What lore from previous editions do you wish stayed?

Shiroiken · Jun 11, 2019

There are a lot of things (really too many to list), so I'll nail down a few that weren't mentioned.

Non-WoW orcs. I like my porcine humanoids to not be green skinned strong humans. Also never understood how a half orc was usually taller than either parent.

Non-FR elves. Prior to 5E, elves averaged about 5 feet tall... except in the Realms where they're as tall as humans. Now all elves are assumed to be FR elves, making the Valley Elves much less special.

Non-tinker gnomes. Seriously, the only thing worse from Dragonlance was kender...

The mnemonic component of spellcasting. It's still there, with both prepared and known spells, but it's very much glossed over.

Racism, by which I mean how the races didn't like each other. For example, elves and dwarves really didn't like or trust each other... at all. Look at Gimili and the other dwarves during the Council of Elrond in Fellowship of the Ring (specifically "never trust an elf!"). The fact that he and Legolas eventually formed a bond was supposed to be an amazing exception to the norm. Now, dwarf and elf PCs are always buddy-buddy, and have no problem with the half-orc who's ancestor probably killed the elf's grandfather. This is almost certainly going to be an unpopular opinion, but I don't care.

jgsugden · Jun 11, 2019

The terms I use are crunch and fluff. Crunch are the mechanics of an edition. Fluff is everything non-mechanical. Fluff sounds like I do not value it - but that is not true. These are the story elements and they're the most important part of a good campaign. I think of them as fluff because they're light content that can be lifted and replaced easily.

I don't miss fluff because if I want it, I have it. I use a simplified version of the Great Wheel cosmoology. It has evolved a bit (mostly through adding details or updating terminology), but it is essentially the same one I have used since the 1980s. I do not miss the lore of 2E, 3E, 3.5, 4E or 5E related to cosmology - because it doesn't impact the games I run.

Xeviat · Jun 11, 2019

I'm going to add to the love for 4E cosmology. It threw a lot out, but it was very cohesive. I also liked it a lot because I had some very similar ideas, like the fey/mortal/shadow world split.

4E's angels we're super cool. The dragon shift was cool, making it easier to use metallic dragons as adversaries. That was some of my favorite lore.

I've read FR books but I never felt knowledgeable enough about it to run a game in it. Same reason I've never run a star wars game even though I bought a few editions.

Tony Vargas · Jun 11, 2019

lowkey13 said:
What is ... a warlord, Alex?
Did I win?

I'm sorry, we can't accept that answer...

But, yes, the idea of the non-casting martial PC as noble or heroic - the 9th level Lord, fighters being barronettes, the 3e fighter as natural party leader, the 4e Warlord, and EDs like legendary sovereign, ect - and taking the campaign from dungeons and treasure hunting to castles and campaigning. D&D has always floated it, but rarely delivered much of it.

Sacrosanct said:
I'm asking what bit of lore or flavor/fluff from a previous edition to you prefer over how 5e has approached it?

The ~~Titanomachy~~ Dawn War.
The ~~Umbra~~ Feywild/Shadowfell.

1. I don't like the approach the did with gnolls and making them the whole demon tie in and whatever. I liked gnolls to be when they were

...Gnome/Troll hybrids. Yeah, that was pretty amusing.

. I prefer kobolds to be dog faced, as they appeared in the 1e MM

They were still very scaly, though. When 3e made them dragon-blooded, favored-class Sorcerer, they still described them with "voices like yapping dogs" and, now they have pack tactics.

The little dog-lizards are still that.

I just wonder where it ever came from?

aco175 · Jun 11, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
I don't think I'm following. Are you saying you don't mind kobolds going draconic since goblins existed already? But goblins aren't dog like. If anything, draconic kobolds are more like goblins now than before. I don't think there are any more monsters that are small dog like creatures yapping like kobolds were described in 1e.

I recall reading an article talking about kobold changes for 4e. Their role in the game needed to change since goblins filled their role as well and we did not need two monsters in the same role. Kobolds changed to dragon type to fill another role and still make them fit in the game. I also think that gnomes are not needed as much in 5e since dwarves fill their role as well. In the old editions gnomes could cast spells and that was different than dwarves, but now everyone can be every class and the gnome is kind of left out and could just be a sub-race of dwarf.

cbwjm · Jun 12, 2019

I'm not sure what I miss specifically but I do ignore some of the lore depending on the setting. For instance, I ignore the lore about all elves being descended from corellon. Elves in Dragonlance were made by the gods of good and have nothing to do with the elven deities. This is often the same in my homebrew games.

I actually prefer the current version of kobolds as crazy little dragonkin. I'm realising some of what I thought was cool con previous editions as I write this. The primordials were pretty cool and I liked the elemental chaos, they still have a version of this in 5e where the elemental pages clash in where they all meet.

Azzy · Jun 12, 2019

There are bits of monster lore changes that irked me when I read the 5e MM. Unicorns and krakens come to mind. I still miss drow being chaotic evil demon worshippers (with only some being aligned to Lolth).

Zeromaru X · Jun 12, 2019

I miss much of the 4e lore. The Dawn War and related mythology, for one. But, then I remember I have all the 4e books and I get over it.

TwoSix · Jun 12, 2019

lowkey13 said:
So I would make that a more general comment- I want a more tight integration of fluff and mechanics. To make it explicit.

Nah. There's plenty of other fantasy heartbreakers that do that. D&D should be a toolkit. Sturdy skeletons, with loose fitting skin that's easy to reskin.

If there's arguments that clerics and warlocks can't multiclass, you've already bound the story to the class too tightly.

Hussar · Jun 12, 2019

I did rather like the cleric spell spheres. It made it pretty easy to make very thematic cleric classes.

I MISS the binder. I would love to play that again but, that's more of a mechanics thing.

Lorewise? I miss the days when D&D had virtually no lore at all and things were wide open and I didn't have to listen to canon cops bitch and whine about how this or that was changed by this or that book.