've never seen my players more motivated than when they felt they were pulling one over on their GM by building their optimized mega-cube of burrowing, plane-travelling, and a dozen other ridiculous things. Except maybe when they were defending it from an oncoming army of astral pirates.

Giving your players a sense of ownership over a campaign is something you can try to instill as a GM, but sometimes it just happens. It would be great to see a few more options for putting world-building in the hands of players, be it through guilds, property, armies, politics, or whatever else they can think of and put engaging rules to.
 

Lwaxy

Cute but dangerous
Giving your players a sense of ownership over a campaign is something you can try to instill as a GM, but sometimes it just happens. It would be great to see a few more options for putting world-building in the hands of players, be it through guilds, property, armies, politics, or whatever else they can think of and put engaging rules to.


But you can do that already ;) No special rules needed.
 


Reaction rolls modified by CHA and relative morale values.

Its part of the fun as DM not knowing what encounters might be social or combat depending on the approach the PCs take and the disposition of the monsters.
 

slobster

Hero
But you can do that already ;) No special rules needed.

True, which is why I posted in this thread. I don't feel that stronghold-building supplements are a core part of D&D, but that book was a quirky bit of fun that I feel nostalgic about, and wouldn't mind seeing again.

I did have a bit of a deeper point, though, that maybe I communicated poorly. It wasn't that there could be no player buy-in without an official WotC supplement to provide rules for it; that is clearly untrue (though I would like them to give some attention to that issue if for no other reason than it helps starting GMs).

My point with bringing up the stronghold book was that my players bought the supplement, combed over it and decided to use it to make a fortress all without me ever knowing that the book even existed. It was something they came to on their own, that they felt that they discovered and owned exclusively and not something that I had to place in a dragon hoard or dangle as the reward for a sidequest. Because of that, they were extremely invested in pursuing and protecting it, something that I as a GM loved because it improved all of our experiences at the table.

But mostly I just giggle every time I think of the dimension-hopping unobtanium self-healing "definitely not a borg ship" cube of doom.
 

Remove ads

Top