D&D 5E Mike Mearls did an interview for Escapist Magazine and reveals PHB classes, races, and much more

[sidonunspa]

Too true.

If I were going to run a campaign in the Forgotten Realms, I think the plot would be, "Identify and defeat the villain behind the barrage of world-shattering apocalypses."

you might be surprised how easy it was to run/play a waterdeep campaign based around the noble families and their power struggles.

the campaign ended with the heroes stopping the assassination of all the masked lords, unmasking one known as the 'white mask', who turned out to be the one behind it all.

not saving the world, but saving the fantasy equivalent of New York...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, just because it's FR doesn't mean I won't use it; but FR organizations are pretty tightly woven to the Realms, IME. In addition, I have a persistent campaign setting that I've run since the mid-90s with a flavor and style very different from the sort of Renaissance-fantasy tone of the Realms. Zhentarim, the Cult of the Dragon, the Harpers, the Red Wizards... they're tied pretty tightly to setting elements or conceits that don't work very well in my game.

Which isn't to say that's always true; in a previous era of the campaign, one where the conceits behind Red Wizards were more compatible, I was willing to go for it. And a splash of setting didn't discourage me from picking up e.g. the Forgotten Realms Drow of the Underdark book in 2e, or the 3e FR Monster Manual softback. But usually, the amount of use I get from a Realms product is inversely proportional to how much of the Realms it actually features.

I'll totally agree with a love of organizations in D&D, though, and I am actually going to be using factions heavily in an upcoming urban campaign (probably my first post-playtest 5e game). They'll just be factions that I've mostly designed myself.

Would not be shocked to see "how to make your own orgs" in the DMG.

But yeah, if a DM is using a very specific world whose limits are tightly defined, then no, they won't be using power groups presented for other worlds. But those DMs who don't already have organizations, or those DMs that are looking for inspiration, or those DMs whose worlds still contain a lot of "offscreen space" that these orgs might come from...still useful to them.

Though, again, it doesn't seem like something they're pushing too much into the home games -- likely, when your character joins one of the organized play options, which are explicitly part of FR, you'll have to choose a group to ally with, but in your own games, maybe you require it and maybe you don't.

Personally, I've grown enamored of linking character options directly to organizations. So there's not really any such thing as a self-made lone wolf. The race you choose links you to others with that race. The class you choose links you to others with that class. The proficiencies you choose links you to others with that proficiency. This looks like it'll dovetail nicely with the "apprentice levels" of 1-3 of 5e, so that rather explicitly there are people in the world who are just as good or better at their class than you are when you start as a character.

 

[Dausuul]

you might be surprised how easy it was to run/play a waterdeep campaign based around the noble families and their power struggles.

Why would I be surprised? I'm sure it's doable. I just don't wanna do it. Glad to hear it worked for you, though.

 

[TerraDave]

It's hard, when someone is arguing that Orcus is more popular than Drizz't. Among all things villainous in D&D - and there's plenty of it - I don't know if Orcus would make the cut to the top 10...

Is it hard?

Orcus is one of the original unique beings in D&D, is prominent in a lot of products, was the internal code word for 4E at WotC, was the mascot of a well known 3E era publisher, has highly collectible minis....almost every other D&D villain is more niche. If I google Orcus I get over 1 million hits. Strahd, and I love Strahd, its less then 200,000. Lord Soth, less then 100,000. (Drizzt is around 400,000)

But sure, Romans came after Mesopotamians. or something. (and Tiamat is big, I will admit, over 2 million hits).

Actually, I wonder why the devils not ever got more love or hate, depending. Asmodeus has even been made a god a few times. No one seems to care. (around 400 k hits, but most clearly not D&D related).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The guv has already responded on this. No. Its not true. Dragonlance has a 20 million+ sold number attached to it. Salvatore has 10 million+ on his website. Which are great numbers, but not DL numbers.

First off, you haven't linked to the figures you're providing.

Second off, from what you've said, you and Morrus are not comparing like-with-like. You and Morrus are apparently comparing "All Dragonlance Novels ever" (which is what the 22+ million figure is for, from my research) to "FR Novels written by RA Salvatore".

Come off it. That's obviously a false comparison. If we compare all FR novel total sales to DL novel total sales, who do you think is going to come out ahead? Given RA Salvatore by himself apparently has moved nearly 50% as many books as the whole DL series.

Also, please note that I prefer DL fiction to FR fiction, and I think RA Salvatore is a hack when it comes to everything but fight scenes so this isn't one I want to see the FR win on. But it will win. By miles.

Perhaps more importantly, the FR is still selling, still making bestseller lists. Like, this year. 2014. I don't know when DL last made a best-seller list, I can't find any info on that, but I'm guessing it wasn't this decade, and was probably before the middle of last decade.

Further, all the whining people do about "Drizzt clones" (totally valid whining, I used to whine about it as a DM back in the day!) shows that Drizzt and his ilk are very popular. They're what people want to play. I will also say this - I've never seen a "angsty" Drizzt-clone. Ever. I've seen plenty of Drizzt-clones, but every single one of them dumped the "angst" factor. Many of them dumped it for "no personality whatsoever", but that's teenagers for you. Hell, I saw more angsty Tanis-clones (I may or may not have played one of these. I cannot confirm or deny!).

In the end it doesn't really matter what we think, but WotC aren't idiots. If they're making FR the default and putting Drow in the main book, hating on that really is peeing in the wind, because clearly WotC think that is what sells, and as they explained, the only reason that they didn't do this in 3E and 4E is because they were "afraid of the backlash". I think now they've realized the backlash will be largely limited to "Older Males On the Internet", and maybe it won't be so bad.

As for Orcus - he's the definition of niche - tons of villains are better-known and better-liked. That people on ENWorld might like him lots (thread suggests that they actually do not, actually!) rather proves my point - ENWorld is just one of several D&D communities, all with different likes and dislikes (I like ENWorld, but I can't pretend it's more representative than GiantItP or Dragonwhatsit or RPG.net or whatever).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Actually, I wonder why the devils not ever got more love or hate, depending. Asmodeus has even been made a god a few times. No one seems to care. (around 400 k hits, but most clearly not D&D related).

Because D&D devils are incredibly boring in most of D&D's cosmologies.

Their motivation is "BE EVIL". Not anything interesting or anything anyone can relate to - just "EVIL FOR EVIL'S SAKE!". Good villains need a motivation - it helps if it's a motivation you can sort of relate to even though you can see it's totally wrong (this is why Khan is such a classic Trek villain - you can see that he HAS been wronged, in many ways - they messed it up with Into Darkness though - he's almost in the right there!).

Stylistically, they're completely incoherent. A random mess of "X devil" monsters, few of whom are very memorable or awesome. Demons have them beat hands-down in terms of style and memorable-ness. Marilith, Vrock, Balor, Glabrezu, Succubus, Cambion - those are some awesome scary bastards with ultra-memorable appearances (and whilst they are also incoherent, they do have a sort of "beast-demon" thing going on). What do devils have? Pit Fiends, Lemures and a bunch of non-memorable "assorted spikey dudes".

4E gave devils a shot at the big-time, lore-wise, by giving them a motivation as "renegade angels who killed the god they serve", but they were still pretty unmemorable, sadly.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, since High Elves get one cantrip, all they have to do is add a cantrip that lets you teleport.

...Hmm. Doesn't seem very likely.

That could be cool

Bamph
Standard action line of sight

you teleport up to 10ft +5ft per 3 levels (so 10ft, 15ft at 3rd 20ft at 6th 25ft at 9 30ft at 12 35ft at 15 and 40ft at 18)

 

[Dausuul]

Actually, I wonder why the devils not ever got more love or hate, depending. Asmodeus has even been made a god a few times. No one seems to care. (around 400 k hits, but most clearly not D&D related).

IMO, this is a far more interesting question than whether Orcus has more fans than Drizzt.

Here are my reasons for preferring demons to devils when picking my villains:

• Chaos is more fun. This is probably the biggest reason, right here. The devils are all about tyrannical order, and designing a campaign around that gets kind of depressing. Demons know how to throw a party.
• The Abyss offers endless scope for DM creativity, far more so than the Nine Hells. With six hundred and sixty-six layers, most of them entirely undocumented, the Abyss has room for any freaky sub-plane I feel like stuffing into it.
• The demon lords have strong, concrete themes that are easy to use. Want to run a campaign with Orcus as the villain? Stuff it full of undead. Demogorgon has the "nature red in tooth and claw" thing going on, perfect for a campaign that takes place in deep wilderness areas. If you want something a little more adult-themed, Graz'zt has you covered. The less iconic demon lords can still put their stamp on a campaign: Baphomet with minotaurs and mazes, Yeenoghu with gnolls and hyenas, Kostchie with frost giants and cold-themed monsters, et cetera. The archdevils' themes are more abstract, which is harder to build around, and in many cases they don't really seem to have themes at all.
• Much like their masters, rank-and-file demons are a lot more interesting than rank-and-file devils. Pit fiends and balors are pretty much the same--big scaly guys with wings--but look at their seconds-in-command. Horned devils are... big scaly guys with wings. They're pit fiends who jog more often. They don't hold a candle to snake-tail-women-with-six-arms. Vrocks, bar-lguras, glabrezus, they're all much more quirky and memorable than their devilish counterparts. 4E tried to sex up devils, literally, by giving them succubi, but it didn't really take.
• Undead are my favoritest monster type ever, and the thematic connection with demons is a lot stronger.

 

[Remathilis]

I think we can all agree that the most important question is:

Will by elf sub-race be able to teleport once per encounter.

PLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASE No.

I actually liked the concept of Eladrin (regal, more fey-like, magical) but an entire race that could teleport at will (well, once every 5 minutes) stretched my credibility too far. The world-building implications of such things hurts my heart.

I like 4e tieflings. I like dragonborn. I liked goliaths, shifters, and even warforged. Just no blink-elves...

 

[Ichneumon]

Eladrin don't teleport. They shift their environment till it centers around them.