D&D 5E How should be the future Oriental Adventures.

[Ruin Explorer]

I miss the "oriental" classes: samurai, ninja, sohei. These archetypes shouldn't be only subclasses.

Counterpoint: Yes they should, and no amount of "missing" them justifies them being full classes.

All of them fit very well inside subclasses in 5E. In the original OA, the only justification for their existing as separate classes was that it was 1E, and 1E didn't have a mechanical option that allowed for proper subclasses. In 2E, they had Kits, and that moved all of them to being Kits, which made sense. Since then, every edition has had a suitable mechanical vehicle. In 5E, it is subclass. Samurai is indeed close enough to a broader archetype of "educated courtly warrior" (which occurs in countless cultures, including some Western ones) that it probably shouldn't even be called Samurai as a subclass (we've had this discussion at some length in another thread, I believe - someone came up with a killer suggestion but I forget what it was).

Ninjas do deserve a subclass, but only for "ninja magic". Sohei doesn't even need to be a subclass. It's just a Cleric RP'd in a specific way in 5E terms.

I'm not trying to make this more than what it is, but at the same time, it pays to be vigilant on this issue.

The issue here is, I think one of "crying wolf". People haven't "cried wolf" on private censorship being a "huge problem" once or twice. Or dozens of times, or even hundreds of times. They're in fact constantly "crying wolf" every day, all over the internet. And you can say "ignore them, they're idiots!" and I do, and they are, but it means that an actual discussion on private censorship and any real problems it entails is vulnerable to being derailed into specific discussions of extremely reasonable "censorship" which had the full consent of the artist being "censored", yet are we, we are told, "inherently wrong".

Also, the primary opposition to government regulation of, I dunno, virtually any industry in any country will always be that industry itself. So the idea that it is ever a realistic option seems far-fetched. And if it's not the government, it's not really going to be possible to challenge in court.

 

[Cadence]

So an interesting issue with private censorship, such as this, is that of transparency- to creators and to the public (I am speaking of America).

I'm not trying to make this more than what it is, but at the same time, it pays to be vigilant on this issue.

Interesting point, and definitely.

The perniciousness of this type of private censorship is that we have many of the drawbacks of government censorship (not all, private companies can't throw you in jail ... yet) without any real procedural means of challenging it. The rules are set privately, they are opaque, they are chilling to creators, and they cannot be challenged. In addition, these types of private arrangement will tend to linger on; the CCA was not completely defunct until 2011 (although it was severely weakened when Marvel left in 2001).

It feels like it had most of its teeth pulled back in 1971 though.

Amazing Spider-Man Anti-Drug Story Hastened Demise of Comics Code – Comic Book Legal Defense Fund

cbldf.org

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It feels like it had most of its teeth pulled back in 1971 though.

But did it? There were revisions, but one of the major points was (for example) sexuality.

That's why (and I wish I was making this up) the first same-sex character in Marvel was in .... 1992, and he wasn't actually seen, you know, kissing until 2011.

Enforcing orthodoxy through private means has a long and unhappy history. I don't doubt that the moral guardians who seek to do this always have the best of intentions. And sometimes, maybe they are right. Maybe this time, those who are seeking to enforce a code upon people as to what is, and isn't, acceptable really are correct. I personally agree with the aims (if not the means).

But one thing history shows me is that the principle of non-censorship is worth so much, because I am not wise enough to be the arbiter for other people.

 

[ZeshinX]

I do miss the 1e OA classes, though I find they all fit perfectly well into the existing 5e classes as subclasses, though perhaps with some form of callback to at least one feature the original OA class contained (since all OA classes had a 'kiai' power of some kind).

*Note: I'm using the spelling of how the 1e class appeared in the 1e OA book (whether they are correct or not)

OA Barbarian: Well...works without doing much at all.
Bushi: Fighter subclass
Kensai: I find this works best, flavour-wise, as a Monk subclass (as shown in XGE)
Samurai: Fighter subclass works best (the XGE version I'm ambivalent about, but it does work)
Monk: Already very well represented in 5e.
Ninja: The Rogue Assassin and Monk Way of Shadow cover this pretty well.
Shukenja: Very clearly a cleric subclass, but also could feel a bit Sorcerer Divine Soul at times.
Sohei: This could easily fit as a cleric, monk or even fighter subclass. I'd try it as a Fighter subclass first, using the Eldritch Knight as a template...swap out the arcane casting with divine (to reflect its 1e half-caster style) and tinker with the subclass abilities to reflect a more defensive/protection set of abilities
Wu Jen: A wizard or sorcerer subclass (or one for either, though at first blush, it strikes me as a better fit for sorcerer...or perhaps even warlock would be better)
Yakuza: Rogue, all the way.

 

[Mercurius]

But did it? There were revisions, but one of the major points was (for example) sexuality.

That's why (and I wish I was making this up) the first same-sex character in Marvel was in .... 1992, and he wasn't actually seen, you know, kissing until 2011.

Enforcing orthodoxy through private means has a long and unhappy history. I don't doubt that the moral guardians who seek to do this always have the best of intentions. And sometimes, maybe they are right. Maybe this time, those who are seeking to enforce a code upon people as to what is, and isn't, acceptable really are correct. I personally agree with the aims (if not the means).

But one thing history shows me is that the principle of non-censorship is worth so much, because I am not wise enough to be the arbiter for other people.

I mostly agree, except I do doubt that the "moral guardians"--at least all of them--always have the best intentions. Sometimes they want to sow division or do harm to those they consider "offenders." My suspicion is that the guy who started the latest round with his tweet didn't have the best intentions in mind.

I think the vast majority of us agree with the aim, if the aim is to increase inclusivity. But, yes, there are different ways to Rome. One that doesn't seem to work is accusing those who disagree with the One True Way to be gate-keepers and perpetrators of racism. It just further divides and prevents real understanding.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, YOU don't see any issue with it. The Idea of invading a nation and taking those who don't agree with a specific ideology (that undead is a better state of being than alive - hence the lich) and taking those who fight against it and putting them into work camps until they die is, pretty much, most people's idea of evil. The fact that someone can make a parallel to work camps in WWII and that killing people who don't believe in your ideas for a 'better world' isn't an impossible idea.

It's there even if you have to dig for it. Some people might see that parallel because they've experienced it or have family who have. I could see it as a sincere complaint and you wouldn't be able to just write it off as 'overly sensitive complaining'. People on this board have legitimate complaints about specific content and others have dismissed their complaints. It's a thing, even when it doesn't fit your view of what warrants a complaint.

So, the question is, how do you publish anything when you risk having to pull your books off the shelf? Why pull the books off the shelf at all? This has been raised before about books outside of D&D: Tom Sawyer, To Kill a Mockingbird, Of Mice & Men. People asked that those books be pulled from libraries and schools. Is it right to do that? Is that how people want their society to function? Or maybe there should be a forward added to new prints of those books to put them into context? Chances are, the rules for what is PC today won't be PC tomorrow, so do we just get rid of all the content from the past or do we educate people about it and continue to release new, up to date material?

It would not be hard to edit a copy of the PDF of Oriental Adventures and add a forward and to add addendums in the book. They release erratas all the time to PDFs that do exactly that.

I agree, release better material but you can't crucify every artist for their material or prevent people from reading it if it eventually suddenly becomes outdated.

Well, people have managed for centuries. I'm sure they will manage for longer.

Seriously, this is exhausting. Was anybody beating down the doors to get the 1e version of the rules? Anybody calling for blood to be spilled?

Yes, some people are calling for the PDF to be no longer sold. No one on this site has agreed with them, not even once that I have noticed. The people behind the books aren't receiving death threats to my knowledge.

And, like you said, this has happened with library books for years.

And calls to do better in the future aren't demands that no one ever read the past ever again.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I mostly agree, except I do doubt that the "moral guardians"--at least all of them--always have the best intentions. Sometimes they want to sow division or do harm to those they consider "offenders." My suspicion is that the guy who started the latest round with his tweet didn't have the best intentions in mind.

I think the vast majority of us agree with the aim, if the aim is to increase inclusivity. But, yes, there are different ways to Rome. One that doesn't seem to work is accusing those who disagree with the One True Way to be gate-keepers and perpetrators of racism. It just further divides and prevents real understanding.

I think that focusing too much on the intentions of the people ends up being a mug's game. It's pretty obvious to me that there is often (but not always) a generational divide; that some (but not all) of the people suddenly finding OA offensive were not old enough to play OA or even 1e, and that many of the misunderstanding that they have come from not understanding either the game or the cultural context of that time.

I can't know what is in another person's heart, and while they might not be accurate in everything, I have no reason to doubt that they find it offensive.

....moreover, I also recognize that times change. "Oriental" is an outdated term. That book (and most of the books for D&D in the 70s and 80s) would not be published today. I respect everything people are doing to make the game more inclusive!

....well, everything short of this campaign to get rid of past books. I just .... well, that's one thing I can never support.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Counterpoint: Yes they should, and no amount of "missing" them justifies them being full classes.

All of them fit very well inside subclasses in 5E. In the original OA, the only justification for their existing as separate classes was that it was 1E, and 1E didn't have a mechanical option that allowed for proper subclasses. In 2E, they had Kits, and that moved all of them to being Kits, which made sense.

This is not true. In 2e, ninja was it's own class, belonging to the rogue group. In the same way a paladin was it's own class, but belonged to the warrior group. And why? Because of the varied specialties of the ninja (the warriors, the spies, the magic users, etc--which were what the actual kits were within the ninja class). Which is the best justification for it having it's own class in 5e because 5e's subclass system is made for it perfectly. I.e., a core ninja class of core features, then a subclass for the front line ninja warriors, a subclass for the spies and espionage, and a subclass for the arcane magic users.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Ninja as base class had got its own handbook in AD&D, and with kits, the equivalent to subclasses. If I am sincere I imagine them as "martial adepts", classes with (ki) maneuvers, special powers in the middle between at-will and once-encounter, from "Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords". How to explain it better? it helps to sell more the samurai and ninja as martial adept classes than the swordsage or the warblade. It's about the concept of the archetype. A good archetype should to create a fiction story without gameplay at all, or you could notice what class it's with only watching the picture of the PC.

* I start to wonder maybe this is not about how to produce D&D to be sold in the Asian market, but how to create the right pieces to be used by the own Asian fandom or 3PPs to produce Wuxia for D&D players.

* Sohei is like a monk, but with armour and "ki frenzy". It could be a martial adept.

Path of War – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Google Sites: Sign-in

Access Google Sites with a personal Google account or Google Workspace account (for business use).

sites.google.com

* WotC could work with Asian companies for coproductions, but we know they would rather to keep complete control about the new IPs could be created.

* J-Horror has got a rich mythology. Ravenloft had got some dark domains with "silk & jade" cultures. Why not a J-Horror version of game-live shows as Critical Role?

* Hasbro could produce a new TV conquest show. The contestants are young applicant mangaka and they have only to play D&D as in Critical Role. The DM take turns, and the winner will be hired to publish a manga. The "losers" could find some patron to publish webcomics.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is not true. In 2e, ninja was it's own class, belonging to the rogue group. In the same way a paladin was it's own class, but belonged to the warrior group. And why? Because of the varied specialties of the ninja (the warriors, the spies, the magic users, etc--which were what the actual kits were within the ninja class). Which is the best justification for it having it's own class in 5e because 5e's subclass system is made for it perfectly. I.e., a core ninja class of core features, then a subclass for the front line ninja warriors, a subclass for the spies and espionage, and a subclass for the arcane magic users.

I stand corrected - I still don't think it needs to be a class in 5E though.