D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[Nivenus]

No, the big, loud, and never ending criticisms are that Eladrin aren't what was established in The Planes Setting. Tieflings are not what was established in The Planes setting. So on and so forth.

I think those are valid criticisms though. As I said earlier in the thread, I wasn't too thrilled by 4e's experimental (and ultimately abandoned) plan to describe half-orcs as an artificial race either. And again, the issue with eladrin is as much tied up in the idea of who or what is "elven" as it is about the planes.

To make a non-planar comparison, I think a lot of people would be upset if WotC came along and said dwarves were - by default - the descendants of a human nation who were forced underground and bred as diminutive slaves by orcs for subterranean mining. Some of the pieces of the old lore are there - their subterranean environment, their frequent occupation as miners, their enmity with dwarves - but taken as a whole the idea clashes with what people expect from D&D dwarves. That doesn't even mean the idea is a bad one, it just means that it's not what people want or expect.

Likewise the change to tieflings. For two editions tieflings were defined a certain way and people liked the concept behind the race. In 4e, WotC decided to redefine them as part of it's rebranding of D&D, making them a more traditional race with a single look and backstory. That wasn't what a lot of people wanted or expected though, hence the backlash.

For the record, while I prefer 2e/3e tieflings to 4e tieflings I think there is room for both versions of the race under the same label (just as there's room for both core and Eberron halflings within the same race) and I generally just treat 4e tieflings as a particular subrace. This is in contrast to - say - archons, which are a bit more difficult to reconcile under the same name.

 

[Hussar]

Do you really think that if they had called Eladrin (4e) Sidhe, there would have been any major complaints about their inclusion? Or, heck, just called them Grey Elves?

And, the problem with your Dwarf example is that it is far, far too campaign specific. You're taking a generic (We are underground miners with beards) race and adding all sorts of setting specific material to it. Shifting from resource to setting. So, yeah, it wouldn't be too terribly well received.

I mean, not to beat a dead horse, but, how is that significantly different than what they just did with kobolds. Kobolds are now a draconic slave race tied to Tiamat. What's the difference?

 

[Savage Wombat]

How would you build a "generic" planar resource, I wonder? You can publish guidelines for, say, mountain terrain or city size guidelines. But short of using "here's an example you can put in your campaign", how would you describe a generic "this is where demons come from" terrain type?

 

[Aldarc]

How would you build a "generic" planar resource, I wonder?

An imagination is a good start.

You can publish guidelines for, say, mountain terrain or city size guidelines. But short of using "here's an example you can put in your campaign", how would you describe a generic "this is where demons come from" terrain type?

Describe a set of planes and their characteristics and then provide a list of possible inhabitants that a DM could possibly plant therein. For example, "Here is a plane of shadow... yada yada yada... It's like this... yada yada yada... Demons, undead, and other dark creatures of shadow are known to make their abode here." That seems much more open than the prescribed method of "NO! Creature X must be found in this plane!"

 

[Hussar]

Pretty much what Aldarc says above. Focus on what sort of things might commonly be found. Then lots of examples on how to individualize planes and a framework to put them together.

Similar to what you see in the 3e MotP but instead of being a small part of the book, it instead comprises the majority.

Look at the environmental books as a great starting point.

 

[Nivenus]

Do you really think that if they had called Eladrin (4e) Sidhe, there would have been any major complaints about their inclusion?

If they also ate high/gray elves lunch than yes. I honestly think the elf thing is a bigger deal than the cosmological stuff when it comes to eladrin.

Or, heck, just called them Grey Elves?

If they were called gray elves they wouldn't really be a difference race would they? They'd be elves (even if with different mechanics) and so what I said above about people being upset about splitting elves up wouldn't apply.

And, the problem with your Dwarf example is that it is far, far too campaign specific. You're taking a generic (We are underground miners with beards) race and adding all sorts of setting specific material to it. Shifting from resource to setting. So, yeah, it wouldn't be too terribly well received.

And that was on purpose, because that's precisely what happened with tieflings. Tieflings went from a fairly generic idea (descendants of fiends) to a specific people with a specific heritage (the descendants of warlocks in an ancient kingdom who made a pact with Asmodeus and were punished for it with a tainted bloodline and a devilish appearance). The 4e origin for tieflings is actually a lot more specific than the 2e/3e one (which was actually left deliberately vague in 2e) and just about every core 4e book with tieflings mentions Bael Turath at some point or another.

I mean, not to beat a dead horse, but, how is that significantly different than what they just did with kobolds. Kobolds are now a draconic slave race tied to Tiamat. What's the difference?

As I said earlier in response to the same question, one's a PC race, one's a minor monster race that disappears after a few levels. One's a sudden change from the existing archetype, one was developed over a course of decades.

I'm actually more interested to hear what you have to say about WotC's specific policy statement about leaving the cosmology open to interpretation. I was under the impression that was something along the lines of what you wanted: the ability to pick and choose what parts of the cosmology you wanted to use?

 

[Remathilis]

Pretty much what Aldarc says above. Focus on what sort of things might commonly be found. Then lots of examples on how to individualize planes and a framework to put them together.

Similar to what you see in the 3e MotP but instead of being a small part of the book, it instead comprises the majority.

Look at the environmental books as a great starting point.

Which is great for games where the planes factor in significantly. You can really expands the planes.

However, barring planar adventures or campaigns, how much does the planes really affect the game? Not much I wager. Just a place monsters and summons come from for most games. Unless you plan to go there or fight monsters from it, most pcs don't care if its the Nine Hells, Baator, Ferria, or simplely the Pit.

One of the reasons the Great Wheel works is because for many, it's so generic and out of the way it doesn't matter much. Surely, the difference between City of Greyhawk, Waterdeep, or Sharn is a much bigger impact than what hell is like.

 

[Imaro]

I mean, not to beat a dead horse, but, how is that significantly different than what they just did with kobolds. Kobolds are now a draconic slave race tied to Tiamat. What's the difference?

Where are you getting this from? Kobolds worship dragons, lay eggs, are cowards, hate gnomes, live in tunnels and make traps... and they've done this for 3 editions now (if anything this is counter to your claim about monsters vs. the planes)... Kurtulmak the god they worship as detailed in the 5e MM (they don't actually worship Tiamat) has been around since the 80's and nowhere in the 5e monster manual are they proclaimed a slave race, they choose to worship evil dragons just as they did in both 3.x and in 4e... What are the big changes you keep talking about? And please don't compare D&D vs. AD&D as they were meant to be separate games, with their own lore...

 

[Hussar]

Which is great for games where the planes factor in significantly. You can really expands the planes.

However, barring planar adventures or campaigns, how much does the planes really affect the game? Not much I wager. Just a place monsters and summons come from for most games. Unless you plan to go there or fight monsters from it, most pcs don't care if its the Nine Hells, Baator, Ferria, or simplely the Pit.

One of the reasons the Great Wheel works is because for many, it's so generic and out of the way it doesn't matter much. Surely, the difference between City of Greyhawk, Waterdeep, or Sharn is a much bigger impact than what hell is like.

For me, though, it's kind of circular. I don't use The Planes because I don't like them. So, The Planes don't affect my game very much in the same way that, say, Ravenloft has zero effect on my games - I'm not a big fan of Ravenloft either. If I actually got planar material I could use, then I'd probably use the planes a lot more in my games.

Where are you getting this from? Kobolds worship dragons, lay eggs, are cowards, hate gnomes, live in tunnels and make traps... and they've done this for 3 editions now (if anything this is counter to your claim about monsters vs. the planes)... Kurtulmak the god they worship as detailed in the 5e MM (they don't actually worship Tiamat) has been around since the 80's and nowhere in the 5e monster manual are they proclaimed a slave race, they choose to worship evil dragons just as they did in both 3.x and in 4e... What are the big changes you keep talking about? And please don't compare D&D vs. AD&D as they were meant to be separate games, with their own lore...

Going from the Kobold Preview: http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/MM_Kobold.pdf

Since when did Kobolds worship dragons? That's nowhere in 3e core, AFAIK. It certainly wasn't in 2e or 1e. Since when do Urd get wings from Tiamat? Where does it say that in any core rule book? I'm looking at my 3e Monster Manual right now and while it does mention Kurtulmak, it certainly doesn't mention anything about dragons or Tiamat. In fact, there was no link to dragons at all that I could see.

Hey, let's not forget, THIS is a kobold:

 

[Alzrius]

Since when did Kobolds worship dragons?

Since 4E, as I recall:

[video=youtube;Azcn84IIDVg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azcn84IIDVg[/video]