D&D 5E WOTC Possibly Removing "Druids" for Religious/Cultural Sensitivity Reasons

[Remathilis]

Bards should have their own unique subsystem, I think, for their equivalent-to-spells. Entirely based on sound and what sound might be able to do, and how the Bard uses voice and-or instrument to manipulate that sound. Their casting wouldn't be restricted by slots but by exertion limits per x-amount of time, with said limits rising as the Bard levels up; and their potential effects would fill a rather narrow band: sonic damage, sonic mind manipulation (charm, panic, etc.), sonic detection (e.g. getting magic items to resonate sound), and long-range sonic communication (e.g. Bard as radio transmitter!); along with legend lore and item knowledge.

One time, during 3.5, we did a lark game where the rule was you couldn't use PHB classes or races. We ended up with a Crusader (Bo9S), Shadowcaster (ToM), Psychic Warrior/Soulknife (EPH), a Binder (ToM) and Warlock (CA). I want to say there were some prestige classes in the mix. I was the warlock. Everyone was 5th level.

All I remember was it was a disaster. The first time we got into combat, we realized everyone's abilities had different names, mechanics, and limitations. The DM literally had no idea what any of our characters could do, which resulted in a lot of "quoting the appropriate sourcebook" We got through a couple of small fights, but it fell apart quickly with everyone buried in books against some "boss monster" aberration from Lords of Madness, and we kinda gave up after it.

Now, the purpose of said game was to try out the different systems as most people had never had a chance in regular games to do so. But having so many competing systems (which referenced other systems, like psionics referencing spells) each with their own quirks, recharges, and rolls, was a massive headache. Say what you will about the sameness of 5e using spellcasting for 9/13 classes, at least it's easy to predict what a PC can do and what they are capable of!

 

[jasper]

"We" . . . do, "we" as in English-speaking westerners, yes. Do Shinto practitioners in Japan use the term "priest"? When westerners use it, does your average Shinto practitioner get upset or irritated? Do Muslim leaders use the term "cleric"? Do they get irritated when "we" do? I honestly don't know the answers to those questions, but your examples are far from simplistic as you would propose.

Aaaanndddd . . . those are western terms used by westerners. "Shaman" is not a western term, it is an indigenous Siberian term. Kindof a big difference. Westerner's appropriation of the term happened in the 1600s, centuries ago, and certainly has become widely used in fantasy, literature, and mystical circles in Western culture. Are those indigenous Siberians still a distinct cultural group? Are they upset how the term "shaman" has been appropriated? Again, don't know. But I do know that many diverse religious practitioners who are labeled by outsiders as "shamans" don't appreciate the term. Our use of the word goes back centuries, but it is still a problematic word. I'm happy to remove it from my gaming, and I'm happy for publishers who make that decision.

I think 2023-1600 = 423 years is enough time to call the word our own.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One time, during 3.5, we did a lark game where the rule was you couldn't use PHB classes or races. We ended up with a Crusader (Bo9S), Shadowcaster (ToM), Psychic Warrior/Soulknife (EPH), a Binder (ToM) and Warlock (CA). I want to say there were some prestige classes in the mix. I was the warlock. Everyone was 5th level.

All I remember was it was a disaster. The first time we got into combat, we realized everyone's abilities had different names, mechanics, and limitations. The DM literally had no idea what any of our characters could do, which resulted in a lot of "quoting the appropriate sourcebook" We got through a couple of small fights, but it fell apart quickly with everyone buried in books against some "boss monster" aberration from Lords of Madness, and we kinda gave up after it.

Now, the purpose of said game was to try out the different systems as most people had never had a chance in regular games to do so. But having so many competing systems (which referenced other systems, like psionics referencing spells) each with their own quirks, recharges, and rolls, was a massive headache. Say what you will about the sameness of 5e using spellcasting for 9/13 classes, at least it's easy to predict what a PC can do and what they are capable of!

I suspect there are more efficient ways to try out new systems than have every player use a different one simultaneously. By which I mean, that's an interesting experiment, but not evidence that everything should work the same way.

 

[Remathilis]

I suspect there are more efficient ways to try out new systems than have every player use a different one simultaneously. By which I mean, that's an interesting experiment, but not evidence that everything should work the same way.

I will not argue there were significant flaws in our methodology. The players themselves barely knew what their characters were capable of, and the DM could not judge anything because each system was to him a mystery. I merely point out that having several systems, each with its unique mechanical expressions, running simultaneously was far more taxing to run than using one or two. I do think there is room for innovative design ideas, but I've always been skeptical of bards casting totally different magic than druids, wizards, or clerics, etc. Each class being its own mini-game makes work harder on each player and especially hard on the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

One time, during 3.5, we did a lark game where the rule was you couldn't use PHB classes or races. We ended up with a Crusader (Bo9S), Shadowcaster (ToM), Psychic Warrior/Soulknife (EPH), a Binder (ToM) and Warlock (CA). I want to say there were some prestige classes in the mix. I was the warlock. Everyone was 5th level.

All I remember was it was a disaster. The first time we got into combat, we realized everyone's abilities had different names, mechanics, and limitations. The DM literally had no idea what any of our characters could do, which resulted in a lot of "quoting the appropriate sourcebook" We got through a couple of small fights, but it fell apart quickly with everyone buried in books against some "boss monster" aberration from Lords of Madness, and we kinda gave up after it.

Now, the purpose of said game was to try out the different systems as most people had never had a chance in regular games to do so. But having so many competing systems (which referenced other systems, like psionics referencing spells) each with their own quirks, recharges, and rolls, was a massive headache. Say what you will about the sameness of 5e using spellcasting for 9/13 classes, at least it's easy to predict what a PC can do and what they are capable of!

A very large part of the problem there is that you guys started with new systems at 5th level. If you're going to start a game like that one, you need to start it at 1st level where it's still fairly simple and you will all learn it relatively quickly and smoothly as you level up.

By the time you hit 5th level, you're looking at 3 spell levels all at once or maneuvers for that Crusader, feats(many of which are class specific), items, class abilities for 5 levels, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

I will not argue there were significant flaws in our methodology. The players themselves barely knew what their characters were capable of, and the DM could not judge anything because each system was to him a mystery. I merely point out that having several systems, each with its unique mechanical expressions, running simultaneously was far more taxing to run than using one or two. I do think there is room for innovative design ideas, but I've always been skeptical of bards casting totally different magic than druids, wizards, or clerics, etc. Each class being its own mini-game makes work harder on each player and especially hard on the DM.

It is somewhat more work, yes. But in my opinion the payoff is well worth that work. Different systems adds uniqueness, flavor and enjoyment as you try and do different things in different ways than your last character.

 

[Staffan]

I will not argue there were significant flaws in our methodology. The players themselves barely knew what their characters were capable of, and the DM could not judge anything because each system was to him a mystery. I merely point out that having several systems, each with its unique mechanical expressions, running simultaneously was far more taxing to run than using one or two. I do think there is room for innovative design ideas, but I've always been skeptical of bards casting totally different magic than druids, wizards, or clerics, etc. Each class being its own mini-game makes work harder on each player and especially hard on the DM.

I can see the issue, and it reminds me of the Frosthaven game I am playing.

For those unfamiliar, Frosthaven is a sequel to Gloomhaven, a highly acclaimed dungeon-crawler board game. In Gloomhaven, there are a number of different character classes that each use different decks to basically go through dungeons, kill things, and take the stuff of said things. The card-based system means each class plays quite differently, but they all work fundamentally the same. It might take some time to grasp how things in the deck synergize but they all work in a similar fashion.

In Frosthaven, they've taken things a little further. Many classes use various resource mechanics beyond the basic mana system used in Gloomhaven (short version: some cards generate mana of one of six elements once your turn is done, other cards can use that mana for added effects). This does add variety, but it also makes it harder for other players to grasp what players with alternate/extra resource systems are capable of, and reduces player interactivity to some degree (in Gloomhaven, a Tinkerer using a flame thrower can generate fire mana which a Spellweaver can then use on their turn, but there's no way in Frosthaven for a Drifter to give a Blinkblade a time token).

And Frosthaven is a GM-less game, so every player is only responsible for their own nonsense. In an RPG, the GM needs to be able to have a grasp on how everything works, and that's harder if everything works in a different way.

 

[Lanefan]

I will not argue there were significant flaws in our methodology. The players themselves barely knew what their characters were capable of, and the DM could not judge anything because each system was to him a mystery. I merely point out that having several systems, each with its unique mechanical expressions, running simultaneously was far more taxing to run than using one or two. I do think there is room for innovative design ideas, but I've always been skeptical of bards casting totally different magic than druids, wizards, or clerics, etc. Each class being its own mini-game makes work harder on each player and especially hard on the DM.

It makes it harder on the DM perhaps, but it shouldn't be any harder on any given player as in theory all that player has to focus on is what his-her own character(s) can do. Thus if I'm playing a Bard using the bespoke subsystem for Bardic abilities then for the time being all I have to learn is that subsystem, and it shouldn't much matter to me-as-player how Jane's Magic-User works or how Jim's Cleric works.

The only time it's a player-side issue is if-when a player is trying to play two characters at once who each have bespoke subsystems; but in theory the player would know (or be warned!) ahead of time what doing so might entail.

 

[Remathilis]

I can see the issue, and it reminds me of the Frosthaven game I am playing.

For those unfamiliar, Frosthaven is a sequel to Gloomhaven, a highly acclaimed dungeon-crawler board game. In Gloomhaven, there are a number of different character classes that each use different decks to basically go through dungeons, kill things, and take the stuff of said things. The card-based system means each class plays quite differently, but they all work fundamentally the same. It might take some time to grasp how things in the deck synergize but they all work in a similar fashion.

In Frosthaven, they've taken things a little further. Many classes use various resource mechanics beyond the basic mana system used in Gloomhaven (short version: some cards generate mana of one of six elements once your turn is done, other cards can use that mana for added effects). This does add variety, but it also makes it harder for other players to grasp what players with alternate/extra resource systems are capable of, and reduces player interactivity to some degree (in Gloomhaven, a Tinkerer using a flame thrower can generate fire mana which a Spellweaver can then use on their turn, but there's no way in Frosthaven for a Drifter to give a Blinkblade a time token).

And Frosthaven is a GM-less game, so every player is only responsible for their own nonsense. In an RPG, the GM needs to be able to have a grasp on how everything works, and that's harder if everything works in a different way.

And that was a big part of why I feel our experiment failed; it was very hard to know if what everyone was doing was the right thing. I don't think anyone was trying to cheat, but I feel it would be very easy to not catch the nuances of their abilities and either over- or under-utilize what the class should be doing. I'm sure if people had opted to continue, we'd have learned our character's abilities and it would have gotten smoother, but the learning curve of all the new systems made the game far less fun than normal 3.5 had been.

 

[MGibster]

'm sure if people had opted to continue, we'd have learned our character's abilities and it would have gotten smoother, but the learning curve of all the new systems made the game far less fun than normal 3.5 had been.

I have players who have played 5th edition for years and still can't keep track of their character's abilities. As a DM, I require them to keep track of what they can do because I have enough on my plate when running a game.