D&D (2024) (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Okay. There has been quite a lot of discussion on this website and through the D&D community in general about what changes should be made to existing products, the current editions, and the next edition to promote inclusivity. A lot of the suggestions have been fought against, and for, by various members of the community. Now, while I agree with a lot of the changes that are being suggested, I think that timing is important here. I agree that we should change problematic descriptions in the current edition's books, like what is happening with Curse of Strahd and Tomb of Annihilation. I also think that most of the more major changes should be made in a 6e of D&D.

Now, this thread is to discuss the possible overall and compiled changes for 6e of D&D, for both lore and rule changes. It would range from ability scores being more open for characters (probably not connected to race) to describing races in a more vague way (which I have described in this thread). I also think that some campaign settings are going to have to change with the times. If Eberron and Exandria have non-evil orcs, and Toril still has a majority of evil orcs, I think that may have to change. As has happened before in Forgotten Realms lore, they could do an earth-shaking event. Maybe Lolth and Gruumsh die or are banished, loosing their control of Drow and Orc societies, allowing them to be a more free people.

D&D should be inclusive, and if that comes at the cost of villainous races of people, that's okay for me. If the changes in the game's rules enhance, and not restrict, player options I will most likely be happy with the changes.

I am not a fan of slippery slope arguments, and this is meant to be a possible answer to the question many people have asked, "where does it end?" This thread is meant to be a part of the answer. It ends somewhere, and this is a step in that direction, hopefully.

Obviously, feel free to debate the need for certain changes, argue over possible descriptions, and so on. Do keep it civil. Please do not turn this thread into a debate completely revolving around a small aspect of the changes that may come. I personally want to get something done during this eventful year. Please be openminded in this discussion. This is not us against them, it is us trying to figure something out.

Now, here are the changes that I have compiled from various threads that seem to be wanted:

• Alignment removed from humanoids at the very least. Possibly removed from dragons and other "monsters" but the extent to this is up for debate here.
• Possibly remove alignment in its entirety. I personally don't think we should be getting rid of it altogether, but to keep it mainly for fiends, celestials, and the other otherworldly creatures.
• Setting determining the culture and descriptions of the races, and not the base rules.
• Ability Scores being detached from races. There have been many suggestions for this, linking it to background or class, but I personally don't like this. I think allowing a player to choose the bonus to ability scores completely detached from race or any other choice would allow for more player freedom, and support creativity.
• Change descriptions of orcs, depictions of hobgoblins, other evil races, and so on.
• Cause there to be less of a link between shamanism and the more evil races. This could be mostly solved by either making a shaman class and adding more shamans for more races, or just getting rid of evil races.
• Possibly changing the word "race" to Ancestry, Species, Heritage, Folk, People, Lineage, etc.
• Remove ability scores from classes.
• Possibly rename certain classes (Barbarian, Druid, Paladin, Monk, Warlock)
• Add/remove certain authors from Appendix E of the PHB (the list of inspirational works and authors).
• Change the amount of classes in the core books, but in ways that are more inclusive.

If I missed anything else that should be included in the bulleted points above, please comment below, and I'll add it.

Any of these possible changes, and more, are allowed topics, as long as they're relevant to a possible 6e's changes. Up for discussion is the lore changes that may come, from a cataclysmic event changing the Forgotten Realms to make way for these changes, no lore change happening at all, or other possible options.

Please discuss below. While there have been many other threads on this topic, this thread is more meant to discuss possible changes for a next edition. How would a DMG in 6e look like? A Monster Manual? What different races should be included in the PHB? Will alignment be included, and should/will it be listed in the monster stat blocks or racial descriptions?

 

[Weiley31]

I wouldn't mind having a "free reign" to add a +2/+2 or the 5E standard of +2/+1 to any Ability Score of Choice during Character Creation. That way if I want a dumb Elf whose focus is STR, I can do it.

If I want a Charismatic Orc who can spin a mean yarn while being sharp at noticing things like an eagle, then I can focus on WIS and CHA.

If I want female Drow whose Hardy and Intelligent and doesn't want to be a Cleric, I can go CON and INT.

If you still want to go by regular DND racial scores, then you can still do that as a variant rule. But this method gives you the option of spicing things up.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I wouldn't mind having a "free reign" to add a +2/+2 or the 5E standard of +2/+1 to any Ability Score of Choice during Character Creation. That way if I want a dumb Elf whose focus is STR, I can do it.

If I want a Charismatic Orc who can spin a mean yarn while being sharp at noticing things like an eagle, then I can focus on WIS and CHA.

If I want female Drow whose Hardy and Intelligent and doesn't want to be a Cleric, I can go CON and INT.

If you still want to go by regular DND racial scores, then you can still do that as a variant rule. But this method gives you the option of spicing things up.

I agree. It promotes character choice and creativity.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree with having humanoids not having inherent alignments (heck, they’re making that change without even waiting for 6e). I don’t see alignment being removed entirely.

Setting already determines culture, with the cultural details in the core rules being very generic and subject to setting-specific changes. I do, however, think it would be good to separate culture from race. Instead of the dwarf race granting proficiency in axes, hammers, and mason’s tools, make a “clan crafter” background or whatever that does so. Maybe give long-lives races a second background or something.

I’m in favor of removing racial ability score increases, but I don’t think the D&D fandom at large is ready for that yet. I think it would be much more likely for them to add ASIs to background and class, such that it is possible to end up with whatever score the math treats as the baseline with any race. Much like what we see in Pathfinder 2e.

Changing the depictions of various monsterous races and removing the associations between such races and shamanism go hand-in-hand with removing inherent alignments for humanoids and making culture more setting-specific. Definitely good moves to make though. Along with these changes, I would like to see more player options for traditionally monstrous races, and for those options to be balanced as any other PC race option would be.

I also think changing the word race would be best; people is my preferred alternative, but I would be happy with folk and accepting of ancestry.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The nice thing is if WotC does make changes people don't like, we can always house-rule it back.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I also think changing the word race would be best; people is my preferred alternative, but I would be happy with folk and accepting of ancestry.

Added that. Nice post!

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Setting already determines culture, with the cultural details in the core rules being very generic and subject to setting-specific changes.

Yes, I agree that it already does this. In my personal opinion, the section in a 6e PHB that describes each race should not describe the culture or people at all. I think that should solely be left for the setting books.

 

[Weiley31]

Added that. Nice post!

Pathfinder already does ancestry, which would've been the best option if not for that. Folk or Lineage would be a nice substitute.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The nice thing is if WotC does make changes people don't like, we can always house-rule it back.

Yes, I agree. People will say "you can do that already", though.

I disagree with that argument, because it is obvious you can change any base rule or lore to anything you want, but it is better for the official rule/lore to be the one that causes less people to homebrew something different.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Pathfinder already does ancestry, which would've been the best option if not for that. Folk or Lineage would be a nice substitute.

I personally do prefer Species because of the science nerd in me, but I agree there are probably better options. Lineage seems like a good option. What would you call the subraces, though? "Race?"